Social Feed

Scott Greczkowski
Staff member HERE TO HELP YOU! Cutting Edge
Last reply · posted in DIRECTV General Forum
Consumers Ask Court to Stop DIRECTV from Taking Disputed 'Cancellation Fees' Out of Bank Accounts, Credit Cards

Satellite TV Company Charged Unlawful "Early Cancellation" Penalty, Consumer Advocates Contend

SANTA MONICA, Calif., Sept. 22 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- Consumers who are being charged an "early cancellation penalty" by satellite television company DIRECTV asked the Los Angeles Superior Court to block the company from automatically removing the fees from customers' bank accounts or charging their credit card accounts without their prior knowledge and written consent until the lawsuit is resolved.

The motion for a preliminary injunction notes that DIRECTV is systematically withdrawing the fees of up to $480 - which the lawsuit contends are unlawful - from customers' accounts without their knowledge or permission. The withdrawals have caused consumers' accounts to be overdrawn, customers' checks to bounce, over-limit penalties to be assessed and their credit reports to be harmed as a result. The DIRECTV customers who brought the lawsuit on behalf of current and former California DIRECTV customers asked the court to bar the company from collecting the disputed fees in this manner until the court determines whether the fees themselves are lawful.

DIRECTV charges its customers an "early cancellation penalty" when they terminate their service before what DIRECTV calls the "term commitment" period, typically eighteen to twenty-four months, is over. This "early cancellation penalty" is charged regardless of the reason for the cancellation. The lawsuit contends that DIRECTV fails to disclose this penalty to new customers or to existing customers who replace their equipment or add a new receiver, and that these practices are unlawful.

"These days, many families are struggling to make ends meet. Now is the last time DIRECTV should be plundering people's financial accounts to pay a fee that we believe is unlawful," said Harvey Rosenfield, founder of the non-profit Consumer Watchdog, who, along with Litigation Director Pamela Pressley, is one of the attorneys in the case. "The DIRECTV customers that we represent had no notice that this 'early cancellation penalty' would be directly withdrawn or charged to their accounts without any advance warning or opportunity to dispute the charge, leaving them caught completely by surprise when they discovered after the fact that the money was taken from their accounts," stated Pressley.

"The company's unauthorized seizure of people's money from their bank accounts jeopardizes the fragile financial status of these customers, and since DIRECTV has refused our request to stop collecting the fees in this manner, we are asking the court to prevent it from doing so," said Jennifer Steinberg, another attorney on the case.

"I was shocked and appalled to find that, after having been a loyal DIRECTV customer for over seven years and cancelling my service because of problems with my equipment and terrible customer service, DIRECTV had taken money directly from my bank account," said Mary Cox, a putative class member in this litigation. Cox continued, "this fee caused my account to go into overdraft, thereby resulting in my bank charging me overdraft fees. I spent countless hours trying to get the charges reversed with my bank. This is money I need to pay for my groceries and other bills."

"It's outrageous for a company to be able to deduct money from its customers personal checking accounts without their written or verbal consent. This unlawful practice needs to be stopped," said Ingrid Evans, counsel for two of the representative DIRECTV customers in the suit.

In a complaint filed last September in Los Angeles Superior Court on behalf of current and former California DIRECTV customers who were charged an early cancellation penalty, Los Angeles resident Kathy Greiner explained that when her DIRECTV receiver stopped working, she ordered a new one. It began experiencing problems, but DIRECTV would not resolve the problem. So Greiner, a six-year customer of the company, cancelled her service and returned the equipment. DIRECTV subsequently levied a $240 "early cancellation" penalty on Greiner, which the company took directly from her bank account (after deducting some amounts she had previously paid) without her knowledge or permission.

Greiner's complaint was later consolidated with another lawsuit brought by Amy Imburgia and Marlene Mecca, also California residents. The joint lawsuit, Imburgia, et. al, v. DirecTV, Inc., alleges that DIRECTV failed to disclose to customers that it imposed an 18 or 24 month term of service and that cancellation before the end of the term would result in enormous penalty fees. The company would also automatically extend the "contractual obligation" by another 18 to 24 months if malfunctioning equipment needed to be replaced or the customer decided to make a change to programming or other services. These policies were not properly disclosed to purchasers beforehand, and consumers did not agree to them, the suit states.

DIRECTV Sought to Block State Case In Favor of Federal Lawsuit

In addition to the joint lawsuit in California state court, numerous lawsuits against DIRECTV have been filed in federal courts, including in California. The state case was temporarily put on hold while the court considered DIRECTV's request to freeze the California case pending the conclusion of the federal case filed in the Central District of California. In a ruling last July, Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Emilie H. Elias permitted the case to proceed. The federal case itself has since been delayed at DIRECTV's behest.

Along with lawyers for Consumer Watchdog, Greiner is represented by the Law Offices of F. Edie Mermelstein, based in Huntington Beach, and Wayne Kreger and Jennifer Steinberg of the Santa Monica-based firm of Milstein, Adelman and Kreger, LLP. Plaintiffs Imburgia and Mecca are represented by Deanna D. Dailey of Sprenger & Lang, PLLC, located in Minneapolis, Minnesota; Todd Schneider of the San Francisco office of Schneider Wallace Cottrell Brayton & Konecky, LLP; and Ingrid Evans of the San Francisco office of Waters Kraus & Paul.

Download a copy of the motion for a preliminary injunction at: http://www.ConsumerWatchdog.org/resources/DirecTVSuitMotion.pdf

A copy of the joint amended complaint can be found here: http://www.ConsumerWatchdog.org/resources/DirecTVSuitComplaint.pdf

Consumer Watchdog, formerly The Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights, is a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization. Consumer Watchdog: Home

SOURCE Consumer Watchdog
32 Replies · 7120 views
Tom Bombadil
I can understand the original 2 year contract when one subs to D*. And I can understand them initiating another one with a major equipment upgrade.

But there is no way they should be able to hold someone to a new contract when such is nondisclosed on a failed equipment replacement or a programming change (again unless it is a significant promotional offer that fully discloses that you are entering into a new contract).

D* should have some clearly defined legal limitations within which they can impose a new contract obligation.
ChrisK114
I can understand the original 2 year contract when one subs to D*. And I can understand them initiating another one with a major equipment upgrade.

But there is no way they should be able to hold someone to a new contract when such is nondisclosed on a failed equipment replacement or a programming change (again unless it is a significant promotional offer that fully discloses that you are entering into a new contract).

D* should have some clearly defined legal limitations within which they can impose a new contract obligation.

The way I am seeing it is that I don't know if D* wants to fix it or not. It seems like this glitch has been happening for quite a while now and it is still going on. It seems like it would be an easy fix if they wanted to do something about it. I myself, last week, found out I was a victim of extending my agreement for a replacement receiver. I just would not let them get away with it. Instead of fixing the problem, they kept trying to find ways to make the contract extension valid.
lern4483
The way I am seeing it is that I don't know if D* wants to fix it or not. It seems like this glitch has been happening for quite a while now and it is still going on. It seems like it would be an easy fix if they wanted to do something about it. I myself, last week, was a victim of extending my agreement for a replacement receiver. I just would not let them get away with it. Instead of fixing the problem, they kept trying to find ways to make the contract extension valid.

Funny, they tried to pull that crap with me..

However, I have the protection plan.

Turns out if you have the protection plan they ''can not''

extend your contract-period!
harshness
However, I have the protection plan.

Turns out if you have the protection plan they ''can not'' extend your contract-period!
Turns out that they have done it to a good number of subscribers with the protection plan or not as you have witnessed first hand.
Scott Greczkowski
Read my article in Multichannel and read what happened to me today...

Something needs some serious fixing at DirecTV.
cfb
cfb
Cell phone companies tell you right on the offer page "With 2 year contract/commitment". Directv tells you what you're getting for free and the promo pricing in big letters, no mention of any commitment.

Sure, you're supposed to read all the fine print before signing. In my case the installer said "here, I need you to sign this to say that you received everything you signed up for and you're happy with the install, and I gotta go!!!". I didnt even notice the fine print on the back until a month later when I was filing paperwork. At least because I read these sites I already knew what I was signing up for.

Since the rest of their fine print says they dont need to actually provide any usable service and theres no 'out' for bad customer service, they're not motivated to do a good job to retain customers.

When a business starts making the stick bigger while not bothering to tell you about it, rather than making the carrot taste better, its not a good sign.
goaliebob99
Turns out that they have done it to a good number of subscribers with the protection plan or not as you have witnessed first hand.

I had it done to me!!!!!!!!
A
Cell phone companies tell you right on the offer page "With 2 year contract/commitment". Directv tells you what you're getting for free and the promo pricing in big letters, no mention of any commitment.

And guess why the cell phone companies tell you that? A class action lawsuit filed and adjudicated in California. The defendants even tried to get the California action combined with a national class action but were rejected by the Ca courts. Maybe, just maybe, this lawsuit will get their attention.
A
Read my article in Multichannel and read what happened to me today...

Something needs some serious fixing at DirecTV.

Scott your experience was almost the same as mine. I did e-mail approx two weeks prior to canceling to find out my contract fulfillment date only to have them acknowledge they incorrectly extended me due to replacing a defective receiver (and yes, I had the protection plan). I was referred to a phone number in the access card department to call and have it corrected. The call resulted in the excuse they could not change it in the system but would note my account. FF to Sep 6th, got an acknowledgement that my contract fulfillment date would be noted and the correct ETF would be applied by the retention specialist (I canceled 4 months early and did expect an ETF of $80). So when I was charged $320 I e-mailed, vice called which got the oops we goofed, your account will be credited and you will see your refund in 6-8 weeks.
J
And guess why the cell phone companies tell you that? A class action lawsuit filed and adjudicated in California. The defendants even tried to get the California action combined with a national class action but were rejected by the Ca courts. Maybe, just maybe, this lawsuit will get their attention.


That's the only way to get the attention of any company.DirecTV&Dishnotwork included.;)
ChrisK114
All I know is it is going to take something pretty special in order for me to upgrade any of my D* receivers. My contract is supposedly up in October and there is no way I will reup my agreement with them. In fact, I don't know what I will do when my agreement is up. I am mostly, and I say mostly, happy with my service right now, but if the decline in customer service continues and they fail to fix the "glitch" that causes the errant contract extensions, I will be searching for another provider. I just can't do business with with someone who operates that way. As much as I would hate it, I would go back to cable so I could avoid any contracts whatsoever. Can you still get Dish with no contarct by paying a little bit more for install?
S
Last reply · posted in The Chit Chat Club
The title was to catch everyone's eye lol! But it is a thought I've been having as I dev a Roku app for a client. You see many MAAANY years ago I got really interested in cable TV channels and even chatted with a regional carrier, Insight about what it took to get a channel number. It was surprisingly easy although prohibitively expensive.



You could petition, reserve a high channel number, they monitored performance and if they liked you, you'd get lower channel number overtime and cut into ad overlays.



Roku has a similar setup. Make an app, if it has a strong, original linear component you could get channel assignment on The Roku Channel.



As mixed as my feelings are on the current media landscape, I can't help but feel a little excited interest when I scope out the apps in the Roku store.
1 Replies · 27 views
navychop
Hmmm. I think Roku will last. But will Firestick? With their backing, I guess so. Apple TV STB? Of Course. Walmart? Seems someone ought to go, but with their backing?….

Off brands have, as probably expected, very short lives.
K
Pub Member / Supporter Lifetime Supporter
Last reply · posted in TV Shows
Season 2 order already in hand:

'Star Trek: Starfleet Academy' Renewed for Season 2, Tatiana Maslany to Guest Star in Season 1

I've not been optimistic about this show based on what I've read so far. Seems to be aimed at a younger audience. Interesting though that Tatiana Maslany will have some sort of role.
94 Replies · 3700 views
harshness
Females wearing any clothing is unthinkable on Ferenginar.
  • Like
Reactions: Foxbat
long_time_Dish
Females wearing any clothing is unthinkable on Ferenginar.
Was never a huge of the Ferengi-centric episodes in Trek...
Jimbo
Was never a huge of the Ferengi-centric episodes in Trek...
Me either ...
They turned out to be a Poor adversary ....
Foxbat
They got their proper due on "Deep Space Nine"
  • Like
Reactions: long_time_Dish
long_time_Dish
They got their proper due on "Deep Space Nine"
And too many episodes centering on/around them as well...
JSheridan
Lifetime Supporter
Last reply · posted in DISH Network Support Forum
I know HipKat said that they were working on conversions but we got the official news yesterday right from Dish that starting next month all DMA's will be on the western arc, and all customers will be assigned to that. That's gonna mean a lot of customers around here aren't gonna get Dish unless there are exceptions. Too many mountains and trees.
155 Replies · 4292 views
Foxbat
Unless Dish acquires DirecTV and its mid-USA satellite slots, I may not have Dish Network to reach 40 years. Or, I guess we could buy a new house…
  • Like
Reactions: charlesrshell
S
Even if you are broadcasting old SD-only shows, I would think advertisers would still want their commercials to look good.
  • Like
Reactions: charlesrshell
Jimbo
Even if you are broadcasting old SD-only shows, I would think advertisers would still want their commercials to look good.
Advertisers on SD channels are probably Far and Few, very hard to find, they have very few viewers to watch them.
  • Like
Reactions: charlesrshell
Mister B
Advertisers on SD channels are probably Far and Few, very hard to find, they have very few viewers to watch them.
I watch mostly SD channels (H&I, Start and ION, etc.). There are plenty of advertisers, this time of the year it is mostly Medicare Advantage plans, auto extended warranties and the occasional walk-in-tub. They know who is watching.
Jimbo
I watch mostly SD channels (H&I, Start and ION, etc.). There are plenty of advertisers, this time of the year it is mostly Medicare Advantage plans, auto extended warranties and the occasional walk-in-tub. They know who is watching.
Not many are watching.
Majority are watching the same shows in HD or 4K
  • Like
Reactions: charlesrshell
S
Unless Dish acquires DirecTV and its mid-USA satellite slots, I may not have Dish Network to reach 40 years. Or, I guess we could buy a new house…
have charlie buy you a new house :biggrin :clapping
  • Like
Reactions: charlesrshell
T
Well, I didn't immediately think of broadcast, where there are all kinds of digital "subchannels"- I remember back when digital broadcast began that supposedly the 6mhz channel would likely support just 1 HD program and that the added subchannels would likely have to remain SD. I don't watch enough broadcast to know. Are there a lot of the subchannels in SD-only, and how do they do that, like are they in 4:3 or some kind of low-res widescreen?
  • Like
Reactions: charlesrshell
Foxbat
have charlie buy you a new house :biggrin :clapping
Unfortunately, I don't think my social proximity to Charle Ergen provides any special perks. Maybe if Foxbat, Jr. were to marry his daughter…🤞🏻🤣
S
Unfortunately, I don't think my social proximity to Charle Ergen provides any special perks. Maybe if Foxbat, Jr. were to marry his daughter…🤞🏻🤣
that would be one hell of a convo :biggrin.
  • Haha
Reactions: charlesrshell
SuperDish_Fan23
Last reply · posted in DISH Network Support Forum
Why are ViP922s So rare? like its crazy how ebay has none, i checked everywhere, also, i got a ViP222k now, which is actually activated!
35 Replies · 1090 views
S
I looked for wrecked trains on ebay and those are hard to find too!
Almighty1
I remember this in the news too...

Bobby
I remember this in the news too...

That is a misnomer. In the old days you subscribed to telephone service. That included the telephone line and one telephone. An extension cost $1 a month extra. So that $14,000 over 42 years was for the service not the leased telephone. There is no way they paid $28 a month for 42 years for a leased telephone.
SuperDish_Fan23
Why are ViP922s So rare? like its crazy how ebay has none, i checked everywhere, also, i got a ViP222k now, which is actually activated!
Whoever still has their 922, please let me know i just wanna see photos of the ui and other stuff
S
Whoever still has their 922, please let me know i just wanna see photos of the ui and other stuff

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7wL6dsORmXg
T
Slicker guides never did much for me
  • Like
Reactions: charlesrshell
Almighty1
That is a misnomer. In the old days you subscribed to telephone service. That included the telephone line and one telephone. An extension cost $1 a month extra. So that $14,000 over 42 years was for the service not the leased telephone. There is no way they paid $28 a month for 42 years for a leased telephone.
Good point as part of that time mentioned was before I was even alive.

While reports from the family's case focused entirely on the equipment rental charges, media records show that Ester Strogen originally started by paying $29.95 per quarter ($9.98 per month) in the 1960s for her combined telephone connection.
The actual base cost for standard residential telephone service over a 42-year period (spanning roughly 1964 to 2006) reveals how basic connection costs evolved compared to the equipment rental fees:

Historical Phone Service Rates
  • 1960s – 1970s Base Rate: Standard local phone service was heavily subsidized and tightly regulated under the Bell System monopoly. A basic landline package with unlimited local calling typically cost between $5.00 and $10.00 per month.
  • 1980s – 2000s Post-Deregulation Rate: Following the AT&T divestiture in 1984, base line service rates steadily climbed due to the introduction of subscriber line charges, touch-tone fees, and local infrastructure adjustments. By 2006, basic flat-rate local residential phone service hovered around $15.00 to $25.00 per month (excluding long-distance packages and taxes).
The True Lifetime Service Bill

Assuming an average baseline connection fee of roughly $12.00 a month over that 42-year span, the line connectivity itself would have realistically accumulated to approximately $6,000 in raw cash payouts.
When you bundle the actual service costs together with the escalating equipment rental fees, the total cumulative out-of-pocket phone expenses over those four decades easily crossed $12,000 to $14,000. Long-distance phone calls—which were billed entirely by the minute back then and could cost up to 15 to 30 cents per minute—would add significantly more to that historical total depending on usage.

The widely publicized calculation stems from a viral news story from 2006 involving a widow named Ester Strogen. Her family discovered she had been continuously leasing two rotary dial telephones from AT&T for 42 years.
The total cost—which actually came out to more than $14,000 by the time the lease was canceled—was calculated based on the following legacy telecom structure:
  • The Monthly Fee: At the time her granddaughters discovered the charges, the ongoing leasing fee was $29.10 per month for the two outdated phones.
  • The Math: Over 42 years (504 months), paying roughly $24 to $30 a month accumulates to between $12,000 and $14,600 ($29.10 × 504 months = $14,666.40).
Why did this happen?
Prior to the landmark breakup of AT&T ("Ma Bell") in 1984, consumers were legally not allowed to own their phones; they were required to lease them directly from the phone company.
When the laws changed and phone ownership became legal, AT&T spun off its rental division into a company called QLT Consumer Lease Services. Millions of customers, particularly elderly individuals who were used to seeing a single unified phone bill, simply never realized that the small recurring "equipment lease" line-item could be canceled by buying a cheap phone at a retail store.

Yes, leasing absolutely cost that much in reality, and the math is entirely accurate. However, the calculations performed by the family did contain one major historical nuance: they multiplied the final 2006 rate across all 42 years, which means the actual total cash paid out was likely a bit lower.
The original viral story focused on 82-year-old widow Ester Strogen from Canton, Ohio, who paid $29.10 a month for two black rotary phones until her family intervened in July 2006.
The reality behind how the cost reached that staggering total breaks down into two distinct phases:

Phase 1: The Historical Base Rate (1960s – 1984)

When Strogen first got the phones in the 1960s, renting was a legal mandate and cost a fraction of the 2006 price—usually just a few dollars a month.
  • The "Insurance" Mirage: In exchange for that fee, Ma Bell promised free, lifetime maintenance. If the phone broke, they replaced it instantly at no extra cost.
  • The Cost-Plus Reality: Because these solid-state phones were built like tanks out of heavy plastic and steel, they almost never broke. Consumers paid a continuous premium for decades for a repair service they rarely used.
Phase 2: The Deregulation Rate Hikes (1984 – 2006)

After AT&T was forced to break up its monopoly in 1984, the rental side of the business was shifted to Lucent Technologies and later a legacy holding company. To maximize profit off a shrinking customer base, they steadily increased the monthly rental fees over the next 20 years.
  • By 2006, the rental cost had quietly ballooned to roughly $14.55 per phone per month.
  • When the family discovered the $29.10 monthly charge, they looked back at the 42-year span and estimated the collective loss at over $14,000.
Even adjusted for historical inflation—where $2 a month in 1964 had the purchasing power of roughly $20 today—Ester Strogen and hundreds of thousands of other elderly Americans realistically paid thousands of dollars out-of-pocket for standard desk phones they could have purchased at retail for $10.

The exact out-of-pocket dollar amount Ester Strogen paid over those 42 years was never publicly determined, as neither AT&T nor the family had access to monthly billing records stretching all the way back to the 1960s.
The figures reported in the media are entirely mathematical estimates based on the 2006 rate. The two primary numbers used to define the "cost" are:
  • The Stated Media Total: More than $14,000.
  • The Exact Family Formula: $14,666.40. This was derived by taking her final recorded bill of $29.10 per month and multiplying it across the full 42 years (504 months).
What the True Cash Cost Likely Was

Because AT&T did not charge $29.10 a month back in 1964, the true historical cash sum she handed over was lower than $14,000. In the 1960s and 1970s, basic phone lease fees were generally bundled into standard service or itemized at just $1.00 to $2.00 a month per phone.
If we realistically assume she paid lower base rates for the first 20 years before the post-1984 deregulation price hikes took effect, a realistic estimate of the actual cash paid is between $5,000 and $7,000.

The Real Cost When Adjusted for Inflation

While the family's $14,000 calculation overestimates the raw cash paid, it actually underestimates the true economic damage when factoring in the time value of money.
Paying $2.00 a month for equipment in 1964 sounds minor, but due to severe inflation during the 1970s, those early single dollars had the purchasing power of roughly $20.00 each in 2006 terms. If you adjust every historical lower monthly payment upward to account for inflation, Ester Strogen realistically lost the equivalent of well over $15,000 in modern purchasing power by renting instead of buying.
  • Like
Reactions: charlesrshell
S
Slicker guides never did much for me
me either. sometimes it seems like things disappear when they start changing sh*t around :biggrin
  • Like
Reactions: charlesrshell
S
I looked for wrecked trains on ebay and those are hard to find too!
you would be better off looking in ca for a train wreck to nowhere :biggrin :p
  • Like
Reactions: charlesrshell
jcrandall
Staff member HERE TO HELP YOU!
Last reply · posted in DIRECTV Programming Forum
So...DirecTV advertises the Choice package with 95+ bonus channels for Satellite customers. You don't want 90+ of the 95...

Excluding PPV, premium networks, infomercial, shopping, religion, and non-English programming, there are 7 channels on satellite that are not on streaming:
NFL Network, MavTV, FE TV, Free Speech, NASA, INSP, and Pursuit. I'm pretty sure a couple of those are public interest that they have to carry to meet an FCC quota on satellite.

I hope they get called out for this advertising because that is ridiculous. One big network, NFL, will probably get added to streaming when their next agreement comes up, and the rest are likely very low viewership.

What about streaming, what do you get extra with the Choice package that isn't on Satellite:
Two stations - one of which is an internet TV - Fox Weather, and Heros & Icons (a diginet). Nothing special here to look at either.

If they cleaned up a couple of their agreements, added a few public interest stations to streaming, they could probably have their lineups match. It's close now, if you take out all the garbage on satellite that they earn money on. If they can sell infomercials on satellite, why can't they on streaming, seems like a miss. A bigger miss, including those stations in the "bonus channels just for satellite customers." Pretty sad marketing right there.

1681344805401.png


Attached is a comparison sheet of satellite vs streaming for the three main packages if anyone is interested.

MOD EDIT: See Post #3 for an up to date list of what channels are available on sat but not on streaming/internet, see Post #21 for an up to date list of what's available in the app for streaming customers, but not for sat customers.
243 Replies · 31862 views
K
WNPX/28 Nashville (The new home of the Predators) and WMYD/20 Detroit (the new home of the Pistons) are testing on the stream server.
harshness
One might get the impression that what DIRECTV does, or doesn't, is becoming far less consequential than it used to be.
M
One might get the impression that what DIRECTV does, or doesn't, is becoming far less consequential than it used to be.
K
WPLG/10 Miami is now available to stream customers

The CW stations WCWW/25 South Bend and WBKP/5 Marquette are testing on the stream server

Last week they also added a bunch of CW stations that are still not available to sat customers:
WETM-DT/19 Elmira
WJET-DT/25 Erie
KLFY-DT/11 Lafayette LA
KARD-DT/15 Monroe
WVBT-DT/44 Norfolk
WTWO-DT/3 Terre Haute
WFXV-DT/34 Utica
KFDX-DT/4 Wichita Falls
M
Well, that was fast ! DTV Stream brought back WTCN's HD signal today.

I have to assume the station signing up a week ago as the Miami Heat affiliate here (to carry their games) did the trick. NBA magic !!!

Or the station engineer took care of the problem after hearing about it.
  • Like
Reactions: KyL416
D
WNPX/28 Nashville (The new home of the Predators) and WMYD/20 Detroit (the new home of the Pistons) are testing on the stream server.
Channel 28 Nashville hasn't been added so far, correct?
K
WNPX Nashville and WMYD Detroit were added to stream about 2 months ago.

They also now have PRDTRS/651 for those in Predators territory outside of the Nashville DMA and PISTONS/663-2 for those in Pistons territory outside of the Detroit DMA.
TheForce
Supporting Founder Pub Member / Supporter
Last reply · posted in The Phone & Tablet Zone
Apple Fall Hardware Event takes place today, September 9, 2026, at 10:00 a.m. PT / 1:00 p.m. ET. It marks the debut of new CEO John Ternus and the expected reveal of Apple's first foldable phone.
132 Replies · 1454 views
comfortably_numb
Can't remember if I've posted this yet..


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nfL5seXJyWU
  • Haha
Reactions: slow_poke_pete
Foxbat
If you ponied up for an iPhone Duo, keep it away from anything other than your soft, fleshy fingertips. No fingernails, no dust, sand, dirt, or other particulate matter. And don't bend it more than it needs to. Zack has destroyed $2,000 of Apple hardware to get those views, which should cover his expenses.
​
  • Like
Reactions: comfortably_numb
comfortably_numb
No fingernails, no dust, sand, dirt, or other particulate matter

And definitely no medieval chain armor!
  • Haha
Reactions: Foxbat
harshness
medieval chain armor
Aka "mail" or "maille".
Foxbat
IFixIt has published their Teardown and they had some positive things to say about the iPhone Duo. It still showed some dust ingress into the hinge assembly but seemed otherwise well-sealed.
​

But with a considerable number of reports of the main screen dying with similar failures, AppleCare+ should be a no-brainer for this phone.
S

most carriers do. that's why they send updates that slow phones down!! i buy unlocked phones no effect to me
S
IFixIt has published their Teardown and they had some positive things to say about the iPhone Duo. It still showed some dust ingress into the hinge assembly but seemed otherwise well-sealed.
​

But with a considerable number of reports of the main screen dying with similar failures, AppleCare+ should be a no-brainer for this phone.

hope you have apple care a screen job is 1000.00 :oops:. can we say over priced garbage!!!
meStevo
Lifetime Supporter
Last reply · posted in The Sports Section
Schedule drops tomorrow. Mandatory mini camps in June. Hall of Fame game August 6th.
127 Replies · 2310 views
  • Like
Reactions: Jimbo and dfergie
rvvaquero
Jerry Jones and Jimmy Johnson had an argument about who was responsible for the dynasty building of the early 90's Cowboys.

The rest of us figured it out in about 3 years, Jerry has had over 30 years but still can't admit it. It's all he lives for, to show everyone he can put together a winner. I don't think he can. His kids only know what he taught them.
Y
Jerry Jones and Jimmy Johnson had an argument about who was responsible for the dynasty building of the early 90's Cowboys.

The rest of us figured it out in about 3 years, Jerry has had over 30 years but still can't admit it. It's all he lives for, to show everyone he can put together a winner. I don't think he can. His kids only know what he taught them.
Johnson built it, but without the Herschel Walker trade, it never happens.
  • Like
Reactions: b4pjoe
b4pjoe
Johnson built it, but without the Herschel Walker trade, it never happens.
Jerry made himself General Manager after he bought the team but make no mistake Jimmy engineered that trade. As well as a lot of others at the time.
rvvaquero
Jimmy Johnson is a football guy. Jerry Jones is a marketer (hustler).

When I see a football player get a 15 yard penalty for unsportsmanlike conduct (like taunting) in a close game, I often wonder what he was thinking. Was he thinking, I'm doing everything I can to make this a better team and help win a championship? Or, was he saying to himself, I want everyone to notice how great I am?

Johnson inspires one, Jones the other.
  • Like
Reactions: b4pjoe and Mike0616
meStevo
Got to unfurl and hold the flag at Allegiant for the anthem today - amazing experience.
  • Like
Reactions: Mike0616 and Foxbat
TWiT Tech Podcast Network
· posted in TWiT Tech Podcast Network
0 Replies · 6 views
TWiT Tech Podcast Network
· posted in TWiT Tech Podcast Network
0 Replies · 12 views
TWiT Tech Podcast Network
· posted in TWiT Tech Podcast Network
0 Replies · 2 views