Right to repair.

Maggot

"For we wrestle not against flesh and blood"
Supporter
Full Member
Minuteman
Supporter
  • Jul 27, 2007
    26,107
    29,832
    Virginia
    While I can see the manufacturers stance, to a point, I think that anyone should be able to repair their own stuff and have anyone they want, to do it. Just more big money protecting itself.

    Foul Mike or any of you others encounter this?

    ---------------------------------------------------
    [h=1]Farmers Face Uphill Battle in Right to Repair Tractors[/h] [h=2][/h]
    Manufacturers have out-lobbied and outspent equipment owners 28-1.

    170606-right-to-repair.jpg

    BY MARGARET SESSA-HAWKINS | Business, FARMING, Technology
    06.06.17

    This article was produced by MapLight in partnership with Civil Eats.

    When Tom Schwarz was growing up on his family’s 2,500-acre Nebraska produce farm and their International tractor broke down, fixing it was pretty simple.

    “You bought a new part,” said Schwarz, 58. “Or, you bought a used part. You replaced what was broken, and you moved on.”

    Today, repairs are much more complicated. Recently, a component in the guidance system on Schwarz’s John Deere 7230 tractor, which he uses to plant his crops, broke. Since the Moline, Illinois-based company no longer supports his tractor’s system, Schwarz is looking at a $3,000 bill for a used electrical part. He would like to just get his current component repaired, but manufacturers won’t provide independent shops with the guides or technology that would allow them to fix it, and Deere—one of the few tractor manufacturers with an authorized repair shop in south-central Nebraska—won’t repair older parts if it no longer supports them.

    Schwarz is far from alone. Once capable of fixing their mechanical workhorses in a barn or under the shade of a tree, many of the nation’s 3.2 million farmers are now faced with tractors that can only be fixed by a manufacturer—a situation that benefits manufacturers’ bottom lines but puts added burdens on often-struggling farmers. But Schwarz and other farmers are fighting back. They’re pushing “right-to-repair” legislation, which would require manufacturers to provide the same information and parts to farmers or independent repair shops as they do for the manufacturers’ repair shops.

    This year, right-to-repair bills have been introduced in 11 state legislatures, including Kansas, Minnesota, New York, Tennessee, Massachusetts, Wyoming, Illinois, Iowa, Missouri, North Carolina, and Nebraska. Supporters of the bill are at a distinct monetary disadvantage, though, and policy victories frequently are won by the side that spends the most. A MapLight analysis of state lobbying reports found proponents of right-to-repair legislation have been outspent by a 28-to-1 margin. Companies opposed to the legislation spent more than $2.6 million in New York, Massachusetts, and Nebraska. Meanwhile, the coalition that wants farmers to be able to fix their own tractors has spent $93,620.

    “We never doubted that it was going to be difficult, in a David-vs.-Goliath kind of way, to go up against some of the most iconic brands in the world,” said Gay Gordon-Byrne, executive director of The Repair Association, a Washington, D.C.-based coalition that works to promote right-to-repair legislation.

    The Case Against Right-to-Repair

    Nebraska isn’t short of farmers like Schwarz who want to be able to repair their own equipment. This year, the Nebraska Farm Bureau approved a resolution expressing support for a right-to-repair bill.

    Meanwhile, equipment makers—including Deere, which controls as much as 60 percent of the tractor market in the U.S. and Canada—are opposed to the legislation. In a letter laying out its position, Deere argued that current regulations are necessary to maintain product safety and compliance with emissions standards.

    “Allowing untrained individuals to modify equipment software can endanger operators, bystanders, dealers, mechanics, customers, and others,” said Ken Golden, a Deere spokesman. He added that customers, dealers, and manufacturers “should work together on the issue rather than invite government regulation that could add costs with no associated value.”

    Golden confirmed Deere has lobbied on right-to-repair legislation, but declined to say in which states or how much the company spent. However, records show Deere has retained lobbyists in New York and reported spending $42,000 while lobbying on a 2015 right-to-repair bill in Massachusetts without reporting a position on the bill.

    Deere and other equipment dealers have strong incentives to fight right-to-repair legislation. If farmers are forced to visit authorized dealers, it provides increased business for the manufacturers, and allows them to set the price for parts. Additionally, having only authorized shops able to repair machines means farmers are more likely to buy equipment from manufacturers with authorized shops nearby—which in most areas are the bigger companies such as Deere or Case IH.

    Beyond Agriculture

    Right-to-repair legislation has attracted more than just tractor manufacturers’ attention, though. If a right-to-repair bill were to pass, it could also affect people ranging from heavy equipment operators to mobile-phone users. Caterpillar, the world’s largest manufacturer of construction and mining equipment, has spent $38,700 while lobbying on right-to-repair legislation in New York. The Iowa-Nebraska Equipment Dealers Association spent $38,000 while lobbying against a 2015 right-to-repair bill. And corporate heavyweights including Apple, Verizon, and the Computing Technology Industry Association (CompTIA) oppose the legislation.

    The American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), a conservative dark-money organization that proposes model legislation for the states, has also declared its opposition to right-to-repair bills. The council, whose funders include billionaire libertarian brothers Charles and David Koch, describes right-to-repair legislation as “government mandates on innovators” that would force them to hand over proprietary information. Both e-commerce trade association NetChoice and telecom giant AT&T, which are opposed to right-to-repair legislation, are also on ALEC’s private enterprise board.

    Nebraska, the nation’s fourth-largest agricultural economy, emerged in 2015 as a key battleground for legislative efforts to give farmers like Schwarz the ability to repair their own tractors. Telecom companies and trade associations that lobbied against the bill, including Verizon and CTIA, as well as manufacturing companies such as the Iowa-Nebraska Equipment Dealers Association, spent more than $78,000 combined. The lone supporter, the Nebraska Farmers Union, spent $4,400.

    Senstor Bob Krist, an Omaha Republican who sits on the legislature’s agriculture committee, said he had mixed feelings about the bill. “When you’re charging $4,500 for a software update for a GPS, I think you’re out of line,” Krist said. He didn’t have to balance his reservations about the bill in a vote on the 2015 measure, though; a series of procedural maneuvers in the state legislature doomed the bill, and it died in committee.

    Outside of farm country, right-to-repair laws are also hotly contested. When Massachusetts considered right-to-repair legislation in 2015, opponents included medical companies such as Boston Scientific Corporation and Johnson and Johnson, automotive organizations like the Massachusetts State Automobile Dealers Association and the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, and technology companies including Apple. Opponents of the bill spent $1.27 million. Its lone supporter, The Repair Association, spent $31,500.

    New York also considered right-to-repair legislation in 2015. Opponents spent $1.3 million lobbying in the state, while the coalition that supported the failed bill spent more than $57,000.

    Senator Phil Boyle, a Long Island Republican, said he sponsored the legislation after hearing complaints from repair shops in his district, who felt their growth was being stifled by manufacturers.

    Future Outlook

    If history is any guide, right-to-repair advocates may look to bypass legislatures in favor of direct voter initiatives. A 2012 Massachusetts ballot measure to give diagnostic and repair information to car owners and repair shops passed with 86 percent of the vote.

    “I think the way forward is a state is going to pass [right-to-repair legislation], or we’re going to do a ballot initiative,” The Repair Association’s Gordon-Byrne said. “But is it going to be next year or is it going to be in 10 years? That, I don’t know.”

    Meanwhile, Tom Schwarz, the Nebraska farmer, is saving his money so he can afford a new guidance component for his $120,000 tractor. Since Schwarz is an organic farmer who can’t use herbicides, the machine’s guidance system ensures that stray weeds can be removed without damaging his crops. In the meantime, he’s resigned to buying a $3,000 second-hand part from Deere—the only source for the component.

    “I’m going to have to buy another receiver,” he said. “This is the second receiver I’ve bought—and every time I do this, it’s thousands of dollars.

    “You have no other option,” he said. “You have to go to John Deere for everything.”
     
    My opinion is, the holder of the invoice makes the decisions. The ONLY variance to that statement is during a warranty period for 'new' sales. Otherwise, whomever OWNS the item, can do what they want with the item.
    Obviously, rental and lease agreements are not invoices. So rented or leased items don't apply to this conversation.

    But if someone lays down hard cash for an item, and receives a receipt, then they are free to do what they want with that item. Be-it car, truck, phone, hand-drill, lathe, computer tower, keyboard, or canter-quad.
    And ESPECIALLY farm equipment. Historically, that stuff is made out of the cheapest materials, with the simplest of manufacture, and with the basest of ability. I won't deny that lately there are some satellite-guided, laser-aimed, cryogenically-calibrated, hermetically-sealed, nutritionally-balanced, flavor-enhanced do-hickey's that take the whatchacallit out of the equation and divide that by the square-root of the thingamajig's hypotenuse, but that is just fluff on the cotton.

    I've got farmers AND ranchers in my family, and I've seen myself over the decades of change to the system. For those who helped settle the lands, open up the country, and feed the country.... they sure are getting the rotten end of the deal. I'm talking family folk here, not 'corporate entities'.... there's a massive difference.

    I can't count how many times I've helped out with wrenching, machining, welding, aiding 'n abetting, you name it. Either things gotta change, OR other companies are going to have to be purchased from. The Green Machine ain't the only one out there. They grew by focusing on quality. Fine. They can shrink by focusing on their own greed.

    Yeah, can you tell this topic pisses me off.....???? Thanks Maggot for bring it up here.
     
    This affects more than farmers. Like it or not, the US economy is a disposable economy when it comes to goods. Cars, cell phones, computers, sewing machines, whatever; the manufacturer wants you to buy a new one, not repair an old one. They control the supply of OEM parts, and the list of certified service providers to whom the supply said OEM parts. Cut off the tap of parts and you cut off the repair service industry. You kill off outdated products. And, you eliminate those repair skills from the population.
     
    This affects more than farmers. Like it or not, the US economy is a disposable economy when it comes to goods. Cars, cell phones, computers, sewing machines, whatever; the manufacturer wants you to buy a new one, not repair an old one. They control the supply of OEM parts, and the list of certified service providers to whom the supply said OEM parts. Cut off the tap of parts and you cut off the repair service industry. You kill off outdated products. And, you eliminate those repair skills from the population.

    Once again directly from Huxley's Brave New World. Ford be praised.
     
    That battle needs to be fought at the point of purchase. If no farmer would buy a Deere untill Deere provided the information then Deere would provide the information. If they morgage the farm to write the big check to deere without that commitment to providing the service information then they are fucked. The American Farmer has been fucking himself for 100 years. Mostly by producing more food than the market requires thus driving down prices. Make half the food and people will gladly pay twice as much.
     
    Allowing untrained individuals to modify equipment software can endanger operators, bystanders, dealers, mechanics, customers, and others, said Ken Golden, a Deere spokesman.

    Apparently, that's not a concern in all states. I've purchased a metric ton of parts from John Deere.
     
    You didn't read very well. It isn't parts they are restricting it is the software con trolling the parts.

    That seems to be the issue. A ball joint can be made at the machine shop. The computer that tells everything what to do and when to do it is a bit more complex.
     
    "Allowing untrained individuals to modify equipment software can endanger operators, bystanders, dealers, mechanics, customers, and others, said Ken Golden, a Deere spokesman".

    So says the spokesman for the multinational, multi-billion dollar corporation that has stables full of lawyers on retainer and probably self insures (and consumers pay for via increased prices) against liability claims.

    I'm not advocating that anyone go into a machine's code and attempt to "improve" it. However, there has never been a time in history when there have been more, talented software people around. The code and modification thereof isn't the point. It is the ability to acquire factory/OEM parts for the repair of a $250K piece of equipment. Alternative ? Trash it ?........Deere, who do you think you are ? Monsanto ?
     
    Last edited:
    You didn't read very well. It isn't parts they are restricting it is the software con trolling the parts.

    Myopia sucks. "Right to repair" isn't just about software or tractors. There is a reason that it often costs more to have the factory repair an item (or have a certified repair person repair it- if you can find one). It is "better" for the companies bottom line to obsolete and replace goods when they break. Where would Apple be if they kept upgrading the gen1 iPhone? And, there is a reason they were intentionally slowing phones with updates (and eventually got busted for it)... Not being able to buy parts to fix things that you own is bad for you, but good for business.
     
    You didn't read very well. It isn't parts they are restricting it is the software con trolling the parts.

    No, I read it. This is nothing new. If it were legal, you would have to take your passenger vehicle to the dealer for virtually every repair.

    The company I worked for repaired John Deere products...including electronics. Had a wizard that could repair circuit boards like magic.
     
    Its the new world business model . Imagine the outcry if you couldn't get a set
    of aftermarket brake pads for your old Ford/Chevy truck , and had to buy genuine ?

    Rolex have been doing this too recently . There is a third generation , Swiss trained
    watchmaker named Nic Hacko in Sydney Aus . Despite being the best watchmaker
    in the country , and trained at Rolex in Switzerland , Rolex will no longer sell him spare
    parts for watches , as he is not a dealer just a repair guy . He designs and makes his
    own brand of watch named Rebelde . Have a look if you are a watch guy .

    So so you might think the dealer would do a better job ? Bullshit I say . In the race
    car world , the best mechanics aren't necessarily the factory guys , more likely it's
    the independent specialist repair guy / racer .

    A few years ago an LE buddy told me this story . A Vietnam Vet had taken his Rolex
    Sub in for a service . He went to pick it up and noticed there was an additional charge
    for a new backplate : the service centre had replaced it because he had it engraved with
    the dates of his service , which , they say had made it ' non standard ' .
    They would not return the engraved backplate with the watch .

    Long story short , local LE accompanied the Vet back to the Rolex service dept and
    suggested they return the engraved part , or be arrested on the spot for charged with
    theft and fraud ! Fuck you Rolex...... at least until I become some half senile fat cunt
    on a golf course ...
     
    The American Farmer has been fucking himself for 100 years. Mostly by producing more food than the market requires thus driving down prices. Make half the food and people will gladly pay twice as much.

    So are you going to be the first to raise your hand and cut your work hours by 50% so employers are eventually forced to pay more due to a shortage of your skills?

    OPEC can form a "union" and cut production to manipulate oil prices. Farmers can't.

    The American Farmer hasn't been fucking himself for 100 years, but he/she's been on the receiving end. Most farmers I know (having grown up among them) work harder and with greater integrity than 95% of the people I know.

    Work your whole life to build the family farm....will it to your kids....and they will have to sell it or mortgage it into their 70s to pay the "death tax" meant for wealth individuals, just to hold onto their land...each generation...

    EDIT: Back on topic, awhile back I had a Ford Contour and had to stomp on the brakes to avoid hitting an idiot and blew out the brake controller. As my mechanic explained, it was a known issue with the model so instead of issuing a recall for a faulty part, Ford simply discontinued it. So you could crawl through a junk yard for one, or junk the car. I junked the car and will never own another Ford.

    The problem is it's not as simple as "just don't buy John Deere". They have a near-monopoly on the market. In farm country what you use can also be dictated by how far you are from the various dealers. So it's not a "screw Ford" scenario. Deere has many farmers by the balls. So as much as I'm against regulation, I'd be for an appropriately worded bill in this case. If the manufacturer is going to force obsolesence of a $100K tractor, I think it's reasonable that they should choke up the information to allow after market parties to support repairs. The liability claims are a red herring, for how long have independent auto dealers been repairing cars?
     
    Last edited:
    As I understand it, this principle isn't much different than the Chevy issue, where if you buy a new one, you HAVE to also pay for onstar, whether you want the service or not. Or something like that. And many more, but anyways.
     
    I'll stick with my c. 1980 Deere 1050... and my 1975 Deere 450B Traxcavator. No computers. Hydraulic valves... that I can (and have) rebuild myself. No software at all.

    And don't tell me about 'computer code' not being within the realm of amateurs. Tell that to all the little zipperheads running around in their spam-can V-TEC cars that are producing 800 horsepower from a weed-whacker motor... because they are hooking up their laptops, sharing code, re-mapping everything.... And making better, faster, etc. engines than anything that the strangulated desk-jockeys in Detroit can do... under gummint regulations.

    What a load of crap. I agree that the way to fight this is simple... if an equipment manufacturer is pushing for this legislation... don't buy from them. And trash talk them at every turn. If it means buying tractors from Russia (those old White articulateds are still running up here)... or India... then buy that stuff.

    BTW... why do these things have software? To meet emissions standards... safety regulations... more DC BS. Designed to stifle any form of business.

    And, yeah, this pisses me off, too.

    Sirhr
     
    That battle needs to be fought at the point of purchase. If no farmer would buy a Deere untill Deere provided the information then Deere would provide the information. If they morgage the farm to write the big check to deere without that commitment to providing the service information then they are fucked. The American Farmer has been fucking himself for 100 years. Mostly by producing more food than the market requires thus driving down prices. Make half the food and people will gladly pay twice as much.

    Diver, there is some truth to this.
    More so though is the manipulation of the commodities markets by Uncle Sugar for decades.
    I'll bet you can remember the grain embargoes and pissing with China.
    Grain has always been a favorite tool of "policy" with the Ruskies and the Chinese.

    R
     
    Being employed by a dealership that sells Kubota tractors and equipment, I understand the manufacturers desire to keep their technology close to their chest. I also support the right to repair to a certain extent. As outlined in the article, if certain electrical or emission systems are modified or disabled, it can damage the machine. I don't support the EPA guidelines for diesel emission standards, but we do have to deal with them like it or not. Operators shouldn't have access to computer software code, or programming the same as the manufacturers do. DPF, SCR, and DEF systems are complicated, and will destroy an engine if not operating correctly. That's why the engine will derate when it senses trouble. Most modern diesel engines in tractors and equipment are electronically controlled and injected common rail systems. Not your grandfathers basic mechanical poppet injected diesel anymore.

    Tractors are getting more and more reliant on electronic controls. They do have advantages and disadvantages. Unfortunately, smaller farmers and ranchers are getting pushed out by the big boys, and the big companies are demanding technology. Efficiency is the key to making money. Less operator fatigue in the tractor is important.

    As far as the manufacturer supporting their equipment with repairs and parts, I know that I can still service and get parts for Kubota all the way back to when they first imported here in 1972. Granted they haven't made tractors big enough for large operations until recently, but I don't see their level of support wavering. And they do make one of the best lineups of diesel engines in the world.
     
    Watch a few good science fiction shows with the dystopian view of the future where the world is run by big corporations & people are just slaves and the politicians are just yes men for the corporate overlords, and all the laws are written by and to benefit big corporations solely.

    That is where we are heading and not slowly unless some miracle happens to stop the power of the mega corporations and the banks.
    Sadly I don't think there is much hope.. and they will be enslaving you using the money in bank accounts & retirement accounts you thought you owned.
    Of course they will get rid of gun rights if they can... don't want anyone able to threaten the corporate overlords.
    Just look at Trump's FCC chair... pretty much an unashamed brazen yes man for the couple mega cable companies.. it's only going to get worse.
     
    Being employed by a dealership that sells Kubota tractors and equipment, I understand the manufacturers desire to keep their technology close to their chest. I also support the right to repair to a certain extent. As outlined in the article, if certain electrical or emission systems are modified or disabled, it can damage the machine. I don't support the EPA guidelines for diesel emission standards, but we do have to deal with them like it or not. Operators shouldn't have access to computer software code, or programming the same as the manufacturers do. DPF, SCR, and DEF systems are complicated, and will destroy an engine if not operating correctly. That's why the engine will derate when it senses trouble. Most modern diesel engines in tractors and equipment are electronically controlled and injected common rail systems. Not your grandfathers basic mechanical poppet injected diesel anymore.

    Tractors are getting more and more reliant on electronic controls. They do have advantages and disadvantages. Unfortunately, smaller farmers and ranchers are getting pushed out by the big boys, and the big companies are demanding technology. Efficiency is the key to making money. Less operator fatigue in the tractor is important.

    As far as the manufacturer supporting their equipment with repairs and parts, I know that I can still service and get parts for Kubota all the way back to when they first imported here in 1972. Granted they haven't made tractors big enough for large operations until recently, but I don't see their level of support wavering. And they do make one of the best lineups of diesel engines in the world.

    ^^ This is the truth of the matter. While I (as JMG knows) favor Green over Orange, I stick with older tractors that do not depend on processors to run. I have five Deere tractors, the newest being a 1980 model 4440, and the oldest being a 1967 model 2020. I can currently buy ANY part for any of them direct from the dealer, and can do the repairs myself, so I'm not sure what the situation is with lack of factory parts support as noted in the article. Perhaps this is with "older" generations of the newer, software-controlled tractors (?) but I avoid them anyway. In any case, when government environmental regulations require the manufacturer to employ advanced technologies to meet stringent requirements, it is understandable that they don't want shade tree mechanics without proper training or equipment screwing around with their high-tech systems, much less sharing their technological developments where it will inevitably make it over to their competition.
     
    I've seen that article before, but I seem to recall it being debunked as a mischaracterization of what the OP article states. Two ways of spinning the same story, so to speak. They both say the same thing, when you get down to it - the manufacturer retains the rights to their proprietary software. The second article offers it's own "interpretation" of what that means, as the manufacturer saying that they only license the owner to use their tractor, but that is not their actual position. Of course the owner "owns" the tractor, he just isn't privy to their software. It's a slippery slope that I don't like one bit, but this is where we are at, and it isn't just these manufacturers (JG - it's the same with Kubota as well, as far as I know - they aren't sharing their software with owners either that I'm aware?), and it isn't just tractors, etc.
     
    Last edited: