
Nebraska farmers vote overwhelmingly for Right to Repair - howard941
https://uspirg.org/blogs/blog/usp/nebraska-farmers-vote-overwhelmingly-right-repair
======
cletus
What many people may not realize is just how long-lived a lot of farm
equipment is. There will be tractors out there still working that are 75 years
old and just keep getting repaired.

Obviously the manufacturers would like to sell those farmers tractors more
often than that or, in the very least, generate a revenue stream from existing
hardware and honestly that's what I see a lot of computing in vehicles as
being: nothing more than guaranteeing a revenue stream. It'll get marketed and
sold as "efficiency" but the manufacturers are capturing those (alleged)
efficiency gains by charging farmers to repair them.

This is also the case with GM crops too. For years, farmers cultivated seeds
and replanted them for the next year's harvest. GM crops are typically
constructed so they're not fertile beyond the current generation. Why? So the
farmer has to re-buy the seed stock from the manufacturer.

~~~
closetohome
The search for an ongoing revenue stream is one of the most destructive forces
in the tech industry. It leads to some very customer-hostile experiences.

~~~
lbotos
My fave is "subscription headphones":
[https://www.nuraphone.com/products/nuranow](https://www.nuraphone.com/products/nuranow)

~~~
Izkata
> Please note: NuraNow is _not_ a rent-to-own program — as long as your
> subscription stays active, the Nuraphone stays active too.

...isn't that straight worse than rent-to-own...?

~~~
blaser-waffle
Rent-to-Never-Own

------
ISL
Right to repair is increasingly hitting people outside of agrarian/industrial
contexts.

This month, Google shipped the last update for my Pixel phone. The hardware is
functional and in great shape, but I don't think there are any truly viable
ways for me to keep it secure. I have a tablet that long-ago met the same
fate. This is in the same world where I can 'apt-get update' my seven-year old
desktop and work with aplomb. It is my understanding that the primary blocker
to serious open-source kernel development on phones is closed-source drivers
for the phone hardware.

~~~
eastof
You can get really good support from Lineage OS for years to come. Been
running it on all my android devices for years. The flagship models like Pixel
usually have the best ongoing support.

~~~
thaumasiotes
> The flagship models like Pixel usually have the best ongoing support.

When was the last time you checked on this? As far as I can see, LineageOS
support is pretty much restricted to phones that have had it for years. There
is no hope if you have a recent phone. There's also no hope if you have an old
phone, unless it's _already_ supported.

For example, the most recent Pixel with support is... the Pixel. The original.

~~~
vorpalhex
Lineage depends on the community to issue device specific builds. For
instance, my dual sim traveling phone has no official Lineage support, but is
well supported through the community (and indeed, everything works quite
well).

I do wish Lineage had a way to promote and adopt community versions more
officially.

~~~
thaumasiotes
> I do wish Lineage had a way to promote and adopt community versions more
> officially.

They do. That's what official support is.
[https://wiki.lineageos.org/devices/](https://wiki.lineageos.org/devices/)

But they're a dead project.

~~~
yorwba
Last change 4 minutes ago:
[https://review.lineageos.org/q/status:open](https://review.lineageos.org/q/status:open)

Looks quite alive to me.

~~~
thaumasiotes
An active project that supports no hardware is still a dead project. If you
want to run LineageOS, that's not a realistic goal. It's a pipe dream.

~~~
yorwba
I run LineageOS on my phone. I _specifically_ bought the phone to run
LineageOS on it. It's only a pipe dream if you want to take any random phone
and change the operating system.

------
elihu
> The measure adopted by the Nebraska Farm Bureau laid out specific standards
> for any agreement or legislation:

> Right to Repair: Nebraska Farm Bureau supports the implementation of
> comprehensive right to repair legislation OR a negotiated written agreement
> between ag producers and original equipment manufacturers (OEMs). This
> legislation or agreement must:

....

> 4\. Differentiate between repair (the restoration of hardware to its
> original intended function) and illegal “modding,” (modification of original
> hardware to bypass environmental controls).

To be pedantic, there are mods that are neither restoring originally intended
functionality nor illegally bypassing environmental controls. I think that the
ability to add functionality that the original manufacturer never intended is
an important right that the owners of the equipment should have.

~~~
userbinator
The EPA has always had laws about environmental controls (whether people care
about them is a different issue, however...), so it's not something any new
laws should really need to cover.

~~~
elihu
Also, a user may conceivably want to convert diesel equipment to be electric.

------
coachtrotz
This is a big deal, not only for the farmers using machinery from
manufacturers like Deere, but for the rest of society who may now have some
precedent for right to repair.

~~~
azernik
This doesn't establish any precedent - it's not a law or regulation, just an
expression of the opinion of an association of farmers. In the equipment
market, they're effectively a consumers' rights organization (except B2B?
analogies to the consumer electronics market are inaccurate). Equivalent maybe
to large corporate purchasers or a Chamber of Commerce endorsing R2R.

(And also, as the article notes, the national Farm Bureau that the Nebraska
group belongs to has _already_ endorsed R2R!)

~~~
bshacklett
Perhaps not legal precedent, but many people may feel more comfortable pushing
for right to repair if they see "down to earth" farmers calling for it. The
ideal is much closer to entering the mainstream now that people other than
technophiles are calling for change.

~~~
asdff
Mainstream isn't fighting against right to repair, mainstream doesn't know the
conversation even exists.

------
Balanceinfinity
An economist would say that when considering buying this machinery the farmer
would also consider the cost and availability of repairs and that the
competition in the machinery market (the primary market) would police the
secondary market for repairs. In reality, this kind of policing is hard to
come by because of the time and expense of figuring out which company has the
cheapest lifecycle1 costs for the equipment (do you figure out how much the
blades will cost when you buy the razor). But the real reason is that lots of
people just don't think about the long-term costs attached to a purchase.

~~~
bduerst
When buying, if there are contractual strings attached to the use of the asset
then it's more of a lease purchase than actual asset purchase. As it is now,
farmers that are purchasing the asset are saying they want to use the asset as
they deem fit, including repairs.

~~~
Balanceinfinity
agreed. But when they purchased the machines, they should have looked at the
services terms and taken that into account when making their purchases. If
there's competition in the market (no idea) then presumably someone would try
to beat its competitors by offering a better service option (such as unlocked
diagnostics).

This issue went to the supreme court on the question of whether a manufacturer
could "monopolize" its aftermarket.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastman_Kodak_Co._v._Image_Tec...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastman_Kodak_Co._v._Image_Technical_Services,_Inc).

~~~
ShroudedNight
Link is missing the trailing period:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastman_Kodak_Co._v._Image_Tec...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastman_Kodak_Co._v._Image_Technical_Services,_Inc.).

FWIW, I had to add an extra period at the end to get the original one to get
included as part of the link.

~~~
detaro
another possible trick is urlencoding the dot as %2E:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastman_Kodak_Co._v._Image_Tec...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastman_Kodak_Co._v._Image_Technical_Services,_Inc%2E)

------
spazmoose
I've been paying attention to this for several years. I have an affinity for
John Deere, having grown up on a farm that had almost nothing but JD tractors,
but their heavy-handed approach to repair work in recent years is
unacceptable.

Farmers don't have the funds available to constantly be taking equipment (that
sometimes costs upwards of $200,000) to a dealership when it breaks down (and
it will break down).

~~~
MisterOctober
Yep! In fact, the orchardist Michael Phillips in "The Apple Grower"
specifically recommends older, purely-mechanical tractors for small / family
operations, largely for repair reasons

------
korabas
Honest question: what would be the rationale to prevent farmers from repairing
their machinery themselves instead of through the manufacturer (in this case,
Deere)?

To my mind, from the point of view of the "user" (i.e. the farmer), that can
be seen as somewhat monopolistic.

I tried to find similarities between this situation and that of Apple not
letting users tamper with their hardware, but it could be argued that the
latter makes a bit more sense given that most of their customers,
statistically speaking, are not necessarily tech enthusiasts who know their
way around hardware, but in the case of a farmer, I'd imagine most would be
perfectly capable of messing around with the internals of a tractor, albeit
some software-heavy parts would of course prove almost impossible to "repair".

EDIT: Grammar

~~~
kempbellt
I'm for right-to-repair, but I'll give it a shot in defense of manufacturers.
A lot of people assume it's just "evil-corp" greed. All of these reasons are
money based, but not necessarily malicious.

Liability: If a customer repairs a machine improperly and it causes more
problems, or someone gets hurt, it can paint the manufacturer in a bad light.
Many farmers know how to operate a tractor safely, but might not know how to
disassemble and repair one safely.

Cost of creating parts distribution channels: Having the parts to repair a
machine that you manufactured is cheap. Creating distribution channels to keep
track of, maintain inventory, price out, and deliver those parts to customers,
is a business in-and-of itself - and is not cheap to maintain. Many companies
do this, but it isn't cheap.

Cost of creating and updating documentation for customers: Sure, this might
seem tedious, but as a software engineer, I know this has an _actual_ cost.
How many companies have you worked at that have had perfect, up-to-date
information on the ins-and-outs of the software that's being written, while
it's still being written? Every company I've had has glaring blind-spots in
documentation. Also, as a hardware product, what happens when you make a minor
revision? You send out a whole new book on Tractor v3.8973 (has slightly
different brakes than 3.8972 because the brake manufacturer went out of
business and Deere needed to find another).

I'm not saying these are good reasons, but would make sense, in a market where
everyone wants everything as cheap as possible, or for free. Costs have to get
cut somewhere. A manufacturer isn't going to (or able to) give something away
for free, and stay in business. Ideally, competitive market forces would be
enough to pressure a company into making their products repairable. What we
are seeing is likely a byproduct of monopolistic laziness - there's no strong
incentive and it's easier to say "just send it to us and we'll fix it".

Just my two cents in defense of companies not being "evil" in nature, but
trying to give customers what they want and getting scolded for it.

~~~
steve19
> liability

When has any company been held liable for a customer modifying it.

> distribution channels

It might be annoying to create but they won't lose money on parts, it would
likely be a profit center, just not as big a center as doing the repairs
themselves.

They already distribute parts to dealers around the world who service the
tractors.

> documentation

They already have repair documentation that they distribute to dealerships
around the world.

Nobody is asking manufacturers to make huge sacrifices, just stop holding
customers ransom.

~~~
kempbellt
> When has any company been held liable for a customer modifying it.

All the time. Regardless, the liability is to their brand. If someone hears
that a John Deere tractor blew up and set a field on fire, they avoid the
brand. Even if it was caused by an improper repair.

> They already distribute parts to dealers around the world who service the
> tractors.

Just guessing here, but I imagine they do this in bulk to local service
centers, via a regular distribution chain (on a semi-truck to many service
centers) to manage cost. Distributing a part to an individual, or service
centers they don't own, would require remodeling their distribution chain. My
point is, it's doable, but not cheap, and customers will end up paying for
this convenience in the price of the product.

> They already have repair documentation that they distribute to dealerships
> around the world.

That are used internally... Are your internal docs customer friendly enough to
help them repair the most minute problem?

Like I said, I am for right-to-repair and I'd like to see manufacturers move
towards these types of models, but it's typically basic market forces that
cause manufacturers to act the way they do. Unless I see evidence that someone
consciously chose the "No, lets screw over our customers for more money"
option, I'm not going to assume mal-intent and start screaming "they're
holding customers ransom!" from the hilltops.

~~~
steve19
> All the time.

Then I am sure you can give us some recent examples in the media where the
manufacturer is blamed for bad modifications by users.

If I pour a gallon of gasoline on a tractor and set it on fire, and the media
reported "man sets farm on fire after torching a tractor", no tractor buyer is
going to blame John Deere.

Your argument relies on the false premise that informed consumers (tractor
operating farmers) would react negitivly to a brand if something happened
involving a modified tractor. When in reality farmers are crying out to be
able to repair and mod their tractors.

Compare to the tech industry. How often do PC gamers mod CPUs out of spec and
end up shortening thr lifespan, or killing them? All the time. Nobody blames
Intel.

> That are used internally... Are your internal docs customer friendly enough
> to help them repair the most minute problem?

Have you seen car repair manuals? They are very detailed and complete and
third party dealers have access to them.

------
squish78
This is excellent news, and good awareness for the ag sector.

The most existential threat to human survival is the consolidation of the farm
sector. If any industry needs to be decentralized (for the sake of resiliency)
it's agriculture.

We don't want to create single points of failure in the food supply

Urban USA doesn't can't comprehend the fact that famine is a logistical
possibility if finance/tech fucks up farming.

~~~
jay_kyburz
Many people will argue that finance / tech have already fucked up farming.

~~~
squish78
I would agree, but we're not yet to the point of massive famine and crop
failures - although it seems closer year after year. Every farmer I talk to is
worn out and tired of the bullshit.

~~~
jay_kyburz
I've often wondered if our government has some massive stores of grain
somewhere to feed the nation for a few years in the event of a near total crop
failure. Seems irresponsible not to have it.

Update: I sometimes wonder what it would take for me to have a year of food in
reserve here at home, but I worry that its just the crazy Prepper in me trying
to come out.

~~~
skinkestek
> but I worry that its just the Prepper in me trying to come out.

Fixed it for you :-)

There's nothing crazy with a little prepping, is it? Many of the practices are
even recommended around here (stock up on food with long shelf life, keep
clean water around, some iodine, a battery powered radio etc)

~~~
squish78
There’s nothing wrong with a little prepping but you have to take that to the
scenario’s logical conclusion. What happens if you run out of supplies and
there is no deus ex machina narrative and you are faced with starvation.

~~~
jay_kyburz
The hard part will be deciding when to pick up the family and move somewhere
with a climate conducive to farming. I have a nice big block now, but live in
a very arid area and rely on civilisation to deliver water to my house.

------
wiremine
Disclaimer: I'm a VP for an IoT software company. I also grew up in farming
communities.

I'm all for the right to repair, but I'm concerned we're creating a bit of
false hope for famers. As more and more software gets injected into the
equipment, "fixing" things requires touching both the physical devices and the
software.

Obviously, the right to repair for non-software related problems is easy to
understand.

I'm wondering, however, how the current proposals handle software fixes or
mixed use cases (software/hardware fixes)?

~~~
trenning
Look to the automotive industry then. I owned a shop as a mechanic for several
years working on euro cars mainly as well as a lot of track cars. The software
in cars has gotten insanely advanced, and yet independent shops are still able
to service cars because there's support from 3rd parties on diagnostic
equipment from companies like Snap-on who make diagnostic equipment.

Look at the auto enthusiast market for standalone ECUs that have been common
for years. ECUs in modern cars are black boxes that are reverse engineered for
aftermarket purposes. Software isn't a wall that can't be breached.

~~~
hathawsh
Is communication with the ECU encrypted in some cars? Will it be in the
future? If that happens, it will become much harder to replace components with
aftermarket devices.

~~~
bdamm
It seems to me that it must be, since we're going to have self driving cars
depending on all the components in the car working within a tight
specification. How can manufacturers assure that the customer's car is still
safe and won't randomly kill people or become weaponized? This is presumably a
liability issue, and obviously a marketing issue as well. (And instead of
"encrypted" I read "authenticated".) Does right to repair also come with
feature reduction? By this I mean... go ahead and fix your car and put in
whatever components you want, but know that as soon as you put in non-official
parts, the car won't drive itself any more.

------
t34543
I’m so thankful this has finally come to be. I’m not sure what power the
American Farm Bureau has, though. Will this become law?

~~~
spazmoose
I would say that there's a high probability of it becoming law. Politicians in
Ag heavy states, like Nebraska, Iowa, Wisconsin, etc. are much more likely to
listen to AFB, and if there's enough of a push, it could absolutely lead to
new laws.

------
Ididntdothis
My only concern is that this may be restricted to farmers while it’s a much
more general issue. We don’t need more laws specific for an industry.

~~~
squish78
Farmers create the one product you can't live without

------
yobananaboy
I'm shocked someone actually voted no. What would their justification for that
vote be? Legit curious if they had a proper argument, didn't understand the
issue, or if it was some type of corporate influence.

~~~
nwallin
They might be running old equipment whose only electronic equipment is the
spark plugs and headlights. The people who don't upgrade old equipment tend to
fall very heavily in the "if it ain't broke don't fix it" camp, and this
applies equally to legislation as well as farm equipment.

~~~
sokoloff
If it's diesel, they won't even have spark plugs... (They'll have a starter
motor and likely a generator/alternator, though for both gas and diesel.)

------
duxup
I wonder if it is like in Minnesota where there is rural support for right to
repair...but they vote for representatives who oppose it?

------
supernova87a
So, in looking at this from not just the "this year" problem point of view,
but a "how do we set up society" point of view:

What is the failing here that our current system doesn't address and we need
to correct it with these one-off bills?

Why is it that the farmers can't make the right choices or put pressure on the
manufacturers (by not buying their stuff if they don't agree with it) to make
the equipment easily maintainable?

If farmers are choosing with full information to value the cost more than
maintainability, why is it a problem that rises to having to put in a right-
to-repair bill? Haven't they made their choice clear? If the farmers wanted to
start an equipment company that served their needs as this bill seeks to do,
they are free to do that in this environment.

I'm not sure why people's clear choice needs to be counteracted with a patch
on the consequences of their choice.

------
Neil44
Why does John Deere not simply offer the best service and repair facility in
an open market in order to win the revenue stream? This was always a land grab
for easy profits.

------
shrimpx
In the limit this doesn't seem like a forward-looking/future-proof move. The
gap between technology and consumers is naturally widening as tech becomes
more powerful and useful. E.g. smaller scale hardware, more and smaller
sensors, complex AI, autonomy. Machinery will self-disable if you tamper with
it, for your safety. To continue to provide/enforce right to repair you'd have
to insist that technology needs to remain dumb.

------
kevindong
> 3\. Include ALL OEM equipment, regardless of age, model, or years in use at
> the time of the effective date.

To me, that clause seems to be overly broad since I'm interpreting it to mean
that the manufacturers have to indefinitely support all of their products.

If it's limited to all equipment that the OEM is willing to sell to at least
one entity, then I'd say it's perfectly reasonable.

~~~
tzs
I believe that it is meant to be interpreted in conjunction with the item
above it on the list:

> 2\. Guarantee farmer/repair technician access to the identical information,
> parts, and tools that are available to dealerships. These items must be
> fairly and reasonably priced (taking into account both small and large
> producers) and be delivered in a timely manner.

They could stop providing information, parts, and tool for old models, but
only if they also no longer provide the information, parts, and tools to their
dealers.

------
arminiusreturns
The right to repair in a computer age requires the right to root. This is the
biggest sticking point for me, and why I still think open source is the
future, and in particular copyleft open source that doesn't allow itself to be
tivoized, which is why I have spent years making the vast majority of my
stacks gpl or gpl compat.

------
acd
This is definitely the right step to take. We have global warming of course we
should repair things in order to utilize them longer. This will benefit the
environment and also hopefully farmers and consumers.

Our grandparents stuff was made to last a lifetime we have something to
relearn from that.

------
pretendscholar
Off topic but if I wanted some info on farming for hackers where would I look?
Lets say I wanted gis data on how well a given crop grows on a given spot on
earth or how to back together a set of crops/livestock that promote topsoil
growth.

------
someisaac
This reminds me of GNU GPL - Right to modify the software I bought.

------
bryanrasmussen
Thinking of who wouldn't vote for right to repair I can only come up with:

1\. leaders of companies that would be adversely affected by right to repair
2\. perhaps employees of same companies but that seems iffy as I doubt the
adverse effects would be so great as to threaten employment. 3\. People who
actually think that although it would be to their benefit to have a right to
repair there is an encroachment on a company's rights to make their products
as they seem fit by enforcing it.

Have I missed anyone? Because I think at that rate the population would vote
overwhelmingly for it if offered the choice.

~~~
sangnoir
> Have I missed anyone?

"Security-minded" folk who insist corporates should have full control of their
device via signed code from pre-boot, incidentally preventing "non-authorised"
replacement parts from working since repair is an attack vector, allegedly.

~~~
jandrese
What's the threat model for a tractor/harvester/etc...? Who wants to send a
piece of farm equipment on a very slow rampage via a complex and difficult
hack job? One that will be stopped if the manufacturer has any sense at all
and has physical kill switch.

Maybe sabotage from competing farmers? But that seems far less likely than the
owner wanting to maintain his equipment after the manufacturer has abandoned
it.

~~~
to11mtm
Devils advocating here, but they could always use the boogeyman of China
wanting to disrupt our exports via espionage.

Remember, doesn't have to be likely, just has to be a good headline.

~~~
jandrese
I feel like if spies were sneaking around farms disabling tractors they
probably wouldn't do it via a software thing. Lighting them on fire or shaped
charges on the engine seem harder to reverse.

~~~
to11mtm
Ehhh, I'm thinking more along the lines of Stuxnet here. i.e. could something
be done that doesn't necessarily destroy the attacked equipment itself, but
instead impacts the output in a negative (and hard to trace) form.

------
daveheq
But what about a corporation's right to replace? People having their right to
repair infringes on a corporation's right to make you replace your stuff.
You're stepping all over their rights by not wanting to be forced to have them
replace your broken stuff.

~~~
dreamingincode
Why do cooperations have the right to replace people's stuff? People bought it
and it's their own.

------
whazor
Farmers are hackers. There is a lot of technology on farms. You have
tractor's, irrigation systems, sensors, camera's, sometimes even drones.

------
galaxyLogic
Then what does this mean for Software? Right to repair your software. Isn't
that the same as Open Source?

------
SN76477
Queuing the lease only business model in 3...2...1...

