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. Dec 3, 2009 #121 of 133

    hdtvfan0001 Well-Known Member

    Jul 28, 2004
    That could be too.

    Odds are this will never see the light of day in any trial - settled somehow.
  2. Dec 3, 2009 #122 of 133

    GregLee Hall Of Fame

    Dec 28, 2005
    +1. Quit trying to be so sneaky. I agree.
  3. Dec 3, 2009 #123 of 133

    smiddy Tain't ogre til its ogre

    Apr 5, 2006
    I'm gueeing here, but my bet is the majority of the folks involved in this knew something about it and are trying to press the limits. That's an odd game of chicken to play BTW.
  4. Dec 3, 2009 #124 of 133

    dhines Godfather

    Aug 16, 2006
    i bought 3 HR10-250's and i never paid more than $99 for each of them . . . and these were purchased, not leased.
  5. Dec 3, 2009 #125 of 133

    Drew2k New Member

    Aug 16, 2006
    March 1, 2006: HR10-250 purchased from 6th Ave.com for $419.06 with shipping and tax
  6. Dec 3, 2009 #126 of 133

    smiddy Tain't ogre til its ogre

    Apr 5, 2006
    Check other services and compare that to DirecTV's model. DirecTV is less expensive no matter how you slice it.
  7. Dec 3, 2009 #127 of 133
    Doug Brott

    Doug Brott Lifetime Achiever DBSTalk Club

    Jul 12, 2006
    Los Angeles
    Not denying that .. There was a point when these devices became obsoleted and DIRECTV/TiVo were finishing off the stock. Your purchases were not really a normal condition.
  8. Dec 4, 2009 #128 of 133

    Upstream Hall Of Fame

    Jul 4, 2006
    For me, Comcast is $3 per month cheaper than DirecTV for comparable service, and I didn't have to pay an up front fee for my receivers. If Fios were available in my neighborhood, I would save an additional $1 per month (or more if I bundled internet and phone service).
  9. Dec 4, 2009 #129 of 133

    rudeney Hall Of Fame

    May 28, 2007
    Given that I have six receivers (4x HD-DVR, 1x SD-DVR and 1x HD), just the monthly rental of the cable boxes would be over $80 on Charter, and then the content would be another $80 on top of that, making it something like $50/mo more expensive than what I pay D*. Over two years, that pays for a lot of up-front receiver lease fees.

    Now, back to the topic at hand, since cable usually doesn't have locked-in commitment terms, and since everyone seems to understand that cable boxes are the property of the cable company (and often have big, ugly labels on them stating the fact), they won't have the problems D* is experiencing. The fact that D* "sells" receivers through retail chains really complicates the general public's understanding of their leasing model. No other company has anything similar.
  10. Dec 4, 2009 #130 of 133

    dhines Godfather

    Aug 16, 2006
    2 yes, one no. point i am making is . . . 'regular price' to one subscriber is not necessarily the same as the 'regular price' to the other. I acquired 2 of my owned HDDVR's prior to the d* model being released, so i don't see how they could have been clearing out stock.

    either way, what i am saying is d* needs to do a better job of how the 'sell' their hardware. hell, i would be satisfied if they said "at the end of your two year commitment you own the box, cancelling before that requires a return". that would be a fair compromise, but saying that some people have to cough up $300 for a box, then sign a commitment, then if they cancel pay a fee and return the box . . . just doesn't seem fair.

    guess what i am trying to say is, it should be a term fee or loss of the box . . . but not both. for those that want to keep bringing up car leases, think about this . .

    percentage wise what do you put down when you lease a car? maybe 5% or less . . . and with these boxes it is at least 40% - 60%. no matter how you slice it, it just doesn't seem fair to put down that much money, then be on the hook for a term fee + lose the box no matter when you cancel.
  11. Dec 4, 2009 #131 of 133

    gregjones Hall Of Fame

    Sep 20, 2007
    I disagree. Fairness is determined by the customer at the time of the purchase or lease. I accept responsibility as a consumer to decide if a deal is good for me. I could care less about anyone else's deal.

    Companies have the right to react to business conditions and make offers appropriate to their goals. Customers have to right to accept or decline the contract based on their perceived value for the product. I reject this notion that we have to whine about someone else getting a different deal.

    If DirecTV treats me unfairly (they never have), I will make a very simple decision regarding their continued value to me as a service provider. But if they adhere to the agreement, I have no legal, moral or ethical problem with them.
  12. MaynardKrebbs

    MaynardKrebbs New Member

    Dec 31, 2009
    Very true, you put about 5% down, then pay monthly for a term of 2-3 years to lease it... so when it's returned at the end of the contract you've spent 40%-60%... AND still had to put gas in it.

    If a DVR leases for $99 or can be purchased for $399, you spend 25% to lease it, and pay nothing monthly to lease the receiver. You spend $5 every month for programming, which is the gas to run your car... that has to be purchased whether you lease or own it. And you can keep it 20 years without returning it as long as you keep buying the gas.

    But in regards to whether the class-action condition is enforceable, NO contract is actually legally binding until it is ruled on by 15 judges (provided it makes it all the way through all 13 appellate courts and on to the supreme court). The question is whether it is cost-effective to pay all those legal fees to prove a point.

    Onto the matter of D* being sneaky and under-handed. Consider that the bulk of what is said in these threads is that the retailer was not adequately explaining the conditions. That reflects on D*, but is not caused by them. And the references about phone reps not disclosing it does not mean the higher-ups sanctioned that... can anyone say they've never had bad service at a restaurant? Or encountered a rude gas station attendant? Consider that those call centers are filled by thousands of people, and a pretty fair cross-sampling at that. Some of them do what they're told, when they're told. Some work hard and some do just the minimum. Some are blatantly stupid but those typically won't last long, but they could last long enough to talk to 30 people in one day and neglect to tell any of them about those conditions.
    If the top brass tells the reps they have to say it, they have not been underhanded to the customer. If they fire the ones who don't adhere to their policy, they have honored the customer. The issue here is proving D* corporate actually 'intentionally' fleeced the customer, or merely hired a shiftless layabout who didn't last too long, but did damage the reputation while they were there.

    And finally about prices not changing: Best Buy 2/28/2006 R15 price: $349 purchased with 2 year agreement... Best Buy 3/1/2006 R15 price: $99 lease with 2 year agreement. Best Buy (or any retailer peddling D* equipment) 2006 HR20 $399 lease with 2 year agreement, 2007 $299 with 2 year agreement, 2008 $199 with 2 year agreement.

    Prior to 2006, if anyone kept their original agreement from that long ago, implied that ANY receiver activation extended commitment. The only thing that changed was a loophole out of the agreement through purchasing full price, which didn't exist prior to the lease model.
  13. bobnielsen

    bobnielsen Éminence grise

    Jun 29, 2006
    Not quite correct. In February 2006, my RCA SD receiver bit the dust (no great loss there). I called Directv to check my options and the CSR told me that I could buy (not lease) a R15 at Best Buy (no later than 2/28) for $99 (not $349) and I would receive a $100 rebate. I did so and my net cost (exclusive of tax) was -$1.00 (with a commitment, of course).

Share This Page