# Rude Response to AMC HD Inquiry



## chanie (Apr 10, 2011)

I've been a DirecTV subscriber for almost two years. I've been a Mad Men, Walking Dead, and Breaking Bad fan for a little bit less. Needless to say, after I discovered the programming on AMC, I was soon disappointed that these shows can't be watched in high definition because DirecTV doesn't carry AMC HD.

But like I said, I've been a subscriber for almost two years, which means that my 24 month commitment is almost up. So I wrote to DirecTV to let them know that the absence of AMC HD would affect whether I decided to look for a new service provider.

What do I get in response? Does the rep immediately address my question? No. Instead, they lead with the accusation that my agreement ends in late 2012. Essentially they're saying "you're not going anywhere buddy, so take your AMC standard def and be happy with it."

Now my first thought was that I made a mistake. Maybe I had renewed something last year and forgotten about it? So I called the 800 number and asked when my commitment is up. Just as I thought, it's up in just under two months.

Armed with the confident knowledge that my agreement is expiring soon and not in over a year, I go back and reread the email from the rep. And now its really starting to get to me. I mean the nerve here! Bringing up my contract first as if to call a bluff. And to be flat wrong on top of it! Unbelievable! I'm a customer. Address my concern, don't dangle some contract over my head. And if you're going to level accusations about contracts, then at least have your facts straight first!

DirecTV is more interested in bullying customers than addressing concerns. But unlike most customers, this one isn't contractually stuck with DirecTV for another year or more. It's time I started shopping for a service provider with two key features that DirecTV lacks: 1) decent customer service; and 2) AMC HD.


----------



## Davenlr (Sep 16, 2006)

Probably will be easier to find one that has AMC HD (like any of em except DirecTv) than it will be to find good customer service. Good luck in your pursuit. Dont know what your choices are, but I have not had any customer service issues with mine.


----------



## SPACEMAKER (Dec 11, 2007)

Isn't it great that we can choose our TV providers? Hopefully you'll be happier with your new provider.


----------



## dcowboy7 (May 23, 2008)

The peeps on the fios site always rag on how bad the pic is on amchd.

Something to do with the owner rainbow media jamming all their 4 stations on 1 "line" making the pic hideous.

"The killing" avg only a 9 mbps bitrate....ugg.

So yes its better than SD but still no great shakes....mmmm chocolate shake.


----------



## sigma1914 (Sep 5, 2006)

dcowboy7 said:


> The peeps on the fios site always rag on how bad the pic is on amchd.
> 
> Something to do with the owner rainbow media jamming all their 4 stations on 1 "line" making the pic hideous.
> 
> ...


I watched a copy of The Killing ripped from AMCHD & it was a macroblocky mess.


----------



## Nick (Apr 23, 2002)

chanie said:


> ...It's time I started shopping for a service provider with two key features that DirecTV lacks: 1) decent customer service; and 2) AMC HD.





> I watched a copy of The Killing ripped from AMCHD & it was a macroblocky mess.





> The peeps on the fios site always rag on how bad the pic is on amchd.


AMC HD looks very good on my display. I'm watching _'The Bone Collector'_ right now, and the 1080i PQ is excellent. Comcast is my provider.


----------



## say-what (Dec 14, 2006)

To the OP, I don't know why you'd be offended by DirecTV bringing up your commitment (whether they had the right term or not), you started it when you said you "let them know that the absence of AMC HD would affect whether I decided to look for a new service provider"

Regardless - until there is a signed transmission agreement, DirecTV is not going to give you an answer other than the standard thank you for your interest in this channel, we get many requests.....blah, blah, blah.

In any event, if AMCHD is that important to you , then by all means, shop around if it's not on DirecTV when your commitment expires.


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

My customer service experience over the last ten years has been pleasant. I don't contact them a lot, I do have a very premium service from them (read: I pay a lot), and I do use the web site to learn all I can- and did so before I found this fabulous site. 

Yeah, I'd like AMC in HD, but it's not a deal breaker for me.

Good luck!


----------



## SPACEMAKER (Dec 11, 2007)

Hit and run.


----------



## Noresults (Aug 25, 2007)

I don't think you will have any trouble finding better customer service. What could be worse?


----------



## 1980ws (Mar 18, 2008)

SPACEMAKER said:


> Hit and run.


Yep. Drive By Poster.


----------



## TBlazer07 (Feb 5, 2009)

I just get the HD version off of usenet. 2gigs and 12 minutes later I'm watching. They are available usually within 12 hours and mostly in 1080i w/5.1 and with no commercials to have to skip through (talk about lazy!). Madmen (ergo AMC) is the only thing I miss in my DirecTV "experience." Hopefully DirecTV will soon have AMC HD. Until then there are always ways to find what you're missing.


----------



## carlsbad_bolt_fan (May 18, 2004)

SPACEMAKER said:


> Hit and run.


^^^^^^THIS^^^^^^

Amazing how the OP didn't even post the email.

Hmm...

In looking at his post again all it says is it "I wrote to DirecTV to let them know that the absence of AMC HD would affect whether I decided to look for a new service provider." Email? Letter? Fax?

Ah well. AMC HD is probably coming this year anyway.


----------



## cjrleimer (Nov 17, 2004)

This guy probably will be happy once the reruns are on Netflix instant http://www.dispatch.com/live/content/life/stories/2011/04/08/netflix-to-show-mad-men.html?sid=101


----------



## chanie (Apr 10, 2011)

When I corrected them on the end date, I received additional emails insisting I was wrong. They even attached a copy of a confirmation letter as supposed evidence. It was addressed to someone with my name but who lived on the other side of the country. The web service reps never asked for my account information, they just made an assumption, and in the process gave out the personal information of another subscriber. Poor form.

And in any event, the point stands. If a customer says they have a concern that may affect their decision to remain a customer, then the reps should politely attempt to address the concern. They shouldn't try to play a game of "gotcha." If they were right and I was stuck for another twenty months, they haven't made any friends. And in this case they were wrong, and almost certainly lost a customer. My wife was adamant they we just call back and cancel since the fee wouldn't be very high with less than two months on the commitment (I reminded her that we wouldn't be able to get the cable company out here on a Sunday night). 

The availability of AMC HD aside, on the whole it was just very bad customer service. :nono2:


----------



## spartanstew (Nov 16, 2005)

I'm not sure what you expected to begin with?

Did you think the CSR has the ability to get AMC in HD for you?

Did you think the CSR might have some inside information on when it will be available?

What were you trying to accomplish?


----------



## chanie (Apr 10, 2011)

spartanstew said:


> I'm not sure what you expected to begin with?
> 
> Did you think the CSR has the ability to get AMC in HD for you?
> 
> ...


How about "Thank you for expressing an interest in AMC HD. We value and appreciate feedback from our loyal customers. At this time, DirecTV does not carry AMC HD. We have no plans to do so, but may consider it in the future. [Or: We are in negotiations with Rainbow Media and hope to add the channel sometime this calendar year. Or whatever else is accurate.] We understand that this is a important issue to you, and that you have several options when choosing a television provider. We hope that the unavailability of this channel won't be a determinative factor in your decision whether to renew. If there is anything else we can do to persuade you to remain with DirecTV, please contact our customer service representatives at ###-###-####. Please reference this email exchange, No. ##-####-####."

Or how about anything that didn't start with "you're locked in for eighteen months, buddy, so take a long walk off a short pier."


----------



## Davenlr (Sep 16, 2006)

> Yep. Drive By Poster.


How come when someone with a concern, posts their concern on this forum, they are almost always attacked within the first page of the response? Very unhelpful and pointless. Perhaps trying to help the OP find a service provider that meets his needs would be a more constructive use of bandwidth?


----------



## The Merg (Jun 24, 2007)

spartanstew said:


> I'm not sure what you expected to begin with?
> 
> Did you think the CSR has the ability to get AMC in HD for you?
> 
> ...


It definitely sounds like the DirecTV CSR could have handled the situation a little better. A polite postive response is always better than a negative critical one.

- Merg


----------



## tcusta00 (Dec 31, 2007)

The Merg said:


> It definitely sounds like the DirecTV CSR could have handled the situation a little better. A polite postive response is always better than a negative critical one.
> 
> - Merg


Sure, but let's be real - sounds like the email to DIRECTV was dangling a bit of "I'm about to cancel unless..." rhetoric out there. Sure, the response he got was probably uncalled for, too, but this is a two way street. We're getting half (or none) of the story. I'd like to see the emails before pointing fingers at the OP or DIRECTV here. I'm guessing the response was "sorry sir, you're mistaken - your commitment isn't up until XX/XXXX so please don't think you can cancel until then without an ETF."

That's my guess.


----------



## sigma1914 (Sep 5, 2006)

chanie said:


> ...
> 
> Or how about anything that didn't start with "you're locked in for eighteen months, buddy, so take a long walk off a short pier."


That's not the reply you were given, so quit the exaggerating.


----------



## skatingrocker17 (Jun 24, 2010)

I really like DirecTV because their satellite boxes were so much better than Time Warner Cable's cable boxes. I'm not sure this is the case anymore and if DirecTV can't compete with the local cable companies HD line up by the time my contract is up, I'm going to be gone too.

I really like DirecTV but compared to the other services in MY area, the HD selection is lacking. In other areas DirecTV may be king but so far, no customer services complaints although I did have a hard time actually signing up.


----------



## armophob (Nov 13, 2006)

Davenlr said:


> How come when someone with a concern, posts their concern on this forum, they are almost always attacked within the first page of the response? Very unhelpful and pointless. Perhaps trying to help the OP find a service provider that meets his needs would be a more constructive use of bandwidth?


It is not the OP's fault. It is a over beaten frustration over the lack of HD on one of Directv's most popular channels. Each time it comes up there is a silent sigh, and then the poor newbie gets the brunt of it. 
I am one of the horse beaters on this topic, but the whining will never make it happen. I wish I knew if any if crying or bleeding would help, because threads and posts ain't doin it.


----------



## The Merg (Jun 24, 2007)

tcusta00 said:


> Sure, but let's be real - sounds like the email to DIRECTV was dangling a bit of "I'm about to cancel unless..." rhetoric out there. Sure, the response he got was probably uncalled for, too, but this is a two way street. We're getting half (or none) of the story. I'd like to see the emails before pointing fingers at the OP or DIRECTV here. I'm guessing the response was "sorry sir, you're mistaken - your commitment isn't up until XX/XXXX so please don't think you can cancel until then without an ETF."
> 
> That's my guess.


I don't disagree that without the full e-mail text from the OP and DirecTV we won't know the full story. However, the OP felt slighted by the response from DirecTV that harped on his commitment end date.

Hopefully, the OP will post both their e-mail and DirecTV's response in its entirety so we can see the full story.

- Merg


----------



## doctrsnoop (Nov 20, 2007)

"skatingrocker17" said:


> I really like DirecTV because their satellite boxes were so much better than Time Warner Cable's cable boxes. I'm not sure this is the case anymore and if DirecTV can't compete with the local cable companies HD line up by the time my contract is up, I'm going to be gone too.
> 
> I really like DirecTV but compared to the other services in MY area, the HD selection is lacking. In other areas DirecTV may be king but so far, no customer services complaints although I did have a hard time actually signing up.


A lot of new forum members come on and announce theyre quitting over a slight or perceived slight from the csr's. And I admit that there is a certain um inconsistency in quality you get there BUT the alternatives aren't necessarily better. To me the equipment and programming , that is the end product is so much better I suspect a lot of people who announce their grand exit here end up back on dtv minus a grand reentrance.


----------



## chanie (Apr 10, 2011)

The Merg said:


> I don't disagree that without the full e-mail text from the OP and DirecTV we won't know the full story. However, the OP felt slighted by the response from DirecTV that harped on his commitment end date.
> 
> Hopefully, the OP will post both their e-mail and DirecTV's response in its entirety so we can see the full story.
> 
> - Merg


I don't feel comfortable pasting the exact text of any of the emails because it could be used to identify me. It should suffice to say that my original email (via the DirecTV contact form) was polite and succinct. I said that I had been more or less happy with DirecTV during my commitment period, but that the absence of this particular channel was something that would affect my renewal decision. I wasn't abusive. I didn't make any threats. I simply stated my feelings.

In response, the rep opened with a canned line thanking me for my email. Then, before addressing the content of my email, proceeded to incorrectly inform me that my commitment period ended more than a year later than it actually did. I take issue with this for a number of reasons. First, it was not relevant to my concern: the availability of the channel. Second, it was not accurate. My commitment period is, in fact, ending soon. Third, I perceived it as aggressive and dismissive of my real concern. No, the response did not literally say "take a long walk off a short pier," but that is how I perceived it. And in the game of customer relations, the customer's perception is king.

After I made the original post, I corrected the rep via email that my commitment date was, in fact, ending soon. In response I received a follow-up message explaining that DirecTV discounts their equipment, etc, etc, and that is why I was committed longer. As evidence of this commitment, the rep attached a copy of a confirmation letter that had been sent to "me." As I previously related, this was a letter to another customer. In fact, the rep had been wrong all along about my commitment date. This follow-up email was trouble in at least two regards. First, the rep was continuing to argue about my commitment date. The availability of the channel and my satisfaction as a customer was clearly not the rep's priority. Instead, emphasizing to me that I was contractually committed (again, I wasn't) was paramount. Second, the rep sent me a copy of a letter with another customer's personal information. I find that appalling.

In summary, this post was not about whether DirecTV carries AMC HD but about customer service. I added the information about AMC because I thought it provided some context to the exchange. But the real objection I have is that DirecTV is quick to lord contracts over customers while ignoring their concerns. It makes me feel less like a customer and more like a hostage. Fortunately, I am not a customer that is stuck with DirecTV due to a long contract commitment. I can only imagine that my frustration would have been that much greater if I was.


----------



## armophob (Nov 13, 2006)

chanie said:


> It makes me feel less like a customer and more like a hostage. Fortunately, I am not a customer that is stuck with DirecTV due to a long contract commitment. I can only imagine my frustration would have been that much greater if I was.


It is the way of the world these days. There are countless threads you can search of CSR nightmares in every provider and for that matter every business.

If you want to give the effort though, you can also find some good reviews from people who contacted people who really cared and helped.

Big business has put the CSR into a machine assembly line process, and you get a personal experience occasionally that rubs you right or wrong no matter which company you deal with.


----------



## Davenlr (Sep 16, 2006)

armophob said:


> I am one of the horse beaters on this topic, but the whining will never make it happen. I wish I knew if any if crying or bleeding would help, because threads and posts ain't doin it.


No, I figure when a company gets as large as DirecTv, the only thing that helps is the money, which is why I suspended my account on the first of the month for 6 months. In 6 months, if they still have not added the channels, I will suspend it again for another 6 months. In the mean time, like Nick's post above, I am happily receiving all the channels from Comcast. In two years, following current price increase structure, it will again cost me more for Comcast than DirecTv was costing me (I am getting a new TV customer discount for the first year, and a guaranteed price for the second, no contract).

While I like, and own, my DirecTv HR24 and receivers, and love the technology, for me, it boiled down to lack of basic HD, and SD-LITE that looks no better than my old S-VHS tapes. If their SD was at least 640x480 with a little bandwidth, I could have stood watching it until the HD rolled around. MLBEI with blackouts/high price caused me to cancel that this year, and I havent been able to afford NFLST for three years now...that leaves basic channels as my prime interest. I didnt cancel my account, and wont unless they cancel it for me. I fully intend to restart my subscription when they add the channels I am missing. I just figured rather than whine, I would send my message with my lack of payment. I am sure they will understand that.

Either way it goes, the company with the channels/PQ gets my money.

Then tonight, I had to use my C band dish to watch The Kennedy's in HD because neither DirecTv or Comcast has Reelz in HD  Its never ending...


----------



## sigma1914 (Sep 5, 2006)

So...You wrote about AMCHD & that you'd consider leaving since you're almost out of contract. DirecTV tries informing you about your commitment date because they've been in trouble for this before and are trying to cover their butt. Unfortunately, they had your name but the wrong person. DirecTV took the right path to warn you about the contract had you've been the person the thought you were. They messed up...ok...errors occur. Are you perfect at your job?


----------



## DogLover (Mar 19, 2007)

Now that you know that they were looking at the wrong customer record, why don't you go review the email exchange. If you had been that customer and been mistaken about your commitment date, perhaps the email would seem helpful. Then again, perhaps it would still seem inappropriate. Effective written communication may be a skill that this person doesn't have. It's not a simple thing to communicate when 80% of the information (tone of voice and body language) is missing. 

In the end, you can assume that this interaction reflects the attitude of the entire customer service arm of the company, or you can decide that you interacted with an employee that doesn't have the skills to do the job effectively. Either way, you do have to choose the TV service that is right for your needs.

Sent from my iPad using DBSTalk


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

skatingrocker17 said:


> I really like DirecTV because their satellite boxes were so much better than Time Warner Cable's cable boxes. I'm not sure this is the case anymore and if DirecTV can't compete with the local cable companies HD line up by the time my contract is up, I'm going to be gone too.
> 
> I really like DirecTV but compared to the other services in MY area, the HD selection is lacking. In other areas DirecTV may be king but so far, no customer services complaints although I did have a hard time actually signing up.


Based on the boxes that Time Warner uses here, there is no comparison between the two. I've got more functionality in my HR20 than boxes TWC hands out.


----------



## scorpion43 (Mar 16, 2011)

sigma1914 said:


> So...You wrote about AMCHD & that you'd consider leaving since you're almost out of contract. DirecTV tries informing you about your commitment date because they've been in trouble for this before and are trying to cover their butt. Unfortunately, they had your name but the wrong person. DirecTV took the right path to warn you about the contract had you've been the person the thought you were. They messed up...ok...errors occur. Are you perfect at your job?


excuses, excuses


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

chanie said:


> I don't feel comfortable pasting the exact text of any of the emails because it could be used to identify me. << Snipped bits out >>


Here's the work around: Copy-paste an e-mail. Where your name appears, delete it and insert "customer" or "John Doe". Do similar for other identifying words, customer number, employee name/number......


----------



## tcusta00 (Dec 31, 2007)

I guess this is the response we're supposed to post:

I don't need to see the email, the OP is right no matter what it said! DIRECTV is so wrong and they're the worst company in the world. This is absurd and you were wronged!! Demand to be righted.


----------



## sigma1914 (Sep 5, 2006)

tcusta00 said:


> I guess this is the response we're supposed to post:
> 
> I don't need to see the email, the OP is right no matter what it said! DIRECTV is so wrong and they're the worst company in the world. This is absurd and you were wronged!! Demand to be righted.


Don't forget..."Email Ellen, you deserve compensation."


----------



## TEN89 (Jun 27, 2003)

chanie said:


> I don't feel comfortable pasting the exact text of any of the emails because it could be used to identify me. It should suffice to say that my original email (via the DirecTV contact form) was polite and succinct. I said that I had been more or less happy with DirecTV during my commitment period, but that the absence of this particular channel was something that would affect my renewal decision. I wasn't abusive. I didn't make any threats. I simply stated my feelings.
> 
> In response, the rep opened with a canned line thanking me for my email. Then, before addressing the content of my email, proceeded to incorrectly inform me that my commitment period ended more than a year later than it actually did. I take issue with this for a number of reasons. First, it was not relevant to my concern: the availability of the channel. Second, it was not accurate. My commitment period is, in fact, ending soon. Third, I perceived it as aggressive and dismissive of my real concern. No, the response did not literally say "take a long walk off a short pier," but that is how I perceived it. And in the game of customer relations, the customer's perception is king.
> 
> ...


 Just cut and paste and leave out the rest. from all your talk I haven't beleived anything you said. never had a problom with CSR


----------



## rbird (Apr 24, 2002)

Wow, you folks are brutal. I'm as big a DirecTV fan as any of you (ok, maybe not a few of you), and I've had MOSTLY good service from them. But it's obvious that OP was dealing with an obnoxious, incompetent CSR. There's no excuse for it (especially the follow-up with someone else's personal information attached). The OP has nothing to prove here, so lighten up.

Check my join date and my number of posts, contemplate the reason for the disparity, and re-evaluate your attitudes. This place has the potential to be great, but it's not living up to it.


----------



## sigma1914 (Sep 5, 2006)

rbird said:


> ... But it's obvious that OP was dealing with an obnoxious, incompetent CSR. There's no excuse for it (especially the follow-up with someone else's personal information attached). The OP has nothing to prove here, so lighten up.
> 
> ....


Obviously obnoxious how? We still don't have the full story.


----------



## HoTat2 (Nov 16, 2005)

TEN89 said:


> Just cut and paste and leave out the rest. from all your talk I haven't beleived anything you said. never had a problom with CSR


How does the OP really know that AMC HD is not coming sometime later this year given Satelliteracer's promise of more HD on the way for 2011?

Also as a DirecTV sub since '95, thankfully I have never had any problems with rudeness from a CSR. Just their general clulessness over how the technology works has been my only problem with first level customer support over the years.


----------



## spartanstew (Nov 16, 2005)

rbird said:


> (especially the follow-up with someone else's personal information attached).


Can you detail for us what personal information was included?


----------



## carlsbad_bolt_fan (May 18, 2004)

rbird said:


> Wow, you folks are brutal. I'm as big a DirecTV fan as any of you (ok, maybe not a few of you), and I've had MOSTLY good service from them. * But it's obvious that OP was dealing with an obnoxious, incompetent CSR.* There's no excuse for it (especially the follow-up with someone else's personal information attached). The OP has nothing to prove here, so lighten up.
> 
> Check my join date and my number of posts, contemplate the reason for the disparity, and re-evaluate your attitudes. This place has the potential to be great, but it's not living up to it.


Based on what? Just what the OP said? Really?


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

Perhaps we can all simmer down heah, heah? :lol: -and wait for the OP to post what was actually written......


----------



## TDK1044 (Apr 8, 2010)

Just another 'boo hoo' thread. It's simple, if D* isn't offering the channel you want in HD by the end of May (when we'll all know what new HD channels are up) then go and find another provider that does offer it. Next case, Inspector.


----------



## rbird (Apr 24, 2002)

I can tell the type of CSR because I've communicated with a dozen just like them. They fixate on on sentence in a conversation or email (in this case the one about "evaluating choice of providers") and ignore the rest. And then they respond to that with erroneous information. And then get defensive about it. I didn't catch any sort of similar attitude from the OP.

My point is that the OP is not a "drive-by poster" and that you all are doing nothing to make him/her want to return and post anything, much less something that might identify him.

That is all.

Edit: A prime example: the post directly above this one. Ask yourself if you would like one of your posts answered this way, especially your FIRST post.


----------



## tcusta00 (Dec 31, 2007)

"rbird" said:


> Wow, you folks are brutal. I'm as big a DirecTV fan as any of you (ok, maybe not a few of you), and I've had MOSTLY good service from them. But it's obvious that OP was dealing with an obnoxious, incompetent CSR. There's no excuse for it (especially the follow-up with someone else's personal information attached). The OP has nothing to prove here, so lighten up.
> 
> Check my join date and my number of posts, contemplate the reason for the disparity, and re-evaluate your attitudes. This place has the potential to be great, but it's not living up to it.


No you're right, we should jump on the "he got an obnoxious response" bandwagon without seeing the response. That's a reasoned approach to this situation. 

I don't care if he has 1 or 1000 posts... I'm not about to appease him with what he wants to hear. I'm a reasonable person so will give a reasoned response. if he wants us to judge whether the CSR was obnoxious and rude I'd like to see the email in question. Not an unreasonable request.


----------



## RobertE (Jun 10, 2006)

sigma1914 said:


> Don't forget..."Email Ellen, you deserve compensation."


You forgot the state AG, the US AG, the president, the UN, galactic senate, or anyone else that may care.


----------



## RobertE (Jun 10, 2006)

rbird said:


> I can tell the type of CSR because I've communicated with a dozen just like them. They fixate on on sentence in a conversation or email (in this case the one about "evaluating choice of providers") and ignore the rest. And then they respond to that with erroneous information. And then get defensive about it. I didn't catch any sort of similar attitude from the OP.
> 
> My point is that the OP is not a "drive-by poster" and that you all are doing nothing to make him/her want to return and post anything, much less something that might identify him.
> 
> ...


Posting and airing of grievances is one thing, and is encouraged. Often, when provided with more information (which the OP in this case has flat out refused), the problem can be resolved. You've been here long enough to know it takes several probes to get info out of the OP to actually get enough to help them.

One shouldn't get defensive when probed for more information. Whining like someone who has sand in a sensitive spot doesn't help the cause. Neither does expecting hugs, kisses and fluffy bunnies when posting a complaint on an enthusiast site.

To each their own though I guess.


----------



## rbird (Apr 24, 2002)

We can probably all agree that people mostly post to message boards (at least for the first time) when they have a problem or complaint.

My opinion is that those posts should not be answered with "Oh yeah? PROVE IT!" from not just one, but a dozen angry members. The original post is less than 24 hours old. There were two "get a new provider" and two "DR1V3-BY P05T3R!!1!!" posts within the first 4 hours. For all we know, the poster hasn't even had access to the relevant emails since then! He wouldn't be the first to post from work while the email sits at his home computer.

And if I've redirected any of the vitriol from the OP toward myself, then I've accomplished something for the day. I'm a big boy, I can take it.


----------



## raott (Nov 23, 2005)

RobertE said:


> Posting and airing of grievances is one thing, and is encouraged.


Actually, the posting and airing of grievances is met with getting hammered on by the same half dozen members. Let's not try and pretend it's not.

It's getting ridiculous.


----------



## rbird (Apr 24, 2002)

raott said:


> Actually, the posting and airing of grievances is met with getting hammered on by the same half dozen members. Let's not try and pretend it's not.
> 
> It's getting ridiculous.


You know, I've been a member here for 9 years. And it wasn't until today that I was discouraged enough by the place to inquire as to whether there was an ignore feature. Guess what, there is!

Still won't help the newbies, though.


----------



## mitchflorida (May 18, 2009)

I think it is dumb to threaten a Customer Rep with cancellation if he doesn't get you a certain channel "right away".


----------



## rbird (Apr 24, 2002)

mitchflorida said:


> I think it is dumb to threaten a Customer Rep with cancellation if he doesn't get you a certain channel "right away".


Show me where the original poster did this.


----------



## spartanstew (Nov 16, 2005)

rbird said:


> Show me where the original poster did this.


I think it was implied.

*So I wrote to DirecTV to let them know that the absence of AMC HD would affect whether I decided to look for a new service provider*


----------



## TDK1044 (Apr 8, 2010)

To me, it comes down to this....

The OP has been with D* for just under two years, and because one of the channels he watches is not in HD, he wants to let the company know that unless they change that situation before the end of his contract, he'll consider going to another provider.

Based on the OP's version of events, the reply he gets doesn't initially address his issue, but instead inaccurately informs him that his contract still has another year to run. I would be interested to know what the reply went on to say after that.....interesting that we don't get any sense of that.


----------



## rbird (Apr 24, 2002)

spartanstew said:


> I think it was implied.
> 
> *So I wrote to DirecTV to let them know that the absence of AMC HD would affect whether I decided to look for a new service provider*


He also said he would have accepted:


> How about "Thank you for expressing an interest in AMC HD. We value and appreciate feedback from our loyal customers. At this time, DirecTV does not carry AMC HD. We have no plans to do so, but may consider it in the future. [Or: We are in negotiations with Rainbow Media and hope to add the channel sometime this calendar year. Or whatever else is accurate.] We understand that this is a important issue to you, and that you have several options when choosing a television provider. We hope that the unavailability of this channel won't be a determinative factor in your decision whether to renew. If there is anything else we can do to persuade you to remain with DirecTV, please contact our customer service representatives at ###-###-####. Please reference this email exchange, No. ##-####-####."


 He got none of the above, just a CSR spouting incorrect information and sending other customers' personal information back to him.



TDK1044 said:


> To me, it comes down to this....
> 
> The OP has been with D* for just under two years, and because one of the channels he watches is not in HD, he wants to let the company know that unless they change that situation before the end of his contract, he'll consider going to another provider.
> 
> Based on the OP's version of events, the reply he gets doesn't initially address his issue, but instead inaccurately informs him that his contract still has another year to run. I would be interested to know what the reply went on to say after that.....interesting that we don't get any sense of that.


The OP did state:


> After I made the original post, I corrected the rep via email that my commitment date was, in fact, ending soon. In response I received a follow-up message explaining that DirecTV discounts their equipment, etc, etc, and that is why I was committed longer. As evidence of this commitment, the rep attached a copy of a confirmation letter that had been sent to "me." As I previously related, this was a letter to another customer.


He also stated that the CSR did not address the actual issue (AMC in HD).


----------



## mdavej (Jan 31, 2007)

carlsbad_bolt_fan said:


> ...AMC HD is probably coming this year anyway.


There is zero evidence of this. The fact that it wasn't even listed in DirecTV's own poll of desired HD channels tells me AMC HD isn't even on the radar. That's probably why the OP got no response to his AMC HD question.


----------



## sigma1914 (Sep 5, 2006)

mdavej said:


> There is zero evidence of this. The fact that it wasn't even listed in DirecTV's own poll of desired HD channels tells me AMC HD isn't even on the radar. ...


It could just be equally likely that it already has a deal in place for later on, so why include it. Neither of us know.


----------



## TDK1044 (Apr 8, 2010)

mdavej said:


> There is zero evidence of this. The fact that it wasn't even listed in DirecTV's own poll of desired HD channels tells me AMC HD isn't even on the radar. That's probably why the OP got no response to his AMC HD question.


DISH and FIOS offer AMC HD....good luck to the OP finding good customer service with either provider though.


----------



## spartanstew (Nov 16, 2005)

rbird said:


> He also said he would have accepted:
> He got none of the above, just a CSR spouting incorrect information and sending other customers' personal information back to him.


Yep, but there's a big difference between the initial statement (basically I need to know if you'll have AMC in HD or I'll probably leave) and what he would have liked to have heard after the fact.

I don't know the actual conversation and am inclined to believe that the CSR did not reply in a correct manner, but the point was that he basically was stating "get amc in hd or I'm leaving" in his original communication (which you stated he didn't)


----------



## mitchflorida (May 18, 2009)

mdavej said:


> There is zero evidence of this. The fact that it wasn't even listed in DirecTV's own poll of desired HD channels tells me AMC HD isn't even on the radar. That's probably why the OP got no response to his AMC HD question.


Sooner or later, DTV's contract with AMC will expire . it will be at that time when the new contract is renewed that we will get AMC HD.

It depends on when the existing contract is over with.


----------



## Joe Bernardi (May 27, 2003)

TDK1044 said:


> DISH and FIOS offer AMC HD....good luck to the OP finding good customer service with either provider though.


I think Dish has gone a bit farther with their customer service by having a Dish Internet Response Team that reads and responds to Dish-related posts on the other satellite related forum.

Often, when an E* subscriber posts about poor customer service, errors or questions, a Dish employee on the forum responds and often solves the problem. It usually starts with the Dish employee asking for a PM with a phone number or customer ID so he/she can research and try to resolve the issue. This is often followed by the original poster thanking the Dish employee for resolving the problem.

The other forum has invited DirectTV, privately then publicly, to add some of their staff members to do the same to assist D* subscribers, but has received no response.


----------



## sigma1914 (Sep 5, 2006)

Joe Bernardi said:


> I think Dish has gone a bit farther with their customer service by having a Dish Internet Response Team that reads and responds to Dish-related posts on the other satellite related forum.
> 
> Often, when an E* subscriber posts about poor customer service, errors or questions, a Dish employee on the forum responds and often solves the problem. It usually starts with the Dish employee asking for a PM with a phone number or customer ID so he/she can research and try to resolve the issue. This is often followed by the original poster thanking the Dish employee for resolving the problem.
> 
> The other forum has invited DirectTV, privately then publicly, to add some of their staff members to do the same to assist D* subscribers, but has received no response.


They're here, too.


----------



## spartanstew (Nov 16, 2005)

Joe Bernardi said:


> The other forum has invited DirectTV, privately then publicly, to add some of their staff members to do the same to assist D* subscribers, but has received no response.


There's a reason for that. The "other" forum is run by a complete idiot and D* does not want to have any relationship with him. The only response he's likely to get is a cease and desist.


----------



## Hoosier205 (Sep 3, 2007)

spartanstew said:


> There's a reason for that. The "other" forum is run by a complete idiot and D* does not want to have any relationship with him. The only response he's likely to get is a cease and desist.


Not to mention that they lost their ability to actively take part in the CE process and the person who runs that forum either is or was employed by Dish.


----------



## lparsons21 (Mar 4, 2006)

Yes, Dish made a good move with the DIRT team. They seem to be able to head off potentially big issues with good solutions. DirecTV should think seriously about doing the same thing. Pro-active is what it is called, and is almost always a good way to do things.

In this thread we've seen the typical responses that most expect to happen. Instead of giving the OP the benefit of the doubt, it takes less that a page for the excuses and denying of the issue. In this case, the OP was expressing his opinion of how the communication transpired. What is obvious is that the CSR forgot the one rule of business that has held up for years. The customer is always right, no matter how wrong they are. Meaning take the negative (or perceived negative) customer comment and try to change it to a positive. The CSR did not do this, and even kept to the somewhat harsh line when informed his original position was incorrect. And if the OP is to be believed, never addressed the issue asked about at all. Not a good way to do business, imo

And not good responses from all too many in this thread, imo. But certainly the ones I've expected to read and haven't been disappointed in that expectation.


----------



## TBoneit (Jul 27, 2006)

Hoosier205 said:


> Not to mention that they lost their ability to actively take part in the CE process and the person who runs that forum either is or was employed by Dish.


Then why hasn't DirecTV created a internet response team to monitor here?

My suspicion is that as well as being here and on TOG's forum they, the Dishnetwork Internet response team, also do internet searches in several of the search engines.

People with problems do not only post on satellite forums they post elsewhere too. I've seen more than one post with questions on a Video help forum form users with both D* & E*. When I see that I try and help as well as refer them here.

The customer may or may not always be right, when they have misguided ideas on what is right then they need to be gently and carefully guided to understand that their right isn't.

I get people here at work that want to use any port on the computer with the proper adapter to be any other type of port. It won't work of course. You can not turn a low speed serial port into a high speed USB2 port. You can't get video out of the Parallel port either, I've been asked for cables to do both. Just like you can't get two different desktops on two displays out of a single VGA port. But they ask anyway. They need to be educated, gently and carefully.


----------



## lparsons21 (Mar 4, 2006)

spartanstew said:


> There's a reason for that. The "other" forum is run by a complete idiot and D* does not want to have any relationship with him. The only response he's likely to get is a cease and desist.


That is totally uncalled for. I participate in both forums and find them both valuable.


----------



## scorpion43 (Mar 16, 2011)

Hoosier205 said:


> Not to mention that they lost their ability to actively take part in the CE process and the person who runs that forum either is or was employed by Dish.


just like u
u are or were employed by Directv


----------



## tonyd79 (Jul 24, 2006)

You mean the subject wasn't like a Craiglist posting. The OP wasn't looking for a rude response to an AMC HD inquiry.


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

mitchflorida said:


> Sooner or later, DTV's contract with AMC will expire . it will be at that time when the new contract is renewed that we will get AMC HD.
> 
> It depends on when the existing contract is over with.


I could be totally wrong, but I don't think adding HD has anything to do with when a current contract ends. I'm not a lawyer, but seems to me that if both parties agree, a contract can always be amdended, or you can have a second contract.


----------



## scorpion43 (Mar 16, 2011)

TDK1044 said:


> DISH and FIOS offer AMC HD....good luck to the OP finding good customer service with either provider though.


can't be any worse than directv's customer service


----------



## sigma1914 (Sep 5, 2006)

lparsons21 said:


> That is totally uncalled for. I participate in both forums and find them both valuable.


Uncalled for? Stew "was expressing his opinion." Remember those words?


----------



## lparsons21 (Mar 4, 2006)

Yes, I remember them. So I guess you're making a fair call here.

But a slam against another support forum isn't really part of this discussion, or at least it wasn't.


----------



## Hoosier205 (Sep 3, 2007)

scorpion43 said:


> just like u
> u are or were employed by Directv


Nope. Never have been.


----------



## sigma1914 (Sep 5, 2006)

scorpion43 said:


> can't be any worse than directv's customer service


I knew your posting looked familiar: http://www.dbstalk.com/search.php?searchid=7924254

 Same location, same typing style, same attacks, etc


----------



## scorpion43 (Mar 16, 2011)

sigma1914 said:


> I knew your posting looked familiar: http://www.dbstalk.com/search.php?searchid=7924254
> 
> Same location, same typing style, same attacks, etc


u must be confused,but nice try


----------



## Hoosier205 (Sep 3, 2007)

TBoneit said:


> Then why hasn't DirecTV created a internet response team to monitor here?


I have no idea. They already have their own support forum though.

I don't really see the point of having a response team here. DirecTV employees are already members here and they often answer questions. Folks are either posting here to discuss something before contacting DirecTV or posting here after they have already contacted DirecTV. If a customer has a specific question or issue with their account, they should just contact DirecTV.


----------



## spartanstew (Nov 16, 2005)

lparsons21 said:


> That is totally uncalled for. I participate in both forums and find them both valuable.


It's factual. There's a reason D* pulled the CE program from that site. There's a reason they don't answer his questions. There's a reason he's not privy to any information or invited to any D* informational events. The reason = the owner is an idiot.


----------



## digitalfreak (Nov 30, 2006)

mdavej said:


> There is zero evidence of this. The fact that it wasn't even listed in DirecTV's own poll of desired HD channels tells me AMC HD isn't even on the radar. That's probably why the OP got no response to his AMC HD question.


I did my part to get you guys AMC HD and BBCA HD. Told the CSR that's why I'm canceling my service, and also listed it on the survey I was sent via e-mail. Of course, I now have both channels through my local cable provider and can record everything on my Windows Media Center PC via cablecard.


----------



## ndole (Aug 26, 2009)

:new_popco


----------



## carlsbad_bolt_fan (May 18, 2004)

mdavej said:


> There is zero evidence of this. The fact that it wasn't even listed in DirecTV's own poll of desired HD channels tells me AMC HD isn't even on the radar. That's probably why the OP got no response to his AMC HD question.


Hence the use of the word *PROBABLY*in my response.


----------



## Satelliteracer (Dec 6, 2006)

mdavej said:


> There is zero evidence of this. The fact that it wasn't even listed in DirecTV's own poll of desired HD channels tells me AMC HD isn't even on the radar. That's probably why the OP got no response to his AMC HD question.


Actually that is incorrect. They weren't listed because they are channels that DIRECTV plans on launching. No need to find out about channels already in the queue to launch.

On a related note on, Mad Men on AMC delayed until 2012

http://www.tvline.com/2011/03/mad-men-season-5-pushed-to-2012/


----------



## jcrandall (Jun 18, 2004)

Satelliteracer said:


> They weren't listed because they are channels that DIRECTV plans on launching. No need to find out about channels already in the queue to launch.


YEA!! :hurah: Light at the distant end of the AMC-HD tunnel!


----------



## Davenlr (Sep 16, 2006)

Satelliteracer said:


> Actually that is incorrect. They weren't listed because they are channels that DIRECTV plans on launching.


Then the real scary part of that is all the channels that WERE listed in the survey are NOT in DirecTvs plans....


----------



## spartanstew (Nov 16, 2005)

Davenlr said:


> Then the real scary part of that is all the channels that WERE listed in the survey are NOT in DirecTvs plans....


Immediate plans.

Nothing scary about that at all.


----------



## sigma1914 (Sep 5, 2006)

Davenlr said:


> Then the real scary part of that is all the channels that WERE listed in the survey are NOT in DirecTvs plans....


Or they want to see which are important channels so they can go get them. Why is everything so pessimistic around here sometimes? Davenlr, I think Comcast has brainwashed you, buddy.


----------



## tonyd79 (Jul 24, 2006)

"spartanstew" said:


> Immediate plans.
> 
> Nothing scary about that at all.


I read no timeline in what SR said. Nor are they a slam dunk. I heard they were prioritizing and those not listed has made the cut. Those listed were not off their plans just not definite.


----------



## Satelliteracer (Dec 6, 2006)

Davenlr said:


> Then the real scary part of that is all the channels that WERE listed in the survey are NOT in DirecTvs plans....


I believe that is incorrect as well. There were 40+ channels in that survey if I recall. Maybe 45 or more. Will all 45 be launched immediately? Safe to say...no. So the question comes down to which ones are launched....which ones are most desired by customers, etc, etc.

That doesn't mean that they are NOT in DIRECTV's plan. In fact, I would say quite the opposite. A number of them most certainly are in the plans but surveys such as this can help determine the pecking order of what those first 5 or 10 or 15 are going to be. Rest assured, it doesn't mean they are not in DIRECTV's plans, at least many of them. Certainly there are some on that list that may never be launched anywhere, let alone D*. Surveys such as this help to determine which channels those will be along with a number of other important criteria like cost, distribution, authentication rights, etc, etc.


----------



## tonyd79 (Jul 24, 2006)

Wow. Did this thread go off topic. In a good way.


----------



## Hutchinshouse (Sep 28, 2006)

Satelliteracer said:


> Actually that is incorrect. They weren't listed because they are channels that DIRECTV plans on launching. No need to find out about channels *already in the queue to launch*.
> 
> On a related note on, Mad Men on AMC delayed until 2012
> 
> http://www.tvline.com/2011/03/mad-men-season-5-pushed-to-2012/


That is what we like to hear.


----------



## tonyd79 (Jul 24, 2006)

Ok. Quick. What was missing from the poll?


----------



## Davenlr (Sep 16, 2006)

sigma1914 said:


> Or they want to see which are important channels so they can go get them. Why is everything so pessimistic around here sometimes?


Maybe because we have been waiting a very long time, and seen competition totally hop skip and jump right over the leader.



> Davenlr, I think Comcast has brainwashed you, buddy.


If that was the case, I would have canceled and sold my HR24, and two receivers, and took down the dish, instead of just suspending the account for 6 months. I would actually prefer to keep paying DirecTv. I really dont know why though, seriously. Guess I just like the whole CE thing, forum, PQ, and cool factor. Cable is boring. Nothing to tweak. Xfinity has a good picture, and their customer service has been great, but I just prefer DirecTv...Im just not going to pay twice the amount for 10-15 less channels.


----------



## Davenlr (Sep 16, 2006)

tonyd79 said:


> Ok. Quick. What was missing from the poll?


AlJazeera English


----------



## tonyd79 (Jul 24, 2006)

"Davenlr" said:


> AlJazeera English


Funny!


----------



## johnner1999 (Aug 30, 2003)

Satelliteracer said:


> I believe that is incorrect as well. There were 40+ channels in that survey if I recall. Maybe 45 or more. Will all 45 be launched immediately? Safe to say...no. So the question comes down to which ones are launched....which ones are most desired by customers, etc, etc.
> 
> That doesn't mean that they are NOT in DIRECTV's plan. In fact, I would say quite the opposite. A number of them most certainly are in the plans but surveys such as this can help determine the pecking order of what those first 5 or 10 or 15 are going to be. Rest assured, it doesn't mean they are not in DIRECTV's plans, at least many of them. Certainly there are some on that list that may never be launched anywhere, let alone D*. Surveys such as this help to determine which channels those will be along with a number of other important criteria like cost, distribution, authentication rights, etc, etc.


I hope we get a good run of national hd channels (amc, natgeo wild, g4, tmc, own) - I just switched from cable vision due to how much I couldn't stand how TiVo royally screwed up it's premeire box. Me and my wife love the hr24's mrv just works! Pq is a tad better with directv but far fewer hd channels (to point where we never watched SD any longer, with directv about 1/3 of our list is recorded in SD now) I just hope direct stands up a bit. Oh would of switched to dish which has the hd - but didn't like the dvr.

Not a I hate directv post I hope, as I don't.


----------



## TheRatPatrol (Oct 1, 2003)

Satelliteracer said:


> I believe that is incorrect as well. There were 40+ channels in that survey if I recall. Maybe 45 or more. Will all 45 be launched immediately? Safe to say...no. So the question comes down to which ones are launched....which ones are most desired by customers, etc, etc.
> 
> That doesn't mean that they are NOT in DIRECTV's plan. In fact, I would say quite the opposite. A number of them most certainly are in the plans but surveys such as this can help determine the pecking order of what those first 5 or 10 or 15 are going to be. Rest assured, it doesn't mean they are not in DIRECTV's plans, at least many of them. Certainly there are some on that list that may never be launched anywhere, let alone D*. Surveys such as this help to determine which channels those will be along with a number of other important criteria like cost, distribution, authentication rights, etc, etc.


And once D14 gets launched...... 


Hutchinshouse said:


> That is what we like to hear.


Soon grasshopper, soon.


----------



## TEN89 (Jun 27, 2003)

OK, What happen to the OP? My guess he just wanted to get all of you to go off on his post which i think was bull and see your response on it. looks like he got it cause its been awhile since he posted.


----------



## rbird (Apr 24, 2002)

TEN89 said:


> OK, What happen to the OP? My guess he just wanted to get all of you to go off on his post which i think was bull and see your response on it. looks like he got it cause its been awhile since he posted.


He was driven off by the original rude responses. Since the thread has turned itself around and become useful, that's all I'm going to say on the matter.


----------



## joed32 (Jul 27, 2006)

Davenlr said:


> AlJazeera English


They have an HD channel?


----------



## Davenlr (Sep 16, 2006)

joed32 said:


> They have an HD channel?


Not in the US, yet. I am still trying to find out if it is HD in Europe. I have heard it is, and I have heard it is not.


----------



## ATARI (May 10, 2007)

If AMC goes HD before Walking Dead season 2 starts, I will be a Happy Camper!!


----------



## BigRedFan (Mar 28, 2010)

Now that this thread has been such a hit in getting SatRacer to open up, who's going to start the "Rude Response to BBC America HD Inquiry" thread ?....


----------



## cebbigh (Feb 27, 2005)

Satelliteracer said:


> Actually that is incorrect. They weren't listed because they are channels that DIRECTV plans on launching. No need to find out about channels already in the queue to launch.
> 
> On a related note on, Mad Men on AMC delayed until 2012
> 
> http://www.tvline.com/2011/03/mad-men-season-5-pushed-to-2012/


Are there any channels that were on the list that have subsequently moved to the launch que?


----------



## TDK1044 (Apr 8, 2010)

ATARI said:


> If AMC goes HD before Walking Dead season 2 starts, I will be a Happy Camper!!


No, ATARI, you're supposed to post that if AMC isn't HD when Walking Dead season 2 starts, you're going to stamp your foot petulently and then send D* the hospital bill for your ER visit.


----------



## billsharpe (Jan 25, 2007)

tcusta00 said:


> I guess this is the response we're supposed to post:
> 
> I don't need to see the email, the OP is right no matter what it said! DIRECTV is so wrong and they're the worst company in the world. This is absurd and you were wronged!! Demand to be righted.


The OP has explained his point in various posts quite well. I certainly don't need to see the e-mail. DirecTV was wrong in stating when his contract ended. They are not the worst company in the world, but the exchange reported is not a shining example of their customer service.


----------



## tonyd79 (Jul 24, 2006)

billsharpe said:


> The OP has explained his point in various posts quite well. I certainly don't need to see the e-mail. DirecTV was wrong in stating when his contract ended. They are not the worst company in the world, but the exchange reported is not a shining example of their customer service.


Other than their mistake on when his contract ended, anything else is filtered through emotions. The fact that he will not post the emails here makes me tend to think that he knows that he overreacted or thinks we will think so.

Somehow I truly doubt that the responses were very rude, just incorrect and stiff.

To side with either party, how could you NOT want to see the email. Or do you think every accusation is true?


----------



## paja (Oct 23, 2006)

Nick said:


> AMC HD looks very good on my display. I'm watching _'The Bone Collector'_ right now, and the 1080i PQ is excellent. Comcast is my provider.


I'm watching on Comcast also and the HD on AMCHD is outstanding.


----------



## TDK1044 (Apr 8, 2010)

billsharpe said:


> The OP has explained his point in various posts quite well. I certainly don't need to see the e-mail. DirecTV was wrong in stating when his contract ended. They are not the worst company in the world, but the exchange reported is not a shining example of their customer service.


It all depends on how the OP structured his original e-mail.

If he stated strongly that his contract was almost up and that unless D* is going to be offering AMC HD very soon then he would leave for another privider, then a logical response from D* might be that 'Our records indicate that your contract is not up for another 12 months for the following reason..... Regarding your question; we have no plans to add AMC HD at this time'.

But we'll never know if the response was reasoned or rude, because the OP refused to include the e-mail chain. It would have been very easy to convey the gist of both e-mails and remove any personal information.


----------



## Hoosier205 (Sep 3, 2007)

...I'm still waiting to hear this "rude" response. So far, the only thing I have read is possibly an incorrect response. The OP doesn't seem to want to show us that either for some reason.


----------



## ATARI (May 10, 2007)

paja said:


> I'm watching on Comcast also and the HD on AMCHD is outstanding.


Sure, rub it in.


----------



## jpl (Jul 9, 2006)

dcowboy7 said:


> The peeps on the fios site always rag on how bad the pic is on amchd.
> 
> Something to do with the owner rainbow media jamming all their 4 stations on 1 "line" making the pic hideous.
> 
> ...


Yep, AMC HD PQ sucks. The reason, from what I found out - Rainbow is sending all 4 of its channels out in one QAM. Rainbow is compressing the crap out of their HD feeds (putting each on 1/4 QAM vs. the 1/2 QAM that they should be). The Killing looks terrible - all those night scenes just look terrible.


----------



## hancox (Jun 23, 2004)

Hoosier205 said:


> ...I'm still waiting to hear this "rude" response.


You and the fanboi patrol have supplied your own! :lol:


----------



## Hoosier205 (Sep 3, 2007)

hancox said:


> You and the fanboi patrol have supplied your own! :lol:


Pot...meet kettle.


----------



## mdavej (Jan 31, 2007)

jpl said:


> Yep, AMC HD PQ sucks. The reason, from what I found out - Rainbow is sending all 4 of its channels out in one QAM. Rainbow is compressing the crap out of their HD feeds (putting each on 1/4 QAM vs. the 1/2 QAM that they should be). The Killing looks terrible - all those night scenes just look terrible.


You do realize that night scenes are grainy on film too? Anyway, it still looks a heck of a lot better than SD. I'm very happy to hear it's on the short list of new HD additions.

Back to the topic, every provider I've ever had has been extremely rude and incompetent at times. That's just the nature of any service oriented business. I try to overlook isolated incidents and look at the big picture. Overall, if I'm getting the service, content, price and features I want, I'm happy, in spite of a few bad experiences with clueless CSRs.


----------



## tonyd79 (Jul 24, 2006)

mdavej said:


> You do realize that night scenes are grainy on film too? Anyway, it still looks a heck of a lot better than SD. I'm very happy to hear it's on the short list of new HD additions.
> 
> Back to the topic, every provider I've ever had has been extremely rude and incompetent at times. That's just the nature of any service oriented business. I try to overlook isolated incidents and look at the big picture. Overall, if I'm getting the service, content, price and features I want, I'm happy, in spite of a few bad experiences with clueless CSRs.


I have been unimpressed with AMC's HD quality overall. There is grainy and there is grainy. The grainy on that particular movie was macroblocking, not film grain.

As for topic, I thought the topic became SR's "announcement" until someone took us back to rudeness. However, rudeness is in the eye of the beholder. Was the return email stiff or factual or dismissive or neutral or rude? We don't know. We just know the OP thought it was rude. But all we got here was obvious exaggeration. We just don't know how exaggerated it was.


----------



## tcusta00 (Dec 31, 2007)

Well it's clear we're at an impasse and this thread should be closed. The OP isn't going to post the email and there is the camp that wants to see the email before passing judgement and the camp that is taking the OP at face value. Nothing else is going to come of this except the latter group calling the former "fanboys" and other names so I think we should close the thread.


----------



## iceturkee (Apr 1, 2007)

i apologize in advance but i received my monthly please come back we miss you letter from dtv. customer service wasn't the reason i left. in my many years as a customer, i admit they were very good to me., just way too slow adding national hd that wasn't premium.

if they ever decide to get their act together, i may reconsider. in the interim, i'm happy where i'm at.


----------



## joed32 (Jul 27, 2006)

iceturkee said:


> i apologize in advance but i received my monthly please come back we miss you letter from dtv. customer service wasn't the reason i left. in my many years as a customer, i admit they were very good to me., just way too slow adding national hd that wasn't premium.
> 
> if they ever decide to get their act together, i may reconsider. in the interim, i'm happy where i'm at.


In that case I hope you'll be coming back soon.


----------



## maartena (Nov 1, 2010)

Davenlr said:


> Not in the US, yet. I am still trying to find out if it is HD in Europe. I have heard it is, and I have heard it is not.


They do not have an HD version of the channel at all. At least, not the English news channel you are talking about. Al Jazeera as a media organization owns Al Jazeera Sports channels as well, one of which is in HD. (And not in English).


----------



## jpl (Jul 9, 2006)

mdavej said:


> You do realize that night scenes are grainy on film too? Anyway, it still looks a heck of a lot better than SD. I'm very happy to hear it's on the short list of new HD additions.
> 
> Back to the topic, every provider I've ever had has been extremely rude and incompetent at times. That's just the nature of any service oriented business. I try to overlook isolated incidents and look at the big picture. Overall, if I'm getting the service, content, price and features I want, I'm happy, in spite of a few bad experiences with clueless CSRs.


Um, I know the difference between 'grainy' and a blocky, pixellated mess. What I see on AMC HD is the latter. It's clearly very overly compressed. It's most prevelant on the night scenes, was my point. The PQ on the channel sucks.


----------



## tonyd79 (Jul 24, 2006)

"jpl" said:


> Um, I know the difference between 'grainy' and a blocky, pixellated mess. What I see on AMC HD is the latter. It's clearly very overly compressed. It's most prevelant on the night scenes, was my point. The PQ on the channel sucks.


Actually, there has been analysis done and AMC has a lower bit rate than others. Rainbow is shoving multiple channels in a tight bandwidth hurting PQ.


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

jpl said:


> Yep, AMC HD PQ sucks. The reason, from what I found out - Rainbow is sending all 4 of its channels out in one QAM. Rainbow is compressing the crap out of their HD feeds (putting each on 1/4 QAM vs. the 1/2 QAM that they should be).


I highly doubt they're using QAM for their satellite feeds, but the sentiment is correct. The crappy cable company that owns Rainbow Media stuffs 4 HD channels in each QAM on their systems, so why should they send out their own channels at a higher bitrate than their own cable systems will show them at? It'd be embarrassing for them to have their own channels look better on pretty much all other providers, so they just distribute crap to everyone.


----------



## gphvid (Jun 19, 2007)

mdavej said:


> You do realize that night scenes are grainy on film too? Anyway, it still looks a heck of a lot better than SD. I'm very happy to hear it's on the short list of new HD additions.
> 
> Back to the topic, every provider I've ever had has been extremely rude and incompetent at times. That's just the nature of any service oriented business. I try to overlook isolated incidents and look at the big picture. Overall, if I'm getting the service, content, price and features I want, I'm happy, in spite of a few bad experiences with clueless CSRs.


One needs to first realize that many of the scripted shows on channels these days are not shot on film but HD video. The picture quality first starts with the HD camera, then in post production (most likely Final Cut Pro), then to the network who then loads the show on a server from which then it is aired on a compressed HD channel. The night scenes are most likely to show macro-blocking due to lack of detail. I've seen PQ on some DirecTV channels go from real good to some macro-blocking to noticeable blocking. Why that is I do not know. I haven't seen how TWC HD looks in my neighborhood or the upcoming FIOS service so I can't really comment on a comparison just yet...


----------



## jpl (Jul 9, 2006)

tonyd79 said:


> Actually, there has been analysis done and AMC has a lower bit rate than others. Rainbow is shoving multiple channels in a tight bandwidth hurting PQ.


Right... which is exactly what I said in an earlier post. They're shoving 4 channels into the space that's normally used by 2. What I'm seeing on the channel isn't just grainy pictures. It's due to compression. I really see it on The Killing because of the number of dark scenes on that show. When they do night scenes the picture gets just horribly. It's not grainy - it's blocky and pixellated.


----------



## jpl (Jul 9, 2006)

Jeremy W said:


> I highly doubt they're using QAM for their satellite feeds, but the sentiment is correct. The crappy cable company that owns Rainbow Media stuffs 4 HD channels in each QAM on their systems, so why should they send out their own channels at a higher bitrate than their own cable systems will show them at? It'd be embarrassing for them to have their own channels look better on pretty much all other providers, so they just distribute crap to everyone.


You're right - my use of the term QAM is not correct. I did it as a short hand. Here's the deal, though. Normally, mpeg-2 HD video feeds peak at 19.4 Mbps. Channel providers have so much spectrum that they use to distribute their channels. Rainbow takes all 4 HD channels (AMC HD being one of them) and shoves them all into a 38.8 Mbps 'slice' (frequency). That slice, which is the equivalent of a QAM slot, is normally big enough to carry 2 HD feeds... not 4. Because Rainbow is cramming all 4 channels into their distribution feed, it doesn't matter how good the cable/DBS system is that's showing that channel. It's going to look like crap as a result. It's how Rainbow is distributing the channel - they're over-compressing it at the source.

Because of this, though, Verizon was able to open up space on FiOS. When they realized that Rainbow was doing this, they determined that there was no advantage to doing 2 Rainbow channels per QAM. There's no advantage to that - it won't improve the PQ because, like I said, at the source it's over-compressed. So Verizon just moved all 4 HD channels onto one QAM.

Don't think of Rainbow distributing stuff as QAM - they're distributing all 4 channels, to all providers, in a space that they should only be using for 2. Because of that, it'll look like crap on every cable/dbs system that carries it. There's nothing that Verizon or DirecTV can do to improve upon it.

It's a real shame because I like AMC. I've become addicted to The Killing - but many scenes make it darn painful to watch.


----------



## tonyd79 (Jul 24, 2006)

jpl said:


> Right... which is exactly what I said in an earlier post. They're shoving 4 channels into the space that's normally used by 2. What I'm seeing on the channel isn't just grainy pictures. It's due to compression. I really see it on The Killing because of the number of dark scenes on that show. When they do night scenes the picture gets just horribly. It's not grainy - it's blocky and pixellated.


Sometimes it is like Sesame Street around here....you have to repeat for it to sink in.


----------



## sigma1914 (Sep 5, 2006)

I guess that's why AMC HD PQ was ugly (uglier than the already ugly HD) when I had TWC for a few months.


----------



## billsharpe (Jan 25, 2007)

Topic seems to have shifted from "rude response" to "AMC HD picture quality," which is not germane to DirecTV, since they don't carry the HD version anyway.


----------



## susanandmark (Feb 15, 2007)

chanie said:


> I don't feel comfortable pasting the exact text of any of the emails because it could be used to identify me. It should suffice to say that my original email (via the DirecTV contact form) was polite and succinct. I said that I had been more or less happy with DirecTV during my commitment period, but that the absence of this particular channel was something that would affect my renewal decision. I wasn't abusive. I didn't make any threats. I simply stated my feelings.
> 
> In response, the rep opened with a canned line thanking me for my email. Then, before addressing the content of my email, proceeded to incorrectly inform me that my commitment period ended more than a year later than it actually did. I take issue with this for a number of reasons. First, it was not relevant to my concern: the availability of the channel. Second, it was not accurate. My commitment period is, in fact, ending soon. Third, I perceived it as aggressive and dismissive of my real concern. No, the response did not literally say "take a long walk off a short pier," but that is how I perceived it. And in the game of customer relations, the customer's perception is king.
> 
> ...


I'm sorry to say that you probably shouldn't even bother to explain/expand on your position, as it does little good and will, sadly, likely just lead to another round of insults hurled your way for expressing any opinion that doesn't involve proclaiming DirecTV as the best business on planet earth.

Unfortunately it appears, through this and dozens of other threads I've shifted through in the last six months, that this forum has turned from a DirecTV resource--good for general discussion, tech support and debate--to a fan-only forum where even the slightest negativity launches all out attack from the fervent. If a poster brings up ANY complaint with DirecTV, they are a whiner, liar and worse. And if they then don't return to defend their position, even though the most fervent posters have made it clear they will accept no explanation that differs from their own pre-conceived notions, posters are dubbed as trolls and the pile on becomes even greater. If the poster has previously answered the "questions" asked by their critics, and someone else points those answers out, they're also in for abuse from the loyalists who seem to spend an inordinate amount of time prowling these forums, waiting to pounce.

Perhaps such vitriol and bombastic rhetoric is simply the way of the Internet, but it's still sad to see as a long-time member of this forum who had, in what now seems like the distant past, received and (I hope) shared helpful information regarding DirecTV service.

Personally, I would tend to agree with the original poster on just about all counts. I have a VERY common name, and would hate to think DirecTV could be sending MY name, address and contract information to anyone who happens to share it.

It is also against the rules of many forums--I'm not sure of this one's exact policy--to quote emails, for fear of copyright or privacy complaints, so I think the original poster's instinct not to was correct and in no way, shape or form, detracts from their complaint. As someone who also received incorrect and conflicting information in successive emails from DirecTV, I have no problem believing his experience.

I can't fathom what is wrong with telling a company something is important to you and that their acquisition of it would be valuable in your estimation. That isn't a "demand" or "threat;" it's a simple request. If I tell my local supermarket chain that I prefer a particular brand of peanut butter, for example, which their competitor stocks, therefore making it easier to shop there if I want to buy it weekly, I'm not "threatening" the manager, I'm simply stating a fact, which he can ignore, or not, at his discretion. And if I'm taking the time to bring the issue to his attention, instead of just shopping elsewhere, it's probably because, overall, I prefer his store to another, except for that one item. If it's something not in his power to acquire (since he's likely just a lowly operative in a large corporate chain), and he tells me that politely and reasonably, I will then make my own determination if the other things that particular store offers (price, convenience, etc) makes it worthwhile to shop there, or if I love that peanut butter so much, I'll go ahead and take my business elsewhere. But if the fictional manager were to react with a rude threat, "what-do-I-care-what-you-want?" attitude or suggest he'd already special ordered a jelly for me that he didn't (instead it was someone else with my same name), but kept insisting belligerently that I didn't know what I was talking about when I denied it, that would probably help influence my decision to depart. I only wish I had as many options in my television provider as I do in supermarkets.

I've been a DirecTV customer a long time and I have seen their customer service rapidly go downhill. This is far from an isolated situation specific to DirecTV--in fact, it's probably the norm--it's just a company that I've had the misfortune of having to come into contact with more than often than others (for instance, I rarely have to call my electric company for customer service, so I can't tell you much about theirs), so I've come up against that decline multiple times in recent years.

I'm cynical enough to think that most mega-corporations, as the bulk of TV content providers are, probably offer similarly lackluster customer service policies, so basing your choice on channel selection, price and equipment selection is likely your best bet.

Best of luck!


----------



## ciurca (Apr 14, 2009)

+1 on what susanandmark said.


----------



## tonyd79 (Jul 24, 2006)

susanandmark said:


> I can't fathom what is wrong with telling a company something is important to you and that their acquisition of it would be valuable in your estimation.


No one is criticizing that part of the OPs post. What we had problems with was the hyperbole about the answer he got (including putting it in quotes, which should only be used to quote, not to paraphrase).

I can easily see the following happening:

1. OP sends polite email with a threat (yes, it is a threat whether reasonable or not; the word is loaded but it is what it is). BTW, I am assuming a polite email because I have no reason to suspect otherwise. Maybe it was polite, maybe not.

2. The mixup occurs at DirecTV by the CSR getting the wrong person. The CSR may have been angry or may have been trying to be helpful (yes, the CSR may have though there was a mixup on the customer's end date and was trying to be helpful in correcting that impression). Without the email, it is very difficult to see if the CSR was well intended or not. However, I, and others, are giving the CSR the same benefit of the doubt that we give the OP on his email. Why should we not? Should we assume just because the OP was offended that the email was offensive? Why should we be fair to the OP but not the CSR? They are both human beings and both deserve respect.

3. The OP gets the email and reacts to it (overreact would be subjective but very possible as the email supposedly only mentions the contract). The OP sees that they only address his contract and he says something to the effect that DirecTV has messed up his account. The anger starts at that point. As it would for many people thinking they have to straighten something out.

4. The OP, perhaps just a bit miffed, sends an email saying that the CSR was incorrect about his contract ending. But now the conversation is about the contract ending.

5. The CSR answers back that it is not ending, making the the OP angry.

6. The mistake is uncovered but now the OP is annoyed.

Anything when annoyed or angry will look rude to a person. Intentions get buried. Rudeness becomes the view.

See, there is a way that the OP is telling the truth as he sees it but the CSR did nothing rude, just made a mistake.

But, without the email, why would I or anyone automatically side with the OP or with the CSR. Withholding the email makes one doubt that the problem really existed as the OP was questioned.

Having no agenda on this (as most here have not), we cannot just say "Yeah, you got screwed" in honesty. But, of course, some posters who have a history of arguing with DirecTV would automatically assume that the OP is telling a universal truth and the CSR was rude. Not naming names.


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

susanandmark said:


> I'm sorry to say that you probably shouldn't even bother to explain/expand on your position, as it does little good and will, sadly, likely just lead to another round of insults hurled your way for expressing any opinion that doesn't involve proclaiming DirecTV as the best business on planet earth.


Do you post anything besides this same tired crap anymore? Why are you still here?


----------



## Hoosier205 (Sep 3, 2007)

susanandmark said:


> This is far from an isolated situation specific to DirecTV--*in fact, it's probably the norm*--it's just a company that I've had the misfortune of having to come into contact with more than often than others (for instance, I rarely have to call my electric company for customer service, so I can't tell you much about theirs), so I've come up against that decline multiple times in recent years.


 The norm? :lol:

The most loyal unhappy customer in DirecTV history stopping by to tell us just how much she hates a company she's been unhappily doing business with for more than a decade. Just keep making those payments! I'm sure they will get the message that way.


----------



## spartanstew (Nov 16, 2005)

Most of your post is absurd, but I'll just focus on this part.



susanandmark said:


> I have a VERY common name, and would hate to think DirecTV could be sending MY name, address and contract information to anyone who happens to share it.


Where does he say they sent their address? I don't know if the OP is making stuff up, but you certainly are.

He never said they sent the persons address or contract information. Yes, the name is the same, so sending that is unavoidable as is the amount of time left on the contract.

Unfortunately, this forum has turned into a place where people just come to whine and ***** about everything (that means you susanandmark). When questioned about it, they usually never come back.

All most in this thread asked for was the dialogue to determine where the communication broke down. The OP refused. Why do you think that is?

Didn't want his personal information posted? Really?
Thought it was against forum rules? Really?


----------



## susanandmark (Feb 15, 2007)

spartanstew said:


> Most of your post is absurd, but I'll just focus on this part.
> 
> Where does he say they sent their address? I don't know if the OP is making stuff up, but you certainly are.
> 
> He never said they sent the persons address or contract information. Yes, the name is the same, so sending that is unavoidable as is the amount of time left on the contract.


From post #15 ...



chanie said:


> When I corrected them on the end date, I received additional emails insisting I was wrong. They even attached a copy of a confirmation letter as supposed evidence. It was addressed to someone with my name but who lived on the other side of the country. The web service reps never asked for my account information, they just made an assumption, and in the process gave out the personal information of another subscriber. Poor form.


By the way, thanks for all showing up within 3.9 seconds of me posting in order to perfectly prove my points.


----------



## Hoosier205 (Sep 3, 2007)

susanandmark said:


> From post #15 ...
> 
> By the way, thanks for all showing up within 3.9 seconds of me posting in order to perfectly prove my points.


When is your phantom contract up? :lol:


----------



## spartanstew (Nov 16, 2005)

susanandmark said:


> From post #15 ...


I stand corrected. I remember reading that post, but missed the part where he said it was "addressed". Still not 100% sure if that means they gave out the street address or not, but will concede that point.


----------



## Hutchinshouse (Sep 28, 2006)

susanandmark said:


> From post #15 ...
> 
> By the way, thanks for all showing up within 3.9 seconds of me posting in order to perfectly prove my points.


I had 3.7 seconds on my watch. :lol:

That's what's fun about this forum. To me it's more entertainment than informative. Some people defend DIRECTV, some bash DIRECTV. We all have opinions and agendas. I'm somewhere in the middle. Other than the competition crushing DIRECTV in basic HD and premium movie HD, I'm happy with DIRECTV. Post away, if people don't like your posts they don't have to read them.


----------



## tonyd79 (Jul 24, 2006)

susanandmark said:


> By the way, thanks for all showing up within 3.9 seconds of me posting in order to perfectly prove my points.


No acknowledgement about my post, which was reasoned?

Thought not.


----------



## Scott Kocourek (Jun 13, 2009)

Maybe It's the time to let it go. There is no sense in dragging the whole thread down over a couple that cannot get along.

Sent from my HTC Desire using DBSTalk


----------



## Hoosier205 (Sep 3, 2007)

Might as well. The OP has only posted in the the thread four times and and that was three days ago.


----------



## DarkSkies (Nov 30, 2007)

Hiding behind the anonymity of a keyboard it's so easy to be rude and argumentative, but it only takes a moment to rethink a reply and compose it as if you were having a face to face conversation. "Hello", "please" and "thank you" have all but disappeared in service establishments, and kids are growing up feeling with a sense of entitlement that is not earned. Do they learn this from their parents who think nothing of attacking or ridiculing a stranger on a web forum? Internet forums such as this one provide a wealth of information, but they don't have to be uncivil...


----------



## tonyd79 (Jul 24, 2006)

DarkSkies said:


> Hiding behind the anonymity of a keyboard it's so easy to be rude and argumentative, but it only takes a moment to rethink a reply and compose it as if you were having a face to face conversation. "Hello", "please" and "thank you" have all but disappeared in service establishments, and kids are growing up feeling with a sense of entitlement that is not earned. Do they learn this from their parents who think nothing of attacking or ridiculing a stranger on a web forum? Internet forums such as this one provide a wealth of information, but they don't have to be uncivil...


Again, we don't know if the email sent by the CSR had those perfunctories or not. We have no idea what words were used at all. The only reference to wording of the email was the hyperbole from the OP.

Rush to judgement.


----------



## DarkSkies (Nov 30, 2007)

tonyd79 said:


> Again, we don't know if the email sent by the CSR had those perfunctories or not. We have no idea what words were used at all. The only reference to wording of the email was the hyperbole from the OP.
> 
> Rush to judgement.


I'm not sure to whom the last sentence, "Rush to judgement" is directed, but I don't see the need for the pile-on against the OP, nor for the attitude directed his way. He posted, someone asked to see the email, and others piled on asking for the same thing. Is one request not enough?

To me it doesn't even matter if the email was sent from a CSR at DIRECTV or from the VP of Customer Relations. The OP felt slighted, he wanted to vent, he vented. He felt wronged. The discussion turned almost immediately to blaming the OP for feeling entitled to something (AMC-HD) and for threatening to leave DIRECTV unless he got it (which is contrary to what the OP said he wrote). So at this point someone's again going to demand to see the emails so we can verify the exchange... and the circle continues.

To me it's apparent there was a disconnect between the customer's request and DIRECTV's response, and the bad feelings by the customer grew as DIRECTV compounded the mistake by disclosing information about an unrelated customer. Do I need proof of the exchanges? No, no more than I would if someone wrote a post praising DIRECTV for extending a credit on their account.

My only response to the OP would be to suggest he try to escalate the disclosure issue so that DIRECTV can attempt to prevent future disclosures.


----------



## tonyd79 (Jul 24, 2006)

DarkSkies said:


> I'm not sure to whom the last sentence, "Rush to judgement" is directed, but I don't see the need for the pile-on against the OP, nor for the attitude directed his way. He posted, someone asked to see the email, and others piled on asking for the same thing. Is one request not enough?


Evidentally not, as he did not provide it. You make a claim against someone, you had better have more than saying that they hurt his feelings.

Why did he come here to vent? Did he think he would get huzzahs and sympathy? Not when he was throwing hyperbole around from the start.

The rush to judgement was to you. You assumed that the email he got was not polite. Why, because he felt slighted? Or because he used the word "rude?" He also said they told him he could take a long walk off a short pier or some nonsense like that.

Yup, defend the OP. Meanwhile, the CSR is obviously a bad person who is rude and awful. Sorry, that doesn't wash. They are both humans. One is making accusations without backing it up against another. If he backs it up, then fine. Refusing to post what was actually said makes it look sketchy but I am still willing to hear it out (as, I think, are others).

But we will get another and yet another on this thread saying that the OP didn't deserve his treatment. What about the OP's treatment of the CSR? We just allow the accuser to accuse without question?

Bad form (and yes, that is meant for you).


----------



## spartanstew (Nov 16, 2005)

susanandmark said:


> The inaccurate information alone, along with the persistence in providing it (up to and including offering up another's personal details) was the crux,


You're assuming that's all true. Most of us know that the CSR's screw up occasionally, but we also know that posters often exaggerate.

All he had to do was show the details and the path of the thread would have been totally different.

Re-read the first post. He never mentions anything about the personal information that was sent or anything else. Not until later, when it's possible he realized he needed to try and strengthen his case.

According to the original post, he sent an Email to D* stating asking when AMC HD would be available, because if it wasn't available in 2 months when his contract was up, he might be leaving.

They responded letting him know that his contract wasn't up until late 2012.

He then called and was assured that it was up in 2 months.

That's It.

That's what happened.

Does that seem so terrible? One CSR in an Email made a mistake and then another CSR on the phone corrected it?

Then he started laying on other information which, IMO, should have been in the first post.

Why wasn't it?

I think I know.


----------



## DarkSkies (Nov 30, 2007)

tonyd79 said:


> Evidentally not, as he did not provide it. You make a claim against someone, you had better have more than saying that they hurt his feelings.
> 
> Why did he come here to vent? Did he think he would get huzzahs and sympathy? Not when he was throwing hyperbole around from the start.
> 
> ...


This is a sad thread. I'm amazed and amused at the sense of entitlement exhibited by you and others who demand "proof" of the customer service exchange. I simply don't get why a customer's word here is not good enough. Anyone who's been with DIRECTV long enough knows about CSR roulette, that one CSR could be night-and-day different (better or worse) from the next. Mistakes happen all the time in businesses, large and small, and if a customer comes here to share their experience, I roll with it. It won't change anything if the customer provides the "proof" you seek. It won't make the incident not happen. For sure the OP will not be back, for why would he want to stick around where he's brandished a liar?

I'm a glass half-full person. I try to treat others with respect, online and off, and give folks the benefit of the doubt. Clearly I'm not in the majority ...


----------



## sigma1914 (Sep 5, 2006)

DarkSkies said:


> This is a sad thread. I'm amazed and amused at the sense of entitlement exhibited by you and others who demand "proof" of the customer service exchange. I simply don't get why a customer's word here is not good enough. Anyone who's been with DIRECTV long enough knows about CSR roulette, that one CSR could be night-and-day different (better or worse) from the next. Mistakes happen all the time in businesses, large and small, and if a customer comes here to share their experience, I roll with it. It won't change anything if the customer provides the "proof" you seek. It won't make the incident not happen. For sure the OP will not be back, for why would he want to stick around where he's brandished a liar?
> 
> I'm a glass half-full person. I try to treat others with respect, online and off, and give folks the benefit of the doubt. Clearly I'm not in the majority ...


It's because the OP clearly overly exaggeratedly. See below:


chanie said:


> ...
> 
> Or how about anything that didn't start with "you're locked in for eighteen months, buddy, so take a long walk off a short pier."


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

Just an idea:

Why don't we all belt up and politely wait for the OP to post just his e-mail with details elided? 



If that doesn't happen, then the thread is dead. Dead, Jim, Dead!


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

Laxguy said:


> Just an idea:
> 
> Why don't we all belt up and politely wait for the OP to post just his e-mail with details elided?


If he was going to do that, he would have already done it. This thread has run it's course.


----------



## raott (Nov 23, 2005)

sigma1914 said:


> It's because the OP clearly overly exaggeratedly. See below:


No, it's because in virtually every negative thread about D*, the same half dozen attack dogs can be found slamming whoever starts the post. Don't believe me? Check any thread with a title that sees negative and you'll find the same handful of guys, every time (and everyone knows who they are) crushing whoever says anything that my be construed as negative.

It really is getting ridiculous and personally I find myself spending less and less time here.


----------



## MysteryMan (May 17, 2010)

raott said:


> No, it's because in virtually every negative thread about D*, the same half dozen attack dogs can be found slamming whoever starts the post. Don't believe me? Check any thread with a title that sees negative and you'll find the same handful of guys, every time (and everyone knows who they are) crushing whoever says anything that my be construed as negative.
> 
> It really is getting ridiculous and personally I find myself spending less and less time here.


It's one thing to post a problem one is having with DirecTV or DISH and ask for help. Those people get assistance. It's a entirely different situation when the in-house whiny tits repeatedly post their long term grievances with DirecTV.


----------



## hancox (Jun 23, 2004)

MysteryMan said:


> It's one thing to post a problem one is having with DirecTV or DISH and ask for help. Those people get assistance. It's a entirely different situation when the in-house whiny tits repeatedly post their long term grievances with DirecTV.


I get back to the same question I've asked before...

What makes the "attack dogs" (as put by another poster) any better? Repeatedly posting their drivel attacking anyone with a negative opinion is making this board nearly unreadable.


----------



## MysteryMan (May 17, 2010)

hancox said:


> I get back to the same question I've asked before...
> 
> What makes the "attack dogs" (as put by another poster) any better? Repeatedly posting their drivel attacking anyone with a negative opinion is making this board nearly unreadable.


If the "attack dogs" go after someone with a legitimate grievance or problem then shame on them.


----------



## tonyd79 (Jul 24, 2006)

DarkSkies said:


> I'm a glass half-full person. I try to treat others with respect, online and off, and give folks the benefit of the doubt. Clearly I'm not in the majority ...


And yet you do not extend the same courtesy to the CSR in question.

Interesting.

You do not get that I am giving BOTH the benefit of the doubt. And yet when I am willing to treat the unrepresented CSR with human decency, I get called "entitled?" Wow. Is that ever a distortion.

Dang, nice to know that when someone accuses someone of wrongdoing, we just assume that it is true and to expect proof when a person is accused is considered being entitled. Wow.


----------



## hancox (Jun 23, 2004)

tonyd79 said:


> And yet you do not extend the same courtesy to the CSR in question.
> 
> Interesting.
> 
> ...


He's not talking to the CSR, he's talking to you. Amazing how when it suits, you need "evidence," but you go as so far as to say the poster you responded to "accuses someone of wrongdoing." Where? He specifically talked about the reaction of the fanboi patrol on this forum, and attacking the OP, and people similarly slighted.


----------



## tcusta00 (Dec 31, 2007)

Is it really all that unreasonable to ask to see the email in question? You people calling us "attack dogs" for wanting to have a civilized discussion and weigh the evidence before passing judgement one way or another are being absurd. YOU'RE the ones making this forum unreadable and horrible. I've asked, with no attacking, to see the email. It wasn't provided, therefore the OP doesn't get my weigh in. No big loss for either side. 

But all you other guys who don't agree that evidence is necessary, fine, we get it and you disagree with us. But shut up already about US. This forum isn't here to discuss posters and your opinions of them, it's to discuss satellite. Discuss satellite or go away. Attacks aren't supposed to be tolerated here and I'm getting sick of getting attacked. Show me a post where I attacked the OP. 

This place is filling up with unreasonable haters.


----------



## TDK1044 (Apr 8, 2010)

The OP gave up on this thread a long time ago. I think it's time we all did.


----------



## JeffBowser (Dec 21, 2006)

I know it matters not one bit, but I too have taken to avoiding this forum for awhile. Without the excitement of reading about a sat launch, or new HD channels being launched, it gets monumentally tedious reading complaints followed by complaints about complaints (and yes, this is one of them :lol: )



hancox said:


> I get back to the same question I've asked before...
> 
> What makes the "attack dogs" (as put by another poster) any better? Repeatedly posting their drivel attacking anyone with a negative opinion is making this board nearly unreadable.


----------



## tonyd79 (Jul 24, 2006)

hancox said:


> He's not talking to the CSR, he's talking to you. Amazing how when it suits, you need "evidence," but you go as so far as to say the poster you responded to "accuses someone of wrongdoing." Where? He specifically talked about the reaction of the fanboi patrol on this forum, and attacking the OP, and people similarly slighted.


When it suits me? What suits me? To understand what happened? Wow. Just because I want to know the truth, that is what suits me? Okay, I will cop to that. Knowing the truth rather than saying that the OP was wronged without evidence is a good thing. Thanks for the compliment.

Now go back and read again. I never said the poster I responded to accused anyone of wrongdoing. I was talking about the OP accusing the CSR. Or maybe misreading is used when it "suits you?"


----------



## Hutchinshouse (Sep 28, 2006)

JeffBowser said:


> I know it matters not one bit, but I too have taken to avoiding this forum for awhile. Without the excitement of reading about a sat launch, or new HD channels being launched, it gets monumentally tedious reading complaints followed by complaints about complaints (and yes, this is one of them :lol: )


+1

Well said.

"attack dogs" :lol: BFD


----------



## sigma1914 (Sep 5, 2006)

To those clamoring about attack dogs: It's all about how a user starts a thread about the situation. When you're level headed and not shooting hyperboles out of your bum, you're taken seriously and helped.

Want two recent examples of a serious situation and how to post it without being "attacked?" Look here: http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?t=191762 or http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?t=192147

When you act like an adult you're treated like one.


----------



## Scott Kocourek (Jun 13, 2009)

At this point I don't think there is anything important left to say about the topic and it's time to close it.


----------

