Charter Communications (Audio Discussion Below)

This past Monday, August 10, 2009 (in response to a request by this elected official several weeks ago), the Board of Selectmen and the Cable Advisory Committee held a joint public meeting to discuss our progress and approach in addressing the historical issues we have experienced with Charter Communications.

During my bid for office this past spring, I pledged that "within the first 3 months, I [would] initiate a request for a public accounting of all revenues associated with, and services provided by, Charter Communications." This pledge was accompanied by a Freedom of Information Request I submitted as resident on 02-19-09 seeking the following:

1) The records documenting the revenue and or funds received from Charter Communications over the past five calendar and or fiscal years.

2) The records documenting the use and or disposition of those funds by the Town of Sturbridge over the past five calendar and or fiscal years.

3) A copy of the signed contract and or contracts between the Town of Sturbridge and Charter Communications for the past five years.

4) Any correspondence pertaining to inquiries in terms of the ongoing broadcast issues that have been sent by you (or any other town official acting your behalf) to Charter Communications, as well the responses from Charter Communication to those inquiries.

Some of the information requested back in February, 2009, was provided, some was not.

During Monday's joint meeting, I requested that the Interim Town Administrator provide the following information (which was reemphasized in a detailed correspondence the following day), and that such be made available at an upcoming meeting of the Board of Selectmen:

1) A detailed accounting for the initial $50,000 provided to the town by Charter Communications, which was “…payable in full following the Effective Date of [the] Renewal License…” as found in Article 6, Section 6.2 (page 22) of the current provider contract.

2) An accounting of all funds received by the Town of Sturbridge (and expenditure thereof) from Charter Communications as found in Article 7, Section 7.2 c (page 25), which reads as follows: “Licensee shall annually pay an Additional License Fee of TEN THOUSAND DOLLARS ($10,000). The cumulative total of Additional License Fee payments shall not exceed $100,000 over the term of this License.”

3) A listing of all telecommunications providers/competitors that we have reached out soliciting Requests for Proposals.

4) Recent (within the last 6 months) Signed letters of confirmation or declination of the interest, or lack thereof by competitors in providing service or proposals to the Town of Sturbridge.

5) A written explanation of our approach in addressing the concerns raised by residents for years relative to our current service provider.

6) A plan demonstrating our “Market Shopping” approach towards ensuring that the residents of Sturbridge are being provided with the very best service from the very best provider available, and conversely, if appropriate, an explanation of our inability to do so.

A review of meeting minutes spanning 6 plus years highlights a myriad of complaints from residents ranging from poor audio/video reception of public access channels to what some characterize as a lack of programming choices. Despite multiple attempts by previous elected boards to resolve these issues, the problems have remained, for the most part, unresolved.

Interestingly enough, Robert Spain of Charter Communications appeared before the B.O.S. on March 7, 2005, to address the "...numerous complaints from the public about the sound quality of the meetings...", in addition to possible "senior discounts" and programming concerns. Yet, despite a commitment from Mr. Spain that "...their technicians [would] address..." the problems encountered with service, the issues remain unresolved.

Now, some 4 1/2 years removed from that 2005 meeting, and faced with a November, 2009, expiration to our 10 year contract, it appears we may have undertaken a less than earnest approach towards "market shopping" other providers in hopes of leveraging competitive pricing and services. During the discussion with the Cable Advisory Committee I was struck by what appeared to be a "...foregone conclusion that we were doing business solely with charter communications..." (audio recording below). This "sole-source" approach in preparing for our next telecommunications contract seems somewhat inconsistent with the reality a 10-year history marked with repeated complaints from both residents and public officials insofar as the level of service we've received from Charter Communications.

At least one long-time current member of the present Board of Selectmen as well as several current/previous members have challenged the level of service provided by our current provider and have attempted to have the issues rectified. Despite their patience and perseverance, little has changed. We now find ourselves at the cliff's edge with little margin for error.

To be clear, one must recognize that any failure to conduct a more comprehensive review and approach towards our telecommunications review is not, and certainly should not be considered a failure by the Cable Advisory Committee. The Cable Advisory Committee is just that - an advisory committee - whose guidance and direction is provided by the Town Administrator as directed by the Board of Selectmen. These problems have existed for years, this committee and its current membership has not. Their research, review, and recommendations are based upon the direction they receive from those who appoint them; ultimately, that is the Board of Selectmen. To that end WE have failed to prioritize this issue properly, despite years of identified issues and shortfalls as it relates to service and equipment.

I will not, and cannot speak for other members of the Board (some of whom have had to field resident concerns relative to our cable service for years), I will however speak for myself. I pledged to raise this issue within the first 3 months of my term and clearly, that I have done. As well, I did bring my concerns to the appointed and elected leadership of this community back in February 2009. It is obvious however, in light of the information received this past Monday, that I should have raised this issue sooner in my tenure, as the answers I received in February were insufficient and clearly, such remains the case. With only 3 months now available to research, review, and consider other options, we find ourselves in a less than admirable position in terms of leveraging competitive options. Clearly, we have an obligation to the residents of Sturbridge to endeavor with all urgency to undertake a more comprehensive approach to cable/telecommunications service to ensure the best proposal and the service possible. No doubt we have some work ahead of us.