Comcast Forgets To Delete Evidence It's Using Evil Fansubs In Its Streaming Service

from the oops dept

The war on fan-made subtitles waged by the entertainment industry has been going on for a long, long time. While fansubs could, and probably should, be viewed as a potential boon to the entertainment industry, allowing those in far-flung lands to suddenly enjoy its products, fansubs have instead been painted as an aid to pirated content overseas or, in some cases, as copyright infringement themselves, given that they essentially copy parts of the content scripts.

If nothing else is clear as a result of this introduction, it should be that major industry players absolutely hate fansubs.

... Except when they can make use of them, apparently, as Comcast-owned Swiss broadcaster Sky had been found using fansubs in its streaming service in the dumbest way possible.

Subscribers of the local Sky platform who watch the last episode of the hit series Chernobyl, with English subtitles enabled, see the following message appearing around the five-minute mark.

“- Synced and corrected by VitoSilans – www.Addic7ed.com.”

Addic7ed.com is a fansub site. Asked for comment, reps for the site said they didn't care at all that Sky was using their work. Instead, they claim to have started the site to get content out to more people so that specific language wasn't a barrier to enjoyment. Still, it must have been at least slightly jarring to see Sky essentially forget to strip out Addic7ed's signature for its own work. Using someone else's work as one's own by way of copying it is about as close an analogy to copyright infringement as one could get.

Sky, meanwhile, ain't talking.

Sky Switzerland hasn’t responded to our request for comment at the time of publication. Whether the Addic7ed credit was left in intentionally is highly doubtful though. It seems more likely that someone forgot to remove it.

In any case, the mention hasn’t gone unnoticed either. At least one person has alerted Sky via Twitter, but the company didn’t respond there either.

It's the hypocrisy here that's worth highlighting, because the industry regularly rails against fansub sites and here is a member of that industry using them in its own product.

Filed Under: copyright, fansubs, streaming
Companies: comcast, sky

Shockingly, Cable TV and Broadband Customer Satisfaction Is Still The Worst In America

from the ill-communication dept

Every few years or so, giant cable and broadband companies like Comcast will proclaim that they've finally seen the light, and will be spending time shoring up their terrible customer service. Like a few years ago, when Comcast proclaimed it had hired a "Customer Experience VP" who would finally make addressing the company's historically terrible customer service a top priority. CEO Brian Roberts also can be found at least once a year claiming that the company is going to finally address the problem by hiring better people, improving support systems, and generally revisiting the company's policies.

But year after year, big cable and broadband companies fail to deliver. Case in point: the latest American Consumer Satisfaction Index was recently released, and ISPs and cable providers continue to see the worst customer satisfaction scores in America. These companies are so bad at what they do, they're routinely bested by even everybody's favorite punching bag: the IRS. When it comes to broadband service on a scale of 100, both Comcast and Charter (Spectrum) continue to see the worst scores in an already terrible sector:

"Internet Service Providers didn’t fare any better than cable companies with the overall industry ratings at the same 62. The only three ISPs with rankings above the average are Verizon FiOS (70), AT&T Internet (69) and Altice (63). At the bottom of the rankings are Frontier (55), MediaCom (56), and Windstream (57). The big cable companies don’t fare well as ISPs – Charter (59) and Comcast (61)."

Things are equally bad on the cable TV front, where despite the rise of competition from streaming providers, incumbent cable ops still can't seem to figure out this whole "treating customers with respect" thing. While most hated industries (airlines) rank in the 70s and more popular brands (Amazon) reach the 80s, cable TV remains struggling in the 50s and 60s:

In the TV sector, the emergence of streaming video has offered consumers some reprieve. Streaming providers like Netflix, Hulu, and Amazon routinely rate much higher in customer satisfaction because they give consumers what they've been screaming for for years: lower prices and more flexible channel bundles. Ultimately, cable operators will be forced to actually compete on price, but they're apparently waiting until countless millions of their paying customers have fled to greener pastures before actually seriously overhauling their business models. Still, competition in the TV space is rising either way.

The broadband space is less promising. With no meaningful regulatory oversight and little competition, there's really no incentive to improve customer service or offer a better product in most markets. The focus remains on growth for growth's sake (megamergers) and scale, without scaling customer service in symmetry. The end result should be fairly obvious, given the broadband sector ranks worse than a long list of widely despised sectors like the airline, banking, and insurance industries. That kind of accomplishment requires some serious, sustained elbow grease and the kind of monopoly myopia money simply can't buy.

Filed Under: broadband, cable tv, customer satisfaction
Companies: at&t, charter, comcast, frontier, spectrum, verizon, windstream

Comcast Gets $9 Million Fine For Tricking Customers With 'Worthless' Protection Plans

from the relative-wrist-slap dept

In August of 2016, Washington State sued Comcast, claiming the cable giant had long been offering consumers a "service protection plan" that was barely worth the paper it was printed on. According to the Washington State AG, the plan promised consumers "comprehensive" protection for all repairs, service calls, maintenance of inside wiring and customer-owned equipment, and "on-site education about Comcast products" for $5 more per month.

But the AG investigation found Comcast repeatedly misled consumers about the scope of the plan, and routinely charging consumers for repairs and service that should have been included under the plan's umbrella. Comcast misled more than 500,000 Washington state consumers in this fashion, and the AG's original lawsuit (pdf) noted that Comcast had even created a clear "service code" for techs to use when they wanted to incur charges for service that should have been covered under the plan.

Fast forward to last week, when a ruling in King County, Washington court (pdf) found that Comcast also technically violated the law more than 445,000 times when it charged tens of thousands of Washingtonians for this worthless Service Protection Plan -- without first obtaining their consent. From the full AG announcement:

"The court found that Comcast added the SPP to the accounts of 30,946 Washingtonians without their knowledge, and did not tell an additional 18,660 Washingtonians the true cost of the plan. The court ordered Comcast to refund affected consumers, and pay 12 percent interest on the restitution. The amount of restitution is unknown at this time, but is expected to be significant. The court ordered Comcast to issue the refunds within 60 days and report to the state on the specific details and amounts."

Comcast's little gambit was certainly profitable: the court ruling declared that Comcast netted more than $73 million in errant fees over a five-year period by signing up customers for the worthless service plan they never asked for. Court recordings even documented how Comcast would sign up customers for the plan even when they clearly rejected Comcast representatives' pitches.

Comcast, whose historically terrible customer service is already the stuff of legend, will be required to refund nearly 50,000 customers and pay a $9.1 million fine to make up for years of misleading behavior. And while that sets a Washington State record, that still likely falls well short of the total net profit Comcast made from scamming Washington State consumers. And that's of course just Washington State; if Comcast was doing this in Washington, it was likely doing it in other states, yet no other states have pursued investigations into the behavior.

In the wake of the federal government abdicating most of its authority to protect consumers from giant telecom monopolies that face little organic competition, states have tried to step up their game when it comes to consumer protection. But it hasn't been easy; with the Ajit Pai FCC's help, the telecom lobby has tried its damnedest to ban states from being able to hold giant ISPs responsible. That gambit hasn't been working out all that well -- at least in states that can be bothered to actually still care about consumer protection.

Filed Under: fcc, scams, service protection plan, washington, wireless protection plan
Companies: comcast

Investors Slam Comcast For Lack Of Lobbying Transparency

from the fat-man-behind-the-curtain dept

While we think we have a solid grasp on how much companies spend on lobbying and influence peddling, we actually have no idea. Case in point: while a company like Comcast may disclose its overall spending on "lobbying" (as defined as visiting DC to speak to politicians in a bid to shape policy), there's a universe of other influence peddling it's not at all transparent about. For example when AT&T and Comcast wanted the FCC to kill net neutrality rules, both paid a long list of legitimate and sometimes shady groups to express support for the move, even if that support ran in stark contrast of the interest of their constituents.

Hand in hand with "astroturf" and other efforts, companies often pay a long list of consultants, academics, think tankers and others to parrot support for what, quite often, is anti-competitive and anti-consumer policy positions. For example, paying an ex-politician to write an op/ed supporting the death of net neutrality isn't strictly "lobbying," but it's influence peddling. Yet such efforts aren't usually included in many companies' financial disclosures. Participation in proxy trade organizations and state-level lobbying often lacks the same transparency as standard "federal lobbying" disclosures.

Some Comcast investors have apparently grown tired of this lack of transparency. In a recent letter to the company, an investment group dubbed Friends Fiduciary demanded greater transparency into the company's lobbying practices, arguing that failure to do so is actively harming the company's reputation:

"Comcast's lack of lobbying transparency perpetuates its negative public image and could fuel regulatory backlash or contribute to the rise of municipal broadband, potentially threatening company profitability. In a highly regulated industry providing essential services such as telecommunications, we maintain that careful consideration of reputational risk becomes even more crucial."

The group is quick to single out Comcast's disingenuous "support" for net neutrality--and its opposition to community broadband--as examples of how the company is actively harming its overall reputation (while inviting an inevitable post-Trump-era regulatory backlash) and therefore its overall corporate value:

"Comcast's lack of lobbying transparency perpetuates its negative public image and could fuel regulatory backlash or contribute to the rise of municipal broadband, potentially threatening company profitability. In a highly regulated industry providing essential services such as telecommunications, we maintain that careful consideration of reputational risk becomes even more crucial. Municipal broadband has drawn bipartisan support, especially in conservative areas.

More than 750 communities in the US have decided to operate their own networks. As one article puts it, "Our desire for better broadband, and our collective disdain for Comcast, tends to be one of the few things capable of bridging the partisan divide." Comcast's consistent low rankings in the areas of trust and citizenship speak to the potential for its lack of transparency to impact its future prospects.

Not too surprisingly, Comcast says the company isn't keen on bringing more transparency to its lobbying expenditures, claiming doing so would be too expensive and time consuming:

"Because the information that this proposal seeks to be disclosed is generally publicly available in appropriate detail, implementing this proposal would require us to incur unnecessary expense, would divert management attention away from our primary business activities and would raise potential competitive concerns," Comcast said."

Of course most activist-leaning investor proposals like this one usually struggle to get shareholder approval. After all, there's a lot of money to be made by natural monopolies and regulatory capture. When you're happily enjoying tepid, rubber stamp regulators and little to no real competition in most of your markets, what incentive do you have to actually engage in more ethical, transparent behavior? Any real progress on this front needs to come via broader lobbying disclosure reform, something lobbyists often put an end to before it can gain any real traction.

Filed Under: influence, influence peddling, net neutrality, transparency
Companies: comcast

Disney Takes Full Control Of Hulu, Ending Years Of Managerial Schizophrenia

from the adapt-or-perish dept

For years we've noted how as a product of the cable and broadcast industry, Hulu spent many years going out of its way to avoid being truly disruptive. Past owners 21st Century Fox, AT&T, Disney and Comcast/NBC spent a lot of time ensuring the service wasn't too interesting -- lest it cannibalize the company's legacy cable TV cash cow. As a result, Hulu spent a good chunk of the last decade stuck in a sort of existential purgatory, with a rotating crop of execs trying to skirt the line between giving consumers what they actually want, and being a glorified ad for traditional cable television.

As cable and broadcast executives slowly realized that cord cutting was a threat that wasn't going away, things began to shift. More recently, owners like 21st Century Fox and AT&T have headed to the exits to focus on their own streaming efforts. That exodus continued this week with Comcast announcing it would be giving up full operational control of Hulu to Disney effective immediately.

You might recall that Comcast was banned from meddling in Hulu management as a condition of its 2011 merger with NBC/Universal, with regulators worried that the company would attempt to undermine Hulu to protect its traditional cable TV revenues. Comcast being Comcast, the company largely ignored those conditions, one of several reasons regulators balked at its attempted acquisition of Time Warner Cable years later.

Under the terms of this new deal, Comcast has the option of selling its entire stake to Disney by 2024:

"Comcast also will be allowed to sell its 33% stake in Hulu to Disney in 2024 at a valuation of at least $27.5 billion, even if the streaming service is worth less, according to the agreement. Comcast is guaranteed at least $5.8 billion for its Hulu stake, according to the agreement.

As part of the deal, Disney has agreed to pay Comcast for its Hulu content for the next five years. NBC channels will be on Hulu Live at a higher rate than previously agreed. NBCUniversal, CNBC’s parent company, will also be able to run the same content on its own streaming service, which is expected to launch in next spring."

For the immediate future, this looks like a promising outcome for cord cutters. Hulu is finally freed from managers who really didn't much want the service to succeed because it might disrupt their own services. And while it's notably smaller than Netflix (137 million subscribers worldwide) and Amazon (100 million Prime subscribers), its 20 million-strong userbase puts it well ahead of numerous other emerging options like Dish's Sling TV and AT&T's DirecTV Now.

That said, the service isn't quite out of the woods yet. Researchers predict that every broadcaster in existence is likely to have its own streaming service on the market by 2022, and many of those companies will be eager to lock that content away in exclusivity silos, well away from competitors. And with Disney planning its own looming streaming service (Disney+) as a repository for its Star Wars, Marvel, Pixar, and kids programming, it's still possible that Disney eventually sees Hulu to be either redundant or a threat to those ambitions.

Filed Under: control, copyright, culture, piracy, streaming
Companies: comcast, disney, hulu

Comcast's New Rented Streaming Box Is A Flimsy Attempt To Remain Relevant

from the beautiful-walled-gardens dept

Like countless other cable giants, Comcast continues to bleed cable TV subscribers at an alarming rate. These users, tired of sky-high prices, continue to flee to more competitive streaming alternatives and better customer service. That's not great news for Comcast, which has spent decades enjoying a stranglehold over traditional TV, thanks in part to the industry's walled gardens and monopoly over the cable box. And while cable giants could counter the streaming threat by competing on price, they instead continue to double down on ideas that don't make a whole lot of sense.

Case in point: in a bid to try and keep users from "cutting the cord," Comcast last week introduced Xfinity Flex. According to the Comcast press release, this new Flex streaming box will be made available to existing Comcast broadband customers for a $5 monthly rental fee, providing access to a limited number of streaming services (sans live streaming services like Playstation Vue, SlingTV, or DirecTV Now that directly compete with Comcast's own offerings):

"Xfinity Flex will deepen our relationship with a certain segment of our Internet customers and provide them with real value,” said Matt Strauss, Executive Vice President, Xfinity Services for Comcast Cable. “For just five dollars a month, we can offer these customers an affordable, flexible, and differentiated platform that includes thousands of free movies and shows for online streaming, an integrated guide for accessing their favorite apps and connected home devices, and the ease of navigating and managing all of it with our voice remote."

Except the "value" provided by Comcast's latest effort is dubious at best. For one, Comcast's new hardware will only allow users to view a handful of curated streaming services and apps chosen and approved by Comcast. Why, exactly, would users, who could pay a one-time flat fee for Roku or build a media center PC (with an endless roster of apps and services), want to instead pay the least liked company in America an additional $5 per month for a box that's highly restricted?

Another caveat: this being the cable company, that $5 isn't actually $5. While Comcast rather buries this fact, the company's ads make it clear that to order get Flex, you can't have your own router, but have to also rent Comcast's XFi Gateway for an additional $10-13 per month:

In short, Comcast's $5 rental box is actually closer to a $15 rented box that doesn't provide access to the full litany of streaming services. But as is usually the case, the mainstream tech press kind of missed all of that. Comcast-owned CNBC, for example, was quick to claim in a write up of the device that Comcast was somehow "making it easier" for the company's subscribers:

"Comcast is making it easier for its broadband-only customers to access streaming video without an outside set-top box..."

Except that's not at all what Comcast is doing here. The entire affair is Comcast desperately trying to seem innovative, when in reality it's just attempting to erect barriers and keep customers inside its increasingly-irrelevant walled gardens. Customers don't want to rent another Comcast-requested cable box, and given the wide variety of streaming hardware for sale, they shouldn't.

Trying to keep customers on Comcast-approved hardware is going to prove to be a fool's errand. Comcast's real ace in the hole in terms of battling cord cutting won't be hardware, but the company's growing monopoly over broadband in many markets. This dwindling competition is letting Comcast erect arbitrary and unnecessary usage caps and overage fees. Fees that will apply to competing services but not to Comcast's own TV content, giving it a wonderful way to not just raise rates, but to use its power as network operator to disadvantage streaming providers in the absence of net neutrality rules.

Filed Under: cable, streaming, tv, xfinity flex
Companies: comcast

US Telcos Teeter Toward Bankruptcy As Comcast's Broadband Monopoly Grows

from the dysfunction-junction dept

We've noted time and time again how the US broadband industry's biggest problem is a lack of healthy competition. In countless markets consumers either have the choice of a terrible phone company or a cable giant. The nation's phone companies have spent the last decade refusing to upgrade (or in some cases even repair) their aging DSL lines, because they don't see residential broadband as worth their while. That in turn is giving giants like Comcast and Spectrum an ever greater monopoly in many markets, reducing the already muted incentive to compete on price or shore up historically terrible customer service.

It's a weird problem that's widely ignored by both parties, and it just keeps getting worse. This week, US telco Windstream filed for bankruptcy protection, partially thanks to a dispute with one of the company's creditors, netting a $310 million settlement Windstream couldn't swallow. More specifically, hedge fund Aurelius Capital Management had argued that a two-year-old spinoff of the company's fiber-optic cable network violated the covenants on one of its bonds, prohibiting "sale-leaseback transactions." The court agreed.

Windstream, for its part, issued a statement insisting that none of this was the company's fault, and that the bankruptcy protection wouldn't impact customers:

"Windstream did not arrive in Chapter 11 due to operational failures and currently does not anticipate the need to restructure material operations,” Thomas said. “While it is unfortunate that Aurelius engaged in these tactics to advance its returns at the expense of Windstream, we look forward to working through the financial restructuring process to secure a sustainable capital structure so we can maintain our strong operational performance and continue serving our customers for many years to come."

But Windstream's inability to swallow the court ruling comes directly from the company's already shaky footing.

Windstream was already $5.6 billion in debt and, like many US telcos, stuck in a cycle of dysfunction. Customers continue to flee to cable competitors at an alarming rate, because the telco often refuses to seriously upgrade its DSL lines to fiber at any real scale. And it can't upgrade its DSL lines to fiber at any scale because customers are leaving at an alarming rate, draining their coffers. Watching these companies (and a few oddly bullish investors) pretend this ends well for anybody involved has often been a comedy of errors.

Windstream isn't alone; telco giant Frontier has also been perched precariously on this cliff for the last few years. Our collective bipartisan reaction to this has been to throw a few million in subsidies at the problem and hope the regulatory capture and other obvious sector problems just magically fix themselves. The problem is so bad, many towns and cities have been forced to build their own broadband networks, something that's immediately vilified as "socialistic" by the same industry whose greed, apathy, and incompetence caused the problem in the first place.

None of this stuff sees much interest in the broader tech sector, but it should.

As vertically-integrated cable giants like Comcast and Spectrum enjoy even greater monopolies over internet access at modern speeds, it has a trickle down impact on the internet ecosystem as a whole, especially in the wake of the death of net neutrality. Comcast's growing power opens the door to broader anti-competitive behavior unchecked by neither regulatory oversight nor healthy competition, impacting all of the smaller businesses hoping to compete for mindshare. Some like to claim that 5G will be some magical panacea that comes in and provides a competitive counterbalance to this dysfunction, but we've noted how that's not likely for a wide variety of reasons.

Natural monopolies dominating the on ramp to the internet and much of the content doesn't end well for anybody in the ecosystem, especially given America's comic inability to enforce antitrust. The broadband industry's issues are a problem that exponentially impacts everything on the internet, yet it's a problem we continue to turn a blind eye to in the hopes it will all just magically sort itself out.

Filed Under: bankruptcy, broadband, cable, competition, dsl
Companies: comcast, windstream

Cable's Response To Surging Streaming Competition? More Price Hikes

from the unhealthy-markets dept

We've noted for years how when the cable and broadcast industry is faced with new challenges, its very first reaction is almost always to double down on dumb ideas. When consumers began complaining about the volume of ads during prime time, the industry's first response was to try and edit down or speed up programs so they could shovel more ads into every viewing hour. When consumers began using new DVR ad-skipping tech, the industry's first reaction was to sue companies offering such advancements.

In a healthy market, companies respond to the rise in new competition by competing on service quality and price. Not the cable industry. Despite a soaring variety of new, cheaper streaming options, every year the industry's first impulse has been to raise cable TV prices, in turn driving more users than ever to "cut the cord" and embrace these streaming options instead. As a new year rolls in, its a phenomenon that's once again repeating itself as Comcast, Dish, AT&T, and most other pay TV providers once again raise rates for 2019:

"Giants including Comcast, Dish, and DirecTV plan to raise rates again in the new year, a move that could boost revenue but risks alienating subscribers who have been ditching their traditional TV subscriptions in record numbers. Cable and satellite providers are hoping to squeeze more money from consumers who remain loyal to their packages with hundreds of channels, Philip Cusick, a JPMorgan Chase analyst, said in a note this week, even though "this strategy could accelerate video sub declines."

While most cable operators will place the blame for these higher rates exclusively on the shoulders of broadcasters, that's not really always true. Yes, much of the unsustainable rate hikes you'll see in cable TV are due to programmers constantly wanting more money for the same content. That, however, ignores that most cable operators contribute to the rate-hike festivities by also socking consumers with a universe of higher rates for things like DVR and cable box rental, not to mention the universe of fees, many of which are completely made up with no tether to any real-world cost.

So why does a company like Comcast continue to raise rates on traditional cable TV, knowing this is just driving more users to cut the cord? For one, while streaming video is increasingly popular, most TV watchers (around 90 million Americans) still subscribe to traditional TV, making these rate hikes a quick, all-too-tempting source of up front cash they've grown used to. Many cable executives still believe that cord cutting is a temporary storm they'll be able to weather without having to make too many concessions (like lowering rates or improving historically terrible customer support).

Companies like Comcast also have an ace in the hole when it comes to weathering this particular storm: their growing monopoly over broadband. While users may be able to quit Comcast cable TV, it's statistically unlikely they'll have the choice of another broadband provider, especially at speeds over 25 Mbps. As a result, Comcast leverages that monopoly by imposing all manner of unnecessary usage limits should you stream video from competitors, a lovely bit of leverage Comcast will only exploit more fully should net neutrality not be restored.

As a result, the normal response to more competition (actually trying harder) is replaced by a sort of stoic indifference by cable giants, who know their broadband monopolies (not to mention current control over FCC policy in the Trump era) will protect them from having to actually adapt anytime soon.

Filed Under: cable, competition, cord cutting, price hikes, streaming, tv
Companies: comcast, directv, dish

Minnesota AG Just The Latest To Ding Comcast For Shady Fees

from the transparency! dept

How many lawsuits does it take to get Comcast to back off of shady fees designed to falsely inflate the company's advertised prices? Good question.

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 up to $10 per month for some cable TV customers.

While the federal government (FTC, FCC) routinely turned a blind eye to this practice (regardless of which party was in control), Comcast and other cable ops have been hit by a rotating crop of investigations and lawsuits for the practice. Just before Christmas, Minnesota Attorney General Lori Swanson joined the festivities, announcing that her office had filed suit against Comcast for "charging customers more than it promised for cable television packages, charging for unordered equipment and services, and not delivering prepaid Visa cards promised in its promotions."

The AG's office is quick to point out that Comcast enjoys falsely telling complaining customers that the bogus fees it uses to covertly raise rates are the fault of the federal government:

"Comcast/Xfinity falsely told some consumers who questioned these extra fees that the fees were out of the company’s control. For example, it told one customer that “those fees are actually local fees and correspond to the FCC and we don’t manage those okay? Those aren’t up to Comcast.” It told another customer that “we have no control over the fees.” Comcast is not, however, required by any state or federal law to collect such fees, and does so simply to generate revenue.

When criticized, Comcast has routinely tried to claim that adding these sneaky fees then lying about what they're for is just the company's way of being "transparent" with its customers. Denial appears to be the company's response to these allegations as well, despite the fact the practice has now been well illustrated by countless settlements and lawsuits.

In the streaming video wars to come, Comcast could differentiate itself by being clear with customers about how much its services actually cost, using "zero hidden fees" as a marketing point of pride. This being Comcast, the company is likely to instead move in the opposite direction, and just double down on the practice of misleading and confusing its customers in its relentless quest to nickel and dime the lion's share of America.

Filed Under: broadcast tv fee, fake fees, false advertising, fcc, fees, ftc, lori swanson, minnesota
Companies: comcast