> plug-n-charge is not a billing system and will not fix billing system issues.

I don't know what you are talking about. Plug-n-charge means you don't use an app or a screen on the charger to set up your payment info. Instead your car is identified when you connect it. With no way to set billing information that means the billing information will be looked up in a database run by the charger operator.

So yes, that means Tesla will have a database of everyone who owns an EV who uses their chargers. A database to spam. And they will have an app (Already do) you use to set your billing information. That puts them in the pocket of every (okay, a lot of) EV owners.

But it also means billing can be handled like how your cell phone billing is handled. When you roam to another place you may be on a different network but your SIM identifies you and a backend can route the validation so that someone can attest you are allowed to call on that network and so that you are billed for what you do as applicable.

The idea of plug n charge is similar. You just go and the billing takes care of itself behind the scenes. You don't get to a charger and find you can't use it because you don't have a membership card. Or their app. Or the screen is broken. If you can plug in, it'll work. Like a Tesla Supercharger does. This will reduce failed attempts to charge which failed due to billing issues.

> what is this 12.5% about?

That is the percentage of chargers Tesla runs that it is going to make available to non-Teslas before the end of 2024. Only 12.5%.

> How is it vendor lock in when your opening up?

What? They are only opening up 12.5% of their chargers and only by the end of 2024. That means 87.5% of chargers are still only their own connector. That's vendor lock-in.

> locking Tesla out of the funds would do what for the US charging infrastructure?

The money would go to other companies who are committed to an infrastructure instead of vendor lock-in. It turns out most of the $7.5B is going to other companies, I corrected myself in an edit. The reporting implied it all goes to Tesla. It does not.

> Changing side mirrors to allow cameras was proposed years ago by many more companies then tesla.

What I'm talking about was Musk opining that since not having wing mirrors was illegal in the US he would put both wing mirrors and side cameras on the car and then customers would remove the wing mirrors and use just the side cameras.

Malicious compliance.

> Sometime after march 2023 side mirrors will be replaceable with camera.

Maybe. Or not. The rulemaking isn't done yet. None of that is material regardless, as Musk was proposing to release the car before the rule change.

> To summarize my points. Tesla opening up is great for the EV driver.

Tesla opening up 12.5% shows really that they aren't opening up at all. They are instead buying time to extend their vendor lockin.

> Tesla opening up is bad for other charging companies.

I don't care if companies that do a worse job have a hard time. I presume you don't either.