Jump to content


Welcome to DBSTalk


Sign In 

Create Account
Welcome to DBSTalk. Our community covers all aspects of video delivery solutions including: Direct Broadcast Satellite (DBS), Cable Television, and Internet Protocol Television (IPTV). We also have forums to discuss popular television programs, home theater equipment, and internet streaming service providers. Members of our community include experts who can help you solve technical problems, industry professionals, company representatives, and novices who are here to learn.

Like most online communities you must register to view or post in our community. Sign-up is a free and simple process that requires minimal information. Be a part of our community by signing in or creating an account. The Digital Bit Stream starts here!
  • Reply to existing topics or start a discussion of your own
  • Subscribe to topics and forums and get email updates
  • Send private personal messages (PM) to other forum members
  • Customize your profile page and make new friends
 
Guest Message by DevFuse

Photo

DISH protection plan $6/month $25 to cancel


  • Please log in to reply
49 replies to this topic

#1 OFFLINE   kcolg30

kcolg30

    Godfather

  • Registered
  • 255 posts
Joined: May 11, 2010

Posted 08 June 2010 - 05:20 PM

According to DISH's website they "may" charge you a $25 fee once you drop the protection plan. Has anyone seen this after dropping their plan? See site below (end of page)

http://www.dishnetwo...an/default.aspx

...Ads Help To Support This Site...

#2 OFFLINE   Matt9876

Matt9876

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 1,006 posts
Joined: Oct 11, 2007

Posted 08 June 2010 - 05:57 PM

I'm a new customer and was in month 5 of the free 6 months of the Dishnetwork protection service plan.

I just canceled the protection plan and was assured that I would not be charged the $25 cancel fee,but the CSR went out of her way to explain if I added the protection plan back to my account later on the $25 fee would apply to shut it off.


I'm not sure of the full rules surrounding this $25 fee but it sound like a cash grab to me. :(

#3 OFFLINE   RasputinAXP

RasputinAXP

    Kwisatz Haderach of Cordcuttery

  • Registered
  • 3,141 posts
Joined: Jan 23, 2008

Posted 08 June 2010 - 06:26 PM

Yes, I got charged the $25. That's why I have that first line in my signature, there. I lost the bet. :grin:

"Belligerent and numerous."

SlingTV, Tablo and Plex to Roku 3s and Chromecasts on a Vizio 42" in the living room and a Toshiba 32" in my bedroom. Xbox 360 client on a Westinghouse 42" in the game room. Tablets EVERYWHERE!

 

I used to update the Dish Network FAQ but not anymore.


#4 OFFLINE   mark722

mark722

    AllStar

  • Registered
  • 68 posts
Joined: Sep 27, 2007

Posted 08 June 2010 - 07:31 PM

Actually, if you cancel it at the beginning of your billing cycle, it's only $19 to cancel since they would give you a $6 credit. This is still cheaper than paying $6 a month ( $72 a year ) for something you don't need all of the time. :)

#5 OFFLINE   Stewart Vernon

Stewart Vernon

    Excellent Adventurer

  • Moderators
  • 20,554 posts
  • LocationKittrell, NC
Joined: Jan 07, 2005

Posted 08 June 2010 - 07:34 PM

Sounds more like a defense against the folks that would sign up for the HPP after a problem cropped up and then cancelled the HPP immediately after the problem was corrected.

Clearly this was not the case in the situation where the person cancelled the HPP at the end of a free promo.


:up:

This is exactly why they instituted the penalty fee... because so many people were adding the DHPP for one month to address an issue, then dropping it again after getting the free/reduced rate repair.

-- !rotaredoM mA eM

What I do when I'm not here


#6 OFFLINE   GrumpyBear

GrumpyBear

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 3,233 posts
Joined: Feb 01, 2006

Posted 08 June 2010 - 07:49 PM

:up:

This is exactly why they instituted the penalty fee... because so many people were adding the DHPP for one month to address an issue, then dropping it again after getting the free/reduced rate repair.



I wouldn't be to hard to find a couple of Hundred times it was recommended to somebody in these Forums in the past( and still to this day) for somebody with a problem to simply add HPP, and then remove it afterwards. System was just way to abused, rather we like it or not, Dish had to stop the abuse.

#7 OFFLINE   TulsaOK

TulsaOK

    Hall Of Fame

  • DBSTalk Club
  • 3,469 posts
Joined: Feb 23, 2004

Posted 08 June 2010 - 08:47 PM

But, didn't some CSR's suggest doing that as well?
<span style='font-size: 10px;'>“Life is hard; it's harder if you're stupid.”<br /> - John Wayne</span><br /><br />Avatar: Tanner 1992 - 2009

#8 OFFLINE   GrumpyBear

GrumpyBear

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 3,233 posts
Joined: Feb 01, 2006

Posted 08 June 2010 - 09:29 PM

But, didn't some CSR's suggest doing that as well?


It was pretty rampant, and there was and still is NOTHING wrong with it. Now you kow you can add it for $6, cancel fo $25, and its still cheaper than the $99 visit with out HPP.

#9 OFFLINE   boba

boba

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 5,580 posts
Joined: May 23, 2003

Posted 08 June 2010 - 10:22 PM

It was pretty rampant, and there was and still is NOTHING wrong with it. Now you kow you can add it for $6, cancel fo $25, and its still cheaper than the $99 visit with out HPP.

I'll second that.:)

#10 OFFLINE   Stewart Vernon

Stewart Vernon

    Excellent Adventurer

  • Moderators
  • 20,554 posts
  • LocationKittrell, NC
Joined: Jan 07, 2005

Posted 09 June 2010 - 12:28 AM

Yeah, this is an example of a "market correction."

Too many people were taking advantage of the program, so Dish instituted a penalty to discourage some of it. This is very much like the other thread where we were discussing the programming downgrade fees... Same issue, people taking advantage of a loophole, so Dish is trying to plug it.

It was bad, though, that some CSRs were recommending people add DHPP to get discounted service, then drop it. But it at least wasn't illegal, like when some Dish employees were recommending lying to get distant locals... which eventually led to Dish losing the right to deliver those.

-- !rotaredoM mA eM

What I do when I'm not here


#11 OFFLINE   n0qcu

n0qcu

    Legend/Supporter

  • Gold Members
  • 1,184 posts
Joined: Mar 23, 2002

Posted 09 June 2010 - 01:02 AM

It was pretty rampant, and there was and still is NOTHING wrong with it. Now you kow you can add it for $6, cancel fo $25, and its still cheaper than the $99 visit with out HPP.


The next thing Dish will probably do is add a waiting period before you can use the DHPP after you first add it.
Kevin

2 Hoppers
2 Hoppers 2.0

#12 OFFLINE   CCarncross

CCarncross

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 7,058 posts
  • LocationJackson
Joined: Jul 19, 2005

Posted 09 June 2010 - 06:38 AM

It was pretty rampant, and there was and still is NOTHING wrong with it. Now you kow you can add it for $6, cancel fo $25, and its still cheaper than the $99 visit with out HPP.


And it is still highly morally and ethically suspect, just like it was before they instigated the fee....:nono2:

#13 OFFLINE   GrumpyBear

GrumpyBear

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 3,233 posts
Joined: Feb 01, 2006

Posted 09 June 2010 - 10:29 AM

And it is still highly morally and ethically suspect, just like it was before they instigated the fee....:nono2:

You get Dish employee's to stop, and I will back you on the moral and ehtical issue.

#14 OFFLINE   Tony S

Tony S

    AllStar

  • Registered
  • 86 posts
Joined: Mar 28, 2002

Posted 10 June 2010 - 09:23 AM

When I signed up for the protection plan (to get eastern arc), the 'terms and conditions' stated that if you canceled it before two months had passed you would be charged a $25 cancellation fee. This implied that if you kept it for at least two months that you would not be charged the $25. I am positive that that is what I read when I signed up. Has that policy been changed?

#15 OFFLINE   VDP07

VDP07

    Godfather

  • Registered
  • 484 posts
Joined: Feb 22, 2006

Posted 10 June 2010 - 09:51 AM

And it is still highly morally and ethically suspect, just like it was before they instigated the fee....:nono2:


Dish sets a fee and outlines the rules for use of a service. It's customers then decide how best to use that service within the guidelines that are set. Morals, Ethics.....really?

#16 OFFLINE   Stewart Vernon

Stewart Vernon

    Excellent Adventurer

  • Moderators
  • 20,554 posts
  • LocationKittrell, NC
Joined: Jan 07, 2005

Posted 10 June 2010 - 11:39 AM

Dish sets a fee and outlines the rules for use of a service. It's customers then decide how best to use that service within the guidelines that are set. Morals, Ethics.....really?


Don't really want to get into an ethical debate... but ethics are not necessarily equal to laws.

The law doesn't (and shouldn't) require you to be nice to an elderly lady at the bus stop, but it would be nice if you were.

Better examples than that exist... but the gist is... just because you can do something doesn't mean that you should.

-- !rotaredoM mA eM

What I do when I'm not here


#17 OFFLINE   phrelin

phrelin

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 13,758 posts
  • LocationNorthern California Redwoods
Joined: Jan 18, 2007

Posted 10 June 2010 - 12:43 PM

Don't really want to get into an ethical debate... but ethics are not necessarily equal to laws.

The law doesn't (and shouldn't) require you to be nice to an elderly lady at the bus stop, but it would be nice if you were.

Better examples than that exist... but the gist is... just because you can do something doesn't mean that you should.

Well, maybe.

I don't happen to agree with the Supreme Court that a corporation is to be regarded as a person. It's a legal fiction designed to facilitate making money with which real persons engage in contractual relationships, whether they be customers, employees, other service providers, or shareholders. Sometimes corporate owners do show remarkable ethical behavior beyond their legal obligations and when that happens we see news stories, it is so unusual.

I do not think it is unethical or immoral for customers to conform to the contractual provisions of the relationship as provided in advance in writing by the corporation to its customers.

For instance, I'm not sure what to say about the fact that many of us here ceased to pay for Platinum last August in conformance to what was in a printed policy statement while those that didn't become aware of the policy continued to pay $10 a month. The fact was you had to ask Dish for the charge to be eliminated on future bills and Dish didn't notify current customers nor did they automatically eliminate the charge for all customers. Some would find that ethically questionable behavior on the part of Dish Network. I don't because they are a corporation.

So I can comfortably say that I don't think it was unethical for a customer to add the DHPP for one month to address an issue, then drop it after getting the free/reduced rate repair. Just like Dish didn't feel obligated to notify current customers about the free Platinum, those who got the free/reduced rate repair were under no obligation to tell Dish about the apparent cost problem with their policy nor were the customers obligated to not save money.

And conceptually, there is the whole issue of "leased" equipment. Unless you buy the equipment (dish, wires, receiver/DVR), Dish is effectively like a landlord charging you for equipment that you need to use its service, much like the landlord is leasing you the stove in the kitchen. A landlord is obligated to fix the stove when it breaks. Dish dodges that obligation by specifically disclaiming in writing any obligation and by offering the DHPP. Ethically that seems questionable to me. But that's the way it is - Dish is a corporation which solely exists in a world of legal writings like contracts.

So if a customer conforms to the letter of the DHPP offer, the customer is meeting all obligations, legal and ethical. If anything, within the framework of ethical issues, the unaware customer who paid the higher charges for service calls was being cheated IMHO.

"In a hundred years there'll be a whole new set of people."
"Always poke the bears. They sleep too much for their own good."

"If you're good enough, they'll talk about you." - Tom Harmon
A GEEZER who remembers watching TV in 1951 and was an Echostar customer from 1988 to 2008, now a Dish Network customer.
My AV Setup
My Slingbox Pro HD Experience
My Blog: The Redwood Guardian


#18 OFFLINE   CarolinaGuy79

CarolinaGuy79

    Legend

  • Registered
  • 221 posts
Joined: Sep 09, 2009

Posted 10 June 2010 - 02:09 PM

Its still cheaper then paying the $95 if you dont have the protection plan cause if you get the protrction plan right when the problem happens they charge you $6 ok the Tech will now come for $15 thats $21 call after the tech leaves to cancel they charge $25 thats $46 so you are still saving $49.

#19 OFFLINE   phrelin

phrelin

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 13,758 posts
  • LocationNorthern California Redwoods
Joined: Jan 18, 2007

Posted 10 June 2010 - 02:16 PM

You base your ethical behavior and sense of fair play on what you perceive is the behavior of others? (This after arguing that Dish is not a person and thus not subject to the rules.) Incredible!

No, what I am saying is that ethical behavior and sense of fair play are, to fall back on a legal phrase, terms-of-art that can only be used in person-to-person relationships not wholly defined by legal writings.

The moment an "entity" is created by the state through legal writings (articles of incorporation, for instance), "ethical" behavior can only be defined in terms of the writings and the law. IMHO a "for profit" corporation properly "behaves" in a way that maximizes its profit. Sometimes that "behavior" needs to conform to person-to-person standards if in the long run that will maximize profits. But in no way can I ascribe to an entity which has the soul of piece of paper the ability to have a "sense of fair play."

I inherently have a distaste for the concept of a corporation as it is used in our society. At least with limited partnerships there is still one or more partners who are owners with social obligations including ethics and morals as well as clearly being subject to legal action for the acts of the business.

This is my opinion and I recognize that whole theories of ethical corporate behavior involving human social standards have been developed and even taught in school. I just don't happen to think they make any sense in the real world because corporate officers can be sued by shareholders for failing to act in such a way as to maximize corporate profits. They are not held to any legal standard of not being civil enough to customers, but rather to a legal standard of not making enough off customers. That is, of course, simplistic, but it reflects a core truth.

"In a hundred years there'll be a whole new set of people."
"Always poke the bears. They sleep too much for their own good."

"If you're good enough, they'll talk about you." - Tom Harmon
A GEEZER who remembers watching TV in 1951 and was an Echostar customer from 1988 to 2008, now a Dish Network customer.
My AV Setup
My Slingbox Pro HD Experience
My Blog: The Redwood Guardian


#20 OFFLINE   lparsons21

lparsons21

    Hall Of Fame

  • DBSTalk Club
  • 3,689 posts
  • LocationHerrin, IL
Joined: Mar 04, 2006

Posted 10 June 2010 - 02:49 PM

That isn't what Phrelin said at all.

Dish does everything it does to make more money to enhance shareholder profit. They have neither 'ethics' or 'morals', those are fictional terms when it comes to corporations. The have done and still do things that would not be considered ethical or moral were you to do the same things.

The lease is a first example. A lease is in your contract, which is 2 years in length. No ethical or moral reason for the lease fee to change during the 2 years you are contracted with them for. But yet, they just did that. Raised all the lease fees.

The early-termination-fee is quoted as many different numbers, depending on what contract you look at. For instance, the dish 'n it up calls for $10/month. Do you think that is what you'll pay if you terminate early? I don't think so.

All of that, and more is completely described in your contract, something like 'we can change any and all of this contract at our whim'. And of course, they do change many different things and generally don't tell you about them at all unless you ask.

Therefore our obligation to them is to pay the bill on time until they no longer are providing the goods/services that are worth that bill. To see it in any other way is rather foolish, imo.

I will pay the bill and keep the service until the very day that I feel the bill is more than the goods and services are not worth it. Then I will attempt to get them reduced and if not successful, cancel on the spot.

Lloyd
Receiver/Provider: Tivo Roamio Plus/Mediacom
HDTV : Mitsi WD-73742 73" 3D DLP
Surround: Denon AVR-2113ci 7.1 Setup

 


#21 OFFLINE   phrelin

phrelin

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 13,758 posts
  • LocationNorthern California Redwoods
Joined: Jan 18, 2007

Posted 10 June 2010 - 03:10 PM

You justified your unethical behavior by pointing out that Dish did not inform customers that they were overpaying. :rolleyes:

So if you steal something from a corporation than it is OK because it is not "person-to-person?" :grin:

What lparsons21 said above, plus....

None of these reduced rates - be it the free Platinum or the DHPP switch on/off were accomplished without the actions of an agent of Dish Network. Recently, of course, the agent has been reduced to a web site page. But I got my free Platinum through interaction with a Dish CSR. And everyone who posted here about the DHPP interacted on the phone with CSRs and TSRs who themselves had to act to do what was requested.

To me, "steal" means "to take the property of another without permission." We all got permission to save money.;)

"In a hundred years there'll be a whole new set of people."
"Always poke the bears. They sleep too much for their own good."

"If you're good enough, they'll talk about you." - Tom Harmon
A GEEZER who remembers watching TV in 1951 and was an Echostar customer from 1988 to 2008, now a Dish Network customer.
My AV Setup
My Slingbox Pro HD Experience
My Blog: The Redwood Guardian


#22 OFFLINE   phrelin

phrelin

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 13,758 posts
  • LocationNorthern California Redwoods
Joined: Jan 18, 2007

Posted 10 June 2010 - 06:23 PM

That's precisely what Phrelin said, and I quote: "So I can comfortably say that I don't think it was unethical for a customer to add the DHPP for one month to address an issue, then drop it after getting the free/reduced rate repair. Just like Dish didn't feel obligated to notify current customers about the free Platinum, those who got the free/reduced rate repair were under no obligation to tell Dish about the apparent cost problem with their policy nor were the customers obligated to not save money."

You confuse me with someone that believes a company is a person or person-like entity. I simply believe it is unethical to lie, cheat or steal... whether that is stealing from an individual or from a company.

Likely it's just a difference in background.

Let me repeat myself. I got my free Platinum through interaction with a Dish CSR. And everyone who posted here about the DHPP interacted on the phone with CSRs and TSRs who themselves had to act to do what was requested. And all of it was in conformance to published policy. None of us lied, cheated, or stole.

To me, "steal" means "to take the property of another without permission." We all got permission to save money.

:rant:
Perhaps we do see things differently. My view is I live in a world where Dish Network, Comcast, PG&E, AT&T, Verizon, my local bank, Bank of America, Ing Bank, Discover Bank, Chase Bank, Scottrade, Anthem Blue Cross, etc., all dance across my economic life with rather overwhelming volumes of paperwork all designed by expensive attorneys to assure that these corporations extract as much money from me as they can. My goal is to not give them more money for services rendered than I am obligated to give them as determined by their policies to which I have agreed to conform.

And given that caveat emptor (let the buyer beware) is still the fundamental law of the capitalist jungle, I believe it is essential that we all seek the greatest value for our money within the framework of contracts we choose to enter into with large corporations.

Don't get me wrong. I like your idea of how the world should be. But I didn't shake Charlie's hand when I agreed to pay Dish for service, offering the assurance of two regular honest guys agreeing to operate with a common sense of fair play.

I signed a rather complicated legal contract with a corporation, a contract that many customers have trouble understanding, a contract in which the key financial provisions are essentially subject to change as determined by Dish, normally through habit in February, but this year in June also which will represent a $4 a month increase for me.

The contract was developed by highly paid attorneys whose assignment was to protect Dish's profit. Like most people, I don't have the money to hire an attorney to come over to my house and wait for the installer to arrive late, an installer who after the installation shoves the contract in front of me to sign. The state - which sanctions how banks, oil companies, and other questionable corporations operate - doesn't offer funds for me to hire an attorney to read Dish's contract either.

And I couldn't negotiate with Dish on the terms of the contract anyway, partly because many of the terms are essentially referenced to other written documents. It's take it or leave it, caveat emptor. (The fact that none of the three guys who showed up to do the installation when I went to HD could have sufficiently understood legalese in English to explain the contract to me should be noted as further proof that the arrangement was not between a person and another person with any common sense of fair play.)

As Chief Justice Marshall explained in Laidlaw v. Organ, 15 U.S. 178 (1817), establishing caveat emptor as the law of the land: "It would be difficult to circumscribe the contrary doctrine within proper limits, where the means of intelligence are equally accessible to both parties. But at the same time, each party must take care not to say or do any thing tending to impose upon [i.e. take advantage of] the other."

I take reasonable care not to take advantage of Dish Network. But I'll be darned if I'm going to allow Dish Network to take advantage of me and pay them more than they, through their written policies, tell me I obligated to pay.

I do not consider that stealing from them.

And at no time do I think that the terms of the contract between Dish and its customers constitutes a situation "where the means of intelligence are equally accessible to both parties." Dish writes new policy frequently. They don't drop me a note explaining it. I have to come to this Forum where someone else notes the new policy and we all explore what it means, sometimes saving us money but mostly not.

It isn't a situation where Charlie and I sit down for a beer and to negotiate the new rates, where my sense of fair play meets his sense of fair play, and we come to a mutual agreement.

I could still do that with the guy who built my fence last year. There are other opportunities for that approach in my world. But none of those large corporations getting my money on a regular basis fit that model. With them, I must operate in a world of writing and law, not interpersonal ethics and handshakes.

Finally, IMHO if I and these corporations had a common sense of fair play, I wouldn't frequently find myself talking to someone in Asia about a problem or read that someone in Asia is processing my banking transactions or learn that my new iPad was en route from China where it was manufactured. Because there was a time in my lifetime these things were done for American corporations exclusively by American workers, I determined that what I thought was "fair play" wasn't a shared opinion in the larger world of big corporations.
:rant:

"In a hundred years there'll be a whole new set of people."
"Always poke the bears. They sleep too much for their own good."

"If you're good enough, they'll talk about you." - Tom Harmon
A GEEZER who remembers watching TV in 1951 and was an Echostar customer from 1988 to 2008, now a Dish Network customer.
My AV Setup
My Slingbox Pro HD Experience
My Blog: The Redwood Guardian


#23 OFFLINE   SaltiDawg

SaltiDawg

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 2,377 posts
Joined: Aug 30, 2004

Posted 10 June 2010 - 06:38 PM

Rant redacted.


I've deleted my posts. I can't keep up with the nonsense. Sorry to have wasted your time and mine. :nono2:

#24 OFFLINE   Stewart Vernon

Stewart Vernon

    Excellent Adventurer

  • Moderators
  • 20,554 posts
  • LocationKittrell, NC
Joined: Jan 07, 2005

Posted 10 June 2010 - 07:18 PM

I didn't want to start a debate on ethics, but it happened anyway :)

I'll say one last thing about that...

I believe companies should have ethics just like people. I also believe that if you cheat me, that doesn't make it right for me to cheat you. Two wrongs don't make a right and all that...

I agree companies are just as guilty of finding the loopholes too... and in the case of this specific topic, I know Dish was in fact encouraging exploitation of their own policy loopholes in several instances... so I can't chastise people for doing it when Dish itself was suggesting for customers to do it!

But... one last observation... even if you consider it "ok" to do... IF you had a friend who regularly exploited those loopholes... tell me you wouldn't look at him and treat him differently if you entered into a contract or loan or some agreement with him? Tell me you wouldn't keep your eyes open for exploitation of loopholes against you that you have previously argued were ok for him to exploit against another.

That's really the crux of ethics... Doing right because it is right, and because that's how you want others to treat you as well.

And now... back to your regularly scheduled discussion on DHPP.

-- !rotaredoM mA eM

What I do when I'm not here


#25 OFFLINE   phrelin

phrelin

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 13,758 posts
  • LocationNorthern California Redwoods
Joined: Jan 18, 2007

Posted 11 June 2010 - 12:30 AM

But... one last observation... even if you consider it "ok" to do... IF you had a friend who regularly exploited those loopholes... tell me you wouldn't look at him and treat him differently if you entered into a contract or loan or some agreement with him? Tell me you wouldn't keep your eyes open for exploitation of loopholes against you that you have previously argued were ok for him to exploit against another.

That's really the crux of ethics... Doing right because it is right, and because that's how you want others to treat you as well.

I don't understand how easily some Americans could embrace the concept of "the government is not your friend," you as a person, and yet still think that "an international multi-billion dollar corporation could be your friend," you as a person. I admit it, I don't get it.

No I wouldn't treat my friend differently based on how he/she operates with international corporations. As I said: "It isn't a situation where Charlie and I sit down for a beer and to negotiate the new rates, where my sense of fair play meets his sense of fair play, and we come to a mutual agreement." But just in case you don't understand how I feel about this....:D

:rant:
In personal relationships, such as the remodeling contracts with my fence contractor or my window contractor or my roofing contractor, we adjusted the contract as remodeling revealed additional problems or interpretation of desired results conflicted. I'm happy to apply the Golden Rule in my relationships with real people, particularly with those who are show responsibility for their work and appear to operate with a sense of fair play. (I try with the others, but it is harder.) But that's irrelevant to Dish Network.

There is a different reality in the modern world of international corporations and Echostar/Dish Network is one of those. Hence, you get a CSR in the Philippines who cannot even see a Dish Network signal and who replaced an American call center employee because ...why?... because it is cheaper and it is legal. It isn't better, it just makes more money. It wasn't a decision based on a sense of fair play or right and wrong. It isn't an ethical decision unless you think the corporation that gets the most money is the most ethical corporation. And it was a terrible decision for the nation I live in, IMHO.

So in that world of international corporations that round their balance sheets to the billions, the language of the contract is the only thing that counts. If you talk to a CSR at Dish or Bank of America, they can only do what they are allowed to do in writing. That's why I like dealing with those companies on line. There I can read the writing myself.

It wasn't always this way. As recently as the early 1970's Bank of America branches in California were still run by local managers who could make decisions and adjust to varying circumstances. They even paid tellers a fair wage.

But in the last 30 years I've been shafted by international corporations enough to know that within the minimally regulated capitalist economy of recent decades it is my responsibility to take care of me and mine when interacting in that world. And it is the world where written contracts and policies constitute the ethical guidelines. Just inadvertently pay Dish or your credit card late twice due to illness or injury and see whether there will be any sense of interpersonal fair play as Dish drops your rating or the bank increases your interest rate to 31%.

I just don't see how there is a "right" that applies to my friends and neighbors that is the same black and white "right" when dealing with paper-laden international banks. I won't cheat the bank by spending an erroneous $10,000 deposit to my account. But I won't pay more than I am obligated literally under the terms of the agreement. It's that simple. They pay attorneys hundreds of thousands of dollars a year to not create loopholes. It's not my job or ethical obligation to tell them they're wasting their money.

Interacting with friends and neighbors in my small community is an ethical environment that in no way is comparable to the ethical environment of interacting with the international community of multi-billion dollar corporations. If that opinion makes it difficult for someone on a personal level to trust me, it's their problem not mine.
:rant:

Now to bring it back to the subject. Just how is it ethical that such a corporation offers you an ongoing service that depends upon the equipment they provide and install but won't include the maintenance of the equipment in the basic charge? How does that fit within any sense of fair play? And the answer isn't "that's what all the multi-billion dollar international corporations do."

Edited by phrelin, 11 June 2010 - 12:37 AM.

"In a hundred years there'll be a whole new set of people."
"Always poke the bears. They sleep too much for their own good."

"If you're good enough, they'll talk about you." - Tom Harmon
A GEEZER who remembers watching TV in 1951 and was an Echostar customer from 1988 to 2008, now a Dish Network customer.
My AV Setup
My Slingbox Pro HD Experience
My Blog: The Redwood Guardian





Protected By... spam firewall...And...