DIRECTV Getting Sued over HD Lite

[dishcomm]

Most class action legal specialists don't make a dime if they fail to get either a favorable settlement or a verdict for the class. Same goes for most Plaintiff's attorneys who take cases on contingent fees, which is most of them.

When they win, they can make obscene amounts of money. Some of this money finances future cases. On some cases, the lawyers take big risks and make seven figure expense expenditures trying to get a favorable outcome, only to lose. Overall, these guys usually make money, a lot of money, so don't cry for them.

Still, most plaintiff's claims, and a lot of them are valid ones, against big business would never be brought if the claimants themselves had to pay all the legal fees and expenses out of their pockets.

There are a lot of pro bono cases and contingent actions out there being pursued by lawyers who are not getting paid a dime-they might get their fees at the end, but often not.

Lawyers are like everyone else-some good ones and some bad ones. Some of you might even know one. But, you can't always tell from their green eyes, horns and tails. Good grief, I've never read such biased uninformed garbage in my life, and said with such complete certainty.

Ever noticed how the guy who knows the least usually shouts the loudest in a debate? Lacking brains, they compensate with volume.

Unfortunately those with an agenda view opposition as bias or prejudice..
That siad, are you infering that all lawsuits have merit?. Do you believe that no matter how trivial, a plaintiff should ALWAYS get their chance to argue their case?..

 

[riffjim4069]

They have actual data, actual proof, to support the allegations set forth in the suit. So, put your mind at ease, this is not a case of "Beauty in the eye of the beholder type stuff".

Once again, how dare you people use facts, figures and the law to support your arguments. Seriously, one man's beauty is another man's beast. Of course, the first man may drink a lot more...and a lot more often. E* HD used to be stunning, however a great many of their HD-Lite channels now look little better than EDTV. Sure, it's still a pretty picture, but the images lack depth and clarity...they simply are not HD. As for D* the softness and macroblocking of their national HD make watching these channels intolerable. Hopefully, one day in the near future, DirecTV will return to offer their customers a national HD programming package. They currently offer zero national HD channels. A quickly flip up and down their channel lineup will confirm this fact.

D* will eventually lose this case because the facts, the law, and the experts are stacked up against them. If available, I would highly recommend signing up with FiOS TV. Their High-Definition PQ is simply stunning as opposed to D*'s HD (wink-wink, nudge-nudge) which is simply stuffing!!! And yes, I meant stuffing...because this product is a Turkey in its current form!!!

 

[harshness]

For a service to be "HDTV", it must adhere to the 16:9 format as described by the ATSC.

Here's where the argument melts down.

The resultant 1080i stream from a DIRECTV HD receiver to a display through component or HDMI outputs is indeed 16:9 with resolution of 1920x1080i.

I don't think that paragraph 19 is going to hold any water as it incorrectly (incompletely) cites the ATSC standard and doesn't provide enough specifics to determine how D* isn't in compliance. I'm pretty sure that a careful analysis will determine that D* is in compliance with applicable ATSC standards.

I'd like to see if anyone can produce documentation of the assured 19.4 bitrate because that's the only quantifiable (and verifiable) measure that D* is clearly not even approaching with the 1080i channels.

 

[nhlfan79]

"You shouldn't feel sorry for the megacorporation".....Uh huh..Well, you just exposed your bias.now I have to ask in general not you personally, what do these litigants think they ar emissing out on?...I think they are whiners.. I say this because when I see an HD picture post install, I am very impressed. This entire case makes me think of people that no matter how hard one tries , there is no pleasing them..
Just aminute , there is no evindence thsat D* has done anything to degrade their HD sigs..the plaintiffs unless they have the use and understanding of soem very sophisitcated and expensive testing EQ, ar ebasing their suit on a perception. Beauty in the eye of the beholder type stuff.
Uninformed?...That is a very prejudiced and arrogant observation. I think your shingle has swelled your head. Don't even think you have the right to be condescending because you have a law degree. Ya know what?..It is an attitude such as this that makes ordinary folks cringe when they hear the word "lawyer"...This is also why one could fill an equvalent to Encyclopedia Brittanica with lawyer jokes.
I was refering to the civil courts...Now, would you care to get your boots out of my throat!

Unfortunately those with an agenda view opposition as bias or prejudice..That siad, are you infering that all lawsuits have merit?. Do you believe that no matter how trivial, a plaintiff should ALWAYS get their chance to argue their case?..

The irony of your bolded statements is so rich.

Look, we're apparently just going to have to agree to disagree. I'm not seeking an argument, just an informed discussion. If you want to keep your fingers in your ears while shouting "LA LA LA," that's your prerogative. I've done nothing condescending or arrogant here, so your accusation is off base. I didn't call you stupid (unable to learn), I called your position ignorant (unaware of facts).

Your statement that you're impressed with the picture you're receiving proves you haven't read a word of what I said above about what the actual legal issue in this case is. For the last time, this case isn't about being unhappy with the picture. It's about being duped into believing that you'd receive something better.

"There is no evidence that D* has degraded its signals?" Are you kidding? That's clearly established fact. See Cheezmo's site and about a million threads here, at avsforum, and at dbstalk discussing D*'s change from two channels per transponder to three, then the further reduction from 1920x1080 to 1220x 1080.

The Widescreen Movie Center - HDNet Movies on DirecTV Quality

I notice that you registered on this site after the degradation occurred. Maybe that's why you don't appreciate the plaintiffs' claim here. You've never known the picture any other way than the way you currently see it.

Again, I have no dog in this fight. I'm not a class member, and ultimately I don't care who wins. Seriously. I'm only trying to offer my unbiased legal perspective on the facts and issues in this case to facilitate a meaningful discussion. If you can't see that, then I have nothing further to add.

 

[Happy Camper]

Unfortunately those with an agenda view opposition as bias or prejudice..
That siad, are you infering that all lawsuits have merit?. Do you believe that no matter how trivial, a plaintiff should ALWAYS get their chance to argue their case?..

Dishcomm,

When you learn how to read and spell, you will see that I said that "some" plaintiff's cases had merit, not all, and that some lawyers were good and some were not. I have no bias or prejudice except against idiots who leap to conclusions. I spent part of my life as a defense attorney. I am no friend of class actions or personal injury attorneys. Still, some of them are good and some of the claims have merit.

Generally, I find that the courts are way better than you might think about filtering the valid from the not valid and reaching a fair result. Those on one side or the other usually always scream "no fair," just like 5 year olds when they don't get what they want.

Let the court work this claim out. As a charter subscriber to every channel D* has ever offered (except porn), I received lots of manuals and info from D* when they first came out with HD telling me that it was 1080i at 1920x1080 and 16:9 resolution. Later, that changed. Whether the plaintiff in this case has a valid claim will be worked out by the court, not you, fortunately.

Please learn to read, and think before you point a bias finger. I could care less how the case comes out. It's obvious that there are some powerful arguments on both sides. If I just read this thread, however, I'd be thinking that those who say this plaintiff has no claim are mostly loud talkers without a lot of information about the case or knowledge about the legal process. They'd have their daughters marry DirecTV executives, probably, if they could.

I like my compressed enhanced resolution picture just fine, and if it gives me more "HD" channels, I'm just fine with that.

 

[Happy Camper]

The fact that these guys may be attorneys doing it for "themselves" indicates to me that all of it is coming out of their pocket. Everyone's time is valuable, no matter what you do. This case will cost tens of thousands to pursue, even with no attorneys fees. I'm thinking that their evaluation of the validity of their own claims has got to be sincere. You just don't spend that kind of your own money and time for fun. We might think they have no claim, but I'm betting they think they do-they'd have to to be doing this. It's very hard and very expensive to pursue any kind of a suit, especially this one.

I represented my own family once in a suit and it turned out to be the most expensive thing I've ever done for "free" in my life, and one of my biggest lifetime expenses, until we won after a five year battle. Even with a favorable result, it probably was not worth it.

I'm just thinking that maybe it's not all one sided, for either side. That's all.

I also really do think the system will work. If these guys lose, they will be out a whole lot of time, misery and money, and maybe a lot of costs and fees for D*. They certainly will be punished for their bad decision, if it is a bad decision.