In message <tcdlaq$26he4$1@dont-email.me>, at 11:14:34 on Wed, 3 Aug
2022, Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> remarked:
>Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>> In message <tcd9jm$23kbg$1@dont-email.me>, at 07:54:30 on Wed, 3 Aug
>> 2022, Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> remarked:
>>
>>>> Before I try to grill EE about this, has anyone else *successfully* got
>>>> wifi-calling working on an Android phone, and did it magically work
>>>> perhaps thanks to LTE protocols, or was there some additional setup
>>>> required (a bit like specifying an SMS message centre which we had to do
>>>> back in the day, before the networks sent out SMS to set our phones up
>>>> for us).
>>>
>>> I don’t know. My phone has a WiFi calling setting which is on, and has
>>> been as long as I’ve had it, but the voice quality is worse at the back of
>>> the house where the mobile signal is worse but the WiFi is stronger, than
>>> at the front where the mobile signal is worse. …
>
>I meant the mobile signal is better at the front of the house.
>
>>> … There’s even a “prefer WiFi
>>> calling” button which is also set. I’ve got a Fairphone 3,
>>>Android 11, on
>>> Your Coop, an EE MVNO, though the phone has started identifying the network
>>> as EE.
>>
>> Thanks for that. To follow up the final point, I did a study about three
>> or four years ago using multiple phones and multiple SIMs, and one side
>> effect was it was pretty random whether the display said (for example)
>> "giffgaff|Tesco" or "O2" [or Virgin/T-mobile], when it was an MVNO SIM.
>>
>> The phone obviously knows both, and inside must be some algorithm
>> (broken or not) about which they reflect on the screen.
>
>And thanks for that!

iirc one of the offenders was an Aldi dual-SIM phone [they've now pulled
out of the market for such hi-tech gadgets as far as I can tell] which
showed "O2/O2" rather than "Tesco/giffgaff" and was therefore useless
when it came to knowing which of the two SIMs one was selecting (or
being called on).
--
Roland Perry

On 3 Aug 2022 at 4:31:50 PM EEST, "Roland Perry" <roland@perry.uk> wrote:

> In message <tcdruu$287r2$1@dont-email.me>, at 13:07:42 on Wed, 3 Aug
> 2022, Clank <clank75@googlemail.com> remarked:
>> (If this ever worked more smoothly with Apple, it's because Apple skipped all
>> this and only allowed their phone to be used on networks they had 'blessed'.
>
> Hold on - are you saying that Apple have a way to re-lock an unlocked
> phone, if you have the temerity to use it with a SIM from an unblessed
> carrier?

Whether or not the phone is carrier-locked is entirely orthogonal to whether
or not Apple provides carrier configuration that allows you to use any
particular carrier, or what features they permit on that particular carrier.

>
>> So the carrier configurations for all networks they support are provided by
>> Apple - through their standard software update mechanism - rather than being
>> automatically discovered and downloaded by the phone. This means that as long
>> as you are within Apple's walled garden of Apple-approved carriers, everything
>> works flawlessly, but equally means that as soon as you step out of that
>> walled garden you're out of luck.)
>
> Where can one find this list?

<https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT204040>

In message <tcdrhs$284e6$1@dont-email.me>, at 13:00:44 on Wed, 3 Aug
2022, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
>Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>> In message <tcd7tp$2378h$1@dont-email.me>,at 07:25:45 on Wed,3 Aug
>> 2022,Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>> In message <tcbg6l$1iskl$1@dont-email.me>, at 15:34:45 on Tue, 2 Aug
>>>> 2022, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>> Before I try to grill EE about this, has anyone else *successfully* got
>>>>>> wifi-calling working on an Android phone, and did it magically work
>>>>>> perhaps thanks to LTE protocols, or was there some additional setup
>>>>>> required (a bit like specifying an SMS message centre which we had to do
>>>>>> back in the day, before the networks sent out SMS to set our phones up
>>>>>> for us).
>>>>
>>>> Update: I have now found two SMS from earlier this year.
>>>>
>>>> One says: "Setting Message: PAYG WAP APN/Browser,
>>>>
>>>> And the other: "Setting message: Vodafone VoWIFI If you click install,
>>>> Vodafone VoWifi will be activated afer re-booting."
>>>>
>>>> No corresponding SMS this week from EE :(
>>>>
>>>> So I'll have to put a Vodafone SIM (which normally lives in my laptop)
>>>> into the phone and try again.
>>>>
>>>> I'll report back later, because I need to dismantle the laptop to get
>>>> the SIM out <sigh>. [The designer probably thinks that makes it less
>>>> likely to be lost/stolen, compared to it being in an accessible slot
>>>> like an SD card.]
>>>>
>>>>>>> On iPhone it's simple: it works for the 6S and anything later, which
>>>>>>> means it works for every phone currently supported.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> How have they got around the "didn't buy the phone from the network
>>>>>> whose SIM I'm using" thing?
>>>>>>
>>>>> iPhones aren’t infested with operator crud ware. As far as I’m aware
>>>>> they
>>>>> are identically configured regardless of the selling operator.
>>>>>Even locking
>>>>> the handset to the subsidising operator is handled by an Apple server. (I
>>>>> buy mine directly from Apple sim free). Apple have sufficient market power
>>>>> that they can say “wifi calling works like this, best make sure your
>>>>> network is compatible”.
>>>>>
>>>>> Apple were very clear from the start that they defined how the
>>>>>phone looked
>>>>> to the user and no operator crudware was going to ruin how they
>>>>>believe the
>>>>> user experience should be.
>>>>
>>>> I'm skeptical that Apple have sufficient market power to dictate
>>>> that network operators use something other than normal VoLTE, the
>>>> implementation of which on a handset should be little different
>>>> between an iPhone and Android.
>>>>
>>>> Where the two diverge very slightly is that the iPhone has[1] the on/off
>>>> in "settings... cellular...", whereas Android users are told to
>>>> enable[2] it as a sub-menu in the Phone App. But that's a standard app,
>>>> not "crudware". And the exact same dialogue is also available
>>>> (ironically with fewer 'clicks') in the regular Settings menu.
>>>>
>>>> However, even if iPhones support wifi-calling, not every network does (I
>>>> gather Tesco Mobile doesn't, for example) and I'd be interested to hear
>>>> from any iPhone users on such networks: whether the phone refuses to
>>>> enable wi-fi calling (and what 'error' it displays), or whether it
>>>> purports to have, but simply never switches to it when in a telephony
>>>> not-spot.
>>>>
>>>> [1] Invariably in model 5C and later.
>>>> [2] Only some phones, even only some variants of the same basic model.
>>>
>>> If I remember correctly, the iPhone doesn’t display the WiFi
>>>calling on/off
>>> toggle switch in settings if the network doesn’t support WiFi calling.
>>
>> Does that mean they have to (given the unlocked-phone scenario) have to
>> enquire of some central resource every time someone sidles up to the
>> menu which might or might not turn out to have that option visible?
>>
>>> Something similar happens for tethering, ie if your contract doesn’t allow
>>> it the option doesn’t appear.
>>
>> That's another bone of contention. My phone-before-last refused to do
>> wifi-hotspot [a form of tethering] although I have no reason to believe
>> it enquires in real time of the network provider whose SIM I had
>> installed, whether they approved of it or not.
>>
>> It didn't bear any indications that it might have been supplied via a
>> particular network, who had thus slugged the firmware.
>>
>>> You are correct that some networks, mainly the virtual ones, don’t support
>>> WiFi calling. Some even differ between pre and post paid. But there’s a
>>> whole host of things that the virtual operators don’t do properly. Plusnet
>>> claim not to support 4G voice (ie where the voice call is carried as voip
>>> rather than a circuit switched connection). This forces your phone to drop
>>> to 3G or 2G, where you may not have such good reception. As both WiFi
>>> calling and 4G voice have benefits to the operator I can only assume slow
>>> roll out is due to capital expenditure restrictions for the necessary kit.
>>> Then you get other stupidities such as the virtual network not having
>>> access to all the frequency bands that are allocated to the main operator.
>>> (Was another Plusnet feature). Of course, it is never easy to discover all
>>> of this information.
>>
>> Phones also have a bewildering number of different 4G bands they
>> support, for no apparent reason (because the underlying hardware is the
>> same).
>>
>> For the model I've been using as my example in this thread, it varies
>> thusly (depending apparently on market):
>>
>> 1,2,3,4,5,7,8,12,13,17, 20, 28, 38, 40
>> 1,3, 4,5,7,8,12, 20, 26,28, 38,39,40,41
>> 1,2,3,4,5,7, 12, 20, 29,30
>> 1,2,3,4,5,7, 12,13, 20, 66
>> 1,2,3,4,5,7,8,12,13,17, 20,25, 29,30, 66
>> 2,3,4,5,7, 13, 20, 66
>> 2,3,4,5,7, 12, 25,26, 41
>> 1,2,3,4,5,7, 12,13,17, 20,25
>>
>> Have these people never heard about customers roaming in other parts of
>> the world?
>>
>> Does every iPhone do all of those - hmm... here's the 6S [Why no band
>> 12]:
>>
>> Two models:
>>
>> 1,2,3,4,5,7,8, 13,17,18,19,20,25,26,28,29
>> 1,2,3,4,5,7,8, 13,17,18,19,20,25,26,28,29, 38,39,40,41
>>
>> Or the SE(2022) a distinct improvement [columns gone adrift, sorry] but
>> still three different sub-models:
>>
>> 1,2,3 4,5,7,8, 12,13, 17,18,19,20, 25,26,28, 30,32,34,38,39,
>> 40,41,42,46,48,66
>> 1,2,3,4,5,7,8, 12,13,14,17,18,19,20, 25,26,28,29,30,32,34,38,39,
>> 40,41,42,46,48,66,71
>> 1,2,3,4,5,7,8,11,12,13, 17,18,19,20,21,25,26,28, 30,32,34,38,39,
>> 40,41,42,46,48,66
>
>I’ve no idea why there are currently three sub models, but it may just be a
>technical issue. Something as simple as being unable to design an antenna
>that can do everything, or a shortage of modem chips that can do the more
>exotic bands.

11 and 21 are both 1500 so not especially exotic I'd have thought.

>https://www.apple.com/uk/iphone/cellular/ lists bands and models. The
>iPhone 13 is the most advanced. The USA variant goes up into the mm GHz
>bands, which the rest of the world models do not.

42 and 48 look like the outliers at the high end.

>It would clearly be better and easier for Apple to have a single worldwide
>hardware platform. I’m amazed that it is even possible to design an antenna
>system that works on so many frequencies.

Clank <clank75@googlemail.com> wrote:
> On 3 Aug 2022 at 10:52:37 AM EEST, "Tweed" <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>> In message <tcbrjg$1lnlu$1@dont-email.me>, at 18:49:20 on Tue, 2 Aug
>>> 2022, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>
>>>>>> iPhones aren’t infested with operator crud ware. As far as I’m aware they
>>>>>> are identically configured regardless of the selling operator. Even locking
>>>>>> the handset to the subsidising operator is handled by an Apple server. (I
>>>>>> buy mine directly from Apple sim free). Apple have sufficient market power
>>>>>> that they can say “wifi calling works like this, best make sure your
>>>>>> network is compatible”.
>>>>>
>>>>> That was the idea at first, when Apple wouldn't let networks have
>>>>> iPhones unless they had specific agreements in place with Apple, but
>>>>> once legislators insisted that phones had to be sold unlocked, Apple's
>>>>> ability to extract terms from network operators was lost. An example of
>>>>> this is visual voicemail, which was a different way to access voicemail
>>>>> messages that needed to be supported by networks. Once legislators
>>>>> forced Apple to make phones available on all networks, a lot of them
>>>>> decided they didn't want to support that feature. I think the same
>>>>> applies for WiFi calling. While Apple can control what the phone can
>>>>> and can not do, for WiFi calling to work, the network has to support
>>>>> the feature, specifically if someone calls in to your iPhone, whether
>>>>> that call does or does not get routed to your phone via the WiFi
>>>>> calling optoin is under the network's control.
>>>>>
>>>> The point is that Apple’s implementation of WiFi calling is consistent
>>>> across their model range and has been for quite a number of years. As far
>>>> as I know, if a network supports WiFi calling it will always support
>>>> iPhones. I don’t know of any network that offers WiFi calling but excludes
>>>> iPhones. iPhones don’t need any special bespoke firmware to support a
>>>> specific network’s implementation of WiFi calling.
>>>
>>> Is the implication here that android phones *do* need "special bespoke
>>> firmware", and is that something which will only be supplied on a phone
>>> you buy from a network? I didn't see anything in the EE puff[1] quoted
>>> earlier about it only applying to phones you've bought from an EE shop,
>>> rather than to phones with an EE SIM in them.
>>>
>>> [1]
>>> <https://ee.co.uk/help/help-new/getting-started-and-upgrading/using-your-phone-features/how-do-i-use-wifi-calling>
>>
>> There’s a bit of a summary here
>>
>> <https://www.4g.co.uk/news/ee-o2-three-and-vodafone-which-networks-offer-wi-fi-calling/>
>>
>> The text states “Note though that in all cases Wi-Fi Calling may not work
>> if you haven't bought your phone directly from the network in question”.
>> This would imply tailored software may need to be fitted to the handset.
>
> As long as the network has implemented standard VoWiFi/VoLTE, it shouldn't
> need any tailored software pre-installed. (I buy my phones unlocked and never
> from a carrier, and WiFi calling works just fine for me.)
>
> It *does* however require a Carrier Configuration message from the network
> which tells the phone where to obtain the carrier configuration app (this is
> the current-generation evolution of the old service configuration message that
> updated your SMS Service Centre - these days the config is a whole app with
> special permissions.) This automatically downloaded and installed app provides
> all the relevant settings for the network's IMS and thus any services that
> depend on it (including VoLTE and VoWiFi.)
>
> The network will in general only distribute the configuration app to device
> models that they have actually tested/certified. So if you have an unlocked
> phone which is a model you *could have* bought from the carrier, everything
> should just work. If it's an unlocked phone that that carrier never supported,
> on the other hand, you may be out of luck.
>
>
>
> (If this ever worked more smoothly with Apple, it's because Apple skipped all
> this and only allowed their phone to be used on networks they had 'blessed'.
> So the carrier configurations for all networks they support are provided by
> Apple - through their standard software update mechanism - rather than being
> automatically discovered and downloaded by the phone. This means that as long
> as you are within Apple's walled garden of Apple-approved carriers, everything
> works flawlessly, but equally means that as soon as you step out of that
> walled garden you're out of luck.)
>

Can you name any “non approved by Apple carrier”? What are the consequences
of this lack of approval? Can you name any carrier where WiFi calling works
for Android but not for Apple? Only in the very early days of the iPhone
were there specific tie ups for visual voicemail. That’s all gone by the
wayside now.

Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
> In message <tcdro6$2862f$1@dont-email.me>, at 13:04:06 on Wed, 3 Aug
> 2022, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
>> Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
>>> Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>>> In message <tcbfge$1in31$1@dont-email.me>, at 15:22:54 on Tue, 2 Aug
>>>>> 2022, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>> In message <tbofbg$1t73l$1@dont-email.me>, at 10:23:44 on Tue, 26 Jul
>>>>>>> 2022, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> And the final nail in the coffin is that the definition of "phone" for
>>>>>>>>> the in-car situation is spectacularly technology specific (I haven't
>>>>>>>>> looked to see if it's been updated to include 5G bands) because to be a
>>>>>>>>> "phone" (and not a taxi/police radio), it has to communicate on very
>>>>>>>>> specific frequencies, which I'm pretty sure doesn't include either
>>>>>>>>> bluetooth or wifi, and this an additional bluetooth earpiece exemption,
>>>>>>>>> as well as a wifi or bluetooth connected Apple Watch.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> But please let me know if your analysis of the regs agrees with mine.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Who knows. The use of phone in car regulations have been recently
>>>>>>>> tightened.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Is that because they might have removed the part of the regulations
>>>>>>> which defines a "phone" by the frequencies it operates on?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If so, which SI was updated, and when?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Dunno. Given your newly claimed status of lawyer I’m sure
>>>>>> you’ll be able to
>>>>>> find your way around the relevant websites.
>>>>>
>>>>> On one hand it's not newly-claimed (must be at least 15yrs) and on the
>>>>> other hand last time I looked (which was admittedly maybe three years
>>>>> ago) nothing had changed.
>>>>>
>>>>> The point of interest was 5G, which might use frequency bands not
>>>>> previously mentioned but I don't think anyone has yet built a 5G-only
>>>>> phone, so they'd be caught by their ability to do 2-4G.
>>>>>
>>>>> You mentioned the possibility of "recently tightened", but without
>>>>> saying in what way.
>>>>>
>>>>> Something I read the other day about using a phone as a satnav (and was
>>>>> also in a piece about alleged tightening up) said they were OK as long
>>>>> as you didn't touch it while driving. But said you should pull over and
>>>>> stop. Although conventional wisdom has always been that "while driving"
>>>>> includes sat in a stationary car.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> https://www.bsbsolicitors.co.uk/blog/use-of-a-mobile-phone-or-hand-hel
>>>> d-device/
>>>>
>>>> https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/road-traffic-mobile-phones
>>>>
>>>> https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2022/81/made
>>>
>>> Interesting. The new regs would seem to prohibit the use of my mobile
>>> phone as a satnav, even though it connects to the screen of the in-car
>>> infotainment system, since I generally have to hold it at some point during
>>> the setup process and it definitely does some interacting with the internet
>>> as I’m driving along. Pooey!
>>
>> I thought you could set it up before setting off. Thereafter it has to sit
>> in a cradle and not be touched.
>
> That was the gist of one bit of advice I saw the other day on gov.uk
> [and can't find right now]. But they rather blew it by saying you could
> stop at the side of the road (which as we've seen today still qualifies
> as "driving") to fettle it.
>
> What's also deeply inconsistent is they have no ban on essentially the
> exact same distracting fettling taking place on a dedicated satnav.

The test that seems to be used at the local magistrates for all issues of
whether you are driving or not is whether the ignition is off and you are
parked up.. So if you have start/stop and are stopped you are driving. If
you’ve parked up and have switched the engine off you are not driving. If
you are at the level crossing and have turned your ignition off you aren’t
parked up and are thus driving.

On Wed, 3 Aug 2022 14:38:28 -0000 (UTC), Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com>
wrote:

>The test that seems to be used at the local magistrates for all issues of
>whether you are driving or not is whether the ignition is off and you are
>parked up.. So if you have start/stop and are stopped you are driving. If
>you’ve parked up and have switched the engine off you are not driving. If
>you are at the level crossing and have turned your ignition off you aren’t
>parked up and are thus driving.

Yes, that's a good summary.

Another good rule of thumb question is to ask yourself "Would it be
reasonable for me to get out of the car and walk away?" If the answer is
"no" (eg, because doing so would leave it obstructing a live traffic lane as
and when starts to move again), then you're still driving even if traffic is
stationary and you've turned it off. But if you are in a position where it
would be entirely normal to leave the car and walk away from it (eg, at the
side of a road that doesn't have parking restrictions, or in a layby), then
once you've turned it off you're not driving even if you remain inside.

Mark

On 03/08/2022 10:46, Roland Perry wrote:
> In message <tccdgm$1q0fi$3@dont-email.me>, at 00:55:02 on Wed, 3 Aug
> 2022, martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk remarked:
>
>>>  Before I try to grill EE about this, has anyone else *successfully*
>>> got  wifi-calling working on an Android phone, and did it magically
>>> work  perhaps thanks to LTE protocols, or was there some additional
>>> setup  required (a bit like specifying an SMS message centre which we
>>> had to do  back in the day, before the networks sent out SMS to set
>>> our phones up  for us).
>
>> My mobile that expired today used to successfully use wifi calling
>> with EE.
>
> Was it a phone you sourced from an EE shop, or just a random one that
> happened to have an EE SIM in it?
It was a sim free phone I sourced from where I cannot remember which has
an EE sim in by choice. I made sure wifi calling was part of the spec.
as mobile reception is, at best, bad on all networks.

Clank <clank75@googlemail.com> wrote:
> On 3 Aug 2022 at 4:31:50 PM EEST, "Roland Perry" <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>
>> In message <tcdruu$287r2$1@dont-email.me>, at 13:07:42 on Wed, 3 Aug
>> 2022, Clank <clank75@googlemail.com> remarked:
>>> (If this ever worked more smoothly with Apple, it's because Apple skipped all
>>> this and only allowed their phone to be used on networks they had 'blessed'.
>>
>> Hold on - are you saying that Apple have a way to re-lock an unlocked
>> phone, if you have the temerity to use it with a SIM from an unblessed
>> carrier?
>
> Whether or not the phone is carrier-locked is entirely orthogonal to whether
> or not Apple provides carrier configuration that allows you to use any
> particular carrier, or what features they permit on that particular carrier.
>
>>
>>> So the carrier configurations for all networks they support are provided by
>>> Apple - through their standard software update mechanism - rather than being
>>> automatically discovered and downloaded by the phone. This means that as long
>>> as you are within Apple's walled garden of Apple-approved carriers, everything
>>> works flawlessly, but equally means that as soon as you step out of that
>>> walled garden you're out of luck.)
>>
>> Where can one find this list?
>
> <https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT204040>
>

That’s not a list of blessed networks, more a list of networks that support
more than just the basic service. All the major UK networks support all the
advanced features and as we’ve discussed before, the virtual operators
(with some notable exceptions) support fewer features. For example, voice
over 4G (VoLTE), or it’s lack thereof, isn’t an Apple thing, but an
operator deficiency. It’s useful that Apple have produced a list of what
can be described as 1st, 2nd and 3rd division operators. The same
deficiencies will also impact Android users.

On 03/08/2022 14:04, Tweed wrote:
> Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
>> Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>> In message <tcbfge$1in31$1@dont-email.me>, at 15:22:54 on Tue, 2 Aug
>>>> 2022, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>>>> In message <tbofbg$1t73l$1@dont-email.me>, at 10:23:44 on Tue, 26 Jul
>>>>>> 2022, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> And the final nail in the coffin is that the definition of "phone" for
>>>>>>>> the in-car situation is spectacularly technology specific (I haven't
>>>>>>>> looked to see if it's been updated to include 5G bands) because to be a
>>>>>>>> "phone" (and not a taxi/police radio), it has to communicate on very
>>>>>>>> specific frequencies, which I'm pretty sure doesn't include either
>>>>>>>> bluetooth or wifi, and this an additional bluetooth earpiece exemption,
>>>>>>>> as well as a wifi or bluetooth connected Apple Watch.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> But please let me know if your analysis of the regs agrees with mine.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Who knows. The use of phone in car regulations have been recently
>>>>>>> tightened.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Is that because they might have removed the part of the regulations
>>>>>> which defines a "phone" by the frequencies it operates on?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If so, which SI was updated, and when?
>>>>>>
>>>>> Dunno. Given your newly claimed status of lawyer I’m sure you’ll be able to
>>>>> find your way around the relevant websites.
>>>>
>>>> On one hand it's not newly-claimed (must be at least 15yrs) and on the
>>>> other hand last time I looked (which was admittedly maybe three years
>>>> ago) nothing had changed.
>>>>
>>>> The point of interest was 5G, which might use frequency bands not
>>>> previously mentioned but I don't think anyone has yet built a 5G-only
>>>> phone, so they'd be caught by their ability to do 2-4G.
>>>>
>>>> You mentioned the possibility of "recently tightened", but without
>>>> saying in what way.
>>>>
>>>> Something I read the other day about using a phone as a satnav (and was
>>>> also in a piece about alleged tightening up) said they were OK as long
>>>> as you didn't touch it while driving. But said you should pull over and
>>>> stop. Although conventional wisdom has always been that "while driving"
>>>> includes sat in a stationary car.
>>>
>>> https://www.bsbsolicitors.co.uk/blog/use-of-a-mobile-phone-or-hand-held-device/
>>>
>>> https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/road-traffic-mobile-phones
>>>
>>> https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2022/81/made
>>
>> Interesting. The new regs would seem to prohibit the use of my mobile
>> phone as a satnav, even though it connects to the screen of the in-car
>> infotainment system, since I generally have to hold it at some point during
>> the setup process and it definitely does some interacting with the internet
>> as I’m driving along. Pooey!
>>
>> Sam
>>
>
> I thought you could set it up before setting off. Thereafter it has to sit
> in a cradle and not be touched.
>
I cannot set it up where my car is parked as the mobile signal is
non-existent to that's not possible. I normally do that on my wifi
before I go outside.

In message <tcbm1b$1kbdb$2@dont-email.me>, at 17:14:19 on Tue, 2 Aug
2022, Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> remarked:
>Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>> In message <tc9fro$13pem$1@dont-email.me>, at 21:16:40 on Mon, 1 Aug
>> 2022, Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> remarked:
>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>> In message <tc6o9u$fojv$1@dont-email.me>, at 23:22:21 on Sun, 31 Jul
>>>> 2022, Clank <clank75@googlemail.com> remarked:
>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> Wrote in message:
>>>>
>>>>>> Please explain how calling for a taxi,
>>>>>
>>>>> Calling? For a taxi?? In this century???
>>>>
>>>> Yes, while still in what passes for the Home Counties, there's no Uber
>>>> service here.
>>>>
>>>>> My preferred local taxi company has an app for that.
>>>>
>>>> And my local taxi firm doesn't have an app.
>>>>
>>>>> And if they don't have any cars available, or I'm out of the area,
>>>>> there are apps like Bolt and Grab for that too. And if I want
>>>>> something a bit more comfortable because it's the end of a long
>>>>> journey, Blacklane have an app for that too.
>>>>
>>>> Borrowing recliner's deliberate misinterpretation hat, there's no such
>>>> app as "bolt and grab".
>>>>
>>>> But just to humour you: I've installed Bolt, and it requires an account
>>>> setting up *and* a credit card verification, before even letting me know
>>>> if I'm in their service area.
>>>>
>>>> <drum roll> "Unfortunately Bolt is Currently Unavailable. Request Bolt
>>>> in France, Nigeria [oh my god, what have I done!] South Africa..."
>>>>
>>>> And Grab... wants access to just about everything on my phone. Sorry,
>>>> that's not happening.
>>>>
>>>>>> or making an appointment with your GP
>>>>>
>>>>> I open my healthcare provider's app, check the calendar of
>>>>> available appointments, and book it - online or in-person, as I
>>>>> prefer - via the app.
>>>>
>>>> Good luck doing that in the UK.
>>>>
>>>>>> works via Facetime?
>>>>>
>>>>> On the extraordinarily rare occasions I do need to call a service
>>>>> provider, 9 times out of 10 their number is contactable via
>>>>> WhatsApp.
>>>>
>>>> Genuine question - how do you know what their contact details are?
>>>
>>> How are you going to telephone them if you don’t know their telephone
>>> number?
>>
>> Telephone numbers are published, I don't often [that's code for 'never',
>> modulo on Usenet nothing is ever never] see whatever the WhatsApp
>> equivalent of that is.
>
>What's required to contact someone by WhatsApp is… a telephone number, plus
>them having WhatsApp installed.

OK, if the number is a landline [which it almost always is], how does
that work? I'm pretty sure I can't install Whatsapp on my DECT phones,
let alone the vintage one with real bells inside that I keep for a
mixture of sentimental value, and to plug in like earlier this week when
what Eastern Electrickery is called this week decided they didn't need
to supply my house with 240v for a couple of hours (chatting with the
men digging the hole was quite interesting though - the 3-phase 240v
household supply cable had gone bad and was the reason for the callout,
but it had also burnt a big hole in the 11kV substation to substation
cable it was running alongside, which they weren't expecting).

>You add that number to your contacts and if they have WhatsApp, they then
>show in the list of people you can contact by WhatsApp.
>
>Having to do that, rather than just entering the number, is a little
>frustrating, I grant you.

--
Roland Perry

In message <tcbnme$1k8vf$1@dont-email.me>, at 17:42:38 on Tue, 2 Aug
2022, Mike Humphrey <mail@michaelhumphrey.me.uk> remarked:
>On Tue, 02 Aug 2022 12:13:46 +0100, Roland Perry wrote:
>> Telephone numbers are published, I don't often [that's code for 'never',
>> modulo on Usenet nothing is ever never] see whatever the WhatsApp
>> equivalent of that is.
>
>The WhatsApp equivalent is "telephone number" - WhatsApp uses the number
>of your mobile as your identifier. Which is why it requires a mobile to
>work - although you can use it on other devices once set up, it needs a
>mobile with a valid number to create your account.

I've had a Whatsapp account since before it was famous; what's missing
is the people I want to communicate with [often staff of organisations,
rather than just random civilians] having one.

One of the places I call perhaps most often has a number which is
manned by several different people, depending on their shifts, and
has voicemail which any of the team can access.
--
Roland Perry

Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
> In message <VaC*U3PUy@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk>, at 14:27:23 on Wed,
> 3 Aug 2022, Theo <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> remarked:
>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>> No corresponding SMS this week from EE :(
>>>
>>> So I'll have to put a Vodafone SIM (which normally lives in my laptop)
>>> into the phone and try again.
>>>
>>> I'll report back later, because I need to dismantle the laptop to get
>>> the SIM out <sigh>. [The designer probably thinks that makes it less
>>> likely to be lost/stolen, compared to it being in an accessible slot
>>> like an SD card.]
>>
>> If you had read the link in my posting:
>> https://www.simsherpa.com/networks/best-wifi-calling
>> it tells you which networks support wifi calling.
>
> I have no particular reason to trust that random blogger's information.
>
> Especially since "The retailers featured on this page may compensate us
> when our readers follow links to their websites and make a purchase".
>
>> In short, almost none of them on PAYG, with the exception of Three and
>> 1pmobile (EE MVNO). Support is better on contract SIMs.
>
> So even if a carrier supports it on a contract, you can't rely on their
> PAYG SIMs also supporting it?
>
> But going back to your random blogger:
>
> "Joint 1st: EE offer WiFi calling on all plans"
>
> ALL PLANS it says, not just contract plans. And goes on to mention PAYG.
> Although their linked-to list of supported phones looks very plausibly
> restricted to those they have new contracts available for, this week.
>
>>> However, even if iPhones support wifi-calling, not every network does (I
>>> gather Tesco Mobile doesn't, for example) and I'd be interested to hear
>>> from any iPhone users on such networks: whether the phone refuses to
>>> enable wi-fi calling (and what 'error' it displays), or whether it
>>> purports to have, but simply never switches to it when in a telephony
>>> not-spot.
>>
>> I can confirm the toggle never appears.
>
> Ah-ha! So an iPhone that "just doesn't work". Is the list of shunned
> carriers stored on the phone, or does it have to call the mothership to
> check?
>
An iPhone can’t just work if the operator doesn’t support WiFi calling on
your plan. If WiFi calling is available on your plan it will work. Same as
an iPhone won’t just work if there’s no available cellular signal nor WiFi
signal. It won’t just work if you have no calling plan either. (Contract or
PAYG)

From my very tenuous understanding, the sim tells the phone what services
are available. Modern sims can be updated over the air by the operator if
necessary.

I don’t know why EE doesn’t support wifi calling on PAYG. Vodafone does. O2
also claims not to support it on PAYG. Three makes no mention of it not
working, so the assumption is that it does.

<martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk> wrote:
> On 03/08/2022 14:04, Tweed wrote:
>> Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
>>> Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>>> In message <tcbfge$1in31$1@dont-email.me>, at 15:22:54 on Tue, 2 Aug
>>>>> 2022, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>> In message <tbofbg$1t73l$1@dont-email.me>, at 10:23:44 on Tue, 26 Jul
>>>>>>> 2022, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> And the final nail in the coffin is that the definition of "phone" for
>>>>>>>>> the in-car situation is spectacularly technology specific (I haven't
>>>>>>>>> looked to see if it's been updated to include 5G bands) because to be a
>>>>>>>>> "phone" (and not a taxi/police radio), it has to communicate on very
>>>>>>>>> specific frequencies, which I'm pretty sure doesn't include either
>>>>>>>>> bluetooth or wifi, and this an additional bluetooth earpiece exemption,
>>>>>>>>> as well as a wifi or bluetooth connected Apple Watch.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> But please let me know if your analysis of the regs agrees with mine.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Who knows. The use of phone in car regulations have been recently
>>>>>>>> tightened.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Is that because they might have removed the part of the regulations
>>>>>>> which defines a "phone" by the frequencies it operates on?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If so, which SI was updated, and when?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Dunno. Given your newly claimed status of lawyer I’m sure you’ll be able to
>>>>>> find your way around the relevant websites.
>>>>>
>>>>> On one hand it's not newly-claimed (must be at least 15yrs) and on the
>>>>> other hand last time I looked (which was admittedly maybe three years
>>>>> ago) nothing had changed.
>>>>>
>>>>> The point of interest was 5G, which might use frequency bands not
>>>>> previously mentioned but I don't think anyone has yet built a 5G-only
>>>>> phone, so they'd be caught by their ability to do 2-4G.
>>>>>
>>>>> You mentioned the possibility of "recently tightened", but without
>>>>> saying in what way.
>>>>>
>>>>> Something I read the other day about using a phone as a satnav (and was
>>>>> also in a piece about alleged tightening up) said they were OK as long
>>>>> as you didn't touch it while driving. But said you should pull over and
>>>>> stop. Although conventional wisdom has always been that "while driving"
>>>>> includes sat in a stationary car.
>>>>
>>>> https://www.bsbsolicitors.co.uk/blog/use-of-a-mobile-phone-or-hand-held-device/
>>>>
>>>> https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/road-traffic-mobile-phones
>>>>
>>>> https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2022/81/made
>>>
>>> Interesting. The new regs would seem to prohibit the use of my mobile
>>> phone as a satnav, even though it connects to the screen of the in-car
>>> infotainment system, since I generally have to hold it at some point during
>>> the setup process and it definitely does some interacting with the internet
>>> as I’m driving along. Pooey!
>>>
>>> Sam
>>>
>>
>> I thought you could set it up before setting off. Thereafter it has to sit
>> in a cradle and not be touched.
>>
> I cannot set it up where my car is parked as the mobile signal is
> non-existent to that's not possible. I normally do that on my wifi
> before I go outside.
>

Well then you stand little chance of being done. But on the off chance you
drive somewhere else that does have a mobile signal then you need to be in
“non driving” mode before fiddling with your sat nav.

In message <tcdpeo$27im1$1@dont-email.me>, at 12:24:56 on Wed, 3 Aug
2022, Clank <clank75@googlemail.com> remarked:

>I'll stand by the prediction that within perhaps a decade voice will be
>dropped entirely from whatever the next major network standard is, to
>be replaced by a network-provided VoIP app. Of course that doesn't
>mean existing service will disappear in that timescale.

BT (aka Openreach) is supposed to be retiring its copper network by 2025
+/- $foo.

To that extent they will provide instead a VoIP service to the fibre
termination box they install in people's premises. The expectation is
that people will decide whether or not to have their landline number
ported across, or choose to use mobile-only.

The $foo above is largely down to BT/Openreach only recently admitting
that without 100% mobile coverage, or indeed 100% reliable 240v for
their termination box, they might get a steady stream of dead bodies to
explain away.

"No such thing as bad publicity", someone once said. Not Gerald Ratner.
--
Roland Perry

On Wed, 3 Aug 2022 16:32:33 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:

>In message <tcbm1b$1kbdb$2@dont-email.me>, at 17:14:19 on Tue, 2 Aug
>2022, Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> remarked:
>>Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>> In message <tc9fro$13pem$1@dont-email.me>, at 21:16:40 on Mon, 1 Aug
>>> 2022, Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> remarked:
>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>>> In message <tc6o9u$fojv$1@dont-email.me>, at 23:22:21 on Sun, 31 Jul
>>>>> 2022, Clank <clank75@googlemail.com> remarked:

>>>>>> On the extraordinarily rare occasions I do need to call a service
>>>>>> provider, 9 times out of 10 their number is contactable via
>>>>>> WhatsApp.
>>>>>
>>>>> Genuine question - how do you know what their contact details are?
>>>>
>>>> How are you going to telephone them if you don’t know their telephone
>>>> number?
>>>
>>> Telephone numbers are published, I don't often [that's code for 'never',
>>> modulo on Usenet nothing is ever never] see whatever the WhatsApp
>>> equivalent of that is.
>>
>>What's required to contact someone by WhatsApp is… a telephone number, plus
>>them having WhatsApp installed.
>
>OK, if the number is a landline [which it almost always is], how does
>that work?

WhatsApp Business allows it to be registered to a landline number. One
presumes that most businesses which are contactable via WhatsApp on their
published phone number, as suggested above, are using WhatsApp Business.

As to how it actually works, the answer is that for small businesses there's
a WhatsApp Business app which works on a smartphone in the same way as the
personal app but can be registered to a landline number, so that WhatsApp
calls/messages sent to that landline number go to the app (and can in turn
be accessed via WhatsApp web or WhatsApp desktop on a PC). And for large
businesses there's a full stack API that allows WhatsApp to be integrated
into an existing digital call centre platform.

https://business.whatsapp.com/

Mark

In message <vi2lehdc76e1advufvps2bmd21mqgv30ug@4ax.com>, at 15:58:09 on
Wed, 3 Aug 2022, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk>
remarked:
>On Wed, 3 Aug 2022 14:38:28 -0000 (UTC), Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>The test that seems to be used at the local magistrates for all issues of
>>whether you are driving or not is whether the ignition is off and you are
>>parked up.. So if you have start/stop and are stopped you are driving. If
>>you’ve parked up and have switched the engine off you are not driving. If
>>you are at the level crossing and have turned your ignition off you aren’t
>>parked up and are thus driving.
>
>Yes, that's a good summary.
>
>Another good rule of thumb question is to ask yourself "Would it be
>reasonable for me to get out of the car and walk away?" If the answer is
>"no" (eg, because doing so would leave it obstructing a live traffic lane as
>and when starts to move again), then you're still driving even if traffic is
>stationary and you've turned it off. But if you are in a position where it
>would be entirely normal to leave the car and walk away from it (eg, at the
>side of a road that doesn't have parking restrictions, or in a layby), then
>once you've turned it off you're not driving even if you remain inside.

Taking a swig from a bottle of gin, and saying to plod "you can't
breathalyse me, because I'm not driving".
--
Roland Perry

In message <tcdv6f$292q8$1@dont-email.me>, at 14:02:55 on Wed, 3 Aug
2022, Clank <clank75@googlemail.com> remarked:
>On 3 Aug 2022 at 4:31:50 PM EEST, "Roland Perry" <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>
>> In message <tcdruu$287r2$1@dont-email.me>, at 13:07:42 on Wed, 3 Aug
>> 2022, Clank <clank75@googlemail.com> remarked:
>>> (If this ever worked more smoothly with Apple, it's because Apple
>>>skipped all
>>> this and only allowed their phone to be used on networks they had 'blessed'.
>>
>> Hold on - are you saying that Apple have a way to re-lock an unlocked
>> phone, if you have the temerity to use it with a SIM from an unblessed
>> carrier?
>
>Whether or not the phone is carrier-locked is entirely orthogonal to whether
>or not Apple provides carrier configuration that allows you to use any
>particular carrier, or what features they permit on that particular carrier.

An unlocked phone that Apple says "sorry you can't use" passes my
duck-test of being locked out of use on that carrier.

>>> So the carrier configurations for all networks they support are
>>>provided by Apple - through their standard software update mechanism
>>>- rather than being automatically discovered and downloaded by the
>>>phone. This means that as long as you are within Apple's walled
>>>garden of Apple-approved carriers, everything works flawlessly, but
>>>equally means that as soon as you step out of that walled garden
>>>you're out of luck.)
>>
>> Where can one find this list?
>
><https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT204040>

There's clearly some fog of war, because that doesn't list Tesco Mobile,
and https://www.tescomobile.com/shop/apple
--
Roland Perry

In message <tce54s$2ajgv$1@dont-email.me>, at 15:44:28 on Wed, 3 Aug
2022, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
>Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>> In message <VaC*U3PUy@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk>, at 14:27:23 on Wed,
>> 3 Aug 2022, Theo <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> remarked:
>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>> No corresponding SMS this week from EE :(
>>>>
>>>> So I'll have to put a Vodafone SIM (which normally lives in my laptop)
>>>> into the phone and try again.
>>>>
>>>> I'll report back later, because I need to dismantle the laptop to get
>>>> the SIM out <sigh>. [The designer probably thinks that makes it less
>>>> likely to be lost/stolen, compared to it being in an accessible slot
>>>> like an SD card.]
>>>
>>> If you had read the link in my posting:
>>> https://www.simsherpa.com/networks/best-wifi-calling
>>> it tells you which networks support wifi calling.
>>
>> I have no particular reason to trust that random blogger's information.
>>
>> Especially since "The retailers featured on this page may compensate us
>> when our readers follow links to their websites and make a purchase".
>>
>>> In short, almost none of them on PAYG, with the exception of Three and
>>> 1pmobile (EE MVNO). Support is better on contract SIMs.
>>
>> So even if a carrier supports it on a contract, you can't rely on their
>> PAYG SIMs also supporting it?
>>
>> But going back to your random blogger:
>>
>> "Joint 1st: EE offer WiFi calling on all plans"
>>
>> ALL PLANS it says, not just contract plans. And goes on to mention PAYG.
>> Although their linked-to list of supported phones looks very plausibly
>> restricted to those they have new contracts available for, this week.
>>
>>>> However, even if iPhones support wifi-calling, not every network does (I
>>>> gather Tesco Mobile doesn't, for example) and I'd be interested to hear
>>>> from any iPhone users on such networks: whether the phone refuses to
>>>> enable wi-fi calling (and what 'error' it displays), or whether it
>>>> purports to have, but simply never switches to it when in a telephony
>>>> not-spot.
>>>
>>> I can confirm the toggle never appears.
>>
>> Ah-ha! So an iPhone that "just doesn't work". Is the list of shunned
>> carriers stored on the phone, or does it have to call the mothership to
>> check?
>>
>An iPhone can’t just work if the operator doesn’t support WiFi calling on
>your plan. If WiFi calling is available on your plan it will work. Same as
>an iPhone won’t just work if there’s no available cellular signal nor WiFi
>signal. It won’t just work if you have no calling plan either. (Contract or
>PAYG)
>
>From my very tenuous understanding, the sim tells the phone what services
>are available. Modern sims can be updated over the air by the operator if
>necessary.
>
>I don’t know why EE doesn’t support wifi calling on PAYG.

Several of the sources cited today claim it does.

>Vodafone does. O2 also claims not to support it on PAYG. Three makes no
>mention of it not working, so the assumption is that it does.

--
Roland Perry

On 3 Aug 2022 at 5:30:42 PM EEST, "Tweed" <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:

> Clank <clank75@googlemail.com> wrote:
>> On 3 Aug 2022 at 10:52:37 AM EEST, "Tweed" <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>> In message <tcbrjg$1lnlu$1@dont-email.me>, at 18:49:20 on Tue, 2 Aug
>>>> 2022, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>
>>>>>>> iPhones aren’t infested with operator crud ware. As far as I’m aware they
>>>>>>> are identically configured regardless of the selling operator. Even locking
>>>>>>> the handset to the subsidising operator is handled by an Apple server. (I
>>>>>>> buy mine directly from Apple sim free). Apple have sufficient market power
>>>>>>> that they can say “wifi calling works like this, best make sure your
>>>>>>> network is compatible”.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That was the idea at first, when Apple wouldn't let networks have
>>>>>> iPhones unless they had specific agreements in place with Apple, but
>>>>>> once legislators insisted that phones had to be sold unlocked, Apple's
>>>>>> ability to extract terms from network operators was lost. An example of
>>>>>> this is visual voicemail, which was a different way to access voicemail
>>>>>> messages that needed to be supported by networks. Once legislators
>>>>>> forced Apple to make phones available on all networks, a lot of them
>>>>>> decided they didn't want to support that feature. I think the same
>>>>>> applies for WiFi calling. While Apple can control what the phone can
>>>>>> and can not do, for WiFi calling to work, the network has to support
>>>>>> the feature, specifically if someone calls in to your iPhone, whether
>>>>>> that call does or does not get routed to your phone via the WiFi
>>>>>> calling optoin is under the network's control.
>>>>>>
>>>>> The point is that Apple’s implementation of WiFi calling is consistent
>>>>> across their model range and has been for quite a number of years. As far
>>>>> as I know, if a network supports WiFi calling it will always support
>>>>> iPhones. I don’t know of any network that offers WiFi calling but excludes
>>>>> iPhones. iPhones don’t need any special bespoke firmware to support a
>>>>> specific network’s implementation of WiFi calling.
>>>>
>>>> Is the implication here that android phones *do* need "special bespoke
>>>> firmware", and is that something which will only be supplied on a phone
>>>> you buy from a network? I didn't see anything in the EE puff[1] quoted
>>>> earlier about it only applying to phones you've bought from an EE shop,
>>>> rather than to phones with an EE SIM in them.
>>>>
>>>> [1]
>>>> <https://ee.co.uk/help/help-new/getting-started-and-upgrading/using-your-phone-features/how-do-i-use-wifi-calling>
>>>
>>> There’s a bit of a summary here
>>>
>>> <https://www.4g.co.uk/news/ee-o2-three-and-vodafone-which-networks-offer-wi-fi-calling/>
>>>
>>> The text states “Note though that in all cases Wi-Fi Calling may not work
>>> if you haven't bought your phone directly from the network in question”.
>>> This would imply tailored software may need to be fitted to the handset.
>>
>> As long as the network has implemented standard VoWiFi/VoLTE, it shouldn't
>> need any tailored software pre-installed. (I buy my phones unlocked and never
>> from a carrier, and WiFi calling works just fine for me.)
>>
>> It *does* however require a Carrier Configuration message from the network
>> which tells the phone where to obtain the carrier configuration app (this is
>> the current-generation evolution of the old service configuration message that
>> updated your SMS Service Centre - these days the config is a whole app with
>> special permissions.) This automatically downloaded and installed app provides
>> all the relevant settings for the network's IMS and thus any services that
>> depend on it (including VoLTE and VoWiFi.)
>>
>> The network will in general only distribute the configuration app to device
>> models that they have actually tested/certified. So if you have an unlocked
>> phone which is a model you *could have* bought from the carrier, everything
>> should just work. If it's an unlocked phone that that carrier never supported,
>> on the other hand, you may be out of luck.
>>
>>
>>
>> (If this ever worked more smoothly with Apple, it's because Apple skipped all
>> this and only allowed their phone to be used on networks they had 'blessed'.
>> So the carrier configurations for all networks they support are provided by
>> Apple - through their standard software update mechanism - rather than being
>> automatically discovered and downloaded by the phone. This means that as long
>> as you are within Apple's walled garden of Apple-approved carriers, everything
>> works flawlessly, but equally means that as soon as you step out of that
>> walled garden you're out of luck.)
>>
>
> Can you name any “non approved by Apple carrier”? What are the consequences
> of this lack of approval?

Digi Romania.

As for the consequences - much the same as an Android phone that hasn't
received its Carrier Config app; basic functionality works, advanced
functionality (and anything that requires IMS config) like VoLTE or VoWiFi
don't.

> Can you name any carrier where WiFi calling works
> for Android but not for Apple?

Yes. Digi Romania. iPhones on Digi only support basic services, they don't
support features like VoLTE or VoWiFi, because Apple has not blessed them with
a carrier configuration file. VoWiFi/VoLTE do on the other hand work fine with
Android phones on Digi (and have done since 2017.)

This is why you won't find Digi on Apple's list of supported networks. Which
is indeed, contrary to your Apple-stanning*, a list of networks supported by
Apple, not a directory of European telephone networks. (A cursory glance down
the list at all the ones which are clearly missing might have been enough to
educate you of that, or indeed merely parsing and understanding Apple's own
words "Wireless carrier support ... for iPhone in Europe", but there you
go...)

* Why DO people do that? I will never understand why people pledge so much
loyalty to a consumer electronics manufacturer. They're not your friend, and
they're not going to sleep with you. Grow up.

Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
> In message <vi2lehdc76e1advufvps2bmd21mqgv30ug@4ax.com>, at 15:58:09 on
> Wed, 3 Aug 2022, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk>
> remarked:
>> On Wed, 3 Aug 2022 14:38:28 -0000 (UTC), Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> The test that seems to be used at the local magistrates for all issues of
>>> whether you are driving or not is whether the ignition is off and you are
>>> parked up.. So if you have start/stop and are stopped you are driving. If
>>> you’ve parked up and have switched the engine off you are not driving. If
>>> you are at the level crossing and have turned your ignition off you aren’t
>>> parked up and are thus driving.
>>
>> Yes, that's a good summary.
>>
>> Another good rule of thumb question is to ask yourself "Would it be
>> reasonable for me to get out of the car and walk away?" If the answer is
>> "no" (eg, because doing so would leave it obstructing a live traffic lane as
>> and when starts to move again), then you're still driving even if traffic is
>> stationary and you've turned it off. But if you are in a position where it
>> would be entirely normal to leave the car and walk away from it (eg, at the
>> side of a road that doesn't have parking restrictions, or in a layby), then
>> once you've turned it off you're not driving even if you remain inside.
>
> Taking a swig from a bottle of gin, and saying to plod "you can't
> breathalyse me, because I'm not driving".

That scenario has been the centre of many a trial.

https://www.ashmanssolicitors.com/blog/drunk-in-charge-of-a-vehicle-vs-drink-driving-whats-the-difference/

Many a home schooled self proclaimed lawyer comes unstuck in the courts.

Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
> In message <tce54s$2ajgv$1@dont-email.me>, at 15:44:28 on Wed, 3 Aug
> 2022, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>> In message <VaC*U3PUy@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk>, at 14:27:23 on Wed,
>>> 3 Aug 2022, Theo <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> remarked:
>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>>> No corresponding SMS this week from EE :(
>>>>>
>>>>> So I'll have to put a Vodafone SIM (which normally lives in my laptop)
>>>>> into the phone and try again.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'll report back later, because I need to dismantle the laptop to get
>>>>> the SIM out <sigh>. [The designer probably thinks that makes it less
>>>>> likely to be lost/stolen, compared to it being in an accessible slot
>>>>> like an SD card.]
>>>>
>>>> If you had read the link in my posting:
>>>> https://www.simsherpa.com/networks/best-wifi-calling
>>>> it tells you which networks support wifi calling.
>>>
>>> I have no particular reason to trust that random blogger's information.
>>>
>>> Especially since "The retailers featured on this page may compensate us
>>> when our readers follow links to their websites and make a purchase".
>>>
>>>> In short, almost none of them on PAYG, with the exception of Three and
>>>> 1pmobile (EE MVNO). Support is better on contract SIMs.
>>>
>>> So even if a carrier supports it on a contract, you can't rely on their
>>> PAYG SIMs also supporting it?
>>>
>>> But going back to your random blogger:
>>>
>>> "Joint 1st: EE offer WiFi calling on all plans"
>>>
>>> ALL PLANS it says, not just contract plans. And goes on to mention PAYG.
>>> Although their linked-to list of supported phones looks very plausibly
>>> restricted to those they have new contracts available for, this week.
>>>
>>>>> However, even if iPhones support wifi-calling, not every network does (I
>>>>> gather Tesco Mobile doesn't, for example) and I'd be interested to hear
>>>>> from any iPhone users on such networks: whether the phone refuses to
>>>>> enable wi-fi calling (and what 'error' it displays), or whether it
>>>>> purports to have, but simply never switches to it when in a telephony
>>>>> not-spot.
>>>>
>>>> I can confirm the toggle never appears.
>>>
>>> Ah-ha! So an iPhone that "just doesn't work". Is the list of shunned
>>> carriers stored on the phone, or does it have to call the mothership to
>>> check?
>>>
>> An iPhone can’t just work if the operator doesn’t support WiFi calling on
>> your plan. If WiFi calling is available on your plan it will work. Same as
>> an iPhone won’t just work if there’s no available cellular signal nor WiFi
>> signal. It won’t just work if you have no calling plan either. (Contract or
>> PAYG)
>>
>> From my very tenuous understanding, the sim tells the phone what services
>> are available. Modern sims can be updated over the air by the operator if
>> necessary.
>>
>> I don’t know why EE doesn’t support wifi calling on PAYG.
>
> Several of the sources cited today claim it does.
>
>> Vodafone does. O2 also claims not to support it on PAYG. Three makes no
>> mention of it not working, so the assumption is that it does.
>

Actually
https://community.ee.co.uk/t5/Mobile-Network-discussions/WiFi-Calling-amp-4G-Calling-now-on-PAYG/td-p/1058302
seems to indicate that EE might now support PAYG WiFi calling but hasn’t
bothered to tell anyone.

Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
> On Wed, 3 Aug 2022 14:38:28 -0000 (UTC), Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> The test that seems to be used at the local magistrates for all issues of
>> whether you are driving or not is whether the ignition is off and you are
>> parked up.. So if you have start/stop and are stopped you are driving. If
>> you’ve parked up and have switched the engine off you are not driving. If
>> you are at the level crossing and have turned your ignition off you aren’t
>> parked up and are thus driving.
>
> Yes, that's a good summary.
>
> Another good rule of thumb question is to ask yourself "Would it be
> reasonable for me to get out of the car and walk away?" If the answer is
> "no" (eg, because doing so would leave it obstructing a live traffic lane as
> and when starts to move again), then you're still driving even if traffic is
> stationary and you've turned it off. But if you are in a position where it
> would be entirely normal to leave the car and walk away from it (eg, at the
> side of a road that doesn't have parking restrictions, or in a layby), then
> once you've turned it off you're not driving even if you remain inside.
>

What about if you get out and stand next to your car at the level crossing?

Anna Noyd-Dryver

Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
> In message <tcbm1b$1kbdb$2@dont-email.me>, at 17:14:19 on Tue, 2 Aug
> 2022, Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> remarked:
>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>> In message <tc9fro$13pem$1@dont-email.me>, at 21:16:40 on Mon, 1 Aug
>>> 2022, Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> remarked:
>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>>> In message <tc6o9u$fojv$1@dont-email.me>, at 23:22:21 on Sun, 31 Jul
>>>>> 2022, Clank <clank75@googlemail.com> remarked:
>>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> Wrote in message:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Please explain how calling for a taxi,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Calling? For a taxi?? In this century???
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, while still in what passes for the Home Counties, there's no Uber
>>>>> service here.
>>>>>
>>>>>> My preferred local taxi company has an app for that.
>>>>>
>>>>> And my local taxi firm doesn't have an app.
>>>>>
>>>>>> And if they don't have any cars available, or I'm out of the area,
>>>>>> there are apps like Bolt and Grab for that too. And if I want
>>>>>> something a bit more comfortable because it's the end of a long
>>>>>> journey, Blacklane have an app for that too.
>>>>>
>>>>> Borrowing recliner's deliberate misinterpretation hat, there's no such
>>>>> app as "bolt and grab".
>>>>>
>>>>> But just to humour you: I've installed Bolt, and it requires an account
>>>>> setting up *and* a credit card verification, before even letting me know
>>>>> if I'm in their service area.
>>>>>
>>>>> <drum roll> "Unfortunately Bolt is Currently Unavailable. Request Bolt
>>>>> in France, Nigeria [oh my god, what have I done!] South Africa..."
>>>>>
>>>>> And Grab... wants access to just about everything on my phone. Sorry,
>>>>> that's not happening.
>>>>>
>>>>>>> or making an appointment with your GP
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I open my healthcare provider's app, check the calendar of
>>>>>> available appointments, and book it - online or in-person, as I
>>>>>> prefer - via the app.
>>>>>
>>>>> Good luck doing that in the UK.
>>>>>
>>>>>>> works via Facetime?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On the extraordinarily rare occasions I do need to call a service
>>>>>> provider, 9 times out of 10 their number is contactable via
>>>>>> WhatsApp.
>>>>>
>>>>> Genuine question - how do you know what their contact details are?
>>>>
>>>> How are you going to telephone them if you don’t know their telephone
>>>> number?
>>>
>>> Telephone numbers are published, I don't often [that's code for 'never',
>>> modulo on Usenet nothing is ever never] see whatever the WhatsApp
>>> equivalent of that is.
>>
>> What's required to contact someone by WhatsApp is… a telephone number, plus
>> them having WhatsApp installed.
>
> OK, if the number is a landline [which it almost always is], how does
> that work? I'm pretty sure I can't install Whatsapp on my DECT phones,
> let alone the vintage one with real bells inside that I keep for a
> mixture of sentimental value, and to plug in like earlier this week when
> what Eastern Electrickery is called this week decided they didn't need
> to supply my house with 240v for a couple of hours (chatting with the
> men digging the hole was quite interesting though - the 3-phase 240v
> household supply cable had gone bad and was the reason for the callout,
> but it had also burnt a big hole in the 11kV substation to substation
> cable it was running alongside, which they weren't expecting).
>

See someone else's reply about WhatsApp for Business.

Anna Noyd-Dryver

In message <ds4idsjafg6iFAym@perry.uk>, at 06:30:02 on Wed, 3 Aug 2022,
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> remarked:
>In message <tcbg6l$1iskl$1@dont-email.me>, at 15:34:45 on Tue, 2 Aug
>2022, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:

>>> Before I try to grill EE about this, has anyone else *successfully* got
>>> wifi-calling working on an Android phone, and did it magically work
>>> perhaps thanks to LTE protocols, or was there some additional setup
>>> required (a bit like specifying an SMS message centre which we had to do
>>> back in the day, before the networks sent out SMS to set our phones up
>>> for us).
>
>Update: I have now found two SMS from earlier this year.
>
>One says: "Setting Message: PAYG WAP APN/Browser,
>
>And the other: "Setting message: Vodafone VoWIFI If you click install,
> Vodafone VoWifi will be activated afer re-booting."
>
>No corresponding SMS this week from EE :(
>
>So I'll have to put a Vodafone SIM (which normally lives in my laptop)
>into the phone and try again.
>
>I'll report back later, because I need to dismantle the laptop to get
>the SIM out <sigh>. [The designer probably thinks that makes it less
>likely to be lost/stolen, compared to it being in an accessible slot
>like an SD card.]

I got another SMS with settings (from Vodafone) but to no avail. The
phone gives the same network error as it did with EE.
--
Roland Perry

Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> wrote:
> Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
>> On Wed, 3 Aug 2022 14:38:28 -0000 (UTC), Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> The test that seems to be used at the local magistrates for all issues of
>>> whether you are driving or not is whether the ignition is off and you are
>>> parked up.. So if you have start/stop and are stopped you are driving. If
>>> you’ve parked up and have switched the engine off you are not driving. If
>>> you are at the level crossing and have turned your ignition off you aren’t
>>> parked up and are thus driving.
>>
>> Yes, that's a good summary.
>>
>> Another good rule of thumb question is to ask yourself "Would it be
>> reasonable for me to get out of the car and walk away?" If the answer is
>> "no" (eg, because doing so would leave it obstructing a live traffic lane as
>> and when starts to move again), then you're still driving even if traffic is
>> stationary and you've turned it off. But if you are in a position where it
>> would be entirely normal to leave the car and walk away from it (eg, at the
>> side of a road that doesn't have parking restrictions, or in a layby), then
>> once you've turned it off you're not driving even if you remain inside.
>>
>
> What about if you get out and stand next to your car at the level crossing?
>
>
> Anna Noyd-Dryver
>
>
>

You get done for obstructing the highway?