FTC Approves Tesla's Direct Sales Model

cartechboy (2660665) writes "We've all read about Tesla and the ongoing battles its having with different dealer associations. Basically, dealer associations aren't too pleased about the Silicon Valley startup's direct sales model. Today the FTC has had made a statement on the matter and it's actually in favor of Tesla's direct sales model. 'In this case and others, many state and local regulators have eliminated the direct purchasing option for consumers, by taking steps to protect existing middlemen from new competition. We believe this is bad policy for a number of reasons,' wrote Andy Gavil, Debbie Feinstein, and Marty Gaynor in the FTC's 'Who decides how consumers should shop?' posting to the Competition Matters blog. The FTC appears to take issue not with those laws, but with how they're being used, and with the direct-sales bans being passed in several states. Now the only real question is how long will it be before Tesla prevails in all states?"

Comments

FTA commented, not approved

[Noah Haders]

To be clear, FTA staff wrote a blog posting in which they approve of new ways in which consumers can shop for goods. They have not approved any new regulations related to Tesla. The summary is accurate, but the headline is a little off.

Re:FTA commented, not approved

[flyneye]

To be clear, once the FTC would approve this, it would knock over the first domino to this in ANY state. Last time I looked, the Fed is Constitutionally required to regulate trade between the states. This isnt going to be a matter of states rights and wont be their decision.

Re:FTA commented, not approved

[Talderas]

The Fed isn't required to do anything. They're only given permission to do so.

Re:FTA commented, not approved

[CrimsonAvenger]

"The Fed" is slang for the Federal Reserve Bank. As in "the Fed raised interest rates today".

"The Feds" (note the 's') is slang for the Federal Government. Which has power to regulate Interstate Commerce.

And yes, they have the power, but not the obligation - if they choose to ignore the issue, not much anyone can do about it.

Re:FTA commented, not approved

[K. S. Kyosuke]

Obviously, it's a reserve of federals to do whatever you need them to do at the moment, one from which you can draw them at any time.

Re:FTA commented, not approved

[i kan reed]

But states are explicitly denied the power for that regulation, by the de facto interpretation of the 10th amendment.

Re:FTA commented, not approved

[iamgnat]

Last time I looked, the Fed is Constitutionally required to regulate trade between the states. This isnt going to be a matter of states rights and wont be their decision.

There is no such requirement. They are just granted the power to do so.

Furthermore this is about trade/sales within the state. None of these laws prevent you from buying a Tesla in another state and then taking it back to and registering it in your home state. This is about how the cars can be sold within a given state. So yes it does have a State's rights aspect and is in the State's rights to pass such laws as they see fit until such a time as it is contested and ruled on by the state's supreme court and/or SCOTUS.

Re:FTA commented, not approved

[X0563511]

You should know by now that "interstate commerce" basically means "anything the Feds want it to mean at that particular moment."

Re:FTA commented, not approved

[TheTerseOne]

What on Earth does the Federal Reserve have to do with any of this?

In this case I think "The Fed" is short for "The Federales - you know - the mounted police?"

Re:FTA commented, not approved

[whoever57]

This is about how the cars can be sold within a given state. So yes it does have a State's rights aspect and is in the State's rights to pass such laws as they see fit until such a time as it is contested and ruled on by the state's supreme court and/or SCOTUS

You know that the SCOTUS has already ruled that wheat grown by a farmer for his own consumption can be regulated by the Feds and that weed grown by an individual in his garden for his own consumption can be regulated by the Feds, right? Also, think about the last time you went to a pharmacy to fill a prescription -- the laws governing what requires a prescription are federal laws.

The SCOTUS has gutted the interstate commerce clause, allowing it be applied to almost anything.

Re:FTA commented, not approved

[i kan reed]

Specifically in response to your sig: you get modded down a lot, because you make unfounded statements that are clearly antagonistic. Hope that helps.

Re:FTA commented, not approved

[ColdSam]

Adjusting their position every 70 years? This kind of flip-flopping would not have been tolerated in the George W. Bush administration.

Re:FTA commented, not approved

[robot256]

Automakers were never forced to franchise dealerships in the first place--they did it of their own accord, as a business decision, when they were neither evil nor powerful. Then the automakers became evil and powerful, and the dealers wrote the laws to protect themselves, using consumer protection as a pretext (it was a pretext because I can't imagine how manufacturer-run dealers could be as good at screwing people over as the independent ones were). Now the dealers are even more evil and powerful than the automakers, and the situation is reversed, and everyone is realizing just how much the dealers duped them with these laws.

Re:FTA commented, not approved

[Tokolosh]

No state prevents you from buying a Tesla from out of state, because that is the prerogative of the federal government, as you say.

However, a state CAN regulate commerce within its borders, as they do with car dealerships.

However, it is my contention that laws and regulations should be enacted and enforced from the bottom up - neighborhood, city, county, state, federal level. BUT, rights and freedoms, which are inherent, should be protected by everyone, top-down if needed. This means that the federal government is entitled to step in if a local school board decides to exclude black student.

So I assert the human right to conduct business/speech with whoever I want, wherever I want, wherever I want - and that includes directly with Tesla in a different state.

Re:FTA commented, not approved

[UnknownSoldier]

You would think that, however Article I, Section 8 over rides that via several decisions of the Supreme court.

To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;

Webster's American Dictionary (1828) defines commerce as:

an interchange or mutual change of goods, wares, productions, or property of any kind, between nations or individuals ... by barter, or by purchase and sale; trade; traffick ... inland commerce ... is the trade in the exchange of commodities between citizens of the same nation or state.

"The Commerce Clause is intended to give Congress the power to regulate all commerce and trade at the international level as well as in certain applications at the state level."

Reference:
  * http://billofrightsinstitute.o...
  * http://constitution.laws.com/a...
  * http://publiushuldah.wordpress...

Re:FTA commented, not approved

[UnknownSoldier]

That's a really beautiful description!

Please mod parent up as insightful.

Re:FTA commented, not approved

[Tokolosh]

Thank you. Please note that I am making a very subversive argument. Because my logic can be extrapolated to alcohol/weed/manual labor/baby food/contraceptives/sexual services/guns - take your pick. If you are anything other than a libertarian, then you will find something that offends you. So 99% of the population will be ok with denying Tesla, as collateral damage for denying alcohol/weed/.../guns per their narrow worldview.

Re:FTA commented, not approved

[i kan reed]

So... states are denied that power. Which is what I said.

Re:FTA commented, not approved

[slew]

Although states are not allowed to regulate interstate commerce, this is not the specific issue in this case.

A person living in NJ can buy a Tesla (purchased on the internet and shipped from out of state), because that is interstate commerce issue and NJ regulations are trumped by federal interstate commerce regulations.

A non-independent automotive dealer in NJ cannot sell a Tesla to a person living in NJ, because that is not addressed by current federal regulations and now against NJ state regulations.

However, the FTC has some jurisdiction in this area if they can prove that it is anticompetitive. Unfortunately the current supreme court rulings on this topic (e.g., wine, contact lenses) really only cover internet sales (e.g., what Tesla is doing now), not forcing states to license brick/mortar business to sell products in their jurisdiction.

For instance, the 18 states that require some form of state-owned liquor stores or wholesalers, aren't required to let say Jack Daniels open up a company store in a mall to sell their product in their jurisdiction. That would likely take another supreme court ruling and I don't see that coming any time soon given the magnitude of such a ruling.

Re:FTA commented, not approved

[i kan reed]

That just reads as incredibly tenuous logic. Which almost certainly means it's universally accepted jurisprudence in the US.

Re:FTA commented, not approved

[TubeSteak]

And yes, they have the power, but not the obligation - if they choose to ignore the issue, not much anyone can do about it.

People regularly sue the government in order to force action on issues that are being ignored.
There's no such thing as "not much anyone can do about it."

Re:FTA commented, not approved

[nurb432]

The fed does have some requirements, such as passing a budget, etc.

But more to the point, this should have NEVER been an issue in the first place. Restricting how one can sell their products is just ludicrous.

Re:FTA commented, not approved

[whoever57]

How many of those prescriptions are not traversing state or international borders?

When the drugs were bought by a wholesaler or pharmacist from another state, there was interstate commerce. When I buy drugs from my local pharmacist, there is no interstate commerce -- only a transaction that affects interstate commerce. The SCOTUS has read "affects" into the commerce clause even though it is not present there.

Re:FTA commented, not approved

[blindseer]

How many of those prescriptions are not traversing state or international borders?

A vast majority of them I imagine. I see my prescribing physician downtown, I pick up the prescription at the pharmacy on my way home, at no point did I cross a state or national border.

If the federal government feels it necessary to regulate the purity, labeling, and what not of the prescribed medication from the place of manufacture in one state to a pharmacy in another that is one thing. To place regulations on the manner that my physician can prescribe medications to me is another matter. One transaction crosses state lines, the other does not. Regulating a product at all phases of its use because it MAY have crossed state lines at one point is absurdity and an abuse of the authority granted to the federal government.

We need the states to stand up to the federal government. I believe we are just starting to see that with marijuana legalization. The federal government may regret not acting on marijuana legalization earlier, it is going to set precedent for all controlled substances.

I recall a federal prosecutor wanted to charge a man with assault for cutting off another man's beard. The argument used for having federal jurisdiction? The scissors used crossed state lines.

Does that mean public intoxication is a federal crime because the beer consumed came from Canada?

Re:FTA commented, not approved

[Teancum]

No, states are explicitly denied the power to regulate commerce between states. They can still regulate businesses that operate within their state and engage in commerce with citizens of that state.

That is precisely what these state governments are doing, and what Tesla is trying to do within those states as well, thus Tesla is subject to the regulations of those respective state governments. Tesla is trying to build brick & mortar stores in several states as a way to increase sales, thus by building the store and applying for a local business permit to sell automobiles they subsequently subjected themselves to the regulatory authority of that state government.

Texas still can't stop Tesla from selling automobiles to citizens of Texas, but the Texas legislature can require only franchisees are permitted to have actual buildings containing automobiles available for purchase. Or in the case of Tesla they may not offer any automobiles for sale at their showrooms. Freedom of speech permits Tesla to hand out a flier that links to the Tesla website, but that is the only end-run currently allowed with regards to the Texas law.

I'll also note that the 10th Amendment does not say anything about interstate commerce. That clause is in Article I, in the list of powers that are explicitly granted to Congress. I could also go into the semantics of "regulation", as I don't think "regulation" as written by the founding fathers is the same word you think it is here. Regardless, you are simply wrong with your assertion and no court has ever interpreted the Interstate Commerce Clause as broadly as you have presuming state legislators lack any authority even over intrastate commerce as well.

Re:FTA commented, not approved

[flyneye]

Damn, my tax dollars are screaming those lazy bastards need to be required to do something besides get fatter and more flatulent!
I need more damn permissions, screw them!

Re:FTA commented, not approved

[nobodie]

It is not a matter of "may have crossed state lines." It is a matter of "some part of the products sold by the retailer did cross state lines at some point in the supply chain therefore those products are covered by federal law."
Because it is too much work for the retailer to check the supply chain from top to bottom, retailers meet federal standards for everything. For example: federal minimum wage is paid to all employees because of this. I remember, back in the day, I worked as a kid for people who didn't pay minimum wage because they provided services and therefore didn't sell products and thus were not bound by minimum wage requirements.

What does it mean?

[AK Marc]

So, this doesn't sound binding, nor explicit. If the statement was "state laws restricting interstate commerce are unconstitutional, and anyone enforcing those laws will be taken to court by the US government" then it might mean something, but "we think its bad policy" means nothing. Socks with sandals is bad policy, but that doesn't mean the FTC will do anything about it.

Re:What does it mean?

[EmperorArthur]

Per the US constitution the Federal Government has the power to regulate interstate commerce. If they said that laws preventing direct marketing of interstate goods were unenforceable because it falls within the Fed's purview then many more laws would probably be affected. If they don't then it looks like the FTC is favoring Tesla. The only thing it wouldn't apply to is Alcohol, because the 21st amendment specifically gave the states the right to stop it from coming in.

Re:What does it mean?

[mosb1000]

Think of it as a warning shot. They're letting state legislatures know that they don't approve of these bans, so the local governments will have a chance to decide now whether they will back down or fight. Any court battle with the feds would be un-winnable, since the constitution clearly gives the feds the authority to set policy in this matter. By changing their rules now, the can avoid new federal rules and maintain some level of control over car sales in their state.

Re:What does it mean?

[rolfwind]

From an amateur understanding, interstate commerce as originally meant in the constitution meant that states couldn't stop traffic, i.e. Virginia couldn't stop commerce traffic intended for Maryland from North Carolina by instituting a tax or some such aimed soley at these merchants. Exactly how it sound, interstate commerce, between states.

Now, interstate commerce has been twisted in past decades to mean some really weird shit, which is how the feds control drugs that can be grown in one state and will never necessarily leave it....

But I don't see how a state saying how things must be sold in itself is interfering in interstate commerce. That's solely intrastate commerce. It's not a law targeted at soley out of state manufacturers by design (even if that ends up being the case) and it applicable to all makers.

Let be clear that I don't support the law, but this reading of the constition is strange and what allows the Feds to overstep all bounds.

Re:What does it mean?

[ElBeano]

Where are Teslas made? How is prohibiting direct sales NOT interfering in interstate commerce in states where they are attempting sales?

Re:What does it mean?

[mosb1000]

The clause states that the United States Congress shall have power "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes." That doesn't sound like they're just talking about goods passing through states that aren't a party to the trade to me. To me it sounds like they're definitely saying the feds have the authority to make rules about how car made in California can be sold sold in New Jersey.

Re:What does it mean?

[rolfwind]

No, that doesn't make sense. Because you are saying that New Jersey cannot regulate sales of cars in their own state because of where they are made.

Or did the longstanding rules (much older than NJ rules) in several of these states become unconstitutional because they apply to Tesla where before they only applied to Detroit/Japan/etc?

Re:What does it mean?

[Attila Dimedici]

That is because, while such laws are bad policy, they are not unconstitutional.

Re:What does it mean?

[swb]

I think it's just extremely broad and could mean anything and I think the courts have generally sided with the Feds when they decided to invoke the commerce clause.

Re:What does it mean?

[Attila Dimedici]

The constitution gives Congress authority to set policy in this. Unless Congress has passed a law on this, the FTC has no authority on the subject. I am not familiar with all of the laws authorizing the FTC, but, considering that the laws requiring car sales through dealerships have been around for a long time, it is unlikely that Congress has passed any laws overriding those state laws.

Re:What does it mean?

[Attila Dimedici]

Yes, but has Congress passed any laws regulating this? That clause does NOT give the FTC any authority whatsoever, in as much as that clause gives authority to the federal government, it gives that authority to Congress. Until Congress passes a law on the subject, the FTC has no authority to make a rule.

Re:What does it mean?

[ElBeano]

No, that doesn't make sense. Because you are saying that New Jersey cannot regulate sales of cars in their own state because of where they are made.

Or did the longstanding rules (much older than NJ rules) in several of these states become unconstitutional because they apply to Tesla where before they only applied to Detroit/Japan/etc?

Is there any sale more basic than a direct sale? How can banning such a sale, for vehicles made in another state, not be interfering with interstate commerce? Were Teslas actually made in NJ, the laws prohibiting direct sales would not be interfering. So, you are correct that the state of manufacture is relevant, but for opposite the reason your suggesting. As to cars made in another country? This is irrelevant to the matter at hand.

Re:What does it mean?

[AK Marc]

So the states are allowed to legislate interstate commerce, and the feds can't?

Re:What does it mean?

[drinkypoo]

The only thing it wouldn't apply to is Alcohol, because the 21st amendment specifically gave the states the right to stop it from coming in.

It doesn't matter if it applies to Alcohol. The constitution gives the federal government the right to regulate commerce, and the 21st amendment is how it chose to handle alcohol. That is the federal government regulating interstate commerce of alcohol!

Re: What does it mean?

[kenh]

Consider healthcare coverage (I'm sorry, but it is an easily accessible example) - by law health insurance can not be sold across state lines yet the federal government has in the last few years exerted tremendous regulatory control over this market.

Somehow it was argued that the individual that chooses not to buy health insurance coverage has as great, if not greater, impact on the healthcare market as the individual that actually participates in the healthcare market...

Re:What does it mean?

[wolrahnaes]

Or did the longstanding rules (much older than NJ rules) in several of these states become unconstitutional because they apply to Tesla where before they only applied to Detroit/Japan/etc?

Just because it's longstanding doesn't mean it's constitutional or right. See the Pledge for example. Unconstitutional since 1954, but it remains because various courts keep finding ways to drop the cases on technicalities rather than actually making a decision on the issue.

Re:What does it mean?

[Attila Dimedici]

I did not say that Congress cannot pass a law on this. I said that these laws are not unconstitutional. If Congress passed a law on this subject, it would almost certainly supersede the state laws. However, as far as I am aware, Congress has passed no such law, which means the FTC has no authority to regulate this. The Constitution does give any authority to the FTC. The FTC only has whatever authority Congress has delegated to it and, as I said, at this point I am unaware of any law passed by Congress giving the FTC, or any other department, authority overthis.

Re:What does it mean?

[Smidge204]

The creation of the FTC is the law Congress passed in order to deal with these issues.

So yes, the FTC DOES in fact have the authority, because Congress gave it to them back in 1914.
=Smidge=

Re:What does it mean?

[Tanktalus]

How? By not prohibiting the sale itself, only who is making the sale. Tesla can sell all the cars they want, as long as they use local dealers to do so. Therefore interstate commerce is not prohibited. Still a dumb law, but I don't see anything here that makes it unconstitutional or federal.

Controlled substances can only be sold through pharmacies by licensed pharmacists. And new cars can only be sold through local car dealerships. Now why only local car dealerships should be allowed to sell cars, or why we're equating new cars to controlled substances, I don't understand. But we are, and it's legal for the states to make dumb laws like this.

Re:What does it mean?

[CanHasDIY]

Where are Teslas made? How is prohibiting direct sales NOT interfering in interstate commerce in states where they are attempting sales?

Because saying "you have to sell that this way" isn't the same as saying "you can't sell that here," or "you have to pay a special tax if you want to transport goods through our state."

Otherwise, California would not be able to, say, restrict the sale of certain firearms that are legal in other states.

Re: What does it mean?

[CanHasDIY]

Consider healthcare coverage (I'm sorry, but it is an easily accessible example) - by law health insurance can not be sold across state lines yet the federal government has in the last few years exerted tremendous regulatory control over this market.

Somehow it was argued that the individual that chooses not to buy health insurance coverage has as great, if not greater, impact on the healthcare market as the individual that actually participates in the healthcare market...

You think that's an unreasonable application of the Commerce Clause? Go read the Wiki page for Wickard v Filburn.

It'll blow your friggin' mind.

Re:What does it mean?

[bluefoxlucid]

Effectively, they can't sell it. Their business model is afflicted by conflict of interest in that way, or by onerous requirements. It's like if you said they could only sell by direct line to God to relay prayer for a Tesla.

Re:What does it mean?

[bluefoxlucid]

How is the Pledge unconstitutional?

Re:What does it mean?

[bluefoxlucid]

You're wrong, actually. Congressional and/or constitutional law created the conditions warranting enforcement of some trade behavior. The Executive branch then executes the law by issuing an Executive Order to establish the FTC. The FTC is now the official executive arm of the Federal Government's rule over interstate commerce; until Congress passes a law to narrow the authority of the FTC, the FTC has every authority to make any rule falling under the purview of its charter.

Re: What does it mean?

[bluefoxlucid]

Soviet America.

Re:What does it mean?

[bluefoxlucid]

Most people don't understand what the executive branch does. Hell, most people think a company would run better if you removed all VPs and C-level employees. The Brendan Eich thing brought up a lot of people jawing about how a CEO's primary responsibility is to be the public face of the company--apparently they never head about marketing and PR.

Re:What does it mean?

[CanHasDIY]

Effectively, they can't sell it.

Why? Is there some law against Tesla opening dealerships?

No, really, I don't understand why that's such an impossible business model for them to adopt. Is it a logistics issue? Lack of funding? Ego problem? Help me out here.

Re: What does it mean?

[CanHasDIY]

... and Wickard v Filburn happened almost 100 years ago.

Shit's only gotten worse since then.

Re:What does it mean?

[Attila Dimedici]

Except that this is NOT under the FTC's current charter. Just because it is called the Federal Trade Commission does not mean that it has been given carte blanche to regulate all trade anymore than the Federal Communication Commission has authority to regulate all communication. Both of their charters are broad enough for either of them to issue regulations related to laws passed by Congress which were not part of their original charter (although in most cases, Congress has actually designated that role to them in the laws which were passed), but neither of their charters allow them to create regulations over areas where Congress has not passed a law. This is an area where Congress has passed no such law. If Congress had passed such a law, don't you think the FTC would have stepped into this sooner (as in before Tesla even existed)?
To summarize, yes the FTC is the official executive arm of the Federal Government's rule over interstate commerce, but it only has the authority to enforce laws that Congress has passed. It does not have the authority to extend federal regulation into areas where Congress has not yet passed a law. Congress delegated to the FTC the authority to enforce the laws it passed regulating interstate commerce. It did not delegate to the FTC the authority to decide to regulate interstate commerce in areas where Congress had not passed a law. This is such an area. Congress has the constitutional authority to pass a law regarding whether or not a state can require a manufacturer to sell through intermediaries (dealers), but I am unaware of any such law. The FTC cannot decide on its own to override the states on this issue. It requires Congress to authorize it to do so.

Re:What does it mean?

[Attila Dimedici]

Really? I looked into the information regarding the law passed in 1914. It says nothing about automobiles or dealers. It doesn't even say anything about the FTC having authority to regulate distribution in that manner. What it does do is give the FTC the authority and responsibility to enforce federal laws regarding interstate commerce. Just because Congress passed a law creating an administrative agency named the Federal Trade Commission does not mean that they gave it the power to regulate interstate commerce in whatever way the members of the commission see fit. All Congress did was delegate enforcement of laws that Congress had passed regulating interstate commerce. In particular, it was given authority to enforce anti-trust laws and to curb corporate "unfair trade practices". This is not a case of corporate unfair trade practices. This is a case of state laws.

Re:What does it mean?

[JackieBrown]

So how come states are able to regulate who sales alcohol?

Re:What does it mean?

[bluefoxlucid]

In many states, it's illegal to own your own dealership. Tesla has sales and service centers with zero physical cars in them because they're not legally allowed to own a showroom.

Then it comes down to having to deal with dealerships. This is expensive, and of course Tesla isn't pushing enough stock to actually support independent dealerships. Chevy dealerships won't carry Teslas, etc. Even if the dealership is allowed to and does in fact carry Teslas, they gain a more lucrative position selling and maintaining other cars, and so steer people away from Teslas--this was (is?) actively happening with the Nissan Leaf, but there are a bazillion Leaf commercials.

All of these incidental barriers come down to a situation where you can get your car into the state, get it in a dealership, and a customer can come and buy it; but, in practice, that won't actually happen.

The courts--even the supreme court--have heard many cases on many subjects in which one side of the legal argument was, "We don't deny them the right or privilege to do what they are asserting we prohibit," and the opinion of the Court was, "You make it fucking impossible in real life, so yes you do, and you will cease this behavior or you will find yourself a long vacation in a tiny hotel room with iron bars and an in-room toilet." Such reasoning makes sense to me.

Re:What does it mean?

[Attila Dimedici]

While it may be arguable as to whether the interstate commerce clause should be invoked here, I believe it legitimately could be invoked here. However, if you read that clause it says "Congress shall have power to regulate interstate commerce." Since the FTC is NOT Congress, and Congress has passed no laws regarding this, the FTC has no authority to intervene. Now it is possible that I am mistaken about the interstate commerce clause giving Congress the authority to intervene here, it is irrelevant since Congress has not done so. Until Congress does so, the FTC has no authority to intervene.

Re:What does it mean?

[beelsebob]

Because allowing a state to say "you're allowed to sell it, as long as you sell it this way" is effectively the same as allowing a state to say "you're not allowed to sell it", because then the state can say "you're allowed to sell it, as long as you sell it on the 29th of February, in the cellar, with the lights off, with no stairs to the cellar, with all produce hidden in a locked filing cabinet, stuck in a disused lavatory, with a sign on the door saying 'Beware of the Leopard'".

Re:What does it mean?

[X0563511]

Think back - how many times have you bought things that were built/manufactured/grown by the same company selling it to you? That's an exceedingly rare circumstance and demanding Tesla has to do that (with the only visible reason being their product is better) doesn't seem fair.

Re:What does it mean?

[steelfood]

interstate commerce as originally meant in the constitution meant that states couldn't stop traffic

This is just one aspect of interstate commerce. "Interstate" means between state. "Commerce" means the sale of goods and services.

The clause was put in place to prevent states from levying tariffs on goods and services coming from other states. It exists to keep states from favoring their own industries at the cost of a product from another state. Transportation of said goods is but the tip of the iceberg of what this allows the Feds to do, and rightfully so. Without the interstate commerce, the United States would have denigrated into another lesser Europe before the EU, where every country had protectionist laws and discouraged or outright banned importing of certain goods that had domestic equivalents from other countries. Trade disputes is a very common cause of war, and this clause was meant to prevent the states from going to war with each other.

The transportation network that came out of this clause (interstate highway system, rail network, ports, etc.) is a stretched reading of the clause, but regulating how states treat the goods and services from other states is the raison d'etre of this clause.

Re:What does it mean?

[Xaedalus]

You know, this argument bears eerie similarities to the arguments about the meaning of various Bible passages.

Re:What does it mean?

[whoever57]

Where are Teslas made?

In Fremont, CA. In what used to be the NUMMI plant (which was jointly owned by GM and Toyota)

Re:What does it mean?

[whoever57]

Controlled substances can only be sold through pharmacies by licensed pharmacists

Because of federal rules.

Re:What does it mean?

[bluefoxlucid]

You have never been in a court room, have you?

Re:What does it mean?

[CanHasDIY]

In many states, it's illegal to own your own dealership. Tesla has sales and service centers with zero physical cars in them because they're not legally allowed to own a showroom.

Easy fix, one that established auto manufacturers have already dealt with: franchising.

Now, if Tesla doesn't want to franchise their dealerships, that's their choice, but in that case they really can't legitimately complain that the system is gamed against them.

Then it comes down to having to deal with dealerships. This is expensive, and of course Tesla isn't pushing enough stock to actually support independent dealerships.

Which is their own fault/problem, not a fault of the system under which cars have been sold in this country for decades, with the exception of Ohio's recent attempt to specifically outlaw the sale of Tesla automobiles (a dumb and unconstitutional move, IMO).

All of these incidental barriers come down to a situation where you can get your car into the state, get it in a dealership, and a customer can come and buy it; but, in practice, that won't actually happen.

Because Tesla chooses to eschew the standard model, and insists that they should be able to do something that no other auto manufacturer is allowed to do - sell directly to the public.

So, it's less that they can't sell the cars, it's that they won't if they have to play by the same rules as everyone else.

The courts--even the supreme court--have heard many cases on many subjects in which one side of the legal argument was, "We don't deny them the right or privilege to do what they are asserting we prohibit," and the opinion of the Court was, "You make it fucking impossible in real life, so yes you do, and you will cease this behavior or you will find yourself a long vacation in a tiny hotel room with iron bars and an in-room toilet." Such reasoning makes sense to me.

If other auto makers were allowed to do direct-to-consumer sales, this might be a valid point.

Re:What does it mean?

[CanHasDIY]

Because allowing a state to say "you're allowed to sell it, as long as you sell it this way" is effectively the same as allowing a state to say "you're not allowed to sell it", because then the state can say "you're allowed to sell it, as long as you sell it on the 29th of February, in the cellar, with the lights off, with no stairs to the cellar, with all produce hidden in a locked filing cabinet, stuck in a disused lavatory, with a sign on the door saying 'Beware of the Leopard'".

Yet that's exactly how cars have been sold in this country for decades - the government telling auto makers, "you can't sell directly to the public, you have to set up dealerships."

Obviously, it's not a legal barrier, since dozens of other car companies have followed this model for a long, long time. It seems to me the real issue at hand is that Tesla wants an exception made to the law, just for them. Now that would be unconstitutional.

Re:What does it mean?

[CanHasDIY]

Think back - how many times have you bought things that were built/manufactured/grown by the same company selling it to you?

Often, but I have a habit of shopping local for everything I possibly can. I get where you're coming from, though.

That's an exceedingly rare circumstance and demanding Tesla has to do that (with the only visible reason being their product is better) doesn't seem fair.

Nobody's demanding that of Tesla - the governments of the states are expecting Tesla to follow the same model that all other auto makers have to follow, and Tesla doesn't want to. That's what appears to be the real problem here.

Unless some legislator is blocking Tesla from franchising dealerships, and/or expecting them to follow stricter rules than any other auto maker has to follow (looking at you, Ohio), this is much ado about nothing.

Re:What does it mean?

[wolrahnaes]

"under God". Added by Congress in 1954 and a clear violation of the First Amendment's separation of church and state.

Re:What does it mean?

[bluefoxlucid]

Which is their own fault/problem, not a fault of the system under which cars have been sold in this country for decades, with the exception of Ohio's recent attempt to specifically outlaw the sale of Tesla automobiles (a dumb and unconstitutional move, IMO).

It's their own fault that they're not a 30-year established company with multi-billion-dollar income able to support tens of thousands of dealerships all over the country in convenient locations for the consumer? Come on, there's 24,000 Teslas on the road. There's almost 4000 Ford dealers. Each Tesla dealer would have claim to, what, 6 sales?

Have you ever wondered why every small auto manuafcturer--Tucker, AMC, etc.--in the US has failed or been bought up by the big three?

Re:What does it mean?

[bluefoxlucid]

What law does "under God" enact?

Re:What does it mean?

[keiichi_no_hen]

The transportation network is authorized under the post office clause NOT the commerce clause

Re:What does it mean?

[beelsebob]

Yet that's exactly how cars have been sold in this country for decades - the government telling auto makers, "you can't sell directly to the public, you have to set up dealerships."

Right... And now they're finally realising that that's a stupid restriction to place that has no benefit and arbitrarily restricts trade.

Obviously, it's not a legal barrier, since dozens of other car companies have followed this model for a long, long time. It seems to me the real issue at hand is that Tesla wants an exception made to the law, just for them. Now that would be unconstitutional.

No, Tesla wants state laws changed so that they're in line with federal laws allowing Tesla to trade across state boundaries as it pleases, rather than being told it's not allowed to trade with certain people in certain states.

Re:What does it mean?

[CanHasDIY]

Which is their own fault/problem, not a fault of the system under which cars have been sold in this country for decades, with the exception of Ohio's recent attempt to specifically outlaw the sale of Tesla automobiles (a dumb and unconstitutional move, IMO).

It's their own fault that they're not a 30-year established company with multi-billion-dollar income able to support tens of thousands of dealerships all over the country in convenient locations for the consumer?

Strawman argument - do you think Chevy pays for every Chevy dealership? Obviously not, because you said "In many states, it's illegal to own your own dealership."

Neither the law, nor the "30-year established compan(ies)" are preventing Tesla from offering franchise opportunities in other states. You seem to be trying to blame everyone but Tesla Motors for a business decision Tesla Motors has made - not franchising dealerships.

Have you ever wondered why every small auto manuafcturer--Tucker, AMC, etc.--in the US has failed or been bought up by the big three?

Not really, no - I presume most of them failed because either A) they made crappy products nobody wanted to buy, or B) they ran their own businesses into the ground with stupid decisions... like limiting the number of states they can sell in (and thus, severely limiting their customer base) because they were unwilling to let a "middle-man" get a cut of the action.

Re:What does it mean?

[CanHasDIY]

Yet that's exactly how cars have been sold in this country for decades - the government telling auto makers, "you can't sell directly to the public, you have to set up dealerships."

Right... And now they're finally realising that that's a stupid restriction to place that has no benefit and arbitrarily restricts trade.

Obviously, it's not a legal barrier, since dozens of other car companies have followed this model for a long, long time. It seems to me the real issue at hand is that Tesla wants an exception made to the law, just for them. Now that would be unconstitutional.

No, Tesla wants state laws changed so that they're in line with federal laws allowing Tesla to trade across state boundaries as it pleases, rather than being told it's not allowed to trade with certain people in certain states.

No disagreement there, but I don't see the governments, federal or states, wanting to give up the ability to impose those restrictions anytime soon - otherwise, states like California wouldn't be able to restrict, say, firearms sales, and I think we both know that the people who run CA wouldn't be on board with allowing things like private sales.

Re:What does it mean?

[OhPlz]

There are states and cities that effectively ban firearms this way. Sure you could theoretically own a firearm in one of those areas, but not really. And that's for a product that "shall not be infringed".

Re:What does it mean?

[bjwest]

It means somehow, somewhere down the line, the consumer is going to get fucked just like with the FCC and net neutrality. Federal commissions, like the rest of the government, are owned and operated by the corporations. They have no real power anymore. The People in the phrase "We The People" in the constitution now includes corporations, and money is now speech. We the actual people - the middle and lower class people, are totally screwed. Our "voice" is drowned out by the voice of the wealthy, and we are only allowed to vote on the candidates they choose for us.

Re:What does it mean?

[mpercy]

"Yet that's exactly how cars have been sold in this country for decades - the government telling auto makers, "you can't sell directly to the public, you have to set up dealerships."

Not really a decent summary of the situation. The manufacturers long ago chose to use dealerships rather than direct sales channels. The dealership franchise laws came about *after* a number of situations where the manufacturers were seen to be abusing their relationships with their dealers.

From FTC.gov

"When the automobile industry was in its infancy, auto manufacturers recruited independent, locally owned dealers to reach consumers in localities across the country. State laws progressively embraced wide-ranging protections for these dealers due to a perceived imbalance of power between the typically small local dealers and major national manufacturers. Dealers persuaded lawmakers that they needed protections from abusive practices by manufacturers. Federal laws, too, developed to protect auto dealers from abuse.

Those laws expanded to include more protectionist clauses over time, again as a result of perceived abuses by manufactures like trying to drive dealerships out-of-business by opening company stores directly competing and undercutting with franchisees. There's certainly some level of conflict of interest there, and states sided with the local franchisees. Imagine if you bought a McDonalds franchise and built up a successful local business for the brand, then corporate came in a built a new McDs across the street from you in violation of the franchise contracts, but you could not afford the lawsuit needed to back them down? You'd probably have Occupy folks begging for protectionist laws for you.

But you're right saying " It seems to me the real issue at hand is that Tesla wants an exception made to the law, just for them." The laws may be obsolete or even have a negative impact, but they're still the law until legislatures change them.

It would be ironic for Tesla to get the laws changed, succeed in selling lots of cars, shift to a dealership model (for the same reasons Ford did way back when), then end up abusing the dealers and causing the reinstatement of the franchisee laws.

Re:What does it mean?

[Carnivore]

No it's not. I bought my Fitbit from Fitbit. I was thinking of buying a Nest from Nest. Nexus 5 from Google Play. Kilt from Utilikilts. Kettle from Adagio. Apple computers. Kindle from Amazon. Many more examples.
Most of those things are pretty mainstream.

I don't want to have to wait for a middleman to decide that there's enough volume potential for them to start stocking the stuff I want.

And this is all ignoring how _awful_ car dealers are. There's a whole industry dedicated to circumventing them as much as possible!

Re:What does it mean?

[mosb1000]

I'm not saying that at all. Of course New Jersey can regulate sales of cars in their own state. But the commerce clause gives the feds authority to say what rules New Jersey can an can't make, and it gives them the authority to make their own rules, which would take precedence over any rules made by the state of New Jersey. This is pretty basic stuff. I hope you either aren't a US citizen, or haven't yet graduated High School, because your understanding of how the US government works is deficient, to say the least.

Re:What does it mean?

[mosb1000]

A group of businesses have lobbied their state legislature to enact laws to prevent a new company (and a new way of selling cars) from competing with them and making them obsolete. That's an anti-trust violation. There is absolutely no way NJ would stand a chance in court, they have obviously used this law for anti-competitive purposes.

Re:What does it mean?

[AK Marc]

I don't remember the case off the top of my head, but the courts have ruled that if the feds have constitutional jurisdiction, then the states and localities don't. Even if there's no federal law that they are in conflict with. So the lack of a federal law on the subject of car dealers doesn't mean that the states suddenly have the power to regulate interstate commerce, if they want to.

Re:What does it mean?

[bluefoxlucid]

Strawman argument - do you think Chevy pays for every Chevy dealership?

Of course not. They simply need to supply a single-supplier product which can make a middleman money. As-is, Tesla, like other small car manufacturers, cannot supply enough volume movement to sustain a middleman business model, although they can sustain themselves via a direct sales model.

Until Tesla is an established, powerful car manufacturer able to control a significant amount of the market, they can't supply the volume sales to make a middleman strategy viable.

because they were unwilling to let a "middle-man" get a cut of the action.

Imagine if Best Buy sold only TVs.

Imagine if Best Buy sold only Sony TVs.

Imagine if Sony only sold three models of TV, in LCD with 39 inch, 49 inch, and 59 inch.

Now imagine that Sony sells 24,000 TVs in 3 years.

How long do you think Best Buy, with 4000 locations in 48 states, selling only Sony Televisions and no other products at all, is going to stay in business?

That's how a dealership works. Chevrolet-GMC? General Motors owns both. Ford-Lincoln-Mercury? Toyota-Lexus? Guess who owns the Lincoln and Mercury brands? Guess who owns the Lexus brand? So we're talking about independent Tesla dealers who would have operating costs far outstripping their income from sales volume *unless* Tesla could control a large chunk of the market.

It's a model that only works if you have large, strong monopolies; and it only allows you to compete if you are a large, strong monopoly.

Re:What does it mean?

[AK Marc]

Not really a decent summary of the situation. The manufacturers long ago chose to use dealerships rather than direct sales channels. The dealership franchise laws came about *after* a number of situations where the manufacturers were seen to be abusing their relationships with their dealers.

It was a case of simple outsourcing. The manufacturers were manufacturers, not salesmen. So they outsourced sales. Then lobbied for laws requiring outsourcing of sales. Now, the sales arms are rent-seekers. They wanted the laws against manufacturers precicely for this reason. If they build in 20% markup for the dealers, then a direct sale can be 20% under the dealer's "best price" for the same item. So require, by law, that everyone must use the inefficient and shady dealer network, and you are harming your competitors in an anti-competitive manner, for the benefit of your profit model.

The silver lining is that the feds seem to understand that this is a bad thing, and that the state laws restricting interstate trade likely wouldn't hold up in court, so we can get change to rid ourselves of this rent-seeking middle man that adds no value. These days, when I want a car, I usually have done all the research so that I don't need to (or want to) talk to a human. I want to identify a car, get the "best price" for it, and decide to execute the transaction, or walk away (like I do buying a candy bay at the supermarket). A 20% markup so I can deal with some rent-seeking 3rd party isn't a benefit.

Re:What does it mean?

[AK Marc]

Raritan, Infoblox, and a bunch more. The only networking gear that the maker refuses to sell directly is Cisco. They require you go through a partner "for my protection". If I want an CRS-3 with a 100 Gbps card in it to run my DSL, Cisco will refuse to sell it to me because a $50 Linksys will do the job, rather than a $1,000,000 (fully populated estimated by me) optical switch. If I went to Raritan and requested a 240v 50Hz power supply, they'd sell it to me, even if grid power didn't match. Though APC will direct me to a reseler.

Manufacturers like resellers because it's a legal separation. The device worked right, but didn't work in the install? Sue the reseller, not the maker. But so many sell directly (though, I think in more than one case, I filled out the paperwork to become a reseller so I could buy some at the manufacturer price, but they were for direct use, not resale), so I became a reseller to buy it.

Re:What does it mean?

[AK Marc]

Separation of Church and state. The State required a religious observation when they added it, thus invalidated the previously "legal" pledge.

Re:What does it mean?

[AK Marc]

Congress has passed no laws regarding this, the FTC has no authority to intervene.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F... Congress has passed a law allowing the FTC to intervene on Congress's authority.

Re:What does it mean?

[AK Marc]

it was given authority to enforce anti-trust laws and to curb corporate "unfair trade practices". This is not a case of corporate unfair trade practices. This is a case of state laws.

One of the things that came out with the airbag lawsuits (no I don't remember all the court cases I read) is that if you do something that's required by law (put airbags in a car), that it's required by law doesn't absolve you of civil or criminal penalties for doing so. That the corporate abuses are required by law doesn't change the fact that the abuse is happening. There can be actions against the manufacturers for following the law, when the law is poor. They have the right to stop trading. But they don't have the right to abuse people with unfair trade practices.

Re:What does it mean?

[Attila Dimedici]

Sorry, but it would not be a slam dunk in court. There are already other states which have such laws. Further, I really doubt that it is a violation of the anti-trust law to convince the state legislature to pass a law. It seems improbable that Congress would have written such into any law. In addition, any such ruling as you envision would put into jeopardy a lot of state licensing laws.
It is possible that Tesla could bring and win a suit because New Jersey had already given them a license to sell cars in New Jersey. However, the information I can find suggests that the FTC would not have standing to sue.

Re:What does it mean?

[Firethorn]

Obviously, it's not a legal barrier, since dozens of other car companies have followed this model for a long, long time.

Dozens of other car companies have failed. There's a reason we're down to the 'big 3' - Ford, GM, and Chrysler. Is it coincidence that these are also the companies that started up BEFORE all the franchise laws? That the franchise laws work to provide regulatory capture, protecting these companies against competition from smaller, more agile companies? That the only ones able to compete with them are other huge international car companies?

It seems to me the real issue at hand is that Tesla wants an exception made to the law, just for them. Now that would be unconstitutional.

Simple fix. Get rid of the dealership laws completely. Give the auto companies the choice. McDonalds franchises seem to do just fine even though McDonalds can legally own it's own restaurants, they just often choose not to.

Re:What does it mean?

[Attila Dimedici]

Except that the states are not regulating interstate commerce, the state laws in question are intrastate. There is, however, an element of interstate commerce here which would allow Congress to intervene(although that could certainly be debated). If Tesla was not setting up "stores" in the various states, then what the states are doing would be regulating interstate commerce.

Re:What does it mean?

[Attila Dimedici]

Yes, I read that, did you? The law gave the FTC authority to regulate corporations.

Re:What does it mean?

[jafac]

commerce-clause has been used to enforce a national 55 mph speed limit (the dark times), and national 21 yr drinking age.

Re:What does it mean?

[Attila Dimedici]

Once more, this is not about the actions of any corporations. It is about state laws governing who is allowed to sell new cars in the state. The dealers do not actually do anything in this regard (except to lobby state legislators and regulators on the issue, which is constitutionally protected activity). The manufacturers and dealers do not in any way actually impede Tesla's actions. It is the several state governments which are doing so.

Re:What does it mean?

[Firethorn]

Heh. For some reason this reminded me of the George Carlin bit:
"Sex is legal, Selling is legal, so why is selling sex illegal?"

Re:What does it mean?

[AK Marc]

If Tesla was not setting up "stores" in the various states, then what the states are doing would be regulating interstate commerce.

They aren't stores, they are showrooms. The maker has places where the possible users can see them. That is legal. I've gone to such things held by Mercedes, BMW and Ferrari (no, no idea why American makers *never* do that, unless you count NASCAR). If you like it, they direct you to a representative from a local dealer on site. The difference is Tesla directs you to the out-of-state order process, illegal in 48-ish states. But quite clearly interstate, not intrastate, unless you live in CA.

Re:What does it mean?

[Attila Dimedici]

So, it is sort of like Amazon's Distribution centers which aren't owned by Amazon so that Amazon can say they don't have a physical presence in the state for sales tax purposes.

Re:What does it mean?

[AK Marc]

Whether the answer is yes or no, neither affects this case. collecting sales tax is a state matter that the states and the feds agree is a state matter. One corporation exploiting a loophole has no effect on a different one in an unrelated case.

Tesla deliberately crafted their sales channel to be questionably legal to force the issue in places that didn't change the laws to what they want. They are ready for a legal battle, and obviously trying to provoke one. That doesn't mean they must be wrong, or are exploiting any loophole.

Re:What does it mean?

[Teancum]

Tesla isn't even prohibited from selling automobiles in Texas or other states, all they are prohibited from doing is setting up a local sales office and showroom as well as offering local support services like parts sales over the counter or a repair shop that the customer can drop off the vehicle and then come back once it is repaired.

Texans, for instance, can even drive to New Mexico or Louisiana and get their Model S repaired. The state is merely making it very inconvenient if you want the car repaired in Austin or Dallas.

Re:What does it mean?

[Teancum]

Easy fix, one that established auto manufacturers have already dealt with: franchising.

The problem is that many of the dealers in these states requiring franchisees for consumer sales also have local dealers who have a lock on who can become an automobile dealership within that state. In other words, even if Tesla was somehow able to recruit somebody who wanted to be an independent franchisee and was very friendly to Tesla, that state would prohibit that franchisee from opening the store even if they were a citizen of that state. The number of dealership licenses is limited in that state, thus Tesla is literally forced to sell a franchise to their competitor who in turn has no legal requirement to even sell that brand of automobile.

Quite literally those dealers can sit on the franchise and do nothing. They can also demand a percentage of sales done "in their territory" (aka anything sold on-line) even though they have invested nothing into even trying to market those cars other than the nominal purchase of the franchise.

This is the corruption Tesla is fighting. This is why it is so sinister and what really is at stake because it is local businessmen in these states who are trying to squeeze Tesla for a cut of the profits.

If other auto makers were allowed to do direct-to-consumer sales, this might be a valid point.

They are allowed direct to consumer sales. It is the franchise agreements which prohibit the direct sales instead, but that is an automaker-dealer relationship that was mutually agreed upon in advance and has nothing to do with statutory laws that are passed by a state legislature. These automakers also can't arbitrarily change that contract, so they are stuck with that provision unless they get the dealers to agree to new terms.

Re:What does it mean?

[dl_sledding]

...and try to compare the same vehicle between several dealers in the same area...is there a competitive difference?

Has anybody else noticed how the manufacturers are forcing dealers out of business, to reduce this EXACT situation? We had this happen in our area: there was a GMC/Olds/Cadillac dealer, and a Chevy/Buick/Pontiac dealer. The GMC dealer (since they had the more "exclusive" lines, they were given first choice) was given an ultimatum: either buy out the Chevy dealer, or be bought out by the Chevy dealer. Since the GMC dealer's owner was nearing retirement age and none of his kids wanted to continue the business, he sold out. Immediately after, choices went down, prices went up, and haggling disappeared. If you don't want to pay the price on the window, you go at least 60 miles away to find another dealer. Competition is gone and the consumer protection that the competition bought (which is what they are basing their arguements against manufacturer stores on) is also gone. So, tell me: how is this situation different than a manufacturer opening their own store, compared to a franchised store? Destroying multiple competing franchises in a market area creates a monopoly, just as the dealers are saying a manufacturer store would be. Their arguement does not hold water when reality of the marketplace is considered.

Re:What does it mean?

[Smidge204]

So you don't think, that corporations are practicing "unfair trade practices" just because the actions of corporations are made by proxy through state government via lobbying? It's somehow not a problem if state laws allow it?

What's your opinion on the Voting Rights Act?
=Smidge=

Re:What does it mean?

[Attila Dimedici]

The state law does not "allow" it. The state law mandates it. What exactly are the corporations doing that is illegal? BTW, keep in mind that the corporations involved here are not Ford, GM, or any of the other car manufacturers. The corporations are those which own automobile dealerships. They are much smaller organizations than the auto manufacturers, few if any of them do business outside of a single state.

Re:What does it mean?

[Smidge204]

So they rig the laws in their favor, such that they aren't doing anything that's illegal by the letter of the law, and that's 100% fine? That's the only criteria? As long as they get the laws changed they can do whatever they want and you'd be totally cool with it because it's by-definition legal? No such thing as an unjust law, or even a law which is itself illegal?

What's your opinion on the Voting Rights Act?

And yes, the MANUFACTURERS are indeed part of it, not just the dealers.
=Smidge=

Re:What does it mean?

[Attila Dimedici]

I did not say that. My question is, upon what basis would you have someone sue the corporations? And which corporations?
You seem to think I am defending this law. All I am saying is that there does not appear to be any law that can be used by the FTC to take action on this. The corporations involved have not done anything which is, or should be actionable. They merely requested that the state license who could sell automobiles in the state and then set the conditions of that licensing so as to preserve their business model. This is no different than what the AMA has done in the practice of medicine, and what the funeral directors' associations have done in regards to providing burial services (and lots of other professions). Yes, there is restraint of trade. No, I do not approve of it. But I disapprove even more of government agencies making up the law as they go along. This is something for the NJ state legislature to address, or even the U.S. Congress, not the FTC (at least not until Congress has delegated them the authority first).

Re:What does it mean?

[Smidge204]

The law that allows the FTC to take action on the matter is the fact that they exist.

Congress does not have to address it, because Congress created the FTC to address things like this a century ago. Congress doesn't need to delegate anything because this is explicitly within the FTC's jurisdiction already. It also doesn't matter that the founding law doesn't mention specific products and services - the role of the FTC is to protect consumers.

Keep in mind that there has been nothing official from the FTC yet, but they have the power to step in and try (perhaps not successfully) to regulate, alter or annul even state-level laws that they feel are to the detriment of consumers. That is precisely the reason they exist.

And since you mentioned them, the FTC has also bumped heads with the AMA back in the 1970s for somewhat similar reasons. The AMA lost.
=Smidge=

Re:What does it mean?

[bluefoxlucid]

There's an old saying: We enshrined freedom of religion, not freedom from religion, as a core civil right.

The Pledge of Allegiance is not a law. It is not covered under any constitutional law any more than, say, a court house displaying a statue of the tablets etched with the Ten Commandments in its front lawn. It would, in fact, be unconstitutional for Congress to make law forbidding a Federal or State institution from religious demonstration made at the discretion of staff with such administrative authority granted to make any such action involved in such demonstration. It would also be illegal for Congress to legislate the presence or absence of religious phrases in the Pledge of Allegiance.

The proposed Pledge Protection Act would be itself unconstitutional for other reasons. As well, the Supreme Court once incorrectly ruled that school students could be compelled to swear the Pledge; this is a thing I took against as a small child, to the dismay of my parents, when I realized in fifth or sixth grade that the Pledge was a swearing that one would accept all acts of Country as good. Having never understood the concept of service to a country or fanatic patriotism, it seemed to me an affront.

Re:What does it mean?

[Attila Dimedici]

Where does the law creating the FTC give them the power to regulate this? Please show me the wording. The law creating the FTC did not say anything which can be read as saying that Congress delegated its authority to regulate interstate commerce to the FTC. What that law said was that Congress was creating the FTC to enforce the trade laws which Congress passed. So the question then becomes, what law has Congress passed regulating this type of state law?

Re:What does it mean?

[Smidge204]

Where does the law creating the FTC give them the power to regulate this? Please show me the wording.

15 U.S. Code 45 states "The Commission is hereby empowered and directed to prevent persons, partnerships, or corporations [...] from using unfair methods of competition in or affecting commerce and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce. "

15 U.S. Code 46 gives the FTC further authority to perform investigations and classify businesses for the purpose to regulating them. They also have the authority to compel corporations to file reports for various reasons.

15 U.S. Code 57a gives the FTC authority to deal with unfair business practices by creating rules.

15 U.S. Code 57b gives the FTC legal teeth if the rules they prescribe are not followed.

So the FTC has the power to investigate "dealership laws," determine if corporations are exploiting these laws in an unfair way, and act if they see fit. The FTC and the Interstate Commerce Clause meet at the Sherman and Clayton antitrust acts, which the FTC was essentially created to enforce and was given broad judicial, legislative, and executive powers to do so without requiring congressional action.

Now, that's not to say that Congress CAN'T step in - only that the FTC does not need their permission. Note that rules and regulations that the FTC is empowered to create and enforce are not the same as laws - Congress is still required to make new laws.
=Smidge=

Re:What does it mean?

[Attila Dimedici]

15 U.S. Code 45..."persons, partnerships, or corporations" Nope no mention of authority to override state laws.
15 U.S. Code 46..."investigations and classify businesses" Not there either.
15 U.S. Code 57a..."unfair business practices" Nor here
15 U.S. Code 57b...that's just the authority to deal with unfair business practices
Nope there is nothing in any of that which tells the FTC that state dealership laws are under its authority. None of those say that a state may not impose something like the dealership regulations on those who want to sell cars in their state. What they do say is that if the state required everyone who sold new cars in the state to be a member of a the dealers organization, the FTC could penalize the dealers organization for not allowing Tesla to join. But that is not the situation.
All of the sections of CFR which you quoted give the FTC authority over business behavior, but this case is not about business behavior. It is about the behavior of the state government. Tesla may have grounds to sue the state of New Jersey for denying it a license to sell cars (especially after having given them one for a period of time). However, the FTC does NOT have standing to sue the state on this issue, unless you can find something in federal law showing that they do (which none of what you have so far presented does...all it does is show that they could sue a business or organization for this).

Re:What does it mean?

[Xaedalus]

Nope! Never have... but I have been in a room full of evangelicals all trying to argue the bible with each other. The similarities in arguing style and technique are very similar.

Re:What does it mean?

[Smidge204]

Who said anything about overriding state laws? Even the comment from the FTC acknowledges general support for the laws. What's contentious is corporation's abuse of the laws.

Jesus F. Christ, this was a long walk to discover you didn't even read the summary.
=Smidge=

Re:What does it mean?

[AK Marc]

There's an old saying: We enshrined freedom of religion, not freedom from religion, as a core civil right.

Sounds like fascism, "You have the freedom to do whatever you like, so long as it's on the approved list." Funny so many anti-atheists insist atheism is a faith-based religion, yet, claim it isn't when discussing freedom of/from religion.

How does one have freedom of religion when one isn't allowed to explore them without great interference?

Re:What does it mean?

[Attila Dimedici]

What corporation's abuse of the law? In the cases in question, state governments have interpreted their laws to ban an auto manufacturer from directly selling to consumers in their state. Besides making statements that support such bans, exactly what have any corporations done that is an abuse of the law?

Re:What does it mean?

[Smidge204]

exactly what have any corporations done that is an abuse of the law?

Go read the article. No actual allegations have been made.

The FTC has the power to investigate and determine if abuse is occurring. If they determine that to be the case, they have the authority to rectify the situation through various means. They do not need congress' cooperation to do this.

That was my only point, but it seems your entire objection is based on a misunderstanding of what's actually going on, so... fuck me I guess.
=Smidge=

Re:What does it mean?

[bluefoxlucid]

The tone has shifted to philosophical and away from legal. As such, I will simply re-emphasize that pretending the law says something that it does not is not a good argument and, likewise, argumentum ad populum by pointing at other people who are also wrong is not a good supporting argument. I don't care much about the philosophical issue; it's the constant harping I keep hearing about a non-existent legal clause that bothers me.

Re:What does it mean?

[Attila Dimedici]

I read the article and as far as I can tell the only thing corporations have done is "contend that it is important for regulators to prevent abuses of local dealers." That appears to me to be protected by the First Amendment. I do not even understand HOW corporations could do something in this situation which is an abuse of the law. What would there be for the FTC to investigate?

Socks with sandals is a bad policy?

[cbhacking]

I'm from Seattle, you insensitive clod!

Manufacturing & Marketing One's Product

[Anonymous Coward]

It is very unsettling to hear sales groups that are not part of a manufacturing process to be running to lawmakers demanding that Tesla not be able to sell its own highly efficient automobile. It is the only new automobile I will ever purchase, and I will not be looking for one being sold by those who would block Tesla's right to sell their own product. (.)

Thank God

[JimSadler]

Frankly the stakes are so high that i would not be shocked to see murders in an effort to shut down Tesla. We all need Tesla to succeed big time. The powers that be would do far better to develop a cheaper, better, electric car in order to compete with Tesla than playing all kinds of negative games trying to do Tesla harm. Change is upon us all and there are times when change can sting us all a bit. That does not mean we should get all negative and perverted in our responses to change.

Re:Thank God

[NoZart]

Sadly, a big part of the population is very change-averse, because routine/conditioning is easier than adapting to new situations. Maybe this is evolutionary, because short term it's more "energy efficient".

Just look at the whole start-button thing with windows 8. While nearly everyone STILL argues around this little change and how bad it is because the old Startmenu is just the way how things were done for 20 years (which really is the only real argument, as all others are straw men), it really is an improvement in several ways IF one takes the time to adapt to work with it. Yet, even intellectually competent people bash it because it's just CHANGE.

And as this change-averseness (?) is not restricted to the "lower classes" but runs through the whole population, the stupid people will groan at the effort they have to make (and due to mass, loudly) and the intelligent ones will make the decisions to keep things the way they are....

Re:Thank God

[Blymie]

But they are developing their electric own cars. All car manufacturers are.

The lobbying is a tool they are using, the laws, to hold back Telsa until they have a suitably competitive product to sell.

Once that happens, it won't matter is a Telsa can sell direct ... the big boys can crush them with advertising and normal market pressure.

Re:Thank God

[Barsteward]

"Just look at the whole start-button thing with windows 8. " - you could change your comment to "Just look at Windows".

Re:Thank God

[NoZart]

blablabla. press windows and type, just as before works the same way, even better.

Re:Thank God

[NoZart]

maybe it's just personal preference, but i find big mouse movements that need low precision to work faster/better for me. I nearly never used the start menue below win 8 because aiming at those small lines of text and navigating the cascading submenues that tended to appear way more demanding in concentration then having big targets where i just need to "fart in their general direction"

Re:Thank God

[rezme]

I'd disagree with the comparison to Windows 8. If you must use the start button debate as a point of reference, a more apt analogy would be if Tesla were to change the pedal style accelerator (the standard interface to "go" in a car ever since cars started being built) with a trigger mounted to the steering wheel. Changing the guts under the hood in Windows wouldn't be a complaint for most people (barring major issues in how the OS performed as a result) but changing the interface that has been the standard for 20 years on a desktop computer is idiocy. It's not change for improvement's sake (as with Tesla's advancing powerplant technology) but rather change for the sake of change alone, without any appreciable improvement in efficiency in the operation of the product. Metro works fine for touch based devices, but not all desktop/laptops are touch, and to be frank touch interfaces are far less efficient than a mouse in a desktop environment. Who wants to sit at their desk with their hands on the keyboard and, when needing to interact with the GUI, have to reach up and touch the monitor rather than moving their hand over a few inches to move the mouse.

Re:Thank God

[MichaelSmith]

Did I just read a computer analogy in an article about cars?

Re:Thank God

[NoZart]

It's the new "in russia..." thing :)

Re:Thank God

[rezme]

As do I, thank you very much, but it was the most efficient interface for the scenario. There were early alternative interfaces for cars that didn't make the cut either. I'm not denigrating Win8 for its usage in tablet environments, that's a new hardware space and the interface makes sense for that scenario, I'm just saying that a unified interface like that is a stupid idea cross platform, because it's inefficient in the desktop space (which I note your response fails to rebut). The desktop computer is not going away, as much as Microsoft would love for it to. It will always have its place among power users. If you don't need to do anything beyond what a tablet can do, then great, I'm happy that the Win8 interface works for you, but putting others down for having an issue with having their workflow interrupted in order to foist more useless eye candy on them is rude and it shows your lack of understanding about the issue in the first place.

Re:Thank God

[Smallpond]

The manufacturers are pretending to develop electric cars. They have an interest in preserving the status quo. When GM first developed an electric concept car, they named it the "Impact". It's hard to imagine a scarier name for a small, light-weight car. They cancelled the EV-1 despite the customers who loved it.

Re:Thank God

[NoZart]

(not the AC from above)
I think the Metro is inefficient when compared to how one worked with the start menu. But on it's own, it brings a few things that i personally find faster to work with:

- bigger targets: As I said before, moving the mouse faster with lower precision is easier than having to aim exactly (especially when it comes to cascading sub menues). I would compare it to how OSX puts the things for the focused window on top of the screen vs. at the top of the window - you just slam the mouse upwards and only have to navigate in one dimension.
- winkey + typing: the windows 8 interface provides me with direct links to every imaginable subsetting in some 3rd window that i would have to click through otherwise. For the most things, you wouldn't even need to finish typing to get the link. Also, it somehow manages to present you with results even if you type a different word to get to the same function: If i type "wlan" or "wifi", i get presented with a link to the "wireless" window (granted, this subfeature needs improvement)

I often read the argument that the start screen breaks "immersion" - i see no difference compared to the old start menu. When i open the start menu, my mental focus is there anyway, regardless if it's small and in the corner (needs more concentration but can see the desktop) or if the screen gets blocked by it (cant see the desktop, but due to higher selection speed i am back earlier)

Disclaimer: i use metro exclusively as the start and search function. The App part and settings part are completely stupid and ignorable (but thankfully, they don't mess with my traditional aspects of working on the desktop)

I was not trying to put down anyone. Sorry for my tone. "stupid" people and "lower classes" were used inappropriately but i didn't know how to express myself (not a native speaker)

Re:Thank God

[rezme]

re: the tone, fair enough. It's often easy to stomp on toes when you're speaking in your non-native language. Re: efficiency, I do a lot of development work with VM environments for my job. As a result, I'm working out of a window for my environment, and recently I've had the misfortune of having to deal with Server 2012. Like Win8, they've forced the metro interface in that environment (I won't even go into my opinion regarding pushing this interface onto a server OS). One of my chief complaints is that in order to get to the control panel, or any other settings (or even to power down the system) I have to drag the mouse to the lower right corner of the "desktop" in order to pop up that settings icon to click on it. It only shows up when your mouse is in the furthest lower right corner of the screen, but since I'm in a VM environment, my mouse slips past that lowest point and out of the window frequently. It's a dumb way to provide access to that section of the OS, and it serves no purpose toward efficiency. It's a band-aid approach to provide functionality to the non-touch environment. I don't want an OS where the environment that I spend 90% of my computing time has a crowbarred work-around as the primary means of getting into the guts of the OS. Metro is great for what it is, the problem is that MS wants it to be great for everything, and that's just never going to happen. Tools should suit the job, rather than trying to wrap the job around the tool you have available.

Re:Thank God

[Anonymous Coward]

Did I just read a computer analogy in an article about cars?

In Soviet Russia, car analogy makes you!

Re:Thank God

[NoZart]

i am in a familiar situation, actually. Systems engineer. To make things worse, our VM solution doesn't forward shortcuts.

If your VM env provides shortcuts: win x for the hidden start menu, or win c for the sidebar (which hopefully will disappear soon anyway as it's completely redundant).
If it doesn't: winbutton, type "sett", enter (or instead of sett, just type the name of the setting you want to change)

yes, this is different to the old approach, but after some adjustment time to this win + typing ANYTHING approach, you will find you spend less time navigating 3-6 windows to get to its guts.

I get where you are coming from, and i had the same issues initially. The side band thingies are really some good work of stupidity. As i mentioned before, i exclusively use metro for starting programs and search for settings windows or files.

I am completely with you on how the unified interface is a bad approach.

Re:Thank God

[confused one]

OK, I'll give you credit that your basic premise is good; but, I take exception to the Windows 8 example. They made it easier to use in some cases, and harder in others. In my application, it often takes an extra step to reach what I want, without creating a bunch of extra tiles and desktop icons. Yeah, it's only one swipe or a mouse click more, but that's going in the wrong direction.

Re:Thank God

[CanHasDIY]

When GM first developed an electric concept car, they named it the "Impact". It's hard to imagine a scarier name for a small, light-weight car.

How about the new Chevy Captiva? Sounds like a vehicle designed for snatch-and-grabs.

Stick a "KDNP-U" license plate on that bad boy, you're good to go.

Re:Thank God

[bluefoxlucid]

Clutch-brake-gas was only standardized fairly recently. Some cars had five pedals for a gear shift and required a complicated dance to change over.

Re:Thank God

[FictionPimp]

A larger and larger majority of my windows servers are now running core or minimal. Almost all of my servers are now managed remotely via server manager or remote powershell.

Besides an occasional app server that requires the full gui why would you even have it installed? Server manager auto opens and provides the place to do basically everything anyways. If an app has it's own management tools, set them to autostart or pin them to the taskbar.

Re:Thank God

[LynnwoodRooster]

The manufacturers probably don't give a rip about Tesla selling direct - heck, they'd probably like the option. Who this impacts is NOT the other manufacturers, but the NADA group - the dealers themselves. They don't want to compete with the manufacturer (who inevitably would eliminate dealer prep and other markups). It's the dealers, not the manufacturers, who are fighting to keep the rule.

Re:Thank God

[rezme]

Well, I'm using it to write test code to test and MSP software my company writes. The server application for the MSP software has to run from a windows server, so naturally my dev environment is a windows server as well. I'm exactly the demographic that MS is ignoring in their quest to capture the Apple "my user interface has to be pretty" crowd.

Re:Thank God

[rezme]

Dammit... "write test code to test *an MSP software my company writes"

Re:Thank God

[OhPlz]

I doubt that. The big players are only dabbling with EVs because the public has yet to show much of an interest. Sure, techie enclaves love EVs, and the greenies perhaps, but there's not a significant demand. Hybrids are selling because the public is more accepting of a vehicle that they can still take on a long trip and fill up along the way. It's a chicken and egg problem, but I don't blame the auto manufacturers for not wanting to take the risk yet.

Re:Thank God

[drinkypoo]

Clutch-brake-gas was only standardized fairly recently. Some cars had five pedals for a gear shift and required a complicated dance to change over.

A taskbar with a start menu (or similar) was only standardized fairly recently. Some interfaces had a CLI to launch programs and required the user to remember the name of the executable in order to start the next application.

Re:Thank God

[rezme]

Well, "fairly recently" is subjective I guess, since it's been 20 years since that concept was first introduced to the mainstream by Win95. I do recall DOS, having started out with PCs in the late 80s/early 90s, and I still use CLI quite extensively. My point is that for desktop environments, the start menu interface is a proven concept that works (otherwise it would have been abandoned back with Win98 or even XP). The touch style interface is a novel concept in a desktop environment, but it really isn't practical for power users. Shoehorning that concept into a server environment such as Server 2012 is laughable, because who's going to waste money on a touchscreen for a server.

By all means, MS should develop tablet friendly interfaces for their mobile offerings, but it doesn't really have a place in the desktop world. I don't mind a bit of eye candy to update the OS, win7 was decidedly more visually appealing than XP (won't go into Vista, that was an OS that really shouldn't have happened) but it kept the same basic concept for an interface. The most important thing for Microsoft to remain viable is to increase their customer base into new areas, without pissing off and alienating the customer base that made them the company they are today. Given the amount of complaint (be it justified in your opinion or not) being heard from the power user community over this change, I'd say they are most definitely alienating that key demographic that has paid their salaries for the last twenty odd years.

On a side note, love the sig, one of my favorite books ;)

Re:Thank God

[fafalone]

The Win8 interface is only an improvement if you use a touch screen. It's intellectually dishonest and blatant corporate shilling to make a factual assertion that it's an improvement without qualifying for which use case, because for non-touch mouse and keyboard, whether it's an improvement is anything but objectively true. What's particularly sad is how many people would mod that up. In the old days that would have been modded into oblivion.

Re:or

[Sique]

You could actually read the blog post referenced in TFA, then you would know about the background. At first, car manufacturers were relying on local dealers to reach consumers, as 100 years ago, there were not much alternatives. But the manufacturer as the sole source of the product, the dealer was selling had much leverage in pressuring the car dealers to act in ways that benefitted the manufacturer but not the dealer (e.g. pressuring him to list certain cars for specified prices, unlist others, offer certain services etc.pp.), by threatening e.g. to open another car dealership in the vincinity, giving better conditions to dealers that agreed to the conditions etc.pp.

Thus several laws were passed to protect the car dealer from to much pressurer by the manufacturer, and one important detail was forbidding car manufacturers to operate their own dealerships in competition to the independent dealer. But Tesla Motors doesn't even sell via independent car dealers, thus they aren't in competition to dealers of their own products. In this case, all the laws passed to protect independent dealerships from too much leverage of their own supplier don't make sense, as there is exactly zero pressure from Tesla to its dealerships, as as there are none.

Re:Will not matter.

[davidhoude]

this is a product designed for the 0.0001%.

Come on now...

Society worldwide is changing towards renewable energy. While Tesla's cars might not be perfect right now, they are a step in the right direction. It is so hard to go up against an established industry, especially when they have such large lobbying budgets. I hope you can understand that this isn't just about Tesla, it's about new businesses being able to compete.

And for the 0.0001% give me a break. These cars may be expensive and considered a luxury item, but it doesn't mean they cannot be afforded by middle to upper middle class. Also, new technology is expensive, that's how it works. If they don't sell any new cars due to archaic laws, how do you expect the price to drop?

This topic is very interesting to watch unfold, and I think many slashdotters would agree with me.

Re:or

[bhagwad]

I'm not sure why this "pressure" that car manufacturers put on dealers is a bad thing. They manufacture the product, and if they have the leverage to dictate how it will be sold, good for them. I'm not sure what compelling state interest is served by artificially restricting the way manufacturers can sell their cars.

Re:or

[Hognoxious]

At first, car manufacturers were relying on local dealers to reach consumers, as 100 years ago, there were not much alternatives.

100 years ago wasn't the alternative a horse?

Re:Will not matter.

[Barsteward]

Its taken 150 years for ICE to get to this level of fuel economy, cleaner exhaust fumes and power output. I bet in the early years of the ICE was only relevant to less than your estimate for electric cars.

"Why is there so much about tesla anyways" - because all the vested interests in ICE and fossil fuel are looking to the future and seeing a decline so they are putting as many stupid road blocks in the way of progress as possible. Maybe they are going to join forces with the RIAA soon

Conspiracy theory?

[Anonymous Coward]

You realize they could just set up a local state dealer and sell through them? It puts the tax in the state which is what they're after.

Always Tesla takes the confrontational approach. Top Gear gives them a bad review because the car breaks down? So they sue Top Gear (and lose). NYT reviewer gives them a bad review because the car drains its power in the cold? Tesla attacks them on the micro-detail of the review instead of improving the cold weather performance. Here they could simply work within the State laws instead its a full on attack. Cars catches fire? Attack the press for reporting it...

Meanwhile everyone else makes electric cars without all the drama queen nonsense!

Re:Conspiracy theory?

[Steve Hamlin]

"You realize they could just set up a local state dealer and sell through them?"

Most of the state dealership laws require that the dealers be independent (legally and financially, de jure and de facto) from the vehicle manufacturers.

So, no, Tesla can't just create a controlled dealer in each state and sell through that dealer.

Re:Conspiracy theory?

[Rockoon]

You realize they could just set up a local state dealer and sell through them?

No car manufacturer owns or sets up any dealerships in these states because it is illegal for them to do so.

Re:Conspiracy theory?

[LynnwoodRooster]

I bet if Tesla offered the ability to set up a dealership, you'd find hundreds of businessmen willing to plunk down the cash to start a Tesla dealership... Especially those that already have large, multi-brand dealerships. The cost of adding another brand is greatly reduced by already having the lot, the sales force, the garages, the advertising channels, etc.

Re:Conspiracy theory?

[robot256]

Elon Musk has personally and repeatedly said that (a) His definition of SUCCESS for Tesla is when it gets put out of business by other automakers making better electric cars, and (b) He REFUSES to use any existing dealer infrastructure to avoid conflicts of interest when making gas versus electric sales. This position is exonerated by experiences with numerous other brands, where absurdly few dealerships actually bother to stock, or even know anything about, their manufacturer's electric offerings, making buying one unnecessarily difficult.

Re:Conspiracy theory?

[Carnivore]

The laws are wrong and outdated. I do not ever want to go to a car dealer again. I am the consumer and I am demanding direct sales. I fully support Tesla's full on attack.

Hardly any other manufacturer takes EVs seriously. The most prominent one is the Leaf, but there are reports that dealers can be reluctant to sell them. Toyota makes the RAV4 EV, with a Tesla drivetrain. They only sell it in California and go out of their way to make it a pain to own. Chevy has the Spark EV, a city car. Fiat will have the 500e. None of these even come close to the practicality of Tesla's model with large batteries and very fast DC charging. The quick research I did just now suggests that using a Chademo DC charger on a Leaf puts in about half of the range per unit time as a Tesla Supercharger (remember that the Superchargers are free, too)

The statement "Meanwhile everyone else makes electric cars without all the drama queen nonsense!" is extremely misleading and dismissive.

If I want an EV, why does the first step have to be convincing a third party to offer to sell it to me? That's insane.

Re:Conspiracy theory?

[blackraven14250]

Top Gear gives them a bad review because the car breaks down? So they sue Top Gear (and lose).

Tesla did not lose the suit because they were wrong - the car did not run out of power, and they proved the point quite adaquately. They lost because Top Gear did not qualify as an "informational program". The court considered it an "entertainment program".

NYT reviewer gives them a bad review because the car drains its power in the cold? Tesla attacks them on the micro-detail of the review instead of improving the cold weather performance.

The NYT reviewer misrepresented the distance he drove the car, and how long he charged it. Take, for example, a gas car. If I told you I drove it 50 miles at 55 mph on a full tank before running out of gas on the side of a highway, you'd be appalled at the mileage. In reality, I did not run out of gas, but I drove 100 miles at 85 mph on less than half of a tank - those numbers are much more reasonable to people. That's not ethical conduct for a newspaper, and the facts need to be out there - trying to say Tesla is at blame when the NYT is publishing a review that has substantial fictional elements is beyond stupidity.

Re:or

[Sique]

The fact that there have been numerous abuses of the monopoly power of the manufacturer. Per iure, the car dealerships were independent, but de facto, they had to agree to exclusive contracts, thus they were dependent on a single supplier and had to follow each of their whims without much recourse. Car dealerships which didn't agree to exclusive contracts got worse conditions, and the manufacturers were opening new or contracting with existant dealerships in the neighborhood with exclusive contracts and much better conditions.

Re:or

[peragrin]

There is that and the fact that Tesla's aren't going to need as much maintenance as a regular car. you don't need regular oil changes, etc.

Yes you will need brake repairs, and tire repairs, but for the most part things like that in cars only happen every 30k miles or more. you don't have the constant tiny repair jobs that keep dealerships going.

Re:or

[bhagwad]

I don't think anyone has a god given right to be a dealer and sell someone else's cars. Sure, it sucks to be a dealer who has no choice but to agree to a car manufacturer's conditions...but so what? Life is tough...

Re:or

[Tar-Alcarin]

At first, car manufacturers were relying on local dealers to reach consumers, as 100 years ago, there were not much alternatives.

100 years ago wasn't the alternative a horse?

Not to say the horse wasn't an alternative (it still is, really), but the modern automobile dates from ca 1886. Mass production started as early as 1902. The first truly affordable model (Ford Model T) didn't come out until 1927, but since we're talking about Teslas, we're not really comparing to "affordable" cars. Yeah, I know, the economics behind an electric vehicle are a bit different, but it's still a fairly huge expenditure.

Thus to answer your question: Yes, 100 years back sounds about right.

Whitehouse Petition on Tesla Sales

[MrLogic17]

It's symbolic, as has been shown with many other petitions that the president has ignored, but here goes:

https://petitions.whitehouse.g...

Re:Whitehouse Petition on Tesla Sales

[CanHasDIY]

It's symbolic, as has been shown with many other petitions that the president has ignored, but here goes:

https://petitions.whitehouse.g...

Yea, maybe if y'all keep whipping it, one day that dead horse will get up and ride...

Consumer change aversion != scheming by lobby

[140Mandak262Jamuna]

Please do not conflate these two issues. On one hand consumers, or a section of consumers are change averse. On the other hand established interests are lobbying to preserve their stranglehold on the market by putting road blocks to competition. These two are not the same.

If there was a group that benefitted financially by the presence of start button, and it lobbied state governments to prevent Microsoft from taking it away then you would have the comparison right and you realize how ridiculous it is.

Re:Consumer change aversion != scheming by lobby

[NoZart]

I get your point. I just think putting up roadblocks for competition (in this particular context) is just another way to achieve the same thing: to keep things the way that they are. "established interests", "preserving hold" are words that (for me) sound exactly like something that is averse to change.

But maybe it's just me not being a native speaker ;)

Re:Consumer change aversion != scheming by lobby

[140Mandak262Jamuna]

Thinking back there was a time, a company sued Microsoft in court about something similar.

Most computer makers accept money from software vendors to pre-install crap ware, nag ware etc on their new PCs. Lots of the bad customer experience in Windows happen because these crapware are installed as the default handlers for many standard files. They all want to be launched at boot time so that they might appear to launch very fast if a foolish customer actually uses them. And each one of them would check for updates on launch. In the days of dial-up and they have to time out one by one to get the boot sequence completed. Then in the transition period when people have broadband, some of the crap ware will try to launch the modem interface. Absolutely horrible user experience. Anyway, AOL was paying oodles of money to the vendors to preinstall AOL in them.

Microsoft had Netscape and AOL as the big things to be killed in its target list. So it had secret contracts with computer makers to prevent them from pre installing Netscape. Netscape did not know what hit it. But AOL realized it and filed suit against Microsoft to prevent it from forcing the computer makers to exclude AOL from the desk top.

So the analogy I used actually happened!

Re:Will not matter.

[drinkypoo]

The reasons all these states have this law related to cars is because they are big purchase items and based on past problems they are requiring that the purchaser has some in state method of getting the product fix or for resolving problems.

That is a typically stupid thing to say on slashdot. The reason that all these states have these laws is massive lobbying. If the goal were to protect the consumer, then all of these states would mandate that repair information down to every last OBD-II code or similar (all the info needed to reprogram and/or recode all the modules) would be available to the purchaser of the vehicle, and that they could freely redistribute it to anyone who was working on the vehicle. That's not the laws we have. Instead, we have protectionist laws which actually screw the customer, by preventing competition. The laws are actually for the opposite purpose that you think; they're there to make it harder to service your vehicle, so that its value depreciates more rapidly, and you are forced to buy another one before it can no longer be repaired because it can no longer practically be repaired.

Why is there so much about tesla anyways this is a product designed for the 0.0001%.

You must be new here.

Re:This will become a Federal case

[JRV31]

Sounds like 1948 and Tucker all over again. Go Tesla!

Protecting middlemen

[sjbe]

No, that doesn't make sense. Because you are saying that New Jersey cannot regulate sales of cars in their own state because of where they are made.

New Jersey should NOT have the right to restrict a citizen from purchasing a product made in another state (or even within New Jersey) in order to protect an unnecessary middleman in the transaction. That is what is happening here. The laws are not in place to protect citizens, they are in place to protect dealers and their frankly obsolete business model.

Re:Protecting middlemen

[CanHasDIY]

No, that doesn't make sense. Because you are saying that New Jersey cannot regulate sales of cars in their own state because of where they are made.

New Jersey should NOT have the right to restrict a citizen from purchasing a product made in another state (or even within New Jersey) in order to protect an unnecessary middleman in the transaction. That is what is happening here. The laws are not in place to protect citizens, they are in place to protect dealers and their frankly obsolete business model.

By that logic, California shouldn't have the right to restrict a citizen from purchasing a firearm made in another state.

I'd bet dollars against pesos that at least some of the people arguing for Tesla's "right" to direct sales in other states would also argue against the firearms manufacturers "right" to direct sales in CA.

Re:Protecting middlemen

[bluefoxlucid]

That depends on if firearms are contraband in California or if you're simply not allowed to purchase out-of-state firearms.

Re:Protecting middlemen

[CanHasDIY]

That depends on if firearms are contraband in California or if you're simply not allowed to purchase out-of-state firearms.

Oh, you can buy out-of-state firearms in CA, but you have to buy them from a registered dealer - all private sales of firearms are illegal in CA.

Which parallels this situation quite well.

Re:Protecting middlemen

[sjbe]

By that logic, California shouldn't have the right to restrict a citizen from purchasing a firearm made in another state.

That's correct at least in principle but there are some nuances. The state should not have that right to restrict sale of a product as long at the product itself is legal and there are no public safety issues involved. That said there are some pretty important differences between purchasing a weapon and purchasing a motor vehicle. Motor vehicles have to be properly registered and titled no matter where they were purchased and appropriate training and licensing is required for their use. Firearms clearly have some public safety issues attached to them so sensible measures regarding their sale and distribution and use are not in principle unreasonable. Furthermore there are federal regulations regarding the interstate sale of firearms. That is one case where a middleman might at least in theory actually serve the public interest. For cars I can see no reason whatsoever for dealers to be a protected group.

Re:Protecting middlemen

[Anonymous Coward]

The equivalent with firearms would be if California banned direct sales of semi-auto firearms, and required them to be purchased through a local gun dealer, for the benefit of the "purchaser". Yeah right. I get way better service from Tesla than any car dealer ever dreamed of giving.

Plus, auto dealers have a vested interest in selling ICE cars, with the associated higher maintenance costs.

Plus, you can bet the major car makers and oil companies will be supporting the dealers, albeit covertly.

Doesn't this country want to do anything about global waming?

If we had a president with JFK's vision, we'd already be on a 10-year plan to move away from oil-burning cars. No future in those antique vehicles.

Sunny Guy

Re:Protecting middlemen

[CanHasDIY]

That's correct at least in principle but there are some nuances. The state should not have that right to restrict sale of a product as long at the product itself is legal and there are no public safety issues involved. That said there are some pretty important differences between purchasing a weapon and purchasing a motor vehicle. Motor vehicles have to be properly registered and titled no matter where they were purchased and appropriate training and licensing is required for their use. Firearms clearly have some public safety issues attached to them so sensible measures regarding their sale and distribution and use are not in principle unreasonable.

Pure opinion, meaning that it should not be the basis of legislation. Looking at statistics, motor vehicles present an almost equal amount of public safety risk as firearms, despite vehicle registrations. I think you're letting your opinions regarding Tesla and firearms prevent you from seeing the comparison objectively.

Commercially speaking, there is zero difference between Utah requiring all autos to be sold through dealers and California requiring firearms to be sold through the same method.

Re:Protecting middlemen

[drinkypoo]

By that logic, California shouldn't have the right to restrict a citizen from purchasing a firearm made in another state.

They don't. They have the right (apparently) to restrict us from buying firearms with certain features. As a citizen of the state of California, I am well within my rights to travel to another state solely for the purpose of purchasing a firearm, so long as it is legal for me to own that firearm in my state of residence. But on the other hand, going to another state for the purpose of purchasing firearms or firearms accessories which are illegal in California is itself illegal for me, go figure. And I'm told, but have not bothered to try to find out whether it is true, that no out-of-state gun dealer will bother to sell me a handgun, because of the hassle factor. I could go buy a long gun, though. On the other hand, I only have to pay a licensed gun dealer in my area a bit of money to act as a broker for a gun that I order from another state, through him. So why would I go buy a gun in another state, anyway? It would still be subject to all the same regulations as if I'd bought it here, and it would still be reported.

I'd bet dollars against pesos that at least some of the people arguing for Tesla's "right" to direct sales in other states would also argue against the firearms manufacturers "right" to direct sales in CA.

So what? That's as relevant as me pointing out that I feel the opposite way. On the other hand, direct sales from firearm manufacturers in CA would still be subject to all the same laws as any other firearms sale.

Re:Protecting middlemen

[AK Marc]

By that logic, California shouldn't have the right to restrict a citizen from purchasing a firearm made in another state.

Oooh, an actual case of someone "begging the question". It's so rare that it actually happens (compared with the people incorrectly using the phrase "begging the question). You are assuming that they do. I don't know CA law. I've visited, but never lived there. The feds restrict mail-order of firearms. CA regulates local sales/posession.

CA doesn't make it legal to buy it from an approved local dealer, then make it illegal to buy mail-order from an out-of-state dealer, do they? I would presume they make it illegal to buy, regardless of source. That's different from different treatment depending on the location of the seller.

But I don't read gun law of places I don't live for kicks, so I don't know. I just find you assertion logically inconsistent, so I doubt that's how it works. Thus I question the assumption that they do regulate firearms in the manner you imply.

...In all states?

[kenh]

Now the only real question is how long will it be before Tesla prevails in all states?

I will admit to being just a casual observer of the trials and tribulations Tesla is going through with their direct sales model, but has Tesla actually won ANY of cases where state laws prohibit direct sales of cars?

Re:...In all states?

[mojo-raisin]

Yes. Tesla won in MA

http://articles.latimes.com/20...

Re:...In all states?

[robot256]

Umm, yes. They have won suits in New York, Washington, Massachussets, and Ohio, to name a few. Not all of those rulings were permanent, but this map is pretty recent.

Re:...In all states?

[OhPlz]

Not really. It says the court found that the association that brought the suit had no standing. That leaves the door open for the Commonwealth to pursue the matter in the courts.

Re:...In all states?

[mpercy]

Some of Tesla's 'wins" were dismissals of lawsuits brought by the NADA for lack of status. They did not overturn laws. Your New York and Ohio links reference more Tesla's lobbying ability to prevent new laws from being passed than "winning a lawsuit". The Washington law seems unconstitutional as a bill of attainder since it applies only to Tesla (albeit not by name). Your Mass. link was a dismissal for lack of standing and did not overturn the law.

I am unaware of Tesla successfully challenging an existing law in court.

Re:...In all states?

[robot256]

You're right. Tesla's legal team is just trying to keep the doors open wherever they can. There was a bill in Arizona to legalize them but it died. I don't think Musk is going to commit to building his factory until one of them goes through with it.

Re:or

[JRV31]

The model T was introduced in1909, 1927 was the end of it's run.

Nobody uses the Windows key

[sjbe]

press windows and type, just as before works the same way, even better.

I know almost no one who actually works with Windows that way. Seriously, barely anyone uses the windows key on their keyboard. They get their mouse and start clicking. Slower but that's how they do it.

Re: or

[kenh]

There were many, many different car manufacturers in 1914 (100 years ago) - just look here.

More Consistent Laws

[runningduck]

I think the problem with the current situation is inconsistent laws. I understand why dealership laws exist. I even support a state's right to prevent direct selling of vehicles. But the Interstate Commerce Clause absolutely prevents states from barring the an out of state sale and the transport of the otherwise perfectly legal product back in state as if should.

I think that the missing law is one which prevents states from taxing purchases made in other states. Such Nevada, Texas, Arizona and Virginia can prevent me from purchasing a Tesla in their states. But why are they allowed to then tax my purchase? The underlying justification for a sales tax is to cover the cost incurred by state and local governments which provide countless services facilitating the sales and trading of goods. If they interfere with the sales and trading goods then they have no basis for levying a sales tax on those goods. And as long as those goods are otherwise legal I should be free to purchase these goods in other states and ship them to my home . . . free of any local sales tax.

Re:More Consistent Laws

[confused one]

So you're arguing that you should be able to use the "I bought it in another state" loophole to avoid sales taxes? Then why would anyone buy anything in their home state? You're arguing that we should all drive over the nearest border and pick up what we want tax free. Or order 100% of our goods from internet providers out of state, to avoid all sales taxes. If you do that, you eliminate a tax revenue stream. Lawmakers know this, and they write the law to prevent it.

Re:More Consistent Laws

[Andover Chick]

State taxation when it comes to preventing consumer choice is a form of blocking of interstate commerce, which is illegal.

Re:More Consistent Laws

[Rockoon]

So you're arguing that you should be able to use the "I bought it in another state" loophole to avoid sales taxes?

Seems reasonable if the State that is trying to collect the sales tax had enacted laws that prevented you from buying it locally.

Re:More Consistent Laws

[LynnwoodRooster]

Yep, which is why all States with sales taxes actually impose excise taxes on all purchases, those excise taxes being at the same rate as the sales tax, and the excise tax being waived if a sales tax was already paid. Thus there is no treatment of interstate commerce that is different from intrastate commerce - and thus no Federal ability to ban the practice.

Re:More Consistent Laws

[Tokolosh]

I live in a state where the gas tax, and therefore sales price, is much lower than the neighboring state. Even the most rabid tax-and-spend liberals I know over the border take advantage of buying cheaper gas when they can, thereby denying their more liberal state tax revenue, and filling the coffers of my redneck treasury.

I have never heard of someone declaring the gasoline they imported in their car's tank.

Re: Tesla is a bad model

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, Tesla should look in to building a big factory where they could build less expensive batteries or something. I wonder if that is something they're considering...

Re:or

[FireFury03]

There is that and the fact that Tesla's aren't going to need as much maintenance as a regular car. you don't need regular oil changes, etc.

Well, I'm not so sure about that - the Tesla S apparently has a $600/year service schedule... which largely seems to be an inspection - sounds expensive for an inspection to me...

Re: Will not matter.

[kenh]

"this is a product designed for the 0.0001%"

That's a pretty small market segment, 0.0001% of 330 million US citizens comes out to a few thousand Teslas.

BTW, the Tesla 'S' lists for just under $60K/year, it isn't that much more than a well-equipped Chevy Suburban or imported SUV (Mercedes, BMW, Land Rover). Based on combined sales volumes, that may put it squarely in the 10%er's price range...

Re:Will not matter.

[CrimsonAvenger]

Why is there so much about tesla anyways this is a product designed for the 0.0001%.

You have too many zeroes there - as of this past December, there were 25k+ Teslas on the road worldwide, which would make the Tesla "a product designed for the 0.001%".

Note that 20k+ Teslas have been sold in the US, making the Tesla "a product designed for the 0.01%"...

Note also that the Model T, in its first year, sold only 239 vehicles. Which would have made the Model T Ford "a product designed for the 0.0001%"....

There is a legitimate question

[Applehu Akbar]

I'm firmly on the side of allowing Tesla to try out an unconventional sales model, but what does happen, exactly, when your Tesla needs service? Are you supposed to handle in-warranty service using the standard electronics model - request an RMA, mail your car in to Moonachie, NJ, and then wait several weeks? Conventional dealerships are used by many buyers as a trusted service base, and this is especially going to be true for the early adopters who are buying Teslas now.

And since it will be years before regular garage mechanics will be able to work on Teslas, how does the company intend to handle road service and after-warranty service?

Re:There is a legitimate question

[bluefoxlucid]

Tesla can't own showrooms, so they have sales and service hubs.

Re:There is a legitimate question

[robot256]

Software problem: They diagnose the problem over the air and push an update without you lifting a finger.

Hardware problem: If their local service center is not convenient for you, they send a tech in a loaner Model S to your location and either fix it on the spot or take your car back to the service center for repair.

This model will probably change when they have more cars on the road, but by then they will have more service centers as well. But if their propaganda is to be believed, by that time their cars will be so reliable maybe the individual service model will still work.

Re:There is a legitimate question

[NoImNotNineVolt]

Conventional dealerships are used by many buyers as a trusted service base

lolwat? You mean those places that have unreasonably high hourly labor rates and absolutely refuse to use third party components in lieu of OEM components which cost twice as much? Trusted service base? On what planet?

When I was younger, several of my close friends worked at a local Nissan dealership. They told me horror stories about people bringing in their cars for basic scheduled service. You go in for an oil change, they splash some oil on a new oil filter and throw it in the garbage. That's your "oil change", and there goes your "used oil filter". This wasn't their idea, it was established practice at this particular dealership, sanctioned by their superiors. I wouldn't trust a dealership's service department with shit.

Re:There is a legitimate question

[drinkypoo]

I'm firmly on the side of allowing Tesla to try out an unconventional sales model, but what does happen, exactly, when your Tesla needs service?

This is in fact an excellent question. So far, there is no third-party service training whatsoever and in order to maintain the warranty on a Model S you have to pay a $600/year service charge. To be fair, this covers everything down to roadside assistance (from what I could tell, up to and including loaner vehicles in long-term situations) and really isn't that much money on a vehicle which costs this much money. You can bet your sweet ass that owning a Mercedes or Audi will be more expensive on average, especially due to all the things that often aren't covered by the warranty with some excuse or another, like a whole goddamned transmission costing two grand or more that a ton of Audi A8 owners got to suck down the bill for after dropping more than sixty grand on their machines... rated for around 20 MPG and not nearly as quick as a Model S.

Re:or

[Tar-Alcarin]

I stand corrected.

Re:Will not matter.

[confused one]

the original reason for the laws requiring and protecting franchises has nothing to do with resolving problems. It had to do with protecting small dealerships from monopolistic behaviors of the big three back when this whole car thing was still new. After they got established, they wanted to eliminate the franchise dealers and open their own branded sales and service centers. They (the manufacturers) started doing underhanded things like refusing to sell parts to existing franchisees. Dealerships becoming the manufacturer's authorized service centers did fall out of this, as part of the deal.

In a lot of ways, these laws have outlived their usefulness.

As to targeting the top "0.0001%": Most automotive technology is introduced at the upper end of the product line. This has been true since the early 1900's, with rare exceptions. (Ford's innovations with the model T, most of which were in the manufacturing, are among the earliest examples of exceptions). Modern technologies like direct injection engines, heads up displays, rearview cameras, navigation and so on, show up in the $50-75k cars from most manufacturers before they filter down to the Civics, Focuses, and Sentras of the world market. By the time they do show up in the $15-25k bracket the tech is well tested and most of the bugs are usually worked out.

I'll grant you that Tesla's first target customers are the ones with lots of disposable income. He's pushing new technologies to the most profitable end of the market first, in order to get established. Tesla has repeatedly indicated they intend to put $50k and eventually $35k cars onto the market. Frankly, they're too small to go after the $15k-20k bracket, where the profit margins on cars get thin, and they clearly know that. They're partnering with other manufacturers like Daimler and Toyota to get their technology into other markets, markets outside of their current reach.

Re:or

[Grishnakh]

The fact that there have been numerous abuses of the monopoly power of the manufacturer.

Car manufacturers were never a monopoly. There have always been lots of different manufacturers, in fact moreso in the past than now. I'm pretty sure there were dozens of brands in the first half of the 20th century.

Per iure, the car dealerships were independent, but de facto, they had to agree to exclusive contracts, thus they were dependent on a single supplier and had to follow each of their whims without much recourse.

Too bad, so sad. That's the deal when you become a franchisee. If you don't like it, don't open a franchise. Franchises are generally very stupid investments anyway (when there aren't protectionist laws in place). Just look at the terms and conditions and costs to open a McDonald's franchise.

Re:Will not matter.

[jameshofo]

Why is there so much about computers,

"There is no reason for any individual to have a computer in his home." Ken Olsen, co-founder of Digital Equipment Corporation, 1977

Snopes

Re:or

[Smidge204]

Dealers don't sell cars on behalf of the manufacturer, they buy the cars from the manufacturer and re-sell them.

Part of the abuses was manufacturers forcing dealers to buy cars. This enabled the manufacturers to continue making profits and claim sales numbers even though the cars never left the dealer's lots.

See also the "Automobile Dealer's Day in Court Act" - 1956.
=Smidge=

Re:or

[Grishnakh]

Only a complete moron would go to a dealership for new tires. Tire shops are everywhere these days. Any tire shop could replace the tires on a Tesla.

The other things in Teslas aren't really special either; the brakes are standard Brembo calipers IIRC, so any independent mechanic could change those easily. The brake system is a standard off-the-shelf ABS system, so anyone change the fluid easily, just like any other modern car. The A/C system is just like any other car's, and R-134a fittings are all standardized by federal law, so any automotive A/C service shop could handle refrigerant recharches. The shocks on normal models aren't anything special (the air struts are, but only some have those, but even so they're nothing a decent mechanic couldn't deal with). The wheel bearings and ball joints are just like any other car. The only thing that's really different and odd is the electric motor itself, and that's not likely to need any kind of service over its lifetime since it's a brushless induction motor.

Re: Tesla is a bad model

[CanHasDIY]

Yeah, Tesla should look in to building a big factory where they could build less expensive batteries or something.

Right, because massive manufacturing facilities are free to build, and nobody ever passes costs along to consumers...

Re:or

[bluefoxlucid]

None of these mechanics know the quirks in the Tesla's maintenance schedule or have specialized training yet, and so you're better off going to a Tesla service shop once a year for the foreseeable future. When Tesla cars are as common as the Prius, this will change.

Re: Will not matter.

[bluefoxlucid]

The E will be cheaper, targeting $30k range. They had a $45k target S, which I believe became the E.

Re:Will not matter.

[bluefoxlucid]

I like Ashley better. Mary Kate had that drug problem; it must be hard on her sister to watch her mummify herself.

Re:or

[Grishnakh]

What quirks? There's nothing quirky about servicing brakes, or anything else on that list. It's bog-standard stuff. You change brake pads when they're worn out and squealing (which on the Tesla wouldn't be often, since you usually use regenerative braking). You change brake fluid after 5-10 years. You recharge your refrigerant when your A/C isn't working well, which probably won't happen for 10 years or more.

What specialized training would you need? Independent mechanics don't have "specialized training" for all the cars they work on.

What a horribly ignorant comment.

What this means

[Attila Dimedici]

What this means is that the FTC does not like these laws, but it does not have any authority to intervene because Congress has not actually passed any laws regulating this sort of thing. Congress did not delegate its constitutional authority to regulate interstate commerce (and I would argue that it cannot without amending the Constitution). Congress delegated the authority to enforce the laws it has passed regulating interstate commerce to the FTC. If Congress has not passed a law on this, the FTC has no authority to regulate it. If Congress has passed such a law, the FTC would already be regulating it.

Re:What this means

[TubeSteak]

If Congress has not passed a law on this, the FTC has no authority to regulate it. If Congress has passed such a law, the FTC would already be regulating it.

First off, your statement of the FTC's regulatory purview is wildly incorrect.
The FTC *does not* have a narrow charter than only covers items enumerated by Congress.
If that was the case, every novel enforcement action would require an act of Congress.

More importantly, have you considered that the FTC has not already regulated this because it never had a reason to?
If there's nothing to disrupt the existing order, there's nothing new for the FTC to regulate.
It's only now, when the current market players are trying to shut down a new entry, that the FTC has reason to act.

Re:What this means

[Attila Dimedici]

No, the FTC does not have a narrow charter, but it does not have a generic charter that allows it to regulate all and any interstate commerce in whatever manner it chooses. It has a charter which defines what it can regulate and what types of regulations it can create. The fact of the matter is that every novel enforcement action does require an act of Congress, unless existing laws can be shown to apply to that action.

Re:or

[bhagwad]

But what is the state interest in this? Unless there is just one car manufacturer who has a monopoly on all cars, it's the dealer's decision to sell cars from any particular manufacturer. If they don't like the terms, no one is forcing them to sell cars....

Re:or

[LDAPMAN]

Actually, most dealerships now sell tires at the same or lower prices than independent tire stores. The last three sets of tires I've shopped for have been cheapest at the dealer.

Dealership Lobby is the Black-Heart of Evil

[Andover Chick]

It's unbelievable the dealership lobby sees themselves as as protecting consumers by denying consumers choice!? Anyone who has purchased a car from a dealership or had repairs knows they're the manipulative black-heart of evil!

Re:Will not matter.

[jittles]

You do understand that the law which requires ODB-II ports on cars is precisely to protect consumers? You realize that there are specific malfunctions that have specific error codes that all manufacturers must use? Those codes are available. The protocol is open. You can download open source ODB-II diagnostic software for Linux. So I am not sure how your post makes any sense in that regard. Manufacturers are able to use custom codes, and even encrypt those codes. But they have to be for malfunctions that are beyond the scope of the codes that are required by law.

And in any event, these dealership laws were enacted (in many states) 50+ years ago. See originally independent dealers took on a lot of risk in buying and selling cars. The manufacturers, once they had built up enough money, wanted to open competing dealerships and charge the independents extra to sell the car. The end result would have been disastrous for the independent dealers that helped support the manufacturers in their infancy. Since Tesla does not have any independent dealerships, this can appear pretty silly. But this law prevented Toyota from switching everything over to Scion and then creating manufacturer based dealerships that they could then use to tank the independent dealers. I'm not sure how I feel about this protectionism. It would be nice for Tesla to sell cars however works best for them. However, is it fair to let Tesla do this and not let Toyota spin up a new brand and sell that exclusively? Or do we make the manufacturers buy out all the dealerships? What if a dealer doesn't want to sell? And will that help or hurt consumers?

Re:Will not matter.

[whoever57]

And for the 0.0001% give me a break. These cars may be expensive and considered a luxury item, but it doesn't mean they cannot be afforded by middle to upper middle class

Walking round the offices where I work a couple of months ago, there were more Teslas in the parking area than BMWs.

When middlemen are necessary

[sjbe]

Tesla can sell all the cars they want, as long as they use local dealers to do so. Therefore interstate commerce is not prohibited.

True but like many laws whose time has come and gone the market has changed and there is no reasonable argument that can be made against Telsa selling direct if they want to do so. I think this might simply be one of those cases where the law no longer was appropriate but no one had a sufficient economic interest to want to bother challenging it. Tesla does and they have a good case.

Controlled substances can only be sold through pharmacies by licensed pharmacists.

That is because there is a compelling public safety concern regarding the distribution of drugs. Middlemen are useful in basically two cases: 1) for connecting buyers with sellers when they would otherwise be unable to meet efficiently and 2) for controlling distribution of a product where there is a significant public safety or public economic concern. Both apply to the sale of pharmaceuticals. Dealing with drug manufacturers directly would be both difficult for consumers as well as introduce some pretty serious public safety issues.

And new cars can only be sold through local car dealerships.

Car dealers sometimes are helpful in connecting buyers to sellers but most car manufacturers are big enough that they are not really necessary for new vehicles unless the car manufacturer doesn't care to be bothered. Car dealers certainly serve no compelling public safety or public economic interest. Originally car dealers were necessary for car manufacturers to reach the public because many years ago they lacked the resources to run their own distribution network. Now they frankly are something of an anachronism that is no longer really needed but they've managed to get some laws passed protecting their little financial nest and won't give it up without a fight.

Re:or

[bluefoxlucid]

What quirks?

Exactly.

BMW engines tend to last forever. They sludge up at about 80k-100k and then destroy themselves; but auto shops have learned to mix a little (half a quart or so) ATF-4 transmission fluid in around that time, run the oil for about 10 miles, and then flush it and put regular oil in. Volkswagens also sludge up randomly, but nobody is quite sure why or, more importantly, how to deal with it. Mazda 3 headlight replacement is expensive as living hell because it's 2 hours of labor... or you can tug at the headlight housing, flex it forward a little, and replace the bulb directly (normal replacement involves removing and uncabling the entire front bumper cover, which involves removing bolts from the wheel wells and the underside of the car, as well as disconnecting wiring for the fog HIDs, and then unbolting behind the bumper cover so you can slide the headlight module out...). Hell, speaking of the Mazda 3, it can throw its drive belt--the new tensioner uses an aluminum pulley, the original used ABS plastic which was prone to exploding violently well within its service interval.

Plenty of cars have minor maintenance issues or problems that seldom/often crop up which are unpredicted. Plenty of cars can encounter minor issues which should never happen, but which do happen occasionally, which then require immediate attention--or can be prevented by inexpensive means. Does the Tesla have a caliper flaw that requires an unforeseen adjustment at 25,000 miles or 40,000 miles or so, lest it start to rub the brakes oddly and cause eventual caliper piston failure? Should you upgrade the seals in the brake master cylinder because the original gaskets are square-cut foam elastomer and it turns out that a round-cut teflon-coated gasket mates better and significantly reduces wear (absorption of moisture) on brake fluid?

These are things Tesla maintenance centers will figure out first by coordinated collection of mass data. We experience many more brake system failures requiring early preventative maintenance than predicted... why? Failure appears to involve brake fluid absorbing too much water, where is leak? What is impact? Costly ($200) repair when there should be a cheap ($45) repair, 1/3 of the normal cycle of whence the costly repair should be required. Recall not warranted; determine reason for leak, identify simple fix and make preventative maintenance upgrade if possible. Oh, it's a seal... revise that part to use a better seal, replace seal on every Model S that comes through the service center.

It's standard practice in the auto industry. Less important because Tesla doesn't have an engine or transmission; but still important because Tesla has brakes, electrical systems, and air conditioning. GM had an issue on several models whereby a small 40V capacitor would fail--the one on the alternator--and then the alternator and possibly other parts of the electrical system would sustain damage, requiring hundreds of dollars of replacement for the fault of a $9 capacitor. On the Tesla, that's probably recall-worthy; on GMs, it usually didn't hurt anything aside from wearing the alternator out faster, but did occasionally fry the shit out of the car, and so the capacitor got replaced as standard procedure at the dealership.

Gotta love America

[Lockdev]

Oh, the irony.

"Government! Stay out of our business! Let the market decide!"

Enter a new competitor in a market full of good-old boy politics.

"Oh shit, competition. Government! Shut them down!"

Why dealerships are like a tariff

[sjbe]

Why? Is there some law against Tesla opening dealerships?

If Tesla owns the dealerships then yes there are many states with laws against that. It's dumb but that's the way the laws are written and the auto dealers are obviously highly motivated to keep their little cut of the profits protected.

No, really, I don't understand why that's such an impossible business model for them to adopt. Is it a logistics issue? Lack of funding? Ego problem? Help me out here.

It's about several issues but the big one is money. Any time you have a middleman they are going to want a profit and that adds to costs for customers and reduces potential profits for Tesla. No company wants to deal with a middleman if they don't need to. Sometimes a middleman is necessary to reach customers or to prevent financial and/or safety abuses but that isn't really the case here. Tesla would rather be able to pocket the percentage they would otherwise have to pay to a dealer and frankly they should have every right to do so in this case. There is no compelling public interest to be served by forcing you and me to buy cars through a dealer if we don't want to.

Requiring dealers arguably hurts consumers (higher prices), hurts manufacturers (lost sales due to higher prices and third party marketing) and hurts governments where the manufacturer is based. Governments with a tax interest in the dealer network and the dealers themselves benefit but at a pretty substantial cost to the rest of society. Requiring dealers is pretty similar to requiring a tariff - it raises prices and benefits the local economy but ultimately hurts consumers and manufacturers and is an inefficient use of capital.

Re:Why dealerships are like a tariff

[CanHasDIY]

Why? Is there some law against Tesla opening dealerships?

If Tesla owns the dealerships then yes there are many states with laws against that.

Which is no different than the way other auto makers are treated. Which, in the eyes of the Feds, makes it perfectly reasonable.

It's dumb but that's the way the laws are written and the auto dealers are obviously highly motivated to keep their little cut of the profits protected.

Can't disagree with you there. I hate dealing with car salesmen.

No, really, I don't understand why that's such an impossible business model for them to adopt. Is it a logistics issue? Lack of funding? Ego problem? Help me out here.

It's about several issues but the big one is money. Any time you have a middleman they are going to want a profit and that adds to costs for customers and reduces potential profits for Tesla. No company wants to deal with a middleman if they don't need to. Sometimes a middleman is necessary to reach customers or to prevent financial and/or safety abuses but that isn't really the case here. Tesla would rather be able to pocket the percentage they would otherwise have to pay to a dealer and frankly they should have every right to do so in this case. There is no compelling public interest to be served by forcing you and me to buy cars through a dealer if we don't want to.

Requiring dealers arguably hurts consumers (higher prices), hurts manufacturers (lost sales due to higher prices and third party marketing) and hurts governments where the manufacturer is based. Governments with a tax interest in the dealer network and the dealers themselves benefit but at a pretty substantial cost to the rest of society. Requiring dealers is pretty similar to requiring a tariff - it raises prices and benefits the local economy but ultimately hurts consumers and manufacturers and is an inefficient use of capital.

Well hey, I'll bet a lot of companies want to operate their businesses in ways that are not currently legal, but they don't. Not saying I agree with the way the system is set up, but if you want to join the game, you've gotta play by the rules. Whining that the rules suck isn't going to get cars out the showroom doors.

Re:Why dealerships are like a tariff

[sjbe]

Which is no different than the way other auto makers are treated. Which, in the eyes of the Feds, makes it perfectly reasonable.

Just because the other automakers are treated that way doesn't mean that's how it should work. Frankly I think we should all be cheering for Tesla here. Auto dealers are a drain on the economy and have protections they don't need or deserve.

Well hey, I'll bet a lot of companies want to operate their businesses in ways that are not currently legal, but they don't.

So Tesla should just suck it up and accept an unfair, pointless and obsolete law that protects the profits of an undeserving group that costs both manufacturers and consumers money for no added benefit? We as consumers should be forced to pay for a middleman that adds cost but not benefits? What pubic interest is served by the status quo? Not to mention that car dealers are among the most reviled companies on the planet for some well deserved reasons. I'll get the popcorn and hope Tesla takes the auto dealers to the woodshed.

Whining that the rules suck isn't going to get cars out the showroom doors.

No but challenging the laws in court WILL get the laws changed. I have no respect for anyone who simply acquiesces to an unjust and harmful law.

Re:Why dealerships are like a tariff

[AK Marc]

hurts manufacturers

But the manufacturers support dealer networks. It's a known evil, and it's a barrier to entry for others. The real issue with this is all the artificial barriers to entry for makers. There's a reason Renault, Citroen, Fiat, and piles of others pulled out of the US. The "customer protections" cost millions to comply with, regardless of how many cars you make (once you make more than a limited number, excepted because the one-offs can't ever compete with the Tauruses of the big makers. Now that all the US makers are gone (GM had to be nationalized to prevent its closure, and Ford makes and sells more cars outside the US than in), we should abolish all the laws around car making, and start again.

Ok Captain Pedantic...

[sjbe]

You have too many zeroes there - as of this past December, there were 25k+ Teslas on the road worldwide, which would make the Tesla "a product designed for the 0.001%".

You have ignored the implicit assumptions in your argument that A) only the wealthiest 0.001% could/would buy a Tesla, that B) there are no substitute products available, and that C) everyone who is in the 0.001% has gone ahead and bought a Tesla. All three of those assumptions are demonstrably false.

Got any other straw men you'd like to prop up?

Re:Ok Captain Pedantic...

[ChainedFei]

It is not a straw man if it is a response/criticism/pedantic extrapolation of something you have actually said. Which you did in your original comment. Please look up what "Straw Man" actually means. Thank you for playing.

Re:Tesla is a bad model

[hxnwix]

Wow, thanks for the Rush Limbaugh talking points. Very informative.

Tesla has a right to defend themselves

[sjbe]

You realize they could just set up a local state dealer and sell through them? It puts the tax in the state which is what they're after.

Of course they could. That would then A) reduce Telsa's profits, B) make the product more expensive for customers, C) expose Tesla to potential conflicts of interest between them and the dealers, D) make for an inefficient use of capital, E) allow local governments to double dip on tax revenues (registration fees/taxes + taxes on local dealer profits) that they otherwise would not be entitled to. Explain to me how any of that benefits the public interest.

Top Gear gives them a bad review because the car breaks down?

Top Gear lied about the car. The fact that they got away with it in court does not mean their actions were ethical or justifiable. Suing them may have been pointless but what else were they supposed to do? Let Top Gear make shit up without calling them out on it? That's a great way to ensure that people never get correct facts about your product.

NYT reviewer gives them a bad review because the car drains its power in the cold?

NYT reviewer was shown to have fabricated parts of the story and was not an honest or fair reporter of the facts.

Cars catches fire? Attack the press for reporting it...

You have that backwards. The press is eagerly reporting car fires for Tesla vehicles disproportionately to their frequency, severity or likelihood in relation to other auto manufacturers. More GM vehicles catch fire in a typical week than Tesla vehicles have in total but you don't hear about GM vehicles catching fire do you?

Meanwhile everyone else makes electric cars without all the drama queen nonsense!

Point me to a single vehicle on the market today that is all electric, comparable to the Model S in performance and sold in similar unit volumes. No the Nissan Leaf isn't anywhere close to the same car - it's got half the range and a quarter of the performance. The Chevy Volt is a hybrid so it's not comparable. Same with the Prius. Would you prefer the "drama queen nonsense" from GM killing people with defective products and then ignoring the problem for 10+ years?

Local tax

[sjbe]

So you're arguing that you should be able to use the "I bought it in another state" loophole to avoid sales taxes?

Sales tax gets paid on the car in the state you bought it in. If I buy a car in Michigan, why should Ohio get a cut even if I happen to be an Ohio resident? The transaction took place in Michigan so that's where the tax should be paid if any applies. If Ohio wants the transaction to take place there then they should put appropriate incentives in place to encourage that to happen.

Then why would anyone buy anything in their home state?

Because that's where it is available. Are you going to cross state lines to pick up groceries? Furthermore most states charge use tax for items purchased out of state where sales tax was not applied.

If only there was some way to figure out how

[Brannon]

Tesla manages to service the tens of thousands existing Tesla cars scattered all over the country:

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=tesla+model+s+service

Mechanic training

[sjbe]

What quirks? There's nothing quirky about servicing brakes, or anything else on that list. It's bog-standard stuff.

Every car has quirks and something like a Tesla or even a Prius requires special training for stuff more complicated than the most basic of maintenance. Most mechanics have a decent understanding of internal combustion engines and the rest of a convention auto but that doesn't mean they can transfer that understanding to electric vehicles. Sure, your corner mechanic can probably handle the brake job but he is going to be WAY out of his depth in dealing with the drive motors, the battery pack, much of the electronics, etc. Furthermore sometimes even the routine stuff sometimes has special/non-obvious requirements that can be important to ensure proper functioning and reliability.

Independent mechanics don't have "specialized training" for all the cars they work on.

Actually a lot of them do, particularly when it comes to more specialized vehicles. I used to work in a place that trained and certified mechanics on the finer points of driveshafts, axles, and engine repair. Being a good mechanic is a lot more complicated than many realize.

Re:Mechanic training

[Grishnakh]

but he is going to be WAY out of his depth in dealing with the drive motors, the battery pack, much of the electronics, etc.

Motors and electronics don't need maintenance. When was the last time you did "regular maintenance" on the electronics in your car? When was the last time you did maintenance on your ceiling fan motor?

Furthermore sometimes even the routine stuff sometimes has special/non-obvious requirements that can be important to ensure proper functioning and reliability.

If Tesla has published a maintenance guide/schedule, then this should be a no-brainer. Since Tesla doesn't rely on stealerships, it's likely they make all their service information freely-available to owners, rather than trying to keep it all secret like most automakers do.

Re:Mechanic training

[sjbe]

Motors and electronics don't need maintenance.

Really? They never break and need replacement? Love to live in the your world where things never break or need fixing. Here on earth I've seen both motors and electronics get fried and maintenance regularly.

When was the last time you did "regular maintenance" on the electronics in your car?

Who said it was "regular"? Electronics problems happen all the time that aren't a part of regular maintenance. We have a guy in our office with a Ford Escape that has been in 4 times for fixes to the electronics - all recalls. Hell, I run a company that manufactures wire harnesses and most of our products go into automobiles. If you think they never break or need repair, you are very, very wrong.

Oh and to answer your question, the last electronic maintenance I did to one of my cars happened about 4 months ago. Had a sensor that went bad.

If Tesla has published a maintenance guide/schedule, then this should be a no-brainer.

They should publish such documents but that doesn't make it a no-brainer. Some maintenance can be performed by lots of people. Some should only be performed by those who are trained and do it with some regularity. I'm perfectly capable of wiring a house but I don't do it often so I hire an electrician that will do an as-good if not better job and will know about some of the more obscure issues I might unintentionally overlook. The trick is knowing where your limits are. Not everyone does and just because you can read a maintenance book doesn't mean you should automatically assume you are adequately trained for that job.

Re:Mechanic training

[Grishnakh]

Who said it was "regular"? Electronics problems happen all the time that aren't a part of regular maintenance. We have a guy in our office with a Ford Escape that has been in 4 times for fixes to the electronics - all recalls. Hell, I run a company that manufactures wire harnesses and most of our products go into automobiles. If you think they never break or need repair, you are very, very wrong.

If you have problems in a car with wire harnesses, there's a serious design problem. Copper doesn't generally go bad. As for other electronics, if you have electronic boards going bad, again you have a serious design problem; either you've used cheap-ass Chinese capacitors (see "capacitor plague"), or tried mounting it next to the exhaust manifold or something. There's also soldering problems. Decent car brands don't usually have these problems. And when they do, they usually happen early on, and are covered under warranty.

Oh and to answer your question, the last electronic maintenance I did to one of my cars happened about 4 months ago. Had a sensor that went bad.

Sensors are electromechanical; it's not too surprising they go bad once in a while, just like anything else mechanical. Even so it's pretty rare. Was it an engine sensor? Modern cars are full of engine sensors. Teslas don't have engines. They do have ABS brakes though, which requires wheel speed sensors, but any idiot mechanic can change those.

They should publish such documents but that doesn't make it a no-brainer. Some maintenance can be performed by lots of people. Some should only be performed by those who are trained and do it with some regularity.

That's just BS. Any regular maintenance can be performed by any decent backyard mechanic, and regularly is. Anything horribly complicated, like engine rebuilding, is not "maintenance". Lots of backyard mechanics have no trouble changing their own timing belts, which is probably the most difficult job I'd ever place under the "maintenance" category. And again, Teslas don't have these, since there's no engine. The only maintenance to be done is with the brakes and A/C, and none of that probably needs to be done for at least 10 years. My 9-year-old Volvo still hasn't had any work done on those (I'll change the brake fluid in a few months, just to be safe, due to the age).

Re:Mechanic training

[drinkypoo]

If you have problems in a car with wire harnesses, there's a serious design problem. Copper doesn't generally go bad.

Once you get oil leaks, you get insulation failures. The insulation provides protection for the wire, so that leads to wire failures. Lots of cars are designed such that they tend to get oil leaks in annoying locations, like the Audi A8 I've been rambling on about lately with a bunch of crap breather hoses in the rear.

As for other electronics, if you have electronic boards going bad, again you have a serious design problem; either you've used cheap-ass Chinese capacitors (see "capacitor plague"), or tried mounting it next to the exhaust manifold or something. There's also soldering problems. Decent car brands don't usually have these problems. And when they do, they usually happen early on, and are covered under warranty.

Also all false. German cars are famous for having these problems. They're all built out of Bosch modules and the Bosch ABS 5 and Bosch ABS 5.1 both fail very commonly. The ABS 5 has a separate module which suffers CPU failure and the whole module is replaced as there is no source of repair parts. The ABS 5.1 has some kind of goofy cold solder bonding that always fails eventually, and for which there are several repair services; some involving conductive epoxy, and some involving a complete rebuild which is in some ways more involved than the original production of the module and which costs several hundred dollars. These problems regularly occur after the warranty period is over and dealers want substantial amounts of money both for troubleshooting and for replacement modules.

Maybe Bosch ain't a decent brand any more, but it's what's in all the fancy super-expensive German cars, including the ones that cost more than the Model S.

Re:Mechanic training

[Grishnakh]

Once you get oil leaks, you get insulation failures. The insulation provides protection for the wire, so that leads to wire failures.

The Tesla doesn't have motor oil in it, so insulation failures from oil are quite impossible.

Also all false. German cars are famous for having these problems.

Japanese cars aren't.

They're all built out of Bosch modules and the Bosch ABS 5 and Bosch ABS 5.1 both fail very commonly.

Why? Electronics don't just fail, and there's only a few failure modes. The most common ones are: 1) electrolytic capacitors (the bane of modern electronics), which are easily replaced, 2) bad solder joints, possibly due to poor design using lead-free solder, 3) excessive heat/poor heatsinking/cooling, 4) possibly tin whiskers from lead-free solder.

The ABS 5.1 has some kind of goofy cold solder bonding that always fails eventually, and for which there are several repair services; some involving conductive epoxy, and some involving a complete rebuild which is in some ways more involved than the original production of the module and which costs several hundred dollars.

That sounds like some crappy design or manufacturing there. Luckily, overpriced German luxury cars are a very small part of the US market. Anyway, since Tesla is not German, I'd be surprised if they used a Bosch ABS module. If we knew who made some of the electronic modules (ABS, etc.) used by the Tesla, it should be pretty easy to find out if they're prone to failure, just by looking at the track record that supplier has with other vehicles those modules are used in.

Re:Mechanic training

[drinkypoo]

The Tesla doesn't have motor oil in it, so insulation failures from oil are quite impossible.

It doesn't have any lubricants that can leak out of anything? I don't imagine that such an occurrence would cause major powertrain failure like it can in normal cars, but is it truly a completely eliminated problem?

That sounds like some crappy design or manufacturing there. Luckily, overpriced German luxury cars are a very small part of the US market.

Unfortunately, it's not just the fancy cars. Because I'm talking about Audi, you can also apply what I'm saying to Volkswagen. The lowly Golf shares the same basic design principles. Guess what the world's biggest automaker is?

Re:or

[robot256]

All the Tesla owners I know say the only maintenance they have had to do in the last year is rotate the tires, which Tesla did either for free or for a reasonable fee. I'd like to see where you got that $600 number.

Re: Will not matter.

[robot256]

The E does not exist. The $45k Model S was the one with the smallest battery pack, which virtually no one bought so they dropped it from their lineup. The Model E will be a new design with new, cheaper battery packs and less expensive trim all around.

Re:Will not matter.

[robot256]

No one has demonstrated to me why letting the Big Three succeed in killing their franchises would actually have been a bad thing for consumers. If they had any shred of desire to preserve brand loyalty, they would operate their dealerships as well or better than the independent dealers, and with less pressure to meet the bottom line in any one location. If they messed that up, then they deserved to go out of business. The auto bailout was just as bad--if these companies are so poorly managed and so important that we have to use legislation to prevent them from killing themselves, why don't we just nationalize the whole industry and be done with it?

Re: Will not matter.

[bluefoxlucid]

I never saw the low-end S offered. It was always coming soon, then vanished.

Re:or

[Grishnakh]

BMW engines tend to last forever. They sludge up at about 80k-100k and then destroy themselves; but auto shops have learned to mix a little (half a quart or so) ATF-4 transmission fluid in around that time, run the oil for about 10 miles, and then flush it and put regular oil in. Volkswagens also sludge up randomly, but nobody is quite sure why or, more importantly, how to deal with it. Mazda 3 headlight replacement is expensive as living hell because it's 2 hours of labor... or you can tug at the headlight housing, flex it forward a little, and replace the bulb directly (normal replacement involves removing and uncabling the entire front bumper cover, which involves removing bolts from the wheel wells and the underside of the car, as well as disconnecting wiring for the fog HIDs, and then unbolting behind the bumper cover so you can slide the headlight module out...). Hell, speaking of the Mazda 3, it can throw its drive belt--the new tensioner uses an aluminum pulley, the original used ABS plastic which was prone to exploding violently well within its service interval.

Almost everything you mention here involves internal combustion engines. In case you didn't realize, the Tesla doesn't have one of these. Yes, ICE cars are hideously complex, mostly because of the engine itself. A car with no engine doesn't have these problems. And I seriously doubt changing the headlights on Teslas is that difficult (and even so, it uses xenons, so those probably last 5-10 years).

These are things Tesla maintenance centers will figure out first by coordinated collection of mass data

No, these are things that Tesla owners will figure out. In case you haven't noticed, independent mechanics are still very profitable, and they don't usually specialize on one make of car. How do you think they get by? In addition to that, lots of makes and models of cars have online forums for owners, where they frequently discuss common problems and fixes. I'm sure Teslas are no different.

As for things like brakes, you don't really think Tesla has designed its own brake hardware, do you? It just uses off-the-shelf parts; the calipers are from Brembo, no different than the brakes on a bunch of other high-end cars. If you're wondering about caliper flaws, just google for Brembo problems. The master cylinder is certainly some other off-the-shelf part too. Cars these days share all kinds of parts. My Volvo uses the same coolant reservoir that a bunch of Fords and Mazdas use.

Re: Tesla is a bad model

[robot256]

Exactly! That's why every time a manufacturer builds a bigger factory so they can make more product to sell to more people, the price goes up and up and up. It would be so much cheaper if everything we bought were made by hand laborers working out of their homes.

Re:or

[bluefoxlucid]

Almost everything you mention here involves internal combustion engines.

Oh okay, so because it doesn't have an internal combustion engine, it's immune to all kinds of discrete part flaws and integration flaws that don't lend themselves to prediction and don't crop up in minimal testing. Got it.

Re: Tesla is a bad model

[CanHasDIY]

Exactly! That's why every time a manufacturer builds a bigger factory so they can make more product to sell to more people, the price goes up and up and up.

Sarcasm fail:

Unless we're talking about factories being built in China, yea, that's pretty much the case. Hell, look at how car prices were affected when the Big Three moved most of their production facilities to Mexico - they sure as hell didn't get any cheaper.

Re: Will not matter.

[robot256]

The Model S was available for pre-order for something like 3 years before manufacturing actually started. During that time, less than 10% of customers pre-ordered the 40kWh battery, with the rest opting for the 60kWh and 85kWh batteries. Shortly before production started, they determined it would be cheaper to drop the 40kWh offering and fill the existing orders for those cars with software-limited 60kWh vehicles. Those customers now have the benefit of higher motor torque and faster charging, as well as the option of paying the extra $15k to get the full battery unlocked.

Re: Tesla is a bad model

[robot256]

Be that as it may, I still don't get the cause and effect relationship of "bigger factory" => "higher prices". They only sell product for what the market will bear, and if the market will bear a higher price then obviously they want to sell more items at the higher price. But Tesla is not a big company squeezing margins while growing market share. They are still trying to establish their core product range--not upgrading a factory at consumer expense, but building one in the first place at investor expense.

Re:or

[FireFury03]

All the Tesla owners I know say the only maintenance they have had to do in the last year is rotate the tires, which Tesla did either for free or for a reasonable fee. I'd like to see where you got that $600 number.

Can't find the original article I saw, but this explains it:
http://www.greencarreports.com...

Includes stuff like tyres, but still seems slightly on the high side to me.

Old laws

[mpercy]

There's not a lot of new laws being passed that prohibit this distribution model. Rather, most states long ago prohibited the direct distribution model because automakers had a tendency to use dealerships to create a market in a region, then drop into the market with a factory-owned distributor killing the local dealership. This was deemed to be an unfair business practice, and states were happy to provide protectionist laws favoring the local guys over the Detroit manufacturers.

Tesla is newly getting hoisted by those laws, but generally speaking the laws themselves are pretty much old laws. IOW, these laws are not new laws being passed by anti-Tesla, anti-green, pro-pollution, what have you today. Until the legislatures change the laws, they will need to continue to be enforced. After all, those laws are just trying to make sure the business practices are "fair".

Re:or

[robot256]

Ah, here it is straight from the horse's mouth: http://www.teslamotors.com/ser... Pay $2400 for four years and you get unlimited valet service, and all consumables (brake pads, tires, fluids, etc) are included in the price and checked/replaced at the yearly appointment. Considering the price bracket and bleeding-edge nature of the vehicle, it's not unreasonable, but does add to the cost.

GM, Ford hit this wall before too, not just Tesla

[mpercy]

This is not about Tesla or electric cars. This is 100% about the protectionist laws in place in most states requiring cars to be sold through independent dealerships with layers of legal assistance against the power of the manufacturers to arbitrarily make changes that would negatively impact dealers. These were sought out because the evil corporate giants at Ford and GM kept sticking it to the little guys. So the solution was: government control!

Back in the day, cars were sold directly by the manufacturers. At some point though, between 1900 and 1920 the realized that selling through dealerships had a lot of benefits. "The irony in all this is that G.M. and Ford adopted the dealer system because they thought it would make their lives easier. A dealer who owned his own business would work harder than a mere employee, the thinking went, and would not require a lot of outside monitoring."

"...historically, the automakers were not good partners. In 1920, for instance, the U.S. economy went into a deep recession. But Henry Ford kept his factories running at full tilt, and forced thousands of Ford dealers around the country to buy new cars that they had little chance of selling. The dealers knew that if they said no they’d never see a Model T again, so they ate the inventory. A decade later, when the Great Depression hit, Ford and G.M. used the same strategy to help keep the production lines going. They turned their dealers into a cushion against hard times.

In the long term, this was a disastrous tactic, because it inspired mistrustful dealers to look to the government for help. (The first franchise law was passed in 1937.) Dealers recognized that much about their businesses was always going to be out of their control—automakers not only decide what cars get made but also dictate sales strategies and incentive plans. So they decided to protect what they could, using laws to insulate themselves from competition and from the risk of being dropped by the manufacturer. And that’s what has made life so hard for the automakers today. ...in the late nineties, both G.M. and Ford tried to start buying up dealerships. But, at this point, the system is self-protecting; dealers revolted, state regulators started nosing about, and the automakers gave up. They made a devil’s bargain some eighty years ago, and now they’re stuck with it.

[http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2006/09/04/060904ta_talk_surowiecki]

Re:Will not matter.

[drinkypoo]

You do understand that the law which requires ODB-II ports on cars is precisely to protect consumers?

False. The law which requires OBD-II ports on cars is precisely to spy on consumers, and to force them to use the mandated equipment which is designed to spy on them. Otherwise, the law would have demanded that we have full access to all the codes.

You realize that there are specific malfunctions that have specific error codes that all manufacturers must use? Those codes are available.

You realize that those codes only apply to a small subset of possible powertrain problems (specifically, engine and transmission) and that all other codes may be as proprietary as they like, even brake codes? For example, a generic code reader won't pull brake codes from most GM products at all.

The protocol is open.

And manufacturers follow just enough of it for the smog machines to be able to check on the things that the smog machines check on. Everything else may or may not be standard, and probably isn't. Instead of a four-digit code, most of the codes from VAG vehicles are five-digit codes. And there are only two companies which have produced functional third-party K-line interfaces which are capable of interfacing to modern BOSCH Motronic without simply licensing their interfaces, and then many copies of one of those makers' products which tend to ship with an old version of their software which has not been updated to recognized those clones. Some vehicles will also respond to multi-thousand-dollar scan tools from Snap-On or similar. But in order to legally diagnose a modern VW product you're going to have to spend at least $250 for K-Line (not that modern any more) or $350 for CAN.

. So I am not sure how your post makes any sense in that regard.

That's because you don't know very much about how OBD-II is actually used in practice. That probably explains why you keep calling it ODB-II. It's not a member of the Wu-Tang clan.

I'm not sure how I feel about this protectionism. It would be nice for Tesla to sell cars however works best for them. However, is it fair to let Tesla do this and not let Toyota spin up a new brand and sell that exclusively?

No. So fuck the dealerships. If they wanted our loyalty they shouldn't have been fucking us all this time. Let Toyota bypass them as well. But again, what we really need is meaningful service information, and automakers should be forced to give it to us for a reasonable price, because otherwise we're always at a disadvantage. They were able to force cars on us by buying up and shutting down profitable and popular public transportation lines; they should be forced to make it possible for us to meaningfully maintain our cars.

Except that these are laws from 70+ years ago

[mpercy]

Tesla wants an exemption from the laws.

Re:Will not matter.

[confused one]

I believe I said "In a lot of ways, these laws have outlived their usefulness." This all originally happened in the 1930's after private dealerships had taken a decade or two and gotten themselves, and their business arrangement with the manufacturer(s), established. The manufacturer's decided to change the relationship. The dealers went, as a combined front, to their local politicians for protection from the manufacturers, whom they could not hope to fight and win due to the shear size of the manufacturers resource pool. This happened nationwide more or less simultaneously; so, we have a series of similar laws for each state. As I mentioned, the manufacturers had the resources, controlled the product and the spare-parts stream; so, if the state governments had not stepped in franchise dealerships would have been wiped out in all but the smallest regions

Whether what we have now is better for it, I'm not sure I can agree to that. Cleary some dealerships are rotten to the core. Others are businesses that do have their customer's welfare in mind (they want you to come back, after all). This whole game of cars having an inflated MSRP, and having to negotiate over profit margins, option pricing, rebates and dealer cash grew out of this mess. I just bought a car six months ago.... I spent several weeks researching pricing and playing a number of different dealers against each other. Eventually the first dealer I approached gave me the best deal and got my business. Would I have been offered the same, or maybe a better price, dealing directly with the manufacturer based solely on price pressure from other brands? I don't know.

Re:or

[FireFury03]

Ah, here it is straight from the horse's mouth: http://www.teslamotors.com/ser...
Pay $2400 for four years and you get unlimited valet service, and all consumables (brake pads, tires, fluids, etc) are included in the price and checked/replaced at the yearly appointment. Considering the price bracket and bleeding-edge nature of the vehicle, it's not unreasonable, but does add to the cost.

Ah, ok. The original article I saw it in didn't make it clear that it included all consumables - it kind of sounded like your normal annual servicing charge (which would usually cover oil, except there's no oil, spark plugs, except there's no spark plugs... :)

Re:Will not matter.

[jittles]

You do understand that the law which requires ODB-II ports on cars is precisely to protect consumers?

False. The law which requires OBD-II ports on cars is precisely to spy on consumers, and to force them to use the mandated equipment which is designed to spy on them. Otherwise, the law would have demanded that we have full access to all the codes.

And how exactly is OBD-II used to spy on me? My car has no wireless transmitter. It's not broadcasting any diagnostic information. I can reset the ECU and clear any logged diagnostics at any point in time (again that is part of the open standard). So what exactly are they spying on?

You realize that there are specific malfunctions that have specific error codes that all manufacturers must use? Those codes are available.

You realize that those codes only apply to a small subset of possible powertrain problems (specifically, engine and transmission) and that all other codes may be as proprietary as they like, even brake codes? For example, a generic code reader won't pull brake codes from most GM products at all.

If you have a problem with the list of malfunctions that are a part of the OBD-II standard then you should work to have that changed. Anything that is not proprietary should be open and available without the manufacturer's consent. Common ABS codes are part of the the OBD-II standard. I know because I have used said codes to diagnose a failed master cylinder.

The protocol is open.

And manufacturers follow just enough of it for the smog machines to be able to check on the things that the smog machines check on. Everything else may or may not be standard, and probably isn't. Instead of a four-digit code, most of the codes from VAG vehicles are five-digit codes. And there are only two companies which have produced functional third-party K-line interfaces which are capable of interfacing to modern BOSCH Motronic without simply licensing their interfaces, and then many copies of one of those makers' products which tend to ship with an old version of their software which has not been updated to recognized those clones. Some vehicles will also respond to multi-thousand-dollar scan tools from Snap-On or similar. But in order to legally diagnose a modern VW product you're going to have to spend at least $250 for K-Line (not that modern any more) or $350 for CAN.

I don't know what brand of cars you're dealing with (other than VW and GM, obviously) but I have used my OBD-II reader on cars from many different manufacturers (Ford, Subaru, Honda, Toyota, Saturn, VW, Nissan/Infiniti, and maybe a few others) and have never had an issue with non-compliant codes. As I mentioned, non-standard codes are allowed - but only for failures that are not covered by the law. And furthermore, there are companies that will sell you the software that will read the encrypted codes for almost every major manufacturer if you're willing to pony up the dough. My $200 reader will take codes from almost any manufacturer with the included software plus $200/manufacturer cost to get the encryption key needed to read the codes. There are a few (mostly exotic) manufacturers they do not support. Are you buying that cheap Chinese shit off eBay for $20 that probably doesn't work right to begin with? And I've never had an issue working on a VW with my device. The K-line on a VW is for diagnostics with the stereo. It should not interfere with your OBD-II reader.

. So I am not sure how your post makes any sense in that regard.

That's because you don't know very much about how OBD-II is actually used in practice. That probably explains why you keep calling it ODB-II. It's not a member of the Wu-Tang clan.

Yes you're right - a simple typo means that I must not know anything about

Elections are coming

[PPH]

This is merely the FTC's way of boosting campaign contributions from car dealers.

We can't let the market value of a Congressional seat drop. The impact on the political securitization industry would be disasterous and drag the DJIA down with it.

Re:or

[drinkypoo]

I'm not sure what compelling state interest is served by artificially restricting the way manufacturers can sell their cars.

Presumably, they're hoping to capture more of the sales revenue by having a more local business operating the dealership.

Re:or

[drinkypoo]

Only a complete moron would go to a dealership for new tires. Tire shops are everywhere these days. Any tire shop could replace the tires on a Tesla.

The Model S is one in a long line of vehicles which have wheels and tires specially designed. If you change either one (or use a non-standard TPMS sensor) they will void your warranty. You are not permitted to customize the Model S.

I'll grant you there's no reason anybody couldn't work on those vehicles, but that's not how Tesla in fact wants their system to work. They are downright evasive when the subject of third party service is brought up.

Re:or

[drinkypoo]

Volkswagens also sludge up randomly, but nobody is quite sure why or, more importantly, how to deal with it.

Everyone is sure. It's because the breather hoses deteriorate because they're EPDM instead of Silicone. Volkswagen is quite clear on how to deal with it; charge you $100 per formed hose every ten years or less. The Audi V8 has two of them in the rear and another hose across the front of the engine. Or you can buy some 18mm braided silicone hose (it holds it shape better than the non-braided kind when you bend it) and some other bits and get creative. To connect it to the intake boot, replace the 24x24mm hose barb in the side of it with a modified (shortened) 3/4x1" hose barb connector from the plastic fittings bins. If you cut it in the right places you can use a vise to press the two ends together nice and close, after using a razor blade to cut off the mold lines. $20 is better than $250+.

Plenty of cars can encounter minor issues which should never happen, but which do happen occasionally, which then require immediate attention--or can be prevented by inexpensive means. Does the Tesla have a caliper flaw that requires an unforeseen adjustment at 25,000 miles or 40,000 miles or so, lest it start to rub the brakes oddly and cause eventual caliper piston failure?

This kind of stuff is why the best bet for early production vehicles is to use proven parts. On kit cars, you specify some calipers that are relatively inexpensive and don't tend to have problems. If you don't get carried away making things too custom, you can use off-the-shelf bits...

Re:Will not matter.

[drinkypoo]

And how exactly is OBD-II used to spy on me?

Its purpose is to permit some states to look inside your PCM while performing a smog test. OBD-II is all about emissions. That's what the malfunction indicator light ("MIL") tells you: that your vehicle is failing its ongoing internal emissions test. Manufacturers may also implement a CEL or Check Engine Light, but since 1996 the MIL has been mandatory and the CEL has been optional in the USA.

If you have a problem with the list of malfunctions that are a part of the OBD-II standard then you should work to have that changed.

Right. Let me just whip out several million dollars for lobbying. You may notice that it smells of ass, because that's where it's going to have to come from.

a simple typo means that I must not know anything about how OBD-II works.

No, a repeated error suggests it.

If you want to force the dealerships out and force the manufacturers to play nice with consumers that is one thing. But do you honestly believe that is going to happen?

Nope. But since the dealerships exist primarily to help the automakers bone us, I don't actually care what happens to them. Most of the jobs they "create" involve overcharging people, and the rest are wrenchin' jobs which will exist whether they're within a dealership or not.

Re:or

[Grishnakh]

Special tires? I remember the Acura NSX did that 20+ years ago, but I seriously doubt the Tesla did anything like that. The NSX had special tires that pushed against each other to give better steering response, at the expense of fuel economy. According to this, it's not hard to buy the OEM tires from a variety of places. According to this, not only can you get the Goodyear Eagle RS-A2, you can also use Michelin Energy MXV4 S8 low rolling-resistance tires, or you can get alternatives from Bridgestone or Dunlop, or even switch to winter tires like the Pirelle Winter 240 Sottozero.

As for voiding the warranty, that is flat-out bullshit and a lie. The Magnusson-Moss Warranty Act specifically forbids this from any manufacturer.

Any tire shop can replace TPMS sensors. Every new car since sometime around 2007 comes with TPMS sensors, by federal law, so every tire shop in the nation is capable of replacing these with compatible units.

Re:Will not matter.

[jittles]

And how exactly is OBD-II used to spy on me?

Its purpose is to permit some states to look inside your PCM while performing a smog test. OBD-II is all about emissions. That's what the malfunction indicator light ("MIL") tells you: that your vehicle is failing its ongoing internal emissions test. Manufacturers may also implement a CEL or Check Engine Light, but since 1996 the MIL has been mandatory and the CEL has been optional in the USA.

As far as I know only 3 states require the use of OBD-II (where applicable) diagnostics for state vehicle inspections. I haven't lived in California for some number of years, but they only used to check for the engine light. I know because I had removed the bulb from the CEL before in order to pass smog. Only 17 of 50 states require any sort of vehicle inspection. So that suggests to me that it has nothing to do with spying. And what personal information is stored on your ECU anyway? I've never seen anything but the diagnostic output of a few sensors. What's the problem in that?

If you have a problem with the list of malfunctions that are a part of the OBD-II standard then you should work to have that changed.

Right. Let me just whip out several million dollars for lobbying. You may notice that it smells of ass, because that's where it's going to have to come from.

You could certainly help form a PAC. If enough people cared, you would get your money and your laws. But the fact of the matter is that the codes are available to you for just a few hundred dollars if you really needed that information.

a simple typo means that I must not know anything about how OBD-II works.

No, a repeated error suggests it.

People misspell the same word repeatedly in a document. IT doesn't mean they don't know how the word is used. It means that they either had a lapse in spelling ability, or perhaps have some sort of learning disorder that makes it difficult for them to spell. It's not exactly like my browser tells me that I switched some letters in an acronym. I've had a busy day, and I didn't proof my writing as thoroughly as I should have. You knew what I meant, but decided to use an ad hominem attack against me and suggest that I don't know what I was talking about. Yet you already admitted earlier in your post that I did know the specifications. You admitted that there are general purpose and custom codes, just as I indicated. So why do you resort to this attack?

If you want to force the dealerships out and force the manufacturers to play nice with consumers that is one thing. But do you honestly believe that is going to happen?

Nope. But since the dealerships exist primarily to help the automakers bone us, I don't actually care what happens to them. Most of the jobs they "create" involve overcharging people, and the rest are wrenchin' jobs which will exist whether they're within a dealership or not.

The dealerships exist to make money, like any business. If you have a proposal that would protect customers, then I would support it. But just abolishing dealerships would not be a net win for anyone. This is something that has far reaching implications. Transportation is a key issue in our society. You have to have a plan in place to prevent the manufacturers from screwing us worse than dealers could ever imagine being possible.

Re:Will not matter.

[blackraven14250]

The manufacturers, once they had built up enough money, wanted to open competing dealerships and charge the independents extra to sell the car.

The part in bold is the problem; the part in italics is a collateral effect of fixing the problem.

Scale of Evil

[Firethorn]

The only thing more evil than a used car dealer being a new car dealer?

Especially today, the idea that stealerships compete with each other is mostly a misnomer. They add a huge amount to the price of the vehicles they sell.

Re:Scale of Evil

[RockDoctor]

Especially today, the idea that stealerships compete with each other is mostly a misnomer.

Can't you just go over the border and buy the car you want in a different country at the best price you can get, and then return it to your home country?

It's not so easy here, because we drive on the other side of the road to most of our near neighbours. But that's not difficult to either get around (buy a RHD car in a right hand of the road country) or to ignore (drive a LHD car here, on the left hand side of the road ; not difficult). but even so, I see something like several percent of the cars on the road with Irish plates (our only RHD co-continentals), which I deduce are imports for reduced prices or taxes.

Re:Will not matter.

[drinkypoo]

As far as I know only 3 states require the use of OBD-II (where applicable) diagnostics for state vehicle inspections. I haven't lived in California for some number of years, but they only used to check for the engine light. I know because I had removed the bulb from the CEL before in order to pass smog. Only 17 of 50 states require any sort of vehicle inspection. So that suggests to me that it has nothing to do with spying.

Again, that's because you're ignorant. It's okay to be ignorant, but don't hold forth like you know what you're talking about. Shops were getting basic powertrain codes out before OBD-II, and standardized connectors. California doesn't just check for the engine light any more; besides doing tailpipe testing, many places are also now doing dyno testing, and all OBD-II vehicles get connected to the scanner to verify that they are using stock equipment and settings.

And what personal information is stored on your ECU anyway? I've never seen anything but the diagnostic output of a few sensors. What's the problem in that?

It's more about the right to run whatever equipment you want so long as you aren't causing excessive emissions. This right is reserved for the rich, as usual. All that's needed is a tailpipe test, there's no need to connect to my PCM.

the fact of the matter is that the codes are available to you for just a few hundred dollars if you really needed that information.

That's not at all true. There are many codes that the manufacturer simply will not share. I've got codes out of my Audi A8 using third-party interfaces that aren't in the official service documentation, but the VAG 1551 will know what to do with those codes.

You admitted that there are general purpose and custom codes, just as I indicated.

Uh no, you said that the codes are available, I said that important codes aren't available. You are not allowed to present my argument as your argument, especially when it is the opposite of your argument.

just abolishing dealerships would not be a net win for anyone.

And now you are using a straw man, since I never said we should abolish dealerships. My argument is that we should eliminate the legal protectionism which permits them to fuck customers raw.

Re:or

[drinkypoo]

As for voiding the warranty, that is flat-out bullshit and a lie. The Magnusson-Moss Warranty Act specifically forbids this from any manufacturer.

As long as you can prove that your replacement tires meet or exceed all standards, you're golden. Good luck!

Any tire shop can replace TPMS sensors. Every new car since sometime around 2007 comes with TPMS sensors, by federal law, so every tire shop in the nation is capable of replacing these with compatible units.

Except they won't be able to recode the car to use them. Only Tesla can do that. There are TPMS relocation kits, but they won't work with tires without sidewalls to speak of, because the entire TPMS sensor is relocated to sit sideways inside of the wheel, behind the valve stem.

Re:Will not matter.

[Firethorn]

Ford's innovations with the model T, most of which were in the manufacturing, are among the earliest examples of exceptions

Indeed. Ford didn't invest so much money into making his cars better, he invested the money into making them cheaper. Better manufacturing techniques, lower maintenance requirements(early cars often assumed that the owner/driver would have a dedicated mechanic working for him to keep the car working), etc...

I haven't extensively studied the Model T, but I don't remember any 'features' introduced with the line that weren't utilized on higher-end vehicles first.

Re:or

[Grishnakh]

As long as you can prove that your replacement tires meet or exceed all standards, you're golden. Good luck!

Again, that's incorrect. Go read the law. The mfgr can only deny warranty claims directly related to the replacement part. They can't deny a warranty claim on, for instance, a defective sunroof mechanism because you installed tires that didn't meet OEM specs. And a claim that non-OEM tires somehow caused a problem somewhere else in the car would be very hard to convince any court (most likely, such a thing would go to small claims court, if under $5k). This isn't quite the case for something engine-related, but even here it's been commonplace for people to use non-OEM filters (e.g. Fram) and such for many decades. It's extremely rare that mfgrs or dealers try to deny warranty claims when non-OEM parts are used, unless they're absolutely sure the non-OEM part really did cause the problem and they can prove it. I do remember reading of a case of some guy with a Dodge Neon having engine problems, where Chrysler sent out an engineering team to look at the car (after the dealership mechanics gave up), and found that he had installed "Nology" spark plug cables which were definitively causing the problem, and billed him for the expense of sending a team. (This was internet lore so I can't vouch for its accuracy.)

As for TPMS, Here's a bunch of Tesla owners talking about the issue. Regular tire shops can handle the sensors (though replacements do seem to be pricey); normal TPMSes already sit behind the valve stem. The problem is reprogramming; it looks like a visit might be necessary to recode the car to see them, but Tesla says they're working (as of 2013) a way for owners to do that themselves. I imagine the issue is fixed by now.

Re:or

[Smidge204]

It's in the state's interest because the auto dealers and manufacturers lobby to make it the state's interest. That's pretty much how government works...

Auto dealers don't want competition, especially from a seller who doesn't have the overhead of maintaining a series of brick-and-mortar shops. Manufacturers don't want competition from another manufacturer. Together they put pressure on the state governments to mold laws in such a way as to keep the competition out.
=Smidge=

Re:or

[Sique]

Exactly here lies the problem: The car dealerships were de iurre no franchises, but de facto they were. So they had none of the advantages of a franchisee but all the dependencies.

Re:or

[Grishnakh]

What advantages? There's no advantages to having a franchise, except being able to ride on some company's established brand name. You take that risk yourself. I have no sympathy.

Re:Will not matter.

[hyades1]

The walls may be crumbling, whether auto manufacturers like it or not. A buddy of mine just paid a few bucks for an app and a Bluetooth OBD plug-in.

We didn't talk about it for long, but he basically said it gave him a freakin' TON of data...and he knows his stuff when it comes to cars. If I'd known I was going to stumble on this conversation, I'd have found out a lot more about it.