Since Multichoice decided not to publish my comments, I thought I'd might receive a little more appreciation on this forum. I copied the original post and answers below:
By Santonman:
Let’s face it the HD PVR is not a simple beast to have installed. As a result and because there are known issues with the HD PVRs (different on each version), the decoder, “new software” and MC itself sometime get the blame when they are not at fault.
Some installers don’t seem to appreciate the complexity, and definitely do not do all the necessary checks, before bolting out the front door of the soon-to-be frustrated viewer. After the fact (and payment), it’s easy to blame the equipment. This is certainly not true of some of the excellent installers we see commenting here on the forum and who go that extra mile for customer service; but the standard appears not to be consistently high.
Here are a few salient questions to mull over.........
Is accreditation perpetual? or, do installers have to be retrained re-evaluated and re-accredited as technology evolves (becomes much more complex) and is replaced? If not, why not?
Does every member of the installation company have to be trained & accredited, or just the Boss, who is often not even on-site participating or even supervising?
All staff should attend and pass suitable training courses and be accredited by name (like with Microsoft, Cisco etc.); Does this happen? It would make the accredited individuals very marketable!
A simple training exercise would be “how to strip coax and fit an F-type connector without shorting it out with strands of screening, or cutting the core conductor too short so it makes poor contact”. Fundamental stuff, yes; but responsible for (I hesitate to say), at least ½ of the reported installation issues reported on the forum. Are there practical exams, or just multiple choice theory?
Does the written accreditation exam include a step-by-step checklist to verify the install prior to leaving? Not just testing “live TV”, but making successful recordings using both tuners 2 and 3 and checking that the EPG and DOD are functioning via tuner-4. The checking of the status (signal strength & quality) of all four tuners while active. These, again are fundamentals which we see, time and again, have not been followed in the field.
Checking that XV has been properly activated and that the heartbeat is functioning properly particularly if and old SDPVR is the secondary decoder; is this done as a matter of course?
It’s the installer's duty to give sage advice about the placement of equipment and the importance of airflow. Does this happen? Does it happen prior to the install and heat issues surfacing?
Checking that TV eyes are properly powered (not blocked by splitters and boosters) and that decoders can be consistently controlled from other rooms, is this part of the training?
Are the installers policed in any way? Can they (do they) get dis-approved?
All basics, but clearly not happening consistently in the field
Those of us who comment frequently (Geoff (where would the forum be without him), Merv, Ken, me and others) must sound like old “gramophone records” (granddad) as we are constantly having to doll out the same advice, slightly rehashed to suit individual members. It’s becoming a waste of time and what’s more, some subscribers are becoming belligerent when the advice in meted out.
To Kick off a way forward here I’m suggesting two things.
1) That all the above accreditation basics are answered by MC.
2) That “we” (and this should also really be driven from MC's training documentation), produce a Noddy Guide of things for new installs to have checked out before asking the forum for personalised advice; a sort of READ THIS FIRST! A simple flowchart for what to do when you get a specific symptom. And yes part of that would to be including a signature with your equipment details before making your first post; why not? That could even become part of the forum registration process.
I believe that by working on the above 2 bullets which contain many, many sub elements for sure, would reduce the issues being discussed on the forum by at least a half.
MC's reputation could only improve by fully supporting such an inititative
How does MC view this and how does the forum community see the way forward.
Cheers, S
By Santonman:
Let’s face it the HD PVR is not a simple beast to have installed. As a result and because there are known issues with the HD PVRs (different on each version), the decoder, “new software” and MC itself sometime get the blame when they are not at fault.
Some installers don’t seem to appreciate the complexity, and definitely do not do all the necessary checks, before bolting out the front door of the soon-to-be frustrated viewer. After the fact (and payment), it’s easy to blame the equipment. This is certainly not true of some of the excellent installers we see commenting here on the forum and who go that extra mile for customer service; but the standard appears not to be consistently high.
Here are a few salient questions to mull over.........
Is accreditation perpetual? or, do installers have to be retrained re-evaluated and re-accredited as technology evolves (becomes much more complex) and is replaced? If not, why not?
Does every member of the installation company have to be trained & accredited, or just the Boss, who is often not even on-site participating or even supervising?
All staff should attend and pass suitable training courses and be accredited by name (like with Microsoft, Cisco etc.); Does this happen? It would make the accredited individuals very marketable!
A simple training exercise would be “how to strip coax and fit an F-type connector without shorting it out with strands of screening, or cutting the core conductor too short so it makes poor contact”. Fundamental stuff, yes; but responsible for (I hesitate to say), at least ½ of the reported installation issues reported on the forum. Are there practical exams, or just multiple choice theory?
Does the written accreditation exam include a step-by-step checklist to verify the install prior to leaving? Not just testing “live TV”, but making successful recordings using both tuners 2 and 3 and checking that the EPG and DOD are functioning via tuner-4. The checking of the status (signal strength & quality) of all four tuners while active. These, again are fundamentals which we see, time and again, have not been followed in the field.
Checking that XV has been properly activated and that the heartbeat is functioning properly particularly if and old SDPVR is the secondary decoder; is this done as a matter of course?
It’s the installer's duty to give sage advice about the placement of equipment and the importance of airflow. Does this happen? Does it happen prior to the install and heat issues surfacing?
Checking that TV eyes are properly powered (not blocked by splitters and boosters) and that decoders can be consistently controlled from other rooms, is this part of the training?
Are the installers policed in any way? Can they (do they) get dis-approved?
All basics, but clearly not happening consistently in the field
Those of us who comment frequently (Geoff (where would the forum be without him), Merv, Ken, me and others) must sound like old “gramophone records” (granddad) as we are constantly having to doll out the same advice, slightly rehashed to suit individual members. It’s becoming a waste of time and what’s more, some subscribers are becoming belligerent when the advice in meted out.
To Kick off a way forward here I’m suggesting two things.
1) That all the above accreditation basics are answered by MC.
2) That “we” (and this should also really be driven from MC's training documentation), produce a Noddy Guide of things for new installs to have checked out before asking the forum for personalised advice; a sort of READ THIS FIRST! A simple flowchart for what to do when you get a specific symptom. And yes part of that would to be including a signature with your equipment details before making your first post; why not? That could even become part of the forum registration process.
I believe that by working on the above 2 bullets which contain many, many sub elements for sure, would reduce the issues being discussed on the forum by at least a half.
MC's reputation could only improve by fully supporting such an inititative
How does MC view this and how does the forum community see the way forward.
Cheers, S
Last edited:
