On Sat, 20 Jul 2019 14:00:27 +0100, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 09:25:16 on
Sat, 20 Jul 2019, David Walters remarked:

If someone has root on the device I don't think any individual app can
keep itself secure anymore. Many apps will try and detect a jailbroken
device and disable themselves but it isn't clear to me that that detection
is infallible. Better to take reasonable steps to secure the device
which includes security patches IMHO.

My difficulty with this is that even when I had a phone which was
receiving Android updates, they were few and far between. And most
people will be in that same boat.

It's a shame that this is the case but just because most people do
something doesn't mean it is something I want to do. It would be better
if more manufacturers of Internet connected things, not just phones,
had a decent software update commitment.

In message , at 15:30:52 on
Mon, 22 Jul 2019, David Walters remarked:
On Sat, 20 Jul 2019 14:00:27 +0100, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 09:25:16 on
Sat, 20 Jul 2019, David Walters remarked:

If someone has root on the device I don't think any individual app can
keep itself secure anymore. Many apps will try and detect a jailbroken
device and disable themselves but it isn't clear to me that that detection
is infallible. Better to take reasonable steps to secure the device
which includes security patches IMHO.

My difficulty with this is that even when I had a phone which was
receiving Android updates, they were few and far between. And most
people will be in that same boat.

It's a shame that this is the case but just because most people do
something doesn't mean it is something I want to do. It would be better
if more manufacturers of Internet connected things, not just phones,
had a decent software update commitment.

I agree with that (and would have a more useful phone as a result).

But my point as that there's not much evidence that the existing schemes
are causing a huge security problem.

It might help if there weren't quite so many different phones for them
to keep up to date with.

I just checked, and my supplier, LG, have almost 600 different phones in
circulation (in the last 5yrs).
--
Roland Perry

On Mon, 22 Jul 2019 08:52:19 +0100
Someone Somewhere wrote:
On 21/07/2019 21:32, wrote:
On Sun, 21 Jul 2019 19:55:40 +0100
Someone Somewhere wrote:


Ok Mr Telecoms Expert, exactly how much disk space does all the relevant
information about a single cellular phone number take up then? Obviously
you
have the figures to hand so please share them.

Nah - whilst I do know the exact figure (or more to the point I could
look it up), it's getting more and more amusing to see you getting
irate when you seem to truly believe that the only cost is the disk
space - something that if it makes up 0.01% of the cost would surprise me.

If the number belongs to a real network not a virtual one, what are the
other costs then? Unless its used up its entire allocation of numbers it
won't be losing any money so tell me what I've missed. You and Perry are very

good at being supercilious, a bit less hot on supplying actual information.


If I had exact answers I couldn't supply them as I'd clearly be privvy
to contracts between suppliers and networks. If I had other information
I'd also have to be careful about supplying it as it may have been
supplied to me in commercial confidence.

However, what I can say is that you're fundamentally wrong in how you
see costs.

You seem to think you buy an entire network and then add disk space to
hold more subscribers.

Network dimensioning is done on several variables, not just disk storage

I'd be very surprised if the cost planning didn't take into a given percentage
of unused PAYG numbers at any given time.

So if a network operator goes to Ericsson/Nokia/Siemens/ZTE/Huawei etc
to buy an HLR/HSS (one of the key components in terms of holding
subscribers) then they will not sell you a platform that you can just
chuck more disks in and expand the capacity - it will often be licensed
on an annual basis on various parameters including subscribers -
instantly giving you a per subscriber price.

PAYG isn't done on a subscriber basis though. They may keep a record of
which card was used to pay for the SIM (as I believe cash payment isn't allowed
in the UK now) but that could be all they know about the owner.

And in terms of subscribers it doesn't stop at the HLR/HSS, chuck in the
AuC/AAA, EIR, OCS, CRM, Voicemail, VoLTE AS, IMS core etc etc, each of
which has a vendor who gets their per subscriber piece....

And that's before you get into the scarcity of numbers and the problems
of managing them (telcos got profligate with them and complacently just
used ranges when they could and then allowed those ranges to get sparse
over time, rather than properly reclaiming and reusing them).

At least someone finally stepped up to the plate and explained things.

In article ,
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 11:32:50 on Mon,
22 Jul 2019, Natalie Amery remarked:
In article ,
Roland Perry wrote:
You can have one-month rolling contracts, say 0 operators may call it PAYG but it's still a contract as far as I'm
concerned

It's not a contract, and calling it such muddies discussion such as
this.

You do also get one-month rolling contracts that actually are
contacts. I have one with Vodafone.

For the umpteenth time, I would expect that to come within the hybrid
category I've mentioned.

If you can cancel such an arrangement at any time, then in mobile-speak
it's not "a contract". They are much more of a monthly PAYG auto-topup
(rather than a YouveRunOutOfCredit auto-topup).

Maybe you should talk to the nice people at the Vodaphone store about
their use of words then, since the one-month-rolling contract is
otherwise identical to the 12-month lock-in contract (in fact it's the
same terms as the 12-month lock-in contract has after the 12 months
expire).

--
Natalie Amery. Of names of this kind, I can give you a quorum,
##### Like lothlorien, pothole, or kobyashi-maru,
#######__o Such as pearly-gates.vatican, or else diplomatic-
#######'/ Names that never belong to more than one host.- rfc2100

In article ,
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 11:36:51 on Mon,
22 Jul 2019, Natalie Amery remarked:

Actually the ways that ofcom charge for number blocks are many and
confusing. Including a proposal (I don't know if it went anywhere)
that they would charge for _unused_ numbers in allocations...

That sound a bit like double council tax for homes left empty. In other
words, pursuing a public policy objective and nothing at all to do with
"cost-plus" accounting.

Yes, it's policy objective from ofcom's perspective but it makes a
big difference to the accounting situation as far as the telco is
concerned.

--
Natalie Amery. Let faith be my shield and let joy be my steed
##### 'Gainst the dragons of anger, the ogres of greed;
#######__o And let me set free, with the sword of my youth,
#######'/ From the castle of darkness the power of truth." - Struther

In message , at 11:12:58 on Tue,
23 Jul 2019, Natalie Amery remarked:
In article ,
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 11:32:50 on Mon,
22 Jul 2019, Natalie Amery remarked:
In article ,
Roland Perry wrote:
You can have one-month rolling contracts, say 0 operators may
call it PAYG but it's still a contract as far as I'm
concerned

It's not a contract, and calling it such muddies discussion such as
this.

You do also get one-month rolling contracts that actually are
contacts. I have one with Vodafone.

For the umpteenth time, I would expect that to come within the hybrid
category I've mentioned.

If you can cancel such an arrangement at any time, then in mobile-speak
it's not "a contract". They are much more of a monthly PAYG auto-topup
(rather than a YouveRunOutOfCredit auto-topup).

Maybe you should talk to the nice people at the Vodaphone store about
their use of words then, since the one-month-rolling contract is
otherwise identical to the 12-month lock-in contract (in fact it's the
same terms as the 12-month lock-in contract has after the 12 months
expire).

One fights with marketing people about such things all the time.

(Incidentally, if the two are the same, who on earth would any sane
person sign up to the 12-month minimum version?)
--
Roland Perry

In article ,
Roland Perry wrote:
(Incidentally, if the two are the same, who on earth would any sane
person sign up to the 12-month minimum version?)

When we got the first three last year the 12-month minimum version
was £1 pcm cheaper (so we took it); but when I got the fourth one a
couple of months ago the prices were identical and the staff member
flat out told us that they could see no reason why you'd take the
12-month.

(if you're getting a contact with phone included I believe they come
in 18-month and 24-month varieties)

--
Natalie Amery. Every fiftieth year
##### Set the captives free:
#######__o Let the trumpet blast
#######'/ Summon jubilee.

In message , at 11:14:32 on Tue,
23 Jul 2019, Natalie Amery remarked:
In article ,
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 11:36:51 on Mon,
22 Jul 2019, Natalie Amery remarked:

Actually the ways that ofcom charge for number blocks are many and
confusing. Including a proposal (I don't know if it went anywhere)
that they would charge for _unused_ numbers in allocations...

That sound a bit like double council tax for homes left empty. In other
words, pursuing a public policy objective and nothing at all to do with
"cost-plus" accounting.

Yes, it's policy objective from ofcom's perspective but it makes a
big difference to the accounting situation as far as the telco is
concerned.

I don't doubt that. Hope it doesn't have the consequence of them trying
to evict users from some blocks of numbers in order to hand them back.
--
Roland Perry

In message , at 11:27:57 on Tue,
23 Jul 2019, Natalie Amery remarked:
(Incidentally, if the two are the same, who on earth would any sane
person sign up to the 12-month minimum version?)

When we got the first three last year the 12-month minimum version
was £1 pcm cheaper (so we took it); but when I got the fourth one a
couple of months ago the prices were identical and the staff member
flat out told us that they could see no reason why you'd take the
12-month.

I can only assume they are softening up their users to have a rather too
fuzzy impression of what the term "contract" means, and wean them off
the idea of "PAYG". They have form for throwing their less lucrative
customers under the bus (which is not surprising as the most B2B
orientated of the networks).
--
Roland Perry

On 23/07/2019 11:34, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 11:14:32 on Tue,
23 Jul 2019, Natalie Amery remarked:
In article ,
Roland PerryÂ* wrote:
In message , at 11:36:51 on Mon,
22 Jul 2019, Natalie Amery remarked:

Actually the ways that ofcom charge for number blocks are many and
confusing.Â* Including a proposal (I don't know if it went anywhere)
that they would charge for _unused_ numbers in allocations...

That sound a bit like double council tax for homes left empty. In other
words, pursuing a public policy objective and nothing at all to do with
"cost-plus" accounting.

Yes, it's policy objective from ofcom's perspective but it makes a
big difference to the accounting situation as far as the telco is
concerned.

I don't doubt that. Hope it doesn't have the consequence of them trying
to evict users from some blocks of numbers in order to hand them back.

They might try it but common sense is more likely to prevail.