DAB Aerial

In article , Edward W. Thompson wrote:
Absolutely. A good aerial installer is highly skilled. Same as any other
trade. That there are plenty of unskilled cowboys around doesn't alter
this.

I cannot believe installing aerials is a skilled occupation never mind
the 'highly' part.

If it doesn't require skill, why can't everybody do it? Have a look at Bill's
"Rogues Gallery" for evidence of what happens when this job is attempted
without skill.

The installer has to have some knowledge of course
and needs to be able to climb a ladder and work without falling off. I
suspect that the knowledge required for the successful installation of
most aerials in most locations can be learned in a few weeks by
someone who is physically fit and with average intelligence (not sure
how this is measured :-)).

I don't think there's a reliable way of defining exactly what "intelligence"
is, never mind how to measure it. I remember doing "intelligence tests" as a
child, and they all seemed to be exercises in completely pointless tasks
involving meaningless patterns. I remember being good at them, or at least
enjoying them, for reasons that were nothing to do with their content; Unlike
normal schoolwork they were nearly always "multiple choice" questions that
required hardly any writing to answer them, so I'm not sure what relevant
ability they actually measured.

But if you want somebody to put up television aerials, or any other meaningful
useful task in the real world, there's a very easy way to assess how well they
understand it, and how to adapt to the myriad circumstances in which it has to
be done. Just set them to do it and see how well they manage, or look at the
results of someone who's been doing it for some time. Do the television aerials
stay up without weakening the structures to which they are attached? Do they
give good reception? If yes to both, are they still true after several years?
Whatever the task, it will become clear very soon that some people can do it
and some can't, so there must be some personal quality that separates the two,
so it would be useful to have a word for it. If you're not happy with the word
"skill", then I'd be interested to know what you'd suggest instead, and why.

Rod.
--
Virtual Access V6.3 free usenet/email software from
http://sourceforge.net/projects/virtual-access/

In article ,
Edward W. Thompson wrote:
I cannot believe installing aerials is a skilled occupation never mind
the 'highly' part.

That's a common reaction from those who don't understand things.

The installer has to have some knowledge of course
and needs to be able to climb a ladder and work without falling off. I
suspect that the knowledge required for the successful installation of
most aerials in most locations can be learned in a few weeks by
someone who is physically fit and with average intelligence (not sure
how this is measured :-)). No doubt a small number of jobs requires
more experience and knowledge but not most.

And exactly the same applies to any trade.

I certainly do not consider the skills and experience required to
install an aerial are equal to those required by an indentured time
served tradesman (5 years apprenticeship). Do they exist any more or
are they my generation only?.

Apprenticeships have pretty well died out. They were, after all, a form of
slave labour.

--
*Laugh alone and the world thinks you're an idiot.

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

On Thu, 31 Jul 2008 15:11:25 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article ,
Edward W. Thompson wrote:
I cannot believe installing aerials is a skilled occupation never mind
the 'highly' part.

That's a common reaction from those who don't understand things.

The installer has to have some knowledge of course
and needs to be able to climb a ladder and work without falling off. I
suspect that the knowledge required for the successful installation of
most aerials in most locations can be learned in a few weeks by
someone who is physically fit and with average intelligence (not sure
how this is measured :-)). No doubt a small number of jobs requires
more experience and knowledge but not most.

And exactly the same applies to any trade.
To quote you own words "That's a common reaction from those who don't
understand things". From your contribution to this thread you
certainly qualify as someone who 'don't understand things. '
Nonetheless please don't let me deflate the over blown opinion of
yourself :-). I'm sure I won't..

I certainly do not consider the skills and experience required to
install an aerial are equal to those required by an indentured time
served tradesman (5 years apprenticeship). Do they exist any more or
are they my generation only?.

Apprenticeships have pretty well died out. They were, after all, a form of
slave labour.
To repeat your own comment "That's a common reaction from those who
don't understand things".

I fear your very stupid comment, will come to haunt you :-).

In article ,
Edward W. Thompson wrote:

On Thu, 31 Jul 2008 15:11:25 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article ,
Edward W. Thompson wrote:
I cannot believe installing aerials is a skilled occupation never mind
the 'highly' part.

That's a common reaction from those who don't understand things.

The installer has to have some knowledge of course
and needs to be able to climb a ladder and work without falling off. I
suspect that the knowledge required for the successful installation of
most aerials in most locations can be learned in a few weeks by
someone who is physically fit and with average intelligence (not sure
how this is measured :-)). No doubt a small number of jobs requires
more experience and knowledge but not most.

And exactly the same applies to any trade.

To quote you own words "That's a common reaction from those who don't
understand things". From your contribution to this thread you
certainly qualify as someone who 'don't understand things. '
Nonetheless please don't let me deflate the over blown opinion of
yourself :-). I'm sure I won't..

Well, tell us about all the aerial and satellite installations you have
done - just so others can judge if you're speaking from experience or just
theory...

I certainly do not consider the skills and experience required to
install an aerial are equal to those required by an indentured time
served tradesman (5 years apprenticeship). Do they exist any more or
are they my generation only?.

Apprenticeships have pretty well died out. They were, after all, a form
of slave labour.

To repeat your own comment "That's a common reaction from those who
don't understand things".

Although they may have served fairly well once, things move on. Perhaps
you've not noticed the improvements in mobility and communications which
might make the attachment of a 'lad' to a journeyman for training the most
efficient training method? Of course that's not to say what we have now is
the very best option...

I fear your very stupid comment, will come to haunt you :-).

And just what is your 'trade'? Near enough all individual trades poo poo
other trades as not being as 'skilled' as them. Twas ever thus. And if
you'd ever worked in a trade or with them you'd know this.

--
*If we weren't meant to eat animals, why are they made of meat?

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

On Tue, 29 Jul 2008 08:12:42 +0100, Edward W. Thompson
wrote:


On Mon, 28 Jul 2008 08:22:11 +0100, charles
wrote:

In article ,
Edward W. Thompson wrote:

On Sun, 27 Jul 2008 08:33:12 +0100, Mike Henry
wrote:

In , Edward W. Thompson
wrote:

In my view a fair
hourly charge out rate for this work would be of the order of £50/hour
to include all overheads.

As if you didn't read any of the post from yesterday! People have
explained to you that those figures are wrong, and £50/hour is
unrealistically low and can't possibly include all the legally required
overheads, so why do you persist with it?


I don't think I am quite as stupid as you seem to think. Just because
someone say I am wrong does not make that true unless facts are
provided. I accept that it appears that £50/hour is less than
many/most aerial installers charge, my own experience supports that,
but that doesn't mean it is not excessive (a rip-off) for the work
done and the skills required.

[Snip]

Taking 'equipment' into account, if we allow £10,000 for a van and say
£5000 for other equipment

I wonder when you last went shopping for these things? List price of a
Transit - for instance - is over £20K.

Ok so we wil double the equipment budget to £30k and correspondingly
increase the allowance/hour for servicing to £5/hour. This still does
not significantly increase the 'fair' hourly rate.

amortized over 5 years at 8% (I think that's reasonable and possibly
high) the cost will be of the order of £300/month which equates to
£2.57/chargeable hour.(hope my arithmetic is correct :-)).

and this van & equipment needs maintaining......

and you've forgotten insurance - personal accident and public liability,
both will be high because ladders are involved

I'vce already included an allowance for 'overheads' or don't you know
what 'overheads' are?

Perhaps you would care to justify a higher hourly rate with your
figures? Taking another trade as an example, painters and decorators
seem very happy with £25/hour. Are their overheads less, and is their
trade less skilled?

Yes. I've never heard of decorators needing expensive test equipment, nor
do they tend to have their van full of paint - they wait for the job and
then buy the materials.

Absolute nitpicking. I have include £5000 ( now modified to £10,000
for equipment. An adequate amount by anyone's standard.

An adequate amount by YOUR standards perhaps, but not necessarliy by
the standards of others.


I do not object to paying a fair price for work and services but I do
object to being ripped off.

but you've been "ripped off" because of your belief as to what is a fair
price.

It is not a belief. I have shown how I arrived at the 'fair' hourly
rate and I find it very interesting not to say enlightening that no
one, so far, seems to be able to show why the hourly man rate should
be closer to £100/hour than £50/hour. Is that perhaps you/they can't?

What you've shown is how you've arrived at a rate that you consider to
be fair. This may not meet up with the rate that other people think is
fair.

and, I am not, and never have been, in the aerial trade.

I accept that installing aerials is not a trade where you will 'make'
your fortune. Most hard working people will not make a fortune but
there is a distinct trend for some in certain trades to charge
unreasonably high prices and justify the practice by showing that is
what people are willing to pay (my definition of rip-off). They pay
it either because they have no choice, because they are gullible or
because they have more money than sense.

This is called free amrket economics. People are free to ask what they
think reflects a reasonable price for their labour, having considered
the nature of the work, the amount of competion that exists and the
liklehood of finding customers willing/able to pay. The customer is
free to chose not to employ anyone if they are not happy with the
price quoted or the apparent quality of the work carried out for
others

As an example I needed two radiators, that were grossly undersized,
to be replaced by radiators of a suitable size. The retail price of
the radiators (Internet 'Screwfix' price) was £65/radiator (6000BTU).
I assume the trade price was likely to be less but perhaps not
significantly less. I was quoted by two 'Central Heating' contractors
£400.00 (plus minus a few pennies) for the job (supply and fit) and
one contractor £220.00. The contractor who quoted £220 did the job
and yes he was a member of the relevant trade association ( CORGI,
IoP). The work took a little more than one hour. Although I said to
use the existing valves, he replaced one TRV and the other valves as
he wasn't 'happy' with their condition. I assume the 'margin' in the
price allowed for that.

I may be wrong, but you really don't need a corgi registered gas
fitter to fit a radiator.

The plumber that carried the work out for you was correct in changing
the valves - the existing ones were of unknown age, and their
efficiency was also unknown. he has probably saved you the grief of a
leak and himself the grief of having to return to an unhappy customer
(you) to fix a problem that would not have occured had you taken his
advice.

Now do you seriously think the Contractor who charged £180 less was
working at a loss or do you think, as I do, there was some fundamental
dishonesty by the high bidders? I think this is best described as a
rhetorical question.

There can be no dishonesty in a quote for a job that is higher than
others. in fact i would go so far as to say there is more likely to be
dishonesty in too low a quited price.
--
Cheers

Peter

On Thu, 31 Jul 2008 06:55:46 +0100, Edward W. Thompson
wrote:


On Wed, 30 Jul 2008 09:00:05 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article ,
charles wrote:
"Cost plus" as a measure of pricing vanished years ago, both in sales
and supply of services. Back in the early 1980s, an accountant friend
asked a brewers marketing even why a pint cost more in London than it
did in Yorkshire. "The market there will bear the extra price." he was
told.

Surely the fact that everything - property costs, labour, transport etc -
cost more in a large city accounts for the difference? After all even the
BBC recognised this by paying London weighting.

I certainly agree with you but it does seem that many aerial
installers work from home and not premises solely dedicated to their
business. It is for this reason that I believe they have 'low'
overheads. Nevertheless those that work in a city will have higher
overheads than those in most rural areas.

Will they? or will the rural installer have greater non-productive
costs - how will the extra distance he has to travel to and from jobs
be reflected in his fuel costs, the cost of extra vehicle maintenance
etc?

I would, on a different point, suggest that a good aerial contractor is
far more than a "man with a van", or "out of work window cleaner with a
spare ladder" as they are known in some quarters. It isn't just a
matter of putting up an aerial connecting the cable and saying "best I
can do". To do the work properly needs considerable knowledge - of radio
wave propagation and behaviour for a start.

Absolutely. A good aerial installer is highly skilled. Same as any other
trade. That there are plenty of unskilled cowboys around doesn't alter
this.


I cannot believe installing aerials is a skilled occupation never mind
the 'highly' part.

Can you install an aerial?

--
Cheers

Peter

Petert wrote:

There can be no dishonesty in a quote for a job that is higher than
others. in fact i would go so far as to say there is more likely to be
dishonesty in too low a quoted price.

Fascinating thread and relevant to many areas where one wishes to get
someone else to do a job that you cannot or do not wish to do yourself.

But here is the quandary: Suppose I have three quotes, one for £100,
and two for £200.

Using the logic that many have applied, the guy charging £100 is likely
to be unskilled, uninsured, and under-equipped to do the job correctly.

That's as may be. Or he could just be desperate for the work.

But how do I know whether either of the guys charging £200 are skilled,
insured, and equipped? Remember, this will be for something I don't
understand properly...

Andy.

On Sat, 02 Aug 2008 14:28:10 +0100, Andy Champ
wrote:

Petert wrote:

There can be no dishonesty in a quote for a job that is higher than
others. in fact i would go so far as to say there is more likely to be
dishonesty in too low a quoted price.

Fascinating thread and relevant to many areas where one wishes to get
someone else to do a job that you cannot or do not wish to do yourself.

But here is the quandary: Suppose I have three quotes, one for £100,
and two for £200.

Using the logic that many have applied, the guy charging £100 is likely
to be unskilled, uninsured, and under-equipped to do the job correctly.

That's as may be. Or he could just be desperate for the work.

But how do I know whether either of the guys charging £200 are skilled,
insured, and equipped? Remember, this will be for something I don't
understand properly...

Andy.

It's a problem - I would suggest that you speak with
neighbours/friends/relatives that have had similar work done recently
- what did they pay? Who did the work? Are they happy with the work
carried out?
--
Cheers

Peter

On Sat, 02 Aug 2008 08:58:24 +0100, Petert
wrote:

On Thu, 31 Jul 2008 06:55:46 +0100, Edward W. Thompson
wrote:


On Wed, 30 Jul 2008 09:00:05 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article ,
charles wrote:
"Cost plus" as a measure of pricing vanished years ago, both in sales
and supply of services. Back in the early 1980s, an accountant friend
asked a brewers marketing even why a pint cost more in London than it
did in Yorkshire. "The market there will bear the extra price." he was
told.

Surely the fact that everything - property costs, labour, transport etc -
cost more in a large city accounts for the difference? After all even the
BBC recognised this by paying London weighting.

I certainly agree with you but it does seem that many aerial
installers work from home and not premises solely dedicated to their
business. It is for this reason that I believe they have 'low'
overheads. Nevertheless those that work in a city will have higher
overheads than those in most rural areas.

Will they? or will the rural installer have greater non-productive
costs - how will the extra distance he has to travel to and from jobs
be reflected in his fuel costs, the cost of extra vehicle maintenance
etc?

I would, on a different point, suggest that a good aerial contractor is
far more than a "man with a van", or "out of work window cleaner with a
spare ladder" as they are known in some quarters. It isn't just a
matter of putting up an aerial connecting the cable and saying "best I
can do". To do the work properly needs considerable knowledge - of radio
wave propagation and behaviour for a start.

Absolutely. A good aerial installer is highly skilled. Same as any other
trade. That there are plenty of unskilled cowboys around doesn't alter
this.


I cannot believe installing aerials is a skilled occupation never mind
the 'highly' part.

Can you install an aerial?

Yes and have done so quite sucessfully. Unfortunately I am of an age
now and suffer badly from osteo arthritis and believe I am no longer
able to do so safely.

On Sat, 02 Aug 2008 08:48:43 +0100, Petert
wrote:

On Tue, 29 Jul 2008 08:12:42 +0100, Edward W. Thompson
wrote:


On Mon, 28 Jul 2008 08:22:11 +0100, charles
wrote:

In article ,
Edward W. Thompson wrote:

On Sun, 27 Jul 2008 08:33:12 +0100, Mike Henry
wrote:

In , Edward W. Thompson
wrote:

In my view a fair
hourly charge out rate for this work would be of the order of £50/hour
to include all overheads.

As if you didn't read any of the post from yesterday! People have
explained to you that those figures are wrong, and £50/hour is
unrealistically low and can't possibly include all the legally required
overheads, so why do you persist with it?


I don't think I am quite as stupid as you seem to think. Just because
someone say I am wrong does not make that true unless facts are
provided. I accept that it appears that £50/hour is less than
many/most aerial installers charge, my own experience supports that,
but that doesn't mean it is not excessive (a rip-off) for the work
done and the skills required.

[Snip]

Taking 'equipment' into account, if we allow £10,000 for a van and say
£5000 for other equipment

I wonder when you last went shopping for these things? List price of a
Transit - for instance - is over £20K.

Ok so we wil double the equipment budget to £30k and correspondingly
increase the allowance/hour for servicing to £5/hour. This still does
not significantly increase the 'fair' hourly rate.

amortized over 5 years at 8% (I think that's reasonable and possibly
high) the cost will be of the order of £300/month which equates to
£2.57/chargeable hour.(hope my arithmetic is correct :-)).

and this van & equipment needs maintaining......

and you've forgotten insurance - personal accident and public liability,
both will be high because ladders are involved

I'vce already included an allowance for 'overheads' or don't you know
what 'overheads' are?

Perhaps you would care to justify a higher hourly rate with your
figures? Taking another trade as an example, painters and decorators
seem very happy with £25/hour. Are their overheads less, and is their
trade less skilled?

Yes. I've never heard of decorators needing expensive test equipment, nor
do they tend to have their van full of paint - they wait for the job and
then buy the materials.

Absolute nitpicking. I have include £5000 ( now modified to £10,000
for equipment. An adequate amount by anyone's standard.

An adequate amount by YOUR standards perhaps, but not necessarliy by
the standards of others.

It has nothing to do with 'standards' and opinions but what is
required to do the job at hand. I really find it difficult to believe
that an aerial installer for dpmestic work requires more than $10,000
worth of tools and equipment. Perhaps someone who knows might advise?

I do not object to paying a fair price for work and services but I do
object to being ripped off.

but you've been "ripped off" because of your belief as to what is a fair
price.

It is not a belief. I have shown how I arrived at the 'fair' hourly
rate and I find it very interesting not to say enlightening that no
one, so far, seems to be able to show why the hourly man rate should
be closer to £100/hour than £50/hour. Is that perhaps you/they can't?

What you've shown is how you've arrived at a rate that you consider to
be fair. This may not meet up with the rate that other people think is
fair.

and, I am not, and never have been, in the aerial trade.

I accept that installing aerials is not a trade where you will 'make'
your fortune. Most hard working people will not make a fortune but
there is a distinct trend for some in certain trades to charge
unreasonably high prices and justify the practice by showing that is
what people are willing to pay (my definition of rip-off). They pay
it either because they have no choice, because they are gullible or
because they have more money than sense.

This is called free amrket economics. People are free to ask what they
think reflects a reasonable price for their labour, having considered
the nature of the work, the amount of competion that exists and the
liklehood of finding customers willing/able to pay. The customer is
free to chose not to employ anyone if they are not happy with the
price quoted or the apparent quality of the work carried out for
others

As an example I needed two radiators, that were grossly undersized,
to be replaced by radiators of a suitable size. The retail price of
the radiators (Internet 'Screwfix' price) was £65/radiator (6000BTU).
I assume the trade price was likely to be less but perhaps not
significantly less. I was quoted by two 'Central Heating' contractors
£400.00 (plus minus a few pennies) for the job (supply and fit) and
one contractor £220.00. The contractor who quoted £220 did the job
and yes he was a member of the relevant trade association ( CORGI,
IoP). The work took a little more than one hour. Although I said to
use the existing valves, he replaced one TRV and the other valves as
he wasn't 'happy' with their condition. I assume the 'margin' in the
price allowed for that.

I may be wrong, but you really don't need a corgi registered gas
fitter to fit a radiator.

Of course not. I put that bit in as I was sure that some, and they
did regardless, would say the person was not qualified.

The plumber that carried the work out for you was correct in changing
the valves - the existing ones were of unknown age, and their
efficiency was also unknown. he has probably saved you the grief of a
leak and himself the grief of having to return to an unhappy customer
(you) to fix a problem that would not have occured had you taken his
advice.

That was his choice and assessment. No tests were carried out so
there was no way of knowing whether or not it was required. As he did
not increase his price for the additional work/cost why would I
complain?

Now do you seriously think the Contractor who charged £180 less was
working at a loss or do you think, as I do, there was some fundamental
dishonesty by the high bidders? I think this is best described as a
rhetorical question.

There can be no dishonesty in a quote for a job that is higher than
others. in fact i would go so far as to say there is more likely to be
dishonesty in too low a quited price.

I don't follow the logic. The 'dishonesty' I refer to relates to
making an excessive profit at the expense of the vulnerable. In
todays society that is regarded as smart business practice, that is
preying on the vulnerable. It seems that several contributors to this
thread support this type of practice. It is this practice that I have
questioned in this thread and am sorry to note with absolutely no
support which points to the sort of society we have become.