Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

Interesting-Month-56 t1_istdt77 wrote

Lol this is great. We can have instructions, and the companies can make the repair process so onerous that it costs more to repair than to replace.

Lose-lose.

11

Faruhoinguh t1_istedcf wrote

It's up to you to not buy from those companies though.

9

wag3slav3 t1_istgeuk wrote

Every industry is a oligopoly with a max of four or five real competitors who all collude to leverage their repair/replace plans.

There is no competition, there is no choice in most markets that would be affected by these laws.

11

couldof_used_couldve t1_istindg wrote

It's more accurate to say that for most people, the effort and or sacrifice necessary to avoid these companies, is higher than they are either willing or able to make. Can be due to costs, effort involved or simply other sacrifices that come along for the ride.

The actual cases where there is literally no competition combined with no choice but to use something from within the affected product category, are actually few and far between.

5

anti-torque t1_istl2x8 wrote

Small farmers thank you for ignoring them.

edit: Oh, man... I just realized the sacrifice small farmers would have to make to not participate in the oligopoly would be to give up the farm.

3

Ginguraffe t1_isuhsnp wrote

Wouldn’t it just be better to require devices to come with like a 3 year warranty at no extra cost? Why does the average user need to be able to repair intricate miniaturized electronics themselves to get the benefit of a lasting product?

The idea of Right to Repair seems completely disconnected from the needs and preferences of the vast majority of consumers.

2

Blobbity-Blobbit t1_isyx7c8 wrote

Well, the idea of right to repair is not necessarily so that every single user can personally fix their stuff, but more that you could take it to a third-party repair shop without worrying about the thing bricking itself when it detects third-party crap, and other situations like that. People who want to fix their stuff should be able to, and people who don’t can go to a repair shop that doesn’t charge half the cost of the thing to repair a tiny piece of it

1

meandmyboner t1_isu7q6s wrote

currently there is a viable business model for smart repair those who can stay at the edge of the tech curve. after right to repair, this may all go away and those idiots can starve. then, consumers will just pay higher rates for either someone who can repair efficiently or for just a new/replacement product at greater price than original product. so dumb. they don't want the right to repair. they want to force companies' warranties to read a certain way, they want companies/consumers to pay higher costs, they want there to be no way to repair anything. 'right to repair' doesn't even make sense. you already had the right to repair any damn thing you like....sorry some repair people are too stupid to figure it out or can't offer their own warranties in replace of those from the manufacturer that are voided when repaired by a non-certified repair person.

​

black box parts anyone? try fixing that.

−4

danbert2000 t1_isu9izt wrote

Most of what you said is unmoored in fact. There are plenty of things that you can't repair because the companies lock their maintenance software away. Apple for one spent the last decade locking screen replacements behind onerous tools that they denied to people and businesses on their whim. John Deere kept parts from being installed in tractors unless an "authorized dealer" replaced them and they got their cut. Warranty void stickers still litter electronics even though they are unenforceable. You ignore the obvious proof that there is a problem and instead peddle what ifs and mischaracterizations of what right to repair is. If this cuts into business revenue it's only because they are currently rent seeking with their current repair schemes and the current loss is in user's expensive or artificially denied repairs. So essentially you're parroting some odd line that companies' repair revenue is more important than consumers' savings on being able to choose who repairs their product and how.

6

meandmyboner t1_isw0490 wrote

IF SOMETHING IS LOCKED, THEN UNLOCK IT YOU UNINITIATED TWIT. GET SMART AND FIX SHIT. BE DUMB AND BITCH, CHANGE LAWS AND FUCK CONSUMERS OVER. IF WE WANTED YOUR SERVICE WE WOULD BUY SOMETHING ELSE, RIGHT? HINT....WE DON'T WANT YOUR SERVICE THAT MUCH.

1

nox404 t1_isthfd0 wrote

Until the Supreme court says the FCC can not enforce these rules and only congress can pass such laws. :(

11

joeblo987123 t1_ists9aa wrote

I mean.....this does seem like an extreme overreach by adding this into energy saving rules. I 100% support right to repair, but congress needs to get off its ass and act, because gov orgs getting "creative" to effectively shoehorn in legislation is going to keep (rightfully) getting slapped down by the court over and over.

12

_Darren t1_isuiwpy wrote

They're talking about expanding energy saving rules, to environmental impact. It makes sense to me, you buy a fridge with a refrigerant that's bad for the environment. That would be good to know on the label. Same thing for environmental impact of the product, if it's not repairable. Impact is larger.

7

Independent_Pear_429 t1_istxew0 wrote

Talking about needing to add a right to repair is a dead give away they we have given the rich too much power

2