Product Details

• Amazon Sales Rank: #2214 in Consumer Electronics
• Brand: Bye Bye Standby
• Model: 5060048480009
• Released on: 2007-04-29
• Dimensions: .81 pounds

Manufacturer's Description

Bye Bye Standby is the UK’s best selling energy saving solution designed to reduce the daily energy consumption of electrical devices. Bye Bye Standby works by completely cutting power to the devices plugged into it when they're not in use, thus saving the power that these devices would otherwise have consumed in Standby Mode. Households in the UK now spend around 10% of their electricity bill on standby power, with the average household having up to 12 gadgets left on standby or charging at any one time (Source: Energy Saving Trust). Bye Bye Standby is a simple and effective way to save energy, carbon emissions and money. Simply plug your Bye Bye Standby socket into a mains wall socket and plug an electrical appliance directly into it. With the choice of either using the Bye Bye Standby remote control (supplied with kit) or a simple wall switch, you can turn individual or grouped appliances on or off at the push of a button (up to 30 meters away). It will even work through walls and ceilings! Additional Bye Bye Standby sockets, remote controls and switches can be purchased separately to suit your individual needs.

Bye Bye Standby can be used in both a home or office environment and can be used with any of the following: Television, DVD player, Set top box, MP3 player, VCR player, Stereo, Printer, Lights, Games console, Computer, Monitor, Phone charger, Scanner, Fax machine & much more...

Can we really afford to standby?

Box Contains

Customer Reviews

Cut bills and carbon emissions
I have one of these kits at home and have cut my electricity bills and also my carbon footprint. Instead of crawling under the desk every night (well, not every night... which is exactly the point!) I can flick a switch on the wall. I'm now buying friends these for presents. Elderly people who find particular switches difficult to reach or work could also find them useful because you can put the controller anywhere you like, even in another room. They're easy to install, very neat, they do the job.

Hi-Tech Energy saving
This product is easy to use. It takes just 1 minute to assign all the sockets to your codes on the remote. You can set all three to be on the same code at different locations around the house (lamps etc) or set each one individually for selective control (Satellite, DVD, lamp etc).

The switching units are narrow and will fit perfectly on a multi-way mains lead which means you can have them sited side-by-side on a 4 or 6 way gang behind the TV thus not needing to worry about socket width.

The remote is discrete yet fully functioned.

This is a well designed product. There are many house codes to select from. Ideal for having one downstairs for the TV and another upstairs for the PC.

This product goes beyond energy saving - the remote lets you control everyday items - Xmas lights, all forms of mains lighting and other devices where the mains socket is hidden behind a piece of furniture for example. This is the remote controlled system to end them all.

Don't expect this to save you any money !
If you want to use this as a remote-controlled switch for a device that draws more than a few watts, then it's probably fine. As some have pointed out, there is no override at the socket to avoid finding the remote, but at least this one has separate buttons for "ON" and "OFF", unlike some other remotes which have only a toggle action.

But it's the implied claim that using this device will save energy compared to leaving a device on standby that is unsupportable. The claims about energy savings are even more specific at the manufacturer's website, but nowhere on that website could I find quoted the energy consumption of THIS device. I have similar devices from other manufacturers, and they typically run at about 0.6 Watt to 1 Watt, which is disappointing. Eventually I found the manufacturer's forum where someone had already asked this question, and the answer is 0.7 Watts, much as I expected.

Now the manufacturer's website (on the "Home Energy Wastage Calculator" page) claims a "typical modern TV set" draws 6.5 Watts in standby. Well I have a 19" Sharp (0.2 Watts in standby) and a 40" Toshiba (0.6W in Standby). Not much saving to be had there, I would use more energy (and lose much convenience) by adding one of these devices !

Their next example is set-top boxes, here 9.3 Watts is claimed as typical by the manufacturer of this device. I just measured two of mine, a very new Humax (0.5 Watts) and a not very new DGStation (3.0 Watts). Well I could perhaps save a bit by using this on the older box. But mostly it needs to be kept in standby to record programmes, so in fact the "Bye Bye Standby" is going to be worse than useless here, too.

Right the way down their list the inflated estimates of standby power continue. I didn't know that tumble driers featured a standby mode, but apparently 9 Watts is a typical draw for one of these, though (as an electrical engineer myself) I can't see why 9 Watts would be needed in such a device. But if your tumble dryer has a standby mode then presumably it needs to be left on to take advantage of cheaper electricity at night. Just turn it off at the wall when there are no clothes in it, surely that's even easier than finding the remote control !

Maybe if you have an old TV and can't be bothered to get up to switch it on at the wall, then this might be helpful. But always be aware that switching off at the wall is going to save more money again, and you are probably going to have to get out ot your seat to get the remote control anyway (you left it by the tumble drier, remember !).

To be honest, there's nothing actually wrong with the product, it's just the name of the product (and the ridiculous claims about the money it can save you) that are wrong.

If you want to impress folks by turning on the fountain in your garden pond from indoors (but it is powered from the garden shed) then this is exactly what you need. But please don't expect it to save you any money.

Here's the irony: it would actually be possible to design such a device (did I mention I am an electrical engineer ?) with an "off" power consumption well below 0.7 Watts. Sadly it would be more expensive to make, but at least it would stand some chance of saving money in the long run.