The idea was to prevent people from mistakenly believing that phones were fully working, only to realise they were unable to make emergency calls when the crucial moment came.
Australians with older 4G phones may also be caught out because of the way the phones are configured.
It is up to the telcos to work out which phones are affected, notify the owners, block their phones, and help make other arrangements such as low- or no-cost replacement phones.
However, as Telstra and Optus noted during a Senate inquiry into the shutdown, telecom companies are unable to tell which individual devices suffer from this problem unless have they sold them.
I’m not saying it’s not partly on the providers, but validating that a bunch of obscure phones that aren’t sold in your country meet new regulatory requirements is not as easy as you’re making it out to be.
It’s not a bunch of a large number. It is a set number of phones from well known providers from a few countries.
Basically no one wanted to pay for one Business Analyst to read documentation and make phone calls to providers. For a program that has years and millions in it.
Or worse, cause it is out of scope
Or the worst, so they could sell the “buy from the provider” bullshit
Regulatory compliance of hardware is not, and should not be, the responsibility of the service provider. It’s the responsibility of the manufacturer to have their hardware certified basically everywhere.
Frankly, the rules shouldn’t even allow providers to make that determination. They should either be certified to meet the requirements by an independent agency, or have providers be prohibited from allowing them.
I did read the article. Checking is not and should not be their responsibility.
The only legitimate way to check is to do actual, intensive, independent testing of every device in question, specific to your country’s regulations. Spec sheets are not a valid approach to verifying that a device will work.
How do you think spec sheets work? Engineers rely on data a d there are industry standards. That is the whole point of documentation. Even little motors and resistors have documentation that is relied on. You really think this is not documented accurately?
You really think that Optus is intensely checking and verify every device they sell? They rely on the documentation! They are a retailer of phones.
The way that Aussies think is always interesting. I find a lot of people bend over backwards to justify the reasons for companies. Instead of standing up for customers these arguments seem to look like a shining example of “out of scope” decisions. I have seen in too many corporate meetings and decision makers.
So to let people know that they won’t have emergency service during an emergency, they prevent them from having ANY service now (24-hour notice). Even if telecom companies behaved perfectly (which they wouldn’t) the initial idea was already a problem.
Yes, the phones are non compliant and need to be barred. This is good. Everyone must be able to access emergency services in times of crisis. The fact some manufacturers make phones that don’t use 4g for this means their phones rely on outdated tech and standards and will be excluded.
Except they weren’t non-compliant before and this is punishing the users, not the manufacturers. I don’t even know what tech my phone uses for emergency services.
That’s not how telecommunications work at all. You always have backwards compatibility and you don’t need perfect latency or beam forming to make an emergency call. Don’t kid yourself it is solely to fuck with consumers and to make more money somehow.
Telcos in Australia have so far been the worst money grabbing vultures that I’ve ever seen. Like these motherfuckers would lock a PoE line to the MAC address of an networkadapter, so that you could use one machine and nothing more.
This isn’t regulatory. It’s Optus deciding that if they didn’t sell the handset or its foreign bought it is will be blocked. Because of reasons…
And don’t ask questions because software is hard, and telecom is too technical for the plebs.
It’s nothing but a blatant cash grab hidden in a thin veneer of technical babble because it’s tough for modern journalists to question engineering.
I’m not saying it’s not partly on the providers, but validating that a bunch of obscure phones that aren’t sold in your country meet new regulatory requirements is not as easy as you’re making it out to be.
It’s not a bunch of a large number. It is a set number of phones from well known providers from a few countries.
Basically no one wanted to pay for one Business Analyst to read documentation and make phone calls to providers. For a program that has years and millions in it.
Or worse, cause it is out of scope
Or the worst, so they could sell the “buy from the provider” bullshit
Regulatory compliance of hardware is not, and should not be, the responsibility of the service provider. It’s the responsibility of the manufacturer to have their hardware certified basically everywhere.
Frankly, the rules shouldn’t even allow providers to make that determination. They should either be certified to meet the requirements by an independent agency, or have providers be prohibited from allowing them.
Read the article. Optus is not bothering checking. Just closing stuff off.
I did read the article. Checking is not and should not be their responsibility.
The only legitimate way to check is to do actual, intensive, independent testing of every device in question, specific to your country’s regulations. Spec sheets are not a valid approach to verifying that a device will work.
How do you think spec sheets work? Engineers rely on data a d there are industry standards. That is the whole point of documentation. Even little motors and resistors have documentation that is relied on. You really think this is not documented accurately?
You really think that Optus is intensely checking and verify every device they sell? They rely on the documentation! They are a retailer of phones.
The way that Aussies think is always interesting. I find a lot of people bend over backwards to justify the reasons for companies. Instead of standing up for customers these arguments seem to look like a shining example of “out of scope” decisions. I have seen in too many corporate meetings and decision makers.
So to let people know that they won’t have emergency service during an emergency, they prevent them from having ANY service now (24-hour notice). Even if telecom companies behaved perfectly (which they wouldn’t) the initial idea was already a problem.
Yes, the phones are non compliant and need to be barred. This is good. Everyone must be able to access emergency services in times of crisis. The fact some manufacturers make phones that don’t use 4g for this means their phones rely on outdated tech and standards and will be excluded.
Railing against this is just weird.
Except they weren’t non-compliant before and this is punishing the users, not the manufacturers. I don’t even know what tech my phone uses for emergency services.
So? Technology moves forward. So of you have a phone no longer compliant you need to get a replacement.
That’s not how telecommunications work at all. You always have backwards compatibility and you don’t need perfect latency or beam forming to make an emergency call. Don’t kid yourself it is solely to fuck with consumers and to make more money somehow.
Telcos in Australia have so far been the worst money grabbing vultures that I’ve ever seen. Like these motherfuckers would lock a PoE line to the MAC address of an networkadapter, so that you could use one machine and nothing more.
gooddamn your tongue must be raw from licking those corpo assholes all day. take a breather my man good lord!
Are Japan radio frequencies the same as Australia?