Comments on: Google vs. Verizon: The 'open access' saga continues

Verizon Wireless' objections to rules requiring soon-to-be-auctioned wireless spectrum to be open to all mobile devices are anti-consumer, Google says.

[rcslax]

Google is Right

Verizon is notorious for proprietary offerings. Because of that I avoid them as much as possible. Verizon deliberately limits features on the phones it sells so that users are forced into using Verizon solutions. I abhor that and hope Google wins out this battle. The idea of ubiquitous, open wireless internet access is very exciting.

[LarryLo]

Correction...Wireless Consumers Vs. Verizon

Just because google is the only corporation capable of injecting open access into the 700 mhz debate doesn't mean its them vs Verizon.

Anyone who wants wireless broadaband should squarely support open access on this spectrum. Otherwise its more of the same from our nations Wireless providers. This is an opportunity to leap ahead instead remained tied down by legacy business models and device authorization.

google is not completely ultristic here either, open access = an open platform = open to more targeted ads, but so what. I would take that possibility over whatever offerings the current wireless providers peddle.

[jeromatron]

To me Verizon is anti-consumer

Though the company has a decent network - which they won't stop talking about - I still have pangs of dissatisfaction. I remember when I had my PowerBook with built-in bluetooth. I looked up my cell phone on Motorola's website and found that it was capable of the bluetooth data profile and I thought, great!, I can synchronize data! It didn't work. I talked to a Verizon customer service person about it. They kind of waved off my question by saying something like, "Of course it doesn't work - we disabled it because we can't charge for it." So in other words, even though more and more phones are truly computing devices that should be able to go to Google maps or synchronize with computers, these carriers, especially Verizon locks out functionality to provide their own, sometimes crappy solutions.

That's why I'm going to be switching on my next contract. I know Apple is a control freak of a company but at least it's a 800 pound gorilla in a different market so they can demand to have certain open-access for a web browser and other features.

Even if the auction somehow gets derailed by Verizon's lawyers, they've already lost me as a customer.

[PostNoComments]

Verizon defending Verizon's interest, not consumers

What a bunch of crybabies. Sorry Verizon, no one likes competition,
but you're going to have to deal with it. U.S. cell phone carriers
have been riding consumers for too long with anti-competitive
practices. Don't like it? Learn how to compete in an open
environment, like Google does fair-and-square over the Internet,
and most companies that are not U.S. wireless carriers and cable
companies.

[jspfunk]

Thank you Verion

Hey, if you could, would you make it where I have to buy a new home phone set to change carriers. And while you?re at it could you make me buy a new TV to watch different channels. Hey that would be great wouldn't it?

Now that is looking out for Consumers.

[spuorgoohay]

Verizon against America ,its workers and stockholders

Verizon is insulting the Congress , the consumers and the FCC, Verizon is also distracting the public from the fact they are cutting-off copper lines, ISP'S ,dsl service and choices everywhere they install their proprietary fiber optic, they are using the profits from copper and all the benefits from Public Taxes,right of way,incentives during 100 years as a Public Utility, Government support, exclusive provider, etc.,to finance their own proprietary network, where they intent to choose users, choose services, control access and content and charge at will consumers under their own regulations , this is illegal,un-constitutional, fraudulent, treasonous and insulting to the 100+ years of phone service since Alexander Graham Bell invented the phone,2) and what a criminal shame that for the first time and with the new 700 Mhz spectrum FCC auctions, consumers may have choices and options, what a shame that Verizon would try to stop them, criminal....already Verizon Wireless uses a proprietary system ,CDMA , that is incompatible with the rest of the world and forces consumers to be controlled by Qualcomm in an exclusive monopoly way, the same monopoly that stole the Military Radios of the USA Navy and Air Forces in San Diego in 1995, when Jacobs of Qualcomm, working as an adviser to the Military took all the Navy-Marines-Air Force radios, mixed them up with their own truck radios and others,went to the Patent Office and got a complete and total patent of all the technologies under the CDMA patent and number, and if anyone disagrees: WHERE ARE ALL THE MILITARY RADIOS USED BY THE USA FORCES UNTIL 1995 WHEN EVERYTHING WENT UNDER THE OWNERSHIP OF JACOBS AND QUALCOMM, WHERE ARE THEY ? they were stolen, and now the partners of Qualcomm, Seidenberg chairman of Verizon and the neocons controlling Verizon want to do the same with our future! and about Seidenberg, chairman of Verizon, he got 75 million dollars in salary,stock options and other perks the last 5 years while the Company stock tanked and thousands of workers were let go, shame on the them all ! to the workers and stockholders of Verizon: get your great company back into American hands, get Verizon back into the USA Community, get Verizon to open to GLOBAL STANDARDS AND HONEST COMMERCE, GET VERIZON BACK TO AMERICA !
.... Verizon wants to have total control of lines to control elections and Government communications, AS THEY DO RIGHT NOW, and the best friends of Seidenberg and Jacobs in Congress are Sen.Schumer,R.Emanuel,S.Coleman,R.Lantos,
S.Lieberman,R.Harman,R.Ros-Lethinen,Mike Bloomberg ,Chertoff and Bodman etc., the same neocons pushing to invade Iraq in 2002 and 2003 every day on TV ,Radio and Newspapers,the ones pushing this great country into this nightmare of violence,Verizon is the real test for Congress and the FCC and a future as a Free Country.

[dotdamri]

Verizon's Interest at stake

What is particularly disconcerting in America now is that phones are tied up to mobile subscription contracts? Instead of customers buying mobile phones and then buying service plans separately people are being forced into contracts for getting phones. Result - Phone models are limited, service plans are limited and mobile carriers set the price.

What essentially google wants is for the customer to make the choices as to what instrument to buy and have the freedom to choose subscription plans (with/without contracts) which is in direct contravention to how major telecom companies operate. Why wouldn't they disagree?

[transendit]

I am embarassed to be a Verizon Customer

Sometimes the common good should trump profit motive. What does Verizon have to gain except trying to get more of a share of the pot. It is not enough that subscribers have to pay exorbitant fees and poor ( and poorer over time) service. I trust Google so much more than Verizon - it is not even a contest. Stop doing Evil Verizon!
I am a teacher artist doc student- subscriber to Verizon phone and DSL services- not a competitor with any hidden agenda.

[Neal Gallagher]

I had to sue Verizon in small claims

I have several very bad experiences with Verizon. About 5 years
ago I had to take them to Small Claims Court because they
wrongfully put a mark on my credit for allegedly breaking a
service contract. I won. About two months ago they tried to
weasel out of reimbursing me for a discount promised through
by employer for state of Florida empoyees. I persisted and got
it.

Verizon is about as anti-customer as you can get. They rank up
there with health insurance providers.

I have sent an email to my congressman complaining about cell
phone providers in general and Verizon in particular. They are
getting rich off a public resource - the radio spectrum - while
constantly playing a game of gotcha with the customer. The cell
phone service is better in rural china than in big city america

[Dale Sundstrom]

New allocations should require open access

Full open access provisions are appropriate for all new allocations of public airwaves because there is no public benefit from allowing exclusive and restrictive uses; while there are great benefits from open access.

Verizon is wrong to claim that the FCC exceeded its authority in applying these rules; and in fact it is the FCC's responsibility to do so in managing the public airwaves for the public benefit. I expect the court will agree.

The FCC has only adopted some of the provisions for some of the 700 MHz licenses. It's clear that the FCC should support the most open access possible. Their decision really should have been to support even more open access provisions.

Open access is the only way for the public to realize the full benefit from new allocations. Open access works well in Europe. The U.S. economy is increasingly tied to the internet, while we continue to fall behind other countries in broadband access. These newly available airwaves may provide our last great opportunity to jump ahead.

[amigabill]

Verizon IS anticonsumer.

I have their FIOS service and their DVR box. There's input ports on this box which Verizon has disabled. The front A/V inputs and one of the rear A/V inputs, I was told by the installer and also by customer support on the phone, are turned off. They exist, they work, would be nice to connect a video camera, game system, whatever to, but Verizon has decided to not allow us to use them. A couple of my FIOS boxes have problems, and I have to wait over a week before they can send a tech to replace them. I'm planning to buy an HD Tivo so I can cablecard it, and if there's problems with the box at least I can go to the store and exchange it for another that night instead of waiting and waiting with a broken box, paying rental fees in the meantime on something that doesn't work properly.

A week after they installed FIOS and my triple-play package, I got a bill for only the phone portion of that, at full phone-only pricing. No triple-play package discount. I never agreed to pay full price, ever. I was never told beforeahnd that it may take a few months for the triple-play package pricing to begin. My next bill would not be adjusted to add credit toward this statement to correct things. But somehow the TV and internet service amounts would be the package retroactive price back to install date, but not the phone. I got pretty displeased at the situation and they did agree to credit the $7.13 to my account, telling me that in doing so I was somehow going to get 25 months of package priced phone service instead of the 24month contract I'd signed. That whole situation stinks to high heaven, and I believe they're hoping that a lot of people won't notice or realize that they're paying more for that month or two than their contract specified, and rake in a pile of extra money.

Verizon Wireless seems to be late in getting advanced phone devices. Competing services often have phones long before Verizon does. (ignore the iPhone, there's many more examples than just that one) They refuse to help me choose a phone that would be more likely to work at my house, as the one I have gets very poor signal there, but roommates with competing services and phones not available under Verizon have no service complaints there. I've asked customer service a number of times in case I find someone who knows more or is less lazy or something than previous operators, but all I'm told is that I must randomly buy phones until I find one that works and return those that do not. my phone is limited to 15 second video recordings from the camera. Friends on other services are limited only by memory capacity. To get pictures out of and music into my phone, I had to buy a USB cable from China and use some reverse-engineered open-source software, or pay Verizon for each item transferred over the network. Friends with other services use bluetooth, storebought cables and software. Nothing comparable was availabel from verizon when I looked a year ago, and I had to go to the gray market. When I got a phone for my mom as part of my account, that was a total screwup that took two stores to solve jsut to activate the phone, they changed my one year contract to a two year term without my permission or even asking me, assigned two phone numbers to my mom's single device and billed me for the unknown (to me) second number, sending statements to another mailing address and in two or three months this unused, nonexistent phone number's bill was over $300 and I eventually somehow found out they were sending delinquency notices to this wrong mailing address. Took a couple weeks to get that cleared up last year, and I don't believe they ever did apply the credit they promised me in resolving that.

I'm not impressed with Verizon at all. My experience shows they're out to screw people. I've never interacted with any company that presented themselves in such an anticonsumer way as Verizon has acted toward me.

[bobcode]

unlicensed spectrum in open access

unlicensed spectrum is open access. Don't have to sign up for a provider to use WiFi. Nice.

Wholesaling ain't competition. Why buy a wholeseller product if it's still Verizon?

[wylbur]

I have Google Maps on a Verizon phone

I don't get Google's point-- this is a pretty open world. I have
Google maps on my Verizon phone... I have tons of choice--there's
Verizon's map software, there's Google, there's Yahoo!Go, and even
MSN live search. How is that a closed world with no consumer
choice?

[R. U. Sirius]

Go Google

Verizon needs to be put out to pasture. Talk about a customer unfriendly company.