All Available HD Channels Information

[cfarm]

Voom wanted InHD, InHD said you can have it ( per FCC rules if it is transmitted via Satellite they have to offer it to DBS and Cable providers )

Which FCC rule is that? The networks typically feed their HD stuff to their affiliates via satellite. How does this gain an exception to this rule?

 

[jnardone]

Which FCC rule is that? The networks typically feed their HD stuff to their affiliates via satellite. How does this gain an exception to this rule?

Why not look up the lawsuit/press release and do the research yourself. No one here is trying to deceive you.

 

[dash2004]

Fox Sports Net HD

A large number of FSN channels broadcast selected games in HD from two transponders on Galaxy 13. These channels would be nice additions to the Voom HD lineup.

The following quote is from: http://www.panamsat.com/news/pressview.asp?article=1360 dated on July 20, 2004.

FSN HD premiered with the onset of the National Basketball Association and National Hockey League schedules for fall 2003, offering select professional games in HD from Fox Sports Net. Seven of Fox's 12 owned-and-operated regional sports networks currently produce local high-definition programs, while others will follow in the near future. Those already producing HD local content are FSN West, FSN West 2, FSN Arizona, FSN Southwest, FSN South, FSN North and Sunshine Network. Other FSN networks expected to follow include FSN Detroit, FSN Pittsburgh, FSN Midwest, FSN Northwest and FSN Rocky Mountain.

 

[cfarm]

Did you think I was lying or something? Why not just do a search on this board and you will find VOOM's press release from when they sued INHD and why. There was much discussion about whether INHD should be allowed to require VOOM to either provide a minimum number of subscribers or pay a higher per subscriber price. INHD wanted them too, VOOM didn't want to. Either way, INHD was willing to sell their programming to VOOM - VOOM just wasn't willing to pay. My OPINION is that if VOOM already had advertised INHD and INHD2 on their brochure (which they did when they first started and when I signed up) then they should have paid whatever the price to provide the service they promised.

The question was somewhat rhetorical and I was not suggesting you were lying. It would be no different than Comcast suing Rainbow because they wanted to carry Equator or Rave. IMO, it has a very weak leg to stand on in court. Your opinion may be different. If the case goes before a Judge and Rainbow wins, I will stand corrected.

Legal maneuvering like this happens a lot in the Corporate world. Don't assume the motivations for litigation coincide with your personal way of thinking. More times than not the reasons are not obvious.

 

[cfarm]

Why not look up the lawsuit/press release and do the research yourself. No one here is trying to deceive you.

Because you folks seem so versed on the facts I would assume you had the information at hand. I also assumed the Forum was one for information sharing. Perhaps it's just opinion based?

Not opposed to looking it up for myself.

 

[bryan27]

Which FCC rule is that? The networks typically feed their HD stuff to their affiliates via satellite. How does this gain an exception to this rule?

Because there are different rules governing broadcast distribution via satellite and distribution via satellite to cable, and other multi-channel providers. The network, syndicated, and news feeds aren't intended for cable distribution. But INHD is uplinkind with the intention of cable distribution.

Because you folks seem so versed on the facts I would assume you had the information at hand. I also assumed the Forum was one for information sharing.

Yes, many of us are well versed in the FCC rules, but there are hundreds of thousands of rules and to have them at hand or memorized all the time is impossible.

A large number of FSN channels broadcast selected games in HD from two transponders on Galaxy 13. These channels would be nice additions to the Voom HD lineup.

I didn't add those because they are just feeds and not 24/7 channels. They also moved location to Galaxy 11 http://www.lyngsat.com/g11.html

 

[cfarm]

Thanks for the pointer to the older thread.

This is not about a lawsuit, but instead a complaint to the FCC. Nowhere is it mentioned which FCC rule is supposedly broken. In fact, both sides dispute whether any rule was broken at all.

You could argue that InHD is making it prohibitively expensive, but that's the way the game is played. Big Corporate competitors like to play hardball with one another, but as long as they play within the laws, it doesn't do much good to complain.

 

[Bruce]

VOOM Cries Foul Over INHD and INHD2

Byline: MICHAEL BASCOMBE

Rainbow's DBS provider VOOM wants its INHD, and it doesn't think In Demand is playing fair. So, it's taken its case to the FCC, filing a program access complaint Fri against In Demand, whose shareholders include Comcast, Cox and Time Warner Cable. The complaint, first reported by Satellite Business News, claims In Demand has refused to negotiate a "commercially reasonable agreement" with VOOM for the carriage of INHD and INHD2. "We are confident that our pricing policies are consistent with the FCC and all other rules," In Demand said in a statement Mon. "The allegations contained in Rainbow's complaint are completely without merit. We will defend the complaint vigorously at the FCC and have every confidence that the FCC will find our policies consistent with all FCC rules and regulations." VOOM claims that in Sept '03 In Demand offered a fee based upon a minimum number of subs that would have worked out to $3.84/sub based upon the DBS provider's current subscription numbers. At a Sept '04 meeting, In Demand informed VOOM that it had ignored the company's counterproposal because it did not contain minimum subscriber guarantees, the complaint said. "ID made plain that its offer was on a 'take it or leave it' basis," VOOM told the FCC. VOOM doesn't believe In Demand has made minimum sub guarantees of any other operator. Worth noting that during these initial negotiations, VOOM projected its sub count would be at 300K by year-end. As of 2Q '04, it had netted 25K. Dark Side: We couldn't help but remember back to a Media Institute lunch a few years back that Rainbow DBS head Chuck Dolan spoke at, where he declared program access rules were bad for cable. "At Cablevision we spend tens, if not hundreds, of millions developing original programming for our customers. Yet, under current regulations we are forced to share much of that programming directly with our competitors."

http://www.satelliteguys.us/showpost.php?p=215785&postcount=1

 

[Walter L.]

bruce,
I remember that article. Isn't it weird that nobody ever found any other article about that? or what about the FCC filings?

 

[Bruce]

bruce,
I remember that article. Isn't it weird that nobody ever found any other article about that? or what about the FCC filings?

yep..and I checked the FCC and the SEC and all other news releases, and nada, I think Voom just gave up based on the time frame, 10-20-04, they were trying to get the spin off going and then we all know what happened after that, they had too many problems going on, and I think it is too bad for Voomers, you folks would really like it, I think it is a great channel with the right mixture of movies, sports, music and such.
Since I dropped E* and went with Comcast I am watching InHD a whole lot more then HD-Net, I can't wait for Baseball season, watching games in 1080i, woohoo.

 

[cfarm]

VOOM Cries Foul Over INHD and INHD2

Byline: MICHAEL BASCOMBE

Rainbow's DBS provider VOOM wants its INHD, and it doesn't think In Demand is playing fair. So, it's taken its case to the FCC, filing a program access complaint Fri against In Demand, whose shareholders include Comcast, Cox and Time Warner Cable. The complaint, first reported by Satellite Business News, claims In Demand has refused to negotiate a "commercially reasonable agreement" with VOOM for the carriage of INHD and INHD2. "We are confident that our pricing policies are consistent with the FCC and all other rules," In Demand said in a statement Mon. "The allegations contained in Rainbow's complaint are completely without merit. We will defend the complaint vigorously at the FCC and have every confidence that the FCC will find our policies consistent with all FCC rules and regulations." VOOM claims that in Sept '03 In Demand offered a fee based upon a minimum number of subs that would have worked out to $3.84/sub based upon the DBS provider's current subscription numbers. At a Sept '04 meeting, In Demand informed VOOM that it had ignored the company's counterproposal because it did not contain minimum subscriber guarantees, the complaint said. "ID made plain that its offer was on a 'take it or leave it' basis," VOOM told the FCC. VOOM doesn't believe In Demand has made minimum sub guarantees of any other operator. Worth noting that during these initial negotiations, VOOM projected its sub count would be at 300K by year-end. As of 2Q '04, it had netted 25K. Dark Side: We couldn't help but remember back to a Media Institute lunch a few years back that Rainbow DBS head Chuck Dolan spoke at, where he declared program access rules were bad for cable. "At Cablevision we spend tens, if not hundreds, of millions developing original programming for our customers. Yet, under current regulations we are forced to share much of that programming directly with our competitors."

http://www.satelliteguys.us/showpost.php?p=215785&postcount=1

I'm no lawyer, but I think if you go to court or before the FCC and your case is based on nothing more than a statement like "isn't playing fair", you'll get your head handed to you on a platter.

I think some may be confusing "must carry" rules which have no bearing on this dispute. If anyone has a specific FCC rule that applies, please post it. I'm looking myself, but so far nothing.

 

[cfarm]

In the multi-channel marketplace program suppliers must make their channel available at a reasonable price to multi-channel providers if that channel is uplinked for distribution via satellite. If someone wanted to carry HDNews it would have to be made available at a reasonable price, same with the D* or E* Barker Channels (not that anyone would want to carry those).

So what does "reasonable price" mean? Not trying to be argumentative, just pointing out the huge loopholes here. The competition plays on exactly that sort of thing to make their adversaries life more difficult.

Unless there is a FCC rule which states specifically why Voom should be allowed to carry InHD, then I think we're talking opinions only. It doesn't appear Voom pursued this much beyond the first volley, so perhaps they recognized the weakness of their complaint or perhaps it just got dropped because of the attempts to shut down Voom.

 

[Walter L.]

The issue with inHD was not that much about the price as it was about the requirement for minimum subs guarantees that inHD was trying to impose. VOOM was claiming that inHD doesn't have that requirement in contracts with other providers. For sure they must know about one of such contracts: Cablevision.

 

[cfarm]

The issue with inHD was not that much about the price as it was about the requirement for minimum subs guarantees that inHD was trying to impose. VOOM was claiming that inHD doesn't have that requirement in contracts with other providers. For sure they must know about one of such contracts: Cablevision.

Then the complaint was probably to get that info out in the open or within a public statement. The quota wouldn't be an issue for Echostar or DirecTV, but with a small subscriber base like Voom has currently, it's very real.

 

[jnardone]

Another interesting item that I had not remembered from that article was that VOOM was projecting that it would have 300K subscribers by the end of the first year. No wonder Cablevision started to question its viability.

 

[kelljc]

Another interesting item that I had not remembered from that article was that VOOM was projecting that it would have 300K subscribers by the end of the first year. No wonder Cablevision started to question its viability.[/QUOTE
Same OLE SAme OLE, try something New, like "voom' is the Best and 2nd to none ".

 

[bryan27]

Another interesting item that I had not remembered from that article was that VOOM was projecting that it would have 300K subscribers by the end of the first year. No wonder Cablevision started to question its viability.

Hum, yes that is interesting. It is sort of like when Sirus said it would have 1 Million subs its first year. When it didn't there was talk of going out of business or merging with XM, bit look Sirus is still in existance toady