So, I'm Looking at the FTC Website...
- Thread starter SRW1000
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 42
- Views 5K
I think I've beaten this horse dead in a couple of other threads. You're wrong, the HD definitions are 1920x1080i/p and 1280x720p. The ATSC standard--which no one is required to follow by the way--also mentions two 480i/p resolutions not in this discussion. But don't confuse the adoption of a standard to the definition of a term--we're only talking a documented and accepted definition of the term.nitstalker said:
There are a few of these in this thread, and I'm surprised of the short-sighted view.dragon002 said:
I, too, want them to either deliver what they're selling--an HD resolution--or stop calling it HD.
Either way, we won't have to pay for 1280x1080i since it they can't put it in their HD pak.
And don't think that if they can get away with this they--and every other provider with bandwidth issues--won't down rezz every HD product to this new definition of HD.
-sc
First, I'm not using the term lying, I'd say misrepresentation. But, on to your technical point.nitstalker said:
I have seen the 1080i/720p argument made a number of times, but I can't accept it. Let's look at the absurd, Dish decides to downrez half of their HD channels to 1080x2i. Yes, two magnificent scan lines, interlaced nonetheless. Is that still HD? It meets your technical specification.
I think there has to be a common law acceptance of the HD specs we've been seeing for years now. Square pixels, 16x9 format, 1080i or 720p. If we don't fight for this definition now, we dooming ourselves to a compromised HD future.
Scott
Somehow I don't see you guys accepting things and considering the issue settled if Dish changes their advertising, website, etc.SRW1000 said:
That would force him to not compress any further correct? Because if he had to keep it at 1080i it would show macroblocking worse than in hdlite?
Oh well too late. Comcast comming out next week. Going to be doing some comparisons with dish/comcast and also how the difference is with the cablecard option as well. I know my cablecard will look much better than a stb.
Oh well too late. Comcast comming out next week. Going to be doing some comparisons with dish/comcast and also how the difference is with the cablecard option as well. I know my cablecard will look much better than a stb.
Well, if push comes to shove, Dish would have the option of either sending all their channels in HD, or call it something else.hall said:
If they decide the latter, I would certainly lament their decision, but I would at least know what I'm getting, and could look for a different provider. Right now, if you order HD, you might get it or you might not, depending on the channel. Next month or year, who knows what you'll be receiving. Telling consumers that they're not actually getting HD would be a rather odd position for the "True HD" leader.
I think we might actually get True HD at that point. And I'd be happy. If not, at least we'd be getting what we're being told we're getting, and consumers could make an educated choice.
Either option is better than what we have today.
Scott
it just occured to me
All Dish has to do is down rez 1080i to 1280x720p and this argument is no longer valid
-Gary
All Dish has to do is down rez 1080i to 1280x720p and this argument is no longer valid
-Gary
Gary Murrell said:it just occured to me
All Dish has to do is down rez 1080i to 1280x720p and this argument is no longer valid
-Gary
By definition layed out by federal law, that is the ONLY legal conversion they could do to the HD signal and still call it HD. Even though some will claim otherwise as they can "see the difference" by statute, 720p and 1080i are considering equivalent. They are both "million pixel" formats. They are both defined as HD.
But 1280x1080i is the worst of both worlds. 720p decreased horizontal resolution added to 1080i interlaced issues. 1080p is the reverse of that. 1080is higher horizontal resolution matched to 720p progressive scanning delivery.
The point of this whole thing is that any company MUST provide what they advertise. If they don't they are asking for trouble.
THe best course of action would be to find someone who has high contacts at:
USA Today
NYTimes
or
WSJ.
Then file this complaint with BOTH the FTC for false advertising AND the FCC for failure to follow the law as stated RE: HD BROADCAST retransmission (FCC does not care about non broadcast HD).
Send copies of the complaints to the newspaper and a letter explaining the issue, that it affects ALL americans who use directv, dish and some cable companies. It's a scandal, plain and simple.
The other option is to file a class action lawsuit, or a lawsuit in a State like CA where you can file on behalf of the consumer without needing class status.
Either way, the goal is to either force the companies to offer what they are charging for,
or change the name of what they are offering. It would be a PR fiasco to change the name, BTW.
But those who are angry are absolutely right to be, because to use a common term, this is a VERY slippery slope. If media providers are allowed to get away with selling something they are not providing, we will see HDDVD/Bluray in non-HD called HD, for example.
Since this HD transition has been forced upon us, we should at least get what our federal AND personal dollars are supposed to be paying for.
Now, personally:
I've always thought the federally mandated switch standard should never have been HD to begin with, but something more in the 575p to 625p range. The cost of doing the 720p/1080i is much higher, and the benefits marginal over a high quality 575p. I had a projector that did HD in 575p (a 1024x768 projector displays 575p when provided with HD content as well as DVD content from a scaler), and I can tell you the picture was phenomenal from OTA signals, even at 120". Even watching 480p uncompressed OTA on my EDTV plasma (downconverted from true HD) is phenomenal. It was not nearly as good from HD sat sources due to the heavy compression. For me, 1280x1080i or 720p or 1080i or 1080p will all look about the same on my 480p display assuming no compression degredation, but by nature of the higher initial resolution, the providers WILL have to do more compression on the signal, killing color and contrast. The vast majority of consumers would have benefitted more from a lower compression 575p standard.
Converting older material would be far cheaper to 575p, storage of material would be cheaper and we'd be able to hold more on a DVR, etc. LCD and Plasma panels would be far less expensive at 575p (XGA in 4:3, 1024x576 in 16:9), and we would likely not even have the whole EDTV/HDTV distinction in that market for the most part. Dish and DirecTV could convert their entire system to 575p via MP4 in the near future. Sports broadcasting would be cheaper and you'd get more games in this format than you do now in HD due to cheaper cameras, lenses, and live editing equipment. And movie studios would be far more willing to "let us have" content at that resolution. Let the wealthiest people pay for scan doublers and the like to achieve 1080p from the 575p signal. It will look great, and cost a lot to them. The rest of us would get low compression, high quality 16:9 575p pictures at a much lower cost all around.
Sadly, that was not the path chosen, however. The path chosen was HD. But since we are locked into the money of full HD, we best get what we are paying for. Period. There is no way that getting about what I described above (1280x1080i isn't much better than 625p or 575p), but paying for full HD and having to use HD equipment is fair.
Gary Murrell said:it just occured to me
All Dish has to do is down rez 1080i to 1280x720p and this argument is no longer valid
-Gary
I am new to this site, but, I believe 1280X720p isn't really down rezzing. Technically the rez is lower, but it wouldn't save them any space. I think 720p actually has the same or more information in the stream. So they wouldn't "downrez" it to that because it wouldn't save them the space they were looking for.
One other thing. If dish does agree that it isn't giving "True HD" and changes the name or stops using the term "True HD" in brodcasts and ads, are you gonna cancel and go to Direct or cable? NO. I love my HD. I have loved every second of it. I catch myself watching stuff I normally wouldn't watch just because it is in "HD". If its in HD-lite, it still looks better than regular SD and its going to be more enjoyable. Yes, maybe if we keep screaming about this down rezzing, they will change it. I say we give them a break and let them do more to get us programming thats better than SD. You're not gonna switch providers because of what their ad says, and they aren't ready to go full blown HD. Sit back and relax, enjoy the show.
If I can get True HD content from those providers, you bet I am. Why would I want to stick with Dish at that point? How many others would be thinking, "Well, I can get HD from cable, or I can get ED+ (or whatever they'd call it) from Dish. Hmmm, I think I'd rather have crappier one."Ben Bassinger said:
If I can't get True HD from anywhere else, I'm not sure what I'd do.
I'm already contemplating the switch to cable just to see how SD material to the horrible, almost unwatchable SD quality that Dish is giving us.
If Dish does to HD what its done to SD over the years, you won't be so in love with the picture.
Scott
1920x1080x30= 6,220,800 pixels
1280x720x60=5,529,600 pixels
1280x1080x30= 4,147,200 pixels
720p does offer lower bandwidth than True 1080i, HD-Lite offers even more reduction
converting to 720p I have seen done very well(Bell ExpressVu) and worse than HD-Lite from others(Dish on CBS HD East)
-Gary
1280x720x60=5,529,600 pixels
1280x1080x30= 4,147,200 pixels
720p does offer lower bandwidth than True 1080i, HD-Lite offers even more reduction
converting to 720p I have seen done very well(Bell ExpressVu) and worse than HD-Lite from others(Dish on CBS HD East)
-Gary
Not being able to use the term "HD" is all it would take.
That's part of the reason FOX bothered upgrading from their "High Resolution" 480p widescreen format. No matter how good it may have appeared to the public, they still couldn't call it HD.
That's part of the reason FOX bothered upgrading from their "High Resolution" 480p widescreen format. No matter how good it may have appeared to the public, they still couldn't call it HD.
I've been working behind the scenes with some of the people I know for several months now but things tend to crawl on this front. With that said I'll tell you what I've been told by a few lawyers.
When a customer calls up a company and orders HDTV services they do their research on who has the best HD lineup in both price and selection. Even if customers don't know anything about a specific channels resolution it doesn't matter. Under most state laws right now this is how this case would be won.
Say in the case of HBO HD. HBO says that their HD feeds are 1920x1080i and even if customers don't know this little tidbit these customers have a reasonable expectation that they will get HBO HD in the 1920x1080i format when they order HBO HD. You as a customer expect to get what the company is selling you. It would be like you going into an electronics store and buy a new computer with specific features only to get it home and those features are lower than what you expected them to be. What if you bought a new computer with more RAM and a faster better CPU but you ended up getting a slower older computer. Even if that customer never knew he/she got cheated on those specs the company can still be held liable if that customer finds out indirectly. That customer had a level of expectation that what they would get is what the ad said.
When a customer sees an ad from DirecTV that says they will get HBO HD they have an expectation that they would get the HBO HD feed that HBO gives out. Because HBO HD claims that they offer 1920x1080i that customer expects to get that quality feed. DirecTV may get a higher quality feed but the customer only expects to get that 1920x1080i feed and nothing higher or better.
Again the key for all of this is that customers should be informed if said provider doesn't provide what the channel says they give. So again if said channel (ie HBO) says they offer a 1920x1080i feed than that customer expects their company to provide that 1920x1080i feed and nothing lower. I've been told many many times that the customers don't even need to be aware that this is going on. All that matters is that this is going on even if customers don't know.
One of my lawyers said to me that if they won this suit they would require said companies to list in every ad and send out to every HD customer a letter information them of the following below in quotes.
"Current HD resolutions for HDTV in the mainstream are as follows.
1920x1080i is the highest mainstream HD format with over 6 million pixels.
1280x720p is the second and last mainstream format with over 5 million pixels.
1280x1080i is another HD format not in use by content providers that offers over 4 million pixels. This format is currently being used by programming providers such as DirecTV and Dish Network to broadcast some or all of their current HD offerings.
We must inform you that said channels below......they would list the channels each provider has by the way but I'll list one example so you catch my drift.
HBO offers an HD channel named HBO-HD and HBO offers this channel in the 1920x1080i format. We are sending this letter to inform you that said channels are currently being provided to you by DirecTV in the 1280x1080i format instead of the 1920x1080i format that HBO HD provides. Because of these practices you are getting an HD feed with a loss of almost 2 million pixels. This loss of pixels is twice the resolution of any of your DVD movies by the way.
We feel that you should know from your providers directly what they actually give you compared to what they should be giving you."
Now this letter won't be anything like what would go out but it gives you an idea of how they would present this information to the customer.
When a customer calls up a company and orders HDTV services they do their research on who has the best HD lineup in both price and selection. Even if customers don't know anything about a specific channels resolution it doesn't matter. Under most state laws right now this is how this case would be won.
Say in the case of HBO HD. HBO says that their HD feeds are 1920x1080i and even if customers don't know this little tidbit these customers have a reasonable expectation that they will get HBO HD in the 1920x1080i format when they order HBO HD. You as a customer expect to get what the company is selling you. It would be like you going into an electronics store and buy a new computer with specific features only to get it home and those features are lower than what you expected them to be. What if you bought a new computer with more RAM and a faster better CPU but you ended up getting a slower older computer. Even if that customer never knew he/she got cheated on those specs the company can still be held liable if that customer finds out indirectly. That customer had a level of expectation that what they would get is what the ad said.
When a customer sees an ad from DirecTV that says they will get HBO HD they have an expectation that they would get the HBO HD feed that HBO gives out. Because HBO HD claims that they offer 1920x1080i that customer expects to get that quality feed. DirecTV may get a higher quality feed but the customer only expects to get that 1920x1080i feed and nothing higher or better.
Again the key for all of this is that customers should be informed if said provider doesn't provide what the channel says they give. So again if said channel (ie HBO) says they offer a 1920x1080i feed than that customer expects their company to provide that 1920x1080i feed and nothing lower. I've been told many many times that the customers don't even need to be aware that this is going on. All that matters is that this is going on even if customers don't know.
One of my lawyers said to me that if they won this suit they would require said companies to list in every ad and send out to every HD customer a letter information them of the following below in quotes.
"Current HD resolutions for HDTV in the mainstream are as follows.
1920x1080i is the highest mainstream HD format with over 6 million pixels.
1280x720p is the second and last mainstream format with over 5 million pixels.
1280x1080i is another HD format not in use by content providers that offers over 4 million pixels. This format is currently being used by programming providers such as DirecTV and Dish Network to broadcast some or all of their current HD offerings.
We must inform you that said channels below......they would list the channels each provider has by the way but I'll list one example so you catch my drift.
HBO offers an HD channel named HBO-HD and HBO offers this channel in the 1920x1080i format. We are sending this letter to inform you that said channels are currently being provided to you by DirecTV in the 1280x1080i format instead of the 1920x1080i format that HBO HD provides. Because of these practices you are getting an HD feed with a loss of almost 2 million pixels. This loss of pixels is twice the resolution of any of your DVD movies by the way.
We feel that you should know from your providers directly what they actually give you compared to what they should be giving you."
Now this letter won't be anything like what would go out but it gives you an idea of how they would present this information to the customer.
Unfortunately, that wouldn't even do it for Dish and DirecTV because you can't sign someone up for one thing, then inform them AFTER THE FACT that they are getting something else. Further, the letter says we are using an "HD resolution" of 1280x1080i. There is NOT SUCH RESOLUTION in the ATSC standard. By definition, it does not use square pixels in 16:9 ratio and is therefor NOT HIGH DEFINITION.
The ATSC standard only encompasses:
6 HDTV formats ALL WITH SQUARE PIXELS IN 16:9 RATIO: 1080i30(60), 1080p30, 1080p24 (all at 1920), 720p (three frequencies 24,30,60),
9x EDTV resolutions at 480p (differing in ratio, pixel shape, and frequency, some 4:3 and some 16:9)
and
3x SDTV resolutions at 480i (all 4:3 square pixel at 24,30 and 60).
There is no 1280x1080i in the ATSC DTV spec anywhere, and that spec is the only one to describe HDTV in the USA. Period.
https://www.adelphia.com/cable_entertainment/hdtv_details.cfm
BTW - Gary, you are off by a factor of 5 there, as 720p(30) and 1080i(60) are "million pixel formats" so they both provide about 30x1million or about 30million pixels a second (1080p(30) is a 2million format). 1280x1024i is only a 655k pixel format, somewhere between the density of 575p at 625p, which is what I stated earlier. But 575p would actually look better than 1280x1080i in most cases due to square pixels, no interlacing, and lower compression requirements. In other words, since they all want to give us 650k resolution anyway, it would have been better just to start there and provide a kick ass version of that, with displays that cost less. You'd have more content already at that format, especially sports and movies...
The ATSC standard only encompasses:
6 HDTV formats ALL WITH SQUARE PIXELS IN 16:9 RATIO: 1080i30(60), 1080p30, 1080p24 (all at 1920), 720p (three frequencies 24,30,60),
9x EDTV resolutions at 480p (differing in ratio, pixel shape, and frequency, some 4:3 and some 16:9)
and
3x SDTV resolutions at 480i (all 4:3 square pixel at 24,30 and 60).
There is no 1280x1080i in the ATSC DTV spec anywhere, and that spec is the only one to describe HDTV in the USA. Period.
https://www.adelphia.com/cable_entertainment/hdtv_details.cfm
BTW - Gary, you are off by a factor of 5 there, as 720p(30) and 1080i(60) are "million pixel formats" so they both provide about 30x1million or about 30million pixels a second (1080p(30) is a 2million format). 1280x1024i is only a 655k pixel format, somewhere between the density of 575p at 625p, which is what I stated earlier. But 575p would actually look better than 1280x1080i in most cases due to square pixels, no interlacing, and lower compression requirements. In other words, since they all want to give us 650k resolution anyway, it would have been better just to start there and provide a kick ass version of that, with displays that cost less. You'd have more content already at that format, especially sports and movies...
I'm shocked, I actually got a response from the FCC. Not exactly the response I'd hoped for, but a response all the same.
When the HD-Lite starts being delivered and branded as HD, off to the FTC I go.
I still wish the term "high definition" was stated by the FCC instead of deferred the ATSC.
-sc
I actually received three responses, each with a puff-piece attachment.
When the HD-Lite starts being delivered and branded as HD, off to the FTC I go.
I still wish the term "high definition" was stated by the FCC instead of deferred the ATSC.
-sc
Did the FCC responses actually refer to the ATSC HD standards? If so, that would help lend support to specific HD resolution standards even if the FCC did not specifically incorporating them under the DTV guidelines.scottrell said:
Scott
Zilch about ATSC.SRW1000 said:
The attachements (I've tried to find the web equivalents):
Factsheet58.pdf--FCC
Consumer Facts
Attached DTV Factsheet which is a combo of the two shopping guides at dtv.gov
COMMISSION ADOPTS RULES FOR DIGITAL TELEVISION SERVICE
I'm getting increasingly annoyed that we're seeing only the vertical dimensions, as if a 1 by 1080i would also satisfy the term. If nothing else, just add "square pixel"--not a complex idea for the masses.
-sc
