That and my daughter loved watching Animania...and I miss MonstersHD and EquatorHD and the Martial Arts channels.
DISH -VS- VOOM - A Settlement has been reached!
- Thread starter orlmac
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 2K
- Views 316K
You can blame Dish for the repeats too (according to Voom) because they led a concerted effort to devalue the quality of the Voom programming, by demanding Voom adhere to this schedule under threat, and thus limit the outcry from customers when they illegally terminate the affiliation agreement (again, according to Voom).
I sure don't know what W OS you are talking about but W7 doesn't take long to boot up. The amount of power is rarely related to the OS that it is running. It usually is much more related to the components that are installed. Now as far as wanting to deal w/ a HTPC that is much more true than the other statements you have made in this post.
riffjim4069 said:
If we suppose VOOM was correct, Dish forced them to show all the repeats, as a result VOOM decided they didn't need to spend the money anymore, and therefore spent less than the stipulated amount.
Could Dish then terminate the contract? Any attorneys here?
VOOM sounded almost as if Dish wanted to sabotage the deal, VOOM went along, knowing it would lose audience. Now VOOM wants all the money from those eyeballs that they did not care to attract.
Last edited:
We don't need to be attorney's, it doesn't matter what we think or even speculate. It only matters what is proved in court, and what the jury believes and decides. Whether that's the truth or not, that's the reality of it.
It's quite obvious to me Dish actively sought to ruin Voom, just for a business advantage. They could have done it other ways, without the under-handed way they handled ALL of it. Perhaps they could have come to terms then.
You are saying that Dish should just fold now and not bother to present a defense? So far, all we have heard is Voom's side of the argument. I think things will get interesting this week as Dish's case evolves.
The same could be said about the Dolans. Taking Dish's money and passing all the Corporate Overhead Expenses onto the Voom expense account instead of actual programming.
No question to me Dish does not look on this so far. But you are right and I posted the same a while back. Have to hear the defense before deciding...
I think that DISH had a legitimate claim against Voom, over the lack of new content and the endless repeats. However, DISH has acted reprehensible in its behavior about the destroyed emails and the way they have conducted themselves in trial. So I can see them losing the case. I think that DISH knows they will lose the case and that is the reason they have been stalling , in coming up with requested documents for the judge.
Quite correct. Just some here are calling forth an image of a last minute Enron-style frantic shredding and deletion effort. That is not what Dish is accused of. They just had a harsh data retention policy that they neglected to adjust in the wake of the possible suit. There is no evidence someone at Dish looked at a bunch of emails when the lawsuit came in and said "this looks bad for us; let's delete these."
And I don't know that Voom has ever put forth any evidence to this. I have always theorized that Dish encouraged Voom to take a quality over quantity approach to new content (which would lead to more repeats). But encouraging lesser amounts of higher quality (read: more expensive) programming does not fit the Voom narrative they want us to believe.
I'm on vacation, so I don't have access to my 722. There is an option in the Display menu for HD Only or HD/SD. If the latter is checked, the SD version of those channels willl show up.
primestar31 said:
First I think Dish did try, they asked to have a 5-channel package from VOOM but was rejected.
Second, jury verdicts get overturned often, remember the TiVo case? That partial reversal might have played a role in the final contempt decision by the full bench.
I asked a legal opinion, not facts. If in fact as VOOM claimed, Dish tried to undermine the value of the VOOM service, and VOOM was complacent and allowed the value to degrade, can they now seek damages based on the most optimistic projections that they themselves did not try to achieve?
All Dish is doing is delaying the inevitable, as the longer they can forestall the day of reckoning, the more pressure there will be on AMC to cut them the more favorable terms due to AMC's need to get its signal back on Dish. That is it--there is no more. All the rest is lawyerly bullcrap meant for the consumption of fools. Customers are just pawns, numbers. Neither Dish nor AMC really cares about them except as part of a larger statistical whole.
HDRoberts said:
Ok. I switched to Dish in '08. Thanks for that info, because I was under the assumption of VOOM being in that particular channel package.
Newly Discovered Emails Boost AMC Networks Over Dish Network In VOOM Case
Source
The emails were discovered over the weekend and disclosed in court today — and they’re “hurting [Dish Network] in a big way,” according to an account from George Reed-Dellinger of advisory firm Washington Analysis. Susquehanna Financial Group’s Thomas Claps, who’s also monitoring the case, calls it “the most damaging evidence to date” against Dish in AMC‘s $2.5B breach of contract suit involving the satellite company’s 2008 decision to drop the now-defunct VOOM HD channels. It’s so important that Claps says Dish “may re-think its strategy” to have Chairman Charlie Ergen testify — and might be more motivated to negotiate a settlement with AMC that would return its channels to the No. 2 satellite provider before the end of the month when the jury is expected to reach its verdict. Dish dropped AMC in June.
The emails that AMC’s team found on Dish’s hard drives seem to cast a new light on an issue that central to the trial: Did VOOM’s backers (Cablevision and AMC, which the cable company spun off last year) live up to a condition in their carriage contract that required them to invest at least $100M a year in the fledgling networks? Dish says they didn’t — giving it the right to drop the channels – because the $100M requirement applied just to domestic programming, not overhead or overseas expenses.
But a 2005 email exchange between Ergen and his chief negotiator with VOOM, Michael Schwimmer, includes an appendix to the agreement with permitted expenditures and “overhead expenses are specifically referenced,” Claps says. Another email exchange when the agreement was completed in 2007 shows the execs agreeing that VOOM backers had to spend $100M a year on the venture — not just programming. “Schwimmer’s own words on April 27, 2007 are now directly inconsistent with his testimony” that the agreement was just about programming, Reed-Dellinger says.
Source
The emails were discovered over the weekend and disclosed in court today — and they’re “hurting [Dish Network] in a big way,” according to an account from George Reed-Dellinger of advisory firm Washington Analysis. Susquehanna Financial Group’s Thomas Claps, who’s also monitoring the case, calls it “the most damaging evidence to date” against Dish in AMC‘s $2.5B breach of contract suit involving the satellite company’s 2008 decision to drop the now-defunct VOOM HD channels. It’s so important that Claps says Dish “may re-think its strategy” to have Chairman Charlie Ergen testify — and might be more motivated to negotiate a settlement with AMC that would return its channels to the No. 2 satellite provider before the end of the month when the jury is expected to reach its verdict. Dish dropped AMC in June.
The emails that AMC’s team found on Dish’s hard drives seem to cast a new light on an issue that central to the trial: Did VOOM’s backers (Cablevision and AMC, which the cable company spun off last year) live up to a condition in their carriage contract that required them to invest at least $100M a year in the fledgling networks? Dish says they didn’t — giving it the right to drop the channels – because the $100M requirement applied just to domestic programming, not overhead or overseas expenses.
But a 2005 email exchange between Ergen and his chief negotiator with VOOM, Michael Schwimmer, includes an appendix to the agreement with permitted expenditures and “overhead expenses are specifically referenced,” Claps says. Another email exchange when the agreement was completed in 2007 shows the execs agreeing that VOOM backers had to spend $100M a year on the venture — not just programming. “Schwimmer’s own words on April 27, 2007 are now directly inconsistent with his testimony” that the agreement was just about programming, Reed-Dellinger says.
