Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Television The Almighty Buck Businesses

Comcast's Sneaky Broadcast TV Fee Hits $27, Making a Mockery of Advertised Rates (arstechnica.com) 96

An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: The Comcast "Broadcast TV" fee that isn't included in the company's advertised prices is rising again, tacking as much as $27 onto the monthly bills of cable TV users. Comcast's Broadcast TV and Regional Sports Network fees combined could add nearly $40 to a customer's monthly TV bill after next month's price hikes, all while Comcast advertises much lower prices than people actually pay. "Comcast has started notifying customers and municipalities that it plans to raise video and Internet prices next month, including a whopping $7.35 a month increase for the Broadcast TV fee in one town," a TV Answer Man article said on Saturday. The $7.35-per-month increase is in Taunton, Massachusetts, where Comcast said the Broadcast TV fee will rise from $18.65 to $26.

The Broadcast TV fee is rising from $24.95 a month to $27.25 a month starting on December 20 in Sandown, New Hampshire, a letter (PDF) from Comcast to town government officials said. In Sandown, the Regional Sports Network fee is rising from $11.85 to $12. The TV Answer Man report also said several towns in Michigan were "alerted that the Broadcast Fee will rise from $14.80 to $20.70 a month while the monthly Regional Sports fee will go from $9.50 to $10.15." These are just a few examples as Comcast is raising prices nationwide.

The Broadcast TV charges added to customer bills vary by region. Comcast says the fees are based on the amounts that "broadcast stations charge us to carry them on our cable systems." It's true that Comcast has to pay retransmission consent fees to carry the stations, even though stations can be accessed for free over the air with an antenna. But the sneaky manner in which Comcast and other cable companies pass those costs on to customers can lead to bill shock and unexpected price increases. Comcast's advertised prices do not include the Broadcast TV or the Regional Sports Network fees even though these fees account for a large portion of customers' actual monthly bills. On Comcast's ordering website, the base prices are listed along with a message stating that Broadcast TV and Regional Sports fees are "extra" and that the price is "subject to change." The Broadcast TV and Regional Sports fees also aren't included in how Comcast calculates promotional pricing and thus can be raised even when a customer's promotional rate hasn't expired.
Comcast says it's also raising the base prices of monthly service plans, saying the average increase nationwide is 3.8 percent.

Comcast's statement on the price increases blamed the rising cost of video programming but said the overall increases are lower than the most recent inflation rate: "TV networks and other video programmers continue to raise their prices, with broadcast television and sports being the biggest drivers of increases in customers' bills. We're continuing to work hard to manage these costs for our customers while investing in our broadband network to provide the best, most reliable Internet service in the country and to give our customers more low-cost choices in video and connectivity so they can find a package that fits their lifestyle and budget. Our national average increase of 3.8 percent is about half of the most recent rate of inflation."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Comcast's Sneaky Broadcast TV Fee Hits $27, Making a Mockery of Advertised Rates

Comments Filter:
  • by UnknownSoldier ( 67820 ) on Monday November 28, 2022 @07:15PM (#63087184)

    Oblg. Why am I reminded of that South Park [youtube.com] cable company reference?

  • Just do the maths (Score:5, Insightful)

    by rmdingler ( 1955220 ) on Monday November 28, 2022 @07:16PM (#63087186) Journal

    Broadcast TV is floundering, almost as fast as subscriptions for cable and satellite packages.

    This is from the school of , You can make as much from fewer customers if you just charge them more.

    • It is, but it's sill the best way to get local news. Just get an antenna if you're not out in the sticks.
      • There are hundreds of ways to stream local news for free.
        • by EvilSS ( 557649 )
          OK name 25 ways to stream local news for free, legally.
          • Well, for starters, try the local TV station's web site. There's a few hundred right there.

            • by EvilSS ( 557649 )

              Well, for starters, try the local TV station's web site. There's a few hundred right there.

              No, that's one. And it doesn't work. None of my locals have free live streams of the station on their website.

            • by Rhipf ( 525263 )

              How do you stream anything from any website for free? I don't know of any ISPs that provide free Internet service. 8^)

              Yes, I realize that even over-the-air broadcasts aren't totally free since you need to buy an antenna and TV but with OTA once you have those purchases made you don't need to pay anything else.

              • Right. I forgot about all the people who browse Slashdot regularly that don't have an internet connection.

                What are you even on about?

                • You are correct that a cellular Internet connection with a 10 GB per month data transfer quota and a $10 per GB overage fee is still technically an Internet connection. That doesn't mean such a connection is practical for the present context, namely streaming video from a local television station's website. See SteveSgt's comment [slashdot.org] to a story about Netflix's DVD service:

                  Get back to us about that after you've lived for a year or so where your fastest Internet is 6Mbps over LTE with data overage charges.

                • by Rhipf ( 525263 )

                  I didn't claim that people were browsing Slashdot for free though did I. 8^)

          • Go to their website. For example: https://www.nbcwashington.com/... [nbcwashington.com] You don't need many ways.
          • I don't pander to those that can't use Google.
      • It is, but it's sill the best way to get local news.

        Local news sucks anyway. There is very little actual news.

        In 30 minutes, you typically get something like:

        10 mins of commercials
        5 mins of weather
        5 mins of "human interest" bullshit
        5 mins of sports
        5 mins of actual news

      • Every local news station in my city, the backwoods of Sioux Falls, SD, has a streaming app. Granted, they've all been bought out by the same conglomerate multi-national "media" company, and homogenized themselves into the same broadcast, but you can still stream them.

        If our backwardass state can manage, I'm sure civilized parts of the country can too.

    • I don't get it. I paid $75 for a good rooftop antenna, and I get about 100 local broadcast channels in the Houston area, for free. Most come in crystal clear. Why exactly do I need to pay a cable company to get the same channels?

      • I just subscribe to Sling. $40/mo because I don't subscribe to the sports channels or broadcast TV. I use an OTA antenna on my roof and an AirTV device which integrates into the Sling app to watch and record OTA TV.

        I also subscribe to Netflix, Hulu (ad free), Paramount+, Amazon, Disovery+, HBOMax, Britbox, Acorn and Gizmoplex and my monthly streaming bill (including Sling) is about $150 which is around $40 less than I was paying Comcast before I ditched them.

        • Exactly, there are so many cheaper options now. And people can easily choose a smaller list than you have to get just the things they need. For example I would only care for Netflix, Amazon, Crunchyroll, and Funimation. I go in and out of Paramount+ and Hulu as programs arrive or I get too busy to watch them. As for OTA, it's not only free with an antenna but many television stations have streaming. (for example KQED [kqed.org], a PBS station in the SF bay area).
          My bill is closer to $40/mo not counting Amazon Prime wh

        • Don't worry - as more people figure this out, Comcast will just start charging more for the Internet service you still have to use to watch other companies' streaming content.

          I can't wait for someone - ANYONE else - to give me another choice for broadband connectivity. Ziply, Centurylink, etc. I don't care. Fuck Comcast.

      • by Megane ( 129182 )

        Cable TV started out as a way for people in poor-reception fringe areas (or even in high-density urban areas with tall buildings) to get reception. Eventually, satellite down-links allowed channels to exist with no terrestrial broadcast, and in the '80s there were so many that satellite channels became an industry unto itself. When cable TV was cheap, people got lazy and forgot how antennas worked. Then the local channels demanded to charge the cable companies for the right to re-transmit their signal. Now

    • This is from the school of "squeeze as much money out of these dumbfucks as possible to maximize ROI on the cable equipment", plain and simple. They know that business is dying.

    • by sglines ( 543315 )

      Apparently, all those sharp pencil boys and girls never took econ 101. Look up "elasticity of demand," and you'd discover that there is a sweet spot in pricing that generates the most revenue. Jacking thee prices is a sure way to go bust.

  • Outlawed in the EU (Score:5, Interesting)

    by VeryFluffyBunny ( 5037285 ) on Monday November 28, 2022 @07:17PM (#63087190)
    Hidden & misleading prices are outlawed in the EU, along with contract termination fees. It's a pretty straightforward way to get rid of a whole load of predatory, exploitative bullshit in one go.
    • by Entrope ( 68843 )

      How many local TV channels does Europe have that charge cable companies to carry the channels' content?

      These prices are (according to the cable companies) broken out because they're not under the control of the cable companies -- which is consistent with them being different amounts in different areas. How much should the cable companies pad bills to make the prices fixed when costs like these vary?

      • Since the cable companies paste their ads over those in the broadcasters stream it is exclusively the cable companies at fault here. If they just wanted to rebroadcast the over-the-air feed unchanged they could get the rights for pennies or less. But they want to double dip so screw them.
        • by Entrope ( 68843 )

          Copyright law does not work like that. Local TV channels can charge cable companies these rebroadcast fees regardless of whether the cable companies keep the channel's original advertisements.

          • by LordofWinterfell ( 90845 ) on Monday November 28, 2022 @09:23PM (#63087430)

            Theyâ(TM)re paying higher fees because local stations lose as revenue, when a portion of local commercials are shown. Comcast charges us for the service, passes on all of the (rebroadcast) costs, and then plays their own commercials over the top. This all started back when cable cos started carrying local content, without their commercials, and paying zero for it since it was publicly broadcast.

      • by _merlin ( 160982 )

        They can itemise it on the bill if they want, but they still shouldn't be allowed to advertise a lower price than what you'll actually pay. It's false advertising, but the US loves that. For example, hotels charge a "resort fee" on top of the advertised price. It's all bullshit, but Americans will insist it's their "freedom" to be treated like shit by their corporate overlords. The rest of the developed world has gradually legislated that the advertised price must be the "bottom line" price. The US won

        • by Holi ( 250190 )

          Heck, it's everywhere, I was quoted $827 for my recent colonoscopy. $2000 in bills arrived at my front door, and I have insurance.

      • In the EU the tax payer funds the majority of these kinds of TV stations. You donâ(TM)t even get a choice in whether you pay for them or not.

        I do think having greater transparency in where the costs go to, by breaking it up, it allows customers to see and apply pressure where necessary to continue funding those channels.

        A lot of those tiny local channels are seeing major cash flow issues since the advent of online marketing. So they will charge more to break even. The government should pull their subsi

      • Advertising, rebroadcasting, who pays what rights, etc., are the responsibility of the companies selling the services. It's not for customers to do their accounting for them or to have to pay any differences that companies can't/won't calculate so that they can hide the final price of the service. If you've been stuck with a crooked system for a long time, it may be difficult to imagine how it could be different & better. That's why it's a good idea to look outside your borders to see how others are doi
    • by khchung ( 462899 )

      Hidden & misleading prices are outlawed in the EU, along with contract termination fees. It's a pretty straightforward way to get rid of a whole load of predatory, exploitative bullshit in one go.

      Not so straightforward when your lawmakers's continued employment relied on the money from exactly these companies growing fat from using predatory, exploitative bullshit.

  • by 93 Escort Wagon ( 326346 ) on Monday November 28, 2022 @07:27PM (#63087210)

    We kept holding onto a minimal cable TV subscription, even though we hardly ever watched anything on cable. But the previous time Comcast raised the "broadcast tv fee" gave us the kick in the butt to finally end our cable subscription. I cancelled TV, raised our internet speed tier, and cut our monthly bill by $30.

    • by alw53 ( 702722 )
      I have a microwave dish, serviced by Simply Bits in Tucson, in addition to a plain old TV antenna. I will live in a tree before I'll deal with Cox or Comcast ever again.
  • It is a slow boil. I got off the cable train when I realized OTA worked in my location, and I could get most of what I wanted elsewhere. I feel bad for people who can't, or are addicted to sports, the one remaining real-time entertainment they can charge for. You do know, right, CableCo, that literally no one under 40 pays any attention to "broadcast". The remaining advertisers are selling overpriced drugs for horrid and oddly narrow conditions-if you take them, your grandkids will come to visit.
    • Yup, and I'd raise that age a bit. My wife and I are both 45. About 7 years ago we bought an antenna and found we get all the major networks crystal clear. Then we bought a TiVo DVR for OTA on sale with a lifetime sub for $300. We used it for years and years. But I honestly can't remember the last time we switched the HDMI input over to the TiVo. We used to switch to it about twice a year and binge watch once the previous season. Broadcast TV is just really dead for us, even for "free". Zero interes

      • Agreed-over time the good content has migrated to one or another streamer...the days where Broadcast owned the media and the narrative are Age of Steam in the media world.
  • by rbrander ( 73222 ) on Monday November 28, 2022 @07:29PM (#63087216) Homepage

    http://brander.ca/cordcutcuug/ [brander.ca]

    My lecture to the fellow nerds of the Calgary Unix Users Group about cutting the cord - getting an antenna, and a digitizer box, software for our Linux, Windows, and Mac boxes that allows them to control the digitizer, pick any channel: your computer of choice becomes a highly-programmable DVR.

    The files are standard, unencrypted MPG files that I own, can edit, compress to H265, save for years, whatever.

    The reason I gave up on cable wasn't the fees, it was the crappy DVR that I had to buy from them, because they used the HDTV transition to establish a monopoly on DVR equipment. The thing was constantly glitching and rebooting. Never looked back.

    CUUG already had two cord-cutters, and I think I convinced one more guy to switch. It's a real uphill battle.

    • by crow ( 16139 )

      I use an HDHomeRun with MythTV, but we still have cable, using the cablecard tuner to record. Only a few stations are restricted, so it works well. We've mostly switched to streaming, though, so we may drop the TV subscription at some point. We can still record broadcast TV from the antenna.

    • by Ormy ( 1430821 )
      A thoroughly fascinating read. Thanks for posting the link. But also a thoroughly strange experience for me to read given that OTA is how nearly everyone consumed broadcast video in the UK until the rise of streaming services. I was doing something similar with an analogue capture card for a pentium 4 system 2 decades ago, and later on a DVB-T capture card, and more recently with a freesat capture device. However you really went to town on the automation of recording/storage/re-encoding, I was mostly jus
    • The content is super interesting, but I wanted to reply specifically to give you praise for the format: this layout with all the slides as zoomable images and the accompanying text to the side is GOLD, liked it very much.

    • Thanks for the link. I've been on OTA for a number of years now, but I have been looking to find out what to replace my TiVo with once it inevitably goes away. I had heard of the HDHomeRun before but hadn't really understood what's so good about it. I think that'll be the way to go for the future.

      • I had heard of the HDHomeRun before but hadn't really understood what's so good about it. I think that'll be the way to go for the future.

        Another vote for the HDHomeRun. I miss being able to use mine.

        I had it working with Windows Media Center for many years, which was a requirement since my pesky cableco insisted on putting the CopyOnce flag on EVERY HD channel and half the SD ones as well, so WMC was literally the only software option which complied with that flag...and the HD Homerun Prime was absolutely fantastic for the task. ...then my system drive crashed and my cableco shipped out replacement cablecards that apparently had an "activate

  • by jacks smirking reven ( 909048 ) on Monday November 28, 2022 @07:33PM (#63087228)

    We are pulling up to the line where people are really expressing frustration over the onslaught of streaming apps and services, some starting to think of "simpler times" where there was one fee and the cable companies just can't keep from punching themselves right in their own dicks with shit like this.

    Also now that antitrust is coming back into the fold how about we go back in time to 2009 and correct the mistake of letting Comcast buy NBC/Universal in the first place.

    • I'm really glad I have an antenna system on my roof.

      A very simple setup would receive lots of local channels. But to pull in a few extra channels from up to 130 miles away, I tricked it out with a rotor, mast-mounted amplifier, and a diplexer (instead of a combiner, for 3 dB less signal loss). Total cost: less than two cable bills.

  • by thesjaakspoiler ( 4782965 ) on Monday November 28, 2022 @07:38PM (#63087236)

    As long as you pay the maffia, nobody in Washington cares what you do with your prices or whatever TV scam you run.

  • by Ed Tice ( 3732157 ) on Monday November 28, 2022 @08:24PM (#63087332)
    Do I have the option to not pay the fee? Otherwise, it's really part of the price. You can have a car for $25. Oh but there's a mandatory $49,975 activation fee?
    • by DewDude ( 537374 )

      For broadcast TV fees in the US, you cannot opt-out. Cable providers are required to offer broadcast TV; and broadcasters are allowed to charge retransmission fees for it.

      The sports fees, you usually can. But the issue becomes the providers of those sports channels usually work it in to agreements that they must provide those channels to customers.

  • by crow ( 16139 ) on Monday November 28, 2022 @10:24PM (#63087496) Homepage Journal

    The problem in my mind is that Comcast is almost certainly making a hefty profit from these fees. If they were independently audited to verify that the fees accounted for the actual costs they were paying for the channels, then at least it would seem fair (but count any cable-inserted ad revenue as part of the fee income). But when Comcast owns NBC, they can just set crazy prices to shuffle income from one account to the other, so even then it's not honest (and they also own at least portions of many of the regional sports networks).

    Really, they should just be advertising the real price with taxes and everything. If they want a separate regional sports fee, then make the regional sports networks optional. Same with broadcast stations.

  • I'd say my HDHomeRun Duo has paid for itself.

  • I typically lean towards Free Enterprise and Less Government Intrusion and Regulation.
    But despite everything else I applaud this particular effort by the Biden Administration to:
    " reduce or eliminate hidden fees, charges, and add-ons for everything from banking services to cable and internet bills to airline and concert tickets"
    Comcast is Borderline Monopoly.

    • by labnet ( 457441 )

      Well in almost every other civilised country, the advertised price is what you pay.
      USA, add sales tax, add tipping, add hidden fees.
      You’re in a corpratocracy where you live to work rather than work to live.

  • by xanadu113 ( 657977 ) on Monday November 28, 2022 @11:53PM (#63087618)
    Comcast has tried to sneak this onto my bill multiple times. I ONLY have Internet, not cable.
  • Comcast http://pleasedieinafire.com/ [pleasedieinafire.com]
  • We all know that "inflation" is just a BS mantra companies are parading around as an excuse to raise prices. Don't need a Kaity Porter white board to tell you that.
    • by Rhipf ( 525263 )

      But it is a great never ending way to increase prices.
      Blame the increases on inflation which contributes to inflation so that you can later increase prices and blame inflation. Rinse and repeat.

  • Comcast IS the "TV Networks" they're complaining about.

    Remember, they're also NBC, Universal, DreamWorks, and own stakes in more media properties than can I count!

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]

    • by tepples ( 727027 )

      I'd bet a large fraction of Xfinity subscribers would cancel TV if it were to drop ABC, CBS, and Fox affiliates, leaving only NBC affiliates as the only commercial* broadcast channel available without an antenna. I'd also bet that should Comcast not renew retransmission consent, the networks would pressure Comcast in antitrust court.

      * PBS affiliates choose must-carry rather than retransmission consent.

  • ... isn't included in the company's advertised prices ...

    A reminder the USA doesn't have truth-in-advertising laws. Many of the 'tough on crime' adverts from the recent elections featured graphic simulations of kidnapping women (with a voice-over declaring this happened because of the other party), down to the 'Amazon Ring' point-of-view.

  • Lying is protected speech, right?

  • by DigitalSorceress ( 156609 ) on Tuesday November 29, 2022 @07:50AM (#63088146)

    So, I hate sports - I never watch them .. but I am betting I do not get the option to say "no thanks" to sports (or local broadcast) they just add it in, right?

    I am so damn glad I "cut my cable" several years ago - My relationship with "watching TV" was unhealthy - the whole "sit down without a plan for what you're going to watch and kind of just put ~something~ on"

    Now when I watch content, it's more intentional - my streaming services have more than enough for my needs. If I REALLY want to just watch ~whatever~ I can always bring up yoo toob.

    • by Megane ( 129182 )
      Anything but the super-basic tier-zero of cable usually "includes" ESPN, whether you care about sports or not. A few years ago I heard that was $6 a month of your bill, and I wonder what it is now. I cut the cord two decades ago, so that's got to be around $1500 or so right there. My MythTV pulls down more from my antenna than I have time to watch. (I've been forever a year behind on Jeopardy for three years now.)
  • Honest question. I mean, it's right there on the bill, along with an explanation of what it is paying for. So, why is it "sneaky?"
     

    • Honest question. I mean, it's right there on the bill, along with an explanation of what it is paying for. So, why is it "sneaky?"

      Are you seriously that stupid? Here, I have a bridge for you. It's going to cost you only $100. After you sign the contract, and you are obliged by law to pay, I'll add a $200 convenience fee.

      • What was stopping anyone from asking Comcast how much those fees were before signing the contract, and refusing to buy if the fees were too high?

        As an experiment, I just called Comcast in Philadelphia and said I was moving there and wanted service. They gave me a complete rundown of all the fees over the phone, including the broadcast fee.

        So, I don't see what is "sneaky" about any of this when they will freely tell you what you are getting into for the asking.

        So maybe I should be asking you: are you serious

    • by Osgeld ( 1900440 )

      I think the point is they advertise one price to lure you in then plop a contract in front of you for darn near double the advertised price for the service

      • And my point is that you are free to walk away from a contract you don't like at any time before you sign it. If you can't be bothered to exercise a modicum of due diligence before signing a contract, you deserve everything you get.

  • by Revek ( 133289 ) on Tuesday November 29, 2022 @09:55AM (#63088394)
    I know it won't be very popular to hear but comcast is allowed to pass those fee on to the customer. They are forced to carry local programming and have to pay whatever the local broadcaster charges. Its not up to comcast at all.

    Every time the local broadcasters agreements are renegotiated they ask for more. Its the same with all the media companies. They don't provide one more second of programming but they always want more money. Comcast of course owns NBC universal so they get money coming and going.

    Giving local broadcaster the choice of whether or not they can charge a cable company for using their signal is the cause of those 'hidden fees'
    Must carry is the real crime here. [wikipedia.org]

    In short you don't like the charges complain to the local broadcasters. That is the place where it starts.
    • I know it won't be very popular to hear but comcast is allowed to pass those fee on to the customer. They are forced to carry local programming and have to pay whatever the local broadcaster charges. Its not up to comcast at all.

      Every time the local broadcasters agreements are renegotiated they ask for more. Its the same with all the media companies. They don't provide one more second of programming but they always want more money. Comcast of course owns NBC universal so they get money coming and going.

      Giving local broadcaster the choice of whether or not they can charge a cable company for using their signal is the cause of those 'hidden fees'

      Must carry is the real crime here. [wikipedia.org]

      In short you don't like the charges complain to the local broadcasters. That is the place where it starts.

      The simpler solution is to eliminate exclusive area franchise agreements. Competition will eliminate that kind of predatory pricing.

      • by DewDude ( 537374 )

        I got news for you.... franchise agreements don't matter to broadcast TV fees. The broadcasters set that price. They do not care about competition because they will dictate the same fees to all providers. The providers are required by federal law to carry broadcast channels. The only exception is when an agreement can't be reached.

      • by Revek ( 133289 )
        Its not a exclusive franchise agreement at all. Its a map of local areas where a TV channel is considered local. This map requires a local cable company to carry the station without regard to its current availability. None of the maps they use for what constitutes a local broadcaster have been redone since the digital switchover. Many rural areas wouldn't have a single local channel if they bothered to retest due to the digital signals requiring a higher signal quality and the crappy slice of the spectru
    • by DewDude ( 537374 )

      The real issue with must-carry is the retransmit agreement and cable company greed. Once upon a time, cable companies didn't have to pay a retransmit fee; they were able to use whatever signals they could pick up out of the air. This also meant they were able to skip channels they didn't feel were worth taking up precious RF spectrum. So, if the cable provider didn't want to carry the local PBS station, they didn't have to. If they didn't want to carry the local independent channel, they didn't have to. On

      • by Megane ( 129182 )

        Also up until as late as two years ago, some stations were still on "temporary" channel assignments that required reduced transmit power. That just happened to be the CBS station here and the previous place I lived. It was always constantly cutting out on my DVR, and unlike ABC and NBC, I was actually watching some prime time CBS shows.

        What I've been worried about is the ATSC 3 switchover, but so far it's still in the test market stage. Hopefully the FCC keeps prohibiting the "no copy" flag in OTA signals,

        • by DewDude ( 537374 )

          ATSC3 supports audio and video watermarking. I don't believe a decision has been made regarding use of that; so chances are with no regulation broadcasters will demand/sue makers of DVR in to complying with "do not record if watermarked".

  • And don't miss it AT ALL. If I REALLY wanted local news (I don't), I could either:

    Install a digital antenna to watch nearby stations OR
    Use my Roku box which offers free streaming for some live TV including my local news.

    We only bought the Roku box to be a front end for our PLEX server to play our own music and video along with streaming content from Amazon Prime.

    As of this writing, I have a Comcast internet connection only. There is currently no local competition for broadband in my town. No frills inter

  • It's a price increase, because the only way not to pay it is to cancel your tv service. Apparently they can call it what they want but you are required to pay it to get any channels.

  • Why can't subscribers opt-out of these fees?
    Isn't there a law? If not, there likely will be soon.

  • I cut the cable many years ago. Never missed it for a day.

    They expect you to pay over $100 a month, and watch commercials? Ridiculous.

    If your internet connection is fast enough to stream video, then what purpose does a cable box serve? The cable box should go the way of the fax machine.

    Get a Roku and digital antenna.

  • “How to Overthrow the System: brew your own beer; kick in your Tee Vee; kill your own beef; build your own cabin and piss off the front porch whenever you bloody well feel like it.” Edward Abbey

  • My antenna does not charge me a broadcast TV fee, nor charge me extra for HD broadcasts.

    • by Megane ( 129182 )
      It also doesn't re-compress the HD signal into half the bandwidth so they can cram in more trash channels.

Beware of all enterprises that require new clothes, and not rather a new wearer of clothes. -- Henry David Thoreau

Working...