On Mon, 2009-11-23 at 11:54 +0200, Antti Kaijanmäki wrote:
> On Mon, 2009-11-23 at 11:41 +0200, Antti Kaijanmäki wrote:
> > In this situation we simply have a miss in database search and user is
> > presented with all the available configuration choices. Can you provide
> > some real life example where the long alphabetical form is misleading
> > and would cause selecting wrong operator? At least the devices I've
> > tested return reliable results, but they are so few that I can't claim
> > anything based on those.
>
> Actually it would be nice to have other people testing this, too. If
> someone wants to help, just take your devices and SIM-cards and post the
> results. For example with cu:
BTW, don't bother trying this on Nokia phones.
Alphanumerical operator codes on +cops? are not supported[0] or only
partly supported[1][2]. One tester reported that when using +cops=0,2,
he received the numerical network ID:
+COPS: 0,2,"24405"
But when he tried with +cops=3,2 he received:
+COPS: 0,0,"elisa"
but at+cops=? revealed:
+COPS: (2,"Saunalahti",,"24405"),
(3,"SONERA",,"24491"),
(3,"dna",,"24412"),,(0,1,3),(0,2)
And this test was done on Saunalahti SIM-card.
So in this case the name received from +cops? was misleading when tested
with the mode 3 so the values from Nokia phones are not reliable. Anyway
we can detect that we are using Nokia phone and simply filter the
operator list by network-id:s alone.
-- Antti
[0] http://www.bengkelprogram.com/download-ATNOKIA.pdf
[1]
http://sw.nokia.com/id/803db634-f447-4085-a893-91c0aa9d0cfe/AT_Command_Set_For_Nokia_GSM_And_WCDMA_Products_v1_1_en.pdf
[2] http://discussion.forum.nokia.com/forum/showthread.php?t=20942
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part