Talk:Cox Communications

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search
This is not a forum for general discussion of Cox Communications. Any such messages will be deleted or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Cox Communications at the Reference desk, discuss relevant Wikipedia policy at the Village pump, or ask for help at the Help desk.
          This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Companies (Rated Start-Class, Mid-importance)
Factory 1b.svg
Companies portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Companies, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Companies on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Business (Rated Start-Class, Mid-priority)
Businessbriefcase.png
Business and economics portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Business on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-priority on the project's priority scale.

Contents

[edit] too much praise?

is it just me, or does it seem like the whole article does nothing but praise cox? (or at least being neutral). How about some screw ups they've had? such as their supposed blocking of craigslist a while back?--marqmike2 02:39, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Uhh, wait... what?

Parts of this article look like they were written by the company themselves, and clearly doesn't meet Wikipedia standards. I marked one section as disputed as there are numerous general statements made that are not backed up by source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.223.92.147 (talk) 08:12, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Parts of the article?? The entire thing sounds like it was written by a company employee... I can see that Wiki editors have been slowly editing it, but a lot of the core content has got to go or be drastically edited. I don't see the point for having the listed of serviced areas except to promote Cox service. FantajiFan (talk) 01:41, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you. A lot of this article sounds as though someone inside the company wrote them. I tried to reword some sentences so they didn't seem like such an advertisement, but almost nothing in here has sources. Darkteferi 21:38, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Editorial?

Much of the article appears to be editorial comments and opinions on the cable industry. Particulary the Consumer Issues section. IPingUPing 01:35, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I moved the Consumer Issues section to Cable Television section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dslprime (talk • contribs) 18:32, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] HIgh Definition

This section makes no sense and should be removed. The first sentence is an incomplete sentence. Adding HD channels has nothing to do with the analog to digital conversion which will happen on 2/17/2009 not 2/16/2009.

High Definition Launches HDTV in Omaha, Nebraska, Las Vegas and Phoenix. As of November 20, 2007, Cox Communications has been expanding their HD service by adding more High-Def channels and more along the way. This will help prepare for February 16, 2009 when the Federal Communications Commission has confirmed that all broadcasting will be digital and that all analog signals will be dropped.Dslprime (talk) 21:15, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Residential Services Added

Attempted to consolidate some of the comments and in the discussion page by creating a residential services area and adding tight references. IPingUPing (talk) 00:54, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Suggestions

I have a WP:COI on this since I work for the company so I don't want to edit it myself, but I see what many of the people on this talk page have said as very true. I think this sounds too insider as well, and I was almost hoping to get something that I haven't heard as an employee.

So even though I have a conflict of interest here, I do have a few suggestions in order to perhaps neutralize it a bit.

  • The current systems section could be removed, or reduced down simply to a list of states that include markets. I don't think the average reader looking for generic info on the company really cares about each and every little city that cox is in, besides they can find that out on Cox's website itself.
  • The other business unit's shouldn't be included on this page. We consider those to be closest to the cable side of things but technically they are a part of (CEI)Cox Enterprises and should be listed on the CEI article. Cox business could potentially get it's own section since they are connected directly to the cable business if anyone had anything relevant or interesting with good references but otherwise I would say until then it might as well be left out, maybe just with a small mention somewhere in a paragraph if you think it is fitting.
  • the history section starts out discussing cox enterprises which sounds like something that only an employee would be worried about. It would be better if it starts out discussing cox communications (the cable side of the company) beginnings and perhaps linking to the parent company if someone feels that it would be a good idea.

Anyway, thought I would just add some notes to help out in case anyone wanted some ideas on how to make it more neutral because I agree it does sounds a bit like reading material I have seen at work. If I am wrong on any of these points feel free to ignore them, that's why I am suggesting it on the talk page and not making the edits myself ~~not signed by the employee who wrote this on purpose~~ 23:04, December 26, 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Need more on service agreement policies

This page needs more information on e.g. incoming blocked ports to help people who are shopping for internet service. E.g., Cox blocks incoming ports 80, 25, and many more. If you press the sales reps they will tell you about it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.196.244.178 (talk) 18:26, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Not understanding how the article can be called anything but netural...

After reading this article, I can't see how anyone could stake a claim that the wording or facts in the article are anything but netural. I think the claim from 2007 needs to be removed, I can find no ground for the claim any longer.

68.103.127.227 (talk) 03:20, 30 October 2009 (UTC)J Hopper 10-29-09

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Cox_Communications"