DirecTV sued over HD-Lite
#1
DVD Talk Legend
Thread Starter
DirecTV sued over HD-Lite
http://www.tvpredictions.com/directvlawsuit092006.htm
Cliff notes: DirecTV downconverts its HD from 1920x1080i to 1280x1020i. It re-encodes HD to a lower bitrate, as low as 1/3 or 1/4 the bitrate of OTA. Consumers who know about it hate it, and one guy decides to sue.
While the lawsuit probably has no legal merit (disclaimer: I'm not a lawyer and I did not sleep at a Holiday Inn Express last night) and seems a little silly, I'd love to see something change. HD Lite is garbage next to true HD, and the pixellation is often noticable. I'd guess that the only change we'll see, though, is a different disclaimer.
Note: The new MPEG4 channels supposedly are not downgraded, but I can neither confirm nor deny this.
Washington, D.C. (September 20, 2006) -- A DIRECTV subscriber has filed a class action lawsuit against the satcaster, claiming it reduced its High-Definition TV picture quality after he signed up for the service.
Peter Cohen, the subscriber, filed the lawsuit in November 2004. The complaint alleges that DIRECTV engaged in unlawful or fraudulent business practices by lowering its HDTV picture resolution in September 2004.
Cohen first signed up for DIRECTV's $10.99 monthly HDTV programming package in 2003. He says DIRECTV at that time promised that HDTV would provide "astonishing picture quality." However, he claims that DIRECTV broke that promise by lowering the picture quality in 2004.
DIRECTV spokesman Robert Mercer yesterday said the lawsuit was without merit.
"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," Mercer said. "If it were otherwise, we doubt the plaintiff would continue to subscribe to and pay for DIRECTV HD programming."
Whether DIRECTV purposely squeezes the HD picture quality to create room for more channels has been a hot topic on Internet message boards for two years. The alleged practice has been dubbed DIRECTV's 'HD Lite.'
However, DIRECTV has consistently maintained that its high-def picture is comparable to or better than any other TV provider.
Cohen's class action lawsuit came to light this week when Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Peter Lichtman ruled against DIRECTV's motion to compel arbitration in the case.
Mercer said DIRECTV was "disappointed" in the judge's ruling and is now "evaluating our options in light of the ruling."
In the lawsuit, Cohen said that two months after he signed up for HDTV, DIRECTV sent him an amended customer agreement containing an arbitration clause. After he filed his lawsuit, DIRECTV filed the motion for arbitration.
Peter Cohen, the subscriber, filed the lawsuit in November 2004. The complaint alleges that DIRECTV engaged in unlawful or fraudulent business practices by lowering its HDTV picture resolution in September 2004.
Cohen first signed up for DIRECTV's $10.99 monthly HDTV programming package in 2003. He says DIRECTV at that time promised that HDTV would provide "astonishing picture quality." However, he claims that DIRECTV broke that promise by lowering the picture quality in 2004.
DIRECTV spokesman Robert Mercer yesterday said the lawsuit was without merit.
"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," Mercer said. "If it were otherwise, we doubt the plaintiff would continue to subscribe to and pay for DIRECTV HD programming."
Whether DIRECTV purposely squeezes the HD picture quality to create room for more channels has been a hot topic on Internet message boards for two years. The alleged practice has been dubbed DIRECTV's 'HD Lite.'
However, DIRECTV has consistently maintained that its high-def picture is comparable to or better than any other TV provider.
Cohen's class action lawsuit came to light this week when Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Peter Lichtman ruled against DIRECTV's motion to compel arbitration in the case.
Mercer said DIRECTV was "disappointed" in the judge's ruling and is now "evaluating our options in light of the ruling."
In the lawsuit, Cohen said that two months after he signed up for HDTV, DIRECTV sent him an amended customer agreement containing an arbitration clause. After he filed his lawsuit, DIRECTV filed the motion for arbitration.
While the lawsuit probably has no legal merit (disclaimer: I'm not a lawyer and I did not sleep at a Holiday Inn Express last night) and seems a little silly, I'd love to see something change. HD Lite is garbage next to true HD, and the pixellation is often noticable. I'd guess that the only change we'll see, though, is a different disclaimer.
Note: The new MPEG4 channels supposedly are not downgraded, but I can neither confirm nor deny this.
#2
DVD Talk Hero
I'm not sure on the merits either, but maybe it will bring enough press to the issue to encourage change. This is really the only area where DirecTV has failed me as a consumer.
das
das
#3
DVD Talk God
Originally Posted by das Monkey
I'm not sure on the merits either, but maybe it will bring enough press to the issue to encourage change. This is really the only area where DirecTV has failed me as a consumer.
das
das
#5
DVD Talk God
Well, DirecTV still won't admit what they are doing, though.
#6
DVD Talk Hero
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Hail to the Redskins!
Posts: 25,295
Likes: 0
Received 49 Likes
on
38 Posts
The lawsuit DOES have merit if the below is not true:
"DIRECTV’s High Definition service is high quality, true HD service under accepted definitions for satellite TV"
From the compression in the article, it may not be true HD.
"DIRECTV’s High Definition service is high quality, true HD service under accepted definitions for satellite TV"
From the compression in the article, it may not be true HD.
#7
DVD Talk Legend
Congrats to this guy...he didn't sue to win, he sued so DirectTV would have to publically disclose exactly HOW it converts its HD signal. I'm sure they'll offer him a nice settlement so this doesn't have to go to court, because they don't want to have to admit publically that they're downconverting their signal.
#8
DVD Talk Legend
Thread Starter
Originally Posted by SonOfAStu
Can't wait to hear from the Dtv fluffers who have always tried to claim this wasn't a problem.
#10
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
Originally Posted by Shannon Nutt
Congrats to this guy...he didn't sue to win, he sued so DirectTV would have to publically disclose exactly HOW it converts its HD signal. I'm sure they'll offer him a nice settlement so this doesn't have to go to court, because they don't want to have to admit publically that they're downconverting their signal.
#11
Banned
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Lakeville, MN
Posts: 3,070
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Jeremy517
I don't think you'll find any of those people here. There have been a number of us complaining about it for a while.
I won't call anyone out by name, but I've seen the pathetic defense of DTV by the fanboys on this very site. They know who they are.
#13
DVD Talk Limited Edition
Some more info in this article from the same site:
http://www.tvpredictions.com/directvbig092106.htm
http://www.tvpredictions.com/directvbig092106.htm