Shame on you, Verizon

Our neighbor, like most everyone who lives in our area, has Verizon for his local phone service. Almost a week and a half ago, all of the phones in his house stopped working—no dial tone at any phone jack, completely dead. So, he called Verizon (using his mobile phone) to schedule a service call. Verizon said the earliest they could send a technician was 3 days ago (Friday, March 28).

So, right off the bat, Verizon left a customer without service for a week.

On Friday, Verizon called our neighbor on his mobile saying that they had to reschedule the service appointment for the next day, Saturday, March 29—a week and a day without any phone service.

On Saturday, they called again and told him they would not be able to send a technician until this Friday, April 4.

That will be two full weeks without service for a family with small children. Two full weeks without 911 service. What if they need to call an ambulance? What if they have a fire? What if someone else on the street has a fire and is unable to call 911?

But wait, they have a mobile phone, right? Sure, but does that really make it ok? Should everyone have to have a mobile phone to compensate for Verizon? What about folks who don’t have a mobile? I would bet that demographic includes many seniors, and other people for whom their landline is the only option in an emergency.

Aunt Mae has a monitoring services that relies on her phone line. She wears a button around her neck that she can press in case of an emergency, and it will automatically call the service so they can take action, such as call the police or an ambulance. What if her phone service is out for two weeks and she falls? What about her, Verizon?