I see Aldi are offering a 'mini' satellite receiver system for 80 Euro (in Ireland). Lidl had similar two weeks ago.
A friend installed the Lidl system and he tells me that the reception is perfect on any channel he has tried; even stuff clearly meant for the Mediterranean and North Africa.
The dish seems a good bit smaller than those you normally see on houses. How come the smaller size is adequate?
Or, put it another way, why the larger dishes installed for Sky etc. if smaller would do? I did ask him about the performance in heavy rain, but we've had none yet.
On Fri, 08 Jun 2007 11:40:56 -0000 someone who may be snipped-for-privacy@gmail.com wrote this:-
Alignment is supposedly more critical with the smaller dishes, but they should pick up things well. As you hinted, they might not work so well as a larger dish in heavy rain.
I found one of the camping kits in Lidl earlier this week. 30 pounds for the kit and an extra 7 pounds 50 pence for an 80cm dish, a bargain. It works well, though the options on the receiver are a little limited. I intend to play with the little dish over the weekend and see how well it works.
It is only when more people install this sort of thing themselves that the Rupert Murdoch stranglehold on satellite in the UK will be broken. The idea of having someone fit equipment for a subscription service, or fit equipment for 150 pounds and a 20 pound for two years card for "free" television stations must make people from the mainland laugh as their idea of satellite television is to buy a kit from a supermarket.
By mainland, do you mean the South Island (Europe)?
Don't forget that you can't get C4 or any of the five channels on these FTA kits at the moment, also Murdoch doesn't have a stranglehold on satellite in the uk, it's perfectly possible to DIY with either a FTA receiver, or a Sky Digibox bought off ebay or wherever. Though again , if you want BB8 etc you have to get the =A320 FTV card.
[Apologies in advance if this appears twice, posting via Google Groups.]
Thanks. And to adder1969. My question wasn't a particularly intelligent; a little Googling informed me of the range of dishes and sizes available.
So you bought the camping kit and replaced the 'mini' dish with an
80-cm?
You mention above that alignment is more critical for smaller dishes; my friend mentioned that too. The larger the dish, the narrower, and larger magnitude, will be the 'gain' main lobe; so would it not be the opposite? That (my last statement) has to be nonsense, but maybe you can follow the reasoning; there has to be some paradox.
On Fri, 08 Jun 2007 13:12:00 -0000 someone who may be snipped-for-privacy@gmail.com wrote this:-
Yes.
No. The 80cm one was beside the kit in the shop and cost 7 pounds
50, so it was worthwhile getting. The smaller dish could have one of several uses depending on inclination.
I have not yet had a the chance to play with the smaller dish. However, a smaller dish is less likely to be able to focus enough of the signal to get a good picture, thus alignment is more critical.
But the vast majority see satellite TV as Sky only and subscription. Not simply as another means of receiving television (and radio) broadcasts, with equipment you can buy and install yourself.
Maybe when the BBC/ITV Freesat service launches things will change a little.
On Fri, 08 Jun 2007 14:22:02 +0100 (BST) someone who may be "Dave Liquorice" wrote this:-
That is precisely the point. Many people are simply unaware of the DIY option, even though for a relatively low price and a very slightly more complicated installation those with freeview problems can get some (and eventually all I presume) of the channels a different way. On the mainland this is what people do and I don't see why it should be any different in the UK.
As for Rupert Murdoch charging twenty pounds for a card to watch free channels; that's nice business if you can get it, but eventually people will learn that it is a rip-off.
..and if you get a really large dish the focus is more concentrated so alignment is critical. The medium sized (60-70cm) "blurry-focussed" dishes are no so critical.
Sky charge 20 quid for a card to un-encrypt Channel 4 and 5. Those two broadcasters for programming rights reasons, encrypt their satellite broadcasts to avoid (in theory) reception outside of the UK. They have chosen Sky's encryption system, because the vast majority of satellite boxes in use in the UK are Sky Digiboxes. Sky's encryption scheme is proprietary, called VideoGuard, and unlike other systems no external CAM etc exists or can be used. The VideoGuard CAM is hardware and software embedded into Sky's boxes. This is what many consider to be anti-competitive, Sky charge C4 and 5 for use of their encryption system, they are not obliged to use it, though it's thought Sky present them with a 'good deal'. If they dropped the encryption, they'd have to re-negotiate their programming and film rights. Most probably the increase of cost of this outweighs what Uncle Rupert charges them for encryption.
The BBC decided in July 2003 not to play this silly game any more, and ditched Sky's encryption, ITV followed in Nov 2005. Therefore both those broadcasters are available for viewing on any make of satellite receiver. It is rumoured however that Sky still charge them a fortune for full regional inclusion on Sky's EPG. Remember both broadcasters have about 25 regions, in order for the correct regions to appear on a Sky box in a given area, Sky have to map each viewer's viewing card.
As far as payment for the satellite capacity goes, BBC, ITV, and C4 all pay SES Astra directly, and up-link directly themselves. None of that is passed on etc to Sky. C5 are different, Sky uplink them, and they 'sub rent' the satellite's capacity to C5.
We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the drugs began to take hold. I remember David Hansen saying something like:
Other way round - the beamwidth of the large dishes is much narrower and hence alignment is more critical. What helps a lot with smaller dishes these days is a huge improvement is LNB design, allowing the use of smaller dishes than would have been considered acceptable just a couple of years ago.
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.