SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Charter’s hidden “Broadcast TV” fee now adds $197 a year to cable bills:
Charter Communications is raising the "Broadcast TV" fee it imposes on cable plans from $13.50 to $16.45 a month starting in August, Stop the Cap reported.
Charter says the Broadcast TV fee covers the amount it pays broadcast television stations (e.g. affiliates of CBS, NBC, ABC, and Fox) for the right to carry their channels. But for consumers, it is essentially a hidden fee because Charter's advertised TV prices don't include it.
Charter has raised the fee repeatedly—it stood at $9.95 in early 2019 before a series of price increases. At $16.45 a month, the fee will cost customers an additional $197.40 per year. Charter sells TV, broadband, and phone service under its Spectrum brand name and is the second largest cable company in the US after Comcast.
Charter imposes a smaller Broadcast TV fee on its streaming TV plans, but is raising that charge from $6 to $8.95 a month, Stop the Cap wrote. Charter is also raising the base price of its TV service. "Spectrum's most popular TV Select package is expected to increase $1.50/month to $73.99/month," Stop the Cap wrote. "Customers on a promotional pricing plan will not see this rate increase until their promotional pricing expires."
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 16 2020, @09:31AM (4 children)
Does the US not have terrestrial broadcast TV? ATSC digital TV is hardly niche.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 16 2020, @09:49AM
Keep in mind that this fee isn't optional. I can't tell Charter that I don't want to receive those channels via cable and then just use an antenna. It's a mandatory hidden surcharge. Just to be clear, when Charter bought up Time Warner Cable, they promised not to engage in antics like this.
Also, I live in Lincoln, NE. That's 50 miles from Omaha, NE, which is a separate market with its own TV stations. But we're close enough to receive some Omaha stations. Reception could be tricky, though, particularly on the western side of the city, or for people who aren't able to set up a good outdoor antenna. The Omaha stations used to be available on cable in Lincoln. One by one, they've been removed, starting with KMTV (CBS), then WOWT (NBC), and most recently KETV (ABC). We get KPTM (Fox) but that is only available on cable in SD, not HD. Yes, the actual station does broadcast in HD.
Cable actually was useful in the past to get Omaha stations that would be difficult to receive over the air. Those stations have been removed, reducing the quality of the service provided, while this surcharge has significantly increased. Part of Charter's decision to purchase Time Warner Cable was so they could negotiate cheaper subscriber fees with channels and keep their costs down. At the same time, they took on a tremendous amount of debt, which customers are now paying for.
So, yes, we do get ATSC. But there are still advantages to cable when it's difficult to receive those stations. And Charter is screwing its customers over by degrading the quality of its service while raising fees that are supposed to pay for that specific part of the service.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Snotnose on Thursday July 16 2020, @10:00AM
Where I live an antenna will only get me 4 stations (CBS and ABC are behind a mountain), and those only at night. I can be watching the morning news and tell you when the sun comes up without looking outside. During the day the signal drops so often it's too annoying to watch.
To be honest, I don't really miss network TV. For the shows I really care about I torrent them.
When the dust settled America realized it was saved by a porn star.
(Score: 5, Informative) by Booga1 on Thursday July 16 2020, @10:11AM
TLDR Yes, but... it's all messed up and it's all about the money. Customers get the shaft by either missing out on stations or paying to watch stuff that's available for free over the air.
Many places still have over-the-air channels available if you have the right antenna. However, the situation is a little complex due to the way cable companies handled providing those "local broadcast stations" through their subscription service.
The regulations involved are summarized here: https://www.fcc.gov/media/cable-carriage-broadcast-stations [fcc.gov]
Basically, the cable companies were retransmitting the local stations so their customers would be able to watch them without switching over to the antenna. This was rather convenient for the people watching TV. However, the local stations were upset because the cable company was basically re transmitting their channels without consent. I understand that in some cases the cable companies were even replacing the local ads with their own. So, the local stations demanded to be paid by the cable companies if they wanted to keep re-transmitting the channel. Of course the cable companies said, "We're not paying you anything. You're lucky we're letting our customers see your channel at all!"
There were some lawsuits and new regulations put in so that the cable companies had to pay the local stations to rebroadcast the content. Part of that was that legislation allowed cable companies to charge a "nominal" fee to customers in order to recoup some of that cost. Every few years contracts between cable companies and local stations expire and the local stations demand more money from the cable companies. Cable companies balk at paying more, stations get pulled off cable and both companies run ads blaming the other companies for why your favorite local station "isn't available."
All that said, part of the legislation also allows a station to force a cable provider to carry their station if they chose to designate it as "must-carry." However, if they do that the cable company doesn't have to pay anything at all for re-transmission rights.
Simple, right?
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Bot on Thursday July 16 2020, @11:42AM
Italy, by being relatively small and populated by mountains, is an easy candidate for TV broadcasts, and it has been so for decades with barely a problem.
Then the internet comes, internet video comes, and the push against broadcasting begins.
DTV instead of adding to, replaces analog channels. Result, increased cost for a less solid signal, more channels mostly replete with crap. But this could still be called normal substitution of older tech with newer tech.
But then, WHY do TVs constantly switch transmission channels? Why the DTV boxes have those awful interfaces compared to which any 1980 16 channel color tv is a masterpiece of user experience?
My answer, internet TV provides way more feedback and control of the viewing experience, in both directions. Therefore broadcasts must die. Banning them altogether would show the cards, so they are progressively made more inconvenient.
Account abandoned.