Ofcom report on domestic aerials

http://www.ofcom.org.uk/research/tv/...s_research.pdf

On 12 Jan, 10:16, wrote:
http://www.ofcom.org.uk/research/tv/...s_research.pdf

That almost tells you as much about human nature as it does about TV
aerials!

The section quoting the public is quite revealing. It made me smile
that someone referred to an ITV-digital box as "one of the original
monkey boxes"!


Predictably, people are annoyed that it wasn't made clear that signal
level increases at DSO would mean very few people would actually
_need_ new aerials. They wish digital UK has just told people to "wait
and see".

Also lots of complaints of STBs which can't cope well with signals
from multiple regions, and older STBs/IDTVs that packed in completely.

Cheers,
David.

On Tue, 12 Jan 2010 04:57:01 -0800 (PST),
"
wrote:

Predictably, people are annoyed that it wasn't made clear that signal
level increases at DSO would mean very few people would actually
_need_ new aerials. They wish digital UK has just told people to "wait
and see".

The council house my mother lives in was built in the 60s and is an 8
house terrace. It has as large communal aerial on one end which
points at the Fenton transmitter about a mile away. Reception is, of
course, excellent. However, he council in its infinite wisdom have
installed new aerials on each of the properties (well except my
mother's because she owns her house). The communal aerial is still
working. Surely if there was a problem, which I doubt, it would have
been better and cheaper to fit a new communal aerial.

Sometimes I think Stoke on Trent council can't chuck money away fast
enough.
--
Geoff Berrow (Put thecat out to email)
It's only Usenet, no one dies.
My opinions, not the committee's, mine.
Simple RFDs www.ckdog.co.uk/rfdmaker

Also lots of complaints of STBs which can't cope well with signals
from multiple regions, and older STBs/IDTVs that packed in completely.

A real bugbear of mine. Even the really cheap STBs have serial ports hidden
on the chips used. In some cases these are even exposed through certain
pins on the SCART leads, and yet the manufacturers failed to add any way to
off-line update these boxes and then only transmitted the updates for a very
short period.

I have a Sagem "brick" - nothing wrong with it other than the wrong
firmware. OTOH Ferguson retransmitted an update for their old boxes after
the September retune ensuring that their customers are still smiling!

Paul DS.

In article ,
Geoff Berrow wrote:
On Tue, 12 Jan 2010 04:57:01 -0800 (PST),
"
wrote:

Predictably, people are annoyed that it wasn't made clear that signal
level increases at DSO would mean very few people would actually
_need_ new aerials. They wish digital UK has just told people to "wait
and see".

The council house my mother lives in was built in the 60s and is an 8
house terrace. It has as large communal aerial on one end which
points at the Fenton transmitter about a mile away. Reception is, of
course, excellent. However, he council in its infinite wisdom have
installed new aerials on each of the properties (well except my
mother's because she owns her house). The communal aerial is still
working. Surely if there was a problem, which I doubt, it would have
been better and cheaper to fit a new communal aerial.

You contradict yourself when you say:
1. "The council house my mother lives in"
2. "...she owns her house"

Presumably your mother bought the house from the council.

When the original communal aerial was installed it is most likely that all
the houses belonged to the council. Think of the legal compexities if they
nw had to provide a feed to a non-council owned property. There'd have to
be wayleave agreements for the cable to be fixed to non council walls. etc.
Would your mother (and any others who might in the future own their house)
be prepared to pay a service charge - which would have to cover not only
the cost of the communal aerial but the time of the person administering
the charge nad any banking charges as well.

I reckon that 7 individual aerials would be a lot cheaper than a well
installed system

Sometimes I think Stoke on Trent council can't chuck money away fast
enough.

--
From KT24

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.11

In message ,
lid writes


http://www.ofcom.org.uk/research/tv/...s_research.pdf

I've just downloaded it, and immediately spotted the title to Figure
2.1: "Variation of aerial gain with field strength in 1995 study"
Can it be that the Laws of Physics CAN be changed (despite what Scotty
told Jim Kirk).

Seriously, I must read the paper properly.
--
Ian

On Jan 12, 4:53*pm, charles wrote:
When the original communal aerial was installed it is most likely that all
the houses belonged to the council. *Think of the legal compexities if they
nw had to provide a feed to a non-council owned property. There'd have to
be wayleave agreements for the cable to be fixed to non council walls. etc.
*Would your mother (and any others who might in the future own their house)
be prepared to pay a service charge - which would have to cover not only
the cost of the communal aerial but the time of the person administering
the charge nad any banking charges as well.
In practice the sale of a RTB house ('Right to Buy') has a clause
where the buyer has to agree to everything to do with the communal
system, just the same as in a block of private flats. In the case of
RTBs the buyer usually gets the use of the TV system free unless the
propery has other communal facilities such as open plan lawns, deck
lights, security, etc, in which case there's a service charge, again
like there would be for a private block.


I reckon that 7 individual aerials would be a lot cheaper than a well
installed system
Yes, but when the landlord remains responsible for maintenance it's
better to install a system. Cheaper in the long run. The other thing
is, if aerials are allowed the roofs get damaged.

Bill

On 12/01/2010 17:04, Ian Jackson wrote:
In message ,
lid writes


http://www.ofcom.org.uk/research/tv/...s_research.pdf

I've just downloaded it, and immediately spotted the title to Figure
2.1: "Variation of aerial gain with field strength in 1995 study"
Can it be that the Laws of Physics CAN be changed (despite what Scotty
told Jim Kirk).

Seriously, I must read the paper properly.

What it means is that the gain of the antenna fitted is just sufficient
to produce a usable picture given the field strength in the locality.
Why install a super high gain expensive antenna when a cheap contract
type will suffice?

Phil

charles wrote:
In article ,
Geoff Berrow wrote:
On Tue, 12 Jan 2010 04:57:01 -0800 (PST),
"
wrote:

Predictably, people are annoyed that it wasn't made clear that signal
level increases at DSO would mean very few people would actually
_need_ new aerials. They wish digital UK has just told people to "wait
and see".

The council house my mother lives in was built in the 60s and is an 8
house terrace. It has as large communal aerial on one end which
points at the Fenton transmitter about a mile away. Reception is, of
course, excellent. However, he council in its infinite wisdom have
installed new aerials on each of the properties (well except my
mother's because she owns her house). The communal aerial is still
working. Surely if there was a problem, which I doubt, it would have
been better and cheaper to fit a new communal aerial.

You contradict yourself when you say:
1. "The council house my mother lives in"
2. "...she owns her house"

Presumably your mother bought the house from the council.

When the original communal aerial was installed it is most likely that all
the houses belonged to the council. Think of the legal compexities if they
nw had to provide a feed to a non-council owned property. There'd have to
be wayleave agreements for the cable to be fixed to non council walls. etc.
Would your mother (and any others who might in the future own their house)
be prepared to pay a service charge - which would have to cover not only
the cost of the communal aerial but the time of the person administering
the charge nad any banking charges as well.

I reckon that 7 individual aerials would be a lot cheaper than a well
installed system


I think the point that the OP was making was that all this expense is
completely unnecessary - "... it has a large communal aerial on one end
which points at the Fenton transmitter about a mile away. Reception is,
of course, excellent ..."

Sometimes I think Stoke on Trent council can't chuck money away fast
enough.


On the basis of the information provided, I must agree.

Terry

On Wed, 13 Jan 2010 11:15:50 +0000, Terry Casey
wrote:

I reckon that 7 individual aerials would be a lot cheaper than a well
installed system


I think the point that the OP was making was that all this expense is
completely unnecessary - "... it has a large communal aerial on one end
which points at the Fenton transmitter about a mile away. Reception is,
of course, excellent ..."

Exactly. And the power on that transmitter will increase.
Interestingly, the communal aerial has line of sight whereas IIRC the
individual ones have been mounted at gutter level pointing through the
roof space.

Sometimes I think Stoke on Trent council can't chuck money away fast
enough.


On the basis of the information provided, I must agree.

They have a long history of stupidity and wasting taxpayer's money.
You may have seen recent news items where they got into hot water by
agreeing to pay well over the odds for demolition of some properties.
Not necessarily dishonest, but suckers for the hard sell.
--
Geoff Berrow (Put thecat out to email)
It's only Usenet, no one dies.
My opinions, not the committee's, mine.
Simple RFDs www.ckdog.co.uk/rfdmaker