1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Federal Appeals court clears way

Discussion in 'DIRECTV General Discussion' started by D-Bamatech, Nov 28, 2009.

  1. Nov 28, 2009 #21 of 133
    dubber deux

    dubber deux Icon

    716
    0
    Mar 7, 2009
    One wonders if these elite boobs that manage larger corporations ever learn anything. Probably not ,after the disaster (ie GM) they simply claim that "no one could see the debacle coming" and how could anyone expect them to anticipate it. Problem is that these Ivory Tower clowns are so well compensated (over compensated!!!!!!!) that they should be able to see into the future! If they can't they don't deserve the compensation, perks or golden parachutes they get!
     
  2. Nov 28, 2009 #22 of 133
    tcusta00

    tcusta00 Active Member

    7,911
    1
    Dec 31, 2007
    You've just erased all doubt from my mind about you. Thanks.
     
  3. Nov 28, 2009 #23 of 133
    dubber deux

    dubber deux Icon

    716
    0
    Mar 7, 2009


    Paying customers with 24 mo contracts are NOT strangers! :hurah::lol:
     
  4. Nov 28, 2009 #24 of 133
    David MacLeod

    David MacLeod New Member

    5,689
    0
    Jan 29, 2008
    how can you equate a company that had nothing to do with bailout to a company that did?
    thats retarded.
     
  5. Nov 28, 2009 #25 of 133
    dubber deux

    dubber deux Icon

    716
    0
    Mar 7, 2009

    There is arrogance and hubris on the part of the top management in both circumstances.

    If you missed that YOU are slow. But I know you're better than that.:p
     
  6. Nov 28, 2009 #26 of 133
    David MacLeod

    David MacLeod New Member

    5,689
    0
    Jan 29, 2008
    how do you know? because they did not respond to you personally the way you wanted them to you say they are arrogant? actually they were probably extremely smart to do that becasue if they did you would then expect that level of service for every single complaint you would have.
    childish, petty, and myopic of you to say the least.
     
  7. Nov 28, 2009 #27 of 133
    dubber deux

    dubber deux Icon

    716
    0
    Mar 7, 2009

    David your desperate defense of D* is almost comical, but a bit sad really. I mean geeze it's ....almost.....like you have a VESTED interest in the company.


    This nonsense that someone in technical/engineering can't possibly be expected to respond to a reasonable request reminds me of the Wizard in ...The Wizard of Oz telling Dorthy and her group...in the harsh voice...." Ignore that man behind the curtain" HILARIOUS! But pathetic at the same time.
     
  8. Nov 28, 2009 #28 of 133
    Movieman

    Movieman Hall Of Fame

    2,044
    0
    May 8, 2009
    Maybe the government showed buy off Directv and give free tv to everyone. I mean if we are going to compare the bailout of GM to this why now? I will say that Im sure there are a few people that are upset because along the way they were miss informed. Directv maybe similar to a cellular carrier when it comes to the MRC but they are not in the same business so the comparison is also unfair. If you want to compare use Dishnet, Comcast, U-Verse, and FIOS. Customers choose their carrier they are not forced into. I dont agree with any unethical behavior but we do live in the land that you can sue for anything so good for those consumers. At the end of the day after everything is done those consumers will probably stay with Directv and just feel better about themselves.

    I think that the dealer/reseller should be held responsible for their individual actions (Bestbuy, RadioShack, etc.). Im sure there are a few cases where Directv Corp could have made this mistake but this is far more common at a retail location.
     
  9. Nov 28, 2009 #29 of 133
    David MacLeod

    David MacLeod New Member

    5,689
    0
    Jan 29, 2008
    and the key there is reasonable request.
    it was not.
     
  10. Nov 28, 2009 #30 of 133
    Movieman

    Movieman Hall Of Fame

    2,044
    0
    May 8, 2009
    Deux I have always enjoyed a good conversation/debate with you but attacking ones personal opinion is not only unnecessary but going to get a good thread closed. Lets stick to the topic.

    And attacking the big company because "they are too compensated" is also as ridiculous to me as your fair analysis about the corporate workings of any large company. I mean does everyone need to be over worked and under paid not to get sued anymore? Lets not make these posts personal.

    If the plaintiffs have a case I think a jury of their peers is the best way to settle this. Personally I think its better for those that are unhappy with a specific company to simply discontinue doing business with them and move on. Suing them is really not going to make that much of a difference. There plenty of companies out there to choose from. Whats the most that they can win. A free DVR? :lol: Its just a shame because at the end of the day the costs of all these frivolous lawsuits gets passed on to the consumers. That means that those of us that are happy with what we have are still going to have to pay more to satisfy these needs of the few. (sounds eerily familiar)
     
  11. Nov 28, 2009 #31 of 133
    JLucPicard

    JLucPicard Hall Of Fame

    3,985
    0
    Apr 27, 2004
    They actually do both - you can either pay a discounted fee to lease, or pay a much higher price to own.

    And I take it that you didn't pay $1000 for the HD TiVo when that hit the shelves, either, right? And we all still pay the same $5 a month to run those, too.
     
  12. Nov 28, 2009 #32 of 133
    dubber deux

    dubber deux Icon

    716
    0
    Mar 7, 2009

    Unfortunately it does appear to be the case that these "top guns" at so many large companies are grossly overcompensated for a decided lack of performance, dare I say ineptitude, and it cuts across the board. From banks, to automotive, to well even media providers. It one doesn't perform they shouldn't be compensated.
     
  13. Nov 28, 2009 #33 of 133
    Movieman

    Movieman Hall Of Fame

    2,044
    0
    May 8, 2009
    Although its one of many valid points of view, the lawsuit isn't about the top guys and their compensation but about consumers being miss informed. I personally think that if the consumer wins Directv should have the right to "divorce" the account holder. If they are that unhappy let them leave. But thats just me. As for the compensation. I wont begin to judge any company on how they run their business and what they pay themselves. Each of us has the right and privilege (thank you America) to make as much money as you can and pay the appropriate consequences under law if its done illegally.

    As for the topic, both sides better have damn good lawyers. Consumers have a home field advantage of sorts in California.
     
  14. Nov 28, 2009 #34 of 133
    dubber deux

    dubber deux Icon

    716
    0
    Mar 7, 2009
    But movieman,

    Why should D* get to "divorce" a customer when they also agreed to a contract?

    I definitely don't agree with the case that just because you are a goliath you get to break a legal contract.

    I think that the media provider business has become very uncompetitive with mergers and such. I think that we are very close to a monopoly of just a small number of giant providers, it really stifles competition in every way.
     
  15. Nov 28, 2009 #35 of 133
    Movieman

    Movieman Hall Of Fame

    2,044
    0
    May 8, 2009
    The contract is a 2-way street. In filing a lawsuit I believe the customer is also breaking their end of the service agreement. Im not saying im right just my opinion. Its like a marriage. Sometimes its not meant to be and one party needs help getting out.
     
  16. Nov 28, 2009 #36 of 133
    houskamp

    houskamp Active Member

    8,636
    3
    Sep 14, 2006
    Even my 1st HR20 (bought one of the 1st availible here) had the lease statement on the recipt.. maybe they should add Best Buy to the lawsuit because their employees didn't properly tell the coustomers.. :rolleyes:
     
  17. Nov 29, 2009 #37 of 133
    ndole

    ndole Problem Solver

    1,915
    6
    Aug 26, 2009
    Why does the conversation with you L's (I know who you're type) always jump to someone (gov't) deciding who should and shouldn't be compensated for their services? Here's some 7th grade economics for ya!
    In a free market, services and goods [companies] succeed or fail based on whether or not people are willing to pay good money for them. If you, and obviously your speak for 85% of D*s cx base, don't like D* then leave! And they will fail without your vital support :nono2: Where will we all be without you???
     
  18. Nov 29, 2009 #38 of 133
    Newshawk

    Newshawk Hall Of Fame

    2,434
    0
    Sep 3, 2004
    Broken...
    OK, DD, I have one question for you: define "performance".
     
  19. Nov 29, 2009 #39 of 133
    SamC

    SamC Hall Of Fame

    2,114
    48
    Jan 20, 2003
    This is a VOLUNTARY LUXURY product.

    Don't like the terms of the contract? Don't sign it. That simple.
     
  20. Nov 29, 2009 #40 of 133
    TANK

    TANK Icon DBSTalk Club

    910
    2
    Feb 16, 2003
    FLORIDA
    OK you win the lawsuit and get to " own " your receiver.If D* then changes it's policy and only issues access cards to new receivers what good is "owning " ?
     

Share This Page