[rodeogulchbroadband] Re: Update and call to action

Thanks Eric, let's hope we can get over the magic 25 hurdle and not have to
worry about any of this.

Here are the addresses for my street:

152 Lupin Drive
175 Lupin Drive
202 Lupin Drive
381 Lupin Drive

As far as I know, there are no renters in any of the addresses, so just one
subscriber per household.

There is a 5th house under construction right now but I don't know if it has
an address yet.  Not sure how to characterise that in our survey but it
probably ought be included somehow.

All of which reminds me it's time to pay my property tax bill!

Pete

On Thu, Apr 7, 2011 at 12:05 PM, Eric Rupp <ericrupp@xxxxxxx> wrote:

> Pete,
>
>
>
> I don’t have the details on their numbers or analysis, but the Comcast
> construction engineer told me that they use the 57% as the expected
> participation rate; using that they figure out how much they can afford to
> get a 60 month payback.   Apparently, that number is $542,519.  I think it’s
> a coincidence that that number is close to 24/25th’s of the total.
>
>
>
> None the less, my understanding is that the franchise agreement puts them
> on the hook to provide service and pay the installation costs if there are
> 25 or more houses per cable mile, thus the importance of our census effort.
>
>
>
> As for Tuesday’s meeting, I don’t think it’s public.  It’ll be our county
> administrators (the Cable Czar) negotiating directly with Comcast on various
> issues (like North Rodeo Gulch) and the franchise agreement itself which is
> up for renewal.
>
>
>
> Eric Rupp
>
>
>
> *From:* rodeogulchbroadband-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:
> rodeogulchbroadband-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] *On Behalf Of *Pete Haworth
> *Sent:* Thursday, April 07, 2011 10:47 AM
> *To:* rodeogulchbroadband@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> *Cc:* Eric Rupp
>
> *Subject:* [rodeogulchbroadband] Re: Update and call to action
>
>
>
> Eric,
>
> Thanks again for all the info you are collecting.
>
>
>
> Hopefully, our census will get us to the point where we don't have to pay
> anything but there are a couple of things in the numbers they gave you that
> don't add up to me.  If I understand things correctly, Comast would be in
> the bag to pay for 24/25ths of the $560k and we would pay the remaining
> 1/25th.  If that's the case, our share is $22,400.  Further assuming their
> 57% participation rate of 233 houses, that comes to 133 participants, or
> $168 per participant.  Still not a lot of money, I just want to understand
> where they are getting their numbers.
>
>
>
> Perhaps of more concern is that we have to collect the money and remit it
> to them in one check.  So not only do we have to do a census to disprove
> their numbers, but we also have to be their collection agency?  What happens
> if someone doesn't sign up initially then signs up later?  That would avoid
> paying any share of our costs.  Administering stuff like that is part of
> their cost of doing business.  I'd be interested in seeing if the terms of
> their agreement with the county permits them to do that.
>
>
>
> Once again, hopefully our survey numbers will get us to the point where all
> of this becomes moot so I'm just playing devil's advocate to some degree.
>
>
>
> Is next Tuesday's meeting open to the public?  If so, when and where is it
> taking place?
>
>
>
> Pete
>
> On Wed, Apr 6, 2011 at 11:14 PM, Eric Rupp <ericrupp@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Alayne, et al.
>
>
>
> Thanks for jumping on this – it sounds like our census is starting to come
> together!  I’ll update the Amigo Road info for our current needs and get it
> to you as an Excel spreadsheet by Friday.
>
>
>
> In the mean time, I think I can usefully address this evening’s comments
> and questions – and apologize that I’ve not been more clear earlier in the
> process.
>
>
>
> Comcast’s construction engineer surveyed our area by **driving around**
> (the high tech approach ;-).   They measured distances and did their best to
> count the number of potential customers/independent dwellings.  But, this
> could have easily missed multiple dwellings on any given parcel (in-law
> units, rentals, etc.).  For that reason, it may well be that the 233 number
> they came up with is on the low side (as well as the 24 homes per mile they
> then calculated).  My thinking is that, if we can do a better count,
> catching all the secondary dwellings, we may well end up with more than 233
> houses, even exceeding the 25 homes per mile that would **require** them
> to do the installation free of charge (per the current franchise agreement).
>
>
>
> Note that the number of dwellings as defined my Comcast (potential customer
> accounts) may exceed the number of separate “legal” addresses.   It would
> certainly be useful to have this information as a foundation and I presume
> that it’s legal to have multiple independent dwellings that share a single,
> legal address.  In any case, we should make sure we count all of them.
>
>
>
> In their engineering study, Comcast estimated that it would cost $560,000
> to build-out the area shown on the recently circulated map (yes, only a
> subset of the North Rodeo Gulch area).  Their guidelines require a 60 month
> payback on their build-out expenditures and presume a 57% customer
> acceptance rate (of some combination of internet, phone, and TV).  Based on
> that general formula, the Comcast engineer calculated that they would pay
> $542,519 which leaves only $17,481!  He told me that this is the amount that
> they might ask the neighborhood to pay – further explaining that we’d have
> to collect that ourselves and remit it to Comcast in one check.
>
>
>
> For what it’s worth, $17,481 divided by the 233 houses they counted equals
> $75 per house assuming full participation.
>
>
>
> In reality, there needs to be full discussion with between our county
> administrative person (the Cable Czar), Comcast, and other interested
> parties (including us of course) to determine the best way to proceed.  Most
> people would agree that the dollar amount described above is a relative
> pittance and we’d likely take the deal to make things happen quickly – but
> details need to be worked out – like getting an accurate census of how many
> potential customers are really up here!
>
>
>
> Comcast’s Director of Franchise Operations told me, and the county Cable
> Czar confirmed, that her group will be meeting with our county’s
> representatives this coming Tuesday (4/12/11) to discuss this issue.  When I
> asked her how we could help move things along quickly, her last words were *
> *“get me a census”**.
>
>
>
> Wouldn’t it be great if we could have an accurate census to them by this
> Tuesdays meeting?!  I didn’t suggest that before as the time is short – but
> with our  group forming quickly to survey and compile this information, we
> could make it happen…
>
>
>
> Eric Rupp
>
>
>
> *From:* rodeogulchbroadband-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:
> rodeogulchbroadband-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] *On Behalf Of *Claudia Ayers
> *Sent:* Wednesday, April 06, 2011 9:25 PM
> *To:* rodeogulchbroadband@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
>
> *Subject:* [rodeogulchbroadband] Re: Update and call to action
>
>
>
> If the cost of providing Comcast to our area is $560K, that can easily be
> financed by a company like Comcast for under $5000 per month. They would
> make plenty of money with only 100 customers... OK, sure that's just the
> infrastructure...then there is the on-going costs, customer service, etc...
> still!!
>
> That said, I'm all for accurate census taking.... Alayne... any help you
> need, I'm willing to help... just give me an assignment....
>
> cheers,
>
> claudia
>
> On Wed, Apr 6, 2011 at 8:50 PM, Pete Haworth <pete@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Eric,
>
> Since you seem to be successful in getting info from Comcast, do you know
> or can you find out where their count of 233 came from and when they came up
> with it?  As a side issue, if the 233 and $560k is correct, the cost to us
> is quite a lot more than the $18,000 number that was quoted at the start of
> all this.
>
>
>
> Pete
>
>
>
> On Wed, Apr 6, 2011 at 8:47 PM, reijo koski <argonut.2511@xxxxxxxxx>
> wrote:
>
> This is exactly my point. Let's get to the bottom of this.
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> *From:* Pete Haworth <pete@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> *To:* rodeogulchbroadband@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> *Cc:* reijo koski <argonut.2511@xxxxxxxxx>
> *Sent:* Wed, April 6, 2011 7:17:42 PM
> *Subject:* [rodeogulchbroadband] Re: Update and call to action
>
> I agree that we need a list of official addresses.  I have been trying to
> get that list from the Soquel Post Office but without success so far.  This
> information must be available somewhere in the county - post office,
> emergency services, etc.  If we don;t have an official list, Comcast may
> reject it.
>
>
>
> Which also makes me wonder where Comcast go the information from.
>
>
>
> Pete
>
> On Wed, Apr 6, 2011 at 6:29 PM, reijo koski <argonut.2511@xxxxxxxxx>
> wrote:
>
> I am sorry if I bore everyone on our list of broadband issues, but it seems
> that the proper way is counting the total toll of addresses around our
> neighborhoods is an important issue. I have not heard anything in our
> communications that would put most effort in getting "official" and reliable
> information on "legal" addresses. In my opinion, this kind of data would put
> Comcast on notice. If anyone there would like to join me in working in this
> aspect of our effort, please email me at argonut.2511@xxxxxxxxxx
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> *From:* Eric Rupp <ericrupp@xxxxxxx>
> *To:* rodeogulchbroadband@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> *Sent:* Wed, April 6, 2011 5:06:12 PM
> *Subject:* [rodeogulchbroadband] Update and call to action
>
> Dear neighbors,
>
>
>
> Today I talked with Comcast’s regional Director of Franchise Operations.
>  She’s received the engineering estimate (233 homes, $560k, etc.) and has
> forwarded this to Comcast’s regional construction and financial planners.
>
>
>
> She’s very aware of our great need for services, seems to be pulling for
> us, and confided that there’s a possibility of construction as early as Q4
> of this year!
>
>
>
> BUT, we’re not there yet.  By her invitation, what we need to expedite
> Comcast’s process is an accurate CENSUS of the North Rodeo Gulch
> neighborhood:
>
>
>
> ·         addresses
>
> ·         the number of dwellings (potential different customers) at each
> address
>
>
>
> This is non-personal information that should be readily attainable.
> (Optionally we could also gather names, email addresses, phone numbers, etc.
>  that might be useful in the future…)
>
>
>
> This leaves three questions:
>
>
>
> 1)      Is there a confirmed effort underway to divide up the North Rodeo
> Gulch area into zones and collect census data in each zone?
>
>
>
> 2)      Who will compile this data into a single list?
>
>
>
> 3)      When can this list be ready to email to Comcast?
>
>
>
> I volunteer to get this information for Amigo Road (and spurs), by Friday.
>
>
>
> Best to all,
>
>
>
> Eric Rupp
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> claudia ayers
> 181 Chimney Creek Road
> Soquel, CA 95073
> 831.462.4823 Home (leave messages here)
> 831.227.0049 Cell (not accessible at home)
>
>
>

Other related posts: