Digital TV Poses a Challenge for Some Apartment Buildings

AntennaeAn antenna on the roof of 875 Boynton Avenue, which is soon to be a relic of analog television. (Photo: G. Paul Burnett/The New York Times)

For people without cable or satellite television service, the annoyances involved in tuning in to a favorite show or the 6 o’clock news with a signal from a rooftop antenna have always included rainstorms and windy days. For people with set-top “rabbit ears,” there is the matter of getting them into just the right position, keeping them there, and then being careful not to stand near them in a way that causes any mysterious interference.

To all of this, stalwart recipients of free over-the-air TV signals can add a few more hassles, come next Feb. 17. That, as the communications industry and government are hustling to let people know, is the date when television stations are required by law to stop broadcasting in analog format and switch to digital.

The switch, which is intended to free up frequencies for use by public safety agencies and commercial wireless companies, should be relatively simple for people who pay for TV, whether it is cable or satellite. Those who have older, nondigital-ready TV sets, produced before 1998, may need new cable boxes to get the digital channels, though it is up in the air whether they will face extra charges for that.

For people relying on antennas, there are other factors. For example, people who plug into shared “master antennas” on the roofs of their apartment or co-op buildings have to hope that the right kind of antenna is up there to receive the new signal. I wrote about that situation, and the attendant scramble by building managers to make sure that all the proper equipment is in place, for the Dispatches feature for Sunday’s City section.

In that case, as Kevin Newell of Nortronics explained, the issue is that most of the new digital channels will be broadcast in the UHF range — Channels 14 and over. But since the basic TV channels have traditionally been in the VHF range –- Channels 2 through 13 — many buildings have only VHF antennas on the roofs. Not UHF, the ones they’re going to need. And since the vast majority of tenants of these buildings don’t use the antennas anyway — they probably have cable or satellite — building managers may not be paying a lot of attention to which antennas they have and which they don’t.

So companies like Nortronics, which specializes mostly in security systems (rooftop TV antennas aren’t exactly a growth industry), are going around to their clients’ buildings and installing rooftop antennas that pick up both UHF and VHF signals. Not that this is a new technology. It’s actually pretty old, but a lot of buildings never bothered to adopt it, because UHF channels weren’t as important before. (Obscure local programming and Weird Al Yankovic notwithstanding.)

An even larger problem than the master antennas has to do with the televisions themselves. If you have one of those older, nondigital-ready sets and you use an antenna — even if it’s the right kind of antenna — you also have to get a converter box so your TV can handle the new digital signal. You could also buy a new digital-ready TV, but the box is cheaper — less than $100. (Also, the government is giving out $40 coupons for people to apply toward the cost of the box.)

Even once all this equipment is in place, the travails of people with their own antennas may not be over. Digital signals apparently do not travel as far as analog, and are more susceptible to interference from trees, hills and buildings, so people with rabbit ears stand to lose a substantial percentage of the channels they can see now. Outdoor antennas work better, experts say. Just make sure they’re the right kind.

Comments are no longer being accepted.

Progress always requires adjustments.

but the airwaves should always be free.

Philippe Castagner May 9, 2008 · 10:50 am

My wife and I have been using a DB4 antenna, an amplifier, and a digital tuner for about a year. We hope PBS will get stronger when they stop paying for the analog transmitter. The content can be much better with digital broadcast.

My digital broadcasts freeze or get pixelated. This is not a step up in quality.

My gf just upgraded our service so now we have a too-complicated unreadable menu to navigate with yet another too-complicated remote, and I still can’t find anything worth watching except the History channel (not including UFOs), Discovery, and old Law & Order and CSI re-runs.

I like to plug the cable directly into the TV and use the older, simpler remote. I refuse to adjust to this “progress.”

In the end we’re paying more and getting less.

Change to digital TV next year: yes, I agree with [#1] no big deal except for only a very few.

For those who remember, when competing colour systems were being intoduced in the 1950’s by RCA and CBS in the 50’s — and the sets which were sold retail for about $5,000 (adjusted for 2008 inflation) and there were only a few hours of colour programs broadcast a week… People complained! What do we need colour for?

The last black and white set was manufactured and sold within the last year.


I’ve seen for years, and even considered acting upon, those bumper stickers advising one to shoot one’s television. With this digital thing, it may be more a matter of suicide for my rabbit-eared TV — either way, I’ll probably be better off.

1) Before you go out blowing money on a new roof antenna, try your digital TV or converter box with the one you have. It will probably work just fine.

2) The card the government issues is essentially a debit card for $40. The store will charge you tax on the ENTIRE amount. You may wish to wait until the converters get cheaper. The retailers are deliberately setting the prices higher than the $40 now. (More unsavory marketing from your ‘friends’ at Radio Shack, Circuit City etc.)

3) Digital reception has no ghosts, shadows etc. The signal is either there or it isn’t. As a veteran of famous New York City multipath, this will make things more enjoyable.

4) Signal strength is pretty high in the 5 boroughs. Most come off the Empire State Building.

5) You will enjoy the digital ‘extra’ channels. NBC is adding ‘The Chuck Channel’ (all news-like stuff starring Chuck Scarborough) on NBC4.4.

6) You will not enjoy the way the TV stations are chopping up what is supposed to be a full spectrum broadcast into pieces so they can have 3 or 4 low quality digital broadcasts instead of one great one. This is against the legislative intent of the Copngressional Act enabling didgital TV. Write your Congressperson (currently cowering under their desk in fear of the TV stations).

7) Digital does not improve David Caruso’s acting on CSI: Miami.

One more thing:

Channel 13 is not due to upgrade its transmitter until shortly before the transition. Right now their signal is very weak and barely reaches me in Forest Hills.

Exasperated Electrical Engineer May 9, 2008 · 11:18 am

It gets worse — a lot of the fact haven’t come out yet because people aren’t watching over-the-air HD. Come February 2009, a lot of people are going to be losing channels, even if they took steps to prepare.

Some people have been buying little indoor “HDTV” antennas which pick up UHF only. The problem is that some channels are switching back to VHF after the transition. (In NYC, channel 2 and 11 are now broadcasting digitally on UHF, but are moving back to VHF after the transition.) So even people who thought they were OTA HD-ready could suddenly lose some channels when the switch comes.

Plus, a lot of digital TVs make it really hard to add new channels. Some even make it impossible to add channels manually — you have to use auto-scan. If you’re in a fringe area where you have to adjust your antenna to get different channels, you may have to scan half a dozen times to get it to detect all the channels.

Even if you can add channels manually, the “channels” aren’t real frequency channels — they’re the old analog channels. For example, WNBC channel 4 is broadcasting digitally on what would otherwise be channel 28.

It’s a whole new level of complexity when you go digital — contrast the old solid Bell System landline telephones with cellphones. I remember reading articles about how the elderly are having trouble with cellphones: (1) they can’t figure out the endless menus (2) they can’t press the buttons, which are too small (3) they can’t read the screen, becaues it’s too small.

@Rick A: This isn’t supposed to be progress. The point of the DTV transition isn’t to give you a better product, but to cut down on frequency use devoted to TV. Then the government can resell the freed-up freqnuency. Therefore, any problems are a direct consequence, and any improvements are merely a side effect.

Frankly, I think about half of the current over-the-air customers are going to lose their TV either entirely, or partially. I’m of two minds about this. Maybe it’s better that we watch less TV, especially the idle poor. (Hope they turn the extra time to productive uses instead of crime.)

I just bought the 2 converter boxes for our place last weekend. I get more channels than I get with analog, not less, the picture and sound are hobbled (480i over composite and 2 channel analog audio only) but what do you expect for $20 net. The HDTV tuners have improved considerably since my last one was purchased in 2005.

I live in suburban Pittsburgh and I could not be happier with the conversion to digital television. I get incredibly better reception, more channels and as a result, watch more television, particularly PBS (the series Carrier is responsible for most of that). My rabit ears do a fine job. I was skeptical at first, but now I wonder why America did not do this a long time ago. I have an early 1990s vintage 35′ television and I get a better picture on it than what my parents get with two “better” early 2000s vintage televisions with Comcast cable. Occasionally, I will have a problem with reception if an airplane is flying over my house or if there is an electrical storm in the area.

Why bother with a TV? Wait a half-hour and use BitTorrent to get a perfect version with the commercials already cut out.

It’s not really that much different now with all the vast amount of interference in the airwaves. When I was a child before cable TV I could get every UHF and VHF channel in the Hartford CT, New Haven CT and Springfield MA TV markets from the Farmington Valley. A few years ago I had satellite dish and the local Channels went out during the world series so I put an antenna up on the roof and The stations came in bad because of all the interferences that are on the airwaves now. Police, electronics, more buildings, etc. So for the future gong forward, if you outside of a big city such as Boston or NY NY you at the mercy of satelite or Cable TV.

TV is not the only service affected by the digital upgrade.

Having put all my eggs in one basket with Time Warner, I recently discovered that this digital upgrade does not only affect TV. My internet and telephone will now cost more $$$ as I can no longer use my current, and fully functional, fully paid for wireless router.

A brief history: Recently my internet and phone began cutting out intermittently, not good when you depend on these items to make a living. After 2 repair visits I was told my modem was repaired and working fine. The intermittent drops continued. I exchanged the modem, no success.

A few days ago two Time Warner representatives told me that since they have upgraded to digital, and because I am using a wireless router, I am losing the IP address that Time Warner changes intermittently throughout the day.

Time Warner’s solution: Either have the manufacturer of the router fix the problem, or buy the $80.00 router from Time Warner and pay an additional $5.95 per month for their router.

Why do I feel like I am being taken advantage of? I don’t know what else to say, I have a broken heart.

Better yet just turn the TV off Problem solved.

This entire digital TV thing is a SCAM, a pure spectrum grab by various parties in cahoots with the FCC. Who perped this mess, anyway? When the actual shut-down occurs, (AFTER the Super Bowl, you notice) there will be howls of of protest.

Here is a simple fact: a good number of viewers are going to be left out in the transition to digital television. The signal simply doesn’t travel as well as analog, for whatever reason and new antennas have to either be added or adjusted.

Normally, UHF broadcasts take a lot more power to achieve anything like the coverage area of VHF, which is one of the reasons that all of the major stations were, in times past, located in the VHF band. This power costs a lot of money, which is probably one reason Ch. 13 is holding back on its digital distribution channel prior to the big switch next year.

Congress and the FCC well understood that the concept of universal availability of over the air broadcasting was being compromised in the transition to digital. The $40 dollar coupon was their way of saying, “Look here, we are trying to include everyone”. Trying, however, does not equate with succeeding, but since when has that bothered anyone who just wants to get a bill passed in Congress? The government wanted the money from selling off the unused television spectrum and broadcasters wanted to leap forward to clearer pictures and sound (clearer, that is, when you can get them).

So, let’s face it, going to digital is a little like starting over again in television broadcasting. The people left out are probably the people who most depend on television as a lifeline to the world and as a daily companion: the elderly and the poor. There is going to be a lot of unhappiness next Feb. 17th, but like many problems faced by people on the margins of the economic order, it might not get heard.

Here’s the best way to solve the problem:
1. Go to TV.
2. Unplug TV.
3. Take TV to window.
4. Look to make sure there’re no pedestrians beneath you.
5. Toss TV out the window.
6. Go to the library and check out a book (They’re free!).

Not all of us analog broadcast watchers are ‘idle poor.’ Some of us holdouts simply believe in the original premise of broadcasting: that in return for the advertising, we should receive the content for free, without further contract, rather than via a paid subscription.

Also, radios with TV band will not function when the signal goes digital. I have a few radios that will lose this feature next year.

Congress is supposed to have approved a voucher which all good citizens are entitled to so they may buy the receiver without money out of their pockets. As I said up top- keep the airwaves free.
Why is there no mention of this voucher in the article?

Patrick LaForge May 9, 2008 · 1:57 pm

From the City Room

NYC Architect:

There is a link to information about the $40 coupon in the next to last paragraph.

Once the FCC kills free tv — Sayonara, suckers! Hello downloads, DVD, and Internet news.

If the switch to digital broadcasting is so for the Good For Our Country, the FCC should give everyone a free converter.

Right, but the cost of most boxes is well more than $40, and most are well more than that )unless you risk buying them on e-bay, see link below). Why are people being forced to spend money to stay tuned to the outside world through no fault of their own? This should be the lead item in the article. IMO this is simply wrong.


Patrick LaForge May 9, 2008 · 2:53 pm

From the City Room

NYC Architect,

Well, that wasn’t the angle we were looking at here (apartment buildings). But The Times has covered the $40 coupon topic (links) in our business and technology sections. We should probably take another look, but it’s not specifically a New York topic (our focus on City Room.) Thanks for your comment.