You can take the dish if you like. It is your property.
Should I remove the TV aerial?
- Thread starter yjones
- Start date
You can take the dish if you like. It is your property.
Sponsored Links
I suppose you could, but it’s not the norm.
What if there’s no aerial and no satellite dish?
The way I'd look at it is to prioritise on the immediate and on cost first.
There are a lot of bad aerial installs because a huge aerial is fitted to an under-sized chimney bracket. The wind loading on these aerials is significant, but the small brackets can't handle it so they move and as a result they wiggle the bricks loose and so wreck the pointing. A fiver saved on the bracket causes £300+ worth of damage to the fabric of the building plus the cost of sorting any water damage inside the property too.
If the aerial and its bracket were partly to blame for the need to repoint the chimney then leaving them up is a bad choice.
I see these 6" brackets welded brackets..............................and these 6" pressed steel ones far too often trying to support some huge sail of an aerial on a 6ft or 10ft pole. That's a bad choice.
A big aerial needs a big bracket. An 8" mitre cradle really is a minimum.
Better still, change the bracket and fit an aerial with a far-lower wind loading. Log Periodic aerials are becoming far more popular because they work far better than the Wide Band High Gain at the lower frequency ranges on which many of our transmitters are now running.
Looking farther ahead, most house-buyers will take it for granted that there's a TV aerial fitted. Those who said Freeview is more popular than satellite are absolutely correct. In pure numbers Sky has around 9 million subscribers out of the 26-odd million households in the UK, so ditching the aerial without good reason isn't a great idea.
However, telling any prospective purchaser that you took down a bad aerial and fixed the pointing, and that you're willing to have a better aerial installed for them might actually win you Brownie points. The flip side is it's an added complication for you, the sales agent and any prospective buyer so dealing with it now would be the best long term plan.
There are a lot of bad aerial installs because a huge aerial is fitted to an under-sized chimney bracket. The wind loading on these aerials is significant, but the small brackets can't handle it so they move and as a result they wiggle the bricks loose and so wreck the pointing. A fiver saved on the bracket causes £300+ worth of damage to the fabric of the building plus the cost of sorting any water damage inside the property too.
If the aerial and its bracket were partly to blame for the need to repoint the chimney then leaving them up is a bad choice.
I see these 6" brackets welded brackets..............................and these 6" pressed steel ones far too often trying to support some huge sail of an aerial on a 6ft or 10ft pole. That's a bad choice.
A big aerial needs a big bracket. An 8" mitre cradle really is a minimum.
Better still, change the bracket and fit an aerial with a far-lower wind loading. Log Periodic aerials are becoming far more popular because they work far better than the Wide Band High Gain at the lower frequency ranges on which many of our transmitters are now running.
Looking farther ahead, most house-buyers will take it for granted that there's a TV aerial fitted. Those who said Freeview is more popular than satellite are absolutely correct. In pure numbers Sky has around 9 million subscribers out of the 26-odd million households in the UK, so ditching the aerial without good reason isn't a great idea.
However, telling any prospective purchaser that you took down a bad aerial and fixed the pointing, and that you're willing to have a better aerial installed for them might actually win you Brownie points. The flip side is it's an added complication for you, the sales agent and any prospective buyer so dealing with it now would be the best long term plan.
Sponsored Links
Excuse my ignorance - I thought Freeview came via satellite dish, not an aerial? (as you can tell - I dont watch much TV!)
D
Doggit
Freesat from a satellite dish, and Freeview from an Aerial.
- Joined
- 16 Sep 2007
- Messages
- 1,902
- Reaction score
- 161
- Country
That's not quite true. Log periodics do not have high gain so aren't suited to everywhere. Where they benefit is directivity and front to back ratio because each element acts as a reflector for the element in front of it, so ideal for areas with lots of transmitters nearby. They certainly aren't the universal antenna you suggest.
A yagi-uda high gain antenna is always a better choice for poorer signal areas.
Wideband band yagis have a rising gain towards the top of their band. In group A channels their gain is often less than a log periodic, which is why Lucid said:
"Log Periodic aerials are becoming far more popular because they work far better than the Wide Band High Gain at the lower frequency ranges on which many of our transmitters are now running."
- Joined
- 16 Sep 2007
- Messages
- 1,902
- Reaction score
- 161
- Country
Which is why I didn't say wideband!
Okay, I was going to let this slide after your first reply, aptsys, but seeing as you're pushing it again after Winston's reply then I think it needs addressing.
So, let's take it from the top. The OP is non-technical. Like many people who ask questions here, yjones is non-technical. Proof, if needed, comes from the comment that he(?) thought Freeview comes via a satellite signal. That's absolutely fine. The forum is here to help all. What it does mean is that we try to avoid over-techy answers, particularly ones where there's insufficient info from the OP to go making big assumptions.
Now let's look at the detail of your first reply after mine.
"That's not quite true. Log periodics do not have high gain so aren't suited to everywhere. " I didn't write that Log Periodics have high gain. Sorry, but that's you making an unfounded assumption. Nor did I say that they're suitable everywhere. That's another assumption on your part.
"Where they benefit is directivity and front to back ratio because each element acts as a reflector for the element in front of it, so ideal for areas with lots of transmitters nearby. " No argument here on that point. However, problems with multiple transmitters wasn't raised as a specific issue in the OP, and it's not the sole advantage of Logs.
Their relatively flat gain curve also makes them suitable for transmission areas that are undergoing a shuffling of the frequencies. In my own TV region (Granada) we've seen the Winter Hill transmitter frequencies go from being bunched at the upper end of the range to now being spread right the way through from c31 to c59. However, you are correct about the multiple transmitter advantage, even though it's not (as yet) relevant to the OP's enquiry. Incidentally, they also help with impulse noise, but again. that's not directly relevant either.
"They certainly aren't the universal antenna you suggest. " Again, another assumption on your part, I'm afraid. I never said they were universally suitable.
I was simply suggesting an aerial type with a lower wind loading that the large aerial currently fitted to yjones' home. Can you think of a TV aerial that is widely available and that has a lower wind loading than a Log?
It's nice to show off a bit of knowledge, and in the right circumstances it is very much welcomed. At the same time though we have to be careful not to alienate the OP or frighten them off with irrelevant debate. Very often they're just looking for a simple answer to what they see as a simple question.
Our job here isn't really to show-boat, but to gently guide those making enquiries to a better understanding of what they have and to help them appreciate the implications of their choices. All contributions that help achieve that are welcomed. I don't recall seeing you as a regular contributor to this forum but do notice that you're active on the heating and electrical forums. I hope to see more of you here if you have the time.
Best regards
Lucid
So, let's take it from the top. The OP is non-technical. Like many people who ask questions here, yjones is non-technical. Proof, if needed, comes from the comment that he(?) thought Freeview comes via a satellite signal. That's absolutely fine. The forum is here to help all. What it does mean is that we try to avoid over-techy answers, particularly ones where there's insufficient info from the OP to go making big assumptions.
Now let's look at the detail of your first reply after mine.
"That's not quite true. Log periodics do not have high gain so aren't suited to everywhere. " I didn't write that Log Periodics have high gain. Sorry, but that's you making an unfounded assumption. Nor did I say that they're suitable everywhere. That's another assumption on your part.
"Where they benefit is directivity and front to back ratio because each element acts as a reflector for the element in front of it, so ideal for areas with lots of transmitters nearby. " No argument here on that point. However, problems with multiple transmitters wasn't raised as a specific issue in the OP, and it's not the sole advantage of Logs.
Their relatively flat gain curve also makes them suitable for transmission areas that are undergoing a shuffling of the frequencies. In my own TV region (Granada) we've seen the Winter Hill transmitter frequencies go from being bunched at the upper end of the range to now being spread right the way through from c31 to c59. However, you are correct about the multiple transmitter advantage, even though it's not (as yet) relevant to the OP's enquiry. Incidentally, they also help with impulse noise, but again. that's not directly relevant either.
"They certainly aren't the universal antenna you suggest. " Again, another assumption on your part, I'm afraid. I never said they were universally suitable.
I was simply suggesting an aerial type with a lower wind loading that the large aerial currently fitted to yjones' home. Can you think of a TV aerial that is widely available and that has a lower wind loading than a Log?
It's nice to show off a bit of knowledge, and in the right circumstances it is very much welcomed. At the same time though we have to be careful not to alienate the OP or frighten them off with irrelevant debate. Very often they're just looking for a simple answer to what they see as a simple question.
Our job here isn't really to show-boat, but to gently guide those making enquiries to a better understanding of what they have and to help them appreciate the implications of their choices. All contributions that help achieve that are welcomed. I don't recall seeing you as a regular contributor to this forum but do notice that you're active on the heating and electrical forums. I hope to see more of you here if you have the time.
Best regards
Lucid
- Joined
- 16 Sep 2007
- Messages
- 1,902
- Reaction score
- 161
- Country
There's no showboating going on, my reply was in response to your comment about "Log Periodic aerials are becoming far more popular because they work far better than the Wide Band High Gain at the lower frequency ranges on which many of our transmitters are now running." for which the cause is simply not true. They're becoming popular because a lot of people installing them see them as a universal antenna.
You suggested swapping the antenna for a log periodic without knowing if it is suitable and assumed repointing was needed because of the wind loading of the antenna currently fitted when he actually just said the current one is an eyesore. The fact you suggested it without assessing the site suggests you would fit it as a one antenna fits all solution.
Well we'll just have to agree to differ.
You see, we don't know if it's a poor signal area. There's nothing in the OP or yjones' follow-up posts to suggest that it is, or that it isn't. This could simply be a case of the aerial installer pushing the biggest most expensive aerial just for profit, or equally it could have been the householder's choice.
My primary concern was the wind loading. I've been to far too many installs where a sail is mounted on a weedy chimney bracket with disastrous results for the fabric of the building.
You see, we don't know if it's a poor signal area. There's nothing in the OP or yjones' follow-up posts to suggest that it is, or that it isn't. This could simply be a case of the aerial installer pushing the biggest most expensive aerial just for profit, or equally it could have been the householder's choice.
My primary concern was the wind loading. I've been to far too many installs where a sail is mounted on a weedy chimney bracket with disastrous results for the fabric of the building.
If you’re selling in a few years and don’t use the aerial and think it spoils the look of your property, take it down. I’ve never heard of anyone looking at buying a house being put off there’s no aerial. If they like the house they’ll buy it. £150 for a new one is a drop in the ocean compared to purchasing a house.
I'm probably late to the thread, but I personally would not remove the aerial.
When I bought my house last December, it had been removed prior to purchase. We only use Freeview so it meant £99 to have one installed. It certainly wouldn't have put me off buying the house no, but it was one of those small inconveniences. It's doing no harm so may as well leave it up.
The past owners had Virgin Media installed and I'm guessing that's when the aerial was taken down. It meant removing 4 wall-mounted Virgin Media boxes which had been hastily put up around the house and removing around 55 ft of cabling which had been nailed onto the house. I also couldn't wait to remove that horrible brown box simply stuck on the side of the bay window brickwork.
When I bought my house last December, it had been removed prior to purchase. We only use Freeview so it meant £99 to have one installed. It certainly wouldn't have put me off buying the house no, but it was one of those small inconveniences. It's doing no harm so may as well leave it up.
The past owners had Virgin Media installed and I'm guessing that's when the aerial was taken down. It meant removing 4 wall-mounted Virgin Media boxes which had been hastily put up around the house and removing around 55 ft of cabling which had been nailed onto the house. I also couldn't wait to remove that horrible brown box simply stuck on the side of the bay window brickwork.
When I bought my house it had a load of overgrown bushes in the garden and a crap concrete pond. I removed the lot. Should I have left it in case the next occupier might have wanted it?
This chap says he’s moving in a couple of years ...... possibly, doesn’t use the aerial, doesn’t see himself ever using it and thinks it looks crap. Worst case scenario is a £150 new install that he will not pay for. Hardly a conundrum to me.
This chap says he’s moving in a couple of years ...... possibly, doesn’t use the aerial, doesn’t see himself ever using it and thinks it looks crap. Worst case scenario is a £150 new install that he will not pay for. Hardly a conundrum to me.
DIYnot Local
Staff member
If you need to find a tradesperson to get your job done, please try our local search below, or if you are doing it yourself you can find suppliers local to you.
Select the supplier or trade you require, enter your location to begin your search.
Are you a trade or supplier? You can create your listing free at DIYnot Local
Sponsored Links
Similar threads
