HDTV Almanac - Rather Switch than Pay?

[alfredpoor]

Brand loyalty remains an important part of many consumer markets in the U.S., but according to a new report by Strategy Analytics, subscription television service is not one of them. A recent survey found that more than 2 out of 3 cable subscribers would change providers if they were offered a 20% discount. For the [...]

[url=http://www.hdtvmagazine.com/columns/2010/02/hdtv_almanac_rather_switch_than_pay.php]Read Column[/url]

[GiovannaVisconti]

Some--perhaps many--of us in NYC have no choice other than Time Warner with their increasing fees every time you turn around and their absolute inability to deliver acceptable customer service when there are service difficulties or--god help us--billing issues!

There are many obstacles to being able to switch from Time Warner to some other provider. TW is the only game in town for many of us. A competing service isn't allowed in because of the city's interference in so many ways.

AND...if you live in an apartment building (and most of us do!), and don't happen to face the Empire State building...well then...you can't switch to a satellite provider. Additionally, many buildings won't allow you to place a dish on the building's exterior outside your window anyway even if you DO happen to face the right direction.

As always, those of us who live here know that this city is behind every curve imaginable while soothing itself with such meaningless slogans as "the world's greatest city," etc.. We "lead" the country in nothing--except perhaps bureaucratic red tape, cost of living, taxes and disintegrating infrastructure.

Certainly NOT in alternative television delivery systems.

[alfredpoor]

Giovanni, I feel your pain. I know that NYC is not very friendly to television consumers, but I guess there are some advantages to living in the city or else there wouldn't be so many people doing it. I do understand that Verizon has started running optical fiber into many apartment buildings, which does provide an option, but given the number of buildings involved, it will be years before the can make much of a dent.

I don't know what the answer is for major urban areas such as New York, but I suspect that some form of broadband will take the place of the phone and cable TV pipes that we rely on now. Whether it will be a WiMax-type wireless solution, or a physical one like the FiOS optical fiber, I don't know. But I suspect that this is where we're headed for getting information into and out of our urban homes.

Alfred

[GiovannaVisconti]

Hi, Alfred,

Thanks for such a swift reply! [It's "Giovanna," not "Giovanni." I'm a girl...but that's okay; everybody does it ]

The fact that so many people still live here really isn't an indication of anything much other than that it takes at least a generation or two for cities to either adapt to changing situations, or just disintegrate. Happened to smaller places like Pittsburgh, etc.. New York has been losing population steadily for at least a decade--actually longer I believe. A collapsing financial industry should hasten the exodus, I imagine. Many more of us WOULD leave, I'm sure. It's just not always that immediately feasible.

However, we're talkin' TV here so...your prediction about broadband/wireless changes would be heartening (though like you I wonder how long it might take for that to be a workable reality) except for, once again: government interference. Do you know how long it took the "outer boroughs" (Queens, Brooklyn, Staten Island) to be fully wired for cable? My friends in "the city" (that's Manhattan) had cable for at the very least 10 years before I did in Queens! We weren't wired until summer, 1989!

I guess my only point is this: I wish I had a viable alternative to Time Warner. But I don't. And most of us don't.

However! I AM in the market for a new TV and am awaiting the new lineups from the majors. Hope there'll be some movement in full local dimming.

Do you think Sharp's announcement of a four-color system might have any impact on the white LED vs. something like Sony's triluminous system? Sony seem to have abandoned that even in their HX900 series projected for summer rollout.

Maybe by the summer, I'll be able to find an XBR8 for around $1,500 (NEW, of course!)

Thanks,

Giovanna[/u]

[alfredpoor]

My apologies for mangling your name. As someone who is called by many variants of my first name, I can understand.

I saw the Sharp four-color LCD HDTVs at CES and they were impressive, especially with metalics like gold and brass. But would it have been so stunning if it had not been shown with a typical set next to it? I'm not at all sure. As for white vs. RGB LED backlights, the RGB approach does make it possible to do some correction for ambient light temperatures, but I think the benefits of reduced part count (thus increased reliability and lower assembly costs) for white LEDs will probably win out. And they're making some great strides in the white LED technology. (One company just announced a white LED with 100 lumen per Watt efficiency.)

As for local dimming, the jury is still out for me. I like high contrast and a deep black is the key to a great image. But I have to believe that the local dimming must introduce some sort of visible artifacts, simply because there are image elements that span dimmed and non-dimmed regions. I haven't spent enough time with one of these sets to know if I am able to notice (and be bothered by) these artifacts, which is why I'm not sure if it's a problem or not. But I'm cautious about endorsing it as a solution.

Alfred

[GiovannaVisconti]

Thanks so much, Alfred, for these insights. I really appreciate it.

I was wondering about artifacts too. It seems with every pronounced advance come artifacts.

Sigh...I was going to opt for one of Sharp's LE700 series sets if only because they DO use back as opposed to edge-lighting even though the system is "proprietary," whatever that means in this case. I believe one thing it means is there's no local dimming.

According to sources I've read, electricity usage in the LE700 series is way below the other majors. This is a major consideration for me. (You wouldn't believe my monthly electric bills, but I don't want to turn this conversation back to life in the big city and what it really costs.)

Have seen the LE700s in person and PQ looked excellent, BUT... of course they're running at torch levels in the store. So it's hard to tell if there are any real PQ differences from the set next door.

[Richard]

I would suggest putting a calculater to your suspicions... The difference in savings is marginal for the individual and the main issue at hand is the decrease in power consumption your energy provider sees due to a mass volume power reduction for your local power grid.

[GiovannaVisconti]

Thanks, Richard. I understand what you mean about overall usage as viewed by the electric company.

However, in New York city the reality is that change in the usage of just one appliance can have a startling effect on one's Con Ed bill.

My apartment building was constructed in 1937. It was rewired in the early 1970s, and nothing's been done since. You wouldn't believe my monthly electric charges for a studio apartment (that's New-York-speak for an apartment that doesn't have a separate bedroom: one large living room, small kitchen, small bath, small entrance hall).

Last summer was one of the most remarkably mild in the city's recent history. My Con Ed charges went from $132 to $109 per month--mostly because of far more limited a/c usage than usual.

Not to compare a TV's electricity consumption to that of an a/c, but a TV using over 100 watts less than another (estimates are from Home Theater Magazine's comprehensive listing) could make a big difference in my case. During the baseball season, my TV can be on more than six hours a day.

However, in the end PQ is the most important factor. It's often difficult to judge that because, as I mentioned, everything runs at torch level in the big box stores which is where I can see the sets at all. So...one reads to gather as much information as possible.

[akirby]

Let's see - 100 watts times 6 hours per day times 30 days per month = 18 Kw/hours. Best I can tell Con Ed is charging roughly 8 cents per Kilowatt Hour (worst case).

That's $1.44 per month. Maybe we could take up a collection.......

[GiovannaVisconti]

Hey "akirby," hello...

You live here?

If you DO, and don't think $109 per month is an outrageous monthly electric charge for a studio apartment then there's not much else I can say. (And that's on level billing too, BTW.) I've no doubt that amount will jump back to the vicinity of $132 shortly. I'm planning on it.

Anyway, I DID say PQ is the most important consideration (with reliability right behind). But in my case lowering monthly electric charges ain't to be sneezed at. So taking that into consideration makes sense for me.

Now I'm certainly not asking that a collection be taken up...but what the hey...if you'd like to, I won't stop you!