# PVR Charges are Illegal and Wrong



## ekammerzelt

You did not provide me any software! I purchased this unit outright from a Third Party. I do not lease this equipment nor did I sign any software license aggreement. Nowhere and at no time was I ever informed of these fees. Your Website also fails to mention these fees.

You are not providing any "service" or software maintenance of Any kind and I demand to have this charge removed immediatly or you to refund my reciever as I will discontinue its use.

What you are doing is illegal and I will press the matter.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] 
Sent: Wednesday, June 15, 2005 6:05 PM
To: @email.com
Subject: RE: Customer Service,

Dear Mr. xxxxxxxxxxx,

Thank you for your email. The Video-On-Demand (VOD) feature is quickly becoming an industry standard. As such, and to remain competitive in the marketplace for this type of feature, DISH Network found that it was far too costly to provide this software at no charge based on the current promotions that we offer. With our current lease and purchase programs that include installation of up to four tuners at no charge we simply couldn't afford to install this expensive equipment at no charge. Having been a faithful customer of DISH Network since (date customer activated) I'm sure you'll agree that the difference between us and our competitors is that we offer more choices for programming subscriptions. As such, the more monthly programming purchased by the DISH Network consumer that has a DISHPlayer DVR system will reduce the monthly charge for the DISH Video on Demand feature.

The DISH Video-On-Demand's tape less recording capabilities give viewers complete control of their television to watch what they want at their convenience, including network programs, pay-per-view movies, sports, and news or special events. Other companies with this feature will charge as much as $12.95 for the same features. To add even more value to the DISH Video on Demand feature I'd like to point out that digital cable boxes with this feature only allow the consumer to record movies. Cable customers can't record specials, local channels, sporting events, etc. And, if the consumer uses the Tivo service they still have to purchase that equipment on top of what they use to get their television reception. Additionally, DISH Network has set the industry standard, offering as much as 100 hours of record time with the largest hard drive in the market with 120 GB Hard drive in the DISH Player-DVR 510, DISH Player-DVR 522 and the DISHDVR 921.

As a current customer, you may always use our website to view your current or previous billing statements, add services, or make payments to your account. Please use the link https://customersupport.dishnetwork.com/customercare/UserManagement/login.jsp to visit our Online Customer Support Center.

Your business is greatly appreciated and we thank you for allowing us to be of assistance to you. If you have any further questions or concerns, please refer to www.dishnetwork.com <http://www.dishnetwork.com/> or reply to this email.

Sincerely,

Lane J.

DISH Network eCare

** Please include all previous correspondence when replying. **

-----Original Message---

_____________________________________________
From: @email.com [mailtoemail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, June 15, 2005 11:05 AM
To: FeedBack
Subject: Customer Service

Full Name:

Account Number:

Question: I purchased a new Dish reciever from a third party (921) and installed it as a second reciever.

I have been using an older DVR(From Dish) for years without any "service charge" of any kind.

After activiating my new 921 I learned that there was a service charge for the DVR feature.

I wish to express my Extreme disapointment with this charge. You do not provide any service for this charge, the ability is inherent with the reciever. I can not understand how it is even Legal.

I am extremely dissatisfied and would appreciate a response. I would like to know how you can possibly justify this expense on my behalf.


----------



## kzosat

Why does this fee surprise you? It's an industry standard. Tivo does it, cable companies do it (heck charter is 10.99 month for a DVR in my area, that includes lease fee too)

Do I like the fee? No. But understand is going to be the nature of the beast. There are alternatives out there (replay TV, MS Media Center)

I assume you did research before buying something like the 921. usually you go to the manufacturer website and look it up. It's always caveat emptor.

See link below, just one of the pages on the dish site lists the fee. 
http://www.dishnetwork.com/content/products/dvr/index.shtml

In dealing with media companies (cable, satellite tv or radio) if you haven't learned to read the fine print you should probably start.

You are the only one looking out for your interests. Like Rodney Dangerfield said "You gotta look out for Number 1, but don't step in number 2"


----------



## bhawley

> To add even more value to the DISH Video on Demand feature I'd like to point out that digital cable boxes with this feature only allow the consumer to record movies. Cable customers can't record specials, local channels, sporting events, etc.


----------



## kzosat

ekammerzelt said:


> *You did not provide me any software! * I purchased this unit outright from a Third Party. I do not lease this equipment *nor did I sign any software license aggreement.* Nowhere and at no time was I ever informed of these fees. Your Website also fails to mention these fees.
> 
> *You are not providing any "service" or software maintenance of Any kind* and I demand to have this charge removed immediatly or you to refund my reciever as I will discontinue its use.
> 
> What you are doing is illegal and I will press the matter.


Again, I don't like the fee either, but

The software is what is running on the unit.

Do you complain when you buy a car and don't get a disc of the software in the comptuer system?

They are providing updates to the software all the time, whether they work or not is in question.  More times than not, the 921 doesn't work like promised (that is a whole other issue)
But, to use computer software as a analogy:

You don't explicitly sign an agreement with MS to use Windows, it's inferred in your use of the software. If you get a new PC with windows, you can send back your copy for a refund ( I have done it, but it takes months)
You pay for updates to software in the form of new versions. I can't remember the last time anything significant was added to Office, but hey it's a new version, time to pay up. Again, there are alternatives to the OS and apps you run.

You seem to have completely flown off the handle here without doing research. I can't believe you found this board AFTER buying the 921, but it's possible. There are so many posts on this forum and others on the 921 and the DVR fees that any newbie can find them.

You also mention you bought the unit from a third party? A retailer or a consumer? A retailer ethically should inform you of the fee (but we know they don't all have ethics) and you can probably still take it back to them if it's less than 10 days.

If it's a consumer, I treat all things I buy used like buying a car or a house. The seller is NEVER going to tell you all the defects and expenses incurred. A little digging is needed to find those.

Edit Section F of the residential agreement


Residential Agreement said:


> F. In addition to the amounts due for Services, you agree to pay the fees referenced below ("Fees") when applicable.* DISH Network reserves the right to increase these Fees or add additional Fees in the future, in our sole discretion. * Smart Card Replacement Fee $50.00
> Additional Receiver Authorization Fee (monthly, per receiver) $4.99
> Late Payment Fee $5.00
> Change of Service Fee $5.00
> Duplicate Billing Statement Fee $2.00
> Overnight Delivery Fee $18.00
> Restart Fee $25.00
> Returned Payment Fee $25.00
> Service Access Fee (monthly) $5.00
> Offset Fee $2.00
> Ledger Request Fee $5.00
> Pay-Per-View Automated Fee $1.00
> Pay-Per-View Fee $5.00


----------



## stonecold

Well I would make one thing very clear....


When dish goes Mpeg4 and starts slowly swaping out customers equipment. That I refuse to pay a dvr fee for replacements on my DVR fee free units. Hell I am not even going to mention my "lifetime DVR Service" I paid for on two of my 7200s. 

I own too many dvrs that it would be a good chunk of my bill would be just dvr fees. 

Dish just needs to do the dtv thing one 5 dollar fee covers all dvrs and I would not object to it so much.


----------



## Link

Dish needs to charge one DVR fee per account of $4.98, not $4.98 per DVR receiver.


----------



## kzosat

Yes, I agree, there are going to be ALOT of angry people with old dishplayers and PVR' fee free units. 

I also agree that there should only be 1 fee per account (regardless of number of DVR units).


----------



## Bill R

ekammerzelt said:


> I am extremely dissatisfied and would appreciate a response. I would like to know how you can possibly justify this expense on my behalf.


As others have said no one likes the DVR (or any other) extra fee. It is a fact of life though that vendors are going to charge more for extra features because (1) it cost money to develop those features and (2) they can because customers are willing to pay for that extra functionality.

Your complaint is typical of a customer who did not do his homework before buying this product. Even reading this forum would have given you information as to what additional monthly costs you would have. As far as your comment about it not being legal and "_how you can possibly justify this expense on my behalf_". It just shows that you don't have a clue about what it costs to develop, maintain and support a product like a DVR.


----------



## ekammerzelt

The issue here is that Dish isnt doing anything to justify that fee. 

Tivo provides a direcctory and recording service that they maintain, thats different. If I subscribe to Tivo as a service they have every right to charge me however they choose.

Dish doesnt charge me for my older DVR, why the new one? 

Simple truth is I could build my own DVR with a simple PC. Them charging for features built into the hardware is like Ford charging me a fee to use an air conditioner I already own.

There is no such thing as an implied software license. I'd like to see that hold up in court


----------



## kzosat

Wow, you don't know how to search for anything do you. All software carries a right to use license. It is implied in the use of the product. Read the EULA on windows. You don't have to sign anything, it's your actions that constitute acceptance.

The issue here really is you refused to research before you bought and got burned.



typical EULA on software said:


> SOFTWARE LICENSE AGREEMENT
> 
> Important:
> Do not use the software accompanying this Agreement (the "Software") until you have carefully read the following Agreement. Opening the sealed Software package and/or using the Software (or authorizing any other person to do so) indicates your acceptance of the terms and conditions contained in this Agreement. If you do not agree with the terms and conditions of this Agreement, promptly return the unopened Software and accompanying items to the place of purchase within 60 days of purchase and your money will be refunded. This Agreement sets forth the terms and conditions for licensing of the Software from ___________________ ("Licensor")
> 
> License and Certain Restrictions
> You are granted a non-exclusive license to use one copy of the Software only on a single computer and a single terminal. Although you are encouraged to make a backup copy of the Software for your own use, you are not allowed to make more than two copies for backup purposes. The Software (including any images, icons, graphics, animations, video, audio, music, and text incorporated into the Software) is protected by copyright laws. You may not make copies of the Software except for backups. You may not give copies to another person, or duplicate the Software by any other means, including electronic transmission. You may not copy the printed materials accompanying the Software, nor print copies of any user documentation. The Software contains trade secrets, and in order to protect them you may not decompile, reverse engineer, disassemble, or otherwise reduce the Software to human-perceivable form. You may not modify, adapt, translate, rent, sublicense, assign, lease, loan, resell for profit, distribute, or network the Software, disk, or related materials or create derivative works based upon the Software or any part thereof.


Bottom line: You don't like it, get rid of the 921, build your own system (which will use software with a license agreement implied in using it), go to directv or cable.


----------



## finniganps

kzosat said:


> Bottom line: You don't like it, get rid of the 921, build your own system (which will use software with a license agreement implied in using it), go to directv or cable.


I agree completely! Go see what Direct's 921 equivalent costs - double! If you don't like the charge get a unit without the recording PVR capability or change services. No one is forcing you to use the 921.


----------



## ekammerzelt

Bottom Line....
Ghey.

Not sure how some of you can defend this bs. Dish isn't straight forward about their fees, someone please show me somthing on their website.

I feel the fee's are bogus, I paid a lot for the 921 and it didnt come with a eula or any explanation about any DVR charges.

I disagree with their Ma Bell mentality and I'm not alone. 

FREE DVR NOW!

:lol:


----------



## kzosat

ekammerzelt said:


> Bottom Line....
> Ghey.
> 
> Not sure how some of you can defend this bs. Dish isn't straight forward about their fees, someone please show me somthing on their website.
> 
> I feel the fee's are bogus, I paid a lot for the 921 and it didnt come with a eula or any explanation about any DVR charges.
> 
> I disagree with their Ma Bell mentality and I'm not alone.
> 
> FREE DVR NOW!
> 
> :lol:


GHEY?

Anyways, I posted a link above to at least one of the pages on the site that lists it.

Ma Bell mentaility? You are not alone cause there are always lambs out there to follow someone/something without getting all the facts.

I am pretty much assuming by your last post that you are trolling now and I am done discussing this issue.


----------



## Bill R

ekammerzelt said:


> _The issue here is that Dish isnt doing anything to justify that fee.
> 
> Tivo provides a direcctory and recording service that they maintain, thats different. If I subscribe to Tivo as a service they have every right to charge me however they choose._


DISH is doing a lot to provide you with the DVR service. Like TiVo they ARE providing the extra services that are needed to make your DVR work. It is just your limited understanding of how your DVR works that prevents you from knowing and understanding that.



> _Dish doesnt charge me for my older DVR, why the new one?_


It basically a marketing decision (re-cooping the extra costs involved in providing the DVR service via a service fee). Costs have to be accounted for somewhere and if not by a monthly fee then the vendors would have to charge more for their monthly packages.



> _There is no such thing as an implied software license. I'd like to see that hold up in court _


It should be easy to find a lawyer that is willing to take your money (and that is all he will be doing for you) and take your case to court where you will lose as dozens of others have done when they tried to challenge the legality of a software license. You don't have a case and really are just mad at yourself for not finding out what you were getting yourself into.


----------



## KingLoop

ekammerzelt said:


> Not sure how some of you can defend this bs. Dish isn't straight forward about their fees, someone please show me somthing on their website.


Dish Network has discontinued the 921 so there is not much on their website about it... this is what was on there before.

Monthly Fees and Payments. You agree to make a monthly payment to DISH Network by the payment due date for the programming you select and for the following fees as applicable depending on the equipment you select: Additional Outlet Programming Access Fee: a $4.99 per month additional outlet programming access fee will be charged to your account for each receiver activated beyond the first. *DISH Network DVR Service Fee: a $4.98 per month DISH Network DVR service fee will be charged to your account for each model 510 or 921 receiver activated. This fee will be waived if you subscribe to either America 's "Everything" Pak or Latino "Everything" Pak. * The $49.99 activation fee is not a deposit and is nonrefundable but will be credited on your first account billing statement. State and local sales taxes may apply. Other fees may apply as set forth in the Residential Customer Agreement.

This fee applies to all newer DVRs (510, 522, 625, 921, and 942).

This is *COMMON KNOWLEDGE*... just because *you* didn't know about it when you bought and activated your new HDDVR doesn't mean it *wasn't * in place and valid prior to you getting the 921.


----------



## Scott Greczkowski

Link said:


> Dish needs to charge one DVR fee per account of $4.98, not $4.98 per DVR receiver.


Well said.


----------



## the_bear

This definitely shows caveat emptor (buyer beware). This is why the lease plan is so attractive. You never know when Dish might raise their rates/change programming and you are SOL. I cannot think of any laws that are broken. Dish tries to make their fees vary clear (unlike cable/cell phone bills which are also riddled with tiny add on charges).


----------



## P Smith

Bill R said:


> DISH is doing a lot to provide you with the DVR service. <skip>.


Would you post a list of the "lot" doing specifically for DVP/PVRs ? Beside 9 days EEPG.


----------



## James Long

Link said:


> Dish needs to charge one DVR fee per account of $4.98, not $4.98 per DVR receiver.


Dish needs to charge no "DVR tax" of any amount.

They should use DVRs as a selling point not as a way to pad the profit margin.



P Smith said:


> Would you post a list of the "lot" doing specifically for DVP/PVRs ? Beside 9 days EEPG.


Legal expenses for infringing on TIVO's patents and software development expenses.

JL


----------



## juan ellitinez

Scott Greczkowski said:


> Well said.


 How about a *NO DVR FEE PETITION*


----------



## Mark Holtz

I am a former Dish subscriber who had a 35 hour fee-free DVR, two stand-alone receivers, and AT180+Sac Locals+Superstations. I was hoping to replace the 501 with a larger capacity DVR. But, when Dish announced the DVR fee in 2003, there was a huge controversy about it. I simply switched over to DrecTV and the TiVo product because I felt that the TiVo software on the TiVo units was much superior compared to the DishDVR software. I also expanded the original 40GB hard drive to two 160GB hard drives for 243 hours of recording capacity.

I know that the 921 is a different creature than the DirecTV TiVo unit, but still, I feel that Dish charges the DVR fee because they can.


----------



## KingLoop

My opinion is this, say I have 2 TVs now I can sub to AT60 with a 322 with the DHA for $32/mth. If E* is setting up new subs with free EQ, what is my motivation to keep a 322 as opposed to getting a 522? A 322 has an MSRP of of $149, the 522 is over twice that. Does E* want to spend twice as much on EQ for new DHA subs? Of course not. So, E* charges $5/mth for the DVR fee. Before E* made DVRs free to new subs, there was no DVR fee. Now it's an industry standard to charge for a DVR. I do think that if I spend $350 on a 625 I shouldn't have to pay the fee, but life is life.


----------



## larrystotler

Technically, since the DVRs are able to see the 9 day guide instead of just the 2 day guide, then they can say they are charging for the extra 7 days. Just like the D* Tivo does for the 14 days and the SA TiVos for 39 days(I think). The service/software you are paying for is basicallty the guide more than anything else.


----------



## steveo70

Bill R said:


> DISH is doing a lot to provide you with the DVR service. Like TiVo they ARE providing the extra services that are needed to make your DVR work. It is just your limited understanding of how your DVR works that prevents you from knowing and understanding that.


Then why not charge 721,508 and 501 owners? aren't they providing extra services for those owners? They charge DVR fees cause they can, plain and simple.Dish waived the Personal TV service for most 7X00 owners didn't they? If it was for the higher costs due to services provided then they should have charged the fee from the beginning. It's just as ridiculous as charging a fee when you downgrade. For what? a CSR pressing a button on a computer?

If we have to pay then I agree with one fee for all your DVR boxes.


----------



## cdoyle

I new to Dish, but I went with them because of the no fee on the 508 recievers. I'm a little worried about what is going to happen when they switch to mpeg4. If they try and tell me that I need to buy/lease a new reciever and then have to pay the DVR Fee. I'll most likely say no thank you, and cancel my service.

I don't mind upgrading equipment, but I just can't see spending $5 a month til the end of time for DVR.

I'm really hoping dish is looking at how many 501/508 (and all the rest of the no DVR fee users) that are still out there, and granfather them in on the no DVR when everyone is forced to upgrade boxes.


----------



## KingLoop

cdoyle said:


> I don't mind upgrading equipment, but I just can't see spending $5 a month til the end of time for DVR.


What is a comperable alternative to Dish for you? How much does it cost per month for the channels you want plus a DVR with someone other than Dish?

You know, a lot of people are complaining about $5/mth. Is there any company that doesn't charge a DVR fee? If you feel so strongly buy an SA TiVo and pay the lifetime service fee. Or switch to D* and spend $100 each for their TiVos. It takes 40 months to break even in DVR fees if you only have 2.


----------



## Geronimo

Exactly what law is volated here? I understand that many of us don't like the fgees but they have the right to charge them and we have the right to cancel service.


----------



## larrystotler

steveo70 said:


> Then why not charge 721,508 and 501 owners? aren't they providing extra services for those owners? They charge DVR fees cause they can, plain and simple.Dish waived the Personal TV service for most 7X00 owners didn't they? If it was for the higher costs due to services provided then they should have charged the fee from the beginning. It's just as ridiculous as charging a fee when you downgrade. For what? a CSR pressing a button on a computer?
> 
> If we have to pay then I agree with one fee for all your DVR boxes.


They can basically say that the 501/508/721s were beta boxes, and therefore don't have a fee. Basically, when they came out with the 510, they figured that they could charge it and it worked. As for the $5 per account, part of that is that they charge the DVR fee as part of the model #. They would have to change the system to make it work. Anyone want to setup a poll site like Scott's and protest the DVR/PVR/PTV fees PER receiver???


----------



## kzosat

larrystotler said:


> They can basically say that the 501/508/721s were beta boxes, and therefore don't have a fee. Basically, when they came out with the 510, they figured that they could charge it and it worked. As for the $5 per account, part of that is that they charge the DVR fee as part of the model #. They would have to change the system to make it work. Anyone want to setup a poll site like Scott's and protest the DVR/PVR/PTV fees PER receiver???


I would fully support an attempt to get Dish to charge 1 DVR fee per account.

Side note: Whatever happened to the OP? Been quiet. Maybe talking to his lawyer.


----------



## BobaBird

KingLoop said:


> Is there any company that doesn't charge a DVR fee?


IOW, "everyone else is doing it." That isn't a justification. And it's more of a common practice than an industry standard as nothing requires it. They simply saw that others were getting added monthly income. Never mind that the others were providing an actual service such as delivering listings via toll-free phone calls - they wanted some too. And they themselves have stated the limited value (read: "rip off") of the so-called "service" - see the quote in my sig.


larrystotler said:


> The service/software you are paying for is basically the guide more than anything else.


I would agree with that except that I don't recall any stated need to charge for it on the 501, 508 or 721. The generally accepted thinking was that the added benefit was also good for Dish because DVRs reduced churn. If we accept that we are being charged for the use of software and delivery of a longer guide, then we really should not accept being charged on each DVR.


Residential Customer Agreement said:


> F. Additional Receivers. ... Each additional receiver would be authorized to receive the same Services as your initial receiver.


http://www.dishnetwork.com/content/aboutus/RCA/index.shtml

If DVR is a "service" as they claim, and the addl outlet fee covers mirroring of services, then by charging the DVR fee on addl receivers Dish is in violation of the Residential Customer Agreement.


----------



## kzosat

Boba, per your post, it sounds like you could have just said

"Yes, I want to fight to get 1 DVR fee per account also"

The only problem I have with that line in the RCA is what if your initial receiver is not a DVR? yeah, I know you could swap it etc. Other than that, that is the first good point I have seen to counter the per DVR fee. I agree with you on that.

Also, let start some petitions to get rid of all the phone fees. I am serious. I am sick of paying off the debt for the spanish american war. Pretty sad when my phone service starts out at $26.99 and has unlimited calls, 200 minutes long distance included etc (that I never go over) and my final bill is $49.56.

http://www.savewithusa.com/plans.php?pg=TAX
Why do I need to pay a SLC on my phone? Shouldn't that be part of the service charge? What if I don't have LD service on my phone?

Why do I have to pay for the NANP, this has already been laid out years ago.?

Why do I pay for the ability to keep my number if I move down the street(Local Number Portability)? I don't care if I keep the same number. Why can't I pay for it when I move and not pay a fee for this "service" every month?

See there are plenty of things we could also be complaining about. 
Maybe we should get a subsidy from the gov't if you have satellite TV as the landline is pretty much required.


----------



## BobaBird

Boba is a different member of this forum. I could have just said "me too" but that also wouldn't do much to explain how, or why I think that.


> The only problem I have with that line in the RCA is what if your initial receiver is not a DVR?


It's really no different than having 2 HDTV receivers and a primary non-HD receiver. The non-HD model doesn't get the HD programming but you also don't pay full price for each HD model. The AO fee covers it.


----------



## kzosat

I think I edited my post when you replied, cause I agree with you.

Didn't realized there was just a Boba either, I apologize.


----------



## larrystotler

kzosat said:


> Also, let start some petitions to get rid of all the phone fees. I am serious. I am sick of paying off the debt for the spanish american war. Pretty sad when my phone service starts out at $26.99 and has unlimited calls, 200 minutes long distance included etc (that I never go over) and my final bill is $49.56.


The telephone hookup scheme has 1 real purpose. That is to verify that the receiver is actually in your house. E* and D* use the caller ID info to do this. However, since more and more people are using cell phones and Vonage(which they fear), this is becoming a problem. 12 years ago when they started, almost everyone had a home phone, and this was considered an excellent idea. No one forsaw that call phones would overtake home phone usage, and they are unprepared for this change. I had an E* CSR try to get me to upgrade to a 522 when I called in a bug report on my 721 recently, and like I told them, I would rather buy a used 508 or another 721 since my bill would go up $10 a month if I got a 522 due to lack of a home phone and the DVR fee.

I recently inqured about getting DSL, and you HAVE to have a phone line with Verizon. The $30/month DSL rate ended up at $45+ after getting the cheapest phone line they had. I stcuk with my cable modem, which is faster. I haven't had a home phone since 1997, and I have little interest in having one now.


----------



## djlong

justalurker said:


> Legal expenses for infringing on TIVO's patents and software development expenses.
> 
> JL


E* has a perfect defense. If they were truly infringing on TiVo patents, E* DVRs would *work*.


----------



## larrystotler

BobaBird said:


> I would agree with that except that I don't recall any stated need to charge for it on the 501, 508 or 721. The generally accepted thinking was that the added benefit was also good for Dish because DVRs reduced churn. If we accept that we are being charged for the use of software and delivery of a longer guide, then we really should not accept being charged on each


Yes, but back when the 721 and 501 came out, you had to pay full price for it. They allowed new DHP subs to get the 501 with a $50 upgrade fee. When they rolled out the 510, they started giving it away. The DVR fee for them is a way to recoup the cost of the receiver more than anything else. They did the same with the 921. You could get it for a $299 upgrade fee. The problem is that those who are buying them outright are getting screwed. And, since they wanted the 522 as a lease only box, they could have gotten around this that way. It's easier for them to just charge it per receiver in their system.


----------



## kzosat

larrystotler said:


> The telephone hookup scheme has 1 real purpose. That is to verify that the receiver is actually in your house. E* and D* use the caller ID info to do this. However, since more and more people are using cell phones and Vonage(which they fear), this is becoming a problem. 12 years ago when they started, almost everyone had a home phone, and this was considered an excellent idea.


I know why they require the phone line, I wasn't questioning that and personally it will be long time for me to completely trust a cell phone for coverage, but when I can, I will drop the land-line.


----------



## Link

To me, Tivo offers the name based recording Season Pass service and offers actual features to make it worthy of a fee for $4.99 on Directv. I think the fee of $10 or $12 on a regular Tivo receiver is outrageous. Dish calls their DVR service Video on Demand but it is no more than just choosing timers from the guide like a VCR can do. A 510 user isn't getting anything more than a 508 user and are having to pay $4.98 a month for a VOD service????? Give us a break! 

Dish just uses any excuse possible to get more fees out of customers and decided the VOD fee would be the way to do it.


----------



## kzosat

it isn't just Dish Link. Again, have you looked at all the fees you pay the state and the fed lately? But it still is not Illegal to do so. They are like every retailer out there. They put a price on something which choose to buy or not buy.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

I haven't ever heard of anyone who _likes _fees!

But almost every company has fees in one form or another, that are seemingly for nothing and generally figured to be profit-padders.

Nothing I've seen or heard says to me that any of the Dish fees are illegal, though... so you just have to decide if they are worth it. If you buy a receiver from someone else before checking with Dish, then sign up for Dish service blindly and are "surprised" by fees, then shame on you.

Also, if you buy a receiver from someone other than Dish, why would you even remotely think Dish would be supposed to refund your purchase? Go back to the guy on eBay you bought the receiver from...

I don't like the fees... and one of the reasons I stick with my 501 is because of the lack of fees for that receiver... but one day I'll have to decide.

Right now, though, it looks like most users must have spoken and said $5 is an ok fee, otherwise no one would have jumped to the receivers that had fees on them. Dish gave a choice, and we all chose/spoke... unfortunately more people are OK with the fees so we can expect at some point to have a fee on everything by the time they phase out the oldies.


----------



## KingLoop

Link said:


> A 510 user isn't getting anything more than a 508 user and are having to pay $4.98 a month for a VOD service?????


The question would be, why would anyone get a 510 instead of a 508?...Also, the 508 was never free, You can lease a 510.


----------



## ekammerzelt

I'm an idiot for not doing some research about the fee's on the newer DVR's, I admit that much. 
I have a 501 and never thought about Dish charging a silly DVR fee. Hits me hard because I'm usually a nut about researching things well before a buy like that.

But I still feel DVR should be Free, and WILL be free eventually. Dish isnt doing me any special service for my 921's ability to function as a DVR. The unit does this without any special software updates (Not that the software works well anyways)....I'd be happier if they called it a Dish Reciever software assurance plan and skipped the DVR charge BS.

One things for sure:
It won't happen if people just blindly pay fees to companies, especially bogus fee's like this one.

Windows Media Center will do some pretty fine DVR recording, no monthly Fee. I should have gone that route. I haven't decided if I'm leaving Dish yet or not after 8 years.


----------



## zmark

To all you echostar apologists saying $5 is no big deal, it quickly becomes a big deal when you mave multiple DVRs. I have 4 DVRs, so that would be and additional $20/month, or $240/year for absolutely nothing. At that rate, using a MythTV box with multiple capture cards becomes a viable option.


----------



## Inaba

> I would rather buy a used 508 or another 721 since my bill would go up $10 a month if I got a 522 due to lack of a home phone and the DVR fee.


What do you mean go up 10 bucks a month? Dish doesn't charge anything extra if you have no phone line... I've not had a phone line since I switched back to Dish from DTV several years ago... they've never charged me an additional fee; I wouldn't have signed up if they had. My cell phone is cheaper per month than my land line, so there's absolutely no reason for me to have a land line.

I can't order PPV stuff, but that's no big deal... who the hell wants to watch over-compressed video and pseudo DD5.1 PPV crap from Dish anyway when Netflix is cheap and provides you with 10x the value as 4 PPV movies per month?

I have a 721, so no DVR fee, either. If I'm forced to pay a DVR fee when they switch over to MPEG 4, I'll be going back to DTV and the most excellent Tivo interface. I despise the fact that the 721 does not have Name Based recording.


----------



## the_bear

kzosat said:


> Also, let start some petitions to get rid of all the phone fees. I am serious. I am sick of paying off the debt for the spanish american war. Pretty sad when my phone service starts out at $26.99 and has unlimited calls, 200 minutes long distance included etc (that I never go over) and my final bill is $49.56.


The main difference between the Dish add on fees and cell phone add on fees, is that Dish did not attempt to deceive customer when Dish added the fees. The cell phone fees were not disclosed to customers when making service commitments. Instead, cell phone providers tried to make the fees look like a government tax. Both fees are similar in that they are effectively a price increase to help the profit margin. Let's hope the judges decide that the secret cell phone add on fees are illegal. The cell phone industry is clearly doing a bate and switch, but I don't see this as the same situation as Dish.


----------



## finniganps

zmark said:


> To all you echostar apologists saying $5 is no big deal, it quickly becomes a big deal when you mave multiple DVRs. I have 4 DVRs, so that would be and additional $20/month, or $240/year for absolutely nothing. At that rate, using a MythTV box with multiple capture cards becomes a viable option.


If you really believe you get NOTHING for it, than get a non-DVR box and use your VCR to record, or go to Direct. We all have choices folks, you don't HAVE to pay the DVR fee. There are many alternatives including:

1) Go to another company that doesn't charge the fee.
2) Use a VCR or DVD recorder.
3) Buy a 501, 721 or 508 that doesn't charge fees.
4) Subscribe to the AEP and get the fee waived.

Exercise your freedom of choice. If the model Dish used didn't work they'd change it. They've found they can charge for the DVR, so they do....if you don't like it, you can make a different choice.


----------



## garypen

Bill R said:


> As others have said no one likes the DVR (or any other) extra fee. It is a fact of life though that vendors are going to charge more for extra features because (1) it cost money to develop those features


He purchased the unit, and that cost should have been factored into the sale price.

DirecTV manages to provide the same, most would say better, service for only a single DVR charge per household. (But, they are licensing their DVR technology from Tivo. So, it is somewhat justified, especially since the same thing directly from Tivo costs $13/month.)

Comcast includes the DVR, HD, and Lease fees in one $10 charge. (Dish's DVR, HD, and lease fees would add up to $20.) So, the original poster has a valid point.



Bill R said:


> and (2) they can because customers are willing to pay for that extra functionality.


 That is very true. Sad...but, true.


----------



## zmark

finniganps said:


> Exercise your freedom of choice. If the model Dish used didn't work they'd change it.


Yes, because corporation always make the best long-term decisions :lol:



finniganps said:


> If you really believe you get NOTHING for it


I can prove you get nothing for it, simply because I'm not paying the DVR fees now. I have 2 721's and 2 508's. If I am forced to upgrade my receivers, I'll have to pay $20/month extra just to retain the functionality I enjoy now. And don't even try to argue that there's something new in a 510 that warrants an extra $5/month.

And that's the problem. I have no incentive to upgrade anymore. No new HD PVR, no subscription to HD programming. Echostar should be enticing me to upgrade so that I an buy more programming, not punish me for it.

And let you think I'm being rediculous, consider that I currently pay $15/month for the privilege of running 4 receivers. If I upgrade them all, I'll have to pay a total of $35/month. There are full programming packages that cost less than that.


----------



## Roger Tee

kzosat said:


> I know why they require the phone line, I wasn't questioning that and personally it will be long time for me to completely trust a cell phone for coverage, but when I can, I will drop the land-line.


Not to hurt anyones feelings but:

a. I wouildn't trust a cell phone to outperform two cans on a string.
b. I don't own a cell phone.
c. I will never except if I need one for a job search own a cell phone. Then it'llbe gone as soon as I land a job.
d. I have no interest in paying cell phone charges when I only have basic phone service, NO Long Distance.

IF cell phones ever become as reliable and have the same quality and are cheaper I may rethink my position. Based on the service provided by Cellular companies when people call me on those things here at work they got a long way to go.

Of course I also feel sorry for people that go everywhere with those things stuck in there ear for fear of missing a call (Including my own brother).


----------



## finniganps

zmark said:


> I can prove you get nothing for it, simply because I'm not paying the DVR fees now. I have 2 721's and 2 508's. If I am forced to upgrade my receivers, I'll have to pay $20/month extra just to retain the functionality I enjoy now. And don't even try to argue that there's something new in a 510 that warrants an extra $5/month.


I also have a 508 and 721. When E* goes to MPEG4 and I'm forced to upgrade, I'll look at my options and make a decision. You have chosen to avoid the $5 fee just as I have. None of us know what plans E* will offer when they move to MPEG4, so to speculate is foolish at this point.



zmark said:


> And that's the problem. I have no incentive to upgrade anymore. No new HD PVR, no subscription to HD programming. Echostar should be enticing me to upgrade so that I an buy more programming, not punish me for it.


E* does run promotions fairly regularly to try and get people to get HBO or Showtime or a higher programming package. Yes the promotions expire and you pay full price or the $5 to downgrade, but other companies also run promotions, so I don't agree with your point. Just because you don't like the promotions they run, doesn't mean they don't run them.


----------



## cdoyle

Also dish is still showing the 501/508's on their website to buy, and it doesn't mention the DVR fee for them. It also say avaiable at your nearest retailer, and you know the retailers say 'if you get this model, there is no montly DVR Fee' 

So when Mpeg4 starts to roll out in the next year or so, their are going to be some unhappy customers who felt they were misled because their relatively new equipment is outdated, and they will also have to start paying an additional $5 fee.

I just hope dish realizes this, and either gets rid of the DVR fee to bring in new customers from D or Cable (it's why I joined). Or at least grandfather these box owners with no DVR fee to keep them as customers.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

Has it occurred to anyone that these DVR fees might be intended to talk some people out of choosing those particular receivers?

Think about it... IF they keep introducing new technology, and they have a bunch of old receivers in stock... suddenly people want the new receivers and not the old ones... and there are supply problems with the new ones and they have to turn people away, meanwhile they lose more money on the old ones sitting in the warehouse.

But... if they make new receivers tied to a new monthly fee... this does a couple of things... For everyone who buys/leases one anyway they get $5 more per month so in a year or so they pay for some of those old receivers sitting in the warehouse... Then for the rest of us who don't like the fee, we are enticed to buy/lease the old equipment instead!

I suspect that when they run out of 501/508 receivers in the warehouse... they will offer similar no-monthly-fee options on other receivers to help move them.

Think about it.


----------



## cdoyle

HDMe said:


> Has it occurred to anyone that these DVR fees might be intended to talk some people out of choosing those particular receivers?
> 
> Think about it... IF they keep introducing new technology, and they have a bunch of old receivers in stock... suddenly people want the new receivers and not the old ones... and there are supply problems with the new ones and they have to turn people away, meanwhile they lose more money on the old ones sitting in the warehouse.
> 
> But... if they make new receivers tied to a new monthly fee... this does a couple of things... For everyone who buys/leases one anyway they get $5 more per month so in a year or so they pay for some of those old receivers sitting in the warehouse... Then for the rest of us who don't like the fee, we are enticed to buy/lease the old equipment instead!
> 
> I suspect that when they run out of 501/508 receivers in the warehouse... they will offer similar no-monthly-fee options on other receivers to help move them.
> 
> Think about it.


That would be a good solution, gives their customer base some options.


----------



## Evil Capserian

Hey did you guys know that our forefathers back in 1776 actually put it into the constitution about DVR FEES? I read that the US Congress can make laws that are necessary and proper. So a DVR fee is necessary and proper I guess so no more fighting please.


----------



## larrystotler

Roger Tee said:


> b. I don't own a cell phone.
> IF cell phones ever become as reliable and have the same quality and are cheaper I may rethink my position. Based on the service provided by Cellular companies when people call me on those things here at work they got a long way to go.


I haven't had a home phone since 1997. Granted, my cell is less than 100% reliable, but I am in a 4 state area within 35 miles, and free long distance is a neccessity. Also, I get all the extra features for free, caller id, voicemail, etc. $60 per month. I save at least $20 for NOT having a home phone I don't need and could care less about. And for all those Vonage lovers, you have to have a broadband connection to use it, which you don't have everywhere you go. I'll stick with my cell.....


----------



## BobaBird

kzosat said:


> I agree with you on that.


It's like you're _begging_ to be added to my signature! :grin:


----------



## SAEMike

If you want the DVR, pay the fee, if you don't want it, don't pay the fee. There are other options. Get over it, suck it up, and stop whining like little girls.


----------



## Geronimo

garypen said:


> He purchased the unit, and that cost should have been factored into the sale price.


\

It might be accurate to say they COULD do that or it would be preferable to the vonsumer but where do you get that tehy SHOULD do that?


----------



## kzosat

BobaBird said:


> It's like you're _begging_ to be added to my signature! :grin:


heh, per the new rule on in Item B, you have to get my permission :hurah:


----------



## kzosat

double posted.


----------



## garypen

Geronimo said:


> \
> 
> It might be accurate to say they COULD do that or it would be preferable to the vonsumer but where do you get that tehy SHOULD do that?


Just a little thing called logic. I'm not saying they are _required_ by law, of course. That's stupid. But, logic and common sense says they _should_. The 510 cost them no more than the 501/508 to develop, and offers no additional functionality. (hdd space is nmot a function.) And, the 510 actually provides _less_ functionality than the 721.

The argument against Dish DVR fees per receiver, especially for the 510, is clear and strong.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

Do you buy Joe-Bob's ice cream? Or Ben & Jerry's? The ingredients are mostly the same, right?

Or how about Coke/Pepsi vs Food Lion cola?

We all are guilty of paying more for things that really aren't substantially different than something else...

Ultimately, if you like the device then pay the fee... if you don't want to pay the fee, don't get the device. No one yet is being forced to get one of the fee-bearing devices.


----------



## garypen

Not really a good argument. In many cases, brand name products _do _offer more than generic versions. (Better taste, higher quality, etc.) In those cases, most people will pay more, if they can afford it. (This is not the case with Dish DVR's, of course.)

In those cases where there is no discernable difference, or there is actually lower quality (Dish DVR's could apply to that) you bet I choose the cheaper generic version. To do otherwise would be just plain stupid. (The fact that so many people choose "stupid" doesn't surprise me, of course.)


----------



## airpolgas

Two 508 user here. Enjoying the no-fee, for now.

The fee debate would be much less if we were allowed to replace/add hard drives into our Dish PVRs. (Of course, only when it's bought, not leased)


----------



## socceteer

Bill R said:


> Your complaint is typical of a customer who did not do his homework before buying this product. Even reading this forum would have given you information as to what additional monthly costs you would have. As far as your comment about it not being legal and "_how you can possibly justify this expense on my behalf_". It just shows that you don't have a clue about what it costs to develop, maintain and support a product like a DVR.


OK lets be realistic....!

The cost of support should be factored into the cost of the unit, such as Tivo. The fact here is that Tivo and others DVR manufacturers started to charge for a subscription to their service of receiving a guide. not the service of updating the software. Just like all manufactures and software dealers, if they want additional revenue they can sale a new device with better features or sale a new software with new features. What we are all paying is for the use of the service and they choose to use that money to enhance the software and/or hardware.

When you buy a new TV or car, etc, you get what you need to make sure it all works, yes you can add features, but you pay for those up front. I do not get monthly bills to cover the next development of a TV or car. The manufacturers factor that into the sale price. then they charge extra for services. just to those who need and and not to all customers.

Ideally for the consumer we should all have to pay 1 fee for all DVR in a single house. and if I want enhancements, I will buy a new unit or a software upgrade. One time charge.

The unfortunate fact is that they have us by the cojones because we accepted those conditions. The only solution is to wait for the first provider that offers the 1 charge per house and most people will start to move to that provider with time.


----------



## ekammerzelt

If these fees are for software updates then they should have the balls to say that and stop discriminating between receivers.

The problem I have with Dish is that they claim the DVR functionality is the reason for these extra fees. 

Everyone here knows the DVR function is a native ability of the hardware. These things are PC's with Hard-drives, they are not hosting the space for you on some server somewhere or providing a special service for DVR.

I realize that if they did make this change and started charging a software update fee then everyone on the older systems would be pissed about having to pay those fees too.

More upset people means better chance for a change. Change is what I want.


----------



## tsmacro

:lol: Ya know if you're going that upset over something, you might as well make over something that actually matters. I mean shoot, people usually reserve getting that worked up over something like religion or politics or some such thing. I guess I have met some people for whom TV is their god and the programming and the electronic gadgets that go with it are their religion. Honestly if you want to change Dish's DVR charge the only real way to do it is with your wallet, e-mails filled with over-the-top false outrage probably won't get the job done. Dish Network has decided that DVR usage is feature that most people are willing to pay $4.98 for and living in this capitalist soceity the only thing that's going to change that is if the customers decide not to get DVR's and pay the charge. If enough people did that then Dish would change their price policies. Now of course if that did happen you know of course you'd still be paying more, because as soon as the DVR charge disappeared you know the programming charges would probably go up across the board three or four dollars a month for every subscriber. After all Dish is in this to make money and they've figured out their pricing to cover their costs and make a profit. So if you're really serious about this, dump Dish, subscribe to Direct or cable or go buy a stand-alone TiVO and spare us the ridiculous false accusations of Dish engaging in illegal and/or immoral business practices.


----------



## jlabsher

I have a 501 & 522, the 501 has no fee and the 522 has a $5 DVR fee. When I had the installer put in the 522 I got 50 feet of coax and ran it halfway through my house to the second set. By doing this the 522 replaced 2 301's. Each 301 had a $5 monthly receiver fee. I came out even on the deal. 

For the life of me I can't understand why anybody would need 4 DVRs in one house, replace those 508's with a 522 you come out ahead.

With 200 channels, there still isn't enough on to warrent 4 DVR's! The weather is beautiful, the birds are singing, come on guys - the sun is shining - get outside!


----------



## KingLoop

jlabsher said:


> For the life of me I can't understand why anybody would need 4 DVRs in one house, replace those 508's with a 522 you come out ahead.


For anyone in that situation, I agree a 522 would be more desirable. Personally, I wouldn't want to pay the DVR fee or the additional outlet fee (for not having a phone line). I have (2) 721s so I would lose out a lot. I could live with a single DVR in the bedroom if I had to but I like the choice that the dual DVR gives me. To keep me happy I'd need 2 of the 522s the only real thing I would gain is NBR and a little more software stability. With (2) 522s my bill would go from $55 as it stands now to $75. I'd get jacked. If that happens maybe I'll move to D*. I like my E* though. D*'s guide would take some getting used to. When cable moves to all digital that would be something to consider. Until then I am happy with what I've got and how much I pay. At the end of the day I figure if you aren't happy with what you have or how much you pay get something differant. It is a consumer's market and I'm a consumer.


----------



## jrb531

You "are" paying for the programming guide. Dish just grandfathered in the older DVR's because, at the time, they sold those partially based upon "we don't charge and others do" so they allow the older DVR's (why I'm keeping my 501 and 508 for as long as I can) to be waived for the $5 fee.

What does suck is that they charge "either" a $5 rental fee or $5 DVR fee for the new ones. Why "anyone" would buy one instead of renting one if the fee is ther same is beyond me.

I do agree, however, that this $5 is way way too much. It costs them the same for someone to type in the programming data for one unit or a million so why $5 each? Either that person makes a million dollars a month in salery or they are just using this as an excuse.... IE "we charge because we can get away with it"

The line that we are paying for programming updates is utter and complete BS. They reprogram the non-DVR's for free so why do the DVR's cost so much?

So we pay $60 a year for someone to type in guide data..... hmmmm is this not the same guide data that the non-DVR's get for free?

What is the difference between a DVR and non-DVR? Why does it cost extra $$$ for the DVR's and not the base units?

I can understand that "maybe" the additional programming needed to do recording and such takes a few more programmers but $60 a year per DVR? no way!

This is a scam and when my units go out or MPEG4 comes I'll be renting the units so I only pay the one $5 fee which is what they always wanted to begin with.

I do love how they charge you $250 up front in order to "rent" a HD DVR. This sounds more like leasing a car than renting a box LOL.

-JB


----------



## derwin0

jrb531 said:


> So we pay $60 a year for someone to type in guide data..... hmmmm is this not the same guide data that the non-DVR's get for free?
> 
> What is the difference between a DVR and non-DVR? Why does it cost extra $$$ for the DVR's and not the base units?


The difference is that non-DVR's get a 2-day guide, and DVR's get a 9-day guide. The 9-day guide eats up some additional bandwidth at 100.


----------



## Geronimo

garypen said:


> Just a little thing called logic. I'm not saying they are _required_ by law, of course. That's stupid. But, logic and common sense says they _should_. The 510 cost them no more than the 501/508 to develop, and offers no additional functionality. (hdd space is nmot a function.) And, the 510 actually provides _less_ functionality than the 721.
> 
> The argument against Dish DVR fees per receiver, especially for the 510, is clear and strong.


But companies have the rightt o price their products any way they choose. You may not agree with it or like it but they still have that right. In this case it is pretty clear that DISH would like to abandon the no fee DVR model. After the 7x00 brouhaha though they know that it is a lot easier to do it when the unit is purchased insted of adding (or reimposing)a fee later.

Persoanlly I don't like it either. And I think it is a bad decisiion. But I guess the real yardstick is revenue raised. Is it higher than it would have been? If so they will no doubt continue the practice with future models.

As for whether it is illegal. Well I agree that is not but hey that is the title of this thread.


----------



## boylehome

If the charges were, "Illegal and Wrong." E* wouldn't be charging them. A long, long time ago, our local cable company charged for a line per room fee. Now that became illegal having enacted legislation. Now a person can have a cable in every room witout the fee. I had moved into a home where the owner had ran cable to every room. When I activated the cable service and told the installer which rooms I wanted cable, the installer actually cut sections of the other cables shortening them so they couldn't connet to where they used to meet at the junction.

The same was true with the telephone company. The rule was one line per phone, period. 

What should be illegal is the restriction to have no more than six activated receivers in a single family dwelling. I think that our congressmen and legislators could get some milage out of this issue and make it better for US citizens.


----------



## Bill R

boylehome said:


> The same was true with the telephone company. The rule was one line per phone, period.


You don't have that quite right; there was never a rule of one line per phone (or one phone per line). What was true was that all extention phones had to be installed and rented from the phone company (you could NOT own or install your own equipment). Latter that rule changed to allow you to own and add equipment (like answering machines and extention phones) but all equipment had to be registered with the phone company and most companies charged you a fee for each addition piece of equipment you had on the line (usually something a little less than the fee that they charged for renting a phone from them; in the case of my local phone company the cost to rent a phone from them was $1.25 a month). All this changed in the early 80s and and all the fees for your own equipment were dropped. Despite the telephone industry's hype that the country's phone system would crash (because of incomputable equipment) that didn't happen.


----------



## boylehome

Bill R said:


> You don't have that quite right; there was never a rule of one line per phone (or one phone per line). What was true was that all extention phones had to be installed and rented from the phone company (you could NOT own or install your own equipment).


You may be correct as it was a additional charge for the second phone at the cost for the phone line X 2 (apples to oranges  ). I'm referring back to the 50's/60's and party lines were were common. In the mid 60's into the 70's extention's were becoming more predominate and tolerated by the service provider at an additional expense but with lots of restrictions. The point is that sometimes business rules and practices go beyond what is reasonable, hence legislation to make change for the better. If you want additional information about this phone company and it's practices, I can PM it to you so not to get off track of the point of this thread.


----------



## the_bear

Am I the only one that believes prices should be determined by supply and demand?


----------



## Stewart Vernon

the_bear said:


> Am I the only one that believes prices should be determined by supply and demand?


Nope... Supposedly in a capitalistic economy, supply and demand are exactly what determine the prices... I find it funny sometimes how people want to brag about being in a free country, then want to price-fix things.

Legislation to fix prices causes as much problems as it helps. The phone company, for instance, regularly points to FCC regulations that "require" them to charge a particular fee... when the reality is the FCC just said they can charge it... so the phone company puts it on the bill as an FCC mandated fee and most folks are none the wiser.

Perhaps a bad/limited example... but I find we try and be "free" when it suits us... then we want non-capitalistic controls in place when we think that would suit us better. We can't make up our minds what kind of country we want to live in sometimes.


----------



## socceteer

HDMe said:


> Nope... Supposedly in a capitalistic economy, supply and demand are exactly what determine the prices... I find it funny sometimes how people want to brag about being in a free country, then want to price-fix things.
> 
> Legislation to fix prices causes as much problems as it helps. The phone company, for instance, regularly points to FCC regulations that "require" them to charge a particular fee... when the reality is the FCC just said they can charge it... so the phone company puts it on the bill as an FCC mandated fee and most folks are none the wiser.
> 
> Perhaps a bad/limited example... but I find we try and be "free" when it suits us... then we want non-capitalistic controls in place when we think that would suit us better. We can't make up our minds what kind of country we want to live in sometimes.


I hear you, and I agree that we want and should have free market until they become a monopoly and at that time the government needs to step in and control abuse. That is how our democrazy works (cable and Satellite are getting close to becoming a monopoly)


----------



## BobaBird

the_bear said:


> Am I the only one that believes prices should be determined by supply and demand?


No, but that's not really the question here. Companies setting a price for anything and everything was a factor in the creation of the FTC, FDA, SEC, NHTSA, BBB and other agencies and organizations whose main focus is consumer protection. Not so much protection from high prices (a free and informed market should correct that) but from unfair business practices, fraudulent advertising, and unsafe and/or ineffective products. The right to charge a price carries with it an obligation to provide something in return. Dish's claim that DVR is a service is the modern consumer fraud equivalent of the cure-all claims of snake oil.


----------



## ekammerzelt

BobaBird said:


> The right to charge a price carries with it an obligation to provide something in return. Dish's claim that DVR is a service is the modern consumer fraud equivalent of the cure-all claims of snake oil.


Amen.
A-Fricken-Men.


----------



## tsmacro

BobaBird said:


> No, but that's not really the question here. Companies setting a price for anything and everything was a factor in the creation of the FTC, FDA, SEC, NHTSA, BBB and other agencies and organizations whose main focus is consumer protection. Not so much protection from high prices (a free and informed market should correct that) but from unfair business practices, fraudulent advertising, and unsafe and/or ineffective products. The right to charge a price carries with it an obligation to provide something in return. Dish's claim that DVR is a service is the modern consumer fraud equivalent of the cure-all claims of snake oil.


Dish has decided that those of us who chose to have one of their newer model DVR's will pay $4.98 a month. If you don't like it get your TV programming elsewhere it's really that simple. This is not some big ethical and/or moral issue or debate no matter how much some people want to make it. Even if you rationalize that use of a DVR is somehow not really technically a service than can be charged for, the bottom line is that it doesn't matter. I mean come on, what do you expect, for Dish to decide that for some reason decide you're right and just stop charging the fee? :lol: Please Dish can rationalize too, i'm sure from their end it would be that DVR's cost them more to make and maintain and therefore the reason for the fee. But even if they did do away with that fee, it's not like you'd be paying any less because there'd just a price increase for the monthly service to make up for the loss of the fee. Would you be happier then, because at then at least the pricing would somehow be more "honest"? :lol: Once again bottom line you want a newer Dish DVR, you pay $4.98. Don't like it go elsewhere. And if enough people do Dish will re-structure their pricing so there's no longer a seperate fee for it. That's the only thing that will change the status quo, ridiculous talk about being illegal, immoral and/or unethical only makes you look foolish and falls on deaf ears.


----------



## the_bear

socceteer said:


> cable and Satellite are getting close to becoming a monopoly


Last time a I checked TV content was a competitive industry. What is it that gives Dish an unfair advantage over Direct or Cable?

I do agree that it would be more clear to customers if Dish categorized the DVR fee as an equipment rental, rather than a service. When you buy a DVR outright, Dish loses money on the initial sale, so customers are still somewhat renting.


----------



## garypen

tsmacro said:


> Dish has decided that those of us who chose to have one of their newer model DVR's will pay $4.98 a month. If you don't like it get your TV programming elsewhere it's really that simple.


That's the key right there. Everybody needs to vote with their wallets.

You won't believe how easy it is to switch.


----------



## Evil Capserian

Ok this thread has outlived its usefulness, time to close please.


----------



## daleles

Consider this, I have a DVD Recorder with a 160 gig hard drive. With the software that comes with it I can pause live TV as well. I can also record, edit, (like remove footage from a segment) and watch another program or DVD while I am recording. This is no charge for this. You buy the unit and the software is included. 

daleles


----------



## AppliedAggression

How much did that cost you? The reason the older DVRs don't have DVRs fees is because of two reasons. Firstly, the fee didn't exist when they sold the boxes, so to add it afterward would cause lots of upset customers. The second reason is cost, owners of the 501/508 box most likely paid $300 or more for them. How much did your 510 / 522 cost? Probably nothing. It's alot more appealing to new customers when they get something free. Blame the customer, not Dish.


----------



## Neil Derryberry

daleles said:


> Consider this, I have a DVD Recorder with a 160 gig hard drive. With the software that comes with it I can pause live TV as well. I can also record, edit, (like remove footage from a segment) and watch another program or DVD while I am recording. This is no charge for this. You buy the unit and the software is included.
> 
> daleles


On the flip side, it isn't updated or maintained in any way.


----------



## Cholly

I just stumbled on this thread, and decided to add my own $5.98 worth.  
* Dish has the right to charge the fee, so they do. Just as an auto repair shop has the right to charge $70 per hour for service (labor).
* Now that I'm on cable instead of Dish, I have an HD DVR. Time Warner charges me a fee for it.
* Although I am not charged additional fees for additional outlets in my home, I am charged $7.98 a month for each additional set top box to receive digital cable at those outlets.
* I don't own ANY of the boxes, and cannot.
* I do own a Series 2 Tivo DVR. I had the choice of paying $12.95 a month for the privilege of using it, or $299 for the lifetime of the unit (not my lifetime -- if it goes belly up after a year, I'm SOL).
* If I were to install a second TiVo, it would cost me an additional $6 a month.
* Right now, I could get a refurbished 40 hour Series 2 TiVo for free, BUT I'd be required to pay the full service fee.

There are pro's and con's to every service. You get what you pay for. DirecTV and Dish have different service models, just as the cable industry does. DirecTV chose to use outside providers for their receivers and to TiVo for their DVR technology. Dish has done this only to a limited extent, and then chose to go their own way after failing to come to an agreement with TiVo. Remember that DirecTV had two huge cash cows during its early years (GM and Hughes). Dish had/has Charlie Ergen  
Both services spend huge amounts of money in order to provide service (satellites, earth stations, etc.). Cable companies spend quite a bit on infrastructure as well.
At least, we don't have to pay license fees for each TV we own. :hurah:


----------



## AllieVi

SAEMike said:


> If you want the DVR, pay the fee, if you don't want it, don't pay the fee. There are other options. Get over it, suck it up, and stop whining like little girls.


Agreed.

It's a business arrangement between customers and DISH. DISH offers service and sets the price. We have the option of accepting or not and they're not willing to negotiate. Those are the terms. Take them or leave for other options as SAEMike suggests.

DISH and other companies don't have to be fair or even reasonable. Competition will determine if their choices make sense.


----------



## socceteer

AllieVi said:


> Agreed.
> 
> DISH and other companies don't have to be fair or even reasonable. Competition will determine if their choices make sense.


I agree ....even though I think they are charging too much for the service....Nothing will happen unless competition dives the prices down and I do not see that happening in the near future


----------



## unr1

socceteer said:


> I agree ....even though I think they are charging too much for the service....Nothing will happen unless competition dives the prices down and I do not see that happening in the near future


Well, then you're not very foresighted.

If you think people are going to put up with DVR fees for years to come, you've underestimated the public.


----------



## zmark

> If you think people are going to put up with DVR fees for years to come, you've underestimated the public.


The public are alot stupider than you think. Right now, they're being conditioned to accept DVR fees. Name one cable or satellite service that doesn't have some kind of DVR fee for their latest equipment. The MPEG4 transition will make all current fee-free DVRs obsolete.

People place too much faith in competition. In this industry, there is a significant cost in swithcing providers. You can't switch providers on a whim; you have to replace equipment, repoint dishes, etc. The providers know this, and rely on it to keep their customers inline while they slowly screw them out of more money. Small slow increments, slow enough for the other providers to play "catch-up" and raise their rates as well. As long as the cost of each price hike is less than the pain of swithcing, customer will stay on, grumble, and pay it.


----------



## BobaBird

Cholly said:


> I just stumbled on this thread, and decided to add my own $5.98 worth.


You're obviously doing this "just because you can."  I'll address a few of your points and lead that to further discussion :hair: of some previous points that have been made frequently and sometimes not so civilly.



> * Dish has the right to charge the fee, so they do. Just as an auto repair shop has the right to charge $70 per hour for service (labor).


The right to charge is not the same as the right to set a price. The repair shop provides a mechanic and use of a repair bay, hoist and tools. What equivalent labor and/or use of infrastructure is involved in the use of a Dish DVR? That question was asked early in the thread and has yet to be answered.


> * Now that I'm on cable instead of Dish, I have an HD DVR. Time Warner charges me a fee for it. ...
> * I don't own ANY of the boxes, and cannot.


Lease fees are different from usage fees. Whether the Dish DVR is owned or leased has no bearing on the DVR fee.


> * I do own a Series 2 Tivo DVR. I had the choice of paying $12.95 a month for the privilege of using it, or $299 for the lifetime of the unit ... .


The lifetime option may be a gamble but it's also a great advantage for the owner who expects the device and the company to be around past the break-even point. Dish's fee is sometimes rationalized as subsidizing lower up-front costs but with no lump-sum option that "subsidy" never ends. The fee for a SA TiVo is not just for the privilege. While the fee may be presented as being for DVR it is actually a subscription to the guide and to cover the cost of the phone calls needed for the DVR to retrieve it. I suppose TiVo's misidentification of the service they offer could be the root cause of so many people believing Dish's fee is acceptable.

Public perception: TiVo=DVR, TiVo=fee, therefore DVR=fee.
DISH: "We have a DVR. We're better because we have no fee. Look at how many people think they're paying TiVo for DVR or would but already have Dish. Our DVRs from the 510 on will also have a fee."

The other is the repeated use of the near-oxymoron phrase "DVR service." Honest people are willing to pay for services performed for them. Dish claims the right to call anything a "service" but their DVRs require no additional "Work done for others ..." (dictionary.com). I just debated this point with a friend who mistakenly asked what I am typing. He is of the opinion that "if it works it must be a service and Dish can charge whatever they want." He couldn't accept that a service requires external effort or infrastructure but also couldn't come up with an example of a fee for nothing. His best point was that the fee could be considered to be for on-going support and development (he doesn't realize that continuing R&D after release is Dish SOP also for non-DVRs). I say that is built into the higher price or longer commitment. Neither of us came away convinced.


> There are pro's and con's to every service. You get what you pay for.


The first part is certainly true, the second is also but is being debated because it appears we're getting nothing. Some of us are jumping up and down about it while others call us "whiners," say "just switch" or ridicule anyone who dares question what Dish puts on a bill. Between those with the latter attitude, and those like myself who pay (even if under protest), I don't see the market making the correction. It may take something like a cease and desist order from a state AG. If that should happen to lead to "more honest pricing" is that such a bad thing? I pay my share but since this is "only TV" I feel no need or social obligation to pay others' share too.

I will not be switching providers because Dish is still the best choice for me.


larrystotler said:


> Technically, since the DVRs are able to see the 9 day guide instead of just the 2 day guide, ... The service/software you are paying for is basically the guide more than anything else.


This is certainly true though in the days of the 501/508 the lack of a fee was a selling point used by Dish. Now that they have become "the other guys" they charge more (for 2+ DVRs, violation of RCA Pt F) but provide less (DirecTiVo EPG adds more detail, not just more days). As others have stated this is likely based more on what the market will bear (because they can) than on their actual expenses.


----------



## derwin0

> What equivalent labor and/or use of infrastructure is involved in the use of a Dish DVR? That question was asked early in the thread and has yet to be answered.


And was answered. As I said before, the extra labor and/or infrastructure is the building and maintaining of the 9-day guide at 110.


----------



## cdru

socceteer said:


> I hear you, and I agree that we want and should have free market until they become a monopoly and at that time the government needs to step in and control abuse. That is how our democrazy works (cable and Satellite are getting close to becoming a monopoly)


Monopolies aren't illegal. Using a monopoly in an anticompetitive behavior to squash competition is. Charging a fee for a DVR isn't an abuse because there are alternatives. It just so happens that those alternatives also charge a fee for a DVR in some form or another.



HDMe said:


> Think about it... IF they keep introducing new technology, and they have a bunch of old receivers in stock... suddenly people want the new receivers and not the old ones... and there are supply problems with the new ones and they have to turn people away, meanwhile they lose more money on the old ones sitting in the warehouse.


Since all the fee-less receivers are SD and the new technology is HD, it's a moot point. By the time that SD programming is switched over to MPEG4, if ever, the electronic life of a 50x/721/DishPlayer DVR will long have been outlived.



unr1 said:


> Well, then you're not very foresighted.
> 
> If you think people are going to put up with DVR fees for years to come, you've underestimated the public.


Please, the public as a whole is unintelligent and will gladly take it up the *censored*. A $5 no one cares about. Look at all the people that for years payed for a CATV converter that they didn't need. I remember seeing my parents cable bill when I was young and seeing a charge on there for something like $.54 for a remote rental. Sure everyone wants to pay less for everything, but most people will complain to themselves as they quickly write out the check at the end of the month for service.


----------



## AllieVi

the_bear said:


> Am I the only one that believes prices should be determined by supply and demand?


No, you're not. Since virtually everyone has at least two choices (DISH and DirecTV) and most have a third (cable), competition is alive and well. If it made financial sense to do so, one of the satellite companies would reduce/eliminate the fee and siphon customers from the other. The fact that it hasn't happened tells me that the time is not yet right. Maybe it will happen in the future based on supply and demand. We'll have to wait and see...


----------



## garypen

zmark said:


> In this industry, there is a significant cost in swithcing providers. You can't switch providers on a whim; you have to replace equipment, repoint dishes, etc.


Actually, it's a piece of cake to switch. The providers use a perception that it is difficult. But, it is actually no problem at all.

The cable guy comes and hooks up your new service. Voila. Or, you order DirecTV directly from D* or a retailer, and they install it. Voila.

In the case of cable, there is zero upfront cost, including HD DVR. In the case of D* it is zero or little cost for most systems including dual-tuner DVR's, with additional cost for HD.

I encourage people to switch if they are unhappy with the products or services of one provider. Just don't cancel your current provider until you know you are happay with the new one. Sometimes the grass is not greener. In my case, though, it was not only greener, but thicker, and smelled better too.


----------



## garypen

AllieVi said:


> No, you're not. Since virtually everyone has at least two choices (DISH and DirecTV) and most have a third (cable), competition is alive and well. If it made financial sense to do so, one of the satellite companies would reduce/eliminate the fee and siphon customers from the other. The fact that it hasn't happened tells me that the time is not yet right. Maybe it will happen in the future based on supply and demand. We'll have to wait and see...


D* already has a lower priced DVR fee by only charging per household vs. Dish's per-receiver fee. D* is not taking advantage of a huge marketing opportunity here by not advertising this fact. (They are also not taking advantage of the FCC rules that allow them to offer Superstations. Many people stay with E* for that alone!)


----------



## zmark

garypen said:


> Actually, it's a piece of cake to switch. The providers use a perception that it is difficult. But, it is actually no problem at all.
> 
> The cable guy comes and hooks up your new service. Voila. Or, you order DirecTV directly from D* or a retailer, and they install it. Voila.


That should read.

"The cable guy shows up whever he feels like it or calls to cancel, forcing me to take another day off of work. Satellite installers are no better. And when he finally does show up, he'll do a half-assed job that I'll have to fix later on."

That's the perception I get not from the providers, but from reading this forum.


----------



## garypen

zmark said:


> That should read.
> 
> words words blah blah.


No. It should read the way I wrote it, as that is what happened. That was the whole point of the post comparing perception to reality.


----------



## garypen

Evil Capserian said:


> Ok this thread has outlived its usefulness, time to close please.


Quite frankly, the mods here have been way too quick closing threads arouind here lately, especially the newer ones. It's like they're enjoying this newly acquired power and strength over others, even if it's only in this quark-sized world, while they remain feeble and weak in the real world.

What diff does it make how long a thread goes? What harm does it do? If people are still posting, it means it is of some interest to somebody. If people don't wanna read it, don't click on it and don't sub to it. Simple.


----------



## Ron Barry

garypen said:


> Quite frankly, the mods here have been way too quick closing threads arouind here lately, especially the newer ones. It's like they're enjoying this newly acquired power and strength over others, even if it's only in this quark-sized world, while they remain feeble and weak in the real world.
> 
> What diff does it make how long a thread goes? What harm does it do? If people are still posting, it means it is of some interest to somebody. If people don't wanna read it, don't click on it and don't sub to it. Simple.


Newer Mods or Newer Threads? If you mean newer mods this would refer to me, and guess what.. I have personally closed less then 5 threads since I have been here if I recall. If you are referring to new threads, well yes we have been more aggressive in reacting to the increased level of insluting bashing posts with no other purpose contained in them.

I know you are not a big fan of moderation and that personal insults and sarcastics digs should be cool in this quark-sized world, but other people find them insulting and offensive and would rather not have to deal with them. By the way, in the real world a lot of people don't appreciate it either. Contrary to what some may believe, this is not a play ground to launch personal insluts, and vandictive sarcasim as a form of enjoyment. As to answer your question in relation to me personaly(Can't speak for other mods): No this is not some power trip I am, just trying to enforce the rules stated in the link above.

As to the personal sarcastic comment directed towards the mods, You don't know how we remain in our personal lives as I don't yours, so making a statement like that has no basis in fact and is just some feeble attempt at an insult.

As to closing the thread. I will take a read and see if it warrents it.

.... Took a look .... I don't see any reason to close it.....


----------



## AllieVi

garypen said:


> D* already has a lower priced DVR fee by only charging per household vs. Dish's per-receiver fee. D* is not taking advantage of a huge marketing opportunity here by not advertising this fact. (They are also not taking advantage of the FCC rules that allow them to offer Superstations. Many people stay with E* for that alone!)


Good point.

People choose a provider based on more than just the DVR fee. It's the entire package - beauty marks, warts and all. The same is true of everything we buy. "Car A" has a bigger engine, but "Car B" handles better and "Car C" gets better mileage. Decisions, decisions.

If/when DISH perceives the current cost structure is not in their best interests, they'll make a change.


----------



## welchwarlock

The DVR service is provided by having a Hard Disk in the unit, which I purchased (Including the software to talk to it). Charging a fee for the DVR "Service" should be illegal. The Unit can operate without receiving data from Dish Network; i.e. they do not provide any Service that deals with the DVR. I should be able to charge Dish for storing data on my hard drive...a "Purchase History Storage Fee".

This fee is simply as ridiculus as if the phone company started charging you an "Answering Machine / Voice Mail Fee", for the answering machine / Voice Mail unit that you purchased and hooked up to the phone line.

But since dish is charging me a Fee to use the equipment that I own, what happens when the Hard Drive dies? I suspect that Dish will have to repair it out of their pocket, since they have been charging me to use my own Hard Disk for all this time.

In fact, it would make everyone happier if they would simply call it a "Hard Disk Insurance" fee, and like driving a car, you have to buy the insurance whether you want it or not....

Any Rumors on when they will start charging the $5 remote control usage fee? If you don't pay the fee, you have to operate the unit from the buttons provided...


Food for Thought,
WW


----------



## Stewart Vernon

welchwarlock said:


> The DVR service is provided by having a Hard Disk in the unit, which I purchased (Including the software to talk to it). Charging a fee for the DVR "Service" should be illegal.


I don't like all the fees... even the fees that I fortunately am not currently paying, but might have to pay in the future if I upgrade receivers.

BUT... as far as I can tell they are not illegal... AND I would say that they should NOT be illegal.

People in the US (and I am in the US, born and raised) like to say "let me run my life and make my own choices"... but then like to pass laws that prevent other people from doing things that we don't like them doing. So which is it?

I don't like the fees... but there are lots of things I don't like... and if everything I didn't like was illegal there would be a lot of crazy laws on the books, moreso than there already are!

Hey... what about worrying about the murderers and rapists before encouraging folks to pass a law about PVR fees. Seriously... there are far worse offenses going on in this country and the world that deserve way more conversation than this particular topic.

I don't like fees... but they aren't illegal. TV isn't a requirement, and if I didn't want to pay the fees, I could choose not to watch or switch providers. Some fees I might be willing to protest or sign a petition against... but laws? No way. It isn't *that* important.


----------



## garypen

Ron Barry said:


> I have personally closed less then 5 threads since I have been here if I recall.


That's actually quiyt a lot for one mod in such a short time. 


Ron Barry said:


> As to the personal sarcastic comment directed towards the mods, You don't know how we remain in our personal lives as I don't yours, so making a statement like that has no basis in fact and is just some feeble attempt at an insult.


Actually, the most sarcastic poster here, and the one who gets the most personal iin his insulting comments, is a mod. I don't wanna name names, of course. Let's just refer to him as "Nick Doe".


----------



## BobaBird

HDMe said:


> ... but then like to pass laws that prevent other people from doing things that we don't like them doing.


Some laws are just that (no victim other than the uppity offendee who sponsored it), but the type that would apply here is one preventing others from doing things _to us_. But I agree that no law is desirable or even necessary. What's going on should fall under existing consumer protections. We just need to get someone to examine the issue close enough to smell the shinola. That's going to take some education given how the acceptance of TiVo's legitimate charge for the service elements of their offering has morphed into acceptance of DVR fees for features without service.

The related issue of multiple DVR fees is more clear-cut and even in Dish's own words. Summarizing that portion of my earlier post: the Residential Customer Agreement Part F says, "Each additional receiver would be authorized to receive the same Services as your initial receiver." I say DVR is not a service but Dish says it is so it should be covered by the Addl Rcvr fee. I only pay 1 DVR fee so I can't protest the RCA violation myself. Has anyone else?


----------



## welchwarlock

HDMe said:


> I don't like fees... but they aren't illegal. TV isn't a requirement, and if I didn't want to pay the fees, I could choose not to watch or switch providers. Some fees I might be willing to protest or sign a petition against... but laws? No way. It isn't *that* important.


Perhaps it is. What they are doing is called a PROPERTY TAX. Only the government should be allowed to impose PROPERTY TAXES. They are acting like a taxing authority.....if your HDD is less than a certain size, no TAX applies...if it is larger than a certian size you have to pay the TAX. It should be illegal.

WW


----------



## KingLoop

welchwarlock said:


> The DVR service is provided by having a Hard Disk in the unit, which I purchased...
> 
> But since dish is charging me a Fee to use the equipment that I own...


Well, while you may have "purchased" your DVR, Dish Network subsidized that purchase with their own money. Buy a SA DVR somewhere else that is comperable and how much does it cost. (Include the fee for TiVo models, which cost $96 more a year for the same "service" you can get from E*) Dish subsidized the purchase of your DVR and accordingly charges you a DVR fee to use it. It is their choice whatever the reason. It is your choice to buy a differant DVR from someone else or subscribe to a differant service. If you hate it so much make a differant choice rather than complaining about the choices you make.


----------



## tsmacro

I can't believe all the whining going on in this thread about a $4.98 charge. Personally I feel there's probably nothing that I can spend that kind of money on that I get so much use and enjoyment out of.


----------



## Ron Barry

tsmacro.. I don't think it is so much the $4.98 as much as the per receiver cost. If you have 3 DVRs in your household that would be 15 dollars additional per month. That is rather step. I personally don't mind the 4.98 per month. I do mind it per receiver. Ofcourse there are people that feel any fee is wrong.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

welchwarlock said:


> Perhaps it is. What they are doing is called a PROPERTY TAX. Only the government should be allowed to impose PROPERTY TAXES. They are acting like a taxing authority.....if your HDD is less than a certain size, no TAX applies...if it is larger than a certian size you have to pay the TAX. It should be illegal.
> 
> WW


I don't see how it equates as a tax either. Don't misunderstand me though, so I'll keep saying it... I don't like several of the fees... but from a business side of things, if they want to charge it and enough people are ok paying it... then it is a business winning decision for them and a no-brainer.

How come my local Target superstore sells Del Monte canned vegetables for 62 cents per can, but the Food Lion a couple of blocks down the street sells the same cans for almost a dollar? It should be illegal to sell the exact same product for a different price, no?

Satellite TV is a luxury, and as such I don't believe it ever should be regulated like say our electricity and phone have been.

Businesses can charge whatever they want, and we can pay what we feel they are worth... and if those happen to match then we have a deal.

Dish in this case isn't sneaking a fee past you after you sign a contract. These are fees that are up front when you make a commitment or buy a receiver from them... so they aren't changing the rules for you after the fact. Dish usually grandfathers old plans/receivers so IF you weren't paying a fee when they started having them, then you don't pay one now. This is really why we have some older receivers without DVR fees... they are playing by their rules and not sneaking a fee into an existing customer who already has a non-fee-DVR.

I don't like the fees... but there's nothing illegal about them.

The Dish receiver is worthless without service provided by the Dish satellites in orbit... so to say simply that the hard drive in the receiver functions without any service is misleading. True a 501 and a 522 really are mostly the same receiver except for the dual-receiver and larger hard drive of the 522... but Dish decided they wanted to start charging more for their DVRs per month and didn't penalize older customers by suddenly introducing a fee on their existing receivers.

Seems like Dish did the fairest thing they could. When they started the fees, it was only on the new receivers... so you could get an older non-fee one with less features and less storage... or a newer one with a fee.

Lots of things in life cost more to operate than they did to purchase... I have to buy stuff for my car all the time... did the GM dealer rip me off by not telling me gas prices would go up? I buy batteries for all sorts of things... and electricity to plug other things in at my house... it goes on and on.


----------



## garypen

KingLoop said:


> Well, while you may have "purchased" your DVR, Dish Network subsidized that purchase with their own money. Buy a SA DVR somewhere else that is comperable and how much does it cost. (Include the fee for TiVo models, which cost $96 more a year for the same "service" you can get from E*) Dish subsidized the purchase of your DVR and accordingly charges you a DVR fee to use it. It is their choice whatever the reason. It is your choice to buy a differant DVR from someone else or subscribe to a differant service. If you hate it so much make a differant choice rather than complaining about the choices you make.


Actually, the 2-tuner DirecTivo costsway less to purchase than even a single-tuner Dish DVR. And, DirecTV only charges one DVR fee per account. That makes their Tivo much cheaper than Dish's for both upfront AND monthly cost. Plus, they've got that whole "works properly" thing, which matters to some people.


----------



## BobaBird

KingLoop said:


> (Include the fee for TiVo models, which cost $96 more a year for the same "service" you can get from E*)


Not true, as I explained in my response to Cholly (post #93).


> Dish subsidized the purchase of your DVR and accordingly charges you a DVR fee to use it.


Dish can set whatever price/commitment requirement they wish. If it's "too low" that's not my fault. My only say is to accept or decline. If their goal is on-going added income, they should make the DVRs lease-only. Not purchase and a disguised lease fee - one or the other. At least offer a lump-sum option. I'm willing to pay what's fair if I know when it will end.


HDMe said:


> The Dish receiver is worthless without service provided by the Dish satellites in orbit... so to say simply that the hard drive in the receiver functions without any service is misleading.


We're all paying for programming without which any Dish receiver is worthless, hard drive or not. That programming includes an electronic guide which happens to make it easier to create a timer and allows receivers with NBR to do automatic searches. Dish extended the guide to 9 days and proudly proclaimed there was no charge for it (until the 510). What other service are you referring to? If the longer guide itself is the service, it _might_ be worth $5 if it was more detailed like the one for DirecTiVos, also, is it waived for those in Hawaii who can't see 110?


> but Dish decided they wanted to start charging more for their DVRs per month and didn't penalize older customers by suddenly introducing a fee on their existing receivers.


Gotta give them credit for the second part of that statement.


----------



## derwin0

> And, DirecTV only charges one DVR fee per account.


then the csolution is simple, if the fee per DVR reciever is so bad, switch to directv


----------



## garypen

derwin0 said:


> then the csolution is simple, if the fee per DVR reciever is so bad, switch to directv


Bingo! That's the only thing that will cause change. When people leave because of this fee, or any of pile of legitimate reasons, maybe Dish will take notice, and get their sh** together.

Personally, I switched to Comcast for now. It made more sense than D* at this time. But, once D* & E* get their new bandwidth fully functional, withe the combo of new TP's and MPEG4, I will make a decision on whther to switch again. The decision will be all the more difficult, because my local Comcast will have more bandwidth by then, as well, plus all the channels will be digital.

Decisions...decisions.


----------



## tsmacro

Ron Barry said:


> tsmacro.. I don't think it is so much the $4.98 as much as the per receiver cost. If you have 3 DVRs in your household that would be 15 dollars additional per month. That is rather step. I personally don't mind the 4.98 per month. I do mind it per receiver. Ofcourse there are people that feel any fee is wrong.


I can understand that, for that reason I would never have 3 Dish DVR's, or probably even two for that matter. The funny thing about that is that I know people who switched to Dish from Direct because of their additional receiver charge for every TV so you'd think Dish would be more sensitive to such things. But I still feel this an economic issue and not a legal, ethical or moral issue.


----------



## KingLoop

KingLoop said:


> (Include the fee for TiVo models, which cost $96 more a year for the same "service" you can get from E*)





BobaBird said:


> Not true, as I explained in my response to Cholly (post #93).
> 
> 
> 
> BobaBird said:
> 
> 
> 
> The lifetime option may be a gamble but it's also a great advantage for the owner who expects the device and the company to be around past the break-even point. Dish's fee is sometimes rationalized as subsidizing lower up-front costs but with no lump-sum option that "subsidy" never ends. The fee for a SA TiVo is not just for the privilege. While the fee may be presented as being for DVR it is actually a subscription to the guide and to cover the cost of the phone calls needed for the DVR to retrieve it. I suppose TiVo's misidentification of the service they offer could be the root cause of so many people believing Dish's fee is acceptable.
Click to expand...

The challenge is that (to my knowledge) TiVo doesn't make a SA Dual Tuner. You can of course get one if you are a DTV customer but then you'd still have to fork out at least $50 more for your second set to get the DVR functionality on it. No company makes a tuner that is comperable to the 522, 625, or 942. They just aren't out there. Not with similar functionality as dual mode. If you want Dish Network programming and you want to record something other than what you are watching, you need a 522/625 or a 721. There are no other practical options. If you want cable or DTV, of course you have options.


----------



## WhiteForMe

I have one 522 DVR on my account(that I own), The bill has a line that says "DVR fee $ 0.00" They were trying to sneak in some "Program Acces Fee" for 4.99. I had to call about that one, said it was for a phone line. They had told me before I didnt need the phone line with AEP, So they credited my account for that fee, and took it off. 
So what gets you the DVR fee ? 
As soon as I see my bill DVR fee change from 0.00 to 5 bucks, is the day I call and de-sub it.


----------



## Ron Barry

Since you have AEP you don't get charge a DVR fee. Drop AEP and you will see a DVR fee.


----------



## WhiteForMe

Well thanks for that info RB. I was wondering what all the talk was about! My sat bill is next highest to my house payment  So it's nice to know that dvr fee wont be sneaking in there.


----------



## BobaBird

KingLoop said:


> The challenge is that (to my knowledge) TiVo doesn't make a SA Dual Tuner. You can of course get one if you are a DTV customer but then you'd still have to fork out at least $50 more for your second set to get the DVR functionality on it.


I believe you're correct about no SA dual-tuner TiVo and, of course, about the usefulness of the Dish dual output receivers. I'm not familiar with the $50 you refer to but it makes sense that more functions = higher price.

My main point was that the argument or perception that "TiVo has a fee so it's OK for Dish to have one too" is not valid because Dish does not provide the service that TiVo does (some would add that TiVo works better but that's also not a reason for a fee).
SA TiVo requires a guide subscription for the NBR features to work and is charged per DVR because each has to phone in
The DirecTiVo guide has more program detail in addition to being longer than the standard D* guide. They are selling a different product, not just giving a bit more of the same. This increases the chance of success with NBR and manual searches when looking for favorite actors and directors. DirecTiVo gets the guide from the satellite; no phone call is required so the fee is reduced and is charged per account. (There may still be phone calls to report ratings but those are much shorter w/o the guide d/l.)


----------



## KingLoop

BobaBird said:


> I'm not familiar with the $50 you refer...
> 
> My main point was that the argument or perception that "TiVo has a fee so it's OK for Dish to have one too" is not valid because Dish does not provide the service that TiVo does (some would add that TiVo works better but that's also not a reason for a fee).


The $50 I was talking about was the purchase of a 2nd TiVo...

I agree that the DVR fee kind of sucks, and I also agree that it seems people in general like the TiVo better than any other DVR.

My point was that if you want the functionality of the 522/625 or 942, and you want E* programming you have no choice but to pay the fee. The closest you could get with SD receivers would be say (2) 311s and (2) SA TiVos on the same TV. Even if you paid the lifetime fee You'd still be out $5/mth for the additional outlet. Plus you'd be out of pocket for the TiVos. (Me, I like E*s guide better than D*s.)


----------



## Evil Capserian

Oh gosh, this thread is going on too long. Hey mods. time to close.


----------



## welchwarlock

HDMe said:


> Dish in this case isn't sneaking a fee past you after you sign a contract. These are fees that are up front when you make a commitment or buy a receiver from them... so they aren't changing the rules for you after the fact. Dish usually grandfathers old plans/receivers so IF you weren't paying a fee when they started having them, then you don't pay one now. This is really why we have some older receivers without DVR fees... they are playing by their rules and not sneaking a fee into an existing customer who already has a non-fee-DVR.


Sure they are. Purchased my 921 at Frys (Also available at CostCo) has a JVC label on it. Get it home, plug it in, call them up to switch out my active receiver ID's, now I have to pay more per month.

Again, can you imagine, you go buy a new cell phone that has built in voice mail (The phone stores the messages internally like an answering machine), then the phone company ups your rate because the cell phone has a new capability that does not actually use any resources from the cell phone company; it was inherit in the phone. It should be illegal.

WW


----------



## Stewart Vernon

welchwarlock said:


> Sure they are. Purchased my 921 at Frys (Also available at CostCo) has a JVC label on it. Get it home, plug it in, call them up to switch out my active receiver ID's, now I have to pay more per month.


So, you're saying that you called Dish to activate a receiver you purchased elsewhere... but didn't bother to read the terms and conditions for activating that receiver first?

But on a different matter... Why are you paying more for a 921? I wasn't aware that the 921 had any fees different from say an 811 as a secondary receiver.


----------



## the_bear

welchwarlock said:


> Sure they are. Purchased my 921 at Frys (Also available at CostCo) has a JVC label on it. Get it home, plug it in, call them up to switch out my active receiver ID's, now I have to pay more per month.


You have not proved that Dish made a "deliberate attempt to deceive."


----------



## Stewart Vernon

welchwarlock said:


> Again, can you imagine, you go buy a new cell phone that has built in voice mail (The phone stores the messages internally like an answering machine), then the phone company ups your rate because the cell phone has a new capability that does not actually use any resources from the cell phone company; it was inherit in the phone. It should be illegal.WW


I forgot earlier to reply to the second part of your post... I'll grant you that I wouldn't like paying a fee that seemed to me like it was pure profit because the phone (hypothetical in your example) would have the features anyway...

But, businesses are in business (key word) to make money... If a business only charged exactly as much as their expenses were... then they would be a non-profit organization!

So, technically, all businesses that are making a profit are charging more than they have to... so they can make a profit... so by your definition, all profitable companies should be illegal.

That doesn't make any sense does it? Again, I say that if everything I didn't like was illegal, there would be a lot of crazy laws. How come some weeks I go to Target and Pepsi is $2.50 for a 12-pack of cans and other times it is $4.69 for the same 12-pack? I think it should be illegal to keep changing the price when it costs Pepsi the same amount to make it each month.

I think it should be illegal to be illegal. We should make a law that says it is illegal to break the law.

But seriously... I am tempted to think it should be illegal to think it should be illegal when it shouldn't.


----------



## welchwarlock

HDMe said:


> I forgot earlier to reply to the second part of your post... I'll grant you that I wouldn't like paying a fee that seemed to me like it was pure profit because the phone (hypothetical in your example) would have the features anyway...
> 
> But, businesses are in business (key word) to make money... If a business only charged exactly as much as their expenses were... then they would be a non-profit organization!
> 
> So, technically, all businesses that are making a profit are charging more than they have to... so they can make a profit... so by your definition, all profitable companies should be illegal.
> 
> That doesn't make any sense does it? Again, I say that if everything I didn't like was illegal, there would be a lot of crazy laws. How come some weeks I go to Target and Pepsi is $2.50 for a 12-pack of cans and other times it is $4.69 for the same 12-pack? I think it should be illegal to keep changing the price when it costs Pepsi the same amount to make it each month.
> 
> I think it should be illegal to be illegal. We should make a law that says it is illegal to break the law.
> 
> But seriously... I am tempted to think it should be illegal to think it should be illegal when it shouldn't.


Business is Business...Granted.....But
1) Charging me a fee because my receiver has a UHF remote should be illegal...I paid more to get the UHF remote.
2) Charging me a fee because my receiver has a bigger HD than the other receiver should be illegal...I paid more to get the bigger HD.
3) Charging me a fee because I bought a VCR and are recording the shows for later viewing should be illegal... I paid for the VCR.

Give me some Value for the Fee. Do something for me. Earn the Fee. Not only do I have to pay a fee for the DVR I have to pay a fee for the GUIDE DATA! If you don't subscribe to the local channels, you don't get the guide data for the OTA channels, which, by the way technically is ILLEGAL. Local channel guide data is broadcast over the air, and is free to any equipment capable of using it. Dish Network has proven with the L214 release of software that they can deliver the guide data to the customer. The FCC has regulations indicate that it is ILLEGAL to charge for it, as it is being sent in the clear. The lawsuit is probably in the works right now.

Back to the DVR...They waive the fee if you by the "Everything" package, so any arguments on their end about the fee being anything other than a profit center is bogus.

Their commercials about cable companies being Pigs is so hypocritical. They are the Pigs... DVR Fee, Local Channel Fee, Second Receiver Fee, Multi Tuner Fee (hook up 2 942 receivers, pay additional fees on second unit), Not Hooked up to the Phone Jack Fee, etc, etc...

You don't have to buy the Pepsi that week....If I downgrade my Dish Network Service for a week guess what.... You get a Frapping DOWNGRADE of service Fee!!!!

WW


----------



## welchwarlock

the_bear said:


> You have not proved that Dish made a "deliberate attempt to deceive."


Checking the 921 Manual: Appendix Starting on Page 130...
Section A: Definition of Service.
Section B: Programming Changes: "A fee may apply"
Section C: Programming availability
Section D: Pay-Per-View.. "Fees will apply"
Section E: Private Viewing
Section F: Additional Receivers "fee will apply"
Section G: Changes in Service
Section H: Multi Month Subscriptions
Section I: Fees for receivers that Independly support Multiple Televisions

In Section 2, Paragraph F, a disclosure of all Fees:
Smart Card Replacement $50
Additional Outlet Programm Fee, Per Receiver $4.99
Late Payment $5
Change of Service Fee $5
Duplicate Billing Statement Fee $2
Overnight Delivery Fee $18
Restart Fee $25
Returned Payment Fee $25
Service Access Fee $5 (What is this?)
Offset Fee $2 (What the hell is this?)
Ledger Request Fee $5
Pay-Per-View Automated Fee $1
Pay-Per-View Fee $5

NO DVR FEE IS LISTED IN THE SERVICE AGREEMENT!!!!

WW


----------



## welchwarlock

HDMe said:


> So, you're saying that you called Dish to activate a receiver you purchased elsewhere... but didn't bother to read the terms and conditions for activating that receiver first?
> 
> But on a different matter... Why are you paying more for a 921? I wasn't aware that the 921 had any fees different from say an 811 as a secondary receiver.


Check my previous post...No DVR Fee is listed in the service agreement. Your appology is humbly accepted. 

A 921 has a Hard Disk Drive....DVR Fee...Plus the Local Chanel Guide Fee, which you don't have to pay on the 821! So you pay $10 a month more for a 921 than an 811!

WW


----------



## Ron Barry

welchwarlock said:


> Give me some Value for the Fee. Do something for me. Earn the Fee. Not only do I have to pay a fee for the DVR I have to pay a fee for the GUIDE DATA! If you don't subscribe to the local channels, you don't get the guide data for the OTA channels, which, by the way technically is ILLEGAL. Local channel guide data is broadcast over the air, and is free to any equipment capable of using it. Dish Network has proven with the L214 release of software that they can deliver the guide data to the customer. The FCC has regulations indicate that it is ILLEGAL to charge for it, as it is being sent in the clear. The lawsuit is probably in the works right now.
> WW


Just for the record. Dish's guide data is not the same as the guide data transmitted OTA. Dish is not just rebroadcasting what is in the OTA PSIP stream. Not sure if that point holds water.

As to the fees.. I would agree that some are excessive and personally would like to see no fee for just local guide data. I think Dish needs to personally rethink this business decision.

As to quoting from the manual to support your assertion in regards to fees, manuals by nature tend to be dated and usually are finalized well before a product is released. I am suprised the fees are even printed in the manual. And manuals can have bugs too.


----------



## BobaBird

To those who say Dish can charge anything they want: please PM me your name and billing address. I'll send you a monthly statement. For what? Don't worry, it'll sound plausible. Still think I'm just trying to pull the wool over your eyes? I'll get a business license since that seems to be irrefutable proof of legitimacy.

Seriously, I don't think anyone has suggested Dish shouldn't make a profit. We understand how capitalism works but we also recognize hucksterism.

PSIP is OT for this thread, but as I understand it, the FCC intends for all DTV receivers to be able to display at least the limited guide data included in DTV broadcasts. For the 811 Dish has opted to provide their own more-detailed guide but the 921 and 942 get *nothing* unless the subscriber adds LIL.

WW, the service access fee is assessed for not having an AT, DL, or GW package.

Ron, Dish has known since the 510 that all future DVRs would have the fee. Surely the manual for the 921 was not printed before there was even an announcement that it was being developed.


----------



## KingLoop

welchwarlock said:


> Give me some Value for the Fee...


Dish says if you want to activate a 510, 522, 625, 921, or 942 to your account your bill will be charged and additional $5/mth. This is the fee involved in CHOOSING to subscribe to Dish Network programming. At the time you activate a receiver the dish CSR says your new programming rate will be $XX.XX. You agree. End of story. It's OK to not like something. It is still a choice. As I've said before...



> It is your choice to buy a differant DVR from someone else or subscribe to a differant service. If you hate it so much make a differant choice rather than complaining about the choices you make.


----------



## larrystotler

HDMe said:


> So, you're saying that you called Dish to activate a receiver you purchased elsewhere... but didn't bother to read the terms and conditions for activating that receiver first?
> 
> But on a different matter... Why are you paying more for a 921? I wasn't aware that the 921 had any fees different from say an 811 as a secondary receiver.


The 921 has the Video on Demand or DVR fee of $4.98/month unless you have the AEP. Also, if you lease an 811 or 942, you HAVE to have the HD pack in order to be able to keep the receiver.


----------



## larrystotler

welchwarlock said:


> A 921 has a Hard Disk Drive....DVR Fee...Plus the Local Chanel Guide Fee, which you don't have to pay on the 811! So you pay $10 a month more for a 921 than an 811!


Where are you getting $10? That is NOT the case. If you want the guide info, you have to subscribe to the locals on either unit. So, unless you have the AEP, the 921 is $4.98/month more.


----------



## larrystotler

HDMe said:


> That doesn't make any sense does it? Again, I say that if everything I didn't like was illegal, there would be a lot of crazy laws. How come some weeks I go to Target and Pepsi is $2.50 for a 12-pack of cans and other times it is $4.69 for the same 12-pack? I think it should be illegal to keep changing the price when it costs Pepsi the same amount to make it each month.


That's not true. Costs fluctuate for the manufacturer and they pass them along to the consumer. Why can I get a bag of chips for $0.99 at a mom and pop convience store, but have to pay $1.59 at 7-11? That's called capitalism. And who the hell ever said that life isn't fair? Cause it aint.


----------



## hdaddikt

HDMe said:


> How come some weeks I go to Target and Pepsi is $2.50 for a 12-pack of cans and other times it is $4.69 for the same 12-pack? I think it should be illegal to keep changing the price when it costs Pepsi the same amount to make it each month.
> 
> .


Or, just keeping buying it 7-11 for $4.99, at least the price does not keep changing.

Economics is so much more than the narrow perspective you are presenting. Supply and demand are basic. But beyond that, the price of oil does affect the price of other commodities too. As just one example.

This is also why women make good shoppers. Because they have the patience to shop everyday and monitor price changes. Often there is a pattern, one example is the freshness of bread is dictated by the color of the plastic clip on the end.

That's why if there is a woman in your life, let her deal with those things. We men will just sit back and read and write about techie things and cars, and when the Pep Boys, or Best Buy ad on Sunday has something we need at (finally) the right price, we just go down and get it. Easy in, easy out!

Dish may seem to have their own agenda, but it's largely dictated by THAT industry as whole, and trying to keep their Gorilla status. 
When all the providers get on a more even level prices should reflect more competition, which will benefit all of us.

Just thought I would lighten up this topic a bit...


----------



## garypen

larrystotler said:


> Where are you getting $10? That is NOT the case. If you want the guide info, you have to subscribe to the locals on either unit. So, unless you have the AEP, the 921 is $4.98/month more.


811 gives guide info for OTA channels _without_ subbing to Dish locals, doesn't it? The 921 does not. (Of course, the 811 does not get it's info via OTA PSIP, even though virtually all other brand of OTA HD receiver does. Apparently, Dish engineers can't decipher that bit of the DiVinci code.)


----------



## the_bear

welchwarlock said:


> NO DVR FEE IS LISTED IN THE SERVICE AGREEMENT!!!!


If Dish made an "honest error" in their fee disclosure, you should be able to get your money back on the 921. I still don't see the "deliberate attempt to deceive".

What is important is what was disclosed before you purchased the 921. I assume the box says something like, "Fees may apply"?


----------



## Ron Barry

BobaBird said:


> Ron, Dish has known since the 510 that all future DVRs would have the fee. Surely the manual for the 921 was not printed before there was even an announcement that it was being developed.


Hard to say.. Not sure of the timing of the decision and the development process. Like I said, I am very suprised the charges are listed in the manual and from my experience user manuals can contain inaccuracies and I don't believe that they would be considered legally bound documents.

If I recall, when I ordered my 921 I was told of the DVR fee upon purchase. I know that Warlock bought his at Costco, Question would be was the fee indicated upon activation.

I personaly think the user manual argument is weak and is not a smoking gun to indicate Dish's motivation to decieve. If this was the case, they would also neglete to mention the fee when I ordered my unit which they did not.

Here is my opinion on the title of the thread.
I personally think the DVR fee is a business decision and is not illegal. Is it wrong? Well I personally feel that Dish in this case has taken a step to far in terms of charging for services. I think a much more reasonable and justifiable approach is to charge one fee per account like DirecTV. Having said that, like others have stated most people have other options and can switch if they feel that passionately about it.


----------



## tsmacro

welchwarlock said:


> Business is Business...Granted.....But
> 1) Charging me a fee because my receiver has a UHF remote should be illegal...I paid more to get the UHF remote.
> 
> WHY?
> 
> 2) Charging me a fee because my receiver has a bigger HD than the other receiver should be illegal...I paid more to get the bigger HD.
> 
> WHY?
> 
> 3) Charging me a fee because I bought a VCR and are recording the shows for later viewing should be illegal... I paid for the VCR.
> 
> AND ONCE AGAIN, WHY?
> 
> Back to the DVR...They waive the fee if you by the "Everything" package, so any arguments on their end about the fee being anything other than a profit center is bogus.
> 
> AND SO WHAT IF IT IS?
> 
> I understand you don't like the way that Dish has decided to charge for their services, but just because you don't care for it doesn't mean it should be illegal. And thank goodness for that because from reading your posts it seems that if that were the case all companies would have to price their services one way that makes you happy, which sounds more like communism to me. Once again the market will decide whether Dish continues to price their services the way they currently do. And do I ever hope that's the way it stays because the last thing we need in this country is more ridiculous laws that take resources away from law enforcement and distracting them from actual important matters such as our safety.


----------



## Michael P

larrystotler said:


> Where are you getting $10? That is NOT the case. If you want the guide info, you have to subscribe to the locals on either unit. So, unless you have the AEP, the 921 is $4.98/month more.


OTA guide data is *FREE* on the 811. You do *not* have to subscribe to LIL's in order to get the OTA guide data.

To get guide data on a 921 or 942 you have to subscribe to LIL's @$5.99, add the $4.98 DVR fee and that is where you get the $10 (rounded figure). It's actually closer to $11.

Can you say rip-off?


----------



## Stewart Vernon

Multiple topic reply...

In regards to fees on the 921... I had completely forgotten about the $5 DVR fee for certain programming packages, so I wasn't thinking about that. But the "local channel guide fee" is a misnomer. When you pay the fee to get local channels, you also get the guide info. Why has Dish programmed the units to provide the guide info only when you get locals? I dunno... but it isn't a guide fee... it is a local channels fee. One could argue the other side that 811 folks are getting a bonus of free guide info rather than the other way around. Depends on perspective.

As for the "why do chips and pepsi cost more elsewhere"... all the responses I saw actually proved my point. That being... this is a capitalistic and supposedly free market... supply and demand rule the day, or should anyway... and if a company wants to charge a fee they can... and if you don't want to pay it, you can go elsewhere.

My local grocery stores, for instance, all have those "special customer" discount cards... you sign up so they can track your purchases, and they give you a discount on items. I don't sign up for those cards, so I am willingly paying more because I don't want to sign up.

About manual errors... Something to keep in mind, and I know from where I speak on this one... the entire company might know they are adding a specific DVR fee, but if they don't tell the guy (or lady) who writes the manuals... then it won't be in there. All too often folks in "the know" don't share that knowledge... for instance the CSRs that are so often left in limbo about current offers... I am surprised manuals are anywhere near accurate.


----------



## Jason Nipp

Michael P said:


> OTA guide data is *FREE* on the 811. You do *not* have to subscribe to LIL's in order to get the OTA guide data.
> 
> To get guide data on a 921 or 942 you have to subscribe to LIL's @$5.99, add the $4.98 DVR fee and that is where you get the $10 (rounded figure). It's actually closer to $11.
> 
> Can you say rip-off?


Yes this is correct, 811 users are getting it free. On the other hand those of us with locals on a Wing would need to have that location setup to get the data. So those of us on a 105 or 121 Superdish don't have much choice as the majority of the people who have a Super are either LIL or Internationals subscribers. So Yes in a matter of speaking I pay for LIL off 121, so I can have the guide data. And I do realize not everyone falls into this criteria and I also realize some people actually went out and paid a couple hundred for a superdish so they wouldn't have a commitment. And yes I realize I could now drop locals and get my data free, but when it comes down to it now I would loose integrated locals for the rest of my SD receivers. So it's a catch 22.


----------



## welchwarlock

larrystotler said:


> Where are you getting $10? That is NOT the case. If you want the guide info, you have to subscribe to the locals on either unit. So, unless you have the AEP, the 921 is $4.98/month more.


$5 DVR Fee
$5 LIL Fee so I can get guide data on the 921. My 821 gets guide data for free.

WW


----------



## tampa8

Question on MPEG-4- hope this doesn't get buried in all the posts here ...

I thought MPEG-4 only affected HD receiving capabilities in the short term. I keep seeing posts here about it in regards to the 508, 510 etc.... Isn't the plan that it would affect those receivers in four years or so? Before I bought my latest 508 I sent an email to Dish (CEO) and in the reply they certainly made it sound like four years would be the earliest a new receiver OR ADAPTOR might be needed. 
At four years the cost to me would be about $45 a year, not bad if I had to get another receiver or an adaptor at that time. If the change were in a year or two I would not be quite so happy.


----------



## BobaBird

I was going to sayOften when people complain about some aspect of Dish service, they are told they should have read about it in the service agreement in the manual. WW has scoured the agreement, not found the fee, and is being told it doesn't have to be there. Which is it? In Section G of the agreement they reserve the right to change services and fees so _maybe_ the omission excuse is plausible but it's also not on the on-line version which should be the most current.​but then I found the answer. Section F that lists fees starts off with "In addition to the amounts due for Services" then lists miscellaneous billing and access fees. Dish claims the use of DVR features is a service so by their definition it doesn't fit in the list.

Many have said there's no legal or ethical issue here, insisting it's purely a business arrangement. Using retail as an example, when 2 prices are marked or published the customer is typically given the lower one unless it's so low that the store has to withdraw it by publishing a correction. If someone is hearing about the fee for the first time from a CSR at activation there needs to be more disclosure. No programming services are listed in the RCA but I think the DVR fee is different enough, not to mention being the result of a change in publicly stated pricing, to warrant an addition to the RCA. If it's not spelled out, you're not bound by it.

My 921's manual has information about DISHWire. That feature was cancelled after the receiver was released. The first thing I saw when I opened the box was an addendum page briefly explaining the change. That is how inaccuracies or omissions are to be dealt with, especially when it involves costs to the user.


----------



## ekammerzelt

HDMe said:


> I don't see how it equates as a tax either. Don't misunderstand me though, so I'll keep saying it... I don't like several of the fees... but from a business side of things, if they want to charge it and enough people are ok paying it... then it is a business winning decision for them and a no-brainer.


No-brainer being the key word here.
People will Indeed continue to pay the fee and Dish would be silly not to take their money. I for one would like to call them out on the carpet.

1. DVR is NOT a service, its a function of the appliance.
2. Dish has not been shown to do anything to qualify DVR as a service.
3. Justifying the fee by quoting how nice it is to have DVR is misleading.

If everyone was knowlegeable about what Dish is doing, then they would be a lot more upset about the fee than they are today. Their misunderstanding is keeping this fee alive.

That's what existing laws against this are for.....to protect people from false advertizing and fraudulent charges.

I'm not calling for new laws....I'm calling out Dish on the bogus charge for DVR as a "service" and for existing laws to force them to correct it.

Dish is a good value......I didnt see anyone dispute that. I'm also a capitalist and I believe in a free market. Thats not the debate here.


----------



## Geronimo

There is no existing law that stops DISH/Tivo or anyone else for charging for their "appliance". If the folks at Whirlpool could figure out how to charge you per use for your refrigerator or dishwasher they could do it. The technology here though is such that the DVR companies have a practical way to do it.

If you seriously believe that a law is being broken contact your state Attorney general. They make ask you what law is being violated but that is the appropriate forum for this.

there are choices here. When I had problems with my 7200 DISH offered me a reduced price on several DVRs---including a 510. I chose not to take a 510 because it is no more capable than a 508---except for the HD--- but no one said I HAD to get a 510. In the end they gave me a 508 in compensation for my problems with the 7200. But I had a choice as to whether to take the 510 and pay a fee. I cant imagine why anyone would do it. But it was a choice.


----------



## Geronimo

tampa8 said:


> Question on MPEG-4- hope this doesn't get buried in all the posts here ...
> 
> I thought MPEG-4 only affected HD receiving capabilities in the short term. I keep seeing posts here about it in regards to the 508, 510 etc.... Isn't the plan that it would affect those receivers in four years or so? Before I bought my latest 508 I sent an email to Dish (CEO) and in the reply they certainly made it sound like four years would be the earliest a new receiver OR ADAPTOR might be needed.
> At four years the cost to me would be about $45 a year, not bad if I had to get another receiver or an adaptor at that time. If the change were in a year or two I would not be quite so happy.


In the short run it is just HD. Eventually SD programmign may also be in MPEG 4 but that will not happen for awhile.


----------



## the_bear

BobaBird said:


> If someone is hearing about the fee for the first time from a CSR at activation there needs to be more disclosure.


I agree a DVR fee is NOT common knowledge. Things that do not need to be disclosed are: chicken has bones and coffee is hot. Although, I realize there is a lot of disagreement about the "coffee is hot".

The lawyers at Dish should be keeping better tabs on the marketing department. A customer cannot enter into a valid contract (ie. buy a 921, make a programming commitment, ...) until the fee is disclosed. There will not be a "meeting of the minds".


----------



## ekammerzelt

I'm no Lawyer (Thank God). But it seems to me this law applies.

US Code

Sec. 3802. False claims and statements; liability
-STATUTE-

(a)(1) Any person who makes, presents, or submits, or causes to

be made, presented, or submitted, a claim that the person knows or

has reason to know -

(A) is false, fictitious, or fraudulent;
......................
shall be subject to, in addition to any other remedy that may be

prescribed by law, a civil penalty of not more than $5,000 for each

such claim.

blah blah blah.

Now I dont want Dish to go out of Business. I enjoy their service. But $5,000/Claim would certainly grab my attention if I were them.


----------



## mlcarson

What about the legal concept of "Unjust Enrichment" regarding the DVR service fee? 
Five elements must be established to prove unjust enrichment:

1. An enrichment; 
2. An impoverishment; 
3. A connection between the enrichment and the impoverishment; 
4. Absence of a justification for the enrichment and impoverishment; and 
5. An absence of a remedy provided by law. 
---------
1. Dish Network is enriched.
2. The customer is impoverished.
3. The link between 1 and 2 is the DVR service fee.
4. I'm not sure how Dish can justify the fee since they haven't provided any service which didn't inherently exist in the device when purchased.
5. There's no law that specifically addresses this.
----------
The contract for service you have with Dish would allow them to do anything they want as long as you agreed to it though. If there was no meeting of the minds on this, I suppose you could get out of the contract but you wouldn't have satellite service either. Bottomline is that you have to pay what Dish wants you to if you want the service. 

In my opinion though, Dish should avoid this whole situation by simply not breaking the fees down and charge a set amount per model of receiver before programming service costs are added. The customer would pay the same but not feel they were being charged for nonexistant services and could make a more informed decision as to what model of receiver would be best for them.


----------



## jsuboh

I would like to add a point.

If Dish can charge a DVR Service Fee, then Dish should be able to turn off that service without affecting the basic function of the STB (to receive TV, aside from the DVR function). No where in the manual it states that you will be charged a DVR fee. Now people say that "you should have investigated before purchasing - then you would have discover the that a fee would apply". Why does ANYONE have to investigate any fee. All Fees should be presented upfront. Now, I do enjoy my DVR functions, but it is not worth more than $5.00 per account instead of per receiver.


----------



## Geronimo

ekammerzelt said:


> I'm no Lawyer (Thank God). But it seems to me this law applies.
> 
> US Code
> 
> Sec. 3802. False claims and statements; liability
> -STATUTE-
> 
> (a)(1) Any person who makes, presents, or submits, or causes to
> 
> be made, presented, or submitted, a claim that the person knows or
> 
> has reason to know -
> 
> (A) is false, fictitious, or fraudulent;
> ......................
> shall be subject to, in addition to any other remedy that may be
> 
> prescribed by law, a civil penalty of not more than $5,000 for each
> 
> such claim.
> 
> blah blah blah.
> 
> Now I dont want Dish to go out of Business. I enjoy their service. But $5,000/Claim would certainly grab my attention if I were them.


Then notify the authorities and see what happens.


----------



## KingLoop

Anyone who signs up for service with Dish Network signs a service agreement that has a line in it that reads to the effect



> WE RESERVE THE RIGHT TO CHANGE PRICES, PACKAGES, AND PROGRAMMING AT ANY TIME, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, DURING ANY TERM COMMITMENT PERIOD TO WHICH YOU HAVE AGREED.


So much complaining over $5/mth.


----------



## the_bear

jsuboh said:


> Why does ANYONE have to investigate any fee. All Fees should be presented upfront.


Did Fry's give you a full refund?

Edit: I see ekammerzelt is the one that bought the 921 at Fry's.


----------



## the_bear

KingLoop said:


> Anyone who signs up for service with Dish Network signs a service agreement that has a line in it that reads to the effect
> 
> So much complaining over $5/mth.


Between the lines here is the word "reasonable". For example, a customer would not need to stay with Dish if they had a 2 year commitment and Dish started charging $50K a month.


----------



## Geronimo

I am sorry but there is no "between the lines" when it comes to reading contract terms.


----------



## Jordan420

Geronimo said:


> I am sorry but there is no "between the lines" when it comes to reading contract terms.


Our court system is very aware of the term "reasonable" when dealing with contracts. I know the word reasonable is not in the clause you are referring to but a 50K/ month increase in fees would not hold up in any court in the US.

Hell a terrorist only does 25 years for attacking America & you think that a contract that increases 50K/month from $ 42.99 will hold up in court.

Jordan


----------



## BobaBird

mlcarson said:


> What about the legal concept of "Unjust Enrichment" regarding the DVR service fee?
> Five elements must be established to prove unjust enrichment: ....
> 
> The contract for service you have with Dish would allow them to do anything they want as long as you agreed to it though.


Can you actually "sign away" basic consumer protection? Especially without a signature and no mention of that type of fee in the agreement? The "no refunds" policy is over-ridden in some states. Are the "Unjust Enrichment" concept and the US Code quoted by ekammerzelt less powerful? BTW, thank you both for these examples.



others said:


> you have a choice


There is no fee-less option for an HD DVR with integrated satellite -- from either provider. The 501, 508 and 721 are not eligible for the new-customer sign-up plans.


----------



## Geronimo

Jordan420 said:


> Our court system is very aware of the term "reasonable" when dealing with contracts. I know the word reasonable is not in the clause you are referring to but a 50K/ month increase in fees would not hold up in any court in the US.
> 
> Hell a terrorist only does 25 years for attacking America & you think that a contract that increases 50K/month from $ 42.99 will hold up in court.
> 
> Jordan


If you really believe that take action.


----------



## Geronimo

BobaBird said:


> C.
> 
> There is no fee-less option for an HD DVR with integrated satellite -- from either provider. The 501, 508 and 721 are not eligible for the new-customer sign-up plans.


You have a cjhoice as to whether you geta DVR at all.


----------



## larrystotler

garypen said:


> 811 gives guide info for OTA channels _without_ subbing to Dish locals, doesn't it? The 921 does not. (Of course, the 811 does not get it's info via OTA PSIP, even though virtually all other brand of OTA HD receiver does. Apparently, Dish engineers can't decipher that bit of the DiVinci code.)


I was unaware that the 811 was able to get the guide data without a sub to LiL. Now, the question is whether it is supposed to be able to do that or if it is an error that they are planning to fix. I don't have any HD receivers in use for myself, so I am unaware of it. And, if the $5 is too much for the subs that are complaining about it, my local newspaper has a TV-Showtime that comes with the paper for free and quite frankly, it is more work to do manual timers, but it would be free and clear that way. Also, what about all the other channels that I can get in my area that are not available as an E* local? Should I complain about that as well? I can get the Baltimore stations and can't get the Baltimore guide data without the 105. And what of the 6000? Does it get the guide data free? And does the 5000(which I have never encountered) have the ability to get the OTA locals? Does it get them for free???? And what of DirecTV? Do they get the guide data for free or is the LiL package required???


----------



## garypen

I gotta say that if a DVR has one or more OTA tuners, it needs to have OTA guide data AT NO EXTRA CHARGE in order to work as advertised. They are already charging a $5 DVR fee. All necessary guide data, software, and whatever else is necessary to provide full DVR functionality needs to be provided for that $5 fee. Otherwise, the DVR fee becomes even more of a sham of a mockery of a farce than it already is.


----------



## the_bear

Geronimo said:


> If you really believe that take action.


I thought about this a little more. Has Dish really raised the price for customers under a programming commitment? I would have assumed those customers with a programming commitment would not be hit with higher prices until after their programming commitment is up. Expecting a customer to continue their term under a higher price is boarder line legal. Dish "could" get in trouble with this.

In cases where the price cannot be determined or is not a critical element it is okay not to have the price in the contract. For example, a plumber fixing a clogged drain. On the other extreme, a car dealer cannot get a consumer to buy a car without specifying the price even if the consumer signs a contract to buy the car. You routinely see cases where a rental agreement has the tenant buying the property at the end of the lease, but no price in the lease. Many of these cases end up in court. Creating a contract without specifying all the terms can be legally risky.

Luckily for Dish, no customers have yet been injured by a price increase. I don't think anyone disagrees that a hypothetical price increase of $50K a month would result in customer injury and the authorities involved. The Dish terms of service contract is weaker than some other types of contract. For one thing, it is not presented to customers as something to read and sign. Two, there is no line by line bargaining. Three, customers are not represented by legal council when entering into a programming commitment.


----------



## Geronimo

the_bear said:


> I thought about this a little more. Has Dish really raised the price for customers under a programming commitment? I would have assumed those customers with a programming commitment would not be hit with higher prices until after their programming commitment is up. Expecting a customer to continue their term under a higher price is boarder line legal. Dish "could" get in trouble with this.
> 
> In cases where the price cannot be determined or is not a critical element it is okay not to have the price in the contract. For example, a plumber fixing a clogged drain. On the other extreme, a car dealer cannot get a consumer to buy a car without specifying the price even if the consumer signs a contract to buy the car. You routinely see cases where a rental agreement has the tenant buying the property at the end of the lease, but no price in the lease. Many of these cases end up in court. Creating a contract without specifying all the terms can be legally risky.
> 
> Luckily for Dish, no customers have yet been injured by a price increase. I don't think anyone disagrees that a hypothetical price increase of $50K a month would result in customer injury and the authorities involved. The Dish terms of service contract is weaker than some other types of contract. For one thing, it is not presented to customers as something to read and sign. Two, there is no line by line bargaining. Three, customers are not represented by legal council when entering into a programming commitment.


The standard residential agreement clearly states that they can raise the prices at any time. They can changge the programming offered as well (they do honor prepaid annual subscriptions at the original price). They therefore have specified the terms, and the subscribers have agreed to them. It is presented to customers when service is initiated, line by line bargaining is not required in a contract. Nor do you necessarily have to be represented by legal counsel to sign one---although nothing stops you from having one review the agreement before you sub to DISH, to cable TV, or for that matter sign up for a magazine subscription.

Again, if you all really feel that a law is being broken, or if you feel that you have the basis for a civil action (which is something altogether different) I think that you should take the appropriate legal action.


----------



## the_bear

Geronimo said:


> The standard residential agreement clearly states that they can raise the prices at any time.


If I understand your post correctly, Dish does expect customers to complete their programming commitment even if prices are raised?


Geronimo said:


> They can changge the programming offered as well (they do honor prepaid annual subscriptions at the original price). They therefore have specified the terms, and the subscribers have agreed to them. It is presented to customers when service is initiated


I ordered my service over the phone (no paperwork) I just assumed that was a common practice.


Geronimo said:


> , line by line bargaining is not required in a contract. Nor do you necessarily have to be represented by legal counsel to sign one


This Court of Appeals would disagree. Here it is a famous case:
Pardee Construction Co. v. Superior Court (2002) 100 Cal. App. 4th 1081
http://www.defectlaw.com/Top60Cases.htm



Geronimo said:


> ---although nothing stops you from having one review the agreement before you sub to DISH, to cable TV, or for that matter sign up for a magazine subscription.
> 
> Again, if you all really feel that a law is being broken, or if you feel that you have the basis for a civil action (which is something altogether different) I think that you should take the appropriate legal action.


This is not necessarily illegal, but rather potentially illegal. Typically in these types of contracts, the rate increase is spelled out in the contract as CPI (consumer price index). The previous Dish creases have been above CPI. I do not know of any case law where the circumstances are close enough to this to know for sure, but Dish is taking a big risk with this practice.


----------



## KingLoop

the_bear said:


> If I understand your post correctly, Dish does expect customers to complete their programming commitment even if prices are raised?


Dish did just that with their DHA customers last February with the programming rate increase. Price went up, people complained, people were held to their contractual obligation. My point was not that they can raise their prices on contract bound subs, it was that they can charge whatever they want to charge to whomever is willing to pay it. End of story, if you don't like the programming rate, or the fees, don't subscribe.


----------



## jsuboh

Bottom Line 
Please send all DVR FEE complaints to Dish [email protected],com - don't forget to mention to them that these fees are unreasonable overpriced and Illegal (as some would say). As for those who defends Dishnetwork's practices, get real - Consumers have rights too. People complain about unreasonable charges so that something may be done about it. Example: A few years ago Microsoft proposed to charge a few $ to receive updates and patches, people screamed and complained and in turn Microsoft abandoned the Idea. This is what this thread is all about.


----------



## tsmacro

jsuboh said:


> Bottom Line
> Please send all DVR FEE complaints to Dish [email protected],com - don't forget to mention to them that these fees are unreasonable overpriced and Illegal (as some would say). As for those who defends Dishnetwork's practices, get real - Consumers have rights too. People complain about unreasonable charges so that something may be done about it. Example: A few years ago Microsoft proposed to charge a few $ to receive updates and patches, people screamed and complained and in turn Microsoft abandoned the Idea. This is what this thread is all about.


And this is why I feel this way. First of all most of us do not feel $4.98 a month is unreasonable, so you probably won't get too many people "up in arms" for this issue. Secondly if you think e-mails or posts on a message board are going to make any difference you're setting yourself up for disappointment. You really want to make a difference cancel your Dish Service and explain to them you're doing that because of the DVR fee, you get enough people to do this and then you'll get the desired result. Of course even if you succeed in getting the scurge-of-the-earth DVR fees abolished all you'll find that you've accomplished in the end is that while the DVR fee is gone, all the sudden there'll be a genral price increase for programming for everyone to make up for it's loss. Sure they'll give another reason officially, but you can bet that's what will happen. So in the end is it really worth all the craziness? I guess some of you think so. But not as far as i'm concerned and i think you'll find most people just don't care that much about a $4.98/month DVR fee.


----------



## Jordan420

Geronimo said:


> If you really believe that take action.


As soon as E* raises my rates 50K as month I will just quit paying, I am not under contract & can disconnect at any time & if you believe a court would let stand a 50K/ month increase for people under contract I stand by my original statement about you that has been edited out

Jordan


----------



## Geronimo

Jordan420 said:


> As soon as E* raises my rates 50K as month I will just quit paying, I am not under contract & can disconnect at any time & if you believe a court would let stand a 50K/ month increase for people under contract I stand by my original statement about you that has been edited out
> 
> Jordan


No one has raised your fees 50k a month or even threatrened. The example is absurd.

What I have said is that the DVR fees are not illegal.


----------



## Geronimo

the_bear said:


> If I understand your post correctly, Dish does expect customers to complete their programming commitment even if prices are raised?
> 
> I ordered my service over the phone (no paperwork) I just assumed that was a common practice.
> 
> This Court of Appeals would disagree. Here it is a famous case:
> Pardee Construction Co. v. Superior Court (2002) 100 Cal. App. 4th 1081
> http://www.defectlaw.com/Top60Cases.htm
> 
> This is not necessarily illegal, but rather potentially illegal. Typically in these types of contracts, the rate increase is spelled out in the contract as CPI (consumer price index). The previous Dish creases have been above CPI. I do not know of any case law where the circumstances are close enough to this to know for sure, but Dish is taking a big risk with this practice.


Yes they do. And they reaain the right to modify the packages as well and they spell this out in the agreement. They are not limited yo increases in the CPI although the figure of 50 k a month that has been floared here is just plain absurd. Even if you ordered over the phone you weee informed of the standard agreeement

What do you mean by "potentially" illegal. Is that like Potentially pregnant? It is illegal or not. ASimple question. Are you saying that Dish's DVR fees (the topic of the thread) are illegal or not?

As for Pardee Cosnstruction that case deals with a contract in which people were asked to waive their right to a jury trial and the right to recover punitive damages. The contract was also deemed to be difficult to read and misleading. To apply that to the application of DVR fees is ridiculous. The situations are in no way comparable and it does not address the statement that it is not necessary to have a lawyer to sign acontract (and that DISH does not prevent you from going to one)

No one LIKES fees and you all have the perfect right to protest them in any manner that you choose. But the fact that you don't like the fees soes not make them illegal. If you really believed these arguments you would not just be posting them here. You would be taking them to be heard by the appropraite court. Go ahead.


----------



## tsmacro

Geronimo said:


> Yes they do. And they reaain the right to modify the packages as well and they spell this out in the agreement. They are not limited yo increases in the CPI although the figure of 50 k a month that has been floared here is just plain absurd. Even if you ordered over the phone you weee informed of the standard agreeement
> 
> What do you mean by "potentially" illegal. Is that like Potentially pregnant? It is illegal or not. ASimple question. Are you saying that Dish's DVR fees (the topic of the thread) are illegal or not?
> 
> As for Pardee Cosnstruction that case deals with a contract in which people were asked to waive their right to a jury trial and the right to recover punitive damages. The contract was also deemed to be difficult to read and misleading. To apply that to the application of DVR fees is ridiculous. The situations are in no way comparable and it does not address the statement that it is not necessary to have a lawyer to sign acontract (and that DISH does not prevent you from going to one)
> 
> No one LIKES fees and you all have the perfect right to protest them in any manner that you choose. But the fact that you don't like the fees soes not make them illegal. If you really believed these arguments you would not just be posting them here. You would be taking them to be heard by the appropraite court. Go ahead.


The crazy thing is that it seems there are those here who really don't realize how absurd this whole thread is! There seem to be people who seem to think that if they claim that DVR fees are illegal or at least somehow not "right" just because they don't like them that somehow it'll actually make some kind of difference. :nono2:


----------



## garypen

Well, actually, it does. If enough people complain about, it may change. Of course, money talks and bullsh** walks. So, switching to D* or C* would make more of an impact. But, voicing opinions may help and certainly doesn't hurt.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

I just realized I don't have to post anymore in this thread... because when I read something I want to reply to, I just wait and Geronimo says what I was thinking... a couple of times word-for-word what was in my mind to post.

Case in point... I wondered what "potentially illegal" meant too...

Also, just under the bottom line on all this... Some are ok with the fees, some hate them with a passion... but I haven't seen anything to convince me they are illegal nor would I want the government intruding to that degree when they are far more involved already than I'd like in day-to-day affairs!

And last but not least... I suspect virtually nothing posted in this or any other forum will affect the fee structure one way or another. The ONLY possible way customers can affect the fees Dish (or anyone else) charges... is to vote by cancelling the fee-bearing services OR leaving Dish for a competitor and stating to them in either case just why you are taking the action you are taking.

Enough people vote that way, maybe things change... but all the "it should be illegal" talk is I'm sure falling on deaf ears, except for those of us who just can't resist replying in the thread.


----------



## KingLoop

If I had a 522 or 942 and hated the $5/mth so much that I was willing to devote so much of my time complaining about it, I would cancel just on principle. Obviously everyone who is crying about their precious 498 pennies likes their service to enough to keep it. Get something comperable from somewhere else for $5/mth less or quit complaining.


----------



## daleles

Another concern is when I decide to upgrade my receiver and I have my current receiver turned off, what happens to the 37 programs I have on the hard drive? If the receiver isn't active with a subscription anymore I can't use the receiver to at least watch what I recorded? 
Think about it, does the $5 fee apply only to active subscriptions? If I want to cancel the subscription on a particular receiver I should have the right to at least watch the programs that were recorded to the hard drive.

daleles


----------



## BobaBird

larrystotler said:


> I was unaware that the 811 was able to get the guide data without a sub to LiL. Now, the question is whether it is supposed to be able to do that or if it is an error that they are planning to fix.


It would appear to be an intended feature since it hasn't been taken away in the 5 updates since it was added. Contrast this with the much more expensive 921 and 942 whose users are refused the same information unless they pay extra for their locals. When the programmers goofed and let the 921 users have the same experience as the 811 it was quickly taken away.


> And, if the $5 is too much for the subs that are complaining about it, my local newspaper has a TV-Showtime that comes with the paper for free and quite frankly, it is more work to do manual timers, but it would be free and clear that way.


The $5 DVR fee isn't going to put very many of us into poverty but that doesn't mean it's OK to charge it. But, since they are charging for DVR, and one of the features of a DVR is the ability to create a timer from the guide, that implies you will have a guide. Especially on the 942 where the DVR "service" includes the NBR feature but if you want the names for DTV stations you are made to subscribe to locals. Locals for $6 also isn't going to break many of us but now we're up to $11. No phone connected to that 942? Now we're up to $16 in "because we can" fees and the only thing to show for it is LIL the subscriber may not want. Oh, but don't complain about it because it's "only $5."


> Also, what about all the other channels that I can get in my area that are not available as an E* local? Should I complain about that as well?


If it's a DTV channel, yes. The FCC is requiring stations to include basic guide data in their DTV broadcasts so that viewers can see and use it.


> And what of the 6000? Does it get the guide data free? And does the 5000 (which I have never encountered) have the ability to get the OTA locals? Does it get them for free????


Yes. The 5000 and I think the 6000 get prime time guide data for the major networks though IIRC it's a re-map of the national schedule so locally made changes wouldn't be shown. Don't know if the 6000 is getting guide info for DTV stations.


----------



## the_bear

My problem is not with charging a fee for DVR service, but rather that Dish has surprised several customers with fees (DVR, lease, core rate increase). The problem comes in if the customer does not like the surprise and they cancel service, Dish hits them with a programing commitment early termination fee. It is the combination of surprise+penalty if the surprise is not reasonable to the customer=damage to customer. From reading the other posts, no one on this thread has been damaged by Dish. Geronimo has several times asked, “why not take legal action?” Only one who is damaged can take legal action. Even for the customers who are damaged by this surprise+fine, the damage is not big enough to go through hassle of legal action. Especially, since this is in the gray area of the law.

The pregnant woman is a great analogy, because the woman is potentially pregnant until the results come in from her pregnancy test. There seems to be a misconception, that the legal system is back and white or that lawyers always know what is legal. If this was the case there would be no need for the court room, all cases would be settled out of court. When going into the court room, lawyers on both sides believe their interpretation of the law is correct. It is the judge’s job to determine which lawyer has the correct interpretation of the law. Once the judge determines which interpretation is correct, that becomes precedence for future disputes. In this case, no other company has tried something similar to what Dish is doing, either accept the surprise or pay the fine. Without a previous judge’s interpretation of the law, this case is especially gray.

If I were trying this case, I would argue that the Dish customer programming commitment is a promise, not a contract. I contract is a promise made by both sides. Dish makes the promise from the customer clear in terms of package and time, but does not define what Dish is promising in terms of content and price.

Although upper level Dish management is aware of what goes on at dbsTalk, most of us just post for fun, rather than to get changes.


----------



## KingLoop

the_bear said:


> My problem is not with charging a fee for DVR service, but rather that Dish has surprised several customers with fees (DVR, lease, core rate increase)...
> 
> ...I would argue that the Dish customer programming commitment is a promise, not a contract. I contract is a promise made by both sides. Dish makes the promise from the customer clear in terms of package and time, but does not define what Dish is promising in terms of content and price...


That is sort of on topic sort of not, but you make a good point. No one should have been surprised by the DVR fee, lease related fees, or with the prospect of a rate increase. DVR fee, because they tell you when you activate the DVR, lease related charges because every fee is spelled out in the *CONTRACT*, or the rate increase to contractually bound subs 1st because the rate increase effected all subs except where prohibited by superceding contracts and 2nd because the rate increase wasn't too unreasonable and it specifically states in the *CONTRACT* that your current rate is subject to increase. If someone didn't agree with the prospect of their bill going up by a few dollars a month while they were contractually obligated, they had the *CHOICE* not to agree to the terms.


----------



## Geronimo

garypen said:


> Well, actually, it does. If enough people complain about, it may change. Of course, money talks and bullsh** walks. So, switching to D* or C* would make more of an impact. But, voicing opinions may help and certainly doesn't hurt.


It will not makea difference if all you do is post on a board like this. I encourage anyone who really thinks they have a valid point to take real action. But if people just scream that it is wrong but continue to pay weell-----do we really have to tell you what is coming.


----------



## garypen

I already took action, and switched to Comcast at home. I put my money where my keyboard is.

I would dump Dish at work, as well. But I don't think the bean counters would approve the cost of new equipment and, if necessary, labor. (OTOH, if an exec complained that Dish didn't have a channel he wanted, they'd suddenly find the money to switch, regardless of cost.)


----------



## Geronimo

Good job Gary.


----------



## tsmacro

garypen said:


> I already took action, and switched to Comcast at home. I put my money where my keyboard is.
> 
> I would dump Dish at work, as well. But I don't think the bean counters would approve the cost of new equipment and, if necessary, labor. (OTOH, if an exec complained that Dish didn't have a channel he wanted, they'd suddenly find the money to switch, regardless of cost.)


I know we come from opposite sides of this. He wasn't happy with Dish and I am. However, if I wanted to send a message i'd do it with my wallet. It might be therapeutic to some to rant and rave in cyberspace but it's not going to amount to anything. You really want to send a message, take your money somewhere else and then let them know why you did, only then can you be sure that your message has been sent.


----------



## the_bear

KingLoop said:


> it specifically states in the *CONTRACT* that your current rate is subject to increase.


It would not be hard to convince a judge, "I promise to do something unless I change my mind." is NOT a promise. It is this not a true promise that Dish makes when asking for a programming commitment. For a contract to be formed, the promises need to be parallel. For example, if a customer promises to buy a car, a parallel promise must be made by the dealer to sell a car. The Pardee case I pointed to earlier shows a lack of parallel promise, which is one of the reasons the judge made the ruling that he did. Although, I think this case is a better example of, the more general concept that some contracts are weaker than others.


----------



## Geronimo

In the Pardee case a provision that forced customers to give up their right to ajury trail (without compensation) was invalidated. It is a stretch to apply it here or to state that it says some contracts are weaker than others.

The courts have often held that an invalid clause in a contract can lead to the invalidation of the clause or, ins ome cases, the whole contract. But you have not shown how anything in pardee is applicable to charging DVR fees. If you really think it woulsd be so easy to convince a judge that Pardee applies here go ahead and try.


----------



## the_bear

Geronimo said:


> In the Pardee case a provision that forced customers to give up their right to ajury trail (without compensation) was invalidated. It is a stretch to apply it here or to state that it says some contracts are weaker than others.
> 
> The courts have often held that an invalid clause in a contract can lead to the invalidation of the clause or, ins ome cases, the whole contract. But you have not shown how anything in pardee is applicable to charging DVR fees. If you really think it woulsd be so easy to convince a judge that Pardee applies here go ahead and try.


I see where the confusion came in. I should have posted, "Some contracts are easier to prove invalid than others." I simplified by calling those contracts weak. Apparently, this simplification made my post harder to understand instead of simpler.

When the topic of proving a consumer contract invalid came up, the Pardee case, because it is a famous example, was the first to come to mind. I'm sure there is a case more applicable to DVR fees. As you seem to have already figured out, I didn't do any research. It is safe to assume there is no case greatly applicable to DVR fees. If there was such a case, the Dish legal team surly would have found it already and changed the DVR fee policy accordingly. They are paid to do the research. The lack of a greatly applicable case makes it little more difficult to prove the contract invalid, but hardly impossible. The even more difficult part is showing that the DVR fee damages customers.


----------



## ekammerzelt

I disagree with the Fees, not because of the Price tag on those fees, but because it is a *fraudulent* charge......and That makes it illegal with laws written to protect todays consumers.

The charge could be $0.02, I would still flail my arms and raise attention to it on boards like this because I recognize the technical veil they pulled over the publics eyes by labeling DVR capability as a "Service".

These open forums Do make a difference. 
Thats why we discuss these issues here. Money does speak louder than words but the point of this board isn't to convince people to drop dish, its to raise awareness of Issues......especially misunderstood issues just like this one.

The common Subscriber *Blindly* pays the DVR fees because they don't know better......whats worse in my mind is that some of you know better.....and justify the fee's for Dish.

I argue that if everyone Knew better, Dish would be a lot more responsible. 
Tel-Co's took advantage of blind subscribers for years with dishonest billing until the legality of it finally caught up with them......I dont want a repeat.

If you still disagree.....then tell me how it Isnt a Fradulent charge.....not that the fee is "no big deal" or "nothing to whine about".


----------



## garypen

ekammerzelt said:


> ...whats worse in my mind is that some of you know better.....and justify the fee's for Dish.


Well said. Bravo!


----------



## socceteer

ekammerzelt said:


> I disagree with the Fees, not because of the Price tag on those fees, but because it is a *fraudulent* charge......and That makes it illegal with laws written to protect todays consumers.
> 
> ".


I am confused...maybe it is because I am not a lawyer....!

My understanding of fraud is when you deliver something different that what you advertise..! If that is the definition, then where is the fraud..? Where you not told about the charges...? Did they lie to you...?

Webster defines it as

FRAUD

1 a : DECEIT, TRICKERY; specifically : intentional perversion of truth in order to induce another to part with something of value or to surrender a legal right b : an act of deceiving or misrepresenting : TRICK
2 a : a person who is not what he or she pretends to be : IMPOSTOR; also : one who defrauds : CHEAT b : one that is not what it seems or is represented to be
synonym see DECEPTION, IMPOSTURE

I was told about the charges. I do not like them, but I do think that providing information is something that can be an additional charge, they could have chosen to include it as part of the service, but they decided to charge for it, just like they can charge for delivering TV programs or not.


----------



## the_bear

ekammerzelt said:


> If you still disagree.....then tell me how it Isnt a Fradulent charge.....not that the fee is "no big deal" or "nothing to whine about".


All the mistakes Dish has made pointed out here seem to be honest errors. No one has shown that Dish intended to mislead customers. I think everyone is in agreement that Dish could better define its fees (DVR fee is just one example) as well as better communicate these to customers. What is arguable here is if Dish has done a reasonable job.


----------



## tsmacro

ekammerzelt said:


> I disagree with the Fees, not because of the Price tag on those fees, but because it is a *fraudulent* charge......and That makes it illegal with laws written to protect todays consumers.
> 
> The charge could be $0.02, I would still flail my arms and raise attention to it on boards like this because I recognize the technical veil they pulled over the publics eyes by labeling DVR capability as a "Service".
> 
> These open forums Do make a difference.
> Thats why we discuss these issues here. Money does speak louder than words but the point of this board isn't to convince people to drop dish, its to raise awareness of Issues......especially misunderstood issues just like this one.
> 
> The common Subscriber *Blindly* pays the DVR fees because they don't know better......whats worse in my mind is that some of you know better.....and justify the fee's for Dish.
> 
> I argue that if everyone Knew better, Dish would be a lot more responsible.
> Tel-Co's took advantage of blind subscribers for years with dishonest billing until the legality of it finally caught up with them......I dont want a repeat.
> 
> If you still disagree.....then tell me how it Isnt a Fradulent charge.....not that the fee is "no big deal" or "nothing to whine about".


I have no problem paying $4.98 a month to use my 522. Dish told me that when I subscribed i'd be paying it and I agreed to it. I don't feel deceived or taken advantage of. I honestly see this whole thing as a "non-issue" being hyped by people like yourself who obviously have way too much time on their hands. I mean come on of all the really serious issues for you to champion in this world you chose this? :lol: Like I said I doubt you'll find enough people who really care enough to make any kind of difference. But hey, if you think it's worth it and you really can make some kind of difference go for it! And who know's maybe the day will come when I see that DVR fee disappear and at the same time see the general programming price tag go up to cover for it's loss and i'll think, "well whaddaya know 'ekammerzelt' was right". :sure: But i'm not going to hold my breath.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

ekammerzelt said:


> I disagree with the Fees, not because of the Price tag on those fees, but because it is a *fraudulent* charge......and That makes it illegal with laws written to protect todays consumers.
> 
> The charge could be $0.02, I would still flail my arms and raise attention to it on boards like this because I recognize the technical veil they pulled over the publics eyes by labeling DVR capability as a "Service".


Once again, I don't like many of the fees... including this DVR one... but I see it simply as Dish finding a way to increase profit for their business and I can pay it or I can choose another receiver or I can leave Dish entirely. There is no fraud or deceit on the part of Dish here. The have a fee, they tell you about the fee when you call them to activate the receiver, and you agree to it when you do so.



ekammerzelt said:


> Tel-Co's took advantage of blind subscribers for years with dishonest billing until the legality of it finally caught up with them......I dont want a repeat.


Ok, wait... when did the telephone companies stop taking advantage of customers? My bill still have lots of strange fees all over it that I know are there to make them a profit, but are disguised as being for one thing of another (like that "FCC Network Access Fee" that has nothing to do with the FCC at all).


----------



## garypen

HDMe said:


> Ok, wait... when did the telephone companies stop taking advantage of customers? My bill still have lots of strange fees all over it that I know are there to make them a profit, but are disguised as being for one thing of another (like that "FCC Network Access Fee" that has nothing to do with the FCC at all).


That is why many state and local attorneys general and consumer protection agencies are making the telecom providers come clean on those charges. I know that where I am, they must now say that those fees are not government mandated or taxes of any kind.

However, they are still somewhat deceptive when stating they are to recover costs associated with government regulations. But, hey, that's just a cost of doing business. If they need revenue to cover those, it should be included in the standard monthly fees. Hopefully, the AG will go all the way with this, and make them do just that.


----------



## the_bear

tsmacro said:


> I have no problem paying $4.98 a month to use my 522.


Ekammerzelt is accusing Dish of double billing, charging for the same thing twice. For 921 owners, they paid an initial DVR fee (up to $1K) up-front and then pay an additional DVR monthly fee. Dish should be showing that the two fees together define the cost of the 921. Instead, Dish leaves it to the customer to figure it out. For example, http://www.dishnetwork.com/content/products/receivers/dvr/index.shtml lists the 942 as STANDALONE - $699.00, instead of 699+5-10/month. For the 522, there was not an initial DVR fee (no confusion about double billing). No initial DVR fee, but keep the monthly DVR fee seems to be where the industry is headed. Unlike the cell phone industry, the Dish customer confusion seems to be accidental.


----------



## BobaBird

HDMe said:


> There is no fraud or deceit on the part of Dish here. The have a fee, they tell you about the fee when you call them to activate the receiver, and you agree to it when you do so.


They say DVR is a "service." They tell you they're going to charge you, so you're not surprised when it appears on the bill. You're implying the second statement is proof of the first when the two are actually unrelated.


----------



## Geronimo

My employer sells software (among other things). Sure some is just shrink wrapped and sold. But most of it is updated periodically. Ther are other support issues that are handled here. In order to use that software there are fees. One time license fees and periodic (monthly or annual) license or maintenance fees. we could simply charge a large upfront fee and provide service and mainteananv for the life of the product it is installed on but a business decision was made to charge for the product this way. It is not an unusual model. It is common in the software industry---just as it is in the DVR industry. 

I don't believe that our customers pay it "blindly because they don't know any better". I believe that they want the products, read the contracts, and are willing to pay fees that they feel reasonable and/or necessary. Perhaps some go to a competitor for another product if our pricing is unacceptable. They certainly have a right to do that. But no one has ever argued that such charges are fraudulent. Nor do we (or for that matter DISH) represent these charges as dealing with government regualtions. They are simply charges for the infrastructure that supports and updates the products. Both industries could do it different ways (and indeed some products are priced differently) but the charges are not fraudulent or illegal about charging a one time fee for the platform and a recurring fee for the software and support that allow it to operate. Similarly there is nothing illegal or fraudulent about using different pricing strategies with different products as we do with some software and as DISH does with some DVRs.


----------



## jsuboh

Even with software you don't start paying out of the box. When you purchase software, you have usually free upgrade or patches for the term of the contract (usually 1 year) and if you choose not to renew you contract, you can still continue to run the software (in many cases). Your analogy doesn't make sense. This has nothing to do with software, Its about a product that you purchase with an inherent function and being charged to use that function. I'll give you an analogy - You purchase a car from GM, they charge you fee to use the car every month (even after you pay for the car) - if you choose not to pay then your car will fail to run. This is exactly what Dish is doing. It is REASONABLE to pay a $5.00 per Account, BUT NOT REASONABLE to pay per Receiver. Yes I can go to the other competitors, but the channels I watch are not available from them.


----------



## ekammerzelt

These fee's are a slippery slope. It may seem trivial now but thats how it starts.

The Telco-fraud of the 90's created a lot of turmoil and slowed progress for legitimate companies. We are years behind where we could have been had it never happened.
Its never a good thing when government has to step in.

Its fraud because it *is* a lie. They are lieing to you when they say DVR is a service provided by them. Sorry but that really bothers me!

The whole experience left me jaded, and I've been a real fan of Dish in the past. Hell....my 921 doesnt even work most of the time due to software bugs. :nono:

Maybe not everyone feels what Dish has done is wrong, or cares. But I had enough and said my peace.

I feel confident the market will correct itself, not because of consumers, but because technology will force DVR into the mainstream and they'll find some new way to raise prices. 

I dont anticipate prices going down overall until alternatives emerge to compete.


----------



## Geronimo

jsuboh said:


> Even with software you don't start paying out of the box. When you purchase software, you have usually free upgrade or patches for the term of the contract (usually 1 year) and if you choose not to renew you contract, you can still continue to run the software (in many cases). Your analogy doesn't make sense. This has nothing to do with software, Its about a product that you purchase with an inherent function and being charged to use that function. I'll give you an analogy - You purchase a car from GM, they charge you fee to use the car every month (even after you pay for the car) - if you choose not to pay then your car will fail to run. This is exactly what Dish is doing. It is REASONABLE to pay a $5.00 per Account, BUT NOT REASONABLE to pay per Receiver. Yes I can go to the other competitors, but the channels I watch are not available from them.


As I said there are different pricing schemes for different software. And that box you bought provides the DVR service because of the software on it. The hardware alone cannot provide the service. This is software that is updated and maintained by DISH, Tivo or whoever the vendor is so you are dead wrong to say that tehre is no software involved.

GM does not provide that kind of service. If they did they could certainly charge for it. In fact GM and their dealers do charge additional fees for things like extended warranties.

I just don't follow how or why it would be reasonable to charge per account but not per receiver. I wish they would go per account but I don't see how reasonable enters into it.


----------



## jsuboh

Geronimo said:


> As I said there are different pricing schemes for different software. And that box you bought provides the DVR service because of the software on it. The hardware alone cannot provide the service. This is software that is updated and maintained by DISH, Tivo or whoever the vendor is so you are dead wrong to say that tehre is no software involved.


I never said there is no software, what I said it is Not about the software (my 811 uses software and I don't pay a fee for that). There is no EULA as there would be with a packaged software.



Geronimo said:


> GM does not provide that kind of service. If they did they could certainly charge for it. In fact GM and their dealers do charge additional fees for things like extended warranties.


The addtional fees are OPTIONAL and you can always not purchase the extended warranty and the Car will still function as purchased. (nothing hidden there) With the Exception of Destination Fees that they charge- I always ask the Dealer to eat that cost as a part of doing business and they usually comply.



Geronimo said:


> I just don't follow how or why it would be reasonable to charge per account but not per receiver. I wish they would go per account but I don't see how reasonable enters into it.


 Again, The DVR functions out of the BOX without any other SPECIAL service from Dish. The ability to decode the Sat Signal and Provide EPG is Inherent of the STANDARD Service that Dish provides and the Function of recording the program is inherent of what A DVR does (If it doesn't function as a DVR then it is not a DVR.) Tivo for example provides a EPG for their USERS as a added cost - Service is Provided where as with Dish it is a standard function of there service. As for charging per Account, Direct TV does it and most cable company do not. I know that I can't have everything my way but it would be nice if Dish would compromise. Just charge a fair price - I pay an addtional $20.00 per month ($240.00 per year) to Use a DVR - that could be used for addtional programing. There is a point to what a lot of people are raising there hands to about DVR fees.

Thanks,

Jsuboh


----------



## the_bear

Here is more extreme example: A fast food restaurant owner decides he is leaving money on the table, so the owner tells all employees to hit the hamburger button twice every time someone orders a value meal. The customer orders a value meal and pays. The customer then picks up his the receipt (the written contract disclosing the cost) along with the food (agrees to the contract). What Dish is doing is somewhere in between this fast food example and Geronimo’s software example. Personally, I think it would be nice if Dish put some price charts up on their web-site so these fees would be less confusing.

Edit: For clarification, hitting the hamburger button twice on the register will result in double of the hamburger charge (double billing) showing up on the receipt.


----------



## Geronimo

But it is ABOUT SOFTWARE. there isa license agreement too. And that agreement calls for you to pay fees. The DVR fees are in no way HDDEN fes. theya re disclosed as part of the price and accepted by the customer at the time of activation. In the case of the 7x00 you can use the receiver without the DVR features. I do not believe that is the case with any other DISH DVR. The fuctionality is Inhernt in the software not in the platform itself. It is NOT inherent in the hardware only. The hardware NEEDS the software and DISH does maintain and update that software periodically. The fact that they have chosen not to charge ona n 811 or 301 does not mean that they can't charge on a DVR-----if they disclose it-----and they do.

As for the per account fees youa re being contradictory. If DVR fees are simple illegal andf wrong they would be illegal and wrong at the account level as well. What Ia m telling you is that both pricing models are legal. We agree that charging it on a per account basis seems better---but that is a choice that the seller and buyer make. I own 2 DVRs and selected the ones I did to avoid the fee.

I ahve no idea what is being discussed in the post about hitting hamburger buttons. But if your point is that the fees are confusing I think that you should contact DISH about that ambiguity.


----------



## socceteer

ekammerzelt said:


> These fee's are a slippery slope. It may seem trivial now but thats how it starts.
> 
> Its fraud because it *is* a lie. They are lieing to you when they say DVR is a service provided by them. Sorry but that really bothers me!


You got it all wrong. they are not charging you for the DVR function of recording a show, you are paying for the guide information. It is not just Dish, Tivo, Direc TV and Cable all charge for that service. You can record for free. They did not lie....no Fraud...!


----------



## socceteer

Geronimo said:


> But it is ABOUT SOFTWARE. there isa license agreement too. And that agreement calls for you to pay fees. The DVR fees are in no way HDDEN fes. theya re disclosed as part of the price and accepted by the customer at the time of activation. In the case of the 7x00 you can use the receiver without the DVR features. I do not believe that is the case with any other DISH DVR. The fuctionality is Inhernt in the software not in the platform itself. It is NOT inherent in the hardware only. The hardware NEEDS the software and DISH does maintain and update that software periodically. The fact that they have chosen not to charge ona n 811 or 301 does not mean that they can't charge on a DVR-----if they disclose it-----and they do.
> 
> As for the per account fees youa re being contradictory. If DVR fees are simple illegal andf wrong they would be illegal and wrong at the account level as well. What Ia m telling you is that both pricing models are legal. We agree that charging it on a per account basis seems better---but that is a choice that the seller and buyer make. I own 2 DVRs and selected the ones I did to avoid the fee.
> 
> I ahve no idea what is being discussed in the post about hitting hamburger buttons. But if your point is that the fees are confusing I think that you should contact DISH about that ambiguity.


None of this is about software, they are not charging you for the use of the software, they are charging you for the privilege of getting a guide that it is integrated with your machine and allows you to use your record option that your machine software handles.

As I mentioned on my last append. Tivo, Direct TV and cable do the same. They did not lie to you, therefore it is not fraud. or illegal.

Next you are are going to say that it is ilegal to chart for the internet, because they are provide us with information and it uses software...on and on..!

Ridiculous....! I do not like the multiple receiver charges, but it is not illegal.


----------



## ekammerzelt

socceteer said:


> You got it all wrong. they are not charging you for the DVR function of recording a show, you are paying for the guide information. It is not just Dish, Tivo, Direc TV and Cable all charge for that service. You can record for free. They did not lie....no Fraud...!


If they were charging me for the Guide info like Tivo does I wouldnt complain(As much). We discussed this a few pages back in this overgrown thread 

The guide is free on any non-DVR and even older DVR's. Only the Newer DVR's include the Fee.

I would also argue that if they charged me extra for somthing than I should be able to exclude that service. They cant turn off the DVR "Service" because there isnt one.


----------



## larrystotler

ekammerzelt said:


> The guide is free on any non-DVR and even older DVR's. Only the Newer DVR's include the Fee.


The 44 hour guide is included on all newer receivers. The older receivers can access that guide, but you have to wait for it because the receivers do not have enough memory to store it. The DVRs(unsure about the 7xxx), have access to the 9 day guide at the 110. Therefore, they can access a much larger guide info store than a standard receiver. Now, if you only have the 119 OR if you are a Sky Angel or International ONLY sub, then you should NOT have to pay the DVR fee for the 9 day guide since you cannot get that guide info, unless E* will provide the installation of a dish pointing at the 110 and a switch free of charge.


----------



## drjake

ekammerzelt said:


> If they were charging me for the Guide info like Tivo does I wouldnt complain(As much). We discussed this a few pages back in this overgrown thread
> 
> The guide is free on any non-DVR and even older DVR's. Only the Newer DVR's include the Fee.
> 
> I would also argue that if they charged me extra for somthing than I should be able to exclude that service. They cant turn off the DVR "Service" because there isnt one.


You continue to miss the point. Whether or not DISH charged or charges for the guide on older DVRs is irrelevant. If you would like to get a receiver without the DVR fee, buy an older receiver. DISH has the right to come out with a new product and charge for the "DVR service" and its inherent 9 day guide. It is silly to argue that the "DVR service" stands on its own without the guide. The guide is what makes the "DVR service" work.

Your analogy to non-DVR boxes is just plain silly. DISH's non-dvr boxes have a 2 day guide which would be insufficient for DVR uses.

If you choose to use a 625, 522, 510, 921 or 942, the fee is charged. Its plain and simple and disclosed. While one can question the wisdom of DISH's fees and charges, to argue that DISH's DVR fee is soemhow illegal or fraudulent is silly.


----------



## the_bear

Although, I personally have looked at the Dish web page, couldn’t figure the fees out and had to call CSR, that is not what ekammerzelt is saying. He is accusing Dish of double billing/charging for nothing. If this were true, it is in itself deceptive. It is not important whether or not a customer agrees to the fee, if the fee is for nothing, it is illegal. Since most people think the total DVR cost initial fee + monthly fee is reasonable, most of these posts are for fun.


----------



## tsmacro

the_bear said:


> Although, I personally have looked at the Dish web page, couldn't figure the fees out and had to call CSR, that is not what ekammerzelt is saying. He is accusing Dish of double billing/charging for nothing. If this were true, it is in itself deceptive. It is not important whether or not a customer agrees to the fee, if the fee is for nothing, it is illegal. Since most people think the total DVR cost initial fee + monthly fee is reasonable, most of these posts are for fun.


I thought the price for the DVR is whatever you pay upfront plus $4.98/month. I guess you could call that double billing if you want, but I don't think it's illegal or deceptive, because they say it's x amount of dollars (depending on the model and the plan you sign up for) and to use it is $4.98 a month right up front. I dunno, i'm just kind of baffled by this whole thread honestly. :lol:


----------



## Geronimo

ekammerzelt said:


> If they were charging me for the Guide info like Tivo does I wouldnt complain(As much). We discussed this a few pages back in this overgrown thread
> 
> The guide is free on any non-DVR and even older DVR's. Only the Newer DVR's include the Fee.
> 
> I would also argue that if they charged me extra for somthing than I should be able to exclude that service. They cant turn off the DVR "Service" because there isnt one.


They most decidely CAN turn off DVR service. taht si exactly what they did on the 7x00 series. Without paying the fee you could not record. That could be implemented here as well. True it is not and it would only increase cost to do so but it is absurd to argue that tehre is no DVR service to cut off.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

Ok,

My telephone inherently is capable of making and receiving phone calls... yet I have to pay every month for the service to do that.

OR better yet... Caller ID is a phone feature that I have to pay extra for, BUT the caller ID information is technically there all the time anyway, and my phone inherently decodes it, so why do I pay extra for that?

The phone company charges more for call waiting and 3-way calling, but my phone inherently does that too AND it requires no more wiring to my home to work... I have to pay the fee.

So, it is not a stretch to say that DVRs have features/services that can be charged for on a monthly basis. I don't necessarily like it... but that's business.

My city charges me for the water I use AND the water they recycle... even though the water they recycle from me isn't necessarily the same as the water I use... For instance, water I use on the lawn doesn't go back through the sewers directly, but I pay anyway.

Also, I pay the same rate each month no matter how much trash I throw away... and if I don't put my can at the road one week... I don't get a credit for it.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

IF you look closely at the EULAs for some software, you will see that you don't own it at all... but rather the company has sold you the right to use it on your computer... but technically you don't own it.

As such, those companies update the software at their whim, sometimes charging for it sometimes not.

Some software companies only have 90 day warranties... and after that you have to pay for updates. Other companies give you updates for a year.

I worked for a company once that determined their customers hated buying new versions of software, but liked upgrades... so they decided to charge for a service/subscription plan entitling the customer to "free" updates... IF you didn't buy the update service, you didn't get the updates.

So, I suppose Dish could just never update the firmware... and make us buy new receivers every time there is a major upgrade OR when they added features like Name-Based-Recording... Did they charge you any more per month when they added NBR? Nope. But they certainly could have if they wanted!

FYI, some EULAs are accepted by reading and signing them... others are accepted by clicking buttons in the software interface... some EULAs are considered accepted when you remove the covering over the power plug jack and plug it in... other EULAs are considered accepted when you activate the product (for instance, calling Dish to activate your receiver could be acceptance of the software EULA).

In theory, the EULA is supposed to be presented to you for reading first... and in some countries must be presented in the native language for that country... but that's a different topic.

Short version... There is probably a EULA for the software here... especially the units that come with Linux operating systems... and Dish is definately providing a firmware upgrade service if nothing else... so there is plenty of room if they want to say the $5 is going for a service.


----------



## BobaBird

HDMe, without the infrastructure of a phone company behind it, the only inherent function of your telephone is the ability to keep papers from blowing away.

The only thing a Dish DVR needs is the channels you subscribe to. The hardware and yes, the operating software, is already paid for and in your home. It needs no external support beyond that subscription to allow it to record or play back.

drjake, why would the 2-day guide be insufficient for DVRs? I know why I wouldn't be as happy with it but why is it insufficient?

Geronimo, thank you for explaining why you think the fee could be legitimate. All Dish receivers need occasional software updates. The cost of doing that is built into the base subscription rate. A DVR is obviously more complex so that extra cost is built into a higher price and/or longer commitment - their terms, my choice to accept or not. Where have they spelled out otherwise?

Would someone be kind enough to point to this EULA we have supposedly agreed to?



larrystotler said:


> Now, if you only have the 119 OR if you are a Sky Angel or International ONLY sub, then you should NOT have to pay the DVR fee for the 9 day guide since you cannot get that guide info,


Unless... they're not selling the guide! which would shoot down the best possible justification that has been suggested so far. (The 7x00 now uses the same EEPG. When the switch was made those w/o 110 got a free D500 upgrade.)

To those unable to receive 110°: Do you pay the DVR fee or is it waived?


----------



## BobaBird

Geronimo said:


> They most decidely CAN turn off DVR service. taht si exactly what they did on the 7x00 series. Without paying the fee you could not record. That could be implemented here as well. True it is not and it would only increase cost to do so but it is absurd to argue that tehre is no DVR service to cut off.


Again, it is *not* a service. What happened with the DP is that use of the DVR *function* was hobbled unless you subscribed to the iNews information and games package which was a service. They actually did go to the expense of programming a switch for that function. Also, you could record all you wanted (or 8.6 or 20GB, whichever came first) but playback was limited to 10 minutes and you could not FF through paused programs.

The 921 contains an OTA tuner. Many 921 owners recently lost the ability to tune some of their DTV stations as the result of a software change. The use of the tuner was affected by software but that doesn't turn the feature into a service. It is built in to the receiver.


----------



## Geronimo

It sia service. The news and game functionality has long been disabled on the 7x00s. Those subject to afee (and DISH is VERY inconsistent there) still pay it. If you do not sub to the DVR fuction (as i did not for a time) you cannot record at all and playback of previously recorded programming was limited (though some claim they could still view them.

The bottom line is that a company can have several different models to arrive at apricing scheme for their product. I am not happy with how DISH charges---and that si why I own 2 508s. But you can't just call it illegal because you do not like this scheme or because other schemesd are available. In the case of DVR service this is actually the industry standard.

In this case the software is NOT paid for (at least not in full) when you purcahse the product. There are recurring monthly charges that should ahve been disclosed to you by DISh when the product was activated just as the phone comapny discloses theirs. DISH actually does a better job than the company----although that is not much ofa standard.


----------



## drjake

BobaBird said:


> drjake, why would the 2-day guide be insufficient for DVRs? I know why I wouldn't be as happy with it but why is it insufficient?


Bad terminology on my part. "DVR service" with a 2 day guide would be very poor. The real point is that throughout the threads people have been saying that the DVRs are the equivalent to non-DVRs with recording capabilities added in. That is just not the case, the 9 day guide is a substanital difference.

The continuing argument that the DVR fee is somehow illegal is just plain silly. It is not. No lawyer will take that case (As I lawyer, I certainly would not).

On the other hand, while imposing the fee may not be illegal, if DISH is deceptive in describing the fee, that might be an actionable claim. However, it would be a stretch to say that DISH is deceptive in this instance. The class action bar would already have pounced if they felt Dish's actions were deceptive.


----------



## WhiteForMe

HDMe said:


> Ok,
> 
> My telephone inherently is capable of making and receiving phone calls... yet I have to pay every month for the service to do that.
> 
> OR better yet... Caller ID is a phone feature that I have to pay extra for, BUT the caller ID information is technically there all the time anyway, and my phone inherently decodes it, so why do I pay extra for that?
> 
> The phone company charges more for call waiting and 3-way calling, but my phone inherently does that too AND it requires no more wiring to my home to work... I have to pay the fee.


You should have left the phones out of this discussion. Because you have No clue on how one works!!!


----------



## AllieVi

Land line phone company caller ID seems like a good analogy The originating caller data is already available at the destination central office (assuming the caller isn't blocking). It costs the phone company essentially nothing to make the data available to the customer's instrument. The software was developed decades ago and any costs associated with it should already be absorbed. The phone company holds the data hostage and will release it in exchange for widely-available pictures of some former Presidents, many of whom look like modern-day hippies.

The only difference I see is that the phone can be used without caller ID, but (AFAIK) receivers can't. But then, we knew (or should have known) that from the start.


----------



## socceteer

drjake said:


> Bad terminology on my part. "DVR service" with a 2 day guide would be very poor. The real point is that throughout the threads people have been saying that the DVRs are the equivalent to non-DVRs with recording capabilities added in. That is just not the case, the 9 day guide is a substanital difference.
> 
> The continuing argument that the DVR fee is somehow illegal is just plain silly. It is not. No lawyer will take that case (As I lawyer, I certainly would not).
> 
> On the other hand, while imposing the fee may not be illegal, if DISH is deceptive in describing the fee, that might be an actionable claim. However, it would be a stretch to say that DISH is deceptive in this instance. The class action bar would already have pounced if they felt Dish's actions were deceptive.


I was hoping that some one with legal knowledge would add a comment....thank you

Dish is big enough where any lawyer who thought they could get a lawsuit would have jumped to get the case. Clearly there is not a strong case here to bother going to court.


----------



## the_bear

I too like the caller ID analogy. I would guess there are probably more people that plugged their new caller ID phones in only to find the caller ID function did not work than there are people that plugged their 921s in only to find the 921 did not work. To make the caller ID phone even more confusing, the phones were released before every neighborhood had caller ID service. Unlike Dish, all the packaging I have seen recently for phones have made some attempt to explain this to customers. I also like the similarity that the recurring fee paid by the buyer is many times greater than the recurring costs to the seller. One major difference with the caller ID is the two fees (initial and recurring) are paid it different sellers. There is less confusion of the two fees being for the “exact same thing”. I don’t buy this, the guide is what differentiates the two DVR fees. If Dish let customers set manual timers to save $5, Dish would not be able to break even on those DVRs.

When I look at Dish DVR marketing material, it list the ability “play, stop, fast forward, fast reverse, skip forward” along with a price next to those abilities. I can definitely see how the average person would interpret this as, if they pay the listed price (the initial DVR fee) they would get those abilities. It is only after doing more digging that a customer realizes that they need to also pay a recurring DVR fee to get the abilities listed. The icing on the cake here is the advertisements go through extra effort to define what “up to” means, as in “Up to 100 hours”. There is enough room on the page to define up to, but not the total DVR cost. I guess Dish feels there will be more customer confusion on what up to means than fees.

With all that said, I still believe Dish is more at risk of a suit over their customer commitment contracts. Contracts are generally held to a higher standard than advertisements. I don’t like the way the customer commitment contract defines the time element exactly, but leaves the cost element subjective. While some would argue the risk of a lawsuit is not very great, neither is the effort to add two extra sentences.


----------



## KingLoop

the_bear said:


> With all that said, I still believe Dish is more at risk of a suit over their customer commitment contracts. Contracts are generally held to a higher standard than advertisements. I don't like the way the customer commitment contract defines the time element exactly, but leaves the cost element subjective. While some would argue the risk of a lawsuit is not very great, neither is the effort to add two extra sentences.


DirecTv has a new contract... it reads in part *DIRECTV PROGRAMMING AND PRICING SUBJECT TO CHANGE AT ANY TIME.*

DirecTv also requires a programming commitment.


----------



## garypen

The caller ID analogy is an excellent one. However, you are all using it incorrectly, as it helps prove the argument AGAINST Dish's DVR fee.

You see, if you don't pay the additional CID fee, _you're phone still works_. The phone company does not charge an extra fee simply because you have a CID-capable phone. If you choose not to pay the fee, they will still "activate" your phone, and it will work as a phone.

In the case of Dish DVR's, they are merely charging an extra $5 per receiver for each DVR-capable receiver, other than the 501, 508, 721, and sometimes the DP, for the sake of making more money.

The 510 is IDENTICAL in functionality to the 501 and 508, other than having a larger hdd, yet carries a $5 fee when the others do not. The 721 is way more feature-laden than the 510, yet carries no such fee. The 921 cost buyers $500-$1000, has never worked correctly, yet still carries a fee.

All in all, the Dish DVR fee may not be illegal. But, it is unequivocally a crock of steaming sh*t.


----------



## garypen

KingLoop said:


> DirecTv has a new contract... it reads in part *DIRECTV PROGRAMMING AND PRICING SUBJECT TO CHANGE AT ANY TIME.*
> 
> DirecTv also requires a programming commitment.


Of course, they waive the early termination fee, if you return the equipment. Dish doesn't give you that option.


----------



## AllieVi

garypen said:


> The caller ID analogy is an excellent one. However, you are all using it incorrectly, as it helps prove the argument AGAINST Dish's DVR fee.
> 
> You see, if you don't pay the additional CID fee, _you're phone still works_. The phone company does not charge an extra fee simply because you have a CID-capable phone. If you choose not to pay the fee, they will still "activate" your phone, and it will work as a phone.


I acknowledged your point in my prior post. The analogy isn't perfect, but it's a demonstration of a charge that is unrelated to any associated costs. It's pure profit for the phone company in the same way that the DVR fee is pure profit to DISH.

Maybe DISH should change their marketing strategy. They could sell DVR receivers that can always be used as regular receivers, but activate the DVR feature only if the owner pays. That would seem to satisfy those who are upset about not being able to use one without paying. The analogy of caller ID on a phone would then be more accurate.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

BobaBird said:


> HDMe, without the infrastructure of a phone company behind it, the only inherent function of your telephone is the ability to keep papers from blowing away.
> 
> The only thing a Dish DVR needs is the channels you subscribe to. The hardware and yes, the operating software, is already paid for and in your home. It needs no external support beyond that subscription to allow it to record or play back.


Dish Network is providing the infrastructure that provides the channels and the program guide for those channels... to make the receiver work.

Here's something to think about... what happens if you deactivate the DVR, can you still view programs recorded on it or not? I thought I had read that the receiver must be active on your account in order to playback already recorded programs. If I am mistaken, then nevermind!

Who are we to say that the $5 fee doesn't go towards some service Dish is providing to us?

BUT, most importantly... what does it matter? They tell you about the fee when you call to activate your receiver, and that is when you agree to the charge. No fraud there. IF you bought your receiver from Dish, they would tell you then also. IF you bought your receiver from a 3rd party, then that 3rd party is who you have the complaint with if you weren't aware of the fee before you bought the receiver.

IF I buy a phone, and it doesn't work... I can't complain to BellSouth or AT&T unless one of them sold me the phone.


----------



## cdoyle

I'm able to view recorded programs on my 508 without service. Not sure if all the recievers do that tho?


----------



## socceteer

AllieVi said:


> I acknowledged your point in my prior post. The analogy isn't perfect, but it's a demonstration of a charge that is unrelated to any associated costs. It's pure profit for the phone company in the same way that the DVR fee is pure profit to DISH.
> 
> Maybe DISH should change their marketing strategy. They could sell DVR receivers that can always be used as regular receivers, but activate the DVR feature only if the owner pays. That would seem to satisfy those who are upset about not being able to use one without paying. The analogy of caller ID on a phone would then be more accurate.


Well said again ...!


----------



## Geronimo

cdoyle said:


> I'm able to view recorded programs on my 508 without service. Not sure if all the recievers do that tho?


The 508 has no DVR fees. So you do indded have the service.


----------



## Geronimo

garypen said:


> The caller ID analogy is an excellent one. However, you are all using it incorrectly, as it helps prove the argument AGAINST Dish's DVR fee.
> 
> All in all, the Dish DVR fee may not be illegal. But, it is unequivocally a crock of steaming sh*t.


No one ever sisputed THAT Gary. They just said that the fee is not illegaol


----------



## BobaBird

HDMe said:


> Dish Network is providing the infrastructure that provides the channels and the program guide for those channels... to make the receiver work.


Of course you pay for the programming. If you didn't you probably wouldn't have much use for a recorder.  What other infrastructure is involved to allow the device in your home to manipulate the signal you have paid for?


> Here's something to think about... what happens if you deactivate the DVR, can you still view programs recorded on it or not? I thought I had read that the receiver must be active on your account in order to playback already recorded programs. If I am mistaken, then nevermind!


Yes you can. You can even use the DVR function before the receiver is activated per a recent post in (I think) the 942 forum.


garypen said:


> All in all, the Dish DVR fee may not be illegal. But, it is unequivocally a crock of steaming sh*t.


200+ posts nicely summarized. :biggthump


----------



## Stewart Vernon

You'll never hear me arguing how great the fees are... how I wish there were more fees... or anything of the sort.

I just argue that there isn't anything fraudulent or illegal about them... and I definately don't want more crazy laws on the books to make it so!


----------



## larrystotler

BobaBird said:


> You can even use the DVR function before the receiver is activated per a recent post in (I think) the 942 forum.


Recently, they changed the 501/508/510 and you cannot use it once the receiver has been deactivated. It gived the same "Needs to be Activated" message that the 311's have.


----------



## Geronimo

I did nott hink that any receiver worked when it was deactivated. You learn something every day.


----------



## the_bear

HDMe said:


> BUT, most importantly... what does it matter?


You cannot "agree" to buy nothing. This is why there are so many posts joking that Dish provides nothing for the DVR fee. For a real word example, people often promise to give money to charity. When they make that promise they do not enter into a contract with the charity. When the charity sends those people a bill for their promised money, many people change their mind and throw the bill in the trash.


----------



## Geronimo

the_bear said:


> You cannot "agree" to buy nothing. This is why there are so many posts joking that Dish provides nothing for the DVR fee. For a real word example, people often promise to give money to charity. When they make that promise they do not enter into a contract with the charity. When the charity sends those people a bill for their promised money, many people change their mind and throw the bill in the trash.


I don't think that the debate centers on whether you buy nothing as much as it does on how you agree to pay for the receiver, the software and the infrastructure. You can indeed change your mind about a charitable contribution but in this case if you refuse to pay your service will be cut off.

Some of us think that thsi is totally unreasonable and call it illegal. Others may or may not like it but accepted the terms of the agreement and are willing to live with it.


----------



## larrystotler

Geronimo said:


> I did nott hink that any receiver worked when it was deactivated. You learn something every day.


So long as you unhook the receiver from the dish, BUT keep it connected to the electric, it will work fine. So long as you don't allow the 508 say to take the deacticvation hit(which is sent continously, they will get it eventually), you can always watch your recorded stuff. If you unplugged from the electric it for more than 30 days, it will also loose the programming info.


----------



## Geronimo

larrystotler said:


> So long as you unhook the receiver from the dish, BUT keep it connected to the electric, it will work fine. So long as you don't allow the 508 say to take the deacticvation hit(which is sent continously, they will get it eventually), you can always watch your recorded stuff. If you unplugged from the electric it for more than 30 days, it will also loose the programming info.


I guess it is another problem with terminolgy. To me that receiver is not deactivated. But now I see what was meant.


----------



## Roger Tee

Geronimo said:


> The 508 has no DVR fees. So you do indded have the service.


I paid it up front when I bought 501/508 at the original price. Now the 510s are heavily subsidized and you pay it back at $5 a month now instead of up front. I paid a lot of money for the first PVR for sat TV (Dishplayer and still paid $149 for 3 year PVR fee to save money)

I paid a lot of money for tivo lifetime service too.

That's life, would I have preferred to pay $5 a month instead and got the 501/7100 for current prices? You bet, what bargain!


----------



## larrystotler

Attrecting new subscribers is always a company's top priority unfortunatelty. You could dump dish now, and be considered a "former" within 1 -2 years and then get all new equipment for only an 18 month commit starting the 15th. Whereas a good, paying ontime sub has to pay at least $100 just to lease a new 301 or 510. What a ripoff. E* needs to work on their existing subs upgrades.


----------



## welchwarlock

tsmacro said:


> welchwarlock said:
> 
> 
> 
> Business is Business...Granted.....But
> 1) Charging me a fee because my receiver has a UHF remote should be illegal...I paid more to get the UHF remote.
> 
> WHY?
> 
> 2) Charging me a fee because my receiver has a bigger HD than the other receiver should be illegal...I paid more to get the bigger HD.
> 
> WHY?
> 
> 3) Charging me a fee because I bought a VCR and are recording the shows for later viewing should be illegal... I paid for the VCR.
> 
> AND ONCE AGAIN, WHY?
> 
> Back to the DVR...They waive the fee if you by the "Everything" package, so any arguments on their end about the fee being anything other than a profit center is bogus.
> 
> AND SO WHAT IF IT IS?
> 
> I understand you don't like the way that Dish has decided to charge for their services, but just because you don't care for it doesn't mean it should be illegal. And thank goodness for that because from reading your posts it seems that if that were the case all companies would have to price their services one way that makes you happy, which sounds more like communism to me. Once again the market will decide whether Dish continues to price their services the way they currently do. And do I ever hope that's the way it stays because the last thing we need in this country is more ridiculous laws that take resources away from law enforcement and distracting them from actual important matters such as our safety.
> 
> 
> 
> Why should it be illegal? Because they are not a taxing authority. They are levying a fee (Tax) based upon the value (Size of the HD) or functionality of the item I purchased from a third party (CostCo). Their "fee" is for a service that they do not provide. The unit I OWN provides the service.
> 
> Again, I will make a relevant analogy. It would be as if the Phone company charged you an "Answering Machine Fee" for a machine you purchased and hooked up to the phone line. The Phone company is not providing any functionality or additional service for the answering machine to operate.
> 
> Give me some service for the Fee. Do Something for me! Earn the $5, don't steal it.
> 
> WW
Click to expand...


----------



## AllieVi

welchwarlock said:


> Again, I will make a relevant analogy. It would be as if the Phone company charged you an "Answering Machine Fee" for a machine you purchased and hooked up to the phone line. The Phone company is not providing any functionality or additional service for the answering machine to operate.


I like your analogy. But for it to represent the DVR situation more accurately, the phone company would have to be in a position to enable/disable it. If they could (and the FCC didn't object), do you believe a fee would exist?


----------



## Stewart Vernon

larrystotler said:


> Attrecting new subscribers is always a company's top priority unfortunatelty. You could dump dish now, and be considered a "former" within 1 -2 years and then get all new equipment for only an 18 month commit starting the 15th. Whereas a good, paying ontime sub has to pay at least $100 just to lease a new 301 or 510. What a ripoff. E* needs to work on their existing subs upgrades.


I'm not saying it is right or fair... but who do you try harder to impress... a good old friend for many years? Or the new boss?

It is human nature to work hard to get something you don't have, then take it for granted once you've had it for a while.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

welchwarlock said:


> Again, I will make a relevant analogy. It would be as if the Phone company charged you an "Answering Machine Fee" for a machine you purchased and hooked up to the phone line. The Phone company is not providing any functionality or additional service for the answering machine to operate.
> 
> Give me some service for the Fee. Do Something for me! Earn the $5, don't steal it.
> 
> WW


'Course the answering machine is a bit useless without the phone service it is connected to... In times way past, the phone company used to require you to register all equipment with them that you connect to their service... Prior to that, you couldn't connect anything other than the phone supplied by the phone company (it was theirs and you essentially leased it).

As of right now, Dish is more like the phone company of old... Dish makes all the receivers, except they gave JVC permission to make versions of some of their receivers... so however you get one, it somehow came from Dish so they get to make the rules about their service.

I still think my caller ID example is much better... The phone company charges for caller ID service even though the information is there all the time at no additional expense to them whether I pay for caller ID or not... and I can buy a phone or machine that has caller ID features but unless I pay the phone company for the "service", I don't get to use that inherent built-in feature on my phone/machine.


----------



## BobaBird

AllieVi said:


> I like your [answering machine] analogy. But for it to represent the DVR situation more accurately, the phone company would have to be in a position to enable/disable it. If they could (and the FCC didn't object), do you believe a fee would exist?


And if the fee exists, does that make it a service? Some have already said 'yes' for the DVR. If it's 'no' for the answering machine, what's the difference?

That's precisely what happened with the DISHPlayer. Everything it needs to record a show is in the box but some code was added to hobble the feature unless the owner subscribed to the unrelated PTV service (iNews, weather, rotating games, separately sourced EPG). The ability to remotely enable or disable does not mean the feature requires on-going input to continue working and thus justify an on-going fee. Remember development is built into the price of the DVR and all receivers get on-going support that is included in the programming subscription rate.


----------



## AllieVi

BobaBird said:


> And if the fee exists, does that make it a service? Some have already said 'yes' for the DVR. If it's 'no' for the answering machine, what's the difference?
> 
> That's precisely what happened with the DISHPlayer. Everything it needs to record a show is in the box but some code was added to hobble the feature unless the owner subscribed to the unrelated PTV service (iNews, weather, rotating games, separately sourced EPG). The ability to remotely enable or disable does not mean the feature requires on-going input to continue working and thus justify an on-going fee. Remember development is built into the price of the DVR and all receivers get on-going support that is included in the programming subscription rate.


I've never claimed that DISH is providing a service in exchange for the DVR fee. I believe the fee is charged simply because people want DVR capability, DISH can enable/disable it and DISH knows we are willing to pay for it. Nothing more.

As I see it, DISH doesn't have to justify the fee. You and I have to justify (to ourselves) our willingness to pay it. Competition is alive and well in this business and it will eventually determine the course of the fee.

The answering machine analogy would be good if the phone company could enable/disable it. The caller ID analogy would be good if the DVR could work without recording.


----------



## tsmacro

" Remember development is built into the price of the DVR and all receivers get on-going support that is included in the programming subscription rate" -quote from Boba Bird above


This is how things should be priced according to you. And honestly maybe it is a better system. However that doesn't make it reality. Reality is that Dish has decided to make the cost of its DVR whatever you pay up front PLUS $4.98 a month. I understand that there are people who don't care for that method but it doesn't make it "wrong" it just means its different than you'd prefer. Think of it this way if they didn't charge the fee than all Dish subscribers would be subsidizing the cost of the DVR's through their monthly subscription cost whether they had one or not. This way the people who own the DVR help pay the extra costs involved in development and support for the more expensive equipment they choose to have. That actually sounds more fair to me, especially if i'm someone who just has one 301 and only subscribes the top 60 and my locals, all that person cares about is having the basics and keeping their bill low. Should that person's bill go up to help subsidize the cost for those of us that want the more expensive toy? Sure I suppose the other alternative is to pay more upfront for the DVR, but that's not going to happen, because Dish wants to get DVR's into as many homes as possible since they know DVR customers have a lower churn rate. Honestly the way the have it set up now is probably the fairest way to do it. Now the market will eventually determine if that's how it stays after all this is more of an issue of econmics than anything else.


----------



## Geronimo

This thread started with the allegation that the fees were illegal and the assertion that the author would press the matter. It is probably too early to expect any replies but I would like to heara report of how the prosecution of this matter goes.

I am serious about that. No jumpoing all over him or anything like that. JUst a report from him (or periodic ones) on how it is going.


----------



## Geronimo

BobaBird said:


> And if the fee exists, does that make it a service? Some have already said 'yes' for the DVR. If it's 'no' for the answering machine, what's the difference?
> 
> That's precisely what happened with the DISHPlayer. Everything it needs to record a show is in the box but some code was added to hobble the feature unless the owner subscribed to the unrelated PTV service (iNews, weather, rotating games, separately sourced EPG). The ability to remotely enable or disable does not mean the feature requires on-going input to continue working and thus justify an on-going fee. Remember development is built into the price of the DVR and all receivers get on-going support that is included in the programming subscription rate.


An answeing machine like a VCR is a mechanical device. It record whatever is input to it. Most use little or no software. A DVR is more analogous to an answering service that some companies bundle with their service and others charge a fee for.


----------



## Altaman

Actually the caller ID reasoning does not hold water versus a DVR fee. The phone company has to provide the CID signal to you if you subscribe to it and as such there is a fee for the service.

Now the DVR fee is actually an unjustifed fee, in that you purchase the equipment and it is now yours. What if Dish deceided to charge a DP LNB fee because you upgraded your LNB's to them or every tinme your receiver displayed CID on your screen, they charged you a dime? Is that acceptable if they started doing that? There is no service provided by Dish once that PVR is built/sold. The extended guide is provided to all receivers that are capable of it, firmware updates are provided to all receivers. In essence you are getting nothing for the PVR fee.

Now in defence of the fee, it is like cell phone companies charging a network access fee every month on top of your cell phone charges. You have to have the network in order to use the service you pay for, so why do we get charged that? Because they can!

I personally think any extra fees over your subscription costs on anything are bogus.

Alt


----------



## Geronimo

"Justified" and "legal" are different concepts. Yes DISH could charge you to rent the LNBFs (they don't) or the receivers (and sometimes they do). You are paying a license fee to use the DVR software. Annoting I wish it was not that there. But legal.


----------



## Altaman

Geronimo said:


> You are paying a license fee to use the DVR software.


Could you please show where it states a "PVR licence fee"! Also if that is the case, in Canada they use Dish PVR's and there are no licence fees to use Dish PVR software (or any PVR fee for that matter).

Alt


----------



## BobaBird

AllieVi said:


> I've never claimed that DISH is providing a service in exchange for the DVR fee.


Didn't mean to imply that you did, your post just brought up another aspect of the issue I thought would be good to explore.


tsmacro said:


> "Remember development is built into the price of the DVR and all receivers get on-going support that is included in the programming subscription rate"​This is how things should be priced according to you. And honestly maybe it is a better system. However that doesn't make it reality.


What do you think has been going on since March 1996?

Dish has never charged a separate fee for software updates. They have the ability to offer optional upgrades for a price but have never done so. Discussion of what other companies do or could do has been interesting but doesn't reflect what Dish does. Their pricing model is already set, the precedent is firmly established.

DVRs are more complex but they aren't necessarily getting more attention. The no-fee 811 has gotten 16 updates since its introduction in 12/03. The 921 (also 12/03) has gotten 17, but 2 of those were for the sole purpose of taking away OTA guide data that they hadn't intended to give, nothing else was added or fixed so only 15 count. The 510 has gotten a mere 6 updates in the same time period, same as its no-fee cousins the 508 and 501 which are identical other than hard drive capacity. The 522 has gotten many more updates, 28 since 11/03. Other models, since 11/03: 721-7, 311-7, 301(D&E)-11, DISHPlayer-10, 322-23(!), 942-5 since 3/05, 6000-5, 4900-4, 4000-5, 111-4. Overall I'd call that a mixed bag. If the DVR fee is actually for software support and continuing development, why is there no similar fee for the 811 and 322?


----------



## Geronimo

Altaman said:


> Could you please show where it states a "PVR licence fee"! Also if that is the case, in Canada they use Dish PVR's and there are no licence fees to use Dish PVR software (or any PVR fee for that matter).
> 
> Alt


THey identify it as a DVR fee they don't have to call it a license fee. In Canada thew service is not bought through DISH but another provider. That provider is free to price its product as it sees fit as long as it does not violate their agreement with DISH.

But I would like it if you would show me the law that makes this privcing arrangement ilegal in the US

In England you pay a tax to watch TV. So wat? That does not mean it applies here.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

Why do people pay more to wear a t-shirt with a Nike "swoosh" on it than for a plain t-shirt? Paying Nike for the privelege of advertising their company for them to sell more product that you don't get a percentage of the sales!

There are far too many examples to list all the ways in which we (and yes I'm including myself) all choose to pay more for something than we have to... be it laziness, a feeling that we are "getting what we pay for", wanting to feel "special" or "rich" or "cultured" or "important"... and on and on...

The fees aren't illegal. I don't like them, and right now I don't have one of the receivers that requires a fee... in part because right now I don't want what the receivers offer badly enough to pay the extra fee plus the upgrade investment... so I'm voting with my wallet.

If you don't like the fee... de-activate that receiver, return it... and don't buy one next time without researching first.

In some ways it is like buying a car that uses an alternate fuel source, then complaining the price of that fuel costs too much... when you could have asked about that before making the purchase.

I am NOT painting everyone with the same brush... but I know some folks who go on the "cheap" to get their receiver on eBay or used/refurbed or whatever... and they clearly know their stuff because they are competent to ask the right questions and get a receiver they can use, know when they are getting a deal, and do the install themselves... then are suddenly "surprised" at the extra monthly fee.


----------



## Jacob S

I do not know if anyone else has said this or not seeing how many people have posted in this thread but saying that a pvr charge is illegal and wrong is just like saying that paying for cable or satellite television or internet or definitely any software program is illegal and wrong. That does not mean I am saying that it is right to charge for it but not saying that its wrong either. If it is a valuable enough service to you then vote with your wallet.


----------



## welchwarlock

AllieVi said:


> I like your analogy. But for it to represent the DVR situation more accurately, the phone company would have to be in a position to enable/disable it. If they could (and the FCC didn't object), do you believe a fee would exist?


The phone company is in a position to Enable/Disable it....try not paying your phone bill for a while....If you are talking about just being able to disable the DVR, Dish does not currently have that capability...


----------



## garypen

HDMe said:


> Why do people pay more to wear a t-shirt with a Nike "swoosh" on it than for a plain t-shirt?


Ooh! Ooh! Ooh! Because they're idiots? (What do I win?)


----------



## AllieVi

welchwarlock said:


> The phone company is in a position to Enable/Disable it....try not paying your phone bill for a while....If you are talking about just being able to disable the DVR, Dish does not currently have that capability...


Maybe the intent of my post wasn't clear.

The *it* I was referring to was a hypothetical ability to enable/disable an answering machine that I own. I suggested that if phone companies could enable/disable (and the FCC didn't object), they would probably charge to enable it, even though operation of the machine doesn't affect their costs in any way.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

garypen said:


> Ooh! Ooh! Ooh! Because they're idiots? (What do I win?)


You win the right to point and snicker the next time you see someone with a Nike swoosh.

Of course, my two posts now using "Nike" in the text have actually served to advertise their product as well... so you should probably point and laugh at me while you're at it!


----------



## garypen

HDMe said:


> You win the right to point and snicker the next time you see someone with a Nike swoosh.


Ironically, I've already been excercising that right for years.


----------

