terminology
 

When talking to customers I now refer to poor quality coax as 'non-digital'
or 'pre-digital' and good quality cable as 'digital'. This is an appalling
simplification and as such is inaccurate and just plain wrong. However, it
has the virture of simplicity, and it seems to get the point across.

Bill

terminology
 

On 18 Apr, 02:59, "Bill Wright" wrote:
When talking to customers I now refer to poor quality coax as 'non-digital'
or 'pre-digital' and good quality cable as 'digital'. This is an appalling
simplification and as such is inaccurate and just plain wrong. However, it
has the virture of simplicity, and it seems to get the point across.

It does hurt to use the incorrect terminology but for the sake of
expediency and getting the point across it has its virtues.
I find that all the time working in IT but rather than spend hours re-
educating the uneducated you end up tailoring your wording for your
audience. I have to present ideas to Directors and Geeks alike. That
can be fun :/

terminology
 

Bill Wright wrote:
When talking to customers I now refer to poor quality coax as 'non-digital'
or 'pre-digital' and good quality cable as 'digital'. This is an appalling
simplification and as such is inaccurate and just plain wrong. However, it
has the virture of simplicity, and it seems to get the point across.

Bill



Doesn't seem any worse than the "official promotional" information :-)

--
PeeGee

The reply address is a spam trap. All mail is reported as spam.
"Nothing should be able to load itself onto a computer without the
knowledge or consent of the computer user. Software should also be able
to be removed from a computer easily."
Peter Cullen, Microsoft Chief Privacy Strategist (Computing 18 Aug 05)

terminology
 

In message , Bill Wright
writes
When talking to customers I now refer to poor quality coax as 'non-digital'
or 'pre-digital' and good quality cable as 'digital'. This is an appalling
simplification and as such is inaccurate and just plain wrong. However, it
has the virture of simplicity, and it seems to get the point across.

Bill


Is this the slippery slope to recommending "digital" aerials?
--
Ian

terminology
 

On Fri, 18 Apr 2008 02:59:05 +0100, "Bill Wright"
wrote:

When talking to customers I now refer to poor quality coax as 'non-digital'
or 'pre-digital' and good quality cable as 'digital'. This is an appalling
simplification and as such is inaccurate and just plain wrong. However, it
has the virture of simplicity, and it seems to get the point across.

Bill

And I bet it's a lot lot cheaper!


Werner Heisenberg

I used to be uncertain on principle but now I am just undecided.

terminology
 

Well we used to have low loss as the buzz word, but exactly how low was low?
Everything is relative. An old fashioned thin flexibly type of coax, if in a
short run in a high signal area gives fine results, after all.



Brian

--
Brian Gaff....Note, this account does not accept Bcc: email.
graphics are great, but the blind can't hear them
Email:
__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ __________


"Bill Wright" wrote in message
...
When talking to customers I now refer to poor quality coax as
'non-digital' or 'pre-digital' and good quality cable as 'digital'. This
is an appalling simplification and as such is inaccurate and just plain
wrong. However, it has the virture of simplicity, and it seems to get the
point across.

Bill

terminology
 

I don't think he is lying though, what he is saying is that the non tech
side of the industry has decided to call good co-ax digital, it could just
as well called it Herbert or Clinton, but that would have been silly.



Of course I expect the counterfeiters are at this very moment branding
inferior product as Digital just to make more on crap.

Brian

--
Brian Gaff....Note, this account does not accept Bcc: email.
graphics are great, but the blind can't hear them
Email:
__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ __________


"Andy" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 18 Apr 2008 02:59:05 +0100, "Bill Wright"
wrote:

When talking to customers I now refer to poor quality coax as
'non-digital'
or 'pre-digital' and good quality cable as 'digital'. This is an appalling
simplification and as such is inaccurate and just plain wrong. However, it
has the virture of simplicity, and it seems to get the point across.

Bill


And now you've told the world and your past customers you woffle to
them, good move. Are you applying for the next series of "The
Apprentice"?

terminology
 

wrote:

And now you've told the world and your past customers you woffle to
them, good move. Are you applying for the next series of "The
Apprentice"?

What's the betting that "Andy" is "Ian" aka The Tiscali Idiot?

--
Dave Farrance

terminology
 

In article , Bill Wright wrote:
When talking to customers I now refer to poor quality coax as 'non-digital'*
or 'pre-digital' and good quality cable as 'digital'. This is an appalling*
simplification and as such is inaccurate and just plain wrong. However, it*
has the virture of simplicity, and it seems to get the point across.

For your own peace of mind you could regard "digital cable" as a verbal
contraction of "cable suitable for digital reception", which seems a perfectly
fair description to me, even if the cable happens to be suitable for other
things as well, and on occasions when you have more time to spare you might
even choose to utter the phrase in full.

Rod.

terminology
 

Dave Farrance wrote:
wrote:

And now you've told the world and your past customers you woffle to
them, good move. Are you applying for the next series of "The
Apprentice"?

What's the betting that "Andy" is "Ian" aka The Tiscali Idiot?

That was my first thought.

terminology
 

"Ian" wrote in message
...
In message , Bill Wright
writes
When talking to customers I now refer to poor quality coax as
'non-digital'
or 'pre-digital' and good quality cable as 'digital'. This is an appalling
simplification and as such is inaccurate and just plain wrong. However, it
has the virture of simplicity, and it seems to get the point across.

Bill


Is this the slippery slope to recommending "digital" aerials?

I don't think so. It would stick in my throat.

Actually it's hilarious, some of the conversations. They ring up wanting a
digital aerial. I ask where they are and what transmitter they're on (yes it
is possible to winkle this out of them). Then I say, "You don't need a
different aerial." Shocked silence. "But . . .but . . .but . . ." "Look,
I'll come and do one for you if you like but why don't you just buy the new
telly and try it? One thing though. If it works OK, will you promise to ring
me and say thanks?" Some of them do. I suspect that a few ring another, more
co-operative aerial installer.

Bill

terminology
 

"Andy" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 18 Apr 2008 02:59:05 +0100, "Bill Wright"
wrote:

When talking to customers I now refer to poor quality coax as
'non-digital'
or 'pre-digital' and good quality cable as 'digital'. This is an appalling
simplification and as such is inaccurate and just plain wrong. However, it
has the virture of simplicity, and it seems to get the point across.

Bill


And now you've told the world and your past customers you woffle to
them, good move. Are you applying for the next series of "The
Apprentice"?

I've no worries. My customers are people of discernment and good sense, and
any of them reading my post will understand.

Bill

terminology
 

"Adrian" wrote in message
...
Dave Farrance wrote:
wrote:

And now you've told the world and your past customers you woffle to
them, good move. Are you applying for the next series of "The
Apprentice"?

What's the betting that "Andy" is "Ian" aka The Tiscali Idiot?

That was my first thought.

He performs a valuable service, letting us see the world from a very unusual
viewpoint. It's a real insight into the minds of those on the fringes of
normality.

Bill

terminology
 

"Werner Heisenberg" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 18 Apr 2008 02:59:05 +0100, "Bill Wright"
wrote:

When talking to customers I now refer to poor quality coax as
'non-digital'
or 'pre-digital' and good quality cable as 'digital'. This is an appalling
simplification and as such is inaccurate and just plain wrong. However, it
has the virture of simplicity, and it seems to get the point across.

Bill

And I bet it's a lot lot cheaper!

What's cheaper than what?

By the way, I only use CT100-type cable, like most good installers.

Bill

terminology (news about cable types)
 

"Brian Gaff" wrote in message
m...
Well we used to have low loss as the buzz word, but exactly how low was
low?
Everything is relative. An old fashioned thin flexibly type of coax, if in
a short run in a high signal area gives fine results, after all.

Originally 'low loss' was a 7.5mm or 8mm cable. It was semi-airspaced and
had a fairly dense copper braid. It was very much better than 'standard'
coax which had solid dielectric and was 5mm OD.
Gradually the quality dropped and dropped until by the mid 80s we had 6mm
stuff with only 15 to 20% braid cover. Modern technology has now given us
some even worse cables.

We now have a situation in which a shortcut way of identifying 'good' cable
exists. Copper foil = good; silver foil = bad. So the lastest thing to
appear from China is cable with a copper colouered foil made from plastic,
sprayed with a conductive substance. This cable is as bad as RG6 but it's
quite hard to spot.

Bill

terminology
 

In article , Bill Wright
scribeth thus

"Ian" wrote in message
...
In message , Bill Wright
writes
When talking to customers I now refer to poor quality coax as
'non-digital'
or 'pre-digital' and good quality cable as 'digital'. This is an appalling
simplification and as such is inaccurate and just plain wrong. However, it
has the virture of simplicity, and it seems to get the point across.

Bill


Is this the slippery slope to recommending "digital" aerials?

I don't think so. It would stick in my throat.

Actually it's hilarious, some of the conversations. They ring up wanting a
digital aerial. I ask where they are and what transmitter they're on (yes it
is possible to winkle this out of them). Then I say, "You don't need a
different aerial." Shocked silence. "But . . .but . . .but . . ." "Look,
I'll come and do one for you if you like but why don't you just buy the new
telly and try it? One thing though. If it works OK, will you promise to ring
me and say thanks?" Some of them do. I suspect that a few ring another, more
co-operative aerial installer.

Bill



The customer is always "Right" never wrong .. but always right even if
they are wrong;)..
--
Tony Sayer