# DirecTV is becoming a horrible company (opinion of a long time fan)



## ajiuO (Jun 17, 2006)

First of all, Im sorry that I have to be one of "those people", and rant off like this. I have been a DirecTV customer for 15 years and still feel that the HD quality and TV services are amongst the best available... However, I have decided to cancel, and here is why.

Direct TV has the most incompetent customer support agents that I have ever seen.. Now if this were a one time occurrence It would be understandable... but here is my story.

About 2 and a half weeks ago I started getting a "loss of signal" error on my main (HR24) reviver. After resetting the problem went away but came back the next day. I went through all of the step including moving a receiver from another room to make sure that it wasn't anything to do with the Dish or wiring.. It wasn't! So I called up DirecTV and they had me repeat everything that I had already tried and also determined that the receiver was probably bad. I was then told that they could not send me a replacement receiver because my building goes through an operator so that I would have to get the receiver from the operator. So I called the operator (Groove Satalite) and explained to them that I had a bad receiver and that DirecTV told me I needed to get a new one from them. They sent a guy to my house who came in with a replacement HR24 and got it all hooked up. Then when he called in to activate it.. He was told that he could not give me a new receiver and that it would need to come from DirecTV.. So witch is it?? So he unhooks the replacement receiver, Calls DirecTV, orders a new one, and then gives me a bill for 99$ for coming out (believe me I'm not going to pay it). The guy also verified with DirecTV that it would be an HR24 since I had payed $200.00 a while back to specifically get that receiver. I also called DirecTV and they confirmed that it was marked down as an HR24. They also admitted that that the original DirecTV agent that I spoke to should not have told me to get a new receiver from the building operator... They told me that he should have sent one out right away and told me to contact them only if I needed help hooking it up.. I asked them if they wanted to credit my account for the $99 incurred to me based upon their misinformation.. They first suggested to me that I cancel the service call... even though I told them that the guy had already been out (and did nothing).. then they told me to have my apartment building pay for it (What the hell do they have to do with it)?

So I receive a box a couple of days later from DirecTV.. and the Box was empty. I called them up and they seemed just as confused about this as I was. It sounds like they mailed me a recovery kit instead of an actual receiver.. So they reprocessed the order. I wanted to confirm that they would be sending out an HR24. She explained that she could not guarantee that. I explained to her that I had an HR21 and paid $200 to upgrade to that specific model and that anything older then that would be returned to them. She told me that she could leave a note on there about it but could still not guarantee. She also explained that when replacing a defective reviver that they generally replace it with the same model So that I didn't have much to worry about.. and If I did receive the wrong model to just call back and they would see what they could do.. I was Ok with that.. So I agreed.

Today I received my second box from DirecTV.. and for the second time it was empty. I called them up and asked to have my service canceled on the 30th... no apology or nothing... What a Joke!!!

On top of all of that I think that DirecTV is completely unreasonable when it comes to their equipment. Just in order just to LEAS an HR24 you are expected to pay them $200 up front plus $5-$8 a month (what ever it is now) indefinitely, sign a 2 year contract... and you have to give it back Thats ridiculous. On top of that they don't allow anyone else to make equipment.. So the customers have no alternative... Then they think its ok to send customers older outdated equipment to replace the newer equipment that someone payed to get?

ATT will give you a $650 phone for $200 and a two year contract.. and the phone is yours to keep. Does the HR24 cost $650? I hate to compare this reviver to a smart phone... But the technology involved in a smartphone is much more advanced then that in an HR24.. So I don't see directv's pricing justification... Hell my 99$ appleTV seems more advanced then my HR24.. and I own it... now thats a little bit unfair because the HR24 does have tuners and stuff... but still. If apple can make a product that is that fast, snappy, and smooth as that for 99$... I would expect something as expensive as the HR24 to run at least as smoothly as the AppleTV.

This brings me to my next point... DirecTV better start treating its customers better because once Apple, Amazon, and others work out deals to become internet based cable providers... DirecTV and Dish wont be the only alternatives any more... Companies like Comcast will still be ok because they will still provide the infrastructure for the required internet connection... But companies like DirecTV will loose a lot of cards at that point.

I will probably end up keeping DirecTV for now... only because it is the only thing available in my apartment building (alternative my ass... DirecTV has become "the man")... but once Apple launches its TV service (I'm hoping on the 22nd of october.. but could be next year.... I'm done

Sorry for the rant.. and I'm sure some of the fan boys will try to shift the blame of my recent experience with DirecTV to me... but oh well... I spent the last 15 years as a DirecTV fan boy.. so I get it :/


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

The grass isn't always greener.
While DirecTV customer service leaves a lot to be desired, 30 days with U-Verse and their customers service showed me DirecTV "isn't so bad".

YMMV


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

To each their own. AT&T hands down has the WORSE customer service.....


----------



## carl6 (Nov 16, 2005)

Sorry you have had a bad experience, it certainly does happen from time to time and unfortunately it happened to you.

First off, you are welcome to rant here, but other than maybe making you feel a little better by getting it off your chest, i won't do any good with regard to DirecTV. You should also email your concerns to them.

As to the lease system, yes you do have to pay an upfront fee to lease, and there is a recurring monthly charge for each receiver (with the first one credited back). The recurring cost is for mirroring the service to the additional receiver locations and is similar among all service providers. Certainly there are promotions sometimes that reduce or eliminate the upfront fee, but not always and it is very dependent on individual customers.

If your building is managed as an MDU system, then that system operator is who is supposed to take care of you and contractually DirecTV isn't supposed to. It sounds like there might have been conflicting or confusing information in regard to that, and nobody here would be able to help with that. An email to DirecTV ([email protected]) might get you some help in that regard.

No doubt the future of entertainment distribution to the end user is evolving. Who knows what will be available in the future, but there is no question it will change and perhaps another alternative will better serve you.


----------



## JosephB (Nov 14, 2005)

So a few things:

1. When you did all the troubleshooting beforehand and got frustrated that they had you do it again, you must look at it from their perspective. They can't just take your word for it because of the number of people who call in trying to get free new equipment or just don't want to troubleshoot and have someone come out immediately. Sending someone out costs a lot of money. Sucks, but that's the way it is, they're going to avoid sending someone out if they can, it just saves money which in turn keeps rates from being higher than they are. 

2. Part of the confusion with the building operator model falls on your apartment building and the servicing company. Though, DirecTV should have given you the correct information, but you're not exclusively DirecTV's customer, there are other parties at work responsible for you too.

3. When you say you "earlier paid $200" for an HR24, when did you do that? Was it when you signed up for service? And how long ago was that? This aspect confuses me. You don't pay for a specific receiver unless you're ordering from SolidSignal. Otherwise you're paying for an "HD DVR" and the model number, in DirecTV's eyes, is inconsequential. There's no way to guarantee you'll get one or the other. Looks like they tried to warn you.

4. Recovery kits vs. receivers: That's just a screw-up. Dunno what to tell you there.

5. Costs: if you don't like the costs, you can always go elsewhere. Don't expect an IP service anytime soon, and who is your internet provider? Probably have caps, I'd imagine. The boxes cost them money to develop and build and refurbish. I do have sympathy that paying $200 and THEN still "leasing" it is a stretch, since cable companies don't charge you an up front fee. On the other hand, my local cable company currently charges $10 for DVR service ON TOP OF a $20 DVR rental fee, which is in perpetuity, so DirecTV's $200 up front fee is actually cheaper over a two year contract than Cable. And when it comes to hardware choices, you get what the provider has with every service out there, except that with Cable you can buy a cablecard device if you want (though, they don't like that)

Life isn't fair, and TV isn't a right. Sounds like DirecTV screwed up some things but I think you're judging them a little harsh, and I guarantee you will find them no worse than the competition.


----------



## ajiuO (Jun 17, 2006)

1. I was not frustrated that I had to do the troubleshooting... I just stated this to emphasize that directv came to the same conclusion that it was a bad receiver... I'm aware that having somone come out cost money.. In fact this costed me 99$, directv told me to have them come out and nothing was accomplished... Once again DirecTv's fault. I did not want somone to come out... There was no need for it.. The receiver was bad.

2. That's fantastic.. But directv needs to get their information straight... In this case DirecTV was responsible for sending me new equipment.. They admitted to this and admitted that having me contact the MDU was a mistake.

3. Yes I paid 200 to an authorized dealer to get an HR24.. I already had an HR21 it was way slower then the 24 and cosmetically out dated... If directv is going to charge outrageous prices for equipment leasing then they should at least let you pick your product... No way would I pay 200 to lease a hr20-23... Directv actually seemed willing to work with me on this... So it the least of the problem.

4. Same mistake twice in a row... This was a big part of the problem.

5. Actually I can't go elsewhere... At least without moving.. I live in an apartment building... It is only wired for DirecTV. I don't completely buy the R&D excuse... It should be 200 to buy with a 2 year contract. Let's say a person pays 200 plus 5 a month (I'm being conservative) for 2 years.. So about $320 to leas a receiver for 2 years... Then if you send it back they turn right around and do the same thing... Celt now somone is paying 320 to lease a used receiver... My point is... If I'm paying a premium price to lease... I want premium equipment... And like I said even the hr24 is outdated and slower then a 99$ Apple TV.... 


IP cable service is a lot closer then you think.. Apple has been negotiating it for a while... They even recently hired on a cable tv executive... Most of the infrastructure is already in place and could almost instantly be implemented upon a deal being finalized... They have most of the on demand content already in place.. It's just a matter of adding network content packages... They also have the ability to quickly implement streaming channels... Witch they have proven recently.... They are definitely building towards somthing. It was the same with itunes in the cloud... Witch will actually be a big part of this... Apple had all the infrastructure in place... Once a deal was finalized.. They simply switched it on... I think that is what is going to happen with this.... 

As for internet caps... I don't see that around here other then on cell service.. I can stream 1080p video via itunes all day..

My point is.. directv and dish better watch out.. They have always been the alternatives to the local cable company to witch there was no alternative... That is about to change... And once apple does it Amazone and other will follow... In fact I think DirecTV will eventually be one of the IP TV providers... But there will be a lot more competition because all the TV. Providers will be doing it... And they will be able to provide to to anyone.. Not just those on their own infrastructure... TV is going to become another service provided via the internet.... And the transition will start soon.. Apple could announce a tv service as soon as OCT 22.... I think next year is more likely.... But it's coming... And once it catches on it will rock the world... 5-10 years from now the mainstream use of Satalite dishes will be a thing of the past... Unless they find a way to use them for high speed 2 way IP bandwidth.


Pleas don't take this the wrong way... Not trying to be rude... In fact I think DTV will become an IP provider and are already putting the pieces in place.... But they are going to have to step it up


----------



## ejbvt (Aug 14, 2011)

peds48 said:


> To each their own. AT&T hands down has the WORSE customer service.....


Truer words have NEVER been spoken by a human.

Well, written.


----------



## gov (Jan 11, 2013)

To be the 'best', a company only needs to be 1% better than #2 . . .


:eek2:


----------



## jimmie57 (Jun 26, 2010)

It sounds to me like the apartment contractor is supposed to be giving this OP a receiver but never did
and DirecTV is sending out the recovery box to retrieve the old box that was supposed to be replaced.

I would talk to the apartment manager about this.
Things have a very good chance of getting messy when you have to deal with 2 companies for the same thing. That is the very reason I have never bundled my TV with AT&T ( I have had their phone service forever ).


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

I personally hate the mdu system an have a feeling the entire issue is related to that.


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

In some ways, you were lucky you could even get a 24. They may not be in the majority, but some MDUs require an HR20i. 


Sent from my iPad using DBSTalk


----------



## CCarncross (Jul 19, 2005)

This sounds like the entire problem is MDU related....unfortunately you choose to live in a building that is under an MDU agreement...huge pain in the rear. Sounds like you live in a lousy one.


----------



## Jason Whiddon (Aug 17, 2006)

My only problem with Directv lately is their sub contractors for installs. The guy that did mine had to come back 3 days later because he put in the pole with no support or concrete, you could turn it by hand in the ground. He first showed up with no pole or shovel, had to come back 2 hours later after getting them from BFE.

I got my boss to switch over last week because DIsh lost a local here, and he also got a sub contractor in a beat up car, that guy was missing two things and a ladder was one of them.

I thought we were moving away from the day of shoddy installers, I mean cmon... And ATT customer service sucks for me here, at least on the DSL side.


----------



## Stuart Sweet (Jun 19, 2006)

First of all let me say I feel your pain and I understand the reasons you have for leaving. I feel I have to comment in a "devil's advocate" sort of way.

First, I am not aware of any cable or satellite provider that promises you a choice of receiver other than DIRECTV, for any price. I agree that heavy users like us need a way to get the equipment we want; luckily DIRECTV allows for reputable third party dealers to provide that equipment, at a cost. It's up to us whether we want to take on that cost. I personally think it is, but there are millions of people who wouldn't care if they had an HR21.

As for your specific MDU operator, I don't know what to say there. Something got messed up in DIRECTV's computers and they should not have put you in the middle. They knew what they were doing when they brought you an HR24 and they should have known how to activate it for you. If they didn't take care of that properly, that's their fault and a complaint should be made with DIRECTV about them.

With regard to the whole MDU system, I understand why some would see it as horrendously broken, but look at it from the other side. An independent operator puts in a lot of equipment into a property... a master dish, trunk amplifiers, SWMs, wires, all that at his own expense. He also absorbs all the costs associated with maintaining it. All he asks in return is a small percentage of the payments made to DIRECTV at that location. He has taken on all the risk, not DIRECTV, and he's asking for only some of the reward. I'm not saying it's a bad deal for the MDU operator, I'm saying it's a fair one. It's also a good deal for apartment complexes because they don't see new holes in the walls with every new tenant.

And BTW, there are good MDU operators and bad ones, not just with DIRECTV but with other services. Many apartments still labor under old analog SMATV systems that have 15-20 channels. The difference is if you think your DIRECTV-certified MDU operator is doing a bad job you can call DIRECTV. If your SMATV guy is doing a bad job you have very little recourse.

I personally think it's terrible how you were treated and I think your MDU operator could have worked harder to keep your business and get it right. Your apartment manager should also have made it easier for you to know that you had to go to them straight away. Not to mention, you should have been sent receivers, not recovery kits which is just plain sloppy. Yes, there were points of failure, but at least two of them aren't really DIRECTV's doing.


----------



## HoTat2 (Nov 16, 2005)

dpeters11 said:


> In some ways, you were lucky you could even get a 24. They may not be in the majority, but some MDUs require an HR20i.
> 
> Sent from my iPad using DBSTalk


Wow ...

IP based MFH-3 operators still haven't upgraded to the H/HR24i yet?


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

HoTat2 said:


> Wow ...
> 
> IP based MFH-3 operators still haven't upgraded to the H/HR24i yet?


I didn't think the HR24i ever happened.


----------



## Stuart Sweet (Jun 19, 2006)

MFH3 has reached end of life. MFH3 operations are being converted to D2 Advantage (formerly MFH2.) No new MFH3 equipment is, or will, be made. And no, there was no HR24i.


----------



## Paul Secic (Dec 16, 2003)

peds48 said:


> To each their own. AT&T hands down has the WORSE customer service.....


I fully agree with you!!!!


----------



## studechip (Apr 16, 2012)

peds48 said:


> To each their own. AT&T hands down has the WORSE customer service.....





Paul Secic said:


> I fully agree with you!!!!


Funny enough, I have AT&T for my cell service. They have been nothing but excellent to me service wise.


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

Cell and one home has slow U-Verse internet. Twenty years ago I would have agreed, even ten years ago, but since then, no problems with CSR service....


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

Stuart Sweet said:


> . I personally think it is, but there are millions of people who wouldn't care if they had an HR21.


Can tell you how many times I have swapped HR24s with something lower, and yes even with HR21s. 99% of folks have no clue that there is a difference. the only question I get (due to the aesthetic difference) is "is that an HDDVR?"



Stuart Sweet said:


> He has taken on all the risk, not DIRECTV, and he's asking for only some of the reward. I'm not saying it's a bad deal for the MDU operator,


Off topic, but I feel that when DirecTV deals with installation companies such as MDUs operators, and HSP, they ( DirecTV ) never takes any risk)



Stuart Sweet said:


> I personally think it's terrible how you were treated and I think your MDU operator could have worked harder to keep your business and get it right.


I wonder if there is any benefit for the MDU to really try and "make it right" since their tenants have no other options as far as their TV services is concerned.


----------



## rsonnens (Nov 8, 2006)

Well, I am remodeling my house and had to move out, and I had no choice but Comcast for 6 months. All I can say is that they are the worst. The DVR is a POS, I am not talking about the hardware but the software UI and the remote is just horrible. In the three weeks I've had it my wife has thrown the remote as me in frustration 4 times. I've gone to there iPad app to do everything on my TV except I still often have to press OK on the remote even then-which seems rather odd to me. 

If I was sticking with comcast I'd go out and buy a TIVO--which would add and additional month subscription expense.

Also Comcast support is far worse than any support I have ever gotten from any company. I was using this also as a test for internet. While the internet speed is fine the support too was horrible, especially with their phone service. The support is also unprofessional and insincere.

I also had the luxury of helping my in-laws get comcast and in that case an installer came out and all I can say is that he was the rudest installer I ever met. I won't go into any of the details but when it came to my service I did a self install which worked OK except for phone and internet service where I got to experience their support.

I've decided when I move back into my house it is DirectTV and ATT UVerse (internet/Phone no TV)


----------



## HoTat2 (Nov 16, 2005)

rsonnens said:


> Well, I am remodeling my house and had to move out, and I had no choice but Comcast for 6 months. All I can say is that they are the worst. The DVR is a POS, I am not talking about the hardware but the software UI and the remote is just horrible. In the three weeks I've had it my wife has thrown the remote as me in frustration 4 times. I've gone to there iPad app to do everything on my TV except I still often have to press OK on the remote even then-which seems rather odd to me.
> 
> If I was sticking with comcast I'd go out and buy a TIVO--which would add and additional month subscription expense.
> 
> ...


I guess its not popularly referred to as "Comcrap" for nothing ...


----------



## HoTat2 (Nov 16, 2005)

Stuart Sweet said:


> MFH3 has reached end of life. MFH3 operations are being converted to D2 Advantage (formerly MFH2.) No new MFH3 equipment is, or will, be made. And no, there was no HR24i.


But how is an MFH-2 type system practical for the large high rise complexes with maybe over say 200+ units?

Even using SWiM-32s as the backbone for satellite signal distribution, aren't you still talking about dozens of them along with a very large number of taps, splitters and amplifiers?


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

Why wouldn't it be practical? You take your signal, amplify it to some high (but known) quantity with a gain controlled amp, then tap off a bit of signal that gets split 8 ways to feed 8 SWM8s in a chassis to serve 8 units. If necessary you can amp it up again and start tapping again. Yeah, I'm sure it is expensive to do, but the cost divided by the number of units wouldn't be that bad. Keeps people from having dishes on the balcony of your nice building (at least those who aren't on the north side of the building )


I suppose the really big high rises with thousands of units probably can't keep re-amplifying the signal forever as they'd introduce too much noise at some point. Those really big buildings could use fiber, since it is easier to amplify an optical signal without adding as much noise.


----------



## HoTat2 (Nov 16, 2005)

slice1900 said:


> Why wouldn't it be practical? You take your signal, amplify it to some high (but known) quantity with a gain controlled amp, then tap off a bit of signal that gets split 8 ways to feed 8 SWM8s in a chassis to serve 8 units. If necessary you can amp it up again and start tapping again. Yeah, I'm sure it is expensive to do, but the cost divided by the number of units wouldn't be that bad. Keeps people from having dishes on the balcony of your nice building (at least those who aren't on the north side of the building )
> 
> I suppose the really big high rises with thousands of units probably can't keep re-amplifying the signal forever as they'd introduce too much noise at some point. Those really big buildings could use fiber, since it is easier to amplify an optical signal without adding as much noise.


Well isn't there some practical limitation to the MFH-2 system approach which is why MFH-3 was designed in the first place?

Or is their something maybe new about "D2" over the former SWiM multiswtich based MFH-2 system that allows for covering the very large apartment complexes?


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

slice1900 said:


> Why wouldn't it be practical?


If you look into how it'd done, you'll find it is "practical".
"Basically" they use a trunk line drop to feed the floors through taps.
Each floor then amplifies as needed to feed the SWiMs.
When the trunk line levels drop too much, they add a trunk line amp.
When it's done right, the CNR doesn't degrade.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

HoTat2 said:


> Well isn't there some practical limitation to the MFH-2 system approach which is why MFH-3 was designed in the first place?
> 
> Or is their something maybe new about "D2" over the former SWiM multiswtich based MFH-2 system that allows for covering the very large apartment complexes?


Maybe MFH3 was designed because it was cheaper for very large installs than MFH2, or at least was planned to be?

I don't know a lot about MFH3, but from the sound of it there was a very expensive head end that essentially tuned very many (or maybe all?) channels simultaneously, so the MPEG streams could be sent out over ethernet to the receivers. A high end DSP could trivially 'tune' an entire transponder's worth of channels, so you just need a box full of them to tune everything (but I have no idea if that's how they implemented it) The receivers had nowhere to plug in coax, only ethernet, and had no tuner. If you made them in similar quantities, they'd be less expensive to make than a regular receiver because there would be fewer parts. It sounds like the H20i was similar in many ways to a Genie client using RVU.

Since any modern building is going to have ethernet running everywhere anyway, if your building is large enough it is probably _cheaper_ to have one really expensive head end and that's it. You're using the ethernet infrastructure you already have in the building. There's no coax running anywhere, no amps, no switches, no worries about tuner limits in the units. If they did it today you wouldn't even need receivers if it could be made compatible with RVU, though you'd need RVU clients capable of recording unless you connected that head end with a deduplicating disk array so it could act as a DVR for the entire building. Gigabit ethernet could carry 500-1000 HD channels, and 10Gb ethernet is very affordable as a backbone these days. If they used multicast, which I assume they would, you'd only need to carry each channel once no matter how many people were watching it.

It really makes me wonder why they abandoned MFH3, but if I had to guess either they couldn't make it as cheap as they planned, or maybe the point where that become cheaper limited its market so much that it couldn't support the cost of continued development. Perhaps if they'd held out long enough to make it compatible with RVU so they didn't need specialized receivers MFH3 could have become more competitive over time as technology drove down the price of that head end.


----------



## Blackhawks (Oct 21, 2011)

Better not go to Dish Network, been there and done that. Customer Service is bad, unless you strike gold. 


Sent from my iPhone using DBSTalk


----------



## AMike (Nov 21, 2005)

Over the years, I have had more success than not with DirecTV customer service. I have had issues with some of the local contractors who didn't want to do the work and tell me it can't be done, but yet have others give me a 180 on that.

But, I also speak as a current Comcast customer as well. The difference between the 2 companies in terms of customer service is night and day. It's always an adventure either going to the local Comcast store, or spending time on hold dealing with the worst lot of CSRs known to man.


----------



## Stuart Sweet (Jun 19, 2006)

peds48 said:


> I wonder if there is any benefit for the MDU to really try and "make it right" since their tenants have no other options as far as their TV services is concerned.


Yes because when people call DIRECTV to complain and DIRECTV finds out the MDU operator is reponsible they often take swift punitive action.



HoTat2 said:


> Well isn't there some practical limitation to the MFH-2 system approach which is why MFH-3 was designed in the first place?


I can't tell you why MFH3 was designed but the bottom line is, at least in 2013, that coaxial cable is a much more robust transport mechanism for audio and video. Not only is it designed for smooth transport but it's much more durable. DIRECTV found that people were not buying MFH3 systems and the burden of maintaining them was huge.

D2 Advantage is almost infinitely scalable with the correct equipment. I have been told of installations with 500 receivers running off one dish. As for the cost of maintaining intermediate closets full of SWMs, apparently it's manageable, that's all I can say. I don't know how MFH3 scaled up but apparently any advantages that you got were far offset by the issues revolving around putting that much category cable in the walls and having it maintained by non-computer-techs.


----------



## JosephB (Nov 14, 2005)

One major advantage I would assume MFH2 has over MFH3 is that building owners/developers are probably way more favorable to running coax to every unit rather than fiber/ethernet only. By running coax, the unit theoretically has the flexibility to switch between DirecTV or cable as the customer desires, should the building set themselves up that way, or, should the building switch providers when their DirecTV contract runs out.

Plus, it simplifies the supply chain for DirecTV (no need to have the IP-enabled receivers, use standard switches, only special equipment are the racks and amps) plus (and this one was probably one of the biggest factors) the MDU customers get the exact same experience, immediately, as any other DirecTV customer. Each unit has their own SWM/DECA network and can get a Genie, Genie Go, use the mobile apps, Whole Home, everything. All of that means more revenue per MDU subscriber over the MFH3 system which precluded most if not all of that.

From what I've seen of the hardware online, it doesn't look like the rack of SWMs would take up that much room. There's going to be a wiring closet on each floor anyway, or reasonably close, even if they are using ethernet because of distance limits so space probably wouldn't be an issue.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

Jason Whiddon said:


> My only problem with Directv lately is their sub contractors for installs. The guy that did mine had to come back 3 days later because he put in the pole with no support or concrete, you could turn it by hand in the ground. He first showed up with no pole or shovel, had to come back 2 hours later after getting them from BFE.
> 
> I got my boss to switch over last week because DIsh lost a local here, and he also got a sub contractor in a beat up car, that guy was missing two things and a ladder was one of them.
> 
> I thought we were moving away from the day of shoddy installers, I mean cmon... And ATT customer service sucks for me here, at least on the DSL side.


We don't have a clue as to where you live, but here in Central NJ our contractor (Multi-Band) is very professional. We used to get service such as you posted, but that's been over for quite some time. They're still not as well trained as they should be and they're still fed misinformation, but that's not really their fault. All in all, I've been very satisfied with them for the last four years. Hopefully, you'll get an upgrade in service in the future.

Rich


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

Rich said:


> They're still not as well trained as they should be and they're still fed misinformation, but that's not really their fault.


Actually is their fault. as employee retention on this business is very, very low. there are very very few of us left over with many years of experience.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

peds48 said:


> Actually is their fault. as employee retention on this business is very, very low. there are very very few of us left over with many years of experience.


I'd think of an installer or tech as sort of an "Instrument Man". Not a well known trade, but we had them and they only dealt with really low voltages and coax. And, of course, various instruments that needed constant calibrations. I don't really see much difference in what they did and what you do. There's nothing that can compare to many years of experience, of course. I know the churn rate in your job is high and I also know how hard it is to teach what seems simple to you and I. That's one of the problems teachers face. They want to teach, but can't get their message across. Kinda like Mickey or Willie becoming batting instructors. They couldn't possibly teach someone to hit a ball as well as they could and that really frustrated Mickey (don't know if Willie ever gave that a try.)

Rich


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

I'd think of an installer or tech as sort of an "Instrument Man". Not a well known trade, but we had them and they only dealt with really low voltages and coax. And, of course, various instruments that needed constant calibrations. I don't really see much difference in what they did and what you do. There's nothing that can compare to many years of experience, of course. I know the churn rate in your job is high and I also know how hard it is to teach what seems simple to you and I. That's one of the problems teachers face. They want to teach, but can't get their message across. Kinda like Mickey or Willie becoming batting instructors. They couldn't possibly teach someone to hit a ball as well as they could and that really frustrated Mickey (don't know if Willie ever gave that a try.)

Rich
of course this job appears to be easy. Mount a dish, run cable, connect receivers. But there is more to this than meets the eye....


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## BobStokesbary (Oct 24, 2010)

I think what really confuses me the most is the *inconsistency* of DirecTV's service. By way of comparison, I had a DVR give up about two weeks ago. I called D* and they ran me through a series of tests to verify that there was, in fact, a problem. When the receiver failed the tests they told me that would authorize a replacement. As the OP stated, they said they would try to replace with the same unit, but could not guarantee it. I really did not like that option, but said OK. *The next day* the postman delivered replacement receiver of exactly the same type and all I had to do was put my bad receiver in the box, change the labels and drop it off at the post office for the return, Nothing could have been easier.

So, what has me confused is just how different our experiences could be. How I got such outstanding service while the OP got such crappy service is just crazy to me. It is like we were dealing with two distinctly separate companies. Maybe it has to do with the setup the OP had, but D* needs to have a "second tier" support level where problems can be handled in a much better way than they are doing today.

My heart goes out to the OP, because it certainly appears to me that he got really bad support from D* in this case. And I am sure that my story about the great service I got will fall on deaf ears by those who have not received good service. Consistency is what D* really needs to focus on if they want to keep growing their business.


----------



## crkeehn (Apr 23, 2002)

Laxguy said:


> Cell and one home has slow U-Verse internet. Twenty years ago I would have agreed, even ten years ago, but since then, no problems with CSR service....


You've been very fortunate. ATT technical support can be very good, their billing can be a nightmare. The transition from ATT DSL to U-verse was a constant series of phone calls, required to get the billing issues straightened out. I was even instructed by ATT not to pay a bill I was just issued for DSL but to wait for the final bill so I pay the proper final balance. They then turned me in to collections.


----------



## gov (Jan 11, 2013)

BobStokesbary said:


> . . . . Consistency is what D* really needs to focus on if they want to keep growing their business.


Indeed.

But maybe it is not seen by management as much of a goal to strive for. *MOST* people sign up for service, get installed (or switched over) and hopefully not much more than once every several years they might need to call in or have a truck roll. There is just not that many opportunities for a huge cluster pluck for most of the people in the system.

Those who post here, on the other hand, doing installs, antenna work, MDUs, custom home theater work etc. might be calling DirecTV and DISH and cable TV companies daily.

We have many more chances in the CSR lottery to catch a 'bozo' on a bad day, and really get in a pickle. Just some of the weirdness I've encountered, nonreturn fees charged on *active* receivers, missed service calls, weird prepaid mailer adventures, bizarre receiver failures, wonky installs, and it is easy to get the impression the companies are managed by meth addicted chimpanzees.

Or on a really bad day, that meth addicted chimps would be an improvement!

:coffee


----------



## inf0z (Oct 16, 2011)

ajiuO said:


> On top of all of that I think that DirecTV is completely unreasonable when it comes to their equipment. Just in order just to LEAS an HR24 you are expected to pay them $200 up front plus $5-$8 a month (what ever it is now) indefinitely, sign a 2 year contract... and you have to give it back Thats ridiculous. On top of that they don't allow anyone else to make equipment.. So the customers have no alternative... Then they think its ok to send customers older outdated equipment to replace the newer equipment that someone payed to get?
> 
> ATT will give you a $650 phone for $200 and a two year contract.. and the phone is yours to keep. Does the HR24 cost $650? I hate to compare this reviver to a smart phone... But the technology involved in a smartphone is much more advanced then that in an HR24.. So I don't see directv's pricing justification... Hell my 99$ appleTV seems more advanced then my HR24.. and I own it... now thats a little bit unfair because the HR24 does have tuners and stuff... but still. If apple can make a product that is that fast, snappy, and smooth as that for 99$... I would expect something as expensive as the HR24 to run at least as smoothly as the AppleTV.


Sure you own it - but you still pay a monthly fee for it. What are you going to do after? Keep a deactivated phone? Sell it for $50?



> Mobile Share plan
> Talk & Text Shared Data Monthly Cost Unlimited 300MB
> 
> $20.00/mo.
> ...


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

ajiuO said:


> ATT will give you a $650 phone for $200 and a two year contract.. and the phone is yours to keep.


Sure you get to keep the phone, after you have paid double of what the phone costs in two years, and even more if you keep the phone and dont upgrade to another one


----------



## JosephB (Nov 14, 2005)

peds48 said:


> Sure you get to keep the phone, after you have paid double of what the phone costs in two years, and even more if you keep the phone and dont upgrade to another one


It's not really fair to consider the costs of the service as a cost of the phone, though. It's not like you were paying $70 a month for the phone only. You were getting something else for the money you were paying.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

JosephB said:


> It's not really fair to consider the costs of the service as a cost of the phone, though. It's not like you were paying $70 a month for the phone only. You were getting something else for the money you were paying.


Yeah but, considering how much you pay for TV versus phone its pretty ridiculous how much they charge people for phone plans.

And look. DIRECTV lease system is about the same as a car lease system. What's so bad about that? ,I'd never lease a car, but in the case of DIRECTV its more beneficial than owning generally speaking.


----------



## JosephB (Nov 14, 2005)

inkahauts said:


> Yeah but, considering how much you pay for TV versus phone its pretty ridiculous how much they charge people for phone plans. And look. DIRECTV lease system is about the same as a car lease system. What's so bad about that? ,I'd never lease a car, but in the case of DIRECTV its more beneficial than owning generally speaking.


The only issue with DirecTV's leasing system is that they used to sell boxes so there are still customers out there who expect to be able to buy them. No one ever complains about not being able to buy a cable box. Its even less of an option for DirecTV because even if you bought a cablecard cable box, you can use it with multiple cable companies. A directv box is worthless if you don't subscribe to Directv. I do think their $200 up front fees are kind of dumb, but, on the other hand you don't have to pay $15 rental fees like you do with cable either so, it's kind of a wash.

Comparing it to phone companies is not really fair because the cost structures are way different. Way, way less infrastructure involved in satellite TV vs. cell phones.


----------



## acostapimps (Nov 6, 2011)

I would rather not get there crappy cable boxes even if they don't charge you upfront, some are okay to say the least, But they do get you on the high monthly fees per box, but to be reasonable every provider charge you, even using fancy words to make it seem like it's worth the high fees, sooner or later the bubble is going to burst. 

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I317 using DBSTalk mobile app


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

Yeah in my area if you do the math you pay the upfront fee DIRECTV charges in about 14 months with their rental fees with cable and that's also taking into account DIRECTV monthly fees for DVR and such. 

And in some places they charge a monthly lease fee for a remote!


----------



## KyL416 (Nov 11, 2005)

inkahauts said:


> And in some places they charge a monthly lease fee for a remote!


Yep, we had that with Cablevision, and you HAD to take the remote control, they wouldn't let you refuse it and use a universal remote. Some cable providers even have a fee for having extra analog outlets, even if you aren't using a cable box on them.


----------



## carl6 (Nov 16, 2005)

JosephB said:


> Way, way less infrastructure involved in satellite TV vs. cell phones.


I'm not so sure that statement is true. Totally different infrastructure but I would guess total cost to not be too different. There is a huge financial investment in either infrastructure.


----------



## longrider (Apr 21, 2007)

A big difference between cell phone and DirecTV is that other than roaming cell companies have no outside expense in providing the service. DirecTV pays a good chunk of your monthly charge to the content providers.


----------



## JosephB (Nov 14, 2005)

carl6 said:


> I'm not so sure that statement is true. Totally different infrastructure but I would guess total cost to not be too different. There is a huge financial investment in either infrastructure.


There is less physical infrastructure. Cost basis? I don't know, I haven't done the math. A satellite is expensive, but you pay for it once and put it in space. Cell towers require ongoing maintenance and an army of technicians to work on them. Yes, DirecTV has an army of installers but AT&T has an army of installers for their U-Verse and wireline business PLUS techs to keep up with the wireless stuff.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

There is less physical infrastructure. Cost basis? I don't know, I haven't done the math. A satellite is expensive, but you pay for it once and put it in space. Cell towers require ongoing maintenance and an army of technicians to work on them. Yes, DirecTV has an army of installers but AT&T has an army of installers for their U-Verse and wireline business PLUS techs to keep up with the wireless stuff.


No you pay for sat constantly. There's a control room that monitors an adjusts it constantly forever. And don't forge the uplink centers that are constantly being maintained too as well as all the distribution equipment for all the signals from all the providers including all the locals across the country. 

Plus you are always preparing for the next sat. And while a new cell tower costs thousands a new sat costs millions.


----------



## JosephB (Nov 14, 2005)

inkahauts said:


> No you pay for sat constantly. There's a control room that monitors an adjusts it constantly forever. And don't forge the uplink centers that are constantly being maintained too as well as all the distribution equipment for all the signals from all the providers including all the locals across the country.
> 
> Plus you are always preparing for the next sat. And while a new cell tower costs thousands a new sat costs millions.


I'm not going to argue with you anymore, but you're not entirely right


----------



## adamson (Nov 9, 2007)

At times I dislike Directv's ways of doing things...but I still think they are the best programming provider today. It is love and hate like with people. Countdown to this thread locked up...


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

JosephB said:


> It's not really fair to consider the costs of the service as a cost of the phone, though. It's not like you were paying $70 a month for the phone only. You were getting something else for the money you were paying.


So let's see. when you get a phone, its price is subsidized on your phone plan, after two years, you would assume your phone is paid off and as such you bill should go down, but is doesn't. if you dont upgrade again, and keep the same phone, in 4 years you have paid he phone at least 4 times!

This is the reason I went with T-mobile. they dont subsidize the phone. you give a down payment, and you pay every month the balance. after you ave paid off the phone, your bill goes down. Heck you can even pay the phone off at once if you wanted to...

And no, this does not apply to the big two. even you buy the phone outright, you pay the same (for your plan) as if you were subsidizing the phone. What a scam!!!!


----------



## JosephB (Nov 14, 2005)

peds48 said:


> So let's see. when you get a phone, its price is subsidized on your phone plan, after two years, you would assume your phone is paid off and as such you bill should go down, but is doesn't. if you dont upgrade again, and keep the same phone, in 4 years you have paid he phone at least 4 times!
> 
> This is the reason I went with T-mobile. they dont subsidize the phone. you give a down payment, and you pay every month the balance. after you ave paid off the phone, your bill goes down. Heck you can even pay the phone off at once if you wanted to...
> 
> And no, this does not apply to the big two. even you buy the phone outright, you pay the same (for your plan) as if you were subsidizing the phone. What a scam!!!!


Yeah, but those are the costs of the service, not of the phone. I don't agree with it but using service costs as a cost of buying a phone doesn't make sense. It's not a scam if you know what you're getting into.


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

JosephB said:


> Yeah, but those are the costs of the service, not of the phone. I don't agree with it but using service costs as a cost of buying a phone doesn't make sense. It's not a scam if you know what you're getting into.


No, according to the big two, IT IS the cost of the phone. This is why you MUST subscribe to a data plan when you get an smartphone, because it is on the data plan that the phone gets subsidized. these two "crooks" (the big two) even went as far to copy T-Mobile idea letting before you contract expires. the BIG difference is that with the big two, you pay a "special plan" monthly fee in order to be able to upgrade early, IOW, they are double dipping... you are playing for the phone twice


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

JosephB said:


> I'm not going to argue with you anymore, but you're not entirely right


In terms if what? Not arguing debating. What is it you see as not needing to be done that I mentioned?

I'm only talking about comparing upkeep costs.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

peds48 said:


> So let's see. when you get a phone, its price is subsidized on your phone plan, after two years, you would assume your phone is paid off and as such you bill should go down, but is doesn't. if you dont upgrade again, and keep the same phone, in 4 years you have paid he phone at least 4 times!
> 
> This is the reason I went with T-mobile. they dont subsidize the phone. you give a down payment, and you pay every month the balance. after you ave paid off the phone, your bill goes down. Heck you can even pay the phone off at once if you wanted to...
> 
> And no, this does not apply to the big two. even you buy the phone outright, you pay the same (for your plan) as if you were subsidizing the phone. What a scam!!!!


If only T-Mobile worked well around here. One of my housekeepers had a T-Mobile phone and she was always waving it around looking for a signal. Usually had to go out of my house to get a sig. Put simply, Verizon has the only network that works well where I live.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

JosephB said:


> Yeah, but those are the costs of the service, not of the phone. I don't agree with it but using service costs as a cost of buying a phone doesn't make sense. _*It's not a scam if you know what you're getting into*_.


Agreed. Same thing with D*. Both Smart Phones and D* are luxuries, I think. But a lot of people don't read the terms of service before they jump in. Then they think they're getting taken for a ride. I have a hard time believing how many threads we've seen concerning the TOS of D*'s service. If the TOS is read and understood and you still jump in and find you can't afford something I don't think blaming a provider is called for.

Rich


----------



## JosephB (Nov 14, 2005)

Rich said:


> If only T-Mobile worked well around here. One of my housekeepers had a T-Mobile phone and she was always waving it around looking for a signal. Usually had to go out of my house to get a sig. Put simply, Verizon has the only network that works well where I live.
> 
> Rich


And this is entirely why T-Mobile can offer lower rates than AT&T and Verizon. It's great if you are in an area with good T-Mobile coverage, but if you don't, it doesn't really matter if T-Mobile were offering free service.



Rich said:


> Agreed. Same thing with D*. Both Smart Phones and D* are luxuries, I think. But a lot of people don't read the terms of service before they jump in. Then they think they're getting taken for a ride. I have a hard time believing how many threads we've seen concerning the TOS of D*'s service. If the TOS is read and understood and you still jump in and find you can't afford something I don't think blaming a provider is called for.
> 
> Rich


Yup. This is also why I don't get people who try to jump through so many hoops to try to get "owned" DirecTV receivers these days. DirecTV has switched to a lease model. They have for years. They've also switched to a model where they want an installer on site for just about everything and discourage/don't allow self installs. That's what it is, and if you don't like it then move on to another provider.


----------



## Stuart Sweet (Jun 19, 2006)

It is still quite possible to do your own installs if you work with a reputable directv dealer.


----------



## JosephB (Nov 14, 2005)

Stuart Sweet said:


> It is still quite possible to do your own installs if you work with a reputable directv dealer.


And it's still possible to buy owned equipment, but the point is that is not DirecTV's preferred route and can be quite a pain in the posterior


----------



## HinterXGames (Dec 20, 2012)

Rich said:


> Agreed. Same thing with D*. Both Smart Phones and D* are luxuries, I think. But a lot of people don't read the terms of service before they jump in. Then they think they're getting taken for a ride. I have a hard time believing how many threads we've seen concerning the TOS of D*'s service. If the TOS is read and understood and you still jump in and find you can't afford something I don't think blaming a provider is called for.
> 
> Rich


I do agree there is a big difference to something being over-priced and someone not being able to afford something. People seem to confuse them.
--
Just wanted to make clear about the 6$ fee. It's not a rental fee, DTV has no such thing for their equipment. The 6$ fee, as was mentioned previously, is for the programming that is shared on additional TV's. It's not different then having celphones on a family plan. You pay the full price for programming on your primary TV (which is why you don't get the 6$ fee on it), and it's 6$ to share that programming with every other TV in the home. It's also why the 6$ is charged, regardless of whether the equipment is being leased or owned, have a client, or an RVU TV.


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

JosephB said:


> And this is entirely why T-Mobile can offer lower rates than AT&T and Verizon. It's great if you are in an area with good T-Mobile coverage, but if you don't, it doesn't really matter if T-Mobile were offering free service.


You bring an excellent point! AT&T had the exclusivity of the iPhone for 3 years. they pocketed billions of dollars from their customers. there were even folks who hated AT&T but the went to them because of the iPhone. All this time they never invested back on their network. It was until Verizon got the rights to the iPhone with a decent network that AT&T began bettering their network. 3 years too late!


----------



## JosephB (Nov 14, 2005)

HinterXGames said:


> I do agree there is a big difference to something being over-priced and someone not being able to afford something. People seem to confuse them.
> --
> Just wanted to make clear about the 6$ fee. It's not a rental fee, DTV has no such thing for their equipment. The 6$ fee, as was mentioned previously, is for the programming that is shared on additional TV's. It's not different then having celphones on a family plan. You pay the full price for programming on your primary TV (which is why you don't get the 6$ fee on it), and it's 6$ to share that programming with every other TV in the home. It's also why the 6$ is charged, regardless of whether the equipment is being leased or owned, have a client, or an RVU TV.


And technically cable charges this fee as well. It's just that until they started going digital, you could add an additional analog outlet without ever involving the cable company. DirecTV being digital from the outset was a disadvantage for them in this regard.


----------



## HinterXGames (Dec 20, 2012)

Yep. Hell, I was about bombasted when I looked at Comcast, the local cable company in my area, and saw not only that but they charge for HD/DVR service on /every/ HD/DVR reciever you have. What is that? :rotfl:


----------



## Stuart Sweet (Jun 19, 2006)

JosephB said:


> And it's still possible to buy owned equipment, but the point is that is not DirecTV's preferred route and can be quite a pain in the posterior


Yeah, it's true that if you call 1-800-DIRECTV they will want to a truck roll. My point is that DIRECTV does license dealers all over the country including a few who sell and install nationally, and aligning yourself with one of these dealers who shares your values is completely ok with DIRECTV, and this dealer may be able to help you get whatever you want done, done. My suggestion is to find a dealer either locally or online who shares your mindset. It's not impossible with DIRECTV, although I'd venture it's pretty close to impossible with cable.


----------



## AMike (Nov 21, 2005)

Stuart Sweet said:


> Yeah, it's true that if you call 1-800-DIRECTV they will want to a truck roll. My point is that DIRECTV does license dealers all over the country including a few who sell and install nationally, and aligning yourself with one of these dealers who shares your values is completely ok with DIRECTV, and this dealer may be able to help you get whatever you want done, done. My suggestion is to find a dealer either locally or online who shares your mindset. It's not impossible with DIRECTV, although I'd venture it's pretty close to impossible with cable.


A lot of the local dealers want your business, since their profit margins changed when DirecTV changed their business model. They aren't used to walk-in customers, but they welcome the business.


----------



## lokar (Oct 8, 2006)

JosephB said:


> And it's still possible to buy owned equipment, but the point is that is not DirecTV's preferred route and can be quite a pain in the posterior


Very true, I was just in a dispute with them about this issue with a owned HR20 that I have, they said it would take a long time to fix the issue in their system and offered me a ton of discounts for the inconvenience. I accepted the bribe but D* doesn't seem to deal very well with owned receivers. Since they still charge you the same fees whether you rent or own, there is really not much point to owning one IMO.


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

lokar said:


> there is really not much point to owning one IMO.


the only reason I see to won a receiver, is if this receiver is in a location that does not get a lot of use, like a guest bedroom or pool house. you can deactivate the "owned" receiver without having to send it back to DirecTV


----------



## JosephB (Nov 14, 2005)

peds48 said:


> the only reason I see to won a receiver, is if this receiver is in a location that does not get a lot of use, like a guest bedroom or pool house. you can deactivate the "owned" receiver without having to send it back to DirecTV


These days with the Genie, just get a TV with Rvu.


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

JosephB said:


> These days with the Genie, just get a TV with Rvu.


Well, not every has $2000 to drop on an RVU TV.....


----------



## JosephB (Nov 14, 2005)

peds48 said:


> Well, not every has $2000 to drop on an RVU TV.....


I'm sure there are rvu TVs that cost less than that, along with the fact that buying an owned receiver costs quite a bit more than the lease fees. Actually, if you consider how much buying a receiver outright costs, I'm not sure if buying one so you can activate/deactivate on demand is economically smart.


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

JosephB said:


> I'm sure there are rvu TVs that cost less than that, along with the fact that buying an owned receiver costs quite a bit more than the lease fees. Actually, if you consider how much buying a receiver outright costs, I'm not sure if buying one so you can activate/deactivate on demand is economically smart.


You can find SD/HD receivers that are "owned" for $150 or less

http://www.ebay.com/itm/DIRECTV-HD-Satellite-TV-Receiver-H23-600-Off-Lease-Owned-/300990205742?pt=US_Satellite_TV_Receivers&hash=item46146a0f2e

It certainly beats buying an RVU TV, just for the occasional use....


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

lokar said:


> Very true, I was just in a dispute with them about this issue with a owned HR20 that I have, they said it would take a long time to fix the issue in their system and offered me a ton of discounts for the inconvenience. I accepted the bribe but D* doesn't seem to deal very well with owned receivers. Since they still charge you the same fees whether you rent or own, there is really not much point to owning one IMO.


I own ten of them. Each one has an internal 2TB drive. I'm not a big fan of external HDDs. My two leased HRs do have externals on them and both run well. I just think they run better with the big HDDs internally and I'd feel guilty if I did that with leased HRs. Aside from that, there's really no reason to have owned HRs. But I could sell all ten of them right now and make a good buck on them.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

peds48 said:


> Well, not every has $2000 to drop on an RVU TV.....


And not everybody wants a Genie or an RVU TV. I swear I'll never pay over $2,000 for another TV.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

JosephB said:


> I'm sure there are rvu TVs that cost less than that, along with the fact that buying an owned receiver costs quite a bit more than the lease fees. Actually, if you consider how much buying a receiver outright costs, I'm not sure if buying one so you can activate/deactivate on demand is economically smart.


I didn't pay much for my owned receivers. A few of them were on eBay and I picked them up and fixed them. The most I ever paid was $225.

Rich


----------



## CCarncross (Jul 19, 2005)

Since we pointed out that the OP's problem was the lousy service he was getting from his MDU, he has not posted one comment to this thread. BUt anyone searching for dirt on Directv, and there are plenty here just waiting to pounce on negative threads....will be able to find "Directv is becoming a horrible company"....as a thread title that in this case is entirely inaccurate for this thread....


----------



## JosephB (Nov 14, 2005)

You can't buy cable receivers, and that is the business model DirecTV decided to move to. The only difference is DirecTV used to have a purchase-only business model. I would imagine eventually the "owned" route will continue to be choked out.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

JosephB said:


> You can't buy cable receivers, and that is the business model DirecTV decided to move to. The only difference is DirecTV used to have a purchase-only business model. I would imagine eventually the "owned" route will continue to be choked out.


Yeah, I can see that coming.

Rich


----------



## PrinceLH (Feb 18, 2003)

Not so good for Mexican's and Canadian's, who want to sub the receivers with a U.S. postal address.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

You can buy cable receivers, just not the ones your cable company distributes to customers. Devices like Tivos, tuner cards for your PC and a few set tops take cable cards, which by law the cable company must support.

People just take the path of least resistance, and don't do the math and figure out how much better a deal a Tivo is than a cable company DVR. Even moreso now for people who have a lot of TVs thanks to the Mini, which is a client to the Tivo like a Genie client. Same reason most people don't do the math and foolishly pay Tivo month to month instead of buying lifetime service up front.


If you buy the Tivo and the lifetime service, you never pay monthly fees except for the cable card fee - which are not needed in Minis. The resale value of a Tivo with lifetime service is really good. I could sell my original two tuner Premiere I've had for 3 1/2 years for $350-$400, and I only paid $500 for it including service. That's $3 to $4 a month, plus $1.99/month for the cable card, half the $10.95/month my local cable company charges for one. I imagine some cable companies rip you off for the cable card and charge almost as much as a DVR, the Tivo wouldn't be a good deal there.

There are no such financial benefits to owning versus leasing a receiver with Directv, since you pay per TV either way. I doubt Directv will ever get rid of the concept of owned receivers entirely since there will always be some people who feel they want to. Why shouldn't Directv sell them one for an inflated price and make a little money off them? (I know some people think that cost is what it costs Directv to actually make them, I don't believe that for a minute) They would need to come up with another solution for people who only want to activate receivers for a limited time for a guest room, children that are home for college just for the summer, a vacation or TV used seasonally, etc.


----------



## Lord Vader (Sep 20, 2004)

dpeters11 said:


> In some ways, you were lucky you could even get a 24. They may not be in the majority, but some MDUs require an HR20i.
> 
> Sent from my iPad using DBSTalk





CCarncross said:


> This sounds like the entire problem is MDU related....unfortunately you choose to live in a building that is under an MDU agreement...huge pain in the rear. Sounds like you live in a lousy one.


Do what I did and install your own dish on your balcony/patio IF that's physically possible. It was for me, so I went ahead and did just that. The only thing for which I contact my MDU is if there's a problem with my guest bedroom receiver, which is connected to the building's main dish. The receivers in the living room and my master bedroom are all connected to my balcony dish.

Oh, and when I wanted an HR44, I skipped the MDU and ordered a new one from Weaknees for $199.00 shipped, a price with which I was satisfied.


----------



## barrywisler (Sep 1, 2013)

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I317 using DBSTalk mobile app


----------

