DVRs, Cable Boxes Top List of Home Energy Hogs 324
Hugh Pickens writes "Elisabeth Rosenthal writes that cable setup boxes and DVRs have become the single largest electricity drain in many American homes, causing an increase of over $10/month for a home with many devices, with some typical home entertainment configurations eating more power than a new refrigerator. The set-top boxes are energy hogs mostly because their drives, tuners and other components are running full tilt, 24 hours a day, even when not in active use. 'People in the energy efficiency community worry a lot about these boxes, since they will make it more difficult to lower home energy use,' says John Wilson, a former member of the California Energy Commission. 'Companies say it can't be done or it's too expensive. But in my experience, neither one is true. It can be done, and it often doesn't cost much, if anything.' The perpetually 'powered on' state is largely a function of design and programming choices made by electronics companies and cable and Internet providers, which are related to the way cable networks function in the United States. Similar devices in some European countries can automatically go into standby mode when not in use, cutting power drawn by half and go into an optional 'deep sleep,' which can reduce energy consumption by about 95 percent (PDF) compared with when the machine is active. Although the EPA has established Energy Star standards for set-top boxes and has plans to tighten them significantly by 2013, cable providers and box manufacturers like Cisco Systems, Samsung and Motorola currently do not feel consumer pressure to improve box efficiency."
How about heating and airconditioning? (Score:4, Interesting)
Do STBs really use more energy than things which push heat around?
Re:How about heating and airconditioning? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
My fridge uses 140 watts when drawing power. Maybe 100 watts over the course of a day, and its pretty efficient.
Re: (Score:2)
My fridge uses 140 watts when drawing power. Maybe 100 watts over the course of a day, and its pretty efficient.
If I read that right, it suggests that your fridge is "running" about 70% of the time. I think mine has a much shorter duty cycle, but I guess I need to plug it in through the "Kill-A-Watt" to find out.
Re:How about heating and airconditioning? (Score:5, Insightful)
Don't think power, because Watts are really not the unit to be using. You should compare energy; Watt-Hours.
Let's say you have a typical refrigerator that uses ~150 watts average for 5 minutes total operation every hour. That's 150 * 5/60 = 12.5 watt-hours of energy. Your STB uses 25W on standby, which is constant. So that's 25 * 60/60 = 25 watt-hours of energy. Fully twice as much as your refrigerator.
YMMV of course but it's quite plausible a seemingly minor appliance uses more electricity over the course of a day than a major appliance. Those "Vampire Loads" can be a real killer!
=Smidge=
Re:How about heating and airconditioning? (Score:5, Informative)
Actually you have calculated average watts (which is what is really relevant). Your numbers are "watt hours per hour", cancelling to watts, not watt hours.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Right. Which is why you multiply smidge's numbers by 1 month to get watt-hours for one month. Which is another point in favour of his numbers not already being in watt-hours.
Re: (Score:3)
Don't think power, because Watts are really not the unit to be using. You should compare energy; Watt-Hours.
Why do electrical engineers always insist on using non-SI units? The correct unit for energy is the Joule, or Watt-second. [wikipedia.org]
There, I've done it! I've become a unit Nazi!
Re:How about heating and airconditioning? (Score:5, Informative)
Because a watt-second is so small a unit it's practically useless outside academia.
Now get outta here before I start converting everything to BTUs!
=Smidge=
Re: (Score:3)
Indeed, it is much too small. Oh, if only there were some system we could use to indicate that we are working in large multiples of the unit. It could be a system of prefixes indicating orders of magnitude. Alas for the fact that no one has invented such a system.
Re: (Score:2)
Let's say you have a typical refrigerator that uses ~150 watts average for 5 minutes total operation every hour.
Maybe there is something wrong with my fridge, but according to my measurements, my fridge turns on 3 times an hour, for 5 minutes each instance. It doesn't seem to matter much if I open the door to grab something out, as long as I don't leave the door open for an extended period.
As for DVRs. The piece of crap I have from ComCrap(TM) will not power itself on to record a TV show. I have to leave it on 24/7 if I want it to record things I may not have explicitly scheduled. The good news is that it only us
Re: (Score:2)
I really don't think your hypothetical is very realistic, nor is the hyperbole about "OMG!! More power than you REFRIGERATOR!!" anything more than typical media hype designed to drum up some outrage toward cable companies, instead of it being directed at the state energy commission, which can only respond to increasing demand by trying to get people to use less (don't start).
How many times do you open your fridge? Me, at least 4 times a day, usually more than than. Just grabbing a beer will take about 5 s
Re: (Score:3)
The average freezer is around 14 cubic feet, or just over a pound of air. Assuming its 100 degrees out, and you leave the door open long enough to flush all the cold air out, that's only 17kJ. The cycle used for refrigerators is known to achieve up to 60% that of the Carnot cycle, meaning it can operate at over 500% efficiency. In order to extract that much heat back out of the refrigerator, you need to consume roughly one watt-hour of electricity, or 0.01 cents worth. Assuming you open the refrigerator
Re:How about heating and airconditioning? (Score:4, Informative)
So no, opening the refrigerator does not make any significant impact in energy consumption.
I misspoke, all of the calculations above were based off the 14cu.ft. side of a standard 22cu.ft. refrigerator/freezer combo.
Well I wasn't so much trying to make a point that it was, only that the GP's rationale that somehow a STB could use more power than a refrigerator didn't hold water.
It's a function of duty cycle. Modern refrigerators do consume several hundred watts when running, but copious amounts of insulation means they rarely run. There are several full size models rated for a yearly consumption under 500kWh, and the article reports 415. In comparison, cable and satellite STBs never turn off. There is maybe 5W difference between full load and what they consider 'off'. The article reports a yearly total consumption of 171kWh and 446kWh for STBs and DVRs, respectively. That equates to 19.5W and 51W average, which is not at all unreasonable.
The point the article is trying to make is that there is absolutely no purpose for these devices to run all the time like this. For over a decade, laptops have consumed under a watt in standby, and reach full capability within seconds of being brought out of it. A timer could be added to bring the device out of standby automatically for scheduled updates. Their current design is simply one made out of complacency.
Re:How about heating and airconditioning? (Score:5, Informative)
Air conditioning is likely a lot worse; but, because everybody knows that it is extremely energy intensive, thermostatic regulation has been standard since the mechanisms for achieving it were bimetallic, and microproccessor based scheduling systems creep in pretty quickly once you get away from the nastiest of basic window units.
By contrast, it sounds like team STB has somehow managed to miss Every Single Development in computer and embedded device power management in the last decade. Ironically, they've probably even managed to achieve an outcome where Intel muscling in with their x86 (barely) SoC designs would actually be more efficient than highly-integrated task specific media SoCs; because at least they would incorporate their laptop power management techniques more or less for free. Impressive work.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
the inefficiency of burning something, converting it to electricity, running that through transmission lines, just to dump it into a big resistor at the other end is a bit much.
Is it any more inefficient than using a fleet of trucks to store that something in peoples' homes and burn it there, i.e. oil?
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, it is, actually, and the price reflects this.
Re:How about heating and airconditioning? (Score:5, Informative)
Depending on the fuel in use, your heat->mechanical energy conversion will always live in the shadow of that spoil-sport Carnot, along with any engineering limitations. In practice, I'm told that you get something in the vicinity of 30-50 percent(of the fuel at the plant, it still has to be shipped there, though at least bulk shipping is easier, per unit goods, than household delivery). After that, you still have the generator that the turbine is driving, along with the power transmission apparatus.
By contrast, since heat is the desired product, the only 'waste' heat in an onsite burn is whatever goes up with the stack gasses and whatever goes to the delivery truck. At least with oil heat, in the northeast, we had about one delivery a year. Unless the truck managed to burn half its payload getting to us, I suspect that we came out ahead.
Peripheral electrical generation, with heat engines, is something you do only for backup purposes; because small heat engines pretty much inevitably suck more than huge ones; but when all you want is heat, the only real efficiency issues are the engineering problems of cooling the exhaust gasses before they leave the premises.
Re:How about heating and airconditioning? (Score:4, Insightful)
The difference in energy cost between getting the oil to a power plant and delivering it to someone's house is not that great. My mother's house is heated by oil, and they get deliveries once or twice a year. The amount of oil that the delivery tanker burns is pretty small compared to the amount that it carries - well under 10%. Getting the same level of efficiency with electricity is very hard.
Oil is close to the worst case though. My house is heated by gas, which comes in via pipes. The amount of energy required to keep them pressurised is really tiny. I'm not sure how much the prices are skewed by tax, but electricity costs me about four times as much as gas, per kWh, so I'd be crazy to heat my house with electricity.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Lets put it in water towers so when there's a war, they can be blown up easier.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, massively.
The Oil has also to be brought to the power plant, and transporting the oil inside the US or Europe is not the largest factor.
Re: (Score:2)
Simply put: Yes. The fact that you throw about 50% of your heat away at the station - and that's in the best combined-cycle gas turbine - trumps transport costs for anything. For a normal coal-fired power station, or nuclear for that matter, plant, you discard 60 or 70%.
Even when you take flue losses into account, burning it where you need the heat just makes good sense.
Re: (Score:2)
A lot less efficient, yes. Do people use oil a lot for heating in the USA? It's almost always natural gas over here (UK).
Re: (Score:2)
I don't have numbers but oil for heating is more popular in the northeast/New England than it is anywhere else.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, quite a bit more inefficient. You need to transport that fuel to the plant also, so I doubt there's a whole lot of difference there. I can't imagine you would use more than a few percent of the total fuel delvered to a home to get the fuel to the home.
Just to give some example numbers. You can get roughly 95% efficiency from natural gas heat with a modern furnace. I assume oil is similar. Now, figure you can get at most 50% efficiency generating electricity at a power plant. Then you lose another 40%
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The best way to cut your winter heating bills is simply to put on a sweater.
Re: (Score:2)
By contrast, it sounds like team STB has somehow managed to miss Every Single Development in computer and embedded device power management in the last decade.
I'm guessing that the real problem is the average age of a STB. The TV company does not swap out STBs unless you complain, leaving a lot of people untouched since they first moved to digital cable. A few more jumped on the HD bandwagon. A few more hopped in at HD DVR. But realistically, there hasn't been a reason to upgrade your cable box in a few years. Go into any local business and you're bound to see a cable box circa 2001 providing signal to their TV. The TV might be brand new, but the cable box is old
Re: (Score:2)
"At least in the colder regions of the country, "heating" doesn't usually show up on the electric bill"
While the heat may be provided by burning fossil fuels directly, it takes electricity to power the fan to blow the hot air around the house. I was told that the fan in our central air setup is about half a horsepower. Turning the mode to auto, so it only comes on when the furnace (or A/C) is running helps.
And for most people, hot water is a big consumer of energy. I guess /.ers reduce that but not showerin
Re: (Score:2)
The usual excuse of STB designers is that people want instant-on. If the STB is turned off it then has to re-download the EPG etc. That doesn't seem to be a big problem on some platforms (on Freeview my TV has all channels in the guide within 30 seconds of turning on) but on others it can take much longer (back when I had cable five minutes was not uncommon).
I agree with you though, a lot of it is lazyness on the part of the developers. The original NTL cable TV boxes decode video all the time. When you put
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
No, of course not. Of course, if you're trying to air condition your house, the energy that the set-top-box uses not only adds to your bill that way, but it also adds to your air conditioning bill due to the heat generated. Same for all the other electronic devices that are on in the house.
More simply, if people aren't actively using the electronic device, any power used is an unnecessary waste.
Also, as someone else pointed out, the cable company/satellite company doesn't care about power use, because the
Re: (Score:2)
Do STBs really use more energy than things which push heat around?
It didn't say that set top boxes draw more than a new refrigerator, it said that some home theatre "configurations" draw more power than a refrigerator, ie. STB, media PC, HD TV, surround sound system, game console (or 3), etc.
Re: (Score:2)
It didn't say that set top boxes draw more than a new refrigerator, it said that some home theatre "configurations" draw more power than a refrigerator, ie. STB, media PC, HD TV, surround sound system, game console (or 3), etc
Wrong. TFA said:
No kidding (Score:3)
I'm calling bullshit on this if they claim $10/month is the "largest drain." Your climate control costs will vary by your location and house size, but they are pretty significant for many people.
For example: I live in the desert, so it is mostly A/C here. I have a new, efficient, dual-stage A/C unit. A couple months ago when it was idle, my electric bill was about $45. This month, when it was on a lot, my bill was $120. I've made no big changes in lifestyle, don't have tons of new electronics or anything li
You are paying twice for it (Score:3)
You pay once for the electricity that the DVR box wastes.
And again, to remove that heat from your home during the cooling season.
If $20 per month is really that insignificant to you, please PM me your address and I will enclose a self-addressed stamped envelope for you to place $100 in. Thanks!
Not in use? (Score:3)
The set-top boxes are energy hogs mostly because their drives, tuners and other components are running full tilt, 24 hours a day, even when not in active use.
Isn't that kind of the point? If their drives and tuners weren't running then they couldn't record stuff while you were away. (I mean how else would it build up a buffer of the last 30 minutes of a show or record suggestions if it wasn't running.)
Re:Not in use? (Score:4, Insightful)
Isn't that kind of the point? If their drives and tuners weren't running then they couldn't record stuff while you were away. (I mean how else would it build up a buffer of the last 30 minutes of a show or record suggestions if it wasn't running.)
A scheduler running in low power mode can wake up the device (including hard drive) shortly before the scheduled recording. Depending on how long it takes the STB to get its shit together this could be a few minutes or as little as a few seconds.
Re:Not in use? (Score:5, Insightful)
Sounds like lazy programming.
"Hey, don't you think it would be nice to turn off the unit to save energy and turn it on before it records a show?"
"Well John, that's a nice idea, but I just can't imagine a use case where that's necessary. Besides, it's not our problem."
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So, because one guy is hypocritical you are suddenly exempted from personal responsibility? That's a great basis for decision taking.
Re: (Score:3)
Great, now I'm going to miss half my television shows because some hippie wants me to shave a few watts off my electric bill. Isn't it enough that I have to flush my toilet twice as much now (and clean the shit stains left behind) because some hippie said that a 2-gallon toilet was just as good as a 4?
I'll tell you what, I'll get an Energy Star DVR just as soon as Al Gore moves out of his McMansion and stops driving a luxury SUV.
DVRs are a solution to a problem of inefficient distribution. Television networks put popular shows against each other, put reruns at weird hours, fill programming with commercials, air things out of order, all sorts of inconveniences. The technology exists today (ala Netflix, Youtube, Hulu, etc.) to let people go out and actively watch what they want when they want to.
The "problem" of DVRs, as usual, is a solution to a different problem. If the different problem were to go away, the solution would be unnee
Re:Not in use? (Score:4, Insightful)
they go to sleep, and wake up when its time to record something.
My lovely Topfield [superfi.co.uk] box does this quite happily, sends itself into a low-ish power (8W) state most of the time when its not being actively used. When it wakes up, it runs at 25W (apparently). However, even when running it will put the drive to sleep after a while, which can be slightly annoying when you click the button to view the recordings and it takes a couple of seconds to spin it up. I can live with that.
8W in standby can be further reduced by turning off the pass-through mode though, so its still not so bad.
I think the problem is that many of the cheapo PVRs don't do this kind of thing and run, even in standby, with a large power consumption.
Re: (Score:2)
I guess it means that even if you're watching a single channel and not recording anything else at the moment, the second/third/etc. tuners are still powered on.
It could probably be helped further if the device recognized when your TV was turned off, so it could turn off tuners/HDD completely when it's not recording. There are probably other things like hardware MPEG codecs and video-out that could be turned off as well.
I don't know how much power they consume but I can attest to the tuners I have in my PC
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It needs to run while recording, sure. But these typically don't do this 24x7x365.
When they don't, they could spin down the hard-disc, and for that matter go into sleep-mode with a wakeup-timer set to one minute before the next scheduled recording starts.
Hell, even while recording or playing back you could power down the disc much of the time if you've got a reasonable ram-buffer. Typical PVR-boxes record at a quality of on the order of 1GB/hour, which means that a single gigabyte of buffer would enable it
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
With DRAM as cheap as it is, I'm surprised that a 'modern' Tivo-type box couldn't use DRAM as its 30 minute buffer. 8GB Flash could be used for recordings. When a recording was complete, the HDD would be woken up, the recording dumped to HDD, the HDD powered off.
If you bumped flash to 16GB and applied some intelligence to flash management, there may be some people who seldom would watch a program from the HDD (ie, they watch mostly recently-recorded programs and only rarely go to flash).
I don't know what
Won't work (Score:3)
So if its 8:15 and the person turns on the TV, their expectation would be that they could go back in time 15 minutes to catch the show from the beginning.
They'd be better off designing more efficient components, particularly power supplies.
Re: (Score:3)
My comcast DVR has an off. When I turn it off it leaves its scheduler running and wakes itself up a few minutes before any scheduled recordings, and periodically to get schedule updates. But it doesn't buffer live TV when "off". I generally turn it off when I go to bed, but it automatically turns itself off after some time of non use as well.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
That's cool, we'll just run 5 600GW nuclear reactors because you are impatient. What an awesome solution.
Yeah, we aren't going to give up the things we enjoy like the ability to watch programs when we have time (rather than when the TV schedule places them) to save a few bucks a year or for dubious environmental reasons (watching TV doesn't exactly have a huge footprint per hour compared to many other activities even when you count the cost of standby usage).
Afaict the big issue with sky+ boxes is that they keep a lot of the frontend on and keep both halves of the LNB powered even when in standby mode to suppo
Probably because it makes it more complicated. (Score:3)
MythTV does this just fine ; it can turn off your computer, and turn it back on again when a recording is scheduled.
The only problem would be that when it boots into "recording" mode instead of "manually started", there's a different screen explaining it, which involves a single button press on the remote to put it into manual mode.
Call my cynical, but I think that the engineering department for these things are just told to leave it on all the time, because the perception in management is that the general public couldn't work this out.
Re: (Score:3)
I know this is all panacea, but wouldn't it be nice if these companies did in spite of pressure from consumers. I don't know much about these boxes, but it doesn't seem like a task that would cost them very much to change.
If they won't do i
Re:Probably because it makes it more complicated. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
.. who then sell/lease them to their consumers with the myth that "If you want cable, you must use this box".
I am not sure if this is a myth... I am pretty sure that cable co's scramble most of their digital channels, requiring their descrambling equipment. You definitely cannot plug cable directly into your tv and get all channels, with Rogers here in Canada.
So, I won't be getting cable. OTA is good enough for me!
I spent a whole WEEK trying to get my MythTV to power down and bios-alarm-boot to wake up for recordings. It turned out that the new linux kernel modules for bios alarm did not think my bios could wa
Re:Probably because it makes it more complicated. (Score:4, Insightful)
The government regulation ought not to be making the boxes use less power; it should be breaking the cable and satellite companies' control over them!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
In the USA we have something like that for large appliances, like fridges. The sticker on the front shows Kwh used per year, and estimated cost based on a range of electrical prices.
Re: (Score:2)
I know this is all panacea, but wouldn't it be nice if these companies did in spite of pressure from consumers. I don't know much about these boxes, but it doesn't seem like a task that would cost them very much to change.
When cable companies evaluate new STB, they do indeed evaluate draw on standby and active. It isn't worth more than one tiny decision point, but it's there. Ultimately, if they get a "green" STB as an option, they can sell that value-add to the consumers and you'll get pretty much exactly what you're asking for. It's a free market, but the cable company is the customer, you're just the end user.
Turn the damn thing off (Score:2)
Waiting to program while you are away is not an excuse to hog power. Only a wake-up function is required when the box is not actively recording.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, I get this. Most annoying.
Since I'm on MythTV I suppose the solution to this is to just put some cron jobs on it that cancel live TV playback during school hours.
Re: (Score:3)
If all boxes could do that, we'd also see the crisis in our education system averted, as the kids have no reason to stay home anymore...well, I guess you'd have to hack PlayStations to not play during the day too, but that shouldn't be too hard.
Re: (Score:2)
If all boxes could do that, we'd also see the crisis in our education system averted, as the kids have no reason to stay home anymore...
Aside from lack of engagement in boring lessons, being bullied at school, peer pressure, parents who takes kids out of school during term time (to be able to go on cheaper holidays or whatever), etc. I knew plenty of kids who skipped school all the time, none of them stayed home and watched TV, if kids are doing that then it sounds more like they're doing it because it's all that's available and they'd still skip school and do something else if the TV wasn't on (after all, if they have DVR they can record s
Re: (Score:2)
Then you are second guessing the users and that can end very badly.
For a personal box this might work but for a generic appliance being stamped out by the thousands, it's going to cause a mess of trouble.
An STB is an inherently passive device and there's really no good reliable clues you can use for engaging in power saving activities.
At least with a PVR you have a schedule of activities for automated tasks that don't depend on user input. You can easily manage those without running the risk running afoul o
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Wow, you seriously didn't even glance at the article, did you? STBs in "idle" mode aren't any less energy hungry than when they're "on". The only way to turn most of them "off" is by unplugging them.
One joker claiming that the boxes only dim the clock when "off" is not a definitive statement about the boxes IMHO. For example, there is no mention of my Verizon FIOS box. Regardless, users who don't bother to at least press the off button MUST be using more electricity in general than those that do bother.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Turn the damn thing off (Score:4, Informative)
Don't blame the users. More than half the blame lies on those boxes. They're practically full blown computers complete with hard drives and long boot up times of over a minute--- and almost no power management, and that's definitely not the fault of the users. Linux can be booted in 5 seconds, and could be made even faster with things such as the ancient technology known as ROM. No excuse for boxes taking so long to boot, and dodging the problem by just having it always stay on. Long ago, we were introduced to the "Power" button to get around the requirement that "Off" means off, with VCRs that would lose all their programming whenever power was interrupted. The industry has completely punted on this issue.
We could have had a standard for sensing the state of connected hardware so that if the TV is off, and no recording is being made, the box will sleep. Actually, we do have that, but the boxes can just ignore it. Or perhaps we could have more integration, with set top box functionality built into the TV. There are a whole lot of things that could have been done. Lot of cabling is still carrying analog signals. Instead, a top priority in the design of things like HDMI was that users should have to burn even more power on useless anti-piracy measures, such as HDCP.
I have a very simple solution. I don't have cable TV. Saves me a bundle.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't blame the users. More than half the blame lies on those boxes. They're practically full blown computers complete with hard drives and long boot up times of over a minute--- and almost no power management, and that's definitely not the fault of the users.
I have a very simple solution. I don't have cable TV. Saves me a bundle.
For someone who doesn't have a cable box, you purport to know a lot about them. I don't know how off "off" is on my FIOS box, but there is most certainly not a full minute of boot up time. The box is on withing two seconds of pressing the on button.
Re: (Score:2)
Funny -- I plugged my cableco-provided STB into my kill-a-watt meter to check just this.
When turned ON, sending a signal to the TV. Power usage = 20 watts.
When turned OFF, it shuts off the output and sends a blank screen to the TV. Power usage = 20 watts.
Indeed, that green power LED in front is just a comfort light that does not much of anything.
This is a hidden price (Score:2)
The problem here is that the price of energy usage is largely hidden for the consumer, who can't make the connection between the purchase and an increased monthly bill. The price of the box itself is visible to the consumer who can discriminate according to price, but the fact that one box might cost him $100 less in the course of a year is invisible to him so he doesn't choose it even though he might have if he was aware of that fact.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem here is that the power consumption is hidden from the consumer, even though the manufacturer knows what it is. Unless there is a law saying they have to give you the information, they won't unless it's actually a selling point (e.g. electronics parts compete on the basis of power consumption and the information is found in the datasheet.)
Re:This is a hidden price - externalities! (Score:2)
The problem is that the buyer is the cable company. They don't pay for your electricity and they don't care if you do.
I mean, the end user is typically paying "rent" on the set-top box that the cable company provides, but it's not like you get much of a choice of models. Unless you go with TiVO or myth but I think those are in the minority.
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed. Given a choice between a $299 box that eats electricity for $100 a year, and a $339 box that has the same functionality, but consumes only half the electricity, most users will go for the first.
It's partly that users are dumb, and partly that the information needed isn't easily available. The situation would improve to *some* degree if typical energy-consumption pro year was required info on the price-tag.
Re: (Score:2)
We don't even have that choice. If I call the satellite company and tell them I need a box, they pick whatever they happen to have and don't give me a choice at all. The only choices are whether it is HD or not, and whether it is a DVR or not. Those are the only choices I have. Well, not having a box is a choice...
We got a few newer boxes a few months ago - I am in thie middle of a new audit with the Kill-A-Watt to see what the new box/TV combos actually use. I usually let each one go for a couple of w
Consumer Choice (Score:5, Insightful)
DVR boxes are evil (Score:3, Insightful)
- respond immediately to a button press (blink a light, actually do what I want, something else)
- or only act on the first button press if it is too busy doing something else, not all of the presses because it was tied up doing god knows what
And that's all I have to say about that.
Re: (Score:3)
This was my main issue with the Motorola DVRs... FIVE YEARS AGO IN 2006!
How is this not fixed yet? Been torrenting tv shows ever since.
Lack of consumer pressure makes sense. (Score:3)
"...cable providers and box manufacturers like Cisco Systems, Samsung and Motorola currently do not feel consumer pressure to improve box efficiency."
Well, beyond the suspicions of some form of weird collusion between cable and electric companies, the lack of consumer pressure makes sense for obvious reasons. Those who can afford set-top boxes have usually paid for some kind of bundle package (cable/phone/Internet), and probably also have an HDTV in their home (HD package), as well as the most power-consuming set-top boxes are also DVRs, which is yet another upgrade.
Point is if consumers can afford $100+ every month for "entertainment", they're probably not too worried about a $10 increase in the electric bill.
Energy efficiency designs should not be deemed appropriate or justified based on consumer pressure anyway. Vendors should be doing it because it simply makes sense.
Name brand set top boxes? Anyone? (Score:5, Insightful)
No real power button. (Score:2)
One problem with modern electronics in general is that there's no real power button anymore. An STB can get into a knackered state and stop responding. What passes for a power button then could be completely worthless. I have one of my STBs on an external power switch for just this reason.
Many devices still draw power even when "off" because they aren't really off. They are in 'standby' because consumers like devices that start up quickly. It would not occur to most people to completely cut the power to a T
multi-room DVR (Score:2)
I upgraded to a multi-room DVR last year and not only did I eliminate 1 DVR, but the new box runs much cooler. I haven't done any tests, but it seems to be saving some electricity. The second box is a regular single tuner set top and it stays cold until it is turned on.
Hidden? (Score:2)
Low power usage is easy (Score:2)
26 inch LED LCD tv: 44 watts when in use.
Popcorn Hour: 8 watts
WRT54G Wireless router: 3-5 watts
My uplink 800Mhz Wifi link: 8 watts
So my entire entertainment with internet linkup only pulls 64 watts, 20 or less when the TV is off. The popcorn hour also spins down when not in use. So I'm using less power for my entertainment than a single incandescent light bulb.
Re:Low power usage is easy (Score:4, Interesting)
While true, 20W running all day every day still comes to 1226 kWH per year, which is 2.75 times as much as the set-top box discussed in the article. Your Wifi link alone, at 8 watts, draws more power per year (490 kWH).
Those numbers surprise me, and make think there must be a lot of lower-hanging fruit around the average household.
HDs won't sleep in Linux (Score:2)
Un
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Ehm, the CRT is not on standby when I push the big button in front. All LEDs go out. No reaction to remote. The only way to turn it on is to push the big button again. I doubt it uses much, if anything at all.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps it is hard to pump heat out of permafrost?
Re: (Score:2)
I guess that's some consolation for having to remain inside 9 months of the year, going without sun for 3 months, and alcoholism so rampant that it's the number one cause of death for Finnish men.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Its not just program guide data, the set top boxes also need to download new encryption keys (which come over the sattelite feed I believe)
Re: (Score:2)
My last electricity bill in Boston is 14.5 cents/kWh.