Home About Chat Users Issues Party Candidates Polling Firms Media News Polls Calendar Key Races United States President Senate House Governors International

New User Account
"A collaborative political resource." 
Email: Password:

  House Vote 563 - Rejects Repeal of Light Bulb Efficiency Standards
NEWS DETAILS
Parent(s) Issue 
ContributorJason 
Last EditedJason  Aug 12, 2011 05:01pm
Logged 0
CategoryProposed Legislation
News DateWednesday, July 13, 2011 01:00:00 AM UTC0:0
DescriptionYes - 233

No - 193

Present - 1

Not voting - 5
Share
ArticleRead Article

NEWS
Date Category Headline Article Contributor

DISCUSSION
[View All
35
Previous Messages]
 
D:8155Kestenbaum ( 0.1067 points)
x2
Mon, August 15, 2011 09:36:50 AM UTC0:00
In my experience, the CFL bulbs don't last as long as advertised. Almost every bulb in my house is CFL, and I've had to replace several that burned out.

CFL's are cooler and use less energy, all to the good, but heaven help you break one.

I think incandescents should be allowed for bulbs in places where there is a high risk of breakage -- such as table lamps in a house with active cats!

 
D:7CA Pol Junkie ( 2702.2412 points)
Mon, August 15, 2011 07:23:23 PM UTC0:00
More efficient incandescents are still allowed - alot of misinformation has led people to believe that everyone must convert to CFL or LED.

 
D:478Bob ( 2253.6577 points)
Tue, August 16, 2011 04:29:34 AM UTC0:00
I was stupid not to buy stock in Philips after the law passed. It's always good for business when the government forces the consumer to buy your more expensive products. Sort of how the cable companies made out like thieves after the digital television conversion.

 
D:1RP ( 3311.3784 points)
Tue, August 16, 2011 04:41:18 AM UTC0:00
Bob: Sort of how the cable companies made out like thieves after the digital television conversion.

How did that work?

 
D:478Bob ( 2253.6577 points)
Tue, August 16, 2011 06:35:26 AM UTC0:00
Well, I can only speak for New York's experience although I'm sure events played out similarly in other urban areas. The conversion was untenable for those living in buildings sharing a master antenna, and it effectively deprived scores of people the ability to watch broadcast television without having to pay for it. Time Warner had a nice payday:

In New York City, where many apartment buildings share a common master antenna on the roof, viewers discovered that only VHF antennas could receive channels 2 through 13. Before the transition, this didn’t mean much. On June 12, however, that changed when tenants could not pick up UHF stations.

The problem was compounded when most stores in New York City sold out of antennas quickly, leaving the city’s first shortage of TV antennas in decades.

A Time Warner cable technician, several hours late for an appointment last week, told one New York City apartment dweller that the cable provider has been swamped with new subscribers in the days since June 12. He said cable installers were working overtime to accommodate the influx of new cable subscribers.

[Link]

And of course there was the nationwide phenomenon of people simply losing channels after the transition, which prompted the failed Digital TV Transition Fairness Act. When you lose a handful of the already limited number of broadcast channels available it could prompt you to just give in and buy cable.