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

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.

CBS, Sinclair, and WGME pass the buck regarding High Def issues

WGME-13 in Portland, Maine is NOT broadcasting in 1080i High Definition on their HD Channel (13.1).

I didn't notice for a while because I had cable TV, with a cable box.  I remember thinking that WGME's broadcast didn't have the quality I remembered but I don't watch TV that often anymore and figured that since I was using my cable box instead of an antenna, there was a signal degradation.  When I decided it was too expensive and went back to using my old Bessie (TERK Antenna) my Sony Bravia TV told me that Channel 13.1 was in 720p.  Then it hit me.

This confused the heck out of me.  As the second largest broadcaster in the world behind the BBC (UK), CBS Corporation was one of the biggest proponents of 1080i High Definition, investing a lot of money to make 1080i the standard over 720p.  In the end, CBS got what it wanted for CBS affiliates while other Networks, like ABC and Fox went with 720p.  And I know that WGME had been broadcasting in 1080i from back a ways when I only relied on over the air High Definition.  So when I noticed all of this happening last week, I called CBS Corporation in New York and left a message - that was my only option.

CBS itself doesn't own WGME, it is owned by SInclair Broadcasting (better known as the Tea Party broadcasting group).  On the day I left a message with CBS, I went home that night and noticed that WGME was back to broadcasting in 1080i.  I thought that maybe, someone from CBS contacted them.  CBS Affiliates are under contract to rebroadcast network programming in 1080i.  It work the same for whatever network we're talking about whether the contract is for 720p or 1080i.
Now, there is an ongoing debate over which is better, 720p or 1080i.  I can guarantee you, in all my years of researching HD TV, 1080i is superior to 720p.  I can tell the difference from a mile off.  But that's not the point.  The point is that CBS and NBC transmit their HD signals in 1080i, while ABC and Fox broadcast in 720p.  Do me a favor - watch and compare and see if you don't agree.

I worked on getting my antenna in just the right spot for several days (it's what you do when you rely on Over The Air, or OTA, television signals).  So I know that it wasn't a fluke.  WGME didn't slip up one day for a few hours.  They were broadcasting in 720p for I don't know how long and they hoped nobody would notice.

I noticed.

I knew (from previous experience) that if I called the General Manager of WGME that I wouldn't get any answers.  So I called CBS Corporate Offices in New York.  I didn't get to speak to a live person but I left a message with a Rich Shoenholtz in Affiliate Relations.  I never heard back from the guy (I wasn't surprised).  When I didn't hear back I wrote to Craig Clark, the Chief Engineer at WGME to ask about the 720p signal.  I did not hear back from him either.

Today, I called CBS again and talked to a lovely (I'm kidding) woman named Kathleen Powers.  She had absolutely no idea what I was talking about and didn't know High Definition from a hole in the wall.  After I got frustrated trying to explain, she put me on hold and said she talked to "someone" who said that Sinclair Broadcasting owned WGME and I would have to take it up with them.

OK - I don't get it.  WGME is owned by Sinclair but under contract with CBS to rebroadcast the CBS signal in 1080i.  CBS spent a lot of money to make sure they would be in 1080i when the conversion to digital/HDTV took place.  But nobody cares that their affiliate isn't doing what is supposed to be done under a signed contract?  That make absolutely no sense to me.

So I called Sinclair, knowing ahead of time that I would be hard pressed to find someone there who would talk to a lowly consumer.  When I explained why I was calling the receptionist, again, had absolutely NO IDEA what I was talking about and said that an affiliate could use whatever "brand of equipment" they wanted and that I should take it up with WGME.  What!?  Really?!

When I finally explained what High Definition was and the different qualities of High Definition, and that one of their stations was following protocol, she transferred me to the IT department.  The gentleman that answered the phone said that he wasn't the right person to talk to (after I explained again why I was calling) and "transferred" me to dead air by hanging up on me.

As a last resort, I called Tom Humpage, General Manager of WGME.  I left a voice mail and sent him and email since we had emailed each other a few years back about other issues.

As of the date and time of this posting, I have yet to hear back from anyone regarding this issue.

Sharon Rose on WCSH 6 a second-rate hack

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

WCSH 6 Morning Report in High Def

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Metrocast Cable finally adds some HD channels

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.

WPME's Weeknight Schedule in HD

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks for stopping by.

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Metrocast Cable - no solution, but finally some answers

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Metrocast Cable - Share your horror stories

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

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

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

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

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

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

Metrocast Cable proves once again that they are completely incompetent

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.