Why can’t I cancel my DirecTV contract?

Yan Qi wants to get out of her DirecTV contract — a contract she says she didn’t knowingly sign. Is there any hope for waiving its $380 early cancellation fee?

Question: I’ve been a DirecTV subscriber since October 2011. When we recently moved, a technician was unable to install DirecTV because of the trees around the house. He told us to call and cancel the account.

Elliott Advocacy is underwritten by Chubb. Chubb is the world’s largest publicly traded property and casualty insurance company, and recognized as the premier provider of insurance for successful individuals and families in the U.S. and selected international markets, offering coverage for high-value automobile, homeowners, recreational marine/aviation, valuables and umbrella liability coverage. As an underwriting company, Chubb assesses, assumes and manages risk with insight and discipline, and combines the precision of craftsmanship with decades of experience to conceive, craft and deliver the best insurance coverage and services to individuals, families and business of all size.

When we called, an agent told us our two-year contract hadn’t expired yet. She wanted us to still keep the original contract and schedule an advanced technician to install our service. We agreed, and the technician installed our new service.

A few months later, I called to cancel my DirecTV service because I was unhappy with its reduced Chinese programs. DirecTV charged me $380 for cancellation fees.

I called and sent e-mails to DirecTV, and was told we had signed another two-year contract, which started when we moved. An agent told me we had confirmed the two-year contract upon installation of our new service.

We weren’t told that we needed to sign another two-year contract when we moved. I don’t think it’s fair to charge $380 in cancellation penalties. Can you help?

Yan Qi, Williamsville, NY

Answer: Your agreement with DirecTV would have expired as advertised, allowing you to leave without paying its early termination fee. But you made a few changes to your contract when you moved, according to the company. It offered you a “free” HD upgrade and you also signed a lease addendum.

As DirecTV explains, in order to keep costs down for you, it offers its dishes and standard installation at “reduced or no cost” and in exchange it requires that you remain a customer for a specified period of time. You can read the entire lease addendum on DirecTV’s site.

The representative with whom you spoke should have told you that when you moved and were offered a “free” upgrade, you were also signing up for another two-year contract. You should have also reviewed the terms of your contract before signing again — it should have clearly disclosed your obligations.

Not to go off on a tangent, but by now I’m sure you realize there’s no such thing as “free.” I wrote about that earlier this week and took a beating for saying so, but I’ll say it again. No such thing as free!

DirecTV’s lease addendum steals a page directly from the wireless carrier’s playbook. With some cellular companies, any changes in your contract triggers an automatic renewal of your agreement, for “your convenience.” While I can certainly understand why a company would try to lock its customers in for as long as possible, it feels like indentured servitude to some customers.

You might have appealed DirecTV’s decision to hold you to a new two-year contract, if you could have proved you were snookered. Here’s a list of current executives. The email convention is [email protected] I also list key managers on my consumer advocacy site.

I contacted the company to get some details of your case. A representative confirmed that you had a valid contract and also called you to explain what happened.

As a gesture of goodwill, DirecTV agreed to reduce its early termination fee to $190, which you accepted.

Is DirecTVs contract fair?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

86 thoughts on “Why can’t I cancel my DirecTV contract?

  1. I couldn’t vote as I haven’t seen the contract. That being said, I would expect a court to take a very dim view of a contract which autorenews unless the customer is getting something extra out of it.

    Cell service contracts did that for a little while. That disappeared relatively quickly as there is no business or ethical justification for locking in a customer after the recoupment period has expired. I get that I have to stay a Verizon customer for two years after I get a “free” phone. The cost of the phone is built into the contract. But afterwards, the only justification for a new term would be if I get a new phone. The same is true for satellite systems.

    Chris did take a well deserved beating for his diatribe against the word free. Too bad he didn’t use this example. This is a much better example of a company duplicitously using the word free.

    1. @carverclarkfarrow:disqus I hate having to take this side of the argument but the OP did get something for “free.” DirectTV sent a technician out to install her service at a new location. Much like a “free” cell phone, there’s a very real cost to DirectTV to do this so there is a justification for a renewal especially since the reinstall is not due to DirectTV’s actions but the OPs.

      Since I wasn’t on the phone with the OP and DirectTV, I won’t take a side on if this was explained or not.

      1. DirecTV offers a “mover” service for free. So that should have no bearing on the contract. They advertise it on TV.

        1. If you read the fine print on that “free” service you will see that you get charged a two year service agreement. Not really free now, is it?

          Edit: it seems they have changed it to one year now.

          Offer requires a program agreement of 12 months of any DIRECTV base programming package (priced at $29.99/mo. or above), or any international service bundle.

          1. Actually, I didn’t get time to read it. I know, for the most part, you don’t get things for free. There is always some catch attached.

          2. Well then, their fine print is too damn fine. At least I know now, and also have no problem reporting to the BBB in my state, because this BS contract extension crap IS crap. They offer it as a “service” but it is a shackle. What. A. Joke.

          3. It’s not that fine if you read the details, which most people don’t. Also, they do advertise it as a service, but I don’t think they do as a “free” one.

            Also, reporting things like this to the BBB is a waste of time IMO. They have no regulatory powers and can’t make a business do anything.

          4. It does not say an ‘additional’ 12 months – so if you have 12 months remaining – that should make it free . . . .that may not be how ‘they’ interpret it but thats how a court is going to interpret it.

          5. If a provision is capable of multiple interpretations which are equally as logical, then the provision shall be interpreted in a favor of a consumer in a contract of adhesion . .

        2. My cell phone company also advertises a “free” cell phone but you have to renew the contract to get it. Same concept.

          1. Contract extensions for cell phones are well known. I would never have expected to extend a contract for a service call. I would expect it to be included as part of my service or billed as a single line item.

          2. The mover deal is far more than a service call. A new dish and cables will probably have to be installed and aligned. I see no problem with a contract extension for the mover deal *IF* the customer is properly informed about it. In DirecTV’s case, it is not clear in my opinion.

          3. If she got new equipment, then my objections are substantially lessened given the well known cell phone model of contract extensions with new equipment. The article does not reference the mover deal and while that may be 100% accurate and a perfectly reasonable conclusio that is not obvious to those of us who do not have DirectTV.

          4. Thing is, she got the new genie (that’s the new HD unit) and they do tell you when you get it that you’re getting a new contract. If they’d just sent someone out, I’d have issues, but getting entirely new equipment is equivalent to getting a new cell phone. On the other hand, you don’t own the directv equipment, so that brings up a whole different issue of whether a contract extension is justified for renting equipment.

          5. However, being you are aware of it, it seems they’re better at communicating that to the customer than DirecTV was with the OP.

            The problem is that a major change happened with the OP’s account without any notification beforehand. A customer in this situation should get options. If the options are “We can either charge you a hefty sum for this install at your new address or extend your contract by two more years” then that’s fine. But it’s the customer’s call to make.

          6. @Joe_D_Messina:disqus As I wrote elsewhere, I’m not sure what was said / not said on the phone so I’m not making assumptions either way. It wouldn’t be the first time a CSR “forgot” to mention something or the first time a customer “forgot” that something was said.

      2. But according to the article, the installer discovered that it was not technically feasible to provide service at the new location. It was the installer who recommended that the customer cancel the contract. Inability to provide service means no contract.

        1. If it were only so simple. If the inability to provide service occurred in the original location they got the service from, then they should be allowed out of the contract. However, the OP moved to a new location where there was problems. Why should the OP be allowed to get out of the contract because of a choice they made and the business had no input on? But in this case, once a competent installer was sent, they were able to provide the service so the argument about lack of service is moot.

          1. Because its a consumer contract and should be contemplated by the corporate entity. Consumer’s move. It seems highly unfair that they should be shackled if they move to an area that the company cannot service.

          2. The flaw in that argument is it presupposes some parity of bargaining power. The nature of a consumer contract is the unevenness is bargaining power, which is why we have an entire slew of consumer protection laws. If this were two business then you would be 100% correct.

            The proper way to deal with this is for the business to know that some percentage of the consumers will move to locations where they cannot service and adjust their pricing accordingly. Permit the return of equipment for a termination of the contract.

          3. Are you actually claiming that your cable company has the right to forbid you from moving until your contact is up? I can understand them requiring that you keep the contract up at the new location, so long as they can provide service, but what happened here is that they were unable to provide service AND still required the OP to keep paying them. Sorry, but that would be a blatant screw job.

          4. You really like reading things in that are not there. First the claim about it wasn’t technically feasible and now that I implied the cable company has a right to forbid you from moving. I never said, or even implied such non-sense. All I said was it was the OPs choice to move, not DirecTV. The OP chose to move to a location where the first installer couldn’t set it up, i.e. service unavailable. Was it DirecTV’s fault she chose to move there? No. Did DirecTV forbid her for moving there? No. Should DirecTV be penalized for a choice they had no say in the matter? No. If you can’t get service at your chosen location, either pick another one where you can get service or pay the termination fee.

      3. I’m not buying that as a proper reason. Extending a contract has the potential for great abuse. This allows them to significantly overcharge the customers. I’m fine with extending the contract for new equipment, as that cost relatively transparent. But service calls are to warn and fuzzy.

        If DirectTV wants to extend a contract this way, they should have make it very clear what’s happening.

        1. But this wasn’t a service call. It was an install. Based on my neighbor’s experience, they take over an hour (sometimes far longer). This puts them into the same approximate expense amount as a new cell phone. Why should it be any different?

          1. Logically, why wouldn’t the customer get the option of either paying for the install or extending the contract? No doubt many would happily extend if that got them the install either free or at a reduced rate. But some would probably rather pay for the install. That’s what good customer service is all about, giving the customer choices so they can tailor things to their own situation.

          2. Easily answered

            When she signed up for the service she got an install and new equipment in return for the two year contract. That’s fair as the contract includes recoupment for both the new equipment and the install.

            Now she is getting only an install, but being required to get a new two year contract. If the were playing fair, they would also give her the appropriate new equipment as well. On the second contract, DirectTV is recouping for both an install and new equipment but only providing a new install.

            That’s why recoupment contracts must be vetted very carefully as DirectTV is getting a windfall. Its the same as extending a contract on a cell phone without providing a new cell phone.

          3. She is getting new equipment on the second install. The dish and associated electronics.

            The one thing about the equipment recovery costs not being mentioned is that there isn’t any. DirecTV still owns the receive. When y ou close your account, you have to send it back. Unlike the cellphone comparison wherr the phone is yours.

          4. If she’s getting new equipment that’s sounds better, except, she doesn’t keep the equipment, it goes back to the company. Screw that. I’ll stick with Comcast.

          5. Interesting. I was looking into signing my Mom up with Comcast earlier this year and they had a 2 year contract required.

          6. Strange. I’ve had Comcast since the 90s. No Contract. I’ve had their crappy DVR and still no contract. Perhaps different areas, but I’ve had Cable since 1990 with various companies and have never signed a termed contract

          7. But Comcast’s equipment is easily removed and not a big eyesore sitting up on the roof of my house. The rental house next door to me had three dishes on the ground in addition to the one on the house from changing satellite providers over just a couple of years. Nobody ever wanted their equipment back and nobody would ever haul them away because they were technically still the other companies’ property.

  2. I generally agree with the resolution here, but one thing caught my eye:

    “I called to cancel my DirecTV service because I was unhappy with its reduced Chinese programs.”

    Sounds to me like DirecTV yanked some channels off the package that was being subscribed to.

    The way I see it, if you’re locked in for X month for $Y, and you subscribed to Z channels, you are entitled to receive all Z channels for $Y for X months. If the provider fails to deliver the goods, you should not have to b required to pay $Y for something less than Z channels. Even if some channel goes out of business, or something, you should be offered the option of either an equivalent channel as a replacement, or a reasonable reduction from $Y.

    Both DirecTV and Dish have weasel wording that they can change the packages (and pricing!) at any time, but I simply reject it, and when push comes to shove, it won’t stand up in small claims court.

    I once helped a family member break Dish’s two year contract after they yanked off a regional sports channel. Didn’t have to pay a red cent in a termination fee. That’s the way it should be.

    1. I wish I could like this way more than once. I love how these contracts obligate me to pay but don’t obligate them to deliver what I’m paying for.

      1. No need to get yourself worked up on that account. The key is to simply be prepared. Dish and DirecTV are known for automatically charging termination fees to any credit card number they have for you, and making you fight to get it back. So, the trick is to simply make sure that all credit card numbers they could possibly have are either expired, or are no longer valid, simply not pay the termination fee, and politely inform their collectors that you don’t owe the termination fee, as a matter of law.

    2. I got hit with that, “we can change pricing” clause when they added a monthly sports channel fee. I don’t follow sports and didn’t feel I should have to pay extra for something I wasn’t interested in because DirecTV paid some obscene amount for rights to some sports channels. I was able to get out of the ETF with some help from Chris.

  3. I think this was as good an outcome as the OP was going to get. She did have a good justification for leaving DirectTV (reduction in service) but she also received a service for free that she hadn’t paid for (install at the new house).

    Nice job Chris

    1. But if you live in a rural area, far from a TV transmitting tower, then an antenna would be useless. If you want to watch TV, then you are stuck with satellite.

      1. Actually you can get some pretty powerful antennas. When I lived in the Caribbean and my parents bought their house, the cable company couldn’t get to our home for 3 months. Dad got an antenna that could pick up clear signals from other islands.

  4. So what did the “advanced” technician do to get the service installed that the first one wasn’t able to? Did he bring a chain saw and remove the trees?

    This is a good example of why you really need to know exactly what is being signed or to ask questions like how does moving / changing service / having a technician install something impact my contract.

    1. The $190 saw-off seems appropriate under the circumstances. But those damn one-sided contracts, in which the homeowner is locked in while the company can change the terms (and prices) of the deal at will, are a curse. However, I agree with Sam V.: if challenged in small-claims court, it will invariably be ruled unreasonable, despite what the contract stipulates. Simpler, and less time-consuming, though, is to understand every word of that often-impenetrable contract BEFORE you commit. (It helps if you’ve got a contract lawyer at your side, preferably a brother-in-law who won’t charge you for his services.)

    2. “So what did the “advanced” technician do to get the service installed
      that the first one wasn’t able to? Did he bring a chain saw and remove
      the trees?”

      My guess it put the thing on the roof.

      Standard procedure now is for the techs to put the dish either on a side of the house reachable by ladder or on a pole in the yard. Ours (installed 9 years ago) is on the roof, but when I called to ask about having it repositioned when we replace our roof, I was informed that the techs are no longer allowed to go out on the roof to do the installs. I have no idea how they expect to get the old one down if they don’t, and why if they are already there to remove the old one they can’t just put the new one right in its place, but the company said the new dish would have to be installed on the side of the house if the view to the sat was clear.

      Maybe “advanced” technicians (which I read to mean “we charge you extra to send them out”) are still permitted to do roof installs?

  5. Glad it worked out for her. Pretty crappy that moving the service would result in an automatic contract extension. She was on a 2-year contract already, so with the move her only options were failing to get everything she paid for or extending for another 2 years? Talk about treating the customers like cattle. And the best part is the DirecTV execs are probably in a conference room right now scratching their heads over why there’s such poor customer loyalty towards them.

  6. My belief is that verbal contracts with mobile phone carriers and those in similar businesses should be in writing with the terms clearly stated in readable type. The contract must be signed by the person assuming the obligation, not by a family member or friend. In these days where almost everyone has a computer and printer, the contact can be emailed to the customer by the company’s representative. The customer can then return the contract to the company by snail mail, fax or scan it into email. Is all of this paperwork processing a pain in the butt to the providers? Sure it is. However, implementing such a system will eliminate most of the disputes over contract terms and create a more satisfied customer base.

    1. That makes a lot of sense in providing good customer service, but not in keeping profits up. First, extra paperwork means more employees to deal with it and that means higher prices passed on to the consumer. Also, remember that the complexity of the contract works only to the carrier’s benefit. If they gave people all that time to look it over and send it in, people might not agree to it and the company would lose business. When people sign without reading, then try to back out, the ball is firmly in the company’s court, and they can bully customers and threaten to ruin their credit by reporting the account delinquent in order to get their money. Even in the OP’s case, DirecTV still got that $190… it was less than they anticipated, but more than they should have received if everything was presented up front and in clear language.

      1. was less than they anticipated, but more than they should have received if everything was presented up front and in clear language.

        I wholeheartedly disagree with you… According to the contract in force prior to the OP’s move… She either extends the contract or pays the ETF. In either case, DirecTV makes more money than they ended up. In fact, depending on how long they took, the $190 may have barely covered the two installations that DirecTV had to pay for.

        In either case, I’m betting DirecTV makes more if the OP fulfills her obligation under the contract (ie pays for 2 additional years or pays the ETF when she moves).

      2. I’m tired of consumer rights being tossed under a bus for the sake of expediting a sale. In my business life, I would not sign a contract for several thousand dollars without being given a copy of the contract so that I am able to review it.

        An agreement from a major cell phone service provider covering two smart phone lines for 24 months can have a value of $4,000 or more. If it takes an extra day or two to complete the transaction and if a customer backs out after reading the terms, that all part of doing business. The cell phone service provider is probably netting about 50% from this deal. If it costs a tiny fraction of this amount to deal with paperwork, let them eat the minor expense. If people start to back out because of contract language that they don’t like, the provider will have to change the language to satisfy prospective customers. The greedy providers have had it good for too long. It is my hope that, because of the large number of customer complaints against cell companies that involve contract disputes, that the FCC will require customer signatures for contracts to be valid.

        1. Signatures no. If the federal courts can do without signatures, that ship has sailed. But, there are other less burdensome ways to achieve the same effect.

    2. As someone who deals with contracts all the time, I can tell you that electronic deliver and not requiring ink signatures for everything makes life much easier and cheaper for everyone. The real issue here is ensuring that the customers are adequately informed, which can be done through any number of easier means. For example 3rd party verification services for any verbal extension of contract terms would be cheaper and faster and serve the same purpose.

      I’m filing two federal matters this week. The documents will be signed electronically by the clients as “/s client name”. The court does not require ink signatures which would require printouts and scans, i.e. more work and less clear documents. However, as a verification, they require that I, as the attorney of record, keep an ink signature in my files in case the client ever disputes the signature.

  7. If you have played this game long enough you should know the the moment a company offers you something for “free”, there is a catch. This person failed to review the contract and ask the right questions.

  8. Companies playing games with contract extensions has been going on forever. Most of the stories I read seem to happen on the phone, where the situation quickly becomes a “he said, she said.” Since some of these reps receive bonuses for customer retention, I have no problem believeing a CSR “forgot” to inform the customer of the extension.

    The solution to preventing a “he said she said” situation is to record phone conversations with companies. My family is taking a trip to San Juan over New Years where all air and hotel reservations are non-refundable, and with my grandfather in hospice care, we bought travel insurance with trip cancellation coverage. I purchased over the phone and recorded the ENTIRE conversation, asking the rep several times that since he is already in hospice care whether or not that would affect coverage. We’ll see how it goes, although hopefully I won’t need to file a claim.

    1. Be careful depending on the state in which you live. Some states like PA require dual consent prior to recording (both parties must be aware and allow being recorded).

  9. A couple of things –

    A- NOTHING is free. Nothing. A mothers love comes at tremendous cost – just not to you. Free candy at Halloween- someone bought it. Not Free. Free health insurance from Obamacare- not free. Free coverage for kids to age 26? Not free either – people do not get jobs because someone needs to pay for that cost.

    1) she moved – upgraded – got free stuff – then because of trees and location conditions could not get a signal until they sent her a higher trained technician. THEY wanted to keep the service – they needed to tell her about the ‘cost’ of the higher end service. Did they? the calls are 100% recorded.

    2) She claims that DirecTV changed its programming. Right there THEY broke the contract and unless they restored all the Chinese language programming [assuming it was still available] then she should be able to get a free out from a contract she got no benefit out of. . . .

    Simple enough – all the calls are recored. Pull her call and see if they told her she was renewing to get the higher end technician . .. there is a script. And they generally are pretty clear about it. You just are not paying attention during the script. . .

    1. 1) The first installer was unable to set up the system. However, the second installer did so she did get the new service.

      2) While the contract does allow them to change programming at any time, I agree that if DirecTV choose to drop the channel, they should be allowed out of the contract without the ETF. But if the channel became unavailable to DirecTV, then that is out of their control and the contract should remain in force if adjustments are made for the loss.

      1. like I said Ed . . .assuming it is still available. . . these outfits change channels all the time – and when they do I ALWAYS Call up and schedule a disconnect of my service to get the best current deal . .. they refer you to the retention people to cut you a deal . . .

        it’s a little game I play with Time Warner – ‘you canceled XYZ channel, I watch that al the time – please come disconnect my service – you materially changed my contact.”

        The reps know what is going on. . .

      2. But if the channel became unavailable to DirecTV, then that is out of their control and the contract should remain in force if adjustments are made for the loss.

        How is it not in their control? They signed a contract with station owner XYZ. They’re not a consumer with little or no bargaining power. The agreed to the terms and conditions of obtaining that station including the length of time that they would be guaranteed the station.

        And how is it fair to the customer that now they have to pay for a system, that through no fault of their own, may be worthless to them. For whatever reason, they are not getting what they were promised. That’s like me ordering a Thanksgiving Turkey from Whole Foods and getting a roast, because Whole Foods couldn’t get its turkey shipment in time. Not my issue. the consumer should not have to get in between the owner of Station XYZ and DirectTV.

        When I was in school, the most important station was the one that carried Star Trek. My friends would come to my apartment every week without fail. Its the only reason why I, a poor law student, paid for cable. If that station disappeared, I’d have cancelled the cable the next day.

        1. “And how is it fair to the customer that now they have to pay for a system, that through no fault of their own, may be worthless to them. For whatever reason, they are not getting what they were promised.”

          Did you miss the part where I said, “if adjustments are made for the loss”? If no adjustments are made, then the contract should be voided.

          1. No, I didn’t miss that part. But the comment about adjustments is neither practical nor workable. How would you even begin to compute the reduction in price.

            Consider, As far as I know, cable and satellite systems require a minimum number of channels. If you only want 1 channel you still have to buy a basic package which comes with dozens or more channels.

            That’s why I described my Star Trek gatherings. I purchased cable specifically so that my friends and I could have a clean reliable signal for Star Trek. Without that channel, (KCOP), cable was useless to me. I think I paid $25,00 for 50 channels in basic cable. How would you figure out a reduction? Pro-rate? 1/50 is 2% or 50 cents.

            The OPs situation is not uncommon in Silicon Valley where I live. Satellite proliferation is high because we have a large number of foreign born residents. They get satellite specifically so they can watch shows from home in their native language as cable tends to carry far fewer international channels. This becomes particularly true if you are a recent arrival or have limited English proficiency.

            Forgetting the one sided contract that locks you in but lets the company provide what it wants. Lets just look at basic fairness. DirectTV no longer carries the channels which they enticed you to buy their system, but so sorry, you still remain their customer.

          2. Your Star Trek example is really not valid in this situation. When you sign up for a package of channels, you are not guaranteed the programming wasn’t going to change. What if that channel decided not to carry Star Trek any more or the show was canceled? Should you be allowed to cancel your contract without penalty? And what if it was picked up by a channel that wasn’t in your package? Should they have to give you that package too to keep the contract valid?

            The adjustment I was referring to would be more along the line of replacing the dropped station with one with an equivalent lineup. Equivalent is going to be subjective but replacing something like the SyFy channel with Lifetime isn’t going to cut it. When you sign up, you get a package of channels, not shows.

          3. I respectfully disagree

            As far as the lineup of channels goes, that’s the fundamental unfairness of this business model. We entice you with a lineup of channels but by the way, that lineup may change at our discretion and so sorry for you. You commit to staying with us for two years, but we make no reciprocal commitment back to you.

            Yes, you signed up for a package and DIrectTV changed the package by removing a channel. It’s not the same package. So sorry customer.

            The discussion of shows is a red herring. It was an example to illustrate how a single channel can be very important. If that channel decided not to carry Star Trek, that would be fine. I know that DirectTV has no control over the content of the channels. But the channel is still in my package. DirectTV didn’t promise any particular content. But the channel lineup is something that I assume is in their control. That’s the salient difference.

            And I think we have to inquire, why does a cable/satellite provider stop carrying a channel. I assume it’s because they decide it’s no longer cost effective. That is admittedly a guess, but if so, then it’s really unfair to entice you with a channel lineup that it can unilaterally change solely for its benefit.

            Even if I agreed with your remedy, as you stated, equivalent channels is a crap shoot at best.

          4. To simplify:

            I sign up for Channels 2-100

            DirectTV removed/replaces channels 10, 11, and 12. It’s not the same package that I signed up for.

            I should be allowed to leave.


          5. You are missing the point where I was saying if the choice was DirecTV’s, then yes, it is not the same package. If it was not DirecTV’s choice, then this is a different situation.

            In your example, if the reason those channels were removed was because of DirecTV’s choice, let the customer leave.

          6. I’m not missing the point. I’m saying its not a meaningful distinction. The reason(s) why DirectTV is unable to continue providing the service is irrelevant. If I can’t provide the agreed upon service, that’s my problem, not the customer’s

          7. “As far as the lineup of channels goes, that’s the fundamental unfairness of this business model. We entice you with a lineup of channels but by the way, that lineup may change at our discretion and so sorry for you. You commit to staying with us for two years, but we make no reciprocal commitment back to you.”

            I made two statements as follows…

            1 – “if DirecTV choose to drop the channel, they should be allowed out of the contract without the ETF.”

            2- “if the channel became unavailable to DirecTV, then that is out of their control and the contract should remain in force if adjustments are made for the loss.”

            Your statement is covered by the first part and if the choice is DirecTV, then, as I said, I agree. Let the customer out of the contract with no ETF.

            “The discussion of shows is a red herring. It was an example to illustrate how a single channel can be very important.”

            But you used the example of Star Trek being the reason you signed up for what you did, not because of the channel it was on. And I agree, the shows are not part of this as my post was trying to say.

            Bottom line. If the removal of the channel is DirecTV’s choice, void the contract. If, however, the channels are removed for a reason outside of DirecTV’s control, such as bankruptcy as an example, is it no longer available, I don’t feel that alone is reason to void the contract.

          8. As far as point #2. That’s where we simply disagree. That’s between DirectTV and the station. Someone has to suffer if the station goes out of business. Either DirectTV or the customer. I say that since DirectTV is no longer providing the service, it’s the one that has to suffer, not the consumer.

            I, as the consumer, should not be middle. As I mentioned with my Whole Paycheck Thanksgiving example, if Whole Paycheck is unable to fulfill my Thanksgiving Turkey order, does it matter why? Does it matter that the turkey farm went out of business and didn’t provide Whole Paycheck with the turkeys. That’s not my concern. Whole Paycheck needs to give me back my money so I can go to another store and get my Turkey. They can’t say, it’s not our fault, here is a ham.

            Similarly, DirectTV should release the OP so she can get a dish company that carries her Chinese programming.

          9. No, I didn’t miss it. But adjustments are neither practical nor workable. How would you even begin to determine a fair price as its highly individualized?

            That’s why I made my Star Trek explanation. I paid $25 a month for basic cable, about 50 channels. If that channel disappeared, I’d have had no use for cable. If I were locked in how would you calculate a reduction? Pro-rate? 1/50 = 2% or 50 cents per channel. Not hardly meaningful.

            The OPs situation is fairly common in Silicon Valley where I live. We have a very large immigrant community of engineers and their families. For example, we boast the largest East Indian community in North America.

            As a result, satellite proliferation is extremely high as satellite tends to carry far more foreign channels than cable. This permits those families the best opportunity to receive that slice of home. Remove/reduce those channels and satellite becomes useless, as they OP discovered.

            But at the end of the day, this is about basic fairness. DirectTV entices customers to join based on, among other things, the channel lineup. If the channel(s) that caused you to sign up for DirectTV are no longer available, it’s unfair that you have to remain a customer and continuing to pay for this useless service that is ultimately due to DirectTV’s business decisions.

          10. Ed, u r wrong. Go read a cruise company contract. Under that contract they could charge you $2000 for 2 people for a 7 day cruise, and never leave port. There is zero obligation to do anything for you. Truly. You have no rights and they can refuse or not do anything except put you in a dinghy and row you to shore and they have satisfied their contract.

            There is something called the implied warranty of fitness for purpose. They need to deliver what they negotiated. You can call your cable or sat provider and renegotiate your deal everytime something changes. I do. The Time Warner CBS fiasco was a gold mine for me. I got free HD for life and free 6 months premium channels and a $300 gift card.

          11. You are comparing apples to oranges by comparing the cable contract to a cruise. A cruise is a one time, short term commitment with a single change. The cable contract is a long term with continuous payments.

            And what type of contract are you in with TWC? Last I checked, they didn’t have long term contracts. At least they didn’t earlier this year when I had them and dumped them because of the poor quality I was getting.

  10. God I hate Direct TV. They pulled this crap on me when I moved to a building where I could not get Direct TV because the building had some sort of deal with someone else. I had to “suspend” my account for 21 months. I will never, EVER, use them again.

  11. evil contract sounds like the obamacare (tax law) promises u can keep your doctor/u can keep ur insurance plan…. if not u get to pay more

  12. I got direct tv a month ago and so many Fucking problems 1-then send out the guy to put the receivers and they are not hd and yes i asked for hd 2-they told me i have to pay $240 more to have the hd receivers than told me 200 than 190 than 260 than 50 than 150 omg 3-on the phone with direct tv all together for 4 hours with not a thing fixed 4-no contract was sent to my e-mail and yes when i asked for one they said “yes sir we sent it out” bullshit, at the end i called so i can end the contract and in 5 mins i had both hd receivers free and in two days. thanks direct tv for all the shit you gave me

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

%d bloggers like this: