I plunged into HDTV just about the time KOCO pulled their HD signal from Cox. That part has been very frustrating. However, with all due respect to Matt, having HDTV in Oklahoma City isn't without some value. The programming I can get in HD are absolutely worth the investment. Cox has a limited amount of HD programming in addition to the two local channels carrying HD programming; I've enjoyed those channels alot, so I certainly don't find HD in Oklahoma City worthless.

As far as the KOCO and KOKH signals not being on Cox, I place the blame squarely and solely on those stations. In an ongoing e-mail debate with KOCO's general manager, he has yet to clarify how Cox is profiting from carrying the freely available signal. If the signal is already available over-the-air for free, why is it a problem for Cox to carry them (as a service to its subscribers) so that they get a consistent, quality signal -- something I'm not able to get with my over-the-air antenna. How is it not a benefit to KOCO and KOKH in helping bring their programming (and exposure for their advertisers) exposure to Cox subscribers?

I do agree with Matt that KWTV's hype about the Sky News 9 HD is absurd when they do not broadcast those images in HD. What a farce! And I also agree that OKC stations' commitment to HD is paltry at best. But I guess that comes with living in a state that's rarely on the cutting edge of technology.

Brad: I don't mean to argue that it has *no* value. I love HDTV, and I often won't even watch movies or new programs that aren't in HDTV anymore. I'm only saying that if you're not absolutely convinced of its value, then spending a few thousand dollars on it now is going to be an exercise in frustration because most of the OKC stations simply do not care if you see their signals in HD or not. The best of the lot are the two Sinclair stations (an engineer for whom regularly appears at HDTVOK.com, where I am but a mere commenter), but the "big three" network affiliates all have regular HDTV outages, with 9-1 being the best of the three, and 5-1 and 4-1 tying for indifference this month.

It's most annoying given how committed the competition in the local market made these stations 50 years ago - they were constantly bragging about who had the most local programming, who had the most color programming, who was first in color, etc. Now all they can do is mouth platitudes about "SkyNews HD" without even the capability to time-delay an HD broadcast. Complaints have fallen on deaf ears at all of the stations - management simply will not spend the money to get the necessary equipment. They flatly do not care about their HD signals.

Is Wheel of Fortune in HD even more boring and pedestrian than in SD?

Complaints have fallen on deaf ears at all of the stations - management simply will not spend the money to get the necessary equipment. They flatly do not care about their HD signals.
Matt, we certainly can agree on that. My experience with KOCO and Hearst/Argyle has been infuriating to say the least.

As we listen to them lament about lost market share to cable and satellite programming, we can now point them to a very specific reason why.

Dan: I wouldn't know. I've boycotted KOCO ever since they pulled their signal off of Cox. And since the seem to not care about their viewers, it's just reinforced my decision.

I can say that football in HD in-and-of-itself is worth the expense for me. Add to that watching movies and other quality programming (especially Discovery HD) in hi-def, it's been a great investment -- despite the idiocy of KOCO and the ineptitude of the other local stations.

I'm not much of a TV guide, but I'd almost pony up for Discovery in HD.

Well, speaking from my experiences as a digital uplink engineer, and not just a few job interviews around our local television stations, I may have another viewpoint to add. The 'push' to get DTV up and running is a deadline of sorts for the old frequencies to be relinquished, so that police, fire and EMT's can use the bandwidth, That said, not many of the the management personnel that I've interviewed with (a mutual deal, I assure) have not a lot of technical experience to begin with, and to their last dying breath will continue in their hopes to achieve abject ignorance of digital broadcasting technologies. While it is certain that there's a huge expense involved, and management will continue to justify anything in the name of "revenues", the paucity of knowledgable souls present at these 'workplaces'
(and I use the term generously) is disturbingly self-evident. The pay? There's an olde saying..

"If it sucks, it sucks."

Suffice to say, about five minutes into the interviews, I'd notice a pronounced change of posture on the behalf of the "interviewer", usually by the second page of my resume, and by that time I'd have picked up enough cues to know that "employment" wasn't going to be.. But, I've hung on long enough to at least get a tour of the stations, see the new gear and ask my usual annoying questions, just to rub in the fact that the management was bereft of a clue as to how it all worked. By the way, from the looks of how the new 'digital' equipment was strung together, the analogy of the 'dancing bear' came to mind..

And before you ask which station, it was all of them, just in case you HD 'consumers' hadn't already noticed it..

--The wonder is that it dances at all..