Goodbye, Rabbit Ears? Not So Fast

Digital Broadcasts Haven't Quite Killed Off The Need, Or Allure, Of Frustrating TV Accessory

(CBS)  Congratulations! You've successfully made the switch from analog to digital TV. So, is it goodbye to rabbit ears? Not quite! Here's Science and Technology correspondent Daniel Sieberg:

---

Whatever your view of television, be it couch-potato casual or flat-screen fanatic, Friday was a special occasion. It was "Goodbye, analog . . . Hello, digital."

And even if you didn't give it the kind of warm reception some Chicago students did on Friday night, complete with champagne toasts, you knew it was the end of an era, if for no other reason than all those incessant reminders we've been giving you, like The Big Switch From Analog To Digital TV, or Flipping The Switch To Digital TV.

In these days of cable and satellite, you probably thought it was time for a requiem for the old rabbit ears.

Not so fast ...

"The antenna is alive and well," said Michael Godar, who runs one of the nation's few hand-made antenna companies out of a TV repair shop in Gilbert, Arizona.

And he says that, even at the dawn of the digital age, there's plenty of life in that old antenna.

"There was almost a sport adjusting your antenna on your TV," said Sieberg.

"Oh yeah, battling it, you know, especially when you had a remote control," laughed Godar. "You'd change the channel and then get up, adjust the antenna!"

Antennas are as old as television itself. Their limitations were spoofed in the very first episode of Jackie Gleason's "The Honeymooners."

The antenna is the sole survivor of our analog past. And while it just receives over-the-air channels, digital is the reason there's more of them.

"An antenna will still work," said Godar. "Even some of these antiques here will actually pick up a digital signal."

Of course, some things never change. You still need to be in a place where it's possible to get good reception. In fact, unlike an analog signal with its fuzzy picture, a weak digital signal can leave you seeing . . . well, nothing at all.

Henry Langan and his son Steven are the "Antenna Kings." Their company has installed thousands all around New York.

Steven estimates anywhere between 10 and 15 percent of people who receive their primary signal from broadcasters use antennas. "A lot of them are in metropolitan areas who don't have the extra money to spend $25 or $50 a month on cable TV, or more."

Langan says the TV antenna has stood the test of time.

"I mean, I get calls from people all the time saying, 'You put this up, you did my antenna 20 years ago. You know, is it time to change?' I say, 'Well, if it's working, no. But if it isn't, then, you know, it's time to change.'"

But let's say you DO go for that new antenna . . . what to do with those rabbit ears? Well, the one thing you SHOULDN'T do is . . . throw them out.

Larry Jones is a connoisseur of ALL things old TV, which may explain his day job: president of the cable television network TV LAND. He says he looks at rabbit ears as pieces of art.

"I mean, initially when I saw one, I thought they were very sculptural," Jones said. "They looked like sculptures to me. They reminded me of Calder sculptures in many ways. Some of them are very, very intricate and very twisted. But also as a pure representation of American pop culture.

While functional - they brought television signals into your house - rabbit ears were a major decorative items as well. Jones said rabbit ears "really defined an era, defined a point of time and defined a generation in many ways."

The rarest find in Jones' collection doesn't even LOOK like a rabbit. ("Poodle Ears" might be more appropriate.)

Jones says digital be damned . . . those fuzzy analog pictures were something special. He admired the texture of the broadcast signal: "Sometimes they're a little bit grainy and then they come in clear. And you're able to change that sound just by moving the ears just a little bit. It's really warming and feels really good to conjure up those kinds of very, very, very strong memories."

He recalled his parents and grandparents testing out the TV antenna days before the anticipated first lunar landing in 1969. "I remember a lot of conversation prior to that happening, 'What happens if the TV antenna doesn't work?' And so there were a lot of precautions that were made … testing the TV at that time in the afternoon, days before, to make sure it wouldn't be on the fritz that day.

So that is my one specific memory when they landed on the moon!"

That was then. This is now.

Jones says we still don't know if the digital era will be one small step . . . or a giant leap for television technology. Still, he's CERTAIN it's a step in the right direction.

"A lot of times people ask me about, like, the 'Golden Age of Television,'" Jones said. "You know, I think the Golden Age of Television is right now. You have never had more selection, better quality, almost anywhere you go. You can have it in your house, you can have it in your car, and you can have it in a lot of different forms, you can have it on DVD. There's scripted, there's unscripted.

"This is, like, the best time ever for television. And if we keep down going down this path, then it should be better two years from now, five years from now and ten years from now. So I would say, as far as technology getting better, how could I possibly think that it was a bad thing? I mean, technology getting better is a great thing. It just means more TV to watch."

[dukeofnuke]

Where I live, I cannot receive over-the-air broadcasts, analog or digital.
The only antenna I can use is the dish variety.

[mollydtt]

Why would the news stories say you don't need an antenna! When I got a digital tv 3 years ago, I bought a set top antenna for about 29 dollars, and was amazed at the great over-the-air HD channels I got, plus the secondary channels.
I couldn't get any channels without an antenna. I also got a digital converter for my analog tv, and without an antenna, the scan showed no channels. With a 10 dollar antenna I got 11 channels.
Also, since many television stations have been broadcasting both digital and analog for the past 3 or so years, I would imagine that not having to keep the high-quality analog towers up and running would result in making the digital signals better in the next few weeks. One of my local stations was reminding people of that---their digital signal would be upgraded in about 2 weeks.

[zonkzilla]

You can either pay $600.00 a year for "nothing cable" filled with iformercials and re-runs or pay $59.00 once for the new style amplified digital antenna that is so small it doesn't even look like an antenna and is about the same size as a Blackberry.
I chose to pay the $59.00 and am totally pleased with 16 free channels, not to mention in 5 years I will be $ 2,940.00 richer.
Next switchover for me is to convert to an all electric or super mileage plug in hybrid as I have had enough of the gasoline price situation also.

[fleabag75]

I would think more people would end up going "wireless" with their TV's now. I have NEVER had cable, probably never will. Never did see anything on it to justify the cost. Now with digital I actually have access to even MORE stations, (free). If you have extra money for cable, fine. Go for it. But right now, thanks to digital, I have access to about 16 total different channels. I LOVE IT!!!!!!!!!!!

[rf35]

I currently live in England and get everything off the sat dish. It's all digital in my area. Great quality. Virtually everyone here has a dish hanging on their house. There are freesat channels as well as pay services like Sky TV. Actually, there is no such thing as truly free TV...everyone who receives any type of broadcast is required to pay a TV tax every year. It runs about $230, give or take the exchange rate fluctuations. Depending on where you live, that gets you a dozen or so OTA channels. For any more, you need to buy a sat converter or go with a pay service. There is very little cable infrastructure here, which is why the dish is the primary source for television.

[hankvreeland]

Golden Age now, my left foot. I'd rather have Mr. Minnow's vast wasteland of the 1960's back than what is available now. If you look at the CBS numbers, I guess I'm not alone.

[credibility2]

To economize I cancelled my cable. My converter box and new indorr antenna (my condo building's exterior analog hasn't worked for years and the association hasn't any intention of replacing) work fairly well, most of the time. I'm already sick and tired of all of the idiotic interference that causes pixels and other types of distortion that I really didn't have prior to the changeover and post-cable and having to constantly adjust the position of my antenna. Sometimes the converter box makes a loud humming noise and other times a loud tapping sound. Supposedly that's due to interference, or at least that's what the box tech service claims; sure I can send in for repairs, but the government only sent me one coupon, not two like promised or as requested. I think this was a plot by the cable and dish lobbyists to get the government to force people to go back to cable or dish; more costly, but fewer hassles. I'm still miffed that several million still haven't made the changes to their sets for this conversion, especially because of the start-up delay and all of the constant reminders.

[debinok1]

Its not about progress, it was about the Govt selling off public airwaves to a handful of corporate conglomerates whose plan is to eventually do away with free TV entirely in favor of a pay for access much like you pay for your computer to access the internet.

No one needs TV or the krap it spews, if you can't afford it then dump it and find something else more worthwhile.
Posted by Newster1

Actually those airwaves went to cell phone and gps companies. Now we will have fantastic cell phone reception everywhere we go, the downside, the government and police will be able to track those cell signals to within a few feet of where you are instead of 1/4 to 1/2 of a mile.

I got a $70 antenna from SolidSignal.com, and put it in my attic, and it made a big difference.
I don't know where anyone got the idea that you wouldn't need an antenna anymore, but I heard a CNN radio reporter say it the day of the changeover. I think this story was to correct all the incorrect info that the reporters were putting out there.

[taxchurches]

"He admired the texture of the broadcast signal..."

Same nonsense argument of records vs. CDs. Soon they'll have a device that will screw up your digital TV signal, for that nostalgic feel.

I haven't watched TV in 25 years, and as far as I can tell, I haven't missed anything.