Well, considering the response he got, if it were me I wouldn't bother to post any evidence either. He was found guilty before he had a chance to calm down and prove his case. I can only hope he was able to come to a final agreement with D*.
You can see that he just copy and pasted from a Reddit post, meaning there was time from his original post there to his original post here, since you are speaking out of empathy, how much time would you need to calm down? Furthermore, while the negative feedback might dissuade most people, there was by no means any measure taken to prevent him from supplying more information in support of his case. There were even those offering help. I too also hope he came to his senses and made an effort to understand what his options are, that will make the difference he is looking to get on his bill.
Since most of this evidence was phone calls and promises made by CSRs and their supervisors, he'd have to post audio recordings of the transactions. Not only does he probably not have them (who would think to record them except me?), but in a different thread there was an entire separate debate about whether THAT was legal (it was, but you can't convince anyone here of that).
Regardless of the phone conversations, it is what is material that matters. To repeat myself. A printed copy of the initial order e-mail, a printed copy of the bill showing each item line by line, and the actual equipment he has in his home with the properly authorized recordings. These are all hard evidence of an agreement. As one would say "Verbal agreements are only worth the paper they are printed on."
Regarding the exact deal he was offered, many people here have unadvertised discounts. Most get them by calling retention and threatening to leave. And there seem to be several different discounts and combinations thereof that can be authorized. So no one can say one way or the other the exact discount that was promised to the OP.
I agree that no one can say one way or the other. That was the point I made. Again only due to his lack of evidence. These unadvertised discounts you are referring to are recurring credits of certain services, or just a general recurring credit. These are not available to stack on top of new customer offers. While some can be stacked on top of movers orders for customers with the tenure and payment history, the OP could again have shown evidence of these, if he just made the effort.
Furthermore, no one can understand DirecTV bills, especially the electronic ones you get to view online. This isn't limited to DirecTV -- Verizon does the same thing. All you can do is hope the final number matches what you're expecting. When it never matches what you were promised, you get really upset.
I can understand DirecTV bills, I can understand any bill if I just made the effort to solve the puzzle that a different set of bill can come to be. I use this little discovered technique called... proper researching. You basically study and ask questions until you find the answers you were seeking. Seeing as how you have come to this determination that you are part of the group of people who throw your hands up and say "this is impossible!", I can see now why you have difficulty grasping this thread, and are quick to defend something that should otherwise be indefensible.
Finally, there is no jury trial because it would have to go to arbitration. But just because cable companies haven't yet been found guilty doesn't mean everything they're doing is legal. The ETFs are strategically priced -- enough to dissuade people from leaving and provide some revenue when they do, but the amount of money is not worth the effort to take the disagreement to court. Arbitration exists to avoid court orders and/or any legal judgments there may be against current terms and policies. And all class-action lawsuits are settled with the accused always denying any wrongdoing. So to say he wouldn't have had a chance in court is unreasonable -- especially since D* goes to great efforts to avoid the courtroom.
Finally, to address the issue of arbitration. My comment was made as a hypothetical one. I understand that he will have to go through arbitration, because I have read the DirecTV agreement. He would also not go to a trial by jury. In reality it would be small claims court. Who also would not go through great efforts to avoid the courtroom? You say this as if DirecTV is the only business that would make an effort to avoid litigation. Lastly, based on what I have read from you. You are not someone who would be nominated as an authority to what is reasonable. Thank you for your opinion, please spend more time grasping the concept of what personal responsibility is (the subject of this very thread), and may your anger in what you find make you strong in the force!