Aerial costs?
 

Bill Wright wrote:
To all the professional installers, here's a bit of philosophy:

Gentlemen, just once in a while you meet a customer like Edward. You all
know from experience that arguing with him is a waste of time. You all
should know that the thing to do is bid him a civil 'good afternoon' and
then drive off. He might be right; he might be wrong. He might be a decent
chap; he might be bounder. But who cares? Just drive away. You aren't here
to put the world right, you're here to make a big fat wedge of money every
single day.

The skill is in identifying these people before you are committed. Once you
have the ladders off the van it's harder to withdraw. Once they owe you
money they have you over a barrel.

Remember that the 0.1% of people who are trouble are the 0.1% of your income
that you pay your highest tax rate on. So don't be afraid to drive away. If
you have gone for a year and you haven't sussed out Mr Trouble at least
twice, then you are making your life unneccessarily hard.

Always have the thought in your mind: I can just disengage at this point.
All I have to do is drive away. There's no glory in struggling with these
situations.

By the way, in the old days all the riggers in this area would take back
aerials that weren't paid for, and would write 'won't pay' on the chimney
(out of sight of the ground). We also used to ring round and warn each other
about awkward people.

Those who read this group will know that I believe strongly in giving people
a far deal and doing a top class job. But I also believe in looking after
number one, and that means ditching customers who set out to make things
difficult.

I've no doubt that someone who isn't self-employed will berate me for this
post. Well, never mind.

Bill



Bill, excellent reply. Totally agree and have taken note. Nice touch
with marking the chimney with won't pay.

Glenn.

--

Glenn Millar - TV Aerials

www.glennmillar.plus.com

http://tinyurl.com/glennmillar-tvaerials

Aerial costs?
 

In article , Bill Wright
scribeth thus
You can't see
radio waves and no amount of skill will tell you what signal level the
aerial is producing at the bottom of the downlead.

A good "old fashioned" rigger will have a feel for these things.

Yes, well I'm a good old fashioned rigger and I can tell you that you're
talking total ********.

Bill



He does that all the time;(..

Well lets be kind .. almost al the time;!...
--
Tony Sayer

Aerial costs?
 

In article ,
Edward W. Thompson wrote:
As to your advice, I would not want to deal with a contractor with
your attitude. The client has a right to expect fairness, it appears
that many in your industry simply see an opportunity to take advantage
of the gullibility or their clients.

You don't have to deal with any particular contractor. Non have a
monopoly. Ask for quotes from several and take your pick. Ask neighbours
who they've used. But trying and impose your rather strange views on what
things should cost is nonsense - horse to water, etc.

--
*I speak fluent patriarchy but it's not my mother tongue

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Aerial costs?
 

In article , Edward W. Thompson
scribeth thus

On Tue, 16 Sep 2008 16:58:10 +0100, tony sayer
wrote:

To end my contribution to the thread, a local reputable CAI contractor
has quoted £50 to supply and fit a DAB dipole to my existing mast if
it is accessible by ladder only (which it is) or £90 if it must be
accessed from the roof. I assume the difference being whether it is a
one or two man job.

Where is this you live again that DAB is so bad that you need an outdoor
aerial?..

Most of the time I don't but under certain weather conditions I get
'boiling mud'. Classic FM seems to be immune but all BBC stations are
severely affected.

The TV aerial is mounted on the chimney stack which is close to
several large trees. TV reception is OK. When the 'first' erector
mounted a dipole on the same mast we got absolutely no reception. The
erector assure me this is the first time this has ever happened. They
didn't suggest the problem may be the trees. They were on the phone
to others for advice so as without result, I assume none had any
ideas.

The internal aerial is on a wall on the ground floor (standard wire
type that came with the set (Onyx)) on the same side of the house as
the trees. We don't receive a large number of stations but all the
ones we are interested in, that is Classic FM and the BBC1, 2, 3 and
4.

Looking around the neighbourhood (Arnold, Nottingham, close to the A60
if you know the area) I don't see any external DAB aerials so it is
possible (I suppose) that the problem (if there is a problem) is site
specific. Maybe a 'directional aerial' will fix it.

I find the whole business very strange but I don't have any
significant wireless knowledge to make meaningful technical
assessment. I assume the dipole aerial being used was suitable, it
certainly said it was suitable for DABl on the box. The cabling
connections (one at each end) were checked and rechecked. The aerial
was moved to every direction possible, but no signal or at least the
signal strength was insufficient.

The Guys doing the job had no meter to measure the signal being
received so I suppose some will comment 'Cowboys' but they did their
best, spent considerable time, and didn't suggest there was a charge
and were profuse with apologies.

Its such a shame you didn't have anyone around of the calibre of Bill
Wright who's forgotten more about aerial rigging than most all of the
cowpokes who infest this industry will ever know!..

Despite your other "differences";..

Have you contacted either the BBC reception advice or put your postcode
in any of the Digital prediction sites to see if you ought to be able to
get a good DAB signal?.

I don't know the area but I'd be very surprised if you couldn't get a
DAB signal with an external aerial, even a simple di-pole near a large
urban conurbation!..

However I personally wouldn't bother with DAB for fixed listening you'd
get better audio off a Sky receiver either via Sky or Freesat or good
old FM even!....
--
Tony Sayer

Aerial costs?
 

You disappoint me. You clearly have either not read or choose not to
understand the whole thread which started with a question as to the
cost of supplying and erecting an aerial. I suggested a costing model
which I acknowledged was based upon assumptions and suggested others
may like to correct both the assumptions and the figures used.

The response was interesting and I assume came from those in the
trade. The response was not to suggest correct figures or the basis
of the 'model' but to personally attack me, as you have done. No one
has provided alternative figures or an alternative costing model.

A reasonable person would no doubt assume that those in the trade have
something to hide, that is they are pricing their work well over the
cost, gouging I think it is called. It appears that the concept of
'fairness' and 'honesty' by many (certainly not all) trades persons
are foreign, from you contribution(s) you and 'Carpy' come to mind.

As to your advice, I would not want to deal with a contractor with
your attitude. The client has a right to expect fairness, it appears
that many in your industry simply see an opportunity to take advantage
of the gullibility or their clients.

I hope many of those who have resorted to abuse in this thread may
reflect and feel somewhat ashamed, for others I am afraid they are
simply nasty pieces of work. If the cap fits, wear it!

BTW Edward what do you -do- to earn a crust?. If you don't mind me
asking?..
--
Tony Sayer

Self employed and proud of it since 1985

Aerial costs?
 

On 18/09/2008 09:23, tony sayer wrote:

I don't know the area but I'd be very surprised if you couldn't get a
DAB signal with an external aerial, even a simple di-pole near a large
urban conurbation!..

The area is at the foot of the Mapperley ridge, though the situation may
have changed since the failed installation, as the BBC commissioned
their transmitter at the top of the ridge on 29th August 2008, I believe
the commercial ensembles were already transmitted from there.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/reception/trans...al_radio.shtml

Aerial costs?
 

In article , Andy Burns
scribeth thus
On 18/09/2008 09:23, tony sayer wrote:

I don't know the area but I'd be very surprised if you couldn't get a
DAB signal with an external aerial, even a simple di-pole near a large
urban conurbation!..

The area is at the foot of the Mapperley ridge, though the situation may
have changed since the failed installation, as the BBC commissioned
their transmitter at the top of the ridge on 29th August 2008, I believe
the commercial ensembles were already transmitted from there.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/reception/trans...al_radio.shtml

Well that looks like it should have sorted any reception problems out
then!..

Perhaps a re-scan is in order?..
--
Tony Sayer

Aerial costs?
 

On 18/09/2008 10:10, tony sayer wrote:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/reception/trans...al_radio.shtml

Well that looks like it should have sorted any reception problems out
then!..

Perhaps a re-scan is in order?..

Shouldn't be necessary, the BBC national ensemble is an SFN, and the
local BBC stations are carried by a commercial ensemble.

I can't remember back to EWT's original thread which stations were
problematic, but it would be interesting to know if he's noticed an
improvement in the past couple of weeks.

Aerial costs?
 

"Edward W. Thompson" wrote in message
...
You disappoint me. You clearly have either not read or choose not to
understand the whole thread which started with a question as to the
cost of supplying and erecting an aerial. I suggested a costing model
which I acknowledged was based upon assumptions and suggested others
may like to correct both the assumptions and the figures used.

I've read it, but I'm not interested in it. Your comments do not concern me
because I don't have to trade with you. I was addressing the other riggers
here, advising the less experienced that they should walk away from trouble.


The response was interesting and I assume came from those in the
trade. The response was not to suggest correct figures or the basis
of the 'model' but to personally attack me, as you have done.
No I haven't. Quote me attacking you, giving full context.

No one
has provided alternative figures or an alternative costing model.
Why should they? It's a free market. You can like it or lump it. Why don't
you get Sky to justify their costs? Why don't you get motorway filling
stations to justify the extra 45p per gallon they charge? I keep telling you
the world doesn't work on 'cost+' any more, it works on what the market will
stand. So your arguments are irrelevant to the present age.


A reasonable person would no doubt assume that those in the trade have
something to hide, that is they are pricing their work well over the
cost, gouging I think it is called.
Of course we're pricing well over the cost. That's because the market will
stand it. It's because we can. It's because we live in a capitalist society.
It's because we like a nice fat income. It's what everybody does.

It appears that the concept of
'fairness' and 'honesty' by many (certainly not all) trades persons
are foreign, from you contribution(s) you and 'Carpy' come to mind.
How dare you suggest I am dishonest? I am being absolutely honest with you.
I am absolutely honest with everybody.

As to your advice, I would not want to deal with a contractor with
your attitude. The client has a right to expect fairness, it appears
that many in your industry simply see an opportunity to take advantage
of the gullibility or their clients.
Many in our industry do just that. But many of us don't. Fact is, the those
of us who do a good job have people queuing up for our services.

Bill

Aerial costs?
 

On Thu, 18 Sep 2008 13:45:01 +0100, Bill Wright wrote:
I keep telling you the world doesn't work on 'cost+' any more,
it works on what the market will stand.

This is *absolutely true*.

MIT behavioral economist Dan Ariely has concluded from his experiments
that

"Our willingness to pay, it turns out, is not just a function of the
utility of the pleasure that we expect to get from [the item], it's
also influenced by all kinds of irrelevant factors that change our
psychology but *not our economic reasoning*"

More at http://www.npr.ORG/templates/story/story.php?storyId=19231906,
and the site devoted to the subject is at

http://www.predictablyirrational.com/

And people have a poor perception of prices --

QUOTE
Researchers at Cornell University say they've discovered something
strange about the way consumers absorb price information. They say when
the price of an item is in a round number, people perceive it as higher
than an odd number. In other words, people think a $3,000 car is more
expensive than one priced at $3,129.50. The finding has implications
for people trying to sell their homes.
UNQUOTE

Full report at

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=89140729

And furthermore, people often conclude that if something has a0
higher price, then it is of better quality, even when they have
sampled the goods for themselves.

From http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/id...es/2008/02/24/
grape_expectations/

QUOTE
The Boston Globe -- Grape expectations

What wine can tell us about the nature of reality + By Jonah Lehrer
February 24, 2008

SCIENTISTS AT CALTECH and Stanford recently published the results of a
peculiar wine tasting. They provided people with cabernet sauvignons at
various price points, with bottles ranging from $5 to $90. Although the
tasters were told that all the wines were different, the scientists
were in fact presenting the same wines at different prices.

The subjects consistently reported that the more expensive wines tasted
better, even when they were actually identical to cheaper wines.
UNQUOTE