More aerial rip-offs

I have a piece in this month's Wotsat (April 2008) in which I discuss the
fact that the over-long time scale for ASO/DSO is allowing some aerial
installers an extended period in which to rip off the public.

Today I saw evidence that at least one local council is getting ripped off
as well. I happened to drive past a large estate of council-owned OAP
bungalows. I know the area quite well because I used to install in that area
for DER and others. Reception there is quite good, and the majority of the
residents have had no need to improve on the loft aerial installed by the
council when the bungalows were built. I suppose about 20% have had outside
aerials installed, and these are all simple ten-element types on short
masts. Today I was astonished to see that every bungalow has a rather thin
ten foot mast with a large wideband high gain aerial at the top. The masts
have been fitted into 12" fascia brackets on the brickwork -- totally
inadequate for the loading. So, I guess some council official has decided to
'do something' about the coming analogue switch-off, and in his ignorance
has had large numbers of these absurd monstrosities installed, at public
expense of course. Why don't these people do a bit of research before they
start throwing our money away? Even if we accept that that the upgrade of TV
aerials on council houses is a jusifiable expense, these installations
should have been small cheap ten-element aerials on five foot masts. Today
was windy, and the flimsy masts with their heavy loads were whipping about
like the fishing rods on Cleethorpes Pier. These aerials will fall over in
ones and twos over the next few years, and no doubt our money will be used
to fix them back in place. Meanwhile the pleasant estate is festooned with a
forest of totally unneccessary large aerials -- and what an eyesore they
are!

Bill

"Bill Wright" wrote in message
...
I have a piece in this month's Wotsat (April 2008) in which I discuss the
fact that the over-long time scale for ASO/DSO is allowing some aerial
installers an extended period in which to rip off the public.

Today I saw evidence that at least one local council is getting ripped off
as well. I happened to drive past a large estate of council-owned OAP
bungalows. I know the area quite well because I used to install in that
area for DER and others. Reception there is quite good, and the majority
of the residents have had no need to improve on the loft aerial installed
by the council when the bungalows were built. I suppose about 20% have had
outside aerials installed, and these are all simple ten-element types on
short masts. Today I was astonished to see that every bungalow has a
rather thin ten foot mast with a large wideband high gain aerial at the
top. The masts have been fitted into 12" fascia brackets on the
brickwork -- totally inadequate for the loading. So, I guess some council
official has decided to 'do something' about the coming analogue
switch-off, and in his ignorance has had large numbers of these absurd
monstrosities installed, at public expense of course. Why don't these
people do a bit of research before they start throwing our money away?
Even if we accept that that the upgrade of TV aerials on council houses is
a jusifiable expense, these installations should have been small cheap
ten-element aerials on five foot masts. Today was windy, and the flimsy
masts with their heavy loads were whipping about like the fishing rods on
Cleethorpes Pier. These aerials will fall over in ones and twos over the
next few years, and no doubt our money will be used to fix them back in
place. Meanwhile the pleasant estate is festooned with a forest of totally
unneccessary large aerials -- and what an eyesore they are!

Bill


My Father in Law is in a "Council" Bungalow handled by Sentinal
Housing........and he pays for his aerial(s)...............or should he,
must look into that for him. I tried a digital box and it pixelated on
almost all channels. At 85 he is happy with 4 channels.

In article , Bill Wright
scribeth thus
I have a piece in this month's Wotsat (April 2008) in which I discuss the
fact that the over-long time scale for ASO/DSO is allowing some aerial
installers an extended period in which to rip off the public.

Today I saw evidence that at least one local council is getting ripped off
as well. I happened to drive past a large estate of council-owned OAP
bungalows. I know the area quite well because I used to install in that area
for DER and others. Reception there is quite good, and the majority of the
residents have had no need to improve on the loft aerial installed by the
council when the bungalows were built. I suppose about 20% have had outside
aerials installed, and these are all simple ten-element types on short
masts. Today I was astonished to see that every bungalow has a rather thin
ten foot mast with a large wideband high gain aerial at the top. The masts
have been fitted into 12" fascia brackets on the brickwork -- totally
inadequate for the loading. So, I guess some council official has decided to
'do something' about the coming analogue switch-off, and in his ignorance
has had large numbers of these absurd monstrosities installed, at public
expense of course. Why don't these people do a bit of research before they
start throwing our money away? Even if we accept that that the upgrade of TV
aerials on council houses is a jusifiable expense, these installations
should have been small cheap ten-element aerials on five foot masts. Today
was windy, and the flimsy masts with their heavy loads were whipping about
like the fishing rods on Cleethorpes Pier. These aerials will fall over in
ones and twos over the next few years, and no doubt our money will be used
to fix them back in place. Meanwhile the pleasant estate is festooned with a
forest of totally unneccessary large aerials -- and what an eyesore they
are!

Bill



Why not write and tell them?..

Might get some "consultancy" work out of them?..
--
Tony Sayer

"Bill Wright" wrote in message
...
I have a piece in this month's Wotsat (April 2008) in which I discuss the
fact that the over-long time scale for ASO/DSO is allowing some aerial
installers an extended period in which to rip off the public.

Today I saw evidence that at least one local council is getting ripped off
as well. I happened to drive past a large estate of council-owned OAP
bungalows. I know the area quite well because I used to install in that
area for DER and others. Reception there is quite good, and the majority
of the residents have had no need to improve on the loft aerial installed
by the council when the bungalows were built. I suppose about 20% have had
outside aerials installed, and these are all simple ten-element types on
short masts. Today I was astonished to see that every bungalow has a
rather thin ten foot mast with a large wideband high gain aerial at the
top. The masts have been fitted into 12" fascia brackets on the
brickwork -- totally inadequate for the loading. So, I guess some council
official has decided to 'do something' about the coming analogue
switch-off, and in his ignorance has had large numbers of these absurd
monstrosities installed, at public expense of course. Why don't these
people do a bit of research before they start throwing our money away?
Even if we accept that that the upgrade of TV aerials on council houses is
a jusifiable expense, these installations should have been small cheap
ten-element aerials on five foot masts. Today was windy, and the flimsy
masts with their heavy loads were whipping about like the fishing rods on
Cleethorpes Pier. These aerials will fall over in ones and twos over the
next few years, and no doubt our money will be used to fix them back in
place. Meanwhile the pleasant estate is festooned with a forest of totally
unneccessary large aerials -- and what an eyesore they are!

Bill


Disgraceful isn't it. Around my way a small TCX10a on a simple short mast
normally brings in about 25dBmV on analogue channels.

Yet when I drive around and see new installations they are all high gain
wideband aerials on 10ft / 12 ft masts which is just silly.

I know a company who cover this area that charges £95 for a 10 element
install including brackets, but £220 for a high gain, an extra £65 for a
10ft mast, and an extra £45 for a large cradle bracket.

So £95 or £330. You can see why it happens.

Disgraceful isn't it. Around my way a small TCX10a on a simple short mast
normally brings in about 25dBmV on analogue channels.

Yet when I drive around and see new installations they are all high gain
wideband aerials on 10ft / 12 ft masts which is just silly.

I know a company who cover this area that charges £95 for a 10 element
install including brackets, but £220 for a high gain, an extra £65 for a
10ft mast, and an extra £45 for a large cradle bracket.

So £95 or £330. You can see why it happens.


Yes, and being a cynic I wonder if the customer who insists on the basic
installation has it "rigged" so that it never works to the optimum.
Mind you, I bet the basic installation is a horrible contract 10W rather
than a grouped aerial.

On Fri, 21 Mar 2008 17:16:33 -0000, Bill Wright wrote:
I have a piece in this month's Wotsat (April 2008) in which I discuss the
fact that the over-long time scale for ASO/DSO is allowing some aerial
installers an extended period in which to rip off the public.

Today I saw evidence that at least one local council is getting ripped off
as well. I happened to drive past a large estate of council-owned OAP
bungalows. I know the area quite well because I used to install in that area
for DER and others. Reception there is quite good, and the majority of the
residents have had no need to improve on the loft aerial installed by the
council when the bungalows were built. I suppose about 20% have had outside
aerials installed, and these are all simple ten-element types on short
masts. Today I was astonished to see that every bungalow has a rather thin
ten foot mast with a large wideband high gain aerial at the top. The masts
have been fitted into 12" fascia brackets on the brickwork -- totally
inadequate for the loading. So, I guess some council official has decided to
'do something' about the coming analogue switch-off, and in his ignorance
has had large numbers of these absurd monstrosities installed, at public
expense of course. Why don't these people do a bit of research before they
start throwing our money away?

Bill, you've answered your own question. They don't care, because it's
our money - not theirs that they're wasting. All they have to do when
they need more is to jack up the council tax. No-one can stop them, or
even question how they spend it. As it is, I wouldn't be suprised if it
turned out that the installer is related to a councellor somehow.
(Just got my c/t "demand" for next year. 11 consecutive above-inflation
rises).

--
.................................................. .........................
.. never trust a man who, when left alone ...... Pete Lynch .
.. in a room with a tea cosy ...... Marlow, England .
.. doesn't try it on (Billy Connolly) .....................................

"Bill Wright" wrote in message
...
I have a piece in this month's Wotsat (April 2008) in which I discuss the
fact that the over-long time scale for ASO/DSO is allowing some aerial
installers an extended period in which to rip off the public.

Today I saw evidence that at least one local council is getting ripped off
as well. I happened to drive past a large estate of council-owned OAP
bungalows. I know the area quite well because I used to install in that
area for DER and others. Reception there is quite good, and the majority
of the residents have had no need to improve on the loft aerial installed
by the council when the bungalows were built. I suppose about 20% have had
outside aerials installed, and these are all simple ten-element types on
short masts. Today I was astonished to see that every bungalow has a
rather thin ten foot mast with a large wideband high gain aerial at the
top. The masts have been fitted into 12" fascia brackets on the
brickwork -- totally inadequate for the loading. So, I guess some council
official has decided to 'do something' about the coming analogue
switch-off, and in his ignorance has had large numbers of these absurd
monstrosities installed, at public expense of course. Why don't these
people do a bit of research before they start throwing our money away?
Even if we accept that that the upgrade of TV aerials on council houses is
a jusifiable expense, these installations should have been small cheap
ten-element aerials on five foot masts. Today was windy, and the flimsy
masts with their heavy loads were whipping about like the fishing rods on
Cleethorpes Pier. These aerials will fall over in ones and twos over the
next few years, and no doubt our money will be used to fix them back in
place. Meanwhile the pleasant estate is festooned with a forest of totally
unneccessary large aerials -- and what an eyesore they are!

Bill

Which local council is it and do you know the name of the company contracted
by them?
I would be interested in whether you would report this and make a statement
to stop people being ripped off. No doubt you will get some work from it if
what you say is true.
Have you conducted a survey at all the sites fitted with aerials? I often
find people in councils are related to people they employ.

GT wrote:

Which local council is it and do you know the name of the company contracted
by them?

Ok, folks - different news service/ISP - same idiot ;-)

--
Adrian C

"GT" wrote in message
...
Which local council is it

No doubt you will get some work from it if
what you say is true.
No, you don't ever get work by embarassing the potential employer. All you
do is make an enemy.

Have you conducted a survey at all the sites fitted with aerials?
If you mean a signal survey, the area in question is substantially flat and
there are no significant obstructions. I'm confident that my general
knowledge of the area is adequate for me to generalise about reception.


I often find people in councils are related to people they employ.
I would agree with you that petty corruption in the lower levels of local
government is very probably a common occurrance.

Bill

Meanwhile the pleasant estate is festooned with a forest of totally
unneccessary large aerials -- and what an eyesore they are!

How long will it take for people like council officials to realise that
nowadays an "ordinary" aerial is far bigger, and far more of an eyesore than
a Sky dish? Instead of trying to stop people in flats and conservation areas
from getting Sky dishes, they should be encouraging them, because Sky dishes
are a lot more discreet than the sort of aerials they are using.