How odd.
*Shrug* well it never occurred to me. I was living in a mobile dead spot, due for a lot of operations and NHS s*it and they kept sending me texts that I never got unless I went shopping. So I bought this 3 mobile phone with wifi calling and a payg sim and texts just appeared on it. Now and again inside this house - which has reasonable 3G outside.. it decides that wifi is better than 3G and uses it as well
But not in areas where it is simply non-existent!
I got wifi calling FOR SMS. My Truphone phone didn't pick em up. My 3 phone with wifi calling, did.
Mm. For sure 3 does
"Wi-Fi Calling ? call and text whenever you?re on Wi-Fi"
"With WiFi Calling you can call and text ? even if you don?t have a phone signal."
Don't move to St. Mary's Rd, Meare, near Glastonbury then. Parts of that road are a total not-spot.
The protocol is well specified and it simply spoofs a cellular connection by the phone 'phoning home' to set up a 2G/3G/4G tunnel via which calls are routed instead of to the nearest mast..
Google UMA (unlicensed Mobile Access)
The odd thing is that you would have to work pretty hard to *exclude* SMS....
The odder thing is that mobile operators don't like it very much although it extends their networks perfectly at zero cost to them and they still charge the same.
BT landlines send and receive SMS messages as text reasonably reliably (with a suitable phone). The practical problem is a) some networks refuse to send to or receive from BT, and b) the SMS services that many agencies such as banks use as TFA for a completely unknown reason send SMS messages to BT that are tagged to be delivered by voicemail rather than text, even if the phone can receive texts. The result is that 8 digit numbers are read by a disembowelled voice as e.g. " seventy-four million four hundred and ninety-eight thousand six hundred and forty-two" which is impossible to transcribe. If they would send them so that BT showed them as text or even space the digits so the automatic voice read single digits then I wouldn't need to use a mobile phone at home to receive text messages.
well it was Mc/s in the 60's so bugger hertz at least c/s tells you something ....
That interesting, as their forum is still packed full of people moaning about it. Are you sure you don?t have a residual cellular signal?
It was certainly Hertz in 1962.
Not in my physics classes in the 60's or, if my memory is reliable enough, for the RAE exam in the late 60's.
Absolutely! It's a real pain not being able to use the SMS/text capability of our gigaset phones for quite a large proportion of SMS senders.
He?ll be wanting Jars as the unit of capacitance next....
My observations are the same in both respects. If the RAE had Hertz (which I don't remember it doing) it certainly translated it into c/s.
What is inexplicable is why they don't leave BT (who already know how to do it for many/most of their customers) to decide how to deliver the message. My best guess (excluding deliberate sabotage by the mobile companies, which is an unworthy thought) is that they use software written for some international (probably USA) providers who need telling how to deliver SMS. It would be interesting to find out if they use BT's voicemail or send the message as a voice call. Either way, it should be obvious that sending by voicemail six or eight digits without reading them singly, repeating them and allowing the recipient to repeat the message makes the process ineffective.
Except they need bigger links to the general internet to carry these WiFi calls. The normal 2/3/4/5G routing is almost certainly over their own private network(s).
Which now has *less* load...so can be a bit cheaper
Exactly. Offloading data (well it is all data but you know what I mean) from your scarce spectrum onto the customer?s own system is going to save you more than the piffling extra bit of traffic you have to deliver to the Internet to carry voice and sms. I suppose the only risk is the customer might notice they aren?t using all their data GByres and trade down.
its the same issue with roaming - use other carriers infrastructure - deliver a better service and save money....So they charge MORE
In message snipped-for-privacy@candehope.me.uk>, charles snipped-for-privacy@candehope.me.uk> writes
It certainly was on German R&S equipment. However, it didn't really appear in the UK until the late 60s or early 70s, when it was announced that was the unit for electrical cycles per second, and was going to be adopted by industry. At first it seemed that cycles per second was going to the remain the term for non-electrical stuff - but Hz soon got assimilated as the proper SI unit for everything.
I have to say that I still prefer 'the old way' for many of these 'newly invented' units.
There's nowt wrong with dBW, but I do object to dBm (which, inexplicably, really means dBmW).
Have something to add? Share your thoughts — no account required.
Ask the community — no account required