Letter: Is anyone regulating this?

Every time I turn around the costs keep going UP UP UP ... Fifty-five percent of our town is living from month to month on fixed incomes while Suddenlink lines it’s pockets at our expense.

Now you require customers to have set-top boxes to keep getting television – if they were free, this would not be a problem

In the last 3 years. I have seen my bill go from $88 to $112 to $118, then to $120 and on and on. This is an increase of nearly 75 percent and my current bill is now over $140.

How much longer will you be gouging seniors for the nearly 150 channels no one will ever watch. Do you really think seniors are ever going to listen to nearly 50 music stations? Really?

Now with the added cost of these boxes (I need four) my cost will ultimately jump to nearly $150 – nearly doubling since you bought out “Kingman” Cable.

Your lame attempt to justify the higher prices by claiming you’re upgrading/improving our viewing experience is sad to say the least. Most people of my age would prefer lower costs over so-called improvements.

But as someone who is on a very low fixed-income – TV was the only form of entertainment we could afford, but not any longer. If this escalation of my bill continues to rise, I will have cancel my TV services altogether. Thank you very much for that.

My household doesn’t want or need 200-plus channels. We have a core of roughly 48 channels that we like. But when push comes to shove, we really only watch 10 or 15 regularly. Why don’t you offer a 100-channel package or (in the case of most seniors) a 50-channel package that we can actually afford.

In the next few weeks, I am going to be asking my lawmakers to sponsor a bill that will force the issue – and I will be encouraging everyone on my various social networks (Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, Instagram..etc.) to do the same.

Too long has Suddenlink lined it’s corporate pockets at our expense.

Gene Harvey