 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion Groups General General TopicsGSMBluetoothProviders AlltelATT WirelessCingularFidoNextelSprint PCST-MobileVerizonManufacturers EricssonNokiaMotorolaCountry Specific Australian GroupUK GroupRelated Topics PocketPCPalmMore Topics ... |
Cellular Phone Forum / Providers / Fido / January 2004A real caller id ?
Does the GSM or other network type support real caller id. I mean NAME and phone number. Even if the name is not store in your registry. Calimero No, because there is no public database of cell phone numbers. > Does the GSM or other network type support real caller id. > > I mean NAME and phone number. Even if the name is not store in your > registry. > > Calimero I think Calimero was asking about land line phones... ie. calling from a landline phone to a cell phone and having the complete caller information show up (name and phone number). The way it is now, the name will only show up if it is stored in your phonebook or SIM. That's an interesting question... does anyone have the answer since it would be a great tool/service. > No, because there is no public database of cell phone numbers. > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > > > Calimero >Does the GSM or other network type support real caller id. > >I mean NAME and phone number. Even if the name is not store in your >registry. Even if it is possible you won't be able to do it unless your handset makes this possible. No handsets to my knowlege have this capability. I'm sure it would be possible for carriers to have name and number, but why would they even implement it if there was no equipment that would utilize it? - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - add .com to reply "Joseph" <JoeOfSeattle@yahoo> wrote in message : Even if it is possible you won't be able to do it unless your handset: makes this possible. No handsets to my knowlege have this capability. : I'm sure it would be possible for carriers to have name and number, : but why would they even implement it if there was no equipment that : would utilize it? A firmware upgrade should take care of that, no? >"Joseph" <JoeOfSeattle@yahoo> wrote in message : Even if it is possible you >won't be able to do it unless your handset: makes this possible. No [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >A firmware upgrade should take care of that, no? Maybe and maybe not. Who knows. At present there are no handsets that have the ability to do name and number display. Most handsets presently will show you the name of a person if that person's name and number is in your phone book otherwise it just shows a directory number. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - remove NO from .NOcom to reply > Maybe and maybe not. Who knows. At present there are no handsets > that have the ability to do name and number display. The real question is whether the GSM standard (and all ground infrastructure) has the ability to do this. It isn't just a question of having handsets that can display the calling party's name. And it is also a question of whether adding such a feature would "break" older phones who would expect packets in the old formats without a name. (or worse, if they have to send the name as a separate packet because it arrives after your phone is told to ring, it would either mean the network would have to hold the call until name information is received, or make it possible to send the name after the initial "ytou've got a call" message sent to the handset. > I'm sure it would be possible for carriers to have name and number, > but why would they even implement it if there was no equipment that > would utilize it? Consider a service such as City Fido. You'd probably want to have calling name information (or whatever the full called if info is). From what I had been told, the calling number is available during call establishement, but the telco must then do a reverse lookup in the originating telco's database to get the name. That is one of the reasons full caller ID doesn't become available until after the first ring. I do not think that current GSM implementations support transmittal of name information. Does anyone know if the 3G GSM (WCDMA) will support this ? Bear in mind that until recently, phones just didn't have a large enough display to show both calling number and calling name. >Consider a service such as City Fido. You'd probably want to have calling name >information (or whatever the full called if info is). And Fido/Microcell has every ability to do it. Formerly when someone received a call from a "VoiceStream" subscriber the name it showed on caller displays was Voicestream. Now if a T-Mobile customer calls someone the called party's display shows the account holder's name. It still cannot show it on a mobile handset as the handsets have not been engineered for CID with name display. You need to have both the end equipment that the subscriber has and the CO equipment transmit the data. If you do not have both it's useless. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - remove NO from .NOcom to reply <snip> : Bear in mind that until recently, phones just didn't have a large enough : display to show both calling number and calling name. So, now the new ones do. I think it would be a feature to have. I know I will like to have it, especially since the implementation of City Fido. As always, the US (in North America) will have this service followed by Canada. Not necessarily... in the US, they have local phone number portability for landlines as well as cell phones. In Canada, there are no plans on getting either of these as least from the news reports that I've seen. > <snip> > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > City Fido. As always, the US (in North America) will have this > service followed by Canada. Actually, LNP does exist for landlines. If you move from Bell (or Telus) to Sprint for example, you'll be able to keep your number. Also, since Fido is a CLEC you can import your landline number to your Fido mobile phone (or your Fido number to your landline, but who would want to do that). Fido is also able to import the numbers of its wholesalers (Cityfone, Zero Gravity Wireless, SearsConnect, etc.). No Wireless LNP before a long time tho. > Not necessarily... in the US, they have local phone number portability for > landlines as well as cell phones. In Canada, there are no plans on getting [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > City Fido. As always, the US (in North America) will have this > > service followed by Canada. I'm not sure that it is available to the same degree as in the US. In the US, I believe that if you move within the same area code, you can keep your landline phone number. In Canada (at least in the province of Quebec), if you move more than a few blocks away, you lose your landline phone number. > Actually, LNP does exist for landlines. If you move from Bell (or Telus) to > Sprint for example, you'll be able to keep your number. Also, since Fido is [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > > City Fido. As always, the US (in North America) will have this > > > service followed by Canada. For about 10 years now you have been able to keep your number when you move anywhere within the 604 area code as long as your exchanges (new and old) have modern computerized switches. At first it was limited to a few exchanges, but now I believe it is most of Greater Vancouver that has this capability. Andrew > I'm not sure that it is available to the same degree as in the US. In the > US, I believe that if you move within the same area code, you can keep your [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] >>>>City Fido. As always, the US (in North America) will have this >>>>service followed by Canada. ><snip> > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >City Fido. As always, the US (in North America) will have this >service followed by Canada. What *are* you going on about? It's not available in the US either. Sheesh! If you don't like the service find one that you do like. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - remove NO from .NOcom to reply :: >: Bear in mind that until recently, phones just didn't have a large : >enough : >: display to show both calling number and calling name. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] : What *are* you going on about? It's not available in the US either. : Sheesh! If you don't like the service find one that you do like. I am speculating based upon history. READ THE MESSAGE: "the US (in North America) will have this". Notice-- *will have* (future perfect tense). Not present. Go jump in a lake and get a grip before attacking my right to free speech. > I am speculating based upon history. READ THE MESSAGE: "the US (in > North America) will have this". Notice-- *will have* (future perfect > tense). Not present. Go jump in a lake and get a grip before > attacking my right to free speech. Grr. Straying a bit from the topic, but it always pisses me off when people whine about their rights to free speech on the Internet. Mind you, that's usually because it's someone arguihng they have a right backed up by the US constitution to load my in box with whatever bulk advertising crap they want. (No offense to you in particular, Sam. You just inspiried this thought... I didn't think there was anything wrong with your post. :)  Signature"Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from malice." : : Grr. Straying a bit from the topic, but it always pisses me off when : people whine about their rights to free speech on the Internet. Mind : you, that's usually because it's someone arguihng they have a right [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] : thought... I didn't think there was anything wrong with your post. :) Understandable, no offence taken :-) > I am speculating based upon history. READ THE MESSAGE: "the US (in > North America) will have this". Actually, the USA has lagged behind the rest of the world when it comes to mobile telephony. Now tha TDMA is out of the picture, and now that there are some fairly large GS' operators in North america, perhaps they will be able to get the Nokias, Ericsson and Nortels of the world to add north-american specific features to the networks and handsets. >Now tha TDMA is out of the picture, and now that there are some fairly large >GS' operators in North america, perhaps they will be able to get the Nokias, >Ericsson and Nortels of the world to add north-american specific features to >the networks and handsets. And what would these "north-american" (sic) features be that you're going to add to networks and handsets? - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - remove NO from .NOcom to reply > And what would these "north-american" (sic) features be that you're > going to add to networks and handsets? The transmittal of name information along with, or after the transmittal of the telephone number of the calling party for instance. >> And what would these "north-american" (sic) features be that you're >> going to add to networks and handsets? > >The transmittal of name information along with, or after the transmittal of >the telephone number of the calling party for instance. Just why would this feature be a north-american (sic) feature? Evidently you don't think caller ID is used anywhere else in the world, eh? - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - remove NO from .NOcom to reply >:: >: Bear in mind that until recently, phones just didn't have a >large [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >tense). Not present. Go jump in a lake and get a grip before >attacking my right to free speech. Your lakes are better after you! That's a stupid statement that the US always gets things first. That's not always true. If you make it out to be true you are at the very least deceiving yourself. And BTW, I don't give a damn about your "free speech." - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - remove NO from .NOcom to reply "Joseph" <JoeOfSeattle@yahoo.NOcom> wrote in message : : Your lakes are better after you! : : That's a stupid statement that the US always gets things first. : That's not always true. If you make it out to be true you are at the : very least deceiving yourself. And BTW, I don't give a damn about : your "free speech." Hey, ignoramamus! When it comes to cellphones and technology they almost always are more advanced than Canada. Here is an example of free speech for you: go f.ck yourself! Have a pleasant day! > Hey, ignoramamus! When it comes to cellphones and technology they almost > always are more advanced than Canada. Fido had data transmission capability years before the big USA carriers had theirs. (Fido's problem is that it denied having it to everyone except those who could say the magic word (can you say Nokia 9000 ?). Bell and Telus are dependant on Qualcomm for the CDMA technology, just like Verizon and the others in the USA that are on that proprietary platform. And in fact, when you really think about it, a lot of the times, it is a question of when they implement a new version of software developped by their Qualcomm-spec infrastructure supplier. Consider AT&T in Canada and USA. They were stuck on TDMA and when they started to lag behind too much, they had to ditch that old USA technology in a big hurry because they were about to miss the GPRS boat. CDMA was also very late in implementing SMS messaging (or whatever it is called for CDMA). In fact, the USA was very late in really deploying digital mobile networks, and analogue sales/promotions went on for a very long time at a time when canada was already marketing only digital services. : > Hey, ignoramamus! When it comes to cellphones and technology they almost : > always are more advanced than Canada. [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] : mobile networks, and analogue sales/promotions went on for a very long time at : a time when canada was already marketing only digital services. Right, but the US has come a long way and is now further in such areas as giving their customers the ability to transfer their cell phone number to another carrier. I wouldn't even begin to compare Fido with the US carriers since Fido and GSM is "world oriented". Both Canada and the USA will lag behind when comparing to the rest of the world . I don't know about TDMA in the USA, but CDMA is still largely used in the USA and Canada, with the exception of the modified CDMA that is used in Japan and some other parts of Asia. >I don't know about TDMA in the USA, but CDMA is still largely used in the >USA and Canada, with the exception of the modified CDMA that is used in >Japan and some other parts of Asia. Japan uses WCDMA which is 3rd generation CDMA. It's not anything like what is used in the US and Canada. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - remove NO from .NOcom to reply > Japan uses WCDMA which is 3rd generation CDMA. It's not anything like > what is used in the US and Canada. Qualcomm's 3G offering is called CDMA2000. WCDMA is the GSM's 3G solution which is based on cdma interface, but different and incompatible with Qualcomm proprietary CDMA2000, just like both GSM and TDMA were based on tdma philosophy for air interface, but incompatible. >"Joseph" <JoeOfSeattle@yahoo.NOcom> wrote in message : >: Your lakes are better after you! [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >Hey, ignoramamus! When it comes to cellphones and technology they almost >always are more advanced than Canada. And you can show this how? You can't. And I still don't give a crap about your "free speech rights." - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - remove NO from .NOcom to reply |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.