I’ve been doing a little research on the three Massachusetts ballot questions, and the first question–right to repair–seems fairly clearcut. There are some issues with the legislation; Consumer Reports, who I trust, says that anti-theft devices might become easier to bypass, and very few customers will be affected by the legislation. But ultimately, the “pro” side has convinced me that it’s in the best interest of consumers for independent garages to have access to dealers’ diagnostic equipment.
However, the official state “Information for voters” packet has some shocking claims from the opposition. From the research I’ve done, I haven’t seen a single credible source acknowledging any of these issues. In fact, these claims are so outlandish that I would dismiss out-of-hand, except that they were (allegedly) fact-checked by the (allegedly) neutral government officials publishing the packet. Highlights:
Is there any truth to this? What “redesign” and “15-year-old…technology” are they talking about?
“As provided by law, the 150-word arguments are written by proponents and opponents of each question, and reflect their opinions. The Commonwealth of Massachusetts does not endorse these arguments, and does not certify the truth or accuracy of any statement made in these arguments. The names of the individuals and organizations who wrote each argument, and any written comments by others about each argument, are on file in the Office of the Secretary of the Commonwealth.” (emphasis added)
I’m not qualified to comment on this particular issue, but we got those same information packets in Oregon about ballot measures. I would read through the paid comments (the section you are talking about), and if there was an issue I wasn’t sure about, whichever one had the most alarmist, batshit-crazy claims being made about it, I knew that THAT was the side I wanted to vote against.
There is no possible way this is true. It may require them to release the proprietary interface to their car’s computer to third parties so they can build compatible devices, but doing that does not require anyone to revert to older tech. From reading the summary, it appears that all they really have to do is supply their current software at a reasonable rate, which many manufacturers are certainly not doing.
The others:
Would only be true if they designed their vehicles to store personal information insecurely. Even if that isn’t the case, the statement is pretty damn vague.
This one is only true if they would like to hide some of their proprietary tech from being exposed through the interface they currently use to diagnose the car. Otherwise, it’s garbage because they could just release the same standards they used to develop their own diagnostic tools.
Personally, I’m very happy to see these kinds of laws being initiated. One of the things that irritated me most about my last car (and the reason I didn’t keep the car, or go back to that brand) was that it had a wonderful computer that no one but the dealership could communicate with. ODBII access was available, but the computer could tell you much more about the state of the vehicle than the standard ODBII interface would. It was possible for an independent shop to license the diagnostic software on a monthly basis, but it costs something around $2K/Mo. So forget me fixing it myself, the shops can’t even make a profit on fixing that car due to the licensing fees. Even in my metropolitan area of millions, the only shop I could find with the software was the dealer.
I’ve looked over the law, and it just says that manufacturers need to make the same information available to owners and independent shops that they do to dealers and authorized shops, using the same technology, with the same level of security, and for the same price.
And there’s this:
It looks to me like adequate protections are included, and no redesign or outdated technology is mandated. Starting in 2015,
40 CFR § 86.1808-01(f) is the paragraph of EPA regulations requiring manufacturers to make electronic emissions data accessible to mechanics. An owner will still need to have a machine that can plug into the interface.
There is bullshit on both sides of this issue.
For the most part, with the car lines I am currently familiar with almost every piece of information from the car maker is available to the independent, with the caveat that they have to pay for it.
I know for a fact that with Volvo the only thing that isn’t available to the independent is software for new car accessory installations. With Hyundai, everything is available, and I believe that that is also true for GM (used to be anyway)
Read the following from the right to repair website
did you catch that first line? Here it is again
As a guy that has spent his entire life in the automotive business Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.
Every car out there has special tools required to do particular jobs. Some more than others, but every car has special tools required to do a particular job.
You want to specialize in Toyotas? Great you get to buy Toyota specific tools to do particular jobs. You want to also work on Mercedes? Guess what? The Toyota tools won’t do the job, you get to buy MBZ tools. Changing the law in Mass won’t change this.
Now lets talk about software.
Every car maker has their own software systems, since sharing software might run afoul of anti trust, / competitive legislation. Every car maker also has their own interface tools to talk to their cars.
Since cars don’t need to talk to one another there really is no reason for commonality. So you are going to make all of the car makers install new language into their cars control units to satisfy this law in one state.
Picture if you will, the Mass legislature passed a law that going forward all PCs had to use Apple operating systems. Do you think this might be an issue? Do you think Dell, Sony, Toshiba, etc might be a bit pissed?
If anything this is an understatement of the actual problem.
Next
With Volvo it is 3 day, 1 moth or annual. What’s the problem?
Next:
downloading software to a car is never as easy as a smartphone app. Trust me on this.
Finally
Standard service on a new Hyundai is a a service every 7,500 miles. Assuming you drive the average 12,00 miles per year, you will see me for a 7,500 mile service once every 15 months or so. A 7,500 mile service is $69.95. Somebody tell me please where I can take my car and get the service done and get a check back for $230-$430. Screw having the work done in my own shop, I will take my car there, I’d be stupid not to. :dubious:
all of the above from here.
BTW if all of the above does go into law, does anybody think the car makers will do all of these changes and NOT raise the price of their cars to compensate for the additional costs?
If you think they will do this for free, I have this bridge I would like to sell you. it’s bright orange and is in San Francisco. I can give you a really good deal on it.
the bottom line here is the independents want the info, they just don’t want to pay for the privilege.
One of the big drivers of this law is the locksmiths and the need for programming smart keys and chipped keys.
Right now, if you want a key code/immobilizer code, I have access to that, but before I give it you, I want proof that you have some ownership interest in the car*. Such as a registration card, a pink slip with you name on it or something.
I won’t pass out a key code over the phone without something to associate the car to you. (yes I require a fax of the document in question)
If you make everything accessible, security will go down.
I will also release the info to a locksmith, but those calls are very few and far between.
Rick, your points are well put. I’d like to address two of your concerns:
The proposed law indeed does not mandate free access to the tools required to access diagnostic information from onboard computers; it does, however, prohibit preferential pricing for dealers and authorized shops. This may allow better service from less expensive shops, and cheaper service from some better shops. It depends on what kind of pricing was already in place.
For immobilizing systems, the law specifies that owners and independents must have equal access to unlocking information, either through the National Automotive Service Task Force’s Secure Data Release Model or “other known, reliable and accepted law enforcement Internet-based system” – the law already passed just says “known, reliable and accepted systems” – I don’t actually see how most owners could get access to these, but locksmiths, repair shops, and maybe business-type owners can.
Yeah. This year’s questions aren’t too bad, but I’ve seen Freeman-on-the-land-gold-fringe-admiralty-law-flag-no-joinder levels of crazy in the question arguments in the past.
Did anyone object to OBDII when that was required (different concept, I know, because it only applied to new cars)?
As a shadetree mechanic and an embedded systems engineer, I gotta say that OBDII is the best thing since… well its WAY better than sliced bread! Even though some manufacturers seem to have implemented it better than others, and they all have more data that I assume could be available through that interface, but isn’t.
This won’t help anyone with an existing car, but I’d be in favor of a new OBDIII standard that requires the availability of more data, and is implemented more consistently.
**
As it stands right now the language in a Toyota is different than the language in a Ford wich is different than the language in a GM.
A universal interface would be a common language / common tool.
Not going to be cheap to implement.
I think you are parsing it wrong. I read it as saying that consumers will have access to diagnostics information on all vehicles that use the universal interface system, which I take it is OBDII.
There’s no antitrust reason for car manufacturers to not share software. Their problems arise when they erect barriers to the rest of the market from accessing their software. In fact, they’d probably be better off adapting, extending, and giving back to Megasquirt for engine management, since they then wouldn’t be duplicating each other’s work. This legislation is essentially an anti-trust action.
There’s no good reason for each manufacturer to have their own connector. Each manufacturer’s connector is doing the same damn thing, sending data to and from the car’s various control modules. Having a common connector is used in the PC industry because it makes your devices more likely to be adopted and used, and less expensive to develop and produce. Conversely, having a proprietary connector makes your devices more expensive to produce, and less likely to be adopted. E.G.: The open EISA bus beat the hell out of the proprietary MCA bus.
That information (OBD II) is already publicly available. You can go down to any auto parts store and buy an OBD II scanner that will read and erase fault codes on an OBD II car.
The thrust of this bill is all of the rest of control units in the car that aren’t covered by OBD II. In my car for example there are two control units that are OBD II and twenty three that aren’t.
From a technical standpoint, I dont think that manufacturers are forced to share software. The modules just have to put out the diagnostic data in readable format. Whats the issue?