or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › HDTV › Local HDTV Info and Reception › Seattle, WA - Comcast
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Seattle, WA - Comcast - Page 8

post #211 of 16057
Thread Starter 
Quote:


Originally posted by danstone


Am I overlooking something else?

Yup, the fact that SD is compressed up the wazoo. The HD feed isn't.

Cheers,
Steve
post #212 of 16057
Of course, if you can't afford one of the hi-def plasma displays and instead own a hi-def 4:3 tube TV, you get the hi-def signal without it being stretched and mangled. I actually made the decision to buy 4:3 because I knew most of the programs I would watch are still 4:3.

Still waiting for more HD content before going plasma or 16:9. Or better yet, HD DVD.

BTW: S video output on ESPN is mangled. Yuck!
post #213 of 16057
Quote:


Originally posted by danstone
I guess I'm missing the problem here.

If you don't like ESPN's pre-done stretching of the picture, then watch the 4:3 stuff (standard definiton that's been upcoverted) on the standard definition channel and you can watch in whatever mode (normal, stretch, zoom, etc.) that you prefer/that your TV will permit. Upconverted standard definition broadcast on an HD feed really won't look much better than simply watching at native standard resolution anyways. When a true HD game/event comes on then switch back to the ESPN HD channel. This way you can get the best of both.

Am I overlooking something else?

In practice, this won't happen in sports bars. Your average bartender/waitress probably won't know the difference between the SD and HD channels, and you could be stuck watching a broadcast that's supposed to be in HD on the SD channel. Just try to get a busy waitress or bartender to try to switch it over while a game is going on and people are watching the game.

Better to just leave it on the HD channel all the time, even if its in stretch mode. Bar patrons aren't going to know the difference.
post #214 of 16057
In my case with a 4:3 digital projector, I wish all my HD channels would stretch their upconverts. Then I could put the projector in 4:3 mode and have a larger picture because it would stretch it vertically as well.
post #215 of 16057
Quote:


Originally posted by jameskollar
Of course, if you can't afford one of the hi-def plasma displays and instead own a hi-def 4:3 tube TV, you get the hi-def signal without it being stretched and mangled. I actually made the decision to buy 4:3 because I knew most of the programs I would watch are still 4:3.

Still waiting for more HD content before going plasma or 16:9. Or better yet, HD DVD.

BTW: S video output on ESPN is mangled. Yuck!

Nope - that's exactly my problem. I *do* own a hi-def 4:3 tube TV. On those occasions when it really is 16:9 hi-def content, it will look just fine - that's not the issue. But when they're showing 4:3 programming stretched to 16:9 (which is most of the time), my TV set (Sony 36XBR400) has no ability to "un-stretch" it. Every 16:9 plasma set I've ever seen allows the user to stretch a 4:3 picture themselves, if they want to avoid burn-in. Few 4:3 tube HDTVs can un-stretch.

And yes, of course I could just watch the regular ESPN-SD signal on ch. 31, but the up-converted signal on ch. 173 looks sooooo much better (except for the wrong aspect ratio, of course).
post #216 of 16057
Quote:


But when they're showing 4:3 programming stretched to 16:9 (which is most of the time), my TV set (Sony 36XBR400) has no ability to "un-stretch" it.

I own a Toshiba 35" Cinema Series 4:3 aspect (model number escapes me). On ESPN as of 2:40 PDT the picture is unstretched (at least to my eyes). There are no borders on either top or bottom. I also have the S video out on the DCT5100 hooked up to a ReplayTV which then is fed into the same set via component. That output is stretched (16:9?) with balck above and below the picture. Sooo.... unless I'm missing something, I'm one of the lucky ones that owns a tube that "unstretches". 'Course, I'm propably missing something. Still, it's a nice picture.
post #217 of 16057
Quote:


Originally posted by jameskollar
Sooo.... unless I'm missing something, I'm one of the lucky ones that owns a tube that "unstretches".

Sounds like maybe your Toshiba set gives you the option of squishing its 4:3 picture to 16:9 or not. On Sony models like mine, if the set detects a progressive signal with resolution > 480p, it automatically forces the picture into "16:9 vertically-compressed" mode, whether you want it or not. Even the option to manually choose this mode gets greyed-out. It's as if the set assumes that any progressive signal > 480p MUST be a genuine 16:9 HDTV program.

So on one hand, you can view this problem as a limitation of a popular Sony TV set model. But as a general principle, I think broadcasters should always present content in its original aspect ratio. Let the users do the tweaking if they want.
post #218 of 16057
Steve, I suggest you parouse through the FCC archives to find out why it's legal for KIRO, KOMO, et al. to charge a cable company to carry their signals (should they chose to: must carry status can negate this charge). And pay close attention to the fact that the Business Journal article you linked mentioned retransmission consent specifically in relation to the Millennium Cable deal.

FCC Cable Carriage Fact Sheet

This permission is commonly referred to as "retransmission consent" and may involve some compensation from the cable company to the broadcaster for the use of the signal.

Q: Why is the retransmission consent requirement included in the law?

A: Since 1934, broadcast stations that use the programming of other broadcast stations have been required to obtain the prior consent of the originating station. This requirement has now been applied to cable systems because the absence of this requirement was distorting the video marketplace and threatening the future of over-the-air television broadcasting. This law treats broadcasters the same as other programming services carried by cable systems.

Q: What can the FCC do if a broadcaster and a cable operator fail to reach a retransmission consent agreement?

A: Generally, the FCC is not authorized to participate in discussions between television stations and cable systems regarding retransmission consent agreements. Furthermore, the FCC cannot tell a cable operator which stations or program services to delete in order to comply with the must-carry requirement. If you have comments regarding changes in the programming offered by your cable system, you should contact your cable operator. Information on how to contact your cable operator is included on your cable bill.

Q: Will my cable bill increase as a result of retransmission consent agreements?

A: In return for allowing a cable system to carry its signal, a television station may require the payment of a fee or other consideration (for instance, carriage of another programming service or advertising time). Any new or additional costs incurred as a result of retransmission consent agreements may be passed through to cable subscribers.

Now unless they all demand "must carry" status on their Digital signal, they can go after Comcast for money all they want.

As well as read up on the standards set in place for carriage of Digital TV signals.

FCC Press Release DTV Carriage
post #219 of 16057
Thread Starter 
I suppose that I don't get your point. I never said that it wasn't within their rights. It is. I simply was posting that in reference to your "they would never do such a thing" assertion.

If you spend even more time with the FCC docs, you will learn that there are provisions in the analog realm for "unserviced areas" within a given DMA. I believe that it boils down to the ability to receive a class C signal from the broadcaster.

If these provision are not met (i.e the local is not *actually* providing a signal to that location), the consumer has the right to go out of market for service.

I suggest that there need to be such a thing for the HD market as well.
post #220 of 16057
Thread Starter 
I have been very clear. I don't think that anyone is doing anything "illegal." I believe that the FCC has created a gamespace in which a standoff is likely to occur. This does not service the public good.
post #221 of 16057
Thread Starter 
Here is the problem:

Komo has an incentive to "minimize" the efficacy of its towers. They know that nearly 85% of their viewers get their signal via cable. They also know that the remaining 15% are demographically undesirable. This will maximize Comcast's need to have them. (HD is Comcast's biggest weapon against DirecTV)

Because the current viewership of HD is so low, the ad dollars that they lose are negligible. Furthermore, they won't lose their analog band until enough people have switched over (which won't happen if they do a poor implementation of their delivery system). This give Komo the ability to sit forever.

This is hardly what the FCC was going for when they gave them both the analog and the digital to ease the transition.

[It comes down to this. Komo can sit on that signal as long as it wants. They know that people can still see their analog service. They know that they can't get ABC HD service elsewhere. They aren't losing any revenue. They aren't going to lose the spectrum because metrics aren't being hit (because they are slowing the process). There is nothing to lose. What's keeping them in check?]

Do you really not see that?

edit: added []

-Steve
post #222 of 16057
I know this is off topic. I apologize in advance:

Quote:


On Sony models like mine, if the set detects a progressive signal with resolution > 480p, it automatically forces the picture into "16:9 vertically-compressed" mode, whether you want it or not.

Wow, that sounds really bad! I also recieve OTA signals from KIRO, KOMO, KING, KCTS. If I'm not mistaken, during primetime they broadcast some shows in 720P. My set displays these shows perfectly i.e. no 16:9. Admittly, 720P puts two relatively skinny vertical black bars on the screen, but the PQ is still very good. No picture squishing. i.e. I'm a big fan of Survivor and even though they elected to transmit in 720P, it was still far better than my old analog signal.

I also like CSI and seeing that in 1080i is awesome. Looking forward to all the HiDef locals on cable.
post #223 of 16057
How are you guysing doing this OTA antenna setup.. just getting a UHF antenna and plugging it into your digital cables boxes cable in's?

So do you have to switch between youre cable feed and your OTA feeds though a switchbox or manually? I'm in 98031 (kent) and looking to hook this up..

Thnx
post #224 of 16057
Quote:


Originally posted by NizZ8
How are you guysing doing this OTA antenna setup.. just getting a UHF antenna and plugging it into your digital cables boxes cable in's?

So do you have to switch between youre cable feed and your OTA feeds though a switchbox or manually? I'm in 98031 (kent) and looking to hook this up..

Thnx

The cable boxes cannot do OTA. To get OTA requires a separate box.

Only when Comcast manages to acquire the reboradcast rights to local HD will you get local HD on the cable box.
post #225 of 16057
Yay, ESPN news in fat stretch-o-vision on ch 173.

Interesting that comcast will spam me for cable modem service (which I already get from them but they are too stoopid ot figure out how not to spam existing customers) but fails to notify users that a new HD channel is online.
post #226 of 16057
Quote:


Originally posted by ianken
Yay, ESPN news in fat stretch-o-vision on ch 173.

Interesting that comcast will spam me for cable modem service (which I already get from them but they are too stoopid ot figure out how not to spam existing customers) but fails to notify users that a new HD channel is online.

There was a press release that said August 4 was the date it would come on. I'm not aware that any local paper picked up the press release, however. I found it by doing a search on news.google.com for Comcast.

I think digital cable users can detect a new channel within hours of addition, especially when supported by Internet forums such as this one. Nobody really needs a message on the box, but one will probably appear a month after the fact. That's the way it was when they added the foreign language channels.
post #227 of 16057
So those using OTA, what 'boxes' are you using to hook up to your system?

Is this an area that a HD Tuner card in your pc could be useful?

Thanks -n8
post #228 of 16057
Well, I am pretty stoked about ESPN HD...looks like there will be a lot of NFL and NCAA football content this fall:

http://espn.go.com/espnhd/schedule.html
post #229 of 16057
Quote:


Originally posted by NizZ8
So those using OTA, what 'boxes' are you using to hook up to your system?

Is this an area that a HD Tuner card in your pc could be useful?

Thanks -n8

I'm using a Zenith HDV420, although other OTA receivers would do as well. A card in your PC could be very useful, because that would also allow you to timeshift the OTA HD programming.

I have an Audio Authority 1154 on the way which will allow me to hook up both the cable and OTA receivers simultaneously for easy switching.
post #230 of 16057
so i watched a little bit of ESPN HD last night (Monday Night Baseball) and the picture quality wasn't really all that great. Was that an HD broadcast? I'm comparing it to the Mariner's HD feed (the only other HD i've seen). The finer detail was blurry during motion (letters on the jerseys, etc) and there was very noticeable flicker.... it was better than the regular ESPN, but nothing like the Mariner's HD..
post #231 of 16057
The highlight shows won't be HD. You should be able to tell when everyone is short and fat. The link elb posted should be everything that is actually HD. http://espn.go.com/espnhd/schedule.html Next HD broadcast is on 8/7
post #232 of 16057
Steve, I understand your point(s) just fine.

I really fail to see any pragmatic business benefit to the locals essentially blackmailing Comcast in the manner you suggest.

What's the benefit to them in your scenario? Where do they make money? When do they make money?

And if you're talking about KOMO specifically, considering it's parent company is struggling to avoid having to sell, so what your offering is tantamount to financial seppuku.
post #233 of 16057
Thread Starter 
Quote:


Originally posted by generationxwing
Steve, I understand your point(s) just fine.

I really fail to see any pragmatic business benefit to the locals essentially blackmailing Comcast in the manner you suggest.

What's the benefit to them in your scenario? Where do they make money? When do they make money?


I don't think that you are seeing the point then. The locals don't lose ANYTHING by doing this. They aren't losing viewership. They aren't losing their spectrum. They're losing NOTHING.

Eventually Comcast will have to cave to their demands and they will benefit from their tactics. I'm not saying that it isn't a smart business move. I am saying that you are naive to place the blame with Comcast. In this case, Comcast is a victim of a) the FCC not closing a loophole and b) the locals doing the natural thing given the current set of rules.

I'm gonna flip the tables here. Why don't you tell me what the locals are losing by blackmailing Comcast.

-Steve
post #234 of 16057
thanks for the link.
to clarify though, was the Baseball game (Whitesocks/KC) last night in HD?

Quote:


Originally posted by Roto
The highlight shows won't be HD. You should be able to tell when everyone is short and fat. The link elb posted should be everything that is actually HD. http://espn.go.com/espnhd/schedule.html Next HD broadcast is on 8/7
post #235 of 16057
Quote:


Originally posted by DougM
thanks for the link.
to clarify though, was the Baseball game (Whitesocks/KC) last night in HD?

No, it was in stretch-o-vision.
post #236 of 16057
NizZ8, I'm using the MyHD PCI card in my home-theater computer. The card has two inputs, so I use one for OTA HDTV, and the other for analog cable (I get the super-basic cable channels from comcast).

One of the neat features of MyHD is it lets you specify a "favorites" list of channels, and this list can contain channels from either input. So what I've done is mixed all the HD and analog channels I care about in my favorite list and now when I channel surf, I don't have to switch inputs everytime I want to see an analog station (e.g. discovery). The switching happens automatically for me.

This is one of the main reasons I got this card. I didn't want to treat my TV viewing as coming from two different inputs - that really destroys the girlfriend usability factor.

-Joe
post #237 of 16057
Does anyone think the basic digital channels 121-183 are more watchable now, after the ESPN HD addition?
post #238 of 16057
Quote:


I'm gonna flip the tables here. Why don't you tell me what the locals are losing by blackmailing Comcast.

Money. Anyway you look at it, in your model they are losing it. This is due to unrealised revenue streams. But more so today, by the associated costs of broadcasting H/DTV.

I know your statement is promoting the belief they're all running under the "we aren't losing any viewers by not having it, so we have no reason let Comcast have it unless they meet our demands". That's a rather backward business philosophy. What they don't have is an increase in viewers. You don't make money by sitting on your laurels and not trying to increase your business. Especially when you have the means to do so. Stations don't make money without adding viewers and revenue streams.

Viewers are nice, viewers equal money in the long run. But how do you know they aren't losing viewers today? If viewer A can't watch the ABC Sunday Night movie in HD on Comcast, because they don't have it, or he can't get the signal OTA, he may go to ESPN-HD or HBO-HD or another channel rather than watch the SD broadcast of that movie. This may be in part to him owning the DVD or because he's only interested in HD content, or any number of other factors. But he's gone. If they steal even a small portion of viewers who would otherwise be watching another HD or cable SD offering, that's nothing but an increase in viewers and potential for additional revenue from advertisers.

Can you tell me they aren't also losing potential viewers who would start watching a show at first because it's in HD and may end up becoming fans of the show? There are plenty of those people around the HDTV programming forum, and if there are a few on-line, there are probably more off line.

But above all this viewer speculation are the operating costs. You have hardware upkeep. Somebody has to be paying for the operating and upkeep costs, and if it's not the H/DTV business, it's coming from somewhere else. That's money lost, plain and simple. There's personnel, facility and utilities costs. So the station is now robbing Peter to pay Paul. So, why is it beneficial for any of the locals to leverage money from other aspects of their business to play this game of chicken? If anything, they had better strike now as they could soon lose the bargaining power should the FCC have to step in to this fray.

Add to operation costs, the primary acquisition costs. The acquisition of the spectrum may have been "free", but setting up and then putting out even a low power signal isn't. If any one of the stations has taken a loan to purchase the hardware or upgrade their broadcasting facilities, they are now losing money by leveraging funds from other aspects of their business to pay those loans. Every day they leverage funds from the analog, radio or newsprint side to pay the majority portion of that bill, the profitability of that company as a whole is lessened. Here again, why is it beneficial for the locals to delay any additional revenue stream to help offset this negative flow? So now you're stealing more money from your other businesses to cover the losses from this H/DTV venture.

Lastly, there is a market. Companies do not spend money to enter a market, no matter how negligible that market may appear today, only to ignore any potential for immediate revenue being generated by that market. No matter how little it may appear. The first rule of business is to turn a profit as fast as possible. To do this, you start bringing in money as soon as the opportunity arises and find ways to increase that stream. Not just hope that you can get a slightly bigger cut in a few months because your target may or may not get nervous.

All this money is revenue lost, no matter how you look at it. Every penny they miss out on today is a penny lost. Every penny they steal from their analog station to cover the H/DTV broadcasting costs is a penny lost. Every viewer lost by not having this service is money lost as well.

We know for a fact that stations are currently operating H/DTV at a loss because the cost of doing business on that stream is still present and the coverage of that stream is minimal to non-existent. We know also for a fact that the overall profits of the company are lessened because they are carrying the H/DTV broadcast with out it realising any increase in revenue streams from available sources such as; a cable deal or the potential "miniscule" increase in advertising revenue a resulting cable deal would facilitate. Look that the FY 2002 report from Fisher Communications as a prime example of this.

Were I a share holder in Tribune, Cox, Belo or Fisher, I would be screaming vociferously to stop the unnecessary bleeding, especially since there is a means to start offsetting these operational costs available today.

Comcast is not the sole party to blame I never stated that, they are the primary party, but not the sole party. As of April 2003, out of 809 H/DTV OTA capable markets, only 120 have any local cable carriage of their H/DTV signal. You can't tell me that the locals in all of those markets not being serviced by cable companies are running the same business principle as they are here.
post #239 of 16057
Thread Starter 
I understand what you are trying to say. However, you are being quite naive. That's just not how the world works. Sometimes you just have to sacrifice for the future. That's what the local stations are doing.

You seem to believe that this case is like other forecasting cases. It isn't. The local stations are in an odd position. Under normal circumstances, they wouldn't have put towers up. They wouldn't even be broadcasting. They are doing so because they got such a deal and this is a condition of the deal. This is essentially sunk cost to them and they realize that.

If any of your assertions were true, you would see other things. For instance, they would all be broadcasting at actual power levels. They would be trying to maximize their OTA viewership. They aren't. They are doing what they are required to do; that's all.

Quote:


Money. Anyway you look at it, in your model they are losing it. This is due to unrealized revenue streams. But more so today, by the associated costs of broadcasting H/DTV.

a) That is exactly what they are attempting to do, realize another revenue stream (in addition to the same content in the analog realm) b) Perhaps you didn't know that HD users aren't counting in viewership numbers. That's right -- for every person that watches the HD signal, they LOSE viewers when it comes to ad sales.

Quote:


I know your statement is promoting the belief they're all running under the "we aren't losing any viewers by not having it, so we have no reason let Comcast have it unless they meet our demands". That's a rather backward business philosophy. What they don't have is an increase in viewers. You don't make money by sitting on your laurels and not trying to increase your business. Especially when you have the means to do so. Stations don't make money without adding viewers and revenue streams.

Then why was Kiro willing to cut of an entire MSO? While it didn't come to actually turning off the signal (nearly impossible), they did take ad space to run ads explaining that Millennium was stealing their signal. They are certainly not against using viewers as pawns.

Quote:


Viewers are nice, viewers equal money in the long run. But how do you know they aren't losing viewers today? If viewer A can't watch the ABC Sunday Night movie in HD on Comcast, because they don't have it, or he can't get the signal OTA, he may go to ESPN-HD or HBO-HD or another channel rather than watch the SD broadcast of that movie. This may be in part to him owning the DVD or because he's only interested in HD content, or any number of other factors. But he's gone. If they steal even a small portion of viewers who would otherwise be watching another HD or cable SD offering, that's nothing but an increase in viewers and potential for additional revenue from advertisers.

First, that is a VERY FORUM view. Like it or not, this is a macro game. The handful of users that might switch are nothing. We are quite myopic here. While we love the technology and the picture, we really don't count when it comes to a broadcasting world. The interesting thing about that is that we do (to a much larger extent) when it comes to cable. In the cable world we tend to spend more. Cable companies are able to extract this revenue. The locals aren't. This is yet another reason why cable companies wouldn't want to slow down the process.

Quote:


Can you tell me they aren't also losing potential viewers who would start watching a show at first because it's in HD and may end up becoming fans of the show? There are plenty of those people around the HDTV programming forum, and if there are a few on-line, there are probably more off line.

That's easy. If you haven't noticed they are all doing it together. I'm not going to switch from ABC to CBS because I can't see either. Plus, there aren't many people who would do this. Again, that's very forum thinking. I am about as big an HD advocate as you can find, and often I just watch shows via the TiVo for the hassle-free factor.

Time and time again it has been show that content is what counts. It really comes down to that. Yes, there is an initial reaction to HD. However, that wears off.

Quote:


But above all this viewer speculation are the operating costs. You have hardware upkeep. Somebody has to be paying for the operating and upkeep costs, and if it's not the H/DTV business, it's coming from somewhere else. That's money lost, plain and simple. There's personnel, facility and utilities costs. So the station is now robbing Peter to pay Paul. So, why is it beneficial for any of the locals to leverage money from other aspects of their business to play this game of chicken?

It's a sunk cost. Think of it as what they are paying for the spectrum. That's what they do.

After all, would you ever GIVE a browser away? People seem to be willing to pay for it. Just ask Netscape.

Quote:


If anything, they had better strike now as they could soon lose the bargaining power should the FCC have to step in to this fray.

And that's exactly what I am suggesting. I suggest that the FCC put some pressure on the parties. At that point, the locals would realize that they are bargaining in bad faith.

Quote:


Add to operation costs, the primary acquisition costs. The acquisition of the spectrum may have been "free", but setting up and then putting out even a low power signal isn't. If any one of the stations has taken a loan to purchase the hardware or upgrade their broadcasting facilities, they are now losing money by leveraging funds from other aspects of their business to pay those loans. Every day they leverage funds from the analog, radio or newsprint side to pay the majority portion of that bill, the profitability of that company as a whole is lessened. Here again, why is it beneficial for the locals to delay any additional revenue stream to help offset this negative flow? So now you're stealing more money from your other businesses to cover the losses from this H/DTV venture.

This is not new. They knew this going into it. It's not like this was a surprise.


Quote:


Lastly, there is a market. Companies do not spend money to enter a market, no matter how negligible that market may appear today, only to ignore any potential for immediate revenue being generated by that market. No matter how little it may appear. The first rule of business is to turn a profit as fast as possible. To do this, you start bringing in money as soon as the opportunity arises and find ways to increase that stream. Not just hope that you can get a slightly bigger cut in a few months because your target may or may not get nervous.

WOW! That is certainly not the first rule of business. It just isn't. Just out of curiosity -- what browser are you using? The point being is that sometimes one division supports the slow growth of another. Many of the best companies wouldn't exist if they followed your "first rule of business."

Quote:



All this money is revenue lost, no matter how you look at it. Every penny they miss out on today is a penny lost. Every penny they steal from their analog station to cover the H/DTV broadcasting costs is a penny lost. Every viewer lost by not having this service is money lost as well.

Unless you understand the concept of future earnings, I really can't say anything here.


Quote:


Comcast is not the sole party to blame I never stated that, they are the primary party, but not the sole party. As of April 2003, out of 809 H/DTV OTA capable markets, only 120 have any local cable carriage of their H/DTV signal. You can't tell me that the locals in all of those markets not being serviced by cable companies are running the same business principle as they are here.

I would be willing to bet that of those 120 most are O&Os. Coincidence? I doubt it.

I have given you many many reasons why the locals have incentives to hardball. Yet you have maintained that Comcast is to blame. You have done so without giving a single explanation as to why.

Why was Comcast able to reach agreements in other markets? Why would Comcast be willing to risk their most spendy customers? Why would Comcast be willing to give up their one true advantage over sat providers? Comcast has a lot more to lose (both in the short term and the long term). All this and you still maintain that Comcast is to blame. I am curious to know why.

Cheers,
Steve
post #240 of 16057
Just found out Comcast is actually adding four channels of programming from KCTS starting tomorrow, August 7th rather than just the one previously announced HD feed:

Ch. 108 - KCTS in High Definition (Airtime from 5:00 PM - 12:00 AM) For programming information go to: http://www.kcts.org/
Ch. 109 - KCTS Digital Simulcast (24/7) For programming information go to: http://www.kcts.org/
Ch. 110 - KCTS Learns (Airtime from 12:00 AM to 5:00 PM) For programming information go to: http://www.kcts.org/learns/index.asp
Ch. 112 - KCTS Kids (Airtime from 12:00 AM to 5:00 PM) For programming information go to: http://pbskids.org/

Only 108 will be HD, but 110 and 112 look to be nice additions for those of us with children.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Local HDTV Info and Reception
AVS › AVS Forum › HDTV › Local HDTV Info and Reception › Seattle, WA - Comcast