1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Directv Charging me ETF, They can't provide service

Discussion in 'DIRECTV General Discussion' started by dewrock, Nov 13, 2008.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Nov 13, 2008 #81 of 114
    R0am3r

    R0am3r Legend

    166
    4
    Sep 20, 2008
    Please note - I tried this email address and it bounced. A quick Google indicates the correct address is: Ellen.Filipiak@directv.com
     
  2. Nov 13, 2008 #82 of 114
    veryoldschool

    veryoldschool Lifetime Achiever Staff Member Super Moderator DBSTalk Club

    42,679
    348
    Dec 9, 2006
    Good catch, it was early this morning when I posted it.
     
  3. Nov 13, 2008 #83 of 114
    edpowers

    edpowers AllStar

    126
    2
    Aug 17, 2006
    It IS D*s fault because they are the SOLE PROVIDER of the fuel (Sat Signal). Their 'contract' is unreasonable and should be changed. Not everybody hangs out on Directv message boards talking about the ins and outs of signal strength and line of sight issues. Most people don't think about their cable/sat subscription when moving and really shouldn't have to. And I highly doubt many people would move just to get out of their Directv agreement.

    This reminds me of Sprint Nextel tacking on 2 year service contracts when a customer added or changed anything on their plan. Eventually, the state of Minnesota sued Sprint and forced them to change their business practices. If enough people complained about these unfair practices to their Attorneys General, they'd be forced to right exceptions into the contracts.
     
  4. Nov 13, 2008 #84 of 114
    Kansas Zephyr

    Kansas Zephyr Hall Of Fame

    1,489
    0
    Jun 29, 2007
    Until it changes then, don't agree to it, and don't get the service, so you will not be bound by it. Get Dish, cable, or use OTA.

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

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

    It is not unreasonable when relocating to inquire, and/or verify, that LOS is available if one desires to continue to use D*.
     
  5. Nov 13, 2008 #85 of 114
    Ryan415689

    Ryan415689 Mentor

    45
    0
    Oct 7, 2008
    "I highly doubt many people would move just to get out of their Directv agreement."

    You would be suprised.
     
  6. Nov 13, 2008 #86 of 114
    tcusta00

    tcusta00 Active Member

    7,911
    1
    Dec 31, 2007
    I suppose anything is possible but I seriously doubt any sane person would go to that trouble.
     
  7. Nov 13, 2008 #87 of 114
    ebockelman

    ebockelman Legend

    160
    0
    Aug 16, 2006
    If their contract were unreasonable, then people wouldn't agree to it.

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

    The government should get involved because people can't live up to the agreements that they made? Should we be lobbying Congress for a satellite subscribers' bailout? :D
     
  8. Nov 13, 2008 #88 of 114
    narrod

    narrod Godfather

    572
    1
    Jul 26, 2007

    Here's a stone. That's a silly position. He wants the service. They can't provide it.
    The ETF should be cancelled and I suspect he will prevail in the end if he is persistent. I love it. We choose or need to move but can't because of an ETF for television service. Please! No more stones. :lol:
     
  9. Nov 13, 2008 #89 of 114
    Kansas Zephyr

    Kansas Zephyr Hall Of Fame

    1,489
    0
    Jun 29, 2007
    I think he'll prevail, too. I hope he does.

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

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

    You can move anywhere, whenever you want. Just be ready to actually live up to the obligations you voluntarily sign-up for, too. With freedom of choice, comes personal responsibility.
     
  10. Nov 13, 2008 #90 of 114
    narrod

    narrod Godfather

    572
    1
    Jul 26, 2007
    DirecTv cannot deliver the service provided under their contract. Since they can't it is unreasonable for them to hold the subscriber to the terms because of their inability to perform. I've been a subscriber since 2000 and candidly don't know the contract language. I doubt that I ever read it. If they can provide the service and he still wants to cancel then, I agree he should pay the ETF.
     
  11. Nov 13, 2008 #91 of 114
    Kansas Zephyr

    Kansas Zephyr Hall Of Fame

    1,489
    0
    Jun 29, 2007
    D* has the ability to perform. They continue to beam signals to the CONUS.

    The individual freely chose to move from a location with LOS, to one without. That is his/her responsibility, not D*'s.
     
  12. Nov 13, 2008 #92 of 114
    RobertE

    RobertE New Member

    8,024
    0
    Jun 9, 2006
    They can't deliver the service provided under their contract DUE TO THE ACTIONS of the customer.

    I do agree with Kansas that there is a very good chance that they will do right by the customer and wave the ETF as a good faith effort.
     
  13. Nov 13, 2008 #93 of 114
    narrod

    narrod Godfather

    572
    1
    Jul 26, 2007

    If they cannot deliver a signal to his home they have demonstrated an inability to perform. Their contract does not speak to service as being available only at the original installation site. Their Mover's Connection plan invalidates that position. I knew three years of law school would come in handy. :lol:
     
  14. Nov 13, 2008 #94 of 114
    Kansas Zephyr

    Kansas Zephyr Hall Of Fame

    1,489
    0
    Jun 29, 2007
    Then I'm sure the OP would love your pro bono work.

    Send him/her a PM, and please update us on the case. ;)
     
  15. Nov 13, 2008 #95 of 114
    broadcastdoc

    broadcastdoc New Member

    6
    0
    Jan 13, 2007
    You'd be correct, if the OP was a new customer, agreed to the term, the installer came out and found there was no signal, THEN dinged the person with the ETF.

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

    At any rate, I agree that refunding the ETF would be a good idea on their part - though I believe that you are agreeing to pay for a service, and if you make a decision that impacts the ability to receive said service, it shouldn't be the provider's responsibility to take a hit, no matter what you think that hit may or may not be.
     
  16. Nov 13, 2008 #96 of 114
    narrod

    narrod Godfather

    572
    1
    Jul 26, 2007
    I don't disagree but I doubt it would ever hold up in a court of law. That being said it is too trivial an issue to take that far. Some simple negotiating will probably take care of the OP. Don't worry too much about DirecTv. They have a whole staff of lawyers to protect their interests. They don't need anyone here to defend them.
     
  17. Nov 13, 2008 #97 of 114
    broadcastdoc

    broadcastdoc New Member

    6
    0
    Jan 13, 2007
    Oh, I completely agree with you...they should just cancel the ETF and be done with it.

    I'm not concerned with defending D* as much as just trying to make the point. There seems to be a lot of bad "legal interpretations" floating around here. The truth is that while DirecTV may not have as many rights as they think, they do have some rights in this deal. They really can make this easy, or difficult. I think a lot depends on how your attitude is going in.
     
  18. Nov 14, 2008 #98 of 114
    T_N_T

    T_N_T Legend

    204
    0
    Sep 9, 2008
    I don't see how you can say its the fault of the OP, how does he know every little detail about D*'s service and the signal and how it will operate. Plus if you are forced to move and there is nothing you can do about it(I.E. due to job) is it your fault still? There is a little thing called "common sense" and in this case I do not think D* has it. Not every person knows everything about how D* works and that is the truth. It is unreasonable for D* to say, were so sorry you moved because that inhibits our signal, but you still must pay us a few because you coulden't honor a contract you signed when you were in your previous location. I would dispute this one in every way possible.
     
  19. Nov 14, 2008 #99 of 114
    Sharkie_Fan

    Sharkie_Fan Hall Of Fame

    2,535
    0
    Sep 26, 2006
    It is the "fault" of the OP because his decisions have left him in a position where he is unable to receieve the signal that DirecTV is sending. DirecTV changed nothing - the only variable to the whole scenario is the OP and his decision to move.

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

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

    All we're trying to point out is that a contract was agreed to. the contract is pretty black and white - if you cancel early, there is an ETF. If DirecTV chooses to be hard-nosed about it, they'd be well within their rights.... Most of us agree, DirecTV should waive the ETF, but it is the opinion of many of us that they aren't required to do so.
     
  20. Alebob911

    Alebob911 Hall Of Fame

    1,622
    6
    Mar 22, 2007
    CERES,CA
    Part of doing business.

     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page