Recent Articles:

Your DVR Uses More Electricity Than Many Refrigerators; The $48-120 Hidden Cost of Pay TV

Phillip Dampier July 11, 2011 Consumer News, Online Video, Video 9 Comments

Dish Networks' ViP722: Leaving on a 60-watt bulb 24 hours a day uses just a tad more than the ludicrous power consumption of this set top box: 55W while active and 52W while in standby.

The average pay television subscriber is spending at least $4 a month in hidden electricity costs thanks to the small set top boxes found on top of many television sets across North America.  That’s more than you are paying to run a modern refrigerator.

That stunning revelation comes from a study by the Natural Resources Defense Council, financed by the Environmental Protection Agency.

Costs for residents in the northeastern United States, where electricity rates are often higher, can reach $10 per month for customers with a DVR in the living room and a traditional set top box in the bedroom.  That’s up to $120 a year in hidden charges.

The pay television industry, which has driven the set top box into millions of homes, has never paid much attention to energy consumption of their equipment, if only because they don’t pay the power bills of their customers.  The NRDC found that many boxes even attempt to fool consumers into believing they are running in a reduced-power mode, by programming them to slightly dim the front clock when the box’s “power button” is switched off.

In reality, most set top boxes use nearly as much power “shut off” as they use left on.

The cost of these little power demons to North America’s power grid exceeds 18 billion kilowatt hours. More than seven power plants could not sustain that level of power, even if running 24/7 every day of the year.  The combined electric use of Alberta and British Columbia in a year would still not match the power consumption of every set top box in North America.

These revelations have led the U.S. Department of Energy to lay the groundwork to regulate the power consumption of set top equipment.  Once again, the United States would be a follower.  Europe cracked down on excessive power consumption of electronic equipment years earlier.  In the United Kingdom, for example, satellite providers include a box that can achieve a standby status that only consumes a handful of watts.  The trade-off is that consumers have to wait up to 90 seconds for the box to re-boot every morning when the television is first switched on.  Consumers have the ability to choose different power states as a menu option on the devices.

Some cable operators program their DVR boxes to spin down internal hard drives overnight, assuming no recording is scheduled at those times.  But many of these initiatives were designed to spare the longevity of the hard drive, not reduce power consumption overall.

Popular Science dug through the data and uncovered the best reasonable options subscribers have for boxes that at least snort their way onto your monthly utility bill, as opposed to pigging out at the trough (your wallet):

If You Have Comcast

In terms of energy efficiency, Comcast comes out as the lesser of several evils, but not by much. Comcast’s most energy-efficient boxes tend to be slightly more efficient than their equivalents at Verizon, Time Warner, and the satellite companies, and they also offer more choices in terms of hardware. The NRDC’s data picks the Motorola DCH70 as the best standard-def box (sucking down 10W while active, and 10W while on standby), the Pace RNG110 as the best high-def box (13W active, 12W standby), and the Motorola DCX3400 as the best HD/DVR (29W active, 28W standby).

I spoke to a Comcast representative who told me that typically, the company installs whichever box they want, but that if you request a specific box that they have in stock, they’ll happily install that one for you. They won’t order you a box from elsewhere, and this kind of hardware rotates in and out of availability fairly quickly, but at least you might have the option to choose.

If You Have Verizon FiOS

Verizon’s most efficient boxes are just okay, while its least efficient are some of the worst of any surveyed. Even worse, Verizon gives the customer absolutely no option about which box they get–you can’t request a specific box at any point. That doesn’t matter too much for the non-DVR boxes, as the NRDC’s findings only turned up one standard-def and one high-def box, but there’s a big gap in efficiency between the company’s best and worst DVRs. The most efficient is Motorola’s QIP7216, at an unremarkably 29W active and 28W standby, but the older Motorola QIP6416 clocks in at a lousy 36W active and 35W standby.

If You Have Time Warner Cable

Time Warner has a smaller selection of set-top boxes than either Verizon or Comcast, with only one averagely (in)efficient DVR and one startlingly inefficient standard-def box. For a high-def, non-DVR box, the Cisco Explorer 4250HDC is the most efficient, at 19W active and 18W standby, but Time Warner told me that that’s an older box that might be tough to find. The Time Warner rep was (surprisingly, given the company’s lousy reputation here in New York) quite helpful, and offered to try to track down one of the 4250HDCs if that was what I wanted.

If You Have DirecTV

Here we get to the satellite folks. DirecTV’s offerings are only slightly less efficient than Comcast’s or Verizon’s, with the (currently only) standard-def box coming in at 12W active, 9W standby, the best HD box (the DirecTV H24) at 16W active, 15W standby, and the best HD/DVR (the DirecTV HR24) at 31W active, 31W standby. The DVR is pretty lousy, efficiency-wise, but that’s nothing compared to the Dish Network’s craziness.

If You Have Dish Network

I don’t know what is happening inside the Dish Network’s DVRs. Given the energy usage, they might well be powering nuclear reactors. The “best” DVR Dish offers, the ViP922, uses 43W while active, and 40W while in standby–but the worst one, the ViP722, uses a ridiculous 55W while active and 52W while in standby.

If You Use Internet Video Streaming

Many are ditching traditional cable services for online services like Netflix and Hulu, and luckily, there are a whole bunch of gadgets that can play that content (and more) on a TV. They are also invariably more efficient than a cable box, to a startling degree. The Apple TV (reviewed here), which streams Netflix and plays music, movies, and TV from Apple’s iTunes store, uses a mere 3W while active and 0.5W while in standby. Roku‘s XR-HD, which streams Netflix, Hulu, Amazon Instant Video, and a whole bunch more, uses only 7W while active and another 7W while in standby. The Boxee Box, a curiously shaped media streamer that uses the open-source, ultra-powerful Boxee software, can play Netflix, stream video from other computers on its network, play media from a hard drive or thumb drive plugged into one of its USB ports, and stream from lots of apps (with Hulu hopefully to come soon). It was tested by an Ars Technica commenter whose measurements probably differ from the NRDC’s, but roughly estimates that it uses 13W while active and 13W while in standby.

[flv width=”640″ height=”388″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/CBC TV boxes guzzle power 6-27-11.flv[/flv]

CBC TV took a closer look at the pay television set top box: a real power guzzler.  (2 minutes)

Why Community Fiber Broadband is Better Than Most of Today’s Big Cable/Telco Alternatives

Phillip Dampier July 11, 2011 Broadband Speed, Community Networks, Competition, Public Policy & Gov't, Video Comments Off on Why Community Fiber Broadband is Better Than Most of Today’s Big Cable/Telco Alternatives

Digging into the reality of community broadband – the New Rules Project compares the broadband prices and speeds of community networks to incumbent providers, using examples from North Carolina that are representative of modern community fiber networks. Incumbent providers including AT&T, Comcast, and Time Warner Cable want to outlaw these networks even as many, including the Federal Communications Commission, recognize the clear benefits of allowing communities to decide locally whether such an investment makes sense.  What is your broadband service like?  Would you trade your ISP for one of these community fiber providers?  (3 minutes)

Verizon Yanks Auto-Delivery of White Pages in Va.; Yellow Pages Will Still Be Dumped on Your Driveway

Phillip Dampier July 11, 2011 Consumer News, Verizon Comments Off on Verizon Yanks Auto-Delivery of White Pages in Va.; Yellow Pages Will Still Be Dumped on Your Driveway

Residents of Danville, Va., may have a collector’s item dropped on their driveway later this month with Verizon’s final automatically-delivered edition of the White Pages telephone directory.

Starting in August, Verizon customers in the commonwealth will need to request a printed copy of the residential listings or else they will no longer receive a copy.

Verizon says the cessation of automatic delivery of the White Pages will save at least 1,640 tons of newsprint annually.

But before environmentalists celebrate the preservation of trees, Verizon will continue to print and drop the much-larger (and more profitable) Yellow Pages on driveways from Jonesville to Virginia Beach.

Customers will be able to order free residential print and CD-ROM versions of white pages directories by calling 1-800-888-8448 as each local yellow pages directory begins delivery.  In addition, all white pages listings are accessible at www.verizon.com/whitepages.

Despite reduced expenses for Verizon, no savings will be passed on to customers in the form of lower bills.

DSL Threatened by Obsolescence in Asian-Pacific Region; Fiber Broadband Replaces Old School Internet

Phillip Dampier July 11, 2011 Broadband Speed, Competition, Public Policy & Gov't Comments Off on DSL Threatened by Obsolescence in Asian-Pacific Region; Fiber Broadband Replaces Old School Internet

Discarded copper wire

Fixed line DSL service is at risk of obsolescence in Asia and the Pacific thanks to the widespread deployment of fiber optic cable.

According to a report from the industry analyst firm Ovum, fiber broadband will surpass DSL’s market lead in the Asia-Pacific region by 2014.

Study co-author Julie Kuntsler says Hong Kong, Japan, Korea and Taiwan has already achieved more than 25 percent penetration of fiber to the home in those countries, and the People’s Republic of China’s accelerated fiber deployments mean that country is also on track to retire millions of miles of obsolete copper wiring in favor of fiber-delivered broadband.

With China’s enormous population, even today’s small percentage of Chinese citizens with access to fiber, currently 4 percent, still delivers a staggering number of customers now in excess of 74 million.

But fiber broadband growth is not just limited to those countries.  Fiber expansion projects are underway in  Australia, Bangladesh, India, Indonesia, Malaysia, New Zealand, Pakistan, the Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, and Vietnam — growth that will deliver faster broadband expansion than found in North America, where most phone companies continue to rely on traditional DSL, especially in rural service areas.

Factors that help promote fiber broadband deployment include cohesive national broadband policies from governments that insist on more than incremental broadband expansion, financial incentives for providers who install fiber broadband for consumers, and a population that wants fiber-fast Internet speeds.

The Fiber to the Home Council – Asia-Pacific predicts that 129 million customers in the region will dump copper wire DSL for fiber to the premises by 2014. Cable broadband will also increase its market share.  Combined, the two technologies will shove traditional DSL to second place, as the technology is expected to see no market share growth for the foreseeable future.

Updated: Canada’s Telecom Regulator Investigates Rigged Broadband Pricing in Six Days of Hearings

The Canadian Radio-television Telecommunications Commission is investigating Canadian ISP practices all week in a series of public hearings.

The Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) opened the first day of hearings on the practice of usage-based billing for Internet usage, advocated by the country’s largest wholesale provider of Internet bandwidth, Bell Canada.

These hearings are a follow-up to earlier ones that ultimately allowed Bell to mandate usage billing not only for its own customers, but for all independent ISPs that purchase bandwidth from the company.  Since the vast majority of independent providers purchase bandwidth from Bell, the CRTC ruling would have mandated the end of “unlimited use” Internet plans across the country.

Nearly a half-million Canadians disagreed with the CRTC ruling and created a political firestorm earlier this year, demanding that the government step in and overturn the CRTC ruling.  Bell temporarily withdrew the usage based billing mandate pending the outcome of hearings expected to run from today until early next week.

Appearing at today’s hearing, executives from Bell continued to defend usage-based pricing and plan pricing that forces consumers to guess at how much Internet usage they will need each month.

In more aggressive questioning than earlier hearings, CRTC chairman Konrad von Finckenstein questioned Internet pricing plans that do not “rollover” or rebate consumers for unused usage, but still penalizes customers for going over their plan limits.

von Finckenstein also questioned Bell’s pricing for independent ISPs, particularly penalty rates ISPs who underestimate their wholesale usage needs would face under Bell’s advocated pricing model.  The chairman seemed suspicious of the fact Bell does not charge its own ISP unit penalty rates, only independent providers.

The hearing will also explore why companies like Bell can deliver “unlimited viewing” on their Fibe TV IPTV service, but cannot deliver unlimited Internet access to end users.

Interested in following the hearings live? Visit the CRTC live stream hearing page.

[Updated 10:20am ET: Bell Canada executives just admitted in this morning’s hearings its Internet Overcharging scheme involving usage pricing many times higher than the actual cost of provisioning the service was driven by “competition” and not by “congestion” issues.  In other words, Canadian consumers are paying very high Internet pricing and overlimit fees because of the pervasive lack of competition, not because companies need the extra money to “upgrade their networks.”]

Search This Site:

Contributions:

Recent Comments:

Your Account:

Stop the Cap!