Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Voom closes down April 30th

Last response: in Home Theatre
Share
Anonymous
April 8, 2005 6:40:31 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

From their website:

Voom will cease to provide service to existing customers on April 30, 2005.

New customer orders are no longer being accepted, and we are unable to
complete any scheduled installation or service appointments. You will be
contacted regarding any scheduled appointment

More about : voom closes april 30th

Anonymous
April 8, 2005 6:40:32 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

X-No-archive: yes

"RobH" <Rob@aol.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9632629121D1ERobH@24.93.43.119...
> From their website:
>
> Voom will cease to provide service to existing customers on April 30,
> 2005.
>
> New customer orders are no longer being accepted, and we are unable to
> complete any scheduled installation or service appointments. You will be
> contacted regarding any scheduled appointment

==========================
That is the exact same notice (except the date) that was on the site a month
ago and then went away.

Are we sure it is not a hacker?
Anonymous
April 8, 2005 6:40:32 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

RobH wrote:
> From their website:
>
> Voom will cease to provide service to existing customers on April 30, 2005.
>
> New customer orders are no longer being accepted, and we are unable to
> complete any scheduled installation or service appointments. You will be
> contacted regarding any scheduled appointment

Interesting... It was back for a little while, and I even saw a VOOM
commercial two days ago. Seems like they can't make up their minds.
Related resources
Anonymous
April 8, 2005 6:40:33 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Richard C. wrote:
> X-No-archive: yes
>
> "RobH" <Rob@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns9632629121D1ERobH@24.93.43.119...
>
>>From their website:
>>
>>Voom will cease to provide service to existing customers on April 30,
>>2005.
>>
>>New customer orders are no longer being accepted, and we are unable to
>>complete any scheduled installation or service appointments. You will be
>>contacted regarding any scheduled appointment
>
>
> ==========================
> That is the exact same notice (except the date) that was on the site a month
> ago and then went away.
>
> Are we sure it is not a hacker?
>
>

By doing the absolutely minimum amount of research:

<http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000087&sid=atv...;

--
Matthew

I'm a contractor. If you want an opinion, I'll sell you one.
Which one do you want?
Anonymous
April 8, 2005 6:40:33 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Richard C. wrote:

> X-No-archive: yes
>
> "RobH" <Rob@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns9632629121D1ERobH@24.93.43.119...
>
>>From their website:
>>
>>Voom will cease to provide service to existing customers on April 30,
>>2005.
>>
>>New customer orders are no longer being accepted, and we are unable to
>>complete any scheduled installation or service appointments. You will be
>>contacted regarding any scheduled appointment
>
>
> ==========================
> That is the exact same notice (except the date) that was on the site a month
> ago and then went away.
>
> Are we sure it is not a hacker?

By all accounts, this is for real. The shutdown was delayed before
because Charles Dolan asked for time to raise money to buy Voom and
apparently has failed to put together the financial backing to do so.
The Cablevision board voted to pull the plug ASAP to stop the money
drain. You may still see ads as some may have been paid for in advance.

Alan F
Anonymous
April 8, 2005 9:29:41 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

I recall just last month there were post regardig how "VOOM is not
going away" customers were led to believe this by advertising... This
just goes to show that even when they are weak, it is often a
corporations responsibility to appear strong to try and gain more
customers. Had their plan worked they may have gotten enough interest
to keep a float.
Anonymous
April 8, 2005 10:13:51 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

X-No-archive: yes

"Matthew L. Martin" <nothere@notnow.never> wrote in message
news:115dav3bb8tpe57@corp.supernews.com...
> Richard C. wrote:
>> X-No-archive: yes
>>
>> "RobH" <Rob@aol.com> wrote in message
>> news:Xns9632629121D1ERobH@24.93.43.119...
>>
>>>From their website:
>>>
>>>Voom will cease to provide service to existing customers on April 30,
>>>2005.
>>>
>>>New customer orders are no longer being accepted, and we are unable to
>>>complete any scheduled installation or service appointments. You will be
>>>contacted regarding any scheduled appointment
>>
>>
>> ==========================
>> That is the exact same notice (except the date) that was on the site a
>> month ago and then went away.
>>
>> Are we sure it is not a hacker?
>
> By doing the absolutely minimum amount of research:
>
> <http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000087&sid=atv...;
>
> --
> Matthew
=========================
And just what is that link supposed to tell me?
There is nothing of import on that page.
April 9, 2005 2:14:39 AM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Yea...all they needed was another 200,000 or so subscribers!

<Jeremy.Deats@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1113006581.626316.289540@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>I recall just last month there were post regardig how "VOOM is not
> going away" customers were led to believe this by advertising... This
> just goes to show that even when they are weak, it is often a
> corporations responsibility to appear strong to try and gain more
> customers. Had their plan worked they may have gotten enough interest
> to keep a float.
>
Anonymous
April 9, 2005 2:39:08 AM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

<Jeremy.Deats@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1113006581.626316.289540@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>I recall just last month there were post regardig how "VOOM is not
> going away" customers were led to believe this by advertising... This
> just goes to show that even when they are weak, it is often a
> corporations responsibility to appear strong to try and gain more
> customers. Had their plan worked they may have gotten enough interest
> to keep a float.

You are mistaking momentum for life
Anonymous
April 9, 2005 5:22:14 AM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

On Fri, 8 Apr 2005 08:42:50 -0700, "Richard C."
<post-age@spamcop.net> wrote:


>
>Are we sure it is not a hacker?
>
===========
That's what some isolated Japanese soldiers thought after V-J day.
The last one did not surrender until the 1960s.
Anonymous
April 9, 2005 12:49:10 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Thumper wrote:
> On Fri, 08 Apr 2005 19:39:05 -0400, "Matthew L. Martin"
> <nothere@notnow.never> wrote:
>>
>>Are you saying that they profited from signing on a few new subscribers
>>while hemorrhaging cash to pay for their fixed costs? The board was
>>right when they tried to close Voom sooner. It probably cost them
>>millions to stay in business for another couple of months.
>>
>>Matthew
>
>
>
> Those subscribers got screwed.

Really? Any more screwed than the previous subscribers? Was there any
point in your post at all?



--
Thermodynamics and/or Golf for dummies: There is a game
You can't win
You can't break even
You can't get out of the game
Anonymous
April 9, 2005 1:26:34 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Richard C. wrote:
> X-No-archive: yes
>
> "Matthew L. Martin" <nothere@notnow.never> wrote in message
> news:115dav3bb8tpe57@corp.supernews.com...
>
>>Richard C. wrote:
>>
>>>X-No-archive: yes
>>>
>>>"RobH" <Rob@aol.com> wrote in message
>>>news:Xns9632629121D1ERobH@24.93.43.119...
>>>
>>>>From their website:
>>>
>>>>Voom will cease to provide service to existing customers on April 30,
>>>>2005.
>>>>
>>>>New customer orders are no longer being accepted, and we are unable to
>>>>complete any scheduled installation or service appointments. You will be
>>>>contacted regarding any scheduled appointment
>>>
>>>
>>>==========================
>>>That is the exact same notice (except the date) that was on the site a
>>>month ago and then went away.
>>>
>>>Are we sure it is not a hacker?
>>
>>By doing the absolutely minimum amount of research:
>>
>><http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000087&sid=atv...;
>>
>>--
>>Matthew
>
> =========================
> And just what is that link supposed to tell me?
> There is nothing of import on that page.
>

Well, excuse me for trying to save you a couple of clicks.

<http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=us&q=voom&btnG=Se...;

Matthew

--
Thermodynamics and/or Golf for dummies: There is a game
You can't win
You can't break even
You can't get out of the game
Anonymous
April 9, 2005 4:47:31 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Randy Sweeney wrote:

> You are mistaking momentum for life

LOL. Happens to the best of us. =)

winfield
Anonymous
April 9, 2005 9:51:20 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

More importantly, what should we do with the receiver? Do we have to
give it back or can it be used for something?
Anonymous
April 10, 2005 6:50:39 AM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

I just saw an ad for VOOM on tv yesterday. So much for that.

"RobH" <Rob@aol.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9632629121D1ERobH@24.93.43.119...
> From their website:
>
> Voom will cease to provide service to existing customers on April 30,
> 2005.
>
> New customer orders are no longer being accepted, and we are unable to
> complete any scheduled installation or service appointments. You will be
> contacted regarding any scheduled appointment
Anonymous
April 10, 2005 7:19:15 AM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

"Richard C." <post-age@spamcop.net> wrote in message
news:42572b85$0$5900$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com...
> X-No-archive: yes
>
> "Matthew L. Martin" <nothere@notnow.never> wrote in message
> news:115dav3bb8tpe57@corp.supernews.com...
>> Richard C. wrote:
>>> X-No-archive: yes
>>>
>>> "RobH" <Rob@aol.com> wrote in message
>>> news:Xns9632629121D1ERobH@24.93.43.119...
>>>
>>>>From their website:
>>>>
>>>>Voom will cease to provide service to existing customers on April 30,
>>>>2005.
>>>>
>>>>New customer orders are no longer being accepted, and we are unable to
>>>>complete any scheduled installation or service appointments. You will be
>>>>contacted regarding any scheduled appointment
>>>
>>>
>>> ==========================
>>> That is the exact same notice (except the date) that was on the site a
>>> month ago and then went away.
>>>
>>> Are we sure it is not a hacker?
>>
>> By doing the absolutely minimum amount of research:
>>
>> <http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000087&sid=atv...;
>>
>> --
>> Matthew
> =========================
> And just what is that link supposed to tell me?
> There is nothing of import on that page.

How about http://www.voom.com

Steve
Anonymous
April 10, 2005 9:33:28 AM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

According to the newspaper today, they might try and sell some of their HD
channels. It would be great to see some of those HD movie channels
elsewhere.


"RobH" <Rob@aol.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9632629121D1ERobH@24.93.43.119...
> From their website:
>
> Voom will cease to provide service to existing customers on April 30,
> 2005.
>
> New customer orders are no longer being accepted, and we are unable to
> complete any scheduled installation or service appointments. You will be
> contacted regarding any scheduled appointment
April 10, 2005 1:10:16 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

On Sat, 09 Apr 2005 08:49:10 -0400, "Matthew L. Martin"
<nothere@notnow.never> wrote:

>Thumper wrote:
>> On Fri, 08 Apr 2005 19:39:05 -0400, "Matthew L. Martin"
>> <nothere@notnow.never> wrote:
>>>
>>>Are you saying that they profited from signing on a few new subscribers
>>>while hemorrhaging cash to pay for their fixed costs? The board was
>>>right when they tried to close Voom sooner. It probably cost them
>>>millions to stay in business for another couple of months.
>>>
>>>Matthew
>>
>>
>>
>> Those subscribers got screwed.
>
>Really? Any more screwed than the previous subscribers? Was there any
>point in your post at all?

Any point in yours? Screw you. It is unethical to keep signing up
customers on a dying service knowing full well that it has little
chance of succeeding. Sure it's done all the time but that doesn't
make it ethical. Read a book or two about how to keep the cash
flowing while you're getting things in order to go out of business.
In retail they usually order big from their suppliers in the months
leading up to declaring bankruptcy.

Thumper
To reply drop XYZ in address
April 10, 2005 1:11:19 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

On 9 Apr 2005 17:51:20 -0700, phil16@swbell.net wrote:

>More importantly, what should we do with the receiver? Do we have to
>give it back or can it be used for something?


Boat anchor.
Thumper
To reply drop XYZ in address
Anonymous
April 10, 2005 1:35:48 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Thumper wrote:
> On Sat, 09 Apr 2005 08:49:10 -0400, "Matthew L. Martin"
> <nothere@notnow.never> wrote:
>
>
>>Thumper wrote:
>>
>>>On Fri, 08 Apr 2005 19:39:05 -0400, "Matthew L. Martin"
>>><nothere@notnow.never> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Are you saying that they profited from signing on a few new subscribers
>>>>while hemorrhaging cash to pay for their fixed costs? The board was
>>>>right when they tried to close Voom sooner. It probably cost them
>>>>millions to stay in business for another couple of months.
>>>>
>>>>Matthew
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Those subscribers got screwed.
>>
>>Really? Any more screwed than the previous subscribers? Was there any
>>point in your post at all?
>
>
> Any point in yours?

Yes, as a matter of fact.

> Screw you.

You're welcome.

> It is unethical to keep signing up
> customers on a dying service knowing full well that it has little
> chance of succeeding.

You don't know much about the facts of the situation, do you?

> Sure it's done all the time but that doesn't
> make it ethical. Read a book or two about how to keep the cash
> flowing while you're getting things in order to go out of business.

Or, as was happening at the time, trying to find financing to purchase
VOOM and run it as an independent company.

> In retail they usually order big from their suppliers in the months
> leading up to declaring bankruptcy.

What does that have to do with trying to keep/grow the customer base
while there is a good faith effort to purchase the company and keep it
running.

Matthew

--
Thermodynamics and/or Golf for dummies: There is a game
You can't win
You can't break even
You can't get out of the game
Anonymous
April 10, 2005 6:42:50 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

And this is ethical? Oh, I guess it is OK to screw the suppliers, just not
the customers.

"> In retail they usually order big from their suppliers in the months
> leading up to declaring bankruptcy.
>
> Thumper
> To reply drop XYZ in address
April 10, 2005 9:51:27 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

On Sun, 10 Apr 2005 09:35:48 -0400, "Matthew L. Martin"
<nothere@notnow.never> wrote:

>Thumper wrote:
>> On Sat, 09 Apr 2005 08:49:10 -0400, "Matthew L. Martin"
>> <nothere@notnow.never> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Thumper wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Fri, 08 Apr 2005 19:39:05 -0400, "Matthew L. Martin"
>>>><nothere@notnow.never> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Are you saying that they profited from signing on a few new subscribers
>>>>>while hemorrhaging cash to pay for their fixed costs? The board was
>>>>>right when they tried to close Voom sooner. It probably cost them
>>>>>millions to stay in business for another couple of months.
>>>>>
>>>>>Matthew
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Those subscribers got screwed.
>>>
>>>Really? Any more screwed than the previous subscribers? Was there any
>>>point in your post at all?
>>
>>
>> Any point in yours?
>
>Yes, as a matter of fact.
>
>> Screw you.
>
>You're welcome.
>
>> It is unethical to keep signing up
>> customers on a dying service knowing full well that it has little
>> chance of succeeding.
>
>You don't know much about the facts of the situation, do you?
>
>> Sure it's done all the time but that doesn't
>> make it ethical. Read a book or two about how to keep the cash
>> flowing while you're getting things in order to go out of business.
>
>Or, as was happening at the time, trying to find financing to purchase
>VOOM and run it as an independent company.
>
>> In retail they usually order big from their suppliers in the months
>> leading up to declaring bankruptcy.
>
>What does that have to do with trying to keep/grow the customer base
>while there is a good faith effort to purchase the company and keep it
>running.
>
>Matthew


How naive you are.
Thumper
To reply drop XYZ in address
April 10, 2005 9:52:39 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

On Sun, 10 Apr 2005 14:42:50 GMT, "Phil Ross" <paross@pacbell.net>
wrote:

>And this is ethical? Oh, I guess it is OK to screw the suppliers, just not
>the customers.
>

Neither is ethical.
thumper
>"> In retail they usually order big from their suppliers in the months
>> leading up to declaring bankruptcy.
>>
>> Thumper
>> To reply drop XYZ in address
>

To reply drop XYZ in address
April 10, 2005 10:02:04 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

On Sun, 10 Apr 2005 14:42:50 GMT, "Phil Ross" <paross@pacbell.net>
wrote:

>And this is ethical? Oh, I guess it is OK to screw the suppliers, just not
>the customers.
>

Reminds me of Enron and the multitude of other companies that lie to
their employees and tell them to keep on buying stock, that the
outsiders don't understand how healthy the company really is while
they are going don the tubes.
Thumper
>"> In retail they usually order big from their suppliers in the months
>> leading up to declaring bankruptcy.
>>
>> Thumper
>> To reply drop XYZ in address
>

To reply drop XYZ in address
Anonymous
April 10, 2005 10:33:27 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Thumper wrote:
> On Sun, 10 Apr 2005 09:35:48 -0400, "Matthew L. Martin"
> <nothere@notnow.never> wrote:
>
>>
>>You don't know much about the facts of the situation, do you?
>>
>>
>>>Sure it's done all the time but that doesn't
>>>make it ethical. Read a book or two about how to keep the cash
>>>flowing while you're getting things in order to go out of business.
>>
>>Or, as was happening at the time, trying to find financing to purchase
>>VOOM and run it as an independent company.
>>
>>
>>>In retail they usually order big from their suppliers in the months
>>>leading up to declaring bankruptcy.
>>
>>What does that have to do with trying to keep/grow the customer base
>>while there is a good faith effort to purchase the company and keep it
>>running.
>>
>>Matthew
>
>
>
> How naive you are.

The facts are the facts. You could look them up, but it appears that
facts don't enter into forming your opinions.

--
Thermodynamics and/or Golf for dummies: There is a game
You can't win
You can't break even
You can't get out of the game
April 11, 2005 12:43:26 AM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

On Sun, 10 Apr 2005 18:33:27 -0400, "Matthew L. Martin"
<nothere@notnow.never> wrote:

>Thumper wrote:
>> On Sun, 10 Apr 2005 09:35:48 -0400, "Matthew L. Martin"
>> <nothere@notnow.never> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>You don't know much about the facts of the situation, do you?
>>>
>>>
>>>>Sure it's done all the time but that doesn't
>>>>make it ethical. Read a book or two about how to keep the cash
>>>>flowing while you're getting things in order to go out of business.
>>>
>>>Or, as was happening at the time, trying to find financing to purchase
>>>VOOM and run it as an independent company.
>>>
>>>
>>>>In retail they usually order big from their suppliers in the months
>>>>leading up to declaring bankruptcy.
>>>
>>>What does that have to do with trying to keep/grow the customer base
>>>while there is a good faith effort to purchase the company and keep it
>>>running.
>>>
>>>Matthew
>>
>>
>>
>> How naive you are.
>
>The facts are the facts. You could look them up, but it appears that
>facts don't enter into forming your opinions.


I know what you know an it appears you want to let the scum bags off
the hook. They knew there was only the minutest chance to succeed and
yet kept taking new customers until the very minute they announced
otherwise.
Thumper
To reply drop XYZ in address
Anonymous
April 11, 2005 2:47:17 AM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Thumper wrote:
> On Sun, 10 Apr 2005 18:33:27 -0400, "Matthew L. Martin"
> <nothere@notnow.never> wrote:
>
>
>>Thumper wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 10 Apr 2005 09:35:48 -0400, "Matthew L. Martin"
>>><nothere@notnow.never> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>You don't know much about the facts of the situation, do you?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Sure it's done all the time but that doesn't
>>>>>make it ethical. Read a book or two about how to keep the cash
>>>>>flowing while you're getting things in order to go out of business.
>>>>
>>>>Or, as was happening at the time, trying to find financing to purchase
>>>>VOOM and run it as an independent company.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>In retail they usually order big from their suppliers in the months
>>>>>leading up to declaring bankruptcy.
>>>>
>>>>What does that have to do with trying to keep/grow the customer base
>>>>while there is a good faith effort to purchase the company and keep it
>>>>running.
>>>>
>>>>Matthew
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>How naive you are.
>>
>>The facts are the facts. You could look them up, but it appears that
>>facts don't enter into forming your opinions.
>
>
>
> I know what you know an it appears you want to let the scum bags off
> the hook. They knew there was only the minutest chance to succeed and
> yet kept taking new customers until the very minute they announced
> otherwise.

Any possible re-financing would have been dependent on a running
concern. If you think otherwise, you have never been involved in the
sale of a business.

Matthew

--
Thermodynamics and/or Golf for dummies: There is a game
You can't win
You can't break even
You can't get out of the game
Anonymous
April 11, 2005 3:46:15 AM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

On Sun, 10 Apr 2005, Thumper wrote:
> I know what you know an it appears you want to let the scum bags off
> the hook. They knew there was only the minutest chance to succeed and
> yet kept taking new customers until the very minute they announced
> otherwise.

For crying out loud, anyone who did even the slightest bit of due
diligence knew that Voom was a flakey outfit and always had been. From
the onset, there was speculation of how long it would last before
Cablevision pulled the plug.

On top of that, anyone who signed up after the first shutdown announcement
had quite ample warning that Voom was in trouble. Over and over again, it
was stated that the reclama was temporary and dependent upon finding a
successful financing package to take it off Cablevision's hands.

If the latecomers got away with paying $1 for installation and one month
of server/equipment lease, then they got a good deal. They may even have
a nice boat anchor for their trouble.

-- Mark --

http://staff.washington.edu/mrc
Science does not emerge from voting, party politics, or public debate.
Si vis pacem, para bellum.
Anonymous
April 11, 2005 12:11:05 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

On Fri, 8 Apr 2005, Michael J. Sherman wrote:
> RobH wrote:
> > From their website:
> >
> > Voom will cease to provide service to existing customers on April 30, 2005.
> >
> > New customer orders are no longer being accepted, and we are unable to
> > complete any scheduled installation or service appointments. You will be
> > contacted regarding any scheduled appointment
>
> Interesting... It was back for a little while, and I even saw a VOOM
> commercial two days ago. Seems like they can't make up their minds.

Or don't have enough scammed-money to take down "the rabbit hole" with them.
April 11, 2005 7:16:11 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

On Sun, 10 Apr 2005 23:46:15 -0700, Mark Crispin
<mrc@CAC.Washington.EDU> wrote:

>On Sun, 10 Apr 2005, Thumper wrote:
>> I know what you know an it appears you want to let the scum bags off
>> the hook. They knew there was only the minutest chance to succeed and
>> yet kept taking new customers until the very minute they announced
>> otherwise.
>
>For crying out loud, anyone who did even the slightest bit of due
>diligence knew that Voom was a flakey outfit and always had been. From
>the onset, there was speculation of how long it would last before
>Cablevision pulled the plug.
>
>On top of that, anyone who signed up after the first shutdown announcement
>had quite ample warning that Voom was in trouble. Over and over again, it
>was stated that the reclama was temporary and dependent upon finding a
>successful financing package to take it off Cablevision's hands.
>
Not in their advertisements and solicitations it wasn't.
Thumper

>If the latecomers got away with paying $1 for installation and one month
>of server/equipment lease, then they got a good deal. They may even have
>a nice boat anchor for their trouble.
>
>-- Mark --
>
>http://staff.washington.edu/mrc
>Science does not emerge from voting, party politics, or public debate.
>Si vis pacem, para bellum.

To reply drop XYZ in address
Anonymous
April 11, 2005 7:31:46 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

On Mon, 11 Apr 2005, Jeff Rife wrote:
> The first thing Voom needed to do was decide up front if they wanted to be
> a full service provider or an add-on HDTV provider.

As you say, the problem was that they were neither; and viewed either way,
they were too expensive given their lack of track record.

-- Mark --

http://staff.washington.edu/mrc
Science does not emerge from voting, party politics, or public debate.
Si vis pacem, para bellum.
April 11, 2005 11:39:35 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

<phil16@swbell.net> wrote in message
news:1113094280.653631.128600@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> More importantly, what should we do with the receiver? Do we have to
> give it back or can it be used for something?
>

Voom could have been a great idea, if they started it later when more people
had HDTV's. Anyway, never know if DirectTV might pick up the service. It'd
be a way to add a bunch of new subscribers instantly. It's unlikely but
possible. Maybe if they do you can use it with theirs. Other than that,
Thumper's probably right again....boat anchor.
Anonymous
April 11, 2005 11:39:36 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

SlimJim (someone@somewhere.org) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
> Voom could have been a great idea, if they started it later when more people
> had HDTV's.

I think that lack of real content was the bigger problem. If DirecTV
does what they say about HD, by this time next year they'll have far
more national HD channels than Voom, so starting now would have been
silly for Voom...they would die at this time next year when people elect
to pay $15/month extra to DirecTV instead of $40/month to Voom.

The first thing Voom needed to do was decide up front if they wanted to be
a full service provider or an add-on HDTV provider. Since they did neither
at first (they forced you to pay for some SD that you would't want if
you were using it as an add-on, but it wasn't enough to be full-service),
they lost a lot of chances.

The other thing that could have saved Voom was to have *every* national
HDTV channel from the day each channel started (or the start of Voom
itself). That would have driven a lot of HDTV owners there, even as just
an "add-on" provider.

--
Jeff Rife |
| http://www.nabs.net/Cartoons/BabyBlues/OnTheRemote.gif
Anonymous
April 11, 2005 11:39:36 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

"SlimJim" <someone@somewhere.org> wrote in message
news:XnA6e.5287$sp3.5149@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>
> <phil16@swbell.net> wrote in message
> news:1113094280.653631.128600@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>> More importantly, what should we do with the receiver? Do we have to
>> give it back or can it be used for something?
>>
>
> Voom could have been a great idea, if they started it later when more
> people had HDTV's. Anyway, never know if DirectTV might pick up the
> service. It'd be a way to add a bunch of new subscribers instantly. It's
> unlikely but possible. Maybe if they do you can use it with theirs. Other
> than that, Thumper's probably right again....boat anchor.

I think their problem their introduction - where they wanted you to fork
over hundreds of dollars up front for VOOM-only equipment.

If VOOM's initial deal was the deal they ended with - 3 rooms installed for
$1, I probably would have bought in up front before I learned of VOOM's
troubles - but then again, if more people had bought in up front, VOOM
wouldn't have HAD any troubles. Not to mention that at VOOM's intro, there
were very few cable or satellite HD offerings.
Anonymous
April 13, 2005 4:45:07 AM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Voom will cease to provide service to existing customers on April 30, 2005.



New customer orders are no longer being accepted, and we are unable to
complete any scheduled installation or service appointments. You will be
contacted regarding any scheduled appointment
"RobH" <Rob@aol.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9632629121D1ERobH@24.93.43.119...
> From their website:
>
> Voom will cease to provide service to existing customers on April 30,
> 2005.
>
> New customer orders are no longer being accepted, and we are unable to
> complete any scheduled installation or service appointments. You will be
> contacted regarding any scheduled appointment
!