Talk:Comcast/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2

iBone Network

At this point Comcast's IP network rivals Tier 1 providers' in size and scope, though (opinion) it's a bunch of doglegs from point A to point B. Someone with greater knowledge of their network might want to add a section on it, as that's probably partly how they're able to get 50/10 DOCSIS speeds in so many markets and dole out 250GB caps when Time Warner Cable wanted to do 40GB ones.

For example, SoftLayer now has 10 Gbps of Comcast capacity at each of their data centers, DreamHost has added significant Comcast capacity and FDCServers is now using 80Gbps of Comcast transit in Chicago and 20 Gbps in Denver.

This may be too technical in nature for the wiki, at least to go into in detail, but it's a useful piece of information since I don't know of any other cable provider that major web hosts will use as internet connectivity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.128.183.9 (talk) 06:52, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

- iansltx

Someone with a more diverse technical and business background would view this activity as furthering it's monopoly status. Comcast provides connectivity to said internet providers passing large amounts of bandwidth across their network and one has to wonder about the cost of doing so. Are they providing these isps price breaks? This is relevant since as you probably know comcast limits the average home user to 250gb per month and if Comcast is concerned about their network utilization perhaps providing connectivity at 80Gbit a pop to isps would be something to stay away from.

Softlayer, FDC etc... are not internet providers in the same sense as Comcast is. You need a company like Comcast in order to utilize the services FDC/Softlayer provide. By connecting more of these internet companies up directly to comcast it's a method to undercut the other internet backbones that exist to put these other companies on the net.

I look at this the same was our electronics industry was taken over here by the other countries. They dumped their products here cheaper then we could produce them then once they wiped us out your now paying top dollar for something that costs a fraction of what it requires to produce it. Comcast is essentially doing the same thing here, undercutting the competition then once the competition dissolves these poor isps won't have much of a choice where to get their transit from.Woods01 (talk) 02:34, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

comcast worm farm controversy

Comcast engineer Sean Lutner admitted in 2004 that they know they are a huge source of spam and it's widely documented (for example DSHIELD, SPAMHAUS, others) that their networks are overrun with spamblower worms such as sobig. Yet they refuse to take real measures (such as adopting SPF or implementing effective rate controls on their known spammers) instead implementing ineffective measures that only degrade the quality of their service (such as schizophrenic port blocking as detailed in the censored text).

I added this information to the comcast entry (see history) in what I thought was an even-handed manner. Mr. Chuckles reverted the changes without useful comment. I protested, got this answer here:

Simple answer, Wikipedia is not a soapbox. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 05:10, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

... which is actually useful criticism (though I disagree that it's simple). Thank you, Boothy443, for letting me know I had let my personal disgust at Comcast's behaviour shine through too much for Wiki's standards. Since I do not seem to be able to provide this important information from a NPOV (I hope others will try) I have merely edited the external links to add references to Comcast's own admission of spamfriendliness and to neutral 3rd party tracking systems.

I wonder though, why we are linking to a sales page for Comcast? Is commercial advertisement appropriate here? I did not remove the link. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.153.180.229 (talk)

Time Warner & Comcast deal to take over Adelphia (update needed)

This page is long overdue for an update on the Time Warner/Comcast deal to take over Adelphia's assets. A good source for info is http://money.cnn.com/2005/04/21/technology/adelphia/. I think a table similar to the one on that site showing what areas are transferring to what company might be helpful, especially as we get closer to actual completion of the deal. I'd do it but I'm new and don't have the skills =)

  • hmm, still nothing? Zen Jeff 12:14, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Board of Directors?

Would it be appropriate to list the members of the Board of Directors? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chadlupkes (talk • contribs) 02:53, 28 April 2005 (UTC)

Definitely, it's relevant info. 199.126.134.144 (talk) 18:35, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Cleanup tag

There are a lot of external links inline. Also it could be written in a better style than a timeline. Nabla 22:34, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

  • the time line was removed from the article as it was a cut and paste, also a copyvio from the comcast website, http://www.cmcsk.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=147565&p=irol-events, which added noting substantinally more then what was presented in the article, new information should be intergrated into the article and not in the way that it was taken directly from the website of the company. Also removed the phone number from the opening para, as it not relevent to the article. --Boothy443 | comhrÚ 23:01, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Ah! Looks better now. Tks. Nabla 16:24:29, 2005-08-06 (UTC)

Comcast Spectator

I think that there should be a subsection to this article about Comcast Spectator, which owns the Sixers, the Flyers, the Phantoms (minor league hockey), the Wings (NLL team), the Kixx (MISL team), The Soul (AFL team), and three Baltimore Orioles farm teams, not to mention runs the Wachovia Center and Wachovia Spectrum, selling tickets even to their concert events. MikeNM 22:50, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

External Links

A good number of the external links all deal with Comcast customers as a source of spam, which while notable, seems a bit much. Should we pick one (like [1]), and remove the rest? I realize I should probably be bold, but I have concerns with trying to keep a NPOV. - Fordan 20:35, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

done. - Fordan 16:45, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Citing sources

I'm not sure where the authors of this article found their information, but if somebody could find them, that would be helpful. I know that there are going to be alot of Comcast and Time Warner users that are confused and worried about their services being switched, and, although the information in this article suffices, it is not verifiable. Here is a google search that could have honest sources. Thanks!


  • Just reviewing this article from a recent changes link. The sourcing is pitiful here. I was particularly concerned to see statistical information being changed on a regular basis without sourcing; right now it is impossible to tell if there really was a change in the information or if somebody is subtly vandalising the article. There seem to be a number of "regular" and experienced editors working on this article; could you please work to address this? Anyone who is editing statistical information ought to have a reference for it, I would think. Risker 22:37, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

New Acquisition

Comcast has recently partnered with CSTV to form a new super regional sports network dedicated college sports. Do we agree that this should be added? Here's a link The mtn.

As well, Comcast just bought Susquehanna Communications, a rather well sized company, not sure where to find all the details about it. Honestly, I really dont care even though Im under Suscom.--Azslande 01:41, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Controversies and complaints.

I believe the last two entries under this section to be inappropriate for an encyclopedia. They deal with individual customer experiences with specific Comcast employees, not with corporate actions or policies. Considering the 3 employees involved in the 2 incidents were all fired indicates that they were,in fact, violating company policies. As such I submit that these two entries should be removed.Bcunningh 18:22, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I must admit my frustration when Comcast refused to carry MASN, blocked Braves-Nationals games aired on TBS, etc. However, to their credit, they have resolved this misfortune, and I applaud them for doing so. In that light, I now wonder if it would be appropriate to delete the section criticizing them for not carrying MASN?

It is stated: "By agreeing to not compete head to head, consumers thus are perpetually locked into a single monopoly cable provider with annual price escalations reaching 93% in the past decade.[11][12][13][14]" But, without a monopoly no company would make the amssive investment of installing all the lines. Same with other utilities. It is government oversight that is needed, not angry articles. Articles should have a neutral POV. Therefore, I made a minor adjustment. Thanx. Mwinog2777 02:48, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Leave the entries alone. People should know the truth. Someone should mention that it is now officially proven that comcast is slowing down P2P connections in preferential treatment. The freedom of the Internet is in great danger. 66.91.214.29 21:14, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I've added some cleanup tags to the controversies section. Some of it, such as "the walmart of telecom" line which I removed, doesn't maintain a neutral view and isn't suitable for an encyclopedia.--Wraithdart 17:54, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I would like to remove the following: "Some Comcast users also may experience packet loss and latency, resulting in lag. This effect is most often noticed when dealing with time critical traffic in online gaming, and especially pronounced when such users host online games on ad-hoc networks (such as in Halo 3).[ref#]" -- this effect has never been linked to Sandvine. As someone knowledgeable in the subject, I highly doubt it (but I cannot prove it). The lone reference to this complaint is 404 but that article had more to do with Comcast's invisible caps than it did with gaming, latency, or Sandvine. Funchords (talk) 01:52, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Places

I'm thinking about adding a section about were you can get Comcast Cable. Anyone think this is a good idea?'

Spareus151 17:53, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

If you mean where potential customers can check they are servicable, then no. You can go to Comcast's homepage and check that. Fr0 05:38, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Comcast call

What about the Comcast Technician that fell asleep on the couch waiting for Comcast to call him? This is not true because comcast employee's can not wear shorts to work. They must wear long pants for insurance reasons.A Comcast Technician Sleeping on my Couch video on YouTube. --69.67.235.179 02:51, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

  • I felt that it was lacking in encyclopedic value and submitted that it should be removed as noted above. Apparently someone else agreed and deleted the content.Bcunningh 07:32, 28 October 2006 (UTC)


Presumably, Comcast technicians aren't allowed to sleep on their customers' couches while waiting for the mothership to answer their call either. If the comcast technicians are all as incompetent as the ones I've spoken with, I wouldn't be surprised if some of them wear shorts to work. 20 Aug 2006 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 208.27.111.122 (talk) 16:22, August 20, 2007 (UTC)

Comcast Net Income

Comcast had net income $928 in 2005. This is according to their annual report and this website. http://finance.yahoo.com/q/pr?s=cmcsa --DrRisk13 00:45, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Surely you mean something like 928 MILLION, yes? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jros83 (talk • contribs) 03:14, 16 May 2007 (UTC).

References

Where are the unreferenced parts, and if so, can anyone find the references for them?? --SunStar Nettalk 12:49, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

AMC?

at least in the Twin Cities market, AMC was recently removed from basic cable, presumably to encourage customers to switch up to digital cable, Should this get added to the controversies section? --Googleaseerch 05:01, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


Actually it was removed because too many cutomers neighbors were stealing basic cable... Don't try to contradict me. You all know someone who is getting cable from his neighbor illegally................... Superstar 15:46, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I do not. apparently you live with thugs.--24.15.11.254 20
07, 30 April 2007 (UTC)


Actually, in an rich neighborhood. Maybe you stay in a poor one where people can not even afford limited basic cable. Superstar 10:06, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Comcast Digital Cable

I want to add information on comcast's internet service. Mainly information from their TOS, like the fact they usy Dymanic IP.--24.15.11.254 15:45, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Ehhh then do so. If it doesn't belong, someone will take it out.

Outsourcing

I'm at work this minute... not actually Comcast, but I've access to Comcast systems. Comcast certainly does outsource. I can't say they outsource the percentage that was listed, but they sure do. Nucomm and Convergys are two companies. I can't say I know of any corporation that doesn't outsource these days, it's simply a waste of resources to do it all yourself. In any case, clients are not commonly shared information so, there won't be too many references available. Fr0 02:56, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok, do you have any published Reliable sources you can cite to support this? Apparently this is a controversial issue given the number of reverts around it, so if it's to go in and stay in, it'll need to have evidence in the form of citations to support it. - Fordan (talk) 00:03, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I said there won't be too many references available. :P If you have a Comcast account, you can call me and talk about it. ;) Better to leave them out, until there are published references which there will probably never be. Fr0 02:39, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

dont forget tag and stream. as other outsourcing centers. btw i think nucomm is an acronym for new castle comcast communications so i dont think its an outsourcing center. i could be wrong tho but.. maybe you can ask some at 888-999-0019 and see what they say. Peace - PsychoDeath

Houston

User:70.123.111.42 has twice added Houston, Texas to the infobox for Comcast's headquarters, which I've reverted both times. While Comcast is/going to provide service in Houston, the headquarters is still Philadelphia, unless something has changed radically without me realizing. Bringing it here for a consensus since it's a second revert. - Fordan (talk) 13:04, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you. There's no significant corporate presence in Houston. -- Gridlock Joe 13:56, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. Comcast recently took over TWC in Houston. Thats about all thats going on with Comcast in Houston. (Erik.hensarling 16:54, 8 August 2007 (UTC))

Question

I'm working on expanding the Maclean-Hunter article, and would like to know if anybody knows where I can find a list of which specific cable markets Comcast actually acquired from MH in 1994. Thanks. Bearcat 07:31, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Some helpful URLs I came up with. P.S. I didn't know the actual URL of the company so I wasn't able to try the Internet Archiver for a press release.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1365/is_n2_v25/ai_15752064 http://sec.edgar-online.com/1995/12/19/00/0000912057-95-011304/Section5.asp http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C05E1D81538F933A25751C0A962958260 http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=FB0E12F7345E0C7B8CDDAA0894DC494D81&n=Top%2fReference%2fTimes%20Topics%2fOrganizations%2fF%2fFederal%20Communications%20Commission%20 http://sec.edgar-online.com/1995/11/14/00/0000950159-95-000108/Section6.asp

CaribDigita 21:03, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Disambiguation with Commcast

Is that a joke, that people might be searching for a third-rate comic book hero who used to be named "Commcast", but is now named "Black Box", when searching for the word Comcast? Unless there are more in favor of keeping it, I'm strongly inclined to remove that disambiguation note at the article's header. --Dude Manchap 20:17, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I especially like the fact that, according to the other article, this comic character is associated with another comic character named "Cable." Anyway, I personally don't see the need for the disambiguation; anyone who actually knows of this obscure comic character will certainly know how to spell his name correctly and not end up here. I say take it out. meateebon 06:35, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
In fact, I'll just take it out right now. meateebon 06:37, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Quality of Service

Comcast has had consistent and increasingly more frequent audio and video dropouts over the past year in the Atlanta Metro Area.[citation needed]

NantucketNoon 07:18, 28 June 2007 (UTC)


It is Probably where you are located and your specific cable box, because I live in th Philadelphia Metro Area (Great Service), but spent time in Atlanta (2 months) and my service was pretty good.SpecialAgentUncleTito 14:51, 23 July 2007 (UTC)


How many people editing this page work for Comcast? I lived in Philadelphia for 3 years, and I know of no one there who claimed to receive "Great Service." Rather, the complaints about no-shows to install or uninstall cable, incompetent technicians, and long-hold times I heard in Philadelphia were consistent with what I've heard in the other cities where I've lived. If Atlanta is different from Philadelphia, then Philadelphia is probably the aberration.


~

After the system apparently reached a collapse, being out for several days, they have finally upgraded the area and there has been a minimum of problems. Most dropouts now are 'mini' or momentary.

While they update the cable boxes every night between 3 and 4 AM~ which one must beware of, as if the cable is on, the compression will be turned on, resulting in a VERY large increase in volume at 4 AM!~ it was NOT my cable box {or wiring}, despite the insistence by Comcast that that was the problem.

I guess one can be thankful for summer thunderstorms. {And Wikipedia?}

At any rate, it is a pleasure to enjoy my television viewing again.


NantucketNoon 18:39, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

CSN Links

Made all the links in the 2nd paragraph to the actual CSN pages rather than the Cities they were located in. jb 19:25, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Glitches?

I am not aware if anyone else has experienced the same problem (not an actual problem, I thought it was cool), but comcast uploaded the following finales to on demand before its original air date: Rome, The Wire, and The Tudors.

Thanks, SpecialAgentUncleTito 16:00, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

NOW

I request removal of the word NOW from the sentence about the number of customers Comcast serves ... it is a telltale sign of the stupid PR people at Comcast. You should try to be less obvious. --69.150.163.1 00:16, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Be bold! - Fordan (talk) 00:27, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I am bold. Please revert if necessary, though. --KushalClick me! write to me 01:42, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Good edits, fellow Wikipedians ... Congratulations! and I must admit, although I would get rid of it altogether, "presently" does look a bit better than "now".

Even current controversies should remain under "Controversy" heading

Hi,

I reverted an edit that added the recent controversy over Comcast's bandwidth limits ([2]) (Digg article) to the summary of the page. I don't think this type of thing deserves to be in the summary and should be remanded to the Controversy section (though in Comcast's case, perhaps there should be subheadings under 'Controversy'!)

Deptstoremook 16:53, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Monopoly Effects

The first paragraph in this section talks as if Comcast has declaired it has a monopoly and is fighting to maintain it. Falcon4196 21:22, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

The heading "monopoly effects" screams bias. The stuff in this section should be mixed in with the controersies section, and a lot of the content of both sections needs to be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sephiroth m75 (talk • contribs) 14:11, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

NPOV

Well, I'm not a big-time editor of articles here on Wikipedia so I dare not judge on what is right and wrong, but some statements in this article seem very non-NPOV.

The following strikes me as anti-Comcast...

"Comcast spends millions of dollars annually on government relationships.[8][9] Regularly Comcast employs the spouses, sons and daughters of influential mayors, councilmen, commissioners, and other officials to assure its continued local monopoly and preferred market allocations, many of which have been questioned as unethical.[10][11][12][13]

Comcast strongly lobbies against federal "family tier" and "a la carte" bills that would give consumers the option to purchase individual channels rather than a broad tier of programming. These issues continue to garner attention from state governments, Congress and FCC Chairman Martin.[14]"

...despite all the sources/references.

Can someone please fix it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Digitall565 (talk • contribs) 22:29, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

there is nothing to fix, except Comcast's behavior. Check the references, and Get Over It. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.191.250.81 (talk) 02:41, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
LOL the last wikilink is funny. --KushalClick me! write to me 03:13, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
This is an interesting article .. "How Comcast Censors Political Content"[3] in that it relates to Comcasts "government relationships". I'm not knowledgeble about Comcast so i'll leave it to others to see if it's worthy of a mention in the article. Wayne 01:37, 15 October 2007 (UTC)


hammer lady?

shd the article include references to today's WP article about the angry customer taking a hammer to comcast and smashing it up a little? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.143.243.65 (talk) 03:01, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Breaking news

I think we need a current event marker here. See [4]. --Kushalt 14:57, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

revision suggestion

I suggest that

In addition to offering cable television, internet access, and telephone services, Comcast develops some of its own television programming and web portal content.

be changed to

In addition offering these services, Comcast develops some of its own television programming and web portal content and provides its own telephone service.

What do you think?

Regards, Kushal --Kushalt 21:21, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

A New Controversy

Found this and thought it may bear mentioning under controversy, assuming the site is credible. Comcast has admitted to hiring people to fill an FCC hearing on Net Neutrality and Comcast's practices. Here's the article [5]. 71.59.104.213 (talk) 05:52, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

My thoughts...
The portfolio story is credible. It can be linked to the Sandvine controversy, as this is the event that provoked the FCC meeting in question. Funchords (talk) 01:56, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

What is CableCasting?

"Cablecasting, Broadband Internet, Comcast Digital Voice"

What is exactly is cablecasting it redirects to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narrowcasting

Which says

"Narrowcasting involves aiming media messages at specific segments of the public defined by values, preferences, or demographic attributes. Also called niche marketing or target marketing. Narrowcasting is based on the idea that mass audiences do not exist.[1]. An example of narrowcasting in this context is the installation of the Cabvision network in London's black cabs which shows limited pre-recorded television programmes interspersed with targeted advertising to taxicab passengers."


Comcast last I checked did not have a niche market and and their buisness is not "aiming media messages at specific segments of the public defined by values, preferences, or demographic attributes" but that they provide cable communications Such as Cable Televison, Broadband Internet, cable telephony.


I think it needs to be changed to

"Cable Televison, Broadband Internet, Comcast Digital Voice"

Please correct me if i am getting something wrong

You're right - fixed it.JustThatGuy2 (talk) 01:47, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Hacks

Excised the "Hacks" section. Does not seem of any long term relevance (aside from an ego-boost for wannabe "hackers"). pbannister (talk) 19:00, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

On May 28, 2008 Comcast's internet portal located at www.comcast.net was hacked. When users attempted to go to the site, the main page was replaced with:

This was provided via an embedded iframe sourced to www.defiants.net/hacked.html and then changed to www.freewebs.com/buttpussy69.

Also at the same time, email access experienced an outage for some customers and Comcast's high speed network slowed down significantly.[1]


I moved this to talk page because it is inaccurate. Comcast.net was not hacked, but rather Network Solutions who control the DNS servers. I found one link to it.(http://www.denverpost.com/business/ci_9421126) I am sure there are more out there. Although I feel this is interesting to add, I feel it needs to accurately report what happened instead of an opinion. Turlo Lomon (talk) 13:28, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Good move. I don't think this even needs to be in the article at all. Hacking by a couple teenagers who will just end up in PMITA prison for it will have zero impact on the company. How many companies in the world have ever been the victims of hacking? I bet, almost all of them, to some degree. Despite what a bunch of '1337 4aXor5' will try and tell us, this is just non-notable,... Adding it to the article will just give the hackers what they want: their 15 minutes of fame. Dr. Cash (talk) 14:19, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Disagree. This is Comcast. It's certainly notable. - ✰ALLST☆R✰ echo 14:24, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Some issues with that Denver Post news piece: In it, it says:

  1. "While that issue has been resolved and customers have continued to have access to the Internet and e-mail through services like Outlook.." Total BS. I use Outlook and could not access my email - not to mention it's common sense that if the domain was hijacked from NETSOL, email connections via Outlook/Thunderbird would also fail.
  2. Overall high-speed Internet service was not affected, Comcast said. Again, total BS. What little high-speed internet I had was SLLOOOWWWWWwwwwwwwww but it was mostly non-existant for 3 hours.
  3. I'm not so sure the domain was hijacked. If it was, why didn't they just point it to www.defiants.net/hacked.html or www.freewebs.com/buttpussy69 rather than embedding those URLs as iframes.

I don't care what anyone says, I wouldn't expect Comcast to tell the truth about it. Would you if you were the largest/second largets internet provider in the country? - ✰ALLST☆R✰ echo 14:24, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

The "hackers" interview on Wired.com: here - ✰ALLST☆R✰ echo 21:49, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

class action lawsuits?

I know they are being sued by more than one...are the others mentioned? couldn't see it when skimming the article. Noian (talk) 03:46, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I have brougt and have taker over comcast corpration. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.30.142.218 (talk) 04:48, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

censored the profanity

i censored the profanity words so no one can see.not everyone can say the profanity.profanity=bad words.96.235.133.98 (talk) 00:53, 16 July 2008 (UTC)


I have undo it cause you removed dick and tard ... but left dildo .. Speer320 (talk) 05:50, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

FCC ruling

The FCC P2P ruling (against Comcast's blocking of users using BitTorrent) should be mentioned. Badagnani (talk) 04:33, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

It is already mentioned under Comcast#Network Neutrality. Turlo Lomon (talk) 13:32, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

The statements in this article are completely false and I am surprise you have not been sued for your comments. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.241.105.242 (talk) 20:30, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

What exactly is untrue? Turlo Lomon (talk) 21:00, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

HSI download speeds check ?

is the first listed download rate correct? looks like 0.25 Mb/S. is that right, or should it be 2.5 Mb/S ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.136.108.216 (talk) 19:27, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Bittorrent.

Ever since November of 2008, Comcast has been blocking access to P2P websites like H33T & Pirate Bay to name a few. You can only access them through cache & seed counds are lower than ever. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.160.77.255 (talk) 16:33, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

We ned RFD on comcast

Living in the country and going back to your comcast.. from the other services account of the fast Internet service.. I however miss my RFD channell...Pleaseconsider this .....We live in the country area and depend on a lot of this type programs..... Dick Kraft, Grafton, West Virginia....... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.61.232.244 (talk) 13:04, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Comcast Town

Lyrics to Comcast Town Commercials

http://www.comcasttown.com/media/ads/Future_Hopping.pdf http://www.comcasttown.com/media/ads/Always_Dreaming.pdf http://www.comcasttown.com/media/ads/Future_Phone_Fantastic.pdf http://www.comcasttown.com/media/ads/High_Def_Hi_Five.pdf http://www.comcasttown.com/media/ads/On_Demand_Heaven.pdf http://www.comcasttown.com/media/ads/PowerBoosters.pdf —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.29.171.245 (talk) 05:11, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Is there a list of Open Access ISPs that are allowed on Comcast's network?

Is there a list of the nationwide ISPs which Comcast (Then AT&T) must provide users access to on their broadband network? They made the deals in order to get hedge against the likelihood of having it forced upon them by government regulation. Here in Massachusetts, Comcast has to carry Earthlink, Galaxy Internet Services, and NET1Plus on their Cable modem network (as competition). What are the other ISPs in other Comcast states if any???? According to an FCC doc Comcast apparently agreed to let United Online (aka the parent of Juno/Netzero?) have access?

CaribDigita (talk) 00:09, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Consensus to Revise the Controversy Section - OBTAINED

i am posting to develop consensus to strip the controversy section of nonsourced itemologies Smith Jones (talk) 03:30, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I think that this is long overdue. It is ridiculous that a Fortune 100 firm's Wikipedia article would be 60%+ dedicated to "Controversies" that include such injustices as not including a Chicago television network's feed in the Miami, Florida market. Possible conflict: I am currently employed by Comcast. -- Thekohser 05:03, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
I agree this needs to be edited considerably. Even the sourced items can be made more concise (i.e. "Comcast does not carry regional sports networks for xxx, yyy, zzz." The NFL Network section is an embarrassment. Is the date of every announcement really necessary? I'd be glad to do some editing (when I have the time), but not if there will be a hasty revert. -Sme3 (talk) 12:47, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
i will support and asist you in your reworking. I think that contorversies sections to be limited to things that have resulted in major public outcry (as in demonstrations and newspapers concnetration) or a major class-action law suit. a lot of minor quibbles that someone has against the company should be pruned out for our credibilitys sake.
and to Thekohser; the jury is stil out on paid editing, but you seem to be a responsible & intelligent eidtor so i dont foresee any problems with your assistance us in this renovation. Thank you all for agreeing to help! Smith Jones (talk) 16:23, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
I would suggest that most of Comcast's historical "controversy" can be placed into three or four major content buckets:
  • Channel carriage negotiations
- Possible subheading for News & Entertainment
- Possible subheading for Sports
  • Internet throttling/management
  • Poor customer service reputation
I suppose that an "Other" or "Other lesser issues" could also stand to serve as the fourth content bucket. This structure would help to guide us and limit the reporting to the truly historic cases that received extensive media coverage and have had social implications of a lasting importance. For God's sake, some of these "controversies" from MASN baseball carriage negotiations three years ago are the encyclopedic equivalent of having the "Chili Finger incident" in the article about Wendy's (which it's not there -- it's in Wikinews, where it belongs). Another option would be to shuttle off the documented legal cases to a new article in this manner. -- Thekohser 17:39, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
i am reluctant to create some crappy content fork ((i know WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS). unless the valium information threatens to overwhelm this article, there i snor eason why we cant create a "legal cases" or "major controversies" section and reduce it to the truly historic allecases that you have motioned. Smith Jones (talk) 17:45, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Further empirical evidence that the Controversies section of the article is undue -- even an established editor doesn't realize he's adding positive, uncontroversial information to the "Controversies" section. -- Thekohser 17:03, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

thekohser, as a paid editor you have experience with this area so i couwld like to run something by you:
the comcast controversies section is convenitly broken up into subsections. i was planning to review each secton in order and decided whith ones should be removed completely and which ones can eb continued to work on on or pruned.
for example, the first section sports i feel should be removed. it has a lot of citation needed tacgs and it relies heavily on generic terms such as "all Mets fans were angered" and "sports fans were dismayed" isntead of refering tos pecific statemetns by specific people or groups. I think that section should be completely removed since thse is no evidence that this was a major, notable controversy. I would also like to remove the section ESPNU' and Olympic network since those arent even pretending to be controversial. Smith Jones (talk) 17:57, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Apologies, but I don't see how any of what you've presented to me above has anything to do with paid editing. Regardless, I think that this issue is more complex than just going through and deleting stuff. Did you see my recommendation above, about partitioning this into four sections that neatly summarize the key areas of controversy? -- Thekohser 20:04, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
sure, i think i understand your proposal. however, i think that before we categorize ths informmation its important to note that a bulk of these things are inherently misplaced. it seems like every decision that comcast has made is plunked down in the controversy section even when nooone has even complained about it and there are no sources saying that anyone was upset or hurt by the decision. we cant effectively group unencyclopedic or ucontroversial infromation underneath the same heading as Comcast-related suits that have actually become major lawsuits or crimianl investigations or civil litigtation. do you understand what I am talking about? Before we can group the controversies into four major areas, we need to make sure that everything under the controversies seciton is actually sourced and relevent. since you dont have any objections, I'll go ahead and move stuff Smith Jones (talk) 22:19, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
okay, i have pruned the irrelevant lawcrup in the controversies seciton. now I have read your idea and i think its a brilliant piece of consensus and i have thus awared this Smith Jones (talk) 22:41, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
  1. ^ Digg.com: Comcast Hacked
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Comcast/Archive_1&oldid=1085911542"