Below are all the posts — topics as well as replies — that mention the hashtag #customer.
Mention #customer in your post to continue the discussion!
Comcast is implementing workforce reductions across the nation due to declining customer numbers in its broadband and cable TV services. The company has filed a WARN notice detailing 82 layoffs in Livermore, California. These cuts include employees at vice president and director levels. The affected locations are part of a broader nationwide shift for the company.
Livermore, California
https://www.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/news/2026/11/05/sfbt-digest-thursday-comcast-layoffs-pleasanton.html
Change of general manager.
More extreme job cuts.
Massive loss of customers
What is Hocks plan for ESG? Slimming it down to sell or just running it into the ground so it dies of un-natural causes?
Collins Aerospace is laying off 31 employees at its Cedar Rapids manufacturing facility. These reductions are part of a broader cost-reduction and organizational optimization strategy. The company cited evolving customer needs and a desire to reinvest in high-priority programs. Despite these layoffs, Collins Aerospace recently reported increased quarterly profits. The company also announced plans for an expansion in West Des Moines.
Cedar Rapids, Iowa
https://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/money/business/2026/11/02/collins-aerospace-layoffs-cedar-rapids-iowa/92564318007/
Firstly I believe this is run by the serial longtimer James (Don't speak to me) McGourlay.
Renewals work in stealth mode. They are amazing at sending emails late, have zero real client engagement and seem to think sending an email with a $400k renewal quote is actually doing their job.
I've personally had clients come to me asking WTF is happening with their renewals. Draft quotes, late quotes, excessive fees and squeezing in premium support. It's just a complete mess.
Let's be honest team, our business is very well funded by renewals off the back of relationships and hard work from the Sales team. I am literally staggered by the amount of money and goodwill being left on the table.
So ELT, are you actually reading this?
I challenge you to get involved. Put a specialist AE into an account, actually engage the customer, show some value and give them a reason to renew.
It's not rocket science. These are major customer relationships worth hundreds of thousands of dollars, not just another email to send out.
The lack of customer engagement, ownership and basic support is honestly a disgrace. We are damaging relationships that the Sales team has spent years building. Someone needs to take ownership of this. Post your stories below
https://apple.news/AEsX-AqvwRmOXUBTDBtaVXw
Thank you Andre for a sh*tload of indigestible incomprehensible marketing dribble.
How T-Mix works...the customer looks at the plans and then moves their accounts to Verizon.
In COR stores HTP , Home tech protection is being preached and more! We get text And all from retail Managers to AREA RETAIL MANAGERS, there’s words, get them no matter what! Wonder what the call in drop/disconnect rate is too customer care on this feature is? Must be makn good money off it for sure! Some right consumer is gonna sue for these unauthorized features being added or criminal/civil charges against Experts for this! We shall see
The "Big Three" U.S. carriers—AT&T, T-Mobile, and Verizon—have united to lobby the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to fight a new satellite-to-phone spectrum proposal primarily because they fear it will degrade their existing 5G terrestrial networks through signal interference, strip away their control over spectrum licensing, and fast-track a massive new market competitor in SpaceX's Starlink Mobile.
The FCC's proposal, scheduled for an October 29, 2026 vote, aims to open an additional 482 MHz of spectrum for Supplemental Coverage from Space (SCS), expanding eligible satellite bands from 5 to 13.
The specific reasons the wireless carriers are fiercely opposing the changes through their trade group, the CTIA, include:
The carriers are demanding that the FCC remove the 2.5 GHz and 3.45 GHz frequencies from the proposal, which would take 290 MHz off the table.
• TDD Conflict: T-Mobile relies heavily on the 2.5 GHz band, and AT&T operates on the 3.45 GHz band. Both use Time-Division Duplexing (TDD), meaning their cell towers and consumer phones share the exact same radio bands to both send and receive data.
• Signal Degradation: The carriers argue that if a satellite flies overhead using these exact same workhorse 5G bands, it will cause severe technical and interference challenges, ultimately slowing down or disrupting service for over 300 million terrestrial wireless users.
Under current FCC frameworks, satellite operators are required to lease spectrum from ground carriers, giving the cellular providers full veto power and control.
• Frequency Sharing: The FCC proposal wants to replace these rigid leasing frameworks with flexible agreements that allow satellite and ground operators to share frequencies.
• The Pushback: The carriers are fighting to preserve mandatory carrier consent, termination rights, and absolute control over who uses the spectrum they invested billions of dollars to license. They contend that cellular providers—not the FCC—should dictate if a satellite company can utilize their airwaves.
While the carriers support satellite-to-phone connectivity in theory (and have executed their own partnerships), the FCC’s sudden push directly clears the path for SpaceX to become an independent fourth major U.S. mobile carrier.
• Market Disruption: The FCC recently approved SpaceX’s acquisition of Tristar's AWS-3 spectrum and cleared 15,000 next-gen Starlink Mobile satellites capable of beaming 100x the bandwidth directly to ordinary smartphones.
• Massive Stakes: SpaceX is actively looking to build terrestrial infrastructure and secure massive blocks of spectrum to back up its satellites on the ground. Wall Street responded to the threat of a dominant, space-blended Starlink network by sending Verizon and AT&T stock tumbling. By locking down the 2.5 GHz and 3.45 GHz bands, the Big Three are trying to starve SpaceX of the massive spectrum depth it needs to fully compete with them.
Former FCC Chairman Ajit Pai, currently acting as CEO of the CTIA, has formally joined the carriers' push, meeting with current FCC Chairman Brendan Carr to urge the commission to drop the contested 5G bands from the satellite expansion draft entirely.
Would you like to know more about how SpaceX's current deal with T-Mobile differs from its new standalone carrier ambitions, or would you like details on the AT&T and Verizon partnership with AST SpaceMobile?
With so much push on AI how will the software solutions like idrac Vrail PPDM survive? Are they advancing and moving forward? Customers happy?
Then maybe you should have more competitive pricing. How could it be that a standard TMobile plan is less expensive than the employee discount? When you can answer that question you’ll understand why you hear that ringtone, John.
Dan, is this what you meant by delighting our customer and being customer obsessed ? Ok, got it.
https://www.phonearena.com/news/iphone-handoff-feature-verizon-fee_id184146
Good lord, we cant get anything right
IBM has spent the past week flooding the zone with Nanostack headlines just days before its October 21 earnings report. TIME’s invention-of-the-year recognition. A Nanostack PDK announcement. A Siemens collaboration. Three headlines, one obvious question: where is the commercial traction?
Let’s be clear: announcements are not adoption. A research collaboration is not a manufacturing commitment. A PDK announcement is not proof that customers want to design with the technology. And a prestigious magazine mention is not a purchase order.
IBM is doing an excellent job of publicizing the possibility of a business. The public evidence that it has built one is considerably less impressive.
The TIME recognition deserves scrutiny, too. Did IBM pay for it? I have seen no evidence establishing that, and I’m not going to pretend otherwise. But the distinction between editorial recognition and paid promotion matters. What were the selection criteria, and how does Nanostack’s actual technical and commercial maturity compare with competing approaches from Intel, Samsung, and TSMC? I am sure those three have some thoughts on the Time’s award. A trophy is not independent validation of manufacturability, customer demand, or economic viability.
Then there’s the PDK. Who, specifically, is using it? Which external companies have committed engineering resources? Where are the disclosed design wins, production roadmaps, foundry commitments, or customers willing to put money behind the technology?
Not another collaboration announcement. Not another roadmap. Not another promise that an ecosystem is coming.
Customers. Revenue. Manufacturing commitments. Results.
That is the scoreboard.
The concern is that IBM is trying to manufacture the appearance of an ecosystem before demonstrating that a meaningful market exists. The industry does not adopt a technology simply because IBM announces a PDK and hopes everyone else will show up. Designers and manufacturers have their own roadmaps, economics, technical constraints, and competing solutions. They need compelling reasons to abandon or supplement what they are already developing.
And this is where the Albany research playbook deserves particular scrutiny. The familiar pattern is to announce collaborations, celebrate joint development activity, and present technical engagement as strategic momentum. But a JDA is not a production product, and a partner’s willingness to explore an idea is not proof that the partner intends to commercialize it. When the headline is the achievement and the commercial outcome remains perpetually somewhere over the horizon, the distinction becomes rather important.
Anderon’s quantum PDK announcement also raises the same fundamental question. A PDK can be announced, demonstrated, and discussed at conferences. The real test is whether independent customers can use it successfully, whether it meets their needs, and whether they will continue investing in it. Technical claims should survive scrutiny outside the organization promoting them.
The timing of IBM’s publicity blitz is certainly convenient with earnings approaching. I cannot establish that the announcements were scheduled to influence the earnings narrative, but investors should absolutely distinguish between a burst of favorable headlines and measurable business progress.
Arvind can point to TIME, Siemens, and a PDK. Fine. But what do these announcements actually change about IBM’s commercial position? What has been secured? What has shipped? What has generated revenue? What has moved beyond research collaboration into something customers depend on and pay for?
Until IBM answers those questions with evidence, Nanostack’s publicity campaign looks a lot more like an effort to sell future potential than proof of present success.
The semiconductor industry is full of impressive technologies that never became successful businesses. IBM knows that. Its competitors know that. Investors should know it, too.
The headlines are real. The technology may be promising. The commercial success remains to be demonstrated.
When IBM reports on October 21, watch the guidance and listen carefully for actual customer commitments and commercial results. Don’t confuse publicity with progress, partnerships with demand, or research milestones with a viable business.
If Nanostack is the next big thing, IBM should be able to demonstrate it with customers and results not just headlines.
KFC to switch from Pepsi to Coca-Cola in 2027 https://share.google/e23EH4tBKyLxgbsX4
....KFC changing to Coke. Way to go commisary/foodservice. Give them another raise!
https://www.fierce-network.com/wireless/spacexs-800-mhz-spectrum-grab-threatens-big-3-mobile-carriers
Bo-m! SpaceX just inked a deal to buy 14 megahertz of paired 800 MHz spectrum from Grain Management, giving Starlink Mobile a means to more aggressively challenge the Big 3 U.S. mobile carriers on the ground.
Once it receives Federal Communications Commission (FCC) approval – a shoo-in given FCC Chairman Brendan Carr’s penchant for all things space and Elon Musk – Starlink Mobile will deploy a “flexible architecture combining our satellite-to-mobile constellation in space with an advanced terrestrial deployment that can seamlessly connect devices everywhere,” SpaceX said in its press release.
Shares in all three U.S. wireless carriers were down in early trading this morning. AT&T was down more than 6%, at $22.90. T-Mobile was down 10%, to $154.10, and Verizon was down 5.5%, at $43.13. Meanwhile, SpaceX shares were up about 1%, to $162.75.
The question for Verizon (VZ) is whether the FCC's October 8 decision signals a future in which Verizon's traditional terrestrial wireless network becomes less central to the business, as drones, satellites, and hybrid networks take over some connectivity functions. Competitive threat: satellite operators and other nontraditional providers could capture services that historically required terrestrial cellular networks.
Verizon could sell the terrestrial connectivity, backhaul, spectrum access, network management, and hybrid services that drones and satellite operators still need. Network transformation: Verizon could need to change how it deploys capital, uses spectrum, and monetizes its existing network.The important distinction is whether the FCC is merely enabling new uses of communications technology or actually changing the regulatory and competitive economics of the wireless industry.
Verizon (VZ):has invested heavily in cellular spectrum, towers, fiber, and its wireless customer base. If satellite-enabled service becomes a credible alternative for ordinary phone users, Verizon could face more pricing pressure and a weaker competitive advantage from its network coverage.Verizon could participate in hybrid coverage, enterprise connectivity, and satellite partnerships. Its existing terrestrial infrastructure does not become worthless simply because satellites improve.AT&T has acquired additional spectrum to expand its terrestrial network. Its spectrum position and network assets could help it compete, but it faces the same risk of satellite-enabled alternatives changing wireless. T-Mobile (TMUS): Satellite connectivity could challenge the value of T-Mobile's coverage claims and its ability to win customers through competitive pricing. But a hybrid network could extend coverage and improve its offerings. The extent of the threat depends on service quality, pricing, and how quickly the technology scales.A satellite network cannot automatically replace cellular infrastructure everywhere. Capacity, indoor coverage, spectrum interference, latency, and the economics of serving dense urban areas remain important constraints.
The October 29 FCC meeting. The proposed agenda includes spectrum auction policy, modernization of direct-to-device satellite rules, and drone use of the 800 MHz cellular band. These could establish the regulatory direction for hybrid networks. SpaceX's actual business plan. Does it intend to partner with carriers, sell wholesale capacity, or compete directly for their subscribers? The last option poses the clearest threat to Verizon's core consumer business.
Verizon's response. Watch for changes in satellite partnerships, spectrum strategy, network investment plans, and management's explanation of how it will protect wireless revenue and margins.
Returns on existing network assets. If Verizon must keep spending heavily to defend its customers while satellite competitors avoid some conventional infrastructure costs, that could weaken future returns on invested capital.
This is a credible long-term competitive threat to the traditional telecom model, not proof that Verizon's network is about to become obsolete. The danger is that Verizon could retain its expensive infrastructure obligations while losing some pricing power and customer relationships to a more flexible competitor.For a Legacy VZ shareholder, I would distinguish a temporary stock-price shock from a permanent reduction in the value of Verizon's cash flows. The decisive evidence will be subscriber losses, pricing trends, margins, capital spending, and the actual cost and performance of Starlink's mobile service—not the FCC announcement alone.
So an outside consulting firm makes restructuring and headcount reduction recommendations based on simple, math-based formulas.
The math looks good on paper, but it’s near-sighted. The intangible costs of cutting talent and tribal knowledge, and combining workloads from 2-3 personnel onto one (‘do more with less’), are immense.
When Customer confidence is lost, they also stop being a reference. The loss multiplies.
OPERATIONAL GLITCH
The Amateur View: "The customer missed the SLA by 40 minutes."
The Professional View: “The customer realized the new team doesn’t understand their architecture. Trust is broken.”
CUSTOMER HEALTH
The Amateur View: “They haven’t cancelled their contract”.
The Professional View: “They refuse to expand their spend and are actively looking for an exit strategy from Dell.”
VALUE PROPOSITION
The Amateur View: “Dell is delivering service at a 30% savings per head”
The Professional View: “We have commoditized our brand. We can no longer demand premium pricing”.
The list of outcomes goes on…
I'm fairly new to Dell but one thing I've noticed right off the bat is just how far behind we are with our enterprise software solutions. Why is that? We literally have thousands and thousands (we used to anyway) of software engineers yet none of our solutions are really taken seriously in the market. In fact, some of our solutions get laughed at or thrown out like PowerStore or PPDM.
You'd think that as one of the largest IT companies in the industry, we could develop software solutions that were competitive with other vendors to help sell complete turnkey offerings to our customers. But all our customers seem to want is cheap hardware. They go elsewhere for their software solutions. And that's where all the margins are.
The most obvious sign something is terribly wrong with belk is the lack of support staff to process trucks, and merchandising, and sale sets, markdowns.
The lack of registers, sales clerks, and price checkers in the stores.
The bizarre fixation belk corporate has with APP downloads and self scanning price checks on cell phones (which is counter intuitive to it’s mostly elderly customer base)
The lack of available fitting rooms
It’s wild how the people who don’t do their jobs are always the first ones to escalate you as “difficult to work with” the second you call out an issue. Instead of management holding those lackluster employees accountable, they make you feel like the problem for trying to help the customer and actually get things resolved.
For a long time, the immature technology and the incompetent management and leadership were kept under the radar. But now, the green sl--e bo-b exploded in their faces.
A letter has been sent to ALL customers with commissioned units ordering them to immediately shut the units down due to safety issues related to the electrolysis cell stacks. Not for the first time as this follows a similar safety shutdown action in 2023 driven by a deflagration of 1 unit in China resulting in a worldwide retrofit at Cummins expense. All PEM units were mothballed and retrofitted to include a nitrogen purge. New units were redesigned around an oxygen purge solution. Both resulting in shut downs plus production losses and delays in delivery for up to 2 years.
The difference this time is that the engineering teams have been desolved due to discontinuation of the business and the remaining team has been requested to sit idle. No solution is expected.
Several customers, some rightfully claiming to being confronted with a second loss of production, have indicated plans to file lawsuits to claim back the investment and loss of production (consequential damages).
If successful and followed by others/most/all, this can cost Cummins billions - with a B!
Wondering how the VP who proudly displays her success as a parent of 3 on other media will be able to survive this new presentation of her total failure. Accountability is not a term Cummins mgmt is familiar with, but shareholders might have a different view.
Forget your 2027 bonus people!
Integrity - If you say you are going to do something, do it. If it’s part of your job, do it. If it’s not part of your job and you can help someone by doing it, do it.
Respect - Respect coworkers even if they are from different departments, or different levels. If you’re a higher level than someone you should be mentoring them not ignoring or brushing them off.
Accountability- Do your work, and do it right. Respond to emails. If you don’t know something, say you don’t know instead of not replying. Follow up on your responsibilities, even when you’re tired. Make sure people that depend on you have what they need and they feel like they can rely on you.
Customer Focus- Always think about the customer, whether it’s an individual or a fortune 100 company. Prepare pause and confirm. Always think of ways to make the customer experience better and communicate those ideas to leadership even when it’s “not your job”.
Inclusivity- Working with people from different backgrounds, whatever that means in your role. Treat them with respect and remember we are all on the same team regardless of their background, role, education level, union/non-union etc. We are one team. We are one Verizon.
If Verizon focused on promoting managers and employees who followed and enforced these values and got rid of the ones who didn’t, the company would be a better place.
Happy Friday.
If your slide deck slogan is ‘we are going to hold the Customer accountable’ then you probably need a box!
Apple has officially rolled out its iOS 27 as of Sept. 14. But if people with T-Mobile want to use one of its new features, they’ll have to pay a fee.
https://www.al.com/news/2026/09/t-mobile-customers-will-have-to-pay-monthly-fee-for-ios-27-feature.html
So the folks strip mined this firm so badly now the customer complaints are at an all time high. Funny as the markets are about to implode. Truly wall street
An older neighbor of mine, a Citi customer, was recently scammed through a phone call. With such a massive organization and so many teams, how does customer protection still fall through the cracks? What exactly are all those teams accountable for?
I can see them literally begging for help in the tickets but the Support teams just don't seem to care.
I am not sure what the right thing to do is
So what do you think they will tell us at the “cross tenant” podcasts?
Will they start by apologizing for tanking the company and making us look like id--ts to our customers?
https://www.facebook.com/groups/1139701801516302
Verizon hikes prices on multiple discounted offers for customers
Aug 24, 2026 7:17 PM EDT
https://www.thestreet.com/retail/verizon-raises-prices-disney-streaming-bundles
"The pricing changes came after Verizon CEO Dan Schulman vowed to be more cautious about enforcing price increases following the loss of roughly 2.25 million wireless customers over the past three years. He reaffirmed this promise on an earnings call in July."
“We will not raise prices without adding corresponding value for our customers,” said Schulman.
"On its website, Verizon states that the rate adjustments take effect on Sept. 17 and blames Disney for these upcoming changes."
Verizon sales and support representatives often keep customers on expensive plans against their requests because company commission structures and performance metrics heavily incentivize high-tier plan retention and upsells.
How do executives think the AT&T guarantee is a good thing?
If anything, it’s a complete middle finger to the customer when their internet is out for a day, and they get $2.32 refunded 30 days later.
Are they just THIS out of touch with normal people?
I put years into USAA many years ago, before USAA even advertised on TV much less did any performative woke sh--. I was there in C when Bob Davis decided that parts of USAA and the people who work there are just disposable biomass. Much like the Indian contractors who vie for izzat points nobody outside the building cares about now.
Have had several friends and family members also come and go from USAA over the years. Short of the period Joe Robles was trying to repair the damage from the Herres/Davis years, everyone left the place never wanting to return or hear of it again (IOW, the typical USAA exit experience).
Overall, a large chunk of USAA membership is now fully aware they are getting subpar financial products, particularly with the bank. But of course also with dwell and auto. It's probably been 15 years now since I've heard a single veteran sing the company's praises. They're still with USAA only because of inertia and the chore of moving accounts away (a chore that's less of a chore now thanks to Plaid).
Then occasionally USAA does something to knock off a few procrastinators who take their business.
Let's take the ridiculous marketing and advertising of P&C this summer, specifically the laughable auto rates that the quotes system has been handing out. How many millions were poured into getting us all to laugh? Many LOLs were had by prospects sharing their USAA quotes on Instagram this season.
Like... GEICO writes motorcycle policies for $75 a bike on a FULL YEAR TERM, right now without UIM and $175 with UIM. USAA can't even underwrite that sector anymore (it used to, back when it also sold jewelry in the basement of the AB building LOL), pays PRO's fees and hands out a sh-t laughable quote 20 times higher. I sat with my sister (she has a perfect FICO 850 no claims) and got a $4,900 annual for a Nissan with 2k miles. Everyone else came under $3,000. The only way I could describe this behavior coming from USAA, and this is my opinion of course... but I'm confident I'm not alone with this opinion: USAA has finally devolved itself into a full-blown FTC-violating scam operation.
It's either that or there is some serious FCF problem at the company to be throwing quotes out multiples to the market, higher than Chubb.
I mean, I guess the new overpaid IBM Bob AI can figure out how to right the company since hundreds of leaders that have come/gone can't seem to figure it out. Perhaps its hopeless.
Remember: USAA was once a business that was growing with no advertising and it also built its HQ on Fred Road while it was never advertising. It had a culture. Which has been completely destroyed and is never coming back. The members were once so excited about the company and the culture, the business sold itself and members told others of its values for free.
Look at it now. USAA is a cesspit masquerading as finance.
Maybe USAA should go ahead and re-register itself into Virgin Islands shell husk like CIGNA did and free the HQ building and the land up. Nobody needs any of the products the company offers any longer.
A few weeks old but still interesting. Community Forum was closed to push people to use the AI tech support. Apparently most customers didn't know it even existed because they already vented amongst themselves on Reddit, Facebook and X (the artist formerly known as Twitter)
https://www.phonearena.com/news/verizon-betrayal-doesnt-hurt-as-it-should_id182084
How is this layoff related?
Customer sentiment is an indicator of company success.
Company success or lack thereof is an indicator of future layoffs.
Successful company has layoffs → customer satisfaction drops → customers leave → company success drops → company has to course correct and maybe stop layoffs to regain customers or face the decision to sell or close.
Am I petty and immature for being overjoyed that my dog sitter texted her clients to say she has had too many bad experiences with Venmo and will no longer accept payments via Venmo?
https://www.phonearena.com/news/we-asked-you-what-it-would-take-for-verizon-to-bring-you-back-and-the-answer-was-no-surprise_id181970
We asked you what it would take for Verizon to bring you back and the answer was no surprise.The answer probably won't shock you, but the number will.
Verizon has leaned on network reliability as its calling card for years. 52.79% of voters said cheaperplans would get them to come back to Verizon.Only 15.79% wanted a better or faster network, and 11.48% wanted improved coverage, while 19.94% said nothing would bring them back at all.To ex-Verizon subscribers: what would make you return? Better network with higher speeds.12.07%.Reliability isn't what's keeping people awayThat's a strange kind of win for Russo. If the goal really was a network nobody thinks.about, this poll suggests he mostly pulled it off. Only about 27% of respondents cited.the network or coverage as a reason to return, and that number looks smaller once
you remember plenty of longtime subscribers walked away over price hikes If ex-Verizon customers aren't shopping for a stronger signal, network bragging rights carry less weight than the monthly bill.
MVNOs like Visible and Mint Mobile, which lean almost entirely on price, are probably
better positioned to win this group back than any new 5G milestone. What the 19.94% tells us If you're one of the 19.94% who said nothing would bring you back, that's worth sitting with. Almost a fifth of respondents aren't shopping on price or performance anymore, they're just done.For everyone else, the takeaway is simpler. Verizon's reliability doesn't appear to be in question anymore, at least according to you. What's still in question is whether the carrier is willing to compete on price the way its own MVNOs already do.
Where Verizon's pitch still falls short that reliability builds trust. But trust alone doesn't win back asubscriber who already left, and this poll makes it pretty clear that price decides it for most people.Verizon has leaned on network quality as its calling card for years, and based on what.you told us, that part of the pitch isn't what's broken. The pricing pitch is. If Dan Schulman's promised customer-first era is going to move the needle with ex- subscribers, it likely runs through cheaper plans long before it runs through faster
speeds.
I see them more and more in my country. Public Sector.
Customer set an aspirational spend, not committed. Discounts are given on a rate card based on that aspirational spend.
What’s the whole point about this? Do you see these contracts in your countries?.
To anybody out there. Be honest, not discouraging, I have another job opportunity with ATT. It would be a field service rep, you go and sell to customers that have appointments for internet install. The pay sounds great, does anybody know anything about taking this job?
I was recently laid off and have had nothing but issues with my account. The problem is, you can’t approach fidelity for help online. On r** for example, the mods will falsely flag comments and posts as spam, downvote you 100 times, why is this an okay practice? Lots of customers leaving, going to Vanguard etc. Loss of customers only leads to may layoffs. But most companies currently don’t seem to care about the American people. Sad times.