RMA committee takes steps to find alternatives to running cable system
A special meeting of the Rancho Murieta Association Communications Committee was held Tuesday to establish a committee to quickly study alternatives to having the RMA run the cable system. Meanwhile, plans to launch new programming on the upgraded cable system, completed recently at a cost of hundreds of thousands of dollars, are still on hold.
"The infrastructure is, by and large, all done," General Manager David Stiffler reported to the group. "It's just the programming now." Negotiations for the new channel lineup are expected to be completed in early May.
The search for alternatives to operating the system, which the RMA has dubbed Plan B, was previously regarded as a back-up to the multi-year cable improvement plan. It has taken on a new urgency because of a movement to make participation in the cable system voluntary. Plan B options are sell, lease, subcontract operation of the system or shut it down.
RMA members now pay about $30 a month for basic cable service as part of their dues. The RMA cable system provides basic TV programming, premium TV channels and broadband service for the community.
The options appear in an outline for the ad hoc committee prepared by Stiffler and Communications Committee member Carol Anderson. Committee members were asked to review and comment on the outline before it goes to the RMA board. They were also asked to indicate if they want to be considered for the committee. The board will select members for the ad hoc committee at an executive session to be held in early May.
The selection of members for the ad hoc committee was one of many points of friction among the directors at last week's four-hour board meeting, with some directors adamant about choosing the committee members.
President Jack Cooper said the Communications Committee's role was "increasing dramatically," and anyone who served on the ad hoc committee would have to have "expertise and courage."
Stiffler described the process of developing Plan B as "requiring a significant amount of due diligence." The association needs to know the value of the system and "potential mine fields" from a legal perspective, he said.
George Roper and John Weatherford urged the committee itself to develop Plan B because it will take too long to bring a new group up to speed.
Roper and Weatherford belong to the Freedom of Choice group that wants to make cable voluntary by changing the bylaws to prohibit the use of dues to support the system.
Roper said the real question is that needs answers is, "Can you make (the cable system) stand on its own two feet?"
Committee Chair Mel Standart said "costs may double" without the support of about $850,000 annually from dues, although he added that there is no data to prove that at this point. "We don't know if we could sell enough service since we've never tried," he said.
If TV service ends, broadband service would also end as well. RMA broadband has 522 subscribers.
"It seems to me that people should know what they're getting into and what they're getting out of. ... People need to know the pros and cons," said Anderson.
Roper and John Weatherford said during their petition drive they'd found people often didn't realize they were paying for cable service in their dues. When they were told that's the case, they signed the petition to opt out, Weatherford said.
"It may be very counterproductive to rattle this cage too much," Roper said in response to Anderson's suggestion.
"It might wake up an element of people - we don't know this -- that says, ‘Wait a minute, I don't have any problems'," Standart said.
Cable Television Fiasco
I take strong exception to the remarks quoted by RMA’s General Manager, "The infrastructure is, by and large, all done," General Manager David Stiffler reported to the group. "It's just the programming now." David Stiffler is not qualified to make that assessment. RMA Staff has NO ONE on staff or on their committee that is qualified to make that assessment. Hire an independent qualified company to perform a “Sweep” of the system as was done in 2002/2003 and then we will see if the results line up with the GM’s assessment.
Adding fiber cable to the existing coaxial network didn’t simplify the maintenance issues, rather it became more complicated. RMA does not have a defined set of Operations and Maintenance standards (which I was urging to be developed in 2003), they have no specifications for issuing service contracts, and they have no Technically Capable Manager overseeing this operation. Here is a paper written that outlines some of the issues when maintaining a Hybrid System, http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/iel5/4119886/4119887/04119895.pdf?isnumber=4119887&prod=CNF&arnumber=4119895&arSt=56&ared=62&arAuthor=Morgan%2C+Bill
I question that RMA has the trained staff, maintenance equipment, and procedures establish to even begin to move in the direction of performing preventative and predictive maintenance. So when the RMA President, Committee and Staff say they have all the work done, I need to get out my hip waders, because the _____ is getting deep.
My response to Committee Member Anderson’s remarks, "It seems to me that people should know what they're getting into and what they're getting out of. ... People need to know the pros and cons", is they know perfectly well what they are getting out of. They know what the service delivery has been and continues to this day, poor at best. Residents have become custom to poor quality, snowy pictures, distortion, and loss of signal. What more do you want to educate them on? You can’t tell people for years that the cable in the ground is old and deteriorated, then replace a couple sections and say all the work is done and we just need to complete programming. When the General Manager, RMA President and Committee develops a program to issue free service and then come back to the finance committee to say they didn’t understand they needed and additional $500k, this doesn’t tell me they know the first thing about running this business.
Either become part of the solution, or get out of the way. The shell game is over!
tv and internet separate issues?
How many internet subscribers are there? is there a way to maintain the internet portion without the tv portion? it seems to me that if we didn't have to negotiate the multi year contracts for programming, it would actually make it easier to run a simple ISP. I may be wrong... Other's have also brought up the DSL option, which is available for as little as $20 a month. Much less than the cable option. Also, there is mention of costs doubling if the system becomes optional. Where's the problem there? isn't one of the big selling points of keeping the system that it is supposedly a great bargain versus satellite? if the system is in demand and the cost goes from $30 to $60 per subscriber, it's still a relative bargain, right? (I pay $100 for my satellite, so that's what i'm comparing to.)