this post was submitted on 03 Nov 2024
236 points (98.4% liked)

Technology

59378 readers
3204 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] conciselyverbose@sh.itjust.works 50 points 1 week ago (26 children)

Just days ahead of the shutdown, Australia's media regulator ACMA finalised a new "direction" (basically a rule) that meant telecom companies had to refuse service to all phones that relied on 3G for making emergency calls.

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.

[–] dugmeup@lemmy.world 8 points 1 week ago (7 children)

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

[–] conciselyverbose@sh.itjust.works 0 points 1 week ago (6 children)

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.

[–] dugmeup@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Read the article. Optus is not bothering checking. Just closing stuff off.

[–] conciselyverbose@sh.itjust.works 0 points 1 week ago (1 children)

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.

[–] dugmeup@lemmy.world 0 points 1 week ago (1 children)

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.

[–] conciselyverbose@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

Everywhere else on the planet, in order for a device to be cleared for sale, that specific model undergoes heavy testing for regulatory compliance by a government agency.

"The specs said it was fine" is literally never going to be a valid legal defense, and making that argument will get you laughed out of court. Either it's actually certified to be used as you're allowing it to be used, or you get the hammer dropped on you, as you should.

[–] dugmeup@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago

That is simply not true. What you get is standards. Standards bodies exist. In this most recent debacle all that is needed is compatible bands and VoLTE to make it compatible.

If these two exist, then it works.

Don't listen to me, here is a reference. https://www.whistleout.com.au/MobilePhones/Guides/Will-my-phone-work-in-Australia-carrier-network-frequencies

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (22 replies)