From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============5927642105597520589==" MIME-Version: 1.0 From: Aki Niemi Subject: Re: MNC/MCC as string? Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2009 21:00:48 +0300 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <200906110932.39143.denkenz@gmail.com> List-Id: To: ofono@ofono.org --===============5927642105597520589== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Thu, 11 Jun 2009 09:32:38 -0500, Denis Kenzior wrote: > About the only thing that MCC/MNC is useful for is to display it during > manual = > operator selection. = That's not true. In fact, I'd say manual operator selection is just about the last place where the codes should be displayed. > 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. = For geolocation help, sure, but there are other places where MNC/MCC are used as keys to databases containing operator-specific information, like default Internet APN names and such. > What standard do we want to use > = > here? ITU 212? ISO 3166? or E164? > = > Any objections from actually removing the MCC/MNC Properties? We need them. Cheers, Aki --===============5927642105597520589==--