MA: "Right To Repair"?
11-02-2012, 11:06 AM
#1
MA: "Right To Repair"? I've given some thought to this ballot question and to be honest I am torn.
While it will most likely pass as "Yes" anyways, I am curious in the opinions of those who have done some research and given this topic some thought? Particularly people in the industry, both independent shops and dealerships even?
So before I go much farther with my mindset, what do you guys think? I want a case for an educated decision, so let's keep this germane.
While it will most likely pass as "Yes" anyways, I am curious in the opinions of those who have done some research and given this topic some thought? Particularly people in the industry, both independent shops and dealerships even?
So before I go much farther with my mindset, what do you guys think? I want a case for an educated decision, so let's keep this germane.
11-02-2012, 11:49 AM
#2
TECH Regular
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Cape Cod, MA
Posts: 406
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think if the private shops want to pay for it then yes. Im guessing the scan tools will be very expensive and most shops wont want to pay for it anyway. Bigger companies like sears auto, midas, ect will probably benefit though. Dealers are starting to get crazy in there prices and need a wake up call.
11-02-2012, 12:54 PM
#4
Question 1 for MA.
"A YES VOTE would enact the proposed law requiring motor vehicle manufacturers to allow vehicle owners and independent repair facilities in Massachusetts to have access to the same vehicle diagnostic and repair information made available to the manufacturers’ Massachusetts dealers and authorized repair facilities.
A NO VOTE would make no change in existing laws. "
"A YES VOTE would enact the proposed law requiring motor vehicle manufacturers to allow vehicle owners and independent repair facilities in Massachusetts to have access to the same vehicle diagnostic and repair information made available to the manufacturers’ Massachusetts dealers and authorized repair facilities.
A NO VOTE would make no change in existing laws. "
11-02-2012, 01:48 PM
#6
You see, as an enthusiast with vested interests I am immediately open to saying "yes". But as somebody who believes in less government, free market and free enterprise I want to say "No".
Does "Yes" really protect the consumer or does it open a can of worms?
If no passes, then we are just in the same boat we are in now. Where this information is bought and sold at the companies disclosure.
Does forcing this make it better or worse? If they are forced, then they may find other ways to recoup costs as well.
I like to think things could be "open" if you will, but at the same time a corporation has every right to their patents and proprietary info. If a manufacturer wants to force consumers to have all work done on their products only by them, it should be their choice. You still have the choice not to buy it. If another manufacturer stays "open source" then people will be inclined to buy that product. I say just let economics run its course. But at the same time I'll be pissed if I cannot tune my LS/(new)LT motor.
<Extreme side>
So, I see it as a form of socialist over regulation that could* drive up future costs or impose special MA products from manufactures that ends up hurting the consumer. It could deter innovation and raise costs. Remember this is for MA only, not country wide. Hypothetically, just imagine, it could open the door for MA compliant vehicles? Cost more, perform less, etc...
It's a double edge sword imo.
Does "Yes" really protect the consumer or does it open a can of worms?
If no passes, then we are just in the same boat we are in now. Where this information is bought and sold at the companies disclosure.
Does forcing this make it better or worse? If they are forced, then they may find other ways to recoup costs as well.
I like to think things could be "open" if you will, but at the same time a corporation has every right to their patents and proprietary info. If a manufacturer wants to force consumers to have all work done on their products only by them, it should be their choice. You still have the choice not to buy it. If another manufacturer stays "open source" then people will be inclined to buy that product. I say just let economics run its course. But at the same time I'll be pissed if I cannot tune my LS/(new)LT motor.
<Extreme side>
So, I see it as a form of socialist over regulation that could* drive up future costs or impose special MA products from manufactures that ends up hurting the consumer. It could deter innovation and raise costs. Remember this is for MA only, not country wide. Hypothetically, just imagine, it could open the door for MA compliant vehicles? Cost more, perform less, etc...
It's a double edge sword imo.
Trending Topics
11-03-2012, 10:25 AM
#9
I'm trying to figure this one out too. I'm all for not letting the dealers monopolize working on their brand, but in the voter information booklet I got in the mail the opponents of the bill claim independent shops and consumers already have access to this information, so I'm not clear on what the law would change.
11-03-2012, 10:57 PM
#12
TECH Regular
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: May 2006
Location: clearwater fl
Posts: 405
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
this is already federal law....
obd2....
the problem is most repair facilities dont want/cant afford to pay for the manufacturer specific diagnostic computers, so they just get the standardized ones for obd2 emissions crap.
if you own a shop, you call bmw for instance, and they will lease you their diagnostic computer, isis, but you have to pay and extreme amount of money for it.
what is mass gonna do above and beyond this lol?
obd2....
the problem is most repair facilities dont want/cant afford to pay for the manufacturer specific diagnostic computers, so they just get the standardized ones for obd2 emissions crap.
if you own a shop, you call bmw for instance, and they will lease you their diagnostic computer, isis, but you have to pay and extreme amount of money for it.
what is mass gonna do above and beyond this lol?
11-05-2012, 06:32 AM
#14
Hey guys, I'm still battling this one out.
First off they are not being forced to give the info for "free" they are forced not to keep it secret, but a manufacturer could still price it out of reach for most I would think. (Then again that might be burried in the legislation too)
If it was forced for free I definitely wouldn't vote for it.
Slowhawk is right, it's the stuff you don't see on the question you are voting for that you aren't even aware of.
http://www.masslive.com/politics/ind...rs_ask_vo.html
"The ballot law also contains a measure that would ban manufacturers from selling in Massachusetts if they can't comply by 2015."
I suggest getting as much info about it as you can and then deciding.
http://www.foxnews.com/leisure/2012/...o-repair-bill/
As of right now, I think I am going to skip Ballot question 1 and leave it blank.
I can't support a monopoly, but I also can't support socialist ideals. At the end of the day its all bureaucracy that I don't think helps the consumer one way or the other.
First off they are not being forced to give the info for "free" they are forced not to keep it secret, but a manufacturer could still price it out of reach for most I would think. (Then again that might be burried in the legislation too)
If it was forced for free I definitely wouldn't vote for it.
Slowhawk is right, it's the stuff you don't see on the question you are voting for that you aren't even aware of.
http://www.masslive.com/politics/ind...rs_ask_vo.html
"The ballot law also contains a measure that would ban manufacturers from selling in Massachusetts if they can't comply by 2015."
I suggest getting as much info about it as you can and then deciding.
http://www.foxnews.com/leisure/2012/...o-repair-bill/
As of right now, I think I am going to skip Ballot question 1 and leave it blank.
I can't support a monopoly, but I also can't support socialist ideals. At the end of the day its all bureaucracy that I don't think helps the consumer one way or the other.
11-05-2012, 10:37 AM
#16
I say yes for more freedom to let the FREE MARKET work the way it should. We did not get to where we are from big government.
This law that was in place probably has something to do with the unions keeping people from competing with them anyway. Same reason I got denied a brass T for my a/c evacuation pump at the web company here. I dont have a heating/cooling license. Unions are one reason theres trade licensing. They did it to keep the "scabs" or "rats" away from all the work.
Just look the the Alabama utility workers that showed up in NJ to help restore power. They were turned away because they were non-union. Imagine that bs?
End rant lol
This law that was in place probably has something to do with the unions keeping people from competing with them anyway. Same reason I got denied a brass T for my a/c evacuation pump at the web company here. I dont have a heating/cooling license. Unions are one reason theres trade licensing. They did it to keep the "scabs" or "rats" away from all the work.
Just look the the Alabama utility workers that showed up in NJ to help restore power. They were turned away because they were non-union. Imagine that bs?
End rant lol
Last edited by senicalj4579; 11-05-2012 at 10:49 AM.
11-05-2012, 12:10 PM
#17
TECH Regular
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: May 2006
Location: clearwater fl
Posts: 405
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
i guess ill type it again, this is already federal requirement, so what is mass trying to accomplish?
if you own joes garage on the corner, you can call up the manufacturer and buy/lease their diag equipment and have full access, or you can buy something like a snap on modis that does all of them that you buy the software/chips for.
where is this going?
if you own joes garage on the corner, you can call up the manufacturer and buy/lease their diag equipment and have full access, or you can buy something like a snap on modis that does all of them that you buy the software/chips for.
where is this going?
11-05-2012, 01:00 PM
#18
i guess ill type it again, this is already federal requirement, so what is mass trying to accomplish?
if you own joes garage on the corner, you can call up the manufacturer and buy/lease their diag equipment and have full access, or you can buy something like a snap on modis that does all of them that you buy the software/chips for.
where is this going?
if you own joes garage on the corner, you can call up the manufacturer and buy/lease their diag equipment and have full access, or you can buy something like a snap on modis that does all of them that you buy the software/chips for.
where is this going?
What is out there now that "forces" car manufacturers to release codes and diagnostic info from their proprietary systems? Look at audi/vw and Vag-Com, For the same reason tuners have to use "Piggy Back" methods tuning cars its because that info is not disclosed all the time? In the future what if corporations button down and don't provide anything? I don't see any federal mandate that prevents that? They are still a private organization that has control of that info. So I think the bill is geared at future prospects.
From a Federal perspective we have the DCMA, they are actually empowering these organization to protect this information and leaving the consumer with no power to get it.
Either way it might be a dead horse just saw this. (Although does that mean a yes vote trumps the prvious compromised "yes" vote? I hate politics)
http://skipquestion1.com/
"What a splendid mess the parties to the so-called “Right to Repair” ballot question have made of the campaign to require car manufacturers to make repair codes available to independent repair shops. In July supporters of Question 1 agreed to a legislative compromise, which was signed into law by Gov. Deval Patrick. Because it was too late to take the question off the ballot, both sides agreed to advise voters to “skip” Question 1.
Now with less than three weeks to go before the election, the pro-Question 1 group has suddenly backed out of that deal. Approval by voters would lead to two conflicting laws on the books. Voters would be well advised to SKIP IT as planned — OR VOTE NO. Playing games with the democratic process ought not be rewarded."
I've made up my mind, I'm skipping it. (No is the same thing essentially) But I don't want to entertain this shady move by the Dems, when we already have a agreed apon bill.
Last edited by DannoWS6; 11-05-2012 at 01:22 PM.