Voom addressed on the Charlie Chat

[riffjim4069]

They didn't move them! On Feb. 1st everyone that was subbed to Hd still Had voom. Dish created another tier and gave people the option to change. It is Voom's fault that they couldn't keep customers.
The complaint that Voom filed may not contain any truth. If it is true that they were told to endless loop content then the people at Voom are idiots. We will have to wait to see if Voom can actually prove this. It is a shame that the complaint is public because it has people think that it is fact.

VOOM was available in the lowest priced HD tier prior to 1 February. After 1 Februarry, VOOM was moved to the higher priced "Ultimate" tier. For an extra $10 above the basic (aka Essential) tier, subscribers could get VOOM and one or two other channels like HDNet Movies and Universal HD. Personally, I am all for a la carte...let all the channels stand or fall on their own merit and get rid of hundreds of worthless channels in the process. Good content will survive, while all the fluff channels (BET, MTV, Spike, FX, Sci-Fi just to name a few) will be removed from my subscription.

Technically, E* didn't yank the VOOM channels from anyone on 1 Feb. However, customers could drop down to the Essential HD package to save $10, thus dropping VOOM (and a couple other HD channels)...which is a violation of the Affiliation Agreement. Each customer that dropped down to the Essential package cost VOOM at least $3.25 per month according to the court records.

In any case, it was a material breach for E* to re-tier VOOM (see 15-16 of the attached) in addition to violating the Packaging Commitment and Penetration Commitment of the Affiliation Agreement (see 23-24 of the attached). The Affiliation Agreement required VOOM to be in the basic or Essential HD tier, and reach 93% of HD customers. I have attached VOOM's Amended Complaint filed 28 May 2008. Of course, this is VOOM's side of the story so you will also want to check-out EchoStar's Reply in order to form an objective opinion.

If you still believe E* didn't move the VOOM channel to a premium tier, in violation of the Affiliation Agreement, there is nothing more I will say about this matter since you will believe what you wish to believe. Does this mean E* illegally terminated the Affiliation Agreement? Maybe, but maybe not. We just don't have enough information to make that call...and most arguments are nothing more than opinions.

 

[Spatch]

VOOM was available in the lowest priced HD tier prior to 1 February. After 1 Februarry, VOOM was moved to the higher priced "Ultimate" tier. For an extra $10 above the basic (aka Essential) tier, subscribers could get VOOM and one or two other channels like HDNet Movies and Universal HD. Personally, I am all for a la carte...let all the channels stand or fall on their own merit and get rid of hundreds of worthless channels in the process. Good content will survive, while all the fluff channels (BET, MTV, Spike, FX, Sci-Fi just to name a few) will be removed from my subscription.

Technically, E* didn't yank the VOOM channels from anyone on 1 Feb. However, customers could drop down to the Essential HD package to save $10, thus dropping VOOM (and a couple other HD channels)...which is a violation of the Affiliation Agreement. Each customer that dropped down to the Essential package cost VOOM at least $3.25 per month according to the court records.

In any case, it was a material breach for E* to re-tier VOOM (see 15-16 of the attached) in addition to violating the Packaging Commitment and Penetration Commitment of the Affiliation Agreement (see 23-24 of the attached). The Affiliation Agreement required VOOM to be in the basic or Essential HD tier, and reach 93% of HD customers. I have attached VOOM's Amended Complaint filed 28 May 2008. Of course, this is VOOM's side of the story so you will also want to check-out EchoStar's Reply in order to form an objective opinion.

If you still believe E* didn't move the VOOM channel to a premium tier, in violation of the Affiliation Agreement, there is nothing more I will say about this matter since you will believe what you wish to believe. Does this mean E* illegally terminated the Affiliation Agreement? Maybe, but maybe not. We just don't have enough information to make that call...and most arguments are nothing more than opinions.

You see it as a premium tier I see it as the original package (which it was). Dish created a lesser package which did not include the Voom channels. If you went to HD only package you would still Get the Voom channels. The only way you would not receive the channels was if you asked to have them taken away. The only way you could do that before was to cancel the HD package. So the customers were the ones who actually killed Voom.
I would like to see the way the original contract is worded. Does it say that Voom has to be in the most basic package or does it say it has to be in a package that 93% of HD viewers can see. If the later is the case then they were in a package that 100% could see. It was by the customers choice that they dropped the Voom channel thus leading to less then 93% viewership.
Also you keep bring the complaint from voom into this. There is no proof that any statement made in the complaint is true. Nothing has been proven yet. If Dish came out with a complaint that said Voom only spent $1000 on programming which violated the contract and that is why we dropped them down to 5 channels would you believe it? It is only a complaint and not a statement of facts. So I wish you would stop using it to back up your argument.

 

[Pepper]

Every customer who subs to HD Ultimate gets everything in HD Essentials. Ergo, VOOM, when it was in HD Ultimate, was no longer in the package that "most" customers were getting, as all HD customers were getting Essentials, only those who did not downgrade were getting Ultimate.

 

[FitzAusTex]

You see it as a premium tier I see it as the original package (which it was). Dish created a lesser package which did not include the Voom channels. If you went to HD only package you would still Get the Voom channels. The only way you would not receive the channels was if you asked to have them taken away. The only way you could do that before was to cancel the HD package. So the customers were the ones who actually killed Voom.
I would like to see the way the original contract is worded. Does it say that Voom has to be in the most basic package or does it say it has to be in a package that 93% of HD viewers can see. If the later is the case then they were in a package that 100% could see. It was by the customers choice that they dropped the Voom channel thus leading to less then 93% viewership.
Also you keep bring the complaint from voom into this. There is no proof that any statement made in the complaint is true. Nothing has been proven yet. If Dish came out with a complaint that said Voom only spent $1000 on programming which violated the contract and that is why we dropped them down to 5 channels would you believe it? It is only a complaint and not a statement of facts. So I wish you would stop using it to back up your argument.

You are simply wrong. HD Ultimate is not the basic HD package. By giving customers a choice to have less than the $20 Ultimate package, by getting the $10 HD Essentials package, the HD Essentials package became the basic HD package on E*. By putting Voom, HD Movies, Universal HD, and the other channels in the Ultimate pack, these channels were moved out of the basic HD package. HDNet sued Directv for doing this very thing. They reached a compromise where HDNet remained in D*s basic HD package, but HDNet Movies was placed in their HD Extra package. Same thing happened with Voom, Uni, HDNet Movies, etc on E*. I'm not sure why you're having such a difficult time understanding this.

 

[Peter Parker]

to the pro VOOMers the only breaches were the Echostar actions of retiering and then offeringa reduced suite of channels. To the anti VOOmers the breach was when VOOM failed to meeta the spending requiremetn and the Echostar actions were attempts to "settle" with VOOM

Peronall I think that both views require clsoing your mind to certain facts. On thing that can be said with certainty is that there will both sides are being pretty creative in ther interpretations and that there will b o real consensus on the boaards even if this thing is finally settled in or out of court.

 

[riffjim4069]

Thanks Geronimo! Whether you side with E* or V*, everything boils down to whether or not VOOM met their 2006 Spend Requirement. If not, then E* probably had a legal right to terminated the agreement and re-tiering VOOM on 1 Feb is moot. However, if VOOM can prove they met the 2006 Spend Requirement then they are entitled to compensation and penalties. This matter is being disputed in the courts, and I doubt any of us will see evidence or artifacts since that is company most sensitive information.

Personally, even if E* were legally entitled to terminate the agreement, I find a great many problems with the way they handled this matter...which I don't need to rehash. I tend to believe VOOM's story simply because is mirrors what other programmers, vendors and retailers have said about them.

My only question is why does everything turn into an epic court battle with EchoStar? This is a horrible way to run a business IMO.

 

[nlk10010]

Thanks Geronimo! Whether you side with E* or V*, everything boils down to whether or not VOOM met their 2006 Spend Requirement.

And this totally depends on how the contract language was drafted. It's almost as if the answer to this question is going to be either: "Voom didn't meet the spending requirement because its legal team f****d up or "Voom did meet the spending requirement because Charlie's legal team f****d up".

My only question is why does everything turn into an epic court battle with EchoStar? This is a horrible way to run a business IMO.

It's like a mobster once told my father (not that my father was in the mob): "do whatever you want, just make sure you put away enough money to hire the best lawyers".

 

[Peter Parker]

And this totally depends on how the contract language was drafted. It's almost as if the answer to this question is going to be either: "Voom didn't meet the spending requirement because its legal team f****d up or "Voom did meet the spending requirement because Charlie's legal team f****d up".


.

Not really. No one screwed up if they drafted an agreement that made echostar invest in the service in return fora satellite, an uplink center , and 15 channels of HD programming at a time when there wee not many HD channels and required VOOM to invest heavily in programming which should also have made it more attractive to other providers.

The problem is that circumstances occurred that made one or both parties rethink the obligations they made.

 

[Spatch]

You are simply wrong. HD Ultimate is not the basic HD package. By giving customers a choice to have less than the $20 Ultimate package, by getting the $10 HD Essentials package, the HD Essentials package became the basic HD package on E*. By putting Voom, HD Movies, Universal HD, and the other channels in the Ultimate pack, these channels were moved out of the basic HD package. HDNet sued Directv for doing this very thing. They reached a compromise where HDNet remained in D*s basic HD package, but HDNet Movies was placed in their HD Extra package. Same thing happened with Voom, Uni, HDNet Movies, etc on E*. I'm not sure why you're having such a difficult time understanding this.

Maybe you are not reading my whole post.

I would like to see the way the original contract is worded. Does it say that Voom has to be in the most basic package or does it say it has to be in a package that 93% of HD viewers can see. If the later is the case then they were in a package that 100% could see. It was by the customers choice that they dropped the Voom channel thus leading to less then 93% viewership.

If it was that they had to be in the most viewed package, then they were. I wonder how many people dropped Dish HD because of Vooms lame offerings. At least people had another option. I would love to see the numbers.

 

[nlk10010]

Not really. No one screwed up if they drafted an agreement that made echostar invest in the service in return fora satellite, an uplink center , and 15 channels of HD programming
-snip-

That's exactly the problem. What objective measure do you use to gauge an investment in 15 channels of HD programming? I maintain and (being by no means an accountant or lawyer but having some experience in the more abstract aspects of this question) that there is no single "accurate" way to do this; hence, it's left up to the language in the contract to determine if Voom mets its commitments.

I guess we'll just have to (amicably) agree to disagree.

 

[riffjim4069]

Not really. No one screwed up if they drafted an agreement that made echostar invest in the service in return fora satellite, an uplink center , and 15 channels of HD programming at a time when there wee not many HD channels and required VOOM to invest heavily in programming which should also have made it more attractive to other providers.

I wondered the same thing...if the sale of Rainbow-1 and uplink facilities were in any way tied to the Affiliation Agreement. However, since nothing was mentioned in VOOMs complaint and amended complaint, I can only assume they were two seperate transactions.

 

[Peter Parker]

That's exactly the problem. What objective measure do you use to gauge an investment in 15 channels of HD programming? I maintain and (being by no means an accountant or lawyer but having some experience in the more abstract aspects of this question) that there is no single "accurate" way to do this; hence, it's left up to the language in the contract to determine if Voom mets its commitments.

I guess we'll just have to (amicably) agree to disagree.

well according to DISH and the judge it is NOT that hard. you just add up the actual expenditures. They both have afgued that the woed "spend" mandates that.

What i don't see anywhere (but again the DISH filings are not available) is any questioning of the indirect rate just whether they count at all. If they don't VOOM seems to have failed to meet the requirement and if they do VOOM may well have,

the other issue is whether the agreement is based on 21 or 15 channels. to me it looks like 15 and the judge seemed to agree. ut we will see where that goes.

 

[riffjim4069]

well according to DISH and the judge it is NOT that hard. you just add up the actual expenditures. They both have afgued that the woed "spend" mandates that.

What i don't see anywhere (but again the DISH filings are not available) is any questioning of the indirect rate just whether they count at all. If they don't VOOM seems to have failed to meet the requirement and if they do VOOM may well have,

the other issue is whether the agreement is based on 21 or 15 channels. to me it looks like 15 and the judge seemed to agree. ut we will see where that goes.


the other issue would be

Regarding the temporary injunction, the burdon of proof was on VOOM and, after reading their much more detailed ameded complaint, I wonder if they were sandbagging just a little. This is very unusual case in the more VOOM does to grow the business, the worse they are going to fare in court should they someday, years from now, win the case. Let's face facts...parent company CableVision/Rainbow Media are doing just fine. The fact they have to shutdown VOOM HD and/or reallocate assets to Rainbow Media does hurt them and, other than Charles Dolan, I doubt too many of the CV board members are wanting to dump any more money into VOOM.

As I said before, although I liked VOOM...it could have been a really good product if their leadership wasn't asleep at the wheel during 2005, 2006, 2007, and 2008.

It should be interesting to see if Cablevision's own cable system renews is licensing agreement with VOOM. If not, the plug will be pulled shortly afterwards.

 

[whatchel1]

Repeating the same mistakes

Regarding the temporary injunction, the burdon of proof was on VOOM and, after reading their much more detailed ameded complaint, I wonder if they were sandbagging just a little. This is very unusual case in the more VOOM does to grow the business, the worse they are going to fare in court should they someday, years from now, win the case. Let's face facts...parent company CableVision/Rainbow Media are doing just fine. The fact they have to shutdown VOOM HD and/or reallocate assets to Rainbow Media does hurt them and, other than Charles Dolan, I doubt too many of the CV board members are wanting to dump any more money into VOOM.

As I said before, although I liked VOOM...it could have been a really good product if their leadership wasn't asleep at the wheel during 2005, 2006, 2007, and 2008.

It should be interesting to see if Cablevision's own cable system renews is licensing agreement with VOOM. If not, the plug will be pulled shortly afterwards.

If CV board doesn't continue to invest in VOOM then they are just repeating the same mistake. This is what killed VOOM as a DBS provider to start with.

 

[riffjim4069]

If CV board doesn't continue to invest in VOOM then they are just repeating the same mistake. This is what killed VOOM as a DBS provider to start with.

Yep, but the only backing VOOM seemed to get was from Dolan Sr. The Anti-Midas James Dolan has been trying to kill VOOM, and CableVision for that matter, for years. Everything gold turns to lead once he gets his touches it.

 

[Peter Parker]

That's exactly the problem. What objective measure do you use to gauge an investment in 15 channels of HD programming? I maintain and (being by no means an accountant or lawyer but having some experience in the more abstract aspects of this question) that there is no single "accurate" way to do this; hence, it's left up to the language in the contract to determine if Voom mets its commitments.

I guess we'll just have to (amicably) agree to disagree.

The objecive measurement would be dollars apent directly in the acquisition or production of programming. I work with contracts for aliving an direct and indirect cost measurement can done. Yes there is room for discussion but in this case the parties seem to have identified what it is that they disagree about and it is whether indirect costs should be applied.

 

[Peter Parker]

I wondered the same thing...if the sale of Rainbow-1 and uplink facilities were in any way tied to the Affiliation Agreement. However, since nothing was mentioned in VOOMs complaint and amended complaint, I can only assume they were two seperate transactions.

The documents we have seen already explain that. The affiliation agreement grew out of those discussions but they are not the same. the acquisition of the other assets took place months before the affiliation agreement. If one is invalidated the other is not affected.

My only point was that at the time of the agreement all of this made sense to both sides. Unfortunately we havea much different situation now

 

[ekilgus]

I believe that VOOM will prevail in this matter but that will not restore the service as we knew it. That is over. However, I believe a few of the former VOOM channels may emerge as single channels at some point in the future both on Dish and Direct TV.

I also think this will at some point cost Charlie some money but it seems he's used to that. I haven't been a Dish subscriber more than a few years but I've never seen a situation that was as inflammatory as the removal of the VOOM channels despite what some at Dish claim which is their assertion that almost nobody cared that the service was removed.

 

[FitzAusTex]

Dish called me on Thursday in response to an email I sent the CEO address expressing my displeasure about the removal of the Voom channels. I was informed that E* and 'Cablevision' (rather than Voom or Rainbow Media) were working to come to an agreement that might very well result in the restoration of Voom channels. I was further informed that E* has, and continues to receive more complaints about the removal of Voom than they anticipated. It was explained to me that sometimes the complaints were generalized as the 'Horror channel' or the 'Fashion channel', etc.

I post this not for others to infer that I believe that Voom would be returning in any form, but to add to the information we have out there. Namely, that E* has mounted a campaign to respond via phone to customer complaints about the Voom removal, or at least to respond to via phone to my complaint about the Voom removal. I guess they feel they need to, although odd, since E* has publicly stated that Voom isn't important to its customers.

 

[Bradp56]

I hope this is true, I hope this will work out for the best and Dish will add them back and Voom will spend more money and have more programming and less repeats and we can all be happy.