dslreports logo
Comcast Sued For Misleading, Hidden Fees

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.

Click for full size
"Beginning in 2014, we will itemize a portion of broadcast retransmission costs as a separate line item to be more transparent with our customers about the factors that drive price changes," said Comcast.

"In 2014, we will not increase the price of Limited Basic or Digital Preferred video service, and adjustments to other video service prices will be lower than they would have been without the Broadcast TV Fee."

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.

"Comcast not only charged the fee to new customers, but also added the charge to the bills of existing customers in violation of their contracts which had promised a flat monthly rate for the term of the contract," the plaintiffs state in the complaint.

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.

All eight of the plaintiffs in the suit opted out of the arbitration clause in their contract. Such language attempts to prohibit customers from suing the company in traditional court, instead forcing them to settle their dispute via binding arbitration, where the arbitrator is employed by the company and rules in its favor a significant majority of the time.

You can find the full complaint here (pdf).

Most recommended from 64 comments



maartena
Elmo
Premium Member
join:2002-05-10
Orange, CA

43 recommendations

maartena

Premium Member

Same story with every cable provider:

*LOOK HERE* We offer television for just $19.95*

* $19.95 TV offer excludes a $5 sports surcharge, $5 broadcast surcharge, $8 in various taxes and fees we made up, $10 in equipment rental fees (per TV) and an additional $10 if you want that equipment to be able to record things. Also, the $19.95 is only when you bundle with internet. Stand Alone price is $39.95. Price for 1 year, after that normal rates would be charged. We have made it intentionally difficult to find the normal rates on our website.

And so your twenty-bucks TV ends up costing 50 bucks, and when the promotion ends its probably closer to 80 bucks.**

** price hikes not accounted for. Restrictions apply. As always.

Zenit_IIfx
The system is the solution
Premium Member
join:2012-05-07
Purcellville, VA
·Comcast XFINITY

2 edits

31 recommendations

Zenit_IIfx

Premium Member

About Time!

Comcast has been adding and increasing fees like crazy over the past 5 years. It got to the point where I cut the cord completely of pay TV and switched back to VZ DSL/POTS. I miss the speed, but I do not miss the insane billing. Comcast bills are 90% fees, 10% service charges.

You know something is screwed up when CDV costs as much as POTS due to fees. CDV was supposed to be the cheaper, superior option over POTS; now its just an overpriced VoIP solution.

Modem rental shot up to $10/mo, mandatory with CDV. It used to be $3.something in my area. Now there is a CDV fee of $2 coming.

Then there are garbage fees like "HD Technology" where they charge you $10/mo for 2005 era 720P. It's like they are charging a "color technology fee". Renting a DVR is $9.99 for the box + $10 for DVR service. A simple SD box is almost $4 now.

Too add insult to injury with these fees, Comcast billing is atrocious. The retentions CSR neglected to tell me that porting my number out would drop me out of my bundle for the final 2 weeks of service, resulting in me paying $75 for TWO WEEKS of TV/HSI ("everyday price" extortion). In addition said CSR refused to offer me the county rate sheet price for Performance HSI which is $60/mo.

Screw you Brian Roberts, you greedy monopolistic fool.

It's a shame Comcast's great engineering team is saddled with such shoddy business practices. Their IP network is great, and the service ranges from acceptable to good, if it were not for the ever ballooning cost.

I am lucky to even have 7-10Mbps DSL as an option. Many people in Virginia in Comcast areas only have Comcast to pick from because Verizon failed to install DSL in remote terminals, so once your X feet from the CO, no more DSL even if your served off of a DSL capable fiber fed Litespan 2000. FiOS availability is a crap shoot unless your deep in Northern Virginia or VA Beach.

EDIT: My Verizon bill does NOT have a "broadband recovery fee". It is fairly straightforward for a POTS/DSL bill. Lowell McAdam, you better not get any ideas from the rest of the industry; your charging more than enough for service from 16 year old DSLAM's and 30+ year old copper loops.

camper
just visiting this planet
Premium Member
join:2010-03-21
Bethel, CT

13 recommendations

camper

Premium Member

"...to be more transparent with our customers..."

 
If Comcast really had wanted to be more transparent with customers, then Comcast would have, e.g., itemized the broadcast fees on a per station basis so the customers could see (i.e., transparency) what station was the cause of each incremental amount of the overall fee.
turnerbrewer
join:2011-11-22

1 edit

9 recommendations

turnerbrewer

Member

Cut Comcast 100%

I just cancelled my Comcast 75/10 w/ 1 tb cap internet and switched to DSLEXTREME 45/5 internet w/ no cap. I am f'n tired of Comcasts games.
Comcast will nickle and dime you to death.

pokesph
It Is Almost Fast
Premium Member
join:2001-06-25
Sacramento, CA

6 recommendations

pokesph

Premium Member

Time to add our own below-the-line fees...

Whats good for the goose is also good for the gander, as they say.

We all should add the following fees to any company that uses shady billing practices including charging you to pay their bill:

1) Bill payment fee (a charge for my time and annoyance paying the bill): $4.99
2) Bill comprehension fee (charged for trying to understand your bill): $6.75
3 Support wait (varies monthly depending on jow long waited on hold): $9.99 /incident

etc..

if they can do it so can we,
SunnyD
join:2009-03-20
Madison, AL

6 recommendations

SunnyD

Member

It would be one thing if you could opt out of those "services"

Imagine if the customer could say "No, I don't want broadcast TV, just the cable channels" to avoid that $6.50/month. That would be something, but the cable company doesn't give you that option. Therefore, it's not an additional fee, it's part of the base price of the service. But it's just like offering unlimited anything these days.
Exile714
join:2015-08-19

5 recommendations

Exile714

Member

Confused

What I don't get is WHY the cable companies do this. Sure, their advertised cost is lower but who cares? What are people going to do, choose another cable provider? 95% of people don't have another option and when there is another choice they use the same pricing scheme. They're playing dirty like they're not a monopoly when that's exactly what they are.

Anon4464e
@comcast.net

4 recommendations

Anon4464e

Anon

Broadcast TV Fee $10

Our "Broadcast TV Fee is $10 here and with the new price change it is going up $2.50 (12.50 total).

JimThePCGuy
Formerly known as schja01.
MVM
join:2000-04-27
Morton Grove, IL

3 recommendations

JimThePCGuy

MVM

How does one opt out?

the plaintiffs in the suit opted out of the arbitration clause in their contract

How does one opt out of the arbitration clause?
CyberGuy
join:2006-08-21
Colbert, WA

3 recommendations

CyberGuy

Member

They'll just come up with some new fee

Legal research recovery fund: $1.99
Papageno
join:2011-01-26
Portland, OR

1 edit

2 recommendations

Papageno

Member

Yup, on the verge of telling them where they can get off...

Glad some people have a reasonable choice between ISPs. A lot of us have the "choice" of ISP between Comcast fast (if overpriced) d/l speeds (but crappy uploads) and 3 to 5 Mbps DSL -- even close-in in big cities.

Now as far as TV goes, however, I'm already paying full retail for both internet (Blast Pro) and Digital Starter TV (what they used to call expanded basic back in the day), so cutting the TV cord should not make my internet go up. Thus I'm going to tell them to take the TV part and go pound sand. I'll get what I need TV-wise from a few services (may have to wait for some stuff), will watch the Superbowl and locally broadcast NBA games live OTA when I have to, and still probably save around 50 bucks a month (I already have Amazon Prime and Netflix, so I don't count the money spent there).

ptrowski
Got Helix?
Premium Member
join:2005-03-14
Woodstock, CT

2 recommendations

ptrowski

Premium Member

Oh look, another fee!

$2 voice fee......
»[CDV] New Voice Technology Fee - $2 (edit: article was taken down)