Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'DIRECTV General Discussion' started by DirecTVSucks, Jan 20, 2013.
so it takes 8 pages to decide that the OP was mistaken.....couple of times even?
Other than having bad email addresses, I don't think we know that.
We know that DirecTV had a customer who was not happy and has reportedly cancelled his account.
(also, using pages as a reference is meaningless. I have my preferences set differently than yours: your post is the first one on page six when I view the thread.)
I love how all the die hard DTV fanatics will defend them to no end. Like DTV will never try and pull a fast one over on you hoping you will not notice. MANY DTV customers have had these sorts of problems. I know I have. Whether it be intentional or unintentional, they will screw you if you don't keep up with it. Some of you need to step off your high horse and chill.
If you chop the classification finely enough, even Charter could be at the top of the charts. As it is, DISH has beat DIRECTV for two years in a row in the ACSI rankings (and FIOS beat DISH). The latest rankings came out in early December 2012.
For their part, even DISH has an asterisk that magically removes FIOS from consideration as not being a "conventional" satellite or cable provider (even though FIOS is an entirely conventional cable provider right down to using QAM and Motorola DVRs).
IIRC, DIRECTV can only claim superiority based on a JD Power regional ranking as opposed to the ACSI rankings. They have deviously chosen to not mention all the qualifications that it took to get them that "award". It is a sin of omission.
I'm torn between widespread corporate incompetence and an intentional effort to obfuscate as much as possible. With obfuscation they can take advantage of consumers that fail to focus on the details or refuse to spend the time and effort to protect their rights. On the other hand, too much obfuscation has got to cost them a hell of a lot of money in terms of customer service. I suspect the current situation pays more than it costs. Regardless of intent, that explains everything.
DTV is far from special - many companies are like this. My internet (cable) company is the same. I only see these kinds of things with companies that are in pseudo-monopoly position. When I have an alternative I don't deal with companies that behave like pond scum.
I honestly don't think DTV is smart enough for this to be an intentional effort so I guess I'd vote for incompetence. The fact that it pays seals the deal.
What is really wrong with all of this is that consumers don't have viable alternatives. In my location (metro Minneapolis) I have exactly 3 choices for "broadcast TV with lots of channels": DTV, Dish, Mediacom. So if I want this kind of service I have to pick what sucks the least. None of these providers have any incentive to significantly outperform the others.
Not true. I've been a DirecTV customer for 18 years and have never experienced them trying them to pull a fast one as you claim. And while I'm a loyal, satisfied customer I have posted some of DirecTV's shortcomings since being a member of this site. The most recent being post # 53 on the
"What I'd Like To See In 2013 From DirecTV" thread. And while I'll agree that some people here need to get off their high horse people like you need to speak for yourself and not for others.
there actually isn't a higher level - they just access NET and Broadcast for additional support.
directv is no saint.far from it :nono:
They make mistakes. When they are brought to the company's attention, they fix them.
Discuss the topic and not each other. If you have a problem with someone's post take it to PM or report it.
If you look around, you'll find that many of these mistakes are recurring problems suggesting that the problem hasn't really been fixed. See more at CIG.
Sometimes the issue is with contract installers. Sometimes it is with contract marketers. Other times it is with inside installers or sales. In any case, people don't always understand the facts and it is up to DIRECTV to make sure everyone is on the same up-to-date page (which may not be accurately reflected on their website)..
Show me a company that delievers service to the public that does not have these issues, there is not one company in existance that does nt get bad mouthed on the anonymous method of communications medium that is called the internet and forums. Even your provider of choice is bad mouthed and called useless on these forums
I agree, although there have been instances where it seemed to be a systemic problem. I'm referring to the improper extension or renewal of commitments that went on for much longer than it should have. It does seem that the issue has been fixed for the most part. Another example is when rvu was rolled out many of the csrs were telling callers that you had to have a Samsung tv in order to get the HR34. I informed the office of the president about the problem about a year ago. I was told that it had been addressed, but it continued for many months after that.
It's not an easy problem to fix, misinformation. I've reminded some staff of some things, and still find they give the wrong info, and that's less than 10 people.
Take into account turn-over in a CSR quad, if you look at the statistics that are available all companies that run dedicated help desks in non-tech related industries are high - I would rate driectv in a non-tech industry for end user support as compared to Oracle, and companies likeas such.
Adequete training in low tech support roles is important, but it is also very hard when the turn over rate is that high, you get one group trained and maybe two months later 70 percent of the trained group is gone. Used to manage a wired carrier help desk center, we had about a 40 percent turn over rate of call center employees per year and we where one of the lower ones. The person that was trained "about a year ago" when you asked probably has been gone from that position for 2 months
Im sorry you had this much trouble
That's all true, but it doesn't mean it's okay to give out wrong information for months on end or erroneously extend commitments nor does it account for why it's happening.
Commitments do not get "erroneously" extended.