Support for right-to-repair laws slowly grows
arstechnica.com
Support for right-to-repair laws slowly grows
1–10 of 249 posts
Re: Support for right-to-repair laws slowly grows
#2You should have this basic right to repair. If you are unable to repair it and even break it further, it will cost you more for the company to repair it.
This right should have the right to have the repair company to connect it and scan it, for a nominal fee, and tell you what is broken and what they would charge. You can then decide. With the complexity of modern devices, you may have to go to another company with similar data assessent equipment to cary out the repair. Modern circuit boards are a sea of small surface mounted parts on both sides...
Re: Support for right-to-repair laws slowly grows
#3"Providing open access to the technical specifications of consumer electronics would enable criminals to “more easily circumvent security protections, harming not only the product owner but also everyone who shares their network,” and
"On the other end, John Deere argues that access to the company’s proprietary software could be used to bypass emissions controls or safety measures"
Of course they're doing it all for our own safety. It makes me mad when people bring up security through obscurity as a reason for locking down devices. It's such a blatant lie.
Re: Support for right-to-repair laws slowly grows
#4Having my HP printer just failed because of something was wrong on the printer head (and replacing the printer head alone costs more than the printer, and is a easy job as it was made to be easily replaced), I'm always mad that a part costs equal or more than the whole thing.
Any kind of "locked-in" to repair anything should always be against the law: no one should be allowed to charge more for a part than it charges for the whole. And I think that only "right-to-repair" can make things correct and reduce those disposable electronics.
Re: Support for right-to-repair laws slowly grows
#5"Providing open access to the technical specifications of consumer electronics would enable criminals to “more easily circumvent security protections, harming not only the product owner but also everyone who shares their network,” and "On the other end, John Deere argues that access to the company’s proprietary software could be used to bypass emissions controls or safety measures" Of course they're doing it all for…
> It's such a blatant lie.
yes and no. Most today's CE devices lose 3/4 of their utility when disconnected from their shared medium. People running such mediums usually require some sort of certification from the participant devices, and in case the device has been modified, a re-certification after modifications is usually required.
Even replacing a couple of diodes by a looking-close-on-paper analogue might harm performance for neighboring participants in the communication. I let you imagine what one could do with arbitrary firmware images on a fully unlocked device.
I'd be curious to see what solutions to that the infrastructure people work out when these laws are eventually adopted.
Re: Support for right-to-repair laws slowly grows
#6PSA: Please support candidates and legislators who support right to repair laws at both state and federal levels! Call your representatives!
Re: Support for right-to-repair laws slowly grows
#7I’m generally pro-right to repair bills but I’m not clear how far they can reasonably go - should companies that make phones or whatever with custom cpus (Apple, Samsung, etc with completely custom chips or custom configurations - arm licensees etc) be required to sell those chips freely?
I’m not trying to be unreasonable: being able to replace a broken screen without replacing the entire device is reasonable, but there must Shirley* be a line across which repair is unreasonable.
* :D
Re: Support for right-to-repair laws slowly grows
#8"Providing open access to the technical specifications of consumer electronics would enable criminals to “more easily circumvent security protections, harming not only the product owner but also everyone who shares their network,” and "On the other end, John Deere argues that access to the company’s proprietary software could be used to bypass emissions controls or safety measures" Of course they're doing it all for…
But you have to be careful about criminals. They’re always criming.
I think there are many reasons for not supporting repair - some better some worse - but this is still the most stupid one.
Re: Support for right-to-repair laws slowly grows
#9I’m generally pro-right to repair bills but I’m not clear how far they can reasonably go - should companies that make phones or whatever with custom cpus (Apple, Samsung, etc with completely custom chips or custom configurations - arm licensees etc) be required to sell those chips freely? I’m not trying to be unreasonable: being able to replace a broken screen without replacing the entire device is reasonable, but th…
Honestly every time I hear somebody throw out a hypothetical example of “is this [RTR Requirement] too far” my reaction is immediately “wow that sounds like a fantastic idea”
Re: Support for right-to-repair laws slowly grows
#10You should have this basic right to repair. If you are unable to repair it and even break it further, it will cost you more for the company to repair it. This right should have the right to have the repair company to connect it and scan it, for a nominal fee, and tell you what is broken and what they would charge. You can then decide. With the complexity of modern devices, you may have to go to another company with s…
Forcing a company to have a diagnostic tool or team to identify a problem you might not have them fix is silly IMO. So is forcing their hand on creating a repairable product.
I don't expect Microsoft to be able to easily identify obscure hardware issues with a design like my Surface Book 2. I do expect them to create a hardware product that doesn't break easily. Supplying the specs is a big benefit in my purchase decision. But not something I think should be required since it will undoubtedly give competitors more of an edge in their own development.
The onus is on me to purchase a product that matches my needs.