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

[philhu]

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...

Read the suit

The $82M was because for every channel not on, ones that were movie channels were 'worth x million', and non-movie ones were 'y million' off the $100 million spending.

And no, the $3.25 a sub was NOT to be changed because Dish only showed 15, not 21 channels. A change to that was not in the agreement

 

[PalaHeel]

You can argue the subject of whether you side with E* or Voom until hell freezes over, but one thing rings loud and true: We E* subscribers are the real losers in this legal abyss no matter which company's stance is declared the winner. Think about it!

 

[Scott Greczkowski]

Scott, you seem to be very quiet on this subject. Is this a case of you knowing more than you are willing to say?

I do know more, but its not up to me to decide. There are two sides to every story and you will see facts from both companies that make you go hmm and those facts will be true. You will also see things that will mae you do a double take. You need to go through the garbage to find the good information and thats what a judges job is.

With that said I do think its strange that VOOM is not asking to be reinstated on Dish Network. That there has me going hmmm...

 

[lern4483]

You can argue the subject of whether you side with E* or Voom until hell freezes over, but one thing rings loud and true: We E* subscribers are the real losers in this legal abyss no matter which company's stance is declared the winner. Think about it!

Agreed! We are all dish customers. Wether we came to dish for voom or not we pay our bills to dish.

That said some very shady stuff went on here. I do feel Voom was the injured party.

This all could have gone away by negiations between both companies.

This will get ugly. Not sure voom will survive this thats unfortunate.

Still, shame on Charlie for pulling the rug from under our legs.

 

[tsduke]

With that said I do think its strange that VOOM is not asking to be reinstated on Dish Network. That there has me going hmmm...

Exactly! They need carriage agreements to survive long term, not one time settlement payouts.

 

[Mojo]

There's a reason Dishnet has been sued more times then my Con-man general contractor brother-inlaw.

Agreed! We are all dish customers. Wether we came to dish for voom or not we pay our bills to dish.

That said some very shady stuff went on here. I do feel Voom was the injured party.

This all could have gone away by negiations between both companies.

This will get ugly. Not sure voom will survive this thats unfortunate.

Still, shame on Charlie for pulling the rug from under our legs.

 

[nitstalker]

I think Voom has a really good leg to stand on. E* has had a history of bullying (and whining) until it gets what it wants. Here is a company that is standing up to the bully and not taking their crap.

The court was correct in not issuing an injuction. Case law prohibited that from happening. I mean really, if they did that, every body would ask for an injuction saying their business would go bust... My personal deep down opinion:

- Charlie needed (maybe) the space to launch channels to compete with D* until a new satellite could get in position (remember they said they did have a fallback plan when AMC-14 failed)
- Take Voom off the air with trumped up charges - giving him the bandwidth needed
- Lawsuit obviously is filed, and takes its sweet time moving through the court system
- Eventually satellite capacity is added
- Charlie drops his pants and reaches a deal with Voom before trial putting them back on the air.
- We end up paying the price for all this garbage

Make sense? It does to me....

 

[Apologist]

I never understood why Voom wouldn't bend over backwards to make things work. I mean they seemed to have had a pretty sweet deal. Now I understand- makes perfect sense.

 

[cjwct]

I am in no way. shape or form an attorney or affiliated with the law, but I said in a previous post that it seems this is a pissing contest and this document further proves my argument. Dish got pissed that customers were constantly complaining of Voom's repeated programming, and it seems when Dish had enough of the complaints, they tried to strong arm Voom into adding programming and when it did not work, they found a "loophole." Unfortunately for Dish, in this document Voom is proving that it was not so much a "loophole" and the fact that they traveled to Denver to work out a resolution shows good faith on their part (lawyers will have a field day with that point btw). Therefore, I think Voom is not interested in ever returning to Dish, but wants their supporters to know it was not their decision and that they did everything they could to remain on Dish!

 

[navychop]

I do know more, but its not up to me to decide. There are two sides to every story and you will see facts from both companies that make you go hmm and those facts will be true. You will also see things that will mae you do a double take. You need to go through the garbage to find the good information and thats what a judges job is.

With that said I do think its strange that VOOM is not asking to be reinstated on Dish Network. That there has me going hmmm...

Thank you. Even if some folks don't seem to be hearing what you're saying.

Brings to mind: "Bad faith."

 

[Mojo]

Thank you. Even if some folks don't seem to be hearing what you're saying.

There is none so blind as he who will not see

 

[rhdj]

I guess , I did not miss that where they asked to be put back on , They did Not. Did anyone find that part in the Pdf, I looked again and could not find it. Sounds like they just want to recoup and then some. Meanwhile they are still on cable vision for now, I think June is the contract month. This could and will get good. I think the end of June will be more telling as far as direction Voom wants to go.

 

[M Sparks]

Read the suit

The $82M was because for every channel not on, ones that were movie channels were 'worth x million', and non-movie ones were 'y million' off the $100 million spending.

And no, the $3.25 a sub was NOT to be changed because Dish only showed 15, not 21 channels. A change to that was not in the agreement

Thanks, though I did finish reading and followed up on this...apparently it didn't go through. Or maybe I posted it to the wrong thread.

 

[tomcrown1]

I guess , I did not miss that where they asked to be put back on , They did Not. Did anyone find that part in the Pdf, I looked again and could not find it. Sounds like they just want to recoup and then some. Meanwhile they are still on cable vision for now, I think June is the contract month. This could and will get good. I think the end of June will be more telling as far as direction Voom wants to go.

I believe that Rainbow has decided to drop the VOOM package and is now trying to get a much as it can for VOOM. This spills the end for VOOM forever. At the End of June no VOOM

 

[FCom911]

I believe Cablevision/Rainbow's legal team was ill prepared when they initially filed for the original injunction against Dish.

Furthermore, I believe Dish's removal of VoomHD services was premature in nature and ill advised.

If Dish is found culpable in intentional and willful violation/termination of a fully ratified contractual agreement, and if Cablevision/Rainbow is successful in proving damages, not only would this be extremely embarrassing to Dish's Board (which may lead to shareholder upheaval), it could be very costly, as well.

After careful reading of the amended complaint, I've come to the conclusion Dish has some serious explaining to do. It appears, some of what's described in the amended complaint, will be quite difficult to defend, if indeed true.

I do feel, without the continuation of the original agreement as referred to and partially described in the amended complaint, the ability of Cablevision/Rainbow Media's VoomHD will nearly be impossible to sustain given its operation constraints and its necessity of sustainable revenue(s).

The dance continues.

 

[costanzas_wallet]

With that said I do think its strange that VOOM is not asking to be reinstated on Dish Network. That there has me going hmmm...

Rainbow Media wants to pull the plug on VOOM? And net a cool Billion in the process??? Too much overhead and not enough viewers to pull any more franchise agreements w/other providers??

I just want to watch an old Kung Fu flick I had no hand in picking out... Thats all. But the wants of the niche-based consumer will never correlate with the actions of a main-stream, profit driven company.

It just sucks to be caught in the cross-fire.

 

[nsps]

I think it's a bit much to assume that Voom is only after the quick billion. Didn't Voom initially try to stop Dish from taking them off the air? There are always behind the scenes factors involved, and this could simply be a way to earn a bargaining advantage.

I don't really care who's in the wrong—I'm just sad that when I flip on the TV, I don't have my favorite set of channels.

Something else to think about: Would we have waited so long for those new HD channels if Charlie hadn't been concerned about adding a bunch when he ditched Voom?

 

[mperdue]

Bottom line..... Voom wasn't bringing in as many as Charlie wanted so he came up with excuses to scotch the deal..... We'll see who wins after the dust settles....

Let's see, there were 20,000 HD customers when Charlie added the VOOM channels and 1,200,000 HD customers later - That's a 6000% increase in HD customers. Something attracted the customers and VOOM was essentially the only thing added.

IMHO, it's all about greed.

Mario

 

[nsps]

Let's see, there were 20,000 HD customers when Charlie added the VOOM channels and 1,200,000 HD customers later - That's a 6000% increase in HD customers. Something attracted the customers and VOOM was essentially the only thing added.

IMHO, it's all about greed.

Mario

Other factors would of course have to be worked in. For example, how many of the HD customers are new to Dish versus upgraded SD subscribers. Would those people have upgraded simply for LiLs and whatnot, or did they need programming like Voom to attract them. The 722's reviews are also a factor.

I know for a fact, however, that I chose Dish as my HD provider because of Voom. I saw some DirectTV stuff saying get your favorite channels in HD or see a bunch of stuff you've never heard of. So I looked up Voom and realized it had a lot of programming that interested me.

 

[SpaethCo]

Let's see, there were 20,000 HD customers when Charlie added the VOOM channels and 1,200,000 HD customers later - That's a 6000% increase in HD customers. Something attracted the customers and VOOM was essentially the only thing added.

HDTV sales have also surged in recent months. If you compare DirecTV HD adds to Dish HD adds as of recently, you'll find that DirecTV has been vastly outselling Dish because they have more HD channels. (even if the net result is not more HD content)