I get how fees that appear to be regulatory but are actually from the provider are BS, but we really can't decide if we want flat-fee for everything, a la carte, or packages. The article calls out HD fees and the sports upsell, but Netflix charges extra for 4k, and it's its own sort of package, kinda like HBO or sports, so it's not a solution, it's the same old problem.
And remember, you have little to no recourse for these hidden fees. Due to mandatory binding arbitration, you are forbidden from courts of law to dispute their fees.
You cannot and will not have your "day in court". The companies put a small line item in your contract. You were not required to have a common understanding or meeting of the minds to have been banned from disputing these fees in a court of law.
Instead you must hope your local attorney general defends the public interest.
I can't think of a situation where I would ever want the base price and fees to be disclosed seperately. The advertised price should include everything but sales taxes that vary by region. If I ever care to know why the advertised price is different in state A vs state B, then I would simply look up breakdown of the total price.
> The total amounts to nearly $450 per year in unexpected fees just on TV service alone.
As someone who hasn't every signed up for anything but flat rate internet service (still from Comcast); the only 'fee' I had was a $15 BS charge for a 'self-installation kit' but it was still discolsed before signing up for service. Are the fee amounts unknown until the first bill? Or are they just baried in the 100 page contract?
Welcome to retail. Companies recognize that the best way to get a lead is to advertise the lowest base price out there, and the best way to make money is to have the most leads and then use every tactic in the book to extract revenue from them (close the deal, and then fees, upgrades, upcharges, rate increases, etc.)
It's the same thing with restaurants and tipping. They want you to see the lowest number possible when choosing what to spend money on. Then you pay a 20% fee on top of that for some reason.
Plus, for us Europeans who come to the US, the tax (which is included in Europe). I guess you have in the US an automatism to add some tax to the price but what we see is 10$ and do not take into account the
+ 8.27% tax + 15% tip. (the tax is made up, I never knew what to add)
You can never know what to add for tax, because there are often local taxes that can be higher for one municipality than another. Even then, within a municipality, they can have a higher tax on a single intersection or shopping center.
On top of that, most places have different tax rates depending on the product you are buying. Food or grocery or electronics could all have a different rate.
A few years ago I was in a T-mobile store (making the switch from AT&T) and the sales guy kept trying to get me to include add-ons to my base contract (e.g. unlimited international calls).
He kept trying to convince me, and I kept saying “no I don’t want that”. At the (final?) step when reviewing the contract I saw he’d still included some of the add ons.
I asked him to remove them, and he started the spiel about why I should include them again.
This is the rudest I’ve ever been to a salesperson, but I didn’t even say goodbye: I just walked out, went home and ordered a sim online.
I’ve often wondered if he was just new/poorly trained or actually intentionally trying to trick me.
I don't know why taxes should also not be disclosed as part of the advertised price. I've heard the "there are so many regions and rules, it's a burden" argument. It doesn't seem to be a huge burden on the company to collect the tax, so why is it a burden to include it in the price?
The only somewhat compelling argument I’ve heard is that ads are usually sold by region (be they television, radio, or print) but many regions have multiple taxing jurisdictions where the rate can vary so how do you craft a regional price with these variations. And what do you do if one jurisdiction in the region has much higher or much lower taxes than other jurisdictions?
I’m not entirely convinced that this is a very compelling argument but it is the one that at least seems reasonable.
How's that surprising? That's simply the result of unbundling the cost of the equipment rental from the cost of the service. If it was offered for "free", it'd be simply be rolled into the overall price. Theoretically this is good for consumers, who now have a choice of paying for it up front, paying it over time on their monthly bill, or using their own.
Back in the day, cable companies allowed you to use their equipment for free to use their services. About 10-15 years ago, they realized that they could charge for it.
I supplied my own modem. I see no fee. I haven't had TV service since 2007.
I have Comcast and my bill is $60/mo (total) for 250Mbps down, 10Mbps up (and get that reliably). When it's about to go back to $90-100/mo in May (promotional price expires), I will give them a 15-minute call to get back down to that $60/mo for another year.
My parents on the other hand have a TV package, internet, and phone through them, while renting a set top box and their modem. They pay somewhere around $200/mo. I've informed them of their options (and offered to set it up for them), but they elect to not care.
I had TV then switched to a similar Internet only plan with Comcast.
I adopted a strategy of telling them I have no TV anymore (and I disconnected my TV boxes before calling) and need the Internet for work only. I had to politely repeat myself a few times and decline a couple offers of bundled packages, but they switched me over.
The experience wasn't too bad. I expected the caller to try to upsell me but I just said "No thanks, I don't have a TV anyway and really just need the Internet for my job."
But, people who leave themselves open by telling the rep something like "I don't like what's on TV" or "TV is too expensive" will probably have trouble. They really want you to have any type of TV subscription.
Some ISPs do not allow you to bring your own equipment, or if you do, they will charge you regardless per month for a "rental" of something you don't have from them.
This is (edited to - regulatory capture. I had mentioned capitalism; I only mean we want consumers to figure out what choices they have and exercise them. But as mentioned below, when there's power, like in a monopoly, that power needs to restricted or removed i.e. by government or if at all possible, meaningful competition.)
Here is your recourse:
Try to become and remain among the educated. If you are in a position to do so, educate others.
Vote with your wallet. This, by itself, is not enough. The masses need to be educated and make this vote meaningful.
When the ones in power play dirty, try to remove that power or restrict their ability to play dirty. Our biggest, most profitable companies seem to increasingly have the ability to influence consumers with underhanded, manipulative means. In that scenario, there isn't enough educated consumer power to effect change.
This morning, I was thinking about Google, and how I personally feel like they have some of the absolute worst customer support in the world for many products. Because they will not fail to profit because a few hundred thousand people are unhappy with one of their services. Likewise, the cable companies can anger customers, but continue to profit, as long as they have some kind of power to reap those profits, such as being the only option in an area, or the only (or most direct) way to see certain content, such as live sports or broadcasts. There's definitely a difference in the analogy above - Google makes most of their money not from consumers, but from businesses wishing to advertise.
Anyway, I think cable companies will get worse as long as they are mixing pipelines and content subscriptions, and certainly as long as they hold the keys to the single wire bringing all of your entertainment into your home.
Why would a regional monopoly represent capitalism? Google Fiber had to halt their fiber roll-out because of all the red-tape and lawsuits they faced. The more accurate statement would be, this is regulatory capture.
You're right - I mean, they don't have a monopoly in delivery of "any" entertainment being delivered to you, which is why I use cable/fiber for internet and nothing more. I know many people feel the need to have live broadcast and choose to continue paying their cable/fiber provider for content. So far they have not added additional fees to my internet bill - only when I subscribe to TV content.
So it's somewhat in the hands of consumers to stop paying cable/fiber for TV, within the limits of monopolies on content people feel they need.
I'm not blaming capitalism or saying it's a bad thing. I'm saying - we want better options for consumers to win here.
In the US do people really pay hundreds of dollars a month for cable? I could never in a million years justify spending that much for entertainment like that when you can get internet for £30 and Netflix for £6, and we're famously overcharged in the UK I thought!
Comcast have a large monopoly here, I only have one choice of high speed internet provider. They charge me $110/month. This gets me hundreds of TV channels and HBO, which I don't want and I have never used. If I buy the "internet only" package, they downgrade from 100Mbps down to 5Mbps.
Comcast + Verizon are essentially a criminal cartel.
My parents pay Comcast $219/month for cable TV (with HBO/Showtime/Netflix) + internet + landline. I've told them multiple times that this seems outrageously high but they're remarkably blasé about it.
It must be a generational thing. Most boomers I know must absolutely have their deluxe cable plans. A lot of them grew up with TV being a very important part of their routine, and now many of them have lots of free time now that their kids have left the house.
America is a large country. Cities and towns are large and expensive to wire up. So in the early days a lot of cities granted exclusive contracts to the phone and cable utilities in return for making the effort of wiring everyone up, not just the neighborhoods that were more likely to afford it.
Those monopolies (cough cough, sorry, franchise agreements) are now coming back to bite the consumers because, lo and behold, you can't string up fiber in a town that has an exclusive cable television franchise granted to another company. You're letting people view TV over fiber internet? That's a TV service and you're violating the agreement.
So no competition means high prices. Hopefully the advanced wireless technologies will break some of that hold, but it's not quite there yet.
I do pay for cable still as part of an internet bundle, definitely not hundreds per month. The #1 reason is because the Orioles (maryland baseball team) are only available through cable packages — the games aren’t broadcast over the air, they created a network and it will only sell to cable companies, no internet streaming, etc. It’s miserable, almost as miserable as actually watching the games.
Same here. If I want to watch the Mariners on TV inside Seattle, I pay a TV provider. I do, so I do.
I don’t mind it very much because I get deals on the handful of streaming services I use so the bundle rate for TV isn’t much of an added entertainment expense. The value I get is a suitable exchange and I don’t have a visceral “I will never pay a cable company one red cent ever again” feeling so it works out acceptably for me.
I think the people that pay "hundreds of dollars" are people with large houses that need like 6 cable boxes all over the place, each with it's own dvr and whatever.
Yeah, my rate started cheap, and then even after the promotional rate, it just kept creeping up. When it hit $250, I said enough is enough, and cut the cord. At this point, I've saved thousands. Having 3 major streaming services AND the internet is expensive enough, but not as expensive, and the price is more stable.
Yes, sadly. ....b/c Comcast, ATT, and a few others have been allowed to control all the pipes (including access to the internet). Most places only have two options. Where I live it is either Comcast or ATT. So if you want to "cut-the-cord" on cable guess what...you are still going to pay one of those two companies for the internet. ...And guess what if you don't buy a bundled (tv+internet) package? then the individual price of internet only goes up ...and comes with bandwidth limits (ie overage fees). Solution? Buy the fast internet option, bundled with lowest TV package (literally emergency services level tv). Cost $70 month @100mps with unlimited bandwith (b/c you now have a bundle). Then add a SlingTV package. Couldn't be happier with this setup. The Sling package is even better than the cable package I had before. Still....all the hoops to jump through is ABSURD.
It must be awesome. I live in the 'ritzy' part of a capital city. I have 150/5 from Comcast, or 40Mb dsl not sure the upload) from Centurytel. I am really hopeful for 5g, or even Starlink. I really want more upload bandwidth.
Where do you get internet for £30 a month, if I may ask?
Given I have to have a BT line installed, I can't get internet for less than £45 a month unless I untether and go Mobile only (which I'm sorely tempted to, because F— BT).
Huh, now there's a name I've not heard in a while!
Thanks for this - £30/35, line rental included? And a static IP? And a lifetime guarantee of static prices (unlike BT's bi-annual price creep to cover their purchase of football-coverage rights or whatever other bullshit it is I have no interest in)?
Yes people pay a lot in US for Cable TV and also for health care and post secondary education. A lot less for gasoline/petrol grocery in general. IMO there is no general systemic reason for this. It is just whichever supplier came in first they decided they can extract this much money from consumers and it became norm.
Notice how the things you listed as cheap have lots of competition.
The expensive things have government granted monopolies or psuedo-monopolies.
And before anyone says healthcare providers don't have a monopoly, it that case, the insurers have a defacto monopoly due to the enormous regulatory moat that was built around them.
A bit off-topic, but this used to be discussed often on the consumerist.com web site, which Consumer Reports bought, and then archived. I miss that blog.
I miss that site a lot too, but there's more to the story than that:
- Consumer Reports bought the site, all is well.
- Site was hacked via the comments system.
- Site returned without the comments.
- Since comments were why most people went to that site, the site site suffered greatly.
- They reintroduced comments, but made you jump through hoops to get an account. Only a few (literaly less than ten that I can remember) people commented.
- Those few people stopped commenting because there was no one else to interact with.
- The site shut down.
(I had a story that I submitted and was posted to The Consumerist. I also had one of those few accounts after the hack.)
It's too bad we can't have laws regulating fraudulent behavior like this. This is just one of many ways that companies continually fuck over American consumers and consumers can't do anything about it other than not using services which isn't always an option. Getting ripped off on an ongoing basis is the norm. How do we expect people to plan financially when they are constantly lied to and screwed out of their money with no recourse? Even if there was a class action suit, it would do nothing for consumers. Voting is completely useless as both parties support this predatory anti regulatory capitalism. It's no wonder so many people turn to violence. One had to think that many of those who do so were probably motivated by getting fucked over by companies, especially since the vast majorities of shooters have no mental health problems. What a fucked up society to live in, where one is helpless and often hopeless.
I cut my monthly bill from $191 down to $79.99 Gigabit/Fios plus $40 for DirectvNow/AT&TTVNOWVIPASAPPLZ. Plus, I converted my mom, Comcast in this case...can't understand why anybody would settle for cable prices...hurts so bad. Well, I'm also the IT helpdesk of the family and get called A LOT more now that I'm expected to fix issues asap.
In rural New York, US, I had the "pleasure" of dealing with Time Warner Cable (now Spectrum) as pretty much our only provider. We wanted basic TV and internet access, each were priced relatively high on their own but cheap as a "triple play" package when phone was included. I think our overall bill was $70/mo for the first year. After the 12 months, our bill went to just shy of $250/mo (promotion ended). We ended up only really using the internet with streaming services so I called them up to cut back exclusively to their internet dropping phone and TV.
This was the most PAINFUL phone call I've had in a long time that literally resulted in me begging them to remove these services after they made at least a dozen or two "what if we do this..." offers. Since that day we've never thought twice to getting TV again (or phone) and have strictly stuck to internet. I'd say weekly I get a new offer mailed to me but it goes straight into the trash.
It's all to apparent they make their promotional packages sweet enough that most people will sign up for them. Once the promotion ends you're stuck with all the "bells and whistles" at an incredibly high price. I believe they intentionally make their downgrade processes as painful as possible so most people just deal with the payment. For example you can easily increase your channel lineup/internet speeds online but you have to call to downgrade anything...
TIL there are people who still have cable. I assume it's just generational? I don't know anyone (including my parents) who have cable anymore - and that's very much limited to tech folks.
61 comments
[ 5.8 ms ] story [ 131 ms ] threadInstead you must hope your local attorney general defends the public interest.
But the common refrain is that losing binding arbitration cases is a foregone conclusion.
That is simply not the case. Many times, you can win arbitration cases and it will cost you much less than a traditional court case would.
> The total amounts to nearly $450 per year in unexpected fees just on TV service alone.
As someone who hasn't every signed up for anything but flat rate internet service (still from Comcast); the only 'fee' I had was a $15 BS charge for a 'self-installation kit' but it was still discolsed before signing up for service. Are the fee amounts unknown until the first bill? Or are they just baried in the 100 page contract?
Neither do we.
He kept trying to convince me, and I kept saying “no I don’t want that”. At the (final?) step when reviewing the contract I saw he’d still included some of the add ons.
I asked him to remove them, and he started the spiel about why I should include them again.
This is the rudest I’ve ever been to a salesperson, but I didn’t even say goodbye: I just walked out, went home and ordered a sim online.
I’ve often wondered if he was just new/poorly trained or actually intentionally trying to trick me.
I’m not entirely convinced that this is a very compelling argument but it is the one that at least seems reasonable.
That's crazy.
I supplied my own modem. I see no fee. I haven't had TV service since 2007.
I have Comcast and my bill is $60/mo (total) for 250Mbps down, 10Mbps up (and get that reliably). When it's about to go back to $90-100/mo in May (promotional price expires), I will give them a 15-minute call to get back down to that $60/mo for another year.
My parents on the other hand have a TV package, internet, and phone through them, while renting a set top box and their modem. They pay somewhere around $200/mo. I've informed them of their options (and offered to set it up for them), but they elect to not care.
I adopted a strategy of telling them I have no TV anymore (and I disconnected my TV boxes before calling) and need the Internet for work only. I had to politely repeat myself a few times and decline a couple offers of bundled packages, but they switched me over.
The experience wasn't too bad. I expected the caller to try to upsell me but I just said "No thanks, I don't have a TV anyway and really just need the Internet for my job."
But, people who leave themselves open by telling the rep something like "I don't like what's on TV" or "TV is too expensive" will probably have trouble. They really want you to have any type of TV subscription.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CableCARD
Here is your recourse:
Try to become and remain among the educated. If you are in a position to do so, educate others.
Vote with your wallet. This, by itself, is not enough. The masses need to be educated and make this vote meaningful.
When the ones in power play dirty, try to remove that power or restrict their ability to play dirty. Our biggest, most profitable companies seem to increasingly have the ability to influence consumers with underhanded, manipulative means. In that scenario, there isn't enough educated consumer power to effect change.
This morning, I was thinking about Google, and how I personally feel like they have some of the absolute worst customer support in the world for many products. Because they will not fail to profit because a few hundred thousand people are unhappy with one of their services. Likewise, the cable companies can anger customers, but continue to profit, as long as they have some kind of power to reap those profits, such as being the only option in an area, or the only (or most direct) way to see certain content, such as live sports or broadcasts. There's definitely a difference in the analogy above - Google makes most of their money not from consumers, but from businesses wishing to advertise.
Anyway, I think cable companies will get worse as long as they are mixing pipelines and content subscriptions, and certainly as long as they hold the keys to the single wire bringing all of your entertainment into your home.
So it's somewhat in the hands of consumers to stop paying cable/fiber for TV, within the limits of monopolies on content people feel they need.
I'm not blaming capitalism or saying it's a bad thing. I'm saying - we want better options for consumers to win here.
Comcast + Verizon are essentially a criminal cartel.
This is effectively a small second mortgage. That is absolutely bonkers.
I really hope that the cord cutting alternates start to drive prices down from the legacy satellite and cable providers. It seems they haven't yet.
Those monopolies (cough cough, sorry, franchise agreements) are now coming back to bite the consumers because, lo and behold, you can't string up fiber in a town that has an exclusive cable television franchise granted to another company. You're letting people view TV over fiber internet? That's a TV service and you're violating the agreement.
So no competition means high prices. Hopefully the advanced wireless technologies will break some of that hold, but it's not quite there yet.
There are cheaper offers, but they will be of that order.
I don’t mind it very much because I get deals on the handful of streaming services I use so the bundle rate for TV isn’t much of an added entertainment expense. The value I get is a suitable exchange and I don’t have a visceral “I will never pay a cable company one red cent ever again” feeling so it works out acceptably for me.
My point wasn't that I have good speeds. My point is that you can get the same speeds a la carte as you can with a package.
Given I have to have a BT line installed, I can't get internet for less than £45 a month unless I untether and go Mobile only (which I'm sorely tempted to, because F— BT).
Thanks for this - £30/35, line rental included? And a static IP? And a lifetime guarantee of static prices (unlike BT's bi-annual price creep to cover their purchase of football-coverage rights or whatever other bullshit it is I have no interest in)?
I think they'll have new customer soon...
The expensive things have government granted monopolies or psuedo-monopolies.
And before anyone says healthcare providers don't have a monopoly, it that case, the insurers have a defacto monopoly due to the enormous regulatory moat that was built around them.
- Consumer Reports bought the site, all is well.
- Site was hacked via the comments system.
- Site returned without the comments.
- Since comments were why most people went to that site, the site site suffered greatly.
- They reintroduced comments, but made you jump through hoops to get an account. Only a few (literaly less than ten that I can remember) people commented.
- Those few people stopped commenting because there was no one else to interact with.
- The site shut down.
(I had a story that I submitted and was posted to The Consumerist. I also had one of those few accounts after the hack.)
This was the most PAINFUL phone call I've had in a long time that literally resulted in me begging them to remove these services after they made at least a dozen or two "what if we do this..." offers. Since that day we've never thought twice to getting TV again (or phone) and have strictly stuck to internet. I'd say weekly I get a new offer mailed to me but it goes straight into the trash.
It's all to apparent they make their promotional packages sweet enough that most people will sign up for them. Once the promotion ends you're stuck with all the "bells and whistles" at an incredibly high price. I believe they intentionally make their downgrade processes as painful as possible so most people just deal with the payment. For example you can easily increase your channel lineup/internet speeds online but you have to call to downgrade anything...