More on Cable TV and the LMCC

12/5/12

Two comments on yesterday's blog about the LMCC deserve some follow-up.

First, it's interesting to note that the fact that Zerby failed to attend a meeting where he was supposed to represent Shorewood interests was ignored in favor of more factless attacks on the LMCC and now on Council Member Woodruff.

The comments failed to mention that Zerby's efforts to kill the LMCC's own cable project stopped the LMCC from spending $20,000 (not tax dollars), not $81 million, to develop a business plan that would have shown what the actual build cost would really be. Without that business plan, there was no way to get any private or other investors interested in the project. Would the business plan have shown a viable business was possible? We'll never know thanks in large measure to Zerby.

Also, the comments continue the rant that the LMCC should get rid of Mediacom and bring in another provider. It's virtually impossible to unseat an incumbent cable provider under FCC rules. Just beacuse some people don't like aspects of Mediacom's service isn't sufficient grounds for revoking or not renewing the franchise of Mediacom.

How does Mediacom feel about the LMCC? They would like it to go away. It's really a thorn in their side when they have one, focused, organization working to support the interests of customers in 17 cities. They're campaigning with individual city councils in the LMCC area to get them to drop out of the LMCC.

Why? They say the cities could collect the franchise fee revenue instead of the LMCC. This is attractive to cities that need money. Of course without the LMCC, who manages the relationship with Mediacom and provides all the programming and other services? Conveniently for Mediacom, it would be the individual cities who largely have no expertise and 1/17th the bargaining leverage the LMCC has now.

Happy Reading!
The Insider