HD-Lite - Senators Have Been Contacted

[beatboy77]

Today I wrote to both of my state's Senators, Ken Salazar (D) and Wayne Allard (R). I informed them of the HD-Lite problem which is plaguing the industry. I will keep you all informed as I hear back from them or their Representatives.

~Josh

 

[JosephB]

What on Earth could the government do about it?

 

[beatboy77]

I basically just wrote that several companies advertise and charge a premium for HD service yet their version of HD does not meet the definition set by the FCC and ATSC. I wrote that I felt it was a version of false advertising and that it is very deceptive to the average consumer.

~Josh

 

[f300v10]

Perhaps you should verify your 'facts' before you go contacting Senators. Below is the link for the ATSC specification for the 'Direct to Home Satellite Broadcast Standard'. If you check page 17, Table 7.3 lists the allowed compression formats. 1080x1280i, 1080x1280p, 1080x1440i and 1080x1440p ARE part of the spec. Also, while there is a maximum bitrate defined, there is no minimum bitrate defined.

You may not like D* down-ressing 1080i channels to 1280, but it is allowed under the ATSC specs.

http://www.atsc.org/standards/a_81.pdf

 

[goaliebob99]

Perhaps you should verify your 'facts' before you go contacting Senators. Below is the link for the ATSC specification for the 'Direct to Home Satellite Broadcast Standard'. If you check page 17, Table 7.3 lists the allowed compression formats. 1080x1280i, 1080x1280p, 1080x1440i and 1080x1440p ARE part of the spec. Also, while there is a maximum bitrate defined, there is no minimum bitrate defined.

You may not like D* down-ressing 1080i channels to 1280, but it is allowed under the ATSC specs.

http://www.atsc.org/standards/a_81.pdf

Technically those standards are allowed but its not defined as HDTV standards as defined here...

http://www.atsc.org/standards/practices/a_54a.pdf

The following pdf I posted it specifically states that HDTV is the following standards: 1080 Vertical Lines by 1920 Horizontal lines, OR 720 Vertical Lines by 1280 Horizontal lines with a bit rate of 19.4Mbps for Mpeg 2 programming.

Those are the only two standards that are defined as High Definition. So while a braudcaster (directv) braudcasts in 1280 x 1080I It cant legally be called high definition as the standards in the link above show that hdtv is only 1920 x 1080I or 1280 X 720P with a bitrate of 19.4Mbps. For mpg 4 the bitrate would be 9.7 if the encoder does 50 percent more compression than mpg 2. Nice try though

Edit: also one more thing to add... why fix somthing that isnt broken. IF a channel provider is outputing in a true hd why mess with it? just pass along the signal compress it with mpg 2/4... with the bitrate defined and all is good. Follow the dollar sign and that will lead you to the true path of excellence.. the more they can cram on the bird the more money it is for them. what they dont realize is the more quality of a product the more flocking there product will have as far as hdtv goes

 

[rad]

IMHO, there a way too many more important problems for congress to f*ck up then worry about HD lite.

 

[Brewer4]

IMHO, there a way too many more important problems for congress to f*ck up then worry about HD lite.

I have to agree. As much as I dont like it, I think this is a "let the market" decide. I am still giving end of 2007 to see changes after the next onslaught of sats. If nothing changes and there are viable options, I will make my voice known by shifting my $80 per month. That with thousands or million other folks will get D*'s attention more than congress.

 

[f300v10]

The document you are linking to is not the standard, rather the 'Guide to the use of the ATSC Digital Television Standard'. If you look up actual standard, it has a far more vague definition of HDTV, and references the document I posted above as being the part of the standard that applies for satellite broadcasting. I also found the the cable TV equivalent document defined 1440x1080i as part of the standard for cable.

Also if you require a bitrate of 19.4Mbps in your definition of HDTV, that eleminates most if not all OTA stations that are multicasting. Try telling the Senators that stations that multicast are doing something illegal if the claim to broadcast HDTV.

 

[goaliebob99]

The document you are linking to is not the standard, rather the 'Guide to the use of the ATSC Digital Television Standard'. If you look up actual standard, it has a far more vague definition of HDTV, and references the document I posted above as being the part of the standard that applies for satellite broadcasting. I also found the the cable TV equivalent document defined 1440x1080i as part of the standard for cable.

Also if you require a bitrate of 19.4Mbps in your definition of HDTV, that eleminates most if not all OTA stations that are multicasting. Try telling the Senators that stations that multicast are doing something illegal if the claim to broadcast HDTV.

Most providers that do muti cast are in 720p the ones that do mutli cast in 1080I provide weather channels with static images on the screen and a small window with video on there sub channel. These channels carry hardly no bandwith whats so ever. Sealing bandith from sub audio channels that they dont carry allows them to do this. That leaves enough to do 1 hdtv signal w/ multicasting of 1 sd channel and NO alternate audio's. 2nd. its not a guide as you say, Its the standards and Practices.. hell look at the link..... I give you a challange find me your so called standard... I bet you wont find one as the pdf that I linked is the standard.

 

[flipper2001]

IMHO, there a way too many more important problems for congress to f*ck up then worry about HD lite.

Yeah like what we are googling....

 

[RIRWIN1983]

What on Earth could the government do about it?

the same thing they are doing about gas prices, call a meeting and "say" they are making progress on the issue. But actually it probally goes like this:

DTV CEO (Or Oil CEO)- Hey pat hows the kids?

SEN Pat-good, is your wife still making that one pasta dish i love?

DTV CEO (or Oil CEO)- yea, you should come over tonight when this is over.

i think you all can get the poin :devil: :up

 

[RIRWIN1983]

The document you are linking to is not the standard, rather the 'Guide to the use of the ATSC Digital Television Standard'. If you look up actual standard, it has a far more vague definition of HDTV, and references the document I posted above as being the part of the standard that applies for satellite broadcasting. I also found the the cable TV equivalent document defined 1440x1080i as part of the standard for cable.

Also if you require a bitrate of 19.4Mbps in your definition of HDTV, that eleminates most if not all OTA stations that are multicasting. Try telling the Senators that stations that multicast are doing something illegal if the claim to broadcast HDTV.

ok then do you have a few hundred million dollars to start up another voom dbs provider

 

[scotsmanron]

IMHO, there a way too many more important problems for congress to f*ck up then worry about HD lite.

You mean like steroids in baseball?

 

[beatboy77]

You mean like steroids in baseball?

Excellent point Scots! The Senators are my elected offcials and it is their duty to look in to anything which concerns their citizens. It is also my right to request that they do just that. Whether or not they do, is of course anyone's guess. I just know that if I did not speak up, I would have felt worse then to never have spoken up at all.

~Josh

 

[scotsmanron]

I'm with you on this. If they can screw around with baseball, and don't forget that they also tried to screw around with the BSC Bowl Series, they can try and fix something that affects my wallet!!!

 

[f300v10]

Most providers that do muti cast are in 720p the ones that do mutli cast in 1080I provide weather channels with static images on the screen and a small window with video on there sub channel. These channels carry hardly no bandwith whats so ever. Sealing bandith from sub audio channels that they dont carry allows them to do this. That leaves enough to do 1 hdtv signal w/ multicasting of 1 sd channel and NO alternate audio's. 2nd. its not a guide as you say, Its the standards and Practices.. hell look at the link..... I give you a challange find me your so called standard... I bet you wont find one as the pdf that I linked is the standard.

Challange accepted:

Here is the official ATSC Digital Television Standard.

ATSC Digital Television Standard, Revision E (the latest version of THE STANDARD)
http://www.atsc.org/standards/a_53e.pdf

The document you posted is under the Recommended Practices section of the ATSC website, not the Standards section. It is a Guide, NOT the Standard.

 

[riffjim4069]

Challange accepted:

Here is the official ATSC Digital Television Standard.

ATSC Digital Television Standard, Revision E (the latest version of THE STANDARD)
http://www.atsc.org/standards/a_53e.pdf

The document you posted is under the Recommended Practices section of the ATSC website, not the Standards section. It is a Guide, NOT the Standard.

It's obvious that the ATSC is the lawful (de jure) standards body since their DTV standard is recognized by the FCC. The ATSC clearly defines all 18 DTV formats...however, their DTV standards document does not clearly define an HDTV standard.

However, the ATSC (who established the DTV standard) defined the HDTV standard, as noted by Goaliebob, as being 1920x1080p, 1920x1080i, or 1280x720p (at various frame rates) as being the only acceptable HDTV formats in their Recommended Practices document. One may argue this not a de jure standard, but the ATSC clearly sets the standards and left little doubt as to their definition of HDTV. Plus, these HDTV formats are certainly the "de facto" standard because they are being deployed by many, if not most, video providers selling HDTV programming.

Additionally, the ATSC HDTV standard made reference to incorporating the ITU-R BT-709-3/1125 recommendations, which define HDTV as 1920x1080 interlace/progressive at various frame-rates...there is no mention of 1440x1080 or 1280x1080. Clearly, the overwhelming amount of evidence does not support the later two formats being called HDTV in any form or fashion. However, if we continue to accept HD-Lite being passed off on us as HDTV, then it may very well become a de facto standard.

1440x1080 and 1280x1080 may be nice TV, but there is no way in hell anyone can logically argue it meets any national/international standard for HDTV...not unless they have a vested interest (agenda) in HD-Lite.

I say write your congressman in addition to the FCC and FTC regarding this fraud being perpetrated upon the American people.

Just wanted to add that pages 94-97 of the ATSC DTV Standard define the role of the Digital HDTV Grand Alliance, their being recognized as the principal supplier of information documenting the advanced television system, the "Grand Alliance" support by the ATSC and other standards organization like the FCC, SMPTE, EIA, IEEE, MPEG, and NCTA. Needless to say, their proposal (attached for your consideration) for Terrestrial HDTV (over-the-air and cable) proposed only two HDTV standards: 1920x1080 (p/i) and 1280x720(p) at various frame rates. Again, there is no mention of 1440x1080 or 1280x1080 (aka HD-Lite).

 

[herdfan]

IMHO, there a way too many more important problems for congress to f*ck up then worry about HD lite.

Exactly. Lets keep them occupied with this issue instead.

 

[f300v10]

It's obvious that the ATSC is the lawful (de jure) standards body since their DTV standard is recognized by the FCC. The ATSC clearly defines all 18 DTV formats...however, their DTV standards document does not clearly define an HDTV standard.

However, the ATSC (who established the DTV standard) defined the HDTV standard, as noted by Goaliebob, as being 1920x1080p, 1920x1080i, or 1280x720p (at various frame rates) as being the only acceptable HDTV formats in their Recommended Practices document. One may argue this not a de jure standard, but the ATSC clearly sets the standards and left little doubt as to their definition of HDTV. Plus, these HDTV formats are certainly the "de facto" standard because they are being deployed by many, if not most, video providers selling HDTV programming.

Additionally, the ATSC HDTV standard made reference to incorporating the ITU-R BT-709-3/1125 recommendations, which define HDTV as 1920x1080 interlace/progressive at various frame-rates...there is no mention of 1440x1080 or 1280x1080. Clearly, the overwhelming amount of evidence does not support the later two formats being called HDTV in any form or fashion. However, if we continue to accept HD-Lite being passed off on us as HDTV, then it may very well become a de facto standard.

1440x1080 and 1280x1080 may be nice TV, but there is no way in hell anyone can logically argue it meets any national/international standard for HDTV...not unless they have a vested interest (agenda) in HD-Lite.

I say write your congressman in addition to the FCC and FTC regarding this fraud being perpetrated upon the American people.

Just wanted to add that pages 94-97 of the ATSC DTV Standard define the role of the Digital HDTV Grand Alliance, their being recognized as the principal supplier of information documenting the advanced television system, the "Grand Alliance" support by the ATSC and other standards organization like the FCC, SMPTE, EIA, IEEE, MPEG, and NCTA. Needless to say, their proposal (attached for your consideration) for Terrestrial HDTV (over-the-air and cable) proposed only two HDTV standards: 1920x1080 (p/i) and 1280x720(p) at various frame rates. Again, there is no mention of 1440x1080 or 1280x1080 (aka HD-Lite).

Did you happen to bother to read the ATSC standard for direct to home satellite transmition? If you did you would see both 1440x1080i and 1280x1080i listed as valid transmition formats. Last time I checked DirecTV was broadcasting via. satellite, so I would think that using the allowed transmition formats in the ATSC's own spec. would not constitute fraud.

I have no agenda in D* broadcasting anything. I am only pointing out that D* is not doing anything fraudulent or illegal. What they are doing is running a business as they see fit. If any subscriber does not agree with their practices, then they should stop subscribing to DirecTV. Contacting a Senator over something so trivial as 'HD-Lite' is ridiculous.

 

[goaliebob99]

Did you happen to bother to read the ATSC standard for direct to home satellite transmition? If you did you would see both 1440x1080i and 1280x1080i listed as valid transmition formats. Last time I checked DirecTV was broadcasting via. satellite, so I would think that using the allowed transmition formats in the ATSC's own spec. would not constitute fraud.

I have no agenda in D* broadcasting anything. I am only pointing out that D* is not doing anything fraudulent or illegal. What they are doing is running a business as they see fit. If any subscriber does not agree with their practices, then they should stop subscribing to DirecTV. Contacting a Senator over something so trivial as 'HD-Lite' is ridiculous.

You just dont get it! they can tranmit it like that but they cant call it hd! Read the GA post by riffgim.. as he took the words out of my mouth ... Also why are you soooooo pro HD Lite??? Why do you have to argue every post and try to proove it wrong when many of us have pointed to you that your wrong. I'm only going to say this once. JUST BECAUSE THEY CAN TRANSMIT IT IN 1440 X1920I OR 1280 X 1080I DOES NOT MEAN THEY CAN CALL IT HIGH DEFINITION! why is it that EVERY CABLE OPERATOR, EVERY FIBER OPERATOR, with the exception of satellite operatiors like D* and E* provide all of there channels in true HD? can you explain that one???? Why is it E* provides all of its national hd in True HD with the exception of CBS,NBC and VOOM? Why is D* NOT PROVIDING ANY TRUE HD? and HOW IS NOT PROVIDING TRUE HD BENIFICAL IN ANY WAY TO THE COUSTOMER? One may argue that it will provide more channels to the coustomer.. For that one I call bulshit on as MPEG 4 does that and the transponder savings arent that much on a hd channel that is in hd lite vs an hd channel that is in true hd. What we as consumers want to see is the HD channels returned to there previous state of WOW factor that they were two years ago before this whole HD LITE brahahahha came on to the scene. From what I have seen with HD DVD compared to Sat at hd lite, it blows Sat away. Also, there is more than enough space to provide ALL HD Channels in there true hd format. Who do I need to contact to write a peace of legislation???