0 votes
asked ago by (54.7k points)
edited ago by
1) June 20 -- FCC seeks comment on enhanced pricing transparency requiring cable and satellite TV providers to provide to consumers the "all-in" price for video programming services in promotional materials and on subscribers' bills. Comment Date:  30 days after date of publication in the Federal Register.

Access to clear, easy-to-understand, and accurate information about the pricing of video services helps consumers make informed choices and encourages competition in the market.  It does so by empowering consumers with information to comparison shop and to find the video programming services that best meets their needs and matches their budget.  

Consumers who choose a video service based on an advertised monthly price may be surprised by unexpected fees related to the cost of video programming that raise the amount of the bill significantly.  These fees, with names like broadcast TV fee, or regional sports programming surcharge, are listed in the fine print as “fees” or “taxes and surcharges,” separate from the top-line listed service price and can result in a bill that is substantially more than the advertised price.  This categorization can be potentially misleading and interpreted as a government-imposed tax or fee, instead of a companyimposed service fee increase.  This practice can also make it difficult for consumers to compare the service prices of competing video service providers.  

In this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), we propose to enhance pricing transparency by requiring cable operators and direct broadcast satellite (DBS) providers to specify the “all-in” price for service in their promotional materials and on subscribers’ bills.  This proposal would require cable operators and DBS providers to clearly and prominently display the total cost of video programming service.  This all-in pricing proposal is intended to give consumers a transparent and accurate reflection of their subscription payment obligations and eliminate unexpected fees. It also seeks to provide consumers with the ability to comparison shop among competing cable operators and DBS providers, and to compare programming costs against alternative programming providers, including streaming services.  We also seek comment on whether we should consider expanding the requirements of this proceeding to other types of multichannel video programming providers (MVPDs) and on our authority to do so. . . .
 
Press release: https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-seeks-comment-all-pricing-cable-and-satellite-tv

2) June 30 FRN -- In this document, The Federal Communications Commission (Commission) proposes to require cable operators and direct broadcast satellite providers to clearly and prominently display the total cost of video programming service in promotional materials and on subscribers' bills. Requiring “all-in” pricing is intended to clearly and accurately reflect consumers' subscription payment obligations, eliminate unexpected fees, and allow consumers to comparison shop among competing cable operators and direct broadcast satellite providers as well as alternative programming providers like streaming services. We also seek comment on the effect of imposing such requirements on other types of multichannel video programming distributors and on our authority to do so. Submit comments on or before July 31, 2023.
 
Synopsis.

Access to clear, easy-to-understand, and accurate information about the pricing of video services helps consumers make informed choices and encourages competition in the market. It does so by empowering consumers with information to comparison shop and to find the video programming services that best meets their needs and matches their budget. Consumers who choose a video service based on an advertised monthly price may be surprised by unexpected fees related to the cost of video programming that raise the amount of the bill significantly. These fees, with names like broadcast TV fee, or regional sports programming surcharge, are listed in the fine print as “fees” or “taxes and surcharges,” separate from the top line listed service price and can result in a bill that is substantially more than the advertised price. This categorization can be potentially misleading and interpreted as a government-imposed tax or fee, instead of a company-imposed service fee increase. This practice can also make it difficult for consumers to compare the service prices of competing video service providers.

In this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), we propose to enhance pricing transparency by requiring cable operators and direct broadcast satellite (DBS) providers to specify the “all-in” price for service in their promotional materials and on subscribers' bills. This proposal would require cable operators and DBS providers to clearly and prominently display the total cost of video programming service. This all-in pricing proposal is intended to give consumers a transparent and accurate reflection of their subscription payment obligations and eliminate unexpected fees. It also seeks to provide consumers with the ability to comparison shop among competing cable operators and DBS providers, and to compare programming costs against alternative programming providers, including streaming services. We also seek comment on whether we should consider expanding the requirements of this proceeding to other types of multichannel video programming providers (MVPDs) and on our authority to do so.
 
FRN: https://www.federalregister.gov/d/2023-13971 [8 pages]

Please log in or register to answer this question.

...