Response To California's Large-Screen TV Regulation

An anonymous reader writes "It's great that unelected bureaucrats in California are clamoring to save energy, but when they target your big-screen TVs for elimination, consumers and manufacturers are apt to declare war. CEDIA and the CEA are up in arms over this. Audioholics has an interesting response that involves setting the TVs in 'SCAM' mode to meet the energy criteria technically without having to add additional cost or increase costs to consumers. 'In this mode, the display brightness/contrast settings would be set a few clicks to the right of zero, audio would be disabled and backlighting would be set to minimum. The power consumption should be measured in this mode much like an A/V receiver power consumption is measured with one channel driven at full rated power and the other channels at 1/8th power.' This is an example of an impending train wreck of unintended consequences, and many are grabbing the popcorn and pulling up chairs to watch."

Comments

Tax

[NoYob]

Because they have a huge budget shortfall and they want to get rid of the big screen TVs, why not tax the shit out of them? It won't get rid of the TVs but it will really curtail their consumption.

Yeah, I know, there the issues of a black market or keep folks from crossing over to another state to buy them....

Re:Tax

[commodore64_love]

It's a good thing most Californians like along the Pacific coast, and the Nevada line is far, far away. That makes it less practical to drive that far just to save a few sales tax dollars. It's why even though I could drive to Delaware to get tax free goods, I opt not to.

I just heard on the news last night that California's Treasury Secretary is investigating the Constitution. He's wondering if California can revert back to being a territory, in order to resolve its budget crisis!!! Wow. Frankly I don't understand this. Cuoldn't California just lay people off, and cut their costs for 2010? That's why companies do when they face a financial crisis.

But no. Instead the government raised paycheck withholding by 10%, in effect giving themselves an interest-free loan from now until April. Nice. If I lived in CA I'd raise my allowances as high as possible, because I don't trust California to offer tax refunds come April 2010.

Re:Tax

[hey!]

Actually, the goal of saving energy/reducing pollution from energy generation would be better served by taxing energy. You wouldn't have to have a TV set power consumption regulation office, you just take whatever the electric company charges and slap a percentage on top of that. Then you except commercial uses, and give everyone a standard tax rebate so that it's possible for nearly everyone to avoid the the tax by using electricity moderately.

Yes, it's another case of using the tax code to achieve something other than bringing in revenue, but it does the same thing that *regulation* would do, only across *all* uses of electric power, and without forcing anybody to change anything. If you absolutely MUST have that gigantic plasma TV, and absolutely DON'T want to pay without tax, you can go without lights or a refrigerator.

Re:Tax

[czarangelus]

I think nothing could be better for the people of California. Tell the Federal Empire which robs us blind, kills our young men, and embroils us in endless overseas conflict to get lost. California would save tens of billions a year not paying taxes to the Empire, which we could turn around and use on our own infrastructure and defense. We have the eighth largest economy on our own, we don't need the American albatross hanging around our neck.

Re:Tax

[Wyatt Earp]

No, states don't have the right to leave the Union.

The United States Supreme Court ruled in Texas v. White, 74 U.S. 700 (1869), that while the Union was "perpetual" and that secession ordinances were "absolutely null."

The thought that states can leave is just another misconception, like that Texas can go if they want. They can't, but they can be split into five states.

Re:Tax

[Lostlander]

Well as all monarchies eventually corrupt by sheer weight of power... Would you rather live in a corrupt monarchy or a corrupt democracy?

Re:Tax

[jameskojiro]

There are three groups to blame for the illegal immigrant mess in this country.

1. Big Business, they want their uneducated slaves to do their grunt work and pay them below minimum wage and no benefits. If a worker gets hurt they go to an ER where they cannot be turned away and we end up paying for the benefits the company should have provided.

2. Big Politics, They see a potential voting pool that if they can pander enough to when they become eligible for voting they can have guaranteed votes to keep them in power for life. Both parties are guilty of this, though the Democrats are the majority uptakes on this while the Republicans align themselves with businesses from example 1.

3. Mexico City politicians, why do they have to deal with their country's social and economic issues when they get paid by the other rich white Spaniard jackals who make up 1% of the rich population in Mexico. They are happy running their little serfdoms from Mexico City and could care less abotu the majority of the population who are dirt poor. To them the USA is a blessing because what should be a boiling pot of revolution in their country to throw the bums out now has a pressure relief valve. They are also gettign kickbacks form the drug lords who love the porous border for drug trafficking. Plus there is a bunch of money from Mexico city that flows northwards to Big Business and Big Government to encourage that nothign is done about illegal immigration and the leaky border.

Re:Tax

[DJRumpy]

California's problems are self created. They spend more than they take in, it's just that simple. Removing themselves from the union would just add additional costs for subsidies that they currently get at the federal level.

Their problems stem mostly from social services run amok and loss of tax income revenue. They have a huge illegal problem (some estimates as high as 10 percent of their workforce) according to a recent non-partisan study, where folks earn money, and then simply send it back to Mexico. Same on the health care front. They end up offering social services not only to tax payers, but to the large illegal population. They also spend millions on wasteful social services they simply can't afford. I found it odd that everyone was screaming when they put those services on the chopping block in order to get a budget that would pass muster. They simply don't realize that you can't spend what you don't have. They've been in that sort of spend cycle for years, and it finally came to a breaking point.

Public schools are a biggie. They actually tried to deny illegal children the right to attend public schools but a federal judge blocked that. The illegal population can collect welfare, as well as take advantage of health services all on the taxpayer dollar. Many of these are also avoiding taxes simply because they are paid cash for day labor. I'm generally about as left as you can go, but I have to stop short on giving a free ride to illegals. Unfortunately most border states suffer from the same issues.

Add on top of all that their tax system, which relies almost heavily on income taxes (over half of their budget money comes from this). Every time the economy tanks, so does their revenue.

They have a lot of problems that have to be addressed both in their taxation, and spending. Succeeding from the union won't fix them.

Re:Tax

[Martin Blank]

Politicians are limited in what they can do only because the layout of the legislative districts locks in a Democrat majority just shy of being able to pass a budget on its own. However, there are plenty of places that can see changes that they're just not willing to make unless their backs are against the wall, like they were a few months ago. Now their backs are now inside the wall with another $21 billion gap over the next 19 months, the census is coming up, and the chances that the process used in 2000 to lay out legislative districts will hold up this time are close to nil. They made some severe cuts last time. The next round of cuts is almost certainly going to include things that should have happened the last time, including freezes on all capital expenditures not explicitly required by contract, suspension of new program implementations, and an overhaul of the commission system, many of which should be merged or phased out, and reduced to part-time status with commensurate pay.

Re:California Uber Alles

[czarangelus]

Actually that's not funny. After all, the pigs already use infrared sensors to search homes without a warrant looking to bust up harmless pot farms. Maybe they'll add cool televisions to their targets when they invade our privies.

Re:Why the uproar?

[jandrese]

I wonder at what point the TV manufacturers are just going to have to tweak down the maximum brightness on the TV just to meet the power requirements? You can't tweak it down forever without eventually sacrificing the total lumens.

This whole thing is BS

[kimvette]

Why is People's Republik of Kalifornia banning these things?

It will NOT save the state of California millions every year. Utilities are taxed. By decreasing electricity consumption, they are actually DECREASING tax revenue - something People's Republik of Kalifornia cannot afford at this time.

If Joe Sixpack wants to spend money on a plasma television, they ought to let them. The consumers pay for the electricity they use.
Hell if they wanted to save power, they would ban LCDs as well - my Sony 36" CRT uses less electricity (76 watts at full brightness/full volume) than my Samsung 32" television (calibrated screen, "average" volume - I was curious and compared the CRT worst-case to LCD normal use, according to my kill-a-watt meter. I don't remember what the power factor measured at but it was similar for each - close enough to not be a significant variable. Incidentally, I might be replacing the CRT with a surplus 65" plasma screen, but the plasma screen is so heavy I'm not sure I'm going to take it.

Geniuses

[PonyHome]

This is the same stupidity that energy gurus did to ceiling fans. They decided that, in order to save energy, all ceiling fans would have to go to the candelabra-sized base, from a standard full-size base bulb. Their thinking (if you can call it that) was that those bulbs are not made in anything over 60 Watts, so that's bound to save power, right? Okay, so let's see what they did: They eliminated the possibility of using almost any compact fluorescent bulb in a ceiling fan, because the choices of CFL bulb offered in that size base are extremely limited. So get rid of those wasteful 100 Watt CFLs (which consume 25 Watts of power) and install the efficient 60 Watt candelabra base bulbs (which actually use 60 Watts). Way to go.

Just cut us off already

[Monkeedude1212]

(I mean I don't live in the States, let alone in California)

But if the Government wants to get serious about energy consumption, just put a system in place that gives users a fixed amount of Energy for the day. Give me a 1 hour warning that my juice is almost up - and I'll know to finish my round of Halo, go take a shower, and either go to bed or read a book with a flashlight.

I mean, my hot water tank won't last long enough for me and 3 room mates to take showers one after another, but its not like its a such a huge inconvenience that I can't survive. The same could go for energy.

Re:Just cut us off already

[Anonymous Coward]

(I mean I don't live in the States, let alone in California)

But if the Government wants to get serious about energy consumption, just put a system in place that gives users a fixed amount of Energy for the day. Give me a 1 hour warning that my juice is almost up - and I'll know to finish my round of Halo, go take a shower, and either go to bed or read a book with a flashlight.

I mean, my hot water tank won't last long enough for me and 3 room mates to take showers one after another, but its not like its a such a huge inconvenience that I can't survive. The same could go for energy.

In Soviet America... How about just stop making rich CEO's richer by scamming the shit out of the consumer, use the company profits to expand infrastructure instead of fatten CxO pockets, and let the consumers consume by their own volition. If the government starts cutting off power supply it would start the same kind of riots and bloodshed in the streets as if they cut off the water supply. Like it or not, 1st world citizens NEED to consume energy. The very moment you strip away the object of need you will erode us back into a 3rd world country, like pretty much everyone was before the Industrial Revolution. Good luck with that.

Re:Just cut us off already

[gedrin]

Alternatively, build another power plant.

Re:Deckchairs?

[Hatta]

More prosperity leads to fewer people.

More prosperity also leads to increased emissions per person.

Which effect is stronger? If smaller prosperous families use more energy than large indigent ones, increasing prosperity might be a net negative for global warming.

Now is not the time.

[jwiegley]

Disclaimer: I'm all for "green" and the environment when it makes sense. [cents?]

The problem with "green" is that it is not always the right time to do it. California's economy is in serious trouble. (Not the serious like.. Oh my, we need a new governor; I mean serious like in a few years we may not have a higher education system or any small businesses left. I'm employed in what's left of our higher education system and I see federal receivership as a real possible end.)

But what does this have to do with television regulation? I'm renovating a house. I want to improve my home, my neighborhood and California. But we have a piece of regulation called "Title 24" that is a lot like the Television regulation proposed. What does this mean for my renovation... Lighting costs 500% of what it should. You must have high efficacy lighting. This means compact fluorescent and, no, you can't get cheap Type A incandescent fixtures and screw in a retrofit CFL bulb. You have to use the plug socketed CFL fixtures. So "green" lighting for my house costs $6000 while older incandescent would have cost $1000.

This is a serious impediment to purchasing these lights. The same is going to be true for the televisions. They will be more expensive because they will have to be built with more sophisticated technology. People will balk at buying them. Oh.. wait... they don't have a choice because it's a draconian state law; so the only choice is not to buy a TV... or move to where you can. More people will move to any other state to avoid this crap (we are currently having a mass exodus of talented, skilled people and families). Manufacturers will move their manufacturing and marketing to areas more conducive to sales (again... already happening without, yet another, regulation).

And the end result is that California's economy and culture will slip into an even deeper disaster.

"Green" regulation gets myopic... "Since it's better for the environment it MUST be done, at all costs." Well, other factors of equal and greater importance, such as "will we be able to educate our children", exist and should be considered first. It might be the right time to regulate the banking industry but it is certainly not the time to regulate, yet another, consumer oriented product that in the last decade has already seen leaps and bounds of improvements in efficiency just based on natural evolution of the product's technology. Remember tube TVs?

Re:People will just buy their TV's out of state

[Penguinisto]

Well, there were a few things that were highly illegal to sell in Utah: hardcore pr0n, beer with an alcohol content of over 3.2%, actual fireworks, and gambling.

The cities of Wendover, Nevada and Evanston, Wyoming both manage to do a very brisk trade in these things - they are both nearly a 2-hour drive in opposite directions from Salt Lake City. The majority of these towns' incomes come straight out of the wallets and purses of Utah citizens.

Now, these commodities are fairly cheap, and certainly not worth the gas and time if one did a cost-benefits analysis... yet folks happily lay out the time and resources because they're 'getting away with something'. If they're willing to go to that length for warm beer or a box of bottle rockets? Imagine what folks are willing to do for a 51" plasma screen that isn't (in their eyes) gimped by government edict.