Plaintiffs From Seven States Sue Comcast For Misleading, Hidden Fees (dslreports.com)

An anonymous reader quotes a report from DSLReports: Back in 2013 Comcast began charging customers what it called the "Broadcast TV Fee." The fee, which began at $1.25 per month, has jumped to $6.50 (depending on your market) in just three years. As consumers began to complain about yet another glorified rate hike, the company in 2014 issued a statement proclaiming it was simply being "transparent," and passing on the cost of soaring programmer retransmission fees on to consumers. There's several problems with Comcast's explanation. One, however pricey broadcaster retransmission fees have become (and keep in mind Comcast is a broadcaster), programming costs are simply the cost of doing business for a cable company, and should be included in the overall price. Comcast doesn't include this fee in the overall price because sticking it below the line let's the company falsely advertise a lower rate. Inspired by the banking sector, this misleading practice has now become commonplace in the broadband and cable industry. Whether it's CenturyLink's $2 per month "Internet Cost Recovery Fee" or Fairpoint's $3 per month "Broadband Cost Recovery Fee," these fees are utterly nonsensical, and inarguably false advertising. And while the FCC can't be bothered to take aim at such misleading business practices, Federal class action lawsuit filed this week in California is trying to hold Comcast accountable for the practice. Plaintiffs from seven states -- including New Jersey, Illinois, California, Washington, Colorado, Florida and Ohio -- have sued Comcast alleging consumer fraud, unfair competition, unjust enrichment and breach of contract. What's more, the fee has consistently skyrocketed, notes the lawsuit. Comcast initially charged $1.50 when the fee first appeared back in 2013, but now charges upwards of $6.50 more per month in many markets -- a 333% increase in just three years.

Comments

It's a way of pointing a finger

[hawkeyeMI]

Based on what I've seen in other cases, it seems to me like those fees are broken out so that a finger can be pointed at someone else and used for leverage. In other words, "Don't like that cost? It's all the FCC's fault", or something like that.

Re:It's a way of pointing a finger

[geekmux]

Based on what I've seen in other cases, it seems to me like those fees are broken out so that a finger can be pointed at someone else and used for leverage. In other words, "Don't like that cost? It's all the FCC's fault", or something like that.

Ahh, good ol' finger pointing.

I'm certain that age-old tactic works every time to convince the consumer that their total cost of service is now magically worth it, you know because finger pointing and all.

No no, seriously before you go, check out our new finger pointing feature. I know that other companies offer this, but we're the best at it...

Re:It's a way of pointing a finger

[networkBoy]

I wonder how it would work if a company simply listed all the components of the bill honestly, including profit margin.
$6.50 broadcast transmission fee
$4.00 fee for fuckall
$15.00 cable replacement for damage (like DUI into telephone pole)
$35.00 profit to company.

It'd be interesting.
-nb

Re:It's a way of pointing a finger

[Nahor]

They can still itemize the full price if they want to point fingers.

To use the car analogy, when you get an estimate for a repair, they don't give you a base fixed price and then tack on extra in the end for parts and labors for the final cost. The estimate is supposed to be as close to the final cost as they can make it.

So here Comcast could do the same:
      Service is $50 (includes a $6.50 retransmission fee and 10% CEO wallet padding fee).

Re:It's a way of pointing a finger

[Lead Butthead]

Based on what I've seen in other cases, it seems to me like those fees are broken out so that a finger can be pointed at someone else and used for leverage. In other words, "Don't like that cost? It's all the FCC's fault", or something like that.

I like to hold that finger and smash it with a mallet, hard.

Re:It's a way of pointing a finger

[Anonymous Coward]

Since we're talking about Comcast here, it'd be a lot more accurate if that fifty had a one in front of it.

Re:It's a way of pointing a finger

[Zak3056]

Based on what I've seen in other cases, it seems to me like those fees are broken out so that a finger can be pointed at someone else and used for leverage. In other words, "Don't like that cost? It's all the FCC's fault", or something like that.

FWIW, the finger needs pointing. There was an issue with Viacom vs Dish a couple of years ago where Dish stopped carrying CBS. Huge screams in the media and from customers, finger pointing by both sides, but in the end it comes down to this:

In the past, the FCC mandated that cable and satellite companies carry broadcast stations in the local markets (not too big a problem on the cable side, but a big PITA on the satellite side). The deal was mandated carriage vs no license fees, and it was (in general) a fair one. Fast forward and the networks decided that since they were now entrenched, it was time to get paid by the evil cable/satellite companies "free riding" on their content.

The fact that it's a hidden fee is bullshit (the total should match the advertised rate + tax) but the fee definitely needs to be broken out separately, because charging to rebroadcast an advertising supported network in the very area they're giving the signal away for free is also complete bullshit.

Re:It's a way of pointing a finger

[the_Bionic_lemming]

You missed

"executive golden parachute" cost 35,000,000

Re: It's a way of pointing a finger

[kenh]

I remember a few years ago (25+ years ago, give or take), when congress, in a fit of fiscal responsibility imposed a new tax on each phone line in America. It was brilliant, have the phone companies pay a per-line tax and when the consumer's bill went up, the telco was the villain, not congress.

Only problem was, the cable companies broke out the new tax as a separate line-item on the bill.

Congress critters got mad, demanded that the telcos bury the tax - they tried to make the new tax line-item illegal, but that wasn't possible.

That was when (some) congress critters realized that when you tax a company, the customers, not the company, pays the tax.

Re:It's a way of pointing a finger

[Anonymous Coward]

Consumerist stories about Comcast.

One of the stories: Comcast: 2014 worst company in America.

Re:It's a way of pointing a finger

[Anonymous Coward]

Can't really blame the FCC in particular for this one, as it started way before that august body's decision to seize regulatory authority last year.

It's the FTC, and the whole government regulatory infrastructure from legislatures, Presidents, governors and courts, on down, have dropped the ball here, as in a number of other sectors. Why should electric rate-payers have to pay special fees to pre-fund construction of new reactors and generating facilities, for example, without being issued stock in the utility? Why should fuel surcharges not be included in the cost of goods or services when they're taxed as income anyway? Etc. etc.

Or are you just hand-waving about how evul giant monopolistic corporations are? Fair enough, but who sanctions such to exist? Probably those who fulminate so vigorously in front of TV cameras at election time, I'm guessing. And others who profit from semantic sleight of hand. IE. what Pogo said.

Re: It's a way of pointing a finger

[plague911]

"That was when (some) congress critters realized that when you tax a company, the customers, not the company, pays the tax." Factually incorrect. Econ 102 (Not 101) Taxes will distort the market. Both the company and the consumer will pay part of the tax. The breakdown % depends on how elastic supply and demand is.

Re:It's a way of pointing a finger

[Anonymous Coward]

A lot of garages have 'shop fees' and 'environmental fees' tacked onto their 'special' prices, especially oil change places. Tire change places have 'Tire Disposal Fees' that are often tacked on at the end as well.

Re: It's a way of pointing a finger

[toddestan]

To be fair in this example, you're dealing with a monopoly (the phone company) back before ditching the landline was feasible or possible for most people. Demand was pretty much totally inelastic, so they just slapped the tax onto the bill and everyone had to suck it up and pay it.

But you're right, in most situations something like a tax will be paid for both the company and the consumer.

Fees == false advertising

[whoever57]

Let's be clear, all these fees exist as a way to hide the true cost of the service.

One that irritated me a lot was paying a property tax fee for a rental car at DFW airport. Why is this so bad? Because, had I not rented the car, the company would have still been required to pay that property tax. In other words, the tax wasn't directly tied to my rental of the vehicle. Why not charge a fee for the property taxes on their HQ? Or charge a fee for the salaries of the employee who checked me in and gave me the car keys?

Taken further, every service is going to cost 1 cent and the rest will be "fees and taxes". Perhaps at that point the FTC might step in?

Re:Fees == false advertising

[rickb928]

"Let's be clear, all these fees exist as a way to hide the true cost of the service."

Not really. They exist to inflate pricing while allowing an advertised rate that doesn't actually include what should be part of the service fees. Imagine subscribing to cable TV and discovering the set top box fee they didn't tell you about, and didn't volunteer. As if you were going to pull TV shows out of the back of the modem with your little finger.

When I price service every year or so I just want a list of all the fees. The taxes are, around here, essentially identical rates, so I will pay anyways. It's ferreting out the fees that is tedious - and that's where they get another $10/month for the modem, or the box, or whatever. Even the remote.

All I can expect is a consistent disclosure. And they will try not to, since neglecting to tell me about a $10 fee makes it appear they are cheaper, and if I sign, I'm committed. Usually. And I hate changing service, so heh, I sometimes tolerate a few bucks difference.

But these fees are also often either unregulated or, again, in the dark.

Re:Fees == false advertising

[avandesande]

GOV is more worried about who uses what bathroom than actually doing things to help the average joe.

Re:Fees == false advertising

[Bookworm09]

"Let's be clear, all these fees exist as a way to hide the true cost of the service."

Not really. They exist to inflate pricing while allowing an advertised rate that doesn't actually include what should be part of the service fees.

You are basically saying the same thing the OP said. The cable companies are artificially/fraudulently lowering the advertised cost in order to entice people to sign up. He just chose to phrase it differently.

"hide the true cost of the service" == "allowing an advertised rate that doesn't actually include what should be part of the service fees"

Re:Fees == false advertising

[Anonymous Coward]

Let's be clear, all these fees exist as a way to hide the true cost of the service.

Well, there is another reason (it does not justify, but only explain). Comcast uses regional marketing advertisements. But sometimes two localities (right next to each other) have different "franchise fees" (paid to the locality one way or the other as part of their agreement), even when ~100% of the services are identical.

There is no practical way to do house-by-house targeted advertisements (but that is some advertisers wet-dream). So you get $x/mo advertised offerings, with the very very very small print saying "fees may vary".

Now, Comcast should make the fees clearer when you go to actually purchase service so that you are not surprised on the first bill. But Comcast is not unique there, as your cell phone providers, and your POTS telephone providers have similar marketing (and fees).

And Comcast should make it possible for people to opt-out of some of the fees (my personal pet-peeve fee is the regional sports fee; I do not watch sports, and do no wish to contribute to the broadcast of same), although that is a different discussion.

Re:Fees == false advertising

[_merlin]

Yeah, US badly needs an "advertised price is actual total cost" law. We take these kinds of laws for granted in the rest of the world, but I for one only really learned to appreciate it after visiting the US (for IEEE 802.11 working group). Hotels want a "resort fee" on top of the advertised room rates, lots of things have sales tax added on top of the listed price, there's the dreaded tipping game, i.e. underpay workers so we can list artificially low prices, and count on customers paying extra. It really needs to stop, as it creates anything but an open and transparent market.

Re:Fees == false advertising

[Stinky Cheese Man]

It's not only the cable companies. Hotels charge hidden "resort fees". And UPS (and probably airlines, too) charge a "fuel surcharge" while fuel prices are near multi-year lows.

Re:Fees == false advertising

[Anonymous Coward]

I celebrate every time I order tickets for a concert. Having 30% added on at the end for bullshit reasons is simply exhilarating.

Re:Fees == false advertising

[Miamicanes]

The thing is, this goes above and beyond their mass-market advertisements. You can go walk into one of Comcast's neighborhood service centers, give them your address & say you're shopping for services, and they STILL can't/won't give you an itemized breakdown of the exact fees that apply as of that day.

Literally, every scrap of paper you'll ever get from Comcast, including a computer printout made on the spot, inevitably has fine print saying that the entire thing might be a complete fiction and total lie if they feel like it.

Comcast bends over backwards to NEVER, EVER document any promises they make in any non-ephemeral form they can't turn around and argue was faked by you. Just TRY to make any changes to existing Comcast service & get them to send you an email confirming the changes and new charges. They won't do it. A few weeks ago, I had what SHOULD have been a simple, straightforward question... does "Digital Starter" include MSNBC, CNN Headline News, The Weather Channel, Animal Planet, Discovery Channel, NatGo, and/or the History Channel. I had to escalate it all the way up to the site manager at their service center before finding someone who could even VIEW the channel lineups for packages besides their two most expensive ones. And then, I caught HER trying to slip in, "Of course, this is just the potential lineup for what we consider a "typical" market... the exact channels available with that package in your neighborhood might vary." That was when I lost my temper & stormed out in rage over their inability/refusal to give real answers to even the most basic, straightforward questions imaginable.

Please, explain how it is that a DirecTV or U-verse employee in Nevada or India can tell you the precise monthly cost, including all local taxes, franchise fees, and whatever else for a subscriber at an address in Florida, but Comcast -- with local offices throughout their service area -- can't do it.

U-verse TV was extortionately expensive, but I do give them fair credit for being open & fairly transparent about their exact charges. Getting ANY kind of concrete detail out of Comcast almost requires divine intervention, and getting those details in non-ephemeral form from Comcast won't happen at all.

Re:Fees == false advertising

[Zxern]

I had the same exact experience shopping around for cell service. Not one would tell me what my monthly bill would actually end up at. And of course it ended up about $20 more than the advertised price thanks to fees. Lucky for me this area isn't very busy so I switched to prepaid service and get the same level of service with out "fees" added on.

Re: Fees == false advertising

[kenh]

And Comcast should make it possible for people to opt-out of some of the fees (my personal pet-peeve fee is the regional sports fee; I do not watch sports, and do no wish to contribute to the broadcast of same), although that is a different discussion.

That sounds like a fee imposed to pay for a local sports team stadium, not a cable company fee.

What you maybe/should be complaining about is the ESPN fee you are paying.

Re:Fees == false advertising

[No Longer an AC]

Please, explain how it is that a DirecTV or U-verse employee in Nevada or India can tell you the precise monthly cost, including all local taxes, franchise fees, and whatever else for a subscriber at an address in Florida, but Comcast -- with local offices throughout their service area -- can't do it.

As Number Two once said "That would be telling".

CenturyLink won't do it either.

I believe that's by design. Obviously they can. They have no problem when it comes to billing you.

As others have pointed out it's to hide the cost of service.

Re:Fees == false advertising

[Bookworm09]

I completely agree. The absolute worst offenders (that I'm aware of, anyway) are car rental agencies. Plan on the actual daily rate being about double the advertised rate. Unfortunately, there are a lot of people in the US who believe that any attempt to force businesses to be transparent like that is "socialism". It would be funny if it didn't have such pervasive and profound negative consequences.

Re:Fees == false advertising

[cyberchondriac]

Grand Ol' Vatican?

Re:Fees == false advertising

[parkinglot777]

GOV is more worried about who uses what bathroom than actually doing things to help the average joe.

I think you are the one who is worried about the bathroom issue more than understanding what is being discussed.

The issue here is that the corporation found a way to work around the systems/rules in order to charge (average) people a few more bucks each. Due to most people would let go a couple bucks a month fees, the fees were under radar for a while. However, more and more people had been being charged to the point when enough people said "enough is enough." Now, the corporation is being caught and will be paying a "slap in the wrist" fine (again), sadly...

Re:Fees == false advertising

[edtice1559]

Car rental companies are pretty bad, but whenever you rent a car using any travel service they give you an estimated total that is always within pennies of what you end up paying so it's hard to argue that you're a victim of deception in that case.

Re:Fees == false advertising

[avandesande]

I don't care who uses the bathroom... this fee stacking has been going on for at least two decades or more and the FTC does nothing about it. I see our Don Quixote government running a 500b debt and accomplishing nothing.

Re:Fees == false advertising

[VisceralLogic]

You don't have to accept all their add-on insurance and gas charges and stuff. Chances are your insurance will cover your rental, and if you pay using a credit card, it may, too.

Just wait for the junk like DNS, DHCP server fees

[Joe_Dragon]

Just wait for the junk like DNS, DHCP, etc server fees on HSI.

And they will say you must pay for them even if you use your own DNS or even have static ip.

Right now they force people with static ip to rent there hardware + pay the static IP fees.

Now if they move to IPTV will they force an HSI gateway on people and make tv only subs pay for HSI to get TV?

learn from these guys

[udachny]

Ha ha, I just thought what would it look like if a local lemonade stand (when was the last time you've seen one) did this?

Receipt:

a glass of lemonade: 5 cents.
----
cost of doing business with all the rules, regulations, taxes, laws: 2.50
----
total: 2.55

I mean, that would be the cheapest glass of lemonade in decades for me but those regulation and tax costs are outrageous

GAS stations show the full price why can't comcast

[Joe_Dragon]

GAS stations show the full price why can't comcast?

Your data is out of date...

[rickb928]

CenturyLink just increased my $1.99 per month "Internet Cost Recovery Fee" to $3.99.

I grilled the rep trying to retain me about why this wasn't just a cost item, and should be part of the fee. But that's the wrong thing to do. The sales schelps are just doing a job. They neither know or care about the issue, they just want to hit their targets.

I'll let them know with my wallet next week when i cancel. And continue the round robin between the two carriers here. I'm not very interested in satellite, so two is the number.

Re:Your data is out of date...

[Anonymous Coward]

You should just pay the basic fee and with your check (what's that?) state you do not want the 'Internet Cost Recovery Fee' service and see what they do? Worst is they cancel your service which is what you would do anyway.

I so want to do this with the extra hotel taxes that are added. Didn't the USA revolt against UK for taxation without representations? These extra hotel taxes even if approved by local citizens are ususally only charged to visitors since that is who hotel rooms are designed/targeted to!!! I'll pay the 'room rate', any other fees should be illegal and are in my opinion.......just like gasoline being required to advertise and show out-the-door pricing.

Re:Your data is out of date...

[jrumney]

I so want to do this with the extra hotel taxes that are added.

This worked for me (kind of) in India recently. I made an internet booking, which included taxes, but on checking in, they upgraded my room "at no charge". On checking out, they tried to charge me more because the tax was higher on that room. They tried to claim it wasn't them, it was the government and there was nothing they could do, so I claimed it wasn't me, it was the beancounters at my company who had preapproved the advertised rate and wouldn't pay a cent more. Eventually they backed down and Hilton ate the extra tax.

Re:Your data is out of date...

[Lead Butthead]

You should just pay the basic fee and with your check (what's that?) state you do not want the 'Internet Cost Recovery Fee' service and see what they do? Worst is they cancel your service which is what you would do anyway.

They'll sic Collection (tm) on you. Isn't capitalism wonderful? You can make money threatening people and ruining their credit over the phone for minute unpaid (fictitious) balance.

Re: Your data is out of date...

[rickb928]

How about you go first with your smart idea

Re: Your data is out of date...

[kenh]

Didn't the USA revolt against UK for taxation without representations? These extra hotel taxes even if approved by local citizens are ususally only charged to visitors since that is who hotel rooms are designed/targeted to!!!

Oh no! Without those taxes on hotels and rental cars, who ever will the locals fund their newest billion-dollar sports arena?

Brian L. Roberts

[Tablizer]

That makes Comcast qualified for Vice President.

"have sued Comcast"

[ubrgeek]

I'm amazed there's no you-can't-sue-you-have-to-go-to-brinding-arbitration clause.

Re:"have sued Comcast"

[chiefcrash]

I'm amazed there's no you-can't-sue-you-have-to-go-to-brinding-arbitration clause.

Per the article: "All eight of the plaintiffs in the suit opted out of the arbitration clause in their contract."

Re:"have sued Comcast"

[Anonymous Coward]

so, they were hand picked (or even set up specifically) by the blood-sucking attorneys looking to score millioins in 'legal fees' when the case goes class action, and the rest of us will see $0.50 each back plus no change in company billing policies or an admission of any wrongdoing. how very american of the whole thing.

Re:"have sued Comcast"

[pete6677]

That surprises me. I've never heard of cable TV contracts being negotiable.

Re:"have sued Comcast"

[techno-vampire]

IANAL, but my understanding is that a contract is supposed to represent a meeting of minds. If the terms are non-negotiable, no meeting of minds is possible and the document is not a contract, even if it calls itself one. Please read and understand the beginning of this post before basing any actions on it.

Re:"have sued Comcast"

[Anonymous Coward]

>If the terms are non-negotiable, no meeting of minds is possible

False. Negotiable terms have nothing to do with a meeting of the minds, which merely has to do with both parties having an understanding of the relevant terms. In fact, non-negotiable terms bolster a meeting of minds, because standard terms mean that at least one party doesn't have to memorize, understand, or perform under a wide set of different modifications.

Re:"have sued Comcast"

[Anonymous Coward]

All contracts are negotiable, even if they say otherwise. If you cross out the 12% interest rate and write in 5% interest rate at the bank and they sign it, then you, by law, have a 5% interest rate. One gentleman screwed a bank really hard with this because of their habit of signing things without reading them.

Yawn

[uvajed_ekil]

This is great. I can't wait til the obligatory settlement is approved and we get coupons or slightly reduced rates on additional services. They will settle, and whatever they pay out will not amount to much for the average consumer. Just like with Ticketmaster, where they got off with only having to give out some tickets to events of their choosing, many of which would have gone unsold anyway, and many consumers who were wronged got absolutely nothing. Unfortunately the only way to truly make things right and punish shitty companies is to file your own suit, spend a ton of money on it, and take them to trial.

Re:Yawn

[Anonymous Coward]

Whatever the cost of the lawsuit is you can bet they'll recoup that plus some. Our local water utility asked all their customers to conserve water during the Cali drought, then thanked us for exceeding the conservation level they wanted to reach by applying for a rate increase due to lost profits. Another thing here is the cost of water has about an extra 5000% tacked on in fees and taxes. Water bill... Water cost $7, after all fees and taxes it's a $150 bill every month.

Re:Yawn

[Anonymous Coward]

They will admit to doing no wrong and add a Class Action Settlement Recover fee to everyone's bill.

Re: Yawn

[kenh]

The taxes and fees don't go to the water company, they go to all the wonderful programs your local government provides.

Rebroadcast fees and commercials

[Anonymous Coward]

You'd think stations would be happy Comcast et al. rebroadcast their content as their commercials reach more people. More people watching means higher advertising revenue. But no, these stations also get their rebroadcast fee too. How irritating.

Re:GAS stations show the full price why can't comc

[geekmux]

GAS stations show the full price why can't comcast?

Uh, GAS stations can be bullshit artists too.

Dunno how many times I've seen an advertised price for gas that turned out to be the cash price, with any other form of payment coming out 10 cents more per gallon. And naturally this is not advertised clearly every time; you usually have to read the fine print on the pump itself to understand why the pump price is suddenly "wrong".

Never forget it's cheaper in the EU and Canada

[WillAffleckUW]

So don't believe their fake arguments about regulatory costs.

It costs much much less in places with a lot more regulation.

Of course, those places don't overpay the top execs ....

Re: Never forget it's cheaper in the EU and Canada

[kenh]

If you took the total compensation package of the top executives at Comcast and made it a line-item on every Comcast customers bill, the line item cost would likely be less than the rebroadcast fee for the TrueTV network per month.

Re: Never forget it's cheaper in the EU and Canada

[Anonymous Coward]

Why wonder? Let's check. According to CNN/Money, as of February, Comcast had 27.7MM total subscribers. According to Comcast's most recent proxy statement, CEO Brian Roberts made $36.2MM in total compensation. That works out to $1.31 per subscriber per year, or 11 cents per bill.

If we factor in the remainder of the executive team--CFO Michael J. Cavanagh, Neil Smit, President & CEO of Comcast Cable Communications, Sr. Executive VP David L. Cohen and (apparently still collecting a paycheque for 2015) former Chairman & CFO Michael J. Angelakis, and excluding NBCUniversal CEO Stephen B. Burke--we get total executive compensation of $142.9MM, which still works out to only $5.16/year, or 43 cents per bill.

Now, as only $9.7MM of that (7%) is "salary," is that an awful lot of job-well-done payout for a company with such consistently dismal customer satisfaction ratings? Sure. But it's not a major line item per bill.

Interestingly, the biggest golden parachute Roberts can get comes if he's disabled on the job: $133MM. $70.6MM to his next of kin if he dies in office, and barely cab fare home of $27.5MM if they fire his ass. So the (no doubt also well-paid) cleaning staff of Comcast HQ had better be very careful with those Wet Floor signs.

Re:GAS stations show the full price why can't comc

[Anonymous Coward]

What backwards place do you live? I've never even heard of places doing that.

Try shipping a package

[Leuf]

Ship something by UPS and there's often more in additional fees than the actual delivery charge. There's also no collusion between them and Fedex. They just coincidentally raise their prices and restructure fees the same amounts and the same ways at the same time every year.

Re: Try shipping a package

[kenh]

They just coincidentally raise their prices and restructure fees the same amounts and the same ways at the same time every year.

Perhaps their fees and prices are recalculated the same because they are both dealing with the same costs, the same regulations, and the same business environment?

The 'same day' thing, if true, likely evolved over time, as raising prices at different times likely cost the company that raised prices first business until the other followed suit.

Re:GAS stations show the full price why can't comc

[Anonymous Coward]

Every station in Auburn, WA is doing this, AND charging an extra fee for spending less than $10.00 with a debit card.

Re:GAS stations show the full price why can't comc

[dgatwood]

That's nothing. There's one gas station that I pulled into while running low on fuel that advertised one price, and when I looked more closely, it was a dollar more per gallon for using a credit card. I drove on and risked running out of gas just to avoid rewarding them for such egregious abuse.

Small Monthly Fees

[Anonymous Coward]

It's just small monthly fees.

TV Fee: 39.95
Fee Payment Fee: 1.50
Fee Payment Fee Recovery Fee 1.25
Fee Payment Fee Recovery Fee Levy: 1.25
Fee Payment Fee Recovery Fee Surcharge 1.25
Fee Payment Fee Recovery Fee Premium 0.25
Equipment Fee: 9.95
Equipment Fee Recovery Fee: 0.25
Equipment Fee Insurance Fee: 0.25
Government Fee: 0.25
Credit Card Payment Fee: 0.25
Non Cash Payment Fee: 0.25
Late Payment Fee: 0.25
Early Payment Fee: 0.25

And people wonder why cable TV is dying...

Re:Small Monthly Fees

[Anonymous Coward]

Late Payment Fee: 0.25
Early Payment Fee: 0.25

Why can't you people understand your bill is due on the 25th of the month?!

Re:Small Monthly Fees

[Anonymous Coward]

You forgot the city tax, the county tax, the state tax, the FCC fee, the telecomms fee.

It's time

[Anonymous Coward]

I am a huge advocate of bottom line pricing. The price you see is what you pay. All the BS "fees" are simply there to pad profits while advertising a misleading price. Hotels are also notorious for advertising a low price and then tacking on a mandatory "resort fee" which significantly raises the price.

Re: GAS stations show the full price why can't com

[Ogive17]

I have only seen that for diesel. Truck tanks large enough to reward for cash purchases.

Regulatory Compliance Fee

[rsilvergun]

sounds like a tax, doesn't it? It's suppose to. It's on my T-Mobile bill and it's a fee T-Mobile tacks on because they can and because they know most rubes will blame the gov't.

Why stop there?

[Anonymous Coward]

Seriously, why stop there?

Circuit City and Best Buy both introduced "shop fees" to their installation prices which the tag line "to cover miscellaneous supplies like electrical tape"

Issue is, half of the installs are/were done with a pre-wired harness the customer purchased, using a pre-molded dash kit the customer purchased, and potentially an pre-manufactured antenna adapter the customer may need. These were all on top of the "installation"/labor fees for the install. The shop fee didn't always exist, and when it came to be it was around $1.99 and grew to over $5. The funny part was, when prior to it existing and during the $1.99 period is when most harnesses would be soldered and taped or crimped together. When it was $5, it was end to end pre-done harnesses the customer paid for (and not cheap at that), so for *most* installations the $5 was literally pure profits that actually didn't cover any misc items... and regardless those should have always been included in the listed installation fees.

Chant In Unison

[JimSadler]

There is no inflation! There is no inflation !!!!! Give the seniors a .031 increase in Social security checks while Comcast raises a price 333% in three years. Then base the inflation rate with gasoline as a factor but only when gas prices go down. When gas prices go up make certain that they are not part of the index. Anyone feeling a bit screwed by all of this?

Re: Chant In Unison

[kenh]

Then base the inflation rate with gasoline as a factor but only when gas prices go down. When gas prices go up make certain that they are not part of the index. Anyone feeling a bit screwed by all of this?

You've conflated 'cost of living' with 'inflation', and gasoline has always been part of the cost of living calculation.

I didn't notice many seniors complaining when SS payments went up because gasoline hit $4/gallon and drove the cost of living index up.

Re:GAS stations show the full price why can't comc

[Bing Tsher E]

I would have at least put a gallon in, to assure myself that I would make it to a better station. They probably make less money when you only put a small amount of gas in, because of fixed costs of the transaction.

Re:GAS stations show the full price why can't comc

[sjames]

In that case, they are charging you extra for something that actually costs them extra. The credit card companies actually do take a percentage of what you pay for themselves, they just hide the umbrella by charging it to the merchant rather than the cardholder.

The real problem fees are the ones like Comcast hides that you will never not be charged.

"Cost of doing business"

[kenh]

It is eminently fair and proper for a company to. Break out costs they have no control over.

Freight companies, taxi cabs, and airlines all imposed 'fuel surcharges' when the cost of fuels skyrocketed up 100%+ a few years ago.

Re: GAS stations show the full price why can't com

[kenh]

A higher price for credit purchases of gas is extremely common in the US, I don't know of any gas station that charges the same price for cash or credit. See, the margin on gas for the station owner is tiny, and giving the credit card processor 2-3% of each gallon sold wipes out a big part, if not all, the profit in a gallon of gas.

The 3% a credit card processor charges comes out to about 6 cents/gal at current prices - and that's fairly typical for the spread between cash and credit prices on gasoline.

Re:Just wait for the junk like DNS, DHCP server fe

[Anonymous Coward]

No, the real fee will be the "Payment Processing Fee (6.85$)" for them processing your payment. And an additional fee based on payment method.

USA == screw the customer

[Anonymous Coward]

... the company falsely advertise a lower rate ...

In my country, repeated or unavoidable charges must be included in the advertised price. Once, Tiger airlines tried advertising fares without including taxes, that promotion disappeared very quickly. But they still sneak a $25 check-in fee into the fine print.

let's the company falsely advertise a lower rate

[Anonymous Coward]

let us the company falsely advertise a lower rate. Just saying

Why pay it you rock dumb mother fuckers

[Anonymous Coward]

Shut the fucking TV off and go do something for god sake.

Comcast scams, ranked...

[Anonymous Coward]

$3? That is nothing! Comcast tried to scam me for $500. They claimed that I failed to return a piece of hardware when I closed my account. I racked my brain trying to figure out what I did not return and what happened to it. Then I realized that they were trying to bill me for the cable modem that *I* bought myself to avoid their ridiculous equipment rental fees. Doing some online research, I found that they have been running this scam for quite awhile. I've escalated it to their support. I've also reported this little scam to the FCC and to the City of Oakland.