This is half a poll, half a question, in response to the change of policy and "screw you" attitude by URC:

SHOULD WE START POSTING THE ADDRESSES OF COMPANIES PACKAGING URC-MADE REMOTES, SO THAT WE CAN SEND LETTERS OR EMAILS ASKING THEM TO CHOOSE OTHER REMOTE VENDORS IF THEY WANT OUR BUSINESS?

Here is a list of companies I think use URC remotes:

Adcom, B&K, Cablevision Systems Corp., Charter Communications, Comcast, Crestron, Denon, Faroudja, Harman/Kardon, Klipsch, Krell, McIntosh, Motorola, Rotel, Parasound, Polk Audio, Time Warner, Toshiba, Xantech and Zenith.

(HK has already started sourcing from Logitech, see the TC30:-)

So, how pissed are we and what are we going to do about it?

1) If you really want to do this, get your facts straight first. Not all of those manufacturers use URC remotes. You are just going to have people tying up phone lines to some companies that don't even use URC manufactured remotes.

2) HK most likely did not make the change due to any of the "problems" you are so "ticked" about.

3) While I still say that URC went about this whole thing in not the smartest way possible, when all is said and done, the Authorized Dealers, the CI's, and the DIY'ers are in the high, high majority of the cases going to be taken care of in a way satisfactory to them.

So, I don't think that this is going to serve any purpose whatsoever other than to put a burden on the companies listed above. Do you REALLY think that if you pick out a SAT box, or RECEIVER, or PRE-PRO, etc. that you are going to decide against the one you really like the most because it comes prepackaged with a URC remote?

If you do, you are just shooting yourself in the foot. Get the component you want, and then buy the universal remote that you want to control your equipment, whether it be from URC or Philips or Logitech, etc..

Frankly, I don't see how this is going to benefit anyone, including you, no matter how "ticked" off you are.

Greg

That's why I said "I think." If you know that company X sources from URC for sure, please post the contact info:-)


It will at least send a message to unethical companies like URC, that they cannot "screw" their customers with impunity.

I think URC has decided that our complaints on forums like this are nothing to worry about. I am just suggesting that we do give them something to worry about.

Who knows, maybe between grassroots action like this, and a couple of lawsuits hopefully in the pipeline, URC will become a better company.

Rem 3000, I have only worked with URC's a couple times over the years and most likely won't work with them much in the future (which has nothing at all to do with the software issue), but you make me laugh!!! Other than spending your time trying to solve the ills of humanity, you have picked up the urc torch and are carrying it high, a Bud Light Real American Hero..

http://budlight.whipnet.com/

[Link: neonowl.net]

Hey, we can only try, Bud Light boy:-)

But who knows, it may lose them a few sales....

P.S. If I see another tacky CI's ad showing a photo of a plasma in a kitschy gold frame on top of a fireplace in a brand new "contractor special" Mac-mansion, I am going to puke....

I thought I had some loose screws, REM you take the cake!

Hey, this thread is clearly for DISGRUNTLED URC End-Users!

What are some nit-picking, nit-wited CIs doing here? Or are you subconsciously disgruntled too?

Have another Bud Light and go push your shopping car somewhere else:-)

(Or, at least give us contacts and addresses at some companies using URC remotes....)

LOL. That is clearly the most clever insult tossed at CI's in general.

I think that you need to contact Ralph Nader to pick up your cause, maybe some of the successful tobacco lit attorneys since they don't have much to do until the fat food lawsuits pick up steam.

As another CI says, Hire a Pro!

Please leave your sex lives out of this !!!

I am thinking more like Attorney General for consumer fraud. URC is treading on thin ice if their policy is not to provide software on future "unauthorized" purchases of their remote. I was under the impression that this was the policy. If it isn't then disregard this post. If it is, they have problems. Defendant is selling merchandise that does not function unless it is purchased from reseller designated by Defendant yet the Defendant continues to sell and collect thousands of $$ for the non-functioning products as well.

I have to admit I am a bit P*ssed about it.
However If I am still allowed to buy the top end stuff through a reseller and be able to get the editor through them without having to pay some rocket scientist to come and plug it in for me,then no problem

The obvious question is, why doesn't some good samaratin, pissed off, disgruntled owner simply post the new software and updates for all of us others to download?

There is hardly any piece of software out there today which isn't available for download somewhere.

Then URC will see that we can still get what is rightly ours and those overpriced CIs will get their just rewards!

Because it's copyrighted material and against the law and nobody with a brain wants to invite a jail sentence.

I'm only asking for what we paid for. They took away something which was rightfully ours which was a primary selling point of the devices as originally advertised.

Even without additional live updates, the basic software program should still be made available once again so that new customers can have functionally of the device.

Anyone needing a rocket surgeon or brain scientist, will need to go to their local BB OR CC! Overpriced? Well, only the best for this type of client right.