I could have missed it, but when did D* or E* for that matter, ever advertise or state that their HD resolution would be 1920x1080 or has anyone seen where they have actually stated what resolution they will transmit their sign in?
DIRECTV Getting Sued over HD Lite
- Thread starter Poke
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 185
- Views 29K
- Status
I could have missed it, but when did D* or E* for that matter, ever advertise or state that their HD resolution would be 1920x1080 or has anyone seen where they have actually stated what resolution they will transmit their sign in?
the common term used for new legislation regarding lawsuits, awards, merit of suits and punitive damages is "tort reform"...
Am assertion.....I see no promise to broadcast in full resolution anywhere in DTV's advertisements...There isn't any mention of resolution at all......DTV uses words such as "clearer" "better qaulity picture", etc....But no mention of resolution...
You opinion is DTV wpould be toast under the pretenses you mentioned..How?..show me or the thread where DTV is deceiving their customers...Is there a provision whether stated or implied that makes the claim all HD signals woul dbe broadcast in full resolution?...If not, the suit hasn't go t a chance.....
However, juries are strange bodies...It would not surprise me in the least if this suit goes to a jury, DTV gets bombed...Why? People hate corporations..They especially hate big companies with lots of money...It's jealousy combined with class envy.....
No leagl training...Hey ,anyone can look this stuff up and learn it...The problem is that once attorneys get involved ,things tend to get complicated...
I read these and they are nothing more than definitions or descriptions of what HD is or should be, none of the links say what HD resolutions that D* & E* offers to their customers.
My point is someone, preferably the FCC, needs to tell the providers, "You can call your signal HD if the resolution is XXXX x XXXX or higher and your bitrate is greater than XXX". We see all kinds of what it should be, but need a binding legal description of what can be classified HD.
Logically, this is how it matters:
1) The video I linked to (copyright by DirecTV) defines HD as either 1080x1920i or 720x1280p.
2) DirecTV labels their HD programming HD.
3) Therefore, they should be transmitting HD programming at either 1080x1920i or 720x1280p.
If they accept and endorse the ATSC HD definitions for HD, which the video shows they do, then they should also be bound to following that definition.
The consumers shouldn't have to try and figure out if they are sticking to those definitions, especially if the providers are not being straightforward in telling them what they're actually getting.
Scott
Your video feed carries D* copyright, but nowhere does it state what D* is contractually-obligated to provide its customers. It's describing conventional terminology in layman's terms, and nothing else. It is NOT a a service-level-agreement.
Your argument is the same as complaining that your residential ISP sells you a 10 Mbps cable feed, but that you seldom exceed 9.2 Mbps; the ISP does not guarantee residential bandwidth via SLA.
The lack of SLA means you haven't got an argument that a court will hear.
That might be a valid argument.... IF the tv makers also stuck to the ATSC definition for HD. The fact of the matter is that 90% of HDTV units do not comply with the ATSC specs. There are a ton of HDTV's whose native resolution is limited to 1280x1024.
You can rationalize all you want. Rationalizing doesn't work in court. You need something more concrete. Right now 90% of D* HD subscribers are using monitors that are unable to present the lack of resolution; and the other 10% have no evidence of a contract obligating D* to provide anything more.
Furthermore, any legitimate ruling would have to address use of the terms HD and HDTV not only by broadcasters, cable, and satellite operators; it has to also apply to the TV/monitor makers. If it doesn't meet the standard definition, they shouldn't be permitted to use the term.
And therein lies the big problem: no court can penalize D* unless it's willing to penalize every noncompliant sat or cable operator; and every noncompliant display maker. Sony, Panasonic, Toshiba etc will not allow that to happen.
Last edited:
Sorry, not a lawyer here, so to any members who are, please correct me if I'm mistaken.
In the case of an ISP, the wording is something to the effect of "up to 10Mbps, actual download speeds may vary depending on network conditions..."
My point was that by referencing those specific definitions in their advertising and literature, they have an obligation to meet those requirements in absence of any other claims. Under your argument, they could reduce HD content to any resolution, and still claim it's HD.
I don't think we know what percentage of HD sets in use can be classified as HD. In your example, as long as a 1280x1024 monitor can fully produce a 1280x720p image, it is clearly HD.
Besides, I see that as being a separate issue. I don't think companies can get out of obligations just by pointing the finger and saying that some other guys are doing the same thing.
As far as customer impact goes, I don't think that matters either. Suppose a juice manufacturer claimed 12% fruit juice content, but only provided 8%. I'd bet that 90% of all consumers couldn't tell the difference, but that wouldn't let them off the hook for claiming one thing, but delivering another.
The court case in question would only cover DirecTV, although it would certainly open up all kinds of cases based on the decision.
I don't know if the other parties would have an opportunity to join party with DirecTV on the suit, or if they would necessarily want to. They may be better off fighting on their own, or banding together as a unified manufacturing group.
Any lawyers want to comment on these issues?
Scott
I'm not sure how much of a precedent the lawsuit against D* would be. As I understand it, the plaintiff cited among other things statements in receiver user manuals that state that HD is 1920x1080. I know my old HTL-HD manual has that information in it. The core of this case is that D* promised something specific, then allegedly failed to deliver.
Want some cheese for that whine?
HDLite is a bogus term made up by some purists who apparently have nothing better to do than cry about things....a bogus term and a bogus issue. Many of these same folks are the ones who post about wanting free TV, free equipment, free everything.
HD is either a 720p and 1080i transmission....period. There is no other legal definition. DirecTV, Dish, and most cable companies all use some for of compressed 720p and/or 1080i. Technical specifications are also not static...they change over time....In this day and age, lawyers clearly will take on any stupid lawsuit.
This lawsuit is in the same catagory as the McDonalds hot coffee one - frivolous and without merit. It will never be won. Get over it.
HDLite is a bogus term made up by some purists who apparently have nothing better to do than cry about things....a bogus term and a bogus issue. Many of these same folks are the ones who post about wanting free TV, free equipment, free everything.
HD is either a 720p and 1080i transmission....period. There is no other legal definition. DirecTV, Dish, and most cable companies all use some for of compressed 720p and/or 1080i. Technical specifications are also not static...they change over time....In this day and age, lawyers clearly will take on any stupid lawsuit.
This lawsuit is in the same catagory as the McDonalds hot coffee one - frivolous and without merit. It will never be won. Get over it.
I have now seen Jessica Simpson's commercial about broadcasting in 1080i every day for about 2 weeks now
And their HD PPV, HBO and SHO are all 1080i correct? So whats your issue?
Last edited:
That's all well and good.However, neither satellite provider makes any promise, guarantee or warranty that the provider would transmit such a signal to it's subs..
With current techonolgy combined with limited satellite space(techies please get in here and comment) broadcasting in full resolution is not in the cards..
WTF, this is absurd, I believe this to be some sort of left wing looney conspiracy theory. If the service is that bad cancel your frickin service and move on. HD LITE refers to their few channels.
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.
Mickey D's appealed that down to what turned out to be about 3.5 seconds worth of profit on a slow day..$480,000 to be exact..the lawyers got 40%
That proves my point that almost any idiot can file any stupid lawsuit about any moronic unfounded claim and have at least a 50% chance of winning - shows just how stupid the legal system is in this country (and I didn't even mention the whole O.J. thing....).
FIOS transmits 1920x1080 interlaced-they're about your only 'full res' option. They have the bandwidth, but they also have mucho crappy boxes and DVRs, and they are not available to many.
Sometimes I can tell the picture is a little softer on only one TV we have-it's our biggest and best 1080p SXRD 70" Sony. The other TVs are pretty much o.k. with it. Overall, the compression is not obvious to me, so I'll take a bunch of extra channels over the uncompressed transmission if we can get them. Let that darn D10 fly!!!
Sometimes I can tell the picture is a little softer on only one TV we have-it's our biggest and best 1080p SXRD 70" Sony. The other TVs are pretty much o.k. with it. Overall, the compression is not obvious to me, so I'll take a bunch of extra channels over the uncompressed transmission if we can get them. Let that darn D10 fly!!!
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.
- Status
