Maps, Directions, and Place Reviews
50Mbit residential speeds
Perhaps someone can comment on this. The article states Comcast offers 50Mbit residential speeds, their commercials pretty much say the same thing yet when I called our local comcast office (15601) I was told 50Mbit was business class only. Anyone have any information that can back up they provide 50Mbit to residential clients other then Comcast saying it themselves?Woods01 (talk) 02:34, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
Worst in America?
An edit keeps finding its way to the article, despite it not being true, nor being cited. While Comcast has vied for "worst in America" on Consumerist.com, it has never to my knowledge "won" this distinction. The Huffington Post has not to my knowledge hosted a "worst company" contest or poll -- they have merely reported on the Consumerist's straw poll, and one columnist predicted that Comcast would come out on top, though it did not. Gizmodo, likewise, made passing reference to the Consumerist's ranking, but did mention that AIG upended Comcast from the "worst" title. I would appreciate if someone could take a look at this and restore Wikipedia to being a NPOV reference. It's funny how we don't see any sort of balance or fairness. I guess "The Consumerist" is a more reliable source than the Wall Street Journal or MarketWatch. -- Thekohser 11:11, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Commented information.
- Why was a large portion of this article commented out? Irbisgreif (talk) 01:54, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Domain "Helper"
I've noticed a lot of people complaining online in blogs and stuff about Comcast's new "service", "Domain Helper". It redirects partial url's to Comcast's own search engine. Should it be included in the Controversies section? Fruckert (talk) 21:15, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
MediaOne AT&T
It is my understanding that Comcast purchased AT&T Broadband (who in turn had already purchased MediaOne... at least where I lived)
Except that in this article it is mentioned that 1) In 2002 Comcast purchased AT&T Broadband 2) In 2002 Comcast and MediaOne merged. According to the MediaOne article AT&T aquired MediaOne which I accept to correct, but it might have been a regional thing....
Subsidiaries
Could someone please add a list of subsidiaries for Comcast?
This link provides a couple that I know of: http://www.cedmagazine.com/comcast-to-buy-cablevision-subsidiaries.aspx --Preceding unsigned comment added by Ihafez (talk o contribs) 20:58, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
Poor Customer Service Section
I don't think the "Reputation for poor customer satisfaction" belongs on this page. If anything, it should be relabeled to a more neutral title such as "Controversy", and the section could be shortened. 98.240.186.179 (talk) 14:28, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
Cross promotion
Where can someone place that the comcsst digital cable remote made an appearance on CBS's Big Brother 12 on the live August 5th, 2010 eviction show during a video segment?--Cooly123 01:19, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
NPOV
I added an NPOV tag because after reading through the Controversy Section, it really does seem rather biased...
--Mooshykris (talk) 13:23, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
I added a line about the Comcast Digital Cares Team and two references to show Comcast's recent efforts at improving customer service. Will look into any other recent efforts as well as recent failures. --JenniferOrtiz (talk) 05:22, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
XFinity
How do we clean up the article to replace Comcast with XFinity cleanly? CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 18:36, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
Controversy section a little bit big?
I know Comcast isn't everyones favorite company but the controversy section takes up half the page most of these can probably be moved to a separate page and just leave the most controversial ones.
Plus the Level 3 dispute is overly simplified and one sided. Several sites have articles that go multiple pages in depth on the situation and show its not just Level 3 being a victim.
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/12/comcastlevel3.ars
It really affects the neutrality of the article. --Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.41.154.157 (talk) 21:14, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
If a company generates very large amounts of controversy, it should not complain that their Wikipedia article contains a long controversy section. I for one, as an unfortunate new customer and a victim of their TCP RST (reset) packet scheme, have found the controversy section very useful reading. --Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.231.183.119 (talk) 09:10, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
The issue isn't the company having a large controversy section, but that it seems to affect the article's neutrality. 200.94.114.216 (talk) 16:45, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
I think if you are to include a section about controversy, at all; and no accompanying section on commendation/praise/accolades/etc. you are potentially affecting the appearance of neutrality, but that does not in itself say that you are affecting the objective neutrality of the article. I find the controversy section of this article to be well cited and not slanderous. I think the content of public criticism, lawsuits, and regulatory complaints are critical to an accurate encyclopedic article on a corporate entity. -- Preceding unsigned comment added by Innocentantic (talk o contribs) 19:13, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Adelphia
For the more information of this deal:
- http://www.forbes.com/2004/09/22/0922automarketscan09.html
- http://www.forbes.com/2005/04/21/cx_da_0421topnews.html
With best regards --Markus Schulenburg (talk) 23:13, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Unexplained image
What's with the random network usage graph? It's left-aligned (not floated) and has no explanatory caption. --Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.82.176.64 (talk) 05:34, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
Criticism in the lead section
Several SPA IPs and now a newly created user account have been edit warring over adding criticism content to the lead section. The text being added:
However, I believe this goes against WP:WEIGHT, WP:NPOV, as well as WP:LEAD. Lead sections can contain mention of notable criticisms, but if they exist, then they should not give undue weight or emphasis, should be written from a neutral perspective, and not be a generic hodge-podge of criticisms. The wording being added is clearly agenda-driven soapboxing, and is not appropriate anywhere in an article, let alone in the lead.
If criticisms are mentioned in the lead (and I think that inclusion should be discussed to verify consensus for it), then the mention should be trimmed considerably and re-worded to a much more neutral perspective.
No one is hiding that there are controversies and criticisms by removing and/or reducing the mention from the lead section. There's an existing controversies section that goes into much more depth, is better sourced, and more neutrally worded. There's no need for soapboxing in the lead. --- Barek (talk o contribs) - 17:45, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
- The argument could be made that your efforts to prevent this from being included in the intro is, in and of itself, a form of soapboxing. We're talking about a single sentence here. It's hardly a diatribe and I think the tone is quite neutral. There's nothing in there that's misleading. Comcast has received criticism for all of these things. If the statement were something along the lines of "Comcast totally sucks because of their terrible customer service, dirty deals with politicians, shady business practices, etc" you might have a point. Weneedmorescience (talk) 09:36, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
RFC for discussion on criticism in the lead section
Should the criticism in the lead section remain as worded, be condensed and reworded more neutrally, or simply be removed? The primary policies and guidelines involved (I believe) are WP:WEIGHT, WP:NPOV, & WP:LEAD. --- Barek (talk o contribs) - 16:25, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
- Is there a cable tv provider that isn't criticized along those lines? If there isn't solid support for the claim that they're somehow far from the industry norm (which there could be on net neutrality, given their ownership of NBC etc), it doesn't belong in the lede. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:09, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
- Regardless, even though other cable companies have been criticized for similar stances/controversies, does that mean it shouldn't be included in the introduction? If anything, perhaps Time-Warner and others should include a critique on their own pages? Comcast has received a great deal of flack in the media for their rather questionable business dealings and tactics, more so than other companies, as far as I know. While an argument could be made that the sentence could be trimmed up a bit under WP:WEIGHT, I remain convinced *something* along these lines belongs in the lead. Weneedmorescience (talk) 11:24, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
- There's a whole section of the article devoted to these controversies, so the sentence in question is the least that should be in the lead. To be honest, edit warring to remove this sentence appears to be an attempt to whitewash the lead, in my view.
-- V = IR (Talk o Contribs) 17:20, 8 July 2011 (UTC) - Reword lead to remove term "criticism" - Criticisms of companies should certainly be described in the lead, provided that (1) the sources mention the criticisms prominently; and (2) the criticism are described in a neutral way that touches on both sides of the story. A lead sentence that focuses on the word "criticism" - such as "Comcast has been criticized for poor customer service" - is not an encyclopedic statement. Better is to reword to say something like "Comcast, with over X million customers, has a significant number of customer service complaints. In response, Comcast initiated a customer service improvement program in 2009." [Numbers and date fabricated]. Another example: Not neutral: Comcast has been criticized for its net neutrality stance; better: "Comcast has been involved in the net neutrality issue, taking stance ABC, which was opposed by group XYZ". In summary: reword to remove the word "criticism" and replace with a neutral (pro and con) description of the underlying issue. --Noleander (talk) 01:29, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
- That's a little too much whitewashing, I think, especially since Comcast's efforts have been for naught. It still ranks low in this regard. Shouldn't our goal also be to keep things brief in the intro? Re: net neutrality, it's best to say they've been criticized and leave the reader to scroll down for further details on the subject. As for the word "criticism" itself, that's rather neutral. The only other thing I can think of that might be better would be something along the lines of "Comcast has been the subject of controversies including its stance of net neutrality, poor customer service, lobbying....etc." Weneedmorescience (talk) 12:33, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
- That part should be removed from the first two paragraphs and moved down into the body of the article. Do all companies which have high levels of criticisim (i.e. Time Warner, AT&T, etc...) all have some similar kind of statement in the lead two paragraphs? It crosses the line with WP:NPOV, by "displaying in the lights" about the controversial problems/issues the cable operator has, but is too vague. I vote for moving to to the body of the article or complete removal NECRATSpeak to me 09:47, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
- I know bugger all about comcast - and a google search for "comcast controversy" produced 3 million hits vs. 146 million hits for just "comcast". I got similar ratios (around 2%) for half a dozen other broadcasters I tried this with - while the Enron and Exxon ratios are about 5% . So I'm not convinced that comcast is notable for any great controversy, but I don't claim to have provided a definitive means of judging that. But if the consensus is that about 40% of the article should be devoted to complaints and controversies, then it should certainly appear in the lead. I think it needs to be reworked, however, because "...the company has also been the subject of substantial amounts of criticism from..." is very clunky, for instance. MissionNPOVible (talk) 01:44, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
ANI
Just to let everyone know, this discussion has been reported at Administrator Notice Boards/Incidents, and all edits to the lede will be under greater scrutiny by administrators and other univolved parties, such as myself - I will have the article watchlisted until the action slows down. VanIsaacWS 18:20, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
Corporate Jet in Controversy Section?
Why is it here? Comcast didn't take any bailouts from the government and has no financial issues why is this relevant for a controversy section? I just don't see it as all that controversial. 68.41.154.157 (talk) 08:05, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
texas is missing for coverage
im not good at editing wiki's, but here's the source: http://www.comcast.com/Corporate/shop/Products/local/texas.cspx -- Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.93.73.100 (talk) 12:35, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
Comcast Business Class
Do you think Comcast Business Class should have its own Wikipedia entry? -- Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.211.226.222 (talk) 22:44, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Links
>> Comcast CEO Roberts Emerges From Malone Shadow as King of Cable(Lihaas (talk) 11:28, 14 February 2014 (UTC)).
Control 75% of cable market?
I recently removed the claim from the Lead section of the article that the Time Warner acquisition would give Comcast control of up to 75% of the cable market. I'm having trouble finding a good source for that. Plenty shows up in Google, but not enough to convince me that it's not a mistake propagated with the help of Wikipedia. The source given in the article didn't say anything about 75%, and seemed to give the number as 30%, as did a NYTimes piece I read the other day. Does anybody know anything about this who could clear up the issue? The claim was added in this edit by User:Factsearch. (Pinging them so they can respond if they want.) ~Adjwilley (talk) 05:16, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, yes I took the 75% as being commonly known. In any event livemint.com and The Wall Street Journal used the following reference which I believe I picked up from a Reuters article: "A tie-up between Comcast and Time Warner Cable would face tough scrutiny from the Federal Communications Commission," Craig Moffett, an analyst at MoffettNathanson LLC, said in an interview in January. The merged company would account for almost three-quarters of the cable industry, according to the National Cable Television Association.
The key is the second sentence, the NCTA being the trade association for the U.S. cable industry. Unfortunately I haven't been able to detect any reference to the Comcast/Time Warner deal on NCTA's website so I agree it would be a stretch to sustain the 75% claim without a direct quote or reference from the apparent source of the information. Factsearch --Preceding undated comment added 14:33, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
Xfinity
Considering how Verizon FiOS is separate from Verizon Communications, and the same with AT&T U-verse and AT&T Inc., I don't think it's far fetched to separate the triple play service Xfinity, from the telecommunications and media parent company Comcast. NThomas (talk) 04:23, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
My last edit
I made an edit earlier today where I edited the infobox to include that the current Comcast was founded on December 7, 2001 in Philadelphia and added a source I archived through the Wayback Machine to prove this. However, after doing some research I'm wondering whether I made a mistake carrying out that edit. My previous understanding had been that there were a minimum of two types of mergers. One type was where one company would absorb another company, and the remaining company would remain. The other type is what is actually a merger, where two companies combine to form a new company. I had been hoping that the Comcast I have a current relationship with was the original one, but the source I found confirmed to me that the old Comcast disappeared in 2001, and the one I started a relationship with is the current one. I realize now that when I read the press release on the Comcast website, by "new company" they meant that the current Comcast would be replaced with a new company.
If anything thinks I shouldn't have made the edit I did, I have no problem with reverting it. I realize that it's the same situation with T-Mobile US, where the old company was T-Mobile USA. So I learned something new today. Jesant13 (talk) 22:45, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
Owner of Comcast
There is no source to identify that Independent owns Comcast. -- Preceding unsigned comment added by Passionpersian (talk o contribs) 19:31, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
Removal of criticism summary in the lead section
A consensus was reached a while back regarding the wording and inclusion of a summary of the criticism material in the lead section; that discussion also involved an RFC as well as a thread at ANI:
- Talk:Comcast/Archive 2#Criticism in the lead section
- Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive718#Comcast article
However, recently Justinw303 (talk · contribs) has been wanting to remove that material. Given the prior consensus, a discussion is needed before wholesale removal to determine if consensus on the inclusion has changed.
Per WP:LEAD, the lead should "summarize the most important points--including any prominent controversies" - so I do agree with a mention in the lead section. However, I would also agree that the phrasing again needs to be cleaned up to be presented more neutrally in the lead. The section is for a high-level introduction, not providing details of the criticisms - which is more appropriately contained in its own section. --- Barek (talk o contribs) - 22:42, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Merger Proposal
I propose Merging Criticism of Comcast with Comcast to create an article that represents a NPOV without forking POVs ( one priase one critical ) [[User:Bryce Carmony|BryceBryce Carmony (talk) 03:25, 14 March 2015 (UTC) Carmony]] (talk) 21:10, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
- Comment. No. In my honest opinion, there is too much criticism about this company that there needs to be an article about it. But since the article is mainly about Comcast itself, I wouldn't mind merging it. Smarty9108 (talk) 03:18, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
- Crimes by contractors
There have been instances of attack, theft, rape and other crimes by Comcast contractors. These have taken place during home installations, service calls, door-to-door flyering, and neighborhood visits.
Certainly this is controversial. but how is this a "criticism" is there someone who is saying "because the contractors did this, I criticise comcast" no, we don't have it written like that, the way we write it is as if to say "certainly YOU the READER should criticise comcast look at how bad this is" that's not NPOV. A "Comcast Controversies" would so easily handle this. Crimes of Contractors - then we provide the source. and let the reader make up their mind what to think. If a SPECIFIC criticism is about these crimes, by all means we can source it. you have to admit that the section "Crimes by contractors" is lacking a specific person ( our group ) giving the criticism. Bryce Carmony (talk) 10:34, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
Spinning off company with Chief Financial Officer Michael J. Angelaki
Bloomberg.com is reporting, March 2015, that Comcast is investing in a new company with CFO Angelaki that "will focus on investments in growth businesses around the world." Where is the best place to include this information in the article? Its own section under "Divisions and Subsidiaries" or under the subsection of "Venture Captial"? -- Preceding unsigned comment added by Pistongrinder (talk o contribs) 16:10, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Comcast. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/20091005040258/http://www.philly.com:80/philly/business/homepage/20091003_Questions_continue_to_swirl_around_Comcast_venture.html to http://www.philly.com/philly/business/homepage/20091003_Questions_continue_to_swirl_around_Comcast_venture.html
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090522184255/http://www.espnmediazone.com:80/press_releases/2009_05_may/20090519_COMCASTADDSESPNUANDESPN360.COMTOLINEUPWITHCONTENT.htm to http://www.espnmediazone.com/press_releases/2009_05_may/20090519_COMCASTADDSESPNUANDESPN360.COMTOLINEUPWITHCONTENT.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.
Cheers. --cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 03:01, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Comcast. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150906111757/http://www.cnbc.com/id/34225581 to http://www.cnbc.com/id/34225581
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070827175226/http://www.theacsi.org:80/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=169&Itemid=168 to http://www.theacsi.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=169&Itemid=168
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071116182816/http://www.theacsi.org:80/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=149&Itemid=157&c=Comcast+Corporation&i=Cable+%26+Satellite+TV to http://www.theacsi.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=149&Itemid=157&c=Comcast+Corporation&i=Cable+%26+Satellite+TV
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.
Cheers.--cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 18:43, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on Comcast. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090312061951/http://www.theacsi.org//index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=86&Itemid=90 to http://www.theacsi.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=86&Itemid=90
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.
Cheers.--cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 11:56, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Comcast Cable which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. --RMCD bot 20:01, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
Source of the article : Wikipedia
EmoticonEmoticon