Comcast closing local dispatch operations, costing 103 jobs

IBJ Staff
June 30, 2011
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

More than 100 local employees of cable television giant Comcast Corp. will lose their jobs in September when the Philadelphia-based company closes its area dispatch operations.

Comcast notified the Indiana Department of Workforce Development by letter Wednesday that the layoffs will occur at the company’s facility at 5330 E. 65th St. in Indianapolis.

The jobs will be eliminated between Aug. 29 and Sept. 11, and will affect 103 employees, the company said.

A Comcast spokeswoman said the operations were being consolidated into the company's Plymouth, Mich., offices.

Employees who do not transfer to other jobs within Comcast may be entitled to severance benefits.

Comcast provides cable, Internet and phone service to about 47 million customers in 39 states and the District of Columbia.

Locally, it serves several areas and suburbs surrounding Indianapolis.



  • Numbers untrue
    Actully its just 103 at the Indy location. Because of the consolidation with MIchigan they are laying off over 300 across Indiana.
  • UR Right
    The layoffs extend far beyond the 103 listed here. The call center in Fishers is also affected. Comcast's already shoddy customer service is about to get worse. I feel horribly for the people affected by this.
  • Lies
    Comcast actually will be laying off over 300 people locally. It is not just the dispatch division and it is not just at the 65th St. location.

    Post a comment to this story

    We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
    You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
    Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
    No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
    We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.

    Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

    Sponsored by

    facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

    Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
    Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
    Subscribe to IBJ
    1. By Mr. Lee's own admission, he basically ran pro-bono ads on the billboard. Paying advertisers didn't want ads on a controversial, ugly billboard that turned off customers. At least one of Mr. Lee's free advertisers dropped out early because they found that Mr. Lee's advertising was having negative impact. So Mr. Lee is disingenous to say the city now owes him for lost revenue. Mr. Lee quickly realized his monstrosity had a dim future and is trying to get the city to bail him out. And that's why the billboard came down so quickly.

    2. Merchants Square is back. The small strip center to the south of 116th is 100% leased, McAlister’s is doing well in the outlot building. The former O’Charleys is leased but is going through permitting with the State and the town of Carmel. Mac Grill is closing all of their Indy locations (not just Merchants) and this will allow for a new restaurant concept to backfill both of their locations. As for the north side of 116th a new dinner movie theater and brewery is under construction to fill most of the vacancy left by Hobby Lobby and Old Navy.

    3. Yes it does have an ethics commission which enforce the law which prohibits 12 specific items. google it

    4. Thanks for reading and replying. If you want to see the differentiation for research, speaking and consulting, check out the spreadsheet I linked to at the bottom of the post; it is broken out exactly that way. I can only include so much detail in a blog post before it becomes something other than a blog post.

    5. 1. There is no allegation of corruption, Marty, to imply otherwise if false. 2. Is the "State Rule" a law? I suspect not. 3. Is Mr. Woodruff obligated via an employment agreement (contractual obligation) to not work with the engineering firm? 4. In many states a right to earn a living will trump non-competes and other contractual obligations, does Mr. Woodruff's personal right to earn a living trump any contractual obligations that might or might not be out there. 5. Lawyers in state government routinely go work for law firms they were formally working with in their regulatory actions. You can see a steady stream to firms like B&D from state government. It would be interesting for IBJ to do a review of current lawyers and find out how their past decisions affected the law firms clients. Since there is a buffer between regulated company and the regulator working for a law firm technically is not in violation of ethics but you have to wonder if decisions were made in favor of certain firms and quid pro quo jobs resulted. Start with the DOI in this review. Very interesting.