PC> Until this "Approved is better" assumption is crushed,
PC> gullible people will continue to accept it and pay
PC> hundreds of dollars more for nothing but a static
PC> number that means nothing but "I'm scarred of Austel"

DD> I don't think anybody is suggesting "Approved is better",
DD> rather "Approved is LEGAL".

DD> A $12,000 fine may scar your wallet.

RS> Corse there is the tiny matter of how likely that is too. When you
RS> dont actually get fined anything even remotely like that for far far
RS> worse stuff, its more than a tad unlikely. We happen to have decent
RS> legal system here, its not up to Austel to just say 'pay me $12K'

DD> Yes, of course they would have to take you to court over it.

And there is no chance any judge or magistrate would ever award a
fine of $12K for using a non austel approved modem on the phone
network. You dont even get a fine of that size for blatant fraud.

I'm not even convinced that the most flagrant flouting of that
requirement by a commercial seller of modems would have any chance
of a fine that size.

DD> I guess they will either make a scape-goat of someone soon,
DD> or the whole damn thing will be deregulated.

Or they leave it as it is with boogy man stuff coz it costs nothing
to do it like that.

DD> The current situation is a bit of a farce.

Sure, but then silly government farces can continue for decades too.

--- PQWK202