how-to block ads
|
Uniqs:
1604 |
Share Topic
 |
 |
|
|
Reviews:
 ·AT&T U-Verse
 ·AT&T DSL Service
2 edits | pot, meet kettle. For Charter to complain about deceptive advertising is truly hypocritical. For one thing, there's nothing untrue in DirecTV's ads. I am a Charter customer and find the DirecTV ads annoying, but I don't think it's a 'lie' to point out that Charter's bankrupt and could implode.
And Charter's certainly no stranger to deceptive advertising. Consider Charter's:
* ads that try to mislead customers by listing "HD choices" instead of HD channels to make it look like they're not wofeully behind on HD (which they are).
* ads and marketing that try to mislead customers by touting their "fiber optic" network. Good for you and your fiber-to-the-node network, Charter. It's not the same as FTTH and you know it. Well, should know it. Technical competence isn't exactly this company's strong suit, so I could be giving Charter too much credit.
* ads that try to mislead customers by touting cable modem speed advantages by comparing the fastest cable modem speed to the slowest DSL speed. (1 bajillion times faster!!!). A fairer comparison would be the top DSL speed vs the top cable modem speed. Then again, Charter rarely hits their advertised speeds and their network sucks, so it's moot anyway. | |
|   woody7Premium
join:2000-10-13
Torrance, CA | Re: pot, meet kettle. I live in southern california, when I took my cable box back a couple years ago the guy asked why I was returning it, and I said because I signed up for sat tv, he said that when it snows I will get really bad service, it hasn't snowed where I live since 1949 | |
| fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3 | I'll be honest.. not a single thing you posted here is a valid argument.. it's all borderline BS compared to what the topic at hand is.
DirecTV is yelling FIRE in a crowded theater right now, and they know it.
My prediction is strong that DirecTV will loose, and they will pay Charter for lost subscribers.
No matter if Charter winds up being dismantled and sold off or not, DirecTV is still damaging the assets of Charter and the value to the next buyer.
Do you REALLY think that Charter, the holding company, going BR means that the cables are going to be pulled from the poles and service will go dark? Someone else is going to buy the properties and operate the franchise.
DirecTV is vandalizing the assets at Charter which can result in making a bad situation worse, OR, devaluing the ability for the next operator coming in to operate it...
... and all for what.. FUD marketing?
You guys all need to, if you're going to participate in a conversation like this, 1) Put your personal horror stories to the side when trying to make a point.. it doesn't work or change the scope of things. No one could care less if a tech showed up late, or you sat on hold for hours. 2) Apply the laws, not your own "feelings" towards the arguments. 3) And the biggest one, tit for tat doesn't work. PERIOD - EVER! .. when it comes to applying the law. EACH AND EVERY complaint is handled as a separate issue in the eyes of the law.
NOTHING you sated above in your alleged "deceptive advertising" claim above matters in what DirecTV is being accused of doing to Charter. NOTHING. If DirecTV has an issue with what Charter, or in this case, The CABLE INDUSTRY is saying about their OWN service, then DirecTV needs to address them separately.. but the two points you're trying to mold together in your "yea, but!!" argument makes not a SINGLE bit of difference. Honestly, it sounds like you're trying to apply "mom-justice" to this situation and it don't work. It's not like you and your brother just got in a fight and MOM is going to weigh in on the things you and your bro did to make her decision.. if you really think the law works that way.. all I can say is .. WOW!
But, to address your points made becuase honestly, it's old and tired..
1) HD Choices is valid.. read the word CHOICES. If you're too un-educated to figure it out for yourself, then you're the one with the problem. You OBVIOUSLY demonstrate that you understand what they're saying.. so guess what, a judge, if ruling on a complaint, hears an argument, goes by definition and intent. If you can state your intent meaning "content" and not "channels" which "channels" are not said, rather "choices".. well, you have no base for your argument against cable. Just because you don't know how to understand the English language doesn't a law suite make.
2) Misleading customer by touting their "fiber optic" network? Um, they have a fiber optic network. Where does "to the node" need to be stated? Are you that dense? Cable has has a fiber network for a long time.. FTTH wasn't an issue until just about a year ago in any meaning.. and the "fiber network" has been marketed for a decade or more. You're really reaching on this one, as are the rest of the cheer leaders on this BS argument..
3) Cable speeds vs. DSL speeds. Do you have ANY idea what the difference between cable and DSL is? .. distance perhaps? For those that even QUALIFY for DSL, the "average" speed for DSL still remains 1.5 meg to the bulk of customers served. But, to make YOUR point better, you're going to go with the least of the examples and go for those 6 meg speeds, right? .. the ones available to those living close to that node or central office, right? They state that their speeds are based on 1.5 meg speeds which MOST people qualify for. Guess what.. some people still only qualify for 256kbps in many areas still. Cable, however, can serve their base speeds to their entire foot print. Further, you try to enhance your argument, or shall I say, exaggerate your argument by saying "1 bajillion times faster!" ... again, if you're going to make an argument, YOU, yourself, have to be honest as well. Show me or anyone ONE ad that says "1 bajillion times".. I CAN, however, show you plenty of ads that say "10 times faster" which would be accurate.
Sorry to tell you, you're wrong.. NO! A "fairer" comparison would NOT be comparing the top DSL speed vs the top cable speed. But, let's look at that one and let me tear that one apart for you.
The top traditional DSL speed right now is 7meg from Qwest DSL. In that same market, Comcast (Their biggest competitor) offers speeds of 50/5 meg. That 7meg speed is available to a few select customers, while where 50 meg speeds are available, all customers qualify for it. The speed comparison gets even better there.
Further, the distance qualified DSL speeds, in some areas, could be available to just 10% of the population base, or less in some areas. If you REALLY want to push that argument, be VERY careful!! If you want to take and push this issues, then, it's only fair that the DSL provider be able to go to the government and say "We provide 7mg DSL to X area.. we're advanced internet now!" Or, if you're trying to use the least common denominator in your argument, so long as ONE SINGLE HOME in any given zip code can even GET DSL from them, then that area should be considered "serviceable" for reporting reasons too, right?
... no.. of course not.. becuase that wouldn't support your cheer-leading efforts.
The bottom line is that each argument is taken on a case by case basis and holds their OWN merits. Remember the old saying "two wrongs don't make a right?" ... that's probably one of the most non-legal sayings that holds a lot of legal water to this day. And, when you try to make an argument to support your views, you need to keep emotion out of it and stick to facts. Just becuase you want to say the sky is red doesn't make it red which is what you tried to do in your three examples. There is no "opinion" about it.. | |
| | | | Re: pot, meet kettle. You're leaving out something very important here: Charter sucks.
Charter's service sucks. They're bad even for a cable company when it comes to technology, channel offerings, lack of HD, etc.
Their internet service is wildly overpriced, but they've made up for that by adding something every customer has been demanding: download caps. Yay!
Their customer "service" is widesly acknowledged as the worst of the worst; I just spent three months convincing their idiot billing department that I didn't owe them the return of a modem--since I never rented one from them in the first place. Ever. Every bill I ever got from that lousy company containted the words "Customer owned modem"--but I still got threats of lawsuits and collection agencies.
So, DirecTV: more power to you. Bury the worthless bastards. They deserve it. | |
| | | fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3 | Re: pot, meet kettle. So what if Charter's service sucks.. that is 100% totally irrelevant to the topic at hand.
I'm going to give you an example, and there is no way you can come back at me on this one.
Justice isn't popular. It's not about good or bad, rather, it's about the facts and how they apply to the law.
How would you like to be in court for a speeding ticket and the judge has a thing against people with blond hair so even though the speed gun was malfunctioning and you had 10 people from the street say you were parked on the road, the judge still gives you a fine becuase he didn't like blonds and thought they sucked. Would you be okay with that? Just one crude example.
Seriously, your post was something that I'd expect from my 6 year old nephew.. it's along the lines of "yea, but you're ugly and I don't like you" ....
Their service prices, and customer service issues have NOTHING to do with DirecTV telling customers to bail before it all blows apart. | |
| | | | | | Re: pot, meet kettle. Your "point" is nonsense. It's a free country. Direct is entirely free to point out the fact that Charter is bankrupt, just as Charter is free to point out that it's possible to lose satellite signal during a thunderstorm. Both are exaggerating the end results. So what? Happens every day in advertising.
Deal with it. If Charter weren't a giant bag of suck that pisses away billions, Direct wouldn't have their bankruptcy to pick on, would they? | |
| | | | | fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3 | Re: pot, meet kettle. said by Flibbetigibbet :
Your "point" is nonsense. No, .. it's not!
It's a free country. Cute lines don't make reality.
Direct is entirely free to point out the fact that Charter is bankrupt, just as Charter is free to point out that it's possible to lose satellite signal during a thunderstorm. Correct, as you stated it, however, that's not what is being said! DirecTV is telling people to jump ship, and in this country, business does NOT enjoy "freedom of speech" as so many people love to believe. To say they do only points out the lack of a good education.
Cable is certainly find in pointing out that it's possible to lose satellite signal in a thunderstorm.. Last I checked, they didn't say that there service was horrible and they should LEAVE SATELLITE BECAUSE OF IT.. It's okay to talk about the short coming of a technology.. but to tell customers to leave "BECAUSE OF..." is not.. especially when there are no facts to back up the claims. DirecTV is implying that Charters BR will result in a loss of service and it's time to jump ship and get DirecTV.. that's simply NOT true, and if you can't see that, then you're blinded by your own desire to see something destroyed.. seek help.
Both are exaggerating the end results. So what? Happens every day in advertising. No.. they are not.. not in this case. See above and stop being silly.
Deal with it. If Charter weren't a giant bag of suck that pisses away billions, Direct wouldn't have their bankruptcy to pick on, would they? And here we are again.. just becuase they may suck as a provider, they may be late to appointments, and so on does not make what's going on in this case against DirecTV right.. seriously, all I can say to you is grow up. This is NOT how life works.. and I'm glad, SO glad you are no where near any position in this country that makes rules or passes judgment becuase you clearly have no concept of the legal system in this country.
Maybe if you own a house and your don't water your lawn and it turns brown, making my house next door look worse for it, the bank should simply be able to foreclose on you becuase all of your neighbors don't like what you're doing.. fair justice? no.. it's not.
My aggression towards this particular thread, so you know, doesn't come from a hatred of Charter or DirecTV.. I could careless.. what DOES bother me is the arguments being flung around this very forum about WHY they support DirecTV in what they are doing.. it's WRONG! Everyone of of you all that is sitting back and saying it's okay becuase charter deserves it REALLY needs to get a reality check. This has NOTHING to do with Charter itself.. it's about a company that is obviously violating some laws and your justification as to the WHY is ABSOLUTELY out of line!
It's NOT okay to pick and chose what is and isn't okay based on emotion. You MUST apply the law in every case, or you're NO worse than the companies and people that run them that you all come here to bag on every day in the hopes to make a perfect world out there for TV, Phone, and Internet.
And, apparently, while people are bagging on me for standing up for what is right, and taking personal emotions out of the picture, apparently a judge has agreed with me and issues a restraining order stopping the ads.
So, in your own words.. "deal with it!" | |
|
| Reviews:
·AT&T U-Verse
·AT&T DSL Service
| Sorry I got your panties in such a twist, 'bro.'
I'm not sure why you're taking this so personally. You wouldn't happen to work for Charter, would you?
I could spend all day replying to your various rants, but let me just knock down the biggest of your straw men for you ... I never claimed that the pot/kettle defense would be the way to go if I was DirecTV's lawyer. Though that would make for some fairly amusing trial proceedings, I'm sure. I just find it amusing that Charter feels they can run all the deceptive ads they want but as soon as someone runs one against them, it's "Oh shit! Somebody call the waahhhhhhhmbulance!"
Sorry again for hurting your feelings. I'm sure everything at Charter will be perfectly OK. There's absolutely zero chance that the lawsuit alleging fraudulent payments to Sir Allen or the separate lawsuit from Wells Fargo and Chase will derail the bankruptcy proceedings, right? You're obviously a lawyer and have already sussed that all out for us, which was awfully nice of you, sport. | |
| | | fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3 | Re: pot, meet kettle. You're being a complete idiot.
I could care less about any company that any pom pom bearing, skirt wearing cheer-leader here loves or hates. I talk about facts to the topics. Your ENTIRE post was a "rant" about how charter sucks and deserves it basically. You also tried to insert your personal feelings and opinions as facts.. and YOU have the gall to try and throw your own BS in MY face? HAH! riiight.
The only one that was ranting, was you. Since I called you to the table, your only way to handle it is to attempt to twist it and throw it back on my face becuase my so-called "panties" are in a twist. Again, another common tactic from people who have nothing to really include in a conversation or debate.
Don't appologize for "hurting my feelings" becuase you didn't. I don't know you, don't care to simply becuase I don't care to know anyone that whines and complains about everything in their life - such as present company.
To be honest, I'm sick and tired of people, such as yourself, that when they do rant, can't handle someone calling them to the table on it..
And for the record.. a lawyer? again.. I'm going to take my mod hit of the day.. you're entire post, 1 and 2, only make you out to be the idiot..
Next time, bring a fact to the table.. not an opinion, and stop your spinning. It will only get you dizzy.
I may not always be popular around here, but I'm not here for any contest. My posts have merit to them.. FAR more than many of the usual ranters here, such as yours.
Own up. | |
| | | | | | Re: pot, meet kettle. Maybe you should consider changing your handle from "fiberguy" to "Comic Book Guy." That's who you sound like. | |
|
| | | Directv will not lose! This is charter desperate to sway the court of public opinion and the media.. Charter is just looking for anyway to stay afloat including winning a lawsuit againest the #1 tv service provider in the country.. They're desperate for money and soon they'll either go under or be bought out by some other cable entity. | |
| |  dsldude08Premium,VIP
join:2008-01-03
La Crosse, WI
kudos:2 | CenturyTel has up to 10M/768k for copper DSL lines and up to 20M/3M for fiber customers right now. | |
| | | fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3 | Re: pot, meet kettle. said by dsldude08:CenturyTel has up to 10M/768k for copper DSL lines and up to 20M/3M for fiber customers right now. Okay... so you are stating some of the exceptions out there. I was pretty clear that there were exceptions, wasn't I? And what does fiber have to do with this? | |
| | | | dsldude08Premium,VIP
join:2008-01-03
La Crosse, WI
kudos:2 | Re: pot, meet kettle. Just stating, my goodness. CHILL
And yes, your views are exactly that, your own. | |
| | | | | fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3 | Re: pot, meet kettle. And why did you need to hijack the thread and say that? What relevance did it add? I CLEARLY already stated that there are exceptions...
I'm getting tired of people like who telling ME to chill becuase I say something you didn't like.. get over it already. | |
| | | | | | dsldude08Premium,VIP
join:2008-01-03
La Crosse, WI
kudos:2 | Re: pot, meet kettle. No, I think people are telling you to chill because you actually do need to chill based on your comments and reaction to people. I merely stated a point, just as you did and you decided to snap on this whole forum today for some reason. And you aren't adding much more relevance to this forum or thread either by throwing fireballs at me or anyone else.
But let's not get too far off topic here, we are fighting about a lost cause anyway. Charter is done. End of story (whether it be sold off or shut down). | |
| | | | | | | fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3 | Re: pot, meet kettle. No, it doesn't work that way.. I can come in here and say the sky is blue, and people have always attacked me.. followed with "you're a conservative", "you're republican", "you're paid by X company" (doesn't matter, cuz no matter what side I take, I obviously work for them) "you're a shill", etc etc etc.
Today, people are coming in here with emotional posts trying to justify their sides and the "yea but!" argument.. NEITHER are valid. For me responding and setting things back to reality in the discussion, I'm told to chill.. so I'm sorry if I don't see your side of things. The posts are engraved in this tread, and I can certainly back my points up.. (notice I say POINTS, and not "SIDE".. )
And, you, like others, say things like "fighting".. I'm not fighting.. I make my points and I so with conviction. I'm not going to dumb down my arguments to "the topic at hand" to appease ANY person in this forum, or site, that wants to rant rant rant rant about any topic and not even use any sense of reality in the process. If this site is about ranting, pissing, and moaning, then by all means, I'm sure the owners of the site will change the name accordingly.. however, I don't think the scope of the conversation has been established to only accommodate those that want to piss and moan about poor service EVERY TIME a topic is posted.
Example: "Docsus3 launches in...X" several threads of "My technician was late".. "My bill was wrong".. "they suck"..
.. Intelligent conversation at it's best? So, again, my bad if I jumped over someone for hijacking a thread with a point that was clearly already stated in my post AND, in addition, a reference to fiber which was completely off topic.
MY bad for putting some intelligence in the conversation. And, a fireball is NOT countering what someone has to say.. my passion in the conversation today was CLEARLY due to the total lack of intelligence being spewed in the forum. The rule is, in conversation, if you say something in a group, be prepared to be called on it. I'll accept it even so long as the comments relate to the facts being said - which, by the way, is the rules of BBR in the AUP. | |
| | | | | | | | |
|
approval from:
goillini 
| Fiberguy: no, HD 'choices' was supposed to deceive people into thinking they were HD channels. Regular people trying to decide between services may compare 175 HD choices with Charter to 140 HD channels with Dish. Then they might think the higher premiums for Charter are worth it.
But they'd be wrong.
Maybe we should ask a third party about whether Charter has deceptive marketing. Ask the Better Business Bureau. They stated that:
"[Charter] used misleading advertising [. . .]".
This quote is among a whole slew of other complaints that people had about Charter in particular and was part of a BBB warning to customers about Charter. Charter misleads because it knows that if people knew the FACTS about the TV services, they would rarely choose Charter.
There are very few reasons to choose Charter over Satellite service because Satellite service has a lot more HD channels, better customer service, better pricing and better DVRs. And the service is far more reliable in my experience. I probably experience ~60-300 seconds of rain fade once every few months and it's only during the very strongest parts of the nastiest storms. It's far more rare than Charter outages here in Madison.
"So why choose Charter? Well, because you have a tree in your yard so huge that you can't get a view of the sky."
That's what Charter's marketing would say if Charter were honest, anyway. I'm sure their investors are glad they use misleading advertising, even if firms like the BBB call them out on it in consumer warnings. | |
| | | fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3 | Re: pot, meet kettle. OKay... "HD Choices", since you're picking up a headline, was also followed by ... "there are more HD programs available to you at any given time over satellite".. which is factually true.
Second, the BBB - at best, I'm sorry, you either like them, or hate them. And, I don't care to hear about the BBB in this instance. While the BBB can be a good resource to turn up the heat in some cases, many times, they don't go after their paid members due to the fact they'd lose revenue. With THAT fact alone, I don't trust the BBB for more than anything but putting out a fire.. but as a place to go for a reputable ruling? .. I'll stick with the courts. Sorry.. just my view.
People will "complain" that their dollar bills are too crisp.. people "complain" about many things.. does it make it valid? nope.. not all the time.
I'm sorry, the bottom line is this.. NO ONE HERE that understands the "more HD choices" and what it they mean by it can claim they are mis-led.. you just can't! It means that you obviously know what they're talking about.. YOU JUST DON'T LIKE IT is all! In order to state they are mis-led, you'd have to STILL not understand what they meant. FURTHER, if you're too stupid to as for the number of HD channels on the line up, well, god help you too.
Seriously, this is yet another "other side" argument nit-picking an issue to death.
Do you call up and say "I want to know how many HD CHOICES you have?? " or do you call up and say "How many HD CHANNELS do you offer,.. AND... which ones?"
So please, forgive me if I'm not worked up by this whole "HD CHOICE" term used by "THE INDUSTRY".. becuase if you haven't noticed, Comast, Cox, Charter.. they all use it.. think about it.
"Charter misleads because it knows that if people knew the FACTS about the TV services, they would rarely choose Charter." PURE RUBBISH! This is an "opinion"..
Now.. to balance this argument out.. I honestly couldn't care if Charter lives or dies.. it doesn't affect my life. PERSONALLY, I do believe their prices are high.. I don't like how they charge for outlets and then boxes.. that was supposed to end a long time ago. Do I think their internet is priced too high? no, I don't. Do I think their TV services are slightly higher than they should be? Yes. Would I want charter in my home? No.. HOWEVER, when we're talking about the issues at hand, I'm going to ALWAYS going to stand behind facts, not opinions, and not personal feelings. Emotions don't play into my own judgment when it comes to right and wrong. | |
|
| |
|
