I've heard a lot about buying a new set, but I'm wondering if anyone is thinking about recycling the old ones. We have five sets in our house, all of which will need to be replaced. Are we really going to throw all these things in the landfill?

That is a good question, what to do with the old sets? Should it be something like what computer companies do? Also with HD comes equipment. With HD DVD and Blu Ray competing, could it be beta-max and VHS with the same outcome all over again?

There are a lot of people, young, elderly, disabled, and poor, who can't afford to purchase a new tv; let alone subscribe to a monthly service to view that tv. For these people, there is little, or no, other entertainment. This is grossly unfair to a vast part of the populace of this country.

I have experienced HDTV and this technology is definitly the future of television. But unless there is quality programming, no one's going to watch the same-old programs only in HD. Evening Magazine is an excellent example of Quality HD programming, and as time progresses, more HD programs will be availible on more channels and soon HDTV would be as normal as Analog TV in the near future.

Will everyone be forced to subscribe to cable once the change is made, in order to continue to watch TV? Will over-the-air broadcast still be available?

I agree with Daniel(posted April 30). I am one of those low income people and no way could I afford to purchase a new HD TV for $1,000 or more. Is it too much to ask our TV stations to hold off turning off the regular TV signal for a while until the price of the new TVs comes down some and there is some used HD TVs available for sale to use disadvantaged.

I also agree with Daniel. I'm also a low income (Social Security only) disabled senior. What are we supposed to do? Will there be any way for those of us, as well as low income families, to watch tv after the hdtv change-over? Doesn't sound like it. For many of us this is our main source of news and entertainment. Any suggestions?

I have the same question as Todd above (though I do not own 5 TVs). What will we do with all the old equipment? Isn't this going to be a problem since most Americans own at least one analog TV?

I think more people should consider participating in "Turn off your TV" week. Most of us don't realize the impact TV has on our lives until there's a period where it has been removed. We're bombarded with messages and viewpoints through TV programming and advertising that we need to stand back and examine from an objective point of view. Unfortunatley this doesn't seem to happen very often because we're so "used" to TV and it tends to affect people subconsciously.

I really resent the government forcing us to abandon our current tv's. As was stated in the report this has never happened before. Black and white still works in fact. For me a new hdef tv is over a months salary, no way can I afford one and I am not counted as low income. I don't have cable and have no plans to get it even if I could afford it.

All so the government can make the money and waste it. How much is the charge for dumping all these old ones in the landfill? And what damage to our earth will they all cause?

Hi I was wondering how we get ride of our old TV sets? If we have to buy new one wit HDTV. It is really to bad that all this has to be change and we have to get a convert to go along with our one or two tv at home. Then what happen if we have to make a big Move to another State.Oh well I most likely wait until I have to either buy one or buy a converator Box.

crazeeeeeeeeeeeee.
Whats next turn in your car for a bike.

I concur with some of the first comments, and because I have 4 large-screen standard TV sets in the house it makes me wonder: Are our landfills and/or back roads ready for this on-slot of useless TV's in two years? My son tells me that this migration over to HDTV will not only affect TV's but DVD's and Players as well. Well people's current DVD collections go the way of the 4-Track, 8-Track, Beta and VHS Tape formats?

I would like to see a follow-up program on these issues!

If memory serves, this date is merely the deadline by which broadcasters have to begin broadcasting in digital HDTV. This isn't when the analog signals will perish. There is supposed to be a phase-out period before the analog signals will disappear.

Further, a pretty large slice of the US population already receive their signals through cable and satellite services which won't make current TVs obsolete just yet.

HDTV is a nice to have, but the technology is too expensive for the average American consumer and the government won't create such a problem for consumers at this stage. As most TVs have very good lifespans (depending on the brand you buy), people should now have an eye on the next technology when replacing a bad TV, but current TVs will still work for at least the next decade.

The Up Front show included a comment from a Cable tv technician who said a convertor will be available and cost could be quite low (he said cost to make was $1 I'm quite sure!). Wish that solution was addressed more. We have 4 TV's and 2 PC's with TV tuners and I feel the pictures are just fine! Don't need HDTV on more than maybe one set. I'm hoping to stick with cable service and converters on these other sets - those sets will be good for longer than 2009 and surely I wont dispose of them!

I'll also add that we're not sick-o's with 4 TV's. We don't watch that much but sure like it available in the kitchen, garage, etc. Also have a portable. Just nice to be informed/entertained when doing mundane house work & projects.

The box that I have to get HD signals costs around $100 dollars but paying $5 dollars a month on a lease to own. I own a 30" HD but they are expensive, $800 bucks was a big investment but to me it was worth it. However, if you cannot afford the extra for the HD channels, it really is not worth it. Hopefully when the process to make it becomes more common, prices will come down.

I'm wondering how the nation, state or Seattle is anticipating recycling 250 million TV sets? This sounds like a disaster waiting to happen.

I'm still a bit unclear if I can trade in my rabbit ears for some converter or if that only will work with cable.

My first thought was the mess obsolete computers created. I'm sure there are many more TVs to consider. I quit subscription TV because after seeing the poor programming for $50/month, all I watched were locals. I bought a $12 antenna. I quit smoking after 40 years. Guess I can quit TV too. I hate being forced to do ANYTHING.

What's going to happen to all those RV antenna?
Shirley & Joe Schibret

I can't technically get cable where I live. The neighbors across the street can, but not me. Are they going to bring cable to my area?

HDTV works well in the city. However, multipath is an issue. The folks in the rural areas will really be in trouble however, unless you're on satellite or cable TV. Over-the-air HDTV just does not cut it -- I would rather have a snowy analog picture than none at all (digital).

We all have to remember that better technology was not the driver for HDTV, instead the FCC and Uncle Sam's ability to re-auction that spection to bring down the national debt. Spectrum sales are already figured into those running debt totals.

We gave in a few months ago and got a new TV and Comcast HDTV service. I hate it! Every time a commercial comes on the volume doubles. The better picture on the screen is not worth being assaulted with deafening noise at every commercial break. I'd go back to my stable-volume analog TV in a heartbeat if not for the fact that it will soon be a choice between HDTV or nothing.

We have had an HDTV for some time now and also have run into the volume going up problem during commercials (especially on King 5). One thing that seems to affect it is the settings on our AV receiver. Other than that problem we truly love HDTV and would not want to go back. A comment about old sets ending up in land fills: I don't think that is legal (at least in King County). There are recycle places that will take them and also the King County recycle events take them (both for a price).

A clarification on my previous comment about the volume. I should have said channel 105 not King 5.
The volume only changes on Kings digital channel. It does not change on the analog channel.

Over the air HDTV looks nice. One thing that stations are doing which bug me is the fact that stations are identifing their digital broadcast using their analog station channel numberas reference. KING-TV broadcasts analog on channel 5. KING-DT broadcasts digital on channel 48. The HD programing on channel 48.1 is KING's over the air high definition service. KING-DT also places on the over the air stream channel 48.2, but not in HD. This is the NBC WX channel that is advertised. At present, all TV stations have a separate channel for their digital service and stations should promote their digital channel as being what it is, not attaching the digital service to the station's analog channel. KING-DT on channel 48 is a completely separate service from KING-TV on channel 5. Over the air channel 5 transmits no digital information. KING has chosen to retain channel 48 as their final resting place for broadcasting in Seattle. They will be giving up channel 5. Most local stations have chosen to also retain their transitional UHF allotment for their final broadcast location. A few, however, will be returning to their VHF channel with their digital service, when all is said and done.

I'm a media specialist and a small business person, and I would like to make a comment on the "UP FRONT" show, regarding HD-TV that was aired on August 20th.
I know that you showed numbers of survy polls
across the state on who would like to see HD-TV,
who's planning to buy HD-TV, and others aren't planning to buy HD-TV.
I would want to say that you have NOT interview
people who cannot afford to buy HD-TV and that some people who isn't planning to buy HD-TV, just couldn't keep up with the latest technologies in their time. You had interview people who are for HD-TV. But not for those who don't.
People are now very distracted by the ecommony,
because of high price of gas prices, live utilities, and etc. I have talked with people that are either not planning to buy HD-TV, because of high prices, or just couldn't keep up with the technologies in their time.
Most people I talked to, their occupation are
school teachers, custodians, and Milk delivery,
Doctors, low income, and etc. These carreres people told me that DVD is far as they can go, but not willing to move forward on HD-TV.
I think we need to tell congress to look at the 2 sidee. One is for HD-TV, the other is for keeping the analog alive, and maintain with their analog TV set.
Congress should look into people that cannot afford a thousdand dollar HD-TV. That's as much money they need to live for one month before their next pay checks. People can't even afford foods. I think that we should backdown or slow down the HD-TV format, because of our past generation are still living longer and that may not put up with the new technologies ahead.
I'm asking you to be open mind to the people who have worked so hard on their faimlies, that comes first, rather than interest in HD-TV. They may want to live what they got.
Even though people still gets the same salery or same amount of income, doesn't mean that they should save money for HD-TV. Faimlies and livings are important than finding a new HD-TV.
The government should not enforce consumers and brodcasters to make changes just to improve the economy. I doubt that, because the way I see from people that I knew, as I mentioned at the above, aren't willing to spend for it.
I hope that you'll take my comments on this issue.
Thank you for taking the time to read my comment.
Regards,
Eugene Cruz
Media Specialist

All you people need to get over it. Let people watch tv If they want to. Im just a kid but I have just as much experience about this subject as you have. Funny how you advertise on TV to tell people not to watch TV! Get over it

There were several issues missing from the HDTV program. One is that HDTV is about the type of display and is often confused with digital broadcasting. I can have, and do have, an HD ready DLP set, but that means I can display in better resolution not receive digital broadcasts.

What are typically called "HDTV broadcasts" are really digital broadcasts that are typically in HD format, but not always so. Each broadcaster can have numerous sub-channels, only some of which are in HD. The issue of how everyone was going to receive the digital signal was not addressed very well in this program either.

I have a separate "HD" receiver but currently have troubles receiving a signal because the town homes I live in restrict roof antennas and the digital signal is "line-of-sight." Until I can figure out how to "see" the transmitter I cannot get the digital signal.

One other thing that was not discussed is that, just like myself, people can purchase a digital or HD receiver so you do not necessarily need to purchase a new TV to receive the digital signal. The receiver I have can output several different formats that are compatible with sets other than HD.

It would probably be worth looking at this issue again and touching on the items that were missed.

Thanks,
Bill Hopp

Robert: I was very disappointed that you didn't report on the challenges for maintaining some of these new sets. I hear one of them needs a need bulb every 100 hours [if my memory is correct!] and it is very expensive. Most are also quite hard to see from the side and only ONE person can sit directly in front of a TV!! [You only mentioned that one type was, I believe.] Most also have a glare problem from window light and they won't be as easily moved as our sets that are now on a turntable to help with sun glare, etc. I think these things need to be part of our decision on which technology of the new digital TV's we will want to buy. Will this improve with two more years of technology before we must buy----or go without? The TV industry has a lot to lose in advertising dollars if many of us either boycott buying the several replacement sets per home or simply cannot buy even one. We will therefore not be watching the shows and helping you to sell the ads to make your money!! I realize the technology is not going to stay analog and the reasons for it, but this is sure a huge economic burden on both sides of the TV set---our side and your side! Thanks for the beginnings of a very informative show and I hope you will consider embellishing more details when the subject is brought up again! I see this is at least the 3rd time you have aired it and I just happened to catch it this time.

Thank you for broadcasting this information by your guest speaker about watching too much TV. Especially I appreciated her reference to T.S. Elliot's comment that now because of TV "more people than ever can laugh at the same joke and still feel alone" I personally would like to se television programming replaced by televised conferencing for families and the community to be able to stay connected, instead of sponsored junk over which you have no choice. This way I and my friends could have book-reading clubs, study groups, or family get-togethers when we may not be able to drive to other locations. I would rather use the mode of TV as a way to visit people so that we can laugh at jokes without being alone in our homes. How far away are we from having that kind of technology available in the home?

Important... NO VCR will work when analogue TV is turned off in 2009. They will play back VCR tapes but forget recording your favorite shows!!!

Over-the-air digital TV is finicky and unpredictable. I have lost track of how many hours and dollars I've spent adjusting antennas and purchasing new equipment trying to get the digital signal to stay.

I, being a senior citizen and just barely getting by as is, am extremely disappointed that our wonderful leaders have decided that it is necessary for us to switch to something that most of us not only don't understand (I have trouble figuring out how to hook them up) but can't afford. Will we be able to use an antenna or are we destined to return to no TV? Being in a wheel chair really confines one to relying on TV for news and anything else that is going on in the world. How are we so fortunate to get this kind of help from our elected officials?

I think congress is just currently under sway of the people who own the TV making companies and it's just some giant scam. All those companies are going to get RICH because all of us TV addicts are going to just go out and buy a rather expensive tv, because we have no other choice other then not get a TV and live life without a TV...

Robert, do your contacts feel that the 2007 cut over date is firm?

Robert, I hope you will do a follow-up program on this subject. I would like to see a consumer reports type show on the pro's and con's and failure rates of various types of televisions. Our family has had great luck with rear projection tube big screens, we have had three. Each one that we have owned lasted about 8 to 10 years before any sign of failure requiring maintenance. The high price for repair estimates usually are an incentive for us to buy a new televison rather than fixing our old one. Two years ago, we bought a LCD televison for our guest room, what we have found is that over time, the pixels start to burn-out on the screen, as our has, and leaves a black spot on the screen. Reviews I have seen not only talk about the pixels burn-out but also suggest that LCD's color brillance is also short lived. I don't know anything about DLP. So now were think about replacing our old Rear projection televison, and I would be interested on the projected failure rates of the various types of TVs before I make a choice.

Kudos to Robert Mak and your station for enlightning people on what they are about to pay for. Unfortunately, the days of three tv's per household are going to become extinct unless people come up with a lot-o-bucks. I especially feel sorry for retired people on low incomes who will now have to kick up the extra$ just to even get analog tv. Technology is good until it dives into the wallets of people just wanting to survive and be happy with what they have. And apparently almost everybody writing in on this subject have the same concerns I have about dumping their old tvs. Wouldn't be great if the Government had the same concerns?....instead of waking up later to this problem?

You know !! TV shows and news of the world has gotten so violent I don't think it's necessary for me to watch hours upon hours, when I can go out to the shop and build windchimes and listen to the news and my favorite music..

See Ya !! I'm out

When will all regular tvs be obsolete?

pharmacy technician pharmacy technician

The first thought that came to me is what about the environmental impacts of disposing all the analog tv sets? Has the government looked into this?

Perhaps and Environmental Impact Statment is in order????

What I want to know is WHY did Congress mandate this? I have yet to hear anything about that.
Also - What if we don't care about digital everything and just want an old black & white set with rabbit ears?

I am appalled by the lack of outrage towards our government's forcing this technology down our throats!

HELLO -- IS ANYONE AWAKE IN AMERICA?

Robert Mack never asked "WHY is the United States government telling us how we are going to watch television?!"

Why aren't "We the People" allowed a choice, and more importantly a VOICE?!

As an expert in HDTV and in digital televison let me take a minute to tell people to STOP Panicking. THE ONLY PEOPLE THE DIGITAL CONVERSION WILL EFFECT SIGNIFICANTLY ARE THE PEOPLE WHO CONTINUE TO RECEIVE THEIR TV WITH AN ANTENNA. People who have satelite are already receiving a digital signal and will have to do nothinh. Cable tv owners will need to get a converter box from the cable company which they should provide with their service at the time of the switch. As it stands now the switch is scheduled for February 2009. FOR PEOPLE THAT USE AN ANTENNA TO GET THEIR TV, THEY DO NOT NEED TO GET A NEW HDTV, RATHER AN ATSC TUNER WHICH CURRENTLY SELL FOR AROUND $150 (I can only imagine the price will go down the closer we get to February 2009). SO THERE WILL NOT BE A HUGE LANDFILL ISSUE WITH TVs.

HELLO -- IS ANYONE AWAKE IN AMERICA?

is right on point. What are people going to do who cannot afford cable TV or replacing TV sets?
Are we simply going to be shut out of this media?
We now have options - what's happening to our voice? Does the gov. have provisions for low or fixed income people who live alone and rely on TV for our connection to the world? As bad as over the air TV stations are, at least they are free if you are lucky enough to have rabbit ears.

If I am not mistaken, I think there was an error stated in the program.

It was mentioned that 1080p is going to be the standard in the next couple of years. According to information I have received, the television stations do not plan on implementing 1080p for a long long time -- years in the future.

You can get 1080p via blu-ray but not from the hdtv transmission from television stations for a long, long time.

In fact, many of the top television manufacturers plan on producing 768 and 1080p for many years to come. They are producing BOTH 768 and 1080p since there will be FEW sources of 1080p.

If this is incorrect, please let me know.

thanks

The plan that I have heard is that the spectrum that your channel 4, 5, 7, 9, 13 etc. use are going to be auctioned off to corporations for wireless technologies such as cell phone companies, wireless internet companies, etc. This spectrum is exremely valuable. Since digital tv only requires a small spectrum of bandwith to broadcast this almost seems like a no-brainer for the government, because they can generate so much revenue to put a very sizeable dent into our ever-growing national debt

I don't understand what congress has to do with it. You never went into that part of it.

All valid points posted here. We do not have cable, only rabbit ears (hey, it is Easter, after all, rabbit ears are good!). If we can't afford cable or dish TV, we certainly cannot afford a $1000.00 TV set. Yes we only have one TV set. And then, that would only bring in local channels? It is more important to get a new roof, one of these days.
We seem to be one of the many households who fall into the no government help class, for anything, including a converter, but pay through the wazoo, with taxes, for things we can't afford to use.

For those of us who choose to receive TV over the air and who want to keep our existing analog TV sets, I am concerned about the proposed digital-to-analog converter boxes. These converter boxes are "not yet readily available" according to your story, despite the fact that there is already some programming on digital channels that is not on analog channels. Why are there not any prototype versions of these boxes at the consumer electronics shows? With less than two years until analog TV goes away, people should be beta testing these boxes now.

I have a hunch why we don't see these yet: Electronics manufacturers would rather sell us new TVs than sell us converter boxes. I suspect the electronics industry will supply converter boxes that just barely comply with their mandated function, and to do so just before analog TV is turned off. Will the converter boxes we can buy give us control over the 16:9 aspect ratio? Will they let us choose whether the picture sent to our analog TV is letterboxed, cropped or stretched? Or are these boxes going to leave us permanently with a distorted picture? Will HiFi, stereo and SAP audio signals, along with closed captioning, be passed from the box to our analog TV? Will the converter boxes introduce moiré patterns or other distortion to the picture on analog sets? And more importantly for disabled people, will the converter boxes have remote control capability for changing the channel?

Congress has mandated this change to a technology that has become essential for keeping people informed and connected to our society. Congress, therefore, should ensure that that the converter box technology meets acceptable quality standards for those in our society who cannot afford, or do not want, to discard their existing analog TV sets.

To recycle your analog TVs once they become obsolete, send them to the following address:

Federal Communications Commission
445 12th Street SW
Washington, DC 20554

Let the people responsible for this problem handle it.

I plan to use my extra time by doing more walking and reading.
The really good shows, like Up Front with Robert Mak, are available online, thanks to KING5.com.

I like the comment above that stated that "how did the government get involved in how we watch TV?" It is true you never did give a comment on how this happened. And many other comments on "what are we going to do with the OLD TV's?" Also, we have one TV and like it that way and it is a small one and we like it that way. We are waiting, waiting to find a TV to suit our home, which is small. We are not about nor can spend $1,000 on a TV that rarely has any good programs anyway. And besides another questions comes to mind??? How will we pay for this extra expense that we didn't ask for anyway? Will we be able to have many choices? Also another issue since we probably will have to have a new type of DVD players. Question is will the new DVD players accomodate the DVD's made NOW from the computer or the DVD's you may have bought from a store or even may rent? Well isn't that just dandy! We just got a new DVD player. I just learned how to make family slide shows onto a DVD to play on our TV! Thanks for letting us know some of the news items that may not be heard. There are still lots and lots of questions to be answered on this topic. Your program is good. Thanks.

Robert, I usually appreciate your ability to get to the heart of an issue but tonight I am disappointed. I turned off my analog TV with many questions including:

- WHY is the government mandating the switch to HDTV? What/who is driving this change?
- WHAT are we supposed to do with the 2.4 TVs we all own? Will the government subsidize a recycling program or will we be left to fend for ourselves?
- WHERE will these millions of TV end up? What is the projected environmental impact of this change?
- HOW will people who cannot afford the high cost of a new TV (and there are millions!)stay connected to critical news such as natural disasters, national emergencies, etc., let alone the news and entertainment they may be accustomed to?
- Has anyone begun organizing around this issue? Are there any established venues for comment other than approaching our representatives?

There is so much more to this story and sadly, tonight's episode just felt like a commercial for HDTV and TV manufacturers.

I don't understand why the goverment is doing this to us poor people on low income that can not ever afford a new costy tv,It took me and my family two years to get a new 36 inch tv set,This so unfair,What is the goverment getting out of this is it bush all over again forceing us into a tv war huh.I say bull!Im will not conform to buying one.Mad in seattle

You people,Can thank Bush for all this crap about switching to hdtv,He is the one that,Started the current war,And also blew the world trade centers up,Do some surfing and and learning I do,He is to blame for the high gas prices he is to blame for evrything that is wrong now.( FACT )IMPEACH HIM NOW.

Why is the government involved in the signal you send? Or what type of set we buy, or how we recieve our programing?

Why don't they just tell us we can only watch programs owned and produced by the government? Hmmm?
Thanks Frank

I was going to try to explain the reason for the switch to HDTV, something I know about first-hand from having spent 35 years as a broadcast engineer. However, after reading the other comments, it would be simply casting pearls before swine.

Okay. You're right. It's all George Bush's fault. He wasn't making enough money by selling poisoned milk to orphanages, and his plot to line his pockets by running up the gas prices is getting a bit tedious, so he personally decided to make everyone's tv sets obsolete, forcing them to buy new HDTV sets and the only programming available will be government-produced lies. But the real truth is that this whole HDTV thing is just a dodge to take your attention away from his plan to impregnate all the new currency with anthrax! (You didn't actually buy that line about making our currency more secure, did you?)

Oh, come ON!!!!! My first impression was that those who buy into this were simply ignorant of the facts. However, after further consideration, the only possible explanation is simply mind-boggling stupidity! Haven't you people ever heard of the FCC? How about the Communications Act of 1934? NTSC? This is reminiscent of the situation roughly 40 years ago when some folks were amazed to learn they could get more channels if they first set the VHF dial to "U". Before that, people used to call the stations and ask if they were sending a 5" picture or a 7" picture.

You won't have to purchase a new TV, either. You'll be able to purchase a set-top converter which will allow you to use your current set.

Jeez, Louise! You're damn lucky to be living in a country where this is among your biggest complaints! Quit yer belly-achin'!

Let's be honest:

>>> Less than 15% of households will be effected.

>>> You do NOT need a new TV, just a converter.

>>> This does not happen for another 2 YEARS

1] This does NOT effect anyone using CABLE or SATELLITE. This is 85% of everyone in the US and likely a higher % of those in urban areas like the Seattle area. The signal that comes out of the cable is between you and your provider and more likely between your provider and the box they provide. It is not likely to effect you for years but if you are concerned, contact your provider.

This only effect people who get their signal from broadcast as in RABBIT EARS

2] Even today, you can buy a Digital-to-Analog CONVERTER for around $150 and then your current TV will work just fine. No need to throw out anything! There are around 100 million households in the US. Only 15% don't have cable or satellite which leaves around 15 million effected. Many of those will be able to afford the $150 for a converter and even if the government gave them away, there is enough money to buy more than 7 million of them. If everyone who needed one kicked in what they could afford, chances are everyone who needs one will get one.

People like Engineer Jack Butler, Reporter Robert Mak and Media Specialist Eugene Cruz should know that you do NOT need to to buy a new television.

Did Mr. Mak mention who to contact if you need a converter and can not afford one?

3] Digital TV does not require High Definition. Where as all HDTV is digital, not all Digital TV is high definition. It is also true that every digital signal including HDTV can be converted into an old-style analog signal usable by old-style analog TVs.

Also, you can buy a very nice Sony Digital TV for less than $280 today.

4] This has been coming for more than a decade. That is when "We the People" discussed this. If you wanted to have influence over what was to happen, there was lots of time for public comment then.

The discussion went something like this:
"HD is coming and broadcasters would like to broadcast that signal."
"But that signal is digital and can not be used by existing TVs which use only analog signals."
"The broadcasters will need to broadcast both digital and analog."
"But wait, that will take up a lot of room on the airwaves and with all the wireless technologies that want to use the airwaves, they should not get space for both forever."
"Let allow for a transition by broadcasting both for a while allowing for a transition. How long is long enough?" "How about till April 2009, that's years from now?"
"Sounds good but even then not everyone will be able to afford it."
"Let's provide more than a BILLION dollars to help"
"OK"

5] The rest of the world is doing this as well. Great Britain is starting as early as 2008.

This whole idea if switching to HDTV has many problems and is all is just crap to me because if think about it switching to HD is expensive is time consuming into buying the right eaqment and installing it overall this is not a good thing.

I work in the digital video/media industry and have followed the transition from analog to digital signal transmission. We in the US are lagging in technology behind Europe and Asia who have already transitioned to digital TV broadcasting. The FCC (read that the Government) has mandated a transition from analog transmission to digital transmission so that more channels can actually be transmitted and more compelling media broadcast (e.g. HD programs with digital 5.1 audio) to the consumer. So all of you out there with analog TVs feel like you are being left out in the cold? That is not true. I follow the industry and I know that there is a Government fund setup to subsidize the purchase of an ATSC digital converter box. This will help to lower the cost of purchasing an converter box. See the following link:

http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/press/2007/DTVfinalrule_031207.htm

Hopefully with the scale and number of people needing the new boxes the actual cost will not be excessive to those people on fixed and lower incomes with the use of the converter box subsidy.

I've been watching King5 news in HD on Comcast's channel 105 for some time now. Why was it announced that today is your first day transmitting in HD?

Thank you.

It looks great this AM. However, when watching the today show and they go to weather, KINg5 seems to switch back to SDTV on Channel 105 (Comcast) to broadcast Rich Marriott in SDTV. Why can't you leave it in HDTV mode and let us watch Roker in full HD, and then record Rich (which i am assuming it is a recording) in HD, also. Or atleast boarder the 480P signal and do not switch out of HD mode,.

Wow,
I'm surprised at just how much misunderstanding there is concerning this new technology!

First,
Your old tv will work just fine, until it wears out!!

Second,
HD tv is great.

Third,
King TV has been transmitting HD digital signals for more than year already.

Fourth,
When analog broadcast signals are discontinued, currently scheduled for 2009, a cheap converter will be available to those who depend on broadcast signals and don't have digital capable tv.

Surprised in Bothell!

This announcement is about KING 5 News. Today was the first day broadcasting thier NEWS in HD. While KING 5 itself has been in HD for quite some time, thier news has not...only their studio cameras.

Referance Below, we might as well the way PRICE GOUGING is going on. We can't afford an HDTV with those prices.

Whats next turn in your car for a bike.

Posted by: George at May 1, 2006 10:27 AM

We enjoy HD. Volume issues, video issues can all be handled via a little programming by individuals with their unit at home. Read the manuals!

Only thing I have a gripe with is King's implementation of HD which is pretty darn cheesy. Tone it down. And really we don't need a big yellow KING logo to tell us what channel we're viewing. Anyone over there ever hear of subtle or sophisticated? Come on get closer to what the network is doing. NBC execution is much better.

re: Toning it down.

I cannot agree more, however, It will probably fall on deaf ears. Ever since Belo bought Providence Journal, which owned King5, it seems the sensationalism and in your face coverage is the mode of operation. Hey, how do you get advertisers. it is all about advertising. ;) Something we all have to tolerate.

Also, I understand people's concern about buying HDTVs. expensive, however, as others have stated, a down scanning box will take the HDTV signal and rescan/transcode it down to 480i to be compatible with older sets. Most likely cable companies will do that in their Set Top Boxes, but for over the air, a cheap converter will work.

Kudos to King 5, but not 100%. Keep it in HD during the Today Show and the weather segment, and like the previous poster said, tone it down.

Oh, one last thing, guys, ride the gain on the audio. When you switch to commercials, it goes up 9db. Check your FCC rules, keep it within 3db. ;)
Would hate for the FCC to come visit ;)

Everyone that's complaining about cable television being so expensive have no reason to. Comcast, the provider most everywhere in western Washington, has a limited basic package for only $13. They won't tell you, you have to ask for it. $13 dollars should be easy for everyone to afford if they skip a few daily or weekly trips to McDonalds or Starbucks. Ergo, if you have limited basic cable Comcast will do the converting for you. So hopefully just plugging in the one cable into the back of your TV doesn't prove too hard. Match up the plug, it's not hard, comcast makes you think it is for paying $100 for an installation.

I think the government sucks for pulling a fast one on us, but it does make sense that they're freeing the airwaves for EMERGENCY RADIO transmissions. So some day when you are all sitting on your duffs on the sofa and the country is attacked, you can keep sitting because the responders will be able to use their radios and respond properly.

So don't buy a new TV, and if your set breaks or you're in the market for a new one in the next two yaers, keep in mind you're throwing your money away if you get an old style TV. Once upon a time people only had one TV set in the house and watched as a family... come on, why don't you get the TVs out of your kids' rooms and have everyone gather 'round the television together for some quality togetherness. Is that so hard to do?

Recycling the old one is definitely a global concern and we must find a way to use these in other areas.The amount of CFCs it emits is also a great concern. I just wanna know whether the so called HDTV will be pollution free for that matter.