Hacker News Reader

Comment by chadash | Hacker News Reader

I called up comcast/xfinity to get internet service. They asked me if I'd like to add on basic cable for $10/month. I don't watch much TV, but I figured for $10/month I'd be willing to do it for the occasional live event. So I agreed to it on top of the $40/month internet. I figured I'll be paying $55ish/month when you factor the taxes I'll be paying to Uncle Sam. After 20 minutes on the phone, we get to the final payment authorization. "Do you authorize me to charge your credit card $68/month?" I asked why so much higher than the $40 + $10 amount?

Apparently, there was an $11 "content delivery fee" for the TV. As if buying the cable channels and having them "delivered" to my home are different freaking things. As if you can buy the rights to watch cable at the comcast store, but if you want it at home, you gotta pay an extra $11.

These companies are going to whine and scream about these changes, but they really brought this on themselves.

View on HN

> These companies are going to whine and scream about these changes, but they really brought this on themselves.

Yeah, as the article said, one guy states that they'll just push the cost to other consumers - but this isn't cost, it's ridiculous profit margins.

The problem isn't so much the price that they charge people, it's that they cannot substantiate these costs - they're extra profit, pure and simple.

But this is a thing ingrained in US culture, charging additional fees on top of the base fee for anything - I'm thinking of tipping culture as well, which evolved from a "I really appreciate what you did" thank-you, to a "We don't pay our staff enough so we expect you to pay us extra to compensate". Shameful. I'm glad the US seems to have a resurgence of unions and people are standing up to it.

> but this isn't cost, it's ridiculous profit margins

Profit margins are a different discussion. If you charge me $20 for a cookie or you charge me $15 + a $5 baking fee, your profit margins are the same. We can argue either way that they are ridiculous. But you shouldn't be able to advertise that you sell $15 cookies if there's no way to buy them for $15.

Another trick is price changes by some popularity metric. Advertise 15 dollar cookies, but only charge 15 if it is after 6pm and the cookies are cold. Peak hours? That’ll be $25.

Assuming the company's main product is a hot cookie, then I take issue with this particular example, because a cold cookie is really a different product. But in general, I have no issue with peak pricing. I'm okay with you advertising a low price if it's something that a reasonable person might be able to take advantage of (e.g., I'm not okay with you advertising $15 cookies if that price only applies between 1:48 and 1:52 AM).

That’s why I don’t tip at coffee shops - if my espresso is $4, and it doesn’t include your labor, then what does it include? Coffee beans and water cost like .25

Other countries even have laws mandating that prices posted in stores include tax. Of course, if you suggest such a mandate in the US, you'll hear a well rehearsed litany of excuses about why it isn't possible.

They're already pushing the cost to consumers! They just shouldn't be able to lie about prices. Which you'd think consumer protection and truth-in-advertising laws would already cover, but evidently not.

>The problem isn't so much the price that they charge people, it's that they cannot substantiate these costs - they're extra profit, pure and simple.

Since money is fungible, isn't it true by definition that any mandatory fees are "pure profit"?

Same for stuff like the "regulatory compliance fee" on cell phone plans. Folks, that's part of your price.

Or 911 access fees…

Most of this junk fee stuff is about pricing transparency and the way it complicates consumer comparisons; the bottom line is going to stay the same.

I have some sympathy with businesses that want to break out government surcharges into a separate line item; but as the article indicates most stuff isn't in that category.

"Regulatory compliance" isn't a government surcharge, though. It'd be like tacking on a "paying our employees" fee. It's part of their costs of doing business; factor it into the price.

I don't mind if the bottom lines stay the same. Right now, I can't compare bottom lines, because the real bottom line is hidden. Is the $50/night hotel cheaper than the $100/night one? No one knows, unless they spend the time to get all the way to the final booking step on both (or more realistically, dozens of) options.

>"Regulatory compliance" isn't a government surcharge

Sure; but the 911 fee is, as is the local utility user fee and the public and educational broadcasting fee; and (to be clear) I am saying that I don't mind them being broken out for billing purposes - the only reason they're not when advertising is because of the race-to-the-bottom on pricing transparency.

If I can't opt-out of the 911 fee, it's part of the price. It should be included in the price they advertise to me. The last time I modified my cell phone plan, the representative admitted they couldn't tell me what the resulting new cost would be. That's insane.

My bill includes a "Administrative Fee", "Federal Universal Service Charge", "Regulatory Cost Recovery Charge", "State Telecommunications Excise Surcharge", "County Public Safety Communications Surcharge", and "State Public Safety Communications Surcharge", plus several taxes.

>If I can't opt-out of the 911 fee, it's part of the price. It should be included in the price they advertise to me.

Hmm, I actually agree with you, but that would be raising the bar above where it is for normal pricing practice elsewhere in the U.S. e.g. shelf and menu prices exclude sales tax. In fact, for digitally-delivered services or goods that ship across state lines, it's impossible to know the final price unless you know the state (and, indeed, county and sometimes city) to which it's going to be delivered.

At least the mandatory fees apply across the board which means you can still price shop somewhat accurately. The completely made up corporate fees like “resort fees” are just a way to obscure the actual price. I think that’s probably stating it too nicely. It’s a way to advertise an artificially deflated price that’s impossible for any customer to actual pay. It’s deceptive. Intentionally.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com