Maine Digital and High Definition TV Forum (and NH, too)

Sharon Rose on WCSH 6 a second-rate hack

2011-11-30T16:20:00.001-05:00

I can't even bring myself to call her a reporter. There is nothing "journalistic" about Sharon Rose. A journalist reports the facts and while every journalist is supposed to be unbiased, it is common that a journalist has his/her own slant to the story.

That's one thing. But Sharon Rose on WCSH 6 doesn't stop there. She makes it quite clear what her opinions are about every story she reads. That's right, she's not a journalist, she's a "personality" that reads from a teleprompter. As a result, what we get, as viewers, is her biased, eye-rolling, scrunched-up face as it pertains to any story that falls outside her narrow-minded, white-bread, middle class purview.

On Tuesday morning, November 29th, 2011, the WCSH 6 Morning Report reported a story regarding some business men in Connecticut who won the lottery. The point of the story was that not only did they win a lot of money, their intentions are to donate a large portion of the money to charities and other humanitarian organizations.

Video of the winners ran during the story. The video depicted the winners at the lottery headquarter in Rocky Hill, CT, where they stood next to and behind the "big cardboard check". As the video portion ended there was a woman seen clapping off to the side.

When the camera returned to Sharon Rose and Lee Nelson in a wide shot, Sharon Rose just couldn't contain herself. She made a motion as if she were clapping but her hands never touched, thereby never making a noise. While she was making this motion she said "That's how they clap in Connecticut".

First of all, Rose's depiction was NOT what was happening in the video. Second, I was born in raised in Connecticut. I grew up in the Hartford area. In fact, I lived in Rocky Hill at one point in my life. I was born into a lower middle class family that didn't have a lot of money. Actually, we were poor. Connecticut is no different than any other place in the world. Some people have money - most don't. AND WHEN WE CLAPPED, WE WERE POOR ENOUGH THAT OUR CLAPS MADE NOISE. I moved to Maine in 2001 after living in CT for all of my life prior to that. It's no different here than it was there; except there are a letter better choices of restaurants and stores.

I was extremely irked by Sharon Rose's depiction of "all people from Connecticut are rich snobs". On one hand I wondered if she was jealous. On the other hand, I assumed she's just an idiot.

This isn't the first time I've caught her showing her true colors. If you take a moment to watch her when either she or Lee Nelson is reading a story, you can tell exactly what she thinks about ANY topic by the way she scrunches up her nose at it, sneers, rolls her eyes, or does any number of things to show her disdain. Watch closely as a story is read about gay people, the homeless, casinos, abortion rights, Occupy Wall Street, and on and on and on. She got a stick so far up her ass, her only option is to try and wiggle it out, and every painful attempt can be read all over her face.

I personally am sick and tired of that single-minded, opinionated, prejudiced, bigoted, news-regurgitating blow hard that I can't stand another minute of it.

To those of you who disagree - YES - I CHANGED THE CHANNEL. The only reason I was watching WCSH in the first place was because they managed to the first to start broadcasting the local news in High Definition. I mostly put up with WCSH for a few weeks because the weather graphics are so cool. But let's face it, WMTW should have been the one to do it first. They are the local TV station with the best newscast and the most down the middle reporting. That's why they win the local Emmy for best newscast in this demographic market (Portland/Lewiston/Auburn).

When I wrote to the WCSH news director, Maureen O'Brien, this was her response to me questioning why Sharon Rose is allowed to behave the way she does:

"I am sorry you were offended by Sharon’scomment. We encourage our anchors to be real people – to laugh and joke and react like other people do, particularly in the morning. I understand that this approach is not everyone’s cup of tea.."

NOT EVERYONE'S CUP OF TEA???. Making fun of an entire State and making judgments about the people who live there, without knowing what the hell you are talking about, is not a "joke". It's offensive. Sharon Rose doesn't "react like other people". She reacts like herself; a narrow-minded, glorified copy girl, who has nothing but disdain for anyone who doesn't think like she does. She's a conservative, middle-class, bigot. And since the management as WCSH stands by her and allows her behavior each and every day, they must be bigots and racists too. What other conclusion is there to make.

I was stupid to expect an apology from either WCSH or Ms. Rose. I don't know why I was disappointed I didn't get one even when I specifically asked for one. I guess that's why they inverted blogs.

WCSH 6 Morning Report in High Def

2011-11-04T06:30:00.007-04:00

It's been several years now since I have watched WCSH Channel 6 in Portland, for my morning news. Watching it was a habit; it's what "people" watched when I first moved to Maine in 2001 and so I got in the habit of watching it. But never really cared much for the hosts.

When Shannon Moss defected to Channel 8 - WMTW, I began watching Channel 8 for my morning news. Channel 8's newscast was professional and easy to watch. The other competition, Channel 13, WGME, was always a distant third in my book, and in the ratings.

Channel 8 took a big bite out of WCSH's domination of the morning news market. WCSH had become stale, and full of big-egoed anchors that often rolled their eyes at news stories and often voiced their right-wing opinions openly; something that is supposed to be an absolute no-no in the world of journalism. But the viewership never questioned Sharon Rose's opinion about certain stories.

OK - jump to today. I've always said that whoever can do the news in HD in our local Portland/Lewiston television market will win the ratings game. Viewers who have HD televisions will, in general, watch an HD broadcast over a standard definition broadcast, even if the HD broadcast wouldn't normally be their first choice in programming.

I will try to be fair. My opinions on WCSH are not a secret. But they did a good job. I caught the broadcast today, Friday, November 4, 2011, when the morning News Center team celebrating their 15th anniversary. Seeing a live news HD broadcast in Maine was a pleasure and something I have been waiting for since I started this blog in 2007 and long before the official transition to Digital TV in this country in 2008. The anchors, Lee Nelson and Sharon Rose, were still as insipid as they've always been. But Lee Nelson actually looked good in his HD makeup. Whoever did it did a great job. Kevin Mannix, the weather forecaster, also looked great. Unfortunately, the unforgiving bright lights and camera lenses of high definition were not so kind to Sharon Rose. She looks like a corpse in HD; the "false eye lashes" were way over the top and appeared like two frightened spiders caught in a flashlight beam.

Like most HD local news broadcasts, field camera work is still in standard definition. That will come in time. But the most impressive addition to WCSH's broadcast was the weather. The new weather maps were large, crisp, and easy to read. New graphics, like three dimensional surface-map icons (take a look at the high and low pressure icons on the map with circular three-dimensional wind circulation) were cool. There seemed to be many new graphic features and they didn't overpower the map; they added functionality to it. Often, when new technology is available, it is used because it is available regardless of the value it adds. Not true with WCSH's weather graphics - job well done.

The other local affiliates in our demographic market, WMTW and WGME, have to make the switch to broadcasting in HD or they will lose a lot of viewers. It is expensive to convert a studio to an HD studio, and the hardware (cameras, editing equipment, etc.) and software needed is extremely expensive and requires a hefty financial commitment from each station's ownership.

I'm happy that Southern Maine finally has an HD news broadcast. I'm disappointed that it was WCSH to do it first, but I have to admit, overall they did a very good job that will only get better as HD broadcasting in local markets matures.

Now come on WMTW!! Let's get with the program (no pun intended). WGME, to me, is out of the running. Even with an HD broadcast they will still be in third place, out of three.

I will continue to watch WMTW for my news. I simply can not stomach the on-air personalities. I will continue to hope that WMTW goes HD for their news and I may check in on WCSH form time to time, just because HD is so much easier on the eyes.

Metrocast Cable finally adds some HD channels

2011-02-23T09:05:00.004-05:00

Welcome to 2007 - oh wait, it's 2011.

Metrocast Cable (formerly Metrocast Cablevision) is not one of the country's big players when it comes to cable TV. From the Metrocast web site: "Metrocast serves over 135 communities in the states of New Hampshire, Maine, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia, Connecticut, South Carolina, Mississippi and Alabama "

That's not a lot of customers when compared to the big guys like Tiime Warner and Comcast. I"ve been struggling with Metrocast for years; trying desperately to get them to add more HD channels to their pitiful HD lineup. When not including "reality" TV (meaning sports, nature, and educational channels) there was a total of 2, count 'em, two cable channels that carried movies and/or classic live action TV shows in High Definition. They were TBS-HD, and TNT-HD. Sure, they carried our local TV stations, but I"m talking about actual cable networks that broadcast actual TV shows - not DIY, not shows about interventions, or following murder investigations, or animal abuse. I'm talking about one-hour dramas and comedy shows. You know, we used to call it "television".

Every time I would contact Metrocast I would get an answer like "Well, we just added The Outdoor Channel". GREAT! I can sit around and watch some guy fish for 3 hours. I was told to submit an online request for the channels I wanted, which I did, over and over and over again.

I checked around with my friends in other towns, and in other states. The list of HD channels they had was astounding to me, on one hand. On the other, I wasn't astounded, I was pissed. Why couldn't Metrocast provide its customers with the same HD channels that the rest of the WORLD was getting. After 4 years of this, I assume they finally figured out how to provide HD channels that viewers actually want. This morning I saw an advertisement for Metrocast on MSNBC (which happnens to be a channel I've been requesting in HD since it started in HD last year). In one part of the ad, it mentioned that Metrocast had added USA in HD and FOX News in HD.

I quickly turned to the on screen guide. I frantically started looking for these channels - nothing. So I called Metrocast this morning and asked them about it. I told the CSR that I saw the advertisement but I don't have these channels. She said "they won't be available until March 1". Well, I had to admit, that was good enough for me. After waiting for years, I can wait one more week. As of March 1, 2011, Metrocast will be adding the following HD channels:

AMC HD (channel 755), USA HD (channel 751), Oxygen HD (channel 719), Fox News HD (channel 742), Lifetime HD (channel 733), Lifetime Movie Network HD (channel 772), SyFy HD (channel 756), Bravo HD (channel 754), FX HD (channel 749), and Travel HD (channel 770). Meanwhile, Outdoor Channel HD will move to channel 779.

It's not perfect. MSNBC-HD should be in the lineup. If you're going to include CNN and FOX News in HD, why not MSNBC. It makes no sense. And no Comedy Central. Apparently the owners of Metrocast are right wing conservatives, probably tea party activists. Not only did they omit MSNBC and Comedy Central (Jon Stewart) from the lineup, they also did not include any of the Gay/Lesbian TV channels like HERE! or LOGO.

Having said that, I can't complain too much. FX, USA, and Bravo were 3 of the HD channels that I had been begging for. And it's nice to know I can still watch southern white trash gut a fish in glorious HD if I happen to be in the mood.

Oh and congratulations to Metrocast for finally dragging itself into the FIRST decade of the new millennium. You're only a decade behind - not bad.

My Final Posting

2011-01-29T16:09:00.006-05:00

** Update 12/1/2011 - Obviously, I'm back. I decided not to shut down this blog as there may be things I feel that need to write about from time to time.

**

Here is the state of affairs, as I see it, for High Definition TV.

The big 7 broadcast networks are broadcasting most of their programming in High Definition. that's a good thing. Even most of the daily soap operas (for as long as they may last) are in High Definition. I can't believe that it finally happened.

In the big cities, local news is in High Definition. In smaller cities, it could be years before that happens but they are all working in that direction.

It is still free to receive High Definition broadcasts, over the air, from your local affiliates. THAT'S A VERY GOOD THING. And keep in mind that your local broadcasters can offer two, or in some cases three or four, channels from one broadcast tower. So give them a shot. Get a good quality Antenna (you all know I recommend the Terk) and check out what's happening on your local affiliates' sub-channels.

As for cable and satellite - I'm still very disappointed. Most "high def" channels do not actually broadcast 100% in high definition. Some of the programming is in the HD aspect ratio of 16:9, but not in HD quality. A whole lot of it is still just stretched out (from 4:3) to fit your screen and is as bad in quality as it was before. But they all like to call it HD. Keep them honest.

A few HD cable/satellite channels do a better job of providing real, quality HD programs. One of them is CNN. Also the Discovery networks do a fairly good job. As does PBS. But so many of them just call themselves HD because their picture fills up your HDTV's screen. It really is a shame how much they try to fool the TV-watching public.

If you are really watching a 720p or 1080i High Definition broadcast, you will know it, because you will marvel at it. Any time you wonder if the program you are watching is in HD, it isn't. Because if it was, you wouldn't be wondering.

I am moving on to other things. Over the last few years I've become very involved in the world of Blackberry. I am writing for other web sites and moderating user forums. It's become my new hobby and since there are no big changes going on in High Definition, It's time to put this blog to rest. I'll stop back and write a bit if anything newsworthy happens.

The one big thing left to take hold is TV over the Internet. Not to your PC, but to your TV. It will take a while before it all gets straightened out. There will be winners and losers; some people will spend money on new devices that they will love, and some will be disappointed. To me, it's all about the picture quality. That's why I got started down this path to begin with.

Don't accept less than perfect when it comes to high definition. If you are not getting what you pay for, then fight for it.

For my regular readers, we've been down a long road. I hope I was able to help, and teach, and offer information that was important or helpful. When I looked back at all of the articles I wrote, I forgot that it's been more than 4 years since I started. I moved this blog from another blogging location, so the first posting data on this site was December 2007. But I started this blog originally in 2006.

I want to the Doug Finck, from WPXT/WPME. He has been a fervent supporter of mine, and this blog, and has provided me with so much useful information that I can never truly thank him properly. He knew that my goal was to get information to to public, so that they could make informed decisions, and know the truth about high definition broadcasting. I wish him the best.

Until we meet again.........

Public often fooled by HD that isn't HD

2011-01-10T12:48:00.004-05:00

Not only do we have HD channels that don't provide 24 hours a day of High Def programming, even new shows produced that you assume are in High Def, aren't

Take for example, TBS. They started airing a new one-hour series called "Glory Daze" about kids going to college in the mid 80's. It was supposed to be nostalgic. That's my generation. I found it stupid, unfunny, and uninteresting. But what I found most offensive was that the show was launched in 2010 on a High Def network, and the show isn't in High Def. TBS says it is, but it is not.

It is very easy to tell when a TV show is in High Def. You should NEVER have to look at the TV show and squint your eyes a bit and say to yourself, "is that in HD". If it is, there is no question.

Consumers started to really dislike television shows that were "stretched" to fit the new wide screen format. The shows were out of focus, characters looked short and fat, and heads were often cut off. But the shot filled the screen so TV execs thought they could fool the public. It only takes watching ONE show in real high definition to realize what you are missing. So TV execs siad "let's at least produce these shows in the 16:9 aspect ratio". Yeah, that will fool them.

Back to "Glory Daze". What they did to this show is the same thing I am seeing all over the place. Shows are produced in a 16:9 aspect ratio (the same length to width ratio of your wide flat screen TV" but it is still in standard definition. A brand new TV show, produced in the 21st century, and it's not in HD even though it is being broadcast on an HD network.

As it turns out there are four categories of TV:

Standard definition TV (that's a 4:3 aspect ratio) that has the black pillars on either side of the picture (I refuse to watch that entirely)
Standard definition TV that has been stretched to fit the 16:9 ratio. Disconcerting and distracting to watch
Standard definition TV filmed in 16:9 format (watchable - but disappointing)
And then real HD. Mostly the big 7 networks in Prime Time broadcast in real HD. But some, like "Extreme Makeover Home Edition" on ABC don't even try. That's because they film in the field (not in a studio). HD field cameras are very expensive.

It's easy to discern which shows are in HD. If the picture is so clear that you say "gee that picture is nice", that's your first clue. Then, on a facial close up, if you can see white light reflected back to you in the actors pupil, that's your second clue that it's HD. Standard def rarely, if ever, has this reflection. Third, HD is simply easier to watch. Your eyes don't strain, every detail is easily visible and the color is beautiful.

Some Faux-HD exists that is fairly good. HDNet had Hogan's Heroes (yes that late 60's, early 70's TV show) in high definition. You see, when the original film is of a certain film stock and quality, it can be digitally enhanced and reprocessed to be as close to real HD as possible, the results are quite good. But it's expensive to go back and reprocess these old shows. Some more current shows like "Friends" will never be in "faux HD" because it was filmed on video tape, not film.

A huge number of Americans have now spent the money on a High Def TV. Half of them don't know how to actually get HD on their HD TV. Of the ones that do, half of those don't really know if they are watching an HD show or not.

I can receive all 7 broadcast networks over the air, in HD, with an antenna, for free. It's the best quality HD because there is nothing between the signal and my TV. As for quality, as much as I despise The Today Show on NBC, that's where you will see some of the best quality HD. The CBS evening news is also excellent, as is PBS's news hour. Because all of these are in 1080i, the highest quality HD for broadcast television, they look spectacular. Fox, ABC, Fox, MyNetwork, and the CW all broadcast in 720p. Good, but not excellent quality HD.

For cable, if you have CNN in HD, you won't see a better quality HD feed.

As for the rest of cable TV high definition, so much of it is junk. That's why most cable companies no longer charge extra for HD itself. They charge you for digital TV and for the DVR, but the extra charges for the cable company to simply supply you with an HD feed have vanished. And there's a good reason for it. Even after all of this time, we still can't get many non-reality TV shows in HD. (I don't count DIY shows, and all reality shows to be real TV - when I talk about TV shows I mean the real one hour dramas and sitcoms.)

You are not getting what you think you are. It's time you started making some calls.

WPME's Weeknight Schedule in HD

2010-10-29T12:07:00.006-04:00

Portland, Maine's "MyNetwork" affiliate, WPME - Channel 35.1, has an impressive weeknight lineup during prime time.

While the 2010-2011 "Big 3" television season offers some good options like "The Whole Truth" (ABC) and "Hawaii Five-0"(CBS), I can't say, personally, that the new season is all that impressive. Even with Emmy winners like "Modern Family" on the Wednesday Night comedy block on ABC, I find that most of the time, there is still very little to watch on ABC, NBC, opr CBS.

In this economy many people (like me) have had to tighten the belt. HBO and Showtime are gone from my cable lineup (not that I"m missing much from them either).

I enjoy sitting down to a nice cop or law drama, in High Definition. I believe that MyNetwork has found the answer. Right now, WPME is running back-to-back episodes of shows like "Law and Order: Criminal Intent, Without a Trace, Burn Notice, and Monk, during the week in prime time. Each night is a different show - two episodes. Did I mention they are in High Definition. And like "Law & Order" on TNT-HD, these are good shows, well made and well acted. They are an enjoyable alternative to the Big 3 lineup and a much better option than reality and do-it-yourself TV shows in the HD tier of channels.

Give WPME a chance and take a look at their weeknight lineup. Support them if you can.

Thanks for stopping by.

Law & Order: UK, or is it Law AND Order: UK - who cares

2010-10-04T16:03:00.004-04:00

In the 20 years that "Law & Order" has been on television in the US, I cannot say that I ever watched an entire first-run episode. TNT-HD started running "Law & Order" (the original) in High Definition a few years back. Suffice it to say that I only started watching "Law & Order" because the episodes were in HD. After that, I grew to like the show. It's a good show - well written and acted. and with almost 500 episodes of the original alone (approx 24 per season times 20 seasons) there's a good chance I have yet to see many episodes.

Law & Order: UK came out in the UK in 2009. It was a huge hit there. And so, as was true of all other Law & Order spin-offs, they made a big deal about it. That meant bringing it to America on "BBC America". Last night was the first episode of "Law & Order: UK". It is not written by, produced by, or in any way related to Dick Wolf (the creator/writer of every L&O episode, ever) other than he gets royalties because he created the original.

The episode in NO WAY resembled the style of the US versions (including "Law & Order: Criminal Intent, "Law & Order: Special Victims Unit, the new "Law & Order: Los Angeles", and "Law & Order: Saved by the Bell - the College Years").

It didn't help that at first, they speak fast. Very fast; and American ears can't understand most of what a Brit is saying at those speeds. It doesn't help that we have no clue what their Acronyms mean (like a CSP is equivalent to our DA - or something like that). And it really doesn't help that the Judge (or equivalent) and Attorney's (or equivalent) are actually wearing white wigs in court. Yes, they are wearing the same white wigs that the Whigs wore. Not only the Whigs wore wigs, but every major party represented in the court room, who is in public view, must wear the white wig.

So I found myself continually thinking "what the hell did he say", followed by "what is an APS" (insert your acronym here)", followed by "WHAT?! - they still wear white wigs in court?". I have no idea who was guilty or innocent, nor do I know how these lawyers and police people got the evidence, or how they put the pieces together, because I was so distracted by all of the things I mentioned above.

The only thing more boring than a Brit is a British Detective who mumbles at high speed.
And to top it all off, it wasn't in HD because my cable provider (METROCAST CABLE) doesn't provide that HD channel in my HD channel lineup. It was painful to see BBC America HD in the corner of the screen. Yet I am not receiving BBC America in HD.

Back to my original thought. If “Law & Order: UK” were in HD at my house, I probably would watch it – and love it. But when a show is not in HD, I notice all of the other crap that turns TV into bad TV.

The Maine HDTV blog is not for sale

2010-08-05T11:09:00.007-04:00

I started this blog more than 3 and a half years ago. It actually started on another blogging site and I moved it here to Blogspot in December 2007.

At that time, before the transition to digital, there was so little information out there explaining EXACTLY what was going on with the transition, and how it affected each of us. I decided to focus on Southern Maine where I live and began doing lots of research. This blog has grown more than I ever imagined. I receive comments and emails from all over the country and have had inquiries from as far away as the U.K. One of best things that ever happened to me on this journey was meeting up with Doug Finck (of WPME and WPXT). I have never met him in person or talked to him on the phone. But we have had many "conversation" by email and he has taught me a lot. He has supported my efforts more than anyone I know. Secondly, a guy from my cable company (who shall remain nameless) has provided me with lots of insight and information. Along the way there have been a few others who supported what I was trying to do - give out as much information as possible to the public so they understand what digital and HD TV are all about - and have helped me where ever possible.

I have had several offers from people who wanted me to link to their site. Some of them have offered money and some have just blatantly tried to fool me into thinking they are legit. I made a decision a long time ago that this blog would never be about money. I have not earned one dime and don't ever intend to. Information should be free.

I guess I am writing all of this because I am appalled at a woman who contacted me recently. It was actually the second time she tried to contact me and "innocently" asked if I would link to her site because she had "an article that would be of interest to my readers". Her site is nothing more than one of those blogs that exists only to promote advertising and sales of television-related products. I don't know if I'm more pissed at what that blog stands for, or that someone thinks I am stupid.

About a year ago, I had an offer from a company out of Boston who wanted to pay me if I posted articles on my site that related to their products. In essence, they would write the articles and use hyperlinks in those articles that linked to their site. They sold HDTV mounting equipment and all kinds of HDTV accessories. I have to say I did consider it. For about a day or so I gave it some serious thought. But I realized that I would be a sellout and that I would lose control of what this blog was all about - the freedom to exchange and share information about HDTV and television in general in Maine. I have always wanted, and continue to want, this blog to be a place where people connect to talk about HDTV in Maine.

I often comment about things that fall outside that mission, but I try to keep it poignant.

I have absolutely no problem or issue with anyone who wants to link to my site, or mine to theirs, if they have the same set of operating standards that I have. But to those of you with ulterior motives - please knock it off.

And thank you to my loyal readers who are just trying to get their HDTVs to work without paying anyone a lot of money. Keep those comments and ideas coming. I get lots of email directly that never gets posted on the blog. Mostly because it is a lot of work to transfer all of that detail to the blog and I can only devote so much time (I have other blogs too), but also because the email is usually a very specific question or problem.

Not much "new" is happening n the world of HDTV. Yes, there are new TVs with new features and that sort of thing. But right now, we're waiting for the TV world to catch up with what the viewers want - all HDTV - all the time. It will still be a while before Maine's local TV stations are broadcasting the local news in HDTV, and it will still be a while before everything they broadcast is in HD. So there is still lots to keep track of, to celebrate, and to complain about; and I promise I will.

If anyone would like to contribute an article on this site. Please feel free to contact me at mainehdtv@gmail.com.

New TV Station and More HD in Southern Maine

2010-08-03T10:08:00.004-04:00

A My Network affiliate (WZMY) began operations as a sister station to WPME (My Network - Portland) and WPXT (CW Portland) in December of 2009. It took some time to get the station up and running with HD equipment but recently they ironed out some of the bugs. I live in Southern Maine, and while WZMY is not in my cable channel lineup, I can pick it up in HD off of the coax cable line if I switch my input to antenna rather than the cable box. The channel is 50.1. You can also pick up WZMY if you use a "rabbit ear" antenna and that will, of course, be in HD as well.

On another note, both WPME and WPXT in Portland have some new equipment and are able to broadcast network, syndicated and locally produced television shows in High Definition. You may have noticed lately that some of the the locally produced shows like "Our Maine" which used to be in standard definition, are now in high definition. Even the annoyingly ubiquitous (is that redundant?) Maine Auto King is in high definition.

It's great to see some Maine TV stations taking the lead and giving the consumer what they want, which is High Definition. Now 50% of US households have at least one HDTV. And now that consumers are learning how to get HD out of their TV and once they experience true HD, there's not going back.

It's a shame, to me, that the HDTV industry has not made it easy for consumers. A barrage of terms, technologies, and choices make it almost impossible for the average consumer to understand what they are getting for their money. And that's what this is all about; money. Isn't that what everything is about?

Recently, I had a friend who decided she was going to buy and HDTV and was going THAT DAY to Best Buy to purchase one. She knows I know what I'm talking about but I couldn't take time off from work to go with her. So I had about an hour to research what was available at Best Buy and what was the best deal for her budget. Of course, from her perspective, knowing nothing about current TVs, she "heard" she could get an HDTV for "around 200 bucks". I rolled my eyes at her, over the phone (luckily), and tried to explain to her that she could probably find something called an HDTV for a little over $200, but that wasn't the smart choice. I found myself explaining about screen sizes and proportions, Hertz, refresh rates, contrast ratio, etc. and I could tell she was rolling her eyes. In the end, she bought something respectable. At least it was a 120HZ. Now I have to explain to her how to get HD from her cable company. She thought all she had to to was buy the HDTV and plug it in and she'd be good to go. It's hard to believe but yes, we're still there.

WGME still can't get High Definition right

2010-06-20T07:19:00.003-04:00

Anyone who has read this blog for any length of time knows that one of my pet peeves is when a local TV station is not broadcasting in High Definition when they should be. Another thing you might glean from reading this blog is that I often contact our Portland TV stations and let them know when there is a problem with HD broadcasting.

With few exceptions, broadcasting in HD is a pretty simply process for a TV station. Even without all of the very expensive equipment needed to be a 100% high definition TV station, a simple pass-through of an HD feed from the network is child's play compared to what some of the big boys (like Boston and NYC TV stations) deal with.

Stated another way, Portland, Maine TV stations broadcast High Definition when they get a high definition feed from their affiliated network via satellite and simply pass that programming through (either via antenna transmission over-the-air or through cable TV) to your TV set. They can't record HD programming from their network and can't store it for playback later; they can only do this pass through that I describe. Bigger stations in bigger cities with bigger budgets have the sophisticated equipment that allows them to broadcast everything from their local news, to local produced programming (like a news magazine show or a public debate) in High Definition. They can also download/save programming and play it back at a later date/time. Portland stations cannot yet do this.

So that's the set up. Now, on Friday night, I tuned in to "The Late, Late Show with Craig Ferguson" (a pass through HD program from CBS) and I immediately noticed that the show was not in HD. I checked to make sure the show as not a re-run from before that show was being produced in HD, and it was not. I also checked WBZ out of Boston (which happens to be another CBS channel on my channel lineup) and they were broadcasting it in HD. So I knew the problem was with WGME - Channel 13, right here in good old Portland, ME.

I was given a tour of Channel 13 about 2 years ago when they had a different general manager. I saw the control room, where there is literally an on/off switch built into the control board which allows the person running the board to switch to HD when a network program is coming across the satellite in HD. So basically, if CBS is transmitting a high definition program to its affiliates over the satellite, this switch must be in the "ON" position so that when WGME re-transmits that live signal over their antenna to Maine, it is transmitted in HD so that your TV or your cable provider can receive it in HD.

As I mentioned, and as you can read on this blog, WGME, WMTW, and WCSH have all made this same mistake from time to time. When this happened on Friday night, I called WGME. I tried calling WGME several times for about 20 minutes. All I ever got was a phone nobody would answer or the "General" voicemail box. If WGME is on the air, somebody has to be in the building so I have no idea why nobody answered the phone. There have been times in the past when I called WGME, WMTW, and WCSH to let them know they were not transmitting in high definition. I got mixed reception from all of them, (I mean, who is this guy calling us) but the problem got fixed. Usually within seconds, and sometimes before I could finish getting all the words out, the station magically started transmitting in High Definition. Some of them got used to me calling.

But on this past Friday night (6/18/10), I had no such luck with WGME. I wrote an email to Tom Humpage, General Manager, and I am waiting to hear back from him, hopefully on Monday, to explain to me what happened at their station on Friday night.

If WGME had this problem two or three years ago, I could understand. HD in Maine was in its infancy and a lot of mistakes and oversights were made. But after several years, and several situations just like this one occurring, one would think that WGME would have this figured out by now.

It truly amazes me that a TV station can't do something as simple as "turning on the HD switch". It shows a lack of dedication, lack of technical knowledge, lack of qualified staff, and an overall lack of respect for the viewing public. More than half of all US households have the ability to view high definition TV. Those who have seen what high definition is all about don't want to go back to regular TV. Once you have enjoyed HD and once you have paid a lot of money for an HD TV set, you want your programming to be in HD; it's that simple.

I gave up and started watching Craig Ferguson on WBZ out of Boston. I'm sure WGME's advertisers would love to know that.

Two big hold outs make the move to High Definition

2010-05-10T14:02:00.005-04:00

TV is finally becoming what it should be, in this post-analog age of High Definition. What I mean by that is High Definition should be the norm, not the exception. It's been a frustrating 5 years for me, but we're finally getting somewhere. The last network morning show and the first-ever, network, Sunday political show are both broadcasting in high definition - finally.

For the life of me I couldn't figure out why "Meet the Press", the longest running TV show (and one of the most successful) in history was not broadcasting in High Definition. NBC had been one of the pioneers of HD, contributing HD programming over their network very early on in the process. And CBS, another pioneer with the first daytime soap (Young and Restless) broadcast in high definition, was another hold out with its "Early Show". The Early Show has always been in last place of the 3 big network morning shows, and not being in HD certainly didn't help CBS's ratings.

I stopped watching "Meet the Press" at some point in 2009 mostly because I thought David Gregory was a bad choice as a replacement for Tim Russert, but also because the show wasn't in High Definition. So I watched "This Week" on ABC instead. Between that and Fareed Zakaria on CNN, I got my fill of high definition, Sunday politics. If only someone would tell George Will (the ever-present, arrogant, one-man-think-tank on This Week's "panel") how bad his toupee looks in high definition then we'd really be getting somewhere. But I digress.

Finally, finally, finally, Meet the Press starting broadcasting in High Definition last week. And to me, the show is at least palatable again. While David Gregory is making an ass of himself trying to be as good as Tim Russert was, at least the show is in High Definition. So I'll start watching again.

As for CBS's "The Early Show", I've never watched it. Well, that's not true. One time a few years ago I was flipping through the channels and saw Alicia Keys playing the piano and singing that great song of hers called "No One". It was in SD. I haven't watched since other than to check to see if it was in HD yet. I just read on a few different web sites that The Early Show began its HD transmission on April 26, 2010. I will now, finally, have more choices in them morning. CBS should have done this a long time ago. Broadcasting in SD when you are third in the ratings quite simply a bad choice. The thing that broadcasters need to keep in mind is that more than 50% of households in the U.S. have at least one HD TV. And since you can pick up the free networks in HD over the air, people are more likely to watch a show that is in HD over a show that isn't. I've been saying this for a long time and it's been proven in the ratings. So congratulations to CBS and The Early Show for finally making it. I checked in on The Early Show this morning and since CBS broadcasts their HD in 1080i (as opposed to 720p like ABC and Fox), the show looks fantastic.

Right now, more television programming is in high definition than not. And most syndicated television is available in HD but "lower tier" stations (like the TV stations where I live) don't have all the HD equipment they need to record/playback HD received over satellite. So it will still be a whle before syndicated shows and local programming is in HD. But it is nice to see that finally High Definition is growing up, and becoming everything it can be.

Now if I could just get my cable company to carry MSNBC, USA, Bravo, FX and AMC in high definition, I'd be all set.

More HD coming to Portland, Maine

2010-04-26T12:13:00.004-04:00

I apologize to all for not writing in a while. To be honest I haven't had any good, bad, or indifferent news about high definition here in Maine, or anywhere else for that matter.

Latest news? 240HZ and sliver-thin LED screens. It's already been proven that the human eye can't distinguish between 120HZ and 240HZ so I wouldn't waste my money, but you can if you want, or if you just don't have the room for a 4 inch thick TV screen and really need to scale back on that.

And then there is the Sharp "Yellow" phenomenon. Did you see the TV commercial with Mr. Sulu from Star Trek? He was explaining that YOUR television can't see yellow, even though the yellow we can't see was yellow on our TV's when he was explaining it. Is there a different yellow and yellow? What a joke. I believe the intention is to confuse the consumer so much that they will think they need to buy anything the HDTV market has to sell.

OK that's enough of that. On to bigger and better things:

I received an email from Doug Finck, General Manager at WPME (MyNetwork) and WPXT (CW) in Portland. They got some brand spanking new HD equipment that will allow them to broadcast HD content - it's all part of the new syndicated TV distribution architecture. Both WPME and WPXT will be able to receive (over the Internet or physical media) HD content and store it on these devices. They can then play it back and broadcast it in HD. There are some third parties involved in the whole process but the bottom line is that for the consumer, this means more HD programming.

Doug went on to say: "Specifically, from here on, we will be creating all local elements in HD. That includes local commercials, local promotional announcements, local [Public Service Announcements], local public affairs programs and all local long-form programs that we produce. (from "The Maine Rundown" to "Local Discovery", [and] from "Buy Local" to "OurMaine Magazine. Over the next 90 days you'll find more and more local HD content being added".

By working with their vendors and partners, WPME and WPXT will be able to broadcast shows like Extra, TMZ, Everybody Loves Raymond and others in High Definition. This is a first for our part of the world. Even the big 3 network affiliates in Portland are not yet doing this.

While WPME and WPXT still can not YET take an HD satellite feed and record it onto a machine and play it back like they did with analog broadcasts, being able to store and record local HD content, and being able to store and rebroadcast HD content delivered to them in ways other than satellite is a HUGE STEP FORWARD for a television station in today's environment.

As Doug finished his email to me he said "Everyday you'll see more and more HD content". That is music to my ears. Doug is committed to being at the forefront of HD TV in the Portland/Lewiston/Auburn Market. I'm excited about this. He's excited about this. And I can't wait to see all of the upgrades really soon.

Many thanks to Doug Finck for supporting this blog site. He's been a supporter for a long time and picked the Maine HDTV Forum to spread the word when he was ready to release this news.

Let us know what you think.

People who own HD want to watch HD - it's that simple

2009-11-12T15:25:00.003-05:00

I've been begging for more HD channels and more HD programming for as long as I've owned an HDTV, which is about 3 years now.

My argument has always been that the broadcaster, whether cable or over-the-air, that airs the most HD programming will win the ratings wars. And I was right.

A recent article on MediaPost goes into more details. Here's the link:

http://www.mediapost.com/publications/?fa=Articles.showArticle&art_aid=116495

I firmly believe that the local TV station in Portland, ME, that gets its news on the air first in HD will take over the local market in viewership. The number of households with high definition TV sets is increasing by leaps and bounds every day, even in this economy. Once you get used to it, regular (or SD) television looks, well, crappy. Once you've experienced high definition you will never want to go back to watching regular TV again.

In the article I referenced above, the data shows that even commercials are in the mix. A certain percentage of men and a bit lower percentage of women, but still some women, notice when a commercial is NOT in high definition and have a negative reaction to it.

I knew I couldn't be alone in my viewing habits and now I have proof. I routinely watch programming in high definition because it's in high definition. And I pick the HD programming over non-HD programming every time unless I absolutely have no choice.

What really gets me is when a TV show is supposed to be in HD but isn't. That makes me angry. And that's why I continually call or write to broadcasters to ask them what their problem is.

WGME - 60 Minutes not in HD

2009-11-10T09:43:00.002-05:00

The October 25, 2009, broadcast of "60 Minutes" was not in high definition on WGME Channel 13 out of Portland, Maine. I wrote to the General Manager, Tom Humpage, who told me "it must be that switch thing again".

Tom is referring to a switch on the console in the TV Control room at the station. It is literally a switch on the control board that can toggle the broadcast between High Definition and Standard Definition.

The person at the console must "flip the switch" in order for HD to go out over the broadcast antenna. In my experience, when I call a local TV station to let them know that somebody forgot to "flip the switch", I usually get (and I've used this analogy before) a guy named Chad munching on a Kit-Kat bar and a drinking a Red Bull who says, "Huh?".

It's not rocket science. When a TV show you are broadcasting should be in HD, and you don't have sophisticated equipment that will flip the HD switch automatically, then FLIP THE SWITCH!

WGME is Portland, ME, seems to be the one TV station in the area that consistently has this problem. I admit that the incidences of the switch not being flipped are much less often than they used to be, but it bothers me that it still happens.

The new LED High Definition TV's

2009-10-15T12:00:00.003-04:00

It seems that whenever you buy new technology, it's not long before even newer technology comes about and you are one step behind. This is true of HDTV as well.

When 60 Hz high definition TVs morphed into the new 120 Hz high definition TVs, I had to have one. So I bought a Sony Bravia 120 Hz HDTV and I love it.

About a month later I started seeing advertisements for the Samsung 240 Hz "LED" TVs. Instead of Liquid Crystal Display (LDC), these new TV are now Light Emitting Diode (LED) TVs. The technology is different, specifically the light source behind it. And since I don't know much about it yet, I thought it best if I send you on to someone who does. If you want information on LED Televisions then you should definitely click on any of the highlighted words in this post.

Take care and thanks for stopping by.

WGME - Oprah not in HD anymore

2009-09-23T13:48:00.002-04:00

It took me a while to figure this one out. But with the help of a friend in the business, and Tom Humpage, the GM at WGME, and CBS Television Distribution, I finally put the pieces of the puzzle together.

Last season, Oprah began producing her show in High Definition. Here in Maine, WGME started broadcasting the show in HD around January of 09. When Oprah began her 2009/2010 season earlier this month, WGME no longer broadcast the show in HD. But WCVB out of Boston still broadcasts the show in HD.

Apparently CBS Television Distribution (CTD) changed the way they send the show through the satellite feed to the stations that broadcast Oprah. CTD used to have a 4:00 HD feed which was picked up by WGME and broadcast in HD. This is called a pass-through. Station like WGME all around the country don't have the ability to record shows in High Definition from a satellite feed and play them back at a later time. But they can do a pass-through. Other larger station around the country, like WCVB out of Boston, have the expensive equipment required to record High Definition programs from a satellite feed and play them back at a later date/time.

Beginning September 10, 2009 CTD eliminated its 4:00 Eastern feed in High Definition. So television stations around the country who can only do a pass-through had to revert back to Standard Definition (SD). Stations like WCVB who can record HD from a feed can continue to broadcast Oprah, and other shows, in HD.

I know it all sounds a bit technical but the bottom line is that WGME, and many, many TV stations around the country, have lost their ability to present syndicated shows like Oprah in High Definition because the syndicator has changed the time of the HD feed to an earlier time, therefore disqualifying stations who can only do a pass-through from being able to broadcast Oprah in High Definition. It is not WGME's fault that this has happened. They did not have a choice in the matter. Network Shows in Primetime are sent via satellite feed to affiliate TV stations at the exact time they should be airing. That's how TV Station without the fancy equipment can broadcast High Definition.

The number of households with High Definition TVs is growing rapidly. Therefore, television shows in High Definition are beginning to get higher ratings than shows not in High Definition. So I'm sure WGME would prefer that things went back to the way they used to be. But again, they have no say in the matter. And viewers have nowhere to complain. I guess you could call your congressperson. Good luck.

Craig Ferguson finally goes HD; plus an HD update for Maine

2009-09-03T10:34:00.005-04:00

The man who is simply the best in the late night arena, Craig Ferguson, will no longer be able to be the butt of his own jokes about being the only late night show not in High Definition.

Conan O'Brien (Late Night with....) was in HD back when he was still in the 12:30 time slot. His replacement, Jimmy Fallon, continues in High Definition. Jay Leno, David Letterman, and even Nightline on ABC (although it hasn't been that long for Nightline) have all been broadcasting in High Definition for a while. And when Jimmy Kimmel on ABC went high def earlier this year, that left Craig Ferguson on CBS as the only late night show NOT in high definition.

Ferguson made it known, sometimes subtly, sometimes not so subtly, that he didn't appreciate it very much. His self-deprecating humor took pot shots and the bad lighting, second-rate stage, and lack of support from CBS.

Starting this past Monday, August 31, 2009, The Late Late Show with Craig Ferguson is now in high definition. And it's about time. With 53% of American Households having at least one HD television, my predication are coming true.

I predicted that when the viewing public got used to high definition, they would demand it. And it would show in the ratings. The bottom line is - if a TV show is not in HD, it has a lesser chance of being watched. HD buffs, and regular TV viewers with an HD TV, will easily channel surf right past a show that is not in HD and will land on one (and stay there) that is in HD. Viewership equals ratings. Ratings equals advertising dollars.

The same is happening with local news broadcasts. In Southern Maine, where we can receive both local Maine news AND Boston news, the ratings tell the story. Viewers would much rather watch High Definition. So with a choice, viewers are tuning in to WCVB, WBZ, and WHDH (the big three out of Boston), for news. Some data suggests that viewers may check their local (non-HD) channels for weather. But Southern Maine and Southeastern New Hampshire are close enough to being far out suburbs of Boston, so why not watch the Boston news. Most of what Boston has on the news is centered around New England, not just Boston. And since New England is really one big state, it makes sense that viewers who spent a lot of money on an HD TV want to get all of the benefits having one.

Again, not one Maine TV station produces its newscast in HD. The ABC affiliate out of Portland, WMTW, even tries to fake it. They bought some equipment that allows them to cram the entire bottom on an HD picture with weather information, but above that is the standard black bars and second-rate picture quality. They want you to think "HD" because they are partially using the expanse of an HD picture, but it's not really HD.

WCSH, channel 6, our NBC affiliate bought some equipment that would make the on-air transition from non-HD to HD programming less jolting. All they have really been able to accomplish in HD is a 3 to 4 second promo for their on-air talent. Example: "Watch Lee Nelson and the Newscenter Morning Report". A picture of Lee Nelson flashes on the screen, there are background graphics and such, and it's all in HD. But it only lasts 3 seconds. That's all they can do.

Then there is our CBS affiliate, WGME. They call their weather computer "Doppler HD". There is nothing HD about it. This is nothing more than a marketing ploy. Do they think people won't notice that their weather broadcast, and the rest of their news broadcast isn't in HD? Do they think we are that stupid.

This is what we are dealing with in Maine. These TV stations need to man up, or woman up, and invest in an HD infrastructure. Otherwise they will continually lose viewership. I've been saying this for as long as I can remember. Whichever Maine TV station beats the rest to doing the local news in HD will win the ratings war. It's that simple.

Disney HD - wow, what a concept

2009-08-01T13:34:00.006-04:00

OK, so Disney HD was added to the HD lineup of Metrocast Cable in the Rochester, NH, and Sanford, ME viewing areas. Big deal. The only reason I am mentioning this is because I promised to keep people in Maine up to date on what I know about High Definition in Maine.

Is this fact important? No. But it gives me an opportunity to point out all of the channels that Metrocast does NOT offer in HD.

The quick list is MSNBC, FX, USA, Bravo, SoapNet, and ABC Family. These are just the more popular ones. Instead we have 23 ESPN HD channels, 28 HD Golf Channels, and I believe 8 different fishing channels in HD. This an exaggeration, of course, but it may as well be true. Instead of giving viewers a variety of choices, Metrocast has decided that they'll just keep adding more and more reality channels. By that I mean no channels that offer drama, or comedy shows. It all just reality TV like basketball, fishing, golf, How-To shows and all that kind of stuff. No "produced" shows.

Now to the real truth. Why a cable operator would go through all the trouble of adding a new HD channel when 90% of the programming on that channel is NOT IN HIGH DEFINITION, I'll never understand. What is the point? When you have the opportunity of adding any one of a number of HD channels that actually broadcast HD programming and instead you add one who's HD library is about the size of the "Gay Studies" section of any library in Chattanooga, Tennessee, WHAT'S THE POINT?

Thanks, Metrocast, for adding Disney HD because the cartoons look so much better.

The many faces of High Definition

2009-06-29T12:20:00.007-04:00

It is becoming increasingly more difficult to figure out what television shows are actually in high definition and which are not. So many scenarios and combinations exist that it is difficult to explain how this whole HD thing really works.

Here are some of the different categories and examples:

Filmed with an HD camera, recorded and then played back in HD on a network feed to the local affiliate in Prime Time (shows like Two and a Half Men)
Filmed new on film stock, converted to HD, and then played back in HD (like Desperate Housewives, or CSI - this will become more important later)
Filmed live with an HD camera (show like Good Morning America)

--------These first three are what I call "real HD" ----------------

Filmed years ago on film stock, and then converted as best they can to HD (Seinfeld, and even Hogan's Hero's from many years ago)

Filmed Standard Definition but in 16:9 aspect ratio (wide-screen non HD) this includes shows like The Bonnie Hunt Show (which is also shown on many channels in non-HD, and non-wide screen). Another good example of this is the local News. Most local news is still filmed the same old way it has been done for year. Some stations, however, now have digital video cameras for working in the field. Most are not HD cameras but can film wide screen. The result is a correctly proportioned wide-screen picture, but with the same quality as a 480i or 480p camera. Portable HD Cameras for field work are very expensive. Usually large cities that have TV stations with big budgets can afford some HD field cameras. But most TV stations can not; not yet anyway, and therefore it will be quite some time before your local news is in High Definition.

Of course any of these can ALSO be played back in Standard Definition (a bit grainy and in 4:3 aspect ratio). You'll get the black pillars on the sides of the TV picture when viewing this type of broadcast on an HD set.

Then there is Fake HD - This is where a TV network will take an SD show and stretch it to fit the screen but it is horizontally challenged. When the camera pans left or right, you get a ripple effect that creates sea sickness if it goes too fast. Another trick, which you can see on The Science Channel, is where they re-record a show but zoom in on it. You can tell it's fake-wide screen and fake HD because the producers don't zoom in perfectly when they re-record, so there is a very slight black bar on the side. You almost can't notice it, but it's there. Watch the credits or screen notations; they will be cut off.

It gets very complicated. But your eyes KNOW when a show you are watching is in pure HD. The question arises when you are watching a show and you're not sure it is. If you are not sure, it probably is not in pure HD. So make sure you are getting what you pay for if you indeed are paying. Remember; broadcast TV even in HD is still free. And when you are watching real HD, you just know it, no question.

On top of all of this, you must factor in the television station you are watching and its technology capabilities. Most TV stations (unless in a very large demographic market like Boston or NYC) can not afford the equipment needed to play back HD programming unless the HD programming is provided to them at the exact time they will re-broadcast it. This is called a pass-through. In other words, if Law and Order comes on at 10:00, that it the time that NBC send the HD feed to its affiliates so that the affiliates can pick up that signal and broadcast it back out through their TV tower. These same TV stations can not do that with programming they buy from a distributor. For example, WGME purchased distribution rights from CBS Television Distribution to air Oprah Winfrey. But since CBS Television Distribution does not provide an HD feed at 4:00 pm, WGME can not broadcast the show in HD. The HD feed may have been uploaded at 1:30 pm - earlier that day. However, since WGME doesn't have the equipment to download the HD version of the show and play it back at 4:00 PM, their only option is to record the Standard Definition feed and play that back at 4:00 PM.

Some TV stations are now broadcasting multiple channels. For example, WENH (New Hampshire PBS) broadcast three simultaneous channels - 11.1, 11.2, and 11.3. While 11.1 and 11.3 are High Definition 11.2 is not. The problem here is that there is only so much bandwidth available to the TV station. It's like the Internet. If you have one Internet connection it works fine. If you invite 5 friends over to use that same connection with their computers, it's going to be slower. The same is true for an HD signal. The more programming a broadcaster tries to fit through a pipe, the lower the quality of each picture is going to be. There are differing viewpoints about how much TV a pipe can handle. Two HD broadcasts plus one Standard Definition broadcast from one TV Station is right on the line between no degradation of signal, and mild to moderate degradation of the signal. This is just one more variable in the HD picture (so to speak).

On the flip side, you have stations like HDNet (which is on the premium tier of most cable outlets) who can record, playback, or broadcast live events in full HD anytime they choose. Networks like this were born for HD and were built on HD technology from the ground up. This is not true of most cable networks. Some are beginning to convert now but it will be 5 or 10 years before many of them are up to speed.

I have not wanted to admit this but it will be many years before HD is the norm as opposed to the exception like it is now.

One more thing - you might see someone like Direct TV advertise that their HD is "Full 1080p". Well, there are NOT ANY TV networks, or local TV stations, or cable networks, that are producing shows in 1080p; 1080p is reserved for video games of the very highest quality. So don't let anybody fool you burying an HD TV set that is "full 1080p" unless you plan using an XBox, or PS2 or any other gaming system. In the USA, you MAY get a few video on demand resources in 1080p but they are very, very rare. Europe has a little bit more 1080p available, but it is also limited to Video on Demand and gaming. Regular TV, even in it's finest HD quality, is NOT and WILL NOT be in any format higher in quality than 1080i for many years to come.

I know some of this is very confusing. Is it HD? Is it not HD? Maybe some of you will say "who cares?" For those of us who love our HD, we do care, and want to make sure the public is not being fooled.

The channel to whom I would give my annual prize for the highest quality, high definition video is: CNN-HD. They are not always broadcasting in HD but when they do, it is the finest picture I have ever seen. And I've watched it on many different HD TV sets.

Let us know what you think.

Big changes abound for broadcast networks

2009-06-20T07:42:00.003-04:00

Substantial changes in how much programming will be provided to affiliates by the their parent network are on the horizon.

The CW and MyNetwork will experience the biggest changes but even networks like NBC are cutting down on the amount of prime time programming they are providing to their affiliates.

This article from "The Live Feed" blog spells it out. Don't be fooled by the title, it's not just about Sundays.

http://www.thrfeed.com/2009/05/another-step-back-for-broadcast-cw-gives-back-sundays.html

Post DTV transition in Maine - having any problems?

2009-06-20T07:16:00.006-04:00

Maine finished its DTV transition on June 12 (for all except low-powered TV stations) along with everyone else. There are still a few "nightlight" broadcasters that will maintain an analog signal for a few short weeks.

As of June 13, I no longer an able to receive WMTW Channel 8 which I had always been able to receive before, and I mean receive the DTV/HDTV signal. So what's different? Channel 8 is the only station in Southern Maine to change the channel on which they broadcast their digital signal.

All digital signals actually emanated from the UHF (channels 14-69) spectrum. Your TV would still show the correct channel but it was actually being broadcast on a different channel. It's sort of like when you go to "google.com" you are actually going to an IP address of 64.233.161.99. That IP address can change but if it does you don't need to know it. You just keep going to Google.com. The same has been true for digital TV. Your digital device (TV, Converter Box, etc) picked up TV station WMTW on 46.1, but all you see is Channel 8.

However, WMTW changed their broadcast signal to be on VHF channel 8.1 instead of UHF channel 46.1. There are pros and cons to a TV stations keeping things as they are versus changing to a VHF channel. It has positive affects for some and negative for others. For me, it is negative. I used to get channel 8 via my UHF/VHF antenna but now I don't.

I'd like get some comments from folks on what they are experiencing after the transition. Good or bad, I think it will be helpful to track some of the positive and negative affects of the DTV transition in hopes of relaying that information to someone who can fix problems.

Thanks again for stopping by.

Southern Maine get's ready for the final "final date" of DTV transtion

2009-06-08T09:58:00.006-04:00

Only 4 days left until June 12, 2009 - the new "drop dead" date for all Americans to be ready for Digital Television.

As a common lay person not involved directly with television broadcasting or the television industry, this has been the longest 2 years of my life. When I started writing, investigating, and talking to as many people as I could over 2 years ago, I had no idea what I was in for.

It was a long, arduous journey up to February 17, 2009 when we THOUGHT that analog signals for high powered, over-the-air Television Stations would end. Then, the FCC and the Obama Administration "extended" the drop dead date to June 12, 2009, to give those involved (since 1996) a few more months to get it right.

Even Michael Copps, Acting FCC Chairman, said that the FCC was NOT able to accomplish much and was not able to make much of a difference during the 4 month extension. Why? Well, in my opinion it was "over exposure". The American public was sick to death of hearing about the transition. Those that were going to do something about it already did and those that procrastinated continued to do so.

The FCC and the National Association of Broadcasters have already admitted that there is not much they can do now but wait and clean up the mess (reference Broadcasting & Cable Magazine, June 2009). After June 12 they will start dealing with reception problems. Do you know what that means?

For those who rely on antenna TV it means that the number of stations they received under analog TV will be reduced, in many cases significantly, to one or two if they are lucky. And there is not a single person or agency they can call who will care. I know that because people who visit this site have reported to me on numerous occasions that they have DTV reception problems with the DTV converter boxes. And in calling the TV stations involved, have received little, if any, help at all.

The local TV stations point fingers at the FCC, who point fingers back at the TV stations, who point fingers back at the Association of Broadcasters in their area, who blame the government, who blame the TV stations who blame the public. It is as vicious a circle as I have ever seen.

For those of us in Maine, a large portion (about 14%) of the population rely ONLY on over-the-air reception for television. And it just so happens that a great deal of these people seem to live on the "cusp" between where the analog signal used to reach and where the digital signal will reach.

FCC Commissioner Copps himself has admitted that his own DTV converter box worked fine over this past winter; but when spring came and the leaves came, so did the DTV signal interference. So if we're going to have problems with leaves being in the way, I don't think the State of Maine is where you're going to be most happy with over-the-air Digital TV.

To bring one more layer of confusion, some TV stations will change the channel number from which they broadcast their digital signal on June 12, 2009. I am having a tough time nailing down which channels in Maine will and which one's won't change. From what I can gather at this point here is the run down of the stations I know about in Southern Maine.

(The channel number that is displayed on your screen when you channel surf is called the PSIP; which can be different from the actual UHF broadcast channel)

WCSH (NBC) Channel 6 will remain UHF 44
WMTW (ABC) Channel 8 will change to VHF 8
WGME (CBS) Channel 13 will remain UHF 38
WPFO (Fox) Channel 23 will remain UHF 23
WPME (MYN) Channel 35 will remain UHF 35
WPXT (CW) Channel 51 will remain UHF 43
Maine PBS - depends on where you are. Check http://www.mpbn.net/About/DTV/tabid/251/Default.aspx for details.

For me, the only one of these I need to worry about is WMTW because that's the only channel in Southern Maine that I receive that is changing. So instead of doing an entire rescan (which can cause more problems that it's worth) I will simply manually change my DTV to look for channel 8 on Channel 8.1 instead of 46.1. I would suggest you do the same unless don't know how to do this in which case you better stick with the full re-scan of channels on your DTV device.

Good luck to you all. I have heard there are some things going on at the State and Federal level to help improve signal strength of digital TV but I doubt you will see the benefits of that for many months.

Metrocast Cable - no solution, but finally some answers

2009-05-27T09:32:00.004-04:00

I received a phone call from one of Metrocast's top technicians. Without disclosing too much I'll refer to him as Mike. I've spoken with Mike before, as well as had email conversations, regarding many issues that I have had with reception on digital cable and high definition. He is well-informed, professional, and quite good at his job.

Mike apologized on behalf of Metrocast for how I was treated. To have a "supervisor" call me and leave me a message that said I wasn't receiving a particular channel because that channel was not in my channel line-up, was ridiculous. And Mike knew it. The customer service representatives have some serious training issues if they don't know what channels their customers receive in each of their companies delivery regions. And if a supervisor doesn't know, it indicates how widespread the problem is. But, I accepted Mike's apology and we agreed to move beyond all of that and look toward solutions. I also asked Mike if he could see about removing the "black mark" from my customer record at Metrocast. (I was flagged as an ornery customer and under no circumstances should I be transferred to a manger if I asked for one). Mike said that he would check on that. In my opinion, my customer record should say "This guy knows what he's talking about, so listen to him when he calls" but I highly doubt they will mark my account as such.

In the end, Mike gave me his cell phone number and email address so that if ever there are problems like the ones I had been experiencing, I could contact him directly.

As luck would have it (or is it un-luck) Channel 51, WPXT out of Portland, was experiencing some of the same pixelation issues and lack of audio through my cable connection. In checking that against my HDTV connected to an antenna, the HDTV/Antenna setup was working just fine with no degradation of signal at all. So the problem had to be at Metrocast. I contacted Mike.

The explanation, and problem, has to do with a piece of equipment at Metrocast that takes the signal from a broadcaster and "processes" it before sending it down the wire to customers. In this "processing", if the signal is lost, the equipment must be manually reset or the signal that gets sent down the line to customers is degraded (pixelation and lacking audio).

So it would seem that every time Metrocast loses a signal temporarily from a broadcaster and nobody is there at Metrocast to see it and be able to react to it, then the signal to the customer is dead in the water until a manual reset is finally done.

To me, there must be some better quality equipment out there than can "automatically" reset itself upon the loss/regaining of a broadcasters signal. I've talked to some people in the industry who have indicated that such things exist. Which leads me to the real issue which is money. Metrocast is either cheap, or broke. Neither of these options are good. I don't like subscribing to a company who is cheap, nor do I enjoy subscribing to a company who can't afford state of the art equipment.

In the end, I don't know what to do with all of this information. On one hand I don't have much choice but to give Metrocast a chance to fix the problems from a long term perspective. Satellite cable is a possibility but due to signal obstructions, and a $600 deposit for the equipment, this scenario seems prohibitive. So while I don't know where this will all end up, at least I have a Metrocast representative who is willing to work with me on these issues and not dismiss me when I call. At least one Metrocast representative respect my intelligence, experience, and understanding of the big "cable" picture.

Metrocast Cable - Share your horror stories

2009-05-22T08:44:00.005-04:00

It is now day 3. I still have not heard from Metrocast with an explanation of what happened on May 19th to Channel 723 (WPFO - Fox 23). I still have not explanation for why every time I call Metrocast (as late as yesterday), I am told that I do not get channel 723. That's interesting since I watch it every day.

I can't even use the words "customer service" when speaking of the department at Metrocast from which I would like to receive a call. There certainly is no service, and they've noted my account as a "pain in the ass" customer.

Here's the reality. The people that take trouble calls there know close to nothing. Just because they are in New Hampshire and don't get channel 723 (they get Fox 25 out of Boston on channel 725) doesn't mean that I don't. How can they NOT KNOW what channels a customer gets. How can they NOT KNOW that the channels I receive are not the same as theirs. I am in another state. They have cable TV operations in several states. I pay them money every month to get these channels, but I am repeatedly told that I don't get channel 723, that's why I am having reception problems with that channel.

This is bordering on complete insanity. How can a company operate, or behave this way.

So every day I will write more and more disparaging comments about Metrocast Cable until I get some answers. Anyone else want to share Metrocast horror stories. Come on, join in on the fun!

And for your folks at Metrocast (that means you Krista, and Brad, and Judy, and Mike, so far), I'M WAITING.

Metrocast Cable proves once again that they are completely incompetent

2009-05-20T14:27:00.005-04:00

I had problems with Fox 23 in High Definition (channel 723 on Metrocast Cable).

I called Metrocast and the girl that took the call knew absolutely nothing about cable TV, high definition, or TV broadcasting.

After putting me on hold for 10 minutes to walk to the lobby to check their TV sets, she came back to me and said, "Well, we don't get channel 723 here, we get channel 725 and that's coming in fine so I guess the problem is on your end and I'll have to send out a technician".

OK, let's back up. Channel 725 is WFXT out of Boston. It is the Fox affiliate in Boston. Customers of Metrocast in New Hampshire get that channel on their lineup. Channel 23 is Maine's Fox Channel (WPFO) and is broadcast out of Portland. Customers of Metrocast who live in Maine get WPFO - Fox 23, NOT Fox 25.

I tried to explain this to the girl on the phone (I use the world girl because she was obviously young and inexperienced; she was no woman). I got angrier and angrier because she would not listen to what I was saying. The "analog" version of Fox 23, which is channel 17 on my cable lineup, was also not coming in. And those were the only 2 channels with which I was having trouble. So the problem was obviously at the source of the broadcast, or at Metrocast and how it processes the fiber optic feed of that channel (it's not done by satellite dish anymore).

Again, I got nowhere and asked for a manger. I could not see why I had to wait at home two days later from 12:00 to 5:00 pm for a technician to show up for a problem that had nothing to do with me.

The next morning, both channel 17 and 723 were coming in fine. I got to work that Wednesday morning and had a message form a "supervisor" (I guess) named Krista, who gave me a phone number to call. But she also said that the reason I was not receiving channel 723 was because that channel was no longer available. What?? I was just watching it that morning before I left the house. (on a side note I watched it again last night). I called and asked to speak to her. The woman who helped me this time was Judy. I explained the whole story to her and she finally understood what I was saying. Judy wasn't quite sure what to do. So I asked her to please convey to a manager the whole story as she knew the Metrocast side and my side. Judy alluded to the fact that my "account" was noted with the fact that I was an irate customer and under no circumstances should I be allowed to speak to a supervisor. Nice, huh?

I told Judy that I could be a total jerk, and allow the technician to come to my house and wait for me; all the while I had no intention of being there for a problem that was not mine and in fact was already fixed. I wasn't a jerk. I asked Judy to cancel the appointment.

I have still heard nothing from Metrocast. I also called Fox 23 to find out what happened on Tuesday night to cause all of this. I left a a message. I have not heard back from Fox 23 either. I also emailed a guy named Mike Casa from Metrocast. He is a technician that has been out to my house before for other innumerable cable TV problems I have experienced and offered his assistance on another issue I was having. I have not heard from him either.

So what does one do now. Last night and this morning, channel 723 (WPFO - Fox 23) was having trouble again. It was pixelating and had audio problems. How do I call Metrocast and complain about a channel that doesn't exist according to the idiots that answer the phone. How do I get a manger or a technician to respond to my inquiries when my account has been labeled as a "trouble maker" simply because I am trying to fix a problem with their service.

If anyone has the answer, please let me know.

I dreamed a dream of High Definition

2009-04-24T08:28:00.005-04:00

As a kid coming home from school, I sometimes hung out with my older sister who would watch General Hospital. In my high school years I was part of the whole Luke & Laura generation. I remember sitting on the living room floor at my house or somebody else's with about a dozen other kids from school. The "Wedding" was a huge deal and still today I believe is the highest rated episode in the history of Soap Operas.

Obviously as the years things changed and I moved on. It was only if I was home on a sick day or after some surgery that I even bothered to check in on General Hospital mostly for nostalgia's sake. I have a running joke with my sister who would ask me what was going on in Port Charles these day (after not having watched it for 8 years) where I would always say "Well, it's later the same day and...." and she just busted out laughing.

My interest in Soap Opera's has waned, of course. I noticed a few years ago, when I first go involved in High Definition broadcasting that "The Young and the Restless" was in high definition and for many years now has been the only daytime soap in HD. Until now, that is.

I was using my Google mail account yesterday and as usual, as record speed. All of a sudden out of the corner of my eye I see some words on the page off the the left, or right, I can't remember. Google delivers content to you that they think you are interested in all the time so I just can't recall at one point these words were thrown at me. It said "Today is the Day, General Hospital begins broadcasting in High Definition". I sort of froze in my tracks. Not because I was interested in General Hospital but because something happened, or is beginning to happen, for which I have been waiting such a long time. Non-prime-time shows are starting to convert to High Definition. A few weeks prior to this I noticed that the late night show "Jimmy Kimmel Live" finally converted to HD leaving only poor Craig Ferguson on CBS the only late night show in standard definition (poor Craig, he's the most talented, and funniest, and gets no respect).

When I talk about the "dream I dreamed" it is about a world, someday soon, where High Definition is the norm, not the exception. Right now the ratio of standard definition to high definition, when considering all broadcast and cable television, is astounding. Comparatively, there is very little HD. Other than between 7 and 11 pm (considered prime time), a few morning shows and a few late night shows, that's about it for the networks. Cable channels have some HD programming but most of it is not original programming. Reruns of CSI on A&E in high definition are not ground breaking technology.

The bottom line here is that we are finally turning the corner. ABC has been pretty tight-lipped about the General Hospital conversion to HD and have hinted, but not confirmed, that their other daytime soaps will probably go to HD within the next two years. It is very expensive to do. ABC spent $3 million to convert their sets, change the lighting, redo their on-air make-up formulas, all to ensure that the money they spend on HD is well worth it. It's a big investment but has a big payoff. The only other daytime soap in HD, as I said, is "The Young and the Restless" which has been number one in ratings for many years. Some of that may be attributed to good writing (who knows), but much of if is attributable to the fact the people (especially HD nerds like me) would rather watch ANYTHING in high definition than something else that is not.

So, I can finally see the day where I am not searching for something to watch in High Definition. (And I mean real HD, not the fake HD that many cable stations try to fool us with). I can see the day where HD is commonplace and shows that are not in HD will probably get cancelled because nobody is watching them. It's sort of like how shows that didn't convert to color back in the 60's went by the wayside. Americans are a fickle bunch, me included. Give me the best, or don't give me anything at all. The bottom line is when you spend gobs of money on a High Definition TV set and HD service from your cable company (or even receive HD free over the air), you want to feel like you are getting your money's worth. For years the television industry has been in a conundrum. There weren't enough HDTV's out in the general public to warrant spending the money on it and people weren't buying HDTV (or spending the money on HD services) because there wasn't enough programming that was actually in HD.

That has all changed now. The tides have changed, the sand has shifted. Americans are truly "consumers" and feel that they have to keep up with everybody else. Ergo the spike in HD TV sales in the last few years. While most did not even know how to get HD out of their HD TV set, they bought it anyway. Now there are enough HD TV's out there to make HD worth while for the broadcasters. HD equal ratings. There is nothing stopping the complete conversion to High Definition across the board.

And finally, let's remember not to confuse Digital TV with High Definition TV. Most TV is now digital TV. If you are lucky enough to have a High Definition TV and lucky enough to receive programming in High Definition, that's a bonus. DTV is the baseline. All HDTV is digital. But not all digital programming is HDTV.

Good luck folks. Let me know what you think.

Problems receiving Channel 8 HD over the air

2009-04-06T17:51:00.001-04:00

Joe in West Gardiner wrote:

I ran across your Maine HDTV blog and was hoping you could help mewith an issue I'm having. I recently dropped my cable tv and I amusing an antenna. I am getting all the stations I expected with thetype of antenna I purchased (via information from antennaweb.org). Theonly issue I am having is the digital signal for wmtw channel 8. Withcertain hi-def programming the picture will skip (not pixellate). It'slike a very momentary freeze (less than a second), then the pictureskips frames to catch up. The audio is never disrupted. This happenscontinuously. The thing is that it doesn't happen with all hi-defprogramming. It only seems to be with filmed shows and movies. If it'sa talk show or sports program in hi-def, no skipping at all. In fact Iwas watching a talk show where the picture was perfect except whenthey showed a clip from the guest's upcoming movie. The clip did theskipping but when they went back to the interview, the transmissionwas fine. I just didn't know if this was a reception issue, set-upissue, or the station itself. Just wondering if you had any opinionsbefore I invested any more money into my setup. I currently have aTerk HDTVo antenna that is oriented in the proper direction (I amlocated in West Gardiner). I currently have it mounted in an attic.The antenna is an outdoor antenna but I was hoping to avoid the extracosts and expense of mounting it outside (weather, grounding, etc)unless absolutely necessary. Thanks for your time.

My response is as follows but please feel free to add your comments:

I have a TERK antenna as well so I know it well. I have converted to cable HD just recently but relied on my TERK and still swear by it. When I first started reading your email I thought "reception problem" regardless of what you might think or experience. It was my first impression. Then when you said it only skips when certain types of video are broadcasted, that one stumped me. To be hones after hearing everything, I'm leaning more toward your TV. I am assuming you have a wide screen HD TV with the built in tuner. Cinema film is shot in different frames per second than regular TV. So if that were the problem, I would ask that you check your TV setup for Cinema mode or something called Cinema 3:2 mode and play around with those settings to see if that's the problem. TV's also have different refresh rates (HZ). Like my older HDTV is a 60 HZ and my new one is a 120HZ and they are night and day different when it comes to screen refresh rates. I really don't think it's your antenna. If anything it's WMTW's signal or the Cinema (3:2) mode on your TV. Sorry I wish I had more. If it's any consolation, WMTW's signal is the least consistent in Maine.

From Joe:
Thanks for the quick response. I'll see if if any of those thingswork. I have 2 hdtvs and they both do the same thing on channel 8.Both are 720 resolution. One LCD, one plasma. I think they are both60HZ. I wouldn't mind you posting this on the blog just to see ifanyone else has the same problem with channel 8. Thanks again.

A complaint about HDTV reception and Channel 13 - WGME

2009-04-02T09:24:00.002-04:00

This is an email I received directly in my inbox from someone very frustrated with HDTV reception:
----------------------------------------------------
I am emailing to complain about this transition that was forced upon us viewers. For those of us who do not have cable or satellite TV, this has quickly become a nuisance. Channel 13, specifically, has most of the shows that I like to watch, yet I cannot maintain signal. I have scanned for channels several times, adjusted my antenna, and was able to improve it to the limited signal that I currently have, but while other stations have a much stronger signal and a consistently clear picture now without all of the annoying pixelation and cuts, I find it especially aggravating that this one station, that I watch the most, cannot maintain a consistent signal. I am amazed to not hear stories of sponsors pulling their ads and dropping their support! Is this ever going to be resolved? Or, are we viewers stuck with this ineffective system?
----------------------------------------------------
I am going to email this user back with my comments but I thought I woud post this here so that others can comment as well.

RSC

Fox 23 - WPFO explains its HD broadcasting problems

2009-03-24T14:19:00.006-04:00

Further to my previous post regarding WPFO, Fox 23, I received a call today from Tom MacArther

While I'll never be happy when HD programming isn't in HD, it was nice to finally speak to Tom MacArthur, General Manager (among other things) at WPFO in Portland, Maine.

He did finally get back to me about WPFO's HD issues. Apparently, equipment that was provided to WPFO by the FOX Network itself, is having some difficulties with the HD programming. FOX is replacing the equipment and WPFO hopes to have the problem fixed in the next few weeks.

Tom was very pleasant and easy to talk to. I told him about the blog and about my mission to simply make HDTV more commonplace, and available to everyone. Tom is actually in an enviable position in that his Network provides him with the HD equipment. I don't believe that any other of the Maine TV stations get free equipment from the Network of which they are an affiliate; most affiliates (Maine or elsewhere) have to buy the HD equipment on their own and it is very expensive.

What really clinched it for me was when Mr. MacArthur gave me his cell phone number. I explained to him how many times I call TV stations in Maine (and some in NH) when an HD program is NOT in HD. I further explained that there is often nobody to receive my call on the other end. But he was happy to give me his cell number and told me I could use it whenever I had a question or noticed a problem with the broadcast at WPFO - Fox 23.

This is my first interaction with WPFO. I hope the relationship between Fox 23 and the Maine HDTV blog continues to go well.

Thanks, Tom

WPFO - Fox 23 - Where's the HD?

2009-03-23T12:25:00.003-04:00

I knew it was too good to be true. At midnight, Februrary 17, WPFO - Maine's Fox channel, finally was able to broadcast HDTV over the air, and was able to provide all cable outlets in Maine with an HD signal. It all seemed so Utopian.

When Fox 23 came on line, the UHF channels that were doled out by the FCC so that broadcasters could deploy digital TV while still maintaining their analog signal until the transition was completed, were all gone. So Fox 23 was stuck. They couldn't "broadcast" their digital signal. The did, however, provide the digital signal to some cable outlets via fiber optic cable. Not where I live. So February 18, 2009, was a big day for WPFO. It was good for the public and good for the station, to finally have the Fox 23 signal available in digital format for everyone.

Since WPFO had been delivering its digital signal to Time Warner cable outlets in Maine (via fiber optics) for quite some time, WPFO should have garnered lots of experience in HD programming, HD signals, and the HD feed from the Fox network.

This may sound childish but I don't care. A week ago yesterday, March 15, I was watching the Simpsons. The Simpsons is now in HD (and I believe the first animated network program in HD, but I digress). Believe it or not, even a cartoon in HD is still immeasurably more appealing that watching it in standard definition. On that Sunday in question, The Simpsons went to commercial at about 8:15 or so. The commercial was not in HD. And from that point forward, The Simpsons never returned to HD format for the rest of the program. In fact, the following program, King of the Hill, was also NOT in HD even though it too is now an HD program.

Of course I tried to call the station but like every other TV station, there is nobody one can call to tell them of the technical difficulties. Those of you who follow this blog know full well how many times I have called WGME, WMTW, and WCSH over the last 2 years to try and each know, in times of HD trouble, that their signal was not in HD when it should be. Occasionally, and I do mean very infrequently, I would reach a live person, let them know what was going on, and then they would fix it. However, more often than not I was treated like "What?", "Who are you?", "Why are you calling?", "What gives you the right to call us?" and all sorts of reactions to that end.

Since I couldn't human at WPFO, I wrote an email explaining what happened and expected a response to explain why their programming ceased to be in HD on that Sunday. I heard nothing, as is normal for this kind of thing when I write to a TV station.

Now this Sunday, March 22, both The Simpsons and King of the Hill were not in HD AGAIN. However, this time that had a screen crawl that said "we are having technical difficulties with out high definition feed".

This time I tried to call the station during "business hours" (today at 12:50 pm). I was stuck in voice mail hell and again could not find anyone to speak to. So I left a message in the President and General Manager's voice mail box. Tom MacArthur (sp?) was his name.

I haven't heard back yet. He, unlike the managers at WPXT, WPME, WGME, WMTW, WCSH, NHPTV, and MPBN doesn't know who I am or that I have this blog. If he ever calls me I will explain it to him and see if he want to play nice, like Doug Finck at WPXT/WPME, and the folks at NHPTV, and support what I am doing, or not, like the remaining TV station personnel.

I'll keep you posted.

The way HD life is supposed to be

2009-03-10T11:40:00.000-04:00

It finally happened. After more than two years of working at this I finally have all of my high definition in one place and can easily channel surf them all.

I never thought it would happen. Last week, my cable company, Metrocast, added WPME (MyNetwork), WPXT (the CW), and WPFO (Fox), to my HD channel lineup. I thought that these stations would be banished to the analog tier forever. So now, to be able to use my DVR to record "24" in high definition instead of recording the analog broadcast, is something awesome. I hate standard definition TV. And before Metrocast made this change, I would have to switch over to my antenna to receive these channels over the air in HD but then I couldn't record shows that way. And WPFO didn't begin over the air HD until February 17.

So now it's pretty cool to be able to channel surf and use my DVR to record ALL OF MY HD CHANNELS instead of just some of them. Two years ago when I started this blog I never thought this day would come. It sounds so trivial when you compare it to what is going on in the world right now, but you've got to take your victories wherever you can get them.

I still support and believe in free, over the air TV. If there was a way to purchase a DVR myself and use it however I wanted (meaning I could record from any number of Input devices like Antenna TV, Cable with a Box TV, Cable without a Box TV) things would be different. But so far, from what I can tell, that technology isn't really viable right now.

It's a small victory but I congratulate my nemesis, the cable company, on FINALLY getting something right. And congratulations to all of the Portland TV Broadcaster who finally go their signals out in HD on all fronts.

Digital and HD TV - the week in review

2009-02-24T16:37:00.003-05:00

Maine viewers are very upset that they can no longer get MPBN (Maine PBS) over the air in many places. And Joe Riley, VP for Television, seems to think it's no big deal. He claims they had no idea how many viewers would be affected by a loss of their signal. He also claims they had no way of knowing how much of an impact the switch to digital would have on MPBN viewers who receive them via antenna.

Then in a newspaper article, Mr. Riley suggests that viewers (in an effort to justify MPBN's lack of digital signal) use a web site called TV Fool to get get a very detailed map of the digital TV coverage spectrum. You can zoom in on a single street, just about, to see if you should or should not be able to receive a digital signal from a particular TV station.

So which is it. Was digital TV unpredictable regarding the coverage area, or was it easy to determine who would or would not receive the signal by using TV Fool's tools to figure it out.

Riley and MPBN can't have it both ways.

As for consumers, I personally believe that in many cases it boils down to the quality of the indoor antenna they are using. Obviously if you have an outdoor antenna that receives both UHF and VHF signals, that is the best scenario. But I don't own a home. I rent and can not erect an antenna (also suggested by Mr. Riley).

On my primary TV I have a TERK UHF/VHF antenna. It is unbelievable in terms of what it can receive. I do receive all 7 different network channels available. I live in a valley in Southern Maine, in an apartment with trees and buildings around me. I am surrounded geographically by the foothills on three sides (all but facing south where there are no channels to receive).

When I purchased a converter box and tried to get my bedroom TV up and running on the cheap, I bought, and returned, probably 6 different antennas. The cheap ones at Walmart, the cheap ones at Radio Shack, the more expensive ones at Radio Shack - all with no luck. I would get one or two, and sometimes three, channels but that's it. So then I hooked up the TERK antenna I had connected to my HDTV and, well, there you go. All channels are go.

I hate to say this but to a large degree to exact type of antenna you use plays a huge part in what stations you will receive.

The last comment I will reference by Joe Riley at MPBN is that he hopes technology will improve so much regarding HDTV's and Converter Boxes that reception won't be an issue. Well, here's the truth. Neither a TV (digital or otherwise) nor a converter box can improve the strength of a digital TV signal so you either need a stronger antenna or a stronger signal. MPBN should be working on the signal strength. They are stalling because they don't want to spend the money. They have supposedly applied to the FCC to increase their signal strength. Well, right now, the conversion to digital is pretty much all the FCC has to worry about so there is no reason this should take so long.

On the other end, the antenna is the key. I don't like endorsing products but the UHF/VHF indoor TERK antenna has done me proud. I bought it at Best Buy and it cost about $73.00 when I bought it. That's a bit steep, I admit. But with all of the frustration of buying and returning antenna's I'm telling you, it's worth it.

So before anyone complains about what they can or can not receive, I am going to suggest you try the TERK antenna. You can always return it if you are not happy with it. I just believe that until consumers get that antenna, they won't know the true power of an antenna and receiving signals over the air.

Attn: Feedback needed! - What would you like to see in the black bars on your HDTV?

2009-02-16T09:01:00.003-05:00

Doug Finck, the General Manager of WPXT (Channel 51) in Portland has asked that I pose a question to my readers.

"Do viewers want to see anything in the black side bars?"

WPXT has some new video equipment that gives them the ability to insert graphics into the black side bars (known as PILLARS) on the sides of a TV show when not in High Definition. These pillars exist because digital TV stations like WPXT broadcast a full widescreen (16:9 aspect ratio) picture even if the show being broadcast isn’t in HD or a 16:9 format. (i.e. if it’s only a 4:3 ratio on a 16:9 screen, you get pillars). Traditionally these pillars have been solid black and have served no purpose.

They now have the ability to fill those pillars with graphics. If you have seen an ESPN HD feed then you may have seen some of the things they do with the pillars. You may also notice on the evening network news when they receive footage from the field that is not in a 16:9 ratio, they fill the space with colors and textures.

And that gets to the heart of the question. Do viewers want to see anything in the pillars?

Should WPXT ignore their new-found technical capabilities and just leave the pillars black?

And if they do use "pillar fillers", should they be up all the time, or just during programs, or just during commercial breaks?

Doug and WPXT are interested in hearing from viewers, and the readers of this blog, about what they would like (and not like) in the pillars.

Please feel free to comment and be very honest. This is a great opportunity for us, the Maine TV watching community, to tell a local TV station how we really feel about something. It's a first, for me anyway, to see a local TV station ask the opinion of the viewership on issues like this. Doug Finck has been an avid supporter of this blog site so let's not let him down. Give him some feedback. I don't want to sway anyone's opinion so I will give my feedback to Doug separately.

Thanks,

Update: Maine Television's Transition to Digital - what's really going on

2009-02-12T09:06:00.003-05:00

Although President Obama signed a bill to extend the drop dead date for Analog broadcasting from February 17, 2009 to June 12, 2009, it is NOT a mandate. Broadcast television stations CAN extend their analog broadcasting, but they don't HAVE TO. So what's happening here in Maine? And what's happens beyond the conversion?

The future of Maine's broadcast television stations is in some ways written in stone and in other ways is very "up in the air" so to speak (pun intended).

There is a lot going on that we know about, but as always I am more interested in what we are not being told.

As of February 17, 2009 the following TV stations in Maine will still cease Analog operations and be Digital only. Some listed below have already shut off their analog signal.

WGME - CBS 13
*WPXT - CW - 51
*WPME - MyNetwork - 35
*MPBN - PBS Maine- Channel 10 in most areas except 9 in Orono and 45 in Biddeford
**WPFO - Fox 23
NHPTV - NH Public TV - Several channels
WVII - ABC 7 - Bangor

* Station has already dropped analog signal
** Station will do a flash cut-over from analog to digital on 2/17/09

CONGRATULATIONS, and job well done. I am glad that these stations have a backbone and continue forward on the conversion. The supposed extension to June is plain silliness. Why sign an extension bill if it is non-binding and all it does is cost different people money. It's crazy and unnecessary. The Converter Box Coupon program is not broke. The FCC handed out millions of coupons that were requested, but not really needed by the people who ordered them. And they sent out millions to people who simply let them expire without ever using them. The FCC is accounting for all of these unused and unneeded coupons as if it's money out the door and then claiming they are in the red. It's a bunch of crap. I don't know the percentages because the won't tell me but there must be a huge number of coupons out there that have never and will never be used. So I'd like to see the FCCs books to see if they moved those dollars back into the "cash available" column.

Now these are the TV in Maine stations who don't have a backbone and are using this fake extension as an excuse to hide their sub-standard technological abilities.

WMTW - ABC - 8 - Portland
WCSH - NBC - 6 Portland
WLBZ- NBC - 2 Bangor - owned by WCSH
WABI - CBS - 5 Bangor
The CW - used to be 56 Bangor, now just digital and only standard definition as a sub channel of WABI - The WABI/CW partnership is the most confusing and screwed up setup I have ever seen. I don't even think this CW entity has its own channel number anymore.

So there you have it, the winners and losers. Or is that the whole story?

The real truth is that NOT ONE MAINE TV STATONS is producing any programming in High Definition or even Standard Definition in 16:9 widescreen format. Not ONE. In Boston all three of the big three local affiliates produce their local news in High Definition. And they use Standard Def widescreen cameras for many of the field shots. WCVB even produces the only New England based non-news programming in High Definition. It's called Chronicle and they do an unbelievable job with production values.

Now in my area, WCSH, WMTW, and WGME all produce their news in digital, but standard definition. So all of us with HD televisions have to put up with two black bars on the side of the picture (called pillars). Many HDTV can't streth the picture to fit the screen easily because said black pillars are broadcast as part of the picture. The pillars exists only to fill up the screen. You would think that the people at these TV stations would be EMBARRASSED at this point. Hell, even Oprah and Ellen are in High Definition now, but Maine's crack TV technical directors can't quite figure out how to broadcast these programs in HD to Maine viewers. If Boston can do it why can't Maine? Is it about the money?

Of course it is. But they will blame in on the "economic downturn" or "reduced advertising revenue". The bottom line is that these stations are all owned by some corporate conglomerate. So until Maine's population demands High Definition local programming and refuses to watch the existing, ridiculous 1980's-style "news", then our TV stations will continue to offer sub-standard programming. If they aren't losing viewers, they have not reason to change anything.

Isn't it time we spoke up? Haven't we had to deal with enough with the digital conversion? WE WANT OUR HDTV!!!

Here's the big picture. A lot of people in Maine rely on over-the-air TV broadcasting. They have been forced to buy a new digital TV (and maybe a new antenna) or a converter box (and maybe a new antenna). When they have completed this, and hook it all up, they most likely receive fewer channels than they did before, because digital signals aren't as strong. The FCC promised that consumers would receive the same stations they did before. THIS IS NOT TRUE. The FCC had NO IDEA what they were talking about and did not know how many consumers would be affected by a reduction in the number of channels received. Now add on top of this all of the public service announcements and TV crawlers and news articles that have been going on for almost 2 years. The whole thing has been a major production and in my opinion, since the government started this whole thing, it was bound to be a mess, and it is.

So after all this don't we deserve to have high definition programming all the time, not just digital. Digital TV by itself isn't "better" than high quality analog broadcasting, not to the human eye anyway. So if you're not going to make a real difference and go HD all the way, then why bother. It's like in the old days if they had started selling color TVs and then no programming was in color, wouldn't you be a bit upset after you spent the money on a new set?

The Maine TV stations who are so behind the curve should be ashamed of themselves; I am ashamed and embarrassed by them. Thank goodness I can get the Boston channels from my house.

How will I know if I'm getting HDTV?

2009-02-06T06:06:00.003-05:00

I received a call from my mother yesterday. She has a friend who was talking to her about the DTV and HDTV conversion. The friend thought that she wouldn't know if she had set things up right and wouldn't know if she was really receiving HDTV. My mother said that she relayed to the friend something I had said: "I told her you said people weren't getting the High Definition TV even though the paid for it".

OK, first, I corrected here. Mother, I never said that somebody paid for HDTV or digital TV and was not getting what they paid for". The scenario she mentions indicates that some type of money transaction occurred for a service which means either cable or satellite. People in this category don't have to worry about whether or not they are receiving DTV or HDTV. If they paid for it, the provider will hook it up for you and make sure you are receiving it.

The real question, I soon found out, was that the friend would have either an antenna with a converter box and an analog TV, or an antenna with a digital TV. Either of these are ways to continue to receive FREE broadcast TV. As to whether or not anybody would know if the picture was High Definition or not, trust me, you'll know.

If you have an analog TV and the converted box and antenna are working properly, the pictures you receive will be very clear and crisp.

If you have a digital TV and are using a good quality antenna, the HD picture will blow your socks off, you'll know. The picutre will make you believe the people are standing in the room and the sound is comoparable to movie theater quality.

Keep in mind that most broadcast TV stations only broadcast High Definition during prime time. There are a few exceptions like Good Morning America, The Today Show, The View, and The Young and the Restless. Other than that, you won't see much in HD unless it's from 8:00 pm to 11:00 pm. Then, Letterman and Leno are in HD. That's the entire HD lineup for broadcast TV.

My mom also asked if it was OK to give out my blog address and did she need a special pass word. I explained to my mother that blogs, like web sites, are free and available to the public. She can give out my blog address to anyone and everyone if she wants.

I'm glad we straightened that out.

Converter Boxes - it's NOT just about the box.

2009-02-06T05:45:00.009-05:00

A recent visitor expressed an understanding of my frustration of the DTV conversion and posted a link to the following WGME report.

http://www.wgme.com/series/OnYourSide/oys_20090203.shtml

While the couple in the piece is right, the DTV conversion is fraught with misinformation, I noticed something in the video that stuck out like a sore thumb.

The Lewis family, near Oxford, Maine, bought a converted box at Walmart - no problem so far. They rely on antenna TV because of where they live. No cable coverage, no satellite TV coverage. But I noticed on the top of their TV was an antenna (rabbit ears, so to speak) which are supposed to work. Well now we have a problem.

When I first got my HDTV and attempted to receive free over the air digital/HD, I tried about 10 different indoor antenna's and only one worked. I tried the one shown in the WGME clip which I got from Walmart. I tried 3 other brands from Walmart and 2 other brands from Radio Shack. Remember I'm talking about antennas, not converter boxes.

And through this blog I have had contact with people who own outdoor, rooftop antenna of various sizes and shapes; all with various degrees of luck and none all too happy.

But it wasn't until I went to Best Buy and bought a strange looking antenna from a company called TERK. It cost be about $70.00. But I can receive every Portland station and several in New Hampshire as well. All are in picture perfect HD quality. If I need to watch the NH channels I just adjust the position of the antenna where it sits on a table right next to my HDTV.

Here is a picture of the antenna I use:

So let me reiterate. Any converter box will do, they all do the same thing. But not all antennas are alike. And you need a good antenna to receive over the air digital TV.

With mine, I can receive WCSH, WMTW, WGME, Maine PBS, WPME (MyNetwork), WPXT(CW), and WPFO (Fox). Keep in mind that WPFO recently ran a test to make sure everything will work when they cut over to WPFO on midnight, February 17. Search this blog for more info on why WPFO is different than the rest.

I hope this information helps. I am not "endorsing" this product and get no kick backs from the company, or anything like that. It was all about trial and error.

To the Lewis family in Oxford. I wish you luck and would suggest your return the rabbit ears you have, if you can, and then buy the TERK model. If you can't get any stations with the TERK, then you're in trouble because nobody cares about the signal strength of their TV station. (Again read other articles on this site).

The analog extension is back on

2009-02-05T11:14:00.003-05:00

As many of you already know the extension of analog TV is back on. After initially being turned down by the U.S. House of Representatives, somehow it was revisited and then voted on again; this time with enough votes to pass.

Known as the DTV Delay Act of 2009 (Bill HR 681) here is how clarification provisions of the bill read:

Declares that this Act does not prevent: (1) a station from ending analog broadcasting (and continuing to broadcast exclusively digitally) before June 13, 2009; or (2) a public safety service from beginning operations on spectrum recovered as a result of such voluntary cessation of analog or digital broadcasting.

So what does this "law" do? It allows the converter box coupon program to get additional funding and to continue beyond February 17, 2009 to June 13, 2009.

What does this law NOT do? It doesn't force any television station to continue broadcasting in analog if they don't choose to. And most WILL NOT CHOOSE TO because it is costing them a lot of money to broadcast in Analog AND digital.

So let's break it down. If you still want or need a $40 coupon to buy a digital converter box (and most people still don't know if they need one or not), then you can still apply for one and get one. The coupon will give you $40.00 off the purchase of a converter box, which averages between $50 and $60 dollars each. For those that do not have them yet, THEY ARE STILL OUT OF LUCK.

Digital is here, there is no way to stop it. The law that was passed is about funding for a program. The program in question was supposedly broke. But if they stop and count all of the coupons they issued that were never used the question becomes, were they really broke?????

Digital TV reception is bad. The FCC wanted consumer to continue to receive free over-the-air TV ever though broadcast TV stations were forced to convert digital. The FCC figured that if a consumer received X number of channels in analog, they would receive the same number of channels in digital. They figured wrong. Digital TV signals are much, much weaker than analog signals. So if you receive a digital channel, you'll get a great picture, but if you don't receive a channel very well, there won't be a fuzzy or snowy picture, there won't be any picture at all.

This law/bill does not address reception issues. However, reception issues are what everyone who is relying on a converter box for over-the-air TV is worried about. Many, or most, have realized that their antenna TVs used to get a lot more channels than they do with a digital converter box. It's not the box's fault. It's the signal from the TV station.

Some TV stations have increased their signal power, some plan to soon, and some don't plan to. So good luck. You're on your own. Nobody is addressing this issue. Not the FCC, not your State, not your local government, not the TV stations themselves, no Congressman, no Senators, NOBODY.

And therein lies the problem. This whole digital conversion thing is not about converter boxes and extensions of official dates. It is about TV reception. All the extensions and all the funding for digital converter boxes and all of the public service announcements aren't going to amount to a hill of beans because digital TV reception sucks.

The FCC overlooked it and doesn't care about it. All of the rules and regulations took placed for the most part under the Bush Administration who appointed Republican cronies to the jobs at the FCC. These were cushy jobs that had no accountability, as usual. And only now is the U.S. government realizing what has happened.

House defeats Analog Extension Bill - Digital is back on track

2009-01-28T13:19:00.001-05:00

I just got word that the House of Representative defeated the Analog Transition Extension Bill.

After calling Chellie Pingree's office yesterday, I didn't have a good feeling about this but low and behold, the House came to their senses and defeated the bill.

So the digital transition is back on schedule. Only 19 days to go.

Beware the FCC Digital Converter Box Coupon Program

2009-01-21T07:27:00.005-05:00

"We're talking about the U.S. Government, here"

It's been a nightmare trying to get converter box coupons. But what did I expect. This was a government-run program after all. Should I have really thought it would go smoothly. And now Congress is close to extending the Analog cut off to June 12 (whatever that means).

While I don't agree with Barack Obama that the conversion itself should be pushed back a few months so that the FCC can regroup, I do understand why he asked for it, the FCC Converter Box Coupon Program is a mess. It ran out of funding and many people who need a converter box may not get the government assistance (in the form of a $40 coupon card) they expected.

I started last May. I went to the web site, applied for my cards (you can ask for up to 2 per household) and waited. And waited. And waited. They finally showed up at my house and I noticed at the time that the issue date was about 30 days prior to the day I received it. While I didn't give much thought to it at the time, I only had 90 days to use them and 30 of those days were gone. I kept saying to myself, in a quiet voice in the back of my mind,k "I need to stop by Radio Shack and pick up that converter box". Well that time passed and I never did it.

So those expired. Then I applied again using a friends name who didn't need them. I told her they were coming and to let me know when they arrived. After a few months I asked her about them and she said she "thinks" she got them. More weeks passed. She finally gave them to me and they had already expired. So there's another set of coupons gone.

So my last resort was talking to a friend of mine at work. She was telling me that she applied for them even though she didn't need them but wanted to give them to some underprivileged folks she works with outside of work. Her intent was in knowing that these folks didn't now much about the conversion so she wanted to be able to explain it and hand them the coupons. When I told her what happened to me she immediately offered to give me one of hers.

So there, I finally got one. I went to Radio Shack and talked to them about a converter box. It was all a big rush and I thought the gentleman said that "this box would be covered by the coupon" meaning I would just pay any taxes.

When he rang it up he said "That will be $24.50" or something like that. I said "WHAT?". He then explained that he meant the coupon was "applicable" to this converter box, not that it would cover the entire cost except tax.

So I said that I wanted to cancel the transaction and see if I could find a converter box for cheaper. He said he couldn't void the sale because in ringing it up he had to put the coupon number in the computer and there was no way to void it. So now I was stuck paying an extra $24.00 for a converter box. And I couldn't return it either. Well, I could but I would lose out on my coupon discount. I'm not sure I understand it all but again, it's the government we're talking about.

So this ridiculous coupon program is being extended because it ran out of money. Well if you consider how many coupons they "accounted" for that were never used, I'll bet they never ran out of money. It's all on paper. I called my U.S. Representative, Chellie Pingree. I got an aide of some sort name Antoine. I asked how Ms. Pingree was going to vote on the extension bill. The Senate already approved it. He wouldn't tell me how she would vote. He did ask me how I wanted her to vote and said he would relay that to her but he refused to tell me how she intended to vote. Why can't I, as a constituent, ask how my representative, or congress-person, is going to vote on an issue? Isn't that a simple question? But then again, we're talking about he government here.

Obama asks Congress to delay the digital conversion?

2009-01-09T09:55:00.005-05:00

"Is the FCC Conversion Extension worth it; and is the FCC program for converter boxes really out of money?"

I'm not sure it will do any good but Barack Obama asked Congress to delay the conversion to digital for a few months. This came on the heals of the revelation that the FCC has run out of money and coupons for the digital converter boxes leaving untold numbers of consumers in the lurch.

However, will it matter? The current time frame is that all regular broadcast television stations must cease transmitting their analog signal on February 17, 2009. However, this does not prevent television stations from ending their analog transmission EARLIER than that. In Southern Maine, Channels 35 and 51 (MyNetwork and the CW) have already ceased analog operations last September. MPBN (Maine PBS) and NHPTV (New Hampshire Public Television) ended their analog transmission on January 11, 2009. You see, many TV stations don't want to wait to the very last day to end analog and the FCC has encouraged stations not to wait until the very end.

So even if Barack Obama convinces Congress to "extend" the conversion, it will take a miracle for Congress to understand exactly out what they are voting on and what effect it will really have. Can TV broadcasters still convert early? Is there some edict that says TV stations CAN'T cut off their analog signal? Do stations that already cut off their analog signal have to turn it back on? And what about stations who have been waiting for the conversion date so that they can do a "flash cut over". This is for TV stations who came into existence after this digital road map was plotted out back in 1996. This extension, from what I can tell, is only going to result in it costing lots of people, lots of money. Huge expenses are involved in either keeping analog AND digital going at the same time. And for cell phone providers and others who need the bandwidth freed up by shutting down analog signals now have to wait 4 more months to take advantage of it. The expenses involved in this are endless.

So if you look at the real dollars involved, this extension was not looked at carefully. And when you consider who many digital converter box coupons were issues (and on the books) but never used, was the FCC really out of money for this program?

I guess we'll see.

Am I really ready for Digital TV?

2009-01-08T10:43:00.009-05:00

Are you sure you know the Truth about Digital TV and High Definition with an Antenna?

Doug Finck, from WPXT in Portland, ME, said in an email to me "our biggest challenge is not in communicating to the public that we are switching to digital...but the issues about reception"

Doug has been a long time supporter and recently shared the following information which I found most helpful in explaining some of the basic truths about digital TV.

"1. It's all about the antenna. An outside antenna will probably be necessary for many people. The type of antenna, however, is an issue because of the fact that there will be a combination of UHF and VHF digital stations and the viewers will need an antenna capable of receiving both types of transmission (or two antennas).

2. The more powerful and antenna is, the more directional it is. The more directional it is, the more critical it is to point it toward the transmitting antenna for the station they want to watch. Someone living in Lewiston will have to point their antenna in three directions; north for WCBB and WPFO, southwest for WCSH, WMTW and WMEA, and southeast for WGME, WPME and WPXT.

3. Consumers have to understand the need to manually enter all channels WHEN THEIR ANTENNA IS POINTED TOWARD THAT CHANNEL'S TRANSMITTING ANTENNA. Auto-scan is a waste of time and should be ignored or defeated. In the real world, a viewer will have a powerful, directional antenna. They will have to point it toward a specific station's transmitting antenna then enter that station's digital frequency (not the station's analog/marketing channel) to save the station. Then they will go to the next station, move the antenna, enter the digital number and save it. This process will be the only way to get the digital tuner to "see" all of the channels (assuming the viewer can actually get enough of a signal from each station to actually get the picture).

4. Rotors will allow one antenna to be aimed at all of the channels. Multiple antennas (with each one pointed in a specific direction) will also accomplish the same goal (getting the maximum signal from each station). But remember, in this market you're going to need both VHF and UHF receiving capability to get all of the stations!

As far as the cheap converter boxes are concerned, they are designed to downconvert digital signals to be displayed on an analog TV. The tuners are fine for doing that and all of the converter boxes are of equal quality and value. If by more expensive, you're talking about a $150+ box, you're not talking about a converter box, you're describing a digital tuner. There's a huge difference in price, quality and functionality. If you're just looking to buy a digital converter box to be used with an analog TV, buy the cheapest one you can find."

I asked some additional questions regarding whether or not existing TV stations would use continue to use their temporary UHF channel numbers or go back to their regular numbers (the ones the public knows them by). Here was Doug's response:

"Our digital channel is and will remain, 43. Stations will continue to market and refer to themselves by their old analog channel numbers as a way to reduce confusion to viewers. Our move with WPME from digital channel 28 to 35 (our old analog channel) was done for technical reasons (to allow us use the existing channel 35 antenna which is mounted at the highest point on the tower).

Several of the other area stations will be moving back to their analog frequencies (primarily for lower electric power costs), but most will not. This is going to be a confusing issue as viewers try to tune into specific stations and don't know the "real" channel numbers.

WCSH - Analog channel 6...digital channel 44. They will not be moving and even though the digital tuners will tell you that you are watching channel 6, it will actually be receiving that signal on channel 44.

WMTW - Analog channel 8...currently digital channel 45 but they will be
moving back to channel 8 for their digital broadcasting on February 17th.

WGME - Analog channel 13...digital channel 38. They will
not be moving and even though the digital tuners will tell you that you are
watching channel 13, it will actually be receiving that signal on channel 38.

WCBB - Analog channel 10...currently digital channel 17 but they will be
moving back to channel 10 for their digital broadcasting next week.

WPFO - Analog channel 23...they will switch from analog to digital broadcasting on
February 17th, but will remain on channel 23.

WMEA - Analog channel 26...they will switch to digital channel 45 (the current WMTW channel) on February 17th so the tuner will tell you that you're watching channel 26 but it will actually be receiving channel 45.

As viewers have to manually add and delete channels they will need to understand this concept and know the real channel numbers for each station."

Many thanks to Doug for all of his input. We appreciate that he has always been as passionate about getting information out to the public as those at the Maine HDTV Forum.

Maine HDTV Forum featured in Port City Life Magazine

2009-01-06T14:24:00.007-05:00

Peter Smith, a assistant editor at Port City Life magazine based out of Portland, Maine, contacted me here and was interested in finding out more, and in writing an article about this blog and the issues that confront us as we move to digital and high definition television. Click on the image below for a full sized page. Don't forget to click "Back" when you're done to get back to this page.

Thanks to all our visitors and contributors for their support.

Metrocast adds HD channels to lineup - sort of

2009-01-02T18:40:00.001-05:00

In New Hampshire and Far Southwestern Maine, where Metrocast Cable crosses over the state borders to do business, the channel lineup can change right before your very eyes.

With no fanfare or announcement, Metrocast added Fox 25, the Fox Affiliate out of Boston which is in High Definition, to their lineup. I was surprised and called Metrocast to see if this was permanent or just some sort of test. The reason I called is that Maine has a Fox channel, Fox 23 out of Waterville, but they are not broadcasting over the air in HD and won't until February 17, 2009. It's all due to some FCC rules and it's a long story. In any case, I was told that Fox 25 would be permanently added to the channel lineup for those of us in Maine (even though technically we shouldn't have it because Maine has as Fox channel with broadcasting rights to this area. And even if/when Fox 23 is ready to broadcast in HD in Maine on February 17, there's nothing that says Metrocast will carry that channel. We have yet to test receiving Fox 23's digital signal because it's just not there yet.

Low and behold a few weeks went by and the channel disappeared. I called Metrocast to find out what was going on and nobody knew but the said they would get back to me. Anybody care to guess if they did? Any wagers? No? None? You are correct. Nobody ever got back to me. So I wrote to them via email and still nobody has gotten back to me.

So know the rest of the lineup. For 2009 Metrocast added QVC is HD. Wow, now there's some real progress in the world of HD. QVC launched their HD channel but the actual picture size is smaller than regular analog QVC because QVC decided to fill up a third of the screen with white space, advertising that they sell HD TVs. Not quite sure where the benefit is there.

Then we have Versus HD. I never even heard of Versus regular, never mind HD. And if you are going to launch an HD channel, shouldn't you have HD programming. Every time I channel surf, Versus HD isn't in HD; they're not even in wide screen format. And it's a bunch of shows about fishing.

So thank you Metrocast for yet more disappointment. You removed FOX in HD, you added QVC in HD but it isn't really HD, and you gave us a fishing channel that's not in HD either. Great work! You're really showing those satellite companies how it's done.

New Hampshire Public Television (NHPTV) recovers from ice storm

2008-12-18T15:37:00.002-05:00

The nice folks over at NHPTV had to endure quite a recovery from the power outages caused by last weeks ice storm. Unfortunately, only the Analog transmitter has a generator. The digital transmitter did not have power until 4 days after the storm.

The power is back now on digital channel 11 and after February 17, 2009, the digital transmitter will have backup power. So this issue should be avoided in the future.

Thanks to Brian Sheppard at NHPTV for the update.

Channel 13 - WGME - still can't get High Def right

2008-12-11T13:59:00.005-05:00

It is really hard to believe that after all this time WGME can't seem to broadcast in high definition when they are supposed to.

If you are a regular on this site you know the troubles we have had with WGME that go way, way back. At one point, it was almost on a nightly basis that I would have to call the control room at WGME to tell them they were not broadcasting in HD, only to have someone there flip the HD switch and hang up without ever asking me who I was or how I knew.

Terry Cole, the General Manager, finally caught on and invited me to come and see their operation. I wrote to him so many times that he actually was interested in fixing the problem. He was, at one time, concerned with the public's perception of their station. During my visit I actually saw the "HD button" which is akin to an on/off switch on the control board. There are a few times during that day that the network feeds from CBS are in HD, and therefore the control room needs to manually switch over to broadcasting in HD. But somehow, they don't get it right and it takes a phone call from me; someone who has no connection to the television industry whatsoever other than I watch TV, to let them know something is wrong.

This happened again last night. I don't even remember the show. Whatever is on CBS at 8:00 was not in HD but should have been. I called and asked to be connected to the control room. Once again I spoke to someone who did not give me his name (I think it was "Chip" and he was munching on a Kit-Kat bar). I explained that WGME was not broadcasting in HD but should be. I was watching channel 13 as I was on the phone. Suddenly the picture burst into full HD color and sound. I don't believe I even got a thank you for letting him know.

In the past, someone along the line would try and convince me how complicated it is. But I have toured this station and as I said, saw the HD "on/off" button. A monkey could do it. Maybe WGME should hire monkey.

Frustrations abound with the conversion to digital TV

2008-12-11T13:27:00.004-05:00

One of the most avid participants of the Maine HDTV community is a guy named Dave from north/central Maine. I was recently going through my email and discovered that since August of this year, Dave and I have emailed back and forth 63 times. I have tried to assist him in any way possible and have given him lots of advice and suggestions for avenues he could try.

Dave has been struggling with the loss of reception when he started using a digital converter box. Since all of the channels he should be receiving are broadcasting in digital, he should not have a problem. However, as we have found out, when it comes to digital TV and HDTV nothing is as simple as it might sound.

This all started quite some time ago. I don't even remember when. I do remember Dave contacting me through the forum with lots of questions and he was frustrated at how much wasn't working.

Maine television stations, the Maine Association of Broadcasters, and the FCC all say that there are not any reception issues to speak of. Their party line is that if you were able to receive the analog signals, you should be able to receive the digital signals.

As Dave and many others have found out this is simply not true. And I take it personally that I have not been able to help more. I have some decent contacts in the business but sometimes you just reach a dead end.

Dave contacted WVII - Channel 7 in Bangor, Maine when he realized he could not receive their digital signal. They said they couldn't help him except to say he was on the "fringe" of their coverage area and there was nothing they could do to help. Dave then tried to get ABC out of New York from his satellite provider. He had to apply for a waiver and was eventually turned down so now he will be left with no ABC channel after the February 17, 2009 conversion.

There is a small chance that Dave might be able to receive WMTW-Channel 8 out of Portland depending on WMTW's signal strength at the time of conversion.

So after many email and phone calls to television stations, the Maine Associate of Broadcasters, and a reporter doing a story on this forum as it related to the digital conversion, Dave is still frustrated that nobody in the TV industry seems to care how many viewers will actually lose signals after the conversion. Dave is not the only person with these problems. We have received emails for all over Maine, New Hampshire, and from around the country - even from other countries.

Unfortunately, and as usual, it is the less fortunate, the elderly, or anyone on a fixed income that will lose out on the deal. These are the people who can't afford expensive rooftop antennas, a new digital TV, and a monthly cable bill. And some don't have Internet access to even reach a site like this to get resource information.

I'm sure Dave and I will still communicate as we all go through this together. This site has received a lot of traffic lately. And I suspect it will only increase as we get closer to conversion time and as the economy weakens. In economic downturns, one thing that gets cut from family budgets is cable TV. Those that haven't been paying attention, because they didn't have to, will suddenly find themselves in a position where their older TV set won't receive a signal without cable and without a converter box. They will need information and resources to understand everything they have not been paying attention to. We at the Maine HDTV Forum are here to help. We have tons of articles about how things work and even a 6 part online tutorial for beginners.

As we near February 17, 2009, we need to keep in mind that this is not the end. In some cases it will only be the beginning as the fallout appears.

My recent conversation with Dave reminded me how precarious TV still is we aren't even aware of some of the problems people will encounter during the transition.

Take care and thanks for stopping by.

WPXT and WPME have plans for their subchannels

2008-12-10T13:56:00.003-05:00

By now you may know that digital TV stations can broadcast more than one signal. Depending on their configuration they can broadcast 2, 3, or 4 programs at the same time.

In Portland, Maine, the local ABC and NBC affiliates use one sub-channel for News and Weather. Nothing yet on CBS.

We also have a CW affiliate and a MyNetwork affiliate (WPXT and WPME respectively). WPXT, Channel 51 has reserved the right to broadcast RTN (Retro Television Network) on a sub-channel. They won't do so until they get a cable company to carry the channel as most viewers get their TV from cable, not by antenna. WPME, Channel 35, broadcasts special, locally-produced programming on a sub-channel called the "Maine Visitors Channel". If you use an antenna to pick up free digital/HD television, you can tune to 35.2 to view this channel. Primarily, it was produced for broadcast to Hotels and Motels in the Portland area so that visitors to Maine could find out about Events, Restaurants, and other points of interest in the area. The financial model works because the programming is essentially advertising for which businesses pay to get a piece produced and run on the network. Visitors see the many different mini-info-mercials which generate business. WPME doesn't need a cable or satellite company to broadcast this channel in order for WPME to make money. The target audience is staying in lodging facilities where the signal for channel 35.2 is beamed in.

Converter Box Coupons from DTVAnwers.com

2008-12-10T13:48:00.003-05:00

If you plan on getting coupons from the government (FCC) through the DTVAnswers.com web site or the accompanying 1-888-DTV-2009 phone number, make sure you plan on using them as soon as you get them. The same is true if you already have applied fir or already have received your coupons.

The FCC, who runs this program, is very strict. I did not use mine when I got them and they expired. When I tried to use somebody else's name and address I found the most people had already gotten them and figured out they didn't need them so those expired as well.

I called a few local shops and nobody selling the digital converter boxes would accept an expired coupon -- so I was running out of options.

Luckily I found one person who had just applied for her coupons and had not received them yet. Since she ordered two (the max) but would probably only use one, she agreed to give me one when she received them.

If I do get one I plan to go out immediately and buy a converter box. I have one 10 year old television that works just fine but won't after February 17th, 2009. I don't use it much but if I ever want to use it as a backup, give it to somebody, or let somebody borrow it, I want to make sure that it will work with a converter box.

The moral of this story is - Don't hesitate. If you have coupons go buy your converter box now. They are not fooling around with the expiration dates (you get 90 days) and replacing them using somebody else's name and address could prove impossible.

NHPTV - New Hampshire Public Television - technical difficulties

2008-11-26T16:13:00.002-05:00

If you are experiencing issues with receiving NHPTV it is because they have been experiencing some serious problems with their Digital TV transmitter since Monday, 11/24. Parts are on order and they hope to have it up and running by sometime on Friday, after which I will work with them to ensure that SD, DTV, and HD are all running properly.

Hang in there, it should be fixed by the weekend.

Thanks,

Ron

The Online HD self study class

2008-11-23T17:16:00.002-05:00

I wrote a series of 6 articles about digital and high definition. These posting are aimed at those who want to understand a bit more about high definition, digital TV, the history of it all, and where we stand now.

There are a lot of misconceptions out there and I have tried to dispel the myths. I also tried to break down the information to understandable pieces as opposed to the generalized geek-speak thrown at viewers through Public Service Announcements.

On the right side of the first page of this blog, toward the bottom, is the "Categoires" section. the first one is labeled "1 - Online Class (6)". this link will take you to all 6 articles.

As always, if you have any questions, please feel free to contact me (check the "About Me" section for details).

New Hampshire Public Television takes a giant step backwards

2008-11-17T15:19:00.003-05:00

They had it all at one time. A 100% high definition feed from the national PBS network on their primary channel, and a standard definition feed with their local programming on their subchannel. They had been doing this for several years and they were the toast of the town when it came to HD programming in New Hampshire and Southern Maine.

Suddenly, it all changed. A few weeks ago, NHPTV started broadcasting all standard definition, no High Definition at all. I don't know if it has anything to do with the February 17, 2009 drop dead date getting so close or what. I've tried to write to the station to find out what was going on and have not heard anything back. I did see, on their web site, an explanation that they could broadcast up to 4 standard definition TV shows at one time, which is true, but who wants that when so many of us have now invested in HD TVs. We were, and still would be, very happy with one HD and one SD channel.

The standard digital broadcast TV station template would be, or rather should be, one High Definition outlet on their primary channel and one optional program on one of their sub-channels. Any deviation from that limits high definition capabilities because they only have so much bandwidth to play with, and would leave the station in a position where they might have more broadcast options but far less quality in them.

I hope things change but again, I can't seem to find out. Their web site has changed a lot too, and it is not so easy to get in touch with them via email anymore. NHPTV has reduced its visibility, and availability to the public.

This is not the direction I expected from NHPTV, once the gold standard for High Definition. It is disappointing and I have discovered very few reasons to even check in on what's being broadcast on their channel because nothing is in High Definition.

I have been trying to tell Maine and New Hampshire broadcasters that the station who commit to High Definition will turn out to be the winners in the rating, and therefore revenue, wars but I can't seem to get them to believe me. They will figure it out soon enough.

WPME - Channel 35 changes its digital channel assignment

2008-10-23T20:46:00.002-04:00

Up until now, Channel 35-WPME in Portland, ME, was using UHF Channel 28 for its digital broadcast and UHF Channel 35 for its analog broadcast. Channel 28 was assigned to WPME by the FCC specifically for this purpose.

Since WPME dropped its analog signal earlier than the proposed February 17, 2009 date, they took this opportunity to move their digital broadcast back to Channel 35. All of this happens under the covers of your digital converter box or digital TV. Most viewers will lose access to this channel until they take action.

To fix the problem and start seeing channel 35 again, go to the settings of your converter box or digital TV and rerun the channel scan. The scan will pick up the new channel 35.1 and 35.2 on UHF 35. It will also delete 35.1 and 35.2 from channel 28.

So the answer is rerun the scan. That's my final answer.

Let me know if you have any questions or trouble.

The DTV Transition - don't wait

2008-10-19T19:15:00.003-04:00

I have written about this before and I'll say it again. I hope people pay attention. You've all heard February 2009 as the date that all TV will be in digital and if you rely on an antenna you will lose your signal if you don't have a digital TV.

Here's the deal:

The exact date is February 17, 2009.

Here's the truth:

That date is not the first day of digital-only TV. That is the last day that a TV station can broadcast in analog. That's a big difference.

Some TV stations (two in my TV area in Maine alone) have already cut off their analog signal so if you rely on an antenna and don't have a digital conversion box or a digital TV, you can no longer receive their signals. Any station who applies to the FCC for an early cut-off of analog will be approved.

The next big date to remember is November 15, 2008. That's the date when stations can legally turn off all analog transmission (and therefore digital only) without any further requests in writing to the FCC. The FCC doesn't want every station in America pulling the plug on analog and firing up digital on the same day.

Once you get by that date, then you can worry about 2/17/09. That is the drop dead date when all high powered TV stations must shut off their analog signal and must broadcast only in digital.

I hope that has cleared it up for anyone who still might no understand the dates and what is happening. Let me know if you have any questions. If you need a converter box, get one, and get it early.

Take care

Maine Digital TV and HDTV - Update, Tools, Reception Issues, and History

2008-10-07T13:45:00.004-04:00

We've come a long way baby. For Google's recent 10th anniversary they brought back a 10 year old version of Google and the available index at the time. Actually, Google has only saved archives of their index back to 2001 so while the Google interface is realistic back to 1998, the search results can only be reproduced back to 2001. In doing a search for "HDTV in Maine" the following page was the first one referenced in the search results:

http://www.current.org/dtv/#rush.

Take a look at how things were in the realm of digital and HDTV seven years ago. It is quite amusing and interesting.

The second part of my update today involves digital TV reception, meaning of course HDTV reception as well, using an antenna. Whether you have a digital converter box or a digital TV, either of which with an antenna, you have probably struggled with receiving channels over the air. There are some new tools out there to help. I was pointed to these tools by a friend in the TV industry who has supported my site and the work we do here to keep the public informed and the TV stations honest.

The first new tool I want to share with you will plot out which channels are near to you and how far away from your location each channel is. The results will also tell you the direction from your location that each broadcast tower is which could help you in positioning your antenna to optimize reception. For input, use your exact address and then estimate how far your antenna is above ground level (I live on the second floor so I estimated about 20 feet). Now keep in mind that the tool can account for a lot of things, but specific building obstructions in your neighborhood is not one of them. Start here to use this tool, it's pretty cool: http://www.tvfool.com/index.php?option=com_wrapper&Itemid=29.

Next, you can determine how strong the signal is for a particular channel to see if you are even in the ballpark of being able to receive it over the air. These maps are based on real data, not projections by the TV stations or the FCC. The results are Google Maps, with the Channel's Tower at the cente,r and different colors that denote specific signal strengths in specific locations: To use this tool, click here: http://www.tvfool.com/index.php?option=com_wrapper&Itemid=80

The legend for the colors is as follows:
White is extremely strong. Beware of signal overlap with other channels.
Red-yellow-green are all quite strong. You can expect reasonable coverage with an indoor antenna.
Cyan is where it's advisable to move the antenna up to the second floor or attic.
Blue is where it's probably necessary to install a good antenna on the roof.
Purple is quite weak and you really have to work at it for any chance of reception.

In looking at the state of digital TV back in 1998, which describes unrealistic target dates and the many changes in delivery dates as dictated by the FCC, it is quite interesting and fascinating at how far the TV industry has come. We like to complain about the current condition of digital and HDTV but considering the extremely high costs involved and the sheer number of TV stations involved, they have come quite a long way. And with the new tools I mentioned above, antenna users like me (and you, I hope) now have even more information at our disposal. Who knew that in 2008, we'd be looking at coverage maps for TV Towers so that we can get HDTV and Digital TV over the air for free? Who knew we'd be looking at ways to circumvent cable and satellite so we don'tt have to pay for Digital and HDTV? If you think about it, you'd probably expect that by now we'd all have HDTVs and HDTV pay services. But with the lack of HD programming out there, why spend the money when you can get the major networks in HD at no cost. It's the one thing, so far, that the FCC got 100% right - Digital (HD) television should be free over the air just like television has been since its inception.

Thanks for stopping by. If anyone uses the tools and has feedback, I'd love to hear it. Take care and good luck. Happy reception hunting!!

Fox 25 magically appears in digital/HD

2008-10-03T09:11:00.004-04:00

The Fox affiliate in Maine, WPFO-Fox 23, came into existence after the FCC had assigned UHF channels to broadcasters for the sole purpose of broadcasting digital TV signals while still using their existing TV channel for analog.

So, while Fox 23 does provide digital signals via fiber optic cable to some Time Warner customers and DirectTV customers in Maine, they can not "broadcast" a digital signal until they do a flash cut over from analog to digital on 2/17/09.

So this is what we, in Maine, have all been dealing with. I have written to my cable company, Metrocast, which services Rochester, NH, and the Sanford, ME area. I've asked why they can't provide us with Fox 25 out of Boston in digital/HD since we can't get Fox 23 in digital. I was told that due to FCC rules and cable/TV station agreements it was not possible. I was told I would just have to wait until Fox 23 went digital over the air and then wait even further for Metrocast to carry that digital TV station in their lineup. The possibilities were remote at best.

All of a sudden, last Monday, September 29, Fox 25 in digital/HD magically appeared in my digital channel lineup; no announcement, no nothing from my cable company, it just showed up. I've attempted to call Metrocast several times but have never been able to last as long as they have wanted to keep me on hold. I want to ask them "What's the deal" with this new Fox channel.

In the end, it doesn't really matter, I guess. I just hope that it is not there as some sort of mistake and will end up being removed for some reason. I don't watch Fox that much, but it will be nice to be able to record shows on my DVR in HD as opposed to the analog channel provided to us known as Fox 23.

WCSH-6 responds to emeil and I respond back - Part 2

2008-09-22T14:03:00.003-04:00

Thank you for writing back to me, I appreciate it. I must take issue with the following statement:

As to this week's SNL broadcast, NBC master control messaged our local master control just before 11PM on Saturday night to tell us that SNL would be sent as 4x3 centercut on the HD service. Apparently this particular show was shot in 4x3 (not 16x9) and up converted to HD in which case you would see pillars on each side. We do not know why this was the case but that really doesn't matter as it was not available to us in 16x9.

Do you get your NBC HD feed from a different place than WHDH Channel 7 in Boston? I am lucky enough to receive NBC on both WCSH-DT and WHDH-DT. Saturday Night Live was in High Definition on WHDH. So I don't believe that SNL was shot in 4:3 and upconverted. Either someone fed you a line or you are feeding me a line. And let me state once again that I have absolutely no background in television or broadcasting. I am just an average consumer who does my own research. I will call and email TV stations around New England or around the country (and have on occastion) if it will help me figure some things out.

When I toured another television station in Portland that was having similar issues, I was invited to that TV Station to talk to them and see their setup. On their master control panel, I saw the "button" that had to be toggled to switch over their broadcast from SD to HD. Unless your setup is extremely different from theirs, I just don't understand what process you go through, for example, after the 11:00 pm news when an HD program come on (Whether it be The Tonight Show on weekdays or SNL on Saturday night).

So why exactly would WHDH have SNL in HD and WCSH would not?

You have to understand why I am, and why others are, skeptical about whether or not we are getting honest answers or the run-around. I have called WCSH on several occasions. I would have to estimate that in the past year and a half (it took me a few months after buying my HDTV to figure things out) I have called WCSH at least 25 times or more to say "Hey, you're not in HD and you are supposed to be". I tell my friends about it and they say "Oh boy, not again, tell us what happened". On one hand I get frustrated that I have to call, and on the other I feel it is my duty, for some reason. Maybe it's because a lot of people rely on my research that gets posted on my web site. When I call I am very nice and professional; I am usually questioned as to my intentions, nobody ever asks for my name or phone number, and as soon as I call, the problem is magically fixed regardless of what is perceived to be some uncontrollable issue. I usually get hung up on as fast as possible. Ask some of the folks who are there if they get phone calls about programs not being in HD when they should be. If you have an honest bunch, they will tell you the truth.

While I understand completely that your email was meant to put a fire out, all I really received was 1) an excuse that doesn't make sense, 2) somebody else to call or direct my questions to, and 3) the standard thanks for being a customer.

Of all the TV stations in Portland that I have dealt with, I must say that WCSH has been the worst in responding, and only a few minor points behind WMTW. For some reason, both Doug Finck from WPME/WPXT, and Terry Cole from WPME are supportive of my web site and the work I am doing. They are open and honest about their deficiencies and achievements and are willing to openly discuss them.

I don't think I know how to get through to you folks, I don't think I ever will. Television stations are used to answering to advertisers, not the public. Right now, there are a lot of frustrated people out there and where there is frustration, there are people looking for someone to blame. Right now, the targets are the FCC and local TV stations. That is where you come in. I have contacted the FCC and the Maine Association of Broadcasters. They were somewhat helpful but to be honest, from the public's perspective, the faces and voices of the local TV station is what the public sees first. I would think the last thing you want is a bad reputation in the eyes of the public.

I will put it right on the table. I wish that WCSH was more willing to be transparent about the transition to Digital, and the issues around High Definition. Any programming that is not a simple passthrough from NBC won't be in HD. You local news isn't in HD. And even the simple passthroughs (and let's not make them more complicated than they are, let's be honest, it is the simplest part of HD broadcasting) seem to still be difficult for your station.

I apologize if what I have written comes off too strong, but I am at my whit's end about these issues. I don't want to be slinging mud; I have better things to do. I can only hope that you take these issues more seriously than you are right now.

I know this email is long-winded but I will end with the following comment regarding this statement in your email response to me:

Please know that the conversion to digital is fraught with details, high in expense and difficult to manage as we run both analog and DT services

The details are what you pay your staff to take care of. There is no reason at all that you have to continue hour analog signal. As far as the FCC is concerned you can stop any time beginning November 15, 2008 and even earlier if you ask them (and they have said they will not refuse anybody if asked). Based on your response to me you can't possibly be all that concerned with what the public thinks so why not just pull the plug on analog and wipe that off of your to-do list. And as for the expense, digital TV and the conversion to it has been around for more than 10 years. I would think that somebody should have budgeted for some capital expenditures a long time ago. Did you think that viewers just wouldn't care, or just wouldn't notice?

Thanks for your time

WCSH-6 responds to email, and I respond back - Part 1

2008-09-22T14:01:00.004-04:00

WCSH's response:

I'm sorry you had a bad experience with our HD service on Saturday night and appreciate your email and comments. Please know that the conversion to digital is fraught with details, high in expense and difficult to manage as we run both analog and DT services. I suspect we'll continue to have issues because it is far more complex than simply flipping a switch. Typically, each transmission incident or failure has multiple issues surrounding it. When these happen outside of regular business hours it is even harder for the few people who are on duty to respond.

First, thanks for noticing the phone message problem. Our telephone vendor is now aware of it and they are working on it. The use of the "5" prompt is intended exactly for people like you who have questions, comments or problems outside of our M-F business hours. It has been worked on unsuccessfully over the past week and was thought to be solved.

As to this week's SNL broadcast, NBC master control messaged our local master control just before 11PM on Saturday night to tell us that SNL would be sent as 4x3 centercut on the HD service. Apparently this particular show was shot in 4x3 (not 16x9) and up converted to HD in which case you would see pillars on each side. We do not know why this was the case but that really doesn't matter as it was not available to us in 16x9.

For future reference, our point person on our DTV conversion is VP of programming and marketing, Mike Marshall. He usually responds to voice mail or email regarding DTV issues but is on vacation. You can reach him at this email address mike.marshall@wcsh6.com or you can leave him a voice mail in box #214, or in the "5" prompt as he'll be the one checking on those messages. In late night hours there is not usually more than one or two news staffers on duty, sometimes in edit booths working on the morning newscasts.

Thanks for the communications. I hope you notice improvements, albeit slow, in our various HD offerings in the coming months.

Steve Thaxton

President/General Manager

WCSH 6

One Congress Square

Portland, ME 04101

direct: 207-828-6605

station: 207-828-6666 ext. 301 - with voice mail

fax: 207-828-6653

cell:207-653-6666

email: steve.thaxton@wcsh6.com

--read next post for my response to this email

WCSH 6 Portland, Still get get High Definition right

2008-09-21T00:37:00.003-04:00

This is yet another example of how Portland's TV stations are so far behind the curve of even basic HD administration. I wrote this letter on Saturday Night 9/20/08 an sent it to customer realtions at WCSH6.

I have sent emails to WCSH, I have called the station directly, and to be honest I am so frustrated with trying to get some answers.

Once again, yet another television show that is supposed to be in High Definition is not. Today is Saturday, September 20. at 11:30 pm I tuned to WCSH 6 to watch Saturday Night Live. While I realized the show was not being broadcast in HD, I gave it a few moments to see if it would kick in (in other words, maybe somebody would notice and "flip the switch", literally), but to no avail.

So once again I called the station and played the automated attendant guessing game trying to talk to someone. I noticed there was a new phone option (that shows how often I call) called the "Digital and HD Hotline Mailbox" or something like that, and "Press 5". Well I tried that, twice, and all I ever heard after pressing 5 was "I'm sorry I didn't hear your response" from the nice lady that does the voice overs for your telephone system. I also called and tried the news desk. Usually somebody is there since news happens all the time. I guess WCSH decided ahead of time there wouldn't be any news overnight so why have somebody there.

In any case after several phone calls and several attempts at the voice mail system, I never got a chance to tell anyone that Saturday Night Live, which should be in HD, was not HD. I know for a fact after touring another TV station in Portland that it is literally a flip of a switch - a monkey could it. I am assuming whoever was supposed to be manning the control room needed a Red Bull and a Kit Kat bar or something like that.

Frankly, I am exhausted. I am so fed up with calling WCSH and WMTW and WGME to inform them their HD programming isn't in HD. Each and every time I have made one of these phone calls and talked to someone, the problem was fixed immediately, most times while I was on the phone and before I even finished explaining the issue. Whoever would answer knew quite well what the problem was as soon as the words started coming out of my mouth.

But if there is no way to contact you, how will the problem ever get fixed. The hot line was installed to deal with people using digital converter boxes and people complaining about shows not being in HD, I assume. What other reason could there be?

For over two years, since the day I bought my HDTV and bought an antenna that would receive digital/HD programming over the air for free, this exact same issue has been haunting me. I don't understand. Why does it take an average consumer to oversee what is going on at the network affiliates in my area. And If I am overseeing it, why can't I get through to talk to somebody about the problem.

At this point isn't anybody at WCSH 6 ashamed of their own station? They can't seem to keep up with the most menial of tasks that come along with high definition, like flipping the switch. And is nobody watching their own TV station to ensure that the public is getting the HD they are entitled to?

I run a Blog about high definition TV and media in general. This, along with the pile of other situations just like this, will go on the blog and feed the fire that is already smoldering out there. The public is angry, the digital conversion is a mess. There are people out there who have bought and installed their digital converter boxes and have lost your signal. Digital is nowhere near as strong as analog so by these simple facts you are already losing thousand of viewers, which in turn leads to lower ratings, which in turn leads to fewer revenue dollars. I would think that you don't want to add more fuel to the fire for the people who are already disappointed and frustrated already.

Sincerely,

Ron Caron
http://mainehdtv.blogspot.com

Metrocast Cable in Southern Maine offers very few HD choices

2008-09-20T22:40:00.004-04:00

Dear Readers:

The following is an open letter I wrote to Metrocast Customer Support in the hopes of getting some answers on when Metrocast will actually up its game in this High Definition world.

-----------------------------

High Definition programming has taken off like a shot recently. I believe it is due to this being the first full season of television that will overlap the February 17, 2009 cutoff date for analog TV. Consumers are getting ready and those producing programs and distributing programs are getting ready as well. For those of us who already have HDTV capabilities, we've been waiting for the explosion of HD programming on the edge of our seats.

I do not need cable TV or satellite or anybody else to receive high definition programming. I have an HDTV with a built in HDTV tuner. I can receive ABC, CBS, PBS, NBC, the CW, MyNetwork, and the ION network all over the air with without paying anybody.

I began subscribing to Metrocast mostly for the DVR, it is just easier to use than a VCR and it can record HD programming.

In the current year, 2008, Metrocast has added a total of 8 new HD channels. Not one of those channels is more than a reality based TV network. The Weather Channel, Outdoor Channel, HGTV, Discover, Science, Animals, Food, do you get the picture?

I am getting very frustrated with my channel lineup. None of the above channels offer anything in the line of comedy or drama. It's just one reality show or information TV show after another.

What happened to some of these channels:

A&E HD
ABC Family HD
Biography Channel HD
Bravo HD
Cartoon Network
CNBC HD+
Disney Channel HD
Fuel TV HD
FX HD
History Channel HD
MTV HD
Nick HD
Speed Channel HD
Spike HD
USA Network HD
VH1 HD

Not to mention that Sanford has no Fox channel available in HD. I understand the limitations behind that but are we going to have Fox HD ON FEBRUARY 17, 2009 WHEN FOX 23 does a flash-cutover to digital? And also not to mention the National Geographic channel. Why is that we can get it in standard def as part of of basic cable but have to pay extra to get it in HD. It is the only channel in our basic cable lineup that has an HD channel that we have to pay for. All of the other networks in your so-called "Ultra HD" package are channels specifically designed as High Definition networks. I guess I understand that since they were so far ahead of the curve it makes sense to pay extra for channel of that caliber who were HD 24/7 long before anybody else. But as for the channels listed above, these are networks that have been around forever, we've always had them in analog, now what's the problem with providing them in digital, what exactly is the problem and what can the public to, if anything about it.

What specifically are you plans for high definition expansion in the future. I you could add even half of the channels I have listed above as part of the standard High Def package, I would consider staying (or at least stop bad-mouthing Metrocast). Heck I would be happy if even just four of the ones from my list (A&E, Bravo, FX, and USA) were added to the lineup. I feel that Metrocast in Maine is way behind the curve. Your HD capabilities when I look at other cable providers and satellite providers is at best, sub-standard, and at worst, a joke.

I apologize for being long winded but I had a lot to get out. Again what exactly and specifically are your plans for future HD channels being added to the Metrocast line-up. Second, what is the fate of Fox 23 in HD. When do we get it, when should we get it. And finally, why don't you provide Maine's PBS, Maine's CW, and Maine's MyNetwork to the lineup for people you service in Maine. If we can't get Fox 25 in HD because that is a Boston Fox channel and Maine isnt' "allowed" to have it. Then why aren't we "allowed" to have ALL of the networks who broadcast from Maine in HD. Even WPXT and WPME, who are in my opinion, the little engine that could, are ahead of the curve in cutting off their analog signal earlier this month.

I appreciate you time and would appreciate even more some answers to these questions and issues. I believe the public deserve to now what is going on. Thank you for your time.

Portland, ME, TV Stations need to get with the program

2008-09-16T10:14:00.003-04:00

For the big networks who have affiliates around the country, there is Network Programming, and then syndicated programming.

Network Programming includes the morning shows (Today, GMA, The View) and syndicated programming includes shows like Oprah, Ellen, Dr. Phil, etc.

Local affiliates simply transmit high definition programming to its viewers by pass through a live network feed (like Today, GMA, The View). For syndicated show like Oprah, Ellen, etc, they can either record the feed and play it back in HD at whatever time they are approved to show it, or transmit the show in standard definition at the appropriate time if they don't have the capability to records HD feeds for later playback.

So there is the big difference. Some TV stations CAN record HD programming fed to them, and some can not.

Right now, all of the big 3 Networks out of Boston can record HD programming and play it back when appropriate for them. So you will see Oprah, Dr, Phil, Ellen, The Bonnie Hunt Show and even "The Insider" and "Entertainment Tonight" in high definition. If you watched these same shows on our local Portland Maine television stations, you will NOT see any of them in high definition. Oprah is on WCVB-Boston and on WGME-Portland, Maine, at 4:00 pm. WCVB shows it in high definition and WGME does not because it can not record/playback high definition shows.

The local affiliates in Portland continue to use the excuse that they can't afford the equipment to record/playback high definition. My opinion is how can they afford NOT to invest in the equipment.

Let's assume that you have and HDTV or you plan to get one. About 25% of households have HD capabilities and in the next few years, it is save to assume that most American households will have HD capability. So if you had the choice to watch the same program in High Definition or regular old standard definition, which would you watch. If you have HD you know what I mean. People who have HD are in love with HD. You will be too if you haven't experienced it yet.

So the television stations have competition where I live. We have access to TV based out of Portland, Maine, and out of Boston, Mass. If we're all watching the Boston channels because they are all broadcasting in HD and all of the Portland stations are not, which ones do you thing will get the higher ratings which convert to advertising revenue.

And even more than than, I think the Portland Maine TV stations should be ashamed of themselves. They have had years to prepare for the onslaught of digital and high definition TV but have done nothing about it. Digital and HD television has been around now for almost 10 years. You would think that somewhere in their annual budget they would have at least started to plan for this. But no. Do they think the public is dumb, or that we can't afford a High Def TV, or that we won't notice the difference between SD and HD. I think the Portland affiliates have taken a lot for granted. For almost 2 years now I have been petitioning them, encouraging them, sometimes even tried to bully them, but to no avail.

The Portland television stations just don't seem to care. Even the network shows that they CAN transmit in HD don't actually make it to television sets in HD because the staff running the control room can't quite figure out how to flip the HD Switch (yes, it is that simple). I call my local affiliates at least once a week to remind them that a particular TV show should be in HD but is not. Then they go flip the switch and everything is OK. But why do I have to call them. I am just a regular old TV watcher not involved in the industry in any way, shape, or form. I have now started calling the Boston affiliates as well because they make the same "forgot to flip the switch" mistake too. I think it is deplorable that I have to call TV stations about this.

TV stations need to get on the ball. You can forgive a mistake here or there but I am sick of calling TV stations. And for Portland Maine TV stations, they really need to get their act together, make the investment to record and playback high definition shows or risk an incredible loss of viewers and revenue. It's not that complicated.

We are at the dawn of a new age in television. For those who did not take the change seriously, well you are going to be out of luck. Like it or not, television makes the world go round. It is the primary source of news for America, and the primary source of entertainment. People can't afford to go out any more. They are staying home and investing in quality home entertainment.

So come one folks. Help me out. Call the local affiliates in Portland or write to them from their web sites and demand high definition. Again, if you have HD now, you know what I am talking about. And if you don't, you will soon.

TNT-HD should be ashamed of themselves

2008-09-12T16:27:00.002-04:00

"We know drama". That is TNT's slogan. Well, they may know drama but they certainly aren't up on their technology.

With the wide variety of HD programs available to them (as part of the Turner family of networks) they continue to show NON-HD programming in their lineup like "Charmed". Did anyone ever watch that show when it was on the first time? Along with that they show reruns of "Angel" and several movies as well which are not in HD.

TNT-HD shoes the same programs as regular TNT. TNT broadcasts the standard definition programs and TNT-HD broadcasts the same program but in HD. That makes sense to me. TNT has access to all of the one-hour-dramas like Law and Order, Cold Case, and Without a Trace in HD. They have access to an untold number of movies in HD. I can not for the life of me figure out why they continue to "sneak in" to the line-up these non-HD programs.

It has already been proven that High Definition means High Ratings, which in turn means higher revenue. So there is no reason I can think of why TNT-HD, which was specifically set up to broadcast HD programming, is not showing HD programming 100% of the time.

And they are not dealing with syndicated shows fed to them via satellite and then passed through to the viewers. These are shows in their library.

If local broadcast television stations can figure out how to broadcast satellite feeds like Oprah and Ellen (which began producing their shows in HD just a week ago) in HD, you would think that TNT can figure out how to broadcast HD shows right out of their library.

My cable company does not offer any other HD networks other than TNT and TBS (same company) so I don't know what USA, A&E, or BRAVO are doing. My cable company only shows the two I mentioned in HD plus a bunch of reality networks like ESPN, Discovery, and Food Network. Those other network that I get have their problems as well and try to pass off standard definition programming as HD by stretching the picture and hoping we don't notice but that is another post.

Oprah in HD

2008-09-08T16:35:00.002-04:00

Well things are starting to come together. Sort of.

I wrote about "Ellen" being in high definition and now Oprah is as well. I can see the Oprah show on Channel 5 out of Boston, and Channel 13 out of Portland, Maine, both at 4:00 PM. Channel 5 has it in HD and Channel 13 does not.

It proves the power of the TV station. WCVB invested a lot of money to convert their broadcasting capabilities to full HD. Smaller stations like WGME in Portland don't have that kind of capital.

So again, if you had the choice to watch the same program in HD or not in HD, which would you watch? If I could only get TV stations to understand this concept and invest the money to go all the way with HD.

At least I have the ability to watch more and more TV in High Definition. TV station who don't keep up with the trends will just get lost in the shuffle.

Ellen in HD

2008-09-08T13:14:00.002-04:00

Finally, somebody is on the ball. I can't tell you how excited I am to finally start seeing some REAL high definition outside of prime time.

This whole big "conversion to digital TV" is convoluted. Television stations must change their signal from analog to digital by 2/17/09. All that really means is they are changing the way they deliver their signal. "High Definition" has nothing to do with the digital conversion. It is just a by-product of it. If HD didn't exist, television stations would still go through this conversion to free up some of the airwaves (as dictated by the FCC). Once a TV station converts to a digital signal, they then have the capability, or option I guess, to further expand their capabilities to be able to transmit high definition. Most TV stations have not yet made the full leap to be able to record HD television shows transmitted to them via satellite and then replay them in HD. The equipment needed to do this is very expensive. So most TV stations can only relay programs in HD directly from the network back out over their tower. It is just a passthrough. Even if they wanted to, they could not capture that program in HD and replay it later.

A few TV stations in larger television markets have made the HD investment. In my area, WCVB (ABC Boston) has made the jump. Their local news is in high definition as well as other programs that they produce themselves. WHDH (NBC Boston) has also just recently made the transition to local HD. In my area of the country, which includes all of central and northern New England, that is about it.

That was an awfully long introduction to tell you that the "Ellen" show is now in HD on WCVB Boston at 9:00 AM. Ellen comes on again on WMTW (ABC Portland, ME) at 4:00 PM but since that TV station has not converted to full HD mode, poor Ellen will be in regular old standard definition. So which would you rather watch if you had the choice? Which one would you record on your DVR or TIVO if you had the choice? Well, the High Definition version, of course.

I saw the new Bonnie Hunt show which was in wide screen on WCVB but not in HD. I don't know if the show is produced in HD but even if it were, it is not being sent to WCVB in HD. I would think that any new TV show would be produced in HD and if it is in wide screen, I really have to assume the Bonnie Hunt show is. So that means that somewhere between production and delivery, there is somebody in that mix that doesn't have HD capabilities yet.

Now comes the "cart before the horse" argument. TV stations that broadcast these syndicated TV shows in HD will have a higher viewership. Bigger ratings mean bigger revenue. Bigger revenue means TV stations can recoup their investment in HD much quicker. But smaller stations don't have the capital to invest in HD equipment. But if they don't convert, they will miss out on revenue. Also, since there are not a lot of syndicated shows in High Definition, why would a station spend the money to convert to full HD if they don't have the programming to take advantage of it. Do you see the chicken/egg problem?

This is the first TV season that will overlap the final conversion date to digital in February 2009. Since stations have that deadline, some will choose to take the leap to full HD at the same time and some will not. We'll just have to see how this plays out and who wins the ratings and revenue game.

Right now, "Ellen" is the only syndicated how I have seen that has changed to HD. But it's a new season and all of the new shows have not debuted yet. I'm keeping my eyes and ears open. If anyone sees some HD stuff out there, let me know, I'd love to hear about it.

WCSH 6 - NBC NIghtly News not in HD

2008-09-04T18:46:00.002-04:00

September 4, 2008, I called WCSH 6 in Portland, ME, to let them know that the NBC Nightly News, which has been in HD for a long time now, was not being broadcast in HD.

I was asked by "Rob" if Time-Warner was my cable provider because there were "some problems" with that carrier.

When I told him I received his HD signal via antenna and that I checked on WHDH, NBC from Boston which was not having any problems so it wasn't a network feed issue, he told me he would check.

By the time I hung up the phone and looked at the TV, it had been fixed.

So many TV stations just can not get this HD thing right. Channel after channel, night after night, some station somewhere in my TV market isn't broadcasting in HD when they should be. WMTW out of Portland, ME still isn't broadcasting Nightline (ABC) in HD even though that show started being produced in HD a few weeks ago. ABC from Boston does but my local Portland stations doesn't, or should I say won't.

The Maine HDTV Forum needs your help - WMTW is not keeping up with HD

2008-09-04T01:09:00.004-04:00

During the Democratic National Convention ABC decided to make the move on both its nightly evening news cast at 6:30 and on its late night new magazine "Nightline" to high definition.

I get WCVB, Boston's ABC channel, as well as WMTW, ABC in Portland, Maine so it is easy for me to compare the two.

First, WCVB does air the ABC World News Tonight show in high definition. WMTW does but only when it remembers to to do, essentially, remembering to flip the switch to go over to HD. It's not rocket science.

As for Nightline, WCVB broadcasts it in high definition; WMTW does not.

One more thing, Nightline is a live network feed. It is considered network programming, not programming that is or can be recorded by affilaites and played back later. Nightline is broadcast to you at the same time the network is uplinking it to the affiliates.

I have written to WMTW and asked why Nightline is not in high definition and have received no response. I am asking that the visitors/viewers/members of the Maine HDTV forum write to WMTW at the following addresses and ask why Nightline is not in HD. I would also request that you ask when Nightline will be in High Definition:

Bill Greep is the lead engineer, his address is BGreep@hearst.com.

The main email address for WMTW is wmtw@wmtw.com.

The main phone number is 207.782.1800.

I don't ask for help from the visitors of this site unless I feel there is a real need. I am hoping that we can pressure WMTW into meeting their obligations to the community by supplying High Definition programming whenever possible. And this one should be a no brainer for them, it is a simple network feed translation.

I'm not sure Channel 8 WMTW understands high definition AT ALL

2008-08-29T18:47:00.003-04:00

Once again ABC's World News at 6:30 pm, which began high definition broadcasting on August 25, 2008, was not in high definition on Portland, Maine's Channel 8 - WMTW.

At lease it wasn't for the first several minutes. I don't know how long they went in standard definition because I switched channels to NBC's Nightly News.

At some point, around 6:45 or so, I checked again and this time it was in high definition.

So I ask myself, what does it take to broadcast in high definition?

Well, I'll tell you. I've written this in several posts over the last few years. Whoever is sitting in the control room needs to "flip the switch", literally. There is a little switch and when the network (in this case ABC) is sending the TV station a direct feed that the TV station is simply relaying back out to you, the viewer, that's all they have to do. But can WMTW handle that. Doesn't seem like it.

They are not the first, or last, in Portland to not meet High Definition expectations. They are just the latest. After a hundred emails or so from me at the Maine HDTV Forum, the NBC and CBS affiliates in Portland (WCSH and WGME) have finally figured it out. I guess they got sick of hearing from me every time an HD program wasn't in HD. I keep doing it because if I don't stay on top of these people, who will?

I wrote to Bill Greep, lead engineer at WMTW, last night about ABC World News not being in HD and never heard a thing back from him. This is common. They don't want to respond to my inquiries about their mistakes, the don't think the public is smart enough to understand the technical complexities of their job. How would someone like little old me understand "flip the switch".

WMTW - ABC Channel 8 Portland Maine still can't get HD done right

2008-08-28T18:51:00.002-04:00

ABC's World News Tonight at 6:30 pm began broadcasting in HD on Monday, August 25, 2008.

I have not had a chance to check it out until today. It was NOT in HD on WMTW.

Just to make sure it wasn't the network's fault, I checked WCVB out of Boston and they were carrying the ABC World News Tonight in high definition.

I called the station, to no avail, so I wrote to the lead engineer Bill Greep. I am awaiting an explanation and a reply.

If any of you watched ABC News at 6:30 pm earlier this week, can you let me know if it was in HD then. I am now suspecting it hasn't been in HD all week.

Thanks folks,

Ellen's Talk Show in High Definition?

2008-08-27T18:56:00.002-04:00

I recently saw a post on a web site called "PopCritics.Com" in which someone named Mike declared that Ellen would be in HD starting with her new 2008 season to begin 2/8/08. My response, base on all of the information I have (and my regular visitors will recognize this issue) is was as follows:

I'm not sure I'm convinced. Since Ellen is syndicated, it goes out on a
feed from the production company and/or distributor. If a TV station who airs Ellen, simply accepts that signal and turns around to broadcast it out on its
local channel to the views, it may work. But 99% of television stations don't
have the ability to record, and then playback later, a High Definition program.
That's why you don't see reruns for most TV shows (that appear on other networks
or in a different time slot than the original) broadcast in high definition. I
don't believe that the distributor is going to send a feed out to the satellite
system for every TV station that airs Ellen at a specific hour. Here in New
England, you can watch Ellen on WCVB Channel 5 (ABC) at 9:00 am and then on
Channel 8 (WMTW - ABC) at 4:00 pm. That just accounts for my particular cable
provider. Some people see Ellen at 10:00 am, 3:00 pm, 5:00 pm or in late night.
So as nice as it is that Ellen will produce her TV show in HD, very few will
actually see it in HD. I started a web site almost 2 years ago now that track
all these issues and I have gained several contacts within the industry. Believe
me, I wish for more HDTV, and it has been my quest to get more HDTV on the air.
The most difficult TV shows to go HD will be anything syndicated because TV
stations can't record and play it back in HD. The equipment to do so is
unbelievably expensive and most TV stations imply can't afford it.

Survivor Gabon goes High Def

2008-08-27T18:36:00.003-04:00

I am not a big fan of "Survivor". In fact, I've never watched it - ever.

But in the interest of full disclosure and in keeping with the mission statement of this blog. "Survivor: Gabon - Earth's Last Eden" premieres September 18, 2008, at 8:00 Eastern.

And for the first time, Survivor will be broadcast in full high definition. In fact, it will become one of the first reality television series produced and broadcast in high definition. CBS uses 1080i as its HD format. No word yet on whether or not CBS will broadcast in Dolby 5.1 surround sound.

WPXT Channel 51 - Portland, Maine - all digital, only digital

2008-08-25T17:27:00.002-04:00

Just in case you didn't notice, Portland, Maine's CW Network affiliate, WPXT, Channel 51, was the first station in Maine to turn off its analog signal. They only send out a digital signal.

For those of you using cable or satellite services, you won't notice the difference because they are down-converting the digital signal to analog.

For those of you using an antenna who don't have a digital TV or digital converter box, you have LOST YOUR SIGNAL FOR GOOD.

If you have a digital or HDTV and use an antenna, you can only receive the digital signal which, right now, is broadcast on UHF channel 43 (it still appears as channel 51, the 43 is behind the scenes so to speak.

So this is good and bad. Good for Channel 51 since they are the first to do it in Maine and are the first to remove their analog signal from cluttering up the airwaves. It's bad for anyone who doesn't have cable or satellite, or has not yet bought a digital TV or conveter box.

The FCC allows TV stations to drop their analog signal as early as February 19, 2008 without further approval from the FCC. WPXT applied for an earlier shut-off date and it was approved by the FCC. The FCC wants as many stations as possible to do exactly what WPXT did to avoid having one single day when everyone shuts off analog and goes all digital. That scenario would probably create lots of havoc for those who aren't ready and/or have no idea in the first place that they were supposed to do something. The hope is that as local affiliates turn off their analog signals, viewers who are no set up for digital will notice and make the changes they need to make. If all of this happened on one day, well, let's just say I wouldn't want to be answering the phones at a Maine television station on that day, or at the FCC. Oh, and I wouldn't want to be working at Radio Shack, Best Buy, Circuit City, or anyone else who is selling converter boxes.

So, the games have begun. We can't run back now. The digital age is here so I hope you are all ready. There is lots of information to help on this blog if you need it.

Sometimes, too much Digital TV signal can be the problem

2008-08-25T13:11:00.011-04:00

In some recent back and forth email conversations I had with Suzanne Goucher of the Maine Association of Broadcasters, she provided me with some further insight about digital TV signals which is pretty important.

First, one new piece of the puzzle, at least it was new to me, is that if you have very strong digital TV signals it could actually cause a degradation of the signal. It's like the old adage "Too much of a good thing". Ms Goucher, like me, admitted to not being a technical expert on this stuff but provided an analogy that seemed to make sense: "if you think about throwing a rock into the water, you get strong ripples at the center and weaker ripples further out. Now, add in sticks and rocks and boats and other obstacles, and the ripples start bouncing back and forth and overlapping one another or smacking up against the rocks, and it becomes much less of a "straight line" proposition"

She also used WGME as an example and provide me with an FCC Analog map and an FCC Digital map of the digital signal area from the WGME Tower. Note that the two maps are almost identical: (click image to enlarge)

Analog:

Digital:

The last important piece of information that Ms. Goucher shared with me was an article written about 10 years ago regarding digital reception problems. If I didn't know it, I would have thought it was written just yesterday.

Here's the link: http://www.current.org/dtv/dtv815reception.shtml

So there's some good information here. Some of it may help those of you struggling with Digital TV reception and some of it may at least explain why you are having reception issues to begin with.

I'd like to personally thank Suzanne Goucher from the Maine Association of Broadcasters for her commitment to providing information to Maine's population about digital television.

The HD bait and switch

2008-08-25T12:47:00.003-04:00

Have you noticed that some high definition television programs look better than others? I have. I always thought that the difference in HD quality was the result of the quality of the camera being used or the types of lenses and filtering used to produce special effects. For example, some TV shows want to look like they were produced in the 70's with that more grainy effect, or maybe they want black and white. Further, one show I can think of, "CSI: Miami", tends to have a yellowish glow through the whole show which produces a certain "look and feel" to the program. Some of these make an HD program look lesser in quality and some don't.

Well, come to find out the differences in HD quality are a result of the camera but not in the way I thought. For whatever reason, I assumed that all 16:9 aspect ratio television was high definition. It is not. Manufacturers like Sony make, and TV producers use, professional grade 16:9 standard definition cameras. I did not know that.

This explains why on Channel 5 out of Boston (WCVB), which is the first station in the region to go High Definition for its local news, has such a grainy looking picture when they show field produced pieces, whether live or on tape. It's quite jarring to see such a clear picture of the studio and then the anchor cuts to a journalist live at some "happening". The aspect ratio is correct, meaning nothing looks squished, or cut off, but the quality of the picture goes to hell. I never could quite figure it out until I read an article today on the "Broadcasting and Cable" web site.

There was an entire article there on all of the different cameras, definitions, and aspect ratios. The article talked about the different networks and what kinds of cameras they use and what they intend to use in the future. In an earlier post I wrote about ABC going to HD for its evening newscast, but the best they will be able to do for field pieces, even if they use 16:9, will be standard definition.

So don't be surprised when you are watching an HD program, or an HD network, and the picture isn't so hot. It's not you, and it's not your HDTV, it's the quality image being sent to you.

ABC News finally rolls out High Definition

2008-08-25T12:30:00.002-04:00

ABC already uses high definition for some prime time shows and in its morning lineup of Good Morning America and The View. But World News Tonight (the evening newscast) and Nightline (ABC's late night news magazine) have been left, until now, in the dirt when it comes to HD.

Now according to Glen Dickson on the "Broadcasting & Cable" web site, on Aug. 25 (that's today!), "World News with Charles Gibson and Nightline will start broadcasting in 720-line progressive (720p) HD, first from the Democratic National Convention in Denver, then from the Republican National Convention in Minneapolis-St. Paul the following week."

"Additionally, during the week of September 8, news magazines 20/20 and Primetime, as well as the weekend editions of World News, will also make their HD debuts."

To me, this is exciting news (no pun intended). It is great to see more HD programming come on board and I hope more and more networks, both broadcast and cable, will follow suit.

One more programming note: this is the first time that all of the big 3 networks will be broadcasting the Democratic and Republican Conventions in High Definition.

So it's good for the political junkies as well as the HD junkies out there.

Response from Maine Assoc. of Broadcasters regarding poor digital TV signals

2008-08-24T20:19:00.001-04:00

Suzanne Goucher from the Maine Association of Broadcasters responded to an email I recently sent that inquired about the poor digital signal strength in some parts of Maine and if anything could be done about it. I have posted some excerpts from that response below:

We certainly share your concerns, as we want to ensure continued delivery of TV signals to the widest possible audience.

Most stations in Maine are operating their digital transmitters at full power right now (there are a few exceptions, such as WPFO-TV in Portland, which ran up against a Canadian interference problem on its proposed "borrowed" DTV channel and thus cannot turn on its digital transmitter until the transition date of 2/17/09).

Stations cannot arbitrarily increase their transmitter power above the FCC-permitted limits without risking fines that run into the several thousands of dollars for operating above their licensed power output.

It's not that the digital signals are weaker; in fact, the predicted Grade B contours of digital signals match up pretty closely with their corresponding analog signals.

Through our DTVforME.com website, TV station websites, one-to-one contact with viewers and other outlets, we are urging Mainers to get their converter boxes now and begin the conversion process sooner rather than later, so that they have time to experiment with different configurations before the transition date. If people are able to receive analog signals, the physics suggest that they should be able to receive digital signals. It may take an antenna booster, different antenna position, or other alternatives to address the issue. For households close to TV transmitter sites, it may even take a switch from a rooftop antenna to rabbit ears, because "too much" digital signal can pose problems too.

As you say on your blog, people need to "think about their particular situation and make changes where necessary." What works in one household may not work in the household next door or down the street. There's no one-size-fits-all answer; it may take a little try- this, try-that.

So that's the response in summary. I am concerned with the following statement from one section above:

If people are able to receive analog signals, the physics suggest that they should be able to receive digital signals.

As we all know, this simply isn't true

I was a bit disappointed. I'm glad I got a response but unfortunatley got no answers. Maybe I am expecting too much from some of these "associations" who are really nothing more than lobbyist organizations operating solely for their own benefit.

Well, I'm going to keep trying, keep plugging away at it, until maybe someday I can find someone to address the issue of poor signal strenght for Digital TV. I could use some help; there is power in numbers. I anyone is interested in helping, please let me know.

Hang in there folks.

Face the Nation on CBS goes High Def

2008-08-24T11:04:00.002-04:00

I'm not sure when it happened. It must have been shortly after the CBS Evening News. This morning as I surfed the Sunday political talk shows I noticed that Face the Nation was in high definition.

The CBS Evening News changed to high definition on July 28, 2008, making only the second (after NBC) national network evening news program to do so. Why ABC has not followed suit, I have no idea. ABC's other news division programs like "Good Morning America" and "This Week with George Stephanopoulos" are in high definition. But others news programs like "Prime Time" and "Nightline" are not.

This disparity between what is in HD and what is not is confusing to me. CBS's morning show isn't in HD but the competition is. ABC's evening news isn't in HD but the competition is. I know that it is more expensive to produce shows in High Definition. But why some shows and not others.

I thought it was about ratings and revenue but are more people watching "This Week with George Stephanopoulos" than "Meet the Press" which isn't in high def. I doubt it. Plus, if a show is in high definition, it is more likely to get a ratings boost because those of us with HD TVs are more likely to watch a show that is in HD rather than one which is not.

My whole point in writing this article is to first, congratulate CBS on moving "Face the Nation" to high def, and second, to urge everyone in the business of producing television shows to do it in high definition.

The public is spending money on HDTVs and HD services to bring High Definition into our homes. We've proven our commitment to High Definition. Now it is the networks turn, both off air and cable/satellite, to step up to the plate.

Remember the old expression "I want my MTV"? Well, I want my HDTV!

The truth about broadcast television's conversion to digital

2008-08-23T13:45:00.004-04:00

I feel that I need to make this VERY clear.

February 17, 2009, is not the first day of "digital TV", it is the last day of analog TV.

Over the air TV stations (the one's that broadcast the major networks) must cease all analog transmission over the air by 2/17/09.

Over the air TV stations have been broadcasting both analog signals AND digital signals for quite some time; in many cases for a few years. The FCC has said they must cease the over the air analog signals by the date above.

Over the air TV stations can cut off transmission of their analog TV signal as soon as November 19, 2008 without further approval from the FCC. (SO YOU CAN'T WAIT UNTIL 2/17/09 TO ACT IF YOU ARE ONE OF THOSE PEOPLE THAT NEED TO)

Over the air TV stations can cut off transmission of their analog signal PRIOR TO November 19, 2008 with approval from the FCC. Many have applied and the FCC has never said no. In my area, I already have one network (THE CW) that has ceased analog transmission and another network will cease analog transmission in September. (AGAIN, YOU CAN'T WAIT AROUND UNTIL FEBRUARY OF NEXT YEAR, THIS STUFF IS HAPPENING NOW).

According to the "Leightman Research Group" 14% of primary residences nationwide with at least one TV set do not subscribe to cable ... or any other type of multi-channel video service (satellite, telephone company, etc). In addition, 24% of households that subscribe to a multi-channel video service have at least one TV set that only receives broadcast programming. In total, 34% of all US households are at risk of losing broadcast reception to at least one TV set as a result of the pending digital transition if no action is taken.
Further, among those who have heard about the transition to digital, 30% OF THOSE WHO DON'T subscribe to cable or multi-channel service BELIEVE THAT THE TRANSITION TO DIGITAL WILL HAVE NO IMPACT ON THEIR TVs. Also, 41% of cable or satellite subscribers with at least one broadcast-only TV set think that the transition will have no impact on their TVs.

So let me just summarize these two points above. There are a lot of people, even now, who either only rely on over-the-air broadcasting or have at least one TV that relies on over-the-air broadcasting, that don't realize they will not receive any TV signals on those television sets after 2/19/09 or even earlier depending on the TV stations from which they get the over-the-air signals. I know that was a long sentence. Let me state it again only shorter. Some people don't know, or don't believe, they will stop getting TV on their TV.

I am no advocate for cable TV, satellite TV, or any other form of pay TV. I have a digital TV set with an antenna and receive all of the major broadcast TV networks for free in digital and high definition for free. I want to ensure that everyone continues to receive their television signals.

You can do it cheaply with your existing analog TV if you purchase a digital converter box with a $40 coupon provided to you by the FCC (www.dtvanswers.com).

If you can afford it, subscribe to a cable or satellite service and if you can afford it, but a digital TV, but you don't have to.

There has been so much publicity about the conversion to digital TV that I think people have tuned it out. They think they are all set or don't really understand what they need to do, if anything. I mean, who would ever think that after all these years the very nature of television is changing and nothing works like it used to. But, that is what we are dealing with.

Those of you in more rural or otherwise hard to reach locations may have difficulty getting digital TV signals. They are not as strong as analog signals. So those TV stations that you receive that are a bit fuzzy sometimes or have ghost images, they won't even come in when that TV station goes all digital. That is why I want everyone to figure out, and think about their particular situation and make changes where necessary.

Let's face it. For many of us, especially with the economy the way it is, rely on television for our only form of entertainment. Most of rely on TV as our primary source of local, national, and international news. TV is our primary lifeline to the rest of the world.

So please do some research and find out if you need to do anything to keep receiving television signals. There is plenty of information out there but if you can't find the answer, write to me and I'll do my best to help.

When is HDTV not really HDTV?

2008-08-23T13:03:00.004-04:00

To be honest with you there is a lot of "high definition" programming out there that is not high definition. I'll give you a few examples:

On both TNT-HD and TBS-HD pretty much all programs are advertised (by that I mean in the on-screen program guide provided by your cable company if you have a cable box) as high definition. It show up in the description as a logo. The letters "HDTV" inside a little black box. The same is true if you check Internet-based TV guides like "Zap2It" or "TitanTV". They say that programs on these stations are in HD, but they are not.

So programming like reruns of "Friends" and "Sex and the City", or movies like "Deep Impact" are not broadcast in High Definition. These networks simply stretch the picture to fit the screen. The picture looks stretched, I mean, you can tell something is off, and the picture is no clearer or crisper than you would see it on a regular analog, standard definition TV. Obviously you can't broadcast programming in HD that was never produced in HD, but don't list it in programming guides as High Definition when it is not.

The TNT-HD web site addresses the issue by admitting they do broadcast non-HD programs and stretch the picture; and they also say they are "sorry for the inconvenience".

There are also plenty of other culprits out there in the land of HD networks. For example, FoodNetwork-HD, Science Channel-HD, Discovery-HD, and a bunch of others, broadcast programming that has been stretched, poked, prodded or god knows what else to make the picture fit the screen hoping nobody will notice that the HD Networks, for which you pay extra for to you cable company, are not giving you what you paid for. One of the worst offenders is the Science Channel HD. Usually, when you watch analog TV on a High Definition TV, there are black bars, called "pillars" on the left and right side of the screen. What the Science Channel HD does is make those pillars much smaller hoping you won't notice that the picture doesn't fit the screen. Essentially they simply re-record the program and zoom in on it when they do it so the outcome is a larger version of the original that "almost fits the screen". You can tell something is up because when there are graphics on the very bottom or top of the screen, they are cut off. If these programs have subtitles, or even credits, you can't read them in their entirety because they have slid off the screen somehow.

Listen, I know that we are in the midst of the big transition to digital, and High Definition, being a subset of digital, is also in its infancy. However, High Definition has been around for several years now. At least as far back as 2003, 2004 or even farther back, TV shows have been produced in High Definition. So if these so called "HD" networks can't find enough programming to fill the schedule, why launch an HD version of your network? I'll tell you why, for the money.

The sad part is that people are paying for high definition TV that they are not getting, and these cable HD networks are gambling on the fact that the public won't notice. Just because the picture fills up the screen on your new big screen TV doesn't mean it is in high definition.

Here are some interesting statistics I saw on the "Broadcast Engineering" and "Leichtman Research" web sites:

More than 75 percent of HDTV owners believe they are watching HD programming, but Leichtman estimates that 20 percent actually are not. (So who's fault is it that people think they are watching High Definition when in fact they are not?)
Forty percent of HDTV owners and more than 20 percent of all adults believe that their household currently has a High Definition DVD player, which is much larger than the total number of HD DVD players sold to date. (You can't watch a high definition DVD on a regular DVD player, well, you can watch it but it won't be in HD. You need a special player called either Blu-Ray or HD-DVD. This is the same fight that went on in the 80's when VHS went up against Beta. VHS won. And so did Blu-Ray. So if you don't have a Blu-Ray DVD player, or in rare cases an HD-DVD player, then you are not watching DVDs in high definition. However, if you have a X-Box or PlayStation, you can actually use those as high definition DVD players so don't go out and buy a new Blu-Ray DVD player if you have one of these gaming sets.)

So there you have it. HDTV is not always what it appears to be. Viewer may think they are watching HDTV when indeed they may not be. The honest truth is that if have watched HDTV you can recognize it in about a Milli-second when channel surfing. It is that good and that noticeable. I can only conclude that viewers who think they are watching HDTV think this simply because they are told it is HDTV. Don't be fooled and don't pay anybody money for high definition until you understand how it works and what you are getting for you money.

You can still, and always will be able to, get FREE HIGH DEFINITION programming if you have an HDTV tuner by purchasing an antenna. If you do this, like I did, you can view all of the major broadcast networks' programming (ABC, NBC, CBS, PBS, FOX, CW, and MyN) in high definition for free. You won't receive cable-only high definition networks like the ones I mentioned earlier, but those networks are not providing enough HD programming to compensate you for what cable companies will charge you to get it.

Those without cable boxes are not safe from digital forever

2008-08-22T22:02:00.004-04:00

This was taken from the FCC's DTV web site. It explains how cable companies are required to carry ANALOG signals of local TV stations and the FCC's rule to move to digital only applies to high powered broadcast TV (over the air).

Having said that, analog won't be around forever. Those without cable boxes are OK for a few years. But at some point, I believe that everything will be in digital because at some point it will be cheaper. Anyway, here is the statement:

"First, it's important to know that the February 17, 2009 deadline for the digital television transition only applies to full-power broadcast stations. The government does not require cable companies to transition their systems to digital. They can continue to deliver channels to their customers using analog signals. Actually, cable companies are required under FCC rules to offer local broadcast stations to their customers in analog, as long as they offer any analog service. This requirement will continue for at least three years after February 17, 2009. The FCC will decide in 2011 whether the requirement should be extended beyond February 17, 2012. This means that customers who receive analog cable service (without a cable set-top box) will be able to continue doing so."

I'll just add "for now" to the end of that sentence.

Visit form Cable Guy was very enlightening

2008-08-21T15:48:00.002-04:00

Can you trust cable guys? Well, sometimes you can. I've had pretty good luck when I have needed to work with them.

This week, I was forced to pay for Internet from my cable company. I had been picking up unsecured wireless networks around the neighborhood but people have either moved away or secured their networks. Oh well, it was good while it lasted.

Anyway, I got to talking with the two guys that showed up to install my modem (why they neeed two I have no idea). They saw my big HDTV and noticed the antenna I had hooked up and asked what it was and how it all worked. I explained to them that I received all 7 major broadcast networks out the Portland area in digital, over the air, and of course with that, I get all of the HD programming they offer. The didn't believe me. These are people in the cable industry.

I actually had to turn on my HDTV, put it in antenna mode for input, and scrolled through all the channels (and sub-channels) I had. They were amazed, in disbelief, and had no idea that you could actually do that. One said "I didn't think you could carry a digital or HD signal through a coax cable".

I was amazed that they knew so little about broadcast TV and the digital conversion in general. One of them said that he thought the broadcast networks were getting rid of their over-the-air signals entirely (analog and digital). That's what he thought the digital conversion was all about.

I am NOT kidding. Maybe these guys are new to their job; maybe they are more focused on learning how to install cable, digital cable, Internet and IP Phone and have no time to follow what is going on with the broadcast side of the digital conversion. They were nice guys so I'll give them the benefit of the doubt.

I've been writing this blog for almost 2 years. It has moved from one location to another so the dates on the early posts don't accurately reflect the original posting date. In the last two year I have spoken with General Managers at TV stations, customer service reps at the cable company, cable TV installers, the Maine Association of Broadcasters, and the FCC just to name a few. I am blown away by how little people know about the whole TV Industry right now. But then again, this lack of knowledge and lack of information available to the general public is one of the reasons I started the blog in the first place.

Take care all.

The basic rules of receiving digital television

2008-08-21T11:56:00.006-04:00

I recently wrote to Maine Public Television (MBPN). They are one in a long list of organizations I have contacted in an attempt to gain support and/or guidance concerning the difficulties in receiving digital TV signals in certain areas of Maine. I was surprised that they actually responded and even more surprised that J. Maurice Doyon, Audience Services Representative, gave some very useful information. It's not all good news but I thought I would post the response in full as it does give some very good advice on the best way to try and receive digital signals (they were speaking receiving MPBN specifically but many of the tips apply to all digital reception).

"Thank you for contacting the Maine Public Broadcasting Network. The following text is a comprehensive response for viewers experiencing difficulty in obtaining a digital signal. The portion in bold print addresses the fact that some, regardless of what they do, may not receive a digital signal off air. As a non-profit entity, MPBN simply does not have the financial resources to consider building more towers. The initial conversion from analog to digital will present challenges for sure. In your area of expertise, I'm sure you can foresee many of the ramifications, problems, and challenges that this change in technology will offer.
MPBN is receiving a steadily increasing number of contacts from television viewers who have purchased digital converter boxes and hooked them up to their TV sets only to find they can’t pick up MPBN. These experiences stand in contrast to the generally upbeat articles about the upcoming DTV conversion touting mainly the benefits of digital TV – of which there are indeed many, provided you can pick up the signal. Now that people are actually buying the converter boxes and hooking them up, however, they’re finding that it’s not always as easy as those public service announcements make it seem.
Here at MPBN we’ve tried out converter boxes on sets here at the station and asked some employees to try them out at their homes, with mixed success. In so doing, we’ve come up with a few things to check or consider:
Unlike analog transmissions where the TV picture gets fuzzier as distance from the broadcast tower increases, with digital television you either get the signal or you don’t. You don’t get a snowy picture as the signal fades, it just cuts out completely.
If you can’t get any channels at all, check your connections to make sure they are good. Especially with an outside antenna, connections can loosen or corrode and may need to be tightened or fixed.
If you get other channels but can’t get MPBN, go to your TV’s menu and try entering the channel manually (follow the manufacturer’s instructions; most converter boxes have a signal level indicator) and adjusting the antenna.
Keep in mind that MPBN’s digital channel number is not the same as its current analog channel number, and that the correct number depends on which of MPBN’s five TV stations in Maine you receive your signal from:

o Bangor: analog channel 12, digital channel 9;
o Portland/Augusta: analog channel 10, digital channel 17;
o Biddeford: analog channel 26, digital channel 45;
o Calais: analog channel 13, digital channel 10;
o Presque Isle: analog channel 10, digital channel 20.
Also keep in mind that channels 1 – 13 are VHF (regular “rabbit ear” antenna),
but channels 14 and above are UHF, and will require a UHF “rabbit ear” loop or dish-resembling antenna for best reception.
Try moving your rabbit ears near a window or try your converter on a TV upstairs, if you have one. If this works, a different set of rabbit ears might do the trick. In the Bangor area, MPBN shares a broadcast tower with WABI-TV Channel 5, so pointing your antenna in the same direction as you would to pick up WABI provides the best chance of receiving MPBN’s signal.
If you still can’t find MPBN, you probably need an external VHF/UHF antenna. Among those who watch our over-the-air signal (not cable or satellite), an outside antenna with coaxial cable provides the highest probability of reception – but we still can’t guarantee that it will help.
One last twist: in February, digital channels 17 (Augusta/Portland) and 20 (Presque Isle) will both switch to digital channel 10. All the other digital channels will stay where they are now. If you are in the coverage area of these stations, this change will most likely solve your issue, but there’s no way to be sure of that or even to test it before then.

Our Canadian friends are not facing a similar conversion to digital television in February 2009 in their country. They (and Americans along the border who can receive Canadian analog TV signals) will continue to be able to receive over-the-air analog TV emanating from Canadian TV stations. But if Canadians along the border want to continue to receive MPBN for free over the air, they will have to either purchase digital TV sets or the converter boxes, just like their American counterparts.
In addition to the materials produced by the Federal Communications Commission to explain the DTV conversion generally to a national audience, we are busily preparing similar materials specific to Maine and MPBN and what this transition will mean for you. We will announce the availability of these materials on TV and radio, on our web site and in our programming magazine as soon as they’re ready.
Finally, it does appear that it might be the case that regardless of what steps a person might take to receive MPBN for free over the air in the coming digital TV era – no matter which manufacturer’s converter box one uses, or what model digital TV one purchases, or how high one places the antenna on the roof, or which direction one contorts one’s body to receive the signal (“That’s it! Now stand just like that!”) – there will likely be a very small number of people who can pick up MPBN today who will not after February 19, 2009, converter boxes and new TVs notwithstanding. For those viewers, a cable or satellite subscription might be the only way to continue to receive public television broadcasts from MPBN. We wish it were not so, but that is reality.
Other resources include:
Maine Assoc. of Broadcasters - Conversion to Digital TV
http://www.mab.org/i4a/pages/index.cfm?pageid=3335
DVT for Maine - DTV News for Maine: http://www.dtvforme.com/

"Doppler HD" is a ploy - There is nothing HD about it

2008-08-20T07:37:00.001-04:00

Maybe not everywhere, but here in Maine the term "Doppler HD", as used by one local television station, is nothing but a ploy.

Doppler HD refers to a television stations weather system being able to produce and transmit their weather data to the viewer in brilliant High Definition quality.

Well, if this local affiliate doesn’t have the equipment to produce or transmit the local news in high definition, why would it be any different for the weather segment?

The answer is: It isn't.

I have sources in the industry who have told me that the term "Doppler HD" as it is used at Channel 13, WGME, in Portland, Maine, is nothing but a ploy. They reserved the name -- the "brand" so to speak -- so that some day, when they are actually able to broadcast the local news and weather in high definition, they will be ready, with their pet name for their product. (It’s just a brand name. You know, like how all the TV stations have pet names like “Accu-weather” or “Weather-Plus”)

I certainly understand the idea, but I think it is sad. Not one station in my local TV market (Portland/Lewiston/Auburn -- which, by the way, is rated by size as somewhere between 75 and 100 in the country depending on the day) has any ability to produce and/or transmit their own HD programming. In fact not one station in this state or any other Northern New England state can do it either. I don’t know for sure but as far as I can tell, only a few Boston channels produce their own HD programming. WGME apparently finds it important to "copyright" the name "Doppler HD" for our television market as quickly as possible so somebody else can’t use it. Yes, it is such an attention grabber, such a unique take on weather forecasting in High Definition that they felt the need to copyright it. It’s the same idea as when you were a kid and you had to “call it”. “I call shotgun”, I would say as we piled into the station wagon.

In terms of the weather forecasting itself, I've seen the spots on WGME referring to Doppler HD saying things like "the viewers will be amazed" and "it's like nothing you've ever seen before". Well, that is not necessary true. It looks exactly like what I saw before. It looks exactly like the weather forecast and news I saw last week, last month, and last year. Nothing has changed. So maybe the "tease" spot should say "you won't even notice the new and exciting Doppler HD because we haven't changed anything”.

It is understandable that local television stations, who are dropping their analog signal, are trying to find their way in the new digital TV realm. Television is all about revenue which is based on ratings. Advertisers pay more to air commercials during programming that has a higher viewership. In my dealings with the local affiliates, they don't seem to get it. Those of us with High Definition TVs are craving HD programming. I am lucky enough to live in Southern Maine near the New Hampshire border. My cable channel lineup includes all of the Portland, Maine networks affiliates AND all of the Boston network affiliates. Both the ABC and NBC affiliates in Boston can and do broadcast their local news (including the weather) in High Definition. Maine can only sit back and dream that maybe, someday, hopefully, they will be able to do this. As an HD-phile, I tend to watch the Boston stations rather than the Maine stations simply because they are in High Definition. So what the local Maine affiliates don't seem to understand is that whoever gets the HD technology first will win. The winner will have more viewers, which converts to higher ratings, which in turn, converts to more revenue from advertisers.

So that's the lay of the land. All we are left with here in Maine is one television station in Portland who has reserved a name with the word "High Definition" in the title. There is nothing in high definition during the local news but each and every day, the viewers keep looking at the WGME broadcast thinking "Gee, I'm not sure why I spent money on an HD TV, it looks like the same quality as it did before".

Jeers to WGME for coining the term "Doppler HD". I don't have a problem with what they did; they should just be honest about it.

Hmm. TV stations being honest with the public? I've pushed it too far haven't I?

So the bottom line here is: Don't hold your breath. If you have high definition capabilities at your house, don't wait; don't pull your chair up to within inches of the screen trying to determine if something different is going on. Don't worry yourself thinking something is wrong with your eyes or your glass because they said it was in HD but you just don't see it. It's not there.

And finally, speaking of pulling your chair up closer to the TV, inn Maine, if you want high definition, big screen capabilities in your house, do exactly that.

Businessweek writer misses the mark on Digital TV

2008-08-16T17:12:00.006-04:00

If you want to read the article to which I am referring, click on the link above.

Here's a guy who wrote an article for Business Week. An actual reporter, or journalist, I don't know. But his "summary" of the whole digital revolution was that converter boxes were quaint, but since smaller digital TVs are ONLY $600 or so, wasting your time on a converter box wasn't worth your time and effort.

Well, let me tell you something. Six hundred dollars is a lot of money to a lot of people. And simply buying a digital TV, without subscribing to cable or satellite (more monthly bills), won't get you any better reception than a converter box.

The author, Stephen H. Wildstrom, is an elitist, a snob, and has totally missed the point of what is really going on with the conversion to digital TV. He talks about his old "rabbit ears" TV set as being one that is only used on his morning jog on his treadmill where he was "putting up with" imperfect TV reception and hadn't given it much thought. The author also knows little to nothing about digital TV itself.

There are people in rural areas who can't afford a digital TV and/or cable TV. And they don't have a treadmill either. They have one TV, with one set of rabbit ears, and that's it.

Hell, I don't live in a rural area in Maine but I can't afford it all of the equipment and services needed. But we're all supposed to lay out $600 for a new TV and pay the cable company what, $50, $60, $100 a month. If Mr. Wildstrom is willing to set up a trust fund of his own money, I'd be happy to see that those who can't afford a new TV and a new cable bill, get some assistance.

This guy must be a republican.

Please visit Mr. Wildstrom and let him know your thoughts.

I wrote to him with my concerns and asked that he spend some time writing about the other side of the digital conversion; the side that people can't afford and can't see because they don't get the signal.

UPDATE - Here is Mr. Wildstroms's reply and my response to that.

"I didn’t deal with the question of whether the digital transition is a
good idea in large part because it’s just too late. Congress mandated the
transition in 1996 and at this point it is irrevocable.. The government has
actually gone ahead and sold the analog spectrum that broadcast stations will be
surrendering next year, so there’s no going back. Rural TV has been
problematic since the birth of television. It was the problem of poor rural
reception and the need to build a really tall “community” antenna that gave
birth to cable TV in the first place."

My response:

That is an interesting way to stand by the value of your story. The
translation seems to be "it's the government's fault and I can't do anything
about it". My challenge to you was to report on the other side of the
issue. It's not too late and if there are enough squeaky wheels, maybe one
of them will get the grease. Rural TV reception is not a life or death
issue; but it is a story worthy of telling. I had composed a lengthy email
that I later decided wasn't worth sending. You obviously have different
opinions that I, and I know that I can't change another person's point of view
with one conversation. Your piece on digital converter boxes was fluff,
created only to use up space and had no real merit. It is disappointing
when people try to act like journalists but don't really want to look at more
than one side of a story. I am assuming you got paid for that
article. Good for you."

I don't know folks, you be the judge. Maybe I'm wrong about this; maybe I pushed it too far. But for those of you out there who are being forced to convert to digital TV with an antenna and can't seem to get any channels, I would think you understand where I am coming from. Nobody is reporting on this issue or doing anything about it.

Online Class - Digital Television - Part 6 - Mastering High Definition

2008-08-16T10:09:00.006-04:00

High Definition TV will reach your TV in one of two way. You can receive it over the air from your local TV stations for free (see article on what HD programming is actually available on the big broadcast networks) or through your cable/satellite provider.

When I refer to cable here I am referring to cable or satellite (like Dish TV, for example).

There are many cable networks that now have a separate High Definition version of themselves. Examples of these are TBS, TNT, A&E, Food Network, etc.

Keep in mind that just because these channels are supposedly all high definition, the truth is most are not. Keep in mind that these channels are showing current programming but in many cases reruns as well. TBS for example, shows reruns of Seinfeld, King of Queens, and other sitcoms and dramas that were never produced in High Definition. So how could a station like TBS broadcast them to you now in HD if they weren't produced in HD. The answer is, they can't. So in order to fill up the whole HDTV screen (remember it is a 16:9 ratio), they stretch the 4:3 picture to fit. Because the stretching originates from the source broadcaster, you have no control over it. You can use your TV's controls to "unstretch" it but that never works very will and you are left with black bars on the side and a picture that now looks squashed instead of stetched. There's just no way to win.

On the contrary, there are lots of HD channels including TBS that run either original programming or reruns that were produced in high definition. For example, TBS airs "House of Payne", an original sitcom, produced in HD. TNT airs "Saving Grace" and "The Closer" where this is also true. And they air reruns of shows like "Law and Order" and "The Office" which were originally produced in HD. So if a show was originally produced in HD and is airing on an HD network, you are truly seeing HD programming.

Let's go back to you local TV station for a minute. My local NBC affiliate airs "Law and Order" in the afternoons (because NBC has absolutely no daytime programming other than "Day of our Lives" so there's lots of room for reruns and/or "judge" shows). My local station can't record and play back at a later time, HD programing (see earlier posts). So in this case I am watching a channel that is HD capable and I'm watching a show that was produced in HD, but my local station can't record that show and play it back in HD so I end up with a plain old digital program with black bars on the side. I hope that makes sense.

The next example of HD is what I call "Fake HD". There are HD Channels out there like Discovery HD, Food Network HD, Science Channel HD who commit even bigger sins. There are certain shows on these networks that are broadcast in a strange format. It is as if they re-recorded a 4:3 program in close up and the outcome is that it ALMOST fills up the screen. It was originally a 4:3, non-HD program. They cleaned it up or something to get the picture to be a bit crisper, then zoomed in on it so make the picture bigger. But if you look, there are still black bars on the sides of the screen. The are smaller and a lot less noticeable than the typical black bars, but they are there.

The last and in my opinion the worst kind of HD programming is what I call "Horizon HD". On some HD Television sets, you can stretch a 4:3 picture to 16:9 (stretching) but everything looks a little off, so there is another setting called "Horizon Stretch". It's hard to explain but the picture is stretched out in a strategic way, not quite stretched evenly, to give the illusion that people are objects aren't so stretched. That's the best way I can explain it. But as the camera moves, let's say it pans the room, the picture looks like there are two rolling pins underneath the screen giving a wavy or undulating appearance. It can make you sea sick. And with all those makeover shows on TLC and HGTV where they pan the room before and after, Horizon HD is NOT a good choice. I find I must change the channel when I come upon these shows.

The moral of this story: HDTV is not necessarily HD so be careful what you're willing to pay for.

Stay tuned for more.

Online Class - Digital Television - Part 5 - What are those Black Bars?

2008-08-16T09:48:00.005-04:00

OK, here we go. For the purposes of this post, I am going to assume that people either have a High Definition TV or an old style Analog TV. The other types (SDTV and EDTV) are not as popular and those who have them can figure out where they fit into these scenarios.

High Definition Televisions are wider than regular TVs. That's why they call them Wide Screen. Not to get too complicated but Analog TVs use a 4:3 ratio (picture it 4 inches across and 3 inches high). HDTVs us a 16:9 ratio (16 inches across by 9 inches down). That's a big difference. An HDTV is almost twice as wide as it is high. To make things more confusing, movies in the theater are in a 1:2 ratio, twice as wide as they are high. So when a movie plays on TV, even in HD, they still have to cut off part of the picture.

I want to talk about the most common scenario so let's assume you have a High Definition TV, subscribe to cable or satellite, and pay extra for the high definition TV package offered by your provider. You are channel surfing. Some of the channels are High Definition channels (meaning they are HD capable) and some are regular or non-HD channels. In this scenario sometimes you will have control over how the picture fills your screen and sometimes you won't.

If a digital TV broadcast is simply that, digital, and not high definition, then by default it will be in 4:3 format. A digital 4:3 format displayed on a 16:9 screen leaves black bars on both sides of the picture. Those black bars originate from the source (meaning the broadcast TV station you are watching or the cable channel you are watching). You will not be able to stretch the picture yourself using your TV controls. If you have a cable or satellite box, there is typically an option to stretch the 4:3 picture to fill the screen. If this is your case then the box itself is stretching the picture. Things will look out of shape, people will look fat and squatty, but it will fill your screen.

If you are watching an analog 4:3 format (which is what you have been watching for years until digital and HD came along), you will also see black bars but those originate from your TV, not from the source broadcaster. So you could stretch the picture yourself using your TV controls. Again at the cable or satellite box, if you subscribe to one of those, should also have options to override this and stretch the picture.

There is one more scenario; black bars (pillars) on the sides as well as along the top and bottom. Sometimes, those who produce programming or even commercials, use the letterbox black frame for special effect purposes. In these cases there is nothing wrong with your TV, the broadcaster, or anything else. But sometimes you will be watching your 4:3 analog TV or your 16:9 digital TV and you see black bars on all 4 sides of the picture. This happens because a television program is produced in high definition and is only being broadcast in high definition. It is not simulcast in standard definition. In addition to that, the program is being broadcast from a TV station that is not showing it directly from the network feed, it is being recorded and played back at a later time. And because most TV stations can not (yet) record and playback HD programming (as we discussed) they can only broadcast this HD programming in non-HD format. That's why you'll get black bars on the top, bottom, and both sides of your picture. If you have a digital TV and can zoom in, you will be able to get rid of them, but the picture quality will suffer severely. The program, at this point, will most likely be in 480i or 480p which is not conducive to zooming; the picture will look grainy and blurry.

The moral of this story: Sometimes the picture doesn't look right; and just because the picture takes up the whole screen doesn't mean its High Definition.

Stay tuned for more.

Online Class - Digital Television - Part 4 - What am I watching?

2008-08-16T09:23:00.005-04:00

OK, now that you know why digital TV exists and how it works, it's time to discuss the realities of everyday television watching. The truth is, there is relatively very little High Definition programming that reaches your home everyday, no matter how that TV signal gets to you and no matter what the cable or satellite company tells you, and no matter what you THINK is happening, there really is very little HD programming getting to you.

I'm going to skip over specialty HD network for now and talk about just broadcast TV. I'll touch on cable and satellite High Definition in another post.

I'll run through the day for you quickly. Starting a 7:00 AM "Good Morning America" and "The Today Show" are broadcast in high definition. The CBS Early Show is not. From there "The View" is in HD and "The Young and the Restless" is in HD and that's about it until the evening news. Both NBC and CBS (just recently) are broadcasting the evening news in high definition, ABC is not. It really makes no sense. Supposedly it's all about cost. Producing a TV program in high definition is more expensive. As to why ABC broadcast GMA in HD but not their evening news, I have no idea. Conversely, why CBS broadcast their evening news in HD but not "The Early Show", I have no idea. I thought is was about ratings, meaning a highly rated show with more viewers means more revenue. But to me, you'll get more viewers if you broadcast in high definition because those of us who have HD capability would rather watch a program in HD than one that is not. But that's just my opinion.

Next comes Prime Time (8:00 pm in the East, 7:00 PM Central). Most non-reality type programming, meaning your TV dramas and sit-coms are in high definition (with very few exceptions). Reality shows like "Extreme Home Makeover" or "Big Brother" are not broadcast in HD. Neither are most news magazine shows and game shows, although when "The Price is Right" did their Prime Time specials, they were in HD. So basically it's hit or miss. Almost all of FOX's prime time programming, and most of the CW's prime time programming is in HD.

As for late night here we go again. Conan (NBC), Jay Leno (NBC), and Letterman (CBS) are in High Definition. Nightline (ABC), Jimmy Kimmel (ABC) and Craig Ferguson (CBS) are not in HD. See I told you, there's no rhyme or reason to it.

Now a footnote about PBS. They run things a bit differently. PBS has its own HD channel where all of the programming is in HD. As for local PBS stations, it depends. Some have the ability to produce and/or broadcast HD programming apart from the network.

I have read, however, that all news programming produced by CBS will be in HD by year end. The same is supposedly true for ABC and I suspect the other network will follow suit but there's no way to tell, or be sure, until I see it for myself.

So as you can see, the picture I am drawing here is that local TV stations can only broadcast HD programming when the network is broadcasting HD programming. These local TV stations are basically operating as a pass-through, passing the programming fed to them from the big satellite in the sky from the network to you. They can not record it and play it back later, they can only broadcast it when the network broadcasts it. Getting the picture?

The moral of this story: There's not a lot of HD programs to watch especially if you're not paying your cable or satellite company lots of extra money.

Stay tuned for more information

Online Class - Conversion to Digital Television - Part 3 - High Definition

2008-08-16T09:13:00.005-04:00

In order for a TV station to broadcast high definition (HD) programming they must first be broadcasting in digital. HD is an extension of digital television. Just because a TV station is broadcasting in digital does not mean it is broadcasting HD. And further, just because you have a High Definition TV set doesn't mean that all programming you watch will actually be in high definition.

Two things must be true in order for you to watch high definition television. The TV station (or cable network, which I will get into later) must be sending an HD signal out over the airwaves AND you must have a TV that is displaying high definition receiving that signal.

What is High Definition? A super clear, superior picture with more dots of color to comprise that TV picture than was ever available with analog. There are really 2 types of high definiton. "P" for progressive and "I" for interlaced. You don't need to understand the difference other than "P" puts the image on the screen all at once and "I" put the image on the screen line by line. Television shows are not broadcast in 1080p, really only video games are capable of diplaying this high end of high definition. Television highest dots per inch is 1080i. The other type of high definition picture of TVs is 720p. As an example, the ABC network broadcasts its HD programming in 720p. The CBS network broadcast its HD programming in 1080i. The human eye, under normal circumstances would have an impossible time telling the difference between these two different type of HD. Both are very high quality.

The step-child of 1080i and 720p is "480". 480 is really the lowest number of dots per inch on the screen that you can have and still call it digital. 480i and/or 480p are not high definition, just regular digital TV.

The moral of this story: There are a lot of different kinds of digital TV

Stay tuned for more.

Online Class - Conversion to Digital Television - Part 2 - How?

2008-08-16T08:58:00.003-04:00

Part 2 will focus on more of the guts of the digital TV revolution.

If you own a digital TV then you can receive digital broadcasts. If you don't have a digital TV, you'll need a converter box (to convert the signal from digital to analog so your TV will be able to read the signal and make a picture come through on your TV).

There are many types of digital TVs. First there is SDTV which means "Standard Digital Television". The picture is the same size and shape as an analog TV but the innards of the TV are more space age. Then there is EDTV or Enhanced Digital TV. EDTVs have the ability to project High Definition images but need another piece of equipment (like an HD cable box or HD satellite box) in order to get HD images. Without this middle piece of equipment, and EDTV is not much different than an SDTV. Next is a true DTV also referred to as HDTV or High Definition Digital Television. An HDTV is capable of displaying high definition images all by itself as it receives them either through the air, or through a cable or satellite provider.

Broadcast TV stations have been broadcasting in digital for several years now. They have ALSO continued to broadcast analog signals so that anyone with an older TV can still get their signal, and anyone with a newer digital TV would be able to reap the benefits of what digital TV can accomplish.

For a few years now I have owned a Digital TV. DTVs come in two type, Plasma or LCD. It really is about cost, preference, and performance. My TV is LCD. I have an antenna (similar to the old "rabbit ears") and because TV stations in my area are broadcasting in digital and because I have a digital TV, I get a clear, sharp picture, better than anything that could be done with analog.

I could accomplish the same thing if I subscribed to digital cable. I would get all of my local stations in digital format (and a lot of other channels that may or may not be in digital format) but for quite a monthly cost.

If your analog TV is hooked up to cable or satellite, your provider will send out a digital signal for digital TVs AND an analog signal for older TVs.

The moral of this story: Figure out what kind of TV you have and what kind of TV you want.

Stay tuned for the next chapter.

Online Class - Conversion to Digital Television - Part 1 - Why?

2008-08-16T08:38:00.006-04:00

There are so many misconceptions about digital TV, HD TV, the conversion from Analog to Digital, even those who think they understand it, might not really get it. So much has been written and those annoying pulbic service announcement about the "conversion to Digital TV" are incessant. What really bugs me is when people think they are watching High Definition TV, when in fact they are not. I'm going to try and clear some things up and simplify them.

Every broadcast television station (meaning they have a local TV station and a broadcast tower near you) is already broadcasting in digital as well as analog. The famous February 17, 2009 date is the LAST day that these stations can broadcast in Analog (as set forth by the Federal Communications Commission). TV stations may cut off all analog broadcasting as early as 11/19/08, and even earlier if the station applies to the FCC to do so. All analog broadcasting must cease as of 2/17/09.

Now, these rules only apply to "high powered" broadcast television. The rules DO NOT apply to cable TV or satellite networks (e.g. USA Network, Comedy Central, A&E, etc.) because this type of network does not broadcast their signals directly to your home through the airways like local TV stations do. The rules also do not apply to "low-powered" TV stations. An example of that might be one of the several thousand local faith-based TV networks. You may not even know about them because they are not broadcast on cable and satellite, and their signals are so weak that if you use an antenna to receive TV signals, then you probably don't pick it up unless you live underneath the low-powered tower from which they broadcast.

The whole point of the conversion from Analog to Digital is to free up noise in the air that is preventing or hindering other more important things from using space in the air like Emergency Services (911), Cell Phones, and other Radio and Microwave signals. There's just too much stuff floating around up there and not enough room for everybody. So the Federal Communications Commission said, 10 years ago, that TV Stations must switch from Analog to Digital because digital takes up less space, thereby leaving more space for others.

The moral of the story: Don't wait until February for the conversion to digital, it already happened and now you know why it happened.

Stay tuned for the next installment