FCC finally bans cable industry's "hidden fee" scam

Cal Jeffrey

Posts: 4,143   +1,411
Staff member
The big picture: Cable and satellite television providers must soon disclose "all-in" pricing in their marketing. All-in pricing refers to the cost of the service plus all required fees. The industry has a long tradition of hiding the extra costs of TV and internet access, then springing the charges on the customer with the first bill.

The Federal Communications Commission approved the new rules on March 14 but didn't release the final draft until Tuesday. The regulations primarily aim to disclose broadcast and regional sports fees. These surcharges allow providers to rebroadcast content through their service even though customers can view it for free over the airwaves.

It also calls out arguably unnecessary charges like "HD Technology fees."

"The record indicates that approximately 24 to 33 percent of a consumer's bill is attributable to company-imposed fees such as 'Broadcast TV Fees,' 'Regional Sports Surcharges,' 'HD Technology Fees,' and others, and that the 'dollar amount of company-imposed fees has skyrocketed,'" the final regulation draft reads.

Many of the extra charges are "pass-on" fees. These are expenditures that most companies absorb as the cost of doing business while raising their final price to the customer to compensate. Many cable companies, particularly Comcast, do not absorb these fees but rather tack them onto customers' bills solely to advertise a lower service price.

"Providers that communicate a price for video programming in promotional materials shall state the aggregate price for the video programming in a clear, easy-to-understand, and accurate manner," the FCC order reads. "If part of the aggregate price for video programming fluctuates based upon service location, then the provider must state where and how consumers may obtain their subscriber-specific 'all-in' price [I.e., via email or other means]."

Big Cable is unsurprisingly furious with the rules, saying the Commission is guilty of "micromanagement" and that the regulations will make advertising more burdensome and "confusing."

"[The Commission's] micromanagement of advertising in today's hyper-competitive marketplace will force operators to either clutter their ads with confusing disclosures or leave pricing information out entirely," the cable lobbying group NCTA (formerly known as the National Cable & Telecommunications Association) threatened.

Of course, blaming the FCC for the cable industry's inability to produce honest, transparent, and simple-to-read ad copy is nothing more than weak posturing to excuse bad behavior. Despite that, there is a good chance the NCTA will sue to block the FCC regulations since it has already formally condemned the proposal and challenged the FCC's authority to enforce them.

The regulations still face an "information-collecting" process and a review by the US Office of Management and Budget. These legal hurdles must be completed within nine months. The rules will take effect once it clears the red tape, which could be as early as April 10.

"Beginning April 10, 2024, consumers should look for broadband labels at any point of sale, including online and in stores," the FCC says. "The labels must disclose important information about broadband prices, introductory rates, data allowances, and broadband speeds. They also include links to information about network management practices and privacy policies."

Permalink to story.

 
About time, but, I wouldn't count on the "cable industry" lawyers & lobbyist spending a lot of money in DC
to find a way around it.
 
Where's that regular techspot dolt that will come on and tell us how bad this "government interference" is for the consumer.

This sort of stuff has been illegal in Australia for decades. All prices must be total price inclusive of taxes and fees no exemptions. There were no legal challenges, but then again we never had a political party egging on these companies and campaigning against such laws.
 
Where's that regular techspot dolt that will come on and tell us how bad this "government interference" is for the consumer.
He's right here, responding to the dolt who hijacked your account to post the above triffle. When I last subscribed to Xfinity service, the agent told me precisely -- down to the penny -- what my monthly bill would be. It's been a while since I used AT&T, but I remember them doing the same as well. Exactly how the provider labels the individual charges in that total is irrelevant - the bottom line is all that matters.

Thanks to earlier government intervention in the marketplace, even the "deregulated" cable industry of today still has a Frankenstein patchwork of state and local laws, regulation, access fees, and charges -- not just for the basic cable itself, but what specific channels are required to be carried. Some states even mandate specific charges or restrictions for sports packages. Thanks to this, it's essentially impossible for any cable provider to tell you that bottom-line cost until they know your zip code. They could, however, still advertise a fixed rate nationally, by "highest common denominator" approach of charging everyone the highest possible rate. Which -- in one form or another -- is what these rules will lead to. Certainly it won't mean lower costs for any consumer.

This sort of stuff has been illegal in Australia for decades.
It might surprise you to learn this, but Australia isn't a republic. The regulatory environment is therefore homogenous, and the problems described above do not exist.
 
He's right here, responding to the dolt who hijacked your account to post the above triffle. When I last subscribed to Xfinity service, the agent told me precisely -- down to the penny -- what my monthly bill would be. It's been a while since I used AT&T, but I remember them doing the same as well. Exactly how the provider labels the individual charges in that total is irrelevant - the bottom line is all that matters.

Thanks to earlier government intervention in the marketplace, even the "deregulated" cable industry of today still has a Frankenstein patchwork of state and local laws, regulation, access fees, and charges -- not just for the basic cable itself, but what specific channels are required to be carried. Some states even mandate specific charges or restrictions for sports packages. Thanks to this, it's essentially impossible for any cable provider to tell you that bottom-line cost until they know your zip code. They could, however, still advertise a fixed rate nationally, by "highest common denominator" approach of charging everyone the highest possible rate. Which -- in one form or another -- is what these rules will lead to. Certainly it won't mean lower costs for any consumer.


It might surprise you to learn this, but Australia isn't a republic. The regulatory environment is therefore homogenous, and the problems described above do not exist.

Where does one begin to retort to that entirely ... ?

It's all about disclosure on the front end and eliminating low-balled teaser rates that don't reveal ALL the fees hidden or generalized, that make the monthly look much lower than what it pans out to be in the end. And what's worse - specifically relating to Xiinity? - is that their price locks/contracts are for the package portion of the pricing... not the highly accelerated increases in broadcast & sport rebroadcast fees that go up every year. Comcast uses those two vehicles to keep inflating prices. I would imagine that Spectrum follows suit. It's all a shell game of package prices played against extraneous fee manipulation across regions.

If you read the article and/or had the patience to read the FCC reg change - you'd understand the action taken.
 
Last edited:
Back