RobinNo Minister - The Story so far:
~~Sun 14 Feb 1999
I'm not an avid TV watcher. Saw advert for a phone company called Primus Telecom.
It displays a man holding a telephone receiver up to a TV set which plays the dialing tones for the company sales number. It urges listeners to do the same, thereby apparently violating the law on "Permitted Attachments"
Later on that night, while out of room, heard an ad which said that they would be playing the advert again in the future.
After some thought and a few phone calls to other technically minded people am concerned at advert.
Technical: Random users using random TV sets at random volume settings and holding phone at random distances from speakers, will in some cases generate excessive volume level which may overload the phone system and cause bleed through between lines. This is the reason stated in past why any device that used any sort of acoustic generating device (eg a loudspeaker) to "acoustically couple" info to a phone line was illegal without a "Permitted Attachment" Permit from AUSTEL (now the ACA). Gaining such approval was expensive and time consuming.
The Apple Newton (you could dial a phone number by holding your telephone receiver near the computer's loudspeaker) apparently languished for months while awaiting approval.
I don't believe that all TV sets in Australia have "Permitted Attachment" Permits from AUSTEL (now the ACA) - mine doesn't.
Breaches for people using non-permitted devices in the past were liable for fines up to $50,000.
Under Australian Law entrapment by the police is legal, regularly practised, and helps to keep the criminal system (including the jails) occupied. By accessing the call record information, Telstra (currently major provider of local calls) can identify who in Australia dialed that number at that time, and that can be used as evidence.
~~~~~~~~Mon 15 Feb 1999
Sally at ACCC 07 3835 4666 apparently not interested as their definition of misleading or deceptive conduct apparently does not include trying to get people to break a law.
~~Sheryl Kernow (local Member of Federal Parliament) 07 3881 2200 unavailable - left telephone message on answering machine.
~~ABA phone line machine voice tells you to write to the Television Station, and if they do not reply in writing in 60 days, then write to the ABA.
Mark Cummings at ABA not able to help as he or none of his managers seemed to know anything about the law about "Permitted attachments" to phone services.
If it was dialling a 1900 number, maybe he could help.
Told me to write to the
Advertising Standards Board
Suite 2 level 5
99 Elizabeth Street
Sydney NSW 2000
Gary Ryan at ACA (taken over from AUSTEL) 07 3238 6322 had heard about the ad, and was waiting to see it played again.
He was interested if it had anything to do with mobile phones.
He was non-committal, and be-mused that I believed that a TV loudspeaker was (as it was in the past) still defined as a "non-Permitted Attachment", thus the ad was enticing people to break the Law.
After 6:10 PM: Channel 9 plays ad again. Part of full campaign
1) get your phone ready
2) the ad itself
3) you missed it - we'll do it again
Tue 16 Feb 1999
Sheryl Kernow (local Member of Federal Parliament) 07 3881 2200 - phone now gives tones - line apparently now connected to a fax or modem.
Attourney General Dept
Don't give advice to other than Government Departments
I said I wasn't after advice, I was more interested in seeing somebody prosecuted for inducing people to break the Law on Permitted Attachments.
Was told to Ring Telecom Ombudsman.
Telecom Ombudsman
Can't complain to them without having first taken up matter with company you have the disagreement with
Gives name of Amy Lawson at PRIMUS TELECOM on 1800 811 003
Maree at PRIMUS stunned when advised that the advert appears to induce people to break the law on permitted attachments. She says she assumes that they got permission to do what they are doing, and is apparently be-mused when I point out that would not have been possible in the past. Each person who holds up the phone to the TV would have to have a permit (different for each brand and model of TV ever sold) else they would be liable for a $50,000 fine. I point out that I have no hassle with PRIMUS: if the law has been changed, then many Australians will be delighted.
Amy is busy, she will ring back later when properly briefed.
~~Passed details of matter so far on to newsgroups
aus.tv aus.radio aus.legal aus.politics
Nice man from Sheryl Kernow (local Member of Federal Parliament) office calls. Apparently he has been unable to get thru as my phone has been busy or not answering (got to buy bread occasionally!).
After giving him a little bit of detail he said that the PRIMUS advertising agency may also be responsible for inducing people to break the law.
Told him the full story about run around from Public service, etc.
He said he would pass the matter on to the opposition spokes-person for Communications. He could not guarantee that a question would be asked in Parliament, but it could happen.
Amy from Primus called back. Wanted to know what company I was from. Just me. The technical stuff seemed a bit too deep for her. She was very definite that "PRIMUS had obtained all the necessary legal permissions" before running the ads.
Pointed out to her that PRIMUS may only be in danger of being found guilty of inducing others to break the law on permitted attachments.
The people dialing the PRIMUS number with help from PRIMUS were the ones breaking the law on permitted attachments, making them liable for fines up to $50,000.
Amy wanted to know how I knew what I claimed - probably suspected some elaborate form of prank. I told her about 30 years experience, including working in the Telecom Industry, and also electronic construction experience in the field of amateur radio, hifi, computing, etc.
I agreed that the law may be ridiculous, but it should be enforced, or else made to go away properly for ever. Pointed out to her that if PRIMUS had made the law go away properly, then many thousands of technical Australians in the communications field would be grateful, and want to know how PRIMUS did it!
I pointed out that I had no love lost for Telstra, or any wish for harm for PRIMUS, was just concerned about people being induced to do something apparently illegal.
Amy and I felt it best that she find someone with a more technical background and have them ring me back.
~~Rang ABC Journalist. Interested, but at first did not seem to get the point. Explained it simply in more detail. We agreed that this was not earth shattering and would most likely not make the 7:00 o'clock TV news tonight. I pointed out that the Labor Party was now aware of the matter, so if a question was asked in Parliament, then someone in the ABC may recognise the significance.
~~Tried to connect to http://www.electronicsaustralia.com.au/ but net connection so slow it keeps timing out. Eventually give up as net address allegedly not reachable!
~~Wed 17 February 1999
Sent copy of log so far to Peter Langston's Fun People Email List.
~~Forwarded copy of log to Electronics Australia (finally got thru!)
~~That's all that happened, nothing further...
To contact Robin
Welcome Visitor in The Comedy of Life.
Return to my 
or to The Virtual Fooles Troupe 
Web pages produced by Robin Hayes © 1999-2002