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.

Child advocacy and privacy groups are calling on the Federal Trade Commission to investigate several smartwatch brands and the risks they pose to children, part of a global effort, they said. They also want them pulled from store shelves.

The groups, which include Consumers Union, Public Citizen and the Center for Digital Democracy, said in a filing with the FTC that the watches, essentially wearable smartphones, have "significant" security flaws and lack privacy protections.

Privacy groups are filing similar complaints in Belgium, Denmark, the Netherlands, Sweden, Germany and the UK.

The research that led to the filings was conducted by the Norwegian Consumer Council, the same group whose investigation prompted a complaint against the Cayla "smart" doll over similar data security concerns.

Related Video: #WatchOut (by the Norwegian Consumer Council)

While the watches are meant to allow parents to keep up with their children, the groups said research has shown that a stranger can "take control of the watch with a few simple steps, allowing them to eavesdrop on conversations the child is having with others, track and communicate with the child, and access stored data about the child’s location."

The groups argued that violates both Sec. 5 prohibitions on false and deceptive practices and the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act.

"The devices create a new vulnerability that allows a third party to find a young child at precisely the time when the child is separated from a parent or guardian," they said.

Related: Markey, Barton Press Mattel on Baby Monitor Privacy

"The Trump Administration and the Congress must bring America’s consumer product safety rules into the 21st century,” said Jeff Chester of the Center for Digital Democracy. “In the rush to make money off of kids’ connected digital devices, manufacturers and retailers are failing to ensure these products are truly safe. In today’s connected world that means protecting the privacy and security of the consumer — especially of children.

"Both the FTC and the CPSC [Consumer Product Safety Commission] must be given the power to regulate the rapidly growing Internet of Things marketplace,” he added. "These devices are supposed to give parents peace of mind and enable secure communications. But some can be hacked; they don’t use encryption, and the 'SOS' function may not work."

Chester was one of the earliest and strongest voices for more child privacy and data protections given the potential of online platforms, and now the growing internet of things, to collect and share information.

The groups gave the FTC credit for having extended privacy protections to children and recognizing the risks of interconnected devices, but said the FTC in the past has also failed to take enforcement action on previous complaints about child safety.

They cited, for example, a 2010 agreement between New York state and a company that stopped selling kids' online conversations to marketers, a complaint consumer groups also lodged with the FTC, which took no action.

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.