# New Strategy to defeat $5 "no phone line" fee......



## John Ashman (Feb 2, 2006)

I'm hoping others will join in on this. I just ordered a 622, but I am going to call them *every* day and ring up a good 1/2 hour a day talking to CSRs until the $5 fee goes away. These guys make a good $10/hour, I assume (maybe not if they're out of country), so I'm going to make sure they have to pay 10-20 times as much to get that $5 fee. This is just retarded. Why should I be punished? If ET wants to phone home, it can do it via internet.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Please do not encorage harrassment. Thanks.


----------



## John Ashman (Feb 2, 2006)

James, do you think the phone fee makes sense? I have a cell phone and DSL. I can't hook it up. It's fine if their satellite isn't compatible with my communication methods, but why should I be charged because of their oversight? Is it harassment to push a company for better, more sensible, more fair service? Why not charge people who *do* hook up their phone line? That is a choice. I have no choice. And we've got an oligopoly. Unless consumers voice their opinion, we will be stuck with poor service.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

There are ways of expressing opinions without harrassment.


----------



## John Ashman (Feb 2, 2006)

Okay, then maybe people will join me in expressing their opinion.


----------



## BoisePaul (Apr 26, 2005)

I don't really think this would be considered harassment unless you can figure out a CSR's direct extension and repeatedly call that same CSR back, or make inappropriate remarks to whatever CSR you might get. On the other hand, I don't really see what would be gained by this strategy unless you consider it, to quote a Sprint commercial, "your own little way of sticking it to the man." Chances are that your calls would never be correlated in any way that would cause E* to blink, especially with their total call volume. The biggest impact you could hope for is to have a CSR that looks back at your call history (I'm assuming they are logged), gets mad at you, and "flags" your account for audit. Then you really get to have fun.


----------



## Kendick (Feb 1, 2005)

John Ashman said:


> I'm hoping others will join in on this. I just ordered a 622, but I am going to call them *every* day and ring up a good 1/2 hour a day talking to CSRs until the $5 fee goes away. These guys make a good $10/hour, I assume (maybe not if they're out of country), so I'm going to make sure they have to pay 10-20 times as much to get that $5 fee. This is just retarded. Why should I be punished? If ET wants to phone home, it can do it via internet.


Increassing calls to CSRs will increase the corporate costs. Those costs will need to be recovered. So the Financial V.P will suggest that the rates be raised. Ad we will find another $5 fee or face a general increase.Not a good business practice to harrass the supplier , me thinks


----------



## mrhdtv (Oct 9, 2004)

That or they'll have receiver auditing call your home every day while you're at work and turn off your account 5 days a week!


----------



## Mike500 (May 10, 2002)

In legal terms, it's called "denial of service" by tieing up the line to keep others from acessing the csr. If it can be proved that this is one's intent and acted upon, it is illegal and is a Federal Crime. It's like sending false hits on an internet site to keep legitimate users from accessing a web site.

Be vey careful about this!


----------



## DishDude1 (Apr 13, 2002)

Refuse to pay it by canceling your account. If enough people do this, they will come up with another strategy. If you keep paying it, then obviously their service is worth it.


----------



## John Ashman (Feb 2, 2006)

Yeah, unfortunately, I *was* a happy customer and I think the other two options are generally *worse*. I'm perfectly within my right to bug the heck out of them about an unresolved customer service issue. And I'll just bug them until they fix it or I get to talk to Charlie himself. If they want to prevent any PPV "losses", all they have to write the software so that I can't PPV without a phone line attached. If they want to prevent people from "bundling" their service, then limit the fee to anyone who has more than one receiver and won't or can't hook them up (I'm obviously not bundling if I only have one receiver). If they have determined that people who don't hook up their phone line don't buy as much additional programming GET OVER IT. I'm not a PPV guy. The fee is wrong. They don't have an excuse for it. And I reserve my right to complain about it as much as I like. It's not like they're not going to know why I'm calling. All they have to do is fix it. If they kill my service, I'll just get DirecTV. The only reason I'm not is that their new MPEG4 DVR isn't out for 3-6 months.


----------



## John Ashman (Feb 2, 2006)

Kendick said:


> Increassing calls to CSRs will increase the corporate costs. Those costs will need to be recovered. So the Financial V.P will suggest that the rates be raised. Ad we will find another $5 fee or face a general increase.Not a good business practice to harrass the supplier , me thinks


Not a good business practice to arbitrarily charge people money for *not* using services. Or whatever their excuse is. So far, the best I've gotten is "it's policy". Not an acceptable explanation. If they want me to hook up to a phone line, then they can provide a phone line. They can verify that I'm not bundling with someone else and they can verify that I have no home phone.


----------



## Nick (Apr 23, 2002)

John Ashman said:


> Yeah, unfortunately, I *was* a happy customer... I'm perfectly within my right to bug the heck out of them about an unresolved customer service issue. And I'll just bug them until they fix it or I get to talk to Charlie himself...


Is that really you, Bob??? :icon_stup


----------



## boylehome (Jul 16, 2004)

Here is an idea for E* regarding the phone line situation. Make all receivers so they communicate with cell towers, DLS/Cable modem links, etc.. The technology is there. If a person lives in the sticks then provide them with a means of beaming the dish activity back to the bird. E* may have stock in the telephone co.:lol: 

There should be a seperation of dish and wire!


----------



## Geronimo (Mar 23, 2002)

boylehome said:


> Here is an idea for E* regarding the phone line situation. Make all receivers so they communicate with cell towers, DLS/Cable modem links, etc.. The technology is there. If a person lives in the sticks then provide them with a means of beaming the dish activity back to the bird. E* may have stock in the telephone co.:lol:
> 
> There should be a seperation of dish and wire!


Identifying the receiver's location would bea bit more complicated though (but not impossible).


----------



## benn5325 (Mar 16, 2004)

John Ashman said:


> I have a cell phone and DSL. I can't hook it up. .


Doesn't DSL use a land line?


----------



## Geronimo (Mar 23, 2002)

Have tyou tried the line filters for DSL? I have heard that they help in other situations.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

It isn't like these are hidden or secret fees. I don't like the phone line requirement or the fees associated with some receivers... but harassment is not the answer.

One polite call to talk to someone at Dish and voice your opinion is sufficient... and if you still don't like the policy, then I suggest cancelling your account and moving along. Harassment is not the answer.


----------



## Alpaca Bill (Jun 17, 2005)

benn5325 said:


> Doesn't DSL use a land line?


Yes but there is not necessarily a phone number associated with a DSL line. Many companies are now offering DSL without the requirement of a voice line.

I wanted to use VoIP exclusively since it is much more flexible and offers more features for less money than traditional voice lines. For example, I have 3 lines into my house and am spending over $200/mo but if I were able to use VoIP my bill would be $50/mo and have at least 20 more features and unltd local, LD and international calling on all 3 lines. BUT Dish chose not to make it's receivers compatible with this rapidly growing technology. There are even VoIP cell phones now (they work where ever there is a hot spot).


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

It's the VOIP services that are lacking. Try running a modem over VoIP. Most services are to the point where they can handle faxing. If your VoIP service has a special code to 'force highest quality' for fax connections there is a place on the E* boxes for such prefixes.

It is possible to use VoIP if your VoIP service isn't junk. (You will need to change the phone number on your account to the VoIP number, or port your phone number over to VoIP.)


----------



## Geronimo (Mar 23, 2002)

James Long said:


> It's the VOIP services that are lacking. Try running a modem over VoIP. Most services are to the point where they can handle faxing. If your VoIP service has a special code to 'force highest quality' for fax connections there is a place on the E* boxes for such prefixes.
> 
> It is possible to use VoIP if your VoIP service isn't junk. (You will need to change the phone number on your account to the VoIP number, or port your phone number over to VoIP.)


I am somehat confused (i know par for the course) does the gentleman have a conventional land line with DSL or is this a DSL only line using VOIP line ?


----------



## Rogueone (Jan 29, 2004)

Alpaca Bill said:


> Yes but there is not necessarily a phone number associated with a DSL line. Many companies are now offering DSL without the requirement of a voice line.


name one please.

I've never seen a DSL line without a working phone line, hence a phonenumber has to be attached. The phone company isn't going to let someone else just install a DSL line on their copper. And they sure as heck aren't going to turn on DSL without a number being paid for, as it's the phone number of the account they bill to and set your account up based on.

someone out there might "hide" the number from you, but it's there if you have DSL. Because, without an active phone number, the phone company would not have your line punched down in the punchdown box in your neighborhood, hence you'd not have a complete circuit to put DSL on. Telephone companies pull the punch when they disco service, that is how they keep you from using the line when you don't pay or cancel your account.


----------



## Geronimo (Mar 23, 2002)

i for one used to have a DSL line that was not provided by a Baby Bell. It was froma reseller of the old Northpoint system. It had no phone number. i too am in the DC metro area.


----------



## Rogueone (Jan 29, 2004)

you get the physical copper from verizon though yes? if so, it had a phone number, you just didn't know it. that "alternate" company had the number and didn't pass that info on to you. Verizon would have had to do the wiring of the DSL for you, and they only do dsl on lines with an active phone number, so your provider would have had to get that for you. So likely, you could have done some inquirering and found out your number.

Most are familiar with Covad, they are the biggest non Bell dsl provider. But how do they get you service? they contract with all the Bells and you call them and they coordinate with all the other parties. They don't do much on their own, they mostly coordinate. They are like a long distance reseller, buy in bulk from the same provider, then resell it to you for less than you pay the real provider. The real provider cuts costs and gets a more guaranteed income, and doesn't have to provide support for you butt anymore or bill you, so that makes them happy  Same with non bell provided DSL. that bell you didn't order from is still the one providing it


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

IIRC the major telcos have all now agreed to provide DSL without local phone service in order to be able to merge their respective companies without anti-trust problems.


----------



## tomcrown1 (Jan 16, 2006)

Please do not Harass the CSR it is not only rude, but does not send any message to Dish upper management. If you have to harrass anyone then flood Charles Eagen mailbox with your issuses.


----------



## Rogueone (Jan 29, 2004)

don't see how that would have anti trust issues. you have to have a wire running to the house to get the dsl working, why would it be unreasoanable to need an active phone line? every dsl provider I've checked always asks for their phone number you are using to check for service availablity, and if you aren't "their" customer, then they ask for an address to see if they have an agreement with the telco in your area. I was just checking this 2 days ago, and it's always based on your phone number


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

The anti-trust issue was requiring the customer to have an active phone line to get DSL. Requiring purchase "A" (local phone service) from the ILEC to get service "B" (DSL) from anyone. The major local phone companies have now agreed to allow DSL on just the copper pair instead of requiring dialtone. It keeps the questions down.


----------



## Skyburn (Nov 30, 2004)

Rogueone said:


> don't see how that would have anti trust issues. you have to have a wire running to the house to get the dsl working, why would it be unreasoanable to need an active phone line? every dsl provider I've checked always asks for their phone number you are using to check for service availablity, and if you aren't "their" customer, then they ask for an address to see if they have an agreement with the telco in your area. I was just checking this 2 days ago, and it's always based on your phone number


I *know*, for a fact, that if I want Qwest DSL (on THEIR copper phone wire), I absolutely am NOT required to have local telephony service with Qwest (i.e., I have DSL, but I don't have any phone service, so I save $30 by not having a local telephone number active on my copper phone wire). They charge you a penalty fee for this configuration of about $5/month, so instead of:

$29.99 for "Residential Telephony Service"
$37.99 ($28 for the 1.5mbps DSL line itself; 9.99 for Qwest.net ISP fee)
~$14 for Taxes, Fees and Surcharges (fed access fee/911/universal service fund etc.)
Total of ~$82/mo

For DSL *only*:
$37.99 DSL/Qwest.net ISP fee
$5 penalty for not having local residential phone service
~$14 taxes/fees etc. (let's just keep this the same as above for argument's sake)
Total of ~$57/mo

If you rely only on your cell phone for voice calls, and you're going to have that cell phone anyway, it works out to be a better deal for some people...


----------



## Geronimo (Mar 23, 2002)

Rogueone said:


> you get the physical copper from verizon though yes? if so, it had a phone number, you just didn't know it. that "alternate" company had the number and didn't pass that info on to you. Verizon would have had to do the wiring of the DSL for you, and they only do dsl on lines with an active phone number, so your provider would have had to get that for you. So likely, you could have done some inquirering and found out your number.
> 
> Most are familiar with Covad, they are the biggest non Bell dsl provider. But how do they get you service? they contract with all the Bells and you call them and they coordinate with all the other parties. They don't do much on their own, they mostly coordinate. They are like a long distance reseller, buy in bulk from the same provider, then resell it to you for less than you pay the real provider. The real provider cuts costs and gets a more guaranteed income, and doesn't have to provide support for you butt anymore or bill you, so that makes them happy  Same with non bell provided DSL. that bell you didn't order from is still the one providing it


No I did not get the physical copper through Verizon. Their switch was however at a Verizon substation. The copper came into the house but never touched the telco wiring in the house. Even the DSL modem was connected by ethernet not by normal phone wiring. It would not have been easy to hook up a standard phone but it was technically "forbidden" by the agreement with the reseller. The reseller insisted that it would damage the line to even try. I never attempted to verify that claim.

In fact when Northpoint went under those of us using that backbone had free DSL for about 45 days and then the line simply went dead. Verizon did not use the copper and, in fact when Verison did wire my area for DSL they sent out mailers indicating that they COULD not use the wiring.

I agree that Verizon was providing much of the infrastructure (I never said otherwise) but that does not mean that there was a phone number attached to the line.

In any event back to the original question----is this a DSL line usinga VOIP provider or a voice/DSL line?


----------



## RichP (Sep 6, 2003)

I've never heard of this fee before. I've been thinking about coming back to Dish after a year away - is this new? I have no way of plugging a phone line into my receiver (currently a Charter customer, so it's not an issue), so I'd get a $5 fee? Is this different than the $5 "extra receiver" fee? 

If so, that's ridiculous. I'd have 3 receivers, so that's $10 in "extra receiver" fees, plus what.. another $15 in "no phone line" fees? That can't be right. That would be an additional 50% on top of my programming cost! If DirecTV doesn't have this fee, it made my choice a lot easier. I've been debating between the hardware, because the monthly charges are about the same for the package I'm interested in. 

I can't believe they'd do that. If Charter just brought the dang NFL Network back, I wouldn't even be considering going back to satellite, but it's one of the only channels I watch!


----------



## Art7220 (Feb 4, 2004)

How about not telling them you don't have the phone line hooked up? Or just say, "Yeah, it's hooked up". I don't have my Expressvu or my Dish box hooked into the phone line. But then, I don't order PPV anyway. -A-


----------



## kmcnamara (Jan 30, 2004)

Yesterday I passed my 9 year anniversary with Dish. I'd like to upgrade from a 921 to a 622 but there's no way on earth I'll pay a fee to cover Dish's inability (or lack of desire) to come into the 21st century and realize that landline phones are dying and a significant percentage of their customers are going to be cell and/or VoIP only. I'd rather go back to cable - which is something I never thought I'd do.


----------



## Rogueone (Jan 29, 2004)

Skyburn said:


> I *know*, for a fact, that if I want Qwest DSL (on THEIR copper phone wire), I absolutely am NOT required to have local telephony service with Qwest (i.e., I have DSL, but I don't have any phone service, so I save $30 by not having a local telephone number active on my copper phone wire). They charge you a penalty fee for this configuration of about $5/month, so instead of:
> 
> $29.99 for "Residential Telephony Service"
> $37.99 ($28 for the 1.5mbps DSL line itself; 9.99 for Qwest.net ISP fee)
> ...


well this must be really new as I've tried to get verizon to drop my phone number when I picked up vonage and verizon told me i had to keep the phone active to have dsl. so I've got the cheapest phone hookup I can get, which is a little over $20. it's not all bad though, as like yesterday when my dsl modem died, I could use the phone still. my cell works so poorly at my house i don't have the option of only using my cell


----------



## dsanbo (Nov 25, 2005)

Art7220 said:


> How about not telling them you don't have the phone line hooked up? Or just say, "Yeah, it's hooked up". I don't have my Expressvu or my Dish box hooked into the phone line. But then, I don't order PPV anyway. -A-


How about those folks who use their system in an RV?? I'd hate to think E*'s gonna make me string a telco line every time I set up camp on my cross-country trip....?! 
IIRC....D* HAS an exemption re: this situation...of course, they're going to get a tad "suspicious" if ,suddenly, 20,000 customers call and "setup" their receivers in RVs....


----------



## Rogueone (Jan 29, 2004)

well you also have to provide proof of the RV so it's not as easy as just calling


----------



## jakattak (Feb 14, 2005)

RichP said:


> I've never heard of this fee before. I've been thinking about coming back to Dish after a year away - is this new? I have no way of plugging a phone line into my receiver (currently a Charter customer, so it's not an issue), so I'd get a $5 fee? Is this different than the $5 "extra receiver" fee?
> 
> If so, that's ridiculous. I'd have 3 receivers, so that's $10 in "extra receiver" fees, plus what.. another $15 in "no phone line" fees? That can't be right. That would be an additional 50% on top of my programming cost!


The $5 'no phone-line' fee they're referring to is the $5 extra receiver fee, they're one and the same. That extra receiver fee gets waived if you have your receivers hooked up to an active phone-line, hense the 'no phone-line fee' moniker.


----------



## boylehome (Jul 16, 2004)

All this controversy could have been minimized if they would have advertised that if the receiver is connected to a working phone line then they will give a $5.00 monthly discount on any of the programming package offered. I guess that the cart came before the horse.


----------



## Cowchip (Jan 15, 2006)

I have DSL and no landline phone service as well. 

Not happy about the $5 charge either. I'm getting penalized for not having a service that I don't want or need and I don't feel thats right. The CSR explained that the receiver (a 622 in my case) will have to get it's updates via satellite instead. OK, then why is it a big deal to not have a phone line connected if it can get there by other means. The tough part is that we who do not have a landline are the minority and this penalty will continue.


----------



## Rogueone (Jan 29, 2004)

not for much longer  will all the people moving to voip, there is going to be more and more. I might consider seeing if verizon will now drop my phone line if vonage could run a modem over it, but i've tried and a modem won't sync over their version of voip. basically, if the provider doesn't compress the signal it'll work. I was testing voip for my national dialup backbone at work, across XO communications network, and it worked great, just they wanted way way too much to implement it. 
but XO wasn't compressing the signal so it worked fine. vonage is definitely doing something to kill it


----------



## RichP (Sep 6, 2003)

jakattak said:


> The $5 'no phone-line' fee they're referring to is the $5 extra receiver fee, they're one and the same. That extra receiver fee gets waived if you have your receivers hooked up to an active phone-line, hense the 'no phone-line fee' moniker.


Excellent, thanks to the response. I was leaning towards Dish because of the Voom movie package up until I saw this thread, but am ok with it now.

That said, I don't think the sat companies realize how much it annoys people about that fee. With the cable companies, you pay a fee for extra digital boxes. However, you also aren't paying $100+ up-front for the box either and own it like you do with the satellite guys.

In the old days I didn't mind so much because sat's programming costs were SIGNIFICANTLY cheaper than Comcast for me. I moved into a Charter area, though, and the tables turned a bit. I pay $130 a month for cable internet, plus the equivalent of "America's Everything Pak". I get EVERYTHING.

However, this is only meaningful to my wife, who does actually watch a bunch of the movie channels. The whole NFL network debacle is enough to make me want to give Charter the big kiss-off. Especially being from Michigan, and missing the week's worth of Superbowl coverage.


----------



## John Ashman (Feb 2, 2006)

No, I'm pretty darned sure that the "extra receiver fee" is *not* the same as the "no telephone line fee". I always got charged $5 or$6 for extra satellite receivers. This is a *new* fee, *unless* they are swapping the fee somehow. But, I don't have an extra receiver anymore. I just need one. And the no telephone fee goes onto my *first* receiver, not my second (which won't exist)

So, I will pay $6 lease fee + $6 DVR fee + $5 no telephone fee. Some people are saying that the $6 lease fee doesn't apply if you have one of the HD packages, I'm not sure though. I can understand the lease fee, I'm "renting" a piece of gear. I can understand the DVR fee, I'm getting a desirable service, but the "no telephone" thing? That makes no sense. 

I told the CSR that I had a "$20 fee" for every time I had to speak to a CSR and asked when I'd get my check. That about made her pop a gasket. I also asked if they had a different monthly fee for flat roofs vs pitched roofs or if the color of my wall mattered or if my HDMI cable would add anything.


----------



## Ken Howe (Aug 9, 2005)

i have Comcast internet for 32/mo.
Dish network for 41.
and vonage for 27...
grand total is 100 a month for all 3 services... whoooo... ^_^


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

Mike500 said:


> In legal terms, it's called "denial of service" by tieing up the line to keep others from acessing the csr.


You might think so, but there is case law that suggests that DoS isn't doesn't apply in circumstances where a toll free number is involved. One of the first was a case where someone was using their Atari 8-bit computer and modem to tie up televangelist Oral Roberts' toll free donation line.

There are strong remedies if either side of the the conversation becomes "uncivil".

I suggest that everyone who is troubled by this policy offer Dish suggestions on how to confirm that your receivers are located where they were installed. It won't be until Ethernet is up and running that the receivers can "phone home" other than on something that acts like a POTS line. Even at that, is is often difficult to tie an IP number to a particular location.

Perhaps once they get TCP/IP communications set up, they could install a GPS receiver in one LNB per system and feed the information to each receiver. It would likely double the cost of the LNB, but it would be a possible answer for those without POTS service.

[I want a piece of the action if they adopt this method]


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

Ken Howe said:


> i have Comcast internet for 32/mo.


You're lucky if that's the settled out rate (versus an introductory rate). Around here, Comcast HSI lists for $57 with modem lease or $47 if you subscribe to at least lifeline TV.


----------



## Alpaca Bill (Jun 17, 2005)

Ken Howe said:


> i have Comcast internet for 32/mo.
> Dish network for 41.
> and vonage for 27...
> grand total is 100 a month for all 3 services... whoooo... ^_^


SO do you connect your Dish receivers to the Vonage?

I have heard that some people can and some can't.

There are other VoIP services out there that are very good for data (i.e. modem) connections that would probably be great for the receivers. For the life of me I can't remember the names or the site I found this info at. There were a lot of D*, E*, and Tivo customers using these services without fail. I will post as soon as my sometimers goes away.


----------



## dpd146 (Oct 1, 2005)

8yrs and counting, never had a phone line hooked in. If this a fee associated with the new vip's, then I guess I'll pay it. I don't order pay per view so if they want to track what I'm watching then they can pay me like Nielson does. OK it's not really a big brother thing with me, all my phone jacks are opposite coax outlets and I'm not going to spend the time or money to relocate them for something totally unnecessary. OK, I'm lazy


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

The $5 additional tuner fee, waived if you connect a phone line applies to the 322, 522, 625 and will apply to the 622. It's not an additional receiver fee but an additional tuner fee.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

harsh said:


> It won't be until Ethernet is up and running that the receivers can "phone home" other than on something that acts like a POTS line. Even at that, is is often difficult to tie an IP number to a particular location.
> 
> Perhaps once they get TCP/IP communications set up, they could install a GPS receiver in one LNB per system and feed the information to each receiver. It would likely double the cost of the LNB, but it would be a possible answer for those without POTS service.
> 
> [I want a piece of the action if they adopt this method]


That's another rub to the scenario. One part of the phone line connection is to call-in and report PPVs... the other part is to verify that it is at the same physical location that it is supposed to be, and that all receivers are in the same home for multi-receiver accounts.

People with dedicated internet like DSL are either on DHCP, where their IP will change every time they disconnect most likely... or even with fixed IP, as you point out, there will not be an easy way to tie that IP with a physical location for the customer.

Unless they do integrate GPS into the receivers there really isn't a good way to verify the location except by landline.

If people wouldn't steal and cheat, then the rest of us honest folk would have a lot less issues and fees to deal with. Instead of getting mad at Dish, the anger should be directed towards the hackers and thieves.


----------



## Mikey (Oct 26, 2004)

HDMe said:


> ...Unless they do integrate GPS into the receivers there really isn't a good way to verify the location except by landline.
> ...


Riiiight. Ever try to use GPS indoors? You'd have to hang an antenna outdoors for every receiver in your house. :hurah:


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

Mikey said:


> Riiiight. Ever try to use GPS indoors? You'd have to hang an antenna outdoors for every receiver in your house. :hurah:


I didn't say it would work or even be easy... actually that was part of the point.


----------



## Chandu (Oct 3, 2005)

Is this fee charged only if PPV are ordered ***AND*** no phone line is hooked in?

In other words, if someone never orders a single PPV and doesn't plug in the phone line, they will not see the fee?


----------



## John Ashman (Feb 2, 2006)

No, they charge *just* for not having the phone line hooked up. Imagine if they charged you for not using an HDMI cable because you don't have an HDMI equipped TV. Wouldn't you be pissed? It's like a behavior charge. "You're not doing what we want, so we're going to fine you". In fact, that's exactly what it is. A fine. Who fines a long paying customer?!?


----------



## John Ashman (Feb 2, 2006)

harsh said:


> I suggest that everyone who is troubled by this policy offer Dish suggestions on how to confirm that your receivers are located where they were installed.


Harsh, that's the problem. They won't tell me *why* they have the fee. Just that it's "policy". If I know *why*, then I can make suggestions or explain my side. As it is, they're saying "because we want to". Which is why I make the ridiculous comments to them that they owe me $20. They say "why" and I say "it's my policy". And they still don't get it.


----------



## John Ashman (Feb 2, 2006)

Cowchip said:


> I have DSL and no landline phone service as well.
> 
> Not happy about the $5 charge either. I'm getting penalized for not having a service that I don't want or need and I don't feel thats right. The CSR explained that the receiver (a 622 in my case) will have to get it's updates via satellite instead. OK, then why is it a big deal to not have a phone line connected if it can get there by other means. The tough part is that we who do not have a landline are the minority and this penalty will continue.


I have been told that there is no problem for the receiver to function without the phone line whatsoever.

There is also the possibility (probability) that they are selling viewer information to companies and without the phone line, they can't collect the info. But they're not selling it for $5/person/month, I know that much. Besides, 95% can or will hook up to a phone line, that's a plenty strong sampling.


----------



## John Ashman (Feb 2, 2006)

James Long said:


> The $5 additional tuner fee, waived if you connect a phone line applies to the 322, 522, 625 and will apply to the 622. It's not an additional receiver fee but an additional tuner fee.


Well, I don't *need* the additional tuner. In fact, I don't have a standard definition TV at all. So, I need to hook up component to my projector and HDMI to my TV in another room. So, again, I'm paying a fee for some irrational, arbitrary "policy".


----------



## Chandu (Oct 3, 2005)

John Ashman said:


> No, they charge *just* for not having the phone line hooked up. Imagine if they charged you for not using an HDMI cable because you don't have an HDMI equipped TV. Wouldn't you be pissed? It's like a behavior charge. "You're not doing what we want, so we're going to fine you". In fact, that's exactly what it is. A fine. Who fines a long paying customer?!?


I think you're fighting for a just and noble cause. But hounding the CEO (emails or whatever mechanism) maybe a more effective strategy.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

Keep in mind also that these fees are available on the residential service agreement from Dish's Web page and usually comes up in the conversation to purchase/activate a receiver... so it isn't like it is a secret. You are agreeing to the phone line connection (or not as the case may be) when you sign up for Dish and choose your receiver.


----------



## stonecold (Feb 20, 2004)

James Long said:


> There are ways of expressing opinions without harrassment.


James...as long as he is not verbally abusive to the representive on the other line it is not harassment. He is protesting the 5 dollar fee and he happens to to talk to them for 30 minutes a day for 10 to 20 days out the month that is his business. If dish wants to do something about him calling in and complaing thenthey will . It is not your job to say one word about it.


----------



## Rogueone (Jan 29, 2004)

john, I have AEP and when I was asking about the extra charges for my 921, the girl mentioned I don't pay the DVR fee "because" of the AEP pack, so since PlatinumHD is HD+AEP, there shouldn't be a DVR fee


----------



## John Ashman (Feb 2, 2006)

stonecold said:


> James...as long as he is not verbally abusive to the representive on the other line it is not harassment.


I think of it as persistent


----------



## John Ashman (Feb 2, 2006)

Rogueone said:


> john, I have AEP and when I was asking about the extra charges for my 921, the girl mentioned I don't pay the DVR fee "because" of the AEP pack, so since PlatinumHD is HD+AEP, there shouldn't be a DVR fee


See, well, they need to be specific about this. For instance, if they say "buy this package and we waive this fee", it's a motivational thing. But if they give you an impossible request, such as hooking up to a phone line that doesn't exist, how do you solve that? And how do you understand a charge if they won't explain it?

I can tell you this, I think I might have been at least part of the reason that there is a more equitable policy for new/existing customers because you can't believe the ****storm I kicked up over that. I'm sure many others have as well, though. But what they need to do is explain it in such a way that doesn't make us instantaneously suspicious, like "$299, whoever you are!!! (1 year commitment)". That would do it. It's what cell phone companies do.


----------



## Rogueone (Jan 29, 2004)

yeah, I have to say, it does seem silly to charge the fee to you when the 622 would be your only unit. Just turn off PPV ordering for you unless you phone it in


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

The way I have seen it on the bill details posted here from time to time is as an 'additional tuner fee' that is credited if you have a phone line connected.

As far as the 'impossible request' goes, think of it like a children's ticket price or senior citizen discount. It is impossible for me to adjust my age to get one of these discounts (except by fraud).

Connecting a phone line may be impossible for you - it may be impossible by choice - more importantly it's impossible for E* to find out what your receiver has been doing unless it has a phone line to report in on.


----------



## cj9788 (May 14, 2003)

Why is dish doing this other than to mke some more $$$$. There really is no reason to have your receiver hooked up to a phone line other than to order pay per view and to verify the receiver location. No info as far as I know is downloaded to the reciever via the phone line. 

I am "mover" so I do not have my phone hooked up as my service address is in a diffrent area code and I did not want any problems. 

I have wanted to upgrade to a two tuner unit but this policy has kept me from doing so. 

It could be worse E* in its infinite wisdom could hav applied tis policy to all receivers and not just the 2 tuner models. I currently have 4 receivers, 2 508's a 301 nd an old 2700. I looked at my bill and the only fees I am being charged is the extra reeiver fees. I hope they do not extend this policy to cover all receivers no just the 2 tuner models.


----------



## Alpaca Bill (Jun 17, 2005)

James Long said:


> The way I have seen it on the bill details posted here from time to time is as an 'additional tuner fee' that is credited if you have a phone line connected.
> 
> As far as the 'impossible request' goes, think of it like a children's ticket price or senior citizen discount. It is impossible for me to adjust my age to get one of these discounts (except by fraud).
> 
> Connecting a phone line may be impossible for you - it may be impossible by choice - more importantly it's impossible for E* to find out what your receiver has been doing unless it has a phone line to report in on.


If the dual tuner receiver is your only one then they should know that your receiver is in your house and NOT charge the fee either way. Now when you start adding multiple receivers then I guess I could understand BUT the real issue here is that Dish has chosen to ignore an evergrowing % of the population that have dropped landline service. It's not like VoIP or cell phones are new technology that caught Dish offguard. Dish should have seen this coming and adapted to their customer base.

If Dish wants to claim cutting edge technology receivers then they would have to include the ability to use something other than 100+ yr old technology.


----------



## FTA Michael (Jul 21, 2002)

stonecold said:


> James...as long as he is not verbally abusive to the representive on the other line it is not harassment.


SC, I must disagree. If I called your house once to politely express my disagreement with your post, that could be an honest attempt to let you know my opinion. If I called you every day for three weeks, that would be harassment, no matter how polite my tone.


----------



## TomH (Jun 11, 2005)

John Ashman said:


> I have no choice.


But you DO have a choice and you made it. You want all of the benefits of VoIP but none of the drawbacks.


----------



## TomH (Jun 11, 2005)

Mikey said:


> Riiiight. Ever try to use GPS indoors? You'd have to hang an antenna outdoors for every receiver in your house. :hurah:


Riiight... If only there were an antenna outdoors that was connected to each receiver..... now that would really be silly to expect an outdoor antenna to be attached to every receiver. Why you'd have to run coax down through your house to every receiver and you'd have to install some sort of antenna on top of your house.


----------



## dave1234 (Oct 9, 2005)

Mikey said:


> Riiiight. Ever try to use GPS indoors? You'd have to hang an antenna outdoors for every receiver in your house. :hurah:


Just bought the latest technology GPS receiver to go with my MS mapping S/W. It works fine in my house and inside my work. Doesn't work inside a plane however. Of coarse to transmit a location is another matter.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

cj9788 said:


> Why is dish doing this other than to mke some more $$$$. There really is no reason to have your receiver hooked up to a phone line other than to order pay per view and to verify the receiver location. No info as far as I know is downloaded to the reciever via the phone line.
> 
> I am "mover" so I do not have my phone hooked up as my service address is in a diffrent area code and I did not want any problems.
> 
> ...


Just to recap then... you are a "mover" and do not have your receiver in the same location that you have told Dish you have it... you are cheating to get a different set of locals, I guess or some distants or something? So you can't hook up the phone or they might get wise to you lying to them...

BUT, you then complain that their phone line policy is unfair? In the same post you admit to lying and cheating, but it would be unfair to implement the one thing that would prevent you from doing so?

I really don't understand the double-standard some folks have. It's one thing when the honest people complain about the fees... and I don't like all the fees either!! But when the cheaters complain, all it does is further explain why Dish has these fees and policies, to try and catch you.

The rest of us are being punished by those who are knowingly violating the rules.


----------



## larrystotler (Jun 6, 2004)

Ok, this thread seems to wander around with some good answers, but not all in the same place. Let me see if I can sum it all up with some more indepth explanations:

1. Why E*(or D*) created the phone connection requirement - When these services were dreamed up in the late 1980s, very few people had a cell phone due to the size and cost. When they launched in 1994(D*) & 1995(E*), almost everyone had a home telephone. This was a way for them to people to ensure that those who wanted a second and seperate receiver to watch a different channel on another TV could do so and so that the companies would be able to keep people from sharing accounts. They never really planned or anticipated for the explosion of cell phones and the introduction of VoIP. 

2. Confusion about the fees - There is always an additional RECEIVER fee. This is the fee that slaves any receiver past the first to the account and allos that receiver to get the same programming as the first. The additional TUNER fee is ONLY on the dual tuner receivers with 2 TV outputs: 322, 522, 625, 942, ViP222, ViP622, and ONLY with E*. This creates an INCENTIVE for customers to KEEP the receiver plugged in continuously to the phone line by allowing the customer to save over having a second receiver and HAVING to pay the fee. 

3. Read the EULA(End User Licence Agreement) or Service agreement or whatever - It is in your manual and on the web sites and states that ALL active receviers MUST be connected to a land based phone line. This is NOT new. It has been there since these guys launced their services. They do allow those of us without home phone service when they technically do not have to. Failure to read the terms and conditions is NOT a way to get out of an agreement. Ask a lawyer.

4. DVR fees - E* released 3 DVRs(called PVRs at that time) withOUT DVR fees - 501, 508, 721. Then, when they saw D* charging a $4.98/month TiVo fee, they decided to charge a per DVR fee. Of course, they didn't expect so many users wanting multiple DVRs. The DVR fee receivers are:
510, 522, 625, 921, 942, ViP622.

5. VoIP - They are reluctanted to make the receivers work with VoIP because it is easier to clone the VoIP #'s at multiple locations. Plus, the modems in the units are for POTS(Plain old telephone service) and not designed for Digital communications.

6. Verizon's buyout of MCI required them to offer DSL withOUT a land line. You pay $5 more a month to be able to do this.

7. The new ViP receivers have the ability to use a form of PowerLine ethernet to communicate and show that they are all in the same locations, so only the main receiver will have to be connected to the phone line.

8. My upgrade cost to go from my 721 to a ViP622 would be more than $30 a month more if it was my only receiver: $20 HD pack fee, $5 additional tuner fee for no phone line, and $5.98 DVR fee.

9. What they COULD do that would make it impossible to share accounts: Tie the receiver to the swtches. Since the switches can now communicate with the receivers(DP and newer), they could put a serial number in the siwtch/LNB(if they haven't already and make it so that the receiver will ONLY work with that switch. Would make replacing the switches a pain, but it can be done that way.

Please do not quote this entire post when replying since it is so long. Rember some of our fellow users are still on dialup. Thanx


----------



## Tower Guy (Jul 27, 2005)

benn5325 said:


> Doesn't DSL use a land line?


Not necessarily.

The technical term for DSL without a POTS line is "unbundled DSL". 
Naked DSL is sometimes used as slang for the same thing.
In New York, an unbundled DSL circuit can be as little as $14.99 per month with a one year contract.


----------



## Tower Guy (Jul 27, 2005)

John Ashman said:


> Harsh, that's the problem. They won't tell me *why* they have the fee. Just that it's "policy". If I know *why*, then I can make suggestions or explain my side.


Have you considered that E* expects to make more money with PPV using the new equipment? Without a phone line the manual ordering of a PPV event both decreases their profit due to the expense of the CSR and decreases the liklihood that you will order a PPV movie on a whim. Either way their income is reduced due to no phone line.


----------



## stonecold (Feb 20, 2004)

carload said:


> SC, I must disagree. If I called your house once to politely express my disagreement with your post, that could be an honest attempt to let you know my opinion. If I called you every day for three weeks, that would be harassment, no matter how polite my tone.


it is only harassment if dish network tells him to stop calling.

We could debate this point on the phone every day for the next three weeks and I could not do one thing about it until I have told you multiple times that I wish you would stop calling. This is not a the deep breathing crap but the phone company and the police have to make sure that if they are going to come after you for harassment that you have been warned to stop calling on multiple ocassions and have it recorded for record. I should know as some guy keep calling my wife office number looking for some girl and that is exactly what they had to do before phone company would hand over records to the police and do anything this idiot calling. All layed out in the law.

I have a list of 7200 bugs that I would like fixed I call in once a month and ask to speak to someone with a brain in the techincal department to can file bug report. Granted I have a direct line to a techincal contact that a memberof dbstalk gave me when I was having wierd nagra2 issues with my 7200s but. I like to see if I do call in if it makes it up the ladder I call in protest about it and every once and a while if I catch the right person they give me a discount for troubles with the reciver.

Dish has yet told me to stop calling about these issues. So if the man wants to complain about it let him. I personally would take it another way where i gather up some 200 subs who has taken issue with this 5 dollar fee and then the day after they paid there bill call in and complain once a month every month. So the this member of dbstalk is not havingto call 3 or 4 times a month which would reslove him of any kind of harassment even by people in this forum who will remain nameless. But the trick is getting 200 to call once a month every month right after you pay your bill. Why after as dish network is always more receptive after they have your money.


----------



## stonecold (Feb 20, 2004)

larrystotler said:


> Ok, this thread seems to wander around with some good answers, but not all in the same place. Let me see if I can sum it all up with some more indepth explanations:
> 
> 1. Why E*(or D*) created the phone connection requirement - When these services were dreamed up in the late 1980s, very few people had a cell phone due to the size and cost. When they launched in 1994(D*) & 1995(E*), almost everyone had a home telephone. This was a way for them to people to ensure that those who wanted a second and seperate receiver to watch a different channel on another TV could do so and so that the companies would be able to keep people from sharing accounts. They never really planned or anticipated for the explosion of cell phones and the introduction of VoIP.
> 
> ...


9. would be a pain for RMA recievers. Or people being able to DYI there own repairs like buying a used dp34 . or a new lnb. I know that is very uncommon for 90% of the satellite customers but it is an issue to be looked into. I belive that dish will eventually make phone home possible via eithernet ports that seem to be showing up on the new 211 or 411 which ever one has it. the phone jack will proabably still be around anotehr 5 years before dish does away with it and decides to phone home via broadband.


----------



## FTA Michael (Jul 21, 2002)

I am referring not to the legal standard of harassment, but to the basic concept. I agree that Dish would be smart to tell the complainer on the Nth consecutive call on the same issue that it understands the complainer's perspective and to refrain from calling again without new data. 

But if the stated (to us) motive of the caller is to needlessly waste Dish's resources, I feel comfortable in calling that harassment, just as "moving" involves lying. It may not rise to the level of a crime, but that doesn't change what it is.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Alpaca Bill said:


> the real issue here is that Dish has chosen to ignore an evergrowing % of the population that have dropped landline service.


While 820,000 people have made the move to cell-phone only, The Journal states, "This is only a fraction of what was predicted".

While a previous Forester study of consumer intentions suggested that the number of cell-phone-only users would have doubled in the past year, the number actually grew by a comparatively low 25%. This suggests that many who had found the idea of going wireless-only appealing never followed through in dropping their landline.

According to the latest national data on the topic, between 6% and 7% of the adult population can only be reached on a cell phone. ... While growing, these numbers have only recently surpassed the number of people with no phone access at all which has historically been between 3 and 5% of the population. ... However, cell-phone-only consumers are predominantly young - Edison's 2004 Exit Polls showed that 19% of those voters age 18 to 29 were cell-phone-only (as opposed to only 4% of those age 30 and older.)
soruce​There are some other interesting numbers on that page for the 18-29 year old crowd.

DISHComm is coming. E* is working on 21st century ways for receivers in the same home to talk to each other.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

John Ashman said:


> Harsh, that's the problem. They won't tell me *why* they have the fee.


And they don't have to justify their fees or policies to you nor anyone else. If you don't agree to the terms and conditions, tell them and they will send you the necessary shipping boxes with detailed instructions on how to return everything.

Does your telephone provider give you detailed explanations of all of their ancillary fees? Did you know that some of these fees are allowed for, but in no way required by any government agency? See if your phone bill includes a "Federal Access Charge". My own land line bill features $9.58 of taxes and fees; $6.50 of which is the "Federal Access Charge".

For your edification and in no way to justify nor defend Dish Network's fees or policies:

The why part is that they want to be able to verify that your receivers are located where they were most recently officially installed. That is another one of their conditions of service. It is driven by the fact that Dish is not supposed to allow their customers to "subvert" various blackout and DMA restrictions. To that end, they need to be able to confirm that the receiver hasn't been relocated to a different market.

Your phone number, identified by ANI, used to tell them with relative certainty that you hadn't moved "out of the area". Obviously, this is not so much the case anymore, but they don't yet have an alternative other than a snap onsite inspection.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

HDMe said:


> I didn't say it would work or even be easy... actually that was part of the point.


That is why I suggested that the GPS be installed in the LNB. If the LNB can see DBS satellites, it can also see GPS satellites.


----------



## jrb531 (May 29, 2004)

John Ashman said:


> James, do you think the phone fee makes sense? I have a cell phone and DSL. I can't hook it up. It's fine if their satellite isn't compatible with my communication methods, but why should I be charged because of their oversight? Is it harassment to push a company for better, more sensible, more fair service? Why not charge people who *do* hook up their phone line? That is a choice. I have no choice. And we've got an oligopoly. Unless consumers voice their opinion, we will be stuck with poor service.


So you have DSL but not the voice service? Sorry but I don't buy that. Sounds more like you are trying to pull something. Now if this is true or false I do not know but the "perception" is that something is funny here.

Usually you are whacked with a large extra fee if you do not have at least basic land service with your DSL. The reason DSL is "cheap" is because they piggyback onto your existing voice line. Without voice you either cannot get DSL or you pay through the nose... so much in fact that you might as well have basic landline.

So many people are trying to scam with 4 boxes shared between multiple houses that I do not blame Dish for trying to combat the cheaters.

Keep in mind... I'm not accusing you of anything - just explaining that it sounds a bit fishy.

-JB


----------



## jrb531 (May 29, 2004)

John Ashman said:


> No, they charge *just* for not having the phone line hooked up. Imagine if they charged you for not using an HDMI cable because you don't have an HDMI equipped TV. Wouldn't you be pissed? It's like a behavior charge. "You're not doing what we want, so we're going to fine you". In fact, that's exactly what it is. A fine. Who fines a long paying customer?!?


How do you suggest they stop the rampant cheating people are doing by placing boxes at multiple locations.

IE

4 families each have 1 box and split the everything cost

Sure I dont want to hook up to a phone but I understand the problem.

-JB


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

jrb531 said:


> So you have DSL but not the voice service?


It is possible.


----------



## Geronimo (Mar 23, 2002)

It is possible. People have quoted prices elsewhere in the thread. I mentioned my own experience with DSL without voice service. Mr. Long is as imperfect as the rest of us but I sincerely doubt he would procure DSL illegally.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Geronimo said:


> It is possible. People have quoted prices elsewhere in the thread. I mentioned my own experience with DSL without voice service. Mr. Long is as imperfect as the rest of us but I sincerely doubt he would procure DSL illegally.


Nobody said I did and I hope that you're not saying it now.


----------



## greatwhitenorth (Jul 18, 2005)

Ok, I can tell no one here has worked in a call center. I used to work in a banking call center, and I can tell you that after the 4th or 5th time the same caller calls with the same complaint, the word would get around. After that he would be greeted with "Sir, I see we've discussed this with you before, have a good day." And any one who endorses this harrassment (let's not quibble, that is the intent here) of people who are just trying to do their jobs to the best of their ability and earn a paycheck has serious ethical challenges. That's a human being on the other end of that phone line you know.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

cj9788 said:


> Why is dish doing this other than to mke some more $$$$. There really is no reason to have your receiver hooked up to a phone line other than to order pay per view and to verify the receiver location. No info as far as I know is downloaded to the reciever via the phone line.


Having a phone line connected is also required for many interactive functions like:

o paying your bill
o viewing your statement
o viewing updates
o adding channels or services
o shopping via remote

If only we all knew everything...


> It could be worse E* in its infinite wisdom could hav applied tis policy to all receivers and not just the 2 tuner models. I currently have 4 receivers, 2 508's a 301 nd an old 2700. I looked at my bill and the only fees I am being charged is the extra reeiver fees. I hope they do not extend this policy to cover all receivers no just the 2 tuner models.


The phone line policy applies to all receivers. If there is any crime, it is that the two satellite tuner receivers that have only a single output are charged double (unless you count PiP as being worth $5/month). Perhaps they look at it as an "ability to subsidize" fee.


----------



## nitz369 (Dec 15, 2005)

I am really getting tired of reading threads from all of your Conspiracy Theorists out there! 

Lay off Dish!

My area I can get Comcast, and DirectTV, neither one comes close to Dish prices and features!!

Here is the bottom line, you don't like the fees LEAVE!!!!

I don't see you leaving so quit your complaining and deal with it! Not everyone in this world needs to accomodate your EVERY need and want!


----------



## nitz369 (Dec 15, 2005)

Lets look at what Dish does offer!

One of the only companies out there that offers Dual Tuner Receivers, that actually save you $5/month vs. the other guys!!!!!

What an interesting deal, Dish will save you $5/month if you choose to plug a phone line, if not, then you pay as if you have 2 receivers just like the rest of guys!

Once again I say:

IF YOU DON'T LIKE THE POLICIES THAT ARE PUT IN PLACE THAT COULD SAVE YOU MONEY! THEN LEAVE!


----------



## UTFAN (Nov 12, 2005)

John Ashman said:


> I'm hoping others will join in on this. I just ordered a 622, but I am going to call them *every* day and ring up a good 1/2 hour a day talking to CSRs until the $5 fee goes away. These guys make a good $10/hour, I assume (maybe not if they're out of country), so I'm going to make sure they have to pay 10-20 times as much to get that $5 fee. This is just retarded. Why should I be punished? If ET wants to phone home, it can do it via internet.


I join you in not having a standard phone line at our house. Comcast delivers high-speed Internet and DISH delivers the TV. For talking with people, we have cell phones. And I haven't decided if I want to leave my tried and somewhat trusted 921 for a 622. Always like to see where I'm leaping!

Charlie himself has said, on camera, that he has a vision of a wireless universe. I was the person who asked the question of him. But his 21st century technology remains tied to 20th century wires. Ironic isn't it?

That said, how much is your time worth? Do you really want to commit half an hour a day of YOUR time? I sure as heck can't afford to do that, it's far too expensive.

In my case, DISH will lose the extra revenue from me not upgrading.

If enough people communicate politely and effectively, they'll get the message. They're not stupid, just behind the times a bit. Like I said, 21st century technolgy tied to a telephone wire, which is so 20th century.

Perhaps you could switch to DirecTV or cable, and spend that extra half an hour a day enjoying television. Isn't that what it's all about? And if Direct or cable can't offer you a better situation, that's the way it goes.


----------



## Alpaca Bill (Jun 17, 2005)

nitz369 said:


> Lets look at what Dish does offer!
> 
> One of the only companies out there that offers Dual Tuner Receivers, that actually save you $5/month vs. the other guys!!!!!
> 
> ...


D* actually only charges you $5/mo for the DVR per ACCOUNT NOT per RECEIVER. SO with 4 dual tuner DVRs with D* you pay $5/mo with E* you pay $20/mo. Then let's look at the no phone line fee. D* doesn't have it while Dish does so IF you do not have land lines you would be paying another $20/mo. So when all said D* costs you $5/mo while E* has the potential of charging you $40/mo just in DVR fees. Addt'l outlet fees are similar with both so that is a wash for SD receivers but now E* will be getting an extra $1/mo per HD receiver. IT KEEPS ADDING UP.

Like it has been said in alot of other threads. Charlie used to brag about how they did not have all the fees that cable did. It was their advertising motto for a long time but now Dish is just as bad if not worse than cable.


----------



## Geronimo (Mar 23, 2002)

James Long said:


> Nobody said I did and I hope that you're not saying it now.


It certainly sounded like the previous poster was saying that. as for what I was saying it was pretty clearly the opposite.


----------



## cj9788 (May 14, 2003)

HDMe said:


> Just to recap then... you are a "mover" and do not have your receiver in the same location that you have told Dish you have it... you are cheating to get a different set of locals, I guess or some distants or something? So you can't hook up the phone or they might get wise to you lying to them...
> 
> BUT, you then complain that their phone line policy is unfair? In the same post you admit to lying and cheating, but it would be unfair to implement the one thing that would prevent you from doing so?
> 
> ...


Hey bud you need to read my post again. All I said was their policy is keeping me from buying a 2 tuner receiver. I also expressed some thoughts about the need to even have a phone line hooked at all times.

As to my "move" I moved way back when locals were not offered in my area and my home tv stations woud not grant me a waiver. I pay a handsom fee to have my LiL's and the 4 sets of distants that I subsribe to. I choose not to hook up my phone line so dish will not know I moved. They would like to keep it that way. If they actively persued us movers they wold lose a lot of revenue. I belive they use a don't ask don't tell poliy in regards to movers beause of the money they make.

THE MAIN PURPOSE OF AUDITS IS TO KEEP PEOPLE FROM STACKING RECEIVERS.

They are after people who add an extra receiver to their account and then set that reeiver up at another location like a relatives house. There by CHEATING E* out of $$$.

I on the other hand am cheating no one but my local stations who decided to be dicks and not grant me waivers.

So put that in your pipe and smoke it, and get holier than thou on some one else.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

Alpaca Bill said:


> Then let's look at the no phone line fee.


Lets!

1. DirecTV makes sports subscriptions available to only one receiver if there is no phone connection. If there is a phone line and all receivers check in, then they will all receive the sports subscription.

2. Customers who desire a DVR may be denied the upgrade if their receiver isn't plugged into a phone line.

3. Free or discounted receiver offers include "Land-based phone line connection required" in their terms and conditions.

According to the Terms and Conditions on the DirecTV website, there is no such thing as a DVR or free receiver that isn't connected to a "Land-based phone line connection". They probably overlook this, but that is "the letter of the law" at DirecTV.


----------



## Paul Secic (Dec 16, 2003)

Rogueone said:


> well this must be really new as I've tried to get verizon to drop my phone number when I picked up vonage and verizon told me i had to keep the phone active to have dsl. so I've got the cheapest phone hookup I can get, which is a little over $20. it's not all bad though, as like yesterday when my dsl modem died, I could use the phone still. my cell works so poorly at my house i don't have the option of only using my cell


Congress just passed this in December.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

harsh said:


> That is why I suggested that the GPS be installed in the LNB. If the LNB can see DBS satellites, it can also see GPS satellites.


But that wouldn't tell Dish where the receivers are would it? It would tell them where the LNB is.

There wouldn't be any guarantee of the receivers being where they are supposed to be unless the tracking was at the receiver level, right?


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

cj9788 said:


> As to my "move" I moved way back when locals were not offered in my area and my home tv stations woud not grant me a waiver. I pay a handsom fee to have my LiL's and the 4 sets of distants that I subsribe to. I choose not to hook up my phone line so dish will not know I moved. They would like to keep it that way. If they actively persued us movers they wold lose a lot of revenue. I belive they use a don't ask don't tell poliy in regards to movers beause of the money they make.
> 
> THE MAIN PURPOSE OF AUDITS IS TO KEEP PEOPLE FROM STACKING RECEIVERS.
> 
> ...


So you're cheating, and you admit it... and you don't want to connect a phone line and get caught. You lose the right to complain.

There has been a popular feeling that some of the audit team's work has been to find people who are saying their receivers are in one place but are actually in another in order to get other locals, which puts Dish in a position of some FCC violations... so they are trying to clean that up as well as the account stackers and the PPV viewers.

I never said I was "holy"... but I didn't post a message saying how I wasn't hooking my receiver to a phone line because I didn't want to get caught in a lie to Dish like you did. Hard to support your side when you admit to cheating the system.


----------



## StarTech (Oct 2, 2004)

The 5 buck fee does seem unfair. 

I wonder will the ethernet connections on 211 or 411's be a solution?


----------



## StarTech (Oct 2, 2004)

James Long said:


> The way I have seen it on the bill details posted here from time to time is as an 'additional tuner fee' that is credited if you have a phone line connected.
> 
> As far as the 'impossible request' goes, think of it like a children's ticket price or senior citizen discount. It is impossible for me to adjust my age to get one of these discounts (except by fraud).
> 
> Connecting a phone line may be impossible for you - it may be impossible by choice - more importantly it's impossible for E* to find out what your receiver has been doing unless it has a phone line to report in on.


Bad news! Dish then should not allow the recv. to do any PPV activity until a valid phone is connected.
The whole mess goes away with a little built in fore-thought.....what do you think James?


----------



## cj9788 (May 14, 2003)

HDMe said:


> So you're cheating, and you admit it... and you don't want to connect a phone line and get caught. You lose the right to complain.





HDMe said:


> There has been a popular feeling that some of the audit team's work has been to find people who are saying their receivers are in one place but are actually in another in order to get other locals, which puts Dish in a position of some FCC violations... so they are trying to clean that up as well as the account stackers and the PPV viewers.
> 
> I never said I was "holy"... but I didn't post a message saying how I wasn't hooking my receiver to a phone line because I didn't want to get caught in a lie to Dish like you did. Hard to support your side when you admit to cheating the system.





Hello McFly E* makes a lot of money from movers. They by law have to appear to be doing something about it. They are going after people who have receivers from one account in more than one building. Lets say I have to call the audit team. I have all my receivers in the same building. I read the reqired info from my 4 receivers. and I pass the audit. So your argument does not hold water. 

I am not complaing either. Like I said re read my post you dolt. All I said was that the phone line requirement is what is keeping from upgrading to a 2 tuner receiver. That is it. I do not consider that a complaint. 

BTW people who use phrases like "So you're cheating, and you admit it... and you don't want to connect a phone line and get caught. You lose the right to complain."

Are by default acting like they are holier than thou. 

And please Mr. man who am I cheating???? You are so caught up on the word. Also what law am I breaking? You point out the statute that says I can not move to receive locals from out of state. The law says that E* can not knowingly sell me out of market locals. Which is why I do not hook up my phone line. I do not want to lose my distant nets. And I also do not want E* to get in trouble with the law. 

You seem to have a lot of Anger pent up there buddy boy. Maybe you need some Xanax or something.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

StarTech said:


> Bad news! Dish then should not allow the recv. to do any PPV activity until a valid phone is connected.
> The whole mess goes away with a little built in fore-thought.....what do you think James?


Locking the receiver unless it sees a phone line sounds like a good idea. Unless they make it check the phone line connection every time a PPV is ordered it still opens the door to loss. If PPV is activated because the last time the unit checked in it was connected to a phoneline but the customer pulls the line before placing the order and fails to reconnect it one has unpaid PPVs on their receiver. The dial-in test would have to be run practically every night to prevent someone from 'delaying' the billing of several PPVs. Turning off PPV the moment phone line disconnection is detected would help. No solution is perfect.

What do I think? I leave the writing of the TOS and fee structure up to E* and the following of those rules are up to me. If I don't want to follow their rules I have the choice of paying whatever penalty I agreed to by using their service or finding some other service to give my money to.

What do I think, part II? As good as my DSL service has been (I actually lost voice service due to a bad splice somewhere between my home and the central office and still had DSL) I would not rely on it for VoIP service as my only voice connection to the outside world. If I had cable modem service I would trust it less.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

cj9788 said:


> Hello McFly E* makes a lot of money from movers. They by law have to appear to be doing something about it. They are going after people who have receivers from one account in more than one building. Lets say I have to call the audit team. I have all my receivers in the same building. I read the reqired info from my 4 receivers. and I pass the audit. So your argument does not hold water.


Go read the audit thread on this forum. There is at least one person posting in there about having been caught at "moving" when the audit team noted his receivers were identified as having called in from a different location than they had on file for him... and it caused him to fail the audit.



cj9788 said:


> I am not complaing either. Like I said re read my post you dolt. All I said was that the phone line requirement is what is keeping from upgrading to a 2 tuner receiver. That is it. I do not consider that a complaint.


Interesting how those who are violating the rules are sometimes the same ones who resort to name-calling. Nice.



cj9788 said:


> BTW people who use phrases like "So you're cheating, and you admit it... and you don't want to connect a phone line and get caught. You lose the right to complain."
> 
> Are by default acting like they are holier than thou.


I guess you think the police are holier than thou as well, since they enforce the law... and Dish probably is lumped in there as well. Basically anyone who obides by the rules seems to be lumped in this category by you it would seem.



cj9788 said:


> And please Mr. man who am I cheating????


In your post you acknowledged you were cheating your local stations, your words not mine. And you know you are violating the rules, hence your original post saying that is why you don't connect a phone line so they find out.



cj9788 said:


> You are so caught up on the word. Also what law am I breaking? You point out the statute that says I can not move to receive locals from out of state. The law says that E* can not knowingly sell me out of market locals. Which is why I do not hook up my phone line. I do not want to lose my distant nets. And I also do not want E* to get in trouble with the law.


So you're doing all this to protect Dish? I've never heard that logic applied to dishonesty and cheating before... you're doing it for the good of others.



cj9788 said:


> You seem to have a lot of Anger pent up there buddy boy. Maybe you need some Xanax or something.


I haven't been namecalling or complaining... so if you're seeing any anger, it isn't coming from me. I was merely pointing out the irony of posting against Dish's phone line rules while admitting to doing something you know is wrong. No anger here.

Have a nice day.


----------



## BoisePaul (Apr 26, 2005)

cj9788 said:


> Hello McFly E* makes a lot of money from movers. They by law have to appear to be doing something about it. They are going after people who have receivers from one account in more than one building. Lets say I have to call the audit team. I have all my receivers in the same building. I read the reqired info from my 4 receivers. and I pass the audit.


Unfortunately, they've resorted to tactics that will smoke out the unprepared "mover".

Say you've got all of your receivers in the same location, but it's not the service address they have on file and they suspect that you're not being entirely truthful even if you've read all of the location codes, etc. Some have reported that the audit team have asked for the next door neighbor's name, the color of your house, and other fairly meaningless questions to which the customer's reaction is more important than the actual answer. Now, the idea is that the person who has moved and is not prepared to hear this is going to hesitate and have problems answering these questions where a legitimate sub will probably answer the question. Granted, I'm legit and would probably still indicate that it's none of their darn business (where in the RA does it say that I have to provide that), but I'm not gonna go "Umm, well, its...." as they might be expecting.


----------



## CCarncross (Jul 19, 2005)

Lets face it, its in E*'s, and D*'s for that matter, best interest to try and make some type of effort to make sure you arent account stacking(for their own revenue), AND that your service address is your real service address(to avoid possible FCC fines). If some of you choose to go against the rules they choose to operate their company by, and you get caught, tough you know what....choose another service, remember this is a choice, and some seem to treat it like they have no choice and are being forced to do something....you choose who you want to get your entertainment from...it doesnt do anyone any good for you to stand around all day complaining about how you think this or that is unfair, its tv, and YOU choose your own provider...


----------



## TVHolic (Feb 5, 2006)

OK, I'm new here, but I have had dish for about 6 yrs. There are a couple things I don't quite comprehend, probably because I have old receivers. 

I have never had a phone line hooked up to my receivers, and I have never been charged for it. I do not have them hooked up because I thought they were only to let dish know you were ordering PPVs, and since I never order PPVs, I did not hook them up. (Not to mention my house is 85 yrs old and has no phone lines--I have the phone line coming in one place in the house and use multi-handset phones and wireless router and bridge for my DSL/network) I did have to run the coax for the receivers but these were all on the same side of the house as the minidish.

I even asked someone when I called in one time and they told me if I didn't watch PPV's it didn't matter (this was a few years ago).

But as it turns out, if I upgrade to newer receivers (which I have been thinking of doing) I will have to run these wires just to keep the same programming I have had for years? Man really makes me want to just keep my old receivers.

Not trying to break any laws here or "cheat" as it has been described, just lazy as someone else here admitted to being...


----------



## John Ashman (Feb 2, 2006)

Well, let me be clear, I have *no* problem with DISH trying to avoid losing money to people gaming the system. That's a smart thing. But, look, I *can't* be cheating! I will have only one unit and so maybe they should only apply the fee to secondary receivers? If I am paying $80/month for my one receiver, I clearly am not gaming them. So, I'm seeking an explanation of the fee from Dish (haven't heard one besides "it's policy") and an exemption. I don't think that's too much to ask if the fee is really there to keep people from cheating. But, as I said, a $6/month fee is not going to keep anyone from cheating as it's a bargain and a half. If someone wants to save $80/month, I'm sure they'll settle for saving $74/month. So, it wouldn't do much to dissuade cheaters, but it hits me. I'm "collateral damage". If I were gaming the system with multiple receivers spread across all my friends' homes, I'd be *happy* to pay the $6 fee! But I'm not and so I'm not!!!


----------



## cj9788 (May 14, 2003)

Well the unprepared mover should beware. Like I said dish makes a lot of money from movers and has to appear to be doing something to stop it. I have spoken to people in the signal integrity unit at dish and was told the main objective is to catch account stackers. Movers that they know about by law will be removed. But they are not actively perusing movers. As to the questions about the color of the house next door, I find it hard to believe that E* would investigate such details. They do several thousand audits a month all over the country. It is just not feasible to undertake such a compiling of information as to the color of your next door neighbors house. Most online property records do not keep that type of info and since a permit is not required to paint your house (in most areas) if the color was on line there is no guarantee that it is accurate. Most movers use a business address or some other nonresidential address. So if dish did really know the color of my "next door neighbors" house they would know my "next door neighbor" Is a junk yard in south central GA. And where I have "lived" for the last 5 years is public dump. A place for rural resident to bring their trash. I even went so far as to get a prepaid virgin phone in that area code and gave it as my new phone number when I moved. Which I used during the smart card update with out any problems what so ever. 


This issue has upset lot of people. My only concern is that the phone line requirement on that 2 tuner units is an issue to dish. So I will not get one. If that is a complaint then I am complaining.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

BoisePaul said:


> Some have reported that the audit team have asked for the next door neighbor's name...


I would fail that one! My neighbors seem to always know my name, but I am terrible with people's names unless I talk to them often... so I am pretty much clueless about most of my neighbors' names!


----------



## Alpaca Bill (Jun 17, 2005)

I can understand why Dish has this fee for dual tuner 1-2 TV receivers. In their eyes if you are sending individual signals to 2 different tvs then in essence it would be the same as having 2 individual receivers. That being said, Dish should offer, to those that only want the receiver in single mode, the ability to have the smart card lock the receiver in that mode. It would be something Dish could authorize via satellite to the receiver. If the customer wants to use the receiver in dual mode, they have the choice of hooking up a phone line or paying the $5 fee.

This would most likely be acceptable to all. I personally will never use the 622 in dual mode and I am sure there are alot of others out there in the same situation.


----------



## cable_killer (Feb 5, 2006)

Phone Lines Phones Can Be Reversed Simply By Adding More Recievers!!! Dual Tuners Were Created To Eliminate The Additional Out Charges!!!!! You Want To Pay Regular Price Get Additional Equiptment


----------



## StarTech (Oct 2, 2004)

Dish needs to drop the phone line issue and opt for built in wireless phone jack in all its receivers.

It would be a simple task to design a receiver with a wireless phone jack that would operate like any other wireless phone jack receiver. The act of plugging in the receiver would put all receivers in the home in contact with the main wireless phone jack in the main receiver. It the main receiver wasn't close to a phone jack, a further perk could be an optional Wireless phone jack that would transmitt back to the main receiver, which would then contact all other receivers in the home.

Dish would be very happy, Installers would be very happy, and customers would just simply forget it was ever there.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

StarTech said:


> Dish needs to drop the phone line issue and opt for built in wireless phone jack in all its receivers.


Wireless phone jacks are certainly an option if running a wire is the problem, but the major concern here is from those who have no wired phone on the premises.

You would need a wireless telephone connected to each receiver and that would require some sort of wireless subscription.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

HDMe said:


> But that wouldn't tell Dish where the receivers are would it? It would tell them where the LNB is.


If the information were communicated from the LNB to the receiver, it would. The LNB can already tell the receiver a little about itself so it shouldn't be a huge stretch to send some sort of a hashed (scrambled) GPS coordinate.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

How about a wireless system built into every receiver so they can talk to each other. You will still need a phone line for one receiver but the others just tag along. E* could call it "DISHComm".


----------



## FavreJL04 (Feb 4, 2006)

Why couldn't there be a way to tie all the receivers in the home together without the need for a phone line? Or even a way where all receivers have to be within a certain distance of the main receiver otherwise they will be automatically disabled.


----------



## boylehome (Jul 16, 2004)

James Long said:


> How about a wireless system built into every receiver so they can talk to each other. You will still need a phone line for one receiver but the others just tag along. E* could call it "DISHComm".


Good idea but for those receivers that don't have it, how about a module or device that you plug into the phone jack on the receiver so to connect to the cell tower? E* could use their contingency funds to provide this for free.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

boylehome said:


> Good idea but for those receivers that don't have it, how about a module or device that you plug into the phone jack on the receiver so to connect to the cell tower? E* could use their contingency funds to provide this for free.


The subscriber (Dish cannot subscribe on your behalf) would have to subscribe to a wireless data service for each receiver. I don't know how good two-way pager coverage is anymore and it wasn't cheaper when it was. An embedded wireless modem (or a NIC for that matter) would probably add some dollars to the cost of a receiver as well.


----------



## cable_killer (Feb 5, 2006)

Good News To All!!! Dish Network Is Working On A System In Which Only 1 Receiver In The Home Needs To Be Connected To The Phone Line. The Release Date Is Not Set Out Yet. This Enebles All Receivers To Communicate With The One Connected And Send All Data To Dish


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

cable_killer,

That is called DISHComm and it's already built in to the new ViP recievers.


----------



## digiblur (Jun 11, 2005)

Just pickup a Sipura 1001 for about $60 and setup a free VoIP service on it. Your dish receiver(s) will be able to dial out, you'll be able to call other toll free numbers without burning up your cell phone minutes, and people will also be able to call you on the VoIP line without burning up your cell phone minutes. A win-win situation...

It will also keep the audit nazi's away....


----------



## dave1234 (Oct 9, 2005)

digiblur said:


> Just pickup a Sipura 1001 for about $60 and setup a free VoIP service on it. Your dish receiver(s) will be able to dial out, you'll be able to call other toll free numbers without burning up your cell phone minutes, and people will also be able to call you on the VoIP line without burning up your cell phone minutes. A win-win situation...
> 
> It will also keep the audit nazi's away....


I would be interested to know what VoIP services are free???


----------



## boylehome (Jul 16, 2004)

digiblur said:


> Just pickup a Sipura 1001 for about $60 and setup a free VoIP service on it. Your dish receiver(s) will be able to dial out, you'll be able to call other toll free numbers without burning up your cell phone minutes, and people will also be able to call you on the VoIP line without burning up your cell phone minutes. A win-win situation...
> 
> It will also keep the audit nazi's away....


I checked it out and it looks promising. What service is required to make it work on the internet? Also, 1) can you hook it into your existing phone line so to connect the satellite receivers? 2) can it be used with a cable modem vs. DSL line?


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

dave1234 said:


> I would be interested to know what VoIP services are free???


None of them are free and it is unlikely that they will ever be. Many of the digital services do not support modems because of the difficulties in sustaining a carrier tone. VoIP wisdom says that you need a sustainable 80K/second which lets out about half of the DSL users and all of the ISDN users. That's why they call it "Voice over IP".


----------



## digiblur (Jun 11, 2005)

dave1234 said:


> I would be interested to know what VoIP services are free???


FreeWorldDialup, SIPPhone, Stanaphone, etc. are just a few that a free for incoming calls, free calls to other users of the service, and free outgoing to toll free.

I've been succesful with an 811 dialing with FreeWorldDialup and SIPPhone configured on a SPA1001.

The only cost you will have is the one time cost of the SPA1001 and your broadband connection of course.


----------



## digiblur (Jun 11, 2005)

harsh said:


> None of them are free and it is unlikely that they will ever be. Many of the digital services do not support modems because of the difficulties in sustaining a carrier tone. VoIP wisdom says that you need a sustainable 80K/second which lets out about half of the DSL users and all of the ISDN users. That's why they call it "Voice over IP".


None of what you said is true.... don't confuse kilobits with kilobytes.


----------



## cable_killer (Feb 5, 2006)

keep in mid, Voip may not work with all receivers, customers will call in because the phone system is not reconized at all. you may still be charged the phone access fee


----------



## dave1234 (Oct 9, 2005)

digiblur said:


> FreeWorldDialup, SIPPhone, Stanaphone, etc. are just a few that a free for incoming calls, free calls to other users of the service, and free outgoing to toll free.
> 
> I've been succesful with an 811 dialing with FreeWorldDialup and SIPPhone configured on a SPA1001.
> 
> The only cost you will have is the one time cost of the SPA1001 and your broadband connection of course.


Thanks for defining what is free. Note that not all services have free incoming calls. A virtual number is required for which some services charge a fee.


----------



## digiblur (Jun 11, 2005)

dave1234 said:


> Thanks for defining what is free. Note that not all services have free incoming calls. A virtual number is required for which some services charge a fee.


There are several others that are free. The two I use are FreeWorldDialup w/IPKall(free WA state number plus free onramps around the US and the world) and Stanaphone, they give you a free NY number. I use FreeWorldDialup most of the time since I have several other users and family members with the service around the globe. Nothing like a free phone call from the cordless phone on the couch!

I had no problems when I had my 811 hooked up, it would report up PPV's with no problems, and the last call date would change every month.


----------



## Ken Howe (Aug 9, 2005)

Alpaca Bill said:


> SO do you connect your Dish receivers to the Vonage?
> 
> I have heard that some people can and some can't.
> 
> There are other VoIP services out there that are very good for data (i.e. modem) connections that would probably be great for the receivers. For the life of me I can't remember the names or the site I found this info at. There were a lot of D*, E*, and Tivo customers using these services without fail. I will post as soon as my sometimers goes away.


yeah... i just used a splitter. its like .39. Thats it.


----------



## scooper (Apr 22, 2002)

I find this whole topic somewhat amusing - a "strategy" to beat a $5 fee because you choose NOT to have a method for your dual tuner receiver to dial in ? Please - $60 /year is NOT going to put any of you into the poorhouse - heck - I'd bet most of you spend more than that for a MONTH of your services from E* .


----------



## kmcnamara (Jan 30, 2004)

Well last night I connected Vonage so that all phone jacks in the house are vonage-capable. My 721 can connect fine over vonage and download my bill, etc. so no worries there. I'm going to run a line for my 921 this weekend and see how it does.

Of course the only benefit I can see in all this is ordering PPV and getting caller ID to popup on the screen. I doubt it will help with the $5 access fee even if a 622/625/522, etc. can connect.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

If the receiver makes the connection the access fee is waived.
Sounds like you're on the right path.


----------



## aquaman67 (Nov 16, 2005)

I didn't read all six pages so forgive me if this was already brought up, but I think given E*'s track record, if there was increased phone traffic, E* is much more likely to just add extra CSRs and phone lines before they give up that $5 fee, even if it means they will lose money.

(Nice run on sentence, don't ya think?)


----------



## kmcnamara (Jan 30, 2004)

James Long said:


> If the receiver makes the connection the access fee is waived.
> Sounds like you're on the right path.


Really? I thought they needed ANI to tell specifically where the receiver was and vonage doesn't pass ANI (just caller id info).


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

I'm not sure what Vonage passes. I suppose if there was caller ID and no ANI E* could accept that as a fallback. As long as E* gets the right number and the same number from all your receivers.


----------



## mkpolley (Dec 8, 2003)

you can have a dsl line without a phone number,dedicated line to dsl only


----------



## scooper (Apr 22, 2002)

mkpolley said:


> you can have a dsl line without a phone number,dedicated line to dsl only


Depends on where you live and who's providing the line. "Naked DSL" is not generally available for Sprint customers (yes - I DO know about the failed trial market).


----------



## rbyers (Jan 15, 2004)

Yeah, but remember, Dish is not really a technology company (I have a 921). It is a technology service marketing company. I agree that 60 bucks a year (120 if you have two HD DVRs) won't break you, but it is annoying. It is one thing to have to buy/lease a feature that you don't need. It is another thing entirely to be forced to pay a monthly fee for the un-needed and un-used feature.

I know a number of folks who are considering dropping their land-line phones because of their cells. Others who are dropping because of Vonage and Cable Modems.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

kmcnamara said:


> I thought they needed ANI to tell specifically where the receiver was and vonage doesn't pass ANI (just caller id info).


ANI only passes a phone number. Dish is only interested in the fact that your phone number hasn't changed. Their assumption was that if you moved out of market, your phone number would certainly change.

If it makes them happy, who are we to argue?


----------



## MusicDan (Feb 10, 2006)

You might want to know that everytime you call *E a note is computer-generated on your account. So if your aim is harassment, it will be flagged. The phone line requirement is to determine where the receiver actually is and to prevent use by multiple residences. So if you were advised of the phone-line requirement up front, and you didn't like it, why did you subscribe to their service. Course you could have chosen the option to have an independent receiver in each room and pay extra lease fees.


----------



## larrystotler (Jun 6, 2004)

And what about those of us that own a 721 and would have to pay at least $11 more a month to get a newer dual tuner receiver due to the additional outlet fee and the even higher DVR fee? Granted, I already have an 811 and pay for the HD, but that will go up even more if I get a ViP receiver.....and where is the compellling content? 5 More V* channels which I rarely watch, ESPN2-HD, which I would rarely watch, and Uni-HD, which might be worth a little bit, but not another $5. It just doesn't add up..... Not to mention that I am still waiting to see when the DC Digital/HD LiLs will become available, and that will only give me 4 channels. With my OTA, I can get DC, Harrisburg, Baltimore, Hagerstwon, etc.....About 15-20 OTA channels......Hmm.....


----------

