So...what are the odds of Voom making a triumphant return?
- Thread starter vampz26
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 137
- Views 14K
It's a great conundrum...market the VOOM channels individually or in smaller chunks and it will be difficult for them to prove damages, even if they are successful in court. Likewise, I think we all know why the folks at VOOM didn't break up the VOOM15 bundle nor aggressively market them to other providers the past 3 years...it would have jeopardized their "sugar daddy" business relationship with E*.
Unless VOOM were to crawl back to E* (I don't see that happening) or strike deals with D* and Verizon (very unlikely), the only recourse is to shuttle the VOOM service (VOOM HD Networks LLC will exist in name only) and, perhaps, build a new HD product line under the Rainbow Media moniker. In any case, I agree that the fate of VOOM will be known come 30 June when their carriage agreement with Cablevision expires.
No they are suing a company that they own a piece of. VOOm has not been profitable and therefore Echostar has never had any return on its investment. It is easy to see how froma dollar and cents perspective Echostar is better off eliminating the VOOM payment even if it means that VOOM dies.
In canada Equator, Oasis Rush and Treaure. In GB Rush, Ultra, Anamania and Family Room. In the rest of europe there is a single channel called VOOM HD.
I especially miss the VOOM " HD-NEWS". It was THE ONLY, 24 hour, HD, COMMERCIAL-FREE News Channel on the planet Earth....and now it's gone. Thanks Chuck !!
Oh, by the way, paying the extra money per month for HD-(formally) Ultimate (which are only 5-6 extra channels), is NOT worth it.
Oh, by the way, paying the extra money per month for HD-(formally) Ultimate (which are only 5-6 extra channels), is NOT worth it.
Voom as a suite of 15 channels carried on other providers like E* was not expected to make a profit till 2009, at the earliest. Although true, it is nonetheless a little disingenuous to state that 'they've not been profitable', as they are a three year old up-start. How many companies become profitable out of the gate? I don't know the answer to this myself, but my observations in paying attention to such things tells me not very many.
If Rainbow sits on its butt and does nothing about Voom except sue Dish, who will get the Voom programming that was of excellent quality (though largely dated)? They have a large number of concerts in the files with some outstanding music--if I had realized the service would terminate so abruptly, I would have DVR'd a bunch of them for my own replay. I guess i just snoozed and lost...
Fitzie
Fitzie
It is not disingenous at all. VOOM has failed to find a single domestic customer outside of their two owners. It is highly unlikely that t hey would have achieved profitability anytime soon much less last year.
My post was made in response to the question about why would Echostar be involved in a dispute with a company that they own a piece of it? the answer is that froma purely financial perspective they are better off getting rid of the payments to VOOM even if it forces VOOM into failure.
I fail to see how t is disingenous to answer the question asked and point out that the original business relationship with VOOM has not turned out as hoped.
dish never even tried to market Voom HD and they did the opposite by charging extra for Voom HD. I hope dish looses the lawsuit with Voom and the lawsuit with Tivo! I think every dish customer should cancel and go to Directv for a while as it is cheaper and they have more HD, then maybe they will finally get out of their Ivory tower and actually listen to they top tier customers. To me a company that treats is highest paying clients like crap needs a wake up call! Continue giving them your money when you can save with another provider just re-inforces their bad behavior.
if Voom provides proof they fulfilled the contract, then E* no longer has that 20% ownership, or at least that's my understanding of that ownership issue
I feel like you were stating that Voom was not profitable because it had not secured other distributors. Voom was not yet profitable as it didnt expect to be turing a profit by mid-2008, and I surmise that Echostar knew this upfront. "VOOm has not been profitable and therefore Echostar has never had any return on its investment.", to me sounds like a 50 year old airline that losses money most of those 50 years.
I was simply providing an explanation as to why DISH still might get intoa dispute with VOOM despite the pwnership.
I am not sure where you get that from. The sale of assets and the ownership percentage happened first then the affiiaition agreement. While one grew out of the other I have not seen anything linking the two like that.
BTW I am not trying to correct you just ask where you got that from.
Last edited:
