Talk:Verizon Fios

Removing list of areas

The previous poster is right, all the areas just make the article painfully long and is just unimportant information. It also adds to the page seeming like an advertisement. The page is about what FiOS is, how it works, what it does, not what cities it's available in. I'm deleting the cities and leaving the states, unless someone objects.

competitors' offerings, and other info

Where should this info go? See-also links to new articles?

Adelphia's Extreme High-Speed Internet (Leesburg, VA) Cablevision's 100Mbps symmetrical data service (NY) SBC/Yahoo/AT&T's Project Lightspeed (fiber to the node [1] [2])

source article

Lightspeed is not and NEVER will be a competitor for FIOS, Verizon and ATT are both monopoly telelphone companies, telephone markets NEVER overlap. Either you will get FIOS one day or Lightspeed, never both. Patcat88 19:33, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps we create a new category called Fiber Optic Broadband or Optical Broadband (or something similar) and then create initial separate stub pages for the Adelphia Extreme and the SBC Project Lightspeed. We can update those stubs as more information on the services becomes available.

Just a suggestion. -wadems 03:22, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

Looks like there's an Category:Optical fiber category now. Still no entries on Adelphia, Cablevision, or SBC's offerings. - Brewthatistrue

criticisms

sometimes they remove the copper lines. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/07/AR2005050700178.html http://news.com.com/2061-10785_3-5701533.html http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=06/06/07/2244215&threshold=1&commentsort=0&mode=nested&cid=15491071 http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=06/06/07/2244215&threshold=1&commentsort=0&mode=nested&cid=15491058

Criticism? How about Verizon puts your name+address on some people's static IP# records?

{FIOS Releases your private info} CaribDigita 21:59, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TOS

I have criticism of their TOS for FIOS. For example, you are not allowed to tarnish Verizon's name using the service.

What would be most appropriate?

Add a criticism section to the article - 1 votes
Create a web page and link to it - 0 votes
Gather support of my criticisms first - 0 votes
Do nothing, its not appropriate content - 2 votes
Other?

Thanks for any feedback. --Dustball 18:23, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a user forum for non-notable folks' complaints; see Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. Try http://www.broadbandreports.com or http://www.lightreading.com (their forums) for that sort of discussion. If some big name individual or publication makes critical remarks, those are allowed be cited in this article. You might look at the somewhat similar discussion of what is and isn't appropriate on the FTTH talk page at Talk:Fiber to the premises#User:192.76.80.74 edits. --A. B. 16:11, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

911 / emergency services?

Will fiber-only telephone services have the same level of reliability as copper? Will service continue to work during a power outage?

It works for several hours on battery, and can be re-enabled for short periods after that. jesup 20:43, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup

Cleanup?

Since I tagged this weeks ago it has made a dramatic recovery Sure, it can be expanded, but I think it is pretty well written and structured and this point. Whats your say? Mkaycomputer 17:02, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It is better, but is it different enough to be considered cleaned up?

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=FiOS&diff=25638327&oldid=24107204

Removed cleanup tag

In helping to clear up the backlog of cleanup requests, I reviewed this article, its talk page, and edit history. It is unclear why a cleanup tag was applied, and a reading of the article did not reveal what issues have not been addressed. I have removed the cleanup tag so that editors can concentrate on more obvious cases. If you still think cleanup is required, please use one of the specific issue cleanup templates instead. Thanks, --MCB 23:24, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Got rid of pricing data.

The pricing data was just completely wrong, so I deleted it. I'd bet that prices are going to fluctuate anyway, so unless someone is going to babysit them (which nobody currently is doing), I think the prices should be left off. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.186.49.36 (talk • contribs) Sorry about the signature thing.I Use Dial 03:17, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pricing and availability of plans depends almost entirely upon the local competition. Greenlead 03:04, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Should consider removing the list of areas

Unless someone is going to be refreshing that data religiously, that should be left to places like broadbandreports.com. It was useful perhaps when there were just a few, but now there are many. At most, give a listing of states and major cities. jesup 20:43, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, assuming there are sites that keep track of this information better. The states should be listed, but not cities or counties. If we remove information, it would be nice to make the "external links" section clearer so it is obvious where to find that information elsewhere. 71.103.98.22 22:27, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Verizon Product information

In my not so humble opinion, this article is starting to read like an advertisement for Verizon. Much of this information is unnecessary and does not belong on Wikipedia. Information like the TOS,pricing schedule, and particular plan details don't seem like they belong in an encyclopaedic article. There are websites like broadbandreports.com that deal with this exact thing. Does anyone else agree? --Kooky (talk) 21:47, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, some of this should be removed. 71.103.98.22 22:27, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly agree as well. The highly POV and ad-ish "binding for the future" heading makes me suspect somebody with financial interest in the tech is editing the article. Let's hope I'm wrong and it's just a bunch of fancruft. I'm going to slap the advert tag on the article right away. --BACbKA 20:17, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What would you suggest, "Investment in Infrastructure", "Infrastucture Investments", "Infrastructure Development"?

If it sounds bold, that's because it is, especially in contrast to others who seem to be hoping for cheaper alternatives than infrastructure investment. 71.103.148.60 22:57, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Infrastructure Development" seems the most neutral to me. But what really gets me is the lead of the article, which is written in a deep marketing-speak. Any references to the future (even if they're stated as "... expected ...") in there should be referenced with something, and not with the verizon's own fios-promo material. --BACbKA 06:29, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Telephone Service dependant on power

Verizon installs an uninterrupted power supply when they install Fios. Although telephone service dependant on the power grid, this backup power should last several hours in case of power outages, if I understand it correctly. Evilrhino 02:12, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Battery Backup

I'm writing this from a FIOS line, and I have disconnected the power. If this saves correctly, the article is inaccurate: The Battery Backup _DOES_ hold the data network up.05:00, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Duplicate Deleted External Link "Comment and Question in response" Post

I'm testing with this duplicat post from "Wikipedia talk:Spam", as I evidently didn't read the instructions on how to start a new topic by using the "+" "edit this page" function at the top (I guess I should just hit "edit this page"?). I also just posted a longer version of this on the Administrator's Talk Page who has deleted my post twice (2nd time is my fault), but failed to know how to "start a new topic" again (It looks like this new topic worked with 2 "==" vs. 3 before and after the title?). So, here is the shorter (believe it or not) version:

"Comment and Question in response:

Forgive me for not knowing how to start a new topic, but I'm leaving my comments here as they are potentially appropriate for where they are being placed. I feel that my blog post come under the 5% catagory of "appropriate" external links. I do not have any advertising on my blog, and I'm not selling anything except the free "education" of consumers.

The "Self Published Sources" section of Wikipedia ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:RS#Self-published_sources ) under the definition of "Reliable Sources" ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:Reliable_sources ) says: "However, editors should exercise caution for two reasons: first, if the information on the professional researcher's blog (or self-published equivalent) is really worth reporting, someone else will have done so;..".

I recently had a blog post of mine (FiOS Does Inconspicuous "No Turning Back To DSL" Disclosure Brokerblogger blog post (7/19/06 Updated)" under the "External Links" section of "Verizon FiOS" deleted by someone (would like to know if it can be anyone or has to be an administrator)who evidently did not think it appropriate for some reason. Before I post it again, I want to make sure my thinking on this is not totally biased, because that deleted post was "really worth reporting", since someone else DID so. The someone else is the well know OM Malik (Om was a senior writer for Business 2.0 magazine covering telecom and broadband stories) on his blog "GigaOM". His article is entitled "GigaOM " Verizon FIOS insures future monoply".

Besides OM Malik, right on the Wikipedia "External Links" ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verizon_Fios#External_links ) part of "Verizon Fios" are 3 links to "Broadband Reports FiOS" which is a very well known forum for discussion, and someone posted a topic for discussion with a link to my blog post on FiOS ( http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/76326 ) which has two long pages of opinions attached to it.

I have done extensive research on the FTC's mandates on "Disclosure", and I am fair and balanced with Verizon in that post of mine that was deleted. As a consumer advocate, I feel it important that other people know that once they agree to FiOS installation, they can't go back to their Verizon DSL service even if they get their money back within the 30 Day Money-Back Guarantee.

Before I repost it, I wanted someone to give me their opinion of my point of view. Thanks"

- - UPDATE - The administrator involved read my explanation on her own "Talk" page and agreed to take a "neutral stance" on my posting of the external link in question here. So it has been added back in.

If you're such a well respected blogger that people who are interested in the field think you're a great resource - they will add you. Adding yourself is just self promotion. If you want to build an open content encyclopedia (that's what we do here), you should add well sourced content to the articles - not external links to your original research. 69.86.52.254 01:10, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

11/17/06 = I didn't see this response until now, so forgive my tardiness. I do understand your good point about the adding of "well sourced content" being more important than adding "External Links". Siobahn Hansa recently made that same good point. That truth makes me wonder why any "External Links" are allowed to begin with? But I know that some are valued as adding "substantive value" and others are not. We may have to agree to disagree on your point about "Adding yourself is just self promotion." as sometimes "adding yourself" is more a matter of the contributor having a unique POV (my own personal consumer experience with FiOS installation) that does "provide relevant and non-trivial information that isn't present in the page" (or presented anywhere else in the same unique way). However, I will definitely agree that "adding yourself" gives the "APPEARANCE" of "just self promotion". Please see my latest plea with an "alternative external link" suggestion at the end in this "Talk:Verizon FiOS (section) page, and also allow me to post my response to Siobhan's kind post on my talk page on 11/14/06:

"11/16/06 - Hi, Siobhan Hansa. Thank you for the implied complimentary POV's of "professional experience" and "expertise". As I find the time, I will "build up the articles by adding good content to them.". I will also request a decision from an Administrator on the relevant Wikipedia talk page first, before posting an external link to one of my blog posts. I know that Wikipedia can't be a true "democracy" for many good reasons, but in my buyer-seller-consumer advocate experience, I sometimes can't find the exact same "consumer advocate" POV that I use in my blog posts. I do, however, try to link within my posts to what I consider to be "reliable sources". For example, in my "Seals (device)" link that used to be in the "Metaphorical Use" section (maybe that was the wrong section?), my now deleted link = http://www.brokerblogger.com/brokerblogger/2006/10/do_you_trust_ce.html has a link within to Ben Edleman's ( http://www.benedelman.org/bio/ ) "Certifications and Site Trustworthiness " which says: "Some sites that are widely regarded as extremely trustworthy present such seals. But those same seals feature prominently on sites that seek to scam users -- whether through spyware infections, spam, or other unsavory practices." Ben's "Adverse Selection in Online "Trust" Certificates" has many valid points." I guess I was hoping that my utilization of Ben's "significant reputation" ( http://www.benedelman.org/media/ ) by linking to him would be enough "authority" to have my post allowed. When I get the time, I will post that POV along with other of my points on the Seals (device) talk page for final judgement by the appropriate Administrator. Right now, my first priority is what I said in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam#Brokerblogger.com , which was "My wife has had breast cancer since May, 2006 and we are both still dealing with the effects of the resulting mastectomy and ongoing breast reconstruction into next year."

I want you to know, though, that I DO agree with your general statement "When the only editors trying to add a link to an article are ones connected with it, the argument that it is considered an authoritative and useful enough source within a particular field is not very compelling." The key words there are "the only editors". I also agree that "more good content" is more important than "more external links", but both can add "substantive value" (depending upon each unique, specific external link). The challenge, as I see it, is for all Administrators to have enough of their great volunteered time to properly evaluate all new External Links. Or (as an alternative), as T-rex said "Granted, about 5% of the time these links are probably appropriate, but the vast majority of the time they are not. Obvouslly the defacto policy is against this, but it would be easier to deal with spammers if we had a section of this page that delt more directly with this situation. any thoughts?" Having a clear, conspicuous, complete, and easily comprehendable "section" on what constitutes an External Link situation that does "provide relevant and non-trivial information that isn't present in the page", and therefore brings substantive value to Wikipedia, would be helpful and time saving for all, IMO. Brokerblogger 14:17, 16 November 2006 (UTC)" Brokerblogger 12:51, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Criticism" Section

I think that entire section should be removed, due to a lack of evidence and fact. Verizon is rolling out major infrastructure changes, and it costs money to do so.

In Fort Wayne, Verizon -- due to negotiations with the city -- developed the poorer areas prior to doing the higher-income areas. Greenlead 16:59, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe the wording can be softened, but otherwise the section is fairly on-target. I happen to live in a relatively affluent service "island" of perhaps 20,000 Verizon customers, surrounded by a competing telephone provider. Even though we're next to the famed high-tech "Silicon Valley", the likelihood of getting Verizon FiOS in this community before 2015 is essentially zilch. More likely, Verizon will be bought out before we ever see fiber service to our house walls. —Quicksilver^{T @} 22:55, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Request For Re-Insertion of External Link

Based upon the "Evaluating Reliability" section of Wikipedia = http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Evaluating_reliability , and OhNoitsJamie's statement "I don't believe that 100% of blog links are inappropriate for the reasons you mention. However, Wikipedia does strongly discourage editors from adding links to their own site. At this point, I'm taking a neutral stance on it; I won't remove it, but I won't support it's inclusion if others object to it. OhNoitsJamie Talk 19:14, 11 November 2006 (UTCA), I'm hoping that the Administrator of this page will let me put back my external link to my blog post that has already been discussed at Jamie's talk page. This post helps consumers (possible before they decide to go from Verizon DSL to FiOS) to at least know that they can't "go back" if they decide to take advantage of Verizon's 30 Day Money-back Guarantee. Here is what I posted on Jamie's talk page:

"Hi Jamie, I honestly respect your good intentions, and I'm looking forward to a good and informative discussion on this. First, I want you to know that my External Link on "FiOS Does Inconspicuous "No Turning Back To DSL" Disclosure" was not put back in without an attempt (bad one) by me to try to get an Administrator's input. My ignorance of how the editorializing of Wikipedia works is proven by my posting of my request for Administrative input at "Wikipedia talk:Spam". Since no one responded to my request, I guess I put it in the wrong place. Anyway, here it is as a "Comment and Question in response" to "T-rex's great comment:

"External link spam, wihout bots= This is a topic that really isn't covered by this policy, but should be. Rather then spam all pages just looking for google ranks, many spamers look for somewhat related articles and then just add their site to the list of external links at the bottom. Granted, about 5% of the time these links are probably appropriate, but the vast majority of the time they are not. Obvouslly the defacto policy is against this, but it would be easier to deal with spammers if we had a section of this page that delt more directly with this situation. any thoughts? --T-rex 15:31, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment and Question in response:

Forgive me for not knowing how to start a new topic, but I'm leaving my comments here as they are potentially appropriate for where they are being placed. I feel that my blog post come under the 5% category of "appropriate" external links. I do not have any advertising on my blog, and I'm not selling anything except the free "education" of consumers.

The "Self Published Sources" section of Wikipedia ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:RS#Self-published_sources ) under the definition of "Reliable Sources" ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:Reliable_sources ) says: "However, editors should exercise caution for two reasons: first, if the information on the professional researcher's blog (or self-published equivalent) is really worth reporting, someone else will have done so;..".

I recently had a blog post of mine (FiOS Does Inconspicuous "No Turning Back To DSL" Disclosure Brokerblogger blog post (7/19/06 Updated)" under the "External Links" section of "Verizon FiOS" deleted by someone (would like to know if it can be anyone or has to be an administrator) who evidently did not think it appropriate for some reason. Before I post it again, I want to make sure my thinking on this is not totally biased, because that deleted post was "really worth reporting", since someone else DID so. The someone else is the well know OM Malik (Om was a senior writer for Business 2.0 magazine covering telecom and broadband stories) on his blog "GigaOM". His article is entitled "GigaOM " Verizon FIOS insures future monopoly".

Besides OM Malik, right on the Wikipedia "External Links" ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verizon_Fios#External_links ) part of "Verizon Fios" are 3 links to "Broadband Reports FiOS" which is a very well known forum for discussion, and someone posted a topic for discussion with a link to my blog post on FiOS ( http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/76326 ) which has two long pages of opinions attached to it.

I have done extensive research on the FTC's mandates on "Disclosure", and I am fair and balanced with Verizon in that post of mine that was deleted. As a consumer advocate, I feel it important that other people know that once they agree to FiOS installation, they can't go back to their Verizon DSL service even if they get their money back within the 30 Day Money-Back Guarantee.

Before I repost it, I wanted someone to give me their opinion of my point of view. Thanks."

I put that "Comment and Question in respsonse" in after reading a previous comment: external links "if I want to put in an external link that has good information on the subject, am I right in thinking that I should put it at the bottom of the list and contribute to the page by adding some information that's relevant

Yes. Also, please consider whether your link is a reliable source (e.g. not someone random guy's blog). >Radiant< 08:05, 16 October 2006 (UTC)"

As a consumer advocate, I hope you agree with the widely read and very reputable "Technology Evangelist" who did an article on my first three blog posts on 12/21/05 = http://www.technologyevangelist.com/2005/12/fios_growing_pains_at_verizon.html That article came after the GigaOM article on 10/14/05 = http://gigaom.com/2005/10/14/verizon-fios-insures-future-monoply/

As it turned out, my town was the 2nd town in the entire US to have FiOS installed! So, I am an expert ("reliable source") on "No Turning Back to Verizon DSL", and this topic has withstood the "test of time" as FiOS finally buried a disclosure in their TOS, but made it very inconspicuous. I even filed a complaint with the FTC about "non-disclosure" at first, and now "lack of clear and conspicuous disclosure" which break FTC rules.

I really believe T-rex is on to something with his suggestion, as, right now, the Wikipedia (External) "Links normally to be avoided" needs to be clarified more, IMO. It says: "Links to blogs, social networking sites (such as MySpace), or discussion forums unless mandated by the article itself." I feel that to eliminate blogs of all kinds from external links on Wikipedia is partially defeating what Wikipedia stands for. For example, that policy would eliminate External Links to Wonkette ( http://www.wonkette.com/ ) which is widely read, respected and very reputable in political circles.

My blog post that you deleted twice (my fault for the second time) is "fair and balanced" as I put in it: "I wish Verizon well, as they are one of only a few companies who could afford the big initial investment it takes to install Fiber-To-The-Premises (FTTP)." followed by a link to an article proving Verizon's hugh investment. I have previously given a good argument why that blog post is a "reliable source" due to other reputable authors writing about the same subject. I believe that it is "useful, appropriately tasteful", and has "substantive longevity" even though Verizon may (small chance, IMO) eventually put a "clear and conspicuous" disclosure in the same place that that they promote their "30 Day Money-Back Guarantee". If they do, I will do an update to my blog post, as I've already done at = http://www.brokerblogger.com/brokerblogger/2006/04/fios_does_incon.html

Finally, I believe that my blog post does "provide relevant and non-trivial information that isn't present in the page", and therefore brings substantive value to Wikipedia. My blog is not "commercial in nature", and the content of the deleted post is definitely "relevant", as many prospective buyers of FiOS probably look at Wikipedia in doing research before they make their buying decision. I'm just trying to help them make a totally "informed decision" with all the facts made "clear and conspicuous". I, therefore, believe that I am acting in the spirit of Wikipedia's written policies. I hope you agree, not for my benefit, but for the benefit of many broadband consumers.

I look forward to your more experienced input, and if you convince me that my deleted post is hurting the spirit of Wikipedia's written guidelines, as well as Wikipedia itself, I will gladly "cease and desist" in further promotion of my POV. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by brokerblogger (talk • contribs) .

I don't believe that 100% of blog links are inappropriate for the reasons you mention. However, Wikipedia does strongly discourage editors from adding links to their own site. At this point, I'm taking a neutral stance on it; I won't remove it, but I won't support it's inclusion if others object to it. OhNoitsJamie Talk 19:14, 11 November 2006 (UTC) P.S. In the future, long discussions like this probably belong on the talk page of the article in question; rather than copy the whole or parts of the discussion here, I would've suggested simply posting a link to the discussion on my talk page with a note asking me to have a look at it. Thanks, OhNoitsJamie Talk 19:16, 11 November 2006 (UTC)"

I feel I have the most thorough and unique information on this important consumer protection issue (at FiOS Does Inconspicuous "No Turning Back To DSL" Disclosure), but if you have to say "no", can I at least post an external link to that GigaOM article on it: http://gigaom.com/2005/10/14/verizon-fios-insures-future-monoply/ Brokerblogger 12:19, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

11/18/06 Afterthought - I just wanted to make sure that everyone read what I said in another post above: "We may have to agree to disagree on your (many administrator's) point about "Adding yourself is just self promotion." as sometimes "adding yourself" is more a matter of the contributor (editor) having a unique POV (my own personal consumer experience with FiOS installation) that does "provide relevant and non-trivial information that isn't present in the page" (or presented anywhere else in the same unique way - that's why this reputable publication "Technology Evangelist" did an article on my FiOS blog posts). However, I will definitely agree that "adding yourself" gives the "APPEARANCE" of "just self promotion"." I, also, must admit that it is a "tough call" as well as time consuming for all Administrators to thoroughly investigate when there are some good reasons to do so. Brokerblogger 00:44, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reinserting the link would be a mistake - it's not a valid, reputable-by-encyclopedia-standards secondary source (99.9% of the time, blog links should never be present). --Improv 22:07, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

11/20/06 Response - I appreciate your POV, Improv, and it also appears that "OhNoitsJamie" believes "I don't believe that 100% of blog links are inappropriate for the reasons you mention." I sincerely hope for Wikipedia's sake (more than mine) that all Administrators don't think that only .1% of all 60 Million Blogs are "reputable-by-encyclopedia-standards" secondary sources. Besides, my FiOS post that I'm asking for reinstatement is a "Primary Source", since I'm the consumer advocate who studied FTC rules and filed a FTC compaint about the "inconspicuousness" of Verizon's "hidden" disclosure. That said, I also wonder if the "Britanica Blog" would consider Wikipedia as a "reputable-by-encyclopedia-standards" secondary source? I hope so, as I am for China and the whole world to get rid of any unfavorable biases against Wikipedia. Even the blogger Ana Marie Cox formerly of Wonkette fame who used to be discredited by mainstream media as an unreliable source has this said about her now in Wikipedia: "Cox now writes for Time Magazine from the Washington bureau." By just saying that 99.9% of all blogs don't belong in Wikipedia without giving specific, clear, conspicuous, complete, and comprehendable reasons for each decision (for or against) is doing Wikipedia an injustice, IMO. Brokerblogger 01:07, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]