The average broadband speed is up from 173 megabits per second in 2022 to 304 Mbps, but average monthly ISP prices have increased by around $9 to $85 over the same span.

And more than half of the 48,000 members it surveyed, Consumer Reports said, gave their internet service provider an unfavorable rating in the company's third annual dive into internet service quality and satisfaction. 

“We’ve observed consistent dissatisfaction among CR members in recent years when it comes to their telecommunication services, and internet service is no exception,” Tian Wang, senior survey research associate at CR, said. “In fact, telecommunication services are some of the least popular of all the services that CR members help us to rate.”

Speaking broadly, fiber-based service providers scored the highest, with 69% of customers reporting to be “completely” or “very” satisfied, vs. just 39% for cable. 

Among individual providers, Greenlight Networks, which serves municipalities in New York’s Rochester, Buffalo, Binghamton and Albany areas, scored highest in the survey, a “95.” Meanwhile, Chattanooga, Tennessee, municipal broadband service, EPB ranked second with a 92.

Allo Fiber, Google Fiber, GoNetSpeed and Sonic also were on the top side of the list.

Scoring worst (14 points each) were satellite broadband providers Viasat Internet and HughesNet. Other poor performers included Comcast Xfinity (28), CenturyLink’s Lumen (25), Mediacom’s Xtream (25) and Altice’s Optimum (20).

So yeah, we just listed cable companies serving millions of American homes as “other poor performers.”

Service monopolies remain a barrier to quality in many regions. Nearly half of those surveyed said they had two or fewer options for ISPs. 

Consumer Reports is telling the Federal Communications Commission that, according to many of its members, some cable and telecom broadband operators are continuing to charge for modems or routers even when consumers are using their own equipment and the agency should investigate.

The FCC has been seeking comment on compliance with the Television Viewer Protection Act of 2019, which included prohibiting charging subs a modem or router rental fee if they are using their own equipment, a prohibition the consumer advocacy group has pushed for.

Also: FCC Extends Truth-in-Billing Deadline

CR said it polled its members about that issue and received more than 350 responses. Some members said their provider was complying, but “many more” stories suggested ISPs were violating the law either by charging for equipment consumers weren‘t using, or by trying to pressure subs to rent from the provider by refusing to troubleshoot “service disruptions” for those who opted out of renting, CR said. 

“Such practices result in de facto situations where consumers feel pressured or forced to rent equipment that they would prefer to own instead,” CR told the commission.

CR conceded it had not verified the accuracy of the accounts, but said that because of the number of allegations of illegal conduct, they “merit further investigation by the commission.”

The FCC arguably has a financial interest in such an investigation. Billions in broadband subsidies overseen by the agency include reimbursements for ISP modem and router rental fees, so if there are phantom charges, the government could be footing some of that bill. ■

Consumer Reports, along with a laundry list of partners, has launched an online tool to help figure out how much people are actually paying for broadband.

The Broadband Together initiative is looking to collect copies of users‘ monthly bills “so we can find out what we’re really getting for our money, and advocate for a better internet that costs less,” CR said.

Also Read: Biden Budget Asserts Broadband Too Expensive

“For too long, the true cost and quality of internet service has been hidden and obscured,“ Consumer Reports president Marta Tellado said. “We want to shine a light on what’s really happening, so every American can have the quality internet they need to succeed today and into the future.”

A coalition of Broadband Together supporters (see below) will use that info to push ISPs and government officials for “greater access to fair, affordable, reliable internet services,” arguing that ”some consumers spend more money for less service, thanks to confusing pricing, and too many people simply cannot get online because there is no service where they live, or they cannot afford it.“

It will be preaching to the choir when it comes to the Biden administration, which is pushing billions of dollars in subsidies for competitive, high-speed, low-cost broadband, suggesting broadband is currently not fast enough or affordable enough or its provision competitive enough to be “available” to all even where it is technically available.

Also Read: White House Paints Depressing Portrait of Broadband

Broadband Together coalition partners include Access Now, American Library Association, Amerind, Benton Institute for Broadband & Society, BroadbandNow, Color of Change, Institute for Local Self-Reliance, mLab, National Digital Inclusion Alliance, New America’s Open Technology Institute, Public Knowledge, Rural Assembly, Southern California Tribal Chairmen's Association, the American Economic Liberties Project, Coded Bias, Common Cause NY, Community Tech New York, Connect Humanity, the Hispanic Technology and Telecommunications Partnership (HTTP), Mozilla Foundation, National Consumers League (NCL), Next Century Cities, and the United Church of Christ.

Consumer Reports is celebrating Virginia Governor Ralph Northam's signing of the Consumer Data Protection Act.

“This is a historic moment for privacy rights,” said CR senior policy analyst Maureen Mahoney. “Virginia is now just the second state [after California] to pass a comprehensive privacy bill. While we're pleased that Virginians will have new privacy rights, legislators should continue working in the next session to strengthen it. This bill has some important privacy provisions, but consumers need more practical options for controlling their data.”

Also Read: Virginia Passes Consumer Privacy Bill

It establishes standards for data control and processing but does not apply to state or local governments and has exceptions for types of data and information governed by federal law. 

Consumers have the right to access, correct, or delete their personal information and obtain a copy of that information, as well as to opt out of the processing of personal data for targeted advertising. 

Also Read: Ad Group Proposes Privacy Bill

The bill does not go into effect until January 2023.

“Shop Around” is one of the most common — and vital — options consumers have when in search of a lower price or better deal. Even here at Consumer Reports, the organization I lead, we often recommend it to shoppers. But today, when it comes to cable TV and internet, millions of consumers don’t really have that choice.

Charter Communications has started increasing the base price for its broadband internet services and increasing fees for all of its Spectrum cable customers. Those fees are the add-on charges generally buried in the fine print at the bottom of your bill. Charter’s fee increases include:

• The broadcast TV surcharge will go up $1, from $8.85 to $9.95 a month.
• Spectrum Receivers (aka your cable box) will go from up $0.51, from $6.99 to $7.50 a month.
• The digital adapter price will go up $1, from $4.99 to $5.99 a month.

A $2.51 per month increase might seem small at first glance — but as ticky-tack fees pile up, they can quickly turn into budget-busters. Combined with price increases, Charter customers now face shelling out nearly $100 more per year. And, let’s not overlook that as the nation’s second largest cable and broadband provider, Charter’s Spectrum service (and paying those fees) is the only choice for 38 million Americans, according to a recent report by the Institute for Local Self-Reliance.

A Universal Trend

The growth of the “fee economy” isn’t unique to cable — we see it from travel fees to ticket fees and beyond — but Big Cable has certainly embraced these add-on charges with open arms. Cable fees are on the rise, with customers paying as much as 50% more each year.

Related: TRUE Fees Act Update

What’s almost more disappointing is how hard the cable industry works at disguising fees, making it difficult for consumers to know the total price they’ll pay and what, exactly, they’re paying for. In confirming these price increases, Charter executives said there would be no changes to cable and voice package prices, which is really just a technicality. Fees that aren’t optional listed on a bill as separate from the package pricing still means more money out of our pockets. It’s disingenuous at best for Charter to claim that prices aren’t increasing.

Consumer frustration has also reached lawmakers in Washington. The TRUE Fees Act, introduced by Representative Anna Eshoo, would fix this problem by requiring service providers to advertise the total price of a service, including all fees, and by providing protections for consumers who have been wrongfully charged.

Consumer Reports supports this bill, with Charter’s latest move serving as a perfect example of why it’s so necessary. Since cable fees hit all consumers, no matter what side of the aisle they sit on, we’re hopeful that this simple, straightforward, and effective legislation will get high ratings with members of Congress.

Marta Tellado is president and CEO of Consumer Reports.

Consumer Reports magazine and its advocacy affiliate Consumers Union are ganging up this month on cable fees and bundling.

They've launched a "What's the Fee" (WTF) online assault on system operators, with Comcast as its first target. Meanwhile, the 12-page cover story, "Take Control of Cable TV," in Consumer Reports's August issue, lays out an eight-step plan for cord-cutting, or at least cord-shaving. The section includes advice on "cable replacement services," including streaming media.

The core element in the magazine report is a section on "Cable TV's Sneaky Fees," which is step one in Consumers Union's attack on extra fees that "inflate the costs" for purchases across industries ranging from utilities and airlines to entertainment and banks. The non-profit organization said a couple of weeks ago that it delivered "more than 110,000 petition signatures to Comcast ... calling on the company to address the issue" of extra fees.

In its tally of fees -- most of which CR contended should be included in the core bill -- the magazine totaled up to $71 in monthly fees, including sports surcharges, digital video recorder service, set-top boxes and "High Definition Technology" charges. In addition, cable bills include broadcast retransmission fees which, CR said, should be "baked into the advertised price."

“It’s time for Comcast and the cable industry as a whole to ditch these fees, and advertise the full price of their service so that consumers aren’t left asking ‘WTF?’ when they get their bill,” according to published reports of the comments by John Schwantes, senior policy counsel for Consumers Union.

Comcast responded, in a corporate statement to the Philadelphia Inquirer, that its "Xfinity bill was designed ... to make it simple to understand.” It insisted that “broadcast television and regional sports network fees are itemized" so that subscribers can "clearly see those costs." A company spokesman also told the local newspaper that consumers receive "a complete list of charges and fees ... as part of our sales process.”

Consumer Reports said it started its WTF campaign because complaints about cable fees are so frequent. It said that more than 25,000 of the petition signers identified Comcast as their biggest problem -- approximately reflecting the company's share of the total U.S. Multichannel Video Programming Distributor subscriber base.

The campaign and the August cover story continue a decades-long look at cable by Consumers Union and Consumer Reports. As long ago as 1987 the magazine ran a "Cable TV" cover story, focused on questions such as, "Are the service and the programming worth the money?" In 2004, Consumers Union presented to policymakers the results of a nationwide survey that found two-third of cable subscribers wanted an à la carte "option to select the channels in their plan" and 30% "would pick fewer channels even without proportionate savings." When the Senate was deliberating cable legislation in 2009, CU pushed for unbundling channels so that decisions about what to buy "would be best left to consumers themselves."

Related: Roku Hits Back at ‘Consumer Reports’

Consumer Reports, which has about six million members/subscribers, has been the name of the parent membership organization since 2012, when it reorganized and made Consumers Union its political advocacy subsidiary. Prior to then, CU was the parent non-profit, with CR the monthly magazine and buyer's guide.

The August CR articles encourage viewers to consider a move to "free" over-the-air broadcasting, and includes a list of 10 recommended TV antennas to receive that service. It lays out packages of skinny bundles and over-the-top services (e.g., Netflix, Hulu, SlingTV and DirecTV Now) that separately or collectively could shave $100 or more from a monthly cable bill. 

It also recommends that customers who want to move to a lower tier of cable TV service should "bypass regular customer service and ask to speak to a customer retention specialist" when they contact their local provider.

Another sidebar in the long report recommends "The Best Streaming Media Players." The report acknowledges that customers would still need to buy a broadband access service (probably from the cable carrier) and could be subjected to future price or packaging revisions.

Roku has hit back against a new Consumer Reports study finding that smart TVs from makers such as Samsung, LG Electronics, Sony, Vizio and TCL (which makes a line of Roku-powered TVs) are vulnerable to hackers, holding that they can be broken into to track what viewers are watching.

As USA Today notes, Consumer Reports said it was able to break into a TCL/Roku TV using a feature that Roku developed that enables remote use of a remote control on other platforms, including smartphones.

"What we found most disturbing about this, was the relative simplicity of," how easy it was to hack those products, Glenn Derene, Consumer Reports' senior director of content, told the publication.

Gary Ellison, Roku’s VP of trust engineering, posted a blog item holding that Consumer Reports “got it wrong,” at least with respect to how Roku's platform was characterized.

“This is a mischaracterization of a feature,” he wrote. “It is unfortunate that the feature was reported in this way. We want to assure our customers that there is no security risk.”

Ellison acknowledged that Roku enables outside developers to create remote control applications that consumers can use to control their Roku product using an open interface, and added that consumers also have the ability to turn off that feature.

He also said Roku’s support of ACR (automatic content recognition), another technology that Consumer Reports viewed as a vulnerability because it can be used to target ads, is an opt-in feature.

But, as USA Today rightly points out, data gathering practices and general privacy issues with smart TVs have been drawing scrutiny.

About a year ago, for example, Vizio agreed to pay $2.2 million to settle federal and state charges that millions of its connected TVs were collecting viewing data without the consumer’s knowledge or consent.

Consumer Reports said a new survey shows that most Americans want the FCC to keep the net-neutrality rules intact.

That survey was released Wednesday (Sept. 27), designated by pro-Title II groups as a day of Hill advocacy for preserving 2015 Open Internet Order based on common-carrier rules.

Related: Title II Fans Prep for Advocacy Day

The survey found that 57% of respondents support the current rules, while 16% oppose them (27% had no opinion).

Asked whether internet service providers should be able to choose which websites, apps or streaming services customers can access, 67% said no, though ISPs would argue that they would not be doing that whether the current rules remain or are rolled back.

The poll is included in a story on the Consumer Reports website under the headline and deck: "Survey: Consumers Favor Strong Net-Neutrality Rules; Majority of respondents think internet providers should be barred from discriminating against lawful content."

Consumers Union, the policy arm of Consumer Reports, said the survey shows why FCC chair Ajit Pai's plan to reclassify ISPs as information services not subject to common-carrier rules and revisit the Open Internet Order rules against blocking, throttling and paid prioritization should be rejected.

Legislators have for years been trying to come up with a bill to clarify the FCC's network-neutrality regulatory authority, without success.

“This survey makes it very clear that the majority of Americans support net-neutrality rules, while the FCC is running in the opposite direction,” said Jonathan Schwantes, senior policy counsel for Consumers Union, in a statement accompanying the survey results. “If the FCC repeals these rules, it would be giving a green light to an internet service provider to play favorites with its preferred websites, while saddling other sites with slower speeds and higher hurdles to reach consumers."

The survey, weighted for age, gender, region, race/ethnicity and education, was of 1,005 U.S. adults 18 and older, conducted by phone July 20-23. The margin of error is plus or minus 3.1 percentage points.

The questions were not available at press time.

The new 4K-capable Roku 4 and Acorn TV, an over-the-top service specializing in British TV,  were the top-ranked products in a new study on streaming devices and services from Consumer Reports.

CR’s review included a mix of subscription, ad-supported and pay-per-view online video services. Acorn TV, praised by readers for its overall value, posted a score of 76, edging out Netflix (74), Apple iTunes (74), Vudu (72), and HBO Now and Amazon  Video (71 each).

Further back in the pack were Hulu (68), Sling TV (60) and Blockbuster (56). Per CR, a score of 100 would mean that all respondents were completely satisfied, 80 would be very satisfied, 60 would be fairly well satisfied, and 40 somewhat dissatisfied.

The study also looked at which services are the most popular among consumers who already get Netflix. Despite its high ranking in the report, Acorn TV (1%) had the lowest score here (a score shared by M-Go/FandangoNow), while Amazon (Prime and Video ) was highest, at 46%.

On the device side, Roku 4 posted a ranking of 81, cited for its excellent picture quality, features, and connectivity, followed by the Roku 3 (76), Roku 2 (72), Amazon Fire TV (71). Among other notables were the Chromecast (69), Apple TV fourth-gen (67), Fire TV Stick (65), and Google Nexus Player (63). At the bottom of the heap: Mohu Channels (60) and Vudu Spark (36).

Consumer Reports also dove into the cord-cutting trend. A survey of 1,000 U.S. adults conducted in February and an analysis of an annual questionnaire to its 82,000 subscribers found that 47% of them use some type of streaming service.

However, 68% of them still subscribe to a traditional pay TV service.

“Perhaps more surprising is that nearly three-fourths of cable subscribers deciding to keep cable say they won’t drop it because they’re relatively happy with their provider,” CR noted.

About 20% who have a subscription of PPV streaming service said they had cut back on their pay TV service in the past year, but 72% said they were satisfied with their current plan when asked why they were keeping their cable service.

Among other reasons: 49% liked having a DVR, 34% said it would be a hassle to change service, and 30% said it was the only option to get their TV shows.

The study also found that rising pay TV rates were the biggest motivator for scaling back or eliminating their pay TV service.