AllThingsD tech-reviewer kingpin Walt Mossberg also showed off his favorite fun gadgets at the annual Churchill Club event in Silicon Valley earlier this week.

Among his picks: Tangle-resistant ear buds; an Apple iPhone beer-bottle opener and consumption tabulator; a wireless USB drive; and the latest Ultrabooks to compete with the MacBook Air.

Here’s the video of his presentation:

If that time frame puzzles you, you’re not alone. Plenty of pundits are wondering what kind of digital wall could possibly require a year’s worth of assembly. Can’t you just slap this stuff up pretty fast? It’s the Internet, after all.

New York Times (NYT) Chairman Arthur Sulzberger Jr. and CEO Janet Robinson, in their memo to employees, stress that the paper is moving with “appropriate care” in the next 12 months because “it will take time to get this right.”

Perhaps there are other reasons to move slowly. The duo’s memo, for instance, holds out the possibility that the paper might end up working with a partner. Steve Brill’s Journalism Online consortium, which is promising to create pay walls for a large number of papers, would be one option.

And last I heard, some News Corp. (NWS) officials were holding out hope that the Times could join its pay wall consortium. (News Corp. also owns this Web site.) If the Times does want to play well with others, moving slowly might make some sense while it waits for said others to catch up.

Meanwhile, some cynics (gasp!) have suggested that the Times announcement is merely a trial balloon. Though I have to confess I don’t see what that would accomplish.

But assuming the paper does go it alone and does intend to build this thing, would it really take a year? Yes, say two publishing sources with first-hand knowledge of both pay walls and big publishing companies.

The problem, in a nutshell, is that there are at least three different problems to solve: Authenticating current print subscribers so that they can get the online paper free; installing the “meter” that measures use for nonprint subscribers; and creating a commerce engine that can take orders, process subscriptions, figure out how to provide bundled offers–i.e., the cost of online access plus, say, a Kindle or Apple (AAPL) tablet subscription–etc.

None of this stuff ought to be rocket science, but that doesn’t mean it’s not hard, my pay wall experts say. Even if the Times builds its new pay wall on the bones of Times Select, the newspaper’s 2005-2007 attempt, it could easily take it a year to assemble this thing, they insist.

It’s possible that my sources are talking their book a bit–if building a pay wall were easy, there’d be less work for them. But I’m willing to take them at their word until someone convinces me otherwise.

I have been testing three of these devices, the Power Monitor from Black & Decker Corp., the very similar PowerCost Monitor from Blue Line Innovations Inc., and the more-sophisticated The Energy Detective 5000 from Energy Inc. In my tests, the Black & Decker model provided the most effortless electricity-tracking service. At $99.99, it is also the least expensive.

The devices provide real-time data about how much power you’re using across the house in terms that are easy to comprehend: cost per hour and cost per month. Turn on the microwave and watch the cost jump from 10 cents to 25 cents an hour. Turn off some lights and see the cost drop a few cents.

The Power Monitor

The firms say their customers have, over time, seen drops of as much as 20% in power bills by being more mindful of electricity use and making informed purchases, such as installing efficient light bulbs. The largest drops are often recorded in households that have (power-hogging) electric water heaters, and where the whole family gets involved in monitoring use. An independent Oxford University study in 2006 found that people getting direct feedback on their power consumption reduced use 5% to 15%.

After I began monitoring, my most-recent electricity bill dropped $10 from the month before—but that could also be due to my living in a city where air conditioning isn’t a summer necessity. I find myself thinking more about electricity, and even running back into the house to make sure the lights are out.

The monitors sold by Blue Line and Black & Decker are almost identical, because they’re both manufactured by Canada-based Blue Line. The Blue Line model costs $109, is a bit larger, and features a slightly longer range for the wireless signal that transmits power use from your electric meter.

Connecting these two devices to my electric meter was simple. First, loop a metal belt around the glass dome covering the meter. Then align a sensor attached to the belt on top of the glass to read the data collected by your meter. On my old-style meter, the Power Monitor’s sensor keeps track of how fast a dial rotates. The companies say their products work with about 90% of meters in North America. On a newer meter, the sensor would read a digital port on the front

The sensor you attach to the electric meter wirelessly sends raw data to a digital monitor that is kept inside the house. Before using the monitor, you have to enter data from your electric bill, but finding the right data can be tricky. Black & Decker’s instructions on this are relatively clear, and entering the data into the digital monitor involves a process similar to setting an alarm clock.

The digital monitors, about the size of a large remote control, can sit in one room or travel about the house. A button labeled “tare” on the Black & Decker model helps you calculate how much electricity is being used by any single appliance that you can turn off and on. Press the button and it zeros out the reading.Turn on an appliance and the device calculates its usage alone. I found surprises: My LCD TV uses just $0.02 an hour, while an electric water kettle uses more than $0.20 an hour.

The Black & Decker model features a rudimentary display that only reports the aggregate power use for your house at any given time. It can’t go back and show you changes over time.

But the latest model from The Energy Detective, known as TED, connects directly to a house’s power supply for a more-precise read than the Black & Decker. It comes with software that graphs how use patterns change over time. The TED 5000 costs $199.

But installing TED requires turning off your home’s main power line and inserting a sensor into your circuit breaker—a process that the company says should be done “by qualified personnel only.” I sought help from a friend who has a lot of wiring experience, but after several hours, we were unable to make TED work. My issue was likely a decades-old circuit breaker. The company said my configuration is atypical and that problems like this are rare. A colleague has been using TED for several weeks after hiring an electrician to install it.

While TED 5000 offers many more advanced tools for sleuthing your home’s electricity waste than the other models, all of its sophistication won’t necessarily help the average user do much of a better job remembering to turn off the lights. For most of us, the large cost-an-hour sign on the Black & Decker Power Monitor offers the only feedback we really need.

If you’re just looking to target power-hogging appliances in your house, there are even less expensive solutions. For example, the $24.99 Kill-a-Watt, which I haven’t tested, sits between one appliance and the outlet, and tells you exactly how much power that appliance is using.

And before buying any of these devices, keep in mind that many utility companies are installing a new generation of so-called “smart” meters, which not only measure real-time power use, but also offer two-way communication with the power company to help cut costs. Some will also offer software to help you monitor your power use, and Google Inc.’s nonprofit foundation is already working with power companies on a free service that connects data about your power use into an online widget. Appliance makers are also working on products that can communicate with a central controller to turn themselves up or down, on or off, according to changing prices or conditions.

All three of the monitors I tested should continue to work with most new power meters. While these devices seem downright rudimentary compared to what’s on the horizon, they certainly suffice in the meanwhile to make electricity use more visible.

Walt Mossberg is on vacation.

Write to
Geoffrey A. Fowler at geoffrey.fowler@wsj.com

So it’s only fair that I commend Verizon Wireless for its announcement this week that, starting in the second half of 2008, it will allow “any device” and “any application” to run on its cellphone network, without any restriction, or interference. The only requirement, Verizon says, will be that the devices–phones, computers, anything else–must meet a “very minimal set of technical requirements” to show that they can run on the Verizon network without damaging the network or other devices or services that run on it.

This new, open approach won’t replace Verizon’s current walled-garden system, with its heavy controls. It will exist alongside the current system, as a sort of parallel universe.

Still, this is potentially a huge step, a sign that perestroika has arrived among the Soviet ministries that rule the American cellphone industry. If Verizon Wireless does what it is promising, it could be even more significant than Google’s plan for an open cellphone operating system and its creation of a coalition of companies to support it. The reason is that anyone, not just the companies belonging to a particular alliance or group, should be able to build a phone, a data device, a software program or service, and run it on Verizon’s strong, fast, extensive network.

But, as the saying goes, “the devil is in the details.” And there are a couple of details of the company’s plan that could diminish the sweep and importance of its new commitment to openness.

First is the question of what Verizon means when it says a product must pass a sort of certification to run on the network. In a conference call explaining the plan, Verizon officials insisted that the testing and certification process would be much simpler and less onerous than the hoops companies must now jump through to get onto its network. They also promised the certification process would be “relatively short” and that the fees for certification would be “surprisingly reasonable.”

But until we learn the details next year, we won’t know if the certification process will be a mere technical formality, or a barrier to entry.

Even more worrisome is another issue: user pricing. Verizon officials made clear that, because they won’t be able any longer to limit the types of devices and applications that will run on their network, they will be applying “usage-based” data pricing. While they said this pricing would be “competitive,” any system that charges by the kilobyte or megabyte could be a real deterrent to the blossoming of the wireless Internet that Verizon’s open plan promises.

To be sure, Verizon has real concerns here. The bandwidth available on the cellphone networks is much more limited than that on landline networks. If somebody starts running Internet TV networks, or Web servers, or massive online games over the Verizon network, it could put a serious strain on the system.

But there’s a difference between setting higher fees for truly unusually high usage and erecting a payment system where everyone pays by the byte for even simple, common tasks like email, Web browsing, casual gaming, instant messaging, or simple video or audio streaming.

Taken to its extreme, that kind of metering could–intentionally or unintentionally–kill off the kind of innovation Verizon Wireless says it wants to encourage. That’s because the kind of innovative devices, software and services people are hungering for aren’t about making better voice calls. They’re about using the Internet, consuming those bytes that Verizon wants to meter.

So, let’s give credit where credit is due, but let’s watch how those details play out in the coming months. Verizon Wireless should be praised for giving up some of the control that was stifling wireless innovation in America, in my opinion at least. But, just how praiseworthy the move will be depends on some things we don’t know yet.