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

HDNET v. DIRECTV Application for Restraining Order

Discussion in 'DIRECTV General Discussion' started by Doug Brott, Nov 7, 2007.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Nov 8, 2007 #141 of 473
    gcisko

    gcisko I am Iron Man!

    1,672
    0
    Sep 27, 2006
    Doing what the contract you signed would be a good start. Don't you think?
     
  2. Nov 8, 2007 #142 of 473
    jjohns

    jjohns Godfather

    467
    0
    Sep 15, 2007
    You got that right. . . It's hard to sort out objective thoughts.
    There are those getting DirecTV receivers and other equipment at no cost ahead of the general public that comment on these posts. If you're getting equipment from a company ahead of the general public, you are going to be swayed; its only human nature. It's not the opinions that bother me, its the misrepresentations.
     
  3. Nov 8, 2007 #143 of 473
    gcisko

    gcisko I am Iron Man!

    1,672
    0
    Sep 27, 2006
    "Sorry... don't agree with that"...

    They do have to honor the contract they signed. No?
     
  4. Nov 8, 2007 #144 of 473
    gdn

    gdn AllStar

    104
    1
    Aug 5, 2007
    Dallas, TX
    This isn't about "need" - this is about a contract. Earl - your statements like this are why people want to tie you to Directv's pockets. It isn't about our intrepretations and need. It is about a contract. I'll abide by whatever judgement rules. If D* wins and they can charge more for HDNet - I'll pay it - others may not.

    If D* thinks they can jerk their parnters around because of "Need" then I hope like He** that D* is out of business tomorrow. If the courts side agains HDNet - then HDNet needs to review their contracts a little better.
     
  5. Nov 8, 2007 #145 of 473
    TBoneit

    TBoneit Hall Of Fame

    2,294
    7
    Jul 27, 2006
    Earl that is a 50% for in HD access for only 6 channels. Joe average won't go for it.

    When HD TV sets became affordable for me a little over a year ago I looked at the line up and HDNet and HD Movies were one of the draws that made me decide to go HD. Shows like Art Mann, the shuttle launches, World Report, Get Out!, and the movies along with a decent percentage of Prime Time network TV made me decide to go HD. Even after going HD I didn't add any premium movie networks until recently and now I find that the same thing applies as in years past. I have them and watch 2 or 3 things from them in the whole week. And that is mainly the older movies. I'll probably be dropping the premium movie networks again and saving $$$ not from being cheap but lack of decent content. Cinemax, I've looked at their content and their nighttime content (Silicon Alley)....

    Shuttle launches in HD, now there is a sight to see. Next best thing to bing there.

    Some things shouldn't be in HD, Closeups of sweaty rock stars in concert, Adult content, etc.

    D* is now working just like a cable company, add tiers and move best programming to them to Hoover more money from their subscribers. With one big difference, Cable has not started requiring a 2 year commitment yet, AFAIK.

    BTW I don't spend $5 on coffee a day. I do spend whatever the coffee cost is for the coffee to brew the one cup a day I drink in the morning.

    And FWIW I think HD Net is in the right on this. Ultimately it will most likely come down to who has better lawyers or deeper pockets.
     
  6. Nov 8, 2007 #146 of 473
    Earl Bonovich

    Earl Bonovich Lifetime Achiever

    30,092
    3
    Nov 15, 2005
    Yes they do...

    But it is in the wording of the contract..... and thus is the merit of the case, that the court will decide.... are they honoring the contract... based on an interpretation.

    Just like when people here (on this forum), have beeing trying to find a way out of their contrats with DirecTV... and looking for loopholes.

    These are not handshake agreements... these are multi-million/billion dollar corporations... who frankly play this "game" all the time... Why do you think it takes months to get contracts done, and why lawyers (and teams of lawyers are involved) to review them......

    If it has gotten to this point with litgation and the courts, that means that everything failed in negotiating a new contract (to either make it very specific with only 1 interpretation), and HDNet is playing their hand.

    -------------------

    And my "not agreeing with that", with the quote you copied... was with regards to the "Value" of HDNet to DirecTV now.... nothing about the current stance of the contract.

    The courts will decide now......
     
  7. Nov 8, 2007 #147 of 473
    Earl Bonovich

    Earl Bonovich Lifetime Achiever

    30,092
    3
    Nov 15, 2005
    People see it as $4.99 more... not 50% more..
    They see some HD at $9.99 or more HD at $14.99.

    I still think Joe Average will go for it, especially if they get it for 3 months free, to at least evaluate it.

    And if they don't... then that speeks VOLUMES for the content in that tier... that it is not worth the equivilent of a McDonalds Value Meal... to get those extra channels.

    I completely agree that the Shuttle Launches are fantastic to see... especially in HD... and to me... the package is worth the $4.99.
     
  8. Nov 8, 2007 #148 of 473
    Agrajag

    Agrajag Godfather

    311
    0
    Jun 22, 2004
    This was not their interpretation Earl. It was clearly them playing semantics. They know damned right well what that clause meant and are now trying to apply semantics to get around it. No one at DirecTV ever read this an interpreted it incorrectly.

    Your next statement about the lawyers playing "games" shows exactly that you believe this as well.

    HD Net is "playing their hand" because they believe DirecTV knew what the clause meant as well and now is jerking them around with wording to get out of the deal.
     
  9. Nov 8, 2007 #149 of 473
    gcisko

    gcisko I am Iron Man!

    1,672
    0
    Sep 27, 2006
    And this is the thing that gets my radar going. I cannot stand "it depends on the definition of what 'is' is". I think we all remember that one about 8 years ago. When I see something that is clearly black and white, I am offended when someone insists that it is pink polka dotted.

    Obviously I think that is totally wrong. However if they just got a new HR20 a year or 15 months ago and wanted out because it was not working and the software was not working then I would totally agree with that.

    Sorry I am just burnt out on loopholes and cool wording to get out of certain things. So I cannot agree with you on this one. It is not right IMHO.
     
  10. Nov 8, 2007 #150 of 473
    Earl Bonovich

    Earl Bonovich Lifetime Achiever

    30,092
    3
    Nov 15, 2005
    I completely understand this is about the contract.

    But... what do you think has been going on for the last few months, even year... there is no doubt DirecTV has been trying to redo the contract, especially since it ends in 2008....

    And obviously it hasn't gone the way that HDNet (and/or DirecTV) has wanted it to.... so they are playing this hand.

    Can you honestly state.. .that HDNet is of the same value to DirecTV today (and in 2008), then it was back in 2004 (or when ever) when that contract in question was agreed to? The playing field has changed... major factors have changed.

    As for my statements.... and people then linking me to DirecTV...
    Well I guess you all then are for COMCAST and DISHNETWORK, since you are against DirecTV... Come-on now... I guess I can't have an opinion... and it happen to be on the side of the company you all want to take swings out.

    I have stated my reasons for my opinions, and if you have issues with my reasons then so be it... I don't care... that is why this is a discussion forum.... It is not like I am making statements and not backing them up with my reasons for making them.

    ...............

    Take a major step back... and look at it picture... big step back.. and look at the big picture... it is all about the $$$ that HDNet wants from DirecTV, and their customers... that's it...

    This isn't about "integrity"... IMHO: This is about HDNet seeing an opportunity to get more money for the remainder of the contract, because they know (as DirecTV has probably already laid out the offer for the next contract), that it isn't going to be as "sweet" as it was the first time.
     
  11. Nov 8, 2007 #151 of 473
    gcisko

    gcisko I am Iron Man!

    1,672
    0
    Sep 27, 2006
    Fine. But for now according to the contract, HDnet has to go in the most widely distributed package.
     
  12. Nov 8, 2007 #152 of 473
    Earl Bonovich

    Earl Bonovich Lifetime Achiever

    30,092
    3
    Nov 15, 2005
    I totally agree that it is not right....
    And one of the reasons why I don't constantly call for credits or "free-bees" ect...

    But it doesn't change the fact that in today's world... people go by the letter of the written word... and if that written word if vague... they are going to use it to their advantage...
     
  13. Nov 8, 2007 #153 of 473
    Earl Bonovich

    Earl Bonovich Lifetime Achiever

    30,092
    3
    Nov 15, 2005
    Then you can see why HDNet would want to get into Total Choice...
    17+ million customers have that tier...

    You don't think it is worth the 20+ million they would get in revenue a month... regardless that nearly 60% of the customers with that package in that tier, won't be able to access the channel.

    I think DirecTV should develop technology in all their boxes, to actually record the hours/minutes/seconds that channels are watched... and have a by the hour rate... and simply pay for usage rates...
    (Yes I am satiracle and exagerating)
     
  14. Nov 8, 2007 #154 of 473
    gcisko

    gcisko I am Iron Man!

    1,672
    0
    Sep 27, 2006
    Maybe. But moving HDnet away form the most widely distributed package is not what the contract is about right now. I agree with you totally about any future contract.
     
  15. Nov 8, 2007 #155 of 473
    Agrajag

    Agrajag Godfather

    311
    0
    Jun 22, 2004
    While morality isn't business, we are not in DirecTV's business. We are, again, consumers and morality does interest most of us.

    There is right and there is wrong. Supporting DirecTV's attempt to sneak out of something with loopholes is just wrong. Doing it is wrong too. There seems to be a lot of justifying and excuses going on here in this thread.....
     
  16. Nov 8, 2007 #156 of 473
    Earl Bonovich

    Earl Bonovich Lifetime Achiever

    30,092
    3
    Nov 15, 2005
    A question for you all: On both sides.

    Can you not see, how the clauses can be interpreted by both companies to "THEIR" respective advantage.

    And since none of us have access to the raw signed contract, just HDNets iterpretation right now... it is impossible for us to comment based on EXACTLY what is in the contract.
     
  17. Nov 8, 2007 #157 of 473
    Earl Bonovich

    Earl Bonovich Lifetime Achiever

    30,092
    3
    Nov 15, 2005
    And supporting HDNet to get pushed into the Total Choice tier, isn't sneeking on their part?
     
  18. Nov 8, 2007 #158 of 473
    Agrajag

    Agrajag Godfather

    311
    0
    Jun 22, 2004
    NO.

    I can see how the clauses are being USED by both sides to their respective advantages. No one is reading them and misunderstanding them.

    Language interpreters that would interpret the way you use it here would be fired for incompetence. Reminds me of a Monty Python skit.
     
  19. Nov 8, 2007 #159 of 473
    Earl Bonovich

    Earl Bonovich Lifetime Achiever

    30,092
    3
    Nov 15, 2005
    Your right... it doesn't have a bearing on what the contract says today...

    But it certainly does play a factor into why this case has been filed... and they couldn't straighted this out without the courts getting involved.
     
  20. Nov 8, 2007 #160 of 473
    gcisko

    gcisko I am Iron Man!

    1,672
    0
    Sep 27, 2006
    I believe the contract stated the most widely distributed HD package not standard definition. I do not believe they should get $$$ for standard when their channel is not accessable.

    And they do know when we watch whatever. The Janet Jackson thing a few super bowls ago was the largest Tivo spike in their history. Many news articles about that the next day. They also know when you do on demand right? So your satiracle comment is not such an exaggeration :D
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page