Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Businesses The Almighty Buck Communications Network Television The Internet Entertainment Technology

Comcast Raises Controversial 'Broadcast TV' and 'Sports' Fees $48 Per Year (arstechnica.com) 166

An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: Comcast's latest price hikes include a significant increase in the company's widely despised "Broadcast TV" and "Regional Sports Network" fees. The Broadcast TV fee is moving from $5 a month to $7 a month, while the Regional Sports Network fee is rising from $3 a month to $5 a month, according to notices sent to customers in several cities. Combined, that's a change from $8 to $12 a month, giving Comcast an extra $48 a year from each customer that has to pay the fees. Comcast began charging these fees a few years ago, which have risen quickly. Just over a year ago, Comcast raised the Broadcast TV fee from $3 to $5 and the Regional Sports fee from $1 to $3. The two fees have thus gone from $4 to $12, combined, in little more than a year. Comcast customers recently sued the company, saying that Comcast falsely advertises lower-than-actual prices and then raises rates by tacking on these two fees. Comcast falsely portrays these fees as being required by the government, the proposed class action lawsuit said. Charter is facing a similar lawsuit. Comcast says the fees recover a portion of the price it pays broadcast networks and regional sports networks to air their content. But paying for programming is simply part of the cost of doing business as a cable TV provider, and programming costs have always been passed on to consumers in their cable TV bills. By charging fees separately from basic rates, "Comcast has found a way to secretly and repeatedly increase the monthly price it charges for its channel packages" even when customers are supposed to be getting a flat rate during a contract term, the lawsuit said. The Broadcast TV fee was introduced in 2014, initially as $1.50 a month, and the Regional Sports fee was added in 2015 at $1 a month. Comcast charges the sports fee even though it owns many of the regional sports networks that broadcast sporting events in local markets. The price increases were reported by TVPredictions and DSLReports, and customers have been posting letters they received from Comcast detailing the price changes.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Comcast Raises Controversial 'Broadcast TV' and 'Sports' Fees $48 Per Year

Comments Filter:
  • This is fair (Score:5, Insightful)

    by youngone ( 975102 ) on Monday December 12, 2016 @05:36PM (#53471691)
    Comcast (and the other US regional monopolies) have spent an awful lot of money to dominate the markets they operate in.

    These fees are just one way they have to claw those costs back.

    Another method is having State Governments pass laws stopping cities and towns from operating their own networks in competition.

    • Re:This is fair (Score:5, Insightful)

      by cdrudge ( 68377 ) on Monday December 12, 2016 @05:43PM (#53471753) Homepage

      No one is saying that it's not fair for Comcast et al to charge what they need to in order to make a profit. The issue is they advertise say $39.99 for some package but then it comes with the extra fees that should be included in the advertised price as they are just the cost of doing business. If the advertised price is $39.99, it shouldn't actually cost $39.99 for the content.

      This isn't even considering all the extra taxes and fees that go beyond their cost and get passed on to various government bodies.

      • by Anonymous Coward

        The issue is they advertise say $39.99 for some package but then it comes with the extra fees that should be included in the advertised price as they are just the cost of doing business.

        What's more, you can't even make them tell you what the actual price is. I've tried this several times:

        "When you say this is $45/month, is that the amount I will be writing on the check?"
        "No, there are additional regulatory fees and taxes."
        "And how much are those?"
        "It varies by region, and don't have your specific information."

    • by CanadianMacFan ( 1900244 ) on Monday December 12, 2016 @05:59PM (#53471923)

      Hey, bribing politicians ain't cheap.

      • It's really not cheap, and the money they pay is not considered bribes. Paying to get the laws you want is how the US system works.

        The Supreme Court says so and they ought to know.

        • And what most of the population doesn't understand is THIS ACTIVITY by business (ie, "paying to get the laws you want") is actually what "big government" is. Granted there are inefficiencies and some unnecessary regulations, but, I believe, the bulk of the "big government" complaint has to do with all the laws the big corporations are getting passed without the general population being aware. The cable companies, big ag, pharmaceuticals, etc have all been doing this.

          The "big government" complaint is actuall

    • Comcast's billing systems are clearly designed to overcharge.

      I recently returned a rented cable modem because I bought my own. I can log into Comcast's account page and look at "Devices" and the rented modem is no longer there.

      Yet they still billed me for the rented modem. How can their systems know that I don't have the modem, yet continue to charge me for it?

      I expect that, if challenged, they would claim that there are two separate systems that don't interact properly and their agent simply did not do hi

      • I recently returned a rented cable modem because I bought my own. I can log into Comcast's account page and look at "Devices" and the rented modem is no longer there. Yet they still billed me for the rented modem. How can their systems know that I don't have the modem, yet continue to charge me for it?

        I can top that. I am a Comcast customer and I own my own cable modem. I've never rented a modem from them at any time. But last month what do I see on my bill but a rental fee for a modem. I also got a notice from them telling me that my modem is obsolete and that I need a new one from them. My modem is a DOCSIS 3.0 modem and always has been and no service that would require DOCSIS 3.1 is in my area. Comcast knows what equipment I have (or they should since they set it up) and it hasn't changed in 5

    • Another method is having State Governments pass laws stopping cities and towns from operating their own networks in competition.

      NC was one of those states and honestly in my opinion it is, if I am understanding it properly, a violation of article i sec. 34 of the state constitution [state.nc.us]. Unfortunately anybody who might have standing hasn't brought suit against the state; such as a resident of Wilson, NC perhaps or even the city itself. I also feel this section of the state constitution would apply to our ABC Liquor law which is a state run monopoly, but again nobody has challenged it.

    • I'm not sure what is meant by "comopetition" when it comes to the larger ISPs in the US, because they go out of their way to make sure they will have as little of it as possible.If anythng the fees are probably an attempt to adjust for all the cord-cutting.
    • Simply get a antenna for your local channels and ask the cable company you don't want to receive the local channels...Oh, right, the cable company doesn't offer that option...
  • Verizon recently introduced a $2.80 (plus taxes) fee for my FIOS router, which they claim is old -- and to "support it" they need this monthly fee.

    Never mind that this is their equipment to start with. Now, my choice is to pay the fee every month or buy a "new" ($70) router, with no guarantee that they won't pull this exact same stunt next year.

    • by radish ( 98371 )

      Mine broke (started getting lots of packet errors leading to corrupt downloads) a while back and they replaced it with a new one. Would be a shame if something happened to yours...

    • by Fly Swatter ( 30498 ) on Monday December 12, 2016 @06:37PM (#53472209) Homepage

      Verizon recently introduced a $2.80 (plus taxes) fee for my FIOS router, which they claim is old -- and to "support it" they need this monthly fee.

      I got the same warning of the impending 2.80 fee to support old routers. I was on 15/15, which was a holdover from signing up years ago. Since it was nearing time to to 'renew' my contract, I checks the options. It wound up being 10.00 cheaper per month to upgrade to 50/50 - and since I was upgrading to 50 or higher they gave me a new quantum blah blah router free of charge.

      So to avoid the 2.80 fee I wound of with faster service and a new router for 10.00 less. If you are on a 'contract agreement' with verizon, you can upgrade or renew that contract at any time.

    • I had a very old DSL router. My ISP made some configuration change that caused it to stop working. Normally they'd charge a rental fee or tell me which router I can buy myself, but since they essentially broke the old one, they sent me a new modem for free. As a bonus, my DSL speeds tripled.

      Needless to say, my ISP is not Verizon, Comcast, or AT&T. Sorry to be the weirdo with a story about an ISP acting decently.

  • by QuietLagoon ( 813062 ) on Monday December 12, 2016 @05:42PM (#53471737)
    Wall Street investors want year-over-year profit increases. It is far easier for Comcast to just raise these fees (which really should be a part of the quoted price for the cable TV package) than it is for Comcast to spend money on things that make its customers happy (like quality customer service) and more willing to buy more Comcast products.
  • by Anonymous Coward

    The best way to opt out of these fees is not to pay Comcast ANY money and switch to just watching content from streaming services like Netflix, Hulu, Amazon Prime and YouTube!

    • by surfdaddy ( 930829 ) on Monday December 12, 2016 @05:57PM (#53471903)

      I would cut the cord but my only high speed option is the same shitty company that I get cable TV from. And they've priced their options such that cutting the cord doesn't save that much. Oh, and of course then data caps are coming into vogue to ensure that you don't get too excited about those streaming services or have "unlimited" data. Which means you are going to pay them yet again for overages, or more per month to get rid of the caps. And that price will keep going up.

      • by cayenne8 ( 626475 ) on Monday December 12, 2016 @06:22PM (#53472079) Homepage Journal

        I would cut the cord but my only high speed option is the same shitty company that I get cable TV from. And they've priced their options such that cutting the cord doesn't save that much. Oh, and of course then data caps are coming into vogue to ensure that you don't get too excited about those streaming services or have "unlimited" data. Which means you are going to pay them yet again for overages, or more per month to get rid of the caps. And that price will keep going up.

        Look into getting a 'business' connection. Most places don't really require you to show much official business documentation....but you can get truly unlimited internet, no caps AND you can run servers if you want.

        I have one from Cox cable, have for a couple decades now...$69/mo...decent up/down speeds, works for my needs both with servers and my TV streaming.

        • by swb ( 14022 )

          I added business internet as a separate billed service several years ago to a residence with residential cable television. Like you said, it's great, no caps and I get static IPs, too.

          Of course, it's still just one cable to the house. I'd drop cable television service but my concern is that my internet will get lost in a bureaucratic clusterfuck if they do something "standard" like physically disconnect the cable that runs to the house. Left hand and right hand not in sync.

          I did the closest thing, cut ba

          • if they do something "standard" like physically disconnect the cable that runs to the house.

            It is no longer standard to physically disconnect the cable. The service is all controlled by smart devices and encrypted (for Comcast, certainly). It costs way too much to have someone actually come around the house to make a change anymore. They want to avoid having to do that. The industry was consistently burned by "pencil-whip disconnects" (when the service agent would report the connection was cut when he was really just off drinking coffee), to the point that one cable company I was involved with had

        • Look into getting a 'business' connection. Most places don't really require you to show much official business documentation....but you can get truly unlimited internet, no caps AND you can run servers if you want.

          I looked into switching to a Comcast biz connection not long ago. For the connection itself, Comcast wanted a $300 installation fee, and a one-year contract. The fee went down as you committed to a longer term, down to $100 for a three-year commitment. If you wanted static IPs, you had to u
        • Comment removed based on user account deletion
    • The best way to opt out of these fees is not to pay Comcast ANY money and switch to just watching content from streaming services like Netflix, Hulu, Amazon Prime and YouTube!

      Since Comcast is my internet provider and is the only realistic option for internet in my area, exactly how do you propose I cease paying Comcast any money? Streaming doesn't solve that problem. It allows me to pay them less but I spend more on my internet connection than on cable. You have to have internet service to stream and there are no other service providers in my area worth mentioning.

  • Thankfully, I live in a market with cable alternatives to Comcast/Xfinity. Their service is unreliable, their rates are extortionate, and their customer service makes it preferable to deal with Cthulhu. I ditched them ten years ago as soon as there was an alternative, and I have no regrets. My impression was that they regarded me as an enemy rather than a customer.
    • by gtall ( 79522 )

      Hmmm...I ditched Comcast for Satan (FIOS) several years ago. Comcast never seems to have stopped offering their undying love for my return since. I'm not convinced they really love me.

      Satan isn't great. However, their tech support in India seems to be okay. I've contacted them 3 times and was satisfied. There's a small glitch in their TV, some static. I haven't yet gotten together the balls to deal with their support since the fellows in India cannot fix it: "Could you reconnect your coax for us, again?" "Y

  • Its time for the yearly rate increases. Its the time of year when contracts need to be re-upped and content providers want more money for the same content. They don't offer one more hour than they did previously and lets face it, the shows are all about the same in the end. Content providers want more money every time and the cable companies pass it on to the consumer. But if you want to bitch about Comcast and other cable companies go ahead. What do you expect them to do? HBO has stopped offering con

    • by garcia ( 6573 )

      Pretty soon all those scrubs who ditched cable will discover they are having pay twice as much to get the same content they were getting from cable.

      Sorry, but as someone who dropped CATV/SATV in 2008 due to the cost increases and has never looked back, I don't pay double for content; I simply don't consume anything that's non-free outside of what I choose (Netflix).

      I mean, when you cut the cord you expect there will be content losses. I don't know of anyone who opts out of TV subscriptions that expects to

    • How much can they be paying broadcasters who...broadcast their content for free? The cable co is giving them more eyeballs to sell to their advertisers, the broadcasters need their access as much as the cable cos need their content. I doubt they're jacking up their fees...would be interesting to see some real data.
      • How much can they be paying broadcasters who...broadcast their content for free? The cable co is giving them more eyeballs to sell to their advertisers, the broadcasters need their access as much as the cable cos need their content. I doubt they're jacking up their fees...would be interesting to see some real data.

        Quite a bit. The theory being if U-Verse offered CBS, NBC, FOX and ABC, but Comcast offered CBS, NBC and ABC, most people would switch to U-Verse. So therefore, there's a value to the retransmission. Especially since some people can't receive it OTA easily, and most people don't want to deal with antenna, and most people don't want a two input solution.

        It's the same thing that limits the number of potential customers to Vue, DirecTV NOW, Sling, etc. Lack of locals in many markets. Lack of interest in ant

      • The cable co is giving them more eyeballs to sell to their advertisers, the broadcasters need their access as much as the cable cos need their content.

        Back when this was the working theory, there was something called "must carry" [fcc.gov]. A broadcast station would demand that the local cable company carry their signal instead of having to pay them to do so. The cable company could find another source for the content and ignore the local station if they wanted, otherwise.

        Now that broadcast stations know they can get the cable companies to actually pay them, must-carry is a less-used option. If a station invokes "must carry", then they cannot demand money for the

  • I can see it now - they will stop itemizing your bill, and if you request an itemized version, there will be a hefty fee for that. Figure out how to charge someone who tries to figure out the charges. Brilliant!!!

    (For the sarcastically impaired, yes, I know federal laws and regulations require the itemization)
  • by Anonymous Coward
    No TV, no phone from your cable provider. Internet only. You can live without TV. Really. Even sports. Try it and you may be surprised.
  • The cost of communications keeps going up and up. Don't really know why. Fucking monopolies.

  • by Anonymous Coward

    I don't feel sorry for the majority of people. You guys put us in this boat by voting in politicians that push for big government and regulations that have created these monopolies and eliminated choices in the market that may not have been so manipulative. I'm going to remind you how this went down and where these monopolies came from. Back in the 1980s and 1990s when cable companies started rolling out services municipalities granted exclusive rights for lengthy periods of time. The cable companies argued

    • Back in the 1980s and 1990s when cable companies started rolling out services municipalities granted exclusive rights for lengthy periods of time.

      Not all municipalities granted exclusive franchises. All of the ones I've dealt with have been non-exclusive from the beginning. Federal law has now prohibited exclusive franchises, and has for such a long time that any existing ones would have long ago been renewed as non-exclusive. The only reason there are defacto monopolies today are due to economic, not legislative reasons.

  • by Anonymous Coward

    Remember that these fee increases are driven by the spiraling costs the content providers are demanding, especially the sports networks.

  • Right of Way Use Fee - $1.05
    FCC Regulatory Fee - $0.08 (not a government imposed tax)
    HD Technology Fee $9.95

    On top of that. I have six televisions. It would be an extra $50 a month just for set top box rentals.

    If you use their router it's an extra $10 a month.

    And if you want unlimited internet it would be an additional $50 a month.

    Luckily, I have AT&T as an option (I never thought I would be saying that). $70 a month for unlimited gigabit internet - no additional fees or taxes. I have 4 Roku boxes and

  • by WaffleMonster ( 969671 ) on Monday December 12, 2016 @07:17PM (#53472457)

    In some ways cable companies get the same rap as insurance companies for costs largely beyond their control. This of course is not to excuse Comcast for playing games with HOW that cost is recorded and associated indefensible marketing schemes which essentially lie about actual prices and fuck over those on contract.

    Used to be broadcasters were thrilled to get as many eyeballs as they could to tune in as bigger audience translated into more advertising revenue..at some point long ago cable stopped being dominated by access fees and is now dominated by carriage fees. Now even local broadcasters who broadcast the same signal over the air for free to anyone able to receive it are in the business of extracting carriage costs from cable and satellite providers just because they feel they can get away with it to make more money.

    The FCC never said cable companies were REQUIRED to carry local stations for a price other than FREE. Consumers should have the right to opt out of the local crap and should not be forced to pay if they don't want it. I can throw up an antenna in the Attic for $30 and an hour of my time if I want local channels.

    Price insanity is particularly egregious given cable/sat industry is on the brink of becoming the next home telephone/portable cd player.

  • I am baffled. Why don't more people go out and play sports, instead of sitting on a couch and watching somebody else have fun? And yes, I do have several TVs and I sometime watch some content. But there are no monthly fees involved.
    • by gtall ( 79522 )

      Lemme guess, you are under 40, yes? You still have friends that can play and not collapse from overheating, or whose wives and sproggs let them out of the asylum long enough to play?

    • Why don't more people go out and play sports, instead of sitting on a couch and watching somebody else have fun?

      Because the options to play sports for people who aren't children or professionals are rather limited. In my sport of choice (wrestling) it's rather difficult to compete in any meaningful way after college if you aren't an elite athlete. Even if you have the time (which can be challenging if you have a career and/or family) there is basically nobody to practice with and few events to enter. Some sports are easier to participate in as an adult (running, cycling, etc) but most aren't. I coach my sport but

  • Seems pretty simple (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Solandri ( 704621 ) on Monday December 12, 2016 @07:27PM (#53472519)
    Just ask them to remove local channels and local sports from your cable package. Buy an eternal VHF/UHF antenna [lifehacker.com] to pick up those channels. Yes your TV will look retro like something from the 1970s. Who cares, you look at the screen, not the antenna.

    If Comcast lets you remove those channels, then you won't have to pay the fees and you'll make back the cost of the antenna in a few months. You can pocket the savings every month thereafter.

    If Comcast says you can't remove those channels, then they've basically admitted that they are falsely advertising their prices. If there's no way to remove a fee from the price, the fee is a part of the price, not an optional add-on. And they will lose the lawsuits and be forced to include these fees in their advertised prices.
  • by Ryanrule ( 1657199 ) on Monday December 12, 2016 @07:31PM (#53472543)
    They are actually 'Fuck you" and "fuck your mother too"
  • ... would not even be in business any more if even a large percentage of their customers felt they had any other choice.

  • And this is why I have internet only.

    Fuck off and die Cable TV companies. Fuck off and die.

    M 100mbps for $40 month gets me everything I need.

    • by raind ( 174356 )
      And if you qualify for there internet essentials package it's a win also.

      Friend of mine get's that and ota tv, there's no shortage of content, unless you want mlb games
      • I'm in that sucky "I want MLB games" group. Waiting/trying to see if there's a way to get my team on the streaming services, but with Comcast owning the rights to the sports network, I wonder how expensive it'll be.
  • F*ck Co mcast - F*ck Com cast = F*ck Comc ast + F*ck Comca st * F*ck Comcas t & F*ck C omcast ^ F*ck Co mcast % F*ck Com cast $ F*ck Comc ast # F*ck Comca st

  • Comcast only startes telling people about the broadcast TV fee. The fact is cable companies have had to pay for broadcast TV since 1992/3. Don't blame Comcast or Trump for this....this went down during Bush 1.

Get hold of portable property. -- Charles Dickens, "Great Expectations"

Working...