examples of digital rip-off

Bill Wright wrote:
As part of the PARAS campaign we need to collect instances in which
vulnerable people have been ripped off as a result of the analogue
switch-off. These could be cases in which people have been conned into
buying an unneccessary aerial, buying a new TV rather than a set top box, or
subscribing to a pay-TV service in order to receive the basic channels.

If you have any examples of this sort of thing please post them here or
contact PARAS on the website. All incidents will remain completely
anonymous.

http://www.paras.org.uk/01-intro.shtml

Bill



For interest, as mentioned in next week's Radio Times for "Rogue Traders:

http://www.radiotimes.com/ListingsSe...s_fullpage.jsp

".....Plus, a TV aerial fitter uses dirty tactics to get a customer to
buy a new aerial and television they don't need. Matt has a neat trick
up his sleeve to catch the rogues red-handed."

We all know the slant that RT will put on it, but who knows they might
actually tell it like it is for once!

Regards,
Richard

Agamemnon wrote:


"Clive George" wrote in message
...
"Agamemnon" wrote in message
news
"Steve Walker" wrote in message
...
Agamemnon wrote:
"James R" wrote in message
...
That was nothing to do with it. That was some old fool who
AGREED to BUY a SCART lead when he did not require one to
connect to an external device. I remember his son moaning on
and on about how stupid his dad was, but in this case the
shop was NOT at fault. The man requested a lead, then agreed
to buy it. He wasn't conned in any way.

He requested nothing of the kind. He was conned into buying a
SCART lead he didn't need by the salesman..

Ignore him, he's usenet's version of a village idiot.

Dick head.

Why are you calling Steve that when he's just supported you?

I thought he was attacking me. If not I apologise.

James R is the latest alias of the Tiscali Idiot.

Erm, now I know I've going to invoke the Wrath of William here, but have
you tried buying a 'banded' aerial of late. A 10 ele maybe, even a 14 or
(at least in B group) even an 18 and you may be lucky and go to a
specilaist aerial supplier, but anything else and certainly all
multibeams AFAIKS are wideband. (Yes Bill, even Blake's.)

I would love to get hold of a back-mounted multi-beam in B group (don't
you just love Emley?) but no luck so far.


Blakes DMX10 Gp A, B, CD/WB
Antiference XG9 B/K
Triax Unix 52 A, B, CD/WB (Back mountable)
Vision A

My neighbour conned himself.

He had a good signal on his "analogue" aerial

He bought a new digital TV.

In his mind he needed a digital aerial.

Bought himself a new aerial. Paid 35 pounds from focus for a gold coloured
aerial. He Took down the perfectly good aerial he already had.

Then could not get new aerial up because he was short and his son was
scared of heights.

Called in a aerial rigger to put up new aerial who did it for 40 pounds.

Now he has a usable digital signal but analogue is poor ( Crystal Palace)

He is happy.


Gary

"Gary" wrote:

My neighbour conned himself.

He had a good signal on his "analogue" aerial

He bought a new digital TV.

In his mind he needed a digital aerial.

Bought himself a new aerial. Paid 35 pounds from focus for a gold coloured
aerial. He Took down the perfectly good aerial he already had.

Then could not get new aerial up because he was short and his son was
scared of heights.

Called in a aerial rigger to put up new aerial who did it for 40 pounds.

Now he has a usable digital signal but analogue is poor ( Crystal Palace)

He is happy.



Why shouldn't he be happy? For a mere £70 he has an aerial that will
meet his digital TV needs for the foreseeable future.

If he has good digital reception, why on earth does he need analogue?

Bruce wrote:
"Gary" wrote:

My neighbour conned himself.

He had a good signal on his "analogue" aerial

He bought a new digital TV.

In his mind he needed a digital aerial.

Bought himself a new aerial. Paid 35 pounds from focus for a gold
coloured aerial. He Took down the perfectly good aerial he already
had.

Then could not get new aerial up because he was short and his son
was scared of heights.

Called in a aerial rigger to put up new aerial who did it for 40
pounds.

Now he has a usable digital signal but analogue is poor ( Crystal
Palace)

He is happy.



Why shouldn't he be happy? For a mere £70 he has an aerial that will
meet his digital TV needs for the foreseeable future.

If he has good digital reception, why on earth does he need analogue?

Except that if it's pointed in the same direction doesn't "poorer analogue
reception = poorer digital reception"?

Tim

Bruce wrote:
"Gary" wrote:

My neighbour conned himself.

He had a good signal on his "analogue" aerial

He bought a new digital TV.

In his mind he needed a digital aerial.

Bought himself a new aerial. Paid 35 pounds from focus for a gold coloured
aerial. He Took down the perfectly good aerial he already had.

Then could not get new aerial up because he was short and his son was
scared of heights.

Called in a aerial rigger to put up new aerial who did it for 40 pounds.

Now he has a usable digital signal but analogue is poor ( Crystal Palace)

He is happy.



Why shouldn't he be happy? For a mere £70 he has an aerial that will
meet his digital TV needs for the foreseeable future.

If he has good digital reception, why on earth does he need analogue?


Doesn't the fact that his GOOD analogue reception has now been replaced
by POOR reception suggest to you in any way that the new installation
might not have been carried out very well?

Would you like to guarantee that 'he has good digital reception' ...
'for the foreseeable future'?

Terry

"Tim Downie" wrote in message
...
Bruce wrote:
"Gary" wrote:

My neighbour conned himself.

He had a good signal on his "analogue" aerial

He bought a new digital TV.

In his mind he needed a digital aerial.

Bought himself a new aerial. Paid 35 pounds from focus for a gold
coloured aerial. He Took down the perfectly good aerial he already
had.

Then could not get new aerial up because he was short and his son
was scared of heights.

Called in a aerial rigger to put up new aerial who did it for 40
pounds.

Now he has a usable digital signal but analogue is poor ( Crystal
Palace)

He is happy.



Why shouldn't he be happy? For a mere £70 he has an aerial that will
meet his digital TV needs for the foreseeable future.

If he has good digital reception, why on earth does he need analogue?

Except that if it's pointed in the same direction doesn't "poorer analogue
reception = poorer digital reception"?

Not if the analogue and digital channels are in different groups (as where I
live) where a wideband aerial is indicated (if you want both from the same
aerial, that is). Interestingly he didn't say "good" digital, he said
usable. One might think that, for digital (but not analogue) good=usable but
only he can say.


--
Bob Mannix
(anti-spam is as easy as 1-2-3 - not)
Tim

"Tim Downie" wrote:
Bruce wrote:

Why shouldn't he be happy? For a mere £70 he has an aerial that will
meet his digital TV needs for the foreseeable future.

If he has good digital reception, why on earth does he need analogue?

Except that if it's pointed in the same direction doesn't "poorer analogue
reception = poorer digital reception"?


My old aerial gave atrocious reception on analogue but usable reception
on most, but not all Freeview channels. My new aerial gives good
digital reception but analogue is still atrocious - not really any
better than before.

It points in exactly the same direction, towards the transmitter. Why
wouldn't it?

Also, with the far better picture quality from Freeview compared to even
the best analogue signal, why on earth would anyone want to watch
analogue? Once you have good Freeview reception, why go back?

In message , Terry Casey
writes
Bruce wrote:
"Gary" wrote:

My neighbour conned himself.

He had a good signal on his "analogue" aerial

He bought a new digital TV.

In his mind he needed a digital aerial.

Bought himself a new aerial. Paid 35 pounds from focus for a gold coloured
aerial. He Took down the perfectly good aerial he already had.

Then could not get new aerial up because he was short and his son was
scared of heights.

Called in a aerial rigger to put up new aerial who did it for 40 pounds.

Now he has a usable digital signal but analogue is poor ( Crystal Palace)

He is happy.
Why shouldn't he be happy? For a mere £70 he has an aerial that
will
meet his digital TV needs for the foreseeable future. If he has
good digital reception, why on earth does he need analogue?


Doesn't the fact that his GOOD analogue reception has now been replaced
by POOR reception suggest to you in any way that the new installation
might not have been carried out very well?

Would you like to guarantee that 'he has good digital reception' ...
'for the foreseeable future'?

Maybe he should have said "good enough digital reception"? However,
although things would have been best left alone, in practice the digital
reception WILL probably be OK for the foreseeable future - especially
when they turn the wick up at CP.
--
Ian