# DirecTV Sued Over Low HDTV Resolution



## dmwierz (Oct 17, 2003)

DirecTV Sued Over Low HDTV Resolution


----------



## ebonovic (Jul 24, 2001)

We have been clamering about it all day over at www.dbstalk.com
http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?t=64749

The one thing I find odd. News.Yahoo.Com search, still doesn't have this story being picked up by ANYONE else..... You would think it would be semi "big" news when the largers DBS carrier is sue over their "troubled" HD Lineup...

Not saying it isn't true, or real.... There just may be another side to the story that Swani isn't reporting on his site.


----------



## yaddayaddayadda (Apr 8, 2003)

You mean like this? (Matthew McConaughey on HD Net last night) :down:



This happens during all moving lights (like spotlights, camera flashes). Is this HD Lite?


----------



## rminsk (Jun 4, 2002)

yaddayaddayadda said:


> You mean like this? (Matthew McConaughey on HD Net last night) :down:


The think the lawsuit is more over the reduced resolution and not the compression artifacts. HD Lite is the term used for 1280x1080 resolution DirecTV resizes 1920x1080 programs too. From the article "The complaint alleges that DIRECTV engaged in unlawful or fraudulent business practices by lowering its HDTV picture resolution in September 2004."


----------



## parzec (Jun 21, 2002)

Always amusing to see those "HD sponsored by DirecTV" ads when DirecTV is actually broadcasting in HD-Lite.


----------



## ebonovic (Jul 24, 2001)

parzec said:


> Always amusing to see those "HD sponsered by DirecTV" ads when DirecTV is actually broadcasting in HD-Lite.


Depends on the channel... the MPEG-4 locals, DirecTV is not altering the resolution. They are providing the same resolution they are receiving from the affiliate.

Actually I think the title of the thread needs to be change.
From our discussions today (in the dbs thread), and the details of the linked site.... The suit isn't for the "HDLite" it is that this particular feels that DirecTV switched the Picture Quality after he signed up...

Thus he is not getting what he agreed to.


----------



## rminsk (Jun 4, 2002)

ebonovic said:


> From our discussions today (in the dbs thread), and the details of the linked site.... The suit isn't for the "HDLite" it is that this particular feels that DirecTV switched the Picture Quality after he signed up...


From the article "The complaint alleges that DIRECTV engaged in unlawful or fraudulent business practices by lowering its HDTV picture resolution in September 2004."

The complaint does not say compression or quality but resolution. In September 2004 DirecTV started doing the 1280x1080 HD Lite.


----------



## ebonovic (Jul 24, 2001)

So it's not a "violation" suit that they are broadcasting "HD Lite"

It is that he feels that they switched from full resolution to a lower resolution... and that was in violation of the contract/HD package....

When did ESPN-HD go live? wasn't it around September 04?


----------



## dswallow (Dec 3, 2000)

It's things like this that reinforces my belief that the only proper solution to our legal system is to kill all the lawyers. All of them.


----------



## joetoronto (Jul 26, 2004)

dswallow said:


> It's things like this that reinforces my belief that the only proper solution to our legal system is to kill all the lawyers. All of them.


lol, yes, kill all the lawyers, kill them tonight.

hey yaddayaddayadda, i've never had PQ anywhere near as bad as what you posted, not in SD or HD.

i'm wondering if the problem lies with your display.


----------



## yaddayaddayadda (Apr 8, 2003)

joetoronto said:


> lol, yes, kill all the lawyers, kill them tonight.
> 
> hey yaddayaddayadda, i've never had PQ anywhere near as bad as what you posted, not in SD or HD.
> 
> i'm wondering if the problem lies with your display.


If it does, I'm not too pleased.....I've had my set professionally calibrated.

To be fair, I picked the worst possible shot I could....it seems this happens excessively during any scene with a flash of light - as this one was when MM was caught by paparazzi.


----------



## generalpatton71 (Oct 30, 2002)

Earl does all your posts have to have a link to dbstalk? Should everybody at avs post a link to the thread they have on this subject or how about the sat guys forum? Maybe I'm being too harsh and I'm glad you're now part of the official dbstalk crew. It's just that you already have a link in your sig. Do you really need to link to dbstalk every time a subject concerning D* comes up? I mean Earl you have been a great asset to this forum but I'm seeing allot of spam posting going on. 

On the subject of the lawsuit now. I'm glad somebody is doing this on the part of the customers. They advertise HD and how they have the best quality blab blah blah, but it doesn't change the fact they are changing 1920x1080i to a lower resolution. While they say that they offer the highest quality of HD out there. Do I think I deserve money back?NO! However D* has a responsiblity to be truthful in there advertising and in what they tell consumers that they are offering via press release,interview, ect.


----------



## minorthr (Nov 24, 2001)

I'm glad someone is suing them as well. There is definitely a difference between HD on D* and HD on comcast. As I said elsewhere the first week of the NFL season I was watching the eagles texans game and flipping between Comcast and D*'s feed. The D* feed looked so much softer and almost had a haze look over it while Comcast feed looked fantastic.


----------



## tnedator (Dec 4, 2003)

joetoronto said:


> lol, yes, kill all the lawyers, kill them tonight.
> 
> hey yaddayaddayadda, i've never had PQ anywhere near as bad as what you posted, not in SD or HD.
> 
> i'm wondering if the problem lies with your display.


I get it with camera flash scenes. One show where it will happen almost everytime is Deadline! on HdNet. They have a Bimbo update every show, which ususally includes some video of Paris Hilton having pictures taken of her. When they have the video of her with flashes going off, it breaks up like the image posted above.

I have never been sure if it is my lower end (new, but lower end) Samsung 720P DLP RPTV, or if it it is the Tivo or DirecTV.


----------



## kkluba (Oct 18, 2002)

This is a good thing. Finally, maybe we'll get clear definitions as to what is HDTV and what is not.


----------



## JoeSchueller (Jun 16, 2004)

The horror of this thing is that if this idiot manages to force D* into full HD resolutions their only choice will be to lower bitrates or remove channels. This guy is a real hero


----------



## thebarge (May 3, 2005)

tnedator said:


> I have never been sure if it is my lower end (new, but lower end) Samsung 720P DLP RPTV, or if it it is the Tivo or DirecTV.


I've noticed something similar on my Samsung HL-S5688W (1080p). But it doesn't seem quite as bad as the picture posted above. But then again, I don't go back frame-for-frame to find it so it could be


----------



## Gunnyman (Jul 10, 2003)

dswallow said:


> It's things like this that reinforces my belief that the only proper solution to our legal system is to kill all the lawyers. All of them.


Even Turtleboy?
How about AJRitz?


----------



## thebarge (May 3, 2005)

JoeSchueller said:


> The horror of this thing is that if this idiot manages to force D* into full HD resolutions their only choice will be to lower bitrates or remove channels. This guy is a real hero


They need to hurry up and launch the new birds. Honestly, if I had of known how poor of a state D* is in as far as their available bandwidth and poor HD offerings, I'm not sure I would have ordered my HR10-250 (extending my contract for 2 more years).


----------



## Lee L (Oct 1, 2003)

tnedator said:


> I get it with camera flash scenes. One show where it will happen almost everytime is Deadline! on HdNet. They have a Bimbo update every show, which ususally includes some video of Paris Hilton having pictures taken of her. When they have the video of her with flashes going off, it breaks up like the image posted above.
> 
> I have never been sure if it is my lower end (new, but lower end) Samsung 720P DLP RPTV, or if it it is the Tivo or DirecTV.


I have seen pixellization under that circumstance pretty much since I got an HDTV in 2001. Even with no subchannels and no extra compression, you can only cram so much info into the alloted space. When a flash goes off every single pixel changes twice in a very short time which screws up the compression algorythm which is built on teh fact that that almost never happens. I think that situations like that are just a trade off for a great picture the rest of the time.

I love the fact that someone is calling D* out on the lower resolution, but I kind of have to agree with Doug that a lawsuit is a littel over the top. Maybe the suit will go nowhere but this will at least get some publicity. Of course, if D* is to be believed, they have no space and will just have to shift things to MPEG4 which will render my beloved HR10-250s obsolete all that much sooner.


----------



## terpfan1980 (Jan 28, 2002)

generalpatton71 said:


> Earl does all your posts have to have a link to dbstalk? Should everybody at avs post a link to the thread they have on this subject or how about the sat guys forum? Maybe I'm being too harsh and I'm glad you're now part of the official dbstalk crew. It's just that you already have a link in your sig. Do you really need to link to dbstalk every time a subject concerning D* comes up? I mean Earl you have been a great asset to this forum but I'm seeing allot of spam posting going on.


I read that all as "whine, whine, whine". 

Seriously, I have no problem at all with what Earl has been posting, and how he's referenced other sites. Why should he not mention another site where there's an ongoing conversation on the exact same issue? Perhaps the people at other sites may not be aware of the site and may have ignored the signature block area entirely.



generalpatton71 said:


> On the subject of the lawsuit now. I'm glad somebody is doing this on the part of the customers. They advertise HD and how they have the best quality blab blah blah, but it doesn't change the fact they are changing 1920x1080i to a lower resolution. While they say that they offer the highest quality of HD out there. Do I think I deserve money back?NO! However D* has a responsiblity to be truthful in there advertising and in what they tell consumers that they are offering via press release,interview, ect.


On this I somewhat agree, though I'm also somewhat in agreement with dswallow's comments here:


dswallow said:


> It's things like this that reinforces my belief that the only proper solution to our legal system is to kill all the lawyers. All of them.


but to clarify and calm a few nerves in the issues raised here:


Gunnyman said:


> Even Turtleboy?
> How about AJRitz?


I think we mostly need to get the practicing ones  Or at least get them before they help create new ones that will follow along in the same field as the people that have created so many of the frivilous lawsuits out there.


----------



## ShiningBengal (Mar 19, 2001)

ebonovic said:


> Depends on the channel... the MPEG-4 locals, DirecTV is not altering the resolution. They are providing the same resolution they are receiving from the affiliate.
> 
> Actually I think the title of the thread needs to be change.
> From our discussions today (in the dbs thread), and the details of the linked site.... The suit isn't for the "HDLite" it is that this particular feels that DirecTV switched the Picture Quality after he signed up...
> ...


Hard to see why someone would be entitled to monetary damages over something so trivial. Why didn't he just switch to cable and be done with it if he thought he could get better picture quality there?

IMHO, class action lawsuits are merely a way for law firms to get fat, and constitute an abuse of the legal system. Classes of people are never damaged in a legal sense--individuals, yes.

If the subscriber felt he had been defrauded, his remedy would be to sue for fraud in a civil court, or have the attorney general seek a criminal indictment. That's how the legal systems is supposed to work.

If the law firm prevails, they will reap huge cash rewards for all their hard work, while the subscriber will get two months of free HD-Lite. This is merely another flavor of ambulance chasing.


----------



## dswallow (Dec 3, 2000)

Gunnyman said:


> Even Turtleboy?
> How about AJRitz?


Sometimes one must sacrifice for the greater good.


----------



## String (Aug 2, 2005)

ShiningBengal said:


> Hard to see why someone would be entitled to monetary damages over something so trivial. Why didn't he just switch to cable and be done with it if he thought he could get better picture quality there?
> 
> IMHO, class action lawsuits are merely a way for law firms to get fat, and constitute an abuse of the legal system. Classes of people are never damaged in a legal sense--individuals, yes.
> 
> ...


I think this is just a way for him to get out of his contract without having to pay the ETF. Or maybe entitled to reimbuirsement of HD service costs. Nothing more than that.

I think that the way it is used now, Class action suits only benefit the lawyers, but it is an important piece to our legal system, and without it, it would do more harm than good.


----------



## ebonovic (Jul 24, 2001)

generalpatton71 said:


> Earl does all your posts have to have a link to dbstalk? Should everybody at avs post a link to the thread they have on this subject or how about the sat guys forum? Maybe I'm being too harsh and I'm glad you're now part of the official dbstalk crew. It's just that you already have a link in your sig. Do you really need to link to dbstalk every time a subject concerning D* comes up? I mean Earl you have been a great asset to this forum but I'm seeing allot of spam posting going on.


You do realize that www.dbstalk.com, www.avsforum.com, and www.tivocommunity.com are all owned and operated by the same person, right?

They are all part of the AVS Forum family...
Also there is much more to DirecTV then just "TiVo", and non of that discussion fits into the definitions of what is wanted for TCF. And as more and more of DirecTV moves away from the DTiVo platform, more discussion is going to occur at www.dbstalk.com then TCF (just like AVS has a hard direct link for DirecTV conversation to www.dbstalk.com)

So yah... I redirect all of the non-TiVo DVR discussion there, as that is what the mods/admins decided on nearly a year ago.

And this particular topic, we already spent a great portion of the day discussing about... so hence why I refered people there (Since a lot of people visit both places).

I also do the same over there when people have very distinct TiVo based question (refer them here)... 
Or Remote Control question (I send them to www.remotecentral.com)
Or advanced AV questions (I send them to www.avsforum.com)
Or Video Editing/Capture or DVD Recorder (I send them to www.vcdhelp.com)


----------



## terpfan1980 (Jan 28, 2002)

The key point in Earl's answer above being that the powers that be have determined that TivoCommunityForums will remain based on discussions related to TIVO, not discussions circling around other hardware, etc.

While DirecTV has had the partnership with TiVo in the past, and there are plenty of users of the HR10-250 HiDef DirecTV DVR receivers with TiVo software, the problem that is being discussed here isn't really specific to those receivers, it's a problem with DirecTV's manipulation of the quality of the HiDef channels they provide. Period. End of discussion.

It makes sense to discuss it in this "DirecTV HDTV" related forum here at TCF but it makes much more sense to discuss it elsewhere where the focus is more on DirecTV in general, and less on a particular subset of DirecTV customers.

Remember this problem impacts all DirecTV HiDef customers. Not just those that are using the HR10-250. DirecTV has softened, over compressed, or otherwise manipulated the HiDef channels they provide for some time now. I'm not sure I could pin it on any specific date/time, but it's definitely been on-going and seems to have gotten worse lately. Certainly the picture on TNT-HD was pretty crap*tastic this weekend. Of course that would have been during a time that HDNet was knocked off line just to make room for Sunday Ticket programming. This is just not a great time of the year for HiDef programming on DirecTV anyway - they have Sunday Ticket up and running on Sundays, MLB Extra Innings still running, and soon will have Hockey and Basketball in play also.

That's a lot of stuff to get squeezed into smallish bandwidth.

Again though, it makes more sense to discuss this further in a place where the audience is bigger


----------



## Bob_Newhart (Jul 14, 2004)

Who can I sue to get my 6.3 update?


----------



## Sopranoman (Dec 16, 2001)

ebonovic said:


> You do realize that www.dbstalk.com, www.avsforum.com, and www.tivocommunity.com are all owned and operated by the same person, right?
> 
> They are all part of the AVS Forum family...
> Also there is much more to DirecTV then just "TiVo", and non of that discussion fits into the definitions of what is wanted for TCF. And as more and more of DirecTV moves away from the DTiVo platform, more discussion is going to occur at www.dbstalk.com then TCF (just like AVS has a hard direct link for DirecTV conversation to www.dbstalk.com)
> ...


generalpatton71 = OWNED


----------



## generalpatton71 (Oct 30, 2002)

ebonovic said:


> You do realize that www.dbstalk.com, www.avsforum.com, and www.tivocommunity.com are all owned and operated by the same person, right?
> 
> They are all part of the AVS Forum family...
> Also there is much more to DirecTV then just "TiVo", and non of that discussion fits into the definitions of what is wanted for TCF. And as more and more of DirecTV moves away from the DTiVo platform, more discussion is going to occur at www.dbstalk.com then TCF (just like AVS has a hard direct link for DirecTV conversation to www.dbstalk.com)
> ...


Yes, yes, I know all this(I mean could anybody not see the monster cable elf thing going on?), but it doesn't change the fact any topic that covers D* and you link to dbstalk. I have no problem with the site I have an account there and post now and then. It's simply every other post you link to dbstalk. We all know it's there we don't need to be reminded every other post. It's one thing to refer somebody when they are talking about the HR20 or you've seen a topic that might answer somebody question or something.

I don't know if you guys are just trying to get a more active forum over there or what. The next step is going to be a sticky saying any mention of the word D* or Directv is to be done off site. This is a High Def D* Tivo forum. People were talking about a issue that directly affects HR10 users and you link to a another forum as if this discussion should be done there or something.

Like I said Earl your the man, Dbstalk is a good forum, but you could have easily refereed people to the HDTV Programing thread on avs. It has over 30 more posts as of 12pm Central. I'm not trying to be mean or anything else. I'm just saying it would be nice if you could dial back the dbstalk stuff some. I don't know of a place on this forum where people don't try to redirect somebody somewhere. People are trying there best to discuss things in there proper "forum" and having 20 separate forum rooms on TCF, 34 on dbstalk, and 86(to my count) on avs isn't helping. The same thing could be discussed in 3 or 4 different forums. Just let people chat with out promoting or redirecting to another site. I don't care if it's all owned by the same guy so he still gets all the cash. I care about people being able to go on a community website and discuss with that community about something that effects said community. So I'll repeat myself to all the Earl lover out there. I'm not attacking earl. I like earl he has worked very hard to build up the rep he has on all these forums. He deserves a pat on the back for everything he has done, but he's quickly becoming the next "HEAD ONE, APPLY DIRECTLY TO THE FOREHEAD, HEAD ON, APPLY DIRECTLY TO THE FOREHEAD" but his tag is "HEAD ON OVER TO DBSTALK, HEAD ON OVER TO DBSTALK, HEAD ON OVER TO DBSTALK".


----------



## ebonovic (Jul 24, 2001)

I know you are not attacking me...

Other then for the DVR+ conversations (where I do redirect regularrly), I think this is one of the very few times I have posted a discussion re-direct to dbstalk... (Excluding reviews, and reference links)


----------



## TroyM (Mar 11, 2003)

No doubt that Class Action suits are abused. However, in this case, we have nothing to lose and everything to gain. 

The best case scenario is that DTV loses the suit and is forced to provide a quality signal again. The worst case is that the suit is thrown out and we continue as we are today. Nothing to lose for in either case, DTV gets negative publicity.

I really like the fact the judge denied the motion the for arbitration. Despite DTV counsel claiming the suit is without merit, the judge seems to disagree. While the lawyers will always make the money in these cases, DTV is forced to realize that customers won't just lie there and take it. 

To address the sentiment that people that are unhappy should just leave, DTV has ensured that unhappy subscribers can't just leave by requiring a new multi-year commitment everytime we sneeze. If they were confident of their performance, maybe they would not feel the need to lock people in legally and leave it up to their offerings to keep us. *For the record, I'm an 8+ year subscriber and have no comittment but I'm just saying.


----------



## dswallow (Dec 3, 2000)

TroyM said:


> However, in this case, we have nothing to lose and everything to gain.


That's always the justification for class action suits. There needs to be a severe penalty if one loses in order to keep out the riff-raff.


----------



## drew2k (Jun 10, 2003)

I'm definitely dumb when it comes to legal issues and class-action lawsuits, but in my mind, wouldn't the plaintiff have to prove we, the consumers, have somehow been harmed by DirecTV's alleged deception or misrepresentation on HD quality? I know my SD picture quality has dropped since 2003, but it's still better quality than my cable company. I never had HD from DirecTV before October 2003, and I haven't seen any change in HD content since then. 

I haven't enjoyed watching TV any less nor have I felt as if I wasn't getting my money's worth, so in my mind, the plaintiff has a lot to prove ...


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

drew2k said:


> I'm definitely dumb when it comes to legal issues and class-action lawsuits, but in my mind, wouldn't the plaintiff have to prove we, the consumers, have somehow been harmed by DirecTV's alleged deception or misrepresentation on HD quality?


In theory, yes, but I just got notification that a non-profit group I am President of is on the winning side of a class-action suit that involved a technicality in bill payment (I can't remember the details but some notice not put on a bill that was paid late in violation of the law).

No harm done to my group or the original defendant, but the class action suit was won anyway.

Nothing is ever sure when it comes to courts.


----------



## Big Daddy P (Jul 21, 2004)

I love this suit. It shows that we know they're screwing us, and we're mad as hell and not gonna take it anymore. They think that they can do whatever they want to subscribers and we won't complain? 

I hope they get forced to up the rez to a real HDTV standard as defined by the industry. And the bit rates...that's a whole other screw job!

How you like us now D*?


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

TroyM said:


> No doubt that Class Action suits are abused. However, in this case, we have nothing to lose and everything to gain.
> 
> The best case scenario is that DTV loses the suit and is forced to provide a quality signal again. The worst case is that the suit is thrown out and we continue as we are today. Nothing to lose for in either case, DTV gets negative publicity.
> 
> ...


But what I read of the suit doesn't say anything about commitment, just signal quality.

This suit annoys the crap out of me. I think it is a nuisance suit. For one, I have NEVER been told what level of HD I am getting and there is no definition of it except what some techies on here claim it to be.

And we, as customers of D*, do have something to lose. If the case is done before the new satellites are functional, if D* is forced to go full HD, you will lose stations.

Gee, when we lose 8 hours of one station for a few weeks, look at the uproar. What will happen when they say, gee, we have to cut back three HD stations to comply with this order?

If it is finished when the new satellites are up, it is a waste of time.

If D* incurs costs on this, who do you think pays?

And, meanwhile, the other providers who are either doing HD Lite or are monkeying with signals in other ways get off scott free.

Some people have too much time on their hands. Poor original filer wasn't getting his 10 bucks worth, or so he thinks. I am getting my $10 worth. And he is standing on unsubstantiated claims. Who has EVER been promised any numbers from D* on HD?

You know, I used to think this forum and its sister forums were filled with smart, forward thinking, technology based people. Lately, all it has been is whining. And now some are cheering on a whiner who is wasting the legal system's resources for a few bits of a TV screen.

Please!


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

Big Daddy P said:


> I love this suit. It shows that we know they're screwing us, and we're mad as hell and not gonna take it anymore. They think that they can do whatever they want to subscribers and we won't complain?


Screwing you?

Wow!

Guess they are forcing you to buy their product.

You're mad as hell over a few bits on a TV screen. Wow! Your priorities are so well placed.


----------



## JimSpence (Sep 19, 2001)

parzec said:


> Always amusing to see those "HD sponsored by DirecTV" ads when DirecTV is actually broadcasting in HD-Lite.


They aren't totally lying about that. HD refers to the vertical resolution, 1080 in this case. The 1280 horizontal resolution wouldn't be so bad if they didn't also compress the signal so much.


----------



## rminsk (Jun 4, 2002)

Big Daddy P said:


> I love this suit. It shows that we know they're screwing us, and we're mad as hell and not gonna take it anymore. They think that they can do whatever they want to subscribers and we won't complain?


This is not a class action suite. It shows that he knows they're screwing him, and he's mad as hell and not gonna take it anymore. Would it have more impact as a class action suite?


----------



## rkester (Jan 10, 2005)

yaddayaddayadda said:


> This happens during all moving lights (like spotlights, camera flashes). Is this HD Lite?


No, thats DirecTV's new "mosaic" presentation for the artfully inclined.

I had friends over to watch Episode 3 in HD one saturday night and they mentioned how blocky it got during action. Almost embarrasing to me as a customer.

I hope its just because they throttle their bandwidth to channel it to their power money sports packages. At least that way they can turn it up. Vs this is how it is and they cant fix it.


----------



## brott (Feb 23, 2001)

Tony D, you get a standing Ovation from me. Very well put.


----------



## ShiningBengal (Mar 19, 2001)

TroyM said:


> No doubt that Class Action suits are abused. However, in this case, we have nothing to lose and everything to gain.
> 
> The best case scenario is that DTV loses the suit and is forced to provide a quality signal again. The worst case is that the suit is thrown out and we continue as we are today. Nothing to lose for in either case, DTV gets negative publicity.
> 
> ...


Even in what you call "the best case scenario" subscribers as a whole will suffer. Class action lawsuits such as this are nothing more than legal blackmail. As DTV's costs go up, the money available to provide quality service goes down. (In case you don't realize it, DirecTV has consistently been among the top two performers in the JD Powers rankings of TV signal providers in customer service for the past several years.)

Society as a whole pays the cost of the lost productivity caused by "class action" lawsuits. The vast, vast majority of these lawsuits are completely frivolous. The ones that aren't would gladly be undertaken by tort lawyers on a contingency basis. The only winners of successful class action lawsuits are the lawyers. Everyone else loses: employees, shareholders, and customers. Happily, the lawyers also lose in the case of unsuccessful ones. 

If people are unhappy with DirecTV services, then why do they purchase (subsidized, of course) new equipment that obligates them to continue with a signal provider that is unsatisfactory? If you have cellphone service and you want a new phone (subsidized, of course), you must likewise agree to extend your contract. I don't see anything at all underhanded about this. If you don't like DirecTV, or you don't like your cellphone company, then for God's sake, why obligate yourself to them by adding to your contractual obligation to them?

To waste the court's time (paid for by taxpayers) over something as trivial as some perceived reduction in signal quality is worse than a bad joke. Why not sue the networks for bad programming? That's more justifiable than a lawsuit for reducing resolution!


----------



## TroyM (Mar 11, 2003)

Wow! I really disagree with you Bengal. If DTV can't deliver what they advertise, we have an obligation to do one of two things:

1) Bring it to their attention. This may require complaining. 
2) Go somewhere else. 

Passively sitting back and accepting what's given is not acceptable. If there is no feedback, then DTV will assume it's ok. 

Regarding #2, you can't be a DTV subscriber without having a commitment. Anything we buy is said to be subsidized regardless if it is or isn't. So, your point about not incurring a commitment is a bit off base. Now, after the comitment expires and we stay, well, that's a choice. I, myself, fall into that category. I'm displeased with HD Lite but not to the point of filing a suit myself. I will, however, go to a new provider as soon as a suitably better provider presents itself in my area. 

Do I have a right to complain about HD Lite? Sure. 

Also, to your point about HDTV not being defined, it's very well defined. The ATSC provides 18 formats and exactly 6 of them are HDTV. They are 1920x1080 (3 different frame rates) and 1280x720 (3 different frame rates). In so much as DTV is alleged to provide 1440x1080, that's not a defined ATSC format and can't be called HDTV by definition. Is it good enough? I don't think that's really what the filer of suit is debating.


----------



## dswallow (Dec 3, 2000)

TroyM said:


> Wow! I really disagree with you Bengal. If DTV can't deliver what they advertise, we have an obligation to do one of two things:
> 
> 1) Bring it to their attention. This may require complaining.
> 2) Go somewhere else.
> ...


ATSC defines output standards; your HD receiver is putting out 720p or 1080i no matter what channel you tune to if it's set to output those formats. You're always getting HD. Most HD displays wouldn't know what to do with a 1440x1080i signal.

If you think that's the wrong way to look at it, then you should be suing content providers who upconvert, too.

Satellite delivery of higher definition programming has no set "standard" it must follow; there's no log/certification program of any sort to identifyh that from filming/taping through production and broadcast and delivery to your display that any given minimum resolution is maintained.

ATSC simply defines 18 standard combinations of vertical/horizontal resolutions and frame rates. And DirecTV must be compliant in order to be able to get an image to appear on digital displays.


----------



## drew2k (Jun 10, 2003)

TroyM said:


> No doubt that Class Action suits are abused. However, in this case, we have nothing to lose and everything to gain.
> 
> The best case scenario is that DTV loses the suit and is forced to provide a quality signal again. The worst case is that the suit is thrown out and we continue as we are today. Nothing to lose for in either case, DTV gets negative publicity.


If this suit ever makes it to court and DirecTV loses, and they're forced to provide full resolution on HD content, DirecTV will have to free up some bandwidth to do so. Which channels would you propose get dropped? Which group of DirecTV customers do you propose to piss-off next?


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

ebonovic said:


> Depends on the channel... the MPEG-4 locals, DirecTV is not altering the resolution. They are providing the same resolution they are receiving from the affiliate.
> ....


is there anyway to KNOW that since no one can extract MPEG4 from those boxes to see? I assume there's no way to get a resolution from the HR20 or H20 boxes since Directv had it scrubbed from the HR10?


----------



## TroyM (Mar 11, 2003)

dswallow said:


> ATSC defines output standards; your HD receiver is putting out 720p or 1080i no matter what channel you tune to if it's set to output those formats. You're always getting HD. Most HD displays wouldn't know what to do with a 1440x1080i signal.
> 
> If you think that's the wrong way to look at it, then you should be suing content providers who upconvert, too.
> 
> ...


I think you're missing my point. I'm just stating that HDTV is defined as somone else said it wasn't. I'm not the plaintiff of the suit. I just like the idea of someone telling DTV in terms they understand that we don't like it.

Personally, I'm very aware of scaling and understand that my STB puts out any given signal I ask of it. Besides, my primary HDTV is CRT RP and it's lucky to display 1200x1080i. I have no false impression of how things work.


----------



## TroyM (Mar 11, 2003)

drew2k said:


> If this suit ever makes it to court and DirecTV loses, and they're forced to provide full resolution on HD content, DirecTV will have to free up some bandwidth to do so. Which channels would you propose get dropped? Which group of DirecTV customers do you propose to piss-off next?


Well, since this is a ME generation, I'd say they can "piss off" any group they want that's not ME.  I'm jesting when I say that of course.

Personally, I'd be satisfied if DTV would just change their advertising. If they are altering the signal they are provided, they should say so. If Discovery HD provides them a 1920x1080i signal and they scale it to 1440x1080i, that's not offering the full signal.

Do I like HD Lite? No. Does it really burn my hide? No. I just like the fact that DTV is being called on this. All they really need to do is admit it. We can then continue to pay for it or not. While I don't like it, it's better than what I can get OTA so I live with it. It's simply supply and demand really. Until someone else in my area can supply me with something better, I have to demand my HDTV fix from DTV in whatever modifed form they choose to provide it.


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

dswallow said:


> That's always the justification for class action suits. There needs to be a severe penalty if one loses in order to keep out the riff-raff.


I once heard than in ENgland the loser in civil cases ALWAYS has to pay for the winners lawyer fees.

I think that is a very interesting idea...


----------



## dswallow (Dec 3, 2000)

TroyM said:


> I think you're missing my point. I'm just stating that HDTV is defined as somone else said it wasn't. I'm not the plaintiff of the suit. I just like the idea of someone telling DTV in terms they understand that we don't like it.
> 
> Personally, I'm very aware of scaling and understand that my STB puts out any given signal I ask of it. Besides, my primary HDTV is CRT RP and it's lucky to display 1200x1080i. I have no false impression of how things work.


My point was simply that there's varying resolution at other stages beyond DirecTV's control, so this sort of suit is just silly. Similarly why limit it to "HD" channels? Broadcast NTSC is capable of better than what DirecTV (and most every other satellite and cable provider) transmit... and some signals are so compressed digitally that they're very washed out. And for that matter how about analog signals on many cable systems that're snowy and ghosty much of the time... there's a lawsuit begging to happen.

I didn't mean to sound like I was directing it to you; just using your post as a stepping off point for the discussion.


----------



## rminsk (Jun 4, 2002)

dswallow said:


> Satellite delivery of higher definition programming has no set "standard" it must follow; there's no log/certification program of any sort to identifyh that from filming/taping through production and broadcast and delivery to your display that any given minimum resolution is maintained.


Acording to Robert Mercer DirecTVs spokesman there is. "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"


----------



## rminsk (Jun 4, 2002)

dswallow said:


> and some signals are so compressed digitally that they're very washed out. And for that matter how about analog signals on many cable systems that're snowy and ghosty much of the time... there's a lawsuit begging to happen.


The lawsuit is not about compression but about resolution. " The complaint alleges that DIRECTV engaged in unlawful or fraudulent business practices by lowering its HDTV picture resolution in September 2004."


----------



## TroyM (Mar 11, 2003)

dswallow said:


> My point was simply that there's varying resolution at other stages beyond DirecTV's control, so this sort of suit is just silly. Similarly why limit it to "HD" channels? Broadcast NTSC is capable of better than what DirecTV (and most every other satellite and cable provider) transmit... and some signals are so compressed digitally that they're very washed out. And for that matter how about analog signals on many cable systems that're snowy and ghosty much of the time... there's a lawsuit begging to happen.
> 
> I didn't mean to sound like I was directing it to you; just using your post as a stepping off point for the discussion.


Good points. I don't know that anybody has ever sued over NTSC modification before. I think in the beginning, people were so enamored with DBS because it could provide crystal clear images (no snow or ghosts) that they never considered actual resolution. Also, actual resolution was never a given anyway as most every source was different (Broadcast, Laserdisc, VCR, DVD).

I think HDTV is different in that the very nature of HDTV is Higher Resolution. Thus, as HDTV consumers, we tend to be very protective of actually receiving all the resolution possible. As a home theater nut, I realize that there is more to a signal than resolution. The limited bandwidth (as evidenced by all the macro blocking) makes more of a noticeable difference than the missing resolution.

As far as lawsuits go, I agree with you. Most are frivolous and benefit lawyers. Still, the underdog in me really likes to see the corporate Goliath made to listen.


----------



## dswallow (Dec 3, 2000)

rminsk said:


> The lawsuit is not about compression but about resolution. " The complaint alleges that DIRECTV engaged in unlawful or fraudulent business practices by lowering its HDTV picture resolution in September 2004."


I can make a worse picture by raising the resolution and compressing it more. I can also broadcast 200x200 pixel video at an upconverted 1920x1080i. There's no law or standard saying anything about any of it. DirecTV (and most every cable company) has never stated as part of any sales presentation that any of their channels is at any specific resolution; And even if they did, it'd be mostly meaningless as that would represent only one small portion of the production/delivery path.

If you don't like the way it looks, stop paying for it and go to someone else for it.


----------



## dswallow (Dec 3, 2000)

TroyM said:


> I think HDTV is different in that the very nature of HDTV is Higher Resolution. Thus, as HDTV consumers, we tend to be very protective of actually receiving all the resolution possible.


Even then there's different "higher resolutions;" and there's even the nutjobs who insist it must be 1080p. And when someone comes up with 2160p displays, expect more nutjobs to come out of the closet and insist anything less isn't "HD."


----------



## Mikehdtv (Feb 18, 2004)

dswallow said:


> It's things like this that reinforces my belief that the only proper solution to our legal system is to kill all the lawyers. All of them.


I say pluck all the Hothouse Flowers and the world would be a much safer place.


----------



## rminsk (Jun 4, 2002)

dswallow said:


> I can make a worse picture by raising the resolution and compressing it more. I can also broadcast 200x200 pixel video at an upconverted 1920x1080i. There's no law or standard saying anything about any of it.


The lawsuit says resolution and not compression. If the complaintant tries to bring up anything about higher compression then that evidence can be throw out. The complaint I think is about calling 1440x1080 (16x9) or 1280x1080 High Definition when it is not by the ATSC standard. It is hard to tell without seeing the complete filing.


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

to be honest, I'd like to see the guy win- so that there is a legal precendent of what can and can not be called HD. As doug points out- there is no law, legal standard, or regulation.

The think closest thing to a government approved answer is the CEA's 720p and 1080i which i think the FTC forced them to commit too. 

That definition totally ignore vertical lines so in theory you could sell a tv that is 720px100 and still call it HD. 

I'd like there to be a legal standard. If it has to include the cable tv/ dbs 1080ix1440 and 1080ix1280 then so be it, but they should draw a line somplace.

I also understand dougs point that all the links in the chain need to be HD and there's no way to mandate that now. I'd like to see a legal standard and then everything along the chain would need to be that to say "HD". If someone takes 480p cameras and upconverts to 720p broadcast then they should not be allowed to say HD to describe the show on the air on in the guide data.

They might need to make some exceptions for some camera's or something (for example local news might be HD in the studio and the chopper but the vans seem to stil be 480p)- but there should be a standard.

JMHO


----------



## trausch (Jan 8, 2004)

Most likely the lawyers will make millions and we will all get 30 seconds of free HDTV on some direct tv channel.


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

trausch said:


> Most likely the lawyers will make millions and we will all get 30 seconds of free HDTV on some direct tv channel.


I think it's could be worse than that for the directv subs.

lawyer will get millions, Directv will hand out coupons for one free month of HD or some crappy PPV coupon, and then Direcv will have to agree to keep 1080x1920 content at that resolution. Since they have no more place to get bits from for another 9 months or a year- you'll get macroblocking so big that that it looks like a painting at the MOMA.


----------



## rminsk (Jun 4, 2002)

trausch said:


> Most likely the lawyers will make millions and we will all get 30 seconds of free HDTV on some direct tv channel.


This is not a class action lawsuit...


----------



## kroddy (Oct 31, 2001)

rminsk said:


> This is not a class action lawsuit...


The first paragraph of the article linked in the OP says it is.


----------



## tarman (Aug 3, 2002)

Say what you want about the suit, but IF you can not see the dramatic difference between CBS's excellent HD football broadcast quality OTA (WRAL-TV Raleigh) vs D* HD-Lite broadcast of the same game both on my HR10 (yes, they failed to blackout for a while last Sunday) then you need a new TV.

It is like the difference between me trying to read small type with and without my 2.0x reading glasses.


----------



## ebonovic (Jul 24, 2001)

I don't think there is any debate that the image is differnt.

But compare the HD LIte to the SD version of it....

Is it as good as it can be... no... Is it a lot better then it used to be? (as compared to SD broadcasts)... oh yes.


The suit is not about proving they are using a lower bitrate/resolution... that is an easy fact to prove, no lawsuit needed there.


----------



## rminsk (Jun 4, 2002)

kroddy said:


> The first paragraph of the article linked in the OP says it is.


You are right. Why have I not been contacted or anyone else on this forum to be part of the class action? I subscribed to the HD package back when the suite was filed.


----------



## kroddy (Oct 31, 2001)

rminsk said:


> You are right. Why have I not been contacted or anyone else on this forum to be part of the class action? I subscribed to the HD package back when the suite was filed.


I'm no lawyer, don't play one on TV or the Internet, and have never even stayed at a Holiday Inn, but I believe members of the class are only contacted once a potential settlement has been decided, and at that point the defendant is required to notify you and give you the chance to accept it as part of the class.


----------



## KenW (Mar 19, 2001)

I am not convinced that the result will be higher resolutions. I expect the only people that will win are the lawyers, and all they will get is money. As a further benefit, I expect the cost to Directv will cause resolutions to deteriorate further. 

Not that I'm cynical or anything...


----------



## ebonovic (Jul 24, 2001)

The only way you get higher resolution right now... is to lose 1 or 2 HD networks.
Then the others can be increased...

Other then that... there is no technological way to get higher resolution till the new sats are up, or the HD is migrated to MPEG-4


----------



## rkester (Jan 10, 2005)

OR if they put the sports smit on another sat. they sure love the money it makes them and are willing to gyp us on the HD package as a result.


----------



## Richard Chalk (May 13, 2004)

kkluba said:


> This is a good thing. Finally, maybe we'll get clear definitions as to what is HDTV and what is not.


The Consumer Electronics Association has defined the standards as follows:

HDTV is 720p or 1080i, with a 16 x 9 aspect ratio. It does not specifically state the number of pixels in the horizontal dimension

EDTV is 480p or higher, with no specified aspect ratio

SDTV is any vertical scanning less than EDTV above, and no specified aspect ratio.

HDTV-Lite has no definition in any of the CEA or ATSC standards, and has been "named" by users as a way of describing the reduced-bandwidth images.

When you think about this, almost all of the TV displays sold have less than 1920 Horizontal pixels. It is only the newest large-screen displays that can actually do 1920 Horizontal, so by this definition, the retailers are also selling "HD-Lite" for the most part.

Does this mean that these receivers should not be called HDTV? According to the formal definiitions, there is no case here...


----------



## rkester (Jan 10, 2005)

Question. been raised before...

Can the avg person actually percieve true HD?

I cannot tell the diff between 1080i and 720p. I bet im not the only one.

but I can tell the diff between my locals OTA and directv's TNT HD or SHO HD.


----------



## BillyT2002 (Oct 19, 2002)

ebonovic said:


> The only way you get higher resolution right now... is to lose 1 or 2 HD networks.
> Then the others can be increased...
> 
> Other then that... there is no technological way to get higher resolution till the new sats are up, or the HD is migrated to MPEG-4


Easy! Just get rid of the ESPN-HD channels, the NESN-HD channel, all of the RSNs and all of the channels devoted to NFLST and other sports packages and you have enough HD bandwidth for full resolution for the rest + a SciFi-HD channel (which will hopefully exist soon) and a few more Discovery typed channels and movie channels in high-def. After all, that's what people want.


----------



## drew2k (Jun 10, 2003)

Richard Chalk said:


> The Consumer Electronics Association has defined the standards as follows:
> 
> HDTV is 720p or 1080i, with a 16 x 9 aspect ratio. It does not specifically state the number of pixels in the horizontal dimension.
> 
> ...


I'm confused ... you say HDTV specifications do not include the number of pixels in the horizontal dimension, yet you're also saying based on the 1920 Horizontal pixel count for newer TV's the older TVs should be called HD-Lite. But the spec says you don't count the horizontal pixels, so why are you saying older TV's that can't display 1920 pixels horizontally are not HD? By your own admission, horizontal pixels don''t count, right, so the older TV's are not HD-Lite, they're HD?


----------



## generalpatton71 (Oct 30, 2002)

I'm just glad somebody is calling them out on this. The courts will decide the merits of the case, but at least finally somebody is calling them out. Somebody had to do this!! I have a local OTA station that broadcasts a full 1080i signal and 3 multicast stations. This just kills the PQ on there station. Consumers need to stand up and call "BULL$***" on bit starved HD signals. Locals have every right to do this, but we can do as Terpfan said "whine,whine,whine". However on this D* lawsuit I'm sure I'm not the only one who has spent thousands of dollars on going HD and buying equipment from D*. My personal *opinion* is that HDTV is 1240x720p,1920x1080i/p everything else over 480i is ED. D* is knownly down resing a 1920x1080i signal to 1240x1080i and yet they advertise it as full glorious HD. It may not be illegal (not a lawyer) but it sure is deceptive, but what can you expect from a Turdbird??


----------



## agzela (Aug 13, 2006)

From TVPredictions:
It's not been a good week for DIRECTV. Well, at least not for the executives who oversee the company's High-Definition TV service.

First, Eric Shanks, DIRECTV's executive vice president of entertainment, revealed to TVPredictions.com that the satcaster would not add more national HDTV channels until the second quarter of 2007. Shanks said DIRECTV instead would focus on rolling out local HD channels in more markets across the country. (DIRECTV is launching several new satellites to expand its local HD service now and national HD in 2007.)

How Big Is the Problem?

DIRECTV would appear to be in danger of aliening the growing high-def audience. More than 20 million U.S. homes now have high-def sets and sales are expected to boom during the holiday season. While e-mail writers and Internet posters do not represent that entire audience, they do reflect a growing unrest among DIRECTV's HD subscribers.

But just how bad is the damage? To answer that, we need to more closely examine the week's two news developments:

1. No National HDTV Channels Until 2007

DIRECTV has only added two national HD channels (TNT HD and ESPN 2HD) in the last year, a big disappointment considering chief rival EchoStar is now at 30 national HD channels. Many DIRECTV high-def owners say they were sure the satcaster would have added at least a few more by now -- and certainly more by the 2006 holidays. DIRECTV at this point does not carry such HD networks as Starz HD, MHD (MTV Networks' high-def music channel), National Geographic HD and Food Network HD.


----------



## agzela (Aug 13, 2006)

From TVPredictions:
DIRECTV says the case has no merit, but the mere filing has triggered a wave of negative publicity about its high-def service.

To make matters worse, Peter Cohen's charge is a tough one to defend. Even if DIRECTV's high-def resolution is up to industry standards, many HD owners who have poorly tuned sets will still think it's the satcaster's fault. Regardless of what DIRECTV does from now, a perception has been created that it dilutes the picture. 

However, DIRECTV next year will switch to a new HD compression technology, called MPEG 4, which promises cleaner and more detailed images. Perhaps then, DIRECTV will be able to turn the issue around. 

So, bottom line, DIRECTV has been hurt by the two revelations. But when it switches to MPEG 4 -- and adds a large number of national HD channels, as promised -- I suspect that all will be forgiven.


----------



## Richard Chalk (May 13, 2004)

drew2k said:


> I'm confused ... you say HDTV specifications do not include the number of pixels in the horizontal dimension, yet you're also saying based on the 1920 Horizontal pixel count for newer TV's the older TVs should be called HD-Lite. But the spec says you don't count the horizontal pixels, so why are you saying older TV's that can't display 1920 pixels horizontally are not HD? By your own admission, horizontal pixels don''t count, right, so the older TV's are not HD-Lite, they're HD?


I was actually being a little facetious, but in re-reading my own post I realize it was not obvious. What I meant was that, if the users are going to define their own standard, and call it "HD-Lite", then by default, almost all the TVs sold would fall under that category, but since there is no specification in the official definition, then DirecTV is not contradicting the HDTV name by reducing the resolution.

As a side note, since 720p only has, at most 1280 pixels, and no one considers that not to be HD, the rest of the argument has no merit. 1280 x 1080 has the same horizontal definition, and more vertical, so it is "higher definition" than 720p. (I realize there are arguments about dynamic resolution, but that is not a part of anyone's definition, since it is subjective).

By the way, it is not just "older" TVs. Virtually all of the LCD sets below 37" and almost all of the HD plasma sets are not 1920 x 1080. Most are 1366 x 768, which is not even in the broadcast specification. Maybe the manufacturers should be sued as well......


----------



## ShiningBengal (Mar 19, 2001)

agzela said:


> It's not been a good week for DIRECTV. Well, at least not for the executives who oversee the company's High-Definition TV service <snip>
> 
> DIRECTV has only added two national HD channels (TNT HD and ESPN 2HD) in the last year, a big disappointment considering chief rival EchoStar is now at 30 national HD channels. Many DIRECTV high-def owners say they were sure the satcaster would have added at least a few more by now -- and certainly more by the 2006 holidays. DIRECTV at this point does not carry such HD networks as Starz HD, MHD (MTV Networks' high-def music channel), National Geographic HD and Food Network HD.


People, who cares how many HD channels exist on rival signal providers. The fact of the matter is that MOST of the HD channels on Dish (particularly the former Voom channels) do not have compelling content, and in many cases, have pretty sad true resolution, regardless of whether they call them HD or not.

I don't give a hoot how many HD channels that I will never watch are on DirecTV or rival providers. (The only channel I would truly like to see added to DirecTV's lineup is National Geographic HD.)

I have no need for 150 more "HD" channels of total crap. There are nowhere near 150 channels with HD content available now, nor will there be any time soon. Are there 150 channels of quality SD content available to you now????

Most people watch 10 to 20 channels now, and that is unlikely to change with the addition of more HD channels. I don't care how many PPV HD offering are available, since there are only a tiny fration of the movies now offered in SD that I would spend the time (not to mention the $$) to watch.

What you will see is more local and regional sports and special interest HD on a fee-based price structure. I am paying $72/month now and that is pretty much the limit of what I am willing to pay for signal. I will not pay simply to have more channels I have no wish to see.


----------



## ShiningBengal (Mar 19, 2001)

rminsk said:


> The lawsuit is not about compression but about resolution. " The complaint alleges that DIRECTV engaged in unlawful or fraudulent business practices by lowering its HDTV picture resolution in September 2004."


Hmm. I wonder how many would agree that if DirecTV immediately gives us a full-bitrate 1080p they should be able to charge all of their subscribers for the increased bandwidth? Would that be a violation of their subscriber agreements? I didn't read, anywhere, in my TOS that DirecTV agrees to any particular pricing structure. Competition is what dictates satellite service pricing, not the courts, not the governement.

Bandwidth costs money. That's part of what everyone pays for in their monthly subscription fees. Somehow, that is an issue that has been pretty much disregarded in this thread.

As far as a consumer remedy for poor service, the proper avenue isn't the legal system. It's voting with your feet. If you don't like it, LEAVE! If I don't like the merchandise or service of a retail store, I can shop somewhere else! In nearly every case, consumers have at least two sources for their TV signal. In my case, there are three!

DirecTV isn't perfect--far from it. Maybe their HD isn't as good as OTA. So what? If I don't like it, I can leave!


----------



## Markman07 (Jul 18, 2001)

agzela said:


> It's not been a good week for DIRECTV. Well, at least not for the executives who oversee the company's High-Definition TV service.
> 
> First, Eric Shanks, DIRECTV's executive vice president of entertainment, revealed to TVPredictions.com that the satcaster would not add more national HDTV channels until the second quarter of 2007. Shanks said DIRECTV instead would focus on rolling out local HD channels in more markets across the country. (DIRECTV is launching several new satellites to expand its local HD service now and national HD in 2007.)
> 
> ...


I may have missed it but why don't you give the SOURCE the credit for your post since you are doing a full copy and paste of TVPredictions.Com News! It appears from your post that this all came from you! Talk about plagiarism.


----------



## ebonovic (Jul 24, 2001)

Maybe: agzela is SWANI!!!!! 
And he has decided to come visit us...

Link to the source.
http://www.tvpredictions.com/directvbig092106.htm


----------



## yaddayaddayadda (Apr 8, 2003)

agzela said:


> How Big Is the Problem?
> 
> DIRECTV would appear to be in danger of aliening the growing high-def audience. More than 20 million U.S. homes now have high-def sets and sales are expected to boom during the holiday season. While e-mail writers and Internet posters do not represent that entire audience, they do reflect a growing unrest among DIRECTV's HD subscribers.


I, for one, will switch to Dish or Cable before I'm aliened.


----------



## Chuck_IV (Jan 1, 2002)

agzela said:


> However, DIRECTV next year will switch to a new HD compression technology, called MPEG 4, which promises cleaner and more detailed images. Perhaps then, DIRECTV will be able to turn the issue around.


It's not about the compression, it's about the down-ressing. Sure MPEG-4 will help the PQ, but it will still be HD-Lite.


----------



## dswallow (Dec 3, 2000)

Chuck_IV said:


> It's not about the compression, it's about the down-ressing. Sure MPEG-4 will help the PQ, but it will still be HD-Lite.


Actually it's about the bandwidth. The ONLY reason there was any resolution downconversion or excessive compression was the limited availability of bandwidth. With the 2 additional Ka-band satellites scheduled for launch next year in operation there'll be no pressure for years to conserve bandwidth by reducing resolution or compressing so much there are visible objectionable artifacts.


----------



## Krookut (Apr 7, 2002)

I think most of us are giving D* the benefit of the doubt regarding what they're doing with the limited bandwidth now available, but after the new sats are up if they don't go back to 1920 x 1080 and the bandwidth to support a good picture at that resolution I'm grabbing a series 3 and jumping to cable.


----------



## agzela (Aug 13, 2006)

Markman07 said:


> I may have missed it but why don't you give the SOURCE the credit for your post since you are doing a full copy and paste of TVPredictions.Com News! It appears from your post that this all came from you! Talk about plagiarism.


Sorry, but calm down its good information lets talk about it FOCUS PEOPLE.....


----------



## ebonovic (Jul 24, 2001)

agzela said:


> Sorry, but calm down its good information lets talk about it FOCUS PEOPLE.....


Actually... it is to your benefit to quote the source..

Why... then we don't think "YOU" wrote it, if we disagree with what is in the text.

(Plus it is a forum rule to quote where you got it from)


----------



## Markman07 (Jul 18, 2001)

agzela said:


> Sorry, but calm down its good information lets talk about it FOCUS PEOPLE.....


Swanni, I mean, Agzela...I am calm..actually my blood pressure is 12..oh forget it. 

Just protecting you and the content owners.

Here straight from the Tivocommunity rules and regs....

_14. Copyright violations will be taken seriously. Do not cut and paste any copyrighted text or pictures from one site to TiVoCommunity. You may link to a news story for the purposes of discussion, and you may use the headline and first sentence, but you may not cut and paste the article._

If I recall just recently the New York Times found out about someone pasting a whole article into a thread in Happy Hour and crap started to hit the fan! So more than anything else this is just a heads up.


----------



## TroyM (Mar 11, 2003)

ShiningBengal said:


> People, who cares how many HD channels exist on rival signal providers. The fact of the matter is that MOST of the HD channels on Dish (particularly the former Voom channels) do not have compelling content, and in many cases, have pretty sad true resolution, regardless of whether they call them HD or not.


To be clear, they do not have compelling content to YOU. Ok...needed to say that. Which makes sense why you are not interested. However, others here may find that content compelling and my wish to go to Dish (or elsewhere).

Just because one dislikes DTV doesn't mean that they can actually leave. DTV makes certain you have a commitment coming in and a commitment anytime you make a change. Face it, many people are COMMITTED to DTV not by choice but by contract.

As far as the resolution issue, let's modify the scenario abit just to try and understand the "other" side. Suppose the ICT is enabled on the HDTV DVD formats (both HD-DVD and Blu-Ray). Thus, only HDMI connected users get HDTV resolution. Those of you using component get something less. Do those getting down rezzed have any basis for complaint? Should they feel slighted that they aren't getting the full resolution offered by the source disc?

I think it's the same argument here. DTV is altering the source resolution. If Discovery HD provides DTV with a 1920x1080i signal and DTV down scales to 1440x1080i, is there not a loss? Please avoid justifying it by saying it's still good enough. That's not the point I wish to make. I'm only asking if the source is provided in the same resolution (quality???) as it was provided. The HDTV DVD scenario and the DTV scenario become identical issues.


----------



## ebonovic (Jul 24, 2001)

Okay.... even though I suggested it as a joke.... I know Agzela is not Swanni...
Just yet another lost sole that got sucked into the TCF whirlpool....

Agzela, has gone back and edited his posts on where they came from.... all is well.
Now, back to discussing the content of that article...


----------



## Chuck_IV (Jan 1, 2002)

dswallow said:


> Actually it's about the bandwidth. The ONLY reason there was any resolution downconversion or excessive compression was the limited availability of bandwidth. With the 2 additional Ka-band satellites scheduled for launch next year in operation there'll be no pressure for years to conserve bandwidth by reducing resolution or compressing so much there are visible objectionable artifacts.


Right, but who's to say, Directv will stop downressing, when these new sats do go live. That's everyone's fear(I would think). If people are accepting it now, then why change? That's, IMO, why this lawsuit is so important. Yea, he's not gonna win, BUT it does put out a lot of negative publicity about this, as well as getting extra people aware of what they are doing and what they are missing.


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

ebonovic said:


> The only way you get higher resolution right now... is to lose 1 or 2 HD networks.
> Then the others can be increased...
> 
> Other then that... there is no technological way to get higher resolution till the new sats are up, or the HD is migrated to MPEG-4


sure there is- macroblock the stuffing out of it.


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

Richard Chalk said:


> The Consumer Electronics Association has defined the standards as follows:
> 
> HDTV is 720p or 1080i, with a 16 x 9 aspect ratio. It does not specifically state the number of pixels in the horizontal dimension
> 
> ...


\

as i said above- I think that's dumb as hell too.

I believe the CEA made up their definitions becuase the FTC prompted them when some unscrupulous people implied 480p was HD.

As I Posted above they could technically sell a 720px100 set as HD- and that is NUTTY.

I'd like a case to settle once and for all what the minimums are that can be called HD.

If its 1080ix 1440 or 1080i x 1280 then so be it but lets make sure a line gets drawn someplace.


----------



## Bananfish (May 16, 2002)

kroddy said:


> I'm no lawyer, don't play one on TV or the Internet, and have never even stayed at a Holiday Inn, but I believe members of the class are only contacted once a potential settlement has been decided, and at that point the defendant is required to notify you and give you the chance to accept it as part of the class.


It works differently in different situations, but a suit doesn't actually become a "class action" until the court "certifies" it as a class action. One of the important factors in whether a suit is certified as a class action is whether all the putative plaintiffs (i.e., the class) are actually in the exact same situation, such that it makes sense to resolve the issues in one lawsuit rather than many. A court should only certify the actual "class" that is in the same situation.

For this case, the right class may not simply be "all DirecTV subscribers." It may be "all DirecTV subscribers that subscribed between April 7, 2002 and June 14, 2004 that are not in rural areas and do not have MPEG-4 compression and took action that resulted in a 2 year commitment between September 18, 2003 and November 4, 2004." (I just made up those dates and the other gobbledly-****, but you get the idea.)

Making the determination of what the right class is can take some time - usually there is a period of discovery during which the parties gather evidence on the different factors that go into certifying a class, and only then does the court determine whether to certify a class and if so, what the definition of that class is.

So this may be a "class action" from the standpoint that the plaintiff intends to make it a class action, but has not been certified yet.

Once a class is certified, it's pretty much up to the court as to what communications to make with the class members. They don't usually order communications be sent that may be moot, so they won't generally have the class members contacted until some kind of a decision or action is needed from the class members. (And there's always an option to "opt out" of the class at some point.)


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

ShiningBengal said:


> Hmm. I wonder how many would agree that if DirecTV immediately gives us a full-bitrate 1080p they should be able to charge all of their subscribers for the increased bandwidth? ...
> 
> Bandwidth costs money. That's part of what everyone pays for in their monthly subscription fees. Somehow, that is an issue that has been pretty much disregarded in this thread.
> ...


that's a red herring.

Directv makes more profit per sub then every.

Even with the spaceways and new HD/KA infrastructure their delivery cost per sub has been dropping and is lower then ever.

It's not about them trying to hold the line in costs, it's about them trying to give people as little as possible to maximize their profits.

All that said- it means nothign for national TV since they cant technically get more room until the next 2 KA sats go up (and I think Q2 is being optimistic...)


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

I posted above- but how do we know that the MPEG4 feeds with their essentially unlimited bandwidth are not down-rezzed?


----------



## drew2k (Jun 10, 2003)

Richard Chalk said:


> I was actually being a little facetious, but in re-reading my own post I realize it was not obvious. ...


Thanks for following-up. I now completelly understand what you were getting at ...


----------



## JoeSchueller (Jun 16, 2004)

Earl has said several times that, according to his sources, the MPEG 4 stations are simply re-encoded and are not downrezed. 

Why is everyone so up in arms about resolution? Even if your display is capable of resolving a full 1440x1080 or 1280x720 image, at reasonable viewing distances, few people have the visual acuity to make out the difference. The issue here is bandwidth and the quality of the re-encoding that goes on. Personally, I have to get a foot away from my TV to recognize the loss of a few horizontal lines of resolution, but I can see a macroblock or color banding from a mile away. D* just bought a bevy of new encoding gear and hopefully, that will improve the quality of the MPEG4 they re-encode from the source MPEG2. 

The problem is that the channels are bitstarved and if this a-hole succeeds in forcing all "HD" to be "full-resolution" there are only two options: 1) Further bitstarve what they have, or 2) Cut channels. 

As a previous poster said, I hope the genius behind this suit likes Van Goh, because if they turn the bitrates down any further, D*'s picture is going to look like an impressionist painting. Or maybe he just isn't a big ESPN2, TNT, and UHD fan.


----------



## headroll (Jan 20, 2003)

Gunnyman said:


> Even Turtleboy?
> How about AJRitz?


I am not a lawyer yet, but once I pass the bar, would I get killed on the spot?

-Roll


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

JoeSchueller said:


> Earl has said several times that, according to his sources, the MPEG 4 stations are simply re-encoded and are not downrezed.
> ....


so there's no independant way to verify the stories that they tell earl?

I believe Earl is 100% truthfull and completely honest- But I dont trust for a second his sources without some 3rd party proof.

I dont think there's any reason for them to shrink the resolutions since they have like 3 times more bandwidth then they bother to use. But that doesn't mean I believe them either. I've seen a few posts that say NBC and CBS looks worse then ABC and and Fox in MPEG4. I found it interesting that the poorer ones started out as 1080i. It could be that the MPEG4 ecnoders handle progressive content better, could be they convert ALL content to 720p x 1280, who knows...

When Voom existed there were all sorts of sources one way or the other that said they never downrezzed and others that said they used 1080i x 1440. Not sure if anyone ever verified one way or the other.


----------



## ebonovic (Jul 24, 2001)

MichaelK said:


> I believe Earl is 100% truthfull and completely honest- But I dont trust for a second his sources without some 3rd party proof.


I would expect nothing less...


----------



## JoeSchueller (Jun 16, 2004)

MichaelK: The better analysis of this would be to look at bitrates. Unfortunately, there's no good way to do that because the HR20 isn't hacked and the HR10 doesn't recv the Ka (or is it Ku?) signal. Are they bitstarving one channel vs. another. How do the bitrates look compared to the OTA signal - that's the true measure of how good D*'s quality will be.


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

JoeSchueller said:


> MichaelK: The better analysis of this would be to look at bitrates. Unfortunately, there's no good way to do that because the HR20 isn't hacked and the HR10 doesn't recv the Ka (or is it Ku?) signal. Are they bitstarving one channel vs. another. How do the bitrates look compared to the OTA signal - that's the true measure of how good D*'s quality will be.


THat's absolutely a factor and I would agree- but again there's no way to look at bitrates either. Also how would anyone know what a "good" bitrate is for a first generation real time MPEG4 encoder? I could be wrong but basically only Directv and DIsh use them- right?

So if the thing spits out X Mbps who knows what that means in terms of picture quality? Could be these first generation need to spit out 95% of the MPEG2 bitrates, could be 50% or anything in between- I dont think anyone knows. Do they?

So probably the best way to tell is looking right now. I havn't been paying all that much attention since MPEG4 from directv is nothing I'll even get- but I believe the early reports at AVS was that MPEG4 LIL from Directv basically looked the same as OTA. I've seen a COUPLE newer reports at dbsforums complaining about blockiness on fast action on the 1080i locals. As I said above, who knows what that means: bit starving, a resolution conversion, a flaw in mpeg4 for interlaced material, a flaw in early real time encoders, a flaw in that version of firmware, very picky viewers, etc, etc, etc Could be something that Directv has control of, could be somethign they dont.

I have no reason to doubt them (and believe there's no reason they would be changing resolutions) but i also have no reason to believe them. Since Earl obviously cant share his sources identity's it's impossible to judge their knowledge or motivation. Maybe he's talking to that spokesman (mercer?) who said DIrectv had no price increases in the pipeline right before they raised the prices?


----------



## JoeSchueller (Jun 16, 2004)

Great point, I hadn't thought through that comparing MPEG-2 vs. 4 bitrates are apples & oranges.


----------



## ShiningBengal (Mar 19, 2001)

TroyM said:


> To be clear, they do not have compelling content to YOU. Ok...needed to say that. Which makes sense why you are not interested. However, others here may find that content compelling and my wish to go to Dish (or elsewhere).
> 
> Just because one dislikes DTV doesn't mean that they can actually leave. DTV makes certain you have a commitment coming in and a commitment anytime you make a change. Face it, many people are COMMITTED to DTV not by choice but by contract.
> 
> ...


Whether or not channels have compelling content is exactly the issue when talking about numbers of HD channels. Obviously some people watch Home Shopping Network and find that compelling, and really, really hope and pray that it will soon be in HD. Some people would rather eat a Big Mac than dine at a 5-star restaurant. Content is the issue, always. Otherwise, why not just watch test patterns in HD?

No one holds a gun to anyone's head to make them accept a contract with DTV. If you don't like the terms of the contract, then don't enter into it! There is nothing in the contract that I signed that even talked about HD! It was over 8 years ago. Today, DTV contracts are different, but I still have the right to decide whether the terms are acceptable before signing another. It wouldn't be a big deal to agree to a year more. Maybe even two. As long as I got something of value (my decision) in return.

One can certainly leave when one's contract is satisfied. If you keep adding subsidized equipment and adding to your contract, you will have a contract in force until your dying day. If you lease a car, you are not free to scrap your lease if another vehicle catches your fancy. If you are uneasy about taking on a contract, then go to someone who doesn't require one--like Dish (I believe) or cable. One has a choice.


----------



## dswallow (Dec 3, 2000)

And people continue to think this commitment is somehow in stone and unbreakable.

(a) There's no need to pay for any Total Choice package once you decide to leave DirecTV; just pay the penalty instead... which is ALWAYS cheaper.

(b) The penalty is prorated for the number of months left of the commitment; it amounts to just $12.50 per remaining month.

The full amount of the penalty is almost never something you'd have to pay unless for some strange reason you get new equipment and the same month decide to cancel your account. And the penalty amount is usually at least representative of the discounted cost of hardware/services you're getting that caused the renewed commitment in the first place.

In other words, if there were no commitment involved, you'd have paid more for whatever you got from DirecTV that led to them requiring a commitment. So at least with the penalty method, you'll always pay less overall than if there were no penalty/commitment involved; the alternative is you'd always pay the equivalent of the penalty and you'd never get it back no matter how long you subscribed.


----------



## ROlsonAZ (Mar 14, 2004)

JoeSchueller said:


> MichaelK: The better analysis of this would be to look at bitrates.


If nothing else, this is an interesting study of bitrates comparing DTV to OTA in Dallas. And it adds a perspective as to what is being referred to as DTV's HD Lite. HBO in HD? Really?

http://www.widemovies.com/dfwbitrate.html


----------



## ShiningBengal (Mar 19, 2001)

MichaelK said:


> that's a red herring.
> 
> Directv makes more profit per sub then every.
> 
> ...


Just to be clear, DirecTV has yet to turn a profit. So much for maximizing profits!


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

OK - let me rephrase

profits from "directv's US operations"

how's that?

good enough for ya?

The fact that Directv's US subs are subsidizing the latin amareican operations shouldn't have anything to do with it.


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

from their second quarter results released aug 8th

http://yahoo.brand.edgar-online.com/fetchFilingFrameset.aspx?dcn=0001157523-06-008144&Type=HTML



> The DIRECTV Group, Inc. (NYSETV) today reported that second quarter revenues increased 10% to $3.52 billion and operating profit before depreciation and amortization(1) nearly doubled to $977 million compared to last year's second quarter. The DIRECTV Group reported second quarter 2006 operating profit and net income both more than doubled to $741 million and $459 million, respectively, when compared to the same period last year. Earnings per share were $0.36 compared with $0.12 in the same period last year. These operating results include the effect of $253 million of equipment that DIRECTV U.S. capitalized during the quarter under its lease program, which was implemented March 1, 2006.
> "Similar to recent quarters, DIRECTV U.S. generated excellent financial results highlighted by a 12% increase in revenues to $3.3 billion, a 93% increase in operating profit before depreciation and amortization to $977 million and a nearly tripling of cash flow before interest and taxes to $450 million," said Chase Carey, president and CEO of The DIRECTV Group, Inc.


And their EBITA is positive and their net income is positive

sure sounds like they are losing tons of money to me....


----------



## HomieG (Feb 17, 2003)

Michael said:


> And their EBITA is positive and their net income is positive
> 
> sure sounds like they are losing tons of money to me....


For now they are, but if this trend continues, will they grow?...

"Satellite companies have seen slowing subscriber growth for the last year, partly because of a self-imposed efforts to tighten up credit policies. In the first six months of this year, DirecTV's net subscriber additions fell 47% to 380,000, compared with the 730,000 it added in the same period a year ago. EchoStar reported a 23% drop in net new subscriber additions for the first half of the year."

They're saying it's due to tightening of customer credit policies. Ummm, yea.

The whole article was not directly available, but here's the google cache of it.


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

if you do the math and calculate their revenue per sub and also profit per sub both of those are rising (although their cost of broadcasting operations per sub is going DOWN- even with increasing programming costs and the new ka/mpeg4/hd assets- they have such economies of scale at this point that they are reaping the rewards of surving unlimited subs with the same sat fleet). So if they keep that up then their profit will grow even if they maintain the same number of subs.

Directv has told the ananlysts that they intend to grow by making more money per sub- - theres 2 ways to make more money per sub:
1)sell them new addtional services
2) jack the rates every year

recent history seems to show #2 is their plan. They have no new services- no broadband, no phone, no vod, no new sports add-ons,hardly an new services besides superfan and the additon of some foreign language offerings of late. It's hard to see how they plan to increase revenue per sub without mostly being rate increases.


----------



## jeffnoll (Mar 2, 2004)

I think all this technical mumbo jumbo is over complicating the suit. D* certainly does not go out of there way to make clear to its customers that the HD signal you are receiving is not the same as they are receiving. I know it never will be because it has to be encoded, but again, theres another nice little thing that D* certainly doesn't advertise. I know they don't hide these things, but they certainly do forget to mention it, which in my mind a little bit underhanded. Or the SD for that matter. The current SD local channels are so bad compared there OTA SD counterparts its not even funny, although this is probably a compression not resolution issue.

It doesn't matter if you can notice it or not. How would you feel if you bought an elvis cd only to discover later on that it was really just a good impersonator. Some people may not care, but some may. Or going to see a Kevin Costner movie only to have Dennis Quaid in it instead (Am I the only one who considers DQ the poor mans KC? 

As a whole I still think the HD package is a rip off so if I can get a few bucks back from it I'm certainly game.


----------



## ShiningBengal (Mar 19, 2001)

MichaelK said:


> from their second quarter results released aug 8th
> 
> http://yahoo.brand.edgar-online.com/fetchFilingFrameset.aspx?dcn=0001157523-06-008144&Type=HTML
> 
> ...


2000, net income 813 million
2001, net loss 614 million
2002, net loss 212 million
2003, net loss 297 million
2004, net loss 1638 million
2005 net income 335 million

Net loss 2000-2005 1613 million

Much of the "income" from 2006 came from capitalizing leased equipment (set top boxes)

A little learning is a dangerous thing...drink deep or taste not the Pierian spring


----------



## willardcpa (Feb 23, 2001)

SB, IIRC, aren't you in "PR" for one of the big four?


----------



## ShiningBengal (Mar 19, 2001)

willardcpa said:


> SB, IIRC, aren't you in "PR" for one of the big four?


Close. Sales and Marketing (Practice Development)


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

ShiningBengal said:


> 2000, net income 813 million
> 2001, net loss 614 million
> 2002, net loss 212 million
> 2003, net loss 297 million
> ...


it's tough to compare all those numbers- for example 2004 has like a BILLION dollar right down for the spaceway's values being written down- but even you your numebrs show that 2005 has a net INCOME. And 2006 also has a net INCOME.

What does 2000-2004 have to do with it?

If anything you proved my point that they are makign more money today then anything else.

lease costs helped for sure but read the quote again:



> The DIRECTV Group reported second quarter 2006 operating profit and net income both more than doubled to $741 million and $459 million, ... These operating results include the effect of $253 million of equipment that DIRECTV U.S. capitalized during the quarter under its lease program


without lease its still 488 in operating profit and 206 million in net.

I will admit, I'm not a wall street type but please explain how a 335 million net INCOME in 2005 and 206 million net income in q2, 2006 is a loss? You stated they have never made money. I dont see how that is?

And if I'm wrong- there is no need to be insulting- just explain. thankyou.

_edit: tried to figure out what you were saying, and I think now your point is over the lifetime of venture it hasn't turned a profit? I wouldn't disagree with that at all but we are talkign about 2 differnt things. My point is today Rupert is making a profit and they are trying to maximize today's profit. I dont know how much it matters to Fox how much money GM lost on it over the years.

But to be truthfull with all the other crap that was included in Hughes and DirecTv in the past and one time charges involved, I'm not sure the math for Directv's US DTTH sat TV business even would show a loss over it's lifetime at this point. The 2004 net loss includes that billion dollar right down for the boradband value of the spaceways and somethign like 6-700 million payment to buy pegasus subs- those two one time charges alone would wipe out the Net loss from 2000-2005. (although to be truthfull I dont have the time or inclination to go through all the one time charges and P&L figures for latin america, Hughes network systems, and panamsat to figure it all out)

Again if you disagree there's no reason to be a rollyeyed jerk. Just explain so those of use who dont know what you do can learn. _


----------



## TroyM (Mar 11, 2003)

ShiningBengal said:


> Whether or not channels have compelling content is exactly the issue when talking about numbers of HD channels. Obviously some people watch Home Shopping Network and find that compelling, and really, really hope and pray that it will soon be in HD. Some people would rather eat a Big Mac than dine at a 5-star restaurant. Content is the issue, always. Otherwise, why not just watch test patterns in HD?
> 
> * What are you even saying here? You started by saying that Dish's HD Content wasn't compelling. You ramble on here about how important content is. We both seem to agree on that. I only pointed out that Dish's content was not compelling to you personally. Your opinion on the matter does not a fact make. What Dish offers is either compelling or not compelling regardless of your assertion...or mine. *
> 
> ...


Let me be clear since you are trying to make this about me personally.

1) I have all owned equipment
2) I have no comittment

I'm debating the issues and not something that affects me directly. I don't think litigation is the answer to the HDTV situation. However, it is effectively getting DTVs attention. For that, I applaud the attempt.


----------



## ShiningBengal (Mar 19, 2001)

TroyM said:


> Let me be clear since you are trying to make this about me personally.


How on earth did you ever come to such a conclusion? Simply because I disagree with your position doesn't make my argument "personal." (Now if I called you a blithering idiot, that might be termed personal. Don't think I did that, did I?)

Take a deep breath. Now exhale.


----------



## ShiningBengal (Mar 19, 2001)

MichaelK said:


> it's tough to compare all those numbers- for example 2004 has like a BILLION dollar right down for the spaceway's values being written down- but even you your numebrs show that 2005 has a net INCOME. And 2006 also has a net INCOME.
> 
> What does 2000-2004 have to do with it?
> 
> ...


In business, you have a balance sheet. That balance sheet shows your assets at the top and your liabilities at the bottom. The two must be in balance, hence the name.

One entry that a corporation has on its balance sheet is called "retained earnings." It is part of shareholder's equity. That is merely the accumulated earnings and losses since the inception of the corporation. If that number is negative, then the corporation hasn't made any money up to the date of the balance sheet. It doesn't mean that it didn't have a month, or a year, or several years of profitablity. What it means is that in its entire history as a corporate entity, taken as a whole, the business has not been profitable.

It is a snapshot in time. It doesn't indicate when the losses or the profits occurred.

DirecTV's retained earnings are negative, since in spite of the fact that it has enjoyed periods of profitability, over time it has lost money. In other words, its average year has been unprofitable.

At the end of FY 2005, DirecTV group's retained earnings were a negative 3 BILLION DOLLARS! (That's a lot of money).

That means, in order to break even, DirecTV will have to have an additional $3 billion in revenues. That is what I meant when I said DirecTV has yet to make a profit.

Here is a source for its most recent year end balance sheets:

http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bs?s=DTV&annual

Hope this makes my point clear.


----------



## ShiningBengal (Mar 19, 2001)

MichaelK said:


> it's tough to compare all those numbers- for example 2004 has like a BILLION dollar right down for the spaceway's values being written down- but even you your numebrs show that 2005 has a net INCOME. And 2006 also has a net INCOME.
> 
> What does 2000-2004 have to do with it?
> 
> ...


Forgive the emoticon. I wasn't trying to be insulting.

Your edit basically tells me you are on the right track in understanding what I have been trying to say. I am talking about the balance sheet, and you are talking about an operating statement.

In business, you have a balance sheet. That balance sheet shows your assets at the top and your liabilities at the bottom. The two must be in balance, hence the name.

One entry that a corporation has on its balance sheet is called "retained earnings." It is part of shareholder's equity. That is merely the accumulated earnings and losses since the inception of the corporation. If that number is negative, then the corporation hasn't made any money up to the date of the balance sheet. It doesn't mean that it didn't have a month, or a year, or several years of profitablity. What it means is that in its entire history as a corporate entity, taken as a whole, the business has not been profitable.

It is a snapshot in time. It doesn't indicate when the losses or the profits occurred.

DirecTV's retained earnings are negative, since in spite of the fact that it has enjoyed periods of profitability, over time it has lost money. In other words, its average year has been unprofitable.

At the end of FY 2005, DirecTV group's retained earnings were a negative 3 BILLION DOLLARS! (That's a lot of money).

That means, in order to break even, DirecTV will have to have an additional $3 billion in revenues. That is what I meant when I said DirecTV has yet to make a profit.

Here is a source for its most recent year end balance sheets:

http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bs?s=DTV&annual

Don't discount the truth of a balance sheet that has been prepared under GAAP (Generally Accepted Accounting Practices). The SEC requires this. The negative retained earnings are most likely correct. No corporation deliberately tries to portray itself negatively in its SEC filings.

Rupert himself called DBS satellite technology a "turd bird." Bear in mind, he doesn't own DirecTV. News Corp, which he owns a large minority interest in, owns controlling interest in DirecTV. Murdoch wants News Corp to flush it.

Hope this makes my point clear.


----------



## joetoronto (Jul 26, 2004)

ShiningBengal said:


> Whether or not channels have compelling content is exactly the issue when talking about numbers of HD channels. Obviously some people watch Home Shopping Network and find that compelling, and really, really hope and pray that it will soon be in HD. Some people would rather eat a Big Mac than dine at a 5-star restaurant. Content is the issue, always. Otherwise, why not just watch test patterns in HD?
> 
> No one holds a gun to anyone's head to make them accept a contract with DTV. If you don't like the terms of the contract, then don't enter into it! There is nothing in the contract that I signed that even talked about HD! It was over 8 years ago. Today, DTV contracts are different, but I still have the right to decide whether the terms are acceptable before signing another. It wouldn't be a big deal to agree to a year more. Maybe even two. As long as I got something of value (my decision) in return.
> 
> One can certainly leave when one's contract is satisfied. If you keep adding subsidized equipment and adding to your contract, you will have a contract in force until your dying day. If you lease a car, you are not free to scrap your lease if another vehicle catches your fancy. If you are uneasy about taking on a contract, then go to someone who doesn't require one--like Dish (I believe) or cable. One has a choice.


there it is, there's nothing more to say than this.

i think this quote should be pinned on every satellite internet forum. it would stop allot of the silly *****ing that goes on.

nice work, ShiningBengal. :up:


----------



## ShiningBengal (Mar 19, 2001)

Thanks for the kudo's, Joe. Like you, I don't understand all the hue and cry demanding more HD channels without addressing what the content is to be for those additional channels.

It is foolhardy to think that anyone will be ecstatic over the 150 national channels that are supposedly going to be available, magically, at the drop of a hat. We now get, other than the network OTA channels, something like 10. That's just a couple added in the last two years. And in a few months, the offering will increase by 1500%?

Like you, I read and understand contracts before I sign them. And if it turns out I made a mistake, I have only myself to hold accountable.

I'm not ready to jump ship until I see there is somthing that truly offers me a better deal for my buck than DirecTV. That hasn't happened yet. When and if it does, I don't need to file for divorce!


----------



## tommylotto (Nov 10, 2003)

Many here complain that the free marketplace can correct this "problem" -- if a problem exists. Those unhappy with D* can switch... 

That is only partially true. A free marketplace only works when there are informed consumers after fair disclosure. D* takes a high bandwidth 1920x1080 signal from HBO, CBS or whoever and reduces the resolution to 1280x1088 -- not sure what the extra 8 lines are for -- then compresses the crap out of it. That is fine, if they tell their customers what they are doing. D* does not do that. D* guards their resolution and bandwidth like it is the recpie to Coke. Consumers had a right to know -- before they bought a $1,000 HD Tivo and before they made a one year commitment -- that D* dramatically reduces the quality of HD broadcasts before passing it along to its customers. Not to mention reducing the quality after the customer made the commitment to D*.

Once we have full disclosure, the informer consumer and the free marketplace will correct itself. The consumer can weight the value of the Sunday Ticket v. the quality of the HD and choose accordingly. But if the consumer is misled as to the quality of HD from D* -- "up to 10 times the clarity of normal broadcasts" -- the free marketplace breaks down. People invest $$$ in expensive D* HD equipment and commit for a year based on bad information. Then they are unhappy with the quality, but are stuck with D* hardware and service. That is an unfair business practice.


----------



## Leila (Apr 28, 2006)

would anyone please tell me where to join this class-action lawsuit?

Thanks!


----------



## ShiningBengal (Mar 19, 2001)

Leila said:


> would anyone please tell me where to join this class-action lawsuit?
> 
> Thanks!


The court must first allow the class action suit. It hasn't done so yet. Once the court approves the class action, you don't do anything. You just wait until the dust has settled in about 3 years or so. Then you will get a little postcard in the mail telling you how lucky you are that some suit-happy lawfirm in a million dollar a month highrise office suite in New York has gotten you (and a hundred thousand others) a free PPV movie if you agree to be included at that point in the class action settlement.

The law firm, on the other hand, pockets 80 million dollars and opens another million dollar a month office suite in San Francisco.


----------



## ShiningBengal (Mar 19, 2001)

tommylotto said:


> Many here complain that the free marketplace can correct this "problem" -- if a problem exists. Those unhappy with D* can switch...
> 
> That is only partially true. A free marketplace only works when there are informed consumers after fair disclosure. D* takes a high bandwidth 1920x1080 signal from HBO, CBS or whoever and reduces the resolution to 1280x1088 -- not sure what the extra 8 lines are for -- then compresses the crap out of it. That is fine, if they tell their customers what they are doing. D* does not do that. D* guards their resolution and bandwidth like it is the recpie to Coke. Consumers had a right to know -- before they bought a $1,000 HD Tivo and before they made a one year commitment -- that D* dramatically reduces the quality of HD broadcasts before passing it along to its customers. Not to mention reducing the quality after the customer made the commitment to D*.
> 
> Once we have full disclosure, the informer consumer and the free marketplace will correct itself. The consumer can weight the value of the Sunday Ticket v. the quality of the HD and choose accordingly. But if the consumer is misled as to the quality of HD from D* -- "up to 10 times the clarity of normal broadcasts" -- the free marketplace breaks down. People invest $$$ in expensive D* HD equipment and commit for a year based on bad information. Then they are unhappy with the quality, but are stuck with D* hardware and service. That is an unfair business practice.


I'm in favor of full disclosure. When will we get full disclosure about the quality of programming we will get on the DirecTV channel line up? As far as I'm concerned, that is far more important than a few additional glowing pixels on the screen.

I have good eyes, and can visually compare "HD-Lite" CBS over DirecTV (east national feed) and my local OTA CBS O&O affiliate. There is a lot higher bit rate--close to twice as high--on my local CBS channel as there is on DirecTV's HD-Lite national CBS feed.)

I watch on a 100 inch diagonal screen with a HD 16 x 9 format front projector as my display device. I can see no difference.

But then, there is very little on either CBS station that holds my interest long enough to sit through any CBS programming. Unfortunately for me, perhaps, I'm much more interested in what is being shown than some trivial differences in resolution.

Yes, I appreciate HD. It is a remarkable technology. Unfortunately, for all the increased choice in programming we have, and for all the new technologies, there is very little real choice available on the TV medium. TV gets more hum-drum and banal with each passing year.

That's what's so great about TiVo. I have maybe 6 or 8 hours a week, maximum, that I can passively sit in front of a TV screen. With TiVo, I have about that much quality programming available for me, at a time of my choosing. TiVo gets rid of the crap for me.

(OK, during football season I may watch a few more hours  )


----------



## Richard Chalk (May 13, 2004)

tommylotto said:


> Many here complain that the free marketplace can correct this "problem" -- if a problem exists. Those unhappy with D* can switch...
> 
> That is only partially true. A free marketplace only works when there are informed consumers after fair disclosure. D* takes a high bandwidth 1920x1080 signal from HBO, CBS or whoever and reduces the resolution to 1280x1088 -- not sure what the extra 8 lines are for -- then compresses the crap out of it. That is fine, if they tell their customers what they are doing. D* does not do that. D* guards their resolution and bandwidth like it is the recpie to Coke. Consumers had a right to know -- before they bought a $1,000 HD Tivo and before they made a one year commitment -- that D* dramatically reduces the quality of HD broadcasts before passing it along to its customers. Not to mention reducing the quality after the customer made the commitment to D*.
> 
> Once we have full disclosure, the informer consumer and the free marketplace will correct itself. The consumer can weight the value of the Sunday Ticket v. the quality of the HD and choose accordingly. But if the consumer is misled as to the quality of HD from D* -- "up to 10 times the clarity of normal broadcasts" -- the free marketplace breaks down. People invest $$$ in expensive D* HD equipment and commit for a year based on bad information. Then they are unhappy with the quality, but are stuck with D* hardware and service. That is an unfair business practice.


As I mentioned earlier, there does not appear to me to be any cause here. The industry definitions of HDTV are not specific enough, and what DirecTV is sending us (assuming we actually know!!!) meets the conditions of the definition. If you are looking only at pixels, then it actually exceeds the resolution of the Fox and ABC (and others?) which are at 1280 x 720.

If DirecTV actually said they were reproducing the original signal, there would probably be a case, but if all they say is that it is HD, they are right, according to the limited definition. Also, by saying "UP TO" 10x, they are leaving themselves an opening there too. Sort of like "Up to 50% off storewide" advertising.

From my point of view, I think they are making a much bigger mess of the SD channels, especially the locals in this area. Watching some of the syndicated daytime shows is like looking at a picture that has been made into a jigsaw puzzle!! Why is there no action on that? It has been that way for a long time, and it is getting worse....

My 2c


----------



## KA9Q (Mar 1, 2007)

JoeSchueller said:


> The horror of this thing is that if this idiot manages to force D* into full HD resolutions their only choice will be to lower bitrates or remove channels. This guy is a real hero


No, it simply means that DirecTV will have to disclose what they're doing. I understand that DirecTV's satellites are expensive and transponder space is limited, and they can do what they want with their own signals. But they don't have the right to mislead their customers. If they're down-rezzing HDTV, then they can't call it HDTV. Simple.


----------



## rbreding (Dec 12, 2004)

This thread has been on hiatus since 09-26-2006 and your post provided no new information.

As a common courtesy to the rest of us do not BUMP up an old thread unless you can provide something new or profound.

One post and you shouldn't have even done that. Noob


----------



## drew2k (Jun 10, 2003)

rbreding said:


> This thread has been on hiatus since 09-26-2006 and your post provided no new information.
> 
> As a common courtesty to the rest of us do not BUMP up an old thread unless you can provide something new or profound.
> 
> One post and you shouldn't have even done that. Noob


I disagree. KA9Q offered a view that I don't believe was expressed yet, which is that there is a different outcome of a lawsuit. Namely, that instead of upping the resolution which could mean dropping channels, DirecTV can simply publicly announce the resolution they offer.

I give credit to KA9Q for searching for this thread, and welcome him/her to the community.

How's *that* for profound?


----------



## samo (Oct 7, 1999)

drew2k said:


> I disagree. KA9Q offered a view that I don't believe was expressed yet, which is that there is a different outcome of a lawsuit. Namely, that instead of upping the resolution which could mean dropping channels, DirecTV can simply publicly announce the resolution they offer.
> 
> I give credit to KA9Q for searching for this thread, and welcome him/her to the community.
> 
> How's *that* for profound?


Agree, especially considering how much static new members get for opening the new thread without searching for existing thread first.
Welcome aboard, KA9Q.


----------



## rbreding (Dec 12, 2004)

drew2k said:


> I disagree. KA9Q offered a view that I don't believe was expressed yet, which is that there is a different outcome of a lawsuit. Namely, that instead of upping the resolution which could mean dropping channels, DirecTV can simply publicly announce the resolution they offer.
> 
> I give credit to KA9Q for searching for this thread, and welcome him/her to the community.
> 
> How's *that* for profound?


As much posting that you have done in this thread you didn't already conclude that as part of the "settlement" or before the "settlement" D* might fine print what they are being sued over ?

Really now....if not....then I find _that_ profound.


----------



## drew2k (Jun 10, 2003)

rbreding said:


> As much posting that you have done in this thread you didn't already conclude that as part of the "settlement" or before the "settlement" D* might fine print what they are being sued over ?
> 
> Really now....if not....then I find _that_ profound.


I'm honored that you took the time to see how often I posted n this thread, for I don't even know how many times, but I'm dismayed that someone who has been a member of TCF for as long as you have can be so dismissive of a new member. This is an internet forum, and old threads will occasionally be revived, threads will occasionally go off topic, and people will occasionally be rude. For proof of all this, just look at the last several posts.


----------



## beartrap (Nov 8, 2005)

drew2k said:


> I'm honored that you took the time to see how often I posted n this thread, for I don't even know how many times, but I'm dismayed that someone who has been a member of TCF for as long as you have can be so dismissive of a new member. This is an internet forum, and old threads will occasionally be revived, threads will occasionally go off topic, and people will occasionally be rude. For proof of all this, just look at the last several posts.


Thanks, Drew. My sentiments exactly, but you've said it much better (and nicer) then I would have. Cheers.


----------



## rbreding (Dec 12, 2004)

drew2k said:


> I'm honored that you took the time to see how often I posted n this thread, for I don't even know how many times, but I'm dismayed that someone who has been a member of TCF for as long as you have can be so dismissive of a new member. This is an internet forum, and old threads will occasionally be revived, threads will occasionally go off topic, and people will occasionally be rude. For proof of all this, just look at the last several posts.


Well, when you posted that the general idea hadn't been discussed yet and considered it "new" information I went back to see that the general topic had come up already.

That being said I still stand by my post.

Wonder if there will be any more "metoos" (cheers beartrap)


----------



## KA9Q (Mar 1, 2007)

rbreding said:


> That being said I still stand by my post.


Okay, fine, so let me ask for news instead of repeating old information. What has DirecTV been doing with its HDTV signals since the lawsuit was filed last fall? Are they still reducing their resolution? What are their typical bit rates for HD and SD? I heard that one of their responses to the original complaint was to disable the resolution display on the front of the receiver, presumably to make what they're doing less obvious. Is this still true?

After having been a DirecTV customer for nearly a decade, and having had a DirecTiVo for the past 6 years or so, I suspended my service today. A month ago, we got a HDTV and reconnected to Time Warner. I also got their HD DVR which works very much like a TiVo. It's missing the thumbs up/down feature, but I never used that on my TiVo anyway.

When they were new, DirecTV provided a much better quality picture than cable, but Time Warner has since come a long way. Even their analog channels now look better than the same channels on DirecTV.


----------



## Mark Lopez (Jan 1, 2000)

rbreding said:


> This thread has been on hiatus since 09-26-2006 and your post provided no new information.
> 
> As a common courtesy to the rest of us do not BUMP up an old thread unless you can provide something new or profound.
> 
> One post and you shouldn't have even done that. Noob


 :down: :down: :down:

I suppose you are one of those people who also goes out of their way to chastise people for not using the search feature before they created a new thread on a previous topic. 

*Your* post provides no information.

As a common courtesy to the rest of us do not POST unless you can provide something new or profound.

139 posts and you shouldn't have even done that.


----------



## dswallow (Dec 3, 2000)

Mark Lopez said:


> :down: :down: :down:
> 
> I suppose you are one of those people who also goes out of their way to chastise people for not using the search feature before they created a new thread on a previous topic.
> 
> ...


Well;, what do you call your post, then?

Now look what you made me do!!! Damn you Lopez!


----------



## rbreding (Dec 12, 2004)

Mark Lopez said:


> I suppose you are one of those people who also goes out of their way to chastise people for not using the search feature before they created a new thread on a previous topic.


Yep.....and your point is ?


----------



## drew2k (Jun 10, 2003)

rbreding said:


> Yep.....and your point is ?


His point is that you're one of those people who go out of their way to chastise others. Did you not read what you quoted? Jeesh.


----------



## BillyT2002 (Oct 19, 2002)

What is a few pixels between friends?


----------



## rbreding (Dec 12, 2004)

drew2k said:


> His point is that you're one of those people who go out of their way to chastise others. Did you not read what you quoted? Jeesh.


I guess I was still looking for something new and profound. Oh well....still looking.


----------



## drew2k (Jun 10, 2003)

rbreding said:


> I guess I was still looking for something new and profound. Oh well....still looking.


Right ... because unless one has something profound to say, one should not post. In light of this, and after perusing your posting history, I'm amazed your post count is as high as it is.

As you recently said, "Well, DUH "


----------



## rbreding (Dec 12, 2004)

I feel flattered that you looked at my posts...O the love  Thanks for returning the favor.


----------



## jpeckinp (Apr 9, 2006)

KA9Q said:


> When they were new, DirecTV provided a much better quality picture than cable, but Time Warner has since come a long way. Even their analog channels now look better than the same channels on DirecTV.


I don't think I would say that TW has come a long way. I think it is more D* has went the wrong way in the last 5-6 years.

It's all in the American Way, More is Better.  D* thinks that the "more" is channels and most of us think that the "more" is bits.


----------



## drew2k (Jun 10, 2003)

rbreding said:


> I feel flattered that you looked at my posts...O the love  Thanks for returning the favor.


Oh, anything for a stalwart of the community such as yourself.


----------



## rbreding (Dec 12, 2004)

Good....glad we have that cleared up....

Now back on topic....is there anything *NEW* with regards to the lawsuit ?


----------



## drew2k (Jun 10, 2003)

LOL! Yeah, right ... on topic.


----------



## rbreding (Dec 12, 2004)

I thought I would at least try


----------



## JLWINE (Jun 18, 2002)

Welcome KA9Q to what is often a friendly community.


rbreding, when exactly were you crowned "Queen of the Forum?" I apparently missed the announcement. Should all post be sent to you for consideration and approval prior to posting?

If you on the otherhand were just flaming a new member for your own kicks--then please disregard the previous questions.


----------



## rbreding (Dec 12, 2004)

Queen ? Na....but if those types of non-heterosexuals are to your liking then more power to ya.......

weirdo


----------



## qposner (Sep 28, 2003)

WOW! A few people don't like attorneys. Hope you never need one...


----------



## JLWINE (Jun 18, 2002)

rbreding said:


> Queen ? Na....but if those types of non-heterosexuals are to your liking then more power to ya.......
> 
> weirdo


There was no sexual connotation intended as I didn't know whether you were even male or female. Interesting that your apparent insecurities about yourself lead you in that direction.


----------



## drew2k (Jun 10, 2003)

JLWINE said:


> There was no sexual connotation intended as I didn't know whether you were even male or female. Interesting that your apparent insecurities about yourself lead you in that direction.


It's no use arguing. Some people (rbreding) enjoy criticizing others for their post skills while turning a blind eye towards how their own posts detract from the civil attitude that is so valued here at TCF.


----------



## Richard Chalk (May 13, 2004)

Whoopie!!!!!!!!!!!!! 25 posts in this thread since the "bump" message that started this nonsense (OK, 26 including this one) and that means 25 times I have had a useless e-mail telling me there is a new post and of course, if you don't open each one, you don't get the next one, and you just might miss a post that is actually useful. This, however, seems unlikely, especially on this thread.

Unsubscribing....bye...


----------



## DocNo (Oct 10, 2001)

First of all, as others have said - KA9Q - welcome to the forum! You have to excuse the occasional eccentric...



rbreding said:


> Wonder if there will be any more "metoos" (cheers beartrap)


Do you really? 

OK - you were out of line and I found your post obnoxious. There, how was that for a meetoo?

and in reading ahead, it seems you either don't get it, or don't want to get it - sigh....

EDIT: Oh, and as of KA9Q's bump - it was welcome - I hadn't heard of this lawsuit, but it confirmed what I suspected about D*'s "HD" service...


----------



## dirk1843 (Jul 7, 2003)

Once again KA9Q, welcome to the forum, and don't sweat it we all get a response like that sometimes here at TCF.

While most folks really don't mean anything by it, it does come across as rude to new members. 

The best thing we can all do is remember we all had a first post here at TCF.


----------

