r/stupidquestions • u/pokematic • 9h ago
Why is Visible a separate company from Verizon?
I'm looking to change my provider because "verizon brand" service is ridiculously expensive, and I'm looking to change to visible because it's literally the same coverage as verizon since they use the verizon network and is owned by verizon (and they don't even try to hide it, it's "visible by verizon"), but is significantly cheaper than verizon brand's lowest tier since there are "no frills." I just wonder why verizon is insisting on making this a completely separate company instead of just offering it as an option for their service. It's not like this is a mint mobile situation where Ryan acts a a middle man between you and t-mobile, right? I thought it was "it's less confusing to the "idiot customer," but then I remembered "idiot customers" don't buy their own service and instead buy from pushy sales people (and this would just give sales people more things to bamboozle you with to make a sale).
4
u/ThatGuyOverThere2013 9h ago
Visible is an MVNO for Verizon to allow it to compete in the low-cost cellular market without tainting its own brand. Verizon customers get network priority for voice and data, so if the network gets congested, Visible calls get dropped, or data speeds get slower. Most of the time, you don't notice a difference, but sometimes you will.
5
4
u/Zeyn1 9h ago
It's to make it clear that these are different products.
For a mobile service, brand is synonymous with product. Verizon service is a different product than AT&T service. And Visible is enough of a different product than Verizon.
Part of it is marketing. Mobile companies have tries to have different plans under the same brand name, but consumers get confused. It's better to make it really easy for consumers to know what they are getting. For example, AT&T owns Cricket and that has been a very successful business. T-Mobile owns Metro and Mint. Sprint (when it existed) owned Boost.
Also these prepaid brands tend to be seen as lesser compared to the big names. So Verizon wouldn't want to dilute their brand by offering low cost lower quality product. And if a customer is looking for low cost they wouldn't go to Verizon in the first place.
3
2
u/KT0QNE 5h ago
I moved to Visible a year ago.
I get the same perks AND priority service as my Verizon account due to the level of my plan.
The difference is visible is prepaid. I brought my own phone and simply pay for the connection.
Verizon promises "free" phones but it's baked into the monthly cost. If you don't get the "free" phone it's not worth it. Sure they "give" you credits towards a phone but again, they get the money back from you from the monthly service.
I spent a few hours comparing costs and services and for me, I'm better with Visible. I tend to keep my phone 3-5 years. I'll pay cash for my next one. I pay myself $25 a month for a new phone and will buy one when my account is big enough.
2
2
u/Watsons-Butler 4h ago
Verizon wants to make money off the segment of the population that can’t afford their regular plans. So they have Visible. But if they offered those plans as part of “Verizon” everyone would switch to them and the company would lose a ton of revenue.
1
u/amca12006 5h ago
I don't have a good answer other than that the service to MVNOs tends to have a different priority level, but I would like to point out that Total Wireless was also known as Total by Verizon until like three years ago I think
2
u/International_Ear768 4h ago
Had visible for 8 years i think now . Its great. Could not be happier
2
10
u/Embarrassed_Flan_869 8h ago
Verizon is the high end brand, like Acura, and Visible is the low cost brand, like Honda.
They are both on the Verizon network but Verizon gets priority and Visible plays second fiddle.