It will depend upon what you mean by "performing" and for which "stakeholder" it looks like the EPA made the decision that in order to promote the "energy efficient" heat pump dryer technology, (thereby reducing US carbon emissions on some government agencies checklist)...ALL dryers are required to take longer to level the playing field for heat pump technology...So they perform well for the environment using less energy and you get longer drying times. In addition, UL has reportedly changed how they test dryers and are now testing for "fire containment" - a dryer vent must be able to contain a fire for seven hours...if this is the new test (UL does not provide its rules for free so I cannot research if this is exactly correct) there may be few vented dryers to chose from in the future (gas dryers must always be vented) . FYI, manufacturers, utilities and government agencies are all "stakeholders," consumers are not, even though there are million upon million of us and far fewer of them. Our interests are reportedly represented by NRDC and similar organizations. None of the energy "savings" takes into account people who are not on the grid in the first place OR the harm to the environment that we cause when we trash poorly working, irreparable or too costly to repair big appliances...not to mention that someone had to work to pay for them... I agree that things need to change but it just looks like collusion to make things look good rather than real change that makes things better. It especially looks like collusion when they attach a smart meter to your house and can tell exactly when you used what or worse yet can decide that you shouldn't be using so much of a utility and remotely slow or turnoff the appliance...

Sorry to get off topic but... Yikes, all this criticism against kswl2 for being boorish, rude, thoughtless, and brutal in the first post for giving what was clearly stated (a couple of times) as just their opinion. Is everyone really so fragile? This type of response is exactly what I would want to hear, someone pointing out potential issues and problems that I haven't even thought about. I welcome them and I don't need to be tiptoed around so as to avoid hurting my feelings.

I've actually had a similar idea to yours cynic, but with a slight change that might actually make the solution workable. Whenever a call is received, the recipient has the option of hanging up and dialing similar to *69 (I'll call it *96) which would cause some amount (say 50 cents) to be added to the callers bill, and that amount would be credited to the recipient's bill. Think about it. You've just got a call from 'Bridget at card services" or from "Microsoft" or from some annoying survey or from the opposing political party regarding their reprehensible candidate, and rather than merely hanging up and walking away silently fuming (like I did moments ago in the middle of writing this message) Instead imagine hanging up, dialing *96 and walking away slightly smirking because you've actually affected the annoying caller, and your phone bill will be slightly smaller this month. Imagine the smile when you think, "Five more of them, and this month is free!" The details of the plan would need some careful thought to avoid creating a new mode of abuse wherein some scammer calls you leaving a message saying "Its an emergency, call me back at this number ASAP" and then when you do, they *96 you and garner 50 cents from you. Maybe each caller gets a handful of *96 calls in a given month before they are debited. Or perhaps the caller is notified that the recipient has done a *96, and the caller has the option of dialing *97 and negating the charge back, but only a couple of times a month. It would take decision at the Federal level to force the phone companies to implement this, since I'm sure they'll fight it tooth and nail. Furthermore the telemarketing industry will surely claim it would affect their business, and jobs of all the poor schlubs they employ, but ... duh, that's the entire point of the measure. The one issue I see with the measure is that it would be so effective, that perhaps within a year of being implemented, the need for it and the use of it would drop to near zero. (Note if a lawmaker reads this and wants to implement this scheme, I'll gladly license the design for a meager 1/100th of a cent per call that is *96'ed :-)

I have a landline that I literally never answer. I have the ringer turned off on it. But it's hooked up to an answering machine, so on the rare chance it's a legitimate caller they can leave a message. If I see the answering machine light blinking then I'll listen to the message. One day I had a message from an IRATE elderly gentleman. He was furious and demanding to know why I'd been calling him several times a day and not leaving a message. Obviously some delightful company was spoofing my number and using it as a "local" number to try to get people to answer. That gentleman called me back a few more times and left scary/angry messages on my phone. Unfortunately his caller id was blocked, so I had no way of knowing who he was. However he was getting so irate in his messages to me I almost called the cops. If you google my home phone number it comes up with my name and address, even though allegedly my number is private. (Thank you America for stripping away any hopes of privacy anymore.) I was starting to get concerned this guy was just going to show up at my door! So I turned the ringer on and hoped he'd call again. Fortunately/unfortunately that evening he did, so I answered and he UNLOADED on me. It took every ounce in me to calmly explain my number was being spoofed and I swear no one from this house is calling you. I told him if he didn't believe me, I'd really like to call the police together and file a report. He finally calmed down and almost ended up apologizing to me. Over the next few days I got a few more messages from people wondering why I was calling them and not leaving a message. Charming. So I changed my outgoing message, to alert callers to the fact my number was being spoofed and I swear it's not me calling you. TL;DR. I DESPISE telemarketers.