Talk:Verizon Wireless

Active discussions

Controversy section disputedEdit

There's a post there that says most other competitors of Verizon Wireless do not charge airtime for voicemail retrievals, however, the largest competitors, ATT & Sprint both indicate in their literature that voicemail retrievals do charge airtime from the handset. All of the said carriers, VZW, Sprint, and ATT offer service to allow a subscriber to retrieve from another handset, which will not deplete the minutes.

The2ndflood- (Show us the literature that proves AT&T and Sprint charge customers for voice mail retrievals.)

Techie2001 - (Go to, choose a plan, then click on Plan Terms. Scroll to the section that covers Mobile To Mobile minutes: Mobile to Mobile Minutes: Mobile to Mobile Minutes may be used, subject to the above provisions governing unlimited usage, when directly dialing or receiving calls from any other AT&T wireless phone number from within your calling area. Mobile to Mobile Minutes may not be used for interconnection to other networks. ***Calls to AT&T Voicemail and return calls from Voicemail not included.***

Sprint's is in a similar area.

Also, the neutrality of this section is completely off. None of the other carriers' pages have controversy sections. Perhaps a separate article should be created to consolidate consumer wireless issues/concers? Could cover a lot of the topics, such as the tepid support of Cingular/ATT's fewest dropped calls claim, VZW's standard UI, Sprint's termination of frequently customer service callers, etc. Complaints about the carriers seems like it should belong elsewhere.

The2ndflood- ((Both Sprint and Cingular have Controversy articles. Sprint has it for their decision to let go of 1000 customer who were abusing their services and Cingular has one for their dropped call claim. Verizon is no different.)

Techie2001- These were posted more recently, before I disputed the section for neutrality.

Some other talking points on this section: The "crippling" reference points out the LG VX8500 handset having gone back and forth on its capability to play MP3 files. It has always been able to do so. The VX8100 had a few different software versions that may have enabled or disabled depending on which version it was shipped with. This enable/disable was available straight from the manufacturer and is easily changed in the service programming menu.

The2ndflood- (The limitation was still there from the beginning. It doesn't matter if any updates have changed that, the point of the article is to show Verizon limited those phones, along with others. Hacks have been made to change all kind of limitations.)

Techie2001- (The point was that the 8500 never had the limitation, the 8100 did. The facts are not accurate. A customer looking into these models may be misled by the article)

Also, VZW's primary competitors also restrict handsets. There is a particular bias in the writing against the company.

The2ndflood- (In what way and what carriers are limiting their handsets? Verizon uses BREW which is very restrictive. They also us a Walled Garden for their WAP access. Cingular, Sprint, and T-Mobile all use Java, and do not lock out features from their phones in the same way that Verizon has.)

Techie2001- (AT&T's release of the iPhone is a perfect example. The iPhone has zero out of box functionality, including accessing built-in features like the calendar. the iPhone cannot have user generated ringtones and games, however, Verizon's PDA's can by using third party software for the user's PC. This is not a hack, as it is on the handsets. It's a feature.)

VZW's use of BREW is hardly controversional, as the writing points out, several other companies ues it as well. The talking point is in regards to applications being removed so that users are "forced" to buy "expensive" BREW alternatives. Again, hardly neutral talking points.

The2ndflood-(It does happen. With BREW you are forced to buy Verizon BREW software. So you would have to show proof that it doesn't happen.)

Techie2001'-(The problem here is in the wording. The point makes it seem like BREW is the controversy where the user being required to purchase applications is the real controversy. BREW is not controversial, it's how Verizon Wireless deploys it that is controversial.)

A standard user interface is hardly controversial. It was a business decision that a select demographic is not happy with.

The2ndflood- (Verizon't UI is known for being restrictive. This is just something a user has the right to read about on a Wikipedia site.) Techie2001- (Again, it's not the element that is controversial, so the wording is poor. The neutral way to put it would be Some users find the standard user interface restrictive, which is somewhat reminicent of LG's user interface... rest of post is fine...)

The Data Usage has always been advertised as unlimited for internet and e-mail. AT&T has a nearly just-as-strict terms of service for their data services, limiting certain usages. The 5GB cap is noted in the terms of service, however, there are many legitimate cases of users utilizing more than that, yet still abiding by the rest of the terms who do not experience a service termination warning/notice.

The2ndflood- (The section had links to articles on Verizon who was claiming in their advertisements that their EV-DO data access was unlimited, then canceling users accounts for going over a set limit. Which Verizon never open discussed ) Techie2001- (The articles posted copies of the advertisements... that say Unlimited BroadBand Access, then the ads go on to say that it's unlimited for internet and e-mail usage. Newspapers do the same thing. The headline 'Two killed in car accident' while the article goes on to say both drivers were under the influence of drugs could be argued that the headline puts a different spin on the real story. It grabs reader's attention, then they go on to find the gist of it).

The2ndflood- I don't like when companies I support have negative things posted on them, but when it is based on facts, and supported by sources, then they are facts. We don't have the right as editors to change things that make a company look good or bad. We only have the right to keep the info from being bias. If you can find proof of any changes, then post it in the section. But deleting the entire article just because you didn't like it is NOT ALLOWED.

Techie2001- Absolutely agreed, but I did not delete the section and move it. Someone else did. When the section was listed under a separate article, I did delete the Voicemail airtime usage point because all of the major players charge for voicemail retrievals from the handset and it is not widely known that ANY carriers do so. So much that all of the carriers also bury it in their terms of service (see the specific information I copied from the AT&T site, whereas on the Verizon site, the voicemail product page has a disclaimer at the bottom of the overview indicating that airtime is required). My problem with the entire article is that it is written with the technique and wording of someone with a personal vendetta, not an unbiased view point.

Here is my suggestion for a revised section:

Pricing and Availability--GSMEdit

Edit in pricing and availability: "Often, more advanced games must be purchased and downloaded." replaced "Unlike other carriers, Most verizon phones don't come with any free games, although some older Nokia's do(2128i,6015,etc)." Previous information was poorly presented, and based on personal experience. Most Verizon phones actually do come pre-loaded with simple games, especially the more advanced models. As with all carriers, advanced games will require a download. Despite the fact that many GIN phones do not come loaded with any games, I still felt this sentence was misleading and should be amended due to the bias of the previous statement. Moruitelda 21:20 EST, 3 Dec 2006

GSM advantages?

"have a number of advantages for consumers. For example, more GSM handsets support Bluetooth (Verizon Handsets do as well) (Consumer Reports), and GSM is more widely available worldwide than CDMA. "

This reads more like a personal comment, then a fact. Most of the new CDMA phones coming out have Bluetooth. And CDMA is the fastest growing wireless technlogy, with Many areas around the world using it. I think this statment needs to be updated. (I just changed the wording. Feel free to change it around if you see fit. But please don't make it bias.)

"Verizon is one of three national carriers to use CDMA technology; the other national CDMA carrier is Sprint PCS. Another CDMA carrier which is not considered national, but has a large presence in many areas, especially the rural South, is ALLTEL." ... If ALLTEL isn't considered national, then who is the third national CDMA carrier? Mr2001 08:44, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

ALLTEL isn't considered national because their own network focuses on small to medium sized cities, especially in the South. However, Verizon and ALLTEL have a very good cross-network roaming deal that allows ALLTEL to offer national plans essentially indistinguishable from Verizon's, and allows Verizon to have excellent service in rural areas, especially compared to some of its competitors.

This isn't a cellular network information page. It is supposed to be about Verizon.

Can anyone give us a little info on the history of Verizon? Like the PrimeCo acquisition and so forth.--Jporter07 22:27, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I think it might be worth mentioning Verizon's crippling of the Motorola V710's Bluetooth. They disabled most of the functionality one expects from Bluetooth on a phone, in order to force customers to pay them more money in data charges (e.g. you can't download pictures to your computer via Bluetooth, even though the phone's hardware is perfectly capable of it).

GSM is generally technically inferior to CDMA, even if Verizon offers fewer services than competing companies using GSM. What Verizon Wireless offers and what CDMA is capable of are two entirely different issues.
Would anyone be able to back up the assertions here that claim that CDMA is actually superior to GSM? Is there any technical source or authoritative articles anyone can find to back this up? From what I understand, two key faults of CDMA involve a lack of SIM cards and an inability to use data while continuing to receive voice calls.
Due to the lack of SIM cards, CDMA users cannot switch phones without calling Verizon and having them carry everything over. This is not an easy procedure, whereas GSM SIM cards can easily be popped out and put into another GSM phone. Further, if you have extensive damage on a CDMA phone, you probably wouldn't be able to pull your saved phone numbers off of it, whereas on GSM phones this information is stored on the SIM card, which would likely still be in tact.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but with CDMA, don't you essentially dial a data number when you use the internet on your phone? This means all your calls while using data are sent through to voice mail, right? When you're using GPRS data on a GSM phone, you can still receive phone calls, the phone just pauses the data connection.


I don't see why that article needs to up changed in anyway. It lists all of the major details. Features and limitations. What else is needed?

"IDon't" listed at Redirects for discussionEdit

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect IDon't. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. –LaundryPizza03 (d) 20:39, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Wireless connectionsEdit

Hello, Wikipedia editors! This edit is incorrect, and no source was provided for the new figure. I cannot provide an updated subscriber figure because Verizon does not report its wholesale numbers. However, Verizon does report its retail wireless connections. Verizon published a PDF of its Financial & Operating information alongside its 1Q 2020 Earnings'; this PDF reports 119.5 million retail wireless connections.

Because Verizon does not report its wholesale numbers, and thus does not have an official subscriber count to offer here, I suggest the sentence "Verizon Wireless provides service to 154 million subscribers" in the introduction be re-worded. I propose:

  • Verizon Wireless provides 119.5 million retail wireless connections.[1]

As I work for Verizon and have a conflict of interest, I ask others to look at my draft material and make edits on my behalf. Thank you, VZEric (talk) 16:10, 30 April 2020 (UTC)


  1. ^ "Financial & Operating information" (PDF). Verizon. April 24, 2020. p. 11. Retrieved April 29, 2020.

Reply 02-MAY-2020Edit

   Unable to implement  

  • The request asks to remove information which describes one parameter (how many subscribers it has) and to replace it with information describing another parameter ("retail wireless connections").
  • It is not immediately apparent how these two parameters are connected[a] and/or the description given with the request which attempts to explain these differences is not accompanied by text to be placed in the article explaining the difference to readers.

Regards,  Spintendo  10:34, 2 May 2020 (UTC)


  1. ^ The supplied explanation was insufficient in explaining the difference between the two parameters.

@Spintendo: Thank you for your notes. There are two issues with the text in the live article. I'll explain.

  1. The figure "154 million" subscribers is incorrect. However, Verizon does not report its wholesale subscribers. As a result, there is no way to accurately cite the correct number.
  2. When an IP editor edited the introduction to claim there are "154 million" subscribers, they never updated the citation. Therefore the citation (which is a dead link) does not verify "154 million".

The closest thing Verizon does report is the number of retail wireless connections. That is why I recommend the sentence "Verizon Wireless provides service to 154 million subscribers" be replaced with: "Verizon Wireless provides 119.5 million retail wireless connections.[1]"

If that solution is not sufficient to remove the inaccurate information, perhaps the sentence "Verizon Wireless provides service to 154 million subscribers" could be deleted altogether because it is unsourced.

As I work for Verizon and have a conflict of interest, I ask others to look at my draft material and make edits on my behalf. Thank you, VZEric (talk) 17:17, 6 May 2020 (UTC)


  1. ^ "Financial & Operating information" (PDF). Verizon. April 24, 2020. p. 11. Retrieved April 29, 2020.
  • This source gives an estimate for approximately 154 million subscribers, so I've changed the sentence and citation to reflect that. Zoozaz1 (talk) 17:05, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
    I think this should satisfy the edit request. {{replyto|Can I Log In}}'s talk page! 18:36, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
Thank you, all, for considering. VZEric (talk) 12:34, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Rootmetrics is an adEdit

It's very clear these scores which are defended tooth and nail by wiki mods and admins are marketing material. They are worthless to wiki and should be removed if wiki wants to retain credibility. :-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:184:497F:87C9:4029:E1BF:E07:728C (talk) 06:07, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi IP editor, we do not defend these sources because they’re marketing material, but for these two reasons:
  • Sometimes, sources like Rootmetrics are the only sources that have this info because they specialise in technical stuff like compiling network speeds and the like.
  • In this case, the source is covered by USA Today, which is a Reliable Source.
Of course, in this case the section may have to be trimmed, but blanking it, especially without any consensus, is not a good idea. — RedBulbBlueBlood9911 (talk) 06:16, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
Its very clear that verizon as an isp and mobile provider benefits from the posting of "root" metric. idk why im being treated so rudely :-( wiki is very unproductive for the common person when obvious sponsors are allowed to edit pages to their advantage. I miss the old wiki. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:184:497F:87C9:4029:E1BF:E07:728C (talk) 06:40, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
@2601:184:497F:87C9:4029:E1BF:E07:728C:, if you still believe that the section should be removed, you may ask for advice at Wikipedia:Teahouse where more experienced editors can explain what should be done as per Wikipedia policy. RedBulbBlueBlood9911 (talk) 06:45, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
Return to "Verizon Wireless" page.