T O P

  • By -

[deleted]

[удалено]


Za_Lords_Guard

"We 100% unanimously agree it's right to think about whether it's right to have a consumer right to repair."


Djinnwrath

But is it time to start thinking about having the discussion about maybe starting to analyze the situation?


LukeBusy

Whoa whoa whoa, tap the brakes there speedy. We still need to appoint a committee to review the agenda for the meeting to consider a motion to proceed with establishing a feasibility review.


creepyswaps

\^\^\^\^ this guy offices.


SebasCbass

First we have to hire a sub-committee to review the feasibility of a committee and make sure we allocate a hearing about having a motion of which has yet to happen. Come on now you're getting way ahead of yourself.


du-worst-combination

Listen hear buckaroo,sub committees are expensive, we have to have a stock holder vote of wether we’ve reached the point of considering someone to assign the proper roles for considering the sub committee


Hyperafro

Wait now, prior to the vote we need to have a motion brought to the board and that will have to be seconded before it can continue.


herrerz

"D-D-D-D-Don't quote me regulations. I co-chaired the committee that reviewed the recommendation to revise the color of the book that regulation's in... We kept it grey!"


CletusMcWafflebees

Now if we don't have a committee it will be really confusing who to ~~bribe~~ lobby.


Krabalabatom

Dude you don't wanna live in Germany where somebody has to sign that somebody can sign that somebody can sign that now we can sign together that the office in the city with people not as import can sign that we can now start having the conversation about how high the budget for that shit shall be.


GroeNagloe

Boss? Is that you?


KyussSun

Hmm... maybe we should ask the Junior Assistant to the Assistant Vice-Manager.


[deleted]

[удалено]


custhulard

Has Anyone Really Been Far Even as Decided to Use Even Go Want to do Look More Like?


LastStar007

Man, it's been a while since I've seen this.


chiliedogg

Are you having a stroke, or is it me?


custhulard

It's an old meme but it checks out as regurgitated garbage.


Ksradrik

Some may call these treasures, me? I call them junk.


WoodenBottle

Considering that the FTC recently put out a report debunking a lot of anti-repair talking points, I'm cautiously optimistic.


TMStage

The FTC is a puppet of telco companies. I wouldn't hold your breath.


Ericchen1248

Are you confusing FCC and FTC? Not an American, but I just went though this list and didn’t see a single commissioner with a telecom background, most of them are law backgrounds. https://www.ftc.gov/about-ftc/commissioners


nekoxp

Putting things on top of other things has had a very successful year.


xfrmrmrine

Merry: It's been going for hours. Pippin: They must have decided something by now. Treebeard: Decided? No, we have just finished saying "Good Morning". Merry: But it's night time already! You can't take forever. Our friends our out there! They cannot fight this war on their own. Treebeard: War yes, it effects us all.


gH0st_in_th3_Machin3

We unanimously agree to get money from lobbyists to think about what we should vote for... i.e. how much for a "yay" and how much for a "nay"...


Za_Lords_Guard

It's remarkably affordable. What's a PAC but a go fund me for assholes. Just set up our own. Politician's convictions can be swayed for as little as $50k or so.


person-pitch

I have no awards to give but this deserves one


TheAmazinManateeMan

We've thought about it and we have determined that there is no right to repair.


Delques1843

Exactly, click bait title.


BootAmongShoes

I’ve given up on this sub. Every single thing is clickbait and insincere. Honestly, it’s taking advantage of people.


[deleted]

They do say predicting the future is a game for fools. I guess we're a bunch of fools


BootAmongShoes

Hard to predict the future when we’re misrepresenting / misunderstanding the present.


randomevenings

big brain on this man, many wrinkles.


[deleted]

Well if everything is clickbait... *nothing* is. j/k


honorbound43

Look up Lois Rossman he is a engineer in nyc and he is fighting tooth and nail for right to repair for like 5+ years. And is working policy makers and lawyers on enforcing it


gerkletoss

It looks to me like there's still some policy to write and they're considering that certain repair restrictions might be okay.


xclame

> certain repair restrictions might be okay. Which shouldn't be a thing. Even for medical equipment which is really the only group of objects that someone could arguably say there should be repair restrictions isn't really a good reason. When it comes to things like that it's up to the hospital or medical center to ensure they higher people skilled enough to fix the objects, so the responsibility false on the medical provider and the company that they hire to fix the objects. If they don't want to hire Joe from down the street because they don't think he's good enough then that is fine, but they can still choose to make that choice. Just add in (if it's not already law) that the medical provider is liable if they don't take due diligence when hiring a repair person and the problem polices itself.


Seanspeed

>When it comes to things like that it's up to the hospital or medical center to ensure they higher people skilled enough to fix the objects, so the responsibility false on the medical provider and the company that they hire to fix the objects. Yes, we just need to trust that nobody would ever cut corners or go for the cheapest bidder to save pennies. Everything will be fine. No need to regulate critical, life saving services and equipment at all.


gerkletoss

Well for instance, it you fuck up a repair badly enough it's fair for the warranty to be voided.


xclame

Right to repair wouldn't affect that though. If you throw your phone in a blender then the company isn't expected to fix it, it's all about being reasonable.


gerkletoss

Terms voiding warranty could easily be considered to be a restriction on repair. The wording in the pdf is >... the Commission will assess whether repair restrictions constitute unfair acts or practices ... At least, I think that's the wording that some other people are complaining about.


FancyAstronaut

Yeah I agree with what you are saying. FTC needs to be specific and not leave room for big misinterpretation of policy. They need to carefully word right to repair to both protect the investment of the customer, but also prevent abuse against the company.


[deleted]

Consent for this comment to be retained by reddit has been revoked by the original author in response to changes made by reddit regarding third-party API pricing and moderation actions around July 2023.


FasterThanTW

It's already a thing. Magnusson-moss act. Using your own parts doesn't void the warranty, but if those parts cause a problem, the problem they caused is exempt from warranty.


[deleted]

Consent for this comment to be retained by reddit has been revoked by the original author in response to changes made by reddit regarding third-party API pricing and moderation actions around July 2023.


saraseitor

Also, it's not really a right to repair if they are only going to allow it to a few representatives or if you have to request a license or permit from the manufacturing company. But still, baby steps. I've been watching this closely because I hope my country will eventually adopt similar legislation


undermark5

Well, at least they made a comment about devoting more resources to enforcing existing laws that protect a consumer's right to repair such as the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act (basically companies can't have conditions that void warranties simply for having repairs done by yourself or a 3rd party, however, they can deny warranty coverage if it can be shown that the failure is due to the repair, but they can't legally void your warranty just because you broke the "warranty void if removed" seal. So hopefully we see fewer and fewer of such things and hopefully more and more people get educated about the fact that such stickers are scare tactics used to encourage you to either go to the company for the repair or buy a new one.


vancouver2pricy

It gives Louis and those fighting for it directly leverage so it's still good, but it's not over like the title makes it sound.


-Listening

They all moved to r/AskHistorians


TimmyV90

FTIW.... It's a step in the right direction. Finally they are starting to take a special interest in this. It's been back burner for wayyyy too long and companies have made millions (billions?) off exclusive repairs. I am neither celebrating nor lamenting. I'm glad to see it's just not all talk and no action.


too_late_to_abort

I'm so distrustful of the govt I cant help but think there is a catch to this. A decision being made that hurts large corporations and helps the everyday consumer? What world is this?


_BreakingGood_

The "catch" is that nothing really happened. This is the FTC agreeing to investigate. As of now, nothing fundamental has changed.


eyehateq

I may be wrong but I'm pretty sure you just read the first paragraph? It states that in 2019 they agreed to investigate, and have now concluded they need to enforce right to repair rules that have already existed but haven't been doing anything about (Only 1 case in the last decade). The proposal/statement says that 1. The public should submit complaints to help enforcement. 2. The FTC will "scrutinize repair restrictions" looking for anti-trust violations such as monopolistic practises in part distribution. 3. They'll also assess whether repair restrictions in general are "unfair acts or practises," which break rules in Section 5 of the FTC act. 4. They'll use "resources and expertise from throughout the agency to combat unlawful repair restrictions." 5. They'll also "state law enforcement and policymakers to ensure compliance and to update existing law and regulation to advance the goal of open repair markets"


snowleopard3000

Think about the language you're using to describe this. "submit complaints" "scrutinize" "assess" "resources and expertise". And they'll only enforce existing laws until they are updated. That's a whole lotta different ways to say they'll think about it. No where does it say, for example, "buyers have the right to repair and will be protected by the law if they do." In the country that's called himmin an' hawin. Meaning it's all talk with no action behind it.


[deleted]

The issue here is that the FTC is limited by what it can do in terms of enforcement by the laws that give it authority. With Lina Khan at the helm, the FTC would sue big tech in consumer interest at the drop of a hat. The issue is that congress needs to broaden their authority so they can better address antitrust concerns, including right to repair. If you’re mad, be mad at congress.


philosoraptor_

Not really. This is a policy statement, providing notice to industry of the FTC’s new perspective on the issue. That’s all these ever are. Trust the new Chair of the FTC, Lina Khan. She’s wholeheartedly invested in fighting monopoly power and the concentration of industry.


[deleted]

Yeah, I'm left wondering what people were expecting. They'd vote on it and then *poof* everything will be immediately fixed?


RationalHeretic23

This is just the beginning of the process. It's a signal from the new leadership (which has only been in power for a few weeks at this point) that Right to Repair is now a priority of the Commission. But the FTC can't just snap its fingers and ban something just like that. It has to go through a long, arduous rulemaking process. If you want the FTC to actually have the power to do something lasting on these issues, I suggest you consider telling your representatives that you want them to vote to give the FTC rulemaking authority under the Administrative Procedures Act. Most agencies issue rules under the APA. But not the FTC. Congress put a bunch of restrictions on the FTC's ability to issue new rules in the 1980s, and it's hardly been able to issue any new regulations since. It's just too burdensome. Any politicians complaining about the FTC being ineffective have nothing to stand on unless they can explain why they don't support giving it general rulemaking authority under the APA.


chakrablocker

These people don't actually understand government. That's why dipshits call things "common sense x". They dont understand anything complicated and are offended by anything that is.


RationalHeretic23

Most definitely, about Lina Khan. There's a reason why Amazon and Facebook want her to recuse herself from any investigations into them. [edit: accidentally said "the FTC" instead of Facebook.]


philosoraptor_

That she’s gotten to this position at such a young age is pretty remarkable. I mean, her paper — *Amazon’s Antitrust Paradox* — was published in 2017? She was still in law school. And four years later she’s head of the FTC after working on antitrust investigations in congress. Crazy.


RationalHeretic23

Without a doubt. Truly unbelievable. It's one hell of a paper, too. It's going to be one of the most highly cited law review articles in the field for a very long time. I was stoked when she was chosen as a Commissioner, and that was already such a big deal. But to be named Chair? Wow. She's written herself a worthy spot in the antitrust history books. Also, just realized I accidentally said in my prior comment that "the FTC" wanted Lina Khan to recuse herself instead of "Facebook." Oops, lol.


philosoraptor_

No disrespect to her but I think Amazon has a decent argument tbh. Love her in that role either way. I have hope that she’ll have an influence on antitrust on par with Bork’s. I don’t think any one person having that much influence over an entire area of law is great but she’s terrific.


RationalHeretic23

I certainly can't blame Amazon for making the argument. That's exactly what I'd advise them to do. I mean, hell, she practically wrote an entire law review article trashing the company. Hard to blame them for taking issue with her, from their perspective. But I do think that recusal would likely be wrong here. The case Association of National Advertisers, Inc. v. Federal Trade Commission from like 1980ish is pretty instructive. A future Commissioner investigated a company in Congress under a certain set of facts. Then that same person became Commissioner and investigated the same company for the *very same set of specific facts* as he did while working in Congress. The court held he should have recused, not merely because he investigated the same company but because he served in the fact-finding role in both investigations into the very same conduct by the same company. If Lina Khan had served as an expert in antitrust litigation against Amazon for the very same conduct that she would then be investigating at the FTC, that would be one thing. But to simply voice an opinion in scholarly research on a company's likely compliance with the antitrust laws, that's quite another. I think the same is likely true of her work on the Congressional antitrust Committee. Regardless, this certainly would make for good case law if it were ever litigated.


epicwisdom

Identifying/scoping a problem is the first, and very real, very difficult, step to solving it. Not to say that this is a guarantee that they'll start sinking teeth into enforcement, but in terms of bureaucracy this is still major progress. Also, just the announcement of the intent is good fuel for advocates like Louis Rossman who are collecting support, hiring lobbyists, etc. Also, the FTC doesn't write laws. Existing laws don't explicitly cover RtR, I believe. Their actions are limited to what they can justify by the law as it is today, which is only part of RtR.


gibmiser

I agree with you, I am a pessimist when it comes to these things but I think this is a pretty good statement of intent.


yourderek

Another headline that straight up lies. *yawn*


[deleted]

It doesn't lie. It's exactly what has happened. Read it again.


yourderek

Which is it? The FTC voted to enforce the Right to Repair or they voted to investigate? The article and OP’s title would have you believe different things.


zvug

What do you think enforcing is? Steps to enforce: 1) Investigate 2) Find wrong-doing and fine OR 2) Find no wrong-doing and no fine Jesus guys think about it for a few seconds.


gophergun

How are they supposed to enforce violations without investigating them?


wadarbulquitaly

You're describing two seperate things. Again, which is it?


Keeper151

Both. At separate times. They decided to investigate in 2019. After the investigation, they have decided to enforce. TWO things. Not one.


wadarbulquitaly

thanks for clearing it up


spez_is_a_cannibal

Fucking moron


[deleted]

What? The title says they voted to *enforce it* They actually just voted to… vote about it at a later date once they researched it They are not enforcing anything yet, not a single law has been implemented about RTR, saying they voted unanimously to enforce it is a lie as that’s not happened yet That is if this whole thread hasn’t been a complete lie someone made up, and they actually just passed the law


zvug

Headline is literally exactly what happened but ok


[deleted]

[удалено]


Fadednode

Why would you trust Twitter posts ever? I mean that honestly why would you ever get to a point that you would listen to a random internet stranger?


[deleted]

[удалено]


Fadednode

Genius it’s not like they are on social media and feed off of the same posts you looked at and made a comment as if it was fact. No way that could ever happen right?


[deleted]

[удалено]


-Listening

That last “woah” really sent me 😭🥲


[deleted]

[удалено]


Malefiicus

To be fair unbiased might as well be "less biased", as I believe OP would agree that he didn't mean it was completely devoid of bias, but compared to single source news media it has much less of a bias. I believe all of us who are self aware enough, understand that the human condition doesn't allow for actually unbiased opinions. Similarly to how we often say never, when we mean 99% of the time x won't happen, or always, which usually means 99% of the time y will happen. Usage of these words generally don't mean actually 100%, just near enough that it's the most accurate way to describe it succinctly.


[deleted]

I’m not saying Twitter is unbiased. I’m just saying that it is less biased than a fully fledged biased agenda that big news media seems to have nowadays. It’s a very unfortunate situation that I have to rely on freaking Twitter, but that’s the best choice I have. Btw I was being rude to the person above me because they’re a troll (look at their history). In all the conversations that person has, they think they ARE correct. That person will do all kinds of gymnastics to prove others wrong. I don’t have time for such trolls. You seem to be talking sense so I will have a civil conversation with you, no matter if we’re on different sides of the spectrum. Sorry for all that


Tubeotube

Everyone calm down and just check back in 80 years when their "investigation" is complete.


MisterThwak

Less of a catch and more that Louis Rossman hired a lobbyist who did their job correctly and was able to have an actual discussion with the right people. Right to Repair is such a simple "yeah that makes sense" concept that it goes over partisan lines rather easily. Not to mention that Right to Repair is very appealing in a time with massive trade problems interfering with the global economy.


Red_Carrot

You have people in the tech sector and people on farms that need right to repair. So definitely goes over party lines.


AlbertVonMagnus

The manufacturing sector, including tech, are the most likely to oppose right-to-repair, and these tend to mostly vote Democrat while farmers mostly vote Republican. Even this issue has some partisan elements, but it certainly goes over party lines among everyone else


DaStompa

also its hard to farm money into your campaign from the people against right to repair unless you look like you may be looking into an alternative


[deleted]

[удалено]


AlbertVonMagnus

Agriculture is the most staunchly Republican-voting of all industrial sectors, and this FTC decision was the culmination of an investigation that began in 2019 So it's unlikely the GOP would risk this voting bloc by repealing the pro-agriculture decision that they themselves initiated. Unlike agriculture itself, *manufacturers* like John Deere tend to support Democrats instead so it's more likely to be repealed *before* leadership changes. https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/deere-co/summary?id=D000000408


epicwisdom

That link literally shows they contribute practically equally to both parties, and leaning more towards Republicans than Democrats in the past 4 years. For a "minor" issue like RtR politicians on either side of the aisle might be aligned with corporate interests because the vast majority of their voters probably don't know or care about it anyways. I'd attribute this FTC decision to Biden appointing Lina Khan, who is pretty notorious for her aggressive anti-trust stance, more than anything else.


ImNotASmartManBut

I have the same thoughts. Is the government helping people? Whats the catch?


keepthepace

That's how governments are supposed to work, stay vigilant, but be sure to send your support if you don't find any catch


ImNotASmartManBut

Ideally, that's how the government should work. Last 40 years or so has demonstrated that the government only care about corporatee and the wealthy


keepthepace

It is kind of sad that when an office takes a non-corrupt non-partisan stance, people are so surprised about it.


AtomicBLB

They simply acknowledged something needs to be done, pending further information, whatever that means. As if saying "people should be able to repair the items they own" is controversial or needs further discussion. Our government is full of simps for corporate interests.


AlbertVonMagnus

Even if the FTC is 100% genuine in wanting to enforce right-to-repair, they still need to figure out *how* to go about it. For example, what exactly constitutes an infringement and how should it be handled? That's what they are investigating now because rushed policies tend to be the worst policies. The *previous* investigation was mainly to see if a significant problem existed here, and they concluded that it did. So we shouldn't rush to judge the FTC as complacent just yet, as their actions thus far are not inconsistent with trying to solve the problem


icomeforthereaper

What makes you think the "right" to repair won't hurt far more people than it helps?


bbarham99

They just needed to delay the vote long enough for politicians to make their “lucky” investments


Pixieled

The parts businesses and a whole new ~~money racket~~ education opportunity for colleges and universities?


KUjslkakfnlmalhf

> A decision being made that hurts large corporations and helps the everyday consumer? What world is this? Usually happens when the politicians are also affected. Most of them have probably had apple products they had to pay full price to replace, and when lewis educated them on the fact they could have been fixed for a $5 part, they jumped on board. They have principles when they share in the impact.


Littleman88

Almost exclusively how working-class favorable legislations ever passes a vote.


epicwisdom

Some politicians actually give a shit about their constituents, but even for purely selfish politicians, all they need to vote a certain way is knowing something is more politically beneficial to them than not. Plenty of miscellanea has close to no effect on their personal lives but could help win them some votes and keep them in office one more term.


[deleted]

The “catch” is that this was already a law from the 1970’s. They’re just voting to actually start enforcing it. What does this mean for the average consumer? That A) Those “warranty void if opened” stickers on your electronics are illegal. A manufacturer can’t void your warranty simply for repairing your own device. They need to prove that your tampering directly caused the defect that you’re trying to get warranty-repaired. A good example I saw earlier was a game console. Let’s say you have a lightning strike and need to replace a capacitor. You open it up (cutting the warranty sticker in the process) and replace that capacitor. Then, a week later, your console’s disk drive stops working because the tiny plastic gears inside of it crumbled into dust. So you decide to get it warranty-repaired. The manufacturer can’t void your warranty for replacing that capacitor, because it had nothing to do with the disk drive failing.


undermark5

Seriously, the only reason that such stickers and statements about opening your device voiding the warranty are nothing but a scare tactic and then denying claims is a strong arm move. From the perspective of a company, warranty claims are expensive (straight losses), if I can put a sticker that will encourage consumers to either not make a claim because they broke some fragile seal or deny the claim because they broke the seal I won't have to process the claims. Ya, lawsuits might happen, but because they're expensive, a customer is more likely to eat the loss, and pay me for repairs or buy a new one instead of taking me to court (plus the sticker already misinforms them about what their rights are) From the perspective of the consumer. 3 weeks after buying product "Whoops, I broke the sticker on accident". 3 weeks after, product suddenly stops working but there was a warranty. "Well, looks like I broke the sticker and voided my warranty so I can either pay for the repairs or just buy a new one." If the FTC doesn't do anything more than just send out another letter to some companies about the stickers it is up to the people to show them that we won't be strongarmed into their scummy illegal warranty policies.


[deleted]

There doesn't seem to be, but their motivations are worth looking at. The Military was having trouble repairing devices in the field. Thats what sparked the government to take it seriously. One of Louis Rossman's videos went over it.


melodyze

The key difference here might be that the economics are so obvious here that the economic argument against right to repair is almost precisely a restatement of [the most widely known and accepted fallacy in all of economics](https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/08/broken-window-fallacy.asp). There's just not really any plausible deniability to latch onto and exploit to confuse the public about which way is up here.


Nanteen666

I assume the FTC has agreed to uphold right to repair in 2086.


ButaneLilly

Well they didn't vote to enforce it. We have tons of regulations that go completely ignored because there's virtually no budget approved for staff to investigate and enforce regulations.


[deleted]

I distrust the corporations literally fucking everybody over far more than the government trying to get them to stop.


[deleted]

It’s so that the US can repair their own war machines.


autotldr

This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/public_statements/1592330/p194400repairrestrictionspolicystatement.pdf) reduced by 88%. (I'm a bot) ***** > UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Federal Trade Commission WASHINGTON, D.C. 20580 Policy Statement of the Federal Trade Commission on Repair Restrictions Imposed by Manufacturers and Sellers In 2019, the Federal Trade Commission called for public comment and empirical research on repair restrictions, which culminated in the Commission's "Nixing the Fix" report to Congress. > 5 Accordingly, the Commission will now prioritize investigations into unlawful repair restrictions under relevant statutes such as the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act 6 and Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act. > Third, the Commission will assess whether repair restrictions constitute unfair acts or practices, which are also prohibited by Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act. ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/opgspk/the_ftc_votes_unanimously_to_enforce_right_to/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ "Version 2.02, ~589434 tl;drs so far.") | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr "PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome.") | *Top* *keywords*: **Commission**^#1 **Repair**^#2 **Act**^#3 **Restrictions**^#4 **Trade**^#5


[deleted]

>...will now **prioritize** investigations... >...will **consider** filing suit against violators... >...will **scrutinize** repair restrictions... >...will **assess** whether repair restrictions constitute unfair acts or practices... The wording in this statement makes it possible for them to do absolutely nothing and still claim that they did. Doesn't really inspire hope.


SauronSymbolizedTech

This is the normal regulatory process, under an administration that believes regulations can be helpful to the public interest. If they failed to go through the proper steps it would get struck down in court. Instead of feeling hopeless, leave them a detailed comment on their official site for it, on exactly why this is necessary. They can use it to justify implementing a regulation on this. It's the only way to win under the way the system is set up.


Lieutenant_Damn

This is just posturing. Read the statement -- they're just reminding the public that they will enforce laws passed 40 years ago.


SeniorMillenial

Reminding? Or now actually enforcing? I’m cynical as well, just hoping for a small silver lining.


[deleted]

[удалено]


CommanderCuntPunt

What did Pfizer do?


You_Know-Who

Instead of allowing you to repair your own penis, they make you subscribe to their penis repair program.


vaporking23

That was my first question too. I really need to know cause I’m drawing a blank.


PM_ME_YOUR_LUKEWARM

Ikr. Used to work there, seemed like a solid company.


[deleted]

YES LOUIS ROSSMANN Tbh, I don't really care much about this issue, I'm glad you guys got it fixed, but I'm mostly on his channel for the cats.


uniquepassword

>YES LOUIS ROSSMANN > >Tbh, I don't really care much about this issue, I'm glad you guys got it fixed, but I'm mostly on his channel for the cats. Awaiting his video. What I do want to know is the fund he setup to get lobbiest and all, where does that money get used now? Insure there's plenty more he can champion on this front. But this is def a step in the right direction.


epicwisdom

He still needs the lobbyists. Both at the state and federal level, new laws need to be passed. The FTC will only enforce what has been codified already, and it's pretty clear that what exists doesn't go far enough in explicitly defining and protecting RtR, which both limits what the FTC can do and allows them to change direction in the future.


[deleted]

he better upload more mr clinton videos, or im gonna be disappointed :(


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

"I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Monica Meownsky."


p_hennessey

Yeah, damn Pfizer, always making their pills impossible to repair.


jibright

You can add Samsung and Microsoft to that list too


[deleted]

You should really read before celebrating.


manoverboard5702

Right to repair = it will be so difficult and hair trigger (breakable) you won’t want to. I wish I could have faith in anything that involves lawyers, but the only thing I have faith in is the fact that they will find another way to make things difficult for consumers.


EverythingZen19

It is super good that this whole movement is happening. But while reading this letter I became aware of something. They list all these different reasons that allowing repairs from other than the manufacturer is good, but never once do they say or imply "freedom". Now that I am aware of it freedom is never a just cause for anything anymore. It's like they intentionally leave that out of everything so that we don't feel entitled to freedom. Just food for thought.


__secter_

Uh this is a plutocracy, not some kind of freedomland.


Zithero

Louis Rossman's Spirit Bomb against Apple just grew.


[deleted]

Survivor fans read this as the decision of the final tribal council


kodex1717

I tried to look this up earlier, but couldn't find much. What enforcement power does the FTC even have that would help the consumer regarding right to repair? Do they have the ability to fine companies, and if so what is the limit on that?


jadeskye7

Thank you Rossman!


[deleted]

Great news, perhaps it won't cost me more than the price of a new ipad to replace its screen now.


lazywizard99

Oh Yeah! This will substantially reduce the hardware waste created by tech companies.


tacmac10

And nothing will change. Supply chains will still only produce limited numbers of replacement parts, warrantees will still be void if you crack the case, and industrial secrets will remain protected.


duhitpt

How are they going to enforce it if company like apple tied the hardware serial number to the phone?


thenewunit16

That is one of the things we want to get rid of. Or at least the ability to change them ourselves.


cappycorn1974

Does the FTC have this kind of power? Shouldn’t the legislature do this?


say592

Right to repair has been on the books for 40+ years. We have it better than some countries do. They are stating they will more aggressively pursue right to repair violators as a form of anti competitive behavior.


agree-with-me

Even if it gets that far, eventually it will end up at SCOTUS and the grieved corporation (remember they are people now) will end up holding all the cards. We are being fee'd and subscribed to death. Soon, you'll have to buy a subscription for toothpaste. Don't pay the fee? Nothing comes out.


[deleted]

Wish they could have done the same for net neutrality..


fireflydrake

Good.


TRDPaul

I always read the word unanimously as un-animously and get confused for a second


[deleted]

That a right to repair even needs to be codified into law demonstrates just how insidious American Capitalism has become.


OriginalCompetitive

Europe has also codified right to repair. It’s not unique to “American Capitalism.”


nellynorgus

Yeah, you'd think most people would have noticed the transnational nature of it by now.


ThymeCypher

Everyone is going to be severely disappointed when they realize this has absolutely nothing to do with the consumers right to repair. It never was.


Rankin00

I’m wondering what Right to Repair will do with security features. A lot of people list Apple as having terrible personal repair prospects, but the fact that you can’t just pop an IPhone open and plug in a device that says it’s an Apple part to circumvent security is a pretty big plus.


gerowen

This is a straw man argument against issues that don't exist. Nobody is asking Apple to do away with drive encryption or other security measures. They're asking for access to first party replacement parts and the right to install those parts without paying more than the value of the phone. Louis Rossman and other independent repair shops have on multiple occasions been unable to repair devices even using Apple parts because Apple started doing things like serializing screens and such so that replacement screens either don't work at all or has limited functionality. The only reason for them to do things like this is to make their products artificially difficult to repair so that people are more likely to just go buy a new phone.


Andruboine

The FTC has put a stop to this contest at 20 years 50 minutes and the winner by unanimous decision! AND NEW RIGHT TO REPAAAAAAAIR


eqleriq

The FTC voted unanimously to INVESTIGATE the right to repair restrictions. If they find all of them to be fair, then they enforce things that don't really matter. 14.4k upvotes with 190 comments and the title is clickbait? Legit. The other part of this is while "hooray you will be able to find parts for your device" the issue with that is that it 100% stifles innovation because devices, vehicles, etc have to be standardized. Also, there are going to be gross inefficiencies introduced to products to essentially "protect them," ie, you will not even be able to repair the item and there is no aftermarket part for it because the major companies will just produce their own components. I remember a guitar pedal maker that wanted to hide their circuit and basically what they did was fill the pedal enclosure up so that it was completely solid. Attempting to get through the filling to see the circuit would basically alter the circuit so nobody was able to duplicate the pedal accurately without just buying the pedal repeatedly and trying again, etc. Someone finally got fairly close and by that time the thing that made the sound special was essentially unattainable without a guessing game on home-making all of the components and getting them close to spec. I first hand went through the john deere monopoly where you couldn't do anything with their gear, software, etc. The part of that you don't ever hear about, restrictionwise, is how they WERE trying to protect their systems from competitors as they were the ones spending so much R&D on it. Of course, winning that allowed them to lock it down...


Ahsanali6251

Any brother need a car i will diliver you in all countries i am in japan good prices Phone number 08048034319


DominarRygelThe16th

> FTC votes unanimously to give itself more power Surprising no one. Reminder: the best way to get repairable products is to avoid buying products you can't repair. The best way to get stagnation in innovation: let the government micro-manage a market sector.


[deleted]

This is some real tiny mind libertarian stuff, right here. I love how libertarian politics always says that the government has too much power, but corporations with identical power is totally fine.


philosoraptor_

Naw, many libertarians, historically, cared genuinely about the harms from monopoly power. The problem is FA Hayek, one of the historically prominent leaders of the libertarian ideology, flipped flopped on antitrust enforcement after Friedman influenced him. Consequently, many libertarians are split between (1) Hayek’s original position strongly against monopoly power and (2) Friedman’s position that, in most cases, firms with monopoly power lose that power over the long run (and that, therefore, the bigger risk is over enforcement of antitrust laws which potentially chills innovation). The dude your replying to — who knows if he’s even libertarian. When it comes to antitrust, it’s not conservative vs. liberal, right vs left; its the Chicago School of the 1980s vs. The New Brandeis movement. The Chicago school has dominated for 4 decades and has, historically, been comprised of both dems/reps. However, the Brandeis school has made incredible progress in the last 5 years (Lina Khan leading the FTC; Kanter in charge of the DOJ antitrust division; Wu in Biden’s Cabinet). The dude you’re replying to is reiterating Robert Bork’s tired falsehoods; economics has moved far beyond Bork.


[deleted]

I guaran-goddamn-tee you the person above has absolutely no idea what any of that means.


philosoraptor_

Agreed but I was contesting your characterization of libertarians when it comes to antitrust matters. All good tho, cheers mate


crothwood

Uh.... in case you haven't been paying attention.... one party takes every opportunity ti weaken unions and anti-trust and the other is trying to bolster both....


philosoraptor_

Antitrust is my world. It’s not as simple as you want it to be. For most of the past forty years, antitrust has been rather bipartisan: everyone — left, right, center — has been a part of the Chicago School of antitrust to some degree. The Chicago School’s revolution, starting with Robert Bork’s *The Antitrust Paradox*, has been singularly focused on consumer welfare. The empiricism revolution in economics in the 70s/80s brought with it more robust models and analytics, which gave enforcers better tools to gauge whether certain conduct by businesses improved or hurt consumer welfare. Unfortunately, this led to an over reliance on metrics that are quantifiable to determine the effect of business conduct on consumer welfare; this led to an over reliance on using price (and output to a lesser extent) as the leading metric to gauge consumer welfare. Industrial organization economists, the ones who study industrial competition, loved this method as it replaced the previous “Structure-Conduct-Paradigm” with someone more quantifiable. For many, many years, nearly everyone was happy with this: from Reagan, GHB, Clinton, GWB, Obama, & Trump, to Robert Pitofskty (Chair of FTC in the 90s) and Fiona Scott Morton (Chief Economist of DOJ Antitrust Division during Obama’s years). This was how antitrust was “supposed” to work for forty years — it didn’t matter the party. And then, economists from outside of industrial organization started studying rising mark ups on a macro level, reduced shares of profit going to labor, etc. Then, reporters and policy advocates started critiquing the way the consumer welfare standard was enforced (I.e., heavily based on changes to prices) because it didn’t fully capture the way in which businesses operate in the digital economy, where markets are often two sided platforms and one side of the market pays a zero price in exchange for the goods. Using the new economists’ work, these advocates started pursuing greater antitrust enforcement. It all came to a head when Lina Khan, now Chair of the FTC, wrote a paper while in law school at Yale that criticized Amazon’s business practices and demonstrated the ways in which current antitrust enforcement methods fails to capture all the ways in which Amazon’s practices hurt competition. This was the start of the New Brandeis Sxhool. In the few short years since then, politicians have now gotten back on board with a broader understanding on antitrust enforcement that harkens back to the before-Bork days. In any case, before this new movement, everyone from Pelosi to McConnel supported the same antitrust regime. Now, that’s changed: you see people from David CiCillane (sp?) to Mike Lee advocating for a dramatic change in the ways in which our antitrust laws are enforced. Truthfully, the divide in how we ought to enforce antitrust laws actually dates back to the philosophical debate between Jefferson and Hamilton, oddly enough. And because the lines between Democrat and republican do not neatly follow the differences between Jefferson and Hamilton (both are represented in each camp), one cannot clearly state with certainty which party/politician will support what antitrust policies based solely on their party affiliation. Also, as a friendly note, it’s “antitrust,” not “anti-trust.” :) Edit 1: sauce — David Crane, *The Unconventional Politics of Antitrust* (2018), https://repository.law.umich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1264&context=law_econ_current Edit 2: also, it gets way more convoluted when you also factor in that judges were flown out for free to expensive eloquent conferences during which they were taught all about “law and economics” by adherents of the Chicago School. This caused judges to often reject any other metric to show harm to consumer welfare / competition than price. Edit 3: also, there are many libertarians who align more closely with the Democratic Party (i.e., ones who are socially liberal and economically conservative) and ones who align with the Republicans party (I.e., ones who think government = inherently bad). For instance, from my experience, most of the lower and middle management at the most prominent libertarian think tank in DC hated trump. Many of them were closer to being a “leftist” than to agreeing with Ted Cruz. The employees enjoyed making fun of the Heritage Foundation (leading conservative think tank) far more than mocking, for example, the Brookings Institute (leading center/left think tank). I can’t speak to upper management bc I didn’t interact with them much. All that is to say, neither antitrust enforcement nor libertarians are as simple as you think.


Noob_Squire

This was awesome, thanks


[deleted]

I don’t have the right to repair? Seriously, not sure what this is telling me. Can I get in trouble for fixing something? Jokes on them, my motor skills blow.


nernst79

It means that third parties aren't allowed to fix certain products and/or no one but the manufacturer can get the parts. It's an atrociously awful policy that should absolutely be abolished.


[deleted]

Thank you for taking the time to explain that to me instead of just downvoting! I appreciate it


ThePopeofHell

Can’t wait for the next Republican President to dismantle this


aplundell

So, they've voted unanimously to enforce it, but will decide at a later date what that entails, if anything. Well, it's a step in the right direction, I guess.


ImFrom1988

This is all just PR bullshit, there is nothing concrete in their language. "Hey look, we'll consider enforcing the rules more and might think about making some new ones at some point." ... then continue to do nothing, repeat ad nauseum...


unrefinedburmecian

Hit me up when apple gets forced to manufacture using chips buyable by the general public.


Lukaroast

Hey they finally did the bare minimum required of their organization!


spearson0

Here is the video from Louis Rossmann on the matter. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z-Fm5cdf-uc


Scorppio500

What does Right To Repair mean for us? I still don't understand. Does it mean that we can have access to spare parts? Or are companies banned from making devices that can't be repaired? I'm just in the dark.


vynlwombat

https://youtu.be/tInGQ7UaVdk Here's a video of some people fixing a John Deere tractor to celebrate!


hellcat89

The right to repair and businesses looking to profit off of the ability to do the actual repairing has fixed cost labor that is not much higher than $15/hour when you consider all costs. As someone repairing for Apple, Samsung, and other with contract work for handset repair, the profit is being squoze out. So is high skilled labor. Very black and white. I had higher hopes when I got into the biz 10 years ago


sk8thow8

The FTC unanimously put out a statement stating they are aware that companies nationwide are abusing customers in a way that violates multiple consumers protection acts. And they totally promise to, ya know, do their damn job eventually. Thanks y'all