4 ms·
Ultimately that depends on how the contract is structured. It is technically possible for them to remove third party access. Having said that, I think this act
by _ea1k 3y ago
Ultimately that depends on how the contract is structured. It is technically possible for them to remove third party access.
Having said that, I think this actually solves some problems for them in the long run. I doubt they'd have any interest in limiting access.
- sandworm101 3y agoI would prefer agnostic hardware, a scheme that would not allow anyone to cut off access. Car companies long ago abandoned similar attempts to limit gas for particular vehicles, the one remaining limit being the nozzle standard so diesel doesn't get pumps into non-diesel cars, but even there there is a bypass. The concept of DRM to "gas up" my electric car just rubs me the wrong way. I hesitate to trust that Ford and Tesla will always remain friends.
- _ea1k 3y agoI'm not sure what you mean by that. A gas station owner is certainly free to onyl service certain brands and control access in any way that they choose. Customers would simply be free to take their business elsewhere. In practice, station owners would rarely (if ever) choose such an option. Similarly, these NACS equipped vehicles can use any open NACS station, or any open CCS station via an adapter. There is nothing in the standard that limits charge station providers to only Tesla. Any charge station (whether CCS or NACS) could implement restrictions in any way that they see fit. The most common cases of this are CCS stations at dealers, where they often restrict it to their company's vehicles. It is unlikely that a public charge company would want to cut themselves off from revenue by severely limiting who could use their site.