DISH -VS- VOOM - A Settlement has been reached!

[riffjim4069]

Dream on, none of that is going to happen.

Voom screwed themselves. They should have spent what was required of them. Then they pulled the 5 channels from Dish, to what end? If they would have kept the channels on they would at least be able to stay alive. Now it looks like come July they will be non-existent.

What are you talking about? (rhetorical question since I am not interested in reading your trolling ramblings...)

Again, as I have stated a hundred times, I don't hold out much, if any, hope that VOOM will return to the E* lineup. Just like many others, we're just exploring possible outcomes to this case. You should probably wake-up and realize their are actual facts to this case than your mere, "I hate VOOM, E* can do no wrong!" idealogy.

Unless you're a staff member with E* or V* and have first hand "priveledged" information regarding the affiliate agreement, interim agreement, artifacts and discussions, then you're not in a position to draw meaningful conclusions...just like the rest of us. If you feel otherwise, please support your arguments (i.e. VOOM screwed themselves...they should have spent what was required of them) with relevants facts about this matter and perhaps, just perhaps, you may actually contribute something to this discussion.

Whether you like V*, hate V* or are indifferent toward V*, most linear thinking people will conclude that more HD is better than less HD, and that VOOM does offer a wide variety of unique HD programming. Even the most ardent Dish Network supporter will recognize this fact. I also believe that most rational people are still hoping for a settlement (albeit a long shot) regardless of who you side with for the reasons I just mentioned.

Also, since when was Voom a Dish exclusive.

Ugh!, either you cannot read or you're once again trolling because I have clearly stated, a number of times, (which is also supported by E* and V* E-filings) the agreeement was non-exclusive. However, I have also said in easy to understand terms that the "agreement" made it difficult for VOOM to break up the 15-channel lineup from a business standpoint because they would be required to offer the same conditions to E*. This was my hypothesis since 2005 (when questiong why VOOM would not break-up the 15-channel lineup when dealing with Verizon, Comcast, etc.), this is what I restated when VOOM filed their case back in January and, just recently as of 24 June, this is what was confirmed in E*'s Answer and Counterclaim: VOOM had a 15-year affiliation agreement with EchoStar; all VOOM HD channels were to be in available in the lowest tier HD subscription tier (i.e. DishHD Essentials); there was a condended penetration requirements (similar to the spend requirement) in the agreement (something like 93% according to filings); E* paid VOOM anywhere from $3.45 to $6.45 per subscriber depending on the year of the contract.

So...if VOOM were to license Monsters, Rave and Equator to Comcast for $1.00 per month for digital cable subscriber, they would be required to offer a similar deal to E*. As I have mentioned before, this was a bad deal for E*, a sweet deal for VOOM (aka Rainbow Media), but a horrible deal for VOOM programming since it created a business climate in which VOOM beca,e "pseudo-exclusive" between both parties. If VOOM strikes deals with other providers for anything less than the 15-channels lineup under the same terms and conditions of their affiliation agreement with E*, then they in effect lose their "sweet deal" with E* because you both know Charlie would be on top of this quicker than a fly on sh*t. I can understand VOOM's dilemna since marketing the VOOM channels a la carte, from a business standpoint, would violate the prudent person concept which requires their business executives to implement the concepts of due-care and due-dilligence when dealing with company financials. I am sure a number of shareholders could be upset (can you say lawsuit) should they potentially walk-away from a billion dollar plus contract with E*. That is what they woudl have done by breaking up the VOOM15 lineup.

 

[Peter Parker]

There was no way that this VOOM business model was going to succeed. they should have used it a as a source of cash to help them grow. Sure if they had four other customers they would hae to offer DISH the same deal but eventually the larger number of cstomers woud have made them profitable.

If VOOM let the deal hold them back shame on VOOM.

 

[riffjim4069]

At the beat goes on...

Just the latest he said, she said in the form of VOOM's Reply to EchoStar's Counterclaims, filed on 14 July 2008. VOOM:

Denies they breached the contract and acted in bad faith.

Deny VOOM consisted of only 10 channels. They imply VOOM consisted of 21 channels since this their argument in their amended complaint.

Admits their product is being distributed to 900,000 Cablevision customers on an interim basis, but said the agreement expired on June 30, 2008. Offhand, I doubt you'll see it renewed pending litigation with E*.

Denies E* argument that they have declined to take advantage of other distribution opportunities because entering such arrangements would require providing similar terms to EchoStar. (sorry, even I don't believe this one)

Denies they were required to spend $100 million per year for the first five years.

It appears VOOM denies the statement, “The agreement between EchoStar and VOOM is non-exclusive.” (makes no sense since they stated it was a non-exclusive agreement back in 2005)

Denies E*’s assertion that they failed to certify compliance with Section 4(g) of the agreement (non-repeat programming commitment). VOOM states they “property certified its compliance with Section 4 of the Affiliation Agreement by letter dated February 27, 2007.

Denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief regarding EchoStar’s audit (Carolyn Crawford).

Denies VOOM failed to meet the Section 10 Spend Limit.

State that EchoStar's Counterclaim should be barred because they breached Section10 and Section 4 of the Affiliation Agreement.

In summary, there are no surprises here...just a rehashing of the same. I don't expect we'll hear anything of substance until the trial kicks-off next year. But ya never know...

Hmmm....for some reason I cannot upload the PDF.

 

[goaliebob99]

So in a nut shell voom is lying there asses off trying hope for a win.. when we all know that E* will kick them in the pants when it comes to trial.

 

[riffjim4069]

So in a nut shell voom is lying there asses off trying hope for a win.. when we all know that E* will kick them in the pants when it comes to trial.

Someone is lying, but it all boils down to contracts and artifacts. All the double-talk, rhetoric, inuendo, and chest-thumping bravado is quite interesting...but it doesn't add up to a hill of beans. Just like TiVo, I predict Charlie will be cursing another four letter word this time next year...."VOOM, VOOM, dammit to hell VOOM."

 

[Peter Parker]

Thanks for the post. At least we know the situation with Cablevision now. Not sure taht is reat news for the pro VOOMers but at least there is no known cutoff date.

 

[riffjim4069]

Thanks for the post. At least we know the situation with Cablevision now. Not sure taht is reat news for the pro VOOMers but at least there is no known cutoff date.

Yep, I don't see VOOM leaving Cablevision...especially with FiOS moving in New York/New Jersey (Cablevision territory), and VOOM obtaining more business in their foreign markets. As much as I would love to see VOOM on FiOS, Cable and D*, I just don't see it happening...but who knows.

The one question I keep pondering is: Why would VOOM not start making VOOM widely available to others a la carte or in various packages, and continue to pursue this lawsuit, if they know they are breached the contract? This makes no sense! Likewise, wouldn't they have accepted the "generous lifeline" thrown to them by E* if they had knowingly breached the agreement? VOOM knows what's in the agreement, and it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that E* will come after them for damages if they breached the agreement. Again, this doesn't add up. Cablevision, like 'em or not, has generally tried to avoid litigation whereas E* eats, drinks and sleeps in the courtroom.

I still maintain E* is playing a calculated game in the courts since...well, to be honest...since losing in the courtroom will probably cost them no more money than honoring their agreement with VOOM. We shall see...

 

[Peter Parker]

According to DISH they had the right to terminate in the event of a breach and did so. they do not really have to call for amages for that argument to hold water.

As for whether rainbow wants to sell VOOM to others that is a tough one. They a re alleging that the chances of another sale are slim and some of the damages are predicated on that argument. It sure does not look like they are trying to make deal anywhere but we would not necessarily know.

 

[riffjim4069]

As for whether rainbow wants to sell VOOM to others that is a tough one. They a re alleging that the chances of another sale are slim and some of the damages are predicated on that argument. It sure does not look like they are trying to make deal anywhere but we would not necessarily know.

If they didn't breach the agreement, then their actions (which frustrating) do make some sense. Of course, if they broke the agreement...their strategy makes zero sense, and someone at VOOM should be placed behind bars IMO.

 

[FitzAusTex]

So in a nut shell voom is lying there asses off trying hope for a win.. when we all know that E* will kick them in the pants when it comes to trial.

Glad to see that you're still getting at least the daily recommended dose of the E* Kool-aid that they've been handing out since Team Summit.

And yes, E* tends to do real well in court.

 

[Fitzie]

Denying that Voom even had a $100M spend committment seems to be new, unless they are contending it was reduced to some other amount ($84M, for instance) by reduction from 21 to 15 in the number of channels. Whatever the amount may be, the Judge in the case has apparently already concluded they didn't meet it. After all, $59 million, the amount they seemingly claim to have spent on the "service," is not $84 million. If $84M is the true amount, they're still $25 million short.

 

[Peter Parker]

VOOM has been arguing for some time that the $100 million requirement was reduced because of the number of channels. they have also argued that indirect exenses could be part of that total.

As for VOOM's actions not making sense if they breached. We have been there before. It si altogether possible either that VOOM interpreted the agreement a particular way that might not prevail or that they simply could not afford to met the requirement and thought that they had enough influece with DISh that they could prevail.

While i really don't t hink that VOOM will prevail in all this I don't find their actions shocking.

 

[riffjim4069]

Glad to see that you're still getting at least the daily recommended dose of the E* Kool-aid that they've been handing out since Team Summit.

And yes, E* tends to do real well in court.

You win both the funniest and most sarcastic post of the day award...:haha

 

[riffjim4069]

Wake Up VOOM...

While i really don't t hink that VOOM will prevail in all this I don't find their actions shocking.

I guess VOOMs actions, or inactions, aren't shocking, but they certainly are surprising.

The way I see it...VOOM pursuing a case they cannot win, while continue to shelf the VOOM product, makes the least sense; EchoStar breaching the contract because it will cost less money in the long run makes the most sense, especially given their past. Of course, I could be wrong.

Personally, I feel VOOM will prevail in this case, but I also think they will be awarded pennies on the dollar. Unless VOOM is busily working deals in the background, VOOM HD Networks LLC will probably fail. Botton line: if VOOM is banking on a "Big Payday" that would be a "Big Mistake".

As I mentioned in another thread, Rainbow Media has been very successful marketing their other cable channels: AMC - 84.4 million, WE - 57.2 million, IFC - 44.6 million, Fuse - 47.0 million. VOOM should go on the offensive and offer up the entire 15-channels lineup, free-of-chage, to all Satellite and Cable providers for a 1-year customer evaluation period. Additionally, they should let each provider decide which channels to integrate into their programming lineup. This will cost VOOM almost nothing, it will get VOOM some much needed mass-market exposure, it will not impact their case with E*, and E* will not be permitted to participate in the promotion since since their account is in arrears.:up

The other option is to shuttle VOOM Network HD LLC, sell VOOM assets back to Rainbow Media for pennies on the dollar, close-out E*'s equity ownership in VOOM, and stand-up 5-8 "New HD Channels" under the Rainbow moniker.:up:up

In any case, VOOM needs to do something...soon!!!

 

[mike123abc]

VOOM has been arguing for some time that the $100 million requirement was reduced because of the number of channels. they have also argued that indirect exenses could be part of that total.

As for VOOM's actions not making sense if they breached. We have been there before. It si altogether possible either that VOOM interpreted the agreement a particular way that might not prevail or that they simply could not afford to met the requirement and thought that they had enough influece with DISh that they could prevail.

While i really don't t hink that VOOM will prevail in all this I don't find their actions shocking.

Probably more along the lines of some middle management at CVC attempting to make their areas look more profitable by shifting expenses to VOOM. Not a concious effort, but a bill it to VOOM and get a bonus for cutting expenses. It is one thing when you own everything to shift around expenses, but when you have a partner and a defined expense contract it can get sticky. Probably more lax oversite at CVC than anything else causing VOOM to be neglected and underfunded.

 

[riffjim4069]

Probably more along the lines of some middle management at CVC attempting to make their areas look more profitable by shifting expenses to VOOM. Not a concious effort, but a bill it to VOOM and get a bonus for cutting expenses. It is one thing when you own everything to shift around expenses, but when you have a partner and a defined expense contract it can get sticky. Probably more lax oversite at CVC than anything else causing VOOM to be neglected and underfunded.

Sounds like a reasonable argument to explain a possible spending shortage, but why would VOOM continue to pursue the lawsuit when they violated the agreement...and why would they not settle for being tiered?

Things that make you go hmmm...

 

[HDRoberts]

why would VOOM continue to pursue the lawsuit when they violated the agreement...and why would they not settle for being tiered?

Things that make you go hmmm...

Money, perhaps? Rather or not they believe they violated the agreement, all that matters if what a judge believes, and who knows, maybe he or she is a MonstersHD fan. Why not spend a few hundred thousand on the chance for a multi-million dollar judgment, especially when you've already spent hundreds of millions on Voom?

Why not settle for being tierd? No channel wants to be optional. Go to being tierd and they will have tha same issue as the DBS service: not enough subscribers.

 

[riffjim4069]

Just noticed the court posted how both parties are going to produce and exchange Confidential Information. More of the same ole, same old as both parties dig in and get ready for battel.

 

[Peter Parker]

I guess VOOMs actions, or inactions, aren't shocking, but they certainly are surprising.

The way I see it...VOOM pursuing a case they cannot win, while continue to shelf the VOOM product, makes the least sense; EchoStar breaching the contract because it will cost less money in the long run makes the most sense, especially given their past. Of course, I could be wrong.

For all we know they are trying to market the service but have not consummated a deal yet. It may not seem to amke sense but it may be the realty that VOOm is faced with.

as for continuing the lawsuit----well they may see no viable alternative.

 

[Peter Parker]

I

The other option is to shuttle VOOM Network HD LLC, sell VOOM assets back to Rainbow Media for pennies on the dollar, close-out E*'s equity ownership in VOOM, and stand-up 5-8 "New HD Channels" under the Rainbow moniker.:up:up

In any case, VOOM needs to do something...soon!!!

I certainly don't disagree about whether they need to do something. Just moving the channels and the rights to rainbow might not be all that easy. You a re correct that this would effectively close out E*'s equity but for that reason alone E* would likely challenge the move. Also folding the VOOM service----and it sounds like that si waht youa re advocating---would further complicate the issue of entitlement here.