DIRECTV is one of the largest high-def provides in the world but alas, do they really provide true HD? Not really ever sense they turned turned down the bit rate as of 2004 and now provide what is called around the Internet boards as HD-Lite. [
examples here]. This unsavory flavor of high-def is still a good picture but not everything it could be and finally, someone is taking action.
Peter Cohen filed this lawsuit way back in November of '04 but it's finally seeing the light of justice thanks to a judges ruling against DIRECTV's request for arbitration. The stiff arm of justice will hopefully rule in favor of high-def lovers everywhere and we will keep you up to date as soon as we hear something. 
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
B.Greenway @ Sep 20th 2006 1:27PM
The old adage ‘be careful what you ask for’ applies here. If a judge forces DirecTV to send full 1920x1080 programming on these channels (which I doubt will happen), it may force them to drop other channels due to bandwidth constraints.
Rick Raymo @ Sep 20th 2006 1:47PM
I was an original beta tester and paid them for about 12 years maximum channel of service until I got fed up. They've taken what originally was breathtakingly beautiful SD at the highest possible resolutions (Imagine CNN always looking like a 480P DVD?) And surprise, surprise, they've consistently knocked image quality down.
When HD came along with the RCA DTC-100, the SD looked like cable, but the HD at 540 lines of progressive-scan looked impressive.
Then I saw over the air (OTA) done by PBS on a single non-multicast channel.
The difference between the feed from the highly compressed and (yes,) down-rezzed DirecTV signal paled in comparison.
And it continues to get more pale with each added (Absolutely Ridiculous) Must-Carry Local Station.
I imagine that DirecTV (and the cable-co's) wouldn't have to beg-barter-and-steal bandwidth, if we could get the FCC to stop protecting the Buggy Whip Manufacturers (local stations who can't compete and end up a must carry.)
Ever notice how a major event like the Oscars or the Super Bowl looks amazing compared to the norm?
The companies adjust bandwidth on the fly depending upon viewer numbers and the import of the programming from the corporate P.O.V.
The guy is right. He's being ripped off by what was supposed to be a great picture at 19.4 Mbps of lovely HD Goodness.
But, so are the rest of us who are on cable with crazily down-rezzed channels of both SD and HD nature.
So are the rest of us who put up with a low-bandwidth feed from our local NBC station via antenna, because they are doing five channels of multicast on what should be a single GREAT picture.
What's odd is that it appears that the pre-dish company named VOOM (however poorly launched and positioned in the market) had things mostly right. Deliver a high bitrate set of HD channels, and fair bitrate on your SD and let the end user put up a nice UHF antenna to get their locals.
Local MUST=CARRY is killing the Sat biz (slowly but surely) as they'll never keep up by launching multi-billion dollar birds and bidding like crazy for new spectrum.
The rest of us have to put up with Cable making everything equally bad by pushing five hundred channels of crap through a small pipe.
Go Figure.
bgdc @ Sep 20th 2006 3:40PM
They lower the bit rate on SD channels too. Bastages. Watching SD football game on my girlfriends 56 HDTV, she has cable, isn't a nightmare. Put the same SD game on my 55 HDTV, I have directv, and the image is unwatchable.
HD only looks great OTA for me. DTV's HD games look better than TV but not wayyyy better like OTA HD games.
Aron @ Sep 20th 2006 6:11PM
One solution the cable co's are considering is switching the signal at their end rather than yours. So instead of having to send you all the channels, they only have to send you the one you are watching (or the one you are watching plus the one you are recording). Thus the bandwidth limitation goes away. Of course, this also means that they always know exactly what channel each of you is watching. Hello big brother.
Anyone know the bitrates provided by Verizon's new fiber optic FIOS service?
Galley @ Sep 20th 2006 6:11PM
I was all for DirecTV offering local HD channels to everyone, but now I'm not so sure after seeing the amazing OTA picture my brother-in-law in Minneapolis is receiving. Perhaps it really is better for D* to be pumping out the maximum HD goodness and leave the locals to another delivery medium. At least the channel info integrates seamlessly into the guide data.
GhostDoggy @ Sep 20th 2006 7:11PM
How do I get included on that suit? I bet there are enough people upset on this matter to seek class action status. DirecTV would only go the arbitration route because they knew they would lose in the courts.
Brian @ Sep 21st 2006 12:53AM
Is direcTV only doing this on their older mpeg2 streams, or are they also doing it on the new mpeg4 streams? I could understand them doing it on the old satellite (mpeg2), but to do this on their brand new sats streaming the mpeg4 is rediculous since mpeg4 is already using less than 1/2 the bandwidth of an mpeg2 stream. MPEG4(H.264) is definitly the answer to the struggle with bandwidth.
Comcast's CEO claims they do not recompress HD footage, that they are streaming exactly what is sent to them from the studio...sometimes I wonder if that's true since it doesn't always look so HD.
Rick Raymo @ Sep 21st 2006 1:26AM
Yeah. Comcast's CEO claims that they don't compress... Anyone could make that claim and be truthful. But what they don't tell you is that they are getting it at whatever bitrate they request via sat-uplink.
More? Their system can only support a certain number of channels at full HD and SD resolutions.
In my region, they have surpassed that number by a factor of two.
How does one put a size 12 shoe in a size six box?
Squeeze hard.
And I concur with Phoenix on the (coulda/shoulda) single sat with spot-casting... But it would have been a damned big bird with more transponders than any of us have seen.
Richard Bitting @ Sep 21st 2006 11:03AM
Yes and now DirecTV has stooped to a new low. They are taking down HDnet on the weekends so they can use the bandwidth to sell HD PPV football. I pay $10 a month for those channels and then they need the bandwidth so they take away one to use for another paid service? What is next? I suppose they could just charge for various levels of HD quality like ISP's charge for bandwidth speed. $10 for HD-lite, $15 for HD-medium, and $20 for HD-deluxe. For the budget conscious there would be HD-SD. All the HD in SD quality for only $5 a month :-)
Rick Raymo @ Sep 21st 2006 12:23PM
Would it be reasonable to assume that the majority of HD=Net viewers would be weekend-types?
I'm just guessing here--but I'd say more folks have time for television on the weekend.
It seems like double jeopardy to charge you for something--and take it away to sell it in another format to someone else 35 percent of the time.
Goofballs.
Richard Bitting @ Sep 21st 2006 1:46PM
Yes and when I called to complain and ask why no prior notice they just said they would keep doing it during football season. I asked about compensation and they said no, nothing and I said I'd then consider dropping the package if it continued and they said we can do that for you right now! Obviously they are making more money on the football package so they don't care about the ones they lose due to the practice. A lot have said it isn't a big deal because of how they repeat 3 or 4 times a week but I know a LOT of people who do not have HD recorders plus they travel or work odd hours so they may very well have only the weekend to watch some favorite show on HDnet.
Phoenix @ Sep 21st 2006 10:28PM
What should have happened 7 years ago when all of this must carry laws started is that the FCC should have required the 4 to 6 major networks and all of their local affiliates to put their signals up on one satellite that both D* and E* had access to (110 or 119) and both should have shared that satellite for local reception instead of having duplicate channels in the sky. All of the major networks could have shared the cost for this, instead of putting it all on the 2 satellite companies.
Of course, the same could be said for all of the channels that both satellite companies carry. :-)
lwilli201 @ Sep 24th 2006 7:03PM
If this guy wins his lawsuit, it will kill HD on satallites. There just is not enough bandwidth or sats to carry all the HD in the top bitrate. The sats will have to reduce HD programming. Be carefull what you wish for. HD Lite is the only way to increase the number of HD channels. Not sure what kind of sats are being sent up, but I would hope that there will be some nation wide MPEG4 capacity real soon, (not spot beam).
Bochi @ Sep 27th 2006 3:31PM
I live in a suburb that has a lot of elevation changes and trees which means OTA signals are not all available. This is why I would want HD Sat broadcasts of local channels. I've considered getting cable service as well so that I'd be able to get all of the local channels in HD but I've heard their quality is aweful and because they can't offer the NFL package.
The FIOS sounds interesting but I'm not sure what the rollout period is going to be.
Squawk @ Sep 28th 2006 3:11PM
All of this compression & down-rezzing issue should be remedied after the two sats scheduled to launch in 2Q & 3Q 2007 are up & running.
It's a given that D* is presently "bandwidth challenged." They've got to compress as much as they can get away with to deliver as much as "HD-labeled" programming as they can to meet the demands of their subs.
In response to earlier post, they are even compressing MPEG4 feeds so that the PQ is no different than MPEG2 feeds. This means that they are delivering MPEG4 feeds @ about 4-5 Mbps v. the 8-10 Mbps of MPEG2 feeds. And yes, they do manage bandwidth of the fly. Check out any live broadcast off ESPN-HD. Pic quality is much better than anything you'd see off a video-tape of an HBO episode. Live feeds, whether sports or in the studio, offer much more bits of information. If they're not as compressed, they offer the view a much more compelling picture compared to video-taped shows, as well as films. I believe ESPN-HD feeds are around the 13-15 Mbps range.
For those that get OTA, one can even see some difference in PQ depending if the station is multicasting or not. I live in LA where KCBS is not multicasting while KNBC is multicasting 3 channels. All one has to do is compare the PQ of Leno v. Letterman. Letterman is discernibly better . . . likely b/c KCBS is broadcasting it @ full bandwidth while KNBC is broadcasting Leno @ something less.
jiggs @ Dec 16th 2006 11:51AM
Me write pretty one day.
JohnC @ Dec 16th 2006 12:22PM
Can someone tell me is Dish is any different? They offer a ton of HD channels but get a little leary.
I used to have DirecTV but not in HD. Their customer support was so bad...it forced me back to cable