All posts by ken
Below are all of ken's postings, with the most recent are at the bottom of the page.
For my license fee I'd just be grateful to be able to receive a TV signal. I have an aeriel stem as high as it can go, boosters etc and today all I get is a blank screen. No Data.
Satelite free view is also hit and miss, and why I need to be able to receive 200 channels of porn, religious nutcases shopping and trash TV I cannot imagine.
Digital TV has been a huge con as far as I am concerned, I got better reception on the old system.
Frankly I'd be delighted to go back to the days of 3 channels we had better programes and far less trash.
I be damned if I'll pay for Sky TV as well.
The BBC has become far too political, too self important and too full of itself.
There is no doubt it needs a good kick up the backside and a curb on its reckless wastage of its income.
| link to this comment |
Thank you for your opinion of my political stance based on what newspapers you think I read. Wrong.
You must be a BBC PR man.
I am not stupid and have taken on board and acted on previous advice here and from "experts" who have relieved my of lots of cash for the advice to chop down my neighbours trees or move to a two storey house in order to get the dish higher.
Fact is digital TV is for me and others nearby a waste of money and a con.
Fact is we never had trouble with analogue.Worst was a grainy picture. even freeview from sattelite breaks up on many stations.
I am never going to put money into SKY for any reason, I do not watch sport either.
I am 70yrs old and have used the BBC services since I was sat on a pot listening to listen with mother in the 1940s.
I do not believe the present day biased output of the BBC has got anywhere near the quality of the 1950s and 60s. Its present day output is trite PC trash for the most part.
I am near the point of dumping TV in favour of whatever I can watch via the net.
Having had in the past acess to BBC archives at Broadcasting House in the 80s I am well aware of the content of them, and what they are lacking.
| link to this comment |
Why you need to bring newpapers into this I have no idea, I never read any of them, but your instant, ooh Daily Mail response is pure leftwing BS and has nothingto do with my lack of signal.
According to this site,which I have read and studied for some years I should get a good straight line signal from Mendip; in the summer I don't, in the winter I do depending onthe eweather. Nothing has changed since the change over from analogue, my ariel has got taller, has boosters on it aand has left me about 200 quid out of pocket. Technicians advice was to cut down my neighbours trees as they are in the way, I am in a valley in the Pewsey Vale and have been for 30 years.
Fact I got analogue no problem
Fact Digital freeview is far worse.
Fact I am paying for a TV license for a service I cannot use except sporadically.
I do not consider that to be an improvement; whoever OK'd digital knew very well that due to geography certain places in the UK would get worse reception with digital. I get no rebate for a worse service.
"TV reception is about physics"
exactly, I get no decent signal because of the geography around me, I cannot change that.
Therefore I consider my license fee to receive a TV signal is money obtained under false pretences; only the BBC would get away with it, but not for long I hope.
Your constant irrelevant references to a newspaper that has no connection to my issue I consider snide.
It says more about you than me.
I have seen the BBC degrade from a much respected institution to the arrogant biased and selective gravy train it is now.
Thank you for your input.
| link to this comment |
I won't put my post code on an open site as my house is thus readily identified, being so rural.
However I have checked what signal I should get on this site via postcode. So I know what I should get.
A TV rigger installed all my equipment.
His advice was that the trees are blocking my signal.
He being local also said that this SN postcode has seveal blackspots in which digital reception is either non existant or patchy. Some areas a few miles away have lost channel 5 entirely, no big loss I agree.
I also have freesat and on a day like today some channels like Sky news break up.
Yes I do pay a fee and expect a service at least equal to that which I had before. Otehrwise it is money ontained under false pretences.
Your puerile and sarcastic comments and your geological 'expertise' from the other end of the country are about what I would expect from a junior BBC minion. Because thats what you obviously are.
So thanks for your unhelpful insulting comments which have been of no use at all except for you to vent your spleen and bile which you base on presumptions.
You are basically a bigoted idiot. Why you post on here I have no idea.
| link to this comment |
Monday 23 May 2011 3:45PM
Ever since the last re-tune in march my digital reception has got worse and worse.
I lost several channels which where faultless previously.
I have a new free-view TV, [Samsung] an extended ariel about 30ft high, a complete eyesore, professionally installed with all bells gongs and whistles to enhance.
Signal is still rubbish, today its just breaking up on all channels except one or two rubbish ones.
Please don't tell me its because I need to chop down trees, I am surrounded by them, the weather, this is the UK for gods sake, or I need to move.
This whole digital thing has been a complete fiasco and an absolute con. I am on the verge of either junking the lot or refusing to pay a TV license, the whole set up TV ariel etc cost me nigh on £1000.
I am not inclined to buy one of Murdoch's satellites either.
post code is SN9, I might add we had no trouble at all with analogue on an older TV and lower ariel