Cable TV ballot in the mail...who lied?

[Luke]

Max, you have repeatedly indicated that you believe broadband will go away if FOC passes. Why? If the cable infrastructure is maintained by dues, as I believe Wilbur even concedes, should be, why would Broadband go away since the infrastructure would be there to carry it? I don't think it has to.

I will concede subscription costs will probably change to reflect market costs and non-subsidization by dues. However, if programming is optional, and as a member drops off the programming radar, it's my understanding that the programming cost is decreased by that user. I.e. RMA is billed per subscriber.

Also, don't assume that all who have dish will drop off of RMA Cable. I don't have a dish on all my TVs, and there is a certain value to me of having the ability to have the RMA Cable. I just want the option rather than being forced into under the guise of socialist TV.

[Birdieman]

I love it when Democrats talk about socialism, after all it is the life blood that pumps through their veins. LMAO

[DBCooper]

Originally Posted by Wilbur

I just checked, Secretary of State shows them as an active corporation. It would be normal for them to keep the "shell" alive by paying the nominal annual fees pending construction. The creation of the corp and its governing docs is one of the things that has to be in place to satisfy DRE when they finally get to the process of seeking a Public Report authorizing the subdivision and sale of parcels/homes.

In addition to the obligations to that particular entity under the MBA the old 1989 Cable Agreement dating back to RMA's acquisition of the system from RMPI remains intact, and it contains a will-serve promise that runs to pretty much the whole CSD area, not just the Rancho North properties.. AND the provision that a developer of any of those unannexed properties can invoke the co-op clause and require RMA to hand the system off to a co-op of all HOAs in the service area. For free.

Then when the bylaws are changed via the proxy vote, then we will need to get into immeadiate negociations with representatives of RMPI to renegociate the cable agreement with them. Further we will need to renegociate the MBA with Rancho North Properties and the PTF. Is that the path forward?

[Birdieman]

Now that enough proxies have been gathered to force this situation to a ballot, shouldn't the FOC now have to go gather actual vote proxies for the ballot. How do they get to use signature proxies for putting something on a ballot as votes? The proxies gathered before this is actually on the ballot can hardly be informed proxies, I'm sure many didn't know what EXACTLY what they were signing up for. I forsee litigation on the validity of the previously gathered proxies.

[DBCooper]

Taken from the Cable Agreement:

7. RMA Obligations. RMA shall provide access to the cable television service provided by the Cable Facility (the "Cable Service") throughout the Service Area, subject to the provisions of this Agreement.
8. Provisions re Access. Provided that either the developers of subdivisions within the Service Area, or homeowners associations formed for residents of any such subdivisions, or owners of other real property within the Service Area, pay the cost of extending the physical cables and other equipment and facilities necessary to extend the Cable Service
to portions of the Service Area not currently served by the Cable Facility, in accordance with the specifications of RMA, RMA will then operate and maintain the Cable Facility in such manner as is necessary to provide the Cable Service to such areas. In such event, RMA shall ensure that the cost of the Cable Service is the same for all residential endusers
of the Cable Service within such areas, regardless of whether such end-users are members of RMA.

Now from what I read the total costs must be borne by the end users equally, not necessarily residents but users. Also RMA must provide access to the Cable Service throughout its Service Area. (2. Service Area. For ease of definition, the service area for the Cable Facility which shall be subject to this Agreement shall be deemed to be identical to the geographic boundaries of the area served by CSD (the "Service Area") .RMA shall use its best efforts to expand its operating authority with respect to RMA’s FCC registration for the Cable)

If we become voluntary end users then this agreement is still valid in its present form. The agreement defines a residential end-user but not that each resident is necessarily an end user. Now moving on to the MBA.......

[nana]

Murieta Village is within the CSD; i.e., CATV service area. They opted out and I believe charge their residents a nominal monthly amount for the satellite dish that now provides their television service. Can anyone explain how MV accomplished this so easily? I recall no litigation, not much arguing, just a cleanly done deal.
The info DB provided is interesting, as one can choose to read it as NOT a mandate.

[Zebra Top]

I read it to mean the "new" endusers in the "new" areas that are not presently serviced by our Cable Service. I don't believe this section applies to us.

By-the-way, I know comments were made about the large type but you have gone in the opposite direction with your comment section. At least for my tired eyes.

[Birdieman]

You didn't answer my question. FOC gathered signature proxies to force RMA to put this issue on a ballot. Can they legally use the same proxies gathered to put this on a ballot as proxy votes once it's on a ballot? I personally think the two should be seperate. I'm just not certain where the line is drawn in the law. I'm sure we will find out though, it may just take years of litigation.

[Zebra Top]

Originally Posted by nana

Murieta Village is within the CSD; i.e., CATV service area. They opted out and I believe charge their residents a nominal monthly amount for the satellite dish that now provides their television service. Can anyone explain how MV accomplished this so easily? I recall no litigation, not much arguing, just a cleanly done deal.
The info DB provided is interesting, as one can choose to read it as NOT a mandate.

How does one not read that RMA shall have a Cable Facility (Service) available to provide access to the new development? Granted we are only looking at a small portion of the Agreement but it looks pretty clear in the portion that we have before us that there must be an available Cable Facility (Service).

[Wilbur]

Originally Posted by Birdieman

You didn't answer my question. FOC gathered signature proxies to force RMA to put this issue on a ballot. Can they legally use the same proxies gathered to put this on a ballot as proxy votes once it's on a ballot? I personally think the two should be seperate. I'm just not certain where the line is drawn in the law. I'm sure we will find out though, it may just take years of litigation.

Please try to keep up, Birdie. There was a petition circulated which put it on a meeting/ballot. Proxies were signed which set forth the proposed amendment, in large readable type, and authorized George to cast that member's vote for them at the meeting at which that proposal would be voted upon, with a box to direct either a "yes" or a "no" vote. As you suggest, the two processes ARE separate, and each was done with the document specified by the law. We did actually take the time to read up a little to familiarize ourselves with the requirements. It's a practice I recommend to pundits and directors alike.