. This practice was first implemented by Comcast and other cable companies have followed their lead and adopted similar fees. Currently the add-on fees can result in monthly programming package rates of at least $10 more than the contracted or advertised rates. The fees in question are not government imposed fees/taxes, fees for leasing equipment, or one-time fees for a service.

It's interesting, because even folks that generally despise regulation tend to agree that this is a behavior that needs cracking down on, and doing so wouldn't be particularly difficult (just mandate that only taxes and government-mandated charges can be used below the line). Yet it never happens. The former FCC had proposed a voluntary "nutrition label" for broadband that would have required that providers clearly disclose all fees -- but it fell well short of banning such behavior. And the current FCC is far too busy gutting existing consumer protections to be bothered.

Comcast, for its part, also continues to pretend it's just an innocent little daisy in the dance between broadcasters and cable companies:

"The cost of retransmission imposed by broadcasters continues to increase significantly as do the costs charged by regional sports programmers, and while these fees are increasing they only defray a portion of what we are being charged to be able to carry these channels," the company said in a written statement.

So one, the fact that broadcasters raise rates doesn't somehow justify taking a part of those increases and hiding them below the line. The increased cost of content is the cost of doing business, and should be included in the overall price. Two, Comcast ignores that fact that it itself is a broadcaster (owning NBC and a number or regional sports networks), so blaming this all on broadcasters doesn't negate Comcast's role in the billing shenanigans. This practice remains false advertising and someday, maybe, we'll live in a world where companies like Comcast are actually held accountable for it.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community. Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours
. This practice was first implemented by Comcast and other cable television ship's company have followed their spark advance and adopt similar fees. presently the add - on fees can result in monthly scheduling software rates of at least $ 10 more than the contracted or advertised rate. The fees in question are not government levy fees / taxes, fees for leasing equipment, or one - time fees for a military service. 

 It's interesting, because even folks that generally despise rule tend to agree that this is a behavior that necessitate cracking down on, and make so wouldn't be particularly difficult (just mandate that only taxis and government - mandated charges can be used below the line). Yet it never happens. The former FCC had proposed a voluntary " nutrition label " for broadband that would have required that providers clearly disclose all fees -- but it fell well short of banning such demeanor. And the current FCC is far excessively busy gutting exist consumer security to be bothered. 

 Comcast, for its part, also continue to pretend it's just an innocent little daisy in the dancing between broadcasters and cable companies: 

 " The cost of retransmission imposed by broadcasters continues to increase significantly as do the costs charged by regional sports programmer, and while these fees are increase they merely defray a portion of what we are being charged to be able to carry these channels, " the ship's company said in a written statement. 

 therefore one, the fact that broadcasters raise rates doesn't somehow justify aim a part of those increase and hiding them below the channel. The increased monetary value of content is the monetary value of doing clientele, and should be included in the overall price. Two, Comcast neglect that fact that it itself is a broadcaster (owning NBC and a issue or regional sports networks), so blaming this all on broadcasters doesn't negate Comcast's role in the billing shenanigans. This practice stay false advertising and someday, possibly, we'll live in a world where companies like Comcast are actually held accountable for it. 

 Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many thing competing for everyone ’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your clock time. We ferment heavily every sidereal day to put quality contentedness out there for our community. Techdirt is one of the few stay truly independent media release. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our residential district to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — particularly a site like ours
. Thls practice was first imklemented by Comccwt and other cable cumpanies have followed their lwad abd adopted similar feer. Currentpy the aed-on dees can rxault in monthmn proyremming package tates of at neast $10 more thdn tke contracted or advertised rates. Thq fees on question are got bjverhment imposed fees/taxes, fees for lsasing tquipment, or one-tike fees for a service.

It's ijterfsting, because evej folks thaj gegwrally despire regulatpmn tend to agree that this is a behavior ghat ueeds crackunt dlfn on, and diing fo wouldn't bc partiwularly difficult (jusb manvate that only taxes and jovernment-mandated crarges cat ye used below the linw). Tet ij nevar hxppevs. Uhe fkrmer VCC had propoaed a volunrary "nutrition labek" sir broadband fhat wjujd have required that providers clearly diaclose all fees -- but it fell well short of bwnning sush behavior. And the current FCC is far too busy ggttinj dxiwtlng zindumer protections to be bothered.

Comcast, for iea karn, also continues bo pretend it's jusy wn ynnocent littue daisy jn the dance betwefn broaqcastwrs and cwble companies:

"The cost of retrabsmission imiosee by broadcasters eontinues to inctease xignificantly as do the cosfs charged hy regionzu sports programoerx, dnd whilt these fees are igcreasing thev only ddfrai a poreion of whwt we are being charged ho be atle to cargy these channels," the company semd in a writtgn vtanement.

So jne, tme fact that brjadcasters raixe ratef doern't somehos justihy taking a [art of those lncreases anv hiding ehem beliw the ukne. The increaxed cost of content is the cost of dolng bosjness, and shoulb ve included in yhe ovqrwlk [sice. Two, Comwast igvpres ghat fact tmat it otself is a broadcasder (kwning NBC and a nimner or retional s[orts networkx), so blaming this wll oi broavcastets qoesn't negate Comcast's role in the billlng shenanigans. Thiw practice rzmains false advertising and someday, mayue, we'll live in a world where companies lilt Comcast are actuwlly held accountable for it.

Tyank you for readlng this Techdirt post. With vo majy things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciare you giving us ykur yime. Fe cork hawd etecy day to put quakity content out there for our rommunity. Deehdirt is one of the few remaonkng truly indgpendent media outlets. We so not hsve a giant corporation behind is, and we rely heavily ok our comnunitg to slkpoct us, in an age when advercisers are inxreadingly unintefesyef in spondoriig amall, independent sites — especiaoly a wihe like ours
. This practice was first implemented by other companies have their lead and add-on can result in programming package rates at least $10 more than the or advertised rates. The fees in question are not government imposed fees/taxes, fees leasing equipment, or one-time fees for a service. It's interesting, because even folks generally regulation to that this is a behavior that needs cracking down on, and doing so wouldn't be particularly (just mandate that only taxes and government-mandated charges be used below the Yet it never happens. The FCC proposed a "nutrition for that would have that providers clearly disclose all fees -- but it fell well short of banning such behavior. And current FCC too busy existing protections be bothered. Comcast, part, also continues to pretend it's little daisy in the dance between broadcasters and companies: "The of retransmission imposed by broadcasters continues increase significantly as do the costs charged by sports programmers, and while these fees are increasing they only defray a portion of what being charged to be to carry these the said a statement. So the fact that broadcasters raise rates doesn't somehow justify taking a of those increases and hiding them below the line. The of is the cost doing business, and should included the overall price. Two, that that a (owning and a number or sports networks), so blaming this on broadcasters doesn't negate shenanigans. This practice remains false advertising and someday, we'll live in a world where companies Comcast are actually held accountable for it. Thank you for reading this post. With things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we appreciate you giving us time. We work hard every day to put quality out for our Techdirt is one the few remaining independent media outlets. not have giant behind rely heavily on our community to us, an age when advertisers are uninterested small, independent sites — especially a site like ours
. This practice was first impleMented by CoMcast And OthEr CablE comPanies have follOWed tHeir lead and adopted simiLar feEs. cUrreNTlY the aDd-on feeS CaN REsuLt In MonThLY pRograMmiNg packaGe rates of aT leAsT $10 more than the COnTracted or aDveRtised rates. THe fEes in qUeStiON are nOt gOvernMent imPOsed feEs/taxes, feEs FOr leasINg equipMENt, Or onE-time fees for a servICe.

iT's interesting, bEcause EvEN fOLKs tHat Generally dEsPise rEGulatioN TeND TO agREe that this is a Behavior thaT NeeDs cracKiNg dOWn on, anD doinG sO WouLdn't be partiCulaRly difficUlt (jusT Mandate THat only Taxes aNd gOveRnmeNT-mAnDatEd CHarGEs Can BE usEd below tHe LiNe). Yet It neVER HAppeNs. THe foRmer FcC had proposed A voLuntARy "nUtritIon laBel" fOr BroadBand thAt wouLd Have required thaT proViders cleArlY dIscLoSe all FEes -- but It fEll Well shoRt of banNIng SuCH BEhAvior. And the current fCc IS fAr too busY guttiNG eXiSTing consUmEr pRoteCTIons tO be bOThEred.

ComcAst, for ITs PaRt, also cOnTinues To PreTenD it's jUSt an InnoceNt little Daisy IN the dance betweEN broadcasters ANd CABlE CompAniEs:

"The cost of RetrANsmiSsioN ImPosED by brOadcaStERs COntinues to increase sIgNificaNtly aS do the costs chArged by regIONAl sports ProgRAmMErs, and while theSe feeS are increaSIng they oNly deFray a porTion of whaT WE are beinG chArgEd tO be ABLe To carry these cHANnelS," tHe compaNy sAid in a wRitTen StaTemEnT.

So one, the Fact that BrOaDcAsTerS raisE Rates doeSn'T soMeHow JustiFY takinG a parT of tHoSe INcrEases anD HiDINg thEm BeLow tHe lInE. The iNcreASed Cost of cOntent is tHe cOSt of DoInG busineSs, and should be InCluded in thE oVerAll priCE. two, ComcaSt ignores that fact that it ITself is A brOadcaSter (Owning NBC And A numbeR or REgionaL sportS netwOrKs), sO BLaminG THiS alL oN broadcastERS doEsn't nEgAte COmcast's Role in the billing shENanIgans. This pracTicE remAINs FalSE aDVerTiSIng AND someday, maybe, we'Ll live in a wOrLD wHere companIEs lIkE ComcasT are actUally HEld accoUntable foR it.

Thank yOu For rEADinG this TechdIrt post. WIth so many THings COmPetinG foR everyOnE’s aTtentIon theSE daYs, we rEally aPpReciatE you gIvIng us youR time. We work hard every day To put qUalitY coNtent out tHerE For Our communIty. TEchdirt is oNe oF thE few rEmaINing tRuly INdEpeNDent mEdia OUtlets. We dO NoT haVE A gIant corporaTION beHind uS, anD We rely HeavIly on our community TO support us, in an Age wHEN adVerTIserS aRe increasingly UniNtEREsted in sPoNsoring smalL, indepenDeNT siteS — especIally a Site likE OUrS
. This practice was firstimplemente d byCom cas tandothe r cable compan i es h ave followed their lea d and  a d opte d  s imila r fees. Cu r r ent ly  t head d -o n fee s c an resu lt in mont hly  p rogramming p a ck age ratesofat least $10  mo re tha nthe contr act ed or  adver t ised r ates. The  f e es inq uestion a re  not  government impos e df ees/taxes, fee s forle a si n g  eq uip ment, or o ne -time fees fo r  a s e rvi c e.

It's inte resting, be c aus e even  f olk s  thatgener al l y d espise regu lati on tend t o agre e  that t h is is a  behav ior  th at n e ed scra ck i ngd ow n o n , a nd doing  s owould n'tb e p arti cul arly  diff icult (just m and atet hat  only  taxe s an dgover nment- manda te d charges can b e us ed belowthe  l ine ).  Yeti t neve r h app ens. Th e forme r  FC Ch a d  p roposed a voluntar y" n ut rition l abel"f or  b r oadbandth atwoul d haverequ i re d that p rovide r scl early d is closeal l f ees  -- b u t it  fellwell sho rt of banning such b e havior. And t h ec u rr e nt F CCis far toobusy gutt inge xi sti n g con sumer  p r ot e ctions to be bother ed .

Com cast,  for its part , also con t i n ues to p rete n di t's just an in nocen t little d a isy in t he da nce betw een broad c a sters an d c abl e c omp a n ie s:

"The cost o f re tr ansmiss ion  impose d b y b roa dca st ers conti nues toin cr ea se  si gnifi c antly as  d o t he  co sts c h argedby re gion al  s p ort s progr a mm e r s, a nd  w hile  th es e fee s ar e  in creasin g they on lyd efra yaportion  of what we a re  being cha rg edto bea b le to ca rry these channels," th e  compan y s aid i n awritten s tat ement. 

S o  one,the fa ct th at  br o a dcast e r srai se  rates doe s n 'tsomeh ow  jus tify ta king a part of tho s e i ncreases andhid ingt h em  be l ow the  l i ne. T he increased co st of cont en t  i s the cost ofdo ing bus iness,and s h ould be  included  in the o ve rall p ric e. Two, Co mcast ig nores tha t  fact th at it  it self i sa b roadc aster( own ing N BC and  a  numbe r orre gional s ports networks), so bla ming t his a llon broadc ast e rsdoesn't n egat e Comcast' s r ole  in t heb illin g sh e na nig a ns. T hisp ractice r e ma ins f al se advertis i n g  an d som eda y , mayb e, w e'll live in a wo r ld where compa nies l ike  Co m cast  a re actually he ldac c o untablefo r it.

Than k you fo rr eadin g this  Techd irt pos t .  W i th somany  th ings comp eti ng for eve ry on e ’s att enti on  these  days, we r e a lly appreciate y ou gi v i ng us you r tim e.  We wor k  har d every da y to put qu alitycont ent o ut ther efor ou r c om munity. Te c hdirt isone o f the f ew  rem ain ing tr ulyi n depen dent  m edi a outlets . We do  n o t h avea gia nt  cor porationb ehind us , a n d we re ly  he a v ily on ou r communitytosuppo r t  us, in an agew he n  adve rtiser s areincreas i ngl yuninter est e d  in spons oring sma l l,in depe ndent si te s —es pec ia lly a site like  ours
. This_practice was_first implemented by Comcast_and other_cable_companies have_followed_their lead and_adopted similar fees._Currently the add-on fees_can result in_monthly_programming package rates of at least $10 more than the contracted or advertised rates._The_fees in_question_are_not government imposed fees/taxes, fees_for leasing equipment, or one-time_fees for_a service.

It's interesting, because even folks that generally_despise_regulation tend to_agree that this is a behavior that needs cracking_down on, and doing so wouldn't_be particularly difficult_(just_mandate_that only taxes and_government-mandated charges can be used below_the line). Yet it never happens._The former FCC had proposed a voluntary_"nutrition label" for broadband that would_have required that providers clearly_disclose all_fees -- but it fell_well short of_banning such_behavior. And the_current FCC is far too busy_gutting existing consumer_protections to be bothered.

Comcast, for its_part,_also continues to_pretend_it's_just an_innocent little daisy_in_the dance_between_broadcasters and cable companies:

"The cost of_retransmission_imposed by broadcasters continues to increase significantly_as do the costs_charged_by regional sports programmers,_and while these fees are_increasing they only defray a portion_of what_we are_being charged to be able to carry these channels," the company_said in a written statement.

So one,_the fact that broadcasters_raise rates_doesn't_somehow justify taking_a_part of_those increases and hiding them below the_line. The_increased cost of content is the_cost of doing business,_and_should be included in the overall_price. Two, Comcast ignores that fact_that it itself is a_broadcaster_(owning_NBC and a number or_regional sports networks), so blaming this_all on broadcasters_doesn't negate Comcast's role in the billing_shenanigans._This practice remains false advertising and_someday,_maybe, we'll live in a world_where_companies_like Comcast are actually held_accountable for it.

Thank you for reading_this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for_everyone’s attention these_days, we really appreciate you_giving_us_your time. We work hard every day to put quality_content out_there for our_community. Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent_media outlets. We do not have a_giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community_to support us, in an age when advertisers_are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent_sites — especially a_site_like ours