# Feds accuse DirecTV of deceptive ads, seek millions in refunds



## SayWhat? (Jun 7, 2009)

> Federal regulators on Wednesday accused satellite giant DirecTV of deceptive advertising for not clearly disclosing that a discounted 12-month package required a two-year contract that included a rate hike and large early cancellation fee.
> 
> The Federal Trade Commission said there were other misleading practices in DirecTV's offers regarding free premium channels and is seeking "many millions of dollars" in refunds.
> 
> "DirecTV sought to lock customers into longer and more expensive contracts and premium packages that were not adequately disclosed," said Edith Ramirez, the agency's chairwoman.


http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-directv-deceptive-ads-federal-trade-commission-20150311-story.html


----------



## SayWhat? (Jun 7, 2009)

As noted on the other rant, I immediately discard all DirecTV mail spam. But I have noticed on the Dish and other provider Spam that it's clearly spelled out that it is a temporary rate that skyrockets. DirecTV doesn't do that?


----------



## SayWhat? (Jun 7, 2009)

Reading down further in the linked atricle, it appears they DO disclose it, albeit in fine print. If that's true, they why go after them and not all the drug companies that dispaly information in microscopic print?


----------



## jimmie57 (Jun 26, 2010)

SayWhat? said:


> Reading down further in the linked atricle, it appears they DO disclose it, albeit in fine print. If that's true, they why go after them and not all the drug companies that dispaly information in microscopic print?


And car companies that show a super nice car and in the fine print they say the prices is not for the one shown. You can only see this if you have a DVR and pause the ad so you can get close to the TV and show it.
I do very much dislike deceptive advertising and I am afraid that most of the companies do it, including DTV.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

Good.

Rich


----------



## SledgeHammer (Dec 28, 2007)

SayWhat? said:


> Reading down further in the linked atricle, it appears they DO disclose it, albeit in fine print. If that's true, *they why go after them and not all the drug companies that dispaly information in microscopic print*?


Watching DirecTV may cause dizzyness, head aches and excessive weight gain and bloating. Users may also incur heavy financial losses and experience bouts of irratibility. Ask your doctor if DirecTV is right for you.


----------



## Aridon (Mar 13, 2007)

I just don't see the problem with their ads. I've been back and forth from DirecTV many times and never once have I felt they tried to slide the two year agreement by me without it being clear.


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

I'm looking at some of the comments on the article ArsTechnica has on the topic, and wow there are some posters with real misconceptions...


----------



## AntAltMike (Nov 21, 2004)

SayWhat? said:


> ... the drug companies that display information in microscopic print?


I used to be able to read the print on the little folded pieces of paper that come packed with over-the-counter medication just as readily as I could read a newspaper.. When I noticed in my mid forties that it had become much more difficult for me to do so, I was concerned that I had incurred a vision problem and so I had my first eye exam in a couple of decades and found I had 20-20 vision. After the exam, the doctor asked me if I had any concerns about my vision and I told her that I had noticed that it had deteriorated and was surprised that it was 20-20. She said that in order for me to have been able to read the medicine brochure fine print that my vision had been better than 20-20, because most people with 20-20 vision do have difficulty reading it. She said that was the good news. The bad news was that as we age, our vision tends to either stay the same or further deteriorate.. and it did, as, twenty years later, my left eye is 20-30 and my right eye 20-50 and I now need reading glasses to read most newspapers.


----------



## westcoasty (Mar 11, 2015)

SayWhat? said:


> http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-directv-deceptive-ads-federal-trade-commission-20150311-story.html


"Federal regulators on Wednesday accused satellite giant DirecTV of deceptive advertising for not clearly disclosing that a discounted 12-month package required a two-year contract that included a rate hike and large early cancellation fee."

They are talking about the rate hike at the end of the 12-month package. *In reality, it's even worse than that.*

I am a recent subscriber to DirecTV and I got a rate hike in my second month of service* in addition to the taxes *that were not orignally included. I have the standard two year required contract with the first 12-month price "estimate" guarenteed. The sales rep had previously assured me that the first 12-month price was guarenteed to be the price I would pay for 12 months, less taxes because they could not estimate taxes for all the localities they serve.

Sounds logical. Then they raise my prices in the second month of my contract. I call customer service to complain and am told that price raises are normal, DirecTV can raise any of your prices (e.g., equipment rental fees, regional sports fee, etc.) except for the base package (e.g., select, choice, etc.) whenever they want because the contract is a price estimate. And if you read the very fine print on a page subsequent to the price page, you see that it's true.

*This is deceptive in the worst possible way.* Because I'd been interested in DirecTV for some time, in the recent past I got a price estimate at a different store. That sales person used the same form and also assured me that the initial 12 month price was "guarenteed" less taxes because they could not estimate taxes. Same story.


----------



## fireponcoal (Sep 26, 2009)

DirectTV defense force, GO!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

I've long questioned whether or not you can actually subscribe for the prices that DIRECTV quotes. Now it simply isn't possible.

The minimum price you can get is _at least_ $6.50 more than the advertised package price.

Whether the note is a dagger/asterisk or fine gray print in a popover, it isn't obvious that you can't get what they're promising for the price quoted. For their part, Comcast clearly notes that they will add on taxes as well as local channel and RSN fees to their quoted deals. With Brand E, you can actually get the price that they're quoting.


----------



## SayWhat? (Jun 7, 2009)

^ If you're talking about Dish, no, you can't. They also add DVR fees, taxes and other things on top of the 'special' price.

Cell phone plans are just as bad if you get out the magnifying glass.

I don't particularly care for Direc, but if they're going to go after deceptive ads, they have a LONG way to go.


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

I noticed that radio ads "fine print" where they used to say all the legalities really quickly, now they say it in a normal fashion. Did some law changed to prevent that practice?


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

I do not expect the advertised price to be the final price ... but I do expect the sales person to be able to give an accurate price: This is how much your plan will cost you today, this is how much it will cost you on your first bill and this is how much it will cost you on each bill ongoing. If that rate will change it needs to be clear ... not just "rates subject to change" which covers changes in the company's entire rate structure. But an accurate statement of the rates that the company knows today they will be charging 13 months down the road.

It can be complicated ... as customers may cancel promotional content and affect their rate - and no company wants to advertise a "worse case scenario" price that will lose sales.

Just make it clear.


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

You can't be clear when you know your trying to hide something.

All I can say is I was wondering when this was going to happen.


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

harsh said:


> I've long questioned whether or not you can actually subscribe for the prices that DIRECTV quotes. Now it simply isn't possible.
> 
> The minimum price you can get is _at least_ $6.50 more than the advertised package price.
> 
> Whether the note is a dagger/asterisk or fine gray print in a popover, it isn't obvious that you can't get what they're promising for the price quoted. For their part, Comcast clearly notes that they will add on taxes as well as local channel and RSN fees to their quoted deals. With Brand E, you can actually get the price that they're quoting.


Directv quotes prices in their advertising that can't be had .
Period.

$19.99 a month, Yeah Okay.

And every one pays taxes, and every state is different so let's not hear that excuse again on why it's okay to not disclose the real fees.

You can't buy a Directv package without a Directv receiver.

Bottom line, as a company you have control of your company's prices.
There is no excuse your company can't disclose a real bottom line price.
1 room of service is as Minimum as you can get.
That price advertised should be 100% accurite for what Directv is providing.

Taxes directv doesn't charge them the local and state governments do.
So stop trying to use these as excuses.

Dvr, and programming and addtional rooms are optional. 
Not required.

So when you buy a pair boots that are marked $100 and you get to the register and they said , okay $115 please. 
Sorry we charge $15 for laces.
That certainly would not be acceptable.


----------



## SayWhat? (Jun 7, 2009)

Oh,wait, you want eyelets punched to put the laces through? That's another $10


----------



## AntAltMike (Nov 21, 2004)

damondlt said:


> ..So when you buy a pair boots that are marked $100 and you get to the register and they said , okay $115 please.
> Sorry we charge $15 for laces.
> That certainly would not be acceptable.


It's acceptable when we buy ink jet printers. The last time I bought a Lexmark, it came with the low capacity color cartridge, but if I wanted to print in black, I'd have to buy the optional black cartridge... for about the same price,

I wish boots and shoes could be bought without laces. I have "C" width feet and I always have to buy short laces to substitute for the ones that come with them


----------



## Rob37 (Jul 11, 2013)

DirecTv is kind of deceptive. They claim on their Rob Lowe Commercials that Packages Start at $19.99 a month, when in fact it might be true for a new customer, the cheapest package I see on their website is the “select” package which starts at $49.99. Big difference in the pricing there!


----------



## rahlquist (Jul 24, 2007)

damondlt said:


> Bottom line, as a company you have control of your company's prices.
> There is no excuse your company can't disclose a real bottom line price.


Marketing 101.

1. Always make your price sound better than the other guys, obfuscate what you must
2. Make sure once you land them that you hobble them so they cant leave and get charged over and over.

Thats the way D* and most other companies operate nowadays.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

damondlt said:


> There is no excuse your company can't disclose a real bottom line price.


I agree ... the "bottom line price" (including fees, taxes and pre-set increases) should be disclosed at the point of sale.

Where I do not agree with you is in making the "bottom line price" the top line in their advertising. As long as the fees, taxes and scheduled increases to full price are clearly disclosed before the commitment is made I am OK with that.

A happy midpoint would be to advertise a "bottom line price" for a standard install ... such as "four rooms of service with whole home DVR $200 per month". I'd like to see more of that.



damondlt said:


> So when you buy a pair boots that are marked $100 and you get to the register and they said , okay $115 please.
> Sorry we charge $15 for laces.
> That certainly would not be acceptable.


If you don't want to buy the laces don't buy the boots ...
If you don't want to pay fees, taxes or disclosed price increases don't buy the service.

The "$15 lace fee" is disclosed prior to commitment. What DirecTV got in trouble for was not clearly disclosing price increases that occurred while the customer was still under commitment.


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

Agree but when you agree on a price in January, and March comes , you're already not paying your disclosed price.
Sure Directv contact states prices may increase at anytime.

But that still doesn't make it right.
Laws need to be set for all providers, 
you signed a commitment based on a price at the time you signed a 24 month commitment, they can NOT raise your base line prices .
That's a standard practice for any contract except for TV and cell services.
I don't get that at all.

(ATT by the way is right on with their advertised prices.
They just don't include taxes.
And I've had 3 decreases since I've been here. NOT one increase.)

New addtional added upgrade items, sure you pay the current market price.

I can't change my contract price just because I found out the price of Nails went up 100%.
I would be sued, or yet not paid anyway.

But I also wouldn't advertise all over the place I'll build a house for $500,000 and then when they meet with me tell them if they want it nailed together it's another $100,000 

Seriously! !

Just say the damn real price.
If these companies are that ashamed, then they probably should be.


----------



## SledgeHammer (Dec 28, 2007)

SayWhat? said:


> Oh,wait, you want eyelets punched to put the laces through? That's another $10


If you want to wear your shoes in 2 rooms, you'll have to upgrade to the Genie shoe. $3/mo. Yes sir, I get that your house only has one room, we still charge the $3/mo fee .


----------



## SayWhat? (Jun 7, 2009)

^ And don't forget the monthly walking fee to be able to use the shoes.


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

damondlt said:


> Agree but when you agree on a price in January, and March comes , you're already not paying your disclosed price.
> Sure Directv contact states prices may increase at anytime.
> 
> But that still doesn't make it right.
> ...


But what about the other things, like channels being dropped. Would that be part of the contract, that the channel lineup can't be changed? Of course it would only be when not in the customers favor, though I have seen people posting on their Facebook page really upset when certain channels are added....


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

dpeters11 said:


> But what about the other things, like channels being dropped. Would that be part of the contract, that the channel lineup can't be changed? Of course it would only be when not in the customers favor, though I have seen people posting on their Facebook page really upset when certain channels are added....


The amount of channels dropped and added are minimal. 
Again unless you are giving the subscriber a choice. But they don't. 
They take they give, and charge you either way.
That's not politically correct, except in TV world.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

Not to be conspiracy theorist but this sounds like someone politically motivated trying to stop the mergers. 

My big issue is why aren't they going after the others especially cable? DIRECTV has a page that will show you the exact price you will pay every single month for the entire two year contract. I have never been able to find anything close to it on any other provider. And yet they get singled out? Give me a break. Go after them all or none.


----------



## Yodaluver281 (Feb 16, 2015)

All cable, satellite, internet, and wireless providers should have to print their regular non-promotional rate charts in an easily readable size in all advertising.


----------



## john262 (Oct 26, 2011)

SayWhat? said:


> Reading down further in the linked atricle, it appears they DO disclose it, albeit in fine print. If that's true, they why go after them and not all the drug companies that dispaly information in microscopic print?


One step at a time. Directv is a good start but yes they need to go after the others too. There should be a requirement that in TV ads the fine print be large enough to read and it should stay on the screen long enough to give people time to read it.


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

inkahauts said:


> Not to be conspiracy theorist but this sounds like someone politically motivated trying to stop the mergers.
> 
> My big issue is why aren't they going after the others especially cable? DIRECTV has a page that will show you the exact price you will pay every single month for the entire two year contract. I have never been able to find anything close to it on any other provider. And yet they get singled out? Give me a break. Go after them all or none.


I agree, 
That's why I said TV world.

But to be fair,
AT&T claims 4 lines 10 GB of data for $160.
That's accurite .
Sure there is taxes , But that's not AT&T, That's the government.

My cable company, right on their front page, 
Digital basic plus $59.99 for 12 months, 
Again accurite.
Taxes extra, again local and state government fees, not provider.

Directv advertised prices STARTING at $19.99 
Um plus $6.50 for a receiver 

But hey I'm game if we want to start checking other providers quoted advertised prices,

and IMO the only thing acceptable over the base advertised price is Taxes That's It.
Because that is beyond Directv, Dish, Att,Verizon and Cables Hands.

Directv's packages quote prices on a NO ROOM System . 
LMAO Ridiculous.


----------



## SayWhat? (Jun 7, 2009)

On a side note, I saw an article within the last few days that the Snuggies, 'but wait, there's MORE!, get a second Snuggie FREE' gang got hit up for the added shipping fees for the second item that totaled almost the price of the item.


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

SayWhat? said:


> On a side note, I saw an article within the last few days that the Snuggies, 'but wait, there's MORE!, get a second Snuggie FREE' gang got hit up for the added shipping fees for the second item that totaled almost the price of the item.


 And the shipping is just as much as the Snuggie lol.
But they do tell you just pay shipping.
I didn't hear directv say $6.50 extra if you want it to work. Lol

I had a bad feeling once I've seen these commercials. 
I knew it would be long before this happend.

Directv should have NEVER excluded the 1st receiver from their base price.
NEVER.


----------



## yosoyellobo (Nov 1, 2006)

When push turns to shove how much are we taking for a refund? Two pay per view movies?


----------



## SayWhat? (Jun 7, 2009)

One.

But the lawyers all get new mansions.


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

yosoyellobo said:


> When push turns to shove how much are we taking for a refund? Two pay per view movies?


Back in 2005 I won a Directv settlement. 
A wopping $25.
They got sued for telling customer in Pike county Pa that local channels were available, when in fact on DNS from NY were all that was available lol.
They lost. 
I collected my $25 , than I "moved"


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

Her is another,
This must be the real deal, because it's all over the place.

I wonder how this will turn out.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2015/03/11/ftc-charges-directv-false-advertising/70147768/


----------



## yosoyellobo (Nov 1, 2006)

damondlt said:


> Back in 2005 I won a Directv settlement.
> A wopping $25.
> They got sued for telling customer in Pike county Pa that local channels were available, when in fact on DNS from NY were all that was available lol.
> They lost.
> I collected my $25 , than I "moved"


How much did the lawyers get?


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

I bet millions!
But that was a class action suit. 
I don't think this time it's just a Lawyers money battle.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

damondlt said:


> I agree,
> That's why I said TV world.
> 
> But to be fair,
> ...


Charter in my area quotes all their pries without boxes. And U-verese never shows the additional lease fee for their modem if you have phone internet and tv, that I have seen on the stuff they send me. They ALL do it...


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

If the Largest Satellite provider can do it , than so should the smaller providers.


----------



## n3vino (Oct 2, 2011)

What I see wrong with their advertisement, is that they don't tell you that the $29.00 dollars a month applies to the cheapest package with no HD, no DVR, no additional boxes, and no whole home. By the time you add all that, and upgrade to a better package, you are looking at $80.00 a month the first year. And when they tell you about their 200 channels, they don't tell you that the majority of them are bull corn channels that you will never watch, but still have to pay for them. Dish and cable do the same thing. But once you know the real price, not including taxes, you don't have to buy.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

SayWhat? said:


> ^ If you're talking about Dish, no, you can't. They also add DVR fees, taxes and other things on top of the 'special' price.


Consumers understand that if you add features and capability to your service, you're going to pay more. Nonetheless, it is possible to subscribe to Brand E for the cited price if you take a single SD receiver. They don't add on a receiver fee and a possible (and somewhat unpredictable) RSN fee to every new subscription.


----------



## Paul Secic (Dec 16, 2003)

SledgeHammer said:


> Watching DirecTV may cause dizzyness, head aches and excessive weight gain and bloating. Users may also incur heavy financial losses and experience bouts of irratibility. Ask your doctor if DirecTV is right for you.


Good one!


----------



## Lazidaze (Aug 1, 2014)

inkahauts said:


> DIRECTV has a page that will show you the exact price you will pay every single month for the entire two year contract.


How does someone access that page - I have never been able to find it?


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

Lazidaze said:


> How does someone access that page - I have never been able to find it?


You have to go through the steps of starting new service.
And it's not right out in the open.
And if you call in , they will not provide the exact details unless pressured into it.
Been there done that. 
Many many times .

And it pointless to know anyway, because it's never their quoted price throughout the 24 month commitment. 
Which is why people are getting mad.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

Lazidaze said:


> How does someone access that page - I have never been able to find it?


You have to go through the sign-up process on the website up to the point where you've made all your choices and you see a cost summary page. Just above the "My One-Time Costs" heading, there is a link labeled "Compare Months". This is where you discover that you forgot to unsubscribe to the premium movie plexes and what the FTC means by the phrase "negative continuity option plan"..


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

Yes it is easy to find when you are signing up for new service on the summary screen there's a link that I forget how it's worded but says see every single months bill or something like that. 

And yes it is the exact price every single month. It lists each month. 

The only caveat is the yearly price increase which is mentioned at the bottom. But it shows exactly what credits and when they will apply and when they will disappear for the promo too. It's the best laid out I've ever seen. Mostly because it's the only one I have ever seen. I look every once in a while for the same thing from charter. Never find it.


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

I don't see the price breakdown on the mobile site.


----------



## bobcamp1 (Nov 8, 2007)

FIOS has a similar breakdown, and it's accurate. That's because the two-year agreement comes with a two-year price lock for EVERYTHING except whatever taxes your state creates or changes in that two-year time frame. It's accurate to within a dollar or two.

DirecTV's is guaranteed not to be accurate because the price isn't locked down in the second year of the contract. That second year breakdown shows what you'd be paying if your second year started today, which makes no sense because you haven't even started you first year yet and we all know DirecTV will raise prices every year. Not to mention that the equipment fees are never locked down.

And does DirecTV even give this faulty price breakdown when people order service over the phone? I'm guessing they don't.

The other problem is that the second year's prices for service is in most cases around 2.5 times what they're paying for the first year. They show a price crossed out next to the "sale" price, but that number has no meaning whatsoever. The tiny fine print tells you what the current price for the same service is.

I just went through this with my parents and my wife, and we decided not to get/go back to DirecTV. Who would knowingly sign a two-year contract where the seller could charge whatever they wanted to in the second year? Maybe that's why Poor Decision-Making Rob Lowe is DirecTV's spokesperson.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

bobcamp1 said:


> FIOS has a similar breakdown, and it's accurate. That's because the two-year agreement comes with a two-year price lock for EVERYTHING except whatever taxes your state creates or changes in that two-year time frame. It's accurate to within a dollar or two.


Are you sure they (be it Verizon or Frontier) don't except fees other than the subscription package itself from their price lock?


----------



## curbside (Jun 30, 2007)

I had a friend sign up for one of the promo prices and getting a Genie DVR. The CSR went through the payment schedule month by month detailing when the prices would change and how much each month would cost over the two year period. The ads may be deceptive but I would hope everything is explained to the customer at sign-up.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

peds48 said:


> I noticed that radio ads "fine print" where they used to say all the legalities really quickly, now they say it in a normal fashion. Did some law changed to prevent that practice?


Just heard a radio ad yesterday with a fast-talker at the end. It still lives. Ever call up one of those companies and fast-talk them? I have and they don't like it anymore than we do.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

damondlt said:


> You can't be clear when you know your trying to hide something.
> 
> All I can say is I was wondering when this was going to happen.


I'm wondering why it's been allowed to go on for so long. What, nobody knew they were lying and being deceptive?

Rich


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

Rich said:


> I'm wondering why it's been allowed to go on for so long. What, nobody knew they were lying and being deceptive?


Because they don't police it tightly the way they do in the UK. We all know most large companies do various deceptive practices all the time, but it probably takes a certain threshold of consumer complaints before it gets onto the FTC's radar.

What really gets Directv in hot water here is that they had already been accused of this and agreed to stop deceptive practices. They'll ding you a lot harder the second time, when you've already said your mea culpas and supposedly promised to be a good little boy from now on.

The timing is interesting with the AT&T decision coming up so soon, maybe this is a way to get AT&T on the hook for whatever promises Directv ends up having to make.


----------



## SledgeHammer (Dec 28, 2007)

SayWhat? said:


> ^ And don't forget the monthly walking fee to be able to use the shoes.


Umm... why do you have my picture as avatar???


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

slice1900 said:


> Because they don't police it tightly the way they do in the UK. We all know most large companies do various deceptive practices all the time, but it probably takes a certain threshold of consumer complaints before it gets onto the FTC's radar.
> 
> What really gets Directv in hot water here is that they had already been accused of this and agreed to stop deceptive practices. They'll ding you a lot harder the second time, when you've already said your mea culpas and supposedly promised to be a good little boy from now on.
> 
> The timing is interesting with the AT&T decision coming up so soon, maybe this is a way to get AT&T on the hook for whatever promises Directv ends up having to make.


Agreed !


----------



## crkeehn (Apr 23, 2002)

damondlt said:


> I agree,
> That's why I said TV world.
> 
> But to be fair,
> ...


More realistically you should look at ATT U-verse rather than cellular. They use the same approach, neglecting to mention that you will be paying an additional fee for the modem/router you will need to use the system.

I have not had to deal with DirecTV customer service in a number of years, but I do remember that when I did attempt to upgrade to HD, the CS Representative did thoroughly go over the terms and repeated several times, that I would be required to maintain a two year contract.


----------



## Yakuman (Sep 12, 2009)

harsh said:


> I've long questioned whether or not you can actually subscribe for the prices that DIRECTV quotes. Now it simply isn't possible.


That's because that price is for the base package only. That's the same promotional practice across the industry. In the case of DTV, it doesn't include receiver fees, advanced (HD/DVR/WH) fees, regional sports fee, and tax.


----------



## Yakuman (Sep 12, 2009)

Rob37 said:


> DirecTv.... the cheapest package I see on their website is the "select" package which starts at $49.99. Big difference in the pricing there!


The cheapest package is the rarely-promoted Family package, which is $29.99 a month for a sparse group of 62 channels, plus locals.


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

crkeehn said:


> More realistically you should look at ATT U-verse rather than cellular. They use the same approach, neglecting to mention that you will be paying an additional fee for the modem/router you will need to use the system.


Well I feel bad for Directv's customers in the future if this is how Att runs their u verse business.


----------



## trh (Nov 3, 2007)

Yakuman said:


> The cheapest package is the rarely-promoted Family package, which is $29.99 a month for a sparse group of 62 channels, plus locals.


If you go to the DIRECTV web site as a *new subscriber*, the $29.99 Family package is the first package. Currently with a line through the price with a reduced price of $19.99 "for 12 months with 24-mo. agreement. Plus additional fees. Requires enrollment in Auto Bill Pay". Then links to "Learn More". And I didn't look at the channels, but it says "130+ channels".

And when you look at the 3 months of premium movie channels, it clearly states you have to call to cancel.

Yes, you have to read the fine print and click on through. But I haven't seen anywhere where that isn't the case.


----------



## west99999 (May 12, 2007)

trh said:


> And when you look at the 3 months of premium movie channels, it clearly states you have to call to cancel.


But you don't, they changed this some time back now they auto cancel after the promo.


----------



## trh (Nov 3, 2007)

Well, the FTC has alleged that DIRECTV doesn't disclose that you have to call to cancel and the web site, right now, says this about the premium channels:


> Get the most popular premium movie channels FREE for 3 months as part of our new customer offer.After promotional period ends, you will be charged the price in effect unless you call to cancel.


So if it has changed 'some time back', they really need to update their web site.


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

I've never had a expired promo automatically dropped off. 
It always went to full price.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

trh said:


> If you go to the DIRECTV web site as a *new subscriber*, the $29.99 Family package is the first package.


You can't sign up with the FAMILY Package through the website. You must call the signup phone number to get it and it doesn't look like there are any promotional come-ons.

According to the ELA, FAMILY Package does qualify as a base package.

Any way you attack it you'll still be paying at least $36.49/month for the $29.99 package and if there aren't any hardware promotions, you're getting hosed as compared with SELECT.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

west99999 said:


> But you don't, they changed this some time back now they auto cancel after the promo.


As I pointed out above, the online sign-up application indicates that it auto-extends. Of course DIRECTV is being assailed for practices dating back to 2007 so they may well have fixed it but IIRC, more than a few were more recently nailed by NFLST auto-renewal (as the fine print indicates will happen).


----------



## west99999 (May 12, 2007)

AFAIK NfLST still auto renews (but they have plenty of warning before it happens) the free movies for new customer does auto drop after the 3 months.


----------



## camo (Apr 15, 2010)

trh said:


> If you go to the DIRECTV web site as a *new subscriber*, the $29.99 Family package is the first package. Currently with a line through the price with a reduced price of $19.99 "for 12 months with 24-mo. agreement. Plus additional fees. Requires enrollment in Auto Bill Pay". Then links to "Learn More". And I didn't look at the channels, but it says "130+ channels".
> 
> And when you look at the 3 months of premium movie channels, it clearly states you have to call to cancel.
> 
> Yes, you have to read the fine print and click on through. But I haven't seen anywhere where that isn't the case.


I was looking at that package because I was thinking about installing cable for locals I don't get in my area with Directv. Even the cheap package adds up. You no longer get free HD $10, DVR $9 all adds up then package price $30 dollars your still looking at $50 a month.


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

west99999 said:


> AFAIK NfLST still auto renews (but they have plenty of warning before it happens) the free movies for new customer does auto drop after the 3 months.


That must have started in November 2014, because I know for a fact that wasn't the standard practice. 
It would just roll into regular pricing.


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

damondlt said:


> That must have started in November 2014, because I know for a fact that wasn't the standard practice.
> It would just roll into regular pricing.


Just confirmed with a "very knowledgable and dependentable" DIRECTV® "rep" they DONT drop off after 3 months, they roll to pay


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

peds48 said:


> Just confirmed with a "very knowledgable and dependentable" DIRECTV® "rep" they DONT drop off after 3 months, they roll to pay


I know, I don't know any provider that just drops premiums without a phone call.


I will admit, that part of the investigation is dumb, That's always been a Standard practice for Directv for as far back as I can remember.
Same thing on the 24 month commitment, If you don't know these 2 things by now, well then you deserve to get ripped off.

What I don't like is the price increases during your original contract, hey you change your base pack, or upgrade equipment, with in your original contract, than you pay the new rates.
But until then don't touch the rate that brought me in to sign up in the first place until month 25.

I don't like an advertised unobtainable price. 
I don't care who else does that.
People don't sign up for service without receiving equipment of some kind.
$19.99 for NO Rooms of service is Ridiculous.

When you try and hide the Real rate, obviously their own company feels their prices are embarrassingly too high to advertise accurate and competitively.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Stepping through a web order for the "$19.99" deal.

The disclaimers are there ... in gray on silver so not in "high contrast" as the rest of the page.
The disclaimers: "Reg. Price $49.99/mo" and "for 12 months with 24-mo. agreement. Plus additional fees. Requires enrollment in Auto Bill Pay."
The mislead: High contrast "$29.99" is crossed through with $19.99 for 12 months ... that makes it look like the regular price is $29.99 instead of $49.99.

Click on the "Add to Cart" and the top of the screen shows "First Month $19.99 $89.96 in savings". The math guy in me is reminded that if one is saving $89.96 then the full price is $109.95.
(The Select package does not have RSNs so there is no RSN fee.)

Continue to Next Step ...

$59.96 in premium programming shown as "free" (it can be removed from the cart) and the opportunity to add more content.

Continue to Next Step ...

Choose the receiver by number of rooms ... up to four rooms are marked "Free". +$49 for the fifth room +$98 if one chooses six rooms. +$99 to "make it wireless".

When one chooses the number of rooms the numbers at the top of the screen change:
1 room: 1st Month Total $41.49 $89.96 in savings - Due at Checkout $0.00 $199.00 in savings
2 rooms: 1st Month Total $47.99 $89.96 in savings - Due at Checkout $0.00 $398.00 in savings
4 rooms: 1st Month Total $60.99 $89.96 in savings - Due at Checkout $0.00 $596.00 in savings

Continue to Next Step ... (with the "most popular" four rooms)

Optional GenieGo and Protection Plan

Review the Cart ...

SELECT $49.99
$20 Bill Credit for Months 1-12 -$20.00
Extra $10 Bill Credit for Months 1-12 -$10.00
Base Package Subtotal: $19.99

HBO®, SHOWTIME®, STARZ and Cinemax® $59.96
Additional Programming Discounts
FREE for 3 months: HBO, SHOWTIME, STARZ and Cinemax -$59.96
Watch More Save More
Additional Programming Subtotal: $0.00

Advanced Receiver Service $15.00
Tvs (4 TVs) $26.00
Equipment Fees Subtotal: $41.00

There is a "Compare Months" link that opens a monthly table (first 6 months showing)
Months 1-3 $60.99
Months 4-12 $111.98
Months 13+ $141,98

BTW: At this point the only personal information I entered was a zip code. Email address was optional.

Going through the selections again and choosing a package with RSNs the fee was disclosed at the first step when the package was chosen.

I don't like gray on silver ... and the contrast on the "Compare Months" link could also be stronger but DirecTV is currently disclosing the full two years of rates at the time of the order based only on the zip code and options chosen.


----------



## SayWhat? (Jun 7, 2009)

> FREE for 3 months: HBO, SHOWTIME, STARZ and Cinemax -$59.96
> 
> Months 1-3 $60.99
> Months 4-12 $111.98


I see a difference of 50.99, so where's the other $9 or so?

As far as I'm concerned, nothing should ever auto-renew if there is a price change or increase involved. It should ALWAYS have to be confirmed by the user before the charge takes effect. All it would have to be is an email with a check box.


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

James Long said:


> There is a "Compare Months" link that opens a monthly table (first 6 months showing)
> Months 1-3 $60.99
> Months 4-12 $111.98
> Months 13+ $141,98
> ...


Disclosed or not, It's not accurate.

I can't sign up for $19.99.
Also that 24 month price breakdown changes . If I signed up in January, I'm already paying more in March, and not to mention next March. 
And that's if they only raise the rates just once a year.

And I only know this because of DBSTALK, Satelliteguys, and other public forums. Which accounts for less than 1% of Directv subscribers knowledge of its practices.
You guys all claim it's there in black and white, or silver and gray, but us DBSTALK geeks also review this crap day after day, night after night, until we're blue in the face.

I didn't see a breakdown anywhere other then the main site.
I've still yet to see it on the Mobile site ???

And CSR isn't going to go through that unless it's brought up, and he/she is going to again, only state the rates at the present time. They don't tell you that's an estimate. 
They just ramble off a bunch of terms and conditions at a 5000, words per min , and your supposed to decipher what it all means, when the CSRs themselves don't have a clue because they are just reading off a screen.

You ever stop them with a question when they are reading that disclaimer?
They can't hardly answer or speak, and they keep trying get this thing read , so you say "Yes I Accept" as fast as possible.
Unacceptable !


----------



## tsmacro (Apr 28, 2005)

I think one of the more deceptive ads they have is for their "wireless" service. Shows pictures of just a tv hanging on the wall connected to nothing. Ok so is the wireless mini connected to the tv behind the wall or something? Because it is hooked up to to a receiver that's connected via a wire to the tv somehow, the only part of it that's "wireless" is there isn't a wire connecting the wireless mini to the main unit, sure that makes it more convenient for some installs and makes it easier to move around but still it's not as nice and neat as they show in the pictures on the ads without some serious additional work that's not included in a free "standard install". The way those ads are presented you'd think you have a wireless transmitter that transmits your Directv service directly from your dish to your TV's with no wires or boxes needed. I've had to disappoint quite a few customers who really thought it was something just like that actually. Granted once again I've seen other companies advertise their "wireless boxes" that make them look a lot slicker than they really are too but they all just really need to stop it!


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

Ads in general I take with at least a grain of salt, or maybe a block.

Actually one that I really didn't believe, though not DirecTV related, was an ad where a pickup truck towed one of the Space Shuttles. That one ended up being completely real, though I believe with a custom designed hitch.

Simulated screens, sequences shortened, cape does not allow wearer to fly, professional TV watcher on a closed sofa.


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

tsmacro said:


> I think one of the more deceptive ads they have is for their "wireless" service. Shows pictures of just a tv hanging on the wall connected to nothing. Ok so is the wireless mini connected to the tv behind the wall or something? Because it is hooked up to to a receiver that's connected via a wire to the tv somehow, the only part of it that's "wireless" is there isn't a wire connecting the wireless mini to the main unit, sure that makes it more convenient for some installs and makes it easier to move around but still it's not as nice and neat as they show in the pictures on the ads without some serious additional work that's not included in a free "standard install". The way those ads are presented you'd think you have a wireless transmitter that transmits your Directv service directly from your dish to your TV's with no wires or boxes needed. I've had to disappoint quite a few customers who really thought it was something just like that actually. Granted once again I've seen other companies advertise their "wireless boxes" that make them look a lot slicker than they really are too but they all just really need to stop it!


Ive already questioned this.
When they said Wireless, I right off the bat figured the RVU tvs connected through WiFi to the HR44.
That is wireless.
A WiFi Client is far from wireless when it requires setop box C41w and an HDMI cable and power cable.
Wow you took a coax out of the mix, which Moca is way more reliable than Directvs Wifi I'm sure.

Wireless is a Dish Hopper App off your Smart tv. :righton:


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

damondlt said:


> I will admit, that part of the investigation is dumb, That's always been a Standard practice for Directv for as far back as I can remember.


That doesn't change the fact that the FTC declared and reaffirmed that the practice is unfair to the consumer.

https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2014/07/ftc-will-keep-negative-option-rule-its-current-form

Just because DIRECTV has a well-established pattern of violation doesn't mean that the FTC should change their policy or except DIRECTV from compliance.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

dpeters11 said:


> Actually one that I really didn't believe, though not DirecTV related, was an ad where a pickup truck towed one of the Space Shuttles. That one ended up being completely real, though I believe with a custom designed hitch.


I recall that Volvo got taken to the cleaners the famous "Monster Truck" ad of 1991 and Nissan for the more recent "Landing Gear" Frontier ad (a rip-off of a similarly faked ad by Jeep).

In this case, DIRECTV can probably provide all the features promised, just not at anywhere near the price they claim.


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

harsh said:


> That doesn't change the fact that the FTC declared and reaffirmed that the practice is unfair to the consumer.
> 
> https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2014/07/ftc-will-keep-negative-option-rule-its-current-form
> 
> Just because DIRECTV has a well-established pattern of violation doesn't mean that the FTC should change their policy or except DIRECTV from compliance.


Hey I'm not saying agree that it's aloud.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

SayWhat? said:


> I see a difference of 50.99, so where's the other $9 or so?


There is an ongoing "Watch More Save More" discount that kicks in after the three free months.



SayWhat? said:


> As far as I'm concerned, nothing should ever auto-renew if there is a price change or increase involved. It should ALWAYS have to be confirmed by the user before the charge takes effect. All it would have to be is an email with a check box.


Congratulations ... you checked that box when you signed for your equipment. DirecTV just made it more convenient for the customer - they agree to all future price/fee agreements until they cancel their contract.


----------



## jerrylove56 (Jun 15, 2008)

Don't know if this fits the complaints or not but a few years ago it was simple to add/delete premium service online. Now you have to through a phalanx to delete premium programming. (Call 1-800) number speak to a CSR who has to transfer you to another Dept. for someone to try to upsale you on other premium packages or discounts. God forbid you call at a busy time, it took me about 1-hour and transfers to multiple CSR's, on one occasion.

One of my main complaints regarding DTV business practices these days is it moves to frustrate consumer into keeping high priced products and services. Other practices include preventing consumers from seeing transaction history, forcing paperless billing down your throat and making their online apps and services too obtuse.

Unfortunately, there are other companies doing the exact same thing. Comcast seems to add "phantom" equipment and services to my bill every quarter. Once caught it's blamed on their computer system. How much money that could calculate up to if did to thousands, who knows. But if the Gov. has caught DTV red-handed they should nail them and other corporation.


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

If I had a service that kept adding services, I'd drop them. However, in all my years of having DirecTV, they've never added something without me asking for it. I think the last time I had to call them was January 2012 for a Genie replacement. I don't know about forcing paperless, but it absolutely is a trend, most companies are trying to go to e-billing and that's not something I see the FTC fighting over, or ease of use of online apps or services.


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

dpeters11 said:


> If I had a service that kept adding services, I'd drop them. However, in all my years of having DirecTV, they've never added something without me asking for it. I think the last time I had to call them was January 2012 for a Genie replacement. I don't know about forcing paperless, but it absolutely is a trend, most companies are trying to go to e-billing and that's not something I see the FTC fighting over, or ease of use of online apps or services.


I've never had them add a service. But I have been charged twice for the NFL st .
Yeah that was a fun week.

I called in February 2013 to not auto renew. 
And wouldn't you know it in July or August I got billed for $300, so I called to cancel it again, and 4 days later it was back .

They claimed my Auto pay didn't go through , so they ran it twice. 
Because the first time instead of just canceling the the ST order, she canceled the auto pay, well Auto pay had already gone through that morning. So nothing could be done.
So next month I get another bill for $300 extra because it claimed the autopay was denied the month before , when in fact it was just a credit back.
Yeah what a mess.

I'll never do autopay with anything again.


----------



## trh (Nov 3, 2007)

damondlt said:


> They can't hardly answer or speak, and they keep trying get this thing read , so you say "Yes I Accept" as fast as possible.


If you say "Yes I Accept" without hearing or understanding ANY terms or disclaimers or without reading the fine print on any contract, then you deserve what you get.


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

tsmacro said:


> I think one of the more deceptive ads they have is for their "wireless" service. Shows pictures of just a tv hanging on the wall connected to nothing. Ok so is the wireless mini connected to the tv behind the wall or something? Because it is hooked up to to a receiver that's connected via a wire to the tv somehow, the only part of it that's "wireless" is there isn't a wire connecting the wireless mini to the main unit, sure that makes it more convenient for some installs and makes it easier to move around but still it's not as nice and neat as they show in the pictures on the ads without some serious additional work that's not included in a free "standard install". The way those ads are presented you'd think you have a wireless transmitter that transmits your Directv service directly from your dish to your TV's with no wires or boxes needed. I've had to disappoint quite a few customers who really thought it was something just like that actually. Granted once again I've seen other companies advertise their "wireless boxes" that make them look a lot slicker than they really are too but they all just really need to stop it!


This is a picture from the Bose website, and no those speakers are not wireless. And yes, both the TV and Bose STB requires power

Click for large view - Uploaded with Skitch


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

peds48 said:


> This is a picture from the Bose website, and no those speakers are not wireless. And yes, both the TV and Bose STB requires power
> 
> Click for large view - Uploaded with Skitch


Bose doesn't claim it is wireless.
Just because the pictures show no wires , so what !
So do pictures of wall mounted tvs.

Speakers need a power source, unless you buy ones with batteries in them.
There is no way to power AC/DC something without a direct connection.

Blue Tooth devices still need power.

DIRECTV was the ones claiming NO WIRES.

By the way here is the link that was left out .
http://www.bose.com/controller?url=/shop_online/home_theater/surround_sound_systems/lifestyle_525_535/index.jsp

And here is the link so you can have the look of no wires.
http://www.bose.com/controller?url=/shop_online/home_theater/accessories/setup_installation/install_service_5_1_5wires.jsp&color=nc

All provided by Bose and nothing misleading or false .
Nice try though!

Bose doesn't hide their prices.
Clearly!


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

trh said:


> If you say "Yes I Accept" without hearing or understanding ANY terms or disclaimers or without reading the fine print on any contract, then you deserve what you get.


Apparently the federal government doesn't agree with you.
You are saying yes under false pretenses.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

The devices use wireless technology. They are "less wire" devices - not "no wire" devices. Here are the claims and the disclaimer:


Hello wireless. Goodbye clutter.
Say goodbye to messy cable wires and boxes. Introducing Wireless Genie Mini. It's so small and powerful it eliminates the need for visible equipment and cable outlets around your TV. Now your entertainment can take center stage

Want it wireless?
Choose Wireless Genie Minis. They connect to the Genie HD DVR via Wireless Video Bridge. No cable outlet needed—just the power cord and an HDMI cable.


Actual range of wireless signal varies and may be affected by several factors including, but not limited to: home construction materials, obstructions, electromagnetic interference and other environmental factors. Connections of Wireless Genie Mini to TV and power source are required. For residential use in a single household only.


Hopefully anyone who has one of those fancy TVs setups with hidden wiring understands what wireless means in context. Not "no wires at all" but getting away from the large wires typical of cable boxes. (Of course, those with a nicer setup have already considered how to hide their wires and cable their homes. But wireless provides an option.)


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

Directv claims
http://www.adforum.com/creative-work/ad/player/34496736

http://www.ispot.tv/ad/7oAt/directv-genie-no-more-wires






https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&ei=5SwEVdvYF8ekNqSJgYAJ&url=http://m.youtube.com/watch%3Fv%3DHB0pq5n0C24&ved=0CCAQtwIwAQ&usg=AFQjCNE3CxyrjWoPsZn-rMYrrJScjRD0IQ


----------



## tsmacro (Apr 28, 2005)

James Long said:


> The devices use wireless technology. They are "less wire" devices - not "no wire" devices.
> Hopefully anyone who has one of those fancy TVs setups with hidden wiring understands what wireless means in context. Not "no wires at all" but getting away from the large wires typical of cable boxes. (Of course, those with a nicer setup have already considered how to hide their wires and cable their homes. But wireless provides an option.)


Unfortunately that's not how they advertise it though. They say wireless and then they show you two pictures one with a tv hanging on a wall with no visible wires or boxes, then the other picture you see the wires hanging from the tv and the box. The truth of the matter is the wires and boxes that aren't shown in the first picture have nothing to do with Directv giving you "wireless" service, it has everything to do with having a professional install done that hid all the wires and boxes, which you could do whether you had a "wireless" receiver or not. And let me tell you most people watching those commercials do not understand that, like I said from my experience talking to customers, they literally think Directv just transmits their signal from their dish to your TV's with no wires or boxes, I've even had some who thought you wouldn't need a dish.


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

tsmacro said:


> Unfortunately that's not how they advertise it though. They say wireless and then they show you two pictures one with a tv hanging on a wall with no visible wires or boxes, then the other picture you see the wires hanging from the tv and the box. The truth of the matter is the wires and boxes that aren't shown in the first picture have nothing to do with Directv giving you "wireless" service, it has everything to do with having a professional install done that hid all the wires and boxes, which you could do whether you had a "wireless" receiver or not. And let me tell you most people watching those commercials do not understand that, like I said from my experience talking to customers, they literally Directv just transmits their signal from their dish to your TV's with no wires or boxes, I've even had some who thought you wouldn't need a dish.


Exactly, "No More Wires" was their catch phrase for them string puppet commercials.


----------



## tsmacro (Apr 28, 2005)

For that matter some people will flat out not believe you. I have had customers ask about Dish Network's wireless options with the Hopper, I'll explain how it works, they don't like that so they say well I'll just call Directv then and get their wireless service. Then I'll point out that we also sell Directv and pretty much same idea on how the "wireless" works, of course I can also offer the professional install that hides everything, but most people don't want to pay for it and I get "I'll just call Directv directly". Like I said those ads have made such a strong impression people really think all they have to do is subscribe to Directv and the signal transmits through the air to their tv with no wires or boxes.


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

tsmacro said:


> "I'll just call Directv directly". Like I said those ads have made such a strong impression people really think all they have to do is subscribe to Directv and the signal transmits through the air to their tv with no wires or boxes.


Yep Wireless HR44, to Wifi RVU tv.
That would be wireless. 
And that was what I thought they were talking about they have developed.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

west99999 said:


> But you don't, they changed this some time back now they auto cancel after the promo.


Somebody ought to tell their CSRs (Retention) that. The CSR that gave me 3 months of HBO, Showtime and Cinemax after I downgraded my Premium package the other day told me I had to call and cancel if I didn't want to get charged after the 3 month period.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

damondlt said:


> That must have started in November 2014, because I know for a fact that wasn't the standard practice.
> _*It would just roll into regular pricing.*_


That's what the Retention CSR clearly told me last Saturday.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

damondlt said:


> Exactly, "No More Wires" was their catch phrase for them string puppet commercials.


Lemming traps.... :rolling:

Rich


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

damondlt said:


> Exactly, "No More Wires" was their catch phrase for them string puppet commercials.


Read "no more wires" as "no additional wires".

People who believe adding a wireless Genie to their TV will remove all wires to their TV including those unrelated to the Genie (TV power, speaker wires, other devices) have problems that go beyond the scope of DirecTV's advertising.


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

Most ads seem to be aimed at under average intelligence. Around an IQ of 93 would be my guess. Regardless, it is incredible how gullible and/or non-probing some folks are regarding pictures, moving or still.


----------



## jerrylove56 (Jun 15, 2008)

damondlt said:


> Exactly, "No More Wires" was their catch phrase for them string puppet commercials.


While it may or may not have been false advertising, I thought those were so of the funniest commercials.


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

damondlt said:


> Bose doesn't claim it is wireless.
> Just because the pictures show no wires , so what !
> So do pictures of wall mounted tvs.
> 
> ...


You don't need to "claim it" in order to own it. A picture is worth a thousand words, or so they say. If the same DIRECTV® customer who beliefs DIRECTV® wireless solution is totally wireless, why is that same person not to assume that this Bose system pictured there is not wireless as well? Are the excused because they are looking at a picture on Bose and not DIRECTV®? Or Dish for that matter?....

You mentioned Bluetooth needs power, Speakers needs power, a STB needs power, but yet is wrongful to think that a DIRECTV® wireless STB needs one of those as well....


----------



## jerrylove56 (Jun 15, 2008)

dpeters11 said:


> If I had a service that kept adding services, I'd drop them. However, in all my years of having DirecTV, they've never added something without me asking for it. I think the last time I had to call them was January 2012 for a Genie replacement. I don't know about forcing paperless, but it absolutely is a trend, most companies are trying to go to e-billing and that's not something I see the FTC fighting over, or ease of use of online apps or services.


On multiple occasions after deleting a premium package I had to recall DTV to correct their error. Purposely or bad CSR's, who knows. Has happened 3 or 4 times when (90) days discounts end on premium channels. It pays to view bills closely.


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

tsmacro said:


> Unfortunately that's not how they advertise it though. They say wireless and then they show you two pictures one with a tv hanging on a wall with no visible wires or boxes, then the other picture you see the wires hanging from the tv and the box. The truth of the matter is the wires and boxes that aren't shown in the first picture have nothing to do with Directv giving you "wireless" service, it has everything to do with having a professional install done that hid all the wires and boxes, which you could do whether you had a "wireless" receiver or not. And let me tell you most people watching those commercials do not understand that, like I said from my experience talking to customers,* they literally think Directv just transmits their signal from their dish to your TV's with no wires or boxes, I've even had some who thought you wouldn't need a dish.*


That is just being naïve


----------



## jerrylove56 (Jun 15, 2008)

peds48 said:


> That is just being naive


I use to agree with you but based on the amount of times that I had to help family members and friends install electronics or devices, I could not believe their ignorance or naivety. A lot of people are not tech or mechanical knowledgeable. Hence the number of lawsuits against manufacturers and service corporations for making claims regarding their devices and services. My daughter still does not understand why her computer continues to get computer viruses when she turns the security software off. :nono2:


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

jerrylove56 said:


> I use to agree with you but based on the amount of times that I had to help family members and friends install electronics or devices, I could not believe their ignorance or naivety. A lot of people are not tech or mechanical knowledgeable. Hence the number of lawsuits against manufacturers and service corporations for making claims regarding their devices and services. My daughter still does not understand why her computer continues to get computer viruses when she turns the security software off. :nono2:


I am not referring to understanding the whole technical part of it, but to believe that no dish is required, that is out there. The only few times when I have had customers question the need for a dish is when they bundle with Verizon and they think they are getting FiOS and not DIRECTV®. And that confusion is understandable


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

No, I think at least most know a dish is needed, though may not realize that the majority of it is just a reflector. But I'm sure some think, "You can send my TV signal wirelessly from space, but can't use wireless to go 20 feet to the living room?"


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

peds48 said:


> You don't need to "claim it" in order to own it. A picture is worth a thousand words, or so they say. If the same DIRECTV® customer who beliefs DIRECTV® wireless solution is totally wireless, why is that same person not to assume that this Bose system pictured there is not wireless as well? Are the excused because they are looking at a picture on Bose and not DIRECTV®? Or Dish for that matter?....
> 
> You mentioned Bluetooth needs power, Speakers needs power, a STB needs power, but yet is wrongful to think that a DIRECTV® wireless STB needs one of those as well....


Directv claims to have No messy wires as compared to cable.
So what part of that is true?

What wires did they eliminate. 
A coax?
But yet you have to have a seperate unit for that C41w to even function.

I'll say it again , they are Implying you don't need any equipment at the location of the tv.

Which is not true, unless you use RVU, and apparently that isn't wireless either since it need some type of network connection.

All my Tvs look like those Directv ads.

I don't have any messy wires and I have cable.
It's really simple to eliminate wires.
And most people have a coax at their TV locations, so it's not like it's a gift from God to eliminate the coax, which serves multiple purposes in one cable.


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

The coax is the most ugly wire you can have and the hardest to eliminate. Most power and coax outlets are at the bottom close to the baseboard. A properly mounted TV should have a recessed power outlet behind it. So if you installed your TV properly, you can easily eliminate wire mess by mounting the C41W behind the TV and using the recessed outlet to power the wireless client. If you don't have a power outlet behind the TV, then you have a power cord coming from it, then you should not have to worry about messy wires 

With some ingenuity, you can eliminate messy wires with a C41W easily. You can, in most cases, put the Wireless Video Bridge next to the Genie since it already needs a wire.


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

peds48 said:


> The coax is the most ugly wire you can have and the hardest to eliminate. Most power and coax outlets are at the bottom close to the baseboard. A properly mounted TV should have a recessed power outlet behind it. So if you installed your TV properly, you can easily eliminate wire mess by mounting the C41W behind the TV and using the recessed outlet to power the wireless client. If you don't have a power outlet behind the TV, then you have a power cord coming from it, then you should not have to worry about messy wires
> 
> With some ingenuity, you can eliminate messy wires with a C41W easily. You can, in most cases, put the Wireless Video Bridge next to the Genie since it already needs a wire.


Properly mounted Tvs also have coax, and eithernet behind them.

Maybe Directv installers throw coax all over the place. 
But anything I have has wall plates behind my tvs, and the one that doesn't still doesn't have a visable coax.

Any houses we have built in the past 5 Years all have wiring for wall mounted tvs.

They even make kits, that you can still run the wires from the floor up to the TV behind the wall.
My question is what tech is going to take a tv off a wall and wall mount a C41w?

Because you can barely fit your hand behind any of mine, let alone get a drill, or screw driver in there.

But my guess they just zip tie the crap out of it.
Love to see where that big power block sits.


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

damondlt said:


> Properly mounted Tvs also have coax, and eithernet behind them.


Not necessarily, it could be a retrofit. And as you said, you can always get power from the bottom, not much you can do if coax is not there from the get go


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

damondlt said:


> Any houses we have built in the past 5 Years all have wiring for wall mounted tvs.


If you have the wires, then wireless should not be a concern. As the GC probably got in touch with the AV company to lay out an AV plan which may include placing boxes in inconspicuous places


----------



## SayWhat? (Jun 7, 2009)

damondlt said:


> Any houses we have built in the past 5 Years all have wiring for wall mounted tvs.


Who says they want the idiot box there instead of over there?


----------



## raott (Nov 23, 2005)

Misleading, deceptive ads or even stretching the truth leads to nothing more than unmet customer expectations and loss of goodwill. From the price of your product or showing software in your ads that isn't really yours.


Why not put your efforts into being the best at what you do (ie have the lowest price and have the best guide) and then showing that off?


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

SayWhat? said:


> Who says they want the idiot box there instead of over there?


That's decided before the electrician starts.
The home owner decides that.
3/4 of the time it's over the Fireplace. 
Bedrooms, well based on doors and windows most times you only have one place you can effectively wall mount the tv based on those factors and the owners furniture.

It's usually in the plans, but they get a final decision once the house is Framed, or if it's a log home and all the logs are set, they can't move it unless it's to a framed wall.
But as I said 90% of fireplaces now are framed, not solid stone. 
Customers don't like the cost and over time they crack and can leak.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

Laxguy said:


> Most ads seem to be aimed at under average intelligence. Around an IQ of 93 would be my guess. Regardless, it is incredible how gullible and/or non-probing some _*folks*_ are regarding pictures, moving or still.


Lemmings. Gullible lemmings.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

jerrylove56 said:


> While it may or may not have been false advertising, I thought those were so of the funniest commercials.


I liked the one with the guy running around the house with the same show playing on all his TVs at the same time. Now, that's an MRV system for the ages! You can't even do that with NF. (Yeah, I tried recently to do something like that and it just doesn't work.)

Rich


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

trh said:


> If you say "Yes I Accept" without hearing or understanding ANY terms or disclaimers or without reading the fine print on any contract, then you deserve what you get.


This is okay if the installers don't hand you the workorder and demand your signature after they are obviously ready to leave.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

peds48 said:


> That is just being naïve


I'd call that ignorance and ignorance should be forgiven. We forget or never consider the fact that people aren't born with the ability to know what works in TV land and what doesn't work. They have to learn the hard way.

Rich


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

James Long said:


> Read "no more wires" as "no additional wires".


The association appears to be a matter of duration in this context, not a matter of quantity.

If the desire was to impart that there were no additional wires, the correct phrasing would have been "less wires".


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

harsh said:


> This is okay if the installers don't hand you the workorder and demand your signature after they are obviously ready to leave.


Is your right to refuse signature if you haven't received the ToS or agree with them. It does not matter how much in a rush the tech is.


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

Rich said:


> I'd call that ignorance and ignorance should be forgiven. We forget or never consider the fact that people aren't born with the ability to know what works in TV land and what doesn't work. They have to learn the hard way.
> 
> Rich


And that is OK. I was referring to the fact that folks expect DIRECTV® to be delivered wireless from somewhere to their TV according to the other user.


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

harsh said:


> The association appears to be a matter of duration in this context, not a matter of quantity.
> 
> If the desire was to impart that there were no additional wires, the correct phrasing would have been "less wires".


So would you call a laptop a "less wires" computer?


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

A laptop is wireless. 
It just like a cell phone.


----------



## sigma1914 (Sep 5, 2006)

damondlt said:


> A laptop is wireless.
> It just like a cell phone.


Tell that to my charging wires.


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

sigma1914 said:


> Tell that to my charging wires.


Exactly, but I have to admit, i saw that coming.... :rotfl:


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

damondlt said:


> A laptop is wireless.
> It just like a cell phone.


Till the battery runs out.... !rolling

You wont be abel to get from PA to DC on a "wireless" Smartphone using it as GPS


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

Again, these companies you speak of don't have commercial headlines, "NO MORE WIRES"

And the complaints aren't about the power cords, It about Directv's claims of No Messy wires or boxes.

That would imply Wifi or wireless without a box.


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

peds48 said:


> Till the battery runs out.... !rolling
> 
> You wont be abel to get from PA to DC on a "wireless" Smartphone using it as GPS


Maybe not on your Apple phones.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

peds48 said:


> Is your right to refuse signature if you haven't received the ToS or agree with them. It does not matter how much in a rush the tech is.


That moment can be a high pressure point in the installation. A person in a position of authority says "sign here" and pushes the point. The customer would need to stand their ground if they decided to refuse. If they were a person who was not good with conflict the pressure to "just sign" from the authority figure (installer) could be overwhelming.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

damondlt said:


> Again, these companies you speak of don't have commercial headlines, "NO MORE WIRES"


Most companies advertise what sets them apart. Wireless phone companies are not set apart by "wireless". They are set apart by coverage, rate plans and choice of devices.

DirecTV advertises what sets them apart from cable ... smaller boxes that can (customer option) be tucked behind a TV set. Boxes that can receive their signal wireless from another point in the home.

People need to look beyond the headline on the ads and understand the technology. To explain every piece of technology in every ad would be just pages of words. There needs to be a reasonable compromise.


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

James Long said:


> Most companies advertise what sets them apart. Wireless phone companies are not set apart by "wireless". They are set apart by coverage, rate plans and choice of devices.
> 
> DirecTV advertises what sets them apart from cable ... smaller boxes that can (customer option) be tucked behind a TV set. Boxes that can receive their signal wireless from another point in the home.
> 
> .


The general public is unaware of everything you just posted because they are not directv installers or DBSTALK members.

A commercial is all they have go from.
And when claims are one thing , and reality is another the FTC steps in.
And this is not the first time.


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

James Long said:


> That moment can be a high pressure point in the installation. A person in a position of authority says "sign here" and pushes the point. The customer would need to stand their ground if they decided to refuse. If they were a person who was not good with conflict the pressure to "just sign" from the authority figure (installer) could be overwhelming.


Not quite, while is annoying, I have had a few customers (5 at most) that wont sign BEFORE reading the whole enchilada and 1 or 2 have questioned such terms and even call DIRECTV® to clarify. This is the customers rights and of course is not encouraged as it does take a whole bunch of my time


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

damondlt said:


> The general public is unaware of everything you just posted because they are not directv installers or DBSTALK members.
> 
> A commercial is all they have go from.
> And when claims are one thing , and reality is another the FTC steps in.
> And this is not the first time.


But even the FTC understands the wireless issue, as the FTC is not suing for that but rather the way prices are advertised!


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

peds48 said:


> But even the FTC understands the wireless issue, as the FTC is not suing for that but rather the way prices are advertised!


The FTC is suing for multiple reasons.

False advertising being a major factor.


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

damondlt said:


> The FTC is suing for multiple reasons.
> 
> False advertising being a major factor.


That's disingenuous. The only item cited in the lead article is alleged _*false advertising of prices. *_

If you have other information, please provide a cite of a reasonable site, or correct your statement.


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

Laxguy said:


> That's disingenuous. The only item cited in the lead article is alleged _*false advertising of prices. *_
> 
> If you have other information, please provide a cite of a reasonable site, or correct your statement.


Of course there goes the spin!


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

I don't need to correct anything.
The lawsuit clearly states more than just advertised prices being false.
Read some of the links, Google some of the articles.

The No wires commercials and comments, another poster just brought up as an example of how directv practices their advertising. 

Just another one of many reason Directv is in the hot water they are in right now.

Notice those "No WIRES " commercials haven't been on again.


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

damondlt said:


> Notice those "No WIRES " commercials haven't been on again.


You have links, documents that proves that they were stopped for this reason?

AFAIK, they stopped running way before this issue came up.


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

peds48 said:


> You have links, documents that proves that they were stopped for this reason?
> 
> AFAIK, they stopped running way before this issue came up.


If the commercials were factual and acually a selling point to subscriber, they wouldn't have faded in the wind.

And I never said they were stopped for what ever reason you tried to put in my mouth.


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

damondlt said:


> I don't need to correct anything.
> The lawsuit clearly states more than just advertised prices being false.
> Read some of the links, Google some of the articles.


You made the assertion; you provide the substantiation.


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

Laxguy said:


> You made the assertion; you provide the substantiation.


I can't force you to read links and accept the fact there is a lawsuit from the FTC against Directv because of deceptive advertising.

I for one am not surprised by this.
Directv comes up with some crazy stuff in their commercials.


----------



## jerrylove56 (Jun 15, 2008)

Laxguy said:


> That's disingenuous. The only item cited in the lead article is alleged _*false advertising of prices. *_
> 
> If you have other information, please provide a cite of a reasonable site, or correct your statement.


This may have already been posted: https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/cases/150311directtvcmpt.pdf

While only giving it a "cursory" look, it appears that the FTC is saying that DTV has a conducted a lot of questionable business practices. The complaints only refers to "other" consumer complaints and hones in on the 2-yr cancellation fees and package actual cost versus advertised ones.

The fact that DTV has a history of engaging in these illegal practices before would make this close to a open-and-shut case.


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

peds48 said:


> But even the FTC understands the wireless issue, !


How do you know what the FTC understands?
Where does anything imply the FTC had or has any comment on the "wireless issue"


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

jerrylove56 said:


> This may have already been posted: https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/cases/150311directtvcmpt.pdf
> 
> While only giving it a "cursory" look, it appears that the FTC is saying that DTV has a conducted a lot of questionable business practices. The complaints only refers to "other" consumer complaints and hones in on the 2-yr cancellation fees and package actual cost versus advertised ones.
> 
> The fact that DTV has a history of engaging in these illegal practices before would make this close to a open-and-shut case.


Thanks


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

sigma1914 said:


> Tell that to my charging wires.


Those aren't typically necessary to have plugged in all the time unless you've failed to maintain your battery.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

Laxguy said:


> You made the assertion; you provide the substantiation.


jerrylove56's link provides just about all the detail anyone could need.

It defines what is expected and how DIRECTV is in violation as it a applies to advertising, pricing and business practices. The naughty bits start at section 16.


----------



## sigma1914 (Sep 5, 2006)

harsh said:


> Those aren't typically necessary to have plugged in all the time unless you've failed to maintain your battery.


So then it's wireless sometimes. lol


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

sigma1914 said:


> So then it's wireless sometimes. lol


Amazing!!!


----------



## prushing (Feb 14, 2007)

So just saw a Dish commercial about March madness. States plus dish let's you split your screen and watch 2 games at once. Then shows a W under Dish and a L under DTV.

Using the same logic, Dish should be sued for suggesting that you can't use PIP on DTV.

Sent from my KFTHWI using Tapatalk


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

prushing said:


> So just saw a Dish commercial about March madness. States plus dish let's you split your screen and watch 2 games at once. Then shows a W under Dish and a L under DTV.
> 
> Using the same logic, Dish should be sued for suggesting that you can't use PIP on DTV.
> 
> Sent from my KFTHWI using Tapatalk


It's not logic, It's complaints filed.
Dish gets sued almost yearly for lots of things .
But I don't know when the last time the FTC was involved.


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

sigma1914 said:


> So then it's wireless sometimes. lol


Yes but far more Wireless than a C41w.


----------



## sigma1914 (Sep 5, 2006)

damondlt said:


> Yes but far more Wireless than a C41w.


But NOT wireless, as you claim.


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

damondlt said:


> Yes but far more Wireless than a C41w.


And the C41W is "far more Wireless than a" C31 or any other STB. :righton:


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

damondlt said:


> I can't force you to read links and accept the fact there is a lawsuit from the FTC against Directv because of deceptive advertising.


That's not at issue! I've read the COMPLAINT FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION AND OTHER EQUITABLE RELIEF.

* I challenged you to show evidence that there was anything about the TV ads regarding wires. You failed. *


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

peds48 said:


> Not quite, while is annoying, I have had a few customers (5 at most) that wont sign BEFORE reading the whole enchilada and 1 or 2 have questioned such terms and even call DIRECTV® to clarify. This is the customers rights and of course is not encouraged as it does take a whole bunch of my time


You (apparently) are not pushy enough. 
The polite installers willing to wait patiently and work out issues are not the problem. The worst installers are the problem.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

damondlt said:


> Notice those "No WIRES " commercials haven't been on again.


Advertising runs in cycles. DirecTV likes to heve fresh commercials. The Rob Lowe commercials are the fresh ones (and they include a comparison between the cable Rob Lowe using trophys to hide his wires and the DirecTV Rob Lowe with a hidden wire installation).

Yes, DirecTV continues to advertise "no more wires". The explanatory text I posted earlier is from their current website.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

damondlt said:


> But I don't know when the last time the FTC was involved.


Not long ago ... but this is a thread about DirecTV's problems. Preferably about the ones in the current complaint not "everything I hate about DirecTV".


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

Actually this thread is about that. 
It's an FTC lawsuit from consumer complaints. 
It's not everything I love about directv.

People would come to this thread to display their feelings on it , and I feel as do many others Directv is totally guilty of it.

But the Directv bandwagon can easily open a thread that says Directv,Wrongly accused of deceptive ads.

And You are absolutely right this thread is about Directv, Not Bose, Not Dish, Not AT&T, Not Verizon, Not Comcast, or Charter,or any other company that some want to throw out there in Defence of Directv's legal battle with the FTC.
Directv has already been convicted of this once.
You can bet your bottom dollar they are going to get it again.
And why not Take out one of the biggest providers.
That sends a Message to all the little fish in the pond.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

peds48 said:


> And that is OK. I was referring to the fact that folks expect DIRECTV® to be delivered wireless from somewhere to their TV according to the other user.


You ever go to Costco and listen to the people trying to figure out what they're looking at? It's kinda pathetic. And the D* salesperson isn't a big help, all they do is baffle the people with BS to get them to sign up. I heard one of them tell a prospective sub that D* doesn't broadcast in anything but 720p. When I asked her who told her that she pointed at a Costco employee. Great point of reference!

Rich


----------



## jerrylove56 (Jun 15, 2008)

Rich said:


> You ever go to Costco and listen to the people trying to figure out what they're looking at? It's kinda pathetic. And the D* salesperson isn't a big help, all they do is baffle the people with BS to get them to sign up. I heard one of them tell a prospective sub that D* doesn't broadcast in anything but 720p. When I asked her who told her that she pointed at a Costco employee. Great point of reference!
> 
> Rich


I was shopping at Sams a couple of years ago and a rep of DTV tried to get me to drop my current account and open a new in my wife's name in order to get the free NFL ST package and other discounts. Obvious he was working on some type of commission.


----------



## longrider (Apr 21, 2007)

jerrylove56 said:


> I was shopping at Sams a couple of years ago and a rep of DTV tried to get me to drop my current account and open a new in my wife's name in order to get the free NFL ST package and other discounts. Obvious he was working on some type of commission.


That is crazy! I shop at Sam's regularly and when they approach me I just say I am already a customer and they say thanks and move on


----------



## Mike Bertelson (Jan 24, 2007)

I wonder if this is a first salvo by the FTC. There are other companies whose practices would fit the criteria laid out by the FTC. Will there be more?

Mike


----------



## Mike Bertelson (Jan 24, 2007)

damondlt said:


> I don't need to correct anything.
> The lawsuit clearly states more than just advertised prices being false.
> Read some of the links, Google some of the articles.
> 
> ...


I'm not sure "no wires" has anything to do with the FTC lawsuit.

From the FTC's website (Link):



> FTC Charges DIRECTV with Deceptively Advertising the Cost of Its Satellite Television Service
> 
> ...
> The Federal Trade Commission has charged DIRECTV, the country's largest provider of satellite television services, with deceptively advertising a discounted 12-month programming package because it fails to clearly disclose that the package requires a two-year contract. In addition, DIRECTV does not clearly disclose that the cost of the package will increase by up to $45 more per month in the second year, and that early cancellation fees of up to $480 apply if consumers cancel the package before the end of the two-year period&#8230;


IIUC the FTC press release they're suing only for pricing and fees in DIRECTV's advertising.

Additionally, in the actually filing I only find the discussion of pricing, cost, fees, and commitments...no discussion of any other content (Link).

I see nothing on the FTC's website or filing that clearly states anything about "no wires" or any other ad content except for costs. I've seen mention of "no wires" on news websites but nothing from the FTC.

If the law suit filing clearly states anything other than advertising of costs I'm missing it. Could you please show me where the FTC says it's suing for anything other than pricing, fees, and commitments?

Mike


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

James Long said:


> You (apparently) are not pushy enough.
> The polite installers willing to wait patiently and work out issues are not the problem. The worst installers are the problem.


But is not like I have a choice, if the y want to read it then I go to my van and get on this forum to kill some time :rotfl:


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

Mike Bertelson said:


> I'm not sure "no wires" has anything to do with the FTC lawsuit.
> 
> From the FTC's website (Link):
> 
> ...


No wires was just an example that was brought up by another poster, then I commented and agreed with him. 
Which is why I said I can fully understand why Directv could be accused of making false advertisements.
Then you guys like spin the thread into a ridiculous circle, with your other Wireless references when nothing was stated at all that they're being sued because of the no wires commercials. 
Go back and read things, instead of only seeing what you want to.
Directv is being sued for many reason beyond what you read from one link.
Go read the complaints from the FTC.
They date back as far as 2012.

The only reason you go back to the No wires badgering, it to take away from the fact that Directv is accused of False Advertising. 
And I'm going make sure I comment when they are found Guilty and when all the charges are laid out on the table.
But I'm sure I'll get banned, because only certain member can say what they want, no matter how off topic or personal it is, just because they are on the right side of the tracks.

Thanks for your time.


----------



## Mike Bertelson (Jan 24, 2007)

damondlt said:


> No wires was just an example that was brought up by another poster, then I commented and agreed with him.
> Which is why I said I can fully understand why Directv could be accused of making false advertisements.
> Then you guys like spin the thread into a ridiculous circle, with your other Wireless references when nothing was stated at all that they're being sued because of the no wires commercials.
> Go back and read things, instead of only seeing what you want to.
> ...


You stated "The lawsuit clearly states more than just advertised prices being false." and I merely asked I you could show me where it says that. A simple question, no badgering involved.

Mike


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

damondlt said:


> No wires was just an example that was brought up by another poster, then I commented and agreed with him.
> Which is why I said I can fully understand why Directv could be accused of making false advertisements.
> Then you guys like spin the thread into a ridiculous circle, with your other Wireless references when nothing was stated at all that they're being sued because of the no wires commercials.
> Go back and read things, instead of only seeing what you want to.
> ...


Perhaps you need some mind refreshment



> I don't need to correct anything.
> The lawsuit clearly states more than just advertised prices being false.
> Read some of the links, Google some of the articles.
> 
> ...


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

Auto renew on premiums isn't prices, forced 24 month commitments aren't prices.

Perhaps you all should read so other links than the ones posted here.

And perhaps you could show me where in your post peds I said they are Being sued for NO Wires.
You said that.

My statement was an observation. Not me implying it's part of the lawsuit like you flipped it into.

And again , I make one Dish Network reference, and I'm getting accused of throwing the thread off topic, But you guys can bring up multiple references about Charter, Bose, and what ever else yous can grasp, and not a word is mentioned. 

Yeah no double standards or unfair treatment here.


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

Here 
Also
Read bottom line of last screen shot.

This is just from dbstalk link. 

















Declining to be more specific,
The Latest allegations date back to 2007.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

damondlt said:


> Auto renew on premiums isn't prices, forced 24 month commitments aren't prices.
> 
> Perhaps you all should read so other links than the ones posted here.


Auto renewals and forced commitments were part of the allegations made by the FCC.

I'm sure DirecTV has done other things wrong than what the FTC is complaining about. I've read your threads. But as a moderator we need to keep threads on track ... so please, this is not a "everything wrong with DirecTV" thread. If you have a problem with that, please PM a moderator - any moderator. It is time to get this thread back on track.


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

I don't have a problem with that at all James. 
Let's just make sure the rules apply to everyone.


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

Interesting language in the complaint dealing with automatically renewing a subscription without making it abundantly clear that one will be charged after the freebie or low cost trial period. I can't remember any such trial without it rolling into a paid model.... Can any one else cite a free trial of an online or content provider that doesn't do that? 

(And, yes, the issue is: was fair warning given?)


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

damondlt said:


> I don't have a problem with that at all James.
> Let's just make sure the rules apply to everyone.


That's an unfair and unjust comment. You are implying that James isn't even handed here. I can assure you he is,( and has deleted a few posts of mine that critique your posts).... Sheesh!


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

Laxguy said:


> That's an unfair and unjust comment. You are implying that James isn't even handed here. I can assure you he is,( and has deleted a few posts of mine that critique your posts).... Sheesh!


Good then , Thanks James!
For the record I wasn't talking about you Lax.


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

Well, thanks for the clarification. It didn't even occur to me that you were referring to me, and if it did cross my mind, it would have made no difference. 

Hats're off to all the Mods who have to deal with an occasional patch of horse pucky!


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

OK ... now back to the topic of this thread.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Laxguy said:


> Interesting language in the complaint dealing with automatically renewing a subscription without making it abundantly clear that one will be charged after the freebie or low cost trial period. I can't remember any such trial without it rolling into a paid model.... Can any one else cite a free trial of an online or content provider that doesn't do that?


It is one of the older tricks ... predating direct to home satellite. Sign people up for a future commitment without being clear about the price they will be charged. By the time they have noticed the target has been charged and either has passed the date they can cancel or are charged a cancellation fee.

While I agree with the personal responsibility aspect of people not falling for old tricks, it being a old trick does not make it any better than a new trick.

DirecTV makes it possible not to accept the "free" offers ... so if one is afraid they will forget to cancel in 90 days one can simply say no on day one. It certainly confuses CSRs. They are so accustomed to customer calling up trying to get something for nothing or discounts - then they get a call: "I'd like to cancel my free HBO". 

The customer bears responsibility ... but the company needs to make sure the customer understands what they are agreeing to.


----------



## Rickt1962 (Jul 17, 2012)

Well I see Direct TV needs help ! Instead of offering pkg's and that term is loose because a package could be construed as programing and the Box in all an one price ! Next time say You get started with Direct TV Reciever for as little $ 6.95 a month ! Channels are EXTRA ! plus taxes and hidden fee's


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

Rickt1962 said:


> Well I see Direct TV needs help ! Instead of offering pkg's and that term is loose because a package could be construed as programing and the Box in all an one price ! Next time say You get started with Direct TV Reciever for as little $ 6.95 a month ! Channels are EXTRA ! plus taxes and hidden fee's


That will be next if a stop isn't put in place.


----------



## Shades228 (Mar 18, 2008)

While this may get settled out of court for various reasons it won't be anything like the old AG lawsuit. The Feds are going to have a much harder time with this than they think and I believe it will end up being a much larger trial if they do allow it to go there. 

At the end of the day I believe this is a political shakedown though.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

sigma1914 said:


> So then it's wireless sometimes. lol


Wireless sometimes is better than never really wireless.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

Shades228 said:


> At the end of the day I believe this is a political shakedown though.


Who wins in your scenario if DIRECTV subscribers get refunds?

Is this about some politicians that are still bitter about not getting access to NFLST?


----------



## Shades228 (Mar 18, 2008)

harsh said:


> Who wins in your scenario if DIRECTV subscribers get refunds?
> 
> Is this about some politicians that are still bitter about not getting access to NFLST?


Let's be honest who's going to get a full refund? The answer is no one will because these lawsuits are not for consumer reimbursement. The compensation part of this will be for the government to get some revenue and customer's who choose to "be a part of it" will get less than $15 which won't even pay for a month of HBO. Chances are they'll be reimbursed in the form of PPV credits again. This is about the ATT/DIRECTV merger. DIRECTV is an "easy" target because they're not going to want ripples that will cause issues with investors wondering if it's worth it. Some people may be upset that it's not getting the scrutiny it should and use external forces to put on pressure. The AG of many states filed a lawsuit against DIRECTV years ago and this wasn't even in there. They went after a lot of things in that lawsuit and if they could have added this they would have. Again given the cost of how much it will be to litigate this I would almost guarantee a settlement because it's cheaper. However if it goes to trial and the basis is that they don't disclose everything then it's going to lead to changes in law. As others have pointed out in this thread the information is posted, whether or not to satisfaction of some, people can make an educated and informed decision to find out more or not.


----------



## Rickt1962 (Jul 17, 2012)

LOL the only people who are going to make out ! Is the LLLs --LOW LIFE LAWYERS-


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

I doubt it. These lawyers are FCC employees, looking to make a mark for themselves.


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

Everyone seems to forget, this is not a class action suit. 
These are consumer complaints to the FTC.


----------



## Shades228 (Mar 18, 2008)

damondlt said:


> Everyone seems to forget, this is not a class action suit.
> These are consumer complaints to the FTC.


Yes but usually with FTC if the judgment is found against the company there's a refund or reimbursement process for customer's based on the complaint. Hence the quotes I used as there's generally more paperwork involved than your typical class action click here button.


----------



## dennisj00 (Sep 27, 2007)

I wonder what I'll do with my $2.50!!??


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

That and another buck will get you a top drink at your favorite espresso shop!


----------



## boukengreen (Sep 22, 2009)

dennisj00 said:


> I wonder what I'll do with my $2.50!!??


i can get a burgers atnmcdonalds


----------



## Glenee (Sep 22, 2007)

Hell people this is just the start wait until AT&T brings it full swing of the AT&T shuffle. The Federal Government has seen it before and they refuse to do anything that would even bother AT&T.


----------



## Sgtsbabygirl1 (Dec 15, 2014)

dennisj00 said:


> I wonder what I'll do with my $2.50!!??


Put it in savings! it'll grow to three whole dollars after a while :rotfl:


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

Sgtsbabygirl1 said:


> Put it in savings! it'll grow to three whole dollars after a while :rotfl:


Eventually it could grow to over $5MM, but your grandchildren's grandchildren will have to wait a bit....

:hurah:


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

dennisj00 said:


> I wonder what I'll do with my $2.50!!??


Probably spend $.50 of gas to run to the bank to cash that check. :biggrin:

Woo hoo...early retirement sounds great. :up:


----------



## grunes (Nov 13, 2013)

For what it is worth, all the major providers in my area: Comcast, Verizon, Dish, DirectTV - do more or less the same thing as they are talking about. In particular, they get you to sign a contract for longer than they are willing to guarantee the price.

Plus, once they rope you in, they are pretty much unwilling for you to make any changes to service that aren't an upgrade. They may start out as a special offer, which is cheaper in the short run, but they don't let you go back when the introductory rates go away.

The smart people around here switch TV and Internet providers every year or two, just like they do with cell phone companies and insurance companies, both of which like to play games and do gradual price creep. But I can't convince the other people in my house who watch TV it makes sense.

And of course the really smart people throw away their TVs.

(Actually, there are some cell phone companies that stay fairly cheap - not the biggies, but some of the companies that resale service to the biggie networks. I pay $2 - $3 / month, for minimal cell service.)


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

grunes said:


> For what it is worth, all the major providers in my area: Comcast, Verizon, Dish, DirectTV - do more or less the same thing as they are talking about. I*n particular, they get you to sign a contract for longer than they are willing to guarantee the price.*


When you signed up with DIRECTV® the prices stays as "agreed" for as long as you keep the same package. If you sign up with DIRECTV®, you get a month by month view of what you bill will be. So your statement is not accurate.


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

grunes said:


> Plus, once they rope you in, they are pretty much unwilling for you to make any changes to service that aren't an upgrade. They may start out as a special offer, which is cheaper in the short run, *but they don't let you go back when the introductory** rates go away*.
> 
> )


You are right, this is why is called an INTRODUCTORY, is made to be an introduction or welcome to the service, not meant to be for lifetime, those are called 'regular" rates.


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

grunes said:


> The smart people around here switch TV and Internet providers every year or two, just like they do with cell phone companies and insurance companies, both of which like to play games and do gradual price creep. But I can't convince the other people in my house who watch TV it makes sense.


Not sure I would call smart people those that like to move every year just to save a buck or two. I would gladly pay more (there is a limit which has not been reached yet) just for the comfort of not having to go thorough multiple installations, loosing recorded programing, leaning new systems, etc.

Right now I pay $65 for 100/35 with Cablevision I could save $15 and go with FiOS for $50/50, But I am good where I am at, service has been great. don't really see a need to play the switcheroo game just to save a buck

I have been with Geico for 10 years plus, they have treated very well, I must say. Switching means I loose the 5 year good driver discount and the accident forgiveness. There is a company that could give me abetter rate, $40 less a most, but I choose to stick wit Geico because I know they have been reliable for me

Cellphones, I was with ATT for over 13 years, and now with T-Mobile going on 4. So no, I don't switch provider a that drop of hat.


----------



## lparsons21 (Mar 4, 2006)

But its way more than a 'buck or two'. Do the math.

I'm happy with what I have. Nearly all the regular cable channels, HBO/SHO/Starz for $80/month. Add in the $50/month for 100/10 internet service with a 1Tb data cap and I'm at $130 which is around what I'd be paying a combo of one of the sat services plus internet.

To be fair, because I only have one TV the switching doesn't involve any upfront hardware costs.

EDIT: What I'm paying for cable+internet is about what I would be paying for equivalent SAT service without internet. My bad...


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

lparsons21 said:


> But its way more than a 'buck or two'. Do the math.
> 
> I'm happy with what I have. Nearly all the regular cable channels, HBO/SHO/Starz for $80/month. Add in the $50/month for 100/10 internet service with a 1Tb data cap and I'm at $130 which is around what I'd be paying a combo of one of the sat services plus internet.
> 
> ...


But you are getting promotional discounts of some sort, no? Lets assume you are getting at least $20 worth of discounts. I would gladly pay $30 more to keep what I have.


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

lparsons21 said:


> But its way more than a 'buck or two'. Do the math.
> 
> I'm happy with what I have. Nearly all the regular cable channels, HBO/SHO/Starz for $80/month. Add in the $50/month for 100/10 internet service with a 1Tb data cap and I'm at $130 which is around what I'd be paying a combo of one of the sat services plus internet.
> 
> ...


That is a big one, or should I say HUGE one. I would have to pay tons of money to replicate my system of one Genie and 4 DVRs with another provider.


----------



## lparsons21 (Mar 4, 2006)

peds48 said:


> But you are getting promotional discounts of some sort, no? Lets assume you are getting at least $20 worth of discounts. I would gladly pay $30 more to keep what I have.


Yes I am. The premiums are broken down as $9.95/month/each for SHO/HBO for a year. Starz has a regular price of $7.95/month. All these prices are generally available though you might have to dicker when the time runs out.

The regular cable channels I have will go up $10 the 2nd year and more after that before dickering. The reason I didn't get a bigger discount 1st year was because I was already an internet subscriber with them.

So somewhere around $40/month in savings. And it really isn't any more of a hassle to change out services when you only need a single unit, no worse than swapping out a defective HDDVR would be.


----------



## lparsons21 (Mar 4, 2006)

peds48 said:


> That is a big one, or should I say HUGE one. I would have to pay tons of money to replicate my system of one Genie and 4 DVRs with another provider.


Absolutely! If your setup requires more than what the services will provide free of upfront costs that will eat up potential savings in a hurry.


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

lparsons21 said:


> So somewhere around $40/month in savings. And it really isn't any more of a hassle to change out services when you only need a single unit, no worse than swapping out a defective HDDVR would be.


And I am fine with that. That almost $500 a year, not too bad, I spent twice as much on two Apple Watches.... !rolling


----------



## lparsons21 (Mar 4, 2006)

peds48 said:


> And I am fine with that. That almost $500 a year, not too bad, I spent twice as much on two Apple Watches.... !rolling


LOL!!

I'm on a no contract deal for the TV part of the package, so I have that leverage.


----------



## grunes (Nov 13, 2013)

peds48 said:


> When you signed up with DIRECTV® the prices stays as "agreed" for as long as you keep the same package. If you sign up with DIRECTV®, you get a month by month view of what you bill will be. So your statement is not accurate.


Then why does this

https://www.directv.com/DTVAPP/pepod/configure.jsp?ACM=false&lpos=Header:3#package-section

say the price is $19.99 for 12 months, but the contract is for 24? There is no guarantee apparent on that page for later rates - though the have crossed out $29.99 - but that is hardly a guarantee.

Maybe there is such a guarantee when you click "Agree" - I don't know, as I don't want to go anywhere near "Agreeing" for their service.

I started to sign up with DirecTV, without going as far as giving a name or clicking on agree - and I see this message:



> "*ALL OFFERS REQUIRE 24-MONTH AGREEMENT. REQUIRES ENROLLMENT IN AUTO BILL PAY.** Offers valid through 5/27/15. New customers only on approved credit; credit card required (except in MA & PA). Programming, pricing and offers are subject to change and may vary in certain markets. Customers activating the CHOICE Package or above or the MAS ULTRA Package or above will be automatically enrolled in the 2015 season of NFL SUNDAY TICKET at no additional cost and will receive a free upgrade to the NFL SUNDAY TICKET MAX for the 2015 season."


The red color was added for emphasis by me, not DirecTV. It certainly sounds like they are playing games. Also note that they are talking about automatically enrolling enrollees in "NFL Sunday Ticket" at no additional cost - but they don't say whether that will stay by default into the 2016 season, at extra cost.

So I agree with the FCC. I just don't understand why they are only targeting DirecTV, and not the other players who do similar things.

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

Differences between providers can be pretty large, as others have pointed out. Comcast charges us $206/month for TV service, 3 DVRs, and broadband Internet. Verizon's minimal introductory offer with almost all the channels we commonly listen to, said a Verizon rep in a COSTCO store, would have been about $70. And WE own the modem and router (admittedly, the modem is only useful for Comcast), though they kept trying to charge us extra for them. We SHOULD change - but somone in the house doesn't like change.

We liked it better when we had old COMCAST analog service, even if it was SD. $40/month, and we could use cheap VCRs. Then they forced us to upgrade to digital service. They said the price, with DVRs and remotes would be the same - and it was for a year or two. Then the price creeped up. We keep threatening to switch (a trick everyone should learn, for everything to which you subscribe), so they knock it down $40/month or so, but 6 months later, it goes up again.

At one point AT & T really got me on cell service. I bought service and a fancy phone with "no contract", which sounded good. But within a couple years, they discontinued service for that type of phone - in fact the entire phone protocal. Someone eventually brought a class action suit successfully, and made them pay past customers who switched to another provider with the same protocal some money, but I had instead cancelled service, and was inelligible.

Now I'm on PagePlus cellular, on the https://www.pagepluscellular.com/plans/10-standard-pin/]$10/120 day "Standard prepaid plan" including tax - about $3.33/month. It works off the Verizon Network. I bought a cheap LG smart phone from them for about $40. After a few years I replaced it, for another phone about the same price, because LG stopped supporting it, and it couldn't see the Internet anymore. That's a lot cheaper than the $45 and up plans Verizon seems to try to get everyone to sign up for. It does help I don't use my phone much. It was cheaper still with Speakout Wireless - but 7-11 dropped SpeakOut in the U.S.

Likewise, instead of Verizon home wired phone service, I'm on MagicJack, about $40/year, though I had to buy a $40 or so device for that to work, and I was somewhat annoyed that they originally advertised it as working with WiFi - but they really meant it would work through some WiFi devices. (Another reason I bought the new cell phone - it lets me run Magic Jack.)

I'm on Geico car insurance too. They started me at about $257 / 6 months, a lot cheaper than the $512 / 6 months Allstate was charging me, because I stayed with Allstate too long. (Full coverage) They've gone up $5 or $10 over the past 3 or 4 years, though the value of my car has gone down...

But the truth is, you have to work pretty hard to find the cheaper prices in your area. It would be a lot easier if the ads didn't play tricks.


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

Anyone who is given a free trial and expects it will last forever is naive. Most such offers I've seen— not just DIRECTV®— say that you'll be charged regular prices at the end of the free period. Sometimes in small print, sometimes in a recorded message, sometimes by the CSR and sometimes with an "authenticator" as well.


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

grunes said:


> Maybe there is such a guarantee when you click "Agree" - I don't know, as I don't want to go anywhere near "Agreeing" for their service.


If you don't know, then why are you arguing otherwise?

When you go through the process, you will see a list of months 1-12 with the prices and then another list 13-24 with the prices.


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

grunes said:


> The red color was added for emphasis by me, not DirecTV. It


Of course they haver to put such language on their contracts, you know, to cover their behinds in case something drastic happens.


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

peds48 said:


> If you don't know, then why are you arguing otherwise?
> 
> When you go through the process, you will see a list of months 1-12 with the prices and then another list 13-24 with the prices.


Which are only accurate at the time of sign up.
You sign up in January, by March you are already paying more than you were quoted, and then you are subject to another increase the next March.
Directv can't take that price breakdown on shove it.


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

damondlt said:


> Which are only accurate at the time of sign up.
> You sign up in January, by March you are already paying more than you were quoted, and then you are subject to another increase the next March.
> Directv can't take that price breakdown on shove it.


Everyone that subs to an MVPD is subject to yearly price increases. But IIRC, yearly increases don't affect folks the first year since they have "promo" price.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

peds48 said:


> Everyone that subs to an MVPD is subject to yearly price increases. But IIRC, yearly increases don't affect folks the first year since they have "promo" price.


Correct. DirecTV honors the stated prices for the first year. It would be the NEXT March (one year after signup) that the rate would change from the long term price schedule given at signup.


----------



## grunes (Nov 13, 2013)

James Long said:


> Correct. DirecTV honors the stated prices for the first year. It would be the NEXT March (one year after signup) that the rate would change from the long term price schedule given at signup.


But you've got that two year contract!

I appreciate that sufficiently smart, experienced people understand that what communications companies advertise are "promotional" offers.

But a lot of people aren't that smart, or haven't been burned yet.

I feel very strongly that the print size and promonince of such "gotchas" should be just as strong as the initial price.

As far as MVPD-passed increases by the providers - an consumer-friendly contract, of the type I think the FCC should require, should say the price increase wouldn't be automatic - instead you should have the option to terminate without penalty - in fact that should be the default, unless you act. After all, the future price could be nearly infinite. I.E., the risk should be on the cable company or other TV service provider, not on the customer.

But of course that won't happen as long as the FCC is a fee-funded agency, funded by the communications providers - unless congress gets involved. But congress won't get involved unless the public gets upset - few congressman want to take on the communications giants, who can not only contribute campaign money, but more importantly, control what campaign news and information reaches the public.

Obviously, Wikipedia is not an authoritative source of legal information, but if this article on false or deceptive advertising is right, what these companies do may be in the that category. That's what the FCC seems to be saying.

I didn't mention that certain of these companies also charge you for things they didn't mention on the phone, and sometimes not on-line. E.g., they charge you for the box rental as promised, but they also apply a service fee charge for each box that wasn't mentioned, or that is hidden on another web page, in small print. Or they charge you an initiation fee, that isn't mentioned, or is likelewise hidden.

I do wonder if DirecTV could successfully argue that they are being unfairly prosecuted - that so many other advertisers in the U.S. get away with this sort of thing, that it isn't fair to prosecute them. Nonetheless - I cheer the FCC and the justice department on in this instance.


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

James Long said:


> Correct. DirecTV honors the stated prices for the first year. It would be the NEXT March (one year after signup) that the rate would change from the long term price schedule given at signup.


That's total BS, maybe on your basepackage, I've gotten MRV fee increased from $20 -23 in the first year, also no RSN fee to $2 and HBO increased a dollar.
I'll show you every bill from May 2012 until November of 2014 and as well as my Printed 24 month contract payment schedule.
You will be surprised, then you can show me yours.


----------



## lparsons21 (Mar 4, 2006)

damondlt said:


> That's total BS, maybe on your basepackage, I've gotten MRV fee increased from $20 -23 in the first year, also no RSN fee to $2 and HBO increased a dollar.


That's odd. The only increases I ever saw in the 1st year were Premium channels. All the other fee and charges stayed flat. Ooops! No the increases were shown and then an offsetting credit so the result was the same.


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

lparsons21 said:


> That's odd. The only increases I ever saw in the 1st year were Premium channels. All the other fee and charges stayed flat. Ooops! No the increases were shown and then an offsetting credit so the result was the same.


Yep, it would have been $25 for the MRV fee, but for people under 1st year promos only got a $3 increase.
Still an increase.
Only my basepackage received a $3 credit, which was gone by the start of year 2.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

lparsons21 said:


> That's odd. The only increases I ever saw in the 1st year were Premium channels. All the other fee and charges stayed flat. Ooops! No the increases were shown and then an offsetting credit so the result was the same.


And that offsetting credit may be what people are missing.


----------



## trh (Nov 3, 2007)

damondlt said:


> Which are only accurate at the time of sign up.
> You sign up in January, by March you are already paying more than you were quoted, and then you are subject to another increase the next March.
> Directv can't *can *take that price breakdown on *and *shove it.


Is that what you meant to say?


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

lparsons21 said:


> That's odd. The only increases I ever saw in the 1st year were Premium channels. All the other fee and charges stayed flat. Ooops! No the increases were shown and then an offsetting credit so the result was the same.


Exactly what is supposed to happen, anything that deviates from this is not correct and should be addressed.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

James Long said:


> Correct. DirecTV honors the stated prices for the first year.


Technically, they honor the net price based on the regular package price at the time of subscription with discounts.


> It would be the NEXT March (one year after signup) that the rate would change from the long term price schedule given at signup.


It would be the first anniversary when the price takes a hop to come in line with the current pricing.


----------



## grunes (Nov 13, 2013)

I want to make it clear: I'm not blaming the TV service provider for pricing increases by the original broadcasters, and certainly not for tax increases. That wouldn't be fair. Only for the part of the price that increases beyond that they are responsible for. And you should be able to cancel some or all of the service without penalty if the price charged by the original broadcasters and governments goes up.

It would help somewhat if TV service providers couldn't bundle - i.e., if they had to charge a low fee for all the FCC required local broadcast channels. (Where I live, localities do negotiate a low fee - about $12 - $15 / month - for "basic" service with all the FCC required channels.) Plus per channel fees for premium channels. And if you could change your selection every month. (Or would they just distribute all the popular programs at one program / channel?  In their place, that's what I would do if such a rule passed.)


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

grunes said:


> And you should be able to cancel some or all of the service without penalty if the price charged by the original broadcasters and governments goes up.


And this is exactly how it works right now. You are committing two years at the minimum package which is $29.99 plus one box.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

grunes said:


> And you should be able to cancel some or all of the service without penalty if the price charged by the original broadcasters and governments goes up.


Government doesn't determine channel pricing. They may establish a "tax" but that's nothing the MCVP has control over. If you allow your government to pass such a tax, it is _your_ fault, not the carriers. The carriers almost certainly do not benefit from such taxes and in pretty much all cases, the expense of assessing, collecting and turning over the money to the taxing jurisdiction is not negligible.

Pricing is something that is negotiated occasionally between the MCVP and the content owners. Because you subscribe to a monolithic package, you can't opt out of a channel or a bundle of channels. You'll get nowhere claiming that you didn't expect that prices would rise at some point.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

grunes said:


> It would help somewhat if TV service providers couldn't bundle - i.e., if they had to charge a low fee for all the FCC required local broadcast channels.


There are no FCC required local channels on satellite. Satellite providers are not required to carry locals.

However, if a satellite carrier choose to carry a local in a market they must offer carriage to the rest of the locals in that market. There are certainly benefits to offering locals ... and both satellite providers have added locals into all of their base packages (wherever they can). But locals are not required on satellite.

It is a different story on cable ...


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

peds48 said:


> Not sure I would call smart people those that like to move every year just to save a buck or two. I would gladly pay more (there is a limit which has not been reached yet) just for the comfort of not having to go thorough multiple installations, loosing recorded programing, leaning new systems, etc.
> 
> Right now I pay $65 for 100/35 with Cablevision I could save $15 and go with FiOS for $50/50, But I am good where I am at, service has been great. don't really see a need to play the switcheroo game just to save a buck
> 
> ...


The only insurance company I know of that doesn't specify OEM parts for repairs (don't know much about car insurers, just know what the repair shops tell me). My neighbor had a nice red Explorer and had a slight accident that caused the hood to be replaced. He had Geico. The paint was falling off the new hood in a couple months. He switched insurers quickly after he did some research and found out about the OEM thing.

Rich


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

Rich said:


> The only insurance company I know of that doesn't specify OEM parts for repairs (don't know much about car insurers, just know what the repair shops tell me). My neighbor had a nice red Explorer and had a slight accident that caused the hood to be replaced. He had Geico. The paint was falling off the new hood in a couple months. He switched insurers quickly after he did some research and found out about the OEM thing.
> 
> Rich


Sorry, I crashed my car 2 days after it left the showroom, total for damages almost $8000 not only did they they provide original Nissan parts, but they also paid to have the dealer VIN'ed them again.


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

peds48 said:


> Sorry, I crashed my car 2 days after it left the showroom, total for damages almost $8000 not only did they they provide original Nissan parts, but they also paid to have the dealer VIN'ed them again.


I'm going to agree with Peds on this one.
I've had Gieco for over 10 years with my Business and Personal auto insurance. 
I've had no issues with rates, unbeatable to say the least, I've always had check in hand the next day or two (lots of comp. claims  ) And I always take my cars and trucks to the same local body shop.
I've never had a the garage tell me Gieco only pays for non OEM parts.
Maybe if you take it to their own body shops. 
I take my check, and if it's not enough money, it's a simple phone call to gieco and they issue another check.

Maybe Rich your friends garage just has a hard on for Gieco.
If your friends paint is falling off, I think I would be more quick to point the finger at the body shop, not the insurance company.

My guess the body shops buy these pre primed fenders and hood, and wipe them down with prepaint, and slap paint right over it.
Wrong!
A good autobody shop , sands that preprimed fender down and re Primes it with good primer and then repaints it.

Paint falling off is a sign that step wasn't taken.


----------



## grunes (Nov 13, 2013)

grunes said:


> >>And you should be able to cancel some or all of the service without penalty if the price charged by the original broadcasters and governments goes up.





peds48 said:


> And this is exactly how it works right now. You are committing two years at the minimum package which is $29.99 plus one box.


No!

As mentioned, they explicitly say "Programming, pricing and offers are subject to change"

That invalidates the advertised $29.99 price, and even the preliminary $19.99 price. They can increase the prices any time they want to. And you cannot cancel because they do so - at least not without paying a big penalty.

If they weren't bundled, and I could opt out of any channel whose price increased - I would be happy with that. But there are a small enough number of television service providers, as well as content providers, that they can act anti-competitively, and force bundling.


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

grunes said:


> No!
> 
> As mentioned, they explicitly say "Programming, pricing and offers are subject to change"


Just because the language is there it does not mean it will or has been used before.



> PROGRAMMING AGREEMENT AND TERMS. To keep costs down for you, we provide dishes and standard installation at reduced or no cost. In exchange, we ask that you remain a customer for a specified period of time. Specifically, you agree that, within 30 days of getting DIRECTV equipment (either provided to you or installed professionally), you will activate your receiver(s)/Genie Mini(s) and subscribe to a base level of programming, valued at $29.99/mo. or above, which may consist of a DIRECTV base programming package (English or Spanish language); OR a qualifying international language a la carte service bundled with either BASIC CHOICE or PREFERRED CHOICE. If you do not activate each DIRECTV Receiver/Genie Mini, you agree that DIRECTV or the authorized retailer from whom you obtained the equipment may charge you $150 per receiver/Genie Mini as liquidated damages. You agree to continuously maintain the minimum level of programming with us as follows: new customers: 24 consecutive months; existing customers: 24 consecutive months for Standard DVR, HD and/or HD DVR Receiver(s) and any Genie Mini(s) or 12 consecutive months for Standard Receivers. If you selected a Genie HD DVR, you agree to pay the monthly Advanced Receiver Service fee in effect at the time service is provided. If you selected a TiVo® HD DVR from DIRECTV (except for model HR10-250), you agree to pay both the monthly Advanced Receiver Service fee and the monthly TiVo fee in effect at the time service is provided. THIS AGREEMENT TO MAINTAIN PROGRAMMING IS SEPARATE AND DIFFERENT FROM ANY OTHER YOU MAY HAVE MADE WITH DIRECTV AND IS FULLY ENFORCEABLE UNDER THESE TERMS.


The Above is all you are required to maintain in order to keep your end of the deal.


----------



## grunes (Nov 13, 2013)

peds48 said:


> Just because the language is there it does not mean it will or has been used before.


Just because you promise the devil your soul, does not mean that he will take it.


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

grunes said:


> Just because you promise the devil your soul, does not mean that he will take it.


Exactly, as thus is a mot point. You are only required to do as post 230 states.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

I've been watching _Hannah and the Horse _with the sound muted. Much better and they put up a funny graphic at the end. Something about getting D* for $19.95 a month. That's always good for a laugh. Meanwhile, I just saw a picture of A-Rod cozying up to Hannah at an event. Bet that one got to Derek.

Rich


----------



## slidey (Mar 11, 2007)

Anyone else notice this? What's wrong with this picture...they did it again....!


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

slidey said:


> Anyone else notice this? *What's wrong with this picture*...they did it again....!


That I would not pay $100 bucks to see to guys beating each other, for that I go to my local bar... :rotfl:


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

slidey said:


> Anyone else notice this? What's wrong with this picture...they did it again....!


I don't know, whats wrong with this?


----------



## slidey (Mar 11, 2007)

Wow, that image scaled to an insane size, sorry..

They are advertising 1080P for the event. They can't (and didn't) broadcast in that format.
IIRC, one of the stated items in the FTC action was misrepresentation of 1080P availability...which we know is only for on demand. I figured it might be relevant given that was the biggest PPV event in years.


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

slidey said:


> Wow, that image scaled to an insane size, sorry..
> 
> They are advertising 1080P for the event. They can't (and didn't) broadcast in that format.
> IIRC, one of the stated items in the FTC action was misrepresentation of 1080P availability...which we know is only for on demand. I figured it might be relevant given that was the biggest PPV event in years.


Why couldn't they broadcast in 1080p? 
I take it you saw it live in 1080i? What box and what TV?


----------



## slidey (Mar 11, 2007)

Genie, and 2014 Sony 65" of some sort configured properly. Correct, it was provided in 1080i. I also checked the recording after and it was the same.
I've seen plenty of 1080p(24) content on PPV, but it's all films/pre-recorded or downloaded on-demand content. I could be wrong but I'm not aware of any live coverage they've passed through at 1080p - when I called they confirmed they weren't capable of it, and so claimed it was impossible they advertised as such (though, it clearly wasn't, because they did).

Even if they could handle it live, I suppose it'd be at 24 frames, which wouldn't be a great choice for a fast-paced sport. We also don't know if it was even available to DTV in 1080p from the source. Regardless, it was misrepresented...


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

OK, I am a believer now! 

Thanks.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

I hope you realize 1080i is _better_ than 1080p24, since 1080i is deinterlaced in your TV to 1080p30.


----------



## slidey (Mar 11, 2007)

60 fields doesn't equate to 30 point-in-time frames when de-interlaced. Honestly I'd take 720p60 for most sports over 1080i60 - just a personal preference. I'm not intending to kickstart 10 more pages of this thread on a resolution religious war though.


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

slidey said:


> IIRC, one of the stated items in the FTC action was misrepresentation of 1080P availability...


Perhaps someone can validate that claim, as I don't recall 1080p being part of the "action"


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

slidey said:


> 60 fields doesn't equate to 30 point-in-time frames when de-interlaced. Honestly I'd take 720p60 for most sports over 1080i60 - just a personal preference. I'm not intending to kickstart 10 more pages of this thread on a resolution religious war though.


I agree with you about 720p60 for sports - though others will disagree as they prefer resolution to frame rate. But I don't agree with you about 1080i. While theoretically 1080i isn't supposed to be 30 point in time frames in practice it is (at least for live content) because few HD cameras support interlaced modes. They do support 1080p at 30 fps, so they record with that and interlace it for broadcast. Your TV deinterlaces those frames, and you get 1080p30. Even if they had more recent cameras that support 1080p60 HD-SDI doesn't have the bandwidth to support it.

If you think there are actually 60 different fields in a 1080i picture, record a portion of your TV screen when playing 1080i programming using a modern smartphone that can record at a very high frame rate (the iPhone 6 supports 240 fps video) You will see 30 different full resolution frames per second, not 60 frames. You won't see something moving quickly relative to the background (like a ball or race car) having half its lines in one place and half its lines in another.


----------



## slidey (Mar 11, 2007)

peds48: Ah, you're right it was NAD that mentioned that one - some media outlets conflated the two as did my head: http://www.asrcreviews.org/2015/04/nad-recommends-directv-discontinue-certain-claims-in-rob-lowe-ads-following-comcast-challenge-directv-to-appeal/
"NAD determined that the advertiser had supported its "up to 1080p" picture quality claims but recommended that the advertiser modify the claim to clearly and conspicuously disclose the limited programming on which resolutions of 1080p is currently available."

AllStar: Interesting, thanks for the color. I wouldn't expect an LCD to display the 60 fields either way..but might have expected blurred frames among the 30, academically anyway. Anecdotally I think a lot of the 1080i feeds look terrible regardless (live or not), but that could just as easily be too much compression, etc.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

peds48 said:


> Perhaps someone can validate that claim, as I don't recall 1080p being part of the "action"


The line items in the current action seem to center around new subscriber promotions.

Here's an index of the various FTC documents:

https://www.ftc.gov/enforcement/cases-proceedings/102-3141/directv


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

slidey said:


> peds48: Ah, you're right it was NAD that mentioned that one - some media outlets conflated the two as did my head: http://www.asrcreviews.org/2015/04/nad-recommends-directv-discontinue-certain-claims-in-rob-lowe-ads-following-comcast-challenge-directv-to-appeal/
> "NAD determined that the advertiser had supported its *"up to 1080p"* picture quality claims but recommended that the advertiser modify the claim to clearly and conspicuously disclose the limited programming on which resolutions of 1080p is currently available."
> 
> AllStar: Interesting, thanks for the color. I wouldn't expect an LCD to display the 60 fields either way..but might have expected blurred frames among the 30, academically anyway. Anecdotally I think a lot of the 1080i feeds look terrible regardless (live or not), but that could just as easily be too much compression, etc.


Well, the same can be said about the ISPs. They play the "up to" game all the time.


----------



## grunes (Nov 13, 2013)

The shame is that the publicity over this mess could hurt DirecTV a lot.

And we need all the competition we can get.


----------



## Shades228 (Mar 18, 2008)

grunes said:


> The shame is that the publicity over this mess could hurt DirecTV a lot.
> 
> And we need all the competition we can get.


If by hurt you mean they'll have to pay a fine and agree to do something different? This is political because it's an easy target right now and cable company lobbyists wanted to take some heat off the Comcast/TWC merger.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

peds48 said:


> Well, the same can be said about the ISPs. They play the "up to" game all the time.


The difference being that ISPs often exceed their "up to".

DIRECTV uses "up to" as a condition to temper how much you may be dinged in their Customer Agreement (the phrase appears 13 times).


----------



## Shades228 (Mar 18, 2008)

harsh said:


> The difference being that ISPs often exceed their "up to".
> 
> DIRECTV uses "up to" as a condition to temper how much you may be dinged in their Customer Agreement (the phrase appears 13 times).


Which has nothing to do with the NAD reference and is used for fees that are variable based on conditions.


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

Shades228 said:


> Which has nothing to do with the NAD reference and is used for fees *that are variable based on conditions*.


But leave up to harsh to put a spin on it.


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

harsh said:


> The difference being that ISPs often exceed their "up to".


Not in my side of the fence. If ISPs knew they can get a higher speed guaranteed, they will charge more dough to get that speed.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

Shades228 said:


> Which has nothing to do with the NAD reference and is used for fees that are variable based on conditions.


Nonetheless, the phrase is used to cover an awful lot of "possibly but we're not making any promises".


----------



## Shades228 (Mar 18, 2008)

harsh said:


> Nonetheless, the phrase is used to cover an awful lot of "possibly but we're not making any promises".


Do you get paid by the word or something? The whole point of something being "up to" is because it's variable. The "promise" is that there may be an impact and if there is the maximum would be X. Show me an up to where there is not a defined maximum amount when it's used. The whole point of this thread is that the advertisements are not as clear as they need to be according to the powers that be. This has nothing to do with the ToS, the NAD remarks, or anything else you want to dredge up.

So good job defining the phrase and pointing out that it's used appropriately in something that has nothing to do with this thread.


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

At least DIRECTV® discloses all of their fees on their contract, unlike the Kangaroo Company who likes to sneak those off contract.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

The fees are disclosed in one of the agreements ... but that isn't the topic of this DirecTV thread.


I took the comment as a compliment ... that the potential fees DirecTV could charge were limited in the contract and could be less than stated where the cable system definition of "up to" could be exceeded. Up to is not a bad thing as long as the fee is not exceeded.


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

James Long said:


> where the cable system definition of "up to" could be exceeded. Up to is not a bad thing as long as the fee is not exceeded.


Cable is very generalized comment.
I know of several companies that clearly mark their fees, as well as don't require a contract of any kind.

These hidden fees and undisclosed advertising are 90% Dish/ Directv issues.
When was the last time Comcast was sued for false advertising and hidding fees?


----------



## Shades228 (Mar 18, 2008)

damondlt said:


> Cable is very generalized comment.
> I know of several companies that clearly mark their fees, as well as don't require a contract of any kind.
> 
> These hidden fees and undisclosed advertising are 90% Dish/ Directv issues.
> When was the last time Comcast was sued for false advertising and hidding fees?


Cable/Telco companies rarely put a price in their ads for the simple fact that they have regional pricing. So your statement is correct for the simple fact that price is omitted in 90% of cable ads. If you have the company then you can see ads for that market as they can inject them ensuring that pricing is accurate for that market. A national ad, injected regionally, will not have pricing. They will tout speed of internet first, on demand, channels, and then no contracts in the majority of ads. So it's not like those companies are more morally aware it's just they can't do what the other companies do because of their pricing systems. It has also yet to be proven that there are hidden fees that are not disclosed as required by law. Now if what people want is a different standard than a new law/regulation has to be passed.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

harsh said:


> _*The difference being that ISPs often exceed their "up to".*_
> 
> DIRECTV uses "up to" as a condition to temper how much you may be dinged in their Customer Agreement (the phrase appears 13 times).


Cablevision does just that. Last time I checked my down speed it was around 118. More than they promise. I like that. Woof!

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

peds48 said:


> Not in my side of the fence. If ISPs knew they can get a higher speed guaranteed, they will charge more dough to get that speed.


You use CV for an ISP, right? My speeds exceed what they guarantee.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

Shades228 said:


> Do you get paid by the word or something? The whole point of something being "up to" is because it's variable. The "promise" is that there may be an impact and if there is the maximum would be X. _*Show me an up to where there is not a defined maximum amount when it's used.*_ The whole point of this thread is that the advertisements are not as clear as they need to be according to the powers that be. This has nothing to do with the ToS, the NAD remarks, or anything else you want to dredge up.
> 
> So good job defining the phrase and pointing out that it's used appropriately in something that has nothing to do with this thread.


Could you make that a bit clearer? I don't understand it. I regularly get speeds from my ISP, CV, that exceed the max. Is that what you meant?

Rich


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

Rich said:


> You use CV for an ISP, right? My speeds exceed what they guarantee.
> 
> Rich


Mine too, not by much but still above advertised speeds.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

damondlt said:


> Mine too, not by much but still above advertised speeds.


I don't know what CV's advertising now, I think it's around 100 down. I always use the same server to run the test. Always exceeds 100 Mbs down.

Rich


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

Rich said:


> You use CV for an ISP, right? My speeds exceed what they guarantee.
> 
> Rich


Depends when the test is run. Most of the times I get *up to* 100 other times I get over 100


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

Shades228 said:


> This is political because it's an easy target right now and cable company lobbyists wanted to take some heat off the Comcast/TWC merger.


Raising questions about your competitor's integrity is rarely a good idea when you're own is under the microscope.


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

That'd be "your own"--- where's Nick?? 

But I hardly think DIRECTV is being that closely scrutinized.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

peds48 said:


> At least DIRECTV® discloses all of their fees on their contract, unlike the Kangaroo Company who likes to sneak those off contract.


The issue here is that DIRECTV isn't being all that truthful about the fees in their advertising -- the material you are exposed to up to the point of a completed installation and you are handed the formal agreement to sign.


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

harsh said:


> The issue here is that DIRECTV isn't being all that truthful about the fees in their advertising -- the material you are exposed to up to the point of a completed installation *and you are handed the formal agreement to sign.*


Well then, if you are dense enough, sign on the dotted line.

The place to sign reads, I HAVE BEEN GIVEN OUT AND READ... Such and such... (name of documents). This agreement has to be sign BEFORE the installation begins. But you would not know this since you are with Dish


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

peds48 said:


> The place to sign reads, I HAVE BEEN GIVEN OUT AND READ... Such and such... (name of documents). This agreement has to be sign BEFORE the installation begins.


SO ... does one sign again to accept the installation as complete?


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

I've only ever Signed when the job is complete, never before the job was started.
Never Ever did Directv or Dish hand me a paper to sign before the install.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

Laxguy said:


> That'd be "your own"---


You are most correct.


> But I hardly think DIRECTV is being that closely scrutinized.


Take a look at the exhibits that I linked to above. They're parsing the advertising pretty carefully.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

peds48 said:


> This agreement has to be sign BEFORE the installation begins.


The Field Services guidelines I read (dated 8/2/2011) speak only to getting a signature on a written document for any non-standard/custom work prior to commencement. The verification of services ordered and work to be performed appeared to otherwise be a verbal process.


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

James Long said:


> SO ... does one sign again to accept the installation as complete?


YES, SIR


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

harsh said:


> The Field Services guidelines I read (dated 8/2/2011) speak only to getting a signature on a written document for any non-standard/custom work prior to commencement. The verification of services ordered and work to be performed appeared to otherwise be a verbal process.


Again, not to be harsh (pun intended) don't speak of what you dont know. If would be foolish for a tech NOT to get the document signed BEFORE starting any work, if the customer refuses to sign, he has to pick up any boxes and walk out the door without getting paid.

As a "safety" measure, once DIRECTV® went paperless, it is IMPOSSIBLE to activate a receiver without getting the custom to sign the LA


----------



## grunes (Nov 13, 2013)

I know this thread is pretty old now, but a DirecTV rep told me that I mis-understood what the federal suit was all about.

I assumed the problem was that prices can increase without explicit limit over the duration of your agreement, a fact that is listed in smaller print than the initial size, which I consider deceptive advertising.

But the rep said that the suit was because an advertised price ($19.99/month) did not include the hardware (receiver + remote?) needed to use the service, which meant that even the initial price for most customers was more than what was advertised.

(The rep worked in a store that provided the customer with specific cost estimates of first and second year prices - which the rep said eliminated the problem, at least at that particular store.)

I don't know if that still applies, or if the rep's info is correct.

However, it would explain why the feds would singleling out DirecTV - AFAIK, none of the other biggies do or did that.

And in any event, a federal suit does not establish wrong-doing. Perhaps DirecTV would say they did nothing wrong. It will be interesting to find out who wins.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

grunes said:


> But the rep said that the suit was because an advertised price ($19.99/month) did not include the hardware (receiver + remote?) needed to use the service, which meant that even the initial price for most customers was more than what was advertised.


I suspect your DIRECTV rep was making stuff up. Up to the point that DIRECTV stopped including the first STB in the package price (July 24th, 2014), it was certainly possible to subscribe to DIRECTV for the quoted package price for the first 12 months. That the advertised base price doesn't include any extras is by no means a revelation in any marketplace.

Of course now there is no way to get going with the quoted price but I don't think that's one of the key complaints in this action

The key beefs are made clear in many blogs and in the summary of the lawsuit itself:

1. The underlying pricing isn't locked in and the substantial discounts aren't sustained across the 24 month commitment.
2. The ETF and its penalty rate ($20/month remaining) isn't decidedly more obvious (DIRECTV's fine print machine may be unsurpassed).
3. The "negative option" policy that requires that subscribers explicitly unsubscribe from the premium movie packages has most everybody seeing red.



Edith Ramirez said:


> It's a bedrock principle that the key terms of an offer to a consumer must be clear and conspicuous, not hidden in fine print.


----------



## n3vino (Oct 2, 2011)

jimmie57 said:


> And car companies that show a super nice car and in the fine print they say the prices is not for the one shown. You can only see this if you have a DVR and pause the ad so you can get close to the TV and show it.
> I do very much dislike deceptive advertising and I am afraid that most of the companies do it, including DTV.


Maybe because when you show up to the show room, they disclose the actual price of the vehicle they are showing you. It's all in the contract that you are supposed to read and sign before buying. They will put stuff in there without telling you. That's why you need to read, question, and remove things you don't want such as additional services or warranties,


----------



## lparsons21 (Mar 4, 2006)

n3vino said:


> Maybe because when you show up to the show room, they disclose the actual price of the vehicle they are showing you. It's all in the contract that you are supposed to read and sign before buying. They will put stuff in there without telling you. That's why you need to read, question, and remove things you don't want such as additional services or warranties,


Yeah, car dealers can and do pull all kinds of tricks. If you look at a dealer's website it isn't uncommon to see a price as 'internet only' and then when you read the fine print, known as 'dealer comments', the price given includes every rebate/refund/reduction that is possible even though no one would actually qualify for all of them. And that makes that price a truly false one.


----------



## Shades228 (Mar 18, 2008)

Here's a glimpse of what people can expect if/when they settle.

http://www.cnet.com/news/seeking-a-refund-on-unwanted-text-message-fees-you-may-be-out-of-luck/


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

What does this have to do with Directv?


----------



## Shades228 (Mar 18, 2008)

It shows what the end of the process really looks like in this situation. There may be larger type on ads but at the end of the day this is really the part that will matter and it won't even matter that much.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

Shades228 said:


> There may be larger type on ads but at the end of the day this is really the part that will matter and it won't even matter that much.


It arguably matters that DIRECTV and similar companies may not obscure the details with small, light gray text in the future.

Sometimes you have to be satisfied with preventing something from happening to someone else. Caveat Emptor either needs to be the rule or the regulators need to do what they were hired to do. There's not a lot of middle ground and it isn't a matter of degree.


----------



## Shades228 (Mar 18, 2008)

harsh said:


> It arguably matters that DIRECTV and similar companies may not obscure the details with small, light gray text in the future.
> 
> Sometimes you have to be satisfied with preventing something from happening to someone else. Caveat Emptor either needs to be the rule or the regulators need to do what they were hired to do. There's not a lot of middle ground and it isn't a matter of degree.


If that were the true goal the FTC could have easily put out guidelines for size, color use, and length that fine print stay on the screen. Watch a car commercial lately? It's all there but it's not like you can read it all easily and during the time frame it's up.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

Shades228 said:


> If that were the true goal the FTC could have easily put out guidelines for size, color use, and length that fine print stay on the screen. Watch a car commercial lately? It's all there but it's not like you can read it all easily and during the time frame it's up.


What you describe is much like the automobile ads that include financing information (not all buyers may qualify, subject to prior sale, only three at this price, etc.) on the radio where they speed up the voice. That there are obvious qualifications may be enough to motivate the prospective subscriber do a little more due diligence versus assuming that there are "no ups, no extras".


> "I'm Earl Scheib, and I'll paint any car, any color for $19.95. No ups, no extras."


Television credits are run that way on many TV programs now. I think it is kind of expected that you either have a way of pausing it or if you're really interested and can't pause it, you'll look it up on the Internet. I often pause the music credits of movies as they're whizzing up the screen side-by-side.

I like your idea of establishing visual pop and timing requirements but I'm wondering how they would be specified and measured.


----------



## studechip (Apr 16, 2012)

harsh said:


> Raising questions about your competitor's integrity is rarely a good idea when you're own is under the microscope.


Pot meet kettle.


----------



## studechip (Apr 16, 2012)

peds48 said:


> YES, SIR


How do you know that?


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

Yes how do you know that?


----------



## tlarseth (Mar 14, 2014)

Rob37 said:


> DirecTv is kind of deceptive. They claim on their Rob Lowe Commercials that Packages Start at $19.99 a month, when in fact it might be true for a new customer, the cheapest package I see on their website is the "select" package which starts at $49.99. Big difference in the pricing there!


The Family Pack is $20 a month if in a SD market, my market is HD only for new customers making the cheapest package $30 in my area. Also, this isn't nothing but Comcast using their power over the FTC to attack DirecTv, they put in a claim about the Rob Lowe commercials citing that they make the cable company look bad, which is what I thought the purpose of commercials was to make yourself look good and competition look bad. As for not disclosing this, I have never seen a company disclose price hikes outside of fine print. This is also an attempt to make DirecTv look bad before the AT&T/DirecTv merger is voted on by the FCC, and other agencies who have to approve it.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

tlarseth said:


> The Family Pack is $20 a month if in a SD market, my market is HD only for new customers making the cheapest package $30 in my area. Also, this isn't nothing but Comcast using their power over the FTC to attack DirecTv, they put in a claim about the Rob Lowe commercials citing that they make the cable company look bad, which is what I thought the purpose of commercials was to make yourself look good and competition look bad. As for not disclosing this, I have never seen a company disclose price hikes outside of fine print. This is also an attempt to make DirecTv look bad before the AT&T/DirecTv merger is voted on by the FCC, and other agencies who have to approve it.


Why would it be $10 more in a Hi Definition only market? It should be be the exact same price since there is no Hi Definition fee of any kind anymore. There is one difference and that is you pay for every box so it should be six more than it used to be overall. But the package price should be the same shouldn't it?


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

There would be no price difference whether it was an HD market or not. All equipment installed henceforth is HD and there is a minimum $6.50 TV fee.

One way to look at it would be that the HD fee has dropped from $10 to $6.50. Another way is that they moved $6.50 out of the package price -- a sneaky way to bump the package price by a pretty healthy percentage.


----------



## studechip (Apr 16, 2012)

harsh said:


> There would be no price difference whether it was an HD market or not. All equipment installed henceforth is HD and there is a minimum $6.50 TV fee.
> 
> One way to look at it would be that the HD fee has dropped from $10 to $6.50. Another way is that they moved $6.50 out of the package price -- a *sneaky way to bump the package price* by a pretty healthy percentage.


Yeah, because no other company, like Dish for example, has extra fees. More FUD on your part.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

studechip said:


> Yeah, because no other company, like Dish for example, has extra fees. More FUD on your part.


DISH doesn't have that one ... an instant $6.50 fee for every new customer regardless of what receiver they have installed. In the context of a thread about the Federal Government complaining about DirecTV's deceptive advertising that type of "disclosed in the small print" fee is part of the problem.

Read carefully and none of the advertising is deceptive. Ads with "misleading" large print banners (such as "watch every game, every Sunday") have small print or very small print disclaimers and qualifiers. The final price is shown at the online checkout - and if one clicks enough links or looks around the Internet one can find out what the future cost of the commitment will be. The feds don't think that people should have to read that carefully. Price before the end of commitment should be more clearly shared in advertising.

DirecTV is still advertising "$19.99" with free Genie and Sunday Ticket in large print - and disclaimers in small print. What is the actual checkout price for a new customer accepting the "$19.99" offer? How low can a new customer set their bill by refusing all of the offers that add fees? Is $19.99 possible? Even for 12 months? No.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

studechip said:


> More FUD on your part.


Do you have a better theory to explain why the package that no longer includes the first TV somehow managed to not go down in price accordingly?

That new subscribers must pay a minimum of $26.49 is fact even though the headline clearly says otherwise.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

Yet the fee for Hi Definition no longer exists and they only give out Hi Definition equipment now so actually the entry level price is $3.51 less than what it used to be for new customer with Hi Definition service.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

inkahauts said:


> Yet the fee for Hi Definition no longer exists and they only give out Hi Definition equipment now so actually the entry level price is $3.51.


What options can a new customer choose that can give them a $3.51 total price per month?
Certainly NOT the advertised "free Genie upgrade" and "every game every Sunday" deals.









The advertised "$19.99" is for Select and one cannot get Sunday Ticket with Select under the new customer offer.

Refuse the free Genie offer and get just a HD receiver and the lowest price is $26.49 for 12 months.
No Genie, no Sunday Ticket. Not the big banner advertised offer with a "$19.99" price next to it. Something less.
(And in month 13 the new customer pays $56.49.)

$19.99 is simply not possible.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

James Long said:


> What options can a new customer choose that can give them a $3.51 total price per month?
> Certainly NOT the advertised "free Genie upgrade" and "every game every Sunday" deals.
> 
> (The advertised "$19.99" is for Select and one cannot get Sunday Ticket with Select under the new customer offer.)
> ...


Oh I don't know what happened. But I just fixed my post. I never meant to say someone could get service for $3.51. That was obviously a mistake.

And I am simply saying what the entry level price is and what you get old vs new. To call it a simple increase is wrong since you get everything in Hi Definition now and you did not before. so the same entry level package is actually cheaper, and they did away with their old entry level package completely (sd entry level doesn't exist anymore)

Plus the rest of the entire conversation you bring up has nothing to do with what I was replying to.

But... It's all in the disclaimers right there in the main page of the web site. I can't zoom enough on your image but is probably there too. I don't know any provider in my area that doesn't have additional fees for all their stuff that isn't included in the entry level pricing they advertise. So as has been said all along, it's just like everyone else. You read charters fees and your head starts to spin.

Not that I agree with any of this, I don't. I wish they listed the price with all fees like they used to, but they decided to go the route of everyone else these days....


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

inkahauts said:


> Oh I don't know what happened. But I just fixed my post. I never meant to say someone could get service for $3.51. That was obviously a mistake.


Gotta finish the thought ... 



inkahauts said:


> And I am simply saying what the entry level price is and what you get old vs new. To call it a simple increase is wrong since you get everything in Hi Definition now and you did not before. The entire debate about add one like DVR is identical to all other providers I have in my area that never include the monthly fees for their best hardware....


There is a balance ... get more vs want more. People who simply do not want HD do not have the option. Their "$19.99" offer is "$26.49" for the first 12 months, twice that for the following 12 months. (Not including routine price increases.) Someone who wants HD can save $3.51 over the offer DirecTV made a year ago ($10 HD or $25 advanced receiver fee). But *there is no way to pay the advertised $19.99 price*.

The advertised Genie is enough to bump the current offer to $41.49 per month (double the advertised $19.99). Apparently the "free Genie upgrade" isn't free. (And choosing a Genie instead of a HD DVR online creates a two room account. Add another $6.50 to make that $47.99.)

Plus one must subscribe to Choice to get the "every game, every Sunday" part of the advertised offer. Which makes the base price $36.49 (no DVR) and the minimum monthly cost to get what is shown on the banner advertisement: $57.99 (minimum two room requirement).

When a "$19.99" ad turns into a "$57.99" first year commitment (second year $98.99 if the premium packages are dropped) there is something wrong with the ad.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

Yeah the free part is the 199.99 upfront on the genies and not the monthly... 

Like I said I don't disagree. They all do that though. Hoppers aren't free either are they? TiVo sure as heck isn't!. But what harsh said was flat wrong....


----------



## studechip (Apr 16, 2012)

harsh said:


> Do you have a better theory to explain why the package that no longer includes the first TV somehow managed to not go down in price accordingly?
> 
> That new subscribers must pay a minimum of $26.49 is fact even though the headline clearly says otherwise.


Because they have added additional fees, just like your beloved, can't do anything wrong, Dish.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

inkahauts said:


> Yeah the free part is the 199.99 upfront on the genies and not the monthly...
> 
> Like I said I don't disagree. They all do that though. Hoppers aren't free either are they? TiVo sure as heck isn't!. But what harsh said was flat wrong....


Harsh is not that wrong. DirecTV added a $6.50 fee to all new customer accounts effectively raising their prices. Whether one calls that sneaky or not is a matter of opinion.

Before DirecTV started charging for the first receiver it was easier to get the actual advertised price (even if all of the elements shown in the ad were not available at the advertised price). Now it is impossible. $19.99 must be $26.49 - or higher if one actually gets everything shown in the ad as "free". Before DirecTV started charging for the first receiver their new customer offers often included "free HD" for the first two years ... the "net $3.50 less" argument only works if the new customer 1) wanted HD and 2) did not get the free HD offer at their price level. (Sometimes free HD was offered to all new subscribers, sometimes it was offered to new subscribers at Choice or above.)

Trying to defend deceptive advertising as an "industry standard" doesn't get far. My mother didn't accept the "everyone else is doing it" excuse and neither should the Federal government. Each company needs to stop their own deceptive practices. This thread is about what DirecTV is doing wrong ... not the rest of the industry.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

I was watching the Yankees game yesterday and while clicking thru commercials noticed a new _Hannah and the Horse_ commercial. Beautiful, then I found another one! And that one had a goat! This just gets better and better. D* might well be deceptive and sneaky, but they sure can put out a great commercial! I have no idea what they were babbling about (I did listen to the horse), but I sure did enjoy both commercials.

Rich


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

Rich said:


> D* might well be deceptive and sneaky, but they sure can put out a great commercial!


If only they spent those resources on fortifying their firmware.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

harsh said:


> If only they spent those resources on fortifying their firmware.


Oh, no! Let's keep the _Hannah and the Horse_ going.

Rich


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

Rich said:


> Oh, no! Let's keep the _Hannah and the Horse_ going.
> 
> Rich


I concur. Awesome campaign. Lol

Sent from my iPhone 6 using Tapatalk


----------



## Drew2k (Aug 16, 2006)

Obviously every company is going to have a budget for advertising, and in DIRECTV's case they surely have a budget for internal development as well. To think that any one posting in this thread recently knows the allocation between the two budgets is ludicrous.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

Drew2k said:


> Obviously every company is going to have a budget for advertising, and in DIRECTV's case they surely have a budget for internal development as well. To think that any one posting in this thread recently knows the allocation between the two budgets is ludicrous.


If I had a big company, I'd be looking at that company or individual who came up with the _Hannah and the Horse_ idea.

Rich


----------



## dennisj00 (Sep 27, 2007)

harsh said:


> If only they spent those resources on fortifying their firmware.


And I can guarantee that any Directv customer (or potential) would prefer Hannah and the horse / goat over firmware !! Other than the few hundred geeks here (I'd even take Hannah . . .)


----------



## PrinceLH (Feb 18, 2003)

I think Satellite radio is worse. They totally mess with your pricing. If you fight for a good promotional price, they autobill you for the next year, at the maximum price, a month before your promotion ends. Then you have to fight like hell, to get your money back. Negative option billing....it should be banned.


----------



## Jasqid (Oct 26, 2008)

peds48 said:


> I concur. Awesome campaign. Lol
> 
> Sent from my iPhone 6 using Tapatalk


Wait, there is a horse in these commercials?? I've only noticed the hot blonde.


----------

