Another con?

[PeteFJ]

These sound too good to be true. Anyone with any experience of them?

http://getyourfox.com/cut-the-cord-with-these-cable-replacing-gadgets/?gclid=EAIaIQobChMIxfT67p3c2QIVRLRRCh3JGgBAEAEYASAAEgKXAfD_BwE

pfj


--
To contact the author then write to pfjames2000ATicloudDOTcom

[The Natural Philosopher]

On 08/03/18 08:18, PeteFJ wrote:
> These sound too good to be true. Anyone with any experience of them?
>
> http://getyourfox.com/cut-the-cord-with-these-cable-replacing-gadgets/?gclid=EAIaIQobChMIxfT67p3c2QIVRLRRCh3JGgBAEAEYASAAEgKXAfD_BwE
>
> pfj
>
>

Completely irrelevant in the UK, which is where this NG is based, and
where we have had satellite and terrestrial digital TV for years.

And 90% of our broadband is down a telphone line, not a cable.

And cable TV never caught on.

Nice try spammer, but you picked the wrong NG.




--
To ban Christmas, simply give turkeys the vote.

[Bill Wright]

In fact they are widely advertised in the UK with UK prices and a UK
postal address. They comprise a splendid cardbox box containing a
medium-quality indoor TV aerial.

Bill

[Graham.]

Nah, his (limited) posting history, and the fact he is using the
Berlin server suggests to me that it's not his spam, but he really
needs lessons in identifying such obvious clickbait.

Indoor amplified HD antenna indeed!


--

Graham.
%Profound_observation%

[Graham.]

Thanks Bill, your check/cheque is in the mail/post.

--

Graham.
%Profound_observation%

[Max Demian]

On 08/03/2018 08:41, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

> On 08/03/18 08:18, PeteFJ wrote:
>> These sound too good to be true.  Anyone with any experience of them?
>>
>> http://getyourfox.com/cut-the-cord-with-these-cable-replacing-gadgets/?gclid=EAIaIQobChMIxfT67p3c2QIVRLRRCh3JGgBAEAEYASAAEgKXAfD_BwE

> Completely irrelevant in the UK, which is where this NG is based, and
> where we have had satellite and terrestrial digital TV for years.
>

> And 90% of our broadband is down a telephone line, not a cable.

They don't mention broadband.

> And cable TV never caught on.

Virgin might disagree.

> Nice try spammer, but you picked the wrong NG.

Probably just an indoor aerial to receive the US equivalent to Freeview
which will only work if the signal is really strong. If they are honest
they will refund your money if it doesn't work. Like the bit of wire
with a round thing at the end people were selling in the 1970s.

--
Max Demian

[The Natural Philosopher]

On 08/03/18 10:18, Max Demian wrote:
> On 08/03/2018 08:41, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>> On 08/03/18 08:18, PeteFJ wrote:
>>> These sound too good to be true.  Anyone with any experience of them?
>>>
>>> http://getyourfox.com/cut-the-cord-with-these-cable-replacing-gadgets/?gclid=EAIaIQobChMIxfT67p3c2QIVRLRRCh3JGgBAEAEYASAAEgKXAfD_BwE
>
>
>> Completely irrelevant in the UK, which is where this NG is based, and
>> where we have had satellite and terrestrial digital TV for years.
>>
>> And 90% of our broadband is down a telephone line, not a cable.
>
> They don't mention broadband.
>
>> And cable TV never caught on.
>
> Virgin might disagree.

No, They would actually agree,.

Cambridge Cable - one of the few cable companies - started to try and
promote cable TV. They ended up by being a massive broadband and
telephone provider.

Unlike the USA terstrial TV actually worked in the UK, and digital
freeview and satellite put pay to it : Its far ceheaper tio bang up a
sky dish that put cable into peoples homes

>
>> Nice try spammer, but you picked the wrong NG.
>
> Probably just an indoor aerial to receive the US equivalent to Freeview
> which will only work if the signal is really strong. If they are honest
> they will refund your money if it doesn't work. Like the bit of wire
> with a round thing at the end people were selling in the 1970s.
>

Well they are also talking about netflix and other Internet delivered
servces too.

That we all know about already....

--
Outside of a dog, a book is a man's best friend. Inside of a dog it's
too dark to read.

Groucho Marx

[Brian Gaff]

Oh my gawd. A couple of years ago I tested an active antenna for all bands.
it fitted inside what looked like a piece of pvc drainpipe and was powered
up the cable by a wall wart.
Yes it certainly did pick stuff up. All the interference, lots of strong
stations which cross modulated the weak ones. I'd imagine if you were out in
the middle of Dartmoor then it would be great as an aerial for a scanner of
something like a short wave radio, but really most of these miracle devices
do not work very well near man made rubbish and strong transmitters, so
unless this device really has come up with something new, I'd not touch it
with a bargepole.
Brian

--
----- -
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...
bri...@blueyonder.co.uk
Blind user, so no pictures please!
"PeteFJ" <pfj...@google.com> wrote in message
news:1nlc381.wxg7wz1g7ar2uN%pfj...@google.com...

[Brian Gaff]

Exactly.
I remember a thread here a while back about so called universal tv aerials
on caravans. The amplifier as a replacement for goot antennea siting and
drectionality is never going to make it.

Brian

--
----- -
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...
bri...@blueyonder.co.uk
Blind user, so no pictures please!

"The Natural Philosopher" <t...@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:p7qt0g$6ic$1...@dont-email.me...

[Brian Gaff]

Not even an amplifier?

That is the only way most could ever work.

Brian

--
----- -
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...
bri...@blueyonder.co.uk
Blind user, so no pictures please!

"Bill Wright" <wrights...@f2s.com> wrote in message
news:p7r200$f6o$2...@gioia.aioe.org...

[Brian Gaff]

The only indoor aerial of any sort which worked was made by Fuba and was for
FM, it actually had an amplifier with very good filtering for out of band
signals and a tweak knob on the top. It looked a bit like a flattened
Norseman's helmet with plastic wings.

Brian

--
----- -
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...
bri...@blueyonder.co.uk
Blind user, so no pictures please!

"The Natural Philosopher" <t...@invalid.invalid> wrote in message

news:p7r3j6$hk6$1...@dont-email.me...

[David]

Cable TV?
As in a variant of DOCSIS over co-ax?
Found an article which claims "At present Virgin Media’s cable network
covers around 44% of the United Kingdom (12.5 million premises)".
So that doesn't tie in with the claim that 90% of Broadband is down a
telephone line.

As they say "citation needed".


Cheers


Dave R


--
AMD FX-6300 in GA-990X-Gaming SLI-CF running Windows 7 Pro x64

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

[PeteFJ]

PeteFJ <pfj...@google.com> wrote:

> These sound too good to be true. Anyone with any experience of them?
>
> http://getyourfox.com/cut-the-cord-with-these-cable-replacing-gadgets/?gclid=
>EAIaIQobChMIxfT67p3c2QIVRLRRCh3JGgBAEAEYASAAEgKXAfD_BwE

>snipped

May I put the record straight. I'm not a spammer. I saw a link to them
and thought they might be useful in the UK. The advert seemed to
suggest that I could save on my subscriptions to Sky. Remember, I'm not
a technically trained person and couldn't differentiate my my dipole
from a hole in the ground. But do read my OP where I said, "These sound

too good to be true."

Apologies if anyone was offended. I'll grovel in public if need be.

[alan_m]

On 08/03/2018 17:26, David wrote:

> Found an article which claims "At present Virgin Media’s cable network
> covers around 44% of the United Kingdom (12.5 million premises)".
> So that doesn't tie in with the claim that 90% of Broadband is down a
> telephone line.
>

Cable could be classified as a telephone line for the purposes of the
broadband figures.

quote from Virgin's Q1, 2017 report

delivering 14.2 million broadband, video and fixed-line telephony
services to 5.8 million cable customers.

/quote

so it looks if they are counting each of their subscribers 3 times, once
for each service they supply via cable.


In addition Just because you may live in an area with a Virgin cable in
the pavement outside your front door doesn't mean that you are going to
pay them to provide any services.

They bombard me with snail mail offering all sorts of large discounts
(for the first year) to take their services. The last mailing offered me
a £400 saving!



--
mailto : news {at} admac {dot} myzen {dot} co {dot} uk

[alan_m]

On 08/03/2018 19:54, PeteFJ wrote:

>
> May I put the record straight. I'm not a spammer. I saw a link to them
> and thought they might be useful in the UK. The advert seemed to
> suggest that I could save on my subscriptions to Sky.

You could use your existing sky dish to get Freesat in the UK
https://www.freesat.co.uk/

With an aerial you can get Freeview in the UK
https://www.freeview.co.uk/
although an indoor aerial of the type you linked to may/will not be the
best way to go.

Both services do not require a subscription or any payment for the
channels but may be missing some channels that you pay Sky to provide
(sports for instance)

[DJC]

On 08/03/18 10:18, Max Demian wrote:

> On 08/03/2018 08:41, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

[…}

>> And cable TV never caught on.
>
> Virgin might disagree.

It never caught on. By the time cable was installed anyone who wanted
multiple channelsof the idiot's lantern already had a Sky dish.
Belatedly the cable companies realised that internet access might be the
thing, but by then they were losing too much money so all bought out by
Virgin Media.


--
djc

(▀̿Ĺ̯▀̿ ̿)
No low-hanging fruit, just a lot of small berries up a tall tree.

[Max Demian]

On 08/03/2018 21:44, DJC wrote:
> On 08/03/18 10:18, Max Demian wrote:
>> On 08/03/2018 08:41, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> […}
>>> And cable TV never caught on.
>>
>> Virgin might disagree.

> It never caught on. By the time cable was installed anyone who wanted
> multiple channelsof the idiot's lantern already had a Sky dish.
> Belatedly the cable companies realised that internet access might be the
> thing, but by then they were losing too much money so all bought out by
> Virgin Media.

...who keep trying to sign me up for cable TV, BB & phone...

--
Max Demian

[David]

As an (obvious) VM customer I will say that the first time I was able to
get what was then NTL cable it was a revelation. Going from crappy ADSL to
much faster cable was an enormous improvement.

I am eyeing up the progress of the FTTP installation along our street but
until that gets fired up and working there doesn't seem to be much
competition between {FTTC->wet_string->house} and VM co-ax. I can get
somewhere around 40 Mb/sec (up to) on FTTC and am currently rocking 160 Mb/
sec+ on co-ax.

The only big attraction for FTTP would be the much faster upload speed.
However I'm not running a server farm which accepts traffic from the
Internet so I don't really need it.

I for one have never considered Sky as an option because my main
requirement has always been Internet (which Sky do just like any other
ISP) and I was only later seduced into the Tivo service. In my view Sky
haver always been robbing bastards and generally rely on sports fans for
their core customers.

If you want fast Internet at a price above entry level then VM are an
option to consider. As always YMMV.

[DJC]

Of course they do, need to sweat those cables before fibre make it a
case of obsolescence or upgrade.
In the early 90s I was the first in the street to have Cable London, not
for the TV but the cheaper international calls. I did suggest to them
that if they offered a data package I would be interested, they weren't.
Ten years later Cable London were no more, I got Blueyonder broadband.
Who were then snapped up by VM. Which was ok for a while. Then the
connection failed and after six months had still not been restored.
Because their idiot call centre could never manage to process the
information through the system that when the trench for a new gas main
has created an 18" air gap it needs more action than 'turn it off and on
again'. I cancelled the contract and decided mobile broadband was quite
enough data for my needs.
Mobile broadband works as well here in deepest Somerset (and in deepest
Umbria) as it did in London. I have no fixed line phone. Next year we
are promised FTTP, I will give it a try.

[Vir Campestris]

On 08/03/2018 19:54, PeteFJ wrote:

> May I put the record straight. I'm not a spammer. I saw a link to them
> and thought they might be useful in the UK. The advert seemed to
> suggest that I could save on my subscriptions to Sky. Remember, I'm not
> a technically trained person and couldn't differentiate my my dipole
> from a hole in the ground. But do read my OP where I said, "These sound
> too good to be true."

If you've got decent broadband already then those gadgets can be a
better bet than a satellite dish - wider choice of films, and you can
get 4k on the odd occasion.

Disclaimer: I'm involved in their design.

Andy

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article <p7v1i8$v2s$1...@dont-email.me>,

DJC <d...@news.invalid> wrote:
> Of course they do, need to sweat those cables before fibre make it a
> case of obsolescence or upgrade.

Wonder when being told faster is better will actually be true? Seems to me
here that getting a faster speed makes little if any difference in
practice. Although it may do if you have lots of people using it at the
same time.

--
*Why do psychics have to ask you for your name? *

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

[dennis@home]

On 10/03/2018 00:19, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
> In article <p7v1i8$v2s$1...@dont-email.me>, DJC <d...@news.invalid>
> wrote:
>> Of course they do, need to sweat those cables before fibre make it
>> a case of obsolescence or upgrade.
>
> Wonder when being told faster is better will actually be true? Seems
> to me here that getting a faster speed makes little if any difference
> in practice. Although it may do if you have lots of people using it
> at the same time.
>

You want a decent speed if you want "live" TV over internet. If you just
want netflix or VoD then a lower speed will probably be OK.

Variability is a problem with live stuff as too much buffering means
its not live.
Its what the various flavours of RTSP were invented for and they are a
right pain in the real world as you can't get reserved bandwidth on a
net neutral internet.

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article <9ANoC.100804$CL3....@fx17.am4>,

dennis@home <den...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> > Wonder when being told faster is better will actually be true? Seems
> > to me here that getting a faster speed makes little if any difference
> > in practice. Although it may do if you have lots of people using it
> > at the same time.
> >

> You want a decent speed if you want "live" TV over internet.

I've had that for ages here. And had two speed increases since. Now 56.4
Mbps. But so much seems to be slow at 'the other end'.

--
*Verbs HAS to agree with their subjects *

[Roger Hayter]

But we've never had net neutrality here! A few years back when
exchange backhaul was both expensive and sometimes scarce many ISPs were
doing deep packet inspection and traffic shaping to slow things like
peer-to-peer and usenet for the benefit of the paying customers in the
entertainment industry.
--

Roger Hayter

[dennis@home]

On 10/03/2018 11:18, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
> In article <9ANoC.100804$CL3....@fx17.am4>,
> dennis@home <den...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>> Wonder when being told faster is better will actually be true? Seems
>>> to me here that getting a faster speed makes little if any difference
>>> in practice. Although it may do if you have lots of people using it
>>> at the same time.
>>>
>
>> You want a decent speed if you want "live" TV over internet.
>
> I've had that for ages here. And had two speed increases since. Now 56.4
> Mbps. But so much seems to be slow at 'the other end'.
>

Well you get what you pay for and you generally pay nothing for the
remote server.