dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
5376
share rss forum feed


nokken

join:2001-02-07
Memphis, TN

[Price] Rate Hike and new Additional Outlet Fee

Just got my October bill.
It's about $15 higher...

Looks like the price of Digital Preferred went up ~$3 and I'm now being charged ~$10 for "Additional Outlet Fee" that I've never seen before. I've had 1 HD box (non-DVR) and 1 DTA for at least 2 years now with no additional outlet fee.

Is this new or should I have been charged for the DTA all this time?
--
"The key to flying is falling and not hitting the ground."


Joe12345678

join:2003-07-22
Des Plaines, IL

If they are changing a outfee for that DTA then you better get a Full box to get all the preferred channels.

likely it is a error as the 1st outlet is part of the base price.

Any way directv is way better outlets are only $6 for ANY BOX.


Marcus Carr

join:2009-04-08
Baltimore, MD
reply to nokken

The franchise fee on my next bill is going up by $3.79.



owlyn
Premium,MVM
join:2004-06-05
Newtown, PA

Franchise fee is a tax imposed by your municipality. Comcast has no control over it.


Tekneek

join:2012-02-19
Bethlehem, GA

True, to some degree. They aren't required to make the customer pay for all of it.


Marcus Carr

join:2009-04-08
Baltimore, MD
reply to nokken

Don't care who has control of what. An increase is an increase.


andyross
Premium,MVM
join:2003-05-04
Schaumburg, IL
reply to nokken

Generally, the DTA should be free unless Comcast is ending it's grandfathering. Even then, I think it should only be $1.99 (if I remember right.)

Basically, call and ask what is going on with that fee. On my bill, the DTA is listed as a DTA and not a regular box.


rody_44
Premium
join:2004-02-20
Quakertown, PA

1 recommendation

reply to Marcus Carr

Thats like holding your accountant responsible for a tax increase. Comcast is in no way responsible for franchise fees. If you dont like them go complain to your local township building.


Marcus Carr

join:2009-04-08
Baltimore, MD

Nobody said I was holding Comcast responsible, oh wise one (except you).



Rob
In Deo speramus.
Premium
join:2001-08-25
Kendall, FL
kudos:3
reply to Marcus Carr

said by Marcus Carr:

Don't care who has control of what. An increase is an increase.

And people say our taxes aren't going up!


mikedz4

join:2003-04-14
Weirton, WV
reply to Marcus Carr

that fee is paying for your local access channels, plus to wire government buildings, schools and libraries with cable.
My city is against a franchise fee as is the county.



owlyn
Premium,MVM
join:2004-06-05
Newtown, PA
Reviews:
·Comcast

said by mikedz4:

that fee is paying for your local access channels, plus to wire government buildings, schools and libraries with cable.
My city is against a franchise fee as is the county.

Each franchising authority does whatever it wants with the money- it is not necessarily going to anything cable related. My township has a typical situation- we negotiated with Comcast to build the infrastructure to the schools and libraries, and provide some level of free service to them. The franchise fee goes directly to the township's general fund- just like any other tax. Again, this is a very typical arrangement- we are not alone in this- by any means.

rody_44
Premium
join:2004-02-20
Quakertown, PA
Reviews:
·Comcast

3 edits
reply to Marcus Carr

No, the topic was about a rate increase. A franchise fee is in no way a rate increase. You ARE the one that came in and said a rate increase is a rate increase when it is no such thing when that company being comcast ISNT the one increasing it. Its like complaining that postage went up one cent to mail your cable bill in. Its something comcast has no control over.


Marcus Carr

join:2009-04-08
Baltimore, MD

My bill is higher now. It has INCREASED. Simple concept.


rody_44
Premium
join:2004-02-20
Quakertown, PA

1 edit

No just your franchise fee increased. Comcast gets no more , no less. had you said bill earlier i would agree. But you said your rate increased. Your monthly rate would be comcasts portion. Not taxes and fees.


Marcus Carr

join:2009-04-08
Baltimore, MD

Bill, rate, whatever. Bottom line, I'm paying more.



mikedz4

join:2003-04-14
Weirton, WV

switch to satellite or fios or cut the cord. Those are the only ways to avoid rate increases.


dishrich

join:2006-05-12
Springfield, IL

1 recommendation

said by mikedz4:

switch to satellite or fios or cut the cord. Those are the only ways to avoid rate increases.

Fixed it for you; I assume you must be (temporarily) on crack, to even suggest sat or FiOS do NOT have rate increases...

Gerard1234

join:2012-04-03

WOW has same price for 2 years



telcodad

join:2011-09-16
Lincroft, NJ
kudos:3
reply to mikedz4

As this article shows, the cost of "cutting the cord" may not always be as (initially) cheap as it might seem:

The Cost of Cutting Cable
By Steven Rosenbaum, Forbes - November 12, 2012
»www.forbes.com/sites/stevenrosen···g-cable/

From the article:

Today, more than a year later – we’ve recovered. We’ve re-invented how we discover, consume, and share media. But, a word of warning. It wasn’t easy – and it wasn’t cheap. Yes, we pocketed the bulk of our Time Warner bill (we dropped from $130 to just $33 for broadband). But did the $97 a month go to VOD or other subscriptions? Sort of. And what about hardware? Ugh, ok hold on for some sticker shock there.

GTFan

join:2004-12-03

LOL, he bought a $1000 Panny 42" plasma. That should tell you everything you need to know right there, which is that he way overspent to 'cut the cord'.

And he didn't address a major issue for many, which is how to replace live sports and news. Sports in particular can get expensive a la carte if you have to subscribe to multiple feeds, and even then some of it is not available on the net (like NASCAR).



mikedz4

join:2003-04-14
Weirton, WV

It's available on SIRIUS if you JUST want to Listen to it. Plus I think you can subscribe to nascar package but that is expensive.



oj829Jr

@verizon.net
reply to GTFan

quote:
And he didn't address a major issue for many, which is how to replace live sports and news.

Sounds like sports wasn't a big deal in his house, which is the kind of house where cord-cutting might start to make some sense, as one is no longer burdened subsidizing "pro" sports.

But it ALSO sounds like he had no millenials in the house, which means that few of his gadgetry gotchas and hardware heartaches could have been addressed ahead of time. Had he rented an available nephew or niece for an afternoon, things could have gone a little bit better.

But overall, "cord cutting" has always meant getting rid of a reliable (if mediocre) appliance in favor of a high-maintenance regimen of subscriptions and configurations and connections and payments, etc. It's always been a no-brainer for tech-savvy millenial multitaskers but not necessarily worth the hassle for someone like this article's author.

So, yet another "Stupid old guy cuts cord" story. Great. Doesn't address the long-term problem cable still has of making anyone under 30 think TV is worth paying for.

TurboDan

join:2006-06-08
Beach Haven, NJ

2 edits
reply to telcodad

said by telcodad:

As this article shows, the cost of "cutting the cord" may not always be as (initially) cheap as it might seem:

The Cost of Cutting Cable
By Steven Rosenbaum, Forbes - November 12, 2012
»www.forbes.com/sites/stevenrosen···g-cable/

From the article:

Today, more than a year later – we’ve recovered. We’ve re-invented how we discover, consume, and share media. But, a word of warning. It wasn’t easy – and it wasn’t cheap. Yes, we pocketed the bulk of our Time Warner bill (we dropped from $130 to just $33 for broadband). But did the $97 a month go to VOD or other subscriptions? Sort of. And what about hardware? Ugh, ok hold on for some sticker shock there.

Who was that written by? A cable industry lobbyist?

That was one of the dumbest articles I've ever read. He counts the cost of a new TV against the money saved from dropping cable? (Guess he didn't know they sell HDMI to component converters for $35.) Then he buys Apple TV, Google TV as well as TiVO and counts THAT against the cost of dropping cable? The real world consumer would buy ONE service.

At the end of the day, cable rates are exploding out of control and there is more backlash than ever to the overall ripoff of this industry. If that pushes people in the direction of being creative, I'm all for it, but articles like that are designed to "prove" dropping cable costs more money will not help the consumer decide. I honestly wonder if this writer was in the tank for the industry.

If a reliable a-la-carte option, delivered over IP, arose, I would most certainly take advantage of it, and I think this is the eventual solution. It's absurd to pay hundreds of dollars to watch maybe 20 channels. How much do I pay for 50 sports channels I never watch? Women's channels? Movie channels? Aside from the networks, I watch NatGeo, Discovery, TBS, USA, Universal HD, and a few other channels on a random basis. If some company ever comes up with a "choose 10 channels" package or "choose 20 channels package" for some flat rate, I think they'd have a hit.

I know plenty of people in the 20s set who just don't bother with paying for cable, and download the shows they like minutes after they air, either through something like Hulu Plus or simply a torrent file. Paying outrageous sums of money for hundreds of television stations is something people will laugh hysterically at eventually, like renting your phone from the phone company.

"Hey, remember back in the day when we had to pay for all those channels whether we watched them or not?"


telcodad

join:2011-09-16
Lincroft, NJ
kudos:3

Another "cut the cord" article (but without all those upfront costs):

My Life as a Television Throwback
By Taffy Brodesser-Akner, The NY Times - November 23, 2012
»www.nytimes.com/2012/11/25/arts/···edy.html



telcodad

join:2011-09-16
Lincroft, NJ
kudos:3

But as I just posted in another thread (»Re: Say goodbye to ClearQAM ), a new caveat on "going OTA":

Rovi Phasing Out Over-the-Air Guide Listings
Vendor Cites End of Data Broadcast Agreements; Service to Fully Cease by April 2013

By Todd Spangler, Multichannel News - November 27 2012
»www.multichannel.com/technology/···s/140422

From the article:

Rovi has started shutting off the TV listings data it has provided in over-the-air broadcasts to dozens of consumer-electronics device models in North America -- and will completely end the service by April 2013 -- a move that has infuriated consumers who claim it will render their DVRs useless.

The company said its agreements with data broadcasting partners CBS and National Datacast Inc. (NDI), a for-profit subsidiary of PBS, are coming to an end.
:
All Rovi guides in analog TVs, digital TVs and consumer-electronics DVRs that receive over-the-air broadcast data via an antenna or a cable TV connection in the U.S. and Canada, including the Rovi Guide Plus+ and TV Guide on Screen products, will be affected by the change.


mikedz4

join:2003-04-14
Weirton, WV
reply to nokken

latest bill ONLY SAYS:
Performance from $62.95 to $64.95
Blast! from 72.95 to 74.95
that is standalone.
Nothing about packages.



insomniac
Oh Yeah
Premium
join:2002-09-22
Naperville, IL

Mine shows increases in Internet prices for TV customers as well, in smaller print underneath the standalone price.
--
If everything seems to be going well, you've obviously overlooked something.


mikedz4

join:2003-04-14
Weirton, WV

Ours was only a small paragraph no big notice.



telcodad

join:2011-09-16
Lincroft, NJ
kudos:3
reply to telcodad

An article in yesterday's Wall Street Journal on some reasons to cut the cord:

Ten Things Cable-TV Companies Won't Say
By Jonnelle Marte, The Wall Street Journal - December 2, 2012
MarketWatch's Jonnelle Marte looks at the things cable companies won't tell you, such as why rising prices are part of their heritage and good service exists but not in your area.
»online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142···news_wsj