Welcome to DBSTalk
- Start new topics and reply to others
- Subscribe to topics and forums to get email updates
- Get your own profile page and make new friends
- Send personal messages to other members.
Just got my HR20 Ordered! - CHEAP
Posted 24 July 2007 - 03:40 PM
Panasonic 42", Plasma
CID not functional
Posted 24 July 2007 - 10:45 PM
Add me to this list. I ended up receiving the free upgrade to the HR20 (to be installed tomorrow), but only after I questioned D* twice on why I was being asked to pay $199 for something I don't own and am paying each month to rent. I couldn't get an answer that made sense, so I asked to cancel my service. Suddenly, I'm being treated like the King of Siam (by Retention, I assume), but I still didn't get a satisfactory answer to that question. So, I look to the fine members of this forum to help me out.
I'll add one for for the list. I've been with DTV for 12 or 13 years. I got my HR20-700 for $19.95 5 months ago, with no rental fee for the unit, and some free movie channels for three months. I didn't call 350 times but I did ask customer service why Dish network was giving thier's away free and Directv wasn't.
I respect the frustration of those who have paid for their boxes, because I was going to be one of those people until I threatened to switch to Dish Network. To be clear, that wasn't an idle threat or merely a tactic. I had already discussed the switch with Dish and, although I love D*, I would have jumped on principle had D* insisted on charging me for the HD box (and gotten a better long-term deal to boot). Did D* shoot themselves in the foot by moving to the leased equipment business model, or do they profit in the long run due to the added monthly fee regardless of having to comp the cost of the equipment?
So here I sit, allegedly satisfied 'cause I got my HD comin', but I still haven't heard a good answer to the question: Why does D* insist on charging $199 or $299 for the upgrade when competitors offer a similar product for no cost? I know that the disparity can be caused in part because a competitor will take the loss on the equipment up front to get the subscriber, but that argument doesn't always hold water. So I'm honestly wondering D*'s motivation and why they don't cave unless or until someone threatens to jump ship?
Posted 24 July 2007 - 11:21 PM
There is no added monthly fee. It's just called a "lease" fee instead of a "mirror" fee. It's still $4.99, and it's still waived for the first receiver.
or do they profit in the long run due to the added monthly fee regardless of having to comp the cost of the equipment?