I doubt it. Its all about $. E* didn't like the original agreement. Remember you are dealing with Charlie. One of the biggest liars of all time.
DISH -VS- VOOM - A Settlement has been reached!
- Thread starter orlmac
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 2K
- Views 316K
I doubt it. Its all about $. E* didn't like the original agreement. Remember you are dealing with Charlie. One of the biggest liars of all time.
From the Document:
72 After Voom HD successfully refuted each of Echostar's allegations, Echostar abandoned its section 4 claim until its recent effort to revive it as part of this litigation. In particular, Echostar has raised claims relating to the amount of non-repeat programming that Voom HD was required to broadcast on Voom's non-movie channels.
73. Voom HD fully complied with all its Section 4 obligations. Neverthless on Novembe 16, 2007, Echostart refused to allow Voom HD to continue to schedule its programming in accordance with its past practices. As a result, Voom HD was forced to change the programming schedules for Voom in an attempt to comply as much as practicable with Echostar's various incorrect, unreasonable and bad faith interpretations of section 4, while reserving all voom hd's righs and remedies under the affiliation agreement.
74. As voom hd warned Echostar on numerous occasions, the scheduling changes to Voom demanded by Echostar jeopardized the perception and quality of voom.
and that is the bottom line. I find it amusing that in the document (this document is killing E*
) at the end of 2005 E* only had 20k HD subs which it was the time in which E* and V* came to the agreement. By the end of 2007, the subs have jumped in the 1M +. This is what Charlie could not deal with. This big fee that he had to pay. Remember as well that the deal also increase per year it was not an absolute fee per year. I wonder if the jump in HD subs did not have also to do because E* carried the most HD at this point Voom being the most HD channels in E*.
+1
I tried to give voom a chance, but only about 3 of them interested me, and thats when nothing else was on. They did have good PQ, but I asked for it to be dropped for new HD a few times, I wont miss them. WFN can go with voom too.
I need to read their side of the story but as a paying customer I feel very angry right now that E* did this. Because it was ultimately to me the paying customer who suffered.
But dude, do you expect that if Voom was in the wrong, it would be in that paperwork? "We were wrong....BUT...."
Yes it looks convincing, but its one side of a case, and its the side that is losing right now.
That paper is nothing more then a last ditch effort to get your girlfriends best friend to give you head in a bathroom stall on prom night.
We'll see how the courts decide. If VOOM lasts long enough to see it run thru the courts.
I think most of us can agree on one thing: It is very unlikely that we will see VOOM back in any form on Dish. Especially since VOOM has not asked to be restored, but only asks for a payoff. I don't think a court would order them back on the air if neither party requests it. Maybe Charlie will end up paying big bucks (I doubt it). Maybe it'll still be cheaper than if he kept them and kept paying.
A shame. I liked VOOM. But soon there was little to nothing on it of interest to me that I had not already seen.
I think most of us can agree on one thing: It is very unlikely that we will see VOOM back in any form on Dish. Especially since VOOM has not asked to be restored, but only asks for a payoff. I don't think a court would order them back on the air if neither party requests it. Maybe Charlie will end up paying big bucks (I doubt it). Maybe it'll still be cheaper than if he kept them and kept paying.
A shame. I liked VOOM. But soon there was little to nothing on it of interest to me that I had not already seen.
Sure. Back in February of 2006, I signed on for an MPEG-4 receiver and the extra 10 VOOM channels because you posted that there would be a great deal of new programming coming up on VOOM. Believe me, there were repetition complaints prior to that time, and subsequent to that time.
I'm not one of those calling for VOOM to die, but truth is truth.
You'll find a lot of repeats/reruns comments in this thread from 2006.
I know it is a rhetorical question in your part but we all know that this was their plan all alone. Get enough subs angry to the degraded quality of programming on Voom and then E* will not be to blame as much for dropping them from E*. It was their plan to do this since Mid 2007 (as the document suggests). E* complaint because they knew that the deal was a crazy deal and it was not in their interest anymore. The failure of AMC-14 also added to this and therefore they felt that they did not want to pay the money anymore. It was orchestrated by E*.
(Hopefully E* will give us their side of their story but for now this is all we know as an official document that we can quote.)
I dont blame Echostar for thinking on their feet. Lets face it folks, the business world is not like merry merry land. Do I feel sorry for Voom? NO. Do I feel sorry for E* that their sats are having issues and they are losing the HD battle? NO.
I gave Voom a shot in early 07, didnt impress me.
I gave Voom a shot in early 07, didnt impress me.
And much goes back to back to the beginning.
"Because the number of Voom channels was reduced from 21 to only 15, the spend requirement pursuant to the formula, was no more than $82 million."
Echostar started playing games the first year. Investors after these seemingly never ending cycle of lawsuits and losses have to be starting to wonder. I'll take advantage of their product but I would not put hard cash in Charlie's stock.
That a court/judge did not grant an injunction says no more about the cases merits as it does about the court's/judge's whims.
Great find and great post. This is what SatelliteGuys is about!
"Because the number of Voom channels was reduced from 21 to only 15, the spend requirement pursuant to the formula, was no more than $82 million."
Echostar started playing games the first year. Investors after these seemingly never ending cycle of lawsuits and losses have to be starting to wonder. I'll take advantage of their product but I would not put hard cash in Charlie's stock.
That a court/judge did not grant an injunction says no more about the cases merits as it does about the court's/judge's whims.
Great find and great post. This is what SatelliteGuys is about!
Scott, you seem to be very quiet on this subject. Is this a case of you knowing more than you are willing to say?
not as much as the degrade in the programming after november 2007. After november 2007, there was practically nothing new added.
Remember that after Voom moved to E* in 2005 there was a period were production of new material came to a stall. At the end of 2005, the new material started coming up and took a while to come close to the Voom DBS days. prior to November 2007 and first part of 2007 they were adding new content and then after November 2007 everything was trashed. I am going to look up all the new content materials on Voom and I will post in this thread.
The truth is that Charlie asked Voom to increase its programming not decrease it. Look at the double legal lingo---Voom admits as much it thought its repeats were good programming---Like posted elsewere if the Judge thought Voom had a point he may have ordered Dish to put Voom back on.
This is a last ditch effort by voom as by June hardly anyone will be able to see VOOM.
I hope VOOM ploy works then Dish and voom may come to an agreement.
The lawsuit is VOOM way of trying to get Charlie to the table to renegoate the deal.
This is a last ditch effort by voom as by June hardly anyone will be able to see VOOM.
I hope VOOM ploy works then Dish and voom may come to an agreement.
The lawsuit is VOOM way of trying to get Charlie to the table to renegoate the deal.
The end of section 23 makes no sense.
This will come down to the audit. What were they including in that "overhead"? I'm thinking they were padding it out big time.
Plus they're saying they only have to spend $82 million, not 100, because they have fewer channels. Theoretically, there's an amended agreement that says that...why hasn't it turned up? And where did they get this $82 million from anyway? If you divide $100 million by 21 and multiply by 15, you get $71.4 million and change.
Since they keep saying that, they must have been spending between 82 and 100.
AND if there wasn't a revised agreement and DISH agreed to pay $3.25 a subscriber for 21 channels, shouldn't they have been able to drop that to $2.32?
Hmmm...I'm not done skimming this, looks like it may be addressed around #36 or so...
This will come down to the audit. What were they including in that "overhead"? I'm thinking they were padding it out big time.
Plus they're saying they only have to spend $82 million, not 100, because they have fewer channels. Theoretically, there's an amended agreement that says that...why hasn't it turned up? And where did they get this $82 million from anyway? If you divide $100 million by 21 and multiply by 15, you get $71.4 million and change.
Since they keep saying that, they must have been spending between 82 and 100.
AND if there wasn't a revised agreement and DISH agreed to pay $3.25 a subscriber for 21 channels, shouldn't they have been able to drop that to $2.32?
Hmmm...I'm not done skimming this, looks like it may be addressed around #36 or so...
