EA (Electrify America) Sucks - that is all

[daveo4EV]

Not trying to be political but its because Biden is super old and probably can't use a smartphone so he doesn't expect his peers to be able to use one either, hence the card reader requirement. lol.

But no in all seriousness, its because of the accessibility issue. its silly but i guess theres a sizable portion of people who don't own smartphones or can't figure it out.

Tesla walked away from $6,000,000 in California funding - they probably figured out redesign and implementation of the requirement was not only a backwards step but also would cost more upfront and long term than the $6,000,000 in funding

so "no thankyou" - we'll keep runing the the most reliable network in North American and not introduce additional points of failure into our operational system…

but yeah it's easy to lose track of what govt. funding Tesla is or is not chasing

I agree with Tesla's perspective in this space…

Sponsored

 

[WasserGKuehlt]

EA is a sad collaboration of many companies. Too many cooks in the kitchen. Nothing beats a smart dictator with a strong vision, who makes unilateral decisions, as long as the dictator is right most of the time. [...] EA was funded by VW, they should have developed a proper charging network for VW and then allows others to use it, not invite everyone to the design table. Tesla did it, now everyone is begging or even strong-arming them to allow others to use it.

Closed systems are always better, because they don't work for anyone else. I don't think it's a design by committee issue with EA - they are implementing a standard, and "open" is always and by definition harder. FWIW, _never once_ had I had a problem at an EA station if I outright paid. And for all the blaming that Porsche NA threw towards EA, the inescapable truth is that a) EA does basically work (with CC), and b) Porsche has to authorize the charging request.

As a side note, I heard Tesla gave up some government incentives in California over a requirement that all stations must have screens and accept credit cards. [...]

many governments in North America require users to have phones to collect benefits, prove vaccinations, etc. And yet, they will try to force car charging companies to not require apps. What's next, require accepting payment in coins and paper bills?

and

Not trying to be political but its because Biden is super old and probably can't use a smartphone so he doesn't expect his peers to be able to use one either, hence the card reader requirement. lol.

But no in all seriousness, its because of the accessibility issue. its silly but i guess theres a sizable portion of people who don't own smartphones or can't figure it out.

I used to work for a (German) company that issued BlackBerry phones for work: effectively locked-down devices, no BT, restricted networks. You could easily translate this into users that have an aversion/apprehension to phone-based authentication. So yes, to me, having a CC reader is an absolute must* - I may have lost my phone, or just smashed it in frustration of not being able to plug'n charge. It seems like you can't open the door on a Tesla without a phone (so much less drive on), so in _that_ closed system you can say only Tesla accounts/no generic CC is supported, but that won't make sense in an open system/with anonymous users.


*'Must' in the usability requirement sense, not as an individual preference. I use my phone plenty for these scenarios. I absolutely detest, though, the number of apps and accounts I have to create for basically trivial functionality.

 

[whitex]

But no in all seriousness, its because of the accessibility issue. its silly but i guess theres a sizable portion of people who don't own smartphones or can't figure it out.

Again, phones have been required to collect government benefits, prove vaccinations, etc. So we are already passed this threshold.

 

[WasserGKuehlt]

Again, phones have been required to collect government benefits, prove vaccinations, etc. So we are already passed this threshold.

Where? In US, there was always the option of a printed vaccination card - and in fact that was the primary 'certificate'.

But see my other response - CC means 'anonymous': the transaction is between the card issuer and the service provider. Phone means an identity known directly to (or even issued by) the service provider. This is why Tesla can get away without CC, because non-Teslas were not envisioned as customers. (Incidentally, this is also where EA's troubles lie; it's a 3-way authentication over unreliable connections and very complex 'clients'.)

 

[whitex]

Closed systems are always better, because they don't work for anyone else.

Is a closed Tesla networking working for CCS users an exception then? How about iPhones and their locked down app ecosystem? I disagree with you that closed systems don't work for anyone else. Yes, it might not work for absolutely everyone, but neither do open systems. And yes, I've heard the argument that a truly open system is 100% customizable by anyone, so you can code whatever you want it to do, but that's just BS - here is my open source OS, single line of C code, 100% customizable to do ANYTHING you want. Let me know once you install it on your PC.

while(1);

 

[WasserGKuehlt]

Is a closed Tesla networking working for CCS users an exception then? How about iPhones and their locked down app ecosystem? I disagree with you that closed systems don't work for anyone else. Yes, it might not work for absolutely everyone, but neither do open systems. And yes, I've heard the argument that a truly open system is 100% customizable by anyone, so you can code whatever you want it to do, but that's just BS - here is my open source OS, single line of C code, 100% customizable to do ANYTHING you want. Let me know once you install it on your PC.

while(1);

Glad you're having fun but you know I meant "anyone outside (the closed system)". As in, if you constrain the problem, you can provide better, more reliable, simpler solutions. This isn't a knock - quite the opposite. Apple, Tesla etc. work well because they're optimized for their respective audiences.

But in the real world standards do work better for universal problems - those where you can't and shouldn't restrict the audience. If the US wants to promote EVification of the fleet, then as a government it has to invest in solutions that aren't proprietary, and make those solutions available to the general public. It's fine to say that cash is not accepted - it's an unattended box in the desert - but absolutely it shouldn't say "US gov't requires you to create a Tesla account". Not only no fucking way I'd ever do that, but I might get pissed about where my taxes go.

 

[gtm]

But no in all seriousness, its because of the accessibility issue. its silly but i guess theres a sizable portion of people who don't own smartphones or can't figure it out.

Seriously? Anyone driving an EV has a smart phone. Totally anecdotal but I'd bet it's around 99% who have one. Not having a smart phone is not the reason for requiring credit card readers.

 

[xyeahtony]

Seriously? Anyone driving an EV has a smart phone. Totally anecdotal but I'd bet it's around 99% who have one. Not having a smart phone is not the reason for requiring credit card readers.

If EV adoption is going to be widespread, then a big percentage of drivers eventually wont have smartphones.

 

[daveo4EV]

If EV adoption is going to be widespread, then a big percentage of drivers eventually wont have smartphones.

in california?

 

[gtm]

If EV adoption is going to be widespread, then a big percentage of drivers eventually wont have smartphones.

They will have brain implants? Walk around anywhere and everyone has a smart phone.

 

[daveo4EV]

If EV adoption is going to be widespread, then a big percentage of drivers eventually wont have smartphones.

I disagree - the sort of infrastrucure EV's require goes hand-in-hand with smart phones - and also smart phone penetration is greater than personal transportation (car ownership) - people with out cars have smart phones, not the other way around…

but I'll bite -what is the adoption scenario for EV's (or any personal automobile) where people can afford a personal vehicle (that they need to charge) but don't have a wireless phone? I'm all ears.

if anything personal communication is THE KILLER APP - more so than personal transportation - places where cars are unaffordable have vast numbers of the population with cell phones - and if you can't afford a cell phone, you can't afford car either - so you don't need to be able to charge an EV…so honestly I don't buy it

but this is a friendly conversation - I've staked out my position - I'd love to hear the counter point...

so I'll humbly disagree with this assertion. If you can afford a car you can afford a smart phone, but people who can not afford cars will still have a phone-smart-phone...

I can also solve this problem with nothing more than texting (so not even a full smart phone)

1. register your phone number with a charging provider and payment method (this is a one time setup thing)
2. when at charger have unique number on each charger stall - example 56FGRTR78
3. text charger number (example 56FGRTR78) to fixed "service number" for charging vendor 888-555-1212
4. once the text message is received stall will be unlocked/activated for charging session
5. billing info and charging fees texted back to phone to confirm stall activation and you plug in and charging begins - if you don't like the billing rates simple reply "stop" and your session is canceled
   1. no "smart" phone required, just simple texting
6. bill is based on the pre-registered phone number the text message was sent from.
7. this scenario ignores the way I activate MOST of my EA sessions - which is waiting on hold for a customer support representative because the Point-of-Sale card reader (you know the one california is requiring) isn't working/broken/non-functional.
   1. and neither is my smart phone cause the EA app SUCKS!!!

so again I simply don't buy it.

easy peasy - no smart phone required - just a cell phone.

if you really believe EV adoption will preceded any rudimentary wireless communications infrastructure - well then I'll humbly disagree with you.

california's unwillingness to be flexible with Tesla on this aspect is a bit of an example of why govt. isn't normally/always a solution - Tesla has the BEST charging network in Calfornia/North America and is widely proven to be effective, efficient, reliable - access to a smart phone is not a hurdle if you can own a vehicle, and Tesla's app is free and easy to setup with the SAME payment method they are requiring. all california's requirement is doing is moving backwards in terms of technology and introducing a new point of failure into charger activation. I'm find with Tesla opting out and I'm fine with California having this requirement - but for all the things you can legitmately lay at Tesla's feet for "bad" - in this case they are right.

their system is proven effective, California shoudl learn from that not impede it.

California should required "demonstrated" effectiveness for the things they wish to accomplish - but not be "prescriptive" with how to achieve those things - this is the best leadership - stake out the problems that MUST be solved - but not necessarily how they will be solved - this leads to the greatest inventions - I can require your solution to be effective and practical without telling you how to do it.

with a non-prescriptive approach I'm 100% confident Tesla (or any EV charging vendor) could demonstrate effective/practical methods for charging installation - if they choose the card reader = customer support number approach great! if they come up with something else (like my text based billing) equally great...at the end of the day we want more EV charging stalls and we should be willing to help people willing to setup them - we can have minimum standards (like how do you bill and communicate charging rates to the users) but govt. should not be in the business of designing the systems…they can specify the requirements leaving it up to the vendors to demonstrate effectiveness.

 

[xyeahtony]

I disagree - the sort of infrastrucure EV's require goes hand-in-hand with smart phones - and also smart phone penetration is greater than personal transportation (car ownership) - people with out cars have smart phones, not the other way around…

i dont disagree. but our society does tend to cater to the minority.

 

[WasserGKuehlt]

Hello? Hello, over here! Why CC? I answered this twice already in this thread. @daveo4EV (I’d quote your post directly but it’s too long to trim to the key points on my smartphone) - it’s not about smartphone penetration or the possibility of solving payments via phone; it’s that it’s unreasonable to assume a sizable segment of the population can or want to. There are non-NFC-capable smart phones, there are stations out in the desert, there are prepaid smartphones where you shouldn’t put a CC, there is deep mistrust re: granting access to a bank account to a phone, and there’s lastly plain old “technology is hard “.

It’s perfectly fine for Tesla (or anyone else) to say “we don’t do CC”; just don’t expect to be considered part of “infrastructure”.

The EV audience is changing -specifically, continuously expanding.

 

[whitex]

Glad you're having fun but you know I meant "anyone outside (the closed system)". As in, if you constrain the problem, you can provide better, more reliable, simpler solutions. This isn't a knock - quite the opposite. Apple, Tesla etc. work well because they're optimized for their respective audiences.

But in the real world standards do work better for universal problems - those where you can't and shouldn't restrict the audience. If the US wants to promote EVification of the fleet, then as a government it has to invest in solutions that aren't proprietary, and make those solutions available to the general public. It's fine to say that cash is not accepted - it's an unattended box in the desert - but absolutely it shouldn't say "US gov't requires you to create a Tesla account". Not only no fucking way I'd ever do that, but I might get pissed about where my taxes go.

Well, the government is forcing you to have am account with Google or Apple, or else you cannot use a phone which is required for some government services or benefits (government app available only on Apple or Google App store). They also force you to get a bank account with a non government bank (Federal Reserve does not offer personal accounts last I checked) - good luck receiving any money from the government without one, even if they owe you. They force you to buy car insurance with a non-government firm too. Then again, given the disaster that Obamacare health insurance marketplace was, maybe it’s better that the government doesn’t force us to use their insurance or their banks. I have used WA state government sites where I had to create an account, OMG the usability of those sites is horrendous, I won’t speak much about security since I chose not to poke the hornet’s nest, but just from a user perspective I did not get a great feel about them securing much (think labor and industries, healthcare licensing, etc).

So while I do believe it is the role of the government to provide certain services and infrastructure, historically government execution lacks horribly behind corporate implementations. In this case, requiring you to make an account with Tesla or some other company would not bother me at all, as long as the government places some restrictions around what I need to provide for that account, ie a payment method, no different than requiring a credit card reader. Though taking your argument to the extreme, there really should be coin/bill payments supported so that you are not forced to have an account with a bank.

 

[kort]

I used to work for a (German) company that issued BlackBerry phones for work: effectively locked-down devices, no BT, restricted networks. You could easily translate this into users that have an aversion/apprehension to phone-based authentication.

the easy and obvious fix that many people who were issued company phones like that is to go out and get yourself a phone for personal use. I would never comingle my business and private lives.

Sponsored