Told to remove sky dish off new home, or court action

[Zetec-S]

moustachebandit said:

If the property has access to a broadband connection, then I cant understand why anyone in this day and age would even bother with a sky dish. You can get everything on Sky through Now TV at a mere fraction of what it costs to have the Dish based service. They either like wasting money or are just stupid.

When we moved into our new build there was no tv aerial. The installation company suggested signing up to sky for a year then cancelling as it would be cheaper than installing an aerial for freeview. Hence the sky dish.

It also took over 3 months for the retards at BT to sort out the local telephone exchange so no broadband in that time. Current broadband speed is perfectly acceptable to watch something on sky store/youtube or some casual online gaming. But if you want to do more than one of those at the same time it gets sluggish. Again, that's why we have a sky dish, if Mrs ZS wants to watch tv I can still use the computer

[Megaflow]

I don't understand why sky dishes get such a bad rap, but TV aerials are fine. Neither are particularly attractive, but one or the other is seen as a necessity in the modern world. Is it just because TV aerials are mounted higher than dishes?

[Rude-boy]

Megaflow said:

I don't understand why sky dishes get such a bad rap, but TV aerials are fine. Neither are particularly attractive, but one or the other is seen as a necessity in the modern world. Is it just because TV aerials are mounted higher than dishes?

The 'hate' first started thanks to the size of some of the old dishes. Astra (remember them) and the first generation of Sky dishes (iirc) were about twice the size of the current Sky dishes and then you had Mr Chen who wants to get some TV in his native tongue and so on with dishes that would fill a car parking space.

Obviously this was not doing much for sales of Plot 132 when the prospective purchasers had to drive past Plots 34 and 21 which have massive dishes and then a plethora of black and white dishes and squarials on their way to view their plot.

It looked a mess when it was a free for all.

These days 99.9999999% of home dishes are small black Sky ones that are not particularly intrusive but the covenants still continue.

The brighter drafters limit them to 'not within the first five years from the date of the transfer without written consent' so that they can assess the impact on the rest of the development. Also don't forget that with Managing Agents now usually acting for Management Companies it is in their interests to enforce the covenants as they can recover their fees from those in breach...

[moustachebandit]

Megaflow said:

I don't understand why sky dishes get such a bad rap, but TV aerials are fine. Neither are particularly attractive, but one or the other is seen as a necessity in the modern world. Is it just because TV aerials are mounted higher than dishes?

You can mount a TV aerial in the loft space, so its no on display. You cant do the same with a dish.

[Morningside]

moustachebandit said:

Megaflow said:

I don't understand why sky dishes get such a bad rap, but TV aerials are fine. Neither are particularly attractive, but one or the other is seen as a necessity in the modern world. Is it just because TV aerials are mounted higher than dishes?

You can mount a TV aerial in the loft space, so its no on display. You cant do the same with a dish.

I have used it through a window.

Anyone else remember the days when dishes first appeared and people did all sorts of things to get round the law like placing them on old cars in the garden or sheds. I still see some on a low plinth at the bottom of some peoples garden.

[MKnight702]

moustachebandit said:

Megaflow said:

I don't understand why sky dishes get such a bad rap, but TV aerials are fine. Neither are particularly attractive, but one or the other is seen as a necessity in the modern world. Is it just because TV aerials are mounted higher than dishes?

You can mount a TV aerial in the loft space, so its no on display. You cant do the same with a dish.

The house we live in had a covenant over it stating that no aerials were to be fitted (it had expired by the time we moved in). The only problem was that TV reception in the area was absolutely rubbish. Back when digital set top boxes came out I enquired about one and they said provided we could get Channel 5 then it would work, unfortunately, we struggled to get channels 1-4 even with a huge aerial bolted to the chimney, the picture was awful. Simplest solution was to fit a Sky dish, which I did.

[Jakg]

moustachebandit said:

If the property has access to a broadband connection, then I cant understand why anyone in this day and age would even bother with a sky dish. You can get everything on Sky through Now TV at a mere fraction of what it costs to have the Dish based service. They either like wasting money or are just stupid.

I don't have a smart TV, and Sky costs me £5 a month. Which one am I?

[BigBen]

Morningside said:

I have used it through a window.

Anyone else remember the days when dishes first appeared and people did all sorts of things to get round the law like placing them on old cars in the garden or sheds. I still see some on a low plinth at the bottom of some peoples garden.

The last house I moved to had a restriction on Sky dishes so I fitted on at ground level in the back garden, looked much better. A few years after I have moved out I note the neighbouring houses in the row now all have dishes which would be OK if the installers had made even a vague effort to keep them level with each other.

There was a covenant barring dishes and aerials, however it was mostly written when the estate was built and NTL hadn't gone bust, rather than when the properties was finished and they had leaving a whole lot of ducting and not much cable.....

[Ynox]

moustachebandit said:

If the property has access to a broadband connection, then I cant understand why anyone in this day and age would even bother with a sky dish. You can get everything on Sky through Now TV at a mere fraction of what it costs to have the Dish based service. They either like wasting money or are just stupid.

What if I want to watch something that's on Sky One for instance, but Sky don't have the rights to show on Now TV? Not to mention record stuff - I tend to be down the gym in the evenings when prime time TV is on so I'd be lost without a PVR (not everything makes it on to catch up).

There's a reasonable amount of content that Sky only have satellite distribution rights for (The Simpsons being one example that used to be the case, although it looks like they've now got the rights to show this on Now TV).

[tankplanker]

Ynox said:

What if I want to watch something that's on Sky One for instance, but Sky don't have the rights to show on Now TV? Not to mention record stuff - I tend to be down the gym in the evenings when prime time TV is on so I'd be lost without a PVR (not everything makes it on to catch up).

This is the big one for me, particularly stuff on Sky Sports as I used to like to record the F1 then watch the full coverage later in the evening. While Now TV has Sky Sports live it didn't offer it via the catch up service. I do without now that Sky has become so expensive, although I was very tempted when F1 started broadcasting in 4k.

Next year Sky Q should be available with full recording over the Internet if you can get a decent enough broadband/fibre. This is meant for those who can't have a dish or a dish wouldn't work. http://helpforum.sky.com/t5/News-Updates/Sky-Q-to-...

[Some Gump]

moustachebandit said:

If the property has access to a broadband connection, then I cant understand why anyone in this day and age would even bother with a sky dish. You can get everything on Sky through Now TV at a mere fraction of what it costs to have the Dish based service. They either like wasting money or are just stupid.

Interface is better.
Can record.
Costs less for broadband and sky package than broadband and now tv.
...And not everything is on Now TV.

[The Mad Monk]

_Rich_ said:

My brother just messaged me, he has bought a brand new house in a huge housing development. He had sky installed a couple of months ago, in which he was told the dish has to be mounted on the side of the house (by the building company) in which he has done.

Any way fast forward to today the management company that maintains the roads etc have told him it needs be taken down because it can not be seen from the road or he'll be taken to court. Also apparently they can stop him selling his house in the future.

Further info, its a freehold but they pay to maintain the roads (like i believe all new builds)


Can this be done it seems a bit petty over a satellite dish?


sorry if the above is all over the place, i'm still being messaged by him whilst i type.

Why don't you tell your brother to post on here himself?

Then your post wouldn't be 'all over the place'.

And we wouldn't get everything secondhand.

[S2AVANT]

Zetec-S said:

When we moved into our new build there was no tv aerial. The installation company suggested signing up to sky for a year then cancelling as it would be cheaper than installing an aerial for freeview. Hence the sky dish.

It also took over 3 months for the retards at BT to sort out the local telephone exchange so no broadband in that time. Current broadband speed is perfectly acceptable to watch something on sky store/youtube or some casual online gaming. But if you want to do more than one of those at the same time it gets sluggish. Again, that's why we have a sky dish, if Mrs ZS wants to watch tv I can still use the computer

You can cancel a Sky contract within 14days as per distance selling regs....
They leave the dish which connects straight up to a freesat box.

[_Rich_]

The Mad Monk said:

Why don't you tell your brother to post on here himself?

Then your post wouldn't be 'all over the place'.

And we wouldn't get everything secondhand.

Well i think the the vast majority who posted above understood what i was saying. I also have to say their advice has been helpful and also has created an interesting conversation on the topic i posted.

If you're struggling with my op i happily re write it in a more basic format.

[Robertj21a]

Personally, I'm just very pleased to see a covenant being enforced. I've never understood why they're included, but not subsequently checked for compliance.

[wack]

Robertj21a said:

Personally, I'm just very pleased to see a covenant being enforced. I've never understood why they're included, but not subsequently checked for compliance.

Because money, covenants are drawn up so the estate looks pretty for prospective purchasers, once the last house is sold the builders move on so don't care , the only way to enforce a covenant after they've gone is for you to take someone to court = expensive

The council aren't interested because if they took one person to court for breach of a covenant and won the floodgates would open

[Zetec-S]

S2AVANT said:

Zetec-S said:

When we moved into our new build there was no tv aerial. The installation company suggested signing up to sky for a year then cancelling as it would be cheaper than installing an aerial for freeview. Hence the sky dish.

It also took over 3 months for the retards at BT to sort out the local telephone exchange so no broadband in that time. Current broadband speed is perfectly acceptable to watch something on sky store/youtube or some casual online gaming. But if you want to do more than one of those at the same time it gets sluggish. Again, that's why we have a sky dish, if Mrs ZS wants to watch tv I can still use the computer

You can cancel a Sky contract within 14days as per distance selling regs....
They leave the dish which connects straight up to a freesat box.

Yep, should have done that. 3 years later and we are still paying for Sky

[roadie]

wack said:

The council aren't interested because if they took one person to court for breach of a covenant and won the floodgates would open

No the council aren't interested because it's a civil matter and has nothing to do with them.

[TA14]

roadie said:

wack said:

The council aren't interested because if they took one person to court for breach of a covenant and won the floodgates would open

No the council aren't interested because it's a civil matter and has nothing to do with them.

Unless it's a planning condition?

[anonymous-user]

TA14 said:

roadie said:

wack said:

The council aren't interested because if they took one person to court for breach of a covenant and won the floodgates would open

No the council aren't interested because it's a civil matter and has nothing to do with them.

Unless it's a planning condition?

It won't be, IME. I've never seen a planning condition that specifies no dishes. No streetlights (really!) but not no dishes. (Which is some appalling use of English, I admit.)