# LEASE FEE?!?!?!?!



## perryville (Apr 22, 2009)

So about 2 years ago, when I moved into my new house, I dumped comcast and got DirecTV. Comcast and I had a very smooth business dealing as expected. I got D* via Verizon's triple play package. For a DVR and a HD reciever (a combo was not yet in mass production) I paid verizon $200. Now I'm realizing I didn't buy the receiver but paid a $200 lease fee?!?!?!?!

Are you kidding me? Is this some joke? They really want their box back and I don't get the $200? Has anybody had any positive experience with this BS or am I screwed?


----------



## Mertzen (Dec 8, 2006)

Ever leased a car? Same deal, you pay a few grand down, and never see it back.


----------



## miketorse (Jul 30, 2008)

No joke, it should've been on paperwork you received when you received the receiver. If you had actually bought the receivers at that point, you would've been paying well over $450. Plus, if your lease received had failed, they would've replaced it for the amount of shipping (20 bucks).


----------



## tcusta00 (Dec 31, 2007)

Sorry it wasn't clear up front, but that's the way it works.


----------



## litzdog911 (Jun 23, 2004)

You could certainly buy it without a lease agreement. But then you pay ~$600. And after 90-days, if it breaks, it's toast. With the lease deal it's replaced for just the cost of shipping/handling (free if you have DirecTV's Equipment Protection Plan). 

It's just like most cell phone service providers.


----------



## boba (May 23, 2003)

perryville said:


> So about 2 years ago, when I moved into my new house, I dumped comcast and got DirecTV. Comcast and I had a very smooth business dealing as expected. I got D* via Verizon's triple play package. For a DVR and a HD reciever (a combo was not yet in mass production) I paid verizon $200. Now I'm realizing I didn't buy the receiver but paid a $200 lease fee?!?!?!?!
> 
> Are you kidding me? Is this some joke? They really want their box back and I don't get the $200? Has anybody had any positive experience with this BS or am I screwed?


Sorry you just woke up to the real world but that's the way it's been for the last 3 years.


----------



## brian461oia (Nov 15, 2008)

Let not forget to tell him about the mirroring fee if you own a box which is the same amount as the leasing fee.


----------



## perryville (Apr 22, 2009)

I hate to say this but D* is a joke. I've never once before in all my years paid a large sum of money for leasing TV equipment. But fair enough I'll accept that D*/Verizon beat me on that one. What isn't clear to me at all, however, is that I set the whole thing up over the phone with Verizon. Even E* (with what I'm now finding out is a superior STB hardware - love the 722) didn't charge me a dime for a single receiver.

It's a sad day for D* - I had no problem with their service just the outrageous prices I was paying. I got the Bronze 100 with E* and a Slingbox at my friends place for NFL games (the only reason I had D* to begin with). I really didn't enjoy paying $64 a month for watered down TV service on 3 TV's. Also really loved the call "would you like free HD" only to see my bill go up $20 a month. Apparently they feel like if they can hold onto the NFL they can do whatever they want.

I just read there is a class action lawsuit regarding this practice. I hope I can recover something from this lawsuit. I do understand how a car lease works, but I'm not putting mileage on my STB thereby reducing its value. I also understand the case for not owning the equipment, but why was I paying to "protect" my equipment with an equipment protection program for the last 24 months? I was told without the plan I could pay hundreds in receiver replacement fees - a receiver I didn't even own.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

perryville said:


> I do understand how a car lease works, but I'm not putting mileage on my STB thereby reducing its value.


Given the number of refurbished receivers floating around, it may be that the _average_ lifespan for a receiver isn't a whole lot longer than the standard programming commitment.


----------



## Upstream (Jul 4, 2006)

Perryville -- Admittedly, DirecTV does a fairly poor job in explaining how the upfront fees and monthly fees work for leased receivers (although supposedly they are improving their communication).

But, if you left DirecTV for Dish, why would you want to retain your DirecTV equipment? It isn't good for anything unless you have DirecTV.


----------



## Mertzen (Dec 8, 2006)

perryville said:


> I do understand how a car lease works, but I'm not putting mileage on my STB thereby reducing its value..


But you are using it, so it's not new, so the value does decrease.


----------



## ronkuba (Feb 17, 2007)

perryville said:


> I do understand how a car lease works, but I'm not putting mileage on my STB thereby reducing its value.


You are using the equipment that has moving parts and a life span. Therefore the more you use it less the value. Only difference there's no odometer.


----------



## CCarncross (Jul 19, 2005)

It's apparent that perryville will never be a happy customer anywhere. He "dumped" Comcast, now has E*, which when the honeymoon is over he will probably start complaining about them as well. The truth is when he went the Verizon route 2 years ago is probably where the lack of info started about being poorly informed about the leasing model etc...


----------



## sigma1914 (Sep 5, 2006)

Does anyone read what they agree to or ask questions anymore?


----------



## Kheldar (Sep 5, 2004)

Mertzen said:


> But you are using it, so it's not new, so the value does decrease.


Of course, there is no guarantee the reciever was new when it arrived in _perryville_. D* doesn't guarantee your receivers are new unless you pick them up at retail.


----------



## perryville (Apr 22, 2009)

Upstream said:


> Perryville -- Admittedly, DirecTV does a fairly poor job in explaining how the upfront fees and monthly fees work for leased receivers (although supposedly they are improving their communication).
> 
> But, if you left DirecTV for Dish, why would you want to retain your DirecTV equipment? It isn't good for anything unless you have DirecTV.


Let me tackle a bunch of issues here. #1 if I paid for a reciever, I'd like to keep a receiver. At the end of the use of said receiver I could give it to my neighbor who has D* or sell it on e-bay. Apparently it has some value.

#2 A receiver is a computer. Unless you count transistors on a silicon chip, it has no moving parts. It's not a machine....that guy is just stupid.

#3 I didn't sign anything. I signed up via a Verizon representative on the phone. The only thing I ever signed was the install agreement. While I agree that more people should read what they sign, the government has ruled EULA (for computer software) is not valid because it is not-consumer oriented. If we had to read everything we signed nothing would ever get done. A nice bullet point statement would suffice.

#4 Have you ever leased an apartment. You don't pay to lease the place. You give them the monthly fee and give them a security deposit. If nothing else I feel my security deposit should be returned.

#5 I didn't dump comcast. I moved. Comcast doesn't serve me in my rural house. I was loyal to Comcast before I moved without a single complaint other than it's lack of DVR/HD offering in my area, but I did not switch because they had features I liked (local channels in Philadelphia). As a salesman, we are taught about presenting customers with features and their associated benefits. I understand that a lot of people are loyalists here, but I'm very customer oriented in my business dealings, I expect other vendors to do the same. You don't gain business and market share by ripping people off. Especially with "questionable" business practices.

Before you attack me - CCarnoss - please understand that I expect to be dealt with fairly, and my experiences with other cable/sat providers have all been far more positive than D* and I have never felt taken advantage of by Comcast or E*.


----------



## JLucPicard (Apr 27, 2004)

perryville said:


> I hate to say this but D* is a joke. I've never once before in all my years paid a large sum of money for leasing TV equipment.


I have no reason to doubt that statement. But YEARS ago when I had Comcast (I've been with DirecTV since 96), I was paying a monthly receiver fee (and if I remember properly, for the remote control too! Talk about outrageous). I have no experience with current rates, but I've heard something like $15 a month or more for a DVR from cable.

I prefer to pay a fee up front to lease the equipment - especially if I can get discounts on that fee anyway, and new customer discounts on the equipment are usually pretty darn good. So to pay anywhere from $0 to $200 up front for the HD DVR, then be done with paying for it, I'll take that any day over paying for it several times over by paying a monthly fee for as long as I use it, like cable does. Even at $200 like they are now, over the two years I'd be committed to I would pay on average just over $8 a month for that equipment - about half of what cable would charge. Then, after that 2 years I would be paying on average $0 a month. With cable I'd still be paying the $15+ per month.  And when I was done with cable's DVR, I'd still have to return it to them - I still don't own that box, either.

Different ways of doing business. I prefer DirecTV's method, but everyone has their own preferences.

Not that any of that matters anyway, since you're now with Dish.


----------



## dishbd (Feb 7, 2007)

2.5 years ago, I signed up with E* and paid $200 for *1* HD DVR, equipment that I did not own, and I understood that up front.

Two weeks ago, I signed up with D* and paid $100 for *2* HD DVRs, equipment that I do not own, and I understood that up front.

The technology has been going down in price gradually, so that's why it looks like you got a fabulous deal with E*, compared to what you paid for with D* two years ago.


----------



## perryville (Apr 22, 2009)

JLucPicard said:


> I have no reason to doubt that statement. But YEARS ago when I had Comcast (I've been with DirecTV since 96), I was paying a monthly receiver fee (and if I remember properly, for the remote control too! Talk about outrageous). I have no experience with current rates, but I've heard something like $15 a month or more for a DVR from cable.
> 
> I prefer to pay a fee up front to lease the equipment - especially if I can get discounts on that fee anyway, and new customer discounts on the equipment are usually pretty darn good. So to pay anywhere from $0 to $200 up front for the HD DVR, then be done with paying for it, I'll take that any day over paying for it several times over by paying a monthly fee for as long as I use it, like cable does. Even at $200 like they are now, over the two years I'd be committed to I would pay on average just over $8 a month for that equipment - about half of what cable would charge. Then, after that 2 years I would be paying on average $0 a month. With cable I'd still be paying the $15+ per month.
> 
> ...


Maybe I wasn't clear here. I paid the up front free and a monthly lease fee.


----------



## JLucPicard (Apr 27, 2004)

perryville said:


> Maybe I wasn't clear here. I paid the up front free and a monthly lease fee.


What showed up on your bill as a "Lease Fee" was not a monthly equipment leasing charge. It was a program mirroring fee that mirrors your programming package to all receivers on your account. If you actually did own your equipment, you would still be paying a $4.99/$5.00 per month program mirroring charge for that owned equipment - it would just be listed as an "Additional Receiver Fee" instead of being labeled "Leased Receiver Fee". Again, not an equipment leasing fee.


----------



## Mertzen (Dec 8, 2006)

perryville said:


> At the end of the use of said receiver I could give it to my neighbor who has D* or sell it on e-bay.


Neither of which you can do with a leased IRD.


----------



## smiddy (Apr 5, 2006)

I can only assume you are looking for advise, so here goes: You should discuss your disgust with your contract holder and work out a deal. If you are not satisfied then you need to remove the offending problem which is bringing you sadness and despair. Then you can go along and be happy, which is the ultimate goal, right?


----------



## perryville (Apr 22, 2009)

smiddy said:


> I can only assume you are looking for advise, so here goes: You should discuss your disgust with your contract holder and work out a deal. If you are not satisfied then you need to remove the offending problem which is bringing you sadness and despair. Then you can go along and be happy, which is the ultimate goal, right?


I really appreciate the sarcasm. I think its funny how many people don't find this to be a deceptive business practice.


----------



## sigma1914 (Sep 5, 2006)

perryville said:


> I really appreciate the sarcasm. I think its funny how many people don't find this to be a deceptive business practice.


He tried to help. What more do you want? Should we all agree with your "opinion" of _deceptive business practice_?


----------



## chevyguy559 (Sep 19, 2008)

JLucPicard said:


> I have no reason to doubt that statement. But YEARS ago when I had Comcast (I've been with DirecTV since 96), I was paying a monthly receiver fee (and if I remember properly, for the remote control too! Talk about outrageous). I have no experience with current rates, but I've heard something like $15 a month or more for a DVR from cable.
> 
> I prefer to pay a fee up front to lease the equipment - especially if I can get discounts on that fee anyway, and new customer discounts on the equipment are usually pretty darn good. So to pay anywhere from $0 to $200 up front for the HD DVR, then be done with paying for it, I'll take that any day over paying for it several times over by paying a monthly fee for as long as I use it, like cable does. Even at $200 like they are now, over the two years I'd be committed to I would pay on average just over $8 a month for that equipment - about half of what cable would charge. Then, after that 2 years I would be paying on average $0 a month. With cable I'd still be paying the $15+ per month. And when I was done with cable's DVR, I'd still have to return it to them - I still don't own that box, either.
> 
> ...


:goodjob: Very good way of explaining it....this is the reason I finally switched over from Comcast....the initial cost of recievers was the only thing keeping me from coming over, however once I did a similar calculation for my situation I realized that it would be cheaper in the long run, for equipment AND programming  (and BETTER programming)


----------



## Ken S (Feb 13, 2007)

JLucPicard said:


> What showed up on your bill as a "Lease Fee" was not a monthly equipment leasing charge. It was a program mirroring fee that mirrors your programming package to all receivers on your account. If you actually did own your equipment, you would still be paying a $4.99/$5.00 per month program mirroring charge for that owned equipment - it would just be listed as an "Additional Receiver Fee" instead of being labeled "Leased Receiver Fee". Again, not an equipment leasing fee.


What he is (was) paying is a LEASE fee. Please stop twisting reality to fit some line. The bill states it is a lease fee. DirecTV uses accounting methods that classify it as a lease fee. Their financial reports are based on it being a lease fee and they collect, report and pay taxes based on it being a lease fee. In some tax districts it is taxed at a different rate because it is a lease.

Here's a copy of the DirecTV LEASE - http://www.directv.com/DTVAPP/global/contentPage.jsp?assetId=P500014

Customers should be aware they are agreeing to a lease and will be making a monthly payment to keep from defaulting on that agreement.

As for the OP...There's really not much difference between Comcast, DirecTV and Dish...the industry is one of the worst rated overall for customer satisfaction and those low ratings are well earned. Pick the one that gives you the best deal today (read ALL the fine print) and provides the programming you're interested in. I'd be careful about announcing you're using Slingbox to view programming as that could be construed as signal theft.


----------



## bonscott87 (Jan 21, 2003)

perryville said:


> Maybe I wasn't clear here. I paid the up front free and a monthly lease fee.


Ok, let's clear something up here:

For every receiver after your first one you pay $5 a month program mirror fee.
Owned = "Additional receiver fee"
Leased = "Lease fee"

You pay the exact same fee, leased or owned.

As for up front fee:
Owned = $400-600 up front
Lease = $200 or much less (many get it free)

So I guess take your pick: 
Pay $400+ up front and pay $5 a month.
Or pay $200 up front and pay the exact same $5 a month.

As for cable/FIOS. Usually $0 up front (although some charge up to $40 up front) and *MUCH* higher monthly cost. HD DVR monthly is at least $15 and as high as $25 a month I've seen. So you might not pay anything up front but you pay a whole lot more per month. Won't take you all that long to pay the same $200. And then with cable/FIOS you keep on paying that higher fee forever. With DirecTV you don't, just the $5 program mirror fee.

Personally I'd rather pay a bit more up front and get much lower monthly fees over the long haul.

Oh, and Dish leases their receivers as well. And once you're a Dish customer good luck getting any new receivers for free. Many switch to DirecTV because of that. They are both the same in that regard although DirecTV appears to give more deals to existing customers then Dish does.

So now that you have all the facts you can make an informed decision.


----------



## Athlon646464 (Feb 23, 2007)

I knew before I 'signed up' through Verizon about a year ago that I would not own the equipment. I don't remember exactly how I learned how it works, but before I agreed to anything, I knew what I was doing.

As far as 'no moving parts' in a DVR, the hard drive certainly does have moving parts. To say there is no 'wear and tear' on the DVR after 2 years doesn't make sense. Would you rather have one from DISH in an unopened box, or a two year old one someone turned in?

~$100 for an unlimited lease (today's price I believe) is a great deal. I would much rather do that than pay $400 to $600 and 'own' it, just so I could sell it to sometime in the future for 1/2 that.

The OP did sign something. Verizon or D* would not have done the install without a signature. The OP should go to both for that record. He may not, though, because then he will see that he was indeed informed up front.

I think some people just get angry at _themselves_ because they think they made a mistake, and don't know how to vent except to blame someone else.

It's getting tough to do business in this country today. Too many people today think it's bad when a company makes a profit. Or like in the case of someone who signs a variable mortgage agreement, when rates go up they blame the bank and want to get bailed out.

It costs all of us more for services when a company gets sued, or has to settle because a customer 'says' they got screwed. When a company's cost goes up because of this, we all have to pay more. This sort of thing gauls me as much as anything, especially when I _have_ taken the time to learn what I am signing up for.


----------



## Jared701 (Sep 9, 2008)

You could have easily found the information about the lease if you had simply gone to directv.com. Your situation is not that bad and is at least partially your fault for not asking for more information. When I signed up for D* I was told they would have to pay a $300 upfront fee because of my credit score (over 750, wtf is up with the $300 with that score?). I was lied to by 2 CSRs that I would get the $300 back after making my first payment. I checked every term I could find on their site and could find nothing to show what I was told was false. Now I must stay 5 years, 3 years PAST my contract if I want that deposit back. What they did to you may not seem right but they've done MUCH worse to others by flat out lying to customers. I spent over 6 hours on the phone with them to hear there is nothing they could do to help me. You do have some responsibility to research things yourself and not trust the first salesperson you talk to. 

I'm assuming someone would try to be helpful, no I'm not angry enough anymore to try contacting the VP of customer service, I did get the go green discount, no upfront hd dvr charge, the AAA discount and 4 months of low cost premium so I consider it even at this point if I cancel after 2 years and lose $180 considering the discounts I've gotten exceed that amount


----------



## perryville (Apr 22, 2009)

I love guys like this one. When you lease an apartment, they tell you what you get and what you don't get. When you lease a car, they tell you how many miles you can drive each year (or average per year) and they all have upfront costs and you know what they are. Cable companies, Landline, and Wireless companies have the worst business practices I know of. The fee for service is usually like 80 or 90% of the actual bill for service. I knew better in my business dealings with E* to make sure I was actually going to save money, and I am happy to report that I am.

Even the airlines quote prices before known fees. The business community has tried every dirty trick in the book to raise their profits through any means necessary including what I would claim is a "bait & switch" (at worst) or "false advertising" (at best) techniques.


----------



## Kheldar (Sep 5, 2004)

perryville said:


> #2 A receiver is a computer. Unless you count transistors on a silicon chip, it has no moving parts. It's not a machine....that guy is just stupid.


DVRs do have moving parts -- they have computer hard drives. Hard drives have moving parts. Check your facts before trying to insult someone.


----------



## wingrider01 (Sep 9, 2005)

perryville said:


> Let me tackle a bunch of issues here. #1 if I paid for a reciever, I'd like to keep a receiver. At the end of the use of said receiver I could give it to my neighbor who has D* or sell it on e-bay. Apparently it has some value.
> 
> #2 A receiver is a computer. Unless you count transistors on a silicon chip, it has no moving parts. It's not a machine....that guy is just stupid.
> 
> ...


1. you did not "buy the reciever" you paid the lease aquistion cost for the unit. If you would have purchased it the price would have been between 300-600 US

2. Last time I built a computer it had a multitude of moving parts, fans, hard drives, dvd drives, with the exception of the dvd drive the HR2X has the same

3. you agreed to a contract with verizon, if you have a problem with what you agreed to, then take it up with the company you acquired service from

4. apartments you normaly pay first/last and a security deposit which unless the apartment is in the exact same shape you leased it in, you rarely get back add to the fact that at the end of the lease, unless I extend on a month to month basis I don;t own the apartment either. fact of the matter is, an apartment lease is a bad example, better example is automotive lease, there you pay an upfront aquisition cost that is NOT returned at the end of the lease, same as with the directv, nor do I own the car at the end of the lease, they get it back

Bottom line be sure to know what you are agreeing to - the few time I have had a Directv tech out for a upgrade or addtion there is an acceptance document for work performed that they go through and request that you agree to - try reading the back of it also


----------



## pfp (Apr 28, 2009)

perryville said:


> ... Apparently they feel like if they can hold onto the NFL they can do whatever they want.


It sometimes does seem like that and I've seen many comments from people who would not ever consider leaving because of Sunday Ticket.


----------



## pfp (Apr 28, 2009)

perryville said:


> I think its funny how many people don't find this to be a deceptive business practice.


Many of us were in an uproar about 2-3 years ago and have just learned to live with it by now.


----------



## gnahc79 (Jan 12, 2008)

Given the HR2x's 'reliability' the last thing you would want to do is buy it. 

Btw all cable/sat DVRs are leased right? Either an upfront fee like Directv or a $15+/month lease fee. I agree not explicitly stating the DVR is lease is deceptive, but I'm not getting screwed in any way since the upfront fee is <= the monthly lease fee method.


----------



## HDTVsportsfan (Nov 29, 2005)

pfp said:


> It sometimes does seem like that and *I've seen many comments from people who would not ever consider leaving because of Sunday Ticket*.


----------



## timhood (Jan 10, 2009)

I've been a DirecTV customer since 1995. Back then, I had to buy my receiver--I think it was Circuit City. I cost me something like $400. Compared to the $100 for the current lease, I needed to own that for 4 years to "break even".

But over the next 4 years, the receivers certainly got better, probably much better than what I had. DVR was introduced somewhere along the way.

Considering how often these receivers are updated and enhanced, I'd rather not own one. The first DVR I bought had a 20GB hard drive IIRC. Who wants that? Even one from a couple of years ago would be "substandard" by today's standards. So let's say he did buy his equipment. What could he expect to get for a two-year old DVR? There's no way it would be any more than the difference between the lease and purchase price, and I would bet it would be quite a bit less.

If I was in the market for a DVR, I have to consider the wear-and-tear of two year's hard drive use--possibly 24/7, combined with it's lower-capacity and possibly missing features a current model has. All those factor to significantly lower its value in my mind.

I think perry is trying to twist an argument by even thinking of putting up an argument that the equipment does not depreciate or wear out.

While I'd rather not pay anything up-front, I'm not sure purchasing the equipment makes any more sense. It certainly was no surprise to me that the $100 was a fee and not a deposit. I'm not saying this was perry's case but many people don't really pay attention when making purchases--they get caught up in the moment of getting something new and miss some important details.


----------



## JLucPicard (Apr 27, 2004)

perryville said:


> I think its funny how many people don't find this to be a deceptive business practice.


Early in the lease model, there were some real problems with the communication by DirecTV and it's retailers regarding the conditions of the leases. That has certainly changed over time.

Especially now, I find it difficult to see this as a "deceptive practice" when any time I have had to deal with getting new equipment - and even on the occasions when I've had to replace equipment under the protection plan and it didn't even apply - I have been hammered by CSRs droning on about the fact it's a lease, a commitment, equipment must be returned upon account cancellation, etc., etc., etc.

There are many documented cases of people indicating they were not informed. There are also many cases, like mine, where we were most definitely made painfully aware of all the 'fine print'. Somehow I find it a little less of a surprise that someone who went through a third party like Verizon may not have gotten the message.

As others have stated, whenever I had a tech out, whether for a dish/equipment upgrade or a Mover's Connection two years ago, I was asked to sign off on an install order on which was disclosed the conditions of the lease. I know it was there because I actually read what I was signing - even while excited to start playing with my new toy. It was there in black and white, so to speak (it was actually probably blue & yellow?).

Ya, in my case I certainly couldn't claim any 'deceptive practices'.


----------



## perryville (Apr 22, 2009)

timhood said:


> I've been a DirecTV customer since 1995. Back then, I had to buy my receiver--I think it was Circuit City. I cost me something like $400. Compared to the $100 for the current lease, I needed to own that for 4 years to "break even".
> 
> But over the next 4 years, the receivers certainly got better, probably much better than what I had. DVR was introduced somewhere along the way.
> 
> ...


What about a straight up HD only box. Where's the wear and tear?


----------



## dishbd (Feb 7, 2007)

Electrical equipment eventually wears out and breaks. How about iPods, cell phones, motherboards on a computer, etc? That stuff breaks all the time. If you don't like paying up front, stick with cable where you just pay those up front costs (and then some) over time month to month for inferior hardware.


----------



## bobnielsen (Jun 29, 2006)

perryville said:


> What about a straight up HD only box. Where's the wear and tear?


Considering the heat issues with H20-600s (and subsequent recall of many of them), it probably isn't negligible.


----------



## Dave47 (Dec 16, 2006)

perryville said:


> What about a straight up HD only box. Where's the wear and tear?


It's called "electromigration". The moving parts are the electrons. It's a real problem in the semiconductor world. Look it up on wikipedia for pictures and explanations.


----------



## Ken S (Feb 13, 2007)

JLucPicard said:


> Early in the lease model, there were some real problems with the communication by DirecTV and it's retailers regarding the conditions of the leases. That has certainly changed over time.
> 
> Especially now, I find it difficult to see this as a "deceptive practice" when any time I have had to deal with getting new equipment - and even on the occasions when I've had to replace equipment under the protection plan and it didn't even apply - I have been hammered by CSRs droning on about the fact it's a lease, a commitment, equipment must be returned upon account cancellation, etc., etc., etc.
> 
> ...


Would you consider it a deceptive practice if you went to a retail store and picked out an item which advertised itself as having a 500 GB HD. You find out it's a lease and not a purchase, you make the payments and then when it becomes defective they replace it with a used box with a 320GB HD?


----------



## SDizzle (Jan 1, 2007)

perryville said:


> Maybe I wasn't clear here. I paid the up front free and a *monthly lease fee*.


And what part of this line item on your bill, didn't lead you to "realize" that you had leased equipment?:lol:


----------



## lee78221 (Sep 25, 2007)

sigma1914 said:


> Does anyone read what they agree to or ask questions anymore?


Nope, they expect people to tell them.

When I first got DirecTV back in '03 I read the TOS back and forth, asked a million questions before I even set up an Installation. Same for when I returned just a few weeks ago.


----------



## DanER40 (Oct 25, 2007)

It seems you have learned a lesson rather cheaply. Pay closer attention from now on and you will be fine.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

perryville said:


> Let me tackle a bunch of issues here. #1 if I paid for a reciever, I'd like to keep a receiver. At the end of the use of said receiver I could give it to my neighbor who has D* or sell it on e-bay. Apparently it has some value.


I'm not sure where you've demonstrated that a used owned receiver has much value. Most new subscribers can get one or two for much less than you would need to get out if your purchased receiver.


> #2 A receiver is a computer. Unless you count transistors on a silicon chip, it has no moving parts. It's not a machine....that guy is just stupid.


You obviously haven't looked at the innards of a satellite receiver. The receivers are indeed RISC-based computers. DVRs add the complications of hard drives and cooling fans.

Check and see what used receivers are going for on eBay if you think you can make a killing. Remember that you've got to make at least $280 to have any financial advantage. Looking at today's listings, they typically seem to go for under $200 (and a great many of these are actually leases). The final piece of the eBay puzzle is that if DIRECTV doesn't like you, they can summarily have your auction canceled.

Whomever you sell it to will likely have to figure in the cost of a new access card ($20).

Not much of a deal for anyone since they can lease as many as they can stand for $169.95 each at Costco.


----------



## SDizzle (Jan 1, 2007)

harsh said:


> I'm not sure where you've demonstrated that a used owned receiver has much value. Most new subscribers can get one or two for much less than you would need to get out if your purchased receiver.You obviously haven't looked at the innards of a satellite receiver. The receivers are indeed RISC-based computers. DVRs add the complications of hard drives and cooling fans.
> 
> Check and see what used receivers are going for on eBay if you think you can make a killing. Remember that you've got to make at least $280 to have any financial advantage. Looking at today's listings, they typically seem to go for under $200 (and a great many of these are actually leases). The final piece of the eBay puzzle is that if DIRECTV doesn't like you, they can summarily have your auction canceled.
> 
> ...


Great explanation.


----------



## bonscott87 (Jan 21, 2003)

perryville said:


> What about a straight up HD only box. Where's the wear and tear?


It's called heat and age. Everything dies. I paid $750 for my first HD receiver. Just an old Hughes E-86. HD DVR wasn't even thought of yet. I'll take an non DVR HD box for $50 or so now.  Same monthly fee by the way, which has been pointed out many times.


----------



## bonscott87 (Jan 21, 2003)

timhood said:


> I've been a DirecTV customer since 1995. Back then, I had to buy my receiver--I think it was Circuit City. I cost me something like $400.


You got deal then. Back then they were a lot more expensive then that. In 96 I got a Sony receiver "on sale" for $850 bucks. Coulda paid over $1000 if I wanted a dual LNB dish. Of course another $600 or so for a second receiver.

Yea, I'll take free nowadays for the leased standard receivers. 

All the many thousands I've spent to own receivers over the years have gotten me what? Old equipment collecting dust in the closet as they became obsolete.


----------



## Bronco70 (May 14, 2008)

bonscott87 said:


> You got deal then. Back then they were a lot more expensive then that. In 96 I got a Sony receiver "on sale" for $850 bucks. Coulda paid over $1000 if I wanted a dual LNB dish. Of course another $600 or so for a second receiver.
> 
> Yea, I'll take free nowadays for the leased standard receivers.
> 
> All the many thousands I've spent to own receivers over the years have gotten me what? Old equipment collecting dust in the closet as they became obsolete.


Finally sanity with this thread.

1995: Two Sony SAT-A1's $1500, dual LNB dish. Thrilled with that setup after living with crappy cable between 1975-1995. Remember writing two checks, one to D* and another to USSB?

1998: Sony SAT-A4, gee DD actually works with SAT. Cost, I forget $300?

2000: Sony SAT-T60 TIVO rules!! $500?, again can't remember.

2002?: HR10-250 $1000, that price I do remember, OUCH but wow.

2005: Another 10-250, this time free but owned. Thanks D*. An S-12 $50. First lease unit. Failed within a year, replaced at no charge. Have never had the protection plan.

2008: Move to MPEG4 results in free, leased, upgrades to HR-21 units for my two owned 10-250's. Asked and received free AM-21 OTA tuners.

2008: The SAT-A4 dies. Two minutes on the phone with the first CSR. Will send a new SD IRD box out for $19.95. "Well how about I drag out an old SAT-A1 and reactivate that card?". "I can do that". Problem solved with an additional minute or two.

This week: I need an additional HD-DVR. Can do a simple order for $99 on the web. I have no doubt a call would result in a freebie, but I won't bother.

So I have two, owned HR10-250's gathering dust. Value: $0.00. An Sat-A1, a museum piece, still might work though in an emergency.

D* deceptive with their business practices', I think not.

Joe


----------



## Justin23 (Jan 11, 2008)

You get a copy of the terms and conditions in your first bill...also an order confirmation is sent prior to installation explaining MANY things including the fact that its leased equipment...

J


----------



## Justin23 (Jan 11, 2008)

perryville said:


> #3 I didn't sign anything. I signed up via a Verizon representative on the phone. The only thing I ever signed was the install agreement. While I agree that more people should read what they sign, the government has ruled EULA (for computer software) is not valid because it is not-consumer oriented. If we had to read everything we signed nothing would ever get done. A nice bullet point statement would suffice.


The yellow paper you signed said it was a leased piece of equipment. Did you keep it?

"If we had to read everything we signed nothing would ever get done." Huh? You signed it...you agreed to it. Simple as that.

J


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

perryville said:


> Maybe I wasn't clear here. I paid the up front free and a monthly lease fee.


Have you ever seen how much Comcast charges for a monthly fee for their HD DVR's? and then when you start looking at what they do.. Oh man.. talk about over paying... Directv is cheaper.. Just pretend you paid 13 a month for the unit instead of 5. thats still 5 a month cheaper than Charter in my area...

Good luck with Dish, I hope you enjoy them.. To bad you didn't see whats i the pipeline for Directv units..


----------



## Shades228 (Mar 18, 2008)

Justin23 said:


> The yellow paper you signed said it was a leased piece of equipment. Did you keep it?
> 
> "If we had to read everything we signed nothing would ever get done." Huh? You signed it...you agreed to it. Simple as that.
> 
> J


It won't matter really because at this point most people don't want to feel at fault. It's easier to blame someone else. Don't take this as an attack OP it's just the biggest trend with any upset customer with any company that has agreements. You'll find posts like this all over cell phone forums as well.

I can understand if the Verizon rep didn't go over everything as much as they should. They're salesman out to make a sale and bad agents exist. However like it was said you did sign it. You were sent a confirmation letter of your order that went over it and you chose not to read it. Sorry but no company can be held responsible for something that someone chooses to ignore.

Good luck with Dish I do find it odd that you claimed you had watered down service on 3 tv's and yet you signed up with classic bronze package. Unless you're meaning HD and then you don't have all HD with them either but they do have a cheaper package with a lot less options.


----------



## Athlon646464 (Feb 23, 2007)

perryville said:


> What about a straight up HD only box. Where's the wear and tear?


OK - Take your argument to the extreme, and see if you still agree with yourself.

What if the 'straight up HD only box' was 30 or 50 years old.

Would it have 'wear and tear'? Would you want it?

My guess is no, you would not want it.

So, then where _would_ you draw the line? 5 years, 10 years?

And why would you draw the line?

(because of wear & tear.)

:eek2:


----------



## bixler (Oct 14, 2008)

perryville said:


> I really appreciate the sarcasm. I think its funny how many people don't find this to be a deceptive business practice.


Deceptive business practice? Not researching what you are contracted to is not a deceptive business practice. This if not Direct TV's 'fault'......


----------



## bridge (Feb 10, 2008)

While I don't want to get jumped on by everyone on here that is pro-DTV, I'd like to bring up a few of simple points.

1. Posters on this site have a certain acumen and understanding of these systems and the agreements from an extensive history of dealing with DTV or similar companies over the years. Having an understanding of their rules and policies doesn't make DTV or other telecom companies business practice right/correct/moral.

2. The people on this board represent a SMALL population sample of DTVs customers that is NOT representative of the total population of DTV customers. The majority of new or churn customers don't have the history or experience to ask the right questions.

3. I do clinical research for a living. Before a subject (customer) signs up for one of my studies (a service agreement or commitment if you will) I'm required to provide INFORMED CONSENT written clearly at an 8th grade reading level.

4. Consumer rights in this country need some work. Too many companies hide behind the fine print. Just because it's legal doesn't make it right.

Fine print from DTV, my insurance company, my credit card company, etc. is not written on a less than 12th grade reading letter. Heck, I'm over-educated and I can't really understand most it (especially all my Home-owners and Windstorm insurance...found this out during hurricane Ike).

Why does any company want to bury details that impact their customer base within fine print? What wrong with a 14pt font, bulleted list on the front page of their agreements that says:
-You will pay $200 for equipment that you won't own
-You will pay a monthly fee of $X to continue your lease of our equipment
-You must return the Leased equipment upon demand b/c you don't own it
-Etc....

(Hint: they don't do it for a good business related reason)

I don't want to get flamed, but understand, their terms are foggy and, remember, people without our level of experience and knowledge are signing up for services they don't clearly understand...does anyone think that a ALL 70 yo senior citizens who's VCR clock is still blinking is going to understand all this mumbo-jumbo (technical term)?

I hate fine print [/rant].


----------



## lee78221 (Sep 25, 2007)

bridge said:


> (Hint: they don't do it for a good business related reason)[/rant].


Maybe it's just me, but every business I've dealt I've expected them to lie to me or just tell me the minimum to get me to sign on the dotted line. Haven't you've been told not to sign anything without know what it is(Maybe that's just me)? We're all adults here and as such nobody is obligated to hold your hand(or baby you) anymore.

To tell you the truth I'm only 21, I signed us up for DirecTV when I was 16(My mom knew I was signing us up/I used her name), I knew what we were getting into and I read the TOS back and forth. I don't know, but I would expect adults to do the same thing I did when I was only 16. Know what the Hell your signing and don't expect them to tell you.


----------



## bridge (Feb 10, 2008)

lee78221 said:


> Maybe it's just me, but every business I've dealt I've expected them to lie to me or just tell me the minimum to get me to sign on the dotted line.


Then you agree with me, there is something wrong when when a consumer automatically believes they are going to get taken advantage of. I'm 34 and when you add children, mortgages, day care, tuition, job responsibilities, car notes, medical insurance...just life in general, you don't really have time to scrutinize that amount of paperwork. Moreover, they (and everyone else) update their service agreements on regular basis which, if I were to scrutinize all of them, would result in several hours a month (see news stories of credit card companies changing the rules of the game, ex post facto)...My point is I shouldn't have to have a law degree or one on retainer to make sure I'm not getting taken advantage of. I'd appreciate if they'd just be upfront, in clear, concise language so I don't have to take anymore time away from my life, my wife, my kids...and my dogs.


----------



## lee78221 (Sep 25, 2007)

bridge said:


> I'd appreciate if they'd just be upfront, in clear, concise language so I don't have to take anymore time away from my life, my wife, my kids...and my dogs.


I do understand what your saying bridge, but as you said they don't do it for good business related reasons.

When you get Billion of dollars involved the likely hood of that ever happening is slim to none. That's why you do your research or take the risk of being taking advantage of.

Do you agree you shouldn't sign anything you don't understand(And you shouldn't assume anything)? Even with the fact that most business use fine print.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

bridge said:


> 1. Posters on this site have a certain acumen and understanding of these systems and the agreements from an extensive history of dealing with DTV or similar companies over the years.


Actually posters here are often some of the least familiar with the text of the latest rules and regulations. That being said, most of them aren't deathly afraid of doing pre-purchase research or checking out the Customer Agreement and Equipment Lease Addendum.

Caveat Emptor is still the rule of the road.


----------



## Athlon646464 (Feb 23, 2007)

Simply, this is how I look at it:

Understand completely before committing to anything, especially a TWO YEAR agreement at about $100 PER MONTH.

If I do not understand something, I go for help - or I just don't do it! That's what originally drove me to this web site!!

If there is a surprise down the road, the first one I blame is ME, for not finding out on my own. If I discover the surprise was malicious, then I want to be made whole, but that has been rare. Usually it's been a learning experience and I move on. That's life.

'Fine print'? Get glasses, or get help. Some in this thread say they don't understand the 'fine print', know that they will likely be screwed by most companies, or don't 'have the time' or 'education' to read the agreement. My word - why would you sign a 2 year deal thinking you were going to get screwed without getting some informed help? Likely because that is what you always do, and then moan and point fingers later. Companies will then have to 'give' you something to keep you happy, *costing us all more money* in the long run!! That is what really annoys me.

Take personal responsibility. We were all given something to sign before we accepted our 2 year deal.


----------



## bonscott87 (Jan 21, 2003)

lee78221 said:


> Maybe it's just me, but every business I've dealt I've expected them to lie to me or just tell me the minimum to get me to sign on the dotted line. Haven't you've been told not to sign anything without know what it is(Maybe that's just me)? We're all adults here and as such nobody is obligated to hold your hand(or baby you) anymore.


Very much agree. If anyone thinks a company is doing something to benefit them they live in an alternate universe. A company is always looking to take advantage of the consumer. People need to do at least some research. Takes all of 10 minutes on "the google". But then again, most people are sheep and are clueless, unfortunately.


----------



## njblackberry (Dec 29, 2007)

Of course people never read their mortgage paperwork before signing it, and never paid any attention to that pesky credit card statement either. Why is it a surprise that people don't read the DirecTV TOS? It shouldn't be. It's someone else's responsibility.


----------



## bridge (Feb 10, 2008)

lee78221 said:


> Do you agree you shouldn't sign anything you don't understand(And you shouldn't assume anything)?


I do, but I'm saying there should be consumer right regulations that the companies must agree to for documenting and communicating that information to consumers.



harsh said:


> Caveat Emptor is still the rule of the road.


Totally agree. When I started service (I did some posting here of my problems, just look for all my posts, I don't have many) I didn't get a terms of service sent to me until after they did the install. I did find out, through my own prodding (it wasn't offered by the telephone CSR) that accepting the install was the same as accepting the service agreement. Seems backwards to me. At very least a 30 day review period should apply (I understand that in a couple of states it does).



Athlon646464 said:


> If I do not understand something, I go for help - or I just don't do it! That's what originally drove me to this web site!!...
> 
> 'Fine print'? Get glasses, or get help. Some in this thread say they don't understand the 'fine print', know that they will likely be screwed by most companies, or don't 'have the time' or 'education' to read the agreement. My word - why would you sign a 2 year deal thinking you were going to get screwed without getting some informed help? Likely because that is what you always do, and then moan and point fingers later. Companies will then have to 'give' you something to keep you happy, *costing us all more money* in the long run!! That is what really annoys me.
> 
> Take personal responsibility. We were all given something to sign before we accepted our 2 year deal.


I see your point, and it is kind of harsh because not everyone has Internet access to do the research others agree is a necessity prior to accepting the agreement.



bonscott87 said:


> People need to do at least some research. Takes all of 10 minutes on "the google". But then again, most people are sheep and are clueless, unfortunately.


Once again, it looks like we're saying internet access and the smarts to do internet research is a requirement.

I guess, in the end, the "personal responsibility" I have is for my fellow Americans, and not the corporation. I think they should be required to provide due diligence to make sure their terms are fully, clearly explained to everyone and not just those with internet access and a certain education level. Service Commitments should require similar Informed Consent rules that work to protect the consumer as well as the company. Luckily, Ron Paul is my congressman...looks like I'll be dropping him a line referencing about a dozen threads on this board and my concerns. He's always been sensitive to these types of issues. That's the great thing about this democracy...nobody has to just sit back and "take it".


----------



## BattleScott (Aug 29, 2006)

inkahauts said:


> Have you ever seen how much Comcast charges for a monthly fee for their HD DVR's? and then when you start looking at what they do.. Oh man.. talk about over paying... Directv is cheaper.. Just pretend you paid 13 a month for the unit instead of 5. thats still 5 a month cheaper than Charter in my area...
> 
> Good luck with Dish, I hope you enjoy them.. To bad you didn't see whats i the pipeline for Directv units..


Believe or not, this certainly is not true in our area with TWC (cost-wise anyways), until you get to 4 or more DVRs on the account. Assume you only have a single HD DVR, with TWC the first HD DVR and the DVR service are "included" with the package so there are no additional charges. With DirecTV the "primary lease fee" is waived, but you still pay an up front fee for the DVR and a monthly fee for the DVR service. Depending on what kind of deal you get the DirecTV charges for a single HD DVR setup, assuming a 24 month contract, would be:

$0 for HD DVR = $6/month for HD DVR & DVR service
$99 for HD DVR = $10/month for HD DVR & DVR service
$199 for HD DVR = $14/month for HD DVR & DVR service

The same setup from TWC = $0/month.

For each additional HD DVR, TWC charges $16.90/month versus DirecTV charges of $13.00 (based on the standard $200 up front charge + $5.00 lease fee). The savings of ~$4.00/month would take 3 to 4 additional DVRs to pay off in the long run.

Of course, this is only when comparing DVR service fees. The real comparision is the total monthly charges for equal services. All the providers are different in how the structure and bill their "packages" so in general, doing these kinds of comparisons by themselves is really meaningless.


----------



## gnahc79 (Jan 12, 2008)

Due diligence in reading everything you sign and caveat emptor is definitely good practice....within reason. IMO Directv should make it very clear the receivers are leased and not owned. A customer walks into Best Buy, 'purchases' a DVR and Directv service much like they do a cell phone and voice/data plan from a wireless provider at Best Buy. It is not 'stupid' to think otherwise really.

Yes, we all need to be careful when signing anything. However that doesn't let businesses off the hook with burying crap in the fine print and modifying the TOS in a mailing one year later that no one reads in even more fine print. 

lee78221, have you read through all the paperwork required for a mortgage? It's a doorstop chunk of papers and I had to read it over about 10x. The last thing I would want is that level of paperwork for signing up for satellite service with a DVR.


----------



## CCarncross (Jul 19, 2005)

We all need to remember that this particular incident occurred about 2 years ago, when there was some question about how well D* was informing new/potential subscribers of the whole lease vs. own model. Part of the responsibility seemed to lie with D* or course, but equal blame needs to be shared by Best Buy/other retailer's, and the customer who many times paid little to no attention to what they were signing, or the sales drones explanation of it being a lease, they were too busy still watching the demo, nodding and mumbling, yep, etc...


----------



## Athlon646464 (Feb 23, 2007)

bridge said:


> I see your point, and it is kind of harsh because not everyone has Internet access to do the research others agree is a necessity prior to accepting the agreement.


Use of the internet is not the only way to do research.

Especially if you have the attitude that you are going to get screwed by any and all companies out there, then why not call the BBB, ask a friend, relative or neighbor, or use any number of other ways to go for help. This, to me, just makes common sense before agreeing to a two year deal at about $100 per month. Not harsh at all.

Common sense seems to be waning all around me lately.

*I'm not talking about those who are impaired. I'm talking about otherwise normal people of at least average intelligence. No party should be allowed to sign a contract if they actually are a moron.


----------



## terron (Oct 11, 2008)

perryville said:


> I really appreciate the sarcasm. I think its funny how many people don't find this to be a deceptive business practice.


I don't find it to be deceptive. D* was very clear that these were leased receivers. I guess you should have read your contract a little better.


----------



## bridge (Feb 10, 2008)

Athlon646464 said:


> Especially if you have the attitude that you are going to get screwed by any and all companies out there, then why not call the BBB...


Speaking of the BBB...

http://www.la.bbb.org/businessreport.aspx?companyid=81000357


----------



## wingrider01 (Sep 9, 2005)

bridge said:


> Speaking of the BBB...
> 
> http://www.la.bbb.org/businessreport.aspx?companyid=81000357


that and 50 centsa might buy you a cup of coffee, the BBB has no power to enforce any of it's opinions


----------



## lee78221 (Sep 25, 2007)

gnahc79 said:


> lee78221, have you read through all the paperwork required for a mortgage? It's a doorstop chunk of papers and I had to read it over about 10x. The last thing I would want is that level of paperwork for signing up for satellite service with a DVR.


I've never read a mortgage(I don't have my own home yet), but I'd hope that's the one piece of paper people read and truly understand. That's a contract that has thousands of dollars(if not millions) of your money at stake.

Look I understand that we all hate paper work, but that's going nowhere fast. Come on people! your hard earned cash is on the line here(over the life of your 2 year DirecTV contract that's about $2,000). To expect any Business to do anything for your sake(That they don't have to) and not theirs is down right crazy.

Do I wish every company would spells out their TOS is back and white, But with Billion of dollars on the line it's to their advantage to keep you dumb and happy. It's to mine to understand what the hell I'm getting my self into and not expect anyone to hold my hand and baby me(To understand that no Business is going to do something for your sake and not theirs).


----------



## bridge (Feb 10, 2008)

lee78221 said:


> To expect any Business to do anything for your sake(That they don't have to) and not theirs is down right crazy.


That seems to be the pervasive thought these days...Bernie Maddoff, all the banks, finance corporations, AIG, enron...I certainly feel better knowing that a large corporation's power over individual citizens is absolute.

When you do get that first mortgage make sure you inform the loan officer ahead of time you intend to read every page and get full understanding. He/She will need to allocate 6 to 8 hours of their time.


----------



## BlueEos (Mar 5, 2009)

perryville said:


> Let me tackle a bunch of issues here. #1 if I paid for a reciever, I'd like to keep a receiver. At the end of the use of said receiver I could give it to my neighbor who has D* or sell it on e-bay. Apparently it has some value.
> 
> #2 A receiver is a computer. Unless you count transistors on a silicon chip, it has no moving parts. It's not a machine....that guy is just stupid.


Hey Perryville, its a RECEIVER, not a reciever.

No, you didn't buy it. You leased it. Don't know where you picked it up, but at Costco, it plainly states that it is leased at $169.99.

As to moving parts, if it's a DVR, the hard drive spins just like the one in your computer and sometimes craps out in the same manner. And yes, a 2 year old receiver probably won't have the features that a new one has, making the old one worth less. Apparently you're the stupid one.

DTV is a "pay to play" operation and this is the way they make money (and not much of that if you follow their business news). The leased prices are the way they amortize their costs.

Yes, in an ideal world, they should drop all these so-called hidden fees and just charge a flat rate (say $75 a month). Actually, it would have to be higher as they would have to add in the fees you pay upfront. However, their business would then take a big "header" unless Dish, Comcast (and the rest of the cable companies), FIOS and others also charged flat rates.

Would you please go over to Dish so we won't have to read anymore of your meanless rants. Good-bye and don't slam the door on the way out.


----------



## bridge (Feb 10, 2008)

wingrider01 said:


> that and 50 centsa might buy you a cup of coffee, the BBB has no power to enforce any of it's opinions


I'm not sure what you mean by "enforce any of it's opinions"? They are a third party public arbitration organization. They don't provide opinion they merely try to offer conflict resolution. I believe that "grade" is the result of the number of total complaints vs. the number resolved. DTV seems to have a decent record of resolving complaints reported to the BBB. 61% of the time DTV either provided a a full or partial refund or did something to make the complainant happy. 38% of the time they refused to do anything or simply referred to their terms and conditions. However, 0% went unanswered. This tells me they pay attention to BBB complaints and know they should always respond.


----------



## Athlon646464 (Feb 23, 2007)

bridge said:


> Speaking of the BBB...
> 
> http://www.la.bbb.org/businessreport.aspx?companyid=81000357


Thank you for validating my point. If you don't like what you see there, do business with someone else.

Or, at the very least don't repeat someone else's mistakes.

If I read that first, I would have scrutinized my contract even more before signing it.

If I read the BBB site after signing my contract, I would have been pissed I didn't read the BBB site first.

*On me, not D*. I signed a contract.*

My guess is that many of those complaints also validate what I see of the American public now-a-days. They expect that someone will be there (usually the government) to clean up after them, so why take the time to read what they are signing?


----------



## dubber deux (Mar 8, 2009)

bridge said:


> That seems to be the pervasive thought these days...Bernie Maddoff, all the banks, finance corporations, AIG, enron...I certainly feel better knowing that a large corporation's power over individual citizens is absolute.
> 
> .


bridge, don't let others here wear you down. Your points are CORRECT and totally vaild.

Business and dirty dealings/deceptive practices/hidden terms/legalese/ect don't HAVE to go together, problem is that the population in general has been conditioned and trained to accept this conduct and behavior pattern as normal and acceptable, it is NOT. We should just "live with it" and not push back and refuse to play ball. NONSENSE!!!!!!!

The mainstream media actually encourages this as they tend to sensationalize the criminals activities. The honest, moral, diligent business person gets little or no attention. Am I imagining this fact? Not at all.


----------



## gnahc79 (Jan 12, 2008)

lee78221 said:


> Do I wish every company would spells out their TOS is back and white, But with Billion of dollars on the line it's to their advantage to keep you dumb and happy. It's to mine to understand what the hell I'm getting my self into and not expect anyone to hold my hand and baby me(To understand that no Business is going to do something for your sake and not theirs).


There's no expectation of hand holding or babying.
Just as some businesses push their practices and contracts to the legal edge, we as consumers should not just take it and be forced to spend unnecessary hours reading over a contract just to watch TV or get a cell phone.

If you are diligent on reading a contract in detail, you should also be just as diligent in demanding that these business not be allowed to sneak stuff past us in these contracts just because it's legal (barely). By just allowing this stuff to happen will only make it worse down the road. Hey, our customers are barely complaining about how we hide our ETF policy, let's hide this new bandwidth cap policy as well.

Protect yourself by knowing what you're getting into, but also take an active role in letting some businesses know that you don't appreciate their deceptive and dishonest practices. That and your state govt agency and even the BBB.


----------



## dubber deux (Mar 8, 2009)

Stronger Attorney General's and Public Utility Commissions are what are needed now to counter the brashly aggressive business practices that are more popular than ever today.


----------



## lee78221 (Sep 25, 2007)

gnahc79 said:


> There's no expectation of hand holding or babying.
> 
> If you are diligent on reading a contract in detail, you should also be just as diligent in demanding that these business not be allowed to sneak stuff past us in these contracts just because it's legal (barely). By just allowing this stuff to happen will only make it worse down the road. Hey, our customers are barely complaining about how we hide our ETF policy


Of course there is expectation of hand holding or babying. You expect DirecTV to tell you what your getting yourself into and read the contract for you.

Sneak stuff past us in these contracts just because it's legal (barely)? The late time I looked a Lease Fee it whole legal, and the ETF policy is in back of your bill.

Sorry, I expect DirecTV to treat it's subscribers like they're adults and expect them to read the contracts and do their own homework(We all know DirecTV read it's contracts and does it's homework).


----------



## lee78221 (Sep 25, 2007)

dubber deux said:


> Stronger Attorney General's and Public Utility Commissions are what are needed now to counter the brashly aggressive business practices that are more popular than ever today.


Yes, let's get the government involved:nono: that always makes things better.:lol:


----------



## Upstream (Jul 4, 2006)

gnahc79 said:


> There's no expectation of hand holding or babying.
> Just as some businesses push their practices and contracts to the legal edge, we as consumers should not just take it and be forced to spend unnecessary hours reading over a contract just to watch TV or get a cell phone.
> 
> If you are diligent on reading a contract in detail, you should also be just as diligent in demanding that these business not be allowed to sneak stuff past us in these contracts just because it's legal (barely). By just allowing this stuff to happen will only make it worse down the road. Hey, our customers are barely complaining about how we hide our ETF policy, let's hide this new bandwidth cap policy as well.
> ...


Certainly DirecTV's lease agreement can stand a lot of cleaning up. (For instance, there is nothing which indicates if DirecTV or the customer is liable if the unit stops operating. The agreement says that there is no warranty, and the equipment is provided "as is", but it also tells the customer to call DirecTV if the equipment does not operate. It sort of implies that DirecTV will do something, but doesn't state what that is. Also the agreement does not indicate if activating a replacement receiver for a failed receiver restarts the 2-year commitment. The agreement seems to state, but not clearly, that replacing a failed receiver starts a new commitment).

But with all the cleaning up the agreement needs, it is pretty clear that the equipment is leased, and must be returned to DirecTV if you stop being a DirecTV customer. But just because the agreement is clear on this, does not mean that the OP ever saw or consented to this agreement when he first signed up for DirecTV. There is a lot of evidence (including my personal experience) that DirecTV provided a lot of leased equipment without informing the customer of the lease or providing the lease agreement to the customer.


----------



## lee78221 (Sep 25, 2007)

Upstream said:


> But just because the agreement is clear on this, does not mean that the OP ever saw or consented to this agreement when he first signed up for DirecTV.


Of course he consented to this agreement, he signed on the dotted line and activated DirecTV program.

If he never saw a TOS or read it then next time he'll know to ask for one or read it.

http://www.directv.com/DTVAPP/global/contentPage.jsp?assetId=1100106


----------



## gnahc79 (Jan 12, 2008)

lee78221 said:


> Of course there is expectation of hand holding or babying. You expect DirecTV to tell you what your getting yourself into and read the contract for you.
> 
> Sneak stuff past us in these contracts just because it's legal (barely)? The late time I looked a Lease Fee it whole legal, and the ETF policy is in back of your bill.
> 
> Sorry, I expect DirecTV to treat it's subscribers like they're adults and expect them to read the contracts and do their own homework(We all know DirecTV read it's contracts and does it's homework).


I've stated multiple times that the customer should read the contract over themselves and *fight* the vague, misleading and dishonest wording. I'm not against doing your homework, but when the assignment is rigged against you that is borderline illegal (and sometimes found illegal later on)...just reading the contract is not sufficient.
There is no babying involved when I state vocalize your disagreement with your provider when they try to bury and hide things in the contract. The last thing I would want Directv to do is hold my hand....unless I can hold theirs over a fire while I question their motives.

Btw, the ETF and bandwidth cap references were not for Directv, but rather wireless and internet providers, respectively. Both of which are involved in lawsuits.

edit: let me pose a question to you so that my point cannot be misconstrued: Do you agree that the consumer should only/exclusively/nothing but read the contract and sign it if they know everything and agree with the terms? Should they *also* raise the issue when they find something deceptive and dishonest in the contract? If the answer to 2nd ? is yes then we're in agreement .


----------



## bridge (Feb 10, 2008)

Upstream said:


> Certainly DirecTV's lease agreement can stand a lot of cleaning up. (For instance, there is nothing which indicates if DirecTV or the customer is liable if the unit stops operating. The agreement says that there is no warranty, and the equipment is provided "as is", but it also tells the customer to call DirecTV if the equipment does not operate. It sort of implies that DirecTV will do something, but doesn't state what that is. Also the agreement does not indicate if activating a replacement receiver for a failed receiver restarts the 2-year commitment. The agreement seems to state, but not clearly, that replacing a failed receiver starts a new commitment).
> 
> But with all the cleaning up the agreement needs, it is pretty clear that the equipment is leased, and must be returned to DirecTV if you stop being a DirecTV customer. But just because the agreement is clear on this, does not mean that the OP ever saw or consented to this agreement when he first signed up for DirecTV. There is a lot of evidence (including my personal experience) that DirecTV provided a lot of leased equipment without informing the customer of the lease or providing the lease agreement to the customer.


Exactly. And a quick search of this website and others like it show a great deal of confusion. No, I don't want to get the Gov't involved, but this country has reached a tipping point and its time to redefine and re-emphasize some rules, especially with any service advertised to the general public that requires a long-term commitment. A consumer bill of rights is needed. It should stipulate:

-that the onus is on the corporation to make sure potential customers are fully informed, prior to commitment (Informed Consent...there's already a model out there, they can use it without excess cost). I know first hand that this was not done in my case.
-All terms of service paperwork should conform to a standard format (just like we did with nutritional information on food packaging and parts of the credit card statements).
-The TOS should be written with Layman's Terms at no greater than an 8th grade reading level
-a 30 day trial period, uniformly (even cell companies allow this...after much pressure from our legislators).

Set your flame throwers to stun gentlemen...


----------



## Ken S (Feb 13, 2007)

Quick question for the installers out there. How pleased would you be if after you finished an install and handed the agreement to the customer if they sat down and spent time reading it and then calling to ask questions and then potentially electing not to accept the agreement? Let's say that process took an hour or two.

The reality is that the agreement is one of adhesion. The customer doesn't generally see it until after the order and the equipment is installed and is then expected to quickly sign it. There's no ability to negotiate and really no one at DirecTV who could explain it if necessary.


----------



## lee78221 (Sep 25, 2007)

gnahc79 said:


> edit: let me pose a question to you so that my point cannot be misconstrued: Do you agree that the consumer should only/exclusively/nothing but read the contract and sign it if they know everything and agree with the terms? Should they *also* raise the issue when they find something deceptive and dishonest in the contract? If the answer to both is yes then we're in agreement .


Yes, if the TOS or what DirecTV has told you doesn't line up with what your getting then you do have the right to raise the issue with them.

But as they say in their TOS. IF YOU DO NOT ACCEPT THESE TERMS, PLEASE NOTIFY US IMMEDIATELY AND WE WILL CANCEL YOUR SERVICE. IF YOU INSTEAD DECIDE TO RECEIVE OUR SERVICE, IT WILL MEAN THAT YOU ACCEPT THESE TERMS AND THEY WILL BE LEGALLY BINDING.


----------



## dubber deux (Mar 8, 2009)

I would happily settle for not just D* but other providers of consumer contractural agreements to be simplified and written so that ORDINARY consumers (not just lawyers) can clearly understand them. If the companies would do this without oversight all the better, problem is that lawyers like to make work for themselves.


----------



## lee78221 (Sep 25, 2007)

dubber deux said:


> written so that ORDINARY consumers (not just lawyers) can clearly understand them.


But to what end. Some of us are college grads at the top of our field and some of us work at the Buymore)). How far do you dumb down the TOS before everyone can read it?


----------



## gnahc79 (Jan 12, 2008)

lee78221 said:


> Yes, if the TOS or what DirecTV has told doesn't line up with what your getting then you do have the right to raise the issue with them.
> 
> But as they say in their TOS. IF YOU DO NOT ACCEPT THESE TERMS, PLEASE NOTIFY US IMMEDIATELY AND WE WILL CANCEL YOUR SERVICE. IF YOU INSTEAD DECIDE TO RECEIVE OUR SERVICE, IT WILL MEAN THAT YOU ACCEPT THESE TERMS AND THEY WILL BE LEGALLY BINDING.


lazy Sunday and the mini-me is napping, so I have spare time today .

So it seems we're on the same page for about 90% of the way, except a few others and myself want to take option 3 when option 1 is cancel service and option 2 is roll over and take it. Option 3 being changing business practices of service providers, either with our money or forcibly in court. The option of our money/taking our business to a competitor is becoming non-existent now that the entire *small *field of service providers are adopting the same shady practices.
I've had it up to here reading piles of complex contracts from car loans, car insurance, health insurance policies, a mortgage, renting an apartment, cell phone, etc.

bridge has it spot on with the consumer's bill of rights.


----------



## bridge (Feb 10, 2008)

lee78221 said:


> But to what end. Some of us are college grads at the top of our field and some of us work at the Buymore)). How far do you dumb down the TOS before everyone can read it?


See my post above...Informed Consent using standard rules for Laymen's Summaries. Directv isn't the first company to deal with these issues. There's a well documented process for all of this.


----------



## Upstream (Jul 4, 2006)

lee78221 said:


> Of course he consented to this agreement, he signed on the dotted line and activated DirecTV program.
> 
> If he never saw a TOS or read it then next time he'll know to ask for one or read it.
> 
> http://www.directv.com/DTVAPP/global/contentPage.jsp?assetId=1100106


If he never received the agreement, then he obviously didn't sign on a dotted line.

When my leased R15 was installed in 2006, I did not receive a lease agreement, and I did not sign a lease agreement.


----------



## lee78221 (Sep 25, 2007)

Upstream said:


> If he never received the agreement, then he obviously didn't sign on a dotted line.


Activation of service is the same thing as signing on a dotted line. Again, as they say in their TOS. IF YOU DO NOT ACCEPT THESE TERMS, PLEASE NOTIFY US IMMEDIATELY AND WE WILL CANCEL YOUR SERVICE. IF YOU INSTEAD DECIDE TO RECEIVE OUR SERVICE, IT WILL MEAN THAT YOU ACCEPT THESE TERMS AND THEY WILL BE LEGALLY BINDING.



Upstream said:


> When my leased R15 was installed in 2006, I did not receive a lease agreement, and I did not sign a lease agreement.


Then maybe next time you'll know to ask for one.

Ignorantia non excusat.


----------



## FLWingNut (Nov 19, 2005)

lee78221 said:


> I've never read a mortgage(I don't have my own home yet), but I'd hope that's the one piece of paper people read and truly understand. That's a contract that has thousands of dollars(if not millions) of your money at stake.
> 
> Look I understand that we all hate paper work, but that's going nowhere fast. Come on people! your hard earned cash is on the line here(over the life of your 2 year DirecTV contract that's about $2,000). To expect any Business to do anything for your sake(That they don't have to) and not theirs is down right crazy.
> 
> Do I wish every company would spells out their TOS is back and white, But with Billion of dollars on the line it's to their advantage to keep you dumb and happy. It's to mine to understand what the hell I'm getting my self into and not expect anyone to hold my hand and baby me(To understand that no Business is going to do something for your sake and not theirs).


Off topic for a bit -- anybody who signs something as important as a mortgage or a real estate contract without having an lawyer go through it is just plain stupid. These are documents, written by lawyers, that commit hundreds of thousands of dollars of your money. I've always found it amazing that someone would spend a quarter-million dollars on a house, but not 200 bucks on a lawyer. You think your real estate agent or your mortgage broker are your friends?:nono:

Besides, if there is a problem later, you may have action against the attorney. No lawyer? You're probably SOL.

And, no, I'm not a lawyer. But I've had one go over every real estate and mortgage document I've ever signed.

Back to topic.


----------



## lee78221 (Sep 25, 2007)

FLWingNut said:


> Off topic for a bit -- anybody who signs something as important as a mortgage or a real estate contract without having an lawyer go through it is just plain stupid. These are documents, written by lawyers, that commit hundreds of thousands of dollars of your money. I've always found it amazing that someone would spend a quarter-million dollars on a house, but not 200 bucks on a lawyer. You think your real estate agent or your mortgage broker are your friends?:nono:
> 
> Besides, if there is a problem later, you may have action against the attorney. No lawyer? You're probably SOL.
> 
> ...


I 100% agree.


----------



## Justin23 (Jan 11, 2008)

Shouldn't he be upset with Verizon not informing him properly that it was a lease since that is who is signed up for D* through? Verizon is technically a point-of-sale dealer for D* but obviously do not do their own installs. Just wondering...

J


----------



## dubber deux (Mar 8, 2009)

lee78221 said:


> Activation of service is the same thing as signing on a dotted line. .
> 
> Then maybe next time you'll know to ask for one. (written version of the lease and TOS)
> 
> Ignorantia non excusat.


Perhaps ignorance is no excuse yet it seems to me that this failure to provide a written copy of terms of contract BEFORE you sign/agree furnished by the provider should be a normal proceedure and part of policy. The installer or D*should provide you a copy of the TOS BEFORE INSTALLATION and you should have the chance to read it BEFORE signing it.

Although I went to the D*website and read the contract on line, I would have preferred to have had a hard copy in my hand in advance, they don't offer that to you on the phone during sales discussions, do they? No.

My belief is that D* and others (they are not to be singled out here) would much rather have you have the equipment installed and activated because it will be much less likely that the customer will refuse to the terms after installation...right? Sneaky and clever because if preys on human tendencies and weaknesses.

I don't blame the entire company as much as those that are behind the TOS agreement (whom would THEY be? The legal department and marketing most likely)


----------



## wingrider01 (Sep 9, 2005)

bridge said:


> That seems to be the pervasive thought these days...Bernie Maddoff, all the banks, finance corporations, AIG, enron...I certainly feel better knowing that a large corporation's power over individual citizens is absolute.
> 
> When you do get that first mortgage make sure you inform the loan officer ahead of time you intend to read every page and get full understanding. He/She will need to allocate 6 to 8 hours of their time.


or bring a realtor lawyer with you, well worth the added expense.


----------



## BattleZone (Nov 13, 2007)

As an installer, I occasionally have customers who request to read the agreement before I begin. Others just ask a few questions. I'm always happy to answer.


----------



## perryville (Apr 22, 2009)

I just want to be clear here. I was charged weeks in advance of my service, via telephone with a Verizon agent. Since the original post, I’ve asked both D* and Verizon to provide verification of the lease fee. Neither will provide any signed document by me. I’ll agree that I did not do my due diligence, and I did before signing up with E*. I was much happier knowing that I wasn’t going to get screwed by E* nor was I treated as severely as D*. Provided nothing changes (With E* or my own situation), I will remain with E* for a period of time well beyond the length of my contract.

I was content with D* except for their programming fees that they command (for the same television that every Sat/Cable provider gives their customers) higher fees because of Sunday Ticket (or so is my personal belief). When I left they asked if they had brought my price in parity with E* if I’d stay. I would have, except that the lease fees would continue resulting in a higher bill.

I find the arguments regarding the leased boxes to be outrageous. In this field people are constantly groaning about the quality of their boxes. One guy said would I want a 30 year old receiver because of its use. The answer is no, but I wouldn’t want it because of its technology. Everything today has a short lifespan. Laptops are almost disposable items when they’re priced at $350 or less. I doubt DirecTV will do anything with the SD DVR I sent back to them, at best they’ll put in a new hard drive (as everyone suggests) and that does not cost $200. In all reality nobody can justify the cost including the monthly lease fee other than corporate money grubbing.

I got screwed, it was my own fault. Lesson learned. All you D* lovers can stop saying how stupid people like me are. I’ll take my degree and flush it down the toilet because I’m so ignorant. But this situation will certainly keep me from ever singing up for D* again.


----------



## ehilbert1 (Jan 23, 2007)

I don't think your stupid. You didn't know the full details of everything and you were pissed. I get it. I've been there man. There area lot of good people on this board and they have a wealth of info so please stick around. As for the ones that told you to leave and all that just ignore it. Every message board has people that say things on it they would never say in "Real" life. It's ok to get frusterated. If you vent on here please be prepared to have people come out of the woodwork to tell you how wrong you are and how right they are. I really do hope you don't leave the board. Like I said there is a wealth of great knowlege here. Good luck with E* and I hope that works out for you.


----------



## bridge (Feb 10, 2008)

I'm with you perryville and I don't blame you for shutting the door on this forum...some people don't know how to simply look for a common solution, conflict resolution or just flat out understand sometime people need to vent after feeling taken advantage of.

As far as the hardware issue, my first DVR was a sony sat-w60, back when you could actually buy a receiver off the shelf and own it. It had PIP, Dual tuners with buffer, a keyboard and wasn't slow. That was in 2002 and D* is yet to offer a comparable unit. When D* decided to stop supporting them I dropped my service...only to return 6 years later in the hopes that technology had caught up.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

bridge said:


> When D* decided to stop supporting them I dropped my service...only to return 6 years later in the hopes that technology had caught up.


So how has that turned out for you?


----------



## tcusta00 (Dec 31, 2007)

bridge said:


> I'm with you perryville and I don't blame you for shutting the door on this forum...some people don't know how to simply look for a common solution, conflict resolution or just flat out understand sometime people need to vent after feeling taken advantage of.


People are entitled to their opinions. However, you can't expect to come to a forum (or anywhere in life) and voice an opinion and expect people to agree with you. Forums are meant for discussion and people have strong opinions on both sides.

If you want people to smile and nod and coddle you then you don't need a discussion forum, you need to get a dog. :shrug:


----------



## bridge (Feb 10, 2008)

tcusta00 said:


> People are entitled to their opinions. However, you can't expect to come to a forum (or anywhere in life) and voice an opinion and expect people to agree with you. Forums are meant for discussion and people have strong opinions on both sides.
> 
> If you want people to smile and nod and coddle you then you don't need a discussion forum, you need to get a dog. :shrug:


I just have a very different view of the world, cyber or otherwise. My parents taught me if you don't have something nice or constructive to say, say nothing. My adult life in clinical research has shown me life is too fleeting and important to be petty, even if you are protected by the anonymity of the internet. I also think an opinion isn't particularly important when its more malicious than constructive. Like I said, my view is different than most...and I already have two dogs.


----------



## bonscott87 (Jan 21, 2003)

perryville said:


> I just want to be clear here. I was charged weeks in advance of my service, via telephone with a Verizon agent. Since the original post, I've asked both D* and Verizon to provide verification of the lease fee. Neither will provide any signed document by me. I'll agree that I did not do my due diligence, and I did before signing up with E*. I was much happier knowing that I wasn't going to get screwed by E* nor was I treated as severely as D*. Provided nothing changes (With E* or my own situation), I will remain with E* for a period of time well beyond the length of my contract.
> 
> I was content with D* except for their programming fees that they command (for the same television that every Sat/Cable provider gives their customers) higher fees because of Sunday Ticket (or so is my personal belief). When I left they asked if they had brought my price in parity with E* if I'd stay. I would have, except that the lease fees would continue resulting in a higher bill.
> 
> ...


One thing I don't quite understand is that Dish also leases their receivers and they also have a contract. Their package costs for similar channels are also within a few bucks of DirecTV.

So other then the typical "new subscriber" deals, I'm not quite sure what the big deal is or how you're in any better situation with Dish. Still leasing, still in a contract.

Oh well, good luck.


----------



## bridge (Feb 10, 2008)

harsh said:


> So how has that turned out for you?


I like my HR21...it's a bit slow and I wish it had the PIP function of the W60. However, it's nice doing the CE thing and testing some of the new capability. It seems that after so many years they would have gotten further though...like smell-o-vision or something:grin:


----------



## gnahc79 (Jan 12, 2008)

bridge said:


> like smell-o-vision or something:grin:


smell-o-vision + prego wife = many car trips to the grocery store or restaurants...I vote no . It's 'bad' enough that Food Network is in HD, I've already made several night runs for food due to this. The latest was a crawfish run, CRAWFISH! At 9:30PM!


----------



## bridge (Feb 10, 2008)

gnahc79 said:


> smell-o-vision + prego wife = many car trips to the grocery store or restaurants...I vote no . It's 'bad' enough that Food Network is in HD, I've already made several night runs for food due to this. The latest was a crawfish run, CRAWFISH! At 9:30PM!


Good point. My wife's thing when she was prego was crawfish and pickles...and watching that Iron Chef show or whichever one where they only have limited time to make something. I feel your pain man!


----------



## Kheldar (Sep 5, 2004)

gnahc79 said:


> smell-o-vision + prego wife = many car trips to the grocery store or restaurants...I vote no . It's 'bad' enough that Food Network is in HD, I've already made several night runs for food due to this. The latest was a crawfish run, CRAWFISH! At 9:30PM!


You might want to activate the soon-to-be-parental-controls. Then you might get some sleep. :sleeping:


----------



## tcusta00 (Dec 31, 2007)

bridge said:


> I just have a very different view of the world, cyber or otherwise. My parents taught me if you don't have something nice or constructive to say, say nothing. My adult life in clinical research has shown me life is too fleeting and important to be petty, even if you are protected by the anonymity of the internet. I also think an opinion isn't particularly important when its more malicious than constructive. Like I said, my view is different than most...and I already have two dogs.


Nope, that wasn't my point at all. People are/were getting flamed for not agreeing with the OP. We're not talking about being nice or not nice here.


----------



## MountainMan10 (Jan 31, 2008)

perryville said:


> Maybe I wasn't clear here. I paid the up front free and a monthly lease fee.


I fail to understand the problem with the leasing model and the lease fee.

Buy a receiver $500 or more + $5/month additional receiver charge
Lease a receiver $199 or less + $5/month lease fee.

There is no difference in the monthly charge, except in some states you are charged tax on the $5 if it is a lease, so in about 60 years you may pay the difference in price in tax.

The leasing model makes it much more affordable for most of us. I paid a lot of money for my receivers and Tivo before D* went to the leasing model. I kept basic cable for a few years for my additional tvs because I couldn't afford to put D* receivers on all of them.

I love the leasing model. If I still had to "buy" my receivers I would still have 10 year old standard receivers. Instead I have all 4 of my TV's connected to DVRs. I don't want to "own" my receivers. What would I do with them if I cancelled the service? Use them as doorstops?

So you have a 2 year commitment. Why would you spend over $500 on a DVR for a service that you would have less than two years anyway? Who wants to learn a new channel line up more often than that?

I pray that the whiners who complain about leasing don't win, because then we will all lose and have to pay a lot more for our DVRs. Then the same people who now whine about leasing will whine about how much it costs to BUY the DVR.


----------



## carl6 (Nov 16, 2005)

MountainMan10 said:


> I pray that the whiners who complain about leasing don't win, because then we will all lose and have to pay a lot more for our DVRs.


I too favor the leasing model. However the option to own does exist. It is not a case of one preference or the other "winning" or "losing", as both options are available.

If someone prefers to own, they can. If they prefer to lease, they can. It's the best of both worlds. Plus, those that wish to own can do so for about half the cost of owning an HD Tivo just a couple of years ago. How does it get much better than that?


----------



## xzi (Sep 18, 2007)

I put $100 on that "install agreement" you signed spelled it all out VERY clearly. Mine did and that was October 2007


----------



## lee78221 (Sep 25, 2007)

xzi said:


> I put $100 on that "install agreement" you signed spelled it all out VERY clearly. Mine did and that was October 2007


And it boggles the mind he didn't notice he was paying a Lease Fee for over 24 months.


----------



## perryville (Apr 22, 2009)

My suprise lay in the fact that I was paying a lease fee for 24 months (which I knew about) and an additional up front lease fee. I knew there was a mirroring fee for owned receivers. Does anybody think?


----------



## dodge boy (Mar 31, 2006)

Lease fee, Mirror fee, extra receiver fee, whatever you call it they're the same...


----------



## Kheldar (Sep 5, 2004)

perryville said:


> My suprise lay in the fact that I was paying a lease fee for 24 months (which I knew about) and an additional up front lease fee. I knew there was a mirroring fee for owned receivers. Does anybody think?


I think just about everything I have ever leased involved a down-payment _and_ a monthly fee. And I _never_ got the down payment back when I returned whatever I was leasing.

You may have a valid point about not being informed of the terms in advance, but the structure of it (upfront fee, monthly charges) is pretty typical for any kind of lease.


----------



## perryville (Apr 22, 2009)

Kheldar said:


> I think just about everything I have ever leased involved a down-payment _and_ a monthly fee. And I _never_ got the down payment back when I returned whatever I was leasing.
> 
> You may have a valid point about not being informed of the terms in advance, but the structure of it (upfront fee, monthly charges) is pretty typical for any kind of lease.


I dont lease things, I buy things. I am aware of auto leases, but I've never leased one, yet I am aware of the up front payments. However, as I've stated, apartment leases are not the same way nor do rentals (like construction equipment). Before somebody tries to debate lease/rent it's the same damn thing. For my own information, what else can you lease (besides Autos or sat TV equipment) that requires an up front payment?


----------



## Athlon646464 (Feb 23, 2007)

perryville said:


> For my own information, what else can you lease (besides Autos or sat TV equipment) that requires an up front payment?


Your question is flawed. You are not required to pay an 'up front' payment to lease a car. I just leased a new Nissan in March without having to do so. If I had, however, my payments would be lower (with my total outlay over 36 months being about the same). I lease because of the tax advantages in my line of work, BTW.

You did not have to do it with D* either. You could have chosen a different provider when you found out before deciding to go with them and seeing their terms.

Having said that, if we did not give them an 'up front' sum, I'm sure our monthly cost would be higher.


----------



## bonscott87 (Jan 21, 2003)

perryville said:


> My suprise lay in the fact that I was paying a lease fee for 24 months (which I knew about) and an additional up front lease fee. I knew there was a mirroring fee for owned receivers. Does anybody think?


It's been explained to you several times....It's the same dang fee!

Owed = $5 (called additional receiver fee)
Leased = $5 (called leased fee for accounting reasons)

SAME MONTHLY FEE!

And Dish does the *exact same thing* which again confuses me that you are happy with Dish now since they do the same thing. Oh well, whatever makes you happy is what counts. You just didn't actually gain anything.

Leased gets you a much lower up front cost then owned.
Only advantage to owned is you can try to sell it on eBay when you leave. But they aren't worth that much and you'll still end up paying more in the end by owning it. But hey, whatever works for you.


----------



## Ken S (Feb 13, 2007)

bonscott87 said:


> It's been explained to you several times....It's the same dang fee!
> 
> Owed = $5 (called additional receiver fee)
> Leased = $5 (called leased fee for accounting reasons)
> ...


1. It's not the same fee...it's the same amount. The fees can and are taxed differently in some jurisdictions.

2. Dish charges a monthly fee, but they appear to be much more willing to give away the receiver/DVR at first. Of course, that's probably just market factors at the moment as may change or completely reverse a year or so down the road.

3. Leased only gets you a lower upfront cost if that's what the company wants to do. There is no guarantee that leasing makes it cheaper to acquire the item. There are slew of factors involved. The only thing we can be pretty certain of is that DirecTV believes that their leasing method is the best for their bottom line. To the companies that distribute TV content the cost of the actual hardware is a small factor...they have and will give it away in order to get the programming fees.

I paid $150 for my Sony T60 way back when (new). I owned it and didn't have to agree to a two-year programming commitment. That's far less than I paid for any of the HR2x devices in my home (except the beta HR21 that DirecTV graciously gave me for helping with their beta testing).

In the end leasing vs. ownership when it comes to satellite equipment isn't anything like the calculations that can be used when acquiring a car or living space. There are many other factors involved...it's far better to determine the programming you want and then look at it from a Total Cost of Ownership over a two year period.

I have no problem with the leasing model...However, I do believe that DirecTV (as well as their competitors) go out of their way to make it difficult for their potential customers to know all of the costs and commitments involved.


----------



## BattleScott (Aug 29, 2006)

perryville said:


> My suprise lay in the fact that I was paying a lease fee for 24 months (which I knew about) and an additional up front lease fee. I knew there was a mirroring fee for owned receivers. Does anybody think?


Perryville, the big problem here is that you found out the hard way what had been kicked around here previously and VERY emotionaly a few years ago when the change was made from purchase to lease model. If you signed up 2 years ago, you did so during a time in which the "Up front lease fee" was even more shrouded in secrecy than it is today. Up until the last year or so, there were no signs displayed in the retail outlets informing potential customers that they are paying an "upfront lease fee" and not purchasing the unit. There were also no explanations prominently posted on the boxes. And in your case, I'm sure there was no mention of it by Verizon. Had I not started reading the boards here before I replaced my SDTivo with an R15 from Best Buy a few years back, I would have had no idea that I was paying $99 to lease a new box. I checked the displays at the store and the boxes, nothing. When I called DirecTV to remove the Tivo and activate the R15, they removed the Tivo, activated the R15 and were ready to hang up with no mention of it. I signed nothing and was told nothing about it. I actually had to ask the rep directly (since I already knew the answer) if I owned this new box or was simply leasing it and would have to return it if I cancelled service.

You're definitely not alone in your "surprise" just a little late to the game around here.


----------



## djousma (Jan 22, 2007)

I look at it this way, and it is similar to cable.

With DTV, for the $5 monthly lease service fee you get a bare bones box(SD, NON-DVR). If you want to upgrade beyond the standard, you pay the "upgrade fee - $99 for SD DVR, $199 for HD DVR)", and your monthly recurring fee is still $5.

With cable the bottom is just a decoder box. You want DVR? Add another $14/month for Comcast in my area. A second DVR? Add another $21/month($14 for DVR, $7 for outlet fee)

The difference is that DTV gets the "upgrade fee" all at once, and keeps the monthly at $5, where the cable companies charge you that same DVR fee forever.

Personally, I would rather pay the upgrade fee once, keeping my monthly costs low. It is then up to me, how long I want to keep my equipment before upgrading again.


----------



## BattleZone (Nov 13, 2007)

BattleScott said:


> Perryville, the big problem here is that you found out the hard way what had been kicked around here previously and VERY emotionaly a few years ago when the change was made from purchase to lease model. If you signed up 2 years ago, you did so during a time in which the "Up front lease fee" was even more shrouded in secrecy than it is today. Up until the last year or so, there were no signs displayed in the retail outlets informing potential customers that they are paying an "upfront lease fee" and not purchasing the unit. There were also no explanations prominently posted on the boxes.


The lease program started March 1, 2006. By August 2006, all of the receiver boxes had stickers on them with the lease terms, due to the failure of the big-box retailers to follow DirecTV policy and inform customers that this equipment was leased. It's been that way ever since.

Best Buy, Circuit City, and Costco all handled the program very badly in the beginning. Best Buy mostly does it right these days, while Costco often screws customers over by doing things like accepting returned receivers, which results in a chargeback to the customer. To be fair, Costco is generally fantastic about returns, but in this instance, activated receivers are not supposed to be returned to retailers, and most Costco employees aren't properly trained (by Costco) about DirecTV policies, so they accept them anyway. Circuit City no longer exists.


----------



## RobertE (Jun 10, 2006)

BattleZone said:


> The lease program started March 1, 2006. By August 2006, all of the receiver boxes had stickers on them with the lease terms, due to the failure of the big-box retailers to follow DirecTV policy and inform customers that this equipment was leased. It's been that way ever since.
> 
> Best Buy, Circuit City, and Costco all handled the program very badly in the beginning. Best Buy mostly does it right these days, while Costco often screws customers over by doing things like accepting returned receivers, which results in a chargeback to the customer. To be fair, Costco is generally fantastic about returns, but in this instance, activated receivers are not supposed to be returned to retailers, and most Costco employees aren't properly trained (by Costco) about DirecTV policies, so they accept them anyway. Circuit City no longer exists.


Just to add: The current retail packaging (introduced 1-1.5 years ago) has the "This box is leased, blah, blah, blah" printed on it. The only way to miss it is to simply not read it. It's right on the front.

Prior to that there was a sticker on the box. (4-6 months)

Prior to that, there was no print, no sticker and the retail outlets did a very poor job of relaying to the customer that they were leasing the boxes and not purchasing them.


----------



## durl (Mar 27, 2003)

I admit that my initial reaction to the lease program was not a good one. I liked picking my own receivers. However, I soon realized that it was actually a very good way to go. (My first HD receiver was a non-DVR unit that I purchased for around $700.) For the record, I can't recall not being told about lease fees or commitment periods.

Some random thoughts that this thread has made me think about: (and these are NOT directed to the OP in any way.)

- Regarding the fine print: I'm guessing 99.99% of us hate reading the fine print but it's one of those things made necessary in today's business world. While lawyers draw up lots of legal jargon to place on the bottom of those contracts, another group of lawyers is looking for holes in that jargon that allow them to file a class-action suit, garnering millions for their firm and about $4.17 for each customer involved, all under the guise of looking out for the "common people."

- I don't really think providers should have "LEASE OUR RECEIVERS FOR $5 A MONTH AND START ENJOYING OUR PROGRAMMING!!" as the header on their websites. They're in the business of providing television programming. The lease is merely part of the deal to view their programming. Maybe I'm just used to how the system works, but even those coming from cable are used to leasing a box, correct? I believe a lot of people don't ask questions because they don't want to know more information. They'll simply get mad later if things don't turn out the way they want.

- People are calling 9-1-1 because there were no McNuggets or their fast-food order was too small for their liking. These may be extremes but companies have to prepare for the extreme cases. Sometimes people expect too much and have a really bad reaction when their unrealistic expectations aren't met.

- Years ago, I spent some time as a CSR in another industry. I quickly realized that customers will flat-out lie to you in order to get something. However, they'd go out of their mind if you were to even make an honest mistake when it comes to information.


----------



## Ken S (Feb 13, 2007)

durl said:


> I admit that my initial reaction to the lease program was not a good one. I liked picking my own receivers. However, I soon realized that it was actually a very good way to go. (My first HD receiver was a non-DVR unit that I purchased for around $700.) For the record, I can't recall not being told about lease fees or commitment periods.
> 
> Some random thoughts that this thread has made me think about: (and these are NOT directed to the OP in any way.)
> 
> ...


You're right about people coming from cable being used to leases...but that's exactly the issue...most of the people who lease boxes from cable NEVER go to a retail store and make a significant payment. They get given a box and pay monthly. How many other items in a BestBuy do you pay for and not own?


----------



## BattleZone (Nov 13, 2007)

Ken S said:


> You're right about people coming from cable being used to leases...but that's exactly the issue...most of the people who lease boxes from cable NEVER go to a retail store and make a significant payment. They get given a box and pay monthly.


True. But we all know that monthly charge for the DVR will end up costing most customers a lot more than what a DirecTV customer will pay over, say, 2 years, amd most customers stay a lot longer than that.


----------



## wingrider01 (Sep 9, 2005)

BattleScott said:


> Perryville, the big problem here is that you found out the hard way what had been kicked around here previously and VERY emotionaly a few years ago when the change was made from purchase to lease model. If you signed up 2 years ago, you did so during a time in which the "Up front lease fee" was even more shrouded in secrecy than it is today. Up until the last year or so, there were no signs displayed in the retail outlets informing potential customers that they are paying an "upfront lease fee" and not purchasing the unit. There were also no explanations prominently posted on the boxes. And in your case, I'm sure there was no mention of it by Verizon. Had I not started reading the boards here before I replaced my SDTivo with an R15 from Best Buy a few years back, I would have had no idea that I was paying $99 to lease a new box. I checked the displays at the store and the boxes, nothing. When I called DirecTV to remove the Tivo and activate the R15, they removed the Tivo, activated the R15 and were ready to hang up with no mention of it. I signed nothing and was told nothing about it. I actually had to ask the rep directly (since I already knew the answer) if I owned this new box or was simply leasing it and would have to return it if I cancelled service.
> 
> You're definitely not alone in your "surprise" just a little late to the game around here.


every modification that I have had done on the system there was a acceptance document that the installer showed you and you signed after they where finished - on the back of it was the contract


----------



## BattleScott (Aug 29, 2006)

wingrider01 said:


> every modification that I have had done on the system there was a acceptance document that the installer showed you and you signed after they where finished - on the back of it was the contract


Therein lies the rub. In over 6 years of service, including the initial installation, HD Dish upgrade, Dish Re-align visit, and 2 receiver replacements, I have never been shown or signed a single form. It's the inconsistency in the practices that lead to many of these problems, as well as the users here criticizing other users for being stupid or not reading things that they were never given.


----------



## perryville (Apr 22, 2009)

BattleScott said:


> Therein lies the rub. In over 6 years of service, including the initial installation, HD Dish upgrade, Dish Re-align visit, and 2 receiver replacements, I have never been shown or signed a single form. It's the inconsistency in the practices that lead to many of these problems, as well as the users here criticizing other users for being stupid or not reading things that they were never given.


Thanks to all of those who sympathize with this plight and aren't jumping down my throat calling me an "ignorant american consumer."

Also I never bought a box from a retail outlet, I paid via phone, it showed up on the day of the install brought by the D* contractor who did the install (poorly I might add - the wife was pissed about that).

I'm done here - and I suppose this thread may live on. I do appreciate people that are supportive and understanding. My very best to everyone who replied, and I hope that this will wake up some people to the hidden costs that I had to deal with going through a 3rd party.


----------



## bobcamp1 (Nov 8, 2007)

bonscott87 said:


> It's been explained to you several times....It's the same dang fee!
> 
> Owed = $5 (called additional receiver fee)
> Leased = $5 (called leased fee for accounting reasons)
> ...


That's probably illegal, FYI. You can't charge some customers the additional receiver fee while waiving it for others with everything else being equal. The additional leased receivers should be $5 lease + $5 additional receiver fee = $10. Either it costs D* money to support your additional receivers or it doesn't. You can't gouge someone for $5 / month just because they bought your equipment vs. leasing it.


----------



## Kheldar (Sep 5, 2004)

bobcamp1 said:


> That's probably illegal, FYI. You can't charge some customers the additional receiver fee while waiving it for others with everything else being equal. The additional leased receivers should be $5 lease + $5 additional receiver fee = $10. Either it costs D* money to support your additional receivers or it doesn't. You can't gouge someone for $5 / month just because they bought your equipment vs. leasing it.


As anyone in sales or marketing knows: the price of a product or service has very little to do with the actual production cost of the product. It has more to do with "what the market will bear" -- what customers are willing to pay for the product or service. If customers aren't willing to pay a price higher than the production cost, the product doesn't make it to market.


----------



## su_A_ve (Sep 27, 2007)

Many here forget when you were paying $200+ for the first DVR several years ago...

When some would complain and ask why do we have to pay while the cable company would not charge us, D* would say "... but you own the equipment".

The $200 stayed and the 'mirroring fee' was changed to a 'lease fee'. Now is an upgrade price and we don't own the equipment...


----------



## Upstream (Jul 4, 2006)

Also, you can offer customers discounts if they purchase more stuff. Cable companies offer you a discount if you get TV+Internet+Phone. DirecTV gives you a $5 disount on the $5 programming mirror fee if you lease equipment from them and pay the lease fee.

Perfectly legal.


----------



## coldsteel (Mar 29, 2007)

bobcamp1 said:


> That's probably illegal, FYI. You can't charge some customers the additional receiver fee while waiving it for others with everything else being equal. The additional leased receivers should be $5 lease + $5 additional receiver fee = $10. Either it costs D* money to support your additional receivers or it doesn't. You can't gouge someone for $5 / month just because they bought your equipment vs. leasing it.


NONONO.

The fee is to SHARE programming on the receiver. On an owned receiver, it's called an additional receiver fee. On a leased receiver, it's called a leased receiver fee. Same reason, different name.


----------



## Elephanthead (Feb 3, 2007)

Look, we all know the DTV upfront lease fees are BS fees that just add to DTV's profits. The sooner everyone accepts this fact, the sooner we can get over everyone whining about themor trying to justify them. DTV got your money and you are a sucker for paying it. Deal with it and move on. Most people have been able to negotiate free receivers and or monthly credits to cushion the cost.


----------



## bonscott87 (Jan 21, 2003)

bobcamp1 said:


> That's probably illegal, FYI. You can't charge some customers the additional receiver fee while waiving it for others with everything else being equal. The additional leased receivers should be $5 lease + $5 additional receiver fee = $10. Either it costs D* money to support your additional receivers or it doesn't. You can't gouge someone for $5 / month just because they bought your equipment vs. leasing it.


Methinks you are confused.

Since the dawn of time (or when DirecTV started) they have charged $5 programming mirror fee to any receiver after your first one. This is so that your receivers beyond the first one get the same programming. Kinda like how cable charges extra for each "outlet" that is active.

For the longest time this appeared on our bills as "program mirror fee" or something similar.
When they started the leased model they renamed it to "additional receiver fee" for units that are owned. For leased units it's called "lease fee".

It's the same $5 programming mirror fee no matter what. It's just called different things on your bill. The $5 "lease fee" has nothing to do with actually leasing your receiver, it's a programming mirror fee.

The only difference between lease and owned is simply the up front fee. 
Leased is from free to $199 with a 2 year commitment. 
Owned is $400+ usually with no commitment but you do have to fight for it.
As pointed out many times with the math, even if you leave early with the commitment and pay out the ETF you'll still come out ahead by leasing unless you leave in just a couple months.


----------



## Athlon646464 (Feb 23, 2007)

Elephanthead said:


> Look, we all know the DTV upfront lease fees are BS fees that just add to DTV's profits. The sooner everyone accepts this fact, the sooner we can get over everyone whining about themor trying to justify them. DTV got your money and you are a sucker for paying it. Deal with it and move on. Most people have been able to negotiate free receivers and or monthly credits to cushion the cost.


If we could only eliminate their profits entirely, then we'd all have free TV!!

:grin:


----------



## bonscott87 (Jan 21, 2003)

Elephanthead said:


> Look, we all know the DTV upfront lease fees are BS fees that just add to DTV's profits. The sooner everyone accepts this fact, the sooner we can get over everyone whining about themor trying to justify them. DTV got your money and you are a sucker for paying it. Deal with it and move on. Most people have been able to negotiate free receivers and or monthly credits to cushion the cost.


Sooooo, you feel that an HD DVR is free to manufacture and doesn't cost DirecTV anything to install for you? LOL :lol:


----------



## STEVED21 (Feb 6, 2006)

Elephanthead said:


> Look, we all know the DTV upfront lease fees are BS fees that just add to DTV's profits. The sooner everyone accepts this fact, the sooner we can get over everyone whining about themor trying to justify them. DTV got your money and you are a sucker for paying it. Deal with it and move on. Most people have been able to negotiate free receivers and or monthly credits to cushion the cost.


Do you work for free or do you intend to "make a profit" at work?


----------



## durl (Mar 27, 2003)

Man...what happened to basic economics?


----------



## scrybigtv (Jan 25, 2008)

BlueEos said:


> Hey Perryville, its a RECEIVER, not a reciever.
> 
> No, you didn't buy it. You leased it. Don't know where you picked it up, but at Costco, it plainly states that it is leased at $169.99.
> 
> ...


Hey, BlueEos, it's MEANINGLESS, not meanless!


----------



## scrybigtv (Jan 25, 2008)

lee78221 said:


> But to what end. Some of us are college grads at the top of our field and some of us work at the Buymore)). How far do you dumb down the TOS before everyone can read it?


The overwhelming arrogance of that statement is mindboggling. It might even cause someone who didn't know better to think you're a Texan. Oh, wait a minute&#8230;


----------



## bluemoon737 (Feb 21, 2007)

CCarncross said:


> It's apparent that perryville will never be a happy customer anywhere. He "dumped" Comcast, now has E*, which when the honeymoon is over he will probably start complaining about them as well. The truth is when he went the Verizon route 2 years ago is probably where the lack of info started about being poorly informed about the leasing model etc...


Or "enjoying" the slingboxed Sunday Ticket. I do agree though that DirecTV's upfront costs are a bit steep.


----------



## bluemoon737 (Feb 21, 2007)

perryville said:


> #2 A receiver is a computer. Unless you count transistors on a silicon chip, it has no moving parts. It's not a machine....that guy is just stupid.
> 
> QUOTE]
> 
> You said you had a DVR...there's a hard drive in that DVR which has moving parts (and they DO fail). So calling him stupid is completely out of line.


----------



## lee78221 (Sep 25, 2007)

scrybigtv said:


> The overwhelming arrogance of that statement is mindboggling. It might even cause someone who didn't know better to think you're a Texan. Oh, wait a minute&#8230;


 Please explain how I'm showing overwhelming arrogance with my statement?


----------



## mstanka (Jan 26, 2003)

perryville said:


> I just want to be clear here. I was charged weeks in advance of my service, via telephone with a Verizon agent. Since the original post, I've asked both D* and Verizon to provide verification of the lease fee. Neither will provide any signed document by me. I'll agree that I did not do my due diligence, and I did before signing up with E*. I was much happier knowing that I wasn't going to get screwed by E* nor was I treated as severely as D*. Provided nothing changes (With E* or my own situation), I will remain with E* for a period of time well beyond the length of my contract.
> 
> I was content with D* except for their programming fees that they command (for the same television that every Sat/Cable provider gives their customers) higher fees because of Sunday Ticket (or so is my personal belief). When I left they asked if they had brought my price in parity with E* if I'd stay. I would have, except that the lease fees would continue resulting in a higher bill.
> 
> ...


I guess that you STILL do not understand what the lease fee is!!
It is a programming mirroring fee! Whether it is called a Lease fee or Mirror fee, it is the EXACT same thing!
If you only had one receiver, you would not pay this fee. This fee only applies to each receiver after the first one. It always has and will very likely continue as well.

Dish Network charges this same fee for each receiver after the first. Same EXACT thing.

I'm tired of people blaming everyone else but thereselves.

I know that people like you feel that you should be handed everything because you subscribe to a service. Directv is in the business of making money!!

I cannot wait see what you say when Dish Network decides to start pulling channels because they do not want to "pay" the same price as all theother providers.

Enough said.

Michael.


----------



## bluemoon737 (Feb 21, 2007)

timhood said:


> I've been a DirecTV customer since 1995. Back then, I had to buy my receiver--I think it was Circuit City. I cost me something like $400. Compared to the $100 for the current lease, I needed to own that for 4 years to "break even".
> 
> But over the next 4 years, the receivers certainly got better, probably much better than what I had. DVR was introduced somewhere along the way.
> 
> ...


In 1995 there were two receivers (both RCA) and one cost $699 and the dual LNB version cost $899...ahhh, the "good ole days" :lol:


----------



## bluemoon737 (Feb 21, 2007)

perryville said:


> I dont lease things, I buy things. I am aware of auto leases, but I've never leased one, yet I am aware of the up front payments. However, as I've stated, apartment leases are not the same way nor do rentals (like construction equipment). Before somebody tries to debate lease/rent it's the same damn thing. For my own information, what else can you lease (besides Autos or sat TV equipment) that requires an up front payment?


There are many nicer apartments that charge a "non-refundable" cleaning fee to lease that apartment. It's still an up-front cost that you don't get back. No matter what you want to call it up-front, non-refundable fees for some apartments do exist.


----------



## say-what (Dec 14, 2006)

bluemoon737 said:


> In 1995 there were two receivers (both RCA) and one cost $699 and the dual LNB version cost $899...ahhh, the "good ole days" :lol:


I remember installing one of those for my Parents... ahhhhh.


----------



## bluemoon737 (Feb 21, 2007)

say-what said:


> I remember installing one of those for my Parents... ahhhhh.


Ahhh...paid for the $99 self-install kit did ya?

Let's not forget the high data rate port on the $899 receiver for future expansion... The LNBs back in those days were so static charge sensitive that a single lightning strike anywhere within a 10 mile radius would likely cause it to fail (even when properly grounded).


----------



## scrybigtv (Jan 25, 2008)

lee78221 said:


> Please explain how I'm showing overwhelming arrogance with my statement?


:lol: You're kidding, right? What you're saying is that anyone who doesn't measure up to your level on the reading comprehension scale has no right to complain if he thinks he's treated unfairly by D*.


----------



## BattleScott (Aug 29, 2006)

mstanka said:


> I guess that you STILL do not understand what the lease fee is!!
> It is a programming mirroring fee! Whether it is called a Lease fee or Mirror fee, it is the EXACT same thing!
> If you only had one receiver, you would not pay this fee. This fee only applies to each receiver after the first one. It always has and will very likely continue as well.
> 
> ...


He's not complaining about the $5 monthly fee. What he's complaining about is that he was charged $200 for a DVR when he subscribed. Since no one told him that what he was actually paying was an "up-front fee" to begin leasing the receiver, and he was not actually purchasing it, he is understandably upset.

Although he's probably more upset by all the people beating him down and insulting him without even bothering to read what he posted in the first place.

Also, never been a Dish subscriber, but it is my understanding that if you lease a Dish receiver, there are no up front fees. Just a slightly higher monthly fee. I believe it was $7 a month for the HD DVR last time I compared services?


----------



## lee78221 (Sep 25, 2007)

scrybigtv said:


> :lol: You're kidding, right? What you're saying is that anyone who doesn't measure up to your level on the reading comprehension scale has no right to complain if he thinks he's treated unfairly by D*.


 Nope, I'm saying I expect more from the average American. I think it's really an insult to us(Americans) to only expect us to understand documents written at an 8th grade level(And Having the bar set that low). If that makes me overwhelming arrogant, then so be it.

Now to the OP. He has no right to complain, DirecTV had every right to charge him that fee(Both the up front free and the monthly lease fee). It's his own fault for not asking questions.


----------



## bridge (Feb 10, 2008)

lee78221 said:


> Nope, I'm saying I expect more from the average American. I think it's really an insult to us(Americans) to only expect us to understand documents written at an 8th grade level(And Having the bar set that low). If that makes me overwhelming arrogant, then so be it.


Have you given any thought as to why they (we) chose 8th grade as an index? Given the education offered internationally, having the stats to show that the majority (within a standard confidence interval) of Americans will understand a document written to that standard is very impressive. You said you're 21, correct?


----------



## lee78221 (Sep 25, 2007)

bridge said:


> Have you given any thought as to why they (we) chose 8th grade as an index? Given the education offered internationally, having the stats to show that the majority (within a standard confidence interval) of Americans will understand a document written to that standard is very impressive.


The same could be said for a 5th grade reading level or even lower. IMHO, Having the bar set that low is really an insult to most Americans(But with the way our education system is going that might be a compliment.)



bridge said:


> You said you're 21, correct?


Yes.


----------



## bridge (Feb 10, 2008)

lee78221 said:


> The same could be said for a 5th grade reading level or even lower. IMHO, Having the bar set that low is really an insult to most Americans(But with the way our education system is going that might be a compliment.)


It's not that the bar is set that low. Its that statistically speaking, we have the greatest chance of members of the population understanding the language at that level. Sure, we could set it higher, but we would be excluding an ever larger segment of the population. If I'm going to market a product (or pharmaceutical product) I want to make sure that my literature is readable by my entire target population. Contrary to belief, highly educated people don't mind reading publications written using an intermediate school vocabulary. Lots of literature on this studied and published by the NIH over at pubmed.com.

This is pretty much my entire point. I don't care what D*'s policies are (although I will use their implementation of them when deciding to extend my contract) as long as they use a standard format and language to explain them to their target demographic...which I believe is everyone with a clear view of the southern sky. And last time I checked that view wasn't only reserved for people with a certain education level.

What I find insulting is that I know for a FACT DirecTv is aware of this because they poach people from my industry all the time (we're both in the business of putting people/things in space...but I do it for research value not profit). We're all required to take research ethics, business ethics and professional conflict of interest (COI) training YEARLY. They just ignore it because they know it might cost them business.


----------



## BattleZone (Nov 13, 2007)

BattleScott said:


> Also, never been a Dish subscriber, but it is my understanding that if you lease a Dish receiver, there are no up front fees. Just a slightly higher monthly fee. I believe it was $7 a month for the HD DVR last time I compared services?


That's not quite accurate.

As a NEW customer, you can (with good credit, of course) get up to a 722 and a 222 for only the $50 activation fee. But if you want, say, 2 722s or a 722 and 2 612s or even a 722 and 2 211s, you'll be paying upfront lease fees to upgrade to those receivers.

And as an existing customer, you'll pay up-front lease fees to upgrade your older receivers. So, there is really very little difference between Dish and DirecTV, since DirecTV also gives discounts to new customers, often waiving the up-front lease fees on the first advanced receiver or two (again, if you have good credit).

But Dish has a 4-independent output lease limit, meaning you can only lease enough receivers to run 4 TVs. Any receivers beyond that must be bought as owned, generally at or very near full MSRP. And any dish/switch parts needed to connect those owned receivers, plus installation labor, must all be paid for by the customer.

By comparison, DirecTV will let you lease at least 8 receivers without too many questions, and will lease even more as long as an FSM can verify that all receivers are in the home.

This difference is one of the reasons that people with larger systems are effectively driven away from Dish to DirecTV (and something Dish needs to fix ASAP!).


----------



## bonscott87 (Jan 21, 2003)

BattleZone said:


> And as an existing customer, you'll pay up-front lease fees to upgrade your older receivers. So, there is really very little difference between Dish and DirecTV, since DirecTV also gives discounts to new customers, often waiving the up-front lease fees on the first advanced receiver or two (again, if you have good credit).


Exactly. As a new customer of either Dish or DirecTV you'll get all kinds of deals with free or nearly free receivers. That's why I laugh at "well Dish gave me 2 HD DVRs for free". Yep. And wait until you want a 3rd in 6 months and they want $299 for it! :lol: From what I read Dish rarely will bend on that either while DirecTV is more into giving deals if you are a good customer. But still, best deals are for newbies with both.


----------



## wingrider01 (Sep 9, 2005)

bobcamp1 said:


> That's probably illegal, FYI. You can't charge some customers the additional receiver fee while waiving it for others with everything else being equal. The additional leased receivers should be $5 lease + $5 additional receiver fee = $10. Either it costs D* money to support your additional receivers or it doesn't. You can't gouge someone for $5 / month just because they bought your equipment vs. leasing it.


confused on your statement, everyone is charged the amount, the title is different depending on if you own the reciever or lease it - and there is taxed charged on the lease cost in a lot of states, so it has to be titled differently. DO not see anything stated that "some customers are charged and some are not" Everyone gets the charge in some form or the other. Do not see anything that woild make it illegal.

Exactly how are you getting "gouged" as you put it?

Customer A has a owned recivier - they get charged 5.00 for it aka mirror cost

Customer B has a leased reciever - they gwt charged 5.00 for it - aka Lease charge

Bot of them pay 5.00, only difference is the person with the leased reciever is subject to a sales tax. If you want to dsipute that, take it up with your state of residence, they both pay 5.00, nothing more, nothing less, symantic's only


----------



## BattleScott (Aug 29, 2006)

wingrider01 said:


> confused on your statement, everyone is charged the amount, the title is different depending on if you own the reciever or lease it - and there is taxed charged on the lease cost in a lot of states, so it has to be titled differently. DO not see anything stated that "some customers are charged and some are not" Everyone gets the charge in some form or the other. Do not see anything that woild make it illegal.
> 
> Exactly how are you getting "gouged" as you put it?
> 
> ...


If you buy a receiver outright, then DirecTV has no investment in it to recoup. If you lease a receiver, DirecTV has a certain investment that they need to get back over time. They do so with the upfront fee and the monthly lease fee. The lease fee and the mirror fee, while the same amount, are not the same thing. What it boils down to is that if a receiver is "owned" then it is subject to a mirror fee that leased receivers are not.

For example, let's add a 2nd HD DVR to an account.

Leased HR2x DVR (24 months)
$200 up front
$120 lease fees ($5 x 24)
$320 total investment (return when done)

Owned HR2x (24 months)
$499 purchase (estimated)
$120 additional recevier fees ($5 x 24) 
$610 total investment (keep when done)

What you can see here is that customers who are "leasing" extra receivers (making monthly payments) are not being charged a fee to use them as additional recievers on their account.

So to be fair, either the leased receivers should be charged the additional $5 extra receiver charge, or the owned receivers should not be charged the extra receiver fee.

What you can also see here is that since there is no monthly cost advantage to owning the reveiver vs. leasing, and the receiver is only functional with DirecTV, purchasing the receiver outright is really a bad idea...


----------



## perryville (Apr 22, 2009)

BattleScott said:


> If you buy a receiver outright, then DirecTV has no investment in it to recoup. If you lease a receiver, DirecTV has a certain investment that they need to get back over time. They do so with the upfront fee and the monthly lease fee. The lease fee and the mirror fee, while the same amount, are not the same thing. What it boils down to is that if a receiver is "owned" then it is subject to a mirror fee that leased receivers are not.
> 
> For example, let's add a 2nd HD DVR to an account.
> 
> ...


There;s been a lot of misinformation and distorted information going around. I was appauled at the up-front fee to lease a receiver. You can make the business case for lease vs buy, but it was never clearly explained to me by Verizon what I was getting into.

Also, I paid to lease an HD box w/o DVR and was still charged 3 lease fees each month for 3 receivers.

Finally the Dish billed me, and I pay the exact cost of the package (44.99, + 2.00 tax each month). No fees, no surcharges, no nothing.

The case I'm trying to make is that when I buy things I'm generally informed. I knew about the $30 data plan with the iPhone before i bought it, I knew it'd have to be with AT&T, and I dont mind paying out the ass for the convenience that the product brings me - and there is plenty of competition in that arena.

The only thing I would advocate here, and I dare ANYBODY to challenge me, is that before the installer sets foot in your house, before anything is ever even started, that any consumer sign a statement agreeing to the T&C with the monthly bill stated right on the front large bold type, including taxes, fees, etc. Had I known on the day of the install I was paying up front and monthly leasing fees, I would have told the installer not to unload his truck. I have no complaints with DTV otherwise.

A lot of people have hit on the point here that it's a dirty sales game and frankly that's not a part of my personal core values and I wish it weren't a part of our society. Be that as it may, i'm sure I'll draw some fire from people calling me a lazy American consumer or a cry baby or a whiner. Simply put, namecalling and insulting isn't constructive, but by all means continue doing so to make yourself feel better.


----------



## bonscott87 (Jan 21, 2003)

BattleScott said:


> They do so with the upfront fee and the monthly lease fee. The lease fee and the mirror fee, while the same amount, are not the same thing. What it boils down to is that if a receiver is "owned" then it is subject to a mirror fee that leased receivers are not.


Well, that is wrong. It *is* a program mirror fee. It's just called different things depending on if you own or lease and the reason is so that states can add tax on the leased receiver. It's also an accounting issue so that DirecTV can keep track of what is leased and what isn't.


----------



## sdirv (Dec 14, 2008)

perryville said:


> There;s been a lot of misinformation and distorted information going around. I was appauled at the up-front fee to lease a receiver. You can make the business case for lease vs buy, but it was never clearly explained to me by Verizon what I was getting into.
> 
> A lot of people have hit on the point here that it's a dirty sales game and frankly that's not a part of my personal core values and I wish it weren't a part of our society. Be that as it may, i'm sure I'll draw some fire from people calling me a lazy American consumer or a cry baby or a whiner. Simply put, namecalling and insulting isn't constructive, but by all means continue doing so to make yourself feel better.


I'm not going to give you grief about what you've done, or the opinions you have. I'll just ask you one question though.....

If you indeed "bought" the D* receiver (at the much higher cost associated with purchase), when/if you quit D*.....what will you use the receiver for (besides a doorstop)?????

What I haven't seen mentioned here is that as quickly as the technology advances, a lot of the time D* doesn't ask for the "leased" receivers to be returned anyway. When I upgraded from an H10 to an H20.....I donated the H10 to Goodwill (since D* didn't want it back). When I upgraded my H20 to an HR22....well, I just moved the H20 into another room, but I did deactivate one of my D10's.....and was told just to hang onto it (in case another of my D10's failed in the future), they didn't want it back.

Maybe I'll change my mind about giving you grief......in my opinion, just because you misunderstood D*'s business model (and apparently still do), doesn't mean that D*'s doing anything illegal or immoral.....if you truly disagree with D*'s business model and practices, don't do business with them. All the whining and hand wringing in a public forum accomplishes nothing at all.......


----------



## Athlon646464 (Feb 23, 2007)

bridge said:


> It's not that the bar is set that low. Its that statistically speaking, we have the greatest chance of members of the population understanding the language at that level. Sure, we could set it higher, but we would be excluding an ever larger segment of the population. If I'm going to market a product (or pharmaceutical product) I want to make sure that my literature is readable by my entire target population. Contrary to belief, highly educated people don't mind reading publications written using an intermediate school vocabulary. Lots of literature on this studied and published by the NIH over at pubmed.com.


I believe I understand your point. What you are saying is, that the lower the target audience for these kinds of publications, the larger the audience. If that is the logic, statistically speaking, then why not lower the level to grade 1 for an even larger audience. Where should the bar be set?



bridge said:


> What I find insulting is that I know for a FACT DirecTv is aware of this because they poach people from my industry all the time (we're both in the business of putting people/things in space...but I do it for research value not profit). We're all required to take research ethics, business ethics and professional conflict of interest (COI) training YEARLY. They just ignore it because they know it might cost them business.


You sound like a really nice person, with a jaundiced view of large companies (or at least D*). That's fine, but if you use your logic, what D* should do is lower their standards when it comes to their hiring practices. Then they would be able to draw from a larger population and not have to 'poach' people from your industry. Also - my guess is that most of the negative issues encountered by dissatisfied D* customers are a result of poorly trained (perhaps even 'undereducated') employees, and not a result of poor policies and processes. Using your logic, customer satisfaction can only decline.

It's a shame, but I see this every day. The best example is when I go to a Dunkin' Donuts drive through and order just a large black coffee - I have about a 60% chance that they will get the order correct (when I include the payment process). I know it's not Dunkin's policies or processes in the way, it's a combination of their traning and hiring practices.

But, alas, they are forced to lower their standards, as are we all... :nono:


----------



## Upstream (Jul 4, 2006)

bonscott87 said:


> Well, that is wrong. It *is* a program mirror fee. It's just called different things depending on if you own or lease and the reason is so that states can add tax on the leased receiver. It's also an accounting issue so that DirecTV can keep track of what is leased and what isn't.


Bonscott, Battlescott is right. The mirror fee and lease fee are different fees, not different names for the same fee.

The lease fee is specifically a fee for the equipment.

The mirror fee (officially called the "Additional TV Authorization Fee") is specifically a fee for programming service.

Although the mirror fee is waived for people with leased equipment, since they pay the lease fee, one is a fee for hardware and the other is a fee for service. They are not the same thing. They are just the same amount.


----------



## BattleScott (Aug 29, 2006)

Upstream said:


> Bonscott, Battlescott is right. The mirror fee and lease fee are different fees, not different names for the same fee.
> 
> The lease fee is specifically a fee for the equipment.
> 
> ...


Eggzachary. And furthermore, leasing the device using a small monthly payment and buying the device outright with one large payment both give you the right to have the equipment in your home and connected to your system.

The mirroring fee is what gives you the right to view your programming package on additional receivers and should either be charged for all additional receivers or not charged for all additional receivers. To charge this fee against owned receivers and not leased receivers seems a little unfair to me, but is certainly another reason that leasing is a better option than buying outright!

Here is the "Monthly Lease Fee" clause:


> MONTHLY LEASE FEE.
> For a new DIRECTV customer, you will be charged a monthly lease fee in the amount of $5 per 2nd and each additional receiver leased by you in your household. For a current customer, you will be charged a monthly fee in the amount of $5 for each receiver leased by you in your household, unless you replace all of your owned-equipment with leased equipment, in which case, the monthly lease fee will be waived for the 1st receiver. Applicable taxes will apply. LEASE FEE SUBJECT TO CHANGE AT ANY TIME.


Here is the "Additional TV Authorization Fee" clause:


> (3) Up to $5.00 Additional TV Authorization Fee in connection with obtaining Service on each additional TV connected to Receiving Equipment you own, provided you meet the qualifications specified in Section 1(f) and the Receiving Equipment is located at your residence. Customers with leased Receiving Equipment do not pay this fee, but pay the Lease Fee specified in the Equipment Lease Addendum.


----------



## bonscott87 (Jan 21, 2003)

Whatever guys, you're arguing semantics. 

Every receiver beyond your first is charged $5 a month, leased or owned. 
Period.
Call it whatever you want, it's 5 bucks.


----------



## ehilbert1 (Jan 23, 2007)

perryville said:


> A lot of people have hit on the point here that it's a dirty sales game and frankly that's not a part of my personal core values and I wish it weren't a part of our society. Be that as it may, i'm sure I'll draw some fire from people calling me a lazy American consumer or a cry baby or a whiner. Simply put, namecalling and insulting isn't constructive, but by all means continue doing so to make yourself feel better.


I hope thats not the case. I think we are all adults here and we should treat each other better. A lot of people on here that name call and insult would never do that to a persons face because they know what could happen. I guess its easier when you can't see the persons face. If you don't agree with the OP or you keep not agreeing why would you stay in this thread? It makes no sense unless you just enjoy going back and fourth and racking up more posts.

Again to the OP. I hope you don't think all of us are like that. I enjoy this board for the wealth of experience and info it brings. I don't post much because there are people on here that can't wait to put you down and try to make you look stupid. Not eveyone on here is like that and thats why I stay and mostly just read.

I wasn't happy with the upfront lease fee either,but it sure beat getting nickled and dimed by Time Warner.


----------



## gnahc79 (Jan 12, 2008)

These days for big corporations, business ethics is an oxymoron.

"lowering standards" the level to the 8th grade, 5th grade, minus 2 grade has nothing to do with insulting the intelligence of Americans. Using the term 'lowering' probably isn't the best term to use I guess. If the same information can be communicated clearly and concisely at the 8th grade level, then nothing is lost IMO. If a consumer has a PhD it doesn't mean that they WANT to read a Directv contract that's at the 12th grade or higher level. It's a satellite service contract, not a research paper being submitted for publication. There's no need to make a lease agreement more complex than it is today. I'm not advocating babying/hand holding text either. 

As bridge mentioned, the 8th grade standard has been used in other industries and this is nothing new.


----------



## BattleScott (Aug 29, 2006)

bonscott87 said:


> Whatever guys, you're arguing semantics.
> 
> Every receiver beyond your first is charged $5 a month, leased or owned.
> Period.
> Call it whatever you want, it's 5 bucks.


No, were arguing *philosophy*. No one is arguing the fact that both are being charged $5 a month, just whether it's correct or not.

If I purchase a receiver outright, I pay a much higher price for the same receiver that a leasing customer gets. The leasing customer pays a $5 lease fee every month INSTEAD of paying the much higher price. This is the foundation of the lease fee, it has nothing to do with mirroring.

The inequity is that the purchaser is charged an additional $5 mirroring fee that is never assessed to leased receviers. Remember, the $5 lease fee is paid as an alternative to paying a higher purchase cost, so it does not equate to this $5 mirror fee.

To be fair, there should be an additional $5 mirror fee assessed on leased receivers, making it $10 / month OR there should be NO additional fees assessed on owned receivers since they have in essence made ALL of their $5 payments up front.

Since I lease mine, I certainly opt for option #2.


----------



## bobcamp1 (Nov 8, 2007)

There are two advantages to buying:

1. The lease fee is subject to change at any time, and if it does you cannot break the 2-year commitment. The additional receiver fee is not subject to change, so if it does you can break the 2-year commitment without penalty. Currently, the fees are a penny off. But tomorrow, the lease fee could be $10 or $20 higher and you'd be stuck with it.

2. You can modify the unit. So for example if your HD is dying, you can copy your programs to a new HD and replace it yourself. If you get caught hacking a leased receiver, D* will charge you a lot extra when you return it.

The advantages to leasing are: an almost free replacement if something breaks, but you lose the recordings; and there is less money to pay up front if you can't afford it.


Also, as I said, waiving the additional receiver fee for all leased customers isn't really fair. All it does is cover the possibility that the additional receiver is not in the same house. I don't see how a leased receiver has any less probability of being used for service theft.


----------



## JayB (Mar 19, 2007)

Ok, every argument on the internet gets to this point, and now's the time. It's time, my friends, to bring up Hitler and Nazis. I think this is just like Nazi Germany. I have no idea how it is and have no reasonable argument for it, but I just thought I'd get the whole Nazi thing out of the way...  (and inject a little fun into the conversation as a by-product)


----------



## coldsteel (Mar 29, 2007)

bobcamp1 said:


> There are two advantages to buying:
> 
> 1. The lease fee is subject to change at any time, and if it does you cannot break the 2-year commitment. The additional receiver fee is not subject to change, so if it does you can break the 2-year commitment without penalty.


Actually, ALL fees and charges are subject to change, and will not violate any contract.


----------



## wingrider01 (Sep 9, 2005)

BattleScott said:


> If you buy a receiver outright, then DirecTV has no investment in it to recoup. If you lease a receiver, DirecTV has a certain investment that they need to get back over time. They do so with the upfront fee and the monthly lease fee. The lease fee and the mirror fee, while the same amount, are not the same thing. What it boils down to is that if a receiver is "owned" then it is subject to a mirror fee that leased receivers are not.
> 
> For example, let's add a 2nd HD DVR to an account.
> 
> ...


Your choice to purchase or lease currently (and you can find a HR21-PRo for around 249.00, long way way from from the 499 you use in your example).

I bought all of mine when the HR10's first came out, payed just under 1K for each for them, still got charged the mirror fee, consequently I own all my Hr2x's when the hr10's that I owned where replaced under the protection plan, and the couople of SD units that I purchased originally and those where replaced under the protection plan.

Personally I could care less, if you and the OP feel that strongly that is is deceptive business practices put your money where your mouth is and hire a lawyer.


----------



## BattleScott (Aug 29, 2006)

wingrider01 said:


> Your choice to purchase or lease currently (and you can find a HR21-PRo for around 249.00, long way way from from the 499 you use in your example).
> 
> I bought all of mine when the HR10's first came out, payed just under 1K for each for them, still got charged the mirror fee, consequently I own all my Hr2x's when the hr10's that I owned where replaced under the protection plan, and the couople of SD units that I purchased originally and those where replaced under the protection plan.
> 
> Personally I could care less, if you and the OP feel that strongly that is is deceptive business practices put your money where your mouth is and hire a lawyer.


Personally, I COULD NOT care less about what you pay. If you're happy paying a fee I don't have to, even though you spent way more money on the boxes than I did, more power to you. 
I never said it was deceptive. I just said it didn't seem fair, to you that is. I lease my receivers so it doesn't affect me at all. They can charge you a $1000 mirror fee for all I care.


----------



## bridge (Feb 10, 2008)

Athlon646464 said:


> If that is the logic, statistically speaking, then why not lower the level to grade 1 for an even larger audience. Where should the bar be set?


Because you can't convey the necessary information with a 1st graders vocabulary. Words like "Arbitration", "creditworthiness" and "decompile" are almost never uttered from the mouths of 5 year olds.



Athlon646464 said:


> You sound like a really nice person, with a jaundiced view of large companies (or at least D*).


Thank you, I am a nice person Although I wouldn't say I'm yellowed or have any other liver dysfunction due to large companies. I work for the government, and, in point of fact, this thread is eerily reminiscent of most of the meetings I attend on a daily basis...minus the physical violence and career limiting sarcasm of course.



Athlon646464 said:


> Then they would be able to draw from a larger population and not have to 'poach' people from your industry.


I was actually being sarcastic with the whole poach comment. Rocket Scientist and Space Physiologists can't exactly walk around the corner to the other space exploration company on the block...very few kids on this block and private industry pays better:grin:



Athlon646464 said:


> Also - my guess is that most of the negative issues encountered by dissatisfied D* customers are a result of poorly trained (perhaps even 'undereducated') employees...


While I can't agree with undereducated aspect (I don't have access to their HR files) i agree that in almost every customer service industry "poorly trained" employees is a big problem. Misinformation is for corporate or foreign espionage, not customer service, right?


----------



## mcmattyo (May 27, 2007)

Ok to buy an HD DVR and own your receivers it costs $150 for HDDVR, $100 for reg receiver $50 activation and $19.95+tax for new customers, not $400 to $600. There is also no contract either. I work for AT&T and we sell DTV, you can't get it online and can only request it. I have sold it before so if you feel like I do about the $200 lease upgrade fee choose to purchase when you set up an account. I know every DTV rep has it beat into their head that what I just wrote is not possible but it is! New customers only not sure about loyal existing customers.


----------



## Brennok (Dec 23, 2005)

BattleScott said:


> Personally, I COULD NOT care less about what you pay. If you're happy paying a fee I don't have to, even though you spent way more money on the boxes than I did, more power to you.
> I never said it was deceptive. I just said it didn't seem fair, to you that is. I lease my receivers so it doesn't affect me at all. They can charge you a $1000 mirror fee for all I care.


This has always been my problem with the mirroring fees and the fact the fee isn't only an additional monthly fee for leasing receivers. I own all of my Tivos and never liked the fact I have to pay a mirroring fee. It doesn't cost anything additional to feed one more box especially since I also have to pay a fee for the card if I need a replacement. Hell my father is still using the old Sony receiver that came out and was an upgrade since it was a 32 bit processor instead of the old 16 bit processors. He has easily paid over $1000 for this receiver since $600 of this was just for mirroring fees and the receiver probably cost $600 or so when it came out in 98 or so. They have easily recouped the cost of the hardware yet the box continues to cost money.

Imagine if your local phone company charged a mirroring fee for every phone you had in the house that had access to your one line or your internet provider charged a mirroring fee for every device that connected through your service.

The true test for me on whether I will remain a Directv customer will be when the new Tivo launches and I look into replacing my current boxes since I will be going from owned to leased.


----------



## Shades228 (Mar 18, 2008)

Brennok said:


> Imagine if your local phone company charged a mirroring fee for every phone you had in the house that had access to your one line or your internet provider charged a mirroring fee for every device that connected through your service.
> 
> The true test for me on whether I will remain a Directv customer will be when the new Tivo launches and I look into replacing my current boxes since I will be going from owned to leased.


The phone companies used to charge this actually and it went away.


----------



## Brennok (Dec 23, 2005)

Shades228 said:


> The phone companies used to charge this actually and it went away.


I know there is still the occasional story out there where they find someone who has been renting their phone for 30 years or so. Here are a couple of links consumerist and bankrate.I never knew about charging per phone but then again I shouldn't be surprised. You know it must be bad if a phone company doesn't charge it anymore since they will charge you a fee for everything else.


----------



## paulman182 (Aug 4, 2006)

Brennok said:


> This has always been my problem with the mirroring fees and the fact the fee isn't only an additional monthly fee for leasing receivers. I own all of my Tivos and never liked the fact I have to pay a mirroring fee. It doesn't cost anything additional to feed one more box especially since I also have to pay a fee for the card if I need a replacement.


You could also argue that it costs nothing more to provide service to your neightbor plus you, than it does to provide service to just your neighbor, so you should be allowed to use one of his receivers.

That's how it is with companies that sell services. Service is all they have to sell, so they have to charge for it even when there is no additional cost for each one.


----------



## wingrider01 (Sep 9, 2005)

BattleScott said:


> Personally, I COULD NOT care less about what you pay. If you're happy paying a fee I don't have to, even though you spent way more money on the boxes than I did, more power to you.
> I never said it was deceptive. I just said it didn't seem fair, to you that is. I lease my receivers so it doesn't affect me at all. They can charge you a $1000 mirror fee for all I care.


The point is I am NOT paying any different fees that what someone that is leasing is paying, the only difference is I am paying a fee that designates a owned reciever while someone that is leasing is paying a lease fee.

Same amount, just different names - primarly for the states that charge sales tax on leased equipment. The person that owns the exact same BASE amount for three recievers as the person that leases the three recievers. what is unfair about that? Uverse does the same thing, they charge and additional amount for each reciever past the first one. Since they never had a purchase option, it is all lease/rental costs.

The main issue is the difference in nameing, which boils down to a taxability issue. A majority of states can and do tax leased equipment, this is proably the main reason why the 5.00 a month is labeled differently, so the wankers in the state goverment can get thier cut of the pie to spend on pork issues.

In the end, lease/own are both paying for the service of additional recievers


----------



## texasbrit (Aug 9, 2006)

mcmattyo said:


> Ok to buy an HD DVR and own your receivers it costs $150 for HDDVR, $100 for reg receiver $50 activation and $19.95+tax for new customers, not $400 to $600. There is also no contract either. I work for AT&T and we sell DTV, you can't get it online and can only request it. I have sold it before so if you feel like I do about the $200 lease upgrade fee choose to purchase when you set up an account. I know every DTV rep has it beat into their head that what I just wrote is not possible but it is! New customers only not sure about loyal existing customers.


Go back and read the contract. DirecTV boxes through AT&T are leases just like everyone else.


----------



## MountainMan10 (Jan 31, 2008)

mcmattyo said:


> Ok to buy an HD DVR and own your receivers it costs $150 for HDDVR, $100 for reg receiver $50 activation and $19.95+tax for new customers, not $400 to $600. There is also no contract either. I work for AT&T and we sell DTV, you can't get it online and can only request it. I have sold it before so if you feel like I do about the $200 lease upgrade fee choose to purchase when you set up an account. I know every DTV rep has it beat into their head that what I just wrote is not possible but it is! New customers only not sure about loyal existing customers.


Yet another CSR providing false information to customers. No wonder these type of threads never die.


----------



## Brennok (Dec 23, 2005)

wingrider01 said:


> Same amount, just different names - primarly for the states that charge sales tax on leased equipment. The person that owns the exact same BASE amount for three recievers as the person that leases the three recievers. what is unfair about that? Uverse does the same thing, they charge and additional amount for each reciever past the first one. Since they never had a purchase option, it is all lease/rental costs.


Again if you lease a receiver the fee makes sense since you are paying a fee to use the box which you don't own. The point is buying is supposed to have a higher cost upfront with a lower cost over time versus leasing which is a low to zero upfront cost with a higher cost over time.

If you buy the receiver you shouldn't be paying the fee or if the fee is truly a mirroring fee then leased receivers should pay it in addition to the lease fee. Every month of ownership of a receiver with Directv the price goes up if but if you leased it it doesn't. The person who paid more upfront shouldn't have a higher cost over time for the same equipment.

Going back to cars if you lease it you have a monthly fee but if you buy it they don't charge you that same monthly fee and call it something else. If they did no one would ever buy a car since it would never make sense since your cost of ownership would always be more.


----------



## BattleScott (Aug 29, 2006)

Brennok said:


> Again if you lease a receiver the fee makes sense since you are paying a fee to use the box which you don't own. The point is buying is supposed to have a higher cost upfront with a lower cost over time versus leasing which is a low to zero upfront cost with a higher cost over time.
> 
> If you buy the receiver you shouldn't be paying the fee or if the fee is truly a mirroring fee then leased receivers should pay it in addition to the lease fee. Every month of ownership of a receiver with Directv the price goes up if but if you leased it it doesn't. The person who paid more upfront shouldn't have a higher cost over time for the same equipment.
> 
> Going back to cars if you lease it you have a monthly fee but if you buy it they don't charge you that same monthly fee and call it something else. If they did no one would ever buy a car since it would never make sense since your cost of ownership would always be more.


Oh and by the way, if this is your 2nd car and you are buying it, there will be a monthly "State road usage fee" assessed as long as the car is registered in your name. If you are leasing it, the usage fee is waived...


----------



## bobcamp1 (Nov 8, 2007)

coldsteel said:


> Actually, ALL fees and charges are subject to change, and will not violate any contract.


You've missed the point. If the lease fee goes up $50/month tomorrow, you can't cancel without also paying the "I broke the contract" penalty.

If the mirroring fee goes up $50, you can cancel the contract without having to pay that penalty. And then you can sell the equipment. Since it's less than two years old, someone will want to buy it.


----------



## MountainMan10 (Jan 31, 2008)

Customer suing Directv over Lease vs Own.

Customer: Directv wants the receiver back. I am upset because I thought I could keep it and sell it on Ebay.

Judge: How were you harmed.

Customer: They didn't explain that the receiver was leased.

Judge: How did that harm you.

Customer: It saved me $400 up front. The monthly fees were the same. But now that I have cancelled I can't keep the receiver and sell it on Ebay for $100, use it as or doorstop, or use the 320gb hard drive worth $59 in my computer.

Judge: So you saved at least $300?

Customer: um, yes.

Judge: Case dismissed. Rule in favor of D*


----------



## paulman182 (Aug 4, 2006)

bobcamp1 said:


> If the mirroring fee goes up $50, you can cancel the contract without having to pay that penalty. And then you can sell the equipment. Since it's less than two years old, someone will want to buy it.


Probably not with a mirroring fee so high. That's how we can be pretty sure it won't happen. Customers would be dropping like flies.


----------



## bonscott87 (Jan 21, 2003)

MountainMan10 said:


> Customer suing Directv over Lease vs Own.
> 
> Customer: Directv wants the receiver back. I am upset because I thought I could keep it and sell it on Ebay.
> 
> ...


LOL. How true.

And that 320mg hard drive is probably worth only 10 bucks. I just got a 1 TB drive for $69.


----------



## gnahc79 (Jan 12, 2008)

MountainMan10 said:


> Customer suing Directv over Lease vs Own.
> 
> Customer: Directv wants the receiver back. I am upset because I thought I owned it and therefore no monthly lease fees would be charged.
> 
> ...


fixed. I know I know, assuming you can purchase a HD DVR for ~$200 instead of $500-$600 is incorrect. However, it is misleading enough for an actual class action lawsuit...well only through Best Buy.


----------



## BattleScott (Aug 29, 2006)

gnahc79 said:


> fixed. I know I know, assuming you can purchase a HD DVR for ~$200 instead of $500-$600 is incorrect. However, it is misleading enough for an actual class action lawsuit...well only through Best Buy.


Also misleading enough that a very high number of users here agreed that is was a *bad business practice*...


----------



## dubber deux (Mar 8, 2009)

perryville said:


> The only thing I would advocate here, and I dare ANYBODY to challenge me, is that before the installer sets foot in your house, before anything is ever even started,
> 
> that any consumer sign a statement agreeing to the T&C with the monthly bill stated right on the front large bold type, including taxes, fees, etc.
> 
> ...


Correct you are!

Your post above is totally rational, logical, and long term business savvy.

D* and other businesses actually hurt themselves in the long run because angry customers tell their friends and this will damage their future business prospects.


----------



## Shades228 (Mar 18, 2008)

I still haven't figured out why people use car leasing to compare to DirecTV. Last I checked you don't get a car when you sign up for DirecTV. They are two completely different things and nowhere even close. Just because it can be leased doesn't mean it's the same thing as another lease. So if your example is that then you're wrong because you're not leasing a car.

It's one thing to be upset because you didn't know something, whether or not you read or didn't read something. Sure there can be scenarios where customers do not get their order confirmation letter which spells all this out prior to an installation, such as a next day install, and there are bad agents out there as well that don't give all the information. However in today's day and age not following up on something that you're going to be paying money for is really just setting yourself up for problems. When it comes to my money I don't trust anyone and always double check what I'm agreeing to.


----------



## wingrider01 (Sep 9, 2005)

dubber deux said:


> Correct you are!
> 
> Your post above is totally rational, logical, and long term business savvy.
> 
> D* and other businesses actually hurt themselves in the long run because angry customers tell their friends and this will damage their future business prospects.


have signed a acceptance document everytime they where out here - on the front it verifies their work, on the back is the contract


----------



## wingrider01 (Sep 9, 2005)

Shades228 said:


> I still haven't figured out why people use car leasing to compare to DirecTV. Last I checked you don't get a car when you sign up for DirecTV. They are two completely different things and nowhere even close. Just because it can be leased doesn't mean it's the same thing as another lease. So if your example is that then you're wrong because you're not leasing a car.
> 
> It's one thing to be upset because you didn't know something, whether or not you read or didn't read something. Sure there can be scenarios where customers do not get their order confirmation letter which spells all this out prior to an installation, such as a next day install, and there are bad agents out there as well that don't give all the information. However in today's day and age not following up on something that you're going to be paying money for is really just setting yourself up for problems. When it comes to my money I don't trust anyone and always double check what I'm agreeing to.


Lease = lease, simple both mainly require upfront depost, unless you credit score is through the roof, both have a monthly reoccurring charge, in both cases you do not own the equipment at the end of the lease, both require a early termination fee, both require that you pay for your on maintanence is something goes wrong.

basic fact applies to all financial transactions with a commitment, research and understanding for the win. Personnaly I never expect ANY company to hand feed me, prefer personal research, 99 percent of teh tie it is more accurate then waht ANY sales weasel tells or preaches to you


----------



## Ken S (Feb 13, 2007)

2,000,000 customers paying for receivers they think are owned at $199. They cancel their contract are charged an ETF AND DirecTV demands the receivers back. Customers file a class action lawsuit. Damages: $400,000,000.



MountainMan10 said:


> Customer suing Directv over Lease vs Own.
> 
> Customer: Directv wants the receiver back. I am upset because I thought I could keep it and sell it on Ebay.
> 
> ...


----------



## BattleScott (Aug 29, 2006)

Shades228 said:


> I still haven't figured out why people use car leasing to compare to DirecTV. Last I checked you don't get a car when you sign up for DirecTV. They are two completely different things and nowhere even close. Just because it can be leased doesn't mean it's the same thing as another lease. So if your example is that then you're wrong because you're not leasing a car.


Because people commonly purchase and lease cars on a large scale, that makes it a very likley comparison here. The fundamentals of leasing vs. buying are very much the same no matter what the property is. What is about the two lease arrangements that you find so different?


----------



## carl6 (Nov 16, 2005)

dubber deux said:


> D* and other businesses actually hurt themselves in the long run because angry customers tell their friends and this will damage their future business prospects.


Is that why DirecTV has had consistent net customer growth over the past few years? The lease model has been in effect for 3 years now, and it has not slowed down customer growth in the slightest.


----------



## BattleScott (Aug 29, 2006)

wingrider01 said:


> have signed a acceptance document everytime they where out here - on the front it verifies their work, on the back is the contract


Have never been presented or signed a single document. Not at install, not after serivce calls, nothing. As a matter of fact, my initial install was done by a guy working under the table for one of the area contractors so he didn't even have a work order.


----------



## Upstream (Jul 4, 2006)

Shades228 said:


> It's one thing to be upset because you didn't know something, whether or not you read or didn't read something. Sure there can be scenarios where customers do not get their order confirmation letter which spells all this out prior to an installation, such as a next day install, and there are bad agents out there as well that don't give all the information. However in today's day and age not following up on something that you're going to be paying money for is really just setting yourself up for problems. When it comes to my money I don't trust anyone and always double check what I'm agreeing to.


I agree. There is no excuse for a customer to be upset just because a vendore failed to inform them about the terms of the agreement. Good customers should always do their research and double check.

For example, last year I bought a NY Jets jersey at Target for $25. When I wore it in Target in late January of this year, a security guard told me that I had to give the jersey back to Target or face a $300 non-return fee. It seems that I didn't acutally buy the jersey, but only leased it for the season.

At first I was really upset, but then I realized that it was my fault. The terms of the lease were clearly posted on the bulletin board outside the restroom, and it was my fault for not seeking out and reading what I was agreeing to. And if I had used a Target gift card, instead of paying cash, the lease terms would have been printed on my receipt. Since I paid cash, I never saw them. But I should have asked when I paid if there were extra terms or conditions. And I should have been clued by the fact that the jersey was printed on the receipt as "_STRTR JRSY NYJE LS LG 453142 $25.00_". And although the cashier never told me about the lease agreement, I should have gone to 2 or 3 other cashiers just to make sure.

But I learned my lesson, and now I make sure I know what I am agreeing to. It may take me 4 hours to get through a checkout line, and it really annoys the people behind me, but I am just doing my job as a good customer.


----------



## wingrider01 (Sep 9, 2005)

BattleScott said:


> Have never been presented or signed a single document. Not at install, not after serivce calls, nothing. As a matter of fact, my initial install was done by a guy working under the table for one of the area contractors so he didn't even have a work order.


QFE


----------



## BattleScott (Aug 29, 2006)

wingrider01 said:


> QFE


*Q*uad *F*ast *E*thernet?


----------



## bridge (Feb 10, 2008)

Upstream said:


> I agree. There is no excuse for a customer to be upset just because a vendore failed to inform them about the terms of the agreement. Good customers should always do their research and double check.
> 
> For example, last year I bought a NY Jets jersey at Target for $25. When I wore it in Target in late January of this year, a security guard told me that I had to give the jersey back to Target or face a $300 non-return fee. It seems that I didn't acutally buy the jersey, but only leased it for the season.
> 
> ...


That's a really good analogy:lol:


----------



## JLucPicard (Apr 27, 2004)

BattleScott said:


> Have never been presented or signed a single document. Not at install, not after serivce calls, nothing. As a matter of fact, my initial install was done by a guy working under the table for one of the area contractors so he didn't even have a work order.


WOW - that makes the picture a LOT clearer! Yet you're still going to blame DirecTV that you weren't made aware? Classic. :lol:

I don't suppose you got the notice of the terms and conditions in the mail in the week or so after activation, either. I haven't dealt with ANY equipment in the last 4 years where I didn't get a followup mailing with the terms and conditions flyer in it.

I still say even if DirecTV dispatched a rep to every home that activates a receiver and has that person sit down and read the terms to the customer - slow enough that they can understand them if need be - and has them sign off on a notice that they understand, there would still be a bunch of people claiming they were never told anything about it. :nono2:


----------



## lee78221 (Sep 25, 2007)

BattleScott said:


> *Q*uad *F*ast *E*thernet?


Quoted for Emphasis


----------



## miketorse (Jul 30, 2008)

Upstream said:


> For example, last year I bought a NY Jets jersey at Target for $25. When I wore it in Target in late January of this year, a security guard told me that I had to give the jersey back to Target or face a $300 non-return fee. It seems that I didn't acutally buy the jersey, but only leased it for the season.


If it was a Favre jersey, I would've paid them to take it back! lol


----------



## raott (Nov 23, 2005)

JLucPicard said:


> I don't suppose you got the notice of the terms and conditions in the mail in the week or so after activation, either. I haven't dealt with ANY equipment in the last 4 years where I didn't get a followup mailing with the terms and conditions flyer in it.


Sending terms and conditions AFTER obligating a customer is meaningless.


----------



## dubber deux (Mar 8, 2009)

raott said:


> Sending terms and conditions AFTER obligating a customer is meaningless.


It is meaningless if the customer was having reservations about going ahead with the TOS and contractural obligations.

I believe this an intentional process that D* was followed. Folks are MUCH less likely to refuse the service after all the work has been done.

The only thing I signed after the install was the back of a UPC code that was the serial number of the sat box I received. There was NO statement of obligation whatsoever on that piece of paper, none.

Actually I was a little concerned about signing it because I didn't care for the installer, he seemed a bit shady and underhanded to me, he also did NOT install a NEW dish instead only grounding a most likely 8+ year old dish . Which in my opinion should have at least had the LNB replaced. Thankfully after relating my situation to D* they rectified the situation to make things right.


----------



## MountainMan10 (Jan 31, 2008)

Ken S said:


> 2,000,000 customers paying for receivers they think are owned at $199. They cancel their contract are charged an ETF AND DirecTV demands the receivers back. Customers file a class action lawsuit. Damages: $400,000,000.


So the judge is going to rule that D* cannot charge an up front fee for a receiver and order it refunded? Not likely.
The judge is going to rule that the ETF is not legal? Never gonna happen.

In the final calculation every one of those 2,000,000 customers saved money because of the lease instead of a purchase. There are no damages.

Ignorance is not an excuse.


----------



## dubber deux (Mar 8, 2009)

MountainMan10 said:


> Ignorance is not an excuse.


But if D* was smart and had a renewed respect for ethical business practices they should take into consideration their subscriber body does not consist entirely of lawyers, but mostly ordinary everyday lay-people that are counting on forthrightness from the well known company they are going to be doing business with.

Ethical businesses DO NOT PREY on the customer's ignorance either.


----------



## bridge (Feb 10, 2008)

JLucPicard said:


> I still say even if DirecTV dispatched a rep to every home that activates a receiver and has that person sit down and read the terms to the customer - slow enough that they can understand them if need be - and has them sign off on a notice that they understand, there would still be a bunch of people claiming they were never told anything about it. :nono2:


The end result of this would be that customers would be WELL INFORMED, as this would result in INFORMED CONSENT to install and start service. Moreover, it would also result in more people refusing the install after fully understanding that they are putting down money to lease TV equipment.

What you described is a requirement for other industries...and it works! I've consented THOUSANDS of people and have not once...NOT ONCE in 12 YEARS had anyone come back and say they had a problem or didn't know something.


----------



## BattleScott (Aug 29, 2006)

JLucPicard said:


> WOW - that makes the picture a LOT clearer! Yet you're still going to blame DirecTV that you weren't made aware? Classic. :lol:
> 
> I don't suppose you got the notice of the terms and conditions in the mail in the week or so after activation, either. I haven't dealt with ANY equipment in the last 4 years where I didn't get a followup mailing with the terms and conditions flyer in it.
> 
> I still say even if DirecTV dispatched a rep to every home that activates a receiver and has that person sit down and read the terms to the customer - slow enough that they can understand them if need be - and has them sign off on a notice that they understand, there would still be a bunch of people claiming they were never told anything about it. :nono2:


Just for the record, I never said any of this applied to me. I merely entered the thread to let the OP know that I, for one, can understand his surprise as I might have found myself in the same situtation had I not read here that the new receivers and DVRS were actually being leased and not sold at the time I "purchased" my first HR20 at BestBuy.
As for my post about the installation and other paperwork, that is intended to counter the claims by those who believe that since their experience has been a certain way, everyone else's must have been the same and that they are either liars or are just too stupid to read.


----------



## MISpat (Apr 22, 2009)

bonscott87 said:


> And that 320mg hard drive is probably worth only 10 bucks. I just got a 1 TB drive for $69.


Not that this adds much value to the discussion  but you'd be surprised at how expensive the approximately 80 - 250 GB hard drives are becoming. Many do it yourselfers who own DVD recorders with built-in hard drives are stocking up on them while they're still somewhat available. (VERY hard to find HDD/DVD recorders in the U.S. nowadays... same with the hard drives) Even then, they're usually stuck trying to find them on eBay or through some other independent seller.


----------



## perryville (Apr 22, 2009)

What about them seems so unavailable/expensive? - see link below.

http://www.pricewatch.com/hard_removable_drives/


----------



## bobcamp1 (Nov 8, 2007)

MountainMan10 said:


> So the judge is going to rule that D* cannot charge an up front fee for a receiver and order it refunded? Not likely.
> The judge is going to rule that the ETF is not legal? Never gonna happen.


Overturning agreements happens all the time in court. Especially in prenuptial agreements, even when both parties have signed it!

You don't have to sign anything for a lease to be valid -- this type of lease agreement is called an oral lease. But I don't think it could be considered an oral lease if one of the parties was unaware that it was a lease at the time of the transaction. It's not like renting an apartment in an apartment complex -- both the landlord and the future tenant know it is a rental, and when the landlord hands over the key and says "$600/month", that establishes the oral lease. This equipment is offered in a store where all other equipment is purchased. This puts the burden on D* to put the burden on their resellers to stress that it is a lease.

I just called D* and applied for an upgrade from 72.5 locals. No one told me the new equipment was leased (I'm pretty sure it is). But I never entered an oral or written lease agreement with D*. The operator should have told me that the equipment was leased. Then that would have been an oral lease agreement if I continued and made the appointment. She didn't. She said "free upgrade" and mentioned my previous equipment was purchased. To me, that sounds like a gift, not a lease. I did record the conversation.

I suppose the installer could have acted as a proxy for D* and get the customer to sign something, but most installers are too busy covering their own behinds to worry about also covering D*'s.

Granted, most people don't care about keeping the equipment, but D* is playing with fire here.


----------



## bobcamp1 (Nov 8, 2007)

raott said:


> Sending terms and conditions AFTER obligating a customer is meaningless.


+1, especially if they are not sent by certified mail.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

You know, the funning thing is, I don't blame Directv directly, I blame the installers for some of it, and customers for the rest... I think they are being shady or lazy (depending on which one is causing the issue)... 

Every time I have talked to Directv about adding a box, etc, they have repeatedly mentioned the contract and lease. And every time I have had an install, before the installer leaves, they have to call in and report they are done, and before they hang up with Directv, they have to hand the phone to me, and the lease and contract is repeated there again, and I have to sign their paper work, and they leave my TOS.. So frankly, if this doesn't happen the installers are not properly following procedure if you don't see any TOS are hear about it in when they are at your house. I have a feeling this is part of the reason that Directv is starting to buy up the installer companies, to get rid of this issue. If installers are being lazy, then they are the ones that should have to pay for any lawsuits in regards to this. Also, If you simply buy a unit in store, and if the box didn't have the sticker, then the retailer should be held accountable. Directv can police it only to a certain point.. You don't fire the CEO of a retailer when a employee in one store is stealing, you fire the person stealing.. Same thing. The people that need to be held accountable are the people that are actually executing things that are AGAINST Directv procedures. However, because of the way these procedures have been put in place, I highly doubt that installers and retailers are the cause of any issues very often. 

I should note that I would not have said this 4 years ago when they first went to the lease program.. They were not as vigilant in setting up procedures to properly inform people when they first began, but they have institued plenty of measuers since then that I believe they have done all they need to at the corprate level, and now the actual end of the line people need to be held accountable.

As for the lazy and shady customers, at what point do people take responsibilty for knowing what they are getting into anyway? Do you lease or buy a car without asking to read the fine print? How about a cell phone? Do you pay attention and ask if you are entering a contract when you buy a new phone? In the early days a do believe that Directv screwed up, but from what I've seen in the last couple years, I can't see a corprate consperacy going on here.. All services come with strings these days, and I think many of the people complaining about lease fees and eft's (which should and I am sure will soon start being prorated as the 2 years winds down, as they should be) know exactly what they are doing, which is unethical. 

I am not saying anyone here is lying, but lets be realists when it comes to targeting who is really responsible for these issues today.


----------



## BattleScott (Aug 29, 2006)

inkahauts said:


> You know, the funning thing is, I don't blame Directv directly, I blame the installers for some of it, and customers for the rest... I think they are being shady or lazy (depending on which one is causing the issue)...
> 
> Every time I have talked to Directv about adding a box, etc, they have repeatedly mentioned the contract and lease. And every time I have had an install, before the installer leaves, they have to call in and report they are done, and before they hang up with Directv, they have to hand the phone to me, and the lease and contract is repeated there again, and I have to sign their paper work, and they leave my TOS.. So frankly, if this doesn't happen the installers are not properly following procedure if you don't see any TOS are hear about it in when they are at your house. I have a feeling this is part of the reason that Directv is starting to buy up the installer companies, to get rid of this issue. If installers are being lazy, then they are the ones that should have to pay for any lawsuits in regards to this.


The service providers are contracted by DirecTV, not the customer. It is DirecTV's choice to use contracted service providers instead of direct reporting employees. This puts the responsibility squarely on DirecTV.



inkahauts said:


> Also, If you simply buy a unit in store, and if the box didn't have the sticker, then the retailer should be held accountable. Directv can police it only to a certain point.. You don't fire the CEO of a retailer when a employee in one store is stealing, you fire the person stealing.. Same thing. The people that need to be held accountable are the people that are actually executing things that are AGAINST Directv procedures. However, because of the way these procedures have been put in place, I highly doubt that installers and retailers are the cause of any issues very often.


Retailers aren't responsible for product labeling. Best Buy, however, is named in the class action suit as well .



inkahauts said:


> I should note that I would not have said this 4 years ago when they first went to the lease program.. They were not as vigilant in setting up procedures to properly inform people when they first began, but they have institued plenty of measuers since then that I believe they have done all they need to at the corprate level, and now the actual end of the line people need to be held accountable.
> 
> As for the lazy and shady customers, at what point do people take responsibilty for knowing what they are getting into anyway? Do you lease or buy a car without asking to read the fine print? How about a cell phone? Do you pay attention and ask if you are entering a contract when you buy a new phone? In the early days a do believe that Directv screwed up, but from what I've seen in the last couple years, I can't see a corprate consperacy going on here..


This thread was started by someone who subscribed through Verizon over 2 years ago, not currently. Their complaint (and that of many others) is that they were not informed that they were paying an "upfront fee" to lease a receiver and not actually purchasing it. They are certainly not alone as there is an open class action suit against DirecTV and Bestbuy for this exact complaint.
Incidently, I did just buy a new car, and not once did I think to ask if I was actually only leasing it. I better check my paperwork again...



inkahauts said:


> All services come with strings these days, and I think many of the people complaining about lease fees and eft's (which should and I am sure will soon start being prorated as the 2 years winds down, as they should be) know exactly what they are doing, which is unethical.


ETFs are based on months remaining, so they are always "pro-rated".



inkahauts said:


> I am not saying anyone here is lying, but lets be realists when it comes to targeting who is really responsible for these issues today.


As the service provider who recieves my monthly payments, they will always bear the heaviest burden of responsibility for anything DirecTV related.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

BattleScott said:


> The service providers are contracted by DirecTV, not the customer. It is DirecTV's choice to use contracted service providers instead of direct reporting employees. This puts the responsibility squarely on DirecTV.


If they aren't holding up their end of the agreement, then it is up to them to be held accountable, not Directv. Legally, yes, you have to go after Directv to get it fixed, but when people are on this board complaining about it today, they should be complaining about what the real cause is, which is the customer 90+% of the time, and the installer or retailer the rest of the time... again, thats for todays customers, not ones from years ago...



BattleScott said:


> Retailers aren't responsible for product labeling. Best Buy, however, is named in the class action suit as well .


Ah, in this case, they have been.. I used to sell Directv, and we were always told to make sure that A) the proper sticker is on the box (this was before they had all the boxes actually preprinted) and also that the customers receive their TOS with each purchase, and are told at the check stand. If the retailers aren't doing this, then they are at fault. Also, Price tags are supposed to state it as well. If the retailer isn't putting up a proper tag, they are at fault as well.



BattleScott said:


> This thread was started by someone who subscribed through Verizon over 2 years ago, not currently. Their complaint (and that of many others) is that they were not informed that they were paying an "upfront fee" to lease a receiver and not actually purchasing it. They are certainly not alone as there is an open class action suit against DirecTV and Bestbuy for this exact complaint.


I wasn't addressing that specifically, but rather the overall idea behind it. Verizon should be held accountable in this case, not Directv, since they are the ones that evidently dropped the ball in telling the customer. And as for Best Buy, my case in point that they didn't label the products properly with price tags stating the leased nature, and no one told them at checkout and gave them TOS... So actually, that proves the point that peopel should be holding the right people accountable, rather than just saying its all Directv's fault.



BattleScott said:


> Incidently, I did just buy a new car, and not once did I think to ask if I was actually only leasing it. I better check my paperwork again...


You spent thousands of dollars and didn't read the contract you signed that it dealt with? Thats my point.. People don't pay attention to what they do with their cars, so what makes anyone think people pay attention to anything they are told when they buy a Sat system? Directv, nor anyone else can not make someone pay attention and read and listen to the details... I could not hold a company accountable for a customer not paying attention, and I know that happens more often than anything, with anything and everything.



BattleScott said:


> ETFs are based on months remaining, so they are always "pro-rated".


Ah, yeah, sorry.. Cell phones here in cali where not pro rated for a long time, but thats the lawsuit that just got settled I believe... ( I thin it was Sprint and/or Verizon actually)



BattleScott said:


> As the service provider who recieves my monthly payments, they will always bear the heaviest burden of responsibility for anything DirecTV related.


When they are wrong, you are right, but I am saying that a lot of the blame for issues TODAY are not company errors, they are people errors, and there is a HUGHE difference in those two statements... One says the company didn't do everything it could to keep an issue from popping up, and the other says they didn't....

I for one would like to see people in general just pay more attention to whats going on around them rather than always having to blame someone later... There is always an exception to a rule, but that doesn't mean the essence of what I am saying is not correct most of the time. If the class action suit was brought against Directv for how they do business with Leases today, it would loose big time.. From several years ago, I have a feeling they will win...


----------



## Driver_1 (May 22, 2009)

> Kheldar
> Icon
> 
> Join Date: Sep 05, 2004
> Location: *Mars, with a summer home on Venus*


HAH! Summer home on Venus! That is the funniest thing I've seen all year. :lol: :lol: :lol:

On Venus, a day is LONGER than a year. The rotation of Venus about its axis takes longer than it does for the planet to orbit the sun. 

That is FUNNY!!!:lol:

(maybe that's where the expression came from: I'll do it tomorrow :lol

EDIT:
In fact, that's the funniest 'nerd' joke (if you actually meant that), behind the proton joke:

2 buddy protons were walkin' down the street one day, and they saw their other buddy proton comin' in their direction.

"Hey, look, it's our buddy", said one buddy, "Yeah it is, but look at him - somethin's wrong", said the other buddy, after noticing that he was hangin' his head, lookin' all glum and dejected.

"Hey buddy - how's it goin'?", said one of them to their buddy.

"Oh, woe is me, woe is me - it's awful; this is terrible. Just ... _SHOCKING_", said the other buddy to his pals.

"Well what is it; what's the matter?", they asked him.

"I've lost an electron", he told them.

The 2 buddy electrons looked at each other, and gasped in horror. "OHMIGOSH; are you sure?", they asked him.

"Yes, I'm ... _'positive'_".


----------



## BattleScott (Aug 29, 2006)

inkahauts said:


> If they aren't holding up their end of the agreement, then it is up to them to be held accountable, not Directv. Legally, yes, you have to go after Directv to get it fixed, but when people are on this board complaining about it today, they should be complaining about what the real cause is, which is the customer 90+% of the time, and the installer or retailer the rest of the time... again, thats for todays customers, not ones from years ago...


As long as DirecTV controls who the contractors are and not me, the contractors are DirecTV represenatives. I make no distinctions between the two. If the cause of a problem is lack of proper procedure on the part of sub-contractors, then it is DirecTVs responisbility to fix that problem just as it would be if the technicians were direct employees. When DirecTV made the decision to utilize outside contractors, they also inherited the responsibility for them and making sure that they have adequate procedures and quality checks in place to guarantee that those contractors perform at a satisfactory level. Apparently, DirecTV has started buying up some of these contracted operations to get some control of this very problem.



inkahauts said:


> Ah, in this case, they have been.. I used to sell Directv, and we were always told to make sure that A) the proper sticker is on the box (this was before they had all the boxes actually preprinted) and also that the customers receive their TOS with each purchase, and are told at the check stand. If the retailers aren't doing this, then they are at fault. Also, Price tags are supposed to state it as well. If the retailer isn't putting up a proper tag, they are at fault as well.


But it is still DirecTV's responsibility to make sure that the appropriate labeling exists and is in place. DirecTV can't just ship out a bunch of blank cartons and put the responsibility on the retailer to inform them of what they are really purchasing. Again, this thread is about the issues that were encountered early on, not what is currently happening.



inkahauts said:


> I wasn't addressing that specifically, but rather the overall idea behind it. Verizon should be held accountable in this case, not Directv, since they are the ones that evidently dropped the ball in telling the customer. And as for Best Buy, my case in point that they didn't label the products properly with price tags stating the leased nature, and no one told them at checkout and gave them TOS... So actually, that proves the point that peopel should be holding the right people accountable, rather than just saying its all Directv's fault.


In this case, Verizon should only be held accountable to the level of what they were responsible for. Again, at the time the OP subscribed, the lease arrangements were not clearly presented anywhere in the distribution chain. DirecTV bears the ultimate responsibility for that as it was a lack of upfront attention on their part that lead to the problems. It wasn't until after the problems started that they began to seriously address the issue.



inkahauts said:


> You spent thousands of dollars and didn't read the contract you signed that it dealt with? Thats my point.. People don't pay attention to what they do with their cars, so what makes anyone think people pay attention to anything they are told when they buy a Sat system? Directv, nor anyone else can not make someone pay attention and read and listen to the details... I could not hold a company accountable for a customer not paying attention, and I know that happens more often than anything, with anything and everything.


I read everything they put in front of me to sign. Nothing even mentioned the word "lease", so what does that mean? The point is, that when the lease model was started, there was nothing TO READ that would have made it clear to those who assumed that the $200 they were parting with was buying them a peice of equipment, that in fact they were really paying a non-refundable upfront fee to begin leasing a DirecTV owned reciever.



inkahauts said:


> Ah, yeah, sorry.. Cell phones here in cali where not pro rated for a long time, but thats the lawsuit that just got settled I believe... ( I thin it was Sprint and/or Verizon actually)


Sorry, I assumed you were speaking about DirecTVs ETFs, not all ETFs in general.



inkahauts said:


> When they are wrong, you are right, but I am saying that a lot of the blame for issues TODAY are not company errors, they are people errors, and there is a HUGHE difference in those two statements... One says the company didn't do everything it could to keep an issue from popping up, and the other says they didn't....


Can't argue with that TODAY. But my interest in this thread is the same as the OPs, that is what the situation was a few years ago. This is what caused his complaint, not how the business is conducted today.



inkahauts said:


> I for one would like to see people in general just pay more attention to whats going on around them rather than always having to blame someone later... There is always an exception to a rule, but that doesn't mean the essence of what I am saying is not correct most of the time. If the class action suit was brought against Directv for how they do business with Leases today, it would loose big time.. From several years ago, I have a feeling they will win...


That certainly would solve a lot of the worlds problems. However, that is not the way our society is progressing. Not to interject politics, but personal accountability is the arch-enemy of government. With each new generation, the idea of personal accountability and the freedom to fail is being educated and legislated out, so unfortunately the trend will likely continue in the oppsoite direction. :nono2:


----------



## bridge (Feb 10, 2008)

inkahauts said:


> If they aren't holding up their end of the agreement, then it is up to them to be held accountable, not Directv. Legally, yes, you have to go after Directv to get it fixed, but when people are on this board complaining about it today, they should be complaining about what the real cause is, which is the customer 90+% of the time, and the installer or retailer the rest of the time... again, thats for todays customers, not ones from years ago...


Where's your metric that shows that the "real cause" 90% of the time is the customer? So by your logic Directv is too smart to do business with the American public...90% of us today are too stupid to do business with them, eh? Nice. So, tell me, what's the real difference between the super elite customers from "years ago" and the dolts that sign up for service today?


----------



## BKC (Dec 12, 2007)

Driver_1 said:


> HAH! Summer home on Venus! That is the funniest thing I've seen all year. :lol: :lol: :lol:
> 
> On Venus, a day is LONGER than a year. The rotation of Venus about its axis takes longer than it does for the planet to orbit the sun.
> 
> ...


----------



## MISpat (Apr 22, 2009)

perryville said:


> What about them seems so unavailable/expensive? - see link below.


Thanks for the link! I would have loved to pick up some backup drives for down the road when the ones in my recorders die. I couldn't find any compatible with my machines though... the drives in the recorders have to have specific specs, almost always IDE drives, internal (unless I feel up to making case mods), power draw, etc. The best I could find at another site was $120 for 500GB for a drive proven compatible with my Philips unit, not bad considering I've seen smaller sized for around $300 recently, but still not worth it at this point for "just in case".


----------



## bobcamp1 (Nov 8, 2007)

bridge said:


> Where's your metric that shows that the "real cause" 90% of the time is the customer? So by your logic Directv is too smart to do business with the American public...90% of us today are too stupid to do business with them, eh? Nice. So, tell me, what's the real difference between the super elite customers from "years ago" and the dolts that sign up for service today?


I agree. What ever happened to, "the customer is always right"?

Typically in court, the burden is on the provider, not the customer. Of course, the customer should do a little homework to avoid having to go to court in the first place. But to say it's the customer's fault or responsibility is incorrect.


----------



## CCarncross (Jul 19, 2005)

bobcamp1 said:


> I agree. What ever happened to, "the customer is always right"?
> 
> Typically in court, the burden is on the provider, not the customer. Of course, the customer should do a little homework to avoid having to go to court in the first place. But to say it's the customer's fault or responsibility is incorrect.


"The customer is always right" was a BS marketing ploy and rarely if ever applies. Too many customers try to use this to their advantage even when they know they are dead wrong to take advantage of anything they can, right or wrong.

I will go out of my way to help a customer who is right, I will do what's right and proper when the customer is wrong, or trying to wrongly take advantage of a situation...This is how every company and its employee's should operate.


----------

