I've been a customer of fios for over 3 years. I've never been delinquent on a bill. I hardly call customer service for anything. I heard that there is a new fios router that is GigE and 802.11N, whereas my current router is 10/100 and 802.11G...

I called to speak with a csr and was told that she could not guarantee which router was sent from the garage and that it was the V3 that I wanted. She told me that if she could, she would... But instead to try the Verizon plus store near my house and that they would swap out my old 802.11G box for the new v3 --- and would do it for free. 

So I called the Verizon store near my place... They were nice and said that unfortunately they don't have these new v3 boxes yet and that I should try calling Verizon fios directly because they can help me. 

So I called. He person I spoke with told me I was mistaken and that I was given bad information. That they can only swap like equipment. 

Seems like each department is given different information...

Which brings me to my idea.

a) train all staff equally

B) allow your good customers... Those that have recommended your service to many many many people... Those that pay their bills. To upgrade to the latest equipment...

Why would you penalize EARLY ADOPTERS?

Why would you alienate the same people who help your NPS?

It doesn't make sense. You have a better chance of retaining me longer and having me remain a promoter much longer - which will lead to a higher ARPU.

But instead you risk losing a customer and converting me to a Detractor.

As it stands now we can only vote for an idea.  I'd like to be able to vote against the idea.  There may be an idea with 8 votes for but 20 might not like the idea so it should be a -12.

Please add this feature.

Why not send all these forum postings to Verizon corporate bigwigs.  Perhaps if  they knew just how dissatisfied many of their customers are, thet would try to fix the problems. 

These forums only serve as a way to vent and nothing more.  It is not like customers can change providers, there are only a couple of them and one is worse than the other.  Perhaps, we should insist that the Public Service commission in our respective localities should more closely oversee and regulate these companies.  If there were 120 providers, the public could weed out the worst by not using their service.  As it is, if you want the service, your choice is limited.

It appears that if we want changes, we, the customers, are going to have to put out the effort to see that we get them.

I do not want to receive this spot light magazine again. I think that it is a waste of money and doesn't have much worth reading about.

When selecting a single TV show to record from the Guide, why not have "Record Episode with Options" as a choice? If you want to record a "Series", you can choose "Record Series with Options" but you can't do the same for a single episode of a show.

During the baseball season, virtually every game runs over the 3 hours alloted to the game, which means the DVR either misses recording the end of the game or the viewer must individually extend the recording. This is currently done by exiting the guide, selecting " DVR", selecting "Scheduled Recordings", selecting the programmed ballgame from the list, selecting "Modify Start and End Time", extending the end time by 60 minutes, selecting "Save" and going through that process EVERY TIME a ballgame is programmed to be recorded. If "Record Episode with Options" was a choice, that recording can be easily extended in two easy steps.

C'mon Verizon, this one is a easy one to add. Pleeeeeease.

So Dish Network produces a monthly program called "Charlie Chat" wherein their CEO, Charlie Ergen, takes live phone questions from Dish Network customers and answers them (within the bounds permitted by their PR strategy, of course.) They also produce a "Technical Chat" where their technical VP takes questions about topics like installation, how they allocate satellite resources, relatively geeky lower-level stuff (again, within the bounds of their PR strategy.)

Both shows are fantastic PR tools because, while there are obvious limits on what they can say, they are pretty good about dropping enough nuggets of information to make both programs seem quite valuable.

Right now, there is a general tone of frustration permeating most forums where FiOS TV is discussed. Complaints range from the lengthy wait for IMG updates, to the perceived lack of additions to FiOS TV's HD lineup, to the color scheme IMG 1.9. But underpinning the frustration is a perceived lack of communication from Verizon about these issues. Joe Ambault is perceived as an unreliable mouthpiece, the blog and YouTube channels are thought of as channels for condensed PR releases, and so on.

I believe people are frustrated because they see that the FiOS technology and infrastructure plant is so clearly superior to Cable, but the FiOS TV service is handled like it's a cable company TV service, not as if it were something fundamentally superior. FiOS is clearly one of, if not the best residential communication networks in the country, but yet it feels like FiOS TV could just as easily be run over normal cable lines without any real loss of functionality or quality.

I think a Verizon-produced show in the "Charlie Chat" format would do wonders to help change this perception, especially in the eyes of FiOS' most ardent fans. It doesn't necessarily have to be on FiOS TV itself; it could be a show on YouTube or something. But I think the live element of the "Charlie Chat" format is key, and something like that would only really be well received if it were on FiOS, on channel 131 or on FiOS1. With FiOS1, Verizon's already got the production resources for something like this.

It doesn't have to feature Lowell McAdam or Ivan Seidenberg (in fact, it probably shouldn't--those guys are probably too far removed from the day to day operation of FiOS to have any input that consumers would care about) but it should feature someone high-up in the FiOS organizational hierarchy. And it can't just be another outlet for PR or inaccurate, unreliable information. It has to deal in providing specific answers, even if those answers are "I don't know" or "We can't answer yet." Of course, it still does have to drop some good information, otherwise it'll just seem like a cheap PR vehicle.

I'm hoping this idea receives real consideration, especially in light of the frustrations people are expressing on the forums.

I just received a notice from Verizon that they intend to send (and most likely sell for a profit) subscriber profiles to external marketers. The 'benefit' to the subscriber according to Verizon is that these marketers will send 'tailored' messages based on your profiles and geography.

Some people may enjoy getting loads of mail but I don't, and most people I know don't.

I think that a marketing ploy that benefits Verizon should be available on an 'opt in' basis and not an 'opt out' basis as is this program.

'Opting in' allows the informed user to selectively choose to receive this additional glut of ads or as Verizon describes it 'benefit'. The notice itself looks like spam.  All subscriber who fails to 'opt out' will be automatically enrolled.

''Opt in' programs are the tools of scrupulous marketing organizations.

Make the Community Search button and dialog box larger. It has always been overwhelmed by the Google Search. Many people may be confused about looking for answers here, and or finding them on the web. Make it larger and more dominant. Perhaps even change it to.

Community

   Search

and make the red box larger. With all the discussion regarding people not searching, it could be better if this whole dialog was made larger, and shifted up and to the left a bit.