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

[riffjim4069]

Did anyone post E*'s response? E* did manage to have the judge deny VOOM's preliminary injunction request.

VOOM's damages are in part based on the assumption that E*'s HD subs were projected to grow to 11 million, therefore allowing VOOM to turn a profit as early as 2009

Now if true, the judge might be responsible for killing VOOM when he denied the VOOM injunction request

It was posted and discussed sometime last summer. In a nutshell, Dish Network stamped "No" to every one of VOOM assertions of wrongdoing and only acknowledged they were a corporation in Colorado. To be honest, I don't recall them volunteering too much information...nor are they required to do so. I just took a look and I didn't see their Reply e-filed, but I will take another look.

Never mind...here it is EchoStar's: http://www.satelliteguys.us/dish-ne...d-voom-vs-echostar-lawsuit-8.html#post1424558 (the good stuff starts on page 16). Also, you may wish to read VOOMs Reply to Counterclaim, which I have attached. All these documents and arguments were in the "VOOM Goes Boom" thread, which is now closed.

 

[jacmyoung]

Did E* ever carry 21 VOOM channels and later reduced them to 10?

Sounded to me Mr. Dolan was still bitter about his failed Rainbow effort, believing that his VOOM could have turned a profit, if not with his own VOOM, then at least with E* carrying his VOOM channels.

 

[vampz26]

Did E* ever carry 21 VOOM channels and later reduced them to 10?

Sounded to me Mr. Dolan was still bitter about his failed Rainbow effort, believing that his VOOM could have turned a profit, if not with his own VOOM, then at least with E* carrying his VOOM channels.

I don't believe E* ever carried all of the Voom 21. I know there were 10 or 11, than they were supposed to expand to 21 and dropped the res on all the Voom channels from 1920 to 1280 (HD-lite) and that sparked all kinds of outrage...

then, in response to all the supposed outrage, lowered the number of channels from 21 to 15, but never raised the resolution back anyway, so I don't know what that was all about...

in the end, now we have none...so...

I miss GalleryHD...

 

[jacmyoung]

I don't believe E* ever carried all of the Voom 21. I know there were 10 or 11, than they were supposed to expand to 21 and dropped the res on all the Voom channels from 1920 to 1280 (HD-lite) and that sparked all kinds of outrage...

then, in response to all the supposed outrage, lowered the number of channels from 21 to 15, but never raised the resolution back anyway, so I don't know what that was all about...

...

Please clarify, your above two paragraphs seem to contradict themselves. The first said E* never carried 21 nor 15 channels, the second said E* did carry 21 then 15 channels.

 

[vampz26]

Please clarify, your above two paragraphs seem to contradict themselves. The first said E* never carried 21 nor 15 channels, the second said E* did carry 21 then 15 channels.

E* in the beginning E* offered either 10 or 11 Voom channels, I do not remember exactly.

E* at one point had 21 Voom channels uplinked, and lowered the red from 1920 to 1280, aka HD-lite.

E* then wound up only actually lighting up half the uplinked channels, even changed a name or two, and those were the only channels lit up making the total 15.

The rest of the channels were never heard from again...

 

[riffjim4069]

E* in the beginning E* offered either 10 or 11 Voom channels, I do not remember exactly.

E* at one point had 21 Voom channels uplinked, and lowered the red from 1920 to 1280, aka HD-lite.

E* then wound up only actually lighting up half the uplinked channels, even changed a name or two, and those were the only channels lit up making the total 15.

The rest of the channels were never heard from again...

I just wanted to add:

- VOOM was 21 channels when it was carried by VOOM DBS
- VOOM was 10 channels was they emerged on Dish Network (May 2005 under the preliminary agreement) after VOOM DBS was shutdown
- VOOM eventually returned as a 15 channel lineup a few months later (Dec 2005?)...there was discussions about additional VOOM channels possibly coming, but nothing specific
- I recall Charlie mentioning the possibility of adding more VOOM channels (beyond the 15) during a Charlie Chat
- I don't recall the entire 21 channels being uplinked
- Some VOOM channels were offered at 1920x1080 for a while and looked awesome - the others were 1440x1080
- All VOOM channels were downrezzed to 1280x1080 in October 2005 when it was reported there was a problem with VOOM's fiber uplink, which turned out to be false
- As we later discovered, VOOM was asked to downrez to 1280x1080 by Dish Network and the programming repeats were ordred by E* starting in November 2007 (according to VOOM)
- Although the affiliation agreement was signed in November 2005, there was a preliminary agreement signed in April 2005 - needless to say, both parties disagree as to whether VOOM is/was 21, 15 or 10 channels

 

[jacmyoung]

...and the programming repeats were ordred by E* starting in November 2007 (according to VOOM)...

What does that mean? That E* forced VOOM to provide programming repeated over and over?

So VOOM was wrong that E* reduced from 21 to 15?

 

[riffjim4069]

What does that mean? That E* forced VOOM to provide programming repeated over and over?

In the amended complaint and counterclaim, VOOM asserts that E* ordered programming changes (i.e., they wanted more repeats and less new programming) against VOOM's repeated objections. VOOM finally complied with the request, after filing notification, only because of E*'s repeated threats. Again, this is according to VOOM. E* denied the allogation, but did not reply with any specifics. VOOM later concluded this was a tactical maneuver used to devalue VOOM programming so E* could force a better deal (Charlie Ergen was not happy with the affiliation agreement he signed) or lessen customer outcry if E* illegally terminated the agreement. Again, this is all according to VOOM.

 

[vampz26]

In the amended complaint and counterclaim, VOOM asserts that E* ordered programming changes (i.e., they wanted more repeats and less new programming) against VOOM's repeated objections. VOOM finally complied with the request, after filing notification, only because of E*'s repeated threats. Again, this is according to VOOM. E* denied the allogation, but did not reply with any specifics. VOOM later concluded this was a tactical maneuver used to devalue VOOM programming so E* could force a better deal (Charlie Ergen was not happy with the affiliation agreement he signed) or lessen customer outcry if E* illegally terminated the agreement. Again, this is all according to VOOM.

Doesn't matter much anymore...unless Rainbow Media revamps Voom content and integrates it into its mainstream channel offerings, its gone for good accept for the two or three international channels they keep plugging away.

The most we can hope for out of this is that once E* and Rainbow settle their differences, we can enjoy AMC-HD and maybe a few others....but that waits to be seem. Just mere hopeful speculation on my part...

 

[jacmyoung]

... VOOM finally complied with the request, after filing notification, only because of E*'s repeated threats. ...

What threats? That if VOOM did not "devalue" its programming E* would not honor the agreement?

So let me get this straight, Party A asked repeatedly that Party B to breach the agreement, Party B finally "complied" and breached the agreement, once the agreement was breached by Party B, Party A terminated the agreement.

Now Party B is blaming Party A for forcing them to breach the agreement.

But wait, I thought Party B's main point was, they never breached the agreement.

 

[riffjim4069]

Doesn't matter much anymore...unless Rainbow Media revamps Voom content and integrates it into its mainstream channel offerings, its gone for good accept for the two or three international channels they keep plugging away.

The most we can hope for out of this is that once E* and Rainbow settle their differences, we can enjoy AMC-HD and maybe a few others....but that waits to be seem. Just mere hopeful speculation on my part...

Yep, Rainbow Media (aka Cablevision) has no reason to keep VOOM alive because it would only serve to limit damages should they be successful in their case against E*. Likewise, even if VOOM were to "win big" in this case, VOOM HD missed their window of opportunity and I doubt it will ever come back. Cablevision will simply distribute any funds to their shareholders (i.e., the Dolan clan).

 

[vampz26]

Yep, Rainbow Media (aka Cablevision) has no reason to keep VOOM alive because it would only serve to limit damages should they be successful in their case against E*. Likewise, even if VOOM were to "win big" in this case, VOOM HD missed their window of opportunity and I doubt it will ever come back. Cablevision will simply distribute any funds to their shareholders (i.e., the Dolan clan).

Yep...kind of like torching a late-eighties cadillac for the insurance money...without E*, it was basically worth more dead than alive...

 

[jacmyoung]

Yep, Rainbow Media (aka Cablevision) has no reason to keep VOOM alive because it would only serve to limit damages should they be successful in their case against E*. Likewise, even if VOOM were to "win big" in this case, VOOM HD missed their window of opportunity and I doubt it will ever come back. Cablevision will simply distribute any funds to their shareholders (i.e., the Dolan clan).

Please, there is no way they can prove that their "big success" would be possible had the party they are seeking "big payback" tried to help them before, even though one of the main reasons E* did not want the deal was because E* could not get enough people to sign on to VOOM, it was not worth it.

The logic simply does not fly, just like the argument in my above post.

 

[riffjim4069]

What threats? That if VOOM did not "devalue" its programming E* would not honor the agreement?

So let me get this straight, Party A asked repeatedly that Party B to breach the agreement, Party B finally "complied" and breached the agreement, once the agreement was breached by Party B, Party A terminated the agreement.

Now Party B is blaming Party A for forcing them to breach the agreement.

But wait, I thought Party B's main point was, they never breached the agreement.

Threats? I don't know what threats since I was not there. I can only tell you what I read in the court filing that are posted in this thead. Additionally, since we do not have access to the 1.5 million pages of privileged artifacts filed with the court, none of us can say whether VOOM or EchoStar will ultimately prevail in this case; it could go either way.

However, after reading the all court filings and possessing a solid knowledge of the facts of this case, VOOM's story seems more plausable than EchoStars. Additionally, VOOM had every reason (financial) to meet the terms and conditions of the contract since Dish Network was their long-term "cash cow", while EchoStar had every reason to seek a better deal or break the contract since they signed a stinker. Yep, I agree with Charlie on this one...he never should have signed a 15-year contract obligating Dish Network to pay 2005 "premium HD" prices when HD is no longer a premium service come 2008.

In a nutshell...both parties are at fault for killing VOOM (VOOM is certainly not blameless). To be honest, even if EchoStar is found to have illegally terminated the affiliation agreement, they will probably save much more money in the long-run by not having to pay VOOM 200-300 million per year until the affiliation agreement expired in 2019. We shall see...

Additionally, until the trial start I don't think there is nothing new that I can add to what I have already posted in this thread and the now defunct "VOOM does BOOM" thead.

 

[riffjim4069]

Please, there is no way they can prove that their "big success" would be possible had the party they are seeking "big payback" tried to help them before, even though one of the main reasons E* did not want the deal was because E* could not get enough people to sign on to VOOM, it was not worth it.

The logic simply does not fly, just like the argument in my above post.

The problem is that you make no arguments...you just assume a postion that "EchoStar can do no wrong because I said so." and you keep repeating that message.

Anyway, I can tell you haven't read one word of the court filings or you wouldn't have made the statement, "one of the main reasons E* did not want the deal was because E* could not get enough people to sign on to VOOM, it was not worth it." Ugh!

For the record, VOOM said there was a "Packaging Comittment" that called for VOOM to be available in E*'s most widely distributed HD programming pack...moving VOOM into a higher tier violated this packaging committment and, in all likelihood, the penetration obligation. E* didn't dispute the packaging or penetration requirements...just that they didn't violate them. Also, at some point in time (if memory serves) VOOM had to be available to something like 93% of HD subscribers (penetration committment).

Assuming Dish Network will have 10-million HD subscribers by 2012 (I believe this estimate was thrown out there by VOOM) with everything going HD, that would mean Dish Network would be required to pay VOOM between $4-$6 per HD subscriber per month. Again, don't quote me on these numbers because I am watching hockey and not reviewing the affiliation agreement. In any case, 9.3 million HD customers (93% of 10 million) at...oh, say $5 per = 46.5 million Dish Network would be paying VOOM each month under the affiliation agreement. Yikes! As much as I like VOOM, there is no way in heck their programming is worth $500-$600 million per year. In my mind, E* signed a STUPID contract for reasons I have mentioned in these threads many times.

EchoStar did not have to find people to subscribe to the VOOM service...VOOM WAS SUPPOSED TO BE AVAILABLE TO PRETTY MUCH ALL HD SUBSCRIBERS (read the sections of the affiliation agreement about penetration and packaging). This information has not been disputed by EchoStar.

Anyway, read the thread...read the court filings...remove your EchoStar employee t-shirt...and come back when you can be somewhat objective.

 

[socalpanman]

riffjim4069 always like your posts. Well written and most of all well backed with information. You add a lot to this site. Thanks,

 

[jacmyoung]

Stop the personal attack, you have no clue who I am, nor do I care who you are. But as much as I have my bias, your bias has also been very clear in your posts, you just tried to pretend from time to time to be neutral

E* did not sign a stupid agreement, E* signed that agreement because they got the Rainbow bird for cheap, without any risk, that bird was one of the most powerful birds already in service at that time, and almost a brand new bird too, it allowed E* to carry out the EA plan.

Now of course E* never cared for the VOOM agreement, and I can see why they tried to get rid of it.

But such logics will not fly before the judge:

1) E* threatened VOOM many times to reduce the programming to the point that VOOM breached the agreement, it contradicts Cablevision's own assertion that they never breached the agreement.

2) As far as big penalties, Cablevision simply cannot argue that E* was a cash cow for them when they could not possibly make a viable service out of VOOM, by failing twice themselves.

The above are not assumptions about E*'s positions, you couldn't even identify what they are, they are Cablevision's positions based on the very information you posted.

 

[vampz26]

riffjim4069 always like your posts. Well written and most of all well backed with information. You add a lot to this site. Thanks,

that one in particular...

 

[jacmyoung]

...Anyway, I can tell you haven't read one word of the court filings ...

I don't care to read any of the 500 pages of words from a sore loser. Cablevision could not turn VOOM into a viable service and failing twice on their own, VOOM deserves little of my time even if they "win big" in the end.

I can read, have you read the TiVo v. E* thread? TiVo deserves our time because TiVo did some real good things few other companies did, they made the wide spread use of DVRs possible and also made a household name for themselves, they also won that lawsuit fair and square.

Though TiVo may have been lucky that the USPTO failed to do their job, and TiVo, like VOOM, cannot face the reality that E* no longer infringe. But at least TiVo deserves my attention as stated above.

VOOM? Not!

 

[HDRoberts]

The problem is that you make no arguments...you just assume a postion that "EchoStar can do no wrong because I said so." and you keep repeating that message.

Anyway, I can tell you haven't read one word of the court filings or you wouldn't have made the statement, "one of the main reasons E* did not want the deal was because E* could not get enough people to sign on to VOOM, it was not worth it." Ugh!

For the record, VOOM said there was a "Packaging Comittment" that called for VOOM to be available in E*'s most widely distributed HD programming pack...moving VOOM into a higher tier violated this packaging committment and, in all likelihood, the penetration obligation. E* didn't dispute the packaging or penetration requirements...just that they didn't violate them. Also, at some point in time (if memory serves) VOOM had to be available to something like 93% of HD subscribers (penetration committment).

Assuming Dish Network will have 10-million HD subscribers by 2012 (I believe this estimate was thrown out there by VOOM) with everything going HD, that would mean Dish Network would be required to pay VOOM between $4-$6 per HD subscriber per month. Again, don't quote me on these numbers because I am watching hockey and not reviewing the affiliation agreement. In any case, 9.3 million HD customers (93% of 10 million) at...oh, say $5 per = 46.5 million Dish Network would be paying VOOM each month under the affiliation agreement. Yikes! As much as I like VOOM, there is no way in heck their programming is worth $500-$600 million per year. In my mind, E* signed a STUPID contract for reasons I have mentioned in these threads many times.

EchoStar did not have to find people to subscribe to the VOOM service...VOOM WAS SUPPOSED TO BE AVAILABLE TO PRETTY MUCH ALL HD SUBSCRIBERS (read the sections of the affiliation agreement about penetration and packaging). This information has not been disputed by EchoStar.

Anyway, read the thread...read the court filings...remove your EchoStar employee t-shirt...and come back when you can be somewhat objective.

2 things wrong with some of the information in this post.

First, in regards to the packaging commitment, you need to keep the timeline straight. Dish notified Voom in Feb. '08 that it was found to be in violation of the agreement, and that is when they split it from the main pack. Under what Dish says, the agreement was no longer valid.

You also say that Dish sis not have to find people to subscribe to Voom because they gave it to everyone by default. That is the reason they HAD to find Voom subs. DirecTV was offering a $10 HD access pack, but Dish could only offer a $20 pack with Voom. They had to find people willing to pay that premium for Voom.

I personally have never bought the Voom story that Dish demanded all the repeats. They may have requested something that had more repeats as an unintended consequence. But again, with a signed agreement in hand, Dish could force them to do nothing. if they want to stick with the argument that Dish asked them to violate the agreement and they complied, they have admitted under oath they violated the agreement. Case closed.

I think given that Voom had a fixed cash flow from Dish, they had every reason reduce expenditures and raise profits. I personally believe they thought they could play some accounting games, but Dish caught them.