The battle over access to telematics: Didn’t we fight this war before?

Dec. 18, 2017
While the manufacturers can obtain diagnostic information wirelessly directly from the vehicle, the aftermarket continues to rely on the OBD II port for the same data.

Back in the late 1980s, the automotive aftermarket lobbied Congress for an amendment to provisions in the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments that required all 1996 and later vehicles be equipped with on-board diagnostic systems (OBD) II.

The provision in question mandated that the OBD II system was supposed to accurately identify a “emissions-related system deterioration or malfunction which could cause or result in failure of the vehicle to comply with emission standards.”  The devices further had to alert the vehicle owner to the need for emission related components or system maintenance or repair.

Notwithstanding the benefits of OBD II systems to clean air and to technicians attempting to diagnose and repair a vehicle’s emissions system, the aftermarket was concerned that car companies would use proprietary OBD ports. The absence of port standardization, the aftermarket told Congress, would create, at best, increased costs to shops that would need to obtain a variety of connectors for every brand of vehicle they serviced; or at worst, a way for car companies to control access to the port in order to drive business to their preferred service provider (likely the new car dealer or those that purchased the most replacement parts from them).

Fortunately, the industry’s lobbying efforts were successful, and Congress included a provision in the 1990 Amendments that required that the OBD II port to be “standard and uniform on all motor vehicles” and that access to the OBD II system is unrestricted and “shall not require any access code or any device which is only available from a vehicle manufacturer.”  Decades later, it’s easy to forget the efforts that were necessary to obtain a standardized diagnostic connector or to think about the impact on the competitiveness of the industry had Congress not acted.

Now, with the advent of telematics, which permits the wireless transmission of diagnostic information, the industry once again stands on the precipice of either a rosy future or possibly one controlled by the vehicle manufacturer. While the manufacturers can obtain diagnostic information wirelessly directly from the vehicle, the aftermarket continues to rely on the OBD II port for the same data.

But what happens if Congress permits the port to go away; or if manufacturers limit the port to only the emissions related information that is required by current law?  The independent technician would be forced to fully rely on the vehicle manufacturer to obtain the information needed to service their customer’s vehicle. The aftermarket would be back in the same position we were in during the debate in the 1980s over a standardized OBD II port: Less competition and increased control by the manufacturer over the repair market.

Is Your Routine Holding You Back?

Motor Age Training Connect

If you are not applying your training to every single customer you assist, you are doing them and yourself a disservice. Read how in Pete Meierís newest story and learn about a free trial of the best video training on the market. Button text: Read Peteís Story

Read Peteís Story

Whether it’s the OBD port or if the information is transmitted wirelessly, the technician needs access to that data directly from the vehicle and that access needs to be standardized such that each vehicle manufacturer cannot make the diagnostic data available in a proprietary code. Of course, the advent of wireless communications has increased the danger of someone hacking into a vehicle, but that does not mean that methods cannot be developed that would protect critical vehicle systems while still making data available.

It was with this in mind, that the Auto Care Association and other industry groups have been working to develop the Secure Vehicle Interface (SVI). Not too simplify the solution too much, the SVI would build a “wall” around the critical vehicle systems, providing a gateway where standardized data can flow to independents or anyone else who the motorists deems worthy of their data.

Even more exciting about the SVI is that it could be developed as a retrofit for vehicles that are already on the road, thus addressing the cyber vulnerabilities in the current fleet now on the road. This is an important opportunity for the industry, but one that will require a great deal of work in order to become a reality.

High on the list of “to dos” is obtaining support from the vehicle manufacturers to develop an industry standard for SVI such that it could be uniformly adopted by all of the car companies. This is being done through the Society for Automotive Engineers (SAE).

SAE is the source of a great many standards used by vehicle manufacturers and is currently developing measures that manufacturers could employ to address cyber vulnerabilities for the OBD II port. Yet, SAE, and the car companies that would need to participate in the development of the standard, appear uninterested in SVI. Yet SVI would not only provide cyber protections for data wirelessly transmitted for telematics systems, but the entire vehicle system including the OBD II port.   

Whether it’s through SVI or another solution, manufacturers must address the need for car owners to control the data transmitted by their vehicles; and for technicians to obtain and use the data in order to provide affordable repairs for their customers. As the right to repair battle demonstrated, car owners want choice on where they have their car repaired. They also want choices on what services are available for them to use.

Working together with vehicle manufacturers we can develop solutions like SVI that will address data access control issues in a secure fashion. Unfortunately, the manufacturers appear to be leaning toward creating the monopoly they did not achieve through OBD II. This would not be good for consumers or the aftermarket and likely in the long run for the manufacturers either. Hopefully, this situation can be avoided without another legislative battle, but time is running out.

Subscribe to Aftermarket Business World and receive articles like this every month….absolutely free. Click here.

Sponsored Recommendations

ZEUS+: The Cutting-Edge Diagnostic Solution for Smart, Fast, and Efficient Auto Repairs

The new ZEUS+ simplifies your diagnostic process and guides you through the right repair, avoiding unnecessary steps along the way. It gives you the software coverage, processing...

Diagnostic Pre- and Post-scan Reports are Solid Gold for Profitability

The following article highlights the significance of pre-scans and post-scans, particularly with Snap-on scan tools, showcasing their efficiency in diagnosing issues and preventing...

Unlock Precision and Certainty: TRITON-D10 Webinar Training for Advanced Vehicle Diagnostics

The TRITON-D10 lets you dig deep into the systems of a vehicle and evaluate performance with comparative data, systematically eliminating the unnecessary to provide you with only...

APOLLO-D9: Trustworthy Diagnostics for Precision Repairs

The APOLLO-D9 provides the diagnostic information and resources you need to get the job done. No more hunting through forums or endlessly searching to find the right answers. ...

Voice Your Opinion!

To join the conversation, and become an exclusive member of Vehicle Service Pros, create an account today!