Hacker News Reader

Comment by raverbashing | Hacker News Reader

I'm not sure how modular they are, if they're just replacing a transmitter or something, I've seen some places transmitting only locally (zigbee or other) then a module on the street syncing upstream

But let's say even $500 (it's probably cheaper) for something that lasts 8 years is still much cheaper than sending people to get the readings

View on HN

Here they drive a car/truck around which reads the meters via a signal on the ISM band.

I listen to these and other automated meter broadcasts with an RPi, a TV dongle, and this software: https://github.com/bemasher/rtlamr

RE "...ut let's say even $500 for something that lasts 8 years is still much cheaper than sending people to get the readings ..." If a meter is read every 3 months, that is 32 reads in 8 years. That's about $15 a read In my street, it takes a meter reader about 2 minutes max to read , record a meter and walk to next meter. need to allow for overheads, so to me its unknown if it actually is cheaper or not to send a human ???

A meter read every 3 months? All of my utilities (electricity, natural gas, water) have monthly bills.

> A meter read every 3 months? All of my utilities (electricity, natural gas, water) have monthly bills.

You don't need to read monthly to bill monthly. Our electricity provider used to read yearly, yet we've always paid monthly.

My gas company has monthly bills, but read the meter annually. They estimate usage other months, you send in any corrections if it's wrong, rnd at the end of the year they read the meter & reconcile any discrepancy.

> But let's say even $500 (it's probably cheaper) for something that lasts 8 years is still much cheaper than sending people to get the readings

Probably true, but only as long as one can continue to externalize the cost of handling the resulting e-waste to future generations or at least current-day taxpayers.

"e-waste" is, unfortunately, mostly a term used to deflect from the real issues with all the garbage produced. Shipping and installing the meters likely generates more waste than producing the meters, themselves.

I don't get it. Wasn't the cost of sending people to get readings externalized also?

It was paid for out of your monthly bill.

Right, but that's also the case for the cost of handling the resulting e-waste.

Maybe they meant "externalize" in the "externalities" sense—environmental damage, etc? If so that makes some sense, but for a full accounting you'd have to compare that to the externalities caused by all the people driving around to take readings (tailpipe emissions, adding to traffic, etc).

Yes, that's the meaning I had intended

Reply on news.ycombinator.com