How Snowboarders Are Waving Company Logos In The IOC's Face... And There's Nothing It Can Do About It

Retrans Fights Get More Annoying As Cable Hits Users With Sneaky Below-The-Line 'Broadcast TV' Fees

from the nickel-and-dime dept

Thu, Feb 20th 2014 4:36pm — Karl Bode

If you hadn't noticed (read: are a cord cutter), the battle over higher retransmission fees between broadcasters and cable operators has grown immensely more annoying for consumers, with last year seeing a record amount of content blacked out as the two sides fought over rates. Consumers are usually put in the middle of the battle, with broadcasters blaming pay TV companies for the breakdown in negotiations and vice versa; both sides then bombarding consumers with calls or on-screen tickers insisting they act immediately and call the other guy to complain. We've seen these fights evolve over the years to include the blackout of online content as well, with the Time Warner Cable and CBS fight last year reaching entirely new levels of annoying.

After the smoke clears, confidential deals are struck, and the pretense of caring about how much consumers are paying fades away, the costs then get passed on to the consumer as the icing on an ugly process. Normally, cable companies include these hikes in the cost of doing business on your final bill. However, a growing number of cable companies are embedding a portion of these hikes in below the line fees, allowing them to jack up your cable bill, but still advertise the same price. Comcast, for example, recently started charging users a $1.50 Broadcast TV Fee that the company insists is part of improving your entertainment experience:

"At Comcast we are committed to constantly improving your entertainment and communications experience, and we continue to invest in making your services even better. As we make these and other investments, we periodically need to adjust prices due to increases we incur in programming and other business costs. Among these price changes, we have itemized a Broadcast TV Fee in order to identify some of the rising costs or retransmitting broadcast television signals. In recent years, the cost of retransmitting broadcast television signals has increased significantly, and going forward we want to address these increasing costs through a separate itemized charge."

While I know massive multi-billion-dollar new skyscrapers don't build themselves and the $45.2 billion needed for new mergers doesn't grow on trees, I was always under the impression that part of the primary cost of doing business in the cable industry was programming -- and as such, that should be included in the normal price of service (the same service broadcast and cable raises the price of sometimes as often as twice a year). Comcast certainly isn't alone in this practice; Charter has imposed this kind of charge for more than a year, and AT&T this week notified U-Verse customers they'll now be paying $3 per month instead of $2 for the fee. If you're on Time Warner Cable, you should be getting a notice soon that they're adding the fee as well.

Again, burying ordinary costs of this kind is a common tactic in the cable TV industry, and it's a form of false advertising regulators seem to believe is all in good fun. It's useful if you're a cable operator interested in jacking up prices while keeping advertised prices the same, bumping prices on people you've convinced have signed "price lock guarantees," or raising rates on users who are otherwise paying a fixed-rate under contract. It's also useful if you want to trot out statistics showing how cable rate hikes are slightly less than they actually are. Or, as Comcast phrases it, ensuring you have a really fantastic, compelling television "experience" and are getting the utmost "value" for your entertainment dollar. Enjoy!

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: broadcast, cable, retransmission, television
Companies: cbs, time warner

22 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

rycho (profile), 20 Feb 2014 @ 4:58pm

Rule #1
So much for businesses making our lives more comforting. With all the aggressive activity occurring in the competitive arena for our last pennies, we're not getting any peace to enjoy our illusions of freedom, choice, and entertainment.

What ever happened to the rule of giving the customer what (s)he wants?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- The Mighty Buzzard (profile), 20 Feb 2014 @ 5:31pm
  
  Re: Rule #1
  That's not in the current corporate business model. If you're leveraged to the hilt and want to borrow more money for something, you have to drive stock prices up. In a non-growth industry, this means bilking the consumers a bit more to fake growth and hoping not enough of them leave to offset the gain.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Pragmatic, 21 Feb 2014 @ 5:10am
    
    Re: Re: Rule #1
    It's why I'm so damn skeptical of the "vote with your wallet" argument trotted out by big "L" Libertarians. "Take it or leave it" isn't much of a choice, is it?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - rycho (profile), 21 Feb 2014 @ 7:30am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Rule #1
      I only have one choice of ISP, unless I want dial up. Can't exactly vote with my wallet.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Chris Rhodes (profile), 21 Feb 2014 @ 8:05am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Rule #1
      When you look at the reasons behind only having one "choice" in an area, you'll usually find the government staring back at you.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - John Fenderson (profile), 21 Feb 2014 @ 9:10am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Rule #1
        Yes, the government that has been purchased by the telecoms.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 20 Feb 2014 @ 5:38pm

"At Comcast we are committed to constantly improving our bottom line, and we continue to charge the consumer to make our corporate benefits even better. As we make these and other adjustments, we periodically need to increase charges due to other greedy assholes we are forced into purchasing programming from.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
JEDIDIAH, 20 Feb 2014 @ 5:42pm

Bring it on!
I dunno. I think an itemized bill would not be a bad idea. Lay it all on the table and let everyone know how these ridiculous cable bills break down. I can understand the idea. Cable companies are being squeezed over nonsense that should be FREE. Of course they want to raise the profile of this issue any make broadcasters look like the greedy bast*rd they are.

Although it's hard to have sympathy for either party here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- rycho (profile), 20 Feb 2014 @ 5:53pm
  
  Re: Bring it on!
  Only one getting squeezed that I care about, and it is NOT a cable company.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 20 Feb 2014 @ 5:53pm

The only growth in the cable industry is in their pants when they get that big fat pay increase.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
jupiterkansas (profile), 20 Feb 2014 @ 6:19pm

Cut! Cut! Cut!

You do not need cable TV in your life.

You want sports, then go play sports. You'll have more fun and your health will improve.

Everyone else read a book, see a play, learn to play an instrument - you will be a happier person if you do.

And just think of all the extra money you'll now have for your new hobbies when you're not paying a cable bill.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 20 Feb 2014 @ 6:51pm

No looking back
Cut the cord 6 years ago and don't miss it one bit. In fact, my options are better now than they were 6 years ago. Cable is such a waste of money. I prefer the money in my pocket rather than having all the endless reruns and reality garbage. There aren't more than 20 stations worth having so who needs hundreds of channels when most of the time you surf through them all and still cant find anything worthwhile to waste an hour watching.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 20 Feb 2014 @ 6:55pm

year 2024: Comcast? what is that?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Jill K, 20 Feb 2014 @ 7:37pm

Retrans is a joke
Made up by the broadcast networks because they were too late in admitting that cable was eating their lunch. 2014 is going to be the year of the Great Media Bloodbath:
http://mankabros.com/blogs/onmedea/2013/11/22/the-great-media-bloodbath-of-2014/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Kronomex, 21 Feb 2014 @ 2:35am

Hell, I wouldn't touch cable TV with a 40 foot barge pole here in Australia. We have a choice of Rupert's Fox Crapwork, I mean Network, or Optus which is made up of mostly Fox Crapwork. Some choice. Actually, I don't even have a television anymore, I put it out on the nature strip one night about two years ago because of the steaming shit that passes for content in this country. My viewing by that time had literally dropped to one hour a week.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ninja (profile), 21 Feb 2014 @ 3:04am

Does not affect me. These people are irrelevant.

And this is what they should be worried about, not some petty disputes. When they are fully irrelevant for everybody these fees will matter very little.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
jackn, 21 Feb 2014 @ 5:18am

I guess they just want to become obsolete quickly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 21 Feb 2014 @ 5:54am

A la carte
If they are able to itemize to this level, surely they have the capability to allow me to cherry pick the channels I want to view and pay for. They seem quite able to let me select HBO for XX$ per month but not so if all I want is ESPN. Go figure.

Liars.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 21 Feb 2014 @ 7:38am

"At Comcast we are committed to constantly improving your entertainment and communications experience, and we continue to invest in making your services even better. As we make these and other investments, we periodically need to adjust prices due to increases we incur in programming and other business costs. Among these price changes, we have itemized a Broadcast TV Fee in order to identify some of the rising costs or retransmitting broadcast television signals. In recent years, the cost of retransmitting broadcast television signals has increased significantly, and going forward we want to address these increasing costs through a separate itemized charge."

Did they get Clapper to write that for them? It sure sounds like his kind of justification.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 21 Feb 2014 @ 8:49am

you dont think these situations are done on purpose, do you, just to be able to charge customers more money??
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 21 Feb 2014 @ 10:31am

"We're the phone company. We don't care; we don't have to."
Earnestine (Lily Tomlin)

However, Ma Bell got busted up anyhow. Comcast's time will come.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Telecom Chick, 21 Mar 2014 @ 12:17pm
  
  Re:
  Have you looked lately. Ma Bell is reassembling itself just under a different name.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]