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)

Vincent, one of our regular Stop the Cap! readers sent along a link to a story about the decrepit state of American broadband: it’s a real mess for those who can’t get it, can’t get enough of it, and compare it against what other people abroad are getting.

Cracked delivers the top five reasons why American broadband sucks.  Be sure and read their take (adult language), but we have some thoughts of our own to share:

#5 Some of Us Just Plain Can’t Get It

Large sections of the prairie states, the mountain states, and the desert states can’t get broadband no matter how much they want it.  That’s because they are a hundred miles or more from the nearest cable system and depend on the phone companies — especially AT&T, Frontier, CenturyLink, and Windstream to deliver basic DSL.  AT&T is trying as hard as possible to win the right to abandon rural America altogether with the elimination of their basic service obligation.  Verizon has sold off some of their most rural territories, including the entire states of Hawaii, New Hampshire, Maine, Vermont, and West Virginia.  CenturyLink has absorbed Qwest in the least populated part of America — the mountain and desert west.

Frontier and Windstream are betting their business models on rural DSL, and while some are grateful to have anything resembling broadband, neither company earns spectacular customer ratings.

So long as rural broadband is not an instant profit winner for the phone companies selling it, rural America will remain dependent on dial-up or [shudder] satellite fraudband.

#4 Often There are No Real Options for Service (and No Competition)

Cracked has discovered the wonderfully inaccurate world of broadband mapping, where the map shows you have plentiful broadband all around, but phone calls to the providers on the list bring nothing but gales of laughter.  As if you are getting service at your house.  Ever.  Stop the Cap! hears regularly from the broadband-deprived, some who have had to be more innovative than the local phone company ever was looking for ways to get service.  Some have paid to bury their own phone cable to get DSL the phone company was reluctant to install, others have created super-powered Wi-Fi networks to share a neighbor’s connection.  The rest live with broadband envy, watching for any glimpse of phone trucks running new wires up and down the road.

Competition is a concept foreign to most Americans confronted with one cable company and one phone company charging around the same price for service.  The most aggressive competition comes when a community broadband provider throws a monkey wrench into the duopoly.  Magically, rate hikes are few and fleeting and speeds are suddenly much better.  Hmmm.

#3 Those Who Have Access Still Lag Behind the Rest of the World

We're #35!

This is an unnerving problem, especially when countries like Lithuania are now kicking the United States into the broadband corner.  You wouldn’t believe we’re that bad off listening to providers, who talk about the innovative and robust broadband economy — the one that is independent of their lousy service.  In fact, the biggest impediment to more innovation may be those same providers.  Some have an insatiable appetite for money — money from you, money from content producers, money from taxpayers, more money from you, and by the way there better be a big fat check from Netflix in the mail this week for using our pipes!

Where is the real innovation?  Community providers like Greenlight, Fibrant, and EPB that deliver their respective communities kick-butt broadband — service other providers would like to shut down at all costs.  Not every commercial provider is an innovation vacuum.  Verizon FiOS and Google’s new Gigabit fiber network in Kansas City represent innovation through investment.  Unfortunately Wall Street doesn’t approve.

Still not convinced?  Visit Japan or Korea and then tell us how American broadband resembles NetZero or AOL dial-up in comparison.

#2 Bad Internet = Shi**y Economy

The demagoguery of corporate-financed dollar-a-holler groups like “FreedomWorks” and “Americans for Prosperity” is without bounds.  Whether it was attacking broadband stimulus funding, community broadband endeavors, or Net Neutrality, these provider shills turned broadband expansion into something as worthwhile as a welfare benefit for Cadillac drivers.  Why are we spending precious tax dollars on Internet access so people can steal movies and download porn they asked.  Why are we letting communities solve their own broadband problems building their own networks when it should be commercial providers being the final arbiter of who deserves access and who does not?  Net Neutrality?  Why that’s a socialist government takeover, it surely is.

It’s like watching railroad robber barons finance protest movements against public road construction.  We can’t have free roads paved by the government unfairly competing with monopoly railway companies, can we?  That’s anti-American!

The cost of inadequate broadband in an economy that has jettisoned manufacturing jobs to Mexico and the Far East is greater than we realize.  Will America sacrifice its leadership in the Internet economy to China the same way we did with our textile, electronics, appliances, furniture, and housewares industries?  China, Japan and Korea are building fiber optic broadband networks for their citizens and businesses.  We’re still trying to figure out how to wire West Virginia for 3Mbps DSL.

#1 At This Point, Internet Access is Kind of a Necessity

The United Nations this week declared the Internet to be a basic human right.  Conservatives scoffed at that, ridiculing the declaration for a variety of reasons ranging from disgust over any body that admits Hugo Chavez, to the lack of a similar declaration for gun ownership, and the usual interpretation of broadband as a high tech play-toy.  Some folks probably thought the same way about the telephone and electricity around 1911.

Yes, the Internet can be frivolous, but then so can a phone call.  Cursed by the U.S. Post Office for destroying their first class mail business, by telephone directory publishers, and those bill payment envelope manufacturers, the Internet does have its detractors.  But should we go back to picking out commemorative stamps at the post office?  Your local phone and cable company sure doesn’t think so.  We don’t either.

Verizon Communications is a study in contrasts.  It runs one of the most advanced wired broadband services in the country that wins rave reviews from consumers and businesses, is on the verge of ending its unlimited use data plans for smartphone customers on the wireless side, and has launched a major “police action” against individuals that are using their smartphones as wireless hotspots without paying an additional $20 a month for the privilege.

Verizon Says No to Data Caps and Consumption Billing

When you run an advanced fiber to the home network like FiOS, the concept of data caps is as silly as charging for each glass of water collected from Niagara Falls.  That’s a point recognized by Joseph Ambeault, director of media and entertainment services for Verizon.  Talking with GigaOm’s Stacey Higginbotham, Verizon continues to insist their network was built to handle both today and tomorrow’s network demands.

“Our network is always engineered for big amounts of data and right now there are no plans [to implement caps], but of course you never want to say never because things could change.”

However, in the same conversation he talked about how the FiOS service has gone from offering a maximum of 622 Mbps shared among 24 homes in the beginning to tests of 10-gigabit-per-second connections in individual homes that Ambeault mentioned. For now, Verizon is testing 10-gigabit-per-second-shared connections and offering up to 150 Mbps home connections. This kind of relish for massive bandwidth is not evident in conversations with folks at AT&T or even those cable firms deploying DOCSIS 3.0. Which is why when Ambeault added, “We don’t want to take the gleam off of FiOS,” as his final say on caps, I tend to believe that Verizon may be the last holdout as other ISPs such as AT&T, Charter and Comcast implement caps.

Verizon Says Yes to Ending Unlimited Smartphone Data Plans

Verizon is among the last holdouts still offering unlimited data plans for smartphone customers.  Priced at $30 a month per phone, these plans have proved very profitable for Verizon in the past, in part because they are mandatory whether you use a little data or a lot.  But now as data consumption grows, Verizon’s profits are not as luxurious as they once were, so the “unlimited plan” must and will go, probably within the next three months.

Verizon has always been hesitant about following AT&T’s lead for wireless data pricing, which delivers a paltry 2GB for $25 a month.  AT&T still sells its legacy unlimited plan, grandfathered for existing customers, for just $4 more per month.  So while AT&T can claim they’ve reduced the price for their data plans, they’ve also introduced a usage allowance.  Those exceeding it will find a much higher bill than the one they would have received under the old unlimited plan.

Verizon will probably echo AT&T’s tiered data plans, perhaps with slightly more generous allowances, but the real excitement came from Verizon CFO Fran Shammo, who told attendees at the Reuters Global Technology Summit it was prepared to finally introduce the much-wanted “family data plan,” which would allow every family member to share data on a single plan.  That’s a potential smartphone breakthrough as customers resistant to paying up to $30 a month per phone for each individual data plan might see their way clear to buying smartphones for everyone in the family if they all shared a single family-use data plan.

“I think it’s safe to assume that at some point you are going to have megaplans and people are going to share that megaplan based on the number of devices within their family. That’s just a logical progression,” Shammo said.

Of course, the devil is in the details, starting with how much the plan will cost and what kind of shared allowance it will offer.

Verizon Says ‘Oh No You Didn’t Tether Your Phone Without Our $20 Add-On’

Phandroid posted this copy of a message Verizon customers are receiving if they are using unauthorized third party tethering apps. (Click to enlarge.)

Earlier today, Verizon Wireless customers using popular third-party tethering apps to share their smartphone’s built-in Wi-Fi Hotspot with other nearby wireless devices began receiving the first of what is expected to be a series of warnings that the jig is up.

Tethering allows anything from a tablet computer to a netbook or laptop to share a Verizon Wireless data connection without having to pay for individual data plans for each device.  Third party software applications bypass Verizon’s own built-in app, the 3G Mobile Hotspot, which involves paying an additional $20 a month for a secondary data plan delivering a 2GB monthly usage allowance.

Just as AT&T hated to see the possibility of lost revenue passing them by, Verizon has begun ferreting out customers using these apps and sending them friendly reminders that tethering requires an official Verizon Wireless add-on plan.  While the third party apps are not yet being blocked, most expect Verizon to gradually crack down on their use if customers persist in using them.  Verizon can also block the sale of the apps from the Android Market and can also insert roadblocks to prevent their use.  Or they can follow AT&T’s lead and threaten (perhaps illegally) to automatically enroll customers caught using tethering apps in their paid tethering plans.

[flv width=”360″ height=”290″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WFTS Tampa The Need for Speed How to test your internet speed 5-19-11.mp4[/flv]

WFTS-TV in Tampa launched a consumer investigation when a local customer noticed the Verizon FiOS Internet service he was paying for — 25/25Mbps — was actually only providing him with 2.88Mbps upload speeds.  Even worse, both providers in the Tampa Bay area — Bright House Communications and Verizon, say actual speeds are not guaranteed, leading at least one customer to file an official complaint with the Federal Communications Commission for false advertising and misrepresentation by Verizon Communications.  WFTS examines whether providers have to actually deliver the speeds they promise, or does the fine print get them off the hook, leaving you paying more than you should for Internet speeds you are not getting.  (3 minutes)

Phillip 'Not Picking Up What Moffett Puts Down' Dampier

Tech, business, and even a few mainstream media outlets have been booking Sanford Bernstein’s Craig Moffett as an independent observer of all-things-broadband, without revealing he literally has a vested interest in boosting profits for the telecommunications industry.

The latest of Moffett’s heavily-slanted ideas appeared over the weekend on ZDNet, where Larry Dignan’s Between the Lines column used one of Bernstein’s “research notes” to provoke readers into a discussion about Internet Overcharging:

Metered broadband access is inevitable and may even be good for adoption of speedy Internet access.

That’s the argument from Bernstein analyst Craig Moffett in a research note. Moffett sets the scene:

• The FCC’s open Internet push allows for metered broadband.
• AT&T has introduced usage caps across its wireline business. DSL customers are limited to 150 GB of monthly consumption. U-Verse subscribers get 250 GB, or the same as Comcast. Users will be charged an extra $10 a month if they exceed the cap and it’s $10 per 50 GB after that.
• AT&T has already introduced tiered wireless plans.
• Time Warner Cable has a few usage based pricing pilots underway.

Moffett

Nowhere in Dignan’s column does he disclose Moffett is a paid Wall Street analyst working for the interests of investor clients of Sanford Bernstein who want to maximize the value of their telecommunications stocks.  Moffett’s long history of statements about industry pricing reflect those interests, which are often very different from those of most consumers.  Moffett’s world view: anything that brings in more revenue is good for shareholders (rate hikes, metered billing), anything that drives down shareholder value is not (infrastructure upgrades, pricing cuts, customer defections).

On that basis, Moffett has been called a “cable stock fluffer” by our friends at Broadband Reports for his relentlessly pro-cable industry commentary, even while ridiculing transformational projects like Verizon’s FiOS fiber to the home network for being “too expensive” and not delivering enough return on shareholder investment.  Consumer Reports delivers the opposite view: high marks for Verizon FiOS, mediocre to lousy marks for most of the nation’s cable operators.

While there is nothing inherently wrong with Moffett doing his job on behalf of his paying clients, using his views outside of that context — particularly when those interests go undisclosed — is journalistic malpractice.

Oh, and Time Warner Cable abandoned their usage-based pricing pilots in 2009 after customers declared war on the cable company.  Those darn customers, ruining the industry’s plans!

The rest of Moffett’s research note doesn’t get much better in the “true facts”-department:

The goal of moving to usage based pricing is not to undermine competition from Netflix (or anyone else… although it certainly wouldn’t be good news for Internet video). And it is most decidedly not to simply “raise prices for broadband” as Public Knowledge or New America would have it (although it might well do precisely that, too). Instead, it is nothing less than to re-align the entire business model of today’s infrastructure providers with the next generation of communications… so that broadband providers might stop fighting against the tide and embrace it instead.

With usage based pricing, broadband providers, and Cable operators in particular, can create an “iso-profit” curve, where the amount they make from a physical connection is about the same whether someone uses that connection for linear video or, alternatively, web video. The goal is not to stifle competition, but instead to create indifference not just to the end state of video by-pass, but indeed for all points along the way. The adoption of usage based pricing would be transformational to the debate for Cable operators, inasmuch as it would essentially indemnify them against all potential outcomes.

Moffett represents his interests, not yours.

Yet some of Moffett’s earlier statements would seem to argue with himself.

For instance, back in March Moffett was making plenty of noise about AT&T’s caps precisely targeting video providers like Netflix:

Moffett believes usage caps have everything to do with stopping the torrent of online video.  He notes AT&T’s caps are set high enough to target AT&T customers who use their connections to watch a considerable amount of video programming online.

“Only video can drive that kind of usage,” Moffett writes.

Moffett has repeatedly predicted any challenge to pay television models from online video will be met with pricing plans that eliminate or reduce the threat:

“[I]f consumption patterns change such that web video begins to substitute for linear video, then the terrestrial broadband operators will simply adopt pricing plans that preserve the economics of their physical infrastructure,” Moffett said. “Of course, any move to preserve their own economics has far-ranging implications. Any move towards usage-based pricing doesn’t just affect the returns of the operators, it also affects the demand of end users (the ‘feedback loop’).”

The only thing usage-based pricing indemnifies is the industry’s confrontation with revenue-eroding cable-TV cord-cutting.  And Moffett knows this, although he would probably give rave reviews to bringing similar usage-based-billing to cable television packages, which would charge you for every show you watched on top of your monthly bill.

These pricing models, already firmly rooted in Canada, have done nothing to bring the “next generation of communications” to our neighbors to the north.  Indeed, Canada’s ranking in broadband continues its decline as large cable and phone companies pocket the profits instead of committing to wholesale upgrades of their networks to deliver the kind of service increasingly common in Europe and Asia.

But the real laugh out loud moment comes last: Moffett’s prediction that AT&T’s usage pricing will increase broadband adoption.  Perhaps that’s true if you prefer telecommunications companies abuse you, but as we’ve documented over the past three years, these pricing schemes never save anyone money — they just increase the price of your service while decreasing the value of it.