Smart meters have never connected

[JohnW2]

They didn't scrap them, apart from the really old ones - rather they would go for checking and calibration checks.

I don't think there will have been very many "really old" electronic ones.

As I implied, one might expect that they would refurbish and re-calibrate (rather than 'scrap') but, as I said, for what it's worth all my 'replacements' have been current models with recent dates of manufacture, not 'refurbs'. I suspect that one reason might be that each one has been more 'sophisticated' (in terms of functionality) than the previous one, so they could well have a policy of only replacing with 'state-of-the-art' ones?

My only issue with SM's has been the stupidity of rolling out the SMETS 1's, where they were simply not compatible with customers shopping around between suppliers.

Yes, that was plain silly - and if you and I (and many others) realise that, one wonders why 'they' didn't?

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnW2]

That certainly was not the case with analogue meters which seemed to last 'for ever'.

Indeed. I'm sure we have all known of countless electro-mechanical ones that had clearly been in service for many decades. Ironically, since they had 'moving parts', one might expect a need for more frequent 'replacement' (not the least for 'checking' and calibration) than with electronic ones.

You can't have it both ways; are you saying the government should not have added the (originally) £11 billion pounds surcharge to the bills?

Well, I certainly don't think the bills should have increased by more than the marginal additional cost of replacing with 'smart' meters rather than 'dub ones'. I don't really know details of all this - did the government actutally 'impose a surcharcarge';, or did they mnerely 'give their blessing' to suppliers adjusting billing to cover whatever additional costs there were?

You are far too understanding. Are you perhaps used to such things in your work life?

As I said, it's literally true. Everyone is have to cope (or struggle) with energy prices that have greatly increeased through no fault of the government. IF 'smart' meters result in a reduced energy consumption, then people with such meters will be (financially) 'better off' to a greater extent now than they would have been when energy prices were much lowr.

How is the Covid inquiry going? Have they found any competence yet?

Totally off-topic but I am very sceptical about the value of this enquiry, in the way it is seemingly being conducted, particularly the apparent focus on the actions and behaviour of individuals.

What is needed is (in my opinion) a sensible discussion about 'pandemic planning' (establishing contingency plans for 'once in a century' events), and the management of such pandemics, in the light of the lessons learned in recent years. As things stand, we still have two camps of 'experts', one saying that (in terms of restrictions, lockdowns etc.) the PM "did too little too late" and that other saying that he "did too much". I very much doubt that the "witch hunt" we are seeing will achieve that.

Kind Regards, John

 

[Rodders53]

I don't really know where to turn for advice. Is there a possibility mine are in a position where they can't be remotely read? Interestingly, I had an Eon engineer carry out a pre smart meter installation check some four years ago and he said it would be pointless as there was no signal in the cupboard where they were to be fitted! Any advice welcome.

@davecooper
I have only read this thread today, and hope the following will be sort of informative even if not especially useful:

Cumbria.
That'll be the Arqiva UHF wan network for smart metering, rather than the O2 mobile phone network (due to be Vodafone 4G in the future).

How do UK Smart Meters work and who runs them?

How do Smart Meters work? Who is responsible for each part of the system? How does prepayment work? What is a 5 port meter? What is randomised offset?

www.smartme.co.uk

From an OVO forum, apparently the EDMI smart meters used in the North and Scotland with the Arqiva wan don't support a remote/external antenna... So no way to improve things that way!
Unless a diy modification of the comms unit appeals https://anengineersview.tech.blog/smets2-is-there-anybody-there/

Otherwise, it would require Arqiva to add additional radio sites to improve the signals into your home, or possibly, a relocation of the meter to an external meter box. 99.55% coverage still leaves a fair number of dwellings likely to be unserved by the UHF radio signals.

 

[JohnW2]

There'd be a increased processing overhead of making 30 minutes the default, if you make the minority opt-in as required it wouldn't be so much of a hit.

At least with my supplier 30 minute IS the default (and the 'recommended' option).

Frequent (say 30-minute) readings are what is needed for flexible/dynamic TOU tariffs, which is one of the major potential values of these meters.

Kind Regards, John

 

[EFLImpudence]

did the government actutally 'impose a surcharcarge';,

Yes - to cover the cost of the meters and the suppliers' labour fitting them.

or did they merely 'give their blessing' to suppliers adjusting billing to cover whatever additional costs there were?

It was nothing to do with the suppliers.

They were given targets by the government by which time so many meters must have been fitted until eventually everyone will have had them fitted.

 

[JohnW2]

Yes - to cover the cost of the meters and the suppliers' labour fitting them.

If you say so - as I said, I haven't paid any attention to the details.

They were given targets by the government by which time so many meters must have been fitted until eventually everyone will have had them fitted.

Yes, we know that, and also thatvthose 'tagetts' have had to be revised a few timnes. However, that's different from the question of 'surcharges' for customers. I must say that I've seen no evidence of any itemised 'surcharges' in any of my bills - I am stilkl charged only for the usual 'standing charge' and 'energy usage' figures - are you saying that a 'surcharge' has been built into one (or both) of them?

Kind Regards, John

 

[EFLImpudence]

Well, it is imposed however they include it.

If it were not then it wouldn't be said to cost the billions, would it? As I said, you can't have it both ways.

 

[JohnW2]

Well, it is imposed however they include it ... If it were not then it wouldn't be said to cost the billions, would it? As I said, you can't have it both ways.

The report to which you linked says:

As part of the 2019 analysis DESNZ forecast total costs of the rollout at £13.5 billion. It is likely that the cost per smart meter will be more because average installation costs are higher than expected, because of, for example, a shortage of engineers. These costs are initially borne by suppliers and fed through to households via energy bills.

That's really what I suggested - that it was all down to suppliers to recover the cost of the exercise from consumers, by adjustment of their billing. There is no apparent mention of any "government-imposed surcharge".

However, as I've been saying, the amount the suppliers recover from customers ought to be that 13.5 billion (or whatever) MINUS what they would have spent over the same period of time on 'routine replacement' of 'dumb' meters (with replacement 'dumb' meters) were they not 'rolling-out' the 'smart' meters.

Anyway, per the above, I suspect that this "government-imposed surcharge" is a figment of someone's imagination.

Kind Regards, John

 

[EFLImpudence]

That's really what I suggested - that it was all down to suppliers to recover the cost of the exercise from consumers, by adjustment of their billing. There is no apparent mention of any "government-imposed surcharge".

...but they are being ordered to do it by the government.

However, as I've been saying, the amount the suppliers recover from customers ought to be that 13.5 billion (or whatever) MINUS what they would have spent over the same period of time on 'routine replacement' of 'dumb' meters (with replacement 'dumb' meters) were they not 'rolling-out' the 'smart' meters.

Maybe it is 13.5 billion extra.

Anyway, per the above, I suspect that this "government-imposed surcharge" is a figment of someone's imagination.

Ok.

 

[morqthana]

When in recent history has the government used carrots?

All the time, for its friends.

 

[JohnW2]

...but they are being ordered to do it by the government.

They are being 'ordered' to fit the meters, and have to recover the (marginal) cost of that from their customers - but there appears to be no government-imposed 'surcharge'.

Maybe it is 13.5 billion extra.

I rather doubt it. If one assumes that the number of domestic electrical installations is roughly equal to the number of 'households' (i.e. about 28 million) then £13.5 billion represents about £482 per meter. That sounds pretty excessive even for the actual cost (of installing the 'smart' meters), let alone the additional cost over and above the 'routine replacement cost' that they would otherwise have to bear (and are already building into their charges to customers).

Kind Regards, John

 

[morqthana]

Totally off-topic but I am very sceptical about the value of this enquiry, in the way it is seemingly being conducted, particularly the apparent focus on the actions and behaviour of individuals.

I think it is 100% reasonable to have a focus on the actions and behaviour of the individuals who were being paid by the taxpayer to carry out actions which were the best ones to manage the pandemic, and to behave in a professional, responsible, and respectful way when doing so.

What is needed is (in my opinion) a sensible discussion about 'pandemic planning' (establishing contingency plans for 'once in a century' events), and the management of such pandemics, in the light of the lessons learned in recent years.

No reason not to have that too. And as part of it they could look at the actions and behaviour of those in the past who left us with only Baldrick quality plans for managing pandemics etc without even laying in a stock of turnips.

 

[morqthana]

I must say that I've seen no evidence of any itemised 'surcharges' in any of my bills - I am stilkl charged only for the usual 'standing charge' and 'energy usage' figures

Have you seen any evidence that you're paying more for your electricity than people do in other areas of the UK?

 

[EFLImpudence]

They are being 'ordered' to fit the meters, and have to recover the (marginal) cost of that from their customers - but there appears to be no government-imposed 'surcharge'.

Surely that is splitting hairs.

Being allowed to charge in advance for government-imposed work is surely a surcharge on the bills.

I rather doubt it. If one assumes that the number of domestic electrical installations is roughly equal to the number of 'households' (i.e. about 28 million) then £13.5 billion represents about £482 per meter. That sounds pretty excessive even for the actual cost (of installing the 'smart' meters), let alone the additional cost over and above the 'routine replacement cost' that they would otherwise have to bear (and are already building into their charges to customers).

I wonder then why such a figure is quoted.

 

[Murdochcat]

Given that suppliers can turn off smart meters remotely, this alone is enough to prevent me accepting one in our house .......