Slashdot Mirror
"Right To Repair" Bill Advances In Massachusetts
Wannabe Code Monkey sends along an article from the Patriot Ledger about an effort in Massachusetts to pass a "Right to Repair" bill. "Since the advent of congressionally mandated computers in vehicles more than 15 years ago (for emissions), cars have evolved into complex machines that are no longer just mechanical. Computers now monitor and control most systems in the car from brakes to tire pressure and all the electronics and engine fluids... [and] car manufacturers continue to hold back on some of the information that your mechanic needs in order to properly repair your car and reset your codes and warning lights... Massachusetts is now poised to solve this problem and car-driving consumers should pay attention this fall when the Massachusetts Legislature takes up landmark legislation that would force manufacturers to respect the right of consumers to access their own repair information. The legislation, known as Right to Repair, is seen by car manufacturers as a threat to the lucrative service business in their dealerships and they are massing their lobbyists on Beacon Hill in an effort to defeat it."
About durn time
That's incredible. I can't believe they'd actually pass that kind of legislation, but it's some of the more promising news I've heard in a while. Too bad it isn't national. (or international) Most people aren't going to utilize that information anyway, but the companies definitely shouldn't be blocking those who would!
But that's communism! ...er, socialism! ...or whatever the term that is the most fashionable to complain about nowadays.
Time you started listening to OUR needs.
- The Taxpayers
p.s., next time we'll just outsource your C-level jobs to India and China and keep the factory workers here.
Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting
I kid, some of the best mechanics I've had work on my previous cars (one was a bmw z3) would do all the changes then stop by the dealership for me to have the computer reset. Going to the dealership itself has always been a price gouge - $400 for an oil change? Go fuck yourself in the pee whole with that oil.
Seriously though, I think this type of law, allowing all mechanics access to the information and technical data on the cars they are certified to fix is a good idea and should be a federal law and not just up to some states to follow.
Ave Molech Setting
But that's communism! . . . Er, socialism! . . . Or whatever the term is that is the most fashionable to complain about nowadays.
Fix it yourself its the geeky thing to do.
You might wonder what I mean, so here's my take:
If I have a corrupt Microsoft Office document, I should be allowed access to its "closed" file format in order to repair the document.
How about that?
What car manufacturers actually prevent you from repairing your car? I need a freaking list, so I know who to black list.
Why would anyone oppose this? Lets see here our tax money has (without a popular vote even) bailed out most US auto makers, made it a crime to really reverse engineer computer systems in general, and has supported various pro-auto maker legislation. If they are going to take -our- tax money, and if the government insists on criminalizing reverse engineering and modification of cars, the only sane thing is that they must release documentation allowing everyone to do repairs themselves. Don't like it? Don't take our tax money, and lobby congress with all your $$$ to repeal various forms of legislation making it hard to reverse engineer things legally.
Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
You'd have better luck hacking the in-dash entertainment system. Most auto powertrain control modules are fairly anemic by computing standards.
You can't legislate goodness. Let each to his own destiny, by will of his freely made choices.
The game sucks.
The only people dumb enough to play Crysis are the idiot who are retarded enough to call their computers 'rigs'.
It's not quite socialism, but if you think it's the job of the government to pass legislation to guarantee your "right" to information that enables you to repair your car, then I do have a very fundamental disagreement with you about what the government is for. What about coffee makers? Mine just broke down and I googled all over the place and I can't find ANY information on how to diagnose what is wrong with it! Should I write to my congressman and demand a law for the "right to repair" coffee makers?
Negative moral value of force outweighs the positive value of good intentions.
So essentially the government is paying auto manufacturers to send lobbyists back to washington to lobby on behalf of the auto manufacturers which Washington actually owns?
or else!
Force computer manufacturers to supply clean copies of Windows so you can reload your system without the crap
This isn't fair to the automaker's shareholders, the government is infringing on their right to receive a return on their investment as determined by the objective free market. Forcing them to give up their intellectual property based on some absurd notion of repair rights (good luck finding that in the constitution) is just another form of wealth redistribution.
It was news almost five years ago on Slashdot, but since then intelligent fasteners have been searching for a way to go mainstream. Regular tools won't work -- and as a bonus, they can remotely disassemble your car. Past due on that insurance premium? Zap. Thud. It's even worse when you consider that cars are engineered to fail after a certain number of miles -- certain japanese manufacturers (isuzu) are known to fall apart very quickly after certain mileage limits are reached. It's not enough that we are allowed to repair our own vehicles -- there needs to be standards on a vehicle's lifespan.
If we're all about this whole greenie thing now, wouldn't it make sense to start mandating vehicles that are renewable and not just the energy that powers them?
#fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
A thousand times, yes. People seem to forget the extent to which industry (yes, *capitalist industry*) deserves credit for so many of the modern luxuries they enjoy. We should be happy enough that there are people willing to work hard enough to create and run companies like GM and Ford before we gang up and start punishing them for trying to make a buck. Consumer protections and safety standards are just marketing terms for the real agenda: the expansion of government regulation until you can't even build a house or open a theme park without getting a bureaucratic stamp of approval.
Expect it to be state mandated, state regulated, and cost an arm and a leg.
Anybody want my mod points?
Should I write to my congressman and demand a law for the "right to repair" coffee makers?
Since you ask... Yes, you should.
Corollary to Hanlon's razor: Any significantly advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from malice.
Yes!
Over-the-top Response Guy! Giving "Over-the-Top Responses" since 1970.
and found myself in an infinite loop...
help
My ism, it's full of beliefs.
There already is a government mandated standard for getting access to engine information. It's called OBD and you read codes off with a $100 reader. Your local AutoZone, etc. will usually even let you borrow a reader if you need to.
... in real-time. 9 times out of 10 the code pulled off the reader will tell me exactly what's wrong my car.
OBD defines a set of specific codes for specific errors or measurements. It also allows manufacturers to define their own codes and measurements. I don't know of single vehicle whose manufacturer specific codes are not publicly available. Okay, you may have to pull out a book or look it up online (e.g. here is the list of codes for may BMW E46 3-series) but it's out there and it's an amazing thing. The newer cars will even give you details like your exact fuel/air mixture
It amazes me how many hobbyist and even professional mechanics complain about this. The tools are there, and cheap, just learn how to use them.
. . . Or whatever the term is that is the most fashionable to complain about nowadays.
Neocon
by Mike Buddha -- Someday the mountain might get him, but the law never will.
That's a poor analogy.
It's not just that you can't find any information on how to repair it, you can't take it to the corner fix-it guy either because he can't decipher the error codes. You have to take it to a Certified Mr. Coffee Specialist who will charge you 75% the cost of the coffee maker to fix it and not tell you how he did it either.
You SHOULD be able to fix your own coffee maker and not be forced by some DRM lock-in to take it to this specific certified repairman.
Onboard Diagnostics... its a port & standard to the control electronics on the car; the OBD2 port is where the various programming tools are plugged in to see what's going on in the engine. OBD2 devices are the sorts of things that let you hook up a wifi transmitter to the port and watch your tachometer on your iPhone.
The "gotcha" is that each vehicle (and sometimes, each engineering release) has to be programmed with manufacturer specific codes, most of what a consumer sees is just read-only data. If you reflash your engine controller, all of a sudden your car may not meet emissions requirements and the manufacturers are then likely to be held liable for the act committed by the purchaser (who will, of course, utter the famous phrase "I didn't change anything.") This would be a huge boon to trial attorneys everywhere and a major headache for the manufacturers.
Unfortunately, no one has yet built a device that can assert "you are too stupid to operate this vehicle." It's unlikely it would sell well anyway.
Leaked TI Calc keys,
http://pastebin.com/f5a8f6245
More like Car-ysis, amirite?
It's the equivalent of pulling the key out of the ignition.
Sewage Treatment Facilities - "Our duty is clear."
It's B. S. that every single model of car has a different computer. $700 for a used 93 Toyota ECM that consists of maybe $15 worth of parts? Make a single, universal cpu that can be programmed for whatever car it's going in. Then I can go to the junkyard, get a box out of a wrecked Chrysler, have it reprogrammed at the dealer, and stick it in my Toyota. They can make their software proprietary, I don't care. Make the hardware open. Imagine the state tech would be in if every computer manufacturer made its own cpu, motherboard, graphic processor, interface protocols, operating system and software, and they were all non-interchangeable between models. USB? Which flavor? The protocols would all be different: If you bought a flash drive to fit in a Dell laptop, it wouldn't work in a Dell desktop or any other model of Dell laptop, or anyone else's. Forget about any kind of networking. Software? You only get what the manufacturer loads on the machine. No upgrades, no third-party software. Oh, and if you buy a new machine, the software will all be different. Asinine? Yes. Unlike auto makers, tech manufacturers realized long ago that keeping every single thing proprietary wasn't a good business model. If nothing else, imagine the cost savings to manufacturers if they adopted a universal hardware architecture.
The REAL problem isn't that the car repair info is hard to find, the problem is that every manufacturer has a different methodology and toolset to service vehicles. How can an independent shop be expected to have all of the hardware/software/expertise to diagnose vehicles? They can't!
What is really needed is improved efforts on commonizing service approaches. Before that can be done however, the underlying components need to fall in line. This is happening with the roll out of common communication busses (ie CAN), diagnostic communication services (iso-14229), and open Electronic Control Unit platforms (ie: AUTOSAR).
The OEMs are already taking steps that will facilitate easier service and support. It is in their best interests to do so because it lowers their cost to do business. Legislation won't likely speed that up process but probably hinder it by distracting their limited resources.
Do NOT buy a Volvo newer than '06 if you care about this sort of stuff. Any Volvo after about MY2006 requires something called "VIDA", which is the worst kind of crippled software. First, you need a several-thousand-dollar interface box. Second, the software requires a LIVE INTERNET CONNECTION. Cars after 2000 or so and before 2006 require "VADIS" and the same $$$$$ interface box.
Get a load of this: every module in the car (and there are a dozen plus) requires firmware or "coding". That coding is VIN specific, and the software is ENCRYPTED TO YOUR SPECIFIC CAR by Volvo before it is transmitted to you (the reason a live connection is required.) Further, the download requires a payment to Volvo! Just the ability to use VIDA is subscription based, and you pay separately for diagnostic abilities, wiring charts, and technical information. As in, you have to pay for each one if you want it- it's not a package.
On the Audi/VW side, there is an awesome program called VAG-COM which allows you to view all sorts of parameters, adjust values, read diagnostic codes, etc...almost EVERYTHING that can possibly be accessed or tweaked. Alarm motion sensor too sensitive? Tweak it. Want to be able to roll up your windows from the keyfob? Done. Want to enable one-touch-up on a window? Done. Want to install euro-code taillights with yellow turn signals? Done. Want to let your fog lights stay on with your highbeams, or run with the headlights off? Done and done. Costs a few hundred dollars, and that includes the adapter. You can buy the factory repair manual, and once you have, it's yours, and you can diagnose and repair many things yourself, replace components, etc.
On the Volvo side...guess what? VIDA required. "What about ODB2?" you say? Well, ODB2 only encompasses the most basic live engine information and diagnostic codes. If you want anything actually useful, you need to know the custom ODB2 data fields (very similar to how SNMP is an open standard, but nearly worthless without vendor OIDs.)
Truly, madly blows. There are a bunch of parameters that can be changed on my car, but they can only be done by the dealer, and they're guaranteed to charge for it. Nevermind that the whole car is networked with CAN-BUS and many of the mid-2000's models have huge problems with module failures, network bus problems, etc. Oh, and the best part: if a software update fucks up something, they can't roll it back. Volvo didn't design the systems to allow for going back a firmware revision. You can only install NEWER versions!
Please help metamoderate.
It's not just that you can't find any information on how to repair it, you can't take it to the corner fix-it guy either because he can't decipher the error codes. You have to take it to a Certified Mr. Coffee Specialist who will charge you 75% the cost of the coffee maker to fix it and not tell you how he did it either.
A coffee maker's ability to be repaired by the user (or to be repaired by a corner fix-it guy, or to be repaired at all) is just one of the characteristics of that coffee maker. I wouldn't want a law passed that requires it to be easy (or even possible) to repair in the same way that I wouldn't want a law passed that requires it to be easy to use, heats the coffee to the optimal temperature, or looks good in my kitchen. Free market is a LOT better at creating improvements in coffee maker products than government legislation.
Negative moral value of force outweighs the positive value of good intentions.
Despite all the corruption, traffic, and other crap we have to deal with, Massachusetts has some of the best consumer and employee protection laws in the country. They've saved me and my customers thousands of dollars that would have otherwise been lost to my former employer (a retail electronics chain with the initials R.S.).
Examples:
Also Marijuana is decriminalized in amounts up to one ounce for personal possession, gay marriage is legal, and your car is considered part of your home and is given the same 4th amendment protections. Sometimes it's nice being a Masshole (when I'm not stuck in traffic).
I like how more people are up in arms about financial bailouts and 'socialized medicine' than NSA wiretapping, denial of Habius Corpus, 'Free Speach Zones' and what not.
We invested in them. They do owe us something.
Various manufacturers have been making it difficult, if not impossible, to correct problems with ECUs/ECMs aside from doing simple stuff such as restarting them or forcing them to retrain/relearn. That is to say, if you're unlucky enough to have a car that is not beloved by hordes of tuners/ricers/etc., then no 3rd party will show the interest in figuring out how to reprogram your ECU/ECM to give it a proper tune. The car I own (Saturn Ion 1, 2004, Sedan) has an ECU that is widely unsupported by 3rd-party tuning apps, for example. If there's something wrong with any of the sensors or the ECU itself, better take it to the dealership.
And this doesn't even touch on the notion of aftermarket tunes for better performance and/or fuel economy.
If the manufacturers are forced to give up the goods on all the computerized components of autos, will this mean that any car, anywhere, will now be tunable by your local mom-and-pop repair shop or performance shop or what have you? Or, more importantly, will most of the 3rd-party tuning packages now work on anything provided you have a lappy and can hook up to the OBD2/CAN port? Will this be retroactive? Does that mean that my '04 Ion 1 will FINALLY be tunable?
This might not be a big deal around here, but any number of performance enthusiast sites out there had better be jumping for joy over this.
I had to repair my Saturn twice because the company wouldn't release information to a mechanic. My clutch went out on the highway and the mechanic told me that it was either the master cylinder or the slave cylinder, but they didn't have the diagnostic tools to verify which and they were getting the runaround from the manufacturer. Something like $200 to replace the slave cylinder or $500 to replace the master cylinder. I had them replace the slave cylinder and in the process, they had to repressurize the system anyway, which let me complete my trip. It turns out that the master cylinder was actually the problem, though. When I took it to a Saturn dealership to have it repaired, they told me, "Oh yeah. We see this problem all the time on this model." They couldn't have shared that with the mechanic and saved me $200, huh?
Virtue finds and chooses the mean.
Aristotle, Ethica Nichomachea
Every communication between a consumer product and a device which is not sold with the product (e.g. a diagnostic tool or an add-on product) must have its protocol and technical specification publicly disclosed.
Reprogramming the ECU with updated firmware is a good example of vehicle-specific behavior, but I think that it is more than reasonable for independent shops to be able to get that information. In many cases, reprogramming the ECU is required to fully fix certain DTCs because they have both a software and a hardware root cause---particularly when it comes to how certain sensors interact with fuel mixture on aging vehicles and other similar issues.
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
There are inefficiencies to both scenarios and I won't blindly accept your assertion that free markets are better at creating desired improvements than legislation and regulation. A company that wants to get into any market to make a specific improvement is either going to be at the mercy of patent holders or will need to reinvent the wheel to solve all sorts of design problems that existing companies have already solved. It is my opinion that barriers to entry are creating a situation that is harmful to consumers. We want cars or coffee makers or anything that are accessible to any repair person we might choose. If all of the existing players have intentionally taken away that capability, there are only a few general avenues that can be pursued: start a new company to meet the unfulfilled want, use economic incentives to persuade manufacturers to offer the functionality you want, have the government regulate to force manufacturers to offer the functionality you want.
In this case, it seems that philosophically, you find the intervention of government the most unpalatable of the possible options. Many other people find it unpalatable to pay more for something that they feel entitled to. Note that I chose the word "entitled" deliberately. It is the philosophical crux of this argument. Are people entitled to the information necessary to repair their own purchased goods? The legislature of the state of Massachusetts seems to think that the answer is "yes" and I, among others, happen to agree with them.
Virtue finds and chooses the mean.
Aristotle, Ethica Nichomachea
"The legislation, known as Right to Repair, is seen by car manufacturers as a threat to the lucrative service business in their dealerships and they are massing their lobbyists on Beacon Hill in an effort to defeat it."
Translation:
"We are getting rich off of keeping ourselves be the only ones able to fix our cars, and we don't want no smegging competition."
Personally I think that this is anticompetitive.
Congress simply has a new bludgeon. It means nothing for me and you. Instead we will see Congress use this "ownership" to pay off the various special interest groups they need to appease. Sure someone might keep a job as they dictate what and what cannot close but in the end the result is that through tax dollars Congress bought themselves new levels on control to further their interests, not ours.
Right to Repair is a needed solution. Disclaimer I work for a parts distributor. The problem is that manufacturers are trying to keep people from accessing this information. When that fails they will pursue it from angles ranging from the environment to neighborhood blight. Meaning, you might have access to the information but no where to work as doing "environmentally sensitive work" is too dangerous to do so in your garage, drive, etc.
Oil changes - sorry - can't trust the home guy to dispose of it correctly so we must do in our shop.
Body work, look at those harsh chemicals.
Car on jacks, ruins values of homes so it must be stopped! Think of the risk to children around cars stripped down for repairs!
Hell, even trade sanctions can limit where you get parts by forcing distributors to move sources elsewhere thereby costing time and money. Throw in some "sanctions" because of how foreign countries may or may not treat the environment or people and the possibilities are endless.
I know, sounds silly, but SEMA has been fighting this mess for longer and there are many angles that automakers can take to limit your right to repair you own car.
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
This sounds to have the promise of unlocked ECUs for better tuning!
awesome.
Maybe one day I'll be able to do the engine I want to do to my 2000 Eclipse. The ECM controls both the engine and the transmission and the 4G63 engine I want to swap in DIDN'T come coupled to the semi-auto tranny I have. I could swap in the manual transmission with the engine, sure, but I really want a 4G63T in my other-wise "some-what factory" GS. So, my options are to either completely re-program the ECM to run the proper DOHV timing or to lobotomize the engine side of the ECM and piggy back the 4G63's computer into it and run the original transmission control. Both of those are pretty much impossible, so as it is I'm stuck. Or, those bastards could open up the code a little bit so a reputable mechanic can clear a simple engine light code and I could have the most unique car on the block!
The eternal struggle of good vs. evil begins within one's self.
No seriously, it is nice to see so many new faces here at slashdot. I know that you were sent by your agency, but what the heck, stay around listen to what others have to say and you might learn something.
The free market says that IP laws are an artificial barrier to trade.
Free market is only great if it benefits corporations... yeeah, no thanks.
Too bad it isn't national.
Doesn't matter. Once the cat is out of the bag in Massachusetts, that "proprietary" information will spread throughout the repair industry along with the aftermarket machines to read and manipulate the computers.
If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
I have had three cars in a row, each with a progressively more difficult way to diagnose engine codes:
- 1988 Honda Civic: lift up carpet under floor in front of passenger seat; find red LED blinking the code.
- 1993 Ford Taurus: hook up an analog multimeter to a pair of terminals under the hood and watch it sweep the code. Or get a $10 doohickey that plugs in under the hood and beeps the code.
- 1999 Chevy Malibu: $100+ OBD-II scanner required.
According to desktop computing standards. It seems pedantic, but it's perfectly adequate for the task for which it was intended (auto powertrain control).
Once you've bought the car, it's too late. If an error code pops up, all you're often left with is the choice to pay it or leave it and hope it's not an important one.
Instead, perhaps it's time to be an equal dick on the forecourt?
"How do you like the car, sir?"
"176!"
"Excuse me?"
"I like it 176!"
"I'm sorry, I don't understand."
"No, of course not. That'll be $500 to have one of my service engineers diagnose and address code 176."
"I'm just asking you if you like the car. Can I show some of the options?"
"Oooh. Two-seventeen."
"Excuse me?"
"Two-seventeen."
"That's another diagnostic code, isn't it?"
"Yeah, but I'll tell you what it means if you pay my engineer $500."
"Sir, that's ridiculous."
"Absolutely. But any more ridiculous than you asking me $1,500 for four standard tires?"
"But that's a very complex task you're talking about there. I'm asking you if you want to see options for the car you're looking at."
"No. It's $160 per tire elsewhere. Plus a 150% markup for your resetting the tire pressure sensor that you won't share the codes with any other mechanic."
"Sir, it's really..."
"I'll tell you what, I'll share my complete list of codes with you if you'll share your complete list of codes with me. Or, alternatively, I figure it's going to cost me about $5,000 extra over the life of the vehicle to deal with your code secrecy and your jacked up prices. So, for $5,000, I'll just translate all of my buyer codes in to plain English, buy the car, and deal with paying you that $5,000 back over the next few years. Sound fair? Or, as a third option, I can go across the street to that guy whose company doesn't use obfuscated codes, stop obfuscating my speech and give him the commission."
One person pulling that just gets a sense of evil satisfaction although, most likely, no car. If thousands of buyers did it, how long do you think the manufactures could ignore their pissed off dealerships for?
Much like charging your bank the same outrageous fees they charge you will never happen, nor will this. But it's a fun one to speculate on.
I want the right to repair my iPhone and make it do anything I want it to do, and that includes downloading and installing apps from http://appulo.us/appdb/. Pass that!
I think therefore I can't be ~TTNH
Hey, Im all for It. The only problem is the software and adapters for these newer models are going to be very expensive for a small shop or garage. I work for a GM dealer and a Tech 2 which is a GM tool can cost 6 grand or more, not including accessories. Some garages might not be able to afford these. Im afraid what will happen to the young kid who tries to fix the family car, and then It wont start. As far as OBD II which monitors various sensor for emissions, thats easy. We now get buy a scanner and check these out ourselves, and they are not expensive, and can clear and monitor a check engine light. There's also tools for air bags, abs brakes, etc. I believe we should have the right, but we must be careful.
"But will they run Linux?"
Yes, but since they're not trains I'm afraid they'll have trouble running Ruby on Rails.
(Ouch.)
It's a start, but I also want:
Such problems probably should be considered a product defect and, since the real cost of propagating the fix is so small and the problem may affect safety or emissions, perhaps the manufacturers should be required to pay for (and/or reimbursing dealers fully) for applying such upgrades to any car whose owner requests it.
Why is there an "insightful" mod and why isn't it "-1"? If I wanted insight, I wouldn't be reading
A better way of looking at it is are the the car makers allowed to collude with the dealers to restrain the trade of the independent shops via lockout.
Posting the question that way even Adam Smith himself would say hell no. Markets have to be reasonably free for 'free markets' to work.
They all need to be publish all the diagnostic codes.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Just when I'm sick of our overly politically correct, taxation-nation, nanny-state, corrupt, expensive-cost-of-living, wasteful, and in nearly every way thoroughly fucking aggravating state, someone finds a way (like this) to make me forgive a little of the crass arrogance and general douchebaggery our government is known for.
This is frigging brilliant (yeah, I know it's obvious but I can't help myself), and about damn time. What is not apparent is who decided to finally push this forward, and whether or not this will be a) done right, and b) have the momentum needed to overcome the lobbyists that will flood into Boston to stop this (funded by taxpayer money thanks to the Cash for Clunkers corporate welfare plan).
I prefer rogues to imbeciles because they sometimes take a rest.
Capitalism is good, extortion is bad. We support people trying to make a buck, it's when they hold your life ransom in order to make unreasonable amounts of cash that we have a problem. This is an example of the government doing what it's supposed to do: represent the people's will. The people think the car companies are taking advantage of them and want it to stop.
Also, in terms of capitalism, the car companies are muscling legitimate competition (the independent mechanics) out of the picture. This brings us to the ironic position of requiring regulation in order to maintain a free market. It's a good thing, though.
"Give a man fire, and he'll be warm for a day; set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life
At least one consent decree between the US Government and IBM offers good case law to pursue access to service manuals and parts.
For instance the 1956 consent decree over tabulating equipment (see section VI(c) in particular.
I made a good living for almost 10 years servicing various IBM office machines, buying parts mostly directly from IBM. Before 1956, this was impossible, and after it was pretty much only under threat of further legal action.
It is frustrating that we haven't exercised that right, as demonstrated by the consent decree.
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
Yes, they should. And IMHO Ford owes me a couple hundred in parts and about three or four hours of my time paid at their dealer's' obscene $200/hour repair rate for the design flaw in their valve cover that forced me to replace six port seals, I think eight isolator bolts, and some major gasket between the layers of the intake, scrub the intake, flush out the EGR hose, and replace the valve cover. I'm pretty sure I'll die before Ford covers those costs, though. It should have been an emissions recall, but instead, the local Ford dealer (Peninsula Ford of Sunnyvale, bless their thieving, lying souls who claimed that my <100,000 mile car probably needed to be replaced or at least have a new engine after they wasted almost five days and over $1500 in unnecessary and redundant repairs replacing parts that were almost brand new while trying to find a simple low-temperature-only coolant leak caused by a split in a metal line in the TOP section of the intake manifold and who only fixed my car after I tore their service manager a new asshole) said it would cost $1500 for them to put in that couple hundred bucks in parts. I did it myself in an afternoon with no car repair experience whatsoever. It's 40,000 miles later and my car is still working just fine. Go f**k yourself, Peninsula Ford of Sunnyvale.
Then again, the fact that the same Ford dealer did a half-assed copout fix of blowing out the carbon deposits instead of fixing the real problem just outside of warranty when it failed the first time (at which point Ford actually WOULD have been willing to cover the parts cost for the repair, or so I'm told) really takes the cake. After those two service experiences, I've been desperately hoping Ford would decide to drop that dealership in the whole financial mess, as they give Ford a really bad name. But I digress.
The fact that I had the problem in the first place and that Ford left me and tens of thousands of other 1999 Windstar owners footing the entire repair bill for what was clearly and beyond any doubt a design flaw in the engine is a pretty clear indication that the car companies won't ever own up to mistakes unless you can prove that it's a safety problem, and even then, if they calculate that the cost of the lawsuits from wrongful death will cost less than a recall, they still won't fix them. These sorts of corporations make me sick.
Whatever happened to companies standing behind their products? Isn't that the whole benefit of buying a product from a major company instead of just group buy importing it from a fab shop in China somewhere? Who wants to organize the automobile group buy?
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
Oh, yeah, and I've already had to get its transmission rebuilt back at about 85,000 miles. And people wonder why I will no longer buy American cars. Although foreign cars are probably no better at owning up to design flaws, at least they don't seem to have nearly as many serious design flaws....
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
add be able to buy the cable / sat box add a bigger HD.
I second the motion that VAG-COM is awesome. However it shouldn't be used to contrast VW/Audi with Volvo, since (to my knowledge) VAG-COM was reverse engineered entirely independently of VW after frustration with VW's use of proprietary codes.
Actually, it should - because VW/Audi's code is private/proprietary, but with a few exceptions (namely, encryption/encoding used to match the dashboard cluster to the ECU and the immobilizer, for anti-theft reasons) nothing is encrypted.
VW/Audi don't ship electronic modules and parts without software/programming. You may need to flip some bits, but VAG-COM can do it. And you can move parts between cars. And the software in a effing headlight (!!) isn't specifically and purposefully encrypted for one specific car. For Volvos, IT IS. And because of all that encryption, there will never be a "VLV-COM".
It's a fundamental design and business policy difference, and one whose only purpose is to bone the customer and lock them into servicing their car at mechanics who do enough volume to be able to afford the outrageous VIDA fees. And in ten years when they stop making modules for a particular Volvo, you won't be able to go to the junkyard and yank a module.
Please help metamoderate.
Preface: I hate replying to my own thread.
Now of course, I do not have to do business with a car company that will not allow me to fix my own car. I can, instead choose to support any company that provides such information as necessary.
No, you can't. All the manufacturers keep this info hidden. The only possible exception I can think of are smaller performance car makers, like Ariel or Ascari, but I wouldn't count on it too much. They're also all small trackday cars with face-ripping acceleration and enough room in the trunk for maybe a toothbrush and a small sandwich.
You are correct, all the manufactures do keep this information hidden. Is it a potential factor in a car buying decision? If one vendor, say GM (use Honda, or your manufacturer of preference) opens their protocol, who will mechanics recommend? Will it impact sales in any noticeable amount? This is the question of open vs. closed protocols, not the current practices. Does closed help your sales position, or does opening it up help more?
Or I can search for a brilliant mechanic, computer tech, and electrical engineer who will work together to fix my car and we can open our own business.
Good luck. Reverse engineering laws are hard to get around if you're going to commercialize your work.
So, your argument that laws are good is telling me that identifying a market, investing time, effort, and money is illegal? That is a recipe for success. By your argument, anyone fixing anything without an approval (sanctioned training) would be in the wrong. Is that a world you want?
Or I can buy a car with no computer interfaces at all that I can repair with little more than a hammer. Of course such a car as in the last example would probably fail the state mandated emissions standards - boo state!
Such a shame we don't have widespread smog problems in most major cities.
Those computer interfaces don't just keep emissions down. They're also keeping performance and gas millage up, as well as vastly increasing the durability of engines. In well-built engines, there are almost never any mechanical problems within a car's reasonable lifetime. There's a bunch of sensors helping to keep everything tidy, and a given engine code is almost always the result of one of those sensors going out, not something like a piston connecting rod blowing through your hood.
When people say they used to be able to repair anything on their car with a wrench and a hammer, they're not looking at the full picture.
I agree, but it is none the less a choice I have. Stupid, wrong-headed, and going to cost me way too much money in the long run, but still a choice I HAVE.
The GP was making fun of the open market, I support all of us having a choice. It's closed now, but if one - just one - serious manufacturer opens, they all will have too... eventually.
Way to be a suck up defeatest.
Ease of use, thermal properties, temperature and aesthetics I don't see ever coming under the realm of legislation. Not on the physical device. What's at stake here is the rights a user has to something they purchase AFTER SALE. You're repairing YOUR coffee maker, that you chose on the aforementioned characteristics.
There's ample precidence in this country allowing the end user to do whatever the hell they want with the product once purchased. (Right of first sale for one example.)
When the company actively impedes efforts by the end user to do what they want to the product after sale, they're no longer selling a product, they're selling a service, or worse: a licence.
Free market is a LOT better at creating improvements in coffee maker products than government legislation.
What if the government legislation is explicitly written to allow modifications to coffee makers? Consider: you figure out a way to mod your coffee machine to make it more efficient or hotter or percolate better.
In the system you describe, companies could easily end up licencing your coffee machine to you instead of you outright owning your device making any beneficial change you make their property. Or worse, prosecute you for tampering with their device (you had to reverse engineer that coffee maker, didn't you?), even in a beneficial way.
If there's no government intervention, what's to stop them from asserting rights like that? And before you blindly answer, "Companies can't assert rights like that," consider where the laws come from that SAY they can't. Legislation is sometimes required to give rights, not just take them away.
Essentially, this bill is determining what an end user has rights to once a product is purchased. Not on the details of the product before.
IF we have complete control over our purchases after sale, then we need to know what the diagnostic codes translate to, because that is part of what we purchased. If we are not allowed to have these diagnostic codes, however, then we have lost rights to what we have purchased and are at the mercy of the corporation that sold it.
The motivation here is roughly the same as that which inspired California's so-called Lemon Law. Contrary to common perception, though, California's law covers EVERYTHING (past a certain cost of manufacture), not just automobiles, and for a period of no less than seven years.
For example, when my 21-inch Nokia CRT monitor died after six years, California's law explicitly guaranteed me a "right to repair". However, Nokia had sold their display brand to Viewsonic who, when I contacted them, politely told me to go fuck myself. Legally speaking, I could have sued Viewsonic for specific performance and the verdict would have been assured. I even spoke to one firm about the possibility of a class action suit (they decided the "class" wasn't large enough to be profitable for chasing that ambulance). Ultimately it wasn't practical to sue Viewsonic, but had I done so the state law would have guaranteed a slam-dunk verdict in my favor.
Perhaps Massachusetts should consider broadening the scope of its proposed law as well? Why arbitrarily restrict it to only ONE type of product?
I can personally say that I am in favor of law. I have always stayed current with laws regarding cars, and not only do they hide the info listed in this article. They also purposely make cars harder to work on. This makes keeping my cars in tune, a real pain in the buttox. So I hope this among other laws get changed so that they have to give you the proper information regarding your auto.
Certified? What's this "certified"?
People should have the right to repair, and have access to the necessary knowledge. Period.
Otherwise, we deepen the already vast split between the people who create and understand our technology, and the people who are merely consumers. Eloi.
We reached some kind of zenith around the middle of the last century - most the the kids who didn't live in the center city knew how to fix their bikes, lawnmowers, tractors, and cars. Some could fix their radios or wire a house. No more. Leave it to the "certified" professionals. After all, you wouldn't want a car on the road which was improperly repaired, it might hurt someone. Slippery slope, guys.
They say that an auto mechanic often has the worse sounding/running vehicle. They don't tell you why though. A mechanic listens to a motor with an entirely different vocabulary of expectations...Is it dripping/burning fluids? If dripping, is it water, oil, trany fluid, or gas? If burning, is it oil. water, or just gas? If not running, does it have spark, air, and fuel? The fact is that an engine will run well enough to reliably get you where you want to go even if it fits most of the above described conditions. A mechanic knows this intuitively. So unless it is belching flames, or clunking badly, it will be classified in the mechanic's mind as "just a flesh wound". As such it gets relegated to "of less importance"-by comparison to the repair demands placed on them by their customers.
The same reason applies to "why virtually no one grows their own tomatoes or strawberries". We aren't all gifted with amazing hands that can intuitively grow or fix things. The point being that just because people will be able to diagnose their automotive problems via print-outs from fancy in-board computers, does not mean that EVERYONE will go out tomorrow and start their own shops. Rather it merely means that when the mechanic gives you an estimate as to how long, or what parts/ materials will be needed to fix your ride, that they will have to TELL YOU THE TRUTH!!! Otherwise you could point to the print out and say "That isn't what the CAR says is wrong"! "It says nothing here about my "Kyptonite" being low, or my interocitor being out of alignment!"
-Oz
Now and then, a mechanic will go bankrupt and his equipment gets auctioned off to reimburse the creditors. I'm sure there will be some jurisdictions where bankruptcy laws trump any repossession clause in the contract.
At this point, a third party (who never signed the contract) might buy the equipment from the auction. Enter the hackers. They buy a few devices and reverse engineer them.
One mechanic violating the contract and putting the decryption keys anonymously on the internet might also work. Even if the manufacturer finds the culprit, the lack of IP laws protecting their trade secrets would mean they cannot go after the people who downloaded the information and keep redistributing it.
C - the footgun of programming languages
To my mind the source of the problem is the car buyer. As long as they look at only the sticker price and do not include the running costs then maintenance lock down will tend continue. The manufactures are under intense pressure to get the sticker price down, so they sell the actual car at very low profit margins and make their real profits on extras, maintenance, warranties etc. To ensure you get the maintenance you try to lock it down, but without being too obvious by 'welding the bonnet shut'.
(Same scenario with games consoles: sell the hardware at cost or close to, and then make your profits on the software sales.)
Woah.
Did you just use a computer analogy for a car problem? Is this Soviet Russia already?
-Never argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level, then beat you with experience-
Great idea. Any BMW requires a GT-1 Service computer to read any and all of the fault codes. The car has a very comprehensive set of internal diagnostics, but you can't see them without the $40k computer, usually only available at the stealership. My independent pays @ 15k per year for a service tool that reads these codes. There is NO reason why the codes can't be read in english on the car's existing readouts. This applies to every car out there not just Bavarian Wonder Machines.
The libertarian solution is to oppose this law and then let the mechanics reverse engineer it.
Then the hacker would put it on TPB.
-- I was raised on the command line, bitch
I seriously hope this one passes. I used to work on my cars when I was much younger and saved a bundle of money by being able to do so. The computer systems are not all that bad, but then, I can't see how they are that much of a help, either. Emissions? Yes, they do well, but I got as good emissions on cars with a good tune up and an added compressor on the intake. Horsepower went up and so did gas consumption. Tuning it back down to a leaner mix and such got it back to the original 'specs' with improved mileage and emissions. In any event, the manufacturers are screwing over the public by not allowing them to take charge of their cars that they paid a king's ransom for. Let's see how the 'new' corporations do this. Hell, their dealers could practically eliminate the repair service and sell parts like they sell cars. I think its called 'selling'. If their cars are as good as they would like you to think they are, then when you need a part, buy theirs, they would have to be much better than the third party manufacturers'.
You postulate a chain of logic where manufacturers would completely lock down their products, in the absence of legislation. This is possible, but not inevitable. Unconstrained market forces, in my opinion, would lead in the opposite direction. For an example, see http://www.dataliberation.org/ and http://tech.slashdot.org/story/09/09/14/1859216/Google-Data-Liberation-Group-Seeks-To-Unlock-Data?from=rss
You mention lack of competition due to high barriers of entry. These are almost entirely created by the government. Big corporations love regulations, because it is a way for them to lock out new entrants. Another example: Vehicle manufacturers cannot sell directly to customers, they have to set up a dealer network. Disintermediation is not allowed.
Yes, I am a Libertarian.
Prove anything by multiplying Huge Number times Tiny Number
Article I, Section 8, Clause 8
The first car I had with a computer controlled emissions system had an open interface. Connect a jumper between two terminals in the fuse box and count the flashes of the Check Engine light. Very similar to the Power On Self Test beep system on my first IBM PC that I got 3 years later. Jumper between two others and the codes were reset. There being no Google at that time, you had to have a printed document that explained the codes. It was called a "Shop Manual" and available for purchase. Some public libraries had "Chilton" collections which contained a lot of the same information.
Extending this further, do people have the right to fix software bugs in PC software?
This could begin mandating source availability for purchased software. This could be interesting.
Science & open-source build trust from peer review. Learn systems you can trust.
Why does a "lucrative service business" exist at all? Is it naive of me to think that the effort that the car manufacturers put forth in lobbying for the protection of proprietary service might be better spent on developing vehicles which don't break down? Walking looks better every day.
It's not ironic. Free market, which is the idea that supply and demand are the only driver of prices, isn't compatible with laissez-faire capitalism. Laissez-faire capitalism tends towards monopolies. This has been shown time and again. The only recourse the rest of the world has from this is government regulation, i.e. antitrust.
"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
It's a very odd argument to make that there is some "right" to repair products you bought and that the manufacturer should be required by law to help you. Why shouldn't the auto manufacturers be able to say our cars can only be repaired by the authorized repair shops, that's it. If you don't like it, don't buy our cars. Doesn't that provide other manufacturers with a powerful selling point: "Our cars can be repaired anywhere! Don't be ripped off by those other guys" etc etc. I still have no idea why a law is required here. Btw, if I was a car company affected by this, just on the issue of consistency there is a whole book to be written. There are tons of products out there that only allow repairs by authorized shops, at least if you don't want to invalidate your warranty.
Negative moral value of force outweighs the positive value of good intentions.
The computer industry is (seems?) more open because it is in the interest of the dominant players not to have to make everything themselves. Consider the IBM-compatible PC an Windows:
-APIs are documented because without them you would not have nearly as much applications to choose from.
-Driver SDKs are available so Microsoft does not have to write all of these. Letting hardware vendors make their own means Microsoft saves money.
For a better analogy, imagine people want to repair bugs in Windows themselves. Here, the lack of source code is a big problem. You usually cannot repair Windows, at best you can choose another OS.
As an analogy for THAT, some new company could reverse engineer what the original software does by measuring it. For instance by measuring all the stuff like ignition timing, amount of injected fuel and so on, and then overwrite the original software with their own.
To some extent that already happens, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chip_tuning. But I have yet to hear of an attempt to make a universal, open Source ECU software.
C - the footgun of programming languages