FCC Chair Proposes Ban on Deceptive 'Broadcast TV' and 'Regional Sports' Fees (arstechnica.com) 30
A new proposal targeting hidden fees charged by cable and satellite companies could force TV providers to clearly list their "all-in" prices. From a report The proposal announced today by Federal Communications Commission Chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel would require cable and direct-broadcast satellite providers to "state the total cost of video programming service clearly and prominently, including broadcast retransmission consent, regional sports programming, and other programming-related fees, as a prominent single line item on subscribers' bills and in promotional materials." TV providers generally advertise a low rate that doesn't include charges such as the "Broadcast TV" and "Regional Sports Network" fees. Cable and satellite companies say these fees cover the amounts they have to pay for programming. But paying for programming is part of the cost of doing businessâ"there would be no TV channel lineup without channels, after all. By treating programming costs as separate fees, TV providers advertise rates that aren't even close to what customers actually have to pay. Comcast, for example, adds nearly $40 to monthly TV bills in the form of Broadcast TV and Regional Sports Network fees.
What kind of legal system does allow this! (Score:2)
And if not, it should be part of basic consumer protection, after all, (I assume) the USofA is not some banana republic.
Re: (Score:2)
To quote Monty Python regarding Crunchy Frog: "Our sales would plummet!"
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
They can charge anyone who transmits an arbitrary fee. And they run the business as if one person watching within a few hundred miles of the stadium is a lost ticket sale. Kind of like recording artists believing every streamer is a lost album sale. But for fortunately Taylor swift is the only monopoly.
Re: (Score:2)
But pro sports and recording artists are not the problem here, it is the deceptive pricing of companies unrelated to them.
Also, pro sports leagues do not involve themselves with "anyone who transmits", they enter multi-year contracts with other companies that do that. If you want to suggest that someone else is to blame, at least make it ESPN.
Now, if deceptive pricing is such a concern, maybe they should look at the "ad-free" extra cost feature of streaming services that, once paid for, results in the virt
Re: (Score:2)
And games are blacked outed because any viewer is a lost sale. For instance, the Texas Ranger stadium is almost 300 miles from me. The games are unavailable. Unless, maybe, they are sold out.
Re: What kind of legal system does allow this! (Score:5, Funny)
As a Christian capitalist who supports Freedom of Speech for ALL people (not just some), i find it reprehensible to force a company to be honest. I may not agree with Comcast's right to lie, but I expect their legal team to fight it to the death to protect it (as well as the value of my shares!).
Re: (Score:2)
As a Christian capitalist hater, I find your comment to be offensive and ask that you end yourself immediately.
Cheers!!
Re: (Score:2)
Habitual false witness (Score:5, Insightful)
As a Christian capitalist who supports Freedom of Speech for ALL people (not just some), i find it reprehensible to force a company to be honest. I may not agree with Comcast's right to lie, but I expect their legal team to fight it to the death to protect it (as well as the value of my shares!).
As someone who has studied The Bible, I don't understand how Jesus would want his followers to invest in a business that makes a habit of bearing false witness. There's a commandment against that.
Re: (Score:2)
Surely this would/should be covered in regular legislation for commercial activities. And if not, it should be part of basic consumer protection, after all, (I assume) the USofA is not some banana republic.
While there are truth in advertising laws on the books, they're pretty handily ignored by the vast majority of companies large enough to either directly support, or gather support for lobbying congress. Basically, America runs on the concept that money is the ultimate power, and the more of it you have, the less you have to follow the rules. And don't talk about trying to change that. People freak the fuck out and really lose their shit if you mention that maybe capitalism as a religion isn't the greatest p
Re: (Score:2)
That's what I don't get. Every 5 minutes we hear about new legislation to cure some microscopic problem that should be part of a general law forbidding such activities in all sorts of enterprises. We just had another one of these for airline prices, for example. And ticketmaster prices. And hospital prices. From this, we can deduce that we are governed by morons.
Overhaul the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Need to eliminate local carriage and any blackouts. That is money going to worthless, undeserving pockets. They do nothing. They add no value. They only leech money from carriers who in turn pass that cost on to the consumer.
The unregulated monopoly granted by DMA restrictions and retransmission consent payments was bound to come back to haunt policy makers (as economists likely predicted). Hopefully the networks will move to a DTC (or at least direct to (v)MVPD) model and cut out the overpriced middleman called a local affiliate soon.
TV customers only? (Score:4, Informative)
I've never ordered anything from Comcast except internet service, and my bill crept up from something like $55 when I first signed up with them to $92 on my most recent bill, with no change in service. "Fees," huh?
I canceled last month, went to fiber internet, my speeds are faster, and my bill is back down to under $60.
I should be able to opt out to drop the fee (Score:5, Informative)
I don't recall if they were charging fees before I dropped Comcast TV, but I remember they provided crappy standard definition streams while I could get those local channels (and more) with an antenna in HD.
They wanted to charge me more for the resolutions I could get free.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
General rule... (Score:4, Insightful)
Why apply such a rule just here, and not everywhere? It's called deceptive advertising.
Like the Japanese law that require products to actually look like their adverts. Pic of a fat, juicy burger? Your burgers better be fat and juicy.
Capitalism is a wonderful system (seriously, it is), but it requires government regulation to keep abuses in check.
Re:General rule... (Score:5, Informative)
Why apply such a rule just here, and not everywhere? It's called deceptive advertising.
The FCC regulates communications -which includes cable TV companies. They do not get to regulate everywhere.
The FTC could try to regulate this as an unfair trade practice... but then the cable companies argue that they aren't subject to FTC regulations as they are specifically regulated by the FCC -and it would just go round and round in court.
The Justice Department could prosecute, but no laws have been broken. Congress has not passed a law against deceptive fees.
Congress created agencies (FCC/FTC) to handle the details of such regulations, rather than requiring actual laws for every specific thing to pass thru both houses of congress.
Passing laws is too difficult. No simple law can make it thru congress. Everything is D vs R and special interests with exceptions and unrelated attachments turning every law into a massive complicated and contradictory mess.
Only Congress has the authority to set the rules for how Congress operates -and they don't want to make it simple. They make a living off of complicated, back room dealings.
Capitalist republic (Score:2)
The US absence of truth-in-advertising is mind-boggling. The fact the US government can't demand (something close to) the truth like so many other countries do, reveals it is a oligopoly or plutocracy, not a capitalist people's republic.
Re: (Score:2)
The US absence of truth-in-advertising is mind-boggling. The fact the US government can't demand (something close to) the truth like so many other countries do, reveals it is a oligopoly or plutocracy, not a capitalist people's republic.
It's not that the US Gov't can't demand it, they could absolutely draft such legislation. The individual members of Congress aren't willing to. There's too much lobbying money saying "don't."
Hiding fees is pervasive in the US (Score:2)
I recently took a trip to Japan, which levies a sales tax just like the US. However, in contrast to the US, it's the sales tax included price that is displayed prominently on signs and on receipts. The before tax price may also be noted but is never shown alone. In the US, the sales tax is hidden, along with broadcast fees, resort fees, tips, service charges, etc. The motivation is not benign laziness (because the total charge always has to be calculated in any case) but an intentional goal of hiding th
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Didn't we do this twice already? (Score:1)
I could have sworn this was proposed and passed before, but DirecTV is still sneaking almost $50 extra into my bill on top the sticker price every month.