Talk:Verizon

"Fewest dropped calls"--Verizon Wireless vs. Cingular

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

0.002 cents= 0.002 dollars ?

[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)

the Star Wars kid made a mistake. he was a minor current event thats about some kid dancing around with a light saber. why does he get a wikipedia article when this doesnt even get a mention? why does Stephen Colbert at the 2006 White House Correspondents' Association Dinner - a minor current event by all accounts - become a front page featured article? why Vincent Ferrari have a wikipedia article for talking to an asshole when weve all done that? verizonmath is getting a lot of attenton - just as the other events were - and its, as documented by verizonmath, not an isolated occurance. tell me again why its not being included and these others are??? 72.36.251.234 06:23, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

• No. The page is a blog entry for a consumer billing dispute. Ignoring the question over a billing dispute being appropriate for an encyclopedia article, the inclusion falls under Wikipedia:External links#Links normally to be avoided (Links to blogs and personal web pages, except those written by a recognized authority). Wikipedia:Verifiability also prevents incorporation of the material into the article as the blog does not qualify as a reliable source. --Allen3 ^talk 00:59, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

• It's not even a current event, its some guy and his blog. Not an authorative source. I'm surprised this man doesnt have a whole website about why gas prices are always rounded to 9/10th of a cent.

• Sign your posts if you want to be taken seriously. Besides, you have evidently failed to understand the entire controversy Gantlord 15:18, 7 March 2007 (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]

• Despite this email, Verizon is still quoting in cents per kb and has not admitted their mistake to other customers with the same issue( i.e. http://verizonmath.blogspot.com/2006/12/background-peters-initial.html) Call for yourself and ask for the rate! You'll find they still give you a rate in cents per kilobyte. I have been following this case fairly closely.
• Leave it alone. It is not worthy of encyclopedic mention. Do you think a real encyclopedia would make issue of a billing dispute?!
• and still they're quoting it wrong...
• do you think a real encyclopedia would make two different pokemon frontpage featured articles? wikipedia isnt real and no one wants it to be. stop being a sour grape.
• Surely this must receive a reference in a 'Trivia' section. One must question the business acumen of a company that cannot even quote proper billing rates.

• This should receive something in the Trivia section. Half a million people have listened to the clip on youtube. Given that Verizon do not exist in the majority of countries in the world, this story is arguably one of the only notable things about the company for the majority of the world's population. I am from the UK and I visited this page solely because I hoped to find information relating to the whole story. Gantlord 15:18, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

• The cents and dollars thing is blown out of proportion. Verizon is picked on since it is an easy target. (I'll give you a hint: Verizon is not the largest telco company anymore--at&t is. Why isn't at&t picked on? Because it is advantageous politically.) Cents and dollars scenario: I saw a burger place the other day advertising burgers for ".99¢" (with the decimal point). Big difference compared to "$0.99" or "99¢." Nobody's complaining because people realize that it is actually "99 cents" not "99/100 of a cent." It's a matter of common sense and the political convenience and the "advantage".

Tngu77 01:59, 14 March 2007 (UTC)Tngu77

• • The burger analogy is not totally appropriate because first of all, 99 cents is a very "common" occurance. .002 dollars and .002 cents are each rather "odd" measurements of money. Second of all, if you asked the clerk at the register for clarification, I'd wager the employee would say it's 99 cents. For the customer at Verizon, he asked numerous people before AND after the billing and they each clarified it as .002 cents. Third of all, the customer bought the product in bulk. The difference between .99 cents and 99 cents is still a hundred times different, but is still a nominal difference of one dollar. The difference in the Verizon incident is about 75 dollars, which would have been enough for me, anyway, to call and complain. And finally, the "normal" price for a burger is highly publicized in the one dollar range. A price per kilobyte usage on a cellphone is, to the average consumer, a very arbitrary rate, and I would have just as easily accepted .002 cents and .002 dollars per kilobyte to be a "fair" rate, regardless of what the market says.

Randhuck 17:08, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

• • • Most people with at least half of their brain KNOW that the rate was .002 DOLLARS. (Sorry for the insult.) Verizon Wireless (and its parent companies and/or affiliates) quote (written) prices in DOLLAR FORMAT. e.g., Text messages are quoted as "$0.15 per text message." Prices are NEVER (at least written) quoted in CENT FORMAT. e.g., "15¢ per text message." Tngu77 22:16, 28 March 2007 (UTC)Tngu77

why does verizon quote prices to anyone if "most people with at least half of their brain KNOW [what the prices are]"? most business don't cater to the minority. most business websites don't cater to blind people so why do you think most busuness caters to "people with at least half of their brain"? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.65.123.206 (talk) 01:07, 29 March 2007 (UTC).

"Most people with at least half of their brain KNOW that the rate was .002 DOLLARS."

...which is EXACTLY why he asked SEVERAL times what the rate is. EACH time even after the billing, he was quoted the same .002 cents. A Verizon customer service rep with "half of their brain" would correct themselves if they knew what they were talking about. Yes, if he just asked once and they mispoke, that's one thing. Each rep he spoke to said the SAME THING, and so I don't blame any customer for getting confused. 72.192.24.98 04:39, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Tngu77, The person with half a brain here is you. If it had been you who had made such a mistake, the company wouldn't have asked any questions and charged you accordingly, but somehow when its Verizon that makes a mistake in their advertising, everyone is just supposed to know? Honestly, .002 cents per KB to me sounds more like a reasonable rate to me because I know that the cost for a leased T1 line is about $600/month on average nowadays. A T1 is 1.544MBits/sec or 40,687,488,000 Kilobytes transfered in an average month at full capacity. That comes out to a cost per KB of 60,000 cents / 40,687,488,000 KB = 0.00000147 cents per KB as Verizon's cost. That means that even at a rate of 0.002 cents per KB, they are charging 1,360 times more than what their hard cost is. That's pretty insane and makes me really question Verizon's practices. Since the real cost is 0.2 cents per KB, that's 136,000 times more expensive than the data rate of a T1. So for people to say things like "You should have known". I'm not sure what you are talking about because obviously people haven't done the math to determine what is a reasonable rate. -- Suso (talk) 01:35, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I think it should be included. The fact that it was written in a blog only reduces its credibility if the blog itself has no sources. In this case, the blog makes reference to audio sources as well as emails from the company. Although it is indeed an internet meme, this does not make it any less controvertial or notable. --Antonio.sierra 07:00, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

This is hardly the stuff of an encyclopedia. It's one guy's problem and a common math mistake. Let it go. Mattnad 08:39, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

But when the reps of an entire company do it, it is not common nor is it only his problem, but probably that of some other of their costumers without knowing about it. Why can't this be included? Jaimeastorga2000 (talk) 17:37, 14 February 2008 (UTC) EDIT: Right, sorry, that was me.

The primary policy violated by the addition of this billing dispute is Wikipedia:Verifiability. To date entries for this dispute have relied upon non-reliable sources such as personal websites and web forums. Self published sources are not acceptable as the basis for inflammatory accusations. What is needed for this to remain in the article are some newspaper articles or similar third-party sources describing the billing dispute. --Allen3 ^talk 21:19, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Does the Consumerist count as a reliable third party source?
http://consumerist.com/consumer/clips/verizon-doesnt-know-difference-between-dollars-and-cents-220362.php
At what point would you consider Vaccaro's story to be verified by an independent entity? Does the New York Times need to do an investigative piece, or what? From what could gather from Wikipedia's page on verifiability, there isn't clearly defined cutoff. It seems like he's a had a significant impact, and I'm all for including it. I also think the mention of the pokemon frontpage is especially compelling in countering the "this is hardly the stuff of an encyclopedia" argument.
18.202.0.24 (talk) 22:51, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if it should be included or not, but the only reason many people around the world have even heard of Verizon is this event, many people would be coming to this page for information about this.

Frankly, the only reason I came here was after stumbling across this issue about Verizon. I assume you've also seen this followup http://www.eyelesswriter.com/ . It seems to me that it Verizon made repeated mistakes over the course of days. They finally admitted they were wrong, wrote an apology and refunded the guy after he managed to get ~1,000,000 readers of his blog and about nhalf that listening to an audio recording of some very poorly educated CSRs. Can someone please explain why that's any less notable than not? 62.49.219.171 (talk) 17:33, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Why not create a page specifically for this incident instead of including it here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.83.75.110 (talk) 22:53, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Verizon branded telephone picture

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)

Verizon and breaching user agreements/terms?

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)

Defunct?

Why was the category "Defunct Companies" added?

reentering the Cable TV market

[3] (via [4])

Data services

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)

Proposed merge with MCI

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))

Merger or acquisition?

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)

What wrong with calling a spade a spade? First, Verizon calls it what it wants to so that it won’t scare off MCI customers. It is just a description that was used to lessen the drastic change that might occur. Second, google news reveals (today) 451 hits mci acquisition vs 382 hits mci merger. Third, the article describes it as an acquisition and only the last sentence has the word merger. Thus the situation is, in actuality, an acquisition. --Supercoop 15:57, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

On a similar note, I'd always heard that Nynex was the one buying Bell Atlantic - but they took on the Bell Atlantic name because it was less despised. If anyone has any sources or refutations, I'd be way interested in hearing them. --moof 13:26, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

What's the 411?

I assume Verizon operates a lucrative 411 service, in addition to its yellow pages? -- Beland 01:54, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure that 411 makes that much money nowadays. Most phone lines come with a certain number of free 411 calls each month, and the Internet has undoubtedly reduced demand. Still, we should mention 411 in this article. Rhobite 02:04, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Free 411 call allowances were reduced, and then eliminated here in CA. The fee per 411 call has been increased more than once in recent years too. Verizon also spun off it yellow pages and directory publishing business in 2006, forming a new company called Idearc. Idearc is now called SuperMedia, after going through Chaper 11. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idearc An805Guy (talk) 19:24, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Origin of Verizon name

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)

GTE

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)

Actually, GTE was short for GTE Corporation. The earlier name above was abbreviated GT&E. GT&E (later GTE) was the name of the whole corporation, General Telephone was just one of the businesses units within GT&E. The '&E' parts involved a lot more than telephone companies. An805Guy (talk) 19:33, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I've replaced the GTE redirect with a stub article by copying the GTE information from this page. It's not a great start, but GTE really deserves to be an article in its own right -- there's decades of history there, and it's important stuff. So yeah, a stub, with all that implies. I meant to do this a while back. jhf 00:37, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Current event?

Why is this page marked with a "current event" tag? → J@red  23:30, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

"Can you hear me now?" -- Advertising section?

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)

Ah, I see why... it's over at the entry for Verizon Wireless! Darn those giant, sprawling companies with multiple Wiki entries! --Navstar 03:34, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

AT&T Buyout?

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?

I don't know. Verizon Wireless is CDMA while Cingular is GSM. AT&T doesn't need the remains of MCI or the former GTE operating companies. Perhaps Verizon will restructure itself as Verizon Wireless and Verizon Business (MCI), sell the Bell Operating Companies to AT&T and sell the GTE Operating Companies to Embarq or Windstream Communications, and use the cash to buy out Vodafone's shares in Verizon Wireless.X570 17:31, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Verizon is "owned by Catherine Weaver and Thomas Manhattan" ???

Regarding Line 1, is this vandalism, or am I missing something??

Jayintheusa 06:21, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

• The claim certainly appears to be unverifiable and has been removed. Verizon is a publicly traded company and has to provide a list of all parties holding 5% or more of the companies outstanding stock in its annual report. As of the most recent report (2005) neither of the parties is listed as a major shareholder[5]. --Allen3 ^talk 15:10, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Multinational?

How can Verizon be called "multinational"? Tri400 11:27, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

The definition: "A multinational corporation (MNC) is a corporation or enterprise that manages production establishments or delivers services in at least two countries." Verizon manages production establishments and delivers services in more that 75 countries.

Does anyone think the article should discuss reported levels of Verizon's customer service ?

Does anyone have any suggestions as to where information of this sort could be easily obtained?

Pronunciation?

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)

Like Horizon 166.42.35.72 01:38, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Might we add then the IPA pronunciation of [vɛɹ.aɪ.zən]? Dantiston (talk) 20:21, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Renamed

I will renamed this page to Verizon.--Jet123 03:48, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Verizon Wireless/US Cellular merger claim

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)

Verizon vs. Vonage--the battle of the patents

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

Founding date

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)

The largest telecommunications company

"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)

Hosting spammers

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)

OK, nobody has responded this message in one week, so I'm removing the sentence mentioned above.. 166.42.35.72 18:07, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Is this of any concern to Wikipedia?

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)

Corporate entity names - minor edits

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)

Fairpoint Verizon Merger

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)

New and expanded controversies section

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)

Nevermind. Another editor removed the paragraph. Mattnad 23:39, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:VerizonLogo1.svg

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)

Fair use rationale added to image. Mattnad 21:09, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Separating Verizon Business (VzB) from Verizon Telecomm (VzT) and Verizon Wireless (VzW)

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))

Who bought whom?

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)

GA status

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)

Verizon acquires Alltel

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)

DSL installable on any OS

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)

Fair/Safe to say Verizon was once Bell?

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."