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

ETF and New Agreement..Time to Fight Back

Discussion in 'DIRECTV General Discussion' started by rubocop, May 16, 2012.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. May 16, 2012 #21 of 148
    Mike Bertelson

    Mike Bertelson 6EQUJ5 WOW! Staff Member Super Moderator DBSTalk Club

    14,040
    94
    Jan 24, 2007
    It's not a matter of being loyal or not being loyal. I’m just trying to understand what has changed that some feel is egregious enough, that an effect on our service, or in some way changes my day to day dealings with DIRECTV that is worth going through the trouble of canceling service.

    Changing the term “receiver” to “box” or “mirroring” to “enabled TV” has absolutely zero effect on the service provided or our costs as subscribers. I must be missing something because I can’t find a difference from the previous version that effects the provided service or costs.

    That’s why I’m asking what you feel is so flagrantly detrimental that you’re willing to go to court over.

    Mike
     
  2. May 16, 2012 #22 of 148
    damondlt

    damondlt New Member

    5,455
    232
    Feb 27, 2006
    Newfoundland...
    Class Action Suits are a joke anyway. All these do is cost the company money and Lawyers make millions and the customer gets nothing!
     
  3. May 16, 2012 #23 of 148
    MarkG21

    MarkG21 AllStar

    73
    0
    Jan 3, 2010
    Could you be more specific?


    Can you explain why you object that DirecTv is changing the term "receiver" to "box" in the agreement? Just curious, maybe I'm missing something?
     
  4. May 16, 2012 #24 of 148
    Chris Blount

    Chris Blount Creator of DBSTalk Staff Member Administrator DBSTalk Gold Club

    17,308
    28
    Jun 22, 2001
    Agreed.
     
  5. May 16, 2012 #25 of 148
    lparsons21

    lparsons21 Hall Of Fame

    4,249
    191
    Mar 4, 2006
    Herrin, IL
    That's the legal fine line he and D* are walking. He didn't cancel the service, he just didn't agree to be held to the new terms by invoking the clause about not accepting the new terms. D* chose to cancel instead of him being allowed to continue the subscription under the original terms.

    Can he win? I don't know, but I suspect he can.

    But I also think that even if he wins, he loses money. More money than the ETF I suspect.
     
  6. May 16, 2012 #26 of 148
    lparsons21

    lparsons21 Hall Of Fame

    4,249
    191
    Mar 4, 2006
    Herrin, IL
    The lead plaintiffs in a class action suit often get much more than the 'general class'. But otherwise, you are correct.
     
  7. May 16, 2012 #27 of 148
    bixler

    bixler Hall Of Fame

    1,262
    3
    Oct 14, 2008
    PA
    Will this guy ever answer the question? What part of the T&C change is he objecting to? I have a feeling he doesn't even know what the changes are.....
     
  8. May 16, 2012 #28 of 148
    wilsonc

    wilsonc Legend

    245
    0
    Aug 22, 2006
    There has been no real material changes to their terms and conditions, just updates to how things are defined. There are no damages incured. Good luck, because you've already agreed to pay the ETF as the agreement just says upon cancellation, not dictating who started the cancellation.

     
  9. May 16, 2012 #29 of 148
    Mike Bertelson

    Mike Bertelson 6EQUJ5 WOW! Staff Member Super Moderator DBSTalk Club

    14,040
    94
    Jan 24, 2007
    It seems to me that some of the changes use more up to date terminology (enabled TV versus mirror) or in some cases more generic terminology (box versus receiver) to make things more consistent. It doesn’t seem all that unreasonable to me.

    Why? Do you think there is an ulterior motive here and if so what is it?

    Mike
     
  10. May 16, 2012 #30 of 148
    Marlin Guy

    Marlin Guy Hall Of Fame

    2,129
    7
    Apr 8, 2009
    As I read it he is not so so much concerned with what was changed as he is with the provider's attitude that they can change things, and then charge the customer for not agreeing.
    That gives off a slight aroma of racketeering.

    If the customer doesn't choose to agree, then it's not up to the customer to pay for cancellation. The provider changed the agreement, so any termination costs should be on them.

    edit /unless that was covered in the previous agreement. Then he has no case.
     
  11. May 16, 2012 #31 of 148
    Marlin Guy

    Marlin Guy Hall Of Fame

    2,129
    7
    Apr 8, 2009
    It's not about motive. It's about having an agreement with a provider and having the provider changing the agreement, and then coercing you into continuing the services.
    If the changes are minimal and they are merely updating language, then they should phase in the changes with new customers, leaving existing ones as they were.
     
  12. May 16, 2012 #32 of 148
    Marlin Guy

    Marlin Guy Hall Of Fame

    2,129
    7
    Apr 8, 2009

    That's a subjective view.
    It doesn't seem unreasonable to me that golf be banned from ever being shown on television again, but that may or may not be in alignment with your own views.
     
  13. May 16, 2012 #33 of 148
    Stewpidity

    Stewpidity Godfather

    292
    0
    Jan 25, 2008
    I would imagine one hour with a lawyer would be more than the ETF, unless of course the lawyer takes it on contingency but that would be risky in this case. Obviously he just wants to cancel, by the same token i have a hard time believing Directv with all there attorneys that vet the TOS would leave a loophole like this open for any unhappy customer to be able to cancel w/o penalty
     
  14. May 16, 2012 #34 of 148
    Mike Bertelson

    Mike Bertelson 6EQUJ5 WOW! Staff Member Super Moderator DBSTalk Club

    14,040
    94
    Jan 24, 2007
    Fair enough...you may consider calling a receiver a box worth going to court over and that's fine.
    Actually, it’s no different than any other service providers Customer Agreement.

    Have you read your Dish Network Residential Customer Agreement? It has the same provisions to allow for changes to the agreement, pricings, programming packages, etc. as DIRECTV. The net effect is nearly identical.

    For that matter so does Comcast, TWC, Cox and if I continue to search for the other providers I’m sure I’ll find nearly identical set of requirements.

    So, how is DIRECTV’s agreement any different?

    Mike
     
  15. May 16, 2012 #35 of 148
    bixler

    bixler Hall Of Fame

    1,262
    3
    Oct 14, 2008
    PA
    That bold underline is the key I think. If there is no materially adverse changes to the T&C then why should OP be allowed to cancel and not pay ETF? For the cell phones changes I've seen, there is usually a discount or fee change which can be materially adverse even if it's a 1 cent increase. What is materially adverse about the Directv changes??
     
  16. May 16, 2012 #36 of 148
    mitchflorida

    mitchflorida Godfather

    533
    17
    May 18, 2009
    If you can't identify what you disagree with you have no chance to win. I was told that if there was a change that cost you money, they would reimburse the difference.
     
  17. May 16, 2012 #37 of 148
    raott

    raott Hall Of Fame

    2,267
    61
    Nov 23, 2005
    No, they are not a one. Often they are the only way to effectuate change.
     
  18. May 16, 2012 #38 of 148
    Mike Bertelson

    Mike Bertelson 6EQUJ5 WOW! Staff Member Super Moderator DBSTalk Club

    14,040
    94
    Jan 24, 2007
    As I posted above, as a Dish sub you are subject to the requirements. If you don’t agree with Dish’s changes to the Customer Agreement they can cancel your service. And, just like DIRECTV there is nothing that says they can’t charge you the ETF if you don’t agree.

    Mike
     
  19. May 16, 2012 #39 of 148
    RunnerFL

    RunnerFL Well-Known Member

    17,054
    311
    Jan 4, 2006
    No, he clearly came here just to stir up stuff.

    The only things changed in the Terms & Conditions were some words like "receiver" became "box", etc. Nothing that would actually change anything.
     
  20. May 16, 2012 #40 of 148
    RunnerFL

    RunnerFL Well-Known Member

    17,054
    311
    Jan 4, 2006
    We've already been down this road and that thread got locked. It's been discussed until we're all blue in the face. We now at least have confirmation that the ETF is charged if you choose to cancel because you don't agree to the new Terms & Conditions. Let's move on...

    :beatdeadhorse:
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page