From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============4113969489598753773==" MIME-Version: 1.0 From: Denis Kenzior Subject: Re: MNC/MCC as string? Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2009 09:32:38 -0500 Message-ID: <200906110932.39143.denkenz@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <1244720815.27363.10.camel@violet> List-Id: To: ofono@ofono.org --===============4113969489598753773== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Marcel, > I wasn't aware of this and so it might be better to just expose these as > an operator id string. So we might not even split into MCC/MNC at all > since it is meaning less anyway. I'm tending to agree, which is why I wanted to start the conversation. = By the way, just so that we're all clear, here's the relevant quote from th= e = standard: " MCC, Mobile country code (octet 2 and 3) = The MCC field is coded as in ITU-T Rec. E212, Annex A. = MNC, Mobile network code (octet 3 bits 5 to 8, octet 4) = The coding of this field is the responsibility of each administration but B= CD = coding shall be used. The MNC shall consist of 2 or 3 digits. For PCS 1900 = for = NA, Federal regulation mandates that a 3-digit MNC shall be used. However a = network operator may decide to use only two digits in the MNC in the LAI ov= er = the radio interface. In this case, bits 5 to 8 of octet 3 shall be coded as = "1111". Mobile equipment shall accept LAI coded in such a way. " > > That said, we do want some exposure of these values since it is an easy > way to determine geo location help and switch timezones etc. However I > am now thinking that me might just add a Country property and do the > proper translation inside oFono. Since we mostly care about these ones > most. > About the only thing that MCC/MNC is useful for is to display it during man= ual = operator selection. MCC/MNC is not helpful at all for countries like U.S. = with 4+ timezones and the same carrier id across all of them. A country = property would work just as well for this. What standard do we want to use = here? ITU 212? ISO 3166? or E164? Any objections from actually removing the MCC/MNC Properties? Regards, -Denis --===============4113969489598753773==--