That may be, Stan, but if they did, they would take away the main draw of an illuminated sign, its ability to change messages (and hence clients) every 8 seconds. With an LED billboard, an advertiser can sell one location (and thus one investment) to multiple clients, thus drastically increasing sign revenues. If that were the future ruling, the outdoor advertising companies would have no advantage to put up an LED billboard over a standard one since the costs of an LED billboard are much, much higher than a standard billboard. I don't know the billboard rates here in Phoenix, but in Kansas City, where I once lived, a standard panel board went for $48,000 a year on the main highways. It's probably much more than that here. Of course, the outdoor advertising morons might then install megawatts of up-shooting metal halide lamps to light the stupid conventional signs and cause even MORE light pollution off ground. But this is kind of what I expect in a nation where American Idol is the number one TV show. Richard Harshaw Cave Creek, Arizona Brilliant Sky Observatory -----Original Message----- From: az-observing-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:az-observing-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Stan Gorodenski Sent: Friday, November 18, 2011 8:09 AM To: AZ-Observing Subject: [AZ-Observing] Illuminated Billboards I just read the court of appeals has ruled the illuminated billboards are illegal because they are intermittent lighting. Even if this decision holds, it seems to me all they have to do is revert back to one constant displayed image and they would still be polluting the night skies. Stan -- See message header for info on list archives or unsubscribing, and please send personal replies to the author, not the list. -- See message header for info on list archives or unsubscribing, and please send personal replies to the author, not the list.