Okay Scott, maybe most watched, but to Me that does not necessarily mean best. Best can mean very different things to many different people. Some people would not know best if it were staring them in the face. I cannot exactly remember the exact five that were still there after they removed most I remember Monsters, Rush, Kung Fu, and I am not sure what the other two were because I was in such shock at the removals of the ones I liked, but I can think of at least 5 other Voom channels I would keep. The ones they kept were not them. There are always differences of opinions. I think the removal of Voom was all about money with no concern for the viewers.
Voom addressed on the Charlie Chat
- Thread starter Yes616
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 124
- Views 11K
Okay Scott, maybe most watched, but to Me that does not necessarily mean best. Best can mean very different things to many different people. Some people would not know best if it were staring them in the face. I cannot exactly remember the exact five that were still there after they removed most I remember Monsters, Rush, Kung Fu, and I am not sure what the other two were because I was in such shock at the removals of the ones I liked, but I can think of at least 5 other Voom channels I would keep. The ones they kept were not them. There are always differences of opinions. I think the removal of Voom was all about money with no concern for the viewers.
bottom line is that Charlie did not like the contract and was trying to get out of it. He knows that this is far from over.
Let me ask if Charlie gives voom an ultimatum 5 channels or nothing? What do you think is best course of action that V* can take? I am sure that they consulted with their lawyers. If voom agrees with Charlie, then they are consenting to breaking the contract which is the principle argument. There was no other choice but to say no and let's send it to the courts. I hope Charlie gets slopped very hard on this one.
Let me ask if Charlie gives voom an ultimatum 5 channels or nothing? What do you think is best course of action that V* can take? I am sure that they consulted with their lawyers. If voom agrees with Charlie, then they are consenting to breaking the contract which is the principle argument. There was no other choice but to say no and let's send it to the courts. I hope Charlie gets slopped very hard on this one.
I know my two favorite channels were removed. The five were Kung Fu, Monsters, Rave, Rush, and Equator. Rave was definitely one of the most popular. I would have been all for condensing Voom, as long as no programming was actually lost. Instead, we've got nothing and I find myself wishing I'd had more USB storage to save movies.
Maybe Charlie should honor signed agreements. While the "Spending" requirement is being contended, there is no question Charlie intentionally violated the agreement when he tiered VOOM back on 1 February.Maybe Charlie should just ask you from now on.
So what do they need the courts for then?Maybe Charlie should honor signed agreements. While the "Spending" requirement is being contended, there is no question Charlie intentionally violated the agreement when he tiered VOOM back on 1 February.
Bugged
I use this term in two contexts. 1. If they are checking what all we are watched it makes me feel like we are being bugged. 2. Am I the only one that is bugged by this?
I use this term in two contexts. 1. If they are checking what all we are watched it makes me feel like we are being bugged. 2. Am I the only one that is bugged by this?
By just being on a computer, you are being "registered" in one fashion or another.
But, don't forget, Dish MADE Voom show all those repeats, according to the suit filed by Voom in court.
Let's not forget that.
Dish, wanted out of the contract, so they made the channels less desireable, so people wouldn't watch much, then pulled them, hoping people would just say, 'finally'. Well, as we know, it didn't work and left us all with a bad taste in the mouth.
Especially the day they added all those 'HD' channels, announced they had 95 channels, then PULLED them the very next day.
What the h*ll were they thinknig, announcing 95 channels for 12 hours!
Wasn't that only stated in Voom's complaint. It doesn't make it true just because Voom said it happened.
Bottom line Voom didn't live up to the contract so charlie dropped them.
Good bye, Good residence.
Maybe Charlie should honor signed agreements. While the "Spending" requirement is being contended, there is no question Charlie intentionally violated the agreement when he tiered VOOM back on 1 February.
How so? I think the only reason people dropped down a tier was because of Voom. Everyone who subbed to the HD pack still had Voom when they restructured. They were still in the most widely subbed HD pack.
Well, based upon Vooms track record in lawsuits (none) and Charlies track record in lawsuits (many over and over), I believe VOOM. I really don't think VOOM would lie so blatantly in a complaint on something so easily checked.
Charlie is a slimey bastard, who runs amuck over others as he sees fit. That is his track record.
These days, mostly to hear cases against EchoStar. Company's that conduct business above board could get by with their word and a firm handshake.So what do they need the courts for then?
Er...they were not in the most widely available HD pack since E* moved VOOM into the Ultimate tier on 1 February. You should probably read the half-dozen or so threads covering this topic, along with all the posted court filings. Again, VOOM was moved into the "Ultimate" HD Tier on 1 February. People not wanting VOOM (and a couple other HD channels) could drop down a tier and save $10, but this was in violation of the Affiliation Agreement and is not a fact in dispute. In a nutshell, the Affiliation Agreement required the VOOM HD channels to be in the basic HD tier and to be available to 90+ percent of HD subscribers (Penetration Requirement).
I would supply links to the specific posts, but it looks like the SatGuys database index might be out of sync at this time (click on post and I am taken to the 1st page of the thread - don't have time to scroll through a 60+ pages thread). Anyway, what's in dispute is E* says VOOM violated the Spend Requirement and VOOM says they met or exceeded this requirement, they spent an additional $14 million dollars on VOOM during 2007, and there were cure provisions to remedy any potential violation.
If VOOM can prove they met the Spend Requirement as they claim, then E* illegally terminated the Affiliation Agreement and will be required to compensate VOOM for lost income and damages. However, if VOOM is found to have not met the Spend Requirement, then it will be VOOM who will be doing a Ned Beatty imitation.
Wasn't that only stated in Dish's complaint? It doesn't make it true just because Dish said it happened. The bottom line is you don't know any more about the contract than anyone else here so your opinion isn't any more valid than the post your were responding to.
Mario
