# Cal consumers start to fight back



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

California has some fairly good consumer protection laws for things like auto repair and consumer electronics. In fact I have more "protection" getting my car fixed than I do getting my teeth fixed, but that's another story.
The "old days" of selling stereos had our state pass laws for consumer electronics, which DirecTV's current policies seem to violate [IMO].
While my equipment is working fine and I don't plan to drop DirecTV anytime soon, I've always had a problem with the "blind" commitment. You have no option to see what you're getting before you're committed. This is what I think violates our consumer laws, as every other consumer electronic purchase, in this state, has the option to return it after you've "tried it out" in your home. It doesn't matter if you buy it at Staples, Fry's, or wherever, you have days, weeks, or a month to return it for any reason, if you're not satisfied.
This was on last nights news: http://cbs13.com/consumer/Call.Kurtis.DirecTV.2.744375.html

What caught my attention was the reference to a Class Action suit.


----------



## MIAMI1683 (Jul 11, 2007)

veryoldschool said:


> California has some fairly good consumer protection laws for things like auto repair and consumer electronics. In fact I have more "protection" getting my car fixed than I do getting my teeth fixed, but that's another story.
> The "old days" of selling stereos had our state pass laws for consumer electronics, which DirecTV's current policies seem to violate [IMO].
> While my equipment is working fine and I don't plan to drop DirecTV anytime soon, I've always had a problem with the "blind" commitment. You have no option to see what you're getting before you're committed. This is what I think violates our consumer laws, as every other consumer electronic purchase, in this state, has the option to return it after you've "tried it out" in your home. It doesn't matter if you buy it at Staples, Fry's, or wherever, you have days, weeks, or a month to return it for any reason, if you're not satisfied.
> This was on last nights news: http://cbs13.com/consumer/Call.Kurtis.DirecTV.2.744375.html
> ...


 I say she's right. While I like D* also. They don't ever mention it. Even the installers wait for the last minute then drop a "memo" on your counter. (they did that with me last year) so good for her. IMHO


----------



## Upstream (Jul 4, 2006)

I believe the class action suit referenced in the story is regarding DirecTV failing to disclose that leased receivers are leased (link). This is different than the customer complaint in the story that DirecTV failed to disclose that accepting a receiver triggers a new commitment.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

That may well be what was referred to in the TV clip.
In my case, I was able to get around the "privilege to lease" fees, but back then the DVR was a nightmare.
For me HD with DirecTV has been a rocky road from the start back in 2003. I bought a Sony HD receiver [$800+] that was the worst piece of hardware I've ever owned/brought into my house. It took 18 months for Sony to finally replace it with a decent newer model. Then the MPEG-4 rollout obsoleted it and I was very concerned with repeating my 18 months of horror. Well I wasn't wrong... the H20 line wasn't much different than my Sony SAT HD200. My first H20 was owned but somewhere during the many replacements, it changed to a lease without any notice. I finally moved over to a HR20 hoping it would work better and it took at least another six months before it finally "worked", and [again] this was a "blind" commitment, with no option to "see if or how" it worked before the commitment.

Now back to the TV story: She seemed to be sent "refur'd" H20(s) that don't have the best "track record" for functioning correctly, and had problems with them.
Had [if] DirecTV would comply with the state consumer "rights", she wouldn't be in the situation she is.
I came to this site for help and to give help [like many others] for DirecTV services/equipment.
As a consumer, I can understand her position and believe she is not alone. Besides all of the other issues with DirecTV, the "loss" they would incur [by taking back refur'd units and allowing customers out of a programing commitment in a timely manor] verses the customer satisfaction gained by doing so, seems [to me] like a "no brainer" and would improve DirecTV's overall consumer [rating] appeal.

I'm not trying to rant, but just offer help for DirecTV to become a better experience for everyone [well as many as can be, since you can never please all].


----------



## Upstream (Jul 4, 2006)

I have no sympathy for DirecTV in this matter. Quite honestly I think their commitment extension policies border on fraud.

The policies for how commitments are extended are not clearly published anywhere. In my experience (replacing several defective R15 over the past two years), DirecTV's agents do not consistently explain their policies, and do not adequately inform customers of when commitments will be extended. And regardless of their unpublished policies, DirecTV's agents or systems automatically extend commitments, even when doing so is clearly illegal (such as on warranty replacements). DirecTV does not adequately inform customers of when commitments are extended. And DirecTV does not have a straightforward way for the customer to get an incorrect commitment corrected (apparently the best they can do, after weeks of emails, is put a note in the comment section of your account indicating that the commitment date is wrong).

To me, the fraudulent extension of commitments is a much greater problem than whether receivers are leased or owned.


----------



## RobertE (Jun 10, 2006)

As a small data point, I put in an extra receiver for a customer today. I was told of the extra 18 months, as was the customer.

Can DirecTv do better. Sure. There is no doubt in my mind that they fail to mention the commitment on occasion. The door to door salesmen are pretty bad about lightly touching on that part. With that being said, I don't believe there is some grand conspiracy out there to rope customers unknowingly into commitments.



As a side note, over/under of when this thread turns into a total bash fest - Post 18. Locked by post 40. :grin:


----------



## bhelton71 (Mar 8, 2007)

RobertE said:


> As a small data point, I put in an extra receiver for a customer today. I was told of the extra 18 months, as was the customer.
> 
> Can DirecTv do better. Sure. There is no doubt in my mind that they fail to mention the commitment on occasion. The door to door salesmen are pretty bad about lightly touching on that part. With that being said, I don't believe there is some grand conspiracy out there to rope customers unknowingly into commitments.
> 
> As a side note, over/under of when this thread turns into a total bash fest - Post 18. Locked by post 40. :grin:


Under


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

"my hope" was for this not to turn into one.


----------



## Upstream (Jul 4, 2006)

RobertE said:


> With that being said, I don't believe there is some grand conspiracy out there to rope customers unknowingly into commitments.


I do think that DirecTV is intentionally trying to rope customers unknowingly into commitment extensions. That is why I said that their extension policy borders on fraud.

There is no way that DirecTV's senior management can be unaware of the fact that customer commitments are repeatedly extended in error. There are too many complaints about the problem. They have a department established to address incorrect extensions. And I have personally notified senior management of the problem.

And yet DirecTV does nothing to rectify the problem of incorrect or misleading commitment extensions. They haven't fixed their systems so that commitments aren't repeatedly extended in error. They haven't trained their CSRs nor given them consistent information so that they know when commitments are extended or not. And they haven't done the simplist, least expensive thing: publish their commitment policies so that customers know what causes an commitment to be extended or not.

Instead, DirecTV is very happy with their customers flying blind. It is to DirecTV's advantage that customers never know what actions result in a commitment extension. Does a dish realignment service call result in an extension? How about replacing a defective receiver? Or a defective remote control. Or buying an AM21? Does it matter if you have the protection plan or if you are still under warranty?

From DirecTV's perspective, it is better to mistakenly extend a commitment. If the customer then tries to cancel, then DirecTV has the opportunity to use the incorrect commitment as leverage to reduce churn or collect a multi-hundred dollar early termination fee. In the few cases where there is a competitive disadvantage, or the customer complains enough, then DirecTV can cry mea culpa and fix the "error".

But certainly if DirecTV wanted to avoid unknowingly roping customers into extensions, at a minimum they would have their extension policies on their website, so customers could easily determine if an extension was in error or not.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

In this state, my biggest issue is the "blind commitment" that does seem [to me] to violate the consumer rights laws for consumer electronics.


----------



## armophob (Nov 13, 2006)

But to be fair, we all know they use the commitment to recoup the original out of pocket they have for low cost and free equipment and dishes and ect ect. 
If they did not hold to a commitment then consumers would begin to wise up to account sharing and just plain fickle people would jump back and forth for this months better deal.
I don't think I can see it as an electronic equipment violation because it is a provided service that has in plain sight a contract. Yes they give you electronics to use with the service and they are subject to warranties and guarantees. But it is up to the end user to do his homework and talk with individuals who are using the different providers to select which service they want to commit to.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

armophob said:


> But to be fair, we all know they use the commitment to recoup the original out of pocket they have for low cost and free equipment and dishes and ect ect.
> If they did not hold to a commitment then consumers would begin to wise up to account sharing and just plain fickle people would jump back and forth for this months better deal.
> I don't think I can see it as an electronic equipment violation because it is a provided service that has in plain sight a contract. Yes they give you electronics to use with the service and they are subject to warranties and guarantees. But it is up to the end user to do his homework and talk with individuals who are using the different providers to select which service they want to commit to.


Going back to "the stereo days", how do you know how it sounds in your home? In this case it would be sound and looks. Yes "I understand" their idea of recouping the costs, but in this case [the TV clip], the hardware was refur'd H20(s) and yet she only had an SD dish and SD receiver before "the rep" told her she needed the new receivers. Now I don't know all of the story, as I'm not there to ask, and it makes a better show for the new hour to pick on "the big guys", but even my crappy cable company, "gave me" their equipment and 30 days to see how I liked it, which I didn't, and there was no charge. Now I'm not saying DirecTV should "give me anything", but on the other hand, if what they promoted doesn't turn out to be or work as they said it would, here in this state, I have "the right" to return it. Perhaps I pay a "restocking fee", or some other fee to offset "their" costs, but to be "locked" into a $300 early termination fee, is...well..criminal.

Take a look at Newegg's return policy, they're not losing money and have a great customer satisfaction rating too!


----------



## armophob (Nov 13, 2006)

veryoldschool said:


> Now I don't know all of the story, as I'm not there to ask, and it makes a better show for the new hour to pick on "the big guys",


I would also love to hear the recorded conversation with the rep. If Directv learns anything they should at least make it point to let the customer know on the phone, in clear and scripted wording, the new commitment agreement for the new equipment being provided.


----------



## BattleZone (Nov 13, 2007)

The difference is that the installation costs of cable are, in the vast majority of cases, very limited. With a satellite system, the can be extremely extensive. There are *already* problems with customers who order satellite just to get their house wired, then cancel once the installation is complete. While the "Win Back" retention departments try to save these accounts, they can't push very hard when the customer hasn't signed the lease agreement and wants to disconnect within minutes of activation. In the end, they will send recovery kits and cancel the account.

Imagine if customers knew they had a "free 30 day trial"? They'd order D12s for every wall of every room, then cancel, keeping all the cable. Of course, I'm sure DirecTV would find a way to charge back the installer somehow.

Again, it comes back to the problem of "free install." If customers had to pay for their installation, they'd be more careful about what they ordered. But that would eliminiate a lot of potential customers, and DirecTV isn't having that.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

IIP said:


> The difference is that the installation costs of cable are, in the vast majority of cases, very limited. With a satellite system, the can be extremely extensive. There are *already* problems with customers who order satellite just to get their house wired, then cancel once the installation is complete. While the "Win Back" retention departments try to save these accounts, they can't push very hard when the customer hasn't signed the lease agreement and wants to disconnect within minutes of activation. In the end, they will send recovery kits and cancel the account.
> 
> Imagine if customers knew they had a "free 30 day trial"? They'd order D12s for every wall of every room, then cancel, keeping all the cable. Of course, I'm sure DirecTV would find a way to charge back the installer somehow.
> 
> Again, it comes back to the problem of "free install." If customers had to pay for their installation, they'd be more careful about what they ordered. But that would eliminiate a lot of potential customers, and DirecTV isn't having that.


While you make a valid point, in the case above, there was no installation, since the customer already had DirecTV service and was sent receivers [$19.95] direct from DirecTV and never even had a new dish installed. Why she was even sent H20(s) for replacements for her SD receivers is just another "what were they thinking" on the part of the CSR.


----------



## RobertE (Jun 10, 2006)

veryoldschool said:


> While you make a valid point, in the case above, there was no installation, since the customer already had DirecTV service and was sent receivers [$19.95] direct from DirecTV and never even had a new dish installed. Why she was even sent H20(s) for replacements for her SD receivers is just another "what were they thinking" on the part of the CSR.


Where are you getting that she was sent H20s? I just watched the video and the silver receiver shown was a D11-500.

Anyway, I wonder how much of the story wasn't shown?

Customer has problem with a single box
DirecTv sends not one, but two replacements
Customer states BOTH replacements have problems
Customer cancels.

Somethings missing. Why, contrary to all the postings here, was a tech not sent out to see what the problem was? Odds are it was never a box issue, but rather a dish/lnb/line issue.

We're not getting the full story. Poor "reporting" in the name of ratings. :nono2:


----------



## Jhon69 (Mar 28, 2006)

RobertE said:


> Where are you getting that she was sent H20s? I just watched the video and the silver receiver shown was a D11-500.
> 
> Anyway, I wonder how much of the story wasn't shown?
> 
> ...


That's my problem also while Directv needs to correct these issues how many subscribers leave out details because they decide they would rather change services?.I know if I was dead set about changing services I would not even hesitate to pay the fee to leave.Reason: because DirecTV may get $300. but their going to lose at least $1000 in an total of payments per year.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

RobertE said:


> We're not getting the full story. Poor "reporting" in the name of ratings. :nono2:


The video was the same as what was aired. I haven't seen a D11-500, but it does look closer to a H20 than the other D11s, I either have or seen.
I would agree that "Call Kurtis" is not giving "the whole story".

"The representative told her they were outdated and i*ncompatible* -- throw them out. They also told her that for *$19.95* they'd send her two replacement receivers. She agreed and in *two days they arrived*. But she *immediately sent them back* when they too had problems. *Then she called to cancel* her service."

The red doesn't make sense [as we know].
$19.95 & two days is a FedEx from DirecTV [refurbs?].
Where was any attempt to "fix it"?

So one or two D11s cost you $25/month for a year in programing commitment?


----------



## Jhon69 (Mar 28, 2006)

Because the customers are always right.Directv should allow the cancellation with no fee.But if the said subscriber tries to reapply for service within the cancellation period service should be refused as it is a company's right to refuse service.


----------



## Newshawk (Sep 3, 2004)

RobertE said:


> Where are you getting that she was sent H20s? I just watched the video and the silver receiver shown was a D11-500.


Yeah... since when does a DirecTV white remote almost completely cover the top of a H20?


----------



## K4SMX (May 19, 2007)

Upstream said:


> .....But certainly if DirecTV wanted to avoid unknowingly roping customers into extensions, at a minimum they would have their extension policies on their website, so customers could easily determine if an extension was in error or not.


You mean like "FAQ's".....

QUESTION:

"Under what circumstances will my lease commitment be extended and for how long?"

ANSWER (per recent e-mail from DirecTV to DBSTalk member):

"Please note that all commitments are now 18 months for standard equipment, and 24 months for advanced equipment which includes DVR, HD, or HD DVR receivers. Before November 19th, 2007, the commitments were 12 and 24 months for standard and advanced Equipment.

Owned Receivers:

-With no Protection Plan coverage - You can A) replace the receiver with an owned receiver at full cost and no commitment, or B) replace the owned receiver with a leased receiver, pay $19.95 for Delivery and Handling, with a commitment.
-With Protection Plan coverage - You will never pay for the replacement unless not covered by the Protection Plan, and it will not extend your commitment. The receiver should also be marked as Owned on your account.

An owned receiver that is replaced outside of warranty, unless with the protection plan, is leased, and has the commitment.

Leased Receivers:

-With no Protection Plan coverage - You will pay the $19.95 for delivery and handling, but the commitment should not be extended.
-With Protection Plan coverage - You will never pay for the replacement unless not covered by the Protection Plan, and it will not extend your commitment.

There is also the opportunity to have the $19.95 waived if you sign up for the Protection Plan when you replace the receiver.

Either way, a leased receiver, when replaced is not supposed to extend your commitment with DIRECTV. These policies that I have outlined are in reference to a receiver being replaced due to technical problems. Any receiver that is still covered by the 90 day warranty, whether leased or owned, does not extend the commitment on the account. If there is ever an instance where these policies are not correctly adhered to on your account, please let DIRECTV know immediately so that the situation can be rectified in a timely manner.

This does not apply to upgraded receivers. Unless you pay the full cost to own the equipment, there will always be the respective 18 or 24 month commitment associated with an upgraded or additional receiver."


----------



## ironwood (Sep 20, 2007)

When I lost my cell phone I called my company and asked about a new one. They told me I could get a cool phone free with 2 year commitment. Otherwise it cost 300 bucks. I couldnt buy anything off their website without a commitment. Retail locations are the same. I settled for a cheap phone from Ebay. 
I think these days people are smart enough and experienced to understand that you dont get free stuff from anybody. Dont want commitment? Keep your old SD TIVO. Enjoy it. Want new HD DVR? You must pay for it one way or another.

I always have to get a signature from customer under lease agreement when I do upgrades or installs. 2 years ago when Directv went back to leasing program customer complained and some even refused to sign. These days I never have problem with anybody. Some people act surprised but I let them know if they dont sign I have to remove the dish and new receiver. As far as csr's go I am pretty sure they disclose this information also. People just dont care to listen until they decide to cancel service then all of a sudden they act surprised.


----------



## K4SMX (May 19, 2007)

They need to re-program their computers regarding the commitment extension policy for replacement of defective leased equipment so that commitments can _not_ be extended by CSR's. Additionally, the policy of extending the commitment for 24 months merely by activating an _additional_ receiver at an existing installation makes no sense when you either pay the lease fee at BB/CC and install it yourself or lease it directly from them and are sometimes forced to pay $99 for the privilege of missed/late tech appointments merely to plug in a receiver that you could easily have done yourself.


----------



## ADent (Jul 7, 2002)

ironwood said:


> When I lost my cell phone I called my company and asked about a new one. They told me I could get a cool phone free with 2 year commitment. Otherwise it cost 300 bucks. I couldnt buy anything off their website without a commitment. Retail locations are the same. I settled for a cheap phone from Ebay.


Except if DTV was your cell phone provider you still would have extended your commitment for 2 years with your eBay phone.


----------



## ironwood (Sep 20, 2007)

I can understand satellite companies. Upfront costs are too high to let people just go back and forth. They have to create these commitments even if it seems unfare. Again with cell phone carriers cost of me bying a phone for the company is 0. With Directv or Dish they have to invest lots of money in free installations. Even when customer buys a receiver and installs it himself later a problem will arise and cost the company more money in service calls


----------



## Upstream (Jul 4, 2006)

armophob said:


> If Directv learns anything they should at least make it point to let the customer know on the phone, in clear and scripted wording, the new commitment agreement for the new equipment being provided.


But how DirecTV handles phone calls is part of the problem.

When I replaced a defective R15 (under the Protection Plan) a few months ago, I asked the phone rep to confirm that my commitment would not change. The rep clearly told me that there would be no change in my commitment.

But I ended up with a new two year commitment anyway.

When I called to get it corrected, I was told that replacement recievers, even under the Protection Plan, trigger a new commitment.


----------



## Upstream (Jul 4, 2006)

K4SMX said:


> You mean like "FAQ's".....
> 
> QUESTION:
> 
> ...


Stew --

Is this on DirecTV's website? I couldn't find it anywhere. Or is this from one of the commitment threads on DBSTalk? If it is from DBSTalk, it is nice, but somewhat meaningless. The average consumer wouldn't see it. And you can't use it as evidence that DirecTV is extending commitments that shouldn't be extended.


----------



## raott (Nov 23, 2005)

ironwood said:


> I can understand satellite companies. Upfront costs are too high to let people just go back and forth. They have to create these commitments even if it seems unfare.


Commitments would be fine if they were always disclosed, they weren't extended by CSRs when they aren't suppose to be and the consumer actually has a short period to make sure the equipment and service is actually what they were told it would be.


----------



## darekd (Oct 11, 2006)

After reading this thread, I called Directv to check my commitment since my dead receiver was replaced a month ago. Sure enough, my commitment has been extended. The rep told me that they always extend commitment when a leased receiver is replaced. Thanks to K4SMX's post, I pointed out that's not correct and asked to be transfer to a dept that can correct this error. The next lady I spoke confirmed that the commitment should not have been changed and made the correction.


----------



## Upstream (Jul 4, 2006)

darekd said:


> After reading this thread, I called Directv to check my commitment since my dead receiver was replaced a month ago. Sure enough, my commitment has been extended. The rep told me that they always extend commitment when a leased receiver is replaced. Thanks to K4SMX's post, I pointed out that's not correct and asked to be transfer to a dept that can correct this error. The next lady I spoke confirmed that the commitment should not have been changed and made the correction.


She told you she made the correction. I've been told that many times, and no correction had been made. Call back tomorrow and check on your commitment date again.


----------



## FlBillsfan (Apr 23, 2008)

darekd said:


> After reading this thread, I called Directv to check my commitment since my dead receiver was replaced a month ago. Sure enough, my commitment has been extended. The rep told me that they always extend commitment when a leased receiver is replaced. Thanks to K4SMX's post, I pointed out that's not correct and asked to be transfer to a dept that can correct this error. The next lady I spoke confirmed that the commitment should not have been changed and made the correction.


Yeah as another poster said, it really matters who you talk to. I had a dead HDTIVO that I owned replaced under the protection plan. It was replaced with a HR20-700. When I got my next bill it showed up as a LEASE. It took me three calls but I finally got it properly changed to owned.


----------



## Elephanthead (Feb 3, 2007)

People say the startup costs are high, but the startup costs are not high. Installers don't even make a union wage. I bought 500 feet of coax for 30 bucks, surely DTV can get a better price then me. The dish costs $100, I can see that, but that is a sunk cost just like the wire that runs from the pole to the house for cable, adding a receiver does not require a new dish, that is the cost of acquiring a new service address. There is no way replacing a broken leased "advanced receiver" should extend your commitment 24 months. I hope DTV gets regulated out of business.


----------



## JLucPicard (Apr 27, 2004)

Upstream said:


> Stew --
> 
> Is this on DirecTV's website? I couldn't find it anywhere. Or is this from one of the commitment threads on DBSTalk? If it is from DBSTalk, it is nice, but somewhat meaningless. The average consumer wouldn't see it. And you can't use it as evidence that DirecTV is extending commitments that shouldn't be extended.


Was that actually quoted from somewhere? As I was reading it, I thought I was reading what someone suggested should be in the FAQs and not something that actually WAS in the FAQs.


----------



## manhole (Jun 9, 2006)

Here's what I don't understand. If you wish to change your long distance company, you are required to be transfered to a 3rd party which asks you to verify who you are with security questions, and plainly asks you if you are authorizing the switch. The whole thing is recorded. Why don't companies like DirecTV (or even cell phone companies) have the same standard when they extend contracts over the phone?


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

manhole said:


> Here's what I don't understand. If you wish to change your long distance company, you are required to be transfered to a 3rd party which asks you to verify who you are with security questions, and plainly asks you if you are authorizing the switch. The whole thing is recorded. Why don't companies like DirecTV (or even cell phone companies) have the same standard when they extend contracts over the phone?


"I think" it's because it hasn't gotten the attention that phone carriers have and the abuse they "used to do" [thus requiring a 3rd party verification now]. If this had more visibility, then it too would be regulated the same way.


----------



## rebkell (Sep 9, 2006)

darekd said:


> After reading this thread, I called Directv to check my commitment since my dead receiver was replaced a month ago. Sure enough, my commitment has been extended. The rep told me that they always extend commitment when a leased receiver is replaced. Thanks to K4SMX's post, I pointed out that's not correct and asked to be transfer to a dept that can correct this error. The next lady I spoke confirmed that the commitment should not have been changed and made the correction.


How do the CSR's get the arbitrary power to do these things, it seems there would be a cut and dried sequence of events that would take place in situations like this, and not left to the discretion of the particular CSR you happen to end up with. I've always thought it kind of funny how you read all the posts about call again until you find the right CSR or person in retention to get the deal you are looking for. It seems like it's always a game with the phone reps, It doesn't seem fair that I can get a better or worse deal than other people, solely based on the luck of the draw and person I end up with.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

rebkell said:


> How do the CSR's get the arbitrary power to do these things, it seems there would be a cut and dried sequence of events that would take place in situations like this, and not left to the discretion of the particular CSR you happen to end up with. I've always thought it kind of funny how you read all the posts about call again until you find the right CSR or person in retention to get the deal you are looking for. It seems like it's always a game with the phone reps, It doesn't seem fair that I can get a better or worse deal than other people, solely based on the luck of the draw and person I end up with.


Some departments/CSRs have different "keys" [or permissions] on their computers.
For example: if you have a problem with an access card, most level 1 CSRs can only send you a replacement [$20], while if you're transferred to the card access group, they can resolve the issue with "a simple click of a mouse".


----------



## armophob (Nov 13, 2006)

veryoldschool said:


> "I think" it's because it hasn't gotten the attention that phone carriers have and the abuse they "used to do" [thus requiring a 3rd party verification now]. If this had more visibility, then it too would be regulated the same way.


I got news. My telephone carrier just allowed a third party to bill me on their bill. When I questioned the legality, they responded by informing me I can request 3rd party billing block for free. It is no longer assumed, you have to specially request it.


----------



## dyker (Feb 27, 2008)

K4SMX said:


> They need to re-program their computers regarding the commitment extension policy for replacement of defective leased equipment so that commitments can _not_ be extended by CSR's. Additionally, the policy of extending the commitment for 24 months merely by activating an _additional_ receiver at an existing installation makes no sense when you either pay the lease fee at BB/CC and install it yourself or lease it directly from them and are sometimes forced to pay $99 for the privilege of missed/late tech appointments merely to plug in a receiver that you could easily have done yourself.


Here here... +1 to that. I personally in Feb went to HD and started (I knew it at the time) a 2 year lease. But immediately had problems. I seriously felt TRAPPED in this junk DVR (can't imagine how bad it was a year ago...wow, just wow) product compared to how good I had it before (replay TVs hooked to D* SD). I was already a D* customer since 95, and all my wiring was DONE (myself). The installer came out and switched dishes, and plugged in receivers. That's all. D* had no real cost in wiring or anything. Just the new dish and an hour of a tech's time. But the tech left, and I was left with lipsync problems, multiple random reboots, hit/miss blank recordings, and HDMI that STILL doesn't work on my Sony 50" TV bought just last year. I was trapped and duped... and seriously feel D* acts with extortion over people in my situation with their cxl fees.

Fast forward to now... the DVR is working better, I'd like a 3rd receiver, I'd buy it at Costco (lease) and I'm already in a contract. I can install it myself. *But I don't want to extend my existing contract... even by 4 months. And if any of these die and need to be replaced, I'm concerned based on reading multiple posts here that D* will just willy nilly extend me into a new contract. * And those they screw over this way never seem to find their way out because D* thinks they are ALWAYS RIGHT. When I'm done with my 2 years, and have a hardware failure, I'm firing D*, or I'll risk opening the HR-21 and replacing the hard drive myself (they won't know if the sticker fell off from age, heat, or me).

Treating customers like this is bullcrap.

More food for thought from a different thread...

_DIRECTV's Cancellation Fees Draw Media Fire
The satcaster says the charges are valid.
By Swanni

Washington, D.C. (June 11, 2008) -- Several TV stations and local newspapers are urging caution about signing up with DIRECTV because of the satcaster's controversial early cancellation fees.

The FCC has scheduled a hearing tomorrow on early termination fees..._

Read more here http://www.tvpredictions.com/dcancel061108.htm


----------



## Newshawk (Sep 3, 2004)

dyker said:


> More food for thought from a different thread...
> 
> _DIRECTV's Cancellation Fees Draw Media Fire
> The satcaster says the charges are valid.
> ...


Why am I not surprised that Swanni has jumped on this?


----------



## Upstream (Jul 4, 2006)

Newshawk said:


> Why am I not surprised that Swanni has jumped on this?


BusinessWeek, too.

http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/jun2008/tc2008063_586218.htm


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

RobertE said:


> As a side note, over/under of when this thread turns into a total bash fest - Post 18. Locked by post 40. :grin:


Well it made forty without it. :hurah:


----------



## rudeney (May 28, 2007)

ironwood said:


> With Directv or Dish they have to invest lots of money in free installations. Even when customer buys a receiver and installs it himself later a problem will arise and cost the company more money in service calls


Why would it cost "the company" in service calls? Customers have two options when they have a problem - either be subscribed to the PP or pay for the service (either $80 for an on-site tech or $19.95 to swap a leased receiver).


----------



## K4SMX (May 19, 2007)

Upstream said:


> Stew --
> 
> Is this on DirecTV's website? I couldn't find it anywhere. Or is this from one of the commitment threads on DBSTalk? If it is from DBSTalk, it is nice, but somewhat meaningless. The average consumer wouldn't see it. And you can't use it as evidence that DirecTV is extending commitments that shouldn't be extended.





JLucPicard said:


> Was that actually quoted from somewhere? As I was reading it, I thought I was reading what someone suggested should be in the FAQs and not something that actually WAS in the FAQs.


Yes, a suggested answer for a FAQ on commitment extensions. This quotation came from a post by *The Merge* on 2/13/08 in a thread he started titled "DirecTV Commitment Extensions." It is a word-for-word copy of an e-mail he received from DirecTV, and I believe it to be authentic and correct.

This information may in fact be buried somewhere on DirecTV's website, but I can't find it anywhere, so it is troubling that their policy on commitment extensions is basically unavailable for confirmation of what you are told by CSR's. Actually I think it's pretty good evidence, as this e-mail would come up in discovery in any class action lawsuit. And obviously the writer cut and paste this info from some internal, non-published document.

Results of search: "There are no results matching: 'commitment' in FAQs for All Categories." "There are no results matching: 'commitment' in FAQs for Billing."

You can find the Lease Addendum, dealing with _inter alia_ the basic commitment. But nowhere does it discuss extensions.


----------



## Dave (Jan 29, 2003)

DirectV may have to go the way of Dish for new customer signups. Dish states that you can pay a $ 50 fee when you get there product with NO COMMITMENT. Or they will wave the sign up fee if you do a commitment. Either way they will have to straighten out the problem by themselves or Congress and the courts will fix it for them.


----------



## dyker (Feb 27, 2008)

Iwould gladly pay $50 to be in no commitment. I've been a D* customer since 95 and haven't been in contract since I "upgraded" to HD. What a fiasco. I called D* after having the total HR problems a week after signing up to "downgrade" back to SD and they said "yeah, sure, if you want to send back the HD receivers and 'NO, YOU WON'T GET A REFUND OF THE $400 FOR THE HD RECEIVERS'. So I said "just cxl me" and they said "well let's calculate the termination fee on these receivers and then send them back.... WOW, $400 FOR THE RECEIVERS AND $600 TERMINATION... $1000 EXTORTION FOR TOTAL JUNK. 

Like I said, I am half working now still with problems but they have fostered an environment of mistrust and disgust for their business practices, and I have saved many friends and family from "upgrading" already.


----------



## jester121 (Jun 10, 2008)

dyker said:


> Fast forward to now... the DVR is working better, I'd like a 3rd receiver, I'd buy it at Costco (lease) and I'm already in a contract. I can install it myself.


The one sold (leased) at Costco is $140 (or whatever it is) including a 2 year extension (though it doesn't say that). If you don't want a 2 year extension it would be $400 or $500, assuming one could even figure out how to arrange such a purchase (not through Costco, that's for sure).

As a new (soon to be installed) customer this has been the most difficult part of the transition from cable. I don't question that the product and price are better, but there are certainly a lot of pitfalls that make educated consumers nervous and would catch uneducated consumers completely by surprise.


----------



## Thaedron (Jun 29, 2007)

IIP said:


> The difference is that the installation costs of cable are, in the vast majority of cases, very limited. With a satellite system, the can be extremely extensive. There are *already* problems with customers who order satellite just to get their house wired, then cancel once the installation is complete. While the "Win Back" retention departments try to save these accounts, they can't push very hard when the customer hasn't signed the lease agreement and wants to disconnect within minutes of activation. In the end, they will send recovery kits and cancel the account.
> 
> Imagine if customers knew they had a "free 30 day trial"? They'd order D12s for every wall of every room, then cancel, keeping all the cable. Of course, I'm sure DirecTV would find a way to charge back the installer somehow.
> 
> Again, it comes back to the problem of "free install." If customers had to pay for their installation, they'd be more careful about what they ordered. But that would eliminiate a lot of potential customers, and DirecTV isn't having that.


Humanity never ceases to amaze... I never would have thought that someone would sign up for service simply to get their house wired and then cancel...

A more balanced (i.e. not heavily slanted in favor of DirecTV rather than the customer) policy would be to allow for a 30 day trial period and simply make any installation charges non-refundable. Effectively allowing for the return of equipment, but changing the termination fee to be tied to the installation costs.

Similar example that comes to mind is with mail order, you can return your purchase, but don't get refunded your shipping costs.

The "stealth" two year commitment is IMO underhanded. And I don't mind signing up for a commitment as long as it proclaimed to me just as loudly as all the selling features and not buried in the fine print and never verbally mentioned. However there needs to be some provision for a customer who is truly on the up and up, yet DirecTV and the installer simply cannot get service to work "as advertised".


----------



## jdspencer (Nov 8, 2003)

You'd think that DirecTV would have an entry somewhere on the online account showing the customer when a commitment expires. Or do they just like getting a lot of calls requesting this information? With the answers being different based on which side of the bed the CSR got up from.


----------



## Upstream (Jul 4, 2006)

K4SMX said:


> Yes, a suggested answer for a FAQ on commitment extensions. This quotation came from a post by *The Merge* on 2/13/08 in a thread he started titled "DirecTV Commitment Extensions." It is a word-for-word copy of an e-mail he received from DirecTV, and I believe it to be authentic and correct.
> 
> This information may in fact be buried somewhere on DirecTV's website, but I can't find it anywhere, so it is troubling that their policy on commitment extensions is basically unavailable for confirmation of what you are told by CSR's. Actually I think it's pretty good evidence, as this e-mail would come up in discovery in any class action lawsuit. And obviously the writer cut and paste this info from some internal, non-published document.
> 
> ...


Thanks. After I asked where the info came from, I realized it was from The Merg's post. There is nothing on DirecTV's website to officially communicate their policy to customers. If you are in a dispute with DirecTV, referencing an internet message board post is not going to provide good basis for argument. It is too easy for DirecTV to claim that the post is fabricated, or that the CSR who sent the email to The Merg was mistaken in their interpretation of DirecTV's policies.

Let's face it, DirecTV doesn't want customers to know when their commitments are extended.


----------



## Incompetent (Mar 26, 2008)

Heh. As far as installation costs go... last week i had 28 jobs and averaged $10.28 in parts/wire per job.
While the total number of jobs included about 8 service calls, i distinctly remember a few of them that i used wuite abit of wire/small parts on to bring them back up to code (including burying a 60' run of coax for an elderly customer at no charge).
Most houses in town are wired for some sort of cable and rarely do i see rg-59 anywhere anymore. Alot of rural homes have had at least some sort of dish at one point whether it be C-Band or E*. New builds are for the most part pre-wired and are simple installs. I use more wire on mobile homes than anywhere as none are wired.
I started installing for D* when they bought PRIMESTAR and back then there was no credit check. I contracted out for one of the early HSPs (since bought and merged) soon after the P* merger trying to keep working. Well an early promotion in conjunction with Blockbuster was for 2 free standard irds( there was no TIVO just yet) and no credit check. They had to have had thousands upon thousands of customers order the service run up $200 or so in PPVs then not pay their bills. Shortly after they started requiring a CC or Checking Account or at least pay your first bill up front. It hasnt really changed much since then except that the advanced equipment costs them more so they have a longer commitment period and charge more for early termination of sevice. Todays contracts dont vary much from the original contract agreement( i think i have one of the old ones somwehere).This whole topic is similar to consumer protection concerns versus cell phone companies.

BTW to purchase an HR-XXX outright would cost $700. Therefore, the one you buy for $199 comes with a 2 yr commitment, whereas the old TIVO u bought back in 
19-dickety dick for $800 you actually OWN. 

I will agree that overall (with many changes in ownership) D* has followed trends of other companies instead of staying with what attracted so many people in the first place, which is great customer service coupled with awesome programming.


----------



## K4SMX (May 19, 2007)

Upstream said:


> Thanks. After I asked where the info came from, I realized it was from The Merg's post. There is nothing on DirecTV's website to officially communicate their policy to customers. If you are in a dispute with DirecTV, referencing an internet message board post is not going to provide good basis for argument. It is too easy for DirecTV to claim that the post is fabricated, or that the CSR who sent the email to The Merg was mistaken in their interpretation of DirecTV's policies.
> 
> Let's face it, DirecTV doesn't want customers to know when their commitments are extended.


It is troubling that commitment information was apparently previously shown on subscribers' monthly statements, although not having any old ones to check, I'm just going on what others have posted. I think it's fairly clear that the e-mail *The Merg* posted is the correct current policy. It makes sense, for one thing. Yet apparently many CSR's are unfamiliar, and the billing software does not prevent them from erroneously extending commitments. Suffice it to say that there better not be any internal e-mails among management discussing knowledge of these two problems and recommending nothing be done about them for "business reasons."

Like I said, the main policy issue I have is that there is little foundation and it's serious over reaching to extend commitments when an additional receiver is added to an account which does not require additional installation expense born by DirecTV. They have no marginal cost. They're already getting the additional $5/mo. lease fee. If the subscription is terminated at what would have been the original termination date, they still get all the equipment back. The receiver will always be out there on _someone's_ account at $5/mo., which covers the difference between the initial lease fee and the cost of production, a lease fee they may collect multiple times on that one receiver.

A CAL will no doubt eventually occur to get their actual policy, which other than the additional receiver issue seems reasonable, implemented all of the time. The class = all those who paid ETF's when none were due + some cooked-up number to cover those whose termination was unduly detained past their original, correct commitment date.


----------



## Bama (Apr 24, 2007)

Upstream said:


> I have no sympathy for DirecTV in this matter. Quite honestly I think their commitment extension policies border on fraud.
> 
> The policies for how commitments are extended are not clearly published anywhere. In my experience (replacing several defective R15 over the past two years), DirecTV's agents do not consistently explain their policies, and do not adequately inform customers of when commitments will be extended. And regardless of their unpublished policies, DirecTV's agents or systems automatically extend commitments, even when doing so is clearly illegal (such as on warranty replacements). DirecTV does not adequately inform customers of when commitments are extended. And DirecTV does not have a straightforward way for the customer to get an incorrect commitment corrected (apparently the best they can do, after weeks of emails, is put a note in the comment section of your account indicating that the commitment date is wrong).
> 
> To me, the fraudulent extension of commitments is a much greater problem than whether receivers are leased or owned.


You are notified when you order it...you are notified on your bill...by e-mail...mail inserts...try reading the customer agreement at any time, you are told about that as well, if you have the protection plan there is no commitment on a replacement. Ask the agent you talk to to give it to her supervisor. It amazes me how people expect to get something for free. DTV is replacing YOUR OWNED receivers or they are out of warranty:nono2: :nono2: How do you dress yourselves???


----------



## Radio Enginerd (Oct 5, 2006)

Anyone notice the Dish remote? 

I guess she left DirecTV for Dish. Hopefully she's read her new contract.


----------



## rudeney (May 28, 2007)

Bama said:


> You are notified when you order it...


Yeah, the CSR's have usually been very clear to inform me that I am agreeing to a new 2-year commitment when I have added a receiver. But that's not the problem we are discussing.



> you are notified on your bill...


Nope, never. I've never seen any wording on my bill about a service commitment. Of course it has been a long time since I've gotten a bill as I've been on auto-pay for at last the last 5 years.



> by e-mail...


Nope, never. The only e-mail I ever get from D* is "your online bill is ready for viewing". That's it.



> mail inserts...


The only thing I ever get in the mail from D* is advertisement for new service, which is ridiculous for them to spend them money on it - don't they know I'm already a subscriber?



> try reading the customer agreement at any time, you are told about that as well


Oh, yeah, you can go online to read it, but it changes about every month. As with most large corporations, they have the right to change the agreement at any time for any reason and the customer can do nothing but accept it. Until someone goes to court over it, it stands as is.



> if you have the protection plan there is no commitment on a replacement. Ask the agent you talk to to give it to her supervisor.


That's the problem -people are reporting that they have had commitments extended when they shouldn't have been. Even after the CSR assured them that the commitment would not be extended, they find out later that it was. It makes me wonder if the CSR's get bonuses (or at least "points") for extending commitment. If not that, then D* has a serious flaw in their IT systems that allows such accidental and erroneous actions. Either way, it is D*'s problem and it is at best negligent and at worst fraudulent behavior and any customer who has had such a problem should be compensated.



> It amazes me how people expect to get something for free. DTV is replacing YOUR OWNED receivers or they are out of warranty:nono2: :nono2: How do you dress yourselves???


I am sure there are some people out there who will always try to get something undeserved, but most people only want what they pay for. In the case of D* fraudulently or negligently extending commitments, not only are these customers not getting what they pay for, they are in effect the victims of theft.


----------



## Ken S (Feb 13, 2007)

It seems to me that if DirecTV is going to use the cost of the equipment as the basis for their commitments that they should open up their system and allow other manufacturers to make equipment and sell it. Customers could have a choice between the leased and potentially used DirecTV models that come with a commitment and the purchased models from 3rd parties. I wonder what percentage of DVRs being distributed today is "refurb". I know they have been factoring in a larger and larger percentage of that happening in their financial projections.

They could also give the option of discout vs. commitment like many of the mobile phone companies do when purchasing a new phone. Sprint will advertise a price without commitment with a 1 year commitment and a 2 year commitment.

As for the cost of the dish and cabling. I'd bet just about every major corporation would be absolutely delighted to have homeowners/building owners pay them monthly for a "sign" advertising their services on their buildings.


----------



## Skooz (Jul 20, 2007)

Upstream said:


> I have no sympathy for DirecTV in this matter. Quite honestly I think their commitment extension policies border on fraud.
> 
> The policies for how commitments are extended are not clearly published anywhere. In my experience (replacing several defective R15 over the past two years), DirecTV's agents do not consistently explain their policies, and do not adequately inform customers of when commitments will be extended. And regardless of their unpublished policies, DirecTV's agents or systems automatically extend commitments, even when doing so is clearly illegal (such as on warranty replacements). DirecTV does not adequately inform customers of when commitments are extended. And DirecTV does not have a straightforward way for the customer to get an incorrect commitment corrected (apparently the best they can do, after weeks of emails, is put a note in the comment section of your account indicating that the commitment date is wrong).
> 
> To me, the fraudulent extension of commitments is a much greater problem than whether receivers are leased or owned.


I could not agree more.

In September 2005, I bought my first HD DVR (HR10-250) at Best Buy. Nowhere in any of the documentation, the receipt, on any scrap of paper, in the box or in the envelope the card came in was there one word about a commitment. Not one word.

The ONLY place a commitment was mentioned was on the rebate slip which stated that I could return the slip for a $100 rebate and by accepting the rebate I was also accepting a two year commitment. So, I did not return the slip and did not get the rebate. The DVR went on the blink in 6 months, so I called to have it serviced, it still being under warranty. At that time, I was told be the CSR that I was under a commitment.

I argued until I was blue but the CSR would not budge. D* sent a warranty replacement, and again, I scanned every conceivable form of documentation for any word of any commitment. There was none. So, I activated the replacement, with not one word from the CSR about a commitment. That unit lasted about 7 months before the HD died. I called D* again and was informed that I was indeed under yet another phantom commitment.

No contract is binding unless both parties agree. Too bad it takes the California nnay state government to enforce this simple concept.


----------



## w6fxj (Aug 10, 2005)

Skooz - Did you read the DirecTV terms of service. It says if you do not agree to the commitment terms, they will cancel your service. If you continue to receive service, you agree to the terms. They have you by the gonads! Check their retailer terms here: http://www.solidsignal.com/directv_terms.asp


----------



## Skooz (Jul 20, 2007)

w6fxj said:


> Skooz - Did you read the DirecTV terms of service. It says if you do not agree to the commitment terms, they will cancel your service. If you continue to receive service, you agree to the terms. They have you by the gonads! Check their terms here: http://www.solidsignal.com/directv_terms.asp


Textbook Catch-22. :lol:


----------



## K4SMX (May 19, 2007)

This is known as an adhesion contract.


----------



## Upstream (Jul 4, 2006)

Ken S said:


> It seems to me that if DirecTV is going to use the cost of the equipment as the basis for their commitments that they should .......


Ken -- I don't think cost of equipment is the real basis for the commitment. Especially with the leasing model, DirecTV retains ownership of the equipment, and leases it out to someone. If the original customer of the equipment leaves, DirecTV takes the equipment back and sends it to someone else. (And actually, if DirecTV collects another $100 or $200 up-front lease fee from the new customer, they come out ahead.)

The real reason for the commitment is to reduce churn.


----------



## Ken S (Feb 13, 2007)

Upstream said:


> Ken -- I don't think cost of equipment is the real basis for the commitment. Especially with the leasing model, DirecTV retains ownership of the equipment, and leases it out to someone. If the original customer of the equipment leaves, DirecTV takes the equipment back and sends it to someone else. (And actually, if DirecTV collects another $100 or $200 up-front lease fee from the new customer, they come out ahead.)
> 
> The real reason for the commitment is to reduce churn.


Upstream, I agree completely they make note of that when they talk about their churn being reduced. But, when asked by the FCC all of these folks will start bellyaching about the equipment cost.


----------



## dbronstein (Oct 21, 2002)

Incompetent said:


> BTW to purchase an HR-XXX outright would cost $700. Therefore, the one you buy for $199 comes with a 2 yr commitment, whereas the old TIVO u bought back in 19-dickety dick for $800 you actually OWN.


Except you aren't buying it for $199, you are leasing it. If I cancel my service, I have to return the receiver to D*. So there is nothing being subsidized. If it was an owned receiver, I wouldn't have a problem with having a commitment. But it's leased, so if I cancel 2 months after getting it, I have to return it and D* is not out any money.


----------



## Bama (Apr 24, 2007)

rudeney said:


> Yeah, the CSR's have usually been very clear to inform me that I am agreeing to a new 2-year commitment when I have added a receiver. But that's not the problem we are discussing.
> 
> Nope, never. I've never seen any wording on my bill about a service commitment. Of course it has been a long time since I've gotten a bill as I've been on auto-pay for at last the last 5 years.
> 
> ...


The customer agreement does not changed every month and even if it did thats no excuse to put your head in the sand. You have a responsibility to "know what you are signing". Electronic or not. 
Looks to me like you are one of then that want something for nothing if you think people should be compensated for an commitment extension. It's an easy fix if it's an error and people are getting what they pay for.


----------



## crashHD (Mar 1, 2008)

ironwood said:


> I can understand satellite companies. Upfront costs are too high to let people just go back and forth. They have to create these commitments even if it seems unfare.


I would bet the total cost of DirecTV maintaining their satellite infrastructure which services the entire CONUS is substantially less than the cost of all the cable companies that it takes to provide service nationwide (and even at that, they they don't service rural areas, small towns, etc), and cable manages not to have such obscene ETF fees.

It would be more reasonable if there was a demo period, during which the if one cancels, they only have to pay for the installation, and the equipment left behind (dish, multiswitches...or better yet, let them take those back if they want them).


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

crashHD said:


> It would be more reasonable if there was a demo period, during which the if one cancels, they only have to pay for the installation, and the equipment left behind (dish, multiswitches...or better yet, let them take those back if they want them).


This cuts to the core of this thread.
It's not whether a customer wants something for free, but to pay a reasonable fee for services rendered to cancel, if the services are not what was promoted/expected within a reasonable time frame.


----------



## rudeney (May 28, 2007)

Bama said:


> The customer agreement does not changed every month and even if it did thats no excuse to put your head in the sand. You have a responsibility to "know what you are signing". Electronic or not.
> Looks to me like you are one of then that want something for nothing if you think people should be compensated for an commitment extension. It's an easy fix if it's an error and people are getting what they pay for.


I'll grant you that my comment about the customer agreement changing every month was a gross exaggeration, but the reality is that it *does* change and in fact it did just last month when D* increased prices.

The problem with "knowing what you are signing" is irrelevant because the agreement can be changed at any time. Unfortunately, this is nothing unique to D*. Credit card companies do it all the time.

I don't want something for nothing, but I also do not believe D* should get "something" from me (say a two-year commitment) when I get "nothing" in return. If they send an installer out to setup a new dish and deliver equipment, then a commitment from me to is reasonable so they eventually get paid back for that expense. However, if I buy my own receiver, install it myself, and pay $20 for a new access card, they are giving me "nothing" and it is not reasonable for them to expect a new commitment in return. Unfortunately, they do, and because this is their policy, there is nothing to "fix".


----------



## w6fxj (Aug 10, 2005)

For what it is worth here is a recent DirecTV email response when I asked for the criteria for "extending" a subscriber's "committment:

Here is a run down of the situation that a commitment may be extended. 

Situation Commitment Applicable? 
Adding leased additional receiver (obtained through DIRECTV or at Retail). Yes 
Adding a used owned receiver. No 
Adding an owned receiver purchased through DIRECTV at full purchase/owned cost. No 
Reactivating receiver. No 
Reactivating account with new leased equipment. Yes 
Replacing receiver through Protection Plan. No 
Replacing leased receiver with leased receiver through Equipment Replacement offer. No 
Replacing leased receiver with owned receiver through Equipment Replacement offer. No 
Replacing owned receiver with leased receiver through Equipment Replacement offer. Yes 
Replacing owned receiver with owned receiver through Equipment Replacement offer. No

Every agent has access to this information, and I apologize if you have been informed differently. I hope this information was helpful. Once again, thank you for taking the time to write to us. 

Sincerely,

Rebecca H.
407561
DIRECTV Customer Service


----------



## Upstream (Jul 4, 2006)

w6fxj said:


> For what it is worth here is a recent DirecTV email response when I asked for the criteria for "extending" a subscriber's "committment:
> 
> Here is a run down of the situation that a commitment may be extended.
> 
> ...


It would be nice if they would publish this on their website so customers would know when their commitments are supposed to be extended, and when they are extended in error.


----------



## Bama (Apr 24, 2007)

rudeney said:


> I'll grant you that my comment about the customer agreement changing every month was a gross exaggeration, but the reality is that it *does* change and in fact it did just last month when D* increased prices.
> 
> The problem with "knowing what you are signing" is irrelevant because the agreement can be changed at any time. Unfortunately, this is nothing unique to D*. Credit card companies do it all the time.
> 
> I don't want something for nothing, but I also do not believe D* should get "something" from me (say a two-year commitment) when I get "nothing" in return. If they send an installer out to setup a new dish and deliver equipment, then a commitment from me to is reasonable so they eventually get paid back for that expense. However, if I buy my own receiver, install it myself, and pay $20 for a new access card, they are giving me "nothing" and it is not reasonable for them to expect a new commitment in return. Unfortunately, they do, and because this is their policy, there is nothing to "fix".


You are not buying your receivers, you're leasing them. Buy them outright...no commitment. Get the protection plan...no commitment. I won't post anymore because what I have to say gets deleted but know that DTV will win because DTV made it clear to start with, no matter how much people want to whine about it.


----------



## w6fxj (Aug 10, 2005)

Upstream said:


> It would be nice if they would publish this on their website so customers would know when their commitments are supposed to be extended, and when they are extended in error.


 I received a call from DirecTV Email CSR Evan who insisted that they will not publish the committment extension rules because DirecTV may want to change the rules whenever they feel like it. Unfortunately, many CSR's do NOT follow the rules and many subscribers have no idea that the rules even exist.


----------



## rudeney (May 28, 2007)

Bama said:


> rudeney said:
> 
> 
> > I'll grant you that my comment about the customer agreement changing every month was a gross exaggeration, but the reality is that it *does* change and in fact it did just last month when D* increased prices.
> ...


Actually, I used to own all my receivers; I had a houseful of UTV's and a couple of old Sony SAT-A3's. On my last two calls to add UTV's (bought used on eBay) I was told activation required a two-year commitment (after I had already paid $20 for a new access card). The first time I was told this I (politely) argued and the CSR who then asked a supervisor and decided that they could waive the commitment since it was a self-install of owned equipment. The last time, I was told no how no way could the commitment be waived. I spoke to a supervisor, and even called back later and was told that any activation of equipment required a commitment. Period. So, D* gave me nothing, and in return the got (1) to spend $20 for a new access card, (2) to spend another $5/mo mirror fee and (3) a two-year commitment.



> Get the protection plan...no commitment.


I have (and always have had) the PP. I was still forced into a commitment when I added an owned receiver.



> DTV will win because DTV made it clear to start with, no matter how much people want to whine about it.


Yes, but they are winning through deception, or at the very least, by being incredibly vague with their terms of service. That is why this discussion started in the first place, because California consumers have had it and are fighting back. While I am all for open markets, consumers voting with their dollars, and less government involvement in my business, I do not want a company to be able to change the rules at the expense of the customer any time they feel like they need a profit boost. If they want profits, they need to earn them by providing valuable products and services.



w6fxj said:


> I received a call from DirecTV Email CSR Evan who insisted that they will not publish the committment extension rules because DirecTV may want to change the rules whenever they feel like it. Unfortunately, many CSR's do NOT follow the rules and many subscribers have no idea that the rules even exist.


CUSTOMER: Hi, I like to order DirecTV service.

D*: OK, just agree to our terms of service and you're all set with nearly 100 HD channels, clear all-digital service and the best customer satisfaction in the business!

CUSTOMER: Well, before I agree, I need to read the terms and understand them.

D*: Oh, well, we don't actually publish them because they can change, but that's OK because you're getting nearly 100 HD channels, clear all-digital service and the best customer satisfaction in the business!

CUSTOMER: But what if I don't like it? Can I cancel? Will there be penalties?

D*: Oh, don't worry about that! You'll be so happy with nearly 100 HD channels, clear all-digital service and the best customer satisfaction in the business!

CUSTOMER: Well, OK, I guess&#8230;


----------



## Upstream (Jul 4, 2006)

w6fxj said:


> I received a call from DirecTV Email CSR Evan who insisted that they will not publish the committment extension rules because DirecTV may want to change the rules whenever they feel like it. Unfortunately, many CSR's do NOT follow the rules and many subscribers have no idea that the rules even exist.


I don't believe that is the real reason DirecTV refuses to publish their commitment policies. If they published their policy on their website, they could change it any time they wanted anyway, just by changing what is published on their website.

I believe the real reason they don't publish their policy is either (A) they believe a published policy would put them at a competitive disadvantage, and therefore they prefer that their customers fly blind, and make purchases without realizing when their commitments are easily extended, or (B) there are legal ramifications of their lease model, such as warranty issues, that potentially vary from state-to-state, and DirecTV doesn't publish their commitment policy so they can claim CSR error when they fall astray of regulations.

Likewise, I don't believe that recouping hardware and installation costs is the reason for the commitment extension. DirecTV's most expensive receiver costs them $260, and the customer pays an up-front fee of $199 to lease that receiver. So if the customer actually purchased the receiver, DirecTV would only have invested $61 in the hardware. But since DirecTV leases, and does not sell the receiver, DirecTV gets the receiver back to send out to another customer if the first customer ever quits, so DirecTV isn't even out the $61. For installation, DirecTV pays the installers a nominal fee. And commitments are not reduced if the customer hires his own installer for the installation.

Certainly the out-of-pocket cost to DirecTV if a 4-month-old customer quits is far less than the $400 early termination fee or $500 upfront hardware fee to avoid the commitment. If a customer does not receive any service prices discounts, and pays for his own installation, then DirecTV has invested nothing in that particular customer and there is nothing for DirecTV to recoup on a leased receiver.

The only reason DirecTV insists on commitments for customers who receive no service price discounts (or such hefty commitments for customers with nominal price discounts) is to lock the customer in and attempt to reduce churn.


----------



## rudeney (May 28, 2007)

Upstream said:


> I don't believe that is the real reason DirecTV refuses to publish their commitment policies. If they published their policy on their website, they could change it any time they wanted anyway, just by changing what is published on their website.
> 
> I believe the real reason they don't publish their policy is either (A) they believe a published policy would put them at a competitive disadvantage, and therefore they prefer that their customers fly blind, and make purchases without realizing when their commitments are easily extended, or (B) there are legal ramifications of their lease model, such as warranty issues, that potentially vary from state-to-state, and DirecTV doesn't publish their commitment policy so they can claim CSR error when they fall astray of regulations.
> 
> ...


I agree with everything you have said. I do have one comment, though. Even if it only costs D* "$260" for a receiver that they lease (and possibly re-lease) for $199, that fact is immaterial. First of all, it's really not up to us to decide what is a reasonable markup. Also, consider that they do have R&D costs to recoup as a well as the costs of ongoing software development. In that regard, I don't have any issues with their margins on their receivers. I do still have issues with the way that they won't allow new customers to try their service before being locked into a costly commitment or how they sometimes lock existing customers into contracts without providing anything in return (i.e. when adding a used, owned self-installed receiver to an existing account).


----------



## Upstream (Jul 4, 2006)

Rodney -- your comments about the markup on the reciever is valid in regards to them setting a price for the receiver. But I am not talking about their selling price. I am talking about what it takes for DirecTV to recoup their costs. And DirecTV reported that the cost of their most expensive receiver is $260.

If a new customer pays nothing for the receiver, quits, and doesn't return the receiver, then DirecTV is only out $260. (And that assumes the full $260 is variable costs. If the $260 includes fixed costs, then DirecTV is out less.)

Sure, if you quit, DirecTV loses the opportunity to make a profit off you. But that is an opportunity cost, not an out of pocket cost. That is not a case of DirecTV giving something to the customer or spending money directly on the customer, and needing to get their expenses back.


----------



## GregLee (Dec 28, 2005)

Upstream said:


> For installation, DirecTV pays the installers a nominal fee.


What does "nominal" mean? There were two installers at my house for a good half day, and the dishes (2 1.2m.), tripods and lnbs they installed would cost me over $800 if I had to buy them separately. Are all those expenses to be brushed off as "nominal"?


----------



## Drew2k (Aug 16, 2006)

GregLee said:


> What does "nominal" mean? There were two installers at my house for a good half day, and the dishes (2 1.2m.), tripods and lnbs they installed would cost me over $800 if I had to buy them separately. Are all those expenses to be brushed off as "nominal"?


$800 doesnt seem to fit definition 2:

2.(of a price, consideration, etc.) named as a mere matter of form, being trifling in comparison with the actual value; minimal.


----------



## highheater (Aug 30, 2006)

w6fxj said:


> I received a call from DirecTV Email CSR Evan who insisted that they will not publish the committment extension rules because DirecTV may want to change the rules whenever they feel like it. Unfortunately, many CSR's do NOT follow the rules and many subscribers have no idea that the rules even exist.


As I have said all along - they make up the rules as they go along - but want you to follow them to a T. And just who is being disengenuineous here? Direct TV and any Fanboy who defends this policy.


----------



## igator99 (Jul 28, 2006)

veryoldschool said:


> California has some fairly good consumer protection laws for things like auto repair and consumer electronics. In fact I have more "protection" getting my car fixed than I do getting my teeth fixed, but that's another story.
> The "old days" of selling stereos had our state pass laws for consumer electronics, which DirecTV's current policies seem to violate [IMO].
> While my equipment is working fine and I don't plan to drop DirecTV anytime soon, I've always had a problem with the "blind" commitment. You have no option to see what you're getting before you're committed. This is what I think violates our consumer laws, as every other consumer electronic purchase, in this state, has the option to return it after you've "tried it out" in your home. It doesn't matter if you buy it at Staples, Fry's, or wherever, you have days, weeks, or a month to return it for any reason, if you're not satisfied.
> This was on last nights news: http://cbs13.com/consumer/Call.Kurtis.DirecTV.2.744375.html
> ...


GEAUX KATHY!!! Sock it to GreedTV. In the old days, D* almost seemed like a friend against the cable monopolies. Now they are just another greedy company.:kickbutt:


----------



## Upstream (Jul 4, 2006)

GregLee said:


> What does "nominal" mean? There were two installers at my house for a good half day, and the dishes (2 1.2m.), tripods and lnbs they installed would cost me over $800 if I had to buy them separately. Are all those expenses to be brushed off as "nominal"?


GregLee -- From what installers on this board have said, they are paid in the range of $25 to $50 per job for a standard install. What you had installed doesn't sound like a standard install, if they installed $800 worth of equipment and it took a good half day.

(And if they give some people $800 installations and others $30 installations, then they should vary the commitment based on the installation cost. Recouping the cost of installation does not explain why I had a two year commitment so DirecTV could recoup the cost of running a 20 foot length of coax.)


----------



## GregLee (Dec 28, 2005)

Upstream said:


> What you had installed doesn't sound like a standard install, if they installed $800 worth of equipment and it took a good half day.


It was standard for HD here in Hawaii, and nothing complicated aside from just bolting the tripods to a flat roof and boring a few holes straight through my walls for cables. I didn't say it was $800 worth of equipment -- just that the major parts would cost me more than that (not counting shipping or tax):

```
$160 DTVAH12DISH
$ 50 110/119 kit
$180 AZ/EL mount
$160 DTVAH12DISH
$120 99/101/103 kit
$180 AZ/EL mount
```


----------



## rudeney (May 28, 2007)

Upstream said:


> Rodney -- your comments about the markup on the reciever is valid in regards to them setting a price for the receiver. But I am not talking about their selling price. I am talking about what it takes for DirecTV to recoup their costs. And DirecTV reported that the cost of their most expensive receiver is $260.
> 
> If a new customer pays nothing for the receiver, quits, and doesn't return the receiver, then DirecTV is only out $260. (And that assumes the full $260 is variable costs. If the $260 includes fixed costs, then DirecTV is out less.)
> 
> Sure, if you quit, DirecTV loses the opportunity to make a profit off you. But that is an opportunity cost, not an out of pocket cost. That is not a case of DirecTV giving something to the customer or spending money directly on the customer, and needing to get their expenses back.


Don't get me wrong - I'm definitely no D* fanboy! I just tend to look at business transactions from a pragmatic angle. If it "costs" D* $260, regardless of whether that is in fixed hardware costs or variable labor costs, it does not matter. The price of a receiver should be based on market demand. If the market will bear a $1,000 price, then so be it. If not, then I will be less.

If D* is going to go with the lease model, then I'd rather not have any up-front costs and pay monthly. Although I have said many times that car lease analogies don't apply, in this case, they do: You have a risk in losing any up-front payments made on any lease. That risk can be minimized only be minimizing or eliminating what you pay up-front. When I lease a car, I pay either zero or possible the first month's payment up front. I'd prefer the same arrangement with D* receivers, but that is not an option. Since my only other choice is OTA locals or Charter Cable, I take the default choice and play D*'s game.


----------



## JLucPicard (Apr 27, 2004)

rudeney said:


> If D* is going to go with the lease model, then I'd rather not have any up-front costs and pay monthly.


I would MUCH rather pay whatever up-front lease costs there are to lease DirecTV equipment than to pay a monthly lease charge instead. MUCH prefer it.

I pretty much use my equipment until it croaks. I'd rather pay $200, $100, or nothing at all depending on how much they want to charge me up front than to pay a charge that they determine will be made up in x number of months when I use my equipment x+y number of months and it costs me a lot more in the long run. Plus it keeps the monthly charge down to a manageable level instead of a good chunk of each monthly bill being an equipment charge.

Did I happen to mention I would MUCH prefer to pay the lease charge up front? :lol:


----------

