examples of digital rip-off

On 15 Feb, 21:15, "Adrian" wrote:

Well to split hairs over it, a non-wideband antenna. Fair enough, this
isn't any more "analogue" than a wideband antenna is "digital", but if
you're being sold something you don't need, and a new sort of
something at that, then you do at least expect to have one of that
particular new sort supplied, as promised.

A grouped aerial is what is needed nearly every time, being sold a wideband
when it is unnecessary is being ripped off. It looks like you need to learn
more too.

My knowledge of TV aerials is almost zero - I've never owned a TV,
I've never had need to own an aerial.

However in this case my parents were ripped off twice, if not three
times: They were sold an entire aerial and downlead replacement when
it was merely a failed mast. They were promised something particular,
then not delivered it (but charged for it). Now they obviously didn't
need a different type (it works without) but they were either advised
one in good faith (although not delivered) or they were up-sold one
needlessly (a 3rd rip-off).

Andy Dingley wrote:
On 15 Feb, 21:15, "Adrian" wrote:

Well to split hairs over it, a non-wideband antenna. Fair enough,
this isn't any more "analogue" than a wideband antenna is
"digital", but if you're being sold something you don't need, and a
new sort of something at that, then you do at least expect to have
one of that particular new sort supplied, as promised.

A grouped aerial is what is needed nearly every time, being sold a
wideband when it is unnecessary is being ripped off. It looks like
you need to learn more too.

My knowledge of TV aerials is almost zero - I've never owned a TV,
I've never had need to own an aerial.

However in this case my parents were ripped off twice, if not three
times: They were sold an entire aerial and downlead replacement when
it was merely a failed mast. They were promised something particular,
then not delivered it (but charged for it). Now they obviously didn't
need a different type (it works without) but they were either advised
one in good faith (although not delivered) or they were up-sold one
needlessly (a 3rd rip-off).

The chances are, if the mast was in such a bad state then the aerial would
have been too so both would have needed replacing. The old downlead most
likely would not have been digital quality so susceptable to interference,
if the new downlead has copper foil and copper braid then that is what is
required. I doubt that your parents have been ripped off in any way.
--
There's probably no god, so stop worrying and enjoy your life.

Andy Dingley wrote:
On 15 Feb, 21:15, "Adrian" wrote:

Well to split hairs over it, a non-wideband antenna. Fair enough,
this isn't any more "analogue" than a wideband antenna is
"digital", but if you're being sold something you don't need, and a
new sort of something at that, then you do at least expect to have
one of that particular new sort supplied, as promised.

A grouped aerial is what is needed nearly every time, being sold a
wideband when it is unnecessary is being ripped off. It looks like
you need to learn more too.

My knowledge of TV aerials is almost zero - I've never owned a TV,
I've never had need to own an aerial.

However in this case my parents were ripped off twice, if not three
times: They were sold an entire aerial and downlead replacement when
it was merely a failed mast. They were promised something particular,
then not delivered it (but charged for it). Now they obviously didn't
need a different type (it works without) but they were either advised
one in good faith (although not delivered) or they were up-sold one
needlessly (a 3rd rip-off).

I would have thought that if a mast was old enough to fail, it would be
false economy not to replace cheap components like the aerial at the same
time (which was probably the same age as the mast). If the downlead was
brittle and cracking then I'd want that replaced too.

Tim

"Adrian" wrote in message
om...
A grouped aerial is what is needed nearly every time, being sold a
wideband when it is unnecessary is being ripped off. It looks like
you need to learn more too.

The old downlead most likely would not have been digital quality so
susceptable to interference, if the new downlead has copper foil and
copper braid then that is what is required.

In some cases, the digital muxes are on a variety of UHF channels dotted
around the spectrum, whereas the analogue channels are grouped in one place.
The Oxford transmitter has analogue at the high end, but digital all over
the place so a wideband aerial is needed AFAIK - certainly it's what
Wolfbane's site says. In contrast, Bilsdale has the analogue at the low end
and all the muxes in the same part of the spectrum with the exception of one
which is just slightly out of the range of a normal analogue aerial for that
transmitter, so you replace one grouped aerial with another of a slightly
wider range.

I hadn't realised that digital required higher-standard cable. Is that
mainly because muxes at present are transmitted at such low power relative
to analogue and other forms of interference to the mux?

How is the allocation of UHF channels changing with digital switchover? Will
there be any examples of people buying one new aerial to allow them to
receive muxes at the moment and then needing yet another new aerial when DSO
happens?

Presumably the whole point of DSO is that it frees up part of the UHF
spectrum nationally so other equipment can be made which uses this freed-up
spectrum. In that case people whose analogue and digital currently use that
part of the spectrum will need new aerials tuned to the part of the spectrum
that is ued after DSO.

In article , Adrian
scribeth thus
Andy Dingley wrote:
On 15 Feb, 21:15, "Adrian" wrote:

Well to split hairs over it, a non-wideband antenna. Fair enough,
this isn't any more "analogue" than a wideband antenna is
"digital", but if you're being sold something you don't need, and a
new sort of something at that, then you do at least expect to have
one of that particular new sort supplied, as promised.

A grouped aerial is what is needed nearly every time, being sold a
wideband when it is unnecessary is being ripped off. It looks like
you need to learn more too.

My knowledge of TV aerials is almost zero - I've never owned a TV,
I've never had need to own an aerial.

However in this case my parents were ripped off twice, if not three
times: They were sold an entire aerial and downlead replacement when
it was merely a failed mast. They were promised something particular,
then not delivered it (but charged for it). Now they obviously didn't
need a different type (it works without) but they were either advised
one in good faith (although not delivered) or they were up-sold one
needlessly (a 3rd rip-off).

The chances are, if the mast was in such a bad state then the aerial would
have been too so both would have needed replacing. The old downlead most
likely would not have been digital quality so susceptable to interference,
if the new downlead has copper foil and copper braid then that is what is
required. I doubt that your parents have been ripped off in any way.

If your asked to "repair" an aerial system are you doing the customer a
favour in just replacing the part affected like say a lash wire thats
totally corroded and leave the rest or is it better to change the whole
thing as that it should all be OK for many years to come..

So perhaps the customer is better off long term.

But what if you do change the wire but at the same time the aerial which
is donkeys years old develops an intermittent connection which causes a
problem with the reception is the punter going to swallow your
explanation or do you think that the rigger should carry the loss of
replacing the aerial this time FOC?..

Which also leaves the original downlead in place?.....
--
Tony Sayer

In article fb789f3e-2f3e-428c-9042-c03ea2240840
@s20g2000yqh.googlegroups.com, Andy Dingley says...

However in this case my parents were ripped off twice, if not three
times: They were sold an entire aerial and downlead replacement when
it was merely a failed mast.

That's usually because the aerial is rotted onto the mast so the only
way to remove it is to break it and the co-ax will be most likely full
of water and the copper core and braid at the antenna end will be
corroded to hell if it's more than a couple of years old so would give
poor connectivity to the new antenna.


--
Conor

I only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow isn't
looking good either. - Scott Adams

In article , Tim Downie says...

I would have thought that if a mast was old enough to fail, it would be
false economy not to replace cheap components like the aerial at the same
time (which was probably the same age as the mast). If the downlead was
brittle and cracking then I'd want that replaced too.

Seconded. The expensive part of the job is the labour. It's a false
economy not to replace it.




--
Conor

I only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow isn't
looking good either. - Scott Adams

In article ,
Mortimer wrote:

I hadn't realised that digital required higher-standard cable. Is that
mainly because muxes at present are transmitted at such low power
relative to analogue and other forms of interference to the mux?

Most of the older cable in use had very little copper braid and the
screening properties were much reduced. Impulsive interference, from say
passing cars, isn't too much of a problem on analogue tv - simply the odd
black or white flash on the screen - but with digital the effect is a
complete freeze or total break up of the picture. Actually, on analogue tv
the problem could be far worse than the odd flash - if you were looking at
Ceefax - which would also suffer errors on the displayed page.

"Digital downlead" is simply another way of saying decent quality downlead,
with proper screening. It's always been available, but you could get away
without it on analogue.

My own installation put up by myself in 1977 is still working perfectly on
digital since it was a decent quality job.

--
From KT24 - in "Leafy Surrey"

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.11

"Agamemnon" wrote in message
. uk...

"Adrian" wrote in message
om...
Andy Dingley wrote:
On 15 Feb, 11:01, "Adrian" wrote:

What do you mean by, an _analogue_ antenna?

Well to split hairs over it, a non-wideband antenna. Fair enough, this
isn't any more "analogue" than a wideband antenna is "digital", but if
you're being sold something you don't need, and a new sort of
something at that, then you do at least expect to have one of that
particular new sort supplied, as promised.

A grouped aerial is what is needed nearly every time, being sold a
wideband when it is unnecessary is being ripped off. It looks like you
need to learn more too.

And what if there are new digital multiplexes placed on the channels
outside the band the aerial was designed for after the spectrum is sold
off? He'll have to have yet another new aerial installed. Rip-off.

This is becoming a dilemma. Of course we want to use grouped aerials because
of their superior performance, but who knows what the future holds?

Bill

In article , charles
scribeth thus
In article ,
Mortimer wrote:

I hadn't realised that digital required higher-standard cable. Is that
mainly because muxes at present are transmitted at such low power
relative to analogue and other forms of interference to the mux?

Most of the older cable in use had very little copper braid and the
screening properties were much reduced. Impulsive interference, from say
passing cars, isn't too much of a problem on analogue tv - simply the odd
black or white flash on the screen - but with digital the effect is a
complete freeze or total break up of the picture.

Is there -that- much impulse noise around these days?..

I can't recall the last time I ever heard any in the car on FM, and no
we're not blessed with hugely powerful signals in the Cambridge area....


--
Tony Sayer