Talk:Comcast/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions about Comcast. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

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)

i am a private citizen and i do have a 50megz internet connx provided by Comcast until very recently,at which time i switched to High Speed Verizon Fios which is quite frankly much better. you should try and determe it

i also found a source COMCASST OFFERS NEW 50MBIT RESIDENTIAL SPEED AND OTHER AMEANITIESfrom a noted computer magazine PC MAGAZINE which mentions comcasts NEW 50mbit residential speeds, which appears to be a new program that your local bureau of investigation might not have yet heard of. Smith Jones (talk) 03:01, 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)

Because of POV issues. --> RUL3R^{*flaming | *vandalism} 05:08, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Then it should have been removed, not commented out. Irbisgreif (talk) 05:13, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

commented out? all we did was remove the unsourcec NPOV stuff, which never should have been involved. what is commented out?> User:Smith Jones 12:14, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

A large portion of the article was hidden behind a comment tag, including the references list. Irbisgreif (talk) 21:42, 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)

Typically, blogs and forum posts are not considered reliable sources. You need a reliable source before adding information. - RUL3R^*trolling_*vandalism 22:08, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Granted, but is [1] that a reliable source? And doing some Google searches does lead to some news reports, that's just the number one result that I got. Fruckert (talk) 08:04, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it is, major news outlets are considered so. But there are 2 other concerns you must take into account.

Is it notable enough to justify inclusion? and...
Is there enough verifiable information to write at least a paragraph?

If the answer to both is "yes" then be bold and to ahead with it. =) - RUL3R^*trolling_*vandalism 08:15, 12 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....

The actual order of things was approximately, 1998 Comcast goes after MediaOne; 1999 Comcast gives up on that; 2000 Comcast acquires Lenfest instead of MediaOne; 2000 AT&T acquires MediaOne; 2001 Comcast acquires the "broadband" unit of AT&T (which included the old MediaOne footprint). That is the rough chain of events, regardless of what it might say in any Wikipedia article. -- H. Navarro 21:17, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

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 • 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)

The article is about the company, whose full name is "Comcast Corporation". XFINITY is just a brand name for certain digital services. - BilCat (talk) 18:44, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

LOL Good... The previous editor caught me off guard.... I'm glad we don't have to clean a mess like that. Don't mind me... I get confused easily :-D CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 18:50, 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 • contribs) 19:13, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Adelphia

For the more information of this deal:

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:

"Over the years, the company has also been the subject of substantial amounts of criticism from subscribers and the media for its poor customer service, stance on net neutrality, relationships with local, state and federal governments, business practices and controversial lobbying efforts."

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 • 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)

I cited Wikipedia policy and guidelines for my reasons. Your argument seems to be "I like the mention being there". --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:07, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

I'll start a WP:RFC for this discussion, below. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:25, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. I touched on each one of your points. Is the sentence neutral? I believe so. Is it soapboxing? Not really. Is there undue weight/emphasis? Again, I don't think so. I remain firm that some sort of criticism belongs in the introduction but perhaps we can reach a compromise on trimming it up a bit? Weneedmorescience (talk) 11:24, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

For starters on trimming, remove the editorializing quantifier "of substantial amounts", let the reader see the facts and judge for themselves. Next, trim the generic list of issues to specific issues - for example, net neutrality is specific - I have no issue with that one. A possible rewording: "Comcast has been the subject of criticism for its stance on net neutrality." The customer service issues could also be mentioned, but focus on a specific example, such as the customer survey scores (at least three rating sources are mentioned in the controversy section, which could be used as sources), not a generic statement. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:38, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I think this particular quantifier, or something along these lines, is necessary. Comcast is a *heavily* criticized corporation. Some might even go so far as to call it "reviled." The prob with your customer service suggestion is that it lengthens an already lengthy sentence, no? I think it might be best to keep this bit brief since further details can be found further down in the article. 12:33, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable source for the quantifier, or is that unsourced synthesis and attempting to establish a specific point-of-view? --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 19:08, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Given the lack of any reliable sources being presented, I'm going ahead and removing that wording. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 15:45, 24 August 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 • contribs) - 16:25, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Per WP:LEAD, the lead should "summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies". As the lead stands currently, there are several controversies listed that I would say were not "prominent". I would either remove the sentence in question, or wordsmith to only include the most prominent of the controversies. Leef5 ^{TALK | CONTRIBS} 16:55, 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)

I agree that the net neutrality issue could belong in the lead as a specific and prominent controversy. It's the current generic hodge-podge and non-neutral wording with which I've had issues. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:38, 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 • 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 NECRAT^{Speak 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)

The claim "substantial amounts" also has issues with WP:NPOV as it imposes an editorial evaluation of the amount of complaints. Pending any reliable sources, that wording should be removed. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 15:45, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Coming here from AN/I

1.A summary is a summary of the article. A summary section should be as neutral as possible, butiti s right to mention controversy. I think there is usually no need to cite general statements if the article explains the specifics, but opinions vary on this, so it might be best to include them for negative aspects.

2.The word "criticism"is best avoided everywhere in an article like this.

3.Section headings should be neutral. "customer relations" is better than "customer complaints", "service quality" than "service problems". The negative material is better expressed in the text.

4. For the problematic sentence " Comcast has been the subject of criticism, among these include the company's stance on net neutrality [8] as well as poor results on customer satisfaction surveys." I suggest: Comcast has had a significant role in discussion on network neutrality, and the company does not rank high in studies of customer satisfaction". Though I don't think links necessary here, they should be added at least for the 2nd part , just to avoid disagreement about it.

5. The word "claims" should be avoided. DGG ( talk ) 16:45, 29 August 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. Van Isaac_WS 18:20, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

For others coming here from ANI, a quick synopsis of the above timeline:

Originally, this article did not contain a mention of the criticisms in the lead section. The material was added by an IP and user:

Over the years, the company has also been the subject of substantial amounts of criticism from subscribers and the media for its poor customer service, stance on net neutrality, relationships with local, state and federal governments, business practices and controversial lobbying efforts.

When it was first added, I viewed the addition as not compliant with WP:WEIGHT, WP:NPOV, as well as WP:LEAD - and so I removed it. After it was restored, I began the above discussion, and as the two of us were not agreeing, I then started the above RFC. Based on the results of the RFC, I created a new version of the section:

Comcast has been the subject of criticism, among these include the company's stance on net neutrality as well as poor results on customer satisfaction surveys.

However, it was again reverted with only one minor modification:

Over the years, the company has also been the subject of criticism from subscribers and the media for its poor customer service, stance on net neutrality, relationships with local, state and federal governments, business practices and controversial lobbying efforts.

I restored my re-write as I fealt my version more closely tied to results of the RFC, and brought the issue to ANI. Following that, DGG proposed a new wording (see above, where his reasons for the proposed wording change are also provided). That version, listed here, has not yet been incorporated into the article:

Comcast has had a significant role in discussion on network neutrality, and the company does not rank high in studies of customer satisfaction.

I have no problem with the wording from DGG, but wanted to allow time for discussion before replacing the existing wording with this new proposal. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 15:49, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Note, I've again restored the version that appears to be based on the above consensus.

An edit had been made by Weneedmorescience to revert the text to:

The company has been the subject of criticism from subscribers and the media for its poor customer service, stance on net neutrality, relationships with local, state and federal governments, business practices and controversial lobbying efforts.

This is only marginally different than either of the original text versions that they had inserted. Based on my interpretation, as well as feedback from others above, I believe that the wording I mentioned in my prior post is still the closer match to the talk page consensus - pending further discussion on the version proposed by DGG before "ANI" header break (above) and also referenced by me in my prior post. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:25, 14 September 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)

I agree. Unless there's bailout money, government subsidies, or crimes being committed with the jet, then I'm failing to see the controversy. A company has a right to use a jet that they own for their own purposes. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:12, 24 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)

No 174.57.47.124 (talk) 05:36, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Agreed Jordan Leach (talk) 22:49, 14 December 2013 (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)

I take your point, but between the two examples that you gave and the Comcast–Xfinity relationship, there’s at least one significant difference which I believe justifies not splitting the article. That is that Verizon FiOS and AT&T U-verse are brands used specifically for services delivered by way of the respective companies’ fiber-optic networks. At the risk of being snide, Xfinity is just a different name for services that are similar to those that were branded Comcast, delivered through essentially the same network.

Quick and Dirty User Account (talk) 10:18, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Xfinity and Comcast Cable are the same for sure,(branding) but Comcast Holdings Corp. is not the same as Comcast Cable Communications, LLC. I've just updated the article to reflect this. (from information on Bloomberg's website)Forbes72 (talk) 06:12, 28 February 2014 (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)

I think you're on the right track. The fact that there is a legal distinction between pre and post AT&T merger Comcast does not imply that such a distinction is notable enough to go in the infobox. By all accounts, the "new" Comcast is nearly exactly the same as the "old" one. As another example, from 1963-1969 the company was American Cable Systems, but has been left as part of the Comcast article mostly because of Ralph J Roberts. It seems to me the scope of "Comcast" is significantly less clear cut than a strict legal definition. I've reverted the edit, but I certainly don't blame you for it. Decades old large companies can obviously be pretty complex.Forbes72 (talk) 02:10, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

style issues

The very first sentence in this article sounds like an advertisement. It really should be written simply as "Comcast Corporation, formerly registered as Comcast Holdings,[note 1] is a US based mass media and communications company. It is currently ranked as having the highest revenue in the world as a International Media Corporation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.223.185.249 (talk) 05:15, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Comcast and AT&T Merger

I feel that the discussion of the merger referenced in item 72, not only leads the audience to presume that comcast has current holdings in AT&T U Verse, but also the source has no affiliation with the security and exchange commission. ^[1]^[2]^[3] The current Direct TV merger illustrates that competition between the two independent companies exist, and reference the previous use of broadband vs the new DSL method.^[4]

^ "Denver Business Journal". http://www.bizjournals.com/. American City Business Journals. Retrieved 6 June 2014. {{cite web}}: External link in |website= (help)
^ "Office of General Counsel". http://transition.fcc.gov. Federal Communications Commision. Retrieved 6 June 2014. {{cite web}}: External link in |website= (help)
^ "Federal Communications Commission". www.fcc.gov. Federal Communications Commision. Retrieved 6 June 2014.
^ "Forbes Online". http://www.forbes.com. Pars International. Retrieved 6 June 2014. {{cite web}}: External link in |website= (help)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.141.52.212 (talk) 03:22, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Owner of Comcast

There is no source to identify that Independent owns Comcast. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Passionpersian (talk • 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:

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 • contribs) - 22:42, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

It think it's fine in its current form. Comcast is one of the most, if not *the* most, controversial corporation in America these days. They're constantly in the news for their ongoing PR disasters, customer service woes, attempts to take over Time Warner, their stance on net neutrality, etc. These are all topics that should definitely be addressed in the introduction because Comcast has become so synonymous with these issues. Constablequackers (talk) 10:32, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Please remember that there is a separate article dedicated to Criticism of Comcast, and that is where most of the details of the criticisms belong. Every company has incompetent or mean employees, but that doesn't mean that we cover every single incident in nauseating detail, or even just the most recent ones. I'm fine with the mention in the Lead that Justinw303 has removed, and I've reverted his removal at least once myself. It should probably be rewritten to be more neutral though. - BilCat (talk) 09:14, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this up here. You've got to keep in mind that Comcast's problems in these areas go above and beyond that of your typical American company. They're constantly in the news for these problems and their issues with poor customer service and terrible employee relations have been ongoing for several years now. It's almost as if Comcast has become an example of how *not* to run a telecommunications company. While the incidents in question may number two or three they're indicative of larger issues and concerns. This is why they should be included in this article. Perhaps not at such length and they could use additional context but, given the attention they received, they warrant inclusion. Constablequackers (talk) 09:35, 11 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)

I would suggest that things be left in their current state. There's soooooo much ground to cover when it comes to this company and its various controversies. If we merged that article into this one, 9/10ths of it will be comprised of critiques. Comcast has a quite long history when it comes to PR disasters. Constablequackers (talk) 09:25, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Hey Consta, I appreciate your feedback, I agree that a simple cut and paste over would leave things worse than they are. however, I think what we can do is restructure the layout of the comcast information. We could make an article "Comcast Controversies" that could be the main article for controversies. Controversies are a topic, "Criticism" is just a point of view. If comcast has a lot of lawsuits involving them we can create an article "Comcast Litigation" Because a lawsuit isn't really a critique, but it is something noteworthy especially if the lawsuit creates precedents. Currently we have 2 articles for 1 topic ( comcast general ) but we just have 2 povs ( critical and non critical ) when ideally what we would want is multiple topics to create multiple articles ( History of Comcast, Comcast Controversies, Comcast Litigation, etc) I know it is a lot of work. but the end result will be NPOV articles addressing topics. Bryce Carmony (talk) 00:39, 14 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)

I think the best way to handle criticism is to put it in the topic it is about. If comcast is criticized for anti-trust practices. make an section "Anti-trust" and put all information about it there. when we say "Criticism of comcast" what do we mean? would we include the criticism that it is one of the top 40 most diverse workplaces in 2015 according to Black Enterprise? or is that not allowed since it could be seen as positive criticism and we limit it to only negative? if we are limiting it only to "negative" how do we decide what negative is? we decide by leaving NPOV and having a POV. That's why topics are safe and "criticism" is a slope that always leads us away from NPOV. Comcast has done things that are not flattering absolutely, so we create sections and articles about those topics and we post the information about it. We aren't here to say "here's the good looking comcast article" and "here's the bad looking comcast article" we are here to make 1 article to cover comcast, and any sub-articles needed for topics that are big enough. Bryce Carmony (talk) 03:25, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Honestly, I think what you're offering here is a solution in search of problem. Your comment about the diverse workplace thing is especially confusing and odd. Such information is one of the company's few positive traits and can by no means be defined as any sort of critique, unless one is arguing that having a diverse workforce is a bad thing. I would support renaming the page "Comcast Controversies" but I don't think it's really necessary. That aside, I think there's way too much information about Comcast's various controversies/PR disasters/etc. to merge it all into the company's main page. It's all so nefarious that it deserves its own page (if only because adding it here would increase the article's length by at least double). Constablequackers (talk) 09:47, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Controversies are not necessarily criticisms though is the point. Controversies typically draw criticism but they aren't criticism in and of themselves. the criticism is about the controversy, so lets say for example we had an article "Comcast Controversies" think how easily we could write it NPOV. Comcast did this, critics said this. It would roll out of our keyboards beautifully. instead with this "Criticism" article what do we write? could we have a "criticism of criticism" as the counter argument? it would look silly. "Comcast Litigation" would be another useful article since Lawsuits are not criticism, they are lawsuits, the actions that provoke lawsuits can draw criticism. so in a article about litigation it would be so easy to source the criticisms. but currently we have such a bad article. for example look at this part:

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"? ^[1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pistongrinder (talk • contribs) 16:10, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

References

^ http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-03-31/comcast-to-invest-4-billion-in-new-company-with-cfo-angelakis

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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:43, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

BORK. First archived link to the wayback machine is broken ("Page Not Found"). It appears the Wayback Machine has archived a "Page Not Found" page, and that is what is being served up. The second two links work fine. Charlesreid1 (talk) 19:56, 24 June 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.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:56, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Looks good. Charlesreid1 (talk) 19:57, 24 June 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)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Comcast. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:31, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Comcast. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:13, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Confusing sentence

In the following sentence under the Criticism section:

"Comcast refused to correct the name on their bill after bringing it to the attention of numerous customer service outlets for the company by explaining that Ricardo is the legal name of the customer, so the Browns turned to consumer advocate Christopher Elliott."

Two things are unclear:

1- Who is "bringing (the bill) to the attention..."? Sense dictates it's the customer, but from the way the sentence is phrased, it sounds like it's Comcast who's doing it (which would be against their own interests).

2- Since Ricardo Brown's name was changed to "Asshole Brown" in the bill, how could Comcast possibly defend itself by alleging that "Ricardo" is the customer's real name? It would be like making a drawing with the sky colored red, and when someone asks you why did you paint the sky red, you answer "because skies are blue".

Ericobnn (talk) 22:04, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Helpful edits reverted

Hi @Constablequackers: can you please explain why you reverted my edits to the page? My edits addressed broken sources and unsourced content, and rephrased content that wasn't neutral/was biased. The page is also out of chronological order and is difficult to follow from a readability standpoint, and my edits began addressing this issue. I was just wondering if you could explain your reasoning. Thank you! GroundFloor (talk) 17:53, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi, GroundFloor. I saw your edits last week and noticed that they altered or outright removed a lot of material that has been in place on Comcast's Wikipedia page for several years now. While I have no problem with you updating broken links, you seemed to be deliberately removing information that drew attention to many of the company's various controversies over the years. This information is entirely neutral, fact-based, backed-up with sourced content, and should remain in place. Constablequackers (talk) 09:19, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

@Constablequackers:, in respect to the lead, the paragraph I pared down gave undue weight to criticisms that are not considered prominent controversies MOS:LEAD. The majority of content here was from press releases and sources that were more opinion that fact (an award that was based on a reader poll, which is also mentioned later on the page), many of which are 5+ years old. I didn’t remove it completely, but pared it down to prevent this section from jeopardizing the page’s WP:NPOV. Most of the content can still be found further on the page (there is an entire criticism/controversy section), but it doesn’t belong in this form in the lead.

The second edit to the Corporate offices section simply updated the content. The last time it was updated was 2005 and the information was out of date. The Employee relations section was out of chronological order, confusing and didn’t reflect WP:NPOV. Again, nothing was completely removed here, but reworded in a more neutral way and reordered for ease of understanding. I would like to propose reinstating these edits and then discussing any issues/changes you may have. I just don’t see how reverting it completely is helpful. GroundFloor (talk) 16:19, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

If we enter into any sort of discussion over what can be considered a "prominent controversy," we could be at this for next several years. Even attempting to define that term could be quite difficult. Going through the article, which is quite large, to remove "press releases" (do you mean articles from sources that largely consist of material from press releases or other publications?), both positive and negative, would also require a great deal of time. Ditto for any sources that are over 5 years old. There are many of these throughout the article.

As for chronological order, there are several other sections that also jump around in their timelines for the sake of coherency, and the article as a whole consists of sections that jump back and forth throughout Comcast's 40+ year history. The "Employee Relations" section is focused on the company's problematic corporate policies and how they impact their staff as well as their customers. Why should a few primarily industry awards that are nearly a decade old become the focus by being placed at the top of that section? There should be a reason beyond mere chronological order.

Ultimately, I think what you've been focusing on should be rather low priority for an article with larger problems, namely the fact that at least a third of it is currently devoted to the company's various attempts to purchase other companies like 20th Century Fox. Should those events really occupy so much space? Constablequackers (talk)

I agree that the article needs a lot of work. My plan was to begin at the top and work my way down, as I typically do with articles of this size. That being said, I can agree to compromise and make adjustments to other issues on the page first if you feel those require more attention. However, I stand by what I've said about certain content not belonging in the lead. By no means am I suggesting that all old content/sources be removed. I am merely pointing to the fact that the topics covered in the lead were mentioned in the media few times by sources that are less than credible/prominent and haven't remained prominent. It doesn't make sense that those be included in something that is supposed to be a general overview of a topic, especially at the risk of remaining neutral. Can cross that bridge when we come to it after addressing some of the additional issues you've mentioned. GroundFloor (talk) 14:29, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

I fear we're drifting into the realm of extreme subjectivity. As you probably know, Comcast has courted many controversies over the years and remains a company that is often criticized by its customers, the media, industry watchdogs, etc. Something to this effect arguably must remain in the lead. Striving for neutrality is a worthwhile endeavor but avoiding or outright removing this content is by no means neutral. Your original edits, made a few weeks ago, seemed to be trying to remove or attenuate much of this coverage. Whether a source remains "prominent" in the year 2018 and the future should be irrelevant, especially when media organizations routinely fold, and when the content involved relates to events that happened several years ago. I also find it curious that you felt no need to remove Comcast's failed merger with Time Warner from the lead. Please also keep in mind that the content you want to alter has also been in place on Comcast's page for several years now and no else seems to feel the need to change it. So, again, is there really a need for this on a page with larger and more immediate concerns? Constablequackers (talk) 08:19, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Disproportionate Introduction Focus & Bias

The third paragraph below the title seems to not proportionally summarize the company as the previous paragraphs and instead, dedicate the introductory part of the article to critisism with a biased tone. The status that there is criticism against the company could remain at the top of the article, but many of the details should otherwise be moved to the Criticism_and_controversy section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lectrician1 (talk • contribs) 06:08, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Deleted Imageworks sub-section

Greetings Wikipedians. I deleted the list of bullet points headed "ImageWorks" because it seems totally out of place in the Overview section. There was no context given to explain what ImageWorks is, nor its relationship to Comcast. And I can't think of any reason why those bullet points might belong there, or in this article at all for that matter. And so, being ever-mindful of Wikipedia's guidance to "be bold", I have taken action. If that was wrong, please tell us why. Cordially, BuzzWeiser196 (talk) 13:31, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

[1] "Denver Business Journal". http://www.bizjournals.com/. American City Business Journals. Retrieved 6 June 2014. {{cite web}}: External link in |website= (help)

[2] "Office of General Counsel". http://transition.fcc.gov. Federal Communications Commision. Retrieved 6 June 2014. {{cite web}}: External link in |website= (help)

[3] "Federal Communications Commission". www.fcc.gov. Federal Communications Commision. Retrieved 6 June 2014.

[4] "Forbes Online". http://www.forbes.com. Pars International. Retrieved 6 June 2014. {{cite web}}: External link in |website= (help)

[5] ttp://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-03-31/comcast-to-invest-4-billion-in-new-company-with-cfo-angelakis

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[1]