According to you, it was very irresponsible for Charlie to remove the VOOM channels without considering the end results, after all that is why you kept bringing up this case to imply that Charlie might suffer some serious consequences.
I've said many things about this case: some of it was factual, some was taken from court documents and press releases, and some of it was pure speculation. To be honest, I don't remember 90% of it. However, my position in this case has always been the following:
1. E* signed a horrible contract with VOOM in their zeal to become the HD Leader and obtain the old Rainbow-1 satellite; they were committed to paying year 2005 "premium" prices for HD for 15-years when HD no longer commanded these rates in 2008 and forward.
2. E* wanted to negotiate a better deal. V* wanted no part of a "new deal" and did little to market VOOM to other MSOs because of the "sweet" deal they signed with E*. Simply stated, Dish Network was their cash cow/suggar mama.
3. When V* refused to renegotiate E* tried to terminate the affiliation agreement through various legal loopholes in the contract. E* says VOOM violated the spending provision (and other provisions) - V* says they complied with all provisions and (according to VOOM) exceeded all contract requirements.
4. V* claims that E* took steps to devalue the VOOM brand and tried numerous unsuccessful times to break the contract starting in October/November 2007. E* disputes this assertion by V*.
5. Whether E* legally terminated the contract is a matter before the courts and we in the cheap-seats have not been provided with enough information to make an accurate decision. E* should win this case if V* didn't meet their contractual obligation, and V* should win if they did.
6. I have stated that V*'s story is more plausable simply based on the fact is would be pure stupidity for them not to comply with all terms & conditions of their affiliation agreement with E* because...well, because E* would be a cash-cow in years coming...even if they elected not to seriously market the VOOM channels. I have also stated that "heads should roll" in the Cablevision boardroom if they failed to meet the contract obligations with E* - it will have cost the company upwards of a billion dollars in lost income.
7. I have speculated that it was a prudent "bottom-line" business decision for E* to terminate the V* affiliation agreement simply because VOOM was not worth the 1+ billion dollars (I don't recall the exact numbers) it would cost them to continue the existing affiliation agreement with V*. Whether they legally or illegally terminated the agreement in a matter before the court. Regardless, I have always believe this is a shady way for E* to conduct business (unethical?) and cited their checkered past in which they have had multiple legal disputes with other programmers and business partners.
8. I have also said that VOOM is certainly culpable because they took advantage of the horrible contract E* signed with them. In a nutshell, the VOOM product became a pseudo-exclusive on Dish-HD because it were paid a lot of money to do very little. This is a horrible business model if you ask my opinion. Likewise, as a business partner VOOM could have permitted E* to negotiate more favorable terms. I just get the feeling that Charlie used threats instead of sitting down at the table and negotiating "in good faith" like responsible adults. Again, this is just my opinion based on what I read in the court filings and what other programmers have also mentioned. Regardless of the outcome...both parties are to blame to some degree.
Regardless if it is true or not, as least you must admit what Charlie did in this case was a decision made by a "strong man"? You know he did not have doubts before making the decision to remove VOOM, only trying to firght it out with CV after the fact?
I would tend to agree if he based his decision with a genuine belief that VOOM had violated the affiliation agreement. However, if he made his decision without knowing for certain that V* had violated the agreement (or knowing they did comply with the agreement)...well, then he had to be aware that his actions were going to cause VOOM great harm. If so, I would equate this act to a man who beats his wife and dog. Sorry, but two wrongs do not equal a right. Again, all this is going to play-out in a court of law.
To answer your questions...yes, it would be irresponsible for Charlier to have knowingly illegally terminate their VOOM affiliation agreement. To be honest, it may actually save them money in the long-run over honoring a poor contract they signed with VOOM. If so, we'd then have to evaluate business ethics with the bottom-line and perhap any damage to the Dish Network brand. Conversely, if VOOM failed to the comply with the spend limit and other contractual requirements...well, then heads should roll at Cablevision.
And of course CV could have recognized their VOOM sucked and had no hope regardless, but instead CV wanted to go the "violent" route, try to sue Charlie for billions, which you know and we know they have little chance. Your latest court filing further proved there might be no end to this case.
I thought VOOM had some good channels (others will agree and disagree), but they sure seemed to go down-hill the last 7-8 months, which is the timeframe that VOOM claims E* demanded they repeat their programming. According to VOOM, they later concluded this was a concerted effort by E* to reduce customer backlash when they later pulled the channels if V* didn't comply with their demands for a better frachise terms. VOOM also stated they have the artifacts (meeting notes, emails, etc.) to prove it. We shall see.
So is CV prepared for a long fight with "violent ends"?
No idea...you would have to ask VOOM (aka Rainbow Media, aka Cablevision). Apparently they are prepared to continue litigating this matter in the courts.
Or are you going to tell us your new signature has nothing to do with VOOM?
It honestly had nothing to do with VOOM and everything to do with your talking about Tivo in the VOOM versus EchoStar thread.
:
