In that D* claimed (and continues to claim) to have the best HD PQ, there is an implication that it couldn't get much better. HOGWASH! The plaintiff's beef is not only that the HD PQ isn't the best, but further that it isn't as good as it used to be.
DIRECTV Getting Sued over HD Lite
- Thread starter Poke
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 185
- Views 29K
- Status
I have actually read the complaint and understand some of the evidence. I'm thinking that the Plaintiffs have a solid case. The courts, or a settlement, will tell us, not silly people here who are completely bereft of legal knowledge, or any understanding of what it means to claim to deliver a broadcast transmission defined by an easily understood definition which is 'custom and practice in the industry."
I'm not really FOR or AGAINST either side. I'm just saying that it will be hard to get a parade of expert witnesses to define "high deifinition" or "1080i" as 1260x1080 interlaced delivered at a compressed bit rate.
When I read about the subject, I am led to believe that high definition is not what DirecTV broadcasts, yet they tell me they do, and they tell me it's the best picture. As someone who daily watches 1920x1080 or 720p over the air or on FIOS, I can tell you that none of D*s claims would go over well in this house. Maybe there are members of a jury or a judge who would agree.
Trying to predict the outcome of a consumer lawsuit (unless it's million dollar pants at a drycleaners) is a fool's errand. In general, it's apparent to me that the more adamant the post is in this thread, the more ignorant the poster is about how consumer lawsuits work.
I'm not really FOR or AGAINST either side. I'm just saying that it will be hard to get a parade of expert witnesses to define "high deifinition" or "1080i" as 1260x1080 interlaced delivered at a compressed bit rate.
When I read about the subject, I am led to believe that high definition is not what DirecTV broadcasts, yet they tell me they do, and they tell me it's the best picture. As someone who daily watches 1920x1080 or 720p over the air or on FIOS, I can tell you that none of D*s claims would go over well in this house. Maybe there are members of a jury or a judge who would agree.
Trying to predict the outcome of a consumer lawsuit (unless it's million dollar pants at a drycleaners) is a fool's errand. In general, it's apparent to me that the more adamant the post is in this thread, the more ignorant the poster is about how consumer lawsuits work.
And that's the penutlimate issue. The bandwidth isn't there..Now what happens then?..Does D* get hammered with a vedict that demands they pay all their subs for the hd receivers and labor?..Gee why not extend that to their televsion purchases?.....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.
Tell ya what..When I see an HD pic on D* or E* I am impressed. What's the big deal?
I think courrt dockets are clogged up enough.
Think the big deal is that customers want HD and they wanted it yesterday.But if D* loses this I can see a lawsuit for E* and C* in their future.
I agree! Lawyers are the ones who make out great with these kind of lawsuits.With any class action suit.Someone tell me how much money has anyone made from a class action suit?? Lawyers made MILLIONS"s average joe NOTHING.
Some of you people are really amazing. Yes, I'm a lawyer, but no, I'm not making my living in the civil justice field. If the plaintiffs in this suit win and D* is hit with a money verdict, D* only has itself to blame. You shouldn't feel sorry for the megacorporation. They could give two [hoots] about you.
But to answer dishcomm's comments, no, noone "forced" anyone to upgrade to the HD service, but that's not the issue, and you know it. In fact, the plaintiffs have said repeatedly that they would gladly give back the HD equipment and go back to the status quo. The problem here is that D* won't let them get out of their contract extension without penalty. And that's one of the main reasons the suit was filed.
If a company holds out that it will provide a specific, quantifiable level of HD service, induces people to sign up for that service, then unilaterally downgrades from that promised level, there's a legitimate legal claim there. The plaintiffs in this case are NOT claiming that they signed up for HD service and are subjectively unhappy with the picture they're receiving. They're saying that they're not getting a promised level of service. Somewhat subtle, but huge, difference.
As for the rest of your comments about civil justice in general (when you talk about money grabs, overloaded courts, abusive lawyering, etc., of course you're talking about "tort reform"; what else could you possibly be referring to?), I'll just let it lie that you're entitled to your uninformed opinion. I would suggest, however, that you actually do some research and go learn what percentage of the court systems' docket is made up of tort cases. I think you'll be very surprised to learn that the OVERWHELMING majority of cases filed are criminal, mainly drug prosecutions. THAT'S why our courts are clogged, not money-hungry plaintiff's lawyers.
I have no ties whatsoever to this firm (it was just my first hit on google), but they've posted an article that compiles a very interesting set of statistics of the current state of our legal system. You should check it out. Tort Reform
But to answer dishcomm's comments, no, noone "forced" anyone to upgrade to the HD service, but that's not the issue, and you know it. In fact, the plaintiffs have said repeatedly that they would gladly give back the HD equipment and go back to the status quo. The problem here is that D* won't let them get out of their contract extension without penalty. And that's one of the main reasons the suit was filed.
If a company holds out that it will provide a specific, quantifiable level of HD service, induces people to sign up for that service, then unilaterally downgrades from that promised level, there's a legitimate legal claim there. The plaintiffs in this case are NOT claiming that they signed up for HD service and are subjectively unhappy with the picture they're receiving. They're saying that they're not getting a promised level of service. Somewhat subtle, but huge, difference.
As for the rest of your comments about civil justice in general (when you talk about money grabs, overloaded courts, abusive lawyering, etc., of course you're talking about "tort reform"; what else could you possibly be referring to?), I'll just let it lie that you're entitled to your uninformed opinion. I would suggest, however, that you actually do some research and go learn what percentage of the court systems' docket is made up of tort cases. I think you'll be very surprised to learn that the OVERWHELMING majority of cases filed are criminal, mainly drug prosecutions. THAT'S why our courts are clogged, not money-hungry plaintiff's lawyers.
I have no ties whatsoever to this firm (it was just my first hit on google), but they've posted an article that compiles a very interesting set of statistics of the current state of our legal system. You should check it out. Tort Reform
NHLFan, thank you for posting all that great information - it is very much appreciated! While some people may disagree, this case is indeed about D* failing to provide a contracted level of service...and then failing to make the customer whole by providing them with an acceptable remedy.
To clarify any of the confusion about what the plaintiffs are actually claiming in this suit, here's an excerpt from the complaint, posted over at avsforum.com
DIRECTV Sued Over HDTV Picture Quality - AVS Forum
DIRECTV Sued Over HDTV Picture Quality - AVS Forum
It was me that posted that, and in fact, I'm also a member of the class. I would like to thank you as well for your calm and knowledgeable remarks regarding the lawsuit as it seems many here are completely missing the point. It isn't about money, it's about getting the service that was advertised and agreed to contractually, ultimately to get a return to the unmolested signals that I would think everyone here would want.
All the providers out there that are offering "HDTV" service could be affected by this case. For a service to be "HDTV", it must adhere to the 16:9 format as described by the ATSC. Those offering a non-standard format (1440X1080 or 1220X1080, etc.) may have to change their advertising and descriptions to EDTV if this case is won by the plaintiffs. Of course, they could start offering the true HDTV but I think that most won't. As this case goes through the system, look for rebranding of the "HDTV" service to other names such as DishHD, perhaps DirectHD, etc. I don't think any of them will adopt the HD-lite name.
Very possible, but again, this suit is about DirecTV only. DirecTV advertised "X", contracted, sold/leased equipment and programing based on "X". Some 6 months later they changed "X" to "X-1". Not a lot unlike buying an 8 cylinder car and 6 months later it reverts to running on 6 cylinders, on purpose, by the manufacturer.
I agree whole heartedly that lawyers are the only ones who make any money on a class action suit, if they win. If they lose, they're potentially out a lot of money. While I agree the class action process is often abused, it has it's uses. "Joe" on the street usually doesn't have the financial resources to take on someone like D*, so how else do you handle it?
AND - I'm all for tort reform. Just think that if we did something so simple as what the Brit's do - You sue, You lose, You pay the other parties legal costs - How much junk would that get out of our courts?
If you really think I believe for one second that the lawyers lose a case it come's out of their pockets,Your CRAZY !!! That has to be one of the most false statements I've ever heard in my life!! There is no way ANY lawyer is going to do any case for free!
Give me an example of how the Lawyers are helping with this case right now! Also give me a statement of the amount of money the lawyers have made on this case right now. Thats how they make their money,Draw the case out as long as you can to make as much as you can.Thats why Class Action suits are giving a bad name.Because of the lawyers,Not the people with rights.
Well most class action suits are done by large legal corporations who make their money by specializing in class action suits. Of course they draw out a case as long as they can, because if they win, the more money in fees they collect. But if they lose, who do you think pays the cost? Not the consumers involved in the class action, they eat it out of the profits from their other cases. Of course, they also select cases they think they have a good chance of winning.
"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!
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.
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.
I can't speak about class action suits in general, but I can speak about this one in particular. The named plaintiff, acting on behalf of himself, similarly situated consumers, and the general public(the Class), is himself an attorney who happens to have DirecTV. The actual attorney who filed the suit is his good friend. Neither of these people have made any money off this, and what ever "billable" hours that are produced will be paid by DirecTV, if the case is won.
So, your perception that there is a team of attorneys racking up hundreds of hours of billing regarding this suit is a fantasy, these guys are doing this on their own time and of their own accord and included members of the class. There hasn't been, and never will be, any money out of the Class member's pockets regarding this. About the only inconvenience that may occur is that a member of the class my be called to give a deposition, or even testify, but the likelihood of that happening is very slim to none.
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".
Well put, as I noted in an above posting, these attorneys are DirecTV subs themselves, this suit is not dissimilar to a chef making himself dinner as opposed to making it for his patrons at a restaurant.
- Status
