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!
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
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?
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.
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!
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.
Every single American car company, and I suspect most other ones as well.
All of them.
Unless you know of a car manufacturer who publishes all their error codes, uses a common consumer standard cord (think USB) to connect to the car's computer, and makes software (or at least an API) available to read and clear that information. Although the law doesn't go that far, it is that kind of thing that the law is moving towards.
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.
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.
The Obama/Kennedy socialists are trying to take us one step closer to government-managed car-care.
In the article, it mentions that the "Right to Repair" relates to your right to choose who repairs your car (yourself, your local garage vs. the official car company dealer).
Because cars have so many control units (eg. the Engine Control Unit), specialized (and expensive) dealers are given advanced scanners which have full access to all the computer systems, and have the ability to clear any internal firmware fault bits which make fault lights remain on even after the car has been repaired. Other non-dealer garages don't have access to this information. They may be able to repair a broken headlight, but the computer system won't turn the fault light off, and might even refuse to allow the ignition to start.
Some car companies were using DRM legislation to prevent owners from altering/checking/viewing the state of the system controller.
Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
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.
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.
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.
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.
Not only that, but those bastards will probably make it apply equally to both straight and gay couples!
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
The mechanic is an idiot. There's no computer codes or special tools to determine if the problem is the master cylinder or the slave cylinder. It's literally a mechanical system; clutch linkage to the piston on the master cylinder, piston pushes fluid through the line to the slave cylinder, which has a piston which pushes the release fork. If the system was low on fluid when you brought it in (and it must have been, or filling and bleeding it without fixing the problem wouldn't have gotten it working temporarily), then the fluid leaked somewhere. Find the leak (using Mk I eyeball and other primitive tools) and you've figured out which one is the problem.
"But will they run Linux?"
Yes, but since they're not trains I'm afraid they'll have trouble running Ruby on Rails.
(Ouch.)
I wonder if a lot of this silliness is only found on expensive luxury models like BMWs and Cadillacs. I'll bet your run-of-the-mill Kia or Hyundai doesn't have anything like this, even now.
Hyundai has their own dealer tool. If you happen to bleed your brakes yourself and somehow manage to get air in the ABS pump, using that tool is the only way to cycle the pump to get the air bubbles out. Early ABS equipped cars usually had a jumper of some sort on the ABS controller to cycle the ABS pump on its own, but that simply isn't the case anymore.
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'
Right-to-Repair Law To Get DRM Out of Your Car
Right to repair proposal
Congressmen want automakers to cough up diagnostic codes
The EFF's Fred von Lohman, however, pointed out that there's a certain irony in this widespread public support and Congressional interest. What the bill suggests is that the sort of market created by the DMCA, in which companies are given the right to encrypt and protect information of their choosing, shouldn't apply when it comes to autos. To be clear, there are implementation differences. The DMCA could still apply in that third-party tools that provide access to encrypted data in a car would still run afoul of the law. But the need for these tools would be severely reduced by the fact that the manufacturers would be required to provide an equivalent. That would also, presumably, eliminate most of the incentive for manufacturers to take action against the providers of third-party tools.
From Car Makers Put FPGAs In The Driving Seat
ProASIC3 devices are also designed with an on-chip 1024-bit non-volatile flash ROM (FROM) and a built-in 128-bit AES decryption core, which facilitates independent, secure, in-system programming (ISP) of both the FPGA core array fabric and the FROM itself. This allows designers to implement a number of secure features. For instance, an AES master key can be preloaded into the device in a secure programming environment. Users can then ship 'blank' parts to an insecure programming or manufacturing centre for final personalisation with an AES encrypted bit stream.
Actel Drives FPGAs 'Under the Hood' Into Critical Automotive Powertrain and Safety Systems
Actel also announced today that Delphi Corp., a leading global supplier
of mobile electronics and transportation systems, will be using the Actel
ProASIC3 FPGA in a production engine control module being designed into a
heavy-duty diesel engine. Additionally, Magna Electronics has selected the
Actel ProASIC3 FPGA for its automotive vision systems (see release "Magna
Electronics Chooses Actel's ProASIC3 FPGAs to Enable Automotive Vision
Systems" also announced today).
Magna Electronics expansion in Rochester Hills to focus on developing electric car program for Ford
Magna Electronics discussed plans for what it calls its intelligent power systems group during a news conference at the Rochester Hills City Hall. The expanded unit, which is expected to add 90 employees over five years, will develop hybrid and electric drivetrain systems and electronics that control motors. ...
The parent company, which is working with Ford Motor Co. to develop a battery-electric small car by 2011,
Magna Powertrain and Hyundai announce joint venture
Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
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
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.
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?
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-