Cable Ballot (vote "yes" for a voluntary system)

[Wilbur]

RMA reportedly will be sending the cable ballot out soon, if they haven't already.

Lest there be any confusion, the correct vote for a voluntary system is "Yes."

I finally got a chance to see the "information" piece which the Board is including with the ballot.

It's irrelevant.

It goes on and on about how they have a duty to maintain common area assets.

OK, but, um, that's not the question. The question is whether cable TV should be a voluntary, user fee supported option just as broadband and digital cable are.

When you read their piece mailed with the ballot, ask yourself these questions:

How does anything they're pointing to make basic cable any different from broadband and digital cable? If those offerings can be voluntary and user-fee based, why can't basic cable?

We can have a fun discussion of this once the mailer and ballot arrive, reportedly within days. For now I just wanted to plant that thought, and get the new thread established so you have a place to post your guffaws of incredulity once you've seen it.

[Big G]

A survey will be appearing in your mailbox shortly that will ask if you would like to have the freedom to choose your own television content provider and programming. It seems that instead of a ballot, where each association member household casts one vote, the board has chosen to send out an anonymous survey. The survey’s accompanying documentation states: THIS IS AN ADVISORY VOTE ONLY. It is imperative therefore, that a large number of YES, I AGREE will be required to overcome the Board’s present mind set. Don’t throw the survey away, vote YES, I AGREE and return it to RMA. This is your one and only chance to control the future of television programming in your home. Lets keep this string alive until the survey is over

[LisaT]

I sure hope that there is a good response.

Looking forward to being able to cast that "yes" vote, er, advisory note, whatever they want to call it!

[Mama Mia]

Originally Posted by LisaT

I sure hope that there is a good response.

Looking forward to being able to cast that "yes" vote, er, advisory note, whatever they want to call it!

If it's just an advisory note, what's the point Are they going to pay attention to the results or just give us more like they have been doing??

[LisaT]

Originally Posted by Mama Mia

If it's just an advisory note, what's the point Are they going to pay attention to the results or just give us more like they have been doing??

heh, heh, I guess I've finally met someone more cynical than I

[SlipperySlope]

I hope this ends the debate, either way.

Lower my bill, turn it off, keep it going or whatever. Who cares.

[Birdieman]

Originally Posted by SlipperySlope

I hope this ends the debate, either way.

Lower my bill, turn it off, keep it going or whatever. Who cares.

Nice reply, if you don't care then don't reply or post on the subject. You act like your opinion is the only one that matters, guess what, it isn't. Some people care about this issue and want to vent and that's o.k., just because you don't doesn't mean you need to come on here and be rude about it. Get a grip!

[SlipperySlope]

Originally Posted by birdieman

Nice reply, if you don't care then don't reply or post on the subject. You act like your opinion is the only one that matters, guess what, it isn't. Some people care about this issue and want to vent and that's o.k., just because you don't doesn't mean you need to come on here and be rude about it. Get a grip!

You shouldn't take my post as being rude, and if you do you're too sensitive.

I'm hoping this will end the debate, and your response is not encouraging.

Edit: I'm still laughing at you calling me rude because I don't find discussion of this issue ad nauseam compelling. I can hear the glass breaking over your head.

[wakeupcall]

As many people have already discovered, this whole issue is much more complex than it appears. I received the "ballot" today and have read the message included, as well as my own prejudice and the opinions from others.

This is not as simple as it might seem. Most of the opinions I have heard go something like.." ..I don't use it, why should I pay for.." that of course discounts all of the history of why RMA is in the cable business and how a common interest development shares expenses.

I have been a vocal critic of the operation of our cable tv system. However, I subscribe and pay for broadband and premium progamming. I currently have few technical complaints.

Several RMA board members feel that they are backed into a corner. They do not want to continue running this white elephant, but for various reasons, accept the responsibility of continuing to provide coverage. Even the most vocal anti-cable people admit that the system cannot survive financially without the income from all RMA households. The RMA board of directors is stuck with the responsibility like it or not. It is wrong to paint them as the "bad guys". Mistakes were made by the RMA board in the past, but I think if they could legally and ethically get out of this mess, a majority would vote to do so.

There are some roads out of this quagmire. but none of them are simple and will require more creative thinking tham our paid staff (gen mgr stiffler) is capable of. We are hearing rumors of negotiations with cable providers. We have also been told by the board that they do not have the authority to shut down the system or allow any options of non-participation. They are stuck. This really means that even if the advisory vote is 350 to 25 in favor of a voluntary system, it is unlikely that the board can or will make that change.

In my household, I am not a TV watcher. My significant other is casting our vote. Our ballot will say NO

[Wilbur]

Even the most vocal anti-cable people admit that the system cannot survive financially without the income from all RMA households.

Not so. I believe and have repeatedly stated that if they can get the product to work and hold onto the 2/3 or so houses who don't already have dishes, they could quite conceivably break even. They'll just not have the imaginary "cash cow" they dream of and which I believe is never attainable no matter what the business model.

The system is only fictionally "offsetting" dues by extorting around thirty bucks from many hundreds of nonusers held at gunpoint. But a very large chunk of the thirty or so is programming costs they wouldn't have to pay for each subscriber who dropped out. The "offset" of dues is a distortion: The premium and cable "profits" are less than the programming costs wasted on treating nonusers as subscribers. We are throwing money = big money = down a rat hole by paying content providers for content poured down the drain.