You're comparing apples to oranges there.
Imagine buying a brand new 2013 vehicle with a no-lemon warranty and finding out your replacement is a used 2010 model. According to DTV this is ok.
How so? Because of the "lease" terminology BS? Because a vehicle can actually be repaired rather than having to be entirely replaced?
Scratch buy and substitute lease. Lease a 2013 vehicle with a no-lemon guarantee that allows replacement with anything they want. After all, I'm just paying a lease fee to have 4 wheels that carry me down the road...
Who's is better?
DTV policy is plain scum.
That makes it ok? Seems to me that a significant number of people here think it isn't ok. Sure, while their pseudo-monopoly holds they can get away with it. But there is a price to be paid and eventually it will hurt. The trend is for people to stop using services like this so it isn't the "other guy" they need to be worried about.
Replacements should be of equal or better features/performance. If I have an HR24 that dies I shouldn't have to accept anything less than an HR24 replacement. If they don't have any refurbished ones then too bad - replacement will be new. That's the fair and honest policy people expect.
HR24's get replaced with HR24's. That's been well documented on dbstalk.com.
I don't follow everything
that is discussed here. I take it that this isn't an official policy? Was it true with the previous models that if you had the current model that you got a current model replacement? What happens when the HR25 comes out? Do HR24 still get replaced with HR24? Or does it then fall into the past model pool where you get anything? Or does the HR24 represent a new class/pool/tier? Or is the difference that an HR24 customer is still under contract commitment?