Smart Meters Good Or Bad?...

We saved/made over £1,000 this year on feed back tariff and using the leccy So it works for us.

I think that a smart meter might get a bit confused if we had one.

 

Good morning not for woo I'm a Owl dinasaur

 

They were done!!!! Ours cost only a fraction of that price.

Yes, companies will rent your roof space but not actually pay a rent. They put them there for nothing but get the payback from the government (Feed In Tariff) and you get to use the electricity for nothing.

 

This is from a Government Energy Survey about Smart Meters.

"Attitudes towards energy suppliers as corporate entities were invariably negative based on perceptions that they make large profits, put prices up quickly but reduce them slowly in response to changing oil and gas prices, and pay their senior staff high salaries and bonuses. They were also seen to be guilty of using aggressive and intrusive direct sales tactic
Respondents were concerned to protect their personal financial information as the consequences of its falling into the wrong hands were obvious to them. These concerns were greater for anyone who had direct experience of misuse of personal financial data, for example, credit card or bank account fraud. Parents were protective of any information to do with their children, for example, posts on social networking sites in case of misuse. Otherwise by far and away the dominant concern was that personal information would be used as a source of leads for marketing. Respondents were almost unanimous in complaining about aggressive, intrusive and frequent direct sales approaches (telephone, street marketing, doorstep calling) from energy and energy related companies and others. It was assumed that this was a consequence of some organisation or other passing on their personal details
While all respondents were aware that there is a Data Protection Act, by no means all knew what it meant in practice, for example, that it might forbid personal details being passed on without consent. As a result references to the Data Protection Act supporting the framework in protecting their interests did not always provide reassurance. There was also limited faith in its ability to protect them as they reasoned that any organisation is vulnerable to dishonest employees, hackers and system failures, and that anyway, proving infringement and obtaining redress would almost certainly be difficult. Smart Meters There was little awareness or understanding of Smart Meters among non-„owners‟, suggesting that in any communication it might be advisable to assume there is no existing background knowledge. „Owners‟ had a generally good understanding although in some cases attention had been focussed on the in-home display rather than the meter itself.
Smart Meters There was little awareness or understanding of Smart Meters among non-„owners‟, suggesting that in any communication it might be advisable to assume there is no existing background knowledge. „Owners‟ had a generally good understanding although in some cases attention had been focussed on the in-home display rather than the meter itself. Once they had a working knowledge of Smart Meters, either having been taken through the stimulus explaining Smart Meter functionality (see appendices) or from direct experience, the majority felt they were a positive development which could help them save energy (in conjunction with the display), while ending meter reading and estimated bills. Some, while not objecting to Smart Meters, were less enthusiastic as they felt they would be unlikely to be able to reduce their energy use, and were happy with their current payment and meter reading routines. In both cases respondents could be puzzled as to why the energy industry might be introducing Smart Meters given they could help customers use less energy, meaning the energy companies` income would be reduced. This seemed unlikely and made them suspicious, as they wondered what „the catch‟ might be. An understanding that Smart Meters are backed by government as part of a drive to reduce the nation‟s CO2 emissions proved a satisfactory explanation and settled these concerns.
Respondents‟ questions following exposure to the stimulus explaining Smart Meters and the examples of FAQs focussed on practical concerns; would they have to pay for a Smart Meter; would they be responsible for maintaining it, who would install it, and would it lock them into a supplier. A few respondents queried what might happen to the data the Smart Meter obtained, fuelled by a concern that more information might result in more exposure to sales calls. A smaller number with a background in IT or interest in computers queried the security of Smart Meters.
Smart Meters and Data / Privacy
A few disliked the idea of any organisation having access to any of their personal information unless it was absolutely necessary, but along with the rest of the sample even they accepted that this was a reality of life today. Energy consumption data was not felt to be sensitive in the sense that there was no obvious risk to others having it, nor was it seen to be personal or private. The only perceived risk was that allowing access might somehow lead to more unwanted sales calls. However, with increasing reading frequency, i.e. from monthly to daily, to half hourly, etc, energy consumption data did start to feel more sensitive as the level of detail started to seem intrusive, as though it was offering a window into the home and what went on it. Equally, it was not clear to some why anyone would want the higher level of detail, leaving a gap to be filled by speculation which resulted in some becoming more uneasy. Respondents assumed that energy suppliers would see their consumption data, which they felt was perfectly reasonable as they would need the information for billing purposes. However, some could not imagine why suppliers would need to see their data more frequently than monthly which could lead them to wonder what such information would be used for. Once again, in discussing the issue of data and privacy, the overwhelming concern was the possibility that data collected via a Smart Meter might lead to more unwanted marketing communication. Some did associate a security risk with allowing more detailed data collection, e.g. daily, half hourly, as it could indicate when their home was empty. However, they felt that in reality this was only a theoretical risk as they could not conceive of anyone using this level of sophistication to burgle their homes.
The Framework Respondents tended to see the framework as a set of choices without a sense of an overall structure. Once these choices were understood, reactions were largely positive. The framework was seen to give householders choice and control. It was felt to recognise what was necessary and helpful to the individual and society and allow for that information to be provided, while also recognising that other information was not necessary and should only be accessible with consent. The „scale‟ of consent met with approval. Crucially, it meant that energy consumption data would only be used for marketing purposes if householders specifically asked for this to be the case. The exception was daily consumption data for suppliers. While some were happy for suppliers to have access, others felt there was no good reason why they would need it, and so it should be „opt in‟ rather than „opt out‟. This underlines the point that information given to consumers about the purposes for which data is used appeared to be key to their acceptance in allowing access to that data. There were major reservations over how the framework would operate in practice. Principally, would the choices be presented prominently and clearly in a way that could be readily understood, and not buried in the Terms and Conditions or worded so as to lead householders to a choice they might not intend? Respondents felt that they often encountered such tactics, not necessarily just from the energy sector. Respondents saw Government involvement as a positive point, once those respondents thought that its involvement was to do with introducing a set of rules for the industry to follow, and not to do with accessing the data on its own behalf. Respondents felt the framework had to be an enforced mandatory code, and they had no confidence in a voluntary agreement or self policing."

 

Abridged version, Harry, is ............


Or the Luddite view