Rainbow Spin-off is dead

[flipper2001]

I sure hope it doesnt, they finally fixed many of the problems (possibly too late) with the STB and program content. We shall see..

PS.. I got a HD DIRECTIVO and it's soooo cool. I wish the Voom PVR would be ready already!

 

[stevesmall]

You hit it right on the head man...

Its kind of amusing watching so many people over-react to every single rumor or tidbit of news that gets circulated in the media and on the Web;

Sean is right, Johnalan is right, in the REAL business world, Voom is still viewed as a large asset, and however Rainbow or Voom evolves in the next 12-36 months, there is NO WAY that this "Asset" will just disappear off the face of the earth; Someone wants this 25-30k subscriber base, with expensive HD Televisons, and ALOT of "disposable income" to spend on things like Satalite recievers, DVR's, and Pro Logic sound systems..There just arent enough HD televisions out there yet;

This Christmas should tell the tale; if enough folks buy HD sets now, and get them home and discover how poor they look without an HD source, Voom could reap lots of new subscriptions...Too bad they arent in all the major retail stores with information, the way Comcast and the other Cable companies do.

Relax everyone, Voom, in some shape form or flavor will exist for a very very long time....

They want the assets (sats etc) the subscribers number is so small and just about everyone here knows the majority i would think are subscribers to more than just voom. so to any provider that exists now that mnumber would be much smaller as they already have that Voom customer

 

[jnardone]

WRong wrong wrong. publisher does not know what he talks about. If I were VOOM, I will bring a law suit against him for publishing wrong information. merging thread.

That would be funny - The publisher would say "But Your Honor, VOOM really is shutting down" then the judge would ask: "VOOM, is this true, are you shutting down?" then VOOM would say "no comment". Case closed.

 

[Phaetos]

Voom Selling to EchoStar

Sure you've all seen this or something like it...

http://www.newsday.com/business/ny-bzcab224093244dec22,0,919569.story?coll=ny-business-headlines

 

[The Stone Man]

Yes, it's already been discussed to death, and your thread title is way off the mark. It wouldn't surprise me if the mods shut this one down.

 

[andrzej]

That would be funny - The publisher would say "But Your Honor, VOOM really is shutting down" then the judge would ask: "VOOM, is this true, are you shutting down?" then VOOM would say "no comment". Case closed.

I can't see the funny part here. Where is it, jnardone?

 

[Sean Mota]

I sent this guy an email last night stating this article was wrong and he was reporting false information. Look at his response. He never address the language used in his article and think that he never stated that his article said that that the VOOM service was suspended. But when you read the article, it clearly states the same. Does he looks like someone who needs reading glasses or what?

----- Original Message -----
From: "Michael Silbergleid" <msilbergleid@cmpinformation.com>
To: "Sean Mota" <motasea@satelliteguys.us>
Sent: Thursday, December 23, 2004 8:32 AM
Subject: Re: Voom article


> Sean,
>
> First, thanks for writing. And I agree that Cablevision's announcement is
> that the spin-off is suspended, but the consensus between the press
> coverage of Cablevision's announcement and industry analysts is that
> Cablevision wants to sell Voom, but there will probably be no takers,
> therefore the service is going to go bust.
>
> What would you do if you were Cablevision, and you made a minor
> announcement like they already did and the stock jumped by 13%? In this age
> of "shareholder value" mercy killing a money
> hemorrhaging service like Voom would only have three consequences:
> 1-Stop the loss
> 2-Increase share price
> 3-Piss off some 25,000 subscribers
>
> I'll bet that if anything, Cablevision sells their subscribers to DirecTV,
> which will then offer each one a free replacement DirecTV HD STB and dish
> with installation, but will keep the service going until all Voom
> subscribers who want to switched have been switched.
>
> As far as liability goes, we never said when the service would be suspended
> (they do have some time sensitive contractual obligations) and Cablevision
> would need to prove in court that they never had forward thinking
> discussions to kill off Voom. Probably why they haven't responded to
> interview requests before my story broke, or to complain after the story broke.
>
> At 06:53 PM 12/22/2004, you wrote:
>
> >Dear sir:
> >
> >There's a big difference between "supending spin off" and "suspending its
> >Voom Satellite service". You have made a big mistake in reporting the
> >correct news which may make you liable. Just trying to point your error
> >in the news.
> >
> >
> >http://digitaltelevision.com/articles/article_859.shtml
> >
> >
> >No virus found in this incoming message.
> >Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
> >Version: 7.0.296 / Virus Database: 265.6.4 - Release Date: 12/22/2004
>

 

[riffjim4069]

This guy is a real winner, "We never said when the service would be suspended." Well, according to this logic, Ford Motor Company is going out of business! It's a known fact the sun will eventually burn-out and life will no longer be supported on earth. Therefore, my claim is not libelous because a) I can scientifically support my claim and b) I never said when the company would be going out of business. I guess it all depends on what your definition of is is.

 

[jnardone]

I can't see the funny part here. Where is it, jnardone?

The idea of a company spending money to sue someone for saying something that is actually true when the company knows that it is actually true would be funny in a sad sort of way.

 

[FrankJo]

There is nothing wrong with what the reporter wrote. I hear that voom may already be talking to e*. How it will turn out, none of us knows. But, it's fun to speculate.

I think we'll know more in...2 weeks.

 

[Sean Mota]

There is nothing wrong with what the reporter wrote. I hear that voom may already be talking to e*. How it will turn out, none of us knows. But, it's fun to speculate.

I think we'll know more in...2 weeks.

I disagree. His article if you read states that it is suspended as of today. How come I still have a signal. That's misleading. If his trying to cover himself by saying, I never said when it was going to suspended so therefore this does not make it liable, he is a loser in my eyes. Why just not changed the language and report it as a speculation when he is reporting as a fact. There is a huge different from what is a fact and what is not. I learned that in 5th grade. The difference between opinion and fact.

P.S. Based on his style of journalism, maybe I should start a thread and say, "INHD on VOOM" but then explain to all members here but I never say when. Bad journalism.

 

[Sparkman]

Sean,

I agree. I got this artice from another HD forum, where the post title is the Voom goes bust and the thread goes on to state that Voom will be suspending its satellite service. I completely thought from both that thread and the article when I read it that Voom would be shutting down. A very bad reporting job when the author takes his opinion and reports it as fact.

 

[stevesmall]

Voom still has big pockets behind them. As far as I am concerned this is great news.

The cancelling of the spin off means the big pockets are closing.
Vurbano i hope you dont invest with that huge high definition heart
i dont know what you do for a living , im assuming enginner but the local optimist club is looking for a leader
i wish i had as good an experience that you did with voom.
i can only think i told you you so but in truth thats never what i wanted. i wanted voom to survive. i wanted all that hd too

 

[andrzej]

The cancelling of the spin off means the big pockets are closing.
Vurbano i hope you dont invest with that huge high definition heart
i dont know what you do for a living , im assuming enginner but the local optimist club is looking for a leader
i wish i had as good an experience that you did with voom.
i can only think i told you you so but in truth thats never what i wanted. i wanted voom to survive. i wanted all that hd too

stevesmall, your language suggests that we don't have Voom signal anymore. We do. And what exactly did you tell vurbano that happened to be true?

 

[stevesmall]

All these speculations based on recent data? If they are stopping the spin off, maybe it's because they are finally seeing the possibility of being in the black.
How do you naysayers like your crow???

that is certainly not the case according to all the documentation in the sec filing. they are hemmoraging cash at an alarming rate . no matter the size of the company thats never good. they have no shot at making money now. a non early adopter doing research would not take the voom route, i on the other hand had i not already tried voom (failed miserably) would jump on board because if all goes thru there is nothing to lose, well as long as you take the paper billing option. i hope vooms hd exclusives survive in some sort although i think most of you would admit there is no market that would take all of them.
Voom was a great idea just at the wrong time, bad planning absolutely but still a great concept. but 25 thousand or 50 thous as some of you are saying is just not enough. at that rate the customer list is not worth anything as most of the Voomers also have another provider so would probably just go with the one they had before voom. Voom has no name brand recognition in relation to real world marketing numbers so there is very little value other than it being a cool name. so all we have left is the exclusives. they dont own the vast majority of content just the name of the channels , in the event of a merger with directv or echostar a duplication of channels would further decrease their power and last they are losing so much money that no comapny will come in and save them, they will just wait to pick thru the carcass. this is not a reflection on vooms situation really this is just a reality of business. Businesses very rarely get top dollar for their product when struggling financially

 

[stevesmall]

stevesmall, your language suggests that we don't have Voom signal anymore. We do. And what exactly did you tell vurbano that happened to be true?

I suggest no such thing in fact i go on to say i wish my experience with voom was as good as vurbanos. I also said in effect i wish i had his outlook, but to suggest all that this stopping of the spinoff is a good thing (stopping a planned spinoff of any compnay has never resulted afaik in a good ending) thats as bad a statement as people saying VOOM is dead. as for what i told him i told him voom as i have told all of you at this forum at one time or another. Voom will have serious problems and will most likely fail as a result of their inabilty to satisfy a large number of customers, while that has not come true as of yet and as ive stated before i dont want it to happen, i would think anyone in these circles would have to admit Voom is alot closer to selling off their assets than surviving long term. never have i seen a business with such a bad plan come from within such a successful company (CCV)

 

[jerbear]

Go to Sears and tell them you want a dish and they tell you to get DTV. You say what about Voom and they say they won't be around for long get DTV. I have been thinking of getting Voom but when the people selling it says this what does the customer think. How is Voom going to get more customers? Jerbear

 

[Sean Mota]

This is my first email to the author. To the original story ran as the first post on this thread.

Dear sir:
> >
> >There's a big difference between "supending spin off" and "suspending its
> >Voom Satellite service". You have made a big mistake in reporting the
> >correct news which may make you liable. Just trying to point your error
> >in the news.
> >
> >
http://digitaltelevision.com/articles/article_859.shtml

this is his response. I won't publish his name.

> Sean,
>
> First, thanks for writing. And I agree that Cablevision's announcement is
> that the spin-off is suspended, but the consensus between the press
> coverage of Cablevision's announcement and industry analysts is that
> Cablevision wants to sell Voom, but there will probably be no takers,
> therefore the service is going to go bust.
>
> What would you do if you were Cablevision, and you made a minor
> announcement like they already did and the stock jumped by 13%? In this
age
> of "shareholder value" mercy killing a money
> hemorrhaging service like Voom would only have three consequences:
> 1-Stop the loss
> 2-Increase share price
> 3-Piss off some 25,000 subscribers
>
> I'll bet that if anything, Cablevision sells their subscribers to DirecTV,
> which will then offer each one a free replacement DirecTV HD STB and dish
> with installation, but will keep the service going until all Voom
> subscribers who want to switched have been switched.
>
> As far as liability goes, we never said when the service would be
suspended
> (they do have some time sensitive contractual obligations) and Cablevision
> would need to prove in court that they never had forward thinking
> discussions to kill off Voom. Probably why they haven't responded to
> interview requests before my story broke, or to complain after the story
broke.

This was my response to him.

Obviously, you have no regard for correct information. The fact remains
whether they go bust or not that the service has not been suspended. The
spin off has. You are reporting false information and misleading the
public. That's the problem I have with your article. You can make any
speculation you want as long as you say that it's just speculation but you
have decided to report it as fact. In journalism there is a difference
between fact and speculation. If this is the way you want to go in
reporting false information, so be it. I was just trying to point out that
if I were a reader of your column, I would never trust anything you publish
again.

This is his response. In which agree to change the article.

You know what...you're right. I'm going to modify the online
story...once my web guy gets in. Look for a change soon.

This is his last response in which have made the changes

Thought you would like to know that the changes have been made.

Now the news reads as the spin-off was suspended. Not the service has been suspended like it read before and started this whole thread.

 

[andrzej]

...
Now the news reads as the spin-off was suspended. Not the service has been suspended like it read before and started this whole thread.

Good job Sean. Tkanks.

 

[Sean Mota]

Good job Sean. Tkanks.

As a side note:

What I really do not understand is why the mods at AVS deleted my first messages where I disproved the article. I was not notified why was my message deleted. I was trying to get the information corrected through the original author, my initial message which included his response dissappeared without any warning. I did not insult anyone on the message and made no remarks that could have been considered in violation of their posting rules (although I was pm by an avs member that maybe it was deleted because it included email address or quotations from an email). Even so, I would have expected an edition and not a deletion with a warning from the mods.