# Clark Howard fires DishNetwork.



## dennispap (Feb 1, 2007)

This was on Clark Howard's website about how he "fired" dish network.

http://clarkhoward.com/liveweb/shownotes/2010/08/03/18985/


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

dennispap said:


> This was on Clark Howard's website about how he "fired" dish network.
> 
> http://clarkhoward.com/liveweb/shownotes/2010/08/03/18985/


They lost him over the audit team.

Which means he has multiple receivers and refuses to connect them to a phone line (or new equipment, an internet line).
He also has five receivers, which makes it more likely that those receivers are on a stacked account.

I don't like the requirement nor the often heavy handed enforcement but he does have an account that raises red flags.


----------



## sigma1914 (Sep 5, 2006)

James Long said:


> They lost him over the audit team.
> 
> Which means he has multiple receivers and refuses to connect them to a phone line (or new equipment, an internet line).
> He also has five receivers, which makes it more likely that those receivers are on a stacked account.
> ...


Does Dish enforce this "need a phone/net connection" or is it like Directv's don't ask don't tell?


----------



## Davenlr (Sep 16, 2006)

Wow, if I had to have a phone line connected to all my Directv stuff, it would take the phone company a whole day to run the wires...which would never happen, since I hate AT&T, and they are our local telco.


----------



## LarryFlowers (Sep 22, 2006)

James Long said:


> They lost him over the audit team.
> 
> Which means he has multiple receivers and refuses to connect them to a phone line (or new equipment, an internet line).
> He also has five receivers, which makes it more likely that those receivers are on a stacked account.
> ...


I understand what Dish was doing but boy did they pick the wrong guy... TV, Internet, Newspaper Syndication. He's that customer.. you know the 1 angry customer who tells 10 other people? In Clark Howards case he could be the 1 angry customer who tells 10's of thousands...


----------



## Shades228 (Mar 18, 2008)

James Long said:


> They lost him over the audit team.
> 
> Which means he has multiple receivers and refuses to connect them to a phone line (or new equipment, an internet line).
> He also has five receivers, which makes it more likely that those receivers are on a stacked account.
> ...


They wouldn't have these issues if they made a new MOCA sytem similiar to SWM. Honestly though thinking that 5 receivers is a lot now days is very behind the times.


----------



## RasputinAXP (Jan 23, 2008)

Who?


----------



## Shades228 (Mar 18, 2008)

http://clarkhoward.com/


----------



## LarryFlowers (Sep 22, 2006)

RasputinAXP said:


> Who?


Many of you may not know who Clark Howard is.

He lives and works in Atlanta and is a self made millionaire and consumer advocate.

He may also be the cheapest man alive :lol:

But he appears on HLN, his show on WSB TV in Atlanta is syndicated all overe the country as is his radio show.

3 or 4 years ago, he got into it with Bank of America over an issue involving the arrest of someone who tried to verify the funds for a check and once verified trying to cash the fraudulent check. I do not remember all the details, but Howards issue with the bank revolved around the lack of a method to verify a check and once verified cash it, without getting arrested when the check turned out to be fraudulent, even though the bank verified it. My details are probably shaky here, but the point is, Howard started a campaign against the bank and posted the results daily on his website... over $50 million in deposits was removed from the bank by consumers.

He's a pistol, and right more often than not, but he also provides on his web site a place for listeners/viewers who take issue with him to present their case. He frequently responds to these issues on the air.

He's definitely a different kind of guy.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

sigma1914 said:


> Does Dish enforce this "need a phone/net connection" or is it like Directv's don't ask don't tell?


Heavily enforced (which is the problem with Mr Howard). On accounts with several receivers not connected to phone line/internet one can expect the call. And when it comes it is as Mr Howard detailed ... no putting the phone on hold, no help from others in your house, no leway. If you cannot follow the steps requested to read a certain string of numbers off of the system info screen on each receiver that receiver will be disabled. Search for "audit team" in the DISH forums for more horror stories.

I've never received an audit team call but I have had receivers die when their phone connection was lost. I have a couple of receivers that don't get used often that lost their phone connections. I went to use them and found them deauthorized. I ended up fixing the phone lines to get dialtone, forcing a dial out connection and waiting 24 hours to get them running again.

The worst thing is that their best accounts (everything subscribed and lots of receivers) are also the most suspicious. They end up annoying their best customers. I also wonder how many legitimately criminal accounts are found by this method.

This is like WalMart doing pat down searches of their customers as they leave the store to make sure they paid for everything. The more you buy the more likely you'll get a cavity search (and not a pleasant one).

Yes, DISH enforces the phone line rule.



Shades228 said:


> They wouldn't have these issues if they made a new MOCA sytem similiar to SWM. Honestly though thinking that 5 receivers is a lot now days is very behind the times.


DISH knows their average customer better than I do. Their sales website is set up for six tuners in three receivers as a maximum lease. They consider that service to six rooms. I wish they would trust their customers more.

As far as using other means to verify the proximity of receivers if it isn't built into the receivers already in 14 million homes it isn't going to help. If they are going to add technology to let the receivers talk to each other it could be anything ... but until that technology is in new receivers and all receivers are replaced they are stuck with current methods. Phone line and wired internet.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

RasputinAXP said:


> Who?


A good question. Although he is a public figure with a following I would not expect this to have any major impact on DISH. He's not the kind who will spend now until his dying breath trying to take down DISH Network ... the article was rather cordial. "I left, this is why." More of a disclosure than the beginning of a cause.

It doesn't help DISH ... I suspect DirecTV will use it as fodder in their constant battle for customers.


----------



## MysteryMan (May 17, 2010)

dennispap said:


> This was on Clark Howard's website about how he "fired" dish network.
> 
> http://clarkhoward.com/liveweb/shownotes/2010/08/03/18985/


Interesting article. Would like to hear DISH"s side of the story. Mr. Howard showed good judgement by "sleeping" on the incident befor making his decision. Personally I think both providers should do away with the need for a phone connection (old technology) and modernize.


----------



## paulman182 (Aug 4, 2006)

I occasionally listen to Clark Howard and if I had a company, I wouldn't want him as a customer.

I don't like him at all.


----------



## scooper (Apr 22, 2002)

MysteryMan said:


> Interesting article. Would like to hear DISH"s side of the story. Mr. Howard showed good judgement by "sleeping" on the incident befor making his decision. Personally I think both providers should do away with the need for a phone connection (old technology) and modernize.


Ok - then - 
How would YOU then verify that account stacking is not occurring ?
Keep in mind there are over some million older receivers whose only out-of-band communication is phone line.


----------



## Pete K. (Apr 23, 2002)

I worked with Clark Howard for several years. He is a very understanding fellow, not easily upset. You would like him if you knew him. If Dish pulled this crap on me, I wouldn't even sleep on it. I'd fire them on the spot.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

DISH Network seems to have adopted an "ablative" stance towards problematic customers: If the customer is not willing to play ball, DISH simply walks away.

Self-righteous people can be very high maintenance.


----------



## MysteryMan (May 17, 2010)

scooper said:


> Ok - then -
> How would YOU then verify that account stacking is not occurring ?
> Keep in mind there are over some million older receivers whose only out-of-band communication is phone line.


Ever shop at a Sam's Club? You must show your membership card to enter the store. There are closed circut cameras monitoring the entire store. After you pay for the merchendise you are stopped at the exit where a employee checks the contents of you basket with your receipt. That's a blatant accusation! I have been a DirecTV suscriber since 1995 and have always payed my bill in "full" and on time. When HD became available I upgraded. I was asked if I would still be using my old receiver and stated no. I offered to return the old receiver but they refused. Yet they still enquired if I was still using it. Only when I threatened to terminate my service did the cease. My point is like Mr. Howard no one appreciates being accused of theft. Yes there are millions of older receivers out there and yes there is account stacking going on. But to assume everyone is doing this is ludicrous and insulting!


----------



## Jhon69 (Mar 28, 2006)

dennispap said:


> This was on Clark Howard's website about how he "fired" dish network.
> 
> http://clarkhoward.com/liveweb/shownotes/2010/08/03/18985/


Well I guess he showed that company.

After his "special deals" run out he'll be paying more for his service.:eek2:

Sometimes a person let's their "pride" overload their pocketbook.I've seen it happen so many times before.:nono2:

Chances are good that what Dish thought he was doing? he was doing.


----------



## sigma1914 (Sep 5, 2006)

Jhon69 said:


> ...
> 
> Chances are good that what Dish thought he was doing? he was doing.


Riiiight, I'm sure he's stacking accounts for all his friends.


----------



## scooper (Apr 22, 2002)

MysteryMan said:


> Ever shop at a Sam's Club? You must show your membership card to enter the store. There are closed circut cameras monitoring the entire store. After you pay for the merchendise you are stopped at the exit where a employee checks the contents of you basket with your receipt. That's a blatant accusation! I have been a DirecTV suscriber since 1995 and have always payed my bill in "full" and on time. When HD became available I upgraded. I was asked if I would still be using my old receiver and stated no. I offered to return the old receiver but they refused. Yet they still enquired if I was still using it. Only when I threatened to terminate my service did the cease. My point is like Mr. Howard no one appreciates being accused of theft. Yes there are millions of older receivers out there and yes there is account stacking going on. But to assume everyone is doing this is ludicrous and insulting!


Yes I do shop at Sam's, and yes I find the process a bit "insinuating". Trying to shop at an Armed Forces Exchange or Commissary is the same way.

However - you still did not answer the question - What would you do to prevent account stacking ?


----------



## MysteryMan (May 17, 2010)

scooper said:


> Yes I do shop at Sam's, and yes I find the process a bit "insinuating". Trying to shop at an Armed Forces Exchange or Commissary is the same way.
> 
> However - you still did not answer the question - What would you do to prevent account stacking ?


If criminals can be monitored with ankle bracelets I'm sure there is other technology for the providers to use. Part of our monthly fees are used for research and developement. The answer lies there.


----------



## epokopac (Aug 8, 2007)

I've never had a phone line hooked up to either my 622 or 625 since I first became a customer over three years ago. It appears to "not" be a requirement. If I want PPV or other capabilities, I'll use the web site.


----------



## Jhon69 (Mar 28, 2006)

scooper said:


> Yes I do shop at Sam's, and yes I find the process a bit "insinuating". Trying to shop at an Armed Forces Exchange or Commissary is the same way.
> 
> However - you still did not answer the question - What would you do to prevent account stacking ?


I believe Dishnetwork is doing it.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Jhon69 said:


> I believe Dishnetwork is doing it.


I'd like to know the success ratio.

How many accounts are audited per month?
What percentage end up being 100% cleared (all receivers found and verified)?
What percentage are partial failures (one or more receivers not verified)?
What percentage are verified as stacked accounts?
What percentage of audited accounts cancel within a month? Three months?

I assume DISH has these answers and the audit process is successful enough to keep the team employed and continue the process. I don't know of a better way of verifying receivers other than 1) all connected to the same phone line or 2) the audit process ... although the biggest complaint about the audit process is the harshness of the call. This isn't the greeter counting items on the way out of Sam's Club - this is the greeter checking the UPC on every item to make sure it matches.


----------



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

Dish thinks customers take advantage of loopholes to not conform to legal requirements. Why would that be? Oh, pot, kettle.

By the way, we really need a single forum area to keep tabs on all the lawsuits Charlie has involved his company in. I've lost track of some of them.


----------



## lparsons21 (Mar 4, 2006)

Clark Howard sounds like my kinda guy. My basic rule when dealing with any business is if they make it a hassle to do business with them, I quit doing business with them immediately. No "I'm thinking of cancelling" or other wishy-washy solution.

In the case of the audit team and their abrasive methods, I figure if it happens to me, it will be on my last day with Dish. There won't be writing [email protected] anywhere, no other phone call, no nothing but 'cancel'. Simple and easy.

There are plenty of options to getting plenty of things to watch on the TV, you just don't have to put up with much BS to get it, imo.


----------



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

lparsons21 said:


> There are plenty of options to getting plenty of things to watch on the TV, you just don't have to put up with much BS to get it, imo.


For some that's true. I don't have LOS for DirecTV (redwood trees), Comcast doesn't offer enough HD and they're expensive, and the new AT&T (our landline provider) doesn't even offer DSL much less TV signals.

So I'm a little more inclined to use [email protected] for real problems. By the way neither of my ViP's is hooked up to a phone line but both are connected the interwebs.


----------



## lparsons21 (Mar 4, 2006)

In my area, at my house, I have good LOS for both services (actually better for D*), but we have Mediacom for cable.

While I would miss channels if I went to either one, I wouldn't miss them long. Kind of like hanging, if you hang long enough...


----------



## Paul Secic (Dec 16, 2003)

dennispap said:


> This was on Clark Howard's website about how he "fired" dish network.
> 
> http://clarkhoward.com/liveweb/shownotes/2010/08/03/18985/


Never heard of Clark Howard. Who is he?


----------



## Pete K. (Apr 23, 2002)

Larry Flowers answers that question on page 1 of this thread.


----------



## TulsaOK (Feb 24, 2004)

Paul Secic said:


> Never heard of Clark Howard. Who is he?


Check here.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

I read Mr Howard's post about his "experience"...

I took note that he said that the phone line requirement was "silly"... and that pretty much told me what I needed to know.

He knew he wasn't in compliance and had an attitude about it to boot.

I gather the audit people aren't very friendly... but then neither is a policeman at a traffic stop. I think traffic stops are silly... but I know if I gave lip to a cop and told him I thought it was silly rather than showing my ID, I'd likely create trouble for myself.

This sounds like what happened here... Howard wasn't connected to phone lines (or internet) like he appears to know he should have been... Dish was a little heavy handed... and Howard stirred the pot by giving them a hard time and questioning the terms & conditions he had already agreed to.

It's one thing for a person to have a single receiver not connected... but when you have 5+ receivers and not connected, by that point you know you are bucking the system.


----------



## joshjr (Aug 2, 2008)

James Long said:


> They lost him over the audit team.
> 
> Which means he has multiple receivers and refuses to connect them to a phone line (or new equipment, an internet line).
> He also has five receivers, which makes it more likely that those receivers are on a stacked account.
> ...


If they had the MRV like D* that was all networked in they could of offered to upgrade him to that for free and then the recievers would of dialed in on their own at least once a month. Still its asking alot to call anyone and just say prove you are complying with our company rules. Landlines are a thing of the past. I dont have one either. My understanding is that TiVO's require a land line. D* is supposed to have a new HD TiVO DVR in the near future and I cant help but wonder if it willl still have land line requirements or if they will change with the times and go to networking or updates the same way as the D* receivers.

I only have one D* receiver out of the 6 networked at my house to but they are all at my house. If they need a way of proving that then its on them to come up with a way. Not to call after shutting off service and say your stealing from us. Could and should of been handled better.


----------



## joshjr (Aug 2, 2008)

Jhon69 said:


> Well I guess he showed that company.
> 
> After his "special deals" run out he'll be paying more for his service.:eek2:
> 
> ...


Right. Because we all know that E* could not be wrong and because Clark has a history of being dishonest. Somtimes its worth paying a little more for a honest or more honorable company providing you with your needs. Even someone like Clark decides what is the best value and its not always the cheapest. BEST VALUE FOR THE MONEY!


----------



## joshjr (Aug 2, 2008)

James Long said:


> I* don't know of a better way of verifying receivers other than 1) all connected to the same phone line or 2) the audit process ... although the biggest complaint about the audit process is the harshness of the call. *This isn't the greeter counting items on the way out of Sam's Club - this is the greeter checking the UPC on every item to make sure it matches.


Why do you think D* is so pushing MRV? Its mroe money but it also means that all receivers will dial in on the account. That is a better solution. If you are having MRV installed why would you leave it off a receiver? D* provides and or upgrades all receivers to what you need for it to work on every tv in the house. But D* was proactive about it buy building something that covers this issue and the customer does not even have to worry about it.

I understand that both D* and E* want to know where there equipment is and that it is being used correctly and paid for correctly. I for one dont have a problem with that. I also would not like to be called due to suspected stealing. I will give you a perfect example how I could be accused of the same thing.

First off like I said previously I only have 1 of 6 receivers networked for a dial back once a month. I actually only have 4 of the 6 even hooked up. I just bought a owned unit and want to verify it works before sending once back. I keep and pay $5 a month for a spare receiver that is not hooked up. I know call me crazy but its the truth. Eventually my spare will be an owned unit that wont be active on the account until I need it but for now its a leased one.


----------



## CuriousMark (May 21, 2008)

joshjr said:


> My understanding is that TiVO's require a land line.


Not for modern units, the Premiere model doesn't even have a modem. Older models can use either phone or internet, and only the very oldest models still need a phone line. That line isn't needed for verification purposes though, it is for the basic functionality of guide download.



> D* is supposed to have a new HD TiVO DVR in the near future and I cant help but wonder if it willl still have land line requirements or if they will change with the times and go to networking or updates the same way as the D* receivers.


It will almost surely be like other DirecTV DVRs. Again, only the very oldest models of these actually required a phone connection, and then only to authorize software updates or order PPV.


----------



## Jhon69 (Mar 28, 2006)

joshjr said:


> Right. Because we all know that E* could not be wrong and because Clark has a history of being dishonest. Somtimes its worth paying a little more for a honest or more honorable company providing you with your needs. Even someone like Clark decides what is the best value and its not always the cheapest. BEST VALUE FOR THE MONEY!


Actually it was Clark's job to read the Customer(Residential) Agreement.Intelligence is not a excuse to not use common sense.

http://www.dishnetwork.com/legal/default.aspx

Equipment: 4:3.


----------



## joshjr (Aug 2, 2008)

Stewart Vernon said:


> I read Mr Howard's post about his "experience"...
> 
> I took note that he said that the phone line requirement was "silly"... and that pretty much told me what I needed to know.
> 
> ...


Wait a minute. Didnt I read about a year ago where E* offered $5 off if you connected the receiver to a phone line? That to me does not sound like a requirement but rather an enticement to do so. Like I said develop a gameplan like D* where not only do they all dial in but you make even more money for the trouble.


----------



## joshjr (Aug 2, 2008)

Jhon69 said:


> Actually it was Clark's job to read the Customer(Residential) Agreement.Intelligence is not a excuse to not use common sense.
> 
> http://www.dishnetwork.com/legal/default.aspx
> 
> Equipment: 4:3.


I think you need to read this again.

Telephone/Broadband Connection. *To optimize *the operation of your Equipment, you must continuously connect each DISH Network receiver on your account to the same land-based telephone line and/or a broadband home network. Failure to connect each receiver to the same land-based telephone line and/or a broadband home network may result in interruption or disconnection of Services. *We may charge you a TV2 Receiver Connection Fee for each dual-tuner receiver that is not connected to the same land-based telephone line and/or a broadband home network.*

It sounds to me like its saying for each duel tuner receiver. What about receivers that are only 1 tuner? It also says to optimize the operation of your equipment not a full requirement.


----------



## Jhon69 (Mar 28, 2006)

Stewart Vernon said:


> I read Mr Howard's post about his "experience"...
> 
> I took note that he said that the phone line requirement was "silly"... and that pretty much told me what I needed to know.
> 
> ...


Think Clark found out,you mess with the bull, you get the horns!.:eek2:


----------



## Jhon69 (Mar 28, 2006)

joshjr said:


> I think you need to read this again.
> 
> Telephone/Broadband Connection. *To optimize *the operation of your Equipment, you must continuously connect each DISH Network receiver on your account to the same land-based telephone line and/or a broadband home network. Failure to connect each receiver to the same land-based telephone line and/or a broadband home network may result in interruption or disconnection of Services. *We may charge you a TV2 Receiver Connection Fee for each dual-tuner receiver that is not connected to the same land-based telephone line and/or a broadband home network.*
> 
> It sounds to me like its saying for each duel tuner receiver. What about receivers that are only 1 tuner? It also says to optimize the operation of your equipment not a full requirement.


This is the statement that everyone should read:

Failure to connect each receiver to the same land-based telephone line and/or a broadband home network may result in interruption or disconnection of Services.


----------



## sigma1914 (Sep 5, 2006)

Jhon69 said:


> This is the statement that everyone should read:
> 
> Failure to connect each receiver to the same land-based telephone line and/or a broadband home network *may result* in interruption or disconnection of Services.


Key words...MAY RESULT. No very good word choice.


----------



## Jhon69 (Mar 28, 2006)

sigma1914 said:


> Key words...MAY RESULT. No very good word choice.


Maybe but there it is in black and white.


----------



## sigma1914 (Sep 5, 2006)

Jhon69 said:


> Maybe but there it is in black and white.


Seems gray, to me. Black & white would be, "Failure to connect each receiver to the same land-based telephone line and/or a broadband home network *will *result in interruption or disconnection of Services.


----------



## PEARLTONE (May 27, 2006)

joshjr said:


> I think you need to read this again.
> 
> Telephone/Broadband Connection. *To optimize *the operation of your Equipment, you must continuously connect each DISH Network receiver on your account to the same land-based telephone line and/or a broadband home network. Failure to connect each receiver to the same land-based telephone line and/or a broadband home network may result in interruption or disconnection of Services. *We may charge you a TV2 Receiver Connection Fee for each dual-tuner receiver that is not connected to the same land-based telephone line and/or a broadband home network.*
> 
> It sounds to me like its saying for each duel tuner receiver. What about receivers that are only 1 tuner? It also says to optimize the operation of your equipment not a full requirement.


"To optimize the operation of your equipment " ??? yea right, why dont they just say they want to know where the boxes are i can call or use the website to order any PPV i want

shows how stupid they are messing with this guy and getting bad publicity, ..............remember you have people looking to join who do not want to be hassled by DN and wont join


----------



## Jhon69 (Mar 28, 2006)

sigma1914 said:


> Seems gray, to me. Black & white would be, "Failure to connect each receiver to the same land-based telephone line and/or a broadband home network *will *result in interruption or disconnection of Services.


Well you would have to argue the fact with Dishnetwork's lawyers(I'm sure they wrote it),the fact here is Clark Howard was wrong he didn't read the customer agreement.But it doesn't matter Clark went else where,but after Clark's "special deals" ends I'm sure it will matter(I hear he's tight with a buck!).


----------



## Jhon69 (Mar 28, 2006)

PEARLTONE said:


> "To optimize the operation of your equipment " ??? yea right, why dont they just say they want to know where the boxes are i can call or use the website to order any PPV i want
> 
> shows how stupid they are messing with this guy and getting bad publicity, ..............remember you have people looking to join who do not want to be hassled by DN and wont join


Or they will be like me,join and keep everything hooked up cause it says to.


----------



## joshjr (Aug 2, 2008)

Jhon69 said:


> This is the statement that everyone should read:
> 
> Failure to connect each receiver to the same land-based telephone line and/or a broadband home network *may* result in interruption or disconnection of Services.


Thats right. May not saying it is a requirement. Also does not say that they will treat you with disrespect about it and as if you are stealing something either. May result in something is not a requirement. A requirement would be for sure if you dont do this then this is what will happen.


----------



## joshjr (Aug 2, 2008)

Jhon69 said:


> Or they will be like me,join and keep everything hooked up cause it says to.


Suggestions and company policies are different things. I think you need to learn the difference.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

joshjr said:


> I think you need to read this again.


How about this bit from page six? (Emphasis added.)B. Additional Tuners and Receivers. We may choose to allow you to place additional receivers on your account. If we allow you to do so, each additional receiver will be authorized to receive the same Services as your initial receiver, subject to the limitations of your television equipment. *All of your receivers must be located at the same residence and continuously connected to the same land-based telephone line and/or broadband home network.* If you wish to receive Services at two different residential locations, you must open a separate account for each location, unless otherwise specifically authorized by Dish Network. *You may not* directly or indirectly *use a single account* for the purpose of authorizing Services *for multiple DISH Network receivers that are not all* located in the same residence and *connected to the same land-based telephone line and/or broadband home network.* If we later determine that you did, we may disconnect your Services and, in addition to all other applicable fees, you agree to pay us the difference between the amounts actually received by us and the full retail price for the Services authorized for each DISH Network receiver on your account.

http://www.dishnetwork.com/downloads/legal/RCA.pdf​


----------



## Nick (Apr 23, 2002)

A typical Clarke Howard spin, but I'm more inclined to believe that he quit rather than (not then) get fired. He lives in his own frugal little world.


----------



## bnborg (Jun 3, 2005)

*Broadband home network* does not necessarily imply an internet connection, unless it is defined as such in the same contract. My 722 is connected to the same 100 Mb network that my home computers are.

My network is not connected to the internet during Mediacom's frequent service interruptions.


----------



## joshjr (Aug 2, 2008)

James Long said:


> How about this bit from page six? (Emphasis added.)B. Additional Tuners and Receivers. We may choose to allow you to place additional receivers on your account. If we allow you to do so, each additional receiver will be authorized to receive the same Services as your initial receiver, subject to the limitations of your television equipment. *All of your receivers must be located at the same residence and continuously connected to the same land-based telephone line and/or broadband home network.* If you wish to receive Services at two different residential locations, you must open a separate account for each location, unless otherwise specifically authorized by Dish Network. *You may not* directly or indirectly *use a single account* for the purpose of authorizing Services *for multiple DISH Network receivers that are not all* located in the same residence and *connected to the same land-based telephone line and/or broadband home network.* If we later determine that you did, we may disconnect your Services and, in addition to all other applicable fees, you agree to pay us the difference between the amounts actually received by us and the full retail price for the Services authorized for each DISH Network receiver on your account.
> 
> http://www.dishnetwork.com/downloads/legal/RCA.pdf​


That one is a little more clear but also states what will happen if all receivers are not located at the same location. Im not saying what he did was perfectly correct but this clearly shows that their procedure is outdated. When I recently moved it was going to cost me nearly $200 to have them wire my house for a home phone. No way am I going to do that. Cell phones are the future. With the times being tuff people are not gonna pay for both. I also mentioned earlier didnt E* offer $5 off for additional receivers having phone lines hooked to them? Sounds like a way to entice a customer to do just that. I highly doubt every tech verified a working phone line was active on the account before leaving.


----------



## ggotch5445 (Sep 27, 2009)

I'm guessing that the multiple receiver part of this, is the main issue here.

When I was considering getting Dish, I was concerned about connecting my main receiver to either a phone line, or the internet, as I did not feel that I had an easy connection to either from my home theater room.

My installer, whom I feel was very up front, and truthful, said that not connecting, to either of these options, would only be a problem if I wanted to order ppv movies, from the receiver, or needed diagnostics done, in real time, by Dish. The only item Dish imposed for not having the connection(s)was the $5 charge for TV2, which was regularly credited by virtue of having the particular package I have.

All that I have heard, or read (including the "encouragement" to get connected to a phone line in my receiver's manual), has suggested that the ethernet/phone connection was not an absolute requirement to be a Dish subscriber.

In any event, if Dish provided my 722 with a wireless LAN adapter, for my home network, I would have no objection to "hooking up". I simply never did it because it wasn't a quick, simple, cost-free task to do.


----------



## joshjr (Aug 2, 2008)

ggotch5445 said:


> I'm guessing that the multiple receiver part of this, is the main issue here.
> 
> When I was considering getting Dish, I was concerned about connecting my main receiver to either a phone line, or the internet, as I did not feel that I had an easy connection to either from my home theater room.
> 
> ...


Thats the point right there. If you want something like this to be a requirement then give customers a reason to want to do it. In the past it was a $5 discount but that is not worth it to some. Now D* came up with the ultimate way to do it. I bet D* is having more receivers dial in now then ever before and it will only get better with having the MRV option. E* is not overly worried about people watching tv from somewhere other then their home they pay for service or they would not be offering a slingloaded reciever.


----------



## jadebox (Dec 14, 2004)

If the unnamed "other provider" he's using now is DirecTV, I hope Howard read their Customer Agreement. 

-- Roger


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

joshjr said:


> That one is a little more clear but also states what will happen if all receivers are not located at the same location.


Parse the words correctly ... the receivers must be at the same residential location *AND* connected to the same phone line. Violate either and one has violated the terms of the contract.

DISH offers a discount to people who have multiple receivers. Instead of having a separate account for each receiver one can (at DISH's option) place additional receivers on one account. Even with the most expensive receivers this discount can save a customer $90 per additional receiver.



> I also mentioned earlier didn't E* offer $5 off for additional receivers having phone lines hooked to them? Sounds like a way to entice a customer to do just that. I highly doubt every tech verified a working phone line was active on the account before leaving.


The discount was given if receivers "phoned home". If the dual tuner receivers failed to phone home the discount for each of those receivers would be removed.

Failure to enforce in the past doesn't change the fact the rule exists. As Mr Howard noted, this recent call was his second contact from the audit team. They had enforced the phone line rule on his account before. And there are posts on DBSTalk going back before I joined complaining about the audit team.

The rule is nothing new. The enforcement is nothing new.


----------



## joshjr (Aug 2, 2008)

James Long said:


> The rule is nothing new. The enforcement is nothing new.


I think we are in agreement James. He did violate the terms to a degree and E* verified they have severly oudated terms. I do have to ask though what your thoughts are on this. So he had 5 receivers. Does E* want to flip the bill to run phone lines to all those rooms or ethernet cables? Give some options. Its not cheap to have the phone company do it. Its not cheap to buy wireless phone jacks to do it yourself and its not always easy to just wire it up yourself either. If its a requirement that it has to be done then offer a way to get it done. The only way I currently think E* offers to do that is the wireless phone jacks. Here is the link: http://www.dishnetwork.com/support/accessories/default.aspx

$39.99 for a setup of one receiver. Then you would need the additional add on's for the other 4 receivers. Sounds like alot of customer cost to me. Offer something like MRV for a fee that takes care of it. I also didnt hear a response to E* not being overly concerned about its customers watching tv from somewhere other then their own home since they are now offering slingloaded receivers. Seems a but unfair really. I for one am glad to say that I am not a Dish Network customer!


----------



## PEARLTONE (May 27, 2006)

joshjr said:


> That one is a little more clear but also states what will happen if all receivers are not located at the same location. Im not saying what he did was perfectly correct but this clearly shows that their procedure is outdated. When I recently moved it was going to cost me nearly $200 to have them wire my house for a home phone. No way am I going to do that. Cell phones are the future. With the times being tuff people are not gonna pay for both. I also mentioned earlier didnt E* offer $5 off for additional receivers having phone lines hooked to them? Sounds like a way to entice a customer to do just that. I highly doubt every tech verified a working phone line was active on the account before leaving.


thank you sir well said

you cant have a phone line in every room, and some people dont have an internet line in their home, if they own a laptop with wireless service so how the hell are you going to have them hooked up, i have a buddy who gets phone calls about it all the time, all he tells them is "send the phone company here to hook everything up, pay the bill, and i will hook up the line"


----------



## scooper (Apr 22, 2002)

I object strenously to the "it's too expensive to run phone lines / ethernet to every room I want a receiver in". It is just NOT that hard - because you have to run coax to all those rooms as well. If you don't want to pay the freight - then don't get the extra receivers. Simple.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

I have a phone line and wired ethernet near enough to use at every receiver location. It is possible.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

Saying "may result" instead of "will result" allows Dish the leeway to not kick someone off IF that person complies with the audit. Otherwise, there would be no point in an audit, and as soon as you weren't connected to the phone line then Dish would just automatically kick you out.

This means, if your power was out and your phone was out... bye bye Dish.

The "may result" allows for discretion if the person can pass the audit and/or connects the receivers again.


----------



## scooper (Apr 22, 2002)

MysteryMan said:


> If criminals can be monitored with ankle bracelets I'm sure there is other technology for the providers to use. Part of our monthly fees are used for research and developement. The answer lies there.


I didn't ask "What Dish should do" - I asked "What would YOU DO in this situation". I'm waiting for an answer that doesn't involve phoneline, internet or an audit team like they are doing now, and is readily adaptable / inexpensive to implement to all those legacy receivers.


----------



## Jhon69 (Mar 28, 2006)

joshjr said:


> Suggestions and company policies are different things. I think you need to learn the difference.


Not me I know the difference that's why all my Dishnetwork receivers are connected.


----------



## joshjr (Aug 2, 2008)

After reading the article again and so many standing firm on what the terms of service are, why does the article say E* reactivated the receivers? If its the rules wouldn't they just say no till he hooked up a phone line? If E* themselves are not gonna uphold the standard why herass people about it then? Sounds like a big waste of time & a great way to tick off a good customer.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

joshjr said:


> After reading the article again and so many standing firm on what the terms of service are, why does the article say E* reactivated the receivers? If its the rules wouldn't they just say no till he hooked up a phone line? If E* themselves are not gonna uphold the standard why herass people about it then? Sounds like a big waste of time & a great way to tick off a good customer.


Disobeying the contract "may result" in disconnection and/or being charged full price for services. (Yes, if DISH determines that the receivers are in separate locations they can bill for a full price subscription for each receiver.)

DISH is in no way obligated to permanently disconnect the receivers. It is their option.

BTW: How does this affect you? Have you ever had your receivers disconnected by DISH for not being connected to a phone line? As noted in an early post in this thread, I have. (Wiring problems, not non-compliance.) The people in this thread who have accepted the terms of the contract seem to understand what it means.


----------



## Jhon69 (Mar 28, 2006)

joshjr said:


> After reading the article again and so many standing firm on what the terms of service are, why does the article say E* reactivated the receivers? If its the rules wouldn't they just say no till he hooked up a phone line? If E* themselves are not gonna uphold the standard why harass people about it then? Sounds like a big waste of time & a great way to tick off a good customer.


The only way to know, is hope Clark Howard signs up for DirecTV,then we will see what a "good customer" he is.:eek2:

"Uh sorry Mr.Howard you know that DVR we had to replace a few months ago"?."Well it looks like your now under a new 24 month contract"!.:contract:


----------



## matt (Jan 12, 2010)

Jhon69 said:


> The only way to know, is hope Clark Howard signs up for DirecTV,then we will see what a "good customer" he is.:eek2:
> 
> "Uh sorry Mr.Howard you know that DVR we had to replace a few months ago"?."Well it looks like your now under a new 24 month contract"!.:contract:


They say sorry now? :hurah:


----------



## Jhon69 (Mar 28, 2006)

matt1124 said:


> They say sorry now? :hurah:


Yea I know I stretched it a bit.


----------



## joshjr (Aug 2, 2008)

James Long said:


> Disobeying the contract "may result" in disconnection and/or being charged full price for services. (Yes, if DISH determines that the receivers are in separate locations they can bill for a full price subscription for each receiver.)
> 
> DISH is in no way obligated to permanently disconnect the receivers. It is their option.
> 
> BTW: How does this affect you? Have you ever had your receivers disconnected by DISH for not being connected to a phone line? As noted in an early post in this thread, I have. (Wiring problems, not non-compliance.) The people in this thread who have accepted the terms of the contract seem to understand what it means.


You didnt answer the question. If its the rules then why reactivate the receivers? You all were so bent on the fact that Clark violated terms of service agreement. If he did then E* is not putting alot of emphasis on following the rules if they just reactivate them. There seemed to be a constant he didnt follow what the rules are. If you are gonna say he didnt then you have to say E* didnt either.


----------



## joshjr (Aug 2, 2008)

Jhon69 said:


> The only way to know, is hope Clark Howard signs up for DirecTV,then we will see what a "good customer" he is.:eek2:
> 
> "Uh sorry Mr.Howard you know that DVR we had to replace a few months ago"?."Well it looks like your now under a new 24 month contract"!.:contract:


A replacement does not start a new 2 year commitment. It does happen by accident from time to time but there is no audit department houding people calling them a thief. If I ever have to have one replaced I will be following up on it within the next week. Any errors will get corrected fast.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

joshjr said:


> You didnt answer the question. If its the rules then why reactivate the receivers? You all were so bent on the fact that Clark violated terms of service agreement. If he did then E* is not putting alot of emphasis on following the rules if they just reactivate them. There seemed to be a constant he didnt follow what the rules are. If you are gonna say he didnt then you have to say E* didnt either.


You seem to be having a comprehension problem with the terms & conditions.

"Failure to connect may result..." so, Dish has it in their discretion to decide what to do.

IF this was the first time Mr Howard had been found in violation, and he did pass the audit on the phone... then Dish usually reactivates the receivers and drops the issue.

IF it keeps happening, then they would start to suspect something else going on... and likely would not keep reactivating the receivers if they continued to be not-connected to phone lines.

Why do police sometimes issue warnings instead of always writing tickets for moving violations? Because sometimes they pull over a person who isn't a repeat offender, and the person seems to understand the mistake OR be genuinely unaware of the specific violation... and the officer has it in his discretion to apply the law 100% literally, or issue a warning.


----------



## joshjr (Aug 2, 2008)

Stewart Vernon said:


> You seem to be having a comprehension problem with the terms & conditions.
> 
> "Failure to connect may result..." so, Dish has it in their discretion to decide what to do.
> 
> ...


----------



## DoyleS (Oct 21, 2002)

I have 2 connected via internet and 1 connected by phone and 1 not connected at all. No problem with an audit call unless they get my wife instead of me. She would never be able to get the Home Theater fired up to be able to read back the numbers although that receiver is connected via internet. In an audit do they check all receivers or just those not connected?


----------



## scooper (Apr 22, 2002)

Your example is why I have it super easy setup for my wife - all she has to do is turn on TV then cycle through the channels until she finds the right one. (and the right remote for that receiver).

Doyle - it would be best to get them all connected somehow, as I think they go through all of them, and they don't give her time to call you . I would also consider doing a setup that she just turns on the TV /satellite receiver and either flips through inputs or changes channels to find that one. IF you can - I'd even consider a Harmony remote that can auto turn on everything needed with an easy to use macro


----------



## DoyleS (Oct 21, 2002)

Unfortunately it is not a regular TV. It is an Electrohome 3 gun CRT projector and has various inputs connected through an RGBHV switcher. The whole process involves multiple remotes and manual operations to lower the screen, turn on the equipment and manually select the Sat Receiver input on the switcher. As a result, she doesn't watch that setup unless I am there. That is the reason for one of the other receivers that is for her TV in the family room. (1 remote and as straightforward as I can make it) Seems to me they can see that 3 receivers are connected and they should be able to see that without having to manually check them. It is a real pain to connect the last one as it is a 311 and only has phone line connection capability and no phone line anywhere near it. It doesn't have an RJ45 Internet jack. It they want to turn that one off on me I guess I can live without it as it is the least used in the house.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

joshjr said:


> I would have to say that the agreement terms are also a little wishy washy.


Perhaps if you had agreed to them and were not just here to find fault with them your opinion would be different.



> As for your cop comparison then I would have to say if someone got pulled over for speeding and did or didnt get a ticket either way but got back in their car and the driver sped off again speeding right that second do you think the cop would give them a ticket to enforce their position?


Probably. In DISH's case they would call again when they noticed that phone lines were still not connected. As they did in Mr Howard's case. This was his second audit call.


----------



## DoyleS (Oct 21, 2002)

Too Funny! The Clark Howard thread gets Amazon promos on the banner for Clark Howard's books. ROTFL


----------

