Comcast's Decision To Charge Roku Users A Bogus Fee Highlights Its Uncanny Ability To Shoot Innovation In The Foot
from the sabotaging-innovation dept
So when we last checked in with Comcast, the company was whining about a now deceased FCC plan to bring some much-needed openness and competition to your dusty old cable box. The FCC had proposed requiring that cable providers let users pick the cable box of their choice, later modifying the plan (after endless industry pearl-clutching) to simply requiring that cable providers bring their existing content in app form to existing streaming boxes. Granted, Comcast was at the heart of a massive, bizarre disinformation effort claiming the plan would end civilization as we know it.
Of course, what it would have ended was not only $21 billion in cable box monopoly rental fees, but a cornerstone of the closed, locked down walled garden that helps prop up the cable industry's gatekeeper power. Comcast, for what it's worth, claimed that bringing its content to third-party devices would harm copyright, increase piracy, hinder cable industry "innovation," and was technically impossible anyway. Regardless, the FCC's plan is dead, and it's not coming back any time soon.
But Comcast still has to drive the impression that it's listening to consumers and driving innovation, so the cable giant recently announced it would be bringing its Xfinity cable TV service to Roku streaming hardware. The app, currently in beta, lets users access their existing Comcast TV content without the need for a cable box, highlighting, Comcast insists, the company's innovation in the TV space:
"Featuring an immersive guide with rich graphics, imagery, personalized recommendations and detailed information for tens of thousands of movies and TV shows, the app will allow Xfinity TV customers to watch live and on demand programming, including local broadcast and Public Educational and Governmental channels, as well as their cloud DVR recordings, delivered over Comcast’s secure private managed network, on Roku devices in the home."
On its surface this sounded great. But this being Comcast, the company couldn't allow itself to be innovative without saddling customers with entirely unnecessary fees. Reports quickly began to emerge that Comcast would be charging customers that use Roku in this fashion an additional $7.95 every month, for no coherent reason whatsoever:
"What makes this fee striking is that it's not designed to pay for any particular cost to Comcast's business. The $9.95 fee that 99 percent of cable customers pay for set-top boxes is listed on bills as an equipment "rental fee." Even the Cablecard fee includes a bit of hardware from the cable operator. But the Roku app is purely software. It doesn't require a piece of equipment supplied by the cable company, nor does it require a technician to come to your home to set it up."
But Gigi Sohn, who served as a senior adviser to former FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler, said she knows why.
"It's gravy to them," Sohn said. "You're already paying handsomely for the service. And now they're making you pay a second time."
It is, in effect, a $7.95 "because we can" fee, and a big reason the FCC wanted to standardize this process to keep cable executive "creativity" under control. Of course, this being Comcast, the company was also quick to make sure this service wouldn't count against the completely unnecessary broadband usage caps it continues to deploy across the least competitive portions of the company's footprint. Comcast's FAQ on the new Roku beta correctly notes that this technically isn't a net neutrality violation, because this traffic never actually touches the general internet:
The Xfinity TV service delivered through the Xfinity TV Beta app is not an Internet service and does not touch or use the Internet. Rather, it is a Title VI cable service delivered solely over Comcast's private, managed cable network, so it will not count toward your Xfinity Internet Data Usage Plan.
So yeah, while not technically a violation of net neutrality (not that those rules will be around long anyway), it still gives Comcast a competitive advantage. If you're trying to choose between a new streaming live TV service like Sony's Playstation Vue or Dish's Sling TV or Comcast's offering, the fact that those services will erode your Comcast usage cap could very likely drive you back into the arms of Comcast. Of course, that's quite by design, and is a perfect example of how every "innovation" Comcast pushes into the market tends to have a nasty underlayer of price gouging and anti-competitive shenanigans.
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: fees, innovation, set top boxes, tv
Companies: comcast, roku
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
What are you talking about?
https://twitter.com/MClyburnFCC/status/824662869002350594?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw
https://arstech nica.com/information-technology/2017/01/fcc-chairman-pai-takes-wheelers-set-top-box-plan-off-the-tab le/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Block competition
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Block competition
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Block competition
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Block competition
In areas in which they have data caps, you either have to watch your usage and stop using their competitors when you get to your cap or risk paying overage fees.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Block competition
if you want to help protect NN you should support groups like ACLU and the Electronic Frontier Foundation and Free Press who are fighting to keep Net Neutrality.
https://www.aclu.org/
https://www.eff.org/
https://www.freepress.net/
also you can set them as your charity on https://smile.amazon.com/
also write to your House Representative and senators
http://www.house.gov/representatives/find/
https://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information /senators_cfm.cfm?OrderBy=state
and the FCC
https://www.fcc.gov/about/contact
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Block competition
A consensus..
There is supposed to be a LAW against False advertising..
I wont go into the PROGRAMMING the people with Superman, Truth, justice and the American way..
I dont even believe that 55% of the people Voted..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Block competition
Dreamer. Wake the fuck up. You are hosed! I wonder why so many of you insist on believing that country's still worth living in. You're mistaken. The rats have taken over. It's too infested with cruft to suffer simple mortals to want to live or survive there.
The whole country's in denial of reality. Nazi Germany was pikers compared to what the US's produced lately.
I wasn't expecting to see this in my lifetime. I'm not glad I did either. You've my sypathies, not that that's any help to anyone.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ars Technica had some good coverage on this
https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2017/02/comcast-will-charge-extra-fee-for-watching-tv -on-roku-boxes/
Ars had a good article on this earlier this month.
Relevant Comcast quote from an update to their article (emphasis added by me):
If I am reading that correctly, if you use the Roku app as your only outlet instead of a regular cable box, you won't have the fee, but if you have a regular cable box and also use the Roku app, then you'll have the fee.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Ars Technica had some good coverage on this
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Ars Technica had some good coverage on this
If it's your "primary outlet" it will cost you $7.45, but if it's an "additional outlet" it will cost you $9.95. As your primary, you get $2.50 off the $9.95 fee.
The fee isn't a separate item on the bill, just rolled into the overall cost, so it appears you'll be getting a $2.50 credit on the bill.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Ars Technica had some good coverage on this
Doesn't the FTC do anything about deceptive marketing anymore?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Ars Technica had some good coverage on this
To put it another way: Comcast charges $2.50 if you use their box for your primary outlet. If you use a Tivo or Roku (not possible yet), you don't pay this $2.50.
You won't be able to use this as your primary outlet until some indeterminate time in the future, so the reality is that it will cost $7.50 (as a secondary outlet).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Once these subscribers have a Roku and access to all of the "cord cutter" content providers many will probably give Netflix, Hulu, etc. a try. That's an open invitation to cancel your cable subscription in favor of being able to watch what you want, when you want, how you want for a lot less money every month.
Someone at Comcast secretly works for Netflix I think.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Just some numbers here
My bill used to be $179. Now that I have only internet my "cable" bill is $39. (And that includes a static IP address!)
Also a $13 monthly TiVo bill is gone.
Now even with Netflix, Prime, HBO, Starz and Hulu, that's pretty good.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Just some numbers here
After six mo., it tripled (ca. $66/mo.; Hollywood math?!?). Three years on, it's $73/mo.
$39/mo. would be lovely. You're gettin' a good deal.
I see an ad on this page from Shaw advertising "High Speed Internet Sale - Internet 150 Just $49 + Free Install & Equipment" (GOK what "I... 150" really means (aka throttled?)).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Like a broken record...
Oh, and fuck Pai and his mission to kill net neutrality and competition. When will someone grow a pair, get away from the bribes and say ENOUGH??
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Like a broken record...
And SOON with the cancellations, they will RAISE the internet prices because they know what we are doing..
Ever notice that FAMILY internet, is absent? Do they REALLY think that 400-500gig, Shared with 7 devices is ENOUGH??
From Desk computer, Phones(yes we are dropping the CELL PART), Tablets, Roku, Chromecast, and TONS of other devices..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Like a broken record...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Still don't use Comcast
I had comcast years ago, dropped them for various reasons primarily their rate hikes every few months.
If consumers had a spine and together in a region just cancelled their comcast accounts (if they could actually cancel (http://gizmodo.com/its-completely-absurd-how-hard-it-is-to-cancel-comcast-1605040001, http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2014/07/15/comcast_rep_refuses_to_cancel_service_listen_to_the_c ustomer_service_call.html), soon they would change their behavior, but that's the thing... which company could they go to in a captive market that isn't using the same "collusive" application of revenue generation?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
WHEN?
WHEN?
I ask this "people/CORPS" because Corps hire outside service to DO THE BUSINESS of customer sevice, and other Parts of the business...so that they can say...WE DIDNT DO IT..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not new
Back in the 80's my cable company wanted an "outlet fee" for each TV hookup. I don't know whether they'd provide a splitter or technician or anything, because I never heard of anyone paying it—everyone would buy a $10 splitter and run some coax. But the company would occasionally "remind" people about this, that everyone should be honest and not "steal" service.
Digital cable fixed all that for them of course. Now, TVs just don't work without a cable box.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Not new
The 1992 Cable Act ended that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Not new
"The 1992 Cable Act ended that.""
ITYM, "It took an Act Of Congress to stop them from pulling such !@#$." CableCo's data had been paid for and delivered. How that was dealt with, or split out by the customer was their (the end user's) concern. Billing that end user on *how* they handled their bought and paid for data should never have been on the table.
Pretty corrupt system. It's astonishing complaints such as this still go on in this century.
Not to mention, that such like Pai defend those who support such arguments. I hoped such things as the Magna Carta, centuries ago, would've presaged the end of this right of kings bs. Apparently, such a presumption was premature. We've still a few more kings to beat into line/submission. Sadly, they now have lawyers, lobbyists, and bought law on their side to defend their delusions and rapacity.
Sucks to be a peon/peasant in any century, it seems. When will this crap ever end?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Qualifications for being a violation
Is the bandwidth available over your Internet connection while using this service the same as the bandwidth available over that connection while the service is not active?
If so, then yes, I would agree that this is not a net-neutrality violation.
If, however, they're using (a differently labeled segment of) the same pipes - such that this service consumes resources which would otherwise be available for use with other services - then it's still just as much a violation as any other form of zero-rating.
(If the cable company permanently segregates off a chunk of the cable bandwith for its TV services, and never uses that bandwidth for Internet service - not even for people who don't receive TV service at all - then using that bandwidth for this service wouldn't reduce the available bandwidth for the Internet service, and so would not be a (new) violation. It would also mean less Internet bandwidth than would otherwise be available, however, so I wouldn't be surprised if cable companies don't do this.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yaknow, ...
WTFMG!?!?!
Twenty one billion US dollars would be one seriously big load of cash for damned near any commercial op anywhere (or this 20th Century kid would believe). Perhaps I'm an old fogey who doesn't understand economics and inflation; dunno.
This's about a $21,000,000,000 *sideline* on top of their core business? Crazy and nuts can't even begin to describe how ludicrous this is. This is legal in this century you say? We're all in the wrong line of work, is all I can say. What a FUCK of a racket they stumbled into!
Woof! Wasn't NASA's entire budget something like that when we were trying to put people on the moon?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Just one more reason I'm cancelling
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Xfinity TV APP for Roku
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]