I agree they would not be putting up new boards with constant illumination. What my thought in the statement I made was that to salvage the money they already have in the existing ones they would change to a constant illumination, but maybe you also have a good point. If the cost to run them is so high and rental charges do not cover it then they would probably shut them down. Maybe they could get sufficient rental charges if they changed the advertisement once each day, week, month, or whatever. I wonder if they could legally get away with that. It would be similar to what happens with existing non-self illuminated signs. Stan On 11/18/2011 8:21 AM, Richard Harshaw wrote: > 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. > > > > -- See message header for info on list archives or unsubscribing, and please send personal replies to the author, not the list.