# DirecTV Sues Dish Network in False Advertising Case



## Draconis (Mar 16, 2007)

I was wondering how long it would take before this happened.

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-02-11/directv-sues-dish-network-over-false-advertising.html



> Feb. 11 (Bloomberg) -- DirecTV Inc., the largest U.S. satellite-TV provider, filed a false advertising lawsuit against Dish Network Corp., claiming Dish's new ads that its service is less expensive are "false and misleading."


----------



## Avder (Feb 6, 2010)

Draconis said:


> I was wondering how long it would take before this happened.
> 
> http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-02-11/directv-sues-dish-network-over-false-advertising.html


Well, as long as neither side hires Luke Wilson for their "the other side sucks" ads, I can live with it.


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

Ah, the wars have heated up ..


----------



## davring (Jan 13, 2007)

Doug Brott said:


> Ah, the wars have heated up ..


And the lawyers are lined up....


----------



## Hutchinshouse (Sep 28, 2006)

About time. Maybe now they'll *both* stop the lies.


----------



## peano (Feb 1, 2004)

If you have one or two receivers, Dish is cheaper (barely). Once you get into multiple receivers, Dish has now become the "cable pig" of satellite TV.

I hope DirecTV wins this one.


----------



## diggerg56 (Sep 26, 2007)

Imagine the parade of charts, graphs, channel listings, Powerpoint presentations this case will produce.
Both companies can probably produce numbers to make their case...But will anyone really be able to understand those numbers?


----------



## seern (Jan 13, 2007)

Well, how about the D* ads replying to this. It lists all of the extra charges that Dish has that are included in the D* packages. :goodjob:


----------



## Herdfan (Mar 18, 2006)

Just today my dad asked me about whether he should switch to DISH because he saw those ads.

I told him that with the package he has (Premiere), that DISH would be within a couple of $ of what he was paying now. 

Plus he would have to learn how to operate all new equipment and all of mom's recorded shows would get sent back to D*. That ended the conversation.


----------



## jefbal99 (Sep 7, 2007)

I actually went through the order process on the website for the Top 250, which i think equals Total Choice Plus I have, the price was almost identical. I may have saved $2 or $3/month.

For the 24x7 HD RSNs on the sports pack, better PQ, and new bird, i'm quite happy where I'm at.


----------



## jessshaun (Sep 14, 2005)

If I went back to dish, I would need 3 DVRs (I'd probably go for 3 612 solo HD DVRs to save some money with receiver fees).

I would need at least the top 200 to equal most of the channels in Choice, top 250 if I wanted to equal the programming I have now. Dish Network ends up (for me at least) to be $3 or so more than what I have now with Directv. I'd hardly call that paying less for TV. So it seems like false advertisement in my eyes.


----------



## gphvid (Jun 19, 2007)

jessshaun said:


> If I went back to dish, I would need 3 DVRs (I'd probably go for 3 612 solo HD DVRs to save some money with receiver fees).
> 
> I would need at least the top 200 to equal most of the channels in Choice, top 250 if I wanted to equal the programming I have now. Dish Network ends up (for me at least) to be $3 or so more than what I have now with Directv. I'd hardly call that paying less for TV. So it seems like false advertisement in my eyes.


Someone in my neighborhood wants to ditch cable (TWC) and asked about sat TV and not only told him about this forum, but also my DirecTV system and DISH and how, despite the claims in advertising, they are relatively more or less the same in costs. It is just the spin they put on. Of course, one thing I've found hard to find is an actual rate card for either provider's services outside of the promotions, something that would show easily the comparisons as well as differences between them and cable.


----------



## gopherscot (Mar 25, 2002)

Dish is less expensive, has more HD, and the receiver's are better. The killer for me is the 12.95 multi sports pack to 5.95for Dish. This means a lot to me as I am eligible for three RSN's with no blackouts.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

gopherscot said:


> Dish is less expensive, has more HD, and the receiver's are better.


Can't comment on the receiver since I haven't had one, but when I checked into Dish a few years back, the HD channels I wanted to watch, which is what really counts, instead of how many anyone carries, were about the same and so were the monthly costs.


----------



## wingrider01 (Sep 9, 2005)

davring said:


> And the lawyers are lined up....


and drooling over the windfall per hour charges for 500 legal assistances all researching the same thing


----------



## Mike Bertelson (Jan 24, 2007)

Hutchinshouse said:


> About time. Maybe now they'll *both* stop the lies.


Nope, the lies will continue on both sides. They'll both keep pushing what they feel they can get away with...it's almost as entertaining as TV itself. :lol:

Mike


----------



## Mike Greer (Jan 20, 2004)

Geez - neither Dish Network or DirecTV know what truth is! I think they both believe their own lies. Just ask them!

I've been looking at both and the prices seem a little less for Dish unless you need a bunch of HD DVRs. In that case DirecTV gets the cash up front and Dish gets it over time. End result is not a lot different as far as I can see. (other than the Dish DVRs don't make me want to smash my TV!)


----------



## mobandit (Sep 4, 2007)

The only thing I'm not liking in the current D* ads is the "200 HD channel capacity" claims. If that is true...THEN ADD SOME CHANNELS!!!!!!! If that claim is based on D12 being launched, then their claim is horribly premature, as they haven't even begun to test the bird, yet! If the claim isn't based on D12, then they have had this capacity for a long time...why haven't they added any new HD channels in quite a while? That ad, alone, is misleading, and possibly even just wishful thinking.

As to suing Dish...why? The only benefit is gained by the lawyers. IMHO, it makes D* look like a bunch of whining wimps. Put up more channels or shut up.


----------



## JeffBowser (Dec 21, 2006)

I noted that, too. However - they say _capacity_ That's perfectly true.

It's funny to see they are suing, both sides are spinning like mad. It's almost as funny as watching some forum members up here take their provider of choice personally.



mobandit said:


> The only thing I'm not liking in the current D* ads is the "200 HD channel capacity" claims. If that is true...THEN ADD SOME CHANNELS!!!!!!! If that claim is based on D12 being launched, then their claim is horribly premature, as they haven't even begun to test the bird, yet! If the claim isn't based on D12, then they have had this capacity for a long time...why haven't they added any new HD channels in quite a while? That ad, alone, is misleading, and possibly even just wishful thinking.
> 
> As to suing Dish...why? The only benefit is gained by the lawyers. IMHO, it makes D* look like a bunch of whining wimps. Put up more channels or shut up.


----------



## TBlazer07 (Feb 5, 2009)

This will get as far as the AT&T vs. Verizon lawsuit.


----------



## mobandit (Sep 4, 2007)

JeffBowser said:


> I noted that, too. However - they say _capacity_ That's perfectly true.
> 
> It's funny to see they are suing, both sides are spinning like mad. It's almost as funny as watching some forum members up here take their provider of choice personally.


I realize they are advertising capacity...but the launch of D12 does not give them capacity...the bird hasn't even been tested, yet. To claim capacity, if it is based on an untested bird, is ludicrous. Ever hear the old cliche? Don't count your chickens before the eggs hatch? If the capacity claim isn't based on the use of D12, then why haven't they added more channels? Besides, capacity is meaningless...channels are what counts. While their claim of 200 channel capacity *might* be true...it is meaningless ad spin...hype. It irritates the fire out of me every time I see it. I hope the judge throws their claim out, quickly!


----------



## scr (Feb 5, 2008)

So if *D wins and they receive some sort of compensation from Dish the price I pay will go down right? :nono:

It's all a game in which the customer will pay the players.


----------



## JeffBowser (Dec 21, 2006)

Channels = capacity, capacity = channels. They DO have the capacity. They can convert to SD some HD channels, they can further reduce bitrates, all kinds of things they can do outside of D12 dependency. I'm merely pointing out how these silly commercials can skirt the real story so easily and get away with it, especially to their target audience of weak-minded people.



mobandit said:


> I realize they are advertising capacity...but the launch of D12 does not give them capacity...the bird hasn't even been tested, yet. To claim capacity, if it is based on an untested bird, is ludicrous. Ever hear the old cliche? Don't count your chickens before the eggs hatch? If the capacity claim isn't based on the use of D12, then why haven't they added more channels? Besides, capacity is meaningless...channels are what counts. While their claim of 200 channel capacity *might* be true...it is meaningless ad spin...hype. It irritates the fire out of me every time I see it. I hope the judge throws their claim out, quickly!


----------



## Hoosier205 (Sep 3, 2007)

Perhaps the judge will point to DirecTV's own recent false advertising of their Olympic coverage offerings and throw this case out.


----------



## Nick (Apr 23, 2002)

Pot <> kettle


----------



## Max Mike (Oct 18, 2008)

AT&T buy DirecTV? Or maybe like the same idiot that decided AT&T should sue Verizon over their ads is now working for DirecTV.

Any judge worth his pay will laugh DirecTV out of court as AT&T was.


----------



## kevinturcotte (Dec 19, 2006)

gopherscot said:


> Dish is less expensive, has more HD, and the receiver's are better. The killer for me is the 12.95 multi sports pack to 5.95for Dish. This means a lot to me as I am eligible for three RSN's with no blackouts.


How much cheaper is in when I need 5 HD DVRs, and 3 HD receivers (Yes, I need to be able to record up to 10 things at once while watching up to 3 live programs). Also, Can I view a program from any of those HD DVRs on any of the HD receivers?


----------



## jimmerz (Jan 26, 2010)

kevinturcotte said:


> How much cheaper is in when I need 5 HD DVRs, and 3 HD receivers *(Yes, I need to be able to record up to 10 things at once while watching up to 3 live programs).* Also, Can I view a program from any of those HD DVRs on any of the HD receivers?


That is awesome! :lol:


----------



## kevinturcotte (Dec 19, 2006)

kevinturcotte said:


> How much cheaper is in when I need 5 HD DVRs, and 3 HD receivers (Yes, I need to be able to record up to 10 things at once while watching up to 3 live programs). Also, Can I view a program from any of those HD DVRs on any of the HD receivers?


Curious, what would that actually cost me a month? Top 250. I pay $110 right now before any PPVs or anything like that.


----------



## dhines (Aug 16, 2006)

d* and e* remind me of how a woman married to a man (that has an ex wife) will get into it with the mans ex wife. the best thing to do is just walk away and let them have their fun.

and to think how much money both companies are wasting on legal fees . . .

(yes i am saying this from experience)


----------



## coldsteel (Mar 29, 2007)

kevinturcotte said:


> How much cheaper is in when I need 5 HD DVRs, and 3 HD receivers (Yes, I need to be able to record up to 10 things at once while watching up to 3 live programs). Also, Can I view a program from any of those HD DVRs on any of the HD receivers?


5 vip612 HDDVR and 3 vip211K HD. Actually, theoretically, you have capacity to record up to 13 satellite AND 8 OTA feeds at the same time.

Costs: 250/locals $63, $6 DVR fee, 4x$10 for 612 #s 2-5, 3x$7 for the 211s. So, $130 a month. Then $80 one-time for EHD for the HDDVRs and EHD for the 211s. of course, theres the two DPP44 switches you'd need....

Only issue you cannot share between the 612 and 211, but can sahre drives between the 612s and between the 211s, but no the same EHD.


----------



## tonyd79 (Jul 24, 2006)

mobandit said:


> I realize they are advertising capacity...but the launch of D12 does not give them capacity...the bird hasn't even been tested, yet. To claim capacity, if it is based on an untested bird, is ludicrous. Ever hear the old cliche? Don't count your chickens before the eggs hatch? If the capacity claim isn't based on the use of D12, then why haven't they added more channels? Besides, capacity is meaningless...channels are what counts. While their claim of 200 channel capacity *might* be true...it is meaningless ad spin...hype. It irritates the fire out of me every time I see it. I hope the judge throws their claim out, quickly!


Not sure what ads you are seeing but every stinking one I have seen, on the internet, in print or on TV says SOON. How is that false advertising? Or even misleading?

BTW, looks like D12 will be operational in April, so that seems to be soon enough to advertise.

They all lie in ads, but the 200 channel capacity one is not a lie...and I am tired of the lies in advertising.


----------



## Ira Lacher (Apr 24, 2002)

My wife was asking me if we would save money by switching to DISH from DirecTV. So I crunched the numbers (not counting the promo price):


DirecTV (Choice Ultimate), 1 HD, 2SDs, DVR service, 2 additional outlets, Sports Pack, Starz/Showtime, protection plan: *$150.50/month, inc. tax*
DISH Network (America's Top 250), 1 HD, 2 SDs, DVR service, 2 additional outlets, Multi Sport, Starz/Showtime, protection plan: *$130.36.*
When I compared the two with the same hardware, using DirecTV Premier vs. DISH Network America's Everything, the pricing was:

DirecTV, *$161.10, inc. tax*
DISH, *$146.26, inc. tax*
This is why, barring some unbelievably new programming advantage offered by DirecTV after the hockey season ends (we have Centre Ice and wouldn't want to lose it with two full months to go in the season, plus early playoff rounds), I will probably switch.


----------



## Curtis0620 (Apr 22, 2002)

Ira Lacher said:


> My wife was asking me if we would save money by switching to DISH from DirecTV. So I crunched the numbers (not counting the promo price):
> 
> 
> DirecTV (Choice Ultimate), 1 HD, 2SDs, DVR service, 2 additional outlets, Sports Pack, Starz/Showtime, protection plan: *$150.50/month, inc. tax*
> ...


You would not want Choice Ultimate if you are getting Starz/Showtime.


----------



## crabtrp (Sep 23, 2006)

Dish has BBC America HD and FSC HD, they win


----------



## Draconis (Mar 16, 2007)

Curtis0620 said:


> You would not want Choice Ultimate if you are getting Starz/Showtime.


True, I would go with Choice Extra for that lineup. Choice Ultimate + Starz is a little redundant.

Hope you included the additional receiver fees in that calculation.


----------



## mobandit (Sep 4, 2007)

tonyd79 said:


> Not sure what ads you are seeing but every stinking one I have seen, on the internet, in print or on TV says SOON. How is that false advertising? Or even misleading?
> 
> BTW, looks like D12 will be operational in April, so that seems to be soon enough to advertise.
> 
> They all lie in ads, but the 200 channel capacity one is not a lie...and I am tired of the lies in advertising.


Every ad I see says they NOW HAVE 200 channel capacity...not coming soon...now have. I agree, it does look like D12 will be operational, assuming all testing goes according to plan. My point is that until it IS operational they should not be advertising having 200 channel HD capacity NOW.


----------



## rkr0923 (Sep 14, 2006)

Capacity! stop using that word D*...............my truck has a 15 gal fuel capacity, but it will never see it.


----------



## oldfantom (Mar 13, 2006)

Max Mike said:


> AT&T buy DirecTV? Or maybe like the same idiot that decided AT&T should sue Verizon over their ads is now working for DirecTV.
> 
> Any judge worth his pay will laugh DirecTV out of court as AT&T was.


Apples to Oranges. AT&T was contending that the claim of capacity was "confusing" the average person into believing that they had no capacity in the white areas. It did not go very far because the comparisons were clearly labeled and discussed as 3G.

On the other hand. D* contends E* is comparing the price of a small package to a large package. Having seen those commercials and, humbly submitting that I am at least as bright as the average person, I find them confusing. There is case law and you can google it. But a company can neither engage in false advertise nor advertising that the reasonable consumer might find so confusing as to create false conclusions. Wired had a nice piece on the merit of the AT&T dispute that sited some interesting reads.

By the by, E* has already pulled half its ads in this campaign. They backed off the higher price because they pay celebrities stuff. Apparently the celebrities did not like it. Probably a bad deal to hack off entertainers when you are in the business of providing entertainment.


----------



## Ira Lacher (Apr 24, 2002)

Curtis0620 said:


> You would not want Choice Ultimate if you are getting Starz/Showtime.


Right. In fact I have CHoice Xtra HD DVR package right now. However, I have the Starz/Showtime three-month promo offer. My calculations are based on the standard prices of those movie packages if I choose to keep them. 


Curtis0620 said:


> Hope you included the additional receiver fees in that calculation.


Yes: $10 for 1 additional Dish Duo DVR; $10 for 2 SD DirecTV receivers. DISh would charge a $100 lease fee off the bat, but since I had to pay a similar amount for DirecTV hardware, it's a wash.


----------



## V'ger (Oct 4, 2007)

mobandit said:


> I realize they are advertising capacity...but the launch of D12 does not give them capacity...the bird hasn't even been tested, yet. To claim capacity, if it is based on an untested bird, is ludicrous. Ever hear the old cliche? Don't count your chickens before the eggs hatch? If the capacity claim isn't based on the use of D12, then why haven't they added more channels? Besides, capacity is meaningless...channels are what counts. While their claim of 200 channel capacity *might* be true...it is meaningless ad spin...hype. It irritates the fire out of me every time I see it. I hope the judge throws their claim out, quickly!


I am sure that DirecTV could argue that if they went HD lite, they could have the capacity for 200 HD channels without counting D12. Are most of Dish's HD channels still 1440x1080?


----------



## smiddy (Apr 5, 2006)

I did my own trade study on this a couple of months ago and found that DIRECTV was in fact less expensive for the items I wanted, even if I opted to purchase for lease another HD receiver. It was on the order of $10/mth less. I think DIRECTV has a case here, plus I believe the value difference between the two companies weighs in favor of DIRECTV.


----------



## Max Mike (Oct 18, 2008)

oldfantom said:


> Apples to Oranges. AT&T was contending that the claim of capacity was "confusing" the average person into believing that they had no capacity in the white areas. It did not go very far because the comparisons were clearly labeled and discussed as 3G.
> 
> On the other hand. D* contends E* is comparing the price of a small package to a large package. Having seen those commercials and, humbly submitting that I am at least as bright as the average person, I find them confusing. There is case law and you can google it. But a company can neither engage in false advertise nor advertising that the reasonable consumer might find so confusing as to create false conclusions. Wired had a nice piece on the merit of the AT&T dispute that sited some interesting reads.
> 
> By the by, E* has already pulled half its ads in this campaign. They backed off the higher price because they pay celebrities stuff. Apparently the celebrities did not like it. Probably a bad deal to hack off entertainers when you are in the business of providing entertainment.


No Apples to Apples. DirecTV has no grounds to win the suit arguments based on confusion are going to work any better here and DirecTV had better hope they do not get a judge that is tired of having his time wasted by absurd stunts like this.


----------



## Coca Cola Kid (Jul 19, 2009)

Dish counter-sued today

Multichannel News: Dish, DirecTV Continue Legal Battle Over Advertising Claims - No. 2 DBS Provider To Tell Federal District Court Judge Rival's Restraining Order Request Over Campaign Baseless


----------



## oldfantom (Mar 13, 2006)

Max Mike said:


> No Apples to Apples. DirecTV has no grounds to win the suit arguments based on confusion are going to work any better here and DirecTV had better hope they do not get a judge that is tired of having his time wasted by absurd stunts like this.


Let's see, according to the law, the following five points go to prove false advertising.

_To prove that an advertisement is false, a plaintiff must prove five things: (1) a false statement of fact has been made about the advertiser's own or another person's goods, services, or commercial activity; (2) the statement either deceives or has the potential to deceive a substantial portion of its targeted audience; (3) the deception is also likely to affect the purchasing decisions of its audience; (4) the advertising involves goods or services in interstate commerce; and (5) the deception has either resulted in or is likely to result in injury to the plaintiff. The most heavily weighed factor is the advertisement's potential to injure a customer. The injury is usually attributed to money the consumer lost through a purchase that would not have been made had the advertisement not been misleading. False statements can be defined in two ways: those that are false on their face and those that are implicitly false._

Point 1 : In this case, the false statement of fact is the statement that E* is significantly cheaper in price than D*

Point 2 : The add compares dissimilar packages which is not made clear to the substantial portion of the target audience.

Point 3 : Lower price will impact purchase decisions I would think

Point 4 : I would say national satellite is interstate

Point 5 : This is probably a lock in that the sales numbers for E* have stopped declining

The real point of contention in both cases is point 2. I don't see how any lawyer could reasonably argue that the Verizon ads did not clearly state the comparison was 3G and the fact is that the comparisons are in fact against similar services. If E* is comparing price for a lessor package

- _DirecTV's package includes more than 140 video channels, including popular selections such as Bravo and Animal Planet, while Dish's package contains 120 channels without the popular ones, according to the lawsuit._ - Business week article referenced in post 1.

Because you don't like the lawsuit does not mean it does not have merit.


----------



## Draconis (Mar 16, 2007)

Does not look good for DIRECTV

Judge Keeps Dish Ads Against DirecTV on Air
http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/wireStory?id=9856836


----------



## thelucky1 (Feb 23, 2009)

DIRECTV Issues Statement on Its Lawsuit Targeting Dish Network's Deceptive Ad Campaign

EL SEGUNDO, Calif., Feb 16, 2010 (BUSINESS WIRE) -- DIRECTV issued the following statement today:

"We are pleased that the Court invited DIRECTV to present evidence at a full hearing to demonstrate that Dish's advertising campaign is deceptive," said Jon Gieselman, senior vice president, Advertising and Public Relations, DIRECTV. "We will vigorously pursue our lawsuit to prevent Dish Network from attempting to lure customers away from DIRECTV through its blatantly misleading advertising campaign."


----------



## thelucky1 (Feb 23, 2009)

Skyreport - 
DISH Bites Back

Back to the great ad wrestling contest wherein DISH's "Why Would You Ever Pay More for TV" ad campaign is the subject of dueling briefs in the DBS universe. DIRECTV says the commercials ... and more specifically the "Man on the Street" ads ... are deceptive, misleading and an "apples-to-oranges" comparison. 

Now DISH has filed back, saying the commercials are not deceptive (surprise, surprise). Say the DISH legal eagles: The comparison is NOT between DISH's America's Top 120 and DIRECTV's Total Choice Xtra but rather between the Top 120 and DIRECTV's lowest level package (Total Choice) with two TVs connected. What's more, say the DI****es, the commercial is NOT comparing the packages at all. No ... it's comparing the consumers' PERCEPTION of the packages as shown on TVs in the commercial.

To wit from a declaration filed by Ira Bahr, DISH's svp and chief marketing officer, "... the commercials do not make any comparison at all regarding the number of channels provided even with respect to DIRECTV's CHOICE package. Rather, viewing the commercials as a whole, both the visuals and the audio, in context, shows that the 'same programming' refers to specific TV programs depicted on the three television sets shown to and viewed by the consumers interviewed for the commercials." 

So it's all in the eye of the beholder? 

DIRECTV doesn't quite see it that way. But late yesterday afternoon, DISH noted that the court ruled against DIRECTV's petition for a temporary restraining order and said (via DISH EVP Tom Cullen) "We stand by the comparisons we make and are confident we will also prevail in the lawsuit." 

Said DIRECTV in response to the court's ruling (via SVP Jon Gieselman) “We are pleased that the Court invited DIRECTV to present evidence at a full hearing to demonstrate that Dish’s advertising campaign is deceptive. We will vigorously pursue our lawsuit to prevent Dish Network from attempting to lure customers away from DIRECTV through its blatantly misleading advertising campaign.”•


----------



## Msguy (May 23, 2003)

I just saw a dish network commercial. They said DirecTv's bill was $63 a month. Then they compared the cable companys tv and said it was $60 a month. Then they moved to the tv hooked up to dish network and said there monthly bill was $39 a month for 12 months. And they went on to ask people if they like hanging on to their money and all there other dish network garbage. That is such false advertisement it isn't even funny. For one thing you can't get all the channels on dish network that directv has. You cannot receive out of market sports packages on dish network like NFL Sunday Ticket or MLB Extra Innings. You get these channels at a discount for 1 year and then the price goes back up to $60 or so a month. Around the same regular price as DirecTv. Why does dish network keep making these advertisements when people know they aren't offering a good deal? I hope directv wins there suit.


----------



## curt8403 (Dec 27, 2007)

Msguy said:


> I just saw a dish network commercial. They said DirecTv's bill was $63 a month. Then they compared the cable companys tv and said it was $60 a month. Then they moved to the tv hooked up to dish network and said there monthly bill was $39 a month for 12 months. And they went on to ask people if they like hanging on to their money and all there other dish network garbage. That is such false advertisement it isn't even funny. For one thing you can't get all the channels on dish network that directv has. You cannot receive out of market sports packages on dish network like NFL Sunday Ticket or MLB Extra Innings. You get these channels at a discount for 1 year and then the price goes back up to $60 or so a month. Around the same regular price as DirecTv. Why does dish network keep making these advertisements when people know they aren't offering a good deal? I hope directv wins there suit.


Directv probably will not win this one, nor will Dish, nor the customers. Only the lawyers will win.


----------



## skyviewmark1 (Sep 28, 2006)

Dish Top 250 package with HD and Hd Extra Pack $72.99 ($62.99 + $10.00)

DirecTV Choice Extra (210 channels) package with HD and HD Extra Pack $78.99 ($63.99 + 10.00 + $4.99)

These are regular prices. If you are not a Sunday Ticket fan then the best value is Dish.. There is no way to spin this. Dish is cheaper.


----------



## Lord Vader (Sep 20, 2004)

Glad to see DirecTV is putting its customers' subscriber fees to good use, acting like a petulant child and suing its chief competitor. 

Seems DirecTV is a bit hypersensitive when it comes to this stuff.


----------



## Curtis0620 (Apr 22, 2002)

skyviewmark1 said:


> Dish Top 250 package with HD and Hd Extra Pack $72.99 ($62.99 + $10.00)
> 
> DirecTV Choice Extra (210 channels) package with HD and HD Extra Pack $78.99 ($63.99 + 10.00 + $4.99)
> 
> These are regular prices. If you are not a Sunday Ticket fan then the best value is Dish.. There is no way to spin this. Dish is cheaper.


A far cry from $25 cheaper that DISH claims in their ad, hence the suit.


----------



## joshjr (Aug 2, 2008)

skyviewmark1 said:


> Dish Top 250 package with HD and Hd Extra Pack $72.99 ($62.99 + $10.00)
> 
> DirecTV Choice Extra (210 channels) package with HD and HD Extra Pack $78.99 ($63.99 + 10.00 + $4.99)
> 
> These are regular prices. If you are not a Sunday Ticket fan then the best value is Dish.. There is no way to spin this. Dish is cheaper.


For me personally where I feel E* gets its customers is with the reciever fee's. Didnt I see like $17 fee for a duo HD DVR? Thats freaking nuts. What really is the difference with a Duo HD DVR and D*'s HD DVR? For me I use both tuners on the same TV anyways. I may in the near future have 4 HD DVR's on my account and I would want all of them to have both tuners on the same tv but I would not want to pay a $17 for for 3 of them. Thats just insane. How is it cheaper when E* charges $12 more a month on the reciever fee? So would the rule be dont go high def with E*?


----------



## Mike Greer (Jan 20, 2004)

The $17 is crazy but it is only to run two TVs (one HD and SD) from the same box. The 'Solo' DVR for (dual tuner but one TV) is $10. For my 4 HD TV setup using 3 dual tuner DVRs the price was still a few bucks less per month than DirecTV. Sunday Ti

Bottom line is both DirecTV and Dish Network constantly use deception in their ads. Both should be ashamed of their marketing but what is DirecTV doing? Going after Dish because they are better at lies? What a noble cause!


----------



## joshjr (Aug 2, 2008)

Mike Greer said:


> The $17 is crazy but it is only to run two TVs (one HD and SD) from the same box. The 'Solo' DVR for (dual tuner but one TV) is $10. For my 4 HD TV setup using 3 dual tuner DVRs the price was still a few bucks less per month than DirecTV. Sunday Ti
> 
> Bottom line is both DirecTV and Dish Network constantly use deception in their ads. Both should be ashamed of their marketing but what is DirecTV doing? Going after Dish because they are better at lies? What a noble cause!


Even still, thats crazy. Why should I have to pay $10 for each tv to have a HD DVR? What is the need for the additional $5? What does the reciever or E* have to do not that warrents the additional $5? Like I said the fee's with E* will kill you. At $17 for a Duo who would want more then 1 if even 1? I get that it would probably help get people off wanting anything SD but thats kind of a crappy way of doing it. Lets just make the fee's so crazy people wont want this reciever. Sounds like a great marketing plan. For the person that has 1 reciever total and the parent has HD and the child SD okay like I said though who would want more then 1? The fee's are the least of why I would never be a E* customer but it sure as heck dont help none either.


----------



## Mike Greer (Jan 20, 2004)

joshjr said:


> Even still, thats crazy. Why should I have to pay $10 for each tv to have a HD DVR? What is the need for the additional $5? What does the reciever or E* have to do not that warrents the additional $5? Like I said the fee's with E* will kill you. At $17 for a Duo who would want more then 1 if even 1? I get that it would probably help get people off wanting anything SD but thats kind of a crappy way of doing it. Lets just make the fee's so crazy people wont want this reciever. Sounds like a great marketing plan. For the person that has 1 reciever total and the parent has HD and the child SD okay like I said though who would want more then 1? The fee's are the least of why I would never be a E* customer but it sure as heck dont help none either.


I would gladly pay an extra $5 per HD DVR if DirecTV could make their DVRs run as quickly as Dish Networks. Don't get me wrong - I think $10 a box is a lot but given the choice I'd take a Dish Network DVR every time.

If you only had 1 HDTV and 1 SDTV it would be cheaper to go with Dish with any package they have. If you have 8 HD DVRs no question DirecTV would be cheaper. If you have 4 then it would depend on programming.

DirecTV should be using the money they are buring trying to show that Dish Network is better at deceptive marketing and use it to improve their DVRs!


----------



## DF Wavelength (Apr 29, 2009)

skyviewmark1 said:


> Dish Top 250 package with HD and Hd Extra Pack $72.99 ($62.99 + $10.00)
> 
> DirecTV Choice Extra (210 channels) package with HD and HD Extra Pack $78.99 ($63.99 + 10.00 + $4.99)
> 
> These are regular prices. If you are not a Sunday Ticket fan then the best value is Dish.. There is no way to spin this. Dish is cheaper.


I watched the Dish Network Retailer chat yesterday on channel 999.
Dish Network said the judge dropped the restraining order, allowing them to continue running the ads.

The numbers Dish Network were stating are 
$39.99 a month for Dish Network
$64.99 a month for DirecTV

I don't know where they got these numbers. And I'm sure that doesn't include HD. Doesn't seem quite right to me.
My DirecTV costs about the same as what Skyviewmark1 posted.


----------



## Albie (Jan 26, 2007)

DF Wavelength said:


> I watched the Dish Network Retailer chat yesterday on channel 999.
> Dish Network said the judge dropped the restraining order, allowing them to continue running the ads.
> 
> The numbers Dish Network were stating are
> ...


Regular non discounted prices for base packages for two sets with no HD.

Dish Top 120 - $39.99/mo
Choice package $58.99 plus additional outlet fee - $5.00 = $63.99/mo.

HD is $10/mo more for each service although with Dish you get the equivalent of the HD pack included in the $10 where with Direct you pay an additional $5.00

Dish claims you get similar programming, all 20 of Nielson top 20 plus 37 of Nielson top 40 in Top 120 vice all 20 of top 20 and all 40 of top 40 with choice. Does choice have more channels? Of course. Is Dish playing semantics games? Of course. In reality is is almost impossible to compare Dish's packages to Direct's packages as none of them really equate, the closest equivalent to Choice that Dish has is the Top 200 which is $52.99/ mo.


----------



## curt8403 (Dec 27, 2007)

Albie said:


> Regular non discounted prices for base packages for two sets with no HD.
> 
> Dish Top 120 - $39.99/mo
> Choice package $58.99 plus additional outlet fee - $5.00 = $63.99/mo.
> ...


120 with locals for 39.99 (No local RSN) Dish
155 with locals for 58.99 LOCAL RSN included
117 channels (Select) 39.99 Directv package that comes closest to their 120


----------



## Albie (Jan 26, 2007)

curt8403 said:


> 120 with no locals for 39.99
> 155 with locals for 58.99
> 117 channels with locals (Select) 39.99


Not sure what you are getting at here. 
Dish includes the locals with the basic packages now, Top 120 does include locals at 39.99 but you do have to pay an extra $5.00/mo for your local local RSN(s). Have no idea what the other two numbers represent.

My point was that for Dish to not be deceptive in their advertising they should at the very least tell you Direct has no package equivalent to Top 120 or they should compare the Top 200 package to the Choice package (They could still claim an $11.00/mo difference instead of the $24.00/mo difference they are using now).


----------



## curt8403 (Dec 27, 2007)

Albie said:


> Not sure what you are getting at here.
> Dish includes the locals with the basic packages now, Top 120 does include locals at 39.99 but you do have to pay an extra $5.00/mo for your local local RSN(s). Have no idea what the other two numbers represent.
> 
> My point was that for Dish to not be deceptive in their advertising they should at the very least tell you Direct has no package equivalent to Top 120 or they should compare the Top 200 package to the Choice package (They could still claim an $11.00/mo difference instead of the $24.00/mo difference they are using now).


 corrected my last post


----------



## Curtis0620 (Apr 22, 2002)

Albie said:


> Not sure what you are getting at here.
> Dish includes the locals with the basic packages now, Top 120 does include locals at 39.99 but you do have to pay an extra $5.00/mo for your local local RSN(s). Have no idea what the other two numbers represent.
> 
> My point was that for Dish to not be deceptive in their advertising they should at the very least tell you Direct has no package equivalent to Top 120 or they should compare the Top 200 package to the Choice package (They could still claim an $11.00/mo difference instead of the $24.00/mo difference they are using now).


That doesn't make it a fair compare.

Compare AT200 to Choice.


----------



## curt8403 (Dec 27, 2007)

Curtis0620 said:


> That doesn't make it a fair compare.
> 
> Compare AT200 to Choice.


choice extra. 
and compare regular prices against regular prices
new cust offer against new cust offer
what is at120 regular price?


----------



## Curtis0620 (Apr 22, 2002)

curt8403 said:


> choice extra.
> and compare regular prices against regular prices
> new cust offer against new cust offer
> what is at120 regular price?


Yes Choice Extra


----------



## Curtis0620 (Apr 22, 2002)

True compare would be:

AT200 to Choice
AT250 to Choice Xtra or Ulimate.
Everything + Sports Pack to Premiere.


----------



## curt8403 (Dec 27, 2007)

Curtis0620 said:


> True compare would be:
> 
> AT200 to Choice
> AT250 to Choice Xtra or Ulimate.
> Everything + Sports Pack to Premiere.


what!!!!:nono2: at200 (200 channels) vs 155?
AT250 vs 210


----------



## Curtis0620 (Apr 22, 2002)

curt8403 said:


> what!!!!:nono2: at200 (200 channels) vs 155?
> AT250 vs 210


Video only, forget about the music channels.

DISH has a lot more music channels than DIRECTV.

I count over 115 music channels in AT200.
I count about 60 music channels in Choice.


----------



## Mike Greer (Jan 20, 2004)

curt8403 said:


> what!!!!:nono2: at200 (200 channels) vs 155?
> AT250 vs 210


Just depends on the marketing department you work for. Dish or DirecTV?:lol:

That's why this is only giving the attorneys money - they can't win especially when they don't know the truth themselves!


----------



## curt8403 (Dec 27, 2007)

Curtis0620 said:


> Video only, forget about the music channels.
> 
> DISH has a lot more music channels than DIRECTV.


 ok, lets kill the music channels from the comparison list. how many music channels are there in the dish packages?
55 for choice
77 for choice extra
84 for premier

while we are at it, lets kill the religious and shopping channels as well


----------



## Curtis0620 (Apr 22, 2002)

curt8403 said:


> ok, lets kill the music channels from the comparison list. how many music channels are there in the dish packages?
> 55 for choice
> 77 for choice extra
> 84 for premier
> ...


No, all video channels, when you exclude then you get into what is a popular channel.


----------



## Hoosier205 (Sep 3, 2007)

It's too bad the judge as to be all fair and all. If it were me: 

DISH = HD-Lite downrezing and an automatic loss


----------



## Stuart Sweet (Jun 19, 2006)

I hate to be all realistic and all, but the bottom line is who gives you the service you want for the best price? Clearly there are a lot who feel Dish is better, perhaps because of their new channel adds or because it's possible to get a lower price if you want fewer channels. On the other hand, many like DIRECTV because of their total channel selection (including sports channels,) the knowledge that new channel adds are coming or because of the better quality picture. 

What's wrong with that? 

Is DIRECTV right to sue? Well I'm no lawyer. They've obviously hired lawyers who think so. I wouldn't worry about the costs, I'm sure they will boil down to pennies per subscriber.


----------



## Mike Greer (Jan 20, 2004)

As usual Mr. Sweet you are correct - although what I really want is a 722k DVR that works with DirecTV's service! Can you make that happen?

Both have sub-par audio/picture quality - HD isn't what it used to be - lots of breakups, blurbs etc. Too bad we can't have full mpeg2 bandwidth from the source anymore....


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

Stuart Sweet said:


> Is DIRECTV right to sue? Well I'm no lawyer. They've obviously hired lawyers who think so. I wouldn't worry about the costs, I'm sure they will boil down to pennies per subscriber.


Bet the legal staff was already being paid.
Seems like if the FTC doesn't react in a timely manor, then it's up to a company to bring it up.
Does it have merit? :shrug:
They have at least been put on notice.


----------



## wingrider01 (Sep 9, 2005)

Mike Greer said:


> The $17 is crazy but it is only to run two TVs (one HD and SD) from the same box. The 'Solo' DVR for (dual tuner but one TV) is $10. For my 4 HD TV setup using 3 dual tuner DVRs the price was still a few bucks less per month than DirecTV. Sunday Ti
> 
> Bottom line is both DirecTV and Dish Network constantly use deception in their ads. Both should be ashamed of their marketing but what is DirecTV doing? Going after Dish because they are better at lies? What a noble cause!


does that include then running 30 or 40 feet of cable to attach to the second set? Have 3 HD and 2 SD sets, shortest distance between sets is about 30 feet going through the walls.

Minus the charges for cable pulls (do not hink they will do it for free) I would need 3 dvrs @ 17.00 each ( is the first one free?). currently have 4 (one included) dvrs @ 5.00 each. That in itself is a huge savings over what Dish wants - and my dvrs are all HD capable.


----------



## Mike Greer (Jan 20, 2004)

wingrider01 said:


> does that include then running 30 or 40 feet of cable to attach to the second set? Have 3 HD and 2 SD sets, shortest distance between sets is about 30 feet going through the walls.
> 
> Minus the charges for cable pulls (do not hink they will do it for free) I would need 3 dvrs @ 17.00 each ( is the first one free?). currently have 4 (one included) dvrs @ 5.00 each. That in itself is a huge savings over what Dish wants - and my dvrs are all HD capable.


If you have to run a cable you have to run a cable either way right? I don't think DirecTV has any wireless receivers!

The $17 is for 2 TV DVRs. In your case the 1st one would be free the additional 3 would be $10 each so apples to apples on equipment for you means the equpiment cost is less to get started ($100 each after the first rather then $200 each) then it would be $15 more a month. Net difference between the two would depend on what you do with the other 2 TVs and what programming you select.

Don't get me wrong - I'm not saying Dish Network isn't making s**t up! I'm saying they both are full of it!


----------



## JoeTheDragon (Jul 21, 2008)

skyviewmark1 said:


> Dish Top 250 package with HD and Hd Extra Pack $72.99 ($62.99 + $10.00)
> 
> DirecTV Choice Extra (210 channels) package with HD and HD Extra Pack $78.99 ($63.99 + 10.00 + $4.99)
> 
> These are regular prices. If you are not a Sunday Ticket fan then the best value is Dish.. There is no way to spin this. Dish is cheaper.


Direct tv also has MLB network , most rsn's HD 24/7 and lower cost to add a box only $5 each for any one even HD dvr's


----------



## JeffBowser (Dec 21, 2006)

It's amazing to me that there are 4 pages of people who give a rat's arse about two major corporations suing each other over advertising.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

JeffBowser said:


> It's amazing to me that there are 4 pages of people who give a rat's arse about two major corporations suing each other over advertising.


"Slow news days" :lol:


----------



## JLucPicard (Apr 27, 2004)

JeffBowser said:


> It's amazing to me that there are 4 pages of people who give a rat's arse about two major corporations suing each other over advertising.


Wow - I have only two pages (well three now, with this post), but I turn off people's signatures. That seems to make a big difference.

I also agree that this is way more discussion of this than I would have expected. :lol:


----------



## wingrider01 (Sep 9, 2005)

JeffBowser said:


> It's amazing to me that there are 4 pages of people who give a rat's arse about two major corporations suing each other over advertising.


you take humor where you can get it. Reminds me of my twin 6 year old girls arguing


----------



## BattleScott (Aug 29, 2006)

Nick said:


> Pot <> kettle


It could have been closed after this post...:nono:


----------



## Mike Greer (Jan 20, 2004)

It’s interesting how people seem to take their support of ‘their’ provider so religiously. Very strange.


----------



## gibson.guitarman (Mar 19, 2007)

Surprising that Dish still doesn't have an ad featuring Sarah Palin saying "So how's that 200 HD channel capacity working out for ya?"


----------



## CorpITGuy (Apr 12, 2007)

gibson.guitarman said:


> Surprising that Dish still doesn't have an ad featuring Sarah Palin saying "So how's that 200 HD channel capacity working out for ya?"


:lol:


----------



## Ivtec (Jan 9, 2009)

Hi guys,i think that Dtv could very well put Etv out of business if they wanted. 
since Dtv don't have no IKS pirates steeling their signal,like E*has,
so they can loose a lot more dollars than E* by lowering their packages so most of E* customers swap to D*,
and also believe by acquiring the Portuguese soccer league rights would get thousand of customers to Switch to D*,since E* already lost thousand customers when they dropped Goal Tv.
but i guess none of this happens because of Dtv greed,they rather pay Lawyers,than benefit the people.


----------



## Lord Vader (Sep 20, 2004)

Echostar's piracy was recently finally put to rest.


----------



## chascan66 (Nov 22, 2009)

I seem to remember that TiVo is suing Dish. Does anyone know the outcome?


----------



## ATARI (May 10, 2007)

chascan66 said:


> I seem to remember that TiVo is suing Dish. Does anyone know the outcome?


Dish lost the appeal. Time to pay TiVo.


----------



## wingrider01 (Sep 9, 2005)

ATARI said:


> Dish lost the appeal. Time to pay TiVo.


time for another appeal


----------

