Geothermal heating/cooling systems use the earth as a heat exchanger and thereby provides better climate control at a reduced cost.
It is clear that such systems cost less to upkeep and appear to be less prone to failure that traditional climate control. However, the cost of acquisition is steep and these systems do not work in all geographic regions. Yet, these systems are worth looking at it would be well worth it if builders familiarized themselves with them.
I am however uncomfortable with a trend that has become increasingly prevalent among proponents of "green technologies." They tend to factor in Government subsidies or tax credits into the economics of their justification. This approach, while tempting, is a little like bribing your son to take his sister's best friend to the prom. The bribe invalidates all other value propositions and makes suspect the subject of promotion, be it a plain-looking prom date or a "green technology."
No matter the cost, any worthwhile technology will have first adopters. If it proves itself its use spreads and its cost goes down; this is how the market has always worked. Remember how PCs spread despite there being not subsidy or tax break for them form most of their history? Did Bluetooth or USB require subsidies to spread?
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
The Year of Living Digitally
2009 being the year of the digital transition, I think this might be a good time to pick a few bones with companies (mostly media firms) whose corporate culture has not kept up with the times.
HBO
HBO's issue with the 16x9 aspect ratio bothers me to no end. It's hard to imagine that America's premium cable network sends out a signal designed for people who bought their television sets before the turn of the millennium. What kind of preview monitors do these people use?
Anyone who tries to watch the HBO HD feed is in for a very amateurish viewing experience. Not only does HBO not know how to transition from programs or spots with a 4x3 aspect ratio, they seem unable to produce HD spots for HD shows.
As a result, instead of enticing me to watch whatever show they are trying to promote, I am infuriated by the ridiculous letter-boxed, pillar-boxed, jagged-edged, sub-par image displayed in the middle of a huge black background. Its a crying shame that HBO's promotional department seems unable to produce video whose quality is worse than what a teenage geek can produce in his/her parents' basement.
Maybe HBO should send their producers to intern at ESPN. They have done an excellent job with transitioning from the 4x3 to the 16x9 aspect ratio and output a consistent, high-quality HD signal.
History Channel, CNN, Fox News, and others
These other networks deserve calling out simply because they give HD and/or the 16x9 aspect ratio a bad name. The last time I checked, Fox News appears to have an issue with providing any HD or 16x9 aspect ratio programming.
CNN and the History Channel, on the other hand, think that it is okay to stretch their 4x3 images to fake 19x9 HD video. Let me begin by saying, there is nothing wrong with pillar-boxing provided it is done right. In fact, these services could use the extra screen real estate for crawlers and even ads. Whatever they do, they should stop presenting distorted video — this used to be a sign of a broken TV set.
All these cable outlets need to realize that a significant chunk of their audience is watching their signal on newly bought HD screens with a 16x9 aspect ratio and that nobody wants to watch a crappy signal after forking out large sums of money for the experience.
I doubt I am alone in my practice of reserving my 60-inch HD screen for only material that justifies the viewing experience. As a result, my viewership of these networks has decreased not in small part due to how jarring their images appear on a high quality screen.
HBO
HBO's issue with the 16x9 aspect ratio bothers me to no end. It's hard to imagine that America's premium cable network sends out a signal designed for people who bought their television sets before the turn of the millennium. What kind of preview monitors do these people use?
Anyone who tries to watch the HBO HD feed is in for a very amateurish viewing experience. Not only does HBO not know how to transition from programs or spots with a 4x3 aspect ratio, they seem unable to produce HD spots for HD shows.
As a result, instead of enticing me to watch whatever show they are trying to promote, I am infuriated by the ridiculous letter-boxed, pillar-boxed, jagged-edged, sub-par image displayed in the middle of a huge black background. Its a crying shame that HBO's promotional department seems unable to produce video whose quality is worse than what a teenage geek can produce in his/her parents' basement.
Maybe HBO should send their producers to intern at ESPN. They have done an excellent job with transitioning from the 4x3 to the 16x9 aspect ratio and output a consistent, high-quality HD signal.
History Channel, CNN, Fox News, and others
These other networks deserve calling out simply because they give HD and/or the 16x9 aspect ratio a bad name. The last time I checked, Fox News appears to have an issue with providing any HD or 16x9 aspect ratio programming.
CNN and the History Channel, on the other hand, think that it is okay to stretch their 4x3 images to fake 19x9 HD video. Let me begin by saying, there is nothing wrong with pillar-boxing provided it is done right. In fact, these services could use the extra screen real estate for crawlers and even ads. Whatever they do, they should stop presenting distorted video — this used to be a sign of a broken TV set.
All these cable outlets need to realize that a significant chunk of their audience is watching their signal on newly bought HD screens with a 16x9 aspect ratio and that nobody wants to watch a crappy signal after forking out large sums of money for the experience.
I doubt I am alone in my practice of reserving my 60-inch HD screen for only material that justifies the viewing experience. As a result, my viewership of these networks has decreased not in small part due to how jarring their images appear on a high quality screen.
Monday, February 2, 2009
Why The Digital Transition Must Not Be Delayed
The latest figure I have for TV stations in the US is 1773 — not including low power outfits. Even assuming average transmitter output of 10,000 watts, the impact of such consumption is considerable : well over 20 megawatts at least. This is by no means a trivial power requirement.
Now imagine if we doubled the amount — which is what we have to do to account for the fact that all commercial stations are currently broadcasting both analog and digital signals. As costly as this is, commercial television broadcasters have had plenty of time to incorporate into their budgets the dual power requirement of parallel broadcast transmissions. However, an unplanned extension of the deadline is likely to bankrupt smaller TV operators — the kind most likely to hire locally — and cause further unemployment in smaller markets. The other victims of such a delay would be the tower and transmitter service companies that were looking forward to drumming up some business around transition time.
So, in order to accommodate a lackadaisical and markedly small segment of the market we are willing to continue to weigh down on the power grid and further jeopardize an embattled industry? Come on Congress, that wouldn't be smart at all.
It is true that there appear to be some 6.5 million homes unable to receive digital television. However, we do not know with any certainty whether this deficiency is caused by poverty, disinterest or procrastination. Although the government has run out of coupons, many people have allowed their coupons to expire. I think these people would be a lot more motivated if they could not get any signal on their TV sets and found out from their friends what they need to do. As for the converter boxes, I believe their prices will drop making the coupons unnecessary.
I remember reading on an online forum that in Europe,where there was no coupon program, comparable boxes are sold for the equivalent of almost half the $40 US sticker price. Besides, if the government is so concerned about these households they could allocate some money for low interest loans to people wishing to buy the cheaper digital sets and/or converter boxes. Considering that the alternative is so costly to TV broadcasters, I think even they would welcome an alternative that would involve them pitching in to a fund to upgrade analog homes in their respective markets.
Look at cell phones. Look how we have migrated from analog to digital cellphone service without coupon programs or anything like them. To quote President Obama, "yes we can."
Now imagine if we doubled the amount — which is what we have to do to account for the fact that all commercial stations are currently broadcasting both analog and digital signals. As costly as this is, commercial television broadcasters have had plenty of time to incorporate into their budgets the dual power requirement of parallel broadcast transmissions. However, an unplanned extension of the deadline is likely to bankrupt smaller TV operators — the kind most likely to hire locally — and cause further unemployment in smaller markets. The other victims of such a delay would be the tower and transmitter service companies that were looking forward to drumming up some business around transition time.
So, in order to accommodate a lackadaisical and markedly small segment of the market we are willing to continue to weigh down on the power grid and further jeopardize an embattled industry? Come on Congress, that wouldn't be smart at all.
It is true that there appear to be some 6.5 million homes unable to receive digital television. However, we do not know with any certainty whether this deficiency is caused by poverty, disinterest or procrastination. Although the government has run out of coupons, many people have allowed their coupons to expire. I think these people would be a lot more motivated if they could not get any signal on their TV sets and found out from their friends what they need to do. As for the converter boxes, I believe their prices will drop making the coupons unnecessary.
I remember reading on an online forum that in Europe,where there was no coupon program, comparable boxes are sold for the equivalent of almost half the $40 US sticker price. Besides, if the government is so concerned about these households they could allocate some money for low interest loans to people wishing to buy the cheaper digital sets and/or converter boxes. Considering that the alternative is so costly to TV broadcasters, I think even they would welcome an alternative that would involve them pitching in to a fund to upgrade analog homes in their respective markets.
Look at cell phones. Look how we have migrated from analog to digital cellphone service without coupon programs or anything like them. To quote President Obama, "yes we can."
Superbowl Snafus
NBC regaled the nation with a few glitches in the broadcast of the Superbowl. After so many years of the roster, they were a little rusty putting on the show.
Comcast's dubious technical credentials were once again highlighted by 30 seconds of full frontal nudity it served its non-digital subscribers in parts of Arizona. This reminds me of two of my gripes with the cable giant:
My question to Comcast is, whatever happened to quality control? It is true that their digital service is slightly better than their analog feed, but not by much. I remember seeing snow in my HD feeds. Plus the hu m bars in their inDemand offerings render many of them unwatchable on a big screen.
Along the lines of Q.O.S. (Quality of Service), considering that most subscribers use the analog feed, some for their primary receivers and some for secondary units, wouldn't it make sense for Comcast to persuade them to upgrade through quality offerings.
This is a lesson satellite providers like DirectTV and Dish have learned. The reason their subscribers happily upgrade from a $29 basic package to an $80 enhanced lineup or even $400 sports pass, is that users are habituated to associated the service with high quality images and sound.
When dropped cable for DirectTV, my biggest surprise was how much more local television I was watching. The reason was that even local channels were more watchable. DirectTV manages to give me a better signal from my local stations than locally-based Comcast -- imagine that!
And Service, Comcasts continues to offer limited telephone support with some of the least cooperative operators. I hope this latest x-rated snafu causes more people to abandon their service and cause the company to shape up. My main complaint with Comcast is that, by being the largest cable operator, they give all cable providers a bad name. The truth is that there are some pretty good cable companies out there I've had positive experiences with the likes of Cox and Adelphia.
Although, I still have some bones to pick with industry effort known as CableLabs, I believe the problem with sub-par players like Comcast is their corporate culture and lack of commitment to service. Shame on you, Comcast!
Comcast's dubious technical credentials were once again highlighted by 30 seconds of full frontal nudity it served its non-digital subscribers in parts of Arizona. This reminds me of two of my gripes with the cable giant:
- Non-digital package subscribers are treated as second-class citizens.
- There is no attention paid to customer service -- even the DMV beats them in this area.
My question to Comcast is, whatever happened to quality control? It is true that their digital service is slightly better than their analog feed, but not by much. I remember seeing snow in my HD feeds. Plus the hu m bars in their inDemand offerings render many of them unwatchable on a big screen.
Along the lines of Q.O.S. (Quality of Service), considering that most subscribers use the analog feed, some for their primary receivers and some for secondary units, wouldn't it make sense for Comcast to persuade them to upgrade through quality offerings.
This is a lesson satellite providers like DirectTV and Dish have learned. The reason their subscribers happily upgrade from a $29 basic package to an $80 enhanced lineup or even $400 sports pass, is that users are habituated to associated the service with high quality images and sound.
When dropped cable for DirectTV, my biggest surprise was how much more local television I was watching. The reason was that even local channels were more watchable. DirectTV manages to give me a better signal from my local stations than locally-based Comcast -- imagine that!
And Service, Comcasts continues to offer limited telephone support with some of the least cooperative operators. I hope this latest x-rated snafu causes more people to abandon their service and cause the company to shape up. My main complaint with Comcast is that, by being the largest cable operator, they give all cable providers a bad name. The truth is that there are some pretty good cable companies out there I've had positive experiences with the likes of Cox and Adelphia.
Although, I still have some bones to pick with industry effort known as CableLabs, I believe the problem with sub-par players like Comcast is their corporate culture and lack of commitment to service. Shame on you, Comcast!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)