HomeMy WebLinkAbout1995-02-09 Cable TV Advisory Committee MinutesCable Televison Committee
February 9, 1995
Called to order: 7:40 PM
Adjourned: 10:10 PM
Location: Town Hall Conference Room
Present:
Absent:
Also Attending:
Mark Cloutier
Richard Cohen, Vice Chairman
Jim Guarente, Chairman
Marc Guyott, Secretary
Jim Liston
Silva Gerety
Mike Longo
Meeting Minutes 02/09/95 - Page 1
A resident of the Town of Reading
1) The January 12, 1995 meeting minutes were approved with minor ammendments
by a vote of 3 - 0 - 2. Mark Cloutier and Marc Guyott abstained.
The January 26, 1995 meeting minutes were approved with minor ammendments
by a vote of 4 - 0 - 1. Jim Liston abstained.
3) Jim Guarente received two copies of the results of our telephone survey.
Richard Cohen will leave his copy at the Town Hall on Friday so that
10 copies can be made. Committee members are to pick up a copy of the
survey once they are copied by stopping by the Town Hall and getting a
copy from the Cable TV mail box, box 19.
Jim G. and Rich plan to meet, possibly with representatives of
Continental, to discuss the survey results and plan a presentation.
Jim G. requested that Continental provide a bound copy of the
survey results to the Town Manager.
4) Rich presented a report on the results of the town department survey.
See the attached copy.
5) Jim Liston provided a. list of legal consultants that we might want to
use. He said that Peter Epstein was highly recommended. A copy of the
list is attached.
The state CATC told Jim L. that we should use our Town Council. They did
not recommend any other legal or technical advisors.
Peter Epstein charges $115.00 per hour and would be willing to set a
$5,000.00 cap. He is comfortable with either a minor or a major role.
He is willing to come speak to us once for free to discuss the process.
Jim L. will be receiving a detailed proposal from Peter Epstein.
61 Jim Liston will check with the CATC to find out what we are required
to file with them during the renewal process and what they would like
us to file with them.
7) Rich said letters he had received from Joe CainX did not contain
concrete evidence that Continental had not provided all I-loop and
cable drops that were promised in the current contract.
8) The committee discussed Rich's time schedule for completing the license
renewal process. c•/~
Rich said that Gre#v# Brennen probably would not put together a proposal
until the committee provided them with a copy of our needs and wants
document.
Things we need to do and how long they will take from today:
Further info from town departments.
Report on phone survey.
Report from school sub committee.
List of contract provisions.
- 1 month - Rich
- 2 weeks - Jim G., Rich
- 2 weeks - Silva, Mark C.
- 2 weeks - Jim L.
These all feed into:
Needs and wants document draft.
- 2 weeks - Jim G.
And then:
'Present needs and wants document to the Selectmen. - 2 weeks
9) The meeting was adjourned at 10:10 by a vote of 5 - 0.
l
t,-,lkl
Marc Guyott
Secretary
REPORT ON RESULTS OF TOWN SURVEY
Prepared by: Richard B. Cohen
February 9,1995
The Survey of all town departments was conducted in early October 1994. A comprehensive compilation
of the survey has been distributed to all committee members and Continental Cablevision. The purpose of this report
is to give a synopsis of that compilation, and attempt to try to draw inference from the varied departments, and the
diametrically opposed views which occur when try to do the best thing for all concerned.
Prior to developing the direction that the town seems to want to head to, it would probably be best to look
at the results of each question. The results are listed below. Note: Some Departments/Committees in town did not
answer some or all questions, so the percentage results were based upon opinions given.
1) Cable Transmission of Local Broadcast Channels- 67% in Favor with a 17% Range between groups.
2) Cable Transmission of Satellite Channels- 70% in Favor with a Range of 21 % between groups.
3) Cable Transmission of Local Channels-91 % in Favor with a Range of 25% between groups-
Note: only two opposing were Zoning Board of Appeals and Historical Commission.
4)1-Loop Connection-77% in Favor with a Range of 67% between groups. This disparity comes from Group A
with 100% Vote to Group C with 33% Vote. A conclusion might easily be drawn here that Group A would be the
potential user and sees a definite need.
5) Internet Type Hook-up-63% in Favor with a Range of 43% between groups. The great disparity is between
Groups A and B. A with 83% and B with 40% Note that Group C had 43% in favor which leans this vote toward
the Low Favorability side, even though the total averages to over 50%.
6A) Continue TV Studio Broadcast-76% in Favor with a Range of 50% between groups-Group is at 100% at
one end of the spectrum and Group C at the other with 50% in Favor.
6B) Expand TV Studio-52% in Favor with a Range of 80% between groups-Group B had 80% in Favor with
Group C having 0% (zero).
7A) Continue Emergency Broadcast-57% in Favor with a Range of 57% between groups-Again the disparity is
)etween groups A and C. A with 100% and C with 43%.
-?B) Expand Emergency Broadcast-29% in Favor with a Range of 50% between groups- Again the disparity is
between groups A and C. A with 50% and C with 0%(zero).
8A) Continue Messaging Access-83% in Favor with a Range of 33% between groups-Again the disparity is
between groups A and C. A with 100% and C with 67%.
8B) Expand Messaging Access-64% in Favor with a Range of 13% between groups-Again the disparity is
between groups A and C. A with 70% and C with 57%.
9A) Continue Coverage of Local Events-90% in Favor with a Range of 29% between groups- Again the
disparity is between groups A and C. A with 100% and C with 71
9B) Expand Coverage of Local Events-62% in Favor with a Range of 47% between groups- Again the
disparity is between groups A and C. A with 80% and C with 33%.
10) Political Feedback on Town Issues-50% in Favor with a Range of 20% between groups- The
disparity is between groups A and B. A with 60% and B with 40%.Note:Group C is close to be with 43%
11) Alarms for Police and Fire-57% in Favor with a Range of 37% between groups- The disparity is between
groups B and C. B with 80% and C with 43%.Note that group A is right in middle with 56%.
12) Ongoing input into Continental Cablevision-57% in Favor with a Range of 66% between groups- The
disparity is between groups B and C. B with 80% and C with 14%.
There are many ways to view the data. The methods chosen are used to explain the weights given to the
groups in respect to how many people were forced to answer in group A due to the difference in surveying methods.
However you cannot dispel the fact that other groups do have a say in what occurs and their requests/wishes also
must be weighed-that is why averages are used along with ranges between data because the ranges take away
the weightiness of the responses.
continued
Report on Results of Town Surveys
Page 2 of 3
Again it must be clearly understood and evaluated by each member what the data means, how it was
taken, any biases in the process of taking the survey and answering it. A further examination is offered as
follows:
Question 1-Has a 60% AVERAGE Favorability rating, the low range suggests that there is equal support for this
item.
Question 2--Has a 70% AVERAGE Favorability rating, the low range suggests that there is equal support for
this item. This item obviously has stronger support than Question 1, suggesting that this is more important than
question 1-(local vs satellite)
Question 3-Has a 91 % AVERAGE Favorability rating, the low range suggests that there is equal support for this
item. The low side of the vote is only 75%. THIS ITEM IS STRONGLY RECOMMENDED AS BEING IN FAVOR.
Question 4-Has a 77% AVERAGE Favorability rating, the HIGH range suggests that there is a great differing of
opinion on this item.
Question 5-Has a 63% AVERAGE Favorability rating, the HIGH range suggests that there is a good deal of
differing of opinion on this item.
Question 6A-Has a 76% AVERAGE Favorability rating, the HIGH range suggests that there is a differing of
opinion on this item,however since the low side is 50% it obviously is strongly supported.
Question 68-Has a 52% AVERAGE Favorability rating, the extreme HIGH range suggests that the results of
each group are exact opposite. This question needs further scrutinization.
Question 7A-Has a 74% AVERAGE Favorability rating, the HIGH range suggests that there is a
differing of opinion on this item,however since the low side is only 43% it obviously is supported,especially when
the weight of group A is added.
Question 713-Has a 29% AVERAGE Favorability rating, the HIGH range suggests that there is a
- 1iffering of opinion on this item,however since the high side is only 50% it obviously is NOT strongly
Upported,even if the weight of group A is figured in the equation.
Question 8A-Has a 83% AVERAGE Favorability rating, the medium range along with the extremely high
average suggests that there is an overall LARGE Favorability for this question.
Question 813-Has a 64% AVERAGE Favorability rating, the very low range suggests that there is not much
differing of opinion on this item. There is strong evidence that this item is quite favorable.
Question 9A-Has a 90% AVERAGE Favorability rating, the medium range along with the extremely high
average suggests that there is an overall LARGE Favorability for this question.
Question 913-Has a 62% AVERAGE Favorability rating, the extremely high range suggests that there is a great
deal of differing opinion. Further investigationof this item is required.
Question 10-Has a 50% AVERAGE Favorability rating, the low range with the middle average suggests that
this item sits on the fence. The board may want to argue this point out or do further investigation of this
question-the need is very unclear.
Question 11-Has a 57% AVERAGE Favorability rating, the medium range with the middle average suggests
that this item sways both ways. The board may want to argue this point out or do further investigation of this
question-the need is very unclear.
Question 12-Has a 57% AVERAGE Favorability rating, the very high range with the middle average suggests
that this item has a problem.The problem may be simple as it is a role that is contrary to the request of the
information-in other words in group C those individuals already participate in government activities, but in group
A they clearly express a need to be further involved.
With regards to the comments section, Beth Klepeis does the best job in expressing what the town
needs and why. Her comments can be surmised as make more use of the existing I-NET to facilitate a wide
variety of communications throughout the town. These improved services are quantified, but not cost justified.
possibly if she could cost justify them, the town could allot the funds for these uses. If she cannot it is up to the
able T.V. Advisory Committee to weigh the needs against other needs/wants for the cable subscribers against
the town needs. Since the system is presently 806/o subscribed to there is a strong correlation between serving
the subscribers and serving the town in general.
cf,
0
J
J
\
~
c
\
o
~
.p
A
?
O
O
N
i
co
~I
G7
O
L"
O
CD
_
_
o
o
W
N
~
oo
N
rn
0
CD
n
0
0
0
W
C)
O
rn
V
W
' V
J
a
`1i
-4
W
N
0
OD
V
\
0
o
N
Cn
r.1
0)
A
N
A
W
N
O
N
Ob
0
A.
rn
.A
da
co
a
s
O
O
1
CO
N
J
J
J
P
N
~
10-0
O
4{,
CO
0
--4
P
W
Cn
W
N
N
N
O
m
~
J
a
O
a
o
f
o
O
to
O
N
J
A
K)
o
o
o
h
J
to
0
co
P
P
A
J
W
t0
0
0O
O
O
co
Cn
CO
V
W
CA
a
S
N
o
a
~
0
o~
O
o
J
O
rn
rn
a
CA
J
A
.0
0
N
.
a
0
V
W
J
O
b
K)
cn
4
Cn
W
oe
o
o
O
w
(A
-D.
V
.iA
W
?
W
00
'
0
o
CA
W
cn
O
CO
a
o
y
N
Cn
CA
to
a
W
N
J
OO
P
A
J
W
C)
a
W
Cb
rn
`J
Cl
a
_y
W
W
^J
Cn
a
N
P
o
\
\
J
8,
W
rnJ
rn
N
.P
.P
W
co
O
co
W
O
a
rn
CM
rn
V
QJ
O
~
NO,
o
.
Nol
N
00
to
^J
W
.A•
to
N
W
O
W
v
J
K)
(0
v
a
a
o
a
a
i
J
N
W
R
-o"
o°
N
O
N
OD
^J
N
to
.A
O
?
CO
a
CO
O
O
V
0
to
CD
N
W
O
N
~
CO
"*0-~
o
c
o
o
X
co
W
O
A
N
Cn
N
W
O
N
Oo
a
O
N
cn
46
p
0
00
J
0
(p
0
\
O
\
0
o
0
\
0
\
N
J
J
J
J
J
J
N
v
~
W
Cn
W
N
O
.A
rn
O
O
O
WI
Cn
A
rn
C"
J
v~
"J
w
o
rn
J
J
N
tn
o~~
o
~
~
o
I
CO
N
-4
-0-
W
CA
J
P
CO
A
Cn
O
i
J
M
-4
O
O
rn1
V
A
O
OO
J
C
O
W
o
~
o
o
~
cO
N
V
rn
J
tn
J
P
CO
N
V
N
O
a
-
W
J
N
I
O
rn
s
~1
N
~A
Cn
N
N
N
N
O
1
CO
J
Cb
o
J
N
co
N
CO
W
Z
O
O
Z
Cl)
C
M
rn
CD
c
r
cri
02/09/96 14:59
$617 727 7887 HA. CABLE COM.
THE COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
9=CUTIME OFFICE OF CONSUMER A"AIRS AND BUSINESS REGULATION
COMMUNITY ANTENNA TELEVISION COMMISSION
LEMETT SALTONSTALL BUILDING
100 CAMBRIDGE STREET, BOSTON 0221>Z
0002/004
Consultants Alpha by Huniciyality
pecember 13i 1994
Towns Consultants
Adams
Horton&August
Amherst
Peter EPetein
Amesbury
Horton&Auguat
As:hburnham *
Horton&August
Ashland
Howard Horton
Athol
Peter Epstein
Auburn
Horton&August
Barnstable
HOrton&August
Bedford
Peter rpstein
Billerica
Peter Epstein
Boston
Peter Epstein
Boume
Howard Horton
Brockton *
Ho>:ton&August
Buckland
Peter Epstein
Burlington
Peter Epstein
Cambridge
Peter Epstein
Charlton *
Horton&Auguet
Chatham
Horton&August
Chelmsford
Peter Epstein
Chester
Peter Epstein
Chelsea
Horton&August
Cheshire
Horton&Auguat
Chicopee
Peter Epstein
Clarksburg
Horton&August
Danvers
Peter Epstein
Dartmouth
Roward Horton
Duxbury •
Horton&August•
East Longmeadow
Peter Epsteia
Easthampton
Horton&August
Everett
Peter Epstein
Fall River
Howard Horton
Falmouth
Horton&August
Fitchburg
Pater Epatain
Framingham
Horton&August
Franklin
Peter Epstein
Gre.,at Barrington
Howard Horton
Greenfield
Peter Epstein
Haverhill
Peter Epstein
Harwich
Horton&August
Rolyoke
i
Peter
ngton
Hunt
Peter Epstein
Lawrence
Horton&Auguat
Loa
Howard Horton
Lenox
Horton&August
Lexington
Peter Bpotein
Lowell
Howard Horton
Lynn
Horton&Auqust
Lynnfi.eld *
Horton&August
02/08/85 14:59 V61T 727 7887 X&-CABLE CONN.
Cultants
i
December 13. 1994
Malden
Peter Epstein
Mansfield
Howard Horton
Marion
HOrtanshugust
Mashpee
Horton&August
Medford
Pet *X 8petein
Melrose
Howard Horton
Millbury
Sid whiting
Montague
Peter Epstein
Nantucket
Hunicon
Newton
Peter Epstein
North Adams
Howard Horton
North Andover
HcrtoneAugust
North Attleboro
Peter Epstein
Norton *
Sorton&August
orange
Peter Epstein
oxford
Peter 810stein
Peabody
Peter . Epstein
Salem
Peter Epstein
Sheffield
Hortonahugust
Shelburne Falls
Peter Epstein
Somerville *
Peter Epstein
Somerville +
Horton&August
Southbridge
Horton&August
Stockbridge
Howard Horton
Stoneham
Hortonshugust
Wakefield (School Comm.)
Peter Epstein
Wakefield
Horton&August
Ware
Hortonsauguet
Watertown
Peter Epstein
Webster
Sid Whiting
Westborough
Horton&August
Westford
Pater Epstein
Williamstown
Sid Whiting
Wilmington
Peter Epstein
Winchester
Horton&August
Winthrop
Peter Epstein
Yarmouth
Horton&august
* - Municipalities were represented in initial
licensing, amendments, transfers,
compliance
issues, and rate regulation.
10005/004
02/09/95 14:59 U61T T2T 7887 YA.CABLE CONX. 1@004/004
THE COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
GXECtMVQ 01"CL' Of CONSUMER AFFAMS AND 8USMS3 RgGVLA710N
COMMUNITY ANTENNA TELEVISION COMMISSION
LIEVEROT SALTONSTALL BUILDING
100 CAMBRIDGE STREET. BOSTON OM
Consultants Alpha Add 99-01
December 13, 1994
Blount, Parrish & Rotton, Inc.
William S. Blount, President
Competitive Cable Association
10 Court Square, P.O. Box 5212
Montgomery, AL 36103
(205) 264-8410 or 800-288-1543
Peter Epstein, Esq.
101 Arch Street
Suite 900
Boston, Massachusetts 02110-1112
(617) 951-9909
Howard Horton, Esquire
William August, Raquire
Horton and August, P.C.
Pledge of Allegiance Building
142 Berkeley Street
Boston, Massachusetts 02116
(617) 267-9595
Me. Itoni A. Lipton
63 Lombard street
f Newton, Massachusetts 02158
(617) 244-4328
(617) 244-1132
Mr. John W. P. Rooney
Lewis Associates
292 Main Street
Great Barrington, Hassachusetts 01230
J413) 528--9445
Municon
P.O- Box 976
Albany, NY 12201
(318) 479-9:495
Mr. Barry Orton
Department of Communication Programs
University of Hisconsin-Madison
Joseph Van Eaton, Esq.
Killer, Canfield, paddock and Stone
(Tozwexly Miller & Holbrooke)
Washington, D.C.
Mr. Sid Whiting
470 Totten Pond Road
Waltham, Haaaachuaetts 02154
(617) 890-9191
(617) M-6811