FCC Outlaws Sleazy And Misleading Cable TV Fees

For decades, U.S. cable and broadband giants have advertised one price, then socked consumers with a much higher price once the bill actually arrives. This is usually accomplished via a bevy of bullshit below the line fees specifically built for the purpose.

Like “regulatory recovery fees,” which ambiguously blame government for prices hikes due to regulation that largely no longer exists. Or “broadcast TV surcharges,” which take some of the cost of programming and misleadingly bury it below the line. And then there’s stuff like Centurylink’s “Internet Cost Recovery Fee,” which the company’s website explains as such:

“This fee helps defray costs associated with building and maintaining CenturyLink’s High-Speed Internet broadband network, as well as the costs of expanding network capacity to support the continued increase in customers’ average broadband consumption.”

That is, of course, what your full bill is supposed to pay for.

For decades U.S. regulators turned the other cheek, treating this kind of stuff as little more than creative marketing. The Biden administration has taken a slightly harder stance against such “junk fees,” which are pretty much pervasive across all industries (especially banks, airlines, hotels, and telecom).

Case in point: the FCC last week released new rules for satellite and cable TV providers requiring that they advertise the “all in” cost of service, without playing obfuscation patty cake:

“These new rules require cable operators and direct broadcast satellite (DBS) providers to state the total cost of video programming service clearly and prominently, including broadcast retransmission consent, regional sports programming, and other programming-related fees, as a prominent single line item on subscribers’ bills and in promotional materials.”

It’s great to see, but the fact it took the agency thirty years to accomplish this kind of speaks for itself. Republican FCC Commissioners Brendan Carr and Nathan Simington voted against the proposal, which is par for the course given the tight alliance between shitty telecom and cable companies and the GOP.

A 2019 study by Consumer Reports found that 24 percent of your monthly cable bill is comprised of said bullshit fees, gleaning the cable sector $28 billion every year in additional revenue.

The cable industry is already pouting about the changes, threatening to sue, and complaining that the FCC is “micromanaging” a “highly competitive industry” and that it (an agency custom built to regulate telecom and cable) somehow lacks the authority to do its job. This industry is also mad about the agency’s plan for a “nutrition label for broadband” that requires transparency on pricing and service.

Granted one thing the FCC seems intent on not touching is the consolidation and monopoly problems that cause high prices in the first place. Entrenched broadband and cable providers still enjoy monopolies across vast swath of the country after working endlessly to undermine competition at every turn. The FCC can’t even admit this problem exists, much less propose meaningful policy solutions for it.

Instead of hard rhetoric against monopolization and mindless consolidation, or aggressive pro-competition policies (like overt support for community broadband projects) we tend to get performative regulatory theater: solutions that sort of nibble around the edges of the problem, often arrive decades late, and usually aren’t consistently enforced. But hey, it’s a start.