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

[cforrest]

The way I read things, is this is the lawyers attempt to throw everything at the court and hope one of them sticks.

It will be interesting to see if VOOM is still on Cablevision systems after June 30th.

It will be, since no post card notice was received in the mail by Cablevision. They are required to notify customers of channel changes in NYS 30 days prior to change, to allow disconnects/downgrades with no fees under NYS law. I didn't receive anything, so VOOM will stick around on Cablevision but is going to be put on SDV, which is already happening on some of the systems. So VOOM will live on Cablevision, allows them to claim more HD than FIOS TV, so it's a good marketing gimmick.

 

[MikeD-C05]

IN 30 days there will be no more VOOM at all. SO all this will be for nothing. I see this lawsuit will drag on just like the TIvo one. IN the end it won't matter because I see no more Voom for cablevison or DISH.

 

[HDRoberts]

I still believe that the bottom line here is that DISH is losing out on a great marketing scheme that they have already botched - when they hit '90' HD channels they should have trumpeted that and the fact that they have 15 EXCLUSIVE HD channels that Direct TV does not and can not have. It really doesn't matter what the present subscribers think about Voom's programming, new subs looking for HD would have lapped it up (as I did). Name me another package of 15 ALL HD CHANNELS with NO COMMERCIAL INTERRUPTIONS that is NOT AVAILABLE ANYWHERE ELSE (or at least any other satellite service). New subs looking for an HD satellite provider would certainly factor this in to their decision.

While in theory you may be correct, in practice, this hasn't worked. Just look at new Direct subs versus new Dish subs. People have been flocking to Direct without Voom, so how could Voom be an advantage? People who have never seen Voom figure they won't miss it. People would rather see their favorite SD channels in HD. Dish retailers on this board have attested that Voom did not attract many HD subs, and that the new channels have been among the ones new subs have wanted, but had to go to elsewhere to get before.

 

[M Sparks]

It's also amazing how they claim they would see $6 per subscriber. How would that be possible if everyone subscribed to the essential package at $10 per month. Dish wouldn't make hardly any money on that deal.

1)The agreement increased fees every year reaching $6 per subscriber in the 15th year. (Actually, I think it was $6 and change)

2)Voom wasn't in the Essentials package- which is the entire point of this battle.

3)The increase amounted to $2.75 a month over 15 years. Do you really think DISH couldn't have made up that $2.75 with their YEARLY $3 overall increases.

 

[FCom911]

FYI: Understanding Who Owns Voom HD (Holdings LLC)

Understanding Who Owns Voom HD (Holdings LLC)
FCom911

Cablevision Systems Corporation & Holdings

Cablevision's Rainbow Media Holdings LLC
Rainbow Media is a subsidiary of Cablevision

Brands: AMC, IFC, WEtv, LifeSkool, SportsKool, Voom HD Networks, News 12, and Sundance Channel (On May 7, 2008, Rainbow Media announced that it has purchased Sundance Channel for $496 million).

At one point, Voom HD was a start-up DBS provider which attempted to directly compete with DirecTV and Dish/Echostar. In 2005, Echostar purchased Voom’s satellite (Rainbow 1) from Cablevision for $200 million. Echostar affiliate, Echostar Media Holdings, received a 20% stake in Voom HD as part of the sale; Voom-Echostar affiliation agreement was reached as a result of the transaction.

Cablevision's Cable Television Operations
Cablevision Systems Corporation, an American cable television company is the 5th largest cable provider in the USA, with most customers residing in New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, and parts of Pennsylvania. Cablevision also offers high-speed Internet connections (Optimum Online), as well as digital cable (iO), and VoIP phone service (Optimum Voice) through its Optimum brand name.

Total Cable Subscribers: 3.1 million, 1.1 million are HD cable subscribers.

Cablevision's Sports Holdings
The Madison Square Garden, L.P. subsidiary controls Madison Square Garden arena in New York City, professional sports teams for whom MSG is their home, New York Knicks, New York Rangers, and New York Liberty. The company also owns the Hartford Wolf Pack, a minor-league professional hockey team affiliated with the New York Rangers.

Cablevision's Print Media Holdings
On May 12th, 2008, Newsday reported that it would be purchased by Cablevision in a deal worth $650m. Newsday is a daily tabloid-size Pulitzer Prize winning newspaper servicing Long Island and the New York City borough of Queens, although it is sold throughout the New York City metropolitan area. As of fall 2007, Newsday's weekday circulation of 387,000 ranks it 10th-highest in the United States, as well as one of the highest for a suburban newspaper publication. Melville, New York (Long Island), is the publication's headquarters.

Other Cablevision Holdings
Other properties owned by Cablevision, through its Madison Square Garden, L.P. division, include the Beacon Theater and Clearview Cinemas. Madison Square Garden, L.P. has a long-term lease agreement to operate Radio City Music Hall. Cablevision is the owner of Radio City Entertainment, the company which operates the Rockettes.

Cablevision Systems Corporation Company Details
Year Started: 1985
State of Incorporation: DE
Company Website: Cablevision
Ticker Symbol: CVC
Stock Exchange: NYS
Also Does Business As: Cablevision
SIC #Code: 4841
Est. Annual Sales: $5,927,462,000
Est. Employees: 22,075

 

[Scroll]

Interesting document...but even if VOOM has a leg to stand on, and in my non-legal layman's opinion they might, this is still all about money. No where does it state that as part of the lawsuit that Echostar MUST return VOOM to the airwaves. It's all about money. VOOM is asking for at least $1 BILLION dollars for the breach in damages. I suppose that a court MIGHT demand E* return VOOM to the air, but in any case this seems like a suit that will be in the court systems for quite a few years with suits, counter-suits and appeals. So the likelyhood that VOOM will return to E* anywhere in the foreseeable future is slim and none and slim just left the building.

I have found all this stuff rather interesting even though I have D* and this doesn't affect me one bit. But it is neat to see what kind of behind the scenes dealings that these type of companies go through.

With $1 billion in hand they might just say forget about DBS and then become an entirely different business.

 

[Bulldog]

“Interpretation” of the contract

Guys, do not use the “file for complaint “ and it’s amendment as proven facts. They are just complaints that will need to be first proven by acceptable evidence. When the evidence is then accepted as fact by the Judge, then the judge will use these facts to determined the validity of the complaint, and as such determined the real business damage (if any) that was done.

The contract (agreement between E* and Voom) will have to be read and understood by the Judge in order to determine who breach the contract, and to what extent these breaches had on the business agreement between both parties.

Remember, the complaints are based on each parties “interpretation” of the contract.

Unfortunately some companies act upon these interpretations and find out they were wrong and pay dearly.

 

[Fitzie]

This has been an interesting thread. I suspect my comment will be the last since I am summarizing and rehashing what has been said or is apparent.

1) If you're a Dish subscriber, you're a loser in this deal. If Voom wins the suit, subscriber fees go up to pay Voom; if you liked Voom, you no longer have the service.

2) I liked Voom, and hated to see it go. But much of their programming was years old, and had been replayed endlessly. Much of their best programming was 20, 30, 40 or 50 year old movies. Sure I liked it, and their quality was great, but we're talking old repeats.

3) I read all of the amended complaint. What seemed clear to me was that of the $103 million Voom supposedly spent in 2006, only $59 million was on Voom and Voom programming. The rest was Cablevision central office corporate costs. In no meaningful sense was cost allocated from Cablevision money spent on the Voom "service."

4) The amended complaint states that even if Voom breached the agreement by failing to spend the required amount on the Voom service, they had "cured" the defect by spending $114 million on Voom in 2007. But how much of the $114 million was also Cablevision cost allocated to Voom? $50 million? If so, Voom still was not meeting their contractual obligation to spend at least $82 million on the Voom "service."

5) The issue of "good faith" is being misinterpreted in the complaint. Looked at objectively, Dish made a concerted and continuing effort to arrive at a mutually agreeable solution to Voom's failure to live up to the terms of the agreement. Had Voom agreed to the changes proposed by Dish, the failure to perform by Voom would have been "cured." Voom refused a reasonable compromise, and now complains that Dish should not have discontinued the service based on Voom's failure to perform since it did not do so at the time the failure to perform was first discovered. Voom is thus adopting the position that since Dish did not act in an arbitrary, unreasonable fashion at the exact moment of Voom's failure to perform, it "forgave" Voom's error.

6) The criticality of requiring the investment of $100 million in new services (or $82 for the package of 15, if Voom is correct) each year cannot overstate the importance of making that investment up front. Part of the deal for Dish was that they would gain credibility, and new customers, by that up-front investment in the Voom service. By delaying to make the investment, or simply attributing Cablevision corporate costs to Voom, Cablevision was trying to ride on Dish's coattails--in essence, keep Voom alive until Dish gained new subscribers on its own, and then use Dish payments to improve the service. Failure to improve the service so that Dish could use an improved service to gain new customers, which was the reason Dish wanted Voom anyway, is the reason Dish states the defect is one that cannot be cured--the time is past when the investment would have met Dish's goals. That failure to perform by Voom is irretrievable.

7) A final misinterpretation of the amended complaint has to do with the issue of Dish's complaints to Voom about programming. Was Dish complaining about new, vibrant programming being added by Voom? I don't think so. They were obviously complaining about old, stagnant, repetitive programming that was boring viewers to death. Voom said it "rebutted" Dish's complaints but made some programming changes to meet those complaints. My view was that programming changes recently (after Dish's complaints) had improved the service--not hurt it.

8) Conjecturing who will ultimately profit from the court cases is obviously speculation, but if I were Dish I would strongly consider assertions that Cablevision and Voom had conspired to misrepresent their actions in performance of the contract, and thereby had defrauded Dish. Damages could be sought. But then again, that's just my opinion--and I don't work for Dish. I'm also not a lawyer. Just don't be too surprised if Dish makes that claim.

Best regards to all.

Fitzie

 

[Peter Parker]

Trust me this will go on for awhile longer. I am referring to the thread.

But your summary is appreciated.

 

[M Sparks]

Voom said it "rebutted" Dish's complaints but made some programming changes to meet those complaints. My view was that programming changes recently (after Dish's complaints) had improved the service--not hurt it.

They are talking about the period around November when it suddenly fell apart.

I posted a theory in another thread...someone indicated I was right, but I don't know if they really know.

http://www.satelliteguys.us/dish-hd-discussions/135146-voom-goes-boom-update-dish-drops-all-15-voom-channels-56.html#1109

 

[TulsaCoker]

I still believe that the bottom line here is that DISH is losing out on a great marketing scheme that they have already botched - when they hit '90' HD channels they should have trumpeted that and the fact that they have 15 EXCLUSIVE HD channels that Direct TV does not and can not have. ..

Incorrect.. D* could add them anytime they choose....however, they chose not to and in fact mad fun of those channels in adds. Voom's death was forseen many many years ago when they were a sperate tier. They cannnot stand on their own like HBO or Showtime.

 

[Peter Parker]

I am not sure why some think that other providers were forbidden from carrying VOOM. VOOM has said that it si unlikrely that another carrier would but I have seen nothing in the filings that said that either the DISH Network or Cablevision deals had such an arrangement.

There has been some speculation that the affiliate agreement stated that DISH could get the same terms as subsequent customers. But we don't know that for sure. In fact we have no idea which cable and satellite providers (if any) ever considered adding VOOM.

 

[micknick]

Voom did not belong in the Essentials package which is the real point of this battle.
Any price increases go towards paying any increases of all programmer's charges not only Voom. So no the $3 additional surely would not cover that.

1)The agreement increased fees every year reaching $6 per subscriber in the 15th year. (Actually, I think it was $6 and change)

2)Voom wasn't in the Essentials package- which is the entire point of this battle.

3)The increase amounted to $2.75 a month over 15 years. Do you really think DISH couldn't have made up that $2.75 with their YEARLY $3 overall increases.

 

[rhdj]

You right , Voom should be not be in the basic package, but that is what dish and Voom had in the contract. Now Dish wants to tier HD and has a problem, A CONTRACT! "I know lets find a loop hole for our short sight" Yes I agree you should Have a choice to sub to Voom, but Dish did not account for that in the beginning. Whether you like Voom or not they have a contract in place , which they feel they have held up their end of the deal, correct? That is why the Courts will need to figure this out. Too many people Assume Voom is wrong to not allow tiering. Well if they have a contract that does not allow this why should they bow to Dish. Why is the contract ignored in all these points about who is wrong or right? If you had a contract that said you get every channel dish had for 50 bucks. Dish added 50 more channels and then told you "we tier now, so we are changing the definition of everything." The fact plain and simple is there is a signed contract and until the court comes down with a judgement, the contract was indeed broken by Dish. No proof that Voom has done anything wrong has been proven , it is all allegations made by Dish. Allegations need to be proven. Just ask Tivo. The fact "but Charlie told us" does not make it fact. Voom on the other hand has just to point to the tiering and the lack of Voom channels on Dish to prove Dish has done something contrary to the contract. Dish took Voom off air by their own accord, not Vooms request according to the PDF. That why even though both parties should share blame IMO Dish get 80% of the blame at least.

 

[riffjim4069]

I am not sure why some think that other providers were forbidden from carrying VOOM. VOOM has said that it si unlikrely that another carrier would but I have seen nothing in the filings that said that either the DISH Network or Cablevision deals had such an arrangement.

That's a good question since the press releases all said the DISH/VOOM agreement was not exclusive way back in 2005.

There has been some speculation that the affiliate agreement stated that DISH could get the same terms as subsequent customers. But we don't know that for sure. In fact we have no idea which cable and satellite providers (if any) ever considered adding VOOM.

This is the popular conclusion based on observing VOOM's staunch unwillingness to break-up the VOOM15 package from May 2005 until present. While cable/satellite didn't have room for 15 HD channels, popular channels like Monsters, Equator and Rave certainly would ahve found takers since there was a little true HD content during 2005-2007. Additionally, it is well-known that with 13M subscribers Charlie is going to demand rates and packaging equal to or better than the competition. I think it is reasonable to assume the VOOM would have to extend the same offer to E* should they sell their channels a la carte, etc. Of course, this is merely speculation...

Anyway, the next court appearance in this case has been set to 10/23/2008. To be honest, I thought this matter was headed to multi-year litigation. However, after carefully reading the ruling on VOOM's request for premilinary injunction, I now have a different opinion.

 

[Peter Parker]

Ia m not sure that there is any conclusion popular or otherwise. We simply have no idea how VOOM tried to sell these channels or whether any other US providers ever inquired about carrying a smaller number of channels.

s for the notion that DISH would have demanded equal terms I have no doubt that they would have done so for the complete pacjkage. It is less clear that trhey would have demanded them for smaller packages.

Again all ia m saying is that this is all speculation. people are believing whatever is convenient. we ned facts a dn we really have darned few of them.

 

[riffjim4069]

Ia m not sure that there is any conclusion popular or otherwise. We simply have no idea how VOOM tried to sell these channels or whether any other US providers ever inquired about carrying a smaller number of channels.

All we know is VOOM's GM, Greg Moyer, has said VOOM is an all-in-one 15 channel package. Since E* terminated the agreement, perhaps I will call and ask.

 

[Peter Parker]

All we know is VOOM's GM, Greg Moyer, has said VOOM is an all-in-one 15 channel package. Since E* terminated the agreement, perhaps I will call and ask.

Right but it amy be VOOM that has aaways insisted on that abnd that others have beaten down their door asking for one or two channels---or it may be that no other providers have ever been inter4ested.

 

[Apologist]

Incorrect.. D* could add them anytime they choose....however, they chose not to and in fact mad fun of those channels in adds. Voom's death was forseen many many years ago when they were a sperate tier. They cannnot stand on their own like HBO or Showtime.

To be honest D* for many years was not in a position to add any hd channels until they launched some sats. So for the last year or so they had the opportunity but not before then.

 

[Cantonsurroundsound]

ceoofdishnetwork@echostar.com send complaints about Voom here!