TV standby buttons to be outlawed

The British government is fed up with standby mode; according to a recent energy review, devices left in standby account for 8% of their annual energy usage. In an attempt to curb waste, combat rising energy costs, and apparently annoy citizens, the government is set to outlaw switches that allow TVs, DVD players, and who knows what else to go on hiatus -- mandatory redesigns to remove sleep functions from numerous devices are supposedly on the docket. Whatever comes of this, keep a close eye on the next Windows Update: you might just reboot to find your precious "Stand By" option MIA.

[Scott Forbus @ Jul 14th 2006 11:40AM]

Similar to what happened in Greece when they made it so that people can only drive into Athens on odd specific days based upon their license plate, this is going to have an unforseen consequence. People are just going to leave their electronics on all the time instead of in standby and more electricity will be used.

[schmod @ Jul 14th 2006 11:44AM]

It will be interesting to see how this affects devices like TiVo, which are intended to run 24/7.

And also, I doubt that this will remove the standby function from PCs. There are many legitimate reasons for PCs to run in standby mode, whereas there are not so many for TVs and Toasters.

[Fuzz @ Jul 14th 2006 11:44AM]

This could be a tough one . . What about microwaves? They dispaly the time when not in use. This is a sort of stand by mode, but also a dual function device. Could DVD player manufacturers just make the display show a clock(I'm sure some models already do), and claim the same functionality of a microwave to get around the law? So then thuis gets extended to TV's, even computers. . just add a clock, and your good to go, right? After all, they aren't a banning clocks, are they?

[Maff Mace @ Jul 14th 2006 11:45AM]

this means that we'll need models only made for the UK that will cost more than they will for other markets as they have to be redesigned

It also means things like my current TV, satellite box and freeview receiver wouldn't be able to receive their OTA updates during the night when they are sent out

[Martin Millmore @ Jul 14th 2006 11:46AM]

I have only just started using standby - I used to leave my PCs fully on all of the time until I got my last electricity bill!

[Maff Mace @ Jul 14th 2006 11:47AM]

@ #2, TiVo never took off here in the UK and they stopped supporting it years ago as only a few units were sold so that wouldn't be an issue

[Eric @ Jul 14th 2006 11:49AM]

Removing standby from TVs may be a good idea (though I've never seen one that could do that...), but a lot of things aren't. DVRs are always going to be in standby, as someone said, and the Wii will be with it's Connect 24/7 feature. Computers in standby will last considerably longer than computers that are turned on and off every day.

[Vernon Davis @ Jul 14th 2006 11:50AM]

...then I'll just have to leave my computer/DVD/whatever ON. I think this needs to be re-thunk.

[Emma @ Jul 14th 2006 11:50AM]

convenience is not an excuse to wast so much energy, 8% of the national amount!!! good grief

[hestermofet @ Jul 14th 2006 11:54AM]

This story has been debunked by Ars Technica:
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060713-7253.html

[Crin @ Jul 14th 2006 11:55AM]

A product that switches all of your devices off (completely) at once when you press the standby button on your TV remote is in development at the moment which seems like a much better option to me, maybe the government should back this.

[Mike Nolan @ Jul 14th 2006 11:57AM]

Surely I can't be the only person who thinks this is a logical thing to do?!

The vast majority of people are wasting energy (and hence money) by leaving their appliances on standby. By mooting this issue now the government seem to be hoping to give the issue more prominance so that companies will adopt the idea on their own.

The way I see it working that pressing the standby button on your remote turns the TV off and to turn it back on you have to get up and press the button on the TV itself.

Tivo wouldn't be affected because it would be left in whatever state is required to enable it to function.

The UK already suffers from non-standard models - we have to have electricals fitted with a three pin plug, TVs use PAL and computers are installed with the English (UK) version of Windows.

Maybe if other all countries adopted these steps there wouldn't be so much reliance on imported energy.

[peregrine @ Jul 14th 2006 11:58AM]

I'd like to take a moment to call your attention to this article on ArsTechnica:

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060713-7253.html

The conclusion here is that most of us don't even realize how much we rely on standby modes, and would not tolerate making them illegal. Don't you like being able to turn your TV on with the remote?

Instead, the British Government is looking into placing more stringent restrictions on how much power a device can draw when in standby mode, hopefully increasing the efficiency of electrical devices and power bricks. Hear that, Xbox 360 power supply?

[m @ Jul 14th 2006 12:07PM]

why would anyone need to put their TV on standby? Most recording devices need a full ON state, or a full OFF state.

Turn off the boob tube people!

[Craig @ Jul 14th 2006 12:13PM]

This is good because it will force manufacturers to make more energy efficient products, saving the environment and reducing electricity bills. How can people say this kind of thing is bad? We need to stop damaging the environment, and leaves devices on standby can do this - wasting lots of electricity powering devices which are 'off'.

[spil @ Jul 14th 2006 12:16PM]

I can just imagine:

"welcome to BBC news nightly. Our main story tonight: man arrested for leaving his computer on stand-by for thirty minutes: he will be sentenced to death by guillotine, you can watch it live tomorrow night at 7 only on channel 8: BBC news network. In other news, the queen was shot and some stuff happened. bye"

[Magic Manatee @ Jul 14th 2006 12:17PM]

Why the hell is everyone moaning abou this? Seriously, what is the problem with getting off your backside to turn on and off the TV.
I mean for god sake, if it was for every function such as to change channel or volume I would be pissed, but since standby on most products is not needed, I welcome them phasing it out.

[Scott @ Jul 14th 2006 12:26PM]

It's not going to make companies shift to more energy efficient dogmas. They just won't have a stand-by button. I don't believe I have even used a stand-by for my tv, or anything. It's such a pain in the butt to use it on Windows (unless it's for a notebook). See people, Complete Socialism is not the way to maintain rights. They get rid of Stand-by buttons and free travel! Go USA!

P.S. This Penn Station is good!

[m-p{3} @ Jul 14th 2006 12:27PM]

I don't use standy mode, only Hibernate for my computer :)

[Buzzcut @ Jul 14th 2006 12:29PM]

It's the power supply that draws the most standby power. For example, even when your computer is completely off, the power supply is still drawing power and one of the rails (3.2V?) is still energized. Even if nothing is drawing power on that rail, the fact that it is energized and that power supplies are not 100% efficient means that some amount of power is being wasted.

Wall warts have the same issue.

[Long @ Jul 14th 2006 12:35PM]

I think you need to rethink how many people are not like us (Engadget readers) many will never know how to set up their vcr's clock, use dvr, or even use the channel guide that's built into their tv. The change in the standby setting is for them.

There are many devices that eat up energy like what was documented in the energy usage of different consoles post. I can understand the xbox 360 using standby mode so that it can scan for the wireless controller to turn it on. But the PS2 standby is nearly equal to the xbox 360 and there is no reason to have it in standby mode.

[peregrine @ Jul 14th 2006 12:45PM]

> why would anyone need to put their TV on standby?

In order for your TV to receive and decode the infrared signal from your remote to turn it on, it requires power. Therefore, any device that can be turned on or off without the user physically flipping a switch on the device is effectively in "standby" mode (despite the fact that you may think it is truly "off").

I suppose devices don't NEED a standby mode as you could always just go over and physically flip it on, but I for one find being able to use a remote controls and on/off timers convenient.

[Sheldon @ Jul 14th 2006 12:50PM]

Unfortunately the problem is not necessarily that obvious.
The blame is being twisted by people who don't understand the problem (ie the government and the newspapers), saying that they consume power excessive power when in "standby" but are they really in "standby" or just not telling you that they are on?
When writing firmware for things like set-top boxes, you can either write it such that you turn off everything (video DACs, microprocessor, etc) but cause the turn on time to be slightly longer or just turn off the video DACs and make it look like it's turned off (significantly faster turn on but consumes more power when in standby).
Lots of things (eg PCs and Macs) consume power when supposed to be off, how else do you think it detects a soft-button being pressed to turn on your ATX power supply? The upside is that they do at least consume insignificant amounts of power in this state (you could probably get it into the uW).
The only way to guarantee off is OFF is by turning the plug off at the wall socket.

[jwer @ Jul 14th 2006 12:54PM]

PCs have an internal capacitor to keep the clock time, which will do so for quite a while even when the PC is unplugged. The standby mode for TVs and microwaves and so on is used to store channel selections and internal time, why not use a similar capacitor or internal battery for the same purpose? Voila, no need for a standby mode; the battery is fully charged during normal use and you never lose your presets.

[n00b @ Jul 14th 2006 12:55PM]

Tony Blair is getting bad advice if he really thinks Asian manufacturers will really go to the expense of changing the design of their electronics just for one country

And anyway, Bliar, what about public buildings that are forever bathed in lighting or shop displays and signs with their not so energy efficient lighting?

P.S. Not a typo

[Chris @ Jul 14th 2006 12:57PM]

Your TV must have a stand by mode, if you're able to turn it back on with the remote. Otherwise, if it was off, it wouldn't recieve the signals from the remote.

[Spyke @ Jul 14th 2006 1:01PM]

There seems to be an awful lot of confusion about this issue. The single biggest waste of entery at the moment is TV keeping the CRT warmed up in standby mode for a "quick start" function. An IR receiver circuit uses no more than 10mW scanning for IR signals. What the government are (rightly!) trying to do is introduce legislation that will LIMIT the amount of power a device in standby mode can use.

Another example: what exactly is the point of having a continuously on standby LED? Press the remote ON, nothing happens, walk to the TV. Not hard, is it? If people want to act dumb and leave the TV on 24/7 I'm sure they'll grow bored of rebelling as soon as the first bill drops onto the door mat!

I fully support trying to reduce energy use - and am astounded by the attitudes on here of those who clearly aren't.

[Spyke @ Jul 14th 2006 1:03PM]

errr.. for "entery" read "energy" o_O

[Frank S @ Jul 14th 2006 1:03PM]

Even though I enjoy being able to switch the TV on from the couch I realise that a lot of energy is wasted. In the netherlands in recent years there have been problems with (a very few) TV's going on fire while in standy (seemingly induced during lighting storms).


Would it not be possible to have a circuit in the TV that works like a rechargeable battery and is only used to receive signals from the remote. It can then activate a solid state switch to switch on the TV so the whole unit does not need to be in standby.

I would assume that things such as Sky+ boxes etc wil be allowed to stay on standby as that is part of their functionality. Otherwise they would definitely be left on all the time.

[Michael @ Jul 14th 2006 1:12PM]

Wow it's amazing how many people respond without reading the other responses. Two people posted a link to the Ars article showing this was a fake.

The British government just wants to regulate how much energy can be used for standby mode. Not eliminate it altogether.

[Jeff Foster @ Jul 14th 2006 1:36PM]

Regulating how much devices use energy when it's proven that many devices are lazily designed and draw FAR more power than necessary for the functions they are doing, well that sounds like a good thing to me.

...er, you know, like "Energy Star" compliance.

this is nothing new, people. i, for one, think it's a good idea.

I'd much rather have the american government regulating something USEFUL like this instead of freakin' arguing about gay marriage and abortion to keep us distracted while they bend us over and have their way, wipe their asses with our (ex)freedoms, all the while handing billions over to their friends in the Oil industry...

really.

[Forbury Lion @ Jul 14th 2006 1:45PM]

Why not just publicise how much the average household can knock off their annual electricity bill by switching things off fully? - If there's real money to be saved by flicking a switch them most will consider it.

I unplug my DVD recorder off when not in use because it's too noisey, If it wasn't for the irritating humming noise I'd leave it plugged in as it would save me having to reprograme the clock and other settings each time.

[andrew @ Jul 14th 2006 2:36PM]

Can anyone explain to me why European TVs often have a "hard" power switch that must be on for the remote to work? I obviously understand the technical requirement of power being a necessity for the remote to function, but literally, why do they have this feature? Almost since the begining of the remote control US TVs have had "soft" power buttons on them so the remote always works. The only way to truly turn off a TV in the US is to unplug it! So, why this requirement in Europe?

[klo @ Jul 14th 2006 3:07PM]

WTF!? I ^really^ hope this is a hoax.

I mean, so what happens if you need to schedule a recording on your DVR then? Oh, yeah, that's right - just leave the device fully turned "on"!

That'd make sense!

(Seriously, (if this is not fake) this kind of proposal could only be made by stupid democrats that just don't get technology... Plus, it's not like you can't physically switch something "off" if you really wanted to - and did I mention that WE are the one that is paying the bills?)

[Downtown ATL @ Jul 14th 2006 3:15PM]

They can have my stand-by mode when they pry it from my cold, shut-down fingers.

[Jimmy @ Jul 14th 2006 4:20PM]

There is a very simple solutions for this..

The devices do not need 240v when in standby, if they used a battery backup whilst in standby it would solve all the energy consumption problems.
Most of the energy used is lost transforming the voltage down to a couple of volts to the standby light & circuits - so why not charge a battery & use a couple of volts to power this?

Why they can't figure this out I do not know.

[Bryan @ Jul 14th 2006 4:22PM]

The government should never interfere unless it's a time of war. The new war in our era is for oil. Perhaps this is justified. If Britain runs out of oil it's the government's problem, not the free market. Oil is that important. So I agree with this unfortunate measure.

[Matt J @ Jul 14th 2006 4:52PM]

What is peoples problem with this? You do realise that you may need to give up some of your comforts to counter-act glodal warming. How much effort does it take to get up off your sofa and turn on the TV. As for scheduling TV recording, we already have does adapters that plug into a socket in the wall, so that you can put lights on a timer. Can't you do something that Sparten with a TV?

[MattUK @ Jul 14th 2006 4:55PM]

I love some of the comments posted, totally divorced from reality.

The reality is that stad-by dones consume more energy, that there are very simple cost effective ways around this, and as one of the largest markets from consumer electronics, manufactuers are going to have to adapt to UK legistlation.

What might be of greater intrest is if this legistlation is adopted at the European Union, the worlds largest market. Manufacters have had to make significant changes to thier products already to meet hazardous waste in electric goods directive which has resulted in major electronic companies adopting EU standards across all thier markets as it is easier to have one product than two or three. Basically, if the EU adopts legistlation like this, expect goods sold in the USA and Japan to start acting in the same way.

Waste not, want not.

[bobsmith @ Jul 14th 2006 5:15PM]

One quick idea. My understanding is that excess "wasted" energy generally ends up as heat.

Now, in the winter, most homes are heated, and the heating system has to use energy to make that heat. Therefore, the "wasted" energy/heat generated by standby devices, in fact, will reduce the amount of energy that a heating system has expend to maintain a given ambient temperature. It seems like it should be roughly a net wash.

If that is the case, then wouldn't this all worrying be irrelevant whenever a heating system is in use, and cause the various figures for energy consumption to be overinflated? Just a thought...

[Joel @ Jul 14th 2006 5:31PM]

Errm, bobsmith, I think there's a tad low bit of heat coming off the computer. Try putting your hand against the radiator!

[bobsmith @ Jul 14th 2006 6:22PM]

Actually Joel, it should tie up pretty closely(because of the law of conservation of energy, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_of_energy).

A typical space heater like http://www.hammacher.com/publish/72480.asp?source=Nextag&keyword=72480&cm_ven=NewGate&cm_cat=Nextag&cm_pla=HOME%20SOLUTIONS&cm_ite=72480 consumes about 1500 watts, and generates about 5,118 BTU/hr.

A desktop computer (like http://nees.umn.edu/facilities/specifications/office/prod_doc/dell_optiplex_gx280/user_guide/specs.htm) uses about 305 watts and can dissipate 1041 BTU/hr.

In effect, virtually all the power that goes into the computer is coming out as heat. The difference between the space heater and the computer is that the computer actually does something useful with that power before turning it into heat.

[zxcasd @ Jul 14th 2006 6:26PM]

The concept of "wasting energy" makes no sense to me. I'm paying for it and I'm paying more than just about anyone in the USA for it, given where I live. I should be able to use as much electricity as I'd like, as long as I'm paying my bill, and as long as the power generation companies can continue to support the demand - which they can.

Note also that reducing electricity usage does not reduce "energy" usage. Generators (in general) are designed to deliver a certain amount of power, and will consume the same amount of fuel all of the time, regardless of the load. California offers about 53MW of capacity. Usage at this moment is 44MW. The same amount of fuel (fossil fuels / nuclear / wind / solar / whatever the generation "fuel" is) will be used regardless of whether we draw the full 53MW or only 1MW. Therefore, the only thing turning off the electronics in my house will accomplish is reducing my electricity bill, certainly not "saving the planet".

Treehuggers: KMA, get a job, and stay out of my life. I don't give a damn about global warming, the caribou in ANWR, or third-world people. I'm here to enjoy MY life.

Happily and conspicuously-consumptively yours,

zxcasd

[Wry Cooter @ Jul 14th 2006 6:26PM]

It would be every bit as effective as HOV lanes have been in creating carpooling. Not very. All HOV lanes do is increase congestion by creating an empty lane at rush hour.

[TIMMAH! @ Jul 14th 2006 7:50PM]

I'm predicting a large upsurge in the sale of long sticks...

[Leonard Nimrod @ Jul 14th 2006 8:09PM]

zxcasd: you are a short-sited ass. If the populace starts uses 10% less energy on average, then the companies operating the generators will start producing 10% less energy on average.

Back to the article...
If the UK insists on lower consumption of unused devices they need to govern the amount of consumption while a device is in standby. Portable electronics tend to manage this brilliantly, but A/C powered devices tend not to be optimized for this. Surely it's not a perfect solution, but it's the only reasonable compromise I can foresee.

[Paul @ Jul 14th 2006 8:24PM]

This confuses me, Standby was origenally put on computers and such not for convienience, but to reduce power consumption.

Can we aggree that a computer in standby uses less power than a computer that is turned on?

If you remove the standby option, you are going to have more people just leaving their devices on, and the next statistic coming out will be, "In recent news it was found the UK had 25% of its total power being used by devices not being used since the standby option was eliminated."

[Engineer @ Jul 15th 2006 4:47AM]

The messages here only serve to vindicate the need for government intervention.

The attitudes of some are unbelievably ignorant and selfish. You're all "How dare you infringe my right to use as much power as I like", "I NEED to leave shit on all the time" and "I'm paying for it, so I can do what I want". Whatever happened to social responsibility?

Bring on the £25 London congestion charge for SUVs...

[n:e @ Jul 15th 2006 7:18AM]

Why not rather propose a limitation on the energy consumption of standby modes? A very strict one so as to punish wasteful hardware with badly implemented standby circuits/functions?

[Tachyon @ Jul 15th 2006 12:19PM]

I think that this is a good idea for Televisions, but not a lot of other devices.
TV's use a lot of power in standby compared to most other electronics because they keep the analogue HV section 'warm' so there's no warmup time when turning the TV on. Anyone remember when TV's had to warm up?
A few here seem not to understand that there isn't really a 'standby' button on most consumer electronics, but that they almost all standby instead of turn off. The average TV for example doesn't ever turn off unless you unplug it. So the fact that your device doesn't have a standby button doesn't mean it doesn't standby. In fact most CE devices do unless unplugged.
This proposed law seems poorly thought out though.
While it makes sense for tube TV's which actually do use a fair bit of power when 'off', and are a common cause of fires, it will probably cause other problems instead.
For example, to keep station, preset, and settings memory, these devices will have to now add some sort of backup battery. Now you have a failure point and a new fire hazzard in the battery charging system. Plus who want's to drag their 75lb+ TV to the shop, and pay some outrageous shop rate to get the backup battery replaced. That or they have to make it accessable from a panel for user replacement and then you'll have the kids taking it out and losing it.

I think this is a typical government solution to a problem. Poorly thought out and badly implemented and likely at great expense to taxpayers.

Tachyon