I think what he meant was, a higher bit rate (when comparing the same codec) will produce a better picture than a lower one if the resolution is pretty close ( a slightly reduced rez wont make much if any difference).
yes, to what you said

I think what he meant was, a higher bit rate (when comparing the same codec) will produce a better picture than a lower one if the resolution is pretty close ( a slightly reduced rez wont make much if any difference).
Most people probably don't know what HD Lite is, so why would D* advertise that their HD isn't Lite? Just needlessly opens a can of worms IMHO.
Because it probably isnt. If it is some of those channels have some awfully crappy cameras. ANd some have some very good ones as well.I wonder why Direct does not use it in a sales pitch. " Not only 100 channels but full resolution too"
I think the other way, If they say DISH is not giving you all the HD that we do from channels to resolution that would be a selling point to those who are on the fence about which satellite to sub to.
IMHO, the vast majority of people are clueless about HD (excluding all those who frequent sites like this). Many people don't even know they need to subscribe to some sort of HD service (or get an antenna) to get HD. They think "I have an HDTV, so I'm now watching HD." I think only diehards like us know what the term HD Lite refers to.I think the other way, If they say DISH is not giving you all the HD that we do from channels to resolution that would be a selling point to those who are on the fence about which satellite to sub to.