# Was gonna cancel...but



## Flyinace2000 (Aug 2, 2005)

So we aree getting digital cable along with a HD DVR from the cable company. I have two tivo's and the new DVR was gonna replace one of them. I called TiVo to cancel and they offered to give me half off on the 12.95 box. So now i am getting two tivo's for 12.95 /month i am glad i didn't get the lifetime now. :-D


----------



## Stanley Rohner (Jan 18, 2004)

I hope everyone that reads this calls TiVo today and does the same thing. Why pay full price if you can call to canel and get it for half price per month. If there's any new customers signing up call in to start your subscription and refuse to subscribe unless they'll let you do it for half price.


----------



## Stormspace (Apr 13, 2004)

The way I see that is calling to cancel is one thing, and deciding not to when they offer a better deal is ok. Calling just to get a better deal without any intention of canceling is something else. I'd never do that....but...

Yesterday I went to Walmart to get my wife some cold medicine. When I went the shelf with the medicine I discovered they had replaced the boxes of medicine with these cards that had a picture of the box on them and the box directions in tiny print on the back. Also the price on the shelf was rediculously low, 2 cents. To get the medicine in the past you just walked to the pharmacy and there was a cart set out in plain view, you get your stuff and move on. Well, they put the cart behind the counter so you now have to wait in the prescription register line to get it. This walmart always has a line, and with the new Hippa regulations and a staff that moves like dead lice it took me 30 minutes to get to the front of the line to get the medicine. 

Long story short, I called and complained at both the home office and the local store and neither had a good answer, so when I went to the register I told them the price on the shelf was 2 cents, and that was what I was paying. Three people later a manager came to me and asked to walk over to the shelf with the cards. When we got there they had removed the prices on the items. The manager said I don't see any prices. I pulled out my camera phone and said thats ok I have a picture of the prices. He caved and said I could have it for 2 cents if I could live with myself. I told him, I waited in line 30 minutes to get this stuff. You want to sell it this way, put it somewhere where the customer can get it without waiting, or at the register. 

What really ticked me off was that the walmart products were still on the shelf. If I hadn't wanted the name brand stuff, I could have easily gotten the generic and been on my way. So, when its punitive in my mind I don't mind getting something cheap. So when you call to cancel because of a bad experience and they offer a lower rate, take it and don't feel bad, it's the least they can do.


----------



## NewYorkLaw (Dec 9, 2005)

Stanley Rohner said:


> I hope everyone that reads this calls TiVo today and does the same thing. Why pay full price if you can call to canel and get it for half price per month. If there's any new customers signing up call in to start your subscription and refuse to subscribe unless they'll let you do it for half price.


And, if you go to your favorite restaurant and pretend to find a hair (or something worse) in your food you're likely to get a free meal, too.

There are lots of ways to cheat.

Pete


----------



## dtreese (May 6, 2005)

Stormspace said:


> What really ticked me off was that the walmart products were still on the shelf. If I hadn't wanted the name brand stuff, I could have easily gotten the generic and been on my way. So, when its punitive in my mind I don't mind getting something cheap. So when you call to cancel because of a bad experience and they offer a lower rate, take it and don't feel bad, it's the least they can do.


It sucks that you had a bad Wal-Mart experience (and apparently dealt with an unethical jackass of a manager), but how does that relate to TiVo?


----------



## petew (Jul 31, 2003)

The $6.95 price is a retention scheme, it assumes you've already paid at least 12 months at full price. Aslo beware at least one poster requested cancellation and got it, then had to sign up for a new 12 month period when he reliazed he'd made a mistake. 

Also I believe users on the $6.95 scheme have to pay full price if they add an additional unit.


----------



## timr_42 (Oct 14, 2001)

Stormspace said:


> What really ticked me off was that the walmart products were still on the shelf. If I hadn't wanted the name brand stuff, I could have easily gotten the generic and been on my way. So, when its punitive in my mind I don't mind getting something cheap. So when you call to cancel because of a bad experience and they offer a lower rate, take it and don't feel bad, it's the least they can do.


Where do you live? In MO there is a law that keeps some cold meds behind the counter. You can thank the meth dealers for that. I heard that there is a federal law in the works that will make all states do the same thing.


----------



## GusMan (Nov 16, 2004)

timr_42 said:


> Where do you live? In MO there is a law that keeps some cold meds behind the counter. You can thank the meth dealers for that. I heard that there is a federal law in the works that will make all states do the same thing.


IL and IN are doing the same thing... In IN you need to show an ID as well. Its kinda of a pain but I understand the concept.


----------



## HotStuff2 (Feb 21, 2005)

NewYorkLaw said:


> Stanley Rohner said:
> 
> 
> > I hope everyone that reads this calls TiVo today and does the same thing. Why pay full price if you can call to canel and get it for half price per month. If there's any new customers signing up call in to start your subscription and refuse to subscribe unless they'll let you do it for half price.
> ...


I think he was being sarcastic (but I can't be sure.)

I heard about the $6.95 retention deal when I signed up for TiVo. 3 months later, I called and got it. WHich is why I'm trying to decide now if I should pony up for the lifetime or not. At $299, it would take 43.5 months (or roughly 3½ years) to make it worthwhile. And since I want a Series3 (to record HD widescreen content), I'm not sure it's worth it to me.



petew said:


> The $6.95 price is a retention scheme, it assumes you've already paid at least 12 months at full price. Aslo beware at least one poster requested cancellation and got it, then had to sign up for a new 12 month period when he reliazed he'd made a mistake.
> 
> Also I believe users on the $6.95 scheme have to pay full price if they add an additional unit.


As I said, users can call basically anytime and get the retention deal - I did it 3 months after having my TiVo. But you're correct, the second box added does not get the $6.95 multi-box discount automatically; it's charged at the "normal" rate of $12.95.

I think TiVo neesd to re-think it's cost, even with the new "lease" option. Cable co.'s give the user a DVR - be it SD or HD - for the same price, usually less than $7 per month. Sure, it's not TiVo, but most people base their purchase on price. And when someone sees that the cable co. DVR costs them 50% less than TiVo, I bet that a LOT (as in the majority) of them choose the cable co. DVR first.


----------



## NewYorkLaw (Dec 9, 2005)

HotStuff2 said:


> I think he was being sarcastic (but I can't be sure.)


I was being serious. I think lying to Tivo to try and save a few bucks a month is wrong, just like faking an incident in a restaurant for a free meal is wrong.

Pete


----------



## Virt (Jun 3, 2002)

NewYorkLaw said:


> There are lots of ways to cheat.
> 
> Pete


Not really cheating when corporate has offered this as unpublished poilicy for well over a year and a half. Do a google search or search here for "Tivo $6.95 retention" and see the many hundreds plus that have already done this...

Once again, piss-poor marketing from corporate.

This discount _SHOULD_ be offered only to Series 1 units - the units that NO LONGER get any software updates (my Series 1 is still at 3.0-01-1-000), do NOT get any broadband content (such as Music, Photos, and More, Idol Speculation, etc), CANNOT do multi-room viewing, CANNOT do remote scheduling, has NO folder features, has NO recently deleted folder, does NOT get Best Buy music, does NOT get Nikon photos, does NOT get any Showcase Content anymore, has no networking features or USB ports, and does NOT get any TV Guide "Watch This" content. The units that have been around the longest and supporting the company the longest - such as my 21-hour Philips that I still pay full price for yet use serial broadband for updates on - that only costs them bandwidth from their server - no phone calls, no daily data port charges. I could drop my monthly fee alltogether and still do manual recordings, but yet I pay $12.95 per month for guide data, watch lists and season passes. This box has already paid for itself many times over compared to the newer boxes and/or the subscribe for only a few months Comcast wannabees. So far, since January 2002, I have shelled out $664.40 for monthly service on this box alone - not including my original cost of the box itself. Back then, wasn't lifetime service only $149 or $199? Go figure...

And just in case someone is wondering, I have the Series 1 ($12.95), plus an 80 hour Toshiba SD-H400 Lifetime Basic (subscribed at $6.95) and a 40 hour black TiVo (subscribed at $6.95) for a total outlay of $26.85 per month or $322.20 per year. Considering the fact that I _could_ drop my monthly fee to only $12.95 per month (or pull the trigger on the $6.95 deal) and still have manual recordings on the Series 1 and 3 day basic on the Toshiba, _I_ would think that people like me would be the customer that the TiVo Marketing/Retention department(s) would _WANT_ to offer a discount to and keep onboard as long as possible. Especially since I already have three standalone DVD recorders that fill in just fine when needed as well as a home brew PC PVR/DVR.

I'll say it again, it's just piss-poor marketing, but it is not cheating...


----------



## dgh (Jul 24, 2000)

NewYorkLaw said:


> I think lying to Tivo to try and save a few bucks a month is wrong,


TiVo is a company that gives preferred customer pricing to people who complain a lot or call to cancel. So naturally, some people complain a lot or cancel. This is like their rebate plan. They can offer low rebated prices to some because many people don't go to the trouble to get them.

And who says anyone is lying. A lot of people get mad when they find out they're paying twice as much as other people just because they don't complain enough. Then complaining or canceling becomes a natural response.


----------



## Stormspace (Apr 13, 2004)

dtreese said:


> It sucks that you had a bad Wal-Mart experience (and apparently dealt with an unethical jackass of a manager), but how does that relate to TiVo?


It relates back to getting something free or discounted and what I feel is an acceptable reason for it. Calling with no intention to cancel to get a discount isn't cool, but if you are genuinely upset with the service and call to cancel, getting the discount is fine.


----------



## Stormspace (Apr 13, 2004)

timr_42 said:


> Where do you live? In MO there is a law that keeps some cold meds behind the counter. You can thank the meth dealers for that. I heard that there is a federal law in the works that will make all states do the same thing.


This is exactly what happened, but they put it in the Pharmacy so you have to wade through that line to get it. Typically it takes between 5-10 min per customer at that register because people are asking questions about their medical coverage, prescriptions, and signing HIPPA documents. If you want to take it behind a counter, make one of the main registers that are designed to handle customers more quickly.


----------



## timckelley (Oct 15, 2002)

Flyinace2000 said:


> So we aree getting digital cable along with a HD DVR from the cable company. I have two tivo's and the new DVR was gonna replace one of them. I called TiVo to cancel and they offered to give me half off on the 12.95 box. So now i am getting two tivo's for 12.95 /month i am glad i didn't get the lifetime now. :-D


I assume that before, you were paying 12.95 for one and 6.95 for the other. Now you got have off the 12.95 one, so you're only pay 6.47 for that one.

6.47 + 6.95 = 13.42, so it sounds like to me you're getting both TiVos for 13.42 / month, not 12.95 / month.


----------



## NewYorkLaw (Dec 9, 2005)

dgh said:


> And who says anyone is lying. A lot of people get mad when they find out they're paying twice as much as other people just because they don't complain enough. Then complaining or canceling becomes a natural response.


Pretending to be upset about service in general and "complaining"in order to get a discount *is *lying. If someone, on the other hand, calls Tivo and says "I'm upset that I'm overpaying and I heard on the tivocommuity forum that other people are getting discounts -- and I want a discount" that's not lying. And, if they don't offer the discount and that person decides that *that's* reason enough to cancel, then that's another story.

Pete


----------



## dgh (Jul 24, 2000)

NewYorkLaw said:


> Pretending to be upset about service in general and "complaining"in order to get a discount *is *lying.


If you're willing to call and wait through TiVo's hold times to tell someone you're upset, then you're probably not lying.

For the small percentage that might start out by lying, they're probably no longer lying after wading through the phone tree and waiting on hold for customer service.



NewYorkLaw said:


> If someone, on the other hand, calls Tivo and says "I'm upset that I'm overpaying and I heard on the tivocommuity forum that other people are getting discounts -- and I want a discount" that's not lying.


And it's ridiculously ineffective. We've seen from other threads that TiVo does not give the discount to people who say that so you'd just be wasting everyone's time. If that appeals to you, feel free, but after you've spent all that time, for no benefit, then you'll probably be mad enough to cancel.


----------



## timckelley (Oct 15, 2002)

No, I think you need to say "Give me half off or I cancel" before they'll buckle under. If you just say "give me half off because other people are getting it", they will know you really like the service, and so they can feel free to deny you the discount, because it's not like you're not going to pay full price if you have to.


----------



## NewYorkLaw (Dec 9, 2005)

dgh said:


> If you're willing to call and wait through TiVo's hold times to tell someone you're upset, then you're probably not lying.
> 
> For the small percentage that might start out by lying, they're probably no longer lying after wading through the phone tree and waiting on hold for customer service.
> 
> And it's ridiculously ineffective. We've seen from other threads that TiVo does not give the discount to people who say that so you'd just be wasting everyone's time. If that appeals to you, feel free, but after you've spent all that time, for no benefit, then you'll probably be mad enough to cancel.


Good points.
Pete


----------



## lessd (Jan 23, 2005)

Every check the cost of an airline ticket bought by the person sitting next to you, its usually cheaper than what you paid, marketing is marketing all people don't pay the same for the same service. The biggest discrepancy is in health care cost.


----------



## Stanley Rohner (Jan 18, 2004)

NewYorkLaw said:


> And, if you go to your favorite restaurant and pretend to find a hair (or something worse) in your food you're likely to get a free meal, too.
> 
> There are lots of ways to cheat.
> 
> Pete


Hair in my food at a restaurant, 1/2 price TiVo monthly subscription price.
Pretty much the same thing. Great comparison.


If we're being charged $12.95 and someone calls TiVo to say - I'm cancelling because $12.95/month is way to expensive and they get it for $6.95/month why shouldn't we all do it ?


----------



## dgh (Jul 24, 2000)

Because we still have about a week to switch to lifetime which is way less than $6.95/month.


----------



## NewYorkLaw (Dec 9, 2005)

Stanley Rohner said:


> Hair in my food at a restaurant, 1/2 price TiVo monthly subscription price.
> Pretty much the same thing. Great comparison.
> 
> 
> If we're being charged $12.95 and someone calls TiVo to say - I'm cancelling because $12.95/month is way to expensive and they get it for $6.95/month why shouldn't we all do it ?


NO, it's *lying * about finding a hair in your food (to get a discounted meal) and *lying * about wanting to cancel tivo (to get a better monthly rate) that are the same.

You're right -- if someone asks for a lower rate becuase he knows other people got a lower rate, that's fine. But that's not what we're talking about -- and it doesn't matter how you rationalize it - we're talking about lying.

Maybe (you feel) the way the fees are structured are too high or are not 'fair' but that doesn't make it OK to lie & cheat. People have been stealing cable services for years claiming that it's OK because the cable companies charge too much -- meanwhile it's the people who steal it who cause the prices to be higher for the rest of us. Would you say that's ok, too, since other people are doing it?

Pete


----------



## jaybird13 (Nov 6, 2005)

I called to cancel one of my TIVOs yesterday (already $6.95 b/c of multi-discount) and they let me fly like a bird. 

I honestly wanted to cancel the TIVO (I'd replaced it) but I was curious to see if they'd offer anything better. I guess $6.95 is as low as they're willing to go.


----------



## dgh (Jul 24, 2000)

NewYorkLaw said:


> Maybe (you feel) the way the fees are structured are too high or are not 'fair' but that doesn't make it OK to lie & cheat.


And if you tell the truth and just say that you want the price that others are getting, then TiVo will *lie* to you and say there's nothing they can do, when in fact they can. Take your pick. Know you're dealing with a company that lies to you and pay $12.95 or lie to them and pay $6.95. (If you really want to call standard price bargaining lying.)


----------



## MickeS (Dec 26, 2002)

Many service companies have the same policy: if you're a customer in good standing and call to cancel, they'll offer you a better deal. I don't see the big news.



Stormspace said:


> The manager said I don't see any prices. I pulled out my camera phone and said thats ok I have a picture of the prices.


 Better living through technology. :up:


----------



## TheSlyBear (Dec 26, 2002)

I'll pay the $6 and keep my integrity.


----------



## samo (Oct 7, 1999)

> NO, it's lying about finding a hair in your food (to get a discounted meal) and lying about wanting to cancel tivo (to get a better monthly rate) that are the same.


You need to make a distinction between lying and bluffing. Telling your waiter that you found hair in your food is lying (unless you threaten them with a lawsuit - then it is an extortion). Telling TiVo that you will cancel your sub is bluffing, because if they do cancel your sub it will cost you extra to re-sub this box. Just like in any other negotiation for a price for unpurchased product or service bluffing is a necessary component for success (for example "If you don't drop the price, I'll buy it from somebody else"). Most companies will drop the price on product or service, some will let you walk. You should measure amount of risk against possible reward in any negotiation.


----------



## GoHokies! (Sep 21, 2005)

dgh said:


> And if you tell the truth and just say that you want the price that others are getting, then TiVo will *lie* to you and say there's nothing they can do, when in fact they can. Take your pick. Know you're dealing with a company that lies to you and pay $12.95 or lie to them and pay $6.95. (If you really want to call standard price bargaining lying.)


They're not lying to you, they have the option of offering you a lower price to try and keep you as a customer. If you just ask for the price that others are getting, they option doesn't apply to you.

There's a fancy economic term for this that I can't remember - the fact that companies want to charge each person the most amount of money that they are willing to pay for a good/service. If you're willing to pay 12.95 a month, Tivo will take it from you. If you're only willing to pay half that, Tivo *MAY* be willing to take that from you.

I don't see why this is unfair, and Tivo certainly isn't lying about any of this.


----------



## dgh (Jul 24, 2000)

GoHokies! said:


> I don't see why this is unfair, and Tivo certainly isn't lying about any of this.


The text you quoted needs to be read in the context of the thread. Allow me to reconnect the dots for you: TiVo is lying as much as the customer is lying according to NewYorkLaw. Sure, TiVo can charge different rates based on the squeaky wheel principle and customers have the same right to choose to be squeaky wheels. The customer isn't lying from their point of the negotiation any more or less than TiVo is. Each want the transaction to go through, but on the best terms for them.

Bluffing and bargaining would be better terms but NewYorkLaw prefers lying - with a little help from the bold face command.


----------



## gonzotek (Sep 24, 2004)

dgh said:


> The text you quoted needs to be read in the context of the thread. Allow me to reconnect the dots for you: TiVo is lying as much as the customer is lying according to NewYorkLaw. Sure, TiVo can charge different rates based on the squeaky wheel principle and customers have the same right to choose to be squeaky wheels. The customer isn't lying from their point of the negotiation any more or less than TiVo is. Each want the transaction to go through, but on the best terms for them.
> 
> Bluffing and bargaining would be better terms but NewYorkLaw prefers lying - with a little help from the bold face command.


You are twisting NewYorkLaw's words to your own ends. You have a (arguably valid) beef with TiVo and are projecting your dissatisfaction with them onto others. Bluffing _is_ lying(for right or wrong), and bargaining is something very much else. IMO, NYL made that distinction in his posts.


----------



## dgh (Jul 24, 2000)

NYL made "distinctions" like putting a hair in a meal. Please tell me where anyone is doing anything like this. Also, what beef do I have and who am I projecting it on to?


----------



## gonzotek (Sep 24, 2004)

Since, or even before the pricing changeover, you've been very open about being unhappy with TiVo on the forum, is that correct? I'm not saying you shouldn't feel the way you do. That's the 'beef' I saw...it feels to me that your dissatisfaction with them is spilling over into a rational discussion of ethical bargaining techniques vs. stealing/cheating/lying, and that NYL is bearing the brunt of that attitude.

I can appreciate the argument that perhaps TiVo is being unethical, but regardless of my defenses in this post, I truly apologize right now if I offended you and was rude. 

I feel calling with no intent of truly canceling, ONLY to get a better deal is lying. If I were at a restaurant and found the service and cuisine to be acceptable, but not the prices, I personally couldn't lie and say I found a hair. The same principle goes for me, for subscribing to the TiVo service.


----------



## dgh (Jul 24, 2000)

Ah well I was a little sad that I probably won't be getting a Series 3 due to the higher prices, but the Series 1 chugs along and I'll look at the PVR market again in a few years. It's not that big a deal. But I've argued many times before that price change that TiVo is free to have this sort of complaint-based pricing and I've also said before that that's not the kind of business that I prefer or would choose to run myself. For a "beef", you should talk to TiVolutionary  He listed the change to a squeaky wheel model as one of his reasons for leaving TiVo. I've always found it slightly annoying but not nearly enough to leave TiVo as a customer. But when you have a squeak-based company, I feel that you should squeak if you choose to use them. (I squeaked all the way to lifetime.)



gonzotek said:


> I can appreciate the argument that perhaps TiVo is being unethical, but regardless of my defenses in this post, I truly apologize right now if I offended you and was rude.


I'm not really calling TiVo unethical. Rather...



gonzotek said:


> I feel calling with no intent of truly canceling, ONLY to get a better deal is lying.


I just don't think you can have it both ways. If TiVo can segment the market and offer the same service at two different prices, then consumers can choose the lower price and say the appropriate code words that it takes to get it. It doesn't matter whether that was lifetime vs. monthly or cheap monthly vs. expensive monthly.



gonzotek said:


> If I were at a restaurant and found the service and cuisine to be acceptable, but not the prices, I personally couldn't lie and say I found a hair. The same principle goes for me, for subscribing to the TiVo service.


But, again, no one has found a hair. For example, corrupting the data stream from TiVo to make the service provably bad would be like finding a hair that you planted. Calling TiVo and claiming that you'll cancel is like saying: the food's fine but I won't eat here again because of the prices. At which point, TiVo or the restaurant are free to decide whether they want to keep you around. There's only lying here if the restaurant says that's the only price available (yet they make exceptions for others) and if you come back any way. Then you're both about equally "guilty". (But not much in my opinion.)


----------



## gonzotek (Sep 24, 2004)

Those are all very good points(and well expressed). And frankly, the whole restaurant/TiVo comparison starts to break down quickly when we figure in the year+ contracts and just the vastly different natures of the services(a singularity vs. a continuity, etc.). I just want to say again, for my own peace of mind, that while I may not share all the same views as you, I intended no malice and realize that I could have expressed myself better in that respect.


----------



## dgh (Jul 24, 2000)

Ok It's cool. :up:


----------



## Stylin (Dec 31, 2004)

timr_42 said:


> Where do you live? In MO there is a law that keeps some cold meds behind the counter. You can thank the meth dealers for that. I heard that there is a federal law in the works that will make all states do the same thing.


Funny, I was just about to ask if there was a meth problem in his area/state.
Still on the shelves here in NY, guess 'cuz we only deal with heads - coke and crack that is. lol.


----------



## Stylin (Dec 31, 2004)

timckelley said:


> No, I think you need to say "Give me half off or I cancel" before they'll buckle under. If you just say "give me half off because other people are getting it", they will know you really like the service, and so they can feel free to deny you the discount, because it's not like you're not going to pay full price if you have to.


Disagree, of course ymmv, but I agree with NYLaw. It's worked with my Cable co (Cablevision) - I heard about the "retention" deals, and have called in and said I DON'T want to cancel, but would prefer a lower rate - can you do anything for me? And they have. I actually rec'd a the same "retention" rate, but for almost double the time that the "lower my rate or I'll cancel" ppl. I think they're happy to have a customer who wishes to stay loyal, and is happy with their service prolly not getting a lot of calls complimenting their service. Sometimes you catch more bees with honey, as opposed to vinegar.
BUT, if a company ONLY offers a lower rate to ppl who complain (as opposed to someone who asks/knows about the better rate), then I can't blame the customer for being deceptive. They are basically forcing it's customers to deceptively threaten to cancel in order to receive a better rate.


----------



## GoHokies! (Sep 21, 2005)

> The text you quoted needs to be read in the context of the thread. Allow me to reconnect the dots for you: TiVo is lying as much as the customer is lying according to NewYorkLaw. Sure, TiVo can charge different rates based on the squeaky wheel principle and customers have the same right to choose to be squeaky wheels. The customer isn't lying from their point of the negotiation any more or less than TiVo is. Each want the transaction to go through, but on the best terms for them.
> 
> Bluffing and bargaining would be better terms but NewYorkLaw prefers lying - with a little help from the bold face command.


I don't know, maybe I'm old fashioned or something, but for me if you call someone and tell them that you want to cancel when you don't want to cancel and just want a cheaper rate, that's lying, just as much as it is when you call in sick into work when you're not really sick. There isn't and context needed there, shipmate... 

Contrast that with Tivo, who has all the cards out on the table. The price of their service is $12.95/month. If you call to cancel in some situations the'll offer you a price break. (maybe they have a limited number of these per day, week or month that they can give out, which is why some people are just let go)


----------



## GoHokies! (Sep 21, 2005)

dgh said:


> And if you tell the truth and just say that you want the price that others are getting, then TiVo will *lie* to you and say there's nothing they can do, when in fact they can. Take your pick. Know you're dealing with a company that lies to you and pay $12.95 or lie to them and pay $6.95. (If you really want to call standard price bargaining lying.)
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## HotStuff2 (Feb 21, 2005)

dgh said:


> Because we still have about a week to switch to lifetime which is way less than $6.95/month.


See, this is what I've been wrestling with. I'm paying $6.95/month for a TiVo I barely watch anymore (I bought a 50" HD plasma TV last year, and want to watch shows in HD widescreen, so I either watch live TV or download the content using BitTorrent.)  At 6.95/month, it will take me 43.5 months (or 3 and a half years) to make the $299.99 lifetime subscription worthwhile. I'm wanting a Series3, which is supposed to be HD capable - so I can't really justify the lifetime subscription when I'm fairly positive I won't be using the Series2 I have much, if at all. I thought about getting the lifetime just to enhance the resale of the box, but I'm not sure it would be worth it. Still have a few days to decide...



GoHokies! said:


> I just don't get it! It's isn't "saying code words"!! It's lying!!! I don't understand how anyone can think that sort of behaviour is acceptable!


I wasn't lying when I called TiVo to get the discount. I told them I could get a DVR from my cable co. for half the price, and they offered me the $6.95 rate. Did I know they would do that? Yes, of course - that's why I called. But the argument is valid, and TiVo needs to be more competitive with their pricing. TiVo is a great service, but is it worth 50% more than the cable co. DVR, which can record in HD, watch one live show while taping another, or watch one recorded show while taping TWO live shows? No, it's not. But at $6.95/month, it's something I will keep. Had they said "No, it will cost you $12.95/month, we won't offer you anything lower", I *would* have cancelled. I wasn't lying.


----------



## GoHokies! (Sep 21, 2005)

HotStuff2 said:


> I wasn't lying when I called TiVo to get the discount. I told them I could get a DVR from my cable co. for half the price, and they offered me the $6.95 rate. Did I know they would do that? Yes, of course - that's why I called. But the argument is valid, and TiVo needs to be more competitive with their pricing. TiVo is a great service, but is it worth 50% more than the cable co. DVR, which can record in HD, watch one live show while taping another, or watch one recorded show while taping TWO live shows? No, it's not. But at $6.95/month, it's something I will keep. Had they said "No, it will cost you $12.95/month, we won't offer you anything lower", I *would* have cancelled. I wasn't lying.


I wasn't saying that you were - if you were going to cancel and didn't, that's great.

Sorry for the misunderstanding...


----------



## timckelley (Oct 15, 2002)

In a dog-eat-dog world, some lying is going to happen.


----------



## NewYorkLaw (Dec 9, 2005)

gonzotek said:


> I feel calling with no intent of truly canceling, ONLY to get a better deal is lying. If I were at a restaurant and found the service and cuisine to be acceptable, but not the prices, I personally couldn't lie and say I found a hair. The same principle goes for me, for subscribing to the TiVo service.


Exactly.
Pete


----------



## NewYorkLaw (Dec 9, 2005)

HotStuff2 said:


> I wasn't lying when I called TiVo to get the discount. I told them I could get a DVR from my cable co. for half the price, and they offered me the $6.95 rate. Did I know they would do that? Yes, of course - that's why I called. But the argument is valid, and TiVo needs to be more competitive with their pricing. TiVo is a great service, but is it worth 50% more than the cable co. DVR, which can record in HD, watch one live show while taping another, or watch one recorded show while taping TWO live shows? No, it's not. But at $6.95/month, it's something I will keep. Had they said "No, it will cost you $12.95/month, we won't offer you anything lower", I *would* have cancelled. I wasn't lying.


I agree with you.


----------



## krbagman (Jan 24, 2006)

dgh said:


> Because we still have about a week to switch to lifetime which is way less than $6.95/month.


Can someone explain this comment about a week to switch to lifetime to me?

Ken


----------



## jfh3 (Apr 15, 2004)

krbagman said:


> Can someone explain this comment about a week to switch to lifetime to me?


Not exactly true - you'll still be able to get lifetime on a previously unactivated Series 2 Humax DVD box indefinately.

Other than that, after this week, your only other options are to get a lifetime subscription gift card or a Series 1 with lifetime eligible for the grandfathered transfer.

(If you haven't noticed, "convert to lifetime" is no longer an option under "Manage My Account")

(Thanks to the next poster for the catch)


----------



## Stylin (Dec 31, 2004)

Editing above post to add: "never /non activated" Humax box. LT deadline signup is 4/15.


----------



## Virt (Jun 3, 2002)

NewYorkLaw said:


> Exactly.
> Pete


How do you justify "ONLY to get a better deal is lying" when AOL themselves have been doing this trick for years - even putting free months and cash checks in thier clients hands when they call to cancel service.

I do believe that a few state attorney general's have closed this loophole due to violating extorition laws.

I would call this harrasment or extorition on the vendors end.

If I call to cancel, I do not want to be suckered into some new pricing scheme, I just want to cancel - for whatever reason I choose, and I do not need to tell the reason why. Lets just cancel it now - period.

Why do you feel the folks who are taking advatage of the offer that TiVo is making to the customer who calls to cancel, but is then put on hold for a longer period, then speaks to retention, then is put on hold again, then is told a lower price - as lying??? This is not the cuomter's doing - this is TiVo doing this...People know this, and yes some may take advatage of this, but it it TIVO THAT ALLOWS THIS TO HAPPEN - not the customer. You can't cheat at the game when the rulemaker allows it to happen. I just wonder how many stockholders are really aware of what goes on...Just look at those subscriber numbers once...

Sounds like another high pressure sales pitch to me, but pointed to the wrong person...


----------



## NewYorkLaw (Dec 9, 2005)

Virt said:


> How do you justify "ONLY to get a better deal is lying" when AOL themselves have been doing this trick for years - even putting free months and cash checks in thier clients hands when they call to cancel service.
> 
> I do believe that a few state attorney general's have closed this loophole due to violating extorition laws.
> 
> ...


Why is it so hard to explain what it means to "lie." I don't care if it's the way you play the "game." And, it's irrelevent that some companies (like aol) have given people a hard time in the past when they try to cancel - that's another issue. If you really want to cancel and they persuade you not to (with a better price) then that's ok. If you lie about being dissatisfied only hoping or expecting them to lower your price to keep you, that's lying.
Pete


----------



## timckelley (Oct 15, 2002)

It's not true that lieing is automatically bad on grounds that it's a lie. An example of a good lie would be lying to the enemy about your troops' position. Or lying to your dying grandmother when she asks you if her last wish was carried out (even though it hadn't been). There are many other examples.

I'm not saying this lie is okay, but just because it's a lie doesn't de facto make it wrong.


----------



## NewYorkLaw (Dec 9, 2005)

timckelley said:


> It's not true that lieing is automatically bad on grounds that it's a lie. An example of a good lie would be lying to the enemy about your troops' position. Or lying to your dying grandmother when she asks you if her last wish was carried out (even though it hadn't been). There are many other examples.
> 
> I'm not saying this lie is okay, but just because it's a lie doesn't de facto make it wrong.


I agree with you that a lie is not always wrong - but sometimes it is. In any event, right or wrong, a lie is a lie. Justifying a lie, based on circumstances, is just a way to rationalize.

My intenttion was not to pass judgment on anyone, but if someone is going to lie (good or bad), they should not defend themselves by saying it's not a lie.
Pete


----------



## Johnsgoat (Feb 26, 2006)

Stormspace said:


> Yesterday I went to Walmart


There's your problem.

btw I would of asked him how he could live with himself trying to decieve you with changing the prices. WTF is that to say to a customer you can have it if you can live with yourself. I wonder if he would live with the $200+ fine for not having the shelf prices marked with what the system rings it up as.


----------



## Stormspace (Apr 13, 2004)

NewYorkLaw said:


> People have been stealing cable services for years claiming that it's OK because the cable companies charge too much -- meanwhile it's the people who steal it who cause the prices to be higher for the rest of us. Would you say that's ok, too, since other people are doing it?


I disagree with this statement. The cable company looses nothing tangible for someone stealing service as the same signal is broadcast to everyone. It costs them no more to broadcast to one person than to 1000, other than the infrastructure to deliver the signal, which must be in place anyway to service paying customers. In fact I disagree with the whole potential lost sale = loss of money theory. Who's to say someone getting cable for free would pay for it if they didn't have a free ride. The whole concept is ludicrous. And to say that the cable companies would charge less if no one was stealing the signal is naive. They use this nebulous figure to justify the high prices, they would charge no less.


----------



## NewYorkLaw (Dec 9, 2005)

Stormspace said:


> I disagree with this statement. The cable company looses nothing tangible for someone stealing service as the same signal is broadcast to everyone. It costs them no more to broadcast to one person than to 1000, other than the infrastructure to deliver the signal, which must be in place anyway to service paying customers. In fact I disagree with the whole potential lost sale = loss of money theory. Who's to say someone getting cable for free would pay for it if they didn't have a free ride. The whole concept is ludicrous. And to say that the cable companies would charge less if no one was stealing the signal is naive. They use this nebulous figure to justify the high prices, they would charge no less.


So, since it would be difficult to calculate their losses (if any, according to you), and since you cannot say for sure whether someone getting it for free would pay if it cost less, that makes OK to steal cable?

That's absurd.

You probably also feel there's no harm in pirates selling camcorder-made bootlegs of feature films that are still playing in theatres. Tickets cost too much and the movie companies suffer no "tangible" loss (other than the infrastructure to provide the movies (the theatres, which are necessary for paying moviegoers anyway)) because people who buy pirated movies would "probably" not have gone to the theatre anyway - so there's nothing being lost or stolen, right?

We've gone from lying to outright stealing. What's your stand on bank robbery? Is it OK, as long as the bank suffers no tangible loss after insurance?

Pete


----------



## timckelley (Oct 15, 2002)

NewYorkLaw said:


> What's your stand on bank robbery? Is it OK, as long as the bank suffers no tangible loss after insurance?
> 
> Pete


There would be a loss to the insurance company, so that would be wrong. And the insurance would pass that loss down the line through higher premium payments, so the tangible loss would be shared by others, as well.


----------



## MickeS (Dec 26, 2002)

Bank robbery is OK if it's done like in "Inside Man".


----------



## Stormspace (Apr 13, 2004)

NewYorkLaw said:


> So, since it would be difficult to calculate their losses (if any, according to you), and since you cannot say for sure whether someone getting it for free would pay if it cost less, that makes OK to steal cable?
> 
> That's absurd.


I totally agree. What I disagree with is the justification the cable companies use with regard to signal theft.



NewYorkLaw said:


> You probably also feel there's no harm in pirates selling camcorder-made bootlegs of feature films that are still playing in theatres. Tickets cost too much and the movie companies suffer no "tangible" loss (other than the infrastructure to provide the movies (the theatres, which are necessary for paying moviegoers anyway)) because people who buy pirated movies would "probably" not have gone to the theatre anyway - so there's nothing being lost or stolen, right?


It could be argued that way, but In this case copies of bootlegged product can be tracked and be a quantifiable representation of lost ticket sales.



NewYorkLaw said:


> We've gone from lying to outright stealing. What's your stand on bank robbery? Is it OK, as long as the bank suffers no tangible loss after insurance?
> 
> Pete


This is a little over the top, but again the losses here are quantifiable. A cable company that estimates it's losing 10% of it's revenue to cable theft is just guessing, whereas the bank knows exactly what was taken and generally by who.


----------



## NewYorkLaw (Dec 9, 2005)

Stormspace said:


> I totally agree. What I disagree with is the justification the cable companies use with regard to signal theft.
> 
> It could be argued that way, but In this case copies of bootlegged product can be tracked and be a quantifiable representation of lost ticket sales.
> 
> This is a little over the top, but again the losses here are quantifiable. A cable company that estimates it's losing 10% of it's revenue to cable theft is just guessing, whereas the bank knows exactly what was taken and generally by who.


You also said: 


> "Who's to say someone getting cable for free would pay for it if they didn't have a free ride. "


Following your logic, I used the pirated movie analogy - becuase (according to that logic) who's to say that people buying bootleg movies would otherwise go to the theatre?

In any event, even if we assume the cable company is only guessing about how much they lose each year, does that in any way negate the fact that some people are stealing? If I steal an apple from a merchant's bushel and the merchant does not know exactly how many apples he had in the bushel does that mean I didn't steal an apple?

My bank robbery question was not only over the top, it was downright sarcastic. Of course bank robbery is wrong.


----------



## Stormspace (Apr 13, 2004)

NewYorkLaw said:


> You also said:
> 
> Following your logic, I used the pirated movie analogy - becuase (according to that logic) who's to say that people buying bootleg movies would otherwise go to the theatre?
> 
> ...


My Whole point is that to justify higher prices due to theft you have to first prove that theft occurred, not just throw out a WAG. Cable theft, copyright infringement, and bank robbery are three very different things, each with it's own set of morality.

Some people if moving into a house discovered that the local cable provider didn't disconnect service might not say anything about it. To some that may be justifiably legit as they didn't overtly do anything illegal, they just took avantage of a preexisting condition. Climbing a pole and running your own line, or running a line from a neighbor might be something else entirely in these peoples minds as it is for me. In either case there is no guarantee that the customer would have signed up otherwise.

Bootleg DVD's will sell, maybe not everyone would have bought a full version, but if the guy is caught selling them it's quite easy to calculate potential lost sales because you have an inventory of bootleg material with which to make an estimate. There are also severe civil penalties for this which is entirely out of proportion to the actual loss that is more punitive and not a recovery of lost sales. I guess the thinking goes that he may or may not have sold more before he was caught.

Bankrobbery....I think we have an understanding here. 

Bottom line, none of these things are right to do. But a company that justify's high prices over unknown percieved losses isn't exactly doing to the right thing either.


----------



## lateforwork (Apr 10, 2006)

You should have asked if he could live with himself after trying to have the sign removed behind your back.


----------



## NewYorkLaw (Dec 9, 2005)

Stormspace said:


> My Whole point is that to justify higher prices due to theft you have to first prove that theft occurred, not just throw out a WAG. Cable theft, copyright infringement, and bank robbery are three very different things, each with it's own set of morality.


Why do they have to justify anything? If they raise prices and claim it's due to theft or due to whatever, you either pay or you go elsewhere. No?



> Some people if moving into a house discovered that the local cable provider didn't disconnect service might not say anything about it. To some that may be justifiably legit as they didn't overtly do anything illegal, they just took avantage of a preexisting condition. Climbing a pole and running your own line, or running a line from a neighbor might be something else entirely in these peoples minds as it is for me. In either case there is no guarantee that the customer would have signed up otherwise.


How is "taking advantage of a pre-existing condition" any less stealing then climbing the pole? Is finding a wallet and keeping it is somehow less dishonest then picking someone's pocket? (maybe it is).


> Bootleg DVD's will sell, maybe not everyone would have bought a full version, but if the guy is caught selling them it's quite easy to calculate potential lost sales because you have an inventory of bootleg material with which to make an estimate. There are also severe civil penalties for this which is entirely out of proportion to the actual loss that is more punitive and not a recovery of lost sales. I guess the thinking goes that he may or may not have sold more before he was caught.


I would tend to disagree - I think most people who buy bootlegs would otherwise NOT be buying legitimate copies. I think a different type of person buys bootlegs. Anyway, I disagree that the civil penalties for the bootlegger are "severe." Copyright infringement is a serious problem and pirating costs the copyright holders a lot of money.



> Bankrobbery....I think we have an understanding here.
> 
> Bottom line, none of these things are right to do. But a company that justify's high prices over unknown percieved losses isn't exactly doing to the right thing either.


We agree none of these things are right to do, yet you feel that becuase a company has (perhaps) "unreasonably" high prices or bases its pricing decisions on "unknown perceived losses," it's therefore ok to steal their services?

Pete


----------



## timckelley (Oct 15, 2002)

I personally think climbing a pole to steal services is worse than getting a channel for free that you never actively tried to get. In fact, I'm not so sure the latter is ethically wrong.


----------



## NewYorkLaw (Dec 9, 2005)

timckelley said:


> I personally think climbing a pole to steal services is worse than getting a channel for free that you never actively tried to get. In fact, I'm not so sure the latter is ethically wrong.


I guess I can see that if the person is simply plugging the cable into their television and receiving "basic" channels - but not if they attach an illegally obtained descrambler and start receiving "pay" channels. 
Pete


----------



## MickeS (Dec 26, 2002)

Bottom line to me is, if someone tells TiVo a lie and they give him a non-advertised lower price because of it, then they obviously agreed to it, and that is no fault of the liar. Really, if it makes a difference to TiVo who the customer is, why not take advantage of that and pretend to be that customer?


----------



## Stormspace (Apr 13, 2004)

NewYorkLaw said:


> Why do they have to justify anything? If they raise prices and claim it's due to theft or due to whatever, you either pay or you go elsewhere. No?
> 
> How is "taking advantage of a pre-existing condition" any less stealing then climbing the pole? Is finding a wallet and keeping it is somehow less dishonest then picking someone's pocket? (maybe it is).
> 
> ...


My Disagreement was against this:

"...it's the people who steal it who cause the prices to be higher for the rest of us..."

I think it's an excuse the CC use.

And for the record. Yes, I think it's perfectly exceptable to use cable service when the cable company forgets to remove it, and I don't think it's theft. It's no different really from getting a package in the mail you didn't order. It not your fault that the service is available, you merely took advantage of the fact and you did nothing illegal to acquire it. Any percieved loss is on the CC for not doing it's job correctly.

Someone leaving their wallet on the ground is again different in my mind. The only way I can rationalize it is that I am more closely attuned to the plight of the lost wallet guy, and not so much to the unregulated cable company that tries to raise my rates every year without offering more services for that increase.


----------



## wigglit (Sep 6, 2003)

oooooookay...

We've ALOT of freeloaders in the world.

If you don't like company X's rates, you can always go to company X's competition. If company X's competition has similar or higher rates, you're screwed. You either purchase the product or you don't...stealing it doesn't solve the issue because sooner or later, you're going to get caught. Theft also causes said rates to rise because SOMEONE has to pay for the loss and that loss is almost always passed to the consumers.

15 years ago, when the internet was younger, the concept of 'theft vs. non-theft' regarding things such as pirated software/music/services wasn't hashed out the way its appearing in this thread. I'm seeing alot of supporters of what I call 'white theft' (akin to a white lie). The world seems to be losing its morality, IMO (although I'm waiting for someone to state something cynical in response to this post).


----------



## NewYorkLaw (Dec 9, 2005)

wigglit said:


> oooooookay...
> 
> We've ALOT of freeloaders in the world.
> 
> ...


Personally, I don't see the difference between "passively" and "actively" stealing. To me, if someone *knows *they're getting something they should be paying for, regardless of how they came to acquire it (cable co left line active vs. climbing a pole) they're stealing.

To me, it doesn't matter if the company/service provider can prove their actual losses - or if they even know someone is stealing from them.

Pete


----------



## Stormspace (Apr 13, 2004)

What about a package that was sent ot you by mistake? The US mail service will tell you to keep it. Do you find the person to send it to and ship it at your expense? My point is that there is a line drawn that says I will not do the companies job for them. In the case of cable oversight I don't see the need to correct their mistake, they obviously didn't feel it was important if they left the line active. 

I do admit that the CC's that I have been dealing with have been very good about this in the past 20 years or so. Not so much before that, so they have obviously cracked down on that type of thing, or their auditing controls are better. Still I wouldn't go out of my way to point it out, but neither would I climb a pole and roll my own cable.


----------



## NewYorkLaw (Dec 9, 2005)

Stormspace said:


> What about a package that was sent ot you by mistake? The US mail service will tell you to keep it. Do you find the person to send it to and ship it at your expense?


What do you mean the post office would tell you to keep a package sent to you by mistake? You're joking, right? And, please define sent "by mistake." Are you talking about *mis-addressed* by the sender or *mis-delivered* by the post office?

I would assume if the sender mis-addressed a package (presumably meant for a neighbor's house) the mistaken recipient should contact the sender and have sender instruct whether they want to have it picked-up and re-delivered or if the mistaken recipient can keep it. If there is no obvious way to contact the sender, or if the mistaken recipient were not inclined to be nice, I would think it the responsibility of the mistaken recipient to mark the package "addressee unknown" and have the post office return it to the sender.

If the post office mis-delivered something (you received your neighbor's package), firstly it would be your responsibility to give your neighbor his package. If it's not a nearby neigbor, or if you were just not inclined to be nice, you should contact the post office and have them re-deliver it themselves. I think it absurd to imagine how or why the post office would advise you to keep a package that didn't belong to you.

The only situation I can see where what you are talking about makes sense is if a company sent a package to you (in error) and the contents were not valueable enough to warrant having it picked-up and re-delivered. But the only party who could grant you permission to keep the goods would be the sender -- not the post office.

Of course, if the mistaken recipient exhausted the obvious solutions (there is no return address, nothing inside the pakage indicates who sent it or who it really belongs to, or if you contact the sender or the intended recipient and neither returns your calls) then it would be OK to keep the package.

Pete


----------



## timckelley (Oct 15, 2002)

Stormspace said:


> I do admit that the CC's that I have been dealing with have been very good about this in the past 20 years or so. Not so much before that, so they have obviously cracked down on that type of thing, or their auditing controls are better. Still I wouldn't go out of my way to point it out, but neither would I climb a pole and roll my own cable.


Time Warner is not cracking down. In the last 5 years I've lived at this house, there's always been at least one premium channel I didn't order that shows up on my TV. Currently, HBO is there, but I didn't order it.

However, they're actually profiting by giving me free HBO. Because it's the only thing that's stopping me from switching to satelite. If they try to charge me for it, then they will no longer be competitive, pricewise, to satellite, and I would most likely dump Time Warner in that situation. As it is, I'm paying $54.09 per month for my cable (no premium channels).


----------



## timckelley (Oct 15, 2002)

Oh, by the way, when my wife found a $100 bill floating in the surf (Gulf of Mexico) at the beaches of South Padre Island, she kept it, even though it was 'misdelivered' to her.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

MickeS said:


> Bottom line to me is, if someone tells TiVo a lie and they give him a non-advertised lower price because of it, then they obviously agreed to it, and that is no fault of the liar. Really, if it makes a difference to TiVo who the customer is, why not take advantage of that and pretend to be that customer?


because a lie is a lie, no matter what else is involved.

just like removing the wrong prices from the shelf and acting like nothing happened is wrong.

just like deliberately descrambling or hooking into someone else's cable feed is theft.

some things are just absolute and are wrong.

some things - like finding a 100$ bill in the surf are hard to track down and are gray. Do you see a couple with a youg baby looking furiously for their vacation money - do you see anyone looking all over the place - does someone come up and try and con you into thinking they lost it - or did they really loose it.

lots of gray areas can be brought up as well.


----------



## Stormspace (Apr 13, 2004)

NewYorkLaw said:


> What do you mean the post office would tell you to keep a package sent to you by mistake? You're joking, right? And, please define sent "by mistake." Are you talking about *mis-addressed* by the sender or *mis-delivered* by the post office?
> 
> I would assume if the sender mis-addressed a package (presumably meant for a neighbor's house) the mistaken recipient should contact the sender and have sender instruct whether they want to have it picked-up and re-delivered or if the mistaken recipient can keep it. If there is no obvious way to contact the sender, or if the mistaken recipient were not inclined to be nice, I would think it the responsibility of the mistaken recipient to mark the package "addressee unknown" and have the post office return it to the sender.
> 
> ...


The post office has a long standing policy that says if you get a package by mistake you are to keep it, consider it a gift. Now in recent times this may only apply to 1st class mail, but it is there. The reason I suppose has to do with the expense of picking the package up and resending it. I never fully understood why tho, but that is the case.


----------



## Stormspace (Apr 13, 2004)

timckelley said:


> Oh, by the way, when my wife found a $100 bill floating in the surf (Gulf of Mexico) at the beaches of South Padre Island, she kept it, even though it was 'misdelivered' to her.


You thief!  You should have taken it to the police, put a notice in the paper. "$100.00 bill found in surf, call to claim." Or Newyorklaw going to be calling you a thief. It obviously didn't belong to you. Shame shame.


----------



## timckelley (Oct 15, 2002)

My wife thought was Xmas in September when that happened. But I will say there was no sign of anybody furiously scouring the beaches for the C-note.


----------



## MickeS (Dec 26, 2002)

Stormspace said:


> And for the record. Yes, I think it's perfectly exceptable to use cable service when the cable company forgets to remove it, and I don't think it's theft. It's no different really from getting a package in the mail you didn't order. It not your fault that the service is available, you merely took advantage of the fact and you did nothing illegal to acquire it.


I don't agree with this. In the case of TiVo, they have agreed to give the customer the lower price. Both parts know it, both parts agreed. In the case above, there is only action on one part. The cable company does not agree to it. I don't see any similarity.


----------



## MickeS (Dec 26, 2002)

ZeoTiVo said:


> because a lie is a lie, no matter what else is involved.
> 
> just like removing the wrong prices from the shelf and acting like nothing happened is wrong.


There are two parts to the negotiation here, and only the first part involves a lie. If I call and tell TiVo I'm gonna cancel, knowing I only do this to try and get a lower price, I am lying about that part. However, the next step, if they offer me a deal, there is nothing fraudulent there. From there on, it's a simple business transaction: they think I'm gonna cancel, so they are willing to lower their price BECAUSE IT BENEFITS THEM and it benefits me. Nobody is forcing them to keep me as a customer. They would just drop me if they felt it was in their best interest.
Both parties acting in their own best interests, based on information they are hiding from the other part, to serve their own purpose. TiVO is hiding the fact that the price they advertise is not the price they charge everyone. The customer is hiding that he is in fact willing to pay more than the $6.95 if TiVo denies him a lower price. TO me, there's no difference here than if I walk in to a car dealer, and after negotiating a price say "Nope, that's too high for me, I'm leaving" in the hope that the dealer will offer me an even lower price, even if I actually have no intention of leaving.

There is nothing similar to the example above, where the business has no idea about what the customer is doing, and is not negotiating with him.


----------



## Dajad (Oct 7, 1999)

ahhh...the joys of my lifetime subscription ... I don't have to worry about this kind of thing!!!

 ... Dale


----------



## timckelley (Oct 15, 2002)

I've got two lifetime subs, and am not feeling any UMF towards the series 3. I'm set.


----------



## NewYorkLaw (Dec 9, 2005)

Stormspace said:


> You thief!  You should have taken it to the police, put a notice in the paper. "$100.00 bill found in surf, call to claim." Or Newyorklaw going to be calling you a thief. It obviously didn't belong to you. Shame shame.


Nah, don't worry... the Gulf of Mexico is outside my jurisdiction.
Pete


----------



## NewYorkLaw (Dec 9, 2005)

MickeS said:


> There are two parts to the negotiation here, and only the first part involves a lie.


"ONLY" the first part involves a lie?


> If I call and tell TiVo I'm gonna cancel, knowing I only do this to try and get a lower price, I am lying about that part.


Yeah, but...


> However, the next step, if they offer me a deal, there is nothing fraudulent there. From there on, it's a simple business transaction: they think I'm gonna cancel, so they are willing to lower their price BECAUSE IT BENEFITS THEM and it benefits me. Nobody is forcing them to keep me as a customer. They would just drop me if they felt it was in their best interest.


Your logic is flawed. How do you get from your lie to if they offer you a deal there's nothing fraudulent there? How is their reliance on your threat to cancel a "simple" business transaction? Maybe you're working on a different definition of "fraud" than mine, which is:

"The intentional use of deceit, a trick or some dishonest means to deprive another of his/her/its money, property or a legal right." According to law.com, it also "includes failing to point out a known mistake in a contract or other writing...or not revealing a fact..."​
How can it "benefit" them to get less than the original bargained-for price, if they lower their price because of your deception?



> Both parties acting in their own best interests, based on information they are hiding from the other part, to serve their own purpose. TiVO is hiding the fact that the price they advertise is not the price they charge everyone.


How do you figure they're hiding anything from consumers?



> The customer is hiding that he is in fact willing to pay more than the $6.95 if TiVo denies him a lower price. TO me, there's no difference here than if I walk in to a car dealer, and after negotiating a price say "Nope, that's too high for me, I'm leaving" in the hope that the dealer will offer me an even lower price, even if I actually have no intention of leaving.


How is this analogous to shopping for a car, where the price is *understood *to be negotiable (unless you're shopping at Saturn.) No car dealer has a published price that "everyone" pays.

HOWEVER, to use your car dealer analogy, is the car dealer cheating the uninformed consumer who actually pays the MSRP (full sticker price)?

Pete


----------



## MickeS (Dec 26, 2002)

NewYorkLaw said:


> Your logic is flawed. How do you get from your lie to if they offer you a deal there's nothing fraudulent there? How is their reliance on your threat to cancel a "simple" business transaction? Maybe you're working on a different definition of "fraud" than mine, which is:
> 
> "The intentional use of deceit, a trick or some dishonest means to deprive another of his/her/its money, property or a legal right." According to law.com, it also "includes failing to point out a known mistake in a contract or other writing...or not revealing a fact..."​


If I call and pretend I am going to cancel, I am not trying to depriving anyone of money, property or legal right that they are not willing to be deprived of. They do not have to counter-offer. They do not have to do anything but say "OK, we'll cancel your account". All they have to do is treat me like they treat any other customer who calls and says the same thing - it is THEIR choice how to do that.



> How can it "benefit" them to get less than the original bargained-for price, if they lower their price because of your deception?
> --
> How do you figure they're hiding anything from consumers?


They are offering customers a lower price every day, without mentioning that they do in fact not necessarily charge $12.95/month even for your first TiVo. Obviously they feel it's beneficial to lower the price if a customer says he will cancel. They wouldn't do it otherwise.



> How is this analogous to shopping for a car, where the price is *understood *to be negotiable (unless you're shopping at Saturn.) No car dealer has a published price that "everyone" pays.


It is analogous for the resasons I mentioned above...


> HOWEVER, to use your car dealer analogy, is the car dealer cheating the uninformed consumer who actually pays the MSRP (full sticker price)?


No, he's not, of course. Which is exactly what I'm arguing - that TiVo and the customer both have the right to accept or reject thre offered price.


----------



## timckelley (Oct 15, 2002)

Some deception in business dealing is normal practice. Example: you're shopping for a car, you offer a low price saying that's the highest you'll go, even though in your mind you know that if the dealer insists on a higher price, you would actually go higher. But you deceptively tell him this is your top price in hopes he'll sell it to you for that.

Dishonest? Yes
A lie? Yes
Unethical? Probably not.


----------



## NewYorkLaw (Dec 9, 2005)

timckelley said:


> Dishonest? Yes
> A lie? Yes
> Unethical? Probably not.


I agree with these distinctions. 
Pete


----------



## timckelley (Oct 15, 2002)

Now, here's a lie that ventures farther into the unethical territory, but not everybody might think so. Suppose you tell a dealer that you found the same car elsewhere for $x, and that he needs to match that price or you're going to buy it at the other place. And then, relying on your story, he matches that price. Is that unethical?


----------



## NewYorkLaw (Dec 9, 2005)

timckelley said:


> Now, here's a lie that ventures farther into the unethical territory, but not everybody might think so. Suppose you tell a dealer that you found the same car elsewhere for $x, and that he needs to match that price or you're going to buy it at the other place. And then, relying on your story, he matches that price. Is that unethical?


Not unethical in my opinion. 
Dealer has an opportunity to check your story (and call your bluff), if he desires. Otherwise, he agrees to play the game.
Pete


----------



## Stormspace (Apr 13, 2004)

NewYorkLaw said:


> Nah, don't worry... the Gulf of Mexico is outside my jurisdiction.
> Pete


LOL!


----------



## Stormspace (Apr 13, 2004)

One thing to note is that in the US all prices are negotiable if you can get the seller to agree on the price you want to pay. The sticker is the suggested retail price. I've negotiated prices down in several retail outlets in the past simply by asking, or pointing out a flaw. It doesn't always work, but you get no where if you don't try.


----------



## Stormspace (Apr 13, 2004)

NewYorkLaw said:


> I agree with these distinctions.
> Pete


A lie is a lie.


----------



## NewYorkLaw (Dec 9, 2005)

Stormspace said:


> A lie is a lie.


Living up to your tagline "Disruptive Influence," I see. I'm just hoping to end this thread, I feel like we're beating a dead horse. 
Pete


----------



## timckelley (Oct 15, 2002)

Stormspace said:


> A lie is a lie.


Wow. So if you're willing to pay 25K for a car, it would be against your ethics to tell the salesman that you'll only go as high as 21K? Oh well.


----------



## Stormspace (Apr 13, 2004)

timckelley said:


> Wow. So if you're willing to pay 25K for a car, it would be against your ethics to tell the salesman that you'll only go as high as 21K? Oh well.


No way! I don't have a problem with negotiation tactics. I was just pointing out some peoples hipocracy in justifying a car purchase negotiation while denouncing other types of negotiations, like the TiVo deal. However 6 bucks isn't enough to worry about unless the service or product I'm getting is bad in some way. (Note the wal-mart incident in the earlier post where I spent an hour of my time to get a $7.46 discount.) Admittly the TiVo sub discount would be a great deal more savings, but Tivo is a good service and they give me a product that works despite what others may be reporting.


----------



## NewYorkLaw (Dec 9, 2005)

Stormspace said:


> No way! I don't have a problem with negotiation tactics. I was just pointing out some peoples hipocracy in justifying a car purchase negotiation while denouncing other types of negotiations, like the TiVo deal. However 6 bucks isn't enough to worry about unless the service or product I'm getting is bad in some way. (Note the wal-mart incident in the earlier post where I spent an hour of my time to get a $7.46 discount.) Admittly the TiVo sub discount would be a great deal more savings, but Tivo is a good service and they give me a product that works despite what others may be reporting.


How can you compare negotiating the price of a car purchase with negotiations "like the tivo deal" where you lie to a company in order to (attempt to) force their hand and have them offer you a better deal?

Here, you're not talking about negotiating a price of something you *want *to buy -- you're lying to a company that you already have a contract with in the hopes they'll give you a better deal because they fear you will leave.

It's really not the same thing.

Pete


----------



## timckelley (Oct 15, 2002)

NewYorkLaw said:


> How can you compare negotiating the price of a car purchase with negotiations "like the tivo deal" where you lie to a company in order to (attempt to) force their hand and have them offer you a better deal?
> 
> Here, you're not talking about negotiating a price of something you *want *to buy -- you're lying to a company that you already have a contract with in the hopes they'll give you a better deal because they fear you will leave.
> 
> ...


True, it's not exactly the same thing, but it's close enough for analogy purposes.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

timckelley said:


> True, it's not exactly the same thing, but it's close enough for analogy purposes.


no - the price was not agreed to yet. and actually many would word it "I will pay you 21,000" and that is not a lie.

if you called TiVo and said "I will pay you 6.95 a month for service on a first TiVo" that is not a lie.

but if you say "I will only go to 21,000" knowing you would pay more that is a lie but you do not have an agreed price yet and it is a situation where it is known you are both working out the terms of the deal. one Side is not unaware of the true negotation. that however is a bad negotiation tactic since if you go over 21,000 then you are found out.

when you call to "cancel service" one side *is unaware* of the real negotiation being done. If you called and said "I want to only pay 6.95 for service" that is not a lie and the negotiation is clear to both sides just like the car dealer example


----------



## Stormspace (Apr 13, 2004)

NewYorkLaw said:


> How can you compare negotiating the price of a car purchase with negotiations "like the tivo deal" where you lie to a company in order to (attempt to) force their hand and have them offer you a better deal?
> 
> Here, you're not talking about negotiating a price of something you *want *to buy -- you're lying to a company that you already have a contract with in the hopes they'll give you a better deal because they fear you will leave.
> 
> ...


I'm Sorry. But I don't have a contract with TiVo. I suppose I might if I was under a year of service, but since the termns of the contract are subject to change without notice the same should apply to me as well. 

Oh, your talking about the terms of Service? No really. The only power I have in the service agreement is the right to cancel. No where does it say I can renegotiate for a smaller fee. So, the customer only has one option to renegotiate the price by the terms of the agreement and thats cancellation. If TiVo wants to extend the revised pricing opportunity at that time they can as is their right.


----------



## NewYorkLaw (Dec 9, 2005)

ZeoTiVo said:


> no - the price was not agreed to yet. and actually many would word it "I will pay you 21,000" and that is not a lie.
> 
> if you called TiVo and said "I will pay you 6.95 a month for service on a first TiVo" that is not a lie.
> 
> ...


Well said, thanks.
Pete


----------



## NewYorkLaw (Dec 9, 2005)

Stormspace said:


> I'm Sorry. But I don't have a contract with TiVo. I suppose I might if I was under a year of service, but since the termns of the contract are subject to change without notice the same should apply to me as well.


Believe it or not, if you pay them each month and they provide a service, that's a service contract.


> Oh, your talking about the terms of Service? No really. The only power I have in the service agreement is the right to cancel. No where does it say I can renegotiate for a smaller fee.


EXACTLY my point. 


> So, the customer only has one option to renegotiate the price by the terms of the agreement and thats cancellation.


 Or "threatening" to cancel.


> If TiVo wants to extend the revised pricing opportunity at that time they can as is their right.


You just don't get it. I'm giving up.
Pete


----------



## Stormspace (Apr 13, 2004)

NewYorkLaw said:


> Believe it or not, if you pay them each month and they provide a service, that's a service contract.
> 
> EXACTLY my point.
> Or "threatening" to cancel.
> ...


I GET it. the difference is you are lumping me in with those that would call lying about cancellation. If I called to cancel I'd mean it, and depending on the response from the CSR and any offers they would make would I consider keeping the service. It would have to be a convincing attempt to mollify me though.


----------



## NewYorkLaw (Dec 9, 2005)

Stormspace said:


> I GET it. the difference is you are lumping me in with those that would call lying about cancellation. If I called to cancel I'd mean it, and depending on the response from the CSR and any offers they would make would I consider keeping the service. It would have to be a convincing attempt to mollify me though.


Earlier in this thread you already said 


> The only power I have in the service agreement is the right to cancel*. No where does it say I can renegotiate for a smaller fee.* [*emphasis *my own] So, the customer only has one option to renegotiate the price by the terms of the agreement and thats cancellation. If TiVo wants to extend the revised pricing opportunity at that time they can as is their right.


Sorry, but I still do not view pretending to want to cancel as "negotiating."
Pete


----------



## Stormspace (Apr 13, 2004)

NewYorkLaw said:


> Earlier in this thread you already said
> 
> Sorry, but I still do not view pretending to want to cancel as "negotiating."
> Pete


It's a legal option since Service agreements typically favor the provider. Any price can be negotiated, and threatening to cancel is a tactic to get there. AOL used to give free hours when ppl called to cancel, my cell provider has given me free minutes when I called to complain about coverage or tower issues. It's something a company does to retain ppl and they have a right to do that. Threatening to cancel IS a negotiation tactic, whether or not it's ethical is the issue.


----------

