# DirecTV sues Comcast



## morbid_fun (Jan 16, 2007)

I apologize in advance if this has been posted. I did not find a post as of now. Interesting reading.

http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/83923


----------



## mhayes70 (Mar 21, 2006)

Yeah, I was just reading it on Swanni's web site. I love it! It's about time Directv does this to the cable company's. They have been to Directv for a while.

I always say what goes around comes around.


----------



## Dave (Jan 29, 2003)

This is more like Directv calling the kettle black. When there pot stinks to high heaven. Like there commercials for more HD than cable coming. Three times more HD than cable is only about 30 channels not 150 as they now seem to be advertising again. As far as being in 75% of the areas, they also have some very very fuzzy math at Directv. 65 markets is not 65% of the country. Remember there are 215 DMA's not 100. So in actuality Directv is only covering 33% of all DMA's. Also right now there are some even on here that say Directv is HD LITE right now.


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

mhayes70 said:


> Yeah, I was just reading it on Swanni's web site. I love it! It's about time Directv does this to the cable company's. They have been to Directv for a while.
> 
> I always say what goes around comes around.


The TV Predictions areticle..
http://www.tvpredictions.com/dcomcast051807.htm


----------



## PoitNarf (Aug 19, 2006)

Dave said:


> This is more like Directv calling the kettle black. When there pot stinks to high heaven. Like there commercials for more HD than cable coming. Three times more HD than cable is only about 30 channels not 150 as they now seem to be advertising again.


I'm pretty sure the commercials advertise the capacity to carry HD channels, not the # of channels themselves per say.



Dave said:


> Also right now there are some even on here that say Directv is HD LITE right now.


MPEG2 HD channels? Yes. MPEG4 HD channels? No.


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

Dave said:


> As far as being in 75% of the areas, they also have some very very fuzzy math at Directv. 65 markets is not 65% of the country. Remember there are 215 DMA's not 100. So in actuality Directv is only covering 33% of all DMA's.


If you have 150 apples... and 5 buckets.

1st bucket has 50
2nd - 40
3rd - 30
4th - 20
5th - 10

You put a lid on the 1st and 2nd bucket... you have covered 60% of the apples... by only covering 40% of buckets...
Cover the 3rd bucket... you are now at 80% coverage, with only 60% of the buckets..

Same thing here... The DMA's that they have covered represent nearly 70% of the viewing population...

It is not fuzzy math, if you properly refer to the numbers that are reported.


----------



## MikeW (May 16, 2002)

Dave said:


> This is more like Directv calling the kettle black. When there pot stinks to high heaven. Like there commercials for more HD than cable coming. Three times more HD than cable is only about 30 channels not 150 as they now seem to be advertising again. As far as being in 75% of the areas, they also have some very very fuzzy math at Directv. 65 markets is not 65% of the country. Remember there are 215 DMA's not 100. So in actuality Directv is only covering 33% of all DMA's. Also right now there are some even on here that say Directv is HD LITE right now.


The 150 is expcected capacity, not channels.


----------



## Mocco71 (Jan 13, 2007)

Earl Bonovich said:


> If you have 150 apples... and 10 buckets.
> 
> 1st bucket has 50
> 2nd - 40
> ...


Well said Earl, well said. It's amazing that people will complain about fuzzy math, and go on to use fuzzy math in determining the amount of people covered with D* local HD's.


----------



## Smthkd (Sep 1, 2004)

Do anybody have a pic of the add D* is suing about?


----------



## captain_video (Nov 22, 2005)

DirecTV hasn't got a leg to stand on. Sure, they may be adding a ton of HD channels but if you added up all the HD locals carried by Comcast in every market they exist in they'd blow DirecTV right out of the water in sheer numbers. At most, DTV carries about four HD local channels in the markets they currently broadcast whereas Comcast broadcasts far more than that on average. 

I don't know what the actual resolution and bitrates are being broadcast on the newer mpeg4 HD channels but when compared with their current mpeg2 lineup, Comcast is a hands-down winner (and I don't even have Comcast, but I have seen what they offer at my brother-in-law's house). I'd like to see DTV's claims blow up in their faces for the sheer arrogance of their statements. They're not fooling anyone but themselves.


----------



## John in Georgia (Sep 24, 2006)

Smthkd said:


> Do anybody have a pic of the add D* is suing about?


I believe that Earl has corrected the link on the first page, now.

John


----------



## richiephx (Jan 19, 2006)

The only reason for all the lawsuits is turn the spotlight away from their inability to be honest with the consumer and create confusion in the marketplace. Unfortunately, this is the nature of business today. They're in the business to make money and will do and say anything to increase their net subscriber base. Despite their efforts, I think the public is smart enough to cut through the frivolity and misinformation they spew.


----------



## bonscott87 (Jan 21, 2003)

captain_video said:


> DirecTV hasn't got a leg to stand on.


Of course they don't. They are just getting back at cable for suing them earlier this year over similar things (cable lost).


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

captain_video said:


> DirecTV hasn't got a leg to stand on. Sure, they may be adding a ton of HD channels but if you added up all the HD locals carried by Comcast in every market they exist in they'd blow DirecTV right out of the water in sheer numbers. At most, DTV carries about four HD local channels in the markets they currently broadcast whereas Comcast broadcasts far more than that on average.


That is not what they are suing about...
The Comcast Ad in question, had nothing to do with the # of channels or locals covered



captain_video said:



> I don't know what the actual resolution and bitrates are being broadcast on the newer mpeg4 HD channels but when compared with their current mpeg2 lineup, Comcast is a hands-down winner (and I don't even have Comcast, but I have seen what they offer at my brother-in-law's house). I'd like to see DTV's claims blow up in their faces for the sheer arrogance of their statements. They're not fooling anyone but themselves.


So it is okay to make the claims? If you don't include the other half of DirecTV HD service? COMCAST said they where better on HD... that would also include MPEG-4... They didn't state they where better on just the MPEG-2.

When the AD was release...... all I wanted to see:
The results of the 300ish people that where polled.

And their choice for each of channels that where viewed 6 I think (HBO, ESPN, Discovery, ABC, NBC, CBS)...

Where those that claimed better... was it better on all 6? or just 4 or 5..
I am guessing that those that where 3 and 3, where excluded from the tallys.
Or is it possible if they picked just 1 out of the group... they where deemed "cable favorite".

And there where other intresting things.
If the results where so over "Terrific"... Why didn't COMCAST include the results from the 150 of their own customers in the tallys... what did their customers choose SAT over COMCAST?

I don't know what is going to happen with the suit... and really... it won't matter.
They have already stopped playing the ad on the radio here in Chicago... at least I haven't heard it in over a week.
I don't see it in print in any of the papers here either any more...

And Later this year... the game changes....


----------



## ScoBuck (Mar 5, 2006)

Dave said:


> This is more like Directv calling the kettle black. When there pot stinks to high heaven. Like there commercials for more HD than cable coming. Three times more HD than cable is only about 30 channels not 150 as they now seem to be advertising again. As far as being in 75% of the areas, they also have some very very fuzzy math at Directv. 65 markets is not 65% of the country. Remember there are 215 DMA's not 100. So in actuality Directv is only covering 33% of all DMA's. Also right now there are some even on here that say Directv is HD LITE right now.


Actually its your math and reading thats fuzzy on this one - the claim is over 70% of U.S. HOUSEHOLDS not DMAS. And it is 100% accurate my friend.


----------



## HIPAR (May 15, 2005)

If I were the judge I'd throw all of these nonsense law suits out of my court and then levy fines for wasting the court's time. How do you definitively prove any of these allegations? 

Picture quality surveys are bogus. I could hire a company and instruct them to prove my HDTV service, delivered by string and tin cans, has more channels with better picture quality. If I paid them enough, they would do it. :lol: 

--- CHAS


----------



## mx6bfast (Nov 8, 2006)

I agree that this is D*'s way of getting back at cable companies. But this could cause D* to really be called out on providing HD Lite. Hopefully this will backfire against D*.


----------



## SMosher (Jan 16, 2006)

mx6bfast said:


> I agree that this is D*'s way of getting back at cable companies. But this could cause D* to really be called out on providing HD Lite. Hopefully this will backfire against D*.


It wont backfire for beans. Ask the law makers which dish they have on their house ;d


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

HIPAR said:


> I could hire a company and instruct them to prove my HDTV service, delivered by string and tin cans, has more channels with better picture quality.


Your HDTV service intrigues me. Do you have a website I could go to for more information?


----------



## mx6bfast (Nov 8, 2006)

SMosher said:


> It wont backfire for beans. Ask the law makers which dish they have on their house ;d


What is that have E* or Canadian satellite? Does that mean they will automatically lean towards Comcast?


----------



## brucegrr (Sep 14, 2006)

Purely anecdotal here..........but yesterdays Comcast HD broadcast of the Cubs/White Sox game on Directv was the clearly the best HD quality I have ever seen on DirecTv. Far better than I have seen on ESPN HD.

Quality is such an arbitrary thing. Isn't it the eye of the beholder? I know there are standards that can be measured but the human eye varies from person to person. For me, DirecTv picture quality (in general) is far better than Time Warner (our local cable company) Remember I said in general. On any given day with a specific program Time Warner "may" be better. I looked at the big picture and DirecTv was the winner.

I consider ALL the HD advertising hype. When I see it I will believe it. I laugh every time Panasonic's Plasma TV ad come on touting the crystal clear picture of baseball games Since MOST of the baseball is still in SD.......crystal clear it ain't :lol: 

Bruce


----------



## Diana C (Mar 30, 2007)

Comcast's REAL problem, regardless of the outcome of the lawsuit, is that the average consumer, given the choice between 10 pristine HD channels and 50 to 100 pretty good HD channels, will choose the greater selection over the better quality almost everytime.


----------



## bonscott87 (Jan 21, 2003)

mx6bfast said:


> What is that have E* or Canadian satellite? Does that mean they will automatically lean towards Comcast?


Of course they do. Comcast bribes...err....pays....err.....backs the hometown congresscreeps who are of course in charge of the Telecommunications committee. Oh love lobbyists.


----------



## ScoBuck (Mar 5, 2006)

All of this lawsuit - counter lawsuit stuff goes on every day in most hi-tech companies - Microsoft, Apple, Dell, etc are being sued by someone all the time. Most of it is posturing and most get thrown out or settled. D* and E* each have plenty of various litigations going on.

What I don't understand is why people get so bent out of shape as to who is right (probaly none of them) or who is wrong (probably all of them).

Who really cares, and who thinks it means anything really? Is it that slow a news day?


----------



## jpl (Jul 9, 2006)

I dislike Comcast as much as anyone, but after reading the article, I'll be honest, I don't see what standing DirecTV has here. They didn't say that "scientific evidence shows that Comcast's HD is superior." They're saying that in a side-by-side comparison more people preferred Comcast's HD than DirecTV's. Ok... how exactly is that deceptive advertising? You can claim that the testing was done in a situation that was conducive to Comcast, since they commissioned the test. But so what? You can say that the test wasn't conducted fairly, but again I have to ask "so what?" DirecTV could very easily commission their own side-by-side test and come up with wildly different conclusions. Does that make the ad deceptive? I really don't think so. The ad is up-front: "we conducted this test... and found that more people preferred our HD to their's." Yeah - ok... that's what the test found. How is advertising that fact being deceptive? I'm missing it. This is no different than the famous "cola" taste tests that they did years ago.

When TWC went after DirecTV I thought they were being petty - and lawsuits like that show signs of desparation. They show the world that you're so afraid of competing on the merits that you want to shut down claims to the contrary made by your competition. I don't view this any differently. I find this lawsuit petty, and I was hoping that DirecTV wouldn't stoop to the same tactics that TWC did. I'm all for free and open competition - and lawsuits like this just get in the way. If DirecTV wanted to demonstrate the superiority of their HD over Comcast, they could do so. Like I said, I'm no fan of Comcast, but to be honest I saw nothing deceptive or dishonest in their ad. DirecTV should use it's time and resources in other areas.


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

jpl said:


> You can claim that the testing was done in a situation that was conducive to Comcast, since they commissioned the test. But so what? You can say that the test wasn't conducted fairly, but again I have to ask "so what?"


We need to have some kind of standards in advertising. Allowing any company to advertise using BS test results wouldn't be a good thing.


----------



## machavez00 (Nov 2, 2006)

#1 question: What system were they using? I'm sure they were not using one of their rural systems.


----------



## jpl (Jul 9, 2006)

Jeremy W said:


> We need to have some kind of standards in advertising. Allowing any company to advertise using BS test results wouldn't be a good thing.


I don't understand what you're saying here. Comcast ran a test. They admitted that they ran the test. They found that, according to that test more people preferred their HD to DirecTV's... where's the deception? What standard are you looking for - are you saying that a company can't commission a test of their product against a rival? Or are you saying that if they do run that test that they're not allowed to advertise the results? I frankly don't understand why this is a problem.

Comcast is saying "according to the test we put together and ran more people liked our product..." Ok... not sure what's wrong with that. I think folks on this forum are just cheering it because it's DirecTV doing the suing. I seemed to remember a very different tone on the thread talking about TWC suing DirecTV. There should be consistency here. I'll bet if this were the other way around - if DirecTV conducted the study and found that more people preferred their HD, and if Comcast sued DirecTV for deceptive advertising - that most people on this thread wouldn't be chearing.

Look, I don't like Comcast. I've said that before. Still I have to be consistent with this. I am criticizing the practice of these law suits - and I really don't care for them... no matter who is doing the suing. I think they're petty, no matter who is doing them. I'm frankly disappointed that a company that I admire as much as DirecTV is stooping to this. I think it's beneath them.

The ONLY case where I would have no issue with the lawsuit is if the company in question is doing something legitimately dishonest. If Comcast didn't tell you that THEY commissioned the test, e.g. Or if they lied about the results. Or if they said something about DirecTV that wasn't true. Then DirecTV would have a case. That's the standard that should be applied. Think about what kind of chilling effect this would have on advertising if DirecTV won this lawsuit.


----------



## Steve Mehs (Mar 21, 2002)

> Allowing any company to advertise using BS test results wouldn't be a good thing.


Like I said in another thread, if it was DirecTV that did the test and people preferred DirecTV's PQ, no one on here would be complaining, there would be no second guessing on what type of displays were used, etc. This would not be BS results, this would be the definitive truth, because as we all know cable sucks.  It's just in this instance this comparison is telling you want you do not want to hear so automatically you call BS.

I've seen with my own eyes on my TW system versus DirecTV, and TW rules as far as PQ is concerned.


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

Steve Mehs said:


> I've seen with my own eyes on my TW system versus DirecTV, and TW rules as far as PQ is concerned.


Comcast, in my city, has better PQ than DirecTV pretty much universally. I'm not saying that the test is wrong, but they need to reveal more information about it. Just because they came up with results that agree with my personal findings doesn't mean it wasn't a BS test.


----------



## jpl (Jul 9, 2006)

I'm just going to throw one more item out on this one. I think people are chearing this because there's a belief that the test is biased. To which I say (and this isn't meant to insult anyone) "well, duh... it's called advertising." When one company says "our product is the best" of COURSE they're biased. That's the nature of things. I don't seem to remember anyone being upset that DirecTV's commercials weren't balanced. Of course they're not balanced. They're not meant to be. Of course Comcast made sure that the test was as beneficial to them as possible. So what? EVERY company does that. They do it when they advertise... they do it when they conduct these "tests". Comcast knew that the results would be favorable to them... or they wouldn't have done the test. That's why I keep harping on the fact that Comcast advertised that they commissioned the test. That's an important piece of information. If they had hid that, or if they led you to believe that they had nothing to do with the test, I'd be in agreement with the lawsuit. I saw nothing in the story that indicated that, though. I saw the opposite - I saw the fact that Comcast admitted that THEY conducted the test.


----------



## BobV (Dec 15, 2006)

I personally think D* is doing the right thing here, they have been sued and carped on for years. Not including the revenue they lost to the pirates.
All this suing and stealing cost us , the consumer!!!

D* needs to focus on getting with adding the new HD channels.
From my point of veiw , I really do not like the HD channels we are paying for now.
How many espn HD stations do we really need? espn is nothing more to me then 
a bunch of talk shows. You can get 1 HBO Hd and 1 Showtime HD channels if you
pay for the HBO and Showtime service. 
As it stands now I am paying $10 a month HD service for what?


----------



## jpl (Jul 9, 2006)

BobV said:


> All this suing and stealing cost us , the consumer!!!


So... you're in favor of this law suit... because past law suits have cost the consumer, and you're sick of getting hit with the extra money? Sorry, but exactly how does that work? If law suits are costing consumers... why exactly are you ok with this law suit? Besides, just because they've been sued in the past doesn't make it right when they do it. The question is - is the action ok or not? It shouldn't matter WHO is taking the action. If the action is wrong then the action is wrong.


----------



## jpl (Jul 9, 2006)

One last thought on this. Go ti directv's website. You'll find a link telling you why directv is better than cable. They give a list of reasons. Take a look at that list. Notice anything missing? How about areas where cable beats Directv? They're not included... why? Because Directv put together the list, that's why. You don't expect the list to be balanced. You expect it to be conducive to directv. Is it deceptive that directv put together that list and made it conducive to their service?


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

*Cable TV executives eat babies for dinner!*


----------



## JLucPicard (Apr 27, 2004)

!Devil_lol

Now that there is funny, I don't care who you are!


----------



## Raven2490 (Apr 10, 2007)

brucegrr said:


> Purely anecdotal here..........but yesterdays Comcast HD broadcast of the Cubs/White Sox game on Directv was the clearly the best HD quality I have ever seen on DirecTv. Far better than I have seen on ESPN HD.
> 
> Quality is such an arbitrary thing. Isn't it the eye of the beholder? I know there are standards that can be measured but the human eye varies from person to person. For me, DirecTv picture quality (in general) is far better than Time Warner (our local cable company) Remember I said in general. On any given day with a specific program Time Warner "may" be better. I looked at the big picture and DirecTv was the winner.
> 
> ...


ur right the picture quality for that game was awesome that day.


----------



## Marty B (Sep 21, 2006)

jpl said:


> One last thought on this. Go ti directv's website. You'll find a link telling you why directv is better than cable. They give a list of reasons. Take a look at that list. Notice anything missing? How about areas where cable beats Directv? They're not included... why? Because Directv put together the list, that's why. You don't expect the list to be balanced. You expect it to be conducive to directv. Is it deceptive that directv put together that list and made it conducive to their service?


I gotta say, I have never used Comcast, I have used Time Warner Cable, (love their internet, hate their TV) and have used DirecTV for many years.
JPL is spot on in everything he has said in this thread!

Good to hear a voice of reason.

Marty


----------



## Drew2k (Aug 16, 2006)

Jeremy W said:


> *Cable TV executives eat babies for dinner!*


Mmm... veal.


----------



## jpl (Jul 9, 2006)

Marty B said:


> I gotta say, I have never used Comcast, I have used Time Warner Cable, (love their internet, hate their TV) and have used DirecTV for many years.
> JPL is spot on in everything he has said in this thread!
> 
> Good to hear a voice of reason.
> ...


Wow... thanks. I really appreciate that. Very nice of you to say.


----------



## Satelliteracer (Dec 6, 2006)

Dave said:


> This is more like Directv calling the kettle black. When there pot stinks to high heaven. Like there commercials for more HD than cable coming. Three times more HD than cable is only about 30 channels not 150 as they now seem to be advertising again. As far as being in 75% of the areas, they also have some very very fuzzy math at Directv. 65 markets is not 65% of the country. Remember there are 215 DMA's not 100. So in actuality Directv is only covering 33% of all DMA's. Also right now there are some even on here that say Directv is HD LITE right now.


Yes, but the top 65 markets is the vast majority of the US population and that is the claim I believe.


----------



## DCSholtis (Aug 7, 2002)

Jeremy W said:


> *Cable TV executives eat babies for dinner!*


!rolling


----------



## jpl (Jul 9, 2006)

brucegrr said:


> Purely anecdotal here..........but yesterdays Comcast HD broadcast of the Cubs/White Sox game on Directv was the clearly the best HD quality I have ever seen on DirecTv. Far better than I have seen on ESPN HD.
> 
> Quality is such an arbitrary thing. Isn't it the eye of the beholder? I know there are standards that can be measured but the human eye varies from person to person. For me, DirecTv picture quality (in general) is far better than Time Warner (our local cable company) Remember I said in general. On any given day with a specific program Time Warner "may" be better. I looked at the big picture and DirecTv was the winner.
> 
> ...


Now that's something I can agree with  I'm not talking about THAT game in particular, but I have to say CSN has about the best HD going. FiOS carries CSN Philly (how they managed to get it from Comcast I'll never know), and their HD is impressive - better than ESPN's from what I've seen so far.


----------



## dbaile (Jan 22, 2007)

The ad D* is suing over contained fine print that directed you to the Comcast page that conatained the actual poll results. As near as I can figure from the data, there were 292 people in the study, half were already Comcast subscribers and half were satellite subscribers, split evenly between DirecTV and DishNetwork.
Yet the results are only given for the Satellite subscribers and they claim 66 percent of the DirecTV subscribers prefered Comcast (that's just 48 people) and 70 percent of the Dish Network subscribers (51 people) preferred Comcast.
But that means that of 292 people tested only about 30 percent in total said they preferred Comcast based on the info given. We don't know what the Comcast subscribers preferred and of course they don't want to let us know what percentage of their own customers preferred the competition. It's clearly misleading.


----------



## jpl (Jul 9, 2006)

dbaile said:


> The ad D* is suing over contained fine print that directed you to the Comcast page that conatained the actual poll results. As near as I can figure from the data, there were 292 people in the study, half were already Comcast subscribers and half were satellite subscribers, split evenly between DirecTV and DishNetwork.
> Yet the results are only given for the Satellite subscribers and they claim 66 percent of the DirecTV subscribers prefered Comcast (that's just 48 people) and 70 percent of the Dish Network subscribers (51 people) preferred Comcast.
> But that means that of 292 people tested only about 30 percent in total said they preferred Comcast based on the info given. We don't know what the Comcast subscribers preferred and of course they don't want to let us know what percentage of their own customers preferred the competition. It's clearly misleading.


First off, let me be clear - I never said that the survey had any actual value. I've said repeatedly that it's biased toward Comcast, which is fine in my book (no different, in my opinion, than the DirecTV ad I saw in the banner at the top of dbstalk yesterday that said that HD professionals preferred DirecTV's HD over cable by a margin of 4 to 1 -- newsflash to DirecTV, if you're going to sue a company over making claims with regard to a study that they commissioned... well, maybe you should hold off on putting out an ad that says the same thing - kinda looks, oh I don't know, hypocritical or something).

Second, you're missing it. Read the study carefully. Look at the wording - they're saying that of the satellite subscribers they surveyed, some had a preference of satellite over cable... of THOSE folks, 60% who preferred satellite and who were DirecTV customers thought Comcast had better HD. No where in the study does it say that "of ALL DirecTV customers surveyed, 60% preferred the HD quality of Comcast." It said "of all the directv customers surveyed, some had a preference of one system over the other - and of THOSE 60% chose Comcast's HD quality." Nor does it say "60% of people surveyed preferred Comcast HD over DirecTV HD" which is what you seem to read into it.

Is it a good study? No, of course not. It's a really stupid study with a sample size so small that what they're measuring is statistical noise. Which is why I have a hard time understanding the law suit. Instead of wasting everyone's time bringing Comcast to court (and in the process making it seem like you're somehow afraid to compete directly against Comcast on the quality of your product - which is how this looks to me), DirecTV should commission their own study. Or throw their own statistics out there showing why they're better... or showing why Comcast's study is stupid and worthless. Instead, like I said, they make it seem like they're afraid to take Comcast on on the merits of their service.

So, I agree with you - the study is worthless... but I stick to my guns - I see nothing deceptive about it. In fact it may be less deceptive than the DirecTV ad I mentioned earlier talking about how HD professionals prefer directv over cable by a margin of 4 to 1 (I say "may be" because I didn't read that study - I just find it odd that DirecTV would go from suing a competitor over a study that they did, while putting out an ad that does the exact same thing from their end).


----------



## jpl (Jul 9, 2006)

One quick addition here - you're right to flag the point that Comcast never tells you what people who prefer cable over satellite thought of Comcast's HD vs. DirecTV's. That missing piece of information tells me alot. It tells me that those numbers aren't so great for Comcast. Still, I see nothing deceptive about leaving them out. The study clearly focuses on folks who are satellite customers - not cable customers. Again, does that make the study biased? Again the answer is a clear, resounding "yes." But again, does that make the study deceptive? No, I don't believe it does. All the information about the study is very carefully spelled out (e.g. where they came up with the percentages that they did). Again this is no different than millions of other ads that make similar claims - like that box from the pizza place down the street that tells me "You've tried the rest, now try the best!"

If they hid aspects of HOW the study was commissioned... or if they misrepresented that data... then I would say that it's deceptive. But the way it's done - no I don't see it as deceptive. A company should be free to put together any convoluted, asinine study that they want - as long as they disclose the terms of that study - leave it up to the consumers to decide if it has value or not.


----------



## dbaile (Jan 22, 2007)

jpl said:


> One quick addition here - you're right to flag the point that Comcast never tells you what people who prefer cable over satellite thought of Comcast's HD vs. DirecTV's. That missing piece of information tells me alot. It tells me that those numbers aren't so great for Comcast. Still, I see nothing deceptive about leaving them out. The study clearly focuses on folks who are satellite customers - not cable customers. Again, does that make the study biased? Again the answer is a clear, resounding "yes." But again, does that make the study deceptive? No, I don't believe it does. All the information about the study is very carefully spelled out (e.g. where they came up with the percentages that they did). Again this is no different than millions of other ads that make similar claims - like that box from the pizza place down the street that tells me "You've tried the rest, now try the best!"
> 
> If they hid aspects of HOW the study was commissioned... or if they misrepresented that data... then I would say that it's deceptive. But the way it's done - no I don't see it as deceptive. A company should be free to put together any convoluted, asinine study that they want - as long as they disclose the terms of that study - leave it up to the consumers to decide if it has value or not.


But they did misrepresent the data. Clearly they want the readers of the ad to believe that a majority of satellite subscribers chose Comcast over satellite HD signal. Yet their own survey shows that at best, perhaps 30 percent did. And the number actually might have been lower. Maybe that's not deceptive in your book. I get the point about claims made in ads but when someone says this detergent makes bedsheets whiter and brighter, or our pizza is the best, it's really a subjective thing that can't be statistically proven false. Here we have something different. The numbers don't lie. I also get the point about how it's a waste to sue but what should have happened is the media should have done their own homework and investigated these claims and not accepted the ads or at least looked into the veracity. Would have saved us a lot of time and money.


----------



## jpl (Jul 9, 2006)

dbaile said:


> But they did misrepresent the data. Clearly they want the readers of the ad to believe that a majority of satellite subscribers chose Comcast over satellite HD signal. Yet their own survey shows that at best, perhaps 30 percent did. And the number actually might have been lower. Maybe that's not deceptive in your book. I get the point about claims made in ads but when someone says this detergent makes bedsheets whiter and brighter, or our pizza is the best, it's really a subjective thing that can't be statistically proven false. Here we have something different. The numbers don't lie. I also get the point about how it's a waste to sue but what should have happened is the media should have done their own homework and investigated these claims and not accepted the ads or at least looked into the veracity. Would have saved us a lot of time and money.


Yeah, that's right the numbers don't lie. And what makes this non-deceptive in my book is that they give you access to the numbers. You may look at those numbers and say "wow those numbers really are crap!" And you should - as a consumer. And DirecTV should, as the competition. If they hid those numbers, then I would agree with you. Really it's no different, though, than polling results for elections. Most polls that come out are totally useless because of their sample. They skew the numbers based on how they read the electorate. At least here they qualified the results. In those polls many polling organizations don't do that. They'll tell you "40% of the people polled like candidate x." But they won't tell you that they oversampled folks from the opposing party, thereby driving his numbers down, and not adequately representing the appeal of candidate x.

Like I said - this was a totally useless test, with results that are representative of nothing. But again, we have access to those numbers... we know how they conducted the study. I guess it'll be up to a court to decide if they are beign deceptive or not.


----------



## Ext 721 (Feb 26, 2007)

Dave said:


> This is more like Directv calling the kettle black. When there pot stinks to high heaven. Like there commercials for more HD than cable coming. Three times more HD than cable is only about 30 channels not 150 as they now seem to be advertising again. As far as being in 75% of the areas, they also have some very very fuzzy math at Directv. 65 markets is not 65% of the country. Remember there are 215 DMA's not 100. So in actuality Directv is only covering 33% of all DMA's. Also right now there are some even on here that say Directv is HD LITE right now.


I'm sure they're talking about customer coverage, not DMA coverage. There are more people in the NY city DMA than the biloxi, missisippi DMA...maybe 10-50 times as many.


----------



## Ext 721 (Feb 26, 2007)

Tit for tat time. let the eyes roll. After being sued by cable for their "better picture quality" ads, now they sue cable for similar ads.

Corporate machinations at their best.


----------



## jpl (Jul 9, 2006)

Ext 721 said:


> Tit for tat time. let the eyes roll. After being sued by cable for their "better picture quality" ads, now they sue cable for similar ads.
> 
> Corporate machinations at their best.


Agreed - I think that's what's at the heart of this. Put Comcast on defense by suing them. I think the lawsuit goes nowhere - or at best gets decided in Comcast's favor. Again, like I said - petty.


----------



## dbaile (Jan 22, 2007)

jpl said:


> Yeah, that's right the numbers don't lie. And what makes this non-deceptive in my book is that they give you access to the numbers. You may look at those numbers and say "wow those numbers really are crap!" And you should - as a consumer. And DirecTV should, as the competition. If they hid those numbers, then I would agree with you. Really it's no different, though, than polling results for elections. Most polls that come out are totally useless because of their sample. They skew the numbers based on how they read the electorate. At least here they qualified the results. In those polls many polling organizations don't do that. They'll tell you "40% of the people polled like candidate x." But they won't tell you that they oversampled folks from the opposing party, thereby driving his numbers down, and not adequately representing the appeal of candidate x.
> 
> Like I said - this was a totally useless test, with results that are representative of nothing. But again, we have access to those numbers... we know how they conducted the study. I guess it'll be up to a court to decide if they are beign deceptive or not.


So, I can call a press conference today and hold up a document that I say proves you're a member of Al-Qaeda. As long as I provide a web site address where people can go and look at the document (that actually proves no such thing) I've done nothing deceptive. Interesting ethics.


----------



## Nick (Apr 23, 2002)

Jeremy W said:


> *Cable TV executives eat babies for dinner!*


...and the unborn* for breakfast.

*eggs, the only food we eat before it is born _and_ after it's dead.

~~~~~~~~~

The lawsuit is just another example of left-handed advertising from D*.
Comcast's ads are neither libelous or slanderous, nor will D* ever be
able to prove damages. The suit will be thrown out for lack of merit.


----------



## jpl (Jul 9, 2006)

dbaile said:


> So, I can call a press conference today and hold up a document that I say proves you're a member of Al-Qaeda. As long as I provide a web site address where people can go and look at the document (that actually proves no such thing) I've done nothing deceptive. Interesting ethics.


Uh, no... that would be defamation of character. Very different. No one is claiming that Directv is doing anything illegal or nefarious. Comcast is just saying that "our HD is better than your HD." Like you said (think it was you) that if it's something subjective, then comparisons of "our product is better than your's" are valid. That's exactly what this ad is. It's Comcast saying that "we found directv customers who like our product better." Again, not sure what's wrong with that, or why it's any different than what you claimed is ok (comparisons based on subjective criteria).

Taking your analogy, if Comcast had a press conference and said "DirecTV is a front for al qaeda..." - THAT would be wrong... unless it could be backed up with proof. But if saying "we got a better product than you" is deceptive, then things are going to get mighty ugly - that's what companies do every single day.

But going back to your example, um... that happens all the time. Prosecutors get on tv claiming that the guy they're going after is a criminal. They don't give all the dirty details on tv, but the details of court hearings are available for public consumption. In other words, it's very proper for a prosecutor to say "this guy that we just convicted is a crook... go down to the court house if you want to see details on the case." They don't have to present every detail when they make that claim.

Given that, if Comcast made that kind of claim against DirecTV, and had the proof to back it up, they wouldn't need to include every nitty gritty detail in the press release. There's nothing improper with issuing a press release with the headline, and then redirecting folks to documentation backing up the claim. Again companies do that (no, not making claims that their competition is bin laden's private banker) to each other all the time. I gave the example of the ad I saw in a banner right here on dbstalk. The ad claimed that HD professionals prefer DirecTV to cable HD by a margin of 4 to 1. That was ALL the ad said. There was zero qualification beyond that in that ad. Is that deceptive? Is it deceptive because you have to follow the link to DirecTV's website to get any details on that study? By your standard it is. Interesting, isn't it, that the very action that Directv is claiming is illegal they are partaking in themselves.

Besides, I also stick to what I said in my previous post. This is nothing but a ploy by DirecTV to get Comcast to hold off on airing that ad - to get a court to issue an injunction against it. No different than what TWC did against DirecTV - the TWC lawsuit had no shot in hell of giving them a favorable ruling. But it did what it was designed to - it took the DirecTV ad off the air.


----------



## jpl (Jul 9, 2006)

Besides, the argument you made is, sorry, nonsensical. You implied that I said that the ad is ok as long as Comcast has documentation - no matter what the documentation actually says. I challenge you to find where I made anything like that type of claim. I NEVER said that this whole thing is ok just because Comcast has a link regardless of what the link shows. I never said that. IF the study is being misrepresented, then yes it's deceptive (I've made that statement repeatedly). I based my argument on the fact that the claim made by Comcast is verifible by the study. If it is, then there's no deception. If not, or if comast hid the study, then it IS deceptive. But nowhere did I make the claim that the ad is just jim-dandy because they have some link to something (no matter what that something is). What that something says is crucial. And from what I can see the claim made by Comcast is backed up by the details of their study. Now you may think the study itself is crap (and I'd agree with you), but that doesn't mean that the ad itself is deceptive. It's backed up by the study.


----------



## Scotty (Aug 10, 2006)

Another Legal point:

Generally speaking:
1. The only ones who win in Court are the attorneys with their exhorbitant fees.
2. The only ones who pay are the consumers, in terms of higher service costs.


----------

