Talk:Lumen Technologies

Edit overview

I am wanting to go about editing the CenturyLink overview. I am wanting it to reflect this page - https://www.centurylink.com/aboutus/company-information.html. So, the overview should read:

CenturyLink (NYSE: CTL) is the second largest U.S. communications provider to global enterprise customers. With customers in more than 60 countries and an intense focus on the customer experience, CenturyLink strives to be the world’s best networking company by solving customers’ increased demand for reliable and secure connections. The company also serves as its customers’ trusted partner, helping them manage increased network and IT complexity and providing managed network and cyber security solutions that help protect their business. Matthewvillarreal (talk) 16:16, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles are not companies' "about us" pages. Those are completely the wrong model and tone for writing an article. None of that promotional language is appropriate. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a company's promotional website. Please read Wikipedia guidelines so you can learn what is appropriate and how to accomplish that. oknazevad (talk) 22:54, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Agree with Oknazevad but additionally it is far too US-centric. This is not a US telecoms company. It is actually a global telecoms provider with a US bit to it and HQ in US. The company blurb is carefully worded because while it is number 2 in the US after AT&T it is not number 2 in the world. It is true to say that it's one of the world's biggest telecommunication companies - by revenue it is now in the top 25. It is also true to say it's one of the biggest B2B telecoms companies in the world. Part of the problem here is the confusion resulting from the CL acquisition of L3 and the subsequent renaming of the B2B division as Lumen. We need to clearly explain the two very different businesses within this business (B2B and B2C), their products, heritage, target market etc. The B2C business is American; the B2B business is global. SandrinaHatman (talk) 11:24, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Rename

So I think we need to be sure about all the facts here, and that the rename of this article may have been hasty. Looking further into it, it appears the Lumen name is for the enterprise business only and the legacy and residential business is still called CenturyLink. More importantly, there no evidence that the corporation itself has been renamed, just a change in stock ticker symbol, which is not definitive, as many stock tickers don't actually reflect the corporate name (such as AT&T having the symbol "T" alone.) While I won't move the article back just yet, there needs to be more evidence and less jumping of the gun here. oknazevad (talk) 02:21, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

@Oknazevad: - I did a bit of digging and found in the company news release that the name will change:

The legal name of CenturyLink, Inc. is expected to be formally changed to Lumen Technologies, Inc. upon the satisfaction of all legal and regulatory requirements.

However, to your point, their acquisition FAQ and their "Our Brands" page indicate that the new "Lumen Technologies" company will operate as three different brands: Lumen, Quantum Fiber, and CenturyLink. Their chart for investors shows this graphically.

The end result is that the main article needs to have a good bit of revision done to explain how these pieces fit together. Note that [https://news.lumen.com/in-the-news Lumen's 'In the News' page points to multiple articles that could be used as possible reliable secondary sources. (I may or may not have time to make some of those changes, but hopefully some of these links will help other editors who DO have time.) - Dyork (talk) 22:05, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Good stuff all around. Clearly the article is going to need some more restructuring in the business units sections, and though technically premature to have lived this article, it does seem that the Lumen name is intended to be the overall name of the company, as well as the Harland of their enterprise business unit. Good finds. oknazevad (talk) 05:29, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

I think this article is very confusing as presented. There are effectively two businesses here which are being split - likely in preparation for eventually selling off one of them. The first business is the B2B business which is heavy duty wholesale telecoms and *very* large enterprise and government. This has nothing whatsoever to do with the B2C part of the business (technically, commercially etc). In the announcement we were told: "CenturyLink has rebranded to Lumen Technologies in an effort to focus on next-generation connectivity solutions for enterprises. The CenturyLink brand will be retained for residential and some SMB services". It's important to reflect that the B2B assets substantially came from merging of Global Crossing + Level 3 and then combined with the enterprise/wholesale assets of CenturyLink - these (GC+L3+CL) are what is now Lumen (the brand). The B2C+SMB assets remain CenturyLink (the brand) - none of these came from the Level 3 acquisition but are originally CL and for which there is clear line back through the CL history as per this article. The article is extremely misleading because it mixes up very different types of telecoms services. The history of B2C telecoms in the US is not relevant to the emergence of a major B2B service provider (which is what we're actually seeing here) - the assets substantially derive from GC which is barely mentioned in the article. What that also does is effectively hide the controversy around this company's history. How do you disentangle all of this? This article should really be about the B2C/SMB CL brand and a new article to explain the emergence of the Lumen brand and its heritage. If I was going to attempt this I'd merge the info from GC + L3 and build from there. I'd rename this CenturyLink and I'd have a note saying that the B2B business was renamed Lumen and link to that. The "owner" of both Lumen and CL is Lumen but the go-to-market brand for B2C and SMB is CL - this could easily be fixed with a note to that effect on this article (which has been renamed CL again). However, if you do not understand the difference between B2B and B2C telecoms you're going to struggle to disentangle all of this. They are different markets, assets, business models etc.SandrinaHatman (talk) 11:14, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

New Archive Page Created

Because I could see this Talk page getting more usage to discuss the Lumen renaming, and wanting to make this page more useful for editors, I created Talk:Lumen_Technologies/Archive_1 a new archive page following the H:ARC process with all discussions on this Talk page prior to 2017. - Dyork (talk) 00:57, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Provincial tripe

This US only article is useless. Typical provincial murican derp. 46.7.188.106 (talk) 17:43, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Improving sources

• The CenturyTel.com source is cited a lot in the opening section but it is not a good source since it is a company sponsored page and not well maintained (no https). I found this source which I will use to update the info: https://www.techtarget.com/searchnetworking/definition/CenturyLink

Czarking0 (talk) 19:19, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

• The opening paragraph of the history section wasentirely copied from:

https://www.cwalocal6372.org/oak-ridge-telephone-company-centurylink-history/ This is not cited as the source. I verified by checking the edit history that this was copied from their website not the other way around. Either way this is in violation of WP:COPYPASTE. The source cannot possibly be primary nor a cited secondary and should not be used as a good source. I am largely removing this. This includes removing the history of the moving the company headquarters which needs sources. I am also removing the fact that it acquired War Telephone as I do not think it is notable and is not a well sourced claim.

• Throughout the article "S&P various sources" is cited. I do not actually doubt these claims since they are "easy" to verify however this is a terrible citation. I would appreciate if someone updated. Working on other issues in the meantime.

Actually I had to remove almost all of the history because it is direct WP:CV of the cwa local 6372 page. Now I am seeing that this WP article cites the CWA local page and that page cites the WP article. I am stopping here I think someone more knowledgeable on the WP:CV subject needs to comment Czarking0 (talk) 20:28, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Seems you got it backwards, and the local copied the Wikipedia article, which was then edited to add the local's page as a source, which is called citogenesis. That said, since the source is inappropriate, and the remaining text is otherwise unsourced, I can't disagree with removing the material in favor of a rewritten and better sourced version. oknazevad (talk) 15:23, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Thanks I got confused looking through the diffs. I am working rewritting with better sourcing. Czarking0 (talk) 17:45, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Level 3 Communications

I'm confused.

“In 2003 the company acquired Digital Teleport ($39 million) and Level 3 communications ($16 million)”

“On October 31, 2016, CenturyLink announced its intent to acquire Level 3 Communications in a deal valued at around $25 billion.”

So did they acquire the same company twice?

2A0E:1D47:4115:4800:B7EF:1E59:97B1:FB82 (talk) 22:31, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

ASNs

The list of their ASNs is incomplete, 71.34.74.49 (talk) 09:29, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable source we can use to update it? — TadgStirkland⁴⁰¹ (Tadg^Talk) 13:19, 13 September 2024 (UTC)