CBS affiliate WGME "caught" not broadcasting in 1080i - but Big Brother is watching!

WGME - Channel 13 is in a pickle.  They (or more likely their parent Sinclair Broadcasting) were caught broadcasting a downgraded signal, not up to the standards of being a CBS affiliate.

A while back I noticed the quality of WGME's broadcast had diminished some.  If you own a bigger High Def TV (say, above 40 inches) you are more likely to notice a poor quality picture.

Some people swear there is no difference between 720p and 1080i but those people are wrong.  It's fairly obvious. 

Locally, in Portland, Maine, take a look for yourself.

• NBC, PBS and the CW have an amazing picture (all in 1080i
• ABC, FOX, and MyNetwork have a diminished picture  (all in 720p)

That leaves WGME, the CBS affiliate.  Many of my current TV watching habits were honed over the early days of high definition, based on picture quality.  For example, it took WMTW (ABC-Channel 8) FOREVER to convert to High Definition - so I stopped watching them.

CBS on WGME used to be the hallmark of high quality HD pictures.  But for quite a while now, it has been lacking.  One day I hit the "info" button on my remote and it showed "720p" for the broadcast signal.  I had to stare at it for several minutes.  I thought my cable company was screwing with the CBS signal.  I took the the Internet and double checked.  No, I was right, CBS is broadcasting nationally in 1080i.  So WHY IS MY WGME SIGNAL IN 720P?????

It took until today to find out.  I can't name names or quote anyone.  But apparently WGME has been getting away with this for several (like 4) years.  What I thought was my eyesight going, or the lighting in the room, or my TV crapping out on me, was actually WGME themselves DOWNGRADING the 1080i signal from CBS to 720p.

As it turns out, WGME is "considering" returning to 1080i.

I asked my source specifically why CBS corporate would allow a local affiliate like WGME to screw with its signal, the answer is, they wouldn't.  Big Brother is watching.  And rightly so.

Now, I suspect it took a while for CBS corporate to figure out what was going on but somebody finally noticed.  I believe, and I'm speculating based on what I know, that CBS is forcing WGME back in to the 1080i game.  For WGME is was simply CHEAPER to try to get away with a 720p signal.  Less storage space for audio/video because the files are smaller, less compression, and more room for their current alliance with FOX 23 (who is in 720p and for whom WGME reproduces its own news on FOX 23).  FOX 23 used to ally itself with WCSH (NBC - 1080i) for its local news.  I suspect part of the deal when Fox 23 changed to WGME was that WGME use 720p.  It's all a complicated shell game (read "money") and WGME GOT CAUGHT!.  Or was it SINCLAIR BROADCASTING GROUP WHO HAPPENS TO OWN BOTH WGME AND WPFO (FOX 23) who got caught.

I wish I could say it was I who blew the whistle and called the FCC and CBS Broadcasting.  While I have complained on this site and speculated on a few occasions, I never had real answers.  So it wasn't me.

I am so glad I finally figured out what's been going on.  It's been driving me crazy and it's always great to finally GET answers, even if it could take WGME (or Sinclair Broadcasting) a year to undo the mess they made.

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

WGME CBS Portland, Maine High Definition downgraded to 720p

I noticed recently that CBS is now broadcasting television shows in 720p instead of 1080i.  I'd like to know, and I am trying to find out, when this began, but more importantly WHY?.

Great debaters take on the topic of 1080i versus 720p ad nauseam; there is no consensus.  But as a long time HD television advocate and industry watcher, in my personal opionion (well, me and my TV's) 1080i is far superior to 720p.  Just take a look at the ABC news cast (720p) and compare it to whatever is on CNN (1080i) at the same time and tell me you don't see a difference.

I was watching the CBS Evening News with Scott Pelley recently and noticed how bad the picture was.  I noticed it on Face the Nation the prior day. I started adjusting the fine tuning of my Samsung High Def (which I hate compared to my Sony, Samsung is SO overrated, but that's a story for another post) because the picture just didn't look right.

I tried everything from contrast to brightness to warm/cool and everything in between.  I tried playing with the various (and useless) built-in "modes" on the Samsung (e.g. Movies, Sports, Gaming, etc.) but nothing worked.

When I finally hit the "info" button while tuned in the CBS, I was shocked to see that CBS was broadcasting in 720p. The info button on my TV tells the viewer what "definition" they are watching. I don't believe it had anything to do with WGME because they (like other broadcast stations) simply rebroadcast the signal as it comes in. But to be honest, I'm not sure. I checked back on several days and several other CBS shows and they were still in 720p. For all I know WGME may have downgraded the signal.  I used the google machine thingy and tried various searches regarding CBS and 720p but literally found nothing on the subject that had now capture my attention greatly.

I'm trying to get some answers and I'm starting with WGME to see if they know (or will even tell me) what's going on.

One of the reasons I even watched CBS is for the picture quality.  It's important to me.  If there is breaking news or a Presidential address, I will watch it on NBC, CBS, PBS, or CNN (all 1080i) instead of ABC or FOX (720p for both) because of the better quality of the picture.  When you spend a lot of money on a High Def TV, you want your content in High Def, yes, but you want it in the BEST high def quality you can get.  When you have a choice, you will go with higher quality every time.

So I've started asking questions and we'll see what I find out.

Thanks for reading.

WMTW in Portand, ME, tries to fool viewers looking for HD

 

I'm not quite sure what is going on over at WMTW in Portland, Maine.  Even though Hearst Television (Heart Communications) has spent millions upon millions upgrading the TV stations it owns so that the local news for each can be broadcast in High Definition (HD), somehow Hearst managed to skip over WMTW - "News 8" in Portland, Maine.

Let's face it - whoever has the most HD wins.  Along time ago I predicted that whichever local TV station in our market (Portland/Lewiston/Auburn) did the local news in HD would win the ratings game (and therefore the advertising revenue).  And I happened to be right.  WCSH-6 broadcast its local news in first, WGME-13 was second, and WMTW has yet to do it.  The ratings match up exactly to this dynamic.

Although WMTW has won many award for its news coverage in the last few years, including a regional Emmy award and the Edward R. Murrow award, it continues to be dead last in the ratings in its official demographic area (Portland/Lewiston/Auburn as cited by the National Association of Broadcasters).

And here is why.

First, keep in mind the the majority of US households now have at least one High Definition television. And if you own one, and have truly experienced REAL HD, there is simply no going back to crappy quality pictures.  Why should we.  The technology has been around for two decades.  It would be comparable to the 1950's and 1960's when Color TV took over Black and White.  Can you imagine if out of 3 local TV stations, two were in color and one was in B&W?  Which would you watch on your new color TV?

After the conversion from Analog TV to Digital TV, local TV stations were still broadcasting their locally produced news in standard definition (SD).  It takes lots of money (for equipment in the studio and for field reporting) and time to prepare for broadcasting local news in HD.  But parent company Hearst put up the funds for what seems like every one of its TV station, except WMTW.

As recently as about 3 weeks ago, WMTW's HD capabilities for the local news was limited to a banner/scroll at the bottom of the screen which mostly had weather info during the broadcast, but the actual on-camera folks, and field reporting, was done in SD - and it looked like hell.

About 3 weeks ago, WMTW "converted" to what uninformed viewers might think is HD, but in fact is not.  WMTW simply changed the aspect ratio from 4:3 (SD) to 16:9 (typically HD but more accurately is simply considered wide screen. You don't have to be in HD to broadcast in wide screen) so that the picture would fill the screen and not look stretched or squished.

However, the quality of the broadcast didn't change.  The local news is in wide screen but IS NOT IN HD.  Nor is the field reporting.  Just compare the onscreen graphics to the info bar at the bottom.  Or compare the picture to one of the other TV station's local news.

I can only imagine that WMTW received many complaints from viewers regarding its lack of local news in HD.  So their solution was to try to fool the viewing audience into assuming the broadcast was now in HD simply because the picture was now in wide screen format.  Well, guess what - IT'S NOT!!!!  There is NOTHING HD about WMTW's news broadcast.  It's just a wider originating picture.  Shame on you WMTW.

I am perplexed as to why WMTW is one of the few, if not the only, Hearst-owned TV stations around the country which has not been converted to full HD for the local news.  I've tried to find out, but simply can not.  And worse now is that because of ratings, WMTW cancelled it's weekday noon newscast due to lack of ratings and was replaced by "The Steve Harvey Show".  Really!?  Are you kidding me??  That show will get cancelled within a few months if not weeks.  Then, WMTW will be showing infomercials instead of a noon newscast.  It's just sad.  And all because the ratings were lost to two other stations who invested in HD technology for the local news cast.  WMTW is also the only local TV station to skip a 5 PM newscast - because nobody is watching in non-HD.  Instead they have the Dr. Phil show at 5 pm which is rebroadcast from an HD uplink.  They can do that, but they can't broadcast the local news in HD.  It's different technology.

The bottom line is that WMTW is dragging in the ratings even though the station wins prestigious awards.  But who would want to watch WMTW news (that looks awful on an HDTV) when the viewer can relax his/her eyes and watch WCSH-6 or WGME-13 local news in GLORIOUS, full HD.  No matter how insipid the news readers are (I simply can not call the people who anchor or report for WCSH or WGME "journalists"), the weather maps on the two HD stations are cool (especially WCSH) and much of the field reporting, which is sometimes local and sometimes rebroadcast from other stations around the country, is crystal clear in HD.

WMTW is losing the ratings game.  By all measurable criteria, they should be winning. But the lack of HD from the live studio news broadcast AND from the field reporting is dragging them down even further.

I tried to reach WMTW for comment about why they switched to 16:9 wide screen but not to HD, and to find out why Hearst's multi-million dollar investments in most stations it owns had not reached WMTW.  I could not get a response.

In defense of WMTW, the station does not refer to its local news as HD and does not use "HD" in any tag lines.  However, switching to a wide screen format as a way to placate the public is one more nail in the coffin, and a bit (or a lot) disingenuous.

WMTW once had one of the biggest viewerships in the country (by share) because its tower was located on top of Mount Washington, the highest place in New England.  They used to reach six or seven states plus the Montreal market.  The fall from grace began when digital TV was mandated and WMTW had to sell it's spot "on the mountain" due to FCC regulations.  They simply could not or would not keep up with current technology.

I'm sure that the local management at WMTW wishes like crazy that their local news was in HD.  I can't imagine it would be otherwise.  So the blame has to be put on the Hearst Corporation.  I wouldn't be surprised if Hearst plans to sell the station and that is why WMTW's newsroom has not been converted to HD.

If anyone out there knows what's going on, I'd truly love a reply to this post so that my readers will understand it as well.

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.

The Maine HDTV blog is not for sale

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

New TV Station and More HD in Southern Maine

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



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



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



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



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

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.

WGME - 60 Minutes not in HD

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

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

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

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

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

The new LED High Definition TV's

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

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

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

Take care and thanks for stopping by.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Disney HD - wow, what a concept

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

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

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

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

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

The many faces of High Definition

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

Here are some of the different categories and examples:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Let us know what you think.

Post DTV transition in Maine - having any problems?

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks again for stopping by.

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.

Digital and HD TV - the week in review

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

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

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

Riley and MPBN can't have it both ways.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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