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) 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)

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 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. 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"