AfterDawn: News

DirecTV HD ads pulled

A judge in New York has ordered satellite TV provider DirecTV to pull advertisements that feature Jessica Simpson and William Shatner while a lawsuit brought by Time Warner Cable for "false advertising" proceeds. DirecTV has claimed that its high definition broadcasting is superior in quality to cable services. Time Warner Cable found this claim misleading and filed a lawsuit against DirecTV.

The ads in question feature both Simpson and Shatner claiming that DirecTV is the best. Simpson is in her Daisy Duke character when she says, "You're just not going to get the best picture out of some fancy big-screen TV without DirecTV. It's broadcast in 1080i. I totally don't know what that means, but I want it."



Shatner is Star Trek's Capt. James T. Kirk when he says, "With what Starfleet just ponied up for the big screen TV, settling for cable would be illogical."

Source:
United Press International

Written by: James Delahunty @ 6 Feb 2007 9:16

• Previous article

• Sony says Blu-ray is winning format war

• Next article

• Wii modchips won't work on recent Wiis

• 27 comments

• georgeluv

  its been my experience that satellite is clearer, however it sucks getting cut out when something as common as rain happens. what if it was raining near you during the super bowl? cable companies need to get better boxes and get cheaper. the cable signal coming into my house is very strong and i have my tvs wires connected flawlessly im a stickler for tv clarity, and we still get pixleization during high action scenes, scene changes, and just random glitches. i could actually get the channels clearer if i didnt use the box at all, but then i dont get any of the channels past 125 or something. great job cable. the second i dont get free cable anymore im switching to FTA satellite, paying for tv is stupid.

  6.2.2007 10:46 #1

• goninjago

  From what I understand, since HD is a digital signal, it doesn't matter how "good of a quality" you have. Being digital, you either get it, or you don't. So if DirecTv is claiming to have better HD broadcast signals, technically they ARE lying, as they are broadcasting the same digital signal as any cable company would.

  6.2.2007 11:32 #2

• jziman

  Eh I have had them both. But not in HD. For just the basic I would have to say that my cable company blows Dish outta the water. Plus my cable TV has never gone out. I have had it 3.5 years now. But with dish I had nothing but problems. Ill stick to my local cable company for now.

  6.2.2007 11:33 #3

• djgizmo

  jziman, remember this is for Direct TV, not Dish Networks. Direct TV is typically better than cable on a day to day basis.
  
  goninjago, yes, it transmits a DIGITAL signal which the LMB converts back to a 1080i analogue signal for your TV. The thing is that most (if not all) direct TV LMB's are about 2-5x better quality than a typical cable box that can lose signal / clarity due to noise / interference.
  
  Overall, I knew Direct TV was going to get nailed with this because cable can also broadcast in 1080i with the subscribed channels.

  6.2.2007 12:12 #4

• tabletpc

  i hate to tell you if you have dishnetwork and not lame directtv serviec your superbowl would have been happier with no service interruptions and great hd tv quality

  6.2.2007 12:21 #5

• plutonash

  From what I have read it has nothing to do with the signal but the actually picture themselves. DirecTv is cheap when it comes to bandwidth sometimes running shows lower the 6.5 mbs which is what SD is run at. some guy is suing them to because the bitrate is so low its looks bad at times. for example anyone see the superbowl on Sunday while being shown on cbs it looked like crap because some afflitates are cheap asses and skimped out. Combined with rain and the old and crappy MPEG-2 you have the macro blocking mess we all saw on sunday. Directv isnt the only doing this almost all HD providers bc they are cheap

  6.2.2007 12:23 #6

• tabletpc

  not true cable doesn't display in 1080i the only cable station that does is a spanish film network the rest are in 480p hd tv signal to be more compatible with older and newer hd tvs

  6.2.2007 12:23 #7

• venomX05

  Being a cable and Satellite tv installer, I have got to say that it really doesn't make much difference.
  
  I think cable is a better way to go because it is a constant line and it is easier to troubleshoot, however, not much channels to choose from, usually only 75 to over 100+ give or take if you get an HD box of any of their boxes.
  
  Satellite on the other, even though you get alot more channels, believe me, it isn't worth it. Parts go bad, reception kicks in and out if it isn't angled right or you get snow on it...I mean, there are alot of issues. Working for Dish, they actually have the largest number of call-backs (trouble calls) than any other Satellite provider.
  
  As far as reception is concerned, unless you are going to count every single pixel or you need to have the best quality...it is all the same. I have seen both, and the only thing that I think looks better on HD is playing a video game.
  
  Quote:"You're just not going to get the best picture out of some fancy big-screen TV without DirecTV. It's broadcast in 1080i. I totally don't know what that means, but I want it."Yeah...um, anyone who decided to get DirectTV cause of that commercial deserves to get shafted.
  
  V

  6.2.2007 13:20 #8

• ZippyDSM

  Satilite is to much upkeep for the same price as cable,for a 2-4TV family.
  
  
  Now Satilite should learn from cable and pipe all channels for the house be able to pay 10 more to rent the equipment 50 for 100ish channles is not to bad if all hardware is covered.
  
  Sat has gotten stagnet in their pricing and its even started to go up in some areas,They should update their dishes my sucky Sat net is stable 88% of the time works fine during rain the industry is getting fat and lazy and not imporving enough hell we have fully digital setups and no indavendaul channel plans I want 20 channels for 10 a month and another 5 per TV,will they do it no they are to busy herding the consumer to give a damn.

  6.2.2007 14:47 #9

• jjpitt

  Hi guys: I've had two different cable providers and DirecTV for 18 years. Satellite is easily better. Fiberoptic cables have improve things, however, when a satellite movie is burned to a DVD and played on a 52" HDTV screen, it cannot be distinguished from the original DVD. I've done this many times for comparison. The quality is amazing. Software and hardward determine much of the quality, but, Hey, we are all nuts, anyway. I live in Montana.....doesn't rain much here. I had my installer choose the satellite with the best signal. There are often several choices. The signal strength is 96/100, which is great for a "Northern Tier State." Some friends with installers who were happy with a 57/100 signal strength can't make my claims of signal quality. Wished that I were more fluent in Russian, but I'm working on it. BEST

  6.2.2007 15:06 #10

• mspurloc

  Lawyers are total tools.
  The MBA empty suits who employ them are a waste of oxygen.
  Want to solve global warming?
  Kill everyone who uses the courts and flaps their jaws.

  6.2.2007 16:16 #11

• bobiroc

  Well I have had ComcastHD and DishNetwork HD on the same HDTV and I think the Dish Network looks better. I switched because I could package everything (Phone, Cell, Internet, and TV) into one bill and I save about $50 vs Cable and get more Channels and more specifically more HD channels. Ghd only thing I miss is WGN in HD, but hopefully they will add that soon.

  6.2.2007 16:33 #12

• ZippyDSM

  Sat got better quality only because the cable company are dim witted slow over eating monsters,Sat has its own issues but none want to slim down and bring the most channels for the lowest price.

  6.2.2007 17:21 #13

• Blackjax

  Here's another type to throw into the mix. I have seen the new iptv in action at a friends house. Pretty cool and looks good but with all new things it needs some of its bugs worked out. I was a cable installer for a few years and I also had sat service. They all look about the same unless you are a stickler. For reliability I have to give it to cable, at least in my area. For picture quality I give it to satellite, again in my area. I can't wait to try the iptv stuff in my house. Lots of channels an interesting setup for a dvr. You can go online and setup a recording there if you forget while your home! The only drawback would be you can only play a signal on 4 tvs at once, but then again how many people watch more than 4 tv's at once? I know loaded question! :)

  6.2.2007 20:30 #14

• ZippyDSM

  Blackjax
  Nicely said great point of view!
  
  To me Sat and cable are the same sat is cheaper for 1 TV cable is is more stable
  
  if each person in the is sued to recording their shows and watching TV on and off for a 3 member family thats 6 "tvs" that is if they use a DVR or VCR.

  7.2.2007 01:02 #15

• Mr-Movies

  I’ve had all except Zoom and have many friends with the different systems. Hands down Satellite is the way to go, it is cheaper no matter how many TV’s you have, and provides better picture and much better audio then LAN based monopoly driven cable systems. Especially when you look at DTV’s new MPEG4 system which gets even better quality then their standard MPEG2 systems and has less weather issues. The two down sides are it is more difficult to align and the biggest for me is my Tivo’s will be phased out due to this. HBO for the satellite systems runs around $10 to $12 where as on cable systems it’s around $18. HD for DTV is nice you pay one price around $11 where as Dish you have 3 or 4 different HD packages the last couple only providing one or two extra channels, what a scam.
  
  All systems have bad broadcasts on HD which can be due to the main provider of the signal and may not necessarily have anything to do with the system provider. One thing I’ve noticed with cable systems is your picture quality and stability is dependant on your location. In my area urban people tend to get better service then suburbanites. My friends in the suburbs tend to get horrible reception, pixilation, and total loss of channels at times, this can happen often over the day. This is true for the boosted On-Demand that the cable companies hold so dear to their hearts, for all areas. And by the way what is so great about someone else picking what you might want to watch on that wonderful On-Demand, what a joke.
  
  To me the cable companies should be the ones attacked, I’ve seen more bogus commercials from them then the satellite providers. They are also upset because their monopolies are being threatened now that more people are getting tired of poor service and constantly increasing prices.
  
  As to the installers out their, I have seen more poorly setup systems by professional installers then not. The installers will shoot through trees, houses, and just not be aligned proper which is crazy because most of the time this is not necessary. It’s obvious to me that there main concern is install quickly and just get a signal, not the strongest signal possible. Don’t get me wrong there are some very good installers out there, it just doesn’t seem to be the norm.

  7.2.2007 07:54 #16

• Blackjax

  Thanks zippy. When I find out more iptv stuff I'll post up in the appropriate forum/message. I have info on the stuff but i am not able to tell all about it. Not worth losing my job over. All I can tell you is iptv can send up to 4 video streams to a home. SO if your using your dvr to record and watch a show then you are using 2 of those streams hence only two more tv's could be played in your house. One thing I can say is a plus is the bandwitdh will be going up for homes. It's needed to carry in signal for iptv and dsl, if you have it. All in all it will force everyone (ISP's) to update equipment to keep up with the times. In other words the U.S., if thats where you live, should start to catch up to some other countries when it comes to the definition of "hi-speed" broadband. In the US it's "defined" loosely as anything above 56Kbps. i.e. low end dsl is 112Kbps!

  7.2.2007 22:03 #17

• ZippyDSM

  Blackjax
  not that much different than Sat then is it?
  1 TV per receiver and such its not bad for starters if you can get acouple more for 10-20 least do soemthign better than the the current monopoly the sat and cable have going.

  7.2.2007 22:14 #18

• majkk

  Alright I've got to comment on few things as I've worked for cox as a network technician and done many satellite installations for friends.
  
  1) They both have their advantages and disadvantages. That includes what sat. provider your using and what cable provider your using.
  
  2)tabletpc- yes you can get 1080i on allot of cable channels as long as it's a hd channel and your tv is capable.
  
  3)Cable reception has allot to do with the company, how they maintain their lines, what the customer has done to their wiring, what type of cabling they are using, splitters and connectors. There are a ton of variables that go into getting a signal. You can't just hook it up and expect it to look good. In fact if you have to strong a signal you can get a poor picture.
  
  4) Quote:georgeluv-the cable signal coming into my house is very strong and i have my tv's wires connected flawlessly im a stickler for tv clarity, and we still get pixleization during high action scenes, scene changes, and just random glitches. That's because a digital picture is man made. You'll get it on digital cable, directv and dish network. Trust me you'll get pixelation on cable even with their 30-40 foot satellite dish that cable company's are using. If its raining hard enough any satellite will pixelate. Cable company's are still getting their signal by satellite and then distributing it to you via fiber optic and then hopefully quality braided cable.
  
  5) MQuote:r-Movies-All systems have bad broadcasts on HD which can be due to the main provider of the signal and may not necessarily have anything to do with the system provider. One thing I’ve noticed with cable systems is your picture quality and stability is dependant on your location. In my area urban people tend to get better service then suburbanites. My friends in the suburbs tend to get horrible reception, pixilation, and total loss of channels at times, this can happen often over the day. That has allot to do with ingress into the cable lines, and also the network guys. If they can't tune their amplifiers and such, your only as good as your signal. Plus your signal will change due to resistance from heat in the lines as the day gets hotter and colder along with the heat in the amplifiers. One spec of dust smaller than a human hair in the amplifier, can give you allot of unwanted noise in a tv picture. Allot has to do with your maintenance guys. Cable lines carry cable and data and will leak signal but on the other side if it's not good quality shielded cabling, it will accept unwanted signals which also cause bad pictures.
  
  And lastly when it comes to satellite installers, they are not professionals, they are anyone who can reasonable look at a meter and see they've moved the dish to accept a signal. They have very little training. The installer that did my fathers dish hookup, used RG-59 cable instead of RG-6 for a 90 foot run of cable. He also used screw on connectors instead of silicone crimp on. There are good ones and there are bad ones just like anything in life. Hopefully this helps someone a little to understand some of the inside issues with both providers.
  
  Satellite or cable really depends on allot of variables not just the price. :):)

  9.2.2007 22:39 #19

• borhan9

  I like DirectTV but those lines are just crapp :)

  10.2.2007 02:34 #20

• DADEO1

  I've had both Dish network and Comcast cable. The dish is nice until the first year discounts are over. The main reason I am staying with cable is the price when something goes wrong. I swear every other week something broke and need to be replaced with the dish. You need a second job to pay for these repairs. When something goes wrong with the cable,they fix it and it doesn't cost anything. With the dish I had bad LNBS',switches,boxes that I had to pay for to be fixed.I'd rather rent the equipment and have it repaired for free.So far (2 years) the cable guys been here once to replace something and it didn't cost me anything. Has this changed over the years yet? If your dish guy comes to repair something,what's the cost? I think cable prices might come down once the phone companies get into the picture and offer TV service and create some much needed competition.

  10.2.2007 04:55 #21

• donpiere

  In my opinion Direct TV has quality broadcasting,whether HD or otherwise.I have noticed The local cable company's HD is as good as Direct TV's. Direct TV's support is terrible,there HD package for $ 9.99 is trmendously bad,or i'll say it ,it sucks.They have a 2 year contract,with my local cable there is no contract.They charge 4.99 a month for maintenance fee. There is no maintenance fee with my local cable provider. Direct TV is overpriced for what you get.When my contract is up I'll bid them farewell, unless they make some drastic changes.My experience with Direct TV is (Stay Away if you have other sources.)

  10.2.2007 06:27 #22

• naviscan

  Sick & tired of them'all! Fat cats, doin' nothing on improvement, while sticking up prices... and suckers keep buying their crappy service!
  Bought my own Samsung DirecTV HD box, got the oval dish with 3 LNBs, relocated dish on roof several times... still sucks.
  
  About HDTV: on DirecTV you pay $11 extra a month for 5 HD channels, all you get is crappy programming, reruns, etc., stupid commercials and interruptions for their kicks! And all that at 1080i, which is not even worth if you invested in a $5000 plasma or LCD!
  
  I get better picture HD for free on local Over-the-Air channels, with just a $50 HD antenna!
  Walk into a store, or airport, sports bar, and all you see on the Fancy plasma sets is the current 3:4 format broadcasting, Deformed, wide-screen-converted bad images: Why buy expensive plasma or LCD HDTV sets, when all you can get is deformed 3:4 or re-converted analog signal?
  
  People should vote with their wallets and stop encouraging corporate theft and abuse from either Cable or Sat broadcasting, until they would start to wonder what's going on!...
  
  Meanwhile, all Broadcast, HDTV manufacturers, and myself are not ready for HDTV technology just yet!

  12.2.2007 11:47 #23

• Xenores

  Yeah, I never liked Direct TV. I like Dish Network's service better.

  13.2.2007 13:57 #24

• ZippyDSM

  naviscan
  pretty much innovation has staggered while prices have started to go up,its almost like gaming altho the WII has shown its potential but its not been able to fully deliver on it.

  13.2.2007 17:54 #25

• rokmsokm

  OMG! What a stupid world we live in! Isn't the point of contrast advertising that my product is better than yours? TOOOOOO MANY LAWYERS IMO!

  14.3.2007 05:02 #26

• jacsac

  What about the ad where they state up to 150 hd channels? WHen the hell is that supposed to happen? Is that just what they could do but choose not to?

  6.7.2007 10:13 #27