"giving out agent identification and location information IS against most companys' policies"
You seem to exist in a very tiny world. I make calls to CSR's of various companies and not only have I never been refused when asked for the identity of the person with whom I am speaking but in most cases they volunteer it. Generally, I only ask when I forgot to write it down at the beginning of the conversation. We're not requesting your social security number or your mother's maiden name or your home address here. We're just asking for your identity so that when an historical reference of the call is made, I can reference the time. and person I was speaking with. Now if you are going to say that the identity I have always been given was false then I have no way of telling that but, the lies can fly both directions and, if shown in court that the CSR has lied whether by company policy or by choice, your case will automatically be lost.
Are there nefarious individuals out there who will go the extra mile of argument to get extra free stuff? Absolutely. But it is incumbent upon you, the representative of the company to make the correct determination on that. In the case of this thread, a loss of hdmi output that has already been determined to be a physical defect in the 622, a clear case of warranty claim, except (by company policy) where it was found that Vizio TV's are the exception. You must process that claim for a replacement. To fail in that, makes you, not the company, liable. In my company, if an employee became that zealous of making up his own policy that directly bucked the documented practice of policy the company has a history of would be grounds for dismissal! At Dish, I don't know but I would guess it would at minimum be groundfs for disciplinary action.
Remember, were not talking about other possible acts of deceit by customers here, we're talking about a specific claim that was made by a Dish Customer about a specific defect in a product that is ubiquitous to the product. We can discuss general CSR philosophy in another thread.
Additionally, the request to switch to component cabling is at best an alternative to get picture until such time as the new replacement can be delivered. IT is wrong and unethical for a CSR to use that temporary fix as a substitute for processing the warranty claim. I consider that excuse to be like you claim your breakes don't work on your car and the automobile mfg. claims processor says, can you stop your car with the parking break? you say yes. The Claims processor says well use that from now on! Would you accept that response if this happened to your car? Then why would you expect a customer of a Dish receiver to be denied a warranty claim on the basis that you can have them run on the substitute cables?