Right To Repair Advocates Are Hosting YouTube Town Halls To Show You How To Get Involved In the Movement (vice.com) 52
iFixit, a company that advocates for the right for users to repair their own devices, is hosting live town halls on YouTube to help get new people involved in the movement. "We're going to do them every two weeks while the legislative season is in full swing," Kyle Wiens, CEO of iFixit, told Motherboard in an email. Motherboard reports: The first town hall aired on Thursday, and featured prominent right to repair leaders like Repair.org's Gay Gordon-Byrne and US PIRG's Nathan Proctor. The broadcast covered topics such as the benefits of right to repair to consumers and the environment, and gave out information on how to talk to legislators about right to repair laws. Thanks to the right to repair movement's efforts, 15 states have introduced right to repair legislation in 2019 so far. Repair.org and iFixit's livestream gives people in those states information to help push their legislators to vote for bills protecting the people's right to repair. People living in states where legislation isn't yet being considered can learn all about how to kickstart their own local movements.
Getting involved in the push for right to repair legislation is as simple as watching a recording of the first town hall broadcast. From there, you can then head over to Repair.org's advocacy page, where, you can navigate to a direct link for each state that will tell you where right to repair legislation stands in your community, who your legislators are, and how to get in contact with them. If folks across America agitate for change, we can enjoy a future where people can freely repair their own devices.
Getting involved in the push for right to repair legislation is as simple as watching a recording of the first town hall broadcast. From there, you can then head over to Repair.org's advocacy page, where, you can navigate to a direct link for each state that will tell you where right to repair legislation stands in your community, who your legislators are, and how to get in contact with them. If folks across America agitate for change, we can enjoy a future where people can freely repair their own devices.
Re:It is not just for hand held devices (Score:4, Interesting)
Those things are a lot more complicated than you're making them out to be. Repair codes can be read by anyone with a $100 device. The devices that the dealerships have just provide a lot more live data. Like all data (including the diagnostic codes), they need to be interpreted properly to be useful. Also, individual repair shops usually can buy equipment to provide them with the same information as the dealerships, it's just really expensive if each official product individually (such as VACOM for VW). But they can buy devices from companies like Autel and SnapOn that will work on pretty much any make.
As for John Deere, it's a similar situation just with a much larger piece of equipment. If you own a John Deere then there's an authorized dealership nearby, and they will come to you assuming you're under warranty.
I think the problem is that you're conflating diagnostics with repairs. Nowadays, repairing automobiles and farm equipment isn't much more difficult than it was in the past. But due to the amount of sensors that allow the PCM/ECM to maximize efficiency, diagnostics have become much more difficult. For instance, your idiot light might say "camshaft position sensor" but that doesn't necessarily mean that you have a bad camshaft position sensor. It could be a problem with your variable valve timing system, it could be a timing issue, it could be a short in the wiring for the sensor. As vehicles have become more complex, diagnostics have become more and more difficult. Despite their fancy equipment, the type of service you'll get at a dealership is only as good as the techs who use that equipment.
"Right to repair" should mean that you can't be forced to sign a user agreement saying that you can't tinker with something you own. It shouldn't mean that manufacturers have to make things simple to tinker with. As a user, I should have the right to buy something that's horribly difficult to work on as long as I'm not legally prohibited from trying. I prefer the style of my MacBook to laptops that have batteries that pop out. An easily replaceable battery is a design constraint that isn't worth it to me. I'd rather take it to the Apple store and have them do it.
Re: It is not just for hand held devices (Score:2, Informative)
In John Deere's case it is a bit different. You can install the part yourself. You can't"authorize" the new part to be recognized without JD coming out and initiating the system to accept the part. And that isn't covered under warranty. Your $300k machine (ok the low end) is Brooke until a JD tech says it isn't.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
Yet I have to wonder if we really bother to think about what we lose with such a level of convenience, in which we use the technology without being able to develop a relationship with it.
You can develop a less abusive relationship with it instead, that doesn't require you to constantly dick around with carcinogenic petrochemicals.
lol (Score:2)
It's flamebait to talk about avoiding cancer? No. Petrochemicals are flamebait. They actually burn.
I've got a 2 year old Fire HD (Score:5, Insightful)
Last 2 cellphones I bought were because the existing batteries died.
I'd love to see a law that requires electronics to have an easily replaced battery. Spending $160 for a new device, as opposed to $30 for a battery, is stuck on stupid.
Re:I've got a 2 year old Fire HD (Score:4, Informative)
I'd love to see a law that requires electronics to have an easily replaced battery.
Instead of asking for a law, why don't you just buy a device with a replaceable battery? There are plenty of them available.
Do you really need your congressman to help you shop?
Phones with replaceable batteries [thewhizcells.com]
Re: (Score:1)
Did you actually look at that list?
It's a list of phones that no longer get updates. Obsolete, insecure phones.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd love to see a law that requires electronics to have an easily replaced battery.
Instead of asking for a law, why don't you just buy a device with a replaceable battery? There are plenty of them available.
Because people like to force other people to have what they think is right. Its been adequately shown that most people just don't care about "easily replaced" batteries. But many of these people do care about the physical changes that must happen if you have that easily replaced battery.
Re: (Score:3)
Because people like to force other people to have what they think is right.
In this case, what is right is what is sustainable. We must use ~30% less of the planet's resources yearly and reduce carbon emissions dramatically in order to go forward as a species. The Right to Repair is a massive part of that. Nobody should be permitted to make tons of throwaway garbage while we are in environmental crisis (or at any other time, so that we don't return to that.)
We should have kept space development going after we won the space race. We probably could have been mining asteroids by now.
Re: (Score:2)
Because people like to force other people to have what they think is right.
In this case, what is right is what is sustainable. We must use ~30% less of the planet's resources yearly and reduce carbon emissions dramatically in order to go forward as a species. The Right to Repair is a massive part of that.
There are a couple problems though. The concept of right to repair also has an implicit technology freeze within it. It's in the details. I don't know if you have ever been involved in design work, but parts come and go at an astonishing rate. You don't just spec a part, look up and buy, you have to investigate how long that part is available. Parts suppliers try to help, passing along info on EOL components, but most designers have horror stories about how a ready to to go to production device was screw
Re: (Score:2)
There are a couple problems though. The concept of right to repair also has an implicit technology freeze within it.
There are details to be worked out, but there's nothing inherently wrong with the plan.
most designers have horror stories about how a ready to to go to production device was screwed by a manufacturer that suddenly stopped making some of the IC's.
It's up to the manufacturers how they want to solve the problem, within reasonable limits. Maybe they have to pay more for a contract that says the parts must be available for the full product lifecycle. But if literally everyone has to do it, then there will be no competitive disadvantage.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Why'd you take it to a repair shop? For most popular devices, even iPhones are
Right to repair should be simple (Score:5, Interesting)
All the law needs to do is to require that if a manufacturer of a product (whether that be a combine harvester, a chest freezer, a cellphone or a commercial airliner) provides parts, tools, diagnostic equipment, service manuals, service updates, repair guides, software or anything else to manufacturer repair shops or authorized service centres they have to provide those same items to anyone else who wants to run a repair shop or repair items.
No exemptions, no restrictions, no "sorry you can't buy that unless you have a license to act as a motor vehicle repair shop" or other crap and no charging huge prices for things (with an appropriate government agency given powers to act if a manufacturer is charging prices above what is reasonable)
Re: (Score:1)
The same people demanding that Apple supply parts and instructions are the same people that will be demanding Apple repair their phone for free after the person that doesn't know what they are doing screws it up.
Re: (Score:3)
All the law needs to do is to require that if a manufacturer of a product (whether that be a combine harvester, a chest freezer, a cellphone or a commercial airliner) provides parts, tools, diagnostic equipment, service manuals, service updates, repair guides, software or anything else to manufacturer repair shops or authorized service centres they have to provide those same items to anyone else who wants to run a repair shop or repair items.
No exemptions, no restrictions, no "sorry you can't buy that unless you have a license to act as a motor vehicle repair shop" or other crap and no charging huge prices for things (with an appropriate government agency given powers to act if a manufacturer is charging prices above what is reasonable)
To implement your right to repair nirvana.....
Curious - how many years and how many parts must be stocked? Double the production? Triple? ten years? forever?
Now we're getting into the nitty gritty. Are the manufactures required to use only parts that are going to be available for say 10 years? Are the chip manufacturers likewise going to be forced to continue production for a set number of years?
And then what about all the leftover parts? Landfill them?
Or do we just freeze designs and technology at som
Re: (Score:2)
You're intentionally overcomplicating things. It's pretty damn simple. If they repair OR continue selling new units of the original item, they must sell their repair parts. If they don't sell repair parts anymore, they don't get to sell or repair anymore either. Third parties are also allowed to make parts if they're capable of doing so, and the manufacturer can't add systems to lock out third party repair shops. No overproduction is required. You act as if businesses (A) don't already produce extra parts and (B) can't predict how much product will be needed for repairs over time based on existing order data.
You just said what I said, only you say it's simple. Perhaps you should get involved with electronic equipment design and support - they are looking for people like you. A lot pf people now think it's pretty difficult, especially when their IC's disappear.
Easy (Score:3)
Car makers and other hardware producers are already forced by law in many countries to provide replacements parts to anybody, sometimes for 1 or 2 decades and they have to allow 3rd party companies to fabricate them as well.
That should be a general law.
PS. I'm looking at you, Apple.
Town hall vs seminar (Score:3)
Even if elected officials had been present, there's a saying about feedback to Congresscritters. That one hand-written letter is worth a hundred printed form letters. A printed form letter is worth a hundred voicemails. A voicemail is worth a hundred emails. And an email is worth a hundred clicks on a website poll. That is, the amount of effort put into relaying the message matters. Elected officials use the effort needed to gauge how important the issue is to you. If you can't be bothered to do more than clink on an online poll, it must not be very important to you. If it bugs you enough to compose (or copy/paste) an email, it must be somewhat important to you. If you're concerned enough to make a phone call, it must be important to you. If you're worried enough to print out a letter, put it in an envelope, stamp it, and drop it off in a mailbox, it must be very important to you. And if you're so concerned you'll hand-write that letter (to prove it wasn't a form letter), put it in an envelope, stamp it, and drop it off in a mailbox, it must be extremely important to you.
So even if this had really been an online town hall, attending via video conferencing will never have as much impact as physically attending a real town hall meeting. The ease and convenience so important to younger generations today end up watering down the impact of your statement to government officials. Hundreds of people attending a video conference will only convince a politician that a bunch of people spammed a bunch of forums telling people to attend and play it in the background while they played their XBox. Hundreds of people trying to squeeze into a town hall will convince a politician that this issue is really important to voters.