Talk:Comcast

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:

• http://www.forbes.com/2004/09/22/0922automarketscan09.html
• http://www.forbes.com/2005/04/21/cx_da_0421topnews.html

With best regards --Markus Schulenburg (talk) 23:13, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Unexplained image

What's with the random network usage graph? It's left-aligned (not floated) and has no explanatory caption. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.82.176.64 (talk) 05:34, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Customer service complaints

1-800-CIA-3000

Petey Parrot (talk) 07:22, 8 June 2011 (UTC)