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

Some hidden new fees

Discussion in 'DIRECTV General Discussion' started by p4594spa, Feb 11, 2013.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Feb 12, 2013 #61 of 307
    Justin23

    Justin23 Hall Of Fame

    1,218
    1
    Jan 10, 2008
    So let me make sure I understand you correctly...

    1. Customer refuses the new terms
    2. D* assess the ETF
    3. Customer doesn't pay the ETF
    4. Customer gets taken to collections and hurts their credit score

    Is that about right?

    Again I am not asking this because I want to leave D*. I'm trying to find out the evidence behind the claim earlier in this thread that if a customer refuses the new terms/pricing that D* will let them out of their agreement?
     
  2. Feb 12, 2013 #62 of 307
    pdxBeav

    pdxBeav Godfather

    448
    35
    Jul 5, 2007
    The legal issues are not as clear cut as some people claim. For example, let's say the new RSN fee was $1000/month. There isn't a court in the land that would side with DirecTV regardless of the "Terms of service may change" clause.
     
  3. Feb 12, 2013 #63 of 307
    cforrest

    cforrest Icon

    840
    0
    Jan 20, 2007
    Is Directv planning on putting out a list on their site so subscribers or potential new subscribers can see what zip codes are hit by the fee? Would make it easier for everyone IMO! Also could be updated on the fly by Directv if a new carriage deal comes into play resulting in no fee or stoppage of the fee for an area or an area gets the fee added.
     
  4. Feb 12, 2013 #64 of 307
    studechip

    studechip Godfather

    1,468
    87
    Apr 16, 2012
    So you have specific knowledge of Directv's contracts?
     
  5. Feb 13, 2013 #65 of 307
    James Long

    James Long Ready for Uplink! Staff Member Super Moderator DBSTalk Club

    46,120
    1,068
    Apr 17, 2003
    Michiana
    Potential new subscribers will see the fee in their Shopping Cart (as long as they have entered their correct zip code on the site). For example, 90001 in LA shows the $3 fee. 20001 in DC does not. Current subscribers should be able to look at their bill.

    It would be interesting to map out the tens of thousands of zip codes and see which ones have the fee ... perhaps even do an estimate by population of those codes instead of number of codes with the fee. But I don't see the point.

    The fee is there ... assume you are going to pay it and be happy if you don't. Just like the $3 "fee" for local channels ... assume you are going to pay it and be "happy" if you don't have to. And just like the happiness over not paying $3 for locals is diminished by not having your locals the happiness over not paying $3 for expensive RSNs is diminished by not having more RSNs. But approaching the issue from a positive perspective can help.
     
  6. Feb 13, 2013 #66 of 307
    Hoosier205

    Hoosier205 Active Member

    6,659
    14
    Sep 3, 2007
    I know that they have contracts that they must honor. Their agreement for retrans of a channel is a contract. We know that these agreements, industry wide, specify how a channel will offered to a provider's customers.
     
  7. Feb 13, 2013 #67 of 307
    studechip

    studechip Godfather

    1,468
    87
    Apr 16, 2012
    So all you know is that they have a contract. We all know that. Aside that, you don't know anything about the contract, do you?
     
  8. Feb 13, 2013 #68 of 307
    studechip

    studechip Godfather

    1,468
    87
    Apr 16, 2012
    Where did I say that it would be arbitrary Mr Strawman?
     
  9. Feb 13, 2013 #69 of 307
    Hoosier205

    Hoosier205 Active Member

    6,659
    14
    Sep 3, 2007
    That is my characterization of your earlier suggestion.

    You cannot arbitrarily alter the terms of an existing contract, by selecting individual channels to remove from a package, on a whim.
     
  10. Feb 13, 2013 #70 of 307
    Hoosier205

    Hoosier205 Active Member

    6,659
    14
    Sep 3, 2007
    Read the very post you quoted. We know, and it has been mentioned at times by Satelliteracer, that contracts include specifics about how a channel will be offered to customers. You honestly believe that a content owner enters into a retrans agreement with DirecTV without knowing the parameters of these things?
     
  11. Feb 13, 2013 #71 of 307
    studechip

    studechip Godfather

    1,468
    87
    Apr 16, 2012
    I'm sure they do. I'm saying you don't have any idea what's in the contracts.
     
  12. Feb 13, 2013 #72 of 307
    studechip

    studechip Godfather

    1,468
    87
    Apr 16, 2012
    I never said arbitrarily, did I? That is your word, not mine. It may well take renegotiation, but perhaps it would be a good idea to have the customer in mind when considering options to raising fees based on a region.
     
  13. Feb 13, 2013 #73 of 307
    Hoosier205

    Hoosier205 Active Member

    6,659
    14
    Sep 3, 2007
    Then there is nothing to argue about.
     
  14. Feb 13, 2013 #74 of 307
    Hoosier205

    Hoosier205 Active Member

    6,659
    14
    Sep 3, 2007
    I never said you used the word. That was my characterization of your suggestion. You never said anything about renegotiation until now. You said that it is something that they should consider and that it shouldn't be that difficult to set up. I said that DirecTV cannot just arbitrarily do that. It takes two to tango and agree to such a thing.
     
  15. Feb 13, 2013 #75 of 307
    Justin23

    Justin23 Hall Of Fame

    1,218
    1
    Jan 10, 2008
    I think the customer was in mind when they decided to not pass this on to everyone...just in the regions that have a high RSN cost.
     
  16. Feb 13, 2013 #76 of 307
    Hoosier205

    Hoosier205 Active Member

    6,659
    14
    Sep 3, 2007
    +1
     
  17. Feb 13, 2013 #77 of 307
    studechip

    studechip Godfather

    1,468
    87
    Apr 16, 2012
    That is a reasonable way to look at it.
     
  18. Feb 13, 2013 #78 of 307
    studechip

    studechip Godfather

    1,468
    87
    Apr 16, 2012
    I'm not arguing. I'm pointing out the fallacy of you making it seem as if you have insider knowledge of Directv's contracts. Apparently you agree since you clearly want to drop this part of the conversation.
     
  19. Feb 13, 2013 #79 of 307
    studechip

    studechip Godfather

    1,468
    87
    Apr 16, 2012
    I apologize if I didn't give you every point of my position at the beginning. It seemed obvious to me that it would require some changes in how the channels are made available.
     
  20. Feb 13, 2013 #80 of 307
    Hoosier205

    Hoosier205 Active Member

    6,659
    14
    Sep 3, 2007
    I have never made it seem as if I do. In fact, I have said that I do not. I do however know enough to cover the basics.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page