Mr. Dolan we don't want. . .

[67Yv8t]

As loyal voomers, we support your efforts and want voom to succeed.

If you intended to reward us for being loyal, don't.

We don't need free months of Va Va voom. WE don't need a bunch of other channels right away.

We want Voom to succeed. Save your money and spend it on marketing to get more subscribers, Kick Ass on the other provider Make Voom "The Service". Make it great so that everyone wants it. And after you have succeeded in that, simply insure that your core supporters get a better deal everymonth, so that we can gloat to all our neighbors and remember warmly the days of the satellite wars and being on the front line.

 

[Andrew B]

I totally agree!
But...I would also happily take gobs of stock options instead of free service each month so I can buy a nice plasma set once your new company goes public...

Just something to think about...

 

[M_Teahan]

And to take it one step further. . .

If you can get through this mess and keep the vision of Voom alive, I will commit to converting 5 friends, coworkers, strangers on the street or whatever to Voom service in the next 6 months.

You won't have to give me a dime.

When someone is happy with a product, they should be more than willing to share it with others. All of our friend who have come by to check out the new system (with Voom) always depart with envy.

Mozilla took a chunk out of Microsoft Explorer's market share when the users took some responsibility for its success. We could do the same.

Any other takers to the challenge?

Michael

 

[TheTimm]

As loyal voomers, we support your efforts and want voom to succeed.

If you intended to reward us for being loyal, don't.

We don't need free months of Va Va voom. WE don't need a bunch of other channels right away.

We want Voom to succeed. Save your money and spend it on marketing to get more subscribers, Kick Ass on the other provider Make Voom "The Service". Make it great so that everyone wants it. And after you have succeeded in that, simply insure that your core supporters get a better deal everymonth, so that we can gloat to all our neighbors and remember warmly the days of the satellite wars and being on the front line.

Mr. Dolan,
He doesn't speak for me. I also support your efforts and want voom to succeed, and I agree that you should make it great so that everyone wants it (but I think it's great already, and would go with "make it even greater" but that's just me). However, I'm more than happy to let you go about this in whatever manner you think is best. If you think it's in the best interests of Voom to give away free months of VaVaVoom and to add a bunch of other channels right away, by all means do it. Spend your money on whatever you see fit. I have confidence that you know better than I do how to run a business like this. Rock on sir.

 

[Vicki]

Way to go!!!

There are lots of us taking that challenge with you M Tehan!! We share your spirit, and look forward to happy VoOming long into the future!

 

[bradley]

Renewed Strength Of Voom and Perceived Essentials For Survival (Analysis) 03.05.05

(Analysis) In order for Voom to take full advantage of the recent unprecedented press it must make rapid commitments to increase both HD and SD line-ups, drop redundant SD channels that are already presented in HD to recapture precious wasted bandwidth, **allocate more bandwidth to SD channels making them as pleasing to the eye as they were back in March of 2004 while pushing very, very hard to continue the 190% increase in subscriber momentum experienced in the last 60 days.

There is likely a negative impact as to the recent actions taken by the CVC board regarding the continued rapid development of Voom's subscriber base. Viability has been questioned as it was addressed through the actions of the CVC board a.) officially announcing the ceasing physical aspects to operations and fiscal funding, b.) the official announcement Voom service is terminated, c.) perceived Cablevision ability to withstand the storm that rages within, d.) the press resulting from such actions, e.) cessation of websites being of both Voom.com and VoomLLC.com during which countless individuals queried to see what Voom was and is all about and were instead greeted with fatal information, f.) and the release of other related memorandums and word-of-mouth by those in positions of authority.

Consider DirecTV's new ad campaign stressing 1,500 channels. This will indeed impact potential migration from NewsCorp to Voom. The seemingly untimely decision by the CVC board to pick this exact time to throw the baby out with the bath-water will present a challenge to Voom's continued success. Many mistakes have been made but I for one see the viability of Voom only if it proceeds aggressively in development of its ever-expanding line-up, introduction of the DVR and perhaps a more compact STB with options to SD lineage. Given what Voom has to offer there is no reason why Voom cannot attract SD viewers as well as HD given all that Voom has to offer with its impressive Voom Exclusives line-up. A full and expedient implementation of MPEG4 to achieve maximum efficiency and quality of bandwidth and imagery that end users will and can install themselves; although assistance could be facilitated if necessary. Containment of operational costs must be re examined and achieved through every method possible.

Essential assets spun off through actions taken by James Dolan as well as existing and former board members must be re-evaluated. Both Black-Hawk and Rainbow-1 are essential to a viable existence of Voom. Its sale at 71% of cost represents at least a loss in assets of $150M. Voom should seek legal relief from the existing agreement with Echostar to maintain complete control of those assets being it is ludicrous to think Voom can afford to reinvest another $350M to regain or replace assets it already had in its possession due to the lack of forward thinking by some board-members. Satellite slots are limited and the difference between Rainbow-1 and AMC-6 are substantial; Rainbow-1 produces a signal of 140w and AMC-6 maximum output is 110w. AMC-6 power output is less than 72% of Rainbow-1. A 28% loss in transmission power will impact subscribers in more than one way; 1.) those residing on the western portion of the continent will have much more difficulty acquiring the signal due to the lower power even though the position of the satellites are 61.5 and 72 respectively. 2.) The expense of larger parabolic antennas and the additional expense of installation is substantial and will have to be taken into account. 3.) Leasing a single source with no back-up that presents a dependancy as well as additional expenditures as Voom must have a viable back-up source other than AMC-6 in-case the unthinkable does occur.

Although the most recent press makes Voom almost a household name, the vast majority of information presented to the public was of a negative context. Voom must counter questionable consideration with a clear and concise campaign notifying the public that it is here, without question, to stay.

This is in no way a time to go to one's corner or hang on the ropes; one must continue to gain maximum market share and continue to achieve viable profitability. The DBS and cable markets are rapidly changing; six months of passive posturing could present entirely new challenges that beseeches survival but can and will present new costly and challenging obstacles.

**Voom could do much better with SD PQ by removing some of the excessive compression; more channels with inferior image isn't the answer. Majority of viewers are using HD monitors where overly compressed SD is quite obvious. A fix can be accomplished almost immediately through implementation of MPEG4 while allotting more bandwidth to SD; SD network feeds at 480 are prestine in origin.

 

[graphiteRT]

Just to add to Bradley's excellent comments;

I've never liked the way Voom markets itself with a slant toward HD exclusivity. Change that to full service DBS with a heavy HD slant. HD has not reached critical mass and you're limiting your potential customer base with that marketing approach.

The FCC is on record as having issues with E* having all the transponder control at 61.5 Look back to their decision to give two of those to Rainbow. I've never understood the reasoning behind that decision but it could signal their strong desire to have more competition in the sky. With Powell out the door, this may change, but I think it's still a factor in gaining approvals of the sale to E*. Worst case E* ends up owning a satellite without the necessary FCC approvals to make full use of it. I have to think Chuck knows something about this situation and it's probably part of his plan in talking to E*. Rainbow 1 is in an awkward orbit for E* to make full use for their mainstream customer base. This may also aid Chuck's proposal to them.

The DVR thing is harped on by many here because the cable cos. have been quite aggressive with rollout in the last year. Unfortunately I don't think the DVR is ready for primetime based on comments made by Wilt H. on the yahoogroups forum a couple of weeks ago. That doesn't bode well for the impatient. I agree there is a need to be highly aggressive in adding content, redirecting the marketing and getting that DVR ready.

 

[TheTimm]

I've never liked the way Voom markets itself with a slant toward HD exclusivity. Change that to full service DBS with a heavy HD slant. HD has not reached critical mass and you're limiting your potential customer base with that marketing approach.

I agree.

 

[James Long]

The FCC is on record as having issues with E* having all the transponder control at 61.5 Look back to their decision to give two of those to Rainbow. I've never understood the reasoning behind that decision but it could signal their strong desire to have more competition in the sky.

I agree that holding those two transponders back for some future entrant was not a good FCC decision. SkyAngel survives on two TPs because much of their costs are handled by leasing their other 6 TPs to Echostar and SkyAngel does not pay for programming. Only a service so structured could be expected to survive at 61.5 on the remaining two transponders. The FCC is giving time for that service to come forward - but if it were my decision I would have split the pair, one for V* and one for E*. But thanks to congress, even such a Solomon split would not be allowed. Vacant assignments must be auctioned.

Rainbow 1 is in an awkward orbit for E* to make full use for their mainstream customer base.

Echostar does not count on one wing location to reach their full customer base. They have plenty of space on 148 and 157 for the west coast. They only need 61.5 for east coast, southeast and midwest extra coverage. E* has done well at 61.5 with the only stagnation coming because they filled all available transponders. E* vacated an STA on RainbowDBS' transponders in 2003 before Voom went on the air. E* has plenty of uses for those transponders, and the spotbeam design of R1 fits in nicely with the idea of delivering locals from there.

EchoStar wants the bird and Cablevision is bound by contract to do what is needed to make sure the deal goes through. The FCC needs reasons to stop transfers, "not liking it" is not a good enough reason and this transfer does not interfere with their decision to hold back TP23 and TP24 for a potential hypothetical new entrant.

JL

 

[Bruce]

EchoStar wants the bird and Cablevision is bound by contract to do what is needed to make sure the deal goes through. The FCC needs reasons to stop transfers, "not liking it" is not a good enough reason and this transfer does not interfere with their decision to hold back TP23 and TP24 for a potential hypothetical new entrant.
JL

Dude, do you like being wrong just so people can keep beating you up here, this transfer has everything to do with those two transponders, E* wants them, the FCC has said E* and D* can not bid for them for four years, that is reason enough for the FCC to say no way to the sale, use facts, not what you think is right.

Here, read:

On January 28, 2005, EchoStar Satellite L.L.C. (“EchoStar”) and Rainbow DBS Company LLC (“Rainbow DBS”) filed applications pursuant to section 310(d) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, seeking consent to assign authority held by Rainbow DBS to operate a Direct Broadcast Satellite (“DBS”) space station, Rainbow 1, at the 61.5º W.L. orbital location, and the associated earth station facilities at the Black Hawk site in Rapid City, South Dakota, to EchoStar. Specifically, the assignment request includes Rainbow’s authorization to operate Rainbow 1, call sign DBS 8701, at 6l.5º W.L. on 11 odd-numbered channels (channels 1-21), the Special Temporary Authority (“STA”) to operate on 2 additional DBS channels at that orbital location (channels 23 and 24), and the license to operate the Black Hawk Earth Station, call sign E020248.

http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-501A1.pdf

 

[James Long]

Dude, do you like being wrong just so people can keep beating you up here, this transfer has everything to do with those two transponders, E* wants them, the FCC has said E* and D* can not bid for them for four years, that is reason enough for the FCC to say no way to the sale, use facts, not what you think is right.

Perhaps you should do the same. Please read what I wrote and not what you thought I wrote (and while you are at it, cease personal comments).

this transfer does not interfere with their decision to hold back TP23 and TP24 for a potential hypothetical new entrant.

The filing you quoted stated that E* wanted the STAs for those two transponders, not asking for the full license. Granting E* all that it has requested of the FCC would not change the fact that those are STAs and would not prevent the FCC from assigning those two TPs to any other company.

JL

 

[graphiteRT]

I beg to differ JL. Part of the FCC's job is to act in the best interest of the taxpayers. Technically we own those airwaves. Promoting competition is one of those ways to act on our behalf. The DOJ and the FCC acting on behalf of Congress made it clear by shooting down the D*/E* merger that they wanted to promote competition in the space, not consolidation. So in essance, "not liking it" is most definitely reason enough. They "didn't like" the merger. It didn't happen.

The SEC gets the say on whether the ownership of the satellite can change hands. But the FCC still has a say in who gets to broacast. If Dolan makes it clear with his moves that a viable third player still exists, and his actions are clearly trying to show that, then it will weigh in the gov't decisions on the deal. You can bet on it.

 

[graphiteRT]

Here's a link to an old article by the American Anitrust Institute on the old D*/E* merger proposal:

http://www.antitrustinstitute.org/recent2/213.cfm


It has a few interesting tidbits within, including the cost estimate at the time of $2 Billion for a new entrant to the DBS space. With that sort of information being floated 3 years ago, I think it's ridiculous for people to be running around today screaming that they can't understand the $1.4B that CVC has spent to date on the project. It's still well under the most optimistic estimates from about the time the concept was in motion and Rainbow 1 was being built. IOW, there are no surprises here for those paying attention.

This is proof positive of what I have suspected for some time. The costs to date are not out of line or unexpected. Anyone on the Board acting surprised today is either ignorant or just acting.

 

[James Long]

Don't forget the makeup of the DBS industry at the time the FCC put those two transponders "on hold".
SA = 8 DBS transponders at one orbital location (6 leased to E*)
D* = 46 DBS transponders at three orbital locations
V* = 75 DBS transponders at three orbital locations
E* = 125 DBS transponders at five orbital locations
Companies bidding in the last FCC auction for DBS: V* and E*

At that point the FCC knew that the two companies controlling the most transponders were the only companies interested in getting any more. Which makes the decision to withold the final two TPs from both E* and V* more defendable.

D* does quite well considering they are third in transponder ownership. There is no need to protect them by not allowing the 11 TPs at 61.5 to go to E*.

The D* E* merger would have changed the face of DBS considerably - that merger would have led to:
D+E = 131 TPs at five locations (plus 11 TPs pending)
V* = 11 TPs at 61.5 (not yet on the air)
SA = 8 TPs at 61.5 (6 leased to D+E)
Customer count would have been nearly 100% D+E as well. This is an entirely different picture than what exists today, and is clearly defensable.

JL

 

[graphiteRT]

It's simple math of reducing 3 competitors to 2. Forget the confusing details. Forget the financials. It hurts the consumer's choices in the marketplace.

If Chuck Dolan makes it clear that 3 can remain operating, you have a tough sell for CVC to force the issue to 2. Which gov't agency looking out for the consumer will sign up for that?

 

[James Long]

If Chuck Dolan makes it clear that 3 can remain operating,

Mr Dolan is bound by the contract his company signed. His best bet would be to convince Echostar to mutually withdraw the request or to sign a lease with Echostar to use those transponders after E* takes possession. If Charles and Charlie are as close as proclaimed, there is a better resolution than hoping the FCC will deny the transfer.

BTW: The details may be confusing, but they back up the logic and I wouldn't want to be harrassed for not backing up my logic with details.

JL

 

[graphiteRT]

I'm not discussing who is bound by what. I'm talking about the potential decisions, the required government agency approvals and how consumer protection will play into it. Who's to say the DOJ doesn't jump in the middle at some point?

Get off the "poor me" bit. Details are fine, if they are pertinent to the discussion. People are asking you for them, not beating you up for offering them. Joe Sixpack in the middle of Kansas doesn't really care about who owns what transponder. Because he can't get cable, he just wants acces to a DBS with the channels he likes without getting bent over on the price. Lack of competition in the space isn't going to further those desires.

 

[mike123abc]

Don't forget the makeup of the DBS industry at the time the FCC put those two transponders "on hold".
SA = 8 DBS transponders at one orbital location (6 leased to E*)
D* = 46 DBS transponders at three orbital locations
V* = 75 DBS transponders at three orbital locations
E* = 125 DBS transponders at five orbital locations

Lets be realistic... 96 of these transponders are really no good, they can reach less than 1/3 the population... 157 could be used for the west coast, 166 and 175 are more AK/HI. 175 is like 15 degree elevation in LA.

More realistic numbers are:

SA=8 CONUS-48
D*=46 CONUS
V=11 CONUS-48 + 64 Extreame west coast AK/HI
E=50 CONUS + 11 CONUS-48 + 32 Western Half + 32 Western 1/3

 

[James Long]

I'm not discussing who is bound by what.

You should consider it. You suggested that Mr Dolan makes makes statements to the FCC that would lead to Rainbow1 not being approved. He cannot make such statements.

JL

 

[James Long]

Lets be realistic...

The comparison was intended to be more of a comparison between what the D* + E* merger would have done vs what giving E* 11 more transponders will do.

One company (D*+E*) having near 100% of the ConUS transponders is a different problem than two companies sharing 25 million customers.

JL