Should FTC / FCC get involved? Should a lawsuit be considered?

[faster68]

NOTE: If you are happy with the ViP622 upgrade requirement for new DVR / HDs channels, please do not post in this thread. I think we need a discussion with those who bought the 921/924 over the last year and half and now are asked to pony up another $700.00, so that on average we would have paid $1,400.00 for the privilege to watch HDTV.

Given all of E*'s actions of late, we should as a group should consider our options. Government is in place to help and protect the public. Further, courts are in place to keep the unscrupulous from taking advantage of others with lies. At the time I made my 921 purchase I reasonably expect that I would get HDTV programming from E*, thus, we had an unwritten contract and reasonable expectation of an outcome. Now, under the proven lie of Mpeg4, E* is breaking the contract in an effort to sell us another unit. Guys, if a lawyer can file a case against McDonald's for making hot coffee, we sure have a case against E*. No matter what E* says, what they are doing is not fair and is unreasonable to many of us.

Thoughts?

 

[NightRyder]

Neither the FCC or the FTC will get involved in this. Sure you can find a lawyer to file any kind of class action lawsuit. Five to seven years from now you will get a few free PPV coupons or a small credit towards lease or purchase of a new E* receiver, oh and E* will admit no wrong doing. SOP.

This is not meant as a defence of E*, it's just how the real world works.



NightRyder

 

[Spatch]

I thought the upgrade would only be $99 after rebate. Plus the 921 will still get thr hd channels that you get now. If you want to see the new ones pony up the money.

 

[shodobe]

That will get you no where. Class action lawsuits take years to resolve and you won't care by then.
Also where is it written the upgrade is $700? It is $99 for all you that have the 942.

 

[faster68]

Spatch: I did pony up, now I am being asked to pony up again. Thus the problem. Do you have a 921 or 942?

shodobe: $700 to purchase a 622... the $299/$99 option is for a lease.

 

[CDH]

shodobe: $700 to purchase a 622... the $299/$99 option is for a lease.

Yes, but your ongoing costs are the same or almost the same lease or purchase aren't they? So help me out here: why the need to own the receiver? Why not pay the $99, keep your 942 as a second receiver, and get on with your life?

CDH.

 

[faster68]

CDH: because I ALREADY bought the receiver and paid full price. Why not let me take issue with the fact that I'm not satisfied with E*? Why not let me take issue with the fact that I have already paid $700 for HDTV and now I'm being asked to pay-- 99 or 700, its still more. Further, this 99 deal isn't even available yet. Why are you compelled to tell me what I should and shouldn't be happy with? Do you own a 921 or 942?

 

[langlin]

Since the market collapse I have been forced into 31 class actions lawsuits and the net results to date is I have received $31.42 and that was from accounting firm Auther Anderson, not the companies sued, the lawyers have received millions in settlements. I can no longer afford medical insurance and my wife can't find a Ob-Gyn doctor because of the lawsuits which only drive up cost to consumers and line the pockets of lawyers. You can take your class action and put it where the sun don't shine. I purchased a 921 and received everything they promised so be sure they don't call me to testify.

 

[goaliebob99]

Since the market collapse I have been forced into 31 class actions lawsuits and the net results to date is I have received $31.42 and that was from accounting firm Auther Anderson, not the companies sued, the lawyers have received millions in settlements. I can no longer afford medical insurance and my wife can't find a Ob-Gyn doctor because of the lawsuits which only drive up cost to consumers and line the pockets of lawyers. You can take your class action and put it where the sun don't shine. I purchased a 921 and received everything they promised so be sure they don't call me to testify.

I sence alot of anger in this one .. on a serious note, I do think that dish as done a lot of wrong things.. Dish does need to get whacked with one to remind them that we make or break them...

 

[tunagimp]

Given all of E*'s actions of late, we should as a group should consider our options. Government is in place to help and protect the public. Further, courts are in place to keep the unscrupulous from taking advantage of others with lies. At the time I made my 921 purchase I reasonably expect that I would get HDTV programming from E*, thus, we had an unwritten contract and reasonable expectation of an outcome. Now, under the proven lie of Mpeg4, E* is breaking the contract in an effort to sell us another unit. Guys, if a lawyer can file a case against McDonald's for making hot coffee, we sure have a case against E*. No matter what E* says, what they are doing is not fair and is unreasonable to many of us.

Thoughts?

I've given this considerable thought.

I think the entire concept of Class Action Suits stinks. Unless, of course you're a lawyer specializing in Class Actions Suits.

I have explored the idea of simply taking E* to you local neighborhood Small Claims Court. In Civil Court Fraud is a tough and expensive nut to crack when you start throwing around "He saids, She saids" and subpoenas and motions. They have attorneys on retainer, it'd be just another assignment to them. More fun for them than lease agreements, etc.

However, in Small Claims, just pay your fee, serve E* in CO, and in my case Echosphere in my town, and your "dealer", if any. Simply ask for your money back, or still better a 622. As proof of intent, just get a couple of folks here on the forum (I'd be glad to, thanks) to give you affidavits saying they were told by an E* employee that the 942 was "software upgradable" or whatever bupkis they were handing out that week.

If E* doesn't show, or send a representative, default judgement for you.

But then, you'd have to ENFORCE the judgement. And you WILL become a D* customer. I think Charles would insist.

 

[emu1]

Faster68, I feel your pain. You have a legitimate complaint. The issue for you was E* should have disclosed that your $700 would be outdated in 1 year. E* knew full well before the 941 was even released it was a time bomb set to expire in 2006. If you had known this you could have made an intelligent decision. Decide if $700 for a year's worth of HD-DVR was worth the money. Mpeg 4 has been in the works for a long time. I read in forums online a year ago about it and put off my 941 purchase but other decided it was worth the money to get that capability knowing it was only for a short term. If you knew what was to come and purchased it anyway, you couldn't complain. If E* didn't tell you, it might not be a crime, but sure isn't right!!!!!!

 

[tunagimp]

If you knew what was to come and purchased it anyway, you couldn't complain. If E* didn't tell you, it might not be a crime, but sure isn't right!!!!!!

You've hit the nail on the head.

HOW was the customer to know what was to come? By reading this forum or listening to what he/she was told by an E* employee? Who would be supposed to have the greater knowledge of the product? The people around here who KNEW, guessed. Lots of people make good money (or not lose good money in this case) by guessing. Guessing right and knowing the facts are different.

Remember the 942+?

You're correct, "if E* didn't tell you." But they did, to perhaps thousands of customers. And most of what they said was decietful. Deceit was used to entice someone to make a purchase decision. That's constructive fraud.

 

[faster68]

"Deceit was used to entice someone to make a purchase decision. That's constructive fraud." Thank you, thank you & thank you. You my friend have hit the nail on the head.

 

[TBarclay]

Look, I feel the same pain as all of you, but nobody is forcing you to do anything. You'll still have the same channels you have now without doing anything. You only need to spend more if you want more. It's like leasing a car for 4 years, but after 1 year, there's an upgraded model that has more features you want. To get out of that first lease to get the new model would be mucho expensive. I'm going to wait at least until April and then decide if I want the new channels.

 

[faster68]

TBarclay: "You only need to spend more if you want more." WRONG. I wanted more when I spent more a year ago. I was told that I would have it, now I'm told I will have to pay more to have it. If I was told when I bought my current unit that I would have to upgrade in a year to get additional channels I would not have made the purchase. Bottom line.

 

[emu1]

You'll still have the same channels you have now without doing anything.

Same Channels you will forever have you mean. Using your automobile example - Its not features that have changed its the roads this new model car can drive on. How would you like to buy a new car and next year be told its not licensed to drive on any new roads created in 2006. Sure you can drive on all the old roads, but no new one.. Feature to me is improved menus, better dvr functions, faster changing of channels that you would expect new models to do a better job of. Simply not getting new programming from a recently purchase expensive piece of hardware for no valid reason is just not right!!!

 

[Spatch]

Apples and oranges. We are not talking about cars.
Nobody is forcing you to purchase a new system. Electronics go out of date quickly and the more these systems become like computers the quicker they are going to be updated. When you buy a computer and the next model comes out with a faster proccesor and a better video card, do you go crying for a lawsuit? No, it is the nature of the product.
Point is... the system you have still gets the channels it did when you bought it. just because it doesn't get the new mpg4 channels gives you no ground to sue.

 

[faster68]

Spatch: Do you own a 921 or 942?

 

[Spatch]

To use the new road analogy. You bought a car and it could travel on any existing road. Now the Government decides that any waterway less than 100 feet across could be traveled by a new type of car that can hover across the water. They approve the cars and add ramps at most water crossings a 1/2 mile from a bridge, thinking that it could ease traffic congestion in these areas. Would you cry for a lawsuit because the car you bought last year couldn't use the new crossings?
I know this is a ridiculous comparison. That is why you can not compare receivers and cars.

 

[Spatch]

No, I don't own a 921 or a 942. I wouldn't pay the high cost of either system when they first came out. Months after each system was released, talks of a new system was already being rumored. That is the problem with early adopters of technology, a lot of times you are paying way more than you should.
I lease an 811 and will upgrade for $49. I wouldn't buy any system unless a very good offer could be made.