Proposed HB511 Resubmission Argument
To whom it may concern,
I want to start this letter off by making it perfectly clear which side of the argument I am on. This
legislation should undoubtedly by resubmitted and pushed forward by any means necessary.
Arguments made in the contrary, while holding some truth, are nothing more then an elaborate
ploy to maximize profits. Only about 1.3% of the American workforce work directly on farms
which take up approximately 52% of the U.S. land base according to the USDA. This means
each farmer is responsible for a large portion of land which would be impossible to maintain
without the machines provided by the equipment manufacturers. Any down time in these large
pieces of equipment could cost millions of dollars for not only the farmers, but also all the
citizens who will maintain their demand despite the smaller supply of the harvested food.
Everything possible should be done to ensure as little equipment downtime as possible for
farmers.
However, the arguments made by current dealerships/manufacturers about the risks of allowing
full access to embedded codes and allowing farmers to make critical changes does hold weight.
This could cause undesirable tampering that could lead to increased emissions and safety issues
that can’t be left unaddressed. According to Tom Nobbe however, changes that would cause such
issues account for less than 2% of critical repairs. The other 98% of issues should be allowed to
be diagnosed and repaired without having to go to an approved dealer/technician. Mr. Nobbe
goes onto mention that his dealership will provide the electronic diagnostic computers that his
own technicians use to repair equipment. Complaints from current farmers such as Mr.
Schweitzer say otherwise. He, and many in his community, proclaim that they are not allowed to
use, rent, or buy these diagnostic computers and are at the mercy of dealerships availability.
This legislation should include a statement saying these diagnostic abilities be given to the
farmers. For the reasons mentioned above, they do not have to include critical issues that make
up the 2% that the manufacturer is worried about. I agree that those issues should be handled by
certified technicians that have unlimited access to the manufacturer’s resources. But it should
have the ability to tell the farmers what the issue is, what the recommended repair would be, and
if the repair absolutely needs dealership intervention. It is my belief that farmers and independent
repair shops do not want to alter the equipment in any way from the factory settings. They
understand the risks and want nothing other than to keep their equipment and businesses up and
running. For a large part, they are not looking to install aftermarket parts and try and boost
power/performance outputs like you see in the automotive industry. They just want to have the
ability to quickly diagnose the problem and replace the part as fast as possible. Farmers don’t
have the time or the money to try and make these adjustments for risk of waiving the warranty.
Dealerships will make a similar argument to Mr. Nobbe concerning the warranties. Claiming that
not knowing if the equipment was modified makes it impossible to resell the equipment with
integrity. And while I do agree that it is important for a dealership to be honest about their stock
and not sell faulty equipment, I think they can do a better job at inspecting potential incoming
inventory to mitigate this risk. Mr. Nobbe talks of customers that purchase a $500K piece of
equipment that prematurely fails due to it having been modified in its past. Obviously, this would
anger and inconvenience the customers as they will have to wait for warranty and insurance
claims to give that money back and all the while not having the necessary equipment to maintain
their farms. But shouldn’t the dealership have noticed this past modification? Is it not the
dealer’s responsibility to thoroughly inspect the equipment before they purchase it back from the
current owner? Yes, this will cost more money for the dealers and manufacturers, but it will
mitigate that entire argument.
I am not saying that this legislation should be used to undermine the dealerships and
manufacturers and force them to give away everything they have worked so hard for with
nothing offered in return. They should be able to come up with a fair price for this
information/services. I believe that this is at the heart of the entire legislation. Farmers would
gladly spend the necessary money to properly fix their equipment as long as they are able to do
so in a short time frame in order to prevent downtime. All of the specialty tools, parts, diagnostic
equipment’s, and knowledge can be sold by the manufacturers for a fair price and in turn will be
a profitable business in itself. If they are worried about letting their competitors stealing their
ideas and products, they should go through the proper steps to gain a patten and claim
intellectual property. This would ensure that none of their products can be stolen and sold by
competitors that would undercut the prices.
The only other complaint about this legislation coming from the dealerships and manufacturers is
how this will affect customer relations. How if for whatever reason, the dealer can’t provide a
thorough inspection of the equipment before sale, and it prematurely fails the customers will lose
trust in the both the dealer and the manufacturer. Not only is this an invalid argument based on
the reasons stated above but they should also think about how not providing all the tools
necessary for will affect those same customer relations. How much more will a customer
appreciate a dealership or manufacturer if they provide everything, they could need to make a
safe repair to their own equipment. Mr. Schweitzer himself mentions how fixing their own
problems can be therapeutic in some cases.
So as a fellow citizen of the United States of America, I urge you to resubmit and push this
legislation across the finish line. I believe that is in the greatest interests of not only the farmers,
but the American population as well. Keeping our farms up and running efficiently should be a
top priority and taken seriously.