Manufacturers and dealerships raised concerns that providing tools and information to farmers would allow equipment owners to illegally crank up the horsepower and bypass emissions controls — putting operator safety and the environment at risk.
No, none of the lockouts were actually intended to prevent farmers from rolling coal in their tractors. Also, I'm not sure why a farmer would want to roll coal. But since rolling coal is a thing that people occasionally do, it's a useful boogeyman.
Serialized parts don't prevent you from defeating emissions controls anyway - there's plenty of low-tech ways to tamper with sensors to do the same thing. Even the theft prevention[0] benefits are limited, because the chip with the serial codes on it can be desoldered and resoldered onto a new board.
[0] i.e. if someone were to chop-shop your phone or tractor. It happens.
Removing the emissions controls on diesel engines (EGR and DPF specifically) can actually give a significant boost to fuel economy. At the cost of higher emissions of particulates and nitrogen oxides. Diesel engines recirculate the exhaust gas for cooler combustion (though less thermodynamically efficient, this reduces nitrogen oxide formation). They also come with particulate filters on the exhaust, which both increase pumping losses and require extra fuel to periodically regenerate the filter (basically burning off the soot particles that were collected, which needs extra heat which takes some fuel).
There are reliability improvements to be had as well, reducing operating costs still further (the emissions equipment can get clogged up, especially if the engine isn't running perfectly).
So yeah, farmers (all commercial diesel users really) have a strong financial incentive to avoid or remove these emissions controls, provided they don't get caught of course.
lots of vendors sell tractors across a line which all have the same engine, but whose horsepower is limited by the ECU according to the actual model that is purchased. pay for the low end model in a line, get lower horsepower. pay for the top of the line, get more horsepower, even though they are physically the same engine.
it allows for manufacturers to greatly simplify manufacturing requirements and lower costs, and it allows farmers to buy the tractor they need today and to grow into upgrades as they need them, without the downtime or expense of an engine swap if they need horsepower later.
manufacturers are afraid that the tools they would be required to provide could allow someone to "upgrade" their engine for free, but that's not what right to repair is about, and I would be surprised if a law required that upgrades like this be made possible by end users free of charge.
so it's a legit concern if you are a manufacturer of tractors and you compare what's being done in other areas of consumer electronics. oscilloscopes today are often sold in this same way: all models have the same potential for performance but are limited in software, so hackers bypass or trick the software to unlock the higher speeds when you only paid for the entry-level scope. In reality it is not much of a concern, since the percentage of customers who do this is extremely small.
the main problem for tractor manufacturers is that new regulations require them to spend money in order to be in compliance with those regulations. money that was not budgeted and which affects earnings reports and changes work priorities within a company. The desire to avoid regulations which require expenditure of any kind is what is drives the motivation of every company that resists right to repair efforts.
In general market incumbents, especially the larger ones, shouldn't resent new regulation. As long as it affects all their competitors equally, they won't lose market share and can pass on increased costs to customers. In this case, customers receive additional value (right to repair) so they should accept additional costs, if any.
I think the manufacturers' real concern has not been cost of compliance, but rather loss of service revenues which business model is arguably customer-hostile.
Performance tuning (horsepower) and bypassing emissions shouldn't be possible by the approved technicians anyway. From my experience, those capabilities are reserved for an engineering tool, not a diagnostics/repair tool. So, those don't seem like legit arguments to me.
One safety concern for untrained technicians is the possibility of activating motors, and other circuits during the repair process without ensuring those things are safe to operate in their repair/disassembled state. So, there is a
legit safety argument, but that's true for many tools that are sold at the local hardware store.
"Exempts manufacturers or distributors of certain medical devices, motor vehicles, any power generation or storage equipment, or equipment for fueling or charging motor vehicles."
Wondering what type of farmer equipment count as "motor vehicles" here, and if tractors are counted or not.
> (Other) Motor vehicles are not the focus of the bill, but could be impacted by the bill, especially for things like touch screens in vehicles and electric vehicle chargers. The industry would appreciate an exemption to exclude motor vehicles and related devices from the scope of the bill
> (Other) There are concerns regarding the definition of digital electronic equipment. A clarifying amendment to exclude digital electronic equipment in vehicle charging stations would be appreciated. New York's right to repair law had similar language.
The list of entities testifying in the "(Other)" category (versus "(In support)") is thankfully visible in these docs you only need to Ctrl+F for "(Other)".
"We are worried this manufacturing bill might affect vehicle touch screen and electric charging technology. Lets exempt the entire auto industry, the single largest manufacturing sector in the country, that represents 3% of the US GDP."
Thankfully, most automakers do make diagnostic tools/parts/info available to everyone (due to Massachusetts' 2012 right to repair law). The automakers don't really mind because more users licensing that software is more revenue. If anyone cares in that industry, it's the dealers.
And the contempt the politicians have for their voters who actually put it into law, which is more egregious imho. I don't necessarily blame an industry for trying to get things in bills that benefit their industry, but I do blame the politicians who actually make it a reality over the interests of their citizens and then a governor who signs it into law.
I wouldn't say the contempt for customers is conscious. It's more a single-minded focus on revenue maximization, leading to an obscene effort to defend against any percieved threats to that revenue maximization, that results in what looks like contempt... When you only care about one thing, nothing else matters.
Totally, and in my experience it's above a certain level in the company, below that level the employees have pride and care about their customers because they are them and can relate to them, above a certain level they are not users of their own products, cant relate to regular people and then a different dynamic takes over.
This is potentially an advantage for the Colorado bill, which (I think?) specifically targets right-to-repair for farmers/farm equipment. When you only target one industry, that industry can't say "give us an exception, the bill will still be fine."
Are you saying that allowing farmers to repair their own equipment is pointless, or that allowing it will cause food prices to go up? Either way, you are saying that you either don't care about farmers or your only concern is whether things cost more for consumers.
We have introduced bills in 28 states so far this year. Some are ag, some are medical, some are consumer electronics focused. Making very good progress.
I was mildly interested in the article based on the title, because the right to repair is imho necessary in many areas of life. But I am most definitely not interested enough to do the trivial work to bypass the " This content is not available in your country/region." message.
If you can't figure out how to serve your content to users without extreme tracking (at least I assume that the reason for this message is the consumer protection found in the EU), then your content can't be that important.
Like another commenter mentioned, using archive.today bypasses most paywalls and blocks.
A trick I always use is to just append the url to archive.today[0] to get a page with no ads and bloat. You could also make a bookmarklet to make it a 1-click thing. Sometimes it might not be archived so you will have to click 'archive this url' to make one, but people are usually quick to archive articles that are posted here
You can provide them with your email and they will send you a newsletter. That counts as storing user data and would require them to have to deal with the GDPR behemoth. Compliance costs a lot of time and money. Or you could just block EU users, which are not going to be reading a lot of Buffalo local news. Categorizing it as just extreme tracking is disingenuous.
It's not that important for the EU. The summary is John Deere would put chips in their tractors that were aware if you replaced a part. If you replaced that part, the tractor would brick until you took it to the dealership to update the computer.
Readit News
There are additional videos linked in that video's description for those wanting additional context as to what this bill is all about.
Manufacturers and dealerships raised concerns that providing tools and information to farmers would allow equipment owners to illegally crank up the horsepower and bypass emissions controls — putting operator safety and the environment at risk.
These are not serious arguments, are they?
Serialized parts don't prevent you from defeating emissions controls anyway - there's plenty of low-tech ways to tamper with sensors to do the same thing. Even the theft prevention[0] benefits are limited, because the chip with the serial codes on it can be desoldered and resoldered onto a new board.
[0] i.e. if someone were to chop-shop your phone or tractor. It happens.
There are reliability improvements to be had as well, reducing operating costs still further (the emissions equipment can get clogged up, especially if the engine isn't running perfectly).
So yeah, farmers (all commercial diesel users really) have a strong financial incentive to avoid or remove these emissions controls, provided they don't get caught of course.
These tools aren't being used to work on skateboards or jet skis, these tools are being used to fix a tractor so the farmer can do their job.
One could think of a ton of illegal things a welder could be used for, but we aren't taking welding tools away from welders are we?
it allows for manufacturers to greatly simplify manufacturing requirements and lower costs, and it allows farmers to buy the tractor they need today and to grow into upgrades as they need them, without the downtime or expense of an engine swap if they need horsepower later.
manufacturers are afraid that the tools they would be required to provide could allow someone to "upgrade" their engine for free, but that's not what right to repair is about, and I would be surprised if a law required that upgrades like this be made possible by end users free of charge.
so it's a legit concern if you are a manufacturer of tractors and you compare what's being done in other areas of consumer electronics. oscilloscopes today are often sold in this same way: all models have the same potential for performance but are limited in software, so hackers bypass or trick the software to unlock the higher speeds when you only paid for the entry-level scope. In reality it is not much of a concern, since the percentage of customers who do this is extremely small.
the main problem for tractor manufacturers is that new regulations require them to spend money in order to be in compliance with those regulations. money that was not budgeted and which affects earnings reports and changes work priorities within a company. The desire to avoid regulations which require expenditure of any kind is what is drives the motivation of every company that resists right to repair efforts.
I think the manufacturers' real concern has not been cost of compliance, but rather loss of service revenues which business model is arguably customer-hostile.
One safety concern for untrained technicians is the possibility of activating motors, and other circuits during the repair process without ensuring those things are safe to operate in their repair/disassembled state. So, there is a legit safety argument, but that's true for many tools that are sold at the local hardware store.
So they pretty much have to lie.
"Exempts manufacturers or distributors of certain medical devices, motor vehicles, any power generation or storage equipment, or equipment for fueling or charging motor vehicles."
Wondering what type of farmer equipment count as "motor vehicles" here, and if tractors are counted or not.
https://lawfilesext.leg.wa.gov/biennium/2023-24/Htm/Bill%20R... :
> (Other) Motor vehicles are not the focus of the bill, but could be impacted by the bill, especially for things like touch screens in vehicles and electric vehicle chargers. The industry would appreciate an exemption to exclude motor vehicles and related devices from the scope of the bill
https://lawfilesext.leg.wa.gov/biennium/2023-24/Htm/Bill%20R...
> (Other) There are concerns regarding the definition of digital electronic equipment. A clarifying amendment to exclude digital electronic equipment in vehicle charging stations would be appreciated. New York's right to repair law had similar language.
The list of entities testifying in the "(Other)" category (versus "(In support)") is thankfully visible in these docs you only need to Ctrl+F for "(Other)".
Also interested people can probably spend time watching the videos in https://app.leg.wa.gov/billsummary?BillNumber=1392&Year=2023... to learn more, such as the few minutes at 2:31:25 in https://tvw.org/video/house-appropriations-2023021401/?event...
Who's bill is this?
He didn't say any of that
Deleted Comment
If you can't figure out how to serve your content to users without extreme tracking (at least I assume that the reason for this message is the consumer protection found in the EU), then your content can't be that important.
A trick I always use is to just append the url to archive.today[0] to get a page with no ads and bloat. You could also make a bookmarklet to make it a 1-click thing. Sometimes it might not be archived so you will have to click 'archive this url' to make one, but people are usually quick to archive articles that are posted here
[0]: https://archive.today/https://www.wivb.com/news/colorado-bec...