# Are they trying to Drive customers away?



## nelsonrl (Jan 7, 2005)

Just got my replacement HR10-250 through my extended warranty. DirecTV had nothing to do with this replacement. I originally purchased through VE. Just looked at my bill online and see that my owned receiver is now leased. On the phone with customer retention and even hearing from them that all equipment is leased. I will consider this leased when DirecTV refunds my original purchase price - not until then. 

Guess its a good thing the car companies do not operate this way. If you take your car in for warranty service, pick it up and it becomes a leased car. What a concept. Wonder why I didn't think of this business model.


----------



## scott blair (Apr 14, 2003)

I give it less than 2 years before we're all notified that we're part of a Class Action suit settlement with DTV over their lease program.


----------



## nelsonrl (Jan 7, 2005)

scott blair said:


> I give it less than 2 years before we're all notified that we're part of a Class Action suit settlement with DTV over their lease program.


Never been a fan of class actions, but this may be the one.


----------



## nelsonrl (Jan 7, 2005)

Quick update - called back three times - finally got someone to change it back to an "owned" receiver. They did say that if I had to have another replacement under warranty that it would be leased. I guess that is OK.... AS SOON AS THEY REFUND MY ORIGINAL PURCHASE PRICE OF OVER $800.00 FOR THE RECEIVER.


This was not how I planned to spend Saturday evening - arguing with DirecTV. What a bunch of bozo's


----------



## ShiningBengal (Mar 19, 2001)

nelsonrl said:


> Just got my replacement HR10-250 through my extended warranty. DirecTV had nothing to do with this replacement. I orginally purchased through VE. Just looked at my bill online and see that my owned receiver is now leased. On the phone with customer retension and even hearing from them that all equipment is leased. I will consider this leased when DirecTV refunds my orginal purchase price - not until then.
> 
> Guess its a good thing the car companies do not operate this way. If you take your car in for warranty service, pick it up and it becomes a leased car. What a concept. Wonder why I didn't think of this business model.


Why waste your breath? They have to prove it's theirs. You don't have to prove it isn't.


----------



## TyroneShoes (Sep 6, 2004)

> Are they trying to Drive customers away?


It would not surprise me if Rupert himself has asked this question. He appears non too pleased with the direction of DTV, to the point of possibly trading it off for NewsCorp stock he does not currently own, and referring to it as his "Turd Bird". It's easy to see why.


----------



## nelsonrl (Jan 7, 2005)

Interesting thing is one of the reps told me that the current policy is...
"even if you paid for the device at a retail store, as long as you cannot prove that you paid more than $700.00 for it, it is considered leased equipment".

So, go to BestBuy, Circuit City, etc, buy a directv receiver and DirecTV does not consider the device yours. That is amazing to me. I hope GE, Maytag, Sony and others do not catch on, we will never own another appliance or electronic device again under the directv model.


----------



## jhimmel (Dec 27, 2002)

nelsonrl said:


> Interesting thing is one of the reps told me that the current policy is...
> "even if you paid for the device at a retail store, as long as you cannot prove that you paid more than $700.00 for it, it is considered leased equipment".


If I didn't sign a lease agreement, there is no lease agreement.


----------



## Galley_SimRacer (Mar 1, 2002)

Yeah, I thought I could use a 10% off coupon at Circuit City, but they said it didn't apply to leased equipment. Aaargh!


----------



## gastrof (Oct 31, 2003)

Galley_SimRacer said:


> Yeah, I thought I could use a 10% off coupon at Circuit City, but they said it didn't apply to leased equipment. Aaargh!


And did they also give you this piece of equipment for free at the start of your "lease" arrangement?

This is stupid.

If you buy the thing it's yours.

I'd like to see the fine print that advises new buyers "Despite the price you're paying, this is just for the privilege of being allowed to rent it from us. It'll never be your property and you're out big bucks."


----------



## hpfeifer (Feb 21, 2002)

Could not find the answer in a search. Where do I locate the leased/owned statement on-line (without waiting for next months bill). I am waiting for a standard definition DirecTV with TIVO unit to be replaced under the $7.99 DirecTV warranty program. The customer service guy told me I did not have to return the broken unit since "I owned it". That makes me think I'll end up with a leased unit and an extended contract. He did not seem to understand when I asked him if the the replacement unit was going to be "leased". [He also did not seem to get the idea that somebody would have done basic troubleshooting, like unplugging the unit for a while, prior to calling DirecTV]. If the unit ends up as a least unit I am starting to wonder what I am paying the warranty program fee for. Thanks for the help.


----------



## aphex187 (Aug 29, 2004)

My biggest frustration with this is that you walk in to best buy and pay $300 for a receiver, it shows up as LEASED so you never even own it and then you have to sign into a 2 year agreement.

Talk about getting your cake and eating it too.


----------



## SkyviewGuru (Oct 2, 2006)

[All answers below are believed to be accurate as of the time of the writing. All DIRECTV policy/procedures are subject to change.]


hpfeifer said:


> Where do I locate the leased/owned statement on-line (without waiting for next months bill).


Once logging into your account at DIRECTV's website, a link that says "recent activity" will show you transactions posting after your latest bill. You can call DIRECTV and ask as well. All agents should have access to this information.



hpfeifer said:


> I am waiting for a standard definition DirecTV with TIVO unit to be replaced under the $7.99 DirecTV warranty program. The customer service guy told me I did not have to return the broken unit since "I owned it". That makes me think I'll end up with a leased unit and an extended contract.


When covered under the DIRECTV Protection Plan, any replacements made by the plan will keep the same ownership tag as the original. In addition, technical replacements covered by the plan do _not_ alter the expiration of your contract. The Protection Plan also covers shipping/handling fees on replacements covered by the plan whether leased or owned.

The system that is used to take your order establishes the ownership tag of your replacement at the time of order. If an error is made in activation with the tags, it can easily be corrected. The Access Card department can assist you in this matter. Do not ask for Retention; they don't have the access to change this.

The technical equipment replacement procedure regarding returning or not returning the equipment is not really based on the ownership tag. DIRECTV recovers certain models for refurbishing and the remaining models are up to you to dispose. All models that are available for lease are models recovered for refurbishing.



hpfeifer said:


> He did not seem to understand when I asked him if the the replacement unit was going to be "leased". [He also did not seem to get the idea that somebody would have done basic troubleshooting, like unplugging the unit for a while, prior to calling DirecTV].


The Protection Plan does not handle lease/own issues. Their sole purpose is to troubleshoot your problems and issue replacements or service calls when needed.

Many customers _do not_ try basic troubleshooting and many of the issues are resolved after doing so. It's only normal procedure for to be asked to reset because the success rate is high and it's best to confirm it has been done before checking less common (more complicated) things.



hpfeifer said:


> If the unit ends up as a least unit I am starting to wonder what I am paying the warranty program fee for. Thanks for the help.


Hope this does help.


----------



## SkyviewGuru (Oct 2, 2006)

[All answers below are believed to be accurate as of the time of the writing. All DIRECTV policy/procedures are subject to change.]


aphex187 said:


> My biggest frustration with this is that you walk in to best buy and pay $300 for a receiver, it shows up as LEASED so you never even own it and then you have to sign into a 2 year agreement.
> 
> Talk about getting your cake and eating it too.


The *upgrade fee* for the HD-DVR is $299, whether purchased with DIRECTV or at retail. With this upgrade fee, you have lifetime coverage for the receiver from DIRECTV with no technical replacement receiver costs. Any costs involved in technical leased receiver replacements are strictly shipping & handling, and DIRECTV waives those shipping/handling fees for customers within the customer ownership warranty period (90 days for standard/DVR/HD systems and 1 year for HD-DVR systems).

In addition, you can get free installation from DIRECTV if you need either an upgraded dish or dual lines run for your HD-DVR system.

Optionally, instead of paying an upgrade fee, you can buy the receiver from DIRECTV for substantially more than the upgrade fee (currently $749) and own the receiver. No contract applies under this option as nothing is subsidized. You're covered for the customer ownership warranty period, and thereafter those without the Protection Plan are responsible for the replacement costs and shipping/handling fees applicable at that time, just as you would if you bought any other appliance.

Customer owned replacements provided by DIRECTV outside of the warranty period require renewal of contract (unless you buy another owned receiver at the substantially higher rate--provided this option is still available at that time).

Also, since nothing is subsidized when you own the equipment, DIRECTV charges to upgrade the satellite dish and for the installation of dual lines for your HD-DVR system.


----------



## kturcotte (Dec 9, 2002)

If I wanted to order a DVR from my cable company, they'd bring me one for no fee, and I pay just $7 month rental/lease fee. Same for their HD DVR. So Directv is charging $300 why?


----------



## SpankyInChicago (May 13, 2005)

kturcotte said:


> If I wanted to order a DVR from my cable company, they'd bring me one for no fee, and I pay just $7 month rental/lease fee. Same for their HD DVR. So Directv is charging $300 why?


Because they are a company that won't be in business in 10 years.

DirecTV scared the crap out of cable 10 years ago. In that 10 years DirecTV allowed it edge to shrink and cable got their act together. In many situations, cable is now the premium service. DirecTV is now the "low end" solution.

While cable companies are looking for ways to add the Tivo interface to their product, DirecTV worked hard to get rid of it as a cost saving measure.

While cable companies offer free equipment (in terms of upfront costs) and no contracts, DirecTV needs to increase revenue by charging for equipment upfront and locking in a revenue stream for two years.

While coax and fiber offer cable companies plenty of bandwidth growth in the future at relatively low capital costs, DirecTV will always suffer from bandwidth shortcomings and massively expensive costs for each increase in bandwidth.

I've been a DirecTV customer for almost 11 years. I have never been a "fanboy" of any particular technology and have always changed technologies when there were cost / value advantages to doing so. The time for me to change from DirecTV to cable is fast approaching. Hell, I might have changed by now if the Tivo Series III hadn't been such a let down of a product.

I know there are DirecTV fanboys still, but I really believe that the only people for which DirecTV continues to offer an advantage are those in BFE or those with an ass-backwards cable company.

I think the final nail in the DirecTV coffin will probably come when the NFL Sunday Ticket ends up available through cable outlets.


----------



## JoeSchueller (Jun 16, 2004)

SpankyInChicago said:


> While cable companies are looking for ways to add the Tivo interface to their product, DirecTV worked hard to get rid of it as a cost saving measure.
> 
> While cable companies offer free equipment (in terms of upfront costs) and no contracts, DirecTV needs to increase revenue by charging for equipment upfront and locking in a revenue stream for two years.


Do you have any evidence that the Comcast promise is any closer to becoming reality? Is there an announced timeline or product demonstration available? Also, do you know of any other CableCo's outside Comcast planning on adding TiVo software?


SpankyInChicago said:


> I know there are DirecTV fanboys still, but I really believe that the only people for which DirecTV continues to offer an advantage are those in BFE or those with an ass-backwards cable company.
> 
> I think the final nail in the DirecTV coffin will probably come when the NFL Sunday Ticket ends up available through cable outlets.


There are many (myself included) who view Time Warner as a company they have no interest in doing business with. I would prefer to see my hard-earned dollars go anywhere else. They seem intent on limiting consumer choice and pimping out their customers at every turn. I'm much more offended by them trying to kill cable card so they can advertise on their EPG than D* charging me for equipment.

I highly doubt you'll ever see Sunday Ticket anywhere else. The NFL knows that the value in that package is in exclusivity and they know it keeps the networks and affiliates off their back by keeping it exclusive to D*. D* also knows what it is worth and will pay top dollar to retain it.


----------



## Sir_winealot (Nov 18, 2000)

SpankyInChicago said:


> Hell, I might have changed by now if the Tivo Series III hadn't been such a let down of a product.


Being cost prohibitive is one the reasons I wouldn't switch at this time. I've got 3 HR10's hooked up to 3 HDTV's ...along w/3 more SD TiVo's. With all the credits I was given, the most I paid was for my recent HR10 ...$149.

Having DVR's on almost every set in the house is great (we have a big house), but it would cost me major $$ to have a similar setup with cable (we have Bright House here) and S3.

Granted, I'd expect prices to come down as time passes, and technology improves...and when somebody offers me some sort of package to swap out everything while retaining the viewing level I now have ...I'll jump at it.

I'd love to go w/the Series 3 and cable down the road ...but if I were to do that right now, it would run me well over $2K!


----------



## bonscott87 (Oct 3, 2000)

kturcotte said:


> If I wanted to order a DVR from my cable company, they'd bring me one for no fee, and I pay just $7 month rental/lease fee. Same for their HD DVR. So Directv is charging $300 why?


Perhaps because the cable DVR usually sucks? 

It's $300 if people will pay for it. That simple. When people don't want to pay for it then the price will be lowered. In either case in a year or more the price will certainly be less anyway. But again, if people weren't flocking to buy it for $300 and they wouldn't keep selling out then they wouldn't charge it.


----------



## SpankyInChicago (May 13, 2005)

JoeSchueller said:


> Do you have any evidence that the Comcast promise is any closer to becoming reality? Is there an announced timeline or product demonstration available? Also, do you know of any other CableCo's outside Comcast planning on adding TiVo software?There are many (myself included) who view Time Warner as a company they have no interest in doing business with. I would prefer to see my hard-earned dollars go anywhere else. They seem intent on limiting consumer choice and pimping out their customers at every turn. I'm much more offended by them trying to kill cable card so they can advertise on their EPG than D* charging me for equipment.
> 
> I highly doubt you'll ever see Sunday Ticket anywhere else. The NFL knows that the value in that package is in exclusivity and they know it keeps the networks and affiliates off their back by keeping it exclusive to D*. D* also knows what it is worth and will pay top dollar to retain it.


Like I said, there are always going to be DirecTV loyalists. And a lot will certainly depend on your cable company, and that is why I made no absolute statements. Your philosophical points on dealing with certain companies are valid, which is another reason why I would like to move away from DirecTV since it is owned by the same criminal who owns the criminal Fox "news" channel and supports the criminal in chief. So you not wanting to deal with Time Warner for privacy concerns are valid and respectable, but you and I are in the minority when it comes to not dealing with companies on philosophical issues.

In terms of the availability of the Tivo Comcast unit, you know as much as I do. But my point was nothing more than that Comcast and Cox are both in deals with Tivo to add the service while DirecTV has disowned Tivo. While the Comcast and Cox units are not yet available, the promise of them being available is certainly greater than the promise of them ever being available from DirecTV.

I disagree with your position on the NFL. They will go wherever the most money can be made. The NFL has no allegiance to anyone (please see how they kicked CBS to the curb a few years back). DirecTV does not have an endless supply of money. I could certainly see a situation where cable outbid DirecTV. And the exclusivity could be maintained by limiting the service to a single provider in each market, although I don't think that is so much a big deal.

Anyway, one of us will be wrong in about 10 years.


----------



## Jon J (Aug 23, 2000)

SkyviewGuru said:


> [All answers below are believed to be accurate as of the time of the writing. All DIRECTV policy/procedures are subject to change.]
> 
> In addition, technical replacements covered by the plan do _not_ alter the expiration of your contract.


Maybe I could get you to do battle for me. I was informed last week that DTV started the clock on a new 2 year programming committment after the Protection Plan replaced a failed HR10-250 last April. I'm in the throes of trying to get that committment removed. No luck yet. :down:


----------



## JoeSchueller (Jun 16, 2004)

SpankyInChicago said:


> I could certainly see a situation where cable outbid DirecTV. And the exclusivity could be maintained by limiting the service to a single provider in each market, although I don't think that is so much a big deal.
> 
> Anyway, one of us will be wrong in about 10 years.


The problem for the CableCo's is that, while they don't actually COMPETE, they also can't COLLABORATE. The only way the situation you describe works is if a 3rd party buys the rights and sells it independently to the CableCo's or the NFL elects to manage deals with multiple vendors. This isn't going to happen. While the rights to broadcast the game are owned by the NFL, they'll be the first to tell you they don't have the capability to actually broadcast the games. For that, they rely on the networks to handle covering the games. This, of course, represents such a good deal to the networks, that they gladly pay to do so. Furthermore, since D* is in the business of rebroadcasting in all the NFL markets, they have centralized access to every game every week. They're the only ones (besides Dish) who can claim this, so it is simple for the NFL to bid this out between D* and Dish. Cable co's would individually have to set up infrastructure to get the games not intended for their local market(s) each week. While not technically difficult, it requires new franchising agreements and other capability that would drive the collective cost up to make it difficult to match D*'s offer.

Don't forget, D* just passes the cost of the ST licensing and bandwidth to the consumers, so as long as people will pay for it, they do have very deep pockets.

The problem that we're really talking about here is CHOICE and COMPETITION. Politicians have found it far easier to line their pockets with the cash from the copyright cartels and telco monopolies than to provide consumer choice. If we really could choose to buy the content we wanted for the device(s) we wanted, via the distribution method(s) we wanted, I doubt D* or the CableCo's would be in business long without SIGNIFICANTLY rethinking how they treat customers.

People without choices aren't customers, they're constituents.


----------



## HomieG (Feb 17, 2003)

bonscott87 said:


> Perhaps because the cable DVR usually sucks?
> 
> It's $300 if people will pay for it. That simple. When people don't want to pay for it then the price will be lowered. In either case in a year or more the price will certainly be less anyway. But again, if people weren't flocking to buy it for $300 and they wouldn't keep selling out then they wouldn't charge it.


I've had a Comcast/Motorola 3412 for 3+ months now. Zero problems. Yes, many others did suck. And this cable DVR records real HD, not the crap that DirecTV wants you to believe is HD. But since you said because the cable DVR usually sucks, and that isn't absolute, I won't argue 

I agree with so many who imply that DirecTV is losing it. In the last six months I've heard a lot of people switching back to cable. Sure they're not ST fans, but not everybody is. Eventually the NFL will license ST to cable companies...it's in their greedy self-interest to do so. There are still many more cable subscribers than satellite subscribers, so there's a fan base they aren't reaching, and eventually will. But that's a guess at best. Time will tell.


----------



## SpankyInChicago (May 13, 2005)

JoeSchueller said:


> The problem for the CableCo's is that, while they don't actually COMPETE, they also can't COLLABORATE. The only way the situation you describe works is if a 3rd party buys the rights and sells it independently to the CableCo's or the NFL elects to manage deals with multiple vendors. This isn't going to happen. While the rights to broadcast the game are owned by the NFL, they'll be the first to tell you they don't have the capability to actually broadcast the games. For that, they rely on the networks to handle covering the games. This, of course, represents such a good deal to the networks, that they gladly pay to do so. Furthermore, since D* is in the business of rebroadcasting in all the NFL markets, they have centralized access to every game every week. They're the only ones (besides Dish) who can claim this, so it is simple for the NFL to bid this out between D* and Dish. Cable co's would individually have to set up infrastructure to get the games not intended for their local market(s) each week. While not technically difficult, it requires new franchising agreements and other capability that would drive the collective cost up to make it difficult to match D*'s offer.


Good points. I should have given the technology aspect a little more thought.

I still think that DirecTV shouldn't assume a lock on that product. If someone else in the market thinks they can make money doing it, they will compete. In addition, if one of the few things keeping DirecTV from sinking is holding onto NFLST . . .


----------



## JoeSchueller (Jun 16, 2004)

Lucky for me, the total implosion of the Packers has obliterated my need for Sunday ticket. If it wasn't for ESPN college football and basketball, I'd be considering dumping D* all together and going with a combo of OTA and BitTorrent on a HTPC.


----------



## bonscott87 (Oct 3, 2000)

HomieG said:


> I agree with so many who imply that DirecTV is losing it. In the last six months I've heard a lot of people switching back to cable. Sure they're not ST fans, but not everybody is. Eventually the NFL will license ST to cable companies...it's in their greedy self-interest to do so. There are still many more cable subscribers than satellite subscribers, so there's a fan base they aren't reaching, and eventually will. But that's a guess at best. Time will tell.


Cable has been catching up no doubt. And if they are a better option then you'd be dumb to not switch. If cable was a good option in my area I'd be looking at it too. And that is still the story for much of the country, cable still sucks unless you are lucky.

It's already a known that DirecTV and Dish are starting to hit the wall with new subs and there isn't much market left to grow. So it's simply going to be churn between the 2 and cable and FIOS in the future to whom can offer the best channels at the best price for each individual and that will be different for everyone from area to area and what their interests are (NFL ST for example).


----------



## John T Smith (Jun 17, 2004)

Had DirecTv for about 10 years with very few problems... occasional signal fade due to heavy rain or snow (Washougal WA) but overall very happy with the service, and wife was THRILLED when I replaced 3 of the 4 regular boxes with DTivo so SHE could figure out how to record a show and not have to call me over to start the VCR

Sold house last fall and living in rental while we build (in Vancouver WA) and now using Comcast cable and their DVR boxes... they work "ok" most of the time, but there are actually MORE signal problems with cable than we had with satellite

I wired the new house (central distribution panel with a Spaun 2x12 multiswitch, to have 2 coax to each of 6 locations, only 4 will be active) and have purchased a new HR10-250 for the theater room wife added to the new house... still only planning on SD signal, but with 200 hours of recording time on the HR10-250, we will be able to build up a LARGE library of recorded movies to watch in our new theater

Having had DirecTv and now on Cable due to being in a rental... I can say that DirecTv w/Tivo is FAR better than Cable w/DVR


----------

