Before the era of microprocessors, when the automobile was a purely mechanical device controlled by manual input instead of software algorithms, the ‘right to repair’ one’s own vehicle was common sense. In fact, when it comes to motorcycles of the 60s and 70s, it was actually encouraged by a few of the OEMs as they expected the customer to know a bit of mechanical know-how to tamper with their products to make them suitable for the individual’s riding style.
But fast-forward a few decades, modern vehicles are essentially computers on wheels. Critical systems that make the vehicle function such as the ABS, fuel injection, traction control, etc. are controlled by a complex array of sensors and operating systems, access to which are denied by the OEMs to the owner or 3rd party service technicians under the pretext of copyright infringement or risk of “safety of the customer.”
Although it’s a valid point that botched repairs are dangerous, one cannot ignore the real underlying reason that aftersales service is a recurring source of revenue for the OEMs, the loss of which could be a major hit to their top-line. Repairing also goes against ‘planned obsolescence, a practice that has been followed by GM, Ford, and other automotive OEMs since the Great Depression to create demand for their marginally improved yearly releases of models.
The situation has become so egregious that farmers that own John Deere tractors are forbidden from even reading the signals that embedded software generates, in case of a fault. If they try, then the system locks itself down and can only be unlocked by the OEM’s specialized diagnostic devices. This forces farmers to either travel many miles to the nearest service center and pay a hefty premium for any and all fixes, putting their financials in dire straits, or use pirated hacking software that may or may not work.
You can catch a Vice report on the above here.
So how did it get to this?
In the case of cars, it started in the 1990s when the US government mandated all vehicles manufactured after 1994 to have onboard emissions monitoring systems under the “Clean Air Act Amendments”. The software on these devices was copyrighted by the OEMs and protected under Section 1201 of the 1998 Digital Millennium Copyrights Act (DMCA), from tampering by 3rd party service technicians. This protection was known as ‘Digital Rights Management (DRM).
Eventually, as the number of automotive systems governed by software exploded and diagnostic tools became computer-based, OEMs began citing this law to restrict access to the data and thus discourage independent repair.
This sparked the ‘Right to Repair’ movement and in 2013, the Motor Vehicle Owners’ Right to Repair Law was enacted in the state of Massachusetts which required the OEMs to share the data as well as proprietary diagnostic tools with independent repair shops. In 2014, an MOU was also signed between automakers and the auto repair association to implement this law in the rest of the country.
In India, major breakthrough on the ‘Right to Repair’ frontier came in the form of the judgment by the Competition Commission of India (CCI) in the Shri. Shamsheer Kataria v. Honda Siel Car India Ltd. Case in August 2014. The commission acknowledged that 14 OEMs were violating the Competition Act of 2002 by restricting access to spare parts, technical manuals, and diagnostic tools in the open market by entering into exclusive agreements with the parts manufacturers. They were fined a penalty of 2466 crores and ordered to ensure the availability of spare parts and other tools in the public domain.
How has it affected motorcycles?
Motorcycles are personal machines to their owners and they have a proud tradition of tinkering with and improving their own motorcycles. It not only hones problem-solving abilities but also acts as therapy, helping to relax and focus, as mentioned in the book ‘Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance'.
Trusted local mechanics also hold a position similar to that of the family doctor in the eyes of the motorcycle owner. Almost all of us who own motorcycles must have met or even heard tales about legendary motorcycle mechanics who can service anything from litre class superbikes to 100cc commuters in their small mom-n-pop service stations.
The issue is that modern day motorcycles are advanced machines, controlled by what is called an ‘ECU’ (Electronic Control Unit), which are small microprocessors that act as the brain of the bike. Usually, they contain software mappings to govern systems like the ignition, valve timings, ABS etc. In high-end premium motorcycles, they also govern additional systems like the traction control, riding modes and other sensors that the motorcycle might have.
In majority of cases, the mappings are locked by security codes that only the OEM can unlock but even if it’s not, any attempt by 3rd party mechanics or tuners to alter these settings under situations of repair or performance upgrades, would not only be risky as it could ruin the motorcycle if programmed incorrectly, but could also be considered violation of the DMCA, thus voiding the motorcycle’s warranty.
This is a risk that no motorcycle owner would want to happen to their dream machines that they paid top dollar for, no matter how reputed the mechanic maybe. Hence, they’re left with no other option but to approach the dealer’s service centre.
How does the future look?
Telematics, which is the data transmitted wirelessly by the vehicle to the OEM was unfortunately not included in the 2014 MOU. It includes data points such as automatic airbag deployment, crash notifications, remote door unlock, stolen vehicle locations, etc. With the advent of EVs that are smarter and “connected” through wireless technology, telematics is becoming more and more relevant for the independent service industry to adequately provide its services. But OEMs can still cite reasons such as data security, privacy, etc., and deny access to this data.
This loophole means that even though spare parts may be available, the lack of access to critical data makes the repair job impossible to complete, bringing us back to square one. Therefore, the fight is still far from over and it is up to us consumers to control the narrative about who controls our data and how.
コメント