[graupel]

It's interesting because to me the idea of labeling these the way they are now, like "BROADCAST TV FEE" is in some ways, more clear and less of a "hidden fee" than bundling it in with the larger price and not saying why the price is, what it is.

What I do think is that the headline price - the deal, so to speak - should show the all-in full price including added fees, so if this gets us to that, I'm all for it.

[devanl]

I've observed that Comcast takes advantage of the separation of "fees" into a separate category to increase fees while keeping the service rate the same, allowing them the flexibility to raise prices even if the customer is on a contract that specifies a fixed promotional rate.

So it seems like the current breakdown of charges gives rise to transparency in price, but only because it's in Comcast's favor when it comes to adjusting the numbers. I'm not sure that Comcast would bother continuing to break things down if it no longer gives them an edge.

[PaulHoule]

If they want to break these out they should be optional.

I get broadcast TV with an antenna and would have no need to get it with a television service although somebody who has worse reception or doesn’t want to set up an antenna reasonably could.

Sports are the most popular thing on TV but still a bit more than 50% of people don’t watch sports. Sports fans are often complaining that the offerings don’t meet their needs, whereas people who don’t watch sports are paying for expensive channels they don’t watch. We could have something better but the current system of non-competitive competition (no real differentiation between linear and TV offerings) gives people no real choice except walking away, which in the long term they are.