New toys!

First off, the DVR situation I posted about last week is all better now... they sent a brand new DVR without any hassle. They DID charge $20 for shipping and handling, but that's just the way it goes. I really don't like how these types of services (Satellite, Cell Phone, etc) operate... seems to me the service fees should cover that (i.e. they should set their fees so it covers that), and I think they should give away the hardware if you're paying monthly to rent it and for the service. It just makes sense.

But that's neither here nor there... I can now watch TV at my leisure again, so that's good.

The even better news is that I got a new toy! For years I've been whining that I don't have a laptop. Every time I go to the store to shop for one I think "I'll never use that!" I have also had trouble deciding just what I really wanted - MacBook, MacBook Pro, PC, and what stats and specs to get. Finally I decided to quit whining and just buy a freaking laptop already. I went to Dell's website and started shopping.

I upgraded all of the options I think are important - monitor, memory, battery. I probably paid more than I needed to, but my philosophy with this kind of purchase is that if you want it to last any significant amount of time you really have to get something near the top of the line - even the very best is obsolete moments after you get it home. Besides, I figured that if I retroactively allocate say $50 a month for every month I wished I had a laptop, that would be enough to pay for this one. Also, my computer is getting pretty darn old and slow, and for a while I've been thinking it's time for a new one.

My new toy came last Saturday, and I'm really enjoying it! I'm finally able to use the computer while watching tv, enjoy the speed of a new machine, and make use of the built in camera for video chat, and this weekend I get to enjoy the portability of a laptop and the convenience of WiFi when I take my computer on vacation with me.

DVR? Should be called DVI... Digital Video Irritating

A little over a year ago I got a DVR, and frankly it was something of a disappointing, costly hassle at the time. Since then I've at least been able to enjoy the DVR service - so it's not a total loss... until this week, when my DVR inexplicably decided to quit working.

During playback it would inexplicably freeze for a while... 30 seconds, 5 minutes... whatever. While frozen, the DVR was completely unresponsive to the remote control, but sometimes when it started again it would 'remember' stuff I'd pressed on the remote and do it all. Tonight it froze for 30 secs, then 5 minutes later it froze again, then just a few minutes later it froze for a long time (over 5 minutes) and then sorta turned off then back on or something weird. It stopped recording the 2 shows it was recording at the time, so I told it to record again. While trying to watch programs that had been recorded before, instead of playing it simply asked if I wanted to delete them! That seemed to be the case for several different recorded programs.

I let the DVR go until it finished recording those programs - when all was said and done I still wanted to watch them. Then I tried the only thing I could think of (and incidentally, the first thing they tell you to try whenever anything goes wrong) - I hit the reset button. A few minutes later, when the machine had fully reset, I hit List to see if my recorded programs would play - and the stuff recorded after the weird phenomenon earlier weren't there!

On the up side, it appears to be willing to play the partial recording from before the DVR acted up. But this is in no way acceptable behavior for a DVR!

My Tenant says nothing seems to be wrong with her DVR, so that's good. At least it's just me that has to deal with this, and not a disgruntled tenant! I will be emailing DTV tonight and calling them tomorrow to see if they can come fix the problem - or even identify what's wrong.

Re-reading my old posts about my last DTV customer service experience, I fully expect they'll charge money to fix whatever's wrong. :/

Recent Television

Ever since I got a DVR I've been watching more TV. But I don't just record everything that's on... I keep an eye out for programs I think I might enjoy. I record shows I know I like, such as Psych, Monk, and Burn Notice. Someone said I'd like Eureka, so I set my DVR to record that, and the next day there happened to be a marathon where they showed the whole first season - that was convenient. I liked the first season of Chuck, which I watched online, so now that season 2 finally started I am recording it as well. I always liked Law & Order, so I set my DVR to record all episodes of that - I canceled that request after maybe 1 week because I had 37(!) episodes recorded! I've been watching those when there's nothing else on. I also caught up on probably every episode of Scrubs and that 70s Show - but not in any sensible order.

Watching all this TV I'm seeing ads for new shows coming out. There was In Plain Sight, more recently Raising the Bar and Sanctuary, and coming up is My Own Worst Enemy and Leverage. And of course, the 3rd season of Heroes just started - can't miss that!

I thought it would be prudent to share my thoughts on these new shows I've been watching...

Monk: I've watched a LOT of episodes of Monk, and frankly I'm a little sick of it. I like detective shows, but Monk is not really a detective show. It's a show about an odd guy put in laughable situations (laughable just because he's odd), and then at the end he says "Oh, by the way, I solved the case." I imagine I'll still watch it when it comes back on in January or whenever, but I might give it up before too long.

Psych: I like Psych a lot better than Monk, because it's about a guy actually using his 'unique gift' to solve crimes. In season 2 I liked how they made Gus less like 3PO and more like R2. Yes - that's a pop culture reference - seems fitting considering obscure pop-culture references are a big part of the show. The latest season is wearing on me though. In the first place, it's more soap opera-y. They seem to be playing up the long-term storylines more, which in general is OK, but I'm not sure they're doing a great job. So what, after a year of vehemently resisting Sean's advances, Jules is going to go out with him? That sounds pretty lame. Also, Sean's antics have just gotten more and more silly and inane. he's working with the police, at an active crime scene... sometimes I think he ought to grow up. it's odd, because in previous seasons I didn't think he needed to grow up...

Burn Notice: I continue to enjoy Burn Notice, I don't think it's changed much since I first saw it. there was a big, emotionally revealing scene at the end of last season where the ex-girlfriend, who seemed to be acting as if she were the current girlfriend, told Michael she wasn't going to hold a torch for him anymore... yet every episode since then she tries to get Michael to admit he misses her or wants her back or something. other than that though the show is cool. I like when he describes how an Op works, in layman's terms - like comparing a kidnapping to a business deal.

Eureka: I've been enjoying Eureka as well, despite the constant emphasis that "High IQ" = "smart" and yet the "dumb" sheriff is always the one with the answer that saves the day. Speaking of saving the day, I do think they could maybe have 1 episode where they don't have to evacuate the town or threaten to destroy the world. I'm not sure I'd stay in a town that has an evacuation threat 4 days a week.

Chuck: Chuck is pretty cool, and this season he's doing more Spy stuff... and they've amped up the "relationship" between Chuck and his "girlfriend". I think that's fine, but frankly I get it. they don't need to say it, out loud, in every episode. I've never liked the comic relief of the buddies at the Buy More either. I hope Morgan isn't as annoying as last season.

Law & Order: I've been watching re-runs, but that show continues to be really good. I don't watch Criminal intent or Special Victims Unit, just the original Law & Order. I like the ones with Jerry Orbach (edited to correct - I had the name all wrong), but despite which actors are on it, the show does a much better job than most. It's good, quality television (to the extent that exists).

In Plain Sight: A show about U.S. Marshals in the Witness Protection Program? It's just OK. I like the sidekick (Marshall) best. the mom and sister characters are just ridiculous. I was fairly entertained by the show, but it's not amazing. I'll probably watch the next season, if there is one.

Raising the Bar: Another court drama, looked like it could be cool. this one dramatizes and sensationalizes the Public Defender. The main character overacts a lot, and he's dating a prosecutor who routinely deceives, tricks, and manipulates to win cases (against him) at all costs. And of course each of his clients is totally innocent, and an incredible sob story to boot. For court drama I'll stick to Law and Order - even if Jack McCoy really never seems to lose a case. It's a lot more realistic and compelling.

Sanctuary: I don't know if I could be more disappointed in a TV show. It looked like something along the lines of Hellboy or Men In Black. I'm not a huge fan of either, but I watched the premier just to see what the show was about. The main character - an FBI profiler (or I guess he got fired for the FBI and now works for the police?) who's really observant and smart, but has an annoying penchant for not believing a case is ever as simple as everyone says. it turns out his mother was killed by a monster when he was little, and so when he gets recruited into this secret group (a mother, her daughter, and a random tech guy) who spends their time catching and studying "abnormal" creatures, you think he'd fit right in. Nope - even after accepting that there's a mermaid and a guy with wings downstairs, and a Neanderthal serving tea, he still doesn't "get it". I've never seen such a moron for a main character. Also, the acting is really bad, and I don't even care for the premise to begin with. I canceled all future recordings of Sanctuary after the second episode.

Heroes: It turns out I can be more disappointed in a TV program! The first season (and a half) of Heroes was very cool - even though I had to listen to the time traveling Hiro say "Darn, I didn't get there in time" over and over again. Season 3 promised to be bigger and better than ever, as it explores the dark side of the heroes - they're Villainous side. Well - so far the show has been a ridiculous failure if you ask me. Right in the beginning they invalidate the entire first season (in which the whole point was to keep Sylar from getting to Clair and taking her power because then he would be unstoppable). Well, they did save the cheerleader in season 1, but did they save the world? Sylar came right back. And in Season 3 now he caught up with Clair and took her power. Not only did she not die from it (she's indestructible after all), but now the big, bad boogieman has her power! I guess that's ok though, because it looks like he's going to be a good guy now. there are bigger things to be disappointed about... I'll accept that maybe Hiro just isn't very smart and therefore not very good at using his time travel abilities. But Peter, especially Future Peter, is pretty much a bad ass. All of a sudden he's bumbling around, shooting his brother, and losing the 'present' version of himself? Of course the ONLY way to stop Nathan from revealing his abilities is to arrive just when he's about to do so and shoot him. Give me a break. Also, for whatever reason Clair's on a vendetta against Peter - so she shoots him with a gun? Really? And it works? Then Clair, Daphne (who is clearly the product of that internet Make-Your-Own-Superhero thing they did), and 'fear guy' challenge the 2 most powerful beings ever (Peter and Sylar) - and they win? Just by punching Sylar? I could go on, but I'd really rather not. We won't even talk about Parkman (the ex-cop) and his 22 year old wife. I was really impressed in the beginning by how they made all these interesting abilities, and how the characters sort of resembled their abilities, but now the show is just so contrived it's actually painful to watch.

Leverage and My Own worst Enemy don't actually look that good. leverage reminds me of hustle, a British show about a group of con men that was actually pretty good. Maybe it'll be worth watching, but I doubt it'll be very good. My Own Worst Enemy stars Christian Slater, which probably means his career is on the decline. I just saw an interesting but relatively bad movie with him in it called He Was A Quiet Man, further evidence in support of that theory. A guy with a split personality, one of which is a super-spy? Hmm.... I'll check it out, but I don't have high hopes.

It turns out there's not a lot of good stuff on TV. No surprise really. All the stuff I liked is getting worse, and all the new stuff isn't very good. If it weren't for reruns of Scrubs and That 70s Show, I might give up TV altogether!

DirecTV Redeux

After a call to the office of the president of DirecTV I thought I at least had HD service properly ordered. I didn't get nearly as much back as I'd hoped, and I can't say that I blame them - I was dumb enough to have already spent the money ordering HD receivers and service.

However this next chapter may well take the cake.

My tenant mentioned to me that a couple HD channels which had worked before no longer come up, and instead there's a message to call customer service. Unhappy with the prospect of talking to DirecTV customer service again, I reluctantly placed the call. I've made it personal policy to ask for a supervisor immediately rather than waste my time talking to the person who answers the phone, and here's what "resolution specialist" Jerry had to say...

The reason these channels (there are 5 total) have not been coming up is that those 5 are being removed from the Total choice package. They are not offered in standard definition, so the "channel providers" decided to charge additional fees for access to those particular channels, above and beyond the "normal" $10/month HD service. In order to receive those 5 channels, an upgraded HD service package would have to be purchased for an additional $5/month.

When I subscribed to the HD service, they indicated that the number of HD channels available would increase, not decrease. I asked what channels have been added lately (or will be added soon)... Jerry told me that my package consists of 33 HD channels not including the 5 that were just removed, and not including the HD channels in the Starz/Showtime package I also subscribe to. He also indicated that 2 more will be added next month - which I believe means 2 more standard definition channels I already receive and can watch will be available in HD as well.

So the number of channels I can watch, not just in HD but total, is being reduced unless I pay more money. I think it's time to place another call to the office of the president.

HDDVR!

Today the DirecTV people came and installed the HD DVR receivers, and evidently it involves a new satellite dish. this one sees 5 Satellites instead of just 3.

I got a glimpse of the picture quality, and it was amazing on one of those computer animated movies (Open Season). On the down side, non-HD programming looks worse through the HD receiver than through a regular one! I guess we'll find out how much non-HD stuff I end up watching, and how upset it makes me that I had to pay a ton of money to get worse reception on stuff that's not broadcast in HD. They have about 85 channels that they broadcast in HD, but I don't subscribe to all of them. Wouldn't it be funny if I went through all this effort and money just to reduce the number of channels I can reasonably watch?

I guess we'll see. I hope that the movies and enough HD channels come out that I end up happy with the new receiver.

Next chapter in the DirecTV saga

2 weeks ago I upgraded my DirecTV receivers to DVR, which requires signing a 2 year service agreement. In retrospect, since at the time my service agreement was up, I should have leveraged that fact, and the fact that Dish network would happily give me a DVR for becoming their customer, to negotiate a better deal.

At any rate, last Friday my guest house tenant got a really good deal on an HDTV, and has now asked me to look into upgrading to that service. He's offered to pay whatever costs are involved, so in a way there's no skin off my back. I just spend $300 on new receivers 2 weeks ago, and I figured the DirecTV people would be amenable to some sort of exchange. After all, I'd be buying more service from them.

Not so.

First I talked to some sales lady. She told me that the HD DVR receivers are $300, and that they offer no returns or exchanges ("All sales are final!") on the equipment I just bought. When I asked about incentives for upgrading (i.e. discounts on service, etc) she said that they're only allowed to do that 1x/year, and since I had some adjustments made to my account 2 weeks ago, I was not eligible for anything further.

Well, that's all ridiculous, so I asked if there was a manager I could talk to with any kind of authority. She told me they wouldn't be able to do anything about the receivers, but that she'd connect me with a manager. When the next person got on the phone, they said they were from the retention department.

I told this guy, John - they aren't allowed to give out their last names, the short version of the story. I had bought all this stuff 2 weeks ago, since then my roommate got an HD TV and wants to upgrade, the saleslady said doing so would cost me $300 on top of the $300 I just spent, plus of course the monthly subscription fee, and there were no incentives or anything they could offer me... and I asked him if there was anything that he could do to make that more attractive to me.

I maintain that DirecTV should be giving away the HD and DVR hardware to current customers, especially ones who's agreements have expired, to entice them to pay for the service they're selling rather than go sign up with someone else who will give them incentives to get their business. Cell phone companies do the same thing, almost any service provider does the same thing. They want your business so you become a constant source of income for them, but once you sign up, there's little reason for you to go through the trouble of leaving, so there's little reason for them to work at keeping you. They get away with charging for hardware, and installation, and shipping and handling, and whatever they want, because people pay it without complaint. While on hold I noticed their advertising the following:

You can save a couple of dollars on the ordering fee if you order Pay-per-view through their automated service instead of over the phone.

That's right, they charge a fee to pay for Pay-per-view. When I was little, I distinctly recall my grandmother being furious because her phone bill had a "billing fee" on it. I remember her calling them up and saying "Are you telling me you have the audacity to send me a bill for sending me a bill?" I'm pretty sure she didn't pay it - even though it was probably only pennies. I have a real problem with the principle though. They're already charging for the service, since when do they get to send me a bill for the privilege? If I sent my client a bill for the time I spent marketing him and asking him to hire me, do you think he'd pay it? I have a similar problem with "stocking fees" when you buy a car.

So anyway, back to the story. John told me that he could definitely work with me. For starters he said he could knock $100 off the new HDDVR receiver, which is reasonable I guess, as that was the price of the normal DVR. When I said I was surprised they don't give the hardware away, John explained that it's a $750 piece of equipment, and they're discounting it to $300. Though he did agree with me when I pointed out how quickly that $750 piece of equipment gets paid off at $100/month in subscription fees. At any rate, I was asking about incentives and things, fully intending to buy the HD service and at least 1 HDDVR for my tenant, as he said he'd pay for it, when John informs me that he can't place any order because they're updating their system and it's not working right or something.

So John is going to call me back tomorrow, because he leaves at 3:30 pm, and we'll resume the order. I figure as long as I'm going to be getting the HD service (paid for by my tenant), it doesn't make a lot of sense not to get an HD receiver for myself. I'm just really irritated by the cost of doing so. I'm hoping that John can offer enough free service to pay down the cost of the receiver to a reasonable amount. Somehow I doubt it, but I guess we'll see. I really wish I'd looked into Dish Network last time before signing a 2 year agreement with anyone :/

Juxtaposition, part 2

For a long time now, whenever I turn on my TV, my satellite receiver doesn't get a signal and I have to turn off power to the receiver, then turn it back on and wait for it to find the signal again (which takes a minute to a minute and a half). Sure, it's only 60 seconds and a trip across the room, but frankly it's not supposed to do that. I've been meaning to call about it for probably a year now, but never got around to it.

With my new tenant moving into the guest house, I was planning on getting another receiver installed, so I finally called DirecTV and asked them what might be causing my receivers to act screwy. Their answer was pretty much that I had the same receivers since 2004, and they probably just needed to be updated.

As an aside, I've got a computer that's twice as old as that which works just fine, and computers are obsolete the minute you get them home. Every appliance in my house, all my clocks, and every telephone I've ever owned has lasted far longer than 3 years. It's pretty ridiculous that nowadays things like satellite receivers and Cell Phones need replacing before the contract on them is even up.

The lady offered to put me through to tech support, who may have been able to somehow fix the receivers without replacing them, but I had other ideas anyway, that brought me to question number 2... I was interested in a DVR. I called them once, asking what service I would have to subscribe to in order to get a free upgrade to a DVR, and they wouldn't do it. I've heard many stories about people not having to pay for equipment when subscribing to such a service, and it just makes sense. The service has a monthly charge associated with it, and the hardware has a monthly charge as well, it's silly to have to pay money up front for the privilege of paying those monthly fees.

The lady told me that the DVRs cost $99 apiece. I inadvertently told her I was interested in 2 right off the bat, in retrospect I should have gone one at a time for bargaining power. I realized this as the call went on. I said "what if I don't want to buy them" and she responded "Oh, that's not the cost for buying them, that's the cost for leasing them. If you want to buy them it's $400. Leasing them is better though because then we're responsible for them, and if anything happens to them we have to replace them"

Well, all in all I wanted to replace my 2 old receivers with 2 DVRs and 1 "updated" normal receiver, but evidently the updated receiver costs $63. I thought they would just swap it out. Remember the part where leasing the equipment means they have to replace it if it doesn't work? So I asked the lady, "I have to pay $63 to update my receiver, or else just deal with it not working right?" She kind of laughed and said "Sorry, that's the way it works!"

Well, I guess I complained enough for her to start giving me discounts... when I asked what service I'd have to upgrade to to get free DVRs she said they couldn't do that, but she said that she'd give me $10 off my bill for 6 months if I upgraded to DVR. I asked if that was per DVR - it wasn't. Then when we talked about the $63 to update the normal receiver she said she could extend the $10 discount to 12 months. A minute ago 6 months was all she could do, now it was 12.

So finally she put the order in, and she said "Oh, I almost forget, any time you buy service or anything, it renews your agreement to 24 months from date of purchase". I told her I thought it was pretty sneaky to make people pay for the hardware upfront, then pay per month, and then also extend their contract, and I asked her since I was now extending the contract for 2 years if she would extend the $10 discount for another 12 months. She said she couldn't. I asked if she could increase it to $15 off instead of $10. She said she couldn't. What she could do was give me the DVR service ($6/month) free for 3 months. "So 20 bucks... I guess that's better than nothing," I said - sounding as annoyed and sarcastic as possible.

In the end I charged $310 on my credit card, and will get back about $140 over the next year. So I paid $170 or so (net) for the right to pay $11 more a month for at least 2 years.

I believe my tenant said he'd be willing to pay an extra $10 a month for the DVR, so maybe I won't have to cover that at least. I still feel like I got ripped off. I feel like I should have kept complaining until they discounted more stuff. At the very least, I should have said "Instead of the DVR service free for a few months, how about my movie channels (for which I pay $23/month)?" They probably could have done that without batting an eye. I definitely shouldn't have settled for discounts totaling less than the $310 I paid.

Oh, and I almost forgot, I have to pay $20 shipping and handling. When I said there's a DirecTV office around the corner from my house and asked if I could avoid that fee by picking it up, the lady sounded understanding but said that it didn't work that way, they had to ship it to the technician or something. Nice of them to pass that cost on to the consumer, who just paid money for the privilege of paying money monthly for 2 more years.