"The company has hundreds of thousands of business and residential customers that live and work in primarily suburban, small-town, and rural communities across more than twenty states.
In 2006 Cebridge purchased cable systems from Charter Communications and Cox Communications. Once the deals were complete the company changed their name to Suddenlink.  With these new cable systems Suddenlink is now among the nation’s top 10 largest cable system operators, serving 1.4 million customers primarily in the South Central United States . Suddenlink offers digital television, phone, security, and high-speed Internet services . "
This must have been posted by a Cebridge employees, the information cites their own web page.
this means that suddenlink was also formerly known as cox. also, they operate in the southeastern states too. cox was based in atlanta and had service in the carolinas as well.
- Suddenlink was never know as Cox, they just purchased some systems from Cox. Same deal with Charter. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 21:30, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
I have rewritten the whole article added company history and added more information to the inforamtion box. Alucard 16 20:04, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
From the article itself:
Today, Suddenlink has 1,516,600 total subscribers and is the seventh largest cable provider in the United States .
I don't see why this article should be deleted, let alone speedily deleted. --Bill Clark 20:41, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
- These statements are an assertion of notability; therefore, this article is not a candidate for speedy deletion. It may still be nominated for a deletion discussion at Articles for Deletion. --Ginkgo100talk 21:57, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
- Is this the only part in the article that calls for deletion? If it is just delete the phrase instead of deleting the whole article. Alucard 16 00:49, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Customers who were previously serviced by Cox or Charter are now serviced by Suddenlink. Suddenlink did not buy both companies, they acquired small portions of their cable areas that the companies put up for sale. Alucard 16 22:24, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Fair use rationale for Image:Cebridge logo.gif
Image:Cebridge logo.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
Trimming for undue weight
I trimmed the article of undue weight items here. The items I trimmed gave undue weight to local temporary disputes and items of questionable notability.Americasroof (talk) 14:01, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
An image used in this article, File:Suddenlink Logo.png, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: Wikipedia files with no non-free use rationale as of 5 January 2012
Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.
so, suddenlink has recently imposed data restrictions on its "non-commercial" customers (within the past few months), putting a cap on the amount of data you can download without being charged extra... rather than charging based on the kb/s they are trying to add a total byte limit on the grounds that they can't provide adequate customer support if you're traffic excedes 150 gigabytes a month... Wonder if this should be added to the page in a section about their position on net neutrality as well as privacy... Anyway, just thought I'd get that out there for discussion. Lawstubes (talk) 17:35, 16 December 2012 (UTC)