Any external network connection must be disclosed to the user. The car must come with instructions how to disable it
All functions of the car must remain permanently operable
I think this needs to be refined a bit. As phrased, you're just making any features that use network connections illegal.
Honestly, I see exactly zero features that would require network connection that make sense to be offered by the car maker directly. So let's refine it to "All first-party functions of the car ...", and add some provision to prevent bundling and un-commoditizing third-party networked additions.
CarPlay integration is a feature bundled into the infotainment in many cars that requires an "external network connection". It will not work if you disable the "external network connection".
I'd argue in-car LAN is an internal network connection. And garage door control etc. are "local area" networks.
Fair. I'm saying that if these features are 'arguably' legal under a proposed law, that law needs to be refined.
And garage door control etc. are "local area" networks
What if I want to control (e.g. close) the garage door when I am out of Wifi range?
Why on Earth would it need that? It's supposed to enable integrating your car and your phone. Surely that should mean local network connection.
Wifi is a network external to the vehicle. An internal network would be something like CAN.
Whatever the case, my point is that a good solution is probably not quite as simple as phrased above.
A WiFi router built into the car is something I'd classify as internal networking for the purpose of this thread.
Isn't CarPlay only over USB?
And either way -- just keep supporting connection over USB and it's not a problem?
CarPlay supports connection over WiFi, and I think if a law prohibited it, it would be problematic.
Isn't CarPlay only over USB?
https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT205634
If your car supports only wireless CarPlay ...
In-car Wifi, Spotify on the car radio, OEM maps with traffic.... you see zero?
It's fine for those functions to be a casualty of the owners choice to turn off the network, just like with a phone. If automakers want to use a cellular connection in your car for non-critical functions, it should come with a legitimate user-uncontrollable off switch, just like airplane mode on a phone.
Right. We're trying to stop the world of heated seat subscriptions with a remote license verification at startup before it gets a foothold.
Right - but as the parent said, the proposed language of "all car features must keep working" isn't compatible with that.
Defining a law that allows those features to be turned off and yet disallows "data is broken, heated seats are disabled" is very difficult. After all, heated seats aren't an essential safety feature.
Yes. In-car WiFi should obviously work even if the network connection break (remember, we're talking about working without Internet, not disallowing Internet at all) - WiFi is a local wireless network protocol, not magic Internet summoner. With actual Internet connection down, it should still maintain the local network for connected devices.
As for the rest, none of those look like they should be first-party features. "Spotify on the car radio" is a third-party integration to a system that should also work off-line, e.g. for playing music off removable storage, casting from your phone (via WiFi, without Internet), or, you know, working as an actual radio. OEM maps with traffic is something hardly anyone wants anyway, because they universally suck relative to some TomTom screen, or even Google Maps.
Colloquially speaking, "In-car Wifi" has come to mean "in-car internet connectivity". I presume this is what the parent meant.
https://www.verizon.com/support/connected-car-wi-fi/
https://www.att.com/plans/in-car-wifi/
https://www.caranddriver.com/research/a32814112/cars-with-wi...
LoJack-alike and accident alerting features do make some sense to be offered directly by the car maker. The latter is obviously difficult to retrofit, and the former would likely be easier to defeat if retrofitted.
I don't buy the music and navigation arguments in a smartphone-equipped world, but I think a good case can be made for those two.
Fine. Still, those two could be made as optional features that could be turned on or off at purchase, and/or during visit to a dealership or authorized repair shop. And neither of these should be sending telemetry during normal operation of the vehicle.
I would definitely want my car to be able to call an ambulance if I run off the road and hit a tree for instance and there are no other people around.
Of course perceived privacy is more important than something like that for many people here which is understandable.
A lot of it exists to sell your lat/lng and trip information to organizations like Wejo, who then goes on to sell it to gov organizations.
As phrased, you're just making any features that use network connections illegal.
Just as planned.
You do see how proposing banning maps with traffic updates tanks the whole concept, right?
Why can't I just use my phone for this?
I think the issue is that some people have different preferences.
I wouldn't want this built into my car. The list thing I want is to pay yet another fee for something I already have. I'll stick to plugging my phone into the vehicle for this feature.
wouldn't want this built into my car
I wouldn’t either. But I don’t think that means I should mandate my preferences be extended to all by banning the damn thing.
Simpler: mandate a network kill switch that doesn’t unnecessarily compromise functionality. (You would have to be creative about anti-theft tracking functions. But this is solvable.)
You can turn this off right now with tesla maps.
You do see how proposing banning maps with traffic updates tanks the whole concept, right?
You have it on your phone already, the car has no reason to have its own, with its own network connection.
This could still work, just not have data.
Something can be functional but useless
Edit, or rather.. functional but unused
As phrased, you're just making any features that use network connections illegal.
No, only features that require network connection. Which is exactly the intended outcome.
Speak for yourself. I like being able to lock my car from far away when I've forgotten to. I like being able to remotely start the engine so it's nice and warm inside for meet in the winter.
Making these sorts of features illegal is unacceptable and short sighted.
What I'd like is to force carmakers to open up the APIs and protocols used to enable these features, and allow me to use my own backend that I run in my own hardware, away from their prying eyes.
Speak for yourself. I like being able to lock my car from far away when I've forgotten to. I like being able to remotely start the engine so it's nice and warm inside for meet in the winter.
Making these sorts of features illegal is unacceptable and short sighted.
Please tell me that this is a parody.
If you think that is parody, you might be in an ideological bubble. These features are popular.
If you think that is parody, you might be in an ideological bubble.
Ah yes, the famous ideological bubble of “not being a wealthy American”. Talk about filter bubbles…
The topic at stake are freedom and private property: the right to do what you want with your car, and the right to fully own a car without the manufacturer having higher rights than you the owner (including rights to disable features remotely).
If you think that “I'm too lazy to get back to my car to lock it” is a good argument in that context, there's not much I can do for you.
And “popularity” isn't relevant either, since remotely brick-able and non-reparable shit are selling well too.
Telemetry services are hardly an American thing, and they're only a "wealthy" thing as much as buying a new economy car makes someone "wealthy".
https://www.chevrolet.com.br/carros/novo-onix/especificacoes...
Popularity is very relevant when the entire root of this thread is a discussion about law. If you propose laws that ban popular features, you're not going to be a very successful politician.
Lock my car from far away
LORA or Bluetooth
remotely start the engine so it's nice and warm inside
LORA or Bluetooth
And yes, cell fallback would be fine if those two fail.
You could rephrase it as:
All functions that a consumer could reasonably expect a car to perform without an internet connection must be operable without an internet connection. All features related to driving the vehicle, including but not limited to steering, braking, using traffic signals, starting/stopping, toggling locks or lights, opening or closing doors or compartments, and other standard features of a non-connected car must not require a network connection.
I think it’s probably OK if automakers want to onboard and support network features like maps or outsourced computation/diagnostics, but bricking everything because the company wants to collect user data and they want to opt out is obviously unethical. It’s important for these regulations to include the fact that they cannot be worked around or stapled on by the auto company post-hoc via firmware upgrades or the like.
All functions that a consumer could reasonably expect a car to perform without an internet connection must be operable without an internet connection.
Welcome to "the law is vague and impossible to implement" shouts from HN
a network connection is required for headlights to function. The car must determine current headlight laws and comply with any city, state or country requirements. Additionally, there may be headlight safety software updates required, and the network connection will be used to download them.
a network connection is required for the windshield wipers to function. (etc)
We don't even need to use the word "reasonable." We already have a list of things that need to function in order for a car to pass annual inspection, so why not base the regulation off of that?
Well, there's a lot of those lists and most states don't test anything other than OBD-II emissions readiness. And I don't really think that the primary concern here is that automakers are going to disable your brakes or legally mandated lights.
But conveniently, automakers may find that every feature uses network connections.
Your legislator can disagree and enforce his/her will. Usb c for apple as an example.
It's a damn car. Maybe that's how it should be.
Can you give an example of a function of a car that should need a network connection.
E.g. navigation. Could still work but say cannot load maps. And it could let you download maps to a usb stick if it was actually decent.
As phrased, you're just making any features that use network connections illegal
I mean, that's not so bad...
I too, want a simple minimalistic car with minimum fancy technogizmodoodats.
However that is not what the general market wants.
However that is not what the general market wants.
Not sure that's the case. You're seeing enshitification here. We keep pretending demand has a lot to blame but when you see voters opinions like this, it seems a lot more like supply side market manipulation. Now one might argue Maine is an exception to the market and blah blah but frankly I've grown tired of the invisible hand of the market argument.
If truly a lot of privatized policy and practice comes to fruition because it's what the market demands then I'm not entirely sure market economics is a great model for humans. There so much consumer hostility and exploitation anymore that I for one am not a fan.
I disagree in that while I myself don’t like all these technogizmodoodats, I can certainly see how many more people can and do want these features. They do make life a lot easier.
Heck, a lot of them I would love too, but not at the cost of over complicating my car.
Also remember this is HN. What people often want here is not what the average person wants, whether it be cars, phones, laptops, or many other items.
The article is referencing the entire state of Maine, and their preferences, not HN.
I’m referring to the original comment in this thread, not the article.
But the point is that this article shows that this is real people’s preferences, not just some wacky hackers with an axe to grind.
We keep pretending demand has a lot to blame but when you see voters opinions like this, it seems a lot more like supply side market manipulation
Want incentives do car manufacturers have in doing that if it's not something that most consumers want?
I doubt "collecting/selling user data" is the reason if you could charge a $1k+ premium for a "enshitified" car.
this is why i still drive my old corolla. don’t have to deal with smart/network/access features, and it’s easy for shops to fix. hope i dont blow a head gasket now that i’ve said that…
A blown head gasket is one of the easiest things to diagnose and repair. You can do it in your home garage with basic tools. But finding a faulty temp sensor that is throwing a code that in turn disables throttle response ... that requires a cloud-based network solution to properly lookup the deliberately cryptic error code.
Your faulty temp sensor shouldn't need any cloud-based solution.
The SAE J1979 standard (or your part of the world's equivalent) already provides for a way to get that diagnostic data which is mandated by law.
Yeah but how would the car manufacturers make any money /S
accurate only if you don't warp the head badly enough that it needs to be machined or replaced outright. Even so, crate motors are surprisingly affordable.
if only the car contained a computer for diagnostucs and a high resolution dispkay that xould show an error clearly...
You just legislated remove keyless entry, start, software controlled driving assistance anything, and center console infotainment displays out of existence. I applaud your bold vision and anxiously await an opportunity to support it at the polls.
Those huge center screens are massive visual distractions, and tempt designers to put more and more in them (such as AC controls). They tempt your eyes away from the road.
Every single car I've driven recently (about 20 different models) had a different way of adjusting the brightness and changing the night/day mode. I drove a new, high-spec BMW recently and it wasn't possible to reduce the brightness manually - the German manufacturer knows better than you, supposedly.
Driving assistance such as emergency braking and auto high beam has caused me more problems than not. The UK has narrow streets and many parked cars - the car often thinks you're going to crash in to a parked car. The auto high beams turn off when I don't want them to, and don't come on when I do.
Keyless entry was (is?) a total boon for thieves (hello, Jaguar Land Rover)
It's understandable that you have a specific set of personal preferences, nothing wrong about that. Wanting to impose them on everyone else, well, you know..
Oddly enough, based on my limited research, OP’s personal preferences aren’t even an option these days.
In my limited research, I wasn’t able to find a new vehicle that didn’t include infotainment / advanced safety features, etc. I assume this is what the market desires but I personally would just like to have the option to buy a new car that has creature comforts limited to a basic radio, heating and AC. It was a bit mind boggling that the cheapest base model cars come with an 8” touch screen and all kinds of advanced safety features these days.
You seemingly can’t buy just a car these days, it has to be a car with everything added on (whether you want it or not). Kind of like televisions these days, you can’t buy a television that just has inputs, speakers and a tuner.
Again maybe this is what the market desires and I’m just an oddball outlier.?
This is a good point. When there is no option (except not buying a new/new ish car) it becomes less credible to keep claiming “this is what the market wants”
There is a parallel with low cost flying. Almost every airline in Europe is a low cost one now (and business, class often 2-6x the cost of economy isn’t much of a difference). Why should I be counted as validating their business model when there’s is barely any choice now?
The network connection is an excellent point, yesterday Optus, a large telecommunications and Internet provider, suffered a nationwide outage that affected at least 10 million Australians.
Imagine if millions of cars failed to function properly because they were linked to network. If there was a natural disaster, this may have terrible consequences.
Imagine
Imagine if that happened to payments.
Maybe they might make a Black Mirror episode titled "The Day The Earth Stood Still"
My car is 15 years old. I have to go to the dealership to get the infotainment maps updated because the car has no network connection. I agree with you in general but I have no problem with map updates requiring an external wifi connection.
The only reason you have to do that is because the automaker made it so. Literally no one was stopping them from being able to update maps from a USB stick.
Sure. It actually has that capability to load MP3s. But as a navigation UX it sucks. I’d rather park my car every night and have the latest maps. Banning network connectivity as a feature does a disservice to users.
I would go even further, if car model is sold more than 100k times and more than 5 years (a.k.a reaches "significant" portion of population) car manufacturer (or any other equipment manufacturer) must do following:
1. Wiring diagrams, service documentation, working diagnostic software, firmware blobs must be provided to national archive institution (think archive.org) - and how information is shared is in discretion of this institution
2. In case there are theft prevention or "genuine check" systems (requires keys, codes or whatever) - keys and procedures are given to police (it they job anyway to prevent stealing)
3 Car road worthiness is tested using open (or opened) hardware/computer blocks - car must pass all safety rules and excepted functionality cannot deviate more than 20%. The manufacturer must provide documentation, SDK and calibration procedures, safety tests, but it is illegal to lock functionality by requiring special hardware (if it is secret sauce - provide schematic for alternative hardware which good at least 80% as special). Obvious, it can have proprietary software - it need provide open source alternative implementation.
4. if car is sold, user need to be informed about open hardware and software.
I support forcing all documentation to be released, but be careful of overly invasive laws that help big companies execute regulatory capture because the new guy can not meet the regulatory requirements.
You make a very good point in general, but at this point cars are already so absurdly over-regulated, it's basically impossible for the "new guy" to break into the market at all.
Permanently operable - so, what, the car makers are going to keep 2G wireless going forever for vintage vehicles that have car-talk?
Some delineation between a core function of driving the car and ancillary services is probably warranted, so things like car-talk and sirius aren't the responsibility of the manufacturer. I suspect the devil's in the details for exactly how that delineation is decided though...
Hell while we're at it, pass this same thing for robot vacuums, garage door openers, and 1000 other "smart" devices.
"Any home device shall not require an internet connection without loss of functionality"
A “No network required” insignia is in order.
Hell while we're at it, pass this same thing for robot vacuums, garage door openers, and 1000 other "smart" devices.
This a hundred times. With electronics and connectivity becoming cheaper and cheaper over time, the temptation to stick it to every possible device in order to take control of it and make it obsolete at will just by turning off a necessary service, or simply collect user data is simply too tempting. I see a sad future in which a technology will be invented with the sole purpose of having every possible object, from shoes to glasses, dentures, bags, umbrellas, walking canes, bicycles, hammers, etc. connected and constantly transmitting something somewhere, outside of any control by the user.
I note that the opposite applies in the EU under "eCall", a remarkably under-discussed piece of legislation. This mandates that your car automatically call the emergency services if involved in a collision.
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/EN/legal-content/summary/ecall-in-...
Love it but then how will the government follow you or engage the kill switch?
A bipartisan bill confirming our right to also repair our personal electronic devices will be considered in the Maine Senate in January.
There should be basically an off switch, no GPS, no antenna, no internet connection. I don't care if it's opt in or opt out, I just want a kill switch.
Can we also mandate this for a rented car? A rental user must also have the ability to disable all network connections.
I want that kind of law for more than cars. I want it for everything. The problem with that law for cars is the Federal Kill Switch Law that might go into effect in 2026.
In practice, what does this mean? No more restricted parts? That the service tools and software will be available for anyone at a fair and reasonable price? And if so, who dictates what is a reasonable price for the required software?
If you read the article:
Do you want to require vehicle manufacturers to standardize on-board diagnostic systems and provide remote access to those systems and mechanical data to owners and independent repair facilities?
It would be clear that this is about on-board diagnostics/computer systems
I did, but it left ambiguities. There are already standards here (OBD), but extensions beyond that standard often require vendor software. It isn't clear what the actual requirements are. I can't imagine that they are requiring vendors to provide factory manuals and full technical information for free, for example.
I can't imagine that they are requiring vendors to provide factory manuals and full technical information for free, for example
Here is another idea you cant imagine: no copyright protection and no property right on repair manuals.
Just like there is no IP rights on medical procedures and any dicobered laws of nature.
For factory manuals, that'd be really nice.
> extensions beyond that standard often require vendor software
now they can't :)
> I can't imagine that they are requiring vendors to provide factory manuals and full technical information for free, for example.
Why can't you imagine that? It doesn't cost them anything, and the car belongs to the owner, not them.
OBD is already standardized. For the most part, since 1996. There are specific software sets for doing more advanced operations, but these all talk over the ODB ports, which is done typically by an elm27 on a simple data line. The problem is there is standard and non standard commands you can issue and get replies for.
The requirement should be "all cars with digital systems will come with a on-board diagnostic computer.
The one for saab - pre OBD2 is almost impossible to find. It's called an ISAT and I only know of about 5 on the east coast.
post ODB2 there's somthing called a "TECH2" that GM used across all their lineups. They cost between 400 and 1000 dollars depending on the addons and such.
Instead, they should just build a tech2 into the car's infotainment system.
Wow someone else who actually knows that the Saab 900 had a diagnostic port!
I miss my 900 Turbo. Tweaked the APC potentiometers for a little more boost :)
so that'd be the 900 not the 9000. The 900 had a diagnostic port that the ISAT could communicate with for resetting the SRS system, or to talk to the LH 2.4 systems which I think were just the non-turbos.
The 9000 is a fully integrated system though, there's like 5 or 6 different modules and all sorts of ODB support from TCS to ABS to the HVAC controls, ECU, etc.
OBDII is only a minimal standard, compliance requires only reporting that is related to emissions systems and engine systems that affect emissions. Basically everything else is manufacturer-specific and requires either a manufacturer diagnostic computer (every manufacturer has one) or third-party software with (usually reverse engineered) support for manufacturer diagnostics. Since CANbus became the normal implementation for OBDII, much of this is done by communicating with individual modules over OBDII using message sets proprietary to the manufacturer of that module. Newer vehicles incorporate more and more functionality into these modules, such that the usefulness of the core OBDII set tends to decrease.
OBDII is really quite far from solving the problem - unsurprising because it wasn't intended to. It's an emissions standard, not a general diagnostics standard. Common modern fault points like the brake system and SRS are unaddressed by OBDII, and that's without getting into infotainment and telematics.
A ballot summary says this:
These laws require manufacturers to provide the same diagnostic and repair information to vehicle owners and independent repair businesses that authorized dealerships receive. They also seek to prevent manufacturers from mandating the use of exclusive tools or software.
But that’s not what the law text says. As you mentioned the law is about access to the on board diagnostics, but nothing about the rest of the vehicle.
A contrived example would be that the manufacturer needs to tell people how to reset the Oil Change sensor on the car. But has no obligation to share how to actually perform an oil change. No obligation to provide the torque value for the oil drain plug.
So all this law obligates them to do is provide access to the diagnostic computers, but nothing about the actual mechanics of the vehicle. Perhaps this is legislated elsewhere.
But here in California, I can not get the factory service manual for my motorcycle. It is unavailable. Were this legislation to have been passed here, i still may not have access.
Yet that’s what the ballot summary says, “provide the same diagnostic and repair information”, but it’s not what the law as written says.
In practice, nothing. There have been multiple federal agencies telling car manufacturers that compliance with such a statute is a criminal act.
I haven't seen anything about this do you have some sources for reading about this?
That's what I'm afraid of. TBH, the whole brouhaha over Tesla and the so called "Elon mode" highlighted this. The whole problem was caused by hackers modifying the system.
The government is threatening to regulate and require more advanced firmware security. There've been similar issues with emissions devices and security, since modification could defeat emissions standards.
It isn't clear to me that the practical impact of these bills will automatically lead to the rights that I'd want.
"right to Repair is incredibly popular because it’s common sense—at least to those who aren’t manufacturers. Society works best when we are empowered to fix our stuff"
here is the next win for common sense: a repairability index. invented in france where they know a thing or two about revolutions
https://grist.org/climate/why-frances-new-repairability-inde...
Right up there with the democracy and freedom index as numbers you attached to your opinion and present like facts.
A repairability index is about as objective as can get: a list a components and their modes of failure along with a checklist of:
* what can be repaired by the owner using spare parts, instructions and common tools
* what can be repaired by an independend third party
* what must be repaired by the manufacturer
* when must something be junked and how much of it can be recycled
These are not "opinions". At some point we need to start calling out the criminal indifference of vested interests (and their shills) to the sustainability question
A freedom index is about as objective as it can get: a list of categories and their rights along with a checklist of:
* what kinds of guns can be owned
* what kinds of cars can be owned
* what kinds of speech is allowed
* what proportion of income one can keep
These are not "opinons". At some point we need to start calling out the criminal indifference of vested interests (and their shills) to the freedom question
I feel you are trying to make some kind of point but I am not getting it.
Sure, start a democracy index by the methods you stated and compile a list and put it somewhere online and I'm sure people would find it useful. Those facts are useful for people looking into the freedoms of different places.
We are talking about repairability here though.
What is the complaint?
I think some confusion here is about "a number" people keep mentioning. Is it a single number that has to be objectively weighted by the facts? Or are we talking "a list of..." or data points which _are_ just facts can people can make their own opinion of?
Are they facts?
Uh yes?
What types of guns you can own is a fact.
What types of components in a phone can be replaced by the user and those replaced only by apple is a fact.
I'm not quite sure what you are implying. Are those not facts?
Is it a fact that the United States is the most free country? Your index isn’t called “index of phones by number of parts replaceable”, just like mine isn’t called “index of countries by gun ownership”. Like I said, you attached a number to your opinion and want to present it as a fact.
The irony is that they are defending the right of a manufacturing cartel to limit the options of what these valiant freedom fighters can do with stuff they own (with the "hard-won" money they managed to rescue from the evil "taxman" :-).
But assuming they indeed want the "freedom" to have unrepairable cars, what about my freedom to want a market that offers them. Same with a market for cars that are not surveillance devices etc. Are their needs more important than mine?
Political extremism turns people into ugly entitled morons. Alas its not a sad circus to watch from afar. They are taking society down to their sociopathic dark world.
You're right in that freedom is subjective, but you're getting downvoted because you're presenting it in a way that people are finding annoying.
I actually don't think that's why they're getting downvoted, nobody is arguing that freedom isn't subjective, it's not a very insightful point.
I think they're getting downvoted (note: not by me, I downvote very little) because they've introduced a controversial strawman around a much more ambiguous topic than one about the repairability of mechanical and electrical consumer goods. It is not some sort of flight of fancy to think we could define what is important about repairability for consumer goods and have at least some objective criteria that is communicated to the consumer.
This is the worst type of regulatory overreach - a true innovation killer - putting useless regulatory burden on all car manufacturers. It will only benefit the large incumbents that can afford to be inefficient.
In what world (except for a communist one) is it the role of the government to put arbitrary laws in place pandering to nische interests like this one? The role for regulations is in ensuring the safety of citizens and fighting mono/oligo-polies (instead of helping them, like in this case).
The role for regulations is in ensuring the safety of citizens and fighting mono/oligo-polies (instead of helping them, like in this case).
If this is so beneficial to auto makers, it's curious why they've invested so much money in lobbying and advertising to try and defeat it. Perhaps it's more complicated than you're implying?
Of course it’s not beneficial per se to auto makers but it’s relatively more troublesome for smaller automakers than bigger ones. Unless they are focused solely on providing cars that are easy to repair of course. In that case they will be given a government mandated market advantage in true communist fashion.
History has clearly taught us that socialism doesn’t work - why do we keep forgetting?
*market* advantage in true *communist* fashion
You really have no idea what you're talking about, do you?
What do you mean? China is the major communist economy in the world and they have plenty of “markets“, but the CPC are the ones who pick the winners through legislation and/or subsidies.
China is the major communist economy in the world...
Look up "State Capitalism".
In that case they will be given a government mandated market advantage in true communist fashion.
The USA is a capitalist county. "Communism" and "Socialism" are not synonyms for "the government is doing things I disagree with."
As I stated above what I disagree is a system where legislation is used for other purposes than 1) protecting citizens from harm 2) combating anti-competitive practices by incumbent businesses.
The legislation in question clearly falls outside these two categories.
As a DIYer, I like this. But why does this need legislation? If enough DIYers want this, wouldn’t they vote with their dollars and not buy unrepairable products?
The short answer is that investors like the companies in their portfolios to have recurring payments. This leads companies to offer product features as subscription services. This makes them do things to keep you from modifying the device, such as using proprietary parts, employing device serialization, and using the DMCA to sue you when you attempt to modify a device.
There’s an awful lot of collusion behind the scenes. When one company starts a practice that drives revenues, all companies start doing it. Investors demand it. Then you see things like industry wide shifts. Where you can’t get a certain product that existed a few years ago no matter how much you’re willing to spend.
There might a free market, but when consumers are talking pennies and investors are talking dollars, you won’t have a lot of influence on it.
lol... no? That only works if there are repairable products that are as easy to find and as good as the non-repairable ones.
If enough DIYers want this, wouldn’t they vote with their dollars and not buy unrepairable products?
That's not how the market works.
People mostly buy products on perceived value: price vs performance. Traits that only come into play when something goes wrong -- repairability, warranty, customer service, etc. -- are minor factors in the average consumer purchasing decision because people don't expect things to go wrong. If a given piece of, say, electronics only breaks in a reasonable timeframe 5% of the time, most people aren't going to factor in how easy to fix it is when they decide whether to buy it.
The reality is that most people only factor in a few more obvious variables in their purchasing decision. It's hard to get consumer momentum for less prominent aspects of a product to get manufacturers to change their behavior.
It's the same reason we have basic labor regulations or building/health codes, rather than relying on the market for everything. Consumers are good at applying pressure on companies for some things, sure, but not everything.
This isn’t about empowering DIYers. It’s about empowering _everyone_. It’s about allowing you to use the services of a non-affiliated mechanic for repairs. It’s about autonomy, competition, and efficiency.
As to the question of why this requires legislation. Why wouldn’t it? The current market conditions result in an unfavorable outcome.
DIYers are such a small group compared to the entire population that they can't significantly affect market with their dollars in many or most cases.
Just look at manual transmissions: far more repairable and DIY friendly than automatic/CVT/robotic transmissions and there are a lot of people who just like to drive them and are not DIYers. Yet these transmissions are almost extinct in new cars in North America.
Manufacturer liability for software exploits. Keep the cars simple... why do some cars have f*** optic fiber instead of a normal CAN bus?
Possibly due to amount of data coming from various sensors and systems.
BTW, CAN standard is riddled with bugs: https://youtu.be/zi0rHwfiX1Q?si=tl9gfR9R-lCps-UW at 26:18
I was watching for the Maine question 3 result: basically nationalizing its electric grid which is majority owned by foreign companies.
https://spectrumlocalnews.com/me/maine/politics/2023/11/08/m...
Maine is ending up being a microcosm for what is required for the clean energy transition- there was a previous fight about a HVDC line between hydro-Quebec and Boston:
https://www.iberdrola.com/about-us/what-we-do/smart-grids/ne...
(In both cases Avangrid is involved..)
We can watch the ballot questions, lawsuits and bribes play out as various interests try to maintain their rent-seeking.
basically nationalizing its electric grid which is majority owned by foreign companies
The verdict is clear: Americans would rather have critical infrastructure owned by foreign companies than by their own government. Which they have pre-existing beef with.
| "...a blow to auto manufacturers who have spent millions lobbying against similar legislation and fighting against it in the courts."
Does anybody know which car manufacturers? I'd like to make sure I never support them directly or indirectly.
Now do tractors next.
We passed that in Colorado. Now we'll see if John Deere is willing to comply. https://www.npr.org/2023/05/06/1174468800/colorado-is-the-fi...
1000?
Off topic but couldn't help: is a car an autonomous system? Has computers, has LAN, has borders, is basically a rack on wheels. Sometimes even drive autonomously.
Do you want to require vehicle manufacturers to standardize on-board diagnostic systems and provide remote access to those systems and mechanical data to owners and independent repair facilities?
Not quite: we surely do want to disable any remote access.
I read that as “pass car on the right” law. Ah well one thing at a time :-)
Crazy how companies seem to be at high-level war with their customers. It's the end result of an oligopoly I guess.
The next law I want passed:
The "Cars can't require a network connection" law: Any external network connection must be disclosed to the user. The car must come with instructions how to disable it, (which must be a user serviceable physical hardware switch, fuse, jumper, etc). All functions of the car must remain permanently operable with no nagging of the user to reconnect, other than an optional initial prompt to inform the user of the change. 0 repercussions may be brought on the user for disabling the network connection, such as 'we can't diagnose/fix your steering because it can't connect to the network' or 'we can't update your infotainment system with your network connection disabled', as those updates could easily be done via the OBDII port.
Hell while we're at it, pass this same thing for robot vacuums, garage door openers, and 1000 other "smart" devices.