General > General Technical Chat
Right to repair, my problem with it
<< < (25/39) > >>
Fixed_Until_Broken:

--- Quote from: Brumby on July 23, 2021, 11:21:17 am ---The core principle of Right To Repair is to stop manufacturers deliberately taking steps that get in the way of making repairs.

It is not, absolutely not, about forcing them to make things more repairable.  It is NOT about getting them to revert to outdated processes.

--- End quote ---
I think you are making a really good point here.
The problem we are having here is we all enjoy a little intellectual conversation. The core principles of the right to repair are so easy to agree with that you easily wander off-topic. I am guilty of such.
It is also easy to get sucked into the traps of arguing about points that are completely irrelevant since they leave huge logic gaps in the irrelevant talking points.

Such as:
- Consumers are too stupid to want it fixed. OK, that's not the point they still should have the right. Fun to argue but irrelevant.
- Manufactures are the only people who can handle EMI testing. Ok, but repair is exempt for the most part(oversimplification), and the number of repairs is a very small number. Again not on topic to what RTR is about. RTR stands for Right to repair not a requirement to repair correctly.
- Planned obsolescence. That's on them and has nothing to do with fixing it. Got it. Fair point. Not really RTR just an easy motivation to get behind it. I am very guilty of getting sucked into this one all the time.

The list could go on.
rstofer:
Looks like everybody will get their wish!  The FTC has decided to weigh in on this topic.  They won't actually help the situation but it should be fun to watch.

https://www.cnn.com/2021/07/22/tech/ftc-right-to-repair/index.html


--- Quote ---The nine most terrifying words in the English language are: 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help.

~ Ronald Reagan

--- End quote ---
robint91:

--- Quote from: Fixed_Until_Broken on July 23, 2021, 04:39:11 pm ---- Manufactures are the only people who can handle EMI testing. Ok, but repair is exempt for the most part(oversimplification), and the number of repairs is a very small number.

--- End quote ---

Let's take this outside RTR.

Shouldn't we EMI test or some other safety test, just to see that the repaired product is back into conformity to FCC/UL/... rules? Or any reason why that test isn't needed?

So if RTR will pass, more repairs will be done, and thus more problem cases could arise. I would say, better safe that sorry and test.

I think there should be legislation for independent repair shops that requires them validate conformity for each repaired product. So when there is customer <-> repairer relation. AKA money flows between to two parties.
I see the following two cases for independent repair shops when the do a repair,
A) They do the testing and validate conformity on their own. They can prove that everything is okay with the measurement results
B) They get a waiver(document) from the original manufacturer for that particular repair

Isn't this something we need to think about?
bdunham7:

--- Quote from: robint91 on July 23, 2021, 06:10:30 pm ---Isn't this something we need to think about?

--- End quote ---

No, as a general requirement, it's ludicrous for reasons that have already been explained thoroughly in this thread.

In specific instances some testing might be appropriate.  For example, when repairing microwave ovens, you should have (not sure of regulations here) a microwave EM field detector, a.k.a. microwave leakage tester.  Other well-developed and regulated repair industries have their own well-considered policies.  Validation of 'conformity' with the original certifications is generally not the rule, and for many such 'conformities' testing would be impractical--such as destructive testing or very expensive procedures that are only done on one or two examples of an entire production batch.

It's nice to wave big words and concepts around, but how about some concrete examples of post-repair testing that you think is necessary?
dave j:

--- Quote from: robint91 on July 23, 2021, 06:10:30 pm ---
--- Quote from: Fixed_Until_Broken on July 23, 2021, 04:39:11 pm ---- Manufactures are the only people who can handle EMI testing. Ok, but repair is exempt for the most part(oversimplification), and the number of repairs is a very small number.

--- End quote ---

Let's take this outside RTR.

Shouldn't we EMI test or some other safety test, just to see that the repaired product is back into conformity to FCC/UL/... rules? Or any reason why that test isn't needed?

So if RTR will pass, more repairs will be done, and thus more problem cases could arise. I would say, better safe that sorry and test.

I think there should be legislation for independent repair shops that requires them validate conformity for each repaired product. So when there is customer <-> repairer relation. AKA money flows between to two parties.
I see the following two cases for independent repair shops when the do a repair,
A) They do the testing and validate conformity on their own. They can prove that everything is okay with the measurement results
B) They get a waiver(document) from the original manufacturer for that particular repair

Isn't this something we need to think about?

--- End quote ---

Do manufacturers (and any authorised repair agents they may have) currently have to perform such testing on repaired products? If not, why impose it on others.

Someone might currently have to bodge a fix using different components, which might arguably require such testing, because the manufacturer doesn't make the originals available/known. RTR should solve that ensuring people can get the originals.
Navigation
Message Index
Next page
Previous page
There was an error while thanking
Thanking...

Go to full version
Powered by SMFPacks Advanced Attachments Uploader Mod