![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | → | Archive 5 |
I remember that sometime back in 2003-2004 that Verizon Wireless rolled out commercials proclaiming that they had the network with the "fewest dropped calls." This is well ahead of Cingular's "copycat" (if appropriate) advertising campaign beginning with Q1 of 2006 ("Fewest dropped calls"). I have found some YouTube videos that proves my statement: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BREOpoGUeLc http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a3eJmZW3ojI (These are REAL Verizon Wireless commercials--NOT PARODIES OR KNOCK-OFFS. And also these YouTube videos are not mine either.) Tngu77 02:04, 14 March 2007 (UTC)tngu77
[1] should this be included?
No, it's a minor current event that's about an error in decimal placement. We all make mistakes. Major current events, such as mergers or major new products or services should be covered (such as FiOS), or a major story such as the alleged NSA cooperation. Not a misplaced decimal point. X570 00:30, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
this entire section needs to be updated, as verizon has admitted their mistake, and is changing the reference material provided to their reps stating the rates in both dollars per kilobit and cents per kilobit. [2]
Tngu77 01:59, 14 March 2007 (UTC)Tngu77
Randhuck 17:08, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
I removed the picture of the Verizon branded pay phone. Who ever took that photo was also flipping the phone off, which you could see clearly. Dominic 20:12, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
What's the current update on the situation? I vaguely remember reading from a few newspapers about Verizon turning over the IP addresses of their customers to the government whereas the other ISPs refused (ie Comcast)?-- Nissi Kim 17:17, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Why was the category "Defunct Companies" added?
I added a Data Services subhead, moved FIOS there and added a short mention of DSL. The reference on the page goes to a Verizon ad for FIOS. I'm new here. Is this within policy? Should I add the similar reference for DSL, www.verizon.net/dsl? Ranvaig 15:53, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
I believe the MCI article should not be merged into this article. A fuller explanation is available at Talk:MCI. -- Allen3 talk 11:13, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
I intend to keep the history present in the merger just show the fact they are now verizon communications inc.( Ke5crz 21:53, 6 January 2006 (UTC))
Regarding Supercoop's changing of the section title "MCI Merger" to "MCI Acquisition", I agree that it certainly seemed like an acquisition rather than a merger. However, look at this news release from Verizon — they themselves call it a "merger". So . . . . - DylanW 03:17, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
I assume Verizon operates a lucrative 411 service, in addition to its yellow pages? -- Beland 01:54, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
The Verizon name is not a portemanteau of Vertical and Horizon as claimed in the wiki entry but rather of the two words Veritas and Horizon. I found the following link to support my claim (scroll to the bottom): http://english.cr.superpages.com/help/index.phtml?SRC=&LANG=en&CTRY=cr&STYPE=S&PG=L&R=N&C=&N=&T=&S=
- Marwan
This page sure must make their PR department happy.
The only truth on the horizon for these guys is maximizing profits and squashing innovation. They waited on fiber for NYC until others started eating their lunch. Innovation? Hardy har. Stomping innovation is MUCH more likely. It's an RBOC.
- LoneRanger
Sure was a combination of the words vertical and horizontal. As the employee who they got the idea from, I should know. Think about it. What does Veritas and horizon have to do with phone company business. I had a meaning of combining Vertical and Horizontal in mind which makes much more sense than Veritas. They got the name offf of me but not the meaning. Funny how they don't say WHO exactly had the idea for Verizon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.244.43.57 ( talk) 07:24, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Can someone provide context where the term GTE is used? It is never explained and only redirects to Verizon. Acronymfinder lists General Telephone and Electronics as one of its uses, which I assume it stands for in this case, but I'm not certain, so I'll leave it to someone who is to fix it. Thanks, Paul 01:06, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
It's true. GTE is the formal abbreviation for General Telephone & Electronics. Sometimes when saying the real name, it's shortened to General Telephone(which is used on the underground cable warning signs, placed below the GTE logo), and some disgruntled customers used the abbreviation as an acronym for "Giant Telephone Expirement". Hope that helps. User:CherryDude 19:13, 15 May 2006 (PDT)
Why is this page marked with a "current event" tag? → J @ red 23:30, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm surprised this entire entry makes no note of their signature "Can you hear me now?" advertising campaign. It's certainly entered the pop culture language. Also some mention of the unknown actor who plays the test guy. Also what slogans did Verizon use before that? -- Navstar 03:32, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
Some coworkers were talking about a possible buyout of Verizon by AT&T, after the Bell South merger is completed. I did a quick search on Google, but found nothing. Does anyone know anything about this?
Regarding Line 1, is this vandalism, or am I missing something??
Jayintheusa 06:21, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
How can Verizon be called "multinational"? Tri400 11:27, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Does anyone have any suggestions as to where information of this sort could be easily obtained?
How is Verizon pronounced? Like horizon or like veritas? Could somebody who knows add that info to the article? Repetition 17:32, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Might we add then the IPA pronunciation of [vɛɹ.aɪ.zən]? Dantiston ( talk) 20:21, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
I will renamed this page to Verizon.-- Jet123 03:48, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Is there any documentation anywhere regarding a merger of Verizon Wireless and US Cellular? This is pure speculation within the Verizon Communications article and, if not substantiated, should be deleted. KansasCity 14:29, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Can somebody find information regarding Verizon suing Vonage for patent infringement and for losing customers from Verizon's VoIP service. Thanks Tngu77 22:20, 28 March 2007 (UTC)Tngu77
The founding date of Verizon, according to Hoover's Corporate Guide for 2005 (reference book series I discovered at the public library), the date of incorporation (founding) of Verizon was in 1983. A disclaimer explaining this is listed on the page (see CBS Corporation for a similar situation). KansasCity 04:30, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
"Verizon, with MCI, was the largest telecommunications company in the United States based on sales of $75.11 billion, profits of $7.4 billion and assets of $168.13 billion. After completion of the BellSouth/AT&T merger, AT&T became the largest telecommunications company in the world in terms of assets and profits."
This (the second sentence) information is controversial and lacks citations. The "Merged" in the table is calculated by simply adding AT&T assets and profit to BellSouth ones and does not have any confirmation (also, there are no companies that are a result of a merge whose profits and assets are just a simple sum of unmerged companies)
I suggest removing the second sentence and the table until the public information will be available for the merged AT&T. 166.42.35.72 01:12, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
This part of "MCI acquisition" section: "When Verizon acquired MCI, some had expected that Verizon would act against the many senders of e-mail spam hosted on the MCI network through its UUNet subsidiary..." has no citations (except the one from a blog not being written by a recognized authority and spamhaus project with a listing of doubtful meaning). Verizon is the largest ISP but spamhaus specifies just the absolute number of spammers in the net. This section looks like a biased one and a self-promotion article (for the blog and for spamhaus). 166.42.35.72 01:33, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
http://consumerist.com/consumer/telephony/verizon-specifies-how-youre-allowed-to-link-to-its-site-257704.php Bassgoonist Talk 20:56, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
It is nitpicking, but the Verizon entity names listed in the article aren't exactly correct. Verizon does not use a comma before "Inc." or "LLC" or similar in the entity names. Some of the old MCI and GTE entities do have a comma in them, and some (GTE entities in particular) have the word fully spelled out rather than abbreviated. Also, the registered d/b/a names listed in the article are wrong.
A few examples - the article says "Verizon Communications, Inc." and "Verizon Maryland, Inc.", which should be "Verizon Communications Inc." and "Verizon Maryland Inc." Other Verizon entities listed with a comma in them are similarly incorrect. Also, the article says "GTE Southwest, Inc. dba Verizon Southwest,Inc." and "Contel of the South, Inc. dba Verizon Mid-States, Inc.", which should be "GTE Southwest Incorporated d/b/a Verizon Southwest" and "Contel of the South, Inc. d/b/a Verizon Mid-States."
I will go through and make the changes, but I am a Wiki newbie and wanted to post here why I was doing it first, so it didn't look like I was vandalizing.
-- BK DC 04:17, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Does anyone here know anything about the Northern New England sale of Verizons land lines to Fairpoint? I am looking for any and all information possible.
Thank you
Nhpublius 16:23, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
This section has grown a lot in the last week. One of the paragraphs, regarding the $200 Billion in tax breaks, reads more like isolated rants by a couple of writers than a controversy. Not sure it has the same oomph as the other items. Mattnad 15:36, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
It appears Verizon has their people working overtime to keep the article clean. There doesn't even appear to be anything in regards to their recent strike where the union employees are vandalizing telecommunications equipment. You would think for a telco monopoly the controversy's would outweigh the entire article. Woods01 ( talk) 02:36, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
Image:VerizonLogo1.svg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 19:11, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Verizon Business is a seperate subsidiary under the umbrella of the parent organization Verizon Communications (VZ). VzB should have a seperate Wiki as does VzW. In other words, VZ comprises VzT, VzW, and VzB.( Oxfordden ( talk) 17:12, 23 December 2007 (UTC))
In the Bell Atlantic-NYNEX merger, does anyone know who bought who? I've seen it both ways- that NYNEX acquired Bell Atlantic and took on the Bell Atlantic name, and that Bell Atlantic simply acquired NYNEX. -- 96.237.58.25 ( talk) 23:27, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
What should be done to bring this article to GA status?? Now it looks relatively impressive, all we need to do is nominate it at WP:GAC. Thanks, -- Solumeiras ( talk) 19:45, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
This article needs to be edited to reflect the recent acquisition of Alltel by Verizon:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/06/AR2008060603082.html --
Loaves (
talk)
01:32, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
In the Data section, the last statement reads:
"Verizon DSL is able to be initially installed using any operating system. Verizon DSL is offered in various speeds ranging from 768 kbps to 7.1 mbps download."
DSL (or ADSL) has nothing to do with the computer operating system. As a matter of fact, if one is so inclined and has sufficient technical expertise, a computer that already has an Ethernet port and TCP drivers installed can be manually configured to operate with any DSL modem on any telephone network without installing any additional software. This includes practically every popular operating system released since at least 1995. Why is this statement even in the article?— Quicksilver T @ 17:55, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
I looked for what you mentioned and couldn't find it. If it indeed is still there, is should be taken out. DSL does not need to be compatible with the operating system, it needs to be compatable with whatever router or switch it used to connect to the computer. Some DSL providers give customers DSL "MODEMs" (technically not MODEMs) that are also "routers" (technically not routers), which connect to the computer. Others just give customers the "MODEMs", which either needs to connect to a "router" or to a computer. Either way, it has nothing to do with OS compatability and instead deals with 'network hardware' compatability or 'protocol' compatability, which if it's the latter it shouldn't be able to connect to the internet.
Mofuggin bob (
talk)
03:31, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
In response to Jim, jim what your saying is something ISPs do to simply make you install their software. I have my own modem for (cable) and when I went to sign on to comcast for the first time I either had to install their software or have them activate the service for me. Verizon works the same way except it appears in your case or perhaps the case of many the modem does store some information locally (cable doesn't in my area) and that requires the modem to be fed either from the upstream (verizon) or software you install. So this is not to be confused with operating system compatibility. If the modems came pre-setup they wouldn't need to communicate with your computer at all to be functional. Woods01 ( talk) 02:33, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
I just read a bunch of articles about the Bell System, GTE/Verizon, AT&T, etc. and from what I got from those articles is that: a) GTE bought Bell Atlantic and then Verizon was born, suggesting that Verizon was made by GTE and not Bell Atlantic b) GTE and Bell Atlantic merged completely, and so Verizon was made by both GTE and Bell Atlantic
From what I understand right now, GTE bought Bell Atlantic, and so GTE is responsible for the creation of Verizon. This article currently says/suggests that Verizon was made by Bell Atlantic, and not GTE. Suggesting GTE didn't own Bell Atlantic (and that instead neither owned either; they merged completely). Which that suggests that if AT&T wouldn't have divestitured, Verizon would not exist today.
I suggest the article being reworded to say something along the lines of, "GTE bought Bell Atlantic, and then GTE created Verizon." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mofuggin bob ( talk • contribs) 03:10, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
Awaiting an official response form Verizon regarding this issue. Will probably have it on Monday. Several Verizon users have reported not being able to access related servers. Woods01 ( talk) 07:33, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
Has anything happened on this issue? Can we get an update?
Verizon openly admits it moderates it's network. Why this doesn't open them up for lawsuits hand over foot is beyond me. Once a network begins to moderate it's traffic it can no longer be protected by saying "we know nothing" because they do know what is going on if they are moderating traffic. I look for nothing to happen except for them to cry for network neutrality (which is the opposite of blocking internet sites) when it's good for Verizon. Woods01 ( talk) 02:29, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
I am proposing that Verizon Plus be merged or redirected to Verizon Communications. Verizon Plus just appears to be the name of the retail store operated by Verizon Communication, so any information regarding Verizon Plus would be appropriate in the Verizon Communication article. Singularity42 ( talk) 19:59, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
Verizon Plus, a link rarely used, is a redirect to this article. I am considering on deleting it, however, I want to see other Wikipedians have their take on this. It is suggestible that you join in on the discussion here. Fairly OddParents Freak ( Fairlyoddparents1234) 23:10, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
I noticed an article for Verizon Select Services. It is a stub, which I just flagged as. I think it would be a good idea to place the info there into a new subsection under "Fixed-line Voice". In for this or not? Have your take below. Fairly OddParents Freak ( Fairlyoddparents1234) 23:33, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Before we start could the following situation be made clear ..Is VERIZON a British American company or is only VERIZON WIRELESS a British American company? 45% of Verizon wireless is owned by British Vodaphone the worlds biggest international mobile phone company. How many British directors are on the Boards of either Verizon or Verizon Wireless. At one time British Vodaphone considered increasing its stake in Verizon from 45% to 50% ..does anyone know if this may happen in the future? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.99.216.229 ( talk • contribs) 19:33, 17 May 2012
I realize the cited corporate history page doesn't say this, but at the top of this, it says Verizon started as Bell Atlantic, based in New York City, in 1983, and merged with New York-based NYNEX in 1997. Unless I'm quite mistaken, until that merger Bell Atlantic actually operated out of the Bell Atlantic Tower in Philadelphia - Bell Atlantic initially had the mid-Atlantic areas, NYNEX had New York and New England (NY NE). By the time they merged with GTE in 2000 they were based in NYC, but they didn't start there... at least, I'm pretty confident of that. Can anyone confirm this? 68.82.84.134 ( talk) 00:14, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
Has Verizon even promoted Verizon Business aside from the immediate aftermath of buying out MCI? Aside from that, the article is short enough and unsourced, it can easily be merged into the main Verizon article. Jgera5 ( talk) 16:32, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
I work at Verizon Communications (see my disclosure here), and I'm hoping to improve Wikipedia's information about the company, and telecommunications in general. I'd like to note up-front that I won't be making any edits myself, due to my conflict of interest. I'll be posting notes on Talk pages instead, asking for input from volunteer editors to take a look at the changes that I suggest and make them if they look okay.
I have a couple of small suggestions that I'd like to make to the information on this page, to make sure it's accurate and up-to-date:
that is a joint venture with Microsoft called "Verizon Web Calling", a type of VoIP service used within Windows Live Messenger. See also Iobi." But Verizon no longer offers this product—see, for example,
this story, which includes a quoted email from Verizon Customer Service about the end of the service. I'd like to suggest that these two sentences be removed from the article.
Jim.henderson (
talk)
15:48, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
I do have a few other small changes I'll be suggesting here in the future, including getting updated products and services information into the article, but for now, I'd like to get these two bits of (very) inaccurate information corrected. Thanks so much, VZBob ( talk) 20:47, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
Just to get things started, I propose that any thread that hasn't been touched in a year be archived. The use on the page is light and that will get rid of about 2/3 of the text. I'm *quite* willing to be convinced on another amount. :) Naraht ( talk) 19:24, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
Hello again,
As I mentioned before, I have a couple of other improvements that I'm hoping to get some assistance with on this article. Because I work for Verizon, I don't want to make any of these changes. I think it best if volunteer editors look at the changes I've proposed and, if they're comfortable with them, make them on my behalf.
First, under Controversies, there is a subsection called E-911 Failures, which currently reads:
This appears to have been written shortly after the event, is repetitive, and doesn't include any information about Verizon's response to the failures. What's more, the Washington Business Journal article cited actually pre-dates the storm in question by a year and a half (dated February 2011). I'd like to suggest the following rewrite of the paragraph, to both update the language and sources, and include information about Verizon's response (and some other minor adjustments, like adding links to other Wikipedia articles):
Second, the current list of board members in the article is out of date. Could we update this list based on Verizon's website? If it seems like too much detail and too difficult to keep updated, maybe we could just put a link to this page in the "External links" section? What do people think? Thanks so much, VZBob ( talk) 17:43, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
On the eve of Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC, I finally got to the Board of Directors question. Inexperienced with corporate articles, I looked at ones about other big American companies for precedents, and found no consistency. Some said nothing, some had an official EL at the end, one had a discussion of a controversy supported by among others a link to the current official list, and some had what I consider worst of all, a Wikipedia list either obviously old or of unspecified date. So, I put it in the EL section. Certainly I'm not going to study enough to write a WP:MOS about how this ought to be handled, being busy enough with my beloved Wikigeographical and photographical activities. Perhaps I'll meet some of you tomorrow afternoon at the library. Jim.henderson ( talk) 00:50, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
Hello, I have some suggestions for improvements that I think could be made to this article. I've drafted a new section that I think should replace "Products and services", calling it "Lines of business". The full draft is in my userspace, but there are a couple notes that I'd like to make. In addition to providing expanded, up-to-date information, I've also made a few changes I'd like to draw your attention to, which I've listed below.
Again, here's a link to the draft I prepared. I've tried to be neutral and accurate here, along with properly sourcing everything, but if anyone has questions or comments, please do share them. Otherwise, could someone please replace what's in the current article with the draft I prepared, also deleting the "Local telephone operations" and "Copper-wire removal" when they do? Thanks so much, VZBob ( talk) 21:11, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
Hello, I'm concerned about an edit made last night to this article. As an employee of Verizon, I won't remove the edit myself, but I would like to bring it to other editors' attention.
Someone added a sentence to the "Internet" section under "Controversies" that indicates that Verizon has "confessed" to throttling bandwidth. However, not only is this not true (you can see Verizon's response here), but the source is a blog ("Dave's Blog") and the "confession" is an online chat with a customer service representative. Given the nature of this source, would an editor be willing to remove the edit?
Thanks so much, VZBob ( talk) 16:57, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered. |
Hello,
I've been working on a draft to replace the current "History" section of the article. I'd like for other editors to take a look at it and let me know their thoughts. I essentially started from scratch on the organization and language of the section, though it does include all the major details in the current article, like the company's formation, the MCI merger, and divestitures. You can find the draft in my userspace, but as I did before, I've included a few notes here.
The draft is quite long and contains a great deal of information, so please let me know if there are any comments or questions. If everything looks good, I'd appreciate if an editor could move the draft over to the article and remove the "Controversies" section. Thanks so much, VZBob ( talk) 18:41, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
I have reviewed the proposed history and, in particular, its overlap with the controversies section. I replaced the existing histories section and then progressively checked that the controversies had been covered elsewhere in the article (one item is covered in "Lines of business"). Not being US-based or a telecoms expert, I have done my best in good faith and would urge other editors to double-check the recent revisions. Paul W ( talk) 12:23, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
Hello, I would like to propose replacing the "Sponsorships and naming rights" section of the article with a new draft I have been working on, as the current section is essentially just a list of venues which contain the Verizon name. While working on a more detailed version of that section I realized that the article also lacks information on Verizon's marketing efforts.
So, I've created two sections: "Marketing campaigns" and "Sponsorships and venues." These sections would serve as an overview of Verizon's most widely recognized marketing campaigns and detail the company's sponsorship activities, as well as include some information on named venues. I'd like for editors to take a look and let me know what they think of these new sections. I've posted the draft in my userspace.
If you have any comments or questions please let me know. Because I'm an employee of Verizon, I won't make these changes myself. Instead, I'm hoping an editor will move the draft over to the article and delete the current "Sponsorships and naming rights" section.
Thanks so much, VZBob ( talk) 13:45, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | → | Archive 5 |
I remember that sometime back in 2003-2004 that Verizon Wireless rolled out commercials proclaiming that they had the network with the "fewest dropped calls." This is well ahead of Cingular's "copycat" (if appropriate) advertising campaign beginning with Q1 of 2006 ("Fewest dropped calls"). I have found some YouTube videos that proves my statement: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BREOpoGUeLc http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a3eJmZW3ojI (These are REAL Verizon Wireless commercials--NOT PARODIES OR KNOCK-OFFS. And also these YouTube videos are not mine either.) Tngu77 02:04, 14 March 2007 (UTC)tngu77
[1] should this be included?
No, it's a minor current event that's about an error in decimal placement. We all make mistakes. Major current events, such as mergers or major new products or services should be covered (such as FiOS), or a major story such as the alleged NSA cooperation. Not a misplaced decimal point. X570 00:30, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
this entire section needs to be updated, as verizon has admitted their mistake, and is changing the reference material provided to their reps stating the rates in both dollars per kilobit and cents per kilobit. [2]
Tngu77 01:59, 14 March 2007 (UTC)Tngu77
Randhuck 17:08, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
I removed the picture of the Verizon branded pay phone. Who ever took that photo was also flipping the phone off, which you could see clearly. Dominic 20:12, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
What's the current update on the situation? I vaguely remember reading from a few newspapers about Verizon turning over the IP addresses of their customers to the government whereas the other ISPs refused (ie Comcast)?-- Nissi Kim 17:17, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Why was the category "Defunct Companies" added?
I added a Data Services subhead, moved FIOS there and added a short mention of DSL. The reference on the page goes to a Verizon ad for FIOS. I'm new here. Is this within policy? Should I add the similar reference for DSL, www.verizon.net/dsl? Ranvaig 15:53, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
I believe the MCI article should not be merged into this article. A fuller explanation is available at Talk:MCI. -- Allen3 talk 11:13, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
I intend to keep the history present in the merger just show the fact they are now verizon communications inc.( Ke5crz 21:53, 6 January 2006 (UTC))
Regarding Supercoop's changing of the section title "MCI Merger" to "MCI Acquisition", I agree that it certainly seemed like an acquisition rather than a merger. However, look at this news release from Verizon — they themselves call it a "merger". So . . . . - DylanW 03:17, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
I assume Verizon operates a lucrative 411 service, in addition to its yellow pages? -- Beland 01:54, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
The Verizon name is not a portemanteau of Vertical and Horizon as claimed in the wiki entry but rather of the two words Veritas and Horizon. I found the following link to support my claim (scroll to the bottom): http://english.cr.superpages.com/help/index.phtml?SRC=&LANG=en&CTRY=cr&STYPE=S&PG=L&R=N&C=&N=&T=&S=
- Marwan
This page sure must make their PR department happy.
The only truth on the horizon for these guys is maximizing profits and squashing innovation. They waited on fiber for NYC until others started eating their lunch. Innovation? Hardy har. Stomping innovation is MUCH more likely. It's an RBOC.
- LoneRanger
Sure was a combination of the words vertical and horizontal. As the employee who they got the idea from, I should know. Think about it. What does Veritas and horizon have to do with phone company business. I had a meaning of combining Vertical and Horizontal in mind which makes much more sense than Veritas. They got the name offf of me but not the meaning. Funny how they don't say WHO exactly had the idea for Verizon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.244.43.57 ( talk) 07:24, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Can someone provide context where the term GTE is used? It is never explained and only redirects to Verizon. Acronymfinder lists General Telephone and Electronics as one of its uses, which I assume it stands for in this case, but I'm not certain, so I'll leave it to someone who is to fix it. Thanks, Paul 01:06, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
It's true. GTE is the formal abbreviation for General Telephone & Electronics. Sometimes when saying the real name, it's shortened to General Telephone(which is used on the underground cable warning signs, placed below the GTE logo), and some disgruntled customers used the abbreviation as an acronym for "Giant Telephone Expirement". Hope that helps. User:CherryDude 19:13, 15 May 2006 (PDT)
Why is this page marked with a "current event" tag? → J @ red 23:30, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm surprised this entire entry makes no note of their signature "Can you hear me now?" advertising campaign. It's certainly entered the pop culture language. Also some mention of the unknown actor who plays the test guy. Also what slogans did Verizon use before that? -- Navstar 03:32, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
Some coworkers were talking about a possible buyout of Verizon by AT&T, after the Bell South merger is completed. I did a quick search on Google, but found nothing. Does anyone know anything about this?
Regarding Line 1, is this vandalism, or am I missing something??
Jayintheusa 06:21, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
How can Verizon be called "multinational"? Tri400 11:27, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Does anyone have any suggestions as to where information of this sort could be easily obtained?
How is Verizon pronounced? Like horizon or like veritas? Could somebody who knows add that info to the article? Repetition 17:32, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Might we add then the IPA pronunciation of [vɛɹ.aɪ.zən]? Dantiston ( talk) 20:21, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
I will renamed this page to Verizon.-- Jet123 03:48, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Is there any documentation anywhere regarding a merger of Verizon Wireless and US Cellular? This is pure speculation within the Verizon Communications article and, if not substantiated, should be deleted. KansasCity 14:29, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Can somebody find information regarding Verizon suing Vonage for patent infringement and for losing customers from Verizon's VoIP service. Thanks Tngu77 22:20, 28 March 2007 (UTC)Tngu77
The founding date of Verizon, according to Hoover's Corporate Guide for 2005 (reference book series I discovered at the public library), the date of incorporation (founding) of Verizon was in 1983. A disclaimer explaining this is listed on the page (see CBS Corporation for a similar situation). KansasCity 04:30, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
"Verizon, with MCI, was the largest telecommunications company in the United States based on sales of $75.11 billion, profits of $7.4 billion and assets of $168.13 billion. After completion of the BellSouth/AT&T merger, AT&T became the largest telecommunications company in the world in terms of assets and profits."
This (the second sentence) information is controversial and lacks citations. The "Merged" in the table is calculated by simply adding AT&T assets and profit to BellSouth ones and does not have any confirmation (also, there are no companies that are a result of a merge whose profits and assets are just a simple sum of unmerged companies)
I suggest removing the second sentence and the table until the public information will be available for the merged AT&T. 166.42.35.72 01:12, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
This part of "MCI acquisition" section: "When Verizon acquired MCI, some had expected that Verizon would act against the many senders of e-mail spam hosted on the MCI network through its UUNet subsidiary..." has no citations (except the one from a blog not being written by a recognized authority and spamhaus project with a listing of doubtful meaning). Verizon is the largest ISP but spamhaus specifies just the absolute number of spammers in the net. This section looks like a biased one and a self-promotion article (for the blog and for spamhaus). 166.42.35.72 01:33, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
http://consumerist.com/consumer/telephony/verizon-specifies-how-youre-allowed-to-link-to-its-site-257704.php Bassgoonist Talk 20:56, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
It is nitpicking, but the Verizon entity names listed in the article aren't exactly correct. Verizon does not use a comma before "Inc." or "LLC" or similar in the entity names. Some of the old MCI and GTE entities do have a comma in them, and some (GTE entities in particular) have the word fully spelled out rather than abbreviated. Also, the registered d/b/a names listed in the article are wrong.
A few examples - the article says "Verizon Communications, Inc." and "Verizon Maryland, Inc.", which should be "Verizon Communications Inc." and "Verizon Maryland Inc." Other Verizon entities listed with a comma in them are similarly incorrect. Also, the article says "GTE Southwest, Inc. dba Verizon Southwest,Inc." and "Contel of the South, Inc. dba Verizon Mid-States, Inc.", which should be "GTE Southwest Incorporated d/b/a Verizon Southwest" and "Contel of the South, Inc. d/b/a Verizon Mid-States."
I will go through and make the changes, but I am a Wiki newbie and wanted to post here why I was doing it first, so it didn't look like I was vandalizing.
-- BK DC 04:17, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Does anyone here know anything about the Northern New England sale of Verizons land lines to Fairpoint? I am looking for any and all information possible.
Thank you
Nhpublius 16:23, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
This section has grown a lot in the last week. One of the paragraphs, regarding the $200 Billion in tax breaks, reads more like isolated rants by a couple of writers than a controversy. Not sure it has the same oomph as the other items. Mattnad 15:36, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
It appears Verizon has their people working overtime to keep the article clean. There doesn't even appear to be anything in regards to their recent strike where the union employees are vandalizing telecommunications equipment. You would think for a telco monopoly the controversy's would outweigh the entire article. Woods01 ( talk) 02:36, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
Image:VerizonLogo1.svg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 19:11, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Verizon Business is a seperate subsidiary under the umbrella of the parent organization Verizon Communications (VZ). VzB should have a seperate Wiki as does VzW. In other words, VZ comprises VzT, VzW, and VzB.( Oxfordden ( talk) 17:12, 23 December 2007 (UTC))
In the Bell Atlantic-NYNEX merger, does anyone know who bought who? I've seen it both ways- that NYNEX acquired Bell Atlantic and took on the Bell Atlantic name, and that Bell Atlantic simply acquired NYNEX. -- 96.237.58.25 ( talk) 23:27, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
What should be done to bring this article to GA status?? Now it looks relatively impressive, all we need to do is nominate it at WP:GAC. Thanks, -- Solumeiras ( talk) 19:45, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
This article needs to be edited to reflect the recent acquisition of Alltel by Verizon:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/06/AR2008060603082.html --
Loaves (
talk)
01:32, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
In the Data section, the last statement reads:
"Verizon DSL is able to be initially installed using any operating system. Verizon DSL is offered in various speeds ranging from 768 kbps to 7.1 mbps download."
DSL (or ADSL) has nothing to do with the computer operating system. As a matter of fact, if one is so inclined and has sufficient technical expertise, a computer that already has an Ethernet port and TCP drivers installed can be manually configured to operate with any DSL modem on any telephone network without installing any additional software. This includes practically every popular operating system released since at least 1995. Why is this statement even in the article?— Quicksilver T @ 17:55, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
I looked for what you mentioned and couldn't find it. If it indeed is still there, is should be taken out. DSL does not need to be compatible with the operating system, it needs to be compatable with whatever router or switch it used to connect to the computer. Some DSL providers give customers DSL "MODEMs" (technically not MODEMs) that are also "routers" (technically not routers), which connect to the computer. Others just give customers the "MODEMs", which either needs to connect to a "router" or to a computer. Either way, it has nothing to do with OS compatability and instead deals with 'network hardware' compatability or 'protocol' compatability, which if it's the latter it shouldn't be able to connect to the internet.
Mofuggin bob (
talk)
03:31, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
In response to Jim, jim what your saying is something ISPs do to simply make you install their software. I have my own modem for (cable) and when I went to sign on to comcast for the first time I either had to install their software or have them activate the service for me. Verizon works the same way except it appears in your case or perhaps the case of many the modem does store some information locally (cable doesn't in my area) and that requires the modem to be fed either from the upstream (verizon) or software you install. So this is not to be confused with operating system compatibility. If the modems came pre-setup they wouldn't need to communicate with your computer at all to be functional. Woods01 ( talk) 02:33, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
I just read a bunch of articles about the Bell System, GTE/Verizon, AT&T, etc. and from what I got from those articles is that: a) GTE bought Bell Atlantic and then Verizon was born, suggesting that Verizon was made by GTE and not Bell Atlantic b) GTE and Bell Atlantic merged completely, and so Verizon was made by both GTE and Bell Atlantic
From what I understand right now, GTE bought Bell Atlantic, and so GTE is responsible for the creation of Verizon. This article currently says/suggests that Verizon was made by Bell Atlantic, and not GTE. Suggesting GTE didn't own Bell Atlantic (and that instead neither owned either; they merged completely). Which that suggests that if AT&T wouldn't have divestitured, Verizon would not exist today.
I suggest the article being reworded to say something along the lines of, "GTE bought Bell Atlantic, and then GTE created Verizon." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mofuggin bob ( talk • contribs) 03:10, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
Awaiting an official response form Verizon regarding this issue. Will probably have it on Monday. Several Verizon users have reported not being able to access related servers. Woods01 ( talk) 07:33, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
Has anything happened on this issue? Can we get an update?
Verizon openly admits it moderates it's network. Why this doesn't open them up for lawsuits hand over foot is beyond me. Once a network begins to moderate it's traffic it can no longer be protected by saying "we know nothing" because they do know what is going on if they are moderating traffic. I look for nothing to happen except for them to cry for network neutrality (which is the opposite of blocking internet sites) when it's good for Verizon. Woods01 ( talk) 02:29, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
I am proposing that Verizon Plus be merged or redirected to Verizon Communications. Verizon Plus just appears to be the name of the retail store operated by Verizon Communication, so any information regarding Verizon Plus would be appropriate in the Verizon Communication article. Singularity42 ( talk) 19:59, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
Verizon Plus, a link rarely used, is a redirect to this article. I am considering on deleting it, however, I want to see other Wikipedians have their take on this. It is suggestible that you join in on the discussion here. Fairly OddParents Freak ( Fairlyoddparents1234) 23:10, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
I noticed an article for Verizon Select Services. It is a stub, which I just flagged as. I think it would be a good idea to place the info there into a new subsection under "Fixed-line Voice". In for this or not? Have your take below. Fairly OddParents Freak ( Fairlyoddparents1234) 23:33, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Before we start could the following situation be made clear ..Is VERIZON a British American company or is only VERIZON WIRELESS a British American company? 45% of Verizon wireless is owned by British Vodaphone the worlds biggest international mobile phone company. How many British directors are on the Boards of either Verizon or Verizon Wireless. At one time British Vodaphone considered increasing its stake in Verizon from 45% to 50% ..does anyone know if this may happen in the future? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.99.216.229 ( talk • contribs) 19:33, 17 May 2012
I realize the cited corporate history page doesn't say this, but at the top of this, it says Verizon started as Bell Atlantic, based in New York City, in 1983, and merged with New York-based NYNEX in 1997. Unless I'm quite mistaken, until that merger Bell Atlantic actually operated out of the Bell Atlantic Tower in Philadelphia - Bell Atlantic initially had the mid-Atlantic areas, NYNEX had New York and New England (NY NE). By the time they merged with GTE in 2000 they were based in NYC, but they didn't start there... at least, I'm pretty confident of that. Can anyone confirm this? 68.82.84.134 ( talk) 00:14, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
Has Verizon even promoted Verizon Business aside from the immediate aftermath of buying out MCI? Aside from that, the article is short enough and unsourced, it can easily be merged into the main Verizon article. Jgera5 ( talk) 16:32, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
I work at Verizon Communications (see my disclosure here), and I'm hoping to improve Wikipedia's information about the company, and telecommunications in general. I'd like to note up-front that I won't be making any edits myself, due to my conflict of interest. I'll be posting notes on Talk pages instead, asking for input from volunteer editors to take a look at the changes that I suggest and make them if they look okay.
I have a couple of small suggestions that I'd like to make to the information on this page, to make sure it's accurate and up-to-date:
that is a joint venture with Microsoft called "Verizon Web Calling", a type of VoIP service used within Windows Live Messenger. See also Iobi." But Verizon no longer offers this product—see, for example,
this story, which includes a quoted email from Verizon Customer Service about the end of the service. I'd like to suggest that these two sentences be removed from the article.
Jim.henderson (
talk)
15:48, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
I do have a few other small changes I'll be suggesting here in the future, including getting updated products and services information into the article, but for now, I'd like to get these two bits of (very) inaccurate information corrected. Thanks so much, VZBob ( talk) 20:47, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
Just to get things started, I propose that any thread that hasn't been touched in a year be archived. The use on the page is light and that will get rid of about 2/3 of the text. I'm *quite* willing to be convinced on another amount. :) Naraht ( talk) 19:24, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
Hello again,
As I mentioned before, I have a couple of other improvements that I'm hoping to get some assistance with on this article. Because I work for Verizon, I don't want to make any of these changes. I think it best if volunteer editors look at the changes I've proposed and, if they're comfortable with them, make them on my behalf.
First, under Controversies, there is a subsection called E-911 Failures, which currently reads:
This appears to have been written shortly after the event, is repetitive, and doesn't include any information about Verizon's response to the failures. What's more, the Washington Business Journal article cited actually pre-dates the storm in question by a year and a half (dated February 2011). I'd like to suggest the following rewrite of the paragraph, to both update the language and sources, and include information about Verizon's response (and some other minor adjustments, like adding links to other Wikipedia articles):
Second, the current list of board members in the article is out of date. Could we update this list based on Verizon's website? If it seems like too much detail and too difficult to keep updated, maybe we could just put a link to this page in the "External links" section? What do people think? Thanks so much, VZBob ( talk) 17:43, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
On the eve of Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC, I finally got to the Board of Directors question. Inexperienced with corporate articles, I looked at ones about other big American companies for precedents, and found no consistency. Some said nothing, some had an official EL at the end, one had a discussion of a controversy supported by among others a link to the current official list, and some had what I consider worst of all, a Wikipedia list either obviously old or of unspecified date. So, I put it in the EL section. Certainly I'm not going to study enough to write a WP:MOS about how this ought to be handled, being busy enough with my beloved Wikigeographical and photographical activities. Perhaps I'll meet some of you tomorrow afternoon at the library. Jim.henderson ( talk) 00:50, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
Hello, I have some suggestions for improvements that I think could be made to this article. I've drafted a new section that I think should replace "Products and services", calling it "Lines of business". The full draft is in my userspace, but there are a couple notes that I'd like to make. In addition to providing expanded, up-to-date information, I've also made a few changes I'd like to draw your attention to, which I've listed below.
Again, here's a link to the draft I prepared. I've tried to be neutral and accurate here, along with properly sourcing everything, but if anyone has questions or comments, please do share them. Otherwise, could someone please replace what's in the current article with the draft I prepared, also deleting the "Local telephone operations" and "Copper-wire removal" when they do? Thanks so much, VZBob ( talk) 21:11, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
Hello, I'm concerned about an edit made last night to this article. As an employee of Verizon, I won't remove the edit myself, but I would like to bring it to other editors' attention.
Someone added a sentence to the "Internet" section under "Controversies" that indicates that Verizon has "confessed" to throttling bandwidth. However, not only is this not true (you can see Verizon's response here), but the source is a blog ("Dave's Blog") and the "confession" is an online chat with a customer service representative. Given the nature of this source, would an editor be willing to remove the edit?
Thanks so much, VZBob ( talk) 16:57, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered. |
Hello,
I've been working on a draft to replace the current "History" section of the article. I'd like for other editors to take a look at it and let me know their thoughts. I essentially started from scratch on the organization and language of the section, though it does include all the major details in the current article, like the company's formation, the MCI merger, and divestitures. You can find the draft in my userspace, but as I did before, I've included a few notes here.
The draft is quite long and contains a great deal of information, so please let me know if there are any comments or questions. If everything looks good, I'd appreciate if an editor could move the draft over to the article and remove the "Controversies" section. Thanks so much, VZBob ( talk) 18:41, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
I have reviewed the proposed history and, in particular, its overlap with the controversies section. I replaced the existing histories section and then progressively checked that the controversies had been covered elsewhere in the article (one item is covered in "Lines of business"). Not being US-based or a telecoms expert, I have done my best in good faith and would urge other editors to double-check the recent revisions. Paul W ( talk) 12:23, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
Hello, I would like to propose replacing the "Sponsorships and naming rights" section of the article with a new draft I have been working on, as the current section is essentially just a list of venues which contain the Verizon name. While working on a more detailed version of that section I realized that the article also lacks information on Verizon's marketing efforts.
So, I've created two sections: "Marketing campaigns" and "Sponsorships and venues." These sections would serve as an overview of Verizon's most widely recognized marketing campaigns and detail the company's sponsorship activities, as well as include some information on named venues. I'd like for editors to take a look and let me know what they think of these new sections. I've posted the draft in my userspace.
If you have any comments or questions please let me know. Because I'm an employee of Verizon, I won't make these changes myself. Instead, I'm hoping an editor will move the draft over to the article and delete the current "Sponsorships and naming rights" section.
Thanks so much, VZBob ( talk) 13:45, 29 April 2014 (UTC)