Cable TV included in Condo Maintenance Fees: Cons?

[Cheap Cat]

I live in a townhouse condominium complex and we are considering signing up for a bulk cable deal so that all residents are forced to have cable which will be included in their monthly maintenance fees. Currently we allow satellite dishes but not antennas although you could have an antenna in your attic as I do. I cancelled my cable over a year ago and couldn't be happier with the decision. The picture quality with cable was terrible and now I enjoy beautiful HD picture over the air. Needless to say, I am not in favour of this move for a number of reasons including believing that this is not something that should be a part of maintenance fees. Unfortunately, I am afraid it will pass in part due to a vindictive board member who is pushing the issue and will get proxies because he knows that I am against it.

So I am interested in hearing from people who have these arrangements and what sorts of problems they have encountered. How much do rates go up when you renew? Have you tried to get out of the deal? Does Rogers charge new owners set up fees? It is listed in their fee scheduled but we were told they don't charge it but they won't remove it. I'm looking for information that will help convince owners that it is not in their best interest to lock themselves into a 5 or 7 year contract when tv viewing options are changing so much. I also think it is wrong to have the owners who don't want a cable paying to subsidize the cable costs of those who want a discount when they can get a discount just by calling Rogers. It is a win situation for Rogers but not for the owners or the corporation who has to collect the fees.

[jacquesstrap]

Why not propose the signing of a bulk contract? That way, people who want cable can still hopefully get a group deal, and the people who don't want cable won't have to pay for it.

[Cheap Cat]

The bulk contract is based on 100% of units having cable. Rogers will not offer a bulk deal otherwise or at least that is what they tell me. If you live in a complex that has less than 100%, please let me know. By requiring 100% buy in, Rogers is getting those who don't want cable to subsidize the discount for those who want cable. The way Rogers handles bulk cable is that they bill the condo corporation for the price of cable based on 100% of the units regardless of whether the unit owner activates it. The condo corp. pays Rogers each month and in turn, raises the condo maintenance fees to include the added cable expense. As you can see Rogers is also saving money by having the condo corp. handle its billing/collections as well and having less than 100% in wouldn't work the way they bill.

Although Rogers requires all units to take cable, the condo act only requires 50% + 1 to approve it. If anyone knows of anything under the Ontario Condo Act to stop this, please let me know. Since we have enough trouble getting quorum to an AGM, I am hoping that we won't get enough people to vote on this.

[manmanny]

I heard once you have Rogers you cant buy Bell or other competitors dish antennas. You can get Bell internet connection I think.
Rogers wont allow other antennas.

[ssainani]

the condo we live in has a bulk contract with Rogers and I love it - it feels like free cable.

I dont know why anyone would oppose it in seriousness.

And yes it's not free - but you will get $80 of cable for $15 or something like that

[dealerguy]

Doesn't make sense. If all residents have the same cable then how can you get spl. packages or regional channels. It means that option is not available to you since Rogers only gives one bill to condo corp or again everyone has to sign for it?

[Frankie3s]

The only thing I notice with Bell and Rogers is that every March the cable rates go up 10%. I wonder if this will impact the bulk rate or will it be locked in at a specified rate for 5 to 7 years? Definitely check if there will be annual increases.

[Gigit]

What if you want special channels? Are you stuck with basic cable? No thanks

[Sylvestre]

the condo we live in has a bulk contract with Rogers and I love it - it feels like free cable.

I dont know why anyone would oppose it in seriousness.

And yes it's not free - but you will get $80 of cable for $15 or something like that

I was on the board at our last condo. The discount is more like 20% off retail. In addition, you are locked in to price increases etc. It's really just a case of the many are benefited and the few who don't like it are screwed.

[coolspot]

I live in a townhouse condominium complex and we are considering signing up for a bulk cable deal so that all residents are forced to have cable which will be included in their monthly maintenance fees.

Unless you're getting an AMAZING deal why are you forcing people into a contract?

Be really careful with these contracts - once you sign they are hard to cancel.

[JAC]

I was on the board at our last condo. The discount is more like 20% off retail. In addition, you are locked in to price increases etc. It's really just a case of the many are benefited and the few who don't like it are screwed.

I wouldn't consider a paltry 20% discount a benefit.

[sacabeans]

I believe it is 20% off basic cable, and you get free non-HD PVR boxes (I think we get 3). All other services are also discounted 20% but anything other than basic cable you pay to Rogers directly. Also, if you are a RFD'er who likes to contact Rogers to get a discount on your services, you can say goodbye to that. I had a free PVR deal going on, plus 20% my total bill, when I moved into my condo and both were removed when I moved in. I called to try and work something out and they cannot do anything on these types of accounts.

I assume that some people may be locked into contracts with other companies, what are they going to do? Is your condo going to pay their breakage free?

Television is not what it used to be, not everyone needs one or they do not require the use of the cable company. You are also increasing the amount of your maint fee, which could negatively affect potential buyers as they take a cursory look at the maint fee and think that it is too high.

[EPcjay]

I doubt rogers can give a better discount compared to retentions. You should print the massive thread people are getting on RFD and show it to the owners. lol

[ssainani]

Doesn't make sense. If all residents have the same cable then how can you get spl. packages or regional channels. It means that option is not available to you since Rogers only gives one bill to condo corp or again everyone has to sign for it?

You can add stuff on.

My total rogers bill is $12 a month -- I pay 8 bucks for HD (non PVR) and an extra $4 for Travel channel and National Geographic Wild.

I would hate to be living in an area where every unit had a sattelite dish on their window.

[bargainista!]

I believe it is 20% off basic cable, and you get free non-HD PVR boxes (I think we get 3). All other services are also discounted 20% but anything other than basic cable you pay to Rogers directly. Also, if you are a RFD'er who likes to contact Rogers to get a discount on your services, you can say goodbye to that. I had a free PVR deal going on, plus 20% my total bill, when I moved into my condo and both were removed when I moved in. I called to try and work something out and they cannot do anything on these types of accounts.

I assume that some people may be locked into contracts with other companies, what are they going to do? Is your condo going to pay their breakage free?

Television is not what it used to be, not everyone needs one or they do not require the use of the cable company. You are also increasing the amount of your maint fee, which could negatively affect potential buyers as they take a cursory look at the maint fee and think that it is too high.

This is a good point, and something that would convince to to vote against it if I lived in your building. The people who really want cable TV probably already have cable TV - if they are smart they are already getting discounts on their cable, and to do this you generally need to agree to 1-2 year contracts. If they are not in a contract, explain to them how they can save money just by calling Rogers and telling them that they want to cancel their cable because they are paying too much money.

[Cheap Cat]

the condo we live in has a bulk contract with Rogers and I love it - it feels like free cable.

I dont know why anyone would oppose it in seriousness.

And yes it's not free - but you will get $80 of cable for $15 or something like that

There are numerous reasons to oppose it. Firstly not everyone watches tv. We live in a time when we have more choices for television viewing than ever before. Cable is no longer the only option. We are locking ourselves in for 5 or 7 years. Look how many new options there have been in the last 5 years. Who knows what will be available in the future. People may be already locked into other options so they will have to pay twice.

I can assure you that it is not free cable nor is it $15. The plan we are looking at is Digital VIP. It is $43 a month including taxes They actually raised the rates 22% over the quote last year. This will be increasing our maintenance fees by about 20% and making them less attractive than comparable complexes in the area. People who don't want it will be paying an extra $500 plus a year. Good reason not to want it. Annual increases are built into the price. You can add options above this package which are they billed directly to the owner.

Right now, only 48% have this package, a few more have a mid range package and some have cheaper basic cable . So essentially 50% of owners will be paying more money each month to subsidize the discount given to the other 50%. The condo will be taking on the responsibility of collecting the cable fees (through maintenance fees) so it will add to our accounts receivables balance that we carry each month. We have many owners struggling to pay their fees now without adding to them. Since owners in arrears can't vote, they won't even have the opportunity to oppose it.

I, for one get my tv by antenna so I get HD for free and this package won't include HD. One of my favourite channels right now is only available OTA. Plus I watch a lot of US cable network shows that I still wouldn't get with this package unless I wait for them to eventually end up on Showcase. Now I watch them free online right after they premiere in the US or get them on DVD from the library with better picture quality than I ever got with cable.

[Cheap Cat]

Unless you're getting an AMAZING deal why are you forcing people into a contract?

Be really careful with these contracts - once you sign they are hard to cancel.

The whole reason for this thread is that I don't want it, other board members do. I have tried to explain to them the various option out there and they think I am just being cheap and not up on technology because I use an antenna. These are the same people who won't meet on Mondays so they won't miss House because they can't record it and don't know how to watch it online/on demand. I have a DVR with an ATSC so I just record it. Before that, I watched it online. I know that this cable contract is a bad idea and am looking for help from those who have experience with these bulk contracts especially as board members so I can convince the others.

[Cheap Cat]

I would hate to be living in an area where every unit had a sattelite dish on their window.

This is a townhouse complex and we only allow satellites in the back of units in specific places so they are not an eyesore. There are other television options that don't involve any noticeable hardware. For example, I have an antenna in my attic that isn't noticeable to anyone.

The cable company on the other hand, has done alot of damage to our property (the common elements) and created many eyesores stringing up cable through the trees or up the sides of units through brand new siding. They regularly tear up lawns and cut of the bottoms of our driveways. I have weeds and ant holes coming out of the crack they left at the bottom of my new driveway after they cut it shortly after it was put in. My lawn used to be cut up every year until finally I got fed up and cancelled my cable. I never complained about how bad the picture quality was because I didn't want them coming out and doing more damage.

[Manatus]

I would say your problem isn't with whether or not bulk contracts are a good deal, it's more of a condo politics issue. I think you have a lot of good reasons for it to be opposed - you just have to make sure that everyone knows it because let's face it, these days a lot of owners don't care a whole lot and it's difficult to get people to do anything. Maybe go door to door and explain to people what's happening and why it's bad? Get your own proxies? Add in all these things about how you can get a good price yourself, how the cable company doesn't respect anyone's property, how everyone will be paying more even if you don't use it, etc.

[Cheap Cat]

I would say your problem isn't with whether or not bulk contracts are a good deal, it's more of a condo politics issue. I think you have a lot of good reasons for it to be opposed - you just have to make sure that everyone knows it because let's face it, these days a lot of owners don't care a whole lot and it's difficult to get people to do anything. Maybe go door to door and explain to people what's happening and why it's bad? Get your own proxies? Add in all these things about how you can get a good price yourself, how the cable company doesn't respect anyone's property, how everyone will be paying more even if you don't use it, etc.

Agreed 100%. If it was just a question of getting people to a meeting and explaining things to them, and having people vote freely, I would have no problem with that. The problem is proxies and how they are abused. Unfortunately, the ones who abuse the proxies are in favour, one in particular because I am against and he knows times are tight for me financially (I'm out of work). I cut off my cable originally to save money and now I could be forced to get it to save other people money (at a higher price than I was paying when I cancelled), even though I no longer want it or will use it. They normally collect the proxies and then fill them out at the meeting which is not how it is supposed to happen. They have people who just routinely give them their proxies so it makes it harder to get those. They lived here longer and pretty much know everyone which is why I fear the proxies. We only need 50% plus 1 to agree and with 50% saving under this deal (at the expense of the other 50%), it makes it awfully close especially with proxies at play.

[Manatus]

Agreed 100%. If it was just a question of getting people to a meeting and explaining things to them, and having people vote freely, I would have no problem with that. The problem is proxies and how they are abused. Unfortunately, the ones who abuse the proxies are in favour, one in particular because I am against and he knows times are tight for me financially (I'm out of work). I cut off my cable originally to save money and now I could be forced to get it to save other people money (at a higher price than I was paying when I cancelled), even though I no longer want it or will use it. They normally collect the proxies and then fill them out at the meeting which is not how it is supposed to happen. They have people who just routinely give them their proxies so it makes it harder to get those. They lived here longer and pretty much know everyone which is why I fear the proxies. We only need 50% plus 1 to agree and with 50% saving under this deal (at the expense of the other 50%), it makes it awfully close especially with proxies at play.

Can't you collect the proxies first though? Go around and explain how this is a bad thing for everyone, and say that you're fighting to save them money so if they can't attend, could they give you their proxy? I don't know how proxies work in your condo, but the ones I have experienced give the owner the option to choose to give their vote to whoever they like, or specify how they want to vote for the items on the agenda... perhaps you can explain but I don't understand how proxy necessarily = vote for the bad guy. You could even print out the RFD guide to getting Rogers retention discounts (make it fancy with "testimonials" and nice graphics, style etc.) and give it to everyone to a) prove that the "new deal" isn't that great in comparison, and b) help everyone to negotiate their own deals. If you can persuade a few people to negotiate their own Rogers discount, then they're locked in... if they know that getting the "group deal" will wipe out their own discounts, they won't go for it. Heck, if you really, really want to stop this from passing, you could even do it yourself (negotiate a discount for each neighbour who has Rogers, one by one). Or just target board members with it if you think it's just done to be self-serving... maybe once they have their discounts they'll suddenly not want to put any more effort into the group thing.

[licenced]

For a townhouse complex this is a terrible idea.

Even if all the owners voted in favour they are not considering the choice of future buyers who may prefer a different transmission system or even both.

My opinion is that it is nobody’s right to dictate which choice of publicly available services they should use. This is not a condominium building with rules about what can and cannot be placed on a unit’s facade or balcony. Rogers and those on the board who are in favour are in my opinion being bullies in that it is not as if installing any delivery system is saving the condominium corporation any money. The board can simply tell Rogers that they will not impose a blanket policy on all owners but rather negotiate a deal wherein if X percentage subscribe to the service in a calendar year then an immediate X percentage will apply to all subscribers for the following year. Rogers can gain the holdouts this way.

I’ve sold in condo buildings with units wired for cable and which are also satellite ready as well as those with just one service. The former have a choice and from the latter I’ve heard complaints of unit holders dealing with the sole service supplier. So it is not true that Rogers will not agree to less than 100% participation unless they’ve changed policy recently.

Regardless of what Rogers said about setup and/or disconnect fee, it should be documented in any agreement because the written agreement will prevail.

As an owner in the complex, you might want to go door to door and present your point of view, you have this right.

[Manatus]

For a townhouse complex this is a terrible idea.

Even if all the owners voted in favour they are not considering the choice of future buyers who may prefer a different transmission system or even both.

My opinion is that it is nobody’s right to dictate which choice of publicly available services they should use. This is not a condominium building with rules about what can and cannot be placed on a unit’s facade or balcony. Rogers and those on the board who are in favour are in my opinion being bullies in that it is not as if installing any delivery system is saving the condominium corporation any money. The board can simply tell Rogers that they will not impose a blanket policy on all owners but rather negotiate a deal wherein if X percentage subscribe to the service in a calendar year then an immediate X percentage will apply to all subscribers for the following year. Rogers can gain the holdouts this way.

I’ve sold in condo buildings with units wired for cable and which are also satellite ready as well as those with just one service. The former have a choice and from the latter I’ve heard complaints of unit holders dealing with the sole service supplier. So it is not true that Rogers will not agree to less than 100% participation unless they’ve changed policy recently.

Regardless of what Rogers said about setup and/or disconnect fee, it should be documented in any agreement because the written agreement will prevail.

As an owner in the complex, you might want to go door to door and present your point of view, you have this right.

I'm thinking that Rogers might be being sticky on the 100% participation thing because it's a townhouse development and there probably aren't a lot of owners to begin with - at least compared to the huge new condos with 1,000 units.

Good point about future buyers... maybe also make the point to the owners that this may impact future resale value because one of the first things buyers do when they see the listing is look at the maintenance fee, and if it's high, look at the services provided to see if they're really going to use all of them. I know when we bought our condo a few months back, if the fee was high and there was stuff like cable TV/internet on there I'd question why I'd want to pay to be locked into something that I can easily handle myself, and whether it was the kind of place where the board likes to get involved in everyone's business.

Mini good luck story: Years ago I was an owner in another condo. One fellow owner was a grumpy old man who liked to complain about everything... he didn't like how I parked (I was unlucky enough to be next to him), he thought the hallways were dirty, that the gym was unsafe, that this and that and everything else. "Other business" at the AGMs were basically this fellow standing up and going on a rampage against everything he could think of. He was like that kid in college lectures who would ask irrelevant question after irrelevant question when everyone else just wanted the professor to wrap it up so everyone could go home. He wasn't a very likeable guy. Then one year the board fired the superintendent, who was well liked, and announced that there would no longer be an on-site superintendent or representative. Grumpy Joe went around all the units, knocking on doors, telling people about this and how it was unfair to these nice people and how it would lead to even more problems with the building and how in the week they've been gone it's already become a filthy pit of hell mud and who in their right mind would want to buy your unit when it's time for you to sell. At the next AGM he was made President and the other people who helped him were all voted onto the board. There was like a 90% turnout or something like that, in a building where owners weren't usually very involved and where there was no real community feeling. The entire old board was voted out (they all wanted to be reappointed but lost). We never got our superintendent back because they had already found a position elsewhere, but it was extremely satisfying, and I rooted for this dude all the way even though he always parked on the line and blamed me for being too close to him. So yeah... good luck!

[licenced]

Great story. Essentially what it says is that perseverence pays off. Gumpy was someone who cared to stand up for what he believed in and it only struck a cord when it affected everyone.


Mini good luck story: Years ago I was an owner in another condo. One fellow owner was a grumpy old man who liked to complain about everything... he didn't like how I parked (I was unlucky enough to be next to him), he thought the hallways were dirty, that the gym was unsafe, that this and that and everything else. "Other business" at the AGMs were basically this fellow standing up and going on a rampage against everything he could think of. He was like that kid in college lectures who would ask irrelevant question after irrelevant question when everyone else just wanted the professor to wrap it up so everyone could go home. He wasn't a very likeable guy. Then one year the board fired the superintendent, who was well liked, and announced that there would no longer be an on-site superintendent or representative. Grumpy Joe went around all the units, knocking on doors, telling people about this and how it was unfair to these nice people and how it would lead to even more problems with the building and how in the week they've been gone it's already become a filthy pit of hell mud and who in their right mind would want to buy your unit when it's time for you to sell. At the next AGM he was made President and the other people who helped him were all voted onto the board. There was like a 90% turnout or something like that, in a building where owners weren't usually very involved and where there was no real community feeling. The entire old board was voted out (they all wanted to be reappointed but lost). We never got our superintendent back because they had already found a position elsewhere, but it was extremely satisfying, and I rooted for this dude all the way even though he always parked on the line and blamed me for being too close to him. So yeah... good luck!

[Cheap Cat]

Good story Manatus. We actually have a Grumpy Joe in our complex and he is just how you describe. He drives everyone nuts at AGMs with his questions/complaints but he has been getting pretty nasty the last few years and acting weird. People actually don't come to the AGM because of him. He goes through everything with a fine tooth comb and is always complaining about things that happened 20 years ago. I'm not sure he is the one to convince people but we did discuss the issue at our last AGM and he got up several times to say how unfair this was to force cable on people who did not want it or would not use it as he doesn't watch tv. I actually thought it would have the opposite effect ie people would be in favour because he was against it. He really has that way about him and when even your auditor is complaining about him, you know there is a problem. I do plan on talking to him when the proxies go out because I know he can convince some of his neighbours who don't show up to meetings to vote against it.

[deltone]

Geez, this seems so wrong and even begs the question "is it legal" which it probably is but should not be. I remember a saying I heard back in a grade 10 law class..."your rights end where my begin" or something like that. Anyhow it just feels wrong that you can be forced to take a service that you have no desire to take. What if you don't want a home phone because you use your cell phone. Can they force you to take a Bell line? What if they want to force you to subscribe to the Globe and Mail? What if they decide you must use Tide detergent? I know, I know, not the same thing, but still. I suppose that you have something in your condo agreement that will allow them to do this but it's just wrong and as some said, it could impact any future sale of your property as there will be those who will flat out refuse to buy your unit based on the fact that you have Rogers.

We just bought a condo in Myrtle Beach and take possession at the end of this month. The condo fees there are much better than up here. We will be paying $261 a month but for that we get landscape, insurance on the building (we have to get contents insurance only), legal and accounting, all exterior stuff like pools, beach cabana etc. etc., water (in and out) AND cable, internet and phone with LD to Canada and Puerto Rico. Not bad for $261. In this case, I will gladly accept whatever cable company they have and whatever phone company as to me it's a good deal but in your case, to be forced to go with Rogers stinks to high heaven. GOOD LUCK with your fight. I hope you win!

[Manatus]

Good story Manatus. We actually have a Grumpy Joe in our complex and he is just how you describe. He drives everyone nuts at AGMs with his questions/complaints but he has been getting pretty nasty the last few years and acting weird. People actually don't come to the AGM because of him. He goes through everything with a fine tooth comb and is always complaining about things that happened 20 years ago. I'm not sure he is the one to convince people but we did discuss the issue at our last AGM and he got up several times to say how unfair this was to force cable on people who did not want it or would not use it as he doesn't watch tv. I actually thought it would have the opposite effect ie people would be in favour because he was against it. He really has that way about him and when even your auditor is complaining about him, you know there is a problem. I do plan on talking to him when the proxies go out because I know he can convince some of his neighbours who don't show up to meetings to vote against it.

Well I wasn't saying that the least likeable person has to do it... but that if even the least likeable person can get people to follow him, it just shows the power of talking to someone face to face. Condos tend to be so faceless, just check a box on your proxy and that's all you have to do for the condo this year. If there's an actual person at your door and you're forced to confront the issue as something that affects actual people, rather than just a $ value, it's harder to not care. If possible, go as a group of "concerned citizens". I think most people, once they've talked with someone for a little while and realized that they're a decent person with a reason to feel a certain way, would find it difficult to not do as asked. I mean people still sign up for water heater and electricity contracts, don't they? ;)

[sacabeans]

I have only taken a really cursory look but I think the condo needs more than 50% +1 for this change to pass. If this is deemed a substantial change to service I think this would require 66 2/3% to pass. I will look into more when I get a chance but I think if you really do not want this to pass you need to work the other unit owners. When your board does move to make this change they will have to send a notification to all unit owners about the vote, and the context of the change. You can seek to get support at that time explaining the negative implications of deal. I would probably avoid being the 'negative nelly', and start your argument acknowledging the positives of the plan and just like a lawyer go about giving each one a negative.

Here is what I found in the condominium act...

Approval of substantial change

(4) Despite subsection (3), the corporation shall not make a substantial addition, alteration, improvement to the common elements, a substantial change in the assets of the corporation or a substantial change in a service that the corporation provides to the owners unless the owners who own at least 662/3 per cent of the units of the corporation vote in favour of approving it. 1998, c. 19, s. 97 (4).

Meeting

(5) The vote shall be taken at a meeting duly called for the purpose of subsection (4). 1998, c. 19, s. 97 (5).

Meaning of substantial change

(6) For the purposes of subsection (4), an addition, alteration, improvement or change is substantial if,

(a) its estimated cost, based on its total cost, regardless of whether part of the cost is incurred before or after the current fiscal year, exceeds the lesser of,

(i) 10 per cent of the annual budgeted common expenses for the current fiscal year, and

(ii) the prescribed amount, if any; or

(b) the board elects to treat it as substantial. 1998, c. 19, s. 97 (6).

Cost of changes

(7) The cost of an addition, alteration, improvement or change that the corporation makes under this section shall form part of the common expenses. 1998, c. 19, s. 97 (7).

[Cheap Cat]

Geez, this seems so wrong and even begs the question "is it legal" which it probably is but should not be.

Unfortunately, I can't find anything that says it is not. I found one case where an owner suddenly stopped paying the fees because she didn't agree with the cable inclusion but she had paid it in the past without question. The judge found it was legal to include the fees as long as there was a bylaw, that it was a common practice to do so and since she had paid it in the past, she had agreed to it. But times have changed and we have a multitude of tv options and this is not a high rise building. What may have been acceptable in the past in not acceptable now.

[Cheap Cat]

I have only taken a really cursory look but I think the condo needs more than 50% +1 for this change to pass. If this is deemed a substantial change to service I think this would require 66 2/3% to pass. I will look into more when I get a chance but I think if you really do not want this to pass you need to work the other unit owners. When your board does move to make this change they will have to send a notification to all unit owners about the vote, and the context of the change. You can seek to get support at that time explaining the negative implications of deal. I would probably avoid being the 'negative nelly', and start your argument acknowledging the positives of the plan and just like a lawyer go about giving each one a negative.


We are now at the point were notice is being sent to owners shortly and a meeting date has been set. It suddenly got rammed through at a board meeting without notice unfortunately by a board president who is ticked off that I have been questioning the way he does things contrary to the Act (ie making unilateral board decisions). The other board members would benefit from this deal so I am the odd one out. I have seen the Rogers materials and expressed concern but have not even seen what will be sent to owners.

Thanks for the info on the Condo Act. I had looked at it and didn't see it as a substantial change under the definition, (it is to me) but I didn't read it carefully enough and it may be if it considers the total cost of the contract over the 5 or 7 years. If we need 66 2/3, I doubt we would get it, especially when I have them enforce the no voting by people in arrears. I don't think they ever check the arrears list but that eliminates quite a few people. I doubt we could even get 66 2/3 out or by proxy.

[EugW]

Depending upon the size of the complex, and depending upon how well you can illustrate the cons of this, I suspect this wouldn't get passed by the residents.

If it was really $15 a month for something like digital VIP, I'd say take it as it's a good deal, but if it's only 20% off retail, that's terrible and would only serve to p!ss off a lot of the (voting) residents.

BTW, I get 30% off on my individual home's cable from Rogers, through retentions.

[sacabeans]

Really the tough part is going to get people out to vote. Most people do not go to these meetings, so unless you get their proxy (which they are supposed to indicate their vote before giving to you), then you may not have the support.

[sacabeans]

Try posting your question on here: http://www.acmo.org/forums.php?action=viewtopics&page=1#

I would ask what percentage of owners are required to make this type of change?
I would ask what is the rule for proxies that are obtain but not completed properly prior to the meeting? Do they need to be provided at the beginning of the meeting?

[AudiDude]

1. You can have services with whomever you want after you ink a deal with anybody because you are paying for the services whether you use them or not. So Bell can't tell you you can't have Rogers or vice-versa.
2. Set the price and tell the provider, that is what you are willing to pay and they can get back to you when they decide and dismiss them. Obviously lowballing a lot won't work, but be reasonable. Lowball with some dignity.:)

[Cheap Cat]

Really the tough part is going to get people out to vote. Most people do not go to these meetings, so unless you get their proxy (which they are supposed to indicate their vote before giving to you), then you may not have the support.

It looks like it should be a substantial change (ie 66 2/3 %). Even the property manager is now saying that although is still trying to confirm. Thanks so much for pointing that out. From what I've read and based on the cost of the contract and our budget, I'm convinced it requires the 66 2/3% vote. In that case, getting people out to vote isn't an issue. I doubt we'll get quorum and then the issue dies. We can't get 25% out to an AGM so I can't see getting 66 2/3% out in the summer when people are away. At 50%, I was worried because about 50% are currently paying more for cable so they would benefit. It really depended who turned out to vote.


1. You can have services with whomever you want after you ink a deal with anybody because you are paying for the services whether you use them or not. So Bell can't tell you you can't have Rogers or vice-versa.
2. Set the price and tell the provider, that is what you are willing to pay and they can get back to you when they decide and dismiss them. Obviously lowballing a lot won't work, but be reasonable. Lowball with some dignity.:)

1. Agreed. But who wants to pay twice? It is not cheap, it is an extra $524 a year, more than I was paying when I cancelled my cable (because it was too expensive) to go OTA. Those savings paid for a brand new HDTV. If I'm stuck with cable, I would have stuck with my old CRT.

2. Unfortunately, it is too late. They just let Rogers propose the price and the conditions which I'm still not clear on. In fact, Rogers increased their rates 22% over what they first quoted us last year. We were trying to use the bulk deal as leverage to negotiate an access agreement to our property to stop the damage but that has fallen by the wayside by board members only looking at their personal interests and not the corporation's best interests. The more I read, the more I know this whole thing was just poorly handled which is why I am so intent on stopping it.

[manmanny]

1. You can have services with whomever you want after you ink a deal with anybody because you are paying for the services whether you use them or not. So Bell can't tell you you can't have Rogers or vice-versa.
2. Set the price and tell the provider, that is what you are willing to pay and they can get back to you when they decide and dismiss them. Obviously lowballing a lot won't work, but be reasonable. Lowball with some dignity.:)

Once you sign exclusive contract with Rogers resident can not have Bell Dish or same in Reverse.
That is the whole point of having exclusive contract...to keep customers away from competitors.
Rogers can tell you no to go with Bell. Actually they tell condo and Condo management tell the owners to remove Bell Dish because of contract.
This is common. Again the only thing is you can have Bell phone line and Internet. But not TV.
Now not every management enforce or resident obey the rules.

[manmanny]

It looks like it should be a substantial change (ie 66 2/3 %). Even the property manager is now saying that although is still trying to confirm. Thanks so much for pointing that out. From what I've read and based on the cost of the contract and our budget, I'm convinced it requires the 66 2/3% vote. In that case, getting people out to vote isn't an issue. I doubt we'll get quorum and then the issue dies. We can't get 25% out to an AGM so I can't see getting 66 2/3% out in the summer when people are away. At 50%, I was worried because about 50% are currently paying more for cable so they would benefit. It really depended who turned out to vote.



1. Agreed. But who wants to pay twice? It is not cheap, it is an extra $524 a year, more than I was paying when I cancelled my cable (because it was too expensive) to go OTA. Those savings paid for a brand new HDTV. If I'm stuck with cable, I would have stuck with my old CRT.

2. Unfortunately, it is too late. They just let Rogers propose the price and the conditions which I'm still not clear on. In fact, Rogers increased their rates 22% over what they first quoted us last year. We were trying to use the bulk deal as leverage to negotiate an access agreement to our property to stop the damage but that has fallen by the wayside by board members only looking at their personal interests and not the corporation's best interests. The more I read, the more I know this whole thing was just poorly handled which is why I am so intent on stopping it.
Not all sports like NHL are on OTA. Unless its on CBC or NBC like the playoffs games. But most games or pay per view channels. Yes Many are on ABC or CBS. But NHL is different.

[Cheap Cat]

Not all sports like NHL are on OTA. Unless its on CBC or NBC like the playoffs games. But most games or pay per view channels. Yes Many are on ABC or CBS. But NHL is different.

Note sure how that is relevant to the issue at hand. I never said anything about wanting to watch sports nor am I forcing anyone to go OTA. I just don't want anyone to force me to pay for a service, cable, I do not want. I have more to watch now that I cancelled my cable than I had with cable. I only had basic cable so there is no difference in the amount of sports available on OTA, other than OTA is in beautiful high definition. I will be enjoying the Olympic in HD.

[Cheap Cat]

Once you sign exclusive contract with Rogers resident can not have Bell Dish or same in Reverse.
That is the whole point of having exclusive contract...to keep customers away from competitors.
Rogers can tell you no to go with Bell. Actually they tell condo and Condo management tell the owners to remove Bell Dish because of contract.
This is common. Again the only thing is you can have Bell phone line and Internet. But not TV.
Now not every management enforce or resident obey the rules.

From what I've read, exclusive agreements are no longer allowed. They may be in new condos before the turnover meeting but not in older condos. This is not an exclusive agreement but if you are already paying for one service do you want to pay for a second. Some board members want to use this as an excuse to eliminate satellites but that would be coming from the board, not Rogers. Personally I want to get outdoor antennas allowed. There are some small discrete antennas like the Clearstream C1, C2 that aren't much different than a satellite. One hurdle at a time.

[deltone]

Hearing about this sort of cr*p just makes my blood boil. To be forced into paying for something you don't want is just wrong. It's one of the things I dislike about condo associations. You just need a few power hungry morons to make your life miserable. Friends of mine moved out of a townhome development due to this sort of strong arming by the board. They were told they any flower pots they had on their property had to be one of 3 acceptable colours, as well as the flowers in the pots. It got far worse than that but in the end they just coudln't take it anymore and they sold.

[AudiDude]

1. Agreed. But who wants to pay twice?


I've seen it done.


Once you sign exclusive contract with Rogers resident can not have Bell Dishor same in Reverse.
That is the whole point of having exclusive contract...to keep customers away from competitors.
Rogers can tell you no to go with Bell. Actually they tell condo and Condo management tell the owners to remove Bell Dish because of contract.
This is common. Again the only thing is you can have Bell phone line and Internet. But not TV.
Now not every management enforce or resident obey the rules.

Nope. I know of a condo that went exclusive with Bell for five years. The purpose of the contract is you agree to the bulk buy at a discount for the term of the contract. Providers like contracts so they know how much money they will make for the next few years which helps them invest in their networks without the fear of not getting a ROI. I've been in a building going all Bell and saw customers cutting their cable to basic for Rogers because they have no intent of going. Plus that now what would a Rogers/Internet phone user do when you steal the cable for Bell's signal? They'd have no internet or phone and what if they had a contract, who would pay the ECF? You can't force people to a potentially inferior service (the building that I saw couldn't supply much better than 5- 7 meg DSL which stands no chance against Rogers express with powerboost).

On year three of Bell exclusivity 30%of the customers had put back their Rogers service and the superintendent was badmouthing Bell daily. I don't know what happened in regards to an EFC from Bell, but the building went all Rogers before the Bell contract was up.

So I don't think the exclusivity contracts mean you are banned from using the competitor based on what I know. Once you are paying me for 144 units monthly for five years, I couldn't care less if you use the services or not.

[manmanny]

I've seen it done.



Nope. I know of a condo that went exclusive with Bell for five years. The purpose of the contract is you agree to the bulk buy at a discount for the term of the contract. Providers like contracts so they know how much money they will make for the next few years which helps them invest in their networks without the fear of not getting a ROI. I've been in a building going all Bell and saw customers cutting their cable to basic for Rogers because they have no intent of going. Plus that now what would a Rogers/Internet phone user do when you steal the cable for Bell's signal? They'd have no internet or phone and what if they had a contract, who would pay the ECF? You can't force people to a potentially inferior service (the building that I saw couldn't supply much better than 5- 7 meg DSL which stands no chance against Rogers express with powerboost).

On year three of Bell exclusivity 30%of the customers had put back their Rogers service and the superintendent was badmouthing Bell daily. I don't know what happened in regards to an EFC from Bell, but the building went all Rogers before the Bell contract was up.

So I don't think the exclusivity contracts mean you are banned from using the competitor based on what I know. Once you are paying me for 144 units monthly for five years, I couldn't care less if you use the services or not.

And I am sure you are wrong. There was thread about this in some downtown building and Yonge/Finch building going with Rogers. This has been discussed before.
And you lost me here "user do when you steal the cable for Bell's signal?"...Have no idea of what you saying. Did not read anything after that.

[manmanny]

Hearing about this sort of cr*p just makes my blood boil. To be forced into paying for something you don't want is just wrong. It's one of the things I dislike about condo associations. You just need a few power hungry morons to make your life miserable. Friends of mine moved out of a townhome development due to this sort of strong arming by the board. They were told they any flower pots they had on their property had to be one of 3 acceptable colours, as well as the flowers in the pots. It got far worse than that but in the end they just coudln't take it anymore and they sold.

Now you know why people hate Condos. But many dont have choice as it is also financial issue. I know some people with good financial status are still renting. But this is all Off topic.

[AudiDude]

And I am sure you are wrong. There was thread about this in some downtown building and Yonge/Finch building going with Rogers. This has been discussed before.
And you lost me here "user do when you steal the cable for Bell's signal?"...Have no idea of what you saying. Did not read anything after that.

I know the building, I know the superintendent, I know a few tenants, I know when their contract date was, I was there when Rogers took the whole building back. I have personally been involved when a provider had exclusivety on new construction and we went away for lunch and Bell pulled in their wires which they were no supposed to do. When a building is being constructed, the builder can tell the telecoms and cablecos to wait until they are done and they will have to come in afterwards. The builder owned the telco/cableco so Bell and Rogers weren't allowed in. Bell snuck in and connected eight customers and we couldn't disconnect them because the CRTC makes the rules, not the condo board, not the builder, not the telco, not the cableco.

So if a building decides to make a "contract", that is only regarding the units will pay for their services, not that they won't use anybody elses. There is no advertising, the general public doesn't know, so why would the company with the contract care if you paid them and went with someone else?

If there is only one cable feed to the unit and it is supplying Rogers signal to the condo owner's unit with phone/internet/TV on it, you can't just disconnect the person and attach the wiring to Bell's signal and cutoff the services the customer is receiving. If they hurt themselves and can't call 911, someone is getting sued. Also what about people that have three year deals with another provider? To disconnect from them means an Early Cancellation Fee will be charged to the condo owner with the agreement. Who pays for that?

18 years I've been playing this game, and you can't just say the building struck a deal with another provider, you HAVE to disconnect. If you choose to stay with your current provider, you will have to pay extra because you will pay for the other provider in your condo fees. You can get Teksavvy internet or whatever you want. You cannot disconnect people at will because someone struck a deal. The only people that will tell you that are Bell and the person who is getting the kickback for getting the deal, but a MSO cannot block another MSO. The only way out was to build the building with a different type of facility (fibre for instance) that your competitor couldn't use and even then the CRTC makes you lease your facilities to the competition. Several times I have gone into a building that told me that we weren't allowed in because they had a deal with Bell. We came in and gave such a deal that it covered most people's expense for ECF fees, gave the office cheap services, gave a free TV for the common areas and installed cameras and put it on the TVs.

Bell never counter offered and the building switched and they didn't want to go back. Multiple MSOs I worked for did this to Bell.

[Cheap Cat]

Hearing about this sort of cr*p just makes my blood boil. To be forced into paying for something you don't want is just wrong. It's one of the things I dislike about condo associations. You just need a few power hungry morons to make your life miserable. Friends of mine moved out of a townhome development due to this sort of strong arming by the board. They were told they any flower pots they had on their property had to be one of 3 acceptable colours, as well as the flowers in the pots. It got far worse than that but in the end they just coudln't take it anymore and they sold.

Well in defense of condo boards, I am on the board. But I also don't agree with this proposal which is why I am looking for information in order to stop it. We aren't all power hungry. Some of us actually care about the community we live in and want to protect our investment. The person, who initially proposed the cable deal was only looking to save people money without fully understanding the implications of it or that there are other options besides cable. Of course, now it is being pushed forward by a power hungry board president because I have been questioning things.

The problem with condo boards is that pretty much anyone can sit on them and there is no requirement for training or specific skills. I actually nominated myself at one of my first AGMs after listening to 5 other candidates explain why they wanted to be on the board. Despite not knowing anyone, I was elected because I was the only one who spoke of what I was bringing to the board and how I would be an asset to the corporation. One of the biggest gossips in the complex actually said she wanted to get elected so she would know what was going on. Many board members are in way over their heads, handling large budgets and complex legal and financial matters. My background and skills are significantly different than my fellow board members so I am frequently the odd one out, in my understanding of complex matters. I want to do things in compliance with the Act and am always raising accountability and liability issues where they don't even grasp that they are held accountable for their decisions and have to act in the best interest of the corporation.

Your friends had more of a choice with flower pots than we do, although we don't enforce our rule. Living in a condo means complying with the rules. Before I moved in, I read through all the rules, bylaws, declaration because I was so afraid of doing something. Unfortunately we let too many things go. I'm not talking about flower pots but more substantive issues like altering the common elements without permission.

[sacabeans]

Anything new?

[Cheap Cat]

Thanks again sacabeans for pointing out "substantial change" in the Condo Act. I spoke to our property manager just before the notice was to go out and she was still insisting it was just a 50% +1 bylaw change as per our by-law. This was despite me having sent out an email explaining why it was a substantial change providing the math to support it. It was more than 10% of our budget the first year, let alone over the course of the contract. I told her that I would be challenging it if it was not a 66 2/3% vote and further referred her to the telecommunications agreement section of the act that refers to the substantial change section (s. 97). She conceded that.

The notices have gone out and there is another problem with that, particularly with the proxy. The board had only been shown the Rogers cable proposal that was to be sent out and not the whole package. I specifically asked to see the whole package but the PM said there wasn't any time. I had her re-write the Rogers piece to include the facts as it read too much like an ad. Key facts are still missing like if there are set up fees, something I specifically asked to have clarified.

The big issue now is the proxy. It only gives two options: to vote in favour of a 5 yr term or a 7 yr term but not the option to vote No, against the bulk cable contract. I had pointed out this glaring mistake on the cover sheet outlining the Rogers proposal and she corrected it there but not on the proxy, the key document. In fact, I specifically asked that it state that maintenance fees would be increasing and by how much and to what amount so everyone was clear. My other issue is that throughout the documents the language is not neutral, repeatedly she states that we are voting on the approval of the bulk cable agreement. I thought we were just voting on the bulk cable agreement, whether is approved or rejected is to be decided by the owners.

I am now trying to find out what the legal obligations are regarding this. Any help would be appreciated. I do know that if the cable agreement passes and proxies are used, I will be challenging the outcome. The only way were are going to be able to get a vote in the middle of the summer is with proxies and the proxies are fundamentally flawed.

[manmanny]

Thanks again sacabeans for pointing out "substantial change" in the Condo Act. I spoke to our property manager just before the notice was to go out and she was still insisting it was just a 50% +1 bylaw change as per our by-law. This was despite me having sent out an email explaining why it was a substantial change providing the math to support it. It was more than 10% of our budget the first year, let alone over the course of the contract. I told her that I would be challenging it if it was not a 66 2/3% vote and further referred her to the telecommunications agreement section of the act that refers to the substantial change section (s. 97). She conceded that.

The notices have gone out and there is another problem with that, particularly with the proxy. The board had only been shown the Rogers cable proposal that was to be sent out and not the whole package. I specifically asked to see the whole package but the PM said there wasn't any time. I had her re-write the Rogers piece to include the facts as it read too much like an ad. Key facts are still missing like if there are set up fees, something I specifically asked to have clarified.

The big issue now is the proxy. It only gives two options: to vote in favour of a 5 yr term or a 7 yr term but not the option to vote No, against the bulk cable contract. I had pointed out this glaring mistake on the cover sheet outlining the Rogers proposal and she corrected it there but not on the proxy, the key document. In fact, I specifically asked that it state that maintenance fees would be increasing and by how much and to what amount so everyone was clear. My other issue is that throughout the documents the language is not neutral, repeatedly she states that we are voting on the approval of the bulk cable agreement. I thought we were just voting on the bulk cable agreement, whether is approved or rejected is to be decided by the owners.

I am now trying to find out what the legal obligations are regarding this. Any help would be appreciated. I do know that if the cable agreement passes and proxies are used, I will be challenging the outcome. The only way were are going to be able to get a vote in the middle of the summer is with proxies and the proxies are fundamentally flawed.
I heard so much about condo boards and rules that I hate it. And OP this is how condo board and Rogers works.
Trust me you are stuck with it.

[Cheap Cat]

I heard so much about condo boards and rules that I hate it. And OP this is how condo board and Rogers works.
Trust me you are stuck with it.

Well, as long as I am on the board and I am an owner, I will continue to fight against it. My home is my single biggest investment and I'll be damned if I am going to let people destroy it. It is people feeling that there is nothing they can do, that leads to these problems. At the very least, if people are going to approve something like this, I want to make such that they know exactly what they are voting on and given the option to vote against it.

[manmanny]

Best luck OP. I mean it. I hope you succeed.

[sacabeans]

Sorry, I do not know much about the legalities of the proxy, but your Management company should have a better understanding and should be able to give you an answer. It does sound flawed as it does not allow you, an opponent of the change, to obtain proxies for that vote.


Gerry Hyman covered this topic in the Star:
http://www.yourhome.ca/homes/article/652128

It is also covered here:
http://www.cci.ca/rooftopnew2/viewreplies.asp?cbid=3&tid=11557#nowhere

The downside mentioned the in above article is that the cable fee's need to charged proportional to your condo size. So Cheap Cat, would could add insult to injury if you own a larger unit is that not only will you be paying to get other people cheaper cable, you will may also be paying more of it than them.

I think you need to walk around to peoples homes and explain the downside of this whole agreement.

Also, I am not sure if you confirmed but are all your units wired for cable already? If not, and Rogers pays to wire them, does the contract state what will happen if you do not renew?

[manmanny]

Sorry, I do not know much about the legalities of the proxy, but your Management company should have a better understanding and should be able to give you an answer. It does sound flawed as it does not allow you, an opponent of the change, to obtain proxies for that vote.


Gerry Hyman covered this topic in the Star:
http://www.yourhome.ca/homes/article/652128

It is also covered here:
http://www.cci.ca/rooftopnew2/viewreplies.asp?cbid=3&tid=11557#nowhere

The downside mentioned the in above article is that the cable fee's need to charged proportional to your condo size. So Cheap Cat, would could add insult to injury if you own a larger unit is that not only will you be paying to get other people cheaper cable, you will may also be paying more of it than them.

I think you need to walk around to peoples homes and explain the downside of this whole agreement.

Also, I am not sure if you confirmed but are all your units wired for cable already? If not, and Rogers pays to wire them, does the contract state what will happen if you do not renew?

I regularly read his columns and that is how I read about these Condo management stories

[Cheap Cat]

Sorry, I do not know much about the legalities of the proxy, but your Management company should have a better understanding and should be able to give you an answer. It does sound flawed as it does not allow you, an opponent of the change, to obtain proxies for that vote.

Based on this and other issues, I am quickly losing all confidence in the management company. There is another issue that they are advising is ok to do something contrary to the act. I have now asked for a legal opinion. If we aren't going to follow the act, then I want an expert to put it in writing so we are covered.


Gerry Hyman covered this topic in the Star:
http://www.yourhome.ca/homes/article/652128

It is also covered here:
http://www.cci.ca/rooftopnew2/viewreplies.asp?cbid=3&tid=11557#nowhere

The downside mentioned the in above article is that the cable fee's need to charged proportional to your condo size. So Cheap Cat, would could add insult to injury if you own a larger unit is that not only will you be paying to get other people cheaper cable, you will may also be paying more of it than them.

It just keeps getting worse. We only have to sizes of units and the difference isn't much but of course, I am in the larger unit and the two members pushing it are in the smaller units. So I would have to pay even more than them. Ironically, I live alone, they don't. One of them said that I could survive without cable because I didn't have a family with different viewing habits to please. He needs cable for his family but I have to pay more for it.

We had decided that each unit would just pay the cost per unit as provided by Rogers. That is what we are voting on. So according to the article, it would not be considered part of the common elements expense and couldn't be liened for non payment. In the CCI forum, someone mentions that in the US, with the downturn in the economy, people aren't paying their maintenance fees which results in the condo corporation being on the hook for the cable since they have a contract and you can't lien to recover it. We have about 25% of units in arrears. Not all will be liened but we have a number liened and have had to go power of sale on some. The fact that we do have people having trouble paying their bills concerns me about raising their fees so much. But the fact that this is money can't be recovered through a lien, worries me even more. The last thing I wanted was for the corporation to be paying for people's cable. Ironically, if they are in arrears for 30 days, they can't even vote against it so they could be stuck with the added expense without having a say on it.


I think you need to walk around to peoples homes and explain the downside of this whole agreement.

I'm still trying to figure out how to get proxies with a proxy that doesn't allow no as an option. I don't want them to be challenged as in valid.


Also, I am not sure if you confirmed but are all your units wired for cable already? If not, and Rogers pays to wire them, does the contract state what will happen if you do not renew?

Each unit has a cable box at the door. I'm sure there will be wiring needed both inside and out. My unit is wired but it appears that the previous owner had satellite and did it. I have higher grade cable and cable in every room which of course I am using for my antenna. From what other owners tell me, they are only wired with one outlet and this package includes 4. Of course, no one considered that.

The other big issue is that we don't have a contract. We have a price and no firm details. As I said, this wasn't thought out at all. I have asked the questions but have not received any responses. I will be raising these issues at the owner's meeting. For so many reasons, the only answer is for people to vote no, even if they really want bulk cable. This whole thing is a mess.

[Manatus]

I'm still trying to figure out how to get proxies with a proxy that doesn't allow no as an option. I don't want them to be challenged as in valid.

Wouldn't that solve the problem though? From my understanding the proxy basically says "do you want our cable contract to be 5 years or 7 years?". However that's not what is going to be voted on at the meeting. The vote that will be called should be "do we want a bulk cable contract?". If the question isn't the same then surely none of the proxies can be considered because they are all voting on a different issue. Get a legal opinion though, it's definitely worth it for something like this. Heck, consider inviting the lawyer to the AGM as an outside expert, or at the very least make sure that everyone knows that a lawyer is deeply involved in this whole thing. That should make people think twice... I know if I was a regular owner and I knew that one of the proposals was being examined very closely by a lawyer who sees problems with it, I'd probably stay away from that.

[Cheap Cat]

Wouldn't that solve the problem though? From my understanding the proxy basically says "do you want our cable contract to be 5 years or 7 years?". However that's not what is going to be voted on at the meeting. The vote that will be called should be "do we want a bulk cable contract?". If the question isn't the same then surely none of the proxies can be considered because they are all voting on a different issue. Get a legal opinion though, it's definitely worth it for something like this. Heck, consider inviting the lawyer to the AGM as an outside expert, or at the very least make sure that everyone knows that a lawyer is deeply involved in this whole thing. That should make people think twice... I know if I was a regular owner and I knew that one of the proposals was being examined very closely by a lawyer who sees problems with it, I'd probably stay away from that.

Getting a lawyer involved is a good suggestion but not one that I can afford. Unfortunately, I can't get the corporation's lawyer involved without the approval of the rest of the board and that isn't going to happen. Besides there isn't much time and we don't have a board meeting before the cable meeting. My only chance in that regard is if it goes through, and we get our lawyer involved in drafting the contract, I raise my concerns then.

As for the question not being the same, I guess I'll have to see what is posed at the meeting. Since they need 66 2/3% to approve, do the no votes count other than going to quorum? The proxy reads: To approve the Rogers Deal, choose 1: 5 yr term or 7 year term. The documents all refer to approving the deal. I will challenge the validity of all proxies since there should have been a third option (no). Fortunately, I got language referring to three options put in the cover letter outlining the proposal. Also since they require 66 2/3 % approval and have split the "yes" votes, I would argue that unless they get the required approval for the specified term, it won't succeed. Again, another issue that wasn't considered when the proxy was drafted. The Property Manager did this without input from the board.

Another problem is that we are essentially voting on a new bylaw to add this service. You can't add the service without the bylaw that allows you to do it. The act requires that the bylaw be included in the package so people know what they are voting on, particularly the proxies. Of course, it wasn't included because we haven't drafted a new bylaw. So although people may be approving the deal, they still need to approve a bylaw and it is too late to add it to the meeting as the meeting notice has to be specific.

Also they apparently did not provide sufficient notice which is an issue if someone raises it at the meeting. I am still looking for clarification on this, but apparently the day the notice is sent and the day of the meeting doesn't count so we are short the required 15 days.

I'm not sure how to proceed at this point. Do I raise the issues now with the board or wait until the meeting? My fellow board members already have issues with me because I insist on following the Act. I am concerned that if the meeting and vote don't occur because I challenge the above, the issue won't die and it will give the Yes side more time to get votes. We still have an AGM this year. The other issue is that if I challenge all these things, I may be perceived as nitpicking. As I said, the rest of the board already thinks that. I am up for election this year and already feel my seat is in jeopardy due to an issue with the board president. I'm sure he will use this to get votes against me. The bar is much lower for board election so all he needs are those who would benefit from this deal.

[sacabeans]

I found some information on Proxies: http://www.condoinformation.ca/owners-meetings-voting but I doubt it is anything you have not already been reading. This site is actually pretty good, and shows you that you are not the only one going through condo headaches.

[Cheap Cat]

So we had the condo meeting and we didn't get quorum so we couldn't vote. Even with proxies, we only got about half of what we needed to get approval. Ironically it was a great turnout for us. The issue is dead now but some board members told people that if they wanted it, they could go ahead and requisition a meeting and try again.

The ballot again had the same error of only a 5 year or 7 year option without a No option. People did complain about that and someone did request that the proxies be thrown out because of the same error. The property manager stated that she was advised that we didn't need a "No" option because we only need to get the 2/3 approval to pass it. She did get some calls complaining about that and instructed people to add a no and she thought that was sufficient. I pointed out that not everyone would have called. Someone also pointed out that by splitting the Yes vote between 5 and 7 years, that we would never have received the necessary vote. Good to see people were on the ball although others thought we should be able to combine the yes votes and got upset with me when I said that is not how it works.

It was a rather contentious meeting. A few people familiar with these said they had never seen such a contentious one and we didn't even have an official meeting, we just asked a few questions. One of the people who would have been strongly against it was away and didn't even know about the meeting which was one of the problems with having the meeting in the summer and with such short notice.

At least people learned about calling Retentions. Even the Rogers rep admitted that you can get a deal by calling Retentions. So they will be getting alot of calls tomorrow. It is incredible how much some people pay for services they don't even use. One woman told me she is paying $91 a month and doesn't even watch the higher channels (only A&E). She could definitely be on a cheaper package. Some people learned what their neighbours are paying and will be calling tomorrow to find out why they are paying so much. But it was also incredible how close minded some people were about other options and how they felt that they were entitled to this discount. One woman kept yelling at me when I pointed out basic facts saying I was only saying that because I was against. No one seemed interested in OTA and one woman told me I shouldn't have mentioned that because now they will come after me. I pointed out that it was completely legal and reminded her that back in the day that's how we all received tv.

Thanks all for your input and support. I definitely learned quite a bit about the Condo Act and the whole process.

[sacabeans]

Good to hear everything turned out all right. Out of curiosity were all the submitted proxies signed and properly completed prior to the meeting, or were some people waiting to vote with the majority for 5 or 7 year?

[Manatus]

Good news! Apathy and inability to get along with each other with the victory!

[Cheap Cat]

Good to hear everything turned out all right. Out of curiosity were all the submitted proxies signed and properly completed prior to the meeting, or were some people waiting to vote with the majority for 5 or 7 year?

I didn't go through all the proxies but from what I saw they were completed prior to the meeting. Had the vote gone ahead, I was planning on challenging them all because they did not give the "no" option.

[WL1980]

The thing is, retation or new customer promo are probably better deals.

[Phils]

I realize that the laws in one province don't necessarily apply to another but in Quebec the cost of cable needs to be treated as any other common charge. There was a case where a condo charged an amount per door, a co-owner challenged having to pay his share and won his case. The distinction is that co-owners are responsible to pay their share of common sevices. If cable is treated differently in any way, it no longer qualifies as a standard common service.

Also, I guess it depends on the specific contract but 100% participation means that the association will receive a bill for 100% of the units - nothing more. In our association, if someone wants to supplement with another provider, he can. We have at least one co-owner I know about that does that. In terms of discount, our 200 unit condo has a package of 105 channels for less than $20 per door. To that, I have added pretty much everything else that's offered (Movies, multi-receiver, HD, etc.) and I pay an extra $49 per month. I have a larger than average condo and I figure I save about $35 per month in total for what I have. In addition to the TV contract, we also have an optional group that pays under $30 for high speed internet. Out of 200 condos, we have 70 members.

Interestingly, the only time people complain about the TV element in their fees is when someone sells a parking spot and their fees increase (including cable) for that spot. The other thing that might be useful to know is that it took a 75% vote to change our DCO to allow the administrators to negotiate a cable contract. Again, this was Quebec; that was 10 years ago; and it took almost a year to go around getting enough signatures to proceed.