The Hawai‘i DISH Network Disaster

There’s quite a racket going on with DISH Network satellite services. Investigative report reveals what the satellite giant doesn’t want Hawai‘i consumers to know…

J.M. Buck

Time lost from work. Frazzled nerves. Ruined credit. Lost money.
These are just a few of the harsh things that customers and prospective customers have endured in their dealings with the nation’s largest satellite service provider.
Just do an online search for “DISH Network complaints,” and you’ll see. Thousands of complaints.
The bulk of complaints regard installation no-shows, non-disclosure of hidden costs and fees, faulty equipment, damage to homes during installation, and dismal customer service. Hundreds of blogs dedicated to DISH Network complaints, as well as several lawsuits recently filed against the company, reveal that DISH has an undeniably long track record of customer dissatisfaction.
Many rural areas of Hawai‘i do not have cable television access, so island residents who want more than a couple of fuzzy network stations are reliant on satellite T.V. for home entertainment.
Owned by Littleton, Colo.-based EchoStar Communications Corp., DISH Network was the sole satellite service provider in Hawai‘i from 1996 until Sept. 2000, when DirecTV began selling competitively priced satellite services in the Islands. Unfortunately, there are quite a few areas that DirecTV cannot service due to the positioning of their satellite in relation to the Hawaiian chain. This leaves a certain segment of Hawai‘i’s consumers with no other choice besides DISH Network.
Almost everyone in the nation has received an installation offer from DISH in the mail at one time or another. These offers promise things like a free DVR (digital video recorder), free installation, and free movie channels for three months.
On advertised offers, the company discloses additional fees and charges associated with the offer and installation as well as any disclaimers – in two-point text that’s almost impossible to read, even with a magnifying glass.
This fine print is usually in black text on a red background, or on a metallic silver background, making reading of already impossibly small text even more difficult.
So of course, the fine print is rarely read. And if it is, usually not all the way through.
People calling DISH Network’s toll-free line to order service are regularly not made aware of these fine-print fees and charges prior to sign-up and installation. In one blog, a woman thought she was getting a free DVD player, only to later learn that the equipment, including additional receivers, is actually leased and that there are $5 per receiver monthly “equipment fees.” She was also shocked to learn that a $4.99 a month “additional program access fee” per receiver was charged if they weren’t all continuously plugged into phone jacks. Though all additional costs and are clear and easy-to-read on the post-installation residential contract, which is presented and signed only after installation is complete, there are countless complaints that tell of the assessment of a $240 termination fee customers were not made aware of when ordering satellite service from DISH. The termination fee is not mentioned anywhere in the fine print disclosure on recent DISH mail-out advertising.
On May 22, 2003, the State of Oregon Attorney General’s Office settled a suit against EchoStar. An investigation of the company’s sales practices had been initiated after the AG’s office received complaints from over 125 Oregonians regarding such non-disclosure of fees.
According to Oregon Attorney general Hardy Myers, EchoStar was found to be in violation of the Assurance of Voluntary Compliance (AVC). The AVC, which 13 states participate in, requires EchoStar to “clearly and conspicuously disclose the terms of its satellite television service and the financial obligations customers assume prior to the purchase or lease of a DISH Network system.”
In the settlement, EchoStar was barred for five years by the states of California, Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Louisiana, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, Wisconsin and Oregon from enforcing contract terms on customers who claimed to have not been made aware of additional fees prior to signing on for service unless the company could provide proof of such disclosure. Nor could they continue to automatically assess the $240 termination fee on customers who had to cancel service due to circumstances beyond their control, such as death or catastrophic illness.
EchoStar was further ordered to pay the 13 participating states $5 million in restitution and fees. To view the media release from the Oregon Ag's office, click here.
Despite the settlement, the practice of non-disclosure in all the States has continued. Click here to read blogs relating the continuing non-disclosure.
Installation no-shows are another nationwide problem with DISH. Scores of new customers lose time from work, have their installations rescheduled with no prior notice, and in some cases, are not made aware that they can’t get installation at all unless they order service through their local retailer as opposed to directly from DISH.

Dirty DISH. DISH Network customers in Hawai‘i aren't getting nearly what they're paying for.

In Hawai‘i and Alaska, DISH Network/EchoStar contracts through a company called Microcom for installations. Interestingly enough, there are other autonomous satellite sales and installation companies operating in the U.S. under the name of Microcom, all of them contracting for DISH.
The parent corporation to the Alaska/Hawai‘i Microcom is Alaska-based Sateo, Inc.
According to local retailers in Hawai‘i as well as new DISH subscribers, Microcom/Sateo has a notorious history of installation no-shows.
Brian Johnson, Microcom sales manager, admits that there have been installation problems in Hawai‘i and Alaska.
During a phone interview from his Anchorage office, Johnson says that the company doesn’t have enough staff in Hawai‘i to keep up with the demand.
“We’ve got a team of technicians being trained over there right now, and people will see the open available dates increase dramatically. But unfortunately, installations have been out farther than expected.” Johnson says that the team in Hawai‘i has been addressing the problem on a “customer-by-customer basis.
But there is not a team of technicians being trained in Hawai‘i.
According to Chuck Schumann, president of Microcom/Sateo, Inc., there is not enough business to warrant having any full-time installers on the neighbor islands. One technician was going to be trained on Maui, but this person decided he did not want to work for Microcom and subsequently disappeared.
In Sept. 2004, The Honolulu Advertiser ran a story called “Satellite Television Gains Customers In Hawai'i.” In the article, Microcom operations manager Tim Batchler says that Microcom was “inundated with customers calling…” and “…we have so many sales, we can't keep up."
According to the article, subscribers in 2004 had to wait up to six weeks for installation, with the average being about two weeks. Click here to read article.
Apparently the company is still going through growing pains almost a year and a half later.
According to Leonard Ward, Jr. a satellite installer who has worked for Microcom for a year and a half, there are five installers on Oahu including himself, one in Kona on the Big Island, and none on any of the other islands. Ward, 47, flies from Oah’u to Maui, Molokai, Lanai and Kauai to perform installations. He says he is the only installer for the four neighbor islands.
Amber Nelson, Microcom’s regional manager for Hawai‘i, says she has been getting a lot of calls from upset customers.
We have been having a lot of difficulty,” she admitted. “It’s something we’re trying to overcome at this time.”
Schumann echoed Nelson. “We’ve lost a lot of staff because we cannot keep them busy in Hawai‘i, because DISH Network is not the hands-down, multi service video provider that it was two years ago.”
Microcom/Sateo is currently running an ad in the West Hawai‘i Today classifieds in hopes of recruiting new installers.
Sateo, Inc. has been doing business off and on in Hawai‘i since 1990. When the company originally registered with the Hawai‘i Department of Commerce and Consumer Affairs Business Registration Division (DCCA), it listed “the vacation rental market as the primary specific purpose of the corporation in the State of Hawai‘i.”
The company’s business registration was cancelled by the State after not filing corporate reports from 1993 through 1995.
Sateo popped up in Hawai‘i again in 2000, this time as a satellite installation and sales business.
According to Sarah at DCCA, for a company to legally conduct business in Hawai‘i, they must have the name that they are doing business under registered with the State. Nowhere on the current business name registration is the name Microcom, though state tax records show the corporation doing business as (dba) Microcom in Hawai‘i on a general excise and use license issued in 1998.
State tax records also reveal a transient accommodations (vacation rentals) license issued to Sateo, Inc./Microcom in Jan. 2001. Sateo, Inc. (not Microcom) was issued a Hawai‘i tax-withholding license in Jan. of 2004.
On a separate yet interesting note, Schumann and his associate Tom Brady had formed a company called Microcom Technologies, LLC in order to build a second teleport facility in Anchorage. Schumann says the company was a “spin-off” of his other company, Microcom Communications.
“It’s just a little holding company for a business that we hope will do something someday,” said Schumann.
On May 6, 2002 the State of Alaska issued Microcom Technologies a “Certificate of Involuntary Dissolution,” which dismantled the corporation for “failure to file a biennial report and/or pay the biennial tax fees for the period ending Dec. 31, 2000 for for-profit entities and June 30, 2001 for non-profit entities.” Click here to view document.
Schumann claims no knowledge of Microcom Technologies’ dissolution. He says he will be taking action to correct installation problems in Hawai‘i.
I personally had Microcom cancel my installation date twice without informing me, lost time from work waiting for installers that never showed up, and left countless messages with nobody calling me back. It was only when I decided to write this article and identified myself as a reporter that I got any response. Though I ordered and paid for satellite service on Dec. 9, 2005, it was not installed until Jan. 21, and then the equipment, a DISH 625 DVR, didn’t work properly.
Local retailers receive their satellite equipment directly from DISH Network/EchoStar. Hundreds of blogs reveal problems with receivers, DVRs and HDTVs, as well as unwillingness on the part of DISH employees to assist customers with replacement of malfunctioning hardware. In some instances, the company has even charged subscribers for replacement of faulty equipment.
The following blog excerpts illustrate the frustration of some DISH subscribers:
Posted May 16, 2005: “I’ve been a DN customer for 7 yrs, I have a 510 and just ordered my 3rd RA unit. I've lost my recordings each time and last night's Customer support tech suggestion floored me. I was told that I should have been backing up to VHS. I asked her if she was still listening to cassette tapes. Completely absurd suggestion.”
Posted May 19, 2005: “The 522 [one of DISH’s DVRs] is an absolute piece of shit, period. I signed up in October 04' and it went hay-wire in May 05'. I talked to the moronic technical support people and they said I was out of warranty. So, then I asked, how long is the warranty? She said "3 months". I damn near fell out of my chair laughing at her.
I started noticing when my hard drive decided it wanted to reboot itself every 2 minutes. I called them, talked to a robot (basically) and got nowhere. The second time I called (referenced above), they RA'd me a new system. However, I have to pay the $14.95 for the shipping to me.”
Posted on Feb. 15, 2005: “I was installed in October 2003. Since then, I've gone through 3 replacement authorizations on my 510. Each time the problem was loss of recorded programming. Just last week the third receiver they sent lost all 80 hours…for the second time.”
There’s many, many more stories like the ones above. To read them, click here.
The satellite giant has earned a two-thumbs-down rating for customer service from subscribers around the nation. Though there are many DISH customer service representatives who are very helpful, there are just as many who seem to want nothing to do with helping DISH subscribers. Excessively long hold times, employee rudeness, lack of knowledge and inability to remedy account problems are at the top of the complaint list.
One former DISH subscriber in Spartanburg, South Carolina who identified himself only as Shane, had this customer service horror story to tell:
“A large draft and several smaller drafts from DISH Network – all of which were made in error – caused my checking account to be overdrawn by a substantial amount. The drafts were made only a few days after my real payment to them had been drafted. I immediately called the toll free number and spoke to a woman who told me the draft was supposed to be for someone else, but did not specify whether it was a clerical error or a case of mistaken identity.
“I did not contact the person for fear of hindering a possible criminal case. The Customer Service representative said she would send my case to the Misposting Department and they would get back to me immediately. When I didn't hear back from them, I called back and a representative told me there was no information in my file regarding this incident and no record of any conversations. After calling everyday for 4 weeks, I finally spoke with a representative from Misposting who told my bank's Branch Manager and me that DISH was to blame for this problem and they would reimburse the money and all penalties that had incurred as a result.
“I repeatedly faxed information to them because they kept losing it, ran up my phone bill calling non-toll-free numbers, talked to at least 30 different people, changed my account, reestablished my drafted bills and turned down an out of town job because my bank account was in limbo. I cancelled my service with DISH and they still sent me bills. I was never reimbursed and spoke with other Customer Service reps who said they would help me. One asked that I set up a new account number with DISH so they could deposit the money directly into my account. I told him I would not do that and they should send me a check that I could deposit myself.
“My old account had been closed for almost a year at this point, but I received a letter saying they deposited the money into my old account and that the money was then transferred successfully to my banking account. I have testimony from the bank's Branch Manager and all banking statements showing this money was never deposited, and they have charged my credit card for an additional $50.” To view this story and more like it, click here.
On my account there is an incorrect name – someone else’s entirely. I have talked to over twenty reps, all saying they would take care of the problem. About half of them said there is nothing they can do because they need to have that person call DISH to put me on the account. When I tell them it is MY account, with my credit card info, address, etc. on file, they tell me that the account will have to be closed and re-opened under my name to correct the problem. However, the account cannot be closed without the approval of the person whose name appears on the account – a name that isn’t mine.
EchoStar Corporate Communications Manager Mark Cicero claims to have no knowledge of any of these consumer problems. An e-mail was sent to him on Jan. 20 questioning the Oregon lawsuit and continued non-disclosure practices, faulty equipment, poor customer service and Microcom’s installation problems in Hawai‘i. To view e-mail, click here.
An e-mail response was received from Cicero on Jan. 26, five days after I finally had my satellite system installed. None of the questions were answered.
Cicero states in his response: “After speaking with representatives at Microcom, we have been informed that this issue has been resolved. If this is not the case, please let me know.
Microcom has been providing customers satellite services in Hawaii for more than 10 years and DISH Network has a solid relationship with the company as an independent retailer. This was an isolated incident and is not reflective of the quality service Microcom provides our customers in Hawai‘i.
At DISH Network, we strive to offer exemplary customer service. For example, DISH Network ranked first for the second straight year among all pay-TV providers in the American Customer Satisfaction Index (2005).” To view this e-mail, click here.
Alaska and Hawai‘i DISH customers may be surprised to find that they do not receive the channels in the latest DISH satellite packages that they sign up for. Incidentally, the same holds for DirecTV.
DISH offers 3 standard packages – exclusive of pay-per-view and additional premium movie and sports packages: America’s Top (AT) 60, AT 120, and AT 180. The channels that consumers are supposed to receive appear on the DISH channel reference guide that accompanies their receiver.
EchoStar, by the letter of the law, does not need to provide the exact same channels as the 48 contiguous states (CONUS). They only need to provide Hawai‘i and Alaska with service and rates that are comparable to the CONUS states.
In looking at the list of channels supposedly available to Hawai‘i subscribers, it appears that all is on the up and up. It’s when one goes to view those channels (the “All Sub” list is supposed to be the channels you are getting with your package) that reality surfaces.
For The AT 120 package, 87 channels are listed on the channel reference guide. Of these, 13 do not appear in the on-screen program guide.
In Hawai‘i, a “local channel” package is included in the price of the 120-channel package. This local package consists of 18 local channels, 9 of which lead to an error message saying that a “problem has been detected with your switch.” It will tell you to run a “check switch test. This test goes nowhere. All you have to do is hit the “Guide” button on your remote to escape the error message. This is the case with channels NBCHL, RSRCH, FTRAW, HITN, BYUTV, UWTV, LINK, FSTV, and COLRS.
There are 26 sports stations that are not available in Hawai‘i, but AT120 subscribers are paying for them. These channels display a message saying that the channel is not available in your area.
Included in the 120 channels that subscribers believe they are getting are 10 pay-per-view channels.
In reality, not including the Sirius music stations, subscribers to the latest DISH Network AT120 package in Hawai‘i are only receiving 47 viewable channels.
On April 27, 1998, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) granted EchoStar the authority to make minor modifications to their Direct Broadcast Satellite Service (DBS) satellites. EchoStar’s application to the FCC included a request for a waiver of their obligations under the Geographic Service Rule Title 47 C.F.R. 100.53 (moved to Title 47 C.F.R. 25.148), which required EchoStar to serve Hawai‘i from its satellite located at 148 degrees West longitude (WL). EchoStar stated that their new EchoStar 4 satellite at 119.2 WL could better serve Hawai’i, and with the waiver Hawai‘i would be able to receive the same “backbone programming” as the Mainland.
The waiver was granted with conditions. To view the document, click here.
On April 24, 2003, EchoStar was granted another modification request. Mentioned in the decision was EchoStar’s assertion that Hawai‘i was receiving their programming packages for the same price as the Mainland. Click here to view the decision.
One would assume that if subscribers were paying the same price in Hawai‘i for the same Mainland packages, they would be getting the same channels as well as the same number of channels that they are supposedly paying for.
In 2004, EchoStar 4 developed technical problems and had to be moved to 157 degrees WL. Programming was switched to a different satellite.
The FCC adopted a “Policies and Rules for the Direct Broadcast Satellite Service” on April 8, 2002. The Rule was created to allow “more service offerings, better consumer service, and competitive prices” In paragraph 59 of the Rule, programming non-conformity between Alaska and Hawai‘i with the rest of the U.S. is acknowledged.
In paragraph 65, the Rule states, “Hawai‘i refers to the need for ‘comparable service,’ meaning service that is of equal value to or is comparable to that provided in CONUS states, in terms of antenna size, program offerings, and price.”
The State of Hawai‘i asserted to the FCC that in order for DBS providers to properly comply with the Geographic Service Rule, they must provide core programming and prices identical to those on the Mainland. Although programming does not need to be identical, it must be of equal value as that provided in the CONUS states (paragraph 71).
Paragraph 71 goes on to say that the FCC declined to mandate rules concerning service offerings “because of possible First Amendment implications.” In the next paragraph, however, it is stated that the FCC will “…consider a DBS provider to be in compliance with [the Geographic Service Rule] only if it offers packages of services in Alaska and Hawai‘i that are reasonably comparable to what the provider offers in the contiguous 48 states.”
The FCC states that all but two of the Eastern channels are available to Hawai‘i and Alaska those two channels not being available due to elevation angle constraints. To the FCC Policies and Rules in its entirety, click here.
Several messages were left for EchoStar Senior Vice President Nick Rosetti regarding what appears to be possible non-compliance with the FCC’s Geographic Service Rule. The calls were not returned.
Caveat emptor – let the buyer beware.

Back To Top

Home

Top Stories

Inside Maui Politics

Across Hawai‘i

Buck's Blog

Letters

Opinion/Commentary

This Week's Freaks

Sports

Community Calendar

Classifieds

Employment

Subscribe For Free

Submissions/Policies

Archives

Advertising

Contact The Examiner

About Us