A Ton Of Folks Don’t Know What ‘Right To Repair’ Is, But Strongly Support It Once They Do
from the fix-yer-stuff dept
In just the last five years, the “right to repair” movement has shifted from nerdy niche to the mainstream, thanks in part to significant support from the Biden FTC and efforts in states like Minnesota and New York to pass new right to repair laws, making it easier and less expensive for consumers and independent repair shops to gain affordable access to manuals, tools, and replacement parts.
Surveys continue to indicate the majority of consumers support such efforts. But a significant number of folks don’t even know what the concept is, or how it applies them.
A new survey by Windows Report of 1,281 consumers found that 45 percent had never even heard of “right to repair.” Another 22 percent had heard of the concept but really had no idea how it applied to them personally:
But when consumers were asked if they would be more likely to purchase a device that is easier to repair, 80 percent said yes. And 83 percent stated that legal regulations should enforce the right to repair computers, “reflecting a desire for government intervention in promoting repair-friendly practices.”
Automakers, electronic manufacturers, and others have shown no sign of slowing down when it comes to monopolizing repair, whether that comes in the form of ham-fisted DRM, attacks on independent repair shops, or just making parts, manuals, and tools expensive and scarce.
But the harder they try to squeeze the more annoyed consumers get, and the more likely they are to support legislative right to repair reforms on either the state or federal level. It’s a hard debate for corporations to spin, so such policies continue to have overwhelming bipartisan support, and there’s clearly a lot of room left to grow when it comes to public education campaigns.
Filed Under: consumer rights, drm, environmental waste, right to repair, tech
Comments on “A Ton Of Folks Don’t Know What ‘Right To Repair’ Is, But Strongly Support It Once They Do”
Right to repair
We have a right to peacefully assemble. But we do not have a right to repair.
Re:
“We have a right to peacefully assemble.”
ymmv
Most people see technology as a black box (which make these gadgets so attractive), it’s no more like grandpa who used the dinner table to repair the old television set to change a few capacitor (or never fix anything and force the whole family to eat on the kitchen). Now these devices are so ridiculous thin and packed that they mostly need to be glued to stay in one piece.
The right way to have a right to repair would be to stop things getting smaller and smaller, and like Fairphone or Framework laptop, or like any device ten years ago (with removable battery and screws), to have a real modular design, where each component could be changed manually. But it won’t come any sooner (or ever).
And, except some geeks who want to deconstruct like a Lego set, most people are used to throw a device when “a part” (which now is the whole device) is broken or even malfunctioning, and no more going to the repair shop (if they can still fine one). Theses devices have also a short lifetime (with dozen of new smartphones each year, cheap TV…) by design, even for a $1k smartphone.
I guess a whole generation is born with ecological sense but won’t use their finder to repair anything (even if basically every source of information is on this internet) but I’m talking like a grandpa promising that the television set would be fixed tonight.
Re:
“The right way to have a right to repair would be to stop things getting smaller and smaller”
We should move the deer crossing to a street with less traffic
Re: You are missing half the picture
Grandpa wasn’t able to repair the TV sets because parts were larger. He was because of laws demanding that imported electronics came with circuit diagrams. TV sets tended to have a pouch inside with complete service instructions including schematics complete with voltages and oscillograph diagrams at test points and with color calibration instructions. Radio sets usually had the schematic glued inside to the bottom or the backside.
And in the plentiful hours that TV stations were not sending program material, they instead sent color/geometry test images that could be used if you had no suitable signal generator.
A “right to repair” was codified into import laws and ingrained into the culture (how else would the electronic shop next door be able to fix all the appliances from manufacturers it didn’t have contracts with?).
Yes, parts with a tangible size help. But actually the old TV sets and radios didn’t even have PCBs but had all parts soldered in to some tube socket or other fixture, and that was not really a repairability advantage to through-hole parts (and generic integrated circuits) that came later.
Another part of the problem is what constitutes a “repair”. When it is “replace entire thing” or “replace large part because small cheap part failed”, it isn’t very helpful.
Re:
Indeed, I find this in many fields; in my oven, a hall effect sensor failed, but I couldn’t replace it, and instead had to buy an entire new blower assembly with new fan, motor, casing, etc. All because of a dead sensor that I couldn’t source myself as it’s a custom shape.
But then there’s a fan I have that had a bearing ring fail. I was able to source the ring, replaced it, but because I don’t have the proper bearing seating equipment, the fan was almost as noisy with the new ring as it was with the old one — so I ended up having to replace the entire motor.
So where do you draw the line? Often, all it takes is a bit of knowledge and a few tools and replacing a 5 cent part. But sometimes those tools are very specialized, and you need a certain level of skill to avoid making the situation worse instead of better — so replacing larger assemblies is cheaper for the supplier.
Personally, I think the solution is to make ALL these options available, as well as put a bit more repairability into the original design, using fewer custom parts and tooling — but still using custom parts and tooling when it has demonstrated benefit (more longevity of the parts, improved efficiency, etc.).
IF' you didnt know?
There was a time long ago, that IF you had a few basics in repair, you could build something for A LITTLE cheaper then Paying for a NEW version.
It was a SImple Idea, IT COST MONEY to have Others Build it.
But we also had Standardized PARTS. NOW days they will create a CHIP that does the same thing as 100 other chips, With a different number on it and a SMALL CHANGE, so they can copyright it. AND YOU CANT BUY IT.
Re:
This first cropped up in mattress manufacture and sales (mattress sales being managed by organized crime in many places), and slowly spread to other industries.
Maybe a “if you sell a product, you also need to sell the individual parts minus the assembly costs” rule would help?
I’ve actually got pretty good at sourcing equivalent electronics components; in most cases, there’s an equivalent chip that will work just as well as the DRM’d one that doesn’t include DRM. The problem arises when you get to SoC level, and all the components are part of the same chip. Not much you can do, then.
But that's the simple change that is needed
Any component required to repair a device you own must be made available at an economic price. So if you put everything in one chip for a $1000 smart phone that part must be made available for, say, $300. Failure to do so would cancel the copyright protection on that part. When I buy a device I should own it and that means I should have the right to own it, a repair manual must be available and all parts available. It isn’t a complicated law.