From $1.50 To $10 Per Month: How Comcast's Bogus Fees Are False Advertising
from the fees-and-surcharges-may-apply dept
For several years now cable and broadband providers have been using hidden fees to covertly jack up their advertised rates. These fees, which utilize a rotating crop of bullshit names, help these companies falsely advertise one rate, then sock the consumer with a significantly higher-rate post sale (often when locked into a long-term contract). The practice also allows the company to falsely claim they're not raising rates on consumers. They omit that they're talking about the above the line rate being charged, implying that anything below the line (where real fees like taxes are levied) is outside of their control.
Back in 2014, Comcast introduced a new $1.50 per month surcharge it called its "Broadcast TV Fee." Said fee was really just a portion of the cost of doing business for Comcast (programming), busted out of the full bill and hidden below the line -- again to help the company falsely advertise a lower price. Over the last four years Comcast has quietly but quickly pushed this fee skyward, this week informing customers that -- alongside numerous other rate hikes like its "Regional Sports Network" fees -- the company's Broadcast TV fee would now be $10 per month for the company's cable TV customers:
"Comcast is raising its controversial "Broadcast TV" and "Regional Sports Network" fees again on January 1, with the typical total price going from $14.50 to $18.25 a month. The newly raised broadcast TV fee will be $10 a month, and the sports fee will be $8.25 a month, Cord Cutters News reported last week. The new fee sizes are confirmed in a Comcast price list for the Atlanta market. About a year ago, Comcast raised the broadcast TV fee from $6.50 to $8 and the sports fee from $4.50 to $6.50."
Not to be outdone, Comcast's also socking millions of its customers with a bevy of additional fees in the new year. Including a wide variety of modem and cable box rental fees, the latter of which arrive after Comcast worked overtime to kill FCC plans to improve cable box competition. Comcast users still routinely pay an arm and a leg in rental fees for hardware that actually costs very little for Comcast to buy wholesale:
"Equipment rental fees are rising, too. Comcast last year raised its modem rental fee from $10 to $11 a month. The new price list for January 1 lists an "Internet/Voice Equipment Rental" fee as $13. Comcast confirmed to Ars that the modem rental fee is rising $2 a month. Customers can avoid that fee by purchasing their own modem."
There's nothing healthy about a scenario where customers don't know how much they'll pay for service until the bill actually arrives, and face a rotating bevy of covert fees while purportedly under contract. In a country with functional regulators or healthy competition (or hey, both) Comcast wouldn't be allowed to completely make up a bogus fee specifically to help it advertise a lower price. But despite some occasional noise on this front, neither party has given much of a damn about such "creative" pricing. It sends a pretty clear message: ripping off consumers is fine if you're semi-creative about it.
As such, regulatory promises to mandate some transparency on this front come and go without meaningful change, and bills attempting to stop the practice routinely get crushed by lobbyist cash in Congress. The FCC's net neutrality rules included some meager provisions requiring that ISPs being transparent about hidden surcharges, but even those requirements were killed during the agency's net neutrality repeal (at direct Comcast lobbyist behest).
And while Comcast is occasionally singled out for the practice via lawsuits and consumer groups, it routinely tries to insist that socking customers with bullshit fees is just Comcast's way of being "transparent."
Obviously it's not just the cable industry that engages in such nonsense; telecom companies learned the tactic from the banking, airline, and other industries, who similarly get to confuse customers with surprise surcharges with zero meaningful market or regulatory repercussions. From hotel "resort fees" to family-separating airline assigned seating fees, the United States has repeatedly made it clear across industries that lying to consumers about how much they'll pay is now a great American pastime akin to baseball.
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: below the line fees, broadband fees, broadcast tv fee, false advertising, fees, sneaky fees
Companies: comcast
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
They're just....
Take a close look at the below the line fees on your power bill - there's some real artistry in the wording of the fee descriptions. Especially the one where they can charge you more if you don't use as much electricity as your neighbors...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: fees
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: They're just....
I love it. Now we need to have some kind of competition, annually, for the most 'creative', "creative" pricing. Bonus points for effective implementation and more bonus points for the percentage of annual increase. This competition should be along the lines of the Oscars, or Emmy's or whatever. Any reality TV producer would have sufficient competence to put on such a show. I wonder what their TV viewership ratings would be? Is there a chance that they could get fans rooting for one or another? And the envelope please...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: They're just....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: They're just....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: They're just....
"Especially the one where they can charge you more if you don't use as much electricity as your neighbors"
I'd like to see that one.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: They're just....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: They're just....
Remember, every fee, every cent on your bill is approved by a public committee in a rate hearing, where there is opposition to each increase. Heck, sometimes the utility does actually oppose rate increases(usually when the money goes to a third party, because they'll be blamed for the increase, and not get any money out of it. They're opposing a huge premium over market for solar where I am, because they don't want to deal with the hatred that adding a third to most people's bills will cause."
I'm not saying they're even good, just that they aren't allowed to just make stuff up, and they tend to have to get it through an adversarial process to add it to your bill. Oh, and the reason behind the underuse fee may be related to phase balance, where if they aren't close, they damage equipment and cause power quality issues. Which might be a legitimate reason, or it could be BS. I have no idea what your utility does, only what mine does.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: They're just....
It used to be that way. Perhaps you skipped over the "since deregulation" part of the comment.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: They're just....
Basically, if they sell LESS power to a neighborhood than they expected to, they can charge a sliding amount *per customer* to bring that customer's bill up to their "projected average usage cost".
PUC passed it because it works the other way as well - if they sell MORE power than they expected, they reduce the bill to bring it to the "projected average".
Of course, the bill is almost always something like $20-50 more for it, on very rare occasions it'll be -$3.28 or the like.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: They're just....
Customer fee. Yes, a fee for being a customer. I'd say that's pretty made up no matter who approved it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: They're just....
Had a service line break once. Line from the pole to the house. It belongs to the power company. But if it needs to be replaced, they charge you several hundred dollars.
Found out recently the Village I live in has a similar setup with the sewer system. Any damage to your house connect you have to pay them (at higher than Union Scale) to repair, even if the problem is in the connection under the road.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
no honest Americans
guess there are no honest people left in U.S.
too bad, seems like honest businessmen who charged fair prices for good services/products would have a strong competitive advantage over the sleazy crooks in a specific business category
must be something blocking normal market competition.. what could that be
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: no honest Americans
Not really. The dishonest businessperson would use underhanded and/or anti-competitive tactics to interfere with the honest businessperson's enterprise (for example, frivolous lawsuits to deplete funds, getting politicians to pass laws favoring the dishonest business and/or making it more difficult for the honest business to compete effectively). The honest businessperson would never use such tactics since they're honest, and would therefore be at a disadvantage.
Hmm this sounds familiar...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Assigned seating fees a bad example
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Assigned seating fees a bad example
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Contract?
Does the customer sign and return a legal document? Does this document in any way protect the customer (or give them what I think the lawyers call "consideration")?
I know with certainty that if you get a business account with cable providers, they do the contract properly (if digitally). But most people have residential accounts.
It's not even as if these are anything like so-called cell phone plans; the carrier is usually fronting the cost of a $500-1000 phone. It's not as if you get to keep your cable box once the two years is up. It's not as if there is some hookup charge to recoup; the coax has in most cases been there for years.
Falsely asserting contract rights should be a felony.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Contract?
Consideration isn't one of the many problems with these contracts. The money and the service are the consideration. What do cable boxes have to do with anything?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Contract?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Contract?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Contract?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Contract?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Contract?
If you called Comcast up and said "I need cable hooked up for 2 months but then I'll be moving out"... they'll set it up for you. But they won't have a specially written 2 month contract written up. And they won't say "but we only do minimum 12 (6, whatever) contracts".
There is no contract here. There's no contract when you buy a cheeseburger at McDonald's, and McDonald's would be laughed out of court if they claimed that that was consideration that made their "no one has to sign it" contract valid.
We live in a world where the definition of the word "agreement" has been twisted until it means nothing anymore. You've agreed to agree that I'm correct when you read my comment.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Contract?
The US Supreme Court calls that an implied-in-fact contract. Restaurants are a canonical example. If you order the cheeseburger, they hand it to you, and you walk out without paying, you've broken the contract and can be held to account (it can't necessarily be called "theft" when they've made it just for you and handed it to you). Neither side gets to make up the terms; they have to match the ordinary expectations.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Contract?
So it can't be a contract. The cheeseburger isn't consideration.
I suppose this must be news to you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Contract?
OK, so the contract is that they'll give you the cheeseburger after that. The cheeseburger and cash are both consideration.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Contract?
The galling issue, what i believe to be a contract failure, is the initial contract generally spells out a price, guaranteed for a portion of the contract, with an unknown price after the end of that period while the customer is still bound to pay. Comcast has generally moved away from that particular for of gouging (waiting until your minimum contract is up to start rasing rates), but the contract only guarantees service price. It binds you to a variety of non-advertised fees raising the cost, fees which can change.
The cable modem and cable box rental fees are the worst, given the up front costs of a modem and the cost and poor selection of a third party cable box. But any fee below the line is not a government tax. Its a because we can fee.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Contract?
Taxes shouldn't be special either; in most countries, they have to be included in advertised prices. (They'd still be a little special in that the fees could change during the contract period as tax rates change.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Contract?
In your quote I was actually noting that if it is labeled a 'fee' then it is the provider charging you that below the line, which seems even worse as at least when its a government mandated tax you can, in theory, know the applicable taxes before shopping, and factor that in.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Contract?
I can and do blame Comcast for their actions, i.e., for doing this because they can get away with it. They can share the blame with everyone who does the same, which is pretty much everyone.
No regulation requires them to advertise pre-tax prices, and it's not even clear that it's technically legal. They're taking advantage of lax regulation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Contract?
I could say it's the opposite. The government has the power to change taxes and apply the new rates to ongoing contracts, regardless of what those contracts say; you can't know what the rates will be in a year. Comcast can only adjust fees as specified in the contract. In either case, a tenacious person will be able to determine the relevant rates before signing up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Contract?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Contract?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How do contracts work?
Yeah. I might be a little meab
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
netflix $11 a month
youtube tv $40 a month
Hulu $8 a month
no garbage fees.
no dealing with comcast
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Don't be fooled. You're not personally dealing with them, but they own enough of the content on those services that they'll be getting some of your money—and you'll be getting higher prices, with occasional missing content while they fight each other about it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's an awful trend. How much longer before stores start charging addon fees (in addition to sales tax) on top of the listed price at the cash register?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
For a store to add on additional fees at the register is likely to cause someone to just not buy and walk away, which is both possible and easier to do. Even without BS fees, people leave items at the checkout on a fairly regular basis just because it turned out to be more expensive than they expected for whatever reason.
With stores, the customer dissatisfaction caused by the practice is self-correcting. With ISPs, regional monopolies mean that customer dissatisfaction doesn't have the clout it should.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Also, in the case of city utilities you can be pretty sure that any extra fees are going to actually cover costs instead of being a profit fee.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A very simple law to pass, if it is mandatory, then it has to be included in the upfront cost.
Too bad our government really doesn't care about consumers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Yep, same here. No other ISP.
And the cabling in my house only supports 100MB, so if I did pay $50 extra a month for unlimited, I'd still only be getting 100MB.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
It took me a few tries to figure out that you didn't mean that the cabling in your house somehow had a data cap on it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
They hide all sorts of stuff below the line. My old roommate Ted was in charge of the cable/internet service, and two days after signing up with Comcast the installation tech showed up. I remember it like it was yesterday... [distorted dissolve to flashback:]
TECH: Uhh, can I have your liver?
TED: My what?
TECH: Your liver. It's a large, ehh, glandular organ in your abdomen.
TED: Yeah, I know what it is, but... I'm using it.
TECH: What's this, then? Mm?
TED: A Comcast contract.
TECH: Need I say more?
TED: Listen, I can't give it to you now. It says, 'in the event of death'.
TECH: No one who has ever signed up with Comcast has survived.
[TED bleeds to death while arguing with Customer Support on phone]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It is particularly bullshit to turn blind eye to monolithic corporations screwing the public in return for campaign donations as a cut of that screwing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
new funding model for websites
/s
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
DID WE HAVE rules/regulatoins/???
Why do we have to SUE a corp to get its books to read, and then try to figure out the method to the madness of their book keeping..
I still stand by my concept that the Gov. should make a Business format that ALL corps must live by...
Dont regulate it STAMP IT IN STONE..
I really wonder how the corps do in other countries..I dont hear as much Bitching as I do here in the USA...
REMEMBER these are not small corps..they are around the world, in 1 way or another.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
*Picking you seat fee: $11 - $21 per flight, back -> front
*Each carry on bag - $20 - $50, depending on buying at booking or at the airport
*Each checked bag - $30 - $50, depending on buying at booking or at the airport
Taking a single carry on and choosing an isle seat in the middle of the plane added another $69...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The war on (1) language, (2) honesty
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If there's no alternative to renting the boxes, they should be included in the advertised prices. The article says the modem fee is optional, which would make it fair to exclude from the advertised prices and from term contracts. If term contracts don't cover the rental, there's no reason the price shouldn't be able to go up during the term, and there's also no reason the subscriber couldn't return it halfway through.
Best Chromecast Apps For Streaming On Android & iOS
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's an awful trend. How much longer before stores start charging addons fees (in addition to sales tax) on top of the listed price at the cash register?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Thanks, deregulation plutocrats.
The only way we have to stop corporations from ripping us off is our government. Granted that's a poor tool, they're usually too little too late or too much too soon, but it's all we have. Deregulation takes away our voice and lets the corporations do what they want, which always ends up badly for the consumers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Since if installing. So tempted to put a sign that says. If a company enters. They are bound by consumer Inc laws. And own arbitration free robux generator. And as shrink wrap stuff, well..... As apparently it works on customers and consumers soooo....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Really bad.
Its just a bad thing that false advertising is now a days everywhere. Just for example, if am playing pokemon go game, you will see lots of false ads in the game. They are just everywhere.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Really bad.
Yes, you are right. I have also found several false adverts in slotomania game. God knows when will it stop.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Advertising is everything for some people.
Its not about your care or something, they just need to serve you ads and thats all. Am playing marvel strike force and this also have same issues.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]