HomeMy Public PortalAboutCable Television Advisory -- 2008-01-08 MinutesMinutes of the meeting of the Brewster Cable TV Advisory Committee scheduled for 7:00 pm on Tuesday
8 January 2008.
The meeting is called to order at 7:02 pm on Tuesday 8 January 2008 by Larry Greeley.
Members present at this time are:
Larry Greeley
Norman Adams
Larry Bugden
Walter Powers
Norman Adams distributes copies of the draft minutes of the meeting of Tuesday 4 December 2007.
A motion is made by Larry Bugden and seconded by Walter Powers to accept the minutes of the meeting
of Tuesday 4 December 2007 as presented. The vote to accept is unanimous.
As noted in the minutes of the meeting of Tuesday 4 December 2007 Larry Greeley had tentatively
arranged that a representative from the DTE would come to this meeting in January to talk about the Cable
TV renewal process and to offer suggestions for us in that activity. That person is here tonight in the
audience area. He is introduced by Larry Greeley and is invited to join us around the table at which the
committee members are sitting.
His name is Michael Mael (his surname is pronounced approximately "Mayo" -the final "1" is nearly
silent).
He says that the proper identification of his organizational location in the state government is now called
"DTC" which stands for "Department of Telecommunications and Cable". This is one of the two segments
into which the former "DTE" which stood for "Department of Telecommunications and Energy" has been
split, the other segment being the "DPU" which stands for "Department of Public Utilities".
His email address is michael.mael@state.ma.us and his telephone number is (617) 305-3583.
He says that the basis of the state's presence in the cable TV arena is that the 1992 federal law governing
cable TV gives each state the power to regulate the cable TV situation in that state, and that generally
speaking the regulations concerning cable TV arise in the states rather than in the Federal government.
He then touches on a number of points, including the following:
In Massachusetts there are some 310 entities which have cable TV and in 275 of them the state is doing
regulation. In these 275, some 70 have applied to the state to change their status to deregulated, due at
least in part to a stimulus arising from the entry of Verizon into the cable TV business.
Franchise fees are operating costs and do not include capital costs. Franchise-related fees do include capital
costs.
When an existing cable TV contract gets close to its expiration date there is a period of 3 years and a day
preceding the expiration date in which the franchise arrangements for the period after the expiration date
can be discussed. This period is usually referred to as "the window". This period should be fully used
because some of the steps which are normally viewed as desirable by the towns take time and must be done
in series (ie not in parallel).
A particular issue in this regard is "ascertainment" - a process by which the town governing body
(typically via a Cable TV advisory committee) proceeds to assess what the citizens want in the way of
cable TV service. The actual process of ascertainment should produce reasonable records of reasonable
investigations. By statute this process must be concluded no later than 5 months before the end of the
existing contract. The DTC recommends that ascertainment be concluded no later than a year before the
end of the existing contract.
The conclusions arising from the ascertainment process must be conveyed to the cable TV operator at the
end of the ascertainment period. The cable TV operator may prepare a similar but perhaps conflicting set
of conclusions to bolster their side of the negotiations.
Typically there are two nominally separate negotiations running in parallel:
• an "informal" negotiation in which every document must be marked as "DRAFT", and in which the
communications are not strongly shaped by regulation
• a "formal" negotiation whose forms and dates aze strongly shaped by regulation
In practice the informal negotiation is where the bulk of the negotiating effort is expended, and the formal
negotiation in effect records a final agreement.
There is some state regulation allowed for the "basic tier" of service although for the tiers involving more
complex and expensive options there is no state regulation.
A useful contact in regard to the regulation of the basic tier is:
John.Molloy@state.ma.us
If we do use this contact (which Michael suggests would be something we should consider doing ASAP)
Michael would like to receive copies of our messages.
Michael points out that the state started regulating cable TV in 1993 and that some numbers involving
money should be understood as having been formulated in 1993. Therefore discussions based on those
numbers should properly use numbers updated to reflect subsequent changes such as monetary inflation.
Issues that are often significant include line extensions, line drops, and length of a proposed contract. In
general the cable TV operator wants the longest practical term for the contract. The length of the contract
is often the most powerful negotiating lever for the towns. However, a long duration contract means that
some provisions should be included to cope with the inevitable changes in technology over the extended
period.
Larry Bugden points out that i-nets are a topic of some importance which should be considered in any
negotiation.
Additional issues which have been included in some contracts involve the omission of the pass-through of
some costs to the cable subscribers, and costs of reproduction of copies of the transmitted programs
(disks).
In our approach to negotiations we should consider looking at the cable TV licenses which are currently in
force in Massachusetts, particularly those negotiated more recently.
Mr. Mael leaves at 9:15 pm.
After he leaves there is a brief general discussion reviewing some of the points outlined by Mr. Mael. In
addition some other points not discussed by Mr. Mael are touched on, such as the fiber-optic services
currently being touted by Verizon.
In regard to our next meeting, the regular meeting time and date (to wit at 7:00 pm on the first Tuesday of
the next month) meets with general acceptance.
The meeting seems to be out of other business to be taken up tonight. A motion to adjourn is made by
Walter Powers and seconded by acclamation. The motion is passed unanimously. The meeting is adjourned
at 9:30 pm.
Submitted by Norman Adams, Clerk, Brewster CTVAC
0
a
3 _.
W
l.J
la
W