# DTV lease may face legal scrutiny



## dhaakenson (Jan 14, 2007)

Interesting blurb on a law firm's website. I wonder where this will lead?

_Link Removed_
-------

DirecTV & Best Buy
Green Welling, LLP is investigating the representations DirecTV and Best Buy make to consumers regarding their purchases of DirecTV receivers and digital video recorders. Many consumers pay large amounts of money to "buy" DirecTV equipment, only to later discover that the equipment they "bought" is actually leased and must eventually be returned to DirecTV.


----------



## CCarncross (Jul 19, 2005)

Hopefully nowhere, exactly where it belongs. consumer stupidity should never be allowed for grounds for lawsuits. All the shady lawyers need to be rounded up and put to pasture, pronto.


----------



## SamC (Jan 20, 2003)

Class actions just hurt consumers and enrich lawyers.


----------



## capecodsooner (Jan 20, 2007)

CC

I have not "purchased" equipment at a big box under the current rules so I don't (yet) have a dog in this fight. Last big box purchase for DTV gear was several years back.

But I'm scratching my head as to why you call it "consumer stupidity"? I'm not sure what name I would give it but I do realize it looks and sounds odd....at the minimum. Until I go into a big box to see any posted disclaimers near the equipment I withhold final judgement. But at this point I place it in the creative acounting category.

Back in the day (early DTV HD adopter) I had the choice of getting eqipment from DTV at an inflated price per unit with delays in availability or I could go to a big box and buy a reciever cheaper if I shopped around or took a chance on an "open box" purchase. My first Sony-HD100 retailed for $700-1000 when first introduced. I purchased it "new" for around $350 a few months after they were introduced. I own it and pay a mirror fee.....that I can deal with and completely understand. It never goes back to D, nor will the other 5 recievers I own.

Fast forward 6 years from then and D still has equipment reliability and availability issues that the Big Box stores are somehow able to aviod. Joe sixpack can wait weeks or longer for D to send out a "new reciever" i.e. refurbished unit that meets his needs or he can head down to Best Buy, etc.. and pick one up and bring it home today.

Picking one up today is a a definate win-win from my perspective. He is a happy camper in that he has equipment he chose, he paid for it, and if it breaks under warranty it's not D's problem. Oh yeah, and he *starts to pay for programming immediately*.

But it looks like D has other ideas. Under D's plan Joe has two choices.

1. He can go to Best Buy and they take $300 for a new HD reviever in the color he likes. Joe picks a black one to match the rest of his equipment. Joe thinks he owns it since he paid $300 of his hard earned $$ for it. Sorry Joe but that was $300 to borrow it from DTV not purchase it from BB. When you are finshed using it you must ship it back to D or they are threatining to charge you for it.....a second time.

2. Second choice is to call D, have them send out a refurbished unit or maybe a new one.....not sure what you will get. Oh yeah, and roll those bones to see if it will be in black finish as requested.

Will it work? Not sure...after all it is a refurbished unit. But the odds of there being any problems are almost zero. The H20 and HR20 recievers have been extensively tested before being sent to market. The software that drives these babies is amazing....almost no bugs what so ever.

While he waits for his reciever and service Joe pays no programming fees. And when the unit has problems Joe blames D. After that happens a couple of times Joe says bye-bye and tells his friends about how lousy an expirience he had. Either that or D has to give Joe free programming or credits to keep him signed up. Joe is not stupid, over time he calls back for more and more freebies but still tells his friends. They like to make phone calls too and pretty soon D is giving out all kinds of freebies to folks......all you gotta do is call.

Tax codes change over time and it sounds to me like D* and their team use accounting laws to allow depreciation in value of equipment they "own" and "lease" to end users. It seems the line they would like to take is that when Company X makes a DirecTV compatible reciever D somehow owns it but at *END USER RETAIL COST *for accounting and depreciation purposes. How do they depriciate it at consumer price when supposedly they owned it when it was at a wholesale price determined by a huge bulk purchase contract?

I did not see a kickback on my bill for the depreciation of the equipment, nor does D have a policy in place (that I am aware of) that will AUTOMATICALLY send me new equipment when the features/capabilities of my current equipment are obsolete or outdated.

I.E. boy those interactive features on my H20 came in handy during the NFL season this year. I'm glad D introduced those services available trough my interactive capable reciever. I'm not sure how many people work in that division of D but I'm sure the product is worth the money I'm paying for it. D tells me it is and hopefully someday they will have some software available which will enable me to see what I'm paying for. Hopefully it will be before the end of my service commitment.


----------



## jonaswan2 (Oct 29, 2005)

If Joe is a new customer, he will receive a new unit delivered by an installer that will set it up for him for free, *capecodsooner*.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

jonaswan2 said:


> If Joe is a new customer, he will receive a new unit delivered by an installer that will set it up for him for free, *capecodsooner*.


Not if Joe buys the receiver at BB. See paragraph four.


----------



## capecodsooner (Jan 20, 2007)

JS2

For free? I never had someone come out for anything for free. I have always incurred costs associated with an instalation. I'm not sure $$ changed hands on the spot each time but it was never free.

I don't thik the OP or myself are trying to limit this to any category of D customer. New or existing, active, suspended, or any other category D may use.

Are you saying new customers can not buy additional equipment from BB and that these purchases are made only by existing customers? I'm pretty sure anyone with $$ can shop there. Currently, if an exising customer buys a reciever they have unknowingly enetered into a lease with D for that equipment. 

I have purchased 4 recievers over the years from BB and Circuit City. At no time did I do anything except give them cash and signed nothing. Is that different today? Does a customer, new or existing SIGN a lease detailing the serial number and access card number for that specific unit? Are all terms completely and clearly stated....at least in unreadable legal jargon? Are all other state by state leasing diferences clearly identified and is there a mandated grace period when entering the lease (if available in you're state)? 

If all "legal" requirements are met I would agree that the consumers are "stupid" in the eye of the law.

But to me that puts that business almost in the same category as predatory lenders etc, who couch everyting in just enough legalese to cover their back side but at the same time gouge the consumer. Not an entity that I would chose to deal with if I thought that was there express purpose.


----------



## bonscott87 (Jan 21, 2003)

capecodsooner said:


> JS2
> 
> For free? I never had someone come out for anything for free. I have always incurred costs associated with an instalation. I'm not sure $$ changed hands on the spot each time but it was never free.


DirecTV installs are free and have been for years. If you call up DirecTV and order up your receivers then you get a free install of the dish, receivers and basic cabling.

If you buy a receiver from Best Buy then you are on your own or you might get a free install if you are a new sub and need a dish and stuff.


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

The link for this "class action" has been removed... as the article reference, is soliciting for additional intrested parties (which can be interpreted in many different ways, as those just looking for more information... or those that want to participate)

DBSTalk has a policy of non-solicitation for class-action particpants against any company... (not just DBS companies... any company)



Green&Welling said:


> DirecTV & Best Buy -Green Welling, LLP is investigating the representations DirecTV and Best Buy make to consumers regarding their purchases of DirecTV receivers and digital video recorders. Many consumers pay large amounts of money to "buy" DirecTV equipment, only to later discover that the equipment they "bought" is actually leased and must eventually be returned to DirecTV. If you purchased DirecTV equipment from DirecTV or Best Buy, please contact us. _click here_ and fill out the linked web form for more information.


You can continue the discussions of the merits of the "case"...
But there is to be no solicitation of participation...
If you wish to participate, you can use your favorite serach engine to get other details.

If any member is found solicitating via PM... they are subject to permanent ban.


----------



## CCarncross (Jul 19, 2005)

All units now gotten at any big box stores are leased, and all big box stores I shop at clearly state its leased equipment. They have for quite some time, almost all the way back to March 06. If some complete tool cant bother to read that its leased equipment, thats his problem. If someone else thinks they can "buy" it for $300 on fleabay or some other crap site, let them take their chances. Noone should be able to sue anyone over it. Please take your legal garbage someplace else.


----------



## compnurd (Apr 23, 2007)

I see this more as a Best Buy problem and not a Direct Tv problem. All of the boxes have a sticker that say they are leased. If Best Buy is not educating the consumer then it is there problem


----------



## jpl (Jul 9, 2006)

compnurd said:


> I see this more as a Best Buy problem and not a Direct Tv problem. All of the boxes have a sticker that say they are leased. If Best Buy is not educating the consumer then it is there problem


Except that DirecTV is the TV provider. I can see where they would be required to be pulled into this lawsuit. Let's say you get a receiver at BB. You end up hating it, and want to return it. Do you do back to BB to do that? I'm asking because I don't know - but my gut tells me that that's not the case - that you go directly to DirecTV to get involved. Besides, if BB is not educating their customers as to the deal in question (that they're getting a lease, vs. purchasing the equipment) then it is still possible that DirecTV is culpable, legally. It only makes sense that they're included in the law suit. If the litigant goes after BB, and it turns out that BB is NOT at fault, but it really is DirecTV, well, short of issuing another lawsuit against DirecTV, the litigant would have no recourse at that point. Sue BB only, but it turns out that DirecTV really is to blame... and at that point you're stuck.

I can see this lawsuit having merit. If a customer is not notified that they're leasing, then it's iffy (the customer still has an obligation to know what they're getting into - NOT being notified of that fact is not the same as being deceived) - if the salesman at BB intentionally misrepresented the deal, that's a different matter altogether. My guess, though, is a misunderstanding. The consumer goes in to "buy" a box. They're not told that they're leasing. He finds out later that he is leasing, so he gets ticked off and sues. If that's the situation, then really the litigant is wasting his time - he really has no cause at that point. There's information all over the place that you're leasing vs. buying - heck the receipt tells you that too. Then again, the way that juries hand out money in these cases, anything is possible.

All that being said, I have a real hard time believing DirecTV is culpable. When I got my first R15 at CC, the saleskid told me 14 different times that I was leasing. I had to sign a statement to that fact (really - before I was given the receipt to sign, I was given another slip of paper saying that I understood I was leasing, and that I understood the terms of that lease - that I had so much time to activate the box... that I was tied into 2 years of service...). One thing that makes this whole scenario hard to believe (that the customer didn't know that he was leasing) is the fact that he would be told that fact when he went to activate the box. I was told that fact with both of my R15s. The CSR made it clear as day that that's what I was getting into. To claim ignorance at that point is silly beyond belief.


----------



## Jhon69 (Mar 28, 2006)

compnurd said:


> I see this more as a Best Buy problem and not a Direct Tv problem. All of the boxes have a sticker that say they are leased. If Best Buy is not educating the consumer then it is there problem


I agree BB needs to teach their customers how to read!.


----------



## Upstream (Jul 4, 2006)

this is one of the issues where I really don't understand the commotion.

As long as DTV and Best Buy are upfront that the product is leased and not owned (and when I was looking for DVRs last year, both DTV and BB made the lease policy very clear to me), then there really is no problem.

I don't like having to pay an upfront fee for a leased receiver (I also didn't like having to pay an upfront fee to purchase a reciever either); most cable companies do not charge an upfront fee for equipment. But that is a business decision made by DTV. It is a bad decision in my opinion, but it is their decision to make.

But whether you pay an upfront fee as part of a lease or part of a purchase, and whether the additional reciever fee is called a lease fee or mirror fee, the cost to the consumer is essentially the same (with a couple cents difference in tax).

The only significant differences to the consumer are: (1) you eventually have to return the equipment to DTV, and (2) if the equipment fails, DTV replaces it.

Difference 1 is a problem for people who want to sell equipment on eBay. But most people don't. I have a closet full of obsolete DTV equipment which I couldn't sell even if I wanted to, and is therefore of no value.

But the benefit of having people return equipment is that DTV can refurbish returned equipment. That gives them a supply of receivers which they can swap out to replace defective receivers. So the minimal downside of Difference 1 allows DTV to provide consumers with the significant upside of Difference 2.


----------



## heavyobjects (Mar 23, 2007)

CCarncross said:


> All units now gotten at any big box stores are leased, and all big box stores I shop at clearly state its leased equipment. They have for quite some time, almost all the way back to March 06. If some complete tool cant bother to read that its leased equipment, thats his problem. If someone else thinks they can "buy" it for $300 on fleabay or some other crap site, let them take their chances. Noone should be able to sue anyone over it. Please take your legal garbage someplace else.


Now that's criminal... If all juries and judges felt the way you do about "consumer stupidity" (and the way the person who said class action suits ONLY hurt consumers) we would not have had such consumer-friendly advances as Chemical Warning Labels, mandatory ingredient lists, and Truth in Advertising.

On leases specifically, you may not see these things as related, but lawsuits have rightly put the onus on the business to ensure that services and products for lease are "reasonably understandable," "clear", and "conspicuous." That's what is at issue here.

You obviously think that D* and Best Buy's product placements/advertising is clear and that anyone who doesn't think so is a "stupid[]" "tool". I beg to differ. Unless you are already 100% clear on how D* operates (and it appears that there are MANY who are not, even among this elite group of consumers on DBSTalk - look at the number of posts titled i.e., "Do I own this?") or you ALWAYS read the fine print of everything (even then...), there's a good chance you wouldn't differentiate this set-top box from the 100s of others found at Best Buy... In fact, besides the little D* logo on it, there are exact clones you can often buy from that store.

I would save such sweeping insults on consumer protection paradigms that have historically protected you and will hopefully continue to do so.


----------



## JLucPicard (Apr 27, 2004)

I have not obtained a receiver from a brick and mortor since about two years ago at Circuit City, so I have no first-hand experience with how they handle things now, but I have to agree with jpl and the others that I have yet to obtain a receiver from D* and NOT be repeatedly told about the lease. It's there in the terms you must agree to when ordering on-line. When I've actually gotten them through a CSR (Mover's Connection upgrade, etc.), the CSR read the obligatory statement (even when I tried to stop them and explained I knew all about it, they politely told me they need to read this and started over again from the beginning ). When the installers came out for the installation, I was again asked to sign the lease papers. And each time, there was a follow-up letter in the mail thanking me for subscribing to DirectV service and congratulating me on my new receiver/DVR. Oh, and by the way, we've also enclosed a copy of the terms of service, which also contains the lease language.

I have always had a hard time believing that people can go from "purchasing" to activating and NOT be made aware of the lease - I can't get away from it! The only conclusion I could draw is that either they are obtaining them from eBay or something and the seller isn't making that information known (and it's pretty much buyer beware on eBay anyway, so no valid claim of ignorance in my book) or the Brick and Mortors just aren't disclosing it, which I had thought would get them in big trouble with D*. From what I'm reading here, BB and CC are really NOT hiding the fact that it's a lease.

I am not entirely thrilled with the whole lease-model thing (mostly because it's such a change from buying the receivers in the past and it just hasn't quite hit the "established policy" button in my mind yet). But I am in no way ignorant of it thanks to the constant barrage from D*.

If there's actually going to be a class action, I can understand D* being included (go after everybody, let the courts sort it out), but if there really is such a prevailing "secret conspiracy" to unwittingly lock people into undisclosed commitments, I have a hard time seeing where D* would be culpable. I don't see where they are trying to keep anything secret about it.

And somewhat of a side note - in looking at some of the auctions on eBay for D* receivers/DVRs that aren't clearly private party transactions, I notice a lot of them mention the lease deal as well.

I don't know if I would call it "consumer stupidity", but ... ya ... that pretty much sums it up (at least based on the arguments I've read here from people claiming they were never notified). Can I see where there might be situations where someone truly wasn't notified? Maybe - but I would say an infinitesimal percentage - not the prevailing "conspiracy theory" numbers that some people try to maintain is going on.

And if the numbers are higher than what I'm thinking due to the fact that people just don't read the "fine print" when they are signing something, well, the fine print is still there and D* can't be held responsible for them not reading it. And not to send this discussion spiraling off in another direction, but D* also cannot be held responsible for whatever level of success students may or may not achieve in learning reading and comprehension skills (no offense of any kind intended toward our schools or teachers!!!).


----------



## richiephx (Jan 19, 2006)

IMO, if I purchase any receiver from a local retailer and spend $499+ for it (I don't know what a receiver costs), I would think that I owned it and did not lease it. Now, for $99 I would think otherwise.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

richiephx said:


> IMO, if I purchase any receiver from a local retailer and spend $499+ for it (I don't know what a receiver costs), I would think that I owned it and did not lease it. Now, for $99 I would think otherwise.


$299

While I understand your opinion, if I drove a new car off the lot for $5,000, does that mean I own it?

I think the real "problem" is with BB, CC, or any of these retailers not telling the customer ALL of the facts. In my state it has gone on for so long, that the customer has X days to return something for no reason [other than wanting to]. Once the D* equipment gets activated, you can't. My pet peeve about the marketing: How do I know it works the way I like, if I can't try it out, but once I've done that..I can return the equipment [to D*], but not terminate the two year programing commitment [without penalty]. IMO this is a bit too much strong arming.


----------



## heavyobjects (Mar 23, 2007)

I agree that consumers have some burden in reading fine print, understanding their purchase, etc. However, my post above debates a few things noted by others in this thread:
1) The entire dismissal of class action lawsuits as a consumer protective strategy;
2) The degree to which one poster flamed anyone who could be mislead by the whole lease situation with D* and Best Buy;
3) The implicit "assumption" that D*'s practices are uniform wherever they occur. My limited experience with them has proven to be EXACTLY the opposite - from every CSR/sales rep providing different/conflicting information to promotions with missing/invalid/or incorrect fine print.

Let's get one thing straight before I get dumped on for being a "D* basher"... I am not. I have D* service that I am *reasonably* happy with. I see room for improvement. My purpose for posting is not to throw dirt but simply to suggest that D*'s lease positioning *could be* confusing for MANY. Maybe it isn't for you, but it is not unreasonable to think it could be for others, IMO. FWIW, I wouldn't be eligible for any class action activity, nor would I care to be.


----------



## NFLnut (Sep 29, 2006)

I "understand" their "reasons" for going the lease route, but I also hate the leasing model they have adopted. I agree that if you pay for a receiver at a retailer, you should be allowed to keep the box. One of the big reasons that I prefer the own vs lease concept is that then I am able to open the box and do something "stupid" like add a larger hard drive, etc. I'm fine with voiding a warranty, because I have five TiVo boxes that have all been "voided" and most of them are 5-7 years old. They are still working fine, albeit enhanced.  With this leased HR20, I am unable to someday pop the hood and throw in a new drive. 

Now .. if D* will make it so the eSATA does not replace (i.e. supplement) the stock drive, then I might adjust my opinion.


----------



## Diana C (Mar 30, 2007)

IMO, this is all a tempest in a teapot. It might be different if the HR20 (as an example) could be used after you cancel DirecTV service, but it can't.

Consider the way it used to be done:

IF your were a NEW customer (never had DirecTV before) you could get heavily discounted equipment (often discounted to zero). However, if you were an existing customer, you got no discounts - you paid FULL price for everything. In those days a *standard definition* DirecTiVo cost $250. Once you piad that money, you owned the unit. Unless you ponied up the additional "protection plan" fee, you were on the hook once the 90 day warranty ran out. Of course, you paid $5 per month for each "additional" box after the first.

Then, DirecTV went to the "lease" model. Now, existing customers can get the same deal on a new box as a new customer (once every 6 months anyway). Now an SD DVR costs $100 and an HD one costs $250. If it breaks, DirecTV replaces it, no protection plan required. You still pay $5 per box, but now it's called a lease fee.

Taking the SD DVR as an example, the user saves $150 in upfront costs under the lease model.

The residual value of a satellite receiver is questionable. Those $250 SD DVRs won't sell for anything close to that today. A quick check of eBay shows used 80GB R10s selling for around $50.

So, from the customer point of view, I don't see the lease model as being worse than a wash.

From DirecTV's point of view, surely it is an advantage. For the "2 years and out" customers that make up the majority of the churn, it is to DirecTV's advantage to get the equipment back. Under the old model it took about 22 months to break even on equipment subisides. Now, if the customer splits, the company gets to recycle that hardware.

And guess what - as subscribers, it is in our interests for DirecTV to keep growing and to be profitable. Their success means continued service improvements and system enhancements.


----------



## carl6 (Nov 16, 2005)

While there are probably some situations where a class action suit has ended up benefiting consumers, I personally believe the overwhelming majority have resulted in (a) a select subset of lawyers getting rich and (b) the average price of products increasing due to the burden on the manufacturer to try and prevent the idiot from injuring or killing himself when using the product in a manner in which it was never intended to be used in the first place.

We are a litigation crazy society, the net result of which is a general decrease in products or services at a reasonable cost because of the "risk management" necessary to prevent being sued.

Carl


----------



## dhaakenson (Jan 14, 2007)

Found an interesting thing on the internet from 2005 in Oregon on the fine print that DTV uses to inform customers of the lease/contract. Even the size of type can be debated:

http://www.doj.state.or.us/releases/2005/rel121305.shtml

------------

"Since 1997, our investigators have been monitoring complaints against DIRECTV resulting in warning letters and now two court orders," Attorney General Hardy Myers said. "The complaints covered many allegations but the most numerous and most frustrating concerned the company's disclosure of important facts about services and obligations in "MICE" type that were too small for most people to read."

Oregonians complained of small, unreadable print in advertisements, which investigators found often modified DIRECTV's offers and confused consumers so they were not aware of their monetary obligations to the company until after being locked into a contract.

As part of a $5 million, multi-state settlement, DIRECTV has agreed to pay restitution to eligible consumers with complaints about contract terms, installation problems, difficulties in program activation or reception, or fees charged for canceling service.


----------



## Newshawk (Sep 3, 2004)

dhaakenson said:


> Found an interesting thing on the internet from 2005 in Oregon on the fine print that DTV uses to inform customers of the lease/contract. ...
> As part of a $5 million, multi-state settlement, DIRECTV has agreed to pay restitution to eligible consumers with complaints about contract terms, installation problems, difficulties in program activation or reception, or fees charged for canceling service.


Is the Attorney General position an elected one in Oregon? If so, then it's obvious that this is just pandering to the "millions of eligible voters*" .

(*Quoted from Dr. Peter Venkman noted paranormal researcher.),


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

Just the other day I was wondering where you've been...seems you've found another reason to post on this forum. You seem to have not lost your agenda & are still true to your "calling".
This is a open forum, please feel free [within the rules] to post, but be willing to take some heat for it.


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

veryoldschool said:


> Just the other day I was wondering where you've been...seems you've found another reason to post on this forum. You seem to have not lost your agenda & are still true to your "calling".
> This is a open forum, please feel free [within the rules] to post, but be willing to take some heat for it.


VOS, he's posting news: albeit the news from 2005 seems a bit aged... 

(Thanks for the great setup) 

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## bonscott87 (Jan 21, 2003)

When I called to activate my HR20 that I bought not from D* I was told 3 times it was a lease and she read from a script to which I had to say yes that I understand it's a lease.


----------



## bonscott87 (Jan 21, 2003)

NFLnut said:


> I "understand" their "reasons" for going the lease route, but I also hate the leasing model they have adopted. I agree that if you pay for a receiver at a retailer, you should be allowed to keep the box. One of the big reasons that I prefer the own vs lease concept is that then I am able to open the box and do something "stupid" like add a larger hard drive, etc. I'm fine with voiding a warranty, because I have five TiVo boxes that have all been "voided" and most of them are 5-7 years old. They are still working fine, albeit enhanced.  With this leased HR20, I am unable to someday pop the hood and throw in a new drive.
> 
> Now .. if D* will make it so the eSATA does not replace (i.e. supplement) the stock drive, then I might adjust my opinion.


Well, DirecTV *doesn't* want anybody hacking the receivers as it only increases support costs. It's another reason they went a different direction from Tivo. Gosh, all the posts on Tivo Community when there is a software upgrade and it broke this and that hack, it must drive D* support crazy to get those calls.

Anyway, with the HR20 you can easily plug in an eSata drive and get 1 TB of space or more if you wish. No need to open up the box.


----------



## beavis (Jun 9, 2005)

What an F'ing joke. Seriously. People need to do some freakin research on this before they commit.


----------



## AlbertZeroK (Jan 28, 2006)

Part of the problem is that somebody paying $300 for a DVR gives that person the reasonable expectation that they own the reciever, especially when you see TIVO's being for sale for the same price right beside the DirecTV units.

Reasonable Expectation is very powerful in the law.

But I'm sure that Best Buy is covering them selves. I'm very sure you agree to a lease, but it may not have been mentioned by the sales rep.


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

Seems to me the contracts are pretty clear .. It's a lease. Besides, breaking the "contract" has got to be cheaper than any legal proceedings.

Personally, I'm happy with my arrangement with DIRECTV.


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

There were installers and phone telemarketers that did not properly inform the "buyers" that the receivers were leased. Even tho DIRECTV rules clearly stated that these external companies had to make the arrangement known. So DIRECTV had to pay the price, changed their practices such that we not only see that it is a lease once, but typically 3 times or so. 

Was it DIRECTV's fault? Not really (it seems), but they are still responsible for the actions of the authorized external sales and installation organizations. That said, DIRECTV might have not only cut off the unscrupulous sales and installation companies, they might have also sought payments from them. (Just a guess.)

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## convem24 (Mar 11, 2007)

I want to set the record straight! Typically existing customers (without existing customer deals) pay $100 for a H20 or $299 for a HR20 upgrade. The equipment is leased and includes a free upgrade to a AU9S 5LNB dish. It does not matter where you get the equipment (D*, big box stores, etc). Lease is still lease. Best Buy like other retailers have changed their policies to reflect lease so customers know the cost of upgrade and that the installation is included (this is important to customers upgrading to DIRECTV HD from a stardard DIRECTV system). 

Also in many cases Best Buy discounted a HDTV (about $150) for new and existing DIRECTV customers if they signed up for DIRECTV HD. If you need an HDTV and you want to buy it from a major retailer, Best Buy basically gave you a free HD receiver or HD-DVR for $150 when you purchase any HDTV over 37 inches (the customer gets a $150 bundle discount). I do not work for Best Buy but I have had experience in getting D* equipment through them with an HDTV purchase more recently. The lease upgrade fee still applies to all customers (unless you can get a CSR to waive the cost). My CSR when I was getting my installation scheduled also told me about the leased equipment (which I already understand since I have a leased R15) so most customers have been told about lease either at store or by D*.

I think when DIRECTV went to lease, they were going to have a tough time convincing customers who were used to the ownership system to get used to the lease system. I will debate anyone on why lease is better.

Lease means D* will replace defective receivers (you still have to pay shipping but that is a small price to pay), upgrade (customers who had HR10-250s were given an option for $100 to get a HR20, this according to friends of mine who had HR10-250s during lease). Who wants to have to shell out more money (ie $300 for another HD-DVR after you get one intially) or fight a CSR or renention to get what you want! Lease means DIRECTV can say yes sir and not no sir we can't do that!

Life is too short to be on cable!


----------



## CCarncross (Jul 19, 2005)

Who's got Series 3 Tivos for $300? Because thats what you need to compare pricing against.


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

CCarncross said:


> Who's got Series 3 Tivos for $300? Because thats what you need to compare pricing against.


What about the Vip622 or the Motorola HD DVR for cable systems? And even the Moxie for other systems?

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## CCarncross (Jul 19, 2005)

Specifically here, we are talking about big box stores and the fine print on lease agreements, so cable boxes really arent relevent. Have you ever used a Motorala HD DVR Tom? Biggest piece of junk I've just about ever seen, same goes for the SA boxes(8300HD IIRC). IMO, one of the reasons the cable companies cant get awya with much in upfront costs, is there DVRs are absolute garbage, who would be willing to pay for that? The HR20 is light years better than a any of the HD cable DVR's I have seen, even with its bugs, not including the Series 3 Tivo. But again the Tivo is $800 plus something like $15 a month in Tivo fees. I have no idea what E* charges for the 622, but I never liked their Gui's or ergonomics on their boxes/remotes, so I dont even consider E* an option personally.


----------



## Steve Mehs (Mar 21, 2002)

My Explorer 8300HD has been rock solid, every bit as relable as my old DirecTiVo, just the interface is not as polished and it lacks a few things (Wishlists) but it always records what it's supposed to. I've very happy with the box and plan on adding an external hard drive one of these days. And if it dies, or gets replaced by another model, I just take a 30 minute drive to the office and exchange it. No dealing with CSRs, no wait, no paying for shipping, no $100 BS upgrade fee.


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

CCarncross said:


> Specifically here, we are talking about big box stores and the fine print on lease agreements, so cable boxes really arent relevent. Have you ever used a Motorala HD DVR Tom? Biggest piece of junk I've just about ever seen, same goes for the SA boxes(8300HD IIRC). IMO, one of the reasons the cable companies cant get awya with much in upfront costs, is there DVRs are absolute garbage, who would be willing to pay for that? The HR20 is light years better than a any of the HD cable DVR's I have seen, even with its bugs, not including the Series 3 Tivo. But again the Tivo is $800 plus something like $15 a month in Tivo fees. I have no idea what E* charges for the 622, but I never liked their Gui's or ergonomics on their boxes/remotes, so I dont even consider E* an option personally.


No, I haven't really played with the motorola much. Have played some with the moxie, but not enough to really form an opinion. So I appreciate your feedback. And your's too, Steve mehs.

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

Tom Robertson said:


> No, I haven't really played with the Motorola much. Have played some with the moxie, but not enough to really form an opinion. So I appreciate your feedback. And your's too, Steve mehs.
> 
> Cheers,
> Tom


My cable gave me a Motorola. The first week I had it & my H20. Then I suspended my D* on Friday. Monday night I reactivated D* & ordered my first HR-20.
If you ever want an example of how not to layout a user interface...look at the Motorola. There is no 30 sec anything..and you need to do a tap dance on the remote just to move through the "gooey" [as in something you wished you hadn't stepped in].
Very painful HD recorder.


----------



## jpl (Jul 9, 2006)

veryoldschool said:


> My cable gave me a Motorola. The first week I had it & my H20. Then I suspended my D* on Friday. Monday night I reactivated D* & ordered my first HR-20.
> If you ever want an example of how not to layout a user interface...look at the Motorola. There is no 30 sec anything..and you need to do a tap dance on the remote just to move through the "gooey" [as in something you wished you hadn't stepped in].
> Very painful HD recorder.


Not entirely true. I have a motorola HD DVR (through FiOS) and it most definitely does have a 30-second skip (not a slip, but a skip). In terms of functionality, I agree, it doesn't touch what DirecTV's DVRs do. But to call it garbage - no, I can't agree with that. It's a much more pared down box - doesn't do nearly as much as the R15 does (I never had the HR20, but the R15 is a close-enough comparison point), but you know what it also doesn't do? It doesn't miss recordings. It doesn't give me black screens of death.

It's fast as anything. It allows me to set up multiple series links for the same series. The jump-back button is actually consistent (it doesn't degrade over time like the R15 used to). And the interface is extremely intuitive (not sure which interface you used, but I get to what I want in far fewer button pushes than I ever did with the R15). And it also has a jog-back with the play when coming out of ffwd. Would I like to see additional functionality baked in? Absolutely. And I haven't had any show-stopping issues with the R15 either (aside from a couple missed recordings), but based on some of what I read here... and the experiences of others (a co-worker is ready to use his R15 for skeet-shooting practice - it keeps dropping recordings on him). I do miss some of the R15 functionality (particularly the search capabilities), but this motorola piece of garbage has been totally robust, fast, and consistent. I'll take the functionality of the R15... but I'll take the reliability of the motorola box.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

jpl said:


> Not entirely true. I have a motorola HD DVR (through FiOS) and it most definitely does have a 30-second skip (not a slip, but a skip). In terms of functionality, I agree, it doesn't touch what DirecTV's DVRs do. But to call it garbage - no, I can't agree with that. It's a much more pared down box - doesn't do nearly as much as the R15 does (I never had the HR20, but the R15 is a close-enough comparison point), but you know what it also doesn't do? It doesn't miss recordings. It doesn't give me black screens of death.
> 
> It's fast as anything. It allows me to set up multiple series links for the same series. The jump-back button is actually consistent (it doesn't degrade over time like the R15 used to). And the interface is extremely intuitive (not sure which interface you used, but I get to what I want in far fewer button pushes than I ever did with the R15). And it also has a jog-back with the play when coming out of ffwd. Would I like to see additional functionality baked in? Absolutely. And I haven't had any show-stopping issues with the R15 either (aside from a couple missed recordings), but based on some of what I read here... and the experiences of others (a co-worker is ready to use his R15 for skeet-shooting practice - it keeps dropping recordings on him). I do miss some of the R15 functionality (particularly the search capabilities), but this motorola piece of garbage has been totally robust, fast, and consistent. I'll take the functionality of the R15... but I'll take the reliability of the motorola box.


I don't remember the model number of what I used, but you must have the "new & improved" model [from what I had from cable, it could only go one way..up].
Also I've never used the R-15, but have two HR-20s that give me the same results as what you seem to have with your Motorola.
Maybe because yours came with FiOS, that it is much improved over the crap my cable company uses.
I don't know if you'd be happy with my HR-20, but I'm sure you wouldn't be with the model motorola I had.


----------



## jpl (Jul 9, 2006)

veryoldschool said:


> I don't remember the model number of what I used, but you must have the "new & improved" model [from what I had from cable, it could only go one way..up].
> Also I've never used the R-15, but have two HR-20s that give me the same results as what you seem to have with your Motorola.
> Maybe because yours came with FiOS, that it is much improved over the crap my cable company uses.
> I don't know if you'd be happy with my HR-20, but I'm sure you wouldn't be with the model motorola I had.


In all honesty, I probably would like the HR20. I liked the r15. When my Tivo died I was very upset with having to go to a platform that had such a bad rep. That co-worker had just switched from his directivo to the r15 (one tuner on his tivo died), and he did nothing but complain about it. I told my wife at the time "man, I'm glad we don't have that new DirecTV DVR - I heard it's garbage." Sure enough about 10 days later, our tivo died, and it was off to R15-land for us. I didn't care for it for about 2 days, and then I decided to keep an open mind. I didn't like some things about it - the missing DLB was a biggie (more for my wife than for me), and that hitting the guide button twice... I know - a small thing - but one thing that drove me insane from day one.

After getting used to the interface, though, I started preferring the functionality of the R15 to the functionality of tivo. One thing that drove me nuts to the end, though - the lack of consistency in the design.

And you're right - the version of the interface that FiOS uses apparently is different than the interface for the motorola box used by other cable companies, although I think it's still a microsoft interface. And Verizon is coming up with their own interface, to be released soon. This dvr is a more recent version of the one that Comcast uses, e.g.


----------



## bto4wd (Apr 17, 2007)

CCarncross said:


> Who's got Series 3 Tivos for $300? Because thats what you need to compare pricing against.


I think his point was that there are other DVRs in the $300 range that you own once purchase.

80 hr Series 2 (owned) = $100
R15 (leased) = $100

I think most that walk into a BB or CC and purchase a CE product expect they are buying it. I know for sure that early in the leasing program the sales folks at CC didn't have any idea about the lease. I ask them specifically about an R15 and they told me "oh no, you own that, it's not a lease". This was April/May of last year.

Add to that the fact that many existing D* customers (like me) purchase all of their equipment through CC or BB and we owned it. Sure we signed stuff saying we would activate it within 30 days, but we owned it.

This switch from Owned to Leased was not handled cleanly.

Plus, who keeps track of the integrated units? As I recall, any integrated TV/receiver is not leased but is owned. How's a customer suppose to keep track of this?


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

Newshawk said:


> Is the Attorney General position an elected one in Oregon? If so, then it's obvious that this is just pandering to the "millions of eligible voters*" .


That must be it. Another suck-up politician. DirecTV and their resellers are clearly the most upstanding and squeaky clean citizens in the free world.

That's a really poor attitude to cop. I'm including DirecTV in my list of thieves as they don't seem to be clamping down on the resellers that are perpetrating the baiting. I get pieces in the mail weekly that misrepresent DirecTV's offerings in one way or another. Around the time that this suit was brought, you could get a "free satellite system" at every Christmas tree lot (and here in Christmas tree country, we have hundreds of them). It looked too good to be true and it certainly was.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

bto4wd said:


> I think most that walk into a BB or CC and purchase a CE product expect they are buying it.


YMMV. There have been numerous reports here of buyers being told everything from the truth to opposite of the truth. At one point, I was told by a BB sales associate that I didn't have to activate the HR20 if all I wanted to use it for was OTA. When they ran out of HR20s, I was also told that the HR10 was upgradeable to MPEG4.

What appears on the website is not always the same as what appears in the print ads and is related in ways unknown to what a sales associate might tell you.

Finally, if you put up enough of a stink, DirecTV will allow that you did actually buy the receiver outright. What's wrong with this picture?


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

harsh said:


> YMMV... What's wrong with this picture?


I might be easier to answer what's right with this picture....


----------



## PoitNarf (Aug 19, 2006)

veryoldschool said:


> I might be easier to answer what's right with this picture....


Just let me fire up photoshop... :lol:


----------



## CCarncross (Jul 19, 2005)

harsh said:


> What's wrong with this picture?


Sounds like the problem is big box stores sales drones.....which I cant really blame on D*, E*, or anyone else.


----------



## bto4wd (Apr 17, 2007)

CCarncross said:


> Sounds like the problem is big box stores sales drones.....which I cant really blame on D*, E*, or anyone else.


Other than those drones are acting as D*s agents. If D* can't trust their agents they should reevaluate that sales channel. Notice you can't purchase (er lease) E* equipment in those stores.

For that matter, is there any other equipment you could purchase in CC or BB that is leased?


----------



## igator99 (Jul 28, 2006)

CCarncross said:


> Sounds like the problem is big box stores sales drones.....which I cant really blame on D*, E*, or anyone else.


It is strange at least from my experience to pay 300 - 400 for something that is a lease. Usually with leased equipment you pay a nominal fee and a per monthly fee. It seems D* has got very greedy with the long lease periods and the high upfront costs of leasing their equipment. They expect more lawsuits. I understand their rules and that is why I haven't upgraded my H20 to a HR20.


----------



## CCarncross (Jul 19, 2005)

So is the general consensus that people would rather they didnt have the lease agreements at all, and just outright sold the receivers for full price(in this case about $800 for an HR20)?How many would have upgraded to the HR20 for that price? Based on all the constant complaining here about $299 or less lease pricing, it doesnt seem like the percentage would be near as high.


----------



## JFHughes08088 (Mar 24, 2007)

Did anyone NOT know they were "leasing" the gear. If we didn't want to lease it, we could have paid the $700. But hey, for $200 clams, We got a DVR


----------



## raoul5788 (May 14, 2006)

igator99 said:


> It is strange at least from my experience to pay 300 - 400 for something that is a lease. Usually with leased equipment you pay a nominal fee and a per monthly fee. It seems D* has got very greedy with the long lease periods and the high upfront costs of leasing their equipment. They expect more lawsuits. I understand their rules and that is why I haven't upgraded my H20 to a HR20.


How much do you put down to lease a car?


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

raoul5788 said:


> How much do you put down to lease a car?


Not a third of the purchase price, I bet... :eek2:

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## igator99 (Jul 28, 2006)

raoul5788 said:


> How much do you put down to lease a car?


I've never leased a car and I don't think that is a good analogy. You are talking about a high priced consumer product. I haven't dealt with the cable companies for a long time but when I did you paid a small monthly fee for the boxes that you don't own. D* is getting you to pay a part of the cost of the box and a monthly fee. With the long lease you will end up paying for the box that D* will lease out to someone else. Perhaps the cable companies operate this way also?


----------



## JLucPicard (Apr 27, 2004)

igator99 said:


> D* is getting you to pay a part of the cost of the box and a monthly fee.


The monthly $5 fee is to send your account's programming to the box. You would be paying the same $5 fee per month if you had a receiver that you own on your account. It's a programming cost, not an equipment cost.


----------



## igator99 (Jul 28, 2006)

JLucPicard said:


> The monthly $5 fee is to send your account's programming to the box. You would be paying the same $5 fee per month if you had a receiver that you own on your account. It's a programming cost, not an equipment cost.


I believe Dish did it for years at 1.00 and extra box. It's programming cost? I thought that is what the subscription is for.


----------



## Christopher Gould (Jan 14, 2007)

igator99 said:


> I believe Dish did it for years at 1.00 and extra box. It's programming cost? I thought that is what the subscription is for.


its to mirror your programming on another box. try that on c-band. its why you don't pay it on the first box.


----------



## JFHughes08088 (Mar 24, 2007)

How much do I put down on a lease????? As much or as little as you want. It's simply a matter of initial payment determining the amount of remaining payments, etc. To only put down $200 for a $700 item. That means the $5 per month I pay will take 100 months before I have paid the "face value" of the device. Hmmmm, 9 years. I like my odds. I'll be long out of this DVR and on to the next gee wiz new item


----------



## bonscott87 (Jan 21, 2003)

It's so funny people complaining about the lease.

Look there are 2 ways to do a lease.

1) Cable way - no upfront, $13+ a month
2) DirecTV way - $99-$299 up front, $0 per month ($4.99 if it's a 2nd receiver)

So with cable you have higher monthly rates but no upfront.
DirecTV has a higher up front but lower monthly

Take your pick I guess. It's all the same amount of money in the end and eventually you'll come out ahead with DirecTV, as quickly as 24 months.


----------



## igator99 (Jul 28, 2006)

JFHughes08088 said:


> How much do I put down on a lease????? As much or as little as you want. It's simply a matter of initial payment determining the amount of remaining payments, etc. To only put down $200 for a $700 item. That means the $5 per month I pay will take 100 months before I have paid the "face value" of the device. Hmmmm, 9 years. I like my odds. I'll be long out of this DVR and on to the next gee wiz new item


That 700.00 is the retail price. Don't you think D* gets it a bit cheaper? We will have to agree to disagree. I will not pay 300.00 for a cable box I don't own. I will wait till D* offers a better deal.


----------



## dirk6665 (Apr 11, 2007)

I won't go into the details - as I have done this in another post elsewhere on this forum - but I can tell you that as a consumer I had absolutely NO IDEA that I was merely paying for a rental unit. You see, I had switched from DISH after many years of service because after paying their "insurance" fees and having gone through my third 501 receiver - I wanted to pay the difference for a better (and hopefully more reliable) receiver - they wouldn't give me anything but another refurbished 501 so I bailed - but I digress - I am off topic... when I got DTV (standard def) , I was happy for the most part, but missed the surround sound and Dolby I had as part of the normal package with DISH. I also thought it was time that I put my 1080p HDTV to work. So one day I'm on eBay, right... and I see an ad from a very reputable seller with all the receiver specs I was looking for in a HDTV receiver. I thought it was time to bite the bullet. I called DTV and asked if my current setup (Dish types, LNB's etc.) would work and they said 'YES'. So I asked the seller some additional questions and forked out the cash. NOWHERE on the auction did it say ANYTHING about this being a lease, nor did it mention anything about a commitment.

I proceeded to replace my wonderful Tivo DTV receiver with the HR20-700 and had a buttload of issues. When I say buttload - I mean DAYS being on the phone with DTV. Oh - and my DISH setup - did NOT support HD channels - so the only recourse was to have the 5-LNB Larger dish installed - and _this is the point _where I signed my name in blood. After many many calls at one point I said to the CSR "Well, since this receiver doesn't seem to work, I'll just return it and go back to my prior programming package." The CSR told me they would charge me $700 for the receiver (_excuse me?_??) and I was locked into a two year (yet non-functional) commitment.

To say I was humiliated and furious would under-scale the toxic fumes that were emanating from my ears. :nono2:

So there you have it - call me a stupid consumer (Gee I should have accepted Aunt Louise's offer for a free subscription to Consumer's Digest) - call me pretentious for not asking the seller if there wasn't a "catch" - call me whatever you wish - but the facts are neither the original seller - NOR DTV - ever mentioned the fact that I was merely paying a $300 fee and that the device was not actually MINE meaning OWNED. Had I purchased this unit from this eBay seller and NEVER called DTV - I'd have a $1000 device that I only paid $300 for and they would never be the wiser! If this makes sense to YOU, then obviously you could pass a course in "sneaky marketing 101".

In the end I finally had the 700 model replaced with a now working HR20-100 (black) and the device is working and for the most part I am happy. >>BUT<< I am still not happy that this is *NOT* made clear to the consumer. It is a mutual responsibility of the seller (Be it BB, Circuit City, Poo Poo's online Electronics Botique - whoever - the bottom line is that the seller plays by DTV's rules and those rules should be respresented on the box so IF the seller misrepresents the facts - the consumer can read them for his/her self. How about a big paper attached tot he activation card that reads "BY ACTIVATING THIS RECEIVER YOU AGREE ... and outline the details _clearly and concisely_.


----------



## JFHughes08088 (Mar 24, 2007)

Does D* get the box for less than $700? Probably. That what they do for a living. They pay price A for and item and sell it for price B (be it equipment, programming, whatever).

If the deal sucks, don't buy into it. Me - I'm into it for the programming, (Sunday Ticket is the product they have that I want). I frankly could care less whether the content comes from D* or E*. If E* had ST, I would be a dish customer. D* took the risk by paying billions (yeah, billions, as in 9 zero's) to the NFL for the exclusive rights to the programming. They had no guarantee that we would be willing to pay for it. They took the risk, they deserve the reward. And before this thread get hijacked into a discussion about excessive profits, it that's a problem, buy their stock. I have yet to hear someone complain that a company makes too much money if they own the stock.


----------



## igator99 (Jul 28, 2006)

JFHughes08088 said:


> Does D* get the box for less than $700? Probably. That what they do for a living. They pay price A for and item and sell it for price B (be it equipment, programming, whatever).
> 
> If the deal sucks, don't buy into it. Me - I'm into it for the programming, (Sunday Ticket is the product they have that I want). I frankly could care less whether the content comes from D* or E*. If E* had ST, I would be a dish customer. D* took the risk by paying billions (yeah, billions, as in 9 zero's) to the NFL for the exclusive rights to the programming. They had no guarantee that we would be willing to pay for it. They took the risk, they deserve the reward. And before this thread get hijacked into a discussion about excessive profits, it that's a problem, buy their stock. I have yet to hear someone complain that a company makes too much money if they own the stock.


D* is a business and you are right, I can take it or leave it and as far as their current offer I will leave it. I've been with D* for 9 years and do not want to switch. I'm a five heart customer. They do seem to have got more greedy over the years. As long as one is born every minute they will continue to do it because they are going to make the biggest profit possible as any business should do. BTW many have got their HR20's with the lease fee waved.


----------



## funhouse69 (Mar 26, 2007)

For what it's worth I've been D* for many, many years (almost since the beginning). We got our original receivers from D* then I bought my first D* SD TiVO from Best Buy. When I bought it I had to sign something saying that I would activate it blah, blah blah. When I came home I called D* to activate it and they already had the receiver information in my account that was a little impressive and maybe a little spooky. :eek2: 

Recently I upgraded to D* HD Service. They offered to upgrade my dish for free as long as I agreed to the 2 year extension. Since I haven't been under any commitment with them for many years I was reluctant but still decided to go for it. I wanted an HD DVR and they offered me a HR20 (didn't know this at the time). They told me the price was $299 but would drop it to $199 since I was such a valued customer. I agreed to the charge but have to say that at NO TIME was I EVER told that this was a lease! Only when the installer came out and installed the unit and one of the forms was a lease agreement was I made aware that this was a lease. Needless to say I was a little shocked at this and questioned the installer who unfortunately didn't really have much of a clue (couldn't even perform a simple multi-switch install) so he told me that the lease agreement didn't apply to me and X'd it out which I doubt means anything in D* eyes. Well low and behold I get my bill and see instead of an additional receiver fee I have a lease fee. Good thing I kept the box even though the installer tried to take it from me with all of the extra cables in it that he didn't use. 

I do understand and agree that there certainly pros to this as pointed out in this thread like not having to buy their protection plan and even if the unit is "Out of warranty" they will replace it for a $19 fee (from what I've heard). But the fact remains that as no time was I ever told this was a lease and that D* had switch to this model. That is a little disconcerting to me.


----------



## raoul5788 (May 14, 2006)

Tom Robertson said:


> Not a third of the purchase price, I bet... :eek2:
> 
> Cheers,
> Tom


No, but you get the general idea.


----------



## raoul5788 (May 14, 2006)

igator99 said:


> I've never leased a car and I don't think that is a good analogy. You are talking about a high priced consumer product. I haven't dealt with the cable companies for a long time but when I did you paid a small monthly fee for the boxes that you don't own. D* is getting you to pay a part of the cost of the box and a monthly fee. With the long lease you will end up paying for the box that D* will lease out to someone else. Perhaps the cable companies operate this way also?


It's certainly not the best analog, but I think you understand my point.


----------



## igator99 (Jul 28, 2006)

raoul5788 said:


> It's certainly not the best analog, but I think you understand my point.


Yes I do understand your point that when you lease something you are expected to pay something. Using the car analogy I don't believe you are expected to pay half the price of the car. It doesn't matter. D* is a business and as long as they can do this they will. I leased my h20 from bb paying the $100 knowing full well I didn't own it. I personally will not pay $300 on a lease DVR. Because I think it is to high and I have a tree problem that could do me in within the next two years.


----------



## jpl (Jul 9, 2006)

bonscott87 said:


> It's so funny people complaining about the lease.
> 
> Look there are 2 ways to do a lease.
> 
> ...


Couple issues with the math. First, not all cable companies are the same (I understand you're making a generalization here, but I thought worth pointing out). With my service (fios) the fees are:

$5/month - standard STB
$10/month - HD STB

DVRs are more expensive since they roll the DVR fee into it:

$13/month - standard HD DVR fee (soon to be $16/month)
$20/month - multiroom HD DVR fee

Yes, it's true that with DirecTV you pay more up front in order to reduce the monthly fee on the box. But one number that I keep seeing gets me - that $700 price tag for the HR20. It doesn't cost them anywhere near that to make. They were paying $400/box... and it's just been reduced to $300/box. They're charging the manufacture price for the initial lease out-lay. That's quite a deal for DirecTV. And $700? I understand that companies sell a product for more than what it costs to make it. I get that. But that's one hell of a mark-up. I can't think of any other consumer electronic product out there that has that type of mark-up.

One other thing to consider - with DirecTV, you're stuck with that product. Want an HD DVR? Well, you really have no choice - you go with the HR20. They have you. It's in one respect, a monopoly (well, not really because you absolutely have the option of leaving and going with another company). I would guarantee you that if they were to allow multiple DVR platforms that you would see the price of the box drop like a stone. DirecTV has no real incentive to drop the price - they can't keep the box on the shelves, so they have no need to figure out ways to boost demand.

And I do agree that cable companies charge too much for their boxes. Which is what led the FCC to require that cable boxes become "generic". I should be able to just get a cable card and plug it into a box that I buy in a store to use a cable service. Cable companies went the "monopoly" route for their hardware for years, and as a result the government (some states as well as federal) started going after them. As of, I believe, July of this year, cable companies will be required to allow me to use a box that I buy off the shelf for my service. And (again, this is based on my understanding of the law - I may have it wrong) in some states (e.g. NJ), the box that the company themselves provide needs to be generic.

One last thing that does need to be considered - overall cost. Granted I pay more now for my hardware than I did before... and I pay for every box, including the first one... but my base service is MUCH less - about $20 less per month. Actually, my math is wrong - when I switched, I wanted HD. Fios includes HD in their base package. So, really, the savings are higher. Compared to DirecTV's HD package I'm paying about $25 less per month for the service (these comparisons aren't clean since each company has very different pricing structures). I've said this before - whether some service is worth it to your or not depends on what set-up you're looking for and what you're willing to pay.


----------



## Ext 721 (Feb 26, 2007)

igator99 said:


> D* is a business and you are right, I can take it or leave it and as far as their current offer I will leave it. I've been with D* for 9 years and do not want to switch. I'm a five heart customer. They do seem to have got more greedy over the years. As long as one is born every minute they will continue to do it because they are going to make the biggest profit possible as any business should do. BTW many have got their HR20's with the lease fee waved.


Greedy...yes. If your business was 10 years old and still losing money, (finally turned a profitable quarter in '06) you'd get greedy. hell...how many threads here and elsewhere detail exactly how to squeeze free programming, credits, or equipment out of D*? Obvioiusly, SOMEONE at D* reads them, and makes attempts to block all avenues of cheating the system...hence, ever-tightening rules and restrictions on how much goodies they give out.
If you owned a vending machine business, and someone published a trick that lets you get 3 items by paying for 2, you'd immediately try to block that.

It's amusing to think that some of the same people who publish their exploits in getting free this-or-that from D* or E* may be the same ones complaining about how difficult it is now to get what they feel they deserve.

I'm sure part of the $299 is to prevent people from leasing it....What? you say...PREVENT? yes. prevent. I understand they ran out of the things at the $299 early on....When you keep running out of stock, the last thing you think to do is lower the price.

It's also probably to help the people who shelled out $1500 for theirs a year or two ago to feel better.

As with anything else, early adopters pay pemium prices. I'm sure all the initial lease fees will lower over time...or at least stay the same...and with inflation, "the same" becomes less over time. Aren't they still charging the "same" $70 for service calls they charged 5 years ago, when gas cost half as much, and the price of copper cable was lower?

When I worked in HSP 3 years ago or thereabouts, there were HD "lease" customers. they paid something like $10-20 extra monthly for leasing the HD box...$240=$360 over the course of 2 years, and perhaps $720 over 4.

How many people would rather pay $15 a month in a 2 year contract (in addition to the normal 2 year contract) than $299 upfront?

Those people exist, I'm sure.


----------



## JLucPicard (Apr 27, 2004)

> Yes, it's true that with DirecTV you pay more up front in order to reduce the monthly fee on the box.


This is the part of this general argument that I never quite understand where people are coming from. If you lease just one receiver or DVR, you don't pay any monthly fee on the unit. If you have 5 leased DVRs on your account, you have $25 in monthly "lease fees", that are basically the leased-equipment equivalent of mirroring fees. If you have 5 owned DVRs on your account, you have the same $25 in monthly "additional receiver fees" which are the same mirroring fees.

Everybody talks about a big up-front lease fee that reduces the monthly fee - as if the monthly fee is a month to month equipment lease fee. Fact is, you'd be paying that same $5 a month fee on equipment you owned as well - it's a programming morroring fee, not a monthly equipment lease fee.

If you opted to pay $800 to buy the HR20 versus paying $300 to lease the HR20, you would still be paying $5 a month for that box if it wasn't the only receiver on your account.


----------



## wingrider01 (Sep 9, 2005)

raoul5788 said:


> How much do you put down to lease a car?


depends on a lot of things, especially on the type of lease you decide to choose

1 can be up to 10 percent of the total cost of the vehicle, 
2 last month payment 
3 security deposit equal to the amount of the monthly lease payment.

You can put more then the requested downpayment to reduce your monthly expenditures


----------



## jpl (Jul 9, 2006)

JLucPicard said:


> This is the part of this general argument that I never quite understand where people are coming from. If you lease just one receiver or DVR, you don't pay any monthly fee on the unit. If you have 5 leased DVRs on your account, you have $25 in monthly "lease fees", that are basically the leased-equipment equivalent of mirroring fees. If you have 5 owned DVRs on your account, you have the same $25 in monthly "additional receiver fees" which are the same mirroring fees.
> 
> Everybody talks about a big up-front lease fee that reduces the monthly fee - as if the monthly fee is a month to month equipment lease fee. Fact is, you'd be paying that same $5 a month fee on equipment you owned as well - it's a programming morroring fee, not a monthly equipment lease fee.
> 
> If you opted to pay $800 to buy the HR20 versus paying $300 to lease the HR20, you would still be paying $5 a month for that box if it wasn't the only receiver on your account.


Let me try again. You're correct, the monthly fee is not specifically on the box. But you do still pay for the box one way or another. It's also correct that you pay the same whether you lease or own the box - they just call it something different - a mirroring fee for each additional box vs. a lease fee.

My point was that all companies price things differently. If DirecTV didn't charge you $300 to lease the HR20 up front, they would have to make up the money in some other way. Where this is really obvious if if you compare the overall package - not just the hardware, but everything. All these companies structure things differently. So, if DirecTV didn't charge you the up-front cost of the box, then it's likely that your monthly subscription for your programming would go up. THAT'S what I was referring to. I just phrased it badly. When you compare the entire cost of your monthly DirecTV bill to the entire cost of a cable bill, things tend to even out. It's the same as saying that DirecTV doesn't charge you for the first receiver. Yeah, they do - just not separately. It's rolled into the cost of your programming package. Ditto for DVR service. With the new pricing schema that DirecTV came up with, they no longer charge you "extra" for DVR service - it's rolled into the price of the package. You don't save anything vs. the old way - they just account for it differently.

This is why I gave the example I did in terms of how much less my programming is now vs. what it would have been with DirecTV. I pay alot less now... but again, that's only part of the picture, since verizon doesn't include the cost of the first receiver in the price of my programming package. Let's say, for sake of argument, that Verizon decided to change it's programming so that the first receiver were included... great. What would that mean to me? Nothing. I would still be paying the same, but my programming package would be more expensive, that's all.

Yes, technically, you're correcct. You don't pay a monthly "lease fee" that's any different from what someone who owns their equipment pays. And yes, that mirror fee is for your account, and not for the equipment. The point is that you're still paying for it, one way or the other. Call it whatever you like, but the money has to come from somewhere. And my basic point still holds - if DirecTV didn't charge the up-front fee that they do, then they would be charging you more in other areas to off-set it.

To give you an idea of what this looks like. Here's what I would have paid under directv, with my set-up, if I had gotten the HR20:

- $70/month - HD package, includes DVR
- $5/month - second receiver fee

total = $75/month

With FiOS:

- $43/month - premier package, includes HD
- $20/month - multi-room DVR
- $5/month - second standard receiver fee

total = $68/month

that difference for programming looks HUGE - $70 vs. $43 - until you consider that that $70 includes the DVR fee, and the fee for the first receiver. And I still contend that if DirecTV didn't charge that $300 for that HR20 up front, that $70/month would be higher. Just because the company accounts things differently doesn't mean that you're not paying the fee. It's just not as obvious, that's all.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

:icon_band 

Has anybody noticed the OP only posted here twice? 

That was three days ago.

At this point I think he's baited this thread enough.

Isn't it time to let this die?

:rant:


----------



## carl6 (Nov 16, 2005)

What happens to your Fios cost if you have two hi def DVRs, two standard def DVRs, and two standard def receivers?

One of the things I've noticed with DirecTV versus cable in my area, is that the monthly recurring cost is higher for a DVR, so if you have multiple DVRs your cost starts to climb rapidly. Also, there are restrictions on how many HD DVRs you can get with cable. Not so with DirecTV.

Also, how do the two programming packages compare? 

Carl


----------



## jpl (Jul 9, 2006)

carl6 said:


> What happens to your Fios cost if you have two hi def DVRs, two standard def DVRs, and two standard def receivers?
> 
> One of the things I've noticed with DirecTV versus cable in my area, is that the monthly recurring cost is higher for a DVR, so if you have multiple DVRs your cost starts to climb rapidly. Also, there are restrictions on how many HD DVRs you can get with cable. Not so with DirecTV.
> 
> ...


Excellent point. Yes, at that point FiOS becomes MUCH more expensive than DirecTV. You get no argument from me on that point. That's why I say "it all depends on what set-up you want as to whether it's worth while for you or not."

In all honesty, if that were my set-up I probably wouldn't have switched. You're absolutely correct that DirecTV is structured such that it's cheaper if you have more hardware. Again, though, that speaks to the pricing structures of each company. They're all very different.

By the same token, if I owned all those receivers, then FiOS would, again, probably be cheaper. I wouldn't pay a mirroring fee. Although I would pay a fee for cable cards for each box (something like $3/month).

At the end of the day, each company does a calculation and asks the question "what pricing structure should we employ." They ask that with the understanding that it won't work for everyone. And that, in some cases they'll pull in additional customers due to that pricing structure, but in other cases they'll lose customers due to the same structure. If I had ALOT of TVs then DirecTV is clearly the better deal. I have a feeling, though, that FiOS is more in line with average consumers. I think most consumers have 2 - 3 TVs.

All this just reinforces my point that you need to compare apples to apples with this stuff. It's deceptive to just look at one piece of the pie. You need to look at the whole pie. I COULD just look at the $43 and say "wow look at that great price!" But if I ignored the price of the hardware I'm just fooling myself.

As for the programming packages - right now FiOS does win out in that department. I did my homework when considering the switch. I printed out the channel line-up for each. I put checkmarks next to each channel that appeared in each list (based on the programming package I had and what I would be going to). For all the rest, I put a mark by those DirecTV channels that I would lose by switching, and I put a mark by those that I would be gaining by going to FiOS (by this point my wife was about ready to strangle me). Of THOSE channels I asked myself the question "which of these do I care about - which do I care about losing and care about gaining?" Of those that I lost, the ONLY one I cared about - Chiller. I ended up gaining a bunch that I wanted, though - more news channels (I'm a news junky - ABC News Now, C-SPAN3, BBC World), Fox Soccer Channel (in their base package), stuff like that. You're right though - you absolutely need to compare what DirecTV has vs. what other companies offer. If sports are your thing then chances are, you don't want FiOS. Yeah, they have a sports pack, but it's minimal. They also don't have any subscription packs - I didn't care about those, so I was fine with that. On the other hand, if movies are your thing, the FiOS is definitely the better deal. They have more premiums, and they're cheaper. They also have VOD - and if you get the premiums you get dozens of movies on demand through those premiums as part of the cost for the premium channels.

Oh, and in terms of HD, right now Verizon definitely wins out over DirecTV. They have more national HD channels, plus all my locals in HD, as well as all my digital sub-channels. Will that still be the same later this year? Dunno. I know that directv is going whole-hog to become the HD leader, but at the end of the day, I think all services will be pretty equivalent on that front. A tv provider that can't provide the same number of HD channels won't be in business for very long. But, for now, that's just a guess on my part.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

Knowing the OP that started this thread somewhat...he's sitting back laughing at the mileage his two posts are getting [causing]. FWIW


----------



## jpl (Jul 9, 2006)

veryoldschool said:


> Knowing the OP that started this thread somewhat...he's sitting back laughing at the mileage his two posts are getting [causing]. FWIW


Yeah, I think you're right. Some of these threads tend to take lives of their own, though. I know I'm very guilty at moving these discussions into totally different directions. Besides, I like making people laugh


----------



## jpl (Jul 9, 2006)

Going back to a previous post - as I've posted elsewhere, my point is NOT to tout FiOS over DirecTV. I'm NOT saying "fios is great, directv sucks!" That's NOT the point of these posts of mine. I tend to follow a particular "formula" with my posts. I make an assertion, and then I like to back it up with an example. I use fios as a comparison point because, well, I'm a current customer, and I just switched from being a directv customer. On a fios forum I post to I do the same thing - I bring up directv all the time. Not to compare the pros and cons of each service - but to back up a point I'm making. My point with my last couple posts had to do with the fact that pricing structures are different between companies. I also countered the claim that paying up front does nothing to reduce the monthly cost of your bill. I think that's nonsense, and I wanted to illustrate why that was so.

Sometimes, though, one post will spark a very different discussion (ie discussing the difference in programming between fios and directv). Again, because I think the "fios is great" meme tends to stick in the craw of many on this forum, I wanted to be clear - I'm NOT pitching for fios. I'm simply using a personal experience to illustrate a point. That's all. I sometimes use Comcast as an example too - I used to be a customer of their's - but that was over 5 years ago, so it bears little resemblence to what Comcast is today, and so has little value to the discussion at hand.


----------



## bonscott87 (Jan 21, 2003)

JLucPicard said:


> This is the part of this general argument that I never quite understand where people are coming from. If you lease just one receiver or DVR, you don't pay any monthly fee on the unit. If you have 5 leased DVRs on your account, you have $25 in monthly "lease fees", that are basically the leased-equipment equivalent of mirroring fees. If you have 5 owned DVRs on your account, you have the same $25 in monthly "additional receiver fees" which are the same mirroring fees.
> 
> Everybody talks about a big up-front lease fee that reduces the monthly fee - as if the monthly fee is a month to month equipment lease fee. Fact is, you'd be paying that same $5 a month fee on equipment you owned as well - it's a programming morroring fee, not a monthly equipment lease fee.
> 
> If you opted to pay $800 to buy the HR20 versus paying $300 to lease the HR20, you would still be paying $5 a month for that box if it wasn't the only receiver on your account.


The argument is *compared to cable* as I pointed out (which I guess you didn't understand, that's ok).

DirecTV charges an entry cost, cable doesn't.
DirecTV charges less per month for the receiver, cable charges more.

Thus DirecTV charges more up front for a lower monthly fee....compared to cable.

This is not compared to leasing or owning the DirecTV box.
If you want to compare that you'd say $299 to lease plus $4.99 a month or $749 to own plus $4.99 a month. Gee, which one will I choose?


----------



## psweig (Feb 4, 2006)

veryoldschool said:


> :icon_band
> 
> Has anybody noticed the OP only posted here twice?
> 
> ...


Yes!:nono:


----------



## JLucPicard (Apr 27, 2004)

bonscott87 said:


> It's so funny people complaining about the lease.
> 
> Look there are 2 ways to do a lease.
> 
> ...





bonscott87 said:


> The argument is *compared to cable* as I pointed out *(which I guess you didn't understand, that's ok)*.
> 
> DirecTV charges an entry cost, cable doesn't.
> DirecTV charges less per month for the receiver, cable charges more.
> ...


I understand what you're saying. What I have trouble understanding is why people always bring the $4.99 a month cost into discussions about lease costs. As far as I can tell, DirecTV charges up front for leasing the equipment, and $0.00 a month after that (whether it's the primary receiver or an additional one). If you're paying $4.99 a month for a leased receiver, you would still be paying that $4.99 a month if you owned it instead - it's a program mirroring fee - not an equipment leasing fee.

Granted, DirecTV may list things on their books differently (and as such, taxes wind up getting collected on the "leased receiver fees"), but minimal sales taxes aside, as the customer I'm paying the same amount per month whether my equipment is owned or leased. People complain that D* gouges "for the privilege" of leasing their equipment, then still charges you $4.99 a month for it. I don't see it that way. I pay an amount up front for the use of the leased receiver/DVR, then I pay for programming after that - I don't continue paying for that equipment.



> It's so funny people complaining about the lease.
> 2) DirecTV way - $99-$299 up front, $0 per month


This I can completely agree with. From a strictly equipment cost perspective, the $4.99 a month has no place. If you're incorporating programming costs into the monthly cost of your bill, then it does have a place.

And in the comparison of cable to DirecTV, back a dozen years ago when I was a cable subscriber, I also had to pay something (memory fails, but somewhere from 25 cents to $1.25 or something like that) for a remote control in addition to the box. I don't know if that still holds true, but that's one other thing that I hear about cable costs is that they nickel and dime you with stuff like that that has nothing to do with the actual programming.


----------



## RobertE (Jun 10, 2006)

Perhaps this is why D* started to add these stickers to the sides of the boxes? Make it pretty clear that you don't own the box.


----------



## bonscott87 (Jan 21, 2003)

JLucPicard said:


> I understand what you're saying. What I have trouble understanding is why people always bring the $4.99 a month cost into discussions about lease costs. As far as I can tell, DirecTV charges up front for leasing the equipment, and $0.00 a month after that (whether it's the primary receiver or an additional one). If you're paying $4.99 a month for a leased receiver, you would still be paying that $4.99 a month if you owned it instead - it's a program mirroring fee - not an equipment leasing fee.
> 
> Granted, DirecTV may list things on their books differently (and as such, taxes wind up getting collected on the "leased receiver fees"), but minimal sales taxes aside, as the customer I'm paying the same amount per month whether my equipment is owned or leased. People complain that D* gouges "for the privilege" of leasing their equipment, then still charges you $4.99 a month for it. I don't see it that way. I pay an amount up front for the use of the leased receiver/DVR, then I pay for programming after that - I don't continue paying for that equipment.
> 
> ...


I agree with you. The only reason I bring up the $4.99 is because when I've had this argument before with people they always toss it around. I agree, you pay $4.99 for each additional receiver leased or owned. 
So when you count $0 per month you get to break even vs. cable even quicker.

People get so upset with the up front fee but don't think to consider how much more they are paying per month for their cable box. Just add it up folks.


----------



## igator99 (Jul 28, 2006)

Ext 721 said:


> Greedy...yes. If your business was 10 years old and still losing money, (finally turned a profitable quarter in '06) you'd get greedy. hell...how many threads here and elsewhere detail exactly how to squeeze free programming, credits, or equipment out of D*? Obvioiusly, SOMEONE at D* reads them, and makes attempts to block all avenues of cheating the system...hence, ever-tightening rules and restrictions on how much goodies they give out.
> If you owned a vending machine business, and someone published a trick that lets you get 3 items by paying for 2, you'd immediately try to block that.
> 
> It's amusing to think that some of the same people who publish their exploits in getting free this-or-that from D* or E* may be the same ones complaining about how difficult it is now to get what they feel they deserve.
> ...


I don't believe D* has not made a profit in their 10 plus years of being. I'm not saying I don't believe you I've heard this before. There are many many ways to hide profits. I think the $300 upfront, monthly fee and two year commit is insane and greedy. I will not do it. The rest of you have it.


----------



## Drewg5 (Dec 15, 2006)

Well consedering that even though a slect few where told or even knew about the leaseing that D* changed over to I can fully understand why this would happen. 

When I got on the weighting list (late october early november) for the HR20 there sight clearly stated be one of the first to owne.. Not lease. Firthermore I was never even told that the unit would be a leace. Not wrighten (yes I did look even at the fine print, then the finer print.) or verbal. In fact I diden't know untill after the install was compleated and the unit activated on my account, when the installer handed paper work to sign off covering the install...not to mention the additonal 2 year commintment I was stuck with.

If that isn't outright lieing to the consumer than I dont know what it. I know there are like one or two of you out there that knew about the leaseing crap, or where even informed, but for the most part D* is still failing to inform people about the leaseing. I know they havent told a few people I work with when the moved and got an upgrade.


----------



## Christopher Gould (Jan 14, 2007)

igator99 said:


> I don't believe D* has not made a profit in their 10 plus years of being. I'm not saying I don't believe you I've heard this before. There are many many ways to hide profits. I think the $300 upfront, monthly fee and two year commit is insane and greedy. I will not do it. The rest of you have it.


I believe D* has had a postive cash flow since locals started, don't remember what year that was. That was the year they reached X amount of customers that if they stopped everything they would be profitable.


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

jpl said:


> Yes, it's true that with DirecTV you pay more up front in order to reduce the monthly fee on the box. But one number that I keep seeing gets me - that $700 price tag for the HR20. It doesn't cost them anywhere near that to make. They were paying $400/box... and it's just been reduced to $300/box. They're charging the manufacture price for the initial lease out-lay. That's quite a deal for DirecTV. And $700? I understand that companies sell a product for more than what it costs to make it. I get that. But that's one hell of a mark-up. I can't think of any other consumer electronic product out there that has that type of mark-up.


Point of clarity:
In no public statement was the actual manufacturing cost for the HR20 stated, before last weeks quarterly update....

It was stated that the price was ~$400 and they are working to lower that another $100... (not there yet, was the interpretation)..

So until last week... the only number we had to go with was the $800 number.

-------------



jpl said:


> One other thing to consider - with DirecTV, you're stuck with that product. Want an HD DVR? Well, you really have no choice - you go with the HR20. They have you. It's in one respect, a monopoly (well, not really because you absolutely have the option of leaving and going with another company). I would guarantee you that if they were to allow multiple DVR platforms that you would see the price of the box drop like a stone. DirecTV has no real incentive to drop the price - they can't keep the box on the shelves, so they have no need to figure out ways to boost demand.
> 
> And I do agree that cable companies charge too much for their boxes. Which is what led the FCC to require that cable boxes become "generic". I should be able to just get a cable card and plug it into a box that I buy in a store to use a cable service. Cable companies went the "monopoly" route for their hardware for years, and as a result the government (some states as well as federal) started going after them. As of, I believe, July of this year, cable companies will be required to allow me to use a box that I buy off the shelf for my service. And (again, this is based on my understanding of the law - I may have it wrong) in some states (e.g. NJ), the box that the company themselves provide needs to be generic.


That is true for most carriers... their boxes are the only ones fully compatible with all their features... Even with Cable-Card, (if you get it functioning)... you don't have access to OnDemand and other features.

And even then... the cable-co's are already finding loop holes with the Cable-Card reqs.. (aka Switched Video), and some other holes. Which is just going to make a massive mess out of things.

The cable-co's most definently want you to have THEIR box, pay their rental fee, to access their $$$ features... and they will (and have in some areas), find a way to make that happen.... They have been doing it for 30+ years... they are not going to let go of that revenue stream easily.


----------



## slam22 (May 14, 2007)

I'm glad I found this thread because I am a little confused as well. I have two DTV recievers. One is the new HR20-700 which I paid $99 plus tax and shipping from DTV. I also have an older tivo unit in the bedroom (Non HD). I understand that I have to pay the $4.99 additional reciever fee for the unit in the bedroom. I'm cool with that, it's always been that way. My question is why am I paying $4.99 a month to lease the HD reciever that I supposedly bought for $99. And if it truly is a lease then what was the $99 for in the first place.?


----------



## bonscott87 (Jan 21, 2003)

slam22 said:


> I'm glad I found this thread because I am a little confused as well. I have two DTV recievers. One is the new HR20-700 which I paid $99 plus tax and shipping from DTV. I also have an older tivo unit in the bedroom (Non HD). I understand that I have to pay the $4.99 additional reciever fee for the unit in the bedroom. I'm cool with that, it's always been that way. My question is why am I paying $4.99 a month to lease the HD reciever that I supposedly bought for $99. And if it truly is a lease then what was the $99 for in the first place.?


If you have 2 receivers then you'd have the following:

First receiver is free.
second receiver incurs $4.99 mirror charge ("lease fee" if leased, "additional receiver fee" if owned)
You will also have a $5.99 DVR fee.
And of course whatever programming you get.


----------



## bonscott87 (Jan 21, 2003)

igator99 said:


> I don't believe D* has not made a profit in their 10 plus years of being. I'm not saying I don't believe you I've heard this before. There are many many ways to hide profits. I think the $300 upfront, monthly fee and two year commit is insane and greedy. I will not do it. The rest of you have it.


So you think it's greedy to ask for compensation for a $400-$600 receiver? Wow.
So you want them to give you such receiver with no commitment of programming so you can quit the next month, sell the receiver on eBay and they are out $400+ bucks?

Now THAT is the way to go out of business.

And since Dish also leases their receivers I guess you're off to cable where over that 2 year commitment period you will have actually paid more to cable to lease their box then you would have with DirecTV. Smart move. Good luck with that.


----------



## JLucPicard (Apr 27, 2004)

slam22 said:


> I'm glad I found this thread because I am a little confused as well. I have two DTV recievers. One is the new HR20-700 which I paid $99 plus tax and shipping from DTV. I also have an older tivo unit in the bedroom (Non HD). I understand that I have to pay the $4.99 additional reciever fee for the unit in the bedroom. I'm cool with that, it's always been that way. My question is why am I paying $4.99 a month to lease the HD reciever that I supposedly bought for $99. And if it truly is a lease then what was the $99 for in the first place.?


slam22,

Welcome to DBSTalk! :welcome_s

See post #82.

bonscott87 is right about his reply. If you have only two receivers on your account, there should only be one $4.99 "leased/additional" receiver fee. One thing to take a look at - if the HR20 (or any leased receiver) is listed as the primary receiver on your account, the billing gets a little tricky. In a number of states they charge tax on the "lease" fee, so for a leased 'primary' receiver D* will show a $4.99 charge with sales tax, then post another credit of $4.99 to offset the monthly fee associated with the primary. If you do only have two receivers and see two charges of $4.99, look for one offsetting credit, too.


----------



## igator99 (Jul 28, 2006)

bonscott87 said:


> So you think it's greedy to ask for compensation for a $400-$600 receiver? Wow.
> So you want them to give you such receiver with no commitment of programming so you can quit the next month, sell the receiver on eBay and they are out $400+ bucks?
> 
> Now THAT is the way to go out of business.
> ...


No not at all. Lease the receiver to me for a nominal fee (Perhaps $300 is nothing to some of you guys but it isn't to me) and then the two commit. I find both to be highway robbery. My local cable has no commitment period. I've been with D* for 9 years and hope I never have to go back to cable. I'm not sure what my local cable companies charge for boxes etc... Oh BTW I bought and installed my slimline myself because those D* installers didn't want to touch my tree problem. Do you get a kick back from D*? I've never seen some people so defensive of a company that could careless about you. If some don't have a problem with the current deal go enjoy yourself. I do so I will wait. D* will continue to do this as long as one is born every minute.:nono:


----------



## jpl (Jul 9, 2006)

Earl Bonovich said:


> Point of clarity:
> In no public statement was the actual manufacturing cost for the HR20 stated, before last weeks quarterly update....
> 
> It was stated that the price was ~$400 and they are working to lower that another $100... (not there yet, was the interpretation)..
> ...


For what its worth - I agree with everything you wrote here, Earl. It's true that, before last week, DirecTV wasn't up front with the price of the HR20. Given that, I find it a little irresponsible for the CSRs to tell me that the box cost over $1000 to make (or that the retail price as $1000, I honestly forget which).

You're also right that cable companies want you to use their boxes. It's better for them. That's why they're all fighthing these regulatory and legislative changes like crazy. But they're losing that fight.

And finally, you're correct about the issue with cable cards not allowing for things like VOD. That's certainly true of fios right now.

One thing that can be said, though, the increased competition, across the board, is a good thing. FiOS has caused Comcast to seem down-right reasonable with regard to pricing and service in this area lately. Ditto with the dish companies. I love the fact that DirecTV is pushing as hard as they are to be the technological leader - it just drives other companies to do the same. Which makes things better, and less expensive, for everyone.


----------



## igator99 (Jul 28, 2006)

"One thing that can be said, though, the increased competition, across the board, is a good thing. FiOS has caused Comcast to seem darn-right reasonable with regard to pricing and service in this area lately. Ditto with the dish companies. I love the fact that DirecTV is pushing as hard as they are to be the technological leader - it just drives other companies to do the same. Which makes things better, and less expensive, for everyone."

Truer words have never been spoken. Competition is our friend and the enemy of big corporations. Instead of spending millions on bringing out stars of the 80's telling us how D* will soon have more HD than anyone else they should be cutting their present customer better deals. As of right now I can get the same amount of HD programing through my cable company. When you get the new HD channels promote yourself as the leader of HD then jack up the prices for the new customers. Just my .2


----------



## Jhon69 (Mar 28, 2006)

igator99 said:


> "One thing that can be said, though, the increased competition, across the board, is a good thing. FiOS has caused Comcast to seem darn-right reasonable with regard to pricing and service in this area lately. Ditto with the dish companies. I love the fact that DirecTV is pushing as hard as they are to be the technological leader - it just drives other companies to do the same. Which makes things better, and less expensive, for everyone."
> 
> Truer words have never been spoken. Competition is our friend and the enemy of big corporations. Instead of spending millions on bringing out stars of the 80's telling us how D* will soon have more HD than anyone else they should be cutting their present customer better deals. As of right now I can get the same amount of HD programing through my cable company. When you get the new HD channels promote yourself as the leader of HD then jack up the prices for the new customers. Just my .2


They already do.Existing customers are "grandfathered"into their package making
it cheaper than new customers.I'm a existing customer and with a "special code" online was able to get a R15 plus installation Free with 2 year commitment.There are reports of "A" list customers getting the HR20 plus installation Free with 2 year
commitment.The deals are already there for the"A"list existing customer.


----------



## igator99 (Jul 28, 2006)

Jhon69 said:


> They already do.Existing customers are "grandfathered"into their package making
> it cheaper than new customers.I'm a existing customer and with a "special code" online was able to get a R15 plus installation Free with 2 year commitment.There are reports of "A" list customers getting the HR20 plus installation Free with 2 year
> commitment.The deals are already there for the"A"list existing customer.


I never heard of "A" list but I have heard of hearts and I'm a five heart customer.


----------



## jpl (Jul 9, 2006)

One quick follow-up to what I wrote in my last post. Many are out there right now probably saying "keeping prices down, what the heck is he talking about?! Has he seen my bill recently?" I wanted to address that preemptively. It's true that cable/satellite rates have risen pretty dramatically in recent years. That doesn't mean that prices still aren't being kept down. I've used this analogy before, but I think it's a valid one - the car industry. In the late 80's - early 90's car prices jumped dramatically every year. It made it seem, to the casual observer, that we were getting reamed by the car companies. The truth is that, yeah the prices were going up, but so were the things being put into those cars. We, as consumers, demanded many new features to be put into those cars, and the car companies complied. The thing is many like to have their cake and eat it too - and they fully expect that the car companies would have put those items in their cars with no additional expense to us. The justification for this view is that these companies have boatloads of cash. Well, some do. But the reason they do is because they know how to run a business. The profit margin on items like cars is really thin - they just sell LOTS of cars, so those thin profit margins all add up. As long as that margin is positive, the company is going to make money. When that margin edges into the red, even a tiny little bit, that's a problem. Multiply that loss by the number of cars sold, and you can see how quickly and deeply a company can go from black to red.

TV, in my opinion, is going through the same changes. In years past if you had cable coming to your area you got MAYBE 20 channels (including locals and premiums). You had exactly one choice - the cable company - for TV service. Today things are much different. There are now so many channels out there that no single provider on earth can carry them all. Yeah some are really niche channels, but that just means that each channel is very tailored to a select group of consumers. Not only that, but you've seen the advent of HD - I know alot of folks called 2006 the year of HD. I think that's crap. You're going to see alot more HD come on line in 2007 and 2008. I think THIS is the year of HD. You've also seen the advent of new technologies that improve the tv experience - VOD, DVR, PPV, just to name a couple TLAs (three-letter acronyms).

When you look at what you get, compared to what you used to get, and when you factor in inflation, tv has become a much better value than it used to be. You have to look at the whole picture. It's like when people look at the price at the pump and we hear gnashing of teeth of how driving has never been so expensive. Wrong! Yeah, gas is more expensive now than it's ever been, in total dollars per gallon. But the cost of DRIVING isn't anywhere near as expensive as it used to be, during the height of the oil "shortage" of the late 70's. Yeah gas is much more expensive, but you have inflation to consider. Also cars are a heck of alot more fuel efficient than they were - so you use a fraction of the gas going from point A to point B than you used to. Also cars are more "robust" - when an economy car can go 100,000 before you need a tune-up, that's a great cost savings to us - not just the savings from not having to pay for the tune-up, but the savings due to better gas mileage because your car runs at peak efficiency for a much longer period of time (it used to be that your car's performance would drop almost as soon as you drove it out of the garage - that's not the case anymore). Add to that the fact that the cost of ownership of a car has gone down, relative to the price of the car, and to inflation, and you get the idea. When you look at the whole picture, driving is cheap compared to what it was 30 years ago. Ditto for tv - when you look at the whole picture, tv is cheaper than it was 30 years ago.

One thing I'm happy to see, however - DirecTV is not resting on its laurels. That would be bad. They do, in my opinion, have a touch of arrogance about them these days that I didn't see 5 years ago. As in "go ahead... go to cable... you'll be back..." There's a danger in that attitude - it can make a company complacent. And complacency will kill you in the business world. Using another quick example - the watch industry. At one time the Swiss were the premier watch makers of the world - they had the best time pieces, and they owned the watch market. Then along comes quartz technology and it crushes the Swiss watch industry. The reason is that you could develop a cheap watch that was more accurate than the best Swiss watches. The grand irony of it all is the fact that it was the Swiss who developed quartz technology. When the developed it they thought "we don't need this... we're top dog in the watch industry." Along comes the US and Japan (well companies in both countries) that asked for, and got, the rights to that technology. The Swiss just gave it away figuring that they were the king of the hill. They didn't understand what they had. And by having that arrogance of "we'll give this technology to you - we're the best... we don't need it... you can't touch us" the entire Swiss watch industry nearly disappeared - only keeping a handful of luxury watch makers around - until finally Swatch comes along and gets back in the game using... yep, quartz.

I see a tiny bit of that in DirecTV these days. Hopefully that attitude won't metastisize into something fatal.


----------



## bonscott87 (Jan 21, 2003)

igator99 said:


> No not at all. Lease the receiver to me for a nominal fee (Perhaps $300 is nothing to some of you guys but it isn't to me) and then the two commit. I find both to be highway robbery. My local cable has no commitment period. I've been with D* for 9 years and hope I never have to go back to cable. I'm not sure what my local cable companies charge for boxes etc... Oh BTW I bought and installed my slimline myself because those D* installers didn't want to touch my tree problem. Do you get a kick back from D*? I've never seen some people so defensive of a company that could careless about you. If some don't have a problem with the current deal go enjoy yourself. I do so I will wait. D* will continue to do this as long as one is born every minute.:nono:


Look. I'm not defending anything. Just pointing out the facts for people that just won't do the math and just think that leasing is the worst thing in the world without thinking about it for a minute.

For *ME* it's cheaper to go with DirecTV, even with a $300 up front fee. If you'd do the math you'd also see it's probably cheaper for you as well. If it wasn't cheaper then I'd be looking at other options. I do the math every year and so far, for the past 11 years, DirecTV is cheaper. Maybe someday they won't be.

That simple really. So I'm a defender for pointing out facts and doing the math to prove that you *aren't* getting bent over? If so then I guess I'm a defender.

But if you don't want to pay that up front then I guess you're going back to cable unless you can get a better deal from D*.

Good luck!

P.S. You might want to read the fine print on the big introductory cable offer, many of them in fact *do* have a commitment. Not saying that yours does, but many do.


----------



## AlbertZeroK (Jan 28, 2006)

JLucPicard said:


> The monthly $5 fee is to send your account's programming to the box. You would be paying the same $5 fee per month if you had a receiver that you own on your account. It's a programming cost, not an equipment cost.


It's billed as a "Lease" fee. Not a Mirror fee.

Personally, I think people are in the habit of "purchasing" equipment from best buy. Best buy should show two prices, something that would get your attention. But honestly, Best Buy reps are idiots, and that can be held against DirecTV. The FCC did the same thing for the do not call list violations.


----------



## JLucPicard (Apr 27, 2004)

AlbertZeroK said:


> It's billed as a "Lease" fee. Not a Mirror fee.
> 
> Personally, I think people are in the habit of "purchasing" equipment from best buy. Best buy should show two prices, something that would get your attention. But honestly, Best Buy reps are idiots, and that can be held against DirecTV. The FCC did the same thing for the do not call list violations.


And the last time I said it was unfortunate that D* called this a "lease fee" because it really isn't (it's a mirroring fee), I got taken to task for that. To each his own, I guess. If I'm paying the same fee on owned and leased equipment, it to me is not an equipment cost, it's a programming cost - call it whatever you want.

And by the way, the $4.99 a month fee for owned receivers isn't called a mirroring fee anymore either.


----------



## jpl (Jul 9, 2006)

JLucPicard said:


> And the last time I said it was unfortunate that D* called this a "lease fee" because it really isn't (it's a mirroring fee), I got taken to task for that. To each his own, I guess. If I'm paying the same fee on owned and leased equipment, it to me is not an equipment cost, it's a programming cost - call it whatever you want.
> 
> And by the way, the $4.99 a month fee for owned receivers isn't called a mirroring fee anymore either.


I agree with you. I think DirecTV is trying to make the switch to a leasing paradigm - they want to model what other providers do - but I don't think they did it completely... I also think that the changing of the term to "lease fee" wasn't quite correct. It gives you the impression that, if you owned the equipment, you wouldn't be liable for paying that extra $5/month. And not just from stuff you get at BB - say I decide "I really want to own the equipment - I'd rather pay a bigger up front fee, rather than pay anything extra per month... so I'm going to just buy the equipment outright instead of leasing it." If I didn't know better, I'd get mighty ticked off when the first bill came and I saw that extra fee on my bill.

I believe ardently that consumers have an obligation to know what they're getting into. With the laws the way they are, and with some juries giving out awards like water, most companies have big legal teams and they take this type of communication VERY seriously. Giving a false impression can lead to all sorts of legal troubles for a company. So most companies cover their butts and ensure that you're made aware of their policies. DirecTV does itself no favors by muddying the waters like this. They could have very easily retained the term "mirroring fee" even for leased equipment, and it would help alleviate some confusion.

Still, in the law there is a "reasonable person" standard that gets applied to these things (no, I'm no lawyer - but it was one of the, very few, things I remember from my business law class in college). When it comes to contractural agreements, a jury is asked to apply this standard, asking "what would a reasonable person assume with regard to this arrangement?" For example, go to a restaurant. Say you go to a really nice one - there are no prices anywhere on the menu. Say you eat and then you go to leave without paying. When the restaurant sues you for the considerable cost of the bill you argue that there was no contractural agreement - there were no prices, hence you assumed that the food was free (prices automatically creates an implied contractural agreement). Would you get away with it? No, you wouldn't. The reason is that standard. Is it reasonable to assume that the food was free? No. The question here is, "was it reasonable for this customer to assume that he was purchasing the equipment?" I don't think the answer is that obvious - it all depends on how it was presented to him. It would certainly be reasonable to assume that you buy something when you go to a place like BB - vs. leasing it. If that wasn't clearly spelled out to that customer, then he may well win this. That's why I said, way back to a much earlier post, that this case has merit in my opinion. Then again, I don't know all the mitigating circumstances - that's for the jury to decide, I guess.

All that being said, I have a real hard time seeing how DirecTV is liable here. I think they were just added to the lawsuit so the litigant can cover his bases.


----------



## Jhon69 (Mar 28, 2006)

igator99 said:


> I never heard of "A" list but I have heard of hearts and I'm a five heart customer.


If you are and you have not done a upgrade in 6 months.Suggest you talk to Retention about receiving a better deal on a HR20.


----------



## Diana C (Mar 30, 2007)

AlbertZeroK said:


> It's billed as a "Lease" fee. Not a Mirror fee...


Couldn't tell that from my bill.

I have one HR20 and 4 SD DirecTiVos that I purchased before DirecTV ever even talked about going to a lease model. One of those DirecTiVos is my "primary" receiver. On my bill I have the monthly package fee, the HD access fee, and 4 "Additional Receiver" fees. No discrimination on the bill between "mirror fee" and "lease fee."


----------



## igator99 (Jul 28, 2006)

bonscott87 said:


> Look. I'm not defending anything. Just pointing out the facts for people that just won't do the math and just think that leasing is the worst thing in the world without thinking about it for a minute.
> 
> For *ME* it's cheaper to go with DirecTV, even with a $300 up front fee. If you'd do the math you'd also see it's probably cheaper for you as well. If it wasn't cheaper then I'd be looking at other options. I do the math every year and so far, for the past 11 years, DirecTV is cheaper. Maybe someday they won't be.
> 
> ...


Read what I said about going back to cable. I can do math but what you don't understand I think the current D* deal is a rip off. $300 is way to much on something you don't own. If I do the deal and sign up for two years and then drop them they will lease it out to another sucker for $300. If they are lucky then six years from now the can still lease it out making a nice profit of the box not counting the "mirroring fees". Good for D* bad for me. As far as cable I believe local company does smack you after a certain period. Cable has always been the biggest thieves. I always thought D* was fair. I don't think this is a fair offer.


----------



## Ext 721 (Feb 26, 2007)

igator99 said:


> "One thing that can be said, though, the increased competition, across the board, is a good thing. FiOS has caused Comcast to seem darn-right reasonable with regard to pricing and service in this area lately. Ditto with the dish companies. I love the fact that DirecTV is pushing as hard as they are to be the technological leader - it just drives other companies to do the same. Which makes things better, and less expensive, for everyone."
> 
> Truer words have never been spoken. Competition is our friend and the enemy of big corporations. Instead of spending millions on bringing out stars of the 80's telling us how D* will soon have more HD than anyone else they should be cutting their present customer better deals. As of right now I can get the same amount of HD programing through my cable company. When you get the new HD channels promote yourself as the leader of HD then jack up the prices for the new customers. Just my .2


Lower hanging fruit. if D* had 30% or so of the upper-tier pay-tv market, they'd need to shift focus to retention. Until that point, it makes more sense to gain 2-3 for every one you lose...than keep the one for the same cost.

my numbers are not hard-fast on that...but in essence, so long as the best way to grow is to attract new customers, they'll keep a focus on that. As it is, they seem to be no longer looking for low-rent customers.


----------



## Ext 721 (Feb 26, 2007)

igator99 said:


> Read what I said about going back to cable. I can do math but what you don't understand I think the current D* deal is a rip off. $300 is way to much on something you don't own. If I do the deal and sign up for two years and then drop them they will lease it out to another sucker for $300. If they are lucky then six years from now the can still lease it out making a nice profit of the box not counting the "mirroring fees". Good for D* bad for me. As far as cable I believe local company does smack you after a certain period. Cable has always been the biggest thieves. I always thought D* was fair. I don't think this is a fair offer.


six years? you expect the box to be non-obsolete in six years?

wow.


----------



## igator99 (Jul 28, 2006)

Ext 721 said:


> six years? you expect the box to be non-obsolete in six years?
> 
> wow.


notice I said lucky enough. I would expect the box the obsolete in six years but you never know. Remember when you had to buy a computer every year? 286, 386, 486, Pentium I, Pentium II, Pentium III and Pentium IV ring a bell. I've had my Pentium IV now for about five years and I can still run the latest software.

BTW I called D* retention and they were willing to give me the HR20 for $200 and the two year commitment. Still a bit to much for me. I guess it is the double whammy of the two years and the high up front cost. I will say that I love the way D* is willing to offer old customers a deal. Just try that with a cable company.:lol:


----------



## igator99 (Jul 28, 2006)

Ext 721 said:


> Lower hanging fruit. if D* had 30% or so of the upper-tier pay-tv market, they'd need to shift focus to retention. Until that point, it makes more sense to gain 2-3 for every one you lose...than keep the one for the same cost.
> 
> my numbers are not hard-fast on that...but in essence, so long as the best way to grow is to attract new customers, they'll keep a focus on that. As it is, they seem to be no longer looking for low-rent customers.


Actually that is the way it seems all business is today. They will give a new customer the store and all. The consumer is better served by switching services as soon as their contract is up (look at the cell phone industry). I love the way D* is willing to give deals to old loyal customers.


----------



## Upstream (Jul 4, 2006)

igator99 said:


> Actually that is the way it seems all business is today. They will give a new customer the store and all. The consumer is better served by switching services as soon as their contract is up (look at the cell phone industry). I love the way D* is willing to give deals to old loyal customers.


The cell phone industy (at least my cell phone company: Verizon) has been offering deals to existing customers for years to keep them from switching. One of the deals I like is they give you a new phone for free every two years (or a significant discount on more expensive phones).

It is good that DTV has caught on to this. It used to be that you had to call retention and threaten to quit, then they would give you a deal similar to what they give new subscribers.


----------



## JLucPicard (Apr 27, 2004)

Upstream said:


> One of the deals I like is they give you a new phone for free every two years (or a significant discount on more expensive phones).


That's not a bad deal, but also locks you into a new 2 year commitment. My current phone is three years old because I'm just not so sure I want to re-up with them. On the other hand, I have no intentions of leaving D* any time soon, so their commitment doesn't really bother me.


----------



## Diana C (Mar 30, 2007)

igator99 said:


> Read what I said about going back to cable. I can do math but what you don't understand I think the current D* deal is a rip off. $300 is way to much on something you don't own. If I do the deal and sign up for two years and then drop them they will lease it out to another sucker for $300. If they are lucky then six years from now the can still lease it out making a nice profit of the box not counting the "mirroring fees". Good for D* bad for me. As far as cable I believe local company does smack you after a certain period. Cable has always been the biggest thieves. I always thought D* was fair. I don't think this is a fair offer.


So your objection is that you think DirecTV is making too much money on the hardware?

But you have less objection to the cable company charging an extra monthly fee for the HD-DVR?

My cable company charges $14.99 per month for the "privledge" of using their HD-DVR. Just considering the difference between that and the DirecTV fee, the break-even point for most people is 20 months (most people can get the HR20 for $200 if you pay your bill on time).

So, if you cancel cable after 24 months, you've paid them MORE than you have paid DirecTV, you STILL need to give them back the DVR, and they STILL will give that DVR to someone else and start over with them.

Where is the difference? What is worse about DirecTV's approach?


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

And the starter of this thread is still laughing at all of this...


----------



## islesfan (Oct 18, 2006)

I'm a bottom line kind of person, so I have one question. Why does it matter? I mean, I bought my phones from Sprint, but if I switch companies, while I don't have to return the phones, I can't use them for anything, so I thriw them out. If I quit DirecTV, what am I going to use the HR20 fo anyway? So, OK, I might be able to sell it on EBAY, but not without the access card, and I'm not risking letting that thing go. So, I get a DVR at below cost, but I don't actually get to keep it past my time with D*? I don't pay a monthly lease fee, and I'd have to pay the DVR fee even if I owned the DVR, so what is the complaint?

In this lawsuit, what could the damages possibly be?


----------



## jpl (Jul 9, 2006)

islesfan said:


> In this lawsuit, what could the damages possibly be?


I haven't read the article, but one guess could be the early termination fee. You go to BB, "buy" (or think you're buying) the HR20. For whatever reason you decide you don't like it... so you go to return it. You find out that BB won't take the box back - so you go to DirecTV to do it.

At this point you're out $300 for the box, and oh yeah, you owe 2-years worth of early termination fee. And there are other expenses that the customer could have incurred. For example - the dish, and possibly a dish antenna, and any other hardware that he may have bought just to get the dish set-up. If he was totally new, he probably paid BB to install the dish too. That could run another $100 - $200 (or more if the install was particularly "fun"). Plus there are other losses that could have been incurred - for example if he came from another service that charged him an early termination fee. And depending on how the dish was installed, it may cost him to go back to whatever service he had before (e.g. say the customer had cable... he gets the dish... the installer decides to just reuse the cable from his old service as one of the cables coming from the dish... now if he wants to go back to cable, he pays to get the cable rerun).

There are lots of (monetary) damages that the customer could have incurred as a result of the transaction. And if he spent an inordinant amount of time trying to get this resolved, he could have issues like loss of income due to having to deal with this. If he was told that he was buying the box (not that the information was withheld, but that he was actively told that he was being sold the box), then it would be reasonable to assume that normal BB return policies are in effect.

I'll still go back to what I said way earlier on - I believe the consumer has an obligation to know what he's getting into - as far as is reasonable. If he gets taken for a ride, however, I have no problem with going after unscrupulous vendors. If the salesman intentionally misrepresented what this customer was getting, then I have no issue with him going after BB (also like I said, I don't see where directv fits into all of this, except to cover the bases of the litigant in the case). If it was a case that the customer just didn't read the contract that he signed, in that case this lawsuit has no merit, in my opinion. Again, I haven't read the article, but I can come up with a couple thousand dollars worth of hypothetical damages that the consumer could have incurred.


----------



## jpl (Jul 9, 2006)

Titan25 said:


> So your objection is that you think DirecTV is making too much money on the hardware?
> 
> But you have less objection to the cable company charging an extra monthly fee for the HD-DVR?
> 
> ...


That's all true - it really comes down to what you want. If you expect to keep a receiver for more than 2 years, then yes DirecTV's approach makes more sense for you. If you don't then cable's approach makes more sense (or at least it makes more sense to pay a lease fee per month). Based on my history, that's a bit of a crap-shoot. Of all the DirecTV receivers I've had, I kept 2 for more than 2 years - a standard receiver (which I kept for over 4 years), and my directivo, which I had for 2 1/2. The rest I've kept for less than that (1 standard receiver I kept for 1 1/2 years, and both of my R15s I kept for less than a year).

They're really just different means of financing. It's like getting a car. Is it better to buy or lease? Well, that depends on what you want, and what you plan to do. If you're the kind of person who trades in his car every 2 - 3 years, and you drive less than 12,000 miles a year, well then leasing makes sense. If you're like me and you keep your cars until they turn to dust, then it doesn't make sense.

Ditto for when you buy a house. Do you put points down or not? It depends on how long you anticipate living in that house. Do you go with a fixed rate mortgage or an ARM? Again, depends on what you anticipate. Make the right call and you make out in the deal. Make the wrong call and it costs you more money in the end. If I buy my dream house, and anticipate being there til I die, then it makes sense to get as many points as I can afford to get my interest rate down. But say I do that... but 2 years later I have to relocate due to work... well, at that point I made the wrong call - I anticipated incorrectly - and it's just cost me a lot more money to get the reduced interest rate on the loan.

All of this is no different. Which is better? It all depends on what you want.


----------



## bto4wd (Apr 17, 2007)

islesfan said:


> I'm a bottom line kind of person, so I have one question. Why does it matter? I mean, I bought my phones from Sprint, but if I switch companies, while I don't have to return the phones, I can't use them for anything, so I thriw them out. If I quit DirecTV, what am I going to use the HR20 fo anyway? So, OK, I might be able to sell it on EBAY, but not without the access card, and I'm not risking letting that thing go. So, I get a DVR at below cost, but I don't actually get to keep it past my time with D*? I don't pay a monthly lease fee, and I'd have to pay the DVR fee even if I owned the DVR, so what is the complaint?
> 
> In this lawsuit, what could the damages possibly be?


But you can sell your phones. I got a Treo 700p a year ago (Verizon). Just upgraded to a BlackBerry. Sold the Treo for $200. That at least made up for some of the $399 I paid for it. But since I owned it I could sell it to anyone.

New access card from D* costs the buyer $20. So if you did own your HR20 for the $300 you put down on it, would could recoup some of that cost. That's why it matters.


----------



## carl6 (Nov 16, 2005)

jpl said:


> ... If you expect to keep a receiver for more than 2 years, then yes DirecTV's approach makes more sense for you. ... Of all the DirecTV receivers I've had, I kept 2 for more than 2 years ...


The requirement isn't to keep that receiver active for one (or two) years, it is to keep your account active. It sounds like you have done that, so it is not relavent that you add and remove individual receivers more frequently.

Carl


----------



## igator99 (Jul 28, 2006)

carl6 said:


> The requirement isn't to keep that receiver active for one (or two) years, it is to keep your account active. It sounds like you have done that, so it is not relavent that you add and remove individual receivers more frequently.
> 
> Carl


We need the sat to launch on 6/20. We are running out of things to talk about :new_sleep . If you like the deal and works for you jump on it. If not wait because tech always comes down on price.


----------



## dhaakenson (Jan 14, 2007)

jpl said:


> I haven't read the article, but one guess could be the early termination fee. You go to BB, "buy" (or think you're buying) the HR20. For whatever reason you decide you don't like it... so you go to return it. You find out that BB won't take the box back - so you go to DirecTV to do it.
> 
> At this point you're out $300 for the box, and oh yeah, you owe 2-years worth of early termination fee. And there are other expenses that the customer could have incurred. For example - the dish, and possibly a dish antenna, and any other hardware that he may have bought just to get the dish set-up. If he was totally new, he probably paid BB to install the dish too. That could run another $100 - $200 (or more if the install was particularly "fun"). Plus there are other losses that could have been incurred - for example if he came from another service that charged him an early termination fee. And depending on how the dish was installed, it may cost him to go back to whatever service he had before (e.g. say the customer had cable... he gets the dish... the installer decides to just reuse the cable from his old service as one of the cables coming from the dish... now if he wants to go back to cable, he pays to get the cable rerun).
> 
> ...


Excellent summary.


----------



## igator99 (Jul 28, 2006)

dhaakenson said:


> Excellent summary.


Go for the new tech as soon as available.
http://www.gamepro.com/gamepro/domestic/games/features/111823.shtml
:lol:


----------



## jpl (Jul 9, 2006)

carl6 said:


> The requirement isn't to keep that receiver active for one (or two) years, it is to keep your account active. It sounds like you have done that, so it is not relavent that you add and remove individual receivers more frequently.
> 
> Carl


I understand what you're saying, but I disagree with your conclusion. It is relavent. When I got my first R15, e.g., I paid $100 for it. That's an upfront fee that I paid even though it was the 4th receiver I'd gotten, and I was a customer for 4 years at that point. It also extended my contract for 2 years (that contract is something that everyone seems to forget in this whole receiver cost equation, btw). Adding receivers is very relavent to the equation - even if I traded one for another. When I activated that R15, I deactivated another receiver (the tivo that died). Doing so, however, didn't mean that the up-front payment was any less.

If I were to get the HR20 I'd still be paying $300 for it. How is that not relevant?


----------



## igator99 (Jul 28, 2006)

jpl said:


> I understand what you're saying, but I disagree with your conclusion. It is relavent. When I got my first R15, e.g., I paid $100 for it. That's an upfront fee that I paid even though it was the 4th receiver I'd gotten, and I was a customer for 4 years at that point. It also extended my contract for 2 years (that contract is something that everyone seems to forget in this whole receiver cost equation, btw). Adding receivers is very relavent to the equation - even if I traded one for another. When I activated that R15, I deactivated another receiver (the tivo that died). Doing so, however, didn't mean that the up-front payment was any less.
> 
> If I were to get the HR20 I'd still be paying $300 for it. How is that not relevant?


The commit is more of a turn off than the price. I'm battling trees and who knows what will happen in two years. I want D* forever but I might get treed out. 300 and another two years just isn't a good deal for me. You guys with ultra clear lines of sights and the money go for it and enjoy.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

igator99 said:


> The commit is more of a turn off than the price. I'm battling trees and who knows what will happen in two years. I want D* forever but I might get treed out. 300 and another two years just isn't a good deal for me. You guys with ultra clear lines of sights and the money go for it and enjoy.


Trees were my big question too, so I asked.
What happens when the trees block my signal is: I need to have a tech come out & verify that I can no longer get D* service, then I will be let out of the commitment without penalty [other than the service call].
Along the way they gave me the HR-20 for free too, as I've been with them for some time & have some extra movie packages.


----------



## PoitNarf (Aug 19, 2006)

veryoldschool said:


> Trees were my big question too, so I asked.
> What happens when the trees block my signal is: I need to have a tech come out & verify that I can no longer get D* service, then I will be let out of the commitment without penalty [other than the service call].


And if the tech that they send is able to find another position for the dish where the trees won't be an issue?


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

PoitNarf said:


> And if the tech that they send is able to find another position for the dish where the trees won't be an issue?


Then they'd install it there & I'd still have service.
In my case there isn't another place & the trees are across the street on the hill, so they can't be cut down or pruned.


----------



## igator99 (Jul 28, 2006)

veryoldschool said:


> Trees were my big question too, so I asked.
> What happens when the trees block my signal is: I need to have a tech come out & verify that I can no longer get D* service, then I will be let out of the commitment without penalty [other than the service call].
> Along the way they gave me the HR-20 for free too, as I've been with them for some time & have some extra movie packages.


I've got a bunch of different answers from different CSR's. One told me not to upgrade but most said if I truly couldn't get the service then they would let me out.


----------



## jpl (Jul 9, 2006)

igator99 said:


> The commit is more of a turn off than the price.


Yeah - that commitment is something, like I said, that everyone seems to forget to factor into the whole cost equation. You're guaranteeing DirecTV your patronage for a period of time. DirecTV isn't the only company, obviously, that does this. But it does need to be factored in. With DirecTV, as with many cell phone companies, you don't have a choice in the matter. You make up the cost of the receiver by paying some up front, and keeping your service for a period of time. With cable, you do have a choice. When I went with FiOS I was given the option - take the one-year commitment and I would save $5/month off my bill for the year, but I would be liable for a $100 early termination fee... or don't take the commitment, and pay the full price on the service. Or take the triple-play, and save even more every month (for me it was $27/month) for 2 years, but you're locked in for 2 years with $150 early termination fee. But it was my choice. With DirecTV, the commitment period is required because it's factored into the cost of that receiver that you're getting.

Granted, the math isn't consistent. If I get 2 receivers at the same time, my commitment period is the same as if I'd just gotten 1. Still it is a part of the equation that needs to be considered.


----------



## igator99 (Jul 28, 2006)

jpl said:


> Yeah - that commitment is something, like I said, that everyone seems to forget to factor into the whole cost equation. You're guaranteeing DirecTV your patronage for a period of time. DirecTV isn't the only company, obviously, that does this. But it does need to be factored in. With DirecTV, as with many cell phone companies, you don't have a choice in the matter. You make up the cost of the receiver by paying some up front, and keeping your service for a period of time. With cable, you do have a choice. When I went with FiOS I was given the option - take the one-year commitment and I would save $5/month off my bill for the year, but I would be liable for a $100 early termination fee... or don't take the commitment, and pay the full price on the service. Or take the triple-play, and save even more every month (for me it was $27/month) for 2 years, but you're locked in for 2 years with $150 early termination fee. But it was my choice. With DirecTV, the commitment period is required because it's factored into the cost of that receiver that you're getting.
> 
> Granted, the math isn't consistent. If I get 2 receivers at the same time, my commitment period is the same as if I'd just gotten 1. Still it is a part of the equation that needs to be considered.


The big difference with D* is what if you get treed in two years? What will they do? Some CSR's have said no penalty and others have said yes. FIOS and cable can get you the service.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

igator99 said:


> Some CSR's have said no penalty and others have said yes.


This is nothing new with most CSRs even from other companies.
Cable & FIOS, I'm sure have their "ups & downs" too. 
Pick your poison.


----------



## jpl (Jul 9, 2006)

veryoldschool said:


> This is nothing new with most CSRs even from other companies.
> Cable & FIOS, I'm sure have their "ups & downs" too.
> Pick your poison.


Absolutely agree. No company is perfect. All of them focus on different things... and all of them cut corners in different ways. For what its worth I haven't found much different in DirecTV's CSRs and FiOS's. I always thought that DirecTV had excellent customer service (some may disagree), and that was a concern of mine when I switched. But I found Verizon's customer service to be on par. There is one key difference that I found between the two, which gives DirecTV a slight advantage on this front - at least in my experience. DirecTV gives its CSRs a little more flexibility in resolving issues. Verizon tends to do more of "we need to follow the script" when resolving issues. I had pixellation on my VOD service. VOD is handled via the router that they give you. I also had pixellation on my second TV when watching recorded content from my multiroom DVR (that is, the multiroom DVR feeds out to my second TV, and when watching stuff on that second TV the picture was pixellating). The multiroom DVR feed is also handled via the router. The rest of my service was fine. When I called I said "it HAS to be the coax connecting my router to my cable splitter." Some of their CSRs agreed, but had to go through a bunch of different steps before we got to that point.


----------

