[opendtv] Re: White paper from CEA
- From: Bob Miller <bob@xxxxxxxxxx>
- To: opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Tue, 01 Nov 2005 21:58:35 -0500
This is what I commented on at the time. I don't get it. Is not the
Republican party the one advocating states rights? And here they stomp
on a simple energy saving bill in California. Is there anything that the
Republican party used to stand for that they haven't trashed.
Also Markey almost stated that he had championed the European standard
back in 2000 and that Congress had not listened to him and was now
compounding the problem. He intoned the names Pace and Nokia numerous
times. Nokia sent a letter to the hearings in 2000 and Pace had a
witness. Markey talked at length to us and Pace after the hearings. But
I never saw or heard him publicly talk of advocating DVB-T. Maybe he did
privately with members of the committee. He was seething at the hearings
last week on this power issue. Of course all Democrats are starting to
seethe.
Bob Miller
Mark Aitken wrote:
>What is REALLY important is not whether or not they work well, but
>rather, whether or not they are efficient!
>*House Squanders Chance To Save Energy In Digital TV Transition*
>10/27/2005 Washington, DC - The House Energy and Commerce Committee
>rejected an opportunity to cut consumers' energy costs as the nation
>transitions from analog to digital television broadcasting. With
>Congress considering legislation to set a final date for the transition,
>the committee rejected an energy efficiency standard for the digital TV
>adapters that many consumers will have to buy to continue using their
>broadcast TV sets after the 2008 transition date. Instead, the House
>committee passed a meaningless energy efficiency requirement for this
>equipment that would override stricter state standards.
>
>Following the transition to digital broadcasting, millions of American
>households will be forced to install digital television adapters (DTAs)
>to continue watching broadcast programming on their analog TVs. Congress
>is considering a federal subsidy program to offset the cost of DTAs to
>tens of millions of affected households, many of which are low-income
>households that cannot afford to buy new digital-ready TVs or subscribe
>to cable or satellite TV services.
>
>"The House amendment would increase consumer costs for the digital
>transition, while worsening our energy problems. Congress should help
>consumers afford this transition by establishing meaningful efficiency
>requirements for any DTAs eligible for the taxpayer-funded subsidy,"
>said Jennifer Amann, an ACEEE Senior Associate.
>
>Representative Edward Markey (D-MA) had proposed an amendment to set
>efficiency requirements for subsidized boxes similar to
>minimum-efficiency standards set to take effect for all boxes sold in
>California as of January 2007. The Markey amendment would have limited
>DTAs to a maximum of 8 Watts of power draw when the television is on,
>and 2 Watts of power draw when the television is off. These requirements
>would have saved a typical household (with two TVs) about $20 annually
>and saved all consumers as much as $3.5 billion in electricity bills in
>the 5 years following the shift to digital broadcasting.
>
>"It is astounding that the House Committee would reject an amendment to
>ensure the energy efficiency of a new product it is requiring and
>helping consumers to buy, particularly at a time when consumers and the
>country as a whole are bracing for record energy bills. By declining to
>put in place a meaningful efficiency standard, the Committee is placing
>an unnecessary financial burden on American consumers in terms of higher
>electric bills, and wasting energy needlessly. As this bill moves
>forward, Congress should make sure low-income and other consumers do not
>end up paying more in higher energy bills than they will get from the
>federal subsidy," said Kateri Callahan, President of the Alliance to
>Save Energy.
>
>Rejecting the Markey amendment, the House Energy and Commerce Committee
>adopted an amendment by Representative Mary Bono (R-CA) that would yield
>little or no energy savings and pre-empts California--and any other
>state--from adopting a better efficiency standard. The Bono provision
>would limit DTAs to a maximum of 9 Watts of power when the set is off
>and have no requirements for when the set is on.
>
>Importantly, the Bono amendment would pre-empt California (and other
>states) from enforcing standards for DTAs. California adopted its
>standard just 12 months ago as part of the state's efforts to help keep
>electricity demand and supply in balance. New York also has passed
>legislation directing that energy use of these boxes be regulated. "The
>House action will save little or no electricity across the country,
>while costing California and New York consumers millions of dollars in
>higher electric bills. It is inappropriate for Congress to use this
>federal budget legislation to prevent states from setting their own
>energy policy, particularly when no federal standard is at issue," said
>Steven Nadel, Executive Director of ACEEE.
>
>/SOURCE: The American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy
><http://www.pollutiononline.com/content/news/article.asp?docid=%7b07BDFA5B-B705-4858-8CC7-70761BFEE68E%7d&VNETCOOKIE=NO>
>/
>
>
>
>Manfredi, Albert E wrote:
>
>
>
>>John Shutt wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>The proof is in the lack of ATSC product.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>Let's just for a second assume that Dale is right. The CE
>>companies, looking to maximize profits, only sell to the
>>umbillical service providers. Can you not accept that if
>>this were the case, COFDM-based DTT receivers would suffer
>>the same lack of availability as we see now?
>>
>>Before you can decide what the cure is, you need to know
>>the disease.
>>
>>I had really expected, after 8-VSB was essentially fixed
>>for indoor reception, that the CE vendors would get off
>>their butts and get product out there. In order to hold on
>>to your belief structure, you need to go on pretending
>>nothing got fixed. All these 5th gen receivers, and perhaps
>>even the Samsung prototype that appears to be a notch above
>>the LG, are just a figment of CRC's imagination, and they
>>have duped all the other people we've heard from, with
>>success stories. It's all a big lie.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>Have you noticed that most auto companies build the same
>>>car, with only minor modifications for local laws, to
>>>sell around the world?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>You can repeat this if you like, but it doesn't make it
>>true. As I said before, depending on the time period, what
>>you say here was not the case. To continue marketing cars
>>to the US market, Euro companies in the 1970s and perhaps
>>1980s (I'm too lazy to check exact dates) in certain cases
>>had separate production lines. The much more stringent
>>emission laws here, which mandated use of 3-way catalytic
>>converters, electronic engine management, lead-free
>>gasoline, not to mention the 5 mph barrier crash test, made
>>some very odd cars for this market. Years later, Europe
>>adopted some of these same measures, and were able to avoid
>>a lot of the early not-so-good designs that we had to put
>>with.
>>
>>The moral of that story is that companies can and do go to
>>great lengths to meet the requirements of different markets.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>If that doesn't do it for you, here's an example closer to
>>>your personal experience. You ever notice that computer
>>>equipment sold worldwide is basically the same, with minor
>>>changes to accommodate local power requirements?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You can UNSUBSCRIBE from the OpenDTV list in two ways:
- Using the UNSUBSCRIBE command in your user configuration settings at
FreeLists.org
- By sending a message to: opendtv-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with the word
unsubscribe in the subject line.
Other related posts:
