Class action HD lawsuit?

[iKramerica]

Canceling does little. Only a lawsuit can accomplish 1 of 2 things:

HD as advertised
or
Stop advertising DTV as HDTV.

And Scott, with all due respect, you are wrong.

1280x1080i is NOT HD.

You are confusing the DTV standard with HDTV. HD, as I stated, is the "million pixel" format. Again, though 720p is not quite 1 million, taking the full bandwidth of that signal into account, it basically is.

1280x1080i is only about 700k, 1/2 way between 480p and 1080i, and not even in a square pixel 16:9 format. HD must have a square pixel 16:9 format. Any format that does not deliver 1 million pixels in a square pixel format is NOT HD.

To sell something that you are not actually providing is against the law. It is fraud. While Scott is now taking the blue pill (or is it the red one?), doesn't mean the rest of us have to buy in.

I'd rather have 5 HD movie channels than many more of compressed crap.

OTA HD is amazing. I've compared it to the compressed CBS-west from sat, and the OTA is far superior, and that's with both at 1080i. Shrinking HD locals to 1280x1080i or 1440x1080i while also compressing it further than OTA is really degrading what we are paying all that extra money for.

The fact they are charging for HD anyway is already a bit shady, considering that there is supposed to be a mandatory transition (not an optional, fee based model). That they are charging extra and not actually providing it? That is criminal.

 

[spindoctor]

i am with you guys ........sue

don't settle for less

unless you meet charlie and his gang in person(you know the lies)fame-glory

then you forget everything you stand for ..hey you might even get some receivers

and then you get more channels like the 21 they promised you.

 

[waltinvt]

No offense but you people are all missing the point.

I doesn't mean squat whether what Dish is sending is technically real HD or not and if it isn't, all you'll ever accomplish with a class action suit is getting them, and "D" and Cable to dream up a new acronym.

What really matters is how the quality of a product is being "degraded" by the various providers before it gets to us. That's where your solution is going to come from - the producers - but at a cost.

We are nothing to "E" (of "D" or any other provider) except "X" $$ per month and that's all we'll ever be because we lack what it takes to act on anything with any solidarity.

But if you can somehow get the people that create and produce these programs, the ones that spend millions to create a movie, series, sporting event, documentary, etc at a certain level of quality to really understand how much of their intended impact is being lost because of the greed of the various providers of their product, THEN you'll have something. They have the money, power and influence to resolve this issue.

The cost of this approach is probably having to accept things like the broadcast flag because although they want their work to be seen in top quality, they want more to have complete control over it.

It all boils down to that the entertainment industry must make huge profits. That's what they do. The other thing is they must have as much control as possible over what they do - for as long as possible - it's an ego thing.

They really do want you to see what they create in the best possible format available but they want you to pay for it each and every time you see it. Forever. Till the end of time.

Movie people want you see their product in a theater in all it's intended glory. Then if you want to see it again, you go back to the theater. Then (because a lot of their up-front production $$ comes from video) they'll concede an alternate venue - you can purchase a copy - as long as they can insure you can't reproduce it. Then finally, they'll let it go to some form of television.

This is their order of prior ties in a declining list of how much $$ they make on it. They do not want television to ever be quite as good as the video and video never quite as good as the theater experience. This is why it was a mistake to start showing people true HD on tv before the HD video formats where ready. I think the problems arose when the government stepped in with the digital transition and it kind of messed up how the industry had planned to proceed. Anyway, their trying to get it back on track, which is that HD will be good - better than normal tv but never quite as good as the available top video format (HD DVD or blu-ray) and neither can be available until the theater has squeezed all the $$ it can out of it.

Television obviously has a little different priority system than the movie industry with some overlap where movies are concerned. Theater productions aside, the tv industry also wants their product to be experienced in the best possible quality and don't want it compromised along the way. This is partly why they're all getting into a form of direct sell & VOD. Obviously they want your tv experience with their product to be better than the competition and to keep you coming back for more. They also want to have control and as few things as possible eating away at the profits between us and their product. If want to get what they have directly to us, as quickly as possible and with nothing in between to degrade it or eat into the profits. Today that means affiliates but tomorrow it may mean satellite and cable. This may be where our focus should be.

 

[long_time_DNC]

I watched "Clear And Present Danger" on HDNet Movies last night and have "Open Range (which was run several times recently on HDNet Movies") on my DVR. Waltinvt is correct in that the movie industry wants to do their best to maintain the status quo. Theatrical = best. DVD (Standard/HD/Blu) = second best, cable/satellite HD-Lite = third best, broadcast channels = fourth best. That's the way it's been for a very long time (even before DVD, with VHS/Beta), and that's how they want to keep it.

E*, D* and cable are giving us what they see as the best they can give us without stepping on Hollywood's toes because you don't bite the hand that feeds you.

The situation sucks, but getting back to my original point: I enjoyed watching both those movies in HD-Lite. They looked better than I've seen them in a long time, and I can live with it.

 

[riffjim4069]

I posted this previously...someone please tell me if I am wrong with my interpretation of the facts.

The FCC references and incorporate the ATSC Standard for DTV. The ATSC defines HDTV as 1920x1080p, 1920x1080i, and 1280x720p. According to page 12 of the Recommended Practice: Guide to the Use of the ATSC Digital Television Standard (see below references), "The ATSC Standard enables transmission of HDTV pictures at several frame rates and one of two picture formats; these are listed in the top two lines of Table 5.1 . The ATSC Standard also enables the delivery digital sound in various formats."

References:
1. http://www.fcc.gov/oet/faqs/dtvfaqs.html
2. http://www.atsc.org/standards.html (HDTV definition page #12)
3. http://www.atsc.org/standards/practices/a_54a.pdf (Table 5.1 - page #24)

Table 5.1 (top two lines of ref #3):

Vertical Lines Pixels Aspect Ratio Picture Rate
1080 1920 16:9 60i, 30p, 24p
720 1280 16:9 60p, 30p, 24p

What D* and more recently E* are doing is stealing lines of horizontal resolution to create what is known as HD-Lite (1440x1080i, 1280x1080i), which does meet the ATSC standard and, in my opinion, does not look like HD.

Again, am I missing something?

 

[Sean Mota]

It is not as simple as it seems. Programmers Like HDnet/HDnet movies are caught in a big business dilema. Since both channels on DirecTv are HD Lite the owener of HDnet/HDnet Movies cannot siimply say well I do not like the way you are delivering my channel I am going to stop delivering to you. It won't work that way. These channels receive large amount of $$$$ from these providers and by cutting them it means that you are cutting you own throad. It is a very difficult situation and it will take a hugh effort on consumers to understand that sub-par quality is not acceptable. Hollywooed, the owners of films, do not care. As a matter of fact, they are probably enjoying this. The bottom line is that consumers are the only one with power to unite against HD Lite. But the sad reality is that there are not too many of HD consumers vs the SD consumers. Even within the relative small population of HD subscribers there are those who would accept HD Lite without problems. E*/D* or whomever downresize are on the drivers seat right now. They are doing whatever they want. The answer will be when someone other than they can deliver through proper advertising "True HD". The solution may end up with FIOS but it will not be easy to do since FIOS is not ready for national primetime. The balance of power needs to be shifted towards quality by someone but right now there is no one who is willing to do this or has the ability to do it. Until then we the consumers will be screwed.

My personal feeling is that we can cancel and not support HD Lite but will that be the answer? Can we continue to compaint and make others aware of the problem as more SD subscribers move to the HD arena. It is an uphill battle and with no easy solution. Suing will at least bring attention to the public of what is going on. The informaition needs to be brought to the masses.

 

[waltinvt]

Well said Sean.
I see some of this becoming a battle of the industries, hollywood vs television.

We need to keep in mind that we ARE the customer. TV & Hollywood are the product creators. They want us to buy and we want to pay. Everything else is nothing more than a means of getting their products to us. It's that simple

 

[Ilya]

Sure, companies can deliver whatever they want - whatever their customers will buy. This is not the question.
The legal question here is whether they can call it HD, or whether this constitutes a false advertising.
If someone can prove that the HD-lite resolution cannot be called HD, then the companies can be legally forced to stop calling it HD, and they will face a dilemma: to admit that they are not offering HD, or to up the resolution. There is a hope that they may choose to increase the resolution in order to avoid a public scandal. That's all.

 

[Sean Mota]

I see your point but see how D*/E* are going around the HD Lite issue. On their respective websites and press releases they advertise HD channels as being 1080i or 720p. When it comes to the resolution now they are staying aways from presenting the other half or horizontal resolution. It wasn't like this before they started delivering HD Lite. They used to print the entire vertical and horizontal resolution. Now is there a lawyer out there that can prove deceiving practices on this. I am not sure. I am not a lawyer. But even if it is not proving a lawsuit could at least bring more light to the public eye. I consider it false advertising but will the court look at it the same way. That's the question.

 

[waltinvt]

Sure, companies can deliver whatever they want - whatever their customers will buy. This is not the question.
The leagal question here is whether they can call it HD, or whether this constitutes a false advertising.
If someone can prove that the HD-lite resolution cannot be called HD, then the companies can be legally forced to stop calling it HD, and they will face a delima: to admit that they are not offering HD, or to up the resolution. There is a hope that they may choose to increase the resolution in order to avoid a public scandal. That's all.

Downside is if no one else is offering true HD either, it's a moot point, they'll just think up a new acronym - might even be "HD Lite".

Upside is it might force producers to rethink how they negotiate contracts and that would have an effect.

 

[ScottChez]

I am OK with more HD channels AND a Down RES Pic. I really want Universal HD and ESPN2.

**BUT**

Only if they put a little star next to the word HD and a Subnote stating that it is down res'ed. They need to be honest to new customers that might be switching from Direct TV or Cable.

If they dont do the disclaimer, they are open for legal issues (beside being dis honest to there customers).

 

[Sean Mota]

This all may be a moot point if HD DVD deliver on the promises. Once HD DVD comes out and it is well established why would anyone bother keeping the HBO, Showtime, the VOOM movie channels, the HDnet Movies. If HD DVD makes the same transiction that regular DVD did, we may have enough having

ESPN, TNT & the Locals in HD. For a while this will be a good solution and consumers will have an alternative until FIOS makes a difference at a national level. There are certain LIVE events that many of us will not be able to live without but at least personally this will hold me for a while until someone decides to give me full resolution on my HD channels. Maybe just maybe HD DVD will make these providers think over what they are doing. Maybe HD DVD will prove another way of combating the HD Lite disease.

 

[FreddyvsJasonvsAsh]

I think Blu Ray will have more of an effect than HD-DVD

 

[rdinkel]

I watched "Clear And Present Danger" on HDNet Movies last night and have "Open Range (which was run several times recently on HDNet Movies") on my DVR. Waltinvt is correct in that the movie industry wants to do their best to maintain the status quo. Theatrical = best. DVD (Standard/HD/Blu) = second best, cable/satellite HD-Lite = third best, broadcast channels = fourth best. That's the way it's been for a very long time (even before DVD, with VHS/Beta), and that's how they want to keep it.
E*, D* and cable are giving us what they see as the best they can give us without stepping on Hollywood's toes because you don't bite the hand that feeds you.
The situation sucks, but getting back to my original point: I enjoyed watching both those movies in HD-Lite. They looked better than I've seen them in a long time, and I can live with it.

If I am not mistaken, HDNet is still in full 1920x1080i.

 

[Grandpa J]

I maybe wrong but I think Dish missed a great marketing advantage by keep HD at full rezz and advertising "Only Dish Satellite Has Real HD", and by downressing has even long time customers mad and bad mouthing Dish. It seems a lose/lose situation.

I am surprised that a real good guy like Scott G. seems to surport Dish on this issue even after all the negative feedback about downressing on this board. Its Scott's right but surprising nontheless as he is the key player representing the Satelliteguys members to Charlie et al.

 

[Claude Greiner]

If you don't like it, than switch to Directv, Cable or put up an OTA antenna.

I don't like it either, but the fact of the matter is that there are just shy of 12 million customers who don't know the difference, nor do they really care. As long as their picture looks somewhat decent they are happy.

A few thousand disgruntled HD Enthusists like me and the rest of the members here are nothing.

The only way this is gonna change is by contacting the providers who Dish and Directv have contracts with. Next time there contract is up for renewal, they have the power to make sure that Dish and Directv is delivering their full signal.

The only other thing that is going to change this is to write your congressman. The next issue we will see the cable companys lobbying for is a must carry law for picture quality.

Right now the cable companies have an advantage they do not have to trasmit all their local markets in HD on their system. Its on a system by system basis.

When they get wind Directv and Dish are now offering HD Locals, they are going to lobby for full resolution to create a problem just like they did with must carry.

 

[DJ Rob]

And speaking of locals, how are the local stations (and the 4 major networks) going to feel about their HD signals being compressed, blurred down and not delivered in true HD on satellite even though it is still being called that?

 

[NightRyder]

One word with regard to class action lawsuits.....STUPID!

Lawyers get rich, companies settle without admitting any wrong doing and we end up with a couple of PPV coupons 5 to 10 years down the road.


NightRyder

 

[nuts4scuba]

And speaking of locals, how are the local stations (and the 4 major networks) going to feel about their HD signals being compressed, blurred down and not delivered in true HD on satellite even though it is still being called that?

My local stations probably won't care. My local CBS converts the HD channel to 720P so they can run their UPN channel on .2 at 480i, and then a weather radar on .3. My PBS converts the HD channel to 720P so they can run 5 other sub channels. My NBC channel runs a 480i sub channel and a weather radar. When they showed Notre Dame football games they would look like a big abstract picture.

I think the only true HD we will see will be from Blu-ray or HDDVD.

 

[SRW1000]

One word with regard to class action lawsuits.....STUPID!
Lawyers get rich, companies settle without admitting any wrong doing and we end up with a couple of PPV coupons 5 to 10 years down the road.
NightRyder

I hate class action lawsuits, but I'm willing to make an exception in this (possible) case.

You're correct, in that subscribers won't get squat in compensation. But that's not the reason for the lawsuit. The goal would be to get providers to stop labeling 1280x1080I content as HD. If they want to screw around with resolution, fine, but don't call it something that it's not.

Scott