Smart meter diatribe

Now, I do think that data mining is a real possibility that would benefit the larger suppliers. We know it happens in many other areas digitally, Cambridge Analytica for one, so why not sophisticated software able to decipher the blips of electronic noise generated from the many examples of 'IOT' ?

Presumably someone would have to hack the smart meter itself and replace its software to get access to the 'raw noise' - otherwise pretty much the only interesting data available would be the kWh totals for each half-hour for the last 13 months.


  - Andy.

I wonder why insurance companies do not offer cover when requests from prospective clients cite health reasons as their objection to the installation of smart meters?

I can't imagine large companies like electricity suppliers not being able to obtain exactly the kind of insurance they want. There are plenty of organisations that trade of their reputation of being able to 'insure anything' (for a suitable premium of course). If what he says is true, I suspect it's more a case that the supplier doesn't consider it a plausible risk - so not worth spending any premium (however small) on it. To be fair, being that most smart meters use the same technology as mobile phones and WiFi, and the spectrum is already well used by loads of other devices, for someone to be able to prove in court that their smart meter was the one and only (or even most significant) cause of their illness would be nigh on impossible anyway, even if there was a real health problem. It would easier to prove that exhaust emissions from the meter reader's diesel van caused someone's asthma - but I bet the supplier's don't have insurance to cover them for that either.


   - Andy.

Legh Richardson:

[...]

I wonder why insurance companies do not offer cover when requests from prospective clients cite health reasons as their objection to the installation of smart meters? 

[...]

 

But who would pay for that insurance?


The customers won't want to.  Why would you want to pay for insurance for something that somebody else wants to do?  It costs nothing to just refuse the meter.


The electricity suppliers and meter manufacturers won't want to.  They will argue that the meters meet all regulatory safety requirements.  Taking out insurance is just inviting anyone who feels poorly after a smart meter is installed to put in a claim for lots of money.

Yes, seems a pretty interesting and balanced view.

I wonder why insurance companies do not offer cover when requests from prospective clients cite health reasons as their objection to the installation of smart meters? 

Now, I do think that data mining is a real possibility that would benefit the larger suppliers. We know it happens in many other areas digitally, Cambridge Analytica for one, so why not sophisticated software able to decipher the blips of electronic noise generated from the many examples of 'IOT' ?


Legh

Oh dear. Where to start?


"Biggest swindle ever perpetrated on the general public" - even if what he said was true, £11bn would still be miles behind PPI mis-selling, not to mention Quantitative Easing or dozens of other projects. Perhaps suggests a lack of perspective.


Won't stop estimated bills because of the 'yearly payment plan' - I think I can sort of see what he's getting at, but he seems to be muddling estimated readings with predicted usage. Surely even he must admit that an annual prediction based on actual meter readings would be more accurate that one based on estimated readings.


Charged more at peak time - OK there's a possibility of that, but as far as I know it's not automatic when simply switching to a smart meter as he implied, but the customer would have to explicitly select a different tariff (which presumably would provide a lower unit cost at other times to make it attractive).


Customers being charged twice as much - if true that surely can only be due to a faulty old meter that had been under-recording (or possibly a faulty new meter over-recording), a long history of estimated readings that diverged significantly from reality, a coincidental tariff change or meter/customer identification mixup - either way it's a simple error that could happen with any meter technology, smart or not.


Disconnection at the push of a button rather than having to go through a legal process - again he seems to be muddling two different things - what's physically possible and what's legally allowed. If someone wanted to cut off someone's electricity the easiest physical way would just go up to their outside meter box, open it with a totally insecure triangular key, snip the seal and pull the cut-out fuse (no complicated hacking skills required). Surely the legal protection a customer has against the supplier disconnecting would be the same regardless of the meter type.


In times of emergency I guess supplier could cut off large number of consumers remotely - but they did that in the 1970s with area cuts anyway - if anything smart meters give the option for leaving the power on for selected consumers (e.g. those particularly vulnerable or say medical premises).


Hackers gaining control and/or data is perhaps a risk - although I would have thought a small one - probably smaller than ne'r-do-wells gaining access to vulnerable people's homes by impersonating meter readers (as happens occasionally with non-smart meters).


Being able to know which TV program you're watching and whether you're in or out? Surely we're getting in the realms of fantasy here. While I don't doubt that watching say an action film with a loud sound-track could produce a measurable increase in power consumption over say a nice episode of Gardener's World, I find it difficult to believe that anyone could make any accurate deduction from the half-hour totals that the meter records, let alone without knowing what make/model of TV was involved or what else was drawing power at the same time in the house. Likewise there's no way the meter could directly know if you're in or out - someone might be able to infer that from changes in consumption patterns - but in these days of many appliances operating automatically - from heating to TV recording systems to refrigeration to security lighting - it would not be a trivial task. Not to mention those with PV, or other local generation, apparently drawing zero current (or non-recorded export current) even when the house is fully occupied. Far easier for a ne'r-do-well to walk past and look to see if there's a car on the drive, whether the wheelie bin has been left out on the street or even just ring the door bell and run away. There doesn't seem to be a huge advantage to a would-be burglar to be able to deduce remotely that a house is unoccupied if they then have to travel to the house to burgle it.


Sure smart meters can catch fire if not properly installed - exactly as do conventionally metered installations (plenty of examples were mentioned in the debate about introducing the requirement for steel cased CUs). So no points there either I think. The mention of US/Can meters needing a recall seems to be just another case of a design fault - the sort of thing we see regularly in all sorts of consumer appliances (and indeed MCBs) - so in principle nothing specific to smart meters, nor apparently any direct relevance to smart meters used in the UK anyway.


Health worries seem to be the same concerns that were raised for mobile phone (and probably WiFi too) - hard to see how an extra device or two in such an already polluted spectrum - let alone a device that's usually relatively remote from humans - is going to make a measurable difference.


Data mining is an interesting one - perhaps I'm being unimaginative, but apart from electricity suppliers trying to offer you a more tempting tariff, I'm left wondering quite how much of a gold mine that really is.


My really big annoyance is the complete lack of any mention of how smart meters would eventually be a critical component in an overall smart grid (to everyone's benefit in keeping the lights on at an affordable price) - but given that those who are meant to be promoting smart meters hardly ever mention it, I shouldn't be surprised.


   - Andy.

Yes, but he makes a case that many others have suggested, including WHICH lobying group. he doesn't actually mention either SMETS1 or 2 but apparently the earlier version was/is easily hackable and non-transferable between different energy companies.

I too got 7/8ths through before being dragged away to dinner.


Legh.

It's a mixture of truth, wild speculation and utter rubbish.  I gave up watching it half way through.