Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
The Almighty Buck Government Television United States

US Might Finally Force Cable-TV Firms To Advertise Their Actual Prices (arstechnica.com) 67

Posted by BeauHD from the enough-is-enough dept.
The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has proposed new rules to crack down on hidden fees charged by cable and satellite video providers. "My administration's top priority is lowering the cost of living for the middle class, and that includes cracking down on companies' use of junk fees to hide true costs from families, who end up paying more as a result," Biden said in a statement on Tuesday. Ars Technica reports: As Biden noted, the FCC "proposed a new rule that would require cable and satellite TV providers to give consumers the all-in price for the service they're offering up front." The proposed rule would force companies like Comcast, Charter Spectrum, and DirecTV to publish more accurate prices. Biden continued: "Too often, these companies hide additional junk fees on customer bills disguised as "broadcast TV" or "regional sports" fees that in reality pay for no additional services. These fees really add up: according to one report, they increase customer bills by nearly 25 percent of the price of base service."

FCC Chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel first floated pricing transparency rules for the TV services offered by cable and satellite companies in March. That effort took a step forward on Tuesday when the commission approved a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) that seeks public comment on rules that would force video providers to offer accurate prices in advertising. "Consumers who choose a video service based on an advertised monthly price may be surprised by unexpected fees related to the cost of video programming that raise the amount of the bill significantly," the NPRM said. The cable and satellite TV companies' practice of listing "Broadcast TV" and "Regional Sports Network" fees separately from the advertised price "can be potentially misleading and interpreted as a government-imposed tax or fee, instead of a company-imposed service fee increase," and make it hard for customers to compare prices across providers, the FCC said.

The docket is available here, and comments will be accepted for 60 days after the NPRM is published in the Federal Register. The FCC said its proposal "would require cable operators and DBS [direct broadcast satellite] providers to clearly and prominently display the total cost of video programming service." The FCC is also seeking comment on whether it has the authority to impose similar requirements on other types of video providers. But Rosenworcel reportedly said in a congressional hearing that the FCC's authority under US law doesn't extend to streaming services.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

US Might Finally Force Cable-TV Firms To Advertise Their Actual Prices More

US Might Finally Force Cable-TV Firms To Advertise Their Actual Prices

Comments Filter:

  • Cable? Who has cable any more?

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Tyr07 ( 8900565 )

      Exactly. It would actually be a threat if they targeted what most people use from these guys, which is internet.

    • Re:Cable? (Score:5, Informative)

      by markdavis ( 642305 ) on Thursday June 22, 2023 @06:40PM (#63624818)

      >"Cable? Who has cable any more?"

      For millions and millions of Americans, it is their ONLY option for broadband.

      • This needs to be expanded to all ISPs, not just cable providers. Phone (including cell) companies need this rule applied as well. My "advertised" cell price was $96 for all my lines but somehow ends up being $136 after all the junk and hidden fees.

        • My last fiber provider was awesome! $60/mo, exactly. No added on fees, just $60/mo. That got me 1Gb symmetrical. No contract, and, iirc, lifetime pricing.

        • If the people who ran America cared they'd pass a law.
          They don't care however, and you can't make them care.

      • Re: (Score:3)

        by Mitreya ( 579078 )

        "Cable? Who has cable any more?"

        For millions and millions of Americans, it is their ONLY option for broadband.

        Plus "broadband with a basic cable package" can cost the same or even less than "broadband" alone.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by antdude ( 79039 )

        Ditto. Also, cable has bigger coverages in terms of land.

    • Re:Cable? (Score:5, Informative)

      by Tony Isaac ( 1301187 ) on Thursday June 22, 2023 @06:52PM (#63624848) Homepage

      According to stats from Wikipedia, cable TV subscriptions are down only 22% from its peak in 2016. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org] There are still 76 million subscribers in the US, out of 124 million households. https://www.census.gov/quickfa... [census.gov] That's more than 60% of US households who have cable TV.

      So yes, there are a lot of cord-cutters, but the death of cable TV has been greatly exaggerated.

      • Re: (Score:3)

        by c-A-d ( 77980 )

        There's a lot of older people that only understand the cable paradigm and don't do streaming. Once they're gone, the loss of cable subscriptions will rocket up.

        • >"There's a lot of older people that only understand the cable paradigm and don't do streaming"

          Cable sucks. But, News Flash: Streaming sucks as well.

          Cable TV- I get all the channels and all the major shows. With streaming, many of those shows are not available due to "exclusivity agreements". And to get even the majority of them usually requires getting several different streaming services, so you have a jumble of packages that end up costing a LOT more than originally expected. And on cable, all th

          • Cable TV- I get all the channels and all the major shows.

            You might like to try and get a life: there is one outside all the channels and all the major shows.

          • The full non-discounted price of cable TV is still more than the price of nearly every streaming service combined.

            • >"The full non-discounted price of cable TV is still more than the price of nearly every streaming service combined."

              Um no, that entirely depends on what shows you want. To get the equivalent of what I have now (shows I actually watch) is actually IMPOSSIBLE because of exclusivity agreements. But putting that aside, it would cost at least as much to get the major networks. AND I would be stuck with stupid stereo (not 5.1) sound.

    • Mostly boomers.

  • Hiding (Score:3)

    by markdavis ( 642305 ) on Thursday June 22, 2023 @06:38PM (#63624816)

    >"My administration's top priority is lowering the cost of living for the middle class, and that includes cracking down on companies' use of junk fees to hide true costs from families, who end up paying more as a result,"

    Not hiding the fees in no way means people will pay less. I certainly hate such fees, but there is zero evidence that forcing them away means the prices will go down. Having them exposed more clearly might discourage getting in bed with a company in the first place. Even more annoying are these "introductory rate" games, and you have to call and complain every X months to try and fight your cost down over and over.

    The way to make prices go down is through competition. And where I live, cable is the *only* actual option, STILL. And it is a government-created (and enforced) monopoly that has persisted for 30+ years. I *guarantee* that if competition moved in, my bill would drop immediately, and probably a lot. Fees or not, irrelevant.

    • Re:Hiding (Score:5, Interesting)

      by PsychoSlashDot ( 207849 ) on Thursday June 22, 2023 @07:03PM (#63624882)

      Not hiding the fees in no way means people will pay less.

      I think the idea is that if a consumer knows - in advance - what the cost of signing up is, they won't. Or won't sign up for the same package.

      Thinking you can afford something and discovering you can't is a problem. Knowing you can't before you sign a contract doesn't help the consumer get more for less. It does prevent the cable companies from making more through deception.

    • The way to make prices go down is through competition. And where I live, cable is the *only* actual option, STILL. And it is a government-created (and enforced) monopoly that has persisted for 30+ years. I *guarantee* that if competition moved in, my bill would drop immediately, and probably a lot. Fees or not, irrelevant.

      https://tech.slashdot.org/stor... [slashdot.org] They're all already locked in to rent-seeking style revenue. They bitch and moan about even upgrading their own shit, in spite of record profits, because they don't actually gain anything from doing so. They need to be capped at-cost, like any other utility, with life in prison for any execs that aim for more than low-6-figures in annual salary inclusive of corporate perks like cars and (unironically) free internet.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by dfm3 ( 830843 )
      Yes, I doubt this will have much of an effect in an industry where most customers live under a monopoly. Now why can't we get a push for more transparency in things that actually do have some competition, like hotels, entertainment, or rental cars?

      • This is part of a broad effort by the Biden Administration to regulate hidden fees everywhere including hotels, entertainment tickets and rental cars.

    • "Not hiding the fees in no way means people will pay less."

      The efficiency of a free market depends on information. Hiding the fees is anti-capitalist.

    • Not hiding the fees in no way means people will pay less.

      If it didn't work businesses wouldn't do it.

      This is like saying "Marketing doesn't work! Nobody actually falls for it!" and then companies continue spending billions of dollars on marketing. They don't do it for shits and giggles, they've looked at the numbers and concluded that hiding fees results in more money.

      • It works only at first, when they hide cost in fees and their competitors (assuming there are any) don't. Then their competition is either forced to broadcast the fact that THEIR competition is hiding the real cost, or to also do the same thing.

        It might also work to motivate some consumers to think they can afford a service who otherwise wouldn't commit. But those consumers will find out very quickly, on the first bill, what the cost REALLY is. And it creates negative will and poor sentiment. Many will c

  • It's funny (Score:3)

    by quonset ( 4839537 ) on Thursday June 22, 2023 @06:44PM (#63624830)

    Every time such a proposal comes up, companies immediately whine about how difficult and cumbersome it would be to do this. And yet, grocery stores, hardware stores, restaurants, and a whole host of other businesses, have absolutely zero problem giving you a receipt with all your charges clearly outlined.

    Apparently transparency is too difficult to implement when you're trying to hide something.

    • >"have absolutely zero problem giving you a receipt with all your charges clearly outlined."

      A receipt is post-sales, not pre-sales. I think their objective is to try and eliminate the use of the fees, not just to disclose them.

      That said, my cable bill pretty clearly discloses them. But they are NOT shown on advertisements or the web price listings to prospective customers. There you will just find an asterisk with something like "fees extra" or some nonsense in ultra-tiny print or obscure link.

      But non

      • I'm so sick of the asterisk. When I see it I instantly think "we lied, but we can get away with it using this asterisk and very, very, very small print, so fuck you consumer."

    • If you are talking about the USA Stores add taxes onto the advertised price, and restaurants expect you to tip the staff to make their wages up to minimal levels ...

      The entire economic culture of the USA is hiding the true price of good until the point of payment ...

  • It is not a hard or foreign concept. Bait and Switch advertising is usually illegal, just under enforced. At the same time we need a simple online way to cancel contracts - with the same timeframe of sighing up - ie equally as easy. To many comedy skits on 'I wish to cancel'.

  • This is a good start, but I also want them to make the companies be more up front about how much the price will go up after the introductory rate expires. They love advertising about their $30/month package, but they don't mention it will balloon to $100 or more after a year. Even better, just ban the practice of having that kind of low introductory rate. It's deceptive and depends on consumers feeling locked in once they're used to the service.

  • Beef up the FTC to stop monopolies? Tackle national high rent prices, also due to monopolization? Take aim at rent seeking in technology services? Nah. Fix the social security crisis? Deal with the huge number of school children who were poorly educated due to panic over an unspecified virus? Face down the intentional causing of inflation by a quazi government agency? Too easy. Get the homeless off the streets and into treatment and housing? End the sentencing gap between men and women? Boring. Get humans t

  • An added fee can only be listed separately from the advertised price if it can also be removed immediately upon request. Any fees (other than government imposed fees, of course) that they won't remove the moment you ask them cannot be listed because they are part of the service itself.

    It doesn't fix everything, particularly with regards to the fake prices to get you in the door issue, but it fixes a lot.

  • Must have been some hefty donations to all kinds of senators in order to get away with that.

    • Maybe, but sometimes it's just a boiling frog situation. Company sets rate at $X per month. But there's a "connection fee" which is understandable. It takes different amounts of work to hook up each household, and some it could be very expensive. But average it out and the people who it's a 2 second hookup subsidise the people who required 3 different contractors to cover each leg of the install. And then in this region there's a different licensing agreement so there's a different set of fees to pay for re

  • Uh huh. (Score:1)

    by Chas ( 5144 )

    I'll believe it when I see it.

  • Imagine that: companies are required to show the actual price! And up front!

    It's almost as if the customer has some rights!

    As a European, I am amazed.

    Not that you're doing it, but that you haven't done it before. And when you finally do it, it is limited to this one area. Why not "across the board?" It's almost as if you are only paying lip service to the concept...

  • Sometimes you read a headline, and just have to shake your head at how a developed country got as far as it did.

  • ... interpreted as a government-imposed tax ...

    False advertising and fraudulent fees are the responsibility of the US FTC: The FCC should not be involved, although scope-creep means they're 'responsible' for the commercial side of other tel-co activities. I excused the word "responsible" because the FCC (and FTC) has chosen to not be responsible for a long time.

  • bill every month they find a way to add detail line what it is also.
  • One, while I agree with the idea of doing this, the FCC doesn't have the authority to do it without Congress voting to ban this sort of billing and directly assigning that authority to the FCC (wouldn't FTC make more sense?).

    The other is, screw you Biden! Oh, people's cable bills will read differently? Great, but that's not the middle class's problem. Our problem is that you've made EVERYTHING more expensive with idiotic policies sold on lies. Policies with such obviously disastrous consequences that

  • Isn't cable dead yet? I have not seen any dwellings with cable in close to a decade now.

  • I wish they would start by making them honor their contracts. I signed a two year contract and the price has crept up each month. At the end of two years it's gone up over $17 per month. When I call and complain, they tell me it's "fees", and there is nothing they can do.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by kenh ( 9056 )

      Fees or taxes? Care to share some more details?

      If you added a premium package, the price of the package could vary over time and is out of the control of the cable provider.

      If federal, state, or local taxes go up, that also is out of the control of the cable provider.

      If it's the rental fee on customer equipment, that IS under the control of the cable provider.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by kenh ( 9056 )

      I wish they would start by making them honor their contracts. I signed a two year contract and the price has crept up each month. At the end of two years it's gone up over $17 per month.

      So, after two years the price you are paying is higher than stated in your two year contract? Uh, it sounds like your two-year "special rate" expired... It's pretty standard for special rates to revert to "normal" (non-discount) prices at the end of the contract.

      • That would be true if the price jumped at the end of the contract. It didn't. It went up by just short of a dollar every month for 24 months.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by eth1 ( 94901 )

      I wish they would start by making them honor their contracts. I signed a two year contract and the price has crept up each month. At the end of two years it's gone up over $17 per month. When I call and complain, they tell me it's "fees", and there is nothing they can do.

      I bet if you actually *read* the contract, they are following it. I'm almost positive it says in there somewhere that the base rate is locked in for 2 years, but that it doesn't apply to taxes and fees.

      • I bet if you actually *read* the contract, they are following it. I'm almost positive it says in there somewhere that the base rate is locked in for 2 years, but that it doesn't apply to taxes and fees.

        I'm sure it does. Next time I'll negotiate that taxes and fees be included, because that will totally work.

  • Might? Might makes right? No, might makes yeah, right.

  • How many billions did we send to Ukraine? But we're gonna help the middle class out by getting rid of hidden fees in entertainment. Real man of the people we got there.

Slashdot Top Deals

This is clearly another case of too many mad scientists, and not enough hunchbacks.

Close