Fullscreen HTML5Med Res (??MB)HTML4

SILICON SILIC CHIP www.siliconchip.com.au Publisher/Editor Nicholas Vinen Technical Editor John Clarke, B.E.(Elec.) Technical Staff Jim Rowe, B.A., B.Sc. Bao Smith, B.Sc. Tim Blythman, B.E., B.Sc. Nicolas Hannekum, Dip. Elec. Tech. Technical Contributor Duraid Madina, B.Sc, M.Sc, PhD Reader Services Rhonda Blythman, BSc, LLB, GDLP Advertising Enquiries Glyn Smith Phone (02) 9939 3295 Mobile 0431 792 293 glyn<at>siliconchip.com.au Regular Contributors Dave Thompson David Maddison B.App.Sc. (Hons 1), PhD, Grad.Dip.Entr.Innov. Geoff Graham Associate Professor Graham Parslow Ian Batty Cartoonist Brendan Akhurst Founding Editor (retired) Leo Simpson, B.Bus., FAICD Staff (retired) Ross Tester Ann Morris Greg Swain, B. Sc. (Hons.) Silicon Chip is published 12 times a year by Silicon Chip Publications Pty Ltd. ACN 626 922 870. ABN 20 880 526 923. All material is copyright ©. No part of this publication may be reproduced without the written consent of the publisher. Subscription rates (Australia only): 12 issues (1 year): $105, post paid 24 issues (2 years): $202, post paid For overseas rates, see our website or email silicon<at>siliconchip.com.au Recommended & maximum price only. Editorial office: Unit 1 (up ramp), 234 Harbord Rd, Brookvale, NSW 2100. Postal address: PO Box 139, Collaroy Beach, NSW 2097. Phone (02) 9939 3295. ISSN 1030-2662 Printing and Distribution: Editorial Viewpoint Productivity Commission report on the Right to Repair T he Productivity Commission has released a draft report on the right to repair, which you can view at www.pc.gov.au/inquiries/current/repair#draft It is open for comments. However, by the time you read this magazine, the comment period will have ended. While the introduction makes it clear that they understand the issues raised by the right to repair movement, I don’t agree with some of their conclusions. For example, they state that “Additional policies to combat premature product obsolescence (in the form of product standards or expanded consumer protection laws to address planned obsolescence) would be unlikely to have net benefits for the community.” I think most Silicon Chip readers will agree that this is wrong. They seem to be conflating the concern that manufacturers purposefully create products with a short lifespan (which I think is generally not true, with some exceptions) with the concern that, by limiting repair options, manufacturers make repairing products so difficult that users have little choice but to replace them when they fail. By legislating to expand those repair options, such as ensuring that spare parts are available beyond the warranty period, consumers could more economically keep devices functional. That would be a net benefit for the community, and I have plenty of anecdotes to support this (many of them are published in our Serviceman’s Log column). For example, I had an air conditioning unit fail after less than ten years due to PCB track corrosion. The serviceman who came out told me that a replacement board was not available, so I would have to replace both the outdoor and indoor units. I was able to fix it by soldering a wire link across the corroded track, which took about two minutes and cost nothing. That unit went on to function for many more years. Consider that the vast majority of consumers in that position would have been forced to shell out perhaps $1000 or more for new units plus the cost of removing the old units and installing the new ones. They might have also had to make some cosmetic repairs due to the new unit not being the same size and shape as the old one. Not to mention all the extra waste generated. All that expense and hassle for a single corroded track that was visually obvious. I’m not knocking the serviceman; I don’t expect air conditioning companies to train technicians to make component-level repairs, and he helped me make the repair which saved me a lot of money and hassles. But that replacement board really should have been available. If it had been, I don’t think it would have cost all that much as it was little more than an infrared receiver and a couple of ICs that relayed commands back to the main control board. And I had already paid for the call-out, so even with the labour to come and swap the modules over, the repair probably would have cost a couple of hundred dollars total; way less than a new aircon. I bet the same story is repeated over and over with washing machines, dishwashers, stoves and all manner of appliances still well within their useful lives. “Sorry, we can’t get a replacement for the module that has failed. You’ll have to buy a new unit.” Or something along those lines. So, while this report seems generally supportive of the right to repair, I don’t think the authors truly understand the situation. While there are costs associated with requiring manufacturers to offer spare parts for a longer period (more in line with the actual useful lives of those products), likely raising the price of those goods slightly, I am confident that the benefits would outweigh those costs. I will be stating this in a submission to the Productivity Commission, and I hope they take it into consideration. by Nicholas Vinen 24-26 Lilian Fowler Pl, Marrickville 2204 2  Silicon Chip Australia’s electronics magazine siliconchip.com.au