10 ms·

Voters Overwhelmingly Pass Car Right to Repair Law in Maine

398 points by maxwell 3y ago

numpad0 3y ago
Off topic but couldn't help: is a car an autonomous system? Has computers, has LAN, has borders, is basically a rack on wheels. Sometimes even drive autonomously.
_ea1k 3y ago
In practice, what does this mean? No more restricted parts? That the service tools and software will be available for anyone at a fair and reasonable price? And if so, who dictates what is a reasonable price for the required software?
- ezfe 3y ago
  If you read the article: > Do you want to require vehicle manufacturers to standardize on-board diagnostic systems and provide remote access to those systems and mechanical data to owners and independent repair facilities? It would be clear that this is about on-board diagnostics/computer systems
  - calvinmorrison 3y ago
    OBD is already standardized. For the most part, since 1996. There are specific software sets for doing more advanced operations, but these all talk over the ODB ports, which is done typically by an elm27 on a simple data line. The problem is there is standard and non standard commands you can issue and get replies for. The requirement should be "all cars with digital systems will come with a on-board diagnostic computer. The one for saab - pre OBD2 is almost impossible to find. It's called an ISAT and I only know of about 5 on the east coast. post ODB2 there's somthing called a "TECH2" that GM used across all their lineups. They cost between 400 and 1000 dollars depending on the addons and such. Instead, they should just build a tech2 into the car's infotainment system.
    - jcrawfordor 3y ago
      OBDII is only a minimal standard, compliance requires only reporting that is related to emissions systems and engine systems that affect emissions. Basically everything else is manufacturer-specific and requires either a manufacturer diagnostic computer (every manufacturer has one) or third-party software with (usually reverse engineered) support for manufacturer diagnostics. Since CANbus became the normal implementation for OBDII, much of this is done by communicating with individual modules over OBDII using message sets proprietary to the manufacturer of that module. Newer vehicles incorporate more and more functionality into these modules, such that the usefulness of the core OBDII set tends to decrease. OBDII is really quite far from solving the problem - unsurprising because it wasn't intended to. It's an emissions standard, not a general diagnostics standard. Common modern fault points like the brake system and SRS are unaddressed by OBDII, and that's without getting into infotainment and telematics.
    - buildbot 3y ago
      Wow someone else who actually knows that the Saab 900 had a diagnostic port! I miss my 900 Turbo. Tweaked the APC potentiometers for a little more boost :)
      - calvinmorrison 3y ago
        so that'd be the 900 not the 9000. The 900 had a diagnostic port that the ISAT could communicate with for resetting the SRS system, or to talk to the LH 2.4 systems which I think were just the non-turbos. The 9000 is a fully integrated system though, there's like 5 or 6 different modules and all sorts of ODB support from TCS to ABS to the HVAC controls, ECU, etc.
        buildbot 3y ago
        Oh interesting! We had a 9000 when I was a kid for a bit but I never looked into it that deeply.
  - _ea1k 3y ago
    I did, but it left ambiguities. There are already standards here (OBD), but extensions beyond that standard often require vendor software. It isn't clear what the actual requirements are. I can't imagine that they are requiring vendors to provide factory manuals and full technical information for free, for example.
    - ImPostingOnHN 3y ago
      > extensions beyond that standard often require vendor software now they can't :) > I can't imagine that they are requiring vendors to provide factory manuals and full technical information for free, for example. Why can't you imagine that? It doesn't cost them anything, and the car belongs to the owner, not them.
    - ClumsyPilot 3y ago
      > I can't imagine that they are requiring vendors to provide factory manuals and full technical information for free, for example Here is another idea you cant imagine: no copyright protection and no property right on repair manuals. Just like there is no IP rights on medical procedures and any dicobered laws of nature.
      - _ea1k 3y ago
        For factory manuals, that'd be really nice.
  - whartung 3y ago
    A ballot summary says this: > These laws require manufacturers to provide the same diagnostic and repair information to vehicle owners and independent repair businesses that authorized dealerships receive. They also seek to prevent manufacturers from mandating the use of exclusive tools or software. But that’s not what the law text says. As you mentioned the law is about access to the on board diagnostics, but nothing about the rest of the vehicle. A contrived example would be that the manufacturer needs to tell people how to reset the Oil Change sensor on the car. But has no obligation to share how to actually perform an oil change. No obligation to provide the torque value for the oil drain plug. So all this law obligates them to do is provide access to the diagnostic computers, but nothing about the actual mechanics of the vehicle. Perhaps this is legislated elsewhere. But here in California, I can not get the factory service manual for my motorcycle. It is unavailable. Were this legislation to have been passed here, i still may not have access. Yet that’s what the ballot summary says, “provide the same diagnostic and repair information”, but it’s not what the law as written says.
- sidewndr46 3y ago
  In practice, nothing. There have been multiple federal agencies telling car manufacturers that compliance with such a statute is a criminal act.
  - rtkwe 3y ago
    I haven't seen anything about this do you have some sources for reading about this?
    - nradov 3y ago
      https://www.wired.com/story/right-to-repair-cars-hackers/ https://www.wired.com/story/right-to-repair-cars-hackers/
      - chrononaut 3y ago
        But then https://www.cbsnews.com/boston/news/right-to-repair-law-massachusetts-auto-repair-nhtsa/ https://www.cbsnews.com/boston/news/right-to-repair-law-mass...
  - _ea1k 3y ago
    That's what I'm afraid of. TBH, the whole brouhaha over Tesla and the so called "Elon mode" highlighted this. The whole problem was caused by hackers modifying the system. The government is threatening to regulate and require more advanced firmware security. There've been similar issues with emissions devices and security, since modification could defeat emissions standards. It isn't clear to me that the practical impact of these bills will automatically lead to the rights that I'd want.
exabrial 3y ago
The next law I want passed: The "Cars can't require a network connection" law: Any external network connection must be disclosed to the user. The car must come with instructions how to disable it, (which must be a user serviceable physical hardware switch, fuse, jumper, etc). All functions of the car must remain permanently operable with no nagging of the user to reconnect, other than an optional initial prompt to inform the user of the change. 0 repercussions may be brought on the user for disabling the network connection, such as 'we can't diagnose/fix your steering because it can't connect to the network' or 'we can't update your infotainment system with your network connection disabled', as those updates could easily be done via the OBDII port. Hell while we're at it, pass this same thing for robot vacuums, garage door openers, and 1000 other "smart" devices.
- kube-system 3y ago
  > Any external network connection must be disclosed to the user. The car must come with instructions how to disable it > All functions of the car must remain permanently operable I think this needs to be refined a bit. As phrased, you're just making any features that use network connections illegal.
  - CarVac 3y ago
    But conveniently, automakers may find that every feature uses network connections.
    - asimovfan 3y ago
      Your legislator can disagree and enforce his/her will. Usb c for apple as an example.
  - TeMPOraL 3y ago
    Honestly, I see exactly zero features that would require network connection that make sense to be offered by the car maker directly. So let's refine it to "All first-party functions of the car ...", and add some provision to prevent bundling and un-commoditizing third-party networked additions.
Racing0461 3y ago
Now do tractors next.
- kwiens 3y ago
  We passed that in Colorado. Now we'll see if John Deere is willing to comply. https://www.npr.org/2023/05/06/1174468800/colorado-is-the-first-to-pass-a-law-allowing-farmers-to-repair-their-own-equipme https://www.npr.org/2023/05/06/1174468800/colorado-is-the-fi...
nologic01 3y ago
"right to Repair is incredibly popular because it’s common sense—at least to those who aren’t manufacturers. Society works best when we are empowered to fix our stuff" here is the next win for common sense: a repairability index. invented in france where they know a thing or two about revolutions https://grist.org/climate/why-frances-new-repairability-index-is-a-big-deal/ https://grist.org/climate/why-frances-new-repairability-inde...
- alphanullmeric 3y ago
  Right up there with the democracy and freedom index as numbers you attached to your opinion and present like facts.
  - nologic01 3y ago
    A repairability index is about as objective as can get: a list a components and their modes of failure along with a checklist of: * what can be repaired by the owner using spare parts, instructions and common tools * what can be repaired by an independend third party * what must be repaired by the manufacturer * when must something be junked and how much of it can be recycled These are not "opinions". At some point we need to start calling out the criminal indifference of vested interests (and their shills) to the sustainability question
    - alphanullmeric 3y ago
      A freedom index is about as objective as it can get: a list of categories and their rights along with a checklist of: * what kinds of guns can be owned * what kinds of cars can be owned * what kinds of speech is allowed * what proportion of income one can keep These are not "opinons". At some point we need to start calling out the criminal indifference of vested interests (and their shills) to the freedom question
      - pests 3y ago
        I feel you are trying to make some kind of point but I am not getting it. Sure, start a democracy index by the methods you stated and compile a list and put it somewhere online and I'm sure people would find it useful. Those facts are useful for people looking into the freedoms of different places. We are talking about repairability here though. What is the complaint? I think some confusion here is about "a number" people keep mentioning. Is it a single number that has to be objectively weighted by the facts? Or are we talking "a list of..." or data points which _are_ just facts can people can make their own opinion of?
jhallenworld 3y ago
I was watching for the Maine question 3 result: basically nationalizing its electric grid which is majority owned by foreign companies. https://spectrumlocalnews.com/me/maine/politics/2023/11/08/maine-voters-reject-question-3-by-large-margin https://spectrumlocalnews.com/me/maine/politics/2023/11/08/m... Maine is ending up being a microcosm for what is required for the clean energy transition- there was a previous fight about a HVDC line between hydro-Quebec and Boston: https://www.iberdrola.com/about-us/what-we-do/smart-grids/necec-project-canada-united-states-and-new-england https://www.iberdrola.com/about-us/what-we-do/smart-grids/ne... (In both cases Avangrid is involved..) We can watch the ballot questions, lawsuits and bribes play out as various interests try to maintain their rent-seeking.
- pjc50 3y ago
  > basically nationalizing its electric grid which is majority owned by foreign companies The verdict is clear: Americans would rather have critical infrastructure owned by foreign companies than by their own government. Which they have pre-existing beef with.
atleastoptimal 3y ago
Crazy how companies seem to be at high-level war with their customers. It's the end result of an oligopoly I guess.
satnamsatnam 3y ago
1000?
foobarian 3y ago
I read that as “pass car on the right” law. Ah well one thing at a time :-)
thinkski 3y ago
As a DIYer, I like this. But why does this need legislation? If enough DIYers want this, wouldn’t they vote with their dollars and not buy unrepairable products?
- ArtemZ 3y ago
  DIYers are such a small group compared to the entire population that they can't significantly affect market with their dollars in many or most cases. Just look at manual transmissions: far more repairable and DIY friendly than automatic/CVT/robotic transmissions and there are a lot of people who just like to drive them and are not DIYers. Yet these transmissions are almost extinct in new cars in North America.
- vegetablepotpie 3y ago
  The short answer is that investors like the companies in their portfolios to have recurring payments. This leads companies to offer product features as subscription services. This makes them do things to keep you from modifying the device, such as using proprietary parts, employing device serialization, and using the DMCA to sue you when you attempt to modify a device. There’s an awful lot of collusion behind the scenes. When one company starts a practice that drives revenues, all companies start doing it. Investors demand it. Then you see things like industry wide shifts. Where you can’t get a certain product that existed a few years ago no matter how much you’re willing to spend. There might a free market, but when consumers are talking pennies and investors are talking dollars, you won’t have a lot of influence on it.
- ajkjk 3y ago
  lol... no? That only works if there are repairable products that are as easy to find and as good as the non-repairable ones.
- CogitoCogito 3y ago
  This isn’t about empowering DIYers. It’s about empowering _everyone_. It’s about allowing you to use the services of a non-affiliated mechanic for repairs. It’s about autonomy, competition, and efficiency. As to the question of why this requires legislation. Why wouldn’t it? The current market conditions result in an unfavorable outcome.
thrawa8387336 3y ago
Manufacturer liability for software exploits. Keep the cars simple... why do some cars have f*** optic fiber instead of a normal CAN bus?
- troupo 3y ago
  Possibly due to amount of data coming from various sensors and systems. BTW, CAN standard is riddled with bugs: https://youtu.be/zi0rHwfiX1Q?si=tl9gfR9R-lCps-UW https://youtu.be/zi0rHwfiX1Q?si=tl9gfR9R-lCps-UW at 26:18
mdp2021 3y ago
> Do you want to require vehicle manufacturers to standardize on-board diagnostic systems and provide remote access to those systems and mechanical data to owners and independent repair facilities? Not quite: we surely do want to disable any remote access.
hallqv 3y ago
This is the worst type of regulatory overreach - a true innovation killer - putting useless regulatory burden on all car manufacturers. It will only benefit the large incumbents that can afford to be inefficient. In what world (except for a communist one) is it the role of the government to put arbitrary laws in place pandering to nische interests like this one? The role for regulations is in ensuring the safety of citizens and fighting mono/oligo-polies (instead of helping them, like in this case).
- richbell 3y ago
  > The role for regulations is in ensuring the safety of citizens and fighting mono/oligo-polies (instead of helping them, like in this case). If this is so beneficial to auto makers, it's curious why they've invested so much money in lobbying and advertising to try and defeat it. Perhaps it's more complicated than you're implying?
  - hallqv 3y ago
    Of course it’s not beneficial per se to auto makers but it’s relatively more troublesome for smaller automakers than bigger ones. Unless they are focused solely on providing cars that are easy to repair of course. In that case they will be given a government mandated market advantage in true communist fashion. History has clearly taught us that socialism doesn’t work - why do we keep forgetting?
    - alextingle 3y ago
      > *market* advantage in true *communist* fashion You really have no idea what you're talking about, do you?
      - hallqv 3y ago
        What do you mean? China is the major communist economy in the world and they have plenty of “markets“, but the CPC are the ones who pick the winners through legislation and/or subsidies.
dawidloubser 3y ago
| "...a blow to auto manufacturers who have spent millions lobbying against similar legislation and fighting against it in the courts." Does anybody know which car manufacturers? I'd like to make sure I never support them directly or indirectly.
- ChoGGi 3y ago
  https://www.autosinnovate.org/about/our-members https://www.autosinnovate.org/about/our-members https://themainemonitor.org/maine-auto-right-to-repair-explainer/ https://themainemonitor.org/maine-auto-right-to-repair-expla...

398 points by maxwell 3y ago

Off topic but couldn't help: is a car an autonomous system? Has computers, has LAN, has borders, is basically a rack on wheels. Sometimes even drive autonomously.

_ea1k 3y ago

In practice, what does this mean? No more restricted parts? That the service tools and software will be available for anyone at a fair and reasonable price? And if so, who dictates what is a reasonable price for the required software?

ezfe 3y ago
If you read the article: > Do you want to require vehicle manufacturers to standardize on-board diagnostic systems and provide remote access to those systems and mechanical data to owners and independent repair facilities? It would be clear that this is about on-board diagnostics/computer systems
- calvinmorrison 3y ago
  OBD is already standardized. For the most part, since 1996. There are specific software sets for doing more advanced operations, but these all talk over the ODB ports, which is done typically by an elm27 on a simple data line. The problem is there is standard and non standard commands you can issue and get replies for. The requirement should be "all cars with digital systems will come with a on-board diagnostic computer. The one for saab - pre OBD2 is almost impossible to find. It's called an ISAT and I only know of about 5 on the east coast. post ODB2 there's somthing called a "TECH2" that GM used across all their lineups. They cost between 400 and 1000 dollars depending on the addons and such. Instead, they should just build a tech2 into the car's infotainment system.
  - jcrawfordor 3y ago
    OBDII is only a minimal standard, compliance requires only reporting that is related to emissions systems and engine systems that affect emissions. Basically everything else is manufacturer-specific and requires either a manufacturer diagnostic computer (every manufacturer has one) or third-party software with (usually reverse engineered) support for manufacturer diagnostics. Since CANbus became the normal implementation for OBDII, much of this is done by communicating with individual modules over OBDII using message sets proprietary to the manufacturer of that module. Newer vehicles incorporate more and more functionality into these modules, such that the usefulness of the core OBDII set tends to decrease. OBDII is really quite far from solving the problem - unsurprising because it wasn't intended to. It's an emissions standard, not a general diagnostics standard. Common modern fault points like the brake system and SRS are unaddressed by OBDII, and that's without getting into infotainment and telematics.
  - buildbot 3y ago
    Wow someone else who actually knows that the Saab 900 had a diagnostic port! I miss my 900 Turbo. Tweaked the APC potentiometers for a little more boost :)
    - calvinmorrison 3y ago
      so that'd be the 900 not the 9000. The 900 had a diagnostic port that the ISAT could communicate with for resetting the SRS system, or to talk to the LH 2.4 systems which I think were just the non-turbos. The 9000 is a fully integrated system though, there's like 5 or 6 different modules and all sorts of ODB support from TCS to ABS to the HVAC controls, ECU, etc.
      - buildbot 3y ago
        Oh interesting! We had a 9000 when I was a kid for a bit but I never looked into it that deeply.
- _ea1k 3y ago
  I did, but it left ambiguities. There are already standards here (OBD), but extensions beyond that standard often require vendor software. It isn't clear what the actual requirements are. I can't imagine that they are requiring vendors to provide factory manuals and full technical information for free, for example.
  - ImPostingOnHN 3y ago
    > extensions beyond that standard often require vendor software now they can't :) > I can't imagine that they are requiring vendors to provide factory manuals and full technical information for free, for example. Why can't you imagine that? It doesn't cost them anything, and the car belongs to the owner, not them.
  - ClumsyPilot 3y ago
    > I can't imagine that they are requiring vendors to provide factory manuals and full technical information for free, for example Here is another idea you cant imagine: no copyright protection and no property right on repair manuals. Just like there is no IP rights on medical procedures and any dicobered laws of nature.
    - _ea1k 3y ago
      For factory manuals, that'd be really nice.
- whartung 3y ago
  A ballot summary says this: > These laws require manufacturers to provide the same diagnostic and repair information to vehicle owners and independent repair businesses that authorized dealerships receive. They also seek to prevent manufacturers from mandating the use of exclusive tools or software. But that’s not what the law text says. As you mentioned the law is about access to the on board diagnostics, but nothing about the rest of the vehicle. A contrived example would be that the manufacturer needs to tell people how to reset the Oil Change sensor on the car. But has no obligation to share how to actually perform an oil change. No obligation to provide the torque value for the oil drain plug. So all this law obligates them to do is provide access to the diagnostic computers, but nothing about the actual mechanics of the vehicle. Perhaps this is legislated elsewhere. But here in California, I can not get the factory service manual for my motorcycle. It is unavailable. Were this legislation to have been passed here, i still may not have access. Yet that’s what the ballot summary says, “provide the same diagnostic and repair information”, but it’s not what the law as written says.
sidewndr46 3y ago
In practice, nothing. There have been multiple federal agencies telling car manufacturers that compliance with such a statute is a criminal act.
- rtkwe 3y ago
  I haven't seen anything about this do you have some sources for reading about this?
  - nradov 3y ago
    https://www.wired.com/story/right-to-repair-cars-hackers/ https://www.wired.com/story/right-to-repair-cars-hackers/
    - chrononaut 3y ago
      But then https://www.cbsnews.com/boston/news/right-to-repair-law-massachusetts-auto-repair-nhtsa/ https://www.cbsnews.com/boston/news/right-to-repair-law-mass...
- _ea1k 3y ago
  That's what I'm afraid of. TBH, the whole brouhaha over Tesla and the so called "Elon mode" highlighted this. The whole problem was caused by hackers modifying the system. The government is threatening to regulate and require more advanced firmware security. There've been similar issues with emissions devices and security, since modification could defeat emissions standards. It isn't clear to me that the practical impact of these bills will automatically lead to the rights that I'd want.

exabrial 3y ago

The next law I want passed: The "Cars can't require a network connection" law: Any external network connection must be disclosed to the user. The car must come with instructions how to disable it, (which must be a user serviceable physical hardware switch, fuse, jumper, etc). All functions of the car must remain permanently operable with no nagging of the user to reconnect, other than an optional initial prompt to inform the user of the change. 0 repercussions may be brought on the user for disabling the network connection, such as 'we can't diagnose/fix your steering because it can't connect to the network' or 'we can't update your infotainment system with your network connection disabled', as those updates could easily be done via the OBDII port. Hell while we're at it, pass this same thing for robot vacuums, garage door openers, and 1000 other "smart" devices.

kube-system 3y ago
> Any external network connection must be disclosed to the user. The car must come with instructions how to disable it > All functions of the car must remain permanently operable I think this needs to be refined a bit. As phrased, you're just making any features that use network connections illegal.
- CarVac 3y ago
  But conveniently, automakers may find that every feature uses network connections.
  - asimovfan 3y ago
    Your legislator can disagree and enforce his/her will. Usb c for apple as an example.
- TeMPOraL 3y ago
  Honestly, I see exactly zero features that would require network connection that make sense to be offered by the car maker directly. So let's refine it to "All first-party functions of the car ...", and add some provision to prevent bundling and un-commoditizing third-party networked additions.

Racing0461 3y ago

Now do tractors next.

kwiens 3y ago
We passed that in Colorado. Now we'll see if John Deere is willing to comply. https://www.npr.org/2023/05/06/1174468800/colorado-is-the-first-to-pass-a-law-allowing-farmers-to-repair-their-own-equipme https://www.npr.org/2023/05/06/1174468800/colorado-is-the-fi...

nologic01 3y ago

"right to Repair is incredibly popular because it’s common sense—at least to those who aren’t manufacturers. Society works best when we are empowered to fix our stuff" here is the next win for common sense: a repairability index. invented in france where they know a thing or two about revolutions https://grist.org/climate/why-frances-new-repairability-index-is-a-big-deal/ https://grist.org/climate/why-frances-new-repairability-inde...

alphanullmeric 3y ago
Right up there with the democracy and freedom index as numbers you attached to your opinion and present like facts.
- nologic01 3y ago
  A repairability index is about as objective as can get: a list a components and their modes of failure along with a checklist of: * what can be repaired by the owner using spare parts, instructions and common tools * what can be repaired by an independend third party * what must be repaired by the manufacturer * when must something be junked and how much of it can be recycled These are not "opinions". At some point we need to start calling out the criminal indifference of vested interests (and their shills) to the sustainability question
  - alphanullmeric 3y ago
    A freedom index is about as objective as it can get: a list of categories and their rights along with a checklist of: * what kinds of guns can be owned * what kinds of cars can be owned * what kinds of speech is allowed * what proportion of income one can keep These are not "opinons". At some point we need to start calling out the criminal indifference of vested interests (and their shills) to the freedom question
    - pests 3y ago
      I feel you are trying to make some kind of point but I am not getting it. Sure, start a democracy index by the methods you stated and compile a list and put it somewhere online and I'm sure people would find it useful. Those facts are useful for people looking into the freedoms of different places. We are talking about repairability here though. What is the complaint? I think some confusion here is about "a number" people keep mentioning. Is it a single number that has to be objectively weighted by the facts? Or are we talking "a list of..." or data points which _are_ just facts can people can make their own opinion of?

jhallenworld 3y ago

I was watching for the Maine question 3 result: basically nationalizing its electric grid which is majority owned by foreign companies. https://spectrumlocalnews.com/me/maine/politics/2023/11/08/maine-voters-reject-question-3-by-large-margin https://spectrumlocalnews.com/me/maine/politics/2023/11/08/m... Maine is ending up being a microcosm for what is required for the clean energy transition- there was a previous fight about a HVDC line between hydro-Quebec and Boston: https://www.iberdrola.com/about-us/what-we-do/smart-grids/necec-project-canada-united-states-and-new-england https://www.iberdrola.com/about-us/what-we-do/smart-grids/ne... (In both cases Avangrid is involved..) We can watch the ballot questions, lawsuits and bribes play out as various interests try to maintain their rent-seeking.

pjc50 3y ago
> basically nationalizing its electric grid which is majority owned by foreign companies The verdict is clear: Americans would rather have critical infrastructure owned by foreign companies than by their own government. Which they have pre-existing beef with.

atleastoptimal 3y ago

Crazy how companies seem to be at high-level war with their customers. It's the end result of an oligopoly I guess.

satnamsatnam 3y ago

1000?

foobarian 3y ago

I read that as “pass car on the right” law. Ah well one thing at a time :-)

thinkski 3y ago

As a DIYer, I like this. But why does this need legislation? If enough DIYers want this, wouldn’t they vote with their dollars and not buy unrepairable products?

ArtemZ 3y ago
DIYers are such a small group compared to the entire population that they can't significantly affect market with their dollars in many or most cases. Just look at manual transmissions: far more repairable and DIY friendly than automatic/CVT/robotic transmissions and there are a lot of people who just like to drive them and are not DIYers. Yet these transmissions are almost extinct in new cars in North America.
vegetablepotpie 3y ago
The short answer is that investors like the companies in their portfolios to have recurring payments. This leads companies to offer product features as subscription services. This makes them do things to keep you from modifying the device, such as using proprietary parts, employing device serialization, and using the DMCA to sue you when you attempt to modify a device. There’s an awful lot of collusion behind the scenes. When one company starts a practice that drives revenues, all companies start doing it. Investors demand it. Then you see things like industry wide shifts. Where you can’t get a certain product that existed a few years ago no matter how much you’re willing to spend. There might a free market, but when consumers are talking pennies and investors are talking dollars, you won’t have a lot of influence on it.
ajkjk 3y ago
lol... no? That only works if there are repairable products that are as easy to find and as good as the non-repairable ones.
CogitoCogito 3y ago
This isn’t about empowering DIYers. It’s about empowering _everyone_. It’s about allowing you to use the services of a non-affiliated mechanic for repairs. It’s about autonomy, competition, and efficiency. As to the question of why this requires legislation. Why wouldn’t it? The current market conditions result in an unfavorable outcome.

thrawa8387336 3y ago

Manufacturer liability for software exploits. Keep the cars simple... why do some cars have f*** optic fiber instead of a normal CAN bus?

troupo 3y ago
Possibly due to amount of data coming from various sensors and systems. BTW, CAN standard is riddled with bugs: https://youtu.be/zi0rHwfiX1Q?si=tl9gfR9R-lCps-UW https://youtu.be/zi0rHwfiX1Q?si=tl9gfR9R-lCps-UW at 26:18

mdp2021 3y ago

> Do you want to require vehicle manufacturers to standardize on-board diagnostic systems and provide remote access to those systems and mechanical data to owners and independent repair facilities? Not quite: we surely do want to disable any remote access.

hallqv 3y ago

This is the worst type of regulatory overreach - a true innovation killer - putting useless regulatory burden on all car manufacturers. It will only benefit the large incumbents that can afford to be inefficient. In what world (except for a communist one) is it the role of the government to put arbitrary laws in place pandering to nische interests like this one? The role for regulations is in ensuring the safety of citizens and fighting mono/oligo-polies (instead of helping them, like in this case).

richbell 3y ago
> The role for regulations is in ensuring the safety of citizens and fighting mono/oligo-polies (instead of helping them, like in this case). If this is so beneficial to auto makers, it's curious why they've invested so much money in lobbying and advertising to try and defeat it. Perhaps it's more complicated than you're implying?
- hallqv 3y ago
  Of course it’s not beneficial per se to auto makers but it’s relatively more troublesome for smaller automakers than bigger ones. Unless they are focused solely on providing cars that are easy to repair of course. In that case they will be given a government mandated market advantage in true communist fashion. History has clearly taught us that socialism doesn’t work - why do we keep forgetting?
  - alextingle 3y ago
    > *market* advantage in true *communist* fashion You really have no idea what you're talking about, do you?
    - hallqv 3y ago
      What do you mean? China is the major communist economy in the world and they have plenty of “markets“, but the CPC are the ones who pick the winners through legislation and/or subsidies.

dawidloubser 3y ago

| "...a blow to auto manufacturers who have spent millions lobbying against similar legislation and fighting against it in the courts." Does anybody know which car manufacturers? I'd like to make sure I never support them directly or indirectly.

ChoGGi 3y ago
https://www.autosinnovate.org/about/our-members https://www.autosinnovate.org/about/our-members https://themainemonitor.org/maine-auto-right-to-repair-explainer/ https://themainemonitor.org/maine-auto-right-to-repair-expla...