Telematics - Automotive IoT, connected car modules face rapid growth

Status
Not open for further replies.
   #41  

D-Dub

Verified VCDS User
Verified
Joined
Apr 17, 2014
Messages
620
Reaction score
630
Location
US 2014 GTI Drivers Edition/DSG
VCDS Serial number
C?ID=272151
The simple fact is, there will be a learning curve for everyone.

Just like there is a learning curve for 16 year olds who just got there permit or license.

Mistakes have happened, do happen, and will continue to happen.

This is all part of life, and just like the 16 year old driver, they will eventually learn to make less mistakes and to better avoid other people's mistakes.

this is to include anyone and everyone in the autonomous process, from programmers, to manufacturers, to law makers, to passengers and pedestrians, etc.
 
   #42  

vreihen

Verified VCDS User
Verified
Joined
Sep 6, 2014
Messages
5,043
Reaction score
6,395
Location
The Land of OCC, NY, USA
VCDS Serial number
C?ID=31688
a) Maybe we should cover all external surfaces in bubble wrap.

I once gave a roll of bubble wrap as a wedding gift, with a note to the newly-married couple to be safe on their wedding night..... :D
 
   #43  

Bruce

Active Member
Staff member
Ross-Tech Employee
Joined
Jan 30, 2014
Messages
3,191
Reaction score
5,171
Location
Near Philadelphia, PA, USA
VCDS Serial number
--------
In case those responding to this thread are looking for articles and such on Telematics and Autonomous cars, I receive a weekly updates from Babcox. To sign up, go to their website:

Telematics Talk: http://www.telematicstalk.com/
 
Last edited:
   #44  

D-Dub

Verified VCDS User
Verified
Joined
Apr 17, 2014
Messages
620
Reaction score
630
Location
US 2014 GTI Drivers Edition/DSG
VCDS Serial number
C?ID=272151
   #47  

Jack@European_Parts

Gone But Not Forgotten
Professional VCDS User
Joined
Jan 29, 2014
Messages
21,923
Reaction score
9,308
Location
Montgomery, NY, USA
VCDS Serial number
C?ID=57337
Driver blames Tesla's autopilot feature for crash into marsh

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/driver-blames-teslas-autopilot-feature-crash-marsh-48680359
A suburban Twin Cities man is blaming the autopilot feature of his luxury electric car for a crash that sent him and four passengers into a central Minnesota marsh.David Clark, of Eden Prairie, says he was driving his Tesla near Willmar Saturday when the car suddenly accelerated and overturned in the marsh.
The Star Tribune ( http://strib.mn/2uvbQt2 ) reports Kandiyohi County sheriff's deputies arrived to find the Tesla on its roof. Clark and the four passengers suffered minor injuries.
Federal investigators reviewed a May 2016 crash near Gainesville, Florida, in which a Tesla driver using the autopilot feature was killed in a collision with a semi. Investigators concluded there was no safety defect involved in the crash.
———
Information from: Star Tribune, http://www.startribune.com


 
   #48  

Bruce

Active Member
Staff member
Ross-Tech Employee
Joined
Jan 30, 2014
Messages
3,191
Reaction score
5,171
Location
Near Philadelphia, PA, USA
VCDS Serial number
--------
Trying to take this thread back to the original intent I had for discussion - that was the collection and use of data and it's impact on diagnostic tools and tool manufacturers, today's article in Telematic news just shows the emotion roiling in this discussion:

http://www.telematicstalk.com/oems-...motive-aftermarket/?eid=284836110&bid=1813376

OEMs Hoarding Telematics Data: ‘Doomsday Scenario’ for Automotive Aftermarket

If the automakers convince federal legislators that they should be the ultimate gatekeepers of telematics data, it would be a crushing blow to the automotive aftermarket, participants in a recent Auto Care Association webinar asserted.

“I don’t care what step in the aftermarket you are – whether you work in distribution, manufacturing or sales – you will be affected by the car manufacturer being successful in convincing the government that they need to control this [data],” said Mike Fitzgerald, executive vice president and general manager of Irvine, Calif.-based Innova Electronics Corp., which makes aftermarket diagnostic equipment. “It is probably the worst thing that could happen to the aftermarket in one single piece of legislation.” If vehicles “truly become self-diagnosing cars,” Fitzgerald added, “you could virtually eliminate an entire tool industry.”

Fitzgerald referred to the threat as a “doomsday scenario.”

While Colin Sutherland, executive vice president of sales and marketing for Oakville, Ontario-based Geotab, called this a “transformative time” for telematics technology, he echoed the concern that the automakers are coveting the data transmitted through vehicles’ OBD II ports. “The reality is that the car manufacturers are trying to do everything in their strategic vision to restrict our access to diagnosing cars using the tools that they produce and provide for themselves,” Sutherland said.


With the average age of vehicles at 11.6 years old – right in the sweet spot of the automotive aftermarket – the ability to have real-time access to data on vehicle health and performance is a massive opportunity for repair shops, parts suppliers and other aftermarket stakeholders, Sutherland added.

“There’s tremendous reason why we want to preserve our rights to have aftermarket technology connect to the vehicle to identify that a vehicle needs to be repaired and to then schedule that vehicle for service at a local garage,” Sutherland said. “But the OEMs obviously don’t see that in their roadmaps. It’s probably quite the opposite.

“ … The mindset is quite troubling that the OEM is valuing the data coming from the [OBD II] port, and if there’s money to be made in the data, you can be sure that the OEM is going to try to create a method to be part of that financial transaction somehow through restricting access instead of making it available.”

Dwayne Myers, co-owner of Dynamic Automotive, a multi-shop operation in Frederick County, Md., asserted that accessing real-time data “is essential to diagnosing almost any problem.”
“We need that real-time data – while the car’s moving many times – and we spend a lot of time test-driving because you have to put [the vehicle] in a real-life circumstance,” Myers said. “The car doesn’t break sitting still. Usually it breaks while it’s being driven. So we need access to that data. Without that access, we would be very limited on the repairs we do, which would trickle up to what we buy from our parts suppliers and the manufacturers, because we can’t fix what we’re not allowed to get information on. You need that information to get the right conclusion and the right diagnosis.”
 
   #49  

Jack@European_Parts

Gone But Not Forgotten
Professional VCDS User
Joined
Jan 29, 2014
Messages
21,923
Reaction score
9,308
Location
Montgomery, NY, USA
VCDS Serial number
C?ID=57337
Sorry Bruce.... I thought that the controversy to the subject, would help bring interest in the technology & to be observed more because of it, not just means to take a shit on it.

I will follow up on this to add academics, rather than just bad news forward.
 
Last edited:
   #50  

Jack@European_Parts

Gone But Not Forgotten
Professional VCDS User
Joined
Jan 29, 2014
Messages
21,923
Reaction score
9,308
Location
Montgomery, NY, USA
VCDS Serial number
C?ID=57337
Uwe....& Bruce, just what has RT done to address these concerns outside this thread?
 
   #51  

Uwe

Benevolent Dictator
Administrator
Joined
Jan 29, 2014
Messages
49,406
Reaction score
33,867
Location
USA
VCDS Serial number
HC100001
   #52  

Jack@European_Parts

Gone But Not Forgotten
Professional VCDS User
Joined
Jan 29, 2014
Messages
21,923
Reaction score
9,308
Location
Montgomery, NY, USA
VCDS Serial number
C?ID=57337
Not sure exactly what you're asking, Jack.

-Uwe-


http://www.telematicstalk.com/oems-h...10&bid=1813376

What agencies have been contacted or legislative branches to inform them of how this effects a USA or Worldwide aftermarket scan tool business's and how is the government going to protect you?

or

Like the NFIB or Chamber of no commerce?

Has ASE SAE and NASTF been put in the loop?

Is it worth sending a response to this administrator Josh Cable ( http://www.telematicstalk.com/author/josh-cable/ )

or

Have you had a read here..........?

https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/fastact/

https://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/research-and-analysis/technology/study-impact-telematics-system-safe-and-fuel-efficient-driving

Study of the Impact of a Telematics System on Safe and Fuel-efficient Driving in Trucks

Goal

To conduct a field operational test (FOT) of truck-based fuel and safety monitoring systems to determine if there are any safety benefits associated with driving behavior that optimizes fuel economy.
Background

Section 5503 of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) set aside funding for the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) to study the application of wireless technology to improve the safety and efficiency of trucking operations. The resulting study, called the Motor Carrier Efficiency Study (MCES), consists of five program elements, one of which is truck-based fuel monitoring and operations management. In September 2009, FMCSA and a contractor, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, awarded a contract to test and evaluate benefits of a fuel monitoring and operations management system.
Summary

A Baltimore-based motor carrier fleet volunteered 46 new Volvo trucks, each equipped with Volvo Link and Green Roads Technology, for the FOT. Volvo Link Technology gathers "fuel economy" data. Green Roads Technology gathers "safety" data (data on when and where hard braking, sudden acceleration, etc., occurs). The trucks were comprised of 24 day cabs and 22 sleeper cabs. Each group was further split evenly into the control and pilot groups; thus, there were 12 control day cabs, 12 pilot day cabs, 11 control sleeper cabs, and 11 pilot sleeper cabs. The FOT consisted of five stages. Stage 1 was the baseline data collection period during which all drivers were unaware that their driving was monitored. In Stage 2, drivers in the pilot groups were made aware of being monitored and provided with feedback. In Stage 3, drivers in the pilot groups were provided with feedback through the in-cab display. In Stage 4, drivers in the pilot groups were scored and coached if their scores were unsatisfactory. In Stage 5, drivers in the pilot group were provided incentives.
Outcomes

The contractor submitted a final reportconfirming that there are safety benefits associated with driving behavior that optimizes fuel economy for a truck.

Milestones

This project is completed. Period of performance was September 27, 2010–December 31, 2011.
Funding

FY 2010: $471,992 - Federal Highway Administration—Section 5503 MCES
Status

The final report was published and can be accessed at http://ntl.bts.gov/lib/51000/51800/...Impact_of-a_Telematics_System_Full_Report.pdf.
Contractor

KLG Engineering



Updated: Thursday, January 8, 2015


https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/fastact/factsheets/itsprogramfs.cfm
Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) Program

Fiscal year
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
Authorization
$100 M
$100 M
$100 M
$100 M
$100 M
Program purpose

The FAST Act continues the ITS program, which provides for the research, development, and operational testing of Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) aimed at solving congestion and safety problems, improving operating efficiencies in transit and commercial vehicles, and reducing the environmental impact of growing travel demand. Guided by the required five-year ITS Strategic Plan, the program is currently focused on significantly reducing crashes through advanced safety systems based on interoperable wireless communications among surface transportation vehicles of all types, traffic signals, other infrastructure systems, pedestrians, wireless devices, and automated vehicle systems.
Statutory citations

FAST Act § 6002, 6005-6010; 23 U.S.C. 512-519
Funding features

Type of budget authority

Contract authority from the Highway Account of the Highway Trust Fund. Funds are available until expended. Funds are subject to the overall Federal-aid obligation limitation and the obligation limitation associated with these funds is available for four fiscal years. Funds are not transferrable except as otherwise provided in the FAST Act. [FAST Act § 6002(c)]
Set-asides

Of the total authorized for the ITS Program, the FAST Act requires DOT to set aside an unspecified amount for each of FYs 2016-2020 as one component of the $60 million in funding for the Advanced Transportation and Congestion Management Technologies Deployment Program (see separate fact sheet). [FAST Act § 6004]
Federal share

The Federal share of a project or activity carried out with funds authorized under section 6002 of the FAST Act shall be 80% unless expressly specified by the FAST Act (including amendments by the FAST Act) or otherwise determined by the Secretary. [FAST Act § 6002(c)(1)]
Eligible activities

The FAST Act continues without change the activities eligible under the ITS Program but limits the ability to use program funds for the construction of physical surface transportation infrastructure (see below).
Program features

Project selection

Freight-related program goal

The FAST Act adds to the ITS Program a new goal: enhancement of the national freight system and support to national freight policy goals. [FAST Act § 6005; 23 U.S.C. 514(a)(6)]
Research related to disruption of connected and automated vehicles

The FAST Act requires DOT, under the ITS Program, to implement activities that assist in the development of cybersecurity research to help prevent hacking, spoofing, and disruption of connected and automated transportation vehicles. [FAST Act § 6006; 23 U.S.C. 514(b)(10)]
Infrastructure development

The FAST Act states that funds made available for operational tests of ITS under the ITS Program—

  • shall be used primarily for the development of ITS infrastructure, equipment, and systems; and
  • to the maximum extent practicable, shall not be used for the construction of physical surface transportation infrastructure unless the construction is incidental and critically necessary to the implementation of an ITS project. [FAST Act § 6010; 23 U.S.C. 519]

April 2016

https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/37/201.40
37 CFR 201.40 - Exemptions to prohibition against circumvention.



prev | next
§ 201.40 Exemptions to prohibition against circumvention.
(a)General. This section prescribes the classes of copyrighted works for which the Librarian of Congress has determined, pursuant to 17 U.S.C. 1201(a)(1)(C) and (D), that noninfringing uses by persons who are users of such works are, or are likely to be, adversely affected. The prohibition against circumvention of technological measures that control access to copyrighted works set forth in 17 U.S.C. 1201(a)(1)(A) shall not apply to such users of the prescribed classes of copyrighted works.
(b)Classes of copyrighted works. Pursuant to the authority set forth in 17 U.S.C. 1201(a)(1)(C) and (D), and upon the recommendation of the Register of Copyrights, the Librarian has determined that the prohibition against circumvention of technological measures that effectively control access to copyrighted works set forth in 17 U.S.C. 1201(a)(1)(A) shall not apply to persons who engage in noninfringing uses of the following classes of copyrighted works:
(1) Motion pictures (including television shows and videos), as defined in 17 U.S.C. 101, where circumvention is undertaken solely in order to make use of short portions of the motion pictures for the purpose of criticism or comment in the following instances:
(i) For use in documentary filmmaking,
(A) Where the circumvention is undertaken using screen-capture technology that appears to be offered to the public as enabling the reproduction of motion pictures after content has been lawfully acquired and decrypted, or
(B) Where the motion picture is lawfully made and acquired on a DVD protected by the Content Scramble System, on a Blu-ray disc protected by the Advanced Access Control System, or via a digital transmission protected by a technological measure, and where the person engaging in circumvention reasonably believes that screen-capture software or other non-circumventing alternatives are unable to produce the required level of high-quality content;
(ii) For use in noncommercial videos (including videos produced for a paid commission if the commissioning entity's use is noncommercial),
(A) Where the circumvention is undertaken using screen-capture technology that appears to be offered to the public as enabling the reproduction of motion pictures after content has been lawfully acquired and decrypted, or
(B) Where the motion picture is lawfully made and acquired on a DVD protected by the Content Scramble System, on a Blu-ray disc protected by the Advanced Access Control System, or via a digital transmission protected by a technological measure, and where the person engaging in circumvention reasonably believes that screen-capture software or other non-circumventing alternatives are unable to produce the required level of high-quality content;
(iii) For use in nonfiction multimedia e-books offering film analysis,
(A) Where the circumvention is undertaken using screen-capture technology that appears to be offered to the public as enabling the reproduction of motion pictures after content has been lawfully acquired and decrypted, or
(B) Where the motion picture is lawfully made and acquired on a DVD protected by the Content Scramble System, on a Blu-ray disc protected by the Advanced Access Control System, or via a digital transmission protected by a technological measure, and where the person engaging in circumvention reasonably believes that screen-capture software or other non-circumventing alternatives are unable to produce the required level of high-quality content;
(iv) By college and university faculty and students, for educational purposes,
(A) Where the circumvention is undertaken using screen-capture technology that appears to be offered to the public as enabling the reproduction of motion pictures after content has been lawfully acquired and decrypted, or
(B) In film studies or other courses requiring close analysis of film and media excerpts where the motion picture is lawfully made and acquired on a DVD protected by the Content Scramble System, on a Blu-ray disc protected by the Advanced Access Control System, or via a digital transmission protected by a technological measure, and where the person engaging in circumvention reasonably believes that screen-capture software or other non-circumventing alternatives are unable to produce the required level of high-quality content;
(v) By faculty of massive open online courses (MOOCs) offered by accredited nonprofit educational institutions to officially enrolled students through online plat forms (which plat forms themselves may be operated for profit), for educational purposes, where the MOOC provider through the online platform limits transmissions to the extent technologically feasible to such officially enrolled students, institutes copyright policies and provides copyright informational materials to faculty, students and relevant staff members, and applies technological measures that reasonably prevent unauthorized further dissemination of a work in accessible form to others or retention of the work for longer than the course session by recipients of a transmission through the platform, as contemplated by 17 U.S.C. 110(2),
(A) Where the circumvention is undertaken using screen-capture technology that appears to be offered to the public as enabling the reproduction of motion pictures after content has been lawfully acquired and decrypted, or
(B) In film studies or other courses requiring close analysis of film and media excerpts where the motion picture is lawfully made and acquired on a DVD protected by the Content Scramble System, on a Blu-ray disc protected by the Advanced Access Control System, or via a digital transmission protected by a technological measure, and where the person engaging in circumvention reasonably believes that screen-capture software or other non-circumventing alternatives are unable to produce the required level of high-quality content;
(vi) By kindergarten through twelfth-grade educators, including of accredited general educational development (GED) programs, for educational purposes,
(A) Where the circumvention is undertaken using screen-capture technology that appears to be offered to the public as enabling the reproduction of motion pictures after content has been lawfully acquired and decrypted, or
(B) In film studies or other courses requiring close analysis of film and media excerpts where the motion picture is lawfully made and acquired on a DVD protected by the Content Scramble System, or via a digital transmission protected by a technological measure, and where the person engaging in circumvention reasonably believes that screen-capture software or other non-circumventing alternatives are unable to produce the required level of high-quality content;
(vii) By kindergarten through twelfth-grade students, including those in accredited general educational development (GED) programs, for educational purposes, where the circumvention is undertaken using screen-capture technology that appears to be offered to the public as enabling the reproduction of motion pictures after content has been lawfully acquired and decrypted; and
(viii) By educators and participants in nonprofit digital and media literacy programs offered by libraries, museums and other nonprofit entities with an educational mission, in the course of face-to-face instructional activities for educational purposes, where the circumvention is undertaken using screen-capture technology that appears to be offered to the public as enabling the reproduction of motion pictures after content has been lawfully acquired and decrypted.
(2) Literary works, distributed electronically, that are protected by technological measures that either prevent the enabling of read-aloud functionality or interfere with screen readers or other applications or assistive technologies,
(i) When a copy of such a work is lawfully obtained by a blind or other person with a disability, as such a person is defined in 17 U.S.C. 121; provided, however, that the rights owner is remunerated, as appropriate, for the price of the mainstream copy of the work as made available to the general public through customary channels, or
(ii) When such work is a nondramatic literary work, lawfully obtained and used by an authorized entity pursuant to 17 U.S.C. 121.
(3)
(i) Computer programs that enable the following types of wireless devices to connect to a wireless telecommunications network, when circumvention is undertaken solely in order to connect to a wireless telecommunications network and such connection is authorized by the operator of such network, and the device is a used device:
(A) Wireless telephone handsets (i.e., cellphones);
(B) All-purpose tablet computers;
(C) Portable mobile connectivity devices, such as mobile hotspots, removable wireless broadband modems, and similar devices; and
(D) Wearable wireless devices designed to be worn on the body, such as smartwatches or fitness devices.
(ii) A device is considered “used” for purposes of this exemption when it has previously been lawfully acquired and activated on the wireless telecommunications network of a wireless carrier.
(4) Computer programs that enable smartphones and portable all-purpose mobile computing devices to execute lawfully obtained software applications, where circumvention is accomplished for the sole purpose of enabling interoperability of such applications with computer programs on the smartphone or device, or to permit removal of software from the smartphone or device. For purposes of this exemption, a “portable all-purpose mobile computing device” is a device that is primarily designed to run a wide variety of programs rather than for consumption of a particular type of media content, is equipped with an operating system primarily designed for mobile use, and is intended to be carried or worn by an individual.
(5) Computer programs that enable smart televisions to execute lawfully obtained software applications, where circumvention is accomplished for the sole purpose of enabling interoperability of such applications with computer programs on the smart television.
(6) Computer programs that are contained in and control the functioning of a motorized land vehicle such as a personal automobile, commercial motor vehicle or mechanized agricultural vehicle, except for computer programs primarily designed for the control of telematics or entertainment systems for such vehicle, when circumvention is a necessary step undertaken by the authorized owner of the vehicle to allow the diagnosis, repair or lawful modification of a vehicle function; and where such circumvention does not constitute a violation of applicable law, including without limitation regulations promulgated by the Department of Transportation or the Environmental Protection Agency; and provided, however, that such circumvention is initiated no earlier than 12 months after the effective date of this regulation.
(7)

(i) Computer programs, where the circumvention is undertaken on a lawfully acquired device or machine on which the computer program operates solely for the purpose of good-faith security research and does not violate any applicable law, including without limitation the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act of 1986, as amended and codified in title 18, United States Code; and provided, however, that, except as to voting machines, such circumvention is initiated no earlier than 12 months after the effective date of this regulation, and the device or machine is one of the following:
(A) A device or machine primarily designed for use by individual consumers (including voting machines);
(B) A motorized land vehicle; or
(C) A medical device designed for whole or partial implantation in patients or a corresponding personal monitoring system, that is not and will not be used by patients or for patient care.
(ii) For purposes of this exemption, “good-faith security research” means accessing a computer program solely for purposes of good-faith testing, investigation and/or correction of a security flaw or vulnerability, where such activity is carried out in a controlled environment designed to avoid any harm to individuals or the public, and where the information derived from the activity is used primarily to promote the security or safety of the class of devices or machines on which the computer program operates, or those who use such devices or machines, and is not used or maintained in a manner that facilitates copyright infringement.
(8)
(i) Video games in the form of computer programs embodied in physical or downloaded formats that have been lawfully acquired as complete games, when the copyright owner or its authorized representative has ceased to provide access to an external computer server necessary to facilitate an authentication process to enable local gameplay, solely for the purpose of:
(A) Permitting access to the video game to allow copying and modification of the computer program to restore access to the game for personal gameplay on a personal computer or video game console; or
(B) Permitting access to the video game to allow copying and modification of the computer program to restore access to the game on a personal computer or video game console when necessary to allow preservation of the game in a playable form by an eligible library, archives or museum, where such activities are carried out without any purpose of direct or indirect commercial advantage and the video game is not distributed or made available outside of the physical premises of the eligible library, archives or museum.
(ii) Computer programs used to operate video game consoles solely to the extent necessary for an eligible library, archives or museum to engage in the preservation activities described in paragraph (i)(B).
(iii) For purposes of the exemptions in paragraphs (i) and (ii), the following definitions shall apply:
(A) “Complete games” means video games that can be played by users without accessing or reproducing copyrightable content stored or previously stored on an external computer server.
(B) “Ceased to provide access” means that the copyright owner or its authorized representative has either issued an affirmative statement indicating that external server support for the video game has ended and such support is in fact no longer available or, alternatively, server support has been discontinued for a period of at least six months; provided, however, that server support has not since been restored.
(C) “Local gameplay” means gameplay conducted on a personal computer or video game console, or locally connected personal computers or consoles, and not through an online service or facility.
(D) A library, archives or museum is considered “eligible” when the collections of the library, archives or museum are open to the public and/or are routinely made available to researchers who are not affiliated with the library, archives or museum.
(9) Computer programs that operate 3D printers that employ microchip-reliant technological measures to limit the use of feedstock, when circumvention is accomplished solely for the purpose of using alternative feedstock and not for the purpose of accessing design software, design files or proprietary data; provided, however, that the exemption shall not extend to any computer program on a 3D printer that produces goods or materials for use in commerce the physical production of which is subject to legal or regulatory oversight or a related certification process, or where the circumvention is otherwise unlawful.
(10) Literary works consisting of compilations of data generated by medical devices that are wholly or partially implanted in the body or by their corresponding personal monitoring systems, where such circumvention is undertaken by a patient for the sole purpose of lawfully accessing the data generated by his or her own device or monitoring system and does not constitute a violation of applicable law, including without limitation the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act of 1986 or regulations of the Food and Drug Administration, and is accomplished through the passive monitoring of wireless transmissions that are already being produced by such device or monitoring system.
(c)Persons who may initiate circumvention. To the extent authorized under paragraph (b) of this section, the circumvention of a technological measure that restricts wireless telephone handsets or other wireless devices from connecting to a wireless telecommunications network may be initiated by the owner of any such handset or other device, by another person at the direction of the owner, or by a provider of a commercial mobile radio service or a commercial mobile data service at the direction of such owner or other person, solely in order to enable such owner or a family member of such owner to connect to a wireless telecommunications network, when such connection is authorized by the operator of such network.
[ 65 FR 64574, Oct. 27, 2000, as amended at 68 FR 62018, Oct. 31, 2003; 71 FR 68479, Nov. 27, 2006; 74 FR 55139, Oct. 27, 2009; 75 FR 43839, July 27, 2010; 75 FR 47465, Aug. 6, 2010; 77 FR 65278, Oct. 26, 2012; 79 FR 50553, Aug. 25, 2014; 80 FR 65961, Oct. 28, 2015]
 
Last edited:
   #53  

Uwe

Benevolent Dictator
Administrator
Joined
Jan 29, 2014
Messages
49,406
Reaction score
33,867
Location
USA
VCDS Serial number
HC100001
What agencies have been contacted or legislative branches to inform them of how this effects a USA or Worldwide aftermarket scan tool business's and how is the government going to protect you?
Sorry Jack, I don't suffer under the delusion that the government exists to help or protect me or my business.

-Uwe-
 
   #54  

Jack@European_Parts

Gone But Not Forgotten
Professional VCDS User
Joined
Jan 29, 2014
Messages
21,923
Reaction score
9,308
Location
Montgomery, NY, USA
VCDS Serial number
C?ID=57337
Sorry Jack, I don't suffer under the delusion that the government exists to help or protect me or my business.

-Uwe-

That may very well be but if legislation isn't amended when needed it indeed could affect your business and what does it hurt to reach out to agencies to express an opinion?

I am not saying to let the government do battle for me or you but we do have to consider the consequences when we possibly ignore it.

The fact the government is in the place it is now, is due to people ignoring what laws have been actually passed!

When companies are allowed to become too big & where they just have so much more legal power fight or dictate a process & to create a loss before even going to court......... I think it should have consequences, so the little guys don't get muscled out.

I see it no differently than being able to carry a gun........and this as an alternate weapon.

Why should the rich or big business have all the legal guns?

That's why I am for regulation when written & "correctly"..........!
 
   #55  

D-Dub

Verified VCDS User
Verified
Joined
Apr 17, 2014
Messages
620
Reaction score
630
Location
US 2014 GTI Drivers Edition/DSG
VCDS Serial number
C?ID=272151
I am not saying to let the government do battle for me or you but we do have to consider the consequences when we possibly ignore it.

'All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.'

or 'Idle hands are the devil's workshop'

or 'Tell me, Mr. Anderson... what good is a phone call... if you're unable to speak?'

or something to that effect.

I'm sure RT has some form of legal representation, maybe it's worth putting them to work.
 
   #56  

Bruce

Active Member
Staff member
Ross-Tech Employee
Joined
Jan 30, 2014
Messages
3,191
Reaction score
5,171
Location
Near Philadelphia, PA, USA
VCDS Serial number
--------
Sorry Bruce.... I thought that the controversy to the subject, would help bring interest in the technology & to be observed more because of it, not just means to take a shit on it.

I will follow up on this to add academics, rather than just bad news forward.

As usual I begin with the apology for the length of this epistle!

Jack, my intent was not criticism... my concern is less about the technology of the autonomous car but more about how this connected environment changes the business of diagnostic tools and their manufacture. Some have argued this will have no effect on our business. I don't share that view. I see the OE's collecting data and selling access to it - including the data required to repair cars.

At a Collision Repair conference (CIC/SRCS) in Pittsburgh in June, I spent 1.5 hours speaking with Brian Herron, President of Drew Technologies and the newly elected President of the ETI (Equipment and Tool Institute, the organization that works between the tool manufactures and the OEs to smooth transfer of information). Brian shares my view and wonders where both our businesses may be in 5 years. His business is more aligned with the OEs because Drew Tech supplies the #1 J2534 tool - which enables the OE online systems for diagnostics. He attends hundreds of meetings a year he said and these days, not one meeting goes without talking about the impact of the Telematics and data collection from the cars of the future. Brian thinks that by 2020, most cars produced will have GSM technology to send the data from the car back to mother ship. Law will keep the DLC required for a while but he thinks the OEs will press to have it removed and have their online systems and data be the only means by which others obtain diagnostic info from the cars.

Some will say, what happens when the GSM stuff craps out and mother ship cannot speak to the car... I asked Brian what he thought would happen... He figures there will be a tool to keep the GSM data module talking... but it will not be a full vehicle diagnostic tool. Once the GSM is back up and the borg is reconnected to the collective, all things will be done via cloud on the mother load of servers at the OE's facility.

Backing these views at the same conference was a business guy I met ... was introduced by a mutual friend. Unfortunately, I have misplaced his business card. This guy asked me what I thought might happen with the collected data - a subject he is keenly interested in since he was called in as expert on data communications, data collection and who owns all that. He is a lawyer, retired, but stays active in only this area of automotive work. As I told him that I thought the OEs see a business model of selling data to repair guys, insurance guys, collision guys, and so on, he smiled. "Have you been to the meetings with the OEs?" My reply was no. He said, "You bet and the number they are putting on the value of this data for sale is astronomical." Yep, Telematics is not just about controlling the IP. It is about a new source of revenue.

To your questions Jack, to date RT has yet to determine a direction. We have not had consensus as to what we think may or may not happen. Even if we had consensus, what could or should a tool manufacturer do? Certainly we could express our opinions if we were members of the ETi, a point Brian Herron made. We are members of the AutoCare Association, who also has an arm trying to direct any legislative action for both the parts business and for the repair shops. Their membership is mostly manufacturers and warehouse distributors so their emphasis will be on the parts side. ASA has yet to weigh in with any information about how they plan to go. The ASA has long been known to work with the OEs and favor the OEs. The ETi is the only organization which could pull together enough weight to open the dialog with legislators.

Like Uwe, I don't take comfort from the idea of getting results from our government. Frankly, they are going to bow to the large OE unless like Right to Repair, a huge grass roots effort starts to get this telematics matter in front of the right people. In Right to Repair, those that organized in Massachusetts, managed to get enough traction to get the attention first of Massachusetts and then the Congress. They did turn things and I think they managed to help the average repair shop. This coming year, 2018, all OEs must have a version of their factory tool operating through a J2534 device providing affordable access to all repair shops. That is a direct result of Right To Repair.

My point is that sometimes, when the critical elements come together, a grass roots effort can change the actions without the government. The OEs didn't want to be forced by legislative action to release information about the repair of their cars. They feared loss of their IP. But, when faced with the backlash of the grass roots effort, they solved the problem using a MOU (Memorandum of Understanding) to which all parties agreed. No one party received in that MOU what they desired at the start. All received some of what they desired and it gave them a stake. All accepted the compromises for the good of all parties and they all walked away with a better understanding of the problems each face.

Like the issues for Right to Repair, the Telematics data collection is rattling cages. What should diagnostic tool manufactures do? Well, that depends on where things go. If indeed the data only goes to the mother ship (the OE), if indeed DLC connectors are removed, then the repair business is going to have to change and diagnostic tool manufactures will be forced to change their business model.

Jack, in closing, this is a great technology discussion. I frankly am glad so many choose to read and participate. The future is never easy to know. Preparing for what may come has to be part of the process for each individual and for each business. "The only constant in life is CHANGE." My dad taught me that and I must say, 61 years into this thing called life, not a day goes by where things have not changed... He also went on to say, "It's not change that is the problem. No. It is what you choose to do about the changes you have to live that determines the real direction of your attitude and your life." Dad was a wise man. Perhaps I should have listened to him more!
 
Last edited:
   #57  

Jack@European_Parts

Gone But Not Forgotten
Professional VCDS User
Joined
Jan 29, 2014
Messages
21,923
Reaction score
9,308
Location
Montgomery, NY, USA
VCDS Serial number
C?ID=57337
Bruce to date the biggest reason repair shops close or go out of business/retire is because they can't adapt and deal with "change".......as you said and your old man.

I like the grass roots idea don't get me wrong, but maybe getting active with a Congressman & Senators office of your State, IDK call me crazy maybe just maybe also be an additional "change" you guys embrace as part of the process?

I think personal data will be a field day for the lawyers on privacy and unlawful intrusions that identify a customer or their habits.
 
   #58  

D-Dub

Verified VCDS User
Verified
Joined
Apr 17, 2014
Messages
620
Reaction score
630
Location
US 2014 GTI Drivers Edition/DSG
VCDS Serial number
C?ID=272151
Bruce, thanks for the post and the great insight. It is exactly about money. Money and control.

I also believe that the OE's *will* become the gateways to our vehicles and all the intended and *unintended* sources of data surrounding our lives, unless resources like right to repair and small/medium businesses in not only the automotive industry, but *all* electronics and technology industries unite.

You can already see the patents fights of the past between giants like google and apple, when these same type of fights come between parts creators, oe's and the whole aftermarket/third party repair industry, the only way the little guys will not get run over is to start bonding together *NOW*.

The OE's and dealers have always wanted exclusive control over their vehicles, and they will get it if everyone just stands by and lets them.

Like the DMCA for software/IP, there will be a fight for control of your own vehicle and we could all lose big, if the OE's win.
 
   #59  

vreihen

Verified VCDS User
Verified
Joined
Sep 6, 2014
Messages
5,043
Reaction score
6,395
Location
The Land of OCC, NY, USA
VCDS Serial number
C?ID=31688
Where some people see a threat, I see the gauntlet being thrown down. If the manufacturers try to root the public (to borrow a term from the Aussies/Kiwis), you can take it to the bank that someone is going to jailbreak every car just to make a point. If the freaking largest corporation in the world (Apple) can't make a hack-proof device, what chance do the automobile manufacturers have of keeping the curious techies out of these systems once they are denied OBD access? Case in point, there's plenty of "lock pick" solutions available to bypass the nuisance liability feature in most in-dash entertainment systems that prevent them from playing videos when the car is in motion.

http://www.theantennafarm.com/catalog/bird-technologies-10-t-fn-7140.html

With regards to that phone-home thing, I'd just give 'em the Bird...10-watt antenna "dummy load" that covers every current and forseeable future cellular band.....
 
   #60  

D-Dub

Verified VCDS User
Verified
Joined
Apr 17, 2014
Messages
620
Reaction score
630
Location
US 2014 GTI Drivers Edition/DSG
VCDS Serial number
C?ID=272151
i think you over-estimate the public response.

Additionally, should a whole industry be relegated to spending expensive resources hacking around vehicle internals, instead of already having access to them and being able to fix them directly ?

As far as 'jailbreaking' apple has pretty much won the battle against the common man. Even google is less friendly towards root users every time a new device or version of android comes out.

Google wants to lock you out of your device, just as much as apple does. This requires you to go through the 'appropriate' app store and make them money.

As far as the phone home thing, there is always pulling the fuse and or the antenna, no need to go buy something extra for that.

Whether your future vehicle will run properly without the phone home, is a whole other question, that is part of this discussion.

In 2020, when your automated vehicle doesn't phone home within specified timeline, it could just shut down and wait for the mothership to send a tow truck out. Or the NSA for that matter.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top