Interesting thread - I don't have DN, have never had it, and have no desire to have it, but I'm amazed to hear that they would risk alienating customers in this way considering that with modern technology there are probably many quite valid reasons a customer couldn't comply with their demands.
Some examples I can think of offhand:
Call forwarding - many people have it and use it. What happens if you've gone out to play cards with friends and have forwarded your phone to their house?
Call forwarding to cell phone - A LOT of people do this. What happens if they call while you are on the road?
Multiple residents in home and the person who answers the phone is technologically or visually impaired - Just an an example, I live with an elderly person who has fairly advanced macular degeneration. If I were to subscribe to DN and they called when I was not at home, even prior to the macular degeneration she would not have had the slightest clue how to give them the information they wanted (she can barely figure out how to change channels using a standard TV remote). With the macular degeneration, it would be impossible for her to comply with their demands, and if they were abusive it would upset her VERY much. It seems to me that many households probably have residents that are visually, mentally, or technologically challenged in some way (wait until Dish gets slapped with a lawsuit under the Americans with Disabilities Act!).
Customer has injury or is partially disabled. Say the customer broke a leg a week ago and can't go up or down stairs, and one of the receivers is in the basement or on the second floor. What if the customer is in a wheelchair? Are they going to demand a note from the customer's doctor? Again I see an ADA lawsuit on the horizon, not to mention some really pissed off customers.
AND the fact is that as technology advances, there will be ways to beat the system. Many speakerphones mute the outgoing call volume automatically when it falls below a certain volume (I hate talking to people on speakerphones precisely because the "room noise" disappears when they aren't talking and the line sounds "dead" to me) but of course that is indistinguishable from someone pressing the "mute" button on the phone, so you could in fact have a side conversation.
But here's another consideration. I guess most everyone knows what VoIP is (a type of phone service delivered over your broadband connection) but what you may not know is that with many VoIP services you can get multiple incoming numbers (not necessarily in the same city you actually live in) that all ring the same phone. AND with that least some VoIP services (VoicePulse is one that comes to mind), you can use "call filters" to route calls according to the number they came in on (or the calling number), or give them a distinctive ring.
So suppose a customer got a VoicePulse account with two numbers, one of which he gives to Dish Network and the other which he gives to everyone else. He could then program the service so that calls coming in on the number given to DN would always ring a double ring (alerting everyone not to answer the call unless they check the Caller ID first) or even so that calls to that number always go to a busy signal, or to voicemail (there are two or three other options also).
And also, if the reps don't want to hear chatter in the background during their audits, how can they tell if someone is text messaging someone else? I mean, I wouldn't want to rely on that as a method to beat the system (very likely the other person wouldn't be home!) but you have to wonder if anyone has done that.
All I am saying is that it sounds to me like this will alienate some very legitimate customers, and in the end I'll bet they lose more money than they make. Of course, one could point out that if monthly service rates weren't so high, they might not have this problem - I know there's a lot of blame to go around for that, since everyone from the program producers to the networks to the local stations want to be paid and have their hands out, and the one that gets stuck is the customer. What I do not understand is why a service like Dish Network can't let people subscribe to
just the channels they want - why should a subscriber have to pay for Fox News if they only want CNN or MSNBC? Why should a subscriber have to pay for ANY channel they never watch? If people were allowed to subscribe to
only the channels they actually watch I'll bet a lot of people could cut their bills to something much more reasonable, AND Dish (or the cable companies or whomever) wouldn't need to pay those program providers for non-subscribers to their channels. I realize this opens up a whole can of worms but in my opinion that's how it should be (the big packages could still be an option for those who want them).
I am one of those people who can't afford the service and therefore I do without, but to be honest I see all the television I want using my big C & Ku-band dish and a Pansat FTA receiver (that is NOT hacked and never will be, at least not while I own it). In fact some nights I think I watch too much TV!
I have been in homes that have cable or Dish or DirecTV and have flipped through the channels and with all the added channels I still don't see anything I would want to watch (or at least nothing I would want to pay to watch) but then maybe I'm more easily satisfied with what's available than some people.
