HD-Lite Class Action

[riffjim4069]

Ugh!!!!!!!!

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.

If you truly want your channels to appear in as high of resolution as possible, then why don't you repair or replace your "broken" fiber uplink to EchoStar, which has been broken since October 2005.

"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."

Sorry Chumley, but I think we'll let the ATSC HDTV "standard" define what qualifies as HD; not you, and not Satmeister. Mr. Moyer, I'm surprised you weren't aware the ATSC standard was incorporated into the FCC's DTV order. Perhaps this lawsuit will once again remind you and your minions of the terms fraud and business ethics.

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."

And this guys runs a High Definition Network? Holy Crap! Mr. Moyer's understanding of this issue is completely wrong! No wonder there is so much confusion and so many confused people running around these threads. But I suppose he is paid to think his company's 15 channels of VOOM HD-Lite bliss is the cat's meow.

Even more amazing is how I was inundated with wall-to-wall 1920x1080p HDTV's on display this weekend at Tweeters, The Big Screen Store, and even Circuit City and Best Buy. Apparently, Mr. Moyer must be shopping for this televisions at The Goodwill Store. I was partial to the Sony KDS-R60XBR1, but I'm now taking a closer look at the Mitsubishi WD-57732...but I digress. Anyway, I just did a quick search and found 61, yes sixty-one, 1920x1080p HDTV models currently being offered by 8 manufacturers. Mr. Moyer's comments are seriously flawed...just like the picture quality of VOOM HD-Lite, and I won't even go into D*'s shameful enhanced TV.

Plus, I can spot HD-Lite (1280x1080i) a mile away on my four year old Mits CRT - it's as plain as the nose on Pinocchio's, or Mr. Moyer's, face. For someone who touts VOOM's superior picture quality, he sure doesn't think much of his HD subscribers with his muchroom-like tactics: you know, keep 'em in the dark and keep feeding them BS.

Mr. Moyer, please remove head from arse...oh, and say hello to the rest of your HD-Lite Apologists while you're up there because we're not buying the crap you're selling.

Why is when there were no "so-call" HDTV's that could fully resolve a 1920x1080i broadcast stream, Dish Network was sending all their HD channels at 1920x1080i? And how come now that everyone makes 1080p HDTVs do we all of a sudden see Dish Network drop down to 1440x1080i and 1280x1080i? It makes no sense. Can someone at VOOM or Dish Network answer this question?

 

[SRW1000]

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.

Also from that page:

HDTV: Acronym for "high-definition television." HDTV provides significantly improved picture quality with more visible detail than standard-definition television. Typically broadcasts in a wide-screen format (16:9 aspect ratio) and may be accompanied by digital surround-sound capability.

I guess that means that my DVD collection is HD, since it is significantly improved over any DirecTV SD broadcast.

Really, such definitions are completely void of meaning.

Scott

 

[dslate69]

I guess that means that my DVD collection is HD, since it is significantly improved over any DirecTV SD broadcast.

Really, such definitions are completely void of meaning.

Why even hold on to your DVD collection?
No one in this thread could ever suffer through a movie LESS than HD-Lite quality.

 

[foghorn2]

Why even hold on to your DVD collection?
No one in this thread could ever suffer through a movie LESS than HD-Lite quality.

Not to mention all of those "HD" shows not captured or converted max HD that are shown on Cable or local OTA.

Lets get the action rolling against them too, including the cameraman.

 

[SRW1000]

Why even hold on to your DVD collection?
No one in this thread could ever suffer through a movie LESS than HD-Lite quality.

Why? Because as of today, DVD still offers the best image quality available for 99.9% of all content.

I'd imagine that most of that collection will slowly fade away as HD DVD/BD actually become available.

Until then I'll watch my DVDs, since it's the only option.

Again, the issue of this thread, and the lawsuit, isn't to make everything HD (which would be nice, but impractical). It's simply to get providers to either provide HD or stop billing their offerings as HD.

Scott

 

[dslate69]

Why? Because as of today, DVD still offers the best image quality available for 99.9% of all content.

But the argument has been made a thousand times that quantity doesn't matter.
It's quality, so you should be happy with the movies on the better quality HD-Lite channels or the 2 or 3 HD DVDs instead of multitudes more lesser quality DVDs.
Does quantity now matter?

Again, the issue of this thread, and the lawsuit, isn't to make everything HD (which would be nice, but impractical). It's simply to get providers to either provide HD or stop billing their offerings as HD.

There is no set price difference between a True-HD channel compared to an HD-Lite channel. So what difference does it make if they charge you the same price they are charging you now and call it something different. This is a weak argument if you would stay with DISH no matter what they called their HD channels at the same price.

If this is nothing more than a stand for truth in advertising, why make this stand when you can't find a 100% truthful commercial in HD or SD? By the way does anybody want to buy some slightly wrinkled "wrinkle-free" slacks?

 

[SRW1000]

But the argument has been made a thousand times that quantity doesn't matter.
It's quality, so you should be happy with the movies on the better quality HD-Lite channels or the 2 or 3 HD DVDs instead of multitudes more lesser quality DVDs.
Does quantity now matter?

That argument is rather silly. I don't recall anyone claiming 100% devotion to HD-only programming. There are thousands and thousands of quality programs that haven't been or may never be converted to HD, and it will be many years before they ever will be. I like color TV, but I'll still watch a good black and white movie. But given the choice, I'd rather watch a color movie on a color set than on black and white. And I'd rather watch HD than ED or SD.

On the other hand, the satellite argument for quality over quantity generally calls for temporarily eliminating some of the duplicated/lesser-quality/niche content and handing those bits back over to quality-content HD programming.

There is no set price difference between a True-HD channel compared to an HD-Lite channel.

We don't really know that, since the HD channels are offered in packages, and there aren't price tiers for HD vs. HD Lite versions of their programming.

So what difference does it make if they charge you the same price they are charging you now and call it something different. This is a weak argument if you would stay with DISH no matter what they called their HD channels at the same price.

If prices were equal, would consumers select HD or HD Lite?

The problem is that the average consumer isn't going to know that they aren't getting HD from Dish and DirecTV. Comparing their prices to that of a cable provider sending out actual HD puts the average Joe at a distinct disadvantage.

Again, if you buy a thumb drive labeled as USB 2.0, and it's only 1.0, have you been harmed? Your still getting a USB storage device; it's just a little slower. Maybe speed isn't important to you and you would have bought in anyway. But you should have had that information upfront, before buying. Intentionally misleading a consumer is not OK.

If this is nothing more than a stand for truth in advertising, why make this stand when you can't find a 100% truthful commercial in HD or SD? By the way does anybody want to buy some slightly wrinkled "wrinkle-free" slacks?

I'm sure you could find plenty of examples of truth in advertising. If you really tried. Those that aren't true will get pulled. Same thing with labeling. If a product claims to be 10% fruit juice, I'd be willing to bet that it actually does contain 10% juice.

The goal is to enforce truth in advertising/labeling to differentiate true HD providers from those that are diluting it. If that doesn't happen, the HD moniker will become meaningless, and DVDs will qualify as HD.

Scott

 

[nazz]

Why even hold on to your DVD collection?
No one in this thread could ever suffer through a movie LESS than HD-Lite quality.

I've actually been weeding out my SD DVD collection (dumped 130 this month) and have purchased 15 HD-DVD titles in the last three weeks.

 

[dslate69]

That argument is rather silly. I don't recall anyone claiming 100% devotion to HD-only programming. There are thousands and thousands of quality programs that haven't been or may never be converted to HD, and it will be many years before they ever will be. I like color TV, but I'll still watch a good black and white movie. But given the choice, I'd rather watch a color movie on a color set than on black and white. And I'd rather watch HD than ED or SD.

The argument is rather silly, and it is 100% your argument. You guys want 100% True-HD or nothing. Inturpreted as 2 or 3 True-HD channels instead of 30 HD-Lite channels. Because the compromise of superior quality to DVD but slightly lesser quality to True-HD is not good enough for you even though you admit to watching DVDs and even SD black and white movies. That a way to stick to your "quality" argument.

... since the HD channels are offered in packages, and there aren't price tiers for HD vs. HD Lite versions of their programming.
If prices were equal, would consumers select HD or HD Lite?

Speaking of silly arguments... I will state for the record for the 1001th time we would all love 100% quality and 100% quantity. Now back to reality, IT CAN NOT BE DONE, I repeat IT IS IMPOSSIBLE at this moment in time. DISH doesn't have 50 more transponders it is saving for a rainy day, and just giving you HD-Lite to screw with you. Their plan is to give you more quantity at slightly lesser quality. And any of us that watch one of the channels that would disapear if you had your way like their plan better. As DirecTv starts to compete with HD you will see a Quality battle. Until then why are you complaining since you will obvously watch extremely lesser quality DVDs and SD channels and defend their right to exist.

I'm sure you could find plenty of examples of truth in advertising. If you really tried. Those that aren't true will get pulled. Same thing with labeling. If a product claims to be 10% fruit juice, I'd be willing to bet that it actually does contain 10% juice.

So, do you want to buy my wrinkled "wrinkle-free" pants or not?

 

[dslate69]

I've actually been weeding out my SD DVD collection (dumped 130 this month) and have purchased 15 HD-DVD titles in the last three weeks.

I agree that the transition has started. I remember how my wife hated that I bought WS DVDs when we still just had a 36" 4:3 TV.

The transition I look forward to now more than anything is when all content is shot "framed" for 16:9. TV shows and especially sports are wasting so much real-estate to be 4:3 compatible.

 

[nazz]

I agree that the transition has started. I remember how my wife hated that I bought WS DVDs when we still just had a 36" 4:3 TV.

The transition I look forward to now more than anything is when all content is shot "framed" for 16:9. TV shows and especially sports are wasting so much real-estate to be 4:3 compatible.

Yeah, my wife went from being a full framer to carefully checking the package to make sure it's widescreen when she buys a DVD. I agree that a 16:9 standard for television programming will be a wonderful thing.

 

[Smith P.]

Please define in terms of resolution and bandwidth your "slightly lesser quality". Personally I see the argument as totally SILLY.
And other argument come from same SILLY point - "Inturpreted as 2 or 3 True-HD channels instead of 30 HD-Lite channels".
You are master of juggling numbers ! Huh! Actually it will come to 10 channels. Check you math, dslate69 .

 

[SRW1000]

The argument is rather silly, and it is 100% your argument. You guys want 100% True-HD or nothing. Inturpreted as 2 or 3 True-HD channels instead of 30 HD-Lite channels. Because the compromise of superior quality to DVD but slightly lesser quality to True-HD is not good enough for you even though you admit to watching DVDs and even SD black and white movies. That a way to stick to your "quality" argument.

Speaking of silly arguments... I will state for the record for the 1001th time we would all love 100% quality and 100% quantity. Now back to reality, IT CAN NOT BE DONE, I repeat IT IS IMPOSSIBLE at this moment in time. DISH doesn't have 50 more transponders it is saving for a rainy day, and just giving you HD-Lite to screw with you. Their plan is to give you more quantity at slightly lesser quality. And any of us that watch one of the channels that would disapear if you had your way like their plan better.

Who's saying you would have to go from 30 ED+ channels to 2-3 HD channels? If Dish is tossing out 1/3 of the information, it's probably safe to say that they could reduce the number of HD stations by 1/3 and actually send them out in HD.

Again, you're missing the point of the quality argument. The option is to give us most of today's high-quality HD material vs. having no HD material at all. I'd rather some have HD than no HD. You'd rather have ED+ quality, even though a lot of what they're choosing to show is pointless (HD Demo channel) or only appeals to a small audience (GamePlay, Ultra-HD, GalleryHD, FU, etc.)

If you don't see the clear difference between those two positions, I can't help you out.

As DirecTv starts to compete with HD you will see a Quality battle.

Oh yeah, because that competition has done wonders to improve the SD channel quality over the years.

Seriously, it looks like the only competition the two satellite providers are in right now is how low their quality can go without losing to the other guy, not to improving things.

Will that change with HD? Maybe, as people get pickier. The problem is that without a lot of research, most people won't know that some providers are passing of ED+ versions of HD as actual HD. Without that knowledge, it'll be very difficult for marketplace competition to create a winner. Given how the SD progression has gone, I'd expect both providers to feature glorious HD in fabulous 720i resolution.

That's the crux of this debate. Either the term HD has some meaningful definition, or it's just a subjective description. If it turns out to be the latter, we'll have lost the very premise of HD.

Until then why are you complaining since you will obvously watch extremely lesser quality DVDs and SD channels and defend their right to exist.

Sigh.

So, do you want to buy my wrinkled "wrinkle-free" pants or not?

No, I doubt they'd fit me, and I generally don't buy used clothing.

Scott

 

[SRW1000]

The transition I look forward to now more than anything is when all content is shot "framed" for 16:9. TV shows and especially sports are wasting so much real-estate to be 4:3 compatible.

Finally, something we can both agree on.

Scott

 

[Smith P.]

"Given how the SD progression has gone" - I would express it as degradation ...

 

[YoMamasMan]

Here is what bothers me to most about Echostar, and why I have a problem with HD-Lite:

1) I feel like an unappreciated customer. I have been a subscriber of about 2.5 years. I was attracted to satellite because my then current cable provider did not offer HD TV broadcast. I was sold on Dish Network because it seemed to have a better HD offering than Direct TV.

I started with the infamous 811 receiver. I experience all of the dark picture problems, complete lock-ups, and the tiresome auto-reboots that made the 811 receiver a product that angered all us who used that piece of equipment.

2) I was paying Echostar about $10.00 per month for HD programming that really did not amount to much at all. Considering I also ordered the AEP, local channels, and the monthly guide, I was paying quite a substantial monthly bill.

I was used to watching HD programming from Comcast at my previous location. I own three top of the line Sony HD television receivers, and I wanted High Definition reception. Ok the Echostar package was weak, but I assumed (blame me) that the Dish Network’s program content was going to be improved.

3) The 811 eventually became a usable receiver, and I got to see some of the plus sides of that product. Then Echostar bought the broadcast rights from the defunct VOOM Network, and offered a worthwhile amount of HD program content. Finally, I was going to get my money’s worth of HD content from Dish Network.

Wait, I cannot get the newly added HD channels until I agree to pay Dish Network another $5.00 a month!!

Say, Echostar will provide even more HD broadcasts if I give Dish Network another $99.00, exchange one of my currently installed receivers for the VIP 211, and agree to a new 18-month contractual commitment. Such a deal.

My 811 receiver is obsolete. Would have been nicer if they had included a digital HDMI cable to connect the VIP 211 to my TV. Forget about it, that feature does not work anymore!

4) Did I just pay the price of being an early adaptor for new technology, or did Echostar just bend me over and screw me? Maybe Echostar needed more money from us to finance its entry into the High Definition business, or perhaps I expect too much.

5) Now, what does this have to do with HD-Lite? I was bent-over; and it still hurts. I feel it coming again (no pun). Subscribers pay $15.00 per month for HD broadcast content, which is HD-Lite. We only get as much HD picture quality as current satellite technology allows. The technology as Dish Network employs today is constrained by limited bandwidth.

We all are going to pay Echostar more money before we will get real full fidelity HD broadcast from Dish Network. I foresee subscribers having to buy new receivers, subscribing to the new “Platinum-Plus Plus” package, and committing to longer termed contractual obligations. Meanwhile, I still will be using the same Sony televisions I bought years ago. What do I want?

* I want the content I want.
* I want to receive a fully compliant HD broadcast signal that meets the technical requirement agreed on by the international broadcast community.
* I want to pay a fare price for this service.

Yeah, I do expect too much.

 

[bruistertech30]

Hey guys I'm new to this site. I've been installing for DirecTV for 14 months now, and really only today (on a 9 hour 7 box w/ 3 HD-DVRS) realized just how lousy our HD channels are getting to be. The customer was happy, after all I DID hype him up during the install...........explaining that he has the new KA/KU dish, new wires, and the latest HR20-700 IRDS. But I noticed that the "moving" picture didn't seem to be as high def as a "still" pic was. Seems like it use to keep up. Is this because D* has downgraded their digital compression that much in the form of HD lite? I had not even heard of this version of HD until visiting this site..............had to join up. Is this why they promise 100 HD channels in the next few months because they'll be able to fit more channels on the transponders of the 110 satellite?

 

[dslate69]

Now, what does this have to do with HD-Lite?

Absolutely nothing.

 

[dslate69]

Please define in terms of resolution and bandwidth your "slightly lesser quality".
..."Inturpreted as 2 or 3 True-HD channels instead of 30 HD-Lite channels".
You are master of juggling numbers ! Huh! Actually it will come to 10 channels.

HD-Lite is lesser quality than True-HD. FACT
A lot higher % of subs than forum readers can't tell the difference.
Now some of you will say "even my wife can tell the difference" while most of us know better. But I say again HD-Lite is "slightly lesser quality" than True-HD but blows away DVDs which you guys have no problem putting up with.

Math is hard. So which 10 channels do we keep? And be sure to let everyone know that we can't add anymore HD channels until another SAT is launched; including no HD RSNs. I am sure everyone will be happy with the 10 you leave us with.

 

[long_time_DNC]

...blows away DVDs...

Yes, True-HD does look better than standard DVD (but not "blow-away" better). HD-Lite looks about the same as DVDs I play with my upconverting DVD player.

I'm not touching the new HD DVD formats until there's a clear winner in the format wars...