Freeview and landlord obligations

Forums › Freeview (DVB-T/DVB-S) › Freeview and landlord obligations

1 | 2 | 3 | 4

4066 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Snowflake

#635463 4-Jun-2012 14:28

richms: Does NZ have any laws that stop property owners from preventing the install of FTA antennas?

i'm pretty sure its either illegal, or expressly forbidden by contract/lease, to run cables through walls or affix structures to the building without the landlords express permission. In many leases you're not even allowed to affix a painting or photograph to an internal wall..

NB: As a landlord I *want* to provide the Sat Dish and UHF aerial - i've seen too many cowboy sky installers with big drills and little care! The cost of these installs - usually $500 +/- is much cheaper than the fix if you end up with damage down the line - especially in those leaky building scenarios.

Sales Engineer
Snowflake
www.snowflake.com

about.me/nzregs
Twitter: @nzregs

richms

28213 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#635466 4-Jun-2012 14:31

Well I know that owners arent allowed to prevent the installation of a phone service to a place. That involves holes etc too.

Richard rich.ms

surfisup1000

5288 posts

Uber Geek

#635471 4-Jun-2012 14:50

dwknight: Finally, someone who agrees with me! I didn't realise how many people on this forum were landlords :P

The whole argument is silly.

Of course a landlord should be responsible for providing a TV aerial . Most people watch TV after all.

While the law is on the landlords side, I wouldn't move into a house where the landlord would quibble over installing a $200 aerial on a $500,000 house.

Pock

156 posts

Master Geek

#635495 4-Jun-2012 15:22

surfisup1000:
dwknight: Finally, someone who agrees with me! I didn't realise how many people on this forum were landlords :P

The whole argument is silly.

Of course a landlord should be responsible for providing a TV aerial . Most people watch TV after all.

While the law is on the landlords side, I wouldn't move into a house where the landlord would quibble over installing a $200 aerial on a $500,000 house.

Nope. Your argument is silly.

Why should the landlord be expected to supplement a tenants entertainment?

If you want to upgrade to freeview, I'm sure any reasonable landlord would let you do this, at your own cost. Some may even go halves in the cost, or pay outright, but to expect it is ludicrous. Should the landlord pay for Sky charges, or internet? Of course not, right? So what is the difference when it comes to TV?

jeffnz

2870 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#635500 4-Jun-2012 15:39

surfisup1000:
dwknight: Finally, someone who agrees with me! I didn't realise how many people on this forum were landlords :P

The whole argument is silly.

Of course a landlord should be responsible for providing a TV aerial . Most people watch TV after all.

While the law is on the landlords side, I wouldn't move into a house where the landlord would quibble over installing a $200 aerial on a $500,000 house.

You may see the argument as silly as you have an opinion as do we all, doesn't make you right nor brush off others by saying they are silly if they disagree. Whilst the law maybe on the side of the landlord in this instance its not entirely one sided as youir posts would infer. Walk a mile in anothers shoes etc etc.

My house has a sky aerial which too me is suffice however if the tenant was one I wanted to look after I would be happy to look at it, if I was being pushed into it I would most likely back into a corner and not give in.

Your argument about a $200 aerial versus a $500k house is silly as not all houses are worth that amount, it depends on location and other variables. Maybe less generalization in future.

Galaxy S10

Garmin Fenix 5

surfisup1000

5288 posts

Uber Geek

#635524 4-Jun-2012 16:36

jeffnz:
Your argument about a $200 aerial versus a $500k house is silly as not all houses are worth that amount, it depends on location and other variables. Maybe less generalization in future.

You appear to be doing the same thing you criticise me of doing. I have no objection though, you state your disagreement and explain why. This is good.
I disagree though, the point is that an aerial costs a few hundred dollars, and a house costs hundreds of thousands (in most places). Over 90% of people would watch basic tv, so , you'd normally expect a house to have a working aerial.

Also, an aerial being a permanent fixture adds value to the landlords assets, not the tenants.

Unless the tenant pulls out all the cabling and aerial gear when they leave, but, who would do that?

richms

28213 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#635527 4-Jun-2012 16:39

Sky has 50% of the market prettymuch. Many people go without tv and an indoor antenna is fine for many people. 90% is complete BS

Richard rich.ms

Quic Broadband

Move to New Zealand's best fibre broadband service (affiliate link). Free setup code: R587125ERQ6VE. Note that to use Quic Broadband you must be comfortable with configuring your own router.

surfisup1000

5288 posts

Uber Geek

#635529 4-Jun-2012 16:40

Pock:

Nope. Your argument is silly.

Why should the landlord be expected to supplement a tenants entertainment?

If you want to upgrade to freeview, I'm sure any reasonable landlord would let you do this, at your own cost. Some may even go halves in the cost, or pay outright, but to expect it is ludicrous. Should the landlord pay for Sky charges, or internet? Of course not, right? So what is the difference when it comes to TV?

I certainly agree with you that it is ludicrous to expect a landlord to for pay sky tv / internet costs.

I'm only referring to the aerial used to provide basic freeview service.

If someone wants sky, they can pay :)

nate

6473 posts

Uber Geek

Retired Mod

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#635679 4-Jun-2012 21:52

If you (as a tenant) spread out the cost of the aerial install over the time you're actually there, surely this would be make it a worthwhile investment?

(unless your landlord is a really grumpy bastard and won't let you get one installed)

Regs

4066 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Snowflake

#635736 4-Jun-2012 23:39

Note that you can also receive UHF broadcasts via rabbit ears, panel aerials stuck to windows and other nifty non-permanent products.

I still say, as a landlord, that i'd rather provide the sky dish/uhf aerial for two reasons (i forgot one earlier):
1) dont want damage done to the place when a cowboy installer comes along
2) more likely to attract a tenant if there are wired aerial/satellite ports to all the rooms, especially lounge.

when UFB fibre is available, i'm likely to get that connected as a landlord too. i'm sure there will be no mandatory requirement for it, but it too should help in attracting and retaining tenants - perhaps higher quality tenants if they are springing extra for fibre internet....

Sales Engineer
Snowflake
www.snowflake.com

about.me/nzregs
Twitter: @nzregs

SpookyAwol

626 posts

Ultimate Geek

#635790 5-Jun-2012 07:45

You may also have to approach the landlord in the first instance as many rental contracts down allow the 'modifying' of the house. You arent entitled to put up an aerial without permission anyway.

Im sure in the course of that conversation most landlords would be reasonable towards installation or cost

Dratsab

3946 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#636164 5-Jun-2012 16:20

SpookyAwol: You may also have to approach the landlord in the first instance as many rental contracts down allow the 'modifying' of the house. You arent entitled to put up an aerial without permission anyway.

Im sure in the course of that conversation most landlords would be reasonable towards installation or cost

Exactly.

Where I live had a VHF aerial. When I recently purchased a TV with built-in Freeview HD I simply gave my landlord a call and asked: if I purchased and installed a UHF aerial, would he meet the cost of the aerial. He said yes. A few weeks after I'd installed the aerial, he was hassling me for the receipt so he could pay me!

wellygary

8344 posts

Uber Geek

#636169 5-Jun-2012 16:27

Regs: NB: As a landlord I *want* to provide the Sat Dish and UHF aerial - i've seen too many cowboy sky installers with big drills and little care!

+1, We installed a Sat dish when we rented out a place 'cause the tenants wanted Sky,
It is a two storied villa and I damn well knew that the sky installer would take one look it and just bolt it to a west facing wall, cable clip it round the outside and bore through the wall behind the TV, - no thanks,

raytaylor

4017 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#637070 7-Jun-2012 02:03

If the house doesnt have a tv antenna then the chances are that they can pick up analog tv with rabbit ears.

If they currently get a prime signal with the rabbit ears, and prime is a little fuzzy, it will be much better on freeview through the rabbit ears because freeview requires less bandwidth, and doesnt need as good a signal to display a perfect picture.

Think of it this way: If you were to start seeing fuzz at an analog uhf (prime) 80% signal, you could go down to about 60% before freeview would start having issues.

A standard back to back tv antenna installation would start at around $80 and maybe another $50 for cable, a hockey stick mast and other misc parts. Labour would be around $80 for an hours work, so all up i would expect $200

In the USA the government provided vouchers so people who couldnt afford decoders could go out and buy them. I think they are like britian where they dont use VHF, its all UHF so they already had UHF antennas as standard so the changeover was cheaper on the household.
In the USA they see tv reception as something similar to a basic right. The masses should have access to news and general information so they are aware of whats happening in their country and can make informed decisions such as who to vote for on election day.

Ray Taylor

There is no place like localhost

Spreadsheet for Comparing Electricity Plans Here

Skolink

1081 posts

Uber Geek

#637370 7-Jun-2012 15:23

raytaylor: Think of it this way: If you were to start seeing fuzz at an analog uhf (prime) 80% signal, you could go down to about 60% before freeview would start having issues.

One caveat: Digital UHF isn't always broadcast with the same coverage as analog UHF. Like from Sugerloaf in Dunedin for example. My parents live 50km north, and can get analog Maori TV perfectly clearly, Prime a bit fuzzy, but no Digital UHF. They could unreliably get Kordia mux before the frequency restacking.

raytaylor: The masses should have access to news and general information so they are aware of whats happening in their country and can make informed decisions such as who to vote for on election day.

I find this quite amusing for some reason - in relation to the USA I mean.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4