622 lease upgraders, did you get a fair deal?

[jsanders]

622 lease upgraders, some got better deals than others!

What do you think?

942 owners paid roughly $700 for their box no more than a year ago, and dish gave them $200 for it towards a leased 622.

921 owners paid roughly $1000 for their box two years ago, and dish gave them $200 for it towards a lease.

942 leasers got $200 for something that Echostar already owns, paying $99 for their 622 lease.

I think it is very generous on Echostar's part to give leasers a $200 credit for a DVR that Echostar already owns.

However, it seems to me that the 942/921 owners are subsidizing this generosity by giving their owned receiver for the same outcome.

 

[jmd102354]

What do you think?
I think it is very generous on Echostar's part to give leasers a $200 credit for a DVR that Echostar already owns.

However, it seems to me that the 942/921 owners are subsidizing this generosity by giving their owned receiver for the same outcome.

This is why I will smash it with a hammer before I give it to E !

 

[RBODYMAN]

Just my opinion but, after spending $750 for a 6000 and $1000 for a 921 I upgraded to a 622 and a 211. It would take a lot of lease fees to equal $1750. I am glad to be out of that loop.

 

[TBarclay]

I bought a 921 and am now leasing the 622. I like it much better because I can feed more than 1 TV at the same time. The guide is faster. I now have Dish Home (whoop de doo-but it had been promised for the 921 and never delivered) and MPEG-4 channels. SO...fair enough deal for me.

 

[Cold Irons]

Well....guess I owe a thanks to those that bought their previous receivers if they are "subsidizing" my lease. I leased the 942 (also, earlier, the 501 and 301 under the dish home plan or something). My 721 is the only receiver I've ever purchased outright.

I realize a lot of people perfer to own, but I've never understood why. I've always figured the monthly lease break-even point & its always 3-5 years or more of leasing to make up for the cost of owning (more in the case of a $700 942). I figure, with this kind of high-tech gear, the real lifetime is only about 3 years prior to some upgrade being so cool that I just have to have it. So far, I think the only place I've paid more in lease fees vs. the cost to own is my aging DVR 501.

 

[shanewalker]

"Cold Irons', I'm with you--I owned my D* equipment prior to joining up w/ V* and then E*, and with the rapidly evolving HD market, it made no sense to invest in quickly outdated sat hardware when a lease option was available. Esp. with home networking and MPEG-4 still maturing.

However, after spending the past year on forums like this, I believe I understand where a lot of folks are coming from. In short, owning the gear makes sense when you figure in one of two mindsets:

1) people who have some deep-seated resistance to not having absolute control over their things, who simply must "own" at any cost. Maybe its in light of being overleveraged on mortgage, credit cards, car payments, etc., but the idea of 'leasing' the boxes is philosophically repugnant somehow to some. This I can understand, when you think in terms of pure pathology, even when it doesn't mean the most 'practical' solution. These folks might stick with their hardware for a long while to recoup the investment (and this can get them VERY cranky when new gear comes out so consistently that they have to resign themselves to pass up until it gets "affordable."

Which leads some to 2) people who have partaken of the eBay ecosystem of constant technology cycling. They go out, buy the new gadget, use if for a few months or a year or two, then sell it on eBay. They are, in fact, leasing, but to some vague entity called "the marketplace". They are always paying the premium of 'new' and 'ownership'. They may actually be folks of #1 mentality, but justify their actions by way of subsidizing their 'gotta have the latest greatest' with the #2 option of constant online garage sales. Maybe this is actually financially lean for some, but I dare say for most (and I can attest as one of my closest friends is a HUGE culprit of this behavior) its a neverending money drain. Again, I'm a techno-geek and love gadgets, so I understand the pathology, even when it's not altogether 'practical'. Hell, I have 500 DVDs, D-VHS and LaserDisc player I bought off eBay last Autumn just so I could collect some out-of-print original cuts of films I love...I know how to 'impractically' blow cash on my hobbies.

Anyways, just my observations. I've quit asking "why" on the lease/own, I just do my thing (lease) and hope for the best. If/when the HD market really settles down and I can foresee owning a box for 3+ years without sacrificing functionality, maybe then I'll buy it. Heck, I owned my last car for 14 years and my old desktop I bought in 1997 is still functioning as a server in my home.

 

[jsanders]

Well....guess I owe a thanks to those that bought their previous receivers if they are "subsidizing" my lease.

I think you need an emote-icon after that sentence. Maybe one like this: :devil:

 

[Moridin]

I realize a lot of people perfer to own, but I've never understood why.

Let us not forget that E* stated unequivocally early in the 942's lifecycle that existing customers would never be able to lease the 942; only new customers were to be offered 942 leases. So many existing E* customers (myself included) then purchased a 942 outright, since that was their only course of action if they wanted one. A scant few months later, E* executes a reversal, and starts offering existing customers leased 942s. That's why I'm pissed off that if I want a 622, I must not only surrender my 942, but also fork over an additional $99.

 

[jsanders]

I am hoping we don't end up debating the lease vs. owning scenario. Sometimes a lease makes more sense, and sometimes owning makes more sense. It all depends on the individual's circumstances.

I was wondering if someone would find a counter argument to my logic.

There is an imbalance that exists here, regardless of how it is described.

What do you think it would take to even it out?

Here is another way to find it. Look at the difference in price between the free market value of a used 942 and what Dish pays 942 owners to upgrade.

Here is a search of *completed* 942 auctions on EBay:

http://search-completed.ebay.com/se...ftrt=1&ftrv=1&saprclo=&saprchi=&so=Show+Items

Depending on how well the auction was setup and executed, people seem to be getting between $300 and $400 for them.

There is about a $200 vacuum here.

What do you think?

Since dish could give $200 to lease 942 customers for something Dish already owns, why not kick in another $200 for 942 owners and make it a $400 rebate for them?

Maybe that is too sweet of a deal, after all, even retailers need to make some money to re-sell something. But then again, these people don't own their 622 in the end, and have no liquidatable capitol. Maybe it is fair.

How about dish just make upgrades for 942 owners free if they want to lease a 622? Does that sound fair? If they even kicked in another $50 to make it a $50 upgrade for 942 owners, I bet that would make some happy.

Wasn't dish calling people that owned their 942 and offering some a "free" upgrade to a 622 lease?

Maybe that is the spot that would equalize things.

Of course, they could also go the other way and tell 942 leasers that they don't get a $200 credit anymore.

 

[Cold Irons]

I am hoping we don't end up debating the lease vs. owning scenario. Sometimes a lease makes more sense, and sometimes owning makes more sense. It all depends on the individual's circumstances.

Agreed - and I certainly don't want to start a debate - or downplay folks being upset at the bum deal of exchanging a $700 machine for a $99 fee & losing ownership. I think I'd be pretty damn upset had I purchased my 942 outright. Fortunately, I held off long enough for E* to offer the lease to existing customers. I'm not sure I can speak for 942 owners - but a FREE exchange for a leased 622 might be a little easier to swallow, or maybe a $99 fee to OWN a 622 in exchange for your owned 942. Dunno what would be fair here.....

As far as leasing vs. owning, I tend to decide on a case by case basis....
- I own my big ugly SUV because a lease doesn't make sense when I put around 30K miles on each year....
- I own my PC, because I tend to keep PCs longer than most tech gadgets & do a lot of tinkering with them....
....but High-Def Sat Receivers seem to cry out for a lease until things get much more settled. Looking at the "break-even" time period usually drives the decision.

 

[jsanders]

Agreed - and I certainly don't want to start a debate - or downplay folks being upset at the bum deal of exchanging a $700 machine for a $99 fee & losing ownership. I think I'd be pretty damn upset had I purchased my 942 outright.

I would love to have a few of those guys chime in here. Ultimately though, it was their choice to take a lopsided deal. What about those guys that leased before April 1, 2006? The tables were turned. In that case, the owners didn't do any trade-ins, but the leasers got the shaft because they got no rebate.

maybe a $99 fee to OWN a 622 in exchange for your owned 942.

That is the deal I got. Actually, it cost me about $130 to sell my 942 and use the proceeds to buy a 622.