Have anyone seen a statement from Voom's people? (1 Viewer)

Register Today to see less ads! It's Free!
Register Today to see less ads! It's Free!

Sean Mota

SatelliteGuys Master
Supporting Founder
Sep 8, 2003
19,040
1,738
New York City
This is not over. I think we have only seen the beginning of it. One side has taken action the other remains silent but at a moment will strike. Let's give them some time. They will not react unless they feel that they can play poker with dirty Charlie :D
 

FitzAusTex

SatelliteGuys Pro
Jan 3, 2007
1,127
0
Austin, TX
The link to E* is still on voom.com. links to the HD Essentials page (which never made sense).

BTW, I'm a Voomer. And I guess a REAL Voomer, cause I'm so lost w/o Voom. Surfing the guide now feels like I subscribe to a different provider. This sucks...
 

navychop

Member of the Month - July 2014!
Pub Member / Supporter
Lifetime Supporter
Jul 20, 2005
52,308
17,283
Northern VA
I'd say the hand on the knife was Voom's, when they failed to invest in the business as they contracted to do.
 

airphotos

SatelliteGuys Pro
Apr 25, 2008
247
0
Omaha
I'd say the hand on the knife was Voom's, when they failed to invest in the business as they contracted to do.

We don't know that, do we? I would love to know the terms each side was demanding. All we know is Voom was upset about being moved to a tier, that's all.
 

Weezknight

SatelliteGuys Pro
Jan 10, 2006
628
0
Philly 'Burbs, PA
We don't know that, do we? I would love to know the terms each side was demanding. All we know is Voom was upset about being moved to a tier, that's all.

In the original document that Scott posted one of the complaints is that Voom failed to meet the spending requirements, which is why they were going to be placed into tiers. The tier situation arose because of the spending shortfalls.
 

Geronimo

Supporting Founder
Supporting Founder
Lifetime Supporter
Sep 9, 2003
12,023
1,606
VOOM could comment even though the matter is in litigation. parties in litigation do that ll the time. But they either were surprised or they have chosen to remain silent at this time.
 

8bitbytes

SatelliteGuys Pro
Sep 8, 2003
3,239
0
NoVA
In the original document that Scott posted one of the complaints is that Voom failed to meet the spending requirements, which is why they were going to be placed into tiers. The tier situation arose because of the spending shortfalls.
Dish claims the money was supposed to be spent one way, Voom says another. Voom did spend money but Dish says not the way they wanted it spent. I'd like to see just how the contract was worded.
 

mlb

SatelliteGuys Pro
Nov 22, 2005
1,027
0
Kettering, Ohio
Dish claims the money was supposed to be spent one way, Voom says another. Voom did spend money but Dish says not the way they wanted it spent. I'd like to see just how the contract was worded.

Voom claims they spent the $100M by adding in their operating costs (salaries, overhead, etc.). They lost in court to Dish, who said the $100M was supposed to go to programming. Not sure why you need to see it, as the court obviously saw it Dish's way.
 

8bitbytes

SatelliteGuys Pro
Sep 8, 2003
3,239
0
NoVA
Voom claims they spent the $100M by adding in their operating costs (salaries, overhead, etc.). They lost in court to Dish, who said the $100M was supposed to go to programming. Not sure why you need to see it, as the court obviously saw it Dish's way.
Anytime any money is given for a research grant, overhead is calculated into that grant to see what real research can be done. Dish not giving Voom any overhead is flat out stupid and is a bogus attempt to void a contract.

Voom also spent a total of 325 million in 2 years.
 

Geronimo

Supporting Founder
Supporting Founder
Lifetime Supporter
Sep 9, 2003
12,023
1,606
Anytime any money is given for a research grant, overhead is calculated into that grant to see what real research can be done. Dish not giving Voom any overhead is flat out stupid and is a bogus attempt to void a contract.

Voom also spent a total of 325 million in 2 years.

Grants and contracts are not the same thing. But putting that aside it would certaily be possible to word an agreement of either type so that indirect expenses could or could not be included. I have not seen the document itself but the court seemed to rule on this issue/ Of course that ruling is not the end of the case we will see where all this goes from here. But i see no basis for calling the DISH claim "bogus" at this point.
 
Last edited:

8bitbytes

SatelliteGuys Pro
Sep 8, 2003
3,239
0
NoVA
Grants and contracts are not the same thing. But putting that aside it would certaily be possible to word an agreement of either type so that indirect expenses could or could not be included. I have not seen the document itself but the court seemed to rule on this issue/ Of course that ruling is not the end of the case we will see where all this goes from here. But i see no basis for calling the DISH claim "bogus" a tthis point.
I realize the difference, that's why I would like to see the contract. Dish is not flaunting the contract wording so I would say they are trying to push a bogus claim and trying to find someone to agree with their interpretation. If you have the facts and make them known, there is no argument.
 

mdonnelly

Supporting Founder
Supporting Founder
Aug 26, 2004
7,933
2,601
Mustang, OK
Maybe Dish is trying to drive Cablevision into selling Rainbow Media to Echostar, by depriving Rainbow of income. Echostar then becomes the provider, and sells the service to whoever.
 

mlb

SatelliteGuys Pro
Nov 22, 2005
1,027
0
Kettering, Ohio
Why would dish need to flaunt anything if the court ruled on their side? 8bitbytes, your emotions are blocking your thought process. I understand you lost a lot of channels you really liked, but business is business, sometimes things just need to change in order to make you more competitive down the road.
 
Register Today to see less ads! It's Free!

Geronimo

Supporting Founder
Supporting Founder
Lifetime Supporter
Sep 9, 2003
12,023
1,606
I realize the difference, that's why I would like to see the contract. Dish is not flaunting the contract wording so I would say they are trying to push a bogus claim and trying to find someone to agree with their interpretation. If you have the facts and make them known, there is no argument.


It si unlikely that either party will share the contract wording with us. They don't have to convince the majority of the public or even the majority here. They just have to expalin it in court and both sides have had at least one opportunity to do just taht.

But it was mentioned in court. And the nature of the ruling was such that at least the current judge thinks the DISH interpretation is more correct than the VOOM interpretation.
 
Register Today to see less ads! It's Free!

Users who are viewing this thread

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Total: 0, Members: 0, Guests: 0)

Top