Thread regarding Verizon Communications Inc. layoffs

Former Verizon Employee – A Question That Deserves an Answer

I no longer work at Verizon, but I spent enough time inside to know the difference between transformation and attrition dressed up as strategy.

Every quarter, we hear about “efficiency gains,” “AI enablement,” and “headcount optimization.” But here’s the thing:
You can’t cut your way to growth.

So let’s ask what’s not being answered:
• What exactly are you building, beyond a leaner org chart?
• Where is the reinvestment that ensures Verizon remains competitive 3–5 years from now?
• How do you replace deep institutional knowledge and frontline experience with automation and vendor slides?
• And most importantly—is there a plan beyond hitting the next earnings call talking points?

Because from the outside, it doesn’t look like transformation.
It looks like slow-motion retreat.

I’ve moved on, like thousands of others.
But I still care enough to ask:
Are you leading a turnaround—or just managing the decline with prettier language?

That’s the part Wall Street won’t ask.
But we will.

by
| 2835 views | | 19 replies (last ) | Reply
Post ID: @OP+1k0zhs41x

19 replies (most recent on top)

@f6
correct on the iPhone, VZW wasn't gonna let Apple call the shots!!!
Then, we kept losing market share and suddenly, Apple and VZW are PALS!!!!
I believe that was Ivan's call originally. We had to buy Alltel to make up a lot of the difference in subscribers!

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @zd+1k0zhs41x

@gr

But the rest of the story is that the new iPhone product crashed miserably on the AT&T Network which could not handle the traffic.

That's really sad considering iphone 1 was 3G only.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @q7+1k0zhs41x

@hh

You’re right that Apple’s demands were tough — they wanted full control over the product, branding, and even the customer experience. That wasn’t how carriers operated back then, so Verizon said no, and AT&T said yes. Not revisionism — just a big decision that looks very different in hindsight.

When the iPhone finally launched on AT&T, the network buckled under the demand, especially in cities. That gave Verizon time to watch, learn, and strengthen its network. So when the iPhone 4 finally hit Verizon in 2011, the user experience was way better — at least at the start.

Now about MVNOs — yeah, that shift really changed the game. On paper, they helped pad subscriber numbers and let carriers offload low-value customers without messing up premium pricing optics. But in reality? They chipped away at the brand, gutted the in-store experience, and turned the “network kings” into something way more generic.

And the kicker? All the stuff Verizon and others said no to back in the 2000s — clean design, no bloatware, better support — is exactly what the best MVNOs are offering now. Funny how that works.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @hj+1k0zhs41x

@hc That is a little bit of revisionism there! Apple wanted control of the stores and the marketing. That was not going to happen.

Apple's crawling back became a feather in the crown of the Network Kings as the user experience under AT&T - at the time - really su-keed in the major cities. Really su-ked! This gave Verizon time to tweak its network which created a VERY different user experience.

The death knell for wireless was MVNOs. Who thought that was a good idea? I know, but that ki-led the brand, the customers service, and the network. Ironically, I was just in a 3rd Party Store with a Verizon wrapper, and it felt like Verizon mid 2000s.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @hh+1k0zhs41x

@gr

Apple initially approached Verizon, not AT&T, around 2005–2006. But under Ivan Seidenberg’s leadership, Verizon declined the offer. The sticking points were Apple’s strict terms — no Verizon branding, no pre-installed apps, and full control over the user experience. At the time, that went against the carrier-first mentality of the industry.

AT&T accepted the deal, leading to the iPhone’s 2007 launch as an AT&T exclusive. While the product was a hit, AT&T’s network famously struggled to handle the sudden spike in mobile data use — dropped calls, slow speeds, and congestion were common complaints.

By 2010–2011, Apple and Verizon revisited the partnership. Lowell McAdam, who succeeded Seidenberg, finalized the agreement to bring the iPhone to Verizon. At that point, Verizon had built a stronger data network and was ready to support iPhone traffic.

So yes — Apple “came crawling back” only in the sense that Verizon had the better network by then, but the missed opportunity began with a strategic call by Seidenberg. It wasn’t incompetence — just a conservative call that didn’t age well.

Since then, Verizon’s leadership has changed dramatically. Whether today’s leadership has the same discipline or foresight is up for debate.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @hc+1k0zhs41x

@f6 But the rest of the story is that the new iPhone product crashed miserably on the AT&T Network which could not handle the traffic. At the time the Verizon Network was the be all and end all in networks. Apple came crawling back about a year or so later, everybody made money till Lowell and Hans. Here we are.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @gr+1k0zhs41x

@d0 Don't forget Apple came to VZ first for the iphone exclusive and we turned them down. So AT&T got it instead.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @f6+1k0zhs41x
Because from the outside, it doesn’t look like transformation.

It doesn't look like that from the inside either. It's just upper management doing random things and using made up words to try to justify their existence.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @f4+1k0zhs41x

@cy

Case in point: the MVNO fallout. Verizon didn’t just lose a partner—it lit the fuse on a $1.89B/year cash flow collapse by alienating Charter and Comcast. That single misstep empowered T-Mobile to build a convergence powerhouse with cable distribution and 5G muscle. Verizon didn’t just lose revenue—they created their next rival.

And let’s not forget Visible. Launched to compete with low-cost disruptors, it’s now cannibalizing Verizon’s own retail base. The line counts look stable, but the ARPU is rotting from within. That’s not strategy—it’s rearranging the deck chairs while margin sinks.

WTF!

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @d0+1k0zhs41x

Project 624 is a miserable mess as expected

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @cy+1k0zhs41x

Big shareholders agree. That's why the stock hit its high 25 years ago. But the truth is without the next big thing/transformative advance, we are just a d-mb pipe of other's information. We tried creating content and buying content - failures. We took our eye off the ball on quality and let others push us aside. We still dont have a customer facing website that works. The market is acting exactly as it should. And to lower expenses they come after not the new employees that don't have a clue but are cheap; they come after the experienced ones that make too much.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @ct+1k0zhs41x

That mindset is exactly why Verizon is where it is.

@bw

If only big shareholders matter, then what’s the point of Pulse surveys, town halls, or all the “employee experience” messaging?

Ignoring the people who built the company might look good on a balance sheet for a quarter—but it’s not a strategy. It’s a slow unravel.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @ck+1k0zhs41x

@bj

No AI here. Just asking real questions leadership won’t answer.

If that sounds unusual, maybe it’s because honest conversation isn’t part of the script anymore.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @cj+1k0zhs41x

Only big shareholders matter
Not you!

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @bw+1k0zhs41x

@OP Well said! They aren’t realistically looking to the future but living only in the financial moment.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @bt+1k0zhs41x

OP is a ChatGPT cured post

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @bj+1k0zhs41x

Unfortunately, this is not the Joe Schmuck Board where lots of VPs, Exec VPs, and even board members would check. Then again, when there was even a hint that some legal action would force Trooper Brown to give up IP addresses, it was understood that he would 'burn his server' before turning it over. What a great man!

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @ab+1k0zhs41x

@a3

I’m not directing these questions to Hans privately because this isn’t just a one-on-one exchange—it’s a broader conversation that deserves to happen in the open.

These are questions many current and former employees are quietly asking. Putting them out here isn’t about confrontation—it’s about transparency.

If leadership chooses to engage publicly and offer meaningful answers, that would be welcomed. But the purpose is to elevate the dialogue, not confine it to a private inbox.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @a8+1k0zhs41x

Why don't you send that question right on over to Hans.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @a3+1k0zhs41x

Post a reply

: