Public Hearing re: Charter / Spectrum TV Services - Weds. Nov. 9 at 6 PM City Hall

Submitted by boba79 t3_ylk8or in WorcesterMA

Description
PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE NOVEMBER 9, 2022 at 6:00PM
Worcester City Hall, Howland Room, 3rd Floor 455 Main Street Worcester, MA
The City of Worcester’s Cable Television Advisory Committee is holding a Public Hearing regarding cable television service provided by Charter/Spectrum. The cable franchise license agreement is set to expire in October 2023. The committee seeks public input during the renewal process, called “Ascertainment”.
This administrative proceeding is to consider, but not limited to, whether: A) the quality of the cable operator’s service, including signal quality, response to consumer complaints, and billing practices, has been reasonable in light of community needs; B) the cable operator has the legal, financial, and technical ability to provide the services, facilities, and equipment as set forth in the cable operator’s proposal; and C) the cable operator’s proposal is reasonable to meet the future cable-related community needs and interests, including the City’s Public, Education, and Government Access Television channel operations.
Written comments are accepted via email CableServices@worcesterma.gov or by US Mail: Cable TV Renewal - City of Worcester Cable Services Division - 455 Main Street Worcester, MA 01608

47

Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

aKaake t1_iuywo9h wrote

This is for internet too, right?

8

teddygrahamdispenser t1_iuz8r38 wrote

Gary Rosen kept steering the conversation back to cable TV at the last one as though 80% of the calls weren't concerning municipal broadband. It was wildly frustrating and I'd imagine this'll go the same way.

8

Reasonable1901 t1_iuyuww4 wrote

waste of time. elected criminals already had their palms greased.

2

boba79 OP t1_iuyw41a wrote

The people on this committee are residents of Worcester and volunteers.

13

CoolAbdul t1_iv0gemv wrote

You are saying city officials have been bribed? If you are making an allegation like that, you are going to have to name names. You can't just say that and leave it hanging in the air.

3

SmartSherbet t1_iv10fnt wrote

I am not a fan of most of our city council members, but yeah, it is almost certain that they grease their palms on the side because they're way underpaid for the demands of the job. City Council member in Worcester is considered a part time job, even though doing the job well takes more than full time hours, and their pay is not high enough to reflect the demands of the work. Until they have a full time paycheck that's enough to replace what they would otherwise earn as full time professionals in the private sector, they will seek bribes.

If you want clean government, you have to remove the temptation to seek money on the side. That starts with paying officials enough to make corruption unnecessary.

1

Seekay2022 t1_iv1s6xm wrote

This is incorrect in many ways. I am sorry. Not trying to be rude. I speak from direct knowledge and experience. None of them have EVER worked a "well over" 40-hour week as a councilor. This is not true. Maybe Janice Nadeau did, (district councilor prior to Sarai Rivera and Barbara Haller) but she was retired. Maybe Thu Nyguen puts in a lot of hours, seems like that would be the case.

Most of the current councilors have full-time jobs. Khrystian King is a social worker for DCF. Sean Rose runs a nonprofit for kids with needs in Marlborough. Petty works for one of the state employee union pension funds out of Boston. Etel works for Central Mass Housing Alliance. Etc. etc etc. These folks are not working 45+ hours a week on their council jobs. I can assure you that. It doesn't take that long anyway unless you really want to put in the hours just for the sake of it.

Bottom line it can be a 15 hour a week gig at most and maybe a little more if they need to hit a few extra ribbon cuttings and rubber chicken dinners to get more campaign contributions so they can run again next time.

The council USED to be a low-paying gig at about $15K, but now it pays nearly $35,000. Plus they and their family get on the city's health plan if they want or need it (ever notice how many lawyers with their own shingle run for council? They need the health coverage). It's a gold-plated plan last I knew.

Also:

People on the council accrue time according to the amazing state law that allows public employees to get 80 percent of their best-earning three years as a fixed pension. You need at least 20 years of "public service" to get a good pension, so what you see is many people starting out on part-time public boards, maybe get on the council if they can, and then shoot for a department head job or anything that pays decently to get those 'best three years' in. Boom, nice pension that pays out alongside whatever 401K and such they developed on their own through their regular job. It's a good system for those who can work it. Like Ray Mariano did, to name just one.

MAYBE some councilors run for the purest reasons. But for most it's a hybrid of wanting power and influence, along with potential for financial reward over time.

I'm not going to even talk about your bribe allegations. Lol. Worcester is a lot of things but it's not Tammany Hall.

6

CoolAbdul t1_iv2g2mr wrote

But you can't claim corruption without any evidence of it. That's damned irresponsible.

1

phoenixofsevenhills t1_iv1uhm7 wrote

They are the worst! Total thieves!! Nevermind the friggin 6 hour outage last night! Yay....

2

Ovaltene17 t1_iv0ovmu wrote

I would think since most of Worcester's residential internet is using the same physical infrastructure as the Cable TV is, that this meeting would include internet access as well.

1

KadenKraw t1_iv0qmzg wrote

Yeah I don't use cable tv but of course have internet. Wondering if I should go still

1

wildthing202 t1_iv1fk3c wrote

It won't believe me. I'm part of a different town's cable committee and despite wanting to bring up internet, the contract is about nothing but cable TV.

This is our town's last agreement - https://www.mass.gov/doc/douglas-charter-1113/download Nothing but cable.

I also find it hilarious that people think the people were bribed or something. It's a forced marriage. It's going to be Charter/Spectrum until the company gets bought out by Comcast or some other company thinking otherwise is just foolish thanks to the collusion of these companies.

0

NotJustinTrottier t1_iv26jyk wrote

>I also find it hilarious that people think the people were bribed or something. It's a forced marriage.

This is a distinction without a difference. People are expressing that public input is a circus, we're not represented in this matter, the conclusion is foregone, and you're... saying the same thing but insisting on different words.

> Nothing but cable.

Another neat but meaningless trick, really. When these companies are severed so there's an ISP and a separate cable provider, then we can pretend these are separate contracts and services. They're all subsidizing their shitty, bloated cable service by driving up our internet bills. They're all respecting each other's regional monopolies, too; other ISPs won't move in to compete so long as Charter has a de facto monopoly on "cable" (and ISP) service.

1

OrphanKripler t1_iv0w19g wrote

When will they get with the times! Ppl demand better internet speeds over stupid cable tv. At this day and age cable tv is a waste of money and scam. It should be thrown in for free with an internet bundle or priced similarly to other subscription crap like Netflix or Hulu like $15 for cable tv.

They need to work on upload speeds. Cuz streaming really sucks and download speeds with multiple devices in the house

1

EyeTack t1_iv3kpvs wrote

There’s a little more to it. Here’s what I know.

Cable TV is a scam, but most of that has to do with the contract between the CATV provider and the content provider. Ever wonder why there are so many bullshit channels nobody watches? Companies like Viacom won’t let you just get MTV and Nickelodeon. No, you have to pay for and carry their entire fucking lineup. All the providers get nickel and dimed to death carrying stuff most people won’t more than click through.

Remember when NFL Network was brand new? Remember when it took so fucking long to get? That’s because their opening demand was that it be put on the basic tier. Pretty much everyone. For $1/mo per subscriber.

Upstream issues are technical. The HFC plant separates upstream and downstream by a cutoff frequency. The biggest impedance to getting more bandwidth at the bottom was WGBH, channel 2. Thus, the cutoff frequency was an absurdly low 40 MHz.

After it all went digital OTA, and all the analog services were decom’d, then it becomes possible to move the split to a higher frequency. But, that infrastructure takes massive amounts of time and equipment to implement. I can’t speak to where this is at.

Source: Was a network engineer at Charter when it was still regionally controlled 10-15 years ago.

3

OrphanKripler t1_iv87mij wrote

Thanks for your insight, I had a basic understanding of this back then, but could never verify it. Good to know some inside knowledge about it.

1

barry_abides t1_iv1a35h wrote

I'm really only interested in better internet too, though it would be good to have access to local network tv stations that are too far to pick up via antenna.

I checked their website and they make it seem like the "TV Select" plan is the only option ($59.99/month for 125+ channels). I chatted with customer service and there is one other option - Streaming TV Choice, which requires an app (no cable box) and still costs $44.99/month for local channels plus 15 others that you can choose.

Xfinity (in other areas) has a Limited Basic plan with just local channels and a few other random channels for $30/month. Spectrum should have something similar.

1