Talk:Smart meter

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Google Power is discontinued[edit]

Google power is now discontinued. Would recommend adding to page where it is mentioned — Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.215.172.113 (talk) 12:42, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not an article, but a biased screed[edit]

Really one of the most biased and unfounded entries I've seen on Wikipedia. This is not ABOUT smart meters, it's AGAINST them. Wikipedia is supposed to be informational, not a one-sided blog. Most of this is marginal conspiracy theory, tea party stuff. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.79.111.43 (talk) 02:04, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Who are you? What is your agenda? If you think that the article is untruthful, change the untruths. Tea party stuff? I am English, and the only tea party here is my wife. I am a coffee man. Wythy (talk) 09:09, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Smart meters are healthy for you[edit]

I read a lot of lies concerning the health aspect of smart meters and they are all nonsense. If they were all so bad for our health then it would never have been released in the first place! To think otherwise is to claim our leaders are not watching over us, unpatriotic. There's all this conspiracy on youtube about how we are being killed off, thankfully wikipedia has the decentcy not to push such madness. Naysayers have too much time on their hands, they should be given medication so they don't become alqaida.

Tom Parsons 71.59.22.152 (talk) 12:23, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To think otherwise is to claim our leaders are not watching over us, unpatriotic -- I almost LOLed, but then I realized you're serious. Do you have any facts to share, Tom? -- 70.109.45.74 (talk) 18:28, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Concern on External Links[edit]

Looks like the external links here is turning into a bit of a link farm. What should we include? Should it just be those that produce smart metering equipment (such as AMPY) or should also include any company offering to reduce bills? I'll return in a few days to clean up. Comments welcome. peterl 10:37, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have again removed the link farm. WP is not a website directory, and WP:EL makes it pretty clear that such lists aren't appropriate. -- Mikeblas 12:24, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Smart meter functionality[edit]

The smart meter has three main functions: measure, switch and communicate. The first and third are obvious. But how about the switch, why is this not mentioned in the introduction? Although not used much - so to hope - the switch is an important element. It is logical for a main reason. If the customer does not pay for the bill, or something rude is used against the meter, the switch will be turned off remotely. The switch on board can be used advantageous for the customer, to limit the consumed power. Exceeding this limit may lead to switching off, but the customer can switch on after reducing the load. This will become an active part in the as soon as the idea for the capacity-tariff is introduced. This is the contracted amount of power that may be consumed, limited to the capacity of the grid connection. The capacity tariff in combination with smart (sub)devices, will prevent the smart meter to switch off. So the portal from the smart meter to the user will get an important role as well. I think the triple functionality measure, switch and communicate should be mentioned in the introduction. Bouwhuise (talk) 23:54, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

not only to limit the consumed power, but also to limit the power that enters the grid (in distributed generation). Mion (talk) 08:37, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do agree that switch should be mentioned in the introduction, as many of the concerns about and costs of "smart" meters arise from this function. It gives the utility control over a household in quite new ways.

In practice also, "smart" is used to cover many different aspects of the metering, and so is a generic term, without any clear interpretation as to functionality. In essence it is a propaganda term. How can one be against "smartness"? I think this means that an article should have some discussion about the meaning of different interpretations of smartness.

Article seems very unclear as to what constitutes minimum or essential smart meter functionality. What communications come from the utility to the meter ? - Rod57 (talk) 12:40, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nonintrusive load monitoring[edit]

I've just created the page Nonintrusive load monitoring. Does a summary belong on this page?--Nowa (talk) 14:34, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Adding new content -[edit]

Here is the content I like to add in the section: United States of Smart Meter.

California's population and per-person energy use continue to grow at a significant rate. As a result, state energy agencies and utilities are exploring ways to meet customers growing energy needs and offer incentives to conserve and shift usage away from periods of peak demand.

In 2004, the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) directed California's investor owned utilities (IOUs) to investigate implementation of an advanced metering infrastructure ("AMI"). AMI "smart" meters would allow customers to take advantage of dynamic rate programs, such as the "Time of Use" (TOU) rates available mostly to industrial customers. Southern California Edison, SCE (www.sce.com), analyzed available AMI technology at that time, and concluded that the limited functionality and operational benefits available at the time would not be cost-effective for SCE's ratepayers. SCE set out to work with meter manufacturers and technology vendors to develop a more advanced meter and communications system that would offer a cost-effective solution with added customer value and convenience. The result is SCE's AMI network called Edison SmartConnect, the nation's most advanced "smart" metering system. The program has redefined the automated metering industry, and is a key component of Edison's smart grid strategy, which brought Edison's grid into the digital age for improved grid management operations.

If possible, I like to have 2 external links to sce.com regarding smart meter in the See Also and External Links section.

Please let me know if it can be added or what need to be changed so it can be added to Wikipedia.

Thank you. Smartpage (talk) 17:10, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • See also is for Wikilinks, there is no reason to have something as a See also and an external link. (Note that Southern California Edison already has a wikipedia entry, so if the company is mentioned in the text, a wikilink from that mentino to the wikipedia article might be appropriate.)
  • For external links - see WP:EL. The website doesn't appear to qualify as a unique resource for this article.
The text reads like an advertisement - some of it duplicates material already in the article. This article is about smart metering - we don't need to know about power regulation in California. It also doesn't say anything - what is so revolutionary/whatever about the aproach they took. Brief explanation of that might be worthy of inclusion.
Needs references, reliable third party sources WP:RS to back it up. SCE or their press releases are not a reliable source to interpret what they are doing.
To summarize suggestions for improvement:
  • Get specifics related to smart metering (what are they doing, how is it different, etc.)
  • Cite reliable sources.
  • Write it like an encyclopedia entry, not like marketing. (Check the welcome and help areas, there are examples of appropriate style, etc.)
Hope that helps. Zodon (talk) 04:06, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bias[edit]

This page reads like an advert for smart-meters written by the electricity companies enforcing them on their users. No coverage is given to the ongoing legal disputes surrounding them, nor issues such as the overcharging of customers that PG&E has had to acknowledge recently. The one negative mentioned is a single non-informative line noting there are questions about security, it should be explained exactly why. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.210.162.176 (talk) 23:28, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

--

I second the above. It's almost like the PUC got together with the major utilities to write this article. There is very little to no mention of health concerns and the major controversies surrounding smart meters. Why is this? I added a section on health concerns and the recent moratorium by Marin County, California, but would love for someone to expand on this section. To keep this article information AND SUBJECTIVE, this section needs to be included. Seaneee 05:27, 5 January 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seaneee (talk • contribs)

Health concerns? Is there any science or is this the usual hillbilly reaction to flouride in the water? California is the home of granola nuttiness, and I can just picture an army of smart meter protesters lighting up cigarettes and munching on cheesburgers as they protest whatever they speculate is the "health" issue. --Wtshymanski (talk) 14:26, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There was nothing in the San Francisco Examiner article about health concerns at all, it was more about accuracy concerns. I've removed the dubious section. --Wtshymanski (talk) 15:05, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Wtshymanski that the health section is entirely dubious. Nelson50T 20:21, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this article is heavily biased against concerns, to the point of censorship. It is uncontaminated with the long list of reasonable concerns about legality, fire safety, consumer cost increases, privacy loss details, "burglar assistance," "hackability", RF interference, and yes, even potential human tissue harm.

See: http://1hope.org/hopeblog/?p=116

"'Smart'meters may be illegal in California, could cause fires or electric shocks to customers, would cost us more in power bills, don’t give us live “right-now” information, are easily hacked – leaving our personal power usage public knowledge (and worse, could let a hacker black-out an entire town), can interfere with phone calls and WiFi, and if installed near someone’s bed – could put out enough radio wave power to reasonably cause concern."

The article indeed does sound like an advertisement. There is a tremendous opposition amongst people who do NOT need something like this forced upon them. I don't have the authority to edit articles like this, they tend to just get shifted back, so I would ask someone who is an "expert" on this issue to make the article more objective. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.23.192.9 (talk) 05:07, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have the same authority as anybody else to edit this article, although if you are less familiar with Wikipedia it may be harder to do. But I understand that you are making a point for other editors to take into consideration. North8000 (talk) 12:57, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Health problems[edit]

Forget researching the subject--I am harmed by Smart Meters NOW! Two months ago I figured out that Smart Meters were the reason I was virtually bedridden. I own my own home, but am forced to live in my car. SMART METERS ARE DANGEROUS! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Melissa Anti-Smart Meter (talk • contribs) 22:26, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

these dangerous meters are causing health problems. mention this on the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smartmetersafty (talk • contribs) 15:26, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We need a reliable source for that. What, pray tell, is the health effect? Are people hitting their heads on meters, do they fall off during earthquakes, are they giving off bad karma? --Wtshymanski (talk) 17:17, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. It's an extraordinary claim, so we need RS documentation of such complaints, and we have them:

We'd also need MEDRS sourcing for proof that such claims are scientifically credible. I don't know of any, so it's a fringe claim covered by our WP:Fringe guideline. As such it gets special coverage and allows sourcing not normally allowed. We already have a RS responding to and debunking the fringe claims. Here's one:

There are likely government and scientific sources that do the same, and they should be found and used. So this qualifies for inclusion, and Wikipedia's a good place to document and debunk this. -- Brangifer (talk) 16:10, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Of course if there are government and scientific sources that debunk any of the controversies (not just the medical controversy) they should be included, so one year later, where are these sources? And sorry Brangifer, newspaper editorials are not RS for anything other than establishing that the author of an editorial has a certain opinion. AADM2 (talk) 14:09, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We should also link this to the Electromagnetic radiation and health article. -- Brangifer (talk) 16:24, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Olle Johansson has studied EMR/EMF effects on health and biological tissues and is behind the recent decision from the World Health Organization (WHO) to include radiofrequency radiation on the 2B list of carcinogens also applies to devices such as smart meters. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.78.74.249 (talk) 21:52, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2B is a list of possible carcinogens. Other notable entries on the 2B list: caffine, Citrus Red 2 (food dye), Gasoline, and Carpentry: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_IARC_Group_2B_carcinogens — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.11.36.165 (talk) 14:58, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WTF is this nonsense!? RADIATION is OBVIOUSLY NOT GOOD. There is no "safe" level of radiation. Tiny radiation can damage DNA and cause cancer. These meters produce POWERFUL radio waves aka "RADIATION". If it weren't bade enough that these meters are producing powerful radiation, more and more sources of radiation have crept into the landscape on which this society lives, from cell phones to wireless internet and now Fukushima nuke meltdown has been raging and spewing radioactive material for a whole YEAR. A 1 whole year melt down of a nuclear power plant, that has gone China syndrome and is threatening to cause blackhole Earth. Added on top of all that radiation, powerful radio transmitters FORCED into everybody's homes, that can be hacked from external command EASILY, is OBVIOUSLY NOT GOOD, not right, it's CRIMINAL. While there is NO SAFE LEVEL of radiation, EVERY BIT of RADIATION is BAD for human health, the more and more radiation you're exposed to, the more surely you will get cancer and die. Is everybody who updates and maintains fkn corporate wikipedia disinfo a fkn traitorous shill? I guess so. Danielvincentkelley (talk) 13:05, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have some bad news for you...if you've ever seen daylight (the Sun is a powerful source of radiation), you are going to die. Are you aware of the difference between ionizing and non-ionizing radiation. This sort of comment resembles trolling, if so, congratulations, you've hooked another. Ever seen a cell tower? Perhaps you have been in the same room as someone using a cell phone? They are not "powerful" radio transmitters, they can't be "hacked" that easily (and even so, what of it? It's the power company's problem if they lose billing information). It is inappropriate, perhaps, to attribute base motives to Wikipedia editors. --Wtshymanski (talk) 19:21, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree Wtshymanski regarding "radiation". However, the controversy should still be covered as such. North8000 (talk) 20:33, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I was sure I'd spoken to this point before: "Well there's POV, and then there's giving undue weight to cranks. I suppose we can put POV tags on flurodation, evolution, the Copernican solar system, the round earth theory.... --Wtshymanski (talk) 17:06, 12 May 2011 (UTC)" Our correspondent above is teasing us with his wild-eyed fearmongering; no-one willfully confuses radio waves and ionizing radiation unless they're having us on. --Wtshymanski (talk) 03:16, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We keep losing an important distinction here. To invent an example that makes the distinction clearer, if 100,000 flat-earth society people hold a protest against The XYZ Globe company for mis-representing the shape of ther earth, then covering that protest as a protest is a very different thing than covering the flat-earth point of view as such. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 03:37, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't "news of the weird" and such a protest would have trouble making WP:NOTABILITY. It could appear as an example in an article about crackpots, but certainly not in the article about the Earth. It may be more difficult to explain why Einstein's analysis of the photoelectric effect (which btw is what his Nobel prize is for) completely precludes the possibility of 1 GHz RF being ionizing than it is to explain why the Flat Earthers are deluded, but that doesn't make claims of cancer risks from 1 GHz RF being any less WP:FRINGE. Jeh (talk) 03:47, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
WP:Notability is a requirement for something to exist as a separate article, not one for something being in an article. North8000 (talk) 11:31, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
For my example, coverage of the large protest as-such would probably be good material for an article on the making of globes. But getting presenting and discussing flat-earth philosophies would not. North8000 (talk) 12:38, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's sort of settled science. We all know the earth isn't flat, it's hemispherical, supported by 4 giant elephants which are standing on the back of an even larger turtle.  :-) North8000 (talk) 12:38, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

AMI was merged, so why not AMR?[edit]

If this article is to merge AMI into it, then it follows that AMR should also be merged into it. Other than that it seems strange to leave AMR as its own article while not giving AMI its own article. Septagram (talk) 22:28, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Be Bold. Is there any non-trivial content at AMR ? --Wtshymanski (talk) 22:38, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at Automatic meter reading, I think there's enough differences that these two articles should remain separate. Two-way communication seems to be the defining characteristic of a "smart" meter. --Wtshymanski (talk) 20:20, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

POV tag -- Dean Flores[edit]

I've added a POV tag due to the omission of complaints regarding the Bakersfield installation, including the those from State Senator Dean Florez. This is not an objective article without addressing that. [1] [2] MMetro (talk) 16:50, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well there's POV, and then there's giving undue weight to cranks. I suppose we can put POV tags on flourodation, evolution, the Copernican solar system, the round earth theory.... --Wtshymanski (talk) 17:06, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Help me understand what cranks have to do with a successful class action lawsuit and the halting of instillation?
What do cranks have to do with fires caused by smart meters? http://www.click2houston.com/news/28147128/detail.html
Sethie (talk) 04:10, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What do smart meters have to do with the fires other than being the reason the work was being done? There's no indication there that the fires were the result of anything other than incompetent work by the subcontractor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.11.36.169 (talk) 14:35, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Says the anon. Meanwhile, DTE tried again to install a smart meter, despite a city ordinance passed that allows homeowners to delay or opt out. This verifiable criticism has been buried in the United States, how little of it remains. MMetro (talk) 03:59, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Meters are not surge arresters[edit]

Meters, smart or dumb, are not surge arresters. If a transformer fails or a line falls on another line or any one of a number of bad things happens, no meter is going to protect from overvoltage. That's not it's job. --Wtshymanski (talk) 21:30, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Controversial?[edit]

These things appear to be controversial, but aside from a brief mention of health concerns, there's nothing on it in the article.

My reading of most of the objections is that they are pretty silly, but I'd love for there to be a section that approached what the claims are, what the official positions are, and so on, just to get a little more understanding into what for me seems like a baffling thing to object to (a bizarre mix of Big Brother fears with RF radiation fears, both of which strike me as highly silly hypotheticals in an era where documentable health risks are actually quite prominent and actual intrusions into individual privacy are commonplace).

Separate from this is the economic aspect (do they end up saving money in the long run or not, and does that get passed on to the consumer in any way), which probably should be addressed as well.

Is it to much to suppose that a NPOV section on their controversial aspects could be written? --Mr.98 (talk) 16:20, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I think much of the editing has been done by editors allied with the utility companies rolling the technology in. If there are other editors interested, I can offer counterpoint links that can be added to the article. I do suspect, however, that biased editing is occurring, because I did put the POV tag up, and it has been removed, with little done to address my original concerns. MMetro (talk) 04:03, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't doubt the utilities would favor positive coverage, but it's not just utilities who favor this. These meters allow energy to be more efficiently distributed and will save energy (and money) to utilities and consumers. The RF issue, on the face of it, seems to make no sense. It involves radiation that is similar to those of cellphones, OnStar devices in cars, and Wifi in Starbucks (which consumers largely ignore). The privacy concerns, while more nuanced, are similar to those regarding credit card records, telephone records, GPS tracking via cellphone (which consumers largely ignore). (Can the government view power usage records without a search warrant? If so, I'd grant that privacy might be a legitimate concern.) In any case, paranoia about smart meters seems eerily similar to fluoridation, plane chemtrails, vaccinations (ie, making extraordinary claims while lacking in any evidence). People seem to have irrationally fixated on smart meters while ignoring a whole host of devices and government policies that have a similar effect, on their privacy and their RF "exposure." It again gets to the issue of controversy and "controversy." --Petzl (talk) 13:10, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"I think much of the editing has been done by editors allied with the utility companies" -- not only does this violate WP:AGF, it's a ridiculous charge that damages your credibility and makes it harder to achieve your aims, which require consensus. If you want to remedy a lack of reporting of the controversy, then add well-sourced encyclopedic material. If other editors interfere with your doing so, there are well-established WP procedures for addressing that. -- 70.109.45.74 (talk) 19:03, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The controversy on these is HUGE. By wp:NPOV guidelines, (abundance of coverage in sources) the controversy section should be about 1/2 the article vs. totally missing as it is here. Of the roughly 12 main areas of controversy

  1. Privacy
  2. Required destruction and retained destruction of landscaping and decks etc. (to meet the line of sight requirements)
  3. Most also contain a remote-controllable kill switch.
  4. Security / hackability
  5. False, dis-proven premise that they are "built on" of feasible time-shiftability of loads. The only one that is (charging electric cars) is easily handled by just a timer.
  6. Concerns of large raises in differential rates to create imaginary "savings" to justify these.
  7. Use of the data by police to create suspect lists (marihuana growers etc.)
  8. General "Too much government" concerns, especially in those areas where the utility is the government
  9. Opposition to differential rate schemes which these require and could cause to exist
  10. Health issues from emissions
  11. Making it too easy to shut people's power off. A keystroke at headquarters instead of having to send someone out.
  12. Concern that these (and related possibilities of people turning loads over to them to be controlled by these) will become a cop-out for the utilities, enabling/causing skimping on having sufficient capacity in place to meet peak demands.

only one of them is on shaky ground (health effects from emission) and the proponents conveniently pick only that one issue to really address. North8000 (talk) 19:37, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

These all need to be cited with reliable, third party sources. Not random anti-smart meter organizations. Shoehorning criticism into an article with poor sources is not neutral.Falcon8765 (TALK) 23:10, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, if the criticisms can be reliably sourced, they should be worked into other relevant sections of the article instead of all gathered in one section. The section as it was, was not neutral by any stretch of the imagination. It included only negatives that were poorly sourced and didn't include that the Connecticut power company disputed the quoted AG's claims. The health claim is a whole nother can of worms, that also needs balancing and that I have removed for the same reason before. I'm willing to bet there are not any sources that satisfy WP:MEDRS to back up the health claims. There is an entire section above discussing those issues as well. Falcon8765 (TALK) 23:23, 19 December 2011 (UTC)::[reply]
You have it mixed up. The suitable material that need to be covered, that needs to be sourcable IS the controversies themselves. You are essentially saying that the view of on side of the controversies needs to be supported by sources in order to cover the controversies themselves. That is absolutely wrong and mixed up. North8000 (talk) 02:05, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not opposed to the inclusion of criticism that is reliably sourced. However, you need to have a reliable source that these are actual criticisms that have been made of smart meters. In the case that you are able to find sources giving these criticisms, they must be balanced with the arguments the other side makes against them as per WP:UNDUE. For example, the anti-meter activist claim that smart meters cause health problems would need to illustrate that there is no mainstream scientific evidence (WP:MeDRS) that supports the claim. The other criticisms are perfectly valid, as long as they are sourced correctly. No source, no inclusion. Falcon8765 (TALK) 02:31, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Mostly fine,(essentially agreeing that your recent deletion was not correct). Sorry to put such words in your mouth, but it is meant as merely a structural statement/assertion in a discussion about an edit in question. Except in one place you are implying another rule that doesn't exist. Namely that the material can't be added until the balancing material is added. North8000 (talk) 11:14, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Of course the other side has to be presented. You can't have a controversey without two or more differing points of view, and omitting any that have significant support violates WP:NPOV. Particularly if the side you do present borders on WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE territory. Jeh (talk) 11:59, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WP:FRINGE indicates we don't have to give undue weight to the Trilateral Commission/Illuminati explanation of everything. --Wtshymanski (talk) 14:07, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Jeh, not sure how to reads your post. My point is that if there is a significant controversey with view "A" opposing view "B", you can't delete "A" because "B" is not yet in the article.North8000 (talk) 02:52, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Finally, of the 12 listed controversial areas, there is only one (#10) where there is a significant response saying that the persons having that concern are in error. (Incidentally, I consider #10 to be in error).North8000 (talk) 02:52, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, yes, I can delete "A". Let's review why: a) You can't have a controversy without unless there are two or more differing points of view. b) Omitting from the article any POV that has significant support violates WP:NPOV. c) All editors and articles must follow WP:NPOV policy (it's in the second sentence). I see no way that any reasonable person can claim that any of the above are false. A more "gentle" appraoch than outright deletion would be to tag the non-neutral section with a neutrality tag, inviting discussion on the talk page... but we're already doing that. Jeh (talk) 03:30, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the other 11 points, one would need to have reliable sources citing instances of each. You can't just say "some people have expressed concerns over privacy." You also need to include statements from proponents of smart meters in response to that concern - and please don't tell me they don't exist.
A more general "neutrality" concern is this: Smart meters are being installed without significant opposition in far more places than they're being opposed; "controversy" is a tempest in a teapot. But the material that has been attempted to be added so far on this issue does not present that fact. In fact it already was trying to give WP:UNDUE weight to the opposition. Jeh (talk) 03:30, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And just by the way... opinions like MMetro's that "I think much of the editing has been done by editors allied with the utility companies" do not help gain credibility for his side. It just screams WP:FRINGE. "If you don't agree with us then you must be In On It..." Mmmm hmmm. Jeh (talk) 03:45, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Jeh., if I read you right, IMO you are fundamentally in error on "Oh, yes, I can delete "A" ". You are saying that wp:npov gives you the right to delete material from on side of the controversy because material with the other-side view is not there yet. If I read you right and you are saying that such is the case, (?) then we'd need to get a reading on this, the wp:npov page would probably be the best place to do that. I might ask the question there generically. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 11:22, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are fundamentally confused about how WP works. You have no reasonable expectation that anything you add to a WP article will survive either the very next edit or subsequent discussion. Read the fine print just below the "Save page" button: "If you do not want your writing to be edited, used, and redistributed at will, then do not submit it here." In the case of material that violates WP policies you can full well expect that it will be removed. WP:NPOV is after all one of the most important policies of WP, one of the "five pillars". Another is that "anyone can edit" WP, and deleting is part of editing. Deletion of material on WP:NPOV grounds happens all the time. Of course such deletion might not survive the next edit or discussion, and if someone persistently edits "against consensus", reverts too often, etc., then temporary blocks can ensue, but we are nowhere near those boundaries here.
But deleting material because the editor perceives it to violate WP:NPOV is not, in and of itself, against any policy I'm aware of. i.e. such material is no more immune from being deleted than anything else, and IME, such deletions are very common.
Hey, I have an idea: Instead of arguing over anyone's "right" to edit here, why don't you try to find that balancing material yourself? It would be so much more productive. Jeh (talk) 19:36, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Your final post (which in essence says that anybody can delete anything and see what happens next) did not have the error of your previous one. (which implied that wp:nopv provides an authority for keeping it deleted) So I have no quibble with your final post. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 19:58, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I never stated that WP:NPOV "provides an authority for keeping it deleted." But WP:NPOV requires that something be done about it. Deletion is one answer. Fixing it so that it's no longer POV-pushing (as determined by consensus) is another.
Speaking of consensus, note that consensus cannot override WP policy, and WP:NPOV is part of policy. i.e. no matter how many editors agree that a WP:NPOV section should remain as it is, it has to be deleted or fixed to comply with WP:NPOV. Jeh (talk) 20:16, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"only one of them is on shaky ground (health effects from emission) and the proponents conveniently pick only that one issue to really address" -- Both of these assertions are false. Also, your entire comment smacks of OR ... your personally proclaimed list of "controversies" (a misuse of that word) is irrelevant. -- 70.109.45.74 (talk) 19:14, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

health effects section, yet again[edit]

I have removed the health effects section from the article as the first two paragraphs were verbatim copyright violations of the NYT article they cited. Additionally, the last two paragraphs were blatantly non-neutral and cherry-picked to appear as if the health effects of EMR are not debated scientifically. See Mobile phone radiation and health; there are dozens of studies with contradictory results and conclusions. Regardless, those studies are for cell phone use. Citing them as a case for the health effects of smart meters isn't really acceptable as most of the studies are related to long-term exposure very close to the body, neither of which smart meters do. I wouldn't be opposed to using some of the studies as sources in a health effects section as long as the differences between the study and smart meters are explained. Please attempt to build something here via consensus rather than just adding it back into the article, I admire the effort to attempt to balance it with statements from the FCC, but it still wasn't neutral by any stretch of the imagination. Falcon8765 (TALK) 18:41, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have mixed emotions on this. Personally, out of the dozens of concerns expressed about smart meters, I think that the only one that is BS is the health concerns. But, this idea of knocking out coverage of the topic on the basis of citing imperfections in the material, or saying that consensus is needed just to add material is certainly out of line. "Non neutral" is reason to develop the coverage, not delete it. And it is a significant controversy which needs to be covered. North8000 (talk) 22:35, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That it's not neutral means it shouldn't be included until a neutral version is put forth here. See WP:BRD - a user adds material, it is challenged by another editor, then you discuss it. Falcon8765 (TALK) 09:48, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What is out of line is implying that the removal is enforcing policies vs. someone simply personally doing "R" of BRD. North8000 (talk) 11:48, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
All of that aside, I think that the opposition should be covered as such. So, for example, coverage in this area would essentially say that persons have opposed the meters citing potential health effects. We shouldn't get into covering /debating the underlying (purported) issue. So, the topic is "opposition based on purported health effects", not "health effects". SO, IMHO the inserted material had that flaw, which is why I did not revert and mostly support your removal of the section.
As an analogy, if there were prominent opposition saying that OBama is ruining the country by pushing it towards socialism, the OBama article would cover that opposition as such, not get into covering the pros and cons of socialism. North8000 (talk) 11:48, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
An imperfect analogy. Although "pros and cons of socialism" would not be appropriate, a quote from a WP:RS showing that government ownership of formerly private companies had only increased by some miniscule amount during Obama's tenure would be wholly appropriate. Similarly here: it is entirely appropriate, and even essential per WP:NPOV and also WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE, to include a well-referenced statement that there are no generally accepted studies that support concern over health effects from very low-level RF emissions. Jeh (talk) 12:13, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No objection from me. I guess my comment was with respect to 2 areas:
  • article quality/focus. Not policy.
  • It's not correct to say that covering who is saying what, but without getting into the pros and cons of the underlying issue is a wp:npov violation. North8000 (talk) 12:39, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot see any way to interpret WP:UNDUE so as to agree with you. Minority views must not be presented in a way that suggests they are more popular or better supported by credible research than they really are. Jeh (talk) 18:45, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"saying that consensus is needed just to add material is certainly out of line" -- No one said that. If anything is out of line, it is your repeated false assertions and charges, and your attempts to rationalize inserting non-NPOV material. It is not generally necessary to have consensus before adding material to an article, but when material has been disputed and removed as violating policy (e.g., WP:NPOV), then it is the duty of an editor to establish consensus before re-adding the material. -- 70.109.45.74 (talk) 19:18, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, 5 major errors and misstatements in just two sentences:
  • Someone certainly DID imply that consensus was needed to add material.
  • I did not make any false assertions. What assertion do you claim is false?
  • I did not make any false charges, I did not even make any charges unless you are calling my statement that there was incorrect reasoning a "charge"
  • You have completely misread the core of wp:npov. It does not prohibit inserting "non-NPOV" material. It actually mandates an appropriate (based on wp:due) balance of "non-NPOV" material and so, contrary to what you said, it not only does not prohibit it, but in some cases mandates it.
  • When an insertion is mandated by wp:npov not only does that not require a consensus, it can even override a consensus against it.
North8000 (talk) 19:35, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Controversies section[edit]

I've made some changes to the controversies section, just posting the rationale here in case they are contentious. I removed the following paragraph:

The WHO/International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) has classified radiofrequency electromagnetic fields as possibly carcinogenic to humans (Group 2B), based on an increased risk for glioma, a malignant type of brain cancer, associated with wireless phone use.[1]

This is a true statement, but grossly misleading in this context, see Electromagnetic radiation and health#World Health Organization. The quotation included at the bottom was also not representative of the source, so I trimmed off the trailing half-sentence.

My main issue with the section is that it presumes that the meter is an RF transmitter and discusses RF safety issues with significant point of view issues. It would be far more constructive to discuss different organisations' points of view in a neutral manner. --Michael Billington (talk) 09:52, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The controversies section needs to be expanded (sections on all of the other areas of opposition are still missing, as is coverage of organizaiotns and activities in opposition.) but I think that your trim was a good one. The trimmed sentence was synthesis by juxtaposition. North8000 (talk) 11:10, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm moving the controversies section out of the technology section. It doesn't make sense for it to be a sub-section of the technology section. If everyone wanted smart meters but they couldn't agree on which version to use, that might be a controversy merely about the technology. But not everyone wants smart meters, for a variety of reasons (discussed above and partly detailed in the article) like economics and so on. AADM2 (talk) 14:21, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

COI Edit Requests[edit]

I wouldn't call what I did "approving". I just put it in in a modified form, on a sort of BRD basis. North8000 (talk) 10:33, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have a financial COI with Honeywell in that they’ve recruited me to help them navigate through Wikipedia and COI Best Practices. My intention is to inform Wikipedia's readers on implementation examples in which Honeywell was involved, in particular those that involved use of public funds. Below are my content suggestions for consideration by impartial editors. User:King4057 (EthicalWiki) 16:27, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Additional Implementations

United States[edit]

Six thousand end users in parts of Oklahoma and Arkansas are part of a program with in-home devices and automation systems conducted by The Oklahoma Gas and Electric (OG&E) company. The project costs $357 million, $130 million of which was funded by the federal government. The dynamic pricing program is opt-in and the data is also used to study consumer behavior.[3]

The city of Duncan, Oklahoma conducted a smart grid implementation to automatically collect electricity and water usage data from 9,000 electric meters and 12,000 water meters. Duncan’s project was funded by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act and a 15-year, $14.2 million energy savings performance contract. Honeywell installed the smart meter network as part of a broader program including upgraded HVAC in government buildings, energy-efficient fixtures in street lights and variable frequency drives at the city’s waste water treatment facility. The program was purchased as part of an unusual $1.7 million savings guarantee.[4]

References:[edit]

  1. ^ http://www.good.is/post/smart-meters-dumb-backlash/
  2. ^ http://www.eastbayexpress.com/gyrobase/are-smartmeters-dangerous-too/Content?oid=1939740&showFullText=true
  3. ^ "Oklahoma Gas and Electric: Positive Energy Smart Grid Integration Program". SmartGrid.gov. Retrieved August 13, 2102. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
  4. ^ to install smart meter network%2C improve conservation in Duncan%2C OK&mode=source&catid=5&display=article&id=27660 "Honeywell to install smart meter network, improve conservation in Duncan, OK". Facilities Management News. July 2, 2010. Retrieved December 1, 2011. {{cite news}}: Check |url= value (help)

Feedback on request[edit]

Thanks for your directness. On first read the one thing that jumped out at me was the sentence that tied the general advertising word "reducing peak loads, reducing energy use and improving operations." to one particular installation.

One other thought is whether it's wp:undue or not useful to describe individual installations. Not sure of the answers to that, just raising the question. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 19:29, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I didn't see any way of salvaging that one sentence, so I just took it out. User:King4057 (EthicalWiki) 01:26, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to put the above edit in, then immediately tweak it little for wikification. Others please feel free to revert or modify. North8000 (talk) 00:00, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done North8000 (talk) 00:09, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Improving the opposition discussion[edit]

The section as it stands is not very good. It's large and disjointed. Although the health 'concerns' are pseudoscience, it's certainly a fact that some people do strongly object on this basis. So the article should mention this fact.

But the opponents' overt hypochondriasis obscures their other concerns, some of which may actually be valid, and I'd like to see them discussed more clearly than the opponents themselves seem capable of doing.

These concerns seem to fall into two general categories: privacy/security, and the user impact of TOU (time of use) rates.

The first could benefit significantly from citations to *specific*, well-documented instances of privacy compromise or hacking, if any.

Regarding TOU rates, all I see now in the article is that some customers don't like having the price of electricity fluctuate and presently lack the means to automatically shift load. There is no mention that TOU is driven by several underlying economic facts of life that simply cannot be ignored, to wit: Electricity cannot now be easily stored in large amounts so generation must continually match demand. Demand fluctuates substantially and often unpredictably. Historically, demand has been almost completely uncontrolled and this sometimes results in blackouts when a utility is unable to obtain sufficient supply. Electricity is generated in different ways with big differences in capacity, fuel and operating costs. And so on. Saying smart meters are bad because customers don't like rates to vary is like saying that grocery prices should be set by government fiat because people don't want to have to stop eating strawberries just because this year's crop was completely ruined by a blight. In the real world, prices vary with basic economic factors like changing supply and demand, and it's just silly to deny reality. Karn (talk) 22:15, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One other item is that the few loads that can be painlessly shifted (e.g. electric car charging - just put on a timer) would be shifted without a penalty system, and only very painful price penalties will cause the painful-to-shift loads to be shifted. So that they are unnecessary for the former, and there should be sufficient capacity (not rationing) to handle the latter. North8000 (talk) 22:43, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

kill switch?[edit]

There is mention of a kill switch a few times in the article. Nothing in it actually explains what it is, though, or why it's seen as a concern. Does it shut off the meter? Does it shut off the customer's power? Why is it a problem? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.222.180.129 (talk) 17:12, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For those which have it it shuts off / can shut off the customer's power. Most concerns that I've seen relate to two things:
  1. Making it much easier for the utility to kill the customer's power. A keyboard stroke / mis-stroke can do it vs. having to send out someone to physically disconnect it.
  2. In combination with hackability of the meters. One study / simulation scenario was of a virus that can replicate across the smart meters in the system, kill the power, and lock out the recovery/restart signal.
Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 17:40, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The kill switch did not exist in the old meters, if the utility wanted to kill the power to the residence they removed the meter. These are very high amperage switches and there have been issues with them causing overheating or fires with some models of smart meters. They do offer a new ability in that after a power failure, the utility can shut off all the meters, restore power and then turn on the load in a controlled fashion.Dougmcdonell (talk) 17:10, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Conspiracy theories" category[edit]

Categories are for articles that are primarily about an example of the category. Not for every article that happens to mention something related to the category; that is casting far too wide a net. If we had a category for "Articles that happen to mention conspiracy theories", or "articles about things that are topics of conspiracy theories", that would be different. As it is, though, note for example that although "Moon landing conspiracy theories" is in the "Conspiracy theories" category, articles about the Apollo project or the moon landing or "Apollo 11", etc., are not. "Smart meter" is not an example of a "Conspiracy theory". QED. Jeh (talk) 21:20, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

More: From WP:Categories#Categorizing_pages :

A central concept used in categorising articles is that of the defining characteristics of a subject of the article. A defining characteristic is one that reliable sources commonly and consistently define[1] the subject as having...

I don't think you'll find that most reliable sources on smart meters include the existence of a conspiracy theory as one of their defining characteristics.
And btw, article content discussions should always go on the article talk page, so that other interested editors can easily find and participate in the discussion. Posting to a particular editor's talk page fragments the discussion. Thank you. Jeh (talk) 21:24, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Everything is the subject of some conspiracy theory. I have a theory about this...--Wtshymanski (talk) 17:03, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sure... That's just what they'd like you to believe. Jeh (talk) 17:46, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Jeh: This article is included in {{Conspiracy theories}}, although this article contains no information about conspiracy theories at all. Jarble (talk) 01:05, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Um... and? I didn't put it there. wp:sofixit. Jeh (talk) 01:58, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

HAN technology[edit]

This article seems a bit light on the HAN part of the system. I have added some references to PLC and ZigBee in the technology and UK implementation sections; editors are invited to expand on the technologies and the national implementations where they have useful knowledge. AutolycusQ (talk) 12:27, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

broken link[edit]

The link in reference no. 72 is broken: http://www.etsi.org/WebSite/NewsandEvents/2012_01_Open_Smart_Grid.aspx ETSI Approves Open Smart Grid Protocol (OSGP) for Grid Technologies --Tillmo (talk) 10:32, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

plagiarism[edit]

By chance, I found http://viviva.co/resources/Viviva%20-%20Smart%20Meter%20Technology.pdf . The text of this PDF has been larged copied from the Wikipedia article, but Wikipedia is not quoted as a source. Even some [citation needed] occurs in this PDF! --Tillmo (talk) 10:42, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Musings on the edit and revert by 188.77.246.72 and Nick Cooper[edit]

In this edit [[2]] 188.77.246.72 changed "At the end of 2013 there were 295,700 smart meters installed in domestic properties Great Britain" to "At the end of 2013 there were 295,700 smart meters installed in domestic properties in the UK". Nick Cooper Cooper then reverted it [[3]] correctly saying that the reference said "GB" not "United Kingdom". The problem here is that the reference is almost certainly wrong in that it uses GB as a political term - see the endless debate on Great_Britain for background information on this. The reference is probably sloppy writing because "The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Norther Ireland" is hopelessly messy but UK is the usual abbreviation. I don't want to get into hot water over multiple reverts but I think that 188.77.246.72 was technically correct. Is this a case where we can interpret the reference and write what they were trying to say not what they actually said? Mtpaley (talk) 19:25, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

At the risk of sounding overly pedantic, the methodology notes for the report state:
"The Programme is initially collecting data at the National level (Great Britain) from each of the larger energy suppliers (British Gas, EDF Energy, E.ON, Npower, Scottish Power, SSE, and Utility Warehouse)."
In contrast, the main electricity suppliers in Ireland are Airtricity, Budget Energy, Electric Ireland, Energia, Firmus Energy, Lissan Coal, Power NI (Viridian Group), and VAYU.[4]. Phoenix Natural Gas and Firmus Energy are the only suppliers of natural gas.[5] In other words, none of the "larger energy suppliers" on which the Smart Meters, Great Britain, Quarterly report to end March 2014 report is based operate in Northern Ireland, ergo the use of "Great Britain" rather than "United Kingdom" is entirely correct and intentional. Nick Cooper (talk) 09:49, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 5 external links on Smart meter. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 16:30, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Smart meter. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 13:52, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Smart meter. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 20:51, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sensus (mfr of smart meters)[edit]

There doesn't seem to be a page for this company. Given how many people have issues with their products some information on who they're dealing with would be welcome. If there is a page, please link here. All I could find was something in Latin or so. Otherwise, please make one. THKS. 2602:306:30BA:28A0:9800:4BF:122B:89CA (talk) 08:33, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SOFIXIT. Wikipedia articles are written by people like you. That said, we don't create pages for companies just because they make a lot of some product, or because people have issues with their product. The subject of an article generally has to meet our notability guidelines. If you can find what WP will consider reliable sources about the company then an article might be created. Failing that, a section in this article might be in order. Jeh (talk) 10:28, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Passage removed[edit]

I removed the following from section "Canada" due to improper formatting:

Texas court case may indicate that, ITRON meters installed in B.C may have smaller meter base pins that leads to increased heating of meter base and pins, from poor electrical contacts. Because of the design location of the Voltage sensor in the ITRON C2S0D smart meter, line voltage is measured ahead of the shutoff relay. This results that the customer is paying for power, lost to the on circuit resistance of the meter shutoff relay. When combined the two losses of voltage in the meter are, on circuit voltage drop and meter pin voltage drop. Those voltage losses , decreases the operational efficiency of the B.C Power grid, and increased home energy usage by reducing home line voltage in smart meter homes, over what was possible using anolog meters. See url related to the court case http://www.stopsmartmetersbc.com/smart-meter-safety-risk-letter-to-bc-minister-of-energy-and-mines-bennett/

If someone wishes to restore this properly, feel free, so far as I'm concerned. — MaxEnt 01:21, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But how do they work???[edit]

I've read the main parts of the article and the section for my own country (UK) and there's a lot about what their purpose is and what they do and how/where/when they are being rolled out etc., but how do they actually work? How do they communicate with the utility companies? Does it use the mobile network? A wifi connection to a broadband network. Or is it some kind of hard-wired connection or what? Given that some rural areas especially have very poor connectivity for anything—mobile network, broadband, poor TV signal etc—can these meters be used there or not. I came to this article to find out how they worked from a technical perspective, but was offered few clues. 2.24.8.92 (talk) 20:56, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Last Gasp or Dying Gasp[edit]

There is nothing in this wiki article about the Last Gasp feature. This is a signal sent out by the meter when there is a power outage. See also Dying gasp. 81.128.174.58 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:38, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Smart meter. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:04, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Smart meter. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:06, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I use solar energy. How is the smart meter going to affect my usage? 71.218.156.38 (talk) 21:17, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Smart_meter&oldid=1210413264"