Washington AG Sues DirecTV

[meStevo]

I agree with you 150%.

Then you're as 100% wrong as he is too then

Stonecold has disagreed with how things are done at D* in this very thread, he's not blindly defending so yeah, elwaylite was trolling. It's the interwebs, people like to take things to the extremes. We all agree that changes should be made. Let's try and actually talk about the topic, instead of each other.

 

[stonecold]

What I honestly feel is this. If this lawsuite goes threw and a verdict that comes down singling out directv then then no real just has been done.

What needs to change is on the federal level.

No more fine print ads, no more money first contract 2nd ( happen to me at bestbuy getting my andriod phone had me pay for it and then showed me the contract so at that point they already had my money and you feel like you have to sign it . I already had service with them but I felt what bestbuy mobile did was wrong)

Stricter laws on tele sales and 3rd party sales . ( alot of retailers cause problems for us too )

This is not something that just affects directv, the satellite industry , the video services companys , but something from you cell phone to your car purchase to your mortage .

I am not saying Directv is innocent and I am not saying there guilty either.

And as far as the same people bring up the same horror stories of 2 year ext on a proection plan replacment I am not going to sit here and tell you any more how we corrected the proceedures and policy to keep that from happening.

Per QA policy you call will be red flag ( as in you in deep sh*t ) if

1. you do not state that a piece of equipment will trigger a contract ext. assuming not an erp as those dont trigger contracts any more

2. Any or all fees assocaited with a reciver like if your getting a hd reciver if they dont tell you about the 10 dollar hd fee then red flag.

3. Any and all fine print on the order screen.

This message went out to all agents a while back. So yes they are putting agents jobs on the line if they do not state everythingthey have to.

 

[Lone Cloud]

The tactic, which every single satellite and cable provider does, is load up on the tiny, fine print.

They all know people mostly can't read type that small, wouldn't know what the language meant if they did read it. and that cusotomers won't bring a lawyer.

The devil is in the details and there isn't a good reason for letting any provider continue playing this ultra fine print scheme

 

[cfb]

What needs to change is on the federal level.

Sad that its expected that the feds will need to jump in to make a business provide good customer service instead of burying a large etf on the back of an installation acceptance document.

That everyone else does it is no excuse either. If Dish Network jumped off a bridge, would Directv do it to?!?

Sorry, spent a lot of time with my four year old today.

 

[semco72057]

I have Directv and had a two year agreement with them and have been with them for over 7 years and is considering changing over to Dish Network. When I first signed on I couldn't get local channels and when they offered it they charged extra for it. Dish Network don't charge extra for that and that is what is luring me over to them. Directv is losing customers and it's because of their greed. I can't blame the attorney general in Washington for suing them and some customers don't want to be put in a long term contract with one company when they see that they can get a better deal from someone else.

 

[stonecold]

Sad that its expected that the feds will need to jump in to make a business provide good customer service instead of burying a large etf on the back of an installation acceptance document.

That everyone else does it is no excuse either. If Dish Network jumped off a bridge, would Directv do it to?!?

Sorry, spent a lot of time with my four year old today.

No I just saying a lawsuite that really does not have much mor basis then others so most likely be thrown out is not going to cause change. You have th att the promble not the company. They problem affects many aspects of our daily lives.


If Dish Net jumped off the bridge I make it illegal to do so directv would just jump off the same bridge.

 

[stonecold]

I have Directv and had a two year agreement with them and have been with them for over 7 years and is considering changing over to Dish Network. When I first signed on I couldn't get local channels and when they offered it they charged extra for it. Dish Network don't charge extra for that and that is what is luring me over to them. Directv is losing customers and it's because of their greed. I can't blame the attorney general in Washington for suing them and some customers don't want to be put in a long term contract with one company when they see that they can get a better deal from someone else.

We arent charging you extra we are charging you what everyone else pays.

Choice Extra 60.99

Choice Extra with out Locals 57.99

Choice 55.99

Choice with out locals 52.99


Dish did and probably still does do the same thing when dealign with markets who dont get locals which is charge them 3 to 4 dollars less .

What happens in our system for people who are in the an area which did not have locals but now due we have it as a 3 dollar addon. Since not everyone going to have the equipment to get locals as most new locals are mpeg4

Example
Choice Extra with out locals 57.99 + 3 dollars locals = 60.99

Some people where accidently charged 6.00 for locals but everyone was credited who were charged that and it was taken care of quickly after we first saw bills with 6.00 locals as that was not the right charge.

 

[Hemi 6.1]

Then you're as 100% wrong as he is too then

Stonecold has disagreed with how things are done at D* in this very thread, he's not blindly defending so yeah, elwaylite was trolling. It's the interwebs, people like to take things to the extremes. We all agree that changes should be made. Let's try and actually talk about the topic, instead of each other.

You obviously don't know Elwaylite.
And read your last sentence, And take your own advise.

 

[ChrisK114]

I have Directv and had a two year agreement with them and have been with them for over 7 years and is considering changing over to Dish Network. When I first signed on I couldn't get local channels and when they offered it they charged extra for it. Dish Network don't charge extra for that and that is what is luring me over to them. Directv is losing customers and it's because of their greed. I can't blame the attorney general in Washington for suing them and some customers don't want to be put in a long term contract with one company when they see that they can get a better deal from someone else.

Uh, Dish does charge extra for locals. Go back and check.

 

[ChrisK114]

What I honestly feel is this. If this lawsuite goes threw and a verdict that comes down singling out directv then then no real just has been done.

What needs to change is on the federal level.

No more fine print ads, no more money first contract 2nd ( happen to me at bestbuy getting my andriod phone had me pay for it and then showed me the contract so at that point they already had my money and you feel like you have to sign it . I already had service with them but I felt what bestbuy mobile did was wrong)

Stricter laws on tele sales and 3rd party sales . ( alot of retailers cause problems for us too )

This is not something that just affects directv, the satellite industry , the video services companys , but something from you cell phone to your car purchase to your mortage .

I am not saying Directv is innocent and I am not saying there guilty either.

And as far as the same people bring up the same horror stories of 2 year ext on a proection plan replacment I am not going to sit here and tell you any more how we corrected the proceedures and policy to keep that from happening.

Per QA policy you call will be red flag ( as in you in deep sh*t ) if

1. you do not state that a piece of equipment will trigger a contract ext. assuming not an erp as those dont trigger contracts any more

2. Any or all fees assocaited with a reciver like if your getting a hd reciver if they dont tell you about the 10 dollar hd fee then red flag.

3. Any and all fine print on the order screen.

This message went out to all agents a while back. So yes they are putting agents jobs on the line if they do not state everythingthey have to.

I am glad that they have corrected the problem with incorrectly extending agreements. What have they done to make it easier to fix people who have had their agreements wrongly extended? I have been told several times that mine has been corrected only to find out that it hasn't. I think this is the BIG problem and why it is causing trouble. I am happy with D* on almost every other thing, but this is one of the things that is bothering the hell out of me. I don't want to call and ask again as I may blow my top if it still is wrong. And why does it take 8 weeks to get money back when they didn't wait to take it away from people incorrectly. To be a world class service company, this is needs to be fixed ,too.

 

[Jimbo]

No one reads the fine print online.

IF everyone read the fine print before signing,
a. they probably would not sign it because theres so much garbage in there that they don't understand or agree too.

b. This would make the installers very late on most of thier install calls trying to make time commitments.

 

[gadgtfreek]

You obviously don't know Elwaylite.
And read your last sentence, And take your own advise.

Exactly. I did not come here to bash directv unfairly. I was a Sub for a long time, and very happy until they started changing their ways. I'm not gonna sweep it under the carpet and act like it's ok because they did not "mean" to do it.

Anywho, done with the love fest in this thread.

 

[directmommy]

again , this is something that will be blamed on the installers
you watch ,

 

[damjr]

The problem here is gone are the days of "that's a good deal and a hand shake" for anything we as consumers buy.

We are now a society of sue happy people which now requires a 100 page contract filled with legalese to go along with almost anything we buy. This is not just a DTV,Dish,cable,telco, etc….. problem. It is a total consumer product problem.

People today try and find any reason they can to get out of any contract or purchase if they change their minds later down the road without considering what is involved to reverse their decisions. They just feel that the providers have to eat it. Well this costs money. But wait………………Mr. consumer doesn’t want to pay more for products. Hmmmmmmmmmmmm.

So now there has to be all this legal crap printed so that it fits on 1 page and not 100 ( yes I’m exaggerating here) so the print has to be so tiny you need a magnifying glass to read it and that we don’t kill any more trees just to print all this and we now make the tree huggers happy……………………and OH MY GOD WHAT A FRICKEN HEADACHE TRYING TO MAKE EVERYONE HAPPY !!!

In today’s world almost anything we sign up for that requires a monthly subscription requires some sort of commitment. THIS IS THE NORM.
Anyone who tries to say “I didn’t know there was a commitment” is just flat out lying or they just crawled out from under a rock somewhere. People who do not read what they are signing…………………well let’s just say they deserve what they get and should not be allowed to back out of their contracts and must fulfill their commitments.

I’m sorry but this is just one of the many issues that fall into the “pussification of America”. We’re all turning into a bunch of whining, bitching, sue happy, little spoiled babies.

Sorry……rant off

 

[Stalker]

Let's face it

Bottom line is the TOS agreement that is never read by anyone except for the paranoid is easy for D TV to pass off to the consumer because of all the other bells and whistles that we all only see and hear.

 

[Hemi 6.1]

In today’s world almost anything we sign up for that requires a monthly subscription requires some sort of commitment. THIS IS THE NORM.
Anyone who tries to say “I didn’t know there was a commitment” is just flat out lying or they just crawled out from under a rock somewhere

150% agree with this as well.

 

[bforce]

I have *E and used to work for them in sales. We HAD to read all the terms and conditions at the time of sale on the phone and to make sure they understood the commitment and cancellation fees (or we would get a 0 on our QA for that call). Why doesn't *D do this?

 

[ChrisK114]

I have *E and used to work for them in sales. We HAD to read all the terms and conditions at the time of sale on the phone and to make sure they understood the commitment and cancellation fees (or we would get a 0 on our QA for that call). Why doesn't *D do this?

When I placed my order, they did. The thing is that I think most time people just don't listen to what is being said.

 

[nhra328z]

Another article and a ton of comments...

DirecTV thrives on 'deception,' lawsuit alleges - The Red Tape Chronicles - msnbc.com

 

[meStevo]

I have *E and used to work for them in sales. We HAD to read all the terms and conditions at the time of sale on the phone and to make sure they understood the commitment and cancellation fees (or we would get a 0 on our QA for that call). Why doesn't *D do this?

I've worked for D*, they do too (the QA thing). Doesn't mean it always happens though.

I just bought a house, and at certain points there are very plainly worded large font breakdowns of what I am entering into, and I think it would be good to see something like that for ETFs over a certain dollar amount across all industries (pay TV, cell phones, etc). Send it certified so there's no 'i didnt get it' and allow for cancellation within x days of receipt. Alternatively allow the consumer to log into a website that's OK'd by a watchdog group or something that lets you electronically acknowledge terms that are presented in the same plainly worded fashion.

For over the phone transactions, do something with a recorded message, either during the transaction or between the request/order and the install, that if not accepted the install is not completed.