# Should the Federal Gov't. regulate DirecTV receivers and other STBs?



## Lord Vader (Sep 20, 2004)

Why doesn't it surprise me that this pending battle began in California, perhaps the king of the nanny states?

From the _Morning Bridge_ today:



> Sen. _Diane Feinstein_ (D-CA) sent a letter to the major cable and satellite pay-TV providers urging them to phase out what she calls "always on" STBs that waste energy and increase consumer utility bills. The Senator says if the industry doesn't take the initiative to develop and distribute more energy-efficient models on its own the Federal government will do so on its behalf.
> 
> Citing recent studies that show STBs "consume astronomical amounts of energy," Feinstein says energy hungry set-tops and DVRs are among the largest consumers of electricity in the average American home. The problem, she says, is that current models are not equipped with adequate stand-by or sleep functions that could reduce power usage during down times. As a result, STBs being sold or leased by pay-TV providers operate at near-full power 24/7 costing upwards of $3B annually... $2B of which is incurred while the boxes aren't being used.
> 
> "I strongly encourage you to work with your competitors to stop the distribution of 'always on' set-top boxes in California," she said. "If such an initiative does not materialize, the Federal government will have an obligation to regulate the efficiency of these boxes in the interest of American consumers."


Whether DirecTV receivers consume "astronomical amounts of energy" or not, isn't that the end user's problem? If I want to leave my lights on all night, should the government step in to tell me I'm wasting energy, only to be followed by regulating my light usage (probably by mandating light switches that don't operate after midnight or something)?

Seriously, this nanny state "we know better than you" or "it's for your own good" mentality is beyond ridiculous. The more these regulations are implemented, the fewer freedoms we possess.

Make more energy efficient DVRs? Sure, why not? But let competition and the market do it. Let company ABC make set top boxes (STBs) that they claim are more efficient and consumers may flock to that manufacturer on their own. Don't have the frickin' government dictate everything.


----------



## SayWhat? (Jun 7, 2009)

Lord Vader said:


> Make more energy efficient DVRs? Sure, why not? But let competition and the market do it. Let company ABC make set top boxes (STBs) that they claim are more efficient and consumers may flock to that manufacturer on their own.


Fine, but sometimes they need a swift kick in the cahones to get motivated, hence regulation. They've had a decade to do it themselves and have done nothing.


----------



## Lord Vader (Sep 20, 2004)

Give me a break! This is over regulation at its finest, yet another shining example of the federal government sticking its nose farther into the lives of the American people.


----------



## DogLover (Mar 19, 2007)

SayWhat? said:


> Fine, but sometimes they need a swift kick in the cahones to get motivated, hence regulation. They've had a decade to do it themselves and have done nothing.


Have they done nothing? Recent DIRECTV DVR's have been EnergyStar certified, while older ones were not. Seems like they don't need the "kick" to do something on their own.

And, there are arguably much bigger energy wasters in the home.


----------



## webby_s (Jan 11, 2008)

Get the government out of my house, let alone out of my DVR's.

That's all I have to say on the matter.


----------



## autumnghost (Feb 10, 2007)

Let's look at the real picture here. Local feds have long ago taken
control of the cable tv market. They use the infrared remote sensors on electronic devices to surveillance you. I know, as I've been a victim of it. You may not believe it, but I know firsthand. With so many people shifting to satellite, they're losing control. Satellite receivers do not allow the local feds to tap into and view people. The direct-to-home nature of reception prevents this. The feds want to manufacture the boxes themselves so they can modify them to get back all the spying techniques they've lost since so many people are getting dishes. That is the real reason, hidden behind the guise of energy efficiency.


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

I'd like the initiative and I will support my senator to push it. 

I know guts of the DVR from beginning and see how they involved with very lazy approaches in design and SW development. 
Just two tech tidbits: it was spin-down of HDD in the DVR and it was time when DVR wasn't require to reboot each night.


----------



## ub1934 (Dec 30, 2005)

webby_s said:


> Get the government out of my house, let alone out of my DVR's.
> 
> That's all I have to say on the matter.


Looks like your a real Scott Walker buddy .


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

DIRECTV has been fairly aggressive on their energy savings. If I recall correctly, the previous listing of set top boxes by EnergyStar had quite a number of DIRECTV boxes, all the then shipping new receivers.

They just came out with a new list and the D12, H25, and HR24 are all on the list with the more stringent requirements; again all the currently shipping and being manufactured models (I believe.)

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## sigma1914 (Sep 5, 2006)

autumnghost said:


> Let's look at the real picture here. Local feds have long ago taken
> control of the cable tv market. They use the infrared remote sensors on electronic devices to surveillance you. I know, as I've been a victim of it. You may not believe it, but I know firsthand. With so many people shifting to satellite, they're losing control. Satellite receivers do not allow the local feds to tap into and view people. The direct-to-home nature of reception prevents this. The feds want to manufacture the boxes themselves so they can modify them to get back all the spying techniques they've lost since so many people are getting dishes. That is the real reason, hidden behind the guise of energy efficiency.


----------



## Stuart Sweet (Jun 19, 2006)

I'd say energy star certification is probably all the government should expect at this point. I do think DIRECTV is moving toward more energy-efficient models because the consumer demands it. As for this legislation, I'd say Senator Feinstein is introducing it at a time when it has little chance of passing. This is a tried-and-true strategy for getting your name in the papers.


----------



## SayWhat? (Jun 7, 2009)

Stuart Sweet said:


> I'd say Senator Feinstein is introducing it at a time when it has little chance of passing.


Isn't this the same state that regulates big screen TVs and essentially every other consumer product to the point that special "California" versions (ie. lawn mowers, weedeaters, etc.) have to be produced?


----------



## Stuart Sweet (Jun 19, 2006)

That's a bit of an oversimplification but yes.


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

SayWhat? said:


> Isn't this the same state that regulates big screen TVs and essentially every other consumer product to the point that special "California" versions (ie. lawn mowers, weedeaters, etc.) have to be produced?


So what ? At least it's best state in US by many means.


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

After pondering this a bit, several things come to mind:

Stuart was right--this was mostly a grandstand play. (She didn't just write it to the industry--she copied the press...) 

This was most likely an empty threat. If she had left out the threat altogether, I wouldn't have any problem with her writing a letter asking them to do something.

I like the EnergyStar concept and I hope it is relatively well done.

Beyond that, the government has no right to really poke its nose into this. We gots more important things to worry about. 

And we don't need extra costs by both the government creating these laws and electronics companies fighting their creation. 

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## Gloria_Chavez (Aug 11, 2008)

Lord Vaders asks, "Should the Federal Gov't. regulate DirecTV receivers and other STBs?"

I reply, No, and neither should it regulate the energy market.

This means that we should eliminate the gas tax, and no state or municipality should have the ability to slap an excise tax on gasoline.

And I say all this as a Dem who believes that Senators like Feinstein are hurting the Party's ability to draw new voters.


----------



## SayWhat? (Jun 7, 2009)

Tom Robertson said:


> Beyond that, the government has no right to really poke its nose into this. *We gots more important things to worry about.*


Like the volume of TV commercials?

Or the type of light bulbs available?


----------



## Lord Vader (Sep 20, 2004)

ub1934 said:


> Looks like your a real Scott Walker buddy .


I'm a teacher, and I'm a big fan of Scott Walker. The actions of him and his party in Wisconsin DID save the state a ton of money, so much so that many districts now have the money to hire more teachers, and this is not because many in the state are retiring, either.

As far as P Smith supporting this, I assume he'd also support the government putting timers on his lights to control when he can turn them on/off; or supporting the government putting ignition locks on his car to control when he can drive to cut down on pollution; etc.

Where does it end? Give the government an inch now, they'll take a mile later.


----------



## Lord Vader (Sep 20, 2004)

Stuart Sweet said:


> I'd say energy star certification is probably all the government should expect at this point. I do think DIRECTV is moving toward more energy-efficient models because the consumer demands it. As for this legislation, I'd say Senator Feinstein is introducing it at a time when it has little chance of passing. This is a tried-and-true strategy for getting your name in the papers.


Because she has nothing better to worry about, right? No other important items for Congress to tackle now, I guess. 



SayWhat? said:


> Isn't this the same state that regulates big screen TVs and essentially every other consumer product to the point that special "California" versions (ie. lawn mowers, weedeaters, etc.) have to be produced?


Which is why it's so screwed up, especially economically.



P Smith said:


> So what ? At least it's best state in US by many means.


Hardly. Mine isn't, either, but California is a mess, especially financially. It tries hard to be the biggest financial deadbeat in the country, but that honor officially belongs to the one in which I live. :nono2:


----------



## Stuart Sweet (Jun 19, 2006)

I know that Tom and I have participated in bringing this thread to where it is, so I'd like to ask quietly, let's steer this back to the subject of regulation on STBs and not to politics in general. 

Thanks.


----------



## Lord Vader (Sep 20, 2004)

Indeed.


----------



## Drucifer (Feb 12, 2009)

So she want flash memory to become hard memory. With a bootup similar to a computer. 

Just who's going to pay for all this new hardware. Not the companies. Yep it would be the consumer.


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

Drucifer said:


> So she want flash memory to become hard memory. With a bootup similar to a computer.
> 
> Just who's going to pay for all this new hardware. Not the companies. Yep it would be the consumer.


She didn't ask for that - it's your poor imagination telling us .

As I mention (not reading posts ? ) old DVR models had the features to reduce load - spin-down drive at least - it did cut in half or more of standby energy consumption.


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

P Smith said:


> She didn't ask for that - it's your poor imagination telling us .
> 
> As I mention (not reading posts ? ) old DVR models had the features to reduce load - spin-down drive at least - it did cut in half or more of standby energy consumption.


Try only by 10W out of 35W. At least on the HR20-700.

What DIRECTV has done is use the new, less consumptive drives as they have become available.

Then we get into what features do you want to lose by spinning down the drive? Two weeks of guide? Live buffers? Start up time?

These aren't quiescent systems even in standby. Guide updates need to be processed constantly or run the risk of losing a recording that was scheduled at the last minute. (Think about a live even that runs over and reschedules CSI for a midnite broadcast on your local station.)

Yes, in theory, a lot of engineering could be spent on saving money. At the cost of money that DIRECTV won't get paid for.

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## Herdfan (Mar 18, 2006)

And I don't want to manually have to press a button on the face of my STB because the unit is not able to "listen" for IR commands.

They make power strips for consumers that want to completely shut off power to their components. I do not happen to be one of those consumers.

Instead, I have spent hours, and have many more hours to go air sealing every penetration in my attic. How about changing building codes so that HVAC companies are required to apply mastic to every connection. It may add $200 to the cost of installing the system, but that is $200 that would be repaid quickly and many times over in energy savings vs. adding $$ to the cost of STB that would take much longer and have much lower ROI.


----------

