• peanutyam@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    13
    ·
    2 days ago

    Guessing some of the commenters have never dealt with Telstra here in Australia - it’s already reported that these telcos just flat out never tested any phone that they haven’t sold - phones that up until now were actually working perfectly fine (and even have the same model handset being sold by Telstra/Optus/Vodaphone etc) suddenly disconnected.

    It is purely laziness on the part of Telstra and the rest of them and they are using it as an excuse to get people to buy their handsets instead - have not seen one of the “offers” of zero cost replacements either……

    Telstra are just corporate scum and this could have been handled a whole lot better but then again you only have to look at the shitfight that we have here called the NBN - a national government funded internet network that the telcos will charge you more than the rest of the developed world to access and nowhere near the speeds, level or service or quality as seen in the rest of the world……

    Nobody here in Australia is really surprised this was a massive cock up and anyone who is mustn’t have ever heard of Telstra then……

  • dugmeup@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    63
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    2 days ago

    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.

  • MonkderVierte@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    26
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    2 days ago

    This is a safety issue — a matter of life and death — so if there is any doubt, we are compelled by law to block to protect customers,

    What is that mental gymnastics? They are blocking customers in life and death situations from making emergency calls.

  • Burn_The_Right@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    2 days ago

    The telecoms are using bad-faith interpretation of the new rules to require their customers to buy (often identical) phones directly from them. This is a corporate money-grab and it needs to be aggressively addressed.

  • Todd Bonzalez@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    31
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    2 days ago

    On one hand, I totally understand that if technical and regulatory issues prevent certain phones from being able to call emergency services, cutting those phones off is a matter of public safety. You don’t want people learning that their phones can’t call emergency services when a loved one is having a heart attack or something.

    But this seems like a decision that is pretty toxic to tourism and international business. If I ever visit Australia, am I going to need to buy a phone when I get there? It doesn’t seem wise to make your cell network work all that differently from the rest of the world when cell phones are supposed to work seamlessly across borders.

    • ABCDE@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      2 days ago

      It doesn’t seem wise to make your cell network work all that differently from the rest of the world when cell phones are supposed to work seamlessly across borders.

      This is/was the USA with their very different system.

  • kalleboo@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    21
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    2 days ago

    They should have built a solution where the phones that haven’t been tested get cut off, but get an SMS telling them to activate the phone, call SOS once. For the first SOS call, they intercept it, check that the phone was able to make the call, then unblock the phone, and after that, allow SOS calls as normal.

    That would require “actually doing work” though.