DIRECTV Sued Over HDTV Picture Quality

[bhambrad]

http://www.tvpredictions.com/directvlawsuit092006.htm

[TheRedknight]

That's great news. I hope Dishnet returns to real HD resolutions and starts a marketing campaign against DirectV.

[ursa99]

I wonder what he wants for 'damages' should he prevail....

[steverobertson]

I think this is great to bad we all can't be a witness for him.

[Jediphish]

I wonder what he wants for 'damages' should he prevail....


I just hope he's pursuing the equitable remedy of an injunction against the downrezz/bit starving practice. Any damages would be icing on the cake.

[Ou8thisSN]

While it's great that he's holding their feet to the fire, but what is this really going to accomplish? Say he wins, which he should given their advertising and actual quality, then what? Directv will either have to add all the channels at full bandwidth, which we know they cant do, because if they could they certainly would. Or they will add a disclaimer on the bottom of their ads, and all of you who subsribe will continue to get the substandard pq. I dont think this will ultimately result in better pq and wouldnt that be the ultimate reward?

[Myrtledog]

Once again, someone attempting to "win the lottery" by using our legal system for frivalous reasons. If a company's quality goes down, use the power of choice and the almighty dollar to change things. Don't buy their service. Don't waste the legal system's time and money with this crap.

[IAM4UK]

I disdain frivolous lawsuits, and dumped DIRECTV after subscribing for many years, explicitly because of their down-rezzing HD signals. This case may have some merit, as the resolution provided by D* is neither of the ATSC standard resolutions; however, the best outcome would be an injunction against down-rezzing, with no monetary damages awarded.

[bonscott]

Once again, someone attempting to "win the lottery" by using our legal system for frivalous reasons. If a company's quality goes down, use the power of choice and the almighty dollar to change things. Don't buy their service. Don't waste the legal system's time and money with this crap.
I could not agree with you more. If the guy dosnt like it turn it off and switch to smething else. Garbage lawsuit. We all pay in the end for this crap.

[adpayne]

Once again, someone attempting to "win the lottery" by using our legal system for frivalous reasons. If a company's quality goes down, use the power of choice and the almighty dollar to change things. Don't buy their service. Don't waste the legal system's time and money with this crap.


I understand the frustration over "frivalous" lawsuits, but how does this fit that criteria? They advertise what they don't deliver. That is false advertising, and is illegal.

Art

[stephenC]

I would imagine that credits or refunds for all HD package subscribers would be one of the damages sued for. Would anyone object or opt out of the class if that was one of the rewards?

Myrtledog - I would certainly agree with you if the supplier field were larger. But, in many parts of the country there just aren't any providers passing better quality products (content). Echostar downrezs. Cable is a good option if it is available in your area. Of course, there is the option to drop all providers and read a book or do other activities with your family and friends. :o

[mx6bfast]

Where do I signup for this?

[dan57]

Note that this article states that the law suit is a class action law suit. This means that the named plaintiff is representative for a class of a large number of similarly situated plaintiffs. It also implies that the court has certified the class. As such, although each individual plaintiff might only receive a few dollars in damages, multiplied by the number of plaintiffs in the class, this could amount to a significant amount of money. I suspect though, as alluded to above, the actual remedy sought here is injunctive relief.

[HDTVChallenged]

Directv will either have to add all the channels at full bandwidth, which we know they cant do, because if they could they certainly would. Or they will add a disclaimer on the bottom of their ads, and all of you who subsribe will continue to get the substandard pq. I dont think this will ultimately result in better pq and wouldnt that be the ultimate reward?

LOL ... more likely we'd (temporarily) see a return to only 3 or 4 HD channels on the Ku sats ... Now who's willing to sacrifice their favorite pet (and probably part time HD) channels for the cause? ;) :D

[Myrtledog]

Maybe I'm not aware of it but is D* claiming they have the absolute best quality picture of anything out there? From the article in the OP, it says "He says DIRECTV at that time promised that HDTV would provide "astonishing picture quality." To me, that sounds like a very subjective phrase. What does astonishing mean? To a very trained and discerning eye, D* may not be astonishing. To someone who comes from only seeing standard def stuff, I'd bet they would think it's pretty astonishing.

[wrightwing]

Once again, someone attempting to "win the lottery" by using our legal system for frivalous reasons. If a company's quality goes down, use the power of choice and the almighty dollar to change things. Don't buy their service. Don't waste the legal system's time and money with this crap.



Couldn't disagree more on the 'frivolity' of this case. It certainly has merit. Its false advertising, companys have been forced to offer rebates to their customers for much less.

It comes down to one thing to me, monopoly. I cant get Sunday Ticket anywhere else, or I would have sent D* packing long ago.

[stephenC]

LOL ... more likely we'd (temporarily) see a return to only 3 or 4 HD channels on the Ku sats ... Now who's willing to sacrifice their favorite pet (and probably part time HD) channels for the cause? ;) :D

OMG. The idea of having HDNet back to the way it was when it first launched on DirecTV. I just pee'd my pants. That would be a dream come true. I would happily give up CBS-HD West and ABC-HD West to have HDNet back to full rez and bandwidth. Given their programming now, it would be HD nirvana.

[mdv]

Don't think the layers would go for an injuction. They are in it for $. The bad thing is this case isn't settled out of court, it will establish the precident that there is no official definition of "HD". Most likely D* will settle to keep the press coverage minimal, the lawyers will get their money, and no other class action suit will be allowed in the future.

Mark

[bhambrad]

Where do I signup for this?

Yeah, no kidding.

[Wolfie]

the best outcome would be an injunction against down-rezzing, with no monetary damages awarded.

Works for me.

Wolfie

[Marcus Carr]

Maybe I'm not aware of it but is D* claiming they have the absolute best quality picture of anything out there?

"But relating to picture quality, anybody that thinks we don't take it seriously is mistaken. Across the board, I'll put our HD signal up against any of our competitors on a consistent basis. DIRECTV from day 1 has always been about providing great picture quality."

http://www.tvpredictions.com/nextshanks091406.htm

[mx6bfast]

"But relating to picture quality, anybody that thinks we don't take it seriously is mistaken. Across the board, I'll put our HD signal up against any of our competitors on a consistent basis. DIRECTV from day 1 has always been about providing great picture quality."

http://www.tvpredictions.com/nextshanks091406.htm
He's talking about 2 different things here.
"I'll put our HD signal up against any of our competitors on a consistent basis"
It doesn't matter if you have a 90% signal or a 50% signal, you'll still get A/V. The amount of signal you get doesn't mean you get better PQ

Now if he changed it to "I'll put our HD picture up against any of our competitors on a consistent basis" then he would look even more like a doofus.

[Marcus Carr]

He's talking about 2 different things here.
"I'll put our HD signal up against any of our competitors on a consistent basis"
It doesn't matter if you have a 90% signal or a 50% signal, you'll still get A/V. The amount of signal you get doesn't mean you get better PQ

Now if he changed it to "I'll put our HD picture up against any of our competitors on a consistent basis" then he would look even more like a doofus.

He was asked about picture quality. His answer begins and ends with a sentence containing the words "picture quality". He is clearly attempting to claim that their picture quality is as good as anyone else's.

[PRMan]

And 95% of you lambasted me when I suggested this...

Thanks for standing up for all of us, Mr. Cohen.

[vurbano]

While it's great that he's holding their feet to the fire, but what is this really going to accomplish? Say he wins, which he should given their advertising and actual quality, then what?
Cut back the HD in ST, PPV, MLB etc and fix the problem, thats what you do.

[Myrtledog]

"But relating to picture quality, anybody that thinks we don't take it seriously is mistaken. Across the board, I'll put our HD signal up against any of our competitors on a consistent basis. DIRECTV from day 1 has always been about providing great picture quality."

http://www.tvpredictions.com/nextshanks091406.htm


Hardly says they are claiming to have the best PQ. He's just saying he'd put D* up against any competitor. Alot different than saying "from Day 1 D* has always had the best PQ."

<Insert your own team owner here> If George Steinbrenner said the Yankees are the best team in baseball, and based on that statement, you went and bought Yankee season tickets. They trade their best player during the season, thereby reducing the quality of their team. Should you sue them if they didn't win the World Series?

[Marcus Carr]

Hardly says they are claiming to have the best PQ. He's just saying he'd put D* up against any competitor. Alot different than saying "from Day 1 D* has always had the best PQ.

The point is he is claiming that D*'s PQ is as good as everyone else's.

[vurbano]

I think this is great to bad we all can't be a witness for him.
you got that right

[vurbano]

I could not agree with you more. If the guy dosnt like it turn it off and switch to smething else. Garbage lawsuit. We all pay in the end for this crap.
I could not disagree more. If prices go up because of this then go find another service.

[Myrtledog]

The point is he is claiming that D*'s PQ is as good as everyone else's.

LOL, of course he would. How long do you think he'd be working there if he said they suck? :)

[keenan]

One of the attorneys that filed this complaint is a member here at AVS, and this was talked about here over a year ago although I haven't seen him post recently. I believe the actual complaint was filed in Nov 2004.

The below are what I believe to be the meat of the complaint.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v637/keenanj/DC1.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v637/keenanj/DC2.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v637/keenanj/DC3.jpg

[herdfan]

but what is this really going to accomplish? Say he wins, ..... then what? Directv will either have to add all the channels at full bandwidth, which we know they cant do,
Today, no they can't. But by the time this winds it way through the system, D* 10 and D*11 will be operational and D* would be able to do so if they chose to.

Let's hope that after the new sats are up that D* does return to full-rez HD and this suit goes away.

[herdfan]

One of the attorneys that filed this complaint is a member here at AVS,
Tommylotto?

[Rakesh.S]

this should be sticky'd and the 100 channels by christmas sticky should come down.

[keenan]

Tommylotto?
I think so, I don't recall the exact name.

[bfdtv]

I want to see DirecTV relabel the channels it downconverts as HDTV Lite. :D

[jacmyoung]

I could not agree with you more. If the guy dosnt like it turn it off and switch to smething else. Garbage lawsuit. We all pay in the end for this crap.

If there is a company dumping waste illegally in your neighborhood, should you just move somewhere else? What if the guy is a NFL ST fan and has nowhere else to go? Why can't someone use our legal system to seek justice, when D* apparently is falsely advertising something then delivered less, and for a long time without any regard of the complaints from the HD subs who pay a good sum for their HD product. Then what was our legal system for?

Apparently there are those who at any point of dissatisfaction in life, their solution is to simply avoid.

[Spiky]

LOL ... more likely we'd (temporarily) see a return to only 3 or 4 HD channels on the Ku sats ... Now who's willing to sacrifice their favorite pet (and probably part time HD) channels for the cause? ;) :D
Raises hand. I won't pay for the HD package and receive none of those channels. I watch MNF in SD right now.

[DB2]

If this lawsuit accomplishes nothing else I hope that it scares ALL providers into NOT downrezzing HDTV signals.

[Ou8thisSN]

Cut back the HD in ST, PPV, MLB etc and fix the problem, thats what you do.


yeah, they wont cough up valuable subscription dollars just to appease a few quality whores. What is much more likely is that they would put in very small print on each HD related ad that HD channels are recompressed to ensure optimum picture quality or other some such nonsense.

[rjih]

If this lawsuit accomplishes nothing else I hope that it scares ALL providers into NOT downrezzing HDTV signals.

From a legal point of view there is nothing that prevents, unless there is a contractural agreement with the program provider, the downrezzing of HDTV signals as long as Direct, Dish, or cable etc., does not advertise that the signals being provided are HDTV.

[STR3T]

Interesting. I don't consider this frivilous.

False advertising is illegal with good reason and should always be challenged.

Many letters and forums brought this issue to DTV's attention and they refused to acknowledge or fix the issue. A class action lawsuit was practically inevitable.

DTV will ultimately either need to broadcast within full HD specs or come up with their own marketing term which connotes High Def..."Digitally Higher Definition" or something stupid...with a footnote indicating the range of their broadcast.

I can also see them dropping the $10/month fee for HD until they can broadcast at full bandwidth. That would be a nice enough win for me (unabashed ST fan).

[jacmyoung]

D* does have the capacity NOW to offer true HD. It is a matter of priority, they decided to offer HD LIL, and pay no attention to the national HDs and quality.

I hope this lawsuit not only get D* to take notice, but E* as well.

[jacmyoung]

From a legal point of view there is nothing that prevents, unless there is a contractural agreement with the program provider, the downrezzing of HDTV signals as long as Direct, Dish, or cable etc., does not advertise that the signals being provided are HDTV.

You are kidding right? You are to believe the HD providers will agree not to advertise their HD products as HDTV?

[ziltomil]

If this lawsuit accomplishes nothing else I hope that it scares ALL providers into NOT downrezzing HDTV signals.
Yep. It would be so funny if D* were required to label their HD as something less.

[D-Nice]

I knew this day would come. Glad too see someone setup to the plate regarding dowrezzing. For those who think it is a frivolous....shame on you. D* and E* are dead wrong for downrezzing. How can you accept that???

Will D* and E* be legally forced to stop downrezzing? Probably not as long as they keep the horizontal resolution and 720p and 1080i (that is legally what can be considered HD).

Will they be forced to add a disclaimer to their Ads as to not mislead consumers on what "type" of HD they are broadcasting....almost guaranteed.

[Marcus Carr]

LOL, of course he would. How long do you think he'd be working there if he said they suck? :)

As long as they refuse to acknowledge the problem they won't willingly seek a solution.

"DIRECTV from day 1 has always been about providing great picture quality."

He probably believes his own BS.

[FreeBaGeL]

You are kidding right? You are to believe the HD providers will agree not to advertise their HD products as HDTV?

Makes sense if they're not actually HD...

[TVOD]

The outcome of this law suit is about as clear as D* HD.

[alfbinet]

Yep. It would be so funny if D* were required to label their HD as something less.

I am a happy E* subscriber (since 1999) but I would like to see this happen to E* as well.

[stephenC]

One of the attorneys that filed this complaint is a member here at AVS, and this was talked about here over a year ago although I haven't seen him post recently. I believe the actual complaint was filed in Nov 2004.

If Mr. Swann's article is correct, since the filing of the lawsuit DirecTV has been trying to get this resolved via arbitration rather than a civil suit. It's taken this long to get the ruling on that point. We probably won't get any comments from the AVS member since this is under litigation. I think El Segundo is in Los Angeles County, so I guess this suit would be there. Right? Might be fun to pack the courtroom with disgruntled HD viewers. I wish I could attend.

[keenan]

If Mr. Swann's article is correct, since the filing of the lawsuit DirecTV has been trying to get this resolved via arbitration rather than a civil suit. It's taken this long to get the ruling on that point. We probably won't get any comments from the AVS member since this is under litigation. I think El Segundo is in Los Angeles County, so I guess this suit would be there. Right? Might be fun to pack the courtroom with disgruntled HD viewers. I wish I could attend.
Yes, to the best of my knowledge, this most recent activity is only by whether or not DirecTV can use arbitration-it did not address anything about the complaint itself, PQ, etc. The court said no to DirecTV and the suit will progress.

[MnGuy]

As an attorney myself, this is embarassing.

If you don't like the picture quality, subscribe to another service.

[riffjim4069]

Finally...some progress being made against the deceptive practice of HD-Lite. :)

[mx6bfast]

Might be fun to pack the courtroom with disgruntled HD viewers. I wish I could attend.
We need to get HDNet World Report there for it. Just so we can see downrezzed HD about a service that is downrezzed.

It would be nice if this would bleed over to local channels & multicasting. Of course we don't pay for those channels.

I wonder if this is why Murdoch said 100 channels on D* by Christmas (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=8473433#post8473433).

[gruven42]

If you don't like the picture quality, subscribe to another service.

Yeah, and if the car you just bought doesn't run, just buy another one.

[Inundated]

Yeah, and if the car you just bought doesn't run, just buy another one.

Except that the "car" here is not "not running", it's just not as zippy as you'd like it to be.

[gruven42]

Except that the "car" here is not "not running", it's just not as zippy as you'd like it to be.

Almost. You should have said, "it's just not as zippy as they told you it would be."

[dan57]

Almost. You should have said, "it's just not as zippy as they told you it would be."

Right. The allegation here is not that the product doesn't meet expectations. The allegation is that the product is not as advertised.

[sleeks]

Right. The allegation here is not that the product doesn't meet expectations. The allegation is that the product is not as advertised.


Yup, not as advertised.

Ford had to recall Mustang Cobras a few years ago because they were not making the stated horsepower. They made horsepower, but not the advertised amount. All of the Cobras were recalled and retrofitted with a new intake to bring the HP up. So the zippy car comment applies. :D

D* advertised HDTV. D* providing less than HDTV standards. Hopefully the outcome will be that D* must bring up the quality to full HDTV standards.

[necrolop]

I do not beleive they directvly have broken the law, as the ATSC isnt a governing body over the term 1080i, but I do beleive their tactics to be deceptive, thus they are able to be sued.

I dont think itl help much but itl bring attention to the issue, and will also cause DirecTV to have to state that they do indeed use 1280x1080i, which they have avoided saying.

[spwace]

First you need to define HD standards, then you need to prove that they are not meeting them. Since 1280 by 720p is an HD standard, and the complaint states that D* is providing 1280 by 1080i, it may be hard to make that case.

[necrolop]

Ofcourse you overlook one thing. To be sued, the law never needs to be broken. All you need to prove is that DirecTV is deceving their customers by using such terms ad HD and 1080i, when in every situation 1080i refers to 1920x1080i, yet that is not what DirecTV means. Illegal, no, deceptive and intentional? YES, thus they may be sued.

[stephenC]

We need to get HDNet World Report there for it. Just so we can see downrezzed HD about a service that is downrezzed.

It would be nice if this would bleed over to local channels & multicasting. Of course we don't pay for those channels.

I wonder if this is why Murdoch said 100 channels on D* by Christmas (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=8473433#post8473433).

Karl Meisenbach is always soliciting new programming ideas. If you don't send this him, I sure will. His e-mail address is km@hd.net

[mx6bfast]

Karl Meisenbach is always soliciting new programming ideas. If you don't send this him, I sure will. His e-mail address is km@hd.net
Not a bad idea. Go ahead and send it to him.

[jacmyoung]

Ofcourse you overlook one thing. To be sued, the law never needs to be broken. All you need to prove is that DirecTV is deceving their customers by using such terms ad HD and 1080i, when in every situation 1080i refers to 1920x1080i, yet that is not what DirecTV means. Illegal, no, deceptive and intentional? YES, thus they may be sued.

Isn't false advertising against the law, therefore illegal?

[necrolop]

Its not false advertising. DirecTV says 1080i, which is true. It is 1080 interlaced lines, by 1280. Deception isnt always false, you can tell people partial truths, and also rely on peoples preconceptions, as they do in this case. DirecTV NEVER claims to have a picture that is 1920 in width.

See what you have to consider is what things mean, definitions.

To you and me "1080i" means 1920x1080i, as defined by the ATSC. But that is not a legally binding definition. Thats just what the ATSC states. The term 1080i is not a trademark of the ATSC, so the term can be used how ever, as long as it means 1080 interlaced lines, which it does.

Also the words "HD" and "High Definition", to you and me that means 1280x720p and 1920x1080i, as defined by the ATSC. But the ATSC doesnt own HD , it doesnt have the right to tell people what can be considered high definition and what cannot. It is merely a recomendation.

What would be false advertising is if DirecTV claimed to follow the ATSC standards, which they do not. Other than that, the terms "HD" and "High Definition" are merely arbitrary, they mean nothing, other than more definition than regular deinition, which is not even defined.

BUT.

One may sue DirecTV by claiming they mislead customers. Most people consider HD to be what the ATSC defines, now this isnt a legally binding definition, but in basically ALL situations when someone states "1080i" they do infact mean 1920x1080i. DirecTV uses the same statement "1080i" which to them means 1280x1080i, in of itself totally legal. But, if DirecTV knows this is the case, and uses the term 1080i to deceive customers , then they may be sued.

I beleive DirecTV should be forced to do 1 of 2 things. Advertise the actual resolution of broadcast, which for HD is 1280x1080i, and for SD 480x480i. Please note, that DirecTV also cuts the resolution of SD programming, they do not use the NTSC standard of 640x480i.
or, broadcast at ATSC standards. I do not beleive they are bound by ATSC bitrates though, DirecTV makes no bitrate claims, nor is bitrate directly linked to picture quality, as the bit rate could be lower with more efficient video compression.

Fact of the matter is, DirecTV has the right to offer you the shittiest video signal they can muster, if they want to call 200x100 "HD" then they can, as long as they tell you that it is 200x100.

On a personal note:
Id much prefer that DirecTV alloted more bandwidth to the channels than the extra resolution, hell more resolution at the same bitrates could look even worse. Ive seen the Dish vs DirecTV pics and its not horribly different. I find HUGE macroblocks, color banding, and fuzzy picture to be more offensive than the cut resolution.

[N.B. Forrest]

Once again, someone attempting to "win the lottery" by using our legal system for frivalous reasons. If a company's quality goes down, use the power of choice and the almighty dollar to change things. Don't buy their service. Don't waste the legal system's time and money with this crap.

I agree with wrightwing & would add the following:

If you believe the suit is frivolous, that's your privilege. The plaintiff in this case has no actual damages. But you are mistaken in your "power of choice" assertion. The alternatives I have are few and bad: I can either go with DISH Network which I consider no better than D*, or I can go back to local cable which doesn't offer any HD at all. So, any attempt to force D* to be honest with their subs is ok with me.

[badboi]

As an attorney myself, this is embarassing.

If you don't like the picture quality, subscribe to another service.


I think a lot of people would if they weren't locked into the contracts that carry penalties if you break that contract. Now if Directv waived those penalties, and gave some sort of refund on the equpment that was purchased, then I think a lot of people would subscribe to something else.

[Aliens]

Isn't false advertising against the law, therefore illegal?It’s an American way of life – look no further than our political system during elections.

[aviators99]

LOL ... more likely we'd (temporarily) see a return to only 3 or 4 HD channels on the Ku sats ... Now who's willing to sacrifice their favorite pet (and probably part time HD) channels for the cause? ;) :D

I am---without hesitation.

DirecTV and others have demonstrated time and time again that they will sacrifice quality for quantity. Does anyone remember a time when their SD looked decent? It was a very short period of time, but it was there.

I believe very much in the cause of HD programming. You cannot hope for true HD and hope to keep all of the channels presently delivered at the same time! If you want to keep all of the channels at the expense of the quality, then DirecTV is already catering to you, and not to me. But if DirecTV is allowed to cater to you, the quality will necessarily get worse and worse (just as it did with SD).

[aviators99]

I am---without hesitation.

DirecTV and others have demonstrated time and time again that they will sacrifice quality for quantity. Does anyone remember a time when their SD looked decent? It was a very short period of time, but it was there.

I believe very much in the cause of HD programming. You cannot hope for true HD and hope to keep all of the channels presently delivered at the same time! If you want to keep all of the channels at the expense of the quality, then DirecTV is already catering to you, and not to me. But if DirecTV is allowed to cater to you, the quality will necessarily get worse and worse (just as it did with SD).

And if you think the quality can't get worse than it already is, you're wrong! Even at the same resolution there are different compression levels with different amounts of quality loss.

[ekattan]

I hope this grabs national attention. Directv has taken far to much davantage from it's unaware customers which is in fact an actual wrong doing.

If I pay for a 32 ounce steak I want a 32 ounce steak. How would you feel if they brought you a 18 ounce steak but the plate weighs 14 ounces for a total of 32?

1280 x 1080 is not HD, it's like an 18 ounce steak. We all want what we pay for. Dtv is using false advertising and keeping their customers in the dark about. I really do hope they sue their pants off.

[Glimmie]

1280 x 1080 is not HD

Say's who? ATSC specifications do not extend to closed circuit television. And if you do some FCC research, DBS is a "closed circuit"system. It is not considered a "broadcast medium" as it requires a subscription.

Anyone who thinks the courts are going to force D* to transmit full 1920x1080 is living in denial. Ain't gonna happen. The most that will fall out of this is the following disclaimer in 6 point type on their advertisements:

*DirecTV may lower horizontal resolution at it's discresion on some HD channels".

Once they do that, case over. And 99.9% of the viewing public isn't going to understand let alone be swayed by the disclaimer.

And then their's another out. Run at full 1920x1080 but lower the bit rate to make it fit. You aren't going to like that.

[Alan Gordon]

The most that will fall out of this is the following disclaimer in 6 point type on their advertisements:

*DirecTV may lower horizontal resolution at it's discresion on some HD channels".

Once they do that, case over. And 99.9% of the viewing public isn't going to understand let alone be swayed by the disclaimer.

I haven't really said anything about this since I posted the link to this story on DBSTalk.com yesterday (and I didn't even say anything about it then, other than the link), but while I don't care about the outcome one way or another... the more press this gets is a good thing.

For instance, if someone like Comcast or Verizon wanted to, they could start advertising how they provide full resolution HD unlike the satellite channels... etc, etc, etc... The satellite companies will then have to make a decision, let the cable companies badmouth them in front of the type of subs they want to attract, or actually provide full resolution (which DirecTV could do easily next year if they wanted to).

The effects of this probably won't benefit us this year, but next year, we could very well see some good things come of this.

~Alan

[srw1000]

I hope this grabs national attention. Directv has taken far to much davantage from it's unaware customers which is in fact an actual wrong doing.This is the greatest merit of the case in my eyes.

Hopefully, true HD providers will pick up on this, and compare their offerings to that of the HD Lite providers. As HD market penetration continues to grow, this could be an effective advertising campaign.

I would like to see the free market settle this, but since the term HD is used and abused, the average consumer has no chance of making an informed decision.

Scott

[srw1000]

I haven't really said anything about this since I posted the link to this story on DBSTalk.com yesterday (and I didn't even say anything about it then, other than the link), but while I don't care about the outcome one way or another... the more press this gets is a good thing.

For instance, if someone like Comcast or Verizon wanted to, they could start advertising how they provide full resolution HD unlike the satellite channels... etc, etc, etc... The satellite companies will then have to make a decision, let the cable companies badmouth them in front of the type of subs they want to attract, or actually provide full resolution (which DirecTV could do easily next year if they wanted to).

The effects of this probably won't benefit us this year, but next year, we could very well see some good things come of this.

~AlanSorry about that. My above post says practically the same thing, but yours was posted as I was writing mine. Hopefully, you don't think I'm trying to plagiarize you.

Great minds must think alike,

Scott

[Glimmie]

I haven't really said anything about this since I posted the link to this story on DBSTalk.com yesterday (and I didn't even say anything about it then, other than the link), but while I don't care about the outcome one way or another... the more press this gets is a good thing.

For instance, if someone like Comcast or Verizon wanted to, they could start advertising how they provide full resolution HD unlike the satellite channels... etc, etc, etc... The satellite companies will then have to make a decision, let the cable companies badmouth them in front of the type of subs they want to attract, or actually provide full resolution (which DirecTV could do easily next year if they wanted to).

The effects of this probably won't benefit us this year, but next year, we could very well see some good things come of this.

~Alan

Absolutly! I'm all for it. But that's how the free market works. You can't force any company to deliver quality over and above basic legally defined parameters such as product safety for example.

I'm not happy about HD-NET movies in Dish Network now at 1280. I don't mindthe pixel loss but along with that came more compression which I feel does more damage than the basic pixel loss. I would love to see this go back to but I can't see it happening unless the cable companies jump on it as you stated. But who knows, they could benefit as well from 1280. Afterall they don't have a bottemless bandwidth pit either. So they may not be so fast as to denounce HD-Lite. Persoanlly I thnk the only thing keeping HD-Lite off of cable is the cost of the equipment to do it. It gets expensive outfitting every head end with that equipment versus just once at a national uplink center as in DBS.

[mx6bfast]

If D* isn't forced to go back to 1920 and they would have to show that they are broadcasting in 1280, I wonder how many subs would leave D* to go to another provider.

[Inundated]

Right. The allegation here is not that the product doesn't meet expectations. The allegation is that the product is not as advertised.

It'll be interesting to see if that is the legal interpretation.

As far as I know, DirecTV did not advertise or guarantee a specific resolution (i.e. 1920x1080 for 1080i channels). That may be all they need.

The whole lawsuit thing is silly, IMHO...not to mention the attempt to compare it to a car, non-working or otherwise. If that were to hold up, the non-working car would equal a non-working DirecTV system, not one you believe is hobbled in resolution.

[Alan Gordon]

Absolutly! I'm all for it. But that's how the free market works. You can't force any company to deliver quality over and above basic legally defined parameters such as product safety for example.

I'm not happy about HD-NET movies in Dish Network now at 1280. I don't mindthe pixel loss but along with that came more compression which I feel does more damage than the basic pixel loss. I would love to see this go back to but I can't see it happening unless the cable companies jump on it as you stated. But who knows, they could benefit as well from 1280. Afterall they don't have a bottemless bandwidth pit either. So they may not be so fast as to denounce HD-Lite. Persoanlly I thnk the only thing keeping HD-Lite off of cable is the cost of the equipment to do it. It gets expensive outfitting every head end with that equipment versus just once at a national uplink center as in DBS.

You can't force any company to deliver quality, but sometimes you can shame/embarrass them too! ;)

NOTE: Not a problem srw1000!

~Alan

[bonscott]

If there is a company dumping waste illegally in your neighborhood, should you just move somewhere else? What if the guy is a NFL ST fan and has nowhere else to go? Why can't someone use our legal system to seek justice, when D* apparently is falsely advertising something then delivered less, and for a long time without any regard of the complaints from the HD subs who pay a good sum for their HD product. Then what was our legal system for?

Apparently there are those who at any point of dissatisfaction in life, their solution is to simply avoid.
then why dont you go out and sue your electric company. A person that wants electricity but has nowhere else to go. Is that what you think the legal system is for. grab an atttorney and good luck.

[mx6bfast]

The whole lawsuit thing is silly, IMHO...not to mention the attempt to compare it to a car, non-working or otherwise. If that were to hold up, the non-working car would equal a non-working DirecTV system, not one you believe is hobbled in resolution.
Imagine you had a tv that is 1920x1080. All of the sudden they change this same tv thru a software push that will only display 1280x1080 on ALL tv's and they didn't tell anyone about it.

[jpco]

From the article:

DIRECTV spokesman Robert Mercer yesterday said the lawsuit was without merit.

"We believe the plaintiff’s underlying claims are completely without merit because DIRECTV’s High Definition service is high quality, true HD service under accepted definitions for satellite TV," Mercer said.

What does this even mean? Accepted definitions for satellite TV? Geez, when I joined D* in the mid 90's, their quality was head and shoulders ahead of cable, and that is what they advertised. Now, they have accepted definitions that are lower than the standards of other providers?

And it's disingenuous to say ask "Who says 1920 x 1080i is HD?" It is. When you see a set advertised as 1080i, do you want to have to ask what the horizontal resolution is? I can't understand why a consumer would support this type of misleading short-changeing of customers.

True, some do have a choice, and mine was to move to Comcast. However, I would rather be with a provider that delivered the HD quality of Comcast and the SD quality of D* from days long gone. Competition is good, and right now, there really isn't any for many HD enthusiasts looking for true HD.

[Bill Johnson]

This may be the first glimmer of hope all of us HD Lite sufferers have had in a long time. Read an excerpt below of the article about the court rejecting D*'s wanting to take it to arbitration:

Writing for the court, Justice Paul Boland explained that the arbitration clause amendment, sent in the form of a bill stuffer, was an adhesion contract. He also said that a class action was the only practicable means for consumers to take issue with DirecTV, since individual disputes involved only small damage amounts, arising out of the $10.99 monthly service fee for HDTV and the approximately $1,000 equipment fee.

Additionally, Boland pointed out, Cohen’s allegation—that DirecTV initially promised to provide “astonishing picture clarity” but later reduced its HDTV transmission quality to levels below the specified standards and bandwidth—amounted to a claim that the company carried out a scheme to cheat large numbers of customers out of their money. This contributed to the agreement’s unconscionability, Boland said, rejecting DirecTV’s contention that Cohen failed to allege hidden charges or undisclosed costs.

But Boland wrote:

“In every case, whether sooner or later, the scheme becomes apparent to the consumer, whether it is the appearance on an invoice of an improper charge or the appearance on the television of an inferior image. In either case, the customer is being deliberately cheated, because he is either paying for something he has not agreed to pay for . . . or paying for something he is not receiving (image clarity from DirecTV).”

The case is Cohen v. DirecTV, Inc., B184630.

[DevOne]

Except that the "car" here is not "not running", it's just not as zippy as you'd like it to be.

More like you bought the new Chevrolet Corvette and were promised a 400HP super machine by GM. Additionally, you were promised gas mileage ranges that would make a Toyota Prius shake in its boots. Sadly, that new beautiful fiberglass flyer turned out to be nothing more than the $40,000 equivalent of the Saturn Ion1 with only 100hp and worse mileage than a Hummer H1. The fuel economy turn out not to be even within the accepted 10mpg margin of error on EPA estimates. I want to get what I pay for. If you tell me it's only 100hp and I voluntarily give you my money; more power to you.</hypothetical>

I believe it's reasonable to assume that when you hear "HD" advertised, you're getting 720p or 1080i unless specified otherwise. The ATSC defines 720 as 1280x720 and 1080 as 1920x1080. IMO, it's safe to say by default, they're the governing HD body.

The courts will decide if the suit has real merit. In civil cases preponderance of evidence is what matters. Is it safe to assume what you're supposed to get when you hear 720 or 1080? I think the court may agree. Will this make plaintiff rich? Doubtful. I see no problem with lawyers getting paid in settlements, as they lay their resources on the line with no guarantee of payment. If they defend my rights or cause successfully, more power to them. I still win.

I see DirecTV settling with a promise to run disclaimers about their actual HD quality. They'll probably have to offer refunds to current and past customers for the equipment and lossy service.

[DevOne]

then why dont you go out and sue your electric company. A person that wants electricity but has nowhere else to go. Is that what you think the legal system is for. grab an atttorney and good luck.

I believe "public utilities" are generally regulated. They can be compelled to adjust rates by the government. They can also be forced out of existence like LILCO.

[bonscott]

I believe "public utilities" are generally regulated. They can be compelled to adjust rates by the government. They can also be forced out of existence like LILCO.
You want satellite companys to be regulated by the goverment? If you think the PQ is bad now..........be careful what you wish for

[Kipp Jones]

Where can I contribute to this guy's legal fund??? I want to give him all the support I can.

[bonscott]

Where can I contribute to this guy's legal fund??? I want to give him all the support I can.
I got it right here. ForsaleoceanfrontpropertyinArizona.com

[GeorgeLV]

The ATSC resolution standards were never adopted.

[Kipp Jones]

I got it right here. ForsaleoceanfrontpropertyinArizona.com

That was so funny I almost forgot to laugh...Keep your day job, you are not good at the funny thing... :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: Quite good at the stupid, foot in mouth thing.... :p :p :p

[talbain]

Cut back the HD in ST, PPV, MLB etc and fix the problem, thats what you do.


how's cutting the hd for sunday ticket going to help anyone? it's one day a week for 17 weeks...

[talbain]

If this lawsuit accomplishes nothing else I hope that it scares ALL providers into NOT downrezzing HDTV signals.

or, when coupled with the trouncing directv is taking for bandwidth issues and serious lack of hd content, this will be a huge wakeup call for them to get their act together

[fredfa]

It will?

This suit has been going on since November of 2004!

And have either the DNS or TiVo lawsuits, in which Dish has (badly) lost round after round after round, been any wakeup call for Charlie?

I wish I shared your view that this kind of suit will any more effect than a mosquito on an elephant.

[mike greer]

It's one thing to have uneducated phone reps make outrageous claims but to have management say things like this:

"But relating to picture quality, anybody that thinks we don't take it seriously is mistaken. Across the board, I'll put our HD signal up against any of our competitors on a consistent basis. DIRECTV from day 1 has always been about providing great picture quality."

...is downright false advertising.

When management makes public comments that are obvious lies they should have to face legal action. Would this idiot be allowed to make up financial information to drive the stock price up?

Why is he allowed to make statements like this? He knows DirecTV's HD picture quality is lower than most (if not all) of DirecTV's competitors.

[bonscott]

That was so funny I almost forgot to laugh...Keep your day job, you are not good at the funny thing... :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: Quite good at the stupid, foot in mouth thing.... :p :p :p
I think your comment on where to send your money to help this guys lawsuit was stupid foot in mouth thing. Also, That was so funny I forgot to laugh? I haven't heard that since I was in elementary school. And yes that was along time ago.

[bleair]

or, when coupled with the trouncing directv is taking for bandwidth issues and serious lack of hd content, this will be a huge wakeup call for them to get their act together

Corporate institutions sue all the time, and in particular Directv. It is _so_ nice to see them getting abused similarly.

I suspect that Directv legal when eventually have to spell out their bit rates and resolutions in all their ads (so they can be shielded from these lawsuits in the future).

The wonderful part is, joe six pack may have no idea his high-def set is wired with composite video, but he sure will know "lower numbers mean bad". In a raw numbers game between cable and Directv, they loose.
The cable companies may be able to get tons of advertising milage out of this as they claim much higher numbers.
Of course its the actual programming that matters.

Maybe next year at Cedia we could get custom t-shirts to hand out near the Directv booth :).

It is so nice to see a company that uses deceptive advertising earn the publicity it deserves. Congratulations Directv.

[keenan]

It will?

This suit has been going on since November of 2004!

And have either the DNS or TiVo lawsuits, in which Dish has (badly) lost round after round after round, been any wakeup call for Charlie?

I wish I shared your view that this kind of suit will any more effect than a mosquito on an elephant.
The actual heart of the suit, the picture quality issues, haven't even been addressed yet. All that's happened so far is the court disallowed DirecTV's request for arbitration.

So while it was filed in Nov 04, the "fireworks" haven't even begun yet.

Personally, I think the plaintiffs will lose the suit, but they may win the war if it draws attention to what the term "HD" actually means. A Pyrrhic victory if you will.

[wrightwing]

then why dont you go out and sue your electric company. A person that wants electricity but has nowhere else to go. Is that what you think the legal system is for. grab an atttorney and good luck.


Last time I checked, however, My lightbulbs come in at their fully advertised wattage of 100. I can see perfectly in the rooms in which I have chosen to purchase 100 watt light bulbs. When I purchased my light bulbs, I wasn't in the least bit concerned that my provider would not be able to allow me enough electricity to fully illuminate a 100 watt light bulb.

I assure you, that if my provider did not live up to their advertised mission statement,

http://www.mdu.com/the_vision/vision_integrity.htm

I would join a lawsuit in a hurry.

[hiltsy855]

...When management makes public comments that are obvious lies they should have to face legal action. Would this idiot be allowed to make up financial information to drive the stock price up? Why is he allowed to make statements like this?....

Can you say "Enron"?

[nuzzy]

why are they downrezzing anyways? I'm assuming it's a cost issue?

[jambroni]

Since I have both Directv and TWC, I can see for myself how bad Directv's HD offerings are. Even the mpeg-4 local HD channels are noticeably inferior to Time Warner. For Robert Mercer to claim they are delivering high quality HD feeds is simply preposterous.

[Don H]

As an attorney myself, this is embarassing.

If you don't like the picture quality, subscribe to another service.

You still don't get it do you. Can you say MONOPOLY?

SUNDAY TICKET!

[herdfan]

I hope this grabs national attention. Directv has taken far to much davantage from it's unaware customers which is in fact an actual wrong doing.
I hope that the publicity make HD channels (DISC, HDNet, etc) take note and write minimum resolutions into their contracts. HD is going to explode in the next few years and I am sure future channels like TLC or THC don't want the product they have spent $$$ on looking like crap because the provider is down rezzing it.

[trich]

http://w.hdbeat.com/2006/09/20/directv-gets-whats-comin-to-them/

[steverobertson]

I just sent the link off to the Boston Herald hoping they will publish it. I think this needs to get into the local appers to get more exposure as opposed to trade publications. I would suggest others send it to their local news outlets.

[esimonso]

I can't believe the D* quote from the article, "DIRECTV’s High Definition service is high quality, true HD service under accepted definitions for satellite TV".

What is that, they make there own rules for what "TRUE HD" is and this can be different for Sat then OTA, cable, etc.?

What a joke, there are standards defined and they're not adhearing to them!!! Their down rez'd HD Lite is a joke and this is 1 reason why I left them. I hope he wins the suit and they have to pump up the resolution again...

[stephenC]

Given the time it will take for this suit to make its way through the legal system, I'm guessing that the plantiff will prevail and the court will force DirecTV to provide ATSC defined HD bandwidth and resolution at the same time as the new satellites come on line. DirecTV will have a huge advertising campaign that they are providing "high quality" service and that they are complying with the lawsuit and that they will then provide several new national HD channels to their loyal subscribers.

[Andrew_J_M]

In the complaint quoted in post #31, it alleges that D* represented that they would be delivering HD as defined by the ATSC at full 19.4Mps. Did D* ever actually state that or is the complainant saying that is what he understood them to mean by 1080i and 720p? Also paragraph 19 seems to get the vertical and horizontal lines muddled up, though as they quote the ATSC articles that may not matter.

I agree with some here that the most likely outcome of this case is that D* and others will add a disclaimer to their advertising and marketing material stating that they "may" reduce bitrate and resolution at their discretion. I think that the competition are keeping quiet at present in case some one decides to take them to court on a similar issue. Or are they not permitted to highlight a current court case as sub judice?

[jmallory]

In the complaint quoted in post #31, it alleges that D* represented that they would be delivering HD as defined by the ATSC at full 19.4Mps. Did D* ever actually state that or is the complainant saying that is what he understood them to mean by 1080i and 720p? Also paragraph 19 seems to get the vertical and horizontal lines muddled up, though as they quote the ATSC articles that may not matter.

How are we going to define Real HD...it seems to me you can't do it on the bit rate nor can you do it strictly on the resolution (as anyone who has watched a NBC Norte Dame football game can tell you.) I mean how can you say "unaltered?" I don't know how DirecTV gets the local HD channels uplinked but I think in the SD world they took 45 mbps studio feeds, converted them to an MPEG2 stream and then uplinked. I think the HD studio feed (before MPEG2 encoding) is close to 100 mbps. If D* takes a 19.2mbps MPEG2 stream and converts it to MPEG4 there is going to be some loss regardless of bit rate as you are going from one lossly compression scheme to another. If they take a studio feed, who is to say that a 8 mbits MPEG4 stream is just as good as a 19.2 mbps MPEG2 stream. Are how about services that deliver MPEG2 streams directly with no studio feed? Again, just the act of transcoding from MPEG2 to MPEG4 is going to degrade the signal. This is going to have huge implications for both D* and E* as they are counting on MPEG4 to get them the capacity they need.

-- Jim

[sdwow]

If people could do a side by side comparison between D* and a C-Band HD feed , they would be blown away with the difference .

Lately, even the master C-Band SD feeds appear to have more detail than a D* HD soft image.

[stephenC]

sdwow - Does the C-band feed you refer to equate to the 45Mb/s studio backhaul feed mentioned in jmallory's post above? I do understand that C-band is also referred to the BUD (big ugly dish) feed.

[jmallory]

sdwow - Does the C-band feed you refer to equate to the 45Mb/s studio backhaul feed mentioned in jmallory's post above? I do understand that C-band is also referred to the BUD (big ugly dish) feed.

I don't know for sure but in the old analog days the BUD signals were standard NTSC broadcast video. I am not sure but I believe HD signals are MPEG2 compressed before they are uplinked for a National Network like HBO. Obviously, things like live sporting events are different and I believe they use different satellites for that.

Also note, that 45 mbps was for a SDTV feed, I believe the intermediate HD feed (what would come out a remote truck at a sporting event) is double that.

-- Jim

[ssj2]

I believe it's reasonable to assume that when you hear "HD" advertised, you're getting 720p or 1080i unless specified otherwise. The ATSC defines 720 as 1280x720 and 1080 as 1920x1080. IMO, it's safe to say by default, they're the governing HD body.

The courts will decide if the suit has real merit. In civil cases preponderance of evidence is what matters. Is it safe to assume what you're supposed to get when you hear 720 or 1080? I think the court may agree....

Agreed. In a civil case if a particular word or phrase is at issue (such as 720P and/or 1080i) the word or phrase will be given its "plain and ordinary meaning" unless there is a contract with an unambiguous definition of that word or phrase. In this case the plain and ordinary meaning of 720P is 1280 x 720, and 1080 is 1920 x 1080i. If the meaning is debated the court would look to accepted standards -- such as the ATSC definitions.

Also "preponderance of evidence" means only that the plaintiff must show that something is "more likely than not" to have occurred -- I.E. the scales of justice need only tip to 51/49.

In short, I think Directv has some problems here.

[jpeckinp]

As an attorney myself, this is embarassing.

If you don't like the picture quality, subscribe to another service.

Easier said than done. I have no other option for HD. My local cable has no HD and I can't receive E* because of sat positions and a wall that blocks them. :confused:

[MnGuy]

Easier said than done. I have no other option for HD. My local cable has no HD and I can't receive E* because of sat positions and a wall that blocks them. :confused:


Hmmm...Maybe you should sue your local cable company for not providing exactly the service you want? Sue E* and make them move their sats? Sue the people that built the wall?

My point is if you don't like the service D* provides, get rid of them. This law suit is a waste of time. Let the market sort it out, not the Courts.

Wow, spoken like a Republican. Did I really write that??

[MnGuy]

You still don't get it do you. Can you say MONOPOLY?

SUNDAY TICKET!


Don't throw around words you don't understand.

DirecTv does not own the NFL, and DirecTv does not have a monopoly. Indeed, it was the advent of DirecTv that ended the cable monopoly on multi-channel pay television service. Without D* and D*, the cable companies would have had no competition at all until the telecos entered the market. Do you remember the days of cable before DBS? It was awful. It's great to see cable having to work hard to compete. It's good for all of us.

DirecTv paid for exclusive rights to the NFL Sunday Ticket, to gain a competitive advantage over cable. Maybe cable has a competitive advantage in HD picture quality. As a consumer, one must look at the plusses and minuses, factor in costs, and decide accordingly.

This lawsuit is dumb.

[raaj]

Hmmm...Maybe you should sue your local cable company for not providing exactly the service you want? Sue E* and make them move their sats? Sue the people that built the wall?

My point is if you don't like the service D* provides, get rid of them. This law suit is a waste of time. Let the market sort it out, not the Courts.

Wow, spoken like a Republican. Did I really write that??

Are you serious? Your argument is completely and utterly ridiculous.

The consumer is being deceived here, and the examples you gave do not fit the pattern. Cable companies and E* have disclaimers [as does D*] that service is subject to location [remember the D* ad? '.. as long as you have a clear view of the southern sky !!'].

Now if D* advertises HD programming, and the common accepted standard for HD is 1080i (1920*1080) and 720p (1280*720), it would be cheating if D* doesn't disclose to the user that their HD offerings are not at commonly accepted HD resolutions. The user has been deceived, and deserves to be compensated. The user has been led to purchase equipment with the promise of delivering HD programming, and commit to years of service with penalties for early termination.

At the very least, the users need to be disclosed the operating terms of service delivery where it differs from the generally accepted standards, with the option of discontinuing the service without penalty.

I have D* with their HD package and the HD-Tivo, having committed to 2 years of service with them, but now I also have access to Adelphia cable to compare the difference between the quality of D*'s offering to what is available from cable. D* HD programming is sub-par compared to my cable's HD.

[mx6bfast]

This lawsuit is dumb.
So was the one when the lady spilled coffee on her legs. Read a McDonald's coffee cup next time you go there.

[stephenC]

So was the one when the lady spilled coffee on her legs. Read a McDonald's coffee cup next time you go there.

mx - I haven't gone to McD since watching the movie "Super Size Me". What does the cup have printed on it?

[mx6bfast]

mx - I haven't gone to McD since watching the movie "Super Size Me". What does the cup have printed on it?
I don't remember exactly how it is worded, but it says something to the effect of "Caution: contents may be hot." Also at the drive up window there is a sign saying pretty much the same thing.

[Baldmaga]

Actually, the last time I recall seeing a coffee cup from McD, it said something along the lines of: "Caution: Contents EXTREMELY HOT"

[necrolop]

I wouldnt put this in the same catagory as suing Mcdonalds for Hot coffee and greasy food.

Someone other than the plaintif will benefit from this, unlike those cases. Those cases are about self responsibility, this case is about deception. McDonalds doesnt claim grease is good for you, like DirecTV claims their picture is.

[DrCrawn]

I wouldnt put this in the same catagory as suing Mcdonalds for Hot coffee and greasy food.

Someone other than the plaintif will benefit from this, unlike those cases. Those cases are about self responsibility, this case is about deception. McDonalds doesnt claim grease is good for you, like DirecTV claims their picture is.

Absolutely.

The average person just doesn't know enough about the techincal aspects of HD programming to discern what D* is giving them.

Coffee...unless you order it iced... ;)

[Glimmie]

I can't believe the D* quote from the article, "DIRECTV’s High Definition service is high quality, true HD service under accepted definitions for satellite TV".


Doesn't anyone see it? This quote was not off the cuff but rather carefully crafted. By saying "accepted standards for satellite TV" they are distancing themselves from any comittment to ATSC which they do not have to adhere to in the first place.


What is that, they make there own rules for what "TRUE HD" is and this can be different for Sat then OTA, cable, etc.?

What a joke, there are standards defined and they're not adhearing to them!!! Their down rez'd HD Lite is a joke and this is 1 reason why I left them. I hope he wins the suit and they have to pump up the resolution again...

They can do exactly just that - make their own standards if they choose. DBS is a private service. It has no technical standards to adhere to other than the RF emmisions from their uplinks. Those are under FCC juristriction. Also their consumer hardware products must also meet UL and FCC rules for safety and emmisions but that's as far as it goes.

Until somebody produces an advertisement where DirecTV states they provide 1920x1080, this suit will go nowhere because they simply didn't do anything illegal!

[srw1000]

Doesn't anyone see it? This quote was not off the cuff but rather carefully crafted. By saying "accepted standards for satellite TV" they are distancing themselves from any comittment to ATSC which they do not have to adhere to in the first place.It would have been nice if that response would have provoked a follow-up question as to which "accepted standards" he is referring too. You are correct, this answer is too vague.

They can do exactly just that - make their own standards if they choose. DBS is a private service. It has no technical standards to adhere to other than the RF emmisions from their uplinks. Those are under FCC juristriction. Also their consumer hardware products must also meet UL and FCC rules for safety and emmisions but that's as far as it goes.I disagree. They can certainly define their own terms however they want to, but I don't believe they can't co-op an already-defined term, and then re-define that to their own benefit. The term HD has industry-recognized meaning.

Just as they couldn't claim they have stereo output on their receivers if they were simply outputting two duplicate mono channels by using the argument that their definition of the word stereo simply means there are two audio outputs. Or, that their USB port isn't really a Universal Serial Bus, it's actually a Universal Screwup Button (whatever that might be).

Until somebody produces an advertisement where DirecTV states they provide 1920x1080, this suit will go nowhere because they simply didn't do anything illegal!I can't speak for certain, but I do seem to recall someone posting scans/images from DirecTV's literature/website showing HD resolutions as 1920x1080i and 1280x720p. Maybe some recalls a specific post that showed this?

I do know that Dish Network did advertise 1920x1080i and 1280x720p. I hope that someone follows with a lawsuit against them.

Scott

[RAVEN56706]

finally someone with balls.....

[mx6bfast]

And some extra money

[ehren]

Why can't we just see 1920x1080 and at 19.4Mps be the minimum requirement by law and if any provider goes below this they will be fined huge amounts of money. HD is being trashed daily right now, time to put an end to this

[Marc Alexander]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the ATSC allows for rate-limited HD as part of multicasting. OTA ATSC multicast is the original HD-lite. The macroblocking I get from NBC Los Angeles due to their two SD subchannels is often worse than the PQ I see on D* and E* HD-lite. I believe our only hope is that PQ is restored once the MPEG-4 transition is complete (or pray for FIOS in your area).

I'd love to see better PQ...but this lawsuit is without merit.

[AGZELA]

Eric Shanks, DIRECTV's executive vice president of entertainment, revealed to TVPredictions.com that the satcaster would not add more national HDTV channels until the second quarter of 2007. Shanks said DIRECTV instead would focus on rolling out local HD channels in more markets across the country. (DIRECTV is launching several new satellites to expand its local HD service now and national HD in 2007.)

[GeorgeLV]

Why can't we just see 1920x1080 and at 19.4Mps be the minimum requirement by law and if any provider goes below this they will be fined huge amounts of money. HD is being trashed daily right now, time to put an end to this

I think you should reconsider the idea that heavy-handed government regulation befefits viewers.

[JMCecil]

I think you should reconsider the idea that heavy-handed government regulation befefits viewers.
Unfortunately this is usually true. If they would pick a standard and drive to it things would be ok. However, in the world of politics and big business there are always so many riders, exemptions and caveats the end result is rendered useless.

[stephenC]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the ATSC allows for rate-limited HD as part of multicasting. OTA ATSC multicast is the original HD-lite. The macroblocking I get from NBC Los Angeles due to their two SD subchannels is often worse than the PQ I see on D* and E* HD-lite. I believe our only hope is that PQ is restored once the MPEG-4 transition is complete (or pray for FIOS in your area).

I'd love to see better PQ...but this lawsuit is without merit.

I'll start by saying I'm not a lawyer, but used to watch "L A Law" all the time. :)

Keenan posted three screen captures of the lawsuit. The plantiff is arguing that he signed up for the HD package with D* and bought all the required HD equipment to receive and watch the HD channels. Then, D* changed the resolution and bandwidth of those channels reducing the picture quality. If you focus on just those points, I think this suit does have merit. Many lawsuits are decided on very narrowly defined aspects.

[Samdari]

In this case the plain and ordinary meaning of 720P is 1280 x 720, and 1080 is 1920 x 1080i.

I think that will be the issue to be decided by the court. D* will argue that 720P means 720 lines progressive scan, which they are providing, or 1080 lines interlaced, which they are providing. The plaintiffs will argue the numbers you suggest.

D* will likely win because they will spend far more money on lawyers.

[dan57]

D* will likely win because they will spend far more money on lawyers.

Disagree. I am not making any prediction as to the outcome of this case. However, I do not believe that D* is likely to win because of out-lawyering. First, the plaintiffs' lawyers here are probably taking this case on a contingency basis. As such, they get paid only if the plaintiffs prevail and on a percentage basis thereof. And remember, this is a class action suit, at least according to what I am reading here. As such, there may be, cumulatively, at lot of money at stake.

[squawk]

First, IMHO, this case does have merit. Second, to think that a court will rule on this case based upon the premise that "720p" equates to 720 lines of progressive scan & "1080i" equates to 1,080 lines interlaced is ridiculous. If that were the case, then a multichannel provider could deliver 720 lines of progressive crap. It all goes to the "plain meaning" of such standards & the impression that standard creates in the mind of the consumer, particularly when he is assenting to a contract with his provider to deliver that standard to arguably expensive equipment specifically purchased to benefit from the contract.

Key to this case, based only upon what I've read in the media, is that DTV first delivered the standard that the customer was bargaining for, THEN opted to downgrade from that standard in breach of the contract.

As for who will win, that's anybody's guess. More likely the case will settle, & as another poster postulated, by the time the new sats are up & DTV improves the PQ. But as far as remedies are concerned, if the plaintiff prevails . . . or has huge leverage during settlement negotiations, I would not be surprised for DTV to offer as settlement a monthly credit to HD subs from the time they were paying for something less than what shoulda been delivered to their HDTV. This is how these suits are typically settled. JMO.

[dg28]

Is this AVS Forum or Amateur Lawyers Forum?

[scowl]

I disagree. They can certainly define their own terms however they want to, but I don't believe they can't co-op an already-defined term, and then re-define that to their own benefit. The term HD has industry-recognized meaning.
And what is that? Historically before any systems were developed or standards defined the only goal of HDTV research was to develop a system of broadcasting with twice the resolution of existing television.

[stephenC]

Is this AVS Forum or Amateur Lawyers Forum?

At least we are all certified to practice in the Court of Public Opinion. :)

[ucsbgaucho]

Its the same with products in the grocery store now. Ever take a look at cans of off-brand soda and notice that they are no longer 12 oz, but 11.5? Many canned goods and other things in the store that you buy are not the same size as they were before, but I'm sure the price has stayed the same. The producers know that they can reduce the size ever so slightly, so that no one really notices, but when they produce millions of these, that .5 oz really makes a difference in how many they can produce, and get more profits.

Its a deceptive practice to downrez tv channels slightly enough so that most people won't realize anything, but allows D* and other providers to fit more channels in for no extra cost on their end, and then reap benefits of higher subscriber fees when they say "well we've added 10 more channels, so we're raising rates by $2).

[Rammitinski]

Big deal if it ends up that subscribers get a $25.00 settlement check, or D* has to issue a disclaimer in their ads - what's really needed is for them to just KNOCK OFF THE HD-LITE!! Nothing less will be satisfactory.

[Big Mike]

Directv today is as bad as the cable companies were in the early 90s. They are unresponsive, arrogant, self-righteous jerks that expect their customers to take whatever crap (PQ) they dish out and just pay the bill. FIOS or Lightspeed will likely do to them what they did to the cable companies. Hell, even cable woke up after a while. I hope they loose the profits they have gained from adding more channels (shopping and other fringe junk) at the expense of real HD.

Mike

[squawk]

Unfortunately, until DTV launches & activates the sats scheduled to launch in 2007, it is highly unlikely that DTV will, or more appropriately, can, "KNOCK OFF THE HD LITE!" The sat launch is already the equitable remedy "in the making." The best the plaintiff & others similarly situated can hope for at this point, in the form of settlement, is for DTV to compensate them for "damages" as the result of the alleged fraud or breach.

Yeah, I think we all wanna play lawyer here . . . & that's what this thread is mostly about. And the rants about the plaintiff just switching providers do have merit along the lines of mitigating damages. IMHO, the lawsuit is not going way (i.e. dismissed on motion for summary judgment). Most likely, the parties will come to some settlement. DTV, at this point, cannot remedy the deficiency in HD programming, but it is already working to doing this in about a year.

By filing the lawsuit, I get that the plaintiff's primary purpose is to embarrass DTV & keep pressure on them to stand by their projections, where they have a somewhat poor record. Bottom line, the plaintiff is not going to get what he wants anytime soon, so his only remedy compensation for his damages . . . which is not what he wants.

[Rammitinski]

Where did you get your information that they ever WILLINGLY intended to improve the quality (not quantity) of their HD with the expanded capacity afforded by the new satellites?

That would be news to everybody else around here.

[mx6bfast]

By filing the lawsuit, I get that the plaintiff's primary purpose is to embarrass DTV & keep pressure on them to stand by their projections, where they have a somewhat poor record. Bottom line, the plaintiff is not going to get what he wants anytime soon, so his only remedy compensation for his damages . . . which is not what he wants.
How do you know?

[squawk]

Where did you get your information that they ever WILLINGLY intended to improve the quality (not quantity) of their HD with the expanded capacity afforded by the new satellites?That would be news to everybody else around here.

Never said "WILLINGLY" did I? Your comments suggest that DTV is out to screw you. If that's what you believe, then perhaps you might consider switch providers. My comments, in contrast, was made with a more objective frame of mind. Excuse me for doing so.

I think its common knowledge among practically everyone here, except DTV reps, that DTV compresses, as well as down "rez's" their HD signals. So, I think we're in agreement with that. If not, lemme know.

Where we differ is that I take the view that DTV KNOWS that its present practices is ALIENATING its customer base, which it can ill afford to. It's rational to conclude that once DTV launches & activates its sats in 2007, its bandwidth capacity will be "astronomical" compared to the competition. It makes sense for DTV to offer BETTER PQ than it does today, doesn't it? If you don't agree, explain how it would makes sense for DTV NOT to do so. How much longer do you think loyal subs are gonna tolerate inferior HD feeds?

MPEG4 will allow better PQ given the same bandwidth allocated to MPEG2 feeds. But right now, it's MO they're not doing that. Instead, DTV, IMHO, is delivering the same PQ under MPEG4 as MPEG2, utilizing only roughly 60% of the bandwidth (guesstimate). This is temporary situation b/c they simply don't have the bandwidth to deliver "true" HD quality feeds given the # of HD channels they now offer.

Bottom line, if DTV does NOT provide better HD PQ, by allocating more bandwidth to its feeds, notwithstanding the more efficient MPEG4 compression scheme, subs will leave. Is that what you think DTV wants? So, this is NOT INFORMATION; this is my rational conclusion to the bandwidth issue raised by this lawsuit.

[squawk]

How do you know?

I said in my post "I get," which means its my own inference. If you think the plaintiff has other objectives, let's hear'em. But if you think it's reasonable for DTV to, on a dime, start deliver 19.2 Mbps non-down rezz'd HD feeds, that's not realistic. Sorry.


Have a good weekend.

[richall01]

Why is CD NOW on several channels 101, 334 ,580, 800, (101 is just fine) Okay one for SD and one for HD. But, that is not the case. Get rid of the part-time shopping channels. You know the ones that come on in the afternoon on the west coast (nighttime for east coast) that sell some jewerly for $3500.00?? I don't most in DirecTV land will want that! Then get rid of "some" of the international channels. Then DirecTV can offer better PQ on there current HD channels.

[Willie]

Phew. A lot of guys in this thread are drinking the DirecTV koolaid. Whoa.

Willie

[dougthonus]

Just curious are all of the new mpg4 local channels watered down HD as well or is this a problem just with the older technology?

Personally, I watch HD Locals (on mpg4 channels), espn HD, TNT HD (which seems to really suck and look wierd), Sunday Ticket HD, and I'm hoping for CSN HD soon. That's about it to me. Those are the only channels that have any meaning.

Obviously, I'm stuck with DTV due to the fact that I want Sunday ticket. I'd love nicer picture quality, but honestly I have no complaints over my quality now. I just switched from SD to HD, and the difference is really huge. My picture (likely due exclusively to TV quality) seems nicer than my friends who use Dish and comcast.

[Ken H]

To minimize confusion, please keep to established AVS abbreviations, as found in the Glossary:

D* = DirecTV

DTV = Digital TV, as in over the air

[srw1000]

And what is that? Historically before any systems were developed or standards defined the only goal of HDTV research was to develop a system of broadcasting with twice the resolution of existing television.I'm glad that you mention historically, because I think that's an important part of this case.

At the request of congress, the FCC decided to free up spectrum via and HDTV standard. They created the Advisory Committee on Advanced Television Service, to find that standard. After much work, competition, and partnerships, the best parts of the competing systems were selected and formed into the Grand Alliance. During this process, the 720p and 1080i systems were settled on, and adopted by the ACATS.

The ATSC took those standards, and refined them into the ATSC HDTV standards we have today. Who makes up the ATSC? Per their website, "ATSC is composed of corporations, associations and educational institutions, developing voluntary standards for the entire spectrum of advanced television systems, including high-definition television. All segments of the television industry are represented within the ATSC, including broadcasters, cable companies, satellite service providers, consumer and professional equipment manufacturers, computer and telecommunications companies, and motion picture and other content providers."

Why is all of this important? I think the strong argument could be made that the ATSC's definitions for HD are the industry-defined term, and that the term HD has a definite, absolute meaning.

Scott

[vurbano]

Pradike strikes back!!!!!!!!! http://www.tvpredictions.com/radike092206.htm

Commentary
DIRECTV's HDTV Is A-Ok
By Peter Radike
HD Observer

Editor's Note: TVPredictions.com this week has received approximately 100 e-mails from people complaining that DIRECTV does not have enough national HD channels -- and that their existing HD channels suffer from poor picture quality. However, Peter Radike disagrees below.

Washington, D.C. (September 22, 2006) -- Yes, DIRECTV has less HD channels than EchoStar, but a number of the E* channels are “specialty channels” that do not cater to mainstream viewers.

Second, while the number of national HD channels could and probably should be increased on D*, the reality is that the actual amount of HD programming available is far more than the “9 channels” that readers are led to believe in this article. I personally watch 70% of my HD content on ABC, CBS, Fox, and NBC – not just ESPN, Discovery, HDNet, etc. It’s not just about the number of channels; it’s about the content available.

Third, there are only about 4-5 other national HD channels that contain “mainstream” content – and these will most likely appear on D* some time in the next 9-12 months. Would it be nice to get them now? Yes. Will we all somehow survive to wait a bit longer to get them – yes.

4. The 'HD Lite' issue (alleged poor picture quality) is not unique to D*, but also has been experienced from EchoStar and cable providers as well. I suspect this issue will go away within the next year as bandwidth becomes expanded at various providers. The frivolous lawsuit (See Related Links) filed will most likely be shelved by the courts, as no mandated statue exists for what constitutes HD.

As a reader of over 15 daily message boards on this topic, I see that there are some 50-75 vocal advocates who complain at every turn that their HD offering doesn’t meet their personal needs or isn’t up to their standards. These folks frequently all show their “it’s all about me” attitudes towards expectations.

The fact that there are over 15 million subscribers (and growing of D* service, as well as just under 1 million HD customers, shows mainstream American does not share the fear.

I do not work for, nor have anyone in my family working for DIRECTV. I just feel that a few vocal whiners are distorting the picture – I’ll call it 'Complaint Lite.'
Peter Radike is a HD Observer for TVPredictions.com.
If you would like to be a HD Observer for TVPredictions.com, send an e-mail to: swann@TVPredictions.com

[mx6bfast]

Credibility, meet toilet.

[vurbano]

Credibility, meet toilet.LMAO just when I thought Swanni had some.

[HDTVChallenged]

Why is CD NOW on several channels 101, 334 ,580, 800, (101 is just fine) Okay one for SD and one for HD. But, that is not the case.

Just an FYI: There is only *one* SD uplink and *one* HD uplink of this channel. D* receivers can map one physical feed to multiple virtual channel numbers. The same principle applies to the "duplicate" feeds of HBO-HD and Sho-HD.

[Bill Johnson]

...As a reader of over 15 daily message boards on this topic, I see that there are some 50-75 vocal advocates who complain at every turn that their HD offering doesn’t meet their personal needs or isn’t up to their standards. These folks frequently all show their “it’s all about me” attitudes towards expectations.

The fact that there are over 15 million subscribers (and growing of D* service, as well as just under 1 million HD customers, shows mainstream American does not share the fear...
What a relief that there are just a few of us selfish "it's all about me" people out here whining about HD Lite! I spent several thousands of dollars for HD, but shouldn't be concerned about a little down-rezzing and bit-starving. After all, polls show that half or more of viewers nationwide claim they're watching HD when they don't even have HD equipment and/or HD service.

Guess I gotta get a life! :rolleyes:

[CPanther95]

Credibility, meet toilet.

Couldn't agree more.

As a general "fan" of DirecTV (or at least a more patient customer than most), giving pradike an outlet for his wildly irrational pro-D* propaganda is laughable.

Just goes to show that the criteria to be an AVS member is apparently more stringent than the criteria to write for tvpredictions.com.

[CPanther95]

One additional thought - anyone else notice the hypocrisy of his slamming the "it's all about me" D* critics just after his unilateral declaration of which channels are considered "mainstream" vs "specialty"?

[fredfa]

You mean it is all about pradike?

Who would have thought?

[keenan]

Who is this guy?

[vurbano]

Who is this guy?Its a long story.

[keenan]

Yes, I know who it is now, and yeah, long story.

[raaj]

Its a long story.

I'm all ears [err.. eyes].

[VodGod69]

Couldn't agree more.

As a general "fan" of DirecTV (or at least a more patient customer than most), giving pradike an outlet for his wildly irrational pro-D* propaganda is laughable.

Just goes to show that the criteria to be an AVS member is apparently more stringent than the criteria to write for tvpredictions.com.

OK, I'm not in to pro-D* propaganda as I am an engineer for one of their cable opposition.

What needs understanding is that D*, just like E* and cable co's are trying as much as they can to be able provide the most HD services within the limitations of the bandwidth and technology available to them.

If there was the capacity available, no operator would be down-ressing and they would offer more services in hd. D* want to offer more services in hd and will no doubt do so once they are able, but for the time being they have to down-res to reduce the bandwidth needed to squeeze in more services. They are walking the tightrope between quality and quantity.

This isn't pro any operator it's just asking that people stop and really think about these arguments.

[LonghornXP]

OK, I'm not in to pro-D* propaganda as I am an engineer for one of their cable opposition.

What needs understanding is that D*, just like E* and cable co's are trying as much as they can to be able provide the most HD services within the limitations of the bandwidth and technology available to them.

If there was the capacity available, no operator would be down-ressing and they would offer more services in hd. D* want to offer more services in hd and will no doubt do so once they are able, but for the time being they have to down-res to reduce the bandwidth needed to squeeze in more services. They are walking the tightrope between quality and quantity.

This isn't pro any operator it's just asking that people stop and really think about these arguments.

We can understand why D* does what they do which of course is lack of bandwidth. What we are barking over is the fact they time and time again say they offer HD channels in the same quality as cable companies. Again we aren't mad about HD-Lite when they have no bandwidth but we are mad when they tell us its just as good as cable. Again we don't like how they are telling us its just as good when its not.

If they came out and said we are giving the best picture quality we can with the bandwidth available. We also need to add more channels that customers want too to avoid losing them. Because of these two issues we are trying to balance both offerings and picture quality the best we can until we have more bandwidth in one years time. Now if they said the above this whole issue most likely wouldn't be an issue would it.

But no they aren't saying that and worse they are telling us "we will take on the cable companies picture quality on HD anyday" which to me is saying that cable is the same picture quality or that we are seeing bad picture quality that isn't present. Sorry but for a person who spends thousands extra for an HDTV set, 400+ more for an HD box from DirecTV "and" an extra 11 bucks a month for an HD Package its extremely insulting to hear them say this. I don't want to do business with a company who flatout insults me like this which is why I'm a cable customer with Bright House Networks and now with Comcast. They both may have their weak points but at least they don't insult me and I will not take insults from a company when they are wrong about it.

[spwace]

We can understand why D* does what they do which of course is lack of bandwidth. What we are barking over is the fact they time and time again say they offer HD channels in the same quality as cable companies. Again we aren't mad about HD-Lite when they have no bandwidth but we are mad when they tell us its just as good as cable. Again we don't like how they are telling us its just as good when its not.

I believe the original statement that is being referred to here never mentioned cable. They said their quality was as good as their competition, which leaves it open to interpretation. They can claim the competition they were referring to is other dbs companies.

[Marc Alexander]

Many cable companies employ rate shaping which can result in poorer PQ than recompression...so their argument still flies whether the competition is DBS or cable. DBS, cable, and OTA broadcasters all employ techniques which lower PQ. That is why I see D* coming out on top in this case.

[GutBomb]

Until somebody produces an advertisement where DirecTV states they provide 1920x1080, this suit will go nowhere because they simply didn't do anything illegal!
I came in here to say exactly that.

what directv actually provides is a higher resolution than 1280x720 which is accepted as HD. It is easy to see how it can be defined as HD. and since directv doesn;t have to adhere to any broadcast standards and can even make their own standards, this, to directv is HD and they aren't doing anything legally wrong.

HD-lite is a travesty, but i choose to switch providers to cable instead of taking directv to court because i am not "astonished" by their picture quality.

a black day for the US legal system

[GutBomb]

I believe the original statement that is being referred to here never mentioned cable. They said their quality was as good as their competition, which leaves it open to interpretation. They can claim the competition they were referring to is other dbs companies.
not to mention that "picture quality" is a subjective term that can't be quantified by a number or statistic. to me, and other people that don't have huge screens D* HD looks just like cable HD and Dish HD. to others, it looks worse. to still others (like my fiancee) they think even full OTA 1080i looks marginally better than SD. or my roommate who can't even tell if what he is watching is stretched or not.

[srw1000]

Until somebody produces an advertisement where DirecTV states they provide 1920x1080, this suit will go nowhere because they simply didn't do anything illegal!Well, I'm still looking for an ad, but I did find this: Operating Guide | Warranty Model Number | HD-SAT520 | DIRECTV® High-Definition Receiver (http://www.directv.com/learn/pdf/System_Manuals/Zenith/Zenith_HD-SAT520.pdf#search=%221920%201080%20site%3Adirectv.com%22)

Granted, this is not an ad, but it is the operating manual for a DirecTV product, found on their website. Here's the relevant part:

The digital TV standards allow several different formats. Broadcasters can choose between
three formats:
• 480p - The picture is 704 x 480 pixels, sent at 60 complete frames per second (480i is
also possible).
• 720p - The picture is 1280 x 720 pixels, sent at 60 complete frames per second.
• 1080i - The picture is 1920 x 1080 pixels, sent at 60 interlaced frames per second (30
complete frames per second).At the time this was written, they were observing the ATSC HD standards.

I've attached a screen capture from the page, in case it disappears in the very near future.

Scott

[srw1000]

The digital TV standards allow several different formats. Broadcasters can choose between
three formats:
• 480p - The picture is 704 x 480 pixels, sent at 60 complete frames per second (480i is
also possible).
• 720p - The picture is 1280 x 720 pixels, sent at 60 complete frames per second.
• 1080i - The picture is 1920 x 1080 pixels, sent at 60 interlaced frames per second (30
complete frames per second).
This same language and the accompanying table also appear in the Sony SAT-HD300 (http://www.directv.com/learn/pdf/System_Manuals/Sony/Sony_SAT-HD300.pdf#search=%221920%201080%20site%3Adirectv.com%22), the Huges HTL-HD (http://www.directv.com/learn/pdf/System_Manuals/Hughes/HNS_HTL-HD.pdf#search=%221920%201080%20site%3Adirectv.com%22), and the LG LSS-3200A (http://www.directv.com/learn/pdf/System_Manuals/LG/LG_LSS-3200A.pdf#search=%221920%201080%20site%3Adirectv.com%22) manuals.

This would seem to indicate that the source for the listed specs were provided/endorsed by DirecTV, rather than just the manufacturers.

Scott

[Gary Murrell]

Directv had explicit website info explaining 1920x1080i and someone called them on it and it was yanked very quick like, this was a while back, they are as guilty as anyone can get

I would like to congradulate this dude for what he is doing, Directv is scamming tons of people that were in the same place as this guy, including many people on the AVS forum who won't even admit it

a giant toast to Mr. Cohen :) who has just made a big step in getting the truth out to more people

-Gary

[Thebarnman]

Peter Cohen certainly has a case! I hope DirecTV ends up having to advertise they provide less than HD or that they have to drop programming so they can provide HD like they used to.

Either way, the HD competition will take advantage of the fact that they provide better HD than DirecTV does. This will be better for everybody.

[mx6bfast]

Directv had explicit website info explaining 1920x1080i and someone called them on it and it was yanked very quick like, this was a while back, they are as guilty as anyone can get
I found this site from 2-7-05: http://web.archive.org/web/20050208020550/www.directv.com/DTVAPP/imagine/HDTV_why.dsp

ENJOY AN INCREDIBLE HOME THEATER EXPERIENCE

You'll see the puck, the sweat, even the seams on the curveball. You'll be moved again by your favorite movies with details you've never seen before. You'll go from ordinary to extraordinary in over two million pixels:
1280x1080 = 1382400
1920x1080 = 2073600

[cpcat]

Kudos to Peter Cohen. :)

[Ken H]

I found this site from 2-7-05:That is an interesting page, as these quote tell the story, bold italics are mine....

You'll see the puck, the sweat, even the seams on the curveball. You'll be moved again by your favorite movies with details you've never seen before. You'll go from ordinary to extraordinary in over two million pixels:


Enjoy 10 times the pixels of ordinary TV - clear pictures, vibrant colors and wider images.

[GutBomb]

I found this site from 2-7-05: http://web.archive.org/web/20050208020550/www.directv.com/DTVAPP/imagine/HDTV_why.dsp


1280x1080 = 1382400
1920x1080 = 2073600
their HD box is still outputting the 1280x1080 picture to the tv at 1920x1080 so technically they are serving up those amounts of pixels. they just aren't broadcasting it.

[Steve Bruzonsky]

Pete will win the class action. the Settlement will be in the millions. the settlement will go to the attorneys, and we will get coupons to get 6 months of a premium channel for free. WOW!

[raaj]

their HD box is still outputting the 1280x1080 picture to the tv at 1920x1080 so technically they are serving up those amounts of pixels. they just aren't broadcasting it.

You think that excuse is going to fly in the courts? :rolleyes:

[herdfan]

You'll go from ordinary to extraordinary in over two million pixels:
D* still has that many pixels. You just need to be able to watch 2-3 channels at the same time to see them all. ;)

[mx6bfast]

Pete will win the class action. the Settlement will be in the millions. the settlement will go to the attorneys, and we will get coupons to get 6 months of a premium channel for free. WOW!
That'll save me ~$11 a month for that long.

[CPanther95]

I got $1149 ($383 x 3 phones) from a class action suit against Verizon. They de-featured the Bluetooth capabilities of a phone without informing the customers that they were actually "Bluetooth-Lite" and may not be fully compatible with your car or other Bluetooth devices.

What really sucks is they didn't change the policy, just added some fine print. In this case, that fine print could be enough if a competitor exploits it.

[srw1000]

Pete will win the class action. the Settlement will be in the millions. the settlement will go to the attorneys, and we will get coupons to get 6 months of a premium channel for free. WOW!To me, any monetary settlement in this case is incidental. The real benefit is forcing providers to correctly portray the product they're selling.

Scott

[keenan]

To me, any monetary settlement in this case is incidental. The real benefit is forcing providers to correctly portray the product they're selling.

Scott
That is one of the "cause of action"s in the suit.

[S. Hiller]

To me, any monetary settlement in this case is incidental. The real benefit is forcing providers to correctly portray the product they're selling.

Scott

Couldn't agree more.

[MarcusInMD]

It's about time.