On Mon, 2009-11-23 at 17:15 +0100, Marcel Holtmann wrote: > Hi Antti, > > > > you can't trust the network name string returned by AT+COPS since there > > > are so many factors coming into play here. So first of all you have the > > > names stored in the modem itself, then the names stored on the SIM card > > > and then the potential updates over the network. Every hardware does > > > different things to present the result of AT+COPS. > > > > AFAIK if there's a name stored in the SIM card it will have precedence > > over the ones stored inside the modem. And the ones that network sends > > are probably most reliable. I have to look though the specs if there's > > any information on this. > > > > Anyway the point is that in most situations we should have a correct > > alphabetical name for the provider, right? > > I have seen different hardware with the same SIM card give different > names. And I also have seen different SIM card with the same hardware > result in different results. > > Also you have the problem that names change over time and some hardware > and SIM card combination returns still the old one, while newer pieces > would give you the new name.
T-Mobile USA hasn't been Voicestream Wireless since 2002, but my ZTE MF627 (a quite recent device sold by 3UK) returns: +COPS: (2,"AT&T@","AT&TD","310410",0),(3,"Voicestream Wireless Corporation","VSTREAM","31026",0), The SIM is a T-Mobile US SIM that is known to return "T-Mobile" in most other cases. And what's up with the "AT&T@" and "AT&TD" anyway? Basically, we simply can't trust that the COPS results are going to be in any way accurate... Dan _______________________________________________ NetworkManager-list mailing list NetworkManager-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/networkmanager-list