This nearly 15 meter monopole cell tower antenna just showed up one day in the backyard of this Kirkland, PQ resident, who is presumably being compensated up to $200 a month as Rogers' newest cell tower landlord.

Rogers Communications has found a solution to difficult zoning laws and cell tower controversy — find a homeowner willing to accept around $200 a month to host a (relatively) short cell tower antenna in their backyard, skirting the usual dragged-out cell tower siting consultations most local communities have enacted to control visual pollution.

A wealthy neighborhood in the community of Kirkland, a city of 20,000 near Montreal, discovered Rogers’ ingenuity for themselves when a just-under-50-foot monopole antenna suddenly appeared in the backyard of a home on Acres Street.

The neighbors are outraged. But Rogers says everything they did erecting the tower with no prior notice was done by the book.

That book, in the form of Industry Canada regulations, says Rogers doesn’t need to endure lengthy zoning hearings or a town-wide consultation process.  Rogers agrees, stating they can erect antennas of less than 15 meters at their pleasure — no consultation required.

Rogers spokesperson Stephanie Jerrold said Industry Canada regulations are clear: “The protocol says that if it’s a tower that measures under 15 meters, no public consultation is needed,” she said.

That may be true, but the loophole did nothing to appease dozens of nearby residents living in homes valued at $400,000 from raising a ruckus with local officials.  A petition has been submitted to city hall demanding Rogers remove the antenna.  Residents expressed concerns about their health and property values with a cell tower in their midst.

Rogers foreshadowed their intent last fall when they mailed letters to homeowners looking for someone to host the new antenna, offering around $200 a month to any takers. Evidently there was one — the resident at 75 Acres St.

City officials are pondering what to do about the new tower. They did not approve a work permit for its placement, which may provide leverage against Rogers, but no one knows for sure.

Thus far, Industry Canada wants to remain more than 15 meters away from the debate.  A spokesman for the agency, Antoine Quellon, told the West Island Gazette:

“The company must consult with the local community as required and address relevant concerns. It must also satisfy Industry Canada’s general and technical requirements, including Health Canada’s Safety Code 6, aeronautical safety, interference protection and environmental requirements. Under rare circumstances where an agreeable solution for a site is not possible, Industry Canada may need to make a determination based on the facts presented.”

[flv width=”400″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/CBC Montreal Backyard cell tower in Kirkland worries neighbours 4-11-12.flv[/flv]

CBC in Montreal covered the Kirkland controversy and talked with the neighbors about the new 50 foot pole owned by Rogers Communications.  (2 minutes)

An ad in the Syracuse Post-Standard announces a new invention -- a bow tie antenna design originally designed in the 1950s.

Back in December, Stop the Cap! alerted readers about the “revolutionary razor thin” HDTV antenna Clear-Cast that promised salvation from high cable and satellite TV bills forever.  No article published here has attracted as much attention as that one, drawing more than 40,000 new readers to find out whether the product is truly a scientific breakthrough, or razor thin hype.

Readers have overwhelmingly agreed with our review of the product — it did no better than a $1.49 antenna we bought years earlier from Radio Shack.  But plenty of readers also shared their disappointment with the company advertising Clear-Cast: Canton, Ohio-based Universal Media Syndicate, Inc.

The Canton Regional and Greater West Virginia Better Business Bureau reports it has received “numerous” complaints about Clear-Cast’s marketing practices, refund policies, and advertising claims.  Indeed, we’ve heard from hundreds of readers who assumed we sold the product, and a lot of choice words were included in the angergram e-mails mistakenly sent our way.  Among the claims many found deceptive — Clear-Cast’s marketing stretch that users can receive up to 953 shows (not channels).

Our story has been linked from a number of other websites, so many in fact our review of the product often appears higher in Google’s search rankings than the company selling the product itself.

Clear-Cast’s advertising, designed to look like an authentic newspaper article, has appeared in dozens of newspapers around the country.  Many readers report the price has increased as well, now selling for as much as $50, not including the high-pressure sales tactics to throw in “warranty protection” ($5 buys you two years) and shipping and handling (add another $10).  We found readers who spent $110 for two bow-tie antennas that used to be included with televisions until the 1980s for free.

Our findings: Clear-Cast is an antenna capable of receiving local broadcast channels, but no better or worse than other basic antennas we have tested that sell for $4-9.

Returning the product for a refund also proved nightmarish.  We received a working antenna from one of our readers if we’d agree to return to it the company when we were finished.  It was returned by Priority Mail in late January and was received by them in two business days.  Our reader reports a credit for the return finally posted to his credit card statement this morning — nearly four months later.

The BBB received such a substantial number of complaints, they met with the company in January to discuss their product and how it is sold:

The BBB found that the product does provide channels without cable or satellite. However BBB inquiries indicate that because the headline states that you can get rid of cable or satellite bills, consumers are under the impression that they will receive the same type of channeling as they would with their current provider.

Additionally, there seems to be some confusion as to what is actually being given away for free. In the company ad it states in the headline “Free TV” and “gets rid of cable or satellite bills.” Some inquiries indicate that consumers are under the impression that they will be receiving a free television. Also there seems to be confusion as to how many possible channels a consumer may get when using the ClearCast Digital HDTV. The company ad has indicated that consumers can receive up to 953 “Shows” and up to 53 “channels” depending on where you live.

The company has added disclosures that outline and explain what the consumers are actually getting, however the overall impression of the ad seems to imply differently.

The basic principles of the BBB code of advertisement states that an advertisement as a whole may be misleading although every sentence separately considered is literally true. Consumers are encouraged to read the ad in its entirety and despite deadlines and restrictions, to make sure the company and product is researched prior to purchase in order to make an educated buying decision.

We were not surprised to learn readers were still complaining about Clear-Cast as late as this weekend.

Universal Media Syndicate, which is responsible for its marketing, also pitches:

• the so-called “Amish-Made” Heat Surge Fireplace (all parts from China, with only the wood frame made by “Amish” employees);
• “three hundred ninety-eight dollars and shipping”-portable air conditioner ArcticPro;
• coin peddler World Reserve Monetary Exchange;
• PatentHEALTH, a Canton-based provider of something called “nutraceuticals” that include an FDA warning suggesting their products are “not intended to diagnose, treat, cure or prevent disease.”

Variation on the traditional bow-tie UHF antenna

Our advice for cord cutters remains the same:

Antenna design really has not changed much in 50 years. Here is a good and credible site to explore: http://www.antennaweb.org/Info/AntennaInfo.aspx

Start out with something basic. The best antennas allow you to orient them in different directions towards the signal you want. For UHF, try a set top loop-style antenna that can be rotated (Wal-Mart probably has one). You might also find playing around with some aluminum foil attached behind the antenna or even to it can make some difference. Experiment… a lot, until you find the ideal position for your antenna. If you are thinking of spending $38 on Clear Cast, remember it will probably cost you at least $5 to mail it back if you find it not worth keeping.

For the absolute best results, seriously consider a traditional outdoor or attic antenna. Channel Master and Winegard are quality manufacturers with a long history. They sell online and UPS can deliver it straight to your home already assembled in many cases.

But always hire a professional installer if you are absolutely not certain of your rooftop skills.  A frequent cause of rooftop falls and other accidents used to be attributed to do-it-yourself antenna installers who didn’t appreciate the risks.

[flv width=”360″ height=”290″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WTVQ Lexington Clear-Cast HDTV Antenna 3-28-12.mp4[/flv]

WTVQ in Lexington, Kentucky investigated viewer complaints about Clear-Cast and talked with the Better Business Bureau about the company and its marketing tactics.  (3 minutes)

Rabbit ears are making a comeback.

After this year’s cable and satellite rate increases, the average American is now spending $550 a year on basic cable television.  With declining middle class incomes and increasing energy and health care costs busting the budget, something had to give.  Increasingly, it is cable and satellite TV.  Now consumers are combining the past with the future to find a cheaper way to watch television — over the air “free TV” with streamed online video entertainment.  Many broadcasters even offer extra channels that are made possible through digital signal compression.

Some marketers are going over the top with the renewed interest in over the air television, pitching “futuristic” television antennas at a steep price to customers who want to cut cable’s cord.  While your parents and grandparents were well-acquainted with antenna technology, today’s younger generations are not, and are overpaying for antennas you can find for a fraction of the price at Wal-Mart.

The concept of cord cutting is simple.  You can watch live sporting events and local news and network shows from over-the-air broadcasters and catch up on favorite movies and TV series streaming shows online.  The days of the snowy picture are over since the country converted to digital TV.  But in many cases, an antenna is essential to getting the best reception.

Satellite and cable companies are trying to compete, offering discounts and, in some cases, pared down packages.  But prices will need to come down further: the average video streamer and over-the-air viewer pays $180 a year on average for a premium streaming package from Netflix, Hulu or other online viewing option.

[flv width=”480″ height=”290″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/KIMT Mason City IA TV Antenna Making a Comeback 2-21-12.mp4[/flv]

KIMT in Mason City, Iowa explores the growing interest in the old-fashioned TV antenna.  (3 minutes)

An ad in the Syracuse Post-Standard announces a new invention -- a variation on the bow tie antenna design originally designed in the 1950s.

Last Thursday, Syracuse newspaper readers were treated to news of an impressive breakthrough that promises to deliver salvation from high cable and satellite TV bills forever.

Clear Cast, a “razor thin” indoor digital HDTV antenna lets you watch television… for free.

The product is shown being packaged up for shipping while an impatient-looking FedEx driver tries to coordinate the apparent extraordinary demand for a downright revolutionary development in television engineering.

Local residents called the newspaper and other local news outlets to try and learn more about the curious new device.

Stop the Cap! can now report the revolution can be postponed.

In fact, the published account  about the “new invention” was actually a paid advertisement-designed-to-look-like-a-news-story.  Clear Cast is effectively a variation on the traditional indoor UHF bow tie antenna your local Radio Shack used to sell for $1.49.  The major difference is that it is designed to be attached to a window with accompanying suction cups.  That is a valid approach to improving reception, but whether it is worth the asking price of $38 is another matter.

As consumers seek alternatives to higher cable and satellite TV bills, overhyped ad copy promising freedom from high bills cannot be far behind.  Repackaging basic antennas that were part of our lives from the 1950s-on can go too far when leaving some residents with the impression they are getting more than a basic television antenna.

In fact, over-the-air viewing can be easily accomplished in strong signal areas with the cheapest antenna, as long as it is designed for both VHF and UHF reception.  Many VHF stations with channel numbers from 2-13 quietly relocated to the UHF dial, but still advertise their original channel numbers.  If your television is not equipped with a UHF antenna, reception may be difficult.

For the benefit of those under the age of 40: most televisions used to come equipped with both antenna designs — two elongated antenna rods some used to call “rabbit ears” and an accompanying round loop antenna, or often a bow tie design that clipped to one of the two longer aerials.  The long straight antennas are designed for VHF signals, the bow tie or loop design accommodated improved UHF reception.

Over the last decade, marketing has attempted to revolutionize what remains basic, sober, antenna design — with an accompanying “revolutionary” price tag.  When satellite television was first introduced, some manufacturers redesigned set top aerials to look like a satellite dish and then pitched them as “saving you the high price of satellite TV because it is not satellite!”  In today’s HD-ready era, marketers have done it again.

Will Clear Cast work?  Undoubtedly, but probably not much better than any other traditional bow tie design that costs $35 less.

If you are cutting cable’s cord and want to rely on over-the-air television, our best advice is to start with something inexpensive and upgrade only when necessary.  In urban and suburban areas, an effective indoor antenna can cost less than $5.  Try repositioning it until you find the best spot to receive the most channels with the least signal reception errors.  Directional indoor antennas can offer mild signal improvement, especially in areas where adjacent signals from nearby cities create reception problems.  Because the American digital broadcast standard is frankly less robust than the European counterpart, those in more distant suburbs or rural areas will really need to invest in a rooftop antenna to enjoy consistent reception.  A potential compromise would be to mount an outdoor antenna in the attic.

Avoid “futuristic” designs and powered indoor antennas and read consumer reviews carefully.  We’ve found most indoor antennas priced above $35 to be more hype than performance-per-dollar.  If you need an outdoor antenna, check your local Yellow Pages for antenna specialists who understand local reception conditions and can recommend high quality, long lasting antennas that will work for the stations you want to receive.

[flv width=”480″ height=”290″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WSYR Syracuse Newspaper ad for free TV The Real Deal 12-15-11.mp4[/flv]

WSYR in Syracuse investigates the ‘revolutionary’ new indoor TV antenna that is so popular, only residents in certain zip codes can order it.  (2 minutes)