So that is my point exactly, DirecTV is not telling anyone to lie, they are using cash as the incentive to get the lines connected yet the contractor has chosen to advocate the lying & screwing his techs to get the cash.
Direct TV Advocated Lying About Need Of Phone-Line
- Thread starter Poke
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 135
- Views 17K
- Status
Ya See Charper, there are some different issues here, and we don't need your opinions now... go find another corner to hide in...
Correct, but D* is aware of the buisness practice being used by the HSP to get the job done. They are not stupid and dont care , as long as it gets done.charper1 said:
But when the time comes for D*if questioned about the buisness practice being used by their contractors , they will definately play dumb.
And by playing dumb is very smart on D* part.:devil:
Last edited:
The Tate said:
That's DirecTech Southwest, formerly comm-craft, who've run off many a qualified installer. I'd take a job laying bricks with these mexicans for $2 an hour before I work for them again.
Also, since someone mentioned DVRs, I have a R10 TiVo, went cellular only early this year. TiVo still works, but it reminded me today that it has not made a call out in 125 days, just as it has each of the last 120 or so days. I think it went a week before it figured out it couldn't call out. Its not hacked, nor will it be. If D* cuts it off, we're done, and TWC will get my business (you couldn't pay me to take a E*).
Last edited:
If there is anyone out there, that would like to speak with the Private Investigator, about this Mastec mess, have them contact me, and I will make sure that the contact information gets to the right party. This Attorneys firm does not want to be known yet, and all communications will be kept confidential...
Looks like this one may have backfired on Mastec. Just saw on the Channel 6 news that those fired Mastec employees and the Teamsters were picketing Mastec headquarters, today, and trying to get the rest of the employees to form a union.
Hmm then why is every other HSP telling there Installers the same thing starting about the same time. Something came down from D* about phonelines.charper1 said:
Have to disagree. If they suddenly mandate phone lines to every receiver instead of the main which is what it was originally and are going to start reducing pay based on all receivers when it was originally just the main, I can see them being partily responcible for this mess. Heck they were stupid enough to market to do not call list (herd E* is in hot water for this now to)charper1 said:
Because D* docks HSP's who in turn dock the installer. Simple as that.charper1 said:
To answer your question. Yes when a receiver doesn't phone home at the scheduled time it becomes non-responsive and a modified programming hit is sent to the receiver telling it to not allow PVP via remote. The PVP authorization has to then come from the satellite just like the original programming authorization did.
Non-Responders are a rolling average and D* sends the report to each HSP. I know for a fact Apex and Premier both base there 3 tier pay scale off this average. The lower the average, the higher the pay. In the area where I work most are going to cell phones. I know I'm at about 45% non-responder because of it, which is bull and keeps me in the base pay scale. Tier 1 pay is 30% or less. Tier 2 is 40% or less and over 40% is base. My area has an unusually high number of cell phone only house holds because of Alltel’s family plan is real big out here (lots of farmer families switching). The only plus to this is my cell phone bill is cheaper because most of the calls are to another Alltel customer.
What it sounds like is Mastec was paying top pay (maybe) to there techs for each install and D* finally cracked down and laid there foot down about the phone line and started docking pay and Mastec's response was to start charging back there techs for each non-responder instead of absorbing the charge backs from D*.
This phone line requirement to every receiver is honestly BS period. What’s sad is D* is taking all this flak because the push for every receiver. Yet no one is crying foul with E*. They require phone lines to, they just aren't putting there foot down yet and are only requiring it on there Dual Tuners and DVR's. I'm willing to bet E*'s lack of enforcement of the phone line is why they’ve created an audit team that’s been compared to the Nazis because of there deception and attitude.
So which is the lesser evil of the two? Phone lines or an audit team that deactivates your service till you put up with them calling you a thief for an hour.
(Typos)
Last edited:
Prove by documentation is all anyone can ask. I have numerous friends that I recommend to DirecTV for installs over the past 3 - 12 mos and they were NEVER told this line of BS by their installers.
charper1 said:
Because the contractor companies will lose their contract with directv if they don't enforce this phone line BS. Directv is one greedy company and they make their money through pay per view BS and also selling customer's viewing habit to other companies. If i were the installers that got fired, i would go to each houses with directv and cut all the lines and let directv have a headache of taking care of all the service calls.
Spade said:
OK, and like said before; lets see THOSE DOCUMENTS from DirecTV and BINGO that is what everyone wants to see as opposed to the contractors just SAYING they were told that. Because hearsay doesn't fly.
charper1 said:
Charper you don't know what you are talking about, I have been backcharged over the phone line issue.
grydlok said:
What you are talking about? I have never said people aren't being back-charged. When did I say that? I also love how without knowing me personally, you know what I know & don't know.
That isn't even the point. The point is the proof everyone wants to see; the disputed point of is WHO said "LIE TO THE CUSTOMER ABOUT THE PHONE LINE". Was it DirecTV telling the contractors or was it the contractors telling their employees and now blaming DirecTV? Lets see proof as opposed to any blanket accusations without seeing some sort of documentation. Do you have the smoking gun documents?
I love how people want to throw blanket accusations (or agree to same) and then when asked to show some facts and proof they get all bent out of shape and defensive. Facts and proof allow everyone else to understand and see perfectly clear without following just for the sake of following without knowledge. Not everone wants to be a lamb or assume things; IMHO
Last edited:
Want to try again?Spade said:
Call up D* to activate a DVR with no phone line connection and state that directly to the CSR while activating. You'll get a supervisor put on the phone stating either figure out a way to get that DVR hooked up to a phone line or remove it and place a basic receiver in its place. (Been there done that.)
Now if you lie and say its hooked up, a few days later your office is going to be crawling all over your ass because you lied to D* about the line being hooked up. In my case the customer got paranoid about the phone line because he picked up the phone at the time the box was making its call to make a call and decided the box didn't need to be phoning home with out his permission. The next time it tried to phone home and came up non responder I got a very sour call from corp over the issue and it wasn't even my fault. Guess who got stuck rolling out to the guys house when D* issued a chargeable service call on the box because they wouldn't activate the DVR function with the phone line. I spent couple of hours there trying to convince the guy to leave it plugged in and made him sign a site survey that stated "Phone lines are for: Receiving Current Updates, Remote Pay Per View, Future Updates, Sporting Events, Upgrades" and that he would leave it pluged in from now on. Of course any of us doing this for awhile know that several of those reasons are BS.
I have one document (not enough to stand on its own) called the site survey. Its a D* original that has the copyright and everything. Also has the proprietary clause to so I can't exactly post it. All though I did hint whats on it.charper1 said:
Hey Charper1,
Do you mean proof, like you provided on this thread, http://www.satelliteguys.us/showthread.php?t=65525 , when you called a "Professional Chef" a Fraud??? RONTGLMAO....
You need to get a life Charper1, cause we are on to you now Big Boy!!! You really don't know what you are talking about do you!!! You just like to see your words in print... RONTGLMAO....
Do you mean proof, like you provided on this thread, http://www.satelliteguys.us/showthread.php?t=65525 , when you called a "Professional Chef" a Fraud??? RONTGLMAO....
You need to get a life Charper1, cause we are on to you now Big Boy!!! You really don't know what you are talking about do you!!! You just like to see your words in print... RONTGLMAO....
- Status
