Friday, August 21, 2009
Verizon Troubles
I have had a week of Verizon customer service issues. It's been a nightmare. Frustrated, I shot off the following email to Ivan Seidenberg, the CEO of Verizon.
Mr. Seidenberg,
I am a portfolio manager and have met you time and again. However, I write you today as a customer. It is incredible to me, as both a customer and investor, at the level of conglomerate bureaucracy that Verizon customer service is. Up until very recently, I was a Verizon FIOS customer. I lauded the service to all who would listen. However, recently I was transferred from New York to Minnesota. As you are well aware, Minnesota is not a FIOS area.
I rented my house to a tenant who wished to keep Verizon. I spoke to four different customer service representatives who each told me something completely different about whether the tenant could assume my Verizon equipment. At the end of the day, it was determined (for reasons that do not make sense to me) that they could not assume my equipment. Since I did not want to lose my @verizon.net email addresses, I chose not to cancel my Internet service right away. I was willing to keep paying for FIOS without using it. However, the new tenant was unable to establish their own equipment unless I terminated my account. Consequently, a representative in Fiber Solutions in Syracuse instructed me to cancel my service, call back customer service to have my email “enabled.” Such action, I was told, would allow me to keep my email accounts for another 20-30 days. I followed his instructions, terminated by account, only to be told by someone else in Fiber Solutions that they had no idea what the former representative was talking about.
An escalation specialist, Enid – also in Syracuse, was helpful but in the end unable to do much. She (somehow) re-established my emails for 24 hours ending today. She called DSL/Dial-up Sales on my behalf to determine that I could get a dial-up account and keep my emails. However, when we called together another dial-up sales person, we were both told that in fact, no she was wrong. I couldn’t establish a dial-up account in Minnesota.
Today, I got a voicemail from yet another Fiber Solutions representative who instructed me to call Dial-Up and gave me a number to call. The number didn’t work. I tried to activate a Dial-Up account on-line on a specific dial-up account setup website, and received a message half-way through the process that the website wasn’t working correctly. It instructed me to call yet another (800) number. That (800) number did not service dial-up accounts. That person transferred me to a dial-up representative. After waiting on hold for 15-minutes, I was not in-fact transferred to dial-up sales and had to be transferred yet again.
Finally, the dial-up representative for New York, told me that I could not establish a dial-up account because I did not have a Verizon phone number in New York. Why I need a Verizon phone number so that I can dial into the Verizon network is beyond me! If I were traveling across the country, and needed to dial in, it would not matter what type of phone I used to do so. I attempted to use a relative’s NY phone number to establish the account, but was told I would have to call FIOS to establish an account because the number was associated with FIOS sales. That relative with a traditional landline Verizon phone, does not have FIOS! Determined, I tried calling the Minnesota Verizon number – waited on hold for 25 minutes, but no one answered. What’s even crazier is that I don’t intend to actually use the service! All I want is to keep my email addresses.
So, after speaking with eight different representatives (including two supervisors), waiting on hold for a grand total of 45 minutes or more, I have multiple, mutually-exclusive solutions to my problem that no one can seem to do in their own department, yet when I call those departments, they have no idea what I’m talking about. The answers I receive make no logical sense to someone who clearly understands how the telephone/internet infrastructure works.
In the end, I am trying to throw money at Verizon, and no one seems to want it. It is truly unbelievable.
A disgruntled former customer and puzzled investor,
Bill Moore
Can you believe, he personally responded within an hour, and the SVP of Customer Service was on the phone to me within a half an hour of that. I'm impressed with that.
Mr. Seidenberg,
I am a portfolio manager and have met you time and again. However, I write you today as a customer. It is incredible to me, as both a customer and investor, at the level of conglomerate bureaucracy that Verizon customer service is. Up until very recently, I was a Verizon FIOS customer. I lauded the service to all who would listen. However, recently I was transferred from New York to Minnesota. As you are well aware, Minnesota is not a FIOS area.
I rented my house to a tenant who wished to keep Verizon. I spoke to four different customer service representatives who each told me something completely different about whether the tenant could assume my Verizon equipment. At the end of the day, it was determined (for reasons that do not make sense to me) that they could not assume my equipment. Since I did not want to lose my @verizon.net email addresses, I chose not to cancel my Internet service right away. I was willing to keep paying for FIOS without using it. However, the new tenant was unable to establish their own equipment unless I terminated my account. Consequently, a representative in Fiber Solutions in Syracuse instructed me to cancel my service, call back customer service to have my email “enabled.” Such action, I was told, would allow me to keep my email accounts for another 20-30 days. I followed his instructions, terminated by account, only to be told by someone else in Fiber Solutions that they had no idea what the former representative was talking about.
An escalation specialist, Enid – also in Syracuse, was helpful but in the end unable to do much. She (somehow) re-established my emails for 24 hours ending today. She called DSL/Dial-up Sales on my behalf to determine that I could get a dial-up account and keep my emails. However, when we called together another dial-up sales person, we were both told that in fact, no she was wrong. I couldn’t establish a dial-up account in Minnesota.
Today, I got a voicemail from yet another Fiber Solutions representative who instructed me to call Dial-Up and gave me a number to call. The number didn’t work. I tried to activate a Dial-Up account on-line on a specific dial-up account setup website, and received a message half-way through the process that the website wasn’t working correctly. It instructed me to call yet another (800) number. That (800) number did not service dial-up accounts. That person transferred me to a dial-up representative. After waiting on hold for 15-minutes, I was not in-fact transferred to dial-up sales and had to be transferred yet again.
Finally, the dial-up representative for New York, told me that I could not establish a dial-up account because I did not have a Verizon phone number in New York. Why I need a Verizon phone number so that I can dial into the Verizon network is beyond me! If I were traveling across the country, and needed to dial in, it would not matter what type of phone I used to do so. I attempted to use a relative’s NY phone number to establish the account, but was told I would have to call FIOS to establish an account because the number was associated with FIOS sales. That relative with a traditional landline Verizon phone, does not have FIOS! Determined, I tried calling the Minnesota Verizon number – waited on hold for 25 minutes, but no one answered. What’s even crazier is that I don’t intend to actually use the service! All I want is to keep my email addresses.
So, after speaking with eight different representatives (including two supervisors), waiting on hold for a grand total of 45 minutes or more, I have multiple, mutually-exclusive solutions to my problem that no one can seem to do in their own department, yet when I call those departments, they have no idea what I’m talking about. The answers I receive make no logical sense to someone who clearly understands how the telephone/internet infrastructure works.
In the end, I am trying to throw money at Verizon, and no one seems to want it. It is truly unbelievable.
A disgruntled former customer and puzzled investor,
Bill Moore
Can you believe, he personally responded within an hour, and the SVP of Customer Service was on the phone to me within a half an hour of that. I'm impressed with that.
Monday, August 10, 2009
Bank of America's Take on Cash for Clunkers
I love it when $3 billion in tax payer money goes to buy new cars for people. Here is Bank of America’s economists take:
Bad policy meet economic theory
Economic growth is usually defined as the expansion of a nation’s capability to produce the goods and services its people want. Therefore, growth depends on changes in the economy’s potential for production and the extent that capacity is utilized. This leads to the first problem with the Cash for Clunkers program. As the new vehicle is purchased, the trade-in vehicle is destroyed. In other words, under the CARS program, there is no addition to the capital stock. The investment undertaken is simply replacement demand. Secondly, while manufacturers will have to increase production to replace the sold vehicles, the boost to production will have only a temporary impact on the economy. The third problem with the Program is that the removal of the clunkers reduces the supply of vehicles for the used-car market. This will raise prices for those who can not afford a new vehicle. The fourth problem with the Program is that for the consumers who purchased new vehicles, their balance sheets are degraded. In many instances, the trade-in vehicle was fully owned by the consumer. To acquire the new vehicle, the consumer either borrowed the money, putting himself further in debt, or paid cash, losing out on interest earned. In either case, the consumer is poorer. For those that still owed money on their “clunker”, they likely swapped a small debt for a larger debt. As we highlighted earlier, the Cash for Clunkers program may be good for the environment, but it is not good for the economy or the consumer.
Cash for Clunkers and the Economic Outlook
On August 6th, President Obama signed into law a $2 billion extension of the “cash for clunkers” program. Whereas the original program was set to expire on November 1, with the extension, the program expires around Labor Day. As with any temporary program, the impacts will be short-lived. We now expect real consumer spending on durable goods to increase an annualized 12.0% in the third quarter and decline an annualized 4.5% in the fourth quarter. Previously, we were projecting annualized gains of 9.6% for 3Q and 3.5% for 4Q. (Recall that the original program expired in 4Q.) As for real GDP, we now anticipate 3Q annualized growth of 3.0%, up from the previous forecast of 2.6%. Fourth quarter growth is now projected to be 2.3%, down from the previous estimate of 2.8%. Not a lot of stimulus for $3 billion.
Bad policy meet economic theory
Economic growth is usually defined as the expansion of a nation’s capability to produce the goods and services its people want. Therefore, growth depends on changes in the economy’s potential for production and the extent that capacity is utilized. This leads to the first problem with the Cash for Clunkers program. As the new vehicle is purchased, the trade-in vehicle is destroyed. In other words, under the CARS program, there is no addition to the capital stock. The investment undertaken is simply replacement demand. Secondly, while manufacturers will have to increase production to replace the sold vehicles, the boost to production will have only a temporary impact on the economy. The third problem with the Program is that the removal of the clunkers reduces the supply of vehicles for the used-car market. This will raise prices for those who can not afford a new vehicle. The fourth problem with the Program is that for the consumers who purchased new vehicles, their balance sheets are degraded. In many instances, the trade-in vehicle was fully owned by the consumer. To acquire the new vehicle, the consumer either borrowed the money, putting himself further in debt, or paid cash, losing out on interest earned. In either case, the consumer is poorer. For those that still owed money on their “clunker”, they likely swapped a small debt for a larger debt. As we highlighted earlier, the Cash for Clunkers program may be good for the environment, but it is not good for the economy or the consumer.
Cash for Clunkers and the Economic Outlook
On August 6th, President Obama signed into law a $2 billion extension of the “cash for clunkers” program. Whereas the original program was set to expire on November 1, with the extension, the program expires around Labor Day. As with any temporary program, the impacts will be short-lived. We now expect real consumer spending on durable goods to increase an annualized 12.0% in the third quarter and decline an annualized 4.5% in the fourth quarter. Previously, we were projecting annualized gains of 9.6% for 3Q and 3.5% for 4Q. (Recall that the original program expired in 4Q.) As for real GDP, we now anticipate 3Q annualized growth of 3.0%, up from the previous forecast of 2.6%. Fourth quarter growth is now projected to be 2.3%, down from the previous estimate of 2.8%. Not a lot of stimulus for $3 billion.
Thursday, August 6, 2009
The Book is Out
The 2009 Football Outsiders book is out. Due to some publishing changes and contractual issues, it's not called Pro Football Prospectus this year. Although we had publishers interested in producing the book, the late decision by Plume to not publish the book left us with too tight of a timeline to get a new publisher. So instead, we self published. It allows readers to buy a $13 PDF version, or a $24 printed version. It's still listed on Amazon.
We got a great plug from Sports Illustrated's Peter King. Note item number five from “Ten Things I Think” in the Monday Morning Quarterback article on SI.com. A lot of stuff that he is quoting is my stuff.
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2009/writers/peter_king/08/03/NFL.takes/4.html
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2009/writers/peter_king/08/03/NFL.takes/4.html
Football Outsiders 2009 Almanac hit Amazon last week, and is the #3 best selling sports book (knocking off Thurman Munson thank you very much).
http://www.amazon.com/Football-Outsiders-Almanac-2009-Essential/dp/1448648459/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1249420792&sr=8-1
Amazon.com Sales Rank: #77 in Books (See Bestsellers in Books)
#1 in Books > Sports > Football (American)
Not that I’m soliciting you, but IF you were going to buy it, we do make more money if you buy it here (https://www.createspace.com/3392071 ) or a PDF version here (http://www.footballoutsiders.com/store ) since we avoid the Amazon sales fee. As an aside, I personally make very little per book so only buy it if you actually want to read it.
http://www.amazon.com/Football-Outsiders-Almanac-2009-Essential/dp/1448648459/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1249420792&sr=8-1
Amazon.com Sales Rank: #77 in Books (See Bestsellers in Books)
#1 in Books > Sports > Football (American)
Not that I’m soliciting you, but IF you were going to buy it, we do make more money if you buy it here (https://www.createspace.com/3392071 ) or a PDF version here (http://www.footballoutsiders.com/store ) since we avoid the Amazon sales fee. As an aside, I personally make very little per book so only buy it if you actually want to read it.
I didn't contribute any articles this year. I have been too busy with the new job. I did prepare a lot of the numbers, and some of the text in the Tendency Sections. I think it’s just cool to be a listed Author.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)