FCC response to my email about HD "lite"

[Sharpie]

I wasn't sure where to place this thread, so Scott if it's in the wrong area I apologize.



I write you this email to call to your attention an oversight the commission has allowed to occur with regards to High Definition (HD) signals. I am a proud owner of a HDTV, receiving HD signals via OTA and through my satellite provider Directv. When I purchased all the correct equipment to view true HD, I was spending my money to see the "best" picture possible. Unfortunately this is not the case, since the FCC is allowing satellite companies to water down the HD signal. I believe true HD signals are at a resolution of 1920x1080i but you are allowing the signals to be sent out to consumers at a resolution of 1280x1080i. I find this unacceptable. I, along with hundreds of thousands have taken the steps needed to see the "best" (1920x1080i) picture only to be forced to view a "better" (1280x1080i) picture. Will there be an attempt in near future to discuss/correct this situation?

Thank you for your time.

and here is their response.....

Thank you for contacting the Federal Communications Commission.

You may petition the Commission to issue a rulemaking on this matter. Under Title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations, section 1.401 (47 CFR § 1.401), "Petitions for Rule Making", any interested person may petition for the issuance, amendment, or repeal of a rule or regulation.

47 CFR §§ 1.49, 1.52, and 1.419(b) provides conformance requirements for petitions for rulemaking and the method of submission, i.e., petitions are addressed to the Secretary, FCC, Washington, DC 20554, or may be submitted electronically.

47 CFR rules may be accessed from the link at: http://wireless.fcc.gov/rules.html.

Hope this proves helpful.

C. Howell
FCC/Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau
Information Access & Privacy Office
202-418-1569

 

[FlyingJ]

OK Sharpie, I am on board. Can you take the next step, whatever that is.. Maybe one day you will be praised in the HD world as the founder of the Sharpie HD rule!

 

[Sharpie]

I checked out their rules and regulations and now I have to decifer from that page what exactly to do.

 

[CPanther95]

You'd have better luck contacting the FTC regarding satellite/broadcasters selling "HD" that is not really HD by ATSC standards. The ATSC standards were referenced by everybody (D*, Networks, even government documents) when discussing HD up until recently. It should not be a problem using those standards to distinguish what can and cannot be labeled as "HD".

I'd love it to get to the point that a channel cannot even put an HD bug on the screen unless their entire distribution maintains HD quality. Or better yet, have a requirement that the MSO must put up their own graphic that states that "DirecTV has downgraded this signal and it is not being provided in HDTV" or "WBTV has downgraded....", etc.

 

[*mad_professor*]

How can we start a grass roots effort to change this? Satelliteguys.us has over 30K members. Let's pull together and try to change this.

 

[charper1]

I have to agree with CPanther, much better luck attacking this as a bait and switch sales tactic; not getting what I told I was paying for, as opposed to altering FCC rules.

 

[CPanther95]

The bigest problem with the FCC and the whole digital transition is they've been very careful not to actually include HD terminology in any of the requirements. They've actually spent more time discussing the use of multi-casting. The broadcasters have been very successful in avoiding any HD requirements, and at this point in the transition, they could rightfully balk at any attempt to inject HDTV into the process.

The FTC, OTOH, is charged more with the business relationship between corporations and consumers - and don't have to concern themselves with the "bigger picture" of insuring a smooth transition. They wouldn't be requiring anything except truth in advertising. The broadcasters, cable and DBS can supply whatever they want, they just can't call it HDTV unless it is HDTV.

 

[nmstough]

Getting the govenment to dictate what businesses should do is ridiculous. Why dont you give the market a chance to operate naturally? If people really want higher quality HD in sufficient numbers they are going to have to pay more for it. I think this was tried in the case of Voom and it failed - there were not enough subscribers. So apparently the market is not ready for higher HD yet. Maybe after the new HD DVDs come out with more resolution people will get inspired to demand greater but not for a while yet.

 

[CPanther95]

That has nothing to do with false advertising. Government mandating "truth" is not overly intrusive.

 

[jsb_hburg]

You'd have better luck contacting the FTC regarding satellite/broadcasters selling "HD" that is not really HD by ATSC standards. The ATSC standards were referenced by everybody (D*, Networks, even government documents) when discussing HD up until recently. It should not be a problem using those standards to distinguish what can and cannot be labeled as "HD".
I'd love it to get to the point that a channel cannot even put an HD bug on the screen unless their entire distribution maintains HD quality. Or better yet, have a requirement that the MSO must put up their own graphic that states that "DirecTV has downgraded this signal and it is not being provided in HDTV" or "WBTV has downgraded....", etc.

You can try your state Office of Attorney General. The state OAG should have a bureau of consumer protection that enforces laws against deceptive trade practices.

 

[korsjs]

very good letter sharpie. let us know what we can do to help.

 

[silversurfer]

I'm definitley on board! Let me know what needs to be done....

 

[slimoli]

I agree I guess The Attorney General would be very interested and this is an easy case to prosecute.

sergio

 

[lou_do]

Those going to CES need to stop by the D* booth and let them know their feelings about lite HD. The winner of the HD war will be the provider that comes out with the ad that states, "We are 100% HD, not the watered down version you get from our competitors."

 

[Inspect'rGadget]

The definition of HD seems to be somewhat slippery. Being as several of the networks have chosen to broadcast thier "HD" in 720p, it could be argued that 720p is the mimimum resolution to be called High Definition.

It seems like the legal lusers over at D* have covered pretty well.
I hope that as the new birds go up and come online D* will ease up, but I think that trying to sue them into it is sorta overkill.

 

[pradike]

The definition of HD seems to be somewhat slippery. Being as several of the networks have chosen to broadcast thier "HD" in 720p, it could be argued that 720p is the mimimum resolution to be called High Definition.
It seems like the legal lusers over at D* have covered pretty well.
I hope that as the new birds go up and come online D* will ease up, but I think that trying to sue them into it is sorta overkill.

The whole HD lite issue is lame, in that the CEA and other groups, as well as the FCC has defined HD as 720p OR 1080i. Once the MPEG4 installs are fine tuned and widespread, this bogus term (HD lite) will go away once and for all. No leg to stand on here.

 

[drbill28]

Yeah CP is definitely right. Technically all signals you receive over satellite meet the FCC's DTV requirements. So, I think the truth in advertising is the way to go.

 

[CPanther95]

The whole HD lite issue is lame, in that the CEA and other groups, as well as the FCC has defined HD as 720p OR 1080i. Once the MPEG4 installs are fine tuned and widespread, this bogus term (HD lite) will go away once and for all. No leg to stand on here.

1280 x 720p and 1920 x 1080i

The FCC, ATSC, etc. have never specified 1280 x 1080i as a legitimate HDTV format.

 

[dragon002]

i have to agree with the panther here, the FCC has never mandated a switch to HD, only to digital transmission.

and nmstough is correct also, let the market place dictate, not the feds.

there are local affiliates here in my area that are switching to digital , but not to hd, are you going to force a standard on them also?

just some thoughts

 

[Jamey K]

I'm definitley on board! Let me know what needs to be done....

Count me in!