A Home cinema forum. HomeCinemaBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » HomeCinemaBanter forum » Home cinema newsgroups » UK digital tv
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Aerial installation (may be one for Bill)



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old October 1st 18, 12:52 AM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
Brian Gaff
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 7,332
Default Aerial installation (may be one for Bill)

Actually the issue is that we are an aging society, as we are too good at
health. So we need lots more children earning and paying tax to support us.
However they seem to have missed the elephant here. The more babies there
are then later on even more children will be needed to support those in old
age. Nobody has grasped the nettle and worked out we did not pay enough to
keep ourselves when old.
Brian

--
----- --
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...

Blind user, so no pictures please
Note this Signature is meaningless.!
"Bill Wright" wrote in message
news
On 30/09/2018 20:28, Scott wrote:
I visited a former colleague today who has bought a cottage where
there is line of sight to Rosneath transmitter. She was charged 350
to install a TV aerial. Was she overcharged?


It seems likely. There's a problem in some rural areas that there's very
little or no competition. I had a friend who had a similar quote (300 for
the aerial and 100 for a phone extension). She'd moved to a rural town
that had just one TV business. The next nearest installer was 55 miles
away.

Sometimes these rural businesses overcharge incomers on principle, I
think. They also assume that second-homers are rolling in it.

Travel costs can be very high if there isn't an installer anywhere near. A
normal job (not a difficult roof etc) feeding one TV set should cost
around 100. Excess travel can reasonably be charged at 75p per mile both
ways.

When I was working I had a few commercial customers who wouldn't let
anyone touch their RF systems, and it led to some ridiculous invoices.
400 for travel, 100 for accommodation, 20p for materials. That sort of
thing.

This is a bit interesting isn't it? I'd better put some boring sewage in
it for Mr Jive. Let me see now. Let's think about the housing crisis. 85%
of the UK's population increase from 2000 to 2015 is explained by migrants
and their children. All these new people have to live somewhere. The
pressure on housing, among many other social provisions, is intensified by
the fact that on average foreign-born mothers have more children (2.06 in
2016) than women born in Britain (only 1.75). Do I sound bigoted? People
can be bigoted, but facts can't be. The UK's housing crisis rests
hand-in-glove with mass immigration.

Bill



  #12  
Old October 1st 18, 03:15 AM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
Bill Wright[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,952
Default Aerial installation (may be one for Bill)

On 30/09/2018 23:35, brightside wrote:

If JJ gets his facts from the Gruniad he'll tell you you are wrong!


There is a Social Studies teacher at a comp near here who tells the kids
that to prepare themselves for their university interviews they should
read the Guardian, on the grounds that it is unbiased.

I found this out because I have been using a young person to help me
with my various projects, and of course we talk.

Bill
  #13  
Old October 1st 18, 09:34 AM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
Scott[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,582
Default Aerial installation (may be one for Bill)

On Sun, 30 Sep 2018 21:52:05 +0100, charles
wrote:

In article ,
Scott wrote:
On Sun, 30 Sep 2018 20:54:29 +0100, charles
wrote:


In article ,
Scott wrote:
I visited a former colleague today who has bought a cottage where
there is line of sight to Rosneath transmitter. She was charged 350
to install a TV aerial. Was she overcharged?

Depends on where she was. Rosneath transmitting aerial has a cardiod
pattern aiming at Greenock. If she's up the side of the Gareloch, signals
aren't all that strong. There's an HP component (ISTR) from a dedicated
log pointing at tbe Garelochhead trasmitter.


Rhu, so just across the water.


There should be a pretty good signal there.


My thoughts too. I thought she should have tried an indoor aerial
first before spending 350. I think I should refrain from telling her
we think she was over-charged.
  #14  
Old October 1st 18, 10:55 AM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
Ian Jackson[_7_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 171
Default Aerial installation (may be one for Bill)

In message , Scott
writes
On Sun, 30 Sep 2018 21:52:05 +0100, charles
wrote:

In article ,
Scott wrote:
On Sun, 30 Sep 2018 20:54:29 +0100, charles
wrote:


In article ,
Scott wrote:
I visited a former colleague today who has bought a cottage where
there is line of sight to Rosneath transmitter. She was charged 350
to install a TV aerial. Was she overcharged?

Depends on where she was. Rosneath transmitting aerial has a cardiod
pattern aiming at Greenock. If she's up the side of the Gareloch, signals
aren't all that strong. There's an HP component (ISTR) from a dedicated
log pointing at tbe Garelochhead trasmitter.


Rhu, so just across the water.


There should be a pretty good signal there.


My thoughts too. I thought she should have tried an indoor aerial
first before spending 350. I think I should refrain from telling her
we think she was over-charged.


Being almost on the sea, perhaps the aerial was ruggedised and marine
quality?
--
Ian
  #15  
Old October 1st 18, 12:16 PM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
Java Jive[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,642
Default Aerial installation (may be one for Bill)

On 30/09/2018 21:04, Bill Wright wrote:
On 30/09/2018 20:28, Scott wrote:
I visited a former colleague today who has bought a cottage where
there is line of sight to Rosneath transmitter.* She was charged £350
to install a TV aerial.* Was she overcharged?


It seems likely. There's a problem in some rural areas that there's very
little or no competition. I had a friend who had a similar quote (£300
for the aerial and £100 for a phone extension). She'd moved to a rural
town that had just one TV business. The next nearest installer was 55
miles away.

Sometimes these rural businesses overcharge incomers on principle, I
think. They also assume that second-homers are rolling in it.

Travel costs can be very high if there isn't an installer anywhere near.
A normal job (not a difficult roof etc) feeding one TV set should cost
around £100. Excess travel can reasonably be charged at 75p per mile
both ways.

When I was working I had a few commercial customers who wouldn't let
anyone touch their RF systems, and it led to some ridiculous invoices.
£400 for travel, £100 for accommodation, 20p for materials. That sort of
thing.


Fine so far, a useful post which chimes in with my experience living in
the country, except in one way: I've recently spent £25,000 on a new
roof. For preference I chose a local firm over one from 65 miles away
in Inverness, and it was also slightly cheaper, but the roof still leaks
and also they failed to finish the job off properly. I'm considering
suing. Local is not always good.

This is a bit interesting isn't it? I'd better put some boring sewage in
it for Mr Jive. Let me see now. Let's think about the housing crisis.
85% of the UK's population increase from 2000 to 2015 is explained by
migrants and their children. All these new people have to live
somewhere. The pressure on housing, among many other social provisions,
is intensified by the fact that on average foreign-born mothers have
more children (2.06 in 2016) than women born in Britain (only 1.75). Do
I sound bigoted? People can be bigoted, but facts can’t be. The UK’s
housing crisis rests hand-in-glove with mass immigration.


You are forgetting that I was one of the first people to post here about
this country being overpopulated, and the economic, political, and
social difficulties it causes us. See appended.

But, as far as the above goes, as usual, you don't give any links, so I
can't check on these exact facts and whether your interpretation of them
is accurate, but even so I can see that your reasoning is too
simplistic. The population level at any one time is also affected by
other factors such as death rates and emigration. You have to look at
*all* the relevant factors to get the full picture.

When, back in the 80s, the police were trying to motivate public opinion
against drunken driving, they made much of a statistic which stated
something like: "x% of road accidents involve alcohol!" (I can't
remember what x was, but it was surprisingly high). The implication was
that x% of accidents involved drunken driving, but if you examine the
wording carefully, it means that if a drunk walked out into the road and
was hit by a stone cold sober driver, that incident would be included in
x - no drunken driving involved at all. A drunken passenger with a
stone cold sober driver might also have been included. We were never
told what percentage of accidents actually involved drunken driving!

As someone once said (Henry Ford?), "There's lies, damned lies, and
statistics!" Statistics are a crucially useful tool - statistical
physics, and thus our understanding of heat and temperature, diffusion
of gases, etc, could not exist without them - but you have to be sure
that you have included *all* the relevant factors, and be very careful
to be entirely accurate when putting your results into normal language,
with all its everyday ambiguities, for the benefit of outside audiences.

OT: Overpopulation (was BBC Trust approves Project Canvas)
On 01/07/2010 01:56, Java Jive wrote:

I repeat, as far as environmental impact is concerned, population
level is *everything*. The more people, the more there is of
everything else - houses, fixtures, fittings, furnishings, personal
possessions, factories, business parks, cars, roads, railways,
airports, water infrastructure, sewerage infrastructure, electricity
infrastructure, gas infrastructure, household waste, litter, crime,
pollution, etc, etc.

Resources, energy, and finance to make, power, manage, and buy all
these things have to be found. This means increasing energy demand at
a time when we are told we must use less of it, increasing imports of
raw materials or manufactured goods when we aren't as a nation earning
enough to pay for them. I cannot see any way at all that we can
sustain our current standard of living.

Population of Britain:

Napoleonic Wars 12m
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Napoleo...ilitary_legacy

Today 61m
http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?ID=6

This growth is approximately equivalent to a compound growth of 8% per
decade. Doesn't sound so bad, does it? But ...

1) It's compound, a 'vicious circle', the higher the population, the
greater the actual numerical increases, while the resources needed can
usually only increase linearly.

2) For the first 100 to 140 years, we were the major world power, and so
controlled to our advantage trade in the resources that our
population needed. Also, environmental concerns such as pollution
were not of sufficient concern to halt progress, and the possibility
of global warming presumably hadn't occurred to anyone.

3) The decline in our power since WWII has been accompanied by
increasing economic difficulties such as record levels of unemployment,
Balance Of Payments deficits caused by increasing levels of imports, etc.

4) It's only half what is being mooted for the coming decades.

5) Immigration is ongoing, despite the fact that we are already one
of the most densely populated countries of any size in world.

Current Population Density:
Global average 48/km2
Western Europe 175/km2
Britain 244/km2
http://unstats.un.org/unsd/demograph...06/Table01.pdf
http://www.statistics.gov.uk/STATBAS....asp?vlnk=7662

Current self-sufficiency:
All food 60%
'Indigenous' crops 72.5%
Energy 79%
https://statistics.defra.gov.uk/esg/quick/agri.asp
http://www.berr.gov.uk/energy/statis...page18424.html

So already in this country there are more of us than we can actually
supply with natively grown food or natively found energy.
  #16  
Old October 1st 18, 12:21 PM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
Java Jive[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,642
Default Aerial installation (may be one for Bill)

On 01/10/2018 03:15, Bill Wright wrote:
On 30/09/2018 23:35, brightside wrote:

If JJ gets his facts from the Gruniad he'll tell you you are wrong!


There is a Social Studies teacher at a comp near here who tells the kids
that to prepare themselves for their university interviews they should
read the Guardian, on the grounds that it is unbiased.


One newspaper, even a centrist one, is probably not enough, but it's
certainly less biased than the combination of ...

On 29/09/2018 20:55, Bill Wright wrote:
The Mail ... I've bought it a few times when I haven't been able to
get a Times or a Telegraph ...

  #17  
Old October 1st 18, 12:41 PM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
Scott[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,582
Default Aerial installation (may be one for Bill)

On Mon, 1 Oct 2018 10:55:09 +0100, Ian Jackson
wrote:

In message , Scott
writes
On Sun, 30 Sep 2018 21:52:05 +0100, charles
wrote:

In article ,
Scott wrote:
On Sun, 30 Sep 2018 20:54:29 +0100, charles
wrote:

In article ,
Scott wrote:
I visited a former colleague today who has bought a cottage where
there is line of sight to Rosneath transmitter. She was charged 350
to install a TV aerial. Was she overcharged?

Depends on where she was. Rosneath transmitting aerial has a cardiod
pattern aiming at Greenock. If she's up the side of the Gareloch, signals
aren't all that strong. There's an HP component (ISTR) from a dedicated
log pointing at tbe Garelochhead trasmitter.

Rhu, so just across the water.

There should be a pretty good signal there.


My thoughts too. I thought she should have tried an indoor aerial
first before spending 350. I think I should refrain from telling her
we think she was over-charged.


Being almost on the sea, perhaps the aerial was ruggedised and marine
quality?


That must be it. It looks the same as the others but I expect they
are too.
  #18  
Old October 1st 18, 12:43 PM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
Scott[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,582
Default Aerial installation (may be one for Bill)

On Mon, 1 Oct 2018 12:16:20 +0100, Java Jive
wrote:

On 30/09/2018 21:04, Bill Wright wrote:
On 30/09/2018 20:28, Scott wrote:
I visited a former colleague today who has bought a cottage where
there is line of sight to Rosneath transmitter.* She was charged 350
to install a TV aerial.* Was she overcharged?


It seems likely. There's a problem in some rural areas that there's very
little or no competition. I had a friend who had a similar quote (300
for the aerial and 100 for a phone extension). She'd moved to a rural
town that had just one TV business. The next nearest installer was 55
miles away.

Sometimes these rural businesses overcharge incomers on principle, I
think. They also assume that second-homers are rolling in it.

Travel costs can be very high if there isn't an installer anywhere near.
A normal job (not a difficult roof etc) feeding one TV set should cost
around 100. Excess travel can reasonably be charged at 75p per mile
both ways.

When I was working I had a few commercial customers who wouldn't let
anyone touch their RF systems, and it led to some ridiculous invoices.
400 for travel, 100 for accommodation, 20p for materials. That sort of
thing.


Fine so far, a useful post which chimes in with my experience living in
the country, except in one way: I've recently spent 25,000 on a new
roof. For preference I chose a local firm over one from 65 miles away
in Inverness, and it was also slightly cheaper, but the roof still leaks
and also they failed to finish the job off properly. I'm considering
suing. Local is not always good.

My roofing man went to Mull or somewhere to do a job. I think he was
less than welcome when he turned up with van and ladders !!!
  #19  
Old October 1st 18, 03:45 PM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
charles[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 783
Default Aerial installation (may be one for Bill)

In article , Scott
wrote:
On Mon, 1 Oct 2018 12:16:20 +0100, Java Jive
wrote:


On 30/09/2018 21:04, Bill Wright wrote:
On 30/09/2018 20:28, Scott wrote:
I visited a former colleague today who has bought a cottage where
there is line of sight to Rosneath transmitter. She was charged 350
to install a TV aerial. Was she overcharged?


It seems likely. There's a problem in some rural areas that there's
very little or no competition. I had a friend who had a similar quote
(300 for the aerial and 100 for a phone extension). She'd moved to
a rural town that had just one TV business. The next nearest
installer was 55 miles away.

Sometimes these rural businesses overcharge incomers on principle, I
think. They also assume that second-homers are rolling in it.

Travel costs can be very high if there isn't an installer anywhere
near. A normal job (not a difficult roof etc) feeding one TV set
should cost around 100. Excess travel can reasonably be charged at
75p per mile both ways.

When I was working I had a few commercial customers who wouldn't let
anyone touch their RF systems, and it led to some ridiculous invoices.
400 for travel, 100 for accommodation, 20p for materials. That sort
of thing.


Fine so far, a useful post which chimes in with my experience living in
the country, except in one way: I've recently spent 25,000 on a new
roof. For preference I chose a local firm over one from 65 miles away
in Inverness, and it was also slightly cheaper, but the roof still leaks
and also they failed to finish the job off properly. I'm considering
suing. Local is not always good.

My roofing man went to Mull or somewhere to do a job. I think he was
less than welcome when he turned up with van and ladders !!!


certainly, Donnie MacLeod of Oban wouldn't have been too happy.

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle
  #20  
Old October 2nd 18, 05:12 PM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
Andrew[_6_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 229
Default Aerial installation (may be one for Bill)

On 01/10/2018 12:21, Java Jive wrote:
One newspaper, even a centrist one


Well that won't be the grundian or the inde, will it !
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
This IRS installation you may of heard about :) Nick Le Lievre UK digital tv 21 September 22nd 10 01:23 PM
Installation photos for Bill Chris Leuty[_2_] UK digital tv 10 June 20th 07 12:55 AM
Newbie DirecTV installation questions (DirecTivo dish, installation) Lenroc Satellite dbs 7 November 13th 03 09:13 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:43 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2018 HomeCinemaBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.