6 ms·

European Parliament vote takes another big step toward ‘right to repair’

124 points by elorant 6y ago

hyperman1 6y ago
This seems big: Mandatory labeling re estimated lifetime and repair ability, and increased availability of spare parts. While the devil is in the details, it looks a very nice proposal.
- afkqs 6y ago
  France will begin labeling electronics with repairability ratings in January https://www.gsmarena.com/france_will_begin_labeling_electronics_with_repairability_ratings_in_january-news-46452.php https://www.gsmarena.com/france_will_begin_labeling_electron...
tomaszs 6y ago
The idea is nice but already the project excludes some types of devices. And also requires delivery of spare parts to professional repair centers. It seems like it will facilitate monopoly for authorized service centers rather than give a real right to repair. Also since the right to repair is a closed catalog it liberates other manufacturers from providing the right. At the end it may be a law that will do repair not easier but even harder.
- ohmaigad 6y ago
  I don't really get where the idea about this applying only to phones, tablets and laptops comes from as the actual proposal says products and not those specific categories. It also specifically mentions "independent repairers" as well as consumers themselves should have access to all the tools/information/parts. https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/TA-9-2020-0318_EN.html https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/TA-9-2020-0318...
  - hyperman1 6y ago
    Wow, look at point 7 for digital goods. As I understand it * Security patches help determine the lifetime of the goods * Feature changes must be reversible and can't diminish performance/responsiveness So you can buy a smartphone, and if it says 3 years expected lifetime, the company must patch it for 3 years. If the company adds an antifeature, you reverse it.
    - justinclift 6y ago
      > Feature changes must be reversible and can't diminish performance/responsiveness Wish that was around when Sony removed the ability to run Linux on the PS3. ;)
  - tomaszs 6y ago
    The document is vague and open for interpretation. It does not necessary explain how to final directive will look like. What happens way too often.
- hpoe 6y ago
  Can I have regulatory capture for 500 Alex? This is has been my experience often when the government tries to push legislation that deals with complicated topics. It turns out that they don't really know the field so they turn to some "industry experts" who are experts precisely because it is their livlehood and then they push an expansion of their ability to monopolize their part of the market. Ultimately a bunch of concerned citizens and hobbyist are unlikely to match the time, effort, and motivation of those who depend on something for their livelihood.
martinald 6y ago
This isn't a big deal. The European parliament can only suggest laws to the comission, it has no real power to enact them. Unfortunately the US media doesn't report this part of it and often sees these votes as legally binding (another example was the recentish vote on USB-C charging). I think the best was to explain the EU parliament to US readers is that the parliament only has veto control, much like the US president (if anything, less, since the president can issue executive orders, which the EP can't). It's basically inverted.
- toyg 6y ago
  You are reading the letter of the treaties but not their application. The EU Parliament successfully leverages its powers in all sorts of ways. Simply stated: Council, Commission and Parliament have to work together, or nothing moves. Each element can block the others. This means that each element has an incentive to actually work with the others and give them what they want, to have any hope of "bringing home" something of what it wants. If MEPs want something badly enough, they will get it, because otherwise they'll start sabotaging stuff Council (i.e. national governments) and Commission (the bureaucratic machine) care about, by wielding their veto powers and their electoral mandate. Votes like this might not have an effect today, but they are part of a conversation that The Powers That Be (the Council) have to participate in. It states a political will that has to be somehow accomodated into the agenda, and it grants political cover for the Commission to put forward actual directives that the Council are not particularly interested in. It's basically like getting second base.
  - martinald 6y ago
    I understand and completely agree with what you are saying. All I was meaning was that many publicatons (especially N American), write stories about EP votes as if they were closer to 'national' votes. You make my point exactly by saying 'If MEPs want something badly enough'. Yes, they will get their way if it is of "important" European interest, but I sincrely doubt that the EP will bring the comission to a standstill over USB C charging for phones or right of repairability. My point really was these stories often get published without caveating they are basically non binding votes with no real meaning.
b20000 6y ago
This proposal is completely unrealistic and dangerous for startups who want to manufacture hardware devices. If this gets through it will make europe unattractive for hardware companies. It advocates for the accessability of replacement parts, and that devices have to be designed with commonly available and easy to replace parts even though none of that is the responsibility of the device designer / manufacturer, but rather the responsability of parts manufacturers. So this makes it impossible to design devices with cutting edge electronics, which are only made by one company, for example (e.g. an ARM SoC or a display module). There is also the requirement to share details about your hardware design with repair 3rd parties which means you could be forced to reveal your IP. Europe already over-burdens hardware companies with ROHS/WEEE and with organizations who have the exclusive right (by being appointed by the government) to ask for recycling fees (which you need to become a member of, which costs $$$), and with very strict and expensive to fullfill EMC compliance requirements.
- varjag 6y ago
  EMC compliance in the EU is not particularly different from other regions. RoHS isn't a burden in any measurable way.
  - b20000 6y ago
    I have experience manufacturing hardware devices in europe and in the US ...
    - varjag 6y ago
      I mean you have a point to supply chain and warehousing headache this law could involve if passed as is. But overall hardware development, certification and manufacturing in Europe is just as uneventful as anywhere else. I've done hw development with teams on Taiwan, in Eastern and Northern Europe. We sell our products to all continents and are getting regional approvals as necessary. It is a barrier but rather uniform all over. Fact is hardware development and manufacturing is never going to be as forgiving or cheap as software. There is cost, permanence and obligations when you cross over into physical realm.

124 points by elorant 6y ago

This seems big: Mandatory labeling re estimated lifetime and repair ability, and increased availability of spare parts. While the devil is in the details, it looks a very nice proposal.

afkqs 6y ago
France will begin labeling electronics with repairability ratings in January https://www.gsmarena.com/france_will_begin_labeling_electronics_with_repairability_ratings_in_january-news-46452.php https://www.gsmarena.com/france_will_begin_labeling_electron...

tomaszs 6y ago

The idea is nice but already the project excludes some types of devices. And also requires delivery of spare parts to professional repair centers. It seems like it will facilitate monopoly for authorized service centers rather than give a real right to repair. Also since the right to repair is a closed catalog it liberates other manufacturers from providing the right. At the end it may be a law that will do repair not easier but even harder.

ohmaigad 6y ago
I don't really get where the idea about this applying only to phones, tablets and laptops comes from as the actual proposal says products and not those specific categories. It also specifically mentions "independent repairers" as well as consumers themselves should have access to all the tools/information/parts. https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/TA-9-2020-0318_EN.html https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/TA-9-2020-0318...
- hyperman1 6y ago
  Wow, look at point 7 for digital goods. As I understand it * Security patches help determine the lifetime of the goods * Feature changes must be reversible and can't diminish performance/responsiveness So you can buy a smartphone, and if it says 3 years expected lifetime, the company must patch it for 3 years. If the company adds an antifeature, you reverse it.
  - justinclift 6y ago
    > Feature changes must be reversible and can't diminish performance/responsiveness Wish that was around when Sony removed the ability to run Linux on the PS3. ;)
- tomaszs 6y ago
  The document is vague and open for interpretation. It does not necessary explain how to final directive will look like. What happens way too often.
hpoe 6y ago
Can I have regulatory capture for 500 Alex? This is has been my experience often when the government tries to push legislation that deals with complicated topics. It turns out that they don't really know the field so they turn to some "industry experts" who are experts precisely because it is their livlehood and then they push an expansion of their ability to monopolize their part of the market. Ultimately a bunch of concerned citizens and hobbyist are unlikely to match the time, effort, and motivation of those who depend on something for their livelihood.

martinald 6y ago

This isn't a big deal. The European parliament can only suggest laws to the comission, it has no real power to enact them. Unfortunately the US media doesn't report this part of it and often sees these votes as legally binding (another example was the recentish vote on USB-C charging). I think the best was to explain the EU parliament to US readers is that the parliament only has veto control, much like the US president (if anything, less, since the president can issue executive orders, which the EP can't). It's basically inverted.

toyg 6y ago
You are reading the letter of the treaties but not their application. The EU Parliament successfully leverages its powers in all sorts of ways. Simply stated: Council, Commission and Parliament have to work together, or nothing moves. Each element can block the others. This means that each element has an incentive to actually work with the others and give them what they want, to have any hope of "bringing home" something of what it wants. If MEPs want something badly enough, they will get it, because otherwise they'll start sabotaging stuff Council (i.e. national governments) and Commission (the bureaucratic machine) care about, by wielding their veto powers and their electoral mandate. Votes like this might not have an effect today, but they are part of a conversation that The Powers That Be (the Council) have to participate in. It states a political will that has to be somehow accomodated into the agenda, and it grants political cover for the Commission to put forward actual directives that the Council are not particularly interested in. It's basically like getting second base.
- martinald 6y ago
  I understand and completely agree with what you are saying. All I was meaning was that many publicatons (especially N American), write stories about EP votes as if they were closer to 'national' votes. You make my point exactly by saying 'If MEPs want something badly enough'. Yes, they will get their way if it is of "important" European interest, but I sincrely doubt that the EP will bring the comission to a standstill over USB C charging for phones or right of repairability. My point really was these stories often get published without caveating they are basically non binding votes with no real meaning.

b20000 6y ago

This proposal is completely unrealistic and dangerous for startups who want to manufacture hardware devices. If this gets through it will make europe unattractive for hardware companies. It advocates for the accessability of replacement parts, and that devices have to be designed with commonly available and easy to replace parts even though none of that is the responsibility of the device designer / manufacturer, but rather the responsability of parts manufacturers. So this makes it impossible to design devices with cutting edge electronics, which are only made by one company, for example (e.g. an ARM SoC or a display module). There is also the requirement to share details about your hardware design with repair 3rd parties which means you could be forced to reveal your IP. Europe already over-burdens hardware companies with ROHS/WEEE and with organizations who have the exclusive right (by being appointed by the government) to ask for recycling fees (which you need to become a member of, which costs $$$), and with very strict and expensive to fullfill EMC compliance requirements.

varjag 6y ago
EMC compliance in the EU is not particularly different from other regions. RoHS isn't a burden in any measurable way.
- b20000 6y ago
  I have experience manufacturing hardware devices in europe and in the US ...
  - varjag 6y ago
    I mean you have a point to supply chain and warehousing headache this law could involve if passed as is. But overall hardware development, certification and manufacturing in Europe is just as uneventful as anywhere else. I've done hw development with teams on Taiwan, in Eastern and Northern Europe. We sell our products to all continents and are getting regional approvals as necessary. It is a barrier but rather uniform all over. Fact is hardware development and manufacturing is never going to be as forgiving or cheap as software. There is cost, permanence and obligations when you cross over into physical realm.