The point of an unlocked phone is not really international travel. It is being able to switch providers quickly and easily so that you can get a better plan. Let's say you are on carrier A. Six months down the road, carrier B comes along with a plan that kicks carrier A's plan's ass.
If your phone is unlocked/uncontracted, you can just go to carrier B's store, sign up and pop carrier B's SIM card in and off you go. Call carrier A to cancel your account with them.
Now as you say, in the US, this doesn't happen because the carriers don't even OFFER SIM-only/Bring Your Own Phone plans to begin with. But in most other countries where phones ~are~ unlocked, it is the ability to constantly change carriers as better deals come along that is the big attraction to them. Being able to go abroad easily is just a bonus.
Oh yeah, a 3GSM (UMTS/HSDPA) phone will WORK in Japan (as you say, your N900 worked fine). But I assume you were roaming and still using your home carrier's SIM.
I think what the GP was talking about is that in Japan, they won't sell a foreigner a local SIM card. In fact they won't even sell a Japanese person a SIM card. The only way you can get a local service there is to buy a local phone locked to the network (and for that you have to be a citizen or permanent resident).
Yeah Japan is even worse than the US in that regard - although SoftBank runs a GSM network so theoretically an unlocked quadband GSM phone (like the iPhone 4) should work in both the US and Japan with just a SIM card change.
I say 'theoretically' though because although there's no ~technical~ reason why this can't work, it won't work in practise since they won't let the phone actually connect to the network unless its a recognised IMEI from a contracted phone that they already sold you;)
Exactly. This USED to be a problem back in the 90s and early 2000s when a lot of phones were only dualband (e.g. 900/1800). Any phone less than five years old will be at least triband now, and any phone that is less than 2 or 3 years old will be quad band or higher. Frequency differences are quickly becoming a non-issue in most GSM markets these days, provided you stick to one of the widely used frequencies: 850, 900, 1800, 1900, 2100.
Agreed. Using the technology as an excuse completely sidesteps the real issue here.
Especially the 'differing frequencies' argument - haha wtf? Every GSM phone under the sun these days is at least tri-band and generally quad-band, which means it will work on almost any GSM network in the world. Differing frequencies is NOT a barrier to unlocked phones. Hell, I'm a dual Australian and US citizen and spend a lot of time in both countries, and I use my iPhone 4 (GSM quadband) in both countries without problems. It's an Australian-market iPhone 4 which means it's unlocked from the factory (or more accurately, was never locked in the first place). I have a Vodafone AU SIM in it and it roams quite happily in the US on either AT&T or T-Mobile (although T-Mobile is EDGE only for data due to them using a weird uplink frequency for UMTS/HSDPA... EDGE is still fast enough for most things though)
The only 'unique' thing about the US market, technology wise, is that the big carriers are split between GSM (AT&T, T-Mobile) and CDMA (Sprint, Verizon). So if you had an unlocked phone of either variety in the US, your choices would be restricted more than they would be in other markets. But there would still be ~some~ choice. And the technology itself doesn't preclude unlocked phones (which you CAN get in the US, e.g. via Newegg... it's just that the carriers themselves don't usually offer unlocked phones in their stores, and won't offer you a plan that doesn't include the handset repayments component - T-Mobile excepted).
So basically, yeah, the US market has come to accept 'cheap upfront phone then pay it off over a 24 month contract' business model as the norm, whereas in other countries, it's usually only an 'option' rather than the norm. But the carriers could offer SIM-only/Bring Your Own Phone plans any time they wanted. It's not a technology issue - it's an issue of the phone companies liking the current model (since it gives them more predictable income when they can tie customers in for two years at a time), and the average consumer not really knowing that there are alternatives.
Indeed. Buying the phone outright then just going home and popping your existing SIM card in (with your existing provider/account) is the norm in much of the world.
The 'cheap phone up front that you pay off via higher plan charges and a compulsory 24-month contract' model is the less-preferred option (or may not even be an option) in many places.
There are advantages to each approach. I personally prefer buying the phone outright (which is expensive, e.g. $700+ for a high end HTC/Samsung Android, or $800+ for iPhone 4) but not being locked to a provider or plan (since typically, better plans come out within the 24 month life of a typical contract). I'm a light user so can then go on a cheap $15/month plan or something.
On the other hand, if you are a heavy user and don't have any reason to change providers in the next 2 years, the subsidised phone/contract route can actually work out cheaper.
But I'm glad where I live, I have both options. In the US, as you say, T-Mobile is the only carrier that really lets you do that. And even then, due to the differing 3G frequencies used, the phone is unlikely to work at 3G speeds if you switch between T-Mobile and AT&T. Not to mention that rubbish phone 'exclusivity' you have over there (e.g. iPhone only with AT&T)...
Yeah now that I think about it, you are right. You used to get essentially no interest in AU banks in the 90s.
In 2002, ING Direct came to Australia though. They shook the market up massively with their high-interest, online-only account. They were the first well-known such account in Australia... I remember signing up in 2003 and was sceptical at first but, wow, it was awesome.
In the next few years a bunch of ING-like competitors surfaced. And by around 2006-07, EVERY bank offered such high interest accounts. The big four were the last to offer them, but they had to cave into pressure eventually. Commonwealth Bank's is the NetBank Saver: http://www.commbank.com.au/personal/accounts/netbanksaver/
So your assessment of Australian banks in the 90s is pretty accurate;) They sucked. But they are a hell of a lot better now.
It has got better since then, but as someone who has accounts in both Australia and the US, let me ask you this question:
Which would you prefer:
- An account where you might be paying $5 of fees per month, but is generating interest at a whopping 5%+ right now, even for a standard transaction account; or
- No fees but zero interest.
My Aussie accounts are generating me $600+ a month PURELY in interest! I can overlook a couple of small fees. My US accounts pay nothing. Now of course this is partly because official rates right now in the US are essentially zero... but even in the good times, US banks simply don't pay any/significant interest for standard transaction accounts. Even their 'high interest' accounts aren't as nice as the Australian ones (even if official rates are identical in the two countries). Bonus: at the moment, the AUD is worth MORE than the USD (1 AUD = 1.015 USD). This is a far cry from the 90s when the Australian dollar was only worth 50-70 US cents.
And as a matter of fact, many banks in Australia now attract no fees at all (I use Bankwest, and provided I keep a token minimum balance in there, I have no account fees, no deposit fees, unlimited withdrawals). Things ARE a lot better than the 90s (not just in banking either - Australia has boomed during the 2000s, as a country it has progressed an unbelievable amount in the last 10 years and is still booming - no financial crisis here!)
Regarding not being able to see Visa debit transactions for a day or two: this is normal in Australia, and nothing to do with the banks. Visa simply hasn't provided the information yet. My bank (Bankwest - which isn't a credit union but has much lower fees than the big four, even though it's actually owned by Commbank) simply shows it as 'VISA DEBIT PURCHASE $x.xx' for a day or two before the real details appear.
Use proper EFTPOS (i.e. swipe, select Savings, enter PIN) rather than Visa debit (which is really just presenting itself to the system as a Visa 'credit' card - the system doesn't know or care that the funds are actually coming from a savings account rather than credit). EFTPOS transaction details show up instantly on online banking. As in, by the time you've walked out of the store, across the road and into your office again, you can log in and it will have the full transaction details already there and accounted for.
Australian and American dual citizen here with multiple bank accounts in both countries.
You are right. The banking SYSTEMS in Australia are light years ahead of those in the US:
- In Australia you can send money via online banking, for free, to any other Australian bank account (direct deposit). All you need to know is the account number. It's how I paid my rent and some bills for many years. It's not instant but typically the delay is only 1 day for an account at the same bank and 2-3 days for any other bank.
- In Australia you can pay virtually any bill with Bpay. There's no real equivalent in the US. Sure there are a couple of similar systems I've come across... but they are each completely unrelated to the other, have no interoperability, and virtually noone uses them. You end up having to sign up to several of these systems just to pay a single bill. What makes Bpay work in Australia is the fact that it's THE bill payment system, and EVERYONE uses it.
- EFTPOS in Australia (i.e. payment via debit card + PIN): much more widely accepted in Australia than the US. Even someone sitting in a temporary stall on a street corner accepts EFTPOS in Australia, whereas in the US it's really only medium to large stores, in my experience. And many won't let you do 'cash out' (i.e. pay for a $50 item with a $100 debit, and get the remaining $50 in cash, avoiding a trip to an ATM).
- Due to the above, cheques/checks have gone the way of the dodo in Australia many years ago. I had never SEEN a check in my life before I started living in the US. My parents got rid of their checkbook in the 80s. But in the US they are still very common, and in some areas, almost ubiquitous (I see people using them at supermarket checkouts for God's sake!). It's ridiculously antiquated but Americans seem to love them.
BUT... Aussie banks do make ridiculous profits and the focus of this article is more that they have higher fees than in most countries, and tend to nickel and dime you any chance they get. Which is very true. The big four banks certainly could use some more competition. But it's not like they have none - there are plenty of smaller banks and credit unions that are competitive in Australia. But the downside of that of course is that their ATM network is far smaller. I think that's why most people stay with the big four in Australia - free ATMs everywhere you go. Whereas if you sign up with, say, Bankwest or Bendigo or something, you really have to plan ahead when you want to take cash out. Case in point: I am in Canberra quite a bit and I have a Bankwest account. The nearest Bankwest ATM is in Wollongong (lol). Sure I can use Commonwealth ATMs for free for cash withdrawal, but for anything else (e.g. changing my PIN, deposits etc) I have to travel a looonnng way;)
Oh and PS, as an Australian, I will NEVER trust PAYPAL with any significant amount of money. They have twice frozen my account for no reason other than the fact that I had logins from different countries within a day or two of each other (did you know that there are these things called PLANES?). Once I can understand. But it took a week to get it unfrozen and I even told them explicitly on the phone that I was a dual citizen and flipped between the US and Australia all the time. And they STILL locked my account for the same reason less than a month later! Argh. PAYPAL are scum.
Just wanted to say thanks for that post - it explained a LOT. I grew up in Australia, where, like in Europe, we have a good assortment of cheeses (both local and imported). There are some Australian cheeses that rank up there with the best English ones. But even the standard supermarket cheddar in Australia has a pretty sharp taste.
Then I married an American (from Green Bay, Wisconsin, no less). And so now I spend a lot of my time in the US (and Wisconsin in particular). And I too was shocked at just how bland cheese is there. Even the 'sharp' cheddar is blander than the Australian 'standard' cheddar'... and there is nothing remotely close to an Australia or English 'sharp' cheddar to be found. Furthermore as you say there is far less variety (particularly of soft cheeses).
I've always wondered why this was the case. Your post explains a lot of it - so thanks:) It's a real shame though, as it seems most Americans have never, and WILL never taste a good cheese. It doesn't even have to be a gourmet or 'unusual' cheese either - even a cheap block of normal cheese from a supermarket in Europe or Australia is MUCH nicer than anything most Americans have ever tasted.
Also why on earth is most American cheese dyed that orange colour? I mean, I know it's only a dye and doesn't affect the taste. But it took me a while to get used to that... orange cheese is just... wrong.
Yeah I agree. Using the iPhone 4 without a case, as an actual phone, is awkward. That thing is slippery and has 'sharp' uncomfortable edges. Whack a grippy case on it though and all of a sudden it becomes much better to use as a phone. You don't feel like you are going to drop it if there's a slight gust of wind anymore;)
Having said that I don't usually have a case on mine, because I make virtually no telephone calls with it. It's just sitting on the desk or in my hand being used as a data device 95% of the time, so its slipperiness doesn't matter too much. I just use it 'naked' and put it back in a leather slipcase when I'm done. Had it a few months now and it's still in mint condition.
It is really a device that is form over function. So it's not for everyone. I wouldn't recommend it for a road warrior that is on the move and taking calls all day. But for use as a portable internet/reference/games device on which you can take the occasional call too? It's great. I've used various Androids (including the HTC Desire) and although they are definitely good, the experience just isn't as smooth (jerky frame rate issues when swiping to other screens, random lag etc.)
I agree, but keep in mind that the NBN project does not include any undersea cables. International transit (which is the cost I was referring to) won't change as a direct result as the NBN (although it will indirectly: more domestic Internet use -> greater need for new undersea cables -> more competition -> lower prices).
The cost of hosting stuff here isn't the issue. It's the cost of getting it here in the first place. Most traffic to Australia currently comes in via either SXC or PPC1. The former was very expensive up until the latter opened just last year. Once several more cables are built though, international transit costs should come down significantly more.
They aren't dialing 'regular' phone numbers. They are dialing premium numbers (you know, those $10/minute or whatever lines). Internationally. The idea being that the scammers themselves are running the premium lines (or at least have some financial interest in them), so they are essentially making free money.
To be fair, 1 TB for $99 ain't bad at all, and much better than the state of affairs in previous years. Keep in mind that in many other countries with 'unlimited' plans, there can be soft caps or fair use agreements that kick in at substantially less than that. Not to mention that throttling/QoSing 'undesirable' traffic types (e.g. torrents) is commonplace on residential-grade unlimited plans in many countries. At least in Australia you get what you pay for and they don't screw around with your packets (the good ISPs, at least). So for home users and small businesses, 1 TB may as well be 'unlimited' - and at a price that is now at least in the ballpark with other countries.
Of course once you start talking medium and large sized businesses, 1 TB may not be enough. But as you say, the data consumed was not the issue in TFA... it was the ISP's SIP charges. Which are highway robbery admittedly, when you consider what it actually costs the ISP.
PS. It's very unlikely the NBN or any other technology will see true unlimited plans at rock bottom prices in Australia anytime soon. No matter the delivery technology, the inescapable fact remains: we are an English speaking country wishing to consume mostly English speaking content which is hosted 15,000km away in North America (for the most part). Renting capacity on undersea cables has a cost associated with them, especially when the ~majority~ of an ISPs traffic has to flow through them. This means costs in Australia are uniquely higher - cf. Japan/Korea (where most content in the local language is obviously hosted locally), or the US (where again, the average distance traffic has to travel is far less and most ISPs can get to most content without leaving their network or their immediate peers).
Cause most things these days offer a Twitter feed but not many offer RSS. Plus Twitter is two-way.
I basically just use Twitter as a glorified aggregation service. News headlines from a variety of sites. My ISP's file mirror updates. Updates from bands I follow. Info from online games that I play. Half these organisations don't have RSS feeds, and even if they did, you can't communicate back to them, which is very handy. I even had a issue with my mobile phone provider sorted out via Twitter the other week - certainly beats sitting on hold on the phone for hours.
I don't really use it for social purposes at all... as GP says things like Facebook are much better for that. But it's basically the RSS of the 2000s.
As an aside... can anyone recommend a good iOS RSS reader?
I think it's actually because democracies are MORE stable. Most democracies are first-world countries and hence are more 'organised'. They have established processes and institutions to deal with this kind of stuff. Whereas if you are a less developed country, your government probably has bigger concerns on its plate - e.g. 'how do we prevent ourselves getting thrown out in a coup next week?' or 'why is everyone starving?' or 'why haven't I received as many bribes this year?'. They probably don't even have a government department that really cares about what's on the Internet... it's just not as much of a priority.
That covers the 'non-democratic, but not really 'evil'' countries. As for the real dictatorships, as you say, they already know via other means;)
Conroy can scream at anyone who will listen and stamp his little feet as much as he likes. He's made it clear that he basically knows the policy is doomed, but it's like a personal crusade to him and he won't let it go.
The filter is dead for a number reasons, not least of which is that it is now a mathematical impossibility for it to pass either house of Parliament.
Strongly recommend that people (especially those outside of Australia who aren't up to speed on things here) read this: http://michaelwyres.com/2010/09/another-nail-in-the-filter-coffin/ - good article summarising why, although we should remain vigilant, the anti-filter side has won (admittedly since the anti-filter side comprises >90% of the population this isn't surprising!)
Agreed. I think where Ubuntu still has a way to go is in the small details. The way text is aligned within windows and title bars. The font-smoothing. The general polish and responsiveness of the interface. These small things make a computer much more usable and are still superior in Windows and OSX compared to an out-of-the-box Ubuntu install.
Also not helped by the fact that on several of my older PCs (all running ATI cards), Ubuntu versions more recent than 9.04 fail to offer me a restricted video driver, which means no desktop effects and incredibly poor performance doing even basic stuff like redrawing windows etc. I'm sure there's probably a reason why this would be the case, but all I know as an end-user is that Ubuntu 8 and 9,04 offered me a restricted driver that worked well, yet 9.10 and 10.04 mysteriously tell me that no driver is available, on the very same PC. Something to do with a kernel version change someone told me. Hmmm...:(
Er what? The law we are talking about here concerns only real property (i.e. land, not physical items/chattels/posessions). At common law, whether that be in Australia or the US, real property and chattels are two completely different paradigms. So bringing 'priceless family heirlooms' into it is completely irrelevant - the law we are discussing does not apply to such things.
(I suppose you could argue that a house or land that has been in the family for generations is an 'heirloom', but I don't think that's what you were referring to.)
There are good reasons why for real property, the Torrens title system makes sense (and why it has been adopted by most common law countries, and several US states): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torrens_title
Who said anything about entering in an unauthorised fashion?
The difference is what constitutes an authorised entry! The US takes photos and all ten fingerprints of anyone entering at its entry points. Other countries obviously also have customs entry/exit points (noone is denying that). But they don't treat you like a criminal right from the outset by taking all ten of your damn fingerprints! That level of suspicion and paranoia is truly unique to the US. Most other countries, your passport and visa is good enough.
I can assure you that as someone who is married to an American and who enters the US several times every year, that the fingerprinting thing is demeaning. Put it this way: I'm not an American, but the US Government is the only entity on earth that has my fingerprints. EVEN MY HOME COUNTRY doesn't have them! WTF!
This. I think the real problem with the US system is less the lack of proportional representation, and more the way the votes are counted. The result is that even if there was a skilled third party, it would be more difficult for any of its members to actually get voted in than it would in other countries.
I think the main problem with DSL in the US is the fact that it seems to be ADSL1, often artificially capped at particular speeds (e.g. 3 Mbps, 6 Mbps), and with awful upstream rates.
Compare to Europe, Australia and NZ which have fairly ubiquitous ADSL2+ rollouts (which offers up to 24 Mbps down / 2.5 Mbps up using Annex M, depending on line length).
In the US I prefer using cable. Sure you rarely get the advertised speed, but even the average speed usually exceeds what you can get via DSL. Whereas outside the US I much prefer ADSL2+ since, as you say, you generally get what you pay for.
Slashdot Mirror
The point of an unlocked phone is not really international travel. It is being able to switch providers quickly and easily so that you can get a better plan. Let's say you are on carrier A. Six months down the road, carrier B comes along with a plan that kicks carrier A's plan's ass.
If your phone is unlocked/uncontracted, you can just go to carrier B's store, sign up and pop carrier B's SIM card in and off you go. Call carrier A to cancel your account with them.
Now as you say, in the US, this doesn't happen because the carriers don't even OFFER SIM-only/Bring Your Own Phone plans to begin with. But in most other countries where phones ~are~ unlocked, it is the ability to constantly change carriers as better deals come along that is the big attraction to them. Being able to go abroad easily is just a bonus.
Oh yeah, a 3GSM (UMTS/HSDPA) phone will WORK in Japan (as you say, your N900 worked fine). But I assume you were roaming and still using your home carrier's SIM.
I think what the GP was talking about is that in Japan, they won't sell a foreigner a local SIM card. In fact they won't even sell a Japanese person a SIM card. The only way you can get a local service there is to buy a local phone locked to the network (and for that you have to be a citizen or permanent resident).
Yeah Japan is even worse than the US in that regard - although SoftBank runs a GSM network so theoretically an unlocked quadband GSM phone (like the iPhone 4) should work in both the US and Japan with just a SIM card change.
I say 'theoretically' though because although there's no ~technical~ reason why this can't work, it won't work in practise since they won't let the phone actually connect to the network unless its a recognised IMEI from a contracted phone that they already sold you ;)
Exactly. This USED to be a problem back in the 90s and early 2000s when a lot of phones were only dualband (e.g. 900/1800). Any phone less than five years old will be at least triband now, and any phone that is less than 2 or 3 years old will be quad band or higher. Frequency differences are quickly becoming a non-issue in most GSM markets these days, provided you stick to one of the widely used frequencies: 850, 900, 1800, 1900, 2100.
Agreed. Using the technology as an excuse completely sidesteps the real issue here.
Especially the 'differing frequencies' argument - haha wtf? Every GSM phone under the sun these days is at least tri-band and generally quad-band, which means it will work on almost any GSM network in the world. Differing frequencies is NOT a barrier to unlocked phones. Hell, I'm a dual Australian and US citizen and spend a lot of time in both countries, and I use my iPhone 4 (GSM quadband) in both countries without problems. It's an Australian-market iPhone 4 which means it's unlocked from the factory (or more accurately, was never locked in the first place). I have a Vodafone AU SIM in it and it roams quite happily in the US on either AT&T or T-Mobile (although T-Mobile is EDGE only for data due to them using a weird uplink frequency for UMTS/HSDPA ... EDGE is still fast enough for most things though)
The only 'unique' thing about the US market, technology wise, is that the big carriers are split between GSM (AT&T, T-Mobile) and CDMA (Sprint, Verizon). So if you had an unlocked phone of either variety in the US, your choices would be restricted more than they would be in other markets. But there would still be ~some~ choice. And the technology itself doesn't preclude unlocked phones (which you CAN get in the US, e.g. via Newegg ... it's just that the carriers themselves don't usually offer unlocked phones in their stores, and won't offer you a plan that doesn't include the handset repayments component - T-Mobile excepted).
So basically, yeah, the US market has come to accept 'cheap upfront phone then pay it off over a 24 month contract' business model as the norm, whereas in other countries, it's usually only an 'option' rather than the norm. But the carriers could offer SIM-only/Bring Your Own Phone plans any time they wanted. It's not a technology issue - it's an issue of the phone companies liking the current model (since it gives them more predictable income when they can tie customers in for two years at a time), and the average consumer not really knowing that there are alternatives.
"This video contains content from Comcast Entertainment Group, who has blocked it in your country on copyright grounds."
No GBs or WiFis for me :(
Indeed. Buying the phone outright then just going home and popping your existing SIM card in (with your existing provider/account) is the norm in much of the world.
The 'cheap phone up front that you pay off via higher plan charges and a compulsory 24-month contract' model is the less-preferred option (or may not even be an option) in many places.
There are advantages to each approach. I personally prefer buying the phone outright (which is expensive, e.g. $700+ for a high end HTC/Samsung Android, or $800+ for iPhone 4) but not being locked to a provider or plan (since typically, better plans come out within the 24 month life of a typical contract). I'm a light user so can then go on a cheap $15/month plan or something.
On the other hand, if you are a heavy user and don't have any reason to change providers in the next 2 years, the subsidised phone/contract route can actually work out cheaper.
But I'm glad where I live, I have both options. In the US, as you say, T-Mobile is the only carrier that really lets you do that. And even then, due to the differing 3G frequencies used, the phone is unlikely to work at 3G speeds if you switch between T-Mobile and AT&T. Not to mention that rubbish phone 'exclusivity' you have over there (e.g. iPhone only with AT&T)...
Yeah now that I think about it, you are right. You used to get essentially no interest in AU banks in the 90s.
In 2002, ING Direct came to Australia though. They shook the market up massively with their high-interest, online-only account. They were the first well-known such account in Australia ... I remember signing up in 2003 and was sceptical at first but, wow, it was awesome.
In the next few years a bunch of ING-like competitors surfaced. And by around 2006-07, EVERY bank offered such high interest accounts. The big four were the last to offer them, but they had to cave into pressure eventually. Commonwealth Bank's is the NetBank Saver: http://www.commbank.com.au/personal/accounts/netbanksaver/
So your assessment of Australian banks in the 90s is pretty accurate ;) They sucked. But they are a hell of a lot better now.
It has got better since then, but as someone who has accounts in both Australia and the US, let me ask you this question:
Which would you prefer:
- An account where you might be paying $5 of fees per month, but is generating interest at a whopping 5%+ right now, even for a standard transaction account; or
- No fees but zero interest.
My Aussie accounts are generating me $600+ a month PURELY in interest! I can overlook a couple of small fees. My US accounts pay nothing. Now of course this is partly because official rates right now in the US are essentially zero ... but even in the good times, US banks simply don't pay any/significant interest for standard transaction accounts. Even their 'high interest' accounts aren't as nice as the Australian ones (even if official rates are identical in the two countries). Bonus: at the moment, the AUD is worth MORE than the USD (1 AUD = 1.015 USD). This is a far cry from the 90s when the Australian dollar was only worth 50-70 US cents.
And as a matter of fact, many banks in Australia now attract no fees at all (I use Bankwest, and provided I keep a token minimum balance in there, I have no account fees, no deposit fees, unlimited withdrawals). Things ARE a lot better than the 90s (not just in banking either - Australia has boomed during the 2000s, as a country it has progressed an unbelievable amount in the last 10 years and is still booming - no financial crisis here!)
Regarding not being able to see Visa debit transactions for a day or two: this is normal in Australia, and nothing to do with the banks. Visa simply hasn't provided the information yet. My bank (Bankwest - which isn't a credit union but has much lower fees than the big four, even though it's actually owned by Commbank) simply shows it as 'VISA DEBIT PURCHASE $x.xx' for a day or two before the real details appear.
Use proper EFTPOS (i.e. swipe, select Savings, enter PIN) rather than Visa debit (which is really just presenting itself to the system as a Visa 'credit' card - the system doesn't know or care that the funds are actually coming from a savings account rather than credit). EFTPOS transaction details show up instantly on online banking. As in, by the time you've walked out of the store, across the road and into your office again, you can log in and it will have the full transaction details already there and accounted for.
Australian and American dual citizen here with multiple bank accounts in both countries.
You are right. The banking SYSTEMS in Australia are light years ahead of those in the US:
- In Australia you can send money via online banking, for free, to any other Australian bank account (direct deposit). All you need to know is the account number. It's how I paid my rent and some bills for many years. It's not instant but typically the delay is only 1 day for an account at the same bank and 2-3 days for any other bank.
- In Australia you can pay virtually any bill with Bpay. There's no real equivalent in the US. Sure there are a couple of similar systems I've come across ... but they are each completely unrelated to the other, have no interoperability, and virtually noone uses them. You end up having to sign up to several of these systems just to pay a single bill. What makes Bpay work in Australia is the fact that it's THE bill payment system, and EVERYONE uses it.
- EFTPOS in Australia (i.e. payment via debit card + PIN): much more widely accepted in Australia than the US. Even someone sitting in a temporary stall on a street corner accepts EFTPOS in Australia, whereas in the US it's really only medium to large stores, in my experience. And many won't let you do 'cash out' (i.e. pay for a $50 item with a $100 debit, and get the remaining $50 in cash, avoiding a trip to an ATM).
- Due to the above, cheques/checks have gone the way of the dodo in Australia many years ago. I had never SEEN a check in my life before I started living in the US. My parents got rid of their checkbook in the 80s. But in the US they are still very common, and in some areas, almost ubiquitous (I see people using them at supermarket checkouts for God's sake!). It's ridiculously antiquated but Americans seem to love them.
BUT ... Aussie banks do make ridiculous profits and the focus of this article is more that they have higher fees than in most countries, and tend to nickel and dime you any chance they get. Which is very true. The big four banks certainly could use some more competition. But it's not like they have none - there are plenty of smaller banks and credit unions that are competitive in Australia. But the downside of that of course is that their ATM network is far smaller. I think that's why most people stay with the big four in Australia - free ATMs everywhere you go. Whereas if you sign up with, say, Bankwest or Bendigo or something, you really have to plan ahead when you want to take cash out. Case in point: I am in Canberra quite a bit and I have a Bankwest account. The nearest Bankwest ATM is in Wollongong (lol). Sure I can use Commonwealth ATMs for free for cash withdrawal, but for anything else (e.g. changing my PIN, deposits etc) I have to travel a looonnng way ;)
Oh and PS, as an Australian, I will NEVER trust PAYPAL with any significant amount of money. They have twice frozen my account for no reason other than the fact that I had logins from different countries within a day or two of each other (did you know that there are these things called PLANES?). Once I can understand. But it took a week to get it unfrozen and I even told them explicitly on the phone that I was a dual citizen and flipped between the US and Australia all the time. And they STILL locked my account for the same reason less than a month later! Argh. PAYPAL are scum.
Just wanted to say thanks for that post - it explained a LOT. I grew up in Australia, where, like in Europe, we have a good assortment of cheeses (both local and imported). There are some Australian cheeses that rank up there with the best English ones. But even the standard supermarket cheddar in Australia has a pretty sharp taste.
Then I married an American (from Green Bay, Wisconsin, no less). And so now I spend a lot of my time in the US (and Wisconsin in particular). And I too was shocked at just how bland cheese is there. Even the 'sharp' cheddar is blander than the Australian 'standard' cheddar' ... and there is nothing remotely close to an Australia or English 'sharp' cheddar to be found. Furthermore as you say there is far less variety (particularly of soft cheeses).
I've always wondered why this was the case. Your post explains a lot of it - so thanks :) It's a real shame though, as it seems most Americans have never, and WILL never taste a good cheese. It doesn't even have to be a gourmet or 'unusual' cheese either - even a cheap block of normal cheese from a supermarket in Europe or Australia is MUCH nicer than anything most Americans have ever tasted.
Also why on earth is most American cheese dyed that orange colour? I mean, I know it's only a dye and doesn't affect the taste. But it took me a while to get used to that ... orange cheese is just ... wrong.
Um what?
*looks at iPhone 4 sitting beside him with a plastic film screen protector on it*
*observes that touch screen still works perfectly*
http://www.sgpstore.com/product_info.php/cPath/21_28_89/products_id/1449?osCsid=trd19ult9evnd2ahqenvk513i1
http://www.powersupportusa.com/accessories/iphone-4.html
http://www.invisibleshield.com.au/cell-phone/apple/iphone.php
Etc. etc.
Yeah I agree. Using the iPhone 4 without a case, as an actual phone, is awkward. That thing is slippery and has 'sharp' uncomfortable edges. Whack a grippy case on it though and all of a sudden it becomes much better to use as a phone. You don't feel like you are going to drop it if there's a slight gust of wind anymore ;)
Having said that I don't usually have a case on mine, because I make virtually no telephone calls with it. It's just sitting on the desk or in my hand being used as a data device 95% of the time, so its slipperiness doesn't matter too much. I just use it 'naked' and put it back in a leather slipcase when I'm done. Had it a few months now and it's still in mint condition.
It is really a device that is form over function. So it's not for everyone. I wouldn't recommend it for a road warrior that is on the move and taking calls all day. But for use as a portable internet/reference/games device on which you can take the occasional call too? It's great. I've used various Androids (including the HTC Desire) and although they are definitely good, the experience just isn't as smooth (jerky frame rate issues when swiping to other screens, random lag etc.)
I agree, but keep in mind that the NBN project does not include any undersea cables. International transit (which is the cost I was referring to) won't change as a direct result as the NBN (although it will indirectly: more domestic Internet use -> greater need for new undersea cables -> more competition -> lower prices).
The cost of hosting stuff here isn't the issue. It's the cost of getting it here in the first place. Most traffic to Australia currently comes in via either SXC or PPC1. The former was very expensive up until the latter opened just last year. Once several more cables are built though, international transit costs should come down significantly more.
They aren't dialing 'regular' phone numbers. They are dialing premium numbers (you know, those $10/minute or whatever lines). Internationally. The idea being that the scammers themselves are running the premium lines (or at least have some financial interest in them), so they are essentially making free money.
To be fair, 1 TB for $99 ain't bad at all, and much better than the state of affairs in previous years. Keep in mind that in many other countries with 'unlimited' plans, there can be soft caps or fair use agreements that kick in at substantially less than that. Not to mention that throttling/QoSing 'undesirable' traffic types (e.g. torrents) is commonplace on residential-grade unlimited plans in many countries. At least in Australia you get what you pay for and they don't screw around with your packets (the good ISPs, at least). So for home users and small businesses, 1 TB may as well be 'unlimited' - and at a price that is now at least in the ballpark with other countries.
Of course once you start talking medium and large sized businesses, 1 TB may not be enough. But as you say, the data consumed was not the issue in TFA ... it was the ISP's SIP charges. Which are highway robbery admittedly, when you consider what it actually costs the ISP.
PS. It's very unlikely the NBN or any other technology will see true unlimited plans at rock bottom prices in Australia anytime soon. No matter the delivery technology, the inescapable fact remains: we are an English speaking country wishing to consume mostly English speaking content which is hosted 15,000km away in North America (for the most part). Renting capacity on undersea cables has a cost associated with them, especially when the ~majority~ of an ISPs traffic has to flow through them. This means costs in Australia are uniquely higher - cf. Japan/Korea (where most content in the local language is obviously hosted locally), or the US (where again, the average distance traffic has to travel is far less and most ISPs can get to most content without leaving their network or their immediate peers).
Cause most things these days offer a Twitter feed but not many offer RSS. Plus Twitter is two-way.
I basically just use Twitter as a glorified aggregation service. News headlines from a variety of sites. My ISP's file mirror updates. Updates from bands I follow. Info from online games that I play. Half these organisations don't have RSS feeds, and even if they did, you can't communicate back to them, which is very handy. I even had a issue with my mobile phone provider sorted out via Twitter the other week - certainly beats sitting on hold on the phone for hours.
I don't really use it for social purposes at all ... as GP says things like Facebook are much better for that. But it's basically the RSS of the 2000s.
As an aside ... can anyone recommend a good iOS RSS reader?
I think it's actually because democracies are MORE stable. Most democracies are first-world countries and hence are more 'organised'. They have established processes and institutions to deal with this kind of stuff. Whereas if you are a less developed country, your government probably has bigger concerns on its plate - e.g. 'how do we prevent ourselves getting thrown out in a coup next week?' or 'why is everyone starving?' or 'why haven't I received as many bribes this year?'. They probably don't even have a government department that really cares about what's on the Internet ... it's just not as much of a priority.
That covers the 'non-democratic, but not really 'evil'' countries. As for the real dictatorships, as you say, they already know via other means ;)
Mod parent up.
Conroy can scream at anyone who will listen and stamp his little feet as much as he likes. He's made it clear that he basically knows the policy is doomed, but it's like a personal crusade to him and he won't let it go.
The filter is dead for a number reasons, not least of which is that it is now a mathematical impossibility for it to pass either house of Parliament.
Strongly recommend that people (especially those outside of Australia who aren't up to speed on things here) read this: http://michaelwyres.com/2010/09/another-nail-in-the-filter-coffin/ - good article summarising why, although we should remain vigilant, the anti-filter side has won (admittedly since the anti-filter side comprises >90% of the population this isn't surprising!)
Agreed. I think where Ubuntu still has a way to go is in the small details. The way text is aligned within windows and title bars. The font-smoothing. The general polish and responsiveness of the interface. These small things make a computer much more usable and are still superior in Windows and OSX compared to an out-of-the-box Ubuntu install.
Also not helped by the fact that on several of my older PCs (all running ATI cards), Ubuntu versions more recent than 9.04 fail to offer me a restricted video driver, which means no desktop effects and incredibly poor performance doing even basic stuff like redrawing windows etc. I'm sure there's probably a reason why this would be the case, but all I know as an end-user is that Ubuntu 8 and 9,04 offered me a restricted driver that worked well, yet 9.10 and 10.04 mysteriously tell me that no driver is available, on the very same PC. Something to do with a kernel version change someone told me. Hmmm... :(
Er what? The law we are talking about here concerns only real property (i.e. land, not physical items/chattels/posessions). At common law, whether that be in Australia or the US, real property and chattels are two completely different paradigms. So bringing 'priceless family heirlooms' into it is completely irrelevant - the law we are discussing does not apply to such things.
(I suppose you could argue that a house or land that has been in the family for generations is an 'heirloom', but I don't think that's what you were referring to.)
There are good reasons why for real property, the Torrens title system makes sense (and why it has been adopted by most common law countries, and several US states): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torrens_title
Not to say it's perfect - but no system is.
Who said anything about entering in an unauthorised fashion?
The difference is what constitutes an authorised entry! The US takes photos and all ten fingerprints of anyone entering at its entry points. Other countries obviously also have customs entry/exit points (noone is denying that). But they don't treat you like a criminal right from the outset by taking all ten of your damn fingerprints! That level of suspicion and paranoia is truly unique to the US. Most other countries, your passport and visa is good enough.
I can assure you that as someone who is married to an American and who enters the US several times every year, that the fingerprinting thing is demeaning. Put it this way: I'm not an American, but the US Government is the only entity on earth that has my fingerprints. EVEN MY HOME COUNTRY doesn't have them! WTF!
This. I think the real problem with the US system is less the lack of proportional representation, and more the way the votes are counted. The result is that even if there was a skilled third party, it would be more difficult for any of its members to actually get voted in than it would in other countries.
I think the main problem with DSL in the US is the fact that it seems to be ADSL1, often artificially capped at particular speeds (e.g. 3 Mbps, 6 Mbps), and with awful upstream rates.
Compare to Europe, Australia and NZ which have fairly ubiquitous ADSL2+ rollouts (which offers up to 24 Mbps down / 2.5 Mbps up using Annex M, depending on line length).
In the US I prefer using cable. Sure you rarely get the advertised speed, but even the average speed usually exceeds what you can get via DSL. Whereas outside the US I much prefer ADSL2+ since, as you say, you generally get what you pay for.