DirecTV,Inc. is named in a consumer class action complaint

[Steve615]

DirecTV,Inc. was named in a consumer class action complaint filed today in Los Angeles,CA.
The complaint is alleging unlawful early termination fees.

http://biz.yahoo.com/bw/080917/20080917006213.html?.v=1

[rahlquist]

DirecTV,Inc. was named in a consumer class action complaint filed today in Los Angeles,CA.
The complaint is alleging unlawful early termination fees.

http://biz.yahoo.com/bw/080917/20080917006213.html?.v=1

Most unfortunate. I predict the people republic of Kalifornia will also soon have a lawsuit similar to the Time Warner one attacking them for only allowing their own hardware to interact with service.

[bruinfever]

"We are proud of Ms. Imburgia and Ms. Mecca for standing up for their rights and look forward to their day in court,”

Those trial lawyers, you gotta love them! Its lawsuits like this that make me have nothing but contempt for lawyers in general. They'll probably end up settling and make us customers have to pay more for the service we receive..Thanks!

[Jared701]

looking at that article and having taken contracts I would say it's about a 50/50 case. Honestly I think it's easy enough to find the terms of the contract but then again I asked the CSR about 30 questions before I signed up and checked all terms I could find on directv's website. I didn't see in that article but the way it was written it looks like the plaintiff class will be limited to 'people who have been affected by early termination fees and did not know this was a term in the contract who live in california' not too big of class since it is limited to california exclusively (assuming that from the attorney's comment about california law, but it could be nationwide) IMO directv can't afford to settle this quickly if it is only california citizens or else it will only encourage class action lawsuits from others in the nation as well.

[minorthr]

"We are proud of Ms. Imburgia and Ms. Mecca for standing up for their rights and look forward to their day in court,”

Those trial lawyers, you gotta love them! Its lawsuits like this that make me have nothing but contempt for lawyers in general. They'll probably end up settling and make us customers have to pay more for the service we receive..Thanks!

They will settle. The lawyers will get $50 million and everyone who ever canceled Directv and had to pay a fee will get $5

[Sirshagg]

Lawyers or ridiculous DirecTV fees - I'm not really sure which side to root for. :(

[webby_s]

They will settle. The lawyers will get $50 million and everyone who ever canceled Directv and had to pay a fee will get $5
Bingo!!!!!!!:nono2: :rolleyes:

[heisman]

They will settle. The lawyers will get $50 million and everyone who ever canceled Directv and had to pay a fee will get $5

More importantly, the lawsuit will change D*'s entire business model going forward as it pertains to ETF's.

[HDTVsportsfan]

More importantly, the lawsuit will change D*'s entire business model going forward as it pertains to ETF's.


I doubt it.

[rahlquist]

The sad part is, if indeed they choose to settle look forward to an amended TOS in your mailbox and deposits on hardware etc. While I am no fan of being locked in, I dont thin D*'s 2 year term is excessive, and I dont the the ETF is that bad. Now the charges for unreturned equipment, thats another story altogether. I have over $1200 in fees to look forward to if I dont send my DVRs back if I ever cancel.

[rabit ears]

I think termination fees hinder the marketplace and I hope this suit brings D* to the table for a negotiated settlement that brings equity to the transaction.

People should be given a choice between leased and owned equipment and service commitments or no service commitments. As it stands right now, there is only one option and as a subscriber of 14 years this month, I don't like the option.

Every time I call to make a change to my system I have to open with "I'd like to order....., but I don't want it if it's going to extend my commitment or base package." I always get the ID of the CSR and I record the calls. That's a horrible relationship to have with any company.

The trump card for every consumer is the ability to walk away from the transaction. Without that ability, D*s customers are being held for ransom.

Worst case D* will prevail and their actions and attitude toward their customers will become even more outlandish. Best case D* will treat their customers fairly. Probable case, the lawyers get a lot of money and we get a little something.

[Jared701]

They will settle. The lawyers will get $50 million and everyone who ever canceled Directv and had to pay a fee will get $5

Just a quick lesson on class action lawsuits. The lawyers do not get a % fee of the agreed settlement/court decision. They get their normal hourly fee taken from it. So no, that would not happen.

[Herdfan]

More importantly, the lawsuit will change D*'s entire business model going forward as it pertains to ETF's.

But no matter how iron clad an ETF may be, as long as one person can prove that they were not adequately informed of the terms, there will be an attorney willing to file suit.

Any any of us who have spent a few minutes on the phone with a D* CSR knows that they are liable to tell the customer anything. So until this part of the transaction is fixed, these types of actions will continue.

The good news though is at some point it may actually be more beneficial for D* to properly train CSR's.

[DarinC]

The sad part is, if indeed they choose to settle look forward to an amended TOS in your mailbox and deposits on hardware etc.

If the cable industry can survive without service agreements and ETFs, why can't satellite? They've already moved to a lease system, so it's not like they'd be "giving" equipment away.

[jimb726]

If the cable industry can survive without service agreements and ETFs, why can't satellite? They've already moved to a lease system, so it's not like they'd be "giving" equipment away.

Have you used any of the cableco dvr's? I would guess its because on any level, any person who has ever used a DVR would most likely not be enaored with the offering, other than perhaps the TiVo one and of course that has had its own issues.

[DishCSR]

I think termination fees hinder the marketplace and I hope this suit brings D* to the table for a negotiated settlement that brings equity to the transaction.

People should be given a choice between leased and owned equipment and service commitments or no service commitments. As it stands right now, there is only one option and as a subscriber of 14 years this month, I don't like the option.

Every time I call to make a change to my system I have to open with "I'd like to order....., but I don't want it if it's going to extend my commitment or base package." I always get the ID of the CSR and I record the calls. That's a horrible relationship to have with any company.

The trump card for every consumer is the ability to walk away from the transaction. Without that ability, D*s customers are being held for ransom.

Worst case D* will prevail and their actions and attitude toward their customers will become even more outlandish. Best case D* will treat their customers fairly. Probable case, the lawyers get a lot of money and we get a little something.

there is the choice between owned and leased, committment or no committment, if you don't want a committment you have to pay full price for the equipment which you would own.

[DarinC]

Have you used any of the cableco dvr's?

My post had nothing to do with hardware.

[jimb726]

My post had nothing to do with hardware.
It has always been my understanding that the reason, or one of the main reasons for ETF, is to offset the cost of the equipment. If you want a 450 dollar piece of equipment for 199 dollars or less then it seems reasonable to me that there should be some type of commitment involved. If you have lower quality equipment then certainly your business model can support not having ETF's. Not sure what else you might have meant then. Not to mention the fact that you even put giving equipment away in parenthesis.

[Kheldar]

If the cable industry can survive without service agreements and ETFs, why can't satellite? They've already moved to a lease system, so it's not like they'd be "giving" equipment away.

Several problems with that question:

* Most houses are already wired for cable, but aren't wired properly for a satellite system (splitters hidden in the walls, cable entering the home from the wrong side, etc). In most cases, the cable companies have very little installation costs, and in most circumstances they could get away with the customer picking up the box at the office and doing a self-install. In most cases, this is not the case with satellite.

* Even in areas of new construction, the neighborhoods are usually wired up-front for cable at the expense of the construction companies or homeowners, not at the expense of the cable companies.

* You says they "moved to a lease system", but they "moved" from what? Prior to digital cable, there was no "lease" or "owned" system because no equipment was required for analog cable. This is not a valid comparison.

* In lots of areas, your assertion that the cable companies "can survive without service agreements and ETFs" is just wrong. Comcast's Triple-Play offfer requires a 2-year contract in some areas (http://consumerist.com/consumer/contracts/comcast-triple-play-now-with-24-month-contract-and-etf-258444.php). Apparently Comcast disagrees with your assertion that they "can survive" without these requirements.

[dbronstein]

They will settle. The lawyers will get $50 million and everyone who ever canceled Directv and had to pay a fee will get $5

It will be a $5 voucher for future Directv services.

[mhrusovsky]

For what it's worth, I am not a fan of the ETF that as a consumer I am faced with from not only Satelite, but many other companies, such as cell service.

I understand completely that there are times when new equipment's high costs are being heavily subsidised by the company. I believe, someone mentioned a $450 receive being 'sold' for $199, with a two year commitment.

Yet, what about the case when you're not using 'cutting edge' equipment. Is it fair to believe that a D10 Receiver, for example, that's selling for 50 bucks really costs more than 50 bucks and requires a 2 year commitment?

The same may also be said with Cell Phones. I can finally say after 8 years, I am out of any type of 'contract' with my cellular provider. I recently looked at replace my phone, with something modest, i.e. just a basic phone since I already have a smartphone through work, and was shocked to find out that I'd have to agree to another two year commitment.

If anything, I just wish this lawsuit brings out some sort of 'sliding scale' of ETF's. So, if you're two months away from the end of your term, your charged a percentage, instead of the flat fee of $300 or so.

But, that's just my two cents....

[DogLover]

If anything, I just wish this lawsuit brings out some sort of 'sliding scale' of ETF's. So, if you're two months away from the end of your term, your charged a percentage, instead of the flat fee of $300 or so.

But, that's just my two cents....

Isn't DirecTV's ETF already prorated based on the number of month left?

[Doug Brott]

Isn't DirecTV's ETF already prorated based on the number of month left?

Yes it is prorated by month .. so the closer to the end of the contract period, the lower the ETF.

[Kheldar]

If anything, I just wish this lawsuit brings out some sort of 'sliding scale' of ETF's. So, if you're two months away from the end of your term, your charged a percentage, instead of the flat fee of $300 or so.

But, that's just my two cents....

With D* that already happens.

D*'s Lease Agreement (http://www.directv.com/DTVAPP/global/contentPage.jsp?assetId=P500014):
If you fail to maintain your minimum programming commitment, you agree that DIRECTV may charge you a prorated fee of up to $360 for standard receivers and up to $480 for advanced products/receivers (e.g., DVR, HD, HD DVR, etc.).
That ends up being $20 per month remaining on the commitment.

[DarinC]

If you want a 450 dollar piece of equipment for 199 dollars or less then it seems reasonable to me that there should be some type of commitment involved.

Your comment had to do with the usability of cable DVRs. Regardless of what your opinion of them may be, that doesn't necessarily mean there is significant cost differences between cable DVRs and satellite DVRs. Relative to what we spend for just one month of service, I would expect the cost differences between two different DVRs to be fairly small. I also don't see the logic about the cost of the equipment... for one, it doesn't cost them $450 to build a DVR. Two: we don't keep it. They take it back at the end. So we aren't "getting" anything. Just like with cable. Except they don't charge an upfront lease fee either.

Several problems with that question:

* Most houses are already wired for cable, but aren't wired properly for a satellite system (splitters hidden in the walls, cable entering the home from the wrong side, etc). In most cases, the cable companies have very little installation costs, and in most circumstances they could get away with the customer picking up the box at the office and doing a self-install. In most cases, this is not the case with satellite.
This is true. But if the truck roll is what's causing them heartburn, they could offer self-installs for no committment, or a committment for a new install. Self installs were the primary method of getting DirecTV back when I got it. Did cable have committments when they first started running cable?

* You says they "moved to a lease system", but they "moved" from what? Prior to digital cable, there was no "lease" or "owned" system because no equipment was required for analog cable. This is not a valid comparison.
No, I meant DirecTV. The boxes were owned, but now they are (primarily) leased. They can take them back and give them to the next customer. And as evidenced by their "mover's connection" program, they are more than happy to leave the dish where it is, in hopes that it makes satellite more attractive for the next potential customer.

* In lots of areas, your assertion that the cable companies "can survive without service agreements and ETFs" is just wrong. Comcast's Triple-Play offfer requires a 2-year contract in some areas (http://consumerist.com/consumer/contracts/comcast-triple-play-now-with-24-month-contract-and-etf-258444.php). Apparently Comcast disagrees with your assertion that they "can survive" without these requirements.
I've never seen any that do this for straight video service, which is what we're talking about here. If I'm not mistaken, that committment is when taking advantage of their promo pricing to get video+phone+internet for $100/m. DirecTV has the contract even on their regular pricing.

[bruinfever]

Just a quick lesson on class action lawsuits. The lawyers do not get a % fee of the agreed settlement/court decision. They get their normal hourly fee taken from it. So no, that would not happen.

Agreed. They will state that they had 85 lawyers working on the case with an accumaltion of 45,000 hours dedicated to the project which will come out to $40 Million. What do you think trial lawyers are stupid? There's a reason trial lawyers have hundreds of lobbyists and are one of the most powerful special interest groups in Washington....They don't get a $40 million in vouchers from DirecTV like the customer who they "are fighting for" will get...They'll get cold, hard, cash...

[Herdfan]

If the cable industry can survive without service agreements and ETFs, why can't satellite? They've already moved to a lease system, so it's not like they'd be "giving" equipment away.

With cable, if you cancel, either you return the box directly to their location or give it to a tech. All they have to do to put it back in service is to delete any recordings and give it to the next customer.

It is much more involved with satellite as they have to send you box to send it back in, keep track of it, refurbish it, and then it might be ready to go to another customer. Or worse, it will then only be used as a repacement unit.

[DarinC]

It is much more involved with satellite as they have to send you box to send it back in, keep track of it, refurbish it, and then it might be ready to go to another customer. Or worse, it will then only be used as a repacement unit.

But why does it have to be any different than cable? Why do they have to refurbish it and restrict it for replacement duty, when cable can just recycle theirs to the next customer? Sure, if a new customer specifically WANTS new equipment, I can see charging extra for that.

[tcusta00]

Oh goody, another class action thread. I thought it was too quiet around here. :lol:

[Steve Robertson]

Oh goody, another class action thread. I thought it was too quiet around here. :lol:

I know isn't this great what happen to the last class action suit? Did it get thrown out?

[rudeney]

While I am no fan of being locked in, I dont thin D*'s 2 year term is excessive, and I dont the the ETF is that bad.

I do not mind the commitment as long as it is equitable, but it’s not. For example, a new subscriber with a full install could easily end up receiving over $1,000 in “freebies”– dish install, multiswitch, cabling, several free or discounted IRD’s, free programming, credits, etc. If add another plug-and-play HD-DVR, I am stuck under the same 2-year commitment with the same ETF’s. Other than a few minutes of CSR’s time to activate the box, D* has not spent a dime on me. Of course one might argue that the $199 I pay for the up-front lease on the HD-DVR doesn’t cover the entire cost of it, but that doesn’t matter because it never becomes mine. If I return it, D* again be able to charge another customer another $199 up-front lease fee for that very receiver.

The cell phone companies seem to have it right. In return for a commitment, you get a $200-$250 discount on a new phone. If you have more than one phone on your account, then each one carries its own ETF’s. Other than maybe being able to get a few extras if you are along-time high ARPU customer, everyone pretty much gets the same deal. It’s equitable and there are no “lease” issues. Of course the startup-costs for new cell service are negligible compared to the installation required by a DBS system, but still, the commitment and ETF’s are the same concept – covering the revenue lost by letting the customer have lower up-front costs.

Now the charges for unreturned equipment, thats another story altogether. I have over $1200 in fees to look forward to if I dont send my DVRs back if I ever cancel.

That another thing I do not like about D*’s model. If I “lease” a new receiver for $199, I’m stuck under a two-year commitment *AND* I would owe charge-back fees if I ever fail to return it when required. That makes no sense. In the cell phone world, you agree to the commitment and similar ETF’s, and you get the discounted phone, but it’s yours to keep. In my case, I keep old phones in case someone loses or breaks one. With D*, I can’t do this. Besides that, since there is also an open-market for the sale of new and used cell phones, the price is controlled by that market. Since D* equipment is leased, there is no open market so who knows what the “real” price of the equipment is? D* says an HD-DVR is $199 a san up-front lease fee, but if you fail to return it, the can charge another $400+. Is that box really worth $600? Probably not.

The bottom line is that I don’t support class-action suits unless the class really has been harmed. I’d say the class should not be people who had new installs. They got a lot of “free” stuff in return for their commitment. There should be a suit for people who were stuck into a new two-year commitment when all they did was add an extra plug-and-play receiver.

[HD AV]

"Back in the day", in other words, before leasing equipment, we all bought out IR and dish. We only contracted with D* for programming and there was no commitment. It was a monthly service and you paid in advance for the month. Don't pay your bill, no service the next month, plain and simple.
Now it seems people expect to be "given" their receivers and dish with installation and not have any costs associated except for the programming. I have no problem with the commitment as I got an $800+ piece of equipment (think$ comparison with new Tivo for OTA/cable) for $99.00 and the dish and installation along with that. If I had to pay for the dish and installation, it would have cost me at least $350.00 and my programming fees would have still been the same.
I darn sure don't want to own my DVR as the technology changes so fast I'm glad D* went to leasing. If this one fails, or needs to be replaced due to new technology/capabilities, then D* replaces it. I still have 2 Sony receivers, both of which I paid over $500 for, that are of no use to me as they are SD and I don't have any SD TVs any more. They are also MPEG2, so if D* ever goes all MPEG4, they are useless period! Since I don't own the DVR, and paid a fraction of it's value, I don't have a problem with D* charging me the difference in cost if I don't return it when service is terminated.
Don't know how these people will get away with saying they were not informed with the terms of the commitment when every ad, mailing, offer I have ever seen plainly states the terms of the commitment in the fine print. If they can't read English, then they can inquire about the terms of service. I never enter into a contract, or contract for services, without knowing what my obligation might be. Dang, I even read the entire terms of my insurance policies, loan agreements, credit card applications/terms of service, etc. It's only prudent to protect one's own interest. If you don't like the terms then don't enter into an agreement/contract. It's that simple. Inquiring minds want to know. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, well, you get the picture.

[DarinC]

"Back in the day", in other words, before leasing equipment, we all bought out IR and dish. We only contracted with D* for programming and there was no commitment. It was a monthly service and you paid in advance for the month. Don't pay your bill, no service the next month, plain and simple.

I actually preferred this set-up. And sometimes they would subsidize the cost of the box, and I completely understood the need for a contract if they were subsidizing the cost of a box that ulimately was mine. But it seems now they want the best of both worlds... they charge an upfront fee for the hardware, yet it's not yours. AND they want to charge you more if you don't stay with them. You actually pay again for a box that you are giving back to them. And they try to stick you with a contract renewal any chance they get. There was a point in time where it didn't appear they needed to force people to stay with them.

[HD AV]

And they try to stick you with a contract renewal any chance they get. There was a point in time where it didn't appear they needed to force people to stay with them.

They are not forcing anyone to do anything. It's our choice whether or not to accept or renew service under their terms. Now, I will concede that the terms seem to be applied in a somewhat capricious manner with respect to what a customer changes, dependent upon the CSR one is dealing with, but that's another issue entirely unrelated to the actual terms of service contract agreed upon for your initial commitment.

[rudeney]

I have no problem with the commitment as I got an $800+ piece of equipment (think$ comparison with new Tivo for OTA/cable) for $99.00

The problem is, you didn’t “get” a piece of $800 equipment for $99. What you got was “the use the equipment”. If you ever decide to stop using it, you send it back and D* will “lease” it to someone else for another $99. Unlike a car or other commercial equipment lease, they never lose their investment in the equipment as it does not depreciate with normal use. There is no reason for that to incur a commitment. And the “$800” price tag is dubious. There is no open market to determine the price. They might as well say it costs $8,000.

[quot2]and the dish and installation along with that. [/quote]

OK, if you got a dish install. In that case, you did receive something of value that is “yours to keep”. Now I whole-heartedly support a commitment requirement with ETF’s. D* does need to recover the investment they made in that equipment.

I darn sure don't want to own my DVR as the technology changes so fast I'm glad D* went to leasing.

I have to disagree with your logic there. Keep in mind that the up-front lease fees you have already paid apply only to that specific equipment. If D* comes out with some new technology next year, in order to upgrade, you will pay additional up-front lease fees, plus there is no “residual” value in the receiver you have now. At least if it was owned, you could sell your current receiver and recoup some of the initial investment in it. Keep in mind that people are still buying old (very old!) D* receivers. Plenty of people want put one in the kid’s room, spare room, etc.

If this one fails, or needs to be replaced due to new technology/capabilities, then D* replaces it.

That is not correct. D* will not replace it for new capabilities and technologies. Yes, they did upgrade HR10-250’s to HR2x’s because they sunsetted MPEG2 HD, but that was the only time they have done that, and there are no guarantees they would do it again. And many of those were owned, so there was no leasing advantage.

If a leased receiver fails, there is no officially published policy on replacement. In practice, they have been doing some swaps for $20, or free replacement under the PP. But then again, the PP also replaces owned equipment for free, so there is no leasing advantage here.


I still have 2 Sony receivers, both of which I paid over $500 for, that are of no use to me as they are SD and I don't have any SD TVs any more. They are also MPEG2, so if D* ever goes all MPEG4, they are useless period!

My original equipment was two Sony SAT-A3’s and a dual LNB dish. It cost me somewhere around $800, IIRC. They were still working just fine up until two years ago when I replaced them with DVR’s. I sold them on eBay for about $40 each. Based on the HR10 situation, I’ll bet D* would offer a free or reasonable upgrade to owners of old MPEG2 equipment when they decidedto shift completely to MPEG4.

Since I don't own the DVR, and paid a fraction of it's value, I don't have a problem with D* charging me the difference in cost if I don't return it when service is terminated.

I don’t either. My problem is the commitment and ETF’s that come with just using it.

Don't know how these people will get away with saying they were not informed with the terms of the commitment when every ad, mailing, offer I have ever seen plainly states the terms of the commitment in the fine print. If they can't read English, then they can inquire about the terms of service. I never enter into a contract, or contract for services, without knowing what my obligation might be. Dang, I even read the entire terms of my insurance policies, loan agreements, credit card applications/terms of service, etc. It's only prudent to protect one's own interest. If you don't like the terms then don't enter into an agreement/contract. It's that simple. Inquiring minds want to know. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, well, you get the picture.

Did you read the terms of service before signing your D* contract? I’ll bet you didn’t because you’d had to have gone online to do so and you probably didn’t actually sign the contract; you likely made a verbal agreement to a phrase something along the lines of, “Ok, Mr. Customer, this order comes with a 2-year commitment for minimum D* service. Do you agree to that?” You said yes, and all the sudden, you just acknowledged four pages of legalese posted on the website and you also agreed to the fact that those terms can change at any time for any reason and you have no recourse whatsoever.

The problem is that the corporations these days can’t just give customers a good service at a competitive price. They have to lure customers into traps and suck them dry.

[HD AV]

Did you read the terms of service before signing your D* contract? I’ll bet you didn't’t because you’d had to have gone online to do so and you probably didn’t actually sign the contract; you likely made a verbal agreement to a phrase something along the lines of, “Ok, Mr. Customer, this order comes with a 2-year commitment for minimum D* service. Do you agree to that?” You said yes, and all the sudden, you just acknowledged four pages of legalese posted on the website and you also agreed to the fact that those terms can change at any time for any reason and you have no recourse whatsoever.

The problem is that the corporations these days can’t just give customers a good service at a competitive price. They have to lure customers into traps and suck them dry.

As it so happens, I had D* mail me a copy of the customer agreement/terms of service before I made the decision to get the H20 as the equipment I had I owned. I read every word prior to having the dish for the H20 (I also purchased and own) installed and I, once again, did the same prior to getting the HR20 and new Slimline. I knew exactly what I was entering into. Perhaps I'm a dying breed, but I want to know my obligations/liabilities prior to making any decision concerning contracts/services.
You know what assumptions can do to you.

[Jolliec]

Just browse this or any other forum and see how many people are constantly switching services, considering switching services, or looking for the "next deal". Quite often for no good reason.

I am all for competition, but this activity costs the providers major bucks every year and they must do something to curb the constant flux. So, if you had the chance to come up with a solution, what would it be?

DirecTV installed my orignal service for free in 3 rooms. I moved twice since then and they installed new dishes at both homes for free, and then upgraded me to MPEG4 HD dish etc for $99. All they asked for was a two year commitment from me. I have no problem with that at all.

I am sure some feel trapped by these commitments and the possiblity of missing the next new thing, or a new deal coming along. I will admit that I have thought about it many times too. But you know, I really love my DirecTV service, and I am not leaving anytime soon.

[rustynails]

When I decided to go with D, I never read or signed a contract. I called D and they told me it would be $99 plus tax and shipping for the HDDVR and the cost of the programing with $18 off a month for one year. When the installer came out, I never signed a contract. D might have said this was a 2 year commitment but I don't remember. Is a verbal acknowledgement good enough for a contract to hold up in a court of law. I don't know! In my case it didn't matter because I needed HD programming and couldn't get it with E due to los.
I know that D did not pay wholesale prices for their HDDVR's so I can't see the big deal about someone wanting out and retuning the DVR since it is a lease and the customer not owing anything. They are not recouping the losses on the leased equipment. They just turn around and lease it to someone else or it becomes a refurb.

[rudeney]

As it so happens, I had D* mail me a copy of the customer agreement/terms of service before I made the decision
Then I assume you read and agreed to section 4. It states that D* can change the terms at any time. You can, of course, refuse to accept the terms, but you have to cancel your service to do that, and that does not get you out of your commitment. IMHO, that right there is reason for a lawsuit. No company should be able to require a commitment to terms that can change and still be able to enforce financial penalties for cancelation. I am all for open markets that let consumers vote with their dollars, but these type contracts are equivalent to the way elections were run in the old “CCCP” .

[Newshawk]

That is not correct. D* will not replace it for new capabilities and technologies. Yes, they did upgrade HR10-250’s to HR2x’s because they sunsetted MPEG2 HD, but that was the only time they have done that, and there are no guarantees they would do it again. And many of those were owned, so there was no leasing advantage.

Not true, rudney. There are at least two other specific ongoing instances I know of where DirecTV will replace old equipment (either leased or owned) with new updated equipment. If you are upgrading to receive LiLs in a market where they come from either the 119 satellite or one of the Ka/Ku satellites, DirecTV will upgrade your equipment to the correct receivers at no charge with no commitment.

[Upstream]

I do not mind the commitment as long as it is equitable, but it’s not. For example, a new subscriber with a full install could easily end up receiving over $1,000 in “freebies”– dish install, multiswitch, cabling, several free or discounted IRD’s, free programming, credits, etc. If add another plug-and-play HD-DVR, I am stuck under the same 2-year commitment with the same ETF’s. Other than a few minutes of CSR’s time to activate the box, D* has not spent a dime on me. Of course one might argue that the $199 I pay for the up-front lease on the HD-DVR doesn’t cover the entire cost of it, but that doesn’t matter because it never becomes mine. If I return it, D* again be able to charge another customer another $199 up-front lease fee for that very receiver.



That is because DirecTV's commitment policy has absolutely nothing to do with recouping their costs. If the commitment had anything to do with DirecTV's costs, there would be a relationship between the commitment and the costs. There isn't.


For example, DirecTV has reported that their cost for an SD-DVR is $150, and their cost for a non-DVR HD receiver is $130. If I want to add either, I can call DirecTV and pay them $99 plus $20 shipping and have them send me one. So DirecTV is now out of pocket about $50 for the DVR or $30 for the HD receiver.

I would now have a 2 year commitment. If I decide to cancel in 4 months, I owe DirecTV $400 in an early termination fee. So they are now up $350 for the DVR or $370 for the HD receiver. DirecTV has now made more than twice their cost of the receiver. Plus they get the receivers back to lease out to someone else.

If the purpose of the commitment were to allow DirecTV to recoup its costs, you would have a 3 month commitment for the DVR and a 2 month commitment for the HD receiver.

But the commitment has zero to do with recouping DirecTV's cost. It exists only as a way to reduce churn.

[paulman182]

That another thing I do not like about D*’s model. If I “lease” a new receiver for $199, I’m stuck under a two-year commitment *AND* I would owe charge-back fees if I ever fail to return it when required. That makes no sense. In the cell phone world, you agree to the commitment and similar ETF’s, and you get the discounted phone, but it’s yours to keep. In my case, I keep old phones in case someone loses or breaks one. With D*, I can’t do this.

Has DirecTV taken your deactivated receivers back? They have never asked for one of mine (the "spares" listed in my signature.)

I realize I don't technically "own" them, but they are here if I need them someday.

[SPACEMAKER]

Whenever there is a contract both parties need to live up to their end. If someone breaks that contract then the other side is compensated. Why do people think they can break a contract without penalty?

[Blurayfan]

Whenever there is a contract both parties need to live up to their end. If someone breaks that contract then the other side is compensated. Why do people think they can break a contract without penalty?
There is no a contract between DirecTV and a subscriber, rather a commitment from the subscriber. That's the problem DirecTV is free to change terms whenever they feel like it. The customer however is locked in for the length of the commitment. If it were a contract DirecTV can't change the terms unless aggreed to by the subscriber.

[heisman]

Whenever there is a contract both parties need to live up to their end. If someone breaks that contract then the other side is compensated. Why do people think they can break a contract without penalty?

There is no a contract between DirecTV and a subscriber, rather a commitment from the subscriber. That's the problem DirecTV is free to change terms whenever they feel like it. The customer however is locked in for the length of the commitment. If it were a contract DirecTV can't change the terms unless aggreed to by the subscriber.

On the money. It's the only thing I hate about D*. They can change the package price, take channels out of your package, add fee costs out of the blue, and yet you are still considered in contract with them.

[Piratefan98]

It was only a matter of time until this action was taken (given that a similar action against a cell phone provider was recently in the news).

I think the ETF issue is kind of fuzzy, for reasons mentioned in this thread by people on both sides of the debate. Will be interesting to see it play out.

Jeff

[Kheldar]

On the money. It's the only thing I hate about D*. They can change the package price, take channels out of your package, add fee costs out of the blue, and yet you are still considered in contract with them.

To be fair, though, this same contract term is in effect for DishNet subscribers, also.

E* Residential Subscriber Agreement (http://www.dishnetwork.com/content/about_us/residential_customer_agreement/index.shtml):
IF YOU ARE AN EXISTING DISH NETWORK CUSTOMER, WE WILL NOTIFY YOU OF ANY CHANGES TO, OR REPLACEMENT OF, THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THIS AGREEMENT AND YOUR CONTINUED RECEIPT OF DISH NETWORK SERVICES FOLLOWING RECEIPT OF SUCH NOTICE SHALL CONSTITUTE YOUR ACCEPTANCE OF SUCH CHANGED OR REPLACED TERMS AND CONDITIONS AND THEY WILL BE LEGALLY BINDING ON YOU.
Changes in Services Offered. We reserve the right to add, delete, rearrange and/or change any and all programming, programming packages and other Services that we offer, and our prices and fees related to such programming, programming packages and Services at any time, including without limitation during any term agreement period to which you have agreed under the terms and conditions of any other agreement with DISH Network. If a change affects you, we will provide you notice of such change and its effective date. In the event that we delete, rearrange or change any programming, programming packages or other Services, you understand and agree that we have no obligation to replace or supplement any programming, programming packages or other Services previously offered that have been deleted, rearranged or otherwise changed. You further understand and agree that you will not be entitled to any refund because of a deletion, rearrangement or change in the contents of any programming, programming packages, or other Services previously offered.

In addition to (and without limitation of) any amounts due for your Services and any other amounts due pursuant to any customer agreement(s) pursuant to which you are receiving Services and/or Equipment, you agree to pay the fees referenced below (“Fees”) if and when applicable. DISH Network reserves the right to change these Fees, increase these Fees or add additional Fees at any time and from time to time, in our sole discretion upon notice to you.

[say-what]

Just a quick lesson on class action lawsuits. The lawyers do not get a % fee of the agreed settlement/court decision. They get their normal hourly fee taken from it. So no, that would not happen.Wrong - as most plaintiffs attorneys work on a contingency fee basis set at a % of recovery, fees awarded in class settlements are often expressed in terms of a % of the recovery.

[rudeney]

Not true, rudney. There are at least two other specific ongoing instances I know of where DirecTV will replace old equipment (either leased or owned) with new updated equipment. If you are upgrading to receive LiLs in a market where they come from either the 119 satellite or one of the Ka/Ku satellites, DirecTV will upgrade your equipment to the correct receivers at no charge with no commitment.

That sounds just like the situation with the HR10’s – they became incapable of receiving the programming they were designed for, so D* replaced them. Also, they replaced owned receivers just as they did leased receivers. The poster I responded to was saying that replacement was an advantage of leasing over owning, but it’s not. Also, it sounded to me as if he might expect a replacement if, say, they come out with some new capabilities, not necessarily those that would prevent an existing receiver from handling its subscribed services. Cableco’s often allow customer to swap their boxes when they get something new. For example, VOD.

But the commitment has zero to do with recouping DirecTV's cost. It exists only as a way to reduce churn.

I agree.

Has DirecTV taken your deactivated receivers back? They have never asked for one of mine (the "spares" listed in my signature.) I realize I don't technically "own" them, but they are here if I need them someday.

I have never de-activated a leased receiver. I have one owned R15 that is (was a PP replacement for an owned UTV that died) and when I deactivated it, they were clear that I was not to be returned. There seem to be plenty of posts here where people have been sent boxes for return of equipment and even where they were charged (sometimes erroneously) for non-returned leased equipment.

[paulman182]

There seem to be plenty of posts here where people have been sent boxes for return of equipment and even where they were charged (sometimes erroneously) for non-returned leased equipment.

Most of those either are cancelling service altogether, or exchanging a defective receiver.

I haven't gone thru and counted the posts but that's my recollection.

[Jason Whiddon]

Verizon is being sued right now for ETF's. Just saw online where they are getting ready to offer non contract agreements (you buy the phone), might see this with more companies soon.

I personally think ETF's suck. I sign up for joeblo cell service, pay a reduced (but still sometimes expensive)phone fee, then a sometimes pricey monthly fee. Then to my dismay, after 90 days I figure out their service SUCKS. Guess what? I get to pay $175. I agree with the poster who called it getting held for "RANSOM". I think companies use the fee more as customer retention ;) than to offset hardware costs.

[Ken S]

Most of those either are cancelling service altogether, or exchanging a defective receiver.

I haven't gone thru and counted the posts but that's my recollection.

I deactivated an HR20 and was sent a recovery box. The way the CSR went about it made it seem like it's in their regular script. Recovering receivers is a significant reason why they are projecting lower capital costs.

[rabit ears]

That sounds just like the situation with the HR10’s – they became incapable of receiving the programming they were designed for, so D* replaced them. .

I may be the lone exception but I was never offered a free replacement for my HR10. I was offered a HR20 for $99 with a 2 year commitment, but I have never been offered an absolutely free replacement.

I paid full price ($999 :eek2: I think) back in 2005 for the HR10 and added an HR20 in June of 2007. I have received several calls regarding the HR10, but each and every one, when probed, has admitted that there will be an EFT associated with the “swap”.

I’m about 18 months from retirement (assuming these dumb s---- in DC figure a way out of this mess they got us in) :nono2: and the idea of a commitment to a service that costs me 10% of what the government is willing to give me for 40 years of top bracket taxes doesn’t fly. :nono: My retirement home has basic cable as part of the HOA fees and that’s all I’m going to need.