Broadcast fee lawsuit

CommunityMember

“Louisville man files class action lawsuit against Spectrum claiming unfair billing practices” (in regards to the Broadcast Fee).

https://www.wdrb.com/news/business/louisville-man-files-class-action-lawsuit-against-spectrum-claiming-unfair-billing-practices/article_08cd33ef-36f6-44f5-bd7d-b44f516a9342.html

The claim suggests that a one size (fee) fits all across all locations likely means some people are paying too much (and perhaps some too little), and in Louisville, they are paying too much.

The most interesting possibility is that during discovery Charter will need to show their work (contracts) with the local stations to justify the broadcast fee (they will, of course, request filing under seal, but that does not mean the judge will agree).

Not_Sure

CommunityMember first of all unless you’re on an old plans technically there is no broadcast fee anymore. Yes it is technically included in the price but you can say the same thing for YoutubeTV, Hulu Live, Fubu, DirectTV both satellite and steaming. Why isn’t he suing any of them? At the end of the day Louisville price is likely close to the average that Charter charges anyway. Of course if this guy wins, the likely result will be going back to having a separate broadcast fee which people hated to begin with. And for what to save a few $? When he could just switch to the many man other TV providers he has to choose from? Of course this will accelerate Charter’s eventually abandonment of TV altogether. Areas with big market locals will just dump Charter TV in droves because of the huge increase in broadcast fees. Which as I said will just encourage Charter to dump TV altogether except streaming bundles. Or have Charter just keep it’s streaming option which does not include locals.

This guy lives in Louisville where he could dump Charter TV and get something like Sling then use an antenna which can EASILY pick up locals

CommunityMember

Not_Sure Of course if this guy wins, the likely result will be going back to having a separate broadcast fee which people hated to begin with.

If he wins (and it will be a very long road to any decision), it does not have to mean a separate broadcast fee, it could mean a different “all-in” fee per market (as the broadcast fee would be different per market).

CommunityMember

Not_Sure Yes it is technically included in the price but you can say the same thing for YoutubeTV, Hulu Live, Fubu, DirectTV both satellite and steaming. Why isn’t he suing any of them?

Remember that the vMVPDs negotiate with the networks for a price which is the same across all markets. A number of local stations don’t like that arrangement (because they want more money), and want to force the vMVPDs to negotiate directly with the station owners (because they want more money). But for now there is no ability to claim Louisville is being overcharged.

telcodad

CommunityMember Remember that the vMVPDs negotiate with the networks for a price which is the same across all markets. A number of local stations don’t like that arrangement (because they want more money), and want to force the vMVPDs to negotiate directly with the station owners (because they want more money).

Yes:

TV Stations & Broadcast Networks At Odds Over Streaming Content Fees
By Brad Adgate, Forbes - May 3, 2024
https://www.forbes.com/sites/bradadgate/2024/05/03/tv-stations--broadcast-networks-at-odds-over-streaming-content-fees/

The local TV station network affiliates groups have been petitioning the FCC to amend its regulation regarding the classification of virtual MVPDs which stream video content over the Internet instead via traditional cable to subscribers. At issue is whether vMVPD distributors such as YouTube TV, Hulu + Live TV, Sling TV and Fubo should be re-classified as a traditional cable operator (i.e., Comcast, Charter, DirecTV, etc.) by the FCC.

At present, the vMVPD retransmission negotiations take place with broadcast networks not local station affiliates. In contrast, MVPD negotiations involve local station group owners, not the networks with which they are affiliated. The bottom line, networks’ streaming rights interests may not always align with those of their local station affiliates in the pursuit of high margin subscriber revenue in the form of retransmission consent and other direct to consumer streaming distribution rights.

A change in the ruling would enable station groups to negotiate directly with vMVPDs, resulting presumably in greater revenue. Cord Cutter News reported this year the issue has become one of the initiatives by the National Association of Broadcasters (NAB), to amend the FCC ruling regarding how streaming has been classified: https://cordcuttersnews.com/a-fcc-commissioner-has-come-out-in-support-of-turning-youtube-tv-into-a-cable-tv-company-after-local-abc-cbs-fox-nbc-locals-demand-it/

Not_Sure

CommunityMember right now Charter can advertise ONE price for a particular TV plan on it’s website. It can’t do that if you still lump in the fee into the price. Also people aren’t going to get why TV is one price in one area and another price in another area. Something no one else does. YouTubeTV charge the same price everywhere. It has locals. They certainly are paying for them You see the issue?

Not_Sure

CommunityMember Remember that the vMVPDs negotiate with the networks for a price which is the same across all markets. A number of local stations don’t like that arrangement (because they want more money), and want to force the vMVPDs to negotiate directly with the station owners (because they want more money). But for now there is no ability to claim Louisville is being overcharged.

And if local broadcaster get their way then what?

CommunityMember

Not_Sure right now Charter can advertise ONE price for a particular TV plan on it’s website. It can’t do that if you still lump in the fee into the price.

Sounds like you have never heard of geolocation and targeted web sites (one display here, a different display there).

Comcast has done so for quite some time (as they charge different broadcast fees in different markets), so I have to believe Charter can manage it if they had to.

Not_Sure YouTubeTV charge the same price everywhere. It has locals. They certainly are paying for them You see the issue?

No. Although perhaps you would be confused (which may be beyond Charter’s ability to address).

CommunityMember

Not_Sure And if local broadcaster get their way then what?

Prices in (some) local markets will go up to the vMVPDs. It is unclear if the vMVPDs will charge differently in each market, or move the locals into a separate (differently priced) tier(s), or drop the locals entirely, or fudge the difference (if they are small). The vMVPDs primary goal right now is not to have to deal with the station owners and continue working with the networks pricing, but I have no doubt some people are looking at the various alternative pricings.

CommunityMember

telcodad TV Stations & Broadcast Networks At Odds Over Streaming Content Fees

And, no matter how the local stations frame it, this is really about being able to receive more money (“Follow the money” is always the best advice when you want to understand the why’s).

Not_Sure

CommunityMember No need to be a smart ass and condescending.

vaxvms

Not_Sure

Yes it is technically included in the price but you can say the same thing for YoutubeTV, Hulu Live, Fubu, DirectTV both satellite and steaming. Why isn’t he suing any of them?

Lawsuits have been brought about this fee and that it should apply to all streaming services. All have failed.

Not_Sure

vaxvms And this one will fail too and if this guys wins he still loses. The end result even with win will not be what he expects

cypherstream

Good, I’m glad this guy had the guts to start this class action. Its not just spectrum, but all operators with ginormous broadcast fees. The only thing done lately was the FCC mandated they needed to advertise the all in price. I’ve had DirecTV since 2010 because they don’t have these fees, and when you add up the bottom line what I pay to them with what I pay Service Electric Cablevision for gigabit Internet, its still cheaper than triple (or double) play from either my current ISP or Comcast, who also serves my neighborhood.

I checked Comcast’s pricing from time to time when they built their brand new HFC network here in 2022 and initially TV was like $65/m, which looks pretty competitive to YouTube TV right? Nope, once you go to checkout, they add RSN fee, Broadcast fee and if you want all the features there’s equipment fees. Now, I just checked, that TV plan is showing $102/m. There is one cheaper $70/m and then just broadcast TV channels only is $53.35/m - this is before equipment. No thank you.

Not_Sure

cypherstream I’ve had DirecTV since 2010 because they don’t have these fees

DirecTV is 100% paying the local broadcasters to rebroadcast their channels. They are just including that cost in the price. And guess what they charge the same price in ALL markets

cypherstream

Not_Sure I’m sure they are, but even if its included the price is reasonable compared to my two other alternatives (SECV Tivo Stream and Comcast Xfinity X1). Dish Network isn’t available because my trees block that arc (it points different than my DirecTV).

I could see going full streaming some day… Hulu, Youtube TV, etc…

The one thing that IS variable with DirecTV is RSN fees. I’m in the Philadelphia DMA so there is no NBC Sports Philadelphia on DirecTV, therefore we do not have an RSN fee at all. Fine by me!

Not_Sure

cypherstream My point is if Charter can be sued for having the same broadcast fee everywhere well this is what DirectTV is doing because people in LA and NYC don;t pay more than someone in Boise

cypherstream

Not_Sure I don’t think DirecTV ever mentioned or made a big deal about broadcast fees in the 15 years I’ve been a customer.

Most cable operators show it as a line item on the bill. Was that not the case with Spectrum here? Or was it a line item and then “absorbed” into the package price (effectively raising it)- causing raised eyebrows because like “where did that fee go that used to be there?”

CommunityMember

cypherstream Most cable operators show it as a line item on the bill. Was that not the case with Spectrum here? Or was it a line item and then “absorbed” into the package price (effectively raising it)- causing raised eyebrows because like “where did that fee go that used to be there?”

Numerous issues. vMVPDs get one price for all network affiliated locals no matter location (DirecTV has both streaming and satellite offerings, but I suspect they play for the lower cost between the local market numbers and the network numbers). Having all local affiliate at the same price makes things easier (for the vMPVDs). Cable operators are required (under current regs) to negotiate market by market (unlike the vMVPDs). It is beyond disbelief that the NYC and LA markets have the same network affiliate retransmission costs as middle of nowhere (and while Louisville is not nowhere, it is not NYC/LA). With the new FTC (no junk fee) “all-in” pricing, the operators show one price in a market, but for Charter, that all-in pricing has the same number no matter the market (and I refer you to the disbelief that all markets have the same retransmission fees).

In the end, this will be a case for the courts to decide in the relevant markets in which the lawsuit was filed. As I recall, the KY market may not have the strongest protections for consumers, but never say never.

CommunityMember

cypherstream Good, I’m glad this guy had the guts to start this class action. Its not just spectrum, but all operators with ginormous broadcast fees.

There are a couple of different issues here. First, the local stations fo charge those fees. Those fees may be outrageous, and need to be constrained, but that is a local specific issue (FD: I don’t think the local re-transmission fees are appropriate, but I also understand why the local station owners want more money (I want more money too)). The second is whether the broadcast fee is the same in all markets. It exceeds disbelief that the cost of the re-transmission fees in Louisville is the same as the major media markets such as LA and NYC. This is where this lawsuit is more likely to have traction.

I would suggest that all individuals in all Charter (branded as Spectrum) locations write to their AG (if their AG cares about consumers, not all state AG’s do) and ask they file appropriate lawsuits about this unfair billing (FD: I have done so for my clients in the appropriate jurisdictions; I have no expectation all will help their electors, but all one can do is request, and if they do not support your desires, vote against them).