I get it. Prices are going up. It happens everywhere and is inevitable. OK. But WTH is with separating out the $5 and the $3. So the $3 is for Broadcast TV surcharge, but are you telling me that none of that $5 increase is due to increase in the cost of programming? The letter went on at some length about how much programming costs are increasing. I took it to mean that the $5 has to do with that too.
It seems to me breaking it apart is quite dishonest and a way to skirt the issue. And since it's being listed as a surcharge, I'm wondering...is this $3 fee going to be included in the package price, or is it going to be a separate surcharge they tack on so they can advertise a lower price? The wording in the letter seems to suggest that. If so, then why don't they just list the entire cost of all programming as a surcharge. Then they can say their service is only $20/month and then in fine print list the $50 programming surcharge.
It seems Charter did this a few years ago so others have done it. This is from UVerse:
Beginning with the February 2013 bill invoices, there will be a separate Broadcast TV Surcharge of up to $1.99 per month. This surcharge is to recover a portion of the amount local broadcasters charge AT&T to carry their channels.
Seems this will NOT be part of the package price but more like a tax say as your cell company charges.
reply to LordKronos It's total bull$hit that these broadcast stations are allowed to charge cablecos for the same programming they are broadcasting over the air. This combined with the robbery being performed by outfits like ESPN, etc are the reasons for the price increases period!