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

[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

[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

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

[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

[_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

[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

[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.

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?

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...

[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.

"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"

[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.