PaulBags: "Saving lives" is a good goal, but it's not in itself an arguement.
Saving lives is a lot better argument that what I have seen postulated here.
4. Because it's our money that's being spent. This seems to me to be poor quality and of limited value; perhaps more lives would be saved by spending our money on something else?
I'm not involved in this particular project, but the 'Buy NZ no matter what' flag waving thing doesn't make sense on the face of it. Consider a different scenario - the government is only allowed to buy cars designed and manufactured in New Zealand. Well, there aren't any companies that design and manufacture cars in New Zealand, so now someone starts one and the end result is that it takes 10 years before the kinks are worked out, and in the meantime ministers have been whisked around in cars with 5 wheels, or brakes that only work when your foot is not on the pedal or the car is fine except it costs $250K for the equivalent of a Toyota Corolla because economies of scale... whatever.
The point is that the government underwent a selection process and chose a vendor that happens to be based overseas because in their opinion, that was the best spend for our tax dollars. Could someone in NZ have written this software? Sure - the specifications for the Cell Broadcast service can be freely downloaded from the 3GPP website. Off you go.
If there had been an NZ company that could credibly offer to provide it within the time and cost bounds set by the Ministry, I'm sure they would've chosen one. There are several NZ owned and locally staffed companies I can think of off the top of my head that could've done it, but for whatever reason, none of them did.
And finally, to those who say 'One error is too many!!' - go back to the universe you came from. Your perfect record is making the rest of us look bad. :-)
Nicely put. Honestly, some people just seem to want to get upset over every little thing.
PaulBags: Cool, me & deaf people & probably some others will just die then because you don't care about our needs.
You talk as if it was designed specifically to annoy you and that this will be the only method of alert. Hearing impaired already have alternatives both sensory and visual. I don't think anything will suit you as you seem to believe it's all about you. The weight of debate is definitely on the other side to you yet you continue to believe that it is me me me me. So with that I will leave you to your tantrum and bid thee adieu.
PaulBags: "some people just seem to want to get upset over every little thing." - yeah when you only look at things from your own perspective and ignore what others say then it must seem that way.
The points raised by frankv had very well reasoned explanations as was explained by the reply he got from Saltynz. He probably could have come to them himself had he of given it more thought.
I didn't ignore what frankv said, I just disagreed with his perspective.
PaulBags: My house has no noise insulation, I can hear my neighbours fart in their driveway, and still those alerts are louder (and much more disturbing) than a passing siren.
You seem to be missing the point. Perhaps go and take a deep breath and get some perspective. It's SUPPOSED to be intrusive. It's supposed to stop you, whatever you were doing to pay attention so it can potentially save your life.
As someone else said, if you don't like it, get a phone that doesn't support it. Better still, get over it.
PaulBags: Haha what debate/arguement, Gerry Brownlees decree?
There is no arguement for mandatory. I have multiple problems with the service, there may not be many who do but I doubt I'm the only one. If you want to give up and not improve the system and not save more lives then that's up to you.
Don't be ridiculous. Of course there is a argument for 'mandatory' when it comes to alerts in a civil emergency. I can't believe you suggested that with a straight face.
Well, perhaps if you weren't overwrought with emotion you would understand complaining at GZ isn't helping get your "issue" dealt with, however I can assure you, if I was in charge, you'd be in the vast vast minority so I'd expect you to get the appropriate level of attention as a result.
PaulBags: Yip, fusk inclusiveness, fusk saving all the lives, just bang out a system aimed at the lowest common denominator.
Boy, you really are in a state. By definition catering to the lowest common denominator IS saving the most lives. At the risk of sounding condescending, can I suggest you take a few minutes away from the keyboard to calm down and collect your thoughts. I am pretty sure if you re-read your posts a week fron now, you aren't going to be super happy.