Suddenlink customers around the country are finding accessing the internet has suddenly gotten more expensive. For many service areas, the cable operator raised its rates in December for television and broadband service, with some of the biggest hikes coming from sneaky surcharges.

In many states, the most popular basic bundle already costs $90 a month. The biggest increases have come from “surcharges” which are never a part of Suddenlink’s advertised promotions, surprising many customers on their first bill.

In Arizona, the Broadcast TV surcharge has gone up another $1.61 a month, making customers pay $8.39 a month for a handful of local channels. A separate sports programming surcharge of $5.15 also applies. Suddenlink is also part of the club of cable operators charging customers $10 a month to rent a cable modem. For good measure, the cable operator also wants another dollar a month for its DVR and $3.50 more for broadband. Assorted other fees and surcharges tack on another $4.50 a month.

Suddenlink has already notified some regulators more price hikes are coming in the next several months.

But a Suddenlink spokesperson said there is more good news than bad.

“We provide Suddenlink customers with superior products and services at a great value, continually introducing faster internet speeds and with plans to roll out an enhanced video experience in the coming months,” Janet Meahan, spokeswoman for Suddenlink, told the Daily Miner in Kingman, Ariz. “Our pricing remains extremely competitive in the face of rapidly rising programming costs.”

Mehan also told the newspaper that Suddenlink introduced 1 gigabit internet service in Kingman in October, and provided “complimentary” speed upgrades for residential customers at no extra charge.

“They also had their artificial internet rate hike when they implemented data ‘allowances’ (caps),” retorted Ryan, a Suddenlink customer. “Their upgrades are anything but complimentary.”

Readers report they’ve had success calling Suddenlink and threatening to cancel service over the rate increases. Some report they’ve successfully negotiated their rates down to a level just a dollar or two higher than what they paid two years ago. Customers can also buy their way out of Suddenlink’s data caps by upgrading their service.

New subscribers and existing customers who elect to get an upgrade will automatically be enrolled in an unlimited plan at no extra charge the first year, pay an added $5 a month after 12 months, and an added $10 a month after 24 months. Customers currently subscribing to Suddenlink’s fastest local services may choose to retain their existing usage-based plans or upgrade to an unlimited plan.

Milan Gohil’s customer retention promotion with Time Warner Cable was coming to an end. Following in the footsteps of what tens of thousands of other Time Warner Cable customers have done for the last several years – it was time to call and request another deal.

Unfortunately for Gohil, this year the phone was answered by Charter/Spectrum and not a customer retention specialist at Time Warner Cable. That will be increasingly true for all Time Warner Cable customers as Charter continues its gradual transition towards a Spectrum rebrand across the country. That transition for Bright House customers appears to have been already completed. As a consequence, Time Warner Cable and Bright House offers will be replaced with a “simplified” menu of options from Charter.

For Gohil, a Time Warner Cable Maxx customer, those choices didn’t amount to anything except a speed downgrade and a broken promise.

“I had 200Mbps for $60 a month through Time Warner Cable, but the plan was set to expire in a few days,” Gohil explained. “I spoke to a customer service representative and was told I could upgrade to 300Mbps service for $68 a month, including taxes.”

Believing a good deal was in hand, Gohil readily agreed and while waiting on the phone, the representative activated the new promotion. There was only one problem: Milan ended up with Charter’s default internet plan in Time Warner Cable Maxx service areas converted to Spectrum service – 100Mbps.

“I spoke to a Spectrum tech support agent and was told my account was downgraded and that my TWC legacy pricing was no longer available,” Gohil told Stop the Cap! Trying to get his old 200Mbps Maxx speed plan back at any price proved fruitless.

“I was then put in touch with a Spectrum ‘Customer Solutions’ representative and pleaded with them to reinstate my original TWC legacy plan,” Gohil said. “I was told this was not an option and that if I wanted their Ultra 300 (closest option), there would be a $200 activation fee!”

After an hour of negotiation, Spectrum had won the first battle, leaving a dissatisfied customer behind.

“I had 200Mbps just two hours ago and now have only have half of that. I am EXTREMELY disappointed,” Gohil shared. “I would never have agreed to a drastic reduction in speed to save a few bucks.”

Gohil regrets ever calling Spectrum, and is livid customer service could not restore a plan other Time Warner Cable Maxx customers still have and can keep for the next several years, all because a Spectrum call center agent misrepresented a promotion.

Despite’s Charter’s promises to consumers and regulators that their way of doing business would result in better service at a better price for Time Warner Cable and Bright House customers, many of those converted to Spectrum have told us they’d rather have Time Warner Cable and Bright House back, because more options were available and they were at least open to negotiation.

Finding a supervisor at a problem resolution center proved difficult at first. Time Warner Cable’s executive customer service department, formerly reachable at (212) 364-8300 has been taken over by Spectrum and disconnected. Calls are now being taken by 1-800-892-4357, and that is where we referred Gohil, which turned out to be at least some help.

“After an hour on the line with Spectrum/TWC billing and retention, I was able to get 300Mbps for $80 per month for one year,” said Gohil, but there was a catch. “I was informed that it will go up to $100 in 2018.”

But Spectrum has another nasty surprise in store for customers like Gohil looking for speed upgrades: a $200 activation fee.

Spectrum minimizes the chance customers will encounter this fee by marketing only one internet speed tier to most customers: 60Mbps for most Bright House and non-Maxx Time Warner Cable customers and 100Mbps for those Time Warner customers lucky enough to see Maxx upgrades completed before the cable company was acquired by Charter. Most customer service agents are trained to sell this single internet plan, and we’ve found several not trained to offer customers anything else.

When existing Time Warner Cable or Bright House customers are first converted to a Spectrum plan, the $200 activation fee does not apply. But once a Spectrum customer, any attempt to further upgrade broadband service usually results in a $200 fee. Some customers have managed to negotiate their way out of the fee, but it takes some effort and faith the representative isn’t telling you a tall tale to get you upgraded and off the phone.

“After negotiating with the retention specialist, she implemented the 300Mbps service for me,” Gohil reports. “It was implied that the ridiculous $200 ‘activation fee’ would be waived. However, I wouldn’t be surprised if [it] appears on next month’s bill. I’ll cross that bridge when I get to it.”

For Gohil, cable mergers have never lived up to their promised “consumer benefits” and he’s worried about what is coming next.

“With Trump taking office, it’s certain that broadband consumers are going to continue to be exploited by the telecom duopoly,” writes Gohil. “As a cord cutter and Net Neutrality proponent, I am deeply concerned about the future of America’s broadband landscape.”

Here are some tips from Stop the Cap! for Time Warner Cable and Bright House customers to consider before changing your account.

Time Warner Cable legacy offers in an area not yet switched to Charter Spectrum plans look like this.

If your local area is still being served by Time Warner Cable and their old service plans are still being advertised:

1. If you are on a new customer promotion, have a rebate offer, or a discount you negotiated to remain a customer, Charter will honor the deal until it expires. However, once your offer or the submission deadline for a rebate has been reached, you will probably not be able to negotiate an extension or new offer. Your rates will either gradually or immediately reset to regular pricing and your rebate will be lost.
2. Time Warner Cable seems to have ended most of their customer retention deals under the Time Warner Cable brand, but they are still offering new customer promotional offers. If you are an existing customer facing a rate reset, you can cancel service under your name and sign up with a new customer promotion under the name of another member of your household before the Spectrum plans arrive in your area. This is the only certain method remaining to get a discount off existing Time Warner Cable plans and will generally last one year.
3. You can continue to select any Time Warner Cable legacy service plan advertised on the website, and as long as the transition to Spectrum has not yet happened in your area, you can safely change between those plans. You can also continue an existing plan indefinitely, but you will pay dearly for doing so — eventually forced to pay regular Time Warner Cable pricing which is generally higher than what Charter’s Spectrum plans will cost.

Bright House customers have already been introduced to Charter Spectrum plans.

If you are a Bright House customer (you have already been introduced to Charter Spectrum plans):

1. If you are on a new customer promotion from Bright House or a discount you negotiated to remain a customer, Charter will honor the deal until it expires. However, because your area has now switched exclusively to Charter/Spectrum branding, your current plan has been grandfathered and you cannot change it without losing it and switching to a Spectrum plan.
2. Any “promotion” Charter offers you will be based on a Spectrum plan. You will lose your existing Bright House plan permanently if you accept the offer.
3. Spectrum’s broadband offer will likely default to 60Mbps, which may be a reasonably good deal if you subscribed to a lower speed tier through Bright House itself. Faster speeds may be available but you will need to call to be certain. There is a significant price jump of about $40 a month to upgrade to 100Mbps at regular Charter Spectrum prices. Ask about discounts and if one is available you may want to upgrade immediately. If you decide to upgrade later, you are likely to encounter a $200 upgrade fee.
4. In general, Charter’s offer for Bright House customers will prove initially cheaper than what Bright House offered before at its regular prices. But most Spectrum plans will increase in price after your first and second anniversary unless Charter changes its rate structure. Charter has also strongly discouraged representatives from renewing promotions for existing customers as they expire, so negotiating a better deal is going to be more difficult than before.

When your area has been fully converted to Charter Spectrum, the available plans will look something like this.

If you are a Time Warner Cable Maxx customer now served by Charter/Spectrum (the only plans on the website are branded Spectrum):

1. If you are on a new customer promotion from Time Warner Cable, have a rebate offer from TWC in progress, or a discount you negotiated with TWC to remain a customer, Charter will honor the deal until it expires. However, because your area has now switched exclusively to Charter/Spectrum branding, Charter has a demonstrated history of not honoring requests to renew customer promotions, will not honor rebate requests that have not been already fulfilled by TWC and will not be much help if you have to intervene about a missing rebate.
2. You cannot change your Time Warner Cable Maxx plan features. Once an area has been converted to Spectrum, TWC Maxx plans are grandfathered as-is. If you want to change your plan, you will be offered a Spectrum plan instead. Any “promotion” Charter offers existing Maxx customers will also be based on a Spectrum plan. You will lose your Time Warner Cable Maxx plan permanently if you accept their offer.
3. Choose wisely if you are thinking of moving from Maxx to a Spectrum broadband plan. Spectrum will usually enroll you in their traditional 100Mbps plan by default. If you already have 200 or 300Mbps service, you may see a significant price change switching to Spectrum unless you can negotiate a discount. If you decide to upgrade your speed later, you will also face Charter’s $200 upgrade fee. There are some promotions available that can get 300Mbps service down to about $80/mo for a year, but it will increase to $100/mo the following year. Some customers have successfully negotiated the $200 fee off their bill, but make sure you ask for the name of any representative offering to waive the fee and keep that information handy if the fee shows up anyway.
4. Customer promotions are available for existing customers, but you will have to negotiate and you can expect them to be less generous than what Time Warner Cable offered in the past. Also, Charter has strongly discouraged representatives from renewing promotions as they expire. Charter management is on record stating they feel Time Warner Cable’s tradition of extending ongoing discounts were bad for business.

If you are in a Time Warner Cable area never upgraded to Maxx service -and- you are now served by Charter/Spectrum (the only plans on offer are branded Spectrum):

1. If you are on a new customer promotion from Time Warner Cable, have a rebate offer from TWC in progress, or a discount you negotiated with TWC to remain a customer, Charter will honor the deal until it expires. However, because your area has now switched exclusively to Charter/Spectrum branding, Charter has a demonstrated history of not honoring requests to renew existing customer promotions, will not honor rebate requests that have not been already fulfilled by TWC and won’t be much help if you have to intervene about a missing rebate.
2. You cannot change your current Time Warner Cable plan without switching to an available Spectrum plan.
3. Any “promotion” Charter offers you will be based on a Spectrum plan. You will lose your existing Time Warner Cable plan permanently if you accept the offer.
4. For most customers currently subscribed to a broadband plan up to 30Mbps, Spectrum’s broadband offer will likely be an upgrade worth considering, especially if you are still paying a modem rental fee. Spectrum will widely market just one speed in your area – 60Mbps, and that is the default plan you will get. Because Time Warner Cable already overprovisions their 50/5Mbps Ultimate tier to speeds that approach 60Mbps, Spectrum’s offer will probably be cheaper, but it won’t be faster. Your area will probably also have 100Mbps service available as an alternative, but it won’t be widely advertised. It’s not cheap, adding another $40 a month to your bill. If you think you may want that speed, ask about any discount promotions and sign up at the same time you abandon your Time Warner Cable plan to avoid paying a $200 upgrade fee later on.
5. In general, Charter’s offer for Time Warner Cable customers never upgraded to Maxx will prove initially cheaper than Time Warner Cable’s regular prices. But the rates might not be cheaper if you negotiated a lower bill from Time Warner during the last year. Many Spectrum promotions initially offered are comparable to new customer deals and you can expect rates to increase on your first and second anniversary with Charter, with regular prices returning by the third year. Charter has strongly discouraged representatives from renewing promotions for existing customers as they expire. Charter management is on record stating they feel Time Warner Cable’s practice of offering ongoing discounts were bad for business.

Savannah, Ga.

The very idea that a city would get involved in selling better broadband service to its residents has sparked a coordinated campaign to sully municipally owned providers and color the results of an ongoing study to determine if Savannah, Ga. is getting the kind of internet access it needs.

While the city and county continue their Broadband Fiber-Optic Feasibility Study and survey residents about incumbent providers including AT&T, Comcast, and Hargray Communications, an organized pressure campaign coordinated by the Chatham County GOP is well underway to undermine any idea the city should compete against the three dominant local internet providers.

“The purpose of this study is to examine how we are currently served with broadband infrastructure, particularly focused on the services available to our community residents, anchor institutions, businesses, and key services like public safety, health and education,” a Savannah city spokesperson told Stop the Cap!

The city’s goal is to: “confirm that residents, anchor institutions and businesses have access to the services they need and that those services are competitively priced.” Incumbent providers are betting the answer to that question will likely be no and have started early opposition to discourage the city from attempting to build its own broadband network. Comcast and AT&T have apparently teamed up with the local Chatham County GOP to defend current providers in suspiciously similar-sounding letters to the editor.

Consider two examples.

About a month ago, Stephen Plunk, executive secretary of the Chatham County Republican Party, liberally sprinkled talking points provided by outside think tanks in an editorial published by the Savannah Morning News:

The Savannah Morning News published this ominous illustration adjacent to a guest editorial from a Chatham County GOP official opposing public broadband.

Only 6,000 residents in Chatham County, out of about 280,000, do not have access to wired internet of any sort. About 90 percent of Savannah residents can choose from two or more wired internet service providers . The city’s current residential providers offer speeds up to 105 mbps, and its 12 business providers offer speeds that are generally between 100 mbps and one gigabit.

Private providers also are making big new investments here. Last year, Hargray Communications announced a plan to offer one gigabit speeds to Lowcountry customers. In March, Comcast announced its intention to offer 10-gigabit speeds to city businesses. Last month, AT&T said it also will begin offering superfast capacity.

Next, let’s look at whether a city should provide service directly to customers. Or, is it wise? To determine that, the city council must ask itself whether it wants to go down the path of Marietta, which ran its own internet company several years ago but was forced to sell that network at a loss when it failed to turn a profit year after year. Marietta’s mayor eventually admitted the city never should have become an ISP. There are government ISPs that do make a profit every year, but they are rare. Chattanooga’s government-run system is often touted as a model, but the city received more than $100 million from the federal government to get its system started.

This morning, Mary Flanders, chairwoman of the Chatham County GOP wrote essentially the same things in an “opposing views” piece published by the Connect Savannah weekly newspaper (and at least cited some of her sources):

They should proceed carefully. Cautionary tales about municipal broadband networks abound.

Consider the situation in Marietta, the sprawling suburb northwest of Atlanta. Marietta started its own municipal network that stretched along a 210-mile long route. After spending $35 million to build out the network, Marietta earned a grand total of 180 customers.

The then-Mayor said the city couldn’t keep pace with the expenses associated with the constant flood of technology upgrades required to manage a broadband network. The city ultimately sold the network in 2004 for a $20 million loss.

Pacific Research Institute, in a report on municipal broadband, found that “Mariettans had decided that they would rather take a $20.33 million loss than continue to subsidize a municipal telecom venture that was sucking their city dry.”

Marietta may be relatively close to home, but it’s not the only example. Provo, Utah spent $40 million to build its network, only to sell it to Google Fiber for the princely sum of $1. In Groton, Connecticut, taxpayers lost $38 million.

City leaders need to consider the downside risk to municipal services if and when the broadband network fails to attract customers and generate case. The shortfall has to be made up somewhere. Where will the money come from? Tax hikes?

Budget cuts to basic services or to the police or fire department? Try explaining that to voters come election time, especially if the crime rate is on the rise.

According to Kelly McCutcheon, President of the Georgia Public Policy Foundation, typically the consultants are the only ones who come out good on these deals. It would be a bitter pill to swallow by Savannah citizens and city leaders alike.

Let’s dig into some of the specifics on Internet needs in Savannah. Of the 280,000 residents in Chatham County, only 6,000 residents do not have access to wired Internet of any kind. About 90% of Savannah residents can choose from two or more wired Internet service providers (ISPs).

The city’s current residential providers offer speeds up to 105 mbps, and its twelve business providers offer speeds that are generally between 100 mbps and one gigabit, which is considered to be very speedy in the Internet world.

Private providers also are making big new investments in the area. Last year, Hargray Communications announced a plan to offer one gigabit speeds to Lowcountry customers. In March, Comcast announced its intention to offer 10-gigabit speeds to city businesses. Last month, AT&T said it also would begin offering incredibly fast capacity to Savannah entrepreneurs.

On track to be profitable by 2006, local politics forced an early sale of the community fiber network that was succeeding.

Most of these talking points have been debunked by Stop the Cap! over our nine-year history. The examples of municipal broadband failures are so few and far between, we’ve come to recognize them, and many of the shop worn examples provided by the Chatham County Republicans are more than five years old.

In Groton, Conn., the emergence of a municipal provider inspired network upgrades and more competition from Comcast while the phone company Southern New England Telephone (later AT&T and today Frontier Communications) did everything possible to keep the publicly owned provider from offering phone services to customers. In the end, Comcast undercut the municipal provider and AT&T’s deployment of U-verse created problems for the then-rosy revenue projections the municipal provider was depending on to recoup its original construction costs. The network was sold five years ago to a private provider and customers still appreciate the quality of the original network today run by Thames Valley Communications, which rates four out of five stars while its competitors Frontier and Comcast rate two. It would be wrong to assume today’s municipal broadband providers have not learned important lessons and now account for incumbents responding to competition with heavily discounted rate retention plans for customers threatening to leave, as well as network upgrades. Revenue projections have become more conservative, both to deal with unexpected construction costs and the revenue likely to be earned in light of cut-rate plans from the competition. But many customers make the switch anyway, persuaded by the quality and reliability of superior fiber networks, rate stability, and a more responsive level of customer service.

The networks in Provo, Utah and Marietta, Ga., are examples of what happens when politicians opposed to the concept of municipal broadband intentionally meddle with them in an effort to prove an ideological argument or to help move along a pre-conceived sale of publicly owned infrastructure to private companies.

In Provo, the fiber to the home network was built and quickly hamstrung by a Utah state law that forbade the city from selling broadband service to the public. Instead, it had to sell wholesale access to private companies it had to attract, who in turn would provide service to the public. Imagine a marketing campaign for a new provider that required customers to deal with two unfamiliar providers just to sign up.

Christopher Mitchell, who studies municipal networks and advocates for community involvement in broadband, wrote a year ago iProvo was facing serious challenges primarily because politicians and industry lobbyists got in the way:

“Industry lobbyists convinced Utah legislators to restrict local authority over municipal networks to ‘protect’ taxpayers and that argument is still frequently used today by groups opposing local internet choice. The law does not actually revoke local authority to invest in networks, it monkeys around with how local governments can finance the networks and requires that municipalities use the wholesale-only model rather than offering services directly.

“However, the debt-financed citywide wholesale-only model has proven to be the riskiest approach of municipal networks. Building a municipal fiber network where the city can ensure a high level of service is hard and can be a challenge to make work financially. Trying to do that while having less control over quality of service and splitting revenues with 3rd parties is much harder.”

Marietta’s experience with municipal broadband failed only because a new mayor unilaterally declared it an ideological failure and sold the network at a loss for political reasons. We covered that debacle ourselves back in 2012:

In Marietta, the public broadband “collapse” was one-part political intrigue and two-parts media myth.

Marietta FiberNet was never built as a fiber-to-the-home service for residential customers.  Instead, it was created as an institutional and business-only fiber network, primarily for the benefit of large companies in northern Cobb County and parts of Atlanta.  The Atlanta-Journal Constitution reported on July 29, 2004 that Marietta FiberNet “lost” $24 million and then sold out at a loss to avoid any further losses.  But in fact, the sloppy journalist simply calculated the “loss” by subtracting the construction costs from the sale price, completely ignoring the revenue the network was generating for several years to pay off the costs to build the network.

In reality, Marietta FiberNet had been generating positive earnings every year since 2001 and was fully on track to be in the black by the first quarter of 2006.

So why did Marietta sell the network?  Politics.

Marietta’s then-candidate for mayor, Bill Dunway, did not want the city competing with private telecommunications companies.  If elected, he promised he would sell the fiber network to the highest bidder.

He won and he did, with telecommunications companies underbidding for a network worth considerably more, knowing full well the mayor treated the asset as “must go at any price.”  The ultimate winner, American Fiber Systems, got the whole network for a song.  Contrary to claims from that the network was a “failure,” AFS retained the entire management of the municipal system and continued following the city’s marketing plan.  So much for the meme government doesn’t know how to operate a broadband business.

While members of the Chatham County GOP took potshots at outside consultants hired to consider whether Savannah should explore offering community broadband, Ms. Flanders was far more sanguine about her sources: the Pacific Research Institute (PRI) and the Georgia Public Policy Foundation.

In fact, the Pacific “Research Institute” doesn’t do independent research and it’s not an institute. It’s a right-wing, dark money-funded think tank with ties to the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) and the Koch Brothers. The Georgia Public Policy Foundation, like PRI, prides itself on not revealing the sources of its funding, but SourceWatch uncovered their financial ties to the Donors Capital Fund, a corporate-“murky money maze” specifically designed to hide corporate contributions and the motives those companies have to send the money. So it isn’t a stretch to assume that when a think tank suddenly takes an interest in municipal broadband, checks from AT&T, Comcast, and others have proven to be helpful motivators.

When the Berkshire Eagle asked readers to test their internet speeds and share the results, along with opinions about their broadband options, the newspaper hit a nerve.

Over 400 readers in western Massachusetts promptly responded, many with scathing stories about slow speeds and unresponsive customer service.

The newspaper preferred to call it “tortured testimony.”

“It is slow and getting slower,” wrote Bob Rosen, from Otis. “Many times it just says, ‘not responding.'”

“It” is Verizon’s DSL — broadband for the masses of landline customers in Massachusetts unlucky enough not to have FiOS fiber to the home service available before Verizon decided to stop expanding its copper-replacement fiber network. For the last seven years, Verizon’s DSL has remained more or less “as-is,” with no significant service improvements or apparent expansion effort.

Unfortunately, as customer demand for bandwidth grows, performance drops unless providers continually invest in new equipment to manage demand appropriately. Customers in western Massachusetts report Verizon seems to be making do with what they already have, and speeds have suffered.

Douglas Mcnally of Windsor, a member of the Select Board and consultant whose job depends on a good internet connection told the newspaper he really doesn’t have a consistently reliable connection. One test showed a speed of 2.82Mbps, but a second one returned a speed result of 0.64Mbps. Barbara Craft-Reiss from Becket has a connection also topping out at 0.64Mbps.

In Dalton, a customer that repeatedly complained about his 1.5Mbps speed was told that was as good as Verizon DSL was going to get.

“I have had several communications with Verizon and they always say not to expect any more,” the reader told the newspaper. “At times it is so slow the web page expires before it comes up. There are many times it does not work at all.”

On August 13th, 2011, The WiredWest Cooperative in western Massachusetts was officially formed by charter member towns. The project has gained some town, lost some others as the region works towards faster broadband instead of waiting around for Verizon, Comcast, and Charter.

Verizon seemed to echo its “done with DSL” attitude to Robert Rosen who has subscribed since the 1990s at his home in the Otis Woodlands area.

“In the beginning, the signal was very strong. Every six months I would call Verizon and see if I could get a stronger signal. Sometimes it was boosted, however in the past several years I have been told by Verizon I am at max strength,” Rosen said.

But at least he could subscribe. Verizon customer service agents have warned some customers if they drop DSL service, they cannot come back. Bob Johnson dropped his 2Mbps Verizon DSL account — the one he inherited under the previous account-holder’s name.

“I was told that if I cancelled the previous owner’s account, I would not be able to get an account at all,” Johnson reported.

A Verizon spokesperson claimed DSL is still available in Verizon’s FiOS-less service areas, as long as the customer’s line passes a loop qualification test. Only ISDN has been decommissioned in certain service areas, the spokesperson claimed.

But Stop the Cap! has heard from countless Verizon customers who share stories of deteriorating performance and disinterest in improving service, and customer service agents won’t even sell DSL to customers without bundling landline phone service.

“They are just letting the old telephone network fall apart piece by piece,” claims John Landis, a Verizon DSL customer outside of Buffalo, N.Y. “The investment is just not clear anymore. When is the last time Verizon introduced a new service on their wired network, such as faster internet speeds? We’re living with a company where time has stopped, unless you are on Verizon Wireless.”

Verizon’s apparent disinterest in selling DSL broadband has proved to be a significant benefit for cable operators that continue to take market share from the phone company. Strategy Analytics reports cable companies added more than three million new subscribers from 2015 on. Cable operators now have a 62% broadband market share, compared to just 15% for DSL, a percentage that has dropped for years. (Fiber broadband now accounts for a 23% share.)

“The telco operators haven’t been able to shake off the losses of DSL subscribers, but we expect to see increased fiber deployments in the coming quarters, which should help AT&T and Verizon return to growth,” Jason Blackwell, director of Strategy Analytics’ Service Provider Strategies Service said last summer. But much of that growth seems to be targeted for urban and suburban areas, not rural areas where DSL is often the only available broadband technology.

Cable broadband is generally not available in rural areas.

Despite telco claims that wireless broadband alternatives will eventually solve the rural broadband problem, Blackwell is skeptical.

“The reality is fixed broadband is continuing to grow in the U.S., and not being replaced by mobile broadband as some have reported,” he claimed. “The cable operators are driving the growth with increased speeds and multiplay bundles.”

The availability of a cable competitor has helped some in western Massachusetts resolve their broadband problems, but only in communities where cable operators exist. Many western Massachusetts residents are still waiting for community-owned gigabit-capable fiber broadband through the WiredWest project.

In late 2015, politics from the governor’s office put a “pause” on all state “last-mile broadband” projects and a sudden policy shift required each town to own its own network infrastructure despite the widely expressed desire on the local level for a regional approach. More than a year later, the project to improve broadband across the western half of the state is still trapped by bureaucratic interference, allowing the state’s big cable and phone companies to continue the status quo with no alternatives on the immediate horizon.

As of late December, the project is gathering support for sending a resolution to state officials reaffirming their request to allow local communities involved in the project to determine their broadband future without onerous requirements from the governor’s office.

Without WiredWest, the future is not good. Unless Verizon changes its mind about broadband deployment in western Massachusetts or cable operators Charter and Comcast spontaneously expand their service areas, readers of the Berkshire Eagle can expect more of what staff writer Larry Parnass summed up in two words: extreme disappointment.

Starting tomorrow, new customers signing up for AT&T’s 100+ channel streaming television package will pay $60 a month, up from the $35 promotional price AT&T has been advertising during the holidays.

Today is the last day customers can lock in the $35/month price, and those willing to pay in advance will receive either an Amazon Fire TV Stick (prepay one month) or a 4th generation 32GB Apple TV (prepay three months).

Since launching, DirecTV Now has received mixed reviews. Many customers like the wide range of popular cable channels, and access to HBO and Cinemax for just $5 a month each. But early after launch technical glitches also proved frustrating for many subscribers. Among the most common are cryptic error messages that claim viewers are attempting to stream from outside the U.S. and another that claims customers have too many concurrent streams running. Several app updates have been released to deal with the problems, and complaints seem to be easing.

AT&T hasn’t reported how many customers convert from its free trial to become paying customers, but some analysts remain skeptical if customers without cable television care about a streaming package of linear TV, even at the $35 price point.

Fool.com:

When it first launched, Sling TV seemed like it would be a big hit. That has not proven to be the case possibly because the cord-cutting audience has learned to live without cable and the cord-never folks (people who never had cable in the first place) perhaps don’t miss what they never had.

[…] By putting an end date on this promotion, AT&T can gauge whether enough interest exists in live-streaming television for the company to continue. These are products that seem like a good idea, that have so far been rejected by the marketplace.

That may be because even the top packages from the live-streaming services have holes compared to cable. In most cases they are missing at least some broadcast networks and their interfaces — while not bad for a digital product — are clunky compared to just flipping around with a remote control.

It’s also very possible that cord-cutters and cord-nevers are finding their entertainment elsewhere.

Rutledge: Not worried about the competition

The CEO of Charter Communications continues to consider “cable TV alternatives” like Sling TV and DirecTV Now not much of a threat, because customers appreciate the convenience of having local channels and DVR capability available, and cable operators claim they provide a better set-top box experience.

“I think there’s a lot of reasons why the packages, the big rich packages, will stay together, and why people will continue to pursue their historic [consumer] patterns,” CEO Thomas Rutledge told the annual Citi 2017 Internet, Media and Telecommunications Conference in Las Vegas.

For many ordinary cable TV customers, taking the final step of canceling cable TV has been more psychologically difficult than dropping services like a landline phone because the alternatives available in the marketplace do not yet match the quality and convenience of the cable package.

AT&T apparently also believes a-la-carte cable TV sounds better in theory than practice, considering its marketing efforts have focused on a cable television replacement that most closely resembles traditional cable’s bloated TV lineup. Sling TV’s slim package has not been as successful in the marketplace as some investors had hoped.

For AT&T, there may be more at stake than just a standalone streaming television package. The company announced last week it planned to provide DirecTV Now over its 5G wireless network it plans to test in Austin later this year.

AT&T wants to see how 5G networks manage heavy video streaming traffic, according to a company news release. The development of 5G, which can achieve 14Gbps speeds in lab tests, could be critically important to AT&T’s plan to gradually decommission wired networks in its rural telephone service areas. Should AT&T be able to demonstrate 5G is a more robust replacement for traditional wired communications networks, it could bolster its argument to discontinue wired telephone and broadband service. But it could also mean the eventual end of DirecTV’s costly fleet of satellites in favor of broadband and wireless distribution.