HD-Lite Class Action

[Ilya]

I ask P.Smith, the cable choice guy, Ilya, Voyager6, Bombadil, et.al. this again:
If Dish and DirectTv we both to give you full rates and rezzes right now, will they have enough bandwith? Will they have to remove some channels?

Since you mentioned my name, here is my opinion on this. Feel free to disagree.
I don't know if Dish Network has enough bandwidth, but personally, I wouldn't mind them cutting, say, one third of the HD channel, if that would result in full-bandwidth on remaining HD channels. Even if I had to sacrifice some of my most favorite channels for that, I would accept that!
And I am not alone, we had numerous polls on this: a huge number of forum members are ready to sacrifice even some of the most popular channels in order to improve the picture quality on the remaining HD channels.

Would they lose business to Cable because of this?

I don't think so! By doing that, Dish Network would establish themselves as the HD leader, not just in quantity of HD channels, but in superb picture quality.
Even if they lose some customers because of the dropped channels, they would attract new customers who care about picture quality.

It's time for Dish Network to realize that quantity of channels is not the top priority when it comes to HD. The picture quality is the main reason we, customers, are spending thousands of dollars on HD in the first place!

 

[wtb955]

All these HD-Lite complainers that post in every thread and bash DISH at every turn won't even leave. There will never be a mass exodus of HD purist.
That is why it is so hard to take these guys serious when they don't walk the walk.
Although I would love to see what this forum would look like without the DISH bashers and just enthusiast helping DISH fine tune their product.

As has been stated many times before, Dish is the ONLY game in town at present. Where would you have us go? Moreover, how would you help Dish "Fine Tune" their water-down HD offerings?

 

[dslate69]

... Even if they lose some customers because of the dropped channels, they would attract new customers who care about picture quality.

It's time for Dish Network to realize that quantity of channels is not the top priority when it comes to HD. The picture quality is the main reason we, customers, are spending thousands of dollars on HD in the first place!

Obviously you are not the norm. The ones of us that are a lot more informed on HD and read these forums and express our opinions are no where close to a significant percent of DISH's over all customer base. There is a huge % of people getting HDTVs for the first time and want to go with a provider that offers the most HD channels. Since they have not really experienced HD and are moving from SD, DISH is a great upgrade in quality and quantity.
Your view is wishful thinking that some how a large % of subs are out spoken purist, maybe a large % of forum members but not DISH subs. And if you were right that TOP Quality would attract a higher % than more quantity, then you would see a mass exodus since DISH is going with a different strategy.

 

[dslate69]

As has been stated many times before, Dish is the ONLY game in town at present. Where would you have us go? Moreover, how would you help Dish "Fine Tune" their water-down HD offerings?

How is DISH the only game in town? Because of their quantity? You guys want to change that, if they had the same minimal offering as cable would they still be the only game in town?
Look, I don't want you guys to go any where. I want DISH to have more subs than any provider. But since some are so unhappy with DISHs PQ, leave go to cable, go to FIOS, go to DirecTv, get an OTA; I don't care just stop complaining ALL THE TIME. I am sorry if you live in the middle of the dessert and DISH is your ONLY choice. I wish I could afford a nicer car but life has certain restrictions and either you are a miserable person and complain all the time knowing it is not doing you or the people you complain to any good or you roll with the punches; change the things you can change and move on.

I tell you how to let DISH know what your request are in post #131

 

[foghorn2]

Exactly right, Dish would not be the HD leader if it weren't for the number of available channels.

Studies show that most new HD owners don't even have their equipment hooked up right for HD! They would never know the difference. A majority of Americans are not us.

Where would those channels that Ilya mentioned go? Who would decide which channels would go? Satellite has to differentiate itself from cable, otherwise it would perish. Doing exactly what cable co's and what the bashers want would be the demise of Dish Network.

 

[Ilya]

Obviously you are not the norm. The ones of us that are a lot more informed on HD and read these forums and express our opinions are no where close to a significant percent of DISH's over all customer base.

Perhaps. It would be interesting to calculate the actual percentage though.
Let's see: We have more than a hundred thousand of regular visitors in this forum. And according to the site demographics, about one half of them are Dish subs. About 75% of our forum members have HDTV. So, I figure, about 30-40 thousand of Dish HD subscribers visit this forum. How many HD subs does Dish have?

There is a huge % of people getting HDTVs for the first time and want to go with a provider that offers the most HD channels.

Even if they dropped 1/3 of HD channels (which I don't believe they have to do to improve the PQ), Dish would still have more HD channels than the next competitor (in my neighborhood anyway). So, Dish could remain the leader in HD channel quantity, without sacrificing the quality, if they wanted to.

And if you were right that TOP Quality would attract a higher % than more quantity, then you would see a mass exodus since DISH is going with a different strategy.

The problem is that there is currently no better alternative. Should a better alternative emerge (FiOS are you listening? ), you will see the mass exodus of HD enthusiasts.

 

[dslate69]

I tell you the one thing that continues to p!$$ me off is UFC PPVs not being in HD. I guess like HD-Lite until someones bottom-line is effected expect more of the same.

 

[Petrovich]

Let me say this.
To me, HD-Lite is bad not because it is sub-quality. It is bad because it's being sold as True HD and I'm paying for it as for True HD.
Some people are very happy wasting their money on something they are not getting. I am not.

 

[Ilya]

Off-topic posts deleted.

 

[keenan]

DirecTV lawsuit document attached below.

 

[Dirtydan]

DirecTV lawsuit document attached below.

Do you know if they have or are going to file that suit?

 

[keenan]

Do you know if they have or are going to file that suit?

I believe it was filed back in Nov '04.

 

[Dirtydan]

I believe it was filed back in Nov '04.

Ok, the reason I asked was that the pdf doc. was just a "Proposed" suit. Any up to date info on how the suit is proceeding?

 

[keenan]

The very first post in this thread has the latest info on it. As a result of the action reported in the first post, the actual meat and potatoes of the suit can now move forward and one of the attorneys involved has said that it will probably be another 18 mos to 2 years before there is anything substantial happening.

 

[riffjim4069]

Just a little reminder...

...1440x1080i nor 1280x1080i are a HDTV standard. If you subscribe to DishHD, then you are paying, at minimum, 25% to 33% too much for each HD-Lite channel in the lineup. That's akin to ordering a breakfast sandwich value meal at the local McDonalds, and having the cashier to take a bite out of your sandwich and a sizeable gulp from your morning coffee.:

Source​

Simple solution: give us HD, or don't advertise and sell it as HD. ~ELSE~ I forsee yet another legal challenge for EchoStar (not good based on their recent courtroom setbacks).

 

[Sean Mota]

Experts Debate 'HD Lite' Lawsuit
No Consensus on What Constitutes Hi-Def

Last week the online HD community was abuzz about a class-action lawsuit filed against DirecTV by California attorney Philip Cohen, alleging poor picture quality. The 2-year-old suit claims DirecTV's HD channel bandwidth has become so crunched, it no longer meets the commonly accepted definition of the term "HD" and the company is therefore defrauding subscribers.

The case was brought to the light two weeks ago when TVpredictions.com broke the story that a Los Angeles Superior Court judge ruled against DirecTV's motion to force arbitration. The suit has raised questions among the HD community: What really is HD? And when paying a premium for a picture quality, should operators have to meet a certain resolution standard?

Bert Deixler, a litigation attorney in Los Angeles who read the lawsuit's original complaint, gave a mixed assessment of the case.

"If you assume the facts are true, the statute under which he has brought his claim could conceivably give rise to a lawsuit because the standards applied to those claims are very loose," he said. "In the theoretical sense, if you're promised one thing and something else is delivered, and you're within the broad definition of a 'consumer,' you can bring these kinds of lawsuits."

Mr. Deixler thinks it's not clear what Mr. Cohen was promised.

"It appears to be a bit of a linguistic battle," Mr. Deixler said. "And there's the question of whether these are the type of lawsuits that lawyers should be pursing, or plaintiffs should be bringing."

The plaintiff is represented by Tom Ferlauto, partner at King & Ferlauto, who contends that no matter which standards are used, DirecTV is failing to provide what it promises.

"DirecTV is still advertising HD as providing 10-times resolution and clarity, and what they're doing to the resolution makes that figure impossible," he said. "It all comes down to customers' expectations and whether they're being fulfilled. They see '1080i' [advertised] and they understand it's 1920 x 1080i."

Mr. Cohen claimed DirecTV lowered the resolution of its HD signal from the Advance Television Systems Committee standard of 1920 x 1080i lines of resolution to 1280 x 1080i, a 33 percent drop. Furthermore, he claims the amount of bandwidth used per stream was lowered from the standard 19.4 mbps to as low as 6.6 mbps. Lines of resolution and bandwidth both affect image quality.

DirecTV has denied Mr. Cohen's claims.

"We are disappointed with [the judge's] decision because the plaintiff … knew about his arbitration agreement [in his contract]," a DirecTV spokesman said. "In addition, we believe the plaintiff's underlying claims are completely without merit because DirecTV's high definition service is high-quality, true HD service under accepted definitions for satellite TV. If it were otherwise, we doubt the plaintiff would continue to subscribe to and pay for DirecTV's HD programming. DirecTV believes alternative dispute resolution is an effective means for controlling costs to all its customers, especially costs and legal fees associated with meritless claims."

Though DirecTV was disappointed with the judge's decision and DirecTV critics were thrilled, Mr. Deixler downplayed the significance of the ruling, noting that arbitration agreements in customer contracts have become a paper tiger.

"[Arbitration agreements] are getting harder to enforce in a consumer context in California. It's no surprise the arbitration request was denied," he said.

But Mr. Deixler also noted that class-action lawsuits have an uphill battle in California courts. He predicted Mr. Cohen's case would not go to trial.

"It would be stunning to see a class-action case go to court in L.A. There's a greater chance of the Jets winning the Super Bowl," he said.

The next step in the case is for DirecTV to decide whether it wishes to appeal the recent ruling to the California Supreme Court. Though experts expressed doubt the court would hear the case, Mr. Ferlauto said he would not be surprised if DirecTV made the attempt.

"This was filed in 2004 and hasn't taken the first baby steps toward trial because of the appeal [DirecTV] filed," he said. "So if delay is their tactic, I expect they'll take whatever steps available to delay this as long as possible."

Greg Moyer, general manager of Voom HD Networks, which runs on DirecTV competitor EchoStar, said programmers want their channels to appear in as high of resolution as possible, yet have little control over a distributor's bandwidth allocation.

"I like a high enough pixel count so that the HD experience is genuine … [but] this is a challenging time and I think we have to be patient," he said. "If the consumer wants the higher resolution, they will deliver and the marketplace will ultimately speak to the importance of this."

A key issue for operators, Mr. Moyer pointed out, is the relative scarcity of sets capable of displaying full HD resolution.

"My understanding is that until there were 1080p monitors, there were hardly any commercially available television sets that could resolve anything more than like 1330 x 720," he said. "So it's hard to argue why they should have been delivering a television picture better than any set could show. … Arguably, there's a perceptible difference, but it will be minor. [Cable and satellite providers] wonder: 'Why should I burn that bandwidth prematurely? I would rather give them diversity of channels than overdeliver on clarity that 98 percent of homes can't even display.' That's the actual debate going on."

Bruce Leichtman, president of Leichtman Research Group and an expert on HDTV, said the issue struck him as frivolous.

"I guess I'd have to ask where in print it says that a consumer will actually receive [1920 x 1080i at 19.4 mbps]," he said. "That doesn't sound like something you'd ever say to a consumer. If they did, I'm shocked. And should we also take a class-action lawsuit when Fox say it's the world's best HD format, when we know it's nowhere near the quality of ESPN?"

Mr. Cohen's lawyers declined to discuss what evidence they have, but said they have something that they feel shows DirecTV made specific promises.

DirecTV maintains the company provides full hi-def.

 

[SRW1000]

Experts Debate 'HD Lite' Lawsuit
No Consensus on What Constitutes Hi-Def

...Greg Moyer, general manager of Voom HD Networks, which runs on DirecTV competitor EchoStar, said programmers want their channels to appear in as high of resolution as possible, yet have little control over a distributor's bandwidth allocation.

"I like a high enough pixel count so that the HD experience is genuine … [but] this is a challenging time and I think we have to be patient," he said. "If the consumer wants the higher resolution, they will deliver and the marketplace will ultimately speak to the importance of this...."

So, does anyone really know what Voom's actual position is on HD? Are they indeed limited as to what they can send Dish, or are they sending lower-resolution programming to Dish at Dish's request, or is Dish down-converting their programming once they get if from Voom?

Scott

 

[SRW1000]

Experts Debate 'HD Lite' Lawsuit
No Consensus on What Constitutes Hi-Def

Bruce Leichtman, president of Leichtman Research Group and an expert on HDTV, said the issue struck him as frivolous.

"I guess I'd have to ask where in print it says that a consumer will actually receive [1920 x 1080i at 19.4 mbps]," he said. "That doesn't sound like something you'd ever say to a consumer. If they did, I'm shocked. And should we also take a class-action lawsuit when Fox say it's the world's best HD format, when we know it's nowhere near the quality of ESPN?"

I don't know if DirecTV ever promised that all their programming would be delivered at 19.34 mbps, but I'm pretty sure that there are enough examples of 1920x1080i out there to cause them trouble. I'm surprised an "HD expert" wouldn't have some passing knowledge of that.

Scott

 

[SRW1000]

Experts Debate 'HD Lite' Lawsuit
No Consensus on What Constitutes Hi-Def

DirecTV maintains the company provides full hi-def.

I would love to see someone ask DirecTV what the definition of HD actually is. Would we get anything other than "a picture that looks up to 10 times clearer than standard definition?"

Why can't one of these reporters simply ask them for some specifics? And then ask them why they decided to diverge from the ATSC HD standard that they once seemed to embrace? And if they admit diverging from that standard, what HD standard are they following?

Scott

 

[gdarwin]

From D*'s glossary page:
http://directv.com/DTVAPP/global/contentPage.jsp?assetId=P1700034

Compression: The reduction of the size of digital data files by removing redundant and/or non-critical information.