On Wed, 3 Aug 2022 13:00:44 -0000 (UTC), Tweed
<usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:

>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.
>
>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.
>
>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.
>
Don't get too amazed. The general difficulty is in achieving a
reasonable level of gain across the range of used frequencies rather
than having frequencies which don't work at all. A clean weak signal
can be more usable than a "dirty" strong one.

On Wed, 3 Aug 2022 11:07:39 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>
wrote:

>In message <m8liehh6gc1qg0uqtntubqapfcf3224odp@4ax.com>, at 17:52:30 on
>Tue, 2 Aug 2022, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> remarked:
>>On Tue, 2 Aug 2022 12:07:03 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>In message <tn0hehp7fdkrvutbcgdf34p76llf8rgipc@4ax.com>, at 02:56:49 on
>>>Tue, 2 Aug 2022, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> remarked:
>>>
>>>>>> ps Was on a Welsh train (actually in Chesire) last week, and what I
>>>>>> presume was the "See it, Say it, Sort-of", in Welsh was tannoyed a few
>>>>>> times. Surprisingly never in English. It went something like "Weggy
>>>>>> sore-ree, Weggy sawn, Weggy cetera". Which is nothing like Google
>>>>>> translate's suggestion: "Ei weld yn dweud ei fod wedi'i sortio".
>>>>>
>>>>>Many translations which have to sound good when translated, aren't direct
>>>>>translations (eg songs, poetry).
>>>>>
>>>>>You've got one word in common between your dubious rendition and your
>>>>>translation - your "weggy" will be "wedi".
>>>>>
>>>>Wedi sylwi. Wedi sôn. Wedi setlo.
>>>>
>>>>https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/see_something_say_something_sor
>>>>t_2#incoming-939458
>>>>leading to-
>>>>https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/378311/response/924389/attach/4
>>>>/170120%20FOI%20F0014330.pdf?cookie_passthrough=1
>>>
>>>They are claiming a National Security exemption? Seriously!!
>>>
>>Ah, maybe not the most relevant link. I might have clicked the wrong
>>one.
>
>>It is quite possible for requested information to be given freely but
>>not for all of the documents containing that information to be
>>properly supplied. The request was for "all visual and audio files
>>used" which taken as written is potentially an unreasonable request.
>
>They are still allowed to provide what they can, rather than bounce the
>whole thing because of one impossible outlier.
>
What they are allowed to provide can go well beyond the sensible limit
of what they are required to provide.

On Wed, 3 Aug 2022 21:02:55 -0000 (UTC), Tweed
<usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:

>Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, 3 Aug 2022 15:51:59 -0000 (UTC), Tweed
>> <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> <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.
>>>
>> You can still be prosecuted even if an attempt to do something illegal
>> is prevented by not actually being possible at the time. Whether you
>> are done or not is mostly down to a relevant person deciding if a
>> prosecution is justified in the applicable circumstances.
>>
>You can’t possibly be prosecuted for setting up a phone Sat nav in the
>comfort of your own home.
>
No, that belongs in another thread. :-(

In message <tce74u$2b47o$1@dont-email.me>, at 16:18:38 on Wed, 3 Aug
2022, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
>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-d
>rink-driving-whats-the-difference/

It starkly illustrates, however, the confusion in the public's mind (and
dare it say it in the legislation, and thus the guidance) over what
constitutes "driving" [etc].

It's in black and white (in the guidance) that you shouldn't use your
phone while stopped at a level crossing, because it might distract you
from noticing whether or not the crossing had cleared.

Have these people never used a level crossing (admittedly there probably
aren't that many in Islington). There's two massive barriers across the
road, and at least four flashing red lights. Failing to notice (a) the
train going past and (b) the barriers lifting[1], and (c) three or four
seconds later the flashing red lights stopping, and (d) in many cases
the traffic from the other direction starting up again; is hardly
something any driver should be accused of likely to miss.

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

In courts you need solicitors and barristers, lawyers work in other
settings.

[1] Assuming no "another train coming".
--
Roland Perry

In message <tcenpv$2fhe6$1@dont-email.me>, at 21:02:55 on Wed, 3 Aug
2022, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:

>> You can still be prosecuted even if an attempt to do something illegal
>> is prevented by not actually being possible at the time. Whether you
>> are done or not is mostly down to a relevant person deciding if a
>> prosecution is justified in the applicable circumstances.
>>
>You can’t possibly be prosecuted for setting up a phone Sat nav in the
>comfort of your own home.

You could if you are using someone else's airtime. There's a specific
offence regarding obtaining such a service. And if the phone was stolen
too, you could get nicked for possession.

Some people will also have court orders (after a sex offence or
otherwise) prohibiting them from using mobile phones.

So yes, people *possibly* could.
--
Roland Perry

In message <5nnlehdvbgrrgtk7au9r6kfdepn699ihrb@4ax.com>, at 21:51:49 on
Wed, 3 Aug 2022, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk>
remarked:
>On Wed, 3 Aug 2022 17:00:49 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>
>>In message <tcdv6f$292q8$1@dont-email.me>, at 14:02:55 on Wed, 3 Aug
>>2022, Clank <clank75@googlemail.com> remarked:
>
>>><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
>
>Tesco Mobile is an O2 reseller. It has no infrastructure of its own.

What's that go to do with it?

There are other resellers on the list.

(Interestingly, not 1p Mobile, earlier touted as a candidate)

--
Roland Perry

Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
> Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> wrote:
>> Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> 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?
>>>>
>>>
>>> You get done for obstructing the highway?
>>>
>>
>> The highway's obstructed by the barriers. I'm waiting patiently for them to
>> rise, but choosing to do so with my feet on the tarmac rather than my bum
>> on the seat.
>>
>
> I wasn’t being entirely serious. I’m sure they’d find some sort,of vehicle
> defect if need be…..
>

For the fact that I'm standing next to my car, photographing the passing
train with my phone?

Anna Noyd-Dryver

On 04/08/2022 07:39, Roland Perry wrote:
> In message <tce74u$2b47o$1@dont-email.me>, at 16:18:38 on Wed, 3 Aug
> 2022, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
>> 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-d
>> rink-driving-whats-the-difference/
>
> It starkly illustrates, however, the confusion in the public's mind (and
> dare it say it in the legislation, and thus the guidance) over what
> constitutes "driving" [etc].
>
> It's in black and white (in the guidance) that you shouldn't use your
> phone while stopped at a level crossing, because it might distract you
> from noticing whether or not the crossing had cleared.
>
> Have these people never used a level crossing (admittedly there probably
> aren't that many in Islington). There's two massive barriers across the
> road, and at least four flashing red lights. Failing to notice (a) the
> train going past and (b) the barriers lifting[1], and (c) three or four
> seconds later the flashing red lights stopping, and (d) in many cases
> the traffic from the other direction starting up again; is hardly
> something any driver should be accused of likely to miss.
>

As per usenet requirements, I've seen it happen.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

In message <EsvqYmi12HH=Gwvki0Q0uM+fvSs2@4ax.com>, at 20:34:21 on Wed, 3
Aug 2022, Nigel Emery <nigele3@ukonline.co.uk> remarked:
>On Wed, 3 Aug 2022 10:45:09 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>
>wrote:
>
>>Except it doesn't !
>
>OK, I'll rephrase that. It works fine on my 3 year old Samsung Galaxy
>S10+ I use it every day as the 4G signal at home is poor. It works
>well enough that when I upgraded to FTTP earlier in the year I
>seriously considered ditching the land line. But in the end Zen were
>doing Digital Voice for £3 per month (inc 1000 mins) and were able to
>port my land line number so I decided to go with that.
>One thing that my be relevant is that this phone (unlike most others
>I've had) did come from an EE shop.

One thing that's emerging from this thread is that this seems to be an
important characteristic (although I'm not sure we are yet at the point
of it being an *essential* characteristic).

Which rather goes against the flow promulgated by one of our more
tech-savvy friends that if the phone does VoLTE, then by some inherent
magic will always be able to do wifi calling simply by pushing the VoLTE
packets across wifi instead.

I'm minded to invent a new name: 'VOLTE-o-wifi' to describe that alleged
phenomenon. But am increasingly tending towards the notion that when a
network says it can support VoWIFI then this is a result of some
semi-proprietary tunnel over wifi between custom firmware in the phone
and a custom gateway server at network-HQ (at which point it breaks out
onto the classic circuit switched networks for onward transmission).

Similarly, for incoming call, the network's HLR will have some sort of
entry saying "we know this handset isn't current on-air at any
conventional cellsite, but it appears we can tickle it over wifi via our
gateway and the Internet Cloud".

The presence of such a gateway [only] in the network's home country
would also be a plausible reason for VoWIFI calls to be charged as if
the handset was in that country, rather than based on where it actually
is.

>They had a good deal on that made it a good option at the time although
>the hours spent in the shop trying to get the billing right mean I
>wouldn't do that again!

--
Roland Perry

Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
> In message <tce74u$2b47o$1@dont-email.me>, at 16:18:38 on Wed, 3 Aug
> 2022, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
>> 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-d
>> rink-driving-whats-the-difference/
>
> It starkly illustrates, however, the confusion in the public's mind (and
> dare it say it in the legislation, and thus the guidance) over what
> constitutes "driving" [etc].
>
> It's in black and white (in the guidance) that you shouldn't use your
> phone while stopped at a level crossing, because it might distract you
> from noticing whether or not the crossing had cleared.
>
> Have these people never used a level crossing (admittedly there probably
> aren't that many in Islington). There's two massive barriers across the
> road, and at least four flashing red lights. Failing to notice (a) the
> train going past and (b) the barriers lifting[1], and (c) three or four
> seconds later the flashing red lights stopping, and (d) in many cases
> the traffic from the other direction starting up again; is hardly
> something any driver should be accused of likely to miss.
>
>> Many a home schooled self proclaimed lawyer comes unstuck in the courts.
>
> In courts you need solicitors and barristers, lawyers work in other
> settings.
>
> [1] Assuming no "another train coming".

I can well see the issue at level crossings. You loose situational
awareness. You are sat there playing with your phone and then notice out of
the corner of your eye that the barriers open. So you drop your phone and
drive off, possibly at speed because you’ve been caught out by the sudden
opening and don’t wish to hold up the queue, potentially hitting someone or
something that has crept into your blind spot etc. There’s often cyclists
and/or pedestrians doing non standard things whilst waiting at crossings.
The other possibility is the driver is tempted to just finish typing that
text/entering the sat nav destination when the queue moves off and rear
ends the car in front that pulls off and then has to stop again for
whatever reason.

Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
> In message <tcenpv$2fhe6$1@dont-email.me>, at 21:02:55 on Wed, 3 Aug
> 2022, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
>
>>> You can still be prosecuted even if an attempt to do something illegal
>>> is prevented by not actually being possible at the time. Whether you
>>> are done or not is mostly down to a relevant person deciding if a
>>> prosecution is justified in the applicable circumstances.
>>>
>> You can’t possibly be prosecuted for setting up a phone Sat nav in the
>> comfort of your own home.
>
> You could if you are using someone else's airtime. There's a specific
> offence regarding obtaining such a service. And if the phone was stolen
> too, you could get nicked for possession.
>
> Some people will also have court orders (after a sex offence or
> otherwise) prohibiting them from using mobile phones.
>
> So yes, people *possibly* could.

I very sorry that I missed adding the qualifier about this being in the
context of the discussion of using a phone whilst driving. Just try turning
your edge case detector down a couple of notches occasionally.

You forgot to add the possibility of clubbing your spouse to death with the
phone in a fit of rage when the sat nav app gave you the wrong result.

On 2022-08-03 20:15:34 +0000, Anna Noyd-Dryver said:

> <muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, 02 Aug 2022 21:40:35 +0100
>> Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>> On Tue, 2 Aug 2022 18:16:07 -0000 (UTC), muttley@dastardlyhq.com
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Mon, 1 Aug 2022 21:16:41 -0000 (UTC)
>>>> Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> wrote:
>>>>> <muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On Mon, 1 Aug 2022 17:04:44 +0100
>>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>> ps Was on a Welsh train (actually in Chesire) last week, and what I
>>>>>>> presume was the "See it, Say it, Sort-of", in Welsh was tannoyed a few
>>>>>>> times. Surprisingly never in English. It went something like "Weggy
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Probably done on purpose. Anything to not use english. Its probably
>>>>>> why plod there is called Head Loo or however the fuck they pronounce it
>>>>>> whereas every other european country uses a variation on "police" except
>>>>>> ireland. But even they use Garda/Guards.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "Heth-lee" with the 'th' being voiced, like 'these'.
>>>>
>>>> Figures. Welsh never knowingly uses the standard pronounciation of latin
>>>> consonants.
>>>>
>>> dd isn't a Latin consonant. It isn't a double "d".
>>> <snip>
>>
>> Why not use "th" then like other languages that use the latin alphabet that
>> require that sound?
>>
>>
>
> Th in Welsh represents the unvoiced sound, 'thing' rather than 'these'.
>
> One thing which makes Welsh a comparatively easy language is that every
> combination of letters always sounds the same, every time; very much unlike
> English.

One challenge in creating a consistent orthography for written English
involving one-letter-per-sound mapping is that across the english
speaking world there is a significant degree of inconsistency. If you
look at the table in [1], you can see that it isn't really possible to
create a single orthography that actually is correct for all the
various forms of English. Somebody would have to take a decision as to
which version of spoken English is "correct" and establish an
orthography for that, and then somehow convince everyone else that they
are right.

[1]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phonological_history_of_English_open_back_vowels#Distribution_of_/%C9%91%CB%90/

Robin

On 4 Aug 2022 at 10:02:31 AM EEST, "Roland Perry" <roland@perry.uk> wrote:

> In message <EsvqYmi12HH=Gwvki0Q0uM+fvSs2@4ax.com>, at 20:34:21 on Wed, 3
> Aug 2022, Nigel Emery <nigele3@ukonline.co.uk> remarked:
>> On Wed, 3 Aug 2022 10:45:09 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Except it doesn't !
>>
>> OK, I'll rephrase that. It works fine on my 3 year old Samsung Galaxy
>> S10+ I use it every day as the 4G signal at home is poor. It works
>> well enough that when I upgraded to FTTP earlier in the year I
>> seriously considered ditching the land line. But in the end Zen were
>> doing Digital Voice for £3 per month (inc 1000 mins) and were able to
>> port my land line number so I decided to go with that.
>> One thing that my be relevant is that this phone (unlike most others
>> I've had) did come from an EE shop.
>
> One thing that's emerging from this thread is that this seems to be an
> important characteristic (although I'm not sure we are yet at the point
> of it being an *essential* characteristic).

The main thing that is emerging from this thread is that you absolutely do not
pay attention to anything other than the voices in your head.

> Which rather goes against the flow promulgated by one of our more
> tech-savvy friends that if the phone does VoLTE, then by some inherent
> magic will always be able to do wifi calling simply by pushing the VoLTE
> packets across wifi instead.

It's not magic, and there is a difference between "technically capable" and
"is enabled by that particular network and/or handset provider."

> I'm minded to invent a new name: 'VOLTE-o-wifi' to describe that alleged
> phenomenon. But am increasingly tending towards the notion that when a
> network says it can support VoWIFI then this is a result of some
> semi-proprietary tunnel over wifi between custom firmware in the phone
> and a custom gateway server at network-HQ (at which point it breaks out
> onto the classic circuit switched networks for onward transmission).

Why, particularly when you've been told the truth, do you need to invent your
own wild half-assed speculations?

VoWiFi, like VoLTE, is a service provided by the entirely-not-proprietary IMS
(IP Multimedia Subsystem) element of the network. You will find it specified
in the document 3GPP TS 23.228 (currently version 17.3.0).

The IMS is the system responsible for routing of all 'multimedia' (terminology
that somewhat shows its age) services delivered by UMTS over IP - including
Voice calls - whether the underlying IP network is provided by GPRS, LTE or
WiFi. It is based essentially on existing standards like SIP, but wraps it all
up in the architecture and services required for a mobile network - subscriber
identification, routing between networks, fallback to PSTN, billing, handover,
roaming, etc. - that are not addressed by those core protocols.

> The presence of such a gateway [only] in the network's home country
> would also be a plausible reason for VoWIFI calls to be charged as if
> the handset was in that country, rather than based on where it actually
> is.

For once you're on at least vaguely the right track here though. UMTS/IMS
architecture permits both 'local breakout' or "home routed" traffic while
roaming; in local-breakout, the handset talks with the host (roaming)
network's IMS, which then forwards them on (via whatever means necessary - IP,
circuit-switched, whatever) to wherever the call is terminated. In "home
routed", the handset talks directly (over IP) with its home network's IMS
(actually, it still needs to talk to the local network's signalling gateway
first, but that's a detail,) which does the routing 'from home'.

Local-breakout IMS is preferable for latency, resource use and
quality-of-service reasons (if the English roaming handset is in Germany, and
is calling a local German number, it is of course daft to dogleg the call via
London, which is what home routing does,) but does of course depend on
suitable interoperability and commercial agreements between the home and
roaming network providers. The presence of such agreements is an area which
can currently be considered 'deficient'.

One of the reasons that IMS roaming agreements are deficient is that once
you're in the IP world, the routing of packets is no longer 'obvious'. With
Circuit-Switched calling, it's obvious how much of your infrastructure is
being used for any given call - and thus obvious how much the networks should
bill each other. In the IP world, while the home network's IMS will be
involved in the call initiation, once the call is set up the data packets will
then take an entirely different route that may not touch the home network at
all, or maybe they do, or maybe they travel over third party networks...
Rather than attempt to work out what this means for their roaming agreement
models, many (most?) carriers have decided it's just easier to not bother, and
disable roaming Vo(WiFi|LTE) entirely.

Note that even where agreements are in place and local-breakout is technically
possible, it is always within the home network provider's ability to mandate
the traffic is home-routed instead, on either a blanket or per-subscriber
basis. This facility is used, for example, when the home network is under a
legal obligation to intercept/monitor calls (either in general or for a
particular subscriber.)

On 04/08/2022 07:57, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:
> Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> wrote:
>>> Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> 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?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> You get done for obstructing the highway?
>>>>
>>>
>>> The highway's obstructed by the barriers. I'm waiting patiently for them to
>>> rise, but choosing to do so with my feet on the tarmac rather than my bum
>>> on the seat.
>>>
>>
>> I wasn’t being entirely serious. I’m sure they’d find some sort,of vehicle
>> defect if need be…..
>>
>
> For the fact that I'm standing next to my car, photographing the passing
> train with my phone?
>

I took photographs of a faulty level crossing from the drivers seat
which I provided to Network Rail before the next service was due. I
could now be prosecuted for doing so.

In message <tcg86e$2pnoo$1@dont-email.me>, at 11:48:46 on Thu, 4 Aug
2022, martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk remarked:

>I took photographs of a faulty level crossing from the drivers seat
>which I provided to Network Rail before the next service was due. I
>could now be prosecuted for doing so.

It might qualify as an emergency. Or perhaps public spirited motorists
could retrieve such photos from their dashcam, which are outwith all
this mobile phone nonsense.
--
Roland Perry

In message <706leh5dmcui0lnkokte68oa3kkqemuci6@4ax.com>, at 16:59:18 on
Wed, 3 Aug 2022, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk>
remarked:
>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.

I have never seen a business, small or large, publishing
WhatsApp-for-business contact information.

>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

Hold on... does that mean they have to put a redirect on their landline
so all calls to it are delivered to a mobile instead? And whose mobile:
I suppose they could have one superglued to the reception desk
specifically for this purpose.

>(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.

"Your call is important to us, which why we are always much busier than
usual, and will keep you hanging on for at least half an hour, before
playing you a message saying 'we give up, try our website instead', when
the reason you are phoning us is because our website specifically told
you to".

>https://business.whatsapp.com/

Good luck getting a GP surgery or Chinese takeaway to invest in that.
--
Roland Perry

In message <ms6meh1op7d7p6u97h8ci26rhta9c4j6fb@4ax.com>, at 02:14:32 on
Thu, 4 Aug 2022, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> remarked:
>On Wed, 3 Aug 2022 11:07:39 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>
>wrote:
>
>>In message <m8liehh6gc1qg0uqtntubqapfcf3224odp@4ax.com>, at 17:52:30 on
>>Tue, 2 Aug 2022, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> remarked:
>>>On Tue, 2 Aug 2022 12:07:03 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>In message <tn0hehp7fdkrvutbcgdf34p76llf8rgipc@4ax.com>, at 02:56:49 on
>>>>Tue, 2 Aug 2022, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> remarked:
>>>>
>>>>>>> ps Was on a Welsh train (actually in Chesire) last week, and what I
>>>>>>> presume was the "See it, Say it, Sort-of", in Welsh was tannoyed a few
>>>>>>> times. Surprisingly never in English. It went something like "Weggy
>>>>>>> sore-ree, Weggy sawn, Weggy cetera". Which is nothing like Google
>>>>>>> translate's suggestion: "Ei weld yn dweud ei fod wedi'i sortio".
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Many translations which have to sound good when translated, aren't direct
>>>>>>translations (eg songs, poetry).
>>>>>>
>>>>>>You've got one word in common between your dubious rendition and your
>>>>>>translation - your "weggy" will be "wedi".
>>>>>>
>>>>>Wedi sylwi. Wedi sôn. Wedi setlo.
>>>>>
>>>>>https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/see_something_say_something_sor
>>>>>t_2#incoming-939458
>>>>>leading to-
>>>>>https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/378311/response/924389/attach/4
>>>>>/170120%20FOI%20F0014330.pdf?cookie_passthrough=1
>>>>
>>>>They are claiming a National Security exemption? Seriously!!
>>>>
>>>Ah, maybe not the most relevant link. I might have clicked the wrong
>>>one.
>>
>>>It is quite possible for requested information to be given freely but
>>>not for all of the documents containing that information to be
>>>properly supplied. The request was for "all visual and audio files
>>>used" which taken as written is potentially an unreasonable request.
>>
>>They are still allowed to provide what they can, rather than bounce the
>>whole thing because of one impossible outlier.
>>
>What they are allowed to provide can go well beyond the sensible limit
>of what they are required to provide.

Which doesn't really chime with them saying "we aren't allowed to
provide it all, so we will provide none".

Whether the ICO will later say "you are required to provide this, even
if you've been erroneously internally briefed that you aren't allowed
to", is the next stage.

I've taken such a request through many stages of escalation, but
eventually one has to give up. What I wanted was statistics from a
defunct TOC, and the organisation I was asking (ORR, DfT, ATOC, I
forget) undoubtedly had the information.

They stuck to their guns saying they refused because it was commercially
confidential, when the rules say that excuse cannot apply to a defunct
company (because self-evidently you can't commercially prejudice the
interests of a company that's no longer trading).
--
Roland Perry

In message <tce8lj$2bgcl$2@dont-email.me>, at 16:44:35 on Wed, 3 Aug
2022, Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> remarked:

>>>
>>> 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.

But are there many actual implementations in the wild?

However, to show I'm not just being gratuitously curmudgeonly, I've
managed to obtain such a number: 020 3282 0642, it's just a shame
it's not on their website (and Google draws a blank too).
--
Roland Perry

In message <tcfttd$2oqd7$1@dont-email.me>, at 07:53:17 on Thu, 4 Aug
2022, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
>Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>> In message <tce74u$2b47o$1@dont-email.me>, at 16:18:38 on Wed, 3 Aug
>> 2022, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
>>> 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-d
>>> rink-driving-whats-the-difference/
>>
>> It starkly illustrates, however, the confusion in the public's mind (and
>> dare it say it in the legislation, and thus the guidance) over what
>> constitutes "driving" [etc].
>>
>> It's in black and white (in the guidance) that you shouldn't use your
>> phone while stopped at a level crossing, because it might distract you
>> from noticing whether or not the crossing had cleared.
>>
>> Have these people never used a level crossing (admittedly there probably
>> aren't that many in Islington). There's two massive barriers across the
>> road, and at least four flashing red lights. Failing to notice (a) the
>> train going past and (b) the barriers lifting[1], and (c) three or four
>> seconds later the flashing red lights stopping, and (d) in many cases
>> the traffic from the other direction starting up again; is hardly
>> something any driver should be accused of likely to miss.
>>
>>> Many a home schooled self proclaimed lawyer comes unstuck in the courts.
>>
>> In courts you need solicitors and barristers, lawyers work in other
>> settings.
>>
>> [1] Assuming no "another train coming".
>
>I can well see the issue at level crossings. You loose situational
>awareness.

I thought that's something which happened to tram drivers who didn't get
enough sleep.

>You are sat there playing with your phone and then notice out of
>the corner of your eye that the barriers open. So you drop your phone and
>drive off, possibly at speed because you’ve been caught out by the sudden
>opening and don’t wish to hold up the queue, potentially hitting someone or
>something that has crept into your blind spot etc. There’s often cyclists
>and/or pedestrians doing non standard things whilst waiting at crossings.

The person behind can beep you, and it won't be the end of the world if
they are two seconds later to getting to the next traffic jam a mile up
the road.

As for pedestrians and cyclists, I have almost never seen any at the
numerous local level crossings (especially no cyclists).

>The other possibility is the driver is tempted to just finish typing that
>text/entering the sat nav destination when the queue moves off and rear
>ends the car in front that pulls off and then has to stop again for
>whatever reason.

That doesn't make much sense. Being rear-ended by the car behind when
they see the one in front of you move, perhaps. But that's entirely the
fault of the car behind, who we have to assume probably isn't also
finishing off a Facebook posting.
--
Roland Perry

In message <tcfu5n$2or3p$1@dont-email.me>, at 07:57:43 on Thu, 4 Aug
2022, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
>Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>> In message <tcenpv$2fhe6$1@dont-email.me>, at 21:02:55 on Wed, 3 Aug
>> 2022, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
>>
>>>> You can still be prosecuted even if an attempt to do something illegal
>>>> is prevented by not actually being possible at the time. Whether you
>>>> are done or not is mostly down to a relevant person deciding if a
>>>> prosecution is justified in the applicable circumstances.
>>>>
>>> You can’t possibly be prosecuted for setting up a phone Sat nav in the
>>> comfort of your own home.
>>
>> You could if you are using someone else's airtime. There's a specific
>> offence regarding obtaining such a service. And if the phone was stolen
>> too, you could get nicked for possession.
>>
>> Some people will also have court orders (after a sex offence or
>> otherwise) prohibiting them from using mobile phones.
>>
>> So yes, people *possibly* could.
>
>I very sorry that I missed adding the qualifier about this being in the
>context of the discussion of using a phone whilst driving.

That makes no sense. Who is driving "in the comfort of their own home"?

>Just try turning your edge case detector down a couple of notches
>occasionally.

This whole business of new rules about using phones while driving is a
seething mass of edge cases. Which after many many years they've got
around to producing a list of some.

--
Roland Perry

In message <tcg70a$2pl4t$1@dont-email.me>, at 10:28:26 on Thu, 4 Aug
2022, Clank <clank75@googlemail.com> remarked:
>On 4 Aug 2022 at 10:02:31 AM EEST, "Roland Perry" <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>
>> In message <EsvqYmi12HH=Gwvki0Q0uM+fvSs2@4ax.com>, at 20:34:21 on Wed, 3
>> Aug 2022, Nigel Emery <nigele3@ukonline.co.uk> remarked:
>>> On Wed, 3 Aug 2022 10:45:09 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Except it doesn't !
>>>
>>> OK, I'll rephrase that. It works fine on my 3 year old Samsung Galaxy
>>> S10+ I use it every day as the 4G signal at home is poor. It works
>>> well enough that when I upgraded to FTTP earlier in the year I
>>> seriously considered ditching the land line. But in the end Zen were
>>> doing Digital Voice for £3 per month (inc 1000 mins) and were able to
>>> port my land line number so I decided to go with that.
>>> One thing that my be relevant is that this phone (unlike most others
>>> I've had) did come from an EE shop.
>>
>> One thing that's emerging from this thread is that this seems to be an
>> important characteristic (although I'm not sure we are yet at the point
>> of it being an *essential* characteristic).
>
>The main thing that is emerging from this thread is that you absolutely do not
>pay attention to anything other than the voices in your head.

I've paid attention to lots things other people have said, including
(but not restricted to) "EE supports wifi calling". When I've gone to
the trouble of getting an EE SIM to try this out, and it doesn't work!

>> Which rather goes against the flow promulgated by one of our more
>> tech-savvy friends that if the phone does VoLTE, then by some inherent
>> magic will always be able to do wifi calling simply by pushing the VoLTE
>> packets across wifi instead.
>
>It's not magic, and there is a difference between "technically capable" and
>"is enabled by that particular network and/or handset provider."

I can relate to that, but several lists of "what works with what" posted
here have clearly got big holes in them.

>> I'm minded to invent a new name: 'VOLTE-o-wifi' to describe that alleged
>> phenomenon. But am increasingly tending towards the notion that when a
>> network says it can support VoWIFI then this is a result of some
>> semi-proprietary tunnel over wifi between custom firmware in the phone
>> and a custom gateway server at network-HQ (at which point it breaks out
>> onto the classic circuit switched networks for onward transmission).
>
>Why, particularly when you've been told the truth, do you need to invent your
>own wild half-assed speculations?

I was told 1p supports it, and then you produced some documentation
which denied that.

Which is the truth?

>VoWiFi, like VoLTE, is a service provided by the entirely-not-proprietary IMS
>(IP Multimedia Subsystem) element of the network. You will find it specified
>in the document 3GPP TS 23.228 (currently version 17.3.0).
>
>The IMS is the system responsible for routing of all 'multimedia' (terminology
>that somewhat shows its age) services delivered by UMTS over IP - including
>Voice calls - whether the underlying IP network is provided by GPRS, LTE or
>WiFi. It is based essentially on existing standards like SIP, but wraps it all
>up in the architecture and services required for a mobile network - subscriber
>identification, routing between networks, fallback to PSTN, billing, handover,
>roaming, etc. - that are not addressed by those core protocols.

And if I understand what you've written above "is enabled by... ", not
fully supported most of the time.

>> The presence of such a gateway [only] in the network's home country
>> would also be a plausible reason for VoWIFI calls to be charged as if
>> the handset was in that country, rather than based on where it actually
>> is.
>
>For once you're on at least vaguely the right track here though. UMTS/IMS
>architecture permits both 'local breakout' or "home routed" traffic while
>roaming; in local-breakout, the handset talks with the host (roaming)
>network's IMS, which then forwards them on (via whatever means necessary - IP,
>circuit-switched, whatever) to wherever the call is terminated. In "home
>routed", the handset talks directly (over IP) with its home network's IMS
>(actually, it still needs to talk to the local network's signalling gateway
>first, but that's a detail,) which does the routing 'from home'.
>
>Local-breakout IMS is preferable for latency, resource use and
>quality-of-service reasons (if the English roaming handset is in Germany, and
>is calling a local German number, it is of course daft to dogleg the call via
>London, which is what home routing does,) but does of course depend on
>suitable interoperability and commercial agreements between the home and
>roaming network providers. The presence of such agreements is an area which
>can currently be considered 'deficient'.

The "magic" can just as much be in those agreements, as the silicon
chips.

--
Roland Perry

Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>
> I'm minded to invent a new name: 'VOLTE-o-wifi' to describe that alleged
> phenomenon. But am increasingly tending towards the notion that when a
> network says it can support VoWIFI then this is a result of some
> semi-proprietary tunnel over wifi between custom firmware in the phone
> and a custom gateway server at network-HQ (at which point it breaks out
> onto the classic circuit switched networks for onward transmission).

Is there any such thing as “the classic circuit switched network” any more,
except on the copper lines between a dwindling number of customer premises
and what might still be called an exchange? Everything else is either a
time slot in a TDM trunk or packetised data. It’s not a switched circuit
in any classic sense.

Sam

--
The entity formerly known as Sam.Wilson@ed.ac.uk
Spit the dummy to reply

Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
> In message <tce8lj$2bgcl$2@dont-email.me>, at 16:44:35 on Wed, 3 Aug
> 2022, Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> remarked:
>
>>>>
>>>> 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.
>
> But are there many actual implementations in the wild?
>
> However, to show I'm not just being gratuitously curmudgeonly, I've
> managed to obtain such a number: 020 3282 0642, it's just a shame
> it's not on their website (and Google draws a blank too).

Google doesn't draw a blank. It found this site
<https://www.communityenergy.london/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/London-Community-Energy_UK-Power-Networks-v1.1-210322.pdf>

In message <tcen4t$2fc2c$1@dont-email.me>, at 20:51:41 on Wed, 3 Aug
2022, Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> remarked:
>Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> wrote:
>> Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>> In message <yZh*pk-Ty@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk>, at 12:04:28 on Tue,
>>>> 26 Jul 2022, Theo <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> remarked:
>>>>
>>>>> Wifi calling itself is, AIUI, LTE packets tunnelled over the
>>>>>internet. There's no problem with the network identifying who you
>>>>>are, because the LTE protocol already deals with communication
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I'm sure that the early versons of wifi-called predate those 4G
>>>> protocols.
>>>>
>>>>> Wifi calling on Android is a bit of a disaster zone, because it
>>>>>needs support in the modem firmware and many phones don't have the
>>>>>right baseband configuration if you didn't buy them from the
>>>>>network you want to use. The result is every network having their
>>>>>own list of phones that work, and even then it depends who you bought them from.
>>>>
>>>> Well, I bought an EE SIM (remember, they bragged they all supported
>>>> wifi-calling) and stuck it in my Android phone which has wifi-calling.
>>>>
>>>> The result is, that it has a think for several minutes when I attempt to
>>>> enable it, and finally says:
>>>>
>>>> "Network connection error. Please try again".
>>>>
>>>> And of course insanity is defined as trying the exact same thing and
>>>> expecting different result. (OK I did give it three tries...)
>>>>
>>>> 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. 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.
>>
>> Try turning mobile signal off but leaving WiFi on, and then making a call?
>> (Airplane mode and reinstate WiFi, if necessary). It may be that your phone
>> feels the signal isn't bad enough for it to switch to WiFi…
>
>Thanks for the suggestion. “Turn off airplane mode or connect to a
>wireless network to make a call.” I’ve got a full pie sector and activity
>arrows for WiFi signal. Looks like I don’t have WiFi calling. :-(

Is that in territory I explored earlier, viz: it claims you have, but in
practice you don't? Have you ever noticed something that might be
attributable to successful wifi calling, outside your home environment.

ps. Here is my Aldi phone today showing one bar on "O2 UK" and not
"Tesco" - which is the MVNO - plus an empty second SIM slot:

<http://www.perry.co.uk/images/Workzone-Tesco-O2.jpg>

Note to well known quibblers: there's really no need for that to be at
50 megapixel resolution, in order to convey the message.

The phone that SIM is usually in, says "TESCO". Yes, all caps; whereas
my phone with my giffgaff SIM displays that entirely lower case. There
might be some logic to this, but more investigation required.
--
Roland Perry

In message <tcgjur$2quvi$1@dont-email.me>, at 14:09:31 on Thu, 4 Aug
2022, Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> remarked:
>Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>
>> I'm minded to invent a new name: 'VOLTE-o-wifi' to describe that alleged
>> phenomenon. But am increasingly tending towards the notion that when a
>> network says it can support VoWIFI then this is a result of some
>> semi-proprietary tunnel over wifi between custom firmware in the phone
>> and a custom gateway server at network-HQ (at which point it breaks out
>> onto the classic circuit switched networks for onward transmission).
>
>Is there any such thing as “the classic circuit switched network” any more,
>except on the copper lines between a dwindling number of customer premises
>and what might still be called an exchange? Everything else is either a
>time slot in a TDM trunk or packetised data. It’s not a switched circuit
>in any classic sense.

This is BT's current position (which I hinted earlier was shall we say a
tad ambitious:

"What’s happening?

We’re moving all our customers from the old analogue public switched
telephone network (PSTN) to a fully digital network. We've already
started. We plan to have moved everyone over before Openreach stop the
PSTN (and ISDN) service in 2025. By then, every phone line in the UK
will be digital, routing calls over IP (Internet Protocol) rather than
the traditional PSTN.

When you say ‘everyone’?

Yes, we mean everyone. Business and home. And it's not just your phone
services you need to think about. It's everything else that currently
uses the old phone network, all your non-voice services connected to
PSTN or ISDN lines. Things like alarms, EPOS machines, door entry
systems, CCTV, and faxes."

But of course that's just the UK, and even though we can now apparently
control our own borders [modulo record numbers arriving in small boats]
we still need to be able to make cross-border phone calls.
--
Roland Perry