4 ms·

They were the ones that decided that frontier buying Verizon Fios wouldn't cause any harm to consumers, and what do you think happened... Yeah, lots of complain

They were the ones that decided that frontier buying Verizon Fios wouldn't cause any harm to consumers, and what do you think happened... Yeah, lots of complaints about billing mistakes, months of no service, etc.

Tostino 9y ago
Yeah, that was one of the most painful acquisitions for me personally. I went from practically no issues with Fios for years, and at least reasonably responsive service if there was an issue, to literally the worst customer service i've ever dealt with in Frontier. The billing issues... oh the billing issues were terrible. They were charging me more than double for three months, each month i'd call and tell them to fix it and fix the prior months, and I wasn't paying until I saw a fixed statement with the correct amount owed. It didn't get fixed until 4 months in I filed a complaint with the BBB.
- Applejinx 9y ago
  …which themselves are sketchy, so it stands to reason that any scamsters would be extremely aware of 'em.
Viper007Bond 9y ago
Anecdotal but my switch from Verizon to Frontier was smooth and I've had no major issues with my Frontier FiOS since.
- CrossWired 9y ago
  Same here. And they sent me an email that I got a free speed upgrade too 75/75 up to 100/100.
WillPostForFood 9y ago
It was a bad transition, but there was no regulatory reason to block it. If Verizon had been trying to sell to Time Warner or Comcast, which would have reduced ISP choice for many people to one provider, then there is a regulatory role.
- schiffern 9y ago
  You call a "bad transition," but is that just the PR line or has the anti-consumer behavior actually stopped? >there was no regulatory reason to block it That's a problem, no? If protecting consumers from harm isn't a reason that empowers them to block it, the commission is broken. "The CPUC serves the public interest by protecting consumers and ensuring the provision of safe, reliable utility service and infrastructure at just and reasonable rates, with a commitment to environmental enhancement and a healthy California economy." http://www.cpuc.ca.gov/ http://www.cpuc.ca.gov/
  - WillPostForFood 9y ago
    CPUC can't predict how well a transition like this will happen and they can't ban all telecom sales because service might be temporarily disrupted. You would be worse off long term stuck with Verizon if they were actively trying to get out of the market. They had already killed all new investment in FIOS years ago.
    - schiffern 9y ago
      >CPUC can't predict how well a transition like this will happen Well they could have (I can't believe I have to say this: monopolies are bad, mmkay?), but they've been captured. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture There's that "transition" line again. Still nothing to back up the idea that it's a temporary situation rather than the "new normal." Or more accurately the "new low." >they can't ban all telecom sales because service might be temporarily disrupted All? Of course not. But banning ones that create monopolistic / oligopolistic situations in certain markets (the predictable effects of which are higher prices and worse service, including more frequent interruptions of service) is warranted. In a hypothetical universe where all possible mergers would result in monopolies / oligopolies (and are therefore blocked), that's a feature not a bug.
    - dawnerd 9y ago
      In this case they could have based on prior frontier acquisitions from Verizon. When they first announced it I googled them (because I thought they were an airline and that made no sense) and the first things that came up were about how bad the transition was elsewhere.

Tostino 9y ago

Yeah, that was one of the most painful acquisitions for me personally. I went from practically no issues with Fios for years, and at least reasonably responsive service if there was an issue, to literally the worst customer service i've ever dealt with in Frontier. The billing issues... oh the billing issues were terrible. They were charging me more than double for three months, each month i'd call and tell them to fix it and fix the prior months, and I wasn't paying until I saw a fixed statement with the correct amount owed. It didn't get fixed until 4 months in I filed a complaint with the BBB.

Applejinx 9y ago
…which themselves are sketchy, so it stands to reason that any scamsters would be extremely aware of 'em.

Viper007Bond 9y ago

Anecdotal but my switch from Verizon to Frontier was smooth and I've had no major issues with my Frontier FiOS since.

CrossWired 9y ago
Same here. And they sent me an email that I got a free speed upgrade too 75/75 up to 100/100.

WillPostForFood 9y ago

It was a bad transition, but there was no regulatory reason to block it. If Verizon had been trying to sell to Time Warner or Comcast, which would have reduced ISP choice for many people to one provider, then there is a regulatory role.

schiffern 9y ago
You call a "bad transition," but is that just the PR line or has the anti-consumer behavior actually stopped? >there was no regulatory reason to block it That's a problem, no? If protecting consumers from harm isn't a reason that empowers them to block it, the commission is broken. "The CPUC serves the public interest by protecting consumers and ensuring the provision of safe, reliable utility service and infrastructure at just and reasonable rates, with a commitment to environmental enhancement and a healthy California economy." http://www.cpuc.ca.gov/ http://www.cpuc.ca.gov/
- WillPostForFood 9y ago
  CPUC can't predict how well a transition like this will happen and they can't ban all telecom sales because service might be temporarily disrupted. You would be worse off long term stuck with Verizon if they were actively trying to get out of the market. They had already killed all new investment in FIOS years ago.
  - schiffern 9y ago
    >CPUC can't predict how well a transition like this will happen Well they could have (I can't believe I have to say this: monopolies are bad, mmkay?), but they've been captured. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture There's that "transition" line again. Still nothing to back up the idea that it's a temporary situation rather than the "new normal." Or more accurately the "new low." >they can't ban all telecom sales because service might be temporarily disrupted All? Of course not. But banning ones that create monopolistic / oligopolistic situations in certain markets (the predictable effects of which are higher prices and worse service, including more frequent interruptions of service) is warranted. In a hypothetical universe where all possible mergers would result in monopolies / oligopolies (and are therefore blocked), that's a feature not a bug.
  - dawnerd 9y ago
    In this case they could have based on prior frontier acquisitions from Verizon. When they first announced it I googled them (because I thought they were an airline and that made no sense) and the first things that came up were about how bad the transition was elsewhere.