Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
Government The Military

The Military Might Finally Win the Right To Repair 54

Posted by BeauHD from the ask-and-you-shall-receive dept.
Senators Tim Sheehy and Elizabeth Warren have introduced the bipartisan "Warrior Right to Repair Act," which would guarantee the military's right to repair its own equipment. The bill builds on a previous Army directive and has broad public support, with nearly 75% of Americans in favor, according to a PIRG poll. Engadget reports: The Department of Defense has not been immune from restrictive practices set forth by manufacturers, and much like the average consumer, has been hamstrung in its ability to repair its own equipment by clauses in its purchase agreements. According to the Public Interest Research Group (PIRG), the current system leads to excessive repair and sustainment costs, and can even impede military readiness.

"When our neighbors, friends and family serve in our military, we expect them to get what they need to do their jobs as safely as possible," PIRG Federal Legislative Director Isaac Bowers wrote regarding the newly introduced bill. "Somehow, that hasn't included the materials and information they need to repair equipment they rely on. It's time we fixed that."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

The Military Might Finally Win the Right To Repair More

The Military Might Finally Win the Right To Repair

Comments Filter:

  • but what about the kickbacks on the $20K tech field visit fees?

    • You joke but a lot of suppliers to the US government, including the military, works on a two-contract basis - the initial acquisition of the item, and then the support contract for the item.

      A lot of suppliers bid low on the initial acquisition contract, because they know they can make up losses on the support side later on. The supplier is also more willing to take on more risk as part of the supply, again because they can make money back on the support.

      If the support contract becomes uncertain because the

      • You are exactly right. The procurement contract will get more expensive if the data rights to effect the repairs are required. Not saying one concept is better or worse

        The interesting part is if this will include the source code for firmware.

        • The interesting part is if this will include the source code for firmware.

          I doubt it, since that's too likely to get leaked and besides, it's rarely necessary to have that in order to effect a field repair.

          One thing I would really like to see, in the civilian right to repair laws, is the requirement that when the manufacturer can or will no longer supply this programmed microcontroller or the module on which it sits, they must release at least a binary blob so I can buy one from Mouser for 37 cents and flash it myself. Which, of course, is tantamount to releasing the source cod

      • A lot of suppliers bid low on the initial acquisition contract, because they know they can make up losses on the support side later on. The supplier is also more willing to take on more risk as part of the supply, again because they can make money back on the support.

        If the support contract becomes uncertain because the military can go elsewhere to support the item, then expect the supply contracts to get a lot more expensive, and a lot fewer contractors willing to undertake fixed price deliveries for anything.

        It's likely strategically worthwhile for the military regardless of whether it saves money.

        It's annoying if you have to bring your iPhone to the Apple Store to replace a part, because no independent shop can do the work. It's catastrophic if you can't fix a critical component of your aircraft carrier, because you have to fly a contractor tech out to the South China Sea.

      • For a lot of items especially bespoke military items the government pays to create and then owns the design. So the risk is low, but they work out a support agreement based on the complete design down the road. Losses should be minimal unless youre playing a game to gouge

    • but what about the kickbacks on the $20K tech field visit fees?

      Federalise the techs? (I think that's the expression)

  • It seems pretty straightforward that for the military they'd need intimate knowledge on how their gear works, not just so it can be repaired but to assure there's nothing in the system that could compromise security. That might not be much of a big deal on a kitchen oven, something that contracts with the military prohibited being repaired by military personnel, as that would be more of an inconvenience than something that could threaten lives. In the case of drone aircraft the loss of function because of

    • Looking into World War Part Two, perhaps the first truly industrialized war...

      I'm not so sure. Before The Great War (AKA WW I) most long-haul transportation of goods was either by rail or in wagons hauled by animals, mostly horses or mules. Then, during the war, the Army created a large fleet of trucks and trained large numbers of doughboys to drive and maintain them. This was for two reasons: first, the trucks could get supplies and reinforcements to the front faster than the animals could and second

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by flippy ( 62353 )

      My hope is that this trickles down to the civilian market. Increasingly the USDOD is looking to use commercial-of-the-shelf gear when possible as that means being able to dip into economy of scale with a combined military and civilian market. I recall something about how the HMMWV (or humvee) is likely to be replaced, at least in part, by a vehicle with 90% common parts with a Chevy truck. If true then that could mean civilian trucks "inherit" this right-to-repair from the USDOD. There's some assumptions built into that, which means it might not follow that the civilian market gains immediate right-to-repair but its not too much of a reach, or is it?

      Yes, it's a huge stretch to think that would happen. The DOD may be able to get away right-to-repair in their contracts, but that doesn't at all mean it'll follow through to civilian purchases, even of an identical product. Manufacturers will fight that tooth and nail until forced to by the legal system, which, in the last few decades, has been very supportive of corporate rights and hostile to those for individuals.

  • "Win"? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by jenningsthecat ( 1525947 ) on Tuesday July 08, 2025 @10:39PM (#65506678)

    The Military Might Finally Win the Right To Repair

    Shouldn't the military already have that right by long-standing legislative fiat, or, if necessary, by force?

    Oh, sorry, I forgot... the country is really ruled by corporations, not by the electorate. How silly of me.

    • In this as in all matters aside from a genuine existential crisis the wealthy control the US government. A few months after America gets into it with China (God forbid) these silly rules will be kicked to the curb, the same way Russia controls its oligarchy.

      • In this as in all matters aside from a genuine existential crisis the wealthy control the US government. A few months after America gets into it with China (God forbid) these silly rules will be kicked to the curb, the same way Russia controls its oligarchy.

        I find it amusing you think our political class has anyone with the backbone to stand up to the industrial giants that have controlled them for as long as any of us have been alive. If we get into a war now, I'd expect the corporate control to increase, not decrease. We are a country ruled by owners, not government officials. Those officials, if they continue to hold office, will simply become outright employees of those who have always paid them, and drop the facade they've been portraying in public over t

    • It's worse than that. The military essentially buys everything bespoke. They could easily have asked in contracts for right to repair, but their contracting officers, in an effort to drive acquisition costs down as low as possible, waive those rights to hit their metrics. Its only years later that they figure out how stupid their decision was.

  • Buying vs copying (Score:3, Insightful)

    by tiananmen tank man ( 979067 ) on Tuesday July 08, 2025 @11:19PM (#65506712)

    If buying isn't owning, then copying isn't stealing

  • I know it's slightly offtopic, it's just coming out that the GOP is coming out and saying they had no idea a horrid gambling amendment was added to their rob from the poor budget bill. It's absolutely hilarious how most of the GOP on the committee that created the tax, keep saying they have no idea how it got in there. Americans are a bunch of rubes! The screw everyone but us and our rich friends trump bill.

    “If you’re asking me how it got in there, no, I don’t know,” Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) said during an interview on Tuesday.
    “I don’t know anything about it. I’m not sure what it does,” Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) added.
    Both GOP senators serve on the Senate Finance Committee, which crafted the tax provisions of the bill. The panel, which is led by Sen. Mike Crapo (R-Idaho), released the legislative language concerning the tax change weeks before the bill passed in the Senate. It went largely unnoticed until it was signed into law over the weekend.
    Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.), another member of the committee, called it “bad policy.”
    “I was so focused on Medicaid, I wasn’t looking for other reasons to be against the bill. But that would be another one,” explained Tillis, who opposed the legislation due to its cuts to the Medicaid health insurance program.
    Under the new law, gamblers will be allowed to deduct just 90% of their losses from their income taxes starting in 2026. Previously, they could deduct 100% of their losses. Now, for example, gamblers who win $100,000 but lose $100,000 – coming out even — would still be required to pay taxes on $10,000.

    • Yeah that's off topic. You could probably make your own submission on the subject, especially as it pertains to relatively recent expansions in legal online sports gambling.

    • Millions are losing their healthcare and you're upset gamblers will lose 10% of their existing tax deduction? Talk about screwed up priorities.

      • Millions that should never had 'free' healthcare are going to be met, considered, and most likely sent back from where they illegally came. Some of them will actually be excused or forgiven of that offense, and given a proper path to real citizenship, and the opportunity to find employment that also provides real benefits.

        And gamblers deserve only the assurance that the game is as described. Fraud is bad enough, and the ideas that poker is a game of chance, that sports betting is innocuous, and lotteries ar

      • Why can't it be both?

    • Since you feel taxation against addiction (call it what it is, even professional gamblers don’t ever advise anyone to follow in their footsteps) is “horrid”, care to share your thoughts on how we should tax prostitution income?

      I mean, what should we label as reasonable depreciation on that kind of ass-et? All these OF queens running around love to assume you can just roll the odometer back and ignore the 47 previous rental agreements that tore that chassis up and left a shitload of old lu

      • Your whole comment is one long strawman. I was talking about how the GOP is now taxing gambling losses while lowering their own and wealthy friends taxes,tearing health coverage from the poor and creating a federal police state with basically unlimited finding.
  • So military will get full, build from source access to recompile all their fighter jet software, override roots of trust (allow just enable self signed certs for example, if the military repair shop thinks it's easier that way), etc? I presume all warranty on a F35 (for example) is void as soon as it's running software modified and compiled by the military service department, and the military is responsible for validating any changes they make?

  • This should have been address when the Contracts were advertised - the contracting officer should have required all the repair manuals and supplies be available. Easy fix.

  • we should probably actually be debating the idea some capitalist has the right to change civilization because they think they should have the right to get ALL the money

    i like the right to not be interfered with by greedy shitheads, what happened to that huh

  • Civilians always bitch about military spending and repair costs, frequently pointing to grumman's expensive toilet seats for the E-2.

    The government through congress has always mandated civilian repair and remanufacture by civilians to protect civilian jobs.

    So, stop bitchin, you whiny cunts. ;-)

  • Of all the crappy Executive Orders the President(s) have given, this is a simple thing that any President should have done:

    "We will under no circumstances sign any purchase order that prevents or impairs our ability to repair the equipment we buy, rent, license or otherwise pay for use. Agreeing to such a contract is an act of sabotage against the United States and will be prosecuted by military tribunal."

  • The Military Might Finally Win the Right To Repair

    With as many deadly weapons as the military has, I'm surprised it took this long.

  • They should also enshrine stiff penalties and liquidated damages, something like $1000 per device per day of down time due to a lack of service availability plus disqualification from all government funded contracting with no waivers available.

Slashdot Top Deals

If I have not seen so far it is because I stood in giant's footsteps.

Close