I had a realization this week. I think I might be a “CLI snob”.

Every day I triage email; I key-ahead to delete voicemail without listening; and I multi-select text messages and hit “delete” without reading them.

Now this brutal yet effective time-management technique has started to influence the way I handle incoming phone calls. No Caller ID? No answer. Sorry.

Working in the I.T. industry fifteen years ago, the on-call techo from my department would start a mail client called “cc:Mail” twice daily, and connect to a Netware mail server. We’d check, optimistically (and naively optimistically in hindsight), to see if anyone had sent us any mail.

Nowadays, we’re bombarded with electronic messaging in every form, every minute of the day; especially I.T. people, who often receive automated alerts from monitoring systems and server scripts. And we’re expected to be available 24 x 7!

So this is what ends-up happening, and I’m sure I’m not the Lone Ranger here. I receive roughly 100 to 200 email messages daily, to my home and work accounts. I ‘triage’ these as they arrive, moving them into folders or just deleting them without reading. Some readers might find this to be normal practice, others might be appalled. If it took me just 30 seconds to open and read each of these messages I’d be spending an hour, maybe an hour and a half, each day just opening and reading emails. Not actually actioning them or doing anything productive, just opening and reading.

To manage time effectively you need to identify what’s relevant to you fast, and everything else can go on the back-burner.

If I’m in a meeting, and I have three missed calls from colleagues, and then three “missed call” text messages from voicemail, I’m not actually going to read any of those texts, or dial-in to voicemail and listen to people saying “Hi, ahhhh… looks like you’re busy… okay then, catchya later.” Delete, delete, delete. It’s what type-ahead was made for. I’m better-off ringing them back, or walking through the cube farm and saying, “Hey, sorry I missed your call, what’s up?”

Lately I’ve been ignoring calls from “private” numbers. Not because I don’t love antagonizing telemarketers, but rather, I’ve got a finite amount of time to get work done, and the telephone is a big distraction. At least if I know who’s calling, I can make an assessment as to the relevance of that call before I answer it.

If I “bounce” a call to voicemail, it’s for a good reason: not necessarily because the call is unwelcome, but that the interruption is unwelcome.

Similarly, if I call someone and I get “bounced” to voicemail (and yes, I do send my number on outgoing calls,) then I know the person at the other end is probably in the same position.

Someone called me a “CLI snob” the other day, because I bounced a private number to voicemail. Maybe I am, but for good reason. Time equals money. Show me some courtesy by identifying yourself in outgoing calls, and I’ll reciprocate by answering or returning the call when I can, and when I’m in a position to give you my undivided attention.

The telephone, like email, Twitter, voicemail, faxmail, text messages and everything else, is a communication tool for my convenience. It shouldn’t be a tool for someone else’s convenience to the detriment of my productivity. If it is, what’s the point in having it?

Oh, the private number caller didn’t leave a message either, by the way. I wondered, for a brief second, who it  might have been.

But only just for a second.

ANI · Caller ID · CLI · email · faxmail · productivity · SMS · text message · time management · Twitter · voicemail

Much has been said about the Australian Government’s proposed Net Filter legislation.

Outside of the Government, most of what has been said  is bad; except for this little gem by The Australian, which reports that  the new legislation is unlikely to be passed before the Federal election.

The Government was aiming to introduce draft legislation at the last sitting of parliament. This opportunity has been and gone.

Now, The Australian has reported that a spokeswoman for Communications Minister Stephen Conroy said that  the legislation would not be introduced in the May or June sittings of parliament.

Parliament will not then sit until the last week of August, and the next Federal election must be held before April 2011.

Today, Electronic Frontiers Australia (a vocal opponent of the Net Filter) reported that Senator Sue Boyce had called the proposed legislation ‘a farce’:

The Rudd Government’s hare-brained proposal to censor the internet was descending into complete farce with the Prime Minister admitting he didn’t have a clue what was going on, Liberal Senator Sue Boyce, said today.

“Yesterday, Mr Rudd at a media conference, admitted that he had ‘no advice’ about whether or not the legislation would be introduced before the election and fobbed the matter off to Communications Minister Stephen Conroy,” Senator Boyce said.

“This is despite the fact that Minister Conroy’s spokeswoman was quoted in the media yesterday morning (Thursday) as saying the legislation would be delayed at least until after the June sitting of Parliament,” she said.

Labor promised before the last election that it would force ISPs to block illegal content.  Now, with Labor’s time and resources focussed on the shelving of its Emissions Trading Scheme; extinguishing burning insulation batts; wrangling with the states over health reform and the GST; with any luck the Net Filter legislation will take a back seat, and quietly be abandoned under the guise of a Friday 4:55 P.M. media release like this:

The Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy Senator Stephen Conroy today announced he would introduce amendments to enhance protection for all Australians that use the internet.

After much consultation with industry groups and key stakeholders, the Australian Government is excited to announce the next stage of the implementation of its Cyber-Safety Policy.

The Government has determined that the function of ISP-level filtering, while efficient, effective and potentially of great benefit to all Australians, can be even better provided by the introduction of voluntary ISP-based filtering systems and Government-subsidised filter software for home users.

The Government has had constructive discussions with the Greens on this issue and now calls on the Opposition to support this ground-breaking strategy.

To facilitate the quick passage of the legislative amendments, and in the best interests of all Australians, the Government will not proceed with the proposal to implement a mandatory ISP-based Net Filter.

“A range of views were expressed in the public submissions, and I would like to thank everyone who contributed their comments and valuable ideas to the consultation process,” Senator Conroy said.

Senator Conroy said that the discussion period had been most valuable and that the Australian Government was now in a much better position to go forward with informed, decisive action to protect Australians from on-line dangers.

“Such a system will accommodate growth trajectories for internet usage, leverage investment in existing infrastructure and protect  family values through excellence in industry best practice,” Senator Conroy said.

“Control techniques will ensure continuous improvement in these systems and guarantee, at the end of the day, that a holistic approach to internet safety, including proper funding of law enforcement and availability of programmes for family education, is ultimately maintained.”

“This is a can-do government,” said Senator Conroy.

Expect sometime like this, anyway. I tried to think of more weasel words but my head was about to explode.

Feel free to copy and paste though, Senator Conroy, if it helps at all.

dbcde · isp filtering · legislation · net filter · no clean feed · Open Internet · Senator Conroy

Fox News ran a story today on GPS jammers, saying that:

An electronic device small enough to fit in a shirt pocket and big enough to conceivably bring down an airplane can be easily purchased over the Internet. All a terrorist needs is a credit card and $49.

Unfortunately, News Limited’s website “news.com.au” regurgitated the story with this sensationalist headline:

Internet jammer can be bought for $55, can bring down plane, say experts.

Now, in the immortal words of the ABC’s Hungry Beast programme, this sounds “a little bit bullshit”.  Here’s why.

The GPS system was designed many years ago by the United States military. It is a network of up to 32 satellites in Medium Earth Orbit, and each of these satellites broadcasts a unique signal. When a terrestrial receiver can “see” or “hear” four or more satellites, the receiver can determine its latitude, longitude and altitude with some accuracy.

The system was used exclusively by the military up until the early-1990s. The emergence of domestic GPS receivers saw civilian access being allowed to an “intentionally degraded” signal, accurate to within about 15 metres, while the “military” signal provided accuracy to within a few metres. Because it was, and still is, a military navigation system provided free of charge to the masses, the old adage “caveat emptor” applied to early adopters of the technology.

By way of illustration, I was working for a government agency in the early-1990s, installing GPS receivers in a fleet of vehicles. These receivers were accompanied by a data transmitter which sent the vehicles’ locations back to a central controller. One morning in 1994 (?), when the United States commenced military action in Kuwait, our GPS system suddenly went haywire, with blatantly incorrect locations being reported by our vehicles. It took us some time to establish that there was nothing wrong with our network, rather the United States military had made changes to the GPS system ahead of large-scale troop movements in the Middle East.

At the time we used a differential GPS system to give us more accuracy; that is, we had fixed GPS bases (known locations) and compared the GPS signals received at these bases with their precise, known locations. This allowed us to calculate the error which was being introduced into the civilian signal, and get a much more accurate fix on our vehicles. The degradation of the civilian signal has since been significantly improved, if not completely removed, by the US military.

While the manufacture of “civilian” GPS receivers has now become a multi-million dollar industry, the facts remain that the GPS network is still owned and operated by the US military; it has errors which are intentionally introduced by the US military; and it’s provided to civilian users free-of-charge with no service guarantee whatsoever.

For these reasons, the aviation industry has never relied upon GPS as a primary system for navigation.

This may come as a surprise to the editors of Fox News and News Limited, but pilots in domestic aircraft were navigating their way around the world for many, many years prior to the availability of GPS receivers.

Pilots use a very stringent set of rules, systems and equipment in order to navigate. Pilots use transponders, Automatic Direction Finders (which include ground-based radio beacons, VHF omni-range systems) and other equipment to establish their location. They also talk to Air Traffic Controllers, and receive and comply with instructions which assist with navigation and help regulate air traffic.

Pilots use an altimeter to establish their altitude, which compares air pressure with that on the ground – not a GPS receiver.  Pilots use (surprise, surprise) a compass to determine their heading – not a GPS receiver.

Sometimes, planes might be fitted with a GPS receiver, which can be used to corroborate information provided by these other systems. Now I’m not a pilot, but I’ll go out on a limb here and say that if ever there was a discrepancy between a GPS receiver and a traditional navigation system, the GPS would largely be ignored.

If some joker actually managed to get a working “internet jammer” aboard an aircraft in the first place, a navigational discrepancy would probably be looked upon by a pilot simply as an interesting anomaly. Visions of planes falling out of the sky, as painted by News Limited’s headline, are both unfounded and unnecessary.

To say that an “Internet jammer can … bring down [a] plane”, well … it’s a little bit bullshit.

gps · jammer · navigation · plane

Something exciting happened a few months back: my local telephone exchange (or ‘Central Office’ for my American brothers and sisters) was upgraded to support ADSL 2+.

Actually, it had supported ADSL 2+ for some time, but only by Telstra resellers. When the Internet Service Provider iiNet came along, which runs its own back-haul network independent of Telstra, I committed to doing a number of things:

1. Upgrading my home internet from ADSL (supplied by Internet Service Provider aaNet)  to ADSL 2+ (supplied by iiNet),
2. Converting to Naked DSL;
3. Porting my telephone service from traditional PSTN to VoIP, and
4. Freeing myself from the expensive Telstra service and equipment fees and call costs.

Would this be an expensive exercise? Would I ultimately save money? Or would I pay more for the privilege (as I saw it) of being Telstra-free?

Now the dust has settled, it’s time to find out.

The Existing (Old) Setup

I have a small analogue PABX, with extensions cabled to most rooms in the house. This should neither detract from my internet story or cause any undue alarm.

Now, Mr & Mrs Dr Ron have had a common, garden-variety 19th-century analogue telephone line for many years. We only used this for incoming calls. Why? Because Telstra call costs are generally more expensive than… well, anything, really. So when someone called our home telephone number, all the phones in the house would ring and we would speak to the caller. I was on Telstra’s “Homeline Budget” plan, which is the cheapest line rental vs most expensive call rates, at $71.64 per quarter including “recurring costs” (about $23.88 /month). I was on this plan deliberately, to minimise the service and equipment fees, given that we didn’t use the service for outgoing calls. So far so good.

For outgoing calls, we had an account with engin, the VoIP telephone company. Engin offered 10 cent untimed calls to any number in Australia, (a third the cost of Telstra on the “Homeline Budget” plan,) and timed calls to mobiles and international numbers. My engin plan was like a mobile telephone “cap” and I paid at least $14.95 /month for the privilege.

So to make an outgoing call to a local or national number, we would “dial 0″ on an extension, and the PABX would pre-select the line connected to engin’s SIP voice box. We would get a “second dial tone” and make the call.

Now to keep down costs, I successfully trained Mrs Dr Ron to use her mobile telephone to make mobile-to-mobile calls. I did the same. I think calls to mobiles are always expensive on landlines and VoIP accounts, compared with mobile-to-mobile rates, especially when you can take advantage of “free 3 to 3″ and similar promotions run by other carriers.

My wife has a lot of family overseas, and we ring friends overseas too. Weekly calls to England, Scotland and Denmark are not uncommon. International rates on engin weren’t too bad and international rates on the mobiles weren’t too bad either.

The New Setup

We have kept the PABX: no change.

We’re still using mobile phones for mobile-to-mobile: no change.

We churned from the old ISP (aaNet) to the new ISP (iiNet).

We ported our telephone number, from Telstra PSTN to iiNet VoIP. This went surprisingly smoothly. We experienced a service outage for a few days, which was expected and clearly explained in the T’s & C’s provided by iiNet.

We cancelled the engin account, as it was no longer needed, and I got sick of their poor customer service (but that’s another story).

Incoming calls still arrive by dialling the same phone number, but these are now carried by iiNet VoIP into the PABX. (The iiNet router has anFXS port which drives an analogue trunk circuit on the PABX.) Similarly, outgoing calls are carried via iiNet VoIP instead of engin VoIP.

For richer or poorer?

Previously I was paying:

• Monthly Telstra bill: $23.88 + call costs, if any
• Monthly aaNet bill: $94.25 for 40 GB bandwidth
• Monthly engin bill: $14.95 + call costs not included in this cap, e.g. international calls

So previously I had a minimum monthly investment of $133.08 for home internet and telephone calls.

Remember I haven’t changed my call usage patterns, or the way I use my mobile telephone.

Now I’m paying:

• Monthly iiNet bill: $69.95 for 30GB peak/30GB off-peak + call costs not included in this cap

In addition to a financial windfall of $63.13 per month, I’m also ahead because:

• There’s no separate Telstra account;
• There’s no separate engin account;
• I’m using ADSL 2+ technology, better (albeit marginally, at my house) than first-generation ADSL;
• I’ve got half as much bandwidth again, compared with the previous internet plan;
• Unlimited, free, local and national telephone calls, as opposed to engin’s 10 cent calls which chipped-away at a “cap”; and
• VoIP quality is much better, for two reasons: (1) I’m on a faster network connection; and (2) my new router, provided by iiNet, has a Quality of Service feature which was missing in the old SIP box.

So Dr Ron wins. Faster, cheaper internet, and more cash towards that Mediterranean retirement villa.

Seriously though … that’s $756 /year in my pocket.

What have we learnt from this exercise?

Review your internet contract, and personal internet requirements, regularly.

Internet “plans” come and go, just as fast as mobile phone plans these days. If you stay on a plan for longer than 12 months, chances are that a faster, cheaper plan offering more bandwidth has become available, that might better suit your needs.

Shop around, and monitor consumer advocacy websites – like Broadband Choice in Australia – to compare “apples with apples”.

Happy hunting, good luck.  See you in the Med.

aaNet · ADSL · ADSL 2+ · engin · iiNet · naked DSL · SIP · telstra · voip

About 200 – 300 people attended the rally in front of the State Library in Melbourne this afternoon.

Speakers included:

Sarah Jenkins, Australian Sex Party;
Trent Hawkins, Socialist Alliance;
Colin Jacobs, Electronic Frontiers Australia;
Muriel Ardnt, Exit International; and
David Crafti, Pirate Party.

Here are a few pics.

Got some good vox pops too, which I’ll mix-up for a future Tech Talk segment.

Click here for more information about the Open Internet movement in Australia.

Electronic Frontiers Australia is one group which opposes Senator Conroy’s proposed Net Filter legislation, the wording of which will be released later this month.

#nocleanfeed · melbourne · no clean feed · Open Internet · openinternet · rally · state library

Dr Ron has a telephone line provided by Telstra.

Telstra is the largest telecommunications service provider in Australia. Telstra operates and maintains the country’s telecommunications infrastructure, sells its own services, and allows other service providers to re-sell parts of its network.

Unfortunately, Dr Ron’s telephone line has no dial tone, and no battery (FAIL).  This is probably caused by an open circuit, or faulty equipment or a power failure at the telephone exchange.

Dr Ron rings Telstra on his mobile phone, asking for help.

The IVR answers promptly (WIN) and asks Dr Ron to enter the phone number he is having difficulty with, which he does. He then presses the “#” key as instructed. The IVR says that it’s putting him through to an operator. The ensuing conversation goes something like this:

Telstra Operator: “Hello, welcome to Telstra, my name is Sonny. How can I help you?”

Dr Ron: “Hi Sonny, my name’s Ron. I’m ringing to get help with my telephone service. It’s not working, there’s no dial tone.”

TO: “Okay can I get the phone number you are having problems with please?” (FAIL)

DR: “Sure, it’s the one I just entered into your computer 10 seconds ago.”

TO: “Ohh, ahhhh, it hasn’t come through for some reason, (FAIL) what number are you having problems with?”

DR: “Why hasn’t the number come through? I did what I was told, and even pressed the ‘#’ key.”

TO: “I’m sure you did but the number didn’t come through. What number are you having problems with?”

DR: “03 98xx xxxx.”

TO: “I just need to check your name, address and date of birth please?”

DR Ron provides this information.

TO: “Thankyou Ron, let me put you on hold, just one moment.”

Dum dum dum, da dum da da dum… the girl from Ipanema goes walking and… when she passes, each time she passes….

TO: “Hello Ron?”

DR: “I’m here.”

TO: “Yes there’s a fault with that line.” (FAIL)

DR: “Yes. I know. I’m pretty sure I told you that. That’s why I’m ringing.”

TO: “How many telephone handsets do you have on your line please?’

DR: “Just one,” lies Dr Ron convincingly, for the purposes of keeping this already untenable situation as simple as possible.

TO: “Have you unplugged your fax machines?” (FAIL)

DR: “Almost certainly.”

TO: “And computer modems?” (FAIL)

DR: “Yep.”

TO: “Do you have ADSL internet on that line?” (How can Telstra not know this? FAIL.)

DR: “No, it’s dead.”

TO: “But ordinarily?”

DR: “Yes.”

TO: “Okay a telephone technician will need to come out to have a look. I just have to let you know, that if the fault is found in the customer equipment, a charge of $105 may be applied to your account – but you will be advised accordingly if we’re going to do that.”

DR: “Okay, great,” says Dr Ron, confident that his $105 will remain safely in his wallet.

TO: “Okay just one moment please.”

…and when she walks … she’s like a samba that… swings so cool, and sways so gentle, and…

TO: “Hello Ron?”

DR: “I’m still here.”

TO: “Can I just get an alternative contact number for you, like a mobile?”

DR: “Sure, use the one I’m calling from now.”

TO: “What’s that one?” (FAIL)

DR: “I’m sending it with this call. It will come up on your telephone, and your computer. I always send my number with outgoing calls.”

TO: “Ahhhhh, oooh, it hasn’t come up.” (FAIL FAIL FAIL)

DR: “Why not? Maybe you have a faulty telephone there too?”

TO: “Ahhhh … maybe…?”

DR: “Okay, it’s 0419 xxx xxx.”

TO: “Thankyou Ron, the fault will be fixed by 7PM tomorrow at the latest (POTENTIAL WIN). We will send you a text message to let you know when the service has been restored (POTENTIAL WIN). Is there anything else I can help you with?”

DR: “Absolutely not. Thankyou for your time Sonny.”

TO: “Thankyou Ron, and thankyou for calling Telstra. HAVE A NICE DAY.”

Call #2

Needless to say, 7PM the next day came and went. No telephone service for about 20 hours now. (FAIL)

The IVR prompts Dr Ron to enter the phone number he is having difficulty with, which he does, and even presses the “#” key as instructed. The IVR puts him through to an operator. The ensuing conversation is this:

Telstra Operator: “Hello, welcome to Telstra, my name is Gilbert. Can I get the phone number you are having difficulties with please?”

Dr Ron: “Sure, it’s the one I just entered into your computer.”

TO: “Ohh. Well it hasn’t come through for some reason, what is the number please?” (ARGHGHGGHHH FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL)

DR: “Why hasn’t the number come through? I think you’ve got a faulty call centre. It didn’t come through last time I rang either.”

TO: “Okay, I’m sorry sir, but you will need to tell me the number you are having problems with.”

DR: deep sigh of despair, followed by “03 98xx xxxx”.

TO: “Thankyou sir, one moment please.”

…through early morning fog I see… visions of the things to be…

TO: “Are you there sir?”

DR: “You betcha.”

TO: “Yes there is a fault with that line, sir.” (FAIL)

DR: “I know. That’s why I reported it faulty. Yesterday. Your colleague Sonny said it would be fixed by 7PM today. It’s now 10PM. Why isn’t it fixed?”

TO: “Ahhh, let me have a look sir … just one moment.”

… suicide is painless… it brings on many changes…

TO: “Yes sir, I can see that it was supposed to be fixed by 7PM. I am very sorry, I don’t know why it hasn’t been fixed (FAIL). But there will be a technician come out tomorrow to fix it.”

DR: “What time?”

TO: “Between 8AM and 4PM.”

DR: “Do I need to be home to let them in?”

TO: “No, there is no need to be home, they will call you if they need access to the premises (POTENTIAL WIN). In case they do, can I just grab a contact number?”

DR: “Sure, use the one I’m calling from now.”

TO: “Oh. Ahhhh…” (FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL)

Déjà vu: the experience of feeling as though an event has already happened, or has happened in the recent past – the experience is usually accompanied by a compelling sense of familiarity, and also a sense of “eeriness”, “strangeness”, or “weirdness”. The “previous” experience is most frequently attributed to a dream, although in some cases there is a firm sense that the experience “genuinely happened” in the past. Read more.

DR: “0419 xxx xxx.”

TO: “Thankyou sir, we will call you if we need to access the premises, so someone can be home (POTENTIAL WIN). Also we will send you a text message to let you know when your service has been restored (POTENTIAL WIN). Is there anything else I can help you with today?”

DR: “Almost certainly not. Good bye.”

TO: “Thankyou for calling Telstra sir, HAVE A N…” <click>

Day #3

Telstra technician arrives on the front doorstep at 8AM, with no advance phone call or warning (FAIL). Grunts, and says he’s here to fix the telephone. After a quick inspection of the “customer equipment”, technician decides that the problem lies elsewhere, and leaves.

Service magically restored at about 2PM (WIN), almost 48 hours after being reported faulty.

Customer service fail?

The Telstra customer service IVR is bloody woeful. It answers promptly, but why do customers have to repeat numbers back to an operator, who should have the numbers on a computer screen? This isn’t rocket science, the technology to do this has been around for 20 years. Same goes for capturing a caller’s CLI.

No text messages ever arrived from Telstra.

No explanation was ever given as to what went wrong with my service.

No-one rang to pre-arrange an appointment time.

The estimated fault resolution time was over-run by 19 hours.

Do the WINS outweigh the FAILS?

Well, let’s not quibble about such things as “customer service” or “fault resolution”. Surely the ends justify the means in such circumstances.

In any case, your call is important to us.

Have a nice day.

customer service · customer service fail · failure · fault · service fault · telstra

Hi all,

This is just a simple house-keeping post.

Today I deleted over 1000 WordPress user accounts on The Surgery.

Chances are, if your username was “buy_viagra”, “animesex” or “fdksjahgiliegdlzzq” then your account has been deleted.

If I deleted any legitimate accounts, then I apologise a thousand times over. Please re-register with my eternal gratitude.

No tags

It doesn’t get funnier than this.

awkward moments · funny · inspirational posters · Social Networking

Hahaha … these are fantastic!

awkward moments · facebook · funny · Social Networking · status updates

Fairfax Digital in its “Digital Life” column last week reported that, on the 9th of November this year, recommendations made in the Australian Road Rule 8th Amendment Package will be introduced into legislation in Victoria.

This package is an updated set of road and traffic laws which were approved by all state and territory Road Ministers in February.

The Amendment Package says that “the proposed amendments are required to make the Australian Road Rules more succinct and contemporary”, thereby contributing to the safety of road users and the efficient movement of traffic.

Unfortunately, Mr Stephen Hutcheon wrote an article for Digital Life which was published in the SMH, the Brisbane Times,  WA Today et cetera, with an alarming headline:

“Sat nav apps could be heading for a dead end“;

with a page title which read:

“New Road Rules Threaten Phone GPS”.

A report by the ABC was more objective and less sensational.

I’m pleased to report that the Fairfax headlines are misleading and incorrect.

Existing Legislation

The current Road Rule 300(1) prohibits drivers from using a hand-held mobile phone while driving.  It’s as simple as that.  If you are driving, and using, a mobile phone which is held in your hand, you are committing an offence.

This section says:

The driver of a vehicle (except an emergency vehicle or police vehicle) must not use a hand-held mobile phone while the vehicle is moving, or is stationary but not parked, unless the driver is exempt from this rule under subrule (3).

Subrule (3) makes provision for drivers to be issued formal exemptions by VicRoads.

This road rule means, for example:

• if you’re holding a phone to your ear, while driving a car, you’re committing an offence;
• if you’re holding a phone on “loudspeaker” while driving, you’re committing an offence;
• if you’re holding a phone and texting while driving, you’re committing an offence;
• if you’re holding a phone and checking your GPS location in Google Latitude while driving, you’re committing an offence; and/or
• if you’re holding a phone and taking a photograph out the front windscreen while driving, you’re committing an offence.

Also:

• you can legally use a phone while driving, if the phone’s in a hands-free car-kit, and not being held in your hand;
• you can legally use a phone while driving, if the phone’s on the seat beside you, connected via Bluetooth to a hands-free headset (this will change soon, requiring drivers to have phones secured in a commercially manufactured phone holder or kit); and
• you can legally use a phone, holding it to your ear, if you’re legally stopped on the side of the road and the engine is switched off – i.e. you are no longer a driver and have no intention of driving until such time that your phone call is finished.

What the new Amendment Package seeks to do is clarify the existing rules with respect to modern technology contained within mobile devices, including but not limited to GPS functions.

The new Amendment Package also addresses concerns that GPS devices (not telephones) could be held in a driver’s hand while the driver is driving, while the rules relating to mobile phones did not allow a driver to have a mobile phone in his or her hand.

Road Rule 299 (1) says:

A driver must not drive a motor vehicle that has a television receiver or visual display unit in or on the vehicle operating while the vehicle is moving, or is stationary but not parked, if any part of the image on the screen—

(a) is visible to the driver from the normal driving position; or

(b) is likely to distract another driver;

…while section (2) stipulates that the rule does not apply if the visual display unit is a driver’s aid, specifically including navigational equipment.

The new rules will provide consistency in that a GPS must be an integrated part of the vehicle, or secured in a mounting affixed to the vehicle.

Proposed Amendments

Television receivers and visual display units in motor vehicles: Rule 299 will be modified to ensure that any GPS device can only be used if it is in a fixed mounting.

This amendment will provide consistency with rule 300.

Use of mobile phones: Rule 300 will be modified to ensure the original intent of the rule is clarified; a driver is not permitted to use a mobile phone held in any way by the driver, but is permitted to use a phone in a fixed cradle.

Impact on Mobile Phone, GPS & Smart Phone Users

In the interests of everyone’s road safety, I don’t think these changes are a big ask.

Importantly, and contrary to reports in the mainstream media, the new road rules will not threaten phone GPS functions, standalone GPS functions or the ability to use mobile telephones while driving.

The new rules won’t “kill the burgeoning market in apps and services that enable smartphones to be used as satellite navigation systems”.

The new rules will simply clarify what is and isn’t permissible with new technology that’s emerged since the last time the regulations were reviewed.

If you’ve got an iPhone, and use it for GPS navigation while driving, drop it in a cradle.  Simple.  There are hundreds out there and they cost next-to-nothing.

That is, they certainly cost a lot less than a $238 fine.

Sources:

• The Victorian Government Gazette P2 – Road Rules Victoria
• Sydney Morning Herald: Sat Nav Apps Heading for a Dead End
• ABC News: New road rules on mobiles, GPS
• National Transport Commission: Australian Road Rules 8th Amendment Package

gps · mobile phone · mobile phones · mobiles · road rules · road rules victoria · sat nav · satnav