Talk:Verizon Fios

This article was nominated for deletion on June 19, 2007. The result of the discussion was Speedy close.

	This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Telecommunications Mid‑importance Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Networking task force (assessed as Mid-importance ).

This article was the subject of an educational assignment in Fall 2013. Further details were available on the "Education Program:Cornell University/Online Communities (Fall 2013)" page, which is now unavailable on the wiki.

The WP:COIRESPONSE . VZBob (talk · contribs) has been paid by Verizon Communications. I work for Verizon and make suggestions on Wikipedia for Verizon-related articles. COI declared on user page. VZEric (talk · contribs) has been paid by Verizon Communications. COI declared on userpage.

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2

This page has archives. Sections older than 120 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered.

Hi page watchers, I'm asking editors to reconsider the advertisement tag atop this article. Over the last year, I have suggested numerous edits to streamline information by removing detail that is overly technical and promotional, including information on product pricing and bundles. My suggestions have largely been implemented by reviewing editors, such as Spintendo and Chetsford. There are still issues with this article (take, for example, the two external links in the middle of Early development), but I would suggest that reading like an advertisement is not one of them.

For background information, this tag was last added by Stosseled to the article in September 2017, specifically noting the TV plans, inside wire maintenance plan, bundles, and pricing. All of these have been removed from the article.

In February 2018, the editor declined to remove the tags, saying, "There are at least a dozen problems with the article of which half a dozen are completely inarguable. Not cited, indubitably false snark in the introduction, ludicrously un-encyclopedic content in the Television and Internet Access sections, the list goes on." I asked for specifics that we could address, but have not heard a response. Since then, I have worked with Wikipedia editors to eliminate potential promotional material from the introduction, streamline Television and Telephone, remove the technical and possibly promotional Video and Quantum TV subsections, and remove the entire Technology section.

If editors see additional material that could be seen as promotional to Wikipedia editors, I am happy to assist in efforts to improve this article. I work for Verizon and have a conflict of interest so I ask others to look and make these edits on my behalf. Thank you, VZBob (talk) 21:14, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

While I agree the tag was placed in GF, the article has changed substantially since originally placed and I don't think the issues still exist. For that reason, I've removed it. Chetsford (talk) 05:13, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Chetsford: Thank you, much appreciated! VZBob (talk) 21:20, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

After 2-year contract in 2021.— Preceding unsigned comment added by BobbyFundiJr (talk • contribs) 00:10, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered.

Hello, the url listed as Verizon Fios' official website in External links is actually the url of an outdated third-party retailer (fios.verizon.com). Would any editors here be willing to update the link to point to Verizon Fios' official website: https://www.verizon.com/home/ ? @Westminster88: You helped fix broken links on other Verizon articles in recent months, so I thought you may be interested in this clean-up request as well. Thank you in advance for any consideration, VZEric (talk) 16:27, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@VZEric:  Done. Seagull123 Φ 18:27, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Seagull123: Thank you! VZEric (talk) 14:36, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered.

Hello editors. Stosseled added Template:Advert to the top of the article with this edit on April 10. In the edit summary, Stosseled wrote, "If a seven page long list of 'key' markets is what this company insists on on its product page on Wikipedia it should live with the advertisement tag I first added seven years ago when I saw a bunch of pricing tables. This isn't encyclopedic content." I actually agree with Stosseled that the list of key markets does not belong on this page, as it is not encyclopedic. For the record, I cannot find evidence of Verizon representatives requesting the addition of any key markets material that is this detailed. I looked through the Talk page archives and it appears a group of editors not affiliated with Verizon discussed these particular updates. A number of edits over the years added many of the towns and cities listed here, but those did not come from Verizon. Since the list of key markets is deemed inappropriate (and I agree), can editors remove it?

I work for Verizon and have a conflict of interest, so I ask others to make edits on my behalf. Thank you, VZEric (talk) 18:45, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: See my latest diff for the removal. I did not touch the tag, and will leave to another reviewer to determine the appropriateness of the banner. ​​ Happy Editing--IAmChaos 03:43, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I must add the promo concern of this article goes beyond the now removed product list. The language needs considerable editing to comply with NPOV. Chirota (talk) 06:05, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@IAmChaos: Thank you for removing the content. @Chiro725: I will review the article to see which content may be promo. Thank you, VZEric (talk) 20:42, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Already done here. ℰmi1y_⧼T·C⧽ 11:10, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered.

Thanks to SWinxy for cleaning up the intro and Early development (1995–1996). One question: Can SWinxy or another editor consider reverting the word "utility" back to "service"? Independent third-party sources generally refer to Verizon Fios as a service, not a utility. Here are a few third-party sources to support this:

• CNET
• U.S. News & World Report
• The Verge
• Fortune
• The Wall Street Journal

I work for Verizon and have a conflict of interest, so I ask others to make edits on my behalf. Thank you, VZEric (talk) 15:25, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. Thanks. SWinxy (talk) 21:44, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@SWinxy: Thank you for reverting "utility" back to "service". VZEric (talk) 16:21, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered.

Hello editors, a 2017 lawsuit from New York City is currently mentioned in this article under the Criticism section, however, the page has not been updated to include the resolution of the suit. In order to close the loop there, I propose editors add the following information:

• Verizon and New York City settled the lawsuit in 2020, whereby Verizon agreed to bring its fiber-to-the-home service to 500,000 households in New York City. This will cover a majority of the residential housing units in New York City where FiOS was not originally available at the time of the settlement. Verizon is required to target its fiber upgrades in low-income areas, including parts of the Bronx, Brooklyn, Manhattan, and Queens. The deadline to provide these services is July 2023. In the settlement, Verizon did not admit wrongdoing.^[1]

I work for Verizon and have a conflict of interest, so I ask others to make edits on my behalf. Thank you, VZEric (talk) 17:26, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The statement "This will cover a majority of the residential housing units in New York City where FiOS was not originally available at the time of the settlement." doesn't sound very encyclopedic. Could it be reworded? ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 16:32, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Blaze Wolf: Thanks for your feedback. I actually think we could just delete that sentence altogether. What do you think of this:

• Verizon and New York City settled the lawsuit in 2020, whereby Verizon agreed to bring its fiber-to-the-home service to 500,000 households in New York City. Verizon is required to target its fiber upgrades in low-income areas, including parts of the Bronx, Brooklyn, Manhattan, and Queens. The deadline to provide these services is July 2023. In the settlement, Verizon did not admit wrongdoing.^[1]

I'm happy to consider other options if you have any. Thank you, VZEric (talk) 19:12, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@VZEric: Looks much better to me, although maybe we could replace some of the instances of "Verizon" with "the company" since after the first sentence it's obvious what company it is. Doing so would make it read "Verizon and New York City settled the lawsuit in 2020, whereby the company agreed to bring its fiber-to-the-home service to 500,000 households in New York City. Verizon is required to target its fiber upgrades in low-income areas, including parts of the Bronx, Brooklyn, Manhattan, and Queens. The deadline to provide these services is July 2023. In the settlement, Verizon did not admit wrongdoing." I also think that mentioning when the deadline is and that they didn't admit any wrongdoing (which might just be worth removing) could be moved elsewhere in the sentence. I might experiment with the wording to see if I can get it to flow a bit better. I might also see if I can find more sources regarding this. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 19:20, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'll post some of the sources I'm finding here as well. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 19:23, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Additional sources: McGeehan, Patrick (2017-03-14). "New York City Sues Verizon, Claiming Broken Promises of Fios Coverage". The New York Times.

ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 2023-01-11., McCormick, Rich (2017-03-14). "New York City sues Verizon for failing to provide fiber broadband to all households". The Verge. Retrieved 2023-01-11., "New York City sues Verizon over its fiber rollout". Engadget. Retrieved 2023-01-11., Crist, Ry. "New York City sues Verizon over unfinished fiber rollout"

. CNET. Retrieved 2023-01-11.

This appears to be a very notable event with multiple different reliable sources covering it so I don't think there's much need to worry about this event possibly not being notable enough to include. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 19:38, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Blaze Wolf: To clarify: The topic is already in the live Wikipedia article. You can find it here. The part that's missing from the live Wikipedia article is the fact that the lawsuit was settled. I'm only seeking to add the details about the settlement. Thank you, VZEric (talk) 20:12, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@VZEric: Ah my apologies. Still, it wouldn't hurt to expand that more with the references I found since it's currently only referenced to the 2 arstechnica articles (which isn't bad as Ars-Technica is considered a reliable source, but a larger variety of sources would be better). I'll look over your addition and hopefully add it before I expand it a bit more. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 20:19, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Done I've gone ahead and made the edit, but other editors are welcome to make copyedits. I'll probably expand it with more refs later. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 19:33, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! VZEric (talk) 20:21, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]