Slashdot Mirror
Massachusetts "Right To Repair" Initiative On Ballot, May Override Compromise
skids writes "MA voters face a complex technical and economic question Tuesday about just how open automobile makers should be with their repair and diagnostic interfaces. A legislative compromise struck in July may not be strong enough for consumer's tastes. Proponents of the measure had joined opponents in asking voters to skip the question once the legislature, seeking to avoid legislation by ballot, struck the deal. Weeks before the election they have reversed course and are again urging voters to pass the measure. Now voters have to decide whether the differences between the ballot language and the new law are too hard on manufacturers, or essential consumer protections. At stake is a mandated standard for diagnostic channels in a significant market."
As a classic car enthusiast, the only interface you need is your wrench set.
With this said, modern cars are designed to be off-limits for DIYers. This specific issue is about preventing locking down cars to the level that even independent mechanics can't touch them. So question should read "Do you believe that all cars, 2012 and newer should be only maintained at the dealer shops, or should independent shops have a way to do more than just change oil?"
Something's wrong when I have to dedicate a laptop, play $350 for a special cord and software, and teach my self this software just to 'adapt' my VW's throttle body?
BMW drivers have it even worst!
Federal legislative language should read that EVERY manufacturer that wants to sell cars in the US must allow owners to look at and function every aspect of their own car without special dealer tools.
What?
How is making something difficult and expensive to repair on one's own (see: most all products sans food these days) a denial of the "Right to Repair?"
You have a damn RIGHT to repair it however you want. You just face the consequences. This doesn't change anything that's in force today except the ease of connecting a diagnostic reading device to a vehicle's computer to aid in problem identification.
If you can't sell something that contains coded information?
So are we saying vehicle diagnostics are a special case? Just diagnostic codes, or any private coding scheme anywhere?
It seems like a stretch, like maybe you should be requiring manufacturers to provide certain diagnostic capabilities standard instead of attacking the use of coding schemes directly.
Soon all corporations will avoid dealing with your misinterpreted ownership by simply avoiding manufacturing *things* in the USA. See, the Supreme Court just held up that "first sale" doesn't count if the *thing* was intended to be sold to a segregated market, or sold to you by an unlicensed distributor.
To prevent you from having a "right to repair" the auto manufacturers must simply stop manufacturing automobiles in the USA. Then they can be imported by a licensed distributor and licensed to you to operate. That way you never own your vehicle, and you have no right to tamper (read: repair) with it.
Because obviously if you tamper with something you don't own you are a criminal, and should be treated as such. I guess it's a very good thing we first changed our tamper^H^H^H^H^H^H reverse-engineering laws to make that illegal too.
See how this is a win/win for our Police State and Capitalist Economy?
Doesn't that state also have a bunch of local ordinances that prohibit working on your car in your driveway or parked on the street?
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
Contemporary cars are very complex because they must be clean and efficient. Specialized tools are necessary for service work. If manufacturers must limit themselves to open, standardized interfaces they will be slower in achieving greater emissions and fuel efficiency.
It's time to accept the fact that the priority must be emissions and efficiency and not owner's liberty. If the cost is higher then so be it. The environment is more important. We can't ruin the planet to mollify shade-tree mechanics. If owning and servicing cars at qualified dealers makes ownership too expensive for working class people then they need to learn to live without cars.
Just saying what you lefties would say if you had the balls.
Maw! Fire up the karma burner!
Is it sloppy thinking to think that the principle here, if applied consistently, should give us laws relating to software sale that would more or less come out the way Richard Stallman would write them for us if given the opportunity?
Why should you have the right to do maintenance on a car that you probably do not own outright?
http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2012/10/29/supreme-court-grapples-with-copyright-law-and-the-resale-trade/
Prove anything by multiplying Huge Number times Tiny Number
http://www.warmglass.com/making_your_own.htm
"Kill 'em all and let Root sort 'em out"
I have a Sun Enterprise M4000 server that has the fault light on. In order to clear the fault light, I must run the "clearfaults" command on the service processor. You must get a special password from now Oracle in order to execute the command... I should be able to run the command myself without paying Oracle for a support contract.
Karma: Bad
I'm a MA voter. I read the law. It sounds like the data needs to be made available in a standardized and un-encrypted way for all future cars. If you have all ready conceded to making the info available, what is the problem in doing it in a non-proprietary way?
That was a rhetorical question. I'm voting yes.
Not that I don't agree with it personally it doesn't really affect me. I've always been able to track down whatever code I've needed on the internet. I understand an actual garage may not to want to rely on the internet for all it's needs, but for me personally just like I'll make due with the $20 Haynes and not the $800 Bentley manual I don't really need officially blessed. But then I'm not in the business either.
With a title like "Right to Repair", I thought I was going to be reading about another state trying to duplicate the purpose of California's so-called "Lemon Law", which literally is a 7-year right-to-repair mandate not just for automobiles but all mass-produced consumer goods with a cost over $100. In California, thus, manufacturers are obligated to make available the parts and documentation necessary to keep a product in service for no less than seven years.
This Massachusetts proposal seems to be a lot more limited and specific to vehicles.
Specialized tools are necessary for service work.
This is not true for a great deal of maintenance. Furthermore specialized tools are often not necessary if the parts are designed sensibly. Often the manufacturer has a choice when designing it and using a specialized tool when one is not needed is an attempt at lock in. Encouraging lock in and short-cut design is a bad idea always.
If manufacturers must limit themselves to open, standardized interfaces they will be slower in achieving greater emissions and fuel efficiency.
The logic of that does not compute. A well designed interface can greatly speed achievement of emissions and fuel efficiency standards. Standard tooling, electrical interfaces, etc can greatly reduce cost, complexity and allow engineers to focus efforts on more productive pursuits. Reinventing interfaces because of Not-Invented-Here is frankly rather stupid. Arguably using closed proprietary interfaces slows development rather than speeding it up in many cases.
Just saying what you lefties would say if you had the balls.
Ahh, I get it. You are a troll. My bad for feeding you...
People take so much time complaining about "modern technology" that they have none left to learn how to deal with it. I work on cars as a hobby and I'm doing fine even repairing modern cars that dealers can't get fixed. Yes, I use my brain combined with old school skills to fix all sorts of cars, modern and classic. Modern cars aren't that more difficult to fix or diagnose, it just takes a decent understanding of basic electronics and mechanics. Modern diagnostic computer systems should be standardized, so independent mechanics and hobby workers can still afford to work on them. It has always required mechanical skills, knowledge and good diagnostic skills to work on cars and that should remain the same, even if you need some computerized equipment to do some of the diagnostics. If a dealer can't fix it, it's usually because they have bad diagnostics technicians working for them, not because the computers are making it difficult. They had the same problem 50 years ago, when cars didn't have computers or electronics and the same applies to hobby workers.
I was promised a flying car. Where is my flying car?
god damn right I'm voting for this and all other MA ballot questions.
I should be able to smoke pot to alleviate the pain caused by Crohn's even though I probably won't (I should be able to smoke pot anyway, but at least a step in the right direction), kill myself when I'm good and crippled and ready even though I probably won't, and bring my car to any mechanic to get it fixed (which I may do).
This should all be common sense. Why we need laws to ensure it I have no idea, but I'm happy to vote in favor of each to ensure we remain able.
VW upgraded my new car's diagnostics software. ALL shift points, RPM ranges and throttle positions changed resulting in a new car that drives nicely like an olde lady would expect. So radical was this upgrade that it changed the handling and performance of the vehicle to something I would never buy.
VW have refused to re-install OEM software back to the new car fitment. So MA are onto the NEXT contentious issue for consumers paying $$$ hundreds of dollars monthly for product they have absolutely no control except paying rents to manufacturers
Part of the "right to repair" issue is whether manufacturers can bypass consumer protection laws and prevent after-market competition by locking down intellectual property in a non-software product.
never own your vehicle = they have to cover all repair costs maybe even laws covering rented cars will be in there as well.
I run my familys NAPA AutoCare center and this year we had a 2007 Dodge Caliber come in with a customer complaint of one headlight not working.... Even after replacing the bulb.
Only one of my techs knew that the TIPM module had to have the circuit reset with our $4,000 + Snap on scanner.
Yes I have read that you can do something with the battery cables and I am also aware of reasons not to do this... At the end of the day, a computer was needed to change the headlight on this particular vehicle.. Kind of insane..
Oh, fucking brilliant. You're supposed to put laminated safety glass in cars. Do you know what happens when you put in standard sheet glass instead and have a wreck?
Hail Eris, full of mischief...
E pluribus sanguinem
I thought the jest to be overly obvious, but alas; "Good sir, 'twas but a joke".
My most sincere apologies for any anguish or inconvenience you may have suffered,
yours truly
MRe_nl
I made a good living servicing Selectric typewriters back in the 90s and uo to about 2002, entirely due to the court decision that forced IBM to permit independent servicers to purchase manuals, tools, and parts. And a little mechanical aptitude. Untimately it was about product owners being able to fix their own stuff, and engage whoever they wanted to. This decision had effects in other industries.
At the least, car manufacturers should be required to publish the specs for the diagnostic interfaces, and then sell the manuals (reasonable price was part of the IBM decision, IIRC) and let us service what we do in fact own. If they are claiming that the software is licensed, not sold, we need to have that fight.
FWIW, I drive a 1998 Saab 900 SET Convertible. What a fun car. If you hose up the top, for instance repositioning any of the potentiometers that feed back position data to the computer, you will be going back to the dealer or someone who purchased the very expensive Tech II tool, which is not just an OBD2 reader, but interfaces with various onboard computers and make settings etc. I've done some terrible things to the top so far, and no need to reprogram, but that's just because I was warned in advance. My local dealer gave me the radio code when I had the battery replaced - they didn't have to do that for free, but they did. I'm pretty interested in this, since I prefer to buy beaters, and soon there will be no such thing, just high-mileage cars that need trips to the dealer to solve specific onboard computer problems.And there will be more, not less. problems with this. Despite major improvements, I don't see these onboard computers getting that much better, and the automobile is a terrible environment for anything like that. With Saabs, the 9000 was notorious for problems figuring out just which computer was causing the error, and the TCS system would put you in limp mode at the drop of a hat. Perfectly good car, just the computer choosing to be broken. ABS, climate control, seats, top, etc, there are 7 computers I know of in the 1998 Saab 900, not counting ther SID and cruise control...
And Saabs, of course, are orphaned. Why would they withold info if there is no more business to protect? Mine can suffer any number of problems and that's the end of it, no part to fix it with. Windshield moldings seem to be gone now, so you use generic rubber. Parts for the top are becoming terribly precious.
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
Just put electrical tape over the light.
No brain, no pain.
I vote "Aye" by proxy.
As a mechanic (some time...) that specializes in electrical / electronic / computer issues, here are some thoughts:
The meaning of "non discrimnatory price", as used in the ballot question will be tied up in lawsuits for years. I can tell you that most of the independent shops out there *CAN NOT* afford to buy Factory Diagnostic Software or Hardware, as a business matter, for more than one or two oem's. Now, granted a lot of this stuff is available via piracy...
Now, if a shop does a lot of one particular make, then yes, it will invest in the "official" factory diagnostic equipment.
Just to give you an idea:
Early 1990's to current Ford Motor Company brand vehicles: Ford IDS (software) / (VCM) hardware combo. price aprox $3,000.
Circa 1980 to early 1990's Ford brand vehicles: Ford / Hickok "NGS" (price aprox $700 on ebay) (antiquated, but highest PID update rate on these vehicles)
And, it's even worse for the independent heavy truck repair shops out there:
(purchase cost + subscription, does not count the specialized interface hardware)
Caterpillar ET software: $1,200.
Cummins Insite software: $1,200.
Detroit Diesel software: $1,800.
Thats the most expensive, but there are a lot of other systems on heavy trucks are computerized too, and take additional expensive propritary software packages to diagnose and service.
For anyone out there who thinks the most expensive diagnostic equipment from Snap-On or OTC is equal to factory, You're wrong. Even the most expensive aftermarket diagnostic equipment out there, has functionality gaps compared to the OEM stuff.
FYI: Now your "average" shop around the corner is usually running a mid range scanner (~$3,000.) taht can do most of the things a mechanic actually needs day in day out. But when you get some whiz-bang software / electrical / electromechanical issue, you get the wrong diagnosis and ineffective / expensive repair. If you have a good honest mechanic, He'll tell you he's limited and suggest a dealership performed service. It's not ideal, but it's having integrity.
Now as a computer / software hobbyist:
Even If I want to code up my own GPL'd diagnostic software, I am limited as to the diagnostic and special test functions that I can implement.
Standard OBDII functions, no problem, It's a semi open standard promulgated by SAE. J1939 standard functionality for heavy trucks, no problem again, another semi open standard promulgated by SAE.
Now lets say i want to implement a standard cylinder contribution test (standard diagnostic test you run all the time). Much more difficult. In today's world You have to license (directly or indirectly) the proprietary protocol info from each manufacturer (under very restrictive terms) you want to implement code for. So that pretty much, kills that.
If you were really hard core about implementing open diagnostic software that could do all (are some sub-set of) the propritary functions for a particular vehicle / engine manufacturer, then you're looking at some serious embedded hw/sw reverse engineering. And,in many cases prior to the mid 1990's, you have multiple proprietary protocols within a given manufacturer / model / year / controller range. That said, there was code and protocol reuse, but... That's why the "open" diagnostic software out there today just doesn't do the specialized stuff. Yet, anyway...
We have a winner!!!
General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
I'm an old-car junkie. I have none right now, but I have in the past. I spent 3 years as a mechanic for the USAF, and I've wrenched on every car I've had to some extent or another. My last car was OBD I, it blinked, like Capt Pike, to tell you things.
Now I have an OBD II car. The amount of data it captures is remarkable. One would need a sizable battery of old-school analytical tools to match what OBD II gives you for free. You just need to pay a little for the scanner.
For today's car, you need an OBD II reader with freeze-frame capability. Less than 100 bucks. Or, you can get a wi-fi OBD II dongle, and use one of the multitude of scanners and realtime dataloggers for a variety of platforms, iOS and PC included.
Hearing all the whining about how modern cars are not for the shadetree mechanic makes me wince. All it tells me is that people are unwilling to adapt, change and learn new tricks.
I've used a 90 dollar OBD II scanner, a forum and the car's Factory Service Manual to diagnose and conclusively repair the two Check Engine Lights I've had. I tracked both down to dirty solenoid connectors. Why were they dirty and grimy? Long story, but the source of this trouble has been vigorously flogged, and they've lost my business forever.
The language in TFA is weird. What exactly is this info that makers are allegedly holding back? If by "holding back" they mean spend the $120 on the factory service manual, then don't be such a cheapskate and pony up the dosh. I have the FSM for my car. The real FSM, not some Haynes or Chilton wannabe. Every single code my car uses is in there, and I can read them all with a 90 dollar OBD II scanner with freeze-frame. For some of the more exotic things you need a datalogger that records OBD II data realtime. Like I said above, lots to choose from for multiple platforms.
The info is available, you just have to pay for it. Is that so much of a burden?
Mechanics of old had to keep a battery of test equipment (ignition testers, tach/dwell meters, exhaust analyzers, etc) and had to keep up-to-date reference material, all of which cost money. Why should today's mechanics be any different? What, you want the car's codes for free? Na. You need to shell out the $$$ to get the factory service manual. You've always had to.
The "Civilized World" jumped the shark ca. 1973.
Okay. Say it with me now...
YOU CANNOT BE TOO HARD ON CORPORATIONS.
There, doesn't that feel good?
Just what we need on /. - a computer analogy to explain cars.
Prove anything by multiplying Huge Number times Tiny Number
Apple should be paying close attention to this. One day, people will demand "right to repair" for thier iDevice and Apple will be sitting where the car manufacturers are today...
Just like any car lover I'm always worried what will happen when manufacturers start encrypting the electronic/software then I realize where there's money to be made there will be aftermarket parts like say MegaSquirt. Give it enough time and there will be plug and play systems with custom firmware for any car out there. The hardest part then will be rewiring the damn thing if the wire loom is a mess.
by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
It slices! It dices! It tears the driver to shreds!
(Sorry for all the caps, but voting is tomorrow, and there appears to be a serious issue here.)
I am far from expert on the proposal, and maybe I'm interpreting this wrong. But it seems there already is a law agreed upon in July, and the "Right to Repair" question is a TRICK QUESTION that replaces it with a WEAKER law, based on my interpretation of this email I got from Massachusetts Representative Jay R. Kaufman.
He is recommending that voters LEAVE THE QUESTION BLANK. My interpretation is that "Against" would defeat the existing law, "For" would replace it with a weaker law, and "Blank" would leave the existing stronger law intact.
Admittedly, after reading his rather vague email, I am very confused, and I wrote back for clarification. But here it is:
I work in the diagnostic tool industry for Big3. The only thing that is really locked down is flashing the controller. Codes can be read by any tom dick and hairy.
Your not allowed to flash your cause because idiots would custom flash there PCM, blow the engine and then try to make a warranty claim. I'm also wondering what this is going to make available, hate to break it you the professional scan tools are are few thousand up front and decent monthly fee for flash access. If your willing to pony up the money you can buy a system all ready and do everything the dealer does. I know of a few people who have done it so at least with the manufacture I work with I'm not sure what the problem is.
no need to be an ass about it
Just mandate that anything (be it service manuals, tools, computer kit, parts, service bulletins, computer system firmware updates, diagnostic code books, computer system readers or anything else) that the manufacturer makes available to a dealer must be available to anyone else who wants to acquire it. Require that the prices charged for this stuff to dealers is not allowed to be lower than that charged to others.
If there is nothing that only the dealers have then anyone can fix the problems and there is never a reason to go back to the dealers except for recalls (which are done for free) and maybe warranty work.
Your car will FAIL INSPECTION with a fault light
You CANNOT legally drive your car without inspection
You DO NOT have to get your computer inspected, you can CONTINUE to use it with the lit fault light.
What happens when the automaker goes out of business?
YES it happens! SAAB!
Do they take their encrypted codes with them into oblivion?
There are NO MORE Saab dealerships. You MUST get your Saab repaired by an independent garage!
WHERE do they get the codes?
Body Control Module functions on a sub thousand dollar scan tool. NO.
PATS key functionality on a sub thousand dollar scan tool. NO.
ABS release function for a simple brake bleed, on a sub thousand dollar scan tool. NO.
The list could go on, but you get the idea.
That might not be important to you. Or a lot of people for that matter.
But when that replacement key costs $150.00 including service you might think twice.
Changing an ignition cylinder used to be a lot simpler and cheaper.
Yes, you can do brake bleeds on the GM without the scanner, but not by the book either...
If the manufacturers are forced to release this data on a more reasonable basis, the we may see a hell of a lot better functionality in the simple scanners you can buy over at the big chain auto parts stores.
While you may be in the business, you might want to head over to the ETI's website and take a look at the their review of each OEM's proprietary data licensing term and costs. Might shock you.
As for as the average guy out there working on his car on the weekend: It was always necessary to buy some tools. But, having to shell out several thousand dollars as an artificial barrier to entry, because some know it all deams a particular mechanical repair too complicated, is B.S. For people at the low end of the economic ladder, this kind of shit can mean the difference between having the family car/truck ready on monday morning, or not. And all that means.
And by that logic maybe we should put a three thousand dollar price tag on a can of starting fluid, because OMG, someone REALLY can blow up their engine with it.
BTW, my favorite scanner is the OTC Genisys for capability and value. I am a very good automotive electrical / electronic troubleshooter, an amateur programmer, and a veracious reader of low level hardware text books. FWIW.
I love it when these kind of stories come up on /.
Always nice to see the opinions of other combo gearheads / techies.
eec-iv tuning + 8061 opcodes, next a new O.S. for the eec-v in the powerstroke
God, I love Slashdot no matter how wrong it is.
I drive VW diesels, treated well the motor will do 500k+
my rabbit (82, 640K) is on is 6th clutch, my jetta (01 280k) on its 2nd
How many slushbox rebuilds/replacements is that? There is more to efficency then MPG
K.I.S.S.
I would much rather work on a modern car than a classic. In fact, my hobby is retrofitting modern components into classic cars, including ECUs. The concepts on this ballot are important because the manufacturers would like to completely lock us out of the ECU, THAT would be an issue. As is, as long as they ECU can be talked to, and we can have basic access to it, it's not particularly difficult to work on a modern car (and they self-diagnose far better than classics).
If you really need to control an engine and don't have access to the original ECU for some reason, replacing it with an aftermarket ECU is not difficult, it just requires (very basic) coding knowledge. The basic guts of an ICE haven't changed much, and even variable valve timing and direct injection are not particularly complex concepts to tune. The fact that the skill set to work on modern engines is different than classic engines doesn't mean that they are worse or harder to work on, it just means you need different skills. This is like people saying that computers suck to work on now that they aren't full of tubes, that's only true if you only know how to work on tubes.
Just another ignorant American.
It's for their mother-in-law's car, I think it's a 70s Pinto.
I'd be fine with relying on dealers to service my car (I drive a 2001 Volvo V70). But except for some notable exceptions, dealer mechanics are hacks that don't read the dealer bulletins published by the manufacturer (that would be like asking for directions), and prefer to make it up as they go. And make it up they do. They try this part, and if that's not it, then we'll have to try replacing the other one. Oh, oops, that’s another thousand dollars. Oh, and I won't give you the money back for my erroneous diagnosis the first time around. In fact, the more things I try that don't work, the more money my dealership makes. And when I change the oil, I'll forget to check the oil level, overfill it a bit, and when the crankshaft seal breaks, that's another whopper. A 30 second 'oversight' leading to a 6 hour repair job. Yeah, more work. I've been around this block way too many times to believe these events are 'accidents'. If dealers could, they would opt for wholesale engine replacement every time there's a problem. Sounds like I'm exaggerating? Heard of Tesla batteries? We're getting there.
When the $100 regulator failed on my alternator (manufacturer's design flaw), the dealer's choice was to give me a new alternator for $1,300 incl. labor. Thanks to service bulletin that I bought from Volvo for $6.95 (15 minutes google research), I ordered the (improved design) replacement part ($100) and did the repair in a couple of hours. Note that Volvo had published to the dealers a detailed description of the problem, the circumstances under which it occurred (matching my case), and the required remedy. Note that the dealer service department knew none of it, and certainly couldn't be bothered to investigate. Of course, I understand. Knowing the right answer would have lost him $800 in revenue. Well, because I can't put up with this racket, he gets none of my business. Nor does any other dealer.
As far as I'm concerned, there's no ethics or integrity in car repair, dealer or independent. They all profit from finding more problems than there are, or creating new ones where there weren't any. I would love to discover that I'm wrong, but every time I tried, I got burned. There are always exceptions, but they seem well hidden.
I've been wishing that error read-outs wouldn't be code, but plain language, and that any car owner had access to full information, not just some cryptic, generic reference. But that would interfere with the dealer business model, so unless regulators and lawmakers require it, it's not going to happen.