Well, this is the last straw...
 

Have any of you heard from your area's cable-TV provider that they are going to force their subscribers to use cable boxes in order to receive anything at all? I was talking to a customer service representative at Time Warner Cable yesterday and was told that, some time before this year is over, they are going to be doing just that.

To add insult to injury, this representative also told me that the day will come when OTA TV antennas will not work anymore, and everyone, with no exceptions, will be forced to get cable and to use a box if they want TV reception.

How on earth can cable TV operators like Time Warner get away with that? More important, how can they say that regular TV antennas will not work any longer after a certain date? TV stations will be broadcasting their signals over the air for years to come, so I don't see how the cable company can tell me that I will no longer be able to use an antenna after such-and-such a date.

Time Warner Cable is in the process of merging with Comcast; however, they have already adopted one of CC's policies (to eventually force everyone to use cable boxes), and I don't like it one bit, since I do not want a cable box on my TV. It upset me so much that I ordered a Roku streaming video box for my TV, and may well cancel my cable service when (or shortly after) the Roku box arrives.

As the subject line says, this is the last straw. When my cable provider tells me I will not be able to use a TV antenna to receive OTA television signals from local stations after a certain date (which was not mentioned by the representative I spoke with), I have to wonder. Where do these people get off saying things like that? Do they not understand that TV stations still broadcast signals over the air, and those signals are still receivable by the same kind of television antennas people have used since the medium's beginnings in the late 1940s? :scratch2:

The representative I spoke with also told me that this is an FCC rule, that all cable companies will be forcing their subscribers to use cable boxes and will be unable to use TV antennas. Is this true, or is Time Warner Cable just telling me that for no reason other than to upset me enough so that I will cancel my service? :scratch2:

I don't think stations would have made such a substantial investment in digital broadcasting if there were going to be NO OTA programming. Think about it. More and more people are ditching cable altogether, which is where the network affiliates have the advantage.

As far as Time Warner, I've got them too. I still have analog cable through the lower channels, up to about 65 or so. If they end up going all digital requiring a box, that's fine.....I'll just hook up my agile modulator to a box, and little will change in the way I view TV.

Scare tactics.

Its BS to get you to quietly take the box. Probably all
scripted & read off the computer. If OTA was going away
you would here about it everywheres. Stations sell for BIG
bucks in a good market.
You could make a case that they will go away but no time soon
& not by the FCC.

73 Zeno:smoke:

Jeff - cable companies are businesses. The goal of a business is not to do things for free, it is to make money.

If the FCC no longer requires them to provide analog service to homes, why should they? If they drop analog service, the FCC rules require the cable provider to offer set top boxes "either for free or at an affordable cost".

If you want free OTA, use an antenna.

Yes, it is probably only a matter of time before OTA goes away, but as of now there is no current legislation to end it. It will probably be more of a cost vs. demand issue. Although there has been a recent movement away from cable and satellite TV, it has not been a huge migration into OTA viewing. The big move is to streaming from the internet.

http://www.fcc.gov/guides/advisory-a...on-subscribers

.

CC cable went to all digital here in Dec 2012.They gave me 2 dta boxed for free and charge me 50 cents a piece for the other 3 plus the big box for about $2.50.

I dumped the extended basic and just have about 25 channels for about $33 bucks.I mostly stream TV online from the channels I dont get anymore and stuff from the local stations and networks.

I remember a Dishnet rep trying to convince me that $250 a year to get VH1classic was a better deal than paying $25 a year to receive it Via my 10' dish... Of course he was making $75 a person to tell them ANYTHING to convert to Dishnet... I got a good laugh out of the whole conversation as he tried RELENTLESSLY to convince me to buy his turd... :D

SR

Good for you for not giving in!!

Our locally-owned small town telephone/cable/internet company recently ditched the analog system and went to requiring everyone to have cable boxes. Obviously, one way to collect an additional $8 per month per TV hooked to cable. But worse, the cable boxes do not have an RF output, only composite and component (in addition to HDMI for those opting for HD service). Thus, anyone with an older TV with RF-only inputs are immediately out of luck. Yeah, I know you can get an RF adapter, but those are getting harder to find, and how many older people will junk their CRT TV's and be forced into buying a new flat screen model? Another thing to consider --- my cable boxes appear to use around 25 watts round the clock, and with 3 of those running in my house, that adds up to another 54 KWH of electrical usage per month. :sigh:

After thinking about it a couple of days, I've decided that I will keep my cable for the time being. However, a day or so ago, I ordered a Roku streamimg video box directly from the company's website, http://www.roku.com, and will use it to get programming I would ordinarily watch on the cable. I see on the Roku website that the service has most of the channels my cable service (Time Warner) carries, plus a few channels exclusive to Roku itself. The company says its streaming video boxes are "America's favorite" video player, and I will be waiting for the box to arrive here (it should be here some time this week) so I can see if these players are really that good.

This will be my first experience with streaming video as opposed to cable, so it will be interesting to see the differences, if any, between the two services. One I think I'll like is that many of Roku's channels are free, whereas cable rates increase every year. There is no fee to own the Roku box; after the initial purchase ($49.95), plus any accessories purchased with it (HDMI cable, etc.) the box is yours to keep, with no other fees whatsoever. However, as Beachboy noted, the HD cable boxes and even the small digital transfer adapters from the cable providers do have a rental fee after the first year. In my area the rental fee on the DTAs is $2.75 per month, whereas the large HD cable boxes are $11 and change per month.

I was not aware that the newest HD cable boxes have only composite video and HDMI outputs, with no RF antenna connector as the older boxes have. I wonder if this is a cost-cutting measure, or if it is a method the cable providers are using to force their subscribers to upgrade from CRT to flat screen. I think it's the latter, as the older CRT sets do not work with digital signals without a cable box or an ATSC->NTSC converter box and an antenna, and are thus obsolete. The Roku box has composite video outputs and comes with a composite cable for use with older CRT sets having these jacks, but the HDMI cable is not included and must be purchased separately.

I had no idea that the cable boxes use as much electricity as Beachboy noted. Being solid-state, I would expect these boxes to use very little power, but if you have several of them operating around the clock (or at least several hours a day), the power usage will add up in a hurry. I think BB mentioned he has perhaps four or more of these boxes running a good part of the day, so it follows the electricity bill will be higher at the end of the month as opposed to having only one box, used only a few hours a day.

Like it or not, that's the way cable TV is going--full digital, with the subscribers being forced to use cable boxes to receive anything (just connecting the cable to the antenna port on the back of your TV won't work anymore in many areas; VK member radiotvnut in Missouri can vouch for that, as that state's cable service, from Comcast, has been fully digital, no analog whatsoever, for quite some time). If you don't like that (I don't), there are alternatives, such as the Roku box and Apple TV's streaming video box, as I mentioned. However, for folks with older TVs having only coaxial antenna connectors or 300-ohm terminals, some of the cable boxes will not work since they do not have RF outputs, only composite and/or HDMI. This will, again, pretty much force these people to either go without TV or to get a new flat screen. The newest flat-screen TVs have 4K video resolution and even curved screens (think Samsung), so upgrading from an old CRT set to a flat set may be the best bet if the old TV is starting to show its age or simply doesn't work well (or at all) anymore.

My Insignia 19" flat TV is almost four years old and works great; I expect to have no trouble with it when the new Roku box arrives. Who knows, I may decide some day to drop cable, but for now I'll keep it and use it alongside the video streaming box to pick up channels the Roku box does not get. I'll post my test results here or perhaps in a new thread. I think I'm going to like the Roku box, though. It has received glowing reviews, which is a big reason I decided to purchase one in the first place. A video streamer that has been referred to as "America's favorite" by the very company that manufactures it, based on rave reviews, can't be all bad.

Wow! You are lucky to have had analog TV and clear QAM this long. in most places analog cable is already dead and it has been dead since the OTA programing changed to Digital.

If any one complains of analog TV interference to their newly purchased airwaves, the FCC forces the source, usually a cable company still using analog, to cease causing the interference. Now, the FCC does not say they have to discontinue analog, but they do have to stop this stray interference. Remember back in the analog era, when one could point a broadband antenna at a cable junction point and using a cable ready TV or VCR often pick up their signal free? The cable company could replace their analog system with a better shielded one, but it is much less expensive to simply convert to digital and keep using the old wiring.

The real reason for switching to only digital outputs on the cable box, is to stop the customers from copying the programs, unless they purchase their expensive cable boxes. Now their expensive boxes only time delay, they do not allow the user to make a copy for their own use.

As for using Roku as a solution, that requires having high speed internet. There places within 80 miles of Washington, DC where the only internet available is still dial up! We have become addicted to cable. . . . . . .
This has happened where I live. Before the digital conversion the ABC and CBS network stations were the strongest signals that I had. On the day of the conversion both were gone. They are two of the rare TV stations that made the choice to keep their analog channels, 7 and 9, and now using the most powerful mid-band TV antenna that will fit in my attic, and I have a two story house, they cannot be received.

James

Not quite. The change to digital OTA broadcasting was in 2009, but the FCC still required cable companies to continue to offer the analog version of the local channels until 2012.

You made the wrong assumption here. Channels 7 (WJLA) and 9 (WUSA) did not remain analog. They both went digital. What they did was elect to keep their broadcasts in the VHF spectrum on channels 7 & 9 rather than make the switch to UHF channels. Most previously analog VHF stations switched to the UHF band for their digital broadcasts, which is the "rare" part of those particular station's choices.

.

Be aware that a lot of the programming you had to pay for on cable, you will also have to pay for to watch on a Roku box. You may not be able to get your favorite programs for free.

.

...

Please reread my post. I said "most" of Roku's channels are free; I never said "all". (Please go to www.roku.com to verify this.) I do not watch any of the premium or pay-per-view channels on my cable. The only fee I pay to Time Warner is the monthly rate for the service.

I do have broadband Internet service; haven't had dialup for years.

I cannot believe the Washington area's cable providers still offer only dialup Internet service. This is the 21st century, for crying out loud, and Washington is the nation's capital. There is no excuse, IMO, for one of the most important cities in this country to stick to such an antiquated Internet access method as dialup. I can see Internet providers in smaller cities and very small towns which may still offer only dialup service, but not the Washington area. The locations you speak of may be very small, rural areas that cannot afford to have broadband cable TV systems; their idea of "modern" cable TV service may well be standard cable and dial-up Internet.


BTW, I hate the term "smartphone" as it is applied to today's Internet-enabled mobile cellular telephones; I cringe every time I read or hear it. Just because these phones have a bunch of computer chips in them and are connected to the Internet does not make them "smart". Without the Internet connection, these phones are nothing more than glorified cell phones. There are probably many people who own cell phones with Internet capability, but they do not use the phone for anything other than making and receiving telephone calls; they could not care less that it can connect to the Internet.

As to your statement that "we have become addicted to cable", well, that's just the way it is. Most people today have some level of cable TV or satellite service, especially since the digital switch six years ago this June. (There are hardly any outdoor TV antennas to be seen in my area, a small northern Ohio town of 3100 population, 35 miles from Cleveland, where good TV reception is hard to get, at least it was in the analog NTSC era before digital.) Services such as Roku and Apple TV are used by folks who want to cut the cable, which is one reason I am switching, at least partially, to TV via the Roku streaming video service. (I will keep the cable for now, if only to retain access to channels I will not get with the Roku box.)

Many people are disgusted with cable TV's constant rate increases, which is yet another reason many switch to alternative video services. Roku and Apple TV will not even come close to putting the nation's cable providers out of business, but these streaming services are becoming very popular with folks who don't want to deal with cable's rate increases. Those increases are here to stay, unfortunately (our cable bills will continue to go up and up and up and . . .), but the two video streaming services I mentioned carry many free TV channels, something cable operators don't like but again, that's how it is. The only fee most Roku users pay is the initial cost of the streaming video box itself; if they do not use the premium channels, they will not have to pay any more than that for the programs the service offers. There are enough free channels on Roku to satisfy most viewers for years; Roku also offers, at least in this area, the Time Warner Cable application, which will allow access through the Roku box to many of the cable provider's channels--but there is a catch. The catch is that you must have, as a minimum, TWC's standard cable service; otherwise the application will not work. I found this out when I had broadcast basic cable and the TWC TV app. I called the cable company and asked specifically if the app would work with broadcast basic; the answer was no, at least standard cable is required for the application to work properly or, in most cases, at all.

The Roku is a great device, one of the few computer related things to just work like it should and you don't even need an instruction manual to run it.
Even my first generation model works smoother and faster than the streaming interface built into the TV or BD player.

Netflix streaming is a bargain at less than $10 a month, lots of movies, documentaries and shows there, The TV shows are usually from the prior seasons but if you've never seen them before it's a great way to catch up.

Amazon offers new shows, usually the day after they aired on the Networks, $1.99 for SD and $2.99 for HD, I find SD is plenty good in most cases. If you subscribe to their Prime Service you get a lot of extra stuff for the yearly subscription.

The choice to return to (or stay on) the VHF high band allocation for digital transmission of the signal after the analog shutdown was *not* so rare. A large number of stations that were previously allocated high band (7-13) for transmission made that unfortunate choice, most likely because the power calculated for "equivalent" coverage was considerably less.
Unfortunately the calculation of VHF digital channel coverage apparently was flawed by a few wrong assumptions. Four high band channels in my area made such a choice and are now more difficult to receive. Some have filed for power increases, some have added translator transmitters to "fill in" poor coverage areas, and some are apparently "satisfied" with the present state of affairs, with cable/satellite coverage providing an adequate viewer base.

This is the largest VHF high band antenna that I know of. It is 10 feet long... do you have something with more gain?

http://www.amazon.com/AntennaCraft-1...and+tv+antenna

not affiliated,
jr

Re-read my post in which I quoted you. I never mentioned any premium or pay-per-view channels on cable. The channels you do receive with the level of cable service you pay for contains many channels that are not going to be free over Roku. Therefore you are very unlikely to be able to watch all your favorite programs for free via Roku. That's why there motto is "Watch what you love. Pay only for what you want."

.

It won't matter what size his antenna is if he's still trying to bring in the stations in analog on an NTSC tuner. The stations are digital and he needs to find them via an ATSC tuner. That's where he went wrong.

.

There are places in my county and adjacent county where dial up modems, 3G and 4G cellular data, and Satellite like HughesNet, Exede, and WildBlue are the only options. Especially far enough outside town. Data caps on Cellular and Satellite are very low, service is very expensive. Within 80 miles of Washington, DC I can believe this. I am fortunate, Comcast Cable is super speed even on lower tiers and a lot more generous data allowance by many, many times over. And also bear in mind, that 35-50 mile away UHF DTV over the air in the rural East Tennessee boonies is considered DX reception often.

While it is true that you do not need the instruction manual to use Roku on a very basic level (the player will work as soon as it is connected to your TV, provided you have a broadband Internet connection), you must set up an account with Roku if you want to use features such as the channel store and, of course, to view movies (you have to enter your credit card number to establish the account for this feature).

Some channels such as Crackle, which shows classic TV programs, are indeed free, but most of the movie channels are pay channels. I have an account with Netflix, which allows unlimited video streaming; however, I haven't done much with that feature yet, even to test it. One of these days.

I also have Amazon Prime, but I haven't used the video features of that service yet (I have it mostly for the 2-day shipping speed). However, since I now have my Roku player, I may be trying out some of the other features of the subscription, such as video streaming, in the near future.

One thing I don't especially care for with Roku is the fact that they show most TV programs the day after they air on the networks. I find this particularly annoying when I try to watch the news from NBC, if I should miss the live telecast for any reason.

Roku's "NBC News" channel does have links to NBC Nightly News and to NBC's Meet the Press, but by the time these programs are available to watch they are already a day old. With MTP the time delay doesn't matter much, but NBC Nightly News is worthless if one watches the broadcast the day after it airs, since that day's newspapers will already have most of the news stories covered on the NBC news the night before.

I can get both NBC Nightly News and Meet the Press, however, on my tablet the same day they are broadcast, although there is a delay of about six hours or more before the broadcasts are available online. Until recently, I was able to receive MTP as a podcast, but msnbc.com has discontinued that service; the broadcast is now available exclusively on streaming video from that site.

Our locally owned city cable provider recently announced that they would soon no longer provide analog channels. If anyone had a modern HDTV, they needn't to do anything, but those with older sets would have to get converter boxes.
They didn't say when the change would happen...just some time in 2015.

I have found over the years someone always finds a way around things and they will do the same here, we have lots of smart people out there that just love to beat the system and they do. When they converted to digital signals the government gave us boxes that convert the signal back to analog, I have two, I also have a homemade antenna that picks up all local stations and I watch dvd's so all it cost me is the power I use to power up my TV. :-)

The internet and U-Tube are very useful tools, they tell you everything including how to make a homemade antenna.

Yup just to free up some bandwidth for MORE GARBAGE!!!!! (And to get more $$$$$$$ for that trash)

I'm sure in the more rural areas you might be able to get away with running your own transmitter for the neighborhood. :D

More urban areas, well you know how some people are. :thumbsdn:

Don't try that unless you want to get into a lot of trouble. Even if you are in a very remote area of this country, the rules governing unlicensed operation of radio or television transmitters still apply. The FCC can and will cite you for illegal operation of a TV transmitter, even if you are in a rural area, the same as in urban areas. The only difference is that your illegal signal is much more likely to be detected and reported in urban areas. I live in a small town (population just under 3100), not considered suburban Cleveland, in which I could not hope to get away with any kind of illegal TV/radio transmitter operation, not that I actually would do so (I am an amateur radio operator, and could lose my license if I ever tried such a stunt; many amateurs have, at worst, lost their licenses or, at best [!] been warned and/or fined, for just such illegal operations).

After I learned that my two so-called "free boxes" were no longer free, I replaced both with a single HD box and added a splitter. I now have two HD boxes which serve my one HD set plus many multiple analog sets. The digital HD boxes Comcast provides are really a godsend because they not only convert to analog for the RCA and (usually provided) modulated coaxial outputs, they can also be set so to eliminate letterboxing on 4:3 sets when tuned to HD channels.

One of the best quirks I had when in Vancouver was "Metrotown 5". Someone was taking an internet stream and broadcasting it over the Collingwood/Central Park/Metrotown region on VHF. There is probably a transmitter hidden in the woods. It was still running last I checked in 2012.

Charter Communications went 100% digital in my area back in September 2014
They tout it like that is a good thing (Good for them as they get more $ as everyone gets to rent a STB from them)

I used to have a TV tuner card in my PC and I recorded my shows from the clear QAM tuner but now that there is no more clear QAM I bought a CableCard tuner for the computer (One plus side is I get all of my shows in HD now not just the networks)

I get a free year of up to 2 devices (I got one set top box and one cable card) at the end of the free year I will be paying an extra $12 to them

Also more and more channels are moving to the silver package which is an extra $20

I need cable as in my area antennas simply do not work (Unless you want PBS and one Spanish station)

In what city, town, area, etc. are you located? I cannot imagine any area of the United States being as completely blocked from receiving OTA signals as yours seems to; I would think that if you put up a long-range antenna you should be able to receive many more than just two stations. In most areas, an antenna will work to bring in one or two channels (as in your case), but to be entirely cut off from the networks... You must be in a mountainous area (such as California, some parts of Pennsylvania, et al.) that is in fact blocked from getting TV from most cities.

If you are having that much trouble getting OTA reception and cable's ever-increasing rates bother you, I would suggest you get a Roku streaming player. These little wonders operate by streaming video from your local TV stations, cable, etc.; they have absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with cable. I have a Roku box and am currently using it alongside my cable service, but when (not if) the cable rates go through the roof, I just might drop the cable altogether and use the Roku box exclusively. As it stands now, I can get every channel that is presently on my cable, by virtue of an application program from Time Warner Cable (their TWC TV app).

While I do not receive digital subchannels of the local stations through the Roku player, I can get the stations' primary signals just fine, and in HD to boot. The loss of the digital subchannels does not bother me, as I can still see them on my cable; when and if I drop cable, I have DVDs and VHS tapes of a lot of the old classic shows now on MeTV and Antenna TV. For programs I do not have on DVD or VHS, I can find them on my Roku player via Hulu, Amazon, Crackle, et al. I have Amazon Prime, so I have unlimited video streaming as well as 2-day shipping when I order anything from them online.

Streaming video via devices like the Roku player, Apple TV, et al. seems to be the way things are going for television programming (the wave of the future, if you will) these days. I will not say these platforms will mean the end of OTA TV any time soon, or that they will put traditional TV stations out of business; however, I do feel that they are claiming a large share of the networks' viewers. The networks may not like it (truth be known, they don't, since every lost viewer means that much lost advertising revenue--and the networks darn well don't like that one bit), but that's the way things are in the 21st century and beyond.

I have a Roku player so as to "future-proof" my TV; that is, the cable rates can go as high as they need to, but that won't bother me since I am getting a lot of my TV through that little coaster-size player. I like it so well that I am wondering why I waited so long to get one. Between the Roku player and my tapes and DVDs, I am now getting more TV than I could watch in 50 years, and I will not miss cable when the time comes to drop it. Not that I will have it disconnected, as I found out today through TWC's "TWC on Roku" website that the TWC TV app will not work unless you have an active cable connection and at least Standard TV (what TWC used to call "expanded basic"). I am saying that, when the time comes, I will simply watch most of my TV through my Roku player. I can get the local stations plus most cable channels through the box, so my cable connection will only be there to fulfill the requirements for the TWC TV app. At least one other VK member has cable service similar to mine, but he says he no longer uses the cable-TV connection; just the phone and Internet service.

Only time will tell how many other people will do the same when cable rates go through the roof, as they have in so many areas, including the small town in which I live. I see a day coming in the not-too-distant future when most folks will be watching television exclusively via streaming video, DVD, and VHS, rather than over standard TV stations. This will actually benefit most viewers, even those in fringe areas, as there is no fading, ghosting, multipath, etc. with video streams as there so often is with traditional OTA TV. Certainly, there will be the occasional dropout or freeze, but for the most part, video streams are much more reliable than OTA TV signals. I also notice that many video streams from my favorite TV and cable channels look better through the Roku box and my flat-screen TV than they ever did on cable, but that's probably because I am receiving unmodified video streams via the player. With cable, the signals are compressed and goodness only knows what else by the time they get to our TVs, so we probably are not seeing the absolute best picture quality our flat screens can deliver. I don't know what resolution value constitutes "HD" TV, but the number that sticks in my head (and the resolution my FP TV is designed for) is 720p.

Sorry I did not get back to the forum sooner as I just noticed this post

I am in Trumbull, CT in an Apartment complex (I can't put an antenna outside the apartment and they are all one story buildings so an indoor antenna does practically nothing)
that used to have TV antennas for the whole complex that were "mysteriously" removed when they announced a 20Yr contract with Charter Communications to be the sole provider for TV in the complex.
The antennas were in a state if disrepair according to the maintenance department

What I heard after the digital switch power was removed from the distribution amps known to me by the fact the power meters were removed and replaced with a blank cover but now they are totally gone :(

I'd look for a good cheap outdoor antenna and bolt it to the ceiling in a large closet, or a bedroom (and get a bed with a canopy close to the celiling to hide it).

I am surprised your landlord does not allow outdoor TV antennas. There is an FCC rule, just recently enacted, that states outdoor TV antennas may in fact be erected in apartment buildings, if certain requirements are met. (Your landlord and/or building manager may not be aware of this ruling.) I live on the first floor of a 2-story, 12-unit apartment building where outside TV antennas are not forbidden per se (in fact, several tenants here have satellite dishes), but the building is wired for cable so there is little or no need for outdoor antennas. My first landlord (this building has been sold once since I moved here 15 years ago) did in fact forbid any kind of outdoor antennas anywhere on the building (even small ones that attach to window ledges), but the current landlord apparently will allow TV antennas to be erected, if a tenant desires to do so.

I see no reason why you could not use a small antenna inside your apartment, if rabbit ears or other types of indoor TV antennas, for whatever reason, will not work. If you are in a reasonably strong signal area, even a small antenna such as the ClearTV digital antennas (you may have seen their commercials; they run nationwide) will provide good reception, provided all TV stations in your area are on UHF DTV channels and are no more than about 50 miles distant. I have a ClearTV antenna that works very well in my area, a small town 35-40 miles from the Cleveland TV transmitters; I would be using it now instead of paying for cable, except for the fact that it does not receive two local channels (CBS channel 19 and FOX channel 8), the subchannels of which are MeTV and Antenna TV, respectively, and are the two stations I watch the most. I do not receive these stations using my ClearTV antenna because they are on VHF DTV channels (ten and eight, respectively); the ClearTV antenna is designed for UHF only. The other stations, plus an audio-only channel operated by the Cleveland Sight Center (a reading service for the blind), come in just fine, because they are on UHF DTV assignments.

Edit: I just looked at TV Guide's listings for New York City area TV stations (OTA broadcast), and found that there are about 68 channels potentially available using an antenna. As I mentioned in my post, you must be either in a very low-elevation area or in an area blocked from New York stations by terrain features or other obstructions. At the very least, I would think you should be able to get the NYC network stations with an antenna, but again, if there are obstructions between your apartment and the TV stations' towers, reception will be compromised. I have never been in or lived in New York City (although I have a cousin who lives in Brooklyn), but I would imagine that, due to buildings and other obstructions, unless you are within, say, five miles of where the New York stations' towers are located (atop the Empire State Building), your reception may be fair to poor at best, especially with the far weaker signals from DTV stations compared to the hundreds-of-kilowatts to megawatt (up to five megawatts for UHF) signals the old NTSC stations had. Where you are in Connecticut seems like a far-suburban or even a near-fringe area for NYC television reception; this may explain why the master TV antenna system in your apartment complex was dismantled, removed, and the entire building wired for cable.