# Lawsuit Charges DIRECTV With Receiver Rip-Off



## alexjb12 (Nov 28, 2007)

SWANNI said:


> Class action lawsuit says consumers are not told they must return their 'paid-for' set-tops upon cancellation.
> By Swanni
> 
> Washington, D.C. (February 24, 2008) -- A law firm has filed a class action lawsuit against DIRECTV charging the satcaster with failing to tell customers they must eventually return their receivers -- even if they paid hundreds of dollars for them at retail.
> ...


http://www.tvpredictions.com/dlawsuit022408.htm


----------



## SPACEMAKER (Dec 11, 2007)

Frivilous lawsuit. This is exacly why I am glad that D* is looking to weed out stupid subs.


----------



## lwilli201 (Dec 22, 2006)

Here we go again. How far do you think this will go? I believe the small print will prevail in this lawsuit.


----------



## sdk009 (Jan 19, 2007)

SPACEMAKER said:


> Frivilous lawsuit. This is exacly why I am glad that D* is looking to weed out stupid subs.


Nice comment, full of compassion. 
Not everyone is a genius, and this may be a case where ignorance is an excuse.


----------



## convem24 (Mar 11, 2007)

I don't want to sound like a homer since I have Directv and I got two HR21s from Best Buy more recently when I bought my HDTVs. Both on the box and at the register via a confirmation on their sign pad Directv/Best Buy explain that the boxes are leased. If consumers don't read the box or read what the sign pad at Best Buy state then it is their own fault. I still think the last point of contact is what will save Directv in this lawsuit. 

The installation paper you sign state leased equipment and that they have to return the boxes after they leave service. Plus you get a lease addendum explaining lease. I don't know (besides having sales associates tell customer that they are leased, to which I laugh at, haha) what more in terms of telling the customer about leased receiver can be done. O well. Lets see what comes of this lawsuit. It will be interesting to say the least. I hope because of this Directv will consider applying lets say amount paid on an R15 receiver towards lets say an HR21 upgrade since they have to give back an older receiver when they deactive it. Unfortunately selling stuff at retail has its risks.


----------



## liverpool (Jan 29, 2007)

The only people to get rich off class action lawsuits are the lawyers.


----------



## Ken S (Feb 13, 2007)

I purchased three HR20s from Crutchfield in March of 2007. There was no mention of a lease in the information about the device or within the box. The documents that came inside of my box called it a purchase. They then later tried to call them a lease. 

I noticed that later in 2007 they started putting stickers on the boxes...so, obviously, someone there thought additional notice was necessary. 

They could do a much, much better job of making clear that they are leases and that there are programming commitments tied to these boxes. They have chosen not to.

Sadly, they will waste millions in legal costs and then eventually pay some settlement that won't really be of benefit to the customers.


----------



## machavez00 (Nov 2, 2006)

yeppers, big sticker on the box, hard to miss.


----------



## Carl Spock (Sep 3, 2004)

Ken S: +1


----------



## convem24 (Mar 11, 2007)

Seeing the additional comments, it seems some of D*s retailers (crutchfield was mentioned) are not clearly explaining that the boxes are leased on purchased. Maybe D* will refocus their compliance with their retailers to make sure that they are representing what the product actually is, which is leased (I hate the word since is more like renting the box). O well. Again I hope something good comes of this.


----------



## Brent04 (Nov 23, 2004)

I know that the receiver that you get at retail are leased now and must be returned but what about receivers that I got before the lease program started. I thought I did not have to return those if I deactivated it, but it sounds like from this I would.


----------



## Draconis (Mar 16, 2007)

lwilli201 said:


> Here we go again. How far do you think this will go? I believe the small print will prevail in this lawsuit.


After much discussion, time, and appeals I think it will end up flying like a lead balloon.



liverpool said:


> The only people to get rich off class action lawsuits are the lawyers.


Agreed

-----

To add my own 2 cents, I can see where these people are coming from. After paying $299 ($199 now) for a HD DVR, getting slapped with a service commitment, then getting told it only has a 90-day warranty and you have to return the unit when you disconnect services?

It just leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

I could understand the service commitments when you owned the equipment, but when it is leased and you have to return it?

If it is truly leased why can't you turn in a SD DVR for a rebate towards a HD DVR? Nope, you have to return that $99 DVR (kiss that $99 goodbye) and send the full $199 for the HD DVR.

Lets say that you moved and have no line of sight at your new location. You disconnect your account, returning the equipment you bought. A year of two later you moved again and have the buy the same equipment all over again?

On the other side of the fence, once you have disconnected services the equipment is only good as a paperweight. Why NOT return it? You are not paying for the shipping.

I can see where DIRECTV is going with this; if the customers return the equipment, they can keep their costs down by shipping it back out again. But getting a "refurbished" receiver that only has a 90-day warranty for a new installation also leaves me with a very bad feeling.

From a consumer standpoint, I really cannot agree with the current lease program and really wish DIRECTV would revise it. It will be interesting to see where this goes.


----------



## SteveHas (Feb 7, 2007)

This is the stupidest thing I've read today.
How could anyone miss the fact that this is a lease?
I'll bet Comcrap is behind this some how.
And if you terminated services, why would you want it anyhow?


----------



## convem24 (Mar 11, 2007)

Brent04 said:


> I know that the receiver that you get at retail are leased now and must be returned but what about receivers that I got before the lease program started. I thought I did not have to return those if I deactivated it, but it sounds like from this I would.


If you have owned receivers they are yours. The problem is in the future some legacy equipment will not work with SWM (single wire multiswitch solutions, for newer DVRs and regular boxes). So it is really a mute point for folks who in the past could buy older receivers. Typically it is easier to pester D* for additional boxes if you need them or leased boxes are replaced after shipping cost anyway. I could really care less about returning the equipment when I cannot have D* service anyway (I will probably be a lifer if I can help it).


----------



## alexjb12 (Nov 28, 2007)

Ratara said:


> To add my own 2 cents, I can see where these people are coming from. After paying $299 ($199 now) for a HD DVR, getting slapped with a service commitment, then getting told you have to return the unit when you disconnect services?
> 
> It just leaves a bad taste in my mouth.
> 
> ...


I agree with you 100%


----------



## squarepants (Dec 13, 2007)

Steve's last point is, to me, the most important. What do these people want to do with the boxes after they cancel the D* service? Use it to get free service? Sounds like a money grab to me.


----------



## JLucPicard (Apr 27, 2004)

We've all read the posts that range from "I can't do anything with DirecTV without them telling me about lease/commitments" to "I've bought many receivers in many ways from many people and not once in all of that was there any information written/verbal or otherwise and they never had me sign anything and the never sent me a copy of the terms and conditions via snail mail after the fact......".

Now that this has apparently gone to a lawsuit, my question is:
As Ken S mentioned with his Crutchfield purchases and others have mentioned with BB & CC, etc. that there was never mention of a lease - I'm assuming that DirecTV has contracts with these retailers regarding the sales of the DirecTV receivers (I've read posts here in the past regarding the contracts as they applied to how or how much the "kickback" would be to the retailers and conditions that applied). Now if those contracts specifically state the condition of these units being leases and further state the requirement that the retailer MUST notify the consumer and make it clear to them the conditions under which they are 'buying', is that enough to cover DirecTVs hindquarters in such a lawsuit? Seems to me if the retail contract requires the retailer to clearly state the policy, the onus then falls on the retailer if that is not being done.

Then you're left with ordering from DirecTV. Going through the website (if I remember correctly) the terms and conditions are listed, and possibly even a checkbox that indicates you have read and agree to those conditions? That leaves the CSR route, and I think it's clear that although some people must sit through that part of the CSR script where they have to read the 'legal-ese' about the lease/commitments (always my experience when dealing with a CSR), there clearly are others who were not read those conditions in their dealing with the CSR.

Where I might see one change coming from this (or hope for this change?) is if the cost of leasing the equipment is truly whatever is paid up front and the $4.99 monthly "leased receiver" charge is truly just a mirroring fee, I could see where maybe the naming convention of that charge would be changed. So many places (including the above article) are considering that $4.99 monthly fee a continuing cost of leasing the equipment rather than the "programming fee" that it always has been.

And since when has that fee "_ranged from $4.99 to $10_" ???


----------



## TBoneit (Jul 27, 2006)

Ken S said:


> I purchased three HR20s from Crutchfield in March of 2007. There was no mention of a lease in the information about the device or within the box. The documents that came inside of my box called it a purchase. They then later tried to call them a lease.
> 
> I noticed that later in 2007 they started putting stickers on the boxes...so, obviously, someone there thought additional notice was necessary.
> 
> ...


Then I would call D* and tell them that:
a. I own these HR20s and have their documentation showing that.
b. If any lease fees have been collected I would ask for a full refund.

Obvious that the first HR20s had documentation showing purchased and later the decided to say leased when they were fairly sure that the new sat would be up and make the receivers more valuable.

Think back to how many channels were in HD in March of 2007? Compared to now. My guess is D* felt they had to give some break on the HR20s to stop subs going to E* at that time. Later on they felt that with all the new channels they were lining up they could discontinue that practice.

Big stickers later on does not erase the lack prior to that event. It also does not erase the documentation that Ken S has showing owned.

Yes it sounds like the lawyers are looking to make a killing on a class action lawsuit and that HR2x receiver owners will most likely get a discount on another unit or some free PPVs (Whee, not).

However if they had units sold as purchased and others as leased they could be in trouble.


----------



## davring (Jan 13, 2007)

I haven't followed this lease/own discussion much in the past, and I'm sure this comparison has been brought up before. I have leased cars in the past, paid an up front fee and returned them at the end of the contract with no cash refund. It looks like the same business model to me.


----------



## GibsonGuy (Jan 20, 2008)

When I left cable to come to D over 2 years ago I was at first upset I had to pay up front fees for a box. After looking at what I was getting and thinking in terms of auto leases, where the more up front you pay the less the lease is, I decided it was worth it. At no time did I feel I owned the receiver. This could have changed had I purchased from retail and didn't investigate before. Being part of of class action with AT&T several years ago, I found out pretty quickly that the lawyers make all the money. While they received millions for their work, I received 18 cents.


----------



## TBoneit (Jul 27, 2006)

SteveHas said:


> This is the stupidest thing I've read today.
> How could anyone miss the fact that this is a lease?
> I'll bet Comcrap is behind this some how.
> And if you terminated services, why would you want it anyhow?


So that you can sell it and recoop some of the money you paid. Or to pass it on to another family member.


----------



## Draconis (Mar 16, 2007)

squarepants said:


> What do these people want to do with the boxes after they cancel the D* service?


Hmmm...

If it is a DVR yank the HDD format it and use it in your PC? I wonder if the RAM can be pulled?

Either way, I think that the main thing that bothers people about the current lease program is the feeling that they wasted their money on something they cannot keep.


----------



## convem24 (Mar 11, 2007)

JLucPicard said:


> We've all read the posts that range from "I can't do anything with DirecTV without them telling me about lease/commitments" to "I've bought many receivers in many ways from many people and not once in all of that was there any information written/verbal or otherwise and they never had me sign anything and the never sent me a copy of the terms and conditions via snail mail after the fact......".
> 
> Now that this has apparently gone to a lawsuit, my question is:
> As Ken S mentioned with his Crutchfield purchases and others have mentioned with BB & CC, etc., I'm assuming that DirecTV has contracts with these retailers regarding the sales of the DirecTV receivers (I've read posts here in the past regarding the contracts as they applied to how or how much the "kickback" would be to the retailers and conditions that applied). Now if those contracts specifically state the condition of these units being leases and further state the requirement that the retailer MUST notify the consumer and make it clear to them the conditions under which they are 'buying', is that enough to cover DirecTVs hindquarters in such a lawsuit? Seems to me if the retail contract requires the retailer to clearly state the policy, the onus then falls on the retailer if that is not being done.
> ...


I agree with Jon Luc, the leasing fees should be mirroring fees. I am not afraid to admit it but I have worked with retailers in regards to D* and Best Buy specifically has a confirmation for lease in place (you have to sign a sign pad acknowledging lease) and the boxes at Best Buy and Circuit City both have the lease stickers on them. Circuit City in particular has a process where the customer has to confirm lease also. Online retailers have varied (which with Crutchfield might be a problem that D* needs to have all retailers fix). I think this lawsuit was started by a bozo who has owned all his equipment and he or she is not happy about lease because they now have little right to the equipment once they leave. Again who wants a 10lb paper weight when you leave service? I have enough crap already not to be keeping equipment that no longer serves any purpose.


----------



## convem24 (Mar 11, 2007)

TBoneit said:


> So that you can sell it and recoop some of the money you paid. Or to pass it on to another family member.


This is a point of contention with me also. One thing I think D* could change is allowing customers to transfer boxes to other accounts, like say my parents have one DVR and want another one but they don't want to pay for one. Lets say I am upgrading a DVR to an HD-DVR (which might happen soon). I could therefore transfer my DVR to my parents account (even though I would still need to pay $99 to an installer to get another line run). I would like to see this but if it very much adversely affects D* in terms of depreciating equipment (whole idea on lease obviously) they probably would not go for it.


----------



## jimmyv2000 (Feb 15, 2007)

what i don't understand if these are"LEASE BOXES" then why is e-bay and craigs list allowing the private sale(NON DEALER) of these on thier sites.If they may not be able to be activated.


----------



## alexjb12 (Nov 28, 2007)

Ratara said:


> Either way, I think that the main thing that bothers people about the current lease program is the feeling that they wasted their money on something they cannot keep.


Exactly..

here's my 2 cents.....

I believe the upfront cost should be like renting a vacation home.... You pay a security deposit in the beginning, and when you return it with out damage you get the deposit back.

Here directv makes money by the monthly mirroring fee and they get their box back

And if the box comes back damaged, they use the upfront cost to fix it or to buy a new one


----------



## lwilli201 (Dec 22, 2006)

Ratara said:


> Hmmm...
> 
> If it is a DVR yank the HDD format it and use it in your PC? I wonder if the RAM can be pulled?
> 
> Either way, I think that the main thing that bothers people about the current lease program is the feeling that they wasted their money on something they cannot keep.


I would rather pay $200-$300 for something that will become a brick in a few years than keep a purchased $600-$700 brick. I own a $700 tivo that could be used as a door stop.


----------



## Jeffro (Dec 24, 2006)

Does this mean that standard receivers are not owned after the 18-month time period commintment and advanced receivers are not owned after the 24-month time period commintment? So we will never see an Additional Receiver on our bill but instead see Leased Receiver on our bills foreever? Also is it a commintent for each receiver, meaning that when you lease another receiver the previous receiver starts all over with a new commintment? Earl, please explain this to all of us.


----------



## Dave (Jan 29, 2003)

Part of this will also go to the fact that persons who once purchased a HR10-250 are now being required to return them for a leased box. Even though the HR10-250 is wholly owned. It seems that DirectV doesn't care, and they DIRECTV are the crooks in this case. DirectV also is trying to make the public, you and I think that even though we may have purchased a HR20 that it was a lease. Some say, well it is the CSR's fault for not entering it into your account right. Plain and simple it is DIRECTV's fault. They are the crooks in this case. Hopefully the FCC and state Utility commisions will also get involved and straighten out DirectV's business practices. DirectV is the parent company in this case. Not there resellers or installers. After this is all said and done.. Then DirectV wants you the consumer to jump through hoops to make your account right that they screwed up. Then alot of the time they will call the customer a lier. In my opinion I wonder why it has taken someone so long to call DirectV on there bad business practices in this matter. They do deserve to be sued in this matter and held accountable. It would seem that there bad business practices did not start until the new owner was in there for about six months or so. Then there service went down hill from there.


----------



## Smuuth (Oct 4, 2005)

Jeffro said:


> Does this mean that standard receivers are not owned after the 18-month time period commintment and advanced receivers are owned after the 24-month time period commintment? So we will never see an Additional Receiver on our bill but instead see Leased Receiver on our bills foreever? Earl, please explain this to all of us.


Ending the commitment has nothing to do with the owned/leased status of equipment. Leased equipment never magically converts to owned equipment.


----------



## alexjb12 (Nov 28, 2007)

Jeffro said:


> Does this mean that standard receivers are not owned after the 18-month time period commintment and advanced receivers are owned after the 24-month time period commintment? So we will never see an Additional Receiver on our bill but instead see Leased Receiver on our bills foreever? Earl, please explain this to all of us.


Effective early last year, ALL receivers purchased after (can't find the date) must be returned back to DIRECTV after you terminate their services.


----------



## JLucPicard (Apr 27, 2004)

Jeffro,

Setting aside receivers that are actually owned, if you acquire a receiver that is considered leased, it will always be leased - two months, two years, or five years down the road.

What is shown on the bill as a "leased receiver" charge is simply a program mirroring fee to mirror your primary programming choices to a leased receiver. It is not an additional monthly leased equipment cost.


----------



## TBoneit (Jul 27, 2006)

convem24 said:


> This is a point of contention with me also. One thing I think D* could change is allowing customers to transfer boxes to other accounts, like say my parents have one DVR and want another one but they don't want to pay for one. Lets say I am upgrading a DVR to an HD-DVR (which might happen soon). I could therefore transfer my DVR to my parents account (even though I would still need to pay $99 to an installer to get another line run). I would like to see this but if it very much adversely affects D* in terms of depreciating equipment (whole idea on lease obviously) they probably would not go for it.


How does it affect their ability to depreciate the equipment? If you return the equipment it comes off lease and then they lease it to your parents. Zero change. Except that they get to grab another upfront lease fee. Obviously this matters to D*.


----------



## Ken S (Feb 13, 2007)

Tboneit,

I didn't post about my experience as a personal complaint. It was as an example of what, at least, had been going on. Whether DirecTV is still making it more difficult than necessary to understand the terms of the lease I can't say. I have personally dealt with my situation with DirecTV and remain a customer.

As you stated...putting the stickers on later actually could be used as evidence that someone at DirecTV believed they weren't doing an adequate job of letting potential customers know of these terms.

I believe that people should be responsible for their own actions and that if they have adequate notice and opportunity to read an agreement they should be held to that agreement. 

However, I don't believe that the back of a page filled with 2 point gray font on a gray background, or on the crinkled up plastic wrap around the access card or putting something in tiny print on the bottom of a sales receipt really is adequate notice. There are some things that are acceptable for "fine print", but significant parts of the agreement like ownership of the item being paid for, and programming commitments aren't two of them.

As I said earlier, it's a shame this has to come down to this type of lawsuit.

P.S. BestBuy was also included as a defendant in the lawsuit.


----------



## convem24 (Mar 11, 2007)

Ken S said:


> Tboneit,
> 
> I didn't post about my experience as a personal complaint. It was as an example of what, at least, had been going on. Whether DirecTV is still making it more difficult than necessary to understand the terms of the lease I can't say. I have personally dealt with my situation with DirecTV and remain a customer.
> 
> ...


It will be interesting to see what comes of it, but again I have worked with sales associates for the Consumer Electronics groups and I guess if needed they could cover their butts by having all their tv associates tell the customer (besides the sticker and the signed agreement via electronic pad) that they are leased. That piece has never been very effective but we shall see.


----------



## Drewg5 (Dec 15, 2006)

I think this lawsuit is coming from when DirecTv changed over to the lease platform. With that said it was not only the retailers that where having problems with the adjustment, a lot of DirecTv's CSR's did not know about it them selfs, or did not think it was worth wile to tell the costumer at that time. Infact when I ordered my HR20-700 I was handed the lease addendum by the installer, the CSR at the time had no clue what it was about. 

Was I mad yes very. Would I sue over it not at all, this way I do not have to keep useless equipment that I no longer need. Now the long and longer term commitments I rather dislike, who knows where things will be in 18 to 24+ months. Where does it stop 72 months 100 months? or will it ever stop? And yes I do know that DirecTv is not the only one that has terms like that, I have to deal with them on my cell phone as well :nono2:


----------



## Capt'n (Aug 23, 2007)

davring said:


> I haven't followed this lease/own discussion much in the past, and I'm sure this comparison has been brought up before. I have leased cars in the past, paid an up front fee and returned them at the end of the contract with no cash refund. It looks like the same business model to me.


Completely different. With an automobile lease, you have a set amount of money that will be paid by the end of the set lease term. Your down payment goes towards that set amount. The more you put down, the lower your payments. With D*, you could end up paying the retail value over and over and over again until you move on to a new box in which it starts all over again. And that's because they changed the wording from mirror fee to lease fee. Lease fee implies the fee goes towards the cost of the box, and not programming like the mirror fee. No one complains about it because in the end the cost is the same.


----------



## repulski (Oct 28, 2007)

This lawsuit doesn't surprise me at all because most people don't pay attention. One of the reasons I waited so long to get a HD-DVR was the fact that I would be paying a "lease upgrade fee" instead of purchasing the machine. I feel that this policy has been made clear for quite some time.


----------



## lightprism (Sep 26, 2007)

As the *owner* of an HR10-250 in the LA market, I feel disappointed of course. Had the unit about 1 1/2 years and was happy with it even though the actual HD offerings were quite limited.

Disappointment #1 - learning that to improve the HD offerings, I needed an entirely different box (MPEG4 capable) and that no added HD would come for the HR10-250.

Disappointment #2 - learning that not only would the expensive owned HR10-250 not get more HD offerings, I was losing what little it had. In fact, it will soon have NO HD - the whole point of buying the darn thing in the first place. Could maybe understand this end of HD life after 5yrs - but this is very short lived for the money.

Disappointment #3 - got an email to upgrade the owned HR10-250 to an MPEG4 HD-DVR for shipping and handling - Great. But then I learn they are taking my owned HR10-250 and giving me a leased replacement. This is wrong because a) taking owned property for leased is not an equitable exchange b) the HR-250 could still be used for SD and off the air recording and as a second receiver for SD.

I can understand the effort to stop the crooks who had accepted the upgrade offer and merely gave their HR10-250 to someone else to get the free upgrade offer - why are people always scamming - but aren't the access cards able to control this?


----------



## RobertE (Jun 10, 2006)

Another pointless lawsuit by someone(s) who doesn't want to take responsibility for themselves.

If D* really wanted to be a hardass about the agreements they certainly could.

They could:
Charge you full retail price for each and every box that you've opened up.
Charge you a full subscription price for each and every box on your account that you don't have hooked to a phone line. Yes, you did agree to it, so no saying "its not needed"
They could black out all your sports packages since you don't have it plugged into a phone line.
They don't have to replace broken box outside of warranty.


----------



## PoitNarf (Aug 19, 2006)

Ratara said:


> After much discussion, time, and appeals I think it will end up flying like a lead balloon.


Ahem....


----------



## DCSholtis (Aug 7, 2002)

SPACEMAKER said:


> Frivilous lawsuit. This is exacly why I am glad that D* is looking to weed out stupid subs.


+1 I agree that is an asinine suit. Obviously I voted the 2nd option.


----------



## Ken S (Feb 13, 2007)

RobertE said:


> Another pointless lawsuit by someone(s) who doesn't want to take responsibility for themselves.
> 
> If D* really wanted to be a hardass about the agreements they certainly could.
> 
> ...


What if plaintiff didn't receive notice of the lease? I didn't. I'm sure many others didn't as well. If the lawsuit is pointless it will be dismissed quickly.

Who cares about this list of things that DirecTV could do? They have nothing to do with the lawsuit.


----------



## Stuart Sweet (Jun 19, 2006)

A waste of time. About 10 years ago I signed up to participate in a class action lawsuit and I finally got the settlement... $11.

Waste of time and effort.


----------



## RobertE (Jun 10, 2006)

Ken S said:


> What if plaintiff didn't receive notice of the lease? I didn't. I'm sure many others didn't as well. If the lawsuit is pointless it will be dismissed quickly.
> 
> Who cares about this list of things that DirecTV could do? They have nothing to do with the lawsuit.


Then your beef (you may or may not have one) is with the 3rd party, ie Crutchfield for failing to notifiy you of the lease.


----------



## RobertE (Jun 10, 2006)

To add, where does it stop?

Should there be a multipage disclaimer sheet with each box that states:

Use of this product may:
Caused increased electical use, resulting in more green house gases, leading to global warming and the eventual extiction of the human race,
May cause your eyesight to go bad from watch too much TV
May cause you to get fat from sitting on the couch too much watching too much TV possibly leading to diabeties and/or heart disease.
Maritial distress
Marital bliss
Stupid children
Lazy children
Lack of exposure to the outside world
Isolation
ED
Hairloss
etc.


----------



## Sharkie_Fan (Sep 26, 2006)

sdk009 said:


> Nice comment, full of compassion.
> Not everyone is a genius, and this may be a case where ignorance is an excuse.


I doubt that will be the case.

Every store display that I've personally seen has a big sign that says this is a lease upgrade and not a purchase.

If you have the receiver installed, the paperwork which you sign says this is a lease upgrade.

The terms of service clearly state that new equipment is leased and not purchased.

Just because someone fails to read the multiple places where the leasing structure is outlined isn't an excuse.

Could DirecTV do more? Sure, they could require the CSRs to mention it when you call in to activate the receiver.... But, they've outlined it in several places, so IMHO, this lawsuit is just clogging up the legal system - it has no merit.


----------



## Capt'n (Aug 23, 2007)

RobertE said:


> To add, where does it stop?
> 
> Should there be a multipage disclaimer sheet with each box that states:
> 
> ...


WOW! Someones watching the wrong stations, :eek2:


----------



## Ken S (Feb 13, 2007)

Stuart Sweet said:


> A waste of time. About 10 years ago I signed up to participate in a class action lawsuit and I finally got the settlement... $11.
> 
> Waste of time and effort.


Stuart,

One theory on class action suits is that while the plaintiffs don't generally receive a lot of compensation that the overall penalty to the defendant is large enough that it serves as a meaningful penalty.

There are recent instances of class actions that had a positive effect on consumers even though the actual remuneration to the plaintiffs was small. The mobile phone companies and ISPs that were rounding per minute charges up to the next minute (even if it was only 1 second after the previous) minute is one example. There's not enough damage to any one person to justify the time and expense of a lawsuit, but in the aggregate the companies doing this type of stuff were receiving millions in additional payments.

Another example was a credit card company which was purposely slow in processing payments. By not processing consumer payments when received the interest charges on those customer's balances were higher. Again, not a huge amount to any one customer, but in aggregate it meant over $50 million a year in additional interest and late fees.


----------



## RobertE (Jun 10, 2006)

Capt'n;1469699 said:


> WOW! Someones watching the wrong stations, :eek2:


Too many commericals. Can't skip all of them.  :hurah:


----------



## ncriley (Sep 22, 2007)

DTV is just trying to get the most money they can right now and I can understand that. The fact is that a Directv Receiver is the only equipment in the world that I am aware of where you pay 1/3 of the price and then continue to lease it for the rest of your\its life and never own it. 

People can talk about stickers and all of the other notifications but the truth is that the average sub does not recognize the box is a lease in many instances because it is never been that way before and there is nothing else that works this way.

What about all of the installs done by a DTV installer? The DTV people are not telling the people on the phone the "fine print" and the installers sure aren't. All the customer knows is the installer left them with a nice receiver and took their $300.

I don't think DTV is doing anything illegal or immoral, but it can't be generating customer satisfaction over time.


----------



## gfrang (Aug 30, 2007)

Anybody can start a lawsuit don't mean they will win. I don't think this will go anywhere.I doubt Directv did anything wrong.


----------



## WestDC (Feb 9, 2008)

When you lease a Auto, You pay up front Cost ,Way more than $199 when you termanate the lease, You return the car + you are responsible for any damage or additional miles.

I see no Difference in buying the leased box, using it and then returning it when service is over.

Lawsuit is a Cost to all subscribers (in the form) of higher fees to pay lawyers to defend it's practice.


----------



## smilller (Aug 27, 2007)

You signed up for it and now you want to change the rules? Only a few lawyers would reap the benefits while you as a subscriber would have to pay higher fees to fill their deep pockets.


----------



## Jhon69 (Mar 28, 2006)

DirecTV leasing receivers?.When the hell did that happen!?.:eek2: 

Try March 2006.


----------



## Grentz (Jan 10, 2007)

I dont necessarily agree with the lawsuit, but I can say I hate 1 thing about the Directv Leasing thing.

Why do they not cover replacements for it for the whole time you are leasing? I see absolutly no point or plus for the consumer in leasing (besides if you count getting a discount in the beginning a perk...).

You pay your $99 or $199 up front, then if it is an additional receiver you pay the monthly cost (yes it is just mirroring, but still they claim it is a lease fee), you MUST return it to D* if you ever cancel, and yet they will not replace it for free or give you perks when you swap it in for another unit (like a rebate or discount).

Kinda sucks all around for the consumer


----------



## Jhon69 (Mar 28, 2006)

Grentz said:


> I dont necessarily agree with the lawsuit, but I can say I hate 1 thing about the Directv Leasing thing.
> 
> Why do they not cover replacements for it for the whole time you are leasing? I see absolutly no point or plus for the consumer in leasing (besides if you count getting a discount in the beginning a perk...).
> 
> ...


If you have the protection plan DirecTV covers replacements.Without they do cover the Receiver but can charge you $19.95 S&H.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

Grentz said:


> I dont necessarily agree with the lawsuit, but I can say I hate 1 thing about the Directv Leasing thing.
> 
> Why do they not cover replacements for it for the whole time you are leasing? I see absolutly no point or plus for the consumer in leasing (besides if you count getting a discount in the beginning a perk...).
> 
> ...


Everyone needs to think of Directv's lease program like a car lease... You pay money up front, and monthly... If it breaks and its not under warranty, then you pay to fix it. (they offer extended warranties and insurance for cars, and they do the same at Directv with their protection plan) If it needs new tires or breaks, you pay for it.. when you turn the car back in, you don't get any money back, especially from your down payment, and you never owned the car... This lawsuit holds no water and the only possible outcome other than it going away quietly, is more difficult terms, less leeway for the rest of us, and higher prices from Directv. Please let this get thrown out quickly. I hate having to suffer because someone changed their mind, or could no longer afford it, and wanted to get their money back for a service they've already used and are now passed their return date for a refund. You did, you live with it.


----------



## raott (Nov 23, 2005)

RobertE said:


> Then your beef (you may or may not have one) is with the 3rd party, ie Crutchfield for failing to notifiy you of the lease.


Crutchfield is acting as D*'s agent in the lease. Basic agency theory, the principal is liable for his agents actions whether there is actual or apparent authority.


----------



## raott (Nov 23, 2005)

RobertE said:


> Another pointless lawsuit by someone(s) who doesn't want to take responsibility for themselves.
> 
> If D* really wanted to be a hardass about the agreements they certainly could.
> 
> ...


They could, and would then suffer the consequences of customers fleeing or not becoming customers at all. I know some of you don't like to believe it, but there are other very viable options other than D*.


----------



## boelters (Feb 10, 2008)

D* needs to recoup the cost of the receivers somehow. Either they charge something up front, or they increase the program package costs or something else.

When I switched from Charter Cable to D*, I really did not understand that the receivers were leased. I purchased a H21 from Best Buy, they did not have me sign anything about this being a leased receiver. I just went to the basement to look at the box and there was a sticker on it, but it was on the bottom and not very visible. More recently, I purchased a HR21 DVR and the label was very prominent on the front of the box. The lease terms were on the sales slip also.

Maybe D* should have a receiver purchase plan, with the proper disclosures and give people the option of buying the receivers. I think when most people see the cost to purchase the receiver, they would be happy there was a lease program. I also think the lease program makes it easier for both D* and their customers when receivers become obsolete. 

This is my first post here. Thank you very much to all who contribute to this site. It is outstanding!


----------



## Pink Fairy (Dec 28, 2006)

Saturday I had my HD DVR installed.

In TWO places on the box, they put a huge warning say that the receiver is leased and has to be returned to DIRECTV upon cancellation. 

I took pics, but haven't uploaded the pictures to my computer.

And welcome boelters!


----------



## Kevin Dupuy (Nov 29, 2006)

I don't agree with the lawsuit, but I hate paying for a box upfront that I don't own. If I pay a lease fee, and I don't own it, then why am I paying for it upfront, at the same fee as it was before March 2006's lease program started?


----------



## TaylorJ (Nov 4, 2007)

:welcome_s Boelters


DIrectv does have a purchase option however you can only call in to order an owned recv. All retail purchases are lease.


----------



## yuppers519 (Aug 6, 2007)

Directv should better inform it's customers that they are leasing the recievers. when i became a customer I had to pay $499.00 to become a customer and i thought that i owned the recievers untill i talked to tech support one day and they said they owned them. then i asked well why did i have to pay so much to become a customer and if i choose not to be a customer why do i have to return the boxes? he had no answer for me. another question i have is, if i do decide in the future to go somewhere else, do i get the money back for the reciever i payed for? I doubt it. so therefore the recievers are mine. and if they try to get money out of me for them, i'll take them to court..........

http://www.tvpredictions.com/dlawsuit022408.htm


----------



## HDTVsportsfan (Nov 29, 2005)

How does one prove they weren't told the box was a lease?

I most cases it the subs word against DirecTV's isn' it.

The CSR never told me when I ordered.
The CSR never told me when I activated.
The installer never told me.
BB/CC sales associate never told me when I purchased it.
I never signed an agreement at BB/CC at the register. (That one might be actaully be available from archive.)


----------



## Draconis (Mar 16, 2007)

Ratara said:


> After much discussion, time, and appeals I think it will end up flying like a lead balloon.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I also watch Mythbusters so I figured that was coming a few seconds after I posted that.


----------



## Grentz (Jan 10, 2007)

Kevin Dupuy said:


> I don't agree with the lawsuit, but I hate paying for a box upfront that I don't own. If I pay a lease fee, and I don't own it, then why am I paying for it upfront, at the same fee as it was before March 2006's lease program started?


Thats kinda my issue as well, I paid the same before to own it as I do now to lease it 

Ya, D*'s choice, but not very much fun for the consumer


----------



## JLucPicard (Apr 27, 2004)

HDTVsportsfan said:


> How does one prove they weren't told the box was a lease?


Ding, ding, ding. That was my thought when I read about this, too.

Yes, early on, DirecTV wasn't putting stickers on their boxes. The days are long gone when I kept the paperwork the installer had me sign, but being the kind who DOES read the fine print, I know the papers I signed after March 2006 did have a lease addendum.

It seems to me that for every report of someone not being informed, there are also reports that people were informed by a CSR, or did sign something when checking out at a retailer, or did sign a lease addendum at the time of installation, or did the check the "I have read and agree" box on-line.

In a class action lawsuit like this, what actually has to be proved for a judgement against DirecTV? Seems like it would be hard to prove a pattern of NOT informing people when there were mechanisms in place from the start to impart such information.

How do you prove NOT being notified?


----------



## Ken S (Feb 13, 2007)

Pink Fairy said:


> Saturday I had my HD DVR installed.
> 
> In TWO places on the box, they put a huge warning say that the receiver is leased and has to be returned to DIRECTV upon cancellation.
> 
> ...


Pink Fairy,

That's a change just like the stickers on the boxes. Originally, they didn't have that stuff. Perhaps someone at DirecTV just decided to use up the old installation agreements or they forgot. But the agreement I signed when I had my dish installed for Mover's Connection had nothing about lease on it.


----------



## Pink Fairy (Dec 28, 2006)

Hmm, it might be new! Considering it was an HR21, not HR20.

Either way, I am glad they are putting stickers like that on there.


----------



## tcusta00 (Dec 31, 2007)

I think it's become clear in this thread that the way DirecTV advertised the lease on the packaging and the store receipts has changed drastically since the program's launch a couple of years ago. My HR21 was clearly marked as a lease, but I also just got it last December. The folks that got them from outlets like Crutchfield a few years ago apparently had no information given to them that it was a lease. All the people on here that are blasting these guys and the lawsuit without knowing how they were treated/informed are, as one member so nicely put it, are "effing morons," or to put it nicer, judging without all the fact. Just because _you_ were informed of the lease and _you_ knew all about the terms doesn't mean that EVERYONE was.

As far as "proving" you were not notified, IMO the onus is not on the customer - it's on the provider, i.e., by providing a copy of the customer's signature agreeing to said contract. The customer is suing saying there was no contract. The defendant needs to prove otherwise with a copy of the contract. If all the customer has is a bill of sale from Crutchfield with nothing noting a lease or "subject to DirecTVs terms, etc, etc," then it's up to the defendant to prove that it was something other than a sale.

*Not ALL lawsuits are frivolous, people. Don't judge the merits (or lack thereof) of a case by your own personal experience. Not everyone gets the same treatment. *

FWIW, If given the option, I will opt out of the class if it gets that far - although I'm sure I would be excluded anyway because I probably signed in ten places agreeing to the lease. There are others, however, that should be part of of the class and genuinely did not know about the terms of the lease.


----------



## finaldiet (Jun 13, 2006)

In my mind, if you own something, why pay a lease fee on something you own. Also, I believe DTV is losing on the lease anyway. If they charge $700 for a receiver and no lease fee, its to their advantage. So $700 for owned or $60 a year for 5 years=$300. They have to charge a fee initially upfront ($199) and lease fee and they are still losing. They do this to get the customer with the idea you will add programming to your package. DTV has been VERY fair with me and I've been a satisfied customer. My 2 receivers were free, so with the fee for 2 ($120 year) figure how many years it would take to pay them off. I'll be with them!


----------



## Ken S (Feb 13, 2007)

JLucPicard said:


> Ding, ding, ding. That was my thought when I read about this, too.
> 
> Yes, early on, DirecTV wasn't putting stickers on their boxes. The days are long gone when I kept the paperwork the installer had me sign, but being the kind who DOES read the fine print, I know the papers I signed after March 2006 did have a lease addendum.
> 
> ...


You get testimony from customers.
You get testimony from employees of retail stores that didn't tell customers
You get internal DirecTV communications discussing why the stickers were added later and why the install agreements were changed
You get testimony from DirecTV employees and ex employees
You get screen shots from websites selling the receiver and/or pages from catalogs.

Remember too...someone going into Best Buy and paying for something is generally going to think they "own" that item. This creates an extra burden on the manufacturer and retailer if they want one certain transaction to be different than what a reasonable customer would expect in that situation.

I was just able to search on HR21 find it on Best Buy add it to my cart and go through the ordering process (up to giving my credit card) and there was no mention of a lease. If you look at the full description of the item there is a bullet-point, but I can see where someone would be confused about what it meant and not understand they would have to return the machine.

Here's the text from the BB site.

Prices shown are "lease upgrade fees." Additional $4.99/mo. lease fee applies for each DIRECTV Receiver you add. Programming commitment required. See terms.

There's even less information on the Circuit City site for the D12. The R15 has more information about the leasing but still doesn't talk about it being returned.
----------------
Class action suits are not inexpensive to bring. The lawyers involved put up a lot of money and time before settlement/court. This generally means they believe there's a good chance of winning. No major class action firm is going to bring this type of suit without having done a substantial amount of research beforehand.


----------



## Dave (Jan 29, 2003)

Some of this will probably be traced back to DirectV also taking money out of peoples checking and debit, and credit card accounts without permission because you needed a credit or debit card to sign up. Then when DirectV makes a mistake they want to give you credits instead of replacing your money back to you. Reasons like this is why I hope this case has merit. DirectV seems to want everything there way. As I have stated before. Since the company has changed hands this last time, it appears that customer service has gone by the wayside. 
It appears they don't want to train there CSR's, can not or will not help you work out a disput you may have with them, and make you the customer jump through all the hoops for them even when they are lying to you the customer and they are wrong. There business ethic is just not there anymore. Anyone who thinks they still have a good business ethic is sorely mistaken. Some have made the coomit that they will raise rates to pay there lawyersd if they have to go to court or have to settle and lose this case. I got news for you. They have been raising rates for the past five (5) years. Many of you also blame the CSR's for daulty or bad info. The CSR can only give you bad info if this is the way DirectV is training them. DirectV is the parent company. They are responsible, PERIOD.


----------



## tcusta00 (Dec 31, 2007)

Dave said:


> Some of this will probably be traced back to DirectV also taking money out of peoples checking and debit, and credit card accounts without permission because you needed a credit or debit card to sign up. Then when DirectV makes a mistake they want to give you credits instead of replacing your money back to you. Reasons like this is why I hope this case has merit. DirectV seems to want everything there way. As I have stated before. Since the company has changed hands this last time, it appears that customer service has gone by the wayside.
> It appears they don't want to train there CSR's, can not or will not help you work out a disput you may have with them, and make you the customer jump through all the hoops for them even when they are lying to you the customer and they are wrong. There business ethic is just not there anymore. Anyone who thinks they still have a good business ethic is sorely mistaken. Some have made the coomit that they will raise rates to pay there lawyersd if they have to go to court or have to settle and lose this case. I got news for you. They have been raising rates for the past five (5) years. Many of you also blame the CSR's for daulty or bad info. The CSR can only give you bad info if this is the way DirectV is training them. DirectV is the parent company. They are responsible, PERIOD.


It sounds like you have some serious issues with D*... not to be flippant, but why are you (and other folks), being so unhappy with the way DirecTV is treating you, still a customer? You have choices unless you live in the boonies or are still under contract.

For the record, they have been raising rates, commensurate with inflation, since inception, like every other company in the world that operates in an economy with inflation.


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

I'd like to find some middle ground between the "How can people not know" and the "DIRECTV never tells anyone" groups.

First let me say I knew. I have been a regular poster on the forums for a few years, I couldn't miss it. I do not count myself very much one way or another.

Some of the receivers I purchased did come with clear documentation and clear warnings at activation time. I can't swear they all did, I never worried nor never cared--I already knew. 

Yet I can easily understand that in some circumstances, especially early on in the lease system, where customers might not know or understand about the lease. I mean very intelligent, reasonable, generally aware people who didn't get the word for whatever reason. I can believe it happened.

Do I feel they were actively mislead? Not likely, but even that could have happened by a retail clerk or installer at some point.

Do some people deserve some form of arrangement that hopefully is beneficial to both parties? Sure.

As for a class action lawsuit, I won't comment. I do not have enough information beyond the notion that class action suits rarely accomplish much good for the people in the class. They can force corrections in company policy.

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## SPACEMAKER (Dec 11, 2007)

I'd like to apologize for calling some of you "effing morons." I should have just kept that to myself.


----------



## joe diamond (Feb 28, 2007)

HDTVsportsfan said:


> How does one prove they weren't told the box was a lease?
> 
> I most cases it the subs word against DirecTV's isn' it.
> 
> ...


Sportsfan,
Exactly!

The installer is not a DTV representative. They do not have a clue how to answer questions about the lease and or addendum. And they are not have the authority to negotiate changes (I think I sdaid that)

AND the customer has endured the scheduling & installation + a swell up to 1/2 hour explanation about how the equipment works. The installer has other places to go and the customer is glad to get him gone...........sign the paper....sure.......see ya.

From this both parties understand the terms of their contract with each other?

Joe


----------



## tcusta00 (Dec 31, 2007)

joe diamond said:


> From this both parties understand the terms of their contract with each other?


Unless you've signed under some kind of duress, in a provable impaired state or weren't legally able to enter into it, it's still a contract. No bones about it. Just because the installer is in a rush and you're itching to setup your season passes doesn't mean it's not a legal contract. The fact that the installer works for Install Co. XYZ doesn't mean a thing. He isn't the one entering into a contract so he could give a lick if you read it or not. You have a right to read what you're signing.


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

tcusta00,

That presumes a paper copy contract with lease terms clearly identified was signed by the customer. There have been enough people who say they never signed one that I can believe some people never actually saw such.

Yes, I'm sure there are also people who didn't read their contracts and did sign and now have forgotten. Lots of people can lead to multiple possibilities of what happened.

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## RobertE (Jun 10, 2006)

Tom Robertson said:



> tcusta00,
> 
> That presumes a paper copy contract with lease terms clearly identified was signed by the customer. There have been enough people who say they never signed one that I can believe some people never actually saw such.
> 
> ...


From my personal experience, less than 1% take the time to read the lease agreement.

Not my fault, not my problem that they don't take the time to read and understand what they are signing.


----------



## Satsince1978 (Jun 28, 2007)

When I purchased my HD receiver just about two years ago there was not anything mentioned by Best Buy or on the receipt or on the box or inside it! I purchased the receiver about one week after they announced they were doing this. DirecTV when I called recently said that it was a lease and is not mine to keep. I feel the receiver is mine because of the above mentioned! I just looked at the Best Buy receipt today and It *does not *mention anything about a lease!


----------



## tcusta00 (Dec 31, 2007)

Tom Robertson said:


> tcusta00,
> 
> That presumes a paper copy contract with lease terms clearly identified was signed by the customer. There have been enough people who say they never signed one that I can believe some people never actually saw such.
> 
> ...


I _did_ say that in an earlier post - I was just responding to joediamond's post that addressed the customers that did have paper in front of them.


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

tcusta00 said:


> I _did_ say that in an earlier post - I was just responding to joediamond's post that addressed the customers that did have paper in front of them.


 my bad, mea culpa.

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## hankmack (Feb 8, 2006)

Ratara said:


> After much discussion, time, and appeals I think it will end up flying like a lead balloon.
> 
> Agreed
> 
> ...


Isn't this the same as leasing an automobile. You have to pay money down, monthly, maintenance and finally return it.


----------



## tcusta00 (Dec 31, 2007)

Tom Robertson said:


> my bad, mea culpa.
> 
> Cheers,
> Tom


No worries - just didn't want to get lumped in with the folks blasting those that said they never got any lease notification!


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

<moderator note> With the permission of the OP, I added the 4th item in the poll, "No Comment or Abstain". </note>

<Moderator comment> Lawsuits are a very delicate topic at DBStalk. We do not participate in the formulation or mass marketing of lawsuits. Yet we do feel that lawsuits are newsworthy topics.

Staring from alexjb12's first post and continuing by everyone here, you've done a great job discussing the topic without straying. Keep up the great work, everyone!

Thanks,
Tom
</comment>


----------



## RobertE (Jun 10, 2006)

I will concede that units in the distribution pipeline at the time of the switch from own/lease probably did not have the stickers. 

My solution would be to offer a 6 month grace period, if you want it maked as owned, fine. You would also be credited your "lease" fees, you would also be charged back "mirroring" fees.

Net outcome for the end user. You now have a box that has little to no resale value, you have zero net change in your bill (save for maybe a small bit in taxes).


----------



## photostudent (Nov 8, 2007)

Maybe Directv has some use for the receivers when they get them back but I doubt it. Their product cycle has been about the same as the 2 yr committment for some time. It was just a shell game to cover the cost of marketing receivers under their own brand. All I see that they got was poor public relations, a buggy product and a lawsuit. Just because you can read your lease agreement does you have to like the taste of it. Also, if I never hear the retort "why don't you switch to brand X" used on this forum I would be very happy.


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

Actually the lease program has had very tangible results on the bottom line. Immediately there was a huge tax break as leased equipment to the customers becomes depreciated equipment to DIRECTV.

And as the lease return, refurbish, re-use processes have been built up, DIRECTV is starting to see cost savings that are reported every quarter to investors.

Now, the least program likely won't get much benefit from me--I typically keep my receivers long enough to be nearly valueless. But they do get great value from the receiver life. 

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## tcusta00 (Dec 31, 2007)

photostudent said:


> . Also, if I never hear the retort "why don't you switch to brand X" used on this forum I would be very happy.


That's helpful... and for the record I didn't say it like that. It was meant in a conversational tone and out of genuine curiosity.


----------



## gfrang (Aug 30, 2007)

The only difference for me is my state charges me 25 cents sales tax each month for 
a lease. But if i bought it i would have to pay tax on purchase price.
I like the lease, what am i going to do with these boxes when they go obsolete?
I still have my first RCA receivers collecting dust.


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

I have a 2nd generation Panasonic receiver that is too thin to make a good doorstop even.


----------



## HDTVsportsfan (Nov 29, 2005)

I took about 5 older RCA receivers to the re-cycle dump a couple of months ago.


----------



## ThomasM (Jul 20, 2007)

The problem is that DirecTV changed their policy in midstream.

For many years "programming and equipment sold separately" was the word. When I first got DirecTV over 7 years ago, you went to the store and you picked out a receiver and dish antenna just like picking out a new TV set. It didn't work like cable TV at all where everyone KNEW the box belonged to the cable co. and was just "on loan" until service was disconnected. The DirecTV equipment you took home WAS YOURS. The only restriction back then was that you had to ACTIVATE it within 30 days or you would be charged the "full price" of the equipment. Everyone knew how this worked as it is just like the cell phone companies.....only there was no commitment. You could buy your receiver/dish, take it home, activate it and then cancel DirecTV a month later-no strings attached.

Suddenly, this "lease" program began. And ALL new equipment was unavailable "for sale". Plus, you got socked with a PROGRAMMING COMMITMENT. To add to the confusion, instead of requiring customers to get their equipment from DirecTV or an authorized installer, you could STILL "buy" the equipment at various retail stores.

Is it any wonder that there was confusion? And an eager Best Buy sales rep had no incentive to explain to a prospective customer that the box he was buying wasn't really his. As a result, I can believe that many a customer was fit to be tied to learn that they really didn't "buy" a receiver but just paid an up-front fee to lease it....and had to return it if they canceled their service. Granted, it is useless without valid DirecTV service but it was the principle of the thing. People felt duped that they were foolish enough to pay a lot of money to lease a piece of equipment that not only wasn't really theirs but they also got stuck with a programming commitment.

I can see why a lawsuit was filed but legally every subscriber had to sign paperwork clearly detailing the lease/commitment program. But if it can be proven that sales people and/or DirecTV CSR's deliberately mislead people there could be a decision against DirecTV with monetary forfeitures.


----------



## viperlmw (Oct 20, 2007)

liverpool said:


> The only people to get rich off class action lawsuits are the lawyers.


Class actions aren't just about repaying the members of the class. It's mainly about punishing the offending company, and class actions can punish severely. 
Also, just to give my 2 cents concerning lawyers. If I ever got into trouble or had issues requiring representation, you can bet I will get the best lawyer money can by, as they are the only ones who will represent me. No one else will. Will you? If not, stop bashing lawyers.


----------



## Smuuth (Oct 4, 2005)

finaldiet said:


> If they charge $700 for a receiver and no lease fee


A minor correction to that statement: Even if you pay full price for a receiver to own it, you will still be charged the $4.99/month for every receiver after the first one on your account. It will be called a "mirroring fee" instead of a "lease fee", but it will still be there.


----------



## Pink Fairy (Dec 28, 2006)

Smuuth said:


> A minor correction to that statement: Even if you pay full price for a receiver to own it, you will still be charged the $4.99/month for every receiver after the first one on your account. It will be called a "mirroring fee" instead of a "lease fee", but it will still be there.


Yes, you are charged $4.99 per month. But it is not for the rental of the receiver. It is for the programming to be mirrored to that secondary receiver.

If it were all owned equipment, any additional receiver past the first would also have the same charge - just different wording.


----------



## bonscott87 (Jan 21, 2003)

Only thing I know is that in Sept 2006 when I called to activate my HR20 I was told 3 times that it would be a lease and if I understood that.


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

It will be intresting to see how far it goes...

Was it a "willfull" act to decieve the customers...
As the information about the leasing was/is out there... And it has been "tweeked" over time... to make it even more clear.

Go to BestBuy.com now... it is the first line item in the descriptions of the units.

I know last week when I was at BestBuy, their DirecTV display, had a permanent note about the lease... right on the display, not a flyer or insert.

During the initial period... there probably was a fair amount of cases, where people didn't know.... Best Buy (or other stores) reps, not trained in the changes.

Some DirecTV employees, not trained in the changes... or following the procedures properly.

People making assumptions, and not "listening" to the CSRs when they were explaining it. I know when I activate some of the receivers I got after the lease, they where very diligent in reading the lease details to me... to the point I told one of them to stop... because I knew what it was, and agreed to it.

It has been pretty clear... for a long time now, that these boxes are leases.
It has been in the fine print of Best Buy ads, and DirecTV commercials for a long time now...

So while there may be a small period of time, the courts may feel that it was implementation error... and not something large enough to cover a 24 month period... (and limit it to a few months).

They may feel, that there was enough information out there for the consumer...

They may also rule, that those that are "charged" a non-return fee, during a period of time... may have that credited... but I can't see them crediting the initial fee for the box....

Just can't see how that could be a justifable conclusion to this issue.

The *BIGGEST* problem I see out of this...
Is proving those that should be included in the court case..

I know *I* was notified about the leases... so I wouldn't/shouldn't be part of the class action. But how many people are going to honestly admit they were not told about the lease... how do either side prove their side of the story?

DirecTV does record the conversations... so they will have the recorded conversations during activation of receivers... but dang, that is going to be a serious high level of cost to review all those recordings....

And guess where that cost ultimately will recovered from?

So... for those that really got "hurt" or deceived... I hope you work something out to rectify it...


----------



## Ken S (Feb 13, 2007)

photostudent said:


> Maybe Directv has some use for the receivers when they get them back but I doubt it. Their product cycle has been about the same as the 2 yr committment for some time. It was just a shell game to cover the cost of marketing receivers under their own brand. All I see that they got was poor public relations, a buggy product and a lawsuit. Just because you can read your lease agreement does you have to like the taste of it. Also, if I never hear the retort "why don't you switch to brand X" used on this forum I would be very happy.


photostudent,

DirecTV gets a great benefit from getting those receivers back. Remember even with their churn rate at all time lows...there are three million leaving the service each year. Those receivers are no longer lost to the garbage dump or someone's closet. They are "refurbed" and put back into use. This could be a huge savings. Chase Carey spoke of this effect during a recent conference call. They felt the real impact of the savings would begin mid 2008.

There is nothing wrong with this plan. They just need to do a better job of informing customers.


----------



## richall01 (Sep 30, 2007)

So do I get back the $3,000.00 I had to pay up front when I "lease" my BMW?!?


----------



## Ken S (Feb 13, 2007)

Earl Bonovich said:


> It will be intresting to see how far it goes...
> 
> Was it a "willfull" act to decieve the customers...
> As the information about the leasing was/is out there... And it has been "tweeked" over time... to make it even more clear.
> ...


Earl,

You can go to BestBuy.com and purchase an HR21 right now without seeing that bullet point on leasing. I posted that above. Try it for yourself. Search HR21 or DirecTV...when the search results come up you can click Buy It and you never see the other information.

BTW, the plaintiffs here do not have to prove that this was a willful act. They just need to show that the requisite level of notice wasn't given. This may not be a question of fraud...just negligence.


----------



## tcusta00 (Dec 31, 2007)

Ken S said:


> Earl,
> 
> You can go to BestBuy.com and purchase an HR21 right now without seeing that bullet point on leasing. I posted that above. Try it for yourself. Search HR21 or DirecTV...when the search results come up you can click Buy It and you never see the other information.
> 
> BTW, the plaintiffs here do not have to prove that this was a willful act. They just need to show that the requisite level of notice wasn't given. This may not be a question of fraud...just negligence.


First bullet point on Best Buy's product page for the HR21:

"Prices shown are "lease upgrade fees." Additional $4.99/mo. lease fee applies for each DIRECTV Receiver you add. Programming commitment required. See terms."


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

Ken S said:


> Earl,
> 
> You can go to BestBuy.com and purchase an HR21 right now without seeing that bullet point on leasing. I posted that above. Try it for yourself. Search HR21 or DirecTV...when the search results come up you can click Buy It and you never see the other information.
> 
> BTW, the plaintiffs here do not have to prove that this was a willful act. They just need to show that the requisite level of notice wasn't given. This may not be a question of fraud...just negligence.


RE: BestBuy.com... so who's fault is that? DirecTV's or Best Buy's

The later question would be, if you follow through with that purchase... are you informed by DirecTV when you attempt to activate it. (which they are supposed to inform you).

As for the later part: 
But at what level of "negligence", does it warrant a full class-action settlement.... vs it being more of individual cases of where something just wasn't done right.


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

tcusta00 said:


> First bullet point on Best Buy's product page for the HR21:
> 
> "Prices shown are "lease upgrade fees." Additional $4.99/mo. lease fee applies for each DIRECTV Receiver you add. Programming commitment required. See terms."


But as he pointed out...
You can search, and add it to your shopping cart... without ever getting to that detail page.

And the checkout process at BestBuy.com doesn't make you agree that you read the details.

So there is an issue there, but who is at fault? DirecTV or BestBuy (or any retailer)

Just checked Solid Signal.COM... you can pretty much do the same thing...
If your resolution is 1024 or less, you are not going to see the notice about the lease/commitment... while you will see the click to add to cart, at that resolution


----------



## tcusta00 (Dec 31, 2007)

Earl Bonovich said:


> But as he pointed out...
> You can search, and add it to your shopping cart... without ever getting to that detail page.
> 
> And the checkout process at BestBuy.com doesn't make you agree that you read the details.
> ...


You're right, I missed that he mentioned that earlier. I wonder if there's anything in the box with that receiver that clarifies the lease... I would think that there would be something in addition to that disclosure on the website - two years ago it doesn't sound like there was, but if BB's online purchase is similar to their in-store experience described above I would think there's something in the box.


----------



## Ken S (Feb 13, 2007)

Earl Bonovich said:


> But as he pointed out...
> You can search, and add it to your shopping cart... without ever getting to that detail page.
> 
> And the checkout process at BestBuy.com doesn't make you agree that you read the details.
> ...


BestBuy is a defendant in the lawsuit as well.


----------



## Tornillo (Apr 19, 2007)

SPACEMAKER said:


> Frivilous lawsuit. This is exacly why I am glad that D* is looking to weed out stupid subs.


You must be kidding?


----------



## Ken S (Feb 13, 2007)

Earl Bonovich said:


> RE: BestBuy.com... so who's fault is that? DirecTV's or Best Buy's
> 
> The later question would be, if you follow through with that purchase... are you informed by DirecTV when you attempt to activate it. (which they are supposed to inform you).
> 
> ...


There doesn't have to be any level of negligence for a settlement. If DirecTV believes they should settle and the plaintiffs and judge agree on the settlement offer then it is done.

The minimum number of cases needed to qualify as a class action. This isn't my area of law. If I remember back to law school I think the number was around 40. It may have been set by federal statute a couple of years back to 100...but that's just a guess. There are other legal requirements as well like a minimum amount of the suit and "diversity". I'll not get into that area now because it's Sunday night and people have to wake up tomorrow morning.


----------



## mtnsackett (Aug 22, 2007)

jimmyv2000 said:


> what i don't understand if these are"LEASE BOXES" then why is e-bay and craigs list allowing the private sale(NON DEALER) of these on thier sites.If they may not be able to be activated.


Some Boxes are owned like mine I have 2 hd dvrs and a r15 and a d11 so I can sell them online if i wanted to. however when you lease your reciever and do not send it back when disconnecting it they hit you with a non return fee that makes the box yours. so then the person who got the Ird on Ebay has to talk to D* and get them to make that a owned Ird, and buy a smart card to make it work on their account. used to work for them not long ago


----------



## mtnsackett (Aug 22, 2007)

alexjb12 said:


> Effective early last year, ALL receivers purchased after (can't find the date) must be returned back to DIRECTV after you terminate their services.


it was in march of 2006 not sure the exact day


----------



## Pink Fairy (Dec 28, 2006)

March 1st


----------



## Grentz (Jan 10, 2007)

Just to add to the comments I guess, last week when I got my HR21...

The CSR nor the Installer told me it was going to be leased. The CSR said I was "getting a discounted price over retail of $799" and that it was a current special. She never used the word lease. The only place I could physically see it was leased was in the micro print on the back of the install form you sign and it was among about 10 other paragraphs of micro print outlining other things.

I know it all comes down to the CSR, they are human, but I am just saying so those that are talking about how could you not know! understand where some others are coming from. I personally did know though, as I frequent sites like DBSTalk and TivoCommunity quite a bit.


Its hard though, when does the consumer handholding get the line drawn. Its kinda like the whole idea of having to post huge nutritional facts boards at McDonalds, but then protestors still claim they are too small. Or the tons and tons of safety codes there are out there for everything from steps to electrical wiring. Where is the line drawn in customer awareness?


----------



## convem24 (Mar 11, 2007)

I agree with Earl on his comment about retailers not being trained 100% on lease. I will be honest since I no longer work in that position anymore. I worked for another company training Best Buy and other retail partners for D*. We came in when it was going from owned to lease. I did not necessarily agree with it but the fact that D* could be a more profitable business model made sense both for consumers and D* itself. Again I think it has been said a million times, how would you like to pay full replacement for a receiver? Or how was that owned HR10-250 doing now since it does not work with the new HD system. I have friends who had leased HR10-250s (yes some were under the lease system since they were available until about Nov. of 06) and got HR20s for free with installation. The whole of point of lease was two fold. To help D* to be more profitable and to take care of equipment issues better (replace, upgrade if needed, typically a nominal cost was applied). I would like them move further with lease and let people transfer equipment to other accounts or apply previously paid amounts to upgrading from certain equipment (HD boxes or DVRs) to HD-DVRs. I have an R15 I would love to upgrade to an HR21 for $99. That would give me 3 HD-DVRs now but I might even take an H21 instead for exchange. I think that would serve the customer better.


----------



## JLucPicard (Apr 27, 2004)

I understand that part of this situation here is the idea of ownership versus having to return the boxes, but I kind of get a chuckle about the commitment aspect of this. By the time anything is settled in any courts, I would imagine the commitment periods for most of the people who weren't informed (and giving time for DirecTV to get some of the informational kinks worked out) will be over with and unless they've acquired equipment later, their commitments from two years ago will no longer be an issue.


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

I got my receivers from DIRECTV directly, all via calling in .. Each time it was made clear to me that (1) it was a lease and (2) that there was a commitment term.

For the installation, each time I had to sign paperwork that stated the equipment I was getting was a lease.


----------



## Kheldar (Sep 5, 2004)

Doug Brott said:


> I got my receivers from DIRECTV directly, all via calling in .. Each time it was made clear to me that (1) it was a lease and (2) that there was a commitment term.
> 
> For the installation, each time I had to sign paperwork that stated the equipment I was getting was a lease.


True, but in the case of Best Buy, for existing customers, the customers are allowed to walk out of the store with the receivers and do a self-install. So, there is no installer with paperwork to sign. In this case, it is Best Buy that needs to convey the lease program information, and (to cover their own butts) get a signature.


----------



## joe diamond (Feb 28, 2007)

Tom Robertson said:


> my bad, mea culpa.
> 
> Cheers,
> Tom


Ah Tom......mea culpa?

Latin eh? How about the English speaking tech who insists the Spanish speaking cx signs da paper?

Joe


----------



## Kheldar (Sep 5, 2004)

joe diamond said:


> Ah Tom......mea culpa?
> 
> Latin eh? How about the English speaking tech who insists the Spanish speaking cx signs da paper?
> 
> Joe


I don't know if all techs carry them, but the lease agreement is available both in English and Spanish.


----------



## dhaakenson (Jan 14, 2007)

It'll be interesting to see how this turns out. DTV's agreement stipulates that customers give up their rights to band together and file as a class. Various states have upheld these clauses, though California has not in some cases, where the court has ruled that such clauses are null and void, even if a customer has signed an agreement that includes them.

It's true that Best Buy now has permanent text in its DTV displays that show the receivers are leased. Yet, even the size of this text can be the basis of legal action, if the text is deemed to small. Example of previous action against DTV on the size of this text:

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

As for me, I definitely "purchased" my HR20 at Best Buy. The box has no lease sticker on it. There is nothing inside the box, nothing on the receipt, no one talked to me when I purchased it. And, DTV let me install it myself, and reimbursed me for the entire cost of the "purchase" since I've been a customer since 1994. This occurred in late 2006 when the HR20 was in short supply. Suffice to say, since no installer ever came to my house, so I never signed any document, nor have I ever seen one. When I phoned to activate the receiver, no one told me I was activating a 2-year lease. As Earl suggests, DTV can sift through its audio recordings and find mine if it likes. Yet, when I phoned DTV a few months later to cancel service due to the incredibly unstable HR20 software and my device's inability to consistently perform its basic function (record and play television), I was told I was under a lease agreement and it would cost hundreds of dollars to escape.

Say what you will, but I think DTV is definitely vulnerable in this case. It doesn't matter if other class action cases only produce 18 cents for each plaintiff. This case seems different, as the law firm seeks "recovery of all lease fees paid, and a judgment declaring that DirecTV's purported lease is invalid."


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

Pink Fairy said:


> <..>
> It is for the programming to be mirrored to that secondary receiver.
> 
> <...>


You don't know economics for the process - anyway, the $4.99/month/IRD is high ripoff compare to real cost of one field in DB and one time spend a few seconds of operator's work.


----------



## CJTE (Sep 18, 2007)

dhaakenson said:


> As for me, I definitely "purchased" my HR20 at Best Buy.


Since you haven't given us a D.O.P., and best buy doesnt sell owned receivers, I'm going to assume you're incorrect.

Thanks for playing.


----------



## YoungMan (Sep 23, 2007)

*I LOVE D*, there is no service that comes close to it. 
BUT YOUR FORGETTING---IT'S ALL ABOUT THE MONEY, THE CUSTOMER IS SECONDARY!*


----------



## finaldiet (Jun 13, 2006)

SPACEMAKER said:


> I'd like to apologize for calling some of you "effing morons." I should have just kept that to myself.


AS humans, we OFTEN speak before we think. which causes a lot of problems. I know as I'm guilty myself. Shows good character that you know you made a mistake and apologized.


----------



## mikewolf13 (Jan 31, 2006)

Earl Bonovich said:


> RE: BestBuy.com... so who's fault is that? DirecTV's or Best Buy's
> 
> The later question would be, if you follow through with that purchase... are you informed by DirecTV when you attempt to activate it. (which they are supposed to inform you).
> 
> ...


That is why Both BB and DTV are named defendants. Whose fault is it? There is not doubt that the information is out there. But unless the only way the disclosure can go unread is the willful refusal by the customer the question becomes is the disclosure "effective"

Also is the disclosure thorough enough. Are consumers told not just that their transaction is a lease not a purchase, but what that means?

And as Earl pointed out the lawsuit does not necessarily cover the disclosure practices now, but at some point so BIG flyers at bestbuy may be protect them now but what about the last 24 months?

I think BB is at bigger risk than DTV...but we all know how inconsistent DTV CSRs are. If a sample of activation recordings are reviewed and the disclosure was NOT READ a large percentage of the time (how large is a jury question) then it will be easy to argue the disclosures are not effective since DTV often failed to do so.

No subscribers are gonna get rich, if anything they would be granted the right to keep the boxes and void their committments, since that is the only true damages they suffered. This makes them whole by giving them what they thought they were buying.

CA suits don't make consumers rich but they help protect consumers.

ALso, having not read the suit, I don't know how much "negligence" is a part of it. They could be alleging unfair and deceptive business practices which are much more deliberate than negligent.


----------



## mikewolf13 (Jan 31, 2006)

Ken S said:


> photostudent,
> 
> DirecTV gets a great benefit from getting those receivers back. Remember even with their churn rate at all time lows...there are three million leaving the service each year. Those receivers are no longer lost to the garbage dump or someone's closet. They are "refurbed" and put back into use. This could be a huge savings. Chase Carey spoke of this effect during a recent conference call. They felt the real impact of the savings would begin mid 2008.
> 
> There is nothing wrong with this plan. They just need to do a better job of informing customers.


Ken, correct me if I 'm wrong,but isn't a huge benefit of the lease program simply that DTV still owns the asset and can keep it on the balance sheet and depreciate it, instead of it being purely sunk cost?


----------



## convem24 (Mar 11, 2007)

Kheldar said:


> True, but in the case of Best Buy, for existing customers, the customers are allowed to walk out of the store with the receivers and do a self-install. So, there is no installer with paperwork to sign. In this case, it is Best Buy that needs to convey the lease program information, and (to cover their own butts) get a signature.


Kheldar, to your point Best Buy earlier in the Spring of 07 (about a year after lease started) they required signature capture that you understood that the boxes are leased. If you as a consumer signs it you are held to lease. I have a feeling if some of the individuals who were under class action bought from Best Buy during the time with the signature capture and information on lease (its on the sign screen and the receipt) then Best Buy is off the hook. Circuit City required the same thing. It will be interesting if the judge on some of these claims actually throws it out. I used to work with the Consumer Electronics channel for D* and dealt with a lot of confusion from sales associates on why there was a charge for the boxes and why the consumer got nothing back after they left. We shall see how this changes if anything on how D* deals with lease.


----------



## ddrumman2004 (Mar 28, 2007)

I haven't read every post in this thread but I think the lease plan needs revising.

When we subscribed to HD, the DirecTV installer( not a sub contractor) told us we were "buying" the H20-100 receiver and removed the leased Hughes SD receiver it was replacing only to find out through the great help on this site that we are in fact leasing the H20!


----------



## tcusta00 (Dec 31, 2007)

mikewolf13 said:


> Ken, correct me if I 'm wrong,but isn't a huge benefit of the lease program simply that DTV still owns the asset and can keep it on the balance sheet and depreciate it, instead of it being purely sunk cost?


Yup, and with new depreciation rules it's even more advantageous. You know D* had paid lobbyists on the hill fighting for that one!


----------



## Lee L (Aug 15, 2002)

I can't really vote as I don't agree with the Lawsuit per se, but I think the way the current program is set up is not very smart or well thought out on DirecTV's part. They are charging too much for the "lease" program for many people not to think they are purchasing the box outright and then they do not do enough to let them know what they are signing. 

As far as the HR10 people with misregistered receivers, I can happen as it took me quite some time and several calls to get them change one of my HR10's to own when I bought it in February of 2006 (leasing started 3/2006).

Funny how many of DirecTV's changes of the last few years have caused confusion in the buying pulic. Now, DirecTV could assume that most of the US population is stupid (and lots of times, I might even agree with that) or they could see that as a sign that maybe they should think things through and plan a little better.


----------



## MIMOTech (Sep 11, 2006)

For me the questions is:

Is this an up front lease payment and what does it cover? Should it be considered a deposit and returned at end of subscription? DTV does not tell us why we pay this up front cost. I do think that they could be more upfront on how this money is used and the reasoning. Like most all of you I pay this cost and just let it go by with out question. Maybe this law suite will explain a few things. When you lease a car the cost is explained up front. With the current method D* went from selling to leasing without explaining the where and why of the cost.


----------



## mhayes70 (Mar 21, 2006)

This is why everything cost so much. Everyone getting sue happy. This is the stupidest thing I heard this month! Directv clearly states when you get there service that it IS leased and you MUST return it when you cancel the service. If you want to purchase the box you can you just have to pay the full price for it.


----------



## Herdfan (Mar 18, 2006)

The problem both BB and D* are going to have is that when the lease program first started, there was VERY LITTLE DISCLOSURE. There were no stickers on the box, no agreements about the lease and little CRS information was provided to the customer.


----------



## raott (Nov 23, 2005)

mhayes70 said:


> This is why everything cost so much. Everyone getting sue happy. This is the stupidest thing I heard this month! Directv clearly states when you get there service that it IS leased and you MUST return it when you cancel the service. If you want to purchase the box you can you just have to pay the full price for it.


The lawsuit is about people not being told. There are at least two posters in this thread alone, and I have no reason to doubt them, who were not told anything about the lease - so how can you categorically state that Directv clearly states the lease.


----------



## tcusta00 (Dec 31, 2007)

raott said:


> The lawsuit is about people not being told. There are at least two posters in this thread alone, and I have no reason to doubt them, who were not told anything about the lease - so how can you categorically state that Directv clearly states the lease.


And therein lies the problem. There are clearly two sides to this "debate" and neither side should be quick to judge the other.


----------



## mhayes70 (Mar 21, 2006)

raott said:


> The lawsuit is about people not being told. There are at least two posters in this thread alone, and I have no reason to doubt them, who were not told anything about the lease - so how can you categorically state that Directv clearly states the lease.


IIRC, I think it is in the paperwork you sign when you get the receiver. I had been with a couple of friends that got Directv installed and they were told by the installer and I think they pointed it out on the agreement they signed. I would have to dig out my old paperwork to double check.


----------



## tcusta00 (Dec 31, 2007)

mhayes70 said:


> IIRC, I think it is in the paperwork you sign when you get the receiver. I had been with a couple of friends that got Directv installed and they were told by the installer and I think they pointed it out on the agreement they signed. I would have to dig out my old paperwork to double check.


But the point is that everyone is not treated the same way. YOU may have gotten a contract and signed it but the guy that bought his at Best Buy two years ago may not have. You have to see the bigger picture outside of your own experience.


----------



## raott (Nov 23, 2005)

mhayes70 said:


> IIRC, I think it is in the paperwork you sign when you get the receiver. I had been with a couple of friends that got Directv installed and they were told by the installer and I think they pointed it out on the agreement they signed. I would have to dig out my old paperwork to double check.


Purchasing a receiver from best buy would not require an installation - best buy is named as a defendant as well. So again, two posters stated that they did not get notice, your experience may have been difference. However, seemingly there are enough that a law firm is willing to take on the huge expense of a class action lawsuit.


----------



## mhayes70 (Mar 21, 2006)

tcusta00 said:


> But the point is that everyone is not treated the same way. YOU may have gotten a contract and signed it but the guy that bought his at Best Buy two years ago may not have. You have to see the bigger picture outside of your own experience.


I do. I have purchase receiver from Best Buy and on Ebay and was told then that it was leased and I had to activate the receiver within 30 days by calling Directv and was also told by them that is was leased.

I agree that the saleman or woman at Best Buy or wherever they got it at may have not told them that it was leased. But, that is no reason for a lawsuit.


----------



## mikewolf13 (Jan 31, 2006)

Herdfan said:


> The problem both BB and D* are going to have is that when the lease program first started, there was VERY LITTLE DISCLOSURE. There were no stickers on the box, no agreements about the lease and little CRS information was provided to the customer.


Additionally, they systematicaly can't tell what unit is sold or leased. IF you can prove you paid $700 for your box, (ask lots of weaknees customers) they will mark it as sold. This means that a retailer has the apparent authority to sell the box and not just sell a "lease upgrade".

So if a retailer or installer tells you that the box is purchased, and DTV CSR's fail to properly disclose.(cause they always do what they are suppossed to, then a consumer has every right to expect they own the box.


----------



## tcusta00 (Dec 31, 2007)

mhayes70 said:


> I agree that the saleman or woman at Best Buy or wherever they got it at may have not told them that it was leased. But, that is no reason for a lawsuit.


If they weren't told about it and it was no where in the paperwork they have no reason to recoup damages?? :nono2:


----------



## mhayes70 (Mar 21, 2006)

tcusta00 said:


> If they weren't told about it and it was no where in the paperwork they have no reason to recoup damages?? :nono2:


What damages?? You got an HD DVR (let's say) for $399.00 leased or pay $799.00 if you purchased it. When you purchase it and something goes wrong with it outside your 90 day warranty then you have to pay to repair it or buy another one. But, with the lease as long as you have it and something goes wrong with it they will replace it. You just have to return it when you cancel your service and they pay for the shipping.


----------



## Draconis (Mar 16, 2007)

hankmack said:


> Isn't this the same as leasing an automobile. You have to pay money down, monthly, maintenance and finally return it.


I have never leased a car, so I do not know if the comparison is valid.


----------



## mikewolf13 (Jan 31, 2006)

raott said:


> Purchasing a receiver from best buy would not require an installation - best buy is named as a defendant as well. So again, two posters stated that they did not get notice, your experience may have been difference. However, seemingly there are enough that a law firm is willing to take on the huge expense of a class action lawsuit.


+1

That law firm will get NOTHING up front, so they obviously think there is some merit to the case.

THe important result is changing the corporation's behavior...if you found out Corp ABC was deliberatey overbilling you $1 a month, it would not be worth a lawsuit for you. BUt if $20 people are losing $1/month....much bigger stakes for them but stuill $12/year for you...

Not enough people will ever sue over $12 to change the corps behavior.

Not enough people would ever sue individually to make sure DTV have effective disclosure, effective tracking over what is and isn't leased/sold, or effective communication over committments.

Let's say the extra $$$ brought in over early-termination fees from those who did not know they had a committment outweighed the cost of individual lawsuits brought over disclosure of the 2 years committment. (I am not saying it does..-just hypothetical), should DTV, simply stop disclosing?

The risks of a potential CA lawsuit often keeps companies from doing thing that otherwise may be an acceptable risk.


----------



## gregjones (Sep 20, 2007)

Ken S said:


> I purchased three HR20s from Crutchfield in March of 2007. There was no mention of a lease in the information about the device or within the box. The documents that came inside of my box called it a purchase. They then later tried to call them a lease.
> 
> I noticed that later in 2007 they started putting stickers on the boxes...so, obviously, someone there thought additional notice was necessary.
> 
> ...


Should Crutchfield be the company sued in this instance? I picked up a number of receivers from BestBuy over a long period of time. The leases were always very clear.


----------



## gregjones (Sep 20, 2007)

tcusta00 said:


> But the point is that everyone is not treated the same way. YOU may have gotten a contract and signed it but the guy that bought his at Best Buy two years ago may not have. You have to see the bigger picture outside of your own experience.


Since the paperwork is the sticking point, the blame seems to lie with the retailers. I'm not trying to defend DirecTV on this one, but it seems the retailers are handing people boxes without clear documentation. This more than likely puts those retailers in violation of the resale agreement with DirecTV.

Here's an analogy. You purchase a stereo from a neighbor for a deal. The police call two weeks later to tell you that the stereo you bought was stolen and must be returned to the rightful owner. Do you blame the legal owner or the neighbor that sold you equipment he did not own outright?


----------



## tcusta00 (Dec 31, 2007)

mhayes70 said:


> What damages?? You got an HD DVR (let's say) for $399.00 leased or pay $799.00 if you purchased it. When you purchase it and something goes wrong with it outside your 90 day warranty then you have to pay to repair it or buy another one. But, with the lease as long as you have it and something goes wrong with it they will replace it. You just have to return it when you cancel your service and they pay for the shipping.


The damages in this case are that the receiver is marked as leased on the account instead of owned. The person (hypothetically, now) thought it was a purchase. The damages to be awarded most likely will be that the receiver will be moved from the lease category to the own category. Not all damages are monetary.

And we're not talking about the warranty here either so there's really no need to bring it up. But since you did, the warranty of a lease and an owned unit, in theory, are identical. The customer is technically responsible for repairs to either unit after the warranty is up. Now, what DirecTV is actually doing in practice is obviously different, but the written policy is the same. We all know D* applies policies very liberally.


----------



## Draconis (Mar 16, 2007)

On the topic of notifying the customers about the lease, I obtained the majority of my receivers before March 1st 2006 so they are owned. The HR20-700 is the only receiver on my account that was added after the lease program started. 

When I purchased the unit at Costco there was a sticker on the box stating that the unit was leased. The CSR who activated the box also told me about the lease when it was activated. So there was no misinformation about the lease when I got the new unit.


----------



## mikewolf13 (Jan 31, 2006)

hankmack said:


> Isn't this the same as leasing an automobile. You have to pay money down, monthly, maintenance and finally return it.


Is that an open or closed auto-lease? Or is it like leasing an apartment? Does Lease always mean the same thing?

Most auto leases ,your monthly payments are based on the difference between the price, and the residual value of the car. t eh end of the term you have option to buy at the residual price.

Let's say the Purchase price of the HR21 is $700 and the Residual value =0 If you pay $200 and pay $4.99 you should be able to purchas at the end of 100 months for the residual value of $0...

THat's not how it works..so no, it's not like an auto lease.

Also Purchasing the unit does not eliminate the $4.99 monthly fee it's simply called a mirroring fee. Why do leased units not have mirroring fees? they only have lease fees.

That would be like buying your leased car at the end of the term, and still paying for the lease. so again it's not like an auto-lease.


----------



## tcusta00 (Dec 31, 2007)

gregjones said:


> Here's an analogy. You purchase a stereo from a neighbor for a deal. The police call two weeks later to tell you that the stereo you bought was stolen and must be returned to the rightful owner. Do you blame the legal owner or the neighbor that sold you equipment he did not own outright?


I'm sorry, but that's just a bad analogy - the neighbor isn't acting as the authorized agent of the owner. Best Buy is acting as the AUTHORIZED agent of D*.

Anyway, it doesn't much matter because Best Buy _is_ indeed a named defendant in the lawsuit too.


----------



## raott (Nov 23, 2005)

gregjones said:


> Since the paperwork is the sticking point, the blame seems to lie with the retailers. I'm not trying to defend DirecTV on this one, but it seems the retailers are handing people boxes without clear documentation. This more than likely puts those retailers in violation of the resale agreement with DirecTV.
> 
> Here's an analogy. You purchase a stereo from a neighbor for a deal. The police call two weeks later to tell you that the stereo you bought was stolen and must be returned to the rightful owner. Do you blame the legal owner or the neighbor that sold you equipment he did not own outright?


The analogy doesn't work. The ultimate difference is that retailers are acting as D*'s agent, therefore D* is ultimately responsible.


----------



## mikewolf13 (Jan 31, 2006)

For the record. I abstained in the poll, because although I do not believe this to be a frivolous lawsuit, it is impossible for me to say that is was a "bad pusiness practice" as oppossed to poor execution.

I have no issue with the lease plan at face value..but the comunication of the disclosures is still pretty bad..how many posts here have we seen of people not knowing they were ented into a 2 year committment?

A lawsuits not getting kicked for being frivolous unless, if all facts are accepted as the plaintiff states and there still is no valid claim.

I think it's clear that's not gonna happen.


----------



## jjkoe3 (Feb 7, 2008)

mhayes70 said:


> What damages?? You got an HD DVR (let's say) for $399.00 leased or pay $799.00 if you purchased it. When you purchase it and something goes wrong with it outside your 90 day warranty then you have to pay to repair it or buy another one. But, with the lease as long as you have it and something goes wrong with it they will replace it. You just have to return it when you cancel your service and they pay for the shipping.


The difference is that they are charging what was normally the price of a DVR leading people to believe they are purchasing. Then the lease charge appears on your bill. This happened to me also and I bought via CSR. They never disclosed it was a lease and since I spoke to 3 different CSR's trying to get the best price, I have to believe their omission was intentional.

I wasn't home when the installer came, so I don't know what my wife signed. I'm sure it was a lease agreement. I don't really care about the $5 or whatever it is so much as the underhanded way they are doing it.

As for the leasing a car analogy, I would love to hear from someone who paid for +25% of a car's total value and then made monthly lease payments on top and returned it in 2-3 years.


----------



## tcusta00 (Dec 31, 2007)

jjkoe3 said:


> I wasn't home when the installer came, so I don't know what my wife signed. I'm sure it was a lease agreement. I don't really care about the $5 or whatever it is so much as the underhanded way they are doing it.
> 
> As for the leasing a car analogy, I would love to hear from someone who paid for +25% of a car's total value and then made monthly lease payments on top and returned it in 2-3 years.


you're going to pay $5 either way, in the form of a mirror fee if you own it or a lease fee if you lease it.

A person leasing a car can easily put down 25% of a car's value and make monthly lease payments and it could still be a good deal for him. It will just reduce the capitalized costs and reduce the lease payments - the total cost of the lease is still going to be the same, actually less because the "financed" amount will be less. But that's neither here nor there because this is not the same as a car lease - it's not an accurate comparison. You don't make payments on your receiver box - it's a one-time charge.


----------



## ddrumman2004 (Mar 28, 2007)

Ratara said:


> On the topic of notifying the customers about the lease, I obtained the majority of my receivers before March 1st 2006 so they are owned. The HR20-700 is the only receiver on my account that was added after the lease program started.
> 
> ./QUOTE]
> 
> ...


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

ddrumman2004 said:


> So am I to assume that the two SD receivers that we have had since 2004 are owned by us? If so, then why did the installer take the SD receiver we replaced with the H20?
> 
> Maybe they should charge a "deposit" that covers the price of the receiver, then charge a lease fee and refund the deposit after account termination, based on the condition of the returned unit.
> 
> Who needs receivers that don't work after closing an account?


If the installer removed them, without asking, he ended up taking your possession, most likely accidentally. Many installers will ask if you want receivers and if not, they will dispose of them for you--on eBay. 

Yet, that is a win-win. I don't have a disposal fee and Mrs. Tibber doesn't have to see another unit stacked in the garage, attic, closet, under the bed, etc. 

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## say-what (Dec 14, 2006)

So here's the big question? Whether it's a lease or purchase, what are the real damages? The cost to the consumer hasn't really changed, the only difference is having to return the units upon deactivation of the equipment and the inability to recover some nominal amount via a resale of the now used equipment.

As they say, anyone can sue and they can ask for the world when they file - bottom line is whether they will be successful and what will be the "real" remedy. Only time will tell.


----------



## tcusta00 (Dec 31, 2007)

say-what said:


> As they say, anyone can sue and they can ask for the world when they file - bottom line is whether they will be successful and what will be the "real" remedy. Only time will tell.


The remedy that makes the most sense to me, and probably what they're asking for in damages, is to change the ownership from leased to owned. I really don't see how any punitive damages can be awarded but then again I'm not a lawyer


----------



## jacmyoung (Sep 9, 2006)

After reading just the first few posts I decided to jump in.

First off, as I understand class action suits for the most part do not aim to compensate the consumers, rather a tool to make sure proper business practices. Yes lawyers make most out of any settlement first, but if they don't no class actions will be able to proceed because lawyers in these cases are never guaranteed pay, only when a lot of resources put into them, and only if a settlement is reached. So let's put things in perspective here.

Secondly, I think the sticking point in this is the fact DirecTV has always charged an upfront fee for the "lease". And in the beginning at least the consumers were not fully informed. Keep in mind that traditionally people understood DBS subs had always owned the equipment by paying upfront, and cable subs rented and did not pay upfront.

So when many cable subs switched to DBS in large numbers, they assumed they owned because they had to pay upfront. It is undeniable that both E* but particularly D* in the past did not do a good job of making sure the consumers understood the rules. They have since made a lot of improvements in this area, which is an indication that their past practice was inadequate.

I have said it all along such policy of charging upfront fee for a "lease" would get them into trouble, no matter how clearly you warn the consumers, much less when you don't even make much effort to warn people because obviously you don't want to discourage people from buying your service.

Not being a lawyer, my guess is DirecTV will settle without admitting any wrong doing, and so we can move on. Maybe we will all get a few months of lease fee waived or receive a few free PPV coupons. But make no mistake about it, when DirecTV tried to compete with cable by transitioning from own to lease, they did a poor job of informing (for fear of discouraging) the consumers, as a result they gained a huge # of subs from cable and other services in the past few years. Had they made a point of letting everyone know without any doubt that they did not own anything and must return anything they paid upfront, I am pretty sure it would have dampened the sub additions. So DirecTV did benefit from their less-than-forthcoming policy, and therefore should bear the risk too. There is no free lunch.


----------



## Slip Jigs (Oct 20, 2006)

say-what said:


> So here's the big question? Whether it's a lease or purchase, what are the real damages? The cost to the consumer hasn't really changed, the only difference is having to return the units upon deactivation of the equipment and the inability to revover some nominal amount via a resale of the now used equipment.
> 
> As they say, anyone can sue and they can ask for the world when they file - bottom line is whether they will be successful and what will be the "real" remedy. Only time will tell.


Thank you! I didn't read every page of the whole thread, but this was the first post I saw that talked about actual damages.

And it seems the only possible damages there would be is whatever the resale value of the unit is as it's no good without the service.

I'm a bit surpised that this would even be in a class action - I would think there would be other things that are more class actionalbe, like early termination fees, quality of service, etc.


----------



## jahgreen (Dec 15, 2006)

Here are my 2 (or a few more) cents:

1. I don't understand the posters who complain about paying 199 (or 299) and then paying a lease fee. In 2004, when I _bought _two receivers on joining DirecTV, I was charged a 4.99 mirroring fee for the second receiver. Today, if someone leases just ONE HR20, do they pay any additional fee after the upfront payment? Isn't the additional charge the same as the mirroring fee? (I know that DirecTV now calls it a "lease" fee, which I don't understand, but it makes no difference in the cost to a subscriber). The upfront payment, amortized over the life of the commitment (or longer), is the leasing fee. How does that compare with, say, Comcast's monthly lease fee?

2. I don't understand the posters who state that it can't be a lease because DirecTV won't replace a defective HR20 that is leased.. Doesn't DirecTV replace any defective box (subject to the S&H fee)?

3. This case may have difficulties at the class certification stage. Determining who is a member of the class may be cost-prohibitive. For each putative class member there is a question of whether they signed lease documentation. That kind of individualized fact determination can be fatal to a class action.

4. The case may have to go to arbitration in light of the DirecTV customer agreement's arbitration clause.

5. The potential damages are at best very small, if not nonexistent. And to the extent that DirecTV has cleaned up the process so it is clearly denominated a lease, what corporate behavior can be changed as a result of the action?

6. On the question of ordering online from Best Buy--what happens if you actually click through and _finish _the purchase? Do you get some confirmation that it's a lease?


----------



## GBFAN (Nov 13, 2006)

All I can say is I like my DirecTV service and have no problem returning the equipment. By the time I return my equipment I will no longer have a use for it unless you can get service in the afterlife.


----------



## mikewolf13 (Jan 31, 2006)

jahgreen said:


> Here are my 2 (or a few more) cents:
> 
> 1. I don't understand the posters who complain about paying 199 (or 299) and then paying a lease fee. In 2004, when I _bought _two receivers on joining DirecTV, I was charged a 4.99 mirroring fee for the second receiver. Today, if someone leases just ONE HR20, do they pay any additional fee after the upfront payment? Isn't the additional charge the same as the mirroring fee? (I know that DirecTV now calls it a "lease" fee, which I don't understand, but it makes no difference in the cost to a subscriber). The upfront payment, amortized over the life of the commitment (or longer), is the leasing fee. How does that compare with, say, Comcast's monthly lease fee?
> 
> ...


1. it's not relevant what you or other pay or have paid. 
2. I believe lease boxes are replaced for the shipping fee
3. It is easy to determine all those that purchased the DVR and are potential memebers of the class..whether that class has a claim is a question of evidence
4. maybe
5. The damages are simply the ownership of the box.for the customer that may be of little value but if DTV lost the "ownership" of a significant number of boxes and therefore the depreciation on those boxes..that's a big impact to the bottom line...That's whythey switched to a lease program. there may also be a claim that disclosures were also ineffective regarding commitment and allow the plaintiffs to opt-out with-out early termination fees. 
6. Dunno. BB defense will surely be that DTV discloses at time of activation so even if their were isolated incidents were the disclosure was not effective the consumer surely was informed by DTV.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

Well said.

Rich



jacmyoung said:


> After reading just the first few posts I decided to jump in.
> 
> First off, as I understand class action suits for the most part do not aim to compensate the consumers, rather a tool to make sure proper business practices. Yes lawyers make most out of any settlement first, but if they don't no class actions will be able to proceed because lawyers in these cases are never guaranteed pay, only when a lot of resources put into them, and only if a settlement is reached. So let's put things in perspective here.
> 
> ...


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

Personally, I believe the lease option is better simply because I don't want to pay for the protection plan and a lease replacement is close enough for my satisfaction .. I didn't have that with ownership.

If I ever get invited to participate in this lawsuit, I will be opting out.


----------



## Kheldar (Sep 5, 2004)

ddrumman2004 said:


> I haven't read every post in this thread but I think the lease plan needs revising.
> 
> When we subscribed to HD, the DirecTV installer( not a sub contractor) told us we were "buying" the H20-100 receiver and removed the leased Hughes SD receiver it was replacing only to find out through the great help on this site that we are in fact leasing the H20!


Although it is not your main point, you may want to know that _all D* installers are subcontractors_. D* does not employ _any_ installers directly. However, either way, it doesn't excuse the installer giving out incorrect information. And, if you ordered D* before 3/1/2006, then you do own the receivers.


----------



## w3syt (Feb 17, 2006)

_2. I don't understand the posters who state that it can't be a lease because DirecTV won't replace a defective HR20 that is leased.. Doesn't DirecTV replace any defective box (subject to the S&H fee)? 
Quoting post #163 here._
When I leased my HR-10, I was told this. Later I was told, yes, it is true, BUT ONLY AFTER YOU PAY FOR A SERVICE CALL TO DETERMINE THAT IT NEEDS REPLACED.


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

w3syt said:


> _2. I don't understand the posters who state that it can't be a lease because DirecTV won't replace a defective HR20 that is leased.. Doesn't DirecTV replace any defective box (subject to the S&H fee)?
> Quoting post #163 here._
> When I leased my HR-10, I was told this. Later I was told, yes, it is true, BUT ONLY AFTER YOU PAY FOR A SERVICE CALL TO DETERMINE THAT IT NEEDS REPLACED.


And typically... the credit the cost of the service call (or don't bill it), if a problem is found.


----------



## srainess (Oct 29, 2007)

I just noticed on the Weaknees site "Please note that DirecTV generally considers all new equipment activated after March, 2006 to be leased equipment." Have a friend who just bought the 1TB unit for $900. Does that mean that he has to return it to DTV as well ? They're not even going to support this one, are they ??


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

srainess said:


> I just noticed on the Weaknees site "Please note that DirecTV generally considers all new equipment activated after March, 2006 to be leased equipment." Have a friend who just bought the 1TB unit for $900. Does that mean that he has to return it to DTV as well ? They're not even going to support this one, are they ??


It is still classified as a lease..
And yes, it will need to be returned to DirecTV...

Unless Weakness does the necessary steps to sell it as an OWNED unit.

That is something he will need to confirm with Weakness, as they do things that other retailers don't.

And my gosh.. $900?
$199 for the unit, and $200 for an 1TB eSATA...


----------



## srainess (Oct 29, 2007)

Earl Bonovich said:


> It is still classified as a lease..
> And yes, it will need to be returned to DirecTV...
> 
> Unless Weakness does the necessary steps to sell it as an OWNED unit.
> ...


Yeh... well actually bought it about 4 months ago... Didnt know about the availability of eSATA then. Interesting... would DirecTV take it back minus the drive..(or replace it with a blank smaller drive), not that its going back anytime soon.

I like others have a bunch of older Tivo units that are just sitting on a shelf. Have the Tivo HD unit as well, though I didnt get a 'mailer' offering me an upgrade. Wonder if its because I already purchased an HR21. DirecTV did not ask for any of the older Tivo units back. Wonder if they would ask for the Tivo HD unit if I officially disconnect it.


----------



## gsslug (Sep 13, 2006)

liverpool said:


> The only people to get rich off class action lawsuits are the lawyers.


You couldn't be more right. Over the years I've received notice of several class action lawsuits in which I was a member of the class. I remember one Wells Fargo Bank suit where the lawyers made hundreds of millions and I got 85 cents which I would have had to use a 39 cent stamp to send for.

Most recently I was notified that as a member of a class action lawsuit against Ford in which the lawyers made millions I can get a $500 certificate that can only be used to buy a new Ford product.

Sometimes these suits do stop bad behavior on the part of businesses but rarely does the consumer get anything worth while out of it.


----------



## raott (Nov 23, 2005)

Earl Bonovich said:


> It is still classified as a lease..
> And yes, it will need to be returned to DirecTV...
> 
> Unless Weakness does the necessary steps to sell it as an OWNED unit.
> ...


IIRC, the 1Tb tenbox is about $1200. Compared to that, $900 is a bargain.


----------



## tcusta00 (Dec 31, 2007)

gsslug said:


> Sometimes these suits do stop bad behavior on the part of businesses but rarely does the consumer get anything worth while out of it.


My experience has differed. I've been a class member in a few suits through the years and let's just say each one has rendered a settlement "worth my time" and effort to collect.


----------



## mhayes70 (Mar 21, 2006)

tcusta00 said:


> My experience has differed. I've been a class member in a few suits through the years and let's just say each one has rendered a settlement "worth my time" and effort to collect.


Hmmm..... Makes one wonder.


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

raott said:


> IIRC, the 1Tb tenbox is about $1200. Compared to that, $900 is a bargain.


That is just 1 eSATA solution....
Many people have built or purchased other eSATA solutions...


----------



## tcusta00 (Dec 31, 2007)

mhayes70 said:


> Hmmm..... Makes one wonder.


about?


----------



## billsharpe (Jan 25, 2007)

Earl Bonovich said:


> And typically... the credit the cost of the service call (or don't bill it), if a problem is found.


Yes, but it took them three months and a couple hours on the phone to get the credit . To add insult to injury, they charged me about $350 because the installers took away the defective HR20-700 and apparently took too long a time to get it back into DirecTV's hands.

I knew the receiver was leased when I ordered it in January 2007. What I wasn't immediately aware of was that the warranty was only 90 days.


----------



## billsharpe (Jan 25, 2007)

tcusta00 said:


> My experience has differed. I've been a class member in a few suits through the years and let's just say each one has rendered a settlement "worth my time" and effort to collect.


Agreed. I got over $250 back from Microsoft in the California settlement. I had to supple a lot of ID's for various software purchased over several years.

I've also gotten the coupons for x dollars off my next purchase a couple of times.


----------



## Herdfan (Mar 18, 2006)

jahgreen said:


> 4. The case may have to go to arbitration in light of the DirecTV customer agreement's arbitration clause.


I thought the courts ruled that D*'s arbitration clause was invalid in the Cohen case?

For those who don't know about the Cohen case, Cohen sued DirecTV for not providing him with full resolution HD even though they claimed they did. His first hurdle was to get around the arbitration clause. IIRC, that part of the case made it to an appellate level and Cohen won and the case proceeded. FYI, Tommylotto from AVS is one of the lead attorneys.

On a side note, I got a new $700 washing machine from Maytag due to a Class Action suit, so sometimes you do get something worthwhile.


----------



## l123 (Sep 18, 2007)

I see most of the posters forgot about AT&T and Judge Green with a very well reasoned decision. Back than you could have only a telephone from AT&T and after all reasons have been considered - the practice was forbidden. We now need Judge Green again.
The size of the sticker does not matter. The lease is same as a rent. The advantage to consumer is that you do not pay for whole thing but for a fraction of it. If you pay large amount of money as compared to a real price of an item, and you pay a monthly fee, which looks and does very similar thing as a maintenance agreement fee - it means it is not a lease but a scheme to harvest money.
The approximate price of those boxes is $90 - and most of those who bought them paid $199 for them. 
This is not a lease, and as in a civilized society the courts are to resolve the difference of opinions.
So far I see a frivolous defense.
And as to my private experience: I had for a long time HD receivers which I bought for a full price and they were not made by DTV. As soon as I hooked them up DTV started charging me Lease fee. They eventually removed them as they could not possibly provide any proof that I ever leased them. Few years later they started charging again the lease fee - and their agent claim that every receiver is theirs. Only the court can stop them and I am glad someone is going to resolve this.


----------



## l123 (Sep 18, 2007)

richall01 said:


> So do I get back the $3,000.00 I had to pay up front when I "lease" my BMW?!?


Your BMW price was $45,000, you paid $3000 up front to make your monthly payments lower, and you paid $350 for 4 years. This means that you paid $19,800 total.
You returned the used car and you walked away fro the car that still had about $30,000 value.
You already used what you paid for. There is no refund for you.

Now, with the DTv receiver the real price ( if it was not a monopoly) is $100, you paid for it anywhere between $199 and $400, and you pay more every month.
Do you see a difference? If you do not - I have a bridge to sell you!


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

l123 said:


> I see most of the posters forgot about AT&T and Judge Green with a very well reasoned decision. Back than you could have only a telephone from AT&T and after all reasons have been considered - the practice was forbidden. We now need Judge Green again.
> The size of the sticker does not matter. The lease is same as a rent. The advantage to consumer is that you do not pay for whole thing but for a fraction of it. If you pay large amount of money as compared to a real price of an item, and you pay a monthly fee, which looks and does very similar thing as a maintenance agreement fee - it means it is not a lease but a scheme to harvest money.
> The approximate price of those boxes is $90 - and most of those who bought them paid $199 for them.
> This is not a lease, and as in a civilized society the courts are to resolve the difference of opinions.
> ...


As an attorney, so I gather, you know being this sloppy with your statements is very poor for an argument. This statement: "The approximate price of those boxes is $90 - and most of those who bought them paid $199 for them." lacks both foundation and specifics. There are very many models under lease.

The only specifics I have details on (from DIRECTV investor releases): HR20--Hardware cost to DIRECTV per unit is hovering about $400 today expected to be below $300 by year end. Lease price today is $199, IIRC. Purchase is ~$599 now?

My example is hardly a "scheme to harvest money" in the pejorative sense you seem to imply. Yes, it is another means to legitimately balance the whole cost structure to make money for a for profit company _and_ make the units more affordable to the greater population. That is often considered a Win-Win. 

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## l123 (Sep 18, 2007)

Jhon69 said:


> DirecTV leasing receivers?.When the hell did that happen!?.:eek2:
> 
> Try March 2006.


Can you please tell how did they convert into a lease my Smasungs that I bought in 2004 and my RCAs that I got in 1999. The operative word here is MY.


----------



## tcusta00 (Dec 31, 2007)

l123 said:


> Can you please tell how did they convert into a lease my Smasungs that I bought in 2004 and my RCAs that I got in 1999. The operative word here is MY.


If they did that then you should get it corrected.


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

l123 said:


> Can you please tell how did they convert into a lease my Smasungs that I bought in 2004 and my RCAs that I got in 1999. The operative word here is MY.


They did not convert already owned receivers. There are no changes for those units.

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

l123 said:


> Your BMW price was $45,000, you paid $3000 up front to make your monthly payments lower, and you paid $350 for 4 years. This means that you paid $19,800 total.
> You returned the used car and you walked away fro the car that still had about $30,000 value.
> You already used what you paid for. There is no refund for you.
> 
> ...


Again, you are not being very helpful by using numbers without foundation (or likely even fact.) DIRECTV is not, on any receiver model for which I have specific or whispered information, leasing them for an upfront fee greater than their landed cost of the hardware, which does not include their software nor support costs.

Your BMW analysis is very good, so how about a closer to realistic version using an HR20: Price $600. (hardware cost is $400-ish). Lease price is $200. At 2 years you have paid $120, the unit still has some residual value (maybe $100?). Of that $120 you've paid, a significant portion goes to the content providers, btw--think of it as gas, oil, tires, batteries in the BMW analogy. So you've really only paid DIRECTV maybe $60-ish plus the upfront cost.

With a more correct analogy, I do not see very many differences.

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## iamqnow (Dec 26, 2007)

SPACEMAKER said:


> Frivilous lawsuit. This is exacly why I am glad that D* is looking to weed out stupid subs.


I agree. I have had some equipment problems, but never since DirecTV went to lease, was this not made clear to me. If I did cancel, I would not want the receivers anyway. And I would rather lease than pay the real cost of a new receiver.


----------



## Herdfan (Mar 18, 2006)

iamqnow said:


> And I would rather lease than pay the real cost of a new receiver.


Here is one of the areas that I think D* erred. On February 28, 2006, you could BUY an HR10 for $299. On March 1, 2006, you LEASED an HR10 for $299. The change was seemless to the consumer and I know for a fact that my local BB did not have stickers on their boxes and there was no "lease" agreement to be signed.

A car lease analogy would be that you have been buying cars for years and selling it or trading it later when you wanted a new one. But one day unbeknownst to you, a change was made. You "bought" a new car, but when it came time to get a new one, you were told you had to give back your old one and you got no trade-in value for it.

D* was and is free to operate their business as they please, but if you find my posts on this subject back in 2006, I predicted exactly what is happening now.

FTR, my other prediction is that they are going to get sued by state/county governments that assess property tax on this type of business property.


----------



## spikeit (Aug 13, 2007)

I personally think that If I went to best buy and dished out $200 for a over priced receiver then that receiver is mine. And $600 would be a complete joke. These things are barely worth the 5 bucks we give them every month. I pay for a sat service of lets say $90 a month. If I want to upgrade, you want me to go out and spend $200 on a receiver to receive your service and also pay a lease fee. Then return it when I close out my account. They must have a good old laugh down a the local cable company.

Bring on the law suit


----------



## Ken S (Feb 13, 2007)

Tom Robertson said:


> Again, you are not being very helpful by using numbers without foundation (or likely even fact.) DIRECTV is not, on any receiver model for which I have specific or whispered information, leasing them for an upfront fee greater than their landed cost of the hardware, which does not include their software nor support costs.
> 
> Your BMW analysis is very good, so how about a closer to realistic version using an HR20: Price $600. (hardware cost is $400-ish). Lease price is $200. At 2 years you have paid $120, the unit still has some residual value (maybe $100?). Of that $120 you've paid, a significant portion goes to the content providers, btw--think of it as gas, oil, tires, batteries in the BMW analogy. So you've really only paid DIRECTV maybe $60-ish plus the upfront cost.
> 
> ...


Tom,

This lawsuit is not about whether DirecTV should be able to lease receivers. They can.

The analogy with car leases only works if you compare the process.

Anyone that leases a car is fully aware that they are not purchasing that vehicle. They sign a lease agreement and are made well aware of the lease payments and term of the lease. They also have a distinct option to purchase the vehicle rather than lease. I'm sure there are some disreputable car dealers, but for the most part people leasing a vehicle are given ample information about the major points of the lease (term, upfront cost, monthly payment and return date).

The plaintiffs in the DirecTV case are claiming that DirecTV and Best Buy (I expect others will be named as well) did not make it clear to consumers that they were leasing the receivers and that they would have to be returned if they canceled the DirecTV service.

This type of problem isn't exactly unheard of when it comes to DirecTV. It was only about two years ago they had to pay $5 million in a settlement with a number of state Attorney Generals. Being that this is an election year I'd venture a guess that DirecTV may face more AG investigations should this class action case start to get some real publicity.


----------



## tcusta00 (Dec 31, 2007)

spikeit said:


> I personally think that If I went to best buy and dished out $200 for a over priced receiver then that receiver is mine. And $600 would be a complete joke. These things are barely worth the 5 bucks we give them every month. I pay for a sat service of lets say $90 a month. If I want to upgrade, you want me to go out and spend $200 on a receiver to receive your service and also pay a lease fee. Then return it when I close out my account. They must have a good old laugh down a the local cable company.
> 
> Bring on the law suit


I dished out $200 for my HR21 and knew it was a lease and haven't regretted it for a second. And I'd do it again too if given the chance.


----------



## tuff bob (Mar 5, 2007)

ThomasM said:


> Suddenly, this "lease" program began. And ALL new equipment was unavailable "for sale". Plus, you got socked with a PROGRAMMING COMMITMENT. To add to the confusion, instead of requiring customers to get their equipment from DirecTV or an authorized installer, you could STILL "buy" the equipment at various retail stores.


and the price of the equipment really didn't change that much - top of the line receivers were still several hundred dollars - other than car leasing, no other business operates in this way - and car leasing is for a fixed period/amount of usage. You don't "lease" a cell phone or a "cable box".


----------



## Jhon69 (Mar 28, 2006)

jacmyoung said:


> After reading just the first few posts I decided to jump in.
> 
> First off, as I understand class action suits for the most part do not aim to compensate the consumers, rather a tool to make sure proper business practices. Yes lawyers make most out of any settlement first, but if they don't no class actions will be able to proceed because lawyers in these cases are never guaranteed pay, only when a lot of resources put into them, and only if a settlement is reached. So let's put things in perspective here.
> 
> ...


Excellent post.I totally agree.


----------



## Thaedron (Jun 29, 2007)

davring said:


> I haven't followed this lease/own discussion much in the past, and I'm sure this comparison has been brought up before. I have leased cars in the past, paid an up front fee and returned them at the end of the contract with no cash refund. It looks like the same business model to me.


The challenge for DirecTV comes in that it's a different model than the "leasing" (renting?) that you do for cable boxes, etc... Where I work, we don't buy servers anymore, everything is leased. There is no upfront cost, the entire lease fee is distributed across the 36 month duration of the lease. I understand the car leasing analogy, but it is only one example.


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

Ken S said:


> Tom,
> 
> This lawsuit is not about whether DirecTV should be able to lease receivers. They can.
> 
> ...


In my comment that you quoted, I was making the point that very incorrect DIRECTV prices used in the analogy. And trying to fix the analogy.

To your points about buyer knowledge, I hope I've indicated that I agree there are valid circumstances where customers might not have seen the lease agreement information or otherwise been totally unaware of the lease process thru no fault of their own.

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## Thaedron (Jun 29, 2007)

Tom Robertson said:


> Again, you are not being very helpful by using numbers without foundation (or likely even fact.) DIRECTV is not, on any receiver model for which I have specific or whispered information, leasing them for an upfront fee greater than their landed cost of the hardware, which does not include their software nor support costs.
> 
> Your BMW analysis is very good, so how about a closer to realistic version using an HR20: Price $600. (hardware cost is $400-ish). Lease price is $200. At 2 years you have paid $120, the unit still has some residual value (maybe $100?). Of that $120 you've paid, a significant portion goes to the content providers, btw--think of it as gas, oil, tires, batteries in the BMW analogy. So you've really only paid DIRECTV maybe $60-ish plus the upfront cost.
> 
> ...


Edit: not really directed at Tom specifically, just happened to choose your post to reply to re: the car analogy.

My challenge to leasing is that it's initial and monthly fees are similar to the ownership model, it's mainly the commitment and end state that change...

Previous ownership model:
Buy your receiver / DVR for $YYY
First receiver has no monthly charge, subsequent receivers have a $5/mo "mirroring fee".
No long-term commitment
Receiver is yours to keep when you terminate service

Current leasing model:
Buy your receiver / DVR for $ZZZ ($ZZZ generally less than $YYY)
First receiver has no monthly charge, subsequent receivers have a $5/mo "lease fee".
Two year commitment
Receiver remains property of DirecTV and must be returned

Net result (IMO) we pay less up front in exchange for a long-term commitment and loss of ownership. What I question is what does someone pay for the priveledge to lease a refurbished HR2X? How many times could DirecTV theoretically lease out the same HR2X and does each new customer continue to pay the full upfront fee?

I understand the car analogy, but if the unit price is truly $800 and the "lease" price is $299, you're putting 37% down as an upfront cost in leasing something.?.? Or with the new prices ($500 full price, $199 lease price) 39%. I can't imagine anyone willing to put in excess of 30% down on an auto lease.

I know the units are leased and I'm fine with the model. However, I certainly can understand why people might be confused given other "leasing" models that are common in the cable/sat industry. Unfortunately as Ken pointed out, the lawyers are the ones who are going to make money on this...


----------



## Ken S (Feb 13, 2007)

Tom Robertson said:


> In my comment that you quoted, I was making the point that very incorrect DIRECTV prices used in the analogy. And trying to fix the analogy.
> 
> To your points about buyer knowledge, I hope I've indicated that I agree there are valid circumstances where customers might not have seen the lease agreement information or otherwise been totally unaware of the lease process thru no fault of their own.
> 
> ...


Tom,

I agree on your comments about the pricing...I was just using your response as the last in the string in this thread about how the car leasing analogy doesn't really fit with what this lawsuit is about.


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

Ken S said:


> Tom,
> 
> I agree on your comments about the pricing...I was just using your response as the last in the string in this thread about how the car leasing analogy doesn't really fit with what this lawsuit is about.


Hokay, just checking. 

You usage of the analogy in another way was another good way to point out the differences between the car lease and the DIRECTV lease.

Normally, I would never suggest anyone hire a car salesman , but perhaps DIRECTV (and other companies that use a lease model) might benefit from hiring the people who have to approve the lease paperwork for cars. (Just a joke.) 

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## igator99 (Jul 28, 2006)

Drewg5 said:


> I think this lawsuit is coming from when DirecTv changed over to the lease platform. With that said it was not only the retailers that where having problems with the adjustment, a lot of DirecTv's CSR's did not know about it them selfs, or did not think it was worth wile to tell the costumer at that time. Infact when I ordered my HR20-700 I was handed the lease addendum by the installer, the CSR at the time had no clue what it was about.
> 
> Was I mad yes very. Would I sue over it not at all, this way I do not have to keep useless equipment that I no longer need. Now the long and longer term commitments I rather dislike, who knows where things will be in 18 to 24+ months. Where does it stop 72 months 100 months? or will it ever stop? And yes I do know that DirecTv is not the only one that has terms like that, I have to deal with them on my cell phone as well :nono2:


I don't have a problem with leased equipment but I do with the commitment. It is in my opinion a scam. Like you said, two years is an awful long time. If bail D* will simply give the equipment to a new subscriber. I don't see where they lose anything. Who knows what will happen in two years? You could lose your job. You could be forced to move. You could get treed out etc.... I can see one year but not two.:nono:


----------



## ddrumman2004 (Mar 28, 2007)

Tom Robertson said:


> If the installer removed them, without asking, he ended up taking your possession, most likely accidentally. Many installers will ask if you want receivers and if not, they will dispose of them for you--on eBay.
> 
> Yet, that is a win-win. I don't have a disposal fee and Mrs. Tibber doesn't have to see another unit stacked in the garage, attic, closet, under the bed, etc.
> 
> ...


So let me get this straight then. The original system we have consisted of one SD receiver that was increased to three in Nov. 2004. Then in Jan 2007, we added the H20-100 so from what I gather here, we don't own it like we were told. The Rep my g/f talked to at DirecTV told her that we were purchasing it in three monthly installments. Ok...the rep lied about that one.

Now we still have two SD receivers and the bill that comes in shows two receivers being [email protected] 4.99 each. (We get a paper bill even though the bill is paid by bank draft.)

So why are we not being charged for three receivers? Do we own the H20? Own the two SD receivers?

It's all confusing so their(DirecTV) leasing system needs a major overhaul and simple explanations from the start. We were told one thing and now learn it's something different.


----------



## tcusta00 (Dec 31, 2007)

ddrumman2004 said:


> So let me get this straight then. The original system we have consisted of one SD receiver that was increased to three in Nov. 2004. Then in Jan 2007, we added the H20-100 so from what I gather here, we don't own it like we were told. The Rep my g/f talked to at DirecTV told her that we were purchasing it in three monthly installments. Ok...the rep lied about that one.
> 
> Now we still have two SD receivers and the bill that comes in shows two receivers being [email protected] 4.99 each. (We get a paper bill even though the bill is paid by bank draft.)
> 
> ...


Your mirroring charge on the first receiver on the account is free - additional receivers are 4.99. It's pretty simple.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

Thaedron said:


> Where I work, we don't buy servers anymore, everything is leased.


Wow, we were leasing Macintosh computers and all the associated equipment needed to run what was then THE state of the art fiber optic system for Macs. We were literally Mac's fiber optic showcase. that was over 20 years ago. I thought by now all businesses leased computer systems and anything else lease worthy. Leasing for business purposes is just smart. Technology changes too quickly to purchase computer type equipment.



> I understand the car leasing analogy, but it is only one example.


The car leasing scenario is a good one to study. I spent five days teaching a class to upgrade employees' math skills and we used up two of those days determining whether you would save money leasing or buying a new car. For those who want to have a new car continuously, leasing is definitely cheaper. For those who plan to keep a car for 10 years or so, buying is the way to go. Different scenarios dictate whether leasing or buying is better.

What D* did with their leasing program is an extremely intelligent business decision. That is not just my uninformed opinion, but one that I have formed after talking to several accountants, one of whom is my wife. She explained in detail how leasing would benefit D*'s bottom line. And, let's face it, what's good for them is good for us.

What they failed to do was communicate to all the retailers exactly how the leasing program worked and how the retailers should implement it.

Should D* be sued for this? I don't know and as long as the suit doesn't affect me adversely, I don't care.

All that said, I can't believe that nobody sued D* for putting the HR20 on the market before all the glitches were worked out. There was a lawsuit in waiting that actually made sense. And nobody did anything about that, as far as I know.

Rich


----------



## l123 (Sep 18, 2007)

Tom Robertson said:


> As an attorney, so I gather, you know being this sloppy with your statements is very poor for an argument. This statement: "The approximate price of those boxes is $90 - and most of those who bought them paid $199 for them." lacks both foundation and specifics. There are very many models under lease.
> 
> The only specifics I have details on (from DIRECTV investor releases): HR20--Hardware cost to DIRECTV per unit is hovering about $400 today expected to be below $300 by year end. Lease price today is $199, IIRC. Purchase is ~$599 now?
> 
> ...


Thank you for pointing out my shortcomings. The sketch of an argument is just a sketch. 
I do not believe that the "cost to DirecTV" is about $300-$400.
But I am certain that you are aware that there are companies out there who do very precise cost calculations and can pinpoint with very small error the exact manufacturing cost of any product out there. I am certain that such information may be obtained when and if needed during the controversy resolution.
For us, little people, all it takes is to compare the open market prices of similar devices - of course look at the discount Internet stores outside and inside USA. You will be surprised how little it costs to make one of those.
Of course if you ask DTv you will get inflated costs and prices which is obviously done not because they are true but they are convenient for creative accounting.
All the arguments were already made: WinWin, costs, safety, security and others - establishment of almost-monopoly and its reinforcement by making hardware exclusive never works on a long run and is always moraly and ethically wrong although it might be legal (mostly grace to nearly total lack of consumer protection here).
And no - DTV does not sell or rent the receivers below their cost. Even if they did - they do take more than enougth in programming fees to cover all their costs plus.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

Tom Robertson said:


> If the installer removed them, without asking, he ended up taking your possession, most likely accidentally.


Accidentally my foot. They know perfectly well that D* does not own TiVos.



> Many installers will ask if you want receivers and if not, they will dispose of them for you--on eBay.


Exactly.



> Yet, that is a win-win. I don't have a disposal fee and Mrs. Tibber doesn't have to see another unit stacked in the garage, attic, closet, under the bed, etc.


A simple call to the Salvation Army will solve that problem and make somebody less fortunate than us happy. My wife starts complaining about clutter and I get on the phone to the SA and in a couple days the clutter problem is solved and a good deed has been done.

Rich


----------



## l123 (Sep 18, 2007)

Tom Robertson said:


> They did not convert already owned receivers. There are no changes for those units.
> 
> Cheers,
> Tom


I tried to correct that several times. Most of the times the CRS give me an answer to the effect: "every receiver out there is ours and we lease it and if you bought them before March 2006, we converted them to lease." 
Even when I got someone correcting the issue - three months later it is back. I called, I sent letters, and registered letters - and same thing is time and over again - every time I call CRS screws up my programing and I have to keep calling back to have it corrected.
But the fees whether called "lease" or "additional receiver" are always there - now they are again in the "lease" mode - - until 2006 I had paid zero in such fees.


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

l123 said:


> I do not believe that the "cost to DirecTV" is about $300-$400.


These are costs cited by DIRECTV in their quarterly earnings statements .. You may not believe the information, but these are the facts we have to go by and I find it doubtful that DIRECTV would publicly lie with the threat of SEC scrutiny and investor lawsuits as a strong deterrent.


----------



## l123 (Sep 18, 2007)

rich584 said:


> Wow, we were leasing Macintosh computers and all the associated equipment needed to run what was then THE state of the art fiber optic system for Macs. We were literally Mac's fiber optic showcase. that was over 20 years ago. I thought by now all businesses leased computer systems and anything else lease worthy. Leasing for business purposes is just smart. Technology changes too quickly to purchase computer type equipment.
> 
> The car leasing scenario is a good one to study. I spent five days teaching a class to upgrade employees' math skills and we used up two of those days determining whether you would save money leasing or buying a new car. For those who want to have a new car continuously, leasing is definitely cheaper. For those who plan to keep a car for 10 years or so, buying is the way to go. Different scenarios dictate whether leasing or buying is better.
> 
> ...


Well - leasing is a strange beast. The accountants sometimes like them because it differently impacts the bottom line. It does not mean anything else outside the context of accounting and laws ruling the accounting.
In fact, what the leasing does for DTv, your wife may have some more info, but the value of all the equipment out on lease shows up as the asset for DTv ( say 10,000,000 receivers with 'cost" of $600 makes $6,000,000,000 in assets) - can you imagine how many losses, and bonus payments to management, and what tax deductions, and what kind of loans you can get with such paper money. But it hardly is good for us.


----------



## tcusta00 (Dec 31, 2007)

Doug Brott said:


> These are costs cited by DIRECTV in their quarterly earnings statements .. You may not believe the information, but these are the facts we have to go by and I find it doubtful that DIRECTV would publicly lie with the threat of SEC scrutiny and investor lawsuits as a strong deterrent.


Yeah, Sarbanes-Oxley took care of that back in 2002.


----------



## tcusta00 (Dec 31, 2007)

l123 said:


> In fact, what the leasing does for DTv, your wife may have some more info, but the value of all the equipment out on lease shows up as the asset for DTv ( say 10,000,000 receivers with 'cost" of $600 makes $6,000,000,000 in assets) - can you imagine how many losses, and bonus payments to management, and what tax deductions, and what kind of loans you can get with such paper money. But it hardly is good for us.


Huh??? How? What?


----------



## l123 (Sep 18, 2007)

Doug Brott said:


> These are costs cited by DIRECTV in their quarterly earnings statements .. You may not believe the information, but these are the facts we have to go by and I find it doubtful that DIRECTV would publicly lie with the threat of SEC scrutiny and investor lawsuits as a strong deterrent.


Lie - a strong and largely misunderstood word.
Nobody - including the investors believes that number - why should you?
The number is not verifiable, except for obtaining the service of the companies that take the hardware apart, recreate every single manufacturing step, and parts acquisition costs, and give you the final number.
Going back to cars: do you believe that the sticker price is the real price people pay; or better yet do you think that the manufacturer's invoice the dealer shows you is what the car costs the dealer? It is not.
Here - DTv is the manufacturer (although it has contract manufacturing done by others - a lot of technology today is made in a fab-less fashion) - therefore gross profits go to them.
In the report - did it say how many phantom companies those receivers get through before they reach DTv as we know it. This is how the price is inflated to the level that is good for DTv books.


----------



## l123 (Sep 18, 2007)

tcusta00 said:


> Huh??? How? What?


And each of the 10,000,000 receivers potentially generates $5.00 monthly fee - can you multiply for me - I am lost with so many zeros.


----------



## tcusta00 (Dec 31, 2007)

l123 said:


> And each of the 10,000,000 receivers potentially generates $5.00 monthly fee - can you multiply for me - I am lost with so many zeros.


I'm really confused by your posts. Are you angry at DirecTV for making money? And why would you think after Sarbanes Oxley they would be intentionally misleading investors? Did you miss Enron/Wcom/etc?


----------



## Herdfan (Mar 18, 2006)

l123 said:


> And each of the 10,000,000 receivers potentially generates $5.00 monthly fee - can you multiply for me - I am lost with so many zeros.


They did that before the lease as well. $5 for a lease fee or $5 for an additional receiver fee. Same $5.

Note: Some HR10 TiVos are leased as they were selling/leasing them up until the late summer of 2006.


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

l123 said:


> Lie - a strong and largely misunderstood word.
> Nobody - including the investors believes that number - why should you?
> The number is not verifiable, except for obtaining the service of the companies that take the hardware apart, recreate every single manufacturing step, and parts acquisition costs, and give you the final number.
> Going back to cars: do you believe that the sticker price is the real price people pay; or better yet do you think that the manufacturer's invoice the dealer shows you is what the car costs the dealer? It is not.
> ...


When you start to make up stuff out of the blue about "what could be happening", I'm just going to have to stop addressing your scenarios.

For the rest of the readers, I am fairly confident about the numbers reported by DIRECTV on the actual per unit price. DIRECTV's Board Audit Committee(s) can follow the paper trail from the manufactures orders/invoices/contracts for equipment from each of the very few manufacturers actively making equipment today: Samsung, Thomson, Pace, and just a few others.

These are not commodity items like a PCs where millions are sold each week with competitive pressures to eek every last quarter of a cent to remain competitive.

<moderator note> The topic of the "Actual cost to DIRECTV for receivers" has been discussed at length in at least two other threads. This thread is welcome to use cost estimates in its analogies and discussion of leasing but no more about "are the reported numbers accurate" in this thread. If you wish to use a number as a basis of discussion that is different from the SEC reported numbers, do so only with a corroborating link to a viable source. (And please also post that in the existing discussions as well, I would enjoy trying to reconcile that new information.)

Thank you,
Tom


----------



## Upstream (Jul 4, 2006)

l123 said:


> But I am certain that you are aware that there are companies out there who do very precise cost calculations and can pinpoint with very small error the exact manufacturing cost of any product out there.


What they are providing is the cost of materials and labor. And that is very different than the fully-loaded cost, which includes other expenses to DirecTV (possibly including things like research & development, warehousing, marketing, support, et cetera). It is the fully-loaded costs that DirecTV reports on its books.

It is not misleading for DirecTV to include those other costs in the cost of the receiver, since they are expenses that DirecTV incurs. But that doesn't mean that if DirecTV sells an HR21 below the fully-loaded cost that they are losing money on the unit. It just means that the fixed and overhead costs need to be picked up by a different part of their revenue stream.

[In edit -- Note to Tom R -- sorry about continuing the discussion about what the "true" costs are. I composed my response before I saw your note.]

Edit: [Tom R] I figured as much.  We'll let this be the last along these lines in this thread.


----------



## RobertE (Jun 10, 2006)

Herdfan said:


> They did that before the lease as well. $5 for a lease fee or $5 for an additional receiver fee. Same $5.
> 
> Note: Some HR10 TiVos are leased as they were selling/leasing them up until the late summer of 2006.


Here is the $5 that you spend for an owned receiver:










Now here is the $5 that you spend for a leased receiver:










See, there *IS* a difference.  !rolling !pride


----------



## ddrumman2004 (Mar 28, 2007)

tcusta00 said:


> Your mirroring charge on the first receiver on the account is free - additional receivers are 4.99. It's pretty simple.


It's not as simple to me as I don't understand thie "mirroring charge" you speak of.
So DirecTV, more or less, gives you a receiver for no lease fee if you add more?

I'm not up on this stuff like the rest of you guys are.


----------



## RobertE (Jun 10, 2006)

ddrumman2004 said:


> It's not as simple to me as I don't understand thie "mirroring charge" you speak of.
> So DirecTV, more or less, gives you a receiver for no lease fee if you add more?
> 
> I'm not up on this stuff like the rest of you guys are.


Your programming package includes 1 receiver, leased or owend doesn't matter. Each additional receiver is $4.99. "Lease Fee" for leased receivers or "Mirror Fee" for owned receivers.


----------



## tcusta00 (Dec 31, 2007)

ddrumman2004 said:


> It's not as simple to me as I don't understand thie "mirroring charge" you speak of.
> So DirecTV, more or less, gives you a receiver for no lease fee if you add more?
> 
> I'm not up on this stuff like the rest of you guys are.


Sorry.

Here it is from the horse's mouth:


http://directv.com/DTVAPP/customer/faqPage.jsp?assetId=1100115 said:


> Our basic CHOICE programming package, which includes more than 140 channels, is just $49.99 per month. If your state charges a sales tax, we'll add that to your bill. That's it. Of course, you can select from many other great packages as well. There is a $4.99/mo. lease fee for second and each additional receiver.


If you don't lease the additional receivers but instead own them they still charge you 4.99 but it's called a mirroring charge, which is a fancy way of saying they'll send the programming to the additional receiver as well.


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

The base packages include the monthly $5 "charge" for the first receiver on your account. Every receiver after that adds another $5 to your bill (plus any appropriate taxes).

For all the leased receivers the "charge" is called a lease fee.
For all the owned receivers, the fee is called a mirroring fee.

Both are the exact same amount as far as billing is concerned--except some states tax those to concepts differently. Some states tax both, some tax one and not the other.

When DIRECTV switched to a lease based system, bills should not have changed that day until the first new receiver was added to the account. New receivers should have been "leased" and instead of the mirroring fee for that one receiver, it should have been a lease fee. 

Some 18 months after all this started, I acquired my first new receivers. The first of my HR20-700s. Ever since then, I have had a "blended account" (my term) with both owned and leased receivers. 

Does this help clear up the names for things?

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## jimmyv2000 (Feb 15, 2007)

That Means i have a "Blended" acoount,(see sig.)
eventually i'm going to get rid of the RCA box i have.My 2 year commitment expires the day before the DTV switch over.


----------



## Chuck W (Mar 26, 2002)

Ken S said:


> I purchased three HR20s from Crutchfield in March of 2007. There was no mention of a lease in the information about the device or within the box. The documents that came inside of my box called it a purchase. They then later tried to call them a lease.
> 
> I noticed that later in 2007 they started putting stickers on the boxes...so, obviously, someone there thought additional notice was necessary.
> 
> ...


Yep, those stickers came well after the point of them switching to the lease model. I know because I had been contemplating an HR20, during the early summer and never saw a sticker(checked them out several timees at my local Best Buy). Even when I got my first box directly from Directv, there wasn't a sticker either(August 2007). When I got my 2nd box(from Best Buy), in November or so, that one DID have the sticker, so as Ken S said, obviously they themselves(Directv) thought they weren't notifying the customer well enough.

With all that said, I really don't know what timeframe this lawsuit is targetting, if it was prior to the stickers or not.



Ratara said:


> After much discussion, time, and appeals I think it will end up flying like a lead balloon.


Careful with that, Adam and Jamie on Mythbusters actually got a lead balloon to fly


----------



## tcusta00 (Dec 31, 2007)

Thought you guys would get a kick out of this - I just called D* to add an HR10-250 to the account in place of an old Philips SD box I've had and the CSR said "Well, I guess we'll come get that leased Philips back from you." 

I originally bought that receiver about 5 years ago, well before leasing existed. I told her that but she insisted. It wasn't until I flipped the thing over and read her the date-stamp of Jun 2003 that she finally relented. I should have kept my mouth shut and let her send someone to collect my doorstop for free. Save me a trip to the recycling center!


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

tcusta00 said:


> Thought you guys would get a kick out of this - I just called D* to add an HR10-250 to the account in place of an old Philips SD box I've had and the CSR said "Well, I guess we'll come get that leased Philips back from you."
> 
> I originally bought that receiver about 5 years ago, well before leasing existed. I told her that but she insisted. It wasn't until I flipped the thing over and read her the date-stamp of Jun 2003 that she finally relented. I should have kept my mouth shut and let her send someone to collect my doorstop for free. Save me a trip to the recycling center!


That seems so weird. I have had a CSR ask me or mention it, but never more than once. All I've had to do was ask them to double check that receiver ID more closely and they've said, "duh, you're right." 

I am glad you managed to get it straight on the first call.

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## tcusta00 (Dec 31, 2007)

And so it continues... I just went onto my account to make sure the HR10-250 that she added wasn't showing as leased. Guess what? :lol:

I sent an email to have them change it. We'll see how easy this ends up being.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

l123 said:


> Here - DTv is the manufacturer (although it has contract manufacturing done by others - a lot of technology today is made in a fab-less fashion) - therefore gross profits go to them.
> In the report - did it say how many phantom companies those receivers get through before they reach DTv as we know it. This is how the price is inflated to the level that is good for DTv books.


You know, even though I don't agree with many of the things you have said, I have seen your point. However, On this one, your just plain off the mark. You can't seriously think that all the profit from these boxes goes to Directv rather than the manufactures, Samsung, Thomson, Pace, and who ever else they may be using. I guarantee you that those companies aren't going to spend the time and money to manufacturer these boxes and ship them to directv and not expect to do anything but cover their costs. I would say these manufactures are making at least 30% profit on these units, maybe 35%. I also wouldn't be surprised if Directv was considering the costs of getting the boxes shipped to their main distribution center, and probably even a one time shipping cost to vendors, or customers in the costs of the unit. I sure would. They cover some of that cost through up front fees, and the rest through service fees of the course of 2 years. I would love to know why you think Directv would pass these boxes through bunches of phantom companies. It boggles my mind where you have come up with this conspiracy theory, because it would not get them any advantage, whatsoever....


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

tcusta00 said:


> And so it continues... I just went onto my account to make sure the HR10-250 that she added wasn't showing as leased. Guess what? :lol:
> 
> I sent an email to have them change it. We'll see how easy this ends up being.


I wouldn't worry about it to much.. They will not ask for those boxes back.... At some point though, I bet you do get offered a free upgrade to an HR2X model...


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

inkahauts said:


> You know, even though I don't agree with many of the things you have said, I have seen your point. However, On this one, your just plain off the mark. You can't seriously think that all the profit from these boxes goes to Directv rather than the manufactures, Samsung, Thomson, Pace, and who ever else they may be using. I guarantee you that those companies aren't going to spend the time and money to manufacturer these boxes and ship them to directv and not expect to do anything but cover their costs. * I would say these manufactures are making at least 30% profit on these units, maybe 35%.* I also wouldn't be surprised if Directv was considering the costs of getting the boxes shipped to their main distribution center, and probably even a one time shipping cost to vendors, or customers in the costs of the unit. I sure would. They cover some of that cost through up front fees, and the rest through service fees of the course of 2 years. I would love to know why you think Directv would pass these boxes through bunches of phantom companies. It boggles my mind where you have come up with this conspiracy theory, because it would not get them any advantage, whatsoever....


Then you shouldn't be surprised to see the ridiculous price for the DVR - $799. Anyway your numbers came from past century, modern margin for such devices is much low !


----------



## bluemoose (Dec 7, 2007)

*Will someone please explain to me the difference 
between leasing a car vs leasing a DTV HD DVR?

Thank you. *


----------



## Jhon69 (Mar 28, 2006)

You do know what will happen if this makes it to court?.Then the judge decides to go to his/her chambers and call DirecTV like a new subscriber.During the conversation maybe the CSR won't mention the commitment and maybe say the lease price is a purchase?.Well if that happens the way others have complained.It will end up a verdict for the plantiffs.


----------



## bluemoose (Dec 7, 2007)

Jhon69 said:


> You do know what will happen if this makes it to court?.Then the judge decides to go to his/her chambers and call DirecTV like a new subscriber.During the conversation maybe the CSR won't mention the commitment and maybe say the lease price is a purchase?.Well if that happens the way others have complained.It will end up a verdict for the plantiffs.


Exactly...

I record every phone conversation that I have with DirecTV reps. I keep these
recordings in WAV files. As of today, there are almost 1GB of recording. (roughly
2.3 hours... over the last 3 years)

Not once in those recording did DTV rep mention anything about having to
return leased equipement...

Perhaps I should make a copy of the recording and send them over to the
lawyers?


----------



## Jhon69 (Mar 28, 2006)

bluemoose said:


> Exactly...
> 
> I record every phone conversation that I have with DirecTV reps. I keep these
> recordings in WAV files. As of today, there are almost 1GB of recording. (roughly
> ...


Don't think you will need to.Think DirecTV will hang themselves without anyone's help
but their own.


----------



## CJTE (Sep 18, 2007)

Activating a receiver defaults to leased, unless the access card team, or someone on a higher level does it for you.
85% of the CSRs are gonna activate it leased if it has a receiver ID, and transfer it to a supervisor or access card team if it doesnt.

Anyway if you really own it, and want DirecTV to recognize that, just call and ask to speak with the Access Card Team. Just let them know you wanna change the status of the receiver from leased to owned.
Ive done it on all my older receivers.


----------



## K4SMX (May 19, 2007)

*Point of Information:* Regarding the March 1, 2006 date of the inception of the leasing business model. Would that apply to the "purchase date" or the "activation date"? I've got an H20-600 that straddles the date in question.


----------



## tcusta00 (Dec 31, 2007)

CJTE said:


> Activating a receiver defaults to leased, unless the access card team, or someone on a higher level does it for you.
> 85% of the CSRs are gonna activate it leased if it has a receiver ID, and transfer it to a supervisor or access card team if it doesnt.
> 
> Anyway if you really own it, and want DirecTV to recognize that, just call and ask to speak with the Access Card Team. Just let them know you wanna change the status of the receiver from leased to owned.
> Ive done it on all my older receivers.


That's not how it ought to be, but thanks for that info. I will await their response and if I don't get a good answer I'll ask to be transferred to that department.


----------



## Herdfan (Mar 18, 2006)

Jhon69 said:


> Don't think you will need to.Think DirecTV will hang themselves without anyone's help but their own.


Yeah, remember when Mark Cuban in his dispute with D* over moving HDNet, recorded the CSR telling a prospective customer something to the effect "that no one watches those channels anyway"?


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

bluemoose said:


> *Will someone please explain to me the difference
> between leasing a car vs leasing a DTV HD DVR?
> 
> Thank you. *


Well the obvious answer is that you can drive a car but you cannot drive a DVR .

That being said, I don't know what the technical differences are. In either case, you do not own the equipment. Cars usually have a clause in the lease that allow you to purchase it at the end of the lease .. some do, some don't. There is no such clause for the DVR .. It must be returned unless you've had it so long that DIRECTV decides they just don't want it back. Either way, it's their call, not yours.

I think what it really boils down to is that if you want to have DIRECTV service, you need to have a receiver. You can lease it with an upfront cost of $199 or you can buy it with an upfront cost of $599. What you cannot do is get it for an upfront cost of $199 and expect that it is yours to keep. It's really no secret although apparently some people were misinformed based on comments I've seen here.


----------



## Jhon69 (Mar 28, 2006)

Herdfan said:


> Yeah, remember when Mark Cuban in his dispute with D* over moving HDNet, recorded the CSR telling a prospective customer something to the effect "that no one watches those channels anyway"?


That would be the proverbial"OOPS"!.:sure:


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

K4SMX said:


> *Point of Information:* Regarding the March 1, 2006 date of the inception of the leasing business model. Would that apply to the "purchase date" or the "activation date"? I've got an H20-600 that straddles the date in question.


I purchased and was given all my 20s after the March 2006 date and if I could think of a reason to want to own one of them I suppose I could get that done, but how would that benefit me? I have always belonged to the Protection Plan and don't care about the warranties because the PP covers me. I have no interest in hacking DVRs anymore and have never opened a 20/21 up. The eSATA function solved that problem.

I understand the law suit to a point and agree with the part concerning the retailers telling the public the wrong info. But what possible difference it makes to me if I own or lease a 20/21 baffles me.

The only major problem I have had with D* in the last six years or so is that they released the 20s too soon and knowingly caused an equipment problem that still resonates today. Aside from that, I have no problem with D*. I have found out how to get what I need from them in a timely manner.

Obviously, they are poorly managed, but so many large companies and corporations are poorly managed that it is hard for me to fault D*.

OK, the CSRs (excluding the majority of CSRs in the PP or Retention) are poorly trained and know little about the equipment and just read off a script and are lost when a customer goes off that script.

Ever call Verizon for help? Ever call HP for technical help? Both of those companies have far worse customer support than D*. When you buy a computer from HP online you get to speak to a salesperson who obviously lives in the states and has American English as a first language. Call HP for tech support and miraculously you are transported to downtown Bombay and have to speak to someone who speaks Indian English. At least that doesn't happen with D* anymore. Call Verizon and you might as well ask the nearest wall to solve your problem.

See where I'm going with this? These problems with customer service are ubiquitous in our society. And accepted by that society.

Rich


----------



## mikewolf13 (Jan 31, 2006)

bluemoose said:


> *Will someone please explain to me the difference
> between leasing a car vs leasing a DTV HD DVR?
> 
> Thank you. *


APR
Residual Value
OPtion to buy at end of lease
fixed term

to name a few


----------



## mikewolf13 (Jan 31, 2006)

tcusta00 said:


> And so it continues... I just went onto my account to make sure the HR10-250 that she added wasn't showing as leased. Guess what? :lol:
> 
> I sent an email to have them change it. We'll see how easy this ends up being.


I think this could be a legitimate Sarbanes-Oxley issue...

if DTV is counting a large number of receivers they DO NOT OWN as leased, and taking the depreciation on those boxes..their financial statements could be overstated.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

bluemoose said:


> *Will someone please explain to me the difference
> between leasing a car vs leasing a DTV HD DVR?
> 
> Thank you. *


If you are going to lease another car at the end of the lease, leasing a car saves a tremendous amount of money, in most cases. (Doug, if you read this, I have never heard of a car lease that doesn't allow you to purchase the car at the end of the lease, which makes no sense unless you have fallen in love with that particular car.) What you are doing when you lease a car for a year or two is paying off the depreciation of that car. Which, for someone like me, is great. I buy off lease cars and the value of the cars is usually about the same as the Kelly Blue Book value or less. That means that I don't have to buy "Gap" insurance to cover the difference between the original price and the value of the car if you total it in the first year of ownership.

Say you purchase a new car for fifty thousand dollars. Five months later you total that car. Do you think your insurance company is going to send you a check for fifty thousand dollars? Not unless you have "Gap" insurance, and even that will not net you 50Gs.

Unless you have a purpose for the DVR that I cannot imagine, it makes no difference whether you lease or own a DVR. The lease program allows D* to strengthen their bottom line and I think that benefits us.

And, if after two years you "total" the 20/21, D* will replace it with another one. That is a major difference between leasing cars and DVRs.

Apples and oranges? You betcha! Two totally different "lease" programs.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

mikewolf13 said:


> I think this could be a legitimate Sarbanes-Oxley issue...
> 
> if DTV is counting a large number of receivers they DO NOT OWN as leased, and taking the depreciation on those boxes..their financial statements could be overstated.


Mike, I've read most of this thread and your's is the first post to bring this issue up that I've seen. Great point!

Rich


----------



## bhelton71 (Mar 8, 2007)

rich584 said:


> If you are going to lease another car at the end of the lease, leasing a car saves a tremendous amount of money, in most cases. (Doug, if you read this, I have never heard of a car lease that doesn't allow you to purchase the car at the end of the lease, which makes no sense unless you have fallen in love with that particular car.) What you are doing when you lease a car for a year or two is paying off the depreciation of that car. Which, for someone like me, is great. I buy off lease cars and the value of the cars is usually about the same as the Kelly Blue Book value or less. That means that I don't have to buy "Gap" insurance to cover the difference between the original price and the value of the car if you total it in the first year of ownership.
> 
> Say you purchase a new car for fifty thousand dollars. Five months later you total that car. Do you think your insurance company is going to send you a check for fifty thousand dollars? Not unless you have "Gap" insurance, and even that will not net you 50Gs.
> 
> ...


Also - if the HR2x was a car lease - we would get charged for every minute of recording over 25,000 minutes .


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

bhelton71 said:


> Also - if the HR2x was a car lease - we would get charged for every minute of recording over 25,000 minutes .


Oh My God! Don't give them ideas like that. Hee, hee. I enjoyed that, made me chuckle, thanx.

Rich :icon_kiff


----------



## JLucPicard (Apr 27, 2004)

bluemoose said:


> *Will someone please explain to me the difference
> between leasing a car vs leasing a DTV HD DVR?
> 
> Thank you. *


I've never leased a car, but I have (and still do) leased DirecTV HD DVRs.

The biggest difference I am aware of is that when you lease a car, you pay a fair amount of money up front, then also make monthly payments. For my DirecTV HD DVRs, I paid (or didn't pay, as the case may be depending on which of my units you're talking about) a price for it up front, and that was it. I do not have monthly payments for leasing the equipment.

I pay the same $4.99 a month programming mirroring fee for my leased receivers that I pay for the receivers I own, but I have no continuing equipment costs beyond the initial cost of acquisition.


----------



## cartrivision (Jul 25, 2007)

bluemoose said:


> *Will someone please explain to me the difference
> between leasing a car vs leasing a DTV HD DVR?
> 
> Thank you. *


When leasing a car there are a fixed number of lease payments that end on a specific date at which time you either have to return the car or buy it.

When leasing a DVR from DirecTV the lease payments never end unless you return the DVR, which isn't as bad as it sounds because if you owned the DVR instead of leasing it, you would be paying a $4.99 monthly mirroring fee instead of the $4.99 monthly leasing fee.


----------



## cartrivision (Jul 25, 2007)

JLucPicard said:


> I've never leased a car, but I have (and still do) leased DirecTV HD DVRs.
> 
> The biggest difference I am aware of is that when you lease a car, you pay a fair amount of money up front, then also make monthly payments. For my DirecTV HD DVRs, I paid (or didn't pay, as the case may be depending on which of my units you're talking about) a price for it up front, and that was it. I do not have monthly payments for leasing the equipment.
> 
> I pay the same $4.99 a month programming mirroring fee for my leased receivers that I pay for the receivers I own, but I have no continuing equipment costs beyond the initial cost of acquisition.


There is no mirroring fee for leased receivers. If you are paying a $4.99 mirriring fee on a leased receiver in addition to the $4.99 lease fee, you need to call customer service to get the mirroring fee removed and refunded.


----------



## Thaedron (Jun 29, 2007)

bluemoose said:


> *Will someone please explain to me the difference
> between leasing a car vs leasing a DTV HD DVR?
> 
> Thank you. *


Aside from the upfront cost to "leasing" an HR2X, I think "renting on a month-to-month basis" would be a much more accurate description of the actual situation.


----------



## mikewolf13 (Jan 31, 2006)

Thaedron said:


> Aside from the upfront cost to "leasing" an HR2X, I think "renting on a month-to-month basis" would be a much more accurate description of the actual situation.


Definition of Lease: A contractual agreement by which one party conveys an estate in property to another party, for a limited period, subject to various conditions, in exchange for something of value, but still retains ownership.

terms can very..i.e a car lease and an aprtment lease are very different...so let's stop saying the HR20 is like a car.

DTV retains ownership because it's financially beneficial for them to do so> Therefore it's a lease. Don't like the terms of the lease (upfront cost/committment/monthly fee)? then don't do the deal.

DTV is getting sued becuase the disclosure of these terms was llegedly insufficient. This website has a post almost a year stating the law firm was looking into the possible case, my guess is they "successfully" activated multiple receivers without proper disclosures during that time.

That's what the case is about..not whether the leasing program is right or wrong.


----------



## jahgreen (Dec 15, 2006)

Herdfan said:


> I thought the courts ruled that D*'s arbitration clause was invalid in the Cohen case?
> 
> For those who don't know about the Cohen case, Cohen sued DirecTV for not providing him with full resolution HD even though they claimed they did. His first hurdle was to get around the arbitration clause. IIRC, that part of the case made it to an appellate level and Cohen won and the case proceeded. FYI, Tommylotto from AVS is one of the lead attorneys.


Now that I 've looked at the case, you are correct. The class action waiver in the arbitration agreement was held unenforceable, and because the agreement provides that if the class action waiver can't be enforced the entire arbitration clause falls, there was no agreement to arbitrate.


----------



## cartrivision (Jul 25, 2007)

Thaedron said:


> Aside from the upfront cost to "leasing" an HR2X, I think "renting on a month-to-month basis" would be a much more accurate description of the actual situation.


When really you look at the whole picture, that month to month rental cost is offset by not having to pay the $4.99 mirroring fee on leased receivers, so the effective net monthly cost of the leased receiver is $0.


----------



## nucat95 (Sep 22, 2007)

Thaedron said:


> Aside from the upfront cost to "leasing" an HR2X, I think "renting on a month-to-month basis" would be a much more accurate description of the actual situation.


Considering you pay the same $4.99 whether you own or lease your HR2X (perhaps they should just rename it "extra receiver programming fee"), the difference between leasing a car and the HR2X is:

With a car lease, you pay an upfront fee + monthly rental.
With an HR2X lease, you pay an upfront fee and no monthly rental?


----------



## jahgreen (Dec 15, 2006)

bluemoose said:


> Exactly...
> 
> I record every phone conversation that I have with DirecTV reps. I keep these
> recordings in WAV files. As of today, there are almost 1GB of recording. (roughly
> ...


Interesting. Were any of those folks in California and, if so, did you tell them you were recording the conversation and obtain their consent? If not, perhaps you violated California Penal Code Section 632, which makes it a crime to record a telephone conversation involving a California resident unless _everyone _on the call agrees. (This differs from federal law and the law of the majority of states, which require that only one party to the call consent to recording.)

Or maybe in your case, DirecTV said it was recording each call and asked your consent, so that might satisfy the statute as far as your recording the same call.

I'm not saying it would apply to you (especially since you don't live in California), but it would make an interesting legal issue. It might also affect the ability of another person to use your recordings as evidence.


----------



## cartrivision (Jul 25, 2007)

jahgreen said:


> Interesting. Were any of those folks in California and, if so, did you tell them you were recording the conversation and obtain their consent? If not, perhaps you violated California Penal Code Section 632, which makes it a crime to record a telephone conversation involving a California resident unless _everyone _on the call agrees. (This differs from federal law and the law of the majority of states, which require that only one party to the call consent to recording.)


I fail to see how California could claim jurisdiction to enforce their state laws for "crimes" that are commited in another state by someone who wasn't even a resident of California.


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

nucat95 said:


> Considering you pay the same $4.99 whether you own or lease your HR2X (perhaps they should just rename it "extra receiver programming fee"), the difference between leasing a car and the HR2X is:


I think part of the issue is related to who pays for certain taxes. It actually varies by state and is often different between owned vs. leased. In most cases, the per-month cost is nominal but it does need to be accounted for properly.


----------



## Herdfan (Mar 18, 2006)

Doug Brott said:



> I think part of the issue is related to who pays for certain taxes. It actually varies by state and is often different between owned vs. leased. In most cases, the per-month cost is nominal but it does need to be accounted for properly.


It will be interesting to see what WV does regarding property taxes. WV is one of a handful of states that assess property tax on what amounts to corporate personal property or in this case, part of the plant assets.

DirecTV should be treated no differently than a cableco in that it is placing its owned property in service at a customers premisis as part of its normal course of business, but retains ownership in that property.

So DirecTV now has corporate assets carried on its balance sheet in service in the state. The lease program began in March 2006 and under the law, they should have reported the value as of July 1, 2006 to each county no later than October 1, 2006. The tax bills for the 7/06 assessment went out in 7/07 and become due April 30, 2008. So until then, DirecTv is not delinquent.

It will be interesting to see what the state does. We have a very aggressive AG who has not met a corporation he hasn't tried to sue or at least looked to see if there was a way.


----------



## NFLnut (Sep 29, 2006)

I absolutely HATE the "leasing model!" I want to go back to when you went own to the store and BOUGHT a receiver that became yours. You then justly have the "right" to open it up (although voiding the warranty) and add a 12TB drive to it. For the life of me, I have tried to figure out why D* doesn't give us the option to BUY a DVR. It's not like we can then switch to .. umm .. DISH :barf: or cable and use it or them.

They still charge the $5.00 month for OWNED boxes, so they're still making money every month for those.

D* LISTEN to your best customers! We HATE leasing a box we can't surgically enhance!!


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

You do have the option of purchasing any model you want. Costs more but you can.

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## dtrell (Dec 28, 2007)

NFLnut said:


> D* LISTEN to your best customers! We HATE leasing a box we can't surgically enhance!!


there are plenty of people on this forum that have opened up their leased HR20s and HR21s and replaced the hard drive. D* would never find out, if you ever have to return it you just stick the old hard drive back in. people have posted on here that there are no tamper seals anywhere on the unit.


----------



## Jhon69 (Mar 28, 2006)

dtrell said:


> there are plenty of people on this forum that have opened up their leased HR20s and HR21s and replaced the hard drive. D* would never find out, if you ever have to return it you just stick the old hard drive back in. people have posted on here that there are no tamper seals anywhere on the unit.


Think the request might be just a little more than changing a hard drive.


----------



## jjohns (Sep 15, 2007)

Check out this answer below that I got yesterday when I asked if the ota tuner you have to "buy" now is really going to be "leased" when you get it home. People are actually wanting to pre-order these things and Earl says " I do not know if it the unit will be leased or not, or just tie to your lease with the HR21"
Sounds to me like they're going to do it again. Unreal.


=========================================================
Yesterday, 01:32 PM 
#29 

jjohns 
Legend

User# 50268 You going to get home and find out your leasing this too?

=======================================================
Yesterday, 02:41 PM 
#34 

Earl Bonovich 
I think like an engineer




User# 15114 #1) I do not know if it the unit will be leased or not, or just tie to your lease with the HR21... as the AM21 will be pretty much useless without an HR21

#2) It will NOT extend your commitement.
__________________
Earl - Gotta Love Karma
Chicago's Bid for the 2016 Olympics
All comments are my own and do not necessarily represent the views of DBSTalk.com, or DirecTV


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

jjohns, am I to understand that you are complaining that a person who does not work for DIRECTV does not know the exact (future) lease status of an item that has not been announced as shipping? Who are you complaining about? Earl? DIRECTV? A unit that isn't shipping yet?

Seems like bad form to me. 

(Original thread for this sidebar: http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?t=121199)


----------



## mikewolf13 (Jan 31, 2006)

My wife bought us a new PS3 with RockBAnd at Best Buy...I was excited til I found out it was actually Leased through DTV....

(just a little satire....)


----------



## jjohns (Sep 15, 2007)

Tom Robertson said:


> jjohns, am I to understand that you are complaining that a person who does not work for DIRECTV does not know the exact (future) lease status of an item that has not been announced as shipping? Who are you complaining about? Earl? DIRECTV? A unit that isn't shipping yet?
> 
> Seems like bad form to me.
> 
> (Original thread for this sidebar: http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?t=121199)


Hardly does "check out this answer" qualify as complaining.
And please - I won't respond to the "not work for DirecTV". That machination is getting just plain silly.


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

jjohns said:


> Hardly does "check out this answer" qualify as complaining.
> And please - I won't respond to the "not work for DirecTV". That machination is getting just plain silly.


Perhaps "Check out this answer" does not, tho why else would you want someone to check something out from a thread talking about a lawsuit? This statement in your post very clearly is a form of complaint: "Sounds to me like they're going to do it again. Unreal." Again, Earl at that time did not know (he may now, he may not).

As to the "machination", Earl is not employed by DIRECTV. None of the moderators at DBStalk are, nor are we allowed to be so as to prevent possible conflicts of interest.

Still bad form, so it seems.


----------



## Upstream (Jul 4, 2006)

jjohns said:


> I won't respond to the "not work for DirecTV". That machination is getting just plain silly.


Just because someone has inside contacts at DirecTV, and might even be considered a "friend" of DirecTV, does not mean that he is employed by DirecTV, nor does it mean he represents DirecTV or acts as their agent when he posts under his own name on an internet message board.


----------



## jjohns (Sep 15, 2007)

Tom Robertson said:


> Perhaps "Check out this answer" does not, tho why else would you want someone to check something out from a thread talking about a lawsuit? This statement in your post very clearly is a form of complaint: "Sounds to me like they're going to do it again. Unreal." Again, Earl at that time did not know (he may now, he may not).
> 
> As to the "machination", Earl is not employed by DIRECTV. None of the moderators at DBStalk are, nor are we allowed to be so as to prevent possible conflicts of interest.
> 
> Still bad form, so it seems.


"None of the moderators at DBStalk are, nor are we allowed to be so as to prevent possible conflicts of interest."

What an odd statement. 
And that conflict of interest would be . . .


----------



## tiger2005 (Sep 23, 2006)

jjohns said:


> "None of the moderators at DBStalk are, nor are we allowed to be so as to prevent possible conflicts of interest."
> 
> What an odd statement.
> And that conflict of interest would be . . .


I think that's pretty obvious. This is a discussion forum. If they were compensated by DirecTV they might be inclined to close negative DirecTV threads based on that sole reasoning. That would quite obviously be a conflict of interest.


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

Let's get this :backtotop guys .. None of the DIRECTV mods work for DIRECTV and all us felt like kids in a candy store when we met up at CES with some of the folks from DIRECTV.


----------



## Upstream (Jul 4, 2006)

C'mon Jjohns. You're just being argumentative and silly. There are plenty of people on this board who do work for DirecTV. There is no reason for Earl to claim that he doesn't unless he doesn't. 

And even if he did, what difference would it make? Just like the other DirecTV employees who post here, he is not acting on behalf of DirecTV when he posts here. His posts have no official blessing from DirecTV, and he is not representing them.

(And to keep this to topic: If a post by Earl on this forum were entered as evidence in the lawsuit, the judge would throw it out, because his posts here have nothing to do with what DirecTV tells or does not tell it's customers. Likewise, DirecTV would not be able to use Earl posts as evidence that they informed customers about the lease. That is because he does not represent DirecTV and is not their agent.)


----------



## jjohns (Sep 15, 2007)

Upstream said:


> C'mon Jjohns. You're just being argumentative and silly. There are plenty of people on this board who do work for DirecTV. There is no reason for Earl to claim that he doesn't unless he doesn't.
> 
> And even if he did, what difference would it make? Just like the other DirecTV employees who post here, he is not acting on behalf of DirecTV when he posts here. His posts have no official blessing from DirecTV, and he is not representing them.
> 
> (And to keep this to topic: If a post by Earl on this forum were entered as evidence in the lawsuit, the judge would throw it out, because his posts here have nothing to do with what DirecTV tells or does not tell it's customers. Likewise, DirecTV would not be able to use Earl posts as evidence that they informed customers about the lease. That is because he does not represent DirecTV and is not their agent.)


My post was addressing the topic of this thread. I pointed out that the ota piece could very well end up as a lease just like the HR20. And in my opinion it appeared that D* could be duplicating the exact same behavior. I used my question and a knowledgable, respected Super moderator's answer to point out that it very well may be the case. And in my opinion that would be "unreal".

From that I was accused by a super moderator of "complaining" about an item, about Earl and about DirecTV. And then accused of presenting "bad form." Hmmm...


----------



## Upstream (Jul 4, 2006)

Jjohns -- Your original point about DirecTV potentially making the same mistake on their OTA tuner is a valid point.

Your quoting of Earl as evidence was confusing. I thought you were quoting Earl as a representative of DirecTV, not as evidence of the confusion.

But it is your comment about whether Earl is employed by DirecTV ("That machination is getting just plain silly"), which I think is argumentative and off-base. But let's let it drop, since it isn't the point you are trying to make anyway.


................

Back to the point, even today, DirecTV is confusing regarding whether equipment is purchased or leased. Even if they get the notification right on the receivers, the other equipment is not so clear. I recently purchased a new remote. At least I think I purchased it, there was nothing to indicate that it was leased. But I really have no idea. Do I need to hold on to all my old remote controls to eventually send back to DirecTV, or face non-return fees?

Then of course there is the question of warranties, replacement of defective receivers, and commitment extensions.

Even after trying to clarify their leasing policy over the past two years, it is still a mess.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

mikewolf13 said:


> if DTV is counting a large number of receivers they DO NOT OWN as leased, and taking the depreciation on those boxes..their financial statements could be overstated.


Talked this over with my wife (she's an accountant and an executive in a large corporation) and her opinion was firm and brief. She said if D* did that they broke the law. She had a specific name for it, but, as usual, I can't recall it.

I'm surprised more people didn't focus on your post.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

Jhon69 said:


> Think the request might be just a little more than changing a hard drive.


I don't know what they do to them, but I know what they cannot do anymore. Those days are gone. What else matters?

Rich


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

Rich584, I very much noticed mikewolf13's excellent post/thought/insight. In my mind I am not sure how large the problem is and likewise how material the effect would be. Yes mistakes have been make. Possibly in both directions.

Another question I have is how does DIRECTV count the receivers? From the same system that holds the customer records or using another means? (Like an inventory system?)

I am not saying this is not a problem. I'm not saying this is a problem. I will say that if DIRECTV has not run a good audit of their numbers, this very well could be a problem. 

Thanks to you both for some good insights to consider,
Tom


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

Upstream said:


> Back to the point, even today, DirecTV is confusing regarding whether equipment is purchased or leased. Even if they get the notification right on the receivers, the other equipment is not so clear. I recently purchased a new remote. At least I think I purchased it, there was nothing to indicate that it was leased. But I really have no idea. Do I need to hold on to all my old remote controls to eventually send back to DirecTV, or face non-return fees?
> 
> Then of course there is the question of warranties, replacement of defective receivers, and commitment extensions.
> 
> Even after trying to clarify their leasing policy over the past two years, it is still a mess.


S'up, Up?

The remotes aren't leased, as I'm sure you know. But if they are claiming TiVos and Ultimate TV DVRs as leased, then they are going to end up in deep doo-doo. That said, I have never had a CSR even suggest that a TiVo that I had just activated was leased. But then, I don't care. All I want is a dependable DVR. This whole lawsuit is going to be about financial matters such as are they raising their bottom line incorrectly with malice aforethought.

I like D* and I hope they get this straightened out quickly. Probably just poor management decisions. I sincerely hope they are not a company run by engineers. Been thru that. Engineers make bad business decisions. Better to leave them to what they do best and let real live managers who are properly trained make the decisions.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

jjohns said:


> That machination is getting just plain silly.


Do you understand what "machination" implies? The most interesting definition is:

"A crafty scheme or cunning design for the accomplishment of a sinister end."

Here is another one: "A secret plan to achieve an evil or illegal end."

Seems like you are accusing Earl of something that I have never seen a sign of. What I have seen is an extremely knowledgeable person that shares that knowledge freely.

Rich


----------



## Ken S (Feb 13, 2007)

rich584 said:


> Talked this over with my wife (she's an accountant and an executive in a large corporation) and her opinion was firm and brief. She said if D* did that they broke the law. She had a specific name for it, but, as usual, I can't recall it.
> 
> I'm surprised more people didn't focus on your post.
> 
> Rich


DirecTV announced the lease program in their financials and made adjustments based on the change. If, as a result of this lawsuit, a number of units were then ruled to be sold and not leased they would have to adjust those numbers once again. If the change caused any sort of significant change to their overall financial or stock price I'm sure they would be faced with a sharefholder's derivative suit of some sort. My guess is that we're not talking about a big enough number for that to really happen.

It is, however, highly unlikely that this case will ever go to trial.
Here's my prediction on the results if the case gets approved as a class action (likely, but not a sure thing).

1. DirecTV will settle and about 30% of the total dollars will go to the various law firms handling the case.
2. DirecTV will not be forced to admit to any wrongdoing.
3. Class members will receive some sort of compensation...my guess is some sort of service credit paid out over a period of months.
4. DirecTV will agree to do a better job of making the terms of their lease deal more prominent.
5. DirecTV will allow BestBuy, CircuitCity, etc. to get out of the suit and take on their liability in the matter.

It'll be settled sometime during 2009...although it could drag on to 2010 depending on the dollars involved and when DirecTV would want to take that hit...if it's going to double digit millions.
The only question is how much the total settlement package will be and that's really going to rely on how many class party members the plaintiffs can find.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

Tom Robertson said:


> Rich584, I very much noticed mikewolf13's excellent post/thought/insight. In my mind I am not sure how large the problem is and likewise how material the effect would be. Yes mistakes have been make. Possibly in both directions.
> 
> Another question I have is how does DIRECTV count the receivers? From the same system that holds the customer records or using another means? (Like an inventory system?)
> 
> ...


Well, if this suit goes forward, D* is going to have to submit to an audit from some auditing firm outside D*. My wife has been thru several of these things and self auditing doesn't work.

Tom, doesn't it surprise you that nobody else commented on Mike's post? It was succinct and right on point. I find myself rather amazed by this.

Rich


----------



## jjohns (Sep 15, 2007)

rich584 said:


> Do you understand what "machination" implies? The most interesting definition is:
> 
> "A crafty scheme or cunning design for the accomplishment of a sinister end."
> 
> ...


Me too.
I'm not accusing Earl of anything. I didn't bring his "doesn't work for DirecTV" into the discussion. And I think I've made that perfectly clear. What opinion I am entitled to is the "work relationship" that was inserted. You have every right to buy that as I do not to.


----------



## Ken S (Feb 13, 2007)

rich584 said:


> Well, if this suit goes forward, D* is going to have to submit to an audit from some auditing firm outside D*. My wife has been thru several of these things and self auditing doesn't work.
> 
> Tom, doesn't it surprise you that nobody else commented on Mike's post? It was succinct and right on point. I find myself rather amazed by this.
> 
> Rich


There's little chance that a court would order DirecTV to be audited by a 3rd party firm in a civil action of this sort. The numbers will come during the discovery process from DirecTV.

They know how many they sold and when they sold them as, I'm sure, like any manufacturer they get sell through reports from their resellers/distributors. And, even better, they almost always get a "registration" because the consumer activates the box with them.


----------



## Ken S (Feb 13, 2007)

I pulled down some of the pleadings from the class action suit.

There are three filings...

1. Complaint - This is the Plaintiffs document which effectively starts the lawsuit process and lists their case and suggested remedies.

2. Reply - This is DirecTV's mandated response to the Complaint.

3. Exhibit to the Reply - The exhibit just lists the DirecTV terms and conditions...but since they referred to it...I included it.

There are a number of procedural issues involved with the granting of whether the class action should be certified.

Special Thanks to Tom Robertson for helping me get these files online as they were a bit over the dbstalk max file size. Tom worked quickly to get this information available to everyone.

If folks want I'll try and keep tabs on the case and post any other pertinent filings.

Ken


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

rich584 said:


> Well, if this suit goes forward, D* is going to have to submit to an audit from some auditing firm outside D*. My wife has been thru several of these things and self auditing doesn't work.
> 
> Tom, doesn't it surprise you that nobody else commented on Mike's post? It was succinct and right on point. I find myself rather amazed by this.
> 
> Rich


As we know, all US corporations have "audits" annually anyway. I am by no means disparaging that term, they are very important and very useful.

What I mean when I said it that way, is that sometimes specialized audits that dig deeper into specific practices.

And that is your point too, the suit will focus on auditing policies and practices.

With the advent of this other thought stream, perhaps it should also focus on which receivers are leased and which are not--rather than who was informed vs. who was not.

As to should Mike's note generated more response, somedays the great people here amaze me in so many ways. A topic can be mentioned and gather almost no response for 3 or 4 months when it suddenly can become hot. So yes, I expected a bit more but maybe that will happen in May. 

BTW, I will try to contact a few people at DIRECTV to ensure they are aware of this side issue as well. I suspect it is not a big deal, but just in case it is not, I want to give them a chance to think about it ahead of time.

(Our normal DBSTalk readers from DIRECTV might not pick this up either.)

Thanks,
Tom


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

Keeping the love fest going, Ken S, thank you for finding these documents. Great parts to this discussion's puzzle.

Happy to load them for you and for anyone. Part of the service we like to perform.

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## Upstream (Jul 4, 2006)

Regarding Mike's comments: it is really only a current problem for DirecTV in as far as they are reporting currently owned receivers as leased. If CJTE is correct that all newly activated receivers are marked "leased" by DirecTV unless the customer complains, this could be a problem. But I expect that it is a relatively small number of previously owned receivers getting newly activated as leased.

If the class action suit finds that DirecTV did not adequately notify customers that their receivers were lease, and if DirecTV is ordered to reclassify leased receivers as owned (essentially transferring ownership from DirecTV to the customer), then DirecTV will have to restate, based on the losses of the suit. But that is not fraud.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

Tom Robertson said:


> As we know, all US corporations have "audits" annually anyway. I am by no means disparaging that term, they are very important and very useful.


Been thru many in house audits and they are not the same as having an outside firm do it.



> What I mean when I said it that way, is that sometimes specialized audits that dig deeper into specific practices.
> 
> And that is your point too, the suit will focus on auditing policies and practices.


Exactly.



> With the advent of this other thought stream, perhaps it should also focus on which receivers are leased and which are not--rather than who was informed vs. who was not.


Of course. How could you build a case built on "he said, she said"? I was in Costco today explaining HDTVs to a woman and when I told her that Costco did not allow "forever" returns on TVs, she asked me where I read that. I told her to turn around and read the sticker on the TV box she was standing next to that clearly stated that the return policy on that and every TV was 90 days. Stickers like that all over the electronics dept. And she had no idea. How can you inform people like that?



> As to should Mike's note generated more response, somedays the great people here amaze me in so many ways. A topic can be mentioned and gather almost no response for 3 or 4 months when it suddenly can become hot. So yes, I expected a bit more but maybe that will happen in May.


Sad, but true.



> BTW, I will try to contact a few people at DIRECTV to ensure they are aware of this side issue as well. I suspect it is not a big deal, but just in case it is not, I want to give them a chance to think about it ahead of time.


This is a big deal. Inflating financial stats is huge.



> (Our normal DBSTalk readers from DIRECTV might not pick this up either.)


I'm normal, PaulS has clearly stated that. Been a long time since anybody called me normal. I kind of like it. He is a fine judge of character. :icon_kiff

Rich


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

Upstream said:


> Regarding Mike's comments: it is really only a current problem for DirecTV in as far as they are reporting currently owned receivers as leased. If CJTE is correct that all newly activated receivers are marked "leased" by DirecTV unless the customer complains, this could be a problem. But I expect that it is a relatively small number of previously owned receivers getting newly activated as leased.
> 
> If the class action suit finds that DirecTV did not adequately notify customers that their receivers were lease, and if DirecTV is ordered to reclassify leased receivers as owned (essentially transferring ownership from DirecTV to the customer), then DirecTV will have to restate, based on the losses of the suit. But that is not fraud.


My understanding is that "the default operation of the system is to highlight" leased, but at the time of activation any CSR can make that change right up until they submit the activation into the system. (They might even be able to change it for 5 minutes or something.)

Once it locks in the system as owned or leased, only a few groups can reverse the setting.

My guess is at first, there might have been several mistakes, now there are fewer and fewer.

Where I really, really get confused is when people who've had receivers for years now show as leased. Unless they suspended that receiver and activated it again, I can't see how a mistake is likely or even possible.

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

rich584 said:


> ...This is a big deal. Inflating financial stats is huge.
> ...
> I'm normal, PaulS has clearly stated that. Been a long time since anybody called me normal. I kind of like it. He is a fine judge of character. :icon_kiff
> 
> Rich


I'll poll the moderators to see if you qualify as normal... 

This is only a big deal if the inflation reaches "material". Mistakes of a tiny percentage are expected. I've known inventory systems that were happy at .5% inaccuracy. So if the total dollar value of the mistake is less than half a million, I bet no one would care.

The other point that is interesting is the ownership taxes in each municipality. I presume that DIRECTV has that built into their accounting system since they charge appropriate lease/mirror taxes everywhere, but also something to follow up on.

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## Ken S (Feb 13, 2007)

Rich,

Public corporations have outside auditing firms do complete audits each year. It's the law. Since SOX the CEO, CFO and General Counsel also have to sign off on the findings (as well as board members) at risk of personal liability.

Doesn't matter if you overstate or understate financials it's all a big deal. In general the amount would have to be significant in order for the SEC to really investigate and care.

If DirecTV believed in good faith that the receivers were leased than a court ruling otherwise would only require they restate the financials.

You can build a case on "he said" "she said" it's called direct testimony and it is the basis for many, many verdicts. In addition, DirecTV will have turned over millions of documents to the plaintiffs in discovery. This will include emails, internal memos, etc.



rich584 said:


> Been thru many in house audits and they are not the same as having an outside firm do it.
> 
> Exactly.
> 
> ...


----------



## mikewolf13 (Jan 31, 2006)

Ken S said:


> Rich,
> 
> Public corporations have outside auditing firms do complete audits each year. It's the law. Since SOX the CEO, CFO and General Counsel also have to sign off on the findings (as well as board members) at risk of personal liability.
> 
> Doesn't matter if you overstate or understate financials it's all a big deal. In general the amount would have to be significant in order for the SEC to really investigate and care.


I have no idea if the difference in the financials would be "material" and therefore would need to be reported in SOX questionaires, which, by the way, the execs are personally *criminally *liable for......

But if they will need to size the population of receivers mis-categorized and need to build adequate controls to ensure accuracy since it ends up on the balance sheet.

I think it's obvious the process is lacking in that many people here, a very small sample of the population have had their receivers miscategorized as leased.

It's not the mistake that's a big deal, as I assume it is.

Most companies will have independent 3rd party audit their processes to certify their financials.

But DTV needs to address, disclose and correct the situation to avoid civil liability down the road...

IF there is any real impact after all..


----------



## Ken S (Feb 13, 2007)

mikewolf13 said:


> I have no idea if the difference in the financials would be "material" and therefore would need to be reported in SOX questionaires, which, by the way, the execs are personally *criminally *liable for......
> 
> But if they will need to size the population of receivers mis-categorized and need to build adequate controls to ensure accuracy since it ends up on the balance sheet.
> 
> ...


When I stated that the execs could be personally liable I was referring to criminal and/or civil. So, yes I agree with you there.

I agree with the rest of your statements completely.

If ever there was a company that should consider working towards ISO 9000 and ISO 9001:2000 certifications.


----------



## mikewolf13 (Jan 31, 2006)

Ken S said:


> When I stated that the execs could be personally liable I was referring to criminal and/or civil. So, yes I agree with you there.
> 
> I agree with the rest of your statements completely.
> 
> If ever there was a company that should consider working towards ISO 9000 and ISO 9001:2000 certifications.


My emphasis on "criminally" was for everyone else, who may not realize that issues like this are not just a matter of $$$ or DTV liability.

It can be much more serious. I don't think most people think of these issues as potentially exposing Chase Carey to personal liability or even jail.

_Note: I am not saying Chase is going to jail because they called my Samsung leased when it was purchased. Just that issues like this, depending on their size and scope and the execs knowledge could possibly lead to that._


----------



## bluemoose (Dec 7, 2007)

I was recently part of a class action suit against a major manufacturer. 
The claim was legitimate, but not a life and death situation... 

Some tiny law firm in the midwest managed to walk away with 
*9.8 milllion dollars* in fees after the settlement.
(picture Dr. Evil saying that...  )

What did I get?Well... it was a lot of money, as a group... but each 
person got a nice $20 coupon that's only good towards a future 
purchase! 

The moral of this is that I should have gone to law school.... or sent
my offspring to law school....      I would probably be
able to afford the DirecTV Titanium package...(which I heard was a
very plush package... DTV even sends out a technician every week
to dust off the TV and HD DVRs...  )


----------



## Ken S (Feb 13, 2007)

bluemoose said:


> I was recently part of a class action suit against a major manufacturer.
> The claim was legitimate, but not a life and death situation...
> 
> Some tiny law firm in the midwest managed to walk away with
> ...


Bluemoose,

While being a member of the class-action bar can certainly be very profitable it isn't without huge risks. That firm may have fronted millions of dollars in costs and hourly work before getting a settlement. There's an interesting book called "A Civil Action" (was also a movie) where you can get a feel for some of the risk involved in those types of suits.


----------



## yuppers519 (Aug 6, 2007)

I had to pay $599 dollars upfront for 2 regular d11 boxes and one hd dvr hr20 700 box just to start service. I thought that i owned the boxes, but later found out that i actually do not. If direct wants to give me my money back if i leave then they will get the boxes back. What are they going to do with the boxes? sell them again to someone for the same exact price? Sounds like a big money making deal to me..


----------



## Ken S (Feb 13, 2007)

yuppers519 said:


> I had to pay $599 dollars upfront for 2 regular d11 boxes and one hd dvr hr20 700 box just to start service. I thought that i owned the boxes, but later found out that i actually do not. If direct wants to give me my money back if i leave then they will get the boxes back. What are they going to do with the boxes? sell them again to someone for the same exact price? Sounds like a big money making deal to me..


Reusing the boxes is exactly their plan...and it will save them millions. On the positive side for everyone else it's far better than just dumping the receivers into a landfill.


----------



## mikewolf13 (Jan 31, 2006)

Ken S said:


> Reusing the boxes is exactly their plan...and it will save them millions. On the positive side for everyone else it's far better than just dumping the receivers into a landfill.


Interesting how that $599 was alot more than the cost listed on the recent Investor day report even at it's highest point....so you pay double their cost, pay a lease fee, and have to return the box....

I wish the design team was as skilled as the finance team.


----------



## Ken S (Feb 13, 2007)

mikewolf13 said:


> Interesting how that $599 was alot more than the cost listed on the recent Investor day report even at it's highest point....so you pay double their cost, pay a lease fee, and have to return the box....
> 
> I wish the design team was as skilled as the finance team.


Hey...DirecTV is a pretty profitable business...they do however have a few billion in debt to pay off


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

mikewolf13 said:


> Interesting how that $599 was alot more than the cost listed on the recent Investor day report even at it's highest point....so you pay double their cost, pay a lease fee, and have to return the box....
> 
> I wish the design team was as skilled as the finance team.


Hey Mike,

Talked to my accountant last night in detail about your original thoughts in that earlier post. She stated categorically that corporations have to hire an outside accounting firm to audit them when they issue (or probably prior to?) their yearly financial statements. I believe she said the SEC would be the investigating body if wrongdoing was suspected.

So, depending when their fiscal year ends, an audit will take place. And an audit took place last year. My question is this: Do third party auditors understand enough about the sat business to understand an overstatement of leased receivers? From what I could gather from the conversation last night, the audit is focused on accounting practices. Would that outside auditor understand enough about D* to actually notice that they are "leasing" TiVos and Ultimate TV DVRs (that is an assumption on my part)? And including them in the yearly statement?

Rich


----------



## jahgreen (Dec 15, 2006)

mikewolf13 said:


> Interesting how that $599 was alot more than the cost listed on the recent Investor day report even at it's highest point....so you pay double their cost, pay a lease fee, and have to return the box....
> 
> I wish the design team was as skilled as the finance team.


I read the post as being $599 for *three *receivers: one HR20 and two D11. Also it wasn't clear whether there was anything else included in the order. Anyway, I'm not sure that the payment exceeded the announced cost.


----------



## mikewolf13 (Jan 31, 2006)

rich584 said:


> Hey Mike,
> 
> Talked to my accountant last night in detail about your original thoughts in that earlier post. She stated categorically that corporations have to hire an outside accounting firm to audit them when they issue (or probably prior to?) their yearly financial statements. I believe she said the SEC would be the investigating body if wrongdoing was suspected.
> 
> ...


Based on my limited experience being involved in the process...

I would assume they would review the depriciation #s and ask how they get that number. What controls are in place to ensure accuracy of that number and those controls are suppossed to be tested to make sure they are effective.

Some corps SOX processs is more detailed than others.. I don't know how effective DTV's is or isn't.


----------



## mikewolf13 (Jan 31, 2006)

jahgreen said:


> I read the post as being $599 for *three *receivers: one HR20 and two D11. Also it wasn't clear whether there was anything else included in the order. Anyway, I'm not sure that the payment exceeded the announced cost.


maybe for that poster..but many people did pay a list price of $599 when the HR20 was released.


----------



## jahgreen (Dec 15, 2006)

rich584 said:


> Hey Mike,
> 
> Talked to my accountant last night in detail about your original thoughts in that earlier post. She stated categorically that corporations have to hire an outside accounting firm to audit them when they issue (or probably prior to?) their yearly financial statements. I believe she said the SEC would be the investigating body if wrongdoing was suspected.
> 
> ...


Yes, all public companies have to issue certified financials, which requires an audit every year. Given the prominence of the change from selling to leasing the boxes, I have no doubt the auditors will have their eye on that ball.

But bear in mind, DirecTV's revenues exceeded $17 billion in 2007, and its net income was just under $1.5 billion. I bet it would take a very, very big number of boxes mischaracterized as leases before it would have a material impact on the financial statements. And if it isn't material, there won't be any officers going to jail or suffering civil penalties.

That's different than whether the subscriber class action might have some merit. But even there, DirecTV could write a pretty hefty check without having a material impact on its financial statements.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

mikewolf13 said:


> I would assume they would review the depriciation #s and ask how they get that number.


OK, I get that, but what if the third party auditors are ignorant of the fact that TiVos and other associated "owned" equipment aren't supposed to be on the books as "leased"? Wouldn't the lawyers in the class action suit demand an audit based on specific points of interest rather than making sure proper accounting protocols were in place and being used?

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

mikewolf13 said:


> maybe for that poster..but many people did pay a list price of $599 when the HR20 was released.


Were they really that expensive? I bought two in November of 06 and paid $269 and $239.

Rich


----------



## yuppers519 (Aug 6, 2007)

mikewolf13 said:


> maybe for that poster..but many people did pay a list price of $599 when the HR20 was released.


I had to pay $200 at startup in october for the two d11's and two weeks later upgrade to hd for $399. But when i originally placed my order with direct of course the guy on the phone said by the end of the year every channel would be in hd, blah blah. of course i did'nt believe him. but i did order an hd reciever and a regular reciever and when the installer came the first time he brought the wrong box. direct told me to cancel the order but i did'nt want to go a week or 2 without tv. so i just had them hook it up. so a week later i called direct and wanted to upgrade to hd, and they said it would be 399 up front. so i called back 5 minutes later, different csr and she was able to send out an installer 6 days later and bill it to my account. so all together had to pay 599 for startup


----------



## K4SMX (May 19, 2007)

rich584 said:


> OK, I get that, but what if the third party auditors are ignorant of the fact that TiVos and other associated "owned" equipment aren't supposed to be on the books as "leased"? Wouldn't the lawyers in the class action suit demand an audit based on specific points of interest rather than making sure proper accounting protocols were in place and being used?
> 
> Rich


In an earlier incarnation I was employed in a management position by a now infamous international accounting firm which was, long after my departure, eliminated from the business landscape by the U.S. Government, renowned for it's own straightforward accounting practices.

If the accounting for leased versus owned receivers was revealed to have been improperly stated and it was considered by the auditors to be a material issue to previously released financial statements, the statements would have to be restated. Materiality is the issue.

In the case of civil lawsuits, it is quite common for defendants to be required to provide all sorts of additional accounting data requiring professional outside accounting firms as directed by the court. If the judge directs the defendant to provide information to the court which details the number of leased versus owned receivers over a specific time period, you can rest assured that all that data will have to be properly analyzed and submitted. In that connection, you'd think it would be in DirecTV's interest to reclassify as many receivers as possible from "leased" to "owned."

Properly accounting for this equipment at the state use tax level is an entirely separate matter, and while no doubt immaterial to the overall financial statements, is always subject to challenge by individual state governments, while they're also greedily collecting their "DBS taxes" from individual consumers.


----------



## Bushwacr (Oct 31, 2007)

rich584 said:


> Hey Mike,
> 
> Talked to my accountant last night in detail about your original thoughts in that earlier post. She stated categorically that corporations have to hire an outside accounting firm to audit them when they issue (or probably prior to?) their yearly financial statements. I believe she said the SEC would be the investigating body if wrongdoing was suspected.
> 
> ...


The statements are signed off by Deloitte Touche in the 10K. There should be no question if they are audited it's sitting in the docs.

As to point two I would hope so. But audits are like anything else; good staffs do a better job. Given the change in accounting policy 3/1/06 I would assume that a close look was taken since that is like a frikkin' beacon to an auditor that says come test me.

FYI I was in that line of work in a prior life. LOL


----------



## m4p (Apr 12, 2007)

Ratara said:


> Lets say that you moved and have no line of sight at your new location. You disconnect your account, returning the equipment you bought. A year of two later you moved again and have the buy the same equipment all over again? .


In this case, I think they should note your account so that if you do move again and are able to get a signal, then they should give you the equipment without having to pay for it.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

Thanx Stew, by the way, what are you in this incarnation? Good word, well used.

Rich



K4SMX said:


> In an earlier incarnation I was employed in a management position by a now infamous international accounting firm which was, long after my departure, eliminated from the business landscape by the U.S. Government, renowned for it's own straightforward accounting practices.
> 
> If the accounting for leased versus owned receivers was revealed to have been improperly stated and it was considered by the auditors to be a material issue to previously released financial statements, the statements would have to be restated. Materiality is the issue.
> 
> ...


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

m4p said:


> In this case, I think they should note your account so that if you do move again and are able to get a signal, then they should give you the equipment without having to pay for it.


Oh yeah, that will happen. In our dreams. Thanx for the chuckle. I mean no offense, by the way.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

Bushwacr said:


> The statements are signed off by Deloitte Touche in the 10K. There should be no question if they are audited it's sitting in the docs.
> 
> As to point two I would hope so. But audits are like anything else; good staffs do a better job. Given the change in accounting policy 3/1/06 I would assume that a close look was taken since that is like a frikkin' beacon to an auditor that says come test me.
> 
> FYI I was in that line of work in a prior life. LOL


Two questions:

Am I correct in assuming that the lawsuit will cause a reaudit of all financial statements since leasing began?

What do you do in your present life? Or incarnation, as Stew so aptly put it. Just curious.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

Bushwacr said:


> FYI I was in that line of work in a prior life. LOL


One more question: Have you ever gone "bushwhacking"? I have and enjoyed myself immensely.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

jahgreen said:


> But bear in mind, DirecTV's revenues exceeded $17 billion in 2007, and its net income was just under $1.5 billion. I bet it would take a very, very big number of boxes mischaracterized as leases before it would have a material impact on the financial statements. And if it isn't material, there won't be any officers going to jail or suffering civil penalties.


Personally, I hope D* skates on this. But I am a pessimist and always look a the worst case scenario. Makes me happy when I am wrong. I also hope this has no bearing on the takeover by Liberty. I would like to see a better management group in place.

Rich


----------



## Bushwacr (Oct 31, 2007)

rich584 said:


> Two questions:
> 
> Am I correct in assuming that the lawsuit will cause a reaudit of all financial statements since leasing began?
> 
> ...


I doubt there will be a reaudit. I don't see the suit involving accounting principles but contract law.

The attorney website says they want the "lease" ruled invalid and all lease fees returned. If the lease IS ruled invalid I would hope D* can run a report as to what customers paid how much and cut checks. Then the financials will be restated, the SEC will be honked off and the shareholders will get their chance if the stock price goes down. Not mentioned is what happens to subs that already returned their equipment.

FWIW the law firm seems to like taking on big companies. This suit could be interesting to watch because state regulators love to hammer lessors.

As to what I do, not much. LOL We have enough money to be retired and get too bored so I do accounting and finance contract work. It pays for my toys. My present toy project is to stream HD from my computer dvr to the TV downstairs. Hey ya gotta do something !


----------



## Bushwacr (Oct 31, 2007)

rich584 said:


> One more question: Have you ever gone "bushwhacking"? I have and enjoyed myself immensely.
> 
> Rich


Hmmm ..... not sure how to answer this. LOL The wife actually gave me this nic many, many years ago.

The reason it's 8 characters long is to fit the old DOS limits.


----------



## K4SMX (May 19, 2007)

rich584 said:


> Thanx Stew, by the way, what are you in this incarnation? Good word, well used.
> 
> Rich


I don't want to go OT with a lengthy career exposition, so I'll just tell you regarding this latest incarnation that my wife would probably tell people if asked, "It has something to do with '771' and 'CE's on Friday nights'."


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

K4SMX said:


> I don't want to go OT with a lengthy career exposition, so I'll just tell you regarding this latest incarnation that my wife would probably tell people if asked, "It has something to do with '771' and 'CE's on Friday nights'."


Gotcha. Even that seems too much like work, but then all I ever wanted to do was play baseball, chase women (that's over) and howl at the moon (which I have trained my dogs to do with me). Plus, I'm almost terminally lazy.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

Bushwacr said:


> I doubt there will be a reaudit. I don't see the suit involving accounting principles but contract law.


This is so much for me to absorb. Thanx for the info and putting up with my ignorance.



> The attorney website says they want the "lease" ruled invalid and all lease fees returned. If the lease IS ruled invalid I would hope D* can run a report as to what customers paid how much and cut checks. Then the financials will be restated, the SEC will be honked off and the shareholders will get their chance if the stock price goes down. Not mentioned is what happens to subs that already returned their equipment.


Hmm. I wonder how that would affect me. Wait and see, I will.



> FWIW the law firm seems to like taking on big companies. This suit could be interesting to watch because state regulators love to hammer lessors.


Didn't know that. So much to learn, so little time.



> As to what I do, not much. LOL We have enough money to be retired and get too bored so I do accounting and finance contract work. It pays for my toys. My present toy project is to stream HD from my computer dvr to the TV downstairs. Hey ya gotta do something !


I'm in pretty much that same situation. I don't have a problem with boredom. I've been avoiding hooking up my computer to a 20/21, mainly because I'm lazy. Sounds interesting and I might do it someday. Meanwhile, I hope to start hitting baseballs as soon as the weather allows me to and that will take up a large portion of the next eight months. Ya gotta do something to stay in shape.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

Bushwacr said:


> Hmmm ..... not sure how to answer this. LOL The wife actually gave me this nic many, many years ago.
> 
> The reason it's 8 characters long is to fit the old DOS limits.


When I was a teenager, there was a popular parking area known as Telegraph Hill in Holmdel, NJ. We would go up there at night and look for a car with "suicide" doors and tie them together, then bang on the doors thoroughly disrupting the lovers in the car. That is what "bushwhacking" means in Jersey.

That stopped one fine night when the windows rolled down on a bushwhacked car and the barrel of a shotgun appeared. We scattered, met back at the car we got there in and attempted to escape. Nobody got injured, but the car had plenty of buckshot holes in it. Telegraph Hill is now the Garden State Arts Center. All good things must end. True story, I swear to Fred.

Rich


----------



## yuppers519 (Aug 6, 2007)

Here is the url for anyone wanting to join in on the class action lawsuit against directv for the reciever rip-off suit. <moderator note: [Tom Robertson] As indicated early on in this thread, dbstalk.com does not permit promoting lawsuits. Discussion of the news event is permitted. Therefore the link has been removed.>


----------



## PTravel (Oct 5, 2007)

SPACEMAKER said:


> Frivilous lawsuit. This is exacly why I am glad that D* is looking to weed out stupid subs.


I've been a DTV customer for around 15 years. I've always owned my own equipment, whether bought from DTV, a big-box store, ebay or a satellite company. When I switched to HDTV, I was not told I was leasing equipment, and didn't find out about it until I saw a "leased unit" fee on my bill.

Now, please explain to me why this is a frivolous law suit.


----------



## yuppers519 (Aug 6, 2007)

PTravel said:


> I've been a DTV customer for around 15 years. I've always owned my own equipment, whether bought from DTV, a big-box store, ebay or a satellite company. When I switched to HDTV, I was not told I was leasing equipment, and didn't find out about it until I saw a "leased unit" fee on my bill.
> 
> Now, please explain to me why this is a frivolous law suit.


Yes I too would like to know how this is a friolous lawsuit, when also i too bought a hddvr (hr20-700), had to pay $399.00 for it, and found out later that it was a leased unit. Do i get my money back when i cancel DTV? or does DTv take the box and sell it for another $399.00? how can that possibly be fair to a consumer who has no knowledge whatsover of it being a leased unit, even when you call them up and pay for it and they ship it fedex to you and make no mention whatsoever that it is a leased unit.


----------



## Bushwacr (Oct 31, 2007)

rich584 said:


> This is so much for me to absorb. Thanx for the info and putting up with my ignorance.


No problem and you're hardly ignorant on the matter. Few people outside a leasing company realize how complex and detailed the rules are. Even legal specialists run afoul of them. Every state is different.

You wanna get an AG excited? Tell him you think the APR on your ??? (pick something) lease contract is wrong. Then get out of the way LOL


----------



## tcusta00 (Dec 31, 2007)

yuppers519 said:


> Here is the url for anyone wanting to join in on the class action lawsuit against directv for the reciever rip-off suit. <moderator note: [Tom Robertson] As indicated early on in this thread, dbstalk.com does not permit promoting lawsuits. Discussion of the news event is permitted. Therefore the link has been removed.>


It's hardly necessary either - a class action lawsuit, by definition, will automatically include everyone in the "class" by default and ask if you want to opt in or out.


----------



## BubblePuppy (Nov 3, 2006)

m4p said:


> In this case, I think they should note your account so that if you do move again and are able to get a signal, then they should give you the equipment without having to pay for it.


Kinda off topic but pertinent to this train of thought.......just *suspend* your account. The equipment won't have to be returned and if you move you and (if and when) you can get D* then get the movers whatever D* calls it for free and you only have to activate the equipment you need at the time (as long as you have it) with out worring about the leased equipment that you have that isn't going to being used at the time.

For example in Florida I had 1 HDDVR plus three receivers. When I moved to Oregon I suspendedmy account for over 8 months. Once that I was able to get D* I only activated my HDDVR and my receivers are sitting in the closet. All are leased but I'm only paying for my HDDVR.

But all in all I think the leasing policy stinks and the average consumer won't have a clue what they are in for. Can you imagine buying a oven, paying hundreds of dollars for it and then later finding out your only leasing it.
Most consumers only equate leasing with cars.

Just my two cents.


----------



## Christopher Gould (Jan 14, 2007)

yuppers519 said:


> Yes I too would like to know how this is a friolous lawsuit, when also i too bought a hddvr (hr20-700), had to pay $399.00 for it, and found out later that it was a leased unit. Do i get my money back when i cancel DTV? or does DTv take the box and sell it for another $399.00? how can that possibly be fair to a consumer who has no knowledge whatsover of it being a leased unit, even when you call them up and pay for it and they ship it fedex to you and make no mention whatsoever that it is a leased unit.


well for one u would have paid more for that hr20 than 399(try 799-1000) if it wasn't leased, so u saved money and you are coming out ahead in the end.


----------



## rrcrosby (Dec 17, 2006)

Ratara said:


> After much discussion, time, and appeals I think it will end up flying like a lead balloon.
> 
> Agreed
> 
> ...


I agree that it is poor business practice.

After the installer said he could not do an install due to no line of sight, I decided to do it myself.

I paid $299 for an HR-20, $100 for an AT-9 dish, and installed them myself.

Direct TV charged $300 to my credit card for an H20 that I bought at WalMart and returned the next day because I did not return it to them. After two weeks of phone calls with Direct TV, they finally agreed that they had billed me in error. I wanted Direct TV to credit the $300 back to my credit card, but they credited it to my Direct TV bill.

I told them that I no longer wanted to be a customer. 

They told me to return the $300 HR-20 receiver to them and pay them $220 dollars for breaking the lease and they would allow me to leave.
Otherwise, they wanted their $71 dollars a month for the rest of the lease period.:nono2:

So I hope they lose the lawsuit.


----------



## RobertE (Jun 10, 2006)

Bushwacr said:


> I doubt there will be a reaudit. I don't see the suit involving accounting principles but contract law.
> 
> The attorney website says they want the "lease" ruled invalid and all lease fees returned. If the lease IS ruled invalid I would hope D* can run a report as to what customers paid how much and cut checks. Then the financials will be restated, the SEC will be honked off and the shareholders will get their chance if the stock price goes down. Not mentioned is what happens to subs that already returned their equipment.
> 
> ...


Ok, say the lease gets ruled invalid. Boxes are deemed owned. You now owe the "Mirror" fee and get refunded the "Lease" fee. It's the SAME $4.99.


----------



## Bushwacr (Oct 31, 2007)

RobertE said:


> Ok, say the lease gets ruled invalid. Boxes are deemed owned. You now owe the "Mirror" fee and get refunded the "Lease" fee. It's the SAME $4.99.


I would agree I guess although I'd hate to stand in front of a California judge and say " I'll just change the wording and keep the money". I would guess that any mirror fees would be going forward anyway and not be applied retrospectively since the class wouldn't have been informed of a mirror.

Besides how do you explain to a court we only charge "mirror" fees to a select group of customers and not all. The "mirror" was explained to me as a fee to share/replicate the main box programming with other units. Why wouldn't a lease require that same fee?

This can go many ways.

The lease is invalid; therefore any contract is invalid; therefore any customer can simply cancel the agreement that never existed in the court's eye. They get their lease fee back and get to keep a box and possibly change providers without penalty. Or the sub can sign onto a new and improved contract knowing he/she pays the mirror.

This could be a tricky case that could go either way.

I certainly think D* is going to be told to clean up their disclosure and make it extremely clear, understandable in 12 languages and prominent.

Personally, I agree with Earl a way back when he said just call it a rental fee all over.


----------



## Herdfan (Mar 18, 2006)

The ONLY people who have been materially affected are those subs whose CC got charged some fee when they didn't return the box. And they will most likely get some relief from the court because D* communicates policy changes worse than a 3 year old.

But, the rest of us who are now paying lease fees instead of mirror fees have not yet been affected. We may be in the future, but I don't plan on going anywhere, so the impact on me will be minimal.

On my bill the only thing that has change is I went from paying 7 mirror fees to 3 mirror fees and 3 lease fees. (Dropped a receiver) I pay the same $4.99 per receiver as I did before the lease nonsense started.


----------



## Herdfan (Mar 18, 2006)

Bushwacr said:


> I would agree I guess although I'd hate to stand in front of a California judge and say " I'll just change the wording and keep the money".


Keep what money? The monthly lease fees? They are most certainly entitled to those no matter what the called them.

Now any money they charge people for not returning a box or money people paid for a box they didn't know they didn't own is fair game.


----------



## Bushwacr (Oct 31, 2007)

Herdfan said:


> Keep what money? The monthly lease fees? They are most certainly entitled to those no matter what the called them.
> 
> Now any money they charge people for not returning a box or money people paid for a box they didn't know they didn't own is fair game.


Except the lawsuit is for a return of all fees paid as part of a lease. I'm sure the CA attorney will argue that D* gets their return from the monthly program subscriptions. Would a reasonable court say that D* was entitled to something? That's the luck of the draw and I suspect will be measured against competitor models.


----------



## jimbojive (Mar 12, 2007)

i hope DTV loses,
I bought and paid for all 3 of my boxes,
when i activated my HD box last year , they told me the leasing news,
i argued, till he told me if one goes bad they replace it for free,the way he put it 
" if you own it and it goes bad you own a broken IRD, if you lease it from us we send you another one"
so that eased my attitude alittle,. just hope they keep their word if i ever do have a problem with a box .

ps.
i got DTV to give me a free upgrade to a HD box from an old Tivo box.


----------



## Kheldar (Sep 5, 2004)

yuppers519 said:


> Yes I too would like to know how this is a friolous lawsuit, when also i too bought a hddvr (hr20-700), had to pay $399.00 for it, and found out later that it was a leased unit. Do i get my money back when i cancel DTV? or does DTv take the box and sell it for another $399.00? how can that possibly be fair to a consumer who has no knowledge whatsover of it being a leased unit, even when you call them up and pay for it and they ship it fedex to you and make no mention whatsoever that it is a leased unit.


Please, name _just one_ lease arrangement where you get the down-payment back when you return the leased product. _Just one_. Most leased products (cars, computers, whatever) are turned around and sold; who hasn't seen those car dealership commercials for 'lease return vehicles'?


----------



## raott (Nov 23, 2005)

RobertE said:


> Ok, say the lease gets ruled invalid. Boxes are deemed owned. You now owe the "Mirror" fee and get refunded the "Lease" fee. It's the SAME $4.99.


I'd be very surprised, if not shocked, if a judge allowed that to happen. Is a "mirror" fee listed in the lease agreements? If not, its not going to happen.


----------



## Bushwacr (Oct 31, 2007)

mikewolf13 said:


> APR
> Residual Value
> OPtion to buy at end of lease
> fixed term
> ...





bluemoose said:


> *Will someone please explain to me the difference
> between leasing a car vs leasing a DTV HD DVR?
> 
> Thank you. *


Forget the financial aspect. The primary difference is that an auto lease requires very heavy and detailed disclosure to the lessee. Further both parties have to sign many documents evidencing such; that both parties understand and agree to the transaction. That's why true leasing companies have lots of attorneys on staff. The consumer disclosures are onerous and cumbersome but serve a purpose.


----------



## RobertE (Jun 10, 2006)

raott said:


> I'd be very surprised, if not shocked, if a judge allowed that to happen. Is a "mirror" fee listed in the lease agreements? If not, its not going to happen.


No the mirror fee was listed in either the programming or customer agreement that everyone had _prior_ to the lease agreement comming about.

I don't buy the arguement that someone who was doing a self install/upgrade was not aware of additional monthly charges for each box beyond the first. It's been that way essentially forever. For someone that is knowledgeable enough to understand how to install, activate and use the system but not know about the additional charge is unbeleivable.

I could possibly see where the upfront charges can/are confusing to people.


----------



## jbraden (Mar 23, 2004)

Ken S said:


> There are a number of procedural issues involved with the granting of whether the class action should be certified.
> 
> Special Thanks to Tom Robertson for helping me get these files online as they were a bit over the dbstalk max file size.
> 
> Ken


Thanks Ken & Tom for providing the documents in question. DirecTV's argument seems to be that the California court should not have jurisdiction in this matter since neither plaintiff listed is a resident of California, and the circumstances of the two cases are different enough that they do not constitute a class. It will be interesting to watch.

In my own experience, DirecTV initially did a very poor job of communicating their change from owned equipment to leased equipment, and there was no significant change in the purchase price for this equipment when it became a lease. When I bought an H20 in Nov. '06, there was no mention of it being leased anywhere on the box or in the paperwork I received, but the "additional receiver" charge changed to a "leased receiver" charge on my bill when I activated it, and sales tax was charged on the lease fee. A year later when I got an HR20, there was a sticker on the box that clearly stated this was leased equipment, so things have improved.


----------



## raott (Nov 23, 2005)

RobertE said:


> No the mirror fee was listed in either the programming or customer agreement that everyone had _prior_ to the lease agreement comming about.
> 
> I could possibly see where the upfront charges can/are confusing to people.


If the mirror fees went away when the lease model was instituted, D* is out of luck. If the lease provisions are void because there was no disclosure of material terms (ie the lease), you don't get to "substitute" other provisions.

A judge is not going to add terms to this agreement that were not there but he very well may remove terms that weren't disclosed to the customer.


----------



## Bushwacr (Oct 31, 2007)

jbraden said:


> Thanks Ken & Tom for providing the documents in question. DirecTV's argument seems to be that the California court should not have jurisdiction in this matter since neither plaintiff listed is a resident of California, and the circumstances of the two cases are different enough that they do not constitute a class. It will be interesting to watch.


Does the state filed matter in a Federal case especially since D* is headquartered in California? Any attorneys out there?

I can certainly understand wanting the case out of California. That's as consumer friendly as you get.


----------



## Smuuth (Oct 4, 2005)

raott said:


> If the mirror fees went away when the lease model was instituted, D* is out of luck.


The mirroring fees did not go away when the lease model was instituted. I, along with many other subscribers, still have both owned and leased receivers on my system. The owned receivers show the mirroring fee while the leased receivers show the lease fee on the account charges summary.


----------



## Ken S (Feb 13, 2007)

Bushwacr said:


> Does the state filed matter in a Federal case especially since D* is headquartered in California? Any attorneys out there?
> 
> I can certainly understand wanting the case out of California. That's as consumer friendly as you get.


Yes, it does...in some cases quite a bit. There are number of factors and rules (Federal Rules of Civil Procedure) that dictate where a plaintiff has "standing" to bring an action.

Properly selecting a court with jurisdiction takes up a great deal of a very painful first-year law school class...probably better we don't get into that discussion here . There are specific requirements that must be met before filing in federal court as well as other requirements necessary to be certified as a class action lawsuit. Should you ever have trouble sleeping...

Basically though, DirecTV's reply is pretty basic and is not really attacking the choice of venue...they're trying to claim that there is no reason for a class action and that each of the cases should be brought against them individually (and in compliance with their arbitration clause - which has already been ruled unconscionable and unenforceable by the California State Courts). In general, this is a pretty standard response for a defendant. They know if the suit gets certifed as a class action they've all but lost and will almost certainly settle.

People should remember this class may only cover a small subset of the people that acquired receivers. It may only end up covering people that got them at retail between certain dates.


----------



## Bushwacr (Oct 31, 2007)

Ken S said:


> Yes, it does...in some cases quite a bit. There are number of factors and rules (Federal Rules of Civil Procedure) that dictate where a plaintiff has "standing" to bring an action.
> 
> Properly selecting a court with jurisdiction takes up a great deal of a very painful first-year law school class...probably better we don't get into that discussion here . There are specific requirements that must be met before filing in federal court as well as other requirements necessary to be certified as a class action lawsuit. Should you ever have trouble sleeping...
> 
> ...


Thanks Ken, that's why I never went back and got a law degree. I use FAS 13 and its flurry of amendments (Accounting for Leases) to go to sleep. That's actually a true story.

Yeah I figured this was the old "let's throw this against the wall and see if it sticks" preliminary defense. And I'm certain that D* has attorneys and Dispute Analytics firms running all over in the background in case it slides off the wall.

Anyone know if Wexler et al. is a Hired Gun or a Pop Gun?

Is it a coincidence that this suit is coming at a time that would be 24 months after the change to the leasing model? Isn't that when the first series of commitments would cease?


----------



## RobertE (Jun 10, 2006)

raott said:


> If the mirror fees went away when the lease model was instituted, D* is out of luck. If the lease provisions are void because there was no disclosure of material terms (ie the lease), you don't get to "substitute" other provisions.
> 
> A judge is not going to add terms to this agreement that were not there but he very well may remove terms that weren't disclosed to the customer.


The mirror fees did not go away. Mirror fee of $4.99 are for owned boxes. Lease fee of $4.99 is for, well, leased boxes. "Same" fee, same $4.99, one is for owned, one is for leased. End result, you still pay $4.99 for each box after your first.


----------



## Kheldar (Sep 5, 2004)

RobertE said:


> The mirror fees did not go away. Mirror fee of $4.99 are for owned boxes. Lease fee of $4.99 is for, well, leased boxes. "Same" fee, same $4.99, one is for owned, one is for leased. End result, you still pay $4.99 for each box after your first.


D* Customer Agreement
Lease Addendum

Even if the whole lease plan is thrown out, the original Customer Agreement would still apply, no?

From the first link above, section 2(c)(3):


> (3) Additional TV Authorization Fee: If you meet the qualifications described in Section 1(f), we may charge you a monthly fee of up to $4.99 for separate Services on each additional TV, rather than a full subscription fee for Services on each additional TV. This reduced rate is available only if all receivers are located at your residence.


----------



## Ken S (Feb 13, 2007)

Bushwacr said:


> Thanks Ken, that's why I never went back and got a law degree. I use FAS 13 and its flurry of amendments (Accounting for Leases) to go to sleep. That's actually a true story.
> 
> Yeah I figured this was the old "let's throw this against the wall and see if it sticks" preliminary defense. And I'm certain that D* has attorneys and Dispute Analytics firms running all over in the background in case it slides off the wall.
> 
> ...


Kenneth Wexler appears to be pretty experienced in this type of action. His firm has been involved in a number of similar cases. I'm sure there will be some other firms involved as things go along and they all begin to sign-up clients.

They brought the action in early February. There may have been a statute of limitations consideration involved in that they would want to capture the greatest number of potential class members and that would start with the institution of the leasing program.


----------



## RobertE (Jun 10, 2006)

Exactly Kheldar. One tends to over look things when they have selective reading.


----------



## Kheldar (Sep 5, 2004)

RobertE said:


> Exactly Kheldar. One tends to over look things when they have selective reading.


And notice the section I quoted doesn't specify _owned_ vs _leased_. It just talks about "each additional TV". So, technically, that "Additional TV Authorization Fee" could apply to either.


----------



## raott (Nov 23, 2005)

RobertE said:


> Exactly Kheldar. One tends to over look things when they have selective reading.


If you are referring to me, I suggest you go back and reread my posts.


----------



## Bushwacr (Oct 31, 2007)

Kheldar said:


> D* Customer Agreement
> Lease Addendum
> 
> Even if the whole lease plan is thrown out, the original Customer Agreement would still apply, no?
> ...


Well that's dated 4/23/07 as to the Customer Agreement. So that leaves 14 months uncovered since the inception of the lease program.


----------



## Bushwacr (Oct 31, 2007)

Kheldar said:


> And notice the section I quoted doesn't specify _owned_ vs _leased_. It just talks about "each additional TV". So, technically, that "Additional TV Authorization Fee" could apply to either.


That's a great term to call these payments actually. It's better than rental even. Trademark that baby.


----------



## Upstream (Jul 4, 2006)

Kheldar said:


> D* Customer Agreement
> Lease Addendum
> 
> Even if the whole lease plan is thrown out, the original Customer Agreement would still apply, no?
> ...


According to those linked documents, shouldn't additional leased receivers be subject to both the Monthly Lease Fee and the Additional TV Authorization Fee (for a total of $9.98 per additional receiver). There is nothing in the Lease Addendum which indicates that the Monthly Lease Fee replaces the mirroring fee, and there is nothing in the Customer Agreement which indicates that the mirroring fee does not apply to leased receivers.


----------



## rug1000 (Jan 20, 2007)

I purchased an HR10-250 in January 2006. It was listed on my directv account as purchased. When certain parts of the receiver stopped working (TIVO), Directv sent out a replacement receiver (an HR20-700) around January 2007. I called and specifically asked whether I received a proper warranty replacement and they said they were sending those receivers out instead for warranty replacements as they didn't have anymore HR10-250's to send out. I setup the receiver, called to activate, and unfortunately only one of the HR20-700 tuners was working (the other was "searching for satellite signal") which was an early problem with these receivers.

Directv said they would send out another warranty replacement. I asked if I could reactivate the HR10-250 until the new receiver got shipped which they did (this was apparently the source of my service commitment extension below). The new receiver worked, I activated it, and sent back that HR10-250. All of this happened without being informed that the new receiver would be leased (how could I even image this since i _purchased_ the malfunctioning receiver). But i digress. In the end, I noticed a lease fee on my bill, called to inquire about this, and they told me about it. I explained the situation about how it was a warranty replacement for a receiver I owned. Directv did not care. Again, I was not at all notified that this would be a leased receiver; neither upon ordering the warranty replacement nor upon activating the warranty replacement receiver. Nothing was indicated on either box showing that it was going to be a leased receiver.

Since this was unacceptable to me, I asked whether I could cancel my account. Of course they said I _could_ but that I would be subject to a early termination fee. I said, that I'd call back in January (this past January) when my service commitment was up. They told me that by activating the HR20-700 advanced receiver, I was now committed until January of 2009. I tried explaining the situation to them including to the retention department, but they just hung up on me. Now I am in a situation where I could try canceling service and see if they will not charge the service charge. But I am at the mercy of Directv who thinks they are God and that they can do no wrong. I don't have sympathy for those people who merely think the policy is bad and are trying to get out of what they perceive is a bad deal. Based on my situation, however, I do have sympathy with the lawsuit for those people that are in my situation and would not consider it frivolous.



Kheldar said:


> Even if the whole lease plan is thrown out, the original Customer Agreement would still apply, no?
> 
> From the first link above, section 2(c)(3):


Kheldar, I will have to disagree with you regarding what will happen if the lease plan is thrown out. Clearly Directv was authorized, based on the language you quoted, to charge _both_ a mirror fee and a lease fee of _up to_ $4.99. However, they clearly waived the mirror fee if you paid the lease fee. Since they waived it and charged $0 for it, I don't see how they will be able to retroactively charge it (without another lawsuit) if the leases get thrown out. They could've charged up to $4.99, but they did not. They can't go back and get that back.

-Rug


----------



## Bushwacr (Oct 31, 2007)

Upstream said:


> According to those linked documents, shouldn't additional leased receivers be subject to both the Monthly Lease Fee and the Additional TV Authorization Fee (for a total of $9.98 per additional receiver). There is nothing in the Lease Addendum which indicates that the Monthly Lease Fee replaces the mirroring fee, and there is nothing in the Customer Agreement which indicates that the mirroring fee does not apply to leased receivers.


That's what I thought too. I remember the installer and CSR telling me the mirror fee was to replicate the main box programming within the household and had nothing to do with ownership.


----------



## mikewolf13 (Jan 31, 2006)

Upstream said:


> According to those linked documents, shouldn't additional leased receivers be subject to both the Monthly Lease Fee and the Additional TV Authorization Fee (for a total of $9.98 per additional receiver). There is nothing in the Lease Addendum which indicates that the Monthly Lease Fee replaces the mirroring fee, and there is nothing in the Customer Agreement which indicates that the mirroring fee does not apply to leased receivers.


I think that's why they use the word "may"...they could charge $9.98...if thye chose to under the letter of the agreement. But they effectively waive teh mirror fee if you pay the lease fee.

Nothing says they will, but they do


----------



## Upstream (Jul 4, 2006)

So if the key words are "may" and "up to", and DirecTV elects to charge a mirroring fee of less than $4.99, then Rug's comment seems correct: if the court throws out the Lease Fee, DirecTV would not seem to have the option of backcharging a mirror fee, since they have already decided to charge a mirror fee of $0.00.


----------



## RobertE (Jun 10, 2006)

Upstream said:


> So if the key words are "may" and "up to", and DirecTV elects to charge a mirroring fee of less than $4.99, then Rug's comment seems correct: if the court throws out the Lease Fee, DirecTV would not seem to have the option of backcharging a mirror fee, since they have already decided to charge a mirror fee of $0.00.


I'm not so sure.

I dug out my original paperwork from 2002 when I purchased my first system from BB. It even states the $4.99 mirror fee.

We can assume for the most part that the customer(s) in question already had service prior to getting the "leased" box. So, I think its safe again to assume the customer(s) are aware of the $4.99 mirror fee for owned boxes. If the plaintiffs assumed that the box was owned, why do they think that there is no programming charges for the box? Do they think that the judge/jury is really that stupid?

Just more selective reading/memory.


----------



## jimbojive (Mar 12, 2007)

your right, but I (we) bought our IRDs long before they informed us they were going leased, even if I give them the benifit of dout on my HR20. i had my Tivo boxes several years, it just don't seem right,

senario........
we bought the units.
we fullfilled our agreements.
we loose our jobs, 
now we need to sell our old IRD's to make rent,:eek2: 
but nooo, we have to turn them in,
thats BS
tell me how that's right?:nono:



Kheldar said:


> Please, name _just one_ lease arrangement where you get the down-payment back when you return the leased product. _Just one_. Most leased products (cars, computers, whatever) are turned around and sold; who hasn't seen those car dealership commercials for 'lease return vehicles'?


----------



## Upstream (Jul 4, 2006)

RobertE said:


> I'm not so sure.
> 
> I dug out my original paperwork from 2002 when I purchased my first system from BB. It even states the $4.99 mirror fee.
> 
> ...


RobertE -- DirecTV had every right to charge a $4.99 mirror fee for additional TVs, and their contract also gives them the right to charge less, or nothing at all. If they elected to charge $0.00 for the mirror fee, that is their right. But the Customer Agreement does not give them the right to decide at a later date to retroactively change the amount they elected to charge.

Likewise, the Customer Agreement gives DirecTV the right to charge an Account Activation fee of up to $100. When I activated my account 10 years ago, they elected to charge $0.00 for account activation. They can't come back today and say "we changed our mind, you now owe us $100 for account activation."

If the mirror fee and lease fee were linked (for instance, if the customer agreement said that the mirror fee is waived for leased receivers, or the mirror fee is waived if the lease fee is paid), then elimination of the lease and lease fee would logically trigger a mirror fee. But the fees are not linked. They are separate fees paid for different things under different parts of DirecTV's customer agreements.


----------



## Christopher Gould (Jan 14, 2007)

this just seems like what i hear alot of around here people trying to get something for free. people watching programming for months years now thinking they deserve all there fees back because they didn't know BS. just shows the weaknness anymore. no personal responsibility. ive been paying the 4.99 x 2 for 10 years. please


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

Christopher Gould said:


> this just seems like what i hear alot of around here people trying to get something for free. people watching programming for months years now thinking they deserve all there fees back because they didn't know BS. just shows the weaknness anymore. no personal responsibility. ive been paying the 4.99 x 2 for 10 years. please


In this case, I think it's more an academic question than anything else. Folks are operating on principle and just want it to be "right." At the end of the day, IMHO, regardless of the outcome things will not be vastly different. Even if by some strange circumstance leased boxes became owned boxes .. individually we're not much different than we started.

It's OK to fight on principle .. folks do it all the time. For me, I'm happy with the lease situation and I was informed along the way with proper time to decide yes or no if I wanted to continue.


----------



## stim (Nov 16, 2005)

I think that DirecTV has set themselves up for this... Without some kind of proof via hard copy of your signature or an electronic signature, it is difficult for them to prove that the information was verbally disclosed.


----------



## Bushwacr (Oct 31, 2007)

stim said:


> I think that DirecTV has set themselves up for this... Without some kind of proof via hard copy of your signature or an electronic signature, it is difficult for them to prove that the information was verbally disclosed.


Heck my "contract" was a Best buy receipt with some bs about a lease contract. I'm not sure if I was also leasing the Stevie Ray Vaughn cd. I remember laughing with the sales guy about its validity.


----------



## Bushwacr (Oct 31, 2007)

Christopher Gould said:


> this just seems like what i hear alot of around here people trying to get something for free. people watching programming for months years now thinking they deserve all there fees back because they didn't know BS. just shows the weaknness anymore. no personal responsibility. ive been paying the 4.99 x 2 for 10 years. please


Ya know, this guy's correct. If D* would just standardize and quit letting the leeches get reduced rates because they called retention or cried on the phone they could certainly make the csr's job easier. You wanna box rent it for $5; second box another $5 or go somewhere else. Leave it to the product quality to sell it.

I've always thought every mod and poster should list their freebies and "reduced rates" in their sig to better judge the objectivity of the response.

'Course there is no way to police this idea


----------



## spartanstew (Nov 16, 2005)

Bushwacr said:


> Ya know, this guy's correct. If D* would just standardize and quit letting the leeches get reduced rates because they called retention or cried on the phone they could certainly make the csr's job easier. You wanna box rent it for $5; second box another $5 or go somewhere else. Leave it to the product quality to sell it.
> 
> I've always thought every mod and poster should list their freebies and "reduced rates" in their sig to better judge the objectivity of the response.
> 
> 'Course there is no way to police this idea


You're assuming that everyone that gets free stuff or discounted service calls retention or cries on the phone.

I paid a total of $200 for the 3 HR20/21's in my sig. I've never once talked to retention or called and complained or cried. Of the 7 DVR's I've had through D*over the years, I've paid less than $500 TOTAL.

I currently have Total Choice Plus, HD Access, 3 DVR's, Showtime and HBO and my monthly bill is less than $50. Again, I've never talked to retention or cried and complained. On the occasions that I've called, I've simply asked them what they could do for me (i.e. "I'd like a new DVR, what will it cost me?" or "I'd like to get HBO, are there any deals currently?")

That doesn't mean I'm not objective.


----------



## rug1000 (Jan 20, 2007)

RobertE said:


> I'm not so sure.
> 
> I dug out my original paperwork from 2002 when I purchased my first system from BB. It even states the $4.99 mirror fee.
> 
> ...


How is this selective reading/memory? I've read the entire contract. Nothing states that the subscriber _will_ be charged a mirror fee. Nor is there anything that states that the subscriber has to pay a mirror fee if one is not charged. This is directv's problem for making a distinction between a lease fee and a mirror fee. They should've just called everything a mirror fee and i doubt we'd be having this discussion. If the lease is thrown out, then all fees related to the lease might have to be refunded. And if Directv decided not to charge a mirror fee regarding those receivers, I don't see where they have the right to charge it at a later time. The contract is terribly drafted regarding this issue from directv's viewpoint and to ignore this fact is, in my opinion, to have selective reading. People shouldn't get something for nothing, but at the same time, directv botched up this whole switch to leased receivers. They should've been open and up-front about it rather than trying to sweep the issue under the rug (no pun intended). They don't get brownie points for that.

-Rug


----------



## raott (Nov 23, 2005)

Bushwacr said:


> Ya know, this guy's correct. If D* would just standardize and quit letting the leeches get reduced rates because they called retention or cried on the phone they could certainly make the csr's job easier. You wanna box rent it for $5; second box another $5 or go somewhere else. Leave it to the product quality to sell it.


They have made a business decision to attempt to keep customers by offering "freebies" to compete with cable where there is no upfront cost. Its not crying or leaching, its simple negotiating.

Do you think D* considers themselves "crying" and "leaching" when they are negotiating with their suppliers? There is absolutely no difference.


----------



## JLucPicard (Apr 27, 2004)

> How is this selective reading/memory? This is directv's problem for making a distinction between a lease fee and a mirror fee.


All this talk of selective reading and "lease fee" versus "mirror fee".

When I read my bill, there is a section titled "Fees". Within that section it lists "Leased Receiver" and "Additional Receiver". In the Activity Since Last Bill section on the web site, it shows "Leased Receiver - Charge" and "Additional Receiver - Charge".

Nowhere in there does it actually use the words "Mirroring Fee" like it did before the lease model began . Unless I'm mistaken, the ONLY place I have read anything to the effect that you pay a monthly equipment leasing fee, therefore the 'mirroring fee' is waived on leased receivers is IN THIS THREAD!.

You pay a mirroring fee on all receivers beyond the first one. If that receiver happens to be a leased receiver, it is labeled a "Leased Receiver" fee. If it is an owned receiver, it is labeled an "Additional Receiver" fee. I'd like to know where people are getting the idea that you pay a monthly equipment leasing fee on "leased receivers", therefore DirecTV waives a monthly mirroring fee on those??? Your monthly $4.99 charge on leased receivers is a mirroring fee.


----------



## Upstream (Jul 4, 2006)

JLuc --

According to the Customer Agreement (Sec 2-c-3), DirecTV may charge an "Additional TV Authorization Fee" of upto $4.99 for service on additional TVs. The official name of this fee is the "Additional TV Authorization Fee", but many here call it a "mirroring fee" (In Sec 1-f, the agreement says _we can "mirror" programming to your additional TVs and charge you only the fee amount described in Section 2_).

In the Lease Addendum, it says that you will be charged a $4.99 "Monthly Lease Fee" for each leased receiver. There is nothing in the agreement which indicates or implies that the Lease Fee and the Additional TV Authorization Fee are the same, or that one is waived if you pay the other.

Theoretically, DirecTV could turn around tomorrow and charge both fees, and they would be completely within their rights per the Customer Agreement and Lease Addendum, which so many here claim to have read, agreed to, and signed.


----------



## jbraden (Mar 23, 2004)

JLucPicard said:


> You pay a mirroring fee on all receivers beyond the first one. If that receiver happens to be a leased receiver, it is labeled a "Leased Receiver" fee. If it is an owned receiver, it is labeled an "Additional Receiver" fee. I'd like to know where people are getting the idea that you pay a monthly equipment leasing fee on "leased receivers", therefore DirecTV waives a monthly mirroring fee on those??? Your monthly $4.99 charge on leased receivers is a mirroring fee.


There is one difference. You are charged sales tax on "Leased Receiver" fees, which is consistent with the lease model where you are renting a receiver. The "Additional Receiver" fee is not charged sales tax, since this is a service, not a product.


----------



## Ken S (Feb 13, 2007)

jbraden said:


> There is one difference. You are charged sales tax on "Leased Receiver" fees, which is consistent with the lease model where you are renting a receiver. The "Additional Receiver" fee is not charged sales tax, since this is a service, not a product.


That's only correct in some taxing authorities. In many areas there is tax on both items. In some the tax on leasing can be at a higher percentage than the mirroring fee.

There are something like 7,000 different governmental entities in the United States that are charging a sales/use tax on items. There is little standardization of the rules and even where a rule is the same one taxing authority will interpret something differently than others. Any district can change their laws at any time and the notice may be nothing more than a mention in a local newspaper. Staying "legal" with sales/use tax generally requires several people and some very expensive software which has to be constantly updated.


----------



## jjohns (Sep 15, 2007)

Upstream said:


> JLuc --
> 
> According to the Customer Agreement (Sec 2-c-3), DirecTV may charge an "Additional TV Authorization Fee" of upto $4.99 for service on additional TVs. The official name of this fee is the "Additional TV Authorization Fee", but many here call it a "mirroring fee" (In Sec 1-f, the agreement says _we can "mirror" programming to your additional TVs and charge you only the fee amount described in Section 2_).
> 
> ...


"Theoretically, DirecTV could turn around tomorrow and charge both fees, and they would be completely within their rights per the Customer Agreement and Lease Addendum, which so many here claim to have read, agreed to, and signed."

When it comes to creative ways to charge more money for the same thing you've been getting all along for free, DirecTV is the king.
Please - don't give them any more ideas.


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

jjohns said:


> "Theoretically, DirecTV could turn around tomorrow and charge both fees, and they would be completely within their rights per the Customer Agreement and Lease Addendum, which so many here claim to have read, agreed to, and signed."
> 
> When it comes to creative ways to charge more money for the same thing you've been getting all along for free, DirecTV is the king.
> Please - don't give them any more ideas.


Please, DIRECTV isn't even a viscount at nickel and dime tactics. Banks are much higher in the hierarchy of "Fees Just Because We Can".

And no one is even in the same class as cellphones for the most complex billing and fee structure ever devised. 

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## rug1000 (Jan 20, 2007)

Tom Robertson said:


> Please, DIRECTV isn't even a viscount at nickel and dime tactics. Banks are much higher in the hierarchy of "Fees Just Because We Can".
> 
> And no one is even in the same class as cellphones for the most complex billing and fee structure ever devised.
> 
> ...


Can't disagree with that. And at least Directv takes responsibility for the amounts that they do charge and make it clear what they are charging it for rather than trying to pass it off as a non-existent regulatory fee.

-Rug


----------



## cover (Feb 11, 2007)

sdk009 said:


> Nice comment, full of compassion.
> Not everyone is a genius, and this may be a case where ignorance is an excuse.


Being a genius doesn't enter into it. Either this was adequately disclosed or it was not. A genius can be just as uninformed as anyone else.


----------



## jwjensen356 (Apr 11, 2006)

My two cents worth are regarding Dish Network. My most recent hardware are leased and I was made aware of that. My original hardware was purchased by me. When I got my HD receiver in 2006 it replaced one of my legacy receivers. I used the box that came with the new receiver to send the legacy receiver to DN and got a $25 credit on my bill. The shipment costs were prepaid, the nuisance factor to me was taken care of, DN got the old receiver out of the marketplace, and I believe it took care of any legal claim that I might have on the new receiver.


----------



## dlocks (Sep 24, 2007)

jbraden said:


> There is one difference. You are charged sales tax on "Leased Receiver" fees, which is consistent with the lease model where you are renting a receiver. The "Additional Receiver" fee is not charged sales tax, since this is a service, not a product.


I have 3 owned receivers and 2 leased receivers. I pay 0.66 tax on each owned receiver vs 0.30 tax on each leased receiver.


----------



## Jhon69 (Mar 28, 2006)

jwjensen356 said:


> My two cents worth are regarding Dish Network. My most recent hardware are leased and I was made aware of that. My original hardware was purchased by me. When I got my HD receiver in 2006 it replaced one of my legacy receivers. I used the box that came with the new receiver to send the legacy receiver to DN and got a $25 credit on my bill. The shipment costs were prepaid, the nuisance factor to me was taken care of, DN got the old receiver out of the marketplace, and I believe it took care of any legal claim that I might have on the new receiver.


Yea well Dishnotwrok's got their own problems charging a DVR fee for Each DVR,$5. for locals,and a $5. downgrade fee when you change your package just to name a few.


----------



## Ken S (Feb 13, 2007)

Tom Robertson said:


> Please, DIRECTV isn't even a viscount at nickel and dime tactics. Banks are much higher in the hierarchy of "Fees Just Because We Can".
> 
> And no one is even in the same class as cellphones for the most complex billing and fee structure ever devised.
> 
> ...


Tom,

The cellphone companies are changing because of competition though. Just about all of them now offer a monthly flat fee for unlimited use. Sprint was the latest to fall in line just a day or so ago.


----------



## TBoneit (Jul 27, 2006)

Jhon69 said:


> Yea well Dishnotwrok's got their own problems charging a DVR fee for Each DVR,$5. for locals,and a $5. downgrade fee when you change your package just to name a few.


I think I get it, You Don't Like E* and you love D*.

However comparing some fees to a class action lawsuit isn't even close. If you had said that E* has had a class action lawsuit in the past and now it is D*'s turn that would be a fair comparison. I believe they had a class action lawsuit over the 1st genn DVR, Dishplayers. Which BTW was re-incarnated as a 2nd gen DVR dual tuner DVR by Microsoft for D*.

My recollection from reading here and other forums is that with E* locals are included and if they are not offered the monthly rate drops.


----------



## Kheldar (Sep 5, 2004)

TBoneit said:


> My recollection from reading here and other forums is that with E* locals are included and if they are not offered the monthly rate drops.


Not correct. E*'s local channel qualification page:


> $5.99/month or $5.00/month with qualifying package


With E*, the only packages currently offered that include the local channels are their DishDVR Advantage packages.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

jbraden said:


> There is one difference. You are charged sales tax on "Leased Receiver" fees, which is consistent with the lease model where you are renting a receiver. The "Additional Receiver" fee is not charged sales tax, since this is a service, not a product.


That is the way my bill reads too.

Rich


----------



## Rob77 (Sep 24, 2007)

Regardless of who wins the legal battle....guess who is going to pay the lawyers for all their time and any paybacks......can you turn that finger around and point at yourself


----------



## Jhon69 (Mar 28, 2006)

TBoneit said:


> I think I get it, You Don't Like E* and you love D*.
> 
> However comparing some fees to a class action lawsuit isn't even close. If you had said that E* has had a class action lawsuit in the past and now it is D*'s turn that would be a fair comparison. I believe they had a class action lawsuit over the 1st genn DVR, Dishplayers. Which BTW was re-incarnated as a 2nd gen DVR dual tuner DVR by Microsoft for D*.
> 
> My recollection from reading here and other forums is that with E* locals are included and if they are not offered the monthly rate drops.


Guess again locals are not included with E* packages.Plus what's the difference?.A lawsuit is a lawsuit not matter if it's class action,or Tivo vs Dish and I use to like Dish until they made certain moves to bring down the lawsuits on themselves.

As for a difference between DirecTV or Dish concerning upfront costs and commitments they both do it.


----------



## TBoneit (Jul 27, 2006)

These days it seems that all it takes to bring down a lawsuit is to have money and be in existence. Sad to say......

I wonder how much any of us are paying extra for things because of lawsuits.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

Tom Robertson said:


> And no one is even in the same class as cellphones for the most complex billing and fee structure ever devised.


Phone service in general is rife with confusing policies and obscure methods of calculating minutes and rounding. My current long distance carrier participates in a policy of rounding everything up which may have a significant impact on the bottom line.

My personal favorites are the government _allowed_ (recovery) fees that are passed off as government _mandated_ fees. Qwest makes their margins on these kinds of fees.


----------



## Ken S (Feb 13, 2007)

TBoneit said:


> These days it seems that all it takes to bring down a lawsuit is to have money and be in existence. Sad to say......
> 
> I wonder how much any of us are paying extra for things because of lawsuits.


How many of us are still alive/healthy or haven't been scammed badly because of lawsuits that have been brought?


----------

