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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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