What’s with Verizon Billing & Customer Service?

Feb 2012 UPDATE:
Verizon billing misfeasance—just keeps getting worse

At the end of 2011, Verizon announced a ‘bill-paying’ fee that would be charged even if payment was made on time and online. They did this to discourage payment of individual monthly invoices, and push users, instead, to authorize direct debit from credit card and checking accounts. To avoid the new fee, users must allow Verizon to dip into the till without any involvement of the user.

Although the proposal was not a ‘trial balloon’ (Verizon actually believed users wouldn’t mind paying for the privilege of paying!),  they were met with overwhelming publicity and a scathing consumer reaction. The plan was scrapped within 48 hours.

But since the article appeared, many Wild Ducks were less concerned about Verizon’s fee schedule and more interested in the billing & support problems that plague Verizon TV and Internet, especially the wholesale inability to honor FIOS bundle promotions.

Billing integrity is abhorrent. I suspect an audit of 100 customer accounts would reveal errors in the invoices or ACH debits of every one. In my own account, Verizon made scores of credit adjustments, but only after hundreds of calls & complaints. Jump directly to the relevant section.

When I launched A Wild Duck, I promised myself that this humble soap box would never be used for a personal gripe or vendetta. So let me get this out up front: This is a personal gripe. It’s not about the Verizon decision to charge customers a fee to pay their bills (a decision that they announced and then retracted after just 48 hours). Well, it’s tangentially related, but at least it’s not specifically about that loony announcement.

The ISP and wireless behemoth that Americans just love to hate is technically superior in every sector they serve. The best cell phone network in North America. The best Internet Service in the world (many of us enjoy 100Mbps FIOS service in our homes). Incredible television choices at reasonable prices. All this technology and superb technicians when there is a problem. But wait!...

They keep gushing out fodder. This time, Verizon announced a $2 fee for any customer who pays their bill. Yes! A fee to pay bills by mail or even online – unless the customer consents to pre-authorized automatic debit.

The plan lasted for about 2 days. They retracted the goofy anti-customer measure when the Federal Trade Commission announced an investigation (Hey guys. It’s stupid, but it probably isn’t illegal) and when a grass roots backlash began from every corner of the country. In fact, during the waning hours of 2011, it was more like a tidal wave.

I won’t comment further on the idea of charging customers to pay bills. It’s so whacky that it defies comment. But let me explain why users might not wish to allow Verizon to transfer payments in the absence of active client participation..


What’s up with Verizon's Billing & Support?

• Even after 4 years—Verizon has difficulty honoring offers & incentives


• Renewal leads to endless billing errors & deplorable customer service


• Verizon continues billing errors, even after agents identify the problem


• Hundreds of calls, dozens of letters, constant apologies; Errors persist

Verizon should be permanently barred from interacting with any bank account. The amounts they debit have absolutely no bearing on the service package contracted by their clients! At least if you require them to mail invoices, you have a chance to demand corrections before payment. (But good luck. It can take literally hundreds of calls and complaints).

To make matters worse, Verizon sacked their customer support staff years ago. The remaining peons have been stripped of authority and tools. They simply cannot solve problems, no matter how egregious! (This has been acknowledged to me by numerous telephone support specialists who wish that they had mechanisms to solve serious and blatantly obvious snafus. They can’t even elevate serious billing problems).

Case Study:  Me!

I am an early adopter of direct debit payment (ACH & EFT). Since the 1980s, I have allowed a few vendors to debit my checking account for monthly services. This is how I pay for my mortgage, electric & gas bills, UPS package delivery, and other monthly services. I used to allow Verizon the same access to sweep their monthly service fee from my checking account. "Why not?" you ask. After all, It saves time, avoids late fees, and – as a diversified conglomerate – they can certainly keep their records straight. Right? Not on your life! For the past three years, I have blocked Verizon from dipping into my bank account. Instead, I use single payments for a practical reason...

Verizon has cut back on customer service to such an extent that they debit the wrong amount more frequently than the correct amount (no exaggeration!). In fact, in just 40 months, they have made more than 120 corrections to my bill and issued almost a dozen apologies. The problem is biggest with their FIOS and One Bill program (which folds in your VZ Wireless bill). They also have trouble with accurate billing for their "triple-play" bundles, especially if you choose a plan that aggregates your wireless phones.

I feel sorry for the Verizon customer who fails to regularly check their bank statement for EFT/ACH debits. With an almost complete lack of customer support, it sometimes takes legal threats (or waiting for service to be cut off) before getting Verizon to correct a litany of errors.

Why put up with such negligent customer service? It transcends misfeasance! One reason: Without question, Verizon serves up the best TV, Internet and wireless service in every market they serve. I freely acknowledge a terrific product suite. Cable TV companies and satellite services don’t even come close. Verizon never has a blackout or glitch, they replace equipment on demand, they don't over-compress the TV signal and their FIOS speeds don’t degrade as neighbors jump on the bandwagon. In short, their "product-service" is terrific. But what about customer service?...

After 120 credits (and more than 150 phone calls to get them corrected), I finally had it! I called to disconnect service. Guess what? They lowered the price to keep my business. At first, I said “No.” I was really, really, really fed up. They didn't just lower it once, but three times on the same call—a discount of more than $50 each month, a free DVR and a bump up to unlimited data on my smart phone. Even more surprising, they threw more senior and more professional resources at saving my business than ever offered in the past. They bent over backwards to retain my good will, and in the end, I capitulated... I accepted an outrageously grand offer.

And what happened after they created a new bundle price for me (confirmed in writing). You guessed it! The discount never stuck. Each month thereafter, I was billed the wrong amount. Did I complain? Yes. Every single month. I got profuse apologies (“up the Gazoo” as they say). Eventually, a telephone representative told me that there is simply no mechanism to automatically apply special “customer retention” offers. So she offered to apply the discount each month a few days after the regular invoice is generated. Mind you, a separate representative was manually crediting a “Triple Play” bundle discount because the company had no process for honoring a nationally advertised service packages that included wireless services.

On top of all this, their unified One Bill program was a month behind in showing credits and payments, so I never knew what to pay!

Does this method of manual intervention work? Sort of...about 1/3 of the time. The rest of the time, I must call (it takes 3 or 4 calls) and persuade the first few representatives that I am the beneficiary of a “customer retention” offer. Then, these jokers need to find the representative who made the rebate offer. Then, my call is mysteriously dropped, or – get this – a tin plated, middle manager picks up the line and tells me that the original employee acted without authority. Whoahh?! I reprint transcripts of everything and resend a few legal demand notices (8 times last year!). Eventually, the original rep calls me back. Another apology, retroactive credit, and another promise, and...

Does this sound like a company that has its act together? Is this a vendor to be trusted with the keys to your bank account? I think not, Toto! Against the advice of my own family, I have still remained a Verizon customer. Alas, it is difficult to give up terrific products (Wireless phones, TV, Internet and tethering) and of course, very significant concessions to keep my business. But I certainly wouldn’t put up with this, if it weren’t for a massive incentive: about $600 off of their discount bundle and that’s on top of advertised incentives.

Note to Verizon Stock Holders: Imagine how much more your company would earn if they didn’t have to give so much back to disgruntled customers. If I held equity in Verizon or Vodafone, I would demand an accounting of post-facto givebacks. I bet that you will find a universe of lost revenue.

SOPA: Barricading the Information Superhighway

If you haven’t heard about SOPA — the Stop Online Piracy Act — you will soon. The bill aimed at halting digital piracy is being debated in a Judiciary Committee of the US House of Representatives. It is expected to pass both the House and Senate.

• SOPA: Who’s In and Who’s Out?  (from Engadget)


• [Full list of supporters]

Despite the likelihood of ratification, it is almost comical how former supporters are defecting and trying to distance themselves from it as a vote approaches. Most notably, GoDaddy, the giant of Internet hosting and domain registration. They pulled their support as they became the target of a grass roots boycott

Will it pass? Perhaps. Can it be enforced? Of course not! Will it change anything. No. This leads to an obvious question: Why bother? The answer is typical of Washington politics: SOPA is supported inside the beltway because law makers are out of touch, because Hollywood and the music industry have effective lobbyists, and because it makes for good politics. [continued below]...



But what about the underlying issue? Is digital piracy wrong? Is it reasonable and just to at least try to stem the tide? The cause is just but the proposed mechanism of enforcement is not. In fact, almost any effort to stop digital piracy is futile. The problem must be addressed by rethinking the very purpose and nature of copyright law.

I have mixed feelings about casual consumer piracy of copyright content (music, movies, books and software). My brother will not watch a movie streamed from my home server, because he questions the legality of the original source or rip. Yet he allows his children to use my Netflix account even though it is not authorized for access from his home TV. (He rationalizes that at least someone has licensed the content!). I get it. I realize that some of my music and movies were copied without permission, but I actually own most of the originals. It was simply easier to grab it from Napster or Bit Torrent than to locate and RIP my own CD, DVD or Blu-Ray. Without trying too hard to get into the philosophical argument (is it theft? is it fair? is it enforceable?), SOPA goes too far. It doesn’t criminalize behavior (digital pirates are already breaking the law). Rather, it makes a snitch out of the carrier and then requires the carrier to actively participate in blocking the transmission.

This is feel good politics at its worst. What’s wrong with it?...

• It can’t work. The economics of free content combined with improving mechanisms of anonymity guarantee that digitized works will spring eternal through other channels. Political restrictions only undermine the growth and influence of the Internet, but not it’s distributed and empowering nature.


• It leads to a police state – and a very slippery slope!


• It shifts the burden of protecting content & policing users to the wrong parties


• It defies the principles that make the internet robust, open & productive. While this may sound like a cop out, I honestly believe that we should not cripple the medium. There are other ways to skin this cat.

By now, Wild Ducks know the drill: So sayeth Ellery!

Will a ban on hand’s free phones make driving safer?

The National Traffic Safety Board is very concerned about distracted driving. Their research and testimony was instrumental in shaping statutes in 35 states that ban texting while driving and the 9 states that ban the use of handheld phones (many more states have partial restrictions). If you have ever tried using a tiny keyboard (for example, typing a destination into a GPS device) while gliding down a highway or even a side street, then you know it is very risky to say the least.

Studies on the effects of laws are often ambiguous, because so many extraneous variables are at play before and after the law goes into effect. But in the case of texting while driving, studies are conclusive. Applying this data, I am reasonably confident that at least 3 people reading this blog in the week it was posted are alive because of one of these laws.

When the NTSB first suggested that handheld use of cell phones should be banned, I was surprised at the specificity of their wrath. Don’t we already punish “Driving while distracted”? Keeping laws general seems so much simpler and fair. Why should a cell phone user be restricted but not the lady in the next lane applying mascara or the guy drinking coffee and shaving at the same time?

Perhaps one reason for a targeted restriction is because the technology is newer and more insipid. It takes a few years before most drivers recognize how dangerous it is to hold a portable device while driving. In my opinion, a phone is used in a very different manner than a cup of coffee. Doing those other things (applying makeup and shaving) is just plain stupid. These things require that your eyes and full attention be on the mirror and not the road.

Perhaps a ban on cell phones is palatable because it relieves traffic officers and courts from the vagaries of interpretation. Either way, I accept the restriction. I make a serious effort to ensure that an automatic hands free connection is established each time that I enter my car. I wasn’t truly happy with wireless speakerphones until I found a simple and effective Bluetooth speaker that recognized when I was inside the vehicle. The detection of an occupant is a major step forward, because it ensures that calls from home are not hijacked by the device in my parked car.

But now, the NTSB has gone too far. They are recommending a complete ban on the presence of mobile phones in cars. What’s next? Why not Prohibit drivers from talking with passengers? (Apparently, they believe that talking with a caller is more dangerous). Even if studies demonstrate a link between talking and safety, the research technique cannot possibly factor in the dramatically increased safety and reduced driving of those who keep in touch with business and loved ones, especially if the call pertains to their reason for driving in the first place.

Consider an example: Suppose that the research conclusively demonstrates that a call doubles the chance of a serious accident from 1 in 150,000 miles to 2 in 150,000 miles. What if the call removed the car from the road because the whole trip is unnecessary? Is that covered by the study? For example, suppose that you are rushing to the airport to pick up an elderly relative who is ill and forgot critical medicine. They don’t speak English and – well – you get the idea... You are under stress, speeding and very concerned about someone else’s safety. Anyone will acknowledge that the risk of an accident is heightened. You are aware of this, but you are good driver. You are not tired and you weigh the risk against your personal mission.

Now suppose that this relative called you from another airport. They missed their flight and they will not be arriving as expected. But wait! They ran into the family doctor at the airport. He has the required medicine and will even give Grandpa a lift home. I realize that the example is a bit contrived and melodramatic, but the gist is broadly applicable. Accepting the call in the car not only removes a source of stress, it makes the entire trip unnecessary. While not every call saves tires, gas, stress and lives—many calls make business and personal life more efficient. In turn, this reduces stress and the need to drive. The relationships between these things are intangible and difficult to measure, but the net effect is very tangible. It would be difficult to incorporate control mechanisms that relate to these factors and almost impossible to set controls and measure results. (How is overall traffic safety influenced by reducing the need to drive? The influence goes beyond the individual driver!) They are perhaps more important components of overall safety than all the things that can be measured.

Banning the use of all telephone communication in cars is not just foolish, it is political idiocy. Fortunately, I’m not the only one who thinks so. If you don’t agree with me after the very slightest of reflection then post a comment. But be prepared for my retort. In my opinion, anyone who disagrees with me just hasn’t thought enough about the issue! (Eventually, you will get it right!)

More reading:

• States that ban cell phones while driving (but permit use with a hands free device)


• States that ban texting while driving


• Research shows hands-free phones just as risky  (Poppycock!)

 

Christmas Trees & Menorahs: No place on Public Property

In 1990 and 1991, an atheist organization filed suit against cities and towns in Illinois, including Rolling Meadows, Zion and Palatine. It argued that a religious symbol in the official city seal constituted government recognition of a religion and caused harm. A city seal appears everywhere that official business is conducted. It is emblazoned on permits, forms, stationery, recycle bins, police cars, and even street signs.

At first, the towns fought back, arguing that a Latin cross in the corner of a city seal, an angel or a reference to God represents an aspect of town heritage and history. In fact, some towns were settled for religious reasons during colonial times. They also pointed out that US currency displays the words “In God We Trust” and that religious motifs are enshrined in government documents, buildings, history and even cited by our founding fathers.

Although decisions were split, the plaintiffs won their case on most counts and in most cities. Religious icons were stripped from the seals and eventually the court houses of many towns. Some civic leaders considered appealing the decisions, but after losing hundreds of thousands of dollars fighting the initial action, most towns gave up the fight and agreed to remove religious symbols.

How is it that a religious symbol can cause harm? For an atheist, I am a bit puzzled. To them, I would think that it should be no different than an artifact of fables and legend. But for people of other faiths, I certainly understand the problem. In one case that gained brief, national attention, the wife of a Rabbi covered the seal on her recycling bin and on an automobile windshield sticker. But this small act of protest had repercussions. The municipal government blocked her trash pickup and fined her for not displaying (or perhaps defacing) a required vehicle permit.

Before this post attracts all sorts of rants from the right, please consider this. Asking a devout Jew to display a crucifix in front of her home, even if it is small, is no different than asking a devout Muslim to wear a Star of David for the purpose of gaining access to the town dump. Preposterous! Even if the effect is unintended, the incorporation of religion into government – even if symbolic – is not harmless. It is intimidating, unfair and a form of bullying. It says that the town recognizes and serves this citizen, but not that one.

Some will argue that in a democracy, “Majority rules”. But this cliché is a bastardization of democracy. This type of thinking leads to Fascism. A true democracy protects the rights of individuals and never forces citizens into acts that benefit no one and isolate individuals. Rather, democracies actively protect diversity. For this reason, I stand with the Rabbi’s wife.

But let's move forward 20 years. It is now Christmas 2011. Why, today, do most towns still decorate Christmas Trees on public property? I have no idea! Christians should be even more outraged than atheists and people of other faiths. Having government usurp a matter of family and personal faith is trite, insulting and nauseating. It is far worse than the commercial exploitation of faith that we see in malls and on television.

The issue is reaching a boiling point in the town of Evergreen Colorado, in which I have a friend. The town offered local Jews “equal access” by placing a giant menorah next to the town Christmas tree. The pendulum is swinging wildly this week. Early this week, newspapers reported Evergreen Bans Menorah, Keeps Christmas Tree, but just as abruptly, the two sides reached an accommodation. Now they are again saying “Let's drape our court house in both faiths.”  If I were a local Jewish leader in Evergreen, I certainly wouldn’t want a symbol of a minor children’s holiday placed next to a Christmas tree. For God’s sake, get rid of both!

Do you really want equal time and equal space for Jewish symbols amongst Christian symbols?! Doesn’t that open a can of worms? What about Hindu, Buddhist, Shinto and Wicca? Does each minority get a symbol on the front lawn of City Hall?

Rather than “Equal Time” for flaunting Jewish holidays & symbols. I would much prefer that governments get out of the religion business altogether! It's trite, bigoted and incredibly insulting. I have never understood why governments like to erect Christmas trees. I would rather teach my children that faith is expressed by the faithful and within their respective communities. Let us please end state funding or any state recognition of religious holidays & events. Let the tree to Christ go up on private property and let the Menorah go up on Mr. Levine’s front lawn or in front of Weinstein’s Deli (I made up the names, but you get the point).

[caption id="attachment_906" align="alignright" width="227"] Why not display a religious alphabet soup to assuage all residents?[/caption]

What about the The Salvation Army? Projects of missionaries, and some self-help groups. Should they be granted meeting rooms in schools or donation pots at the post office? Of course not! Let them find donors in a church parking or at the entrance of Wal-Mart. (I am not arguing against retailers making their own decision). But wait? Is the Salvation Army a religious organization? Many people believe that their motives are as benign as the Girl Scouts. I am not a conspiracy theorist, but it seems reasonable to ask what the “Salvation” Army is trying to save?!

Should there be exceptions to my rule?

Sure! Every restriction should accommodate facts on the ground and be applied within reason. Even though Hanukkah is a minor children's holiday blown out of proportion because of proximity to Christmas,  I accept that our national holidays include Christmas, Easter and the Gregorian New Year (I won’t even call that last one ‘religious’). The plurality of Christians is a fact and it seems reasonable that major holidays convenience the largest group. Likewise, I appreciate the fact that towns with a large Jewish population (like Brookline and Sharon in Massachusetts) structure the school calendar to accommodate Passover and Yom Kippur. I wouldn't demand that the holiday be recognized (not even locally), but on the other hand, I bet families in these towns appreciate that teachers accommodate individual students who cannot attend on those few days.

What about the Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts? Fortunately, the Girl Scouts are not religious at all (they are not affiliated with the Boy Scouts). However, the Boy Scouts credo and pledge includes an oath of anti-atheism, and of course, they tried hard to block gay scouts and leaders. Alas, this isn’t a perfect world. Personally, I overlook the subtle and non-pervasive remnants of intolerance and religion in the Boy Scouts as long as their regional outposts are inclusive and accommodating. Their record is mixed, but religion is certainly a very minor footnote in their activities.

I have no problem with a school giving after school meeting space to scouts, as long as the on-site affairs are completely nonreligious and as long as the donation of space and service is treated like any other non-profit (e.g. the Red Cross or a local food drive).

So Sayeth Ellery. Tell me what you think.

Does a Blogger qualify as “journalist”?

The world is filled with nut cases, and Marco A. Hernandez, a U.S. District Court judge in Portland OR is one of them. Dr. Prague points out in a comment below, there are two sides to every story. In this case, the other side is written by David Carr and appeared in today’s New York Times. It is compelling and it forces me to reassess my acrimonious attack on Judge Hernandez. I may have inserted foot in mouth and then inserted it further. Read the rest of my early morning rant with a grain of salt...

This month, Judge Hernandez ruled that Bloggers who fail to show ties to an established newspaper, magazine or news bureau (presumably, it must be one that this nut case has heard of), are not in fact legitimate writers, editors or journalists. In his view, if a journalist’s podium is the internet of if they lack mainstream affiliation, or if they are self-published, then they are disqualified from the protection of the shield law, a basic statutory protection for anyone who publishes.

[caption id="attachment_857" align="alignright" width="250"] Will Judge Hernandez subpoena every Facebook user?[/caption]

The title of this post asks “Does a Blogger qualify as journalist”. Of course, the answer is clear: One can argue over the truth of a report, quality of writing or credibility of a publisher (in the case of a Blog, the publisher may also be author & editor). But few argue over the credentials necessary to be a journalist. Anyone with a soap box qualifies, if they believe what they say and they reach out to listeners. It doesn’t matter how small is their podium, how unpopular their message, and it certainly doesn’t matter if they are self published. This is the 21st century, Judge! The Internet may not be The Great Equalizer,  but it certainly bestows a badge of editor, publisher and journalist on anyone who chooses to broadcast news and opinions.

Of course, other judges, lawyers and legal scholars around the country – including the attorney who drafted the shield law for Washington state – point out that Oregon's definition of journalism “a bit outdated”. (a term of professional courtesy...The attorney wanted to say that Judge Hernandez is a nut case). Who appointed him arbiter of the affiliations that constitute a credible journalist? What about editorial pundits, Facebook housewives, and foreigners writing overseas? Will he go after them for failing to reveal their sources?

It’s a safe bet that Judge Hernandez’s decision will be overturned in the near future, if only for the uncountable number of Bloggers whom he suddenly turned into criminals. But just in case Crystal Cox, the Blogger-defendant does not pursue an appeal, or in the event some other yahoo strips my freedom from a bench closer to my jurisdiction, let’s be clear about this blog. Consider it the fine print for all of AWildDuck.com:

This Blog represents the opinions of the editor & publisher or the guest writer whose contribution appears under the Wild Duck banner.

In the event that our writers use confidential sources, these sources will remain confidential until the source releases our writer from that obligation. In the case of guest writers, even our editor & publisher does not demand to know the identities of confidential sources. Our writers and various columnists are vetted and then invited based on their individual reputation. In turn, this reflects on the reputation and journalistic stature of AWildDuck Blog.

But let’s be clear: Everything you read on these pages is an opinion. All unsigned posts are the ruminations & opinions of Ellery Davies. In fact, there is but one statement of fact that is not an opinion. It is this: U.S. District Court judge Marco A. Hernandez is a nut case. I may need to perform surgery here — perhaps a complete retraction. Please don’t judge the judge until you read this new information from today’s New York Times.

So sayeth Ellery.

Michele Bachmann: Trouble responding to 8yr old boy

Michele Bachmann and Sarah Palin are like the Bobbsey Twins. Two peas in a pod. You already know my feelings about Palin. But lately, Wild Ducks have asked me to comment on Bachmann.

Today’s post is not an opinion, but this short video is priceless. Pure fluff, but priceless!

An 8 year old boy accompanies his mom to a Michele Bachmann book signing. The child approaches Bachmann to ask a question, but is too shy and too soft to be heard. Bachmann is interested in hearing what the youngster has to say. She pulls the boy close so that he can whisper into her ear. Click below to see the video  [continued]...

[caption id="attachment_838" align="aligncenter" width="481"] Implored by a child...How can a family-values zealot respond?[/caption]

The camera and microphone are close and they pick up everything! He whispers “My mommy is gay, but she doesn't need any fixing.”

It’s not difficult to predict the outcome. How can she possibly respond? Certainly not coherently! Bachmann backs away, flushes and stumbles on the words “Bye-bye”, as handlers escort boy and Mom away from the unblinking eye of the camera...Priceless!

For those who don’t follow the GOP parade, Bachmann hubby Marcus runs a clinic that offers to “cure” gays. Of course, we mustn’t claim looniness by association. But wait! Michele appeared to advocate this approach prior to her candidacy.

Was the child set up by his mother to make a blatant pro-diversity stand? Of course! But still – this brief clip will go down as a priceless moment in campaigning history!

Verizon Wireless: Trouble with honesty & fairness

In the market for mobile phones, a time span of 7 years represents a different era altogether. At least 4 generations of hardware feature phones have come and gone. Seven years ago, there was no iPhone and no Android. Palm was king of PDAs, a class that was still separate from phones and browsers. Feature phones offered Symbian at best. (Who remembers Windows CE?).

Way back in 2004, Verizon crippled Bluetooth in the Motorola v710, the first mobile phone to support short range wireless technology. The carrier supported Bluetooth for connecting a headset and for voice dialing, but they blocked Bluetooth from transferring photos and music between a phone and the user’s own PC. More alarmingly, they displayed a Bluetooth logo on the outside of custom Verizon packaging, even though the logo licensing stipulated that all logical and resident Bluetooth “profiles” are supported.

(Disclosure: I was a plaintiff in a class action that resulted in free phones for users affected by the deception. I am not a ‘Verizon basher’. I have been a faithful client since early cell phones and I recently defended Verizon’s right to charge for off-device tethering.)

[caption id="attachment_800" align="alignright" width="212"] Can you hear me now?[/caption]

Why would Verizon cripple a popular feature that helps to differentiate and sell equipment? That’s an easy one. It forced users to transfer photos and music over the carrier network rather than exchange files directly with a PC. The carrier sells more minutes or costly data plans.

With the same motive, Verizon restricted feature phone apps to their Get it Now store, limiting music, games and ringtones to their own pipeline. Heck--Why not? It’s their ball park! Users can take their business to other carriers. Right? Well perhaps—but mobile service is built upon licensed spectrum, a regulated and limited commodity. Although carriers are not a monopoly in the strict sense (there are three or four carriers in populated regions), they are licensed stewards of an effective market duopoly.

Perhaps the longest lived vestige of Verizon's stodgy funk (and the most depressing) was their insistence on stripping pre-smart phones of the manufacturer’s user GUI and foisting users to navigate a bland set of carrier-centric screens and commands. Often, I would sit next to someone on an international flight who had the same model Motorola, Samsung or Nokia phone. And guess what? His carrier didn’t interfere with fascinating user features. Why did Verizon force their own screens on unsuspecting Americans? It meant that I could not set my phone to vibrate first and then ring with increasing volume over the next few seconds. What a great feature on my Moto i810! But it was stripped from subsequent models, because it wasn’t spec’d by the boys in Verizon’s “retrofit and bastardize” lab.

With the exception of the class action on the Bluetooth features, no legislation was needed to get Verizon to unlock phone features. Eventually a free market mechanism forced them to rethink their ivory tower greed. With AT&Ts market success selling iPhones, Verizon eventually capitulated so that they could become the Android market leader. The new strategy worked for both consumers and for Verizon. Even before they began selling iPhones in 2011, Verizon reasserted their position as the carrier of choice and fully justified their cost premium through excellent coverage and quality service.

[caption id="attachment_801" align="alignleft" width="300"] Hey, Verizon! Can you hear us now?![/caption]

But now, the company that I have learned to hate, love, and then curse, is at it again! They are about to introduce the Samsung Galaxy Nexus. It is only the 2nd Google branded Android (you can’t get closer to a pure Android experience!). But wait! News Flash: They are going to cripple a native Android feature. Just as with the Bluetooth debacle, Verizon claims that it is for the protection and safety of their own users. (Stop me, Mommy! I’m about to access a 3rd party service!).

Why doesn’t Verizon get it? Why can’t they see value in being the #1 carrier and base profit strategy on exceptional build out and service? Sure, I support their right to offer apps, music, ringtones, photo sharing, navigation, child tracking, mobile television, and even home control. These are great niches that can boost revenue. But remember that you are first and foremost a carrier. Just because you plan to enter one of these markets is no reason to cut off your own users from content and service options.

Think of this issue as your subscribers see it: Cutting off users from the Android wallet, because you plan to offer a payment mechanism of your own is no different than a phone service blocking calls to Bank of America because they are tied in with Citibank. If that metaphor doesn’t cut it, how about a simple truth? It’s been 22 years since Judge Harold Greene deregulated the telecommunications monopoly. Your company is both legacy and chief beneficiary of that landmark decision. But success is transient to those who use market penetration to restrict choice. And this time, it won't require anti-monopoly legislation. The market will push back hard and share recovery will be slow.

[caption id="attachment_806" align="alignright" width="265"] I'm taking my phone and going home![/caption]

Android is open. Get it? You have flourished recently, because you chose to embrace an open system that builds on its own popularity. You have contributed to its swift ascent, and likewise, Google and your users who like Android have contributed to your success. Why spit on your users now? What did we do to deserve this?

C’mon Verizon. Stop seizing your ball and threatening to close the ball park. We love you. Get it right for once and stop dicking with us. Our patience is wearing thin!