# CLASS ACTION TIME, for the HR-10 OTA internal cable and splitter Manufacturing defect



## imadvaddict (Jan 19, 2007)

See the "Recommended fix for HR10-250 improve OTA signal strength" thread


It is high time for a class action suit, and demand they correct this defect in "all" the HR-10's. With a proper splitter and internal cables.


----------



## litzdog911 (Oct 18, 2002)

This problem only affects a very very small number of HR10-250's. Having a loose connector inside yours hardly justifies a "class action" lawsuit. Geez.


----------



## Leila (Apr 28, 2006)

DirecTV has been offering free solution to this problem for a while... 
They will give you a free replacement HD DVR, the HR20.


----------



## Billy66 (Dec 15, 2003)

Have a blast paper champion.


----------



## GreyGhost00 (Mar 11, 2004)

Let me know how that goes for you.


----------



## smimi10 (May 11, 2006)

imadvaddict said:


> See the "Recommended fix for HR10-250 improve OTA signal strength" thread
> 
> It is high time for a class action suit, and demand they correct this defect in "all" the HR-10's. With a proper splitter and internal cables.


My HR10-250 is fine. But let us know how it works out for you. 

Mike


----------



## bsandy (Jan 26, 2007)

Actually . . . I'm a bit pissed that they introduced the OTA/Fox audio dropout problem, and took so long to fix it. I was blaming my dual antenna setup and spent alot of time un-diplexing and join-tennaing around it to no avail.

I haven't noticed any audio dropout, since 6.3b (new girlfriend, and I'm not home a lot), but it's locked up 3 times in the last 3 weeks.

. . . Bud


----------



## JimSpence (Sep 19, 2001)

I have to ask why this thread was created when the one the OP referred to is still open.


----------



## mr.unnatural (Feb 2, 2006)

Nice. Give DirecTV more reasons why you should have an HR20 instead of the HR10-250. If this thread was posted at DDB it would have made it to the sewer by now.


----------



## kcmurphy88 (Jul 5, 2003)

imadvaddict said:


> See the "Recommended fix for HR10-250 improve OTA signal strength" thread
> 
> It is high time for a class action suit, and demand they correct this defect in "all" the HR-10's. With a proper splitter and internal cables.


Geez, buy a screwdriver.


----------



## JimSpence (Sep 19, 2001)

This has to be right up there with other stupid topics.


----------



## ShiningBengal (Mar 19, 2001)

imadvaddict said:


> See the "Recommended fix for HR10-250 improve OTA signal strength" thread
> 
> It is high time for a class action suit, and demand they correct this defect in "all" the HR-10's. With a proper splitter and internal cables.


Did anyone ever tell you that you are a nutcake?

There is not a legal cure for every ill. If there were there would only be lawyers and no clients. Then they could sue each other all day long, and all get richer in the process.


----------



## TyroneShoes (Sep 6, 2004)

bsandy said:


> Actually . . . I'm a bit pissed that they introduced the OTA/Fox audio dropout problem, and took so long to fix it. I was blaming my dual antenna setup and spent alot of time un-diplexing and join-tennaing around it to no avail.
> 
> I haven't noticed any audio dropout, since 6.3b...


You really should have said something. When audio drops but video stays, even if it glitches momentarily on return, that is not ever related to reception, and we would have been happy to save you the trouble of wondering/tinkering. Fiddling with the antenna system would be the equivalent of jacking up your car because it ran out of gas. Also, the fact that doing what you did had no affect, yet a software up rev cured it, kind of proves the point.

But even though you might have been on the wrong track, that's pretty innocent stuff and completely forgiveable, especially compared to the idea put forth by the OP.


----------



## imadvaddict (Jan 19, 2007)

You all must have a nice time flaming legitimate claims. Get off your high horses and a college education in engineering might help. 

There is a manufacturing and material problem with this particular unit. We just opened up three more unit's in our local area today from personal acquaintances whom happen to have the HR 10-250. We should find many more before the end of the weekend. They all have the same defect. The internal cables are all RG-56 and not satisfactorily connected in 3 out of 4 units so far. 

The install specifications call for a QUAD SHIELD RG-6 feed to this unit , yet the manufacturer compromised the internal components of the incoming signal with improper cable and a poor splitter. 

This is an engineering error that could not have been overlooked, they knew about it. But they decided to save nickels at our expense. 


This is clearly beginning to appear that this is not just an early model problem. The four units (including mine) all were installed within the last nine months.


----------



## imadvaddict (Jan 19, 2007)

JimSpence said:


> This has to be right up there with other stupid topics.


Read on Jim this ones not going away. No POO POO'ing is going to happen on this one. A manufacturing defect "is" apparent on this one.


----------



## litzdog911 (Oct 18, 2002)

imadvaddict said:


> You all must have a nice time flaming legitimate claims. Get off your high horses and a college education in engineering might help.
> 
> There is a manufacturing and material problem with this particular unit. We just opened up three more unit's in our local area today from personal acquaintances whom happen to have the HR 10-250. We should find many more before the end of the weekend. They all have the same defect. The internal cables are all RG-56 and not satisfactorily connected in 3 out of 4 units so far.
> 
> ...


If I have an Electrical Engineering degree, does my opinion count? I do, and I still think your claim has no basis in fact.

There's nothing wrong with using a short length of RG59 to connect the internal tuners and splitter. The only possible "weakness" in the design is the connectors used on those cables, which do sometime cause impedance matching or intermittent problems, but often. Certainly not often enough to justify a class action lawsuit.


----------



## newsposter (Aug 18, 2002)

JimSpence said:


> This has to be right up there with other stupid topics.


there are stupid topics on this board? I find them all highly informative and...oh heck, i guess my boots don't even go that high...forget it

of course we have to realize if you feed it, it grows


----------



## JimSpence (Sep 19, 2001)

I knew I'd get a few replies to my remark. Thus the


----------



## wkearney99 (Dec 5, 2003)

imadvaddict said:


> It is high time for a class action suit, and demand they correct this defect in "all" the HR-10's. With a proper splitter and internal cables.


Yeah, right. It's clear DirecTV does give a rat's a$$ about whether customers want to retain using a Tivo-based device. They've abandoned use of Tivo software and are forcing use of their house branded device instead. So given THAT arrogance it seems rather pointless to complain about the OTA issues.

And a class action would gain, what? The company already offers a solution, upgrade to a HR20 non-Tivo-based device. Of course they couple that with the whole lease and two year commitment foolishness.

Basically, if you like using Tivo it's clear DirecTV is no longer a viable option. Switch to another provider. If Verizon or Comcast get around to actually shipping a Tivo-based solution we'll drop DirecTV like a dirty diaper.


----------



## tgibbs (Sep 22, 2002)

TyroneShoes said:


> You really should have said something. When audio drops but video stays, even if it glitches momentarily on return, that is not ever related to reception, and we would have been happy to save you the trouble of wondering/tinkering. Fiddling with the antenna system would be the equivalent of jacking up your car because it ran out of gas. Also, the fact that doing what you did had no affect, yet a software up rev cured it, kind of proves the point.
> 
> But even though you might have been on the wrong track, that's pretty innocent stuff and completely forgiveable, especially compared to the idea put forth by the OP.


Huh? The main symptom that I've noticed with mild weather interference is audio drop out, often with only a minor video glitch. I've never seen this in the absence of weather.


----------



## Turtleboy (Mar 24, 2001)

imadvaddict said:


> You all must have a nice time flaming legitimate claims. Get off your high horses and a college education in engineering might help.


I don't have a college education in engineering. I do however, have a law degree (two, actually).

And thus, I say  to you and this thread.


----------



## Sir_winealot (Nov 18, 2000)

I say go for it. You get it started and the rest of us will 'follow suit.'

We'll all get filthy rich.


----------



## Fish Man (Mar 4, 2002)

Another Electrical Engineer (with RF design experience) checking in:

8 inches of RG59 instead of RG6 in an application like this? Irrelevant! The difference in loss between RG59 and RG6 in an application like this is too small to measure, even with very sensitive equipment. Remember, too, we're talking about UHF and VHF terrestrial broadcast frequencies on these particular cables, and no DC bias voltage. Much less demanding than the satellite downlink.

Poorly attached connectors on those cables? Yes, on a small percentage. Rather inevitable in a mass production environment, and usually only degrading the signal by a few dB; typically only notacable in weak signal conditions. (In other words, in most cases, aiming your antenna a little better will do as much good as replacing the cables.)

If you're one of the small percent of people who got internal cables with poor connectors *and* your signal strength is marginal enough that it matters, that's why the box has a warranty. Or, if you have a modicum of technical ability, pop the top and replace the cables.

But don't clog up the courts with frivolous suits based on your flawed technical understanding of the matter.


----------



## Da Goon (Oct 22, 2006)

FWIW, an OTA signal is NOT provided by Directv. Therefor, they technically have no reason to include OTA features OTHER than consumer satisfaction.

If you get your lawsuit going, let me know. I'd like to sue Dodge. One local radio station here doesn't come in worth a damn in my Dodge vehicle, but in my Ford Explorer it comes in great. Unsatisfactory.


----------



## captain_video (Mar 1, 2002)

> The install specifications call for a QUAD SHIELD RG-6 feed to this unit , yet the manufacturer compromised the internal components of the incoming signal with improper cable and a poor splitter.


RG-6 is required only for the satellite input and it doesn't necessarily require quad shield. Foil or braided shield is perfectly adequate for DirecTV signals. Your gripe is with the OTA input which falls well within the bandwidth limitations of RG-59 cable, which you would have known had you had an ounce of technical expertise in this area.

The so-called defect you are talking about has only been experienced by a small percentage of HDTivo owners, as evidenced by the responses in the original thread that addresses this topic. I have worked with dozens of HDTivos and have never had a single problem with any of them related to the OTA RF input. I believe you need a minimum number of complainants before you can file any sort of class action suit. Good luck finding them. 

There are a certain percentage of manufacturing defects in any consumer product that are considered acceptable. I believe this "defect" falls well within this percentage. Besides, how many consumer products have you purchased that you can actually fix yourself for less than the postage required to ship it back to the manufacturer? Has anyone ever been refused service or a replacement unit when reporting this problem? Perhaps, but I'd wager the unit was out of warranty when filing the complaint. DirecTV has always been good about replacing units that were well beyond their warranty period. If a large percentage of HDTivo owners were being told they were SOL then you might actually have a case. Considering that the HDTivo has been out of production for quite some time I'd wager that most units currently in service are out of warranty. As it stands, you simply need to get a life.



> I say go for it. You get it started and the rest of us will 'follow suit.'
> 
> We'll all get filthy rich.


Actually, the likelihood is that you'll get squat and the lawyers will get rich. Lawyers love class action suits when you consider the spoils are divided as follows: one-third goes to the lawyers and the rest gets split between the thousands of plaintiffs that file the suit. Who do you think really wins out in the end? DirecTV or Tivo or whoever gets stuck with the bill will just raise their rates to recover the costs of the suit and then everyone ends up getting screwed in the end. Now that's what I call justice!

FWIW, I get numerous notices about class action suits being filed against some manufacturer that I may have purchased an item from in the past. These notices are usually solicited by some shyster law firm. They go through my shredder real nice!


----------



## TyroneShoes (Sep 6, 2004)

tgibbs said:


> Huh? The main symptom that I've noticed with mild weather interference is audio drop out, often with only a minor video glitch. I've never seen this in the absence of weather.


Coincidence along with rampant conclusion-jumping, I'm afraid. Actually I've never seen a day yet with an absence of weather. But since you asked (I think that "Huh?" qualifies as a question):

Brief interruptions to reception of 8VSB either due to errors caused by interference or insufficient level above the noise floor cause buffer underflow, which typically causes the MPEG decode to stop momentarily, which causes macroblocks to remain on the screen and not be refreshed by new data, that manifestation typically referred to as momentary video pixellation. It can more often than not be accompanied by a mute of the accompanying audio, but rarely if ever will audio mute due to buffer underflow while MPEG video decoding continues unabated. Audio data is interleaved within the same data packets, and loss of packets affects both. Typically, interference affects video more than audio because error correction is less robust for video. Sorry, but that's just the way it works. You can look it up, if you like.

And since it seems to have become important in this thread, yes I can back that up with an engineering degree (plus 30 years of engineering experience much of which is directly related to TV broadcasting and DT).


----------



## TyroneShoes (Sep 6, 2004)

captain_video said:


> RG-6 is required only for the satellite input and it doesn't necessarily require quad shield...


While I sincerely doubt that the OP has the first clue about what might be spec'd for the HR10, this statement is actually only partly right. Actually, RG-59 will even work for DBS, even the kind with only 65% shielding.

Better shielding, such as the 97% shielding in quad, is required only when there is the higher potential for interference. Sat signals do not really compete for spectrum space, other than there are multiple sats sharing the same downlink frequencies. But this is not an issue, and little in the environment that might ingress into the cabling would be at a competing frequency. That implies that shielding is not an issue for sat signals, and indeed that is exactly the case. IOW, use RG-6 with the worst shielding available to wire your house for DBS, and get similar performance to wiring it with the most expensive RG-6. Just separate the cables by a inch or so and all will be fine, or don't and all will still probably be fine.

Another situation where better shielding would not make a significant difference is in the internal wiring from RFDA to tuner. Both cables there are carrying the exact same signal at similar level and phase, so cross egress/ingress would not be an issue, nor would ingress from environmental sources at that level for that short length inside a metal case. Quad-shield in that application buys you exactly no benefit, so I doubt highly that it is spec'd there for any actual good reason, and anyone who actually LEARNED anything while otherwise sleeping thorough obtaining their engineering degree would know this automatically.

Quad is typically used in cable head-ends, where there is a great potential for signals to interfere with each other. In that environment many signals share the same frequencies, and cables typically run paralell to each other for long runs at high signal levels (and I've probably built and maintained enough cable head-ends to have forgotten more about quad than the OP will probably ever know). Even TV stations don't wire their plants with heavily-shielded cable, and I've never seen RF cable inside any device other than the HR10 that wasn't the really-thin 75%-or-less shielded type.

Whether the cables from RFDA to tuner are quad or not is not why there is a problem with the HR10, it is instead usually due to poor connectorization or loose RCA connectors from shipping issues, and occasionally due to overload from the gain of the RFDA. End of story, case dismissed.


----------



## GreyGhost00 (Mar 11, 2004)

Not an Engineer, but still know enough to know your case is bunk.


----------



## Billy66 (Dec 15, 2003)

imadvaddict said:


> You all must have a nice time flaming legitimate claims. Get off your high horses and a college education in engineering might help.


You are hilarious!

Tell you what super engineer, send me your HR10-250's and I'll make you whole again by fixing your cable.


----------



## captain_video (Mar 1, 2002)

> Actually, RG-59 will even work for DBS, even the kind with only 65% shielding.


Just because something "works" doesn't mean it's best suited for the given application. Sure, RG-59 will work, but at the expense of severe attenuation at the bandwidth extremes required by DBS systems. For extremely short runs the difference would probably be negligible and unnoticed by most people.

A straight wire will also work in place of a fuse, but I wouldn't recommend it. With electronics, you can get most anything to work by using something in place of a component designed for the task. It just won't work the way it was originally designed to since you'd be changing the configuration and characteristics of the circuit.


----------



## hookbill (Dec 14, 2001)

This isn't a thread I frequent but I think over the last couple months I have seen more sue happy people on these boards then ever before. Cha ching Cha ching, let that cash register ring.

Oh OP, I think you should be aware that the only people who truly make money in a CAL suit of this type are attorneys.


----------



## yaddayaddayadda (Apr 8, 2003)

imadvaddict said:


> You all must have a nice time flaming legitimate claims. Get off your high horses and a college education in engineering might help.
> 
> There is a manufacturing and material problem with this particular unit. We just opened up three more unit's in our local area today from personal acquaintances whom happen to have the HR 10-250. We should find many more before the end of the weekend. They all have the same defect. The internal cables are all RG-56 and not satisfactorily connected in 3 out of 4 units so far.
> 
> ...


I'm not an electrical engineer, nor am I a lawyer - but what, exactly are you suing for?

What damages have you incurred that Directv is responsible for? Not being able to watch TV?!? What's the going rate for an hour of missed TV?


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

I have three units from around May/June 2004. They are all fine with OTA. And i've removed and re-connected the internal cables several times on all those boxes.


----------



## narrod (Nov 23, 2002)

Who's going to pay the legal fees for a class action suit? What legal firm is going to take the case without a pretty good idea of the value of a potential settlement? Who knows the possibility of a court approving class action status? This is just silly.


----------



## wkearney99 (Dec 5, 2003)

It's not uncommon for someone with an axe to grind to rant about the potential of a class action lawsuit. That's their way of venting their frustration with whatever they feel has been done wrong to them. Unfortunately they usually also fail to understand the real complexities of such things, let alone what sort of actual relief could be gained. It's just easier for them to spout nonsense than it is it actually grasp what is or isn't possible.

It's clear DirecTV's done an A-1 crappy job of handling the whole Tivo and HD Tivo process. The HR10-250 units do seem to have been plagued with problems on their HDMI and OTA tuner interfaces, not to mention the unfulfilled potential of the USB ports. Are those problems beyond the typical sort? It seems doubtful. Sure, it's aggravating as hell but there's a pretty wide margin been that and something likely to win a lawsuit. That and DirecTV has generally provided what it would claim as effective relief. 

But hey, some folks "feel better" whinging about it online.


----------



## ShiningBengal (Mar 19, 2001)

Fish Man said:


> Another Electrical Engineer (with RF design experience) checking in:
> 
> 8 inches of RG59 instead of RG6 in an application like this? Irrelevant! The difference in loss between RG59 and RG6 in an application like this is too small to measure, even with very sensitive equipment. Remember, too, we're talking about UHF and VHF terrestrial broadcast frequencies on these particular cables, and no DC bias voltage. Much less demanding than the satellite downlink.
> 
> ...


Absolutely on the mark, Fish Man. My own previous post in this thread was critical only of using the legal process to "correct" such a frivolous issue. The only people who make a buck in class action suits is generally the law firms. They love them.

As you so eloquently state, RG-59 is perfectly adequate for OTA signals in 99% of the applications out there. RG-6 is used in DBS applications because the demands are quite different there than with OTA. And the idea the 8" or whatever length is used inside the HR10 could possibly degrade the signal by a measurable amount is hilarious.


----------



## localtech4hire (Jan 15, 2007)

I don't see a point in this suit BUT the provider of the defected unit should not force anyone to agree to anything on a replacement unit where the first unit is bad or has a problem plus lets not say they are offering replacements. I would be not happy with the offer of replacements with a catch of agreement of a year of service unless the first unit had a agreement of service..


----------



## tgibbs (Sep 22, 2002)

In my experience, class action lawsuits based on "defects" of consumer electronics almost always end up with the customers getting a pittance barely worth the time required to fill out the paperwork, if that--and the lawyer going home with a big paycheck.


----------



## TyroneShoes (Sep 6, 2004)

captain_video said:


> Just because something "works" doesn't mean it's best suited for the given application. Sure, RG-59 will work, but at the expense of severe attenuation at the bandwidth extremes required by DBS systems...


Congratulations for at least making it sound like you might know what you are talking about, and for making it sound like I implied that RG-59 was "better suited" for DBS. But you really don't, and I really didn't.

Now here comes the bitter truth, which is that both the characteristic impedance and the frequency response specs of both RG-6 and RG-59 are absolutely identical, and conform to the exact same single cable loss frequency formula that all CATV/SMATV systems are designed upon (a discipline that I happened to make a living at back in the day). The amount of shielding also has nothing whatsoever to do with frequency response or loss at frequency, is not more or less just because the form factor might be RG-6 or RG-59, and is insignificant for L-band.

The only difference is attenuation at frequency, per foot. At ANY given frequency, extreme or not, the attenuation of RG-6 is about 75% of that of RG-59, which means that if RG-6 will work perfectly up to about 150 ft for DBS at the highest L-band frequency required, then RG-59 will also work perfectly up to about 113 ft. That makes neither "better suited" than the other for installations that span less than 113 ft., which is the great majority of them.


----------



## ShiningBengal (Mar 19, 2001)

captain_video said:


> Just because something "works" doesn't mean it's best suited for the given application. Sure, RG-59 will work, but at the expense of severe attenuation at the bandwidth extremes required by DBS systems. For extremely short runs the difference would probably be negligible and unnoticed by most people.
> 
> A straight wire will also work in place of a fuse, but I wouldn't recommend it. With electronics, you can get most anything to work by using something in place of a component designed for the task. It just won't work the way it was originally designed to since you'd be changing the configuration and characteristics of the circuit.


RG-59 WAS designed for the task!  These cables carry OTA signals, not DBS.


----------



## mr.unnatural (Feb 2, 2006)

Tyrone, in case you missed it, I was essentially agreeing with what you said. I never said you implied that RG-59 was better suited for DBS because I know you know better. Using RG-59 in place of RG-6 for a short run is perfectly fine. It's when you start using it for long runs that you run into problems, not only in terms of frequency response but also noise rejection and attenuation. 

The cable used between the internal splitter and the two tuners of the HDTivo is RG-59, which is what the requirement calls for. Had the cables been run to satellite tuners rather than OTA tuners, the original cable would have been RG-6, although you could easily get away with RG-59 for that application if RG-6 was unavailable.

The comment you quoted was meant to be more generic with regards to using components as a substitute for the ones the original circuit was designed around. If the replacement meets all of the original design criteria then you're golden. Otherwise, you're just playing Russian Roulette and run the risk of damaging the circuit.


----------



## tgibbs (Sep 22, 2002)

TyroneShoes said:


> Coincidence along with rampant conclusion-jumping, I'm afraid. Actually I've never seen a day yet with an absence of weather. But since you asked (I think that "Huh?" qualifies as a question):
> 
> Brief interruptions to reception of 8VSB either due to errors caused by interference or insufficient level above the noise floor cause buffer underflow, which typically causes the MPEG decode to stop momentarily, which causes macroblocks to remain on the screen and not be refreshed by new data, that manifestation typically referred to as momentary video pixellation. It can more often than not be accompanied by a mute of the accompanying audio, but rarely if ever will audio mute due to buffer underflow while MPEG video decoding continues unabated. Audio data is interleaved within the same data packets, and loss of packets affects both. Typically, interference affects video more than audio because error correction is less robust for video. Sorry, but that's just the way it works. You can look it up, if you like.
> 
> And since it seems to have become important in this thread, yes I can back that up with an engineering degree (plus 30 years of engineering experience much of which is directly related to TV broadcasting and DT).


The fact remains that what I observe, pretty much only in the midst of a very severe storm (since you seem to have difficulty understanding what I meant by "weather") is a very noticeable audio dropout, with only minor, momentary video glitching. I've always found it surprising that audio seems to be more sensitive to weather interference than video, since in theory the opposite should be true for the very reasons that you describe, but at least with the HR10, that does seem to be the case.


----------



## Fish Man (Mar 4, 2002)

TyroneShoes said:


> The only difference is attenuation at frequency, per foot. At ANY given frequency, extreme or not, the attenuation of RG-6 is about 75% of that of RG-59, which means that if RG-6 will work perfectly up to about 150 ft for DBS at the highest L-band frequency required, then RG-59 will also work perfectly up to about 113 ft. That makes neither "better suited" than the other for installations that span less than 113 ft., which is the great majority of them.


:up: Great post, and I only wanted to add one small point to it:

In the application the OP is *****ing about *we're only talking 8 inches of coax!* and carrying terrestrial broadcast frequencies to boot! The difference of *8 inches* of RG6 vs. RG59 is utterly *unmeasurable*, and makes the OP's point completely laugh-out-loud absurd!


----------



## GreyGhost00 (Mar 11, 2004)

Fish Man said:


> :up: Great post, and I only wanted to add one small point to it:
> 
> In the application the OP is *****ing about *we're only talking 8 inches of coax!* and carrying terrestrial broadcast frequencies to boot! The difference of *8 inches* of RG6 vs. RG59 is utterly *unmeasurable*, and makes the OP's point completely laugh-out-loud absurd!


Shhhhh ........................................ no logic allowed here.


----------



## sisterzero (Dec 10, 2003)

GreyGhost00 said:


> Shhhhh ........................................ no logic allowed here.


I agree a class action suit is silly here. But reading through thread after thread on this topic wouldn't indicate that at all.

I've been reading and posting from time to time for over three months here. I've gotten much great advice - alot of it - and contributed what little I can. But the fact is that you all have been complaining about these issues with the HR10 tuners for quite some time, now all of a sudden there is nothing wrong with the tuners, the cables, the connectors. What? Go back and re-read all the stuff that's been discussed here on these forums. That is EXACTLY what's been talked about. (By the way, my HR10 sucks picking up OTA and I am less than 10 miles from downtown Chicago.)

So someone comes and suggests a lawsuit to get the problem repaired? I hate the sue-happy culture of the US, and yeah, the problem with faulty splitters/connectors/cables is not as prevalent as the OP seems to imply, but man, way to jump all over him. Lighten up, you're all sounding quite hypocritical.


----------



## apollo8fan (Oct 23, 2003)

tgibbs said:


> In my experience, class action lawsuits based on "defects" of consumer electronics almost always end up with the customers getting a pittance barely worth the time required to fill out the paperwork, if that--and the lawyer going home with a big paycheck.


If the OP wants to file a class, let him. The lawyers will get rich and he'll get a $5 coupon towards the purchase price of an DIRECTV Plus® HD DVR.


----------



## imadvaddict (Jan 19, 2007)

apollo8fan said:


> If the OP wants to file a class, let him. The lawyers will get rich and he'll get a $5 coupon towards the purchase price of an DIRECTV Plus® HD DVR.


You are absolutely correct at the $5 dollar coupon.

The plain factor of a poorly engineered product is just unacceptable.

The cost to the provider in the lawsuit is the objective, therefore forcing, by lawsuits that cost them a bundle on their bottom line.

Therefore the end result is; they think and "engineer" the product properly to avoid such loss.

In the end we the consumer can prosper with a product they advertised as "The next best thing to sliced bread in HD" and it was not. They even took a step further in the ditch with the HR-20 and expect us to just live with it.

Then we get what we pay for. OR ARE WE?

More on this topic when I have more time available.


----------



## litzdog911 (Oct 18, 2002)

imadvaddict said:


> ...
> The cost to the provider in the lawsuit is the objective, therefore forcing, by lawsuits that cost them a bundle on their bottom line.
> 
> Therefore the end result is; they think and "engineer" the product properly to avoid such loss.
> ...


Do you truly believe that class action lawsuits ever achieve this objective?


----------



## tgibbs (Sep 22, 2002)

imadvaddict said:


> You are absolutely correct at the $5 dollar coupon.
> 
> The plain factor of a poorly engineered product is just unacceptable.
> 
> ...


A lawsuit won't convince any engineer that which cable is used for such a short run makes any difference at all, because it makes no sense from an engineering point of view. The company will regard it as a frivolous lawsuit (and they will probably be right), and in any case, they are no longer making or selling the same unit, but they may well settle to minimize legal expenses, write it off as part of the cost of doing business, and make it up by charging consumers a few pennies more on their DirecTV subscriptions. The cost to the company will still probably be less than the cost of using the more expensive cable.

The lawyer for the plaintiffs of course has no interest in forcing the company to do a better job of engineering. He just wants to make money. He'll settle cheap because if he consults with an engineer they'll tell him that the case for a manufacturing defect is pretty weak.

And we waste time filling out paperwork to get a $5 coupon, pay a bit more for our service, and nothing else changes.


----------



## mr.unnatural (Feb 2, 2006)

> The plain factor of a poorly engineered product is just unacceptable.


There is no proof of poor engineering here. At best, it's a manufacturing defect. The fact that the vast majority of HDTivo owners don't suffer from this "defect" indicates that you are in the vast minority and have no basis for any type of suit. Your best bet would be to gripe to DTV and see what they'll do to compensate you for your "misfortune." Chances are they'll replace your HDTivo with one of their wonderful HD DVRs (then you'll really have something to ***** about) and throw in some freebies like Showtime or HD service for six months, which is worth far more than you'll ever see from a class action suit.


----------



## wkearney99 (Dec 5, 2003)

mr.unnatural said:


> Chances are they'll replace your HDTivo with one of their wonderful HD DVRs (then you'll really have something to ***** about) and throw in some freebies like Showtime or HD service for six months, which is worth far more than you'll ever see from a class action suit.


That's about it. They delivered a unit that's known for trouble and then abandoned the underlying OS used on it across all their other devices. There's really no good way out of it other than to ditch DirecTV entirely. Trouble is the other services simply "suck differently".

It'd be interesting to know how many HR10-250 units actually made it into the field.


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

The cables on My three HDTIVos are on too well. I can't even remove the ends near the back on the splitter. And ends on the front that unscrew seem to take forever to unscrew them.


----------



## imadvaddict (Jan 19, 2007)

aaronwt said:


> The cables on My three HDTIVos are on too well. I can't even remove the ends near the back on the splitter. And ends on the front that unscrew seem to take forever to unscrew them.


Class Action Filed on behalf of 2,020,823 Direct TV Tivo subs. The litigation team requests no further posts on this subject in regards to this.

We are all getting $5 coupons,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,woooo hoooo!

Direct TV is getting the bill. If they advertise it then they should provide it as advertised.

Still investigating advertising claims vs equipment performance on both the HR-10 250 and the HR-20 HD DVR which as we have technically got them "DEAD NUTS COLD"


----------



## Langree (Apr 29, 2004)

imadvaddict said:


> Class Action Filed on behalf of 2,020,823 Direct TV Tivo subs. The litigation team requests no further posts on this subject in regards to this.
> 
> We are all getting $5 coupons,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,woooo hoooo!
> 
> ...


----------



## yaddayaddayadda (Apr 8, 2003)

The litigation team ain't the boss of me


----------



## Fahtrim (Apr 12, 2004)

imadvaddict said:


> See the "Recommended fix for HR10-250 improve OTA signal strength" thread
> 
> It is high time for a class action suit, and demand they correct this defect in "all" the HR-10's. With a proper splitter and internal cables.


I don't think we need more lawsuits and I disagree with this way of thinking.


----------



## tgibbs (Sep 22, 2002)

Yes, at the moment it looks like the most that we have are perhaps a few units with failed cables or perhaps splitters, or maybe poor assembly (although in the two units I've looked at inside, the cables were _very_ firmly attached). From an engineering point of view, it clearly is not any kind of design defect. The cables used should work fine, and clearly for most people, they do. So the only valid issue would be whether the incidence of manufacturing defects is so high that Hughes/DirecTV would be obliged to provide repairs or other compensation beyond the declared warranty period.


----------



## litzdog911 (Oct 18, 2002)

imadvaddict said:


> Class Action Filed on behalf of 2,020,823 Direct TV Tivo subs. The litigation team requests no further posts on this subject in regards to this.
> 
> We are all getting $5 coupons,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,woooo hoooo!
> 
> ...


Thank you? Keep us posted on how things go. I won't hold my breath for my $5 coupon.


----------

