A Fight Over the Right to Repair Cars Turns Ugly

[GON]

A Fight Over the Right to Repair Cars Turns Ugly

Not sure if this has been discussed prior. Interesting article.

The dispute is the latest chapter in long-running disagreements between the state and automakers over the right to repair, or consumers’ ability to fix their own cars or control who does it for them. In 2012, Massachusetts voters passed a similar ballot measure that, for the first time, required automakers to use nonproprietary onboard diagnostics ports on every vehicle.

A Fight Over the Right to Repair Cars Turns Ugly

In the wake of a voter-approved law, Subaru and Kia dealers in Massachusetts have disabled systems that allow remote starts and send maintenance alerts.

www.wired.com

 

[duck__dodgers]

If you are interested in this topic, check out the fight over repairing John Deere tractors and the prices of 30, 40 y.o. tractors.

If/when most cars go electric, it'll be a lot easier for OEMs to lock out owners and make owners only use OEM-parts and servicers vis software.

 

[ecotourist]

This is much bigger than the right to repair cars. It's about the right to repair "things".

Farmers are especially vulnerable to having to call the dealer for repairs of minor problems that disable their tractors or combine harvesters at critical times. Imagine that the weather is good right now, but bad weather is forecast, the crop is ready to take off and your combine won't work. And you have to wait a day for the authorized repair guy to come out and do some minor repair. More than annoying.

 

[spasm3]

If you are interested in this topic, check out the fight over repairing John Deere tractors and the prices of 30, 40 y.o. tractors.

If/when most cars go electric, it'll be a lot easier for OEMs to lock out owners and make owners only use OEM-parts and servicers vis software.

Aren't some cars starting to go that route now? Like BMW batteries that need to be coded.

I can see electric cars being easier to have to code everything in. Imagine needing software to change a light bulb or a fan motor, wiper motor etc.

 

[wwillson]

This is much bigger than the right to repair cars. It's about the right to repair "things".

Farmers are especially vulnerable to having to call the dealer for repairs of minor problems that disable their tractors or combine harvesters at critical times. Imagine that the weather is good right now, but bad weather is forecast, the crop is ready to take off and your combine won't work. And you have to wait a day for the authorized repair guy to come out and do some minor repair. More than annoying.

Well stated.

It's even worse. Remember that the real reason John Deere designed the software so that a machine is only repairable by the dealer is money, plain and simple. It was common when I grew up on a farm to fix as much as you could yourself. This is where my first work on machines started. Injection pump or turbo goes bad - take it off and run to the next town to the south where they rebuilt injection pumps and turbos (we did this many times) and they stock all the common pumps and turbos, so you don't wait. John Deere would charge $2000 for a new turbo, but Iowa Diesel would rebuild your turbo for $300 and you didn't pay the John Deere dealer to come out and work on the machine and you didn't wait for them to show up.

Step forward to now. Today when a turbo goes bad, you HAVE to call the John Deere dealer. They come out and charge you a show-up fee, a hourly labor fee, a fee to go get a new turbo, so many fees you can't believe it when you get the invoice, then you get a phone call where the parts manager tells you they can't get a new turbo for 3 days. Not only are you going to pay big $$ for the labor and ancillary fees, but you HAVE you use John Deere's part, because you can't call the software guard-dogs off, as you don't own the keys to the kingdom, John Deere does. Now your repair is 3 days later and costs you $10,000, plus you have the downtime, which is completely intolerable.

I'm all for John Deere making money, they provide a great product that we would literally starve without. However, Deere, in my opinion, has taken the farmer for a ride. Why don't farmers just buy a different color of machinery? Some do, but when Deere is such a large portion of the ag machinery market, you simply can't buy another brand in large quantities.

We refuse to buy any ag machinery where we don't hold the keys to the kingdom.

 

[GON]

And who might be the "godfather" of this business strategy....

Bill Gates.... who was the big player and huge winner of licensing software instead of selling software.

Protecting the free market would stop these restraint of trade practices, but donations and lobbyist fully discourage the prevention of non-competitive trade practices.

 

[Scuder]

...Bob O’Koniewski, executive vice president of the Massachusetts State Automobile Dealers Association. ...he’s angry at the independent repair industry, too, accusing it of “a money grab.”

Hysterical.

 

[bulwnkl]

This is much bigger than the right to repair cars. It's about the right to repair "things".

Farmers are especially vulnerable to having to call the dealer for repairs of minor problems that disable their tractors or combine harvesters at critical times. Imagine that the weather is good right now, but bad weather is forecast, the crop is ready to take off and your combine won't work. And you have to wait a day for the authorized repair guy to come out and do some minor repair. More than annoying.

Agreed, but it might be quite a lot more than even that. It might be about not allowing you to buy anything, but rather being forced to rent access to or use of everything. EVERYTHING, including your suddenly-3-million-dollars, 2,000 square foot farmhouse on Blackrock's investment property you're allowed to operate if you pay them enough money every month. More likely, though, you'll get to pay enormous rent for the house if you work for them for minimum wage.

 

[vw7674]

I prefer the other end of the spectrum, where the stuff is so old there's no OBD port, & any hourly mechanic is fearful to even touch it too.

 

[Dave9]

It's infuriating that they take forethought, to try to extract more money from customers, knowing their cowboy designs will fail more and more often, the more they integrate them into everything.

Spending more and more to get the same job done is not progress. I half blame idiots who advocate advanced features, without them and the clueless consumers who don't know any better, we'd have a more solid front to reject this nonsense.

I see this a lot with younger people, they see some number or some line item feature, and they don't know the tech and think it magically lasts forever... until it doesn't. They didn't understand the base tech, nevermind what was added, yet they feel competent to endorse and suggest it is a good thing.

If you have to depend on someone else to keep your equipment running, that's not a good thing for the consumer and manufacturers are more and more, recognizing this, deliberately building in ways to prevent DIY repair and those measures in themselves, add even more failure points and expense. It is madness.

 

[97K15004WD]

From the article:
"The worst part was that if the Ferrellis lived just a mile away, in Rhode Island, they would have the features. They bought the car. But thinking back, Marc says, if he had known about the issue before stepping into the dealership he “probably would have gone with Toyota.”"

Apparently these people are clueless because here on BITOG we know that Toyota was going to do the same with the FOBs and the remote start, but due to pushback they canceled their three year "free" subscription plan.

Goes to what Dave9 says. These people are not looking at RTR at all. Either they don't know or they don't care.

 

[zzyzzx]

Obligatory Louis Rossmann reference...

 

[UG_Passat]

So, Subaru and Kia's don't have OBD-2 ports?

Tesla is the model on proprietary data and preventing independent mechanics from being approved Tesla repair shops.

A nice thing about VW's and Audi's is we have companies like Ross-tech developing interfaces and software to access, read, clear, and code control modules on VW/Audi products

 

[GON]

Obligatory Louis Rossmann reference...

Never heard of him- I am googling him now.

 

[Audiman]

Right to repair is one thing. Wanting access to cars telematics systems is something completely different and is not needed to perform repairs.

 

[Audiman]

Tell me Mr Coal, why any repair shop would need access to telematics data to repair your car. They don’t it’s as simple as that. What it would enable is your car to be stolen to order.

 

[Dave9]

^ So we don't have the right to know and control, what we OWN, is doing?

If I can't access or control, leave me out, do not want that "feature".

The idea that "I don't need to" is the same as (manufacturers) "they don't need to". If there is any feature that enables a car being stolen by releasing data, it was flawed to begin with, the data will get out, do not want. Extra security risk then charge more money to implement, then also to repair later. Ridiculous. We carry insurance if a vehicle is worth protecting from theft loss.

What will the automaker reimburse me if a thief cracks their security and steals it? Nothing. I realize I've gone off on a tangent, but there should be no vulnerabilities built in that rely on keeping anything a "secret". Secrets Get Out.

 

[Skippy722]

Right to repair is one thing. Wanting access to cars telematics systems is something completely different and is not needed to perform repairs.

Yeah but… let’s take Toyota’s goofy remote start system that they were recently in the press for. Say a module in that system is damaged/fails and needs reprogrammed, they have to access that telematics system to do their job. Or say you have an infotainment system that also has GPS with live traffic updates and it needs reprogrammed/replaced due to an issue, that again is telematics related and I have the right to get that repaired at any shop I want. I shouldn’t have to take it to the dealer.

 

[Audiman]

^ So we don't have the right to know and control, what we OWN, is doing?

If I can't access or control, leave me out, do not want that "feature".

The idea that "I don't need to" is the same as (manufacturers) "they don't need to". If there is any feature that enables a car being stolen by releasing data, it was flawed to begin with, the data will get out, do not want. Extra security risk then charge more money to implement, then also to repair later. Ridiculous. We carry insurance if a vehicle is worth protecting from theft loss.

What will the automaker reimburse me if a thief cracks their security and steals it? Nothing. I realize I've gone off on a tangent, but there should be no vulnerabilities built in that rely on keeping anything a "secret". Secrets Get Out.

This would require car manufacture’s to change the way they design the cars. I don’t see a way that telematics can be accessed but still be secure. A main dealer cannot access your telematics data it’s not something that has ever been designed into the cars.

I agree with how you feel I just don’t know if it can be done.

 

[Audiman]

Yeah but… let’s take Toyota’s goofy remote start system that they were recently in the press for. Say a module in that system is damaged/fails and needs reprogrammed, they have to access that telematics system to do their job. Or say you have an infotainment system that also has GPS with live traffic updates and it needs reprogrammed/replaced due to an issue, that again is telematics related and I have the right to get that repaired at any shop I want. I shouldn’t have to take it to the dealer.

Your independent workshop can access diagnostic equipment that can programme this already as it is part of right to repair. In a lot of cases a independent can buy equipment that will program or code used modules as well which a main dealer usually cannot do it needs to be a virgin unit.