Bad Ideas: Tesla Bars Ride Sharing Drivers From Using Its Superchargers
from the pray-we-don't-alter-it-any-further dept
Tesla remains a fascinating company. Elon Musk famously likes to do things his own way, and doesn't much care for convention. And that's often a great recipe for innovation. At times, it leads to really awesome things like giving away all the company's patents for anyone to use without licensing. But, sometimes it does some weird things that should make people think twice about buying into the Telsa vision -- even when at first pass it may make sense. For example, a few months ago, we were concerned about the "surprise" remote range extension that Tesla gave to drivers in Florida to help them evacuate before Hurricane Irma hit. On its face, this obviously seems like a good thing. Helping people evacuate a hurricane by extending their mileage is unquestionably good.
But it did raise some concerns -- about a company remotely, and without notification, updating the car you purchased from afar. Because if it can be used for "good" reasons (like giving you extra range to escape a hurricane) it might also be used at other times for bad reasons. What if, for example, Elon Musk decides he doesn't like you. Last year, Musk famously banned famed venture capitalist Stewart Alsop from buying one of Tesla's cars after Alsop publicly complained about a poorly staged event by Tesla. Could Musk "brick" someone's car for displeasing him? The backlash to that would be massive, which probably keeps such a move out of the realm of likelihood, but there are still problems with the company changing your car after purchase.
Similarly, last year there were reports that Tesla was banning people from using its self-driving car technology as part of any ride-sharing project. This seemed like an anti-competitive move, as Tesla has talked about setting up its own sort of Uber using self-driving cars that people would buy (basically, you'd "rent out" your car while you weren't using it). We thought that was a neat idea, but were troubled by the idea of contractually blocking Tesla owners from working with other vendors on such a project.
And now there's another troubling move: Tesla is telling "commercial" drivers of its vehicles (mainly ride-sharing drivers) that they can't use the company's Supercharger network to charge their cars. There are perfectly legitimate, non-nefarious reasons for this. Mainly: there are apparently problems with Superchargers being overcrowded these days, and you could see why the company doesn't want them clogged up with ride sharing drivers, effectively subsidizing their driving jobs. At the very least, the company has made it clear the policy only applies to new Tesla buyers, so it's not a bait-and-switch situation.
But, still, there's something troubling about the idea that the company can ban you from using its Superchargers based solely on the type of driving you're doing. Again, that leads to questions about what other situations may arise where Tesla bans people from using its chargers in one form or another. I'm sure that many won't think this is a big deal -- and will point out that the company needed to do something to avoid congestion. But we should be concerned about how this is subtly changing our relationship to the products we (thought we) own, and the control that companies have over our usage, post-purchase.
I don't think Tesla is doing anything nefarious here, and there are plenty of seemingly good reasons for why the company chose this path. But we should be quite careful and thoughtful about how we move into a world where the company that sells you something retains an astounding amount of control over how and even if you are allowed use it, based on how much it likes or dislikes you or your profession. Because sooner or later, these issues are going to get bigger and more problematic -- and it might help if we really thought about them now, before things get messy.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: cars, elon musk, internet of things, ownership, ride sharing, superchargers
Companies: tesla
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Stable, focused, full HD images of (mostly) static car plates and their drivers are perfect for ANPR/ALPR
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automatic_number-plate_recognition#Other_uses
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Plate readers? Potato. has nothing to do with the topic here.
"considering that many (if not all)" I live in western pa and most gas stations out here do not, or if they do they are 90's tech with inches of dust on them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
More proof that if you like someone you are willing to give them a pass. I read a lot of people that extol the virtues of Musk while ignoring this dictatorial control he likes to have.
Musk is an intelligent person, but he is NOT a good guy. Like Gates, Soros, Jobs, and many others like them... they sold their soul for the world.
"I don't think Tesla is doing anything nefarious here,"
The first sign of reasoning yourself into a double standard. I notice the first thing people like to do with famous well liked folks is to give work off the innocent until proven guilty model, but if you don't like them... then you work off the guilty until proven innocent model.
Musk has already proven he might be nuts through many of his crazy quotes. Or in short... once he is done engineering a solution, he should let someone else administrate them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Who owns the Superchargers?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Who owns the Superchargers?
Yes it's a bit unsettling to some people, but this is a case where the owner was at least made aware and given the option to upgrade at a later time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Who owns the Superchargers?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Who owns the Superchargers?
It was a lot of fun doing this when building computers decades ago, as many processors were "hotroddable" far beyond their listed speed, and at first all you had to do was move jumpers or dipswitches on the MB, until Intel got wise to that underground community and started implementing countermeasures ... and then counter-counter-countermeasures.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Scummy?
And it's kWh, not KwH. SI units too hard for you folks?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Scummy?
It must be, they still use imperial units, and they couldn't get the gallon right.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Scummy?
It's kW⋅h: "Multiplication must be indicated by a space or a half-high (centred) dot (⋅), since otherwise some prefixes could be misinterpreted as a unit symbol" (SI brochure §5.1). And the proper SI unit for energy is the joule (1 kW⋅h = 3.6 MJ).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Who owns the Superchargers?
Anything that tries to undermine individual property rights of physical goods shouldn't be permitted.
I have a very deep hostility to companies attempting to mold consumer behavior (as opposed to consumers molding company behavior).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Who owns the Superchargers?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Who owns the Superchargers?
By definition, the 75 kWh people did not pay a fair price for their battery. Because the exact same battery was sold to others for $8000 less.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Who owns the Superchargers?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Who owns the Superchargers?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Who owns the Superchargers?
It's not absurd from a marketing and economics perspective, as companies in many different industries have always done this to some degree.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Who owns the Superchargers?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Who owns the Superchargers?
I am an advocate for a market, with sellers effectively common carriers (no arbitrary discrimination between buyers -- you set a price, you set conditions, and if you want to limit the number of giveaways, OK). Might be called the "doctrine of first sale" -- preconditions for a transaction, but not post-conditions.
I propose simply limiting an individual to one supercharge per week, OK, but don't tell that individual not to be driving a taxi with that supercharge.
And as to this battery capacity thing: Remember, batteries operate on a curve...and if you are warranteeing a certain life from a battery pack, there's a definite cost in additional replacements before the end of life for letting it operate closer to its short-term limits.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Who owns the Superchargers?
Since the chargers are (a) owned by Tesla, and not the consumers and (b) represent a benefit of ownership provided at the cost of Tesla alone it's pretty much up to them to make the rules.
As someone else pointed out, there is also no benefit for Tesla to be paying the power to run Uber cars, especially considering all the legal wrangling going on. Why would one side feed the other side?
I think in this a case where Techdirt is in such a rush to damn a company for something that the real story is entirely and completely missed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
the first time is never nefarious after that its all down hill
At a time when the US government has shown its willingness to gut all but the most basic of consumer protections one has to worry if small steps like this are only the beginning and since the government does not have your back ( a large donation to the your political party of choice may alter your individual circumstances ) and don't think the courts will have your back either as the current administration has shown a propensity to want to appoint clearly unsuitable candidates that are there for life.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hotrod a Tesla - go to jail?
I wonder how long it will be before Tesla starts using the DMCA to throw "hotrodders" (and any other non-government approved modders) in jail. The whole trend toward "licensed not owned" that started in the software industry and expanded to a vast array of other products is troubling, as is the DMCA's prohibition on the owner of any product containing copyrighted code to "circumvent a technological measure" to fix problems and improve performance of things that have traditionally been legally maintained and modded by owners in the past.
It just seems like we're creeping into an age in which we basically no longer own our possessions or even our bodies.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hotrod a Tesla - go to jail?
As for people customizing them, yep, they do, you're totally allowed to hotrod your Tesla. The only thing they do is cut it off from the cell network and block access to super chargers.
There is a whole community of Tesla Hackers poking at the software. Tesla sometimes sends them messages to stop hacking the car, but still, the only thing they can legally do is disconnect the cell (their side only), and lock you out of super chargers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Hotrod a Tesla - go to jail?
Who pays for that?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Hotrod a Tesla - go to jail?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This is more a symptom of changing technology
Most bay's are located in shopping areas, leased from those shopping areas. Commercial accounts often do not buy anything when they are at the bay and use the same bay several times a day. This quickly adds up in costs that Tesla and the shopping centers are subsidizing.
In short they don't want to do that anymore, and they are also attempting to provide an alternative as they have sold a private supercharger at least once already. I am sure they will change the lease contracts on renewal to allow for (Paying) commercial users because lets be frank, it costs about $5 for a fill-up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So, "common carrier" and "net neutrality", but different for the "Supercharger"?
After all, ISP networks don't have limits on capacity, right? So should be forced to carry all traffic, and light users should effectively subsidize heavy users.
I'm glad you're consistently inconsistent.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: So, "common carrier" and "net neutrality", but different for the "Supercharger"?
It's not that electric cars aren't NEAT (would suit my uses GREAT), it's that they'll never be economically viable.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: So, "common carrier" and "net neutrality", but different for the "Supercharger"?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: So, "common carrier" and "net neutrality", but different for the "Supercharger"?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: So, "common carrier" and "net neutrality", but different for the "Supercharger"?
Not mentioned in this article - isn't it the case that except for the Model 3, charging on Tesla chargers is free? (And they haven't delivered a lot of 3's yet). So basically they are saying "Whoa, we sold you a personal vehicle with free charging, not something you intended to drive all day and make money at our expense." Yes, it's sort of retroactively changing the rules, but it kind of make sense. There's a big differnce between 30-mile commutes and driving all day long.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: So, "common carrier" and "net neutrality", but different for the "Supercharger"?
In the end, the result for Tesla is whether you are driving all day long, or someone else is doing it because you're earning money.
Capping is compatible with Supercharger Neutrality, discriminating between traffics, isn't.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
But limiting / controlling is okay if a "free service"?
Interesting that you qualify that worry with "sells you something". Oh, I suppose it's a natural phrase, but in light of your assertions that Google, Facebook, and Twitter have a "First Amendment Right" to control on their "platforms" the speech of "natural" persons, to limit / restrict / deny service for any or no reason, as usual, I think your specification that it's only worrying with those corporations which "sell" a product is significant.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Uber and Lyft are not "ridesharing"
Uber and Lyft are part time jobs that require the use of your car, like being a pizza delivery driver. It's not "sharing".
Picking up casual commuters so you can use the carpool lane is ride sharing. So is picking up a paying passenger who wants to go in a direction you happen to being going. Uber and Lyft, not so much.
So, why should commercial drivers, such as Uber and Lyft drivers, get to put their fuel expenses on Tesla?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Uber and Lyft are not "ridesharing"
The way I read it was that using a Tesla for business (providing paid-for transportation services) precludes you from using their (is it?) free charging network.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Control
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why should Tesla GIVE away power to Uber or Lyft?
Why should Tesla or any state, county, city, et. GIVE away power to Uber or Lyft which already aren't paying a whole gambit of costs associated with the industry?
I say Uber pay up, pay the full cost of this ride sharing economy and STOP creating your own subsidies on the backs of others... If the economics require subsidies - in this case free power - then the business model is broken from the get go.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Two issues to back dooring encryption.
a: The encryption will be broken - by definition the hackers will spend tons of effort to break it.
b: Once broken the original manufacturer will be required to re-engineer a new encryption with a new back door - expensive.
Once re-created the software must be distributed to the entire user base - expensive.
Then the clock starts again.
This chaise the tail scenario will continues until the "entity" finally realizes that a "back door" is not worth the time, expense nor hassle.
---
2: Encryption is not a secret, there are MANY ways to build an encryption software, and they ALL are designed from some mathematical algorithm.
Most if not all are already in the hands of mathematicians in most if not all nations. What is to prevent some software maven from creating a encryption software application with out a back door - nothing. Once built and offered to the populous anyone can buy and use it. Proof - PGP! There is really no way to prevent this from happening.
---
So much for Back Door!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
. . .
I'm sure that many won't think this is a big deal -- and will point out that the company needed to do something to avoid congestion.
Yeah, imagine that. In a finite world we might need a way to ration things.
Good news though - we discovered a way to do that *several millennia* ago. Its called 'charge money for it'. Then you can manage your supply and demand curves. But that's *old* and Musk didn't invent it and it doesn't get his name in the papers in a good way so he can use that PR image to snatch more easy cash out of the hands of the government.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Soon there will be religious rules for everything. Going to the supermarket that's Jewish will only sell Kosher food. Going to the bank you will find your blocked from some products because Christians are not allowed to earn or pay interest.
Soon you will discover that one night stands are illegal since the state feels you need to be married to have relations. (Under the guise of a baby license)
Next thing you know you have to follow all the religious rules of all the religions since the Pastafarians have a problem with you eating noodles with out meatballs, but the Hindu don't want to sell you meat.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Also a chance
Tesla's charging stations are now known to be less reliable. This might make it interesting for other companies to start their own charging stations and actually compete on customer service and/or price with Tesla. This mechanism is known as free market dynamics (and is one of the basic dogmatic beliefs of the USA population).
Only when Tesla blocks for other companies from charging the cars Tesla sold, will it be time for Net Neutrality/Common Carrier claims.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
At less than 100K units a years
The expense for the charger network is probably largely subsidized at this point. So it is is reasonable to expect that that they want as many different people to use them as possible, and not just use them to subsidize the business models of a few gig-economy fraudsters.
Tesla is paying out a ton of money to create a new market space, which (for the moment) they are probably loosing money on. Once that marketspace is established, these restrictions will almost surely go away.
People who think this is a problem don't understand gaggle of financial rapists that every new business and product has to dodge before it becomes accepted in the market. It is easy to be a critic when you've never built anything.
Musk gets it. He is putting the money he made in technology, back into technology. Which is different from most of the other players. They take the money, and just play the margins to stay on top. Musk never stops trying to shoot the moon. It is extraordinarily admirable.
It isn't the rules you play with. It is the reason you play with those rules.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]