On the right to repair

Broken stuff heading to the landfill -- it's a really big pile

One tactic companies use to boost profits is to discourage or bar people from repairing broken products. That is done by voiding warranties, by making repairs literally impossible, by sabotaging 'unauthorized' repairs and so forth. The tactic is used for all kinds of products including appliances, cell phones, TVs, computers, cars, medical equipment and farm equipment. In the case of people replacing broken iPhone screens with low cost third party touch screens, Apple changed its software to make the new screens inoperable. This tactic is worth tens of billions in annual product repair revenues, which tend to be quite profitable. The BBC comments:

There is growing pressure on manufacturers around the world to allow consumers the right to repair their own devices.

The UK has introduced right-to-repair rules that legally require manufacturers to make spare parts available to people buying electrical appliances.

The European Commission has announced plans for right-to-repair rules for smartphones, tablets and laptops.

And later this week, US President Joe Biden is expected to sign an executive order asking the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to draw up rules on the repair of farming equipment.

It would give farmers "the right to repair their own equipment how they like", the president's press secretary, Jen Psaki, said.

And some expect the rules to go further and take in consumer electronic devices such as phones or game consoles.

Not surprisingly, manufacturers strongly oppose this. Corporate excuses vary, but all are efforts to protect a lucrative aspect of their business. Farm equipment manufacturer John Deere opposes the right to repair as a safety risk. Amazon, Apple and Microsoft limits who can repair phones and game consoles allegedly because independent repairs could impair device safety and security. The Alliance for Automotive Innovation (General Motors, Fiat Chrysler, etc.), started a lawsuit to block a Massachusetts law requiring third party access to mechanical and electronic car repair data because it allegedly creates a major cyber-security risk. Some manufacturers claim that trade secret data would be lost if third parties have access to repair manuals and diagnostics. They also argue that putting car parts information at a centralized location provides a target for attackers.

A probable downside of right to repair laws would be that some products would become more expensive. Repairing products would extend their useful lifetime, maybe up to 10 years for some manufactured products. At present, manufacturers of products tend to make their products short-lived (planned obsolescence) so they need to be chucked into the landfill and replaced. Right to repair laws are intended to deal with "built-in obsolescence" of appliances to break down after a short time, forcing consumers to buy new replacements.

The fight between John Deere and farmers over the right to repair has been intense for years. NPR reported this in an interview:

URI BERLINER, BYLINE: Walter Schweitzer is a third-generation Montana farmer. He never expected to get political in the middle of haying season, but there he was last summer on his John Deere tractor, hustling to cut and bale his hay while the weather was still good. And then at the worst possible time, he says his tractor kept shutting down, randomly.

WALTER SCHWEITZER: Kind of did all the things that a farmer or rancher does to try to troubleshoot the problems.

BERLINER: But he couldn't do much because he didn't have access to the software that would help him diagnose what was wrong. Only a John Deere dealer could do that - not an independent mechanic or Schweitzer himself, the guy who owns the tractor.

SCHWEITZER: It's not like they didn't know that this was an issue. It just became personal. You know, when you're staring at a hay crop that needs to be in a bale and your tractor's not working, you get real nervous.

BERLINER: Schweitzer wound up sending his tractor to the dealer. He says it took about a month for the repair to get done. His bill to replace the fuel sensor? Nearly $5,000. He says a local independent mechanic would have charged only a small fraction of that. Schweitzer was fortunate he had an old backup tractor, so his crop didn't get ruined, but the experience made Schweitzer eager to fight for change. 

SCHWEITZER: Equipment manufacturers are not supposed to hold you hostage, and that's what's happening here. These equipment manufacturers are holding me hostage to them, forcing me to use their dealerships to repair my equipment - on their schedule, on their time and at their rates. That's wrong.  

TOM BRANDT: So let's say you've got a couple hundred thousand dollars and you buy a bright, shiny new tractor. You only own the hardware. Today that software is still controlled by the original equipment manufacturer.

BERLINER: Nebraska's bill would change that. It would unlock software and allow farmers and independent shops to make the same repairs as dealers. An industry group, the Association of Equipment Manufacturers, tells NPR these kind of right-to-repair bills, they permit illegal tampering and create safety and environmental risks. And that's why states have rejected such bills in the past. But those right-to-repair bills, they keep coming. O'Reilly of U.S. PIRG says right-to-repair bills for agriculture have been introduced in 12 states. ....  But some farmers aren't waiting for bills to get passed. They're hacking their own equipment to get around repair restrictions. Others, they're going back in time. They're buying vintage tractors from the '70s and '80s that don't run on software.

This is just another garden-variety example of the business of business being profit. Concern for consumers is a lower priority. And, if there were no laws to protect consumers, it would be a lower priority. 

But maybe that is the way things should be. Business looks out for business, and government looks out for the people first and business second. But that vision of a reasonably well-functioning government and society assumes that the business community and the fascist Republican Party had not opposed and significantly neutered government's ability to protect consumers. But maybe for this issue at least, political will is on the consumer's side for a change.