Toyota Plans to Charge You to Use Your Key Fob (subscription)...

[Edward Hernandez]

The John Doe troll stated the following in message-id
<sdhn7c$pkp$4@dont-email.me>:

> The troll doesn\'t even know how to format a USENET post...

And the John Doe troll stated the following in message-id
<sg3kr7$qt5$1@dont-email.me>:

The reason Bozo cannot figure out how to get Google to keep from
breaking its lines in inappropriate places is because Bozo is
CLUELESS...

And yet, the clueless John Doe troll has itself posted yet another
incorrectly formatted USENET posting on Sun, 12 Dec 2021 00:22:07 -0000
(UTC) in message-id <sp3fbf$dhh$4@dont-email.me>.

TFb7+CKx7Tj+

 

[Sylvia Else]

On 12-Dec-21 6:30 am, amdx wrote:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GLlzAv2GTdc

                              Mikek

They\'ll have to be very careful in advertising to not so much as suggest
that the feature is part of the car that one is buying.

That said, I think our various consumer protection regulators need to do
something about asterisks and other methods used to link to caveats.
Such things should be required to be part of the main text promoting a
feature.

Sylvia.

 

[whit3rd]

On Saturday, December 11, 2021 at 1:27:29 PM UTC-8, John Doe wrote:

Ricksy wrote:

This reminds me of the organization promoting right to repair. This is
mostly about some egregious manufacturers such as John Deere, yes, John
Deere who was refusing to allow repairs to be made to equipment owned by
the farmer unless those repairs were made by the authorized service
center.

Seems pretty simple... If a third-party works on it, the company is no
longer responsible for how it works.

Yep, and in the US that \'pretty simple\' tactic was made illegal by the Magnusson-Moss
warranty act about half a century ago.

 

[Rick C]

On Sunday, December 12, 2021 at 12:49:18 AM UTC-5, whit3rd wrote:

Yep, and in the US that \'pretty simple\' tactic was made illegal by the Magnusson-Moss
warranty act about half a century ago.

Magnuson Moss Warranty-Federal Trade Commission Improvements Act
Title I of this Act authorizes the Federal Trade Commission to develop regulations for written warranties.

That explains why years ago, I tried to get a copy of the warranty from Toyota before I bought a truck. Even with the sale hanging in the balance they refused to provide a copy. Maybe it was because of this act which doesn\'t cover unwritten warranties?

At least my Tesla has a written warranty although it doesn\'t mean much. I\'d have to take them to court to get them to deal with the issues they don\'t want to address.

--

Rick C.

-+ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
-+ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

 

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Sat, 11 Dec 2021 21:49:15 -0800 (PST), whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com>
wrote:

On Saturday, December 11, 2021 at 1:27:29 PM UTC-8, John Doe wrote:
Ricksy wrote:

This reminds me of the organization promoting right to repair. This is
mostly about some egregious manufacturers such as John Deere, yes, John
Deere who was refusing to allow repairs to be made to equipment owned by
the farmer unless those repairs were made by the authorized service
center.

Seems pretty simple... If a third-party works on it, the company is no
longer responsible for how it works.

Yep, and in the US that \'pretty simple\' tactic was made illegal by the Magnusson-Moss
warranty act about half a century ago.

Maybe.
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnuson%E2%80%93Moss_Warranty_Act#Limitations>
Some quote from the Wikipedia article:

Although the act covers warranties on repair or
replacement parts in consumer products, warranties
on services for repairs are not covered.

The federal minimum standards for full warranties
are waived if the warrantor can show that the
problem associated with a warranted consumer product
was caused by damage while in the possession of the
consumer, or by unreasonable use, including a failure
to provide reasonable and necessary maintenance.

A \"service contract\" is different from a warranty
because service contracts do not affirm the quality
or workmanship of a consumer product. A service
contract is a written instrument in which a supplier
agrees to perform, over a fixed period or for a
specified duration, services relating to the
maintenance or repair, or both, of a consumer product.
Agreements that meet the statutory definition of
service contracts, but are sold and regulated under
state law as contracts of insurance, do not come
under the Act\'s provisions.

It might seem that software as a service could be considered a
service. Failure to install an update might be considered failure to
provide reasonable and necessary maintenance. An agreement to license
a software feature could be considered a service contract. Doesn\'t
seem \"pretty simple\" to me.


--
Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com
PO Box 272 http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Ben Lomond CA 95005-0272
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

 

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Sat, 11 Dec 2021 22:29:25 -0800 (PST), Rick C
<gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote:

>That explains why years ago, I tried to get a copy of the warranty from Toyota before I bought a truck. Even with the sale hanging in the balance they refused to provide a copy. Maybe it was because of this act which doesn\'t cover unwritten warranties?

Apparently, Toyota now provides a printed warranty. For the Toyota
2021 Tacoma truck:
<https://assets.sia.toyota.com/publications/en/omms-s/T-MMS-21Tacoma/pdf/T-MMS-21Tacoma.pdf>
Notice that the warranty and maintenance are inter-tangled.
From Pg 4:
This booklet describes the terms of
Toyota warranty coverage as well as
general owner responsibilities. The
scheduled maintenance section
describes your vehicle’s maintenance
requirements. Be sure to review this
information carefully, since proper
maintenance is required to ensure that
warranty coverage remains intact.
Proper maintenance means subscribing to the Toyota Auto Care and
Toyota Care Plus prepaid maintenance programs.

I like this clause (also on Pg 4):
To further demonstrate our commitment to
our customers’ satisfaction, occasionally
we may establish a special policy
adjustment to pay for specific repairs that
are no longer covered by warranty. When
we establish such a policy adjustment, we
mail details to all applicable owners we
have on record.
Translation: Toyota made a mistake on an older vehicle that is \"no
longer covered by warranty\", but the owner gets to pay for it anyway.


--
Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com
PO Box 272 http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Ben Lomond CA 95005-0272
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

 

[Rick C]

On Sunday, December 12, 2021 at 2:00:47 AM UTC-5, jeff.li...@gmail.com wrote:

On Sat, 11 Dec 2021 22:29:25 -0800 (PST), Rick C
gnuarm.del...@gmail.com> wrote:

That explains why years ago, I tried to get a copy of the warranty from Toyota before I bought a truck. Even with the sale hanging in the balance they refused to provide a copy. Maybe it was because of this act which doesn\'t cover unwritten warranties?
Apparently, Toyota now provides a printed warranty. For the Toyota
2021 Tacoma truck:
https://assets.sia.toyota.com/publications/en/omms-s/T-MMS-21Tacoma/pdf/T-MMS-21Tacoma.pdf
Notice that the warranty and maintenance are inter-tangled.
From Pg 4:
This booklet describes the terms of
Toyota warranty coverage as well as
general owner responsibilities. The
scheduled maintenance section
describes your vehicle’s maintenance
requirements. Be sure to review this
information carefully, since proper
maintenance is required to ensure that
warranty coverage remains intact.
Proper maintenance means subscribing to the Toyota Auto Care and
Toyota Care Plus prepaid maintenance programs.

That is a requirement that is no longer permitted I believe. I recall Ford used to require you to have your oil changed at a Ford dealer. Someone sued them and Ford lost setting the precedent. Certainly Toyota can\'t require that you only use their service. Heck, I had to dispute a charge on my credit card with a Toyota dealer when they literally were cheating me by overcharging, claiming they fixed something they didn\'t fix and then wanting over $2,000 to fix it right. I got back the $600 I had paid. A few months later someone stole the truck! lol

I like this clause (also on Pg 4):
To further demonstrate our commitment to
our customers’ satisfaction, occasionally
we may establish a special policy
adjustment to pay for specific repairs that
are no longer covered by warranty. When
we establish such a policy adjustment, we
mail details to all applicable owners we
have on record.
Translation: Toyota made a mistake on an older vehicle that is \"no
longer covered by warranty\", but the owner gets to pay for it anyway.

I don\'t think you are reading that right. I think they are saying they can pay for repairs that are not under warranty without incurring an obligation. They had a problem with frame rust on Tundras. They fixed them or bought back the trucks. I don\'t know if anyone was forcing them to do it or not.

--

Rick C.

+- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
+- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

 

[bitrex]

On 12/11/21 4:44 PM, Ed Lee wrote:

On Saturday, December 11, 2021 at 1:18:55 PM UTC-8, John Doe wrote:
Ed Lee wrote:

amdx wrote:the

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GLlzAv2GTdc

It\'s only for remotely starting the engine. Well, we have no engine to
start with an EV.
Does an electric CAR engine need warming up?

In extreme cold weather, it might help with warming up the battery. But i have no idea how solid state (frozen) battery would work, or not work.

The cabin heat comes up slow in the Volt and Bolt heat-exchanging off
the power electronics coolant loop, and the old Model 3 reported to be
slower than that whatever system it was using pre-heat pump upgrade.I
guess the Leaf\'s combination resistive heater and heat pump is pretty
quick but in some other cars pre-heating when plugged in is a good thing
to do in cold weather

 

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Sat, 11 Dec 2021 23:20:30 -0800 (PST), Rick C
<gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote:

On Sunday, December 12, 2021 at 2:00:47 AM UTC-5, jeff.li...@gmail.com wrote:
https://assets.sia.toyota.com/publications/en/omms-s/T-MMS-21Tacoma/pdf/T-MMS-21Tacoma.pdf
I like this clause (also on Pg 4):

To further demonstrate our commitment to
our customers’ satisfaction, occasionally
we may establish a special policy
adjustment to pay for specific repairs that
are no longer covered by warranty. When
we establish such a policy adjustment, we
mail details to all applicable owners we
have on record.

Translation: Toyota made a mistake on an older vehicle that is \"no
longer covered by warranty\", but the owner gets to pay for it anyway.

I don\'t think you are reading that right. I think they are saying they can pay for repairs that are not under warranty without incurring an obligation.

I beg to differ. I look at the paragraph as an attempt to make a
negative statement smell like it was a positive benefit for the buyer.
Adding the useless \"To further demonstrate our commitment to our
customers’ satisfaction\" doesn\'t really say anything useful except to
make it appear that Toyota is doing you a favor when they \"establish a
special policy adjustment to pay for specific repairs that are no
longer covered by warranty\". Adjustment? In which direction? In
favor of the owner, or paid for by the owner? Hard to tell and sounds
like a good example of the deceptive warranty practices that the
Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act was suppose to eliminate.

>They had a problem with frame rust on Tundras. They fixed them or bought back the trucks. I don\'t know if anyone was forcing them to do it or not.

Rust never sleeps, especially before the warranty expires. Some
details:
\"Toyota pays $3.4 billion in class-action suit over rusty truck
frames\"
<https://www.autoblog.com/2016/11/14/toyota-3-billion-settlement-rusty-truck-frames/>



--
Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com
PO Box 272 http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Ben Lomond CA 95005-0272
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

 

[John Doe]

I\'m not going on a wild goose chase through a whole act of Congress.

Need keywords or quotes...

--
whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com> wrote:

X-Received: by 2002:a05:622a:180c:: with SMTP id t12mr38479975qtc.507.1639288155993; Sat, 11 Dec 2021 21:49:15 -0800 (PST)
X-Received: by 2002:a25:d04d:: with SMTP id h74mr25348869ybg.266.1639288155668; Sat, 11 Dec 2021 21:49:15 -0800 (PST)
Path: eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!news.uzoreto.com!feeder1.cambriumusenet.nl!feed.tweak.nl!209.85.160.216.MISMATCH!news-out.google.com!nntp.google.com!postnews.google.com!google-groups.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: sci.electronics.design
Date: Sat, 11 Dec 2021 21:49:15 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <sp353r$p3o$16@dont-email.me
Injection-Info: google-groups.googlegroups.com; posting-host=209.221.140.126; posting-account=vKQm_QoAAADOaDCYsqOFDAW8NJ8sFHoE
NNTP-Posting-Host: 209.221.140.126
References: <sp2u97$4ll$1@dont-email.me> <c7ad7c7e-39ca-4a9d-85f2-f43a5ea23eean@googlegroups.com> <c1bbd503-5286-478e-b12c-9087586f8ccan@googlegroups.com> <sp353r$p3o$16@dont-email.me
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <a15a6cd0-930d-4e4f-803a-eddc65debe09n@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Toyota Plans to Charge You to Use Your Key Fob (subscription)
From: whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com
Injection-Date: Sun, 12 Dec 2021 05:49:15 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=\"UTF-8\"
Xref: reader02.eternal-september.org sci.electronics.design:654735

On Saturday, December 11, 2021 at 1:27:29 PM UTC-8, John Doe wrote:
Ricksy wrote:

This reminds me of the organization promoting right to repair. This is
mostly about some egregious manufacturers such as John Deere, yes, John
Deere who was refusing to allow repairs to be made to equipment owned by
the farmer unless those repairs were made by the authorized service
center.

Seems pretty simple... If a third-party works on it, the company is no
longer responsible for how it works.

Yep, and in the US that \'pretty simple\' tactic was made illegal by the Magnusson-Moss
warranty act about half a century ago.

 

[John Doe]

Nevermind, I see it. And I found the John Deere information.

It\'s not really surprising. Something should be done, but something should be
done about big companies helping enrich the Chinese Communist Party too.

 

[John Doe]

Ricksy wrote:

This reminds me of the organization promoting right to repair. This is
mostly about some egregious manufacturers such as John Deere, yes, John
Deere who was refusing to allow repairs to be made to equipment owned by
the farmer unless those repairs were made by the authorized service
center. Seems they were refusing to allow users to repair a board
because of a copyright issue with ROMed software on the board. I don\'t
recall the details, but I\'m sure a web search will find it.

The contention appears to be with modifying software, not with repairing
hardware.

 

[Ralph Mowery]

In article <bc5brghhq9udv1sdh7kf39dg6kcdqbce85@4ax.com>,
jeffl@cruzio.com says...

It might seem that software as a service could be considered a
service. Failure to install an update might be considered failure to
provide reasonable and necessary maintenance. An agreement to license
a software feature could be considered a service contract. Doesn\'t
seem \"pretty simple\" to me.

A friend had been using Quicken or Quick Books for years and when they
went to the subscription service he quit. I bought a new laptop a few
years ago and refused to put MS Office 365 on it when it looked like I
would have to pay every year to use it. I can understand things like
Turbo Tax selling a new program every year because the tax laws change.
I would still use Office 95 if it would run on the computers I have as I
do not need all the extra fluff of the newer versions. Much more and i
will switch to Open Office or Libra for free.

Only reason for me to go to win 10 when I did was because TT would not
run on Win XP. Never did have win 7 or 8.

 

[Edward Hernandez]

The John Doe troll stated the following in message-id
<sdhn7c$pkp$4@dont-email.me>:

> The troll doesn\'t even know how to format a USENET post...

And the John Doe troll stated the following in message-id
<sg3kr7$qt5$1@dont-email.me>:

The reason Bozo cannot figure out how to get Google to keep from
breaking its lines in inappropriate places is because Bozo is
CLUELESS...

And yet, the clueless John Doe troll has itself posted yet another
incorrectly formatted USENET posting on Sun, 12 Dec 2021 08:42:19 -0000
(UTC) in message-id <sp4clb$lhm$1@dont-email.me>.

pj55HmZZ/0/5

 

[Edward Hernandez]

The John Doe troll stated the following in message-id
<sdhn7c$pkp$4@dont-email.me>:

> The troll doesn\'t even know how to format a USENET post...

And the John Doe troll stated the following in message-id
<sg3kr7$qt5$1@dont-email.me>:

The reason Bozo cannot figure out how to get Google to keep from
breaking its lines in inappropriate places is because Bozo is
CLUELESS...

And yet, the clueless John Doe troll has itself posted yet another
incorrectly formatted USENET posting on Sun, 12 Dec 2021 08:52:57 -0000
(UTC) in message-id <sp4d99$lhm$2@dont-email.me>.

mcwCTV8rQg93

 

[Ed Lee]

On Saturday, December 11, 2021 at 11:58:56 PM UTC-8, bitrex wrote:

On 12/11/21 4:44 PM, Ed Lee wrote:
On Saturday, December 11, 2021 at 1:18:55 PM UTC-8, John Doe wrote:
Ed Lee wrote:

amdx wrote:the

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GLlzAv2GTdc

It\'s only for remotely starting the engine. Well, we have no engine to
start with an EV.
Does an electric CAR engine need warming up?

In extreme cold weather, it might help with warming up the battery. But i have no idea how solid state (frozen) battery would work, or not work.

The cabin heat comes up slow in the Volt and Bolt heat-exchanging off
the power electronics coolant loop, and the old Model 3 reported to be
slower than that whatever system it was using pre-heat pump upgrade.I
guess the Leaf\'s combination resistive heater and heat pump is pretty
quick but in some other cars pre-heating when plugged in is a good thing
to do in cold weather

Only if it\'s below -20C for the battery. I don\'t think it will get that cold around here anyway. Even at -20C, it\'s OK to drain the battery a bit, but not to charge it. Since it doesn\'t make sense to drive to a charger, plug it in, and go away to start it remotely. I don\'t see much need for remote starting/warming for EVs.

As for the human, seat warmer works almost immediately, then cabin heater.

 

[amdx]

On 12/11/2021 3:27 PM, John Doe wrote:

Ricksy wrote:

dean...@gmail.com wrote:
amdx wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GLlzAv2GTdc
It\'s easy to see the narrator\'s point. I wonder if the potential
customer could tell the dealer \"throw this in for a life time or see ya
later, bye\".
This reminds me of the organization promoting right to repair. This is
mostly about some egregious manufacturers such as John Deere, yes, John
Deere who was refusing to allow repairs to be made to equipment owned by
the farmer unless those repairs were made by the authorized service
center.
That\'s a misrepresentation. Customers are not \"disallowed\". Warranty
service can be refused if the product has been worked on by a third-party.
Nothing wrong with that. Taking responsibility is part of a warrantee.

Seems pretty simple... If a third-party works on it, the company is no
longer responsible for how it works.

 So fix a wheel bearing and that makes them not responsible for a
failed engine?  ;-I

                                                 Mikek


--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

 

[amdx]

On 12/11/2021 1:30 PM, amdx wrote:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GLlzAv2GTdc

                              Mikek

Well fuck, I think I\'ll start a post about Toyota and subscription key
Fobs.

                                             Mikek


--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

 

[bitrex]

On 12/12/21 11:31 AM, Ed Lee wrote:

On Saturday, December 11, 2021 at 11:58:56 PM UTC-8, bitrex wrote:
On 12/11/21 4:44 PM, Ed Lee wrote:
On Saturday, December 11, 2021 at 1:18:55 PM UTC-8, John Doe wrote:
Ed Lee wrote:

amdx wrote:the

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GLlzAv2GTdc

It\'s only for remotely starting the engine. Well, we have no engine to
start with an EV.
Does an electric CAR engine need warming up?

In extreme cold weather, it might help with warming up the battery. But i have no idea how solid state (frozen) battery would work, or not work.

The cabin heat comes up slow in the Volt and Bolt heat-exchanging off
the power electronics coolant loop, and the old Model 3 reported to be
slower than that whatever system it was using pre-heat pump upgrade.I
guess the Leaf\'s combination resistive heater and heat pump is pretty
quick but in some other cars pre-heating when plugged in is a good thing
to do in cold weather

Only if it\'s below -20C for the battery. I don\'t think it will get that cold around here anyway. Even at -20C, it\'s OK to drain the battery a bit, but not to charge it. Since it doesn\'t make sense to drive to a charger, plug it in, and go away to start it remotely. I don\'t see much need for remote starting/warming for EVs.

Nah you remote start it when it\'s plugged in in the garage, even in New
England most garages aren\'t heated. In the Volt you just set something
like \"AC assist heat when plugged in\" in the settings and set the
climate controls to \"auto\" and hit the remote start about 10 min before
you want to leave, it gets the cabin and battery/electronics coolant
loop up to temp nice off wall power and conserves power draw from the
small pack.

If you have OnStar you can use the app to set it up to do that
automatically on a timer but I don\'t pay the silly monthly prices they
charge for their services, the key fob button works well enough.

As for the human, seat warmer works almost immediately, then cabin heater.

 

[John Doe]

amdx <amdx@knology.net> wrote:

John Doe wrote:

If a third-party works on it, the company is no longer responsible for
how it works.

So fix a wheel bearing and that makes them not responsible for a failed
engine? ;-I

Yes, if you knew that was part of the deal. You bought it.

Nothing wrong with big companies empowering the Chinese Communists?