feddit.org

8 points

11 days ago

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

report

conciselyverbose@sh.itjust.works

[ - ]

0 points

11 days ago

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.

report

[ - ]

1 point

11 days ago

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

report

conciselyverbose@sh.itjust.works

[ - ]

0 points

11 days ago

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.

report

[ - ]

0 points

11 days ago

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.

report

conciselyverbose@sh.itjust.works

[ - ]

1 point

11 days ago

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.

report

[ - ]

1 point

11 days 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

report

[ - ]

2 points

11 days ago

They’re actively blocking North American and international iPhones from connecting to their Network. Apple has updates for each region that automatically download when you get there, but they’re claiming it’s a trade secret so only the phones they sell can get that update that’s made by Apple for them. It isn’t even a firmware update it’s a little app that downloads in the background. Google does the same thing with Android, the pixel line, and anything running the stock with Google services or pixel experience.

report