VOOM DBS And The FCC

[bradley]

On January 25, 2004, I wrote the Commission as to my position pertaining to the recent announcement of Echostar and the proposed acquisition of the Rainbow-1 and S. Dakota up-link facilities of VOOM’s parent company, Cablevision (CVC).

I encourage each and every one of you to write the Commission and express your position, if any. It is through this process we have an opportunity to express our ideas and values and possibly bring about change.

Whether you agree with me or not, no one in the position of authority can hear you if you do not speak.

Carefully select your words as not to say unfounded, fabricated or irresponsible statements. Take time to address your thoughts as you only have an opportunity to be read by those who think it originates from a responsible perspective. Further more, you may want to contact your local representatives in your state and national level, expressing your perspective as well.

Thank you.

------Main Body-------

Thank you for contacting the Federal Communications Commission.

Your comments will be printed and submitted to the Office of the Secretary for review and/or inclusion in the appropriate docketed proceeding.

In addition, you may file your comments, research, retrieve, view, and print any document from Commission proceedings by accessing the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS) at: http://www.fcc.gov/e-file/ecfs.html, or at: http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/ecfs/Upload/.

Thanks again for your interest.

C. Howell
Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau
Information Access & Privacy Office
202-418-1569

-----Original Message-----

Federal Communications Commission
445 12th Street, SW
Washington, DC 20554


RE: VOOM DBS


I am deeply troubled by the actions taken by Cablevision's Board to dismantle VOOM DBS.


The means at which Cablevision has chosen to simply liquidate essential assets necessary to facilitate VOOM's DBS operation without seeking a viable method of keeping VOOM as an alternative and competition to the remaining two DBS providers, DishNetwork and DirecTV, is most alarming.


The cable industry and current DBS providers obviously do not embrace nor desire another competitor, but we can all agree without options and choices there can be no real competition. As it stands, with only DishNetwork and DirecTV as DBS providers there is no real choice and no real competition. Both DishNetwork and DirecTV intend to implement 6 to 9% hikes in their fee structures ASAP. Their unchecked increases to rates and the lack of competition comes at a high price to American consumers while fueling inflation.


Mr. Charles Dolan, CEO of Cablevision and 75% shareholder of Cablevision, made it very clear he wanted to see VOOM DBS continue as a viable alternative in the marketplace and wanted to purchase VOOM's DBS operation. Mr. James Dolan and the board of directors of Cablevision chose to ignore his bid. Mr. Charles Dolan has the assets at his disposal to facilitate such a purchase and the intentions to see it through, yet his bid was ignored by the board of directors of Cablevision. This, by the way, is the same Charles Dolan founded found HBO (Home Box Office).


By not opening the purchase option to Mr. Charles Dolan, Cablevision has shown actions conflicting in nature regarding the operation of their cable assets impairing fair trade; this should very carefully examined. This transaction and attempt to dispose of VOOM DBS by selling to DishNetwork simply stifles and halts competition.


So the question at hand that must be addressed; does this action to sell VOOM DBS, a $1.4 billion dollar investment for a mere $200 million, truly benefit the people of the United States? Does this promote growth, fair-trade, competition, development and choice to the American people? Does provide jobs and tax revenues? Does it stimulate and grow the industry and economy?


I think not.


Mr. Charles Dolan must be been given an opportunity to purchase the assets of VOOM DBS, at a reasonable price, and continue his vision.


Cablevision's sale to Echostar, aka DishNetwork is uncompetitive, unfair in regards to trade, and is not in the best interests of the American people.


The orbital slots and frequencies assigned to VOOM DBS are the assets and the property of the American people and are granted to use in a trust managed by the FCC.


As an American citizen I wish to compel you to carefully analyze the situation and consider the overall ramifications not only for the immediate foreseeable future but the long term as well.


Facilitating the transfer of assets to Echostar, aka DishNetwork, will have a far reaching impact as to the future and ultimately seal the fate of competition in this arena making no individual and/or organization willing to invest in this type of endeavor again; only to divest.

Sincerely,


Name
Address
City, State, Zip

Phone

e-mail address

(Personal information withheld from forum)

 

[riffjim4069]

I sent a similar letter to the FCC last week. I would encourage everyone to do so.

 

[jame_g]

On January 25, 2004, I wrote the Commission ...

I encourage each and every one of you to write the Commission ...

Carefully select your words as not to say unfounded, fabricated or irresponsible statements....

-----Original Message-----

By not opening the purchase option to Mr. Charles Dolan, Cablevision has shown actions conflicting in nature regarding the operation of their cable assets impairing fair trade; this should very carefully examined. ...

Do you know that Charles Dolan was not given the opportunity to purchase Rainbow1? The Echostar bid was not something that occurred over night. Mr. Dolan was undoubtedly aware of this bid for some time. Did he in fact make a counter bid that was rejected? Or did he chose to sit it out?

Maybe his plans for Voom didn't (or couldn't) include Rainbow1. The only statement I saw published (the infamous "Memo") indicated that the Dolan family was potentially interested in buying Voom. It was released at a time when he knew that the sale of satellite to Echostar was imminent. So it's possible he has other plans that can continue without Rainbow1.

I'm not trying to attack what you're doing. I would tend to lean toward most of your comments being potentially on target.

However I'm just pointing out that these statements are actually unfounded as far as I know. They are potentially irresponsible if the sale is something that Mr. Dolan decided not to bid on, or something that has to occur for Mr Dolan to be able to bid on the remaining Voom assets in order to continue the service. He knows the facts, financing, and logisitics. At this point we don't. But if you do, great, fill us in because everyone here has been waiting for some more concrete news.

- jame

 

[James Long]

Generally speaking, the FCC solicits comments on dockets. Exparte comments are logged, but that's about it. If Mr Dolan has any comments to add to the proceedings, especially an offer to keep the service running, it will be noticed. But it seems odd to write speculative letters.

It would be fair to write a comment about the need of a third major service. The FCC will agree with that flat out. But what can they do to prevent a legitimate sale of assets unless their is a real option on the table?

JL

 

[bradley]

Credibility

All information presented to the Commission of concern is not in anyway fabricated or elaborated upon. Please, take the time to use online research facilities available to all of us as you will discover a wealth of respected sources and their associated articles, validating all the aforementioned.

It is in your best interests, before you make accusations, to be as informed as possible; assume nothing unless you truly know for a fact as it may seriously undermine one's own greatest asset, credibility.

 

[James Long]

All the information I have presented to the Commission of concern is not in anyway fabricated or elaborated upon. If you would simply take the time to use online research facilities available to all of us you will discover a wealth of respected sources and their associated articles and validate the aforementioned.

It is in your best interests, before you make accusations, to be as informed as possible; assume nothing unless you truly know for a fact as it may seriously undermine you own credibility.

Sorry, I thought this was an English language forum.

Your verbosity in this and other posts in the forum astounds me, and yet mean little unless Mr Dolan has the fortitude to support your prognostications. Are you basing your opinions on internet rumors and industry reporting or do you have insider knowledge of the dealings within Cablevision?

As noted, the FCC will weigh you comments the proper amount for who you really are.

JL

 

[bradley]

Legal counsel for Cablevision was very definitive as well as the board in their decision, in wake of the Enron scandal, feeling if the board did present Mr. Charles Dolan with an option to carry on the torch potential litigation that may ensue from shareholders could be both indefensible and damaging to CVC's credentials and portfolio.

 

[bryan27]

Contacting the FCC on this issue now will get you no where and your comments will fall on deaf ears. If comments are not sent properly they are usually thrown out. You need to file your comments in a specific docket proceeding which is given an ID number. Since the Echostar Rainbow transfer has not yet been docketed and hasn't received a docket number there is no where to place your comments other than the trash can.

This is the government you are dealing with. If it doesn't follow standard procedure it is tossed.

When the Echostar & Rainbow filing receives a docket number I will be sure to let everyone know. Right now just practice your rough drafts.

 

[bradley]

Noted.

 

[James Long]

Legal counsel for Cablevision was very definitive as well as the board in their decision, in wake of the Enron scandal, feeling if the board did present Mr. Charles Dolan with an option to carry on the torch potential litigation that may ensue from shareholders could be both indefensible and damaging to CVC's credentials and portfolio.

Point taken. You think that if you use legalistic language people won't bother calling your bluff.

Your assertions, provide references.

BTW: You comments to the FCC have yet to be posted. Apparently they are awaiting a docket to be set up for the satellite sale.

JL

 

[bryan27]

Noted.

When you're in the broadcasting business you write a lot of comments to the FCC. What do you know Technical Writing in College was useful

For those that have already sent letters, once the proceeding is docketed check to see if they included it, they are always posted as a PDF and become part of the public record, and I'll be around if anyone needs help

 

[Tvlman]

Bradley, Bryan.....which one of you do we believe? Write the letter or not? Was Dolan denied an opportunity to buy the service??? This information affects the kind of letter we write.

 

[bradley]

Yes, both his son, Mr. James Dolan and the CVC board voted against Mr. Charles Dolan's desire to see the venture continue. He intended to retire from CVC and chair VOOM's DBS independent operation.

Unfortunatley, there is presently an unvfavorble riff between James and his father. Making it even more painful are their houses, they sit side by side.

The vote by the board was not unaminous nor was it a clear indication of the defeat of Mr. Charles Dolan.

Father vs. son

Here are how the heads of the Cablevision (CVC) empire stack up against each other.

Charles Dolan

Age: 78
Job: Chairman of Cablevision
EARNINGS: $1.6 million salary for 2003; $4.8 million bonus
Voting Shares: 75% stake controlled by family, including 41% by Dolan
Resume: Chairman, director since 1985
Chief executive, 1985-95
Founded and acted as general partner of company's predecessor, 1973-85
Established Manhattan Cable Television, 1961, and HBO, 1971

James Dolan

Age: 49
Job: President and chief executive of Cablevision; chairman of Madison Square Garden
EARNINGS: $1.6 million salary for 2003; $2.8 million bonus
Voting Shares: 2.5% stake
RESUME: Director of Cablevision since 1991
President since 1998
Chief executive since 1995
Chairman of Madison Square Garden since 1999
Chief executive of Rainbow Media Holdings, a subsidiary, 1992-95
Vice president of the company, 1987-92

 

[GadgetRick]

Your kidding right?

So you're saying, "FCC, step in and stop CVC from selling an asset which they've deemed as unprofitable and they're selling because they've gotten pressure from the shareholders?" Think about that for a minute.

Ok, did you think about it? Now, let's say you want to sell your home (an asset of yours). And the government comes in and tells you you're not allowed to sell it because they really really like you. But you're selling teh house because it's your last ditch effort to keep from going into foreclosure. You wouldn't like that much would you? Well, this is what you're trying to get the FCC to do.

CVC has the right to sell their own assets. I would hope the FCC would look at this request and laugh at it as they balled it up and threw it into the trash. Don't we have enough government involvement in our lives? Hasn't the FCC screwed up enough things in this country?

Now, if the FTC comes in and deems the sale as creating a monopoly (this won't happen) then, based on the laws in this country, they could put the kabash on the deal. But that won't happen. Your argument of, "Don't let them sell it because I really really like Voom," is ridiculous at best. Insulting to CVC shareholders at worst.

The Rickster

 

[Sean Mota]

Rick,

there's a different between selling a property and selling 11 TPs which serve the public interest of the American people. Given the FCC history of not even wanting to have E* or D* in any auction bid for those 2 Tps that were given to V* in a temporary basis, it will be interested to see what the FCC does and whether they will approve the transfer/sales of the 11 tps (not saying that they will or won't but it will be an interested decision to say the least). The thinking of the FCC was that a 3rd DBS provider will serve better the consumers and bring more competition to the table. Right now the two DBS providers are in a stalemate. One will not do anything without the other doing something. Cable raises prices, then D* raises prices and soon E* follows. D* does something and E* just does a $1 less to say that they are cheaper. To me this is not competition. Is V* the answer that the FCC was looking for? How is V* going to come out? Those are all interested questions and it is not ridiculous to what the FCC have thought about a 3rd DBS provider. Competition serves the American people (consumers) well as long as there are those that want to support it or not.

 

[bryan27]

Bradley, Bryan.....which one of you do we believe? Write the letter or not?

Yes, write a letter if you are so compelled, but wait until the FCC has assigned a docket number to the proceeding before filing a comment. At that point it will be open for public comment and the transfer application will be posted for public viewing.

It isn't like a decision is going to come out in a few weeks, this process is going to take nearly a year.

 

[NightRyder]

Rick,

there's a different between selling a property and selling 11 TPs which serve the public interest of the American people. Given the FCC history of not even wanting to have E* or D* in any auction bid for those 2 Tps that were given to V* in a temporary basis, it will be interested to see what the FCC does and whether they will approve the transfer/sales of the 11 tps (not saying that they will or won't but it will be an interested decision to say the least). The thinking of the FCC was that a 3rd DBS provider will serve better the consumers and bring more competition to the table. Right now the two DBS providers are in a stalemate. One will not do anything without the other doing something. Cable raises prices, then D* raises prices and soon E* follows. D* does something and E* just does a $1 less to say that they are cheaper. To me this is not competition. Is V* the answer that the FCC was looking for? How is V* going to come out? Those are all interested questions and it is not ridiculous to what the FCC have thought about a 3rd DBS provider. Competition serves the American people (consumers) well as long as there are those that want to support it or not.

Sean: While I would love to see a third DBS provider succeed I don't believe that the 61.5 location has an adequate footprint to provide for that possibility. If the FCC wants to see a third successful satellite company (I personally don't think it's going to happen) they need to provide a more centralized slot. IMHO.


NightRyder

 

[GadgetRick]

there's a different between selling a property and selling 11 TPs which serve the public interest of the American people. Given the FCC history of not even wanting to have E* or D* in any auction bid for those 2 Tps that were given to V* in a temporary basis, it will be interested to see what the FCC does and whether they will approve the transfer/sales of the 11 tps (not saying that they will or won't but it will be an interested decision to say the least). The thinking of the FCC was that a 3rd DBS provider will serve better the consumers and bring more competition to the table. Right now the two DBS providers are in a stalemate. One will not do anything without the other doing something. Cable raises prices, then D* raises prices and soon E* follows. D* does something and E* just does a $1 less to say that they are cheaper. To me this is not competition. Is V* the answer that the FCC was looking for? How is V* going to come out? Those are all interested questions and it is not ridiculous to what the FCC have thought about a 3rd DBS provider. Competition serves the American people (consumers) well as long as there are those that want to support it or not.

Although we are talking about a different situation we are still talking about the same thing--someone has something which is costing them too much to own and they want to sell it. Having someone like the FCC step in and say, "Nope, in the interest of competition we won't let you sell it," would be crazy. Why should they force a company to absorb those kinds of losses. If I were a CVC stockholder I'd be REAL upset if the FCC were to do something like that.

Now, if the FCC said, "We won't let you sell it to Echostar but we will arrange for an auction of some type with the proceeds going to you to pay off your debts incurred by this satellite," it would make more sense. However, I don't know of the FCC ever doing this sort of thing.

The FTC could (as I mentioned) step in and cry monopoly but they won't do this here since, a) there are two successful satellite companies and b) Echostar is NOT the leading satellite company. There's really no reason to claim it's a monopoly.

Competition does serve us well (in the end), however, forced competition (in this case) serves no one. It's bad for the consumer because, if CVC were forced to keep funding it the funding would become as minimal as possible, they wouldn't look to add more programming/improve existing programming and it would cost CVC shareholders more money. What's the alternative here? It's not like people are rushing to buy up the satellite and go into the satellite business. If they were I'd understand the argument but since people aren't doing this then the sale makes 100% sense for both parties. It won't hurt competition (dtv, afterall, announced building a bunch of new satellites right?) and, heck, Dish may make it a better product.

The Rickster

 

[rtt2]

Say the FCC prevents the transfer of the frequencies.

Echostar still has bought the satellite. It does not need FCC approval to take possession of the satellite.

Then the frequencies become free again for auction. The only company that wants the frequencies is Echostar. So it will bid in an auction unchallenged and get them back. DirecTV does not want this slot and will not build a multimillion dollar satellite in order to retain the frequencies.

Face it guys forget the letters. Even if you succeed Echostar will still win.

 

[bradley]

Not necessarily. Echostar has been denied frequencies in the past as well as the merger of DirecTV. NewsCorp did not take no for answer from DirecTV's previous board. I don't have a crystal ball, but I do see valid challenges. Nothing is absolute. All we can to is wait and see. Physical assets may be dispersed, but frequencies and orbital locations, I believe, are different issues.

If you view these actions as pointless and elect not to be proactive, I can respect your opinion. But, we all pick and choose to follow what we perceive as our own needs, wants and desires. My voice may have a purpose. Who know's?