DirecTV uses EDID & VSI because that's what the spec calls for and not because the are imposing some restriction of their own.
I agree, and disagree. EDID is part of the 1.4 spec, but there's nothing in the spec about maintaining a separate manually updated white list.
VSI is a valid point. For those of us where the issue is due to including HDMI 1.3 components in the signal chain (an existing HDMI 1.3 receiver), VSI will cause a problem, because it can't reply that it's 3d capable (because technically, it's not. So I do understand your point about DirecTV just following the spec.
This simply comes down to whether DirecTV chooses to be customer friendly, or not. Following the hard line of the spec in itself suggests that you have to replace all the components in the signal chain to 1.4. But the fact remains that those formats used in broadcast 3d will work with 1.3 components just fine, as long as the TV (or an adapter connected to the TV) can understand the signal. It seems that all the other hardware makes understand this, and give the consumer an option to output the 3d signal anyway. It appears that DirecTV isn't as interested in the customer's needs as others may be. I STILL fail to see the downside to allowing a 3d signal even if their hardware can't confirm if the end device is 3d capable or not. If DirecTV is so interested in "going by the book", why didn't they do that with 24p? EDID info also contains valid timings for the display. Why rely on the customer to say "yes I can / no I can't view that format"?