5 ms·

FTC Study Confirms Everything 'Right to Repair' Advocates Have Been Saying

32 points by miles 5y ago

elmerfud 5y ago
Too little too late. I'm not sure that it's going to undo the damage to the publics view of ownership and repair rights perception that has already been destroyed. I believe this will just push us more in to the non-ownership society. You can no longer buy your phone you can only lease/license it. That agreement prohibits third party repair. If the FTC was serious about correcting this there would be very public investigations and fines against these companies. Specifically they should target Tesla as their abuses fly in the face of long established understanding of car repair. Mostly it just gets ignored because people are primed to no longer believe they own anything.
- rsj_hn 5y ago
  The FTC isn't able to mandate that manufacturers support a third party supply chain for parts or release repair documentation - perhaps in the EU that could be done with a bureaucracy but in the U.S. it would require an act of Congress. These types of studies serve to provide talking points in debates over such legislation. So it's a net positive for the right to repair movement but not any kind of victory. Think of it as stocking up ammunition for a battle.
  - elmerfud 5y ago
    No legislation is required to address Tesla's abuses. Auto manufacturers in the United States are required to make available repair parts for 10 years after production ceases for any car model. Those parts are required to be made available to the public. Those parts can also be freely reverse engineered by anyone who wishes to create imitation parts. Tesla originally did not make the repair parts available or parts list that is considered part of making the parts available. Begrudgingly they did finally do it but it's still not easy to acquire. Again because parts are required to be made available, parts lists and assembly guides fall into that as well because the factory assembly manual for any vehicle is a part of that vehicle that can be ordered. All the auto manufacturers in the United States complied with this because these rules were already fought and legislated and the courts decided back in the 50s and 60s. You can go buy your factory assembly manual anytime you want for your Ford or your GM or other manufacturer. The Magnuson Moss warranty act further clarified when the manufacturers attempted to say that a change of one part invalidates the warranty on the entire car. Again this is all ancient history no new legislation is required. Tesla actually goes one step further in their abuse than any other auto manufacturer has ever done where they remotely disable vehicles in such a way where they cannot be repaired without manufacturer intervention. This is an egregious violation. This study is just lip service because no real actions are taken for things that have been a legislated and ruled on 50 plus years ago.
    - rsj_hn 5y ago
      > Auto manufacturers in the United States are required to make available repair parts for 10 years after production ceases for any car model. You are reading "must have inventory to last 10 years" and interpreting that to mean that they have to share parts info and repair manuals and foster a third party aftermarket. But that's not the law at all. They are not required to make parts available to third parties, only sell the part themselves to their customer. Dealerships are not even required to stock the part, if you need to wait a few weeks for it to be delivered from the manufacturer, and if the cost is $20,000, that's fine. Nor are they required to share any repair manuals, part specifications, or repair information or make their cars easy to service. They just need to have enough inventory to supply their customers with 10 years of parts. That inventory can kept under lock and key and not made available to anyone until one of their dealers determines that a customer needs the part for a repair, at which point the dealer will request that the part be transferred from inventory and the dealer will install the part. Charging an arm and a leg. Third party mechanics and parts distributors can be completely locked out, with no access to parts, specs, or service bulletins. That law about keeping 10 years of inventory was not written to support a healthy aftermarket and independent mechanics, it was written to prevent fly by night companies from selling cars and then going out of business leaving the customers without parts to service the car. Even the ODB info is only required for emissions, so Tesla is not required to even have an ODB port -- thank your stars there are ports you can use, because in the future those might go away and be locked down so only a Tesla approved device in a dealer can read the data. And the FTC can't do a thing about any of this.
      - elmerfud 5y ago
        It's amazing how you can be so completely incorrect on so many points it's as if you have never been part of the Auto industry or the auto service industry in the United States. The FTC in conjunction with the NHTSB does mandate these things. Making parts available is not necessarily making manufacturing specifications for the part available and I never said such a thing, but anyone can purchase the part reverse engineer it and construct a replica part and nothing can be done about it that is what fosters the third parties to make imitation parts. Complete parts lists for a car are considered a part that must be made available. Factory assembly manuals and factory repair manuals again are considered parts that must be made available. Additionally specialized and customized tools that are noted as requirements in the assembly manuals are also considered parts for that vehicle. The actual implementation of the requirement is very broad in its scope because again it's been challenged and they've been forced to do it not out of their goodwill but because they had to. Again settled law 50 years in the past. Well you are correct that they can set the price for the parts to any exorbitant amount that they want they cannot onerously limit the supply chain channels that their parts get sold through. Nor can they provide different pricing to different suppliers of parts. So this means they can take a $1 part and suggest the retail price is $2,000 but what they cannot do is tell their dealerships or their supply distribution places that they must sell the part for $2,000 when they sell it to someone off of the street but only source it internally for $1 for warranty repair or when they are doing the repair themselves. This is why things such as parts lists and factory assembly and repair manuals are available as parts. Because the dealership is not just given this information as if it's proprietary secret information from the manufacturer the dealership is a third party entity therefore they buy the factory assembly manuals the specialized tools noted in the factory assembly manuals etc. And if they can buy the parts those parts need to be made available for sale hence the mom and pop repair shop down the street who is not an authorized repair shop can still go by the exact same tools and the exact same factory repair manual. Even having your car repaired by the Mom and Pop shop doesn't exclude future warranty work by the factory unless they can show the Mom and Pop shop did something incorrectly. But the onus is on the manufacturer or their representative as the dealer who's coordinating the warranty work to show previous work was done incorrectly to cause the issue. Completely the opposite of Tesla remotely disabling vehicles and then refusing to re-enable them without paying them. Dealerships for the major auto manufacturers has become that supply chain channel because dealerships are third parties and only have a dealership sales relationship with the manufacturer they are not directly owned by the manufacturer. The manufacturer has specific rules and guidelines setting up who can become a dealership and areas and so forth and these are also very well regulated through state laws therefore there is always a wide variety of ways to get parts. This also ensures competition especially around parts so that not everyone would charge an idiotically high suggested retail price. Tesla flies in the face of all of this and you can be a Tesla apologist and believe that this is even a poor system of car manufacturers not being able to sell directly to consumers like Tesla wants to do. That is a completely different set of discussions. Because all of these things are interwoven top to bottom when dealing with auto manufacturer and sale and they cannot be separated but Tesla is blatantly ignoring all of it. And people are completely fine with their selective deconstruction without understanding that all of it needs to be revamped to protect the consumer. Which circles back to the original comments for the original post of this is really too little too late and there is no teeth behind it. The FTC is merely giving a lip service without actually helping anything or preventing the ongoing continual abuses there are today.
whoknowswhat11 5y ago
The "right to repair" folks do seem somewhat oblivious to security / scam concerns. Since I've had first hand experience of supposedly genuine or same OEM apple replacement batteries being absolutely anything BUT genuine or similar spec (ie, total trash) the screams of these right to repair folks when apple alerts the user to a non-apple battery ring pretty damn hollow. I'm convinced there was an organized used iphone resale setup where folks would cram these crap batteries in and resell the phone showing it had great battery life - when a bit later you were screwed. This is just once example. I'm aware that users would buy phones, strip parts, then file applecare claims. Sure, activation lock meant the phones wouldn't work, but then they could take fingerprint sensors etc and link them to new devices. Cue up the cries again if apple does any notification that you are linking in non-apple or grey channel parts. Same thing with activation lock itself - lots of complaining about it. None of this takes into account apples own USERs view. They want activation lock. They WANT a warning that they are being sold a phone with a crap 3rd party battery. Seriously - make a with a user replaceable battery and memory and upgradeable storage etc. If users want this - they will flock to you.
- rasz 5y ago
  >screams of these right to repair folks when apple alerts the user to a non-apple battery ring pretty damn hollow you might be oblivious to the fact this Apple Alert is not about fake battery - it also pops up if you insert Genuine battery from another brand new iphone. Battery alert is about Control over the phone user believes to own.
  - zepto 5y ago
    > it also pops up if you insert Genuine battery from another brand new iphone. It’s almost always going to be triggered by a replacement battery of unknown origin and almost never by someone taking a battery from a brand new iPhone, so this is an obvious red herring.
    - rasz 5y ago
      > almost never by someone taking a battery from a brand new iPhone This is incorrect. There is no almost, all original Apple brand new batteries will trigger scareware until battery is crypto paired with the phone using RepairCal. Oh, and you cant see battery cycle count to be sure you got a good battery, apps showing cycle count were removed from app store for some absolutely coincidental and unrelated reason.

32 points by miles 5y ago

Too little too late. I'm not sure that it's going to undo the damage to the publics view of ownership and repair rights perception that has already been destroyed. I believe this will just push us more in to the non-ownership society. You can no longer buy your phone you can only lease/license it. That agreement prohibits third party repair. If the FTC was serious about correcting this there would be very public investigations and fines against these companies. Specifically they should target Tesla as their abuses fly in the face of long established understanding of car repair. Mostly it just gets ignored because people are primed to no longer believe they own anything.

rsj_hn 5y ago
The FTC isn't able to mandate that manufacturers support a third party supply chain for parts or release repair documentation - perhaps in the EU that could be done with a bureaucracy but in the U.S. it would require an act of Congress. These types of studies serve to provide talking points in debates over such legislation. So it's a net positive for the right to repair movement but not any kind of victory. Think of it as stocking up ammunition for a battle.
- elmerfud 5y ago
  No legislation is required to address Tesla's abuses. Auto manufacturers in the United States are required to make available repair parts for 10 years after production ceases for any car model. Those parts are required to be made available to the public. Those parts can also be freely reverse engineered by anyone who wishes to create imitation parts. Tesla originally did not make the repair parts available or parts list that is considered part of making the parts available. Begrudgingly they did finally do it but it's still not easy to acquire. Again because parts are required to be made available, parts lists and assembly guides fall into that as well because the factory assembly manual for any vehicle is a part of that vehicle that can be ordered. All the auto manufacturers in the United States complied with this because these rules were already fought and legislated and the courts decided back in the 50s and 60s. You can go buy your factory assembly manual anytime you want for your Ford or your GM or other manufacturer. The Magnuson Moss warranty act further clarified when the manufacturers attempted to say that a change of one part invalidates the warranty on the entire car. Again this is all ancient history no new legislation is required. Tesla actually goes one step further in their abuse than any other auto manufacturer has ever done where they remotely disable vehicles in such a way where they cannot be repaired without manufacturer intervention. This is an egregious violation. This study is just lip service because no real actions are taken for things that have been a legislated and ruled on 50 plus years ago.
  - rsj_hn 5y ago
    > Auto manufacturers in the United States are required to make available repair parts for 10 years after production ceases for any car model. You are reading "must have inventory to last 10 years" and interpreting that to mean that they have to share parts info and repair manuals and foster a third party aftermarket. But that's not the law at all. They are not required to make parts available to third parties, only sell the part themselves to their customer. Dealerships are not even required to stock the part, if you need to wait a few weeks for it to be delivered from the manufacturer, and if the cost is $20,000, that's fine. Nor are they required to share any repair manuals, part specifications, or repair information or make their cars easy to service. They just need to have enough inventory to supply their customers with 10 years of parts. That inventory can kept under lock and key and not made available to anyone until one of their dealers determines that a customer needs the part for a repair, at which point the dealer will request that the part be transferred from inventory and the dealer will install the part. Charging an arm and a leg. Third party mechanics and parts distributors can be completely locked out, with no access to parts, specs, or service bulletins. That law about keeping 10 years of inventory was not written to support a healthy aftermarket and independent mechanics, it was written to prevent fly by night companies from selling cars and then going out of business leaving the customers without parts to service the car. Even the ODB info is only required for emissions, so Tesla is not required to even have an ODB port -- thank your stars there are ports you can use, because in the future those might go away and be locked down so only a Tesla approved device in a dealer can read the data. And the FTC can't do a thing about any of this.
    - elmerfud 5y ago
      It's amazing how you can be so completely incorrect on so many points it's as if you have never been part of the Auto industry or the auto service industry in the United States. The FTC in conjunction with the NHTSB does mandate these things. Making parts available is not necessarily making manufacturing specifications for the part available and I never said such a thing, but anyone can purchase the part reverse engineer it and construct a replica part and nothing can be done about it that is what fosters the third parties to make imitation parts. Complete parts lists for a car are considered a part that must be made available. Factory assembly manuals and factory repair manuals again are considered parts that must be made available. Additionally specialized and customized tools that are noted as requirements in the assembly manuals are also considered parts for that vehicle. The actual implementation of the requirement is very broad in its scope because again it's been challenged and they've been forced to do it not out of their goodwill but because they had to. Again settled law 50 years in the past. Well you are correct that they can set the price for the parts to any exorbitant amount that they want they cannot onerously limit the supply chain channels that their parts get sold through. Nor can they provide different pricing to different suppliers of parts. So this means they can take a $1 part and suggest the retail price is $2,000 but what they cannot do is tell their dealerships or their supply distribution places that they must sell the part for $2,000 when they sell it to someone off of the street but only source it internally for $1 for warranty repair or when they are doing the repair themselves. This is why things such as parts lists and factory assembly and repair manuals are available as parts. Because the dealership is not just given this information as if it's proprietary secret information from the manufacturer the dealership is a third party entity therefore they buy the factory assembly manuals the specialized tools noted in the factory assembly manuals etc. And if they can buy the parts those parts need to be made available for sale hence the mom and pop repair shop down the street who is not an authorized repair shop can still go by the exact same tools and the exact same factory repair manual. Even having your car repaired by the Mom and Pop shop doesn't exclude future warranty work by the factory unless they can show the Mom and Pop shop did something incorrectly. But the onus is on the manufacturer or their representative as the dealer who's coordinating the warranty work to show previous work was done incorrectly to cause the issue. Completely the opposite of Tesla remotely disabling vehicles and then refusing to re-enable them without paying them. Dealerships for the major auto manufacturers has become that supply chain channel because dealerships are third parties and only have a dealership sales relationship with the manufacturer they are not directly owned by the manufacturer. The manufacturer has specific rules and guidelines setting up who can become a dealership and areas and so forth and these are also very well regulated through state laws therefore there is always a wide variety of ways to get parts. This also ensures competition especially around parts so that not everyone would charge an idiotically high suggested retail price. Tesla flies in the face of all of this and you can be a Tesla apologist and believe that this is even a poor system of car manufacturers not being able to sell directly to consumers like Tesla wants to do. That is a completely different set of discussions. Because all of these things are interwoven top to bottom when dealing with auto manufacturer and sale and they cannot be separated but Tesla is blatantly ignoring all of it. And people are completely fine with their selective deconstruction without understanding that all of it needs to be revamped to protect the consumer. Which circles back to the original comments for the original post of this is really too little too late and there is no teeth behind it. The FTC is merely giving a lip service without actually helping anything or preventing the ongoing continual abuses there are today.

whoknowswhat11 5y ago

The "right to repair" folks do seem somewhat oblivious to security / scam concerns. Since I've had first hand experience of supposedly genuine or same OEM apple replacement batteries being absolutely anything BUT genuine or similar spec (ie, total trash) the screams of these right to repair folks when apple alerts the user to a non-apple battery ring pretty damn hollow. I'm convinced there was an organized used iphone resale setup where folks would cram these crap batteries in and resell the phone showing it had great battery life - when a bit later you were screwed. This is just once example. I'm aware that users would buy phones, strip parts, then file applecare claims. Sure, activation lock meant the phones wouldn't work, but then they could take fingerprint sensors etc and link them to new devices. Cue up the cries again if apple does any notification that you are linking in non-apple or grey channel parts. Same thing with activation lock itself - lots of complaining about it. None of this takes into account apples own USERs view. They want activation lock. They WANT a warning that they are being sold a phone with a crap 3rd party battery. Seriously - make a with a user replaceable battery and memory and upgradeable storage etc. If users want this - they will flock to you.

rasz 5y ago
>screams of these right to repair folks when apple alerts the user to a non-apple battery ring pretty damn hollow you might be oblivious to the fact this Apple Alert is not about fake battery - it also pops up if you insert Genuine battery from another brand new iphone. Battery alert is about Control over the phone user believes to own.
- zepto 5y ago
  > it also pops up if you insert Genuine battery from another brand new iphone. It’s almost always going to be triggered by a replacement battery of unknown origin and almost never by someone taking a battery from a brand new iPhone, so this is an obvious red herring.
  - rasz 5y ago
    > almost never by someone taking a battery from a brand new iPhone This is incorrect. There is no almost, all original Apple brand new batteries will trigger scareware until battery is crypto paired with the phone using RepairCal. Oh, and you cant see battery cycle count to be sure you got a good battery, apps showing cycle count were removed from app store for some absolutely coincidental and unrelated reason.