http://www.thetechguys.com/services/digital-aerial-and-tv-installation.shtml

They offer a "digital aerial" and TV installation for £199.

Wonder what exactly do you get for the money?

Glenn

"Usenet"  wrote in message 
news:BMOdnQgscfWckEvVnZ2dnUVZ8q2dnZ2d@posted.plusnet...
> http://www.thetechguys.com/services/digital-aerial-and-tv-installation.shtml
>
> They offer a "digital aerial" and TV installation for £199.
>
> Wonder what exactly do you get for the money?

Ripped off.

>
> Glenn

Usenet wrote:
> http://www.thetechguys.com/services/digital-aerial-and-tv-installation.shtml 
> They offer a "digital aerial" and TV installation for £199.
> Wonder what exactly do you get for the money?

contract aerial, 20m coax, bloke wiv a ladder

Owain

On Sun, 21 Sep 2008 10:18:06 +0100, Agamemnon wrote:
> Ripped off.
Not a warm, fuzzy feeling that you are helping a corporation which
is going through difficult times.

<http://www.channelregister.co.UK/2008/09/03/dsgi_interims_poor/>

<http://miranda.hemscott.com/servlet/HsPublic?
context=ir&client=dxns&path=news&service=getNewsByKey&item=66833986722064&transform=newsitem>

Think of the suffering caused by the smaller than anticipated upper
management bonuses and quarterly dividend cheques.

It is in tough economic times like we are experiencing today, that large
corporations need all the help and corporate welfare that they can get.

Owain wrote:
> Usenet wrote:
>> http://www.thetechguys.com/services/digital-aerial-and-tv-installation.shtml 
>> They offer a "digital aerial" and TV installation for £199.
>> Wonder what exactly do you get for the money?
> 
> contract aerial, 20m coax, bloke wiv a ladder
> 
> Owain
> 

My installations are cheaper and better value for money than that by a 
long shot.

"Usenet"  wrote in message 
news:BMOdnQgscfWckEvVnZ2dnUVZ8q2dnZ2d@posted.plusnet...
> http://www.thetechguys.com/services/digital-aerial-and-tv-installation.shtml
>
> They offer a "digital aerial" and TV installation for £199.
> Wonder what exactly do you get for the money?
> Glenn
>
The usual. Sub contracted out to any semi sober local moron
with a ladder

Steve Terry

"Steve Terry"  wrote in message 
news:gb6dlu$ff7$1@news.albasani.net...
>
> "Usenet"  wrote in message 
> news:BMOdnQgscfWckEvVnZ2dnUVZ8q2dnZ2d@posted.plusnet...
>> http://www.thetechguys.com/services/digital-aerial-and-tv-installation.shtml
>>
>> They offer a "digital aerial" and TV installation for £199.
>> Wonder what exactly do you get for the money?
>> Glenn
>>
> The usual. Sub contracted out to any semi sober local moron
> with a ladder

I've missed out somewhere then. I was definitely semi-sober last Thursday 
morning.

Bill

On Sun, 21 Sep 2008 09:59:44 +0100, Usenet
 wrote:

>http://www.thetechguys.com/services/digital-aerial-and-tv-installation.shtml
>
>They offer a "digital aerial" and TV installation for £199.
>
>Wonder what exactly do you get for the money?
>
>Glenn

I suggest anyone looking for a reasonable' price for this work should
go to www.buywithconfidence.gov.uk.  This site seems to provide a
sensible guide to reputable contractors in an area disgnated by the
user together with a price guide.  For the area in which I reside all
contractors appear to quote £75 for this type of service.  £75 seems
within reason for this type of work assuming a 'standard' type
installation.

I would expect certain contributors to this group to object to this.
Based upon their comments to an earlier thread, I would have expected
them to have posted support for £199 being reasonable for this type of
work.

On Mon, 22 Sep 2008 07:04:22 +0100, Edward W. Thompson
 wrote:

>I suggest anyone looking for a reasonable' price for this work should
>go to www.buywithconfidence.gov.uk.  This site seems to provide a
>sensible guide to reputable contractors in an area disgnated by the
>user together with a price guide.  For the area in which I reside all
>contractors appear to quote £75 for this type of service.  £75 seems
>within reason for this type of work assuming a 'standard' type
>installation.

According to that I don't have any within 25 miles of me, and I live
in a large town.
-- 
Andrew, contact via http://interpleb.googlepages.com
Help make Usenet a better place: English is read downwards,
please don't top post. Trim replies to quote only relevant text.
Check groups.google.com before asking an obvious question.

Andrew wrote:
> On Mon, 22 Sep 2008 07:04:22 +0100, Edward W. Thompson
>  wrote:
> 
>> I suggest anyone looking for a reasonable' price for this work should
>> go to www.buywithconfidence.gov.uk.  This site seems to provide a
>> sensible guide to reputable contractors in an area disgnated by the
>> user together with a price guide.  For the area in which I reside all
>> contractors appear to quote £75 for this type of service.  £75 seems
>> within reason for this type of work assuming a 'standard' type
>> installation.
> 
> According to that I don't have any within 25 miles of me, and I live
> in a large town.

I live in Northern Ireland and the nearest installer is Nottingham!

As for the £75 aerial install, the site does not claim any such thing. 
It states "Small Job Friendly traders are happy to consider work/orders 
for £75 or under", nothing about that that is the cost of an install.

Glenn.

"Andrew"  wrote in message 
news:d7eed4195i14ivfshak8ht2hhippsische@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 22 Sep 2008 07:04:22 +0100, Edward W. Thompson
>  wrote:
>
>>I suggest anyone looking for a reasonable' price for this work should
>>go to www.buywithconfidence.gov.uk.  This site seems to provide a
>>sensible guide to reputable contractors in an area disgnated by the
>>user together with a price guide.  For the area in which I reside all
>>contractors appear to quote £75 for this type of service.  £75 seems
>>within reason for this type of work assuming a 'standard' type
>>installation.
>
> According to that I don't have any within 25 miles of me, and I live
> in a large town.
> -- 
> Andrew, contact via http://interpleb.googlepages.com
> Help make Usenet a better place: English is read downwards,
> please don't top post. Trim replies to quote only relevant text.
> Check groups.google.com before asking an obvious question.



Even better here in Harrogate. The nearest 'approved' TV aerial 
installer is in NOTTINGHAM!!!


-- 
Woody

harrogate three at ntlworld dot com

Well, obviously not a digital aerial, as we all know there is no such thing.

Brian

-- 
Brian Gaff....Note, this account does not accept Bcc: email.
 graphics are great, but the blind can't hear them
Email: briang1@blueyonder.co.uk
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________


"Usenet"  wrote in message 
news:BMOdnQgscfWckEvVnZ2dnUVZ8q2dnZ2d@posted.plusnet...
> http://www.thetechguys.com/services/digital-aerial-and-tv-installation.shtml
>
> They offer a "digital aerial" and TV installation for £199.
>
> Wonder what exactly do you get for the money?
>
> Glenn

And plastic rawl plugs no matter how long the mast is.

Brian

-- 
Brian Gaff....Note, this account does not accept Bcc: email.
 graphics are great, but the blind can't hear them
Email: briang1@blueyonder.co.uk
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________


"Owain"  wrote in message 
news:xPGdnafUavELqEvVnZ2dnUVZ8vSdnZ2d@posted.plusnet...
> Usenet wrote:
>> http://www.thetechguys.com/services/digital-aerial-and-tv-installation.shtml 
>> They offer a "digital aerial" and TV installation for £199.
>> Wonder what exactly do you get for the money?
>
> contract aerial, 20m coax, bloke wiv a ladder
>
> Owain
>

In article , Edward W. Thompson
 scribeth thus
>
>On Sun, 21 Sep 2008 09:59:44 +0100, Usenet
> wrote:
>
>>http://www.thetechguys.com/services/digital-aerial-and-tv-installation.shtml
>>
>>They offer a "digital aerial" and TV installation for £199.
>>
>>Wonder what exactly do you get for the money?
>>
>>Glenn
>
>I suggest anyone looking for a reasonable' price for this work should
>go to www.buywithconfidence.gov.uk.  This site seems to provide a
>sensible guide to reputable contractors in an area disgnated by the
>user together with a price guide.  For the area in which I reside all
>contractors appear to quote £75 for this type of service.  £75 seems
>within reason for this type of work assuming a 'standard' type
>installation.

You wouldn't get this done around here for less than 140 to 199
nowadays!....
>
>I would expect certain contributors to this group to object to this.
>Based upon their comments to an earlier thread, I would have expected
>them to have posted support for £199 being reasonable for this type of
>work.

Course you never told us what you did Edward...
-- 
Tony Sayer

On Mon, 22 Sep 2008 07:04:22 +0100, Edward W. Thompson
 wrote:

>
>On Sun, 21 Sep 2008 09:59:44 +0100, Usenet
> wrote:
>
>>http://www.thetechguys.com/services/digital-aerial-and-tv-installation.shtml
>>
>>They offer a "digital aerial" and TV installation for £199.
>>
>>Wonder what exactly do you get for the money?
>>
>>Glenn
>
>I suggest anyone looking for a reasonable' price for this work should
>go to www.buywithconfidence.gov.uk.  This site seems to provide a
>sensible guide to reputable contractors in an area disgnated by the
>user together with a price guide.  For the area in which I reside all
>contractors appear to quote £75 for this type of service.  £75 seems
>within reason for this type of work assuming a 'standard' type
>installation.
>

I suggest you hover uour mouse pointer over the £75. The £75 is *not*
a 'quote'.


-- 
brightside s9

On 22/09/2008 07:04, Edward W. Thompson wrote:

> I would expect certain contributors to this group to object to this.
> Based upon their comments to an earlier thread

Since you appear to have abandoned the earlier thread(s), I'm interested to know whether you have experienced better DAB reception since last 
month when the BBC transmitter was turned on at the top of the hill? 
(near Porchester Road/Woodborough Road junction)

> I would have expected
> them to have posted support for £199 being reasonable for this type of
> work.

It may be, or it may not, but nobody here is likely to support anyone 
who describes it as "a high quality digital aerial".

On 22/09/2008 07:20, Andrew wrote:

> On Mon, 22 Sep 2008 07:04:22 퍝, Edward W. Thompson
>  wrote:
> 
>> I suggest anyone looking for a reasonable' price for this work should
>> go to www.buywithconfidence.gov.uk.  This site seems to provide a
>> sensible guide to reputable contractors in an area disgnated by the
>> user together with a price guide.  For the area in which I reside all
>> contractors appear to quote £75 for this type of service.  £75 seems
>> within reason for this type of work assuming a 'standard' type
>> installation.
> 
> According to that I don't have any within 25 miles of me, and I live
> in a large town.

I live in Leicester and there are no installers listed with 25 miles, if I extend it to 50 miles I get a choice of two, one in Nottingham, one in Milton Keynes.

Seems sensibly priced aerial riggers are *queuing* up to use this 
service, and Edward lives in *just* the right spot to get a good price.

On 22/09/2008 07:04, Edward W. Thompson wrote:

> user together with a price guide.  For the area in which I reside all
> contractors appear to quote £75 for this type of service.

Actually it doesn't say they are actually quoting £75 for fitting an 
aerial, what it *does* day is they are "small job friendly" so are 
willing to perform small jobs under £75.

What do you think the chances are that the price will be higher when
they actually arrive to give a quote?

And with only 5 "small job friendly" traders listed in a 100 mile 
radius, does that tell you how unrealistic you're being?

On Mon, 22 Sep 2008 07:16:33 +0000, Brian Gaff wrote:
> Well, obviously not a digital aerial, as we all know there is no such
> thing.
But there is a *company* called Digital Antenna, Incorporated.

<http://www.digitalantenna.COM/aboutus.html>

Brian Gaff wrote:
> And plastic rawl plugs no matter how long the mast is.

Mast? You wanna mast? Mast is extra, guv.

Cable tie the aerial to the chimblypot mate, well sorted.

Owain

On Mon, 22 Sep 2008 10:37:57 +0100, Andy Burns
 wrote:

>On 22/09/2008 07:04, Edward W. Thompson wrote:
>
>> user together with a price guide.  For the area in which I reside all
>> contractors appear to quote £75 for this type of service.
>
>Actually it doesn't say they are actually quoting £75 for fitting an 
>aerial, what it *does* day is they are "small job friendly" so are 
>willing to perform small jobs under £75.
>
>What do you think the chances are that the price will be higher when
>they actually arrive to give a quote?
>
>And with only 5 "small job friendly" traders listed in a 100 mile 
>radius, does that tell you how unrealistic you're being?

I must admit I do live in Nottingham which sems to be a 'hotspot'.  I
certainly didn't check to see how this 'service' covered the rest of
the country. It is curious that from those who responded, only
Nottingham, appears to have aerial fitters taking advantage of this
'scheme'.  I wonder why?

Looking at the local press, many aerial installers advertise a fixed
price that varies from £60 to £90 to supply and fit a TV aerial, so
for this locality that seems to be the 'selling' price for an average
installation, that is an installation with not 'gotchas'.

I find it perfectly reasonable for aerial erectors to quote a 'from'
price.  There clearly is a minimum price to cover, time materials and
overheads.  It is obvious that there will be differences betwen jobs.
However, a basic job of installation onto a chimney that is accessible
by a ladder (no roof ladder required) and a straight cable run to the
connection point should attract the lower price.  If the job requires
more than the 'basic' time then it is reasonable there will be an
additional charge to cover the time required.  It would be my opinion
that the minimum charge would be based upon a one hour on site time.

On Mon, 22 Sep 2008 09:19:38 +0100, tony sayer 
wrote:

>In article , Edward W. Thompson
> scribeth thus
>>
>>On Sun, 21 Sep 2008 09:59:44 +0100, Usenet
>> wrote:
>>
>>>http://www.thetechguys.com/services/digital-aerial-and-tv-installation.shtml
>>>
>>>They offer a "digital aerial" and TV installation for £199.
>>>
>>>Wonder what exactly do you get for the money?
>>>
>>>Glenn
>>
>>I suggest anyone looking for a reasonable' price for this work should
>>go to www.buywithconfidence.gov.uk.  This site seems to provide a
>>sensible guide to reputable contractors in an area disgnated by the
>>user together with a price guide.  For the area in which I reside all
>>contractors appear to quote £75 for this type of service.  £75 seems
>>within reason for this type of work assuming a 'standard' type
>>installation.
>
>You wouldn't get this done around here for less than 140 to 199
>nowadays!....
>>
>>I would expect certain contributors to this group to object to this.
>>Based upon their comments to an earlier thread, I would have expected
>>them to have posted support for £199 being reasonable for this type of
>>work.
>
>Course you never told us what you did Edward...

Is what I did relevant?  If it is then I was a Project/ Engineer
Manager for the construction of large power plant. My experience does
not qualify me to install TV aerials on residential properties
admittedly but I do have some experience in costing/pricing and
contract management, however, scale is a little different :-)..

It is apparent that what erectors charge is what the market will bear.
In many cases it has nothing to do with cost plus a reasonable profit.
Trades such as electricians, plumbers, aerial erectors, car servicing
etc., seem in recent years to have jumped on the gravy train and have
simply been charging inflated prices for their time.  It maybe we are
coming to a period when there may be some correction (sanity being
restored) as people find themselves out of work.

On Mon, 22 Sep 2008 07:36:40 +0100, Usenet
 wrote:

>Andrew wrote:
>> On Mon, 22 Sep 2008 07:04:22 +0100, Edward W. Thompson
>>  wrote:
>> 
>>> I suggest anyone looking for a reasonable' price for this work should
>>> go to www.buywithconfidence.gov.uk.  This site seems to provide a
>>> sensible guide to reputable contractors in an area disgnated by the
>>> user together with a price guide.  For the area in which I reside all
>>> contractors appear to quote £75 for this type of service.  £75 seems
>>> within reason for this type of work assuming a 'standard' type
>>> installation.
>> 
>> According to that I don't have any within 25 miles of me, and I live
>> in a large town.
>
>I live in Northern Ireland and the nearest installer is Nottingham!
>
>As for the £75 aerial install, the site does not claim any such thing. 
>It states "Small Job Friendly traders are happy to consider work/orders 
>for £75 or under", nothing about that that is the cost of an install.
>
>Glenn.

True, I did make the assumption that if a trader advertises he is in
the business of supplying and erecting TV and radio aerials the
work/orders referred to as £75 or under are for services he is in
business to supply.  Is this an unwarranted assumption?

In article , Edward W. Thompson
 scribeth thus
>
>On Mon, 22 Sep 2008 09:19:38 +0100, tony sayer 
>wrote:
>
>>In article , Edward W. Thompson
>> scribeth thus
>>>
>>>On Sun, 21 Sep 2008 09:59:44 +0100, Usenet
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>http://www.thetechguys.com/services/digital-aerial-and-tv-installation.shtml
>>>>
>>>>They offer a "digital aerial" and TV installation for £199.
>>>>
>>>>Wonder what exactly do you get for the money?
>>>>
>>>>Glenn
>>>
>>>I suggest anyone looking for a reasonable' price for this work should
>>>go to www.buywithconfidence.gov.uk.  This site seems to provide a
>>>sensible guide to reputable contractors in an area disgnated by the
>>>user together with a price guide.  For the area in which I reside all
>>>contractors appear to quote £75 for this type of service.  £75 seems
>>>within reason for this type of work assuming a 'standard' type
>>>installation.
>>
>>You wouldn't get this done around here for less than 140 to 199
>>nowadays!....
>>>
>>>I would expect certain contributors to this group to object to this.
>>>Based upon their comments to an earlier thread, I would have expected
>>>them to have posted support for £199 being reasonable for this type of
>>>work.
>>
>>Course you never told us what you did Edward...
>
>Is what I did relevant?  If it is then I was a Project/ Engineer
>Manager for the construction of large power plant. My experience does
>not qualify me to install TV aerials on residential properties
>admittedly but I do have some experience in costing/pricing and
>contract management, however, scale is a little different :-)..

OK so you weren't self employed...
>
>It is apparent that what erectors charge is what the market will bear.
>In many cases it has nothing to do with cost plus a reasonable profit.
>Trades such as electricians, plumbers, aerial erectors, car servicing
>etc., seem in recent years to have jumped on the gravy train and have
>simply been charging inflated prices for their time.  It maybe we are
>coming to a period when there may be some correction (sanity being
>restored) as people find themselves out of work.

Yes, and of course those in the public sector will still keep their jobs
and get paid....

-- 
Tony Sayer

> I must admit I do live in Nottingham which sems to be a 'hotspot'.  I
> certainly didn't check to see how this 'service' covered the rest of
> the country. It is curious that from those who responded, only
> Nottingham, appears to have aerial fitters taking advantage of this
> 'scheme'.  I wonder why?
>
> Looking at the local press, many aerial installers advertise a fixed
> price that varies from £60 to £90 to supply and fit a TV aerial, so
> for this locality that seems to be the 'selling' price for an average
> installation, that is an installation with not 'gotchas'.
>
> I find it perfectly reasonable for aerial erectors to quote a 'from'
> price.  There clearly is a minimum price to cover, time materials and
> overheads.  It is obvious that there will be differences betwen jobs.
> However, a basic job of installation onto a chimney that is accessible
> by a ladder (no roof ladder required) and a straight cable run to the
> connection point should attract the lower price.  If the job requires
> more than the 'basic' time then it is reasonable there will be an
> additional charge to cover the time required.  It would be my opinion
> that the minimum charge would be based upon a one hour on site time.

Edward,

Without wishing to patronise you, I frequently have these same arguments 
with my father in law who has just hit 70. Is this a generational thing?

1. Not every trader in the world is out to rip you off. However, some are 
and if you accept cheapest quotes you will be more likely to find them.
2. There are at least three riggers on this group who are knowledgeable, 
helpful and seemingly honest people. They are telling you that they would 
charge more than £90 for an average install. For that you would get a 
guaranteed, insured installation from a rigger who is willing to return and 
rectify any faults. Not a mobile phone number which is never answered when 
they see you calling!
3. You will find riggers who will save you probably about £50. Averaged over 
the 10 year life expectancy of your aerial it's not worth the hassle of 
risking using a cowboy.
4. Of course riggers charge what the market will stand. Welcome to the free 
market economy!
5. The small job friendly thing at £75 is obviously not a quote. A trader 
may call to do a small job, for a rigger this could be replacing a faceplate 
or adding an extra aerial socket. This should be under £75.

I also know a bit about "Buy With Confidence."  It started with (I think) 
Hampshire Trading Standards and was called something else (Approved Trader 
Scheme?) it has expanded to other Trading Standards Departments who wish to 
partake. Not all do by any means, and whilst I believe it is still 
expanding, some parts of the country are still not covered by their local TS 
who may use another scheme or just not bother to offer an approved trader 
scheme.

Cheers
D.

In message nY2dnYUSmcndDUXVRVnyhwA@bt.com,
Edward W. Thompson  Proclaimed from the tallest 
tower:

> On Mon, 22 Sep 2008 07:36:40 +0100, Usenet
>  wrote:
>
>> Andrew wrote:
>>> On Mon, 22 Sep 2008 07:04:22 +0100, Edward W. Thompson
>>>  wrote:
>>>
>>>> I suggest anyone looking for a reasonable' price for this work
>>>> should go to www.buywithconfidence.gov.uk.  This site seems to
>>>> provide a sensible guide to reputable contractors in an area
>>>> disgnated by the user together with a price guide.  For the area
>>>> in which I reside all contractors appear to quote £75 for this
>>>> type of service.  £75 seems within reason for this type of work
>>>> assuming a 'standard' type installation.
>>>
>>> According to that I don't have any within 25 miles of me, and I live
>>> in a large town.
>>
>> I live in Northern Ireland and the nearest installer is Nottingham!
>>
>> As for the £75 aerial install, the site does not claim any such
>> thing. It states "Small Job Friendly traders are happy to consider
>> work/orders for £75 or under", nothing about that that is the cost
>> of an install.
>>
>> Glenn.
>
> True, I did make the assumption that if a trader advertises he is in
> the business of supplying and erecting TV and radio aerials the
> work/orders referred to as £75 or under are for services he is in
> business to supply.  Is this an unwarranted assumption?

A little. The £75 suggests they are prepared to come out for a small(?) 
charge/job, but that could be for adjusting an aerial, or fitting a new wall 
backplate, it doesn't say it is for supplying and fitting a new aerial and 
cabling...

-- 
Regards,
Chris.
(Remove Elvis's shoes to email me)

tony sayer wrote:
> Yes, and of course those in the public sector will still keep their jobs
> and get paid....

Nice story in the papers today. Binmen who are going on strike tomorrow 
are going to get paid overtime at the weekend to pick up the rubbish 
they would normally have collected over the week.

Owain

"Edward W. Thompson"  wrote in message 
news:rK6dneWgaKF9E0XV4p2dnAA@bt.com...
>   It maybe we are
> coming to a period when there may be some correction (sanity being
> restored) as people find themselves out of work.

Best if we keep on charging what the market will stand then, so we've 
something for a rainy day. Unlike those who project manage fort large 
companies we get no redundancy or job security.

Bill

On Tue, 23 Sep 2008 10:28:56 +0100, tony sayer wrote:
> Yes, and of course those in the public sector will *still keep* their > 
> jobs and get paid....
You mean like those who work for HMRC?

Anger at latest HMRC office closures
By Daniel Selwood, on 29-02-2008 16:11

QUOTE

Figures of up to 7,000 redundancies have been reported as a result of 35 
newly announced office closures, following a review of the department’s 
operations.

The areas affected include Liverpool, Manchester, Blackpool, Preston, 
Cardiff, Swansea, Edinburgh and Glasgow.

UNQUOTE

On Tue, 23 Sep 2008 10:58:44 +0100, "Doctor D" 
wrote:

>
>> I must admit I do live in Nottingham which sems to be a 'hotspot'.  I
>> certainly didn't check to see how this 'service' covered the rest of
>> the country. It is curious that from those who responded, only
>> Nottingham, appears to have aerial fitters taking advantage of this
>> 'scheme'.  I wonder why?
>>
>> Looking at the local press, many aerial installers advertise a fixed
>> price that varies from £60 to £90 to supply and fit a TV aerial, so
>> for this locality that seems to be the 'selling' price for an average
>> installation, that is an installation with not 'gotchas'.
>>
>> I find it perfectly reasonable for aerial erectors to quote a 'from'
>> price.  There clearly is a minimum price to cover, time materials and
>> overheads.  It is obvious that there will be differences betwen jobs.
>> However, a basic job of installation onto a chimney that is accessible
>> by a ladder (no roof ladder required) and a straight cable run to the
>> connection point should attract the lower price.  If the job requires
>> more than the 'basic' time then it is reasonable there will be an
>> additional charge to cover the time required.  It would be my opinion
>> that the minimum charge would be based upon a one hour on site time.
>
>Edward,
>
>Without wishing to patronise you, I frequently have these same arguments 
>with my father in law who has just hit 70. Is this a generational thing?
>
>1. Not every trader in the world is out to rip you off. However, some are 
>and if you accept cheapest quotes you will be more likely to find them.
>2. There are at least three riggers on this group who are knowledgeable, 
>helpful and seemingly honest people. They are telling you that they would 
>charge more than £90 for an average install. For that you would get a 
>guaranteed, insured installation from a rigger who is willing to return and 
>rectify any faults. Not a mobile phone number which is never answered when 
>they see you calling!
>3. You will find riggers who will save you probably about £50. Averaged over 
>the 10 year life expectancy of your aerial it's not worth the hassle of 
>risking using a cowboy.
>4. Of course riggers charge what the market will stand. Welcome to the free 
>market economy!
>5. The small job friendly thing at £75 is obviously not a quote. A trader 
>may call to do a small job, for a rigger this could be replacing a faceplate 
>or adding an extra aerial socket. This should be under £75.
>
>I also know a bit about "Buy With Confidence."  It started with (I think) 
>Hampshire Trading Standards and was called something else (Approved Trader 
>Scheme?) it has expanded to other Trading Standards Departments who wish to 
>partake. Not all do by any means, and whilst I believe it is still 
>expanding, some parts of the country are still not covered by their local TS 
>who may use another scheme or just not bother to offer an approved trader 
>scheme.
>
>Cheers
>D. 

I agree with much of what you have posted.  However, with respect to
price, a high cost does not ensure a 'good' job either.  Surely it is
wrong to assume that a price which is say of the £75 range to supply
and fit an aerial will mean an inferior job or materials used. Maybe
the trader with the lowest price is content to make a reasonable
profit rather than 'excessive' profit.  It is all a bit of a dilemna
:-)

As for those that post and are 'in the trade', I do not doubt their
technical competency, why should I?  I do however, question their
morals and ethics based upon what they have previously posted
concerning pricing of work. 

It is possible, indeed likely, that being of a similar age to your
father, our standards relating to business practices and the idea of
fairness are out of date or are not applicable to self employed
traders. 

I am disappointed at what appears to be a commonly held view that it
is legitimate to 'rip-off' the public by charging prices that are
unrelated to costs. That is not to say that all are not entitled to
make a profit but profit should be a fair profit for work done.  I
suppose that is what the present furor about bonuses paid in the
financial sector is all about.

I fully understand the protestations (and abuse) by those engaged in
'rip-offs' that a 'low' price must mean sub-standard work.  After all
how else would they defend their obscene pricing?

In article ,
   Edward W. Thompson  wrote:
> I agree with much of what you have posted.  However, with respect to
> price, a high cost does not ensure a 'good' job either.  Surely it is
> wrong to assume that a price which is say of the £75 range to supply
> and fit an aerial will mean an inferior job or materials used.

It certainly does. Unless you think tradesmen work for free.

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

    Dave Plowman        dave@davenoise.co.uk           London SW
                  To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On 24/09/2008 08:24, Edward W. Thompson wrote:

> with respect to
> price, a high cost does not ensure a 'good' job either.

Plenty (including several, like me, who are not in the trade) will agree 
with you on that point.

"Edward W. Thompson"  wrote in message 
news:u46dnWexTYrmdkTVnZ2dnUVZ8sXinZ2d@bt.com...
> As for those that post and are 'in the trade', I do not doubt their
> technical competency, why should I?  I do however, question their
> morals and ethics based upon what they have previously posted
> concerning pricing of work.

I think you'll find that those of us here who do a decent job for a 
reasonable price get really annoyed when we hear of actual rip-off, like the 
£550 job mentioned the other day. We are, in fact, highly moral! I get as 
mad as hell about these rip-off merchants.

>
> It is possible, indeed likely, that being of a similar age to your
> father, our standards relating to business practices and the idea of
> fairness are out of date or are not applicable to self employed
> traders.
I don't think things have changed all that much. After all, there were lots 
of people in the 19th century who got very rich from trade. Presumably you 
would, by definition, regard all of these as rip-off merchants, since they 
could have charged less and still made a comfortable living.

>
> I fully understand the protestations (and abuse) by those engaged in
> 'rip-offs' that a 'low' price must mean sub-standard work.  After all
> how else would they defend their obscene pricing?

Quite often I find that very high prices go along with very bad work.

This morning I decided to do a domestic job for a change. The house had a 
For Sale board so I suggested to the customer that a quick cheap fix would 
be in order, and he agreed. Both TV sets had very snowy, unwatchable, 
pictures. It had never been good, and the customer had put up with it for 
three years, but now it was really bad. There was no DTT or satellite in 
use. It took a while to find out that the set-up was:
A very small 'high gain' Vision wideband ae on Emley (should have been a 
grouped ae)
12ft mast, pair of satellite brackets, all this on the front gable looking 
terrible.
A splitter on the mast feeding the builder's built-in coax (via two taped 
points) to the lounge and an external cable which went via one taped joint 
all round the house, then through the wall to another taped joint, then 
miniature coax round two sides of the bedroom.
Emley Moor reception was very poor due to trees, topography, the poor gain 
of the aerial and the cable loss.
I would normally have relocated the mast on the rear gable, fitted a decent 
aerial, etc. Because of the cost constraint I tried the aerial at different 
heights (no luck), tried it on Belmont (very poor C5, others not good). In 
the end I had to use a masthead amp and PSU, and this gave perfect 1 to 4 
and very slightly snowy C5. Charge was £130 + VAT. Time on site three hours. 
Advised customer that a cheap DTT box would be nice, and could be taken with 
them. Customer delighted.

Edward, did I rip this man off? Did the original installer rip this man off?

Bill

On Wed, 24 Sep 2008 14:22:13 +0100, "Bill Wright"
 wrote:

>
>"Edward W. Thompson"  wrote in message 
>news:u46dnWexTYrmdkTVnZ2dnUVZ8sXinZ2d@bt.com...
>> As for those that post and are 'in the trade', I do not doubt their
>> technical competency, why should I?  I do however, question their
>> morals and ethics based upon what they have previously posted
>> concerning pricing of work.
>
>I think you'll find that those of us here who do a decent job for a 
>reasonable price get really annoyed when we hear of actual rip-off, like the 
>£550 job mentioned the other day. We are, in fact, highly moral! I get as 
>mad as hell about these rip-off merchants.
>
>>
>> It is possible, indeed likely, that being of a similar age to your
>> father, our standards relating to business practices and the idea of
>> fairness are out of date or are not applicable to self employed
>> traders.
>I don't think things have changed all that much. After all, there were lots 
>of people in the 19th century who got very rich from trade. Presumably you 
>would, by definition, regard all of these as rip-off merchants, since they 
>could have charged less and still made a comfortable living.
>
>>
>> I fully understand the protestations (and abuse) by those engaged in
>> 'rip-offs' that a 'low' price must mean sub-standard work.  After all
>> how else would they defend their obscene pricing?
>
>Quite often I find that very high prices go along with very bad work.
>
>This morning I decided to do a domestic job for a change. The house had a 
>For Sale board so I suggested to the customer that a quick cheap fix would 
>be in order, and he agreed. Both TV sets had very snowy, unwatchable, 
>pictures. It had never been good, and the customer had put up with it for 
>three years, but now it was really bad. There was no DTT or satellite in 
>use. It took a while to find out that the set-up was:
>A very small 'high gain' Vision wideband ae on Emley (should have been a 
>grouped ae)
>12ft mast, pair of satellite brackets, all this on the front gable looking 
>terrible.
>A splitter on the mast feeding the builder's built-in coax (via two taped 
>points) to the lounge and an external cable which went via one taped joint 
>all round the house, then through the wall to another taped joint, then 
>miniature coax round two sides of the bedroom.
>Emley Moor reception was very poor due to trees, topography, the poor gain 
>of the aerial and the cable loss.
>I would normally have relocated the mast on the rear gable, fitted a decent 
>aerial, etc. Because of the cost constraint I tried the aerial at different 
>heights (no luck), tried it on Belmont (very poor C5, others not good). In 
>the end I had to use a masthead amp and PSU, and this gave perfect 1 to 4 
>and very slightly snowy C5. Charge was £130 + VAT. Time on site three hours. 
>Advised customer that a cheap DTT box would be nice, and could be taken with 
>them. Customer delighted.
>
>Edward, did I rip this man off? Did the original installer rip this man off?
>
>Bill


I guess 'rip-off' needs some sort of definition.  In my view rip-off
means a price that is excessive and unrelated to the cost and
expertise required for the work done and materials supplied. Any
sub-standard or defective work and materials is a rip-off regardless
of price.

 In the case you cited it would be my opinion that for 3 hours work
you under charged.  Probably you work on the basis of 'swings and
roundabouts'.  Nothing necessarily wrong with that unless the price of
the smaller jobs are used to subsidize the bigger (more time required
jobs).  That is not to say that the smaller jobs should not be
somewhat more costly due to travel time unless travel time is integral
with the overhead included in the hourly rate, as it was in my earlier
post.

I have already posted my views on pricing for an aerial installation.
If I recall I suggested a chargeable rate of £45/hour was what I
thought was 'reasonable' based upon the criteria I suggested.  This
was not favourably received by yourself and others as I recall.  I
also suggested material costs (trade cost not retail cost), again for
an 'average' job was of the order of £20, again I believe this was
subject to derision.

With respect to the job you described, if materials were priced at
£20, the labour rate was about £37/hour ([130-20]/3).  If the material
cost was more then labour rate was obviously less.  On this premise I
really do not understand why you rejected so vehemently my earlier
post on cost to erect an aerial for an 'average' installation.

Changing the topic slightly, with respect to my particular 'problem',
that is a DAB aerial, I have spoken to a local aerial installer (man
with a meter this time :-)) and he quoted me a price based upon

price to attend site
cost of materials
hourly rate
no fix no cost
an assurance the job will not take more than one hour based upon my
description of the site. 

The total cost for the job will not exceed £80.  Based upon comments
by others, he must be a 'cowboy'.  We will see.

This was quoted without any request for a price breakdown.  I find
this approach very fair. 

I explained to him the problem, that is reasonable reception from an
internal (wire) aerial.  No reception when a previous installer fitted
a half dipole to the chimney.  Apparently where I live is known to be
a 'difficult' area for DAB but he is willing to try. He also finds it
strange if not inexplicable why an internal wire aerial receives an
acceptable signal but an external aerial did not.

"Edward W. Thompson"  wrote in message 
news:MJSdnRA3u7ddpEbVnZ2dnUVZ8sXinZ2d@bt.com...
> In the case you cited it would be my opinion that for 3 hours work
> you under charged.  Probably you work on the basis of 'swings and
> roundabouts'.  Nothing necessarily wrong with that unless the price of
> the smaller jobs are used to subsidize the bigger (more time required
> jobs).  That is not to say that the smaller jobs should not be
> somewhat more costly due to travel time unless travel time is integral
> with the overhead included in the hourly rate, as it was in my earlier
> post.
>
> I have already posted my views on pricing for an aerial installation.
> If I recall I suggested a chargeable rate of £45/hour was what I
> thought was 'reasonable' based upon the criteria I suggested.  This
> was not favourably received by yourself and others as I recall.  I
> also suggested material costs (trade cost not retail cost), again for
> an 'average' job was of the order of £20, again I believe this was
> subject to derision.

The circumstances of this job were unusual. Firstly, it was only a mile from 
base, which makes a lot of difference. Secondly I made the mistake of 
thinking that the job would be straightforward when it wasn't, and because 
the customer was to move house shortly I was very keen to keep the costs 
down for him. Thirdly he was a very nice man who made me two cups of tea.

You have to take the rough with the smooth I suppose. I certainly couldn't 
make a good living if every job was like that.

> Changing the topic slightly, with respect to my particular 'problem',
> that is a DAB aerial, I have spoken to a local aerial installer (man
> with a meter this time :-)) and he quoted me a price based upon
>
> price to attend site
> cost of materials
> hourly rate
> no fix no cost
> an assurance the job will not take more than one hour based upon my
> description of the site.
>
> The total cost for the job will not exceed £80.  Based upon comments
> by others, he must be a 'cowboy'.  We will see.
Personally my approach would have been similar but I would have quoted about 
£140 and I would not put a time limit on the job. Once you agree to fix 
something you fix it.

I'm quite sure that the problem you had was down to something absurdly 
simple.

Bill

>I explained to him the problem, that is reasonable reception from an
>internal (wire) aerial.  No reception when a previous installer fitted
>a half dipole to the chimney.  Apparently where I live is known to be
>a 'difficult' area for DAB but he is willing to try. He also finds it
>strange if not inexplicable why an internal wire aerial receives an
>acceptable signal but an external aerial did not.

Hasn't a relay opened there very recently at Mapperley Ridge?..
-- 
Tony Sayer

"Bill Wright"  wrote in message 
news:4tadnQCUN7-IJkvVnZ2dnUVZ8vGdnZ2d@pipex.net...
> "Steve Terry"  wrote in message 
> news:gb6dlu$ff7$1@news.albasani.net...
>> "Usenet"  wrote in message 
>> news:BMOdnQgscfWckEvVnZ2dnUVZ8q2dnZ2d@posted.plusnet...
>>> http://www.thetechguys.com/services/digital-aerial-and-tv-installation.shtml
>>>
>>> They offer a "digital aerial" and TV installation for £199.
>>> Wonder what exactly do you get for the money?
>>> Glenn
>>>
>> The usual. Sub contracted out to any semi sober local moron
>> with a ladder
>
> I've missed out somewhere then. I was definitely semi-sober last Thursday 
> morning.
> Bill
>
You want to be a PC World Tech Guy?

You must be drunker than you think

Steve Terry

On 25/09/2008 17:32, tony sayer wrote:

>> I explained to him the problem, that is reasonable reception from an
>> internal (wire) aerial.  No reception when a previous installer fitted
>> a half dipole to the chimney.  Apparently where I live is known to be
>> a 'difficult' area for DAB but he is willing to try. He also finds it
>> strange if not inexplicable why an internal wire aerial receives an
>> acceptable signal but an external aerial did not.
> 
> Hasn't a relay opened there very recently at Mapperley Ridge?..

Yes, I've tried to point that out to Edward a couple of times recently, 
but he hasn't replied to indicate if it's mad any difference to his DAB 
reception.

On Thu, 25 Sep 2008 23:48:10 +0100, Andy Burns
 wrote:

>On 25/09/2008 17:32, tony sayer wrote:
>
>>> I explained to him the problem, that is reasonable reception from an
>>> internal (wire) aerial.  No reception when a previous installer fitted
>>> a half dipole to the chimney.  Apparently where I live is known to be
>>> a 'difficult' area for DAB but he is willing to try. He also finds it
>>> strange if not inexplicable why an internal wire aerial receives an
>>> acceptable signal but an external aerial did not.
>> 
>> Hasn't a relay opened there very recently at Mapperley Ridge?..
>
>Yes, I've tried to point that out to Edward a couple of times recently, 
>but he hasn't replied to indicate if it's mad any difference to his DAB 
>reception.

Sorry I haven't responded but as I believe I indicated my problems
with DAB reception are sporadic although do appear to be related to
weather conditions.  I certainly haven't had problems recently (within
last month) but whether or not that is because of the 'new' relay at
Mapperley Ridge I couldn't say.  

This morning is particularly misty and DAB reception seems OK so maybe
the 'new' relay at Mapperley Ridge has helped the signal.

On Thu, 25 Sep 2008 13:27:13 +0100, "Bill Wright"
 wrote:

>
>"Edward W. Thompson"  wrote in message 
>news:MJSdnRA3u7ddpEbVnZ2dnUVZ8sXinZ2d@bt.com...
>> In the case you cited it would be my opinion that for 3 hours work
>> you under charged.  Probably you work on the basis of 'swings and
>> roundabouts'.  Nothing necessarily wrong with that unless the price of
>> the smaller jobs are used to subsidize the bigger (more time required
>> jobs).  That is not to say that the smaller jobs should not be
>> somewhat more costly due to travel time unless travel time is integral
>> with the overhead included in the hourly rate, as it was in my earlier
>> post.
>>
>> I have already posted my views on pricing for an aerial installation.
>> If I recall I suggested a chargeable rate of £45/hour was what I
>> thought was 'reasonable' based upon the criteria I suggested.  This
>> was not favourably received by yourself and others as I recall.  I
>> also suggested material costs (trade cost not retail cost), again for
>> an 'average' job was of the order of £20, again I believe this was
>> subject to derision.
>
>The circumstances of this job were unusual. Firstly, it was only a mile from 
>base, which makes a lot of difference. Secondly I made the mistake of 
>thinking that the job would be straightforward when it wasn't, and because 
>the customer was to move house shortly I was very keen to keep the costs 
>down for him. Thirdly he was a very nice man who made me two cups of tea.
>
>You have to take the rough with the smooth I suppose. I certainly couldn't 
>make a good living if every job was like that.
>
>> Changing the topic slightly, with respect to my particular 'problem',
>> that is a DAB aerial, I have spoken to a local aerial installer (man
>> with a meter this time :-)) and he quoted me a price based upon
>>
>> price to attend site
>> cost of materials
>> hourly rate
>> no fix no cost
>> an assurance the job will not take more than one hour based upon my
>> description of the site.
>>
>> The total cost for the job will not exceed £80.  Based upon comments
>> by others, he must be a 'cowboy'.  We will see.
>Personally my approach would have been similar but I would have quoted about 
>£140 and I would not put a time limit on the job. Once you agree to fix 
>something you fix it.
>
>I'm quite sure that the problem you had was down to something absurdly 
>simple.
>
>Bill 
>

I really do not want to reopen the 'can of worms' and receive yet more
abuse that flowed from the earlier thread on costing but we differ
over what is a fair price to errect a DAB aerial on an existing mast.
For a one hour job I cannot accept £140 is a fair price.  

I have no problem whatsoever in paying for the time taken to do work.
If the rate is advised beforehand.  I do have a problem in agreeing to
pay for, say three hours work, when the work can be done in one hour.

In may case a perfectly good TV aerial and mast is in place and is
accessible by ladder (no roof ladder required).  I know the time to
errect an aerial is one hour as it has been done twice before; once
for the TV and once for the failed attempt for DAB.

With the 'proper' equipment I assume (I hope not incorrectly) that the
strenght of the signal at the property can be measured and the work
can be completed within the hour.  If the work takes longer then I
will pay for the time taken.  I do not wish to offend but for me a
price of £140 to do this job ( provided it is a one hour job) would be
a 'rip-off',  i.e. the price quoted is grossly in excess of cost of
materials plus cost of labour plus overheads plus profit.  For £20
value for materials a return of £120/hour is a handsome return.

Referring to your post concerning the job you described, I think I am
also a 'nice bloke' and I always give my contractors tea and sometimes
biscuits!  I believe I have all necessary qualifications for a 'fair
price' for work done.

On 26/09/2008 07:27, Edward W. Thompson wrote:

> I indicated my problems
> with DAB reception are sporadic although do appear to be related to
> weather conditions.  I certainly haven't had problems recently (within
> last month) but whether or not that is because of the 'new' relay at
> Mapperley Ridge I couldn't say.  

Might be worth holding-off spending anything for a bit, when you 
previously had problems, did they include the commercial muxes? (which 
were already transmitted from Mapperley)

> This morning is particularly misty

Thanks for the weather forecast, just on my way to Bestwood Park ;-)

In article ,
   Edward W. Thompson  wrote:
> Sorry I haven't responded but as I believe I indicated my problems
> with DAB reception are sporadic although do appear to be related to
> weather conditions.  I certainly haven't had problems recently (within
> last month) but whether or not that is because of the 'new' relay at
> Mapperley Ridge I couldn't say.  

> This morning is particularly misty and DAB reception seems OK so maybe
> the 'new' relay at Mapperley Ridge has helped the signal.

I've occasionally had DAB reception problems that seem to be weather
related - but never in the morning. Always worst when the sun is high.
I'm wondering if it's another transmitter zapping the DAB signal. I'm in a
very high field strength area for UHF TV.

-- 
*It doesn't take a genius to spot a goat in a flock of sheep *

    Dave Plowman        dave@davenoise.co.uk           London SW
                  To e-mail, change noise into sound.