3 ms·
Makes sense for her (and potentially for the company as an immediate fix), but the environmental impact here is pretty significant too. Given this change will
by ricberw 4y ago
Makes sense for her (and potentially for the company as an immediate fix), but the environmental impact here is pretty significant too.
Given this change will now keep cable boxes on by default for all users, we're now burning 19.6kWh (their stat) per box, per year, and there are ~16 million customers (ignoring that most customers have more than one box), so they just increased wasted power by at least ~80% of that (yes, they have a power saver mode, but you have to opt-in to it, and I'll bet <5% of users do that).
... so somewhere in the neighborhood of 19.6kWh * 16 million boxes * 80% unused time per day * 95% of users who don't opt-in = 238,336,000kWh (238.3GWh)
- pwg 4y agoAgree to all. I wasn't commenting on the global impact. From "the cable companies" viewpoint, they are not paying for that energy (each subscriber is paying individually). And they cared more about reducing their "help desk effort" than about the global environmental impact of their change (i.e., they ignored that which did not directly impact them).