Right-to-Repair Law Proposed ... for Cars | Electronic Frontier Foundation

" This aptly named bill would allow independent repair shops to compete for the business now guaranteed only to dealer-controlled establishments. This is important because car manufacturers now severely limit the number of repair shops that are allowed to have the tools, diagnostic codes and updated repair information essential to being able to repair late-model cars (which are heavily dependent on computers for performance and repair).

By thus unfairly limiting the universe of repair shops able to diagnose and repair late-model cars to only those repair shops that are connected with their dealers, the manufacturers dramatically limit consumer choice and significantly increase the costs to those car owners (by some 34 percent, according to a study preformed for the Automotive After Market Industry Association by Lang Research)."

It's a fine idea to break vendor lock, and the sooner it happens the better as vehicles will only get more sophisticated.

 

Last I heard, the ASA (Auto Service Association ) opposed this idea -- apparently they believe that manufacturers are providing the info at this time. They seemed to think that legislation would make things worse. Not sure why.

Apparently you can purchase the knowledge -- and the tools. It's fairly spendy, but I guess that the info is available ( online subscriptions etc). I don't think that t's anything that a DIY guy can afford except on a limited basis -- I think that some sites allow you to purchase short term access.

 

The point is not so much the current situation, but to ensure openness in future.
Vendor lock is bad for everyone but the vendor, and anyone opposing opening maintenance access logically has to have an ulterior motive. As for the tools, there are already DIY diagnostic systems available you can build. Open access would allow much more competition for DIY and aftermarket maintenance equipment. As computers and related tools become more sophisticated, the real barrier to system access won't be equipment, but artificial constraints like "DRM"/access lock.

In the computer world we learned early on that vendor lock is nasty. If I buy a system I own it and it is in my interest to control what I own rather than being tied to the vendor.

 

The situation is only going to get worse as hundreds of dealers are being given the boot by Fiatsyler and soon GM.

Jim

 

"The situation is only going to get worse as hundreds of dealers are being given the boot by Fiatsyler and soon GM. "

Very good point!
"Sorry about the codes you can't have for your unsupported vehicle!"

 

A major impediment to this is that no entity forced the makers into a "real" set if standards for the computer systems, especially the interface and communications protocol. On the EEC V systems, the only standard was the interface connector shape and pinout (nothing even close the what was already standard in the computer world). Even with this supposed standard, manufactures were allowed to deviate so we ended up with at least 3-4 different communications protocols and pinouts within the supposed standard.
If you were around in the early days of computers, you will remember that every manufacturer made hardware that was not compatible with any one else's in an attempt to lock the buyer into their camp. As a result, the computer revolution was stalled and did not take off till IBM released their standards to the world at large. Once a de-facto standard emerged, the revolution took off and got us to where we are today.
The same thing needs to happen to auto manufacturers and their computer systems. At the very least, they should communicate with a simple, common, established protocol, thru an established standard computer-computer interface with "open" specifications.

Just my $.02 for what it is worth.

 

"At the very least, they should communicate with a simple, common, established protocol, thru an established standard computer-computer interface with "open" specifications."

Strongly agree!

 

I think warranty work should be performed at the dealer only. I don't care who pays the dealer so long as it isn't me.

Warranty work at a privately owned shop would require the use of Genuine " " parts raising the price even more. Carquest and Napa sell parts that are as good as those from the dealer.

Tim

 

The issue is not, at all, in any way, "warranty work". That's a good topic for another discussion, but has absolutely nothing to do with the issue of open system access.

 

I was posting on the run and didn't read the link before, thank you.

Tim

 

This site lists the status of maufacturer access

Home - National Automotive Service Task Force

They seem to be active in trying to get more access, and I think that their status is up to date.

 

OBD II (1996?) was a good first attempt at forcing a standard, but the authority of the government to mandate it was limited to emissions functions only under the EPA, which didnt need a separate law passed by Congress. Now that cars have things like BMW's I-drive, computer controls go far beyond just the engine.

Jim

 

Allowing independant shops access to late model tool/data is and always has been allowed as well as brand backed training for a fee (when space allows). Having worked for both independant and dealer I can say this topic is a double edged sword and here is why:

Technology is ever changing and each model year cars are more advanced than the previous year. This is due largely to competition but also to Fed mandates, now the repair side needs to be up to speed and the manufactures spen quite a bit of $$$ for new tools and data. They need to have their staff (repair techs) completely up to speed in order to provide the utmost customer satisfaction. This is both costly and time consuming therefore almost justifyable to "lock" repairs for atleast 3 years on a vehicle.

Am I for or against... Depends, from an independant point of view absolutely! New(er) vehicles are easier to work on, age deteriates everything and also small repairs are more profitable than entire rebuilds.

However from the manufacture point of view they stand to loose short term and long term. Short term in dealer repairs and long as in "bad independant customer repair experiences" due to lack of proper dealer backed training, repair experiences almost always determine whether or not that person will return to that brand.

I will add that in recent years dealer repair and overall cousomer satisfaction has slipped making the proposal all the more promising. In a perfect world the dealer and independant can merge and share repair responsibility and it work out for everyone! In a perfect world