[retrotecchie]

@geoffers

Had we gone our own way and used PLC, which is entirely independent of any external communications system, we wouldn't be in this mess. But we were told by the EU we had to do it their way. So we did, and then the EU changed horses mid race. We left the EU, carried on with the car crash...and most of the EU are now using PLC!

And we're switching off RTS...when most of the world are now adopting it as the standard for multirate switching and load management.

You can see why us legacy meter owners just want to stick with them.

[meldrewreborn]

@geoffers

security concerns mean that government IT systems and updates have to be specially tested before being implemented under guidance from somebody like GCHQ. The government has special contracts with M$ that extend the lives of operating systems many years. If you pay enough you get special treatment!

[retrotecchie]

@meldrewreborn

I'm still maintaining systems in the MOD and public sector running on Windows XP and Windows 2000. Both are still supported.

[meldrewreborn]

I think the two way communications between supplier and meters are subject to ridiculously stringent protocols, partly (mainly?) because the intention was to use the system for future as yet not specified purposes that would though require the highest level of security. Unfortunately all it’s used for is sending consumption data one way and pricing the other, so it’s massively over engineered.

[retrotecchie]

@meldrewreborn

I have no problem with the protocols used and the security of the data transfer between meters and suppliers. My problem is the channel of communication between the meters and the DCC. Any communication subject to changes in technology in the carrier method, or that can suffer from poor signal, not-spots or has to rely on two completely separate systems in the two halves of the country is the problem.

[meldrewreborn]

@retrotecchie

for the limited amount of data transferred per meter the whole system is too complicated.

[retrotecchie]

@meldrewreborn

Of course it is but with IoT and potential extra service layers that can be 'bolted on' to the smart energy system in future, I think they wanted to ensure that the security was bombproof (or hackproof against hostile actors) right from the get go.

Like building a bank safety deposit vault but the first customer only having a small box with £500 and a few pieces of jewellery in it. But scalable to hundreds of customers and more valuable assets without having to rebuild the vault every time.

But a simple RS232 or RS422 cable from the meter to an interface connected to your home broadband, allowing the same functionality as the unnecessarily complex DCC/telco/Arquiva communication system and being secure for the purposes of meter<>supplier yet allowing 'read only' consumer access to the customer from the meter for in house monitoring via a PC or smartphone app or even a standalone IHD would have been a far better system.

Users without a broadband connection could use the mobile network and those with no connectivity at all would be no worse off than any customer with a traditional meter anyway. And if the data was open source within the home network, the ability to write macros or software to automatically populate your spreadsheet or format the data for your own use (after all, it's your data anyway) would have brought so much more to the party.

The security already built into the meter would prevent a user being able to overwrite data, i.e. fiddle the meter. Sure, some bright soul with too much time on their hands might eventually be able to do something sneaky, but the perimeter defence is already built into the system.

Just my thoughts, and exactly what the original PLC system was explicitly intended for. Secure transactions to the supplier and open access at the consumer level.

[meldrewreborn]

@retrotecchie

I think that hostile actors would have no interest in my gas and electric consumption. In fact it would be good because then they’d have less time to devote to more important matters.

[retrotecchie]

@meldrewreborn

I think that because the standards for SMETS included the facility to remotely cut off the supply via the meter, there was concern that if some 'ne'er do well' could disable a meter (or potentially an entire street, housing estate, or even a village or whole area), the potential for causing chaos, disruption or other malarkey was perceived as a 'potential threat'. From something as simple as taking petty revenge on a noisy neighbour right up to national security.

Even a tech-savvy criminal or a whole organised crime gang might be able to monitor usage trends and figure out if a property was unoccupied at certain times. Digitally 'casing the joint', so to speak. That is one of the reasons that some people are a bit wary of smart meters. The fact that the security is there to prevent this and has been designed in right from the get go is neither here nor there. I just don't want a smart meter because I can see no earthly benefit to me. Had 'the system' allowed me to pull my own data from the meter and import it into my PC and allow me to do automatically what I currently do with a spreadsheet and manual readings, I'd have signed up ten years ago! But they cannot do that without the data communications layer to the DCC and then you still need an approved third party (Bright or Hugo for instance) to allow 'consumer access' unless you spend the money on a Consumer Access Device like a Glowstick or similar.

It would cost next to nothing, at scale, to build that into a meter from the get go. If like me you live in a 'not-spot', rendering the meter dumb for the purposes of supplier readings or billing and unable to pass data to those third parties, then third party apps are not going to work anyway. Consumer access without needing an external communications infrastructure should have been a part of the specification. After all, my traditional single rate non-smart twenty year old Landys and Gyr allows me to do exactly that. Either by eyeballing the display and reading it manually or by attaching the FLAG optical modem and connecting to a serial port on the PC. DCC not required, thank you very much!