DIRECTV Getting Sued over HD Lite

[dishcomm]

I do believe that McDonald's lost that lawsuit for several million dollars. If I was the plaintif I would take a couple million and let the defendant call it a win any day.

McDonalds appealed the amount and won..The plaintiff got bupkis. Only her attorney got paid..Good!..Mc Donanlds should not have had to pay a dime.
This is an example why I agree with the UK's "loser pays" civil laws...

From The 'Lectric Law Library's Entrance, Welcome & Tour - legal resources and definitions

The trial court subsequently reduced the punitive award to $480,000 --
or three times compensatory damages -- even though the judge called
McDonalds' conduct reckless, callous and willful.
I owuld imagine the attorneys probabalt reatined at least a third of the original jury award of over $2 million..Which means if the plaintiff got $480k ..she eneded up with what she should have gotten in the first place..Enough to cover her medical...that McDonalds offered..$200k in a settlement, which the plaintiff denied..

 

[Happy Camper]

I wonder of the resolution of TVs for sale now were reduced to 1280x1080 interlaced, or less, if credible audio-visual publications and consumers would call them "high definition" or HDTV, and whether this conforms to what would be termed "custom and practice in the industry" or "industry standards."

I am one of those who do not think that what D* or Dish, or our local cable company, is sending us is high defintion, but I really don't mind the picture and want more of it.

I think they ought to call it "enhanced definition" and just tell you the average resolution, usually something around 1280x1080 interlaced, or a little less, at a less than wide open bit rate.. How many consumers would know what those numbers meant, anyway?

How many angels can dance on the head of a pin, and how far is "a ways further on down there?"

 

[Ramy]

With all due respect, I think this is crap..D* is in fact delivering a Hi Def signal their their customers..I read thru all the available information on D*'s website and nowhere does it state anything about resolution, full vs lite or anything of the kind..
This looks to me like another case of someone attemting to use the courts as their own personal lottery terminal..BTW, what is this guy suing for? Money? To get D* to go full resolution?..
What really bothers me about this is the attorney representing this plaintiff has had to build a class in order to file the suit.
I am on the side of the defendant.

Do you really think that Directv is going to put that stuff on their website? I don't think so. They aren't going to admit anything is wrong. There are some people on this site that have the equipment to look at what is being broadcast and can tell what the resolution is and how much bandwidth it is using.

 

[dishcomm]

Do you really think that Directv is going to put that stuff on their website? I don't think so. They aren't going to admit anything is wrong. There are some people on this site that have the equipment to look at what is being broadcast and can tell what the resolution is and how much bandwidth it is using.

Of course they are not going to do that...Then they would have to guarantee it....Since D* does not guarantee full resolution, they don't have to deliver it...So the lawsuit becomes crap..

It's crap because D* isn't doing anything wrong.
And those people you mentioned that can use EQ to tell whether or not the pic is full res? So what....What's that got to do with anything?.
And while we're on the subject. Is it possible that these technically inclined people are the same ones who know full well that delivering full res via satellite is a challenge that is evolving with the intro of new birds and new technologies?...
No what I think is going on is some people spent mega bucks on high end EQ without doing any homework and found that they are not impressed. so they want someone else to pay for their purchases.

 

[riffjim4069]

With all due respect, I think this is crap..D* is in fact delivering a Hi Def signal their their customers..I read thru all the available information on D*'s website and nowhere does it state anything about resolution, full vs lite or anything of the kind..
This looks to me like another case of someone attempting to use the courts as their own personal lottery terminal..BTW, what is this guy suing for? Money? To get D* to go full resolution?..
What really bothers me about this is the attorney representing this plaintiff has had to build a class in order to file the suit.
I am on the side of the defendant.

Just to reiterate what I have posted in the past...

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. OET -- DTV FAQ's
2. ATSC Standards (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.

People often ask me, "Is this is what all the excitement is about? Is there something wrong with my new set" I tell them there is nothing wrong with their set and there is nothing wrong with their eyes...other than the wool being pulled over them. The difference between HD and HD-Lite is like the difference between Crisp and Crap. Many channels are nothing more than a 1280x1080i crap sandwich...a excretion filled horror that will only leave the viewer with a bad taste in his or her mouth.

I have to disagree...DirecTV, and others, are guilty of fraud, deceptive advertising, and taking money from customers for services not rendered. A DirecTV HD customer has a reasonable expectation to receive a) a High-Definition broadcast signal as defined by the FCC and b) receive "The Best Quality" HD signal according to the DirecTV advertising. Needless to say, DirecTV has failed the litmus test and [hopefully] should lose this class action case. Although customers and HD-Lite haters will be vindicated, I doubt they will receive much in the form of compensation - perhaps a $50 rebate if they purchased a HD receiver or three free months of HD programming).

We shall see...

 

[riffjim4069]

Just a few more facts for your edification...

I have attached the ATSC "Guide to Use of the ATSC DTV Standard" including Corrigendum No 1, dated 20 December 2006. The following statements are taken directly from the ATSC preamble:

• The Advanced Television Systems Committee, Inc., is an international, non-profit organization developing voluntary standards for digital television. The ATSC member organizations represent the broadcast, broadcast equipment, motion picture, consumer electronics, computer, cable, satellite, and semicondoctor industries.
  
• Currently, there are approximately 160 members representing the broadcast, broadcast equipment, motion picture, consumer electronics, computer, cable, satellite, and semicondoctor industries.
  
• ATSC Digital TV Standards include digital high definition television (HDTV), standard definition television (SDTV), data broadcasting, multichannel surround-sound audio, and satellite direct-to-home broadcasting.

Moreover, both DirecTV and EchoStar Communications Corporation are members of the ATSC.

Finally, while membership in the ATSC is voluntary the FCC has incorporated the ATSC DTV standards, thus making it a regulated and enforceable standard.

Is there still anyone wanting to logically argue that D*'s and E*'s 1280x1080i, and 1440x1080i, are in compliance with the legal DTV standard for HDTV?

 

[riffjim4069]

Of course they are not going to do that...Then they would have to guarantee it....Since D* does not guarantee full resolution, they don't have to deliver it...So the lawsuit becomes crap.

Er...excuse me, but they HAVE been advertising HD, High-Definition, and HDTV for the past several years in all of there cutesie-wootsie commercials. HD/High-Definition/HDTV is 1920x1080i, 1920x1080p or 1280x720p - there is no "Full Resolution" HD...it either IS or it IS NOT; 1440x1080i and 1280x1080i simply do not meet this standard and cannot, under any circumstance, be called HD. It is simply misleading to do so.

It's crap because D* isn't doing anything wrong.

...and O.J. Simpson isn't a double-murderer. The facts simply do not support your position.

 

[dishcomm]

Er...excuse me, but they HAVE been advertising HD, High-Definition, and HDTV for the past several years in all of there cutesie-wootsie commercials. HD/High-Definition/HDTV is 1920x1080i, 1920x1080p or 1280x720p - there is no "Full Resolution" HD...it either IS or it IS NOT; 1440x1080i and 1280x1080i simply do not meet this standard and cannot, under any circumstance, be called HD. It is simply misleading to do so.

...and O.J. Simpson isn't a double-murderer. The facts simply do not support your position.

The wording of the commercial.. In those the sentence "all in 1080i" is used.....The above lableing you provided is not used. Nor is it implied. D* is no way to the best of my knowledge have ever stated that HD in full resolution would be provided.
Your argument seems to transfer over to whether or not according ot the standards set can be "called" HD or HDTV....
I guess what will happen is the case will decide whther or not D* can call their service HD..Or maybe not..But the thing is only a handful are complaining.
So why is this can of worms being opened?..Is it force D* to go to full resolution and thus passing those costs along to all their subs?..Or is it to get D* to pay the cost to of the EQ these customer's equipment?..
I think this is a money grab. I don't like it..I think this is few whiny cry babies who have nothing better to do with themsleves.They are pissed so they want to sue somebody. I hope they lose....I will tell you why..Because ultimately when a person or persons win these big suits the cost is passed along ot the consumers who buy goods from D* in the future...

 

[richiephx]

B.b.b.b.ut just accepting and paying for something is just the American way. Unfortunately, too many people who buy HD tvs don't have a clue what HD should really look like. When they compare it to SD, they think it looks really good. As more and more people see BluRay and HDDVD and compare it to what they get in HD tv programs from providers, they will push for like quality. Providers get away with it now because they can. Somewhere in the future demand will force them to provide the picture quality of other like technologies. Unfortunately it will be later than sooner.

 

[dishcomm]

B.b.b.b.ut just accepting and paying for something is just the American way. Unfortunately, too many people who buy HD tvs don't have a clue what HD should really look like. When they compare it to SD, they think it looks really good. As more and more people see BluRay and HDDVD and compare it to what they get in HD tv programs from providers, they will push for like quality. Providers get away with it now because they can. Somewhere in the future demand will force them to provide the picture quality of other like technologies. Unfortunately it will be later than sooner.

Exactly....I maintain that this suit is the idea of one person,. The attorney seeing that just one complaint wasn't going to get the bal rolling created a class( a common practice) and filed the suit.
My skin crawls when I see suits like this in the papers or other news. Noo one is really being harmed so therefore no one needs to "be made whole". Which is basic premise of a lawsuit...However the civil courts have been the stomping ground of people looking for a way to make a whole bunch of money without working for it..In the mean time we as consumers pay for this greed.

 

[nhlfan79]

Exactly....I maintain that this suit is the idea of one person,. The attorney seeing that just one complaint wasn't going to get the bal rolling created a class( a common practice) and filed the suit.
My skin crawls when I see suits like this in the papers or other news. Noo one is really being harmed so therefore no one needs to "be made whole". Which is basic premise of a lawsuit...However the civil courts have been the stomping ground of people looking for a way to make a whole bunch of money without working for it..In the mean time we as consumers pay for this greed.

Reading comments like this really frustrates me, because it's based on complete ignorance of the civil justice system. The people clamoring for tort reform don't even appreciate how badly they're being used as pawns. Oh, tort reform is a good idea, until it's you that gets hurt. Besides, it's completely irrelevant to this discussion. A breach of contract/fraud action like this one is based in contract, not tort, so your stated concerns are off base.

Lawyer here, so let me dispel a few myths. A lawyer can't simply declare a class; it has to be approved by a court after the plaintiff demonstrating certain criteria (number of potential plaintiffs, similarity of claims, type of relief sought, etc.). Second, class certification is hardly "a common practice." In fact, it's exceedingly rare.

Third, the plaintiffs in the D* suit ARE claiming to be financially harmed. You (and others) should actually read up on the complaint before you spout off. They're claiming they agreed to costly equipment upgrades and extended contract terms based on D*'s representation that they would provide a certain level of service. Only after people agreed to those contracts did D* downgrade their HD signal. The 1920x1080 HD signal quality is expressly referenced in several receiver manuals D* marketed at the time, including the Hughes HTL-HD, which I still have. Go to D*'s website and find the manuals under the Troubleshooting menu if you don't believe me. The plaintiffs' claim that D* is not living up to its bargain warrants a trial before a jury, which is what the trial court basically said when it denied D*'s motion to dismiss the case.

So, what's the appropriate remedy if the plaintiffs end up winning? This isn't a cash grab, like you imply. Plaintiffs merely want to be made whole, whether that means forcing D* to (1) broadcast at the promised higher resolution, (2) compensate the plaintiffs for the difference in value between what they bargained for and what they actually received, or (3) eliminate any early termination fees for those affected and refund the cost of the costlier equipment without penalty. Unlike you, I have an understanding of the facts of this case and don't necessarily see any "greed" on these facts.

EDIT: Dishcomm, since you claimed above that you weren't able to find anything on D*'s website promising a specific HD resolution, I've now done the legwork for you. See the HTL-HD manual, page 10, which says that HD is either 1920x1080i or 1280x720p: http://www.directv.com/learn/pdf/System_Manuals/Hughes/HNS_HTL-HD.pdf That's a promised resolution in my book.

 

[Spike]

Wow

NHLFan79, I really appreciate the detailed analysis. Nice work! Thanks.. and I for one hope the Plaintiffs win!

 

[nhlfan79]

Wow

NHLFan79, I really appreciate the detailed analysis. Nice work! Thanks.. and I for one hope the Plaintiffs win!

Thanks. I really don't care who wins the suit, to tell the truth. All I'm hoping for here is an honest discussion, without all of the garbage political talking points on both sides. This shouldn't be a political discussion about the civil justice system in general. It should be about the relative merits of *this* specific suit. What the McDonald's coffee lawsuit (another case blown way out of proportion due to propaganda and ignorance of the actual facts of the case) has to do with this case is beyond me. It's not even apples and oranges. It's apples and a bicycle.

 

[harshness]

HD/High-Definition/HDTV is 1920x1080i, 1920x1080p or 1280x720p - there is no "Full Resolution" HD...it either IS or it IS NOT; 1440x1080i and 1280x1080i simply do not meet this standard and cannot, under any circumstance, be called HD.

I love poking holes in the DIRECTV rhetoric as much as (or possibly more than) the next guy, but in this instance, you are WRONG. You're citing the wrong standard; the ATSC standard for digital broadcast television doesn't apply to satellite television. That standard is A/81 and it does indeed make reference to 1280x1080 and 1440x1080 resolutions.

D* uses both the 1440 and 1280 horizontal pixel counts for their 1080i HD while E* uses 1440 for the VOOM channels and 1920 for everything else.

 

[Voyager6]

I love poking holes in the DIRECTV rhetoric as much as (or possibly more than) the next guy, but in this instance, you are WRONG. You're citing the wrong standard; the ATSC standard for digital broadcast television doesn't apply to satellite television. That standard is A/81 and it does indeed make reference to 1280x1080 and 1440x1080 resolutions.

D* uses both the 1440 and 1280 horizontal pixel counts for their 1080i HD while E* uses 1440 for the VOOM channels and 1920 for everything else.

If you read the A/81 standard (Table 3), no where is it defined as a HD standard just compression formats for DBS. Whereas the FCC and ATSC has defined HDTV as 16:9. When D* advertises "all in 1080i", they would have to use 1920 (1920X1080) to comply with the HDTV standard. 1440X1080 does not meet the 16:9 requirement for HDTV. See page 9 of the ATSC DTV standards: http://www.atsc.org/standards/a_53-Part-1-2007.pdf

 

[dishcomm]

Reading comments like this really frustrates me, because it's based on complete ignorance of the civil justice system. The people clamoring for tort reform don't even appreciate how badly they're being used as pawns. Oh, tort reform is a good idea, until it's you that gets hurt. Besides, it's completely irrelevant to this discussion. A breach of contract/fraud action like this one is based in contract, not tort, so your stated concerns are off base.

Lawyer here, so let me dispel a few myths. A lawyer can't simply declare a class; it has to be approved by a court after the plaintiff demonstrating certain criteria (number of potential plaintiffs, similarity of claims, type of relief sought, etc.). Second, class certification is hardly "a common practice." In fact, it's exceedingly rare.

Third, the plaintiffs in the D* suit ARE claiming to be financially harmed. You (and others) should actually read up on the complaint before you spout off. They're claiming they agreed to costly equipment upgrades and extended contract terms based on D*'s representation that they would provide a certain level of service. Only after people agreed to those contracts did D* downgrade their HD signal. The 1920x1080 HD signal quality is expressly referenced in several receiver manuals D* marketed at the time, including the Hughes HTL-HD, which I still have. Go to D*'s website and find the manuals under the Troubleshooting menu if you don't believe me. The plaintiffs' claim that D* is not living up to its bargain warrants a trial before a jury, which is what the trial court basically said when it denied D*'s motion to dismiss the case.

So, what's the appropriate remedy if the plaintiffs end up winning? This isn't a cash grab, like you imply. Plaintiffs merely want to be made whole, whether that means forcing D* to (1) broadcast at the promised higher resolution, (2) compensate the plaintiffs for the difference in value between what they bargained for and what they actually received, or (3) eliminate any early termination fees for those affected and refund the cost of the costlier equipment without penalty. Unlike you, I have an understanding of the facts of this case and don't necessarily see any "greed" on these facts.

EDIT: Dishcomm, since you claimed above that you weren't able to find anything on D*'s website promising a specific HD resolution, I've now done the legwork for you. See the HTL-HD manual, page 10, which says that HD is either 1920x1080i or 1280x720p: http://www.directv.com/learn/pdf/System_Manuals/Hughes/HNS_HTL-HD.pdf That's a promised resolution in my book.

Not to impugn your profession..well a little..I find it a little nauseating debating this issue with a person who may very well mkae their living in the civil courts.
Nvertheless, Most of us aresick and tried of the masses availing thmesleves of the civilcourt system over the slightest perceived transgression ofhteir personal apce...It's out of control.
As for tort reform, you're damn skippy....And please spare me the "everybody hates lawyers until they need one"garbage.
I percieve lawsuits as a means to an end. That end is, to redistrubute another's wealth to oneself.
Often we hear plaintiffs state that the suit isn't about the money..Really?...Then why sue for money?...
Anyway, I didn't specifically mention tort reform. You did.
Classes rare? Please. In the last 12 months I have solicited three times via mail by attroneys looking for people to join a class..Each time I examined the material and all three times it hit the circular file. I am not going to give out all kinds of info about myself so I can wait 5 years for $1.55...Meanwhile the law firm pockets a third of a large settlement and the plaintiffs get bupkis..Nice work ..If you can get it..
now to the business at hand..Number one.It is the consumers resoponsibilty to research before making a purchase... So if Joe Consumer decided based on nothing but his enthusiasm over seeing a picture on his tv that would give him an "eye-gasm", then decides he isn't happy, he looks for somone to blame. He goes to the yellow pages and finds an attroney...Nice...
So we have different interpretations of what HD means...We also have differerent interpretations of the contract betwen D* and it's HD subs.

"claiming they agreed to costly equipment upgrades and extended contract terms based on D*'s representation that they would provide a certain level of service. Only after people agreed to those contracts did D* downgrade their HD signal. "

Looking at that statement, One may gather that the customer was somehow forced or coerced into upgrading their EQ.

If the plaintiffs win their suit be careful of the flying fur....The law of unintended consequences will be next....

In any event. I am just as frustrated as most people .It just seems that every 5 minutes somebody is suing for millions..Yes, that is a perception.
And I will continue to believe that in most cases pure greed drives the civil suit system...

 

[Jhon69]

Wow

NHLFan79, I really appreciate the detailed analysis. Nice work! Thanks.. and I for one hope the Plaintiffs win!

And when the plantiffs win,they go home turn on the TV and find channels missing because D* does not have the bandwith.Then the plantiffs can call their lawyer and start a new lawsuit.

 

[Spike]

And when the plantiffs win,they go home turn on the TV and find channels missing because D* does not have the bandwith.Then the plantiffs can call their lawyer and start a new lawsuit.

*yawn*

:

 

[harshness]

When D* advertises "all in 1080i", they would have to use 1920 (1920X1080) to comply with the HDTV standard. 1440X1080 does not meet the 16:9 requirement for HDTV. See page 9 of the ATSC DTV standards: http://www.atsc.org/standards/a_53-Part-1-2007.pdf

When the 1080i signal comes out of the HD receiver, it has been upscaled to 1920x1080i for display on a HDTV or HD monitor. What they do between receipt of the network feed and delivery of the signal to the TV is covered by A/81.

I understand that it is easy to be confused by the what D* calls "native" mode as all but 720p mode are scaled horizontally. It isn't really native, but it is perhaps just a little less interfered with.

 

[Smith P.]

Well - "allowed" doesn't means getting from HDNET or local stations 1920x1080i and cut it first, then compress.