# Federal Appeals court clears way



## D-Bamatech (Jun 28, 2006)

Published on Tuesday, November 24, 2009 10:18 PM PST
Deborah Mathis
Special to the Sun�

*
Federal Appeals court clears way for DirecTV lawsuit for alleged 'bait and switch' scheme*

In a major victory for consumers, the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals recently held that DirecTV's contractual ban on customers bringing class actions against it violates a "fundamental policy" of California.

The Court also ruled that, because DirecTV is headquartered in California and the national class action lawsuit is based on California law alone, DirecTV could not use the "choice-of-law" provision in its contract to avoid the application of California law in this case.

"DirecTV knew that if it could avoid the application of California law and a nationwide class action, it could cheat customers in many states with impunity, because some states permit corporations to ban class actions," said Public Justice Staff Attorney Leslie Bailey, who was the principal author of the appellate brief. "Now that the company can no longer hide behind its contract, its customers will have their day in court."

The plaintiffs in this putative nationwide class action allege that DirecTV has violated California consumer protection laws by engaging in a "bait and switch" scheme in which it markets satellite television receivers for purchase, informing customers only after the sale is completed that they have merely "leased" the equipment and must pay additional long-term monthly fees or incur cancellation penalties.

DirecTV's consumer contract includes a term banning its customers from bringing or participating in a class action ban, but a California court had earlier ruled that the class action ban is unenforceable under California law. DirecTV sought to block the case by arguing that California law did not apply to the contracts of non-California customers.

"This victory allows us to vigorously pursue the claims of our clients throughout the United States," said Michael Reese of New York, co-counsel in the case. "We look forward to bringing them justice in this matter."


----------



## Movieman (May 9, 2009)

Thanks for posting. I see the receiver pricing changing if Directv looses in court. Maybe this is before I got the service cause I was clearly told about the lease cost and fees way before I signed up. I was told several times and had to confirm that I understood this several times.


----------



## CJTE (Sep 18, 2007)

I doubt DirecTV is going to lose.
There's no bait and switch. If anything, they'll simply change the fee to reflect what it really is, a MIRRORING fee.


----------



## SamC (Jan 20, 2003)

It is so unfortunate that DirecTV customers have to pay, via our fees, to defend against frivilous predatory lawsuits on behalf of people who do not READ and UNDERSTAND a voluntary purchase.


----------



## dubber deux (Mar 8, 2009)

SamC said:


> It is so unfortunate that DirecTV customers have to pay, via our fees, to defend against frivilous predatory lawsuits on behalf of people who do not READ and UNDERSTAND a voluntary purchase.


YOUR OPINION, of course!:sure:

D* as well as other media providers need a huge dose of ethics and integrity injected into their buisiness practices.


----------



## Scott Kocourek (Jun 13, 2009)

Just remember that business do not pay when they lose lawsuits, customers do, and if the business fails, the stockpayers do. So if thats what people want, file away.


----------



## dubber deux (Mar 8, 2009)

scottandregan said:


> Just remember that business do not pay when they lose lawsuits, customers do, and if the business fails, the stockpayers do. So if thats what people want, file away.


That may be the case...BUT if D* (and others) had more ethical managment there likely wouldn't be a suit at all!


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

Movieman said:


> Thanks for posting. I see the receiver pricing changing if Directv looses in court. Maybe this is before I got the service cause I was clearly told about the lease cost and fees way before I signed up. I was told several times and had to confirm that I understood this several times.


I'm afraid the case is has only two sides: hosed consumers and greedy company. Perhaps you was lucky this time.


----------



## tcusta00 (Dec 31, 2007)

dubber deux said:



> That may be the case...BUT if D* (and others) had more ethical managment there likely wouldn't be a suit at all!


Ok, I'll bite. How is DirecTV's management unethical?


----------



## QuickDrop (Jul 21, 2007)

scottandregan said:


> Just remember that business do not pay when they lose lawsuits, customers do, and if the business fails, the stockpayers do. So if thats what people want, file away.


So, assuming a business is truly screwing its customers, is the best solution simply to grin and bear it? Or should they hope for a Marxist revolution?


----------



## Movieman (May 9, 2009)

tcusta00 said:


> Ok, I'll bite. How is DirecTV's management unethical?


I'll bite also. This might be another one of those "lets just kick them because they are too big" type of lawsuits.


----------



## Movieman (May 9, 2009)

QuickDrop said:


> So, assuming a business is truly screwing its customers, is the best solution simply to grin and bear it? *Or should they hope for a Marxist revolution?*


Lets not even go that route.


----------



## CJTE (Sep 18, 2007)

QuickDrop said:


> So, assuming a business is truly screwing its customers, is the best solution simply to grin and bear it? Or should they hope for a Marxist revolution?


If the business was actually 'screwing' its customers, then the lawsuit process is good.

DirecTV isn't actually 'screwing' its customers, so it all falls back on us, the subs. I can't wait for another hike in my programming package! And to think I was about to upgrade to Plus HD/DVR... Now I'll get to pay that price and stay with the package I got.
Woohoo.... :nono2:


----------



## Davenlr (Sep 16, 2006)

tcusta00 said:


> Ok, I'll bite. How is DirecTV's management unethical?


When you sign a cell contract, and get a free/cheap cell phone in the process, you are informed that if you fail to maintain service for the contract period, you need to pay a early termination fee. You do, however, own the phone after paying the fee, or fulfulling your contract. Directv, using the same format, however, did not tell its customers buying receivers/dvrs at Best Buy, that even after fulfulling the contract, or paying the ETF, the receiver they "bought" would have to be returned. My first HR20, and my HR22, both purchased at Best Buy, had no notice on the box, or on the sales slip, that I didnt own that box. My H21, however, which was purchased 6 months ago, DID have a notice on the box, and I was required to sign an electronic form at Best Buy saying I understood I didnt own the box.

I can see why customers who grew up with DirecTv and were accustomed to owning their own boxes, then reselling them when they upgraded, might feel DirecTv was unethical when they changed the policy and did not notify them. I feel as though I should own my two DVR's, as I never agreed to the lease option when I paid full price for them $399 each for two HR20's and $299 for the HR22.

Im not going to sue DirecTv for ownership, but if someone does, and they win, and it forces DirecTv to either convert all units purchased before X date to owned, it wouldnt bother me in the least. What it HAS already done, is forced DirecTv and its sales outlets to start notifying customers what they are really getting into.

In any case, the boxes are going to either be subscribed for $5 a month, or sold on eBay to someone who will pay $5 a month AND a new access card fee, so it really wouldnt cost Directv anything, since their goal is to have the boxes authorized and paying subscription fees.

FWIW, I have several friends and co-workers who refuse to switch from cable to DirecTv simply due to the pay for equipment they dont own/lease/long contract business plan. They are paying $30 more a month for less channels, and twice as much a month to lease DVRs, all because they view DirecTv to be unethical with all their upfront fees and contracts.

DirecTv's business plan, however, works for them, since Ive spent so much money for equipment I would have to return, it would not be price effective to switch, if there was any reason I should want to (which there isnt, thankfully).

Apparently, others dont feel that way, and the court is their only remedy.


----------



## JoeTheDragon (Jul 21, 2008)

Davenlr said:


> When you sign a cell contract, and get a free/cheap cell phone in the process, you are informed that if you fail to maintain service for the contract period, you need to pay a early termination fee. You do, however, own the phone after paying the fee, or fulfulling your contract. Directv, using the same format, however, did not tell its customers buying receivers/dvrs at Best Buy, that even after fulfulling the contract, or paying the ETF, the receiver they "bought" would have to be returned. My first HR20, and my HR22, both purchased at Best Buy, had no notice on the box, or on the sales slip, that I didnt own that box. My H21, however, which was purchased 6 months ago, DID have a notice on the box, and I was required to sign an electronic form at Best Buy saying I understood I didnt own the box.
> 
> I can see why customers who grew up with DirecTv and were accustomed to owning their own boxes, then reselling them when they upgraded, might feel DirecTv was unethical when they changed the policy and did not notify them. I feel as though I should own my two DVR's, as I never agreed to the lease option when I paid full price for them $399 each for two HR20's and $299 for the HR22.
> 
> ...


to add to that I think there also some old leased boxes that are so old they don't want them back now days as well.


----------



## tcusta00 (Dec 31, 2007)

Davenlr said:


> When you sign a cell contract, and get a free/cheap cell phone in the process, you are informed that if you fail to maintain service for the contract period, you need to pay a early termination fee. You do, however, own the phone after paying the fee, or fulfulling your contract. Directv, using the same format, however, did not tell its customers buying receivers/dvrs at Best Buy, that even after fulfulling the contract, or paying the ETF, the receiver they "bought" would have to be returned. My first HR20, and my HR22, both purchased at Best Buy, had no notice on the box, or on the sales slip, that I didnt own that box. My H21, however, which was purchased 6 months ago, DID have a notice on the box, and I was required to sign an electronic form at Best Buy saying I understood I didnt own the box.
> 
> I can see why customers who grew up with DirecTv and were accustomed to owning their own boxes, then reselling them when they upgraded, might feel DirecTv was unethical when they changed the policy and did not notify them. I feel as though I should own my two DVR's, as I never agreed to the lease option when I paid full price for them $399 each for two HR20's and $299 for the HR22.
> 
> ...


This was addressed and settled in a different class action lawsuit, IIRC. I don't think that's what dubber was referring to when he called them unethical.


----------



## joe diamond (Feb 28, 2007)

tcusta00 said:


> Ok, I'll bite. How is DirecTV's management unethical?


I'll hold back on installation issues and see where the customer side of this public lynching goes. Aside from paying your bill every month and watching TV what...?

Joe


----------



## Plasman (Jan 2, 2006)

Davenlr said:


> When you sign a cell contract, and get a free/cheap cell phone in the process, you are informed that if you fail to maintain service for the contract period, you need to pay a early termination fee. You do, however, own the phone after paying the fee, or fulfulling your contract. Directv, using the same format, however, did not tell its customers buying receivers/dvrs at Best Buy, that even after fulfulling the contract, or paying the ETF, the receiver they "bought" would have to be returned. My first HR20, and my HR22, both purchased at Best Buy, had no notice on the box, or on the sales slip, that I didnt own that box. My H21, however, which was purchased 6 months ago, DID have a notice on the box, and I was required to sign an electronic form at Best Buy saying I understood I didnt own the box.
> 
> I can see why customers who grew up with DirecTv and were accustomed to owning their own boxes, then reselling them when they upgraded, might feel DirecTv was unethical when they changed the policy and did not notify them. I feel as though I should own my two DVR's, as I never agreed to the lease option when I paid full price for them $399 each for two HR20's and $299 for the HR22.
> 
> ...


Well said. I have no problem paying a mirroring fee. But I also think DirectTV can't have it both ways. It should either lease the receivers or it should sell the receivers. It never sat right with me that I paid $300 for HR20 DVR's but I have to send it back or pay a another fee if I cancel after years of service.


----------



## GregLee (Dec 28, 2005)

QuickDrop said:


> So, assuming a business is truly screwing its customers, is the best solution simply to grin and bear it?


Essentially, that's what's being said. You should look to the bottom line, and if other courses of action are more expensive for you, just bend over. It's the most rational course.


----------



## David MacLeod (Jan 29, 2008)

tcusta00 said:


> Ok, I'll bite. How is DirecTV's management unethical?


they don't return phone calls to strangers.


----------



## dubber deux (Mar 8, 2009)

GregLee said:


> Essentially, that's what's being said. You should look to the bottom line, and if other courses of action are more expensive for you, just bend over. It's the most rational course.


One wonders if these elite boobs that manage larger corporations ever learn anything. Probably not ,after the disaster (ie GM) they simply claim that "no one could see the debacle coming" and how could anyone expect them to anticipate it. Problem is that these Ivory Tower clowns are so well compensated (over compensated!!!!!!!) that they should be able to see into the future! If they can't they don't deserve the compensation, perks or golden parachutes they get!


----------



## tcusta00 (Dec 31, 2007)

dubber deux said:


> they should be able to see into the future!


You've just erased all doubt from my mind about you. Thanks.


----------



## dubber deux (Mar 8, 2009)

David MacLeod said:


> they don't return phone calls to strangers.


Paying customers with 24 mo contracts are NOT strangers! :hurah::lol:


----------



## David MacLeod (Jan 29, 2008)

dubber deux said:


> One wonders if these elite boobs that manage larger corporations ever learn anything. Probably not ,after the disaster (ie GM) they simply claim that "no one could see the debacle coming" and how could anyone expect them to anticipate it. Problem is that these Ivory Tower clowns are so well compensated (over compensated!!!!!!!) that they should be able to see into the future! If they can't they don't deserve the compensation, perks or golden parachutes they get!


how can you equate a company that had nothing to do with bailout to a company that did?
thats retarded.


----------



## dubber deux (Mar 8, 2009)

David MacLeod said:


> how can you equate a company that had nothing to do with bailout to a company that did?
> thats retarded.


There is arrogance and hubris on the part of the top management in both circumstances.

If you missed that YOU are slow. But I know you're better than that.


----------



## David MacLeod (Jan 29, 2008)

dubber deux said:


> There is arrogance and hubris on the part of the top management in both circumstances.
> 
> If you missed that YOU are slow. But I know you're better than that.


how do you know? because they did not respond to you personally the way you wanted them to you say they are arrogant? actually they were probably extremely smart to do that becasue if they did you would then expect that level of service for every single complaint you would have.
childish, petty, and myopic of you to say the least.


----------



## dubber deux (Mar 8, 2009)

David MacLeod said:


> how do you know? because they did not respond to you personally the way you wanted them to you say they are arrogant? actually they were probably extremely smart to do that becasue if they did you would then expect that level of service for every single complaint you would have.
> childish, petty, and myopic of you to say the least.


David your desperate defense of D* is almost comical, but a bit sad really. I mean geeze it's ....almost.....like you have a VESTED interest in the company.

*This nonsense that someone in technical/engineering can't possibly be expected to respond to a reasonable request reminds me of the Wizard in ...The Wizard of Oz telling Dorthy and her group...in the harsh voice...." Ignore that man behind the curtain"* HILARIOUS! But pathetic at the same time.


----------



## Movieman (May 9, 2009)

Maybe the government showed buy off Directv and give free tv to everyone. I mean if we are going to compare the bailout of GM to this why now? I will say that Im sure there are a few people that are upset because along the way they were miss informed. Directv maybe similar to a cellular carrier when it comes to the MRC but they are not in the same business so the comparison is also unfair. If you want to compare use Dishnet, Comcast, U-Verse, and FIOS. Customers choose their carrier they are not forced into. I dont agree with any unethical behavior but we do live in the land that you can sue for anything so good for those consumers. At the end of the day after everything is done those consumers will probably stay with Directv and just feel better about themselves.

I think that the dealer/reseller should be held responsible for their individual actions (Bestbuy, RadioShack, etc.). Im sure there are a few cases where Directv Corp could have made this mistake but this is far more common at a retail location.


----------



## David MacLeod (Jan 29, 2008)

dubber deux said:


> David your desperate defense of D* is almost comical, but a bit sad really. I mean geeze it's ....almost.....like you have a VESTED interest in the company.
> 
> *This nonsense that someone in technical/engineering can't possibly be expected to respond to a reasonable request reminds me of the Wizard in ...The Wizard of Oz telling Dorthy and her group...in the harsh voice...." Ignore that man behind the curtain"* HILARIOUS! But pathetic at the same time.


and the key there is reasonable request.
it was not.


----------



## Movieman (May 9, 2009)

dubber deux said:


> David your desperate defense of D* is almost comical, but a bit sad really. I mean geeze it's ....almost.....like you have a VESTED interest in the company.
> 
> *This nonsense that someone in technical/engineering can't possibly be expected to respond to a reasonable request reminds me of the Wizard in ...The Wizard of Oz telling Dorthy and her group...in the harsh voice...." Ignore that man behind the curtain"* HILARIOUS! But pathetic at the same time.


Deux I have always enjoyed a good conversation/debate with you but attacking ones personal opinion is not only unnecessary but going to get a good thread closed. Lets stick to the topic.

And attacking the big company because "they are too compensated" is also as ridiculous to me as your fair analysis about the corporate workings of any large company. I mean does everyone need to be over worked and under paid not to get sued anymore? Lets not make these posts personal.

If the plaintiffs have a case I think a jury of their peers is the best way to settle this. Personally I think its better for those that are unhappy with a specific company to simply discontinue doing business with them and move on. Suing them is really not going to make that much of a difference. There plenty of companies out there to choose from. Whats the most that they can win. A free DVR? :lol: Its just a shame because at the end of the day the costs of all these frivolous lawsuits gets passed on to the consumers. That means that those of us that are happy with what we have are still going to have to pay more to satisfy these needs of the few. (sounds eerily familiar)


----------



## JLucPicard (Apr 27, 2004)

Plasman said:


> Well said. I have no problem paying a mirroring fee. But I also think DirectTV can't have it both ways. It should either lease the receivers or it should sell the receivers. It never sat right with me that I paid $300 for HR20 DVR's but I have to send it back or pay a another fee if I cancel after years of service.


They actually do both - you can either pay a discounted fee to lease, or pay a much higher price to own.

And I take it that you didn't pay $1000 for the HD TiVo when that hit the shelves, either, right? And we all still pay the same $5 a month to run those, too.


----------



## dubber deux (Mar 8, 2009)

Movieman said:


> And attacking the big company because "they are too compensated" is also as ridiculous to me as your fair analysis about the corporate workings of any large company. I mean does everyone need to be over worked and under paid not to get sued anymore? Lets not make these posts personal.
> 
> )


Unfortunately it does appear to be the case that these "top guns" at so many large companies are grossly overcompensated for a decided lack of performance, dare I say ineptitude, and it cuts across the board. From banks, to automotive, to well even media providers. It one doesn't perform they shouldn't be compensated.


----------



## Movieman (May 9, 2009)

dubber deux said:


> Unfortunately it does appear to be the case that these "top guns" at so many large companies are grossly overcompensated for a decided lack of performance, dare I say ineptitude, and it cuts across the board. From banks, to automotive, to well even media providers. It one doesn't perform they shouldn't be compensated.


Although its one of many valid points of view, the lawsuit isn't about the top guys and their compensation but about consumers being miss informed. I personally think that if the consumer wins Directv should have the right to "divorce" the account holder. If they are that unhappy let them leave. But thats just me. As for the compensation. I wont begin to judge any company on how they run their business and what they pay themselves. Each of us has the right and privilege (thank you America) to make as much money as you can and pay the appropriate consequences under law if its done illegally.

As for the topic, both sides better have damn good lawyers. Consumers have a home field advantage of sorts in California.


----------



## dubber deux (Mar 8, 2009)

But movieman,

Why should D* get to "divorce" a customer when they also agreed to a contract?

I definitely don't agree with the case that just because you are a goliath you get to break a legal contract.

I think that the media provider business has become very uncompetitive with mergers and such. I think that we are very close to a monopoly of just a small number of giant providers, it really stifles competition in every way.


----------



## Movieman (May 9, 2009)

dubber deux said:


> But movieman,
> 
> *Why should D* get to "divorce" a customer when they also agreed to a contract?*
> 
> ...


The contract is a 2-way street. In filing a lawsuit I believe the customer is also breaking their end of the service agreement. Im not saying im right just my opinion. Its like a marriage. Sometimes its not meant to be and one party needs help getting out.


----------



## houskamp (Sep 14, 2006)

Even my 1st HR20 (bought one of the 1st availible here) had the lease statement on the recipt.. maybe they should add Best Buy to the lawsuit because their employees didn't properly tell the coustomers..


----------



## ndole (Aug 26, 2009)

dubber deux said:


> Unfortunately it does appear to be the case that these "top guns" at so many large companies are grossly overcompensated for a decided lack of performance, dare I say ineptitude, and it cuts across the board. From banks, to automotive, to well even media providers. It [If?] one doesn't perform they shouldn't be compensated.


Why does the conversation with you L's (I know who you're type) always jump to someone (gov't) deciding who should and shouldn't be compensated for their services? Here's some 7th grade economics for ya!
In a free market, services and goods [companies] succeed or fail based on whether or not people are willing to pay good money for them. If you, and obviously your speak for 85% of D*s cx base, don't like D* then leave! And they will fail without your _vital_ support :nono2: Where will we all be without you???


----------



## Newshawk (Sep 3, 2004)

dubber deux said:


> Unfortunately it does appear to be the case that these "top guns" at so many large companies are grossly overcompensated for a decided lack of performance, dare I say ineptitude, and it cuts across the board. From banks, to automotive, to well even media providers. It one doesn't perform they shouldn't be compensated.


OK, DD, I have one question for you: define "performance".


----------



## SamC (Jan 20, 2003)

This is a VOLUNTARY LUXURY product. 

Don't like the terms of the contract? Don't sign it. That simple.


----------



## TANK (Feb 16, 2003)

Davenlr said:


> When you sign a cell contract, and get a free/cheap cell phone in the process, you are informed that if you fail to maintain service for the contract period, you need to pay a early termination fee. You do, however, own the phone after paying the fee, or fulfulling your contract. Directv, using the same format, however, did not tell its customers buying receivers/dvrs at Best Buy, that even after fulfulling the contract, or paying the ETF, the receiver they "bought" would have to be returned. My first HR20, and my HR22, both purchased at Best Buy, had no notice on the box, or on the sales slip, that I didnt own that box. My H21, however, which was purchased 6 months ago, DID have a notice on the box, and I was required to sign an electronic form at Best Buy saying I understood I didnt own the box.
> 
> I can see why customers who grew up with DirecTv and were accustomed to owning their own boxes, then reselling them when they upgraded, might feel DirecTv was unethical when they changed the policy and did not notify them. I feel as though I should own my two DVR's, as I never agreed to the lease option when I paid full price for them $399 each for two HR20's and $299 for the HR22.
> 
> ...


OK you win the lawsuit and get to " own " your receiver.If D* then changes it's policy and only issues access cards to new receivers what good is "owning " ?


----------



## raott (Nov 23, 2005)

tcusta00 said:


> Ok, I'll bite. How is DirecTV's management unethical?


Do you consider erroneously binding a customer to a two year contract when a receiver is replaced (not upgraded) and the customer's only recourse is "notes on the account" (which won't stop an ETF from kicking in, it'll have to be reversed later) to be an ethical business practice?


----------



## raott (Nov 23, 2005)

SamC said:


> This is a VOLUNTARY LUXURY product.
> 
> Don't like the terms of the contract? Don't sign it. That simple.


The point is, the terms have to be disclosed at the time of the deal. Not in a mailer a month later, not in the first bill, not on the website after the customer is signed up.


----------



## tcusta00 (Dec 31, 2007)

raott said:


> Do you consider erroneously binding a customer to a two year contract when a receiver is replaced (not upgraded) and the customer's only recourse is "notes on the account" (which won't stop an ETF from kicking in, it'll have to be reversed later) to be an ethical business practice?


No.


----------



## CJTE (Sep 18, 2007)

raott said:


> Do you consider erroneously binding a customer to a two year contract when a receiver is replaced (not upgraded) and the customer's only recourse is "notes on the account" (which won't stop an ETF from kicking in, it'll have to be reversed later) to be an ethical business practice?


Nope, and after years of that problem, DirecTV has apparently corrected it.


----------



## dubber deux (Mar 8, 2009)

ndole_mbnd said:


> "Free market" There has never been anything resembling that term for a long time now.


If there was a free market all those greedy criminal banks would have gone belly up.



> If you, and obviously your speak for 85% of D*s cx base, don't like D* then leave! And they will fail without your _vital_ support :nono2: Where will we all be without you???


I've signed a binding 24 mo contract, and I honor my obligations, ALWAYS. D* needs to honor theirs as well.


----------



## tuff bob (Mar 5, 2007)

raott said:


> The point is, the terms have to be disclosed at the time of the deal. Not in a mailer a month later, not in the first bill, not on the website after the customer is signed up.


or when you open up the box you bought at a retailer and find the "this is a lease" info and "don't return the open box to the retailer" info.

that seems wrong to me.

I think DirecTV will lose this lawsuit, there's no doubt in my mind that the class will be able to find people who did not realize they had actually leased the receivers they thought they bought retail and DirecTV won't have the evidence to prove that the customers knew it was a lease.


----------



## Movieman (May 9, 2009)

Back to the topic, 

In a case like this the consumers need to be a little careful how their attorneys handle this. Even though people think in a court room its going to be the little guy vs. the big bad company Directv still does have a very high consumer service rating overall. Im pretty sure a few people on that jury ( if its a jury and not just one judge) have cable/satellite tv and are happy with it. Directv also has to be careful not to try to make themselves the big victim of bad dealers cause these dealers are what keeps companies like them around. A jury is probably more sensitive to small mom and pop resellers than a large profitable company.

Its going to be interesting how this plays out. I would also be willing to bet this doesn't make it to court. A lot of these plaintiffs are going to be given options to settle. It would be the smart thing for Directv to do. Get it settled and put this behind them and then tracking down the dealers that caused much of this and make sure they share the pain with them a little. (financially that is).


----------



## joe diamond (Feb 28, 2007)

raott said:


> The point is, the terms have to be disclosed at the time of the deal. Not in a mailer a month later, not in the first bill, not on the website after the customer is signed up.


That is how I understood it. Then a former car salesman / manager explained how "corporate" announced that if the customer wouldn't sign the contract but accepted the installation they would sign the contract for the customer.

Primestar, years ago...it has gone down from there.

I think the contract should be in a language both parties can understand. How do you make changes and additions on a preprinted NCR form?

Joe


----------



## dubber deux (Mar 8, 2009)

joe diamond said:


> I think the contract should be in a language both parties can understand. How do you make changes and additions on a preprinted NCR form?
> 
> Joe


Why wasn't this the way it was from the start?

Was it an "accident" that the terms and presentation of the contracts was so complicated and haphazard to the typical customer? :scratchin:slowgrin:
Doubtful.


----------



## Groundhog45 (Nov 10, 2005)

There is some good info here and a lot of BS. You guys need to stop feeding the troll.


----------



## gully_foyle (Jan 18, 2007)

I am willing to bet that the only people who will ever get anything from this suit are lawyers. No matter who wins.


----------



## Movieman (May 9, 2009)

gully_foyle said:


> I am willing to bet that the only people who will ever get anything from this suit are lawyers. No matter who wins.


They will make a lot of money from both sides. I can only imagine what Directv just pays in retainer.


----------



## dubber deux (Mar 8, 2009)

gully_foyle said:


> I am willing to bet that the only people who will ever get anything from this suit are lawyers. No matter who wins.


I don't disagree with your post.

However, if a business operates in a very ethical manner with a high degree of integrity they won't have to be in court in the first place. It's a pretty good lesson if anything. Problem is that greed seems to override all aspects of the business today and that seems to prevent the lesson from being learned and REMEMBERED!


----------



## Movieman (May 9, 2009)

dubber deux said:


> I don't disagree with your post.
> 
> *However, if a business operates in a very ethical manner with a high degree of integrity they won't have to be in court in the first place*. It's a pretty good lesson if anything. Problem is that greed seems to override all aspects of the business today and that seems to prevent the lesson from being learned and REMEMBERED!


Only in a Utopian world. Unfortunately there are people that sue simply to get money. I see it all the time in my area. A lot of these lawyers will sell their clients the *"no money unless we win"* so a consumer has little to loose but time. People will always want to go after a big company regardless if they are good or bad. How many times do people sue over policies that are clear, good, and ethical but they sue cause they personally don't like it and feel that suing will accomplish a personal goal. Im not saying this is the case here but I can tell you of many people that sue so that if they can get a headline out of their situation they might get an easy pay day out of a company that doesn't want negative attention. And in the media world, companies are always the bad guy.


----------



## raott (Nov 23, 2005)

CJTE said:


> Nope, and after years of that problem, DirecTV has apparently corrected it.


When did they correct it, last week? There are recent posts on that exact issue.


----------



## xmguy (Mar 27, 2008)

Here is my take on this. I think if D* is going to only offer a lease option to 1; charge a bit more upfront (I don't like it either) then allow the customer to KEEP the receiver AFTER the full contact compleation. 2; Charge the same upfront lease fee but offer a smaller fee of say $100 to buy the receiver once the 24 month contract is up. If a customer exits early. Pay the ETF and a HIGHER fee to "keep" the receiver. Never the less I think the customer SHOULD be able to keep the receiver but NOT have to pay the HUGE $500+ dollars to keep the unit. After paying the lease fee upfront. Monthly fees aside. They are mirroring and DVR/HD fees. I think a change needs to be in order.


----------



## CJTE (Sep 18, 2007)

raott said:


> When did they correct it, last week? There are recent posts on that exact issue.


Its been at least a month and a half. I dont remember the exact date but we've been covering for atleast the last month now that with or without the protection plan, REPLACED (not upgraded) receivers will not carry a commitment extension. (From Leased, to Leased, anyway).
From owned to leased... I believe that they will, but 99% of the people who had a problem with this (because they didn't have the protection plan) were going from leased-to-leased.


----------



## CJTE (Sep 18, 2007)

xmguy said:


> Here is my take on this. I think if D* is going to only offer a lease option to 1; charge a bit more upfront (I don't like it either) then allow the customer to KEEP the receiver AFTER the full contact compleation. 2; Charge the same upfront lease fee but offer a smaller fee of say $100 to buy the receiver once the 24 month contract is up.


You know, if you call the ACDT, you can pay the remaining price of the receiver to make it owned, right?
If you call the access card distro team and tell them you want to buy out your receiver, they can then look at how much you paid for it originally. (Was it free with your install? Did you purchase it at a brick & mortar store?) And then you can pay them the difference and it'll be switched to owned.



xmguy said:


> If a customer exits early. Pay the ETF and a HIGHER fee to "keep" the receiver. Never the less I think the customer SHOULD be able to keep the receiver but NOT have to pay the HUGE $500+ dollars to keep the unit.


What do you think the non-return fee is...?


----------



## roadrunner1782 (Sep 28, 2008)

CJTE said:


> *You know, if you call the ACDT, you can pay the remaining price of the receiver to make it owned, right?*
> If you call the access card distro team and tell them you want to buy out your receiver, they can then look at how much you paid for it originally. (Was it free with your install? Did you purchase it at a brick & mortar store?) And then you can pay them the difference and it'll be switched to owned.


Is this really the case? Can anyone else confirm this?


----------



## CJTE (Sep 18, 2007)

roadrunner1782 said:


> Is this really the case? Can anyone else confirm this?


I don't think anyone else has tried it.
I'm not saying that the access card distro team is just gonna roll-over and say ok lets do it. As a matter of fact, they're probably going to tell you you have to pay the owned price for a new receiver that they'll ship out to you, but that's not the case (unless theres a new policy in place and I must say, Ive seen a lot of new policies go into place over the last 2 or 3 months).

From personal experience:
If you close your DirecTV account and keep your leased receivers.
DirecTV will bill you the total cost of those receivers. If you don't pay, they'll send you to collections.
If you still don't send the receiver(s) back, but instead the non-return fee, the receivers are then yours to keep. They are owned.
This actually happened to a DBSTalk member about a year and a half ago. He had an HD DVR, never returned it, paid collections the cost of the receiver, and then activated a new account with DirecTV. After a few escalations and some very kind CSRs, he was able to get his HD DVR activated on his new account as owned. I don't remember if he had to get a new access card, but I don't think he did.


----------



## Satelliteracer (Dec 6, 2006)

Davenlr said:


> When you sign a cell contract, and get a free/cheap cell phone in the process, you are informed that if you fail to maintain service for the contract period, you need to pay a early termination fee. You do, however, own the phone after paying the fee, or fulfulling your contract. Directv, using the same format, however, did not tell its customers buying receivers/dvrs at Best Buy, that even after fulfulling the contract, or paying the ETF, the receiver they "bought" would have to be returned. My first HR20, and my HR22, both purchased at Best Buy, had no notice on the box, or on the sales slip, that I didnt own that box. My H21, however, which was purchased 6 months ago, DID have a notice on the box, and I was required to sign an electronic form at Best Buy saying I understood I didnt own the box.
> 
> I can see why customers who grew up with DirecTv and were accustomed to owning their own boxes, then reselling them when they upgraded, might feel DirecTv was unethical when they changed the policy and did not notify them. I feel as though I should own my two DVR's, as I never agreed to the lease option when I paid full price for them $399 each for two HR20's and $299 for the HR22.
> 
> ...


I'm curious why you used the cell phone example of a lease when it appears D* uses the lease car example. For a leased car, you pay an upfront fee, plus monthly fees and you return the car when you're done.

That's pretty much exactly what D* does. There are all kinds of leasing models out there, but I'm not sure why so many folks think the cell phone one is the same as DISH or D*.


----------



## Kheldar (Sep 5, 2004)

Satelliteracer said:


> I'm curious why you used the cell phone example of a lease when it appears D* uses the lease car example. For a leased car, you pay an upfront fee, plus monthly fees and you return the car when you're done.
> 
> That's pretty much exactly what D* does. There are all kinds of leasing models out there, but I'm not sure why so many folks think the cell phone one is the same as DISH or D*.


It's simple: it serves their purpose to try to make D* look like the bad guy. Why let little things like facts get in the way of an agenda?


----------



## smiddy (Apr 5, 2006)

I doubt DirecTV will lose this as a "bait and switch" case. During the time period in question is when I joined DirecTV. When I called in my boxes they told me (as I'm sure they told others) what the situation was with their STBs. Seemed clear enough to me. This is a waste of time.


----------



## raott (Nov 23, 2005)

smiddy said:


> I doubt DirecTV will lose this as a "bait and switch" case. During the time period in question is when I joined DirecTV. When I called in my boxes they told me (as I'm sure they told others) what the situation was with their STBs. Seemed clear enough to me. This is a waste of time.


Because you were told you simply assume everyone else was and conclude that this is a waste of time?


----------



## smiddy (Apr 5, 2006)

raott said:


> Because you were told you simply assume everyone else was and conclude that this is a waste of time?


Yes! The way this should be investigated, if it is, is to look at all the people involved during the switchover time frame. DirecTV did advertise this and did make a good faith effort in at least one case. I would suspect that in most cases this is true and that there may be some who didn't get told, but not enough to warrant a "case" of "bait and switch" I would suspect with reasonable communication with these people who alledge that they were not told, that a satisfactory deal could be reached, instead a frivolous law suite is being waged...and in my assumption, because they feel justified in some right. The most interesting thing about this is if you do the trade study on the cost of DirecTV STBs versus DiSH and any cable company, it is far less expensive over the 2 year commitment than any other TV service. :shrug: But yet, these people don't see that, they wish to have a war with a TV service to justify their own...

Yeah, this is a worthless peice which in the end will cost us consumers more money.


----------



## raott (Nov 23, 2005)

smiddy said:


> Yeah, this is a worthless peice which in the end will cost us consumers more money.


Your bill is based on what the market will bear, not D*'s costs (which include fighting lawsuits).


----------



## rhipps (Apr 7, 2008)

The operative terms here are "Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals" (most reversed circuit court in the USA) and "California" (probably the most mismanaged state in the Union). 'Nuff said.

Roooooooooooooooooooooll Tide,

Bob H
Bama class of '65


----------



## AntAltMike (Nov 21, 2004)

Movieman said:


> They will make a lot of money from both sides. I can only imagine what Directv just pays in retainer.


DirecTV used to use the Washington, DC based lawfirm of Lathan and Wadkins, up until Murdock bought the company. Latham and Wadkins has over 2,000 lawyers and was the first US lawfirm to ever gross $2 billion in one year.

A customer of mine was a senior partner there, and while his firm was still representing DirecTV his service was "comped", but those days are over.

Just as well for him. Last I knew, the comped accounts could only be accessed by a DirecTV vice president, so if the customer needed it serviced in the evening, he was tough out of luck. Another of my customers was a Hughes board member and one of its largest stockholders, and I couldn't get her account serviced in the evening, either. She probably has a net worth of about a billion dollars. What in hell is the point of a wealthy person saving a hundred dollars a month on DirecTV service if it sometimes means you can't arrange to watch what you want, when you want to watch it?


----------



## longrider (Apr 21, 2007)

Satelliteracer said:


> I'm curious why you used the cell phone example of a lease when it appears D* uses the lease car example. For a leased car, you pay an upfront fee, plus monthly fees and you return the car when you're done.
> 
> That's pretty much exactly what D* does. There are all kinds of leasing models out there, but I'm not sure why so many folks think the cell phone one is the same as DISH or D*.


To be honest the car lease is not an accurate comparison either other than the fact the upfront payment reduces the monthly payment. A car lease is strictly a financial transaction, you take the new value and subtract the estimated residual value at the end of the lease and the difference is what you pay (plus the leasing companies profit) An upfront payment (cap cost reduction) reduces that difference and reduces your payments. The leasing company does not recondition the car and lease it to somebody else, they sell it and hope to get the residual value.

The DirecTV lease is most comparable to a cable box lease where you take the cost of the box and the estimated life of the box and then charge enough to cover the cost plus a profit. The upfront fee reduces how much you have to charge per month but it penalizes people who only keep the service for a few months. This helps reduce churn and also reinforces my stand that only new installs with the expense of the install should get a commitment. Upgrades have the financial commitment of the upfront fee with little risk to DirecTV if they do cancel.


----------



## tcusta00 (Dec 31, 2007)

Why do we have to compare the DirecTV lease model to any other industry's lease model? It's always going to end up being an apples to oranges comparison that will frustrate some people. Who cares if this lease looks like a car lease or a cell phone lease? It doesn't much matter, does it?

The only thing that matters is if the lease is legal in its terms and disclosures. Whether people are willing to actually pay the lease fees is a marketing question and, quite frankly, not what this thread is about.


----------



## davidatl14 (Mar 24, 2006)

SamC said:


> It is so unfortunate that DirecTV customers have to pay, via our fees, to defend against frivilous predatory lawsuits on behalf of people who do not READ and UNDERSTAND a voluntary purchase.





SamC said:


> This is a VOLUNTARY LUXURY product.
> 
> Don't like the terms of the contract? Don't sign it. That simple.


Well stated.

Most(not all) Class Action suits fall into the category of a subset of customers either too dumb,lazy or both to understand what they agree to in a contract. Then proceed to gather with other like minded dolts and over zealous lawyers to bombard the legal system in hopes of some misguided notion of "sticking it to the man"

Sadly some suits are worthy of attention and further debate, but these types of suits are overshadowed by the frivilous nature of this type of lawsuit being discussed in this thread.

.


----------



## rudeney (May 28, 2007)

I'm no fan of class action lawsuits and when given the chance, I _always_ opt-out. However, sometimes it takes the publicity of such a lawsuit to get a company's attention. DirecTV seems to have some problems in communicating with its customers. We all know this. How often do we joke about he CSR's not knowing the answers or giving out terribly erroneous information? D* has created a system that is at best very confusing and at worst, designed so any mistakes will always benefit the company and never the customer.


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

Plasman said:


> Well said. I have no problem paying a mirroring fee. But I also think DirectTV can't have it both ways. It should either lease the receivers or it should sell the receivers. It never sat right with me that I paid $300 for HR20 DVR's but I have to send it back or pay a another fee if I cancel after years of service.


So you'd rather pay more up front to buy it outright? That's the alternate model that was in use. Remember the $999 HD Receivers from a few years back?


----------



## jahgreen (Dec 15, 2006)

Groundhog45 said:


> You guys need to stop feeding the troll.


What he said.


----------



## QuickDrop (Jul 21, 2007)

CJTE said:


> If the business was actually 'screwing' its customers, then the lawsuit process is good.
> 
> DirecTV isn't actually 'screwing' its customers, so it all falls back on us, the subs. I can't wait for another hike in my programming package! And to think I was about to upgrade to Plus HD/DVR... Now I'll get to pay that price and stay with the package I got.
> Woohoo.... :nono2:


I probably agree that D* isn't clandestinely screwing it's customer, which is why I put in my "truly" clause. (I knew their policy before I signed up, though I can't say for sure that I knew it because of their promotion.) I also actually kinda agree with the poster I originally responded to. If DirecTV is found guilty of bad business practices they are likely to pass the cost to the customers.

My problem is that when people use those kinds of argument it often comes across as supporting the corporation, right or wrong (i.e. the customer is to blame for higher prices because s/he didn't keep her mouth shut when they were originally getting screwed.) To me, it's very Kafkaesque to say the most "rational" choice when a corporation mistreats it's customers is for them not to complain.

That's why I suggested a Marxist revolution. I personally wouldn't want one, but as a solution I don't think it's any less absurd than defending/supporting/promoting a practice that allows customers no true recourse from dishonest business practices.


----------



## Plasman (Jan 2, 2006)

Doug Brott said:


> So you'd rather pay more up front to buy it outright? That's the alternate model that was in use. Remember the $999 HD Receivers from a few years back?


I "own" an HR20 I paid $300 for and I lease a HR20 I paid $300 for. Both get charged a lease fee (or mirroring fee?). Its confusing, that's all I'm saying. I thought I owned the second unit but called D* and found out it was showing as leased. So as much as I love D*, I can understand the class action.

And yes I bought a $999 HR10-250 and was glad to do it for early adoption HD-DVR bliss for a few years. I expected eventual obsolescence like any other consumer product one buys. And D* even upgraded me to an HR21 when I deleted the HR10-250 from my account. Well they didn't upgrade me - they upgrade leased me an HR21...


----------



## wildbill129 (Dec 22, 2006)

CJTE said:


> Its been at least a month and a half. I dont remember the exact date but we've been covering for atleast the last month now that with or without the protection plan, REPLACED (not upgraded) receivers will not carry a commitment extension. (From Leased, to Leased, anyway).
> From owned to leased... I believe that they will, but 99% of the people who had a problem with this (because they didn't have the protection plan) were going from leased-to-leased.


I know a guy it happened to last week. The problem has not been corrected.


----------



## QuickDrop (Jul 21, 2007)

Doug Brott said:


> So you'd rather pay more up front to buy it outright? That's the alternate model that was in use. Remember the $999 HD Receivers from a few years back?


If DirecTV decided to price their equipment based on what it was worth a few years ago, they would be laughed out of town. They would almost certainly charge near to what the equipment is worth now. It also might encourage them to release more various equipment to meet different price points. (Though I'm sure a few posters here who prize D* as the upscale satellite service would be happy to pay $999 for something others might sell for $250.)

I think it would make sense if DirecTV gave the option for people to buy equipment and pay for installation along with the normal lease/free installation/2 year contract, just to give people that option. I suspect the majority of people would find the two year contract a much better deal, but it would be nice for people to know just how good a deal it actually is so they can make an informed decision.


----------



## bobcamp1 (Nov 8, 2007)

QuickDrop said:


> If DirecTV decided to price their equipment based on what it was worth a few years ago, they would be laughed out of town. They would almost certainly charge near to what the equipment is worth now. It also might encourage them to release more various equipment to meet different price points. (Though I'm sure a few posters here who prize D* as the upscale satellite service would be happy to pay $999 for something others might sell for $250.)
> 
> I think it would make sense if DirecTV gave the option for people to buy equipment and pay for installation along with the normal lease/free installation/2 year contract, just to give people that option. I suspect the majority of people would find the two year contract a much better deal, but it would be nice for people to know just how good a deal it actually is so they can make an informed decision.


I agree, but the purchase price has to be reasonable. $999 is price gouging (not the legal definition, but the general use term). The DVR isn't worth nearly that much -- just look at Tivo and Moxi. It is set to a ridiculously high number to force people to lease while telling the government that it does have a purchase option.


----------



## bobcamp1 (Nov 8, 2007)

davidatl14 said:


> Most(not all) Class Action suits fall into the category of a subset of customers either too dumb,lazy or both to understand what they agree to in a contract. Then proceed to gather with other like minded dolts and over zealous lawyers to bombard the legal system in hopes of some misguided notion of "sticking it to the man"
> 
> Sadly some suits are worthy of attention and further debate, but these types of suits are overshadowed by the frivilous nature of this type of lawsuit being discussed in this thread.
> .


Lawsuits are only frivolous when you are not involved. If you are involved, it is just as important as Brown v. Board of Education. They are funny that way.

I don't think D* is doing it on purpose, but they are negligent. That can get you into just as much trouble.

Actually, I don't think this whole thing would have been such a big deal if D* would admit that they sometimes don't hold up their end of the agreement. Bad equipment, poor installation, poor customer service, poor LOS, etc. If the consumer gives D* a few attempts to fix the problem (without charging the customer) and they still fail, D* simply needs to let that customer leave. Instead, they take the point of view that the customer is the one not holding up the agreement, and then they automatically charge an ETF for a service that never functioned as advertised. This makes people mad, which leads to these kinds of lawsuits.

These lawsuits don't generally benefit the people who got screwed, but they do help the people who may get D* in the future. D* simply needs to get active acknowledgment from the customer about the critical parts of the agreement (two year agreement, all monthly fees, ETF) before they "buy" the equipment. This is standard practice for all leases. If D* can't reproduce the acknowledgment (signature or vocal) when the customer tries to cancel, they can't charge the ETF.


----------



## rudeney (May 28, 2007)

Plasman said:


> I "own" an HR20 I paid $300 for and I lease a HR20 I paid $300 for. Both get charged a lease fee (or mirroring fee?).


If they both show on your bill as a _lease_ fee then you own _neither_ of them. Now, that may or may not be correct. It may be D*'s mistake, or it my be that you misunderstood their communication or it may be that they didn't communicate well with you.

The first two HR20's I acquired were $300 each as an up-front _lease_ fee. Thankfully, D* was very good to communicate that to me, including the resulting two-year commitment reset



> Its confusing, that's all I'm saying. I thought I owned the second unit but called D* and found out it was showing as leased. So as much as I love D*, I can understand the class action.
> 
> And yes I bought a $999 HR10-250 and was glad to do it for early adoption HD-DVR bliss for a few years. I expected eventual obsolescence like any other consumer product one buys. And D* even upgraded me to an HR21 when I deleted the HR10-250 from my account. Well they didn't upgrade me - they upgrade leased me an HR21...


Yes, it is confusing, and not only to us lay people, but apparently to D* CSR's. And when mistakes are made, they are almost always in D*'s favor (i.e. an extended commitment or owned equipment listed as leased), and then D* makes it very difficult for the customer to get the problem corrected. Even though I doubt there is any true malice involved, it sure seems that way.


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

QuickDrop said:


> If DirecTV decided to price their equipment based on what it was worth a few years ago, they would be laughed out of town. They would almost certainly charge near to what the equipment is worth now. It also might encourage them to release more various equipment to meet different price points. (Though I'm sure a few posters here who prize D* as the upscale satellite service would be happy to pay $999 for something others might sell for $250.)
> 
> I think it would make sense if DirecTV gave the option for people to buy equipment and pay for installation along with the normal lease/free installation/2 year contract, just to give people that option. I suspect the majority of people would find the two year contract a much better deal, but it would be nice for people to know just how good a deal it actually is so they can make an informed decision.


I think you've probably hit on why there is a lease model to begin with .. The $$ can be leveraged over time because it is a lease and the consumer pays less up front. At the end of the day, this lawsuit won't do much anyway. Lease Fee or Mirroring fee, the price is the same per month. The ETF is on the service and has nothing to do with the receiver. There is a specific dollar amount attached to the receiver that you owe DIRECTV if you don't return it at the end of the lease. This fee has nothing to do with the ETF which is a prorated number based on the time left on your commitment.

As for bait and switch? That is probably a stretch, but there was enough confusion that perhaps things weren't clear enough. Still, anyone that cared to get themselves informed before jumping in should have realized this was a lease.


----------



## carl6 (Nov 16, 2005)

Doug Brott said:


> Still, anyone that cared to get themselves informed before jumping in should have realized this was a lease.


My feelings exactly. When someone signs a deal without informing themselves about it, they are personally irresponsible. I see no justification for litigation in that type of situation.


----------



## CJTE (Sep 18, 2007)

rudeney said:


> Plasman said:
> 
> 
> > I "own" an HR20 I paid $300 for and I lease a HR20 I paid $300 for. Both get charged a lease fee (or mirroring fee?). Its confusing, that's all I'm saying. I thought I owned the second unit but called D* and found out it was showing as leased. So as much as I love D*, I can understand the class action.
> ...


Like Rudeny said, if both your receivers are showing up as a LEASED fee, and neither are showing up as an ADD'L RECEIVER fee, then both your receivers are LEASED. Whether you believe so or not.
And when your HR10-250 was swapped out, for what I imagine was free, or maybe $20 S&H, it was a *upgrade* to a leased piece of equipment. It was not a *replacement*. On top of that, even if it WAS a replacement, under DirecTVs then and now re-inforced policies, it wouldve been replaced with a *leased* receiver, unless you had the protection plan.



wildbill129 said:


> I know a guy it happened to last week. The problem has not been corrected.


I know a guy who bought a pack of cigarettes last week.

Sounds like crock to me. If you had explicit details as to what happened then you would've shared them.
Did the guy get an owned receiver replaced with a leased receiver for free? Yes, that'll trigger a commitment.
Leased to leased doesnt trigger commitments, protection plan doesn't trigger commitments.
Owned to owned (only available with protection plan) doesn't trigger commitments.
Owned to leased triggers commitments.


----------



## raott (Nov 23, 2005)

CJTE said:


> I know a guy who bought a pack of cigarettes last week.
> 
> Sounds like crock to me. If you had explicit details as to what happened then you would've shared them.
> Did the guy get an owned receiver replaced with a leased receiver for free? Yes, that'll trigger a commitment.
> ...


And there have been posts after posts about people who have had their commitments extended when they are not suppose to be. So the "crock" sounds like your assertion the problem was magically fixed last month.

Give us some explicit details on what was fixed or in my opinion, it didn't happen.


----------



## CJTE (Sep 18, 2007)

raott said:


> And there have been posts after posts about people who have had their commitments extended when they are not suppose to be. So the "crock" sounds like your assertion the problem was magically fixed last month.
> 
> Give us some explicit details on what was fixed or in my opinion, it didn't happen.


Ok...



xmetalx said:


> That has changed, as of Oct 21st. Recievers replaced not under the Protection Plan will now NOT extend a contract, and will show up as a "lease". Say goodbye to the threads stating "woohoo I've been incorrectly extended!!"





twisted2903 said:


> The change is actually to all receivers owned or leased that are replaced whether with or without the protection plan will no longer extend the agreement





BattleScott said:


> Just to be clear, as I sense a popular misconception creeping in again, other than a potential $20 shipping charge, there is ABSOLUTELY NO DIFFERENCE in the way leased receiver replacements are handled between the Protection Plan and regular accounts. Replacing a defective leased receiver does not extend your comittment, regardless of PP status. Will they may erroneously extend it anyways? Probably, but you're no more liable for it without the PP.
> 
> I only say this as I don't want people to land on this thread and think that they need the PP to avoid having their comittment reset if a receiver fails.





The Merg said:


> If your R15 is leased or if you have the Protection Plan, contact DirecTV. You can get a free replacement with no commitment extension. And as Carl6 mentioned above, if the receiver is leased, it is a violation to open/modify the receiver.
> 
> - Merg





evan_s said:


> Replacing a receiver for any reason other than it being defective should trigger a commitment.





The Merg said:


> When replacing a defective receiver, your commitment is only extended if the defective unit was owned and you do not have the Protection Plan. Rumor has it though that has even changed to no commitment.
> 
> - Merg


----------



## smiddy (Apr 5, 2006)

raott said:


> Your bill is based on what the market will bear, not D*'s costs (which include fighting lawsuits).


Make no mistake about it, whatever it costs to fight lawsuits is included in our pricing...indirectly and overhead.

This is worthless suit...apparently it failed to make the first go around, which is why it had an appeal, which is in and of itself is standard process.


----------



## BattleScott (Aug 29, 2006)

raott said:


> And there have been posts after posts about people who have had their commitments extended when they are not suppose to be. So the "crock" sounds like your assertion the problem was magically fixed last month.
> 
> Give us some explicit details on what was fixed or in my opinion, it didn't happen.





CJTE said:


> Ok...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


None of these posts, including my own, in any way indicate that DirecTV has resolved the problem of erroneous commitment extensions due to replacing a defective leased receiver. To my knowledge there has never been any "official" acknowledgement by DirecTV that a problem even exists, let alone any sort of statement about it being resolved.


----------



## CJTE (Sep 18, 2007)

BattleScott said:


> None of these posts, including my own, in any way indicate that DirecTV has resolved the problem of erroneous commitment extensions due to replacing a defective leased receiver. To my knowledge there has never been any "official" acknowledgement by DirecTV that a problem even exists, let alone any sort of statement about it being resolved.


Yup.
Nor do they have to.

For what its worth, after a nagfest with Technical Support and ACDT, I was told over and over again that my commitment hadnt been and would not be extended based on 1) an owned receiver that was replaced with a leased receiver for free and 2) a leased receiver that was replaced with a leased recevier.

I called back to check. My commitment date had not been changed.
(I didnt tell the rep what I thought the date should be, I asked them what the date was).
I'm in the next months bill cycle and my commitment date has not changed.

Like I said earlier, wildbill129 is throwing an unsubstantiated claim out. I called them on it and raott obviously didn't like that I could be right and that the other poster could be talking out of their ass.

So yea, in my defense, I quoted a bunch of posts with people claiming the problem was resolved.
None of those posts were from DirecTV, none of the users in those posts claimed to speak for or represent DirecTV in anyway, but atleast I had something to show for what I was saying, unlike raott and wildbill129.

And if need be, I bet it wouldnt be hard to come up with atleast 1 email stating the same thing, something to the effect of
'X policy has been set in place to assure that commitments don't get erroneously extended'.
Something to that nature wouldn't recognize that there was a problem beforehand. It would only recognize that that action has been changed.

Now, somebody tell me where DirecTV says that they WONT extend your commitment, or that they SHOULDNT extend your commitment.
I bet you wont find it. So as far as DirecTV's concerned, maybe they have every right to extend your commitment no matter how you obtained a replacement.


----------



## raott (Nov 23, 2005)

CJTE said:


> Like I said earlier, wildbill129 is throwing an unsubstantiated claim out. I called them on it and raott obviously didn't like that I could be right and that the other poster could be talking out of their ass.
> 
> .


The unsubstantiated claim came from you, who claimed the problems was fixed a month and a half ago, based on absolutely nothing.

There is a well known system issue with D* which erroneously causes replaced receivers to kick in a two year commitment. Apparently you were not aware of that.


----------



## raott (Nov 23, 2005)

smiddy said:


> Make no mistake about it, whatever it costs to fight lawsuits is included in our pricing...indirectly and overhead.
> 
> This is worthless suit...apparently it failed to make the first go around, which is why it had an appeal, which is in and of itself is standard process.


Once again, your bill is based on the market price, not on costs, basic economics.


----------



## TBlazer07 (Feb 5, 2009)

bobcamp1 said:


> D* simply needs to get active acknowledgment from the customer about the critical parts of the agreement (two year agreement, all monthly fees, ETF) before they "buy" the equipment. This is standard practice for all leases. If D* can't reproduce the acknowledgment (signature or vocal) when the customer tries to cancel, they can't charge the ETF.


From PERSONAL experience dealing with many "new" customers I can assure you that you can tell the customer 100 times and even have them sign a piece of paper and 2 years or more later they will have absolutely no idea what they were told and even IF they had an idea the "average" joe or jane still wouldn't understand that they are "leased" and have to return it in the end. You speak to them and they are in a hurry and say "sure" to everything. I can tell you for fact that MANY folks just dispose of their equipment because they don't understand. You can train the reps to tell them in 100 different ways and even ask "are you sure you understand" and 2 or 3 or 4 or 5 years later they will have no clue.

The VAST MAJORITY of customers are people who just don't have a clue. They aren't all "intelligent" like us who hang out on these boards on the web.

Sure, it's then "their problem" but you still have angry people looking for blood in the end because they just don't understand. All they want is cheap TV, and have a couple standard receivers connected to their 12" portable TV's.

DirecTV & Dish probably make more money on non-return fees of standard receivers then they do on their service!


----------



## smiddy (Apr 5, 2006)

raott said:


> Once again, your bill is based on the market price, not on costs, basic economics.


It is all wrapped together...some companies call it bulk, others, overhead, it is still included in the price of admission.


----------



## Upstream (Jul 4, 2006)

smiddy said:


> This is worthless suit...apparently it failed to make the first go around, which is why it had an appeal, which is in and of itself is standard process.


Actually the appeal was by DirecTV. They were ruled against in the first round, and they appealed the decision, and were ruled against again. (Note, the decision and appeal were regarding whether the DirecTV contract provision against class action lawsuits was enforceable.)


----------



## smiddy (Apr 5, 2006)

Upstream said:


> Actually the appeal was by DirecTV. They were ruled against in the first round, and they appealed the decision, and were ruled against again. (Note, the decision and appeal were regarding whether the DirecTV contract provision against class action lawsuits was enforceable.)


Yep, my bad, you are correct.


----------



## rudeney (May 28, 2007)

raott said:


> The unsubstantiated claim came from you, who claimed the problems was fixed a month and a half ago, based on absolutely nothing.
> 
> There is a well known system issue with D* which erroneously causes replaced receivers to kick in a two year commitment. Apparently you were not aware of that.


This talk of whether or not D* has had, currently has or has fixed a previous problem with erroneous commitment extensions is all unsubstantiated. All we can offer here is anecdotal evidence of these problems (or lack thereof). Even though D* has clarified their policies on commitment extensions, it does not mean they have or have not done anything to correct procedural problems that may or may not exist.

Having said that, there seems to be a lot of anecdotal evidence that D* erroneously extends commitments. If the reports of it here can be extrapolated to their general subscriber base, then they do have a significant procedural problem. Like I said earlier, erroneous commitment extensions have no negative repercussions for D*. and they only help the bottom line by increasing revenue and reducing churn. Without legal action, D* has absolutely no incentive to fix the problem.


----------



## Upstream (Jul 4, 2006)

rudeney said:


> Like I said earlier, erroneous commitment extensions have no negative repercussions for D*. and they only help the bottom line by increasing revenue and reducing churn. Without legal action, D* has absolutely no incentive to fix the problem.


Actually their incentive is erroneous extensions piss off customers. For me, erroneous extensions (combined with repeated billing errors and other customer service missteps), pissed me off enough that I looked for another provider. And DirecTV's attempt to collect an ETF on an erroneous extension is why I ignore DirecTV's attempts to get me to come back.


----------



## bobcamp1 (Nov 8, 2007)

TBlazer07 said:


> From PERSONAL experience dealing with many "new" customers I can assure you that you can tell the customer 100 times and even have them sign a piece of paper and 2 years or more later they will have absolutely no idea what they were told and even IF they had an idea the "average" joe or jane still wouldn't understand that they are "leased" and have to return it in the end. You speak to them and they are in a hurry and say "sure" to everything. I can tell you for fact that MANY folks just dispose of their equipment because they don't understand. You can train the reps to tell them in 100 different ways and even ask "are you sure you understand" and 2 or 3 or 4 or 5 years later they will have no clue.


OK, then if D* can reproduce the actual signature (or voice confirmation) of that person when they try to cancel later, and the service provided by D* was excellent, and the same person who ordered the service is the one who signed the agreement, then D* has every right to charge ETF and unreturned equipment fees.

My recent installer did NOT go over any of that. He just wanted the signature so he could get paid. He told me as much. He told me that the signature was to just confirm that he had installed it. Well, it was the lease agreement. Since mine was a 72.5 upgrade, I wasn't supposed to get a one-year commitment. Yet it was the standard agreement. So I had to cross off parts of the agreement before I signed it, since he didn't have a proper lease agreement with him. He didn't care. Heck, I guess I could have crossed off the entire lease agreement and wrote "service is free" and he wouldn't have cared.

This lawsuit isn't about the people in the first paragraph. It's about people who were not told about the commitment period and the fact the receivers were leased until they tried to cancel.


----------



## CJTE (Sep 18, 2007)

bobcamp1 said:


> This lawsuit isn't about the people in the first paragraph. It's about people who were not told about the commitment period and the fact the receivers were leased until they tried to cancel.


Even though those peoples bills ALL said "LEASED RECEIVER FEE - $5.00"
Even if they only had one receiver is still said Leased Receiver Fee, and then it was credited back to them...

So for however many months they had service, none of those people happened to look at their bill and wonder why it said their receiver(s) came up as leased?


----------



## rudeney (May 28, 2007)

Upstream said:


> Actually their incentive is erroneous extensions piss off customers. For me, erroneous extensions (combined with repeated billing errors and other customer service missteps), pissed me off enough that I looked for another provider. And DirecTV's attempt to collect an ETF on an erroneous extension is why I ignore DirecTV's attempts to get me to come back.


Most customers will never know that there is an erroneous commitment extension until they go to cancel, and since they are leaving, D* really doesn't care if they go away mad or not. And I'll bet that in many cases, if the CSR gives the customer some seemingly plausible reason for a commitment extension, and threatens to ding their credit reports, many of them will just pay the ETF's and go their own way.

Honestly, if I were a D* executive tasked with increasing revenue without incurring additional costs and reducing churn, I can't see a better way to do it than sticking people with commitments whenever possible. Since the policies for what does and does not trigger a commitment are not available in writing to the customers, D* has tremendous latitude in doing this.

I'm not accusing D* of purposely extending commitments when they shouldn't be, but I am accusing them of creating a system of policies and procedures that make it very, very easy to accidentally do so. I really like D*'s products. I like their content, signal quality and even their equipment. I think these sketchy tactics are far beneath the standards of such a good company and they need to be fixed.


----------



## TBlazer07 (Feb 5, 2009)

bobcamp1 said:


> This lawsuit isn't about the people in the first paragraph. It's about people who were not told about the commitment period and the fact the receivers were leased until they tried to cancel.


My point is, and this is from experience, I will bet 75% of those who claim they weren't told were and even though they may have or have not signed something will claim they were told otherwise or didn't understand. Of course they DESERVE the fees but what I am trying to get across is that most of these legions of people who claim they were cheated probably weren't. Like you say, this is for those who truly weren't but I'd guess there really aren't many.


----------



## dhines (Aug 16, 2006)

personally the whole 'leased thing' annoys the heck out of me. it really bothers me that d* tries to say my DVR is leased when it is a replacement of a purchased one, and the replacement is via the protection plan. eventually i do end up getting it correctly labeled, but i think it is just wrong that they default it to leased.

how many people that don't know to check end up losing equiptment that they actually own? IMO, it is wrong what d* doing, but it is their business and they will do as they see fit.

i will admit, it has stopped me from paying to upgrade any receiver. in the past i used to pay to upgrade, but now i refuse to . . . why should i pay money for the right to pay more money in monthly fees? so i just make due with the HDDVR's that i have, and accept that some of the DVR's are SD. if they want to toss me a freebie, i am all for it but my days of paying for it are gone.

IMO, it should be this simple . . . if you buy it, you own it. if it is a freebie (like many of us have), let it be considered leased. for those that think "you don't own a leased car, etc" i would respond by saying this . . . "that is true, but when you get a leased car it never costs just as much as what they sold the cars for".

hopefully d* will get their act together and realize that their lease program is really holding back their growth.

just to note, don't put me in the 'poor me, i didn't know what i was getting into crowd' . . . i understood the lease agreement that i have on some of my boxes, i am just saying i think it is a bad business practice


----------



## raott (Nov 23, 2005)

CJTE said:


> Even though those peoples bills ALL said "LEASED RECEIVER FEE - $5.00"
> Even if they only had one receiver is still said Leased Receiver Fee, and then it was credited back to them...
> 
> So for however many months they had service, none of those people happened to look at their bill and wonder why it said their receiver(s) came up as leased?


The fact that your bill says it after the fact is irrelevant. Material terms must be disclosed at the time of the agreement. Not in your bill a month later. Contracts 101.


----------



## rudeney (May 28, 2007)

raott said:


> The fact that your bill says it after the fact is irrelevant. Material terms must be disclosed at the time of the agreement. Not in your bill a month later. Contracts 101.


Except that like all consumer contracts these days, the original agreement has language stating that, "the company may change the terms at any time and may notify the consumer of these changes in any way it sees fit and the consumer agrees to abide by these new terms by continuing to breathe."


----------



## sunfire9us (Feb 15, 2009)

Im in total agreement with you. DTV should go back to where people can buy their own damned boxes without double charging like they do now if you want to own it and like you said those who take the "freebies" should be the leased ones. The lease platform SUCKS!


----------



## bobcamp1 (Nov 8, 2007)

TBlazer07 said:


> My point is, and this is from experience, I will bet 75% of those who claim they weren't told were and even though they may have or have not signed something will claim they were told otherwise or didn't understand. Of course they DESERVE the fees but what I am trying to get across is that most of these legions of people who claim they were cheated probably weren't. Like you say, this is for those who truly weren't but I'd guess there really aren't many.


Apparently, there are enough of them to file a lawsuit. Or the judge would have thrown it out already. Plus, if 25% of new customers were cheated, how many people is that?

If D* can provide proof that the terms were explained to the customer (i.e. a copy of the signed lease or a vocal recording), then D* can charge the ETF and non-return equipment fees. For every other lease I've signed, the lessor has always been able to reproduce this as evidence. Can D* do the same?

My recent installer (for a 72.5 locals upgrade) said that the signature was just to confirm that he did the work. Well, it was actually the lease agreement. I crossed off the sections that didn't apply (ETF, commitments, etc.), initialed and dated them, then signed it. Then he initially wouldn't let me keep a copy of the signed agreement. I had to argue with him for ten minutes before he would let me keep a copy.

The other problem was that the initial CSR insisted that there would be no commitment attached to it, but when the tech. showed up he realized that the CSR only signed me up to get the HD receivers. Well, I had an 18" single LNB dish. The tech. had to put the order in for me for a new dish at the site, and the CSR on the other end insisted that I needed a one-year commitment to go with it. The tech. argued with the CSR for five minutes before she relented. I have recorded all of my conversations with the CSRs in case D* decides to change its mind.

D* is clearly not as organized as it should be.


----------



## bobcamp1 (Nov 8, 2007)

raott said:


> The fact that your bill says it after the fact is irrelevant. Material terms must be disclosed at the time of the agreement. Not in your bill a month later. Contracts 101.


Also, where on the bill does it state the remaining commitment time? Where does it state the current ETF value? The customer may knows he's leasing the equipment at $5/month from the bill, but doesn't know anything about the ETF. Not all lease agreements have an ETF.

Not that the bill matters. The material terms must be disclosed at the time for the agreement or it is void. If equipment is leased but there is no lease agreement in place, most state laws have the lease default to monthly in that case. So there is not supposed to be an ETF. It is then up to D* to prove that the customer was aware of the terms BEFORE they charge the ETF. I think D* will struggle to come up with ANY proof for ANY of their customers. And we all know they automatically charge the ETF.


----------



## MountainMan10 (Jan 31, 2008)

The end result will probably be
Some lawyers make millions of dollars
Some current and ex Directv customer will get a few bucks back
All Directv customers will pay more in monthly fees
We will no longer be able to lease receivers at a low price and will be forced to pay as much as $500 up front like we had to before the leasing model.


----------



## rhipps (Apr 7, 2008)

MountainMan10 said:


> The end result will probably be
> Some lawyers make millions of dollars
> Some current and ex Directv customer will get a few bucks back
> All Directv customers will pay more in monthly fees
> We will no longer be able to lease receivers at a low price and will be forced to pay as much as $500 up front like we had to before the leasing model.


My research indicates that the chances that this ruling will be reversed by the Supremes are about 3 out of 4


----------



## gregjones (Sep 20, 2007)

Contrary to the goals of the plaintiffs, you cannot legislate away the right to idiocy. People have a fundamental right to make bad decisions by not reading contracts. Companies have a protected right to hold people to contracts. You can't make it so that companies have to protect people too lazy to read contracts.


----------



## islesfan (Oct 18, 2006)

Movieman said:


> Thanks for posting. I see the receiver pricing changing if Directv looses in court. Maybe this is before I got the service cause I was clearly told about the lease cost and fees way before I signed up. I was told several times and had to confirm that I understood this several times.


I have one leased receiver that I was told I was leasing and one that I was never, ever told I was leasing. I only noticed it because the second one did not involve any lease agreement of any kind. Still, I'm not complaining. I mean, what am I going to do with the "leased" receiver? I'm using it to access DirecTV. If I ever leave DirecTV, I can't use it to access Dish. I guess I'd just have to find something else to prop up the wobbly table!


----------



## dhines (Aug 16, 2006)

MountainMan10 said:


> The end result will probably be
> Some lawyers make millions of dollars
> Some current and ex Directv customer will get a few bucks back
> All Directv customers will pay more in monthly fees
> We will no longer be able to lease receivers at a low price and will be *forced to pay as much as $500 up front like we had to before the leasing model.*


i have no idea what you are talking about . . . . i haven't noticed a single change in pricing since the leasing model was put in place. the only difference is, i now pay taxes on some of my boxes (the leased ones), the mirroring fee was renamed a lease fee, and if i turn off my service i will have to return some of my boxes (the leased ones). i would like to see data that supports the 'leasing lowered the cost acquiring new boxes', from my perspective i just don't see it.

was i the only one that got the $99 for a DVR offer and the occasional free DVR? if anything, prices have actually gone up . . . as i don't hear anything about freebies anymore. but, i don't think the lack of freebies has anything to do with the lease program, so much as it does the economy in general.


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

dhines said:


> i have no idea what you are talking about . . . . i haven't noticed a single change in pricing since the leasing model was put in place. the only difference is, i now pay taxes on some of my boxes (the leased ones), the mirroring fee was renamed a lease fee, and if i turn off my service i will have to return some of my boxes (the leased ones). i would like to see data that supports the 'leasing lowered the cost acquiring new boxes', from my perspective i just don't see it.
> 
> was i the only one that got the $99 for a DVR offer and the occasional free DVR? if anything, prices have actually gone up . . . as i don't hear anything about freebies anymore. but, i don't think the lack of freebies has anything to do with the lease program, so much as it does the economy in general.


Before the leasing model started, the HR10-250s were $999(+) .. Perhaps a more realistic price is $400 - $500 these days, but you can bet that if lease is not an option that we'll be paying closer to full fare on these devices.


----------



## David MacLeod (Jan 29, 2008)

Doug Brott said:


> Before the leasing model started, the HR10-250s were $999(+) .. Perhaps a more realistic price is $400 - $500 these days, but you can bet that if lease is not an option that we'll be paying closer to full fare on these devices.


be kind of funny paying the full price on a "reconditioned" (their words, not mine  ) unit. and I bet they would try to....


----------



## wildbill129 (Dec 22, 2006)

I have no problem with leasing boxes. I do think it is a great way to get expensive technolgy cheaper. The only issue I have with it is the lack of communication as to the contract terms. Because I am a member of this forum, I know I am getting a lease with a two year contract extension. I have never signed a lease or contract agreement, not electronically (that I noticed at the time) or when an installer was here. 

All DirecTV needs to do is quit trying to be so sneaky with the lease and contract terms. Put the date the customers contract expires on the bill and on their website, just like Verizon does with my cell phone. When the installer does an install, have him/her advise the customer of the contract, and have the customer sign it. Pretty simple really....then there would be no grounds for a lawsuit.


----------



## raott (Nov 23, 2005)

gregjones said:


> Contrary to the goals of the plaintiffs, you cannot legislate away the right to idiocy. People have a fundamental right to make bad decisions by not reading contracts. Companies have a protected right to hold people to contracts. You can't make it so that companies have to protect people too lazy to read contracts.


As usual, the point is missed and camouflaged in rhetoric. The problem is material terms of the contract (ie a lease) not being disclosed at the time of contract formation.


----------



## raott (Nov 23, 2005)

MountainMan10 said:


> The end result will probably be
> Some lawyers make millions of dollars
> Some current and ex Directv customer will get a few bucks back
> All Directv customers will pay more in monthly fees
> We will no longer be able to lease receivers at a low price and will be forced to pay as much as $500 up front like we had to before the leasing model.


Or, directv could just simply make sure the terms are disclosed and move on with the lease model.


----------



## wildbill129 (Dec 22, 2006)

raott said:


> Or, directv could just simply make sure the terms are disclosed and move on with the lease model.


Next to my post...you said the smartest thing on this thread yet!


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

raott said:


> Or, directv could just simply make sure the terms are disclosed and move on with the lease model.


...and likely end up paying some kind of "fine"...but yes....that could do it.


----------



## smiddy (Apr 5, 2006)

Nah, so long as they made an attempt, they will be vindicated.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

smiddy said:


> Nah, so long as they made an attempt, they will be vindicated.


That could be too.

Odds are this will never see the light of day in any trial - settled somehow.


----------



## GregLee (Dec 28, 2005)

wildbill129 said:


> I have no problem with leasing boxes. I do think it is a great way to get expensive technolgy cheaper. The only issue I have with it is the lack of communication as to the contract terms. Because I am a member of this forum, I know I am getting a lease with a two year contract extension. I have never signed a lease or contract agreement, not electronically (that I noticed at the time) or when an installer was here.
> 
> All DirecTV needs to do is quit trying to be so sneaky with the lease and contract terms. Put the date the customers contract expires on the bill and on their website, just like Verizon does with my cell phone. When the installer does an install, have him/her advise the customer of the contract, and have the customer sign it. Pretty simple really....then there would be no grounds for a lawsuit.


+1. Quit trying to be so sneaky. I agree.


----------



## smiddy (Apr 5, 2006)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> That could be too.
> 
> Odds are this will never see the light of day in any trial - settled somehow.


I'm gueeing here, but my bet is the majority of the folks involved in this knew something about it and are trying to press the limits. That's an odd game of chicken to play BTW.


----------



## dhines (Aug 16, 2006)

Doug Brott said:


> Before the leasing model started, the HR10-250s were $999(+) .. Perhaps a more realistic price is $400 - $500 these days, but you can bet that if lease is not an option that we'll be paying closer to full fare on these devices.


i bought 3 HR10-250's and i never paid more than $99 for each of them . . . and these were purchased, not leased.


----------



## Drew2k (Aug 16, 2006)

March 1, 2006: HR10-250 purchased from 6th Ave.com for $419.06 with shipping and tax


----------



## smiddy (Apr 5, 2006)

Check other services and compare that to DirecTV's model. DirecTV is less expensive no matter how you slice it.


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

dhines said:


> i bought 3 HR10-250's and i never paid more than $99 for each of them . . . and these were purchased, not leased.


Not denying that .. There was a point when these devices became obsoleted and DIRECTV/TiVo were finishing off the stock. Your purchases were not really a normal condition.


----------



## Upstream (Jul 4, 2006)

smiddy said:


> Check other services and compare that to DirecTV's model. DirecTV is less expensive no matter how you slice it.


For me, Comcast is $3 per month cheaper than DirecTV for comparable service, and I didn't have to pay an up front fee for my receivers. If Fios were available in my neighborhood, I would save an additional $1 per month (or more if I bundled internet and phone service).


----------



## rudeney (May 28, 2007)

Upstream said:


> For me, Comcast is $3 per month cheaper than DirecTV for comparable service, and I didn't have to pay an up front fee for my receivers. If Fios were available in my neighborhood, I would save an additional $1 per month (or more if I bundled internet and phone service).


Given that I have six receivers (4x HD-DVR, 1x SD-DVR and 1x HD), just the monthly rental of the cable boxes would be over $80 on Charter, and then the content would be another $80 on top of that, making it something like $50/mo more expensive than what I pay D*. Over two years, that pays for a lot of up-front receiver lease fees.

Now, back to the topic at hand, since cable usually doesn't have locked-in commitment terms, and since everyone seems to understand that cable boxes are the property of the cable company (and often have big, ugly labels on them stating the fact), they won't have the problems D* is experiencing. The fact that D* "sells" receivers through retail chains really complicates the general public's understanding of their leasing model. No other company has anything similar.


----------



## dhines (Aug 16, 2006)

Doug Brott said:


> Not denying that .. There was a point when these devices became obsoleted and DIRECTV/TiVo were finishing off the stock. Your purchases were not really a normal condition.


2 yes, one no. point i am making is . . . 'regular price' to one subscriber is not necessarily the same as the 'regular price' to the other. I acquired 2 of my owned HDDVR's prior to the d* model being released, so i don't see how they could have been clearing out stock.

either way, what i am saying is d* needs to do a better job of how the 'sell' their hardware. hell, i would be satisfied if they said "at the end of your two year commitment you own the box, cancelling before that requires a return". that would be a fair compromise, but saying that some people have to cough up $300 for a box, then sign a commitment, then if they cancel pay a fee and return the box . . . just doesn't seem fair.

guess what i am trying to say is, it should be a term fee or loss of the box . . . but not both. for those that want to keep bringing up car leases, think about this . .

percentage wise what do you put down when you lease a car? maybe 5% or less . . . and with these boxes it is at least 40% - 60%. no matter how you slice it, it just doesn't seem fair to put down that much money, then be on the hook for a term fee + lose the box no matter when you cancel.


----------



## gregjones (Sep 20, 2007)

dhines said:


> either way, what i am saying is d* needs to do a better job of how the 'sell' their hardware. hell, i would be satisfied if they said "at the end of your two year commitment you own the box, cancelling before that requires a return". that would be a fair compromise, but saying that some people have to cough up $300 for a box, then sign a commitment, then if they cancel pay a fee and return the box . . . just doesn't seem fair.


I disagree. Fairness is determined by the customer at the time of the purchase or lease. I accept responsibility as a consumer to decide if a deal is good for me. I could care less about anyone else's deal.

Companies have the right to react to business conditions and make offers appropriate to their goals. Customers have to right to accept or decline the contract based on their perceived value for the product. I reject this notion that we have to whine about someone else getting a different deal.

If DirecTV treats me unfairly (they never have), I will make a very simple decision regarding their continued value to me as a service provider. But if they adhere to the agreement, I have no legal, moral or ethical problem with them.


----------



## MaynardKrebbs (Dec 31, 2009)

dhines said:


> percentage wise what do you put down when you lease a car? maybe 5% or less . . . and with these boxes it is at least 40% - 60%. no matter how you slice it, it just doesn't seem fair to put down that much money, then be on the hook for a term fee + lose the box no matter when you cancel.


Very true, you put about 5% down, then pay monthly for a term of 2-3 years to lease it... so when it's returned at the end of the contract you've spent 40%-60%... AND still had to put gas in it.

If a DVR leases for $99 or can be purchased for $399, you spend 25% to lease it, and pay nothing monthly to lease the receiver. You spend $5 every month for programming, which is the gas to run your car... that has to be purchased whether you lease or own it. And you can keep it 20 years without returning it as long as you keep buying the gas.

But in regards to whether the class-action condition is enforceable, NO contract is actually legally binding until it is ruled on by 15 judges (provided it makes it all the way through all 13 appellate courts and on to the supreme court). The question is whether it is cost-effective to pay all those legal fees to prove a point.

Onto the matter of D* being sneaky and under-handed. Consider that the bulk of what is said in these threads is that the retailer was not adequately explaining the conditions. That reflects on D*, but is not caused by them. And the references about phone reps not disclosing it does not mean the higher-ups sanctioned that... can anyone say they've never had bad service at a restaurant? Or encountered a rude gas station attendant? Consider that those call centers are filled by thousands of people, and a pretty fair cross-sampling at that. Some of them do what they're told, when they're told. Some work hard and some do just the minimum. Some are blatantly stupid but those typically won't last long, but they could last long enough to talk to 30 people in one day and neglect to tell any of them about those conditions.
If the top brass tells the reps they have to say it, they have not been underhanded to the customer. If they fire the ones who don't adhere to their policy, they have honored the customer. The issue here is proving D* corporate actually 'intentionally' fleeced the customer, or merely hired a shiftless layabout who didn't last too long, but did damage the reputation while they were there.

And finally about prices not changing: Best Buy 2/28/2006 R15 price: $349 purchased with 2 year agreement... Best Buy 3/1/2006 R15 price: $99 lease with 2 year agreement. Best Buy (or any retailer peddling D* equipment) 2006 HR20 $399 lease with 2 year agreement, 2007 $299 with 2 year agreement, 2008 $199 with 2 year agreement.

Prior to 2006, if anyone kept their original agreement from that long ago, implied that ANY receiver activation extended commitment. The only thing that changed was a loophole out of the agreement through purchasing full price, which didn't exist prior to the lease model.


----------



## bobnielsen (Jun 29, 2006)

MaynardKrebbs said:


> And finally about prices not changing: Best Buy 2/28/2006 R15 price: $349 purchased with 2 year agreement... Best Buy 3/1/2006 R15 price: $99 lease with 2 year agreement.


Not quite correct. In February 2006, my RCA SD receiver bit the dust (no great loss there). I called Directv to check my options and the CSR told me that I could buy (not lease) a R15 at Best Buy (no later than 2/28) for $99 (not $349) and I would receive a $100 rebate. I did so and my net cost (exclusive of tax) was -$1.00 (with a commitment, of course).


----------

