Cable Repairs/Analysis

[Wilbur]

Originally Posted by Zebra Top

I believe we know exactly where we are. Does the community even desire the latest and the greatest or do they only desire a reliable system for a reasonable cost

I don't have the expertise to declare that digging up bad cable in perpetuity is the most cost-effective way to deliver " a reliable system for a reasonable cost?"

Do you?

That's why we use consultants. We've made plenty of costly mistakes by just going with "common wisdom."

We've been throwing money at bad cables in that area for years (see above) and we still have the problem in that area. The money to dig up that stretch was approved in July of last year, under the prior administration, and inexplicably wasn't done. NOW it's suddenly urgent and deemed unreasonable to wait 2 months while the consultant evaluates maintenance/overbuild strategies?

Hmmmmph

[Zebra Top]

Originally Posted by Wilbur

I don't have the expertise to declare that digging up bad cable in perpetuity is the most cost-effective way to deliver " a reliable system for a reasonable cost?"

Do you?

That's why we use consultants. We've made plenty of costly mistakes by just going with "common wisdom."

We've been throwing money at bad cables in that area for years (see above) and we still have the problem in that area. The money to dig up that stretch was approved in July of last year, under the prior administration, and inexplicably wasn't done. NOW it's suddenly urgent and deemed unreasonable to wait 2 months while the consultant evaluates maintenance/overbuild strategies?

Hmmmmph

Isn't that what Perigine left us with the first time? A base line and road map? If not, what exactly was their purpose?

Hmmmmph is right!

[Wilbur]

Originally Posted by Zebra Top

OK, you have a point. What I was referring to was the baseline Perigine left us with and what we have done thus far toward completing the necessary improvements to the infrastructure.

Thank you, and I agree we know where we are vis-a-vis the existing plan. But we also have experience postdating that plan that chasing the rotting coax problem piece by piece is a little like squeezing jello, and if we're to decide to continue down that path it is incumbent upon us to look at what it will really cost to solve the entire signal quality problem in a timely way and whether what we are reserving for it is even remotely adequate - or whether there is a better way. 2 months to get the impending consultant input on the course of action doesn't seem unreasonable IMO in the context of the past history.

Heck, if it were before me I would have voted to go ahead and do it. I'm just saying the choice to wait for Peregrine's assessment is also a reasonable choice.

[toddster]

I would really like to see the nature of the scope that Perigrine will be doing and would suggest we post the scoping details for everyone to comment on to see if we are missing anything. There is a lot of experience here in this community that might prove useful in determining a clear and concise scope detail for the advantage of the entire community.

Plus I know we have agreed to the cost for this scope, but I would like to suggest we clearly state our demands and position and then we can bid on the pricing.

The fact we know the pricing without the scope details needs to be reversed-- in my opinion. I simply would do it the other way around because I would want to know exactly what I am buying before I agree to a price. In this case we haven't nailed that down and we have plenty of time to do so.

[toddster]

DB:

I wanted to also address the meetings issue on why I have not attended a single meeting this entire year. My business is taking off and I have literally been gone every single week this entire year...until just this past week, thus my only time would be on the weekends to attend anything.

Now that I will start having free time during the week I will be able to attend and comment at some future meetings.

[dreamliner]

Originally Posted by Wilbur

A little history, for perspective:
Mood swing: Cable conversations go from improved service to shutdown
Published April 3, 2008
[Edited April 4] In less than a month, the Rancho Murieta Association Communications Committee has gone from anticipating the relaunch of an improved cable system to contemplating shutting the system down at year's end if a proposed bylaws amendment passes.
*****************
RMA committee takes steps to find alternatives to running cable system
Published April 22, 2008
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.
RMA upbeat about cable improvements and launch of new services
Published May 7, 2008
The Rancho Murieta Association Communications Committee received an upbeat report about recently completed cable system improvements and reviewed plans for a new channel line-up Wednesday.
There was no acknowledgment of an announcement by organizers of the drive to make participation in the cable system voluntary that they have collected more than half the proxy votes needed to force the change. The proposed bylaws change would prohibit the use of dues for the system. RMA members currently pay about $30 for basic cable service as part of their monthly dues assessment.
There is a question whether the cable system can survive without dues support. The cable system provides TV programming and broadband Internet access.
********************
Push to get cable improvements launched
He (President Cox) added, "Let's move on it and launch what we've got. ... If we can't market it, this system doesn't have a chance in hell of succeeding. We need to get on the air with what we've got so we can market what we've got."
RMA launches first half of improved cable system
Published September 4, 2008
[Updated Sept. 5] The Rancho Murieta Association on Thursday announced the long-awaited launch of its new cable system, with the first 38 channels of enhanced digital, high-definition and music programming. When complete, the digital system will have up to 80 digital and high-def and 55 music channels, the RMA said.

Thanks for providing that timeline, Wilbur. It clearly depicts the tremendous negative effect the FOC movement and its half-baked bylaws amendment has had on the start-again, stop-again maintenance and success of the Cable Common Facility. It also shows the alignment of the players and committees who influenced that abrupt turn-around point in time, circa April, 2008, to include formation of the Ad Hoc Cable Committee and its charter (implement FOC), as well as the indecision which ensued. Its refreshing to hear the players of late indicating a plan to make the Cable Facility successful. Certainly there has been a dramatic turn-around in the quality of the product just within the last year. The system is now at the 95% reliability rate as advertised by the competing satellite providers. This is due to the replacement of 65% of the old failed copper cable with fiber-optic/conduit, and the introduction of digital/high-definition into the programming. Its a quality product at a very affordable price, and needs marketing now to the membership as such, to discourage further opt-outs. Along with that plan/marketing should be sincerity in proceeding with completion of the system improvement; i.e., completing the approximate 35% of old copper cable with the fiber-optic/conduit product. There's no need to await a "new" Peregrine analysis when they stated five years ago, that portion of the system was critical and necessary, even sans the recommended gold plating/Cadillac technology improvements sanctioned by certain players then. So get the Peregrine analysis, concurrently with proceeding with the final 35% cable installation in the ground. Like any consultant in the technology business, Peregrine will always recommend adding the latest stuff. That's the nature of the technology beast; its an elusive target, specifically designed to encourage adapting/purchasing the latest and best, as we all know in tech products we consume. At some point recognition of, and translation from, R&D to a production point needs to be made, and that's the hard part. The architecture should be, and is designed into the facility to allow incorporation of new technology, while proceeding with maintenance of the underlying infrastructure. And we can't exclude Broadband from consideration since it piggy-backs on the video cable, and its success or failure depends on the success of the common video in-ground cable. I believe the sincerity of all now wanting to produce a quality, viable, affordable product. As the corollary to Murphy's Law states: If something can go right, it just might.

[feistylady]

Thank you dreamliner for reaffirming what I have said many times myself. Your comments are right on!

[Wilbur]

In other words...

[dreamliner]

Originally Posted by Wilbur

In other words...

Wilbur, nice self-depiction of you, although I would depict your/FOC circus gang embarrassment at being caught and damage control reaction, more like Nancy Pelosi's latest blank stares on being caught with her obfuscations.


BoD, its not rocket science; cable is succeeding and can continue, if given a chance; just complete the remaining underground replacement of failed/antique copper with the fiber optic/conduit already installed in 65% of Murieta. That was the Peregrine recommendation and the plan put into action until FOC came along. Those dues payers still deprived of that better quality signal certainly deserve it, as does Broadband. That is already reserved for and appropriated; allow the Maintenance Manager to do his job, rather than tying his hands for this "political FOC crap". If Peregrine has been solicited for a "new opinion", then so be it; that has nothing to do with existing preventive maintenance required on the cable infrastructure to keep it viable and with value, now. Just don't exaggerate basics into the new technology analysis sought. Meanwhile, show the specific points which the Peregrine contract was commissioned to analyze; haven't yet seen them, yet told by BoD Director they exist. Just transparency without the charade.

[Golfingbear]

RMA President Jim Moore has stated “We are going to be in the TV business for a long time.” He has also said he wants to provide the best TV system we can for the membership. These comments have been reinforced by Roy Harmon, Andy Keyes, Mel Standart, John Weatherford, Wilbur Haines, and Ted Ryon, chair of the Ad Hoc Committee. All of these people have one thing in common; they have all been involved with FOC from the beginning. Let us all accept they mean what they say. That being the case, ask yourself; Why are we delaying the installation of additional conduit and new cable being put in the ground?

In 2006 the RMA Board after receiving the Peregrine Analysis modified the results and adopted the 1-2-5 Plan and developed a business plan to make that happen and authorized monies to accomplish the goals.

It has been implied the RMA Board in 2008 withheld the reserve funds needed to continue the 1-2-5 plan. That is not the case. When Rod Hart asked the communications committee to approve the expenditures from reserves, Mel Standart the committee chair never forwarded the issue to the finance committee for approval and advancement to the Board for their decision. GM Dave Stifler did not bring this request to the board either and as a result Rod’s request died in the communications committee due to lack of action.


At last Wednesday’s meeting, Roy Harmon, the chair of the Communication Committee, said he didn’t think the cable replacement funds should be spent “until we really know what the state of the whole system is, until we get the systems analysis done.” As the communications committee for the second month in a row didn’t have a quorum Rod’s request for funding died with no action.

During last nights finance committee meeting Rod Hart asked the committee to reconsider waiting for a pending report on the cable system before recommending using cable reserves to replace old copper cable buried in the ground with cable that’s in conduit. At this time rm.com’s report did not indicate any action was taken by chair Andy Keyes to grant Hart’s request.

The original Peregrine Analysis told us probably the first thing we needed to do was replace all the cable laid in the ground without conduit. I don’t think it is rocket science the figure out this will be, maybe, the highest priority item in their next recommendations. What ever we do with the cable system there should be no doubt in anyone’s mind we will be replacing the bare cable in the ground with conduit protected copper cable. By way we already have conduit purchased and paid for that is waiting to be used, we have the funding approved and available so all we need it board approval to spend the reserve funds.

Does anyone but me find it interesting that the two committee chairs who pushed for the Peregrine analysis didn’t even meet with these people when they came out. I would have thought they would have wanted to be available to express their concerns and expectations for such an important, according to them, need.

We have a GM and Maintenance Manager who have been charged with the responsibility of caring for the Cable System. They have a business plan in place and are trying to follow it. It appears to me they are being micro managed and hindered by the communications, finance and Ad Hoc committee in their efforts to manage and protect this asset.


I am willing to accept what the FOC people and their supporters on the board say. It’s now time for them to show the membership they don’t just talk the talk, it’s time to walk the walk.