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. bixler

    bixler Hall Of Fame

    1,262
    3
    Oct 14, 2008
    PA
    Exactly, which is why the OP has never specifically answered the question as to what part of the change he doesn't agree to. An answer of 'everything' more than likely means he doesn't even know what the changes really are.
     
  2. raott

    raott Hall Of Fame

    2,267
    61
    Nov 23, 2005
    So D* would increase prices to consumers to "make up" for lost ETF fees and pay for lawyers even though doing so would resulting less revenue (that pesky whole supply and demand thing)?
     
  3. damondlt

    damondlt New Member

    5,455
    232
    Feb 27, 2006
    Newfoundland...
    You would be very surprised how many company's, even townships, pay lawyers flat rate salarys on a yearly basis.
    I would not doubt for a second directv has lawyers on the payroll that settle these thousands of cases and don't even bother directv with the petty chit chat.
    Now when your talking about the state of Florida sueing Directv, that my bring some additional fees and services.

    But this case, Directv deals with this all the time. 26+ million customers I garentee you lawyers are on the payroll
     
  4. Shades228

    Shades228 DaBears

    6,081
    45
    Mar 18, 2008
    Yes they would increase prices to keep a profit margin. Whether your assumption of less revenue happes in just conjecture just like everyone's opinion of how they think this situation would play out.

    At this point this thread is nothing more than entertainment because there's too much in the OP's posts that prove he doesn't understand how the process would really work nor what he should or shouldn't be doing. He did however get people riled up so well played OP.
     
  5. raott

    raott Hall Of Fame

    2,267
    61
    Nov 23, 2005
    Sorry, that is simply not how pricing works.
     
  6. wahooq

    wahooq DBSTalk Club DBSTalk Club

    931
    1
    Oct 19, 2011
    Tulsa, OK
    +1
     
  7. bixler

    bixler Hall Of Fame

    1,262
    3
    Oct 14, 2008
    PA
    And with that, this thread should be locked....nuff said....LOL

    :hurah::D:hurah:
     
  8. dpeters11

    dpeters11 Hall Of Fame

    16,247
    490
    May 30, 2007
    Cincinnati
    They do have attorneys on the payroll, but only two are listed as having anything to do with litigation. And one of those also lists "consumer protection" along with privacy and anti-piracy. The other is actually litigation management.
     
  9. spartanstew

    spartanstew Dry as a bone

    12,561
    61
    Nov 16, 2005
    Wylie, Texas
    In order to cancel and get out of the ETF (or not agree to the new agreement), there would have to be a "materially adverse change of contract". This is clearly not the case here.
     
  10. adkinsjm

    adkinsjm Icon

    923
    2
    Mar 25, 2003
    I didn't see anything in the rules here prohibiting petitions or trying to encourage class action lawsuits. What am I missing? I just think some people are dependent on a certain company and don't want to tick of the powers that be.
     
  11. Mike Bertelson

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

    14,040
    94
    Jan 24, 2007
    It's in the DBSTalk User Agreement (Link).

    (g) disseminate off-topic messages on forums promoting any product, service, web site, charity, board or venture, or promote boards on the Service through unsolicited electronic mail messages to third parties. If a user continuously posts links to other forums or web sites giving the appearance of advertising that site whether on or off topic, it will be considered SPAM and the posts will be removed. Links to online petitions or calls for class action lawsuits are not allowed.

    Mike
     
  12. spartanstew

    spartanstew Dry as a bone

    12,561
    61
    Nov 16, 2005
    Wylie, Texas

    You really think that if a company changes their agreement to read "Box" instead of "receiver" that you should be able to get out of your contract without penalty?
     
  13. adkinsjm

    adkinsjm Icon

    923
    2
    Mar 25, 2003
    Plenty of people got out of cell phone ETFs due to slight changes in an agreement.
     
  14. wahooq

    wahooq DBSTalk Club DBSTalk Club

    931
    1
    Oct 19, 2011
    Tulsa, OK
    snap!
     
  15. acostapimps

    acostapimps Hall Of Famer

    1,866
    50
    Nov 5, 2011
    Illinois
    I think the OP just merely doesn't agree with the new terms of agreement and wants to cancel, but doesn't say anything about paying ETF fees if you don't agree with TOS so he wants a civil lawsuit that's all, sheesh people.
     
  16. richall01

    richall01 Godfather

    354
    3
    Sep 30, 2007
    South Georgia
    So did you have service for one day? Did you call to get service? Did a installer come out and install a system for you? Did you know what you were getting into? Have you done the same thing with a cell phone or car lease or on a apartment? Are you just out to get Directv?
     
  17. Shades228

    Shades228 DaBears

    6,081
    45
    Mar 18, 2008
    When costs increase then you either need to reduce costs elsewhere or increase revenue to compensate for said cost increase. So yes a price increase would happen if cost expenditures went over budget and could not be made up elsewhere. Pennies per customer add up fast so even if 1 penny of the price increase went to something it would be a sizable increase in spending.
     
  18. acostapimps

    acostapimps Hall Of Famer

    1,866
    50
    Nov 5, 2011
    Illinois
    You can't just cancel for not agreeing the TOS and not pay ETF, if that was the case everyone would do it, just like any tv provider always read the fine print and agreement before accepting anything.
     
  19. tigerwillow1

    tigerwillow1 Legend

    135
    1
    Jan 26, 2009
    IMO the point isn't what the OP disagrees with or if he is materially affected. The issue is if these one-sided "we can change anything we want, but you're locked in" contracts, demanded by "all" big companies, are enforceable if a consumer chooses to put up a good fight. Most customers don't want the hassle and will cave in to the big company's intimidation. My OPINION is that it shouldn't be legal for one party to change an agreement without the other's consent.
     
  20. Jive Turkey

    Jive Turkey Legend

    104
    0
    Sep 5, 2011
    Sadly, I don't have time to read this whole thread (it looks interesting), but I'm calling rubbish right now. There is no way you have a lawyer and "damages" are irrelevant. If you walk into court without concrete damages, the judge will toss you in 20 seconds and hold your lawyer in contempt.

    I think you are making this whole thing up, trying to gin up angst towards D*.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page