DIRECTV is suing DISH Network over the "Why Pay More" ads.

DirecTV Sues Dish Network Over 'Why Pay More' Commercials - WSJ.com (http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20100211-717682.html)

Updated with a copy of the lawsuit and related documents below. :)

DirecTV Sues Dish Network in False Advertising Case (Update1)
February 11, 2010, 05:14 PM EST
By David Glovin

Feb. 11 (Bloomberg) -- DirecTV Inc., the largest U.S. satellite-TV provider, filed a false advertising lawsuit against Dish Network Corp., claiming Dish’s new ads that its service is less expensive are “false and misleading.”

Read more at DirecTV Sues Dish Network in False Advertising Case (Update1) - BusinessWeek (http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-02-11/directv-sues-dish-network-over-false-advertising.html)

Too Funny, so can Dish sue back for Direct's counter ads to the "Why Pay More" commercials

Why can't we all just get along(neck)!

must be effective advertising

Got a letter the other day from DirecTV they offered to pay out my contract and give me $26. a month off for a year plus 3 months of HBO and Showtime.

So it would seem Dish's advertising is having an effect.

You know the last person who tried crying foul in court about advertising lost. (ATT VS Verizon) Maybe dish could use that case to their advantage. Looking at the advertising I dont where dish is misleading anyone. Its quite clear that the packages they are comparing against each other (Compare DISH Network Programming - DISH (http://www.dishnetwork.com/compare/programming.aspx))

I think the chalks one up for dish's marketing team that they are doing good if they are getting d* to react like this. D* obviously sees dish as a threat.

Whats funny is its mostly true! E* is cheaper and offers more for less, I think this is one lawsuit Charlie might come out on top.

and one of their commercials they talk about celebs, but i remember dish using Frank Caliendo, but i guess he doesn't count. :)

And while dish is charging more for equipment now, they are still less than D* since they have high up front costs. I had D* when i went to school in Seattle and wanted to get them here, but when i saw the up front cost plus needing to be in the highest package to get FSC i went to dish. Don't really see where they have a case here, while for some it will be more expensive with dish as some have posted here, i think for most it will be cheaper. I guess they will be focusing on the "same programing", but since dish can't offer Sunday ticket you can't make the comparison on those packages.

Actually.... At least with what I want with Direct and what I would want with Dish.... Direct is cheaper by about $3.

What about Direct's deceptive HD commercials? They've been running those over a year.

What about Direct's deceptive HD commercials? They've been running those over a year.

True dat! "HD leader", my foot! LOL!

What about Direct's deceptive HD commercials? They've been running those over a year.

I also hate their adverts on BBB accreditation, those i do find misleading, they make it sound like dish is an illegitimate business for not having it, or making it sound like its a requirement and Dish failed. .

and one of their commercials they talk about celebs, but i remember dish using Frank Caliendo, but i guess he doesn't count. :)...

The Dish commercial says something to the effect of, "...over the last year, Direct has used..." but Frank was like two years ago on Dish. So the commercial wasn't wrong.

On the other hand, the techs in the field can cooperate to save a life:

Satellite technicians rescue woman from house fire - WALB.com News, Weather and Sports for Albany, Valdosta and Thomasville. Leading the way for South Georgia. | (http://www.walb.com/Global/story.asp?S=11967807)

Ya DirecTV sue Dish for telling the truth, I hope that works out for ya! NOT!

The judge will look at the ad and the fine print and even if Dish carefully chose packages to make them cheaper, too bad. The judge HAS to allow it.

I dunno... when I checked into it, DirecTV would have cost me considerably more than what I currently pay with dish for similar service levels. Seems to me that Dish was accurate.

You know...this is just another BS lawsuit...

The reality here is that here are enough permutations of packages, discounts, and fees to where either provider can present a convincing case under any given circumstances.

The problem is that Dish Networks advertising here is, like it or not....effective. I did see the commercial and its message was very clear and believable, and at the very least...provable if only given face value as your evidence. (base 'marketing' prices only and not including the permutations of packages, discounts and fees mentioned above)

The truth is, I can't honestly see how D* could effectively counter advertising like that...except for, of course, by filing a very well pubicized lawsuit contesting its message, which would at the very least push any consumers out there who were swayed by the advertising towards at least taking a closer look at it. Then all those permutations of packages, discounts, and fees can allow for folks to believe whatever they want to believe by cherry-picking whatever evidence they decide to follow...

...I bet this thing will generate enough hype on its own and just be dismissed...

Actually.... At least with what I want with Direct and what I would want with Dish.... Direct is cheaper by about $3.
Same here. Comparable setup to what I have now, Direct is cheaper

this is too funny lol. dish could sue directv for the same thing. ads look identical to me

Comcast will be suing D* next. For compairing them on D* website.

I think the lawsuit is not so much about Dish being cheaper on the average, which they are. I think it is about the one commercial where they give the actual average sub cost for both services. What is misleading is the fact that Dish is using the average of all subs for Direct, including those that pay for sports programming that Dish does not offer. If you compare average sub cost for comparable packages, it is not as big of a difference as they are trying to indicate.

With that said, I don't think it is worthy of a lawsuit as the average number is actually correct. Instead of suing, Direct should just hit Dish back with a commercial of their own. This is the way it should be done in a free market

They should say in response to, "Why pay more for the same TV", by using examples of packages in which Dish does not offer that lead to the higher average sub price for Direct. Direct could say something like, "To answer the question, Why pay more for the same. You are not paying more for the same; you are paying more for more. As we offer things that Dish does not offer, such as EI, ST, ex."

Dish used to be about $10 cheaper than DirecTV for me. With these new receiver fees DirecTV will actually be cheaper in 6 months.

Dear Directv,
Please take the money you are using to fund this lawsuit, and instead, invest it towards giving us more HD, like DISH just did for their customers!!!! Thanks.

Instead of suing, Direct should just hit Dish back with a commercial of their own. This is the way it should be done in a free market


They are already doing this. These Dish vs Directv commercials are getting just as bad as the Verizon vs AT&T ones.

lol Directv shouldnt talk about false advertising (the most HD anywhere)... nope.

this is too funny lol. dish could sue directv for the same thing. ads look identical to me

The problem is that the ad itself is 100 percent believable and provable at face value...

Like I said, any permutation of packages, discounts, and fees can help you prove or disprove it one way or another...but thats kind of irrelevant. The fact is that the message actually sticks.

lol Directv shouldnt talk about false advertising (the most HD anywhere)... nope.

they are still 'promising' sat launches like they did years ago when they were the king off the HD business plan... :D

Dish is definitely cheaper for me than DirecTV, but not by much. Both are significantly cheaper than TWC.

Ted

If I went full Dish(right now I have only the HD only pack) I would be paying only cents(I think only 17 cents higher) higher then DirecTV.

I'm a DirecTV fanboy(Always will be no matter who I'm with), but I don't think this crosses the line into deceptive advertising(As it's on a per sub base(Some pay more, some pay less).

Like someone said, Sell what you do have other guy doesn't. MRV,ST,MLBEI,YES... ETC

Here the problem....

I can sit on both sites and play with receiver options and packages and in one minute make directv cheaper just like i can turn around and make dish look cheaper. it is really all subjective.

Here is the problem with dish .... they have dieheria of the mouth.

Here a qoute from the store

For new customers, DirecTV’s promotional programming price doubles in the second year of a required two-year commitment, according to the Dish statement.


Which is just wrong as double our promotion would be 52 dollars and we have no 52 dollar packages. We also keep simple flat fees and dont charge people to susp service or downgrade there package .

Does Directv really have a case here probably not.

Does charlie need to be forced to show all the facts I think so and not hide them in fine print.

Funny how they mention the price increase .. my neighbor had a 19.99 promotion for 6 months he has only 1 tv no hd ( but is a211 on EA ) and he went from payign 19.99 to some 53 dollars now that is doubling. Way to go dish blame direct for your own crazy accounting.

This lawsuit is going no where just like the tivo cases.

As we offer things that Dish does not offer, such as EI, ST, ex."To which DISH counters with many more premium movie channels and HD channels for about the same money. The circle of life is not supposed to feed the lawyers.

To which DISH counters with many more premium movie channels and HD channels for about the same money. The circle of life is not supposed to feed the lawyers.

And the E* threads aren't supposed to feed the D* trolls...

I think the lawsuit is not so much about Dish being cheaper on the average, which they are. I think it is about the one commercial where they give the actual average sub cost for both services. What is misleading is the fact that Dish is using the average of all subs for Direct, including those that pay for sports programming that Dish does not offer. If you compare average sub cost for comparable packages, it is not as big of a difference as they are trying to indicate.

With that said, I don't think it is worthy of a lawsuit as the average number is actually correct. Instead of suing, Direct should just hit Dish back with a commercial of their own. This is the way it should be done in a free market

They should say in response to, "Why pay more for the same TV", by using examples of packages in which Dish does not offer that lead to the higher average sub price for Direct. Direct could say something like, "To answer the question, Why pay more for the same. You are not paying more for the same; you are paying more for more. As we offer things that Dish does not offer, such as EI, ST, ex."

Dish doesn't offer EI or ST because D entered into arrangements with MLB and the NFL that are exclusive. Because of this I don't think D has a leg to stand on using that argument in the affirmative in a lawsuit.

. . . Furthermore, the Dish TV commercials focus on the concept of "Are the comedies any funnier? Are movies and more--movier?" The way pay more of TV idea is more than just the numbers, but is centered on the idea that the channels that both sat cos have really are identical (and pretty much the same PQ). That is at the heart of the Why pay more for TV. It is clear these ads (as most comparison ads) were reviewed and picked apart by Dish and outside attorneys before being approved for air. Dish probably expected Direc TV to sue. Suing Dish gives Direc an aura credibility that they could not obtain from an opposing ad. They got so frustrated that they had to sue. From my view, Direc TV doesn't have a case. I do agree that Direc's move to court shows that Dish has very effective advertising and that Direc TV could not counter in an ad of their own, as they had with every other Dish claim.

These lawsuits are common and a waste of our court system's time as they are filed for reasons of publicity and leverage and a tiny bit of hope that they may prevail, but most likely won't.

Here is DISH Networks statement on the lawsuit.


DISH NETWORK EVP TOM CULLEN ISSUES STATEMENT ON DIRECTV LAWSUIT

ENGLEWOOD, Colo. – Feb. 11, 2010 – Tom Cullen, executive vice president of Sales, Marketing and Programming for DISH Network L.L.C, issued the following statement on a lawsuit DirecTV filed today against DISH Network:

"We are pleased to compare our programming and prices to those of DirecTV. We stand by our claim that our programming, such as ESPN and Discovery Channel, is the same as their programming, and more importantly, that our customers realize significant savings over comparable programming packages from DirecTV.

For new customers, DirecTV's promotional programming price actually doubles in the second year of a required two-year commitment. It is ironic that DirecTV, which the Attorney General of Washington cited as ‘standing out for providing some of the most deceptive advertising of any company,’ is now taking issue with DISH Network's legitimate comparisons."

interesting... what about those commerical where directv said dish doesnt have lifetime or amc channel, and etc? is this true? if it is, then how is it saving money with way way less channels that dish does not have?


directv has the advantage on sports which most percent of people are sports watcher.

I save a bundle with E* compared to D*. I have 120 + locals + HD/Platinum and International. The comparable package at D* is $50 more a month after discounts end and $20 more with discounts. And D* doesn't carry my locals in HD. No contest at this point.

Here is DISH Networks statement on the lawsuit.

D* is also in trouble because of their discounts, they are rebate based and apparently a pain in the a** to get.

Here is DirecTV's statement on the issue:
Dish’s “Why Pay More” ads, which began airing on Feb. 8, say consumers would pay $39.99 a month for Dish services that cost $63.99 a month at DirecTV, according to a complaint filed in Manhattan federal court today.

“In reality the featured DirecTV package does not offer the ‘same programming’ as the advertised Dish Network package-- in fact, it offers much more,” the complaint says. DirecTV’s package includes more than 140 video channels, including popular selections such as Bravo and Animal Planet, while Dish’s package contains 120 channels without the popular ones, according to the lawsuit.It appears to me that Dish Network is comparing its America's Top 120 tier against DirecTV's Choice Xtra package.

If you think about it, that is a pretty unfair comparasion.

More at Multichannel.com (http://www.multichannel.com/article/448962-DirecTV_Sues_Dish_Over_Why_Pay_More_Ad.php)

lol Directv shouldnt talk about false advertising (the most HD anywhere)... nope.


If I was dish I would hit them with a counter suite against that claim and compare them with u verse and Fios! Let it all play out in court! :D It shows that there is a deceptive practices going on at DirecTV. This will in turn could turn the lawsuit around on Directv.

Here is DirecTV's statement on the issue:It appears to me that Dish Network is comparing its America's Top 120 tier against DirecTV's Choice Xtra package.

If you think about it, that is a pretty unfair comparasion.

More at Multichannel.com (http://www.multichannel.com/article/448962-DirecTV_Sues_Dish_Over_Why_Pay_More_Ad.php)

Good point. Why not make the packages comparable? Dish could still show a lower price point on package alone.

Here is DirecTV's statement on the issue:It appears to me that Dish Network is comparing its America's Top 120 tier against DirecTV's Choice Xtra package.

If you think about it, that is a pretty unfair comparasion.

More at Multichannel.com (http://www.multichannel.com/article/448962-DirecTV_Sues_Dish_Over_Why_Pay_More_Ad.php)

and its not like choice is that much less than choice extra. about $5.

Yea Lets see.
Choice vs Top 200
$58.99 vs $52.99

Choice Ultimate vs Top 250
$68.99 vs $62.99

Seems Fair and Dish still is Cheaper.
D* doesn't even have a Package to compair to the Top 120
So Again Dish still has Cheaper options.

D* will lose this case.

BOTH:
Companies an all the same old thing at least %99..Over programs, channels & price
Only dish is tab better because of better HD receivers and can connect the EHD to it & record !
I am dish customer only thing I stuck with dish & don’t change service coz their equipments compare to DR,
But ya Hemi 6.1
I would think the same Dish would lose the case!

lol Directv shouldnt talk about false advertising (the most HD anywhere)... nope.To DIRECTV's credit, their latest rendition of their website has revised the HD channel count significantly downward. While it was over 100 at some point, now the Premiere package is claimed to have 85+ channels.

In terms of linear full-time channels, I think DISH has about 15 more HD channels than DIRECTV.


I'm not sure how DIRECTV determined that Animal Planet and Bravo were to-die-for HD channels.

But ya Hemi 6.1 I would think the same Dish would lose the case!

You do understand that he said Direct would lose the case, right?

You know the last person who tried crying foul in court about advertising lost. (ATT VS Verizon) Maybe dish could use that case to their advantage. Looking at the advertising I dont where dish is misleading anyone. Its quite clear that the packages they are comparing against each other (Compare DISH Network Programming - DISH (http://www.dishnetwork.com/compare/programming.aspx))

I think the chalks one up for dish's marketing team that they are doing good if they are getting d* to react like this. D* obviously sees dish as a threat.

So why does D* have to sue Dish??? The "funniest" way to handle this would be the ATT handled the "Verizon - Map for That" commercials... I enjoy the back & forth ads between those two :)

Even funnier is Sprint... they won't allow Penske to put the Verizon name on his car (still) but the paint scheme & graphics all say "Verizon" if you know what to look for & "Verizon" still gets TV time because of the commentators keep saying things like "Verizon Dodge, even though the name isn't on it" :) it tickles me sometimes what people can do... Same thing w/ Childress & ATT, Sprint says we sponsor the series, so don't come in w/ competing sponsors on you car... because we say so...

D*... create better ads, don't sue!!! it's stupid in my opinion...

[/soapbox] :)

Here is the ad they are being sued for... (I never saw this ad before today)


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RGXPw3WyvXQ

I have updated the first post of this thread with an actual copy of the lawsuit and other related documents.

So why does D* have to sue Dish??? The "funniest" way to handle this would be the ATT handled the "Verizon - Map for That" commercials... I enjoy the back & forth ads between those two :)You do realize that AT&T attempted to sue Verizon over those ads, and the courts were so ready to side with Verizon that AT&T withdrew the case?

Never saw it either. They're comparing AT 120 with Directv Choice package.

Here is the ad they are being sued for... (I never saw this ad before today)

YouTube- DISH Network Man on the Street Commercial (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RGXPw3WyvXQ)

I have updated the first post of this thread with an actual copy of the lawsuit and other related documents.

If dish really has every channel that the 60 dollar package price that they were comparing their 3999 package then direct doesnt have a case. If they dont i see direct tv winning this lawsuit. That was a pretty one sided punch in the face to cable and direct. a few bucks cheaper i could see but $20 a month cheaper? cmon.....

You do realize that AT&T attempted to sue Verizon over those ads, and the courts were so ready to side with Verizon that AT&T withdrew the case?

... did not know that, but I liked the resulting ads :)

In the ad it looks like it shows only one channel, so thats all its comparing. If they're showing the cheapest package from each company to get that channel the ad is correct.

Its pretty obvious that D* is losing its a$$ due to the Dish ads otherwise why file a lawsuit?
Why the heck don't they spend their money suing the Cable companies for their bull crap ads. Or spend the money and catch up with Dish and add more HD, or even better lower their price to match Dish.
When they lose the lawsuit guess guess who's gonna fork out for the damage?[

This is why Dish increased their receiver fees this year and didn't increase their price on their basic packages.

What a genious move, Directv has a price increase next month on their basic packages while Dish has kept everything about the same.

When you compair prices, you compair base package prices, you don't include DVR Fees, additional receivers Etc.

And the E* threads aren't supposed to feed the D* trolls...
Shut up! Nobody is trolling. I made a legitimate post

Dish doesn't offer EI or ST because D entered into arrangements with MLB and the NFL that are exclusive. Because of this I don't think D has a leg to stand on using that argument in the affirmative in a lawsuit.
ST is exclusive, but EI is not.

The point of my post was not to turn this into a who carries what, it was simply a way to counter the, "...SAME THING" part of the Dish adds. Instead of suing, Direct just needs to show how they are not the same.

To which DISH counters with many more premium movie channels and HD channels for about the same money. The circle of life is not supposed to feed the lawyers.
Very true. And goes into exactly the point I made, the fact that they are not exactly the same.

This is why Dish increased their receiver fees this year and didn't increase their price on their basic packages.

What a genious move, Directv has a price increase next month on their basic packages while Dish has kept everything about the same.

When you compair prices, you compair base package prices, you don't include DVR Fees, additional receivers Etc.
When one factors in all these other costs, the differences are not that great

If I were D*, I'd be making commercials comparing how E* is socking people with exorbitant receiver charges, and ridicule their "whole house DVR charge" that doesn't include the fact that their receiver fees on DVRs are higher than their non DVR receivers.

Basically, do what AT&T did to Verizon.

To DIRECTV's credit, their latest rendition of their website has revised the HD channel count significantly downward. While it was over 100 at some point, now the Premiere package is claimed to have 85+ channels.

In terms of linear full-time channels, I think DISH has about 15 more HD channels than DIRECTV.

Don't give them too much credit, they STILL claim more HD than Dish:
https://www.directv.com/DTVAPP/content/hd/difference

I think DTV suing Dish for false advertisement is the most hypocritical thing I've ever heard of in my life.

I've seen the Dish commercial here and the whole time we watched it in our house we were wondering where the heck Dish was getting their numbers because we sure as heck are not paying what they show in the commercial. False advertising, I say hell ya.

Show total real world bills for basic equipment and fees and tell me how many people you'll have lining up then. Better yet tell everyone about the hit they'll get for a second receiver in the ads. You'll see OTA and FTA antennas popping up like mushrooms after a Spring rain.

I've seen the Dish commercial here and the whole time we watched it in our house we were wondering where the heck Dish was getting their numbers because we sure as heck are not paying what they show in the commercial. False advertising, I say hell ya. Go to their website and see if the pricing they show is available. It will be.... It says nothing about what current customers pay. The commercial is focused for NEW customers, not existing ones.

The numbers are real if a customer has only 1 TV.

Most of us are paying more, but most of us have more then 1 tv.

The numbers are real if a customer has only 1 TV.

Most of us are paying more, but most of us have more then 1 tv.

Is there such a thing?

Only 1 TV?

:)

The numbers are real if a customer has only 1 TV.

Most of us are paying more, but most of us have more then 1 tv.

Or 2 TVs with a Duo receiver. Which is what I have. Only fee I pay is DVR.

There used to be an unspoken code where Dish and DirecTV would only compare themselves to cable. That was broken when Dish started their pop-up-tv ads comparing Dish to DirecTV.:shocked

Seems to me Charlie started this and now Mike wants to make it a real fight. Boys will be boys!

White probably figures this isn't any different than Pepsi vs. Coke. Probably a bad calculation by Ergen.

The numbers are real if a customer has only 1 TV. If they're comparing a DirecTV package with "X" number of TVs to a Dish package with "Y" number of TVs, then it's unfair. If they're comparing "1" TV package to "1" TV package, it's a fair game. Both Dish and DirecTV advertise their 1-TV rates on their websites, flyers, commercials anyway... The number of TVs is irrelevant in this scenario.

This is like a family of six complaining that their water bill is higher than a single guy's water bill. That's not an apples-to-apples comparison.

Or 2 TVs with a Duo receiver. Which is what I have. Only fee I pay is DVR.


Which is what I have also.:D

If they're comparing a DirecTV package with "X" number of TVs to a Dish package with "Y" number of TVs, then it's unfair. If they're comparing "1" TV package to "1" TV package, it's a fair game. Both Dish and DirecTV advertise their 1-TV rates on their websites, flyers, commercials anyway... The number of TVs is irrelevant in this scenario.

This is like a family of six complaining that their water bill is higher than a single guy's water bill. That's not an apples-to-apples comparison.
Why not factor in that the Dish price is for 2 tvs?

Dish wins hands down in the lawsuit and DirecTV will withdraw the complaint.

DirecTV would stomp on Dish in a heads-up ad campaign and Dish will withdraw the ads.

D* suing is a good move if they really think they can get somewhere with the law suit. By filing the suit against E* they're getting free advertising since it will now be consider news. During the meantime it could make future subscribers take a closer look at both D* & E*. The major risk is that if E* comes out on top of this, D* would have to do some quick back peddling and changes to make them selves look good again. Right now D* is known more for their sports programming and E* for their great equipment. Which seems to be the real reason for choosing one over the other.
Ghpr13:)

D* suing is a good move if they really think they can get somewhere with the law suit. By filing the suit against E* they're getting free advertising since it will now be consider news. During the meantime it could make future subscribers take a closer look at both D* & E*. The major risk is that if E* comes out on top of this, D* would have to do some quick back peddling and changes to make them selves look good again. Right now D* is known more for their sports programming and E* for their great equipment. Which seems to be the real reason for choosing one over the other.
Ghpr13:)

I gotta agree with most of that.

I think DirecTV can make themselves look good without changing anything. It is Charlie who made the decision to put the DirecTV logo on Dish Network ads. Very bold and why I love that guy! White is giving him reason to think twice about that. lol

Its honestly just a publicity stunt. The 'evidence' is too highly subjective to really win a case. Lets face it, a quick and easy way to make the public question and advertisement is to file a lawsuit against it. A competing commercial takes to long to produce, and has nowhere near the 'credibility' that even a bogus lawsuit has in the minds of the public. Its just a quick and dirty way to 'shoot down' an otherwise effective advertisement.

Its quite a brilliant tactic if you think about it...

Swanni's Take:
"DIRECTV should spend less time worrying about Dish Network's ads and more time adding HD channels. Priorities are out of order here."

I know there isnt alot of Swanni fans out there, but I have to COMPLETELY agree with this statement.

Swanni's Take:
"DIRECTV should spend less time worrying about Dish Network's ads and more time adding HD channels. Priorities are out of order here."

I know there isnt alot of Swanni fans out there, but I have to COMPLETELY agree with this statement.

I agree with him as well. These ads are really bugging DIRECTV, so much that they made their own versions of the ads talking bad about DISH which appeard on the DIRECTV website (and the info they were giving about Dish was WRONG.) perhaps a counter suit will come out of this. A waste of time and money for everyone if you ask me.

Go to DIRECTV now they have one of their ads up which compares DIRECTV to DISH and says that 25 of Dish Network's HD channels are only HD part of the time (that true.. Dish with their select games in HD RSN setup sucks..) but then DIRECTV says that the "now has the capacity for over 200 channels, all in HD all the time..."

If DirecTV "Now" has the capacity then why arnt they using it?
DIRECTV has a few RSN's which still are not 24/7 so its not ALL in HD ALL the time.

I smell a lawsuit. ;)

Swanni's Take:
"DIRECTV should spend less time worrying about Dish Network's ads and more time adding HD channels. Priorities are out of order here."

I know there isnt alot of Swanni fans out there, but I have to COMPLETELY agree with this statement.
not a swanni fan but have to agree with him here 100%! their priorities have been out of order for awhile now. and as already mentioned above,what a waste of time and money for everyone involved :no

Another one on DIRECTV's main homepage that I don't quite get...



WANT TO MISS THOUSANDS OF GAMES? (http://www.directv.com/DTVAPP/content/competition/dish/sports)

With DISH Network, you will. (http://www.directv.com/DTVAPP/content/competition/dish/sports)

Thousands of games? Maybe over quite a few years.

Talk about exaggeration!

I don't know why dish does not push the difference in HD, dish has about 71 national channels with hd and platinum in 250, direct has about 50 in Choice ultimate, thats a big difference. Might even be a bigger difference between premier and everything since dish has more movie hd channels which both packages include.

even fios has less than dish, they have 59 nationals, not counting .tv channels which are 6 of them, still less than dish at 65.

actually they moved the .tv out of extreme into ultimate, so you now have to pay more for those channels, lol.

Here is the ad they are being sued for... (I never saw this ad before today)

YouTube- DISH Network Man on the Street Commercial (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RGXPw3WyvXQ)

I have updated the first post of this thread with an actual copy of the lawsuit and other related documents.

They have been inserting this for a while. I have seen it several times and each time I wonder what they get for $40 a month, SD?, and if they discuss all the fees and everything afterwards if the amazed "people on the street" would still be so amazed?

They have been inserting this for a while. I have seen it several times and each time I wonder what they get for $40 a month, SD?, and if they discuss all the fees and everything afterwards if the amazed "people on the street" would still be so amazed?
What fees? There are no fees.

Another one on DIRECTV's main homepage that I don't quite get...



Thousands of games? Maybe over quite a few years.

Talk about exaggeration!

Not that much of an exaggeration. Over 1500 a year just with baseball.

Still not a fair ad. How much would it cost to get all of those sports packages? You would need to get them all to validate DirecTV's claim! lol

The sad part is that while D* & E* play "Mine's bigger than yours!" it's the subscribers from both companies that come up short. Like stated before, if these two companies would apply their energy and their money to just improving the quality and quantity of satellite TV with better DVR's and more "real" HD channels they could secure a solid subscriber base and work on knocking cable down from it's high ladder of subscribers. Helping to secure the future of satellite TV.
Ghpr13:)

Tearing down cable companies is a great thing for competition. The thing satellite companies are going to struggle with to me is the receiver charges. To get HD on Cable you do not always need a box. A tv with qam yes, a box no. If you want more than 10 HD channels yea you need a box.

But still the point remains, making every television set require a box to function is customer limiting. They should really just charge DVR only fee and lease boxes up to 4 free. That would go along way towards making satellite more appealing. This lawsuit does nothing for that.

Got a letter the other day from DirecTV they offered to pay out my contract and give me $26. a month off for a year plus 3 months of HBO and Showtime.

So it would seem Dish's advertising is having an effect.

Dang it to Hades I subscribe to pretty much thier whole package and how come I don't get one of those letters?

Another one on DIRECTV's main homepage that I don't quite get...



Thousands of games? Maybe over quite a few years.

Talk about exaggeration!Want to miss a thousand movies.
Wanna miss a good DVR, Wanna miss your wallet?
Then D* is right for you.:D

Another one on DIRECTV's main homepage that I don't quite get...



Thousands of games? Maybe over quite a few years.

Talk about exaggeration!
Not an exaggeration at all. MLB EI alone broadcast over a thousand games that those on Dish cannot get outside of their local games only.

Want to miss a thousand movies.
Wanna miss a good DVR, Wanna miss your wallet?
Then D* is right for you.:D
There is probably not a single movie you can see on Dish that you cannot see on Direct.

As far as price, for many Dish is not cheaper, as Jag has shown for him and I have shown for myself.

There is probably not a single movie you can see on Dish that you cannot see on Direct.

As far as price, for many Dish is not cheaper, as Jag has shown for him and I have shown for myself.

and for many more Dish is cheaper...

and for many more Dish is cheaper...
I am not doubting that. I would bet more people pay less for Dish than pay less for Direct. I was just commenting on Hemi's point about missing your wallet.

For most subs the difference in price is not that great.

DIRECTV WILL LIE TO YOU AND THEN TAKE YOU TO COURT IF THEY CAN . OVERPRICED AND FALSE - ADVERTISING AND WILL CHARGE YOU FOR EVERYTHING THEY CAN GET AWAY WITH.

ANY SERVICE WILL BE BETTER THAN DTV.



BEWARE OF DTV***********But..But.. I LOVE my Directv!!:up I just wish the HD DVR's were faster!

Perhaps Dish has structured their pricing so it's as much as direct for most subscribers, but allows them to successfully advertise lower prices because of where the charges are. Notice that no one mentions fees.

Perhaps the comparison should be something beyond one TV set. Perhaps D* could come up with a commercial for a real-world example where Dish is more expensive for equipment and other programming. At least it would sow confusion in the market, which is one of the primary objectives for this type of advertising.

DISH has the cheapest programming out there. Now if you want more than one dual tuner dvr, you will pay out the ass , with the new equipment fees. I think they are going to see backlash on the equipment fees and more subs will return their extra dual tuner dvrs and go with smaller solo tuner receivers that they can turn into dvrs with the software fee. The one thing I do like is that I can avoid the fees since I already simplified my receivers last year when they hiked the fee on the dvr advantage subs by $8.00. I have just a 722k and a 211k that I turned into a dvr for my son.

Perhaps Dish has structured their pricing so it's as much as direct for most subscribers, but allows them to successfully advertise lower prices because of where the charges are. Notice that no one mentions fees.

. There is no fees on the first 2 rooms of service with Dish Network.
First 2 rooms of DVR are still only $6

Lets see 2 rooms of DVR with D* is $12 in fees alone.

Most customers have 2-4 rooms of service tops.
I bet less then 5% of D* and E* customers have TV in 6 rooms, Let alone HD DVRs.

DIRECTV WILL LIE TO YOU AND THEN TAKE YOU TO COURT IF THEY CAN . OVERPRICED AND FALSE - ADVERTISING AND WILL CHARGE YOU FOR EVERYTHING THEY CAN GET AWAY WITH.

ANY SERVICE WILL BE BETTER THAN DTV.



BEWARE OF DTV***********

To be fair, you could probably substitute Dish for DirecTV in the above and many would agree.

Sort of leaves us in a logical conundrum, though.

Directv
Choice Pack
$58.99
2 rooms of service $5
Total $63.99

Dish Network
Top 250 Pack $62.99
2 rooms of service $0
Total $62.99

So what were you guys saying?