FWIW, below is my response to D*'s supposed "answer" about HD RSNs for Maine:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thank you for your prompt response. Unfortunately it is not accurate.

If the issue with HD RSNs is a spot beam issue only then why does the
entire state of Maine have HD RSNs unavailable when they are available
in bordering towns in NH?

If you enter the Portsmouth, NH ZIP 03801, RSNs in HD are available.
If you key in the Kittery, ME. ZIP 03904, only RSNs in SD are
available. Check a map - these two towns border each other. This
applies for other towns on the border between Maine and NH. NH has HD
RSNs available, Maine does not for towns that border each other. The
spot beam follows exactly the border? I don't think so.

So this is another instance of DirecTV not giving a correct answer on
this issue. What is the real story? Please escalate this.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And here is the reply I got from D* today after 5 days:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thank you for writing. I apologize for any inconvenience or frustration this may have caused. We hope to be able to offer NESN HD in the Portland-Auburn ME market very soon. Unfortunately I do not have an official time frame for this to occur. Wee are continuously expanding our HD capabilities and hope to offer this service in more New England markets as soon as possible.

Thank you again for writing. I'm sorry I can't be of more assistance. If you have any additional questions our customer service representatives are available at 1-800-531-5000, 24 hours a day, seven days a week to assist you.

Sincerely,

Andy
DIRECTV Customer Service

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I've sent an e-Mail to NESN today asking for their side of the story. I'll post any answer I get.

I've sent an e-Mail to NESN today asking for their side of the story. I'll post any answer I get.

Good for you! It's amazing how that D* spot beam that was described as just big enough to surround a city suddenly became big enough to cover the entire Portland-Auburn DMA isn't it. :rolleyes:

Dana

Come on, Dam, how did you do with the cableguy yesterday? Are you just sleeping late because you've been watching all those HD channels all night long?

Just thought I would pass this along for the Comcast subscribers out there. I have seen the Comcast trucks all over Topsham recabling the entire town it seems. They were on my street today with several trucks along with town trucks clearing trees. They were stringing new cable along the entire street. I assume that this is part of the infrastructure needed to support their products such as VOD, VOIP and of course more HD channels. I think it is probable that they found that Suscom's systems and cable was outdated and needed to be replaced and that is the reason for the delay in new products.

Just thought I would pass this along for the Comcast subscribers out there. I have seen the Comcast trucks all over Topsham recabling the entire town it seems. They were on my street today with several trucks along with town trucks clearing trees. They were stringing new cable along the entire street. I assume that this is part of the infrastructure needed to support their products such as VOD, VOIP and of course more HD channels. I think it is probable that they found that Suscom's systems and cable was outdated and needed to be replaced and that is the reason for the delay in new products.

Could be! Harpswell was restrung with fiber optic cable a few years ago. SusCom contracted it out to Rhythmic Cable of Brunswick, as I recall. I saw their trucks in Durham, too, so it never occurred to me that SusCom didn't pull new cable through their entire territory. Hmm.

Dana

Time Warner Cable notice in yesterday's paper said Sinclair's WGME (analog) may go off the cable on January 1st.

Time Warner Cable notice in yesterday's paper said Sinclair's WGME (analog) may go off the cable on January 1st.

Holy Cow! Analog is being pulled??!!! Is this the same sort of squabble that we watched in Bangor? If WGME won't provide its HD feed to TWC on its terms, then TWC won't carry WGME's analog feed? And run to the newspapers to generate sympathy and pressure on WGME?

I wonder how TWC will get around the "must-carry" rule? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Must-carry

Dana

No, I don't think it's anything like that at all.

TV stations are authorized to charge for their signal if a cable company will sign an agreement to do so. Sinclair owns WGME and a good number of other stations around the country and they want to be paid for use of their signal. They are going all out in this regard and are ready to pull their signals from cable companies with whom they have not signed agreements. WGME itself is out of the picture. Sinclair is handling this from the corporate office.

Since Time Warner Cable knows that their current agreement expires 12/31 and that negotiations for a new agreement have not been successful so far, they are required to notify their customers in advance that the station may no longer be available.

I believe the must-carry rule applies only if a station (Sinclair) agrees that the signal CAN be carried. In other words Sinclair can order the cable company to carry the signal.

Naturally, stations would like to be paid for their signal. You will have to decide for yourself which side you are cheering for. The payment is always described as being only a few cents per cable subscriber. Certainly, the subscriber not the company will bear the cost and I suspect that the annual cost to the subscriber will become significant considering that it will increase over the years and every local station will demand to be paid at least the same amount as Sinclair.

My sentiments lie with the cable company because the cost of cable services already exceed anything I ever dreamed anyone would have to pay to in order to watch television.

Maybe WGME won't be such a popular place for advertisers to spend their money when they realize the station is no longer carried on cable.

That certainly seems like a faulty strategy by Sinclair. While they won't have make much of a dent in the subscription levels at TWC, they most certainly will make a dent in advertising dollars at the local stations. There will be a short term headache for the cable co as subscribers scream and yell, but the long term effect on the stations could be catastrophic.
Brutal.

CableCARD issue took an interesting turn again on 12/5. For the 2nd time in a row, the service rep call before arriving and informed me that they will not be responding to my site. He stated that they had been recently informed that there is a bigger cableCARD issue than they (TWC) previous thought and that a site visit was not going to correct the problem. He also stated that a supervisor from the midcoast region was to attend a meeting in Portland on the same day (12/5) and the supervisor was to bring up the cableCARD issue as he has become aware that there has been an very low success rate for cableCARD installations since the merger. Apparently this supervisor was starting to here about bigger problems in the Bangor, Augusta and Rockland regions. To say the least, I was a little apprehensive, but in the early afternoon I got a call from TWC in Portland informing me that they had received a new (high priority) trouble ticket written by the service rep and an email that I had written to TWC in November and that they would be addressing the problem. Within the next hour, I got a call from representatives from Portland and they wanted to repeat the "hits" to my card. I say representatives (plural) as there were two to three people on the line at different times. After they experienced failure, they wanted to get a service rep to the house to replace the card. Within 15 minutes, a service rep was at my door. The new card also failed.

What is next is this. The midcoast supervisor that was meeting in Portland on the cableCARD issue informed the service rep to take the cableCARDS back to the office. His plan is to install the cards (or any card) in an HDTV at his local office (Rockland), experience the problem first hand, troubleshoot and develop a process to activate a cableCARD.

From listening to the techs on the phone and taking to the service rep as he was leaving the house, they were leaning towards an activation problem.

That certainly seems like a faulty strategy by Sinclair. While they won't have make much of a dent in the subscription levels at TWC, they most certainly will make a dent in advertising dollars at the local stations. There will be a short term headache for the cable co as subscribers scream and yell, but the long term effect on the stations could be catastrophic.
Brutal.

I am inclined to the view that TWC is playing with fire. This is a national issue between Sinclair Broadcasting and TWC. But, I don't think the average cable subscriber cares. They want their favorite channels. And HD TV owners want more HD channels.

TWC behaves as if it has no competition (a major concern of the Maine AG). But, D* announced a few days ago that it plans to offer more than 40 (!) HD channels when its next two satellites are launched in mid-2007. Link: http://www.tvpredictions.com/hillhd112906.htm They already offer WGME in HD. So, a TWC subscriber who is not satisfied with TWC's lineup for whatever reason can get a dish, get WGME and lots more channels.

That's true with Comcast, too. But, they seem more inclined to be competitive.

Dana

CableCARD issue took an interesting turn again on 12/5. For the 2nd time in a row, the service rep call before arriving and informed me that they will not be responding to my site. He stated that they had been recently informed that there is a bigger cableCARD issue than they (TWC) previous thought and that a site visit was not going to correct the problem. He also stated that a supervisor from the midcoast region was to attend a meeting in Portland on the same day (12/5) and the supervisor was to bring up the cableCARD issue as he has become aware that there has been an very low success rate for cableCARD installations since the merger. Apparently this supervisor was starting to here about bigger problems in the Bangor, Augusta and Rockland regions. To say the least, I was a little apprehensive, but in the early afternoon I got a call from TWC in Portland informing me that they had received a new (high priority) trouble ticket written by the service rep and an email that I had written to TWC in November and that they would be addressing the problem. Within the next hour, I got a call from representatives from Portland and they wanted to repeat the "hits" to my card. I say representatives (plural) as there were two to three people on the line at different times. After they experienced failure, they wanted to get a service rep to the house to replace the card. Within 15 minutes, a service rep was at my door. The new card also failed.

What is next is this. The midcoast supervisor that was meeting in Portland on the cableCARD issue informed the service rep to take the cableCARDS back to the office. His plan is to install the cards (or any card) in an HDTV at his local office (Rockland), experience the problem first hand, troubleshoot and develop a process to activate a cableCARD.

From listening to the techs on the phone and taking to the service rep as he was leaving the house, they were leaning towards an activation problem.

As you might surmise, I am very, very interested in what you are experiencing and I am glad that you are making each event clear since the cablecard issue is something I have been watching for more than two years.

I don't want to be a conspiratorial nut case, but I am very suspicious of the difficulties / successes with cablecards. One thing in your posting stood out:

"........and the supervisor was to bring up the cableCARD issue as he has become aware that there has been an very low success rate for cableCARD installations since the merger."

This fits with my deepest and darkest suspicions. It does not require a local technician climbing a pole with a 'crowbar and hammer' to cause cablecards to NOT work. It only requires computer data entry by the senior technician at corporate level. The entire system follows computer orders. I really think that cable companies do not want cablecards to work. Adelphia was going out of business and didn't need the trouble of servicing failures. Current companies want their two-way rented boxes out there. They, also, want to delay things in general until, at least, the two-way cablecards arrive.

I'm a little concerned for the job of the supervisor (local) that has noted the very low success rate for cablecard installations SINCE THE MERGER. He, also, seems to be determined and resourceful in seeking an answer and a cure for the 'problem.' It might turn out that he is a 'problem' for the company.

Please keep us informed. I'm a little wacko on this particular matter and it is really getting interesting.

For whatever it's worth, I have an S3 Tivo running on two cablecards and I have Time Warner in Falmouth. I have had very few problems, but I have learned a few things. First, I was suprised at the number of channels that have to be individually authorized at the main office. For example, TCM and the channel next to it did not work and that had to be specifically authorized. Also, anything that is a "switched digital" channel cannot be handled by a cable card. On digital cable in my area, that means almost all the "pacific" or "west" versions of channels (which are really just duplicates with time delay). Fortunately, that rule does not apply to HD channels.

Based on my limited research, it sounds like most issues come from 1. Poor authorization thoroughness at the main office 2. Defective or bad quality cable cards and 3. The quality of the interface in the TV or other unit using the cable card--some of the earlier generation units and specifically some manufacturers just seem to have more problems than others.

Wow. I guess you could succesfully debate the "who will this hurt" from either side as easy as you can debate both sides of the "pay for carriage" discussion that's spawning this move!
I can see your point, Dana, and TWC is certainly playing with fire, but I still think the local broadcasters will be the one's to pay the heaviest price whoever ends up "winning" the overall issue Whether folks switch to D* or not, WGME is going to lose a large chunck of their audience in a heartbeat if/when TWC turns off their signal. That's going to result in a significant loss of advertising dollars.
I know if I was a local advertiser, I wouldn't bother to pay for anything that wouldn't be seen by what, half the local area? I'm not sure what TWC market penetration is, but I think 50% would be pretty generous guess. Please correct me if I'm wrong...I know someone will! :)
Time will tell....This is certainly an escalation in the conflict. Higher risk, higher reward, (or bigger consequences) for everyone.

I am inclined to the view that TWC is playing with fire. This is a national issue between Sinclair Broadcasting and TWC. But, I don't think the average cable subscriber cares. They want their favorite channels. And HD TV owners want more HD channels.

TWC behaves as if it has no competition (a major concern of the Maine AG). But, D* announced a few days ago that it plans to offer more than 40 (!) HD channels when its next two satellites are launched in mid-2007. Link: http://www.tvpredictions.com/hillhd112906.htm They already offer WGME in HD. So, a TWC subscriber who is not satisfied with TWC's lineup for whatever reason can get a dish, get WGME and lots more channels.

That's true with Comcast, too. But, they seem more inclined to be competitive.

Dana

Dana, I would say that both companies have a right and a corporate responsibility to take the positions that they have taken. It's a business matter after all. Both sides take calculated risks in order to achieve their desired ends.

Personally, I am cheering for the cable company and hope they continue to resist until the last gun is fired because I don't want to find myself paying more each year for cable service so that each of the 6 or 7 local channels can be paid for their signal.

As Americans, we expect immediate and constant gratification. We don't want to put up with any impairment to our daily lives, but I am going to tell you something. I wouldn't want to be without my electricity, sewer, heat or food for even a single day, but I think I can continue to exist quite well without WGME for some extended time. They have the Patriots, but really ................ ?? This is the time to make some effort to hold down one of the already ridiculously high priced costs of daily life.

I just saw a write up from today's paper here:
http://pressherald.mainetoday.com/news/local/061208channel13.html

Apparently this will only effect former Adelphia customers who just came over in the merger, not all of TWC's customer base.

I just saw a write up from today's paper here:
http://pressherald.mainetoday.com/news/local/061208channel13.html

Apparently this will only effect former Adelphia customers who just came over in the merger, not all of TWC's customer base.

That's a pretty big "only." The former Adelphia system included 220 Maine communities.

Dana

This doesn't matter to me -- I get WGME DT over the air with an antenna, but...

Time Warner and Sinclair pull this balloney all the time. The article is right that they usually come to an agreement. I wouldn't expect any change in the DT channel carriage, but they will get this together. From a national point of view, Maine is a pretty TINY "only" -- Sinclair is in San Antonio, Las Vegas, Tampa -- those would be big. We're small potatoes here. They play these games even in big markets -- a couple of years ago there were threats that Fox would be pulled from Time Warner Houston (where my folks live) around Superbowl time. Grandstanding by both companies. Nothing came of it. Nothing will come of this either.

Joe

Here's why I say that TWC is playing with fire if the corporate suits think that it is in their best interest to play hard ball and let WGME go dark on 138,000 Maine Adelphia customer TVs after Jan. 5. As they preach over and over at LL Bean (I'm an LLB retiree.), consumers have choices. And a significant number of those 138,000 customers may say "Why should I risk not seeing CBS come January right when the NFL playoffs start? (Substitute any other favorite CBS programs if you're not an NFL fan.) I'll try DirecTV!" I know I would. Hell, I switched to DirecTV because I couldn't get CBS in HD on cable! And I didn't come back until there was a commitment to put it on my cable. I'm not alone. I didn't buy the HD TV to sit in the dark when the Pats play.

Here's what TWC itself says in a new court case with DirecTV. "In its lawsuit, Time Warner Cable said ... once customers switch from cable to satellite, it is difficult to convince them to switch back because of the costs involved and lengthy contracts." The law suit is about false advertising claims. TWC is annoyed that DirecTV is trying to lure customers away. http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D8LST60G1.htm But, in Maine they figure DirecTV is not a competitor? We're just country bumpkins who will wait for the light to come on again? I don't think so.

We'll see. Maybe it is "much ado about nothing." I just think Maine TV viewers deserve better than to be pawns in this corporate shoving match. If Comcast can settle with Sinclair, surely TWC can. Without throwing its Maine viewers under the bus.

There's a pretty funny thread (atleast I think its funny..stan54 might disagree!) going on about the Sinclair discussion here: http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=9126034#post9126034. The gist of the feelings on that thread, atleast as I'm seeing it, is that the Sinclair stations will survive this fine while TWC begins a rapid decline in subscription numbers. There's some really boring math regarding this, but I think that perhaps in larger markets the may hold true.
I agree with you, drbonbi: Maine TV viewers are being pawns. In fact, I'd go so far that even WGME is being a pawn here. IMO, WGME faces the biggest risk of all Sinclair markets should this thing back-fire. With TWC's larger than average market share in Southern Maine (maybe not in numbers, but in % of market). I know the following quote represents Maine as whole, but we all know where the largest concentration of viewers is.

"Francis Ackerman, an assistant attorney general, said Friday that Adelphia's 54 percent market share is already among the highest in the country for a single cable provider. If Time Warner were to assume that entire market and add it to the company's existing 31 percent share, it would control 85 percent of Maine's cable market and more than 279,000 subscribers. It's unclear how the sale might affect Comcast's 6.4 percent market share in Maine"
http://www.tmcnet.com/usubmit/-main.../08/1441889.htm

As DrJoe said, probably nothing will come of it. If anything, maybe, finally, an agreement with the NFL playoff right around the corner. Of course I'd lose my neighborhood monopoloy of OTA CBS-HD, but I'm willing to make sacrifices too. :)

Some of my fellow posters take the position that TWC should settle with Sinclair.
This is not a position.
TWC thinks it should settle with Sinclair.
Sinclair thinks it should settle with TWC.
If my fellow posters were to actually take a position, they would specify which side they would prefer to prevail and the terms that they would accept for the people of the State.

I want TWC to prevail with no payment for the signals of local stations. I would accept some level of inconvenience in achieving this due to the long term financial implications of cable companies paying for the signals of local stations.

I don't need to take sides. I want TWC and Sinclair to come to terms on a carriage agreement that will not necessitate a rate increase. I know this is possible because at least Comcast and DirecTV have signed such agreements without concomitant rate increases. Period.

Dana

I will admit freely that I haven't taken a side on this one! I certainly would not like my rates to go up, which some indicate would happen eventually as all broadcasters would begin seeking fees. So I can side with TWC for holding out to try to stem this possible avalanche.
But at the same time, it seems that Sinclair is well with in its right to charge for a product that TWC redistributes for profit. Dunno. I'd like to think both goals can be achieved, but I suspect that's rather silly of me.

Dana, whether you recognize it or not, you are squarely on the side of TWC and you give an excellent reason for choosing that side.

jk, you say you haven't taken a side on this one, but your second sentence says that you can side with TWC and you, too, give an excellent reason for choosing that side. ........... In your 3rd sentence you start to wander off the reservation and, finally, you recognize that you're not thinking straight.

This reflects the problem here. We just want it all to go away and let us drift back to our comfortable couches.

Sinclair is in the lead fighting the battle for the other stations around the country. If they win, the jig is up for you, me and the little old lady living down the street. From that point on, it will be Katie bar the door.

Sinclair is big and tough and the only way they will give up, at least on their digital signal, is if they see advertisers withdrawing their business because the station is losing eyeballs. The only question is, are cable subscribers tough enough to miss something on television for a month or two or more? ............ I'm afraid I know the answer to that one.

jk, you say you haven't taken a side on this one, but your second sentence says that you can side with TWC and you, too, give an excellent reason for choosing that side. ........... In your 3rd sentence you start to wander off the reservation and, finally, you recognize that you're not thinking straight.


Busted. :)

More audio drops on WGME HD today. :( Distracting.

Dana

I'm OTA here in Gardiner on WABI and all is well....except the PATS OFFENSE!
Rob Munzing

Then, that means the problem is with WGME. Arrrrgh.

What offense?

Dana

Maybe I haven't been paying attention, but its in 4:3 now (10 min to go in 2nd half of Jets v Bills. Wasn't it in HD a few minutes ago? I've been sniffing too much paint today....

It's not supposed to be in HD. CBS can only "afford" to telecast three games in HD each week, and that's not one of them. :rolleyes:

The "national" 4:15 PM game is Denver at SD which is in HD.

Dana

Some of my fellow posters take the position that TWC should settle with Sinclair.
This is not a position.
TWC thinks it should settle with Sinclair.
Sinclair thinks it should settle with TWC.
If my fellow posters were to actually take a position, they would specify which side they would prefer to prevail and the terms that they would accept for the people of the State.

I want TWC to prevail with no payment for the signals of local stations. I would accept some level of inconvenience in achieving this due to the long term financial implications of cable companies paying for the signals of local stations.

Are you implying that by "beating" Sinclair, Time Warner will not be paying any local stations for thier signal? My understanding was that Time Warner pays MANY local stations for their signals (especially in bigger markets than Maine's). But data is hard to come by -- I don't know anyone who reports hard facts regarding the carriage agreements local stations come to.

Personally, I think that the cable companies are charging extortive rates to their cable customers. I think that they have fixed the system so that you can't pay a reasonable amount for the 10 channels you want but instead have to pay ten times as much for 100 channels you don't watch. I think that without the broadcasters, the cable companies have very little "value added" to bring to the table. Without the broadcasters, the cable companies are a bunch of wires burried in the ground or strung on poles. I don't see any reason that local stations should be treated any different than ESPN, TNT, WGN, Nickelodeon, CNN, etc: if their programming is worth paying for, then why not the local broadcasters? Don't tell me about advertising dollars compensating the local affiliates for their signals -- the cable-only networks have commercials to but they still get carriage money from Time Warner.

Please understand I have as low an opinion of DirecTV as I do of Time Warner as far as "value" goes (I am an ex-customer of both). I get my programming over the air with an antenna now because I decided that $120/month was too much to get the dozen stations I typically watched on a semiregular basis.

I don't see DirecTV (or Dishnet) as such a great alternative to cable because, in the first place, people haven't switched to them yet. In the second, they don't bundle services like telephone and internet (high speed internet being what I still purchase from Adelphia/Time Warner). Plus, there are the "ugly" dishes -- people whose wives won't let them put "ugly" antennas up on the roof aren't going to let them put up dishes. When I was a DirecTV subscriber, I resented greatly the fact that I needed four subscriptions -- one for my HDTV, one for my ReplayTV DVR, one for my bedroom TV, and one for my stepdaughter's TV. By the time I was done paying for all of the feeds, my bill was just as big as it would have been with cable TV.

As far as the "state" goes -- they should end this garbage of only one cable provider allowed in a community. Let it open to competition. Dump the requirements for local access stations that nobody watches and take up bandwidth from programming people want. Then we might not have to pay through the nose like we do.

later

Joe

Slightly off topic locally, but pertinant vis a vis Time Warner: Anyone hear about the fun stuff going on in New York/New Jersey? Rutgers is going to the Texas Bowl in Houston to play Kansas State. The game is exclusively broadcast on the NFL channel. Unfortunately for the Rutgers University community base, Time Warner isn't carrying the NFL channel due to lack of a carriage agreement with the NFL.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2006/football/ncaa/12/06/rutgers.nflnetwork.ap/index.html

I thought it would be fun to use the link from SI instead of ESPN -- CNN/SI is a Time Warner company.

later,

Joe

Maybe I haven't been paying attention, but its in 4:3 now (10 min to go in 2nd half of Jets v Bills. Wasn't it in HD a few minutes ago? I've been sniffing too much paint today....

They showed roughly a minute of pregame/kickoff prep of the Denver game in HD before switching to the SD Bills/Jets game. For that minute I got excited thinking my request to WGME to show the HD game on the HD channel had been granted (plus I'm a Denver fan :eek: ) Given the outcome of the Denver game, I was probably better off not watching it anyway.

They showed roughly a minute of pregame/kickoff prep of the Denver game in HD before switching to the SD Bills/Jets game. For that minute I got excited thinking my request to WGME to show the HD game on the HD channel had been granted (plus I'm a Denver fan :eek: ) Given the outcome of the Denver game, I was probably better off not watching it anyway.

If you go here http://www.gribblenation.net/nflmaps/14-CBS-L.gif you see that once again, we were treated differently than the Boston DMA which got to watch the Denver-SD game. :( I would have thought that since both the Jets and Buffalo are Pats rivals, that game would have been shown in the Boston DMA. Obviously, I'm wrong.

I have written an email to Craig Clark to ask whats up regarding the audio drop outs on WGME.

Regarding Joe's comments about the Rutgers game, once again the TWC suits are playing with fire. I am confident that much of the Rutgers fan base will find venues with Comcast or D* since both carry the NFL Network. :) It's a public relations disaster, however, and TWC may suffer from a backlash.

Dana

Here's Craig's response to my email about a week ago regarding the dropouts:

We have been investigating the problem. CBS has been involved also,
they
thought it may have been on their end? The problem settled down on its
own after our call to them?? We still have an audio dropout issue that
occurs twice an hour. We updated software in our audio processing
equipment today. I hope that fixes it, time will tell.

Craig

FWIW, I didn't notice any dropouts during the parts of the Pats game that I watched.

Here's Craig's response to my email about a week ago regarding the dropouts:



FWIW, I didn't notice any dropouts during the parts of the Pats game that I watched.

Really. It was every few seconds here, just as you'd described the weekend before. Maybe it's between WGME and Comcast.

Dana

Are you implying that by "beating" Sinclair, Time Warner will not be paying any local stations for thier signal? My understanding was that Time Warner pays MANY local stations for their signals (especially in bigger markets than Maine's). But data is hard to come by -- I don't know anyone who reports hard facts regarding the carriage agreements local stations come to.

Personally, I think that the cable companies are charging extortive rates to their cable customers. I think that they have fixed the system so that you can't pay a reasonable amount for the 10 channels you want but instead have to pay ten times as much for 100 channels you don't watch. I think that without the broadcasters, the cable companies have very little "value added" to bring to the table. Without the broadcasters, the cable companies are a bunch of wires burried in the ground or strung on poles. I don't see any reason that local stations should be treated any different than ESPN, TNT, WGN, Nickelodeon, CNN, etc: if their programming is worth paying for, then why not the local broadcasters? Don't tell me about advertising dollars compensating the local affiliates for their signals -- the cable-only networks have commercials to but they still get carriage money from Time Warner.

Please understand I have as low an opinion of DirecTV as I do of Time Warner as far as "value" goes (I am an ex-customer of both). I get my programming over the air with an antenna now because I decided that $120/month was too much to get the dozen stations I typically watched on a semiregular basis.

I don't see DirecTV (or Dishnet) as such a great alternative to cable because, in the first place, people haven't switched to them yet. In the second, they don't bundle services like telephone and internet (high speed internet being what I still purchase from Adelphia/Time Warner). Plus, there are the "ugly" dishes -- people whose wives won't let them put "ugly" antennas up on the roof aren't going to let them put up dishes. When I was a DirecTV subscriber, I resented greatly the fact that I needed four subscriptions -- one for my HDTV, one for my ReplayTV DVR, one for my bedroom TV, and one for my stepdaughter's TV. By the time I was done paying for all of the feeds, my bill was just as big as it would have been with cable TV.

As far as the "state" goes -- they should end this garbage of only one cable provider allowed in a community. Let it open to competition. Dump the requirements for local access stations that nobody watches and take up bandwidth from programming people want. Then we might not have to pay through the nose like we do.

later

Joe

I'm with you, Joe, I have no idea if cable companies (subscribers) are paying local stations for their signals. I further agree that cable companies are charging subscribers "extortive rates" for their services, but then again, how would I know unless I had full access to their financial records. I have read that ESPN can be pretty extortive with cable companies themselves. They have been said to make offers "that you can't refuse." (subscribers will not see sporting events)

You seem to think that cable isn't very important to broadcasters. That means that broadcasters don't really care if they are carried on cable or not. Personally, I think there is reason to believe that they do care.

You don't see any reason why local broadcasting stations should be treated any different than ESPN, TNT, WGN, Nickelodeon, CNN, etc. ......... I do.

Television broadcasting of the commercial variety began in the late '40's. WABI came on the air in January of 1953 and I was there as a innocent 15 year old to greet the arrival of this still new 'miracle.' I remember wondering why all this entertainment was flowing free of charge into our house. The commercials rolled right by me. Actually, I thought it was part of the entertainment.

There came a day when I realized that the broadcasting stations had invested in equipment and supportive operations on the speculation that they would be able to sell enough advertising to recover their investment, sustain operations and make a profit to boot. This speculation worked out pretty well over the years for most broadcasters.

Then, along came cable. The cable company's plan was to invest in equipment and supportive operations on the speculation that they would be able to sell enough cable connection subscriptions to recover their investment, sustain operations and make a profit to boot. This speculation worked out pretty well over the years for most cable providers.

I have no way of knowing, but it is my guess that both broadcasters and cable providers were quite delighted with what they had going. Cable was happy to pluck signals from the air and be paid to deliver them at a profit. The broadcaster was happy to have their signal 'plucked' from the air, strengthened, neatly packaged and delivered on a single, easy to use wire along with their broadcasting competition.

I DO have a way of knowing that television viewers were very, very unhappy to find that they would not be able to deny themselves this new treat of improved viewing and would have to begin paying for the service.

Somewhere in the late '70's or early '80's (?), the satellite to cable stations came along. They went into business on the speculation that they would be able to sell enough advertising AND CHARGE ENOUGH IN FEES TO THE CABLE DISTRIBUTORS to recover their investment, sustain operations and make a profit to boot. This speculation worked out pretty well over the years for most satellite to cable providers.

With the government's decision to move home television to digital the playing field has changed and caused each party, including satellite to home distributors to rethink their positions and put themselves in the best position for long term financial gain.

Broadcasters, quite naturally, have decided to do everything they can to better their long term financial position by adding a fee for cable providers to use their signal. If successful, they will have developed a brand new revenue source, THAT WAS NEVER CONTEMPLATED WHEN THEY BEGAN BUSINESS. Truly, manna from heaven.

Should the broadcaster be begrudged this fee? I think not! It's just business. No good guys .............. no bad guys.

As a consumer of television services, however, I do not want to bear this additional cost and I am even willing to miss some sporting or other events in order to make it more difficult to charge me this additional cost.

I did try to have the game in HD for you but I was over ruled....

If you go here http://www.gribblenation.net/nflmaps/14-CBS-L.gif you see that once again, we were treated differently than the Boston DMA which got to watch the Denver-SD game. :( I would have thought that since both the Jets and Buffalo are Pats rivals, that game would have been shown in the Boston DMA. Obviously, I'm wrong.

I have written an email to Craig Clark to ask whats up regarding the audio drop outs on WGME.

Regarding Joe's comments about the Rutgers game, once again the TWC suits are playing with fire. I am confident that much of the Rutgers fan base will find venues with Comcast or D* since both carry the NFL Network. :) It's a public relations disaster, however, and TWC may suffer from a backlash.

Dana

I didn't notice any dropouts during the parts of the Pats game that I watched... but I only got to see the 4th qtr. I've been checking our prime-time as this is when there would be 5.1 programming. No major issue with audio dropping every 10sconds. I did obsurve dropped data once a half our. That is bad enough but its different gear that cause that problem, we are waiting for new software.

Craig

Here's Craig's response to my email about a week ago regarding the dropouts:



FWIW, I didn't notice any dropouts during the parts of the Pats game that I watched.

I have to say that I am still impressed that we have contact with Craig who is in a position to react to and explain problems. He and Chet are valuable assets. Now, if only they could persuade the other engineers to come on board.

Here is an article that provides a clue as to the HD quality provided by DirecTv.
http://www.multichannel.com/article/CA6398408.html?display=Breaking+News

I have to say that I am still impressed that we have contact with Craig who is in a position to react to and explain problems. He and Chet are valuable assets. Now, if only they could persuade the other engineers to come on board.

Yes, I agree completely. I have given Craig more info. As he said "Let me know. I’m very interested in tracking this down."

You can't ask for more than that. :)

Dana

You seem to think that cable isn't very important to broadcasters. That means that broadcasters don't really care if they are carried on cable or not. Personally, I think there is reason to believe that they do care.

I never said that. There hasn't been any market that I have lived in (Cleveland, Southern Ohio, Northern Virginia, Austin, Maine) where the major networks (NTSC signal) weren't all on standard cable. It is obviously important to the broadcaster that they be on cable. It is likewise obviously important to the cable or satellite provder that they provide the local signals.

The question is always leverage and power: who is willing to use it and who blinks first. Sinclair and it's sisters in the broadcast world are getting large enough that they have similar power to Fox, CBS, and the other major TV station owners. They are now willing to flex their muscles in a similar way.

Broadcasters, quite naturally, have decided to do everything they can to better their long term financial position by adding a fee for cable providers to use their signal. If successful, they will have developed a brand new revenue source, THAT WAS NEVER CONTEMPLATED WHEN THEY BEGAN BUSINESS. Truly, manna from heaven.

I'm not going to requote everything you said for the sake of brevity, but I think you are missing the fact that market conditions have change since the early 1980's. Prior to that, local television is all there was. Since the national cable-only stations have come into the picture they have eaten a large bite into the viewership of the local affiliates. Because people are not watching their programs as much (their share of the Nielson ratings is across the board lower than it used to be), they cannot charge as much money for advertising. And then the government mandates that they purchase all of this additional DTV broadcasting equipment that they have to pay for (which the cable networks don't have to have).

It seems to me that the idea of charging for local broadcast signals has been around for many many years (at least since the early 90's) and is a part of the "must carry" rules -- that either the local broadcaster can REQUIRE them to carry their signal (at no charge to the cable company) OR the local broadcaster can CHARGE the cable company for retransmission rights. There's a blurb on Wikipedia that says that in 2004, CBS owned stations were pulled from DishNetwork for a few days in just such a fight.

Should the broadcaster be begrudged this fee? I think not! It's just business. No good guys .............. no bad guys.

As a consumer of television services, however, I do not want to bear this additional cost and I am even willing to miss some sporting or other events in order to make it more difficult to charge me this additional cost.

Well, that's the same tack I took towards cable TV. I miss ESPN HD and a few of the othe HD channels (especially Fox), but it wasn't worth what I was paying for it. Over the air DTV means the signal I get is as good or better than the cable company can provide.

I think the real problem is that the cable companies are publically traded. They are making money hand over fist, but for their stock prices to go up they have to show that their business is expanding. This means they either need to get more customers or they have to get more money per customer. In most markets they have saturated their customer base, so they try to expand the amount they get per subscriber. They can do this two ways: add subscriber services (like bundling high speed internet, cable television, and telephony services) or by "adding" additional programming and rasing rates.

I think that the cable companies could afford all kinds of extra broadcast fees, but that they would then be hit by Wall Street. It is too bad that they aren't being driven as a solid, ongoing money making concern. This idea that stock prices are driven by expanding market is what is really driving the cable industry.


Joe

Quote:

"I'm not going to requote everything you said for the sake of brevity, but I think you are missing the fact that market conditions have change since the early 1980's. Prior to that, local television is all there was. Since the national cable-only stations have come into the picture they have eaten a large bite into the viewership of the local affiliates. Because people are not watching their programs as much (their share of the Nielson ratings is across the board lower than it used to be), they cannot charge as much money for advertising. And then the government mandates that they purchase all of this additional DTV broadcasting equipment that they have to pay for (which the cable networks don't have to have).

It seems to me that the idea of charging for local broadcast signals has been around for many many years (at least since the early 90's) and is a part of the "must carry" rules -- that either the local broadcaster can REQUIRE them to carry their signal (at no charge to the cable company) OR the local broadcaster can CHARGE the cable company for retransmission rights. There's a blurb on Wikipedia that says that in 2004, CBS owned stations were pulled from DishNetwork for a few days in just such a fight."

I think this is the part that I want to respond to. I did bring up cable only stations, but you make another point very well. They did eat a large bite into the viewership of the local affiliates and they cannot charge as much for advertising as they used to. This is, perhaps, their strongest point in my view. I disagree that the cable companies did not have to purchase additional equipment for digital. It has been reported that cable has spent huge sums of money tearing down the old and building the new in preparation for digital. Everything in the headend, all the way through the system including the headquarters control had to be redone. I watched it going on in this area as the contractors worked their way through the system.

A few years ago, WCSH went off cable for a month. They came back and said something to the effect they didn't want that to occur again. Their digital HD signal has been on cable for some time now. Ditto for WMTW. Fox did a special wiring job to get on cable. Sinclair (WGME) should be ............. should we say, .... encouraged ...... to join the fold. ........... What do you say, Joe? Are you with me on that?

Quote:
I disagree that the cable companies did not have to purchase additional equipment for digital. It has been reported that cable has spent huge sums of money tearing down the old and building the new in preparation for digital. Everything in the headend, all the way through the system including the headquarters control had to be redone. I watched it going on in this area as the contractors worked their way through the system.

Umm, I would argue that the cable companies upgraded their systems so they could charge subscribers more money for telephony and high speed internet service and digital cable stations -- you get many more channels when you send the signal digital... it is paid for by the subscribers. People's bills went from $30-$60/month in the old days to $100-$150/month now because they now have their telephone, high speed internet, and 100+ digital cable channels delivered at the same time. This couldn't have happened without the infrastructure investment that was made by those same cable companies.

The local broadcaster have been mandated to do the DTV buildout by the government, NOT because it will earn them more money (or cost them less money). It is strictly so that the federal government va earn billions auctioning off spectra that is opened byt the transition to cell phone companies.

But I wasn't referring to the cable companys -- I was suggesting that the cable networks didn't have the same costs/cost structures associated with the over-the-air switch to DTV. While it is true that channels like ESPN have invested in high definition programming, they have a much larger adertising base than the local affiliates do + they charge a fee to the cable companies for their high definition feeds. So their digital technology upgrades are subsidized by a much broader base than the local affiliates who not only have to invest in the control room technology, but they have to broadcast TWO signals over the air (at least for now).

A few years ago, WCSH went off cable for a month. They came back and said something to the effect they didn't want that to occur again. Their digital HD signal has been on cable for some time now. Ditto for WMTW. Fox did a special wiring job to get on cable. Sinclair (WGME) should be ............. should we say, .... encouraged ...... to join the fold. ........... What do you say, Joe? Are you with me on that?

I think Time Warner is the bad guy. Time Warner should be encouraged to come into the fold. Personally, I think Sinclair should stick to their guns. I've always had a problem with authority figures LOL -- one of my favorite commercials is the cell phone commercial where the CEO tells his underling he's switched service so he can "stick it to the man," and his underling replies "But sir, you ARE the man!". I see Time Warner as the big bully and root for the little guy. If there was any other (semiaffordable) way for me to get high speed internet where I live, I would do it and dump Time Warner completely. Unfortunately, I'm too far from anywhere for DSL. I think that every one of you who is annoyed with Time Warner should dump them for dishnetwork or DirecTV.


Joe

Umm, I would argue that the cable companies upgraded their systems so they could charge subscribers more money for telephony and high speed internet service and digital cable stations -- you get many more channels when you send the signal digital... it is paid for by the subscribers. People's bills went from $30-$60/month in the old days to $100-$150/month now because they now have their telephone, high speed internet, and 100+ digital cable channels delivered at the same time. This couldn't have happened without the infrastructure investment that was made by those same cable companies.

The local broadcaster have been mandated to do the DTV buildout by the government, NOT because it will earn them more money (or cost them less money). It is strictly so that the federal government va earn billions auctioning off spectra that is opened byt the transition to cell phone companies.

But I wasn't referring to the cable companys -- I was suggesting that the cable networks didn't have the same costs/cost structures associated with the over-the-air switch to DTV. While it is true that channels like ESPN have invested in high definition programming, they have a much larger adertising base than the local affiliates do + they charge a fee to the cable companies for their high definition feeds. So their digital technology upgrades are subsidized by a much broader base than the local affiliates who not only have to invest in the control room technology, but they have to broadcast TWO signals over the air (at least for now).



I think Time Warner is the bad guy. Time Warner should be encouraged to come into the fold. Personally, I think Sinclair should stick to their guns. I've always had a problem with authority figures LOL -- one of my favorite commercials is the cell phone commercial where the CEO tells his underling he's switched service so he can "stick it to the man," and his underling replies "But sir, you ARE the man!". I see Time Warner as the big bully and root for the little guy. If there was any other (semiaffordable) way for me to get high speed internet where I live, I would do it and dump Time Warner completely. Unfortunately, I'm too far from anywhere for DSL. I think that every one of you who is annoyed with Time Warner should dump them for dishnetwork or DirecTV.


Joe

I don't know about anyone else, but I don't want the low quality that Dish and Direct provide. All the expenditures that cable has made to prepare for digital gives them the bandwidth advantage according to various sources.

Here is an article that provides a clue as to the HD quality provided by DirecTv.
http://www.multichannel.com/article...y=Breaking+News

You certainly are an honest man, Joe. You appear content to pay more for television services because you think it is the right thing to do.

I don't know about anyone else, but I don't want the low quality that Dish and Direct provide. All the expenditures that cable has made to prepare for digital gives them the bandwidth advantage according to various sources.

Here is an article that provides a clue as to the HD quality provided by DirecTv.
http://www.multichannel.com/article...y=Breaking+News

You certainly are an honest man, Joe. You appear content to pay more for television services because you think it is the right thing to do.

No arguement that DirecTV overly compresses their HD channels. However, I have seen the PQ from the Comcast Motorola DVR. To my eyes it is a downgrade even from DirecTV. Cable may have more bandwidth, but as long as the STB is the weak link then the bandwidth is wasted.

And with DirecTV's HD DVR I can record uncompressed OTA locals. Don't get me wrong, I am a big critic of DirecTV. But at least from what I have seen on Comcast / Suscom, DirecTV has the edge in HD PQ with the current DVRs.

No arguement that DirecTV overly compresses their HD channels. However, I have seen the PQ from the Comcast Motorola DVR. To my eyes it is a downgrade even from DirecTV. Cable may have more bandwidth, but as long as the STB is the weak link then the bandwidth is wasted.

And with DirecTV's HD DVR I can record uncompressed OTA locals. Don't get me wrong, I am a big critic of DirecTV. But at least from what I have seen on Comcast / Suscom, DirecTV has the edge in HD PQ with the current DVRs.

Like you say, the set-top box is a weak link, according to many posters on the Forum and that is why I stuck with my early decision to buy an HDTV with cablecard. I works great with the cable connected directly to the tv.

Like you say, the set-top box is a weak link, according to many posters on the Forum and that is why I stuck with my early decision to buy an HDTV with cablecard. I works great with the cable connected directly to the tv.

Does Comcast (old Suscom) support cablecard? The Tivo Series 3 supports cablecard. That is the only way I would go cable.

Does Comcast (old Suscom) support cablecard? The Tivo Series 3 supports cablecard. That is the only way I would go cable.

I'm pretty sure every cable company is required to support cablecard for their QAM encoded channels. However TWC, for example, has some switched digital video (SDV) channels that aren't (and aren't required to be) available through cablecard. Rumor has it that they plan to move more and more channels to SDV encoding as time goes on...

Does Comcast (old Suscom) support cablecard? The Tivo Series 3 supports cablecard. That is the only way I would go cable.

Comcast supports CableCard. It was never clear with SusCom. Whether the Brunswick MSO is sufficiently integrated with the rest of Comcast yet to support CableCard is another question. If you find out, let us know!

Dana

I don't know about anyone else, but I don't want the low quality that Dish and Direct provide. All the expenditures that cable has made to prepare for digital gives them the bandwidth advantage according to various sources.

Here is an article that provides a clue as to the HD quality provided by DirecTv.
http://www.multichannel.com/article...y=Breaking+News

You certainly are an honest man, Joe. You appear content to pay more for television services because you think it is the right thing to do.

How do you figure I'm "content to pay more"? I'm getting my televison for free, over the air. I think that if more people did what I do -- get television for free over the air -- that Time Warner would be forced to lower their rates and charge less. If they do that, then I will go back. It seems to me that you are the one willing to pony up more and more to feed Time Warner's bottom line.

As far as Sinclair goes, I figure that Time Warner can fairly compensate Sinclair for their signal WITHOUT charging you more. If they say they can't, they are lying.


As far as DirecTV's HD quality goes, I had it four years ago in Austin, and I didn't notice a difference between it and digital cable. Of course, this was before they went to the new satellite for HD locals. Back then they had DiscoverHD, HDNet. HDNet Movies, and ESPN HD. I don't have a clue what their quality is now that they are running the new satellite.

Joe

As far as DirecTV's HD quality goes, I had it four years ago in Austin, and I didn't notice a difference between it and digital cable. Of course, this was before they went to the new satellite for HD locals. Back then they had DiscoverHD, HDNet. HDNet Movies, and ESPN HD. I don't have a clue what their quality is now that they are running the new satellite.

Joe

The national HD channels are still on the "old" satellite, but some time in the past 3 years or so, all 1080i channels have been down-rezzed to 1280x1080i rather than the full 1920x1080i resolution. The main reason for the down-rezzing is that it would look even worse at full resolution with the low bitrates they're allocating to them. This bitrate-starving/down-rezzing process has been dubbed "HD-Lite".

Personally, I have a smaller direct-view CRT that's about 5 years old, so I doubt I would see much of a difference between the DirecTV picture and the full bitrate/full resolution one, but for people with newer TVs it's a valid concern.

No arguement that DirecTV overly compresses their HD channels. However, I have seen the PQ from the Comcast Motorola DVR. To my eyes it is a downgrade even from DirecTV. Cable may have more bandwidth, but as long as the STB is the weak link then the bandwidth is wasted.

And with DirecTV's HD DVR I can record uncompressed OTA locals. Don't get me wrong, I am a big critic of DirecTV. But at least from what I have seen on Comcast / Suscom, DirecTV has the edge in HD PQ with the current DVRs.

I don't know if it is the DVR's or just overcompression by the cable companies. They are fightng the same bandwidth fight that DirecTV is fighting -- squeezing more and more programming (including high speed internet and telephony) onto their cable lines. They certainly don't send the signals uncompressed.

As far as the OTA locals are concerned, they very well could be compressed as well -- in Maine NBC, CBS, and PBS all have digital subchannels carrying NTSC broadcasts -- these cut the bandwidth for the HDTV broadcast. During the 2002 Salt Lake City Olympics, the NBC station carrying them in Austin made a big deal about shutting down their two NTSC simulcasts (a digital subchannel with the weather, and a digital subchannel with their analog simulcast) so that they could dedicate the full channel bandwidth to the Olympic HDTV broadcast.

The long and the short of it is -- whatever your source, you have to worry about overcompression.

Joe

I'm pretty sure every cable company is required to support cablecard for their QAM encoded channels. However TWC, for example, has some switched digital video (SDV) channels that aren't (and aren't required to be) available through cablecard. Rumor has it that they plan to move more and more channels to SDV encoding as time goes on...

The government required that cable viewers be able to watch tv without a box. TV makers went into it slowly with only their largest sets. Cable companies have resisted the whole way. They want the box or at least two-way cablecard.

I have never been able to come up with more than a few HD cable channels (TWC / Adelphia) on my set's tuner with or without cablecard. With the cablecard in the set, it takes over and I get ALL of TWC's HD channels for the $1.75 card rental. This could change when TWC takes firmer control someday, but for now everything is fine.

We have yet to see SDV in Augusta. I read that TWC was testing in parts of the country.

How do you figure I'm "content to pay more"? I'm getting my televison for free, over the air. I think that if more people did what I do -- get television for free over the air -- that Time Warner would be forced to lower their rates and charge less. If they do that, then I will go back. It seems to me that you are the one willing to pony up more and more to feed Time Warner's bottom line.

As far as Sinclair goes, I figure that Time Warner can fairly compensate Sinclair for their signal WITHOUT charging you more. If they say they can't, they are lying.


As far as DirecTV's HD quality goes, I had it four years ago in Austin, and I didn't notice a difference between it and digital cable. Of course, this was before they went to the new satellite for HD locals. Back then they had DiscoverHD, HDNet. HDNet Movies, and ESPN HD. I don't have a clue what their quality is now that they are running the new satellite.

Joe

I'm sorry, Joe. I didn't mean that YOU would be paying more because I know you take tv over the air. I meant only that if you ever did use TWC, you were apparantly willing to pay more for your service if they began paying locals for their signals.

Yes, you are correct, I would guess, in saying that TWC can fairly compensate Sinclair for their signal WITHOUT charging you more. And they WOULD be lying if they said they couldn't.

On the other hand, Joe, I want to ask you what I think is a fair question. If you were the owner of TWC, would you insist on paying the stations out of profit or would you pass the cost along?

This thread should clear up any lingering questions about the quality of HD via DirecTv:
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=726065&page=1

Joe, I want to ask you what I think is a fair question. If you were the owner of TWC, would you insist on paying the stations out of profit or would you pass the cost along?

If I had to pay for programming, In would pass the cost along to the consumer -- with enough headroom that I make a reasonable profit. The key term here is "reasonable". I think that the profits they are soaking their customers for are so high they are beyond reasonable.

I think that Time Warner and the other major cable providers are monopolies. Dishnetwork and DirecTV haven't been enough to break this monopoly. Because they are monopolies they collect unreasonable profits. I think if there was real competition, you would see cable rates drop significantly -- how much, I couldn't say (I'm not an economist). They would drop significantly and the cable companies would STILL make a healthy profit.

Joe

Yeah, I would pass the cost along to subscribers, too.

It's interesting to learn that as the head of the corporation you would be careful to only earn a "reasonable" profit. Apparantly, you wouldn't want your company to make too much money. You would hold back, so that you wouldn't be taking unfair advantage of anybody. I can't really think of any businesses that actually restrain themselves from making too much money even if they are fortunate enough to possess what everybody seems to want.




Perhaps, cable companies ought to be treated like public utilities and be subjected to price regulation. Until they are, they are free to make as much money as they possibly can just like any other business.

Yeah, I would pass the cost along to subscribers, too.

It's interesting to learn that as the head of the corporation you would be careful to only earn a "reasonable" profit. Apparantly, you wouldn't want your company to make too much money. You would hold back, so that you wouldn't be taking unfair advantage of anybody. I can't really think of any businesses that actually restrain themselves from making too much money even if they are fortunate enough to possess what everybody seems to want.

Perhaps, cable companies ought to be treated like public utilities and be subjected to price regulation. Until they are, they are free to make as much money as they possibly can just like any other business.

Stan, are you trying to be insulting? Have you detected any hint of sarcasm in my posts on this topic? Certainly "corporate America" is out for profit. But we don't allow giant companies to send out corporate goons and beat up competitors, burn down their stores and drive them out of business, and then jack prices up to drive people into the poorhouse in order to let them maximize their profits. At least not since the days of Nelson Rockefellor.

Of course companies today are out for as much profit as the market can bear. If they charge too much, they will drive customers away -- so they can't get more than what is reasonable UNLESS they set themselves up as monopolies. Which is what we have in the cable market. Bring in real competition, and you will see service quality go up and prices go down. Why should Time Warner be the only provider in town? THIS is what I think is unfair. I would argue that just as local broadcasters are using the public airways and so are subject to public regulation, so too are cable TV lines on the public roads and right-of-ways. They should be "regulated" in a similar manner to telephone companies.

Personally, I believe that whenever possible business dealings should be win-win NOT win-lose. Win-win builds customer loyalty and customer base size. As soon as your dealing with a customer is win-lose, you lose that customer. That's why they lost me. If they lose more people, they will eventually change their behavior to retain customers. If companies are unreasonable, then they will lose companies and go out of business. Unless they are monopolies protected from competition.

In the matter of full disclosure, I feel almost as negative about telephone long distance companies and cellular phone companies as I do about cable TV companies. Thankfully, Vonage takes excellent care of me at home (I'm very loyal to them and will stay so because I feel they give excellent service and great value), and do not have a cellular phone.

Feel free to respond, but I am going to drop the topic, I think the tone of your last response was negative, sarcastic, and insulting.

Joe

Stan, are you trying to be insulting? Have you detected any hint of sarcasm in my posts on this topic? Certainly "corporate America" is out for profit. But we don't allow giant companies to send out corporate goons and beat up competitors, burn down their stores and drive them out of business, and then jack prices up to drive people into the poorhouse in order to let them maximize their profits. At least not since the days of Nelson Rockefellor.

Of course companies today are out for as much profit as the market can bear. If they charge too much, they will drive customers away -- so they can't get more than what is reasonable UNLESS they set themselves up as monopolies. Which is what we have in the cable market. Bring in real competition, and you will see service quality go up and prices go down. Why should Time Warner be the only provider in town? THIS is what I think is unfair. I would argue that just as local broadcasters are using the public airways and so are subject to public regulation, so too are cable TV lines on the public roads and right-of-ways. They should be "regulated" in a similar manner to telephone companies.

Personally, I believe that whenever possible business dealings should be win-win NOT win-lose. Win-win builds customer loyalty and customer base size. As soon as your dealing with a customer is win-lose, you lose that customer. That's why they lost me. If they lose more people, they will eventually change their behavior to retain customers. If companies are unreasonable, then they will lose companies and go out of business. Unless they are monopolies protected from competition.

In the matter of full disclosure, I feel almost as negative about telephone long distance companies and cellular phone companies as I do about cable TV companies. Thankfully, Vonage takes excellent care of me at home (I'm very loyal to them and will stay so because I feel they give excellent service and great value), and do not have a cellular phone.

Feel free to respond, but I am going to drop the topic, I think the tone of your last response was negative, sarcastic, and insulting.

Joe

Yes, Joe, I used an indirect approach in making a counter-argument and you are quite right that doing so comes off as sarcastic and insulting. Direct statements of opinion rather than observations that are too cute by half are more appropriate. You have my apology.

In that spirit, I would only say that no business worth its salt is content with what is only a "reasonable" profit. This includes oil companies, drug companies and health insurance companies. It requires other factors to hold down prices. One of those factors could be government price regulation as with utilities.

You bring up competition. That is the best way to do it in our country, but nobody will provide competitive cable in Maine for obvious reason. The only hope is government regulation and the inferior / non-existent competition of satellite to home and telephone fiber.

The expectation of a company to self-restrict its profit levels is unrealistic in my opinion.

The expectation of a company to self-restrict its profit levels is unrealistic in my opinion.

OK, I lied... one last response....

Why do you keep putting words into my mouth? I never said that a company should "self restrict it's profit levels". I said that I think a free market will cause them to reach a "reasonable" profit level. If a company charges too much (an "unreasonable amount") they will lose customers to companies that can provide better value. Because Time Warner does not have serious competition, they have no natural controls/limits to their behavior.

Joe

I did try to have the game in HD for you but I was over ruled....

That makes me curious that it's not only a hardware issue?

That makes me curious that it's not only a hardware issue?

Where did the idea come from that hardware was involved? It's an issue of which DMAs get what games as determined apparently by the NFL. AccidenT was hoping that the standard def Jets-Buffalo game could be shown on WGME 13 and the high-def SD-Denver game could be carried on WGME HD. Very logical but not to the liking of the NFL.

Dana

Get ready for a 4:3 picture on the CBS Pats game this Sunday at 1 PM. It's not in high-def. No Dolby 5.1 sound either. It may have something to do with playing the Texans. ;)

But, the way things are going lately with the Pats, I'm not sure.

Dana

Ugh, This SD picture looks terrible for the Pat's game.

Now, there is no reason at all to long for CBS HD. (not until March madness)

From Time Warner New England's Website:

Time Warner Cable’s agreement to carry WBZ’s (the Boston CBS affiliate) high definition (HD) signal in the former Adelphia communities in New Hampshire will expire shortly and WBZ has decided not to renew or extend the agreement. We are sorry to inform our former Adelphia customers in New Hampshire that the WBZ HD signal will be removed from your channel line up effective January 5, 2007. WBZ’s standard (analog) signal is still available to you. Time Warner Cable is working to find an alternative CBS affiliate to provide you with CBS programming in HD. Please check back here in the coming weeks for additional updates.

WBZ is owned and operated by CBS Television Stations (Viacom).

Reading between the lines: Adelphia was paying WBZ for the HD channel and Time Warner has decided not to do so, so WBZ is pulling the plug.

It looks like this is not a "Sinclair" problem... NFL Network, CBS Television Stations, Sinclair Broadcasting, WABI (locally owned I believe) -- all cannot come to carriage agreements with Time Warner (and this is just in the Northeastern US).

Go Figure


Joe

Now, there is no reason at all to long for CBS HD. (not until March madness)

Don't forget the Super Bowl :p

From Time Warner New England's Website:



WBZ is owned and operated by CBS Television Stations (Viacom).

Reading between the lines: Adelphia was paying WBZ for the HD channel and Time Warner has decided not to do so, so WBZ is pulling the plug.

It looks like this is not a "Sinclair" problem... NFL Network, CBS Television Stations, Sinclair Broadcasting, WABI (locally owned I believe) -- all cannot come to carriage agreements with Time Warner (and this is just in the Northeastern US).

Go Figure

Joe

Joe, you are of course correct about WABI TV ownership.

"WABI is owned by Portland, Maine-based Diversified Communications, which under the leadership of the Hildreth family has owned the station since its inception." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WABI-TV More on the Hildreth family here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horace_A._Hildreth

Regarding TWC, I think the facts speak for themselves. To me, this is the down side of community TV franchises. No leverage or oversight on big cable corporations which are supposed to be operating in the public interest. I'm not in favor of more federal regulation but perhaps they ought to be considered as public utilities and so regulated by state authorities.

Dana

From Time Warner New England's Website:



WBZ is owned and operated by CBS Television Stations (Viacom).

Reading between the lines: Adelphia was paying WBZ for the HD channel and Time Warner has decided not to do so, so WBZ is pulling the plug.

It looks like this is not a "Sinclair" problem... NFL Network, CBS Television Stations, Sinclair Broadcasting, WABI (locally owned I believe) -- all cannot come to carriage agreements with Time Warner (and this is just in the Northeastern US).

Go Figure


Joe

Hey guys. This whole pay-for-carriage that you are experiencing is rampant in my neck of the woods as well (Providence DMA). We have no Fox HD and no CBS HD because they are owned by LIN Broadcasting and LIN wants money from both Cox Cable and DirectTV in order to carry their HD signals. I hope you guys are doing what we are by pushing buttons, writting e-mails, writing snail mail, calling etc all parties involved to work toward a quicker solution. The more they hear from the masses the more pressure they will fell to get something done about it.

The plot thickens (from the TWC web site):
"Time Warner Cable’s agreements with programmers to carry their services routinely expire from time to time and in most cases we are able to obtain renewal or extension agreements. Programming services are rarely discontinued. We are writing at this time to inform you that our agreement with Canal 52, Fox Sports NE, Fox Reality Encore, Encore Action, Encore Love, Encore Movie Plex, Encore Movie Tier, Encore Mysteries, Encore True, Encore WAM, Encore Westerns, Flix, HGTV, Showtime, GAC on Demand and Spike TV will expire on December 31, 2006 in all of our viewing areas.
Time Warner Cable is currently negotiating with these networks for continued carriage. Our primary goal with these discussions is to ensure that our customers continue to receive their favorite networks uninterrupted while keeping network programming costs in check. We look forward to arriving at a mutually beneficial long term agreement with these networks."

I'll bet dollars to donuts that these are all Adelphia agreements in which TWC has no vested interest.

Dana

From Time Warner New England's Website:



WBZ is owned and operated by CBS Television Stations (Viacom).

Reading between the lines: Adelphia was paying WBZ for the HD channel and Time Warner has decided not to do so, so WBZ is pulling the plug.

It looks like this is not a "Sinclair" problem... NFL Network, CBS Television Stations, Sinclair Broadcasting, WABI (locally owned I believe) -- all cannot come to carriage agreements with Time Warner (and this is just in the Northeastern US).

Go Figure


Joe

I don't think it's so clear cut. We have CBS via WBZ in York County (York, Wells, North Berwick, etc) and we've been on TWC for a long time. I really doubt TWC is paying for York County and won't pay elsewhere. More likely WBZ wants to start charging.

Nevertheless, this doesn't bode well for us in York County.

-TurboWells

I don't think it's so clear cut. We have CBS via WBZ in York County (York, Wells, North Berwick, etc) and we've been on TWC for a long time. I really doubt TWC is paying for York County and won't pay elsewhere. More likely WBZ wants to start charging.

Nevertheless, this doesn't bode well for us in York County.

-TurboWells

"Curiouser and curiouser," said Alice

I have to admit I assumed TW didn't carry WBZ HD in their "own" markets...

It sucks not knowing why the cable companies and local broadcasters are doing what they do. If York county has WBZ HDon Time Warner, I don't have a clue why WBZ would pull their HD channel from New Hampshire.

The only thing I could think is it could be that WBZ had a retransmission agreement with Adelphia that compensated them, but that their retransmission agreement with TW did not. An that in the former Adelphi market they want to keep what was in place, in place. Or, it could just be a first step at getting any compensation (we don't know that Adelphia compensated them). I suppose it could be a first step in extending what they want into the general Boston market.

Joe

This doesn't appear very mysterious to me. Quite likely, TWC is trying to draw the line. They don't want to begin or increase payments for signals. If the drumbeat to settle becomes too strong in their ears they will cave-in before the signal originators decide to accept less or none at all.

We are in the middle. If we holler SETTLE, SETTLE, SETTLE, the presumption might be it is TWC that we want to settle and that we are content to live with the long-term result. Of course, it may very well be that Americans with their deep, deep pockets and absolute inability to resist temptation and immediate gratification is willing to accept bearing the increased cost so long as they can just blame the cable company for its high rates. .......... It sure beats blaming yourself.

TWC would feel justified because they could simply say, "You made us do it."

The plot thickens (from the TWC web site):
"Time Warner Cable’s agreements with programmers to carry their services routinely expire from time to time and in most cases we are able to obtain renewal or extension agreements. Programming services are rarely discontinued. We are writing at this time to inform you that our agreement with Canal 52, Fox Sports NE, Fox Reality Encore, Encore Action, Encore Love, Encore Movie Plex, Encore Movie Tier, Encore Mysteries, Encore True, Encore WAM, Encore Westerns, Flix, HGTV, Showtime, GAC on Demand and Spike TV will expire on December 31, 2006 in all of our viewing areas.
Time Warner Cable is currently negotiating with these networks for continued carriage. Our primary goal with these discussions is to ensure that our customers continue to receive their favorite networks uninterrupted while keeping network programming costs in check. We look forward to arriving at a mutually beneficial long term agreement with these networks."

This is a joke with Encore. It used to be included with digital cable, then they started charging $3 a month for "Encoreplex". Now they wont renew the agreement?

I actually like Encore.

More and more I inch towards Satellite or dumping cable altogether and just having an antenna.

Believe me, they have their associated BS too.

Yes, the reasons for moving to Direct or Dish should be very clear before signing on. You should believe that you will have more and better quality HD and that you will not be paying more considering the number of hookups you require.

Yes, the reasons for moving to Direct or Dish should be very clear before signing on. You should believe that you will have more and better quality HD and that you will not be paying more considering the number of hookups you require.

And, maybe you just like Jessica Simpson... :p

Dana

:( We are in the middle. If we holler SETTLE, SETTLE, SETTLE, the presumption might be it is TWC that we want to settle and that we are content to live with the long-term result. Of course, it may very well be that Americans with their deep, deep pockets and absolute inability to resist temptation and immediate gratification is willing to accept bearing the increased cost so long as they can just blame the cable company for its high rates. .......... It sure beats blaming yourself.

TWC would feel justified because they could simply say, "You made us do it."

OR there's the third choice, Time Warner's customers can demand that they carry these channels without increasing their rates. Force Time Warner to choose between losing customers if they don't have the channels, and losing customers if they raise their rates. They'll cave as soon as it hits their bottom line. Better a tiny decrease in the profit line than no profit at all.

Joe

OR there's the third choice, Time Warner's customers can demand that they carry these channels without increasing their rates. Force Time Warner to choose between losing customers if they don't have the channels, and losing customers if they raise their rates. They'll cave as soon as it hits their bottom line. Better a tiny decrease in the profit line than no profit at all.

Joe

Which would you prefer to cave, the cable or the broadcaster? Do you actually have a preferance or might it work better for us if the broadcaster caved so that no new and additional costs are moved into the process?

You know my opinion, Stan, don't you by now? I would prefer to see cable companies "cave". I don't believe there are "additional costs" involved here. I believe the "costs" right now are being born more and more by the broadcasters, and would be shifted to the cable companies who can afford it. I think the cable companies aren't providing enough "value added" to justify their profits and I'd like to see some of that shifted back to the broadcasters who are providing "value added". I'm afraid my own personal view is 90 degrees away from yours.

Merry Christmas!

Joe

You know my opinion, Stan, don't you by now? I would prefer to see cable companies "cave". I don't believe there are "additional costs" involved here. I believe the "costs" right now are being born more and more by the broadcasters, and would be shifted to the cable companies who can afford it. I think the cable companies aren't providing enough "value added" to justify their profits and I'd like to see some of that shifted back to the broadcasters who are providing "value added". I'm afraid my own personal view is 90 degrees away from yours.

Merry Christmas!

Joe

I would even make that 180 degrees since I believe it is clear that a new cost / price element being introduced by broadcaster charges 'to the cable company' AND I believe that element should be removed by the broadcaster. (Of course my belief is based upon what is good for me and not the broadcaster or the cable company.)

Have a very nice Christmas and a wonderful new year. Maybe this matter will be far behind us before the end of 2007.

Maybe this matter will be far behind us before the end of 2007.

And peace on earth and goodwill to all men! *grin*

(I hope that didn't sound sarcastic, I didn't mean it that way!)

I'm afraid this problem has been with us for many years, and will be with us for many more. Time Warner has had conflicts with broadcasters regarding HD locals since before I got my first HDTV (in late 2001). I'm afraid there will be no resolution until it matters to someone's bottom line. That probably won't be until the analog switch is thrown. Then cable can carry the HD signal only and charge people with standard def sets a monthly STB fee to downconvert the signal.

take care,

Joe

It appears that the NFL Network is raising the ante regarding the squabble in NJ about TWC not carrying the NFL Network. Now it plans to carry the broadcast in high-def.

12/19/2006
The rumors were correct. We have confirmed that the NFL Network has changed their plans and will televise the Texas Bowl in high definition from Reliant Stadium in Houston, Texas. The game is on December 28th and will be on NFL Network in HD starting at 8:00 PM Eastern. http://www.hdsportsguide.com/

Meanwhile, on the home front the Pats game Sunday at 1 PM at Jacksonville will be on CBS in 1080i. Let's see if WGME HD has solved the audio drop-outs some of us have reported. I sure hope so. ;)

Dana

Go Pats! .... so that Denver gets the wildcard spot over Jacksonville :D

CableCARD update...... It works!!

Subj: Ex-Adelphia customer who lost HD programming during the Adelphia/TWC migration on or abouts 11/5.

In my last entry on 12/8 @ 8:16AM, I stated that a Rockland supervisor met on 12/5 in Portland and the CableCARD issue was to be on the table for discussion. During that day, I received several calls from Portland and they sent multiple "hits" to the card with no success. A Service Rep was dispatched to the house (the same day) to get the card and take it back to Rockland for the supervisor. As I understand it, the supervisor was going to perform diagnostics and develop a plan of attack to activated the cableCARD. The amount of attention was refreshing, but understandable as I was informed during that day that they (TWC) were now aware of numerous cableCARD activation failures from ex-Adelphia customers.

Yesterday (12/20), I got a call from the Rockland supervisor stating they would like to try again.....soon. He informed me that they were able to activate the card removed from my house with no difficulty. Then they spent time focusing on my account. He said they suspected a corrupt account and rebuilt the account. We made an appointment for this morning (12/21 @ 9AM). The service rep was there precisely at 9AM, installed the card and made the call. He called into a 4 way conference that appeared to be waiting for him. On the phone with the service rep was the supervisor in Rockland, a Level III in Portland and a rep in Augusta that would be sending the "hits". I took about 40 minutes and it appeared the first few attempts failed but eventually the cableCARD was activated and everythings checked out fine.

From what I was able to obtain from the service rep before he left, the Level III in Portland rebuilt my account (again) and then they sent the HD hit before they sent the Basic digital hit.

Hey gang...TWC update in Cumberland County:

MTVHD Ch 552
A&E HD Ch 553

will be launching by end of year. Not sure if everyone saw the thread over in HDTV programming, but TWC Albany has launched ESPN2. Hopefully we'll have that soon too.

Time Warner and Comcastin New Jersey both came to an agreement with the NFL Network -- the NFL Network offered both cable companies free access to the game if they carried it for a full week on analog cable. Both refused the offer. In the end, both put it on digital cable. Comcast is offering analog subscribers a digital cable free for a month so everyone can see the game without charge (and also sucker more people into the more lucrative digital cable service), Time Warner is putting the game on one of the standard digital cable channels. Both will also carry the HD version of the NFL channel.

Hard to say who "caved" in this situation -- The NFL Channel gets a large number of people to preview (and push the cable companies to add) their channel. Comcast and Time Warner get the Rutgers game (and one NFL Thursday game, I guess), for free on a digital channel (both avoided an analog channel). Comcast may be making our better than Time Warner -- they have an opportunity to grow their digital cable subscription.

PS: Time Warner is now planning on giving free "rabbit ears" to customers if the WGME/Sinclair agreement falls through.

Joe

edited "cablevision" out for comcast

Time Warner and Cablevision in New Jersey both came to an agreement with the NFL Network -- the NFL Network offered both cable companies free access to the game if they carried it for a full week on analog cable. Both refused the offer. In the end, both put it on digital cable. Cablevision is offering analog subscribers a digital cable free for a month so everyone can see the game without charge (and also sucker more people into the more lucrative digital cable service), Time Warner is putting the game on one of the standard digital cable channels. Both will also carry the HD version of the NFL channel.

Hard to say who "caved" in this situation -- The NFL Channel gets a large number of people to preview (and push the cable companies to add) their channel. Comcast and Time Warner get the Rutgers game (and one NFL Thursday game, I guess), for free on a digital channel (both avoided an analog channel). Comcast may be making our better than Time Warner -- they have an opportunity to grow their digital cable subscription.

PS: Time Warner is now planning on giving free "rabbit ears" to customers if the WGME/Sinclair agreement falls through.

Joe

Joe,

A minor point but you referred to TWC and Cablevision in the first paragraph, then TWC and Comcast in the second paragraph. I think Cablevision and not Comcast was involved in the dispute.

Before I retired, I was involved in labor negotiations from the management side. My father was a union printer involved in contract negotiations in his day and I remember well hearing him vent about his frustrations. I really believe that the best contracts are those where no one "caves," where both parties come away with something. And of course that's a big stage in NJ. Comcast is a major cable provider in some parts of NJ so they provide a competitive model. And I believe that if these major players - the NFL Network and the cable cos - flaunt their monopoly/exclusive franchise status at the expense of the public interest, it invites the politicians to get involved. And I think neither party really wants that. So, they share a common interest in finding a solution.

Dana

There's a full page ad on color on the back page of the first section of the Times Record tonight ($$$) announcing that the National Geographic Channel will be added to the Comcast Brunswick digital tier lineup on channel 121 on January 15.

What they don't say is that in other parts of the country, Comcast is adding the channel to its HD lineup.

Washington, D.C. (December 20, 2006) -- Comcast is now adding National Geographic HD in some markets -- and DIRECTV will launch the service next year.

That's according to an article published by Cable 360 Net, an affiliate site of Cable World magazine.

John Ford, executive vice president of the National Geographic Channel, tells the web site that the Comcast carriage deal was signed in November. However, the cable operator is adding the high-def channel at a slow pace around the country. http://www.tvpredictions.com/natgeo122006.htm

I guess half a loaf is better than none...

Dana

BTW. I think it's obvious now why the Times Record did not vigorously pursue the SusCom Comcast transition. Comcast is a big(ger) advertiser in its paper.

Dana we updated the software in our dolby encoder on Tuesday. I've not noticed any dropouts in Pimetime (HD) I'm interested to know if you (or anyone) are still having a problem.

Craig

It appears that the NFL Network is raising the ante regarding the squabble in NJ about TWC not carrying the NFL Network. Now it plans to carry the broadcast in high-def.



Meanwhile, on the home front the Pats game Sunday at 1 PM at Jacksonville will be on CBS in 1080i. Let's see if WGME HD has solved the audio drop-outs some of us have reported. I sure hope so. ;)

Dana

Dana we updated the software in our dolby encoder on Tuesday. I've not noticed any dropouts in Pimetime (HD) I'm interested to know if you (or anyone) are still having a problem.

Craig

Craig,

You are "Da Man!" I said WGME stood for "technical excellence in broadcasting" for a reason!

I haven't been watching any TV lately. But, I'll surely be watching/listening Sunday at 1 PM. :)

BTW. I think a substantial part of the HD experience is the audio so I really appreciate your being on top of things - as usual.

Dana

Joe,

A minor point but you referred to TWC and Cablevision in the first paragraph, then TWC and Comcast in the second paragraph. I think Cablevision and not Comcast was involved in the dispute.

Before I retired, I was involved in labor negotiations from the management side. My father was a union printer involved in contract negotiations in his day and I remember well hearing him vent about his frustrations. I really believe that the best contracts are those where no one "caves," where both parties come away with something. And of course that's a big stage in NJ. Comcast is a major cable provider in some parts of NJ so they provide a competitive model. And I believe that if these major players - the NFL Network and the cable cos - flaunt their monopoly/exclusive franchise status at the expense of the public interest, it invites the politicians to get involved. And I think neither party really wants that. So, they share a common interest in finding a solution.

Dana

Of course you are right, I mis-entered Cablevision instead of Comcast....

Comcast is the correct company; I fixed it... the full link is here:
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2006/football/ncaa/specials/bowls/2006/12/21/rutgers.tv.ap/index.html

I agree that one should strive for "win-win" business agreements. I stole the expression "caves" from Stan, who is rooting for the content providers to cave into Time Warner's demands.

Personally,I think the NFL Network is out on a limb -- their "demands" are fairly extreme -- that it be included on analog cable tiers, that the cable companies charge a fee/subscriber (lots of subscribers because EVERY subscriber would get it), that the cable companies not put it on "pay" digital cable sports tiers (restricting the number of subscriptions) -- they are getting looked at already vis-a-vis anti trust by the government.

I'm more interested in all the local broadcasters like WGME and WABI that are holding their DTV broadcasts from the major cable companies because the cable companies won't compensate them. The two sides are too entrenched to find a "win-win" compromise. And the local broadcasters aren't big enough for the federal government to do anything about it. I don't see the FCC making any changes to the "must carry" laws until the analog switch actually gets here. As I've said in other posts, I think nothing will happen on this front until the analog switch is thrown and over-the-air NTSC goes away.

Merry Christmas,


Joe

Joe,

You had it right in the first paragraph! Comcast was not part of the dispute. Cablevision was. As evidence, I submit the original piece you referenced.

The hometown of bowl opponent Kansas State is likely to have better coverage since the NFL Network, which has exclusive rights to televise the game, is not carried on two cable companies that serve more than 1 million of New Jersey's 2.5 million cable subscribers, not to mention most of New York City.

With No. 16-ranked Rutgers suddenly at the flashpoint of the dispute between the NFL Network and cable operators Time Warner and Cablevision, New Jersey Sen. Frank Lautenberg sent a letter to the NFL on Wednesday urging the league to allow the Dec. 28 game to be telecast on local television. http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2006/football/ncaa/12/06/rutgers.nflnetwork.ap/index.html

Hey, it's been great to chat on this thread this year. Many thanks to all who have contributed. I've learned a lot! :)

Dana

Joe,

You had it right in the first paragraph! Comcast was not part of the dispute. Cablevision was. As evidence, I submit the original piece you referenced.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2006/football/ncaa/12/06/rutgers.nflnetwork.ap/index.html

Hey, it's been great to chat on this thread this year. Many thanks to all who have contributed. I've learned a lot! :)

Dana

This is funny... this is an excerpt from the Sports Illustrated article I posted the link to above:

"Comcast will offer Rutgers game
Posted: Thursday December 21, 2006 11:49AM; Updated: Thursday December 21, 2006 12:22PM

EAST WINDSOR, N.J. (AP) -- All Comcast subscribers in New Jersey will be able to watch Rutgers play in the Texas Bowl next week for free, although some will have to jump through several hoops to do it.

The Dec. 28 game is available to any Comcast customer with a digital cable box on channel 180. High definition subscribers can see the game on channel 206.

Almost 60 percent of Comcast's 1.4 million New Jersey subscribers are digital customers."

Now, who the heck is "right"? Sports Illustrated seems to have it both ways. I guess, in the end, it doesn't really make a difference...

Joe

This is funny... this is an excerpt from the Sports Illustrated article I posted the link to above:

"Comcast will offer Rutgers game
Posted: Thursday December 21, 2006 11:49AM; Updated: Thursday December 21, 2006 12:22PM

EAST WINDSOR, N.J. (AP) -- All Comcast subscribers in New Jersey will be able to watch Rutgers play in the Texas Bowl next week for free, although some will have to jump through several hoops to do it.

The Dec. 28 game is available to any Comcast customer with a digital cable box on channel 180. High definition subscribers can see the game on channel 206.

Almost 60 percent of Comcast's 1.4 million New Jersey subscribers are digital customers."

Now, who the heck is "right"? Sports Illustrated seems to have it both ways. I guess, in the end, it doesn't really make a difference...

Joe

Joe, My "take" is that this story - almost a promo for Comcast - is directing readers to where they can watch the game. Its availability on Comcast is not due to any one week deal, the NFL Network is part of its regular lineup.

The story sort of back-handedly makes that point.

"The NFL Network, which has exclusive rights to televise the game, is not normally carried by two cable companies that serve more than 1 million of New Jersey's 2.5 million cable subscribers.

"Cablevision does not currently offer the network, a spokesman said. Neither does Time Warner, according to the NFL Network's web site..."

The inference - correct in this case - is that Comcast does normally carry the NFL Network. That's why I said way back when you first noted this controversy that I thought Rutgers fans in the Garden State could find nearby venues to watch the game - meaning bowl parties in homes and bistros in Comcast/D* territories.

:)

Dana

CableCARD update...... It works!!

Subj: Ex-Adelphia customer who lost HD programming during the Adelphia/TWC migration on or abouts 11/5.

In my last entry on 12/8 @ 8:16AM, I stated that a Rockland supervisor met on 12/5 in Portland and the CableCARD issue was to be on the table for discussion. During that day, I received several calls from Portland and they sent multiple "hits" to the card with no success. A Service Rep was dispatched to the house (the same day) to get the card and take it back to Rockland for the supervisor. As I understand it, the supervisor was going to perform diagnostics and develop a plan of attack to activated the cableCARD. The amount of attention was refreshing, but understandable as I was informed during that day that they (TWC) were now aware of numerous cableCARD activation failures from ex-Adelphia customers.

Yesterday (12/20), I got a call from the Rockland supervisor stating they would like to try again.....soon. He informed me that they were able to activate the card removed from my house with no difficulty. Then they spent time focusing on my account. He said they suspected a corrupt account and rebuilt the account. We made an appointment for this morning (12/21 @ 9AM). The service rep was there precisely at 9AM, installed the card and made the call. He called into a 4 way conference that appeared to be waiting for him. On the phone with the service rep was the supervisor in Rockland, a Level III in Portland and a rep in Augusta that would be sending the "hits". I took about 40 minutes and it appeared the first few attempts failed but eventually the cableCARD was activated and everythings checked out fine.

From what I was able to obtain from the service rep before he left, the Level III in Portland rebuilt my account (again) and then they sent the HD hit before they sent the Basic digital hit.

Ah! I've been waiting for you to get back on your cablecard situation. I am genuinely happy that this problem has been solved for you, since I am a big fan of the cablecard concept. Perhaps, the conspiracy theory should be dropped, ............ although I'm still not so sure .......

You are now free of the box!

About a week ago, my card lost its connection for about the 5th time in a year. I called and they switched me to Portland. The fellow there did what he called a "balancing of the accounts" and the channels jumped right back on the screen. As long as it only takes a ph******* and waiting for a couple of buttons to be pushed, I'll take the 5 drops of hd channel authorization per year to avoid the box.

Good for you, Dam. Thanks for your posting.

Dana,

Ahha!

I think you've nailed it.

Joe

It's difficult to see what will change for cable viewers in February 2009 when analog over the air broadcasts go dark.

Cable companies should be perfectly happy to change the digital OTA signal to analog and send it down the line on the old analog channel numbers. Everybody should be happy with this arrangement. Business as usual. Life does not change at all. HD service would be provided as it is now. Any complaints from you?

There should be. Maintaining full analog service on cable will crowd bandwidth availability and cable companies will be looking for ways to compress bandwidth use by each channel. This is not good for HD picture quality.

I have read that cable companies will begin identifying the analog channels that they can eliminate on a one by one basis. You can imagine that each proposal will raise great controversy among those that have no interest in making any conversion with their television viewing. The pressure will, then, be on the cable companies to compress channel signals to minimal levels. .............. Some fun, huh?

Cable companies should be perfectly happy to change the digital OTA signal to analog and send it down the line on the old analog channel numbers. Everybody should be happy with this arrangement. Business as usual. Life does not change at all. HD service would be provided as it is now. Any complaints from you?


You sort of answered your own question. My guess is that when the analog over the air goes away so does analog cable. They can fit what, 3? 6? NTSC digital cable channels in the bandwidth of 1 analog cable channel. They can charge more for the service, because there are more channels, and even if they allow for a "basic" digital tier that is cheap, they can charge everyone with old (non-cable card) sets for a set top box. The only reason they have analog cable services now is because local licensees require them to. Just remember, prices never go down, they always go up!

Who knows, they may take some of the bandwidth and send "less" compressed digital HD signals -- so that they have a competetive edge over cable. Then again, they might add additional pay-per-view video-on-demand channels too.

Joe

The Times Record newspaper published in Brunswick had this report in its Friday December 22 edition. (Not on line.)

"LISBON

"The Town Council delayed until January a proposal to increase basic cable rates amid concerns Time Warner Cable might not carry Channel 13 for local customers.

"Town Manager Curtis Lunt said that the proposed increase would hike the rate for basic cable from $7.49 to $8 per month and an equipment installation charge increase from $44.79 to $50.51 for an unwired home. Town councilors on Tuesday decided to delay a vote on the rate hike because Time Warner is in a dispute with Sinclair Broadcasting, the owner of the local CBS affiliate.

"'The council wants to determine if the dispute is resolved before approving a rate change,' Lunt said. The last basic cable increase was in 2004."

The claim that TWC won't come to an agreement with Sinclair because it would have to pass along the cost to its customers is specious IMHO. TWC seeks rate increases anyway and who knows what for. It may be whatever it can get away with. But, I say good for the town council to use the only leverage it has on behalf of its constituents.

Dana

Congrats to WGME!

No drops on audio on WGME HD today on the Pats game!

Dana

Clean at my house also. "OTA"

Congrats to WGME!

No drops on audio on WGME HD today on the Pats game!

Dana

You know all the folks who got HD TV sets on Christmas Day will be getting them hooked up to watch the Pats game Sunday in glorious high-def.

Except that it won't be shown in high-def according to http://www.hdsportsguide.com/ CBS spent all of its HD budget on a new set with HD equipment in NYC for the NFL Today pre-game show so it can only afford to broadcast three NFL games a week in high-def where the games are played. :(

Dana

I think the more disappointing points are:

Given that probably 90% of the people in the Portland area have TWC, they wouldn't get it in HD anyway.

And even if TWC had CBS HD, probably more than half of the people with new sets would miss at least one of the following requirements for seeing HD:
1. The channel # for the HD version
2. An HD-capable STB
3. An HD-capable connection from the STB to the TV
4. An HD STB output resolution


I've found that even some of the computer professionals (read: technically inclined people) I work with need at least some pointers before getting their TV set up correctly for HD.

I think the more disappointing points are:

Given that probably 90% of the people in the Portland area have TWC, they wouldn't get it in HD anyway.

And even if TWC had CBS HD, probably more than half of the people with new sets would miss at least one of the following requirements for seeing HD:
1. The channel # for the HD version
2. An HD-capable STB
3. An HD-capable connection from the STB to the TV
4. An HD STB output resolution


I've found that even some of the computer professionals (read: technically inclined people) I work with need at least some pointers before getting their TV set up correctly for HD.

Yes, I agree with you! I was amazed to hear from my son that a friend of his in his 30s bought an HD TV for Christmas - or his girl friend did. Anyway, my son told me the guy hooked it up to his SD cable box and couldn't understand why the PQ was so bad. For all of the above reasons.

I didn't mean to rub it in as far as TWC not carrying WGME HD. There are a few anyway who watch via OTA antenna as I did while with D*.

Anyway, let's hope that for the playoffs, CBS can find enough $$$ in their budget to deliver the HD signal. :rolleyes:

Dana

Wow, TWC just added 4 new HD channels to their lineup in the past 2 days (I am a TWC customer in Waterford):
UHD
A&EHD
MHD
TNTHD

In addition I already had:
ABCHD
NBCHD
FOXHD
PBSHD
INHD
INHD2
ESPNHD
ESPN2HD
NESNHD
FSNHD
HBOHD
HDNET
HDNETMovies
DiscoveryHD

I am finally feeling like I'm getting my money's worth in HD programming. The WGME debacle is a pain in the neck, but I watch the Pats OTA in HD. Fortunately there was only 1 Pats game (to my best recollection) not in HD on CBS this year. The 3 games a week in HD BS from CBS is laughable though. Get your act together CBS!

Zutmin, Which "system" are you in? Is that former Adelphia? I'm surprised because you listed ESPN2 as an "already had" channel. Most of us w/TWC are still waiting for that, and it may (or may not) happen soon.
I'm still waiting for MHD and A&E to pop up here in Cumberland County. Its expected soon, but I thought it would've been turned on by now.

Yeah, former Adelphia customer. I've had ESPN2HD all along :)
I just tried accessing UHD and it says "should be available shortly." All of the others I listed are up and running.

Hope you get your new HDs soon in Cumberland County. I had no idea these were even being added so it was a nice Holiday surprise for me.

Yes, I'm on the Augusta TWC / Adelphia system and have all of the channels on the long list and haven't checked yet for the new channels. A&E and TNT are, reportedly, mostly stretched 4:3 programming and a high definition video music channel holds no value for me whatsoever. UHD despite many reruns has a few 16:9 formats. Someday some more true high definition channels will come along, but I expect it to be years because the programming will have to originate in 720p or 1080i lines of resolution and 16:9 format. The switchover for the cable only channels will probably be long and painful. The news channels may find it a little easier than the entertainment channels.

Anyway, I've got to check for the new channels. Hopefully, they will some measure of HD availability to our mix. Tonight, however, I plan to begin watching the latest season of the Sopranos on DVD.

FYI, Sunday's NFL coverage map found here (http://www.gribblenation.net/nflmaps/17-CBS-E.gif) contradicts hdsportsguide's listing of the HD games. According to the map, New England/Tennessee will be HD and Buffalo/Baltimore will not. I also saw a copy/paste of an update memo sent out by CBS to affiliates that confirms this (http://the506.com/yabb/YaBB.pl?num=1167244638/9#9) , but I won't make any claims as to its validity. ;)

Actually, CBS's site now confirms it as well: http://www.sportsline.com/cbssports/schedules/page/nfl

Actually, CBS's site now confirms it as well: http://www.sportsline.com/cbssports/schedules/page/nfl

Excellent!!!

Dana

The switchover for the cable only channels will probably be long and painful. The news channels may find it a little easier than the entertainment channels.

Why do you think that news channels will be easier? My understanding is that it is going to be longer/harder because all of the "on-location" equipment (trucks, cameras, uplinks) will have to be replaced. All of the cable news networks depend on local television station news departments for material. Upgrading studio equipment for "set" shows is much more straight forward. Take a look at Sports Center on ESPN -- it has been presented in HD for a a couple of years now, but still has most of the highlights etc in 4:3, upconverted from standard def.

I think one of the station engineers who hangs out on this thread commented on this subject earlier in the thread. Of course, as far as television programming goes, there will be 4:3 material around forever in reruns.

Joe

MTV HD and A&E HD showed up this morning on TWC, Cumberland Co.

Why do you think that news channels will be easier? My understanding is that it is going to be longer/harder because all of the "on-location" equipment (trucks, cameras, uplinks) will have to be replaced. All of the cable news networks depend on local television station news departments for material. Upgrading studio equipment for "set" shows is much more straight forward. Take a look at Sports Center on ESPN -- it has been presented in HD for a a couple of years now, but still has most of the highlights etc in 4:3, upconverted from standard def.

I think one of the station engineers who hangs out on this thread commented on this subject earlier in the thread. Of course, as far as television programming goes, there will be 4:3 material around forever in reruns.

Joe

FOX, CNN and MSNBC have long been my favorites and at least 51% of screen time consists of studio shots. My guess is that it is considerably more. That is why I say that it will be easier for them. Of course, clips from the field will be SD for a quite a while.

I live in the Greater Portland area and I have DirecTV. I bought an HD TV about a year ago and got DirecTV's HD TiVo receiver. I just recently read about DirecTV's HD "lite" format and I'm quite discouraged! I have been contemplating switching to Time Warner to save money (Digital Phone, Road Runner, and Cable) but am concerned about the quality of their HD picture. Is TWC's HD picture better than DirecTV's?

Thanks for any info you have to share!

Mike

Hey Mike, I've never had DTV (always a TWC) but I believe a key factor for the Picture Quality from DTV is the size, type of your set. The general feelings that I've derived from the forum is that those with sets less than 36" tend not to notice, but those above that do. Some can (and will) disagree with that. I find the PQ on TWC to be extremely good, and notice no difference when I've switched back and forth from TWC to my OTA Antenna. I've got a 34" Directview Panasonic (yes..its old school).
The other big factor right now is channel selection. For HD Channels, Direct TV add ESPN2HD, while TWC has our local FOX affiliate and NESN-HD. Direct TV (as of this writing) does NOT have NESN-HD, but does carry it in SD (there's been confusion to that point recently)
I can also tell you that WGME (CBS) is not carried in HD on TWC due to the on going fued between TWC and Sinclair (don't get the guys on this forum started on that.....) :)
Hope that helps!

I have finally taken the time to check the new channels on Time Warner and I must say that I am impressed. When added to the considerable number of HD channels that we already had, there should be something to watch in HD most of the time. The music high definition video channel does nothing so far for me, but it does LOOK good. TNT, A&E and UHD looked very good in the short time I have been viewing. Nothing stretched so far. Pro basketball coming up on TNT. .................. Now, if only we had CBS, all would be right with the world.

I can also tell you that WGME (CBS) is not carried in HD on TWC due to the on going fued between TWC and Sinclair (don't get the guys on this forum started on that.....) :)
Hope that helps!

*grin*

My nose was itching -- now I see why!

Joe

Has anyone else noticed Comcast in Brunswick area forgetting to flip the switch on HD programming. This week on channel 8 (ABC) Jeopardy came on and flashed the "HD" logo across the screen but the picture was standard def. Anyone else seen this? Know who to contact if it happens again?

I am going to be getting the UFC fight this weekend off Comcast PPV. Any idea of the PQ? Is the feed at least digital?

Has anyone else noticed Comcast in Brunswick area forgetting to flip the switch on HD programming. This week on channel 8 (ABC) Jeopardy came on and flashed the "HD" logo across the screen but the picture was standard def. Anyone else seen this? Know who to contact if it happens again?

Were you watching Comcast channel 8?

Dana

Has anyone else noticed Comcast in Brunswick area forgetting to flip the switch on HD programming. This week on channel 8 (ABC) Jeopardy came on and flashed the "HD" logo across the screen but the picture was standard def. Anyone else seen this? Know who to contact if it happens again?

I haven't checked recently, but AFAIK, WMTW isn't capable of HD syndication. They do, however, incorrectly set the HDTV flag in the guide data for Wheel of Fortune and Jeopardy even though they only show them in SD. The HD logo you saw was probably the "HD where available" logo that the producers of the show include on the HD and SD feeds.

See this post for the details: http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=8370601#post8370601

An email from the asst chief eng supports this, Peter Magee, they pass national HD feeds, they don't currently have the ability to pass prerecorded feeds. As of 9/22

Stan54...what channels are your receiving the additional HD programming on?

Well, I'm in a quandry now... I'm a big Ohio State fan (was born and grew up in Cleveland), and the BCS championship game is on Fox... I don't suppose there will be any local sportsbars with the game in HD (DirecTV doesn't have Fox in HD yet, does it? Most Sportsbars won't have Time Warner HD) -- as far as I know the only "local" Fox HD feed is on Time Warner. Do I watch the game in standard def? Do I go over to the dark side and try to get Time Warner digital cable installed prior to Mon, Jan 8? Is anyone with the game in high def throwing a BCS Championship party?

Joe

No local Fox in HD on DirecTV. It was possible a couple of years ago to get a waiver for the Fox national HD feeds, but I think that door has been shut.

Well, I'm in a quandry now... I'm a big Ohio State fan (was born and grew up in Cleveland), and the BCS championship game is on Fox... I don't suppose there will be any local sportsbars with the game in HD (DirecTV doesn't have Fox in HD yet, does it? Most Sportsbars won't have Time Warner HD) -- as far as I know the only "local" Fox HD feed is on Time Warner. Do I watch the game in standard def? Do I go over to the dark side and try to get Time Warner digital cable installed prior to Mon, Jan 8? Is anyone with the game in high def throwing a BCS Championship party?

Joe

Joe,

I am reliably informed that the sports pub Winners at Cooks Corner in Brunswick has about 20 different TV screens with multiple large dishes on their roof so they get "everything." You might call them to see what they say.

Whoops! A phone number might help. 725-6500

And good luck! :)

Dana

Stan54...what channels are your receiving the additional HD programming on?

Dam, I don't remember the #'s and if I think of it tonight, Ill come upstairs and post them. Naturally, they are in the 700 series and I came on them easily by just channeling up from 704 (FOX). (This is where I'm planning to watch the BIG game by the way.)

UHD is on 777, which is the old and useless NFL channel (8 games per year). I think 735 and 745 might be a couple of the others, but I'll write them down when I turn on the set again.

I have only a couple of hours with these channels, but so far I have to say I am happy with them. Sometimes I have found myself wishing for a little more programming. Now, things are looking good on TWC.

Well, I'm in a quandry now... I'm a big Ohio State fan (was born and grew up in Cleveland), and the BCS championship game is on Fox... I don't suppose there will be any local sportsbars with the game in HD (DirecTV doesn't have Fox in HD yet, does it? Most Sportsbars won't have Time Warner HD) -- as far as I know the only "local" Fox HD feed is on Time Warner. Do I watch the game in standard def? Do I go over to the dark side and try to get Time Warner digital cable installed prior to Mon, Jan 8? Is anyone with the game in high def throwing a BCS Championship party?

Joe

Rivalries in Portland has TWC HD. I've seen Sox games on NESN HD playing there, and AFAIK, TWC is the only place to get NESN HD in Portland.

Dam, 735 = music; 740 = A & E; 745 = TNT and 777 = UHD

Any one else having issues with NFL network on Comcast ch 122? Just tried to tune in for a bit of Giants pre-game and have tons of low signal tiling and drop-outs. Totally unwatchable.

Hello all,

If there ever was a great example of why anyone should get high-def cable, I found it last night when I watched the premier of Cider House Rules on HDnet Movies on Comcast Brunswick. They made a big deal of noting that it was the first time the film has been shown in high-def on television. I'm sure it won't be the last, which is one reason for calling it to your attention. The PQ and Dolby sound were superb here. Every element in the transmission over cable to my SA3250HD STB and then to my (ahem) new 47" Westy 1080p LCD display was spot-on. Of course being shot in 35mm the film is anamorphic so it was shown with sizable bars across the top and bottom. Bottom line: it was perfect. Really.

Another reason for mentioning this 1999 film (which you may already know) is that much of it was shot in Maine and Michael Caine won an Oscar for Best Supporting Actor. (BTW. I have never seen a better actor on screen. He always "is" the character and never the "famous actor" playing the part. In this film he lost his Cockney accent, with the help of a dialogue coach.)

This channel and HDNet itself are holdovers on Comcast Brunswick from the SusCom lineup. As best I can determine, Comcast does not carry these channels elsewhere. (TWC and the former Adelphia system do carry it.) I was in the Comcast Brunswick office the other day and asked if our local system was going to be integrated with the rest of Comcast New England in 2007. The lady said no. What we see is what we will get in 2007, etc. (A safe answer for her but not necessarily the correct one.) Personally, I doubt that and HDNet with its co-channel HDNet Movies are good examples. If Comcast has no carriage agreement elsewhere, how likely is it that these channels will survive in Brunswick (even though I would love to see them stay)? Likewise, if Comcast New England is a major carrier of NESN in HD, including billboards at Fenway Park, how likely is it that the Brunswick Comcast system will continue not to carry it? Bottom line: I think we'll see further integration if not complete integration with the rest of Comcast's New England lineup in 2007.

Happy New Year to all of us for 2007.

Dana

Hello all,

Holy Cow. I am getting no signal - video or audio - on Comcast Brunswick Channel 502 which carries WGME HD (CBS). What's happening? Other HD channels seem OK. Analog channel 13 is OK.

What's up? :(

Dana

Ahhh. Now we are getting WGME HD on Comcast Brunswick. Thank you!!!

Dana

Well, WGME HD (CBS) stayed up for the entire Pats game. But, the signal was lost early in the Colts-Miami game and the channel on Comcast Brunswick is still dark at this hour. The analog feed on Channel 13 is working.

Dana

Well, WGME HD (CBS) stayed up for the entire Pats game. But, the signal was lost early in the Colts-Miami game and the channel on Comcast Brunswick is still dark at this hour. The analog feed on Channel 13 is working.

Dana

OTA was fine for both games.

OTA 13-1 passing HD, NO TUBE. 5-1 not in HD at this time

Both games were fine OTA for me also. As for "The Tube" the channel has been pulled for now. No word if or when it will return.

Craig

OTA 13-1 passing HD, NO TUBE. 5-1 not in HD at this time

TWC is pulling INHD2 from it's HD tier.

I really can't understand why they would do away with any HD channel at all when that is what people want right now. HD is the future, and everyone is jumping on board.

Who is the programming manager or person to contact at TWC Maine about this?

Steve

That's unfortunate, I liked The Tube. Many changes for 07.

Both games were fine OTA for me also. As for "The Tube" the channel has been pulled for now. No word if or when it will return.

Craig

Craig,

The Guide info is still up on Comcast channel 502 for WGME HD. But, no video or audio. At least we know what we're missing. :rolleyes:

I hope this is some sort of technical glitch that will be corrected soon.

Dana

Steve - as I understand it, INHD2 is ceasing to exist as a channel as of today (1/1/07) and its programming is combining with INHD.
So its not a local decision to remove that channel, its just doesn't exist anymore! Now, that doesn't mean there isn't a legitimate complaint about paying more for HD Tier, with one less channel....

Interesting Guide only........
Thanks for the update Dana. I will contact Comcast, I know in Southern Maine and NH, Comcast will call me if they have problems with our signal. I just checked my voice and there is no calls from Comcast. I have a friend in Southern Maine also on Comcast. I will see if she has the same problem or if it is just in your area.

Craig



Craig,

The Guide info is still up on Comcast channel 502 for WGME HD. But, no video or audio. At least we know what we're missing. :rolleyes:

I hope this is some sort of technical glitch that will be corrected soon.

Dana

Steve - as I understand it, INHD2 is ceasing to exist as a channel as of today (1/1/07) and its programming is combining with INHD.
So its not a local decision to remove that channel, its just doesn't exist anymore! Now, that doesn't mean there isn't a legitimate complaint about paying more for HD Tier, with one less channel....

I didn't know the actually channel was gone, I thought it was a TWC move. That's too bad about INHD2, they had some good programming on it. But if they are going to combine programming with INHD then that is OK.

We did just get A&E and MTV in HD last week.............so we gain 2 lose 1.

Steve

According to WGME at 12:00 an agreement has been reached in principle for the retransmission of WGME13 for former Adelphia(now Time-warner) customers. The previous agreement expired on 12/31 and Time-Warner/Sinclair had been disputing a new agreement up until the last minute.

I don't suppose that this new agreement would include digital retransmission and we'll probably continue to be stuck with the analog signal. :( Here's hoping that by some miracle the digital retransmission was included in the new agreement.

I didn't know the actually channel was gone, I thought it was a TWC move. That's too bad about INHD2, they had some good programming on it. But if they are going to combine programming with INHD then that is OK.

We did just get A&E and MTV in HD last week.............so we gain 2 lose 1.

Steve

TWC gained 4 last week and lost 1 this week. (MTV; A&E; TNT; UHD) (INHD2)

According to WGME at 12:00 an agreement has been reached in principle for the retransmission of WGME13 for former Adelphia(now Time-warner) customers. The previous agreement expired on 12/31 and Time-Warner/Sinclair had been disputing a new agreement up until the last minute.

I don't suppose that this new agreement would include digital retransmission and we'll probably continue to be stuck with the analog signal. :( Here's hoping that by some miracle the digital retransmission was included in the new agreement.


http://www.timewarnercable.com/newengland/programming/notices/sinclair.html

WGME13 posted the message here http://www.wgme13.com/ .

"SINCLAIR AND TIME WARNER HAVE REACHED AN AGREEMENT IN PRINCIPLE FOR THE RETRANSMISSION OF WGME'S SIGNAL ON THE FORMER ADELPHIA CABLE SYSTEMS IN MAINE.

"WGME HAS GRANTED TIME WARNER AN EXTENSION FOR CARRIAGE THROUGH JANUARY 12/07 WHILE THE DETAILS ARE FINALIZED. Last update: 01/01/2007 at 10:30:46"

Also, WGME HD is back on Comcast Brunswick channel 502. :)

Finally, I just caught the announcement on WGME HD that CBS will carry the Pats playoff game next Sunday at 1 PM in HD. :cool:

Dana

TWC gained 4 last week and lost 1 this week. (MTV; A&E; TNT; UHD) (INHD2)
Depends on where you are. Here in Cumberland, Co. we've had TNT and UHD for awhile now.

Good news on the Sinclair/WGME front. Any agreement is progress at this point, IMO.

Depends on where you are. Here in Cumberland, Co. we've had TNT and UHD for awhile now.

Good news on the Sinclair/WGME front. Any agreement is progress at this point, IMO.

I'm surprised to hear TWC has had TNT and UHD for some time on its Portland system. I guess they saved them for later for the Augusta system. There's a lot of complaining about the quality of TNT on the internet because of the stretching of a 4:3 picture to 16:9. So far, I haven't seen much to complain about, but I haven't spent that much time with it yet. For now, I'm glad the channel are there because it gives you a few more places to look for programming.

CBS gets to park two of their three HD trucks this weekend as it is only broadcasting one wildcard playoff game, the Jets/Pats at 1 PM Sunday in 1080i. NBC has two games on Saturday in HD 1080i (but not in Dolby 5.1 on WCSH HD). And Fox has the Sunday 4:30 PM NFC game in 720p.

Dana

GO PATS! :)

I wonder if The Tube cancellation was a result of the renegotiation?

I wonder if The Tube cancellation was a result of the renegotiation?

Perhaps. It's still up on Comcast Brunswick.

Dana

Not OTA, 13-1 and 13-2 are simucast. Much like 6-1 and 6-3 once was. Pity. I have a theory - but ...
Or was it exchanged?(added)

There's a thread about the Tube over in the HDTV Progamming side and basically Sinclair pulled out. It looks like it was financial or regulatory, depending on what you read.

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=780123

CBS gets to park two of their three HD trucks this weekend as it is only broadcasting one wildcard playoff game, the Jets/Pats at 1 PM Sunday in 1080i. NBC has two games on Saturday in HD 1080i (but not in Dolby 5.1 on WCSH HD). And Fox has the Sunday 4:30 PM NFC game in 720p.

Dana

GO PATS! :)

The game on Fox isn't actually in 720p in Maine, is it? I thought that Time Warner (and Adelphia) converted all 720p video feeds to 1080i.

From an HDTV FAQ on one of the "baby" Time Warners (not New England):
"ABC and ESPN (owned by ABC) both produce a lot of sports shows and have elected to broadcast in the 720p format. Time Warner changes that into a 1080i format before adding it to our channel lineup. Every HDTV is able to display a 1080i picture. Some can do both, and will automatically switch between the formats. These “Dual Format” HDTV Monitors are only a benefit when viewing DVDs and “X-Box” video games that feature a “Progressive” output. "

My understanding was that this is done for FOX too.

There are always arguments about whether this is "upconversion" or "downconversion".

Joe

The game on Fox isn't actually in 720p in Maine, is it? I thought that Time Warner (and Adelphia) converted all 720p video feeds to 1080i.

From an HDTV FAQ on one of the "baby" Time Warners (not New England):
"ABC and ESPN (owned by ABC) both produce a lot of sports shows and have elected to broadcast in the 720p format. Time Warner changes that into a 1080i format before adding it to our channel lineup. Every HDTV is able to display a 1080i picture. Some can do both, and will automatically switch between the formats. These “Dual Format” HDTV Monitors are only a benefit when viewing DVDs and “X-Box” video games that feature a “Progressive” output. "

My understanding was that this is done for FOX too.

There are always arguments about whether this is "upconversion" or "downconversion".

Joe

Joe,

I'd be surprised if TWC converts the signal at the head end. But, certainly my HD STB converts the signal to whatever is my TV's native resolution or the closest to it - in my case 1080i.

As I understand it, the criticism over a broadcast originating in 720p is that there are less data being transmitted from the source, so upconversion means more interpolation.

Dana

You actually set/program the STB to which resolutions your TV can handle. In my case I've turned off 720p because my Panny doesn't display it. I had assumed (incorrectly?) that the STB was then converting to 1080i. I can do some checking and see if its the STB or at the head end.

It wouldn't make any sense for TWC to do any resolution conversion at their end when the STBs or TVs with cable cards are perfectly capable of doing the conversion, if necessary.

Craig,

Is there any way we can convince you to get rid of the SD simulcast on 13-2, or at the very least, turn it off during HD programming - especially sporting events? I can't imagine the target audience for that channel. Anyone capable of receiving an OTA signal has either: 1) An HDTV 2) A STB that can convert the HD channel to SD resolution for viewing on an SDTV or 3) An SDTV with an internal ATSC tuner that can display an HD channel at an SD resolution.

The SD simulcast seems to simply exist to siphon bandwidth away from the HD channel.

Just think, people with 1080i sets cannot watch WMTW broadcasts if they use antennas! People with 720p sets cannot watch WGME and WCSH over the air either.

Actually, don't digital sets receive both types of signals but DISPLAY both only in the format that is NATIVE to that set?

Just think, people with 1080i sets cannot watch WMTW broadcasts if they use antennas! People with 720p sets cannot watch WGME and WCSH over the air either.

Actually, don't digital sets receive both types of signals but DISPLAY both only in the format that is NATIVE to that set?

Yes, that's generally the case. The reason folks have the STB or DVD player upconvert the signal is the possibility that the external device will do a better job.

Dana

I just heard from a contact with Time Warner Cable that we should be getting WGME HD by Superbowl time on channel 513. It's not 100% confirmed but here's hoping.

I just noticed that on Comcast Brunswick, on ch. 505, Sinclair's WGME-HD and Comcast agreement is going to expire soon.

I just noticed that on Comcast Brunswick, on ch. 505, Sinclair's WGME-HD and Comcast agreement is going to expire soon.

Where did you see that? During a broadcast?

Dana

They added an info channel (505) which is showing the message (I almost got excited when I saw it thinking that maybe they were getting ready to add Fox in time for the playoffs and 24). Good thing I still get CBS OTA. By the way Feb 5th is the day after CBS carries the Super Bowl at least they aren't messing with that. I am beginning to think that if one of the Satellite services start carrying NESN before Comcast I might have to switch back :mad:

Where did you see that? During a broadcast?

Dana
I was just channel surfing. I just happened to notice it. I haven't seen any on-screen scrolls yet.

They added an info channel (505) which is showing the message (I almost got excited when I saw it thinking that maybe they were getting ready to add Fox in time for the playoffs and 24). Good thing I still get CBS OTA. By the way Feb 5th is the day after CBS carries the Super Bowl at least they aren't messing with that. I am beginning to think that if one of the Satellite services start carrying NESN before Comcast I might have to switch back :mad:

Now I see what you're saying. Frankly, I'm dumbfounded. The 3/16/05 press release about the Comcast Sinclair agreement called it a "... binding retransmission consent agreement providing for the cable carriage by Comcast cable systems of all Sinclair stations located in markets served by Comcast. The multi-year agreement relates to the analog and digital signals of the Sinclair stations." http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/03-16-2005/0003201428&EDATE=

Apparently, "multi-year" meant two. Yes, I agree. If Comcast and Sinclair can't come to an agreement, I'll have to switch back to D*. As I've said all along on this thread, consumers have choices. Watching the Pats play in HD is a high priority for me and getting NESN in HD would be a bonus. Still, there are benefits to sticking with Comcast so let's hope the suits figure out a way to get it done.

Dana

So, I guess we have come to the conclusion that it would make no sense for a cable company to change 720p to 1080i for transmission to customers.

As I stop to think about the availability of local HD channels on cable, Fox is by far the most important to me. NBC is second and ABC is third. Except for a half dozen or so Patriot regular season games and March Madness and, perhaps, a Super Bowl game, I miss CBS very little. It would be nice to have it available when I hit a dry spell in other programming once in a while. CW, except for Smallville, and My Network have no programming that comes to mind at all, however, I will give them a fresh look when their HD shows up on the cable.

For many years, I pretty much only watched the news channels or something else once in a while on a hit or miss basis. It was only in the Fall of 2005 that I started watching network programming as I prepared to acquire an HDTV. Otherwise I'd still be with Hannity and Colmes and the other news and information shows. The news channels kept me content for a very long time.

How about other folks?

That's interesting. I watch a lot more HD programming on CBS than I do on Fox. CSI, CSI:NY, The Unit, Numb3rs, NFL and the SEC football games all make great use of HD and DD5.1. March Madness will have all games in HD this year as well. ABC (Lost, Grey's Anatomy, college football) and NBC (My Name is Earl, The Office, SNF) are tied for second, except in olympics years when NBC moves up. My list for Fox is very small: NFL and the BCS games. The only other Fox programs that interest me (The Simpsons and Family guy) are SD anyway. My wife likes American Idol but she couldn't care less about HD anyway :(.

Actually, don't digital sets receive both types of signals but DISPLAY both only in the format that is NATIVE to that set?

I think any with an integrated tuner have to be able to do this, but some (possibly only older) HD monitors cannot even receive the non-native HD resolution as input. My set (a 4 year old direct-view CRT) won't display anything if you input 720p, it needs the STB to do the conversion to 1080i for it.

As I stop to think about the availability of local HD channels on cable, Fox is by far the most important to me. NBC is second and ABC is third. Except for a half dozen or so Patriot regular season games and March Madness and, perhaps, a Super Bowl game, I miss CBS very little. It would be nice to have it available when I hit a dry spell in other programming once in a while. CW, except for Smallville, and My Network have no programming that comes to mind at all, however, I will give them a fresh look when their HD shows up on the cable.

For many years, I pretty much only watched the news channels or something else once in a while on a hit or miss basis. It was only in the Fall of 2005 that I started watching network programming as I prepared to acquire an HDTV. Otherwise I'd still be with Hannity and Colmes and the other news and information shows. The news channels kept me content for a very long time.

How about other folks?

I watch PBS HD, Discovery HD, ESPN HD, TNT HD and the HD movie channels more than the networks, except for network sports - Pats football in particular.

Dana

So, I guess we have come to the conclusion that it would make no sense for a cable company to change 720p to 1080i for transmission to customers.
They send it out like they receive it. The broadcasters decided on which resolution was best, and in their own interest. The engineer at WMTW told me ABC chose 720p because it was prefered by the military for photographic analysis and performed better on fast moving/sports related telecasts. I'll look for some links.

On second thought, if Comcast and Sinclair can't come to terms by the time football gets going again in the fall, I'll invest in an OTA antenna and receiver. WGME HD was the only station I could get OTA at my location! Let's hope it won't come to that.

Dana

Good question,
I might be able to temporarily remove it, I will find out.

Craig



Craig,

Is there any way we can convince you to get rid of the SD simulcast on 13-2, or at the very least, turn it off during HD programming - especially sporting events? I can't imagine the target audience for that channel. Anyone capable of receiving an OTA signal has either: 1) An HDTV 2) A STB that can convert the HD channel to SD resolution for viewing on an SDTV or 3) An SDTV with an internal ATSC tuner that can display an HD channel at an SD resolution.

The SD simulcast seems to simply exist to siphon bandwidth away from the HD channel.

There's a news story on the negotiations on a trade journal site posted three hours ago here. http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/CA6404747.html?display=Breaking+News

And another. http://www.mediaweek.com/mw/news/recent_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003528545

Dana

There's another trade journal story here http://www.cable360.net/competition/broadcast/21514.html

Regarding any blackout, apparently Comcast is being conservative in this market by warning of a possible blackout as of Feb. 5. That date applies to out-of-market-area carriage. Comcast thinks that in-market carriage may be frozen by the FCC during a sweeps month which February is, so our Dooms Day might be March 1. That notion hasn't been tested in court, however, and Comcast doesn't plan to do so. It will let the FCC fight that battle. So, if Sinclair tells it to pull the plug on Feb. 5, apparently Comcast will.

A story in the Baltimore Sun, the "home town newspaper" of Sinclair Broadcasting which has its offices in the Balto burbs is here http://www.baltimoresun.com/business/bal-bz.sinclair06jan06,0,5810933.story?coll=bal-business-headlines- It indicates that our experience in Maine is not unique. Sinclair is fighting several cable cos at the same time, including Mediacom, TWC and Comcast. A Sinclair spokesperson is quoted as saying "... Sinclair is asking for less than what Disney, TNT and ESPN get from cable companies. Those companies pay between 79 cents and $2.91 per subscriber..." I assume that's per month. A story elsewhere indicates that cable cos. are concerned about precedent. If they make such payments to Sinclair, other stations will expect the same, e.g., WABI in Bangor.

Sinclair is so embroiled in its fight with Mediacom that it has announced a partnership with D* in which Sinclair will pay $10. a month for ten months to Mediacom subs who jump to D*.

Check me if I'm wrong, but all of this pushing and shoving goes away in 2009 when transmission of digital signals becomes "must carry." No? I wonder now how the politicians feel about moving that "must carry" date. Looks to me like it was an invitation for just this sort of jousting, which is all about money and profits and nothing to do with public benefit. (My two cents.)

Meanwhile, get ready to hoist antennas or go satellite if you care that much about CBS in this market. Let's hope cooler heads prevail.

Dana

There's a story on the AVS Forum's front page regarding the Feb 2009 switchover...

As part of the switchover, the government had talked about providing STB's to people with analog televisions. There is a link to the preview:

http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/frnotices/2006/couponprogram_nprm_07202006.htm

1) Eligible households are to receive two $40 coupons with serial numbers to reduce fraud;

2) Eligible households are defined as those without any exisiting digital television OTA capability, or cable or satellite television subscriptions (even if there are existing extra analog televisions without cable or satellite subscriptions in those households);

3) Only one $40 coupon can be used per STB purchase

What a crock of @*!%!

Where were these guys when they were giving out contracts for work in Iraq and the Gulf Coast!

Joe

That's interesting. I watch a lot more HD programming on CBS than I do on Fox. CSI, CSI:NY, The Unit, Numb3rs, NFL and the SEC football games all make great use of HD and DD5.1. March Madness will have all games in HD this year as well. ABC (Lost, Grey's Anatomy, college football) and NBC (My Name is Earl, The Office, SNF) are tied for second, except in olympics years when NBC moves up. My list for Fox is very small: NFL and the BCS games. The only other Fox programs that interest me (The Simpsons and Family guy) are SD anyway. My wife likes American Idol but she couldn't care less about HD anyway :(.

Let me recommend "24" on Fox. It is excellent. I am really looking forward to its return a week from Sunday. Two nights and 2 hours each. Oh Boy!

Prison Break is a good show, too and, by now, you have already decided whether or not you like American Idol. The Simpsons is great stuff as well.

I watch PBS HD, Discovery HD, ESPN HD, TNT HD and the HD movie channels more than the networks, except for network sports - Pats football in particular.

Dana

Uh oh! A genuine intellectual with an interest in healthy activities. ............ You are to be watched closely, my friend.

On a serious note, Dana, do you notice the smearing on MPBN HD that I have brought up before? Last night it was really bad. My cable reception is great, so I can't believe that it is on my end. Perhaps, TWC (Adelphia) dilutes the signal when it sends out the PBS channel. The only other possibility is that MPBN is putting out an inferior signal from their transmitter, since it is highly unlikely that the national source is delivering a low quality picture to the local stations all over the country. .............. There is no doubt to the smearing or blurring effect on this TWC channel. It is always visible to some degree. ........... I think Dave in Leeds said he saw it, but I was unclear if it was cable or over the air. I believe it was over the air. ................ Anyone else?

Good question,
I might be able to temporarily remove it, I will find out.

Craig

I don't have WGME HD, yet, but thank goodness that AccidenT brought this up. It only uses up bandwidth.

Uh oh! A genuine intellectual with an interest in healthy activities. ............ You are to be watched closely, my friend.

On a serious note, Dana, do you notice the smearing on MPBN HD that I have brought up before? Last night it was really bad. My cable reception is great, so I can't believe that it is on my end. Perhaps, TWC (Adelphia) dilutes the signal when it sends out the PBS channel. The only other possibility is that MPBN is putting out an inferior signal from their transmitter, since it is highly unlikely that the national source is delivering a low quality picture to the local stations all over the country. .............. There is no doubt to the smearing or blurring effect on this TWC channel. It is always visible to some degree. ........... I think Dave in Leeds said he saw it, but I was unclear if it was cable or over the air. I believe it was over the air. ................ Anyone else?

Stan,

Absolutely no blurring here. The PQ is outstanding.

Dana

There's another trade journal story here http://www.cable360.net/competition/broadcast/21514.html

Regarding any blackout, apparently Comcast is being conservative in this market by warning of a possible blackout as of Feb. 5. That date applies to out-of-market-area carriage. Comcast thinks that in-market carriage may be frozen by the FCC during a sweeps month which February is, so our Dooms Day might be March 1. That notion hasn't been tested in court, however, and Comcast doesn't plan to do so. It will let the FCC fight that battle. So, if Sinclair tells it to pull the plug on Feb. 5, apparently Comcast will.

A story in the Baltimore Sun, the "home town newspaper" of Sinclair Broadcasting which has its offices in the Balto burbs is here http://www.baltimoresun.com/business/bal-bz.sinclair06jan06,0,5810933.story?coll=bal-business-headlines- It indicates that our experience in Maine is not unique. Sinclair is fighting several cable cos at the same time, including Mediacom, TWC and Comcast. A Sinclair spokesperson is quoted as saying "... Sinclair is asking for less than what Disney, TNT and ESPN get from cable companies. Those companies pay between 79 cents and $2.91 per subscriber..." I assume that's per month. A story elsewhere indicates that cable cos. are concerned about precedent. If they make such payments to Sinclair, other stations will expect the same, e.g., WABI in Bangor.

Sinclair is so embroiled in its fight with Mediacom that it has announced a partnership with D* in which Sinclair will pay $10. a month for ten months to Mediacom subs who jump to D*.

Check me if I'm wrong, but all of this pushing and shoving goes away in 2009 when transmission of digital signals becomes "must carry." No? I wonder now how the politicians feel about moving that "must carry" date. Looks to me like it was an invitation for just this sort of jousting, which is all about money and profits and nothing to do with public benefit. (My two cents.)

Meanwhile, get ready to hoist antennas or go satellite if you care that much about CBS in this market. Let's hope cooler heads prevail.

Dana

Dana, I think that if WGME, WCSH, or WMTW want to be carried on cable in Portland, the local cable company "MUST CARRY" them.

Let me recommend "24" on Fox. It is excellent. I am really looking forward to its return a week from Sunday. Two nights and 2 hours each. Oh Boy!

Prison Break is a good show, too and, by now, you have already decided whether or not you like American Idol. The Simpsons is great stuff as well.

My brother-in-law owns seaons 1-5 of 24 on DVD, which I plan to borrow. There's no way I'll catch up in time to see this upcoming season in HD, but if there are future seasons, I'll probably be caught up by then. I've wanted to watch it for a while now, but I felt that I should start from the beginning.

No audio on Comcast channel 504 carrying WCSH HD NBC. Audio is up on Comcast channel 6 WCSH SD NBC at this hour.

Dana

FWIW, Audio is fine on WCSH HD OTA.

FWIW, Audio is fine on WCSH HD OTA.

Thanks. Armed with that info I called Comcast using the local phone number and got a rep who couldn't find my account - until I told him I was on a former SusCom system upon which he transferred me to a different rep. I reported the issue. Let's hope it gets fixed ASAP.

What we also learn from this is that the former SusCom system has not been fully integrated into the Comcast system. (It's just been integrated enough to be involved in the dispute with Sinclair. :rolleyes: )

Dana

Dana Said: Check me if I'm wrong, but all of this pushing and shoving goes away in 2009 when transmission of digital signals becomes "must carry." No? I wonder now how the politicians feel about moving that "must carry" date. Looks to me like it was an invitation for just this sort of jousting, which is all about money and profits and nothing to do with public benefit. (My two cents.)

Stan Replied: Dana, I think that if WGME, WCSH, or WMTW want to be carried on cable in Portland, the local cable company "MUST CARRY" them.

And the corollary to this is that if the stations choose, they can still require for Time Warner (or DirecTV or DishNetwork or whomever) to compensate them for the use of their signal.

You may have the mistaken idea that these fights are ONLY over the transmission of the high definition feed. They aren't; they are from long before that. Some local broadcasters get paid for their signals; others want to be. Sinclair wants to be. My guess is these power struggles will continue long after the digital switch is flipped. As long as the local broadcaster "owns" the rights to its local market, the cable companies will have to deal with them.

I suspect that there is enough local interest programming (not only including the local news) that would disappear if the loacal broadcasters went away, that the FCC is not going to give away their control of their markets.

Joe

After getting no satisfaction from my phone call to Comcast customer service, I sent an email to Mike Marshall today. I also sent one to Mary McLaughlin, NE Comcast V-P. She got the audio fixed on Comcast channel 504 pronto!

The Pats-San Diego game will be on WGME/CBS at 4:30 PM next Sunday in HD.

Dana

I hope this is the right forum for this question?? I just upgraded to the new DTV HD DVR Plus and new 5LNB Sat and was told I would get NESN in HD. I have also read the opposite on these forums. Can anyone help? Do Maine DTV customers get NESN HD? So far, the Bruins games on 623 have been lousy SD.

Thanks for the help!
Mike

I hope this is the right forum for this question?? I just upgraded to the new DTV HD DVR Plus and new 5LNB Sat and was told I would get NESN in HD. I have also read the opposite on these forums. Can anyone help? Do Maine DTV customers get NESN HD? So far, the Bruins games on 623 have been lousy SD.

Thanks for the help!
Mike

If you go here http://www.directv.com/DTVAPP/global/contentPageIF.jsp?assetId=P3000004 and plug in your Maine ZIP code, I think you'll find out that NESN HD is presently not available. If so, I suggest you go back to whomever told you otherwise and complain.

Dana

I hope this is the right forum for this question?? I just upgraded to the new DTV HD DVR Plus and new 5LNB Sat and was told I would get NESN in HD. I have also read the opposite on these forums. Can anyone help? Do Maine DTV customers get NESN HD? So far, the Bruins games on 623 have been lousy SD.

Thanks for the help!
Mike

It is my understanding that NESN HD is not available in your market (Portland/Auburn) yet. DirecTV only has it in the Boston market. That was what I was told by family, living in your area, last time I asked them. Also I haven't seen anything on here where people, in the Portland/Auburn market, have reported getting it.

Last word is no. Go here and enter your zip (it doesn't seem to be working for me right now, but my computer's acting up...) Last time I did it about two weeks ago NESN HD is not available to us. Read back a few pages in this thread (or search for NESN) and you'll see a bunch of discussion on this very topic. Good Luck!

http://www.directtv.com/DTVAPP/global/contentPageIF.jsp?assetId=P3000004

I spoke with DirecTV about this yesterday as I was arranging for an upgrade. No NESN or FSNE in HD for Maine yet. No idea when.

I had been told by DirecTV that RSN HD was available too. The left hand does not know what the right hand is doing.

Is D* offering decent HR20 upgrade deals? I wouldn't mind having another 2 HD tuners at my disposal, but I really don't want to pay any money for the supposedly terrible HR20, and I'd want to keep my HR10-250 as well.

Here's a web page showing what cable and satellite cos carry NESN HD and where. http://www.boston.com/sports/nesn/aboutus/hd/

Dana

Is D* offering decent HR20 upgrade deals? I wouldn't mind having another 2 HD tuners at my disposal, but I really don't want to pay any money for the supposedly terrible HR20, and I'd want to keep my HR10-250 as well.

The HR20 is pretty stable now - D* has been dropping updates down on a weekly basis. It's at the point now where I feel comfortable changing.

I got $99 for the upgrade. That includes the install, the HR20, the new dish, and a new multiswitch. I get to keep the HR10-250 as well.

They will give you this deal if you are a long term customer with no late payments.

And the corollary to this is that if the stations choose, they can still require for Time Warner (or DirecTV or DishNetwork or whomever) to compensate them for the use of their signal.

You may have the mistaken idea that these fights are ONLY over the transmission of the high definition feed. They aren't; they are from long before that. Some local broadcasters get paid for their signals; others want to be. Sinclair wants to be. My guess is these power struggles will continue long after the digital switch is flipped. As long as the local broadcaster "owns" the rights to its local market, the cable companies will have to deal with them.

I suspect that there is enough local interest programming (not only including the local news) that would disappear if the loacal broadcasters went away, that the FCC is not going to give away their control of their markets.

Joe

Joe, I think that if the local stations choose to invoke the "must carry" rule, they CANNOT require Time Warner to compensate them for the use of their signal.

Joe, I think that if the local stations choose to invoke the "must carry" rule, they CANNOT require Time Warner to compensate them for the use of their signal.

You didn't read my post... I said "if the stations choose, they can still require Time Warner to compensate them for the use of their signal."

They can choose to invoke "must carry" OR they can require compensation for their signals... If they choose to require compensation for their signals then Time Warner cannot carry them or any "distant" version of their network. This has nothing to do with whether the signals are analog or digital. It is due to the local broadcaster owning the rights to their network's programming within their local market.

Even after the nation goes to only broadcast OTA digital, the local broadcaster has this option. So you will still see stations like Sinclair's asking (demanding) compensation for their signals, and still see warnings from Time Warner that we may lose a local broadcast channel like we saw last month regarding the potential loss of CBS programming in Maine.

The only way this goes away is if the FCC relaxes the local broadcasters' ownership of their markets.

Joe

Station choices:
1. invoke "must carry" without compensation
2. permit carriage without compensation
3. permit carriage with compensation

Am I missing something, Joe?

Station choices:
1. invoke "must carry" without compensation
2. permit carriage without compensation
3. permit carriage with compensation

Am I missing something, Joe?

No, Stan... I was responding to Dana's comment that, "Check me if I'm wrong, but all of this pushing and shoving goes away in 2009 when transmission of digital signals becomes 'must carry'." You responded "Dana, I think that if WGME, WCSH, or WMTW want to be carried on cable in Portland, the local cable company 'MUST CARRY' them."

I was pointing out that the problem (Sinclair holding out TW for compensation) DOES NOT GO AWAY in 2009 when the digital switch is thrown, because the local station can stil require compensation. It is still more of the same.


Joe

I just got back from my local Time-Warner office(my Motorola DVR hard drive fried :( ) and they confirmed that Time-Warner is trying to include WGME's digital feed and hope to have that in place in the final agreement before Friday. They stated that alot of customers are requesting this so they can watch the Super bowl in HD. Here's hoping that this get's done.

They also told me that more HD channels are supposedly coming but they aren't being told what they are for the time being.

No, Stan... I was responding to Dana's comment that, "Check me if I'm wrong, but all of this pushing and shoving goes away in 2009 when transmission of digital signals becomes 'must carry'." You responded "Dana, I think that if WGME, WCSH, or WMTW want to be carried on cable in Portland, the local cable company 'MUST CARRY' them."

I was pointing out that the problem (Sinclair holding out TW for compensation) DOES NOT GO AWAY in 2009 when the digital switch is thrown, because the local station can stil require compensation. It is still more of the same.


Joe

Oh, I get you now.

I just got back from my local Time-Warner office(my Motorola DVR hard drive fried :( ) and they confirmed that Time-Warner is trying to include WGME's digital feed and hope to have that in place in the final agreement before Friday. They stated that alot of customers are requesting this so they can watch the Super bowl in HD. Here's hoping that this get's done.

They also told me that more HD channels are supposedly coming but they aren't being told what they are for the time being.

I don't want to burst anyone's bubble (and I certainly won't to the long time AVS Readers) but they were saying the same thing three years ago, the last time WGME had the Super Bowl. :( And it is a true statement. They are TRYING!
I think there's more reason to be optimistic this time around, but at the same time, they'll sing the same tune if it keeps you hanging on as a customer!

I have yet to receive the 4 new HD channels from TWC (i.e., UHD, A&EHD, MHD, TNTHD). I had called TWC about this problem and today I received a call from TWC informing that no pre-existing TWC customers nor the Adelphia-to-TWC transfered customer will be able to receive the 4 new channels if they have a cableCARD. Reception of these new channels requires two way communication with a box.

Is there anyone out there (with cableCARDS) receiving the new programming? Stan54, didn' you say you were receiving them?

I don't want to burst anyone's bubble (and I certainly won't to the long time AVS Readers) but they were saying the same thing three years ago, the last time WGME had the Super Bowl. :( And it is a true statement. They are TRYING!
I think there's more reason to be optimistic this time around, but at the same time, they'll sing the same tune if it keeps you hanging on as a customer!

I think the problem is that these "negotiations" are going on at the corporate/national level between Time Warner and Sinclair, not locally between TW New England and WGME. The local TW customer service reps really have no more information than we do regarding the status of negotiations, and perhaps we have more info because "MisterDTV" posts here (mostly on the HDTV Programming forum, I think -- he's a high muckety muck at Sinclair).

Joe

I have yet to receive the 4 new HD channels from TWC (i.e., UHD, A&EHD, MHD, TNTHD). I had called TWC about this problem and today I received a call from TWC informing that no pre-existing TWC customers nor the Adelphia-to-TWC transfered customer will be able to receive the 4 new channels if they have a cableCARD. Reception of these new channels requires two way communication with a box.

Is there anyone out there (with cableCARDS) receiving the new programming? Stan54, didn' you say you were receiving them?

Dam, my cablecard brings in these new channels like a charm. I think you might be getting some bad information. It's unfortunate that you and the rest of us have to solve these little mysteries ourselves.

Dam, my cablecard brings in these new channels like a charm. I think you might be getting some bad information. It's unfortunate that you and the rest of us have to solve these little mysteries ourselves.

It's the "value added" you are paying your monthly fee to Time Warner for, Stan!

*grin*


Joe

An article on CNET here http://reviews.cnet.com/8301-12760_7-9674995-5.html?tag=blog should give our cable co folks in high places something to chew on. "DirecTV is claiming up to four times the bandwidth of cable channels in commercials, and its press release claimed it had bandwidth for 1,500 local HD channels and 150 nationals after the launch of two new satellites this year."

Of possibly more local interest, the story indicates D* will offer RSNs in HD include NESN and Fox. Remember, D* has signed a carriage agreement with Sinclair. That sets the competitive bar pretty high for the likes of TWC and Comcast.

Dana

I'll believe 100 channels when I see it.

As for NESN HD, not in ME.

Great, Home Shopping Network in HD.

NESN and FSNE in HD please!

I'll believe 100 channels when I see it.

As for NESN HD, not in ME.

Why not? Comcast offers it in Kittery and Eliot. Check it out here http://www.comcast.com/customers/clu/ChannelLineup.ashx?print=1&CGID=2577

Dana

I think he was referring to DirectTV.

I'll believe 100 channels when I see it.

As for NESN HD, not in ME.

Actually, 100 channels of SD would be an improvement over the grainy pictures of TWC, in the Lewiston area. Really, I don't ever think you will see that many with any cable company, due to the lack of bandwidth, most of them are maxed out now.

I think he was referring to DirectTV.

Right. They don't offer it now, as we know. But, D* is claiming they will offer more RSNs in HD so there's no reason I can think of why we shouldn't expect they will in the future in Maine. If you check out the NESN link I posted on the previous page, several outfits claim carriage in this market so apparently it's not Major League Baseball or the Red Sox that is restricting coverage.

Dana

OK, does anyone that is a Directv customer in the Lewiston / Auburn DMA have the new dish and HD locals turned on? Any chance that NESN is in HD and Directv is as screwed up in telling us it is not available as they were when they told us it was available with the Mpeg2 dish?

Anyone actually have an HR20 active in L/A?

There's a story here on the Sinclair dispute over compensation with various cable co http://www.tvpredictions.com/sinclair011207.htm .

The bad news? Sinclair last week blocked 22 stations from airing on cable systems in 13 states. Consequently, nearly one million viewers were unable to watch last weekend's NFL playoff games and primetime network programming in SD or HD.
The good news? Late last night, a Time Warner spokeswoman said it expects to reach agreement to carry the Sinclair feeds in a handful of markets, including Ohio and central New York.
Neither scenario applies to us, apparently.

Dana

There's a story here on the Sinclair dispute over compensation with various cable co http://www.tvpredictions.com/sinclair011207.htm .

The bad news?
The good news?
Neither scenario applies to us, apparently.

Dana

The Bad News: I believe that refers to the Sinclair vs Mediacom dispute.
The Good News: May in fact refer to us. The Sinclair extension agreement with TWC for the former Adelphia customers is set to expire today.

Good Afternoon all

Haven't had anything to really give as far as information on the Portland area TWC until this message I just received. Wrote and expressed my dissatisfaction with the recently added HD Channels and the loss of INHD2 with no replacement. Well, I finally got an answer back from TW after nearly two weeks and it wasn't canned. Here is what I received today:

Thank you for taking the time to express your concerns. I am pleased to tell you that as of 2/1/07 we are adding 2 new channels to our HD lineup Cinemax HD and Starz HD. I understand your frustration and your concern. I understand there is talk of adding more HD channels in the very near future. Please feel free to check in from time to time on the latest and greatest.

~Tammy


Here is hoping for more in the coming year!!

Love to hear Cinemax and Starz. I've been nagging about them for awhile now, since TWC has an agreement with them!

Any former Adelphia, now TWC, lose WGME/Sinclair last night? There's no updated messages out there, and last 1/12/07 was the new deadline for an agreement.

They have extended the negotiations out to Jan 19th while final details are worked out for an agreement. Was on the TWC Web site this morning. No one has lost WGME yet.

Don't think that was there at 6:00am. I swear I checked! :) Or maybe I just didn't refresh. In any case, good to hear.

This is just one of the stories out there. We appear to be in the grouping with New York and Ohio. Sinclair still wants to be paid and Time Warner (you) does not want to pay. If you do pay, all local stations will jump on board and the sky is the limit.

http://www.newarkadvocate.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070113/NEWS01/701130328/1002

This is just one of the stories out there. We appear to be in the grouping with New York and Ohio. Sinclair still wants to be paid and Time Warner (you) do not want to pay. If you do pay, all local stations will jump on board and the sky is the limit.

http://www.newarkadvocate.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070113/NEWS01/701130328/1002

Stan,

It's fallacious to think that TWC's interests are synonymous with the interests of its subscribers. Its primary obligation is to its stockholders. (The public interest is well down in the priorities even though they are using the public airwaves.)

And, I think it's also not true that every cost increase is immediately passed along to subscribers. That is of course what the cable cos want us to think. But, in reality these are very profitable companies. Have you seen pictures of the trophy sky scraper that Comcast is building in Philadelphia? It's a "statement building" intended to put Comcast prominently on its home town skyline.

Furthermore, Comcast has made sizable investments according to information posted here http://golobos.cstv.com/genrel/071906aaa.html

The Company's content networks and investments include E! Entertainment Television, Style Network, The Golf Channel, OLN, G4, AZN Television, PBS KIDS Sprout, TV One and four regional Comcast SportsNets. The Company also has a majority ownership in Comcast Spectacor, whose major holdings include the Philadelphia Flyers NHL hockey team, the Philadelphia 76ers NBA basketball team and two large multipurpose arenas in Philadelphia.

This jousting by Sinclair and the cable cos is all about their profits. I'd like to see the cable cos spend some money that is directly related to the service they provide, frankly.

Dana

This is just one of the stories out there. We appear to be in the grouping with New York and Ohio. Sinclair still wants to be paid and Time Warner (you) do not want to pay. If you do pay, all local stations will jump on board and the sky is the limit.

The truely "local" broadcasters are pawns in the game. The one-station ownership groups are out in the cold. Even Sinclair compared to the major networks.

There is an excellent take on the jostling going on in this story: http://www.kvia.com/Global/story.asp?S=5533070

This isn't about Sinclair or the CW -- they are small potatoes. Cable companies are ALREADY paying for retransmission rights. They just aren't paying cash in most cases. The major broadcasters, in the major markets are now using the leverage they have to force the cable companies to share the wealth.

From the KVIA story: "For months, CBS President/CEO Leslie Moonves has bragged forcefully that, when his stations' retransmission-consent agreements come up for renewal, he will squeeze operators for cash. "We will get paid for our content-one way or another," Moonves told investors at Goldman Sachs' recent Communicopia conference."

Here is a letter from the National Association of Broadcaster to the congress (from March of last year)regarding retransmission and the cable industry's biased presentation of the subject: http://www.nab.org/images/xertimages/corpcomm/pressrel/031606_Retrans_Letter.pdf

Sure, the NAB has its own bias -- but somewhere in between is the truth.

Here's another one from last week: http://www.nab.org/xert/corpcomm/pressrel/releases/010907_DKR_Polka_Retrans_text.htm


Even though we already know what the cable companies think, it might be interesting to find the letters that NAB is responding to.


Joe

Stan,

It's fallacious to think that TWC's interests are synonymous with the interests of its subscribers. Its primary obligation is to its stockholders. (The public interest is well down in the priorities even though they are using the public airwaves.)

And, I think it's also not true that every cost increase is immediately passed along to subscribers. That is of course what the cable cos want us to think. But, in reality these are very profitable companies. Have you seen pictures of the trophy sky scraper that Comcast is building in Philadelphia? It's a "statement building" intended to put Comcast prominently on its home town skyline.

Furthermore, Comcast has made sizable investments according to information posted here http://golobos.cstv.com/genrel/071906aaa.html



This jousting by Sinclair and the cable cos is all about their profits. I'd like to see the cable cos spend some money that is directly related to the service they provide, frankly.

Dana

Dana, it is not only fallacious to think that TWC interests are synonymous with the interests of its subscribers, ............... it is incorrect. Surely, I didn't suggest that TWC cares about its customers. They are out to create as much profit as they can for their company. The same is true of Sinclair. If I was running either of the two companies, I would be doing the same thing. .............. This is just business! We shouldn't try to make it anything more than that.

I am only thinking of myself in this matter. (How's that for honesty?) What might have caused you to think otherwise?

Dana, it is not only fallacious to think that TWC interests are synonymous with the interests of its subscribers, ............... it is incorrect. Surely, I didn't suggest that TWC cares about its customers. They are out to create as much profit as they can for their company. The same is true of Sinclair. If I was running either of the two companies, I would be doing the same thing. .............. This is just business! We shouldn't try to make it anything more than that.

I am only thinking of myself in this matter. (How's that for honesty?) What might have caused you to think otherwise?

Stan

Just your post #1730 above. ;)

Sinclair still wants to be paid and Time Warner (you) do not want to pay.

I think it's very appropriate to think of yourself. Because if you don't, who will? You know the old adage. "Where you stand depends on where you sit." :)

Dana

In that case, I think that our interests are the same, but for different reasons. TWC is not trying to protect its customers, it is trying to protect its profits.

Now, if they are only going to pass the costs along to their customers, you might ask why should Time Warner care if they are only interested in their own profits? My rationale is that increasing price decreases attractiveness in the marketplace. Further, it is difficult to increase prices to coincide exactly with the new expenditures. I suspect their would be some loss during lag periods.

Again, this is just business and it is only normal for the tv customer to want not to miss a single flicker of television programming even if his best economic interests are at stake. It is because of the latter that I believe the broadcasters will eventually win this tug of war.

Anyone else having issues with WGME OTA? All of a sudden I'm having reception issues.

Anyone else having issues with WGME OTA? All of a sudden I'm having reception issues.

No problem on Comcast.

Dana

Anyone else having issues with WGME OTA? All of a sudden I'm having reception issues.

OTA is fine for me.

OTA is fine for me.

Thanks.

Now I have to figure out whats up.

Taking out my pre-amp helped a lot, but it's still far from perfect. :mad:

No problems here either (OTA). Been solid all game long.

Grrr, I'll have at it tomorrow then.

Thanks again guys.

We broadcast from Raymond, Maine if this helps you. It sounds like removing the Pre-amp helped, I've found that some Pre-amps can not handle strong signals causing them to introduce noise not gain to the signal. Some have a gain control, if yours does maybe reducing the gain may help.

If your close to Raymond (5-10 miles) you may need to add an in-line 6DB "pad" to your HDTV RF input.(Radio Shack has them).


Craig


Thanks.

Now I have to figure out whats up.

Taking out my pre-amp helped a lot, but it's still far from perfect. :mad:

As I anticipated, the Sinclair-Mediacom dispute could wind up being the subject of Congressional hearings over whether the FCC presently has the authority to order the parties to settle their dispute through binding arbitration. The FCC reportedly favors binding arbitration but says it has no authority to order it. Link: http://www.tvpredictions.com/congresshd011607.htm

Mediacom asked for arbitration but Sinclair reportedly refused, saying the parties should settle the carriage compensation dispute between themselves. In my opinion, that would be just ducky if the two parties limited the dispute to their corporate entities. But, Sinclair has chosen to penalize the viewing public in Mediacom territory in the process by blacking them out. That only invites the attention of the politicians.

While Congress might be reluctant to get involved in a local dispute, the article points out that "a similar battle is taking place in other states with different cable operators and station operators."

That would include us.

Dana

Arrggg. I keep putting off dropping $200 or so to buy a HD tuner to get CBS so I can watch the playoffs in High Def. I know as soon as I buy one either the Pats will lose or Time Warner and Sinclair will reach an agreement. DAMN YOU TIME WARNER AND SINCLAIR!!


Rant done sorry.

In my opinion, that would be just ducky if the two parties limited the dispute to their corporate entities. But, Sinclair has chosen to penalize the viewing public in Mediacom territory in the process by blacking them out. That only invites the attention of the politicians.

Dana

[RANT ON]
Dana,

How to you figure that this dispute "penalize(s) the viewing public in Mediacom territory"? Since when did the customers of a particular cable company become "the viewing public"? Are you saying that I, not being a customer of Time Warner for television, am not part of "the viewing public" in Maine?

As far as I can tell, it only penalizes MEDIACOM CUSTOMERS (a subset of the "viewing public"). Mediacom customers can penalize Mediacom by cancelling their service and choosing other television options.

The "viewing public" also has the option of receiving the signal from the local broadcaster over the air, for free or purchase television programming from DirecTV or DishNetwork which will also get them the signal from local broadcasters as part of their service. For "the viewing public" I believe that the economic viability of the local broadcaster is of much greater importance than the economic viability of a cable company!


[RANT 2 ON]
An aside -- from my digital cable days -- I still fume over the "lie" about "digital cable". When I had digital cable I tried to set everything up using digital audio. It didn't work for any stations which were a part of "basic" and "extended basic" service. After two weeks dealing with customer service and escalating all the way to the regional director of engineering, it was determined that basic channels were analog even though they were "tuned" by the box and (re)mapped to "digital tier" station numbers and didn't have digital audio. The majority of channels I watched were on analog cable (ESPN, CNN, Discovery Channel, the local broadcast channels, etc) and WEREN'T "digital". But they still advertised the quality of "digital picture and sound"!

You DO know that when you receive "digital cable" service that the stations that are provided in analog service are STILL analog? They don't transmit the stations twice, once analog and once digital. And they still raise rates to gouge customers, and then blame it on problems with Sinclair!
[/RANT 2 OFF]
[/RANT OFF]


take care :)

Joe

Arrggg. I keep putting off dropping $200 or so to buy a HD tuner to get CBS so I can watch the playoffs in High Def. I know as soon as I buy one either the Pats will lose or Time Warner and Sinclair will reach an agreement. DAMN YOU TIME WARNER AND SINCLAIR!!


Rant done sorry.


LOL (laughing with you not at you)

Don't worry, there is no reason to believe that the problem will be solved for several more years.

FYI, you can buy an old VOOM or DirecTV receiver that tunes OTA on eBay for $50-$100.

Joe

Arrggg. I keep putting off dropping $200 or so to buy a HD tuner to get CBS so I can watch the playoffs in High Def. I know as soon as I buy one either the Pats will lose or Time Warner and Sinclair will reach an agreement. DAMN YOU TIME WARNER AND SINCLAIR!!


Rant done sorry.

I did the same dance 3-4 years ago in Philly. Its maddening. Down there it was a FOX Sinclair affiliate and Comcast. I finally broke down one playoff weekend and just got it. Still serves me well! And I spent under $200 too.
Its not bad think to have around either. I can still see the day when I just go "DrJoe" on them and start cutting cables. :)

LOL (laughing with you not at you)
FYI, you can buy an old VOOM or DirecTV receiver that tunes OTA on eBay for $50-$100.


Be careful though if you decide to buy one. Many of the newer DirecTV receivers will only activate the OTA section when you have a DirecTV account. I know the older E-8 and HTL-HD boxes will work, without an account, but the H10 or H20s require an account. Not sure about the other ones.

Be careful though if you decide to buy one. Many of the newer DirecTV receivers will only activate the OTA section when you have a DirecTV account. I know the older E-8 and HTL-HD boxes will work, without an account, but the H10 or H20s require an account. Not sure about the other ones.

The VOOM's need to be "activated" as well. As far as the older (cheaper) DirecTV receivers -- as far as I know they are good to go. There's probably a FAQ on the topic somewhere.

Joe

There are a bunch of HTL-HD recievers on ebay. I couldn't find the other model you mentioned. Ebay is probably the best place to pick one of these up right?

Thanks for the help everyone.