Well, again, I didn’t say it couldn’t have been done without government intervention. That computers came down in price without government intervention is immaterial, because that does not mean that HDTV’s did not come down in part due to government intervention.
But, to clarify (again ), government intervention in the form of shutting down the analog TV spectrum hastened the drop in price for digital TV’s (which were all HD). It would have happened (more slowly) without the government, but didn’t.
Perhaps, but I’m still inclined to think that the severe drop in the cost to manufacture LCD screens once the technology matured was a bigger factor than the government’s shutting down the analog apectrum. In this debate I think it’s hard to seperate one from the other. Bothe were happening pretty mch simultaneously. Large screen CRTs became popular at an extremely high cost, and then the manufactures began offering large screen LCD TVs at a far lowre cost. And the weight and thickness was a fraction of that of the big screen CRTs. At that point the change was inevitable.
In this particular case I’m not sure we’ll ever really know whether or not the government elimination of analog expedited the proliferation of LCD screens. HD, perhaps.
@shadowfax, I went back and read your posts concerning the government shutting people out of the analog TV market. The FCC was prodded to do it by telecommunications companies that ran out of bandwidth. Digital television needs far less bandwidth to sen a signal. TV stations around here can broadcast a few channels on their old carrier signal where they could only handle one channel before. Everyone, except those with older analog sets, is happy. I have an analog set that I use now, and with the Comcast converter box, I get a lot of digital-only channels on the analog set that I never got on that TV before the conversion.
@jtsanders - yes, entirely correct. The whole thing was set up due to wanting to have the analog TV spectrum open to auction. But, I wasn’t arguing that no one was happy about it - just that it happened, and that it helped bring prices down at the speed in which they came down.
However, if the government had not mandated the shut-down of the old analog signals, thus requiring customers to make an immediate purchasing decision, those market forces would have taken longer to be effective.
I don’t buy that for one bit. If you look at the prices of TV’s…the rate in which they were dropping didn’t change more then .5% since the mandate…so I stand by my statement that the mandate had NOTHING to do with the drop.
From what I understand, it was a matter of overcrowding that could only be solved by going digital. In the long run, the govt. is suppose to protect and serve the public, which going digital supposedly does. The govt. itself for security as well as fire, police and emergency services needed the increased bandwidth which digital signals provided. It was a no brainer and waiting for communications corps to do it when it’s most profitable for them, just doesn’t work.
“The govt. itself for security as well as fire, police and emergency services needed the increased bandwidth which digital signals provided. It was a no brainer and waiting for communications corps to do it when it’s most profitable for them, just doesn’t work.”
The Federal Communications Commission controls the radio frequency spectrum. They sold the frequencies used by UHF TV channels 52 through 83 at auction for mobile telephone service. Of course, there is a small segment used for public safety applications, as you said.
The comparison of TV’s to Tesla’s doesn’t work…The new digital flat screen TV’s are a BIG improvement in picture quality and enjoyment…The Tesla offers very little to the automotive consumer other than high price and limited range…Electric cars failed in the market a hundred years ago for the same reasons they are struggling today…
I agree with “Caddyman”, completely. Let me just amend your statement to say that " electric cars offered today fail for SOME of the same reasons they did 100 years ago" . http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent_encumbrance_of_large_automotive_NiMH_batteries IMO, it has as much to do with support and commitment then actual technology. The EV offers a dramatic alternative to a transportation mode that now provides directly or indirectly millions of jobs and contributes billions to our economy.
EV makers are pretty much on their own. A perfect example is Toyota who at one time provided a functional, low developmental cost EV with real world practicality. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toyota_RAV4_EV Mass production of such a vehicle would so disrupt the long term cash flow into Toyota, they have relegated further development to Teslar, a govt. supported corp, so any success or failure could be absorbed by we the tax payer. http://jalopnik.com/5843937/tesla-motors-secretly-asks-for-more-government-money The cost of EV must be high enough to make up for the projected loss of revenues from service and repair, which is unnecessary for most of an EV’s life.
This is where the similarity to cheap electronics, including TV’s, cell phones, tablets and the like is valid. The support from the Internet providers and supporting industries of digital information sharing has made a rush to practically give away electronics, just to get the public into contracts that take monthly payments out of their accounts. This is in a like manner, what extended warrantees, service after sales and to some extent, the actual sale of gasoline has contributed to the support of cheap ICE cars as well.
The EV has yet to be programmed into this income extraction philosophy and as such gets little or no support from the profit makers of the world. All that’s left is the govt. which still must walk the line between supporting an economy transformational product and a worthwhile contributor to energy independence.
Both GM and Toyota came up with worthwhile EVs in the 90s in relatively short order. When you’re a car company, you have advantages. Since then, they make no pretense about developing one for the masses or providing any assistance that could be construed as “for the public good”. After all, they need to show a profit, immediately. You are right. The govt does help these other companies…in the exact same way it has provided millions ( billions actually) over the years in low interest govt. loans for small businesses in general. So what’s the difference ?
The money EV manufacturers get is NOTHING compared to the federal subsidies Mobil/Exxon gets.
I agree EV technology is not viable YET. The operative word there is “YET”. I think as a country/world we need to invest in this technology (or some other clean technology). How much and to whom is the bigger question.
IMHO Dag said it all in his first paragraph. EVs now atruggle for the same reasons they did in the early part of the 20th century. Batteries can’t store enough power long enough, they take too long to recharge, and there doesn’t exist a nationwide infrastructure to “refuel”. The reasons for the lack of a nationwide infrastructure have lots to do with lack of support.
According to Jay Leno, prior to the Model “T” EVs were the most common form of vehicle around NYC by far. Recharging stations were everywhere around the city. But not outside the city, because there was no place to recharge.
The current administration’s philosophy to reduce gas usage is to drive the prices up so high that few can afford gas. In 2008 Obama’s current Energy Secretary made the statement “Somehow we have to figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe.”. He has recently backed off on the statement, saying that the economy is too fragile…but not because he doesn;t still support the philosophy.
"The money EV manufacturers get is NOTHING compared to the federal subsidies Mobil/Exxon gets. "
Not even close. On a % basis the oil and gas industry gets a TINY fraction of what the Tesla etc. get. Most are aimed at increasing oil and gas drilling in the US, and most are for smaller, not larger, oil and gas companies.
Figure out the government spending per Tesla, it’s staggering.
The recent TV debate betweem Obama and Romney revealed the huge subsidies that solar, wine and EVs get. Romney would probably end all that since he “does not want to borrow money from China to subsidize industries”.
Again, I believe in research grants and some seed money to get industri\oes started; I don’t believe in subsidizing their ongoing existence.
I remember the Exxon president testifying before congress - he’d be fine with eliminating oil and gas tax incentives, if all industries were treated the same. Those incentives are a tiny fraction of the overall incentives given to all kinds of industries. Each one had a ‘reasonable’ goal (for the most part). But O&G industry is an easy whipping boy, that one get trotted out at every opportunity, even though the intent is to produce more enery domestically, which employs lots of folks and has cut natural gas prices in half. Also greatly reduced coal use. Pretty good yield for the money, compared to a few hundred EVs (if that).
“Same”. Without getting too political, ahh what the heck. Do you actually think that the present administration has weekly control over gas prices ? Is it the same control mechanism used by the Bush administration when gas prices averaged $4.11 a gallon, just prior to the financial meltdown. Or, the same control exercised by Bush when Enron blackmailed California nearly into bankrupcy. The reasons for the sudden surge are sounding astonishing similar to Enron’s bogus reasons though. Every recession has been precipitated by high energy costs. That’s certainly shooting yourself in the foot if it’s true.
I would think that any attempt to influence oil prices up or down would and should be met with howls from the conservative right in congress.
It’s amazing…the conservative right keeps shouting “Free Enterprise”…but when it comes to actually practicing it they cry foul…absolutely amazes me. I personally want a FREE MARKET. I don’t like my taxes being given to BILLIONAIRES. I’d rather see it given to the homeless person on the street.
Dag, I absolutely do believe that the administration has some influence (not control) over energy prices by their policies. The Canadian pipeline, offshore drilling, hydrofracking, import tariffs, release of reserves, and other policy decisions all affect energy prices.
And make no mistake about it, this administration has gone on record as believeing that higher energy prices to reduce consumption is a good policy direction and that they’re holding back on that agenda due to the crippled economy. I believe they’re also holding back due to the upcoming election. If this administration get reelected, I worry that Obama will take the same approach he has toward the Strategic Arms Limitation Talks with Russia…once he no longer has an election to worry about he’ll be free to pursue his policies of choice.
I agree, any attempt to influence the prices should be met with howls of protest…from BOTH sides of the isle! And I agree that raising energy costs now would be “shooting oneself in the foot”…which is why they’ll wait until AFTER the election.
), government intervention in the form of shutting down the analog TV spectrum hastened the drop in price for digital TV’s (which were all HD). It would have happened (more slowly) without the government, but didn’t.