False or Misleading advertising
 

The other day I sent an email to the Marketplace Standards and Services
Branch (at least, that is where it got forwarded to) complaining about a
large electronics chain that incorrectly identified EDTVs as HDTVs.

Has anyone complained in their jurisdiction about this? Did anything get
resolved?

Incidentally, I live in Toronto.

I have complained about a similar problem at "Tweeter" in Ct. USA to the
local Consumer Protection Agency.
The store will not correct the problem; the problem was there months ago,
and is still. Nobody really cares.

wrote in message
...
The other day I sent an email to the Marketplace Standards and Services
Branch (at least, that is where it got forwarded to) complaining about a
large electronics chain that incorrectly identified EDTVs as HDTVs.

Has anyone complained in their jurisdiction about this? Did anything get
resolved?

Incidentally, I live in Toronto.

) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
The other day I sent an email to the Marketplace Standards and Services
Branch (at least, that is where it got forwarded to) complaining about a
large electronics chain that incorrectly identified EDTVs as HDTVs.

Has anyone complained in their jurisdiction about this? Did anything get
resolved?

Incidentally, I live in Toronto.

In the US, there are no laws that concern this. It's only an agreement
of the CE companies as to what "HDTV", "HDTV-ready", "EDTV", etc., mean.

--
Jeff Rife |
| http://www.nabs.net/Cartoons/Dilbert/Evaluation.jpg

Jeff Rife wrote:
) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:

The other day I sent an email to the Marketplace Standards and Services
Branch (at least, that is where it got forwarded to) complaining about a
large electronics chain that incorrectly identified EDTVs as HDTVs.

Has anyone complained in their jurisdiction about this? Did anything get
resolved?

Incidentally, I live in Toronto.


In the US, there are no laws that concern this. It's only an agreement
of the CE companies as to what "HDTV", "HDTV-ready", "EDTV", etc., mean.

The FTC has the power from Congress to enforce "truth in advertising".
Of course you may be old and gray before there is any action, but we
DO have laws that concern this:

http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/conline/pubs/buspubs/ad-faqs.htm

Curmudgeon ) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
In the US, there are no laws that concern this. It's only an agreement
of the CE companies as to what "HDTV", "HDTV-ready", "EDTV", etc., mean.

The FTC has the power from Congress to enforce "truth in advertising".

Agreed, but a device that accepts HDTV signals as input and displays them
could conceivably be called and "HDTV monitor". The CE companies have
volunteered a different definition, but there is nothing that prevents
anyone from choosing their own definition in an ad, since there is no
legal definition.

The FTC hasn't ever bothered to challenge the "lines of horizontal
resolution" claims, and those lies and exaggerations definitely fit the
two parts of "deceptive" far more than calling a device with 853x480
resolution an "HDTV monitor":
- is likely to mislead consumers acting reasonably under the
circumstances; and
- is "material"--that is, important to a consumer's decision to buy or
use the product

The CE companies artificial definition that a device with at least 720
progressively scanned lines is an "HDTV monitor" could be seen as
"misleading" in its own right, since it can't display all HD signals at
full resolution.

Likewise, a device with 1080 scan lines but only able to resolve 1280x1080
can be called an HDTV by the CE standards, but it is fairly deceptive to
the consumer, especially if they have to compare that device to one that
is 1280x720, and is able to display that geometry at full resolution. It
makes the difference much less than the expected 1920x1080 vs. 1280x720
that the 1080 scan lines implies.

--
Jeff Rife |
| http://www.nabs.net/Cartoons/CloseTo...ePollution.gif

"Jeff Rife" wrote in message
...

The CE companies artificial definition that a device with at least 720
progressively scanned lines is an "HDTV monitor" could be seen as
"misleading" in its own right, since it can't display all HD signals at
full resolution.

Likewise, a device with 1080 scan lines but only able to resolve 1280x1080
can be called an HDTV by the CE standards, but it is fairly deceptive to
the consumer, especially if they have to compare that device to one that
is 1280x720, and is able to display that geometry at full resolution. It
makes the difference much less than the expected 1920x1080 vs. 1280x720
that the 1080 scan lines implies.

These seem to be good points at first, but I'm not sure you want to go
the How, then, could any 1080i TV be a legitimate HDTV if it can't
display every full frame of a 720p signal? You're going to go down the path
of "there are no TRUE HD sets other than 1080p".

In addition, are we going to start saying that any 1080i broadcast in which
any portion of the chain (from camera to compression) limits horizontal
resolution to less than 1920 (say, to 1440) is NOT true HD?

Matthew Vaughan wrote:
"Jeff Rife" wrote in message
...

The CE companies artificial definition that a device with at least 720
progressively scanned lines is an "HDTV monitor" could be seen as
"misleading" in its own right, since it can't display all HD signals at
full resolution.

Likewise, a device with 1080 scan lines but only able to resolve 1280x1080
can be called an HDTV by the CE standards, but it is fairly deceptive to
the consumer, especially if they have to compare that device to one that
is 1280x720, and is able to display that geometry at full resolution. It
makes the difference much less than the expected 1920x1080 vs. 1280x720
that the 1080 scan lines implies.


These seem to be good points at first, but I'm not sure you want to go
the How, then, could any 1080i TV be a legitimate HDTV if it can't
display every full frame of a 720p signal? You're going to go down the path
of "there are no TRUE HD sets other than 1080p".

I don't see how you can justify that leap. 1280x720p is "true" HD.

In addition, are we going to start saying that any 1080i broadcast in which
any portion of the chain (from camera to compression) limits horizontal
resolution to less than 1920 (say, to 1440) is NOT true HD?


Substitute the word "full" for "true" and I would say that 1440x1080 is
not full HD. I would also say (and have said) that 1024x720 is not full
HD. If there really was an FTC, it would probably step in with a
regulation defining how horizontal resolution is measured and require
all advertizing that mentions horizontal resolution quote the figure
derived from the method described in the regulation. That isn't going to
happen any time soon.

--
Matthew

I'm a contractor. If you want an opinion, I'll sell you one.
Which one do you want?

Matthew L. Martin wrote:

Matthew Vaughan wrote:

"Jeff Rife" wrote in message
...

The CE companies artificial definition that a device with at least 720
progressively scanned lines is an "HDTV monitor" could be seen as
"misleading" in its own right, since it can't display all HD signals at
full resolution.

Likewise, a device with 1080 scan lines but only able to resolve
1280x1080
can be called an HDTV by the CE standards, but it is fairly deceptive to
the consumer, especially if they have to compare that device to one that
is 1280x720, and is able to display that geometry at full
resolution. It
makes the difference much less than the expected 1920x1080 vs. 1280x720
that the 1080 scan lines implies.



These seem to be good points at first, but I'm not sure you want to go
the How, then, could any 1080i TV be a legitimate HDTV if it can't
display every full frame of a 720p signal? You're going to go down the
path of "there are no TRUE HD sets other than 1080p".


I don't see how you can justify that leap. 1280x720p is "true" HD.

In addition, are we going to start saying that any 1080i broadcast in
which any portion of the chain (from camera to compression) limits
horizontal resolution to less than 1920 (say, to 1440) is NOT true HD?


Substitute the word "full" for "true" and I would say that 1440x1080 is
not full HD. I would also say (and have said) that 1024x720 is not full
HD. If there really was an FTC, it would probably step in with a
regulation defining how horizontal resolution is measured and require
all advertizing that mentions horizontal resolution quote the figure
derived from the method described in the regulation. That isn't going to
happen any time soon.

If a TV can display any of the HDTV formats completely without any
upconverting or downconverting, it is an HDTV (or HDTV ready).

Jeff Rife wrote:

) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:

If a TV can display any of the HDTV formats completely without any
upconverting or downconverting, it is an HDTV (or HDTV ready).


By that definition, a 1280x768 LCD isn't an HDTV unless it displays 720p
by not lighting up 48 lines (and thus making the aspect ratio slightly
wrong). If it scales to fill the display, it wouldn't be an HDTV.

Then, too, a 4:3 set that displayed 1080i by drawing 1920x1080 "pixels" and
filling the screen with them (and *really* screwing up the aspect ratio)
*would* be an HDTV because it wouldn't be upconverting or downconverting.

Well, it certainly could do that, I it would probably make sense to. If
you can show black/grey bars on the side when showing 4:3 aspect ratio,
why not on the top and bottom when showing 16:9 on these TVs.