dISH randomly deactivates receivers?

[DanPFW]

So I get home from work today to find that echofags decided to turn off one of our 2 receivers!

We've had the same 2 receivers on the same account with the same phone number for 5 years. Never had a late payment. And this is how they treat honest, loyal customers? A-holes, I'm about ready to check out cable.

So basically, I call the standard number, sit on hold for 15 minutes just to have the guy direct me to a "special" 800 number, where the guy basically says, since the # that your receivers call from is different than your account, we decided to shut the thing off. Jerks, so, maybe I don't want to get harassing sales calls. I've never been treated this bad by a wireless phone company!

From my limited experience with DirecTV, they even have an automated system to re-activate a receiver, not these jerks. Even cell phone companies let you activate a phone online!

Is the FCC the only government body that I can complain to about this?

Dan

[boba]

Welcome to the DISH Audit Team and their GESTAPO TACTICS. Best suggestion is vote with your wallet and leave DISH after first writing an Email to ceo@echostar.com explaining why you are bidding them good bye.

[Slamminc11]

The number you have on your account and the phone number you have (had) your receivers hooked up to so that they can call and check in were different. Dish sees that as stacking. Not their fault on how it looks. The rules are simple. You chose to circumvent the rules (either accidentally or on purpose, I'm not here to say which nor do I care) and so you are going to have to jump through some hoops to correct the problem. How is Dish to know that you aren't just sharing the receivers with someone else? Because you have been there five years? Because you pay your bill every month? The way Dish tries to keep people from sharing accounts is through the phone line, and your receivers weren't attached to the phone you told Dish you use as the correct line. What are they supposed to think? I really not saying you were trying to do anything wrong on purpose, I am just saying that you didn't follow the rules set out by Dish.

[BrianB]

You haven't told us why the number is different.

[DanPFW]

And both receivers call in from the same phone number!

I simply chose to use a cell # for the account. I don't see a problem with that. If it wasn't for the receivers, I wouldn't have a land line at all. Nobody knows our landline number. If it rings, we don't answer it!

Dan

[Slamminc11]

there isn't a problem with using your cell phone as your prime number except for the fact that when the receiver(s) call in and the number doesn't match what is in the system, it throws up some red flags. You got hit because of others trying to cheat the system. Because there are people out there who feel that it is okay to share systems, take receivers on the road with them without setting up second accounts, etc, etc, it affects everyone.

[CCarncross]

This easily could have been avoided...You give your cell phone number for the billing address, and the landline number for teh service address, even though the addresses are the same...problem solved, never would have had an issue....you still dont have to answer the landline...

[joedoe]

The number you have on your account and the phone number you have (had) your receivers hooked up to so that they can call and check in were different. Dish sees that as stacking. Not their fault on how it looks. The rules are simple. You chose to circumvent the rules (either accidentally or on purpose, I'm not here to say which nor do I care) and so you are going to have to jump through some hoops to correct the problem. How is Dish to know that you aren't just sharing the receivers with someone else? Because you have been there five years? Because you pay your bill every month? The way Dish tries to keep people from sharing accounts is through the phone line, and your receivers weren't attached to the phone you told Dish you use as the correct line. What are they supposed to think? I really not saying you were trying to do anything wrong on purpose, I am just saying that you didn't follow the rules set out by Dish.

BTW the residential agreement doesn't say that receivers must be connected to the phone number which is on account. It just says that all receivers should be connected to the same line.

[kmcnamara]

I don't know what type of receivers you have, but if they aren't dual output receivers, this whole mess would've been avoided by you NOT hooking them up to the phone line. For 2 receivers, the audit team likely would never have called you.

Kind of ironic.

[Kagato]

The issue seems to be that it was shut down first, wait for the audit later.

Interesting thought on the agreement. Last time I checked putting some terms on the last page of the user manual did not make for a legally binding contract. There isn't even a seal you have to break, as is the case with most computer software. Legacy customers such as my self never signed anything or agreed to any terms on the inital activation call.

[Stewart Vernon]

The issue seems to be that it was shut down first, wait for the audit later.

It's possible that the audit team tried to call the number that the receivers were dialing in from... and since the original poster never answers that line, they never got through to him before shutting off the receivers.

Interesting to me... is that if the original poster (as stated) never answers that line anyway, then I don't know why they would have a problem giving that to Dish as the service address to have avoided this problem in the first place.

The audit team can be rough, but I admit this would seem peculiar to them. Also, if the original poster's first sentence in his first post and the slang name he called Echostar which I won't repeat here is any indication of how he dealt with Dish on the phone... then that might explain why he didn't get a good explanation either.

[garys]

I have four receivers on my account, two (921 & 622) hooked to landline. I have cell phone listed on my account as well as the landline. Computer is also on landline. Audit team said they tried me on three seperate occations and either got a busy signal or no answer and made no attempt to use cell number. They shut me off because they could not talk to anyone or leave message. It appears as a way to get your attention. At least they adjust your bill for the time your receivers are shut off.

[Fifty Caliber]

...the original poster's first sentence in his first post and the slang name he called Echostar which I won't repeat here is [an] indication of how he dealt with Dish on the phone... ...that might explain why he didn't get a good explanation either.

It's amazing how some basic courtousy will net you better customer service. The concept seems to be lost on some people.

[Raymond255]

...the original poster's first sentence in his first post and the slang name he called Echostar which I won't repeat here is [an] indication of how he dealt with Dish on the phone... ...that might explain why he didn't get a good explanation either.It's amazing how some basic courtousy will net you better customer service. The concept seems to be lost on some people.I agree with both of you. I too was offended when I read the original post; but, truth be told, if I found myself in the same situation I would be just as angry – though my response would have been to cancel service rather than to swear at a CS flunky who isn’t responsible for company policy. The idea of a company shutting off service on an account in good standing because, despite a lack proof, they think that the customer might be cheating them is beyond the pale.

[garys]

Person explained to me that audit is totally random, but the more receivers you have that are not using a phone line, the more likely you will be called.

[Stalky14]

If all the receivers on the account call in from the same line, I fail to see why Dish should
care beyond that. The customer is getting what he's paying for and no more. Even if the receivers weren't at his declared address, the account is square.

Didn't DirecTV used to be the hardass about this sort of thing? Now it's just the opposite. I wonder what bug got up E*'s butt that made them come down so hard on this. Perhaps new customer acquisition has gotten harder in the past couple years as the easy-to-get customers are already served?

[Darkman]

Raymond255 - I like your avatar! :D

[Stewart Vernon]

If all the receivers on the account call in from the same line, I fail to see why Dish should
care beyond that. The customer is getting what he's paying for and no more. Even if the receivers weren't at his declared address, the account is square.

I think the point would be if the receivers are calling in from a location other than what Dish expects by the service address on file... they don't know what the customer might be doing otherwise. If they are dishonest about one thing, why not another? I can see the wheels turning on this. Like if you were pulled over at a drivers license check and your license doesn't have your correct home address on it, the cop wonders if you have anything else you aren't up to date or being honest about. It's a logic leap from one thing to another. Sometimes wrong, but an understandable logic leap nonetheless.

I wonder what bug got up E*'s butt that made them come down so hard on this. Perhaps new customer acquisition has gotten harder in the past couple years as the easy-to-get customers are already served?

That makes no sense if you think about it... IF new customer acquisition is tougher, then Dish would be even more careful with the customers they already have. When new customers are easy to get is when you tend to treat existing customers as if you don't care when they leave.

[wixenwod]

Apparently DISH deactivates all but the primary reciever in this case. As stated on the Residential Agreement:

F. Additional Tuners and Receivers. We may allow you to place additional receivers on your account in our sole discretion. Each additional receiver will be authorized to receive the same Services as your initial receiver. This option is only available if your initial DISH Network receiver and all additional receiver(s) are located at the same residence and are continuously connected to your same land-based telephone line.

Simple as that.

[Raymond255]

Apparently DISH deactivates all but the primary reciever in this case. Thanks for researching that. I wonder how they determine which receiver is "primary." I guess to be safe I’ll phone DISH and specify.

[SaltiDawg]

...

Interesting to me... is that if the original poster (as stated) never answers that line anyway, then I don't know why they would have a problem giving that to Dish as the service address to have avoided this problem in the first place. ...
Exactly! :rolleyes: