# DirecTV is EVIL



## DirecTVSucks (Jan 20, 2013)

To Whom It May Concern,
I am writing to let you know that I am canceling my DirecTV service. We first signed up for DirecTV when we lived in(omitted from Reddit post) . We were looking to save money on our cable TV package. It worked out wonderfully for us and we loved the service.
We actually put our account on hold when we moved from (omitted from Reddit post) as we loved the service and wanted to continue with what we thought was excellent service for a good monthly fee.
When we moved back to Austin and bought our house we quickly called DirecTV to resume our service in April of 2012 at (omitted from Reddit post). When we spoke with the representative they informed us that for the price point that we wanted to pay the best package for us was the ChoiceExtra package. At the time the cost was going to be around $55 a month with a HD DVR box and HD receiver with whole home viewing. After taxes our monthly total was to be $77.89 a month. We were getting this price by signing a 2 year agreement and having the auto-bill pay service feature enabled as well.
Alas our time with DirecTV this go around was a nightmare. The service was installed on time, our promised rebates we were guaranteed for being returning customers were submitted on time, and the service was wonderful for the first 3 months. Our bill was what it was supposed to be.
Month 4 started. When month 4 started our bill quickly skyrocketed to over $100 a month. When I called DirecTV to inquire about this, I was quickly informed that our “3 month promotion” was over and this was to be our regular rate. After numerous escalations during the course of this call, I was informed that our rebates were never properly processed in time so we would not be getting them. I pulled up my email account and was able to verify the date that they were sent in and the representative that I spoke with stated that yes they were finally able to find my rebates and would make sure that they were submitted and proceeded to credit our account for the overage to get our bill back down to $77.89 a month. We were apologized to for the oversight and informed that this issue was now resolved and that we should be receiving our rebates shortly. I spent 2 hours on the phone trying to get this issue resolved so I was happy...or so I thought.
Three days after this, I received an automated call from the DirecTV accounts escalation department stating that our rebates were not processed on time and we would not be receiving them. This is after I had verbal confirmation from a DirecTV supervisor that they saw that the rebates were submitted on time and that they would be contacting the rebate department to ensure we would be receiving them.
At this point I really did not care about the rebates as I really only wanted our monthly rate that we signed up for.
Month 5 we were charged our correct amount.
Month 6, our bill once again skyrocketed. Our charges were well over $100 again!!! I called DirecTV once again to inquire about the charges. I was again informed that our 3 month promotion was over and that this was to be our regular rate. Once again I escalated the call. Once speaking with a supervisor, they were able to see the previous calls and previous credits. They were not sure why they were not being applied and stated that they would correct the situation immediately and get our bill adjusted back to our normal monthly rate and as a side note, this representative informed me that they saw we had some rebates on our account that were never applied. They stated that they would address this issue for us and that we should be receiving them shortly. The total length of this call was 1.5 hours.
This time DirecTV waited about 4 days before using the automated system to contact me and state that my rebates were not processed on time and we would not be receiving them. Once again this is after 2 DirecTV supervisors stated to me that they saw the rebates on my account, saw that they were entered on time, and that I had not received them. I still did not really care about the rebates but if I get them, hooray for me. I just want my monthly rate of $77.89.
Month 7 - November, our bill was incorrect. Our issue was not resolved. Our charges were over $100 again. I am starting to see a trend here.....I contact DirectTV again and went through all escalations and once again I was promised that this issue was to be resolved. I was also informed in the course of this call that this was the last time DirectTV could issue any credits to the account as this would be the 3rd time they have done so. I informed the representative that this was ok, AS LONG AS MY MONTHLY BILL WAS TO BE $77.89 GOING FORWARD. I was once again promised that this issue would be fixed.
Month 8, December. Our bill was incorrect. Due to a death in the family I did not feel up to battling DirecTV but I knew if I did not call we would be stuck with high monthly bills for ever for a service at this point that we do not even really want any longer as it has never saved us the money we were promised.
I was informed by the representative this time that I had charges for adult movies on the account. I don’t rent pay per view, and I certainly do not pay for adult movies when the content is available online for free. I inquired as to when these charges took place, the charges were made to my account when no one was in the house. We were out of town for the aforementioned funeral and there was no way they could have been charged to the account as no one was in the house to charge them. The DirecTV representative stated that they could remove these charges as a one time courtesy for me and that this was the last time that my account would be credited. We should not have these charges any longer, our monthly bill should return to normal.
January 2013, our monthly bill this month is only $90, so it is slightly lower but still not what we were originally promised. So I called to cancel my account. I am done DirecTV, you win, you have worn me down to past the point of caring. I will no longer be using your service. I was informed that there was a cancelation fee of $280 on the account since I was terminating my service early.
This is an unjust fee. I do not feel that I should have to pay for this cancelation fee. The retention “specialist” that I spoke with stated that yes she can see all the issues that I have had with my account but that there is nothing she can do to waive the fee. I do not think that it is right for DirecTV to not honor their contracts that customers agreed to. It appears to me that DirecTV reserves the right to change the monthly fees at their whim and when customers call to address these issues, their representatives are trained to say or do whatever they can to keep the customer. All they care about is my money and how to take more of it. It does not matter to DirecTV that they have a once happy customer that returned to them for service when there are many alternatives available.
As a result of your horrible customer service throughout this whole ordeal, I am canceling my service. I am becoming a member of the vast cordcutting armada. I am standing up and saying no to service providers not giving a care in the world to their subscribers.
I might have to pay your unjust cancelation fee but I am also sending this email to consumerist.com and posting it to reddit.com. If you have not heard of either of those sites I suggest looking them up. They are quite large and MANY MANY people visit them on a daily basis. If by sharing my story with the public I can convince just 10 people to not sign up for your service, then the cancelation fee will have been well worth it.
Sincerely,
A very disgusted formerly happy DirecTV subscriber


----------



## fluffybear (Jun 19, 2004)

I'm sorry to hear you had such bad time...


----------



## marvod (Dec 24, 2006)

Waaaaa. Goodbye.


----------



## yosoyellobo (Nov 1, 2006)

Rebates are evil.


----------



## Davenlr (Sep 16, 2006)

Wow. I've had my share of billing issues, but once corrected, I've never had them reappear. Sorry you had so much trouble. While probably to late now, emailing the Office of the President usually has a way of getting recurring issues like this corrected.


----------



## DirecTVSucks (Jan 20, 2013)

this is a copy of the email that I sent their executive customer relations. I have not heard anything back from them, that is why I am posting a copy here and on Reddit.


----------



## Davenlr (Sep 16, 2006)

email:[email protected]

That the address you used?


----------



## DirecTVSucks (Jan 20, 2013)

I used the following addresses that I got from Consumerist:

[email protected], [email protected]: EVP
[email protected], [email protected]: SVP, Controller, CAO
[email protected], [email protected]: SVP, CFO
[email protected]: Heywot Bitew
[email protected]: Ellen Filipiak
Chase Carey, email [email protected].


----------



## TANK (Feb 16, 2003)

DirecTVSucks said:


> this is a copy of the email that I sent their executive customer relations. I have not heard anything back from them, that is why I am posting a copy here and on Reddit.


Shame you didn't come here before you cancelled,someone might have been able to help or given you Ellen Filipiak's e-mail address sooner.

.


----------



## jimmie57 (Jun 26, 2010)

I could be wrong but I think the OP thought that the price promotion was for the length of the 2 year contract when in fact it was for the 3 months that he was correctly billed.

I do feel for them and a problem like this.


----------



## west99999 (May 12, 2007)

hmmm. I wonder why Chase didnt reply.


----------



## trh (Nov 3, 2007)

west99999 said:


> hmmm. I wonder why Chase didnt reply.


You mean because he left DirecTV over 3 years ago?

I wonder the validity of his other email addresses.


----------



## BLWedge09 (Jan 6, 2007)

marvod;3165643 said:


> Waaaaa. Goodbye.


Agreed. When you come here and register with a username like "DirecTVSucks", you pretty much lose all sympathy and credibility from my point of view.


----------



## Davenlr (Sep 16, 2006)

jimmie57 said:


> I could be wrong but I think the OP thought that the price promotion was for the length of the 2 year contract when in fact it was for the 3 months that he was correctly billed.
> 
> I do feel for them and a problem like this.


Even if that was the case, he should have been offered one of the cheaper retention only SELECT packages to lower his bill down for the remainder of the contract, and rather than giving him a one time credit, it should have been explained to him that the offer was only for three months.

From reading his post, it would appear DirecTv is agreeing with him there is a problem, offering to correct it, and them it recurs the next month. Someone needs to pull up his contract, read it, explain what was offered, make sure all rebates were applied, list out the monthly charges from this point on, and allow the OP to make changes to the package to keep it in line with his budget.

It shouldnt take monthly 2 hour calls to remedy.


----------



## west99999 (May 12, 2007)

Sounds to me like they had free movies for 3 months then started getting billed for them. Just a guess they could have removed all of the premiums and got him/her to the monthly total promised. Who knows?


----------



## DirecTVSucks (Jan 20, 2013)

When I originally signed up for the service I was guaranteed the rate of $77.89 a month for 2 years. I specifically signed up for a specific package at this rate with the channels that I wanted. I also specifically declined all movie packages and premium channels as I did not want to have to remember to call and cancel them at the end of the trial. I do not want a lower priced package. I wanted the service that I was promised. DirecTV was never willing to honor this, that is why I cancelled my service with them.


----------



## Hoosier205 (Sep 3, 2007)

DirecTVSucks;3165684 said:


> When I originally signed up for the service I was guaranteed the rate of $77.89 a month for 2 years. I specifically signed up for a specific package at this rate with the channels that I wanted. I also specifically declined all movie packages and premium channels as I did not want to have to remember to call and cancel them at the end of the trial. I do not want a lower priced package. I wanted the service that I was promised. DirecTV was never willing to honor this, that is why I cancelled my service with them.


You were not guaranteed that rate for two years. Goodbye.


----------



## Davenlr (Sep 16, 2006)

If they told you the package was $55 for two years, then the HDDVR fee would be around $20, Whole home would be $3, and Extra receiver would be $6. That adds up to more than $77 right there. 

Personally, I would pull out the contract I signed, read it, and if it indeed shows you have a locked in price of $77 and change after taxes, take it to arbitration and try to get your termination fee refunded, as they would have been the ones to break the contract by raising your rates mid-contract.


----------



## rsonnens (Nov 8, 2006)

I am not sure if the op did not understand the initial contract, or if DirectTV was in error, or some combination of the two. However I will say that this letter was a poorly written letter if the op was expecting a constructive response. Also posting to other sites, and saying so in the letter, before a response could be sent doesn't make things better.

This is the kind of letter that I am sure made the op feel better by getting his anger out, which I believe is real. Writing the letter did serve a real purpose for the Op, but it should not have been sent, it should have been rewritten.

The letter was not clear and concise at the very beginning as to the nature of the issue, and what an acceptable response would be. Most of this letter should have been an addendum as it is important information but gets in the way of clearly getting to the point. 

Finally, picking the user name he did in this forum IMHO is not appropriate. What if they did resolve the issue for you and gave you a sweet deal. I'd be interesting in knowing but I don't think I'd ever again read a post with this user name because it is prejudiced.

Sorry for your troubles.


----------



## 242424 (Mar 22, 2012)

Hoosier205 said:


> You were not guaranteed that rate for two years. Goodbye.


And you can't buy Sunday Ticket yet.....


----------



## HinterXGames (Dec 20, 2012)

Actually, you can buy Sunday Ticket. It's not included in new customer offers at the moment, but the ST Max (not base) is currently available to add for the 2013 season. It's for customers who would like to pay it off earlier in the year for the upcoming season and not wait until the fall.
--
EDIT: Oh, nevermind 242424. I see what you were doing there. Ignore my post.


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

DirecTVSucks said:


> To Whom It May Concern,
> 
> If by sharing my story with the public I can convince just 10 people to not sign up for your service, then the cancelation fee will have been well worth it.
> Sincerely,
> A very disgusted formerly happy DirecTV subscriber


Wow. Not only disgruntled, but vindictive.

Adios.


----------



## Mike Bertelson (Jan 24, 2007)

Okay everyone, be constrictive and civil or don't post.

Mike


----------



## trh (Nov 3, 2007)

As TANK said above, to bad you didn't find 'us' earlier. It looks like at least two of your email addresses where you sent this are wrong. Ellen's office, by all accounts, is very responsive and from what I've read, they do respond to all issues. Good luck.


----------



## DirecTVSucks (Jan 20, 2013)

Bounceback's on every email address

Recipient address: [email protected]
Reason: Remote SMTP server has rejected address
Diagnostic code: smtp;550 5.4.1 [email protected]: Recipient address rejected: Access Denied
Remote system: dns;mail.messaging.microsoft.com (TCP|17.158.232.236|61089|216.32.180.22|25)
Recipient address: [email protected]
Reason: Remote SMTP server has rejected address
Diagnostic code: smtp;550 5.4.1 [email protected]: Recipient address rejected: Access Denied
Remote system: dns;mail.messaging.microsoft.com (TCP|17.158.232.237|50184|216.32.180.22|25)
Recipient address: [email protected]
Reason: Remote SMTP server has rejected address
Diagnostic code: smtp;550 5.4.1 [email protected]: Recipient address rejected: Access Denied
Remote system: dns;mail.messaging.microsoft.com (TCP|17.158.232.237|50184|216.32.180.22|25)
Recipient address: [email protected]
Reason: Remote SMTP server has rejected address
Diagnostic code: smtp;550 5.4.1 [email protected]: Recipient address rejected: Access Denied
Remote system: dns;mail.messaging.microsoft.com (TCP|17.158.232.237|50184|216.32.180.22|25)
Recipient address: [email protected]
Reason: Remote SMTP server has rejected address
Diagnostic code: smtp;550 5.4.1 [email protected]: Recipient address rejected: Access Denied
Remote system: dns;mail.messaging.microsoft.com (TCP|17.158.232.237|50184|216.32.180.22|25)
Recipient address: [email protected]
Reason: Remote SMTP server has rejected address
Diagnostic code: smtp;550 5.4.1 [email protected]: Recipient address rejected: Access Denied
Remote system: dns;mail.messaging.microsoft.com (TCP|17.158.232.237|50184|216.32.180.22|25)
Recipient address: [email protected]
Reason: Remote SMTP server has rejected address
Diagnostic code: smtp;550 5.4.1 [email protected]: Recipient address rejected: Access Denied
Remote system: dns;mail.messaging.microsoft.com (TCP|17.158.232.237|50184|216.32.180.22|25)
Recipient address: [email protected]
Reason: Remote SMTP server has rejected address
Diagnostic code: smtp;550 5.4.1 [email protected]: Recipient address rejected: Access Denied
Remote system: dns;mail.messaging.microsoft.com (TCP|17.158.232.237|50184|216.32.180.22|25)


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

trh said:


> As TANK said above, to bad you didn't find 'us' earlier. It looks like at least two of your email addresses where you sent this are wrong. Ellen's office, by all accounts, is very responsive and from what I've read, they do respond to all issues. Good luck.


And when one spams a company, one is less likely to get a response.


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

Almost amusing. I wrote my previous post without seeing your list of rejected e-mails. Looks like DIRECTV® may have an auto rejector set up for such multiple "cross posts".... 

Did you really expect several members of management to deal with your situation?


----------



## trh (Nov 3, 2007)

DirecTVSucks said:


> Bounceback's on every email address
> 
> Recipient address: [email protected]
> Reason: Remote SMTP server has rejected address
> Diagnostic code: smtp;550 5.4.1 [email protected]: Recipient address rejected: Access Denied


So everyone you sent was rejected?

I see the problem with Ellen's (which BTW, isn't the same address you listed above). Should be: [email protected] (you left out an 'i' between the 'l' and 'p').


----------



## Mike Bertelson (Jan 24, 2007)

DirecTVSucks said:


> Bounceback's on every email address
> 
> <snip>


Part of the problem is those are very old email adresses. For example, Chase Carey left DIRECTV in 2009. I don't know but I'll bet most or all of them are no longer valid.

Mike


----------



## HinterXGames (Dec 20, 2012)

To the OP, I really am sorry to hear about your experience. I won't comment further on that, as all of the details aren't available. Good luck in your future services.


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

Mike Bertelson said:


> Part of the problem is those are very old email adresses. For example, Chase Carey left DIRECTV in 2009. I don't know but I'll bet most or all of them are no longer valid.
> 
> Mike


I think the more important point is one doesn't spam the upper management of a company; it's counter-productive.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

Laxguy said:


> I think the more important point is one doesn't spam the upper management of a company; it's counter-productive.


If someone thinks they have a grievance, how should they go about voicing it?

Social Media (Facebook, Twitter, Google+, Youtube)?

BBB?

Consumer Reports?

DSL Reports?


----------



## Davenlr (Sep 16, 2006)

OP, since none of your emails went through, I would consider rewriting your letter, be civil, leave out the social media threats, explain your problem, put in what you think the solution should be, and send it to the address listed above for [email protected].

I have never heard of anyone waiting more than two days for a response.

See how they handle your issue, and post back with the results.


----------



## DirecTVSucks (Jan 20, 2013)

Exactly, I don't want to SPAM their management, they do have other things to worry about than just me. But what am I to do if I am not getting a response from customer service or escalations support I am not sure what else to do.


----------



## spartanstew (Nov 16, 2005)

You did get a response. They told you there was nothing they could do to remove the ETF. At that point, you had a choice to make and you made it. Case closed. Start enjoying your new provider and move on.


----------



## DirecTVSucks (Jan 20, 2013)

In a normal situation if I just decided I did not want my service for whatever reason, I can understand paying a cancellation fee. I would be more than happy to in that instance. However in this case I do not feel that I ever got the service for which I signed up for or was promised, hence me disputing the ETF.


----------



## spartanstew (Nov 16, 2005)

Or maybe you misunderstood what you signed up for.

Either way, you were told you'd have to pay an ETF and with that information, decided to cancel anyway.

Maybe something will come of it for you, but if I were D*, I wouldn't give you anything. You're simply a former customer now.


----------



## Hoosier205 (Sep 3, 2007)

DirecTVSucks;3165777 said:


> In a normal situation if I just decided I did not want my service for whatever reason, I can understand paying a cancellation fee. I would be more than happy to in that instance. However in this case I do not feel that I ever got the service for which I signed up for or was promised, hence me disputing the ETF.


Promised? That rate was never guaranteed to you for two years.


----------



## DirecTVSucks (Jan 20, 2013)

Actually since we were returning DirecTV customers, they were having a loyalty program offer and giving me a gift card = rebates for canceling other service and returning to them. The rebates paid for any fees associated with the other providers to cancel. As a thank you, it was a 2 year price lock guarantee.


----------



## Hoosier205 (Sep 3, 2007)

DirecTVSucks;3165794 said:


> Actually since we were returning DirecTV customers, they were having a loyalty program offer and giving me a gift card = rebates for canceling other service and returning to them. The rebates paid for any fees associated with the other providers to cancel. As a thank you, it was a 2 year price lock guarantee.


You failed to pay attention to what you were agreeing to. Good luck with your new provider. You didn't come here for help. You came to tell your are avoiding taking responsibility for your own errors and have decided to spam random email accounts in an effort to defer blame.

You should pay the fee that you are responsible for and move on.


----------



## DirecTVSucks (Jan 20, 2013)

I love how you automatically side with the corporate giant and assume that I am clearly wrong in what I agreed to. DirecTV could in no way be at fault according to you....you obviously have not seen the vast myriad of internet postings referring to the exact same situation that I am in. I have a legitimate grievance and DirecTV can SEE the original contract that I signed up for, they agree with me, state that they are going to change it, don't end up changing it to rectify their mistakes, and I have to call them back again the next month. I was told to post here because DirecTV often times monitors this site and maybe I could get some help that way.


----------



## Brubear (Nov 14, 2008)

If the Office of the President gets involved they will pull the call and verify that the offer made was not misrepresented. I believe all sales calls are kept, as well as the secondary verification that occurs when an upgrade offer is placed. Not only does the caller speak with the person who placed the order, they go to a 3rd party who verifies - on that call - what the account holder agreed to, and what they are getting.
The current offer on a mover's upgrade (and the one likely given the poster) is 3 months of comped advanced services + 3 months free premium channels. DirecTV does not, and have not had, locked in 2 year rates. Section 1D of the customer service agreement states specifically that they may change rates at any time based on various external pressures. 
My opinion is that it is a regrettable miscommunication, and options may exist for the op if Ms Filipiak gets involved, but I strongly suspect that once the calls are pulled, the accuracy of the original order will be verified.


----------



## Hoosier205 (Sep 3, 2007)

DirecTVSucks;3165811 said:


> ...and assume that I am clearly wrong in what I agreed to.


 You are.



DirecTVSucks;3165811 said:


> I was told to post here because DirecTV often times monitors this site and maybe I could get some help that way.


They don't.

Pay the ETF you are responsible for or allow it to go to collections. Hopefully they will be able to recover something.


----------



## Hoosier205 (Sep 3, 2007)

Brubear;3165814 said:


> If the Office of the President gets involved they will pull the call and verify that the offer made was not misrepresented. I believe all sales calls are kept, as well as the secondary verification that occurs when an upgrade offer is placed. Not only does the caller speak with the person who placed the order, they go to a 3rd party who verifies - on that call - what the account holder agreed to, and what they are getting.
> The current offer on a mover's upgrade (and the one likely given the poster) is 3 months of comped advanced services + 3 months free premium channels. DirecTV does not, and have not had, locked in 2 year rates. Section 1D of the customer service agreement states specifically that they may change rates at any time based on various external pressures.
> My opinion is that it is a regrettable miscommunication, and options may exist for the op if Ms Filipiak gets involved, but I strongly suspect that once the calls are pulled, the accuracy of the original order will be verified.


+1

I am all for companies being held accountable and honoring their own agreements. I am also tired of hearing about consumers not being held to some reasonable standard as well.


----------



## DirecTVSucks (Jan 20, 2013)

See this is what I don't get from all of you. DirecTV agrees with me. They see the notes in my account. They realize I have an issue with the account. They admit that there is an issue with their system. They attempt to rectify the situation. The next month the same situation arises again. Their billing system is having issues. I DO NOT WANT TO SPEND 2 HOURS ON THE PHONE EACH MONTH TO FIX THE ISSUE. I have spoken with 3 different account mangers not front line support. All of them state that they see the credits that should have been applied and are not being correctly applied. All of them agree that I should have a lower bill. At what point do I as a consumer get to say enough is enough. Evidently never according to each and every one of you. I should just keep bending over and taking it. I am being penalized because they do not care enough to fix the issues with their system. All they have to do is honor their agreement. Fix the system and I would happily stay a customer. They do have the best digital signal out there. They can all see the notes in the account. EACH AND EVERY ONE OF YOU WOULD DO THE EXACT SAME THING I AM DOING. It is always easy to respond the way each and everyone of you have when it is someone else's money. You automatically assume that I am wrong and corporations can do no evil.


----------



## Davenlr (Sep 16, 2006)

DirecTVSucks said:


> You automatically assume that I am wrong and corporations can do no evil.


See what response you get from Ellen Filpiak at the correct email provided, and ignore the people who are not trying to be constructive.

Im not seeing their responses because I have them blocked. There are those people who arent helpful, and just try to stir up crap in every thread that doesnt kiss Directv's butt.

Most people on this forum are quite helpful. If it gets out of control, just go to private messages with those you deem are trying to help.


----------



## CCarncross (Jul 19, 2005)

IMO, Directv has the best digital signal out there, on that I will agree with you. But they are in no way the cheapest service out there. I am willing to pay more for what I feel is the best quality service for me. You want a deal, I suggest you go to Dish. Noone gets a 2-year full price break, and as you can see most people do not believe your whole story because most have been here long enough to smell something just doesnt seem right about your story. Decide to pay the actual going rate for your package, or cancel, its your choice.


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

Directv does do price locks by the way, But the loophole is its only on your basepack.

I just thought I'd put that out there cause I saw a few post saying Directv doesn't do that.


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

Hoosier205 said:


> You are.
> 
> They don't.
> 
> Pay the ETF you are responsible for or allow it to go to collections. *Hopefully they will be able to recover something*.


:hurah:

I think Directv will be OK!!:hurah::hurah:


----------



## DirecTVSucks (Jan 20, 2013)

http://www.techbargains.com/news_displayItem.cfm/293269

This is my proof. I signed up for DirecTV 2 year price lock from this website. I clicked on the link and chose my package and was able to lock in my price for 2 years. By allowing resellers of their service DirecTV is obligated to follow though with the terms of the agreement.


----------



## jimmie57 (Jun 26, 2010)

DirecTVSucks said:


> http://www.techbargains.com/news_displayItem.cfm/293269
> 
> This is my proof. I signed up for DirecTV 2 year price lock from this website. I clicked on the link and chose my package and was able to lock in my price for 2 years. By allowing resellers of their service DirecTV is obligated to follow though with the terms of the agreement.


This is expired but maybe was not when you signed up.

I copied this and pasted it here from the ad.

DirecTV is offering users a chance to lock prices for 2 years.* Note that the 2nd year is more expensive than the first,* but you are still locked in to a sale price. This offer expires 7/18. Plans range from *$29.99/mo*. Choose the package that best suits you, some of which include:


----------



## DirecTVSucks (Jan 20, 2013)

and I never even got my first year pricing, hence my anger. oh well, I am off work now going home. have a good night everyone.


----------



## Justin23 (Jan 11, 2008)

DirecTVSucks;3165908 said:


> and I never even got my first year pricing, hence my anger. oh well, I am off work now going home. have a good night everyone.


When you called in, did you speak with the reseller, or D* directly? What was the # you called?


----------



## brucegrr (Sep 14, 2006)

Perhaps what the OP means is that he was supposed to have a specific discount for two years? (as I presently do)

That said, evil is a moral or religious quality. Directv may or may not have done right by the OP but I would reserve the word evil for people who massacre 20 children and not a corporation.


----------



## Stuart Sweet (Jun 19, 2006)

brucegrr said:


> That said, evil is a moral or religious quality. Directv may or may not have done right by the OP but I would reserve the word evil for people who massacre 20 children and not a corporation.


Best post of the day.


----------



## prushing (Feb 14, 2007)

Just because you clicked the link doesn't mean you were eligible for that deal. You said you put your account on hold when you moved. How long were you gone for? You most likely were not a customer long enough to get the "new customer" deal. DTV simply offered you the latest "movers" deal if you used the same person when "resigning" up. Then you didn't pay attention to the contract.

Simple thing is just get your contract or emails that DTV sent you. If you don't have those, sorry then you have no proof and DTV can do whatever they want. Just play nice and see if they are willing to drop the price for anything.


----------



## n3vino (Oct 2, 2011)

What I can figure is that the promo for the premium channels expired and he started to be charged for them. He mentioned that he didn't want them because he didn't want to call and cancel. I'm wondering if that's where the glitch is. He never mentioned what he was being charge for in his monthly statement.


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

brucegrr said:


> Perhaps what the OP means is that he was supposed to have a specific discount for two years? (as I presently do)
> 
> That said, evil is a moral or religious quality. Directv may or may not have done right by the OP but I would reserve the word evil for people who massacre 20 children and not a corporation.


Well put. Plus when one has a misunderstanding or an outright disagreement with another, it's not license to say they "suck".


----------



## lipcrkr (Apr 27, 2012)

TWC SUX!!


----------



## litex2x (Sep 8, 2012)

It seems as if you misunderstood your contract. Usually when you sign up you always get a bunch of discounts, most of which run out by the end of the first year. Some of the discounts stop around the third or sixth month, which seems consistent with the months your bills went up. I think it's a safe bet that the csr that handled your initial subscription didn't make it fully clear to you what your bills would look like as the months go by. Anybody else that you talked to probably just forced the discount when they weren't suppose and the system just automatically took it away again since your 3 months are up.


----------



## acostapimps (Nov 6, 2011)

Smells like a troll but I could be wrong


----------



## JJJBBB (May 26, 2007)

awful, wow.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

When I see posters using Anger and Evil in their posts - they lose all credibility. Then add in it being their first post ever (a mega-vent), and one has to question things even further.


----------



## wilbur_the_goose (Aug 16, 2006)

As Ms. Collins always said, "It's just TV"


----------



## Weller (Apr 23, 2002)

Brubear said:


> If the Office of the President gets involved they will pull the call and verify that the offer made was not misrepresented. I believe all sales calls are kept, as well as the secondary verification that occurs when an upgrade offer is placed. Not only does the caller speak with the person who placed the order, they go to a 3rd party who verifies - on that call - what the account holder agreed to, and what they are getting.
> The current offer on a mover's upgrade (and the one likely given the poster) is 3 months of comped advanced services + 3 months free premium channels. DirecTV does not, and have not had, locked in 2 year rates. Section 1D of the customer service agreement states specifically that they may change rates at any time based on various external pressures.
> My opinion is that it is a regrettable miscommunication, and options may exist for the op if Ms Filipiak gets involved, but I strongly suspect that once the calls are pulled, the accuracy of the original order will be verified.


Not true! When I signed up in Dec 2011 my package price was guaranteed for 2 years, regardless of price increases. I have a credit on my bill for the amount of the increase. I sympathise with this guy as I had similar issues with AT&T uverse, hence I switched to DirecTV. I cannot understand the loyalty some of you guys show to these big companies sometimes. There is few things more frustrating than finally getting though to a CSR that helps and says its all sorted only for it to return because they are so big that it seems that the left hand doesn't know with the right hand is doing. Then you have to go through it all again, getting passed from person to person. Very frustrating!!


----------



## Richierich (Jan 10, 2008)

If you want people to read your Posts you should keep them Short and Concise.

I have had great luck and service from emailing [email protected].


----------



## Mike Bertelson (Jan 24, 2007)

Richierich said:


> If you want people to read your Posts you should keep them Short and Concise.
> 
> I have had great luck and service from emailing [email protected].


Short and concise would be preferable but we will always try to help/discuss regardless. 

Mike


----------



## dmurphy (Sep 28, 2006)

DirecTVSucks said:


> Bounceback's on every email address
> Recipient address: [email protected]
> Reason: Remote SMTP server has rejected address
> Diagnostic code: smtp;550 5.4.1 [email protected]:


Spelled it wrong.

[email protected]


----------



## Richierich (Jan 10, 2008)

Mike Bertelson said:


> Short and concise would be preferable but we will always try to help/discuss regardless.
> Mike


Well, if it is a Long and Winded Oration it will tend to have a lot of people Ignore it as they don't have all day to read long posts so if you want sympathy and you want people to see your point of view, try to Keep It Simple Stupid, the KISS Principle!!! :lol:


----------



## Diana C (Mar 30, 2007)

wilbur_the_goose said:


> As Ms. Collins always said, "It's just TV"


Thank you. 

As far as the OP's issue goes, we can all speculate about what he or she did or didn't do, or what was or wasn't fully explained, or what was or wasn't promised, but none of us were on the calls so we don't know anything definitively.

I'm sorry the OP feels so strongly negative about DirecTV. He or she has taken the appropriate action by terminating a business relationship with the company. I hope they find greater staisfaction with their new TV provider.

But remember, it IS only TV.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

DirecTVSucks said:


> I love how you automatically side with the corporate giant and assume that I am clearly wrong in what I agreed to.


Having been around a while and watched DIRECTV's progression of offers over the last several years, I don't remember any true "price lock" offerings. DISH has done one or two in the last four years.

Perhaps you could share some evidence that you had more than their typical guaranteed savings promotions? Giving a fixed discount (what DIRECTV typically does) is not the same thing as a price freeze.

What specific calendar date did you sign up? Perhaps we can use the Wayback machine to figure out what the specifics of the offer were absent more authoritative evidence.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

Diana C said:


> But remember, it IS only TV.


It stops being about TV and starts being an adversarial relationship when on party pulls a stunt on the other.

Everyone needs to know what to look out for (very much like keeping careful records of tracking numbers on equipment you return).

There's also something to be said for how DIRECTV educates their CSRs and how much (or how little) confidence can be placed on what they say.


----------



## 456521 (Jul 6, 2007)

Weller said:


> Not true! When I signed up in Dec 2011 my package price was guaranteed for 2 years, regardless of price increases. I have a credit on my bill for the amount of the increase. I sympathise with this guy as I had similar issues with AT&T uverse, hence I switched to DirecTV. *I cannot understand the loyalty some of you guys show to these big companies sometimes*. There is few things more frustrating than finally getting though to a CSR that helps and says its all sorted only for it to return because they are so big that it seems that the left hand doesn't know with the right hand is doing. Then you have to go through it all again, getting passed from person to person. Very frustrating!!


It happens all the time, not just with DirecTV (check out some Apple message boards). Many people are emotionally attached to their provider for some strange reason. It's almost as if DirecTV is their friend or family and they need to be "protected" from disparaging comments.

Not sure I would call DirecTV evil, but Tivo on the other hand.....


----------



## Hoosier205 (Sep 3, 2007)

harsh;3166299 said:


> There's also something to be said for how DIRECTV educates their CSRs and how much (or how little) confidence can be placed on what they say.


Says the Dish Network customer.


----------



## n3vino (Oct 2, 2011)

Did the OP say how long he was gone from D*? It's possible tht he wasn't entitled to two year promos and that's why his rebates were not processed. If that's the case, who ever signed him up messed up. It's hard to know what really happened because the OP does not explain too many things. I'm wondering if he's checked his statements to see if there are any additional charges such as premium channels,.


----------



## Diana C (Mar 30, 2007)

harsh said:


> It stops being about TV and starts being an adversarial relationship when on party pulls a stunt on the other.
> 
> Everyone needs to know what to look out for (very much like keeping careful records of tracking numbers on equipment you return).
> 
> There's also something to be said for how DIRECTV educates their CSRs and how much (or how little) confidence can be placed on what they say.


There is also something to be said about maintaining one's perspective. We recently had the unfortunate experience of someone that we had employed as a housekeeper for 16 years stealing approximately $1500 from us. At the same time, she stole an equivalent amount of money from a friend of ours, for whom she also works. Our friend got emotional and exclaimed "How could she do this to me?" The truth is she didn't do this "to" anyone...she simply needed money and chose to take it where she could. We are sad that a person we have known for so long and trusted felt she couldn't ask us for help, but such is life.

Likewise, the OP has had an unfortunate experience with DirecTV. Out of the tens of millions of customers DirecTV has had over the years, such stories are exceedingly rare (as they are for Dish Network). Going on a crusade against a company online is quixotic at best. It never pays to become emotionally involved in a business transaction.

As far as placing trust in what a CSR says, a simple rule of business applies to ANY representative of ANY company: "Verbal agreements are not worth the paper they are printed upon."


----------



## Inkosaurus (Jul 29, 2011)

DirecTVSucks said:


> See this is what I don't get from all of you. DirecTV agrees with me. They see the notes in my account. They realize I have an issue with the account. They admit that there is an issue with their system. They attempt to rectify the situation. The next month the same situation arises again. Their billing system is having issues. I DO NOT WANT TO SPEND 2 HOURS ON THE PHONE EACH MONTH TO FIX THE ISSUE. I have spoken with 3 different account mangers not front line support. All of them state that they see the credits that should have been applied and are not being correctly applied. All of them agree that I should have a lower bill. At what point do I as a consumer get to say enough is enough. Evidently never according to each and every one of you. I should just keep bending over and taking it. I am being penalized because they do not care enough to fix the issues with their system. All they have to do is honor their agreement. Fix the system and I would happily stay a customer. They do have the best digital signal out there. They can all see the notes in the account. EACH AND EVERY ONE OF YOU WOULD DO THE EXACT SAME THING I AM DOING. It is always easy to respond the way each and everyone of you have when it is someone else's money. You automatically assume that I am wrong and corporations can do no evil.


No. Those account managers were seeing the credits that were applied by past supervisors you spoke to. Not the ones that would be applied by the system, they were likely being removed by the system automatically because you didnt *deserve them.*
Thats why the agents kept telling you after the "x" amount of credit your account could no longer be credited again, because you topped out your accounts on credits and the system would cut you off. Promotional credits from when you sign up dont do this, retention/loyalty credits do. I.e. Credits that are placed on accounts when a customer complains to much.

You're leaving out many details that most other customers wouldnt pick up on, but any current and former employee of D* (heck even E*) would pick up on this immediately..

I dont usually agree with hoosier but he's right about you never being promised a 2 year price lock in. That does not exist.


----------



## Inkosaurus (Jul 29, 2011)

wilbur_the_goose said:


> As Ms. Collins always said, "It's just TV"


I once said that to a customer whom I thought was muted on my end...
Things didnt go well after that:lol:


----------



## ZandarKoad (Oct 25, 2009)

Not to add fuel to the fire, but it is true that corporations can do no evil by definition. Corporations have no physical existence of themselves beyond paper (or electronic) documents. The only person or thing that has the moral ability to do evil is a man (or woman). So it would be more accurate to place the blame on the persons who lend their mental and physical capacities to the offices of the corporations who are ostensibly doing evil.


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

Inkosaurus;3166359 said:


> I dont usually agree with hoosier but he's right about you never being promised a 2 year price lock in. That does not exist.


At one point, it sounded like a one year price guarantee, then a set discount on the second year. That is one I've seen.


----------



## Mark40930 (Aug 2, 2007)

dpeters11 said:


> At one point, it sounded like a one year price guarantee, then a set discount on the second year. That is one I've seen.


Agreed, I have seen those in the past; other promos now lock in base price then offer free premiums for first 3 months.


----------



## unixguru (Jul 9, 2007)

ZandarKoad said:


> Not to add fuel to the fire, but it is true that corporations can do no evil by definition. Corporations have no physical existence of themselves beyond paper (or electronic) documents. The only person or thing that has the moral ability to do evil is a man (or woman). So it would be more accurate to place the blame on the persons who lend their mental and physical capacities to the offices of the corporations who are ostensibly doing evil.


_"corporations are people too"_ :lol: Corporations want it both ways - be a person when it benefits them and not when it harms them.

I wouldn't call this evil. Maybe not even unethical (would require intent). Incompetent seems right.


----------



## bobcamp1 (Nov 8, 2007)

Diana C said:


> Likewise, the OP has had an unfortunate experience with DirecTV. Out of the tens of millions of customers DirecTV has had over the years, such stories are exceedingly rare (as they are for Dish Network).


There are all kinds of stories about customers getting screwed by pretty much every provider, including and especially D*. Mainly from charging the ETF even when they failed to provide service as advertised. In fact, there's a class-action lawsuit against D* for this very reason.

And that problem is here as well. Service includes correct billing. Either tell the OP he was not eligible for the deal (even though at one point D* said he was), admit they cannot honor it, or fix his account once and for all. Let him leave without an ETF, as D* did not hold up their end of the agreement.

The OP should know that D* will charge his credit card, so he should cancel it immediately. There's also arbitration to recover the lost money and ETF if needed.


----------



## Hoosier205 (Sep 3, 2007)

bobcamp1;3166543 said:


> as D* did not hold up their end of the agreement.


Of course they did.


----------



## Diana C (Mar 30, 2007)

There are "all kinds of stories" about almost everything and anything on the internet. Even if there were 100,000 incidents like this, compared to the tens (if not hundreds) of million perfectly ordinary and satisfactory transactions carried out by a TV service provider (DirecTV or anyone else) we are still talking about a very rare occurance (we're talking about tenths of a percent here).

I'm not defending DirecTV - if the OP has presented the full and true story it is clear that DirecTV has bungled this account. All I'm saying is that one needs to keep perspective. Life is too short to harbor anger against a corporation. It just isn't productive.


----------



## Bill Broderick (Aug 25, 2006)

Inkosaurus said:


> No. Those account managers were seeing the credits that were applied by past supervisors you spoke to. Not the ones that would be applied by the system, they were likely being removed by the system automatically because you didnt *deserve them.*


Not necessarily. Sometimes, automatic removals of things are just caused by programs that were written to think that certain things were a mistake. Way back when, when DirecTV was upgrading their service so that the old HR10-250's no longer worked, Customer Service reps (and supervisors were attempting to replace two 250's with two HR2x's. The system wouldn't allow them to put two HR2x's onto a single order. So they created two orders each with one HR2x on it. The system kept canceling the second order as a duplicate. Eventually, they had to setup the installation with one HR2x and one H2x, and put a note in my account that I was entitled to a second HR2x at no cost.
Five minutes after my installation was complete, I called and arranged for the H2x to be swapped for an HR2x.

My point is that some times, programs get in the way of Customer Service being able to fix a problem properly.

To the OP, as others have recommended, I would suggest writing a new email to Ellen Filipiak's office, that states the facts as you believe them to be. Don't rant like a crazy person. Expressing your frustration is fine. But anger and threats won't help you.


----------



## Nick (Apr 23, 2002)

Well, I mean, you know, corporations need our money to make those _unlimited_ political campaign donations.



> Disclaimer:This is not a political post, and does not represent any particular political party, candidate, stripe, persuasion or point of view.


----------



## Richierich (Jan 10, 2008)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> When I see posters using Anger and Evil in their posts - they lose all credibility. Then add in it being their first post ever (a mega-vent), and one has to question things even further.


I Totally Agree!!!


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

dpeters11 said:


> At one point, it sounded like a one year price guarantee, then a set discount on the second year. That is one I've seen.


Did DirecTV stop locking the first year price? When the company advertises "$29.99 per month for 12 months" the promise is "$29.99 per month" ... Not $25 off for 12 months but $29.99 for 12 months. In the past DirecTV honored the stated price ... the $29.99 per month ... not the level of discount. (It was one of the things I commend them for doing.)

The current offers have in big print the $$ per month ... so I hope that they are still running their promotions that way. The second year of the "two year price lock" is save $10 per month in the second year. Not an explicit price but a stated discount for the second year. And the three months free HBO+Starz+Showtime+Cinemax is explicit as being three months. It seems pretty clear.


----------



## Diana C (Mar 30, 2007)

James Long said:


> Did DirecTV stop locking the first year price? When the company advertises "$29.99 per month for 12 months" the promise is "$29.99 per month" ... Not $25 off for 12 months but $29.99 for 12 months. In the past DirecTV honored the stated price ... the $29.99 per month ... not the level of discount. (It was one of the things I commend them for doing.)
> 
> The current offers have in big print the $$ per month ... so I hope that they are still running their promotions that way. The second year of the "two year price lock" is save $10 per month in the second year. Not an explicit price but a stated discount for the second year. And the three months free HBO+Starz+Showtime+Cinemax is explicit as being three months. It seems pretty clear.


All true...but those deals are for NEW customers. As the OP stated, they were resuming a previously *suspended* account. I think that is why most people are questioning the legitimacy of the rebates.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Diana C said:


> All true...but those deals are for NEW customers. As the OP stated, they were resuming a previously *suspended* account. I think that is why most people are questioning the legitimacy of the rebates.


The deal he linked to was similar to what is being offered today ... and it is good that for new customers that offer stands. The thought that he got something "special" that is not on the books makes it more difficult.

We have heard of a lot of sweet deals that people get by talking to the right CSR. If the deal claimed in this thread was true it would be the sweetest deal that I have seen. Come back on a suspended account, have DirecTV pay your ETF at another carrier and give you a two year same price guarantee? Besides our Thread Starter has anyone reported a deal that good?


----------



## jmpfaff (Dec 13, 2004)

Inkosaurus said:


> I dont usually agree with hoosier but he's right about you never being promised a 2 year price lock in. That does not exist.


I routinely get offers in the mail for both D* and E* that state a two year price lock guarantee. Usually they are from resellers.

You may have never been offered such, but they do exist.


----------



## Inkosaurus (Jul 29, 2011)

jmpfaff said:


> I routinely get offers in the mail for both D* and E* that state a two year price lock guarantee. Usually they are from resellers.
> 
> You may have never been offered such, but they do exist.


Read the fine print. Theres promos and stuff to help off set the change but the price still changes. And these are for new customers, the OP was not a new customer.

I worked at E* during the price freeze. And trust me when I say prices certainly were not locked in and did indeed change 
(i.e. , a customers AT200 being locked in at its base price, but first year promo's expiring resulting in a price increase. Rest assured there were many "But my "Price" was locked in" calls, and the answer was always "Your package price was, and its still locked in at "X" amount, but your total price is not locked in" )

@Bill Broderick, I agree that the system does at times perceive legitimate changes and credits as mistakes and fixes it. But having worked for both E* and D* in the back of my mind my first thought is, if the credits didnt take 3 times then theres a reason why the system is continually taking it off lol.
I'd personally love to see the notes on this account as well as the other information on it, because I can promise you all he's leaving details out of his long winded post.


----------



## jmpfaff (Dec 13, 2004)

Look, all I said was that there are circulars stating a locked in price for 2 years. I didn't say the OP was eligible for such a promotion, and I didn't say that the provider would actually fulfill the promise.

I suspect that there was a miscommunication between the OP and whomever he/she talked to originally (because of suspended account vs new customer). But unless you have a recording of that call, you don't know whether the OP is "misremembering" or the sales agent gave a "sloppy" explanation of eligibility and terms.

I'm happy with D*, and thus far they have treated me well. But their ranking with the BBB would not be what it is if they were always straightforward and honest with every customer.


----------



## Inkosaurus (Jul 29, 2011)

jmpfaff said:


> Look, all I said was that there are circulars stating a locked in price for 2 years. I didn't say the OP was eligible for such a promotion, and I didn't say that the provider would actually fulfill the promise.
> 
> I suspect that there was a miscommunication between the OP and whomever he/she talked to originally (because of suspended account vs new customer). But unless you have a recording of that call, you don't know whether the OP is "misremembering" or the sales agent gave a "sloppy" explanation of eligibility and terms.
> 
> I'm happy with D*, and thus far they have treated me well. But their ranking with the BBB would not be what it is if they were always straightforward and honest with every customer.


You're right we dont have the recording of the call so most of us cant know.
On the flip side of that though Ive worked there (and for other call centers) and actually know how this type of call and series of supervisor transfers goes.. The OP is either leaving out details on purpose or was to frustrated/upset during the calls to have picked up on all of the details.


----------



## goinsleeper (May 23, 2012)

I've only ever seen locked in SAVINGS with D*. I've never seen a commercial, internet add, or promotion in the paper that said locked in PRICE. Not trying to fan the flame but there is a world of difference there even though the meaning is all in the way you read it, which may be the point.


----------



## Justin23 (Jan 11, 2008)

jmpfaff;3166622 said:


> I routinely get offers in the mail for both D* and E* that state a two year price lock guarantee. Usually they are from resellers.
> 
> You may have never been offered such, but they do exist.


I think the verbiage on the flyer says "lock in your savings" or "2nd year savings". That is different than a "price lock".


----------



## inf0z (Oct 16, 2011)

I didn't read a single line of the first post. I did see a lot of caps locking though. Contrary to popular belief caps lock is not the cruise control to cool.


----------



## trh (Nov 3, 2007)

Justin23 said:


> I think the verbiage on the flyer says "lock in your savings" or "2nd year savings". That is different than a "price lock".


What the ad said that the OP linked to was:


> DirecTV is offering users a chance to lock prices for 2 years. Note that the 2nd year is more expensive than the first, but you are still locked in to a sale price.





inf0z said:


> I didn't read a single line of the first post. I did see a lot of caps locking though. Contrary to popular belief caps lock is not the cruise control to cool.


What post are you referring too? Certainly not the OP's first post.


----------



## Justin23 (Jan 11, 2008)

If it says that the 2nd year cost is higher than the 1st...how is that a "locked in price"? It is a locked in savings which is how D* markets this 2nd year discount. I believe the last one was $29/off in the 1st year & $14/off in the 2nd.


----------



## goinsleeper (May 23, 2012)

trh said:


> What post are you referring too? Certainly not the OP's first post.


Maybe the "*EVIL*" in the title? Either way, contrary to popular belief, posting comments without saying anything constructive isn't cruise control to cool either.


----------



## acostapimps (Nov 6, 2011)

What i find funny about this or any thread is that whenever an OP talks about something negative everybody jumps in the conversation like politics, but if it's the other way around then there's nothing much to talk about, just sayin


----------



## Brubear (Nov 14, 2008)

After parsing this again, another scenario occurred to me. The op could have had an account on suspension and then called a retailer who set up new service and install. Upon activation, the original account was discovered and the new account invalidated. The customer gets the new equipment as per a new install, i.e. DirecTV doesn't back charge or take back equipment, but they don't qualify for the new customer price points. Any prospect is supposed to be asked "have you ever had DirecTV?". I've seen it a number of times with less-than-reputable retailers who will circumvent the system by falsifying phone numbers, changing the spelling of a name or putting it in the name of a relative. The process of investigation can take a while as well.


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

Justin23 said:


> If it says that the 2nd year cost is higher than the 1st...how is that a "locked in price"? It is a locked in savings which is how D* markets this 2nd year discount. I believe the last one was $29/off in the 1st year & $14/off in the 2nd.


 I have gotton a price lock offer from Directv in the past.

I remember the adds Lock your Price untill 2014.

They do exist, or have existed in the past.

But all it was is a Base pack price lock. 
Anyone who knows about Directv has seen ads like these many times.


----------



## unixguru (Jul 9, 2007)

Inkosaurus said:


> You're right we dont have the recording of the call so most of us cant know.


Would a recording really help? No doubt there is fine print somewhere that says they are not responsible for anything a CSR says.

Unfortunately the only solution is to get anything important in writing. That's best for both the consumer and the company. Which also means that none of these offers/acceptance/dispute resolutions should be done verbally. Writing doesn't have to mean snail mail - an appropriate PDF document via email should be just as good.

Another example with DTV is the state of leased products that are deemed obsolete and not collected.

Awhile back I had an issue with a Sony product. When working with their resolution group every detail that mattered was confirmed/acknowledged by an email. The resolution offer was a full blown PDF document. No misunderstandings.

Yet another way that DTV could _get their sh.. together_.


----------



## Hoosier205 (Sep 3, 2007)

unixguru;3166883 said:


> Would a recording really help? No doubt there is fine print somewhere that says they are not responsible for anything a CSR says.


It would be in the agreement and TOS. It isn't. So, no.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

Hoosier205 said:


> Says the Dish Network customer.


...who thoughtfully observed that we wouldn't be having this discussion of the OP was accurately informed.


----------



## Hoosier205 (Sep 3, 2007)

harsh;3166904 said:


> ...who thoughtfully observed that we wouldn't be having this discussion of the OP was accurately informed.


If that's how you choose to spin it.


----------



## Justin23 (Jan 11, 2008)

damondlt said:


> I have gotton a price lock offer from Directv in the past.
> 
> I remember the adds Lock your Price untill 2014.
> 
> ...


But the info the OP was looking at wasn't a price lock offer.


----------



## bobcamp1 (Nov 8, 2007)

Inkosaurus said:


> You're right we dont have the recording of the call so most of us cant know.
> On the flip side of that though Ive worked there (and for other call centers) and actually know how this type of call and series of supervisor transfers goes.. The OP is either leaving out details on purpose or was to frustrated/upset during the calls to have picked up on all of the details.


On one hand, the OP was criticized for making his post too long, now he's being criticized for making the post too short. I guess he can't win posting here. 

The OP should try Ellen Filipiak first, but if that doesn't work I've been there and done that. He needs to stop calling D* and start writing to them (not e-mails). If he does call D* or D* calls him, he needs to record every single phone conversation. And he needs to start arbitration. D* pays for most everything and it's held near where the OP lives. Hopefully his case won't go to court like mine did (but mine was for a much larger amount and not with D*).

D* is being accused of fraud. You cannot promise a discount or locked-in price, have the customer sign a two-year contract, then not honor it after the contract is signed. It even appears that D* acknowledged at some point that he should have been eligible.


----------



## Hoosier205 (Sep 3, 2007)

bobcamp1;3166915 said:


> On one hand, the OP was criticized for making his post too long, now he's being criticized for making the post too short. I guess he can't win posting here.
> 
> The OP should try Ellen Filipiak first, but if that doesn't work I've been there and done that. He needs to stop calling D* and start writing to them (not e-mails). If he does call D* or D* calls him, he needs to record every single phone conversation. And he needs to start arbitration. D* pays for most everything and it's held near where the OP lives. Hopefully his case won't go to court like mine did (but mine was for a much larger amount and not with D*).
> 
> D* is being accused of fraud. You cannot promise a discount or locked-in price, have the customer sign a two-year contract, then not honor it after the contract is signed. It even appears that D* acknowledged at some point that he should have been eligible.


That is not at all what happened. This is a clear case of the OP not paying attention to what they were agreeing to and now just trying to wiggle their way out of their responsibility.


----------



## Mike Bertelson (Jan 24, 2007)

Hoosier205 said:


> That is not at all what happened. This is a clear case of the OP not paying attention to what they were agreeing to and now just trying to wiggle their way out of their responsibility.


I don't think it's that clear at all. IMHO, there was some definite miscommunication and you're assuming that it's on the the OP and not the CSR.

I'm not sure how you can make the leap from what was posted that the OP is 100% at fault and now it trying to be deceitful to get out of the deal. It seems like you're making a few assumptions not in evidence.

Mike


----------



## Hoosier205 (Sep 3, 2007)

Mike Bertelson;3166941 said:


> I don't think it's that clear at all. IMHO, there was some definite miscommunication and you're assuming that it's on the the OP and not the CSR.
> 
> I'm not sure how you can make the leap from what was posted that the OP is 100% at fault and now it trying to be deceitful to get out of the deal. It seems like you're making a few assumptions not in evidence.
> 
> Mike


The OP is responsible for paying an ETF and is trying to get out of it.


----------



## Mike Bertelson (Jan 24, 2007)

Hoosier205 said:


> The OP is responsible for paying an ETF and is trying to get out of it.


That may be true but not at all what you talking about in the post I was replying to.

Mike


----------



## Hoosier205 (Sep 3, 2007)

Mike Bertelson;3166951 said:


> That may be true but not at all what you talking about in the post I was replying to.
> 
> Mike


Yes it is Mike.


----------



## PCampbell (Nov 18, 2006)

The OP has not been on this site in two days and this is still going. I think he may be gone.


----------



## Mike Bertelson (Jan 24, 2007)

Hoosier205 said:


> Yes it is Mike.


Interesting. 


Hoosier205 said:


> That is not at all what happened. *This is a clear case of the OP not paying attention to what they were agreeing to and now just trying to wiggle their way out of their responsibility.*


Okay, I'll give you that this implies that the OP is trying to get out of paying the ETF. However, you're also outright saying that it's solely because the OP screwed up, is wholly at fault, and by extension, lying to us in the original post.

The only way you could possibly know this is if you knew for a fact that the CSR neither stretched the truth nor made a mistake in the information (s)he provided to the OP.

Since you can't possibly know this to be true it would seem to me that you can't say whether or not the OP is just lying to get out of the ETF or if the OP has a valid grievance with which to argue against paying the ETF.

To say for sure either way would be present assumption as actual fact.

Thus in my original reply I contend you can not possibly know what the situation "clearly" is or isn't.

Mike


----------



## Hoosier205 (Sep 3, 2007)

Mike Bertelson;3166963 said:


> Interesting.
> Okay, I'll give you that this implies that the OP is trying to get out of paying the ETF. However, you're also outright saying that it's solely because the OP screwed up, is wholly at fault, and by extension, lying to us in the original post.
> 
> The only way you could possibly know this is if you knew for a fact that the CSR neither stretched the truth nor made a mistake in the information (s)he provided to the OP.
> ...


Perhaps my powers of deduction are superior to yours Mike. Let's chalk it up to that.

The OP is trying to weasel out of their own responsibilities and has blamed their own mistakes on others. I never said the OP lied. Don't assume that what is not clear to you, may not be clear to others as well.


----------



## 242424 (Mar 22, 2012)

oftloG


----------



## billsharpe (Jan 25, 2007)

Hoosier205 said:


> Perhaps my powers of deduction are superior to yours Mike. Let's chalk it up to that.
> 
> The OP is trying to weasel out of their own responsibilities and has blamed their own mistakes on others. I never said the OP lied. Don't assume that what is not clear to you, may not be clear to others as well.


The OP has said several times in the past 100+ posts that all he wanted was to get the $77 price (or thereabouts) he had signed up for. Eventually he decided to cancel and wanted his contract cancelled without an ETF.

I'm a former DirecTV customer. The latest "please come back" letter a couple weeks ago had a one-year price guarantee with it.


----------



## 456521 (Jul 6, 2007)

PCampbell said:


> The OP has not been on this site in two days and this is still going. I think he may be gone.


After reading some of the replies by the DTV fanbois can you blame him?


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

harsh said:


> ...who thoughtfully observed that we wouldn't be having this discussion of the OP was accurately informed.


REALLY?? You're quite certain the OP was not so informed?

You have no way of knowing what was said, or understood, by either party other than blind reliance on what was posted being gospel. Tsk, tsk!


----------



## gfrang (Aug 30, 2007)

Evil is as evil Does


----------



## goinsleeper (May 23, 2012)

PCampbell said:


> The OP has not been on this site in two days and this is still going. I think he may be gone.


+1

Maybe this thread should come to a close now.


----------



## JeffBowser (Dec 21, 2006)

The level of unilateral DirecTV support in this thread is eye-opening. Is there no balance in this forum anymore?


----------



## Mike Bertelson (Jan 24, 2007)

JeffBowser;3167155 said:


> The level of unilateral DirecTV support in this thread is eye-opening. Is there no balance in this forum anymore?


You don't think anyone has been constructive? Or, do you just see the negative?

Mike


----------



## ndole (Aug 26, 2009)

For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. Sometimes in force, and sometimes in numbers.
There is an ebb and flow to every thread that starts like this one. And your assessment of it's contents a predictable result. Every one always starts with vitriol, and ends with "You're a bunch of meanies". Par for the course.


----------



## domingos35 (Jan 12, 2006)

Hoosier205 said:


> Says the Dish Network customer.


Says the Directv Employee and Fanboy


----------



## Hoosier205 (Sep 3, 2007)

domingos35;3167164 said:


> Says the Directv Employee and Fanboy


Nope. Wrong again.


----------



## JeffBowser (Dec 21, 2006)

Oh, there has been constructive posts, there are in just about every thread. However they are, with increasing frequency, getting dwarfed by the "how dare you criticize DirecTV" posts. Just my opinion, nothing more.



Mike Bertelson said:


> You don't think anyone has been constructive? Or, do you just see the negative?
> 
> Mike


----------



## ndole (Aug 26, 2009)

There's nothing more fun than building straw men


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

JeffBowser said:


> Oh, there has been constructive posts, there are in just about every thread. However they are, with increasing frequency, getting dwarfed by the "how dare you criticize DirecTV" posts. Just my opinion, nothing more.


There are quite a few of the usual haters as well. But I agree the level of civil and constructive discourse is not high....but the tide_ could_ turn.


----------



## raott (Nov 23, 2005)

"JeffBowser" said:


> The level of unilateral DirecTV support in this thread is eye-opening. Is there no balance in this forum anymore?


Nope. Any post that can even remotely be construed negative is descended on by the same pack of wolves. A quick glance and you'll see it is the same people over and over. Forum is less and less enjoyable.


----------



## Richierich (Jan 10, 2008)

raott said:


> Nope. Any post that can even remotely be construed negative is descended on by the same pack of wolves. A quick glance and you'll see it is the same people over and over. Forum is less and less enjoyable.


Glad you didn't include me in that pack of wolves or I would have been upset!!! :lol:


----------



## ThomasM (Jul 20, 2007)

DirecTV (like many other companies) spends zillions of dollars on glossy advertising but there always is "the fine print"! For example, Time-Warner constantly pushes their $29 cable package but always forgets to mention their "box lease fee" and, of course their 5% "franchise fee". A hefty installation charge is also missed in the big print headline.

DirecTV goes out of their way to make new customers "jump through hoops" to get all the best deals. Submitting rebates (on a certain schedule), not changing programming package until the rebate is over, hiding various formerly-itemized charges using undecipherable descriptions like "advanced receiver fee", giving free premium channels which suddenly revert to full price after a few months, fooling people into thinking they own their receiver when they "purchase" it on the web, etc. They also conveniently fail to mention that a broken leased receiver can be replaced for only a $20 S & H fee but instead push their service contracts.

This is all right there in writing, of course, but who reads the "fine print"? Certain not the starter of this thread!!


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

domingos35 said:


> Says the Directv Employee and Fanboy


Hoosier is not a DirecTV employee ...


----------



## Richierich (Jan 10, 2008)

James Long said:


> Hoosier is not a DirecTV employee ...


Where do people come up with this Nonsense stating that a Poster is a Directv Employee when they have no facts to back that assertion up. :nono2:


----------



## Hoosier205 (Sep 3, 2007)

James Long;3167227 said:


> Hoosier is not a DirecTV employee ...


Correct. Otherwise I've been paying for my service for far too long.


----------



## domingos35 (Jan 12, 2006)

James Long said:


> Hoosier is not a DirecTV employee ...


he just acts like one


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

domingos35 said:


> he just acts like one


:hurah:

No more like CEO!:hurah:


----------



## Hoosier205 (Sep 3, 2007)

domingos35;3167263 said:


> he just acts like one


Thanks for the compliment.


----------



## goinsleeper (May 23, 2012)

ThomasM said:


> DirecTV goes out of their way to make new customers "jump through hoops" to get all the best deals. Submitting rebates (on a certain schedule), not changing programming package until the rebate is over, hiding various formerly-itemized charges using undecipherable descriptions like "advanced receiver fee", giving free premium channels which suddenly revert to full price after a few months, fooling people into thinking they own their receiver when they "purchase" it on the web, etc.


As a heads up, since mid-October, rebates are added to the account without rebates needing to be submitted. Not sure the 5 minutes it took to submit those was really "jumping through hoops" but to each his own. Just about everything else is covered in the email sent as soon as a new order is placed that itemizes everything else.

As for ordering equipment, the website and agreement both specify that the equipment is leased, much like it says on solid signal.


----------



## tonyd79 (Jul 24, 2006)

domingos35;3167263 said:


> he just acts like one


Nope. An employee would be more politic.


----------



## Richierich (Jan 10, 2008)

domingos35 said:


> he just acts like one


Actually he doesn't Act Like A Directv Employee as he is Assertive, Aggressive and they would want their employees to be more polite, more passive but he speaks his mind which is what a Forum is all about!!!


----------



## acostapimps (Nov 6, 2011)

Richierich;3167292 said:


> Actually he doesn't Act Like A Directv Employee as he is Assertive, Aggressive and they would want their employees to be more polite, more passive but he speaks his mind which is what a Forum is all about!!!


I'm sorry but I have to disagree everytime we post something to vent our frustration or in need of help but sometimes not sure how the system works, he post something that is in no way helpful or post unnecessary comments that does not reflect well to the rest of us. but I understand everybody has a right to post what they went even if I don't agree. I'm sorry but someone has to say it.


----------



## raott (Nov 23, 2005)

"Richierich" said:


> Actually he doesn't Act Like A Directv Employee as he is Assertive, Aggressive and they would want their employees to be more polite, more passive but he speaks his mind which is what a Forum is all about!!!


Rude, condescending and confrontational is hardly what this forum should be about. Surprised you think it is truthfully.


----------



## Hoosier205 (Sep 3, 2007)

raott;3167333 said:


> Rude, condescending and confrontational is hardly what this forum should be about. Surprised you think it is truthfully.


How ironic.


----------



## 456521 (Jul 6, 2007)

domingos35 said:


> he just acts like one


Maybe he stayed at a Holiday Inn Express.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Guys ... the topic of the thread is DirecTV. Please discuss your opinion of whether or not DirecTV is evil. Thanks!


----------



## Carl Spock (Sep 3, 2004)

Of course DirecTV is evil.

They steal $150 a month out of my pocket.

If they were good, they'd be putting money into it instead.

_Well, duh!_ 

Some threads are so stupid.


----------



## Richierich (Jan 10, 2008)

James Long said:


> Guys ... the topic of the thread is DirecTV. Please discuss your opinion of whether or not DirecTV is evil. Thanks!


Well, I don't think DIRECTV is evil but just a Corporation that has to survive by making a Profit which is what all Corporations do.

You might not agree with all of their Policies but you have the right to go somewhere else!!!


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

Richierich said:


> You might not agree with all of their Policies but you have the right to go somewhere else!!!


yep agree, But the also have the right to leave without anyone ones permission from this thread .
They also have a right to voice their opinion on a service they pay for, just the same as the others who defend Directv at the drop of a hat no matter what.
* Below Not Directed at Richierich*

It gets to the point where you can't ask for any improvements, or recommend anything out of Directv in DBS talk without the same people over and over blowing smoke up Directv A$$. If your happy with what you have , Then keep your fanboy comments to yourself, and let the open minded members take the comments.

I was going to reup my Membership, But I gotta tell you because of fact I can't ask a question or Even ask for an option without a bashing from the same 5 people. I doubt I'm going to.

I would love to help out the Site, But not so the same people can rip the crap out of member for a feaken question.


----------



## JeffBowser (Dec 21, 2006)

Nicely said. It sure would be nice if they tightened the front line up so clear, concise, and accurate answers were readily supplied. This is not the case. In my situation they have infuriated me so badly enough times that I will at all costs avoid calling them (thank God for this forum). However, I'm in the unfortunate situation of liking their reliable high quality signal more than any other provider I can choose, so I won't go elsewhere, unless I just cut out pay TV altogether (which remains under consideration).



Richierich said:


> Well, I don't think DIRECTV is evil but just a Corporation that has to survive by making a Profit which is what all Corporations do.
> 
> You might not agree with all of their Policies but you have the right to go somewhere else!!!


----------



## Hoosier205 (Sep 3, 2007)

damondlt;3167501 said:


> yep agree, But the also have the right to leave without anyone ones permission from this thread .
> They also have a right to voice their opinion on a service they pay for, just the same as the others who defend Directv at the drop of a hat no matter what.
> Below Not Directed at Richierich
> 
> ...


He did not ask for, nor did he require, the permission of anyone in this thread. He had already decided to cancel before creating this thread. No one ever offered or suggested it either. He was simply complaining about a problem he had created for himself. He was accusing DirecTV of being "evil" for following their own well established policies that he agreed to.


----------



## Richierich (Jan 10, 2008)

raott said:


> Rude, condescending and confrontational is hardly what this forum should be about. Surprised you think it is truthfully.


I don't think this Forum is about being Rude, or Condescending or Confrontational and I try Never to be Rude or Confrontational but I try to put The Truth out there or the Facts as I know them but without Confronting others because they have their own set of facts and opinions.

In fact just the other day I was dead wrong about something I thought for sure was True and this Forum Member stated the Facts as he knows them and he was Right and I was Wrong so I admitted that I was Wrong and thanked him publicly for straightening me out.

If you are Not Open Minded you can Never Learn Anything. If I think I Know It All then I Will Never Open Myself Up To Learning The Truth when it Presenst itself to me from others.

And I have learned an awful lot here at DBSTALK which is why I keep coming back here.

Some people for what ever reason just Love to Argue and I see it all the time but I avoid those Arguments as I don't have the Time and Energy for them anymore!!! :lol:

It's like Politics and Religion, you will Never convince someone else that they are Wrong about their political or religious views so why expend the energy trying??? :nono2:


----------



## Jon J (Apr 22, 2002)

Is DirecTV evil? I don't think so.

Is DirecTV inconsistent? I believe so. If it were otherwise why would customers be advised to continually play "CSR roulette"? It would be heartening to receive the same response to a question but I don't believe it happens often.


----------



## tonyd79 (Jul 24, 2006)

Jon J said:


> Is DirecTV evil? I don't think so.
> 
> Is DirecTV inconsistent? I believe so. If it were otherwise why would customers be advised to continually play "CSR roulette"? It would be heartening to receive the same response to a question but I don't believe it happens often.


The inconsistency, while played well by roulette players, is maddening. Many CS systems are quite messy but from what I read here (not my personal experience, as I use DirecTV CS sparingly and have had good results), DirecTV's CS experience is messier than most.

It does drive you batty, though, when a otherwise well-run company has bad front line ambassadors. I recently went through a CS nightmare with Amazon, who is usually a very well run company and delivers good value for the dollar. It makes me want to avoid actual conversations with CS folks there and it is understandable why DirecTV customers feel the same.


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

Hoosier205 said:


> . He was simply complaining about a problem he had created for himself. He was accusing DirecTV of being "evil" for following their own* well established policies *that he agreed to.


Exactly my point, You think just cause you say it its fact.

I would love to know what you do for a living.

My guess is what ever it is doesn't involve human contact.:lol:


----------



## Scott Kocourek (Jun 13, 2009)

You can usually tell the tone of a thread by the title and first post. The direction this thread took is absolutely no surprise. Often times people come here to complain or vent and they don't always get flamed, I was one of them back a few years ago.

I'm not saying it right but it's the way it goes at times.


----------



## Hoosier205 (Sep 3, 2007)

damondlt;3167590 said:


> Exactly my point, You think just cause you say it its fact.
> 
> I would love to know what you do for a living.
> 
> My guess is what ever it is doesn't involve human contact.:lol:


...haha. You chose the words, "well established policies" from my post. Please tell me how they are not.


----------



## billsharpe (Jan 25, 2007)

raott said:


> Nope. *Any post that can even remotely be construed negative is descended on by the same pack of wolves.* A quick glance and you'll see it is the same people over and over. Forum is less and less enjoyable.


With the OP using a name like DirecTVSucks and a thread title of DirecTV is EVIL I'd say his original post could easily be construed as negative, even before reading it.


----------



## spartanstew (Nov 16, 2005)

Scott Kocourek said:


> Often times people come here to complain or vent and they don't always get flamed, I was one of them back a few years ago.


I heard DirecTVSucks might be the next Mod.


----------



## Scott Kocourek (Jun 13, 2009)

spartanstew said:


> I heard DirecTVSucks might be the next Mod.


:lol: That would make for interesting threads and First Looks.


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

Hoosier205 said:


> ...haha. You chose the words, "well established policies" from my post. Please tell me how they are not.


 Because thats your opinion! Its not a proven fact, if it was there would be no complaints about Directvs policies. Which there are tons of complaints.
That can be proven!

I can't give you facts on why I think they aren't Well established policies, Because it would only be my opinion, Just the same as you can't say they are.

Still would love to know what you do for a living?


----------



## jahgreen (Dec 15, 2006)

Davenlr said:


> email:[email protected]
> 
> That the address you used?





Davenlr said:


> OP, since none of your emails went through, I would consider rewriting your letter, be civil, leave out the social media threats, explain your problem, put in what you think the solution should be, and send it to the address listed above for [email protected].
> 
> I have never heard of anyone waiting more than two days for a response.
> 
> See how they handle your issue, and post back with the results.


Perhaps we all should double-check that we have the right email addresses in our contacts for the next person who needs them. It's easy to goof.  The OP used this address after it was suggested to him.

After reviewing the thread, it's obvious that there was a miscommunication, but I can't be sure whether it was the OP or someone at DirecTV or--as is often the case--both.


----------



## Hoosier205 (Sep 3, 2007)

damondlt;3167727 said:


> Because thats your opinion! Its not a proven fact, if it was there would be no complaints about Directvs policies. Which there are tons of complaints.
> That can be proven!
> 
> I can't give you facts on why I think they aren't Well established policies, Because it would only be my opinion, Just the same as you can't say they are.
> ...


...I don't think you understand what well established means. That appears to be the issue here.

I am a retired federal employee


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

Hoosier205 said:


> ...
> 
> I am a retired federal employee


That explains everything!


----------



## goinsleeper (May 23, 2012)

damondlt said:


> I can't give you facts on why I think they aren't Well established policies, Because it would only be my opinion, Just the same as you can't say they are.


Proving they are well established is easy when they have a set agreement. Is there any policy they have that is opinionated? Usually written in ink means well established, granted that could just be my opinion.


----------



## Hoosier205 (Sep 3, 2007)

damondlt;3167772 said:


> That explains everything!


Actually, no it doesn't.

Funny how you glossed over the not understanding what well established means part. 

The DirecTV polices being discussed are well established. That is not my opinion. That is fact.


----------



## rmmccann (Apr 16, 2012)

damondlt said:


> Because thats your opinion! Its not a proven fact, if it was there would be no complaints about Directvs policies. Which there are tons of complaints.
> That can be proven!


I think the crux of the issue here is simple: it doesn't matter if a policy is "well-established" or not, some people can find fault in anything.

DirecTV could've handled this issue completely differently and I'm sure people would find fault in that because someone was given "special treatment" over a self-inflicted problem. You can't please everyone.


----------



## Richierich (Jan 10, 2008)

spartanstew said:


> I heard DirecTVSucks might be the next Mod.


Well, at least he would have to change his USERID to his Real Name!!! :lol:


----------



## trh (Nov 3, 2007)

Hoosier205 said:


> I am a retired federal employee


And I had pictured you as Kevin Smith in _Live Free or Die Hard_.


----------



## Hoosier205 (Sep 3, 2007)

trh;3167840 said:


> And I had pictured you as Kevin Smith in Live Free or Die Hard.


Haha. More like Bruce.


----------



## hjones4841 (Aug 19, 2006)

Just wait until you upgrade your equipment the next time. I started that process in late November. After several hours on the phone, multiple calls to customer retention, a whole bunch of misleading info and out and out lies, I think my bill is straightened out, at least as of an hour ago - after another hour on the phone.

BTW, I have been a continuous customer of DirecTV since September 1995 and have paid every bill well before it was due. Every time I called I was told how they appreciate their long term customers, but every action has been just the opposite.

Their latest screw up was charging me $200 for a DVR that I returned (and have proof that they received) almost a month ago.

Evil is in the eye of the beholder. To me, this kind of disservice was why I left the cable company September, 1995!

This is why I will never sign up for auto bill pay. At least that way I can hold out on payment until the bill is correct. 

Also, whenever you contact retention for any type of action, demand to speak to a supervisor. That is what it took for me.


----------



## Richierich (Jan 10, 2008)

Actually, I am talking to Case Management about an Issue I have been having and they call me almost once a day to see if my Issue has been Resolved.

It has Not Been Resolved so they are Escalating it to an even Higher Level so it will be Interesting to see what happens.


----------



## hjones4841 (Aug 19, 2006)

Richierich said:


> Actually, I am talking to Case Management about an Issue I have been having and they call me almost once a day to see if my Issue has been Resolved.


Wow, I wish I had your "connections."


----------



## Hoosier205 (Sep 3, 2007)

hjones4841;3167890 said:


> Wow, I wish I had your "connections."


It doesn't take any special connections.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

Mike Bertelson said:


> I'm not sure how you can make the leap from what was posted that the OP is 100% at fault and now it trying to be deceitful to get out of the deal.


Isn't that how the party line works?


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

Richierich said:


> You might not agree with all of their Policies but you have the right to go somewhere else!!!


You also have the contractually guaranteed right to arbitration if your cause is just and an informal resolution doesn't get you where you think you need to be.

See more in Section 9 (Resolving Disputes) of the DIRECTV Customer Agreement.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

Hoosier205 said:


> It doesn't take any special connections.


You usually need to have gone through a number of hoops to get an audience with Case Management. Surely anyone can end up there but it will almost certainly be an extraordinary situation.


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

harsh said:


> You usually need to have gone through a number of hoops to get an audience with Case Management. Surely anyone can end up there but it will almost certainly be an extraordinary situation.


Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought *or actual experience.*

*Bold, italicized* added to a harsh tagline.


----------



## trh (Nov 3, 2007)

harsh said:


> You usually need to have gone through a number of hoops to get an audience with Case Management. Surely anyone can end up there but it will almost certainly be an extraordinary situation.


I've dealt with them twice in the past year (my only two times dealing with DirecTV.) The first was when I was having problems with my nomad not transcoding certain shows. Automatically sent to Case Management.
Second time was when I had a 2nd DVR fail in three months (both of them years old and both were received as refurbished units). Automatically routed to Case Management.

I didn't go through any hoops; didn't demand to have my situation elevated.

Seemed to me that they have a procedure in place as when to send someone to Case Management


----------



## tonyd79 (Jul 24, 2006)

trh;3167944 said:


> I've dealt with them twice in the past year (my only two times dealing with DirecTV.) The first was when I was having problems with my nomad not transcoding certain shows. Automatically sent to Case Management.
> Second time was when I had a 2nd DVR fail in three months (both of them years old and both were received as refurbished units). Automatically routed to Case Management.
> 
> I didn't go through any hoops; didn't demand to have my situation elevated.
> ...


Is it a well established procedure?

(Sorry)


----------



## Hoosier205 (Sep 3, 2007)

tonyd79;3167984 said:


> Is it a well established procedure?
> 
> (Sorry)


Haha!


----------



## wingrider01 (Sep 9, 2005)

jahgreen said:


> Perhaps we all should double-check that we have the right email addresses in our contacts for the next person who needs them. It's easy to goof.  The OP used this address after it was suggested to him.
> 
> After reviewing the thread, it's obvious that there was a miscommunication, but I can't be sure whether it was the OP or someone at DirecTV or--as is often the case--both.


Actually if you read through post 25 on the first page you will see he actually had the correct email address but they spelled it wrong per the bounce back message

Post # 8

I used the following addresses that I got from Consumerist:

[email protected], [email protected]: EVP
[email protected], [email protected]: SVP, Controller, CAO
[email protected], [email protected]: SVP, CFO
[email protected]: Heywot Bitew
[email protected]: Ellen Filipiak
Chase Carey, email [email protected].

Post #25

Recipient address: [email protected]
Reason: Remote SMTP server has rejected address
Diagnostic code: smtp;550 5.4.1 [email protected]: Recipient address rejected: Access Denied
Remote system: dns;mail.messaging.microsoft.com (TCP|17.158.232.236|61089|216.32.180.22|25)

Notice the spelling of the name, no one but him posted email addresses between those posts, their error and no one elses


----------



## trh (Nov 3, 2007)

wingrider01 said:


> Actually if you read through post 25 on the first page you will see he actually had the correct email address but they spelled it wrong per the bounce back message
> 
> Post # 8
> 
> ...


His post post with email address (#8) -- he has her last name spelled correctly. The email address is not the one 'advertised' to send to her group. Is it a direct email address? I couldn't answer that.

On his bounce back post which appears to list the email addresses he actually used, he has her last name and email address both wrong -- he left out the 'i' between the 'l' and 'p' (and there are other posts in this thread that do the same).

*http://investor.directv.com/contact_cs.cfm*

From what I've read over the past several years, if you send an email to her, you get a response and a resolution.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

trh said:


> Seemed to me that they have a procedure in place as when to send someone to Case Management


My point is that you can't call Case Management (what I interpreted the question to be). You have to call Customer Service and they refer/forward you, if appropriate, to Case Management.


----------



## Richierich (Jan 10, 2008)

harsh said:


> You usually need to have gone through a number of hoops to get an audience with Case Management. Surely anyone can end up there but it will almost certainly be an extraordinary situation.


I didn't have to jump thru a lot of Hoops but they just couldn't fix my problem so they Escalated it to Case Management and now Case Management is having a problem with the technical people responding in a timely fashion so it is being Escalated up to a Higher Level whatever that means.


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

Doug or Earl?


----------



## Richierich (Jan 10, 2008)

dpeters11 said:


> Doug or Earl?


Now just what does this Post mean??? :lol:


----------



## hjones4841 (Aug 19, 2006)

Should we contact the FTC about DirecTV's ads regarding highest customer satisfaction? Guess that only applies to those who never make any changes...

Or maybe its like the car ads that brag about J.D. Power ratings "for customers who have only driven their car once." :lol:


----------



## Hoosier205 (Sep 3, 2007)

hjones4841;3168163 said:


> Should we contact the FTC about DirecTV's ads regarding highest customer satisfaction?


Considering that it is factual...no. They did not declare themselves that, the American Customer Satisfaction Index did.


----------



## 456521 (Jul 6, 2007)

http://www.theacsi.org/index.php?op...&c=DIRECTV+&i=Subscription+Television+Service


----------



## hjones4841 (Aug 19, 2006)

Hoosier205 said:


> Considering that it is factual...no. They did not declare themselves that, the American Customer Satisfaction Index did.


Thanks for the clarification. I will have to listen to the commercial again, perhaps they say "rated as" which leaves it open. Sure seems like a close race between Dish and DirecTV.


----------



## 456521 (Jul 6, 2007)

hjones4841 said:


> Thanks for the clarification. I will have to listen to the commercial again, perhaps they say "rated as" which leaves it open. Sure seems like a close race between Dish and DirecTV.


They all suck, but they are near the top of bunch.


----------



## wingrider01 (Sep 9, 2005)

trh said:


> His post post with email address (#8) -- he has her last name spelled correctly. The email address is not the one 'advertised' to send to her group. Is it a direct email address? I couldn't answer that.
> 
> On his bounce back post which appears to list the email addresses he actually used, he has her last name and email address both wrong -- he left out the 'i' between the 'l' and 'p' (and there are other posts in this thread that do the same).
> 
> ...


Correct - They spelled it worng = the OP spelled it wrong in the first email


----------



## trh (Nov 3, 2007)

wingrider01 said:


> Correct - They spelled it wrong = the OP spelled it wrong in the first email


OK. I guess I misunderstood you when you said they had it wrong but he had the correct email address.



wingrider01 said:


> Actually if you read through post 25 on the first page you will see he actually had the correct email address but they spelled it wrong per the bounce back message
> 
> Notice the spelling of the name, no one but him posted email addresses between those posts, their error and no one elses


----------



## wahooq (Oct 19, 2011)

hjones4841 said:


> Should we contact the FTC about DirecTV's ads regarding highest customer satisfaction? Guess that only applies to those who never make any changes...
> 
> Or maybe its like the car ads that brag about J.D. Power ratings "for customers who have only driven their car once." :lol:


Hahaha you might wanna Google FTC...just sayin


----------



## Griffs77 (Sep 22, 2012)

Hoosier205 said:


> Considering that it is factual...no. They did not declare themselves that, the American Customer Satisfaction Index did.


Am I misreading pdxBeav's link that Dish is rated 1 point higher than D*TV?


----------



## JohnVT (Jan 30, 2005)

wingrider01 said:


> Correct - They spelled it worng = the OP spelled it wrong in the first email


It was misspelled (typo) in post #7. It looks like that's where the OP picked up the incorrect spelling, and there's no other post with evidence the OP ever corrected that and actually sent the email to Ms Filipiak's office again.


----------



## wahooq (Oct 19, 2011)

so it takes 8 pages to decide that the OP was mistaken.....couple of times even?


----------



## trh (Nov 3, 2007)

Other than having bad email addresses, I don't think we know that.

We know that DirecTV had a customer who was not happy and has reportedly cancelled his account.

(also, using pages as a reference is meaningless. I have my preferences set differently than yours: your post is the first one on page six when I view the thread.)


----------



## jagrim (Aug 26, 2006)

"wahooq" said:


> so it takes 8 pages to decide that the OP was mistaken.....couple of times even?


+10000000000


----------



## sacflies (Apr 10, 2012)

I love how all the die hard DTV fanatics will defend them to no end. Like DTV will never try and pull a fast one over on you hoping you will not notice. MANY DTV customers have had these sorts of problems. I know I have. Whether it be intentional or unintentional, they will screw you if you don't keep up with it. Some of you need to step off your high horse and chill.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

Hoosier205 said:


> Considering that it is factual...no. They did not declare themselves that, the American Customer Satisfaction Index did.


If you chop the classification finely enough, even Charter could be at the top of the charts. As it is, DISH has beat DIRECTV for two years in a row in the ACSI rankings (and FIOS beat DISH). The latest rankings came out in early December 2012.

For their part, even DISH has an asterisk that magically removes FIOS from consideration as not being a "conventional" satellite or cable provider (even though FIOS is an entirely conventional cable provider right down to using QAM and Motorola DVRs).

IIRC, DIRECTV can only claim superiority based on a JD Power _regional_ ranking as opposed to the ACSI rankings. They have deviously chosen to not mention all the qualifications that it took to get them that "award". It is a sin of omission.


----------



## unixguru (Jul 9, 2007)

sacflies said:


> I love how all the die hard DTV fanatics will defend them to no end. Like DTV will never try and pull a fast one over on you hoping you will not notice. MANY DTV customers have had these sorts of problems. I know I have. Whether it be intentional or unintentional, they will screw you if you don't keep up with it. Some of you need to step off your high horse and chill.


+infinity

I'm torn between widespread corporate incompetence and an intentional effort to obfuscate as much as possible. With obfuscation they can take advantage of consumers that fail to focus on the details or refuse to spend the time and effort to protect their rights. On the other hand, too much obfuscation has got to cost them a hell of a lot of money in terms of customer service. I suspect the current situation pays more than it costs. Regardless of intent, that explains everything.

DTV is far from special - many companies are like this. My internet (cable) company is the same. I only see these kinds of things with companies that are in pseudo-monopoly position. When I have an alternative I don't deal with companies that behave like pond scum.

I honestly don't think DTV is smart enough for this to be an intentional effort so I guess I'd vote for incompetence. The fact that it pays seals the deal.

What is really wrong with all of this is that consumers don't have viable alternatives. In my location (metro Minneapolis) I have exactly 3 choices for "broadcast TV with lots of channels": DTV, Dish, Mediacom. So if I want this kind of service I have to pick what sucks the least. None of these providers have any incentive to significantly outperform the others.


----------



## MysteryMan (May 17, 2010)

sacflies said:


> I love how all the die hard DTV fanatics will defend them to no end. Like DTV will never try and pull a fast one over on you hoping you will not notice. MANY DTV customers have had these sorts of problems. I know I have. Whether it be intentional or unintentional, they will screw you if you don't keep up with it. Some of you need to step off your high horse and chill.


Not true. I've been a DirecTV customer for 18 years and have never experienced them trying them to pull a fast one as you claim. And while I'm a loyal, satisfied customer I have posted some of DirecTV's shortcomings since being a member of this site. The most recent being post # 53 on the 
"What I'd Like To See In 2013 From DirecTV" thread. And while I'll agree that some people here need to get off their high horse people like you need to speak for yourself and not for others.


----------



## Brubear (Nov 14, 2008)

Richierich said:


> Actually, I am talking to Case Management about an Issue I have been having and they call me almost once a day to see if my Issue has been Resolved.
> 
> It has Not Been Resolved so they are Escalating it to an even Higher Level so it will be Interesting to see what happens.


there actually isn't a higher level - they just access NET and Broadcast for additional support.


----------



## domingos35 (Jan 12, 2006)

sacflies said:


> I love how all the die hard DTV fanatics will defend them to no end. Like DTV will never try and pull a fast one over on you hoping you will not notice. MANY DTV customers have had these sorts of problems. I know I have. Whether it be intentional or unintentional, they will screw you if you don't keep up with it. Some of you need to step off your high horse and chill.


so true.
directv is no saint.far from it :nono:


----------



## FarNorth (Nov 27, 2003)

They make mistakes. When they are brought to the company's attention, they fix them.


----------



## macfan601 (May 4, 2012)

sacflies said:


> I love how all the die hard DTV fanatics will defend them to no end. Like DTV will never try and pull a fast one over on you hoping you will not notice. MANY DTV customers have had these sorts of problems. I know I have. Whether it be intentional or unintentional, they will screw you if you don't keep up with it. Some of you need to step off your high horse and chill.


+1


----------



## Mike Bertelson (Jan 24, 2007)

Discuss the topic and not each other. If you have a problem with someone's post take it to PM or report it.

:backtotop

Mike


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

FarNorth said:


> They make mistakes. When they are brought to the company's attention, they fix them.


If you look around, you'll find that many of these mistakes are recurring problems suggesting that the problem hasn't really been fixed. See more at CIG.

Sometimes the issue is with contract installers. Sometimes it is with contract marketers. Other times it is with inside installers or sales. In any case, people don't always understand the facts and it is up to DIRECTV to make sure everyone is on the same up-to-date page (which may not be accurately reflected on their website)..


----------



## wingrider01 (Sep 9, 2005)

harsh said:


> If you look around, you'll find that many of these mistakes are recurring problems suggesting that the problem hasn't really been fixed. See more at CIG.
> 
> Sometimes the issue is with contract installers. Sometimes it is with contract marketers. Other times it is with inside installers or sales. In any case, people don't always understand the facts and it is up to DIRECTV to make sure everyone is on the same up-to-date page (which may not be accurately reflected on their website)..


Show me a company that delievers service to the public that does not have these issues, there is not one company in existance that does nt get bad mouthed on the anonymous method of communications medium that is called the internet and forums. Even your provider of choice is bad mouthed and called useless on these forums


----------



## studechip (Apr 16, 2012)

wingrider01 said:


> Show me a company that delievers service to the public that does not have these issues, there is not one company in existance that does nt get bad mouthed on the anonymous method of communications medium that is called the internet and forums. Even your provider of choice is bad mouthed and called useless on these forums


I agree, although there have been instances where it seemed to be a systemic problem. I'm referring to the improper extension or renewal of commitments that went on for much longer than it should have. It does seem that the issue has been fixed for the most part. Another example is when rvu was rolled out many of the csrs were telling callers that you had to have a Samsung tv in order to get the HR34. I informed the office of the president about the problem about a year ago. I was told that it had been addressed, but it continued for many months after that.


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

It's not an easy problem to fix, misinformation. I've reminded some staff of some things, and still find they give the wrong info, and that's less than 10 people.


----------



## wingrider01 (Sep 9, 2005)

studechip said:


> I agree, although there have been instances where it seemed to be a systemic problem. I'm referring to the improper extension or renewal of commitments that went on for much longer than it should have. It does seem that the issue has been fixed for the most part. Another example is when rvu was rolled out many of the csrs were telling callers that you had to have a Samsung tv in order to get the HR34. I informed the office of the president about the problem about a year ago. I was told that it had been addressed, but it continued for many months after that.


Take into account turn-over in a CSR quad, if you look at the statistics that are available all companies that run dedicated help desks in non-tech related industries are high - I would rate driectv in a non-tech industry for end user support as compared to Oracle, and companies likeas such.

Adequete training in low tech support roles is important, but it is also very hard when the turn over rate is that high, you get one group trained and maybe two months later 70 percent of the trained group is gone. Used to manage a wired carrier help desk center, we had about a 40 percent turn over rate of call center employees per year and we where one of the lower ones. The person that was trained "about a year ago" when you asked probably has been gone from that position for 2 months


----------



## Dude111 (Aug 6, 2010)

Im sorry you had this much trouble


----------



## studechip (Apr 16, 2012)

wingrider01 said:


> Take into account turn-over in a CSR quad, if you look at the statistics that are available all companies that run dedicated help desks in non-tech related industries are high - I would rate driectv in a non-tech industry for end user support as compared to Oracle, and companies likeas such.
> 
> Adequete training in low tech support roles is important, but it is also very hard when the turn over rate is that high, you get one group trained and maybe two months later 70 percent of the trained group is gone. Used to manage a wired carrier help desk center, we had about a 40 percent turn over rate of call center employees per year and we where one of the lower ones. The person that was trained "about a year ago" when you asked probably has been gone from that position for 2 months


That's all true, but it doesn't mean it's okay to give out wrong information for months on end or erroneously extend commitments nor does it account for why it's happening.


----------



## Hoosier205 (Sep 3, 2007)

studechip;3170794 said:


> That's all true, but it doesn't mean it's okay to give out wrong information for months on end or erroneously extend commitments nor does it account for why it's happening.


Commitments do not get "erroneously" extended.


----------



## 456521 (Jul 6, 2007)

Hoosier205 said:


> Commitments do not get "erroneously" extended.


They do with Tivo. No reason to think DirecTV is immune from these mistakes.


----------



## Hoosier205 (Sep 3, 2007)

pdxBeav;3170862 said:


> They do with Tivo. No reason to think DirecTV is immune from these mistakes.


With DirecTV, your commitment gets extended for specific reasons. That's it. Off hand I can think of two (maybe three) examples from all my years here at DBSTalk where someone claimed to have had their commitment "erroneously" extended and they were bogus claims.


----------



## 456521 (Jul 6, 2007)

Hoosier205 said:


> With DirecTV, your commitment gets extended for specific reasons. That's it. Off hand I can think of two (maybe three) examples from all my years here at DBSTalk where someone claimed to have had their commitment "erroneously" extended and they were bogus claims.


Same with Tivo, but it's a fact that they have "erroneously" extended at least one commitment. DirecTV has around 20,000,000 subscribers. Pretty good odds at least one has been "erroneously" extended.


----------



## Hoosier205 (Sep 3, 2007)

pdxBeav;3170891 said:


> Same with Tivo, but it's a fact that they have "erroneously" extended at least one commitment. DirecTV has around 20,000,000 subscribers. Pretty good odds at least one has been "erroneously" extended.


Which one?


----------



## 456521 (Jul 6, 2007)

Hoosier205 said:


> Which one?


Subscriber number 14,345,829. 

It's also pretty good odds that if I roll a die 100 times that at least one roll will result in a 5. I can't tell you which one though.


----------



## Hoosier205 (Sep 3, 2007)

pdxBeav;3170897 said:


> Subscriber number 14,345,829.
> 
> It's also pretty good odds that if I roll a die 100 times that at least one roll will result in a 5. I can't tell you which one though.


Commitments get extended under specific circumstances. Claims that it has occurred under the wrong circumstances have been false. We have someone here who went on for pages and pages about it until they finally admitted that they had upgraded nearly all of their equipment.


----------



## unixguru (Jul 9, 2007)

wingrider01 said:


> Take into account turn-over in a CSR quad, if you look at the statistics that are available all companies that run dedicated help desks in non-tech related industries are high - I would rate driectv in a non-tech industry for end user support as compared to Oracle, and companies likeas such.
> 
> Adequete training in low tech support roles is important, but it is also very hard when the turn over rate is that high, you get one group trained and maybe two months later 70 percent of the trained group is gone. Used to manage a wired carrier help desk center, we had about a 40 percent turn over rate of call center employees per year and we where one of the lower ones. The person that was trained "about a year ago" when you asked probably has been gone from that position for 2 months


I find the concept of having been trained once, some time ago, to be part of the problem. Training should essentially be continual as products, services, and policies are not static.

It's also a failure if they don't have systems in place to quickly and accurately inform the CSR of the current products, services, and policies.

And finally, it's a bigger failure when the products, services, and policies are vague. That is probably the root of most of this.

Judging by this forum, DTV doesn't score very well on these things. Certainly not the only company with these problems. But nonetheless they should be using a continual improvement process. All this stuff costs them money - er, I mean costs consumers money. I simply don't believe that they can't be fixed or that it isn't cost-effective.


----------



## 456521 (Jul 6, 2007)

Hoosier205 said:


> Commitments get extended under specific circumstances. Claims that it has occurred under the wrong circumstances have been false. We have someone here who went on for pages and pages about it until they finally admitted that they had upgraded nearly all of their equipment.


Of course there are incorrect claims regarding erroneously extended commitments, but that has nothing to do with the fact that some commitments have been extended when they shouldn't have. Mistakes will happen. It's not part of an evil conspiracy.

Like I said before Tivo has similar commitments and it's a fact that they have extended a commitment when they shouldn't have. Why is DirecTV so different?


----------



## Hoosier205 (Sep 3, 2007)

unixguru;3170917 said:


> Training should essentially be continual as products, services, and policies are not static.


...it is.


----------



## Hoosier205 (Sep 3, 2007)

pdxBeav;3170918 said:


> Of course there are incorrect claims regarding erroneously extended commitments, but that has nothing to do with the fact that some commitments have been extended when they shouldn't have. Mistakes will happen. It's not part of an evil conspiracy.


Can you provide an example of this happening? Every single one I have been able to find was a false claim.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

wingrider01 said:


> Show me a company that delievers service to the public that does not have these issues, there is not one company in existance that does nt get bad mouthed on the anonymous method of communications medium that is called the internet and forums.


I'm not suggesting that any provider is perfect. Rather, I'm saying that asserting that DIRECTV is anywhere near permanently fixing all of the bugs in its system is a great disservice to those who continue to have problems or will have the same old problems in the future.

Declaring a bug something that you've learned to live with doesn't take away from the fact that it is still a bug.

Good enough is something you expect from a lesser carrier that isn't getting $100/month or more of your money.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

unixguru said:


> I find the concept of having been trained once, some time ago, to be part of the problem. Training should essentially be continual as products, services, and policies are not static.


I submit that modern support companies (or support divisions within larger companies) are taking a different approach.

The new paradigm seems to be rooted in scripting everything. Decision trees are something that are theoretically relatively easy to update and if all you have to train someone to do is ask questions and enter in a yes or no answer, you've got a system that can be handled by automation.

It is where the CSR departs from the script that things go wrong. Emphasis on getting the order (or sometimes keeping the customer) is a strong motivator to cast things in a better light than they probably should be. Failure to flesh out the tree can also create a situation where the CSR feels compelled to wing it to shorten the call or otherwise meet some metric that makes their performance look better on paper.


----------



## 456521 (Jul 6, 2007)

Hoosier205 said:


> Can you provide an example of this happening? Every single one I have been able to find was a false claim.


With Tivo, yes. I don't have an example with DirecTV, but it's not a leap of faith at all to think they make similar mistakes every once in a while just like every other provider out there.


----------



## unixguru (Jul 9, 2007)

harsh said:


> I submit that modern support companies (or support divisions within larger companies) are taking a different approach.
> 
> The new paradigm seems to be rooted in scripting everything. Decision trees are something that are theoretically relatively easy to update and if all you have to train someone to do is ask questions and enter in a yes or no answer, you've got a system that can be handled by automation.
> 
> It is where the CSR departs from the script that things go wrong. Emphasis on getting the order (or sometimes keeping the customer) is a strong motivator to cast things in a better light than they probably should be. Failure to flesh out the tree can also create a situation where the CSR feels compelled to wing it to shorten the call or otherwise meet some metric that makes their performance look better on paper.


Everything should be scripted for first-level. It should be automated. The same decision tree should also be available to customers signed-in on the web. Everything that is normal should not require a CSR. How many people pay extra to order a PPV through a CSR?

No deviations from the script should be allowed at first-level. Lots of companies have 2, 3, or more levels. If there is anything that isn't satisfied by the script then the customer should automatically be escalated. Staff appropriately. A dumb script system will of course fail here too.

"Normal" stuff being successful doesn't mean they have a good system. The measure of the system is when things aren't normal. Surely they realize it's the abnormal things that are wasting lots of money. This isn't unique to customer service - software engineering is the same way, the normal stuff is easy, the unusual is difficult and the most important.


----------



## CallMeCoach (Jan 29, 2013)

Couldn't have said it any better myself! I loved DTV back in the day, but it just seems to be moving more towards a comcast type model now where they gouge you every chance they get.


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

Mr. Guru:

Have you ever run such a system yourself?


----------



## wingrider01 (Sep 9, 2005)

harsh said:


> I submit that modern support companies (or support divisions within larger companies) are taking a different approach.
> 
> The new paradigm seems to be rooted in scripting everything. Decision trees are something that are theoretically relatively easy to update and if all you have to train someone to do is ask questions and enter in a yes or no answer, you've got a system that can be handled by automation.
> 
> It is where the CSR departs from the script that things go wrong. Emphasis on getting the order (or sometimes keeping the customer) is a strong motivator to cast things in a better light than they probably should be. Failure to flesh out the tree can also create a situation where the CSR feels compelled to wing it to shorten the call or otherwise meet some metric that makes their performance look better on paper.


Have expierence very few problems with directv, but then I have called them maybe 6 times since 1996 to check to see if there where any deals available.

I have expierence major issues with Dish and my in-laws, fought with them for 4 months until I got sick and tired of it that I paid for the etf's and the over night shipping of their junk back to them on my dime - then they tried to claim that they never recieved the devices back - fedex priority overnight tracking proved them wrong.


----------



## studechip (Apr 16, 2012)

Hoosier205 said:


> Commitments do not get "erroneously" extended.


So you never heard of all of the complaints about commitments incorrectly extended? Really? How do you get the sand out of your ears? There are many reports about commitments extended when a defective receiver was replaced.


----------



## Hoosier205 (Sep 3, 2007)

studechip;3171286 said:


> So you never heard of all of the complaints about commitments incorrectly extended? Really? How do you get the sand out of your ears? There are many reports about commitments extended when a defective receiver was replaced.


Commitments get extended when you upgrade equipment, not when faulty equipment is replaced.


----------



## studechip (Apr 16, 2012)

Hoosier205 said:


> Commitments get extended when you upgrade equipment, not when faulty equipment is replaced.


They aren't supposed to, but it has happened on numerous occasions. I know you tow the company line with remarkable consistency, but you have to come up for air once in a while.


----------



## Hoosier205 (Sep 3, 2007)

studechip;3171305 said:


> They aren't supposed to, but it has happened on numerous occasions.


When?


----------



## studechip (Apr 16, 2012)

Hoosier205 said:


> When?


Here is one article. It took about 4 seconds to find:http://www.lawyersandsettlements.co...referrer=https://www.google.com/#.UQhTSb_LSSo


----------



## Hoosier205 (Sep 3, 2007)

studechip;3171310 said:


> Here is one article. It took about 4 seconds to find:http://www.lawyersandsettlements.com/articles/class-action-certified-against-directtv-directtv/interview-ingrid-evans-law-firm-early-16554.html?opt=b&utm_expid=3607522-0&utm_referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2F#.UQhTSb_LSSo


Read...from what you linked to:



> "You could have a customer that has been with DIRECTV for ten years, but if they upgrade, they are locked in for an additional two years," says Evans.


Upgrade.


----------



## coldsteel (Mar 29, 2007)

Same article:



> In cases where malfunctioning equipment had to be replaced, DIRECTV automatically extended the "programming commitment" by a year or two, even going so far as scooping fees from customer's bank and credit card accounts without permission.


----------



## Hoosier205 (Sep 3, 2007)

coldsteel;3171316 said:


> Same article:


The claim of the attorney collecting legal fees from a class action suit he was organizing.


----------



## coldsteel (Mar 29, 2007)

You know, I don't know why I even try. Your blinders are too thick.


----------



## Hoosier205 (Sep 3, 2007)

coldsteel;3171321 said:


> You know, I don't know why I even try. Your blinders are too thick.


No blinders. Just basic logic and common sense.


----------



## studechip (Apr 16, 2012)

Hoosier205 said:


> Read...from what you linked to:


Also from what I linked to:

"In cases where malfunctioning equipment had to be replaced,* DIRECTV automatically extended the "programming commitment" by a year or two*, even going so far as scooping fees from customer's bank and credit card accounts without permission."

Your towing of the company line is getting sickening.


----------



## Hoosier205 (Sep 3, 2007)

studechip;3171324 said:


> Also from what I linked to:
> 
> "In cases where malfunctioning equipment had to be replaced, DIRECTV automatically extended the "programming commitment" by a year or two, even going so far as scooping fees from customer's bank and credit card accounts without permission."
> 
> Your towing of the company line is getting sickening.


The claim of the attorney collecting legal fees from a class action suit he was organizing. Do you have sources that might be a bit more reputable? There are two people on this forum that claimed that, but it turned out that both were upgrades.


----------



## studechip (Apr 16, 2012)

hoosier205 said:


> the claim of the attorney collecting legal fees from a class action suit he was organizing. Do you have sources that might be a bit more reputable?


*No! If you want to keep acting like you do, fine!*


----------



## Hoosier205 (Sep 3, 2007)

studechip;3171332 said:


> No!


 Alright then.


----------



## studechip (Apr 16, 2012)

coldsteel said:


> You know, I don't know why I even try. Your blinders are too thick.


There are posters on this forum that think Directv never makes mistakes. If they ask for examples and you give them 100, they want 101.


----------



## Hoosier205 (Sep 3, 2007)

studechip;3171345 said:


> There are posters on this forum that think Directv never makes mistakes. If they ask for examples and you give them 100, they want 101.


You provided one example and it was very poor.


----------



## studechip (Apr 16, 2012)

Hoosier205 said:


> You provided one example and it was very poor.


Your opinion. If I gave you 100 you would say they were all poor.


----------



## Hoosier205 (Sep 3, 2007)

studechip;3171363 said:


> Your opinion. If I gave you 100 you would say they were all poor.


I only asked for one reputable source, not 100.


----------



## Scott Kocourek (Jun 13, 2009)

Ok guys/gals, take it to PM or ignore each other.


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

In cases where faulty equipment was replaced, are we sure that it also wasn't an upgrade? SD DVR goes out, the customer decides to replace it with HD, etc. It's replacement of defective hardware but also an upgrade that would trigger a commitment.

If a commitment has ever been improperly extended, I cannot see how it wouldn't get fixed.


----------



## raott (Nov 23, 2005)

There were a number of lengthy threads over the span of a couple of years about erroneous extensions for equipment replacements (not upgrades).

There were several people who posted, who said they had knowledge of the issue and that it was a "systems issue" at DirecTV. The "systems issue" went unfixed for a lengthy period of time (ie well over a year). At some point, someone who said they had knowledge, posted the issue was fixed on Directv's end.

Don't ask me to dig the threads up because I'm not going to do it.


----------



## macfan601 (May 4, 2012)

studechip said:


> There are posters on this forum that think Directv never makes mistakes. If they ask for examples and you give them 100, they want 101.


+1


----------



## Mike Bertelson (Jan 24, 2007)

STOP discussing each other. If you have nothing constructive and civil to say then don't post.

:backtotop

Mike


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

Hoosier205 said:


> You provided one example and it was very poor.


You really should stop, cause this does happen. I don't know why you would even try and claim that Directv has never 1 time locked a commitment on someone for defective equipment replacement.

Why do you care?

Directv has many lawsuits that were found Guilty regaurdless of you're claims.

Thats business, and Directv makes mistakes.


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

dpeters11 said:


> If a commitment has ever been improperly extended, I cannot see how it wouldn't get fixed.


I'm sure it could be fixed, but to say it never happends im sorry flat out dumb.

And to someone who doesn't know anybetter Directv CSR could easily tell a customer, "Hey remember when you had your Defective receiver replaced last May", Well thats another 24 month commitment. They tryed that crap on me too when I left in 2009. Sure I set them straight, But I know the system.

Not everyone knows about DBS talk.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Thanks everyone ... since the Thread Starter has not returned we might as well put a fork in this one.
There are plenty of other threads to bash/defend DirecTV in (without bashing other posters).


----------

