Satellite system - buying guide and installation

Something heretical. Grounded installation, lightning strikes, TV probably broken.
Ungrounded lightning, then TV definitely broken.
So what? Ungrounded and fine. K.

Actually something different. About 25 years ago, a colleague installed a satellite system without grounding. It was already an endless discussion back then. There were several severe thunderstorms that destroyed all the electronics at the neighbors' houses. Only the colleague's satellite system including TV was still okay. Yes, I know, it can all be coincidence. Personally, I am not sure how much grounding really helps – or doesn’t help. The problem is: as far as I know, grounding must be there from an insurance perspective, otherwise they don’t pay in case of damage.

Something heretical. Grounded installation, lightning strikes, TV probably broken. Ungrounded lightning, then TV certainly broken.

That only the "TV is probably broken" can still apply for weak energy inductive lightning current injections from near strikes. But that the damage in fortunately rare direct strikes is always limited to the TV, one's own apartment, or the house is demonstrably a misconception or wishful thinking, not heresy.

The Inquisition in Rome already lacked the necessary expertise with Galileo; regarding lightning and surge protection, they are probably no more competent than you.

So what? Ungrounded and fine. K.

Insurances usually settle minor damages like a single defective TV without an on-site visit after comparing with SIEMENS images.

But if there is a fire, wires and sockets fly out of the walls, electrical and electronic devices are destroyed, possibly also in neighboring apartments or in the common property, insurers will sometimes investigate the cause. In cases of personal injury, perhaps also a public prosecutor who, unimpressed by "So what?" examines whether an antenna was grounded as an unintended lightning rod according to the recognized rules of technology (= standard minimum) and included in the equipotential bonding or if it is a case under § 319 StGB, endangering construction.

I personally am not sure how much grounding actually helps – or does not help.

Antenna direct groundings are purely fire protection measures that inevitably cannot provide the optimal protection of separate lightning conductors in combination with energetically coordinated SPD 1 lightning current and SPD 2 surge arresters. Claims based on the gut feeling of lightning protection-ignorant laypeople that lightning protection systems and grounded antennas attract lightning and allegedly increase the frequency of strikes contradict all scientific findings. Theories that interruptions of complete equipotential bonding, especially by separate earth electrodes, are supposedly safer, and recommendations not to connect cable shields to grounded antenna supports contrary to IEC 60728-11, reveal only one thing: the authors' technical and normative incompetence. As usual, this thread is one-dimensional, focused on direct strikes, and ignores the much more frequent and significantly higher sum of indirect surge damages entering via power and telecom lines. "Penny-pinchers" who burden the community of insured persons without remorse with higher damages caused by omitted basic protection measures always find excuses for doing so. As a standards-compliant former moderator of the network forum closed by the operator, I am curious how the admins in the house construction forum will deal with the shameless promotion of non-standard execution by .

They will tar and feather me according to standards, the admins, shiver shiver ......

I will ground the antenna mast, perform grounding after the LNB before the multiswitch, ground the multiswitch itself, and perform grounding after the multiswitch. That should probably be enough...

We are the Lower Saxons, storm-resistant and deeply rooted...