MACS Service Reports - 2016 - NOV8

Essentially:

legislation, regulation or another pathway was required.
For example, legislation prompted the 2013 Massachusetts
Memorandum of Understanding, which ended the prolonged
"Right to Repair" debate within the industry. The recent U.S.
Copyright Office (USCO) decisions were regulatory, and upheld the aftermarket's ability to serve as a public watchdog.
Since ExVe was first proposed, aftermarket members on the
ISO ExVe Committees have repeatedly requested clarifications
and explanations from automaker members and other proponents. These concerns pertain to access to data, software and information; what limits if any would be imposed; costs, fees and
other financial impacts; consumer safeguards; privacy; and others. Rather than voluntarily providing answers to these requests,
proponents have stonewalled the aftermarket. Meanwhile, the
ISO's adoption deadline for ExVe is now less than a year away.
Time is of the essence.
The aftermarket has continually shown support for the concept of automakers offering access to their web services for
many viable use cases at a reasonable, nondiscriminatory fee.
A positive example is GM offering aftermarket access to "OnStar" data via a contracted vendor. However, current relations
between the aftermarket vehicle care industry and some vehicle
manufacturers validates concern whether all manufacturers will
make their proprietary ExVe system efficient, viable and affordable for aftermarket entities. It isn't without precedence and has
become a growing point of contention.
Certainly, many automakers embrace the aftermarket and understand what an important role the aftermarket plays in keeping customers loyal to vehicle brands. But there are also some
automakers that view the aftermarket as competitors, and have
been difficult and expensive to negotiate with until the threat of,
or actual, litigation, legislation or regulation has forced a mandated solution.
Nonetheless, aftermarket members of the ISO remain hopeful for a mutual and voluntary collaborative resolution of ExVe
concerns. That of course requires an active, in-good-faith dialogue between ExVe proponents and the aftermarket. Although
time is short, it's the aftermarket's preferred pathway; it's also
the least costly way for the industry to move forward together.

* Vehicle data, software and information would be distributed by automakers to their certified partners, while the aftermarket would distribute the same (in quality and scope) to its
authorized independent workshops, at reasonable and nondiscriminatory cost and conditions.
* This suggested ExVe alternative is similar in nature to the
SVI model, with the exception that the requests for access to
vehicles would start at the cloud server, not at the master gateway inside the vehicle.
* In addition, vehicle owners would (1) control data transfer
to the service provider(s) of their choice; and (2) have the right
to know what vehicle data is transferred to any other entity.
The automaker-dominated ISO ExVe Committee rejected the ADAC's proposal outright, with little meaningful
explanation or discussion. Aftermarket members then
reiterated earlier requests for clarifications, explanations
and details with little response, Aftermarket members
then formally requested a Risk Analysis. Within the ISO,
this formal request requires a formal written response at
a future ISO meeting.
The ADAC's suggested modification of ExVe is a step
in the right direction. Without a workable compromise,
it is untenable for the aftermarket to accept ExVe, as currently proposed. The risks to the aftermarket business are
just too high. The aftermarket hopes the Risk Analysis
provides the basis to continue collaborating toward a voluntary, nonlitigious ExVe solution that works for the entire industry. But if the Risk Analysis negates a workable
ExVe compromise being reached, expect the aftermarket
to choose a less collaborative path.
Simply put, the aftermarket has too much invested to
not advocate on behalf of itself, the rest of the industry,
consumers and the general public. History has shown us
that while the evolution of vehicle data and communication interfaces has put the aftermarket and automakers at loggerheads before, ultimately workable solutions
were reached. For example, the "Who owns the data?"
issue spawned right-to-repair, which was settled by the
formal MoU agreement. The more recent "Who owns the
software?" ruling by the U.S. Copyright Office, upheld
mutual access to vehicle software.
"Who controls access to vehicles?" is the latest challenge. Whether the automakers now supporting ExVe,
as it's currently written, will compromise remains to be
seen. But be clear: While the aftermarket supports a collaborative "win-win" solution over the "nobody wins"
alternative, it will not be shut out. ■

It Takes Two to Tango
At the ExVe meeting held in June 2016 in Gothenburg, Sweden, the Automobile Club of Germany (ADAC), an aftermarket
member of ISO, suggested a modified ExVe model as a "fair
and reasonable" path forward. The essential difference from the
original model put forward by ExVe proponents was a change
from the single cloud server being controlled by automakers
only, to a neutral shared cloud server in joint control of automakers and the aftermarket.
MACS Service Reports is published monthly by the Mobile Air Conditioning Society
Worldwide. It is distributed to members of MACS Worldwide and is intended for
the educational use of members of the automotive air conditioning service and
repair industry. Suggestions for articles will be considered for publication, however,
MACS Worldwide reserves the right to choose and edit all submissions.

Editors:
Elvis Hoffpauir, Steve Schaeber
Production Designer:
Laina Forcey
Manager of Service Training:
Steve Schaeber
Mobile Air Conditioning Society Worldwide
P.O. Box 88, Lansdale, PA 19446
Phone: (215) 631-7020 * Fax: (215) 631-7017
Email: membership@macsw.org * Website: www.macsw.org

Unless otherwise noted, all photos/art by author.

November 2016

MACS Service Reports

http://www.macsw.org

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of MACS Service Reports - 2016