I will follow this mess for a while. If? When? Voom is picked up by a provider in my area I will make the switch. I checked Comcast and Direct websites for programing and there just isn't a difference between any of the three providers in my area. Money differences of 10 - 30 per month is fine. So where Voom goes so do I.
About time Voom said something
- Thread starter vodad
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 147
- Views 15K
Exactly, the entire VOOM21 was never brought online...yet, the Affiliation Agreement was already in place. Was the $100 million spending limit for 21 channels or 15 channels? Likewise, what does the "prescribed formula" in Section 10 of the Affiliation Agreement state? As far as the 38M...there may have been provisions to have as few as five (5) VOOM HD channels in the lineup for all we know.
Also, whose decision was it to only offer VOOM15 on Dish Network? Did E* reject the other six VOOM HD Cinema channels? Likewise, VOOM International shows content in Asia and Europe....were these channels/contect rejected by Dish Network. If so, does the money spent developing this content count toward the Spending Requirement? Again, we don't know. All that I am saying is there is no way of determining who is right or wrong in this matter without having access to the Affiliate Agreement and Audit Reports from both Dish Network and VOOM. E* may have been within their rights to terminate the agreement and yank the VOOM channels...however:
- E* thought they did not violate TiVO patents...they were wrong.
- E* didn't think their ability to provide distant locals would be pulled...they were wrong.
- E* thought they may get a big payday ("potentially worth more than a billion dollars") from NewsCorp/NDS...they were awarded $1500 and legal fees).
SPENDING REQUIREMENT
Under Section 10 of the Affiliation Agreement, VOOM agreed to spend $100 million on the Service (the "Spending Requirement"). Section 10 also provided that, if the number of channels on VOOM was permanently reduced, the annual spending requirement would decrease pursuant to a prescribed formula.
Finally, I don't know about anyone else...but I recall Charlie taking about the possibility of bringing new VOOMHD channels online as late as April/May of 2006. I am not sure how this relates to the affiliate agreement, but who knows.
Sean, what are you contacts at VOOM saying?
According to the court document YOU provided the agreement is based on 15 channels not 21. The ruling quotes VOOM as acknowledging this and I can't find any document claiming that VOOM is arguing it covered 21 channels. Bit you persist in quoting the ruling for everything except the language about the number of channels it is based on and go to other sources to try to state it might cover 21 channels and therefore the spending requirement was reduced---even though VOOM does not seem to make that claim.
BTW that same ruling describes in detail the arguments presented by both Echostar and VOOM. There is absolutely no reference to VOOM claiming that the $100,000 number refers to 21 channel offering. That argument seems to appear only in your posts.
BTW you might want to check the date of the affilaition agreement before you make the calim that it was already in place as of the date of the other documents you cite. The agreement is dated six months later.
Last edited:
I posted Cablevisions 1st Quarter report, but SatelliteGuys appearently doesn't like RTF documents and dropped it without error. Sorry, my bust!
Your quote from Mr. Moyer is merely an argument Rainbow Media made when trying to demonstrate to the court the danger of irreparable harm in the absence of an injunction. The presentation of this quote is disjointed since is has absolutely nothing to the content nor provisions of the Affiliate Agreement, which is the basis of my argument. Again, until we know the actual channels the Spending Requirement required (we already know the agreement was signed in April and supposedly mention VOOM21, which was currently being offed by VOOM at that time), the "prescribed formula" mentioned in Section 10, and the content of the cure provisions of the affiliate agreement...everything else is a guessing game.
Excellent point! Yes, but is this a new agreement? Does this agreement incorporate, supercede, or merely add an addendum to the agreement in place during April 2005? Except for VOOM21, the April 2005 agreement mentioned in Cablevisions May 2005 report sounds pretty much like the November 2005 document being argued in court. For example, when my divorce when finalized in '99 the court incorporate my Property and Separations Agreement from two years earlier and added a couple pages modifying a couple items in the seps agreement. Likewise, whenever I referred to the court order is was always the '99 Divorce Order since the seps agreement was incorporated. In this case, it may very well depend on two documents: the April 2005 agreement and the November 2005 agreement...which we will never see.
Again, E* may very well have been within their right to terminate the agreement...but I wouldn't count on it, and I certainly don't condone their yanking the channels from customers without warning, providing misleading advertising (aka "95 HD channels" in their press release), and playing the "Tier Game" (unethical behavior in my opinion) instead of just terminating the agreement and notifying their customers in advance. Sorry, but this all add up (to me at least) to another Cheesedick Charlie tactic, and it leads me to conclude that VOOM's argument, "May hold water." (My Cousin Vinny, 1992).
On a selfish note, I would love to see VOOM added to my FiOS TV lineup!!!
Last edited:
I posted Cablevisions 1st Quarter report, but SatelliteGuys appearently doesn't like RTF documents and dropped it without error. Sorry, my bust!
Your quote from Mr. Moyer is merely an argument Rainbow Media made when trying to demonstrate to the court the danger of irreparable harm in the absence of an injunction. The presentation of this quote is disjointed since is has absolutely nothing to the content nor provisions of the Affiliate Agreement, which is the basis of my argument. Again, until we know the actual channels the Spending Requirement required (we already know the agreement was signed in April and supposedly mention VOOM21, which was currently being offed by VOOM at that time), the "prescribed formula" mentioned in Section 10, and the content of the cure provisions of the affiliate agreement...everything else is a guessing game.
Excellent point! Yes, but is this a new agreement? Does this agreement incorporate, supercede, or merely add an addendum to the agreement in place during April 2005? Except for VOOM21, the April 2005 agreement mentioned in Cablevisions May 2005 report sounds pretty much like the November 2005 document being argued in court.
Again, E* may very well have been within their right to terminate the agreement...but I wouldn't count on it, and I certainly don't condone their yanking the channels from customers without warning, providing misleading advertising (aka "95 HD channels" in their press release), and playing the "Tier Game" (unethical behavior in my opinion) instead of just terminating the agreement and notifying their customers in advance. Sorry, but this all add up (to me at least) to another Cheesedick Charlie tactic, and it leads me to conclude that VOOM's argument, "May hold water." (My Cousin Vinny, 1992).
At this point, even an optional $5 or $10 tier would be acceptable. I think both Dish and Voom would be VERY surprised how many people would sign up for it. If Dish is concerned that Voom is hindering the expansion of subscribers, especially to the Ultimate package, why not move it and not force those who want HDnet, Universal, etc NOT to pay for Voom? Seems to make sense to me...But, I would assume it's Voom who would have a bigger problem with that than Dish.
I get the feeling both parties will come to an agreement sooner or later, but who knows...perhaps it's better for both parties to build other business relationships.
"Charlie says that today we have 81 national HD channels and by the end of the year they will have more the 100 national HD channels." from Scott's post on front page.
How is E* at 81 national Channels? What did they claim to be at once they added 22 and before they dropped V*?
How is E* at 81 national Channels? What did they claim to be at once they added 22 and before they dropped V*?
VOOM HD versus EchoStar Satellite documents...
....nothing we don't already know, but the SummonsandComplaint and Counterclaim look like good reading - more details than what the judge summarized.
....nothing we don't already know, but the SummonsandComplaint and Counterclaim look like good reading - more details than what the judge summarized.
Folks, if you have time you gotta read the Summons and Compaint. To sum it up, VOOM says the matter deals with spending requirements during 2006: $100 million for 21 HD channels vice $82 million for a prorated 15 channels, EchoStar not being happy with terms of the agreement and trying (and treatening) multiple times to get a better deal, and VOOM staying they not only met the $82 million spending requirement, but actually spent $102.9 million on VOOM during 2006, and EchoStar not offering one word of evidence as to the nature of the alleged spending shortfall.
Good stuff...but it boils down to if VOOM can prove they spent whatever it was they were supposed to spend as per the agreement.
Good stuff...but it boils down to if VOOM can prove they spent whatever it was they were supposed to spend as per the agreement.
Unfortunately they can not create a separate tier/package under the current contract. This might be what comes out of negotiations.
60 is pushing it isn't it? I know I don't get 60 channels. Anyway Charlie claimed at the meeting today they were at 81 channels. Is it at all possible to recieve 81 hd channels from E* even if you had the everything pack?
I believe Charlie’s counting ALL local sports channels such as FSN as an “individual” HD Channel. This is a gray area for some but is total BS in my opinion. FSN is one network not 14 or 15 separate entities. If they are then I should in theory be able to tune into ANY FSN that I choose to regardless of what region I'm in.
Yep, its bogus. Should only be the total amount of channels a subscriber can recieve. Again borderline false advertising.
Voom and Cinemax for a Penny a year
The CSR I talked with last night when I signed up for Cinemax for 2 years for a penny a year told me Voom would be back on in a couple of days. Do not know if he knows what he is talking about, but he did get me Cinemax for two years for a penny each year. I just had to sign up for paperless billing. Anybody else heard this about Voom?
:
The CSR I talked with last night when I signed up for Cinemax for 2 years for a penny a year told me Voom would be back on in a couple of days. Do not know if he knows what he is talking about, but he did get me Cinemax for two years for a penny each year. I just had to sign up for paperless billing. Anybody else heard this about Voom?
:I happened to be walking by ...
(cross posted)
First I want to make clear that I’m not an insider and do not have inside information, nor do I have a financial position in EchoStar.
Based purely on observation, the following conclusions have become obvious.
EchoStar’s removal of the VOOM channels had nothing to do with bandwidth.
As many have observed and then stated. For a period of time all of the channels were available simultaneously.
This then brings us to the supposition that the breach of contract on VOOM’s part is what lead to the removal of their programming on EchoStar’s network.
Reading of court documents and press releases clearly shows that VOOM did not spend the amount of money stipulated in the contract with EchoStar.
But EchoStar’s request of remedy was not for VOOM to meet the contractual requirements, it was for VOOM to accept a tiered packaging of their channels.
VOOM apparently rejected this, stating that EchoStar’s offer was in breach of the contract.
This gives us some insight as to what is going on behind the scenes. It is more likely that EchoStar ‘s motivation lies in a leverage position.
The question of corporate decision-making, specifically CEO Charles Ergen, has been repeated often in this thread.
It is crucial and cannot be forgotten that the corporate hierarchy has a fiduciary to their stockholders, and not to their customers.
The questions that need to be asked are;
1) Did the decision benefit the share holders?
2) Can a business who stock is tumbling afford to lose customers?
And most importantly,
3) Should management be replaced for their flagrant display of utter incompetence?
I want to conclude with this thought.
For those who want the Voom channels returned, take your fight to two fronts.
The shareholders and the court case, MAKE YOUR VOICE HEARD.
For those who do not want the Voom channels returned, in effect, wanting to limit our freedom of choice.
Why would you do that? What is you motive?
(cross posted)
First I want to make clear that I’m not an insider and do not have inside information, nor do I have a financial position in EchoStar.
Based purely on observation, the following conclusions have become obvious.
EchoStar’s removal of the VOOM channels had nothing to do with bandwidth.
As many have observed and then stated. For a period of time all of the channels were available simultaneously.
This then brings us to the supposition that the breach of contract on VOOM’s part is what lead to the removal of their programming on EchoStar’s network.
Reading of court documents and press releases clearly shows that VOOM did not spend the amount of money stipulated in the contract with EchoStar.
But EchoStar’s request of remedy was not for VOOM to meet the contractual requirements, it was for VOOM to accept a tiered packaging of their channels.
VOOM apparently rejected this, stating that EchoStar’s offer was in breach of the contract.
This gives us some insight as to what is going on behind the scenes. It is more likely that EchoStar ‘s motivation lies in a leverage position.
The question of corporate decision-making, specifically CEO Charles Ergen, has been repeated often in this thread.
It is crucial and cannot be forgotten that the corporate hierarchy has a fiduciary to their stockholders, and not to their customers.
The questions that need to be asked are;
1) Did the decision benefit the share holders?
2) Can a business who stock is tumbling afford to lose customers?
And most importantly,
3) Should management be replaced for their flagrant display of utter incompetence?
I want to conclude with this thought.
For those who want the Voom channels returned, take your fight to two fronts.
The shareholders and the court case, MAKE YOUR VOICE HEARD.
For those who do not want the Voom channels returned, in effect, wanting to limit our freedom of choice.
Why would you do that? What is you motive?
I posted Cablevisions 1st Quarter report, but SatelliteGuys appearently doesn't like RTF documents and dropped it without error. Sorry, my bust!
Your quote from Mr. Moyer is merely an argument Rainbow Media made when trying to demonstrate to the court the danger of irreparable harm in the absence of an injunction. The presentation of this quote is disjointed since is has absolutely nothing to the content nor provisions of the Affiliate Agreement, which is the basis of my argument. Again, until we know the actual channels the Spending Requirement required (we already know the agreement was signed in April and supposedly mention VOOM21, which was currently being offed by VOOM at that time), the "prescribed formula" mentioned in Section 10, and the content of the cure provisions of the affiliate agreement...everything else is a guessing game.
Excellent point! Yes, but is this a new agreement? Does this agreement incorporate, supercede, or merely add an addendum to the agreement in place during April 2005? Except for VOOM21, the April 2005 agreement mentioned in Cablevisions May 2005 report sounds pretty much like the November 2005 document being argued in court. For example, when my divorce when finalized in '99 the court incorporate my Property and Separations Agreement from two years earlier and added a couple pages modifying a couple items in the seps agreement. Likewise, whenever I referred to the court order is was always the '99 Divorce Order since the seps agreement was incorporated. In this case, it may very well depend on two documents: the April 2005 agreement and the November 2005 agreement...which we will never see.
Again, E* may very well have been within their right to terminate the agreement...but I wouldn't count on it, and I certainly don't condone their yanking the channels from customers without warning, providing misleading advertising (aka "95 HD channels" in their press release), and playing the "Tier Game" (unethical behavior in my opinion) instead of just terminating the agreement and notifying their customers in advance. Sorry, but this all add up (to me at least) to another Cheesedick Charlie tactic, and it leads me to conclude that VOOM's argument, "May hold water." (My Cousin Vinny, 1992).
On a selfish note, I would love to see VOOM added to my FiOS TV lineup!!!
The affiliate agreemnt being litigates is the November agreement. ther is not another one. Yes you posted cablevision documents (from b4 the agreement btw)but you also posted the court ruling. That ruling is very clear that the number of channels in the agreement in question is 15.
I posted Cablevisions 1st Quarter report, but SatelliteGuys appearently doesn't like RTF documents and dropped it without error. Sorry, my bust!
Your quote from Mr. Moyer is merely an argument Rainbow Media made when trying to demonstrate to the court the danger of irreparable harm in the absence of an injunction. The presentation of this quote is disjointed since is has absolutely nothing to the content nor provisions of the Affiliate Agreement, which is the basis of my argument. Again, until we know the actual channels the Spending Requirement required (we already know the agreement was signed in April and supposedly mention VOOM21, which was currently being offed by VOOM at that time), the "prescribed formula" mentioned in Section 10, and the content of the cure provisions of the affiliate agreement...everything else is a guessing game.
Excellent point! Yes, but is this a new agreement? Does this agreement incorporate, supercede, or merely add an addendum to the agreement in place during April 2005? Except for VOOM21, the April 2005 agreement mentioned in Cablevisions May 2005 report sounds pretty much like the November 2005 document being argued in court. For example, when my divorce when finalized in '99 the court incorporate my Property and Separations Agreement from two years earlier and added a couple pages modifying a couple items in the seps agreement. Likewise, whenever I referred to the court order is was always the '99 Divorce Order since the sep agreement was incorporated. In this case, it may very well depend on two documents: the April 2005 agreement and the November 2005 agreement...which we will never see.
Again, E* may very well have been within their right to terminate the agreement...but I wouldn't count on it, and I certainly don't condone their yanking the channels from customers without warning, providing misleading advertising (aka "95 HD channels" in their press release), and playing the "Tier Game" (unethical behavior in my opinion) instead of just terminating the agreement and notifying their customers in advance. Sorry, but this all add up (to me at least) to another Cheesedick Charlie tactic, and it leads me to conclude that VOOM's argument, "May hold water." (My Cousin Vinny, 1992).
On a selfish note, I would love to see VOOM added to my FiOS TV lineup!!!
The affiliate gareemnt being litigated is the November agreement. There is not another one. Yes you posted cablevision documents (from b4 the agreement btw)but you also posted the court ruling. That ruling is very clear that the number of channels in the agreement in question is 15. Ther are explicit references to this in the documents you posted back in post 37. evenV OOM is not trying to make the argumetnt that you are.
But good luck with FIOS. My neighbors have it and rave about the PQ both HD and SD as well as the speed of the net connection.
Last edited:
