Have anyone seen a statement from Voom's people?

[Mojo]

Like to see how they are going to spin this.

Looked all over, even checked out theirs web page.

Their sites looks like nothing happened. I guess it takes time to respond when you just got knifed in the middle of the night

 

[Scott Greczkowski]

VOOM can not comment as they are currently in ongoing littigation over the matter.

 

[Mojo]

That was fast.

Thanks Mr G

 

[Sicemdawgs]

This article has some good info, although it was from May 6:

Judge Won't Bar Dish From Moving Voom To Alternate Tier

 

[Mojo]

ALL Voom channels gone and still no press release from Voom

Talk about Whistling in the Dark. Litigation or not You got to say something.........ANYTHING

 

[thedamaja]

Talk about Whistling in the Dark. Litigation or not You got to say something.........ANYTHING

Don't worry when they finally do comment, they will repeat it 3-4 times a day.

 

[Sean Mota]

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

 

[FitzAusTex]

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]

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]

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]

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.

 

[Peter Parker]

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]

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]

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]

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.

 

[Peter Parker]

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.

 

[8bitbytes]

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]

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]

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.

 

[Peter Parker]

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.