# Directv Charging me ETF, They can't provide service



## dewrock (Nov 13, 2008)

Hi, I was forwarded to this website by a friend because I have an issue with Directv. Here's my story:

I signed up for DirecTV in February of 2008 and was under a 24 month commitment. I then moved back to Roanoke (from Radford) at the end of July and set up the service to be moved. I added another receiver and was told that would put me under an 18 month commitment but would basically just take the place of the other commitment that at the point was at 18 months. I asked if they were unable to install the service what would happen and they said they would cancel the "mover's connection" and waive the shipping and handling charges of the additional receiver.

Well the installer came and was unable to find a line of sight on the balcony of my apartment, which is the only place they could install it. He canceled the work order and told them it was because of a line of sight issue. I called Directv and told them of this and they said they would escalate the issue and would most likely have commitment/early cancellation fee waived because there was a line of sight issue. She said I would receive final word on the decision in about 10 bus. days, which I did not. I sent the receivers/remotes/smart cards back. A week or so later I got a call asking where the receivers were, FEDEX said they had been delivered. So I called Directv again to make sure and they said they had gotten them. I asked once more about the early cancellation fee because I hadn't heard anything about it but had gotten a final bill for $0.00. She said nothing was noted but that most likely it had been waived if I hadn't heard by now and had gotten a final bill asking for no money.

Now over a month later I have gotten a letter expressing regret that I had to cancel and that they hope I would consider them again in the future...and oh by the way you owe us $378 for early cancellation. I called and explained what had happened and they said that it was a valid charge and that what had been escalated to be waived was an additional commitment for the "mover's connection" and the cancellation fee for that, which they said had been waived but that the original commitment and cancellation fee was still valid. I explained that I had been told nothing about a new commitment with the "mover's connection" and that two separate CSRs had told me that the "cancellation fee would be escalated and waived".

No one had told me there were two separate commitments/cancellation fee, which to me is completely illogical and absurd. I talked to two different people (one was the supervisor I had asked for from the first girl who hung up on me), they were both rude and basically told me that the decision had been made, they couldn't help, and wanted no more to do with me or my questioning. I asked what the notes on the account said and they told me that there were no notes explaining two separate cancellation fees/commitments. The supervisor I spoke to told me that it was pointless to tell me what the notes said but I got her to eventually tell me. I got her to admit that no one had told me this on either call I made. She admitted that there were notes saying they told me that they were just escalating the issue of the "mover's connection" commitment/cancellation fee. She said she was sorry I was misinformed but that it didn't matter. I told her I was misinformed twice, she said too bad. But she said that it wouldn't matter and there wouldn't be any notes pertaining to that because "they have standard procedures that say they are supposed to tell the customer this". I told her that was all well and good but that having things you are supposed to tell the customer and actually telling the customer are two separate things.

So basically the whole time she was trying to get me off the phone and both ladies told me the only thing I could do was write a letter to the billing dispute department, which for some reason can't be reached via telephone.

Sorry for the long post but wanted to give all the details. My main question is how legal is this? First off can Directv legally extend my commitment without actually telling me? This question is kind of whatever because it was probably in some fine print on a bill or something. Although to hear the girl I talked to tell it, anytime you move or upgrade you extend your commitment, as she was trying to tell me that I was now under a three year commitment. I said that this didn't make any sense because new commitments are supposed to take over your prior commitments. With that logic, I could upgrade 3-4 different times over the course of 6 months and by then I would be under something like a 4-5 year commitment. Doesn't make any sense but it's par for the course I guess considering they basically told me I was under two separate contracts.

Anyways, sorry to ramble. The real question is can they legally charge me an early cancellation fee when they can't provide the service at my new residence? I'm all for honoring a contract and would have liked to continue with Directv but they can't find a line of sight and therefore can't keep up their end of the contract. Their reasoning is that I signed up for it at one house and they were able to provide it there. So they're pretty much telling me that I can't move.

I sent a letter to the billing dispute department detailing the problem and they wrote back with what seemed like a generic letter, basically telling me "tough luck, you're SOL".

Directv took the money from me without authorization and I tried to get them to refund it but they wouldn't. I then disputed this with my bank (Bank of America), BoA gave me the money back and presumably got the money back from Directv since Directv sent me a new statement asking for the $378 and showing a credit card reversal.

My dad has advised me since the beginning to not pay it and said I could dispute it later if it went to collections. Well I've now been getting calls (starting 11/10) from Allied Interstate since Monday say Directv is a client of theirs and asking for resolution on the bill...saying I can pay via credit, debit, or set up payments. They say they are giving me a chance before they will send me to collections, which is kind of silly since they are collections (although there is nothing on my credit report about a collections account). They basically tried to strong arm me into paying the bill by threatening me and saying "You should have paid your bills" and "Have fun trying to buy a car or house in the future" and I told them that I would have a big old party about it. I said I wasn't going to pay it because it's not a valid charge.

Anyways, I've gotten a call a day since Monday. What can I do about this? I don't think it's technically gone to collections yet since it's not on my credit report. The charge is for "only" $378, if it goes to collections how much will it hurt my credit score and what not? How can I dispute this as I really don't see how they can legally charge me a cancellation fee when they couldn't provide the service? If I was to take them to small claims court would I have a legitimate shot at getting the charge/collections dropped? Could I go to a lawyer an get them to write a letter or something?

Any help would be appreciated and sorry for the long post, but I wanted to get all of the info out there.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

I would email Ellen Filipak at [email protected].
Be nice [not that you aren't] explain everything and ask for help.
This is the office of the president, which has "other" people to correct "problems".
If DirecTV can't supply you with service, it's "not your fault" and you shouldn't be charged.


----------



## mtnrick (Aug 5, 2008)

I would honor my committment and pay the fee. Direct waived the concurrent agreement and installation charges when they were unable to complete the new install, however it was not Direct's fault that you moved and did not complete your original two year agreement at your previous location. As a subscriber I don't feel like I should subsidize your decision to move be completing your agreement. Now let me duck before the stones come my way


----------



## ejohnson (Jan 4, 2006)

Make sure that you get any agreements made in writing, and make sure you hold on to them. Also save copies of the shipping paperwork from your returned equipment (confirmation numbers, etc)

I had a similar issue a few years ago. All termination fees were agreed to be waived & all the receivers were returned. Six months later I got a letter from a collection agency looking for the ETF. The burden of proof was on me. Everything worked out OK, but only because I sent them copies of those documents.

I'm sure everything will work out for you as well, just be patient and pleasant.


----------



## dewrock (Nov 13, 2008)

mtnrick said:


> I would honor my committment and pay the fee. Direct waived the concurrent agreement and installation charges when they were unable to complete the new install, however it was not Direct's fault that you moved and did not complete your original two year agreement at your previous location. As a subscriber I don't feel like I should subsidize your decision to move be completing your agreement. Now let me duck before the stones come my way


No stones, but are you saying that I (or anyone else) shouldn't be allowed to move? The contract between me and Directv says they provide me with satellite television and I pay them each month. If they can't provide me with that service then why should I be penalized? And besides Directv never told me that I was under an additional commitment, just a new one, and they never told me that this additional commitment was the one being waived. I was led to believe that because of no line of sight that the whole thing would be waived. What kind of sense does it make to have multiple contracts?

Additionally, if I wanted to move to a place with no line of sight just "to get out my contract", then why would I make sure my apartment complex allows dishes (even though they can't not allow them), make sure I got an apartment that faced south, ordered an additional receiver for my 3rd roommate, and got the renter's insurance that my apartment complex requires? It wasn't until the technician came out that he realized there was no line of sight. I wanted to continue having Directv, I like it. But I called and told them there was no line of sight and wasn't even given any other options...they just told me they would go ahead and cancel the account and escalate the ETF to we waived because of no line of sight. I wasn't afforded any other options like setting it up at my parent's house or something until the contract was finished.


----------



## David MacLeod (Jan 29, 2008)

wonder if a different installer COULD get a LOS, although it may be to late at this point.


----------



## tcusta00 (Dec 31, 2007)

Same thing happened to me when I moved to my new house... you just need to be persistent. If they can't deliver the service they can't hold you to a contract and it's positively absurd for anyone here to suggest otherwise. Like VOS said above, email Ellen Filipiak if you can't get anywhere with the normal channels. 

FWIW, after a year with Comcast I ended up buying a chainsaw anyway to come back to DirecTV. :sure: :lol:


----------



## dewrock (Nov 13, 2008)

David MacLeod said:


> wonder if a different installer COULD get a LOS, although it may be to late at this point.


Yeah it's way too late at this point as this was back in July and all of the equipment was returned. If I wasn't led to believe that everything was cool and no ETF would be assessed, then I would have tried other stuff like setting it up at my parent's house or just having them come out repeatedly to try and install it until they finally got the hint.

Oh and I don't think any other installer could have gotten a LOS, brick wall on my balcony facing south.


----------



## dewrock (Nov 13, 2008)

tcusta00 said:


> Same thing happened to me when I moved to my new house... you just need to be persistent. If they can't deliver the service they can't hold you to a contract and it's positively absurd for anyone here to suggest otherwise. Like VOS said above, email Ellen Filipiak if you can't get anywhere with the normal channels.
> 
> FWIW, after a year with Comcast I ended up buying a chainsaw anyway to come back to DirecTV. :sure: :lol:


Yeah I just rattled off an email to her and included the letter I sent certified to the Billing Dispute Department. We'll see what happens.


----------



## BattleZone (Nov 13, 2007)

Let me start by saying that it's very likely that DirecTV is going to cancel the commitment and ETF.

Having said that, you agreed to keep the service for 2 years. Even if you didn't know at the time that you were moving, you still had a responsibility to that commitment. I know lots of people who move to apartments who have taken the time to make sure the apartment they were moving into would have line-of-site for their dish. When they look at places, if it doesn't have LOS, they move on to another apartment in the complex or go look at another complex. Knowing you had a commitment, this could have been done.

Again, DirecTV will probably drop the whole thing just to maintain good customer relations, but contractually, they aren't required to, so if they do, realize that they are giving you a "gift" that other subscribers have to pay for. They likely lost money giving you the service, as you haven't kept it long enough for them to recover their costs of getting it to you. Those costs get passed on to everyone else.

Just something to think about.


----------



## JoeF (Aug 20, 2007)

IIP said:


> Again, DirecTV will probably drop the whole thing just to maintain good customer relations, but contractually, they aren't required to, so if they do, realize that they are giving you a "gift" that other subscribers have to pay for.


I agree with the concept of what you say, however the problem is they already blew the "customer good will" when they dug heels in over the ETF. No matter what happens now, I suspect it will be a LONG TIME before the OP will consider becoming a D* subscriber again. The "pay it forward" for D* was to throw a bone and plant seed corn for his next move. If he was treated right, he'd make darn sure his next place has LOS.


----------



## Jared701 (Sep 9, 2008)

Before I ever signed up I asked about this issue. I was told by a CSR that there would be no ETF if I moved and was unable to get LOS at the place I moved to. It's sad to see that I was lied to ONCE AGAIN by a CSR or got one who had no training and yet the customer is expected to pay the bill for the misinformation we were assured.


----------



## rudeney (May 28, 2007)

If they don't end up waiving the charges, and you continue to refuse to pay, they take you to court. If so, it will be small claims court, so you can represent yourself or get a lawyer if you don't feel comfortable with that. If you are served a summons to appear in court and you MUST do so - do NOT ignore the summons! Note that you may be successful in requesting continuance if the date is a conflict. When you do appear in court, basically explain to the judge what you explained here:



> Well the installer came and was unable to find a line of sight on the balcony of my apartment, which is the only place they could install it. He canceled the work order and told them it was because of a line of sight issue. I called Directv and told them of this and they said they would escalate the issue and would most likely have commitment/early cancellation fee waived because there was a line of sight issue. She said I would receive final word on the decision in about 10 bus. days, which I did not. I sent the receivers/remotes/smart cards back. A week or so later I got a call asking where the receivers were, FEDEX said they had been delivered. So I called Directv again to make sure and they said they had gotten them. I asked once more about the early cancellation fee because I hadn't heard anything about it but had gotten a final bill for $0.00. She said nothing was noted but that most likely it had been waived if I hadn't heard by now and had gotten a final bill asking for no money.


Everything D* does is by "verbal agreement". Their verbal agreement to waive fees is just as valid as your verbal agreement to the original contract and commitment terms.


----------



## Matman (Mar 24, 2008)

Only other 2 cents I can add to this one, hang on to all your documentation on this one, if they do start posting things on your credit report noting account sent to collections, it is something that will haunt you for a few years. If you have all the documentation that will help, but its something that will not only drag down your score, but is flagged right at the top of the report. You obviously have mitigating circumstances, I would hang onto a copy of everything just in case to show how it got there and how it wasn't your fault.


----------



## jbeskow (Oct 25, 2008)

I would also add at the end of your letters to DirecTV that you did enjoy getting DirecTV but due to the LOS you cannot have it right now, but if DirecTV resolves this quickly and easily you will definitely reconsider DirecTV in the future after you move to place that has a LOS for you to receive DirecTV. And then DirecTV will more than make up for any loss they are taking now. 

It is possible the CSR did not have the authority to eliminate the charge and that is why they said there is nothing they could do. If I ever come across someone saying that I always clarify if they have the authority or if their supervisor/manager does. If neither of them do I ask if they can transfer to someone that does or ask them for recommendations on how to resolve my issue. In about everyone situation I have been in they are very nice about it. 

I would also send a letter to the collections department as well to explain the situation. Collection companies always use scare tactics to get people to pay. I would not pay it either. 

If nothing else get a friend that works or owns a law firm to use their company letter head. I know someone that did this because they were getting horrible cell service after moving and after the letter they received a letter stating it the early cancellation fee was waived.


----------



## tcusta00 (Dec 31, 2007)

I don't see anywhere in the service agreement that says that the customer needs to maintain LOS or he's gonna pay an ETF:

http://www.directv.com/DTVAPP/global/contentPageNR.jsp?assetId=P400042

If they can't deliver the service to the customer then it's absurd to assume they can penalize him. Most normal people don't go around with a compass assessing where their DirecTV dish is going to go on their new property (though I know a lot of people around here do just that). In addition to the lack of legal backing in their contract, they're destroying any goodwill and the chance that the customer will come back someday if he moves again.


----------



## edpowers (Aug 17, 2006)

IIP said:


> Let me start by saying that it's very likely that DirecTV is going to cancel the commitment and ETF.
> 
> Having said that, you agreed to keep the service for 2 years. Even if you didn't know at the time that you were moving, you still had a responsibility to that commitment. I know lots of people who move to apartments who have taken the time to make sure the apartment they were moving into would have line-of-site for their dish. When they look at places, if it doesn't have LOS, they move on to another apartment in the complex or go look at another complex. Knowing you had a commitment, this could have been done.


How do you know? Do you just automatically expect every person to understand the finer points of Directv Slimline dishpointing and line of sight issues? Give me a break. He agreed to service for 2 years and Directv can no longer provide that service. Is that his fault?

I am in a similar situation where I am moving and HOPE I have a decent line of sight. I have installed Slimline dishes in the past, but I'm still not certain I can get above the tree line. I asked the mover connection if they could give me their opinion. What do you think their answer was? No way.


----------



## David MacLeod (Jan 29, 2008)

sometimes moving is not a choice either. need to keep that in mind during these theoretical discussions.


----------



## dewrock (Nov 13, 2008)

IIP said:


> Let me start by saying that it's very likely that DirecTV is going to cancel the commitment and ETF.
> 
> Having said that, you agreed to keep the service for 2 years. Even if you didn't know at the time that you were moving, you still had a responsibility to that commitment. *I know lots of people who move to apartments who have taken the time to make sure the apartment they were moving into would have line-of-site for their dish. When they look at places, if it doesn't have LOS, they move on to another apartment in the complex or go look at another complex. Knowing you had a commitment, this could have been done.*
> 
> ...


Knowing I had a commitment, this is what was done. Every apartment complex I looked at, I called to make sure they allowed satellite dishes (even though they can't prohibit them) and made sure they had apartments that faced the southern sky. I got an apartment just like that, got the renter's insurance that the management required and set up the mover's connection. Once they come out and see that their is no LOS, I'm sure as hell not going to switch apartments. I get that I was under a commitment, which is why I tried everything to honor it. I didn't want to cancel Directv...I very much enjoyed it. But that commitment works both ways and with this logic, the bottomline is that it comes back to Directv prohibiting their customers from moving. I don't see how their is any legal grounds for that, unless they could somehow prove that the customer specifically decided to move to a place with no LOS simply to get out of their contract. That seems a little contrived to me. People don't just up and move because they want a different television provider.

And I really don't see how Directv is losing any money. They got all of their equipment back, which they will test and then send right back out to another customer. The dish I had at the original home is still there because that's how all satellite companies work...that's free advertisement for them and when someone calls to set up installation they are using that dish. Directv is costing themselves more money simply by paying all of these people who are dealing with customers like me, trying to get $378.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

dewrock said:


> Knowing I had a commitment, this is what was done. Every apartment complex I looked at, I called to make sure they allowed satellite dishes (even though they can't prohibit them) and made sure they had apartments that faced the southern sky. I got an apartment just like that, got the renter's insurance that the management required and set up the mover's connection. Once they come out and see that their is no LOS, I'm sure as hell not going to switch apartments. I get that I was under a commitment, which is why I tried everything to honor it. I didn't want to cancel Directv...I very much enjoyed it. But that commitment works both ways and with this logic, the bottomline is that it comes back to Directv prohibiting their customers from moving. I don't see how their is any legal grounds for that, unless they could somehow prove that the customer specifically decided to move to a place with no LOS simply to get out of their contract. That seems a little contrived to me. People don't just up and move because they want a different television provider.
> 
> And I really don't see how Directv is losing any money. They got all of their equipment back, which they will test and then send right back out to another customer. The dish I had at the original home is still there because that's how all satellite companies work...that's free advertisement for them and when someone calls to set up installation they are using that dish. Directv is costing themselves more money simply by paying all of these people who are dealing with customers like me, trying to get $378.


Send the email. You have taken "reasonable steps" to keep their service. I think if you follow through, you'll find your problem resolved fairly.
The CSRs simply don't have the "power" [maybe will] in come cases. As with many companies, once you get to the person with "the computer key" that works on the system, things get resolved as they should.


----------



## BattleScott (Aug 29, 2006)

I would guess that there are "good faith" statutes on the books in every state that would cover this. Both parties made acceptable efforts to continue the terms of the aggrement, so this would simply be ruled a no fault situation. 
I would suggest looking up the statute on-line and referencing it in a certified letter to the collection agency address. I would also forward it electronically to the above email address for the office of the president.


----------



## rudeney (May 28, 2007)

Oh, there are no problems with him terminating the "contract". D* has done that. The issue is the ETF's, which is totally separate. While I do agree with D* using ETF’s to recover the costs of new installs or significant upgrades, I believe they should be waived in this case. There really needs to be some common sense used here. For example, waive ETF’s if the commitment has been active for at least 6 months and a subscriber moves and there is no LOS.


----------



## dcandmc (Sep 24, 2008)

I'm an attorney and I used to do collections work (mostly commercial, but some consumer, which this falls under). I would be *extremely* surprised if D* takes you to court over $378, as it would cost them way more than that to file suit and prosecute (attorney fees, cost of serving process, providing a witness, etc.), even in small claims court. And no attorney (with an ounce of self respect) would take a case this small on a contingency basis. The worst that they can do is harass you through a collection agency and ding you on your credit reports. Anyone facing debt collection should famialarize themselves with the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (both federal and any applicable state version) and use this knowledge against agressive debt collectors. Google is your friend. Anyone who feels that their credit reports have been unfairly dinged should provide a written response to the reporting agencies, disputing the negative information.

This post is not intended to provide any legal advice and in no way forms an attorney-client relationship.


----------



## MIKE0616 (Dec 13, 2006)

mtnrick said:


> I would honor my committment and pay the fee. Direct waived the concurrent agreement and installation charges when they were unable to complete the new install, however it was not Direct's fault that you moved and did not complete your original two year agreement at your previous location. *As a subscriber *I don't feel like I should subsidize your decision to move be completing your agreement. Now let me duck before the stones come my way


But how do you feel as an employee? :lol: :lol: :lol:

The OP moved, D* cannot provide service at the new location, so it is D*'s fault, not the OP's. For them to be unable to provide service and want to charge for that short-coming is totally and patently absurd. If they cannot provide service EVERYWHERE, whose fault is that? Why don't they have 500 satellites to make sure they can cover all people, everywhere? That is no more absurd than your comments.

If all fails, tell the collection agency to not call you any more and send you PROOF that you owe the 378$. IF they actually send you a notice, dispute the amount and take it to the state Attorney General's Office. They will be most happy to inform the nitwits at D* of the consumer rights in the state.

And people wonder why someone wouldn't recommend D* to their friends and family? Go Figure!


----------



## BattleZone (Nov 13, 2007)

dewrock said:


> Knowing I had a commitment, this is what was done. Every apartment complex I looked at, I called to make sure they allowed satellite dishes (even though they can't prohibit them) and made sure they had apartments that faced the southern sky. I got an apartment just like that, got the renter's insurance that the management required and set up the mover's connection. Once they come out and see that their is no LOS, I'm sure as hell not going to switch apartments.


Okay, I can believe that. Just as an aside (it's likely irrelevant now), there's a decent chance that the installers who showed up didn't try very hard to get you LOS, or they may have declared no LOS due to your angles to 110/119, which may not be necessary for you with the right equipment. This is NOT your fault, of course, and may or may not be the fault of the installers, as they may only have equipment available to them that requires 110/119. We might have been able to help you there had you posted at the time (or maybe you did).

Anyway, I'm glad you at least put some effort into it, and I'm sorry it didn't work out for you. I go to a LOT of customers who move into north-facing balcony apartments, or apartments where the balcony is *completely* covered, top and sides, by huge trees, who then want to yell at ME or my techs because we can't get them LOS.



> And I really don't see how Directv is losing any money.


DirecTV has to pay for your installation labor (and the payout to the HSP is a LOT more than what the tech actually gets paid), the equipment itself, the shipping to return your receivers, and in many cases, a sales commission to the company you ordered from. That's not counting the advertising costs that helped bring you in, or the discounts for the programming, and any other discounts or rebates. It typically costs about $800-1000 to aquire a new customer, before paying for any of the programming to the content providers. They don't usually make money on a customer until the 2nd year.


----------



## paulman182 (Aug 4, 2006)

From what I have read on over two years on this forum, the ETF will more than likely be refunded. There is nothing in the agreement that says they will, though, so it is decided on a case-by-case basis.

However, we do pretty much unconditionally agree to the two year term and are at their mercy. 

I have no idea what a court would say, but I don't think it will go that far.


----------



## rudeney (May 28, 2007)

dcandmc said:


> I'm an attorney and I used to do collections work (mostly commercial, but some consumer, which this falls under). I would be *extremely* surprised if D* takes you to court over $378, as it would cost them way more than that to file suit and prosecute (attorney fees, cost of serving process, providing a witness, etc.), even in small claims court. And no attorney (with an ounce of self respect) would take a case this small on a contingency basis. The worst that they can do is harass you through a collection agency and ding you on your credit reports.


I used to work for a company that wrote the most popular legal debt collection software in the country. We had 400+ law firms using our software and any one of them would have taken this claim 9in fact, I'll guess that at least one of them is already handling D* claims).

Consumer collection cases are different from commercial. First of all, most are contingency based. The attorney fees that the debtor may owe are defined by the state and not necessarily equal to what the creditor pays the attorney. Actual court costs are also normally recoverable from the debtor. A $378 debt here would likely en up being a total claim for about $700. Given a typical contingency fee of 30% (less court costs), that would around $200 for the attorney. And all that has to be done is file the suit and server the summons. Less than 1% of debtors actually appear in court, so there are no witnesses and an easy default judgment. Even if the debtor appears, most of the time, there are no witnesses as the attorney simply submits a copy of the contract. Consumer debt collection is very lucrative.



> Anyone facing debt collection should famialarize themselves with the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (both federal and any applicable state version) and use this knowledge against agressive debt collectors. Google is your friend. Anyone who feels that their credit reports have been unfairly dinged should provide a written response to the reporting agencies, disputing the negative information.


EXCELLENT advice. FDCPA is the consumer's friend. Often times, all it takes to make things like this go away is one letter to the creditor, quoting your rights under FDCPA and giving them 30 days to provide bona-fide evidence of the validity of the debt.



> This post is not intended to provide any legal advice and in no way forms an attorney-client relationship.


Darn! I always like getting free legal advice from strangers!


----------



## dewrock (Nov 13, 2008)

IIP said:


> DirecTV has to pay for your installation labor (and the payout to the HSP is a LOT more than what the tech actually gets paid), the equipment itself, the shipping to return your receivers, and in many cases, a sales commission to the company you ordered from. That's not counting the advertising costs that helped bring you in, or the discounts for the programming, and any other discounts or rebates. It typically costs about $800-1000 to aquire a new customer, before paying for any of the programming to the content providers. They don't usually make money on a customer until the 2nd year.


Thanks for replying and if I sounded snippy before, I didn't mean to and apologize. I just think Directv is equally responsible for holding up their end of the bargain as I am. It's not like I'm asking for any money...nobody is at fault and the matter should just be dropped. And I think it's on Directv to prove that they are losing $400 and not just trying to extort it from their customers.


----------



## Ken S (Feb 13, 2007)

IIP said:


> DirecTV has to pay for your installation labor (and the payout to the HSP is a LOT more than what the tech actually gets paid), the equipment itself, the shipping to return your receivers, and in many cases, a sales commission to the company you ordered from. That's not counting the advertising costs that helped bring you in, or the discounts for the programming, and any other discounts or rebates. It typically costs about $800-1000 to aquire a new customer, before paying for any of the programming to the content providers. They don't usually make money on a customer until the 2nd year.


Subscriber Acquisition Cost is not $800-$1000, it does include the cost of the receivers. Since DirecTV received the receivers back and will reuse them with another customer their actual damages are far less than the whole of the SAC. SAC also includes a factor for advertising...which of course would have been spent had this customer signed up or not.

Not saying they made money off this guy or not...but you're overstating the loss.


----------



## igator99 (Jul 28, 2006)

tcusta00 said:


> I don't see anywhere in the service agreement that says that the customer needs to maintain LOS or he's gonna pay an ETF:
> 
> http://www.directv.com/DTVAPP/global/contentPageNR.jsp?assetId=P400042
> 
> If they can't deliver the service to the customer then it's absurd to assume they can penalize him. Most normal people don't go around with a compass assessing where their DirecTV dish is going to go on their new property (though I know a lot of people around here do just that). In addition to the lack of legal backing in their contract, they're destroying any goodwill and the chance that the customer will come back someday if he moves again.


The DirecTV commitment thing is absurd with something as ify as a satellite signal. There are 100 different reasons you could lose your signal in two years. What happens if you die?:nono2:


----------



## tcusta00 (Dec 31, 2007)

igator99 said:


> The DirecTV commitment thing is absurd with something as ify as a satellite signal. There are 100 different reasons you could lose your signal in two years. What happens if you die?:nono2:


I have no problem with a commitment. If you're jumping providers every year you've got some issues that the company obviously doesn't want to have to deal with.

If you die then the contract usually becomes null and void. I had a cell phone company and DirecTV both void the contracts without ETFs in the case of a death in my family.


----------



## igator99 (Jul 28, 2006)

tcusta00 said:


> I have no problem with a commitment. If you're jumping providers every year you've got some issues that the company obviously doesn't want to have to deal with.
> 
> If you die then the contract usually becomes null and void. I had a cell phone company and DirecTV both void the contracts without ETFs in the case of a death in my family.


I don't have a problem with the commitment if you can get the signal. I have a problem if something happens and you no longer can get it and then they want to whack you going out.


----------



## tcusta00 (Dec 31, 2007)

igator99 said:


> I don't have a problem with the commitment if you can get the signal. I have a problem if something happens and you no longer can get it and then they want to whack you going out.


I think moving is pretty much the only thing that would cause you to lose a signal in two years outside of wind blowing a poorly installed dish out of alignment or something else that would be fixable quite easily... trees don't grow that fast.


----------



## Shades228 (Mar 18, 2008)

Your installer didn't cancel the work order due to line of site. If he had this wouldn't be an issue at the moment.


----------



## ehilbert1 (Jan 23, 2007)

This very thing happened to a relative of mine. He went through the same crap you did. It went on an on and finally he said screw it and paid with his AMEX card. He had great credit and didn't want it ruined. A couple of days later he was still steamed and called American Express back and spoke with someone in their dispute department. They told him to dispute the charges,but to make sure he has enough info to back up what he was saying. He was smart and docummented every call names,numbers times of the day and even emails that were sent. He sent in all that info and within two weeks he gets a call from American Express and they tell him it's been resolved. 

I don't know if that will work for eveyone,but it did work for him. I know there will be people saying he was in the wrong and he had a commitment. What no one ever seems to take into consideration on here is a lot of times D* is in the wrong. He has 3 reps and a supervisor tell he he wouldn't have to pay and then they charge him for it. It's just wrong for them to do that. If they would have told him from the begining he wouldn't have been pissed,but bad trainning and customer service again. Like I said I don't know what to tell you,but you could give that a shot. American Express is ruthless when you dispute and have the info to back it up.


----------



## dewrock (Nov 13, 2008)

Shades228 said:


> Your installer didn't cancel the work order due to line of site. If he had this wouldn't be an issue at the moment.


Yes he did, because the CSR told me he did and I even called him after to make sure that he did and he said that he did.

What they told me is that they canceled and waived the ETF for the alleged new commitment I was under from the mover's connect because of the LOS issue.


----------



## tim99 (Sep 14, 2007)

I've never had a programming commitment (my account explicitly says so) but I do have a copy of the Lease contract I am often asked to sign.

It says 'PROGRAMMING COMMITMENT - The programming package(s) must be maintained for a period not less than blah blah.

How can you maintain something you can't even get? 

I wonder how many people who think you are liable would be willing to pay for their service if D* couldn't provide it to them any more.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

tcusta00 said:


> I think moving is pretty much the only thing that would cause you to lose a signal in two years outside of wind blowing a poorly installed dish out of alignment or something else that would be fixable quite easily... trees don't grow that fast.


They do here and they're not on my property to be able to trim. I need to move my dish's location about every two years and now I'm 10' over my property line, but have an understanding neighbor.


----------



## David MacLeod (Jan 29, 2008)

I have 2 trees that have grown 30 feet in height and 15 feet in diameter in 2.5 years. hybrid poplars.
so they can grow that quick, although this is probably an exception.
but OT anyway


----------



## JLucPicard (Apr 27, 2004)

ehilbert1 said:


> He has 3 reps and a supervisor tell he he wouldn't have to pay and then they charge him for it. It's just wrong for them to do that. If they would have told him from the begining he wouldn't have been pissed,but bad trainning and customer service again.


My take from reading the posts in this thread is that there is some confusion with regard to which "commitment" is involved.

If I'm understanding things correctly, the OP originally had a two year commitment. When he moved, he had 18 months left on that commitment.

Also when he moved, he added to his account a standard receiver. That in itself carries an 18 month commitment period that would have run concurrent with the original one. When it was deterimined on his Movers Connection appointment that the tech could not get line of sight, the additional receiver, and therefore it's accompanying commitment were removed. The receiver was removed right away, the commitment associated with that receiver had to be disputed.

None of that activity rescinded the original two year commitment that had 18 months remaining. I'm guessing that the commitment the the three CSRs and supervisors were saying was cancelled with no charge was that associated with the additional requested receiver.

That leaves the issue of the original commitment which is what is being dealt with now.

At least that's my take on it, for what it's worth.


----------



## tcusta00 (Dec 31, 2007)

veryoldschool said:


> They do here and they're not on my property to be able to trim. I need to move my dish's location about every two years and now I'm 10' over my property line, but have an understanding neighbor.





David MacLeod said:


> I have 2 trees that have grown 30 feet in height and 15 feet in diameter in 2.5 years. hybrid poplars.
> so they can grow that quick, although this is probably an exception.
> but OT anyway


Yes, but you gents missed the point... he would have been out of the contract if his tree situation were the same as yours, thus not triggering an ETF. His statement was "There are 100 different reasons you could lose your signal in two years." I haven't been able to think of 1 that's not easily rectifiable.


----------



## Kansas Zephyr (Jun 30, 2007)

tim99 said:


> I've never had a programming commitment (my account explicitly says so) but I do have a copy of the Lease contract I am often asked to sign.
> 
> It says 'PROGRAMMING COMMITMENT - The programming package(s) must be maintained for a period not less than blah blah.
> 
> ...


Playing devil's advocate here:

So, if you lease a car...and sign a two year contract.

You can then move out to a rural farm, with no roads, and ask them to break the contract, with no penalty, since you can't use the car anymore.


----------



## rudeney (May 28, 2007)

Kansas Zephyr said:


> Playing devil's advocate here:
> 
> So, if you lease a car...and sign a two year contract.
> 
> You can then move out to a rural farm, with no roads, and ask them to break the contract, with no penalty, since you can't use the car anymore.


Car lease analogies rarely work with D*...Besides the fact that a place with no roads where you can't use a car is almost unheard of in the USA, you can still drive your car in plenty of places with roads and use it as intended. In the case of a move to a home with no LOS, you can't use D* as intended no matter what you do.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

Kansas Zephyr said:


> Playing devil's advocate here:
> 
> So, if you lease a car...and sign a two year contract.
> 
> You can then move out to a rural farm, with no roads, and ask them to break the contract, with no penalty, since you can't use the car anymore.


Not quite the same.
DirecTV offers a service [not hardware], both parties agree to the service. DirecTV can no longer supply their service.
While "I think" I understand both sides, it isn't "unreasonable" for one to need to move and try all "reasonable" efforts to retain service.
First commitment can't be continued & the second commitment should never have been in place as the service offered wasn't completed.
This leaves the first commitment and with every reasonable effort made by the customer to reattain the service, the customer has upheld their part. This leaves DirecTV not up holding their end and therefore no ETF "should be" required.
I too asked about this before I agreed to mine and was told once it was proved I could no longer receive service [I'd need to pay for the service call to prove this] that the ETF wouldn't be charged.


----------



## David MacLeod (Jan 29, 2008)

tcusta00 said:


> Yes, but you gents missed the point... he would have been out of the contract if his tree situation were the same as yours, thus not triggering an ETF. His statement was "There are 100 different reasons you could lose your signal in two years." I haven't been able to think of 1 that's not easily rectifiable.


gotcha, my bad 
still, pretty impressive growth isn't it  :eek2:


----------



## dewrock (Nov 13, 2008)

JLucPicard said:


> My take from reading the posts in this thread is that there is some confusion with regard to which "commitment" is involved.
> 
> If I'm understanding things correctly, the OP originally had a two year commitment. When he moved, he had 18 months left on that commitment.
> 
> ...


Yep that's what they told me (although I think the other poster was referring to his relative's situation). To me that makes no sense. If you upgrade or whatever that new commitment takes the place of the old commitment, therefore that is the only commitment. It's completely illogical to go back to some old commitment retroactively. Like I said, the CSRs were trying to tell me that anytime you upgrade something you go under a new commitment that gets added onto your previous commitment. That makes no sense because say you upgraded or added a receiver every 3 months or so, you'd end up under a 4-5 year contract.

Bottomline though is that there was never a differentiation made between the alleged two different contracts and which was being waived until after they decided to charge me and ETF.


----------



## dewrock (Nov 13, 2008)

Kansas Zephyr said:


> Playing devil's advocate here:
> 
> So, if you lease a car...and sign a two year contract.
> 
> You can then move out to a rural farm, with no roads, and ask them to break the contract, with no penalty, since you can't use the car anymore.


That's clearly not the same thing. Once the car has been sold to you, the dealer's end of the contract is finished...all that's left is for you to pay them. If it was in the contract that they had to provide you with roads to drive in then it might be the same thing.

Again, and I know you're just playing devil's advocate, I didn't want to cancel my Directv service. They couldn't provide it so I had no choice.


----------



## Kansas Zephyr (Jun 30, 2007)

veryoldschool said:


> Not quite the same.
> DirecTV offers a service [not hardware], both parties agree to the service. DirecTV can no longer supply their service.


Like I said, I'm playing Devil's advocate here. I hope the fee gets waived.

But, the cost of the hardware is discounted based on the agreement to keep the service for a minimum of two years.


----------



## Kansas Zephyr (Jun 30, 2007)

rudeney said:


> Car lease analogies rarely work with D*...Besides the fact that a *place with no roads where you can't use a car is almost unheard of in the USA*, you can still drive your car in plenty of places with roads and use it as intended. In the case of a move to a home with no LOS, you can't use D* as intended no matter what you do.


No kidding.

I was merely making a point.

However, moving to a location without LOS is the decision of the person moving. Whether it be intentional or accidental.


----------



## Kansas Zephyr (Jun 30, 2007)

dewrock said:


> That's clearly not the same thing. *Once the car has been sold to you, the dealer's end of the contract is finished*...all that's left is for you to pay them.


I hope you get the fee waived...and all of the trouble associated with it goes away quickly.

But, with a lease...the car is not sold to you.


----------



## dewrock (Nov 13, 2008)

Kansas Zephyr said:


> Like I said, I'm playing Devil's advocate here.* I hope the fee gets waived.
> *
> But, the cost of the hardware is discounted based on the agreement to keep the service for a minimum of two years.


Thanks, I do too.

I understand that the cost of the hardware is discounted (I used to work for Dish Network), but they got all of it back and they'll just reuse it with another customer. I fail to see how they're losing any money in regards to the equipment.


----------



## JLucPicard (Apr 27, 2004)

dewrock said:


> Bottomline though is that there was never a differentiation made between the alleged two different contracts and which was being waived until after they decided to charge me and ETF.


And I can chalk that up to the CSRs/supervisor not understanding properly or not communicating properly.

I think what really muddied the waters here is the coincidence of the 18 months remaining on the original commitment. Had there been only twelve months left on the original two year commitment, for instance, the new 18 month commitment would not have "wiped out" that remaining twelve months until the new receiver was activated on the account. As it wasn't activated, the original commitment remains in force with the time remaining on it.

Now, hopefully DirecTV will see that you took extensive measures to try to fulfill your end of it and do the right thing. I wish you the best of luck.


----------



## dewrock (Nov 13, 2008)

Kansas Zephyr said:


> I hope you get the fee waived.
> 
> But, with a lease...*the car is not sold to you*.


Well now that's just semantics. And the point remains the same though.


----------



## JLucPicard (Apr 27, 2004)

dewrock said:


> Thanks, I do too.
> 
> I understand that the cost of the hardware is discounted (I used to work for Dish Network), but they got all of it back and they'll just reuse it with another customer. I fail to see how they're losing any money in regards to the equipment.


They got the receivers back. They still paid a tech to install a dish (which may or may not ever be used again and is likely lost cost), cables, etc. Yes, a lot less than the original cost of all the equipment, but still money spent.

I do hope that when this is resolved - hopefully by you getting the ETF back & waived - that you will update us.

By the way, I don't know if this was said yet, but WELCOME TO DBSTalk! :welcome_s


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

Kansas Zephyr said:


> Like I said, I'm playing Devil's advocate here. I hope the fee gets waived.
> 
> But, the cost of the hardware is discounted based on the agreement to keep the service for a minimum of two years.


I think most of us want to see the ETF waived.

And since the hardware goes back "into the pool" the discounted cost goes back too. Now if the hardware wasn't to be reused [say cellphones] then "of course".


----------



## dewrock (Nov 13, 2008)

JLucPicard said:


> They got the receivers back. They still paid a tech to install a dish (which may or may not ever be used again and is likely lost cost), cables, etc. Yes, a lot less than the original cost of all the equipment, but still money spent.
> 
> I do hope that when this is resolved - hopefully by you getting the ETF back & waived - that you will update us.
> 
> By the way, I don't know if this was said yet, but WELCOME TO DBSTalk! :welcome_s


I'd say chances are that the dish will be used again and if it is the tech most likely has no work to do except for making sure signal is running to all the rooms. And if we're being fair, most of the time techs will use the existing cable, so they're really only mounting a dish and connecting the switch to the cables and then activating the receivers.

Like I said, I worked for Dish Network and I never remember not waiving an ETF for someone who moved and could no longer get signal. Even if trees grew and blocked signal, they would send a tech out to try and get signal elsewhere and if he couldn't, they would cancel the account and waive the ETF.

Oh and I will definitely update you...and thanks for the welcome.


----------



## Upstream (Jul 4, 2006)

dewrock said:


> I fail to see how they're losing any money in regards to the equipment.


They're not.

The commitment has nothing to do with recouping costs. (If it did, the length of commitment would be linked to what you paid for the equipment, what the equipment cost DirecTV, and whether you did a self-install.)

The only purpose of the commitment is to provide a disincentive to churn.


----------



## edpowers (Aug 17, 2006)

Kansas Zephyr said:


> Playing devil's advocate here:
> 
> So, if you lease a car...and sign a two year contract.
> 
> You can then move out to a rural farm, with no roads, and ask them to break the contract, with no penalty, since you can't use the car anymore.


Your analogy is upside down ... flip it around. You lease a car and sign a two year contract. You move 2 blocks away and suddenly the car doesn't work anymore. You bring it back to the dealer (since it still has a full bumper to bumper warranty, and you still want to use the car), but the dealer tells you nothing can be done, because you moved two blocks away. They tell you to return the car and pay an early termination fee.


----------



## Ken S (Feb 13, 2007)

Why doesn't DirecTV just move its satellites to get him proper LoS?
It's time for both parties to be reasonable and a reasonable settlement reached.


----------



## tcusta00 (Dec 31, 2007)

All fair and reasonable discussion seems to have flown out the window at this point... the car analogy ain't cuttin' it for reasons delineated above. It's fair to let the guy out of the contract but the problem is DirecTV doesn't have a policy written on it (formally that we know of) so we end up having to fight a little harder to get it done. I was able to do with without letters and a lot of brouhaha, but it's all in who you get on the phone and how you approach it.


----------



## rudeney (May 28, 2007)

Kansas Zephyr said:


> No kidding.
> 
> I was merely making a point.


Just to clarify, i wasn't jumping on you or anything - just noting that as usual, car lease analogies really don;t work for D* (and I;ve been guilty of trying to make them fit myself)! 



> However, moving to a location without LOS is the decision of the person moving. Whether it be intentional or accidental.


Yes, that is a decision totally out of D*'s control, but I don't believe that means D* should be able to penalize a person for that. Here's an analogy that (I think!) fits. If you rent an apartment, you generally sign a lease. If you choose to move before the end of the lease, you generally have to pay a penalty. Some landlords make you pay the full amount of all monthly rent payment through the end of the lease, while others may make you less, such as two months plus forfeit the deposit. This is similar to D*'s commitment term. However, most all apartment leases have clauses for job relocation. It's common for them to let renters out of the lease when they take jobs more than 50 miles away. Often the renter still owes something, but usually much less than if they just decided to move out for no other reason. The landlord basically figures relocation due to employment (either voluntary or at the direction of the employer) is a very important decision and sort of "trumps" the desire to keep renters locked into lease terms. My opinion is that in the case of D* vs. the move, the decision of where to live and its possibility of not having LOS is much more important and "trumps" D*'s desire to reduce churn and recover installation costs.


----------



## tim99 (Sep 14, 2007)

Yes but in your analogy it would have been him that decided he didn't want the car because he moved to a place with no roads. In his situation it didn't start with him wanting to end his service because he moved, in fact the exact opposite. He was more than willing to pay for the service he agreed to. His original position was 'provide the car and I'll pay for it'.

But in this case because of limitations in their technology they have in essence refused to provide service.

Would you still pay for the car if the company couldn't provide it?



Kansas Zephyr said:


> Playing devil's advocate here:
> 
> So, if you lease a car...and sign a two year contract.
> 
> You can then move out to a rural farm, with no roads, and ask them to break the contract, with no penalty, since you can't use the car anymore.


----------



## curt8403 (Dec 27, 2007)

this thread is getting wildly out of hand. I suspect that we will soon see


----------



## edpowers (Aug 17, 2006)

tcusta00 said:


> All fair and reasonable discussion seems to have flown out the window at this point... the car analogy ain't cuttin' it for reasons delineated above. It's fair to let the guy out of the contract but the problem is DirecTV doesn't have a policy written on it (formally that we know of) so we end up having to fight a little harder to get it done. I was able to do with without letters and a lot of brouhaha, but it's all in who you get on the phone and how you approach it.


Which, in my experience, has always been the case with DirecTV. It all depends on who you get on the phone. The difference between one Customer Service Rep and another Rep can be nothing short of astonishing. One will shoot you down without hesitation ... call back 10 seconds later, and a different Rep will go above and beyond to help you out.


----------



## Kansas Zephyr (Jun 30, 2007)

edpowers said:


> Your analogy is upside down ... flip it around. You lease a car and sign a two year contract. You move 2 blocks away and suddenly the car doesn't work anymore. You bring it back to the dealer (since it still has a full bumper to bumper warranty, and you still want to use the car), but the dealer tells you nothing can be done, because you moved two blocks away. They tell you to return the car and pay an early termination fee.


I don't agree.

If you flip it...that would be akin to the receivers breaking during a move...and they would be replaced by D*.

Your flip would be more accurate if you moved 2 blocks away, and suddenly fuel (LOS) isn't available, the car (receiver) works however. Is that D*'s fault?

Choosing to move to a location where they can't work is the decision of the individual moving. He/she is breaking the contract, again whether intentional or accidental.

Again, I hope the ETF goes away...and I think it will.


----------



## Kansas Zephyr (Jun 30, 2007)

rudeney said:


> However, most all apartment leases have clauses for job relocation. It's common for them to let renters out of the lease when they take jobs more than 50 miles away.


+1

But, is that in our D* agreement? If not, it doesn't apply.

Perhaps that is something D* should consider including.


----------



## rudeney (May 28, 2007)

It definitely would be nice if everything was spelled out to the letter in our contracts, but so much of D*'s business model is based on verbal agreements that it makes it easier to make "dynamic" decisions. Sometimes that's a good things, but sometimes not so good. I hope that the OP gets a good response from Ellen Filipiak. My guess is that he will.


----------



## Kansas Zephyr (Jun 30, 2007)

rudeney said:


> I hope that the OP gets a good response from Ellen Filipiak. My guess is that he will.


+1


----------



## tim99 (Sep 14, 2007)

Yes of course it is. They are the exclusive fuel provider and cannot provide it.



Kansas Zephyr said:


> Your flip would be more accurate if you moved 2 blocks away, and suddenly fuel (LOS) isn't available, the car (receiver) works however. Is that D*'s fault?


----------



## Kansas Zephyr (Jun 30, 2007)

tim99 said:


> Yes of course it is. They are the exclusive fuel provider and cannot provide it.


...only because of the decision of the individual that moved. The choice was made, intentional or not, to relocate to an area with no LOS by the end user.

Again, not D*'s fault. For now, it is the responsibility of the individual.

Refer to posts #66 and #68, please.


----------



## fluffybear (Jun 19, 2004)

I hate Early Termination Fee's. I realize they are a necessity but sometimes I think some of these companies purposely go out and put the biggest jerks in their billing department.

When I moved from Northern Minnesota to Atlanta, Verizon tried to charge me an ETF for no other reason then I moved across state lines. It did not matter that I still had their service and did the entire move through their relocation department. As far they were concerned, I owed that ETF.

I ended up winning my fight but the hours wasted on the telephone and rehashing the same story over and over again disgusts me. I wish the OP well as based on his story, DirecTV made a mistake and needs to fix it..


----------



## dewrock (Nov 13, 2008)

Kansas Zephyr said:


> I don't agree.
> 
> If you flip it...that would be akin to the receivers breaking during a move...and they would be replaced by D*.
> 
> ...


If it was Directv's responsibility to provide the fuel (satellite service) then yes it would be their fault (in a general sense, I'm not necessarily blaming Directv for anything).


----------



## igator99 (Jul 28, 2006)

tcusta00 said:


> I think moving is pretty much the only thing that would cause you to lose a signal in two years outside of wind blowing a poorly installed dish out of alignment or something else that would be fixable quite easily... trees don't grow that fast.


Actually at least around here they can grow faster than you think. I have three HDTV's but only one HD receiver because I'm almost up on my commit and I'm not sure if I will get a signal for another two years. I've been with D* for 14 years but if something better or equal comes along I'm gone. They seemed like a friend back then. Cable was an evil greedy giant. Now D* is starting to look like the Nazi's. I wish they would just come out and say that if you have no LOS then you can leave without penalty. If you can get a LOS then you stay or pay. That is the fair thing to do.


----------



## dewrock (Nov 13, 2008)

Kansas Zephyr said:


> ...only because of the decision of the individual that moved. The choice was made, intentional or not, to relocate to an area with no LOS by the end user.
> 
> *Again, not D*'s fault. For now, it is the responsibility of the individual.*
> 
> Refer to posts #66 and #68, please.


It's not their fault, but then this goes back to the notion that Directv is effectively prohibiting customers from moving.


----------



## igator99 (Jul 28, 2006)

Kansas Zephyr said:


> ...only because of the decision of the individual that moved. The choice was made, intentional or not, to relocate to an area with no LOS by the end user.
> 
> Again, not D*'s fault. For now, it is the responsibility of the individual.
> 
> Refer to posts #66 and #68, please.


If you buy or not buy a house based on LOS then you should become the mayor of crazy town. People have to move or want to move for many different reasons. A TV service should not be able to penalize you for moving! Come on people. This is America! Do you actually think people would move to get out of their $400 contract? Does D* pay some of you guys to say such things?:eek2:


----------



## Kansas Zephyr (Jun 30, 2007)

dewrock said:


> If it was Directv's responsibility to provide the fuel (satellite service) then yes it would be their fault (in a general sense, I'm not necessarily blaming Directv for anything).


See post #70, please


----------



## dewrock (Nov 13, 2008)

Kansas Zephyr said:


> See post #70, please


To that I say see post #75.


----------



## Kansas Zephyr (Jun 30, 2007)

igator99 said:


> If you buy or not buy a house based on LOS then you should become the mayor of crazy town. People have to move or want to move for many different reasons. A TV service should not be able to penalize you for moving! Come on people. This is America! Do you actually think people would move to get out of their $400 contract? *Does D* pay some of you guys to say such things?*:eek2:


No, it's pretty clear, if you read my other posts, that I hope the OP sees relief. Also, D* should revise the agreement to allow for relocation.

I'm just pointing out that contracts "mean something" and one shouldn't be shocked with the consequences when they intentionally, or not, break them.

If you don't like the terms, don't get the service.

If one moves and has a contract with D*, and doesn't want to worry about the ETF, they will check to see if LOS is possible. That isn't crazy...it's prudent planning.


----------



## ebockelman (Aug 16, 2006)

igator99 said:


> If you buy or not buy a house based on LOS then you should become the mayor of crazy town. People have to move or want to move for many different reasons. A TV service should not be able to penalize you for moving! Come on people. This is America! Do you actually think people would move to get out of their $400 contract? Does D* pay some of you guys to say such things?:eek2:


I've purchased three houses and rented two apartments due to moving around. On each one, I did take a south-southwest view into consideration (living in the eastern half of the US). There are very few apartment complexes that won't accommodate if you state that you need a southern exposure. If they don't, you go somewhere that will. It's the same when buying a house. You buy one that meets your requirements, and a good southern exposure can be one of those requirements.

Directv isn't penalizing anyone for moving. They are penalizing people for making a commitment and not upholding it. It's easy enough to keep Directv when you move.


----------



## Ryan415689 (Oct 7, 2008)

Exactly. I moved and made sure before I signed my lease that I would have LOS.


----------



## R0am3r (Sep 20, 2008)

veryoldschool said:


> I would email Ellen Filipak at [email protected].
> Be nice [not that you aren't] explain everything and ask for help.
> This is the office of the president, which has "other" people to correct "problems".
> If DirecTV can't supply you with service, it's "not your fault" and you shouldn't be charged.


Please note - I tried this email address and it bounced. A quick Google indicates the correct address is: [email protected]


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

R0am3r said:


> Please note - I tried this email address and it bounced. A quick Google indicates the correct address is: [email protected]


Good catch, it was early this morning when I posted it.


----------



## edpowers (Aug 17, 2006)

Kansas Zephyr said:


> I don't agree.
> 
> If you flip it...that would be akin to the receivers breaking during a move...and they would be replaced by D*.
> 
> ...


 It IS D*s fault because they are the SOLE PROVIDER of the fuel (Sat Signal). Their 'contract' is unreasonable and should be changed. Not everybody hangs out on Directv message boards talking about the ins and outs of signal strength and line of sight issues. Most people don't think about their cable/sat subscription when moving and really shouldn't have to. And I highly doubt many people would move just to get out of their Directv agreement.

This reminds me of Sprint Nextel tacking on 2 year service contracts when a customer added or changed anything on their plan. Eventually, the state of Minnesota sued Sprint and forced them to change their business practices. If enough people complained about these unfair practices to their Attorneys General, they'd be forced to right exceptions into the contracts.


----------



## Kansas Zephyr (Jun 30, 2007)

edpowers said:


> Their 'contract' is unreasonable and should be changed. *And I highly doubt many people would move just to get out of their Directv agreement.*


Until it changes then, don't agree to it, and don't get the service, so you will not be bound by it. Get Dish, cable, or use OTA.

I never said that people would move to get out of a D* agreement. That's over the top.

I said that whether the act of moving to a location without LOS is intentional, or not, it is the responsibility of the individual to understand that they may be subject to the ETF.

It is not unreasonable when relocating to inquire, and/or verify, that LOS is available if one desires to continue to use D*.


----------



## Ryan415689 (Oct 7, 2008)

"I highly doubt many people would move just to get out of their Directv agreement."

You would be suprised.


----------



## tcusta00 (Dec 31, 2007)

Ryan415689 said:


> "I highly doubt many people would move just to get out of their Directv agreement."
> 
> You would be suprised.


I suppose anything is possible but I seriously doubt any sane person would go to that trouble.


----------



## ebockelman (Aug 16, 2006)

edpowers said:


> It IS D*s fault because they are the SOLE PROVIDER of the fuel (Sat Signal). Their 'contract' is unreasonable and should be changed. Not everybody hangs out on Directv message boards talking about the ins and outs of signal strength and line of sight issues. Most people don't think about their cable/sat subscription when moving and really shouldn't have to. And I highly doubt many people would move just to get out of their Directv agreement.


If their contract were unreasonable, then people wouldn't agree to it.

As it stands, you get subsidized equipment in exchange for a commitment. Directv is more than happy to take you on with no commitment if you are willing to pay the full price for your equipment. That seems pretty reasonable to me.



edpowers said:


> This reminds me of Sprint Nextel tacking on 2 year service contracts when a customer added or changed anything on their plan. Eventually, the state of Minnesota sued Sprint and forced them to change their business practices. If enough people complained about these unfair practices to their Attorneys General, they'd be forced to right exceptions into the contracts.


The government should get involved because people can't live up to the agreements that they made? Should we be lobbying Congress for a satellite subscribers' bailout?


----------



## narrod (Jul 26, 2007)

mtnrick said:


> I would honor my committment and pay the fee. Direct waived the concurrent agreement and installation charges when they were unable to complete the new install, however it was not Direct's fault that you moved and did not complete your original two year agreement at your previous location. As a subscriber I don't feel like I should subsidize your decision to move be completing your agreement. Now let me duck before the stones come my way


Here's a stone. That's a silly position. He wants the service. They can't provide it.
The ETF should be cancelled and I suspect he will prevail in the end if he is persistent. I love it. We choose or need to move but can't because of an ETF for television service. Please! No more stones. :lol:


----------



## Kansas Zephyr (Jun 30, 2007)

narrod said:


> Here's a stone. That's a silly position. He wants the service. They can't provide it.
> The ETF should be cancelled and I suspect he will prevail in the end if he is persistent. I love it. We choose or need to move but can't because of an ETF for television service. Please! No more stones. :lol:


I think he'll prevail, too. I hope he does.

But, still you sign a contract...you should take the time to check if your prospective new domicile has LOS.

If not, either try a different location, or be prepared to be a big-boy and pay the ETF, that you willingly agreed to as part of your D* service.

You can move anywhere, whenever you want. Just be ready to actually live up to the obligations you voluntarily sign-up for, too. With freedom of choice, comes personal responsibility.


----------



## narrod (Jul 26, 2007)

Kansas Zephyr said:


> I think he'll prevail, too. I hope he does.
> 
> But, still you sign a contract...you should take the time to check if your prospective new domicile has LOS.
> 
> ...


DirecTv cannot deliver the service provided under their contract. Since they can't it is unreasonable for them to hold the subscriber to the terms because of their inability to perform. I've been a subscriber since 2000 and candidly don't know the contract language. I doubt that I ever read it. If they can provide the service and he still wants to cancel then, I agree he should pay the ETF.


----------



## Kansas Zephyr (Jun 30, 2007)

narrod said:


> DirecTv cannot deliver the service provided under their contract. Since they can't it is unreasonable for them to hold the subscriber to the terms because of their inability to perform. I've been a subscriber since 2000 and candidly don't know the contract language. I doubt that I ever read it. If they can provide the service and he still wants to cancel then, I agree he should pay the ETF.


D* has the ability to perform. They continue to beam signals to the CONUS.

The individual freely chose to move from a location with LOS, to one without. That is his/her responsibility, not D*'s.


----------



## RobertE (Jun 10, 2006)

narrod said:


> DirecTv cannot deliver the service provided under their contract. Since they can't it is unreasonable for them to hold the subscriber to the terms because of their inability to perform. I've been a subscriber since 2000 and candidly don't know the contract language. I doubt that I ever read it. If they can provide the service and he still wants to cancel then, I agree he should pay the ETF.


They can't deliver the service provided under their contract DUE TO THE ACTIONS of the customer.

I do agree with Kansas that there is a very good chance that they will do right by the customer and wave the ETF as a good faith effort.


----------



## narrod (Jul 26, 2007)

Kansas Zephyr said:


> D* has the ability to perform. They continue to beam signals to the CONUS.
> 
> The individual freely chose to move from a location with LOS, to one without. That is his/her responsibility, not D*'s.


If they cannot deliver a signal to his home they have demonstrated an inability to perform. Their contract does not speak to service as being available only at the original installation site. Their Mover's Connection plan invalidates that position. I knew three years of law school would come in handy. :lol:


----------



## Kansas Zephyr (Jun 30, 2007)

narrod said:


> If they cannot deliver a signal to his home they have demonstrated an inability to perform. Their contract does not speak to service as being available only at the original installation site. Their Mover's Connection plan invalidates that position. I knew three years of law school would come in handy. :lol:


Then I'm sure the OP would love your pro bono work.

Send him/her a PM, and please update us on the case.


----------



## broadcastdoc (Jan 13, 2007)

narrod said:


> If they cannot deliver a signal to his home they have demonstrated an inability to perform. Their contract does not speak to service as being available only at the original installation site. Their Mover's Connection plan invalidates that position. I knew three years of law school would come in handy. :lol:


You'd be correct, if the OP was a new customer, agreed to the term, the installer came out and found there was no signal, THEN dinged the person with the ETF.

In this case, DirecTV has shown an ability to perform the service as originally agreed, to the person agreeing to the contract. The original agreement was to pay for the service for a certain amount of time, regardless of location. It's similar to cell service - cell companies generally will tell you that they will not waive an ETF if you move out of a service area. It's the OP's inability to *receive* the signal as opposed to DirecTV's ability to *send* the signal that is the issue at hand.

At any rate, I agree that refunding the ETF would be a good idea on their part - though I believe that you are agreeing to pay for a service, and if you make a decision that impacts the ability to receive said service, it shouldn't be the provider's responsibility to take a hit, no matter what you think that hit may or may not be.


----------



## narrod (Jul 26, 2007)

broadcastdoc said:


> You'd be correct, if the OP was a new customer, agreed to the term, the installer came out and found there was no signal, THEN dinged the person with the ETF.
> 
> In this case, DirecTV has shown an ability to perform the service as originally agreed, to the person agreeing to the contract. The original agreement was to pay for the service for a certain amount of time, regardless of location. It's similar to cell service - cell companies generally will tell you that they will not waive an ETF if you move out of a service area. It's the OP's inability to *receive* the signal as opposed to DirecTV's ability to *send* the signal that is the issue at hand.
> 
> At any rate, I agree that refunding the ETF would be a good idea on their part - though I believe that you are agreeing to pay for a service, and if you make a decision that impacts the ability to receive said service, it shouldn't be the provider's responsibility to take a hit, no matter what you think that hit may or may not be.


I don't disagree but I doubt it would ever hold up in a court of law. That being said it is too trivial an issue to take that far. Some simple negotiating will probably take care of the OP. Don't worry too much about DirecTv. They have a whole staff of lawyers to protect their interests. They don't need anyone here to defend them.


----------



## broadcastdoc (Jan 13, 2007)

narrod said:


> I don't disagree but I doubt it would ever hold up in a court of law. That being said it is too trivial an issue to take that far. Some simple negotiating will probably take care of the OP. Don't worry too much about DirecTv. They have a whole staff of lawyers to protect their interests. They don't need anyone here to defend them.


Oh, I completely agree with you...they should just cancel the ETF and be done with it.

I'm not concerned with defending D* as much as just trying to make the point. There seems to be a lot of bad "legal interpretations" floating around here. The truth is that while DirecTV may not have as many rights as they think, they do have some rights in this deal. They really can make this easy, or difficult. I think a lot depends on how your attitude is going in.


----------



## T_N_T (Sep 9, 2008)

I don't see how you can say its the fault of the OP, how does he know every little detail about D*'s service and the signal and how it will operate. Plus if you are forced to move and there is nothing you can do about it(I.E. due to job) is it your fault still? There is a little thing called "common sense" and in this case I do not think D* has it. Not every person knows everything about how D* works and that is the truth. It is unreasonable for D* to say, were so sorry you moved because that inhibits our signal, but you still must pay us a few because you coulden't honor a contract you signed when you were in your previous location. I would dispute this one in every way possible.


----------



## Sharkie_Fan (Sep 26, 2006)

T_N_T said:


> I don't see how you can say its the fault of the OP, how does he know every little detail about D*'s service and the signal and how it will operate. Plus if you are forced to move and there is nothing you can do about it(I.E. due to job) is it your fault still? There is a little thing called "common sense" and in this case I do not think D* has it. Not every person knows everything about how D* works and that is the truth. It is unreasonable for D* to say, were so sorry you moved because that inhibits our signal, but you still must pay us a few because you coulden't honor a contract you signed when you were in your previous location. I would dispute this one in every way possible.


It is the "fault" of the OP because his decisions have left him in a position where he is unable to receieve the signal that DirecTV is sending. DirecTV changed nothing - the only variable to the whole scenario is the OP and his decision to move.

There's a direct cause and effect relationship here - the effect being that the OP cannot receive DirecTV. The cause? His decision to move.

With the exception of one or two, we aren't suggesting that he should roll over and pay the ETF. Based on the story the OP told us, I think he made every effort to make sure he would still be able to get DirecTV. That kind of "due diligence", IMO, warrants the ETF being waived.

All we're trying to point out is that a contract was agreed to. the contract is pretty black and white - if you cancel early, there is an ETF. If DirecTV chooses to be hard-nosed about it, they'd be well within their rights.... Most of us agree, DirecTV *should* waive the ETF, but it is the opinion of many of us that they aren't *required* to do so.


----------



## Alebob911 (Mar 22, 2007)

Part of doing business.



IIP said:


> DirecTV has to pay for your installation labor (and the payout to the HSP is a LOT more than what the tech actually gets paid), the equipment itself, the shipping to return your receivers, and in many cases, a sales commission to the company you ordered from. That's not counting the advertising costs that helped bring you in, or the discounts for the programming, and any other discounts or rebates. It typically costs about $800-1000 to aquire a new customer, before paying for any of the programming to the content providers. They don't usually make money on a customer until the 2nd year.


----------



## edpowers (Aug 17, 2006)

Kansas Zephyr said:


> I think he'll prevail, too. I hope he does.
> 
> *But, still you sign a contract*...you should take the time to check if your prospective new domicile has LOS.
> 
> ...


I don't know about the OP, but I have never SIGNED a contract when they extend my service agreements. I have verbally agreed, but never signed anything.

You are making it sound like this guy abandoned a mortgage or something. With freedom of choice comes personal responsibility? Are you joking? This is TV we are talking about.

Bottomline: He moved WITHIN their listed service area. He told them he was moving, DirecTV sends installers, and they cannot provide a signal. They can no longer provide service to him. He didn't end the service contract, DirecTV did.


----------



## MIKE0616 (Dec 13, 2006)

igator99 said:


> If you buy or not buy a house based on LOS then you should become the mayor of crazy town. People have to move or want to move for many different reasons. A TV service should not be able to penalize you for moving! Come on people. This is America! Do you actually think people would move to get out of their $400 contract? * Does D* pay some of you guys to say such things?*:eek2:


The word "shill" comes to mind in lots of these "discussions."


----------



## tim99 (Sep 14, 2007)

That's exactly the point you seem to be missing. He IS willing to live up to the terms of his agreement and pay for his service. They just cannot provide it, which is clearly not his fault. He more than did his part by telling them exactly where he lived and requested them to provide what he expected to pay for.



Kansas Zephyr said:


> You can move anywhere, whenever you want. Just be ready to actually live up to the obligations you voluntarily sign-up for, too. With freedom of choice, comes personal responsibility.


----------



## rudeney (May 28, 2007)

edpowers said:


> I don't know about the OP, but I have never SIGNED a contract when they extend my service agreements. I have verbally agreed, but never signed anything.


Same here, but just remember that a verbal agreement is just as enforceable as a signed one, assuming it can be proven that there was verbal agreement. Of course the fact that the OP was told by two different CSR's that it is customary to waive ETF's when LOS is not available after a move is also a type of "verbal contract" that D* should uphold.


----------



## mastrauckas (Oct 3, 2008)

I thought when you moved you didn't have to pay for installation and if you move and you can't get service at the new place they cancel your commitment? At least that is what they told me when I signed up.


----------



## paulman182 (Aug 4, 2006)

I have signed a new agreement for every receiver I've gotten except one.


----------



## Kansas Zephyr (Jun 30, 2007)

edpowers said:


> You are making it sound like this guy abandoned a mortgage or something. With freedom of choice comes personal responsibility? Are you joking? This is TV we are talking about.
> 
> *Bottomline: He moved WITHIN their listed service area. He told them he was moving, DirecTV sends installers, and they cannot provide a signal. They can no longer provide service to him. He didn't end the service contract, DirecTV did.*


Bottom line: You get a discounted cell phone and agree to a 2 year service contract.

You move, within the service area, a year later.

You discover that your new digs are in a dead spot. If you go outside to the street your cell phone works fine, just not in your home any more.

You can just cancel your cell phone contract without an ETF? I don't think so.

No, I'm not joking about personal responsibility. It doesn't matter what it is, TV or not...it is a binding agreement that was freely entered into.

Eating the ETF is simply part of the total cost of the move, if you do so before your commitment is up, and you didn't verify that LOS was available at the new location.

I still think that D* will waive it, in this case, however.


----------



## Kansas Zephyr (Jun 30, 2007)

MIKE0616 said:


> The word "shill" comes to mind in lots of these "discussions."


If you browse this board enough, and read my posts, you'll quickly realize that label doesn't apply to me.


----------



## dewrock (Nov 13, 2008)

Well it looks like thanks to a poster on here (I don't know if he/she would want me to reveal their name) that the ETF has been reversed after he/she escalated the issue. The tech who came to install closed the work order out with "no landlord permission" even though it was a LOS issue and I had even called him right after he left to make sure that he closed it out that way and he assured me he had. The CSR that I talked to that day told me that he had. So anyways, the fact that he hadn't was news to me last night as none of the other people I talked to at Directv had told me this. 

Well the nice lady that called me today, in regards to the email I sent to Ellen Filipiak, told me the same thing but said she believed me that it was because of a LOS issue and that she would reverse the charge and contact Allied Interstate, send me a new statement with a $0.00 balance and a letter in regards to what we discussed. She said it would be turned over as Directv Error and not do anything to my credit history. She apologized for the trouble that I went through and was overall very nice. I have to say that her and the first two ladies I talked to were very nice and helpful, the last however many were sorely lacking in customer service skills (and not just because they didn't tell me what I wanted to hear, just simply because they didn't care to help me). 

I just looked now at my account online and it does in fact show a $0.00 balance and shows that the fee was reversed.

So again, thanks to the poster that helped me out and the Sausha that I talked to today. And thanks to all of the other posters that offered advice to me.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

dewrock said:


> Well it looks like thanks to a poster on here (I don't know if he/she would want me to reveal their name) that the ETF has been reversed after he/she escalated the issue. The tech who came to install closed the work order out with "no landlord permission" even though it was a LOS issue and I had even called him right after he left to make sure that he closed it out that way and he assured me he had. The CSR that I talked to that day told me that he had. So anyways, the fact that he hadn't was news to me last night as none of the other people I talked to at Directv had told me this.
> 
> Well the nice lady that called me today, in regards to the email I sent to Ellen Filipiak, told me the same thing but said she believed me that it was because of a LOS issue and that she would reverse the charge and contact Allied Interstate, send me a new statement with a $0.00 balance and a letter in regards to what we discussed. She said it would be turned over as Directv Error and not do anything to my credit history. She apologized for the trouble that I went through and was overall very nice. I have to say that her and the first two ladies I talked to were very nice and helpful, the last however many were sorely lacking in customer service skills (and not just because they didn't tell me what I wanted to hear, just simply because they didn't care to help me).
> 
> ...


Now all you need to do is move again so you can come back to DirecTV. :lol:


----------



## jep8821 (Jun 24, 2007)

Kansas Zephyr,

I never signed a contract with Directv. When I tool Business Law in 1998 in college We were told no verbal contract is enforcable if the length of the contract goes past 1 yr. Anything over 1yr needed to be in writng. This might vary from State to State but that was the case in Missouri. Also it is common for Cell phone providers to wave there ETF if the user moves into a location where they can't get signal. I dealt with Cingular a couple of years ago and the reduced my commitment down from 2 yrs to 1 because they couldn't find my signed contract. 

Thanks.


----------



## rudeney (May 28, 2007)

dewrock said:


> Well it looks like thanks to a poster on here (I don't know if he/she would want me to reveal their name) that the ETF has been reversed after he/she escalated the issue.


I think a few of us have a good idea who that person might be...

And I'm happy you got this all worked out!


----------



## Kansas Zephyr (Jun 30, 2007)

dewrock said:


> Well it looks like thanks to a poster on here (I don't know if he/she would want me to reveal their name) that the ETF has been reversed after he/she escalated the issue.


Congrats


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

Now that the OP has had the problem resolved .. I'd say it's time for this thread to be done ..


----------

