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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But I digress.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Am I really ready for Digital TV?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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



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



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



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



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



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

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

The main phone number is 207.782.1800.



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks folks,

Local Portland Broadcasters finally putting digital technology to good use

A while back, WPME launched the Maine Visitors Channel (on their digital sub channel), a separate, locally produced set of programs targeted at visitors to the Portland area.

Other than that, WCSH6 and WMTW have used their digital sub channels for replays and repackages of news and weather (yawn!).

Now, WCSH, during the Olympics, finally put their sub channel to good use, and in my mind, what sub channels are meant for; at least one of the the things they are meant for.

During the Olympics, if the NBC Network decides to broadcast right through the local 12:00 noon news hour, WCSH 6 will broadcast the news on its sub channel. That's Channel 6.2 to you and me, over the air. Some cable providers carry Channel 6.2 as part of their regular line-up, usually on channel 207.

So for those of us using over the air antennas to receive free digital and high definition broadcasts, it's easy, and WCSH actually announced they were going to do this. I saw something flash on the TV screen there at about 11:45 am today. On my TV I just have to surf one channel up from 6.1 to 6.2 and receive their Noon News Broadcast.

It's nice to see someone is finally thinking about this and leveraging the advantages of digital broadcasting.

What's going on with Subchannels in Portland, Maine

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

WPME, Portland Channel 35 launches Visitor's Channel

The digital age of television is finally doing what it was designed to do. And it is happening here in Portland, Maine, for the very first time in the country. Portland, Maine, has a new TV channel and I am so excited.

WPME, Channel 35, has two digital broadcasts. The first is channel 35.1 which is their regular WPME channel. The second, allowed now by the introduction of digital television, is channel 35.2, the Maine Visitors Channel.

The first of its kind in the country, WPME has an agreement with several hotels in Portland and more are being added. WPME put converter boxes in these hotels to ensure that each television in the guest rooms would be able to receive the channel 35.2 signal. This doesn't mean you can't receive the channel. Digital broadcasts by network affiliates (in the case MyNetwork) are free and over the air. Most hotels have not installed digital TVs in all of their room, ergo the reason why WPME had to provide the converter boxes.

If you have a Digital TV with an antenna, or an Analog TV with an antenna and a converter box, you will be able to pick up this channel. I get it at my house in Springvale, about 30 or so miles from Portland. Cable TV and Satellite TV don't carry the channel so over the air is the only way to get it.

Produced in Portland, Maine, by WPME, they have designed a new network for tourists or visitors, but it can be just as valuable to Mainers themselves. They highlight everything from current events like festivals, tours, art exhibits, and even the weather forecast; all kinds of things in that genre for people looking for things to do while they are in Portland, or looking for new things to do if you already live here. I just watched a segment on Portland Head Light in Casco Bay, a great destination for visitors and locals with a great view of the bay and classic Maine vistas. It is something that I have never done in the 8 years that I have lived here. Local businesses are also highlighted.

Having separate broadcasts on the same channel (or sub-channel) from one station is part of what digital TV is all about. Most broadcast television stations around the country use their primary channel for digital, high definition programming and their sub-channel for "something else". In this case, a first of its kind, and locally produced, a local visitors network. I think it is pretty cool and WPME is a trail blazer in this respect.

Channel 8, WMTW in Portland already use their sub-channel for an endless loop of news/sports/weather updates. WMTW updates this loop several times a day.

Channel 6, WCSH, was first to use its sub-channel for 24 hour Weather Plus, an NBC owned subsidiary. Weather Plus is carried by many, or most, NBC affiliates on their respective digital sub-channels.

While both WMTW and WCSH got there first, what they did wasn't special. Producing original programming for a niche market is new and different and I respect WPME for really showing what can be done in the new age of digital television. I wish them the best of luck.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Portland Television Stations have a problem with HD broadcasts

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Response from WMTW re: HD Programming - They still don't know how to deal with the public and don't care much about HD

February 6, 2008
UPDATED: According to an unnamed source, broadcast networks like ABC, NBC, CBS, etc. do not offer more than one type of feed to their affiliates so please keep this in mind when reading this article. It appears, although not 100% proven that WMTW lied in its response and I can only assume that they did not want to admit to cost cutting measures. I gave WMTW one last chance to change their response and they are sticking by their story that their response was accurate and factual

February 4-5 2008

As stated in the previous post, the Sunday night movie from WMTW (February 3, 2008) was not in HD. Other ABC affiliates I contacted that night were all broadcasting in HD.


I wrote an email to WMTW and the first answer I got from Bill Greep, Director of Engineering was, and I quote "The movie "Meet the Fockers" was broadcast by WMTW in standard definition last night".


Well I already knew that and that's why I wrote the email. This was an obvious attempt at dodging the question. I wrote back and asked "If the other ABC affiliates I contacted were all broadcasting the movie in HD why didn't WMTW broadcast it in HD?" to which I got the response: "ABC offered a short version and a long version of the movie, "Meet the Fockers". We aired the long version which was not available in HD."


Once again, I know that WMTW broadcasted the movie in standard definition, I still don't know why so I asked again: Once again, I understand what was aired. I guess I am not asking the question correctly. We are interested in why WMTW made the choice it did to air the non-HD version. If most other ABC affiliates (or at least the ones I contacted in New England) aired the HD version, why did WMTW not air it. Was it a question of money? What is WMTW's committment to offering HD programming to its viewers?


The next response I got from Greep was "Our decision to air the longer version of the movie was simply an internal programming decision...nothing more. "


This still does not answer the simple question of WHY?


So my next step was to write to the General Manager, Ken Bauder, explain all of the questions I asked and the poor answers I received. I am now waiting for a response.


I received a reply from Mr. Bauder stating that in his opinion, Mr. Greep's responses were "accurate and to the point". Further he stated that they do not discuss internal decisions "in the press".


So I wrote back one more time to confirm what I think he was saying. I wrote: "Just to clarify, WMTW did not show Sunday night's broadcast in high definition because you simply chose not to, is that correct." and I am now awaiting a reply.

Mr. Bauder wrote back and said the WMTW had the option of broadcasting a longer version of the movie in standard definition or a shorter version of the movie in High Definition. Obviously WMTW chose the longer version in standard definition.

I have yet to verify whether or not ABC indeed offered affiliates two different versions of the movie. It doesn't make too much sense to me since primetime programming is controlled at the network level, not the local level. I'm not saying it couldn't happen, but I have never in all the work I've done on High Definition programming, ever heard of this. I can not find a place to look at prior TV listing so I can compare whether or not the movie had different movie lengths in different broadcast areas. I know who carried it in HD so if I did find such a source, I could just cross reference.

My suspicion is the WMTW knew it was up against the Super Bowl and decided on its own to downgrade the broadcast to standard definition to save a few buck. I believe they may have assumed that everybody was watching football and no one would notice that "Meet the Fockers" was in standard definition. Well, I noticed and I'm not done investigating yet.

What is going on with High Definition at WMTW?

Since I don't have cable or satellite, I look forward to sitting down and watching a high definition broadcast with my HDTV and my antenna. It's free, and it works (read other articles on this blog if you want to learn how to get HD for free).

On Sunday night, February 3, 2008, I was one of the few not watching the super bowl. So when the movie "Meet the Fokkers" came on on my local ABC affiliate, I thougth, what the heck.

So I turned it on and it wasn't in high definition. I'm used to this. I called the station to let them know to flip the switch (read other articles on this site about how many times I have to call my local affilates to let them know they forgot to flip the switch and allow the broadcast in high definition). The person who answered the phone, Adam, told me that the network "for some reason" did not give them this particular program in high definition.

Hmm. I thought, well, it could be true I guess. So I called an ABC station in New Hampshire and I called an ABC station in Connecticut. Both of them were broadcasting this same movie at the same time slot, from the same network, in High Definition. Now my alarms were going off; something was amiss.

I called back and spoke to "Adam". I told him that other ABC stations were broadcasting "Meet the Fokkers" in high definition. He told me that the network "did not offer this particular movie to WMTW in high definition". I told him that this did not make sense to me and asked how could they be the only station in the area not "allowed" or "offered" one particular program in High Definition????. That makes no sense at all.

I asked Adam who I could talk to to get move information. I identified myself as someone from the Maine HDTV Forum who wrote about HD issues in Maine. He told me there was no one on a Sunday night I could speak to. I told him that I meant in the morning or next week. He understood but wasn't sure who I could talk to. He referred me to someone in Programming or Engineering. I will certainly do that and let you know what happens.

HDTV or DTV Reception problems - WMTW Channel 8 - Portland, ME

I got some excellent advice from Bill Greep from WMTW Channel 8 in Portland, ME. I had always had great reception for Channel 8.1 (DTV/HDTV). In the last several days, the video and audio had become choppy and inconsistent, making it impossible to watch that channel.

I wrote to the station and asked if there were any changes in the signal output. Bill assured me there was not but had the following input:

"Unfortunately, this time of year (with vast temperature swings and antenna icing) can breed interference from a host of environmental sources, including icing, unstable air currents, or interference due to snow. One thing you may try is to power cycle your DTV off-air receiver and/or do another channel scan of off-air DTV channels. This allows the receiver to optimize digital channel filter settings for the best possible DTV signal. "

Well, I thanked Bill for the possible explanation and took his advice on the recycle of the channel scan. It actually worked and my reception is much better now.

Thanks Bill for the great advice.

Unexplained Signal Stenght Problems with HDTV

I've been using a UHF/VHF antenna to receive all of my HD programming over the air for free for well over a year now.

I must admit I have been lucky that I can put my antenna (an indoor model) in one location on the table behind where my LCD HDTV sits and with very little exception, my signal strenght has been phenomenal. I only have a problem when I've been cleaning or something and moved the antenna's position by accident but have always been able to get it back to where all my available stations are coming in clear as a bell.

In the last few days, all of a sudden I have two channels, WCSH-DT 6 and WPXT-DT 51 that won't retain a consistent signal strength resulting in a very aggravating situation where I am standing there playing every so slightly with the antenna angle trying to get these channels to come in. And when I do, I have problems with all of the other channels I get. I was about ready to pull my hair out.

I was watching "Pearl Harbor" last night, which in HD is such an awesome movie. The special video affects and specialized background audio affects in surround sound (the built into my TV kind, not the whole separate speaker package) really make that movie an incredible viewing experience. However, with my signal problems, it sounded like a record with a skip in it or a CD with a scratch on it. The picture would pixelate and block out, and it was so annoying to watch I had to turn it off.

I thought about it for a while and then got down-right determined to figure out the problem; I had always been able to figure it out so I was pissed.

Shazam! I actually found what I did not think existed. A totally different angle/position for the UHF/VHF antenna and all of my signal issues went away. Some signals were stronger than others, but then they were always like that. But I was happy that I was able to get my "perfected" system up and running again.

So, just some advice. Have no fear. If you are using an antenna to get your HD, you will find the right location. Just keep working at it.

Keep in mind that sometimes, signals bounce off of things like walls. In my case the best location for my antenna happened to be pointing it right into a corner of my living room.