WMTW Portland Maine - Still broadcasting in SD like it's 1999?

If you watch any local programming on WMTW, Channel 8, in Portland, ME, you would think you think that time travel exists and you would think you are in 1999.

The local news programs produced by WMTW look as if they were produced in the 1990's and quite possibly are still using video tape instead of anything remotely "digital".

Ever since the digital TV (i.e. High Definition) revolution began, WMTW has been behind the times.  They were the last TV station in their market to convert to "HD" in terms of broadcasting from the ABC network, and the last to convert to what THEY consider to be high definition for local news broadcasting.

I gave WMTW some heat on this blog concerning their late arrival but was pleased when they at least figured out how to broadcast the ABC prime time programming in HD (albeit 720p instead of 1080i, but that's an ABC network issue that I'll address later).  But even at that time, the local WMTW news was still in SD.

If you look at Channel 8's local news, you would still think they aren't broadcasting in High Definition, and I'm not convinced that they actually are.

As you probably know, you can see what they consider to be High Definition and compare it to Standard Definition easily by switching between the two channels (whether it's over the air on channel 8.1 and 8.2, or on your cable system comparing the lower channel to the "HD" upper channel).

While WMTW's "HD" channel appears to be better slightly better quality, is it?

Here's what I think is their trick.  Old fashioned SD television was in a 4:3 picture ratio (4 down by 3 across).  HD signals use a 16:9 ratio (16 across by 9 down), hence wider flat screen HD TVs.

If you watch a 4:3 (SD) picture on a 16:9 (HD) TV, there are two options:

• leave the 4:3 ratio and fill in the rest of the screen (sides of the picture) with black bars
• STRETCH the picture to fill the screen but everyone looks short and fat, and generally the image is just horrible

After broadcast TV was forced to go digital in 2009, things changed slightly.  Typically you can watch an HD signal in non-HD mode on your TV but now there will be black bars on the top, bottom, and sides.  The picture doesn't fill the screen but the ratio (16:9) is correct.  So while the picture might be clearer and look right, it doesn't fill the screen and you can't force it to unless you plan to not see the entire picture.

The ONLY other option is for a TV station to broadcast its Standard Definition signal in 16:9.  We usually associate the 16:9 ration with HD, but TV cameras have the capability of recording in the 16:9 ratio even if you are using Standard Definition.

16:9 ratio programming in SD almost looks like HD except the picture quality when compared to real HD is severely lacking, and when compared to old-fashioned 4:3 Standard definition is about the same.

I don't believe that WMTW is broadcasting its locally produced news (or other) programming in real High Definition.

Do a quick comparison.  Watch a newscast on WMTW in HD.  Compare it to any other local channel's news cast.  The difference will ASTOUND you.

Continue watching WMTW and wait for a "remote location" shot.  You will see that the picture quality is even worse because WMTW can't seem to spring for better offsite cameras.

Even if WMTW were broadcasting in full HD, it would be 720p.  This is a choice made by America's broadcasting networks.  NBC, CBS, PBS, and the CW chose 1080i (a better quality picture all around regardless of what some "experts" say - just take a look for yourself).  Fox, and ABC chose 720p.  So each network's affiliates invested in the technology that matched their Parent Company broadcaster.

Some people say that 720p ("p" meaning progressive) is just as good as 1080i ("i" meaning interlaced).  Without going into the difference between progressive and interlaced technologies, in my personal experience in watching TV (which I admit is extensive), 1080i is far superior to 720p especially on larger TV screens (over 32").

But I digress.

The picture quality of WMTW's local news programming SUCKS.  And, their remote shot picture quality is even worse, if that's possible.

I had been laying low because I knew WMTW moving into new studios is Westbrook in September 2014.  I thought that finally, things would improve.  I was disappointed when nothing changed.

As much as I dislike both WCSH channel 6 news, and WGME channel 13 news, I prefer to actually watch either of them over WMTW because the picture quality on WMTW is so bad.  I don't know what WMTW is doing wrong or not doing right.  I just know that what I said many years ago is still true:

"When it comes to TV ratings, whoever has the best HD picture wins"

It's not that complicated.  This is true of cable TV as well.  My cable system does not offer every cable channel in HD.  The non-HD channels are down in the lower numbers.  The High Def channels are on the upper channel numbers.  When I'm channel surfing, I start at the first HD channel - 702 for me - and work upwards.  I don't even look at channels not in HD.

So, for anyone at WMTW, we know that you broadcast in 720p so we understand why your prime time programs are of a lesser quality.  BUT, can you explain why your local news looks no different than it did prior to your "switch" to high definition?

Metrocast Cable finally adds some HD channels

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.

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

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.

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

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.

Disney HD - wow, what a concept

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.

Metrocast Cable - no solution, but finally some answers

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 proves once again that they are completely incompetent

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

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.

Frustrations abound with the conversion to digital TV

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.

Metrocast Cable in Southern Maine offers very few HD choices

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.

 

The truth about broadcast television's conversion to digital

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?

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.

Visit form Cable Guy was very enlightening

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.

How to get more HD Programming in Maine

First of all, if you live in Southern Maine, your cable company may carry the Boston network channels as well as the Portland network channels. Watch the Boston ones. Most are in High Definition for their local news broadcasts, some are producing their own HD programming locally, and some can record and playback High Definition programming apart from the Network Feed.

Not ONE Portland Network Channel can do any of this. In my dealings with the many network affiliates in Portland (ABC, CBS, NBC, PBS, CW, MyNetwork, FOX), none of them are even close to the technical capabilities of the Boston channels and to make it worse, I have received communicates from some affiliates General Managers who have said things like "we are only mandated to switch to digital, we are not required to do anything more than that".

Translation: They will do the very least to be in compliance with the laws set forth by the FCC, no more, no less. So if you are waiting to put your new HDTV to the real test, don't look for it in Portland. If you can get the Boston stations, do that. If not, get Satellite and if you can, just try to get the national network feeds, not your local network feeds. You can use you PC or the newspaper to check the news if it's important to you. It's all about ratings which means it's all about revenue. Money talks. If nobody is watching their channels because they are not in HD, then they will have no choice but to change their attitude.

In a recent communication with the NBC affiliate in Portland, I was told that they don't have the capability to broadcast, for example, reruns of HD television shows, in HD. For example, WCSH airs reruns of Law and Order in the afternoon. Law and Order is (and was) originally produced in High Definition. But WCSH doesn't have the equipment to record it and play it back in High Definition. They can only air High Definition programming that is being fed to them from the network during prime time (8 - 11 pm). I was also told that they have no plans to change this through 2009 and beyond. It's not even on their radar screen.

These TV stations don't care about providing the public with an excellent product; they are trying to skate by, doing the least amount of work possible. And there you have it, the new American Dream. Do as little as possible to get by. No wonder we are failing in this global economy.

There are a few exception. My personal opinion is that WPME and WPXT, managed by the same people, are doing as much as possible within their budet constraints to provide an excellent product to the public. They are self-producing a television program aimed at visitors to the state of Maine. The program is broadcast to hotels in the Portland area but anyone with a Digital TV and an antenna (forget cable or satellite) can receive this programming as well. They are thinking outside the box and that's what you need to be successful.

Mikey the Cable Guy - Will my TV work after February 2009

I finally had a chance to talk with a real cable professional; a cable technician who not only has been doing this job for a number of years, he truly was the most knowledgeable and polite cable guys I have ever met.

I can't tell you where he works or who he works for but we talked for quite some time. I got some final and definitive answers that I thought were helpful.

If you subscribe to cable TV, even if you don't have a cable box, you will be OK for the transition to digital. Here's the catch. Cable companies are going to do something they never wanted to do, nor ever thought they would have to do but the FCC and the TV Broadcast industry could not get their ducks in a row on time. The cable companies essentially be carrying analog and digital signals through the cable wire until 2012. So if you don't have a cable box, you're all set for an additional 3 years beyond the February 2009 cutoff. This issue has been lobbed around for a while and you get different answers from different people, but this guy I trust.

Finally some good news for people who right now can not afford to upgrade their cable or go out and buy a new TV. You just bought yourself some time. But after 2012, regular cable subscribers with no cable box will have to get a converter box, a cable box, or a new TV.

Don't be afraid to use an Antenna to get HDTV - I FINALLY DID IT! - and you can too

I must admit, without cable, it's been hell. But that's just the way things are right now. I bought a VHF/UHF antenna a long time ago and, with a little practice at the time I bought it, I was able to get all of my local network affiliates in High Definition (with the exception of FOX because they don't do HD in all parts of Maine yet).

This all started because I have always been disappointed with Maine Public Television. That's PBS in Maine known as MPBN, the Maine Public Broadcasting Network. Since I live in the Southwest corner of Maine only a few miles from the New Hampshire border, my cable system carries not just Maine stations, but New Hampshire PBS and several network stations from Boston. So I was used to more viewing options when I had cable.

New Hampshire Public Television is first rate. They have leveraged HDTV technology for quite some time now. They broadcast not only the local New Hampshire PBS feed on a digital sub-channel, but the national PBS feed on the first sub-channel. The also record and playback lots of HD programming. In Maine, not even close. MPBN has made lots of improvements in the past year but they are nowhere near where NHPTV is with technology. So one day, I started playing with my antenna, and using Wikipedia to find the exact digital UHF broadcasting numbers, moved my antenna all around the room, adding extensions to it, etc, until I finally was able to locate NHPTV with just my antenna and my HDTV. It was a lot of work, believe me. I stood on my head, tried aluminum foil, twisted it, turned it upside down, stood on one foot, you get the picture. But I did finally get NHPTV. So now, on those night where I can't sleep, I can watch PBS in High Definition all night.

Then, in my research, I realized that there was also this other network called "ION" which I never heard of because my cable system never carried it. ION is a throwback to the old PAX network and while they still do have some religious type programming, they carry things like "48 Hours", that CBS magazine show, The Drew Carry Show, Mama's Family, and all kinds of stuff that you may not care that much about, but when you don't have cable it comes in handy. ION actually broadcasts nothing in High Definition but instead carries 4 separate sub-channels in 480i.

The problem was, when I moved the antenna to get NHPTV I couldn't get ABC or the CW. Or when I could get ION, with the antenna in the right position, I couldn't get CBS. It was starting to really work my nerves. I could only work on it for an hour or so at a time, and then I just would have to stop and go back to my original configuration and antenna position founded in the early days of my HDTV/Antenna discoveries.

Today, it finally happened. I found the exact right position. I can now get NBC, NBC Weather, ABC, ABC 24 Hour News, CBS, Maine PBS, 4 separate ION stations, the CW, MyNetwork, and regular analog FOX all with just my antenna and my HDTV.

Mind you, my antenna is sitting on the back of my couch in a precarious position but I don't get a lot of company. The point is, I DID IT!!!!. Living in a valley, in an apartment, in the middle of nowhere in a little corner in Maine, that is quite a feat. I don't know what I am going to do to pass the time now. And what happens when some day I decide to get cable or satellite TV which takes no effort or ingenuity at all. Oh, well.

Suzanne Goucher urges consumers to buy a High Definition TV, Why?

I saw Suzanne Goucher, President and CEO of the Maine Association of Broadcasters, on WCSH 6 during the 6:00pm newscast on Sunday, February 17.

She said the while there are ways that consumers can buy just a digital TV or get a converter box and keep their analog TV, the best choice really is to go out an buy an HDTV because the prices were so reasonable now, and the resolution was so good on a High Def TV, you can "see the little hairs on Tom Brady's adorable little chin".

You're kidding me, right? This is what the president of the Maine Association of Broadcasters uses as a reasonable argument for purchasing a high definition television. High Definition is a subset of digital television. HDTV is in a wide-screen (16:9 ratio as opposed to 4:3) format, and has much better sound quality.

The reality is that yes, HDTVs are cheaper than they were. But the investment to the consumer is still several hundred dollars. The "affordable" HDTVs that you can get at Wal-Mart are inferior in quality; for example at my local Wal-Mart I could not find ONE HDTV that could handle resolutions higher than 720p. Most broadcast networks are providing programming in 1080i.

Further, with the possible exception of PBS in Maine, not one local broadcaster can record HDTV programs from their respective networks and play them back in HDTV.

Let me state it more clearly. A network like ABC sends a feed of a high definition broadcast, live, up to a satellite, at which time, the local station (in our case WMTW) can send that same feed out to the public. They can't record it and play it back later, if they don't send it out in HD format them, they never will. That doesn't even mean that they have to, they have the option to.

Also, not one Maine television station has the ability to broadcast its own local news in High Definition. Now keep in mind that the "rule" is that as of 2/17/09, the FCC has mandated that all broadcast television must be in Digital format. Digital format is a clearer, crisper format than the old analog style TV but just because something is in Digital does not mean it is in High Definition. The rule does not apply to cable channels (or satellite channels if you have something like Dish network or Direct TV). Only broadcast television. That means ABC, NBC, CBS, PBS, MyNetowk, and the CW.

While I agree that if you are going to buy a new TV you should buy an HDTV. But don't buy one thinking that now, or even as of 2/17/09, every TV broadcast will be in high definition. The TV broadcasting industry is simply changing from analog to digital. You TV will either be OK, or not, depending on how you get your signal; either via cable, satellite, or over the air.

High Definition is the next logical thing you need to think about. However, other than the national morning new shows (Today Show, GMA), one soap opera, SOME prime time network shows between 8pm and 11pm, The Tonight Show, Letterman, and Conan, that's it. The broadcast network and all other programming coming from your local TV stations is NOT in high definition. So if you like watching reruns of Everybody Loves Raymond, you're out of luck. The local TV station will stretch the picture out, or you can do it yourself with your shiny new HDTV, but Raymond was never produced in HD and will never be in HD.

There are several cable stations that are supposedly in HD. Many of them have the same problem I describe above in that most of the shows aren't produced in HD so they obviously can't show them in HD; they can just stretch out the picture to fit the 16:9 ration of your HDTV. Some of these same channels do have real High Definition programming.

So there is a lot of misinformation out there. You need to be careful and ask some questions before you buy anything else you will be very disappointed.

In my humble opinion Suzanne Goucher should be spending her time convincing the local Maine television stations to invest in high definition equipment so they can broadcast their local programming in HD, to invest in equipment that will allow them to play back network television shows that were originally in HD, in HD at a later time, and all of the other things they need to do in order to be considered up to date with current technology. This seems like a better use of time than convincing consumers to spend money to see Tom Brady's scruff, only to find out they may never see it.

Digital TV Conversion - basic cable with no cable box is OK

I have finally been able to confirm some good news. Whether or not cable (or satellite) subscribers have a cable or set-top box, you should still be OK after the conversion to digital on 2/17/09.

Here are the details:

Many of us plug the coax cable from the cable company directly into the back of our TVs without the use of a cable box. We also might connect the cable from the wall into our VCRs first and then from the VCR, connect a coax to the TV. This setup works great and has for years. It especially works well if you want to watch one program and tape another. I know it is old school but I used this system for years it was alwasy reliable.

With digital (and of course HD) television, questions arose as to whether or not the setup described above would still be viable after the conversion to complete digitial broadcast TV after 2/17/09. I have confirmed with my contacts in the Television and Cable insustry that it will work but you need to keep in mind a few things.

You won't be receiving digital TV, the coax cable going to your home will carry the analog signal so in essense, nothing will change for you. If you want to watch digital programming you will have two choices: first, make an investment in a digital TV and subscribe to digital cable. Second, you could get a UHF/VHF antenna to receive your local TV stations in digital/HD and switch between the two inputs depending on what you want to watch. You would only be able to received analog cable channels 2-99 (maximum), but that is what most people with "extended" basic cable get now.

So the bottom line is that you won't lose your signal on your old analog TV. You won't be using up-to-date technology but at least you won't have any outlay of cash to just keep things pretty much the way they are now. I was concerned that somehow in all of this, the consumer would end up being forced to spend more money than they do now to receive their cable services.

There are, of course, ways to start using current technology for your TV watching, all of which are covered on this blog, and all will require some investment, but if you want reassurance that you won't lose your signal after 2/17/09, it look like you will be OK.

Let me know if you have any questions.

Update to the Maine HDTV Forum - Digital TV and basic cable

It has been over a week since I have written any new posts to this blog. My goal is to keep up as much as possible with the mission of the blog so I want to at least provide some regular updates.

I have a few things in the fire but the most important is a question that arose this week about which I wrote to a few of my contacts to try and get a definitive answer.

According to published information about the conversion to digital television in February 2009, if you have an older analog TV but subscribe to a cable or satellite service, you should be all set and don't need to buy further equipment. As such, you wont' loose your signal.

I believe, but need to verify, that they are talking about people who subscribe to a cable or satellite service who have a set top box that comes with that service. If you have a set top box for your analog cable, digital cable, or satellite TV, that box comes with a separate remote. And with or without the analog/digital converter boxes that have recently been made available (well, the discount coupons are available) from the FCC, we need to know the answer to this question.

I don't believe they are talking about people who pay for cable but not the cable box, because they have a "cable ready" TV. A "cable ready" TV is a TV that will accept the coax cable/satellite company directly into the coax connection on your TV, no cable box required.

So I have posed this question to my cable company, who did not know the answer, believe it or not. I am assuming I was speaking with someone new as they suggested I call back when it gets closer to the conversion date.

Next, I posed the question to my DTV expert folks who are in the TV broadcasting industry. It would be in their best interest to know the answer to this question as well since their DTV and HDTV can be received for free over the air, bypassing cable/satellite completely.

I hope to have an answer soon and will let you know as soon as I find out.

QVC may be misleading viewers on High Definition

I find it hard to believe that QVC and its staff does not understand the subtle nuances of Digital TV and High Definition TV. Below is a letter I wrote to the show host regarding a JVC LCD HDTV. I chatted online with a customer service representative before I sent this email. I was trying to get a general email address that I could write to so that I could have proof that I sent the email. I really do not like email systems on web sites where you can send them an email through some sort of user interface, but you never know what address you are sending your email to and you can't copy yourself in. If I could just do a straight "send" from my own email account, then I would have the proper audit trail. I suspect that QVC and others all operate behind this curtain for a reason. So here's the email sent at 3:10 AM, January 15, 2008.

To: d_king@qvc.com,
date: Jan 15, 2008 3:10 AM
subject: High Definition Television
mailed-by gmail.com

Dave, I am writing to your as I could not find an email address for the management at QVC

At about 2:40 AM on Tuesday, Jan 15, 2008, I was watching a demo for the JVC 42 inch HDTV. You stated to the viewers that they should purchase this product because as of February 2009, all programming will be in High Definition.
I don't know if it was intentional or no, but that statement is a blatant lie. I do apologize for the strong language but could not think of another word that applies. As of February 17, 2009, all high-powered over-the-air broadcast television must be in digital format.

I will explain further. First there is a big difference between digital TV (DTV - which is what is being regulated by the FCC) and High Definition TV (HDTV). HDTV is not mandated by the FCC only that the broadcast be in digital format. Further, the rule only applies to high powered over-the-air television. Cable-only, or satellite-only programming is NOT included in the mandatory conversion to digital. You need DTV to get HDTV but you don't need HDTV to be have DTV.

I am the creator/owner of a web site which deals with high definition and digital TV issues. I need to point out the this type of information is typical of the type of information that the public hears and then visits sites like mine to have it all explained. Since QVC itself is converting the HD this spring, I am sure that QVC is fully aware of the FCC rules surrounding digital TV, HDTV, and broadcast versus cable TV. I find it irresponsible of QVC to make sure your hosts are not aware of the differences. It would also be irresponsible if QVC was well aware of the differences relating to the conversion to digital TV and is intentionally misinforming the public so that they will buy more product.

This may sound trivial to some but it really is not. The public is already confused enough about HDTV, DTV and this "conversion" to Digital that they have started to hear about. Especially when so many our there are now saying things like "you might even need a new TV because yours won't work". There is so much bad information out there that I believe it is the responsible of anyone associated with the broadcasting industry to be well aware of this issues. There is a wealth of good information out there starting the the FCC web site itself. I am a lay person who has no affiliation with television broadcasting or television products. I am just a consumer who has done A LOT of research and home work to figure this whole thing out. So I would assume that people in the inudstry would have access to better information than I.

I would really appreciate a response from you or the QVC management to address this issue. I will be including the correspondence on my blog as I have promised my regular visitors that I would keep up with all of these issues as they arise so that they can be as informed as I am.

I do thank you for your time.