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

#21 OFFLINE   phrelin

phrelin

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 13,408 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


...Ads Help To Support This SIte...

#22 OFFLINE   phrelin

phrelin

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 13,408 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
  • 2,375 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
  • 19,594 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.

-- Respect the S.H.I.E.L.D.


#25 OFFLINE   phrelin

phrelin

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 13,408 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


#26 OFFLINE   P Smith

P Smith

    Mr. FixAnything

  • Registered
  • 19,849 posts
  • LocationMediterranean Sea
Joined: Jul 25, 2002

Posted 11 June 2010 - 08:15 AM

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.

What ? System abused ?! Perhaps you're kidding or their stockholder ...

#27 OFFLINE   tsmacro

tsmacro

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 2,160 posts
  • LocationEast Central Indiana
Joined: Apr 28, 2005

Posted 11 June 2010 - 08:57 AM

Here's the thing, this is really all about economics. When you have something that needs fixing Dish has to pay someone to come out and do that job. They have some options on how to make sure they have enough $$$ to pay those who do that job. They can charge you the customer for that service as you need it, they can raise their prices of their programming for everyone (pretty much how cable generally does it) or they can do something like offer the service plan, which is basically like insurance, a total waste of money unless of course you need it and then you're glad you have it. Now obviously Dish figured out that the $$$ they were raising through the Dish Service Plan (formerly DHPP) wasn't enough and maybe that was because some people were adding it and dropping it as needed so they needed to change it to make it so it was able to cover the costs that it intended.


"The major difference between a thing that might go wrong and a thing that cannot possibly go wrong is that when a thing that cannot possibly go wrong goes wrong it usually turns out to be impossible to get at or repair." - Douglas Adams

"Who would rule a nation when he could have easier work, such as carrying water uphill in a sieve?" - Robert Jordan


#28 OFFLINE   GrumpyBear

GrumpyBear

    Hall Of Fame

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

Posted 11 June 2010 - 09:05 AM

What ? System abused ?! Perhaps you're kidding or their stockholder ...

Yes the system was abused, and the reason for the $25 to drop it. System was abused by Dish's own people. If you don't like the word abused, how about the system was taken advantage of by well informed Dish users, and fell within Dish's policy. Dish Changed the Policy, to discourage it, yet well informed Dish Users can still do it.

As for a Stockholder, Hardly. Dish nor Direct's stock has ever been appealing enough to ever buy.

#29 OFFLINE   SaltiDawg

SaltiDawg

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 2,375 posts
Joined: Aug 30, 2004

Posted 11 June 2010 - 09:28 AM

... Dish nor Direct's stock has ever been appealing enough to ever buy.

Grumpy,

Not correct. :nono2:

#30 OFFLINE   phrelin

phrelin

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 13,408 posts
  • LocationNorthern California Redwoods
Joined: Jan 18, 2007

Posted 11 June 2010 - 10:13 AM

Dish nor Direct's stock has ever been appealing enough to ever buy.

Grumpy,

Not correct. :nono2:

There was a time when both - well, Echostar and DirecTV - were appealing enough to buy. I bought Echostar in the late 1990's after I'd been a C-band customer for a long time and kept it until the spinoff into two corporations Echostar and Dish, and made a meaningful profit. DirecTV looked good in the mid-2000's and I'm kicking myself for not buying it then.

"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


#31 OFFLINE   SaltiDawg

SaltiDawg

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 2,375 posts
Joined: Aug 30, 2004

Posted 11 June 2010 - 10:15 AM

There was a time when both - well, Echostar and DirecTV - were appealing enough to buy. I bought Echostar in the late 1990's ...


Same here. Still have the shares.

#32 OFFLINE   P Smith

P Smith

    Mr. FixAnything

  • Registered
  • 19,849 posts
  • LocationMediterranean Sea
Joined: Jul 25, 2002

Posted 11 June 2010 - 10:20 AM

Yes the system was abused, and the reason for the $25 to drop it. System was abused by Dish's own people. If you don't like the word abused, how about the system was taken advantage of by well informed Dish users, and fell within Dish's policy. Dish Changed the Policy, to discourage it, yet well informed Dish Users can still do it.

As for a Stockholder, Hardly. Dish nor Direct's stock has ever been appealing enough to ever buy.

I wouldn't say so, at least to procure the $25 penalty fee sum. Why not $50 or $5 ?

#33 OFFLINE   GrumpyBear

GrumpyBear

    Hall Of Fame

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

Posted 11 June 2010 - 10:24 AM

Grumpy,

Not correct. :nono2:


Appealing enough for me to buy. I always found other short term or long term stocks, or gold to buy that were more appealing.

#34 OFFLINE   GrumpyBear

GrumpyBear

    Hall Of Fame

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

Posted 11 June 2010 - 10:40 AM

I wouldn't say so, at least to procure the $25 penalty fee sum. Why not $50 or $5 ?


Why not $50 or $5? Who knows. Why not $66, and cover a yrs worth of HPP
Sorry the system was abused. Both inside and outside, its policy though, and if you know how to abuse it, abuse it.
As a person who was considered "necessary" overhead by both Sales and Marketing, I have no problem with generating money for the service side of house, instead of being considered a drain, on resources.

#35 OFFLINE   SaltiDawg

SaltiDawg

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 2,375 posts
Joined: Aug 30, 2004

Posted 11 June 2010 - 10:41 AM

Appealing enough for me to buy. I always found other short term or long term stocks, or gold to buy that were more appealing.

And of course the degree of appealing enough to buy has nothing to do with whether down the road it turns out to have been a good investment.

While the decision whether to buy Dish stock years ago might be debated, it can't change the fact that with hindsight it was a great investment (for those of us that did find it appealing.) :)

#36 OFFLINE   GrumpyBear

GrumpyBear

    Hall Of Fame

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

Posted 11 June 2010 - 10:44 AM

And of course the degree of appealing enough to buy has nothing to do with whether down the road it turns out to have been a good investment.

While the decision whether to buy Dish stock years ago might be debated, it can't change the fact that with hindsight it was a great investment (for those of us that did find it appealing.) :)

Oh we could start a HUGE thread on Stocks we found appealing vs stocks we didn't and were they are at now.
As for P Smith calling me a Stockholder, my response was a Big no, as I never even considered stocks like Dish, Direct, Tivo, and many other service providers in this area's stock. It wasn't meant as a blanket they weren't worth it, they just never appealed to me.

#37 OFFLINE   SaltiDawg

SaltiDawg

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 2,375 posts
Joined: Aug 30, 2004

Posted 11 June 2010 - 11:09 AM

... as I never even considered stocks like Dish, Direct, Tivo, and many other service providers in this area's stock. It wasn't meant as a blanket they weren't worth it, they just never appealed to me.

I understand and agree completely. Thanks. (Logitech was my bad choice. :) )

#38 OFFLINE   phrelin

phrelin

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 13,408 posts
  • LocationNorthern California Redwoods
Joined: Jan 18, 2007

Posted 11 June 2010 - 11:19 AM

Here's the thing, this is really all about economics. When you have something that needs fixing Dish has to pay someone to come out and do that job. They have some options on how to make sure they have enough $$$ to pay those who do that job. They can charge you the customer for that service as you need it, they can raise their prices of their programming for everyone (pretty much how cable generally does it) or they can do something like offer the service plan, which is basically like insurance, a total waste of money unless of course you need it and then you're glad you have it. Now obviously Dish figured out that the $$$ they were raising through the Dish Service Plan (formerly DHPP) wasn't enough and maybe that was because some people were adding it and dropping it as needed so they needed to change it to make it so it was able to cover the costs that it intended.

Or instead of going into the "insurance" business, they could charge and set aside 50¢± per account per month which would generate about $90,000,000 a year and make repairs with a reasonable approach to dealing with damage caused by the customer and damage covered by a typical homeowners/renters insurance policy. Or to quote myself:

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."


"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


#39 OFFLINE   lparsons21

lparsons21

    Hall Of Fame

  • DBSTalk Club
  • 3,279 posts
  • LocationHerrin, IL
Joined: Mar 04, 2006

Posted 11 June 2010 - 11:41 AM

I agree with you Phrelin. Maintenance should be an included part of the package but isn't. And they do it because they can and for no other reason, well maybe because it does help pay for the maintenance and make a bit of profit too... :)

I keep the maintenance because today they could change the rules and make it have to be in effect for 30 days before you can use it, like D* does, and not tell us until after we try to sign up for it and use it. That's one of the things they can change to the terms of the contract by the only clause that has meaning, you know the one that says they can change any and all terms without notice or penalty to them.

One of these days, I keep telling myself, some slick law firm is going to go straight at contract law that allows contracts with that phrase in them at all. It should be an interesting case.

Of course, if that changed, then the contract would be as signed for the 2 year obligation, which would also mean that when really good deals come along later (like the free HD for life and such) the contract terms would not allow for existing customers to get the benefit.

Lloyd
Receiver : DirecTV Genie HR44-700, Dish Hopper w/Sling & Super Joey
HDTV : Mitsi WD-73742 73" 3D DLP
Surround: Denon AVR-2113ci 7.1 Setup

 


#40 OFFLINE   SaltiDawg

SaltiDawg

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 2,375 posts
Joined: Aug 30, 2004

Posted 11 June 2010 - 11:43 AM

"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? ... "

Ever lease an automobile? A boat? An aircraft? A truck? Heavy equipment? etc, etc, etc. :rolleyes:




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