DIRECTV Getting Sued over HD Lite

[Poke]

http://www.tvpredictions.com/directvlawsuit092006.htm

News
DIRECTV Sued Over
HDTV Picture Quality


Viewer claims the satcaster diluted the high-def picture after he signed up.
By Phillip Swann
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.

 

[Scott Greczkowski]

While I am not one for lawsuits I do believe this one has been a long time coming.

 

[Poke]

Yeah will be interesting too see what happens that's for sure.. I wish the guy luck..

 

[sweatytim]

Bravo Peter!

This forum should come up with some ideas to help this guy. A proverbial rock for David to slay Goliath! Maybe start an online petition to show Peter isn't alone in wanting True HD.:up

 

[Neutron]

We've been discussing this over in the DISH forum as well: http://www.satelliteguys.us/showthread.php?t=77292

It will be interesting to see what comes of this.

 

[landlocked]

Regardless if this case wins or loses, I would think this would call DTV to the public carpet and make them address the perception of the case. And by addressing, I mean putting hard facts and detailed plans out there -- especially since Murdoch called it a "dog turd."

 

[sweatytim]

How long will this take?

By the time the lawyers finish all their jabbering, delays, and legalese junk, it will be years down the road before this gets resolved. And new technology may make all this moot. Im not a lawyer so I could be wrong and thats my 2 red cents.

 

[Scott Greczkowski]

especially since Murdoch called it a "dog turd."

Actually he called it a "turd bird"

 

[riffjim4069]

Bravo Zulo!

 

[Sean Mota]

changed the title of the thread so that the HD Lite Apologists do not tell us that we hijacked the thread since it is an HD Lite thread. I find the following quote:

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."

So fraudulent that is quite laughable that Mercer is in denial about the quality of the HD channels. Do you want proof? We can give you proof in the data. He thinks we are a bunch of ignorant fools but he is the one fooling himself and everyone in DirecTv -- the "Turd Bird".

 

[landlocked]

Actually he called it a "turd bird"

You, sir, are correct.

I must have been thinking about the abundance of HD-DVD movies at my local Blockbuster.

 

[lovswr]

changed the title of the thread so that the HD Lite Apologists do not tell us that we hijacked the thread since it is an HD Lite thread. I find the following quote:




So fraudulent that is quite laughable that Mercer is in denial about the quality of the HD channels. Do you want proof? We can give you proof in the data. He thinks we are a bunch of ignorant fools but he is the one fooling himself and everyone in DirecTv -- the "Turd Bird".

Although I agree with you Sean, the qualifer in that quoted statement was"...Satellite TV". That essentially means as good as or very similar to E* does it not? So if we exclude cable, OTA, & any other High Definition delivery system how bad is D* now?

I guess that is why lawyers make such big bucks.

 

[Fgsilva]

So, will Dish then be next since they are also giving us HD-Lite for the Voom channels plus HDNET? Or maybe, out of fear of also being sued they'll bring those channles back to their original resolution! Yeah right, fat chance!!!
BTW, is the server really slow for everybody else today or just me??

 

[mkottman]

So what can possibly come of this? A small monetary reimbursement for each of D* HD subscribers, and a few line changes in its product brochures and volia. . . continued HD-Lite. We will still own $$$$$$$$$ sets made by companies that sell HD capable equipment without the sat broadcasters ability/requirement to broadcast as such. What a waste and a setback.

If the product were to be something not easily fixed, it again would be an opportunity for a foreign company to identify what the people want, and bury the domestic competition. Rainbow was just too early for its time.

 

[charper1]

someone asked what can we do to help his cause; can't we seek to join the class action?

 

[Sean Mota]

Although I agree with you Sean, the qualifer in that quoted statement was"...Satellite TV". That essentially means as good as or very similar to E* does it not? So if we exclude cable, OTA, & any other High Definition delivery system how bad is D* now?

I guess that is why lawyers make such big bucks.

I am not qualifying it to be an isolated DirecTv problem. If you read my posts in this forum, you will know that my posts against this problem have been against anyone who provides HD Lite -- Satellite, Cable, OTA, etc.

Yes, Mercer compares DirecTv as good as Dish Network but in fact that is not the case. Let me cite a few channels were they are not equal or similar: HBO HD, Showtime HD, TNT HD, Discovery HD Theater... these are common to both and yet Dish Network have them at full resolution while DirecTv has them in HD Lite mode. Do I think it is ONLY DirecTv? nope. it is not but DirecTv is the worse of the worse when it comes to provide HD Lite.

 

[Questioner]

So what can possibly come of this? A small monetary reimbursement for each of D* HD subscribers, and a few line changes in its product brochures and volia. . . continued HD-Lite. We will still own $$$$$$$$$ sets made by companies that sell HD capable equipment without the sat broadcasters ability/requirement to broadcast as such. What a waste and a setback.

If the product were to be something not easily fixed, it again would be an opportunity for a foreign company to identify what the people want, and bury the domestic competition. Rainbow was just too early for its time.

What can come out of this? Awareness if nothing else about how providers are cheating subs.

 

[dkheersink]

Scott, Sean Mota, and other big-time posters:

You CAN help this guy's case, as well as all of us who suffer from DTV's horrible HD picture quality. If you will compile some of the data that shows clearly and in plain English how DTV is degrading picture, and that D* is potentially misleading consumers, your argument could help persuade this judge to rule against D*. Amicus curae briefs, or friends of the court briefs, are arguments made by non-parties in a suit that support the position of a party. They can help direct a lawsuit one way or another, and I recommend Satelliteguys.us submit such a brief. I, or any other lawyers/law students can help write it, and like I said it could help. Thanks!

 

[charper1]

Although I agree something needs to be done; I see this just like juice. You can buy different brands of juice in the store; or things that are all CALLED juice. Even though some don't contain any REAL juice or are only 10% real juice, they can still, BY LAW, be called juice. The customer is therefore forced to choose with their dollars. Unfortunately, if there is no LAW/RULE saying that to be called HD your signal must be "X" then every company has a way out. Is there such a law/rule, explicitly requiring this? If there is (does anyone know?)then that is great, if there is not, unfortunately all I see out of this is what a few above have already said; maybe some better exposure, customers knowledge, maybe some money back or free services, maybe a change to make said law/rule in how they can market it, or best yet make them carry the real deal..

 

[Lynskyn]

Although I agree with you Sean, the qualifer in that quoted statement was"...Satellite TV". That essentially means as good as or very similar to E* does it not? So if we exclude cable, OTA, & any other High Definition delivery system how bad is D* now?

I guess that is why lawyers make such big bucks.

Those lawyers must not know about C band satellite Hi-def which blows the pizza dish "HD" away.