https://smartenergycodecompany.co.uk/documents/sec/mp169-modification-report-v0-6/Removal of Communications Hubs
During the Development Stage the Proposer noted that some Suppliers are attempting to comply with consumer wishes to have Smart Meters installed in a non-communicative state by not commissioning the Communications Hub or by physically removing the Communications Hub.
The TABASC https://smartenergycodecompany.co.uk/tabasc/) noted concerns about removing Communications Hubs at a premise where a fully functioning Smart Metering System is already installed, suggesting meters may become * ‘distressed
’ if they lost connection to the Communications Hub.
* It is NOT human, it doesn't have bl**dy feelings.
How would they know anyway for the ones that have no ability to communicate but are working fine for the customer where they take manual readings.
https://smartenergycodecompany.co.uk/tabasc/The Technical Architecture and Business Architecture Sub-Committee (TABASC) was established to provide advice and guidance to the SEC Panel regarding Technical Code Specifications, End-to-End Technical Architecture, and Business Architecture. The TABASC meets on a monthly basis.
That doesn't sound technical or professional to me coming from what is suppose to be a "Technical
Sub-Committee" with the word "technical" in it's name.... suggesting meters have feelings and can get distressed.
The DCC and its Service Providers highlighted that any solution that involved removing the Communications Hub would prevent any firmware upgrades to Communications Hubs, meters and any other Devices on the Home Area Network (HAN) which would be an area of concern for security.
It's disconnected. It can't communicate, it has no radio, so
how can it be a security risk?
For those that want whatever privacy they have left
the same what they use to have before and to manual read, that's the point, no connectivity, no updates, no remote data collection or remote realtime monitoring.
It also confirmed that their systems were set up to identify and report non-communicating meters, but not to identify if this was intentional. 
If it has nothing to communicate with apart from the reader reading the KWH digits from the display so they wouldn't know would they?
SECAS and the Proposer have developed a Proposed Solution which aligns with the SEC processes for installing and commissioning Communications Hubs, and which does not require their removal. The Proposed Solution will also introduce the * ability to discern between Devices which are non-communicating due to a fault or due to consumer choice.
That is not consumer choice, when they specifically cite the preference to be physically disconnected from the data network where there is no chance of data being collected or any remote readings about their usage to everybody else but the neighbours.That's just checking up on them.
If they don't like the idea I'd like to hear their real reason than coming out about meters becoming distressed.
Joke: Imagine the police checking up on people who have their curtains closed and proposed to ban curtains on windows so they
can have the "* ability" to watch what your meter is doing and everything you draw through it to "
discern" those who want privacy to those that are genuinely up to no good.
Just remembered this:https://www.eevblog.com/forum/chat/energy-company-broke-in-house-after-ai-senses-tamper-on-smart-meter/and with the above and that I am waiting for the day when they start claiming that the "Communication hub" is the AI.
What do you think of that?