Like Wombler there must be a reason the UK is seeing increased sales. He said 3D broadcasts are now via satellite. But it can also be due to other reasons such as lower costs in both the TV itself and with various TV service providers (like Comcast, U-Verse, etc). Here in the USA there is a significant difference in cost between a HD TV versus a 3D TV, some as much as $1000. The additional cost of the 3D glasses (some provide a 2 pairs as a bundle but having a family 4 pairs are really needed) is another large deterrent. All 3D TVs are LEDs which since they are the most recent technology are also the most expensive over LCDs and Plasma. Unless one also has a 3d Blue-ray player and can get a good selection of blue-ray 3D movies at a reasonable cost the only other source is satellite or cable supplied. What is a joke with these are that most service starts at $35/month with additional fees for channel boxes, remote controls, and DVR. Now that most people have converted over to or will soon to a digital TV from the old analog TVs one would think that HD is an automatic given but it is not it is an additional fee of $10/month. This is like the phone company continuing to charge you for touch tone dialing over pulse. So if they do broadcast 3D programming will it be free or again will an addition charge be applied? I think this is a major reason many Americans are reluctant to jump into 3D. America has become the county of hidden additional fees – for airlines, telephones, and even TV Service providers.
Other hindrances include wafting for the next generation 3D set which does not require glasses, OLED screens for better contrast ratios (thinner, lighter, more energy efficient) and larger less expensive TV screens 50 inches or larger.
