• dugmeup@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    27 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

    • conciselyverbose@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      27 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.

        • conciselyverbose@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          27 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.

          • dugmeup@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            27 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.

            • conciselyverbose@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              27 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.

      • Zanz@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        27 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.