Panorama - The Smart Meter mess

[aveatry]

Woo hoo looks like my ban has ended - dont know who reported me to get banned or for what was so bad that I said - nothing that others are not saying. Any way.

But for me, that the system is being claimed to be "completely secure" (not possible), and it's claimed that these mistakes can't be made, plus the collection of close to 1,500 more readings than are needed to fulfil the metering function, and that these readings are thrown in a massive database also falsely claimed to be "completely secure" - all these add up to "don't want in it's current form".

Yep the whole idea of them opens us up for a Russian hack cutting the power and crippling the whole of the uk. People forget all those times some system database or other system has been compromised / is experiencing "technical difficulties" -- yeah right.

 

[gas112]

Now, if you have a non-smart meter it's very unlikely you could be cut off or have the meter changed without knowing. People coming to the house is a big clue.
And if they do, and it's an illegally obtained warrant because a supplier lied to the court and supplied false details (or they are just at the wrong address) - you also have the opportunity to look at the details and point out the error, at which point the police officer that should be part of the team will apologise for the inconvenience and send the rest of the team packing.
Now the case with a "smart" meter. Your power goes off because it's been remotely switched, you didn't know, and so didn't try to top up. Not that you can top up as your details don't tie up with the system. And you can't get YOUR supplier to turn you back on because the systems are out of sync and their's doesn't show you as on pre-pay.
No, I c.b.a. to go and find reports of just that happening.

But for me, that the system is being claimed to be "completely secure" (not possible), and it's claimed that these mistakes can't be made, plus the collection of close to 1,500 more readings than are needed to fulfil the metering function, and that these readings are thrown in a massive database also falsely claimed to be "completely secure" - all these add up to "don't want in it's current form".

Police officers are not present during presentation of warrant and not part of the team, they are only called on the rare occasions people threaten violence or refuse entry .

 

[noseall]

Now, if you have a non-smart meter it's very unlikely you could be cut off or have the meter changed without knowing. People coming to the house is a big clue.
And if they do, and it's an illegally obtained warrant because a supplier lied to the court and supplied false details (or they are just at the wrong address) - you also have the opportunity to look at the details and point out the error, at which point the police officer that should be part of the team will apologise for the inconvenience and send the rest of the team packing.
Now the case with a "smart" meter. Your power goes off because it's been remotely switched, you didn't know, and so didn't try to top up. Not that you can top up as your details don't tie up with the system. And you can't get YOUR supplier to turn you back on because the systems are out of sync and their's doesn't show you as on pre-pay.
No, I c.b.a. to go and find reports of just that happening.

But for me, that the system is being claimed to be "completely secure" (not possible), and it's claimed that these mistakes can't be made, plus the collection of close to 1,500 more readings than are needed to fulfil the metering function, and that these readings are thrown in a massive database also falsely claimed to be "completely secure" - all these add up to "don't want in it's current form".

Pure fantasy.

 

[noseall]

Yep the whole idea of them opens us up for a Russian hack cutting the power and crippling the whole of the uk.

Targeting infrastructure means that would occur irrespective of what meter you have.

 

[noseall]

No, I c.b.a. to go and find reports of just that happening.

Naturally. Nor will you be able to. None of it bears a resemblance to reality. At least biking from the boatyard produced a letter showing concerns over some SM switching, but little else. Anecdotal whinging or fantasy, does not cut it, no.

 

[noseall]

dont know who reported me to get banned or for what was so bad that I said

Plain old trolling?

Lies and/or bullshít?

Repetitive and Irrelevant waffling?

I don't know who reported you either (not I), or whether anyone actually did? I'd imagine few cared or noticed to be honest.

 

[jj4091]

I think they were saying 35M installed and 3.5M were not working,

I think that fauty figure may be a bit low. Their latest TV advert with the Einstein lookalike and the guy out of Eastenders says that over half the homes in the UK are fitted with smart meters and 20% of the owners are unhappy with them. So possibly nearer to 7M or 8M duds.

 

[noseall]

So possibly nearer to 7M or 8M duds.

You mean it reverts to being a meter.

Oh, the anguish!

 

[jj4091]

You mean it reverts to being a meter.

Oh, the anguish!

Who knows. Why they were unhappy wasn't explaiined but does not encourage me to get one.

 

[Nwgs2]

You mean it reverts to being a meter.

Oh, the anguish!

Again you over look how many go faulty and lockout. Leaving the customer with no gas.

Hardly ideal for anyone, let alone a poor old dear.

This is what happens when a Builder chirps up about a gas issue!!

Keep beating that drum Boyo…….

 

[denso13]

No, I c.b.a. to go and find reports of just that happening.

Shame. We can all come up with theoretical scenarios, but if they don't happen in the real world they are pointless.

 

[noseall]

Who knows. Why they were unhappy wasn't explaiined but does not encourage me to get one.

Probably like me, the unit stopped sending. I read every quarter presently (gas and leccy) and send it via their Web site.
I had them fitted for that reason too. Only bonus for me, is the numbers are a bit more visible, when I'm scratching about under the stairs.

 

[Harry Bloomfield]

But for me, that the system is being claimed to be "completely secure" (not possible), and it's claimed that these mistakes can't be made, plus the collection of close to 1,500 more readings than are needed to fulfil the metering function, and that these readings are thrown in a massive database also falsely claimed to be "completely secure" - all these add up to "don't want in it's current form".

Don't you think, that you are being way OTT in your above comment? Who cares whether they know how much you are using and when? You have the choice anyway, when you have SM's, of a choice of how frequently your consumption is recorded - every 30 minutes, daily, or monthly. Not needing to wear a foil hat, I do of course have mine set to 30 minutes.

Regarding the ease of switching off, or switching SM's to pre-pay, again - while it can be done more easily, it can also be done without property damage. There have been several instances of doors been broken into, with no householder present, to access old type meters, cut energy off, or swap them to pre-pay - all done in error. Mistakes happen, with both types of meter, but at least with a SM, the mistake involves no damage to property, the supply, and the error, can quickly be corrected, with just a phone call.

You pays your money and takes your choice.

 

[aveatry]

Regarding the ease of switching off, or switching SM's to pre-pay, again - while it can be done more easily, it can also be done without property damage. There have been several instances of doors been broken into, with no householder present, to access old type meters, cut energy off, or swap them to pre-pay - all done in error. Mistakes happen, with both types of meter, but at least with a SM, the mistake involves no damage to property, the supply, and the error, can quickly be corrected, with just a phone call.

I haven't seen or heard that one on the adverts with Albert Einstein - "Get a smart meter so we dont have to smash your door in to cut you off"

 

[bernardgreen]

But for me, that the system is being claimed to be "completely secure" (not possible),

After 55 years in electronics research and development ( of which12 years was in radio telecomunications ) my experience tells me that SimonH2 is correct.