Comments on: MI-Connection audit is ‘clean'; board discusses pricing

By: David Boraks

David Boraks — Sun, 21 Nov 2010 03:09:17 +0000

Andy: you are right that Oct. results were not discussed. The meeting was a week earlier than usual and Alan Hall said he had not completed the report.

Also, Mr. Hall repeated what he has said before in response to your forecast that they’ll fall short this year: he says MI-Connection is on track to meet budget.

By: Andy Stevens

Andy Stevens — Sun, 21 Nov 2010 02:15:26 +0000

Way back in the beginning, when visions of financial success were just projections by consultants, it was stated that price increases would be put into place every other year. I suppose this is similar to property tax increases, scheduled to occur in off-election years (to protect incumbent politicians!) I think in my file of accumulated stuff, I have notes to that effect. In any case, limiting price increases only to “single-play” customers will result in many of these customers choosing to opt out. I know the plan is meant to encourage these customers to bundle services, and some perhaps will, but customer losses will be the result of any meaningful price increases. And this in a year when MI-Connection management has promised thousands (15,000+) of new RGU’s.

I did not attend this past meeting….and I guess financial and operational results for October were not discussed…but MI-Connection is now 1/3 of the year into this year’s plan and I’m sure they’re continuing to trend off of their projected year-end revenues. Waiting until March to raise rates will be too little to late for this year…and stifle the opportunity to show growth in the system going into next year’s budget. Remember, March, April or May will be the time MI-Connection has to project is cash losses to the Towns for next year, and at the same time they may need to be asking the two Towns for additional cash above their projected needs ($6.4 million) for this year!

By: Rodney Graham

Rodney Graham — Fri, 19 Nov 2010 22:47:36 +0000

If MI-Connection has, as they claim, a better system than Time-Warner, then they should charge more than Time-Warner. There have been many anecdotal stories told by Mr. Hall about going into such and such a business and offering them a better product at a substantially reduced price. I’m sure that specific business owner appreciates it, but if MI-Connection is consistently undercharging for its product, we’re all going to pay for it through continued subsidies.

MI-Connection was sold to the public as a profit generating business, not a mechanism to lower cable rates. Earning money needs to be the focus. You don’t see Mercedes going around undercutting a used Yugo.