WMTW Channel 8 in Portland Maine - Maine's Total Weather? Are you sure?

WMTW in Portland, ME (Channel 8) has a tag line that it's "Maine's Total Weather".

That can't possibly be true if it's the ONLY station in its market that doesn't broadcast the weather in High Definition (or the entire local news broadcast for that matter).

Here are some screen shots of the 3 major affiliates in Portland. They are just random shots.  Open and look.

NBC WCSH 6

CBS WGME 13

 and finally poor little
ABC WMTW 8

Look at the quality (or lack thereof where appropriate) of each picture.  Channel 8 graphics look the same now as they did 10 years ago.

Now that's not to mention the overall broadcast quality of Channel 8.  When you add PBS to the the mix, Channel 8 is the only local broadcaster in the Portland market using 720p instead of 1080i.  That alone is not WMTW's fault.  Their affiliate parent, ABC, decided years ago when they had a choice, to go with 720p instead of 1080i for their HD broadcasting. (You may look elsewhere on this site or others for an explanation of the difference.)  And it took all local affiliates years to get up to speed with the right technology, studios, makeup, and field cameras needed to be able to broadcast the local new in High Definition

The problem?  WMTW never really caught up.  Their prime time programming from ABC is in 720p.  Some say it's the same quality as 1080i in that the average user can't tell the difference.  I beg to differ - strongly.  Just watch any broadcast or cable channel using 1080i including the other networks, plus cable networks like CNN, etc. and you WILL see the difference.  720p was okay (just okay) for HD TV's that were at most 32 inch screens.  But as TV's get bigger, the difference in quality becomes even more apparent.

As for WMTW, their local news broadcast appears to me to be in the right ratio (16:9 for HD, as opposed to 4:3 for SD) but the quality of the picture appears to be more like 480i or 480p.  These are the picture qualities used prior to HD.  So the picture might look correct (not stretched or oddly proportioned as can happen) but the quality is abysmal.  Many TV stations around the country try to fool the public by broadcasting in a 16:9 ratio, but use a 480i picture quality.  You will see this most prominently in "field" reporting.  The studio cuts to a location piece and suddenly the picture looks awful.  This happens because the field cameras they use are cheap, crappy cameras that can film in the 16:9 ratio, but can't film in high definition.  ANY MODERN SMARTPHONE HAS BETTER BROADCAST QUALITY THAN THE FIELD CAMERAS USED ON WMTW.

In my opinion WMTW should be ASHAMED of the quality of the content they are producing for the public. If you are watching WMTW on a High Def TV on the High Def channel, compare it to the standard definition channel.  Every cable operator has both.  And even if you're not using cable TV in preference of free HDTV over the air, compare channel 8.1 (their supposed HD channel) to channel 8.5 (the SD version), there is very little difference.  On the other hand, do the same with WCSH or WGME.  You will be blown away by the better picture in HD.

I don't watch WMTW for local news/weather any more because the picture quality is so bad.  It's bad in an era of television that has produced unbelievably crisp, clear, high definition TV.  What is WMTW going to do when Ultra HD and 4K HD televisions become norm.  Just like flat screen TV's became so prolific 10 years ago, within 5 years, Ultra HD and 4K will be the norm.  You can't even buy a TV that's not an HD flat screen anymore.  In 4K, watching WMTW will be like watching black and white, grainy, "news reel" footage from the moon walk in 1969  in comparison to every other channel in the Portland market.

If I've said it once, I've said it a thousand times:  Whoever has the best HD wins!

As the choices for watching television get broader each day, and in a world where the almighty advertising dollar still rules, can WMTW really afford NOT to keep up? 

I welcome your comments and opinions

Public often fooled by HD that isn't HD

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:

1. 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)
2. Standard definition TV that has been stretched to fit the 16:9 ratio. Disconcerting and distracting to watch
3. Standard definition TV filmed in 16:9 format (watchable - but disappointing)
4. 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.

Two big hold outs make the move to High Definition

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

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

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.

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

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

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.

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.

 

TNT-HD should be ashamed of themselves

"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.

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.

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

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.

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

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.

What's going on with Subchannels in Portland, Maine

I recently received an email from Dave who asked the following:

"I was just wondering if there was any news out there of what the stations are gonna do. I heard about these DTV only networks like RTN and .2 and so on. Any news if any Maine stations are gonna pick those up or anything else?" After a few exchanges, I wrote the following (which has been aggregated) and thought it would be a great addition to this blog.

As far as I know there is not anything new official going on for subchannels with the exception of things I already know about like Weather Plus on NBC (Channel 6 Portland), and News Now on ABC (Channel 8 Portland) and the Maine Visitors Channel on MyNetowork (Channel 35 Portland - actually a pretty cool self-produced subchannel). Only Channel 13 (CBS Portland WGME) hasn't decided what to do. They were supposed to run a Music Channel on 13.2 but that deal fell through. They, along with Fox 23, and CW (Channel 51) would have space for a subchannel like RTN, but I haven't heard anything yet. I'm going to ask my contacts though, because I like the idea. It's better than those Maine Auto King infomercials which drive me CRAZY. Channels already using at least one subchannel won't have enough bandwidth to operate an a third channel. Thanks for bringing it to my attention as something I need to follow up on. I'm going to poke around and see if I can some up with any inside track "news".

I checked with one source I have at one of the network affiliate stations in Portland. He told me something that, after he said it, made perfect sense. The decision as to what is going to be done with their subchannel is dependent solely upon what their parent company and the network says. Due to issues of branding and making sure their affiliates are basically clones of each other, it would be in their best interest to decide on subchannel programming at the corporate level. For example, on WCSH Channel 6 they use Weather Plus on their subchannel. The same is true for Channel 7 in Boston, Channel 30 in Hartford, etc, All of the NBC affiliates are doing the same thing with their subchannel.

Keep in mind that most channels are using their primary channel for digital and/or high definition programming which, because of bandwidth issues, only leaves them with enough room for one other standard definition broadcast. Technically, each station could broadcast up to 4 programs simultaneously, but if they did, each would have to be in standard definition. There is one station I know in my area that is part of the ION network (see Wikipedia) that does this but very, very few Cable companies would even carry the primary channel let alone the subchannels. In addition, the same problem exists for all TV stations using subchannels; they still have to get the cable channels to carry it if they really want to get a return on their investment. Unless there is a revolution where consumers all convert back to "over the air" broadcasting (no cable or satellite), most of these subchannels will never be seen.

Now, when it comes to networks like the CW or MyNetwork, they operate more independently. As I mentioned Channel 35, part of the MyNetwork network, produces and broadcasts their own original programming on channel 35.2 called Maine Visitors Channel (MVC). RTN would be great for someone like the CW Channel 51 or even Fox 23 who may not have finalized plans yet for their subchannel(s). Or if MyNetwork Channel 35 doesn't get the revenue they expect from MVC. MVC was designed to be broadcast to all of the hotels in the Portland area. Channel 35 actually invested in, and installed, digital receivers in the hotels with whom they have agreements so that guests of the hotel could receive MVC in their rooms (which probably all have old analog sets).

So, that's my take on Subchannels in the Portland/Lewiston/Auburn television market. I'd love to hear from anyone who has more info or questions on this topic.

The big lie called High Definition

First, a quick hello to the many people around Maine who have written to me directly over the past few weeks with questions. It is nice to know that people are reading and learning from what I have written, and that if I have not covered a specific topic in enough detail, they write to me to discuss things further.

I was going to start posting the questions and answers on this blog but it was a bit overwhelming.

Anyway, I subscribed to cable high def to see what was going on with that. I'll be canceling soon.

Here's the big lie. While I know all cable companies are different, the basic HD package on my cable system offers TBS, TNT, and then a bunch of what I call reality TV channels for $10.95 a month. I don't get USA, A&E, History Channel, and any other channel that is what I call "watchable" on a regular basis. Not only are these channels not in the basic package, they are not even in the "Ultra" package which is where they have HDNet and WealthTV. Two years ago I had the whole Ultra package and enjoyed HDNet, and HDNet Movies, but they charged yet another $15.95 or something like that.

So for the money I am paying for cable HD, I get 2 channels that are worth it. I don't really need the Outdoor Channel in HD and most of the other channels, like Discovery, HGTV, etc. don't really have true HD programming. It is mostly old technology that has been stretched to fit your screen. Some of the channels don't even bother doing that and if you look closely you will see that they don't even fit the 16:9 ratio, there are extra black pillars on the side that you don't notice unless you really look. It's just cheesy TV.

So I'm done. My cable company doesn't offer anything worth paying for and I'm going back to basic cable (channel 2-26). I would go totally cable free but they haven't even perfected HD broadcasting over the air yet so I need to rely on something.

When will this industry get its act together and give people what they want. High Definition TV consisting of the same damn channels we have on analog TV. It's not that difficult.

Problems with Digital Converter Box - not ready to buy a Digital TV

I received a great email from a viewer in Farmington Maine:

I live in Farmington, ME and receive OTA analog signals for CH 8,10,13 and
23. CH 10 and 23 have the best reception, CH 13 is tolerable and CH 8 not
really viewable.

I'm not ready to buy a digital tv, but I have purchased a converter
box.

Today I hooked up the Set Top Converter Box and received CH 6 and 13,
including the sub-channels. I was surprised to receive the NBC channels,
since I have never received the analog version. When not using the
converter box, the reception is viewable for the PBS channel; however, all the
other previously received analog stations are gone.

Why can't I received the digital signal for MPBN CH10, which I
understand to be broadcast in digital?

I was going to contact them, but came across your informative and
intresting articles; and thought I would pose the question to you.

I responsed as follows:

I'm trying to figure some things out. Are you saying that when you are
bypassing the converter box and trying to view analog TV, the reception is worse
now than it was before you installed the converter box? Why do you want to
bypass the converter box? Are you saying that with the converter box you
ONLY receive 6, 13, and PBS? It makes sense that Analog 23, and 10 are the
best in analog because you are closest to those towers.

Fox 23 is out of Waterville and Maine PBS has several towers across the
state. It seems that the channels out of Portland are more difficult for you
which of course makes sense. Channel 10 (PBS) in Digital is 26.1 for
my area but for you it could be different.

Use the chart here on Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maine_Public_Broadcasting_Network.
Wikipedia might be the one resource you should use the most to figure some
things out. It's the resource I use the most. By searching on any
stations call letters it will tell you the exact UHF (digital) channel to
receive the broadcast. For example WMTW is 46.1. But for you, MPBN does
have a signal out of Augusta on UHF channel 17, where as in Biddeford, I use
26.

Unfortunately contacting "them" won't help. There isn't really anywhere
to call to get all the information you need and any one particular station has
no incentive to help you. That's why I started my blog with information
about digital TV in Maine.

Does the digital converter box have a function to "search" for all channel,
like when you let your TV do it. If so, you could try the antenna in a few
different positions to see if it picks up more or fewer depending on
location.

I hope some of the info I provided can start to help. I'll be happy to
work with you to iron out some of your issues. Keep in mind that even on
the best of days, antenna position is like real estate...location, location,
location. I have a problem with Channel 8. It's fine for days on end
and then all of a sudden it doesn't want to come in. That is due to
weather, general interference, sun spots, you name it. Another thing to
remember is that digital signals are all or nothing, you won't receive a fuzzy
digital picture...you will either get a great picture or none at all and the
slightest change in antenna position will affect that.

What type of antenna do you use. I've tried them all and returned most
of them. I just bought a second HDTV for the bedroom and tried to get away
with a cheaper antenna. But after many tries went back to my old standard,
the TERK for about $73.00 at Best Buy. It's probably the most expensive
one but it is very powerful and I get more stations as far away as 50 miles in
all directions as opposed to any other antenna I ever tried.

Let me know how you are doing and hopefully we can make some progress.

Using An Antenna to get High Definition is very frustrating

Well it was just yesterday that I was patting myself on the back. After months of trial and error, emphasis on error, I had finally found one spot, just one exact, specific location in my apartment, where I could place my VHF/UHF antenna and receive every possible channel available to me. That means all the High Definition channels available as well as other just plain digital channels and some much farther away from me than I ever thought I would be able to reach.

So this morning I get up and proudly turn on my HDTV. With a huge sigh, I noticed that my ABC channels (8.1 and 8.2) were not coming in. I checked the signal and it was down to zero. My CW channel was also not coming in.

The only thing that I could conceive of that would explain this? Sabotage!! No I'm just kidding. I actually believe that based on my experience, it has something to do with the time of day. I am no radio wave expert but I think that television signals can be affected by the curvature of the earth, the angle of the sun, and location of the moon, all of those celestial things that cable is not affected by simply because the receiving devices used for cable are so incredible powerful that they are not affected by such trivial matters.

So I will wait again, tonight. I will try not to fiddle around with my antenna all day thinking I must have gotten the position wrong, or maybe my antenna shifted without me realize it. But I don't want to waste my afternoon doing that. It's Sunday afternoon and there is nothing on TV anyway. I'll keep you posted (no pun intended) on whether or not the time of day makes a difference in the channels I am able to receive.

You won't see your shows in High Definition if there are storm related cancellations

It has been a very long winter here in Maine. It started in early December and it has snowed about every 3 days since then. And the storms haven't been little ones. Typically, we've gotten at least 6 inches or more each and every time it snows.

As a result, the storm cancellations are broadcasted across the crawl on the bottom of the screen. Everything from Bingo at the church, to Meals on Wheels, to schools, to tap dance class gets cancelled. The cancellations go on forever. And they often start in the evening on the day BEFORE the storm is scheduled to arrive.

Every time a television station broadcasts this information, they can't do it in high definition because they don't have the high definition equipment to do it. The same is true for station identification logos (required by the FCC about once an hour or so, or on Tuesday and Saturday evenings when they display the lottery numbers. Any of this type of "interruption" in the normal broadcast picture results in your local television station backing out of high definition (which happens with a jolt to the screen picture) and then back to HD (if they remember to flip the switch again). There have been times when I have had to call the local TV station and tell them that they forgot to put the broadcast back into high definition after a broadcast interruption. There is nothing I can do about the cancellation crawl because that goes on for hours, even days.

In Boston, they have one channel (WCVB - ABC Channel 5) that is in HD all the time. They have the right equipment to broadcast locally in high definition so these issues don't affect them.

As for when our local TV stations in Maine have the same capabilities so that the viewer is not affected by broadcast interruptions, from what I can tell and from the information I have been able to get, there are not plan in the near future for our local TV stations to upgrade their equipment. I think this is a travesty.

Why is it that our PBS stations, in both Maine and New Hampshire, have better High Definition technology than the “for profit” TV stations in our area? PBS depends on public funds and donations. They aren’t exactly rich. But somehow they have put their priorities in order by investing in the future. Never mind that, they invested in the present.

In my opinion, Jeers to all Portland TV stations who can’t seem to set their HD priorities correctly. In one week, it will be one year from the date that all broadcast television must be in digital format. That doesn’t mean everything will be in High Definition, just digital. But you need digital to get to High Definition.

It just doesn’t seem the our local for-profit TV stations are committed to giving the viewing public regular, reliable, High Definition programming. I am glad I don’t pay the cable company for digital and high definition TV because then I would be really upset.

Portland Television Stations have a problem with HD broadcasts

I have written about this subject many times. I have written to my local television stations, posted articles on this blog just to unload how discouraged I am. I don't know who to write to any more.

If you read through this blog you will find many articles describing many versions of the same problem. I receive all over-the-air broadcasts for the Portland, Maine televison market for free. I don't have cable or satellite but I do have an HDTV, and an antenna. So I receive all High Definiton programming broadcast from my local stations for free as well. When I flip through my digital channels, I know based on the day, and the time, what should be in high definition, as opposed to just regular digital (or standard definition). When I know a program should be in High Definition but is not, I call the local TV station in question, I let them know the problem (which boils down to the control room flipping a switch) and move on with my life. My call to the station is not usually well-received. I don't know if it is because they are embarassed that an average viewer with no background in broadcasting and no affiliation with broadcasting is calling them to let them know they dropped the ball, or what.

I have in the last week alone called WMTW, ABC Channel 8 in Portland, WCSH, NBC Channel 6 in Portland, and WGME, CBS Channel 13 in Portland to inform them that their prime time broadcast or a particular program which is supposed to be in High Definition, indeed is not.

I know that if I didn't call, they wouldn't notice. And since I spent a lot of money for a good quality HDTV, I feel I am entitled to as much HD programming as possible. I used to PAY for cable and High Definition. Due to financial contraints, I got rid of all the equipment and services I was paying for and went with the old rabbit ears setup. It works fine and I am fine with getting only the major broadcast networks (ABC, NBC, CBS, PBS, CW, MYNETWORK) in digital, and therefore HD when available. In my area, we can not get FOX in HD until 2/17/09 but that's another story and you can find information on this subject elsewhere on this blog.

I would be far more upset if I was paying a cable or satellite company a premium to receive High Definition through their services and was not receiving what I paid for. I don't know how the cable or satllite companies would handle a phone call from a customer complaining that the customer wasn't receiving an HD broadcast even though they were paying for it. Would the cable/satellite company call the local station? Well, actually, I do know the answer.

I remember having this problem when I had HD through my cable company. They simply told me that it wasn't their problem, it was a problem at the station and left it at that. So it was still up to me to call the television station. Before I knew the real deal, the television station would just blame the cable company. So I was stuck in the finger-pointing loop and didn't know any better. So in the end, I suspect that the cable or satellite companies would not go to bat for the consumer. I think this is a problem to which there is no answer, except adequate techical ability at the local television station.

My problem is how do I prevent or stop the problem of these local stations not broadcasting in HD when they should be. How can I prevent the situation of me having to call my local stations on a regular basis to first, tell them there is a problem, and second, ask them to FLIP THE SWITCH for HD? Each and every one of these TV stations is an in-state toll call. So it costs me money on top of it. Do I ask for reimbursement? You know as well as I do that asking for that isn't going to get me too far.

I have presented this problem via email to WGME, WMTW, and WCSH to no avail. The problem still happens. I can't believe it is that difficult for them to control. If I, as an average viewer, can figure out in a matter of seconds that there is a problem at the station, why can't they?

Hey, I"m out of work and looking for a job. I'd be happy if they wanted to hire me to sit there and make sure programming was in HD when it was supposed to be. I would even agree to stop writing this blog and stop exposing the problem, if they would just fix the problem.

WGME not broadcasting in High Definition

On Friday, February 8, 2008, I was scrolling through the 7 channels I get locally since I only have over the air TV. I noticed that Channel 13, WGME out of Portland Maine, was not broadcasting in High Defintion at about 8:15 PM (prime time on a Friday).

I called the station and talked to a very nice guy named Donnie. He put me on hold for a second or two and I noticed that the problem was fixed. He came back to the phone and said that it should be OK now; to which I responded "I can see it is already fixed" and asked if someone forgot to "flip the switch" again. He said yes, and chuckled and bit, as I did, thanked me and we hung up.

Now I am not happy that I have to call my local televsion stations on a regular basis for this exact same reason, but it was nice to get a nice person for a change. I ususally have to call WCSH or WMTW and I never get the sort of nice treatment I got from Donnie.

Thanks for WGMW. I wish the average consumer didn't have to call to let you know you didn't flip the HD switch but if one has to, at least you will be kind to them.