# The Great HD Debate



## thelucky1 (Feb 23, 2009)

> "Wouldn't it be great," a friend of ours asked, "if we could all agree on a definition of what constitutes an HD channel?"
> 
> No kidding. But we don't. Heck, we don't even all agree on a definition for "HD." Or, for that matter, "channel."


Read the rest here: http://www.mediabiz.com/news/articles/?edit_id=14072


----------



## jdspencer (Nov 8, 2003)

I blame the FCC for allowing multiple definitions of High Definition.
They should have set it as 1920x1080 (i or p is okay by me).
It just confuses the consumer.

Here's some basics on Wikipedia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-definition_television

As to what's counted on DBS, that's the provider's call.


----------



## spartanstew (Nov 16, 2005)

Is this from an article?

Do you have the link?


----------



## thelucky1 (Feb 23, 2009)

spartanstew said:


> Is this from an article?
> 
> Do you have the link?


Here ya go: http://www.mediabiz.com/news/skyreport/


----------



## the_batman (Sep 20, 2007)

jdspencer said:


> I blame the FCC for allowing multiple definitions of High Definition.
> They should have set it as 1920x1080 (i or p is okay by me).
> It just confuses the consumer.
> 
> ...


AGREE..The FCC is at fault. Can't believe it is so hard to come up with a definition for HD.


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

the_batman said:


> AGREE..The FCC is at fault. Can't believe it is so hard to come up with a definition for HD.


What is your definition of:

- HD as a format
- An HD Channel

Put fingers to keys, and write your definition.

(Even though it is in the signature, I want to make sure it is clear... I am asking this as a member of the forum, for the sake of discussion, and not something from DIRECTV).

In the 7+ years I have been around the HD discussion, and what counts as HD and what counts as an HD Channel... there has NEVER been a clear definition. Everyone one provided, there is an argument for and against it.


----------



## Stuart Sweet (Jun 19, 2006)

I have redacted the first post for copyright reasons. Sorry, guys.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Previous discussion of the original article:
True HD channels - snakes in a barrel


----------



## the_batman (Sep 20, 2007)

Earl Bonovich said:


> What is your definition of:
> 
> - HD as a format
> - An HD Channel
> ...


Can't say "I" have a definition, but believe the FCC who is charged with regulating radio, television, wire, satellite and cable should be able to come up with definitions for each. Just my thoughts.


----------



## Herdfan (Mar 18, 2006)

The definition of HD is the same as the definition of p***. I will know it when I see it. :lol:

As for channels and channel counts, I think it should be broken up into specific groups. Basic, Premium, Regional and PPV/VOD. 

Basic would include the same basic channels as a the top tier package without premiums. This would include your ESPN, TNT, USA HGTV etc.

Premium would include all your movie channels such as HBO, SHO and Starz. For D* it would include the channels in the HD Extra pack.

Regional would include the RSN's whether full-time or part time. Not every sub can get all programming on these channels.

PPV/VOD - This should be obvious, but it must a channel, not a show. You can't count 100 episodes of a VOD show as 100 channels. But companies should be free to market as having over 1000 HD shows on VOD, but you can't count it as a channel. Dedicated PPV channels can each be counted.

If every provider had to follow these guidelines, and each available channel was dedicated to a group by the FTC, then comparisons would be much move valid than they are today. For example, in a comparison of D* vs. E* for premium channels, E* would win as they have more. That would be easy for the consumer to see the difference.


----------



## Nick (Apr 23, 2002)

*Lucky1*, a few suggestions on your post...

First, please do not copy/past the full text of copyright material. Not only is it illegal, but it puts the board at risk for potential liability. Under the 'Fair Use' provisions of U.S. copyright law, you may excerpt a portion of copyrighted material for publication with attribution. As a writer, I personally interpret that as a paragraph or so, but usually no more than about 100 words. You should also provide a link to the article so the reader can continue reading the full article online.

Second, to avoid misunderstanding on the part of our readers (and the appearance of plagiarism, unintended or otherwise), it is good form to identify the source at the top of your post.

Third, if the subject is not specific to your provider, in this case, Directv, and is of general interest, please be so kind as to post in a general discussion area appropriate to the topic, for the benefit of all.

Lastly, where possible, provide a link with the post. In the instance of your original post in this thread, that can easily be accomplished, _after-the-fact_, by editing the original post.

Thanks.


----------



## thelucky1 (Feb 23, 2009)

Nick said:


> *Lucky1*, a few suggestions on your post...
> 
> First, please do not copy/past the full text of copyright material. Not only is it illegal, but it puts the board at risk for potential liability. Under the 'Fair Use' provisions of U.S. copyright law, you may excerpt a portion of copyrighted material for publication with attribution. As a writer, I personally interpret that as a paragraph or so, but usually no more than about 100 words. You should also provide a link to the article so the reader can continue reading the full article online.
> 
> ...


Ok will do Thanks Nick


----------



## CCarncross (Jul 19, 2005)

I for one have never been confused by what defines HD, 1280x720, and 1920x1080 are the 2 primary resolutions, then you've got progressive or interlaced, then you have a few different frame rates, 24, 30, 60....it has only been in the last few years that Joe Average got really interested in HD and when the manufacturers started adding the idiotic term "Full HD" to their sets when referring to 1080 native sets, getting them to believe that a set that is only 720 native is what.."Part HD"? and then they buy into it like the sheep that they are....its actually pretty hilarious when you think about it.


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

the_batman said:


> Can't say "I" have a definition, but believe the FCC who is charged with regulating radio, television, wire, satellite and cable should be able to come up with definitions for each. Just my thoughts.


IMHO...

That definition is nearly 20 years late at this point.

I remember seeing demonstrations / research for broadcast for "HD" back when I was in college.

Today... that cat is way out of the bag. We are already into the great-great-great-great-great gandkittens of that original cat that was let out.

So if the FCC stepped in today, to define what is and what isn't HD... you are going to end up with a lot of upset parties or large entities that will have a lot to say about those definitions.


----------



## Nick (Apr 23, 2002)

I'm betting that the FCC doesn't really want to stick its neolithic, knuckle-dragging arms into _that_ barrel of snakes. After all, isn't it the democratic way to let 'the people' decide. Each one of us can decide for ourselves what what HD means to us, outrageous claims, by any provider not withstanding. I know what I want and I know what each provider has. I define HD by my own terms according to my own needs.

If any person spending the kind of money it takes to board the HD Love Boat doesn't take the time and effort to do the research, they deserve what they get...or don't get.

Whomever it was that opined that 'stupidity (which often leads to ignorance) is expensive' was spot on!

Going HD, like getting old, isn't for sissies. I should know. :alterhase


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

We do have industry standards to define things.
The FCC has deferred to said ATSC standards, requiring some of the standards such as populating the OTA EPG and using one of 18 standards of SD or HD for at least one feed on the carrier for broadcasters.

The industry has defined HD as a set number of pixels. They have also defined a HD display as one that displays a certain number of lines. (The minimum "standard" number of lines isn't a full 1920x1080 picture ... even on a 1080i monitor.)

The FCC doesn't regulate formats on satellite. The industry has standards in place and lo and behold there are standards that allow for the compression of a HD signal. The legitimate industry standards allow for 1280x1080 passing of a 1080i "HD" picture within the HD standard. So if you're going to use a "HD Lite" argument and say that isn't HD talk to the industry. They accept it.

OTA can't do it because of the FCC. 1280x1080 isn't one of the 18 allowed standards for OTA. But it is a legitimate compression standard for satellite.

The counting debate is much older than the Skyreport articles. I remember counting debates here two or three years ago when the count was easy (and the argument was whether the PPV channel counted as a 10th HD channel). The answer comes down to personal preference.

Some people take more of a technical "in use capacity" approach and others look at content. Some would like to discount channels that don't have a lot of HD or discount channels that are blacked out during key programming (but that has more to do with the definition of "national" than "HD"). Some want to count only core packages but all providers have an everything* level that includes pretty much everything.

Does DISH's RSNs not count because they are game only or because they are not included in AEP? Does Telemundo not count for DirecTV because you have to buy a separate or add on Spanish package to get the channel (DISH provides Telemundo SD in most of their English packages)? Is cost irrelevant and if so is it fair to compare $115 spent with DISH with $150 spent with DirecTV?

These questions are rhetorical. I don't expect a consensus. They are offered to note that Skyreport's earlier article is correct:

Counting HD is like counting snakes in a barrel.

And now, my count:
E* now has 102 Channels of HD (plus 39 RSNs/Alts, 15 PPV and "up to 59" VOD).
D* now has 96 Channels of HD (_with_ 24 full time RSN, plus 45 RSNs/Alts and 29 PPV).
D* is planning to launch 30 channels in May. (Count includes Univision East launched 4/28)
[Telefutura West launched 4/28 is only available in Spanish DirecTV packages.]​http://jameslong.name/hdcount.html


----------



## Nick (Apr 23, 2002)

James Long said:


> ...These questions are rhetorical. I don't expect a consensus. They are offered to note that Skyreport's earlier article is correct:
> 
> "*Counting HD is like counting snakes in a barrel...*"


Thanks for the shout-out, James. I wrote that last week when I linked to an article by SkyReport's Evie Haskell about the difficulties of defining and counting HD channels.


----------



## Bigg (Feb 27, 2010)

It comes down to what channels you want, or if you want a lot to "surf". Personally, if I have to count, I go by national in the top non-premium package, which lowers the count a lot, but we have our favorite teams (usually in-market), so there's one RSN for any given household, and LIL's don't count, since they are available for free OTA. Plus, that way makes Comcast look really bad.


----------

