| General > General Technical Chat |
| Right to repair, my problem with it |
| << < (20/39) > >> |
| TimFox:
As an older person, I have learned not to trust strangers with electronic equipment, especially when there is no need to use ones phone during a legally-defined take-off and landing interval, on a common-carrier passenger aircraft. A few years ago, Mythbusters tested cell phones vs. avionics with an inconclusive result, but decided that in that case the safe thing to do was to follow the regulations and not risk others onboard the flight by claiming superior knowledge of ones cell phone's EMC characteristics. |
| robint91:
After all these discussions the two main questions are in my opinion still unanswered. First, does a product loose conformity when an unauthorized repair has been done? In simpler terms, does every UL/FCC/... testing and certification become void after an unauthorized repair? Is it still "legal" to use that device? What are the trigger points when this certification become void. Who decides on that? (The one who was originally liable for that certification) --> Who is liable after a repair? Secondly, what is repair? Does a manufacturer needs to support component level repair? Does right to repair entitle that you the customer can do the repair, or that the manufacturer needs to provide repair services for x amount of time for a particular cost? |
| bdunham7:
--- Quote from: robint91 on July 20, 2021, 08:23:13 pm ---After all these discussions the two main questions are in my opinion still unanswered. --- End quote --- I think they have been answered, but maybe not succinctly, so... 1) The question as stated makes no sense--there is no conformity to 'lose'. The laws generally do not place the burden of proving conformance to the original specifications on either the user or the repairer. Those regulations only apply to a new product as designed and delivered, although they may apply to latent defects that appear later. If I buy a new product and then drop it on the floor causing it to have raised emissions, or to be unsafe due to current leakage or flames coming out the side, there's no requirement that I resubmit it to UL or test it for FCC compliance. The laws as written generally do not apply to the user or the repairer, although other laws may apply. For example, it may be illegal to modify something to broadcast more power than originally designed, or to eliminate a safety feature like airbags. These difference is that the user or repairer generally does not have an initial burden of proving compliance or having any testing done, although they may be liable if there is a problem or complaint. 2) A repair is taking something that is not functioning correctly and doing whatever you do to it to restore that function. A complete hack that makes the product light up again is a repair, whether you approve of it or not. Right to repair, as generally understood and legislated so far, is mostly based on the theory that the manufacturer (or retailer) does not have the right to prevent, restrict or monopolize the repairing of their products once they are sold to an end user. |
| Brumby:
--- Quote from: bdunham7 on July 20, 2021, 09:15:01 pm ---although other laws may apply --- End quote --- THIS! One thousand percent this!! Any Right To Repair legislation does not need to include ANYTHING that is already covered by existing legislation, nor should it include anything that would be better implemented under existing legislation. Found something in Consumer Protection law that needs buttoning up? - then amend the Consumer Protection law. For heaven's sake DON'T add it into Right To Repair legislation! That would not only make the legal framework more confusing than it already is, but it also opens up the potential for inconsistencies or outright contradictions that could result in such legislation being thrown out. |
| ace1903:
Will give another example for other car: Nissan Sunny from 1991. I found 1200 pages service manual leaked on internet. Every chapter starts with list of tools that are needed to do diagnostic and service of certain subsystem. Some fixes I did myself for some other I visited service shop. I have choice what to do according my toolbox and amount of time. I see no difference for electronic product. For sure Apple or some other service center does not have EMC chamber and regularly does testing of each product that is serviced. Detailed service manual that will state that before doing any fix on the device one needs to obtain replacement coper tape, emc gasket and any other part that gets damaged if device is open is enough. As for legislation, all that manufacturer guaranties is properties of the devices at the day the devices leaves the store. There is no guaranties that EMC compliance will be still valid even when capacitors in the device are one year old cooked due to poor thermal design. No guaranties that pollution emission will be same after 20.000 km/miles. One mentioned headlamp example. Nearby my house there is one car service shop. Sadly, there are 100's headlamps each month each dumped due to single failed led. People are afraid that will need replacement after guarantee period that will cost ~1000eur and insist headlamp to be replaced for free even when there is single failed led. Mountain of polycarbonate garbage is generated each year just because all lamps are sealed in single housing. |
| Navigation |
| Message Index |
| Next page |
| Previous page |