What is Right to Repair?
To nobody’s surprise, consumer electronics make up a significant segment of the global economy. In 2021 alone, the worldwide revenue for consumer electronics reached $690.5 billion. Clearly, everyday electronic use has become commonplace globally. The expertise required to repair these devices has become invaluable as a result. But in many cases, measures implemented by electronics manufacturers have pushed consumers to completely replace their devices instead of repair them.
So what is “right to repair”? And how do debates over this issue affect the common consumer?
What is Right to Repair?
According to the Repair Association, the concept of Right to Repair includes:
- The right for product owners to repair their products or have them serviced at a repair facility of their choice
- The right to access the same diagnostics, information, and parts available to the dealer’s facilities
It has become more and more common for manufacturers to make repairing their devices difficult. These measures include proprietary screws, limited documentation, and even gluing parts together. Supporters of Right to Repair argue that products should be “designed to have their lifespan extended by regular maintenance and repair.” Repairs should be able to be made by their product owners or by repair technicians. In addition, the product lifespan includes its original owner and any subsequent owners after being refurbished and resold.
In order to accomplish this, owners and repair technicians require important technical information such as manuals, schematics, and circuit diagrams. Replacement parts and specialized tools should be made available in order to actually repair the device. In short, anybody wanting to repair their devices should have equal access to whatever materials are required to complete the repair.
Even though the concept of Right to Repair is straightforward, the opposing sides surrounding this issue are still far from coming to a compromise. In order to better understand the consequences of any potential legislation, it’s important to consider the perspectives of both its supporters and opponents.
Benefits of Right to Repair
Less Waste
Reducing waste and promoting the reuse of electronics is arguably the most obvious benefit of Right to Repair. In 2019, 53.6 million tons of electronic waste was generated worldwide. Massive amounts of this waste is sent to third-world countries, posing significant health risks to ill-fitted recycling center workers. The ability to repair electronics gives consumers the option to have their devices repaired instead of replacing it outright. Lack of resources and poor serviceability has resulted in consumers completely overlooking any possibility of restoring their damaged or defective device. Giving consumers and repair technicians the resources required to repair their devices also expands the market for used and refurbished devices. The demand for second hand devices would increase since consumers would be less concerned with common, serviceable faults.
Assists Underserviced Areas
In many cases, big brand manufacturers do not have enough financial incentives to open authorized repair shops in rural or low-density areas. Enabling third-party repair technicians to open their own repair shops would increase serviceability in historically under-serviced areas. As a result, customers would be able to avoid long drive times and overall turnaround time when arranging for a device to be repaired. This is an especially important benefit for tractor owners, who would incur a significant cost to their operations with their equipment out for repair.
Higher Savings for Customers
The Right to Repair saves consumers money from having to constantly upgrade and replace their equipment. The average American has 24 pieces of electronics in their home, and this figure will almost surely increase as we become more dependent on technology. Research has shown that repairing electronics instead of outright replacing them could save California families $4.3 billion per year. Furthermore, adopting a more “repair-centric” approach as a community lessens dependence on the global supply chain and strengthens the local economy.
Arguments Against Right to Repair
Security Risks
Companies against Right to Repair argue that giving consumers and repair technicians additional resources to service their equipment poses a security risk by making it more difficult for developers to protect against hackers. Giving these criminals increased access to devices may allow them to discover and exploit sensitive vulnerabilities. Furthermore, if a compromised device is connected to the Internet, it may also affect the networks of other users. Hackers may further cut into the bottom line of tech manufacturers by unlocking functions previously restricted behind a paywall.
Safety Risks
Allowing consumers to use third party equipment when servicing their devices can pose a safety risk if the equipment is faulty or improperly installed. In 2019, an Apple lobbyist delayed the passage of a Right to Repair bill by claiming that allowing consumers to repair their own phones may result in them accidentally puncturing their flammable lithium-ion batteries. Opposing experts have claimed that this is an incredibly unlikely event while pointing out that routine car maintenance also involves a certain amount of risk.
Intellectual Property Risks
Another argument against the Right to Repair movement is that it may present a risk to a company’s intellectual property. In simple terms, companies fear that making manuals, technical diagrams, and other resources easily accessible may lead to competitors stealing their ideas. Currently, companies commonly secure patents for their products and apply copyright laws to limit access to repair manuals. This concern was officially addressed by the Federal Trade Commission in 2021. Their report stated that although these measures promote innovation and competition in theory, their misuse in creating barriers to repair have harmed competition.
Reputational Risks
Lastly, opponents of Right to Repair legislation argue that allowing broader access to equipment opens companies up to liability and reputational risks. These critics claim that since they have less oversight over repairs, the safety risks that were previously mentioned could leave them liable to lawsuits and the loss of consumer confidence. In response, supporters of Right to Repair have argued that withholding crucial device information poses more of a safety risk than providing it. Notably, manufacturers were not able to provide the FCC with evidence supporting these concerns when it was requested.
Conclusion
To sum up, consumers and companies are still not close to reaching an understanding in regards to Right to Repair legislation. For consumers, these measures represent saving time, money, and the environment. On the other hand, companies will always look to safeguard their profits, reputation, and intellectual property. Right to Repair legislation can have a significant impact on businesses and consumers; stay up-to-date so that your business is not left behind.
Why Is This Published By A Business Phone Company?
Here at NoContractVoIP, we believe that your success is our success. And, since we specialize in business communication, we also want to help you communicate better. We create the communication systems that modern companies need to adapt to the hybrid and remote business models. To get the latest helpful content delivered to your inbox every month, subscribe to our newsletter here.
Looking for the finest stress-free custom business telephone systems? Contact us or call today at 866-550-0005!