Dual SIM phones was:Worker killed by Southern train was covering for brother

[Roland Perry]

That's where the albeit fairly rare dual-SIM phone has a role.

Only, for some reason, rare in the UK.

The reason is obvious: so many phones are either SIM-locked to one
provider, or are fitted with SIMs on non-rollover tariffs, that the
opportunities for fitting a second true-Pay-as-you-go SIM are quite
limited.

But if what you want to do is service two SIMs that you'd have anyway,
on one bit of hardware, then the opportunities open up a bit. Even on
locked phone because (for example) GiffGaff and Tesco both use O2, and
Virgin/Orange/T-Mobile all share EE.

Yes, some of those brands are a bit long in the tooth, but I've managed
to acquire non-contract SIMs for all of them (although the Orange one
expired recently, probably because I'd not used it enough).

To the extent that in the past at least the same model phone has been
dual SIM as standard on worldwide sale but single-SIM on the UK SKU.

Same headline model, but a different part number.

I just checked on orange.ro, and in their current catalogue they
have 122 dual SIM phones, and only 71 single SIM - to add some
hard facts to my anecdata. (It must be around a decade since I
owned a single-SIM phone, but when I was in the UK it was a
feature I had to search for, now it's more or less standard.
Except for Apple of course, but then that's why I switched away
from iPhone in the first place... I think they can finally do
dual-SIM now provided your carrier supports e-SIM for one of
them, though.)

It's easier to switch SIMs on an iPhone than many others, so it's
possibility for those occasions when one finds a holiday let that
doesn't have coverage. But obviously no good for being able to operate
to on-the-fly.

One of the reasons for having a Virgin second-SIM is it authenticates
Virgin wifi (for those also not on Virgin Cable) on the phone.

<https://www.virginmedia.com/help/virgin-media-how-to-connect-to-london-
underground>

In other news, Crossrail will have wifi and 4G when it opens in December
2018. [when ?? - ed]

[Recliner]

Post by Roland Perry
One of the reasons for having a Virgin second-SIM is it authenticates
Virgin wifi (for those also not on Virgin Cable) on the phone.
<https://www.virginmedia.com/help/virgin-media-how-to-connect-to-london-
underground>

I'm on Virgin Mobile, partly for that reason, and find that it generally
fails to connect to the LU hot spots. It's supposed to connect
automatically, but seldom does.

[Recliner]

Post by Recliner

Post by Roland Perry
One of the reasons for having a Virgin second-SIM is it authenticates
Virgin wifi (for those also not on Virgin Cable) on the phone.
<https://www.virginmedia.com/help/virgin-media-how-to-connect-to-london-
underground>

I'm on Virgin Mobile, partly for that reason, and find that it generally
fails to connect to the LU hot spots. It's supposed to connect
automatically, but seldom does.

I think you need the Virgin "wifi-buddy" app running on the phone, but
it's a long time since I tried connecting.
Hoho, it's now called "Virgin Media Connect", and is one of those
Marmite apps with a predominance of 5* and 1* ratings. It's entirely
possible the 1* ratings are because of some fundamental incompatibility
issues, rather than fat-fingered users.

I do have the app, but it still doesn't work properly. I might not be using
it correctly, of course, but I'm sure it (or the predecessor app) did work.
I don't really have much need for it, as I'm not usually waiting long
enough in deep Tube stations to be able to use it. And I don't know of a
way of sending and receiving texts via station WiFi.

Needs Android 5, apparently, which is why it's not on my phone any more.

I'm on Android 9.

Oh, the irony; the reason I bought and am sticking with that phone
(dual-SIM) is the very reason I can't use the second SIM slot for this.

My Android 9 phone is dual sim.

[Roland Perry]

Post by Recliner

Post by Recliner

Post by Roland Perry
One of the reasons for having a Virgin second-SIM is it authenticates
Virgin wifi (for those also not on Virgin Cable) on the phone.
<https://www.virginmedia.com/help/virgin-media-how-to-connect-to-london-
underground>

I'm on Virgin Mobile, partly for that reason, and find that it generally
fails to connect to the LU hot spots. It's supposed to connect
automatically, but seldom does.

I think you need the Virgin "wifi-buddy" app running on the phone, but
it's a long time since I tried connecting.
Hoho, it's now called "Virgin Media Connect", and is one of those
Marmite apps with a predominance of 5* and 1* ratings. It's entirely
possible the 1* ratings are because of some fundamental incompatibility
issues, rather than fat-fingered users.

I do have the app, but it still doesn't work properly. I might not be using
it correctly, of course, but I'm sure it (or the predecessor app) did work.
I don't really have much need for it, as I'm not usually waiting long
enough in deep Tube stations to be able to use it. And I don't know of a
way of sending and receiving texts via station WiFi.

You'd need a phone and account which had "wifi calling", which might not
exist in a combination useful to you.

Post by Recliner

Needs Android 5, apparently, which is why it's not on my phone any more.

I'm on Android 9.

Oh, the irony; the reason I bought and am sticking with that phone
(dual-SIM) is the very reason I can't use the second SIM slot for this.

My Android 9 phone is dual sim.

Active, standby or hybrid? Maybe the Virgin trick doesn't work on a
standby basis, and all the hybrid I've seen today are also standby.

If I add in my requirement for a replaceable battery, 32GB, active
dual-SIM, I think that narrows the field to zero.

Accepting a hybrid dual-SIM doesn't help, unfortunately (with 32GB, I
probably wouldn't need an SD card).

[Mark Goodge]

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Recliner

Oh, the irony; the reason I bought and am sticking with that phone
(dual-SIM) is the very reason I can't use the second SIM slot for this.

My Android 9 phone is dual sim.

Active, standby or hybrid? Maybe the Virgin trick doesn't work on a
standby basis, and all the hybrid I've seen today are also standby.
If I add in my requirement for a replaceable battery, 32GB, active
dual-SIM, I think that narrows the field to zero.
Accepting a hybrid dual-SIM doesn't help, unfortunately (with 32GB, I
probably wouldn't need an SD card).

Moto dual-sim phones are active dual-sim, and have replaceable
batteries. I have this one, and it has all of the features you mention
except 32GB built in (but it has an SD card slot which provides me
with that): https://amzn.to/2jQA12b

Looking at more recent models, I think this one would tick all the
boxes: https://amzn.to/30vN60j (It has a notched display, though,
which really irritates me, and has moved the fingerprint sensor to the
back, which I'm also not keen on, so I suspect I won't be upgrading to
this when I need to replace my current phone).

Mark

[Recliner]

Post by Mark Goodge

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Recliner

Oh, the irony; the reason I bought and am sticking with that phone
(dual-SIM) is the very reason I can't use the second SIM slot for this.

My Android 9 phone is dual sim.

Active, standby or hybrid? Maybe the Virgin trick doesn't work on a
standby basis, and all the hybrid I've seen today are also standby.
If I add in my requirement for a replaceable battery, 32GB, active
dual-SIM, I think that narrows the field to zero.
Accepting a hybrid dual-SIM doesn't help, unfortunately (with 32GB, I
probably wouldn't need an SD card).

Moto dual-sim phones are active dual-sim, and have replaceable
batteries. I have this one, and it has all of the features you mention
except 32GB built in (but it has an SD card slot which provides me
with that): https://amzn.to/2jQA12b
Looking at more recent models, I think this one would tick all the
boxes: https://amzn.to/30vN60j (It has a notched display, though,
which really irritates me, and has moved the fingerprint sensor to the
back, which I'm also not keen on, so I suspect I won't be upgrading to
this when I need to replace my current phone).

I don't think those phones have field replaceable batteries in the sense
that Roland meant? Few modern phones do.

I prefer the rear fingerprint sensor. It works well, without stealing
screen space. It's just very natural to pick up the phone with your index
finger on the sensor.

[Mark Goodge]

On Sun, 14 Jul 2019 20:42:58 -0000 (UTC), Recliner

Post by Recliner

Post by Mark Goodge

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Recliner

Oh, the irony; the reason I bought and am sticking with that phone
(dual-SIM) is the very reason I can't use the second SIM slot for this.

My Android 9 phone is dual sim.

Active, standby or hybrid? Maybe the Virgin trick doesn't work on a
standby basis, and all the hybrid I've seen today are also standby.
If I add in my requirement for a replaceable battery, 32GB, active
dual-SIM, I think that narrows the field to zero.
Accepting a hybrid dual-SIM doesn't help, unfortunately (with 32GB, I
probably wouldn't need an SD card).

Moto dual-sim phones are active dual-sim, and have replaceable
batteries. I have this one, and it has all of the features you mention
except 32GB built in (but it has an SD card slot which provides me
with that): https://amzn.to/2jQA12b
Looking at more recent models, I think this one would tick all the
boxes: https://amzn.to/30vN60j (It has a notched display, though,
which really irritates me, and has moved the fingerprint sensor to the
back, which I'm also not keen on, so I suspect I won't be upgrading to
this when I need to replace my current phone).

I don't think those phones have field replaceable batteries in the sense
that Roland meant? Few modern phones do.

Yes, they do. Mine certainly does, anyway, and looking at the spec
(and a bit of additional Googling) for the newer one suggests it does,
too. You do have to take the rear case off to access the battery, so
it's not as simple as just shoving it into a slot or clipping it on
like you used to do with the pre-smartphone bricks. But the case just
clips on and can be removed with your fingernails if they're robust
enough (and with a small piece of plastic or a small screwdriver if
they're not).

More generally, Moto appears to have deliberately chosen to target
this kind of use case. I came across them when I asked a similar
question to Roland's in another place, and was given Moto as a
recommendation. All of their phones have simple, clip-on cases that
are easily removed to reveal a plug-in replaceable battery (no screws
or other tools needed), and the dual-sim versions are not only active
dual-sim but also have the SD slot separately to the sim slots (so you
don't have to choose between a second sim and an SD card, unlike some
phones). Their version of Android is also pretty close to vanilla,
again unlike the heavily customised version found in phones from some
other popular suppliers.

The downside is that, for a mid-priced phone, they're not usually the
top performers when it comes to camera quality, processor power, etc.
So if that sort of thing matters, you can often find better value for
money elsewhere. But they're perfectly good enough for most purposes
unless you do want to push the envelope. And I find the flexibility
(particularly the active dual-sim, which is the reason I bought one in
the first place) more than outweighs the fact that the camera doesn't
come with bragging rights on Instagram.

Post by Recliner
I prefer the rear fingerprint sensor. It works well, without stealing
screen space. It's just very natural to pick up the phone with your index
finger on the sensor.

I suppose it's worth trying. It's just that I'm used to it being where
it is on my curent phone.

Mark

[Recliner]

Post by Mark Goodge
On Sun, 14 Jul 2019 20:42:58 -0000 (UTC), Recliner

Post by Recliner

Post by Mark Goodge

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Recliner

Oh, the irony; the reason I bought and am sticking with that phone
(dual-SIM) is the very reason I can't use the second SIM slot for this.

My Android 9 phone is dual sim.

Active, standby or hybrid? Maybe the Virgin trick doesn't work on a
standby basis, and all the hybrid I've seen today are also standby.
If I add in my requirement for a replaceable battery, 32GB, active
dual-SIM, I think that narrows the field to zero.
Accepting a hybrid dual-SIM doesn't help, unfortunately (with 32GB, I
probably wouldn't need an SD card).

Moto dual-sim phones are active dual-sim, and have replaceable
batteries. I have this one, and it has all of the features you mention
except 32GB built in (but it has an SD card slot which provides me
with that): https://amzn.to/2jQA12b
Looking at more recent models, I think this one would tick all the
boxes: https://amzn.to/30vN60j (It has a notched display, though,
which really irritates me, and has moved the fingerprint sensor to the
back, which I'm also not keen on, so I suspect I won't be upgrading to
this when I need to replace my current phone).

I don't think those phones have field replaceable batteries in the sense
that Roland meant? Few modern phones do.

Yes, they do. Mine certainly does, anyway, and looking at the spec
(and a bit of additional Googling) for the newer one suggests it does,
too. You do have to take the rear case off to access the battery, so
it's not as simple as just shoving it into a slot or clipping it on
like you used to do with the pre-smartphone bricks. But the case just
clips on and can be removed with your fingernails if they're robust
enough (and with a small piece of plastic or a small screwdriver if
they're not).
More generally, Moto appears to have deliberately chosen to target
this kind of use case. I came across them when I asked a similar
question to Roland's in another place, and was given Moto as a
recommendation. All of their phones have simple, clip-on cases that
are easily removed to reveal a plug-in replaceable battery (no screws
or other tools needed), and the dual-sim versions are not only active
dual-sim but also have the SD slot separately to the sim slots (so you
don't have to choose between a second sim and an SD card, unlike some
phones). Their version of Android is also pretty close to vanilla,
again unlike the heavily customised version found in phones from some
other popular suppliers.
The downside is that, for a mid-priced phone, they're not usually the
top performers when it comes to camera quality, processor power, etc.
So if that sort of thing matters, you can often find better value for
money elsewhere. But they're perfectly good enough for most purposes
unless you do want to push the envelope. And I find the flexibility
(particularly the active dual-sim, which is the reason I bought one in
the first place) more than outweighs the fact that the camera doesn't
come with bragging rights on Instagram.

Yes, I also have a Moto phone, and it's a good all-rounder, but it had
never occurred to me to try and open the case, with its camera and
fingerprint sensor. And, indeed, it's not user-replaceable:
<http://motorola-global-en-roe.custhelp.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/126930/~/can-i-replace-the-battery-in-my-moto-g6-play%3F>

<https://support.motorola.com/uk/en/products/cell-phones/moto-g-family/moto-g6-play/documents/MS126899>

The same seems to be true of the G7 range. Maybe only the older (up to G5)
Moto models have user-replaceable batteries?

<http://motorola-global-en-roe.custhelp.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/135919/~/can-i-replace-the-battery-in-my-moto-g7%3F>

The camera in my phone is quite basic, but I don't care as I seldom use it.
I'm normally carrying a much better 'proper' camera.

Post by Mark Goodge

Post by Recliner
I prefer the rear fingerprint sensor. It works well, without stealing
screen space. It's just very natural to pick up the phone with your index
finger on the sensor.

I suppose it's worth trying. It's just that I'm used to it being where
it is on my curent phone.

It soon becomes natural, and the bigger screen is welcome.

It's the same with my new iPad Pro: I was dubious about facial recognition
rather than the touch ID built into the now-gone Home button, but I soon
adapted to it. I now welcome the larger screen instead.

[Roland Perry]

Post by Recliner
I also have a Moto phone, and it's a good all-rounder, but it had
never occurred to me to try and open the case, with its camera and
<http://motorola-global-en-roe.custhelp.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/126930/~/can-i-replace-the-battery-in-my-moto-g6-play%3F>
<https://support.motorola.com/uk/en/products/cell-phones/moto-g-family/moto-g6-play/documents/MS126899>

Oddly enough, the most recent addition to our collection of phones here
is also a G6 play (single SIM). But it's not mine to use.

[Recliner]

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Recliner
I also have a Moto phone, and it's a good all-rounder, but it had
never occurred to me to try and open the case, with its camera and
<http://motorola-global-en-roe.custhelp.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/126930/~/can-i-replace-the-battery-in-my-moto-g6-play%3F>
<https://support.motorola.com/uk/en/products/cell-phones/moto-g-family/moto-g6-play/documents/MS126899>

Oddly enough, the most recent addition to our collection of phones here
is also a G6 play (single SIM). But it's not mine to use.

You can get a newer Moto at a good price today (Amazon Prime day).

[Roland Perry]

Post by Recliner

Post by Roland Perry
Oddly enough, the most recent addition to our collection of phones here
is also a G6 play (single SIM). But it's not mine to use.

You can get a newer Moto at a good price today (Amazon Prime day).

The G6 play is less than year old, and no-one has managed to turn it
into landfill yet. So we'll not be needing to replace it.

[Recliner]

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Recliner

Post by Roland Perry
Oddly enough, the most recent addition to our collection of phones here
is also a G6 play (single SIM). But it's not mine to use.

You can get a newer Moto at a good price today (Amazon Prime day).

The G6 play is less than year old, and no-one has managed to turn it
into landfill yet. So we'll not be needing to replace it.

I wasn't suggesting prematurely replacing the G6, but allowing *you* access
to a non-vintage phone.

[Arthur Conan Doyle]

Post by Mark Goodge
Moto dual-sim phones are active dual-sim, and have replaceable
batteries. I have this one, and it has all of the features you mention
except 32GB built in (but it has an SD card slot which provides me
with that): https://amzn.to/2jQA12b
Looking at more recent models, I think this one would tick all the
boxes: https://amzn.to/30vN60j (It has a notched display, though,
which really irritates me, and has moved the fingerprint sensor to the
back, which I'm also not keen on, so I suspect I won't be upgrading to
this when I need to replace my current phone).

The current OnePlus lineup is dual active SIM. The 7 Plus does not have a notch
and uses the screen for fingerprint sensing.

[Someone Somewhere]

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Recliner

Post by Recliner

Post by Roland Perry
One of the reasons for having a Virgin second-SIM is it authenticates
Virgin wifi (for those also not on Virgin Cable) on the phone.
<https://www.virginmedia.com/help/virgin-media-how-to-connect-to-london-
underground>

I'm on Virgin Mobile, partly for that reason, and find that it generally
fails to connect to the LU hot spots. It's supposed to connect
automatically, but seldom does.

I think you need the Virgin "wifi-buddy" app running on the phone, but
it's a long time since I tried connecting.
Hoho, it's now called "Virgin Media Connect", and is one of those
Marmite apps with a predominance of 5* and 1* ratings. It's entirely
possible the 1* ratings are because of some fundamental incompatibility
issues, rather than fat-fingered users.

I do have the app, but it still doesn't work properly. I might not be using
it correctly, of course, but I'm sure it (or the predecessor app) did work.
I don't really have much need for it, as I'm not usually waiting long
enough in deep Tube stations to be able to use it. And I don't know of a
way of sending and receiving texts via station WiFi.

You'd need a phone and account which had "wifi calling", which might not
exist in a combination useful to you.

Post by Recliner

Needs Android 5, apparently, which is why it's not on my phone any more.

I'm on Android 9.

Oh, the irony; the reason I bought and am sticking with that phone
(dual-SIM) is the very reason I can't use the second SIM slot for this.

My Android 9 phone is dual sim.

Active, standby or hybrid? Maybe the Virgin trick doesn't work on a
standby basis, and all the hybrid I've seen today are also standby.
If I add in my requirement for a replaceable battery, 32GB, active
dual-SIM, I think that narrows the field to zero.
Accepting a hybrid dual-SIM doesn't help, unfortunately (with 32GB, I
probably wouldn't need an SD card).

Many of the OnePlus handsets are dual SIM and have been for several
years. Both SIMs are active in terms of calls and SMS, 1both can do
2G-4G. You have an easy toggle to switch which one is currently used
for data. No replaceable battery though.

[Roland Perry]

Post by Someone Somewhere

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Recliner
My Android 9 phone is dual sim.

Active, standby or hybrid? Maybe the Virgin trick doesn't work on a
standby basis, and all the hybrid I've seen today are also standby.
If I add in my requirement for a replaceable battery, 32GB, active
dual-SIM, I think that narrows the field to zero.
Accepting a hybrid dual-SIM doesn't help, unfortunately (with 32GB,
I probably wouldn't need an SD card).

Many of the OnePlus handsets are dual SIM and have been for several
years. Both SIMs are active in terms of calls and SMS, 1both can do
2G-4G. You have an easy toggle to switch which one is currently used
for data. No replaceable battery though.

Thanks, I'll bear that in mind. But they are about three times as much
as I'd want to spend.

[Someone Somewhere]

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Someone Somewhere

Post by Recliner
My Android 9 phone is dual sim.

 Active, standby or hybrid? Maybe the Virgin trick doesn't work on a
standby basis, and all the hybrid I've seen today are also standby.
 If I add in my requirement for a replaceable battery, 32GB, active
dual-SIM, I think that narrows the field to zero.
 Accepting a hybrid dual-SIM doesn't help, unfortunately (with 32GB,
I  probably wouldn't need an SD card).

Many of the OnePlus handsets are dual SIM and have been for several
years.  Both SIMs are active in terms of calls and SMS,  1both can do
2G-4G.   You have an easy toggle to switch which one is currently used
for data.  No replaceable battery though.

Thanks, I'll bear that in mind. But they are about three times as much
as I'd want to spend.

So the budget is around £200? The OnePlus stuff is good value but
admittedly not cheap anymore (ie for £600 you get what you'd pay maybe
£800-£900 for a Samsung or similar).

What's the desire for a removeable battery these days? I get that
batteries die progressively after a couple of years or more, but until
then portable power banks are higher capacity and more flexible (you can
use them with multiple things!) than a spare battery.

[Roland Perry]

Post by Someone Somewhere

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Someone Somewhere

Post by Recliner
My Android 9 phone is dual sim.

 Active, standby or hybrid? Maybe the Virgin trick doesn't work on
a standby basis, and all the hybrid I've seen today are also standby.
 If I add in my requirement for a replaceable battery, 32GB, active
dual-SIM, I think that narrows the field to zero.
 Accepting a hybrid dual-SIM doesn't help, unfortunately (with
32GB, I  probably wouldn't need an SD card).

Many of the OnePlus handsets are dual SIM and have been for several
years.  Both SIMs are active in terms of calls and SMS,  1both can do
2G-4G.   You have an easy toggle to switch which one is currently
used for data.  No replaceable battery though.

Thanks, I'll bear that in mind. But they are about three times as
much as I'd want to spend.

So the budget is around £200?

More like £150.

Post by Someone Somewhere
The OnePlus stuff is good value but admittedly not cheap anymore (ie
for £600 you get what you'd pay maybe £800-£900 for a Samsung or
similar).

I'd never pay that for a Samsung (or anything else).

Having said that, I've got a locked 8GB Samsung J3 here for a project,
and if the client paid more than £100 for that, they were robbed!

Post by Someone Somewhere
What's the desire for a removeable battery these days? I get that
batteries die progressively after a couple of years or more, but until
then portable power banks are higher capacity and more flexible (you
can use them with multiple things!) than a spare battery.

I suppose if there was a thin power bank I could superglue to the back
of a phone, and have an unobtrusive permanently connected cable, that
might just substitute for having a phone where I can change a normal
battery in under a minute.

But I suspect that the power bank wouldn't do a pass-through for
connecting to the phone's internal storage. How do you suggest fixing
that?

[Charles Ellson]

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Someone Somewhere

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Someone Somewhere

Post by Recliner
My Android 9 phone is dual sim.

 Active, standby or hybrid? Maybe the Virgin trick doesn't work on
a standby basis, and all the hybrid I've seen today are also standby.
 If I add in my requirement for a replaceable battery, 32GB, active
dual-SIM, I think that narrows the field to zero.
 Accepting a hybrid dual-SIM doesn't help, unfortunately (with
32GB, I  probably wouldn't need an SD card).

Many of the OnePlus handsets are dual SIM and have been for several
years.  Both SIMs are active in terms of calls and SMS,  1both can do
2G-4G.   You have an easy toggle to switch which one is currently
used for data.  No replaceable battery though.

Thanks, I'll bear that in mind. But they are about three times as
much as I'd want to spend.

So the budget is around £200?

More like £150.

Post by Someone Somewhere
The OnePlus stuff is good value but admittedly not cheap anymore (ie
for £600 you get what you'd pay maybe £800-£900 for a Samsung or
similar).

I'd never pay that for a Samsung (or anything else).
Having said that, I've got a locked 8GB Samsung J3 here for a project,
and if the client paid more than £100 for that, they were robbed!

Post by Someone Somewhere
What's the desire for a removeable battery these days? I get that
batteries die progressively after a couple of years or more, but until
then portable power banks are higher capacity and more flexible (you
can use them with multiple things!) than a spare battery.

I suppose if there was a thin power bank I could superglue to the back
of a phone, and have an unobtrusive permanently connected cable, that
might just substitute for having a phone where I can change a normal
battery in under a minute.
But I suspect that the power bank wouldn't do a pass-through for
connecting to the phone's internal storage. How do you suggest fixing
that?

Clip-on/piggy-back power banks with USB pass through are available but
you're probably stuffed if you haven't got an iPhone or a Samsung
Galaxy.

[Roland Perry]

Post by Charles Ellson

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Someone Somewhere
What's the desire for a removeable battery these days? I get that
batteries die progressively after a couple of years or more, but until
then portable power banks are higher capacity and more flexible (you
can use them with multiple things!) than a spare battery.

I suppose if there was a thin power bank I could superglue to the back
of a phone, and have an unobtrusive permanently connected cable, that
might just substitute for having a phone where I can change a normal
battery in under a minute.
But I suspect that the power bank wouldn't do a pass-through for
connecting to the phone's internal storage. How do you suggest fixing
that?

Clip-on/piggy-back power banks with USB pass through are available but
you're probably stuffed if you haven't got an iPhone or a Samsung
Galaxy.

Now you mention it, I did once have a case for a smartphone that had
power bank integrated, which meant having a pass-through connector. But
the battery inside that died very quickly (a matter of months). The fact
they are so rare makes me think there's something systemically wrong
with them.

Is it also perhaps because the backs of phones increasingly have buttons
and camera lenses/flashes and so on - which would tend to get obscured
unless the case had exactly the correct cut-outs in it.

[Recliner]

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Charles Ellson

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Someone Somewhere
What's the desire for a removeable battery these days? I get that
batteries die progressively after a couple of years or more, but until
then portable power banks are higher capacity and more flexible (you
can use them with multiple things!) than a spare battery.

I suppose if there was a thin power bank I could superglue to the back
of a phone, and have an unobtrusive permanently connected cable, that
might just substitute for having a phone where I can change a normal
battery in under a minute.
But I suspect that the power bank wouldn't do a pass-through for
connecting to the phone's internal storage. How do you suggest fixing
that?

Clip-on/piggy-back power banks with USB pass through are available but
you're probably stuffed if you haven't got an iPhone or a Samsung
Galaxy.

Now you mention it, I did once have a case for a smartphone that had
power bank integrated, which meant having a pass-through connector. But
the battery inside that died very quickly (a matter of months). The fact
they are so rare makes me think there's something systemically wrong
with them.
Is it also perhaps because the backs of phones increasingly have buttons
and camera lenses/flashes and so on - which would tend to get obscured
unless the case had exactly the correct cut-outs in it.

Yes, they all have one or more camera lenses and flash, and often the
fingerprint reader too. Plus, most people wouldn't want such a clumsy
device anyway. Phones are slim because that's what the market demands. They
want phones they can slip into a tight jeans pocket, not clumsy bricks more
than an inch thick.

Most people can get through a day on one charge. And if they can't, there
are plenty of places to recharge. And if they're not available, it's easy
to carry a small power bank separately in a bag.

[m***@round-midnight.org.uk]

Post by Recliner

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Charles Ellson

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Someone Somewhere
What's the desire for a removeable battery these days? I get that
batteries die progressively after a couple of years or more, but until
then portable power banks are higher capacity and more flexible (you
can use them with multiple things!) than a spare battery.

I suppose if there was a thin power bank I could superglue to the back
of a phone, and have an unobtrusive permanently connected cable, that
might just substitute for having a phone where I can change a normal
battery in under a minute.
But I suspect that the power bank wouldn't do a pass-through for
connecting to the phone's internal storage. How do you suggest fixing
that?

Clip-on/piggy-back power banks with USB pass through are available but
you're probably stuffed if you haven't got an iPhone or a Samsung
Galaxy.

Now you mention it, I did once have a case for a smartphone that had
power bank integrated, which meant having a pass-through connector. But
the battery inside that died very quickly (a matter of months). The fact
they are so rare makes me think there's something systemically wrong
with them.
Is it also perhaps because the backs of phones increasingly have buttons
and camera lenses/flashes and so on - which would tend to get obscured
unless the case had exactly the correct cut-outs in it.

Yes, they all have one or more camera lenses and flash, and often the
fingerprint reader too. Plus, most people wouldn't want such a clumsy
device anyway. Phones are slim because that's what the market demands. They
want phones they can slip into a tight jeans pocket, not clumsy bricks more
than an inch thick.
Most people can get through a day on one charge. And if they can't, there
are plenty of places to recharge. And if they're not available, it's easy
to carry a small power bank separately in a bag.

Except at some plane stations as I discovered last year.

[Recliner]

Post by m***@round-midnight.org.uk

Post by Recliner

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Charles Ellson

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Someone Somewhere
What's the desire for a removeable battery these days? I get that
batteries die progressively after a couple of years or more, but until
then portable power banks are higher capacity and more flexible (you
can use them with multiple things!) than a spare battery.

I suppose if there was a thin power bank I could superglue to the back
of a phone, and have an unobtrusive permanently connected cable, that
might just substitute for having a phone where I can change a normal
battery in under a minute.
But I suspect that the power bank wouldn't do a pass-through for
connecting to the phone's internal storage. How do you suggest fixing
that?

Clip-on/piggy-back power banks with USB pass through are available but
you're probably stuffed if you haven't got an iPhone or a Samsung
Galaxy.

Now you mention it, I did once have a case for a smartphone that had
power bank integrated, which meant having a pass-through connector. But
the battery inside that died very quickly (a matter of months). The fact
they are so rare makes me think there's something systemically wrong
with them.
Is it also perhaps because the backs of phones increasingly have buttons
and camera lenses/flashes and so on - which would tend to get obscured
unless the case had exactly the correct cut-outs in it.

Yes, they all have one or more camera lenses and flash, and often the
fingerprint reader too. Plus, most people wouldn't want such a clumsy
device anyway. Phones are slim because that's what the market demands. They
want phones they can slip into a tight jeans pocket, not clumsy bricks more
than an inch thick.
Most people can get through a day on one charge. And if they can't, there
are plenty of places to recharge. And if they're not available, it's easy
to carry a small power bank separately in a bag.

Except at some plane stations as I discovered last year.

The normal rule is that you can carry one small power bank in a carry-on
bag, but none in checked-in luggage. But after the recent fire on board a
Virgin plane, perhaps that will be tightened up?

<https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/jul/05/virgin-atlantic-flight-makes-emergency-landing-in-boston-after-fire-on-board>

[Clank]

Post by Recliner

Post by m***@round-midnight.org.uk

Post by Recliner
And if they're not available, it's easy
to carry a small power bank separately in a bag.

Except at some plane stations as I discovered last year

The normal rule is that you can carry one small power bank in a carry-on
bag, but none in checked-in luggage. But after the recent fire on board a
Virgin plane, perhaps that will be tightened up?

IMX, they're not very strict about that - I have two very slim
batteries that are always tucked into my little leather messenger
bag that's always with me when I'm travelling (has my passport,
headphones, Iqos e-cigarette etc.), and another small one that's
in the "plugs and cables" bag that's in my trolleybag, and I've
never been prevented taking all three onboard.

(And not because they don't notice - on Sunday I transferred into
a domestic flight at Beijing and the famously strict Chinese
security staff noticed the battery in that latter bag in my
suitcase - I'd entirely forgotten it, having already declared the
two in my shoulder bag (Chinese regulations demand all batteries
are declared and individually inspected.) They just passed it
through the x-ray again and sent me on my way with all
three.)


As it was, despite being a tedious 26-hour voyage to get here
(storms closed Beijing airport on Saturday night, so quite a lot
of that was spent sitting on the tarmac at an alternate waiting
for the storms to pass (and to refuel)) , I haven't actually used
any of those batteries yet - as is usually the case these days,
even the fairly terrible Ukraine International can manage to fit
USB charging ports on their aircraft, so I had no need. Thank
the Lord I loaded my phone up with Netflix downloads before
leaving, though...


(When I finally arrived domestic airside at Beijing and missed my
connection, I'm delighted to say that I had no trouble at all
using my mobile boarding pass at the customer service desk to get
a seat on the next flight. This is remarkable for two reasons -
firstly that it's the first time I've ever been able to check in
online to a Chinese domestic flight at all, the requirement to
have a Chinese ID number finally having been dispensed with, and
secondly that I didn't actually have a through ticket, so they'd
have been entirely within their rights to make me buy a new one
for the next flight with seats on sale. So China Southern
Airlines deserve a shout out for excellent customer
service.)

--

[MissRiaElaine]

[snip]

Post by m***@round-midnight.org.uk

Post by Recliner
Most people can get through a day on one charge. And if they can't, there
are plenty of places to recharge. And if they're not available, it's easy
to carry a small power bank separately in a bag.

Except at some plane stations as I discovered last year.

What's a 'plane station'..?? Do you mean an airport..? If so, why not
say so..?!

As for removable batteries, why would I want to throw away a perfectly
good phone just because the battery has died..? I see no point whatever
in 'upgrading' my phone every five minutes just because it's not got the
latest version of whatever it is they want to sell me.

Call me a luddite if you want, but the battery on one of my two Nokia
6310i's is approaching 19 years old, as is the phone, and it still gives
me a week on standby.

[Anna Noyd-Dryver]

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Charles Ellson

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Someone Somewhere
What's the desire for a removeable battery these days? I get that
batteries die progressively after a couple of years or more, but until
then portable power banks are higher capacity and more flexible (you
can use them with multiple things!) than a spare battery.

I suppose if there was a thin power bank I could superglue to the back
of a phone, and have an unobtrusive permanently connected cable, that
might just substitute for having a phone where I can change a normal
battery in under a minute.
But I suspect that the power bank wouldn't do a pass-through for
connecting to the phone's internal storage. How do you suggest fixing
that?

Clip-on/piggy-back power banks with USB pass through are available but
you're probably stuffed if you haven't got an iPhone or a Samsung
Galaxy.

Now you mention it, I did once have a case for a smartphone that had
power bank integrated, which meant having a pass-through connector. But
the battery inside that died very quickly (a matter of months). The fact
they are so rare makes me think there's something systemically wrong
with them.
Is it also perhaps because the backs of phones increasingly have buttons
and camera lenses/flashes and so on - which would tend to get obscured
unless the case had exactly the correct cut-outs in it.

The case has to be designed to fit the size, shape and connectors of the
phone anyway; putting holes in the right place for camera, microphone,
speaker etc isn’t rocket science. Plain cases for every variety of phone
manage it, so do the powered cases.


Anna Noyd-Dryver

[Roland Perry]

Post by Anna Noyd-Dryver

Post by Roland Perry
Now you mention it, I did once have a case for a smartphone that had
power bank integrated, which meant having a pass-through connector. But
the battery inside that died very quickly (a matter of months). The fact
they are so rare makes me think there's something systemically wrong
with them.
Is it also perhaps because the backs of phones increasingly have buttons
and camera lenses/flashes and so on - which would tend to get obscured
unless the case had exactly the correct cut-outs in it.

The case has to be designed to fit the size, shape and connectors of the
phone anyway; putting holes in the right place for camera, microphone,
speaker etc isn’t rocket science. Plain cases for every variety of phone
manage it, so do the powered cases.

I just went to Amazon to look, for my LG phone. A choice of 13 products,
every single one "Currently unavailable".

[Recliner]

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Anna Noyd-Dryver

Post by Roland Perry
Now you mention it, I did once have a case for a smartphone that had
power bank integrated, which meant having a pass-through connector. But
the battery inside that died very quickly (a matter of months). The fact
they are so rare makes me think there's something systemically wrong
with them.
Is it also perhaps because the backs of phones increasingly have buttons
and camera lenses/flashes and so on - which would tend to get obscured
unless the case had exactly the correct cut-outs in it.

The case has to be designed to fit the size, shape and connectors of the
phone anyway; putting holes in the right place for camera, microphone,
speaker etc isn’t rocket science. Plain cases for every variety of phone
manage it, so do the powered cases.

I just went to Amazon to look, for my LG phone. A choice of 13 products,
every single one "Currently unavailable".

Presumably because your phone is ancient? The assumption is that people
buy accessories when they first buy a phone, not when they unearth one in
an archaeological dig.

Of course, there's a small chance you might be able to find a well-used one
on eBay.

[MissRiaElaine]

Post by Recliner

Post by Roland Perry
I just went to Amazon to look, for my LG phone. A choice of 13 products,
every single one "Currently unavailable".

Presumably because your phone is ancient? The assumption is that people
buy accessories when they first buy a phone, not when they unearth one in
an archaeological dig.

Ooh, that's a bit strong..! What's wrong with old phones, anyway..? As
long as they work, keep on using them, that's what I say. Besides, a
case may well have been bought with the phone, but has worn out. I've
replaced phone cases many times.

[Roland Perry]

Post by MissRiaElaine

Post by Recliner

Post by Roland Perry
I just went to Amazon to look, for my LG phone. A choice of 13 products,
every single one "Currently unavailable".

Presumably because your phone is ancient? The assumption is that
people buy accessories when they first buy a phone, not when they
unearth one in an archaeological dig.

Ooh, that's a bit strong..!

He's got out of bed the wrong side again.

Post by MissRiaElaine
What's wrong with old phones, anyway..? As long as they work, keep on
using them, that's what I say. Besides, a case may well have been
bought with the phone, but has worn out. I've replaced phone cases many
times.

I agree. And it's when a phone is getting older that replacing the
battery becomes a thing, and that includes work-arounds like these
power-bank-cases.

[David Walters]

Post by MissRiaElaine

Post by Recliner

Post by Roland Perry
I just went to Amazon to look, for my LG phone. A choice of 13 products,
every single one "Currently unavailable".

Presumably because your phone is ancient? The assumption is that people
buy accessories when they first buy a phone, not when they unearth one in
an archaeological dig.

Ooh, that's a bit strong..! What's wrong with old phones, anyway..?

For a 'dumbphone', not a lot.

Using a smartphone once it no longer receives security patches isn't
something I would do personally.

[MissRiaElaine]

Post by David Walters

Post by MissRiaElaine

Post by Recliner

Post by Roland Perry
I just went to Amazon to look, for my LG phone. A choice of 13 products,
every single one "Currently unavailable".

Presumably because your phone is ancient? The assumption is that people
buy accessories when they first buy a phone, not when they unearth one in
an archaeological dig.

Ooh, that's a bit strong..! What's wrong with old phones, anyway..?

For a 'dumbphone', not a lot.
Using a smartphone once it no longer receives security patches isn't
something I would do personally.

I've given up on 'smart' phones, I don't like the potential for tracking
and the likes of Google et al knowing where I am 24/7, nor having to
charge it every day at minimum. I still use the one I have (Samsung S5
mini) as a portable data terminal for things like 2-factor authorisation
etc. but there isn't a SIM in it any more and it never leaves the house.
In 'flight' mode the battery lasts almost a week, good enough for me.

As for phones, the Nokia 6310i reigns supreme..! I also recently
unearthed my old Nokia 6150, which still works on its 18yr old battery,
which although it uses the battery faster than the 6310i, still lasts a
week on standby.

[Anna Noyd-Dryver]

Post by MissRiaElaine

Post by David Walters

Post by MissRiaElaine

Post by Recliner

Post by Roland Perry
I just went to Amazon to look, for my LG phone. A choice of 13 products,
every single one "Currently unavailable".

Presumably because your phone is ancient? The assumption is that people
buy accessories when they first buy a phone, not when they unearth one in
an archaeological dig.

Ooh, that's a bit strong..! What's wrong with old phones, anyway..?

For a 'dumbphone', not a lot.
Using a smartphone once it no longer receives security patches isn't
something I would do personally.

I've given up on 'smart' phones, I don't like the potential for tracking
and the likes of Google et al knowing where I am 24/7, nor having to
charge it every day at minimum. I still use the one I have (Samsung S5
mini) as a portable data terminal for things like 2-factor authorisation
etc. but there isn't a SIM in it any more and it never leaves the house.
In 'flight' mode the battery lasts almost a week, good enough for me.
As for phones, the Nokia 6310i reigns supreme..! I also recently
unearthed my old Nokia 6150, which still works on its 18yr old battery,
which although it uses the battery faster than the 6310i, still lasts a
week on standby.

Whereas I’m the opposite end of the phone user spectrum, I rarely use my
phone for voice calls (I have done more often in the past week or so
arranging car servicing etc however) or SMS (most of my contacts prefer
WhatsApp), but I use my phone for everything I used to use a computer for;
my laptop gets used once a month if that.


Anna Noyd-Dryver

[Roland Perry]

Post by David Walters

Post by MissRiaElaine

Post by Recliner

Post by Roland Perry
I just went to Amazon to look, for my LG phone. A choice of 13 products,
every single one "Currently unavailable".

Presumably because your phone is ancient? The assumption is that people
buy accessories when they first buy a phone, not when they unearth one in
an archaeological dig.

Ooh, that's a bit strong..! What's wrong with old phones, anyway..?

For a 'dumbphone', not a lot.
Using a smartphone once it no longer receives security patches isn't
something I would do personally.

What's the main threat you are trying to avoid?

[David Walters]

Post by Roland Perry

Post by David Walters

Post by MissRiaElaine
Ooh, that's a bit strong..! What's wrong with old phones, anyway..?

For a 'dumbphone', not a lot.
Using a smartphone once it no longer receives security patches isn't
something I would do personally.

What's the main threat you are trying to avoid?

Mostly some malware getting installed via a remote or drive-by
vulnerability. There are undoubtedly other unpatched vulnerabilities in
my smartphone but I'd rather have protection from the known ones. I also
don't run Windows Vista anymore.

[Roland Perry]

Post by David Walters

Post by Roland Perry

Post by David Walters

Post by MissRiaElaine
Ooh, that's a bit strong..! What's wrong with old phones, anyway..?

For a 'dumbphone', not a lot.
Using a smartphone once it no longer receives security patches isn't
something I would do personally.

What's the main threat you are trying to avoid?

Mostly some malware getting installed via a remote or drive-by
vulnerability.

What kinds of drive-by malware has been known to be delivered via apps
like Facebook and Twitter? What is the malware trying to achieve.

Post by David Walters
There are undoubtedly other unpatched vulnerabilities in my smartphone
but I'd rather have protection from the known ones. I also don't run
Windows Vista anymore.

A Windows PC is a completely different environment. Even though it's
also more likely to be running anti-malware than a typical phone.

[David Walters]

Post by Roland Perry

Post by David Walters

Post by Roland Perry

Post by David Walters

Post by MissRiaElaine
Ooh, that's a bit strong..! What's wrong with old phones, anyway..?

For a 'dumbphone', not a lot.
Using a smartphone once it no longer receives security patches isn't
something I would do personally.

What's the main threat you are trying to avoid?

Mostly some malware getting installed via a remote or drive-by
vulnerability.

What kinds of drive-by malware has been known to be delivered via apps
like Facebook and Twitter?

I'm not aware of any but I use many other apps on my smartphone such
as Chrome which has had bugs exploited in the past. One example is at
https://www.helpnetsecurity.com/2016/11/08/bug-chrome-mobile-android-malware/.
That still requires an extra step but a similar bug might not.

Post by Roland Perry
What is the malware trying to achieve.

Perhaps it will be combined with some kind of permissions exploit that
means it can harvest data from other apps which in my case would include
my banking details/tokens. I could not have banking apps on my smartphone
but I choose to for the convenience and balance some of the risk by
having an up to date OS. Your choice might be different.

[Arthur Figgis]

Post by Roland Perry
What kinds of drive-by malware has been known to be delivered via apps
like Facebook and Twitter?

Brexit and Trump?

[Jeremy Double]

Post by Arthur Figgis

Post by Roland Perry
What kinds of drive-by malware has been known to be delivered via apps
like Facebook and Twitter?

Brexit and Trump?

That’s too true to be funny...

[Roland Perry]

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Anna Noyd-Dryver

Post by Roland Perry
Now you mention it, I did once have a case for a smartphone that had
power bank integrated, which meant having a pass-through connector. But
the battery inside that died very quickly (a matter of months). The fact
they are so rare makes me think there's something systemically wrong
with them.
Is it also perhaps because the backs of phones increasingly have buttons
and camera lenses/flashes and so on - which would tend to get obscured
unless the case had exactly the correct cut-outs in it.

The case has to be designed to fit the size, shape and connectors of the
phone anyway; putting holes in the right place for camera, microphone,
speaker etc isn’t rocket science. Plain cases for every variety of phone
manage it, so do the powered cases.

I just went to Amazon to look, for my LG phone. A choice of 13
products, every single one "Currently unavailable".

And trying eBay, all that gives is replacement fatter batteries plus a
"pregnant" back cover. Of course, that's only a possibility *because*
the phone has a slot-in user-replaceable battery.

My first Android smartphone, an HTC Wildfire from about 2010, got fitted
with such a battery (and pregnant back cover) because otherwise the
battery life was well under a day.

[Anna Noyd-Dryver]

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Anna Noyd-Dryver

Post by Roland Perry
Now you mention it, I did once have a case for a smartphone that had
power bank integrated, which meant having a pass-through connector. But
the battery inside that died very quickly (a matter of months). The fact
they are so rare makes me think there's something systemically wrong
with them.
Is it also perhaps because the backs of phones increasingly have buttons
and camera lenses/flashes and so on - which would tend to get obscured
unless the case had exactly the correct cut-outs in it.

The case has to be designed to fit the size, shape and connectors of the
phone anyway; putting holes in the right place for camera, microphone,
speaker etc isn’t rocket science. Plain cases for every variety of phone
manage it, so do the powered cases.

I just went to Amazon to look, for my LG phone. A choice of 13 products,
every single one "Currently unavailable".

As I mentioned in my other post, they’re available for a limited selection
of phone models.


Anna Noyd-Dryver

[Anna Noyd-Dryver]

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Someone Somewhere

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Someone Somewhere

Post by Recliner
My Android 9 phone is dual sim.

 Active, standby or hybrid? Maybe the Virgin trick doesn't work on
a standby basis, and all the hybrid I've seen today are also standby.
 If I add in my requirement for a replaceable battery, 32GB, active
dual-SIM, I think that narrows the field to zero.
 Accepting a hybrid dual-SIM doesn't help, unfortunately (with
32GB, I  probably wouldn't need an SD card).

Many of the OnePlus handsets are dual SIM and have been for several
years.  Both SIMs are active in terms of calls and SMS,  1both can do
2G-4G.   You have an easy toggle to switch which one is currently
used for data.  No replaceable battery though.

Thanks, I'll bear that in mind. But they are about three times as
much as I'd want to spend.

So the budget is around £200?

More like £150.

Post by Someone Somewhere
The OnePlus stuff is good value but admittedly not cheap anymore (ie
for £600 you get what you'd pay maybe £800-£900 for a Samsung or
similar).

I'd never pay that for a Samsung (or anything else).
Having said that, I've got a locked 8GB Samsung J3 here for a project,
and if the client paid more than £100 for that, they were robbed!

Post by Someone Somewhere
What's the desire for a removeable battery these days? I get that
batteries die progressively after a couple of years or more, but until
then portable power banks are higher capacity and more flexible (you
can use them with multiple things!) than a spare battery.

I suppose if there was a thin power bank I could superglue to the back
of a phone, and have an unobtrusive permanently connected cable, that
might just substitute for having a phone where I can change a normal
battery in under a minute.
But I suspect that the power bank wouldn't do a pass-through for
connecting to the phone's internal storage. How do you suggest fixing
that?

The product you want is a charging case; they’re available for some
smartphones but not all. The case has a built-in external battery, and you
can use the case’s usb socket as if it was the phone’s one. However they’re
*considerably* more expensive than a plain external battery of the same
capacity (like ~10x the price).


Anna Noyd-Dryver

[Charles Ellson]

On Sun, 14 Jul 2019 08:21:37 -0000 (UTC), Recliner

Post by Recliner

Post by Roland Perry
One of the reasons for having a Virgin second-SIM is it authenticates
Virgin wifi (for those also not on Virgin Cable) on the phone.
<https://www.virginmedia.com/help/virgin-media-how-to-connect-to-london-
underground>

I'm on Virgin Mobile, partly for that reason, and find that it generally
fails to connect to the LU hot spots. It's supposed to connect
automatically, but seldom does.

Maybe due to the 'phone rather than the hot spot ? Of two 'phones
which I use, one needs to log on to LU/Virgin and The Cloud at
stations the first time it is used there each day while the other
seems to do so automatically. IIRC there is a setting in the murkier
depths of the WiFi setup which only exists on one of them.

[Recliner]

Post by Charles Ellson
On Sun, 14 Jul 2019 08:21:37 -0000 (UTC), Recliner

Post by Recliner

Post by Roland Perry
One of the reasons for having a Virgin second-SIM is it authenticates
Virgin wifi (for those also not on Virgin Cable) on the phone.
<https://www.virginmedia.com/help/virgin-media-how-to-connect-to-london-
underground>

I'm on Virgin Mobile, partly for that reason, and find that it generally
fails to connect to the LU hot spots. It's supposed to connect
automatically, but seldom does.

Maybe due to the 'phone rather than the hot spot ? Of two 'phones
which I use, one needs to log on to LU/Virgin and The Cloud at
stations the first time it is used there each day while the other
seems to do so automatically. IIRC there is a setting in the murkier
depths of the WiFi setup which only exists on one of them.

I've probably not investigated enough. I just don't spend long enough
waiting in deep Tube stations to have much use or need for the capability.
Above ground, I just use 4G data.

[Tweed]

Post by Recliner

Post by Charles Ellson
On Sun, 14 Jul 2019 08:21:37 -0000 (UTC), Recliner

Post by Recliner

Post by Roland Perry
One of the reasons for having a Virgin second-SIM is it authenticates
Virgin wifi (for those also not on Virgin Cable) on the phone.
<https://www.virginmedia.com/help/virgin-media-how-to-connect-to-london-
underground>

I'm on Virgin Mobile, partly for that reason, and find that it generally
fails to connect to the LU hot spots. It's supposed to connect
automatically, but seldom does.

Maybe due to the 'phone rather than the hot spot ? Of two 'phones
which I use, one needs to log on to LU/Virgin and The Cloud at
stations the first time it is used there each day while the other
seems to do so automatically. IIRC there is a setting in the murkier
depths of the WiFi setup which only exists on one of them.

I've probably not investigated enough. I just don't spend long enough
waiting in deep Tube stations to have much use or need for the capability.
Above ground, I just use 4G data.

Just for anecdata, my iPhone on Vodafone connects without user intervention
to the Underground WiFi. You don’t need to be a VM customer to use it.

[Roland Perry]

Post by Tweed
Just for anecdata, my iPhone on Vodafone connects without user intervention
to the Underground WiFi. You don’t need to be a VM customer to use it.

That kind of reciprocal arrangement comes and goes, almost too fast to
keep up. But yes, at the moment some Vodafone plans include the Virgin
Wifi on the tube.

[Tweed]

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Tweed
Just for anecdata, my iPhone on Vodafone connects without user intervention
to the Underground WiFi. You don’t need to be a VM customer to use it.

That kind of reciprocal arrangement comes and goes, almost too fast to
keep up. But yes, at the moment some Vodafone plans include the Virgin
Wifi on the tube.

I think you will find all the main networks work with the underground
system. See https://tfl.gov.uk/campaign/station-wifi

[tim...]

On Sun, 14 Jul 2019 07:42:38 +0100

Post by Roland Perry

That's where the albeit fairly rare dual-SIM phone has a role.

Only, for some reason, rare in the UK.

The reason is obvious: so many phones are either SIM-locked to one
provider, or are fitted with SIMs on non-rollover tariffs, that the
opportunities for fitting a second true-Pay-as-you-go SIM are quite
limited.

Of course back when 2G phones first came out the SIM was on a card you
could
switch cards easily in seconds but presumably that was deemed too
convenient

I'm not sure how many phones ever took the full size SIM.
Commercial considerations killed them off: the idea was that a person
would have a SIM, and be able to share/borrow a phone to use it in.
But the networks wanted to tie people into having their own phone (and
contract) in particular not wanting a phone they'd subsidised being used
with a SIM from a rival network,

They solved that problem by having phones "network" locked

My "acquired" smart phone still is

tim

[Roland Perry]

Post by tim...

I'm not sure how many phones ever took the full size SIM.
Commercial considerations killed them off: the idea was that a person
would have a SIM, and be able to share/borrow a phone to use it in.
But the networks wanted to tie people into having their own phone
(and contract) in particular not wanting a phone they'd subsidised
being used with a SIM from a rival network,

They solved that problem by having phones "network" locked
My "acquired" smart phone still is

Is still what. Locked? That's hardly unusual.

[tim...]

Post by Roland Perry

Post by tim...

I'm not sure how many phones ever took the full size SIM.
Commercial considerations killed them off: the idea was that a person
would have a SIM, and be able to share/borrow a phone to use it in.
But the networks wanted to tie people into having their own phone (and
contract) in particular not wanting a phone they'd subsidised being used
with a SIM from a rival network,

They solved that problem by having phones "network" locked
My "acquired" smart phone still is

Is still what. Locked? That's hardly unusual.

I know

but you seemed not to understand it as the solution to people "sharing"
phones by swapping SIMs in/out

Post by Roland Perry
--
Roland Perry

[Roland Perry]

Post by tim...

Post by Roland Perry

Post by tim...

I'm not sure how many phones ever took the full size SIM.
Commercial considerations killed them off: the idea was that a
person would have a SIM, and be able to share/borrow a phone to use
But the networks wanted to tie people into having their own phone
(and contract) in particular not wanting a phone they'd subsidised
being used with a SIM from a rival network,

They solved that problem by having phones "network" locked
My "acquired" smart phone still is

Is still what. Locked? That's hardly unusual.

I know
but you seemed not to understand it as the solution to people "sharing"
phones by swapping SIMs in/out

Do keep up: "[Opportunities open up] Even on a locked phone because
(for example) GiffGaff and Tesco both use O2, and Virgin/Orange/T-Mobile
all share EE."

[Charles Ellson]

Post by Roland Perry

Post by tim...

Post by Roland Perry

Post by tim...

I'm not sure how many phones ever took the full size SIM.
Commercial considerations killed them off: the idea was that a
person would have a SIM, and be able to share/borrow a phone to use
But the networks wanted to tie people into having their own phone
(and contract) in particular not wanting a phone they'd subsidised
being used with a SIM from a rival network,

They solved that problem by having phones "network" locked
My "acquired" smart phone still is

Is still what. Locked? That's hardly unusual.

I know
but you seemed not to understand it as the solution to people "sharing"
phones by swapping SIMs in/out

Do keep up: "[Opportunities open up] Even on a locked phone because
(for example) GiffGaff and Tesco both use O2, and Virgin/Orange/T-Mobile
all share EE."

O2 locking also seems to die eventually by around 18-24 months but it
might depend on whether or not a 'phone was originally purchased
outright.

[tim...]

Then there's a few phones which need a "5v" SIM, and don't work with a 3v
one. Those SIMs are getting harder to find (some say that it's only
Pound-shop Orange SIMs these days,

Thinks

why would someone pay even as much as a pound for a SIM?


tim

[Roland Perry]

Post by tim...

Then there's a few phones which need a "5v" SIM, and don't work with
a 3v one. Those SIMs are getting harder to find (some say that it's
only Pound-shop Orange SIMs these days,

Thinks
why would someone pay even as much as a pound for a SIM?

Because that's what the shops charge, and stealing them is a crime.

I've paid as little as 1P for a SIM in Tesco, and both I and the
checkout assistant were surprised (the shelf was marked 99p)

But they've been trained to believe what the till tells them.

That came with some free data for the first month, so not merely a bit
of plastic needing topping up.

Sainsbury's Mobile used to have some offers (their project flopped and
they did desperate stuff to try to kick start it). One of which was to
give people who bought a phone there, a voucher for a £10 top-up. But
the till regarded a £10 SIM [with one month's credit pre-installed] as a
'phone', so they were effectively free.

[tim...]

Post by Roland Perry

Post by tim...

Then there's a few phones which need a "5v" SIM, and don't work with a
3v one. Those SIMs are getting harder to find (some say that it's only
Pound-shop Orange SIMs these days,

Thinks
why would someone pay even as much as a pound for a SIM?

Because that's what the shops charge,

Is it. Higher than I have seen, 50p earlier this week (forget where)

Post by Roland Perry
and stealing them is a crime.

Yes, very funny

Post by Roland Perry
I've paid as little as 1P for a SIM in Tesco, and both I and the checkout
assistant were surprised (the shelf was marked 99p)

My last one was sent to me for free

Post by Roland Perry
But they've been trained to believe what the till tells them.
That came with some free data for the first month, so not merely a bit of
plastic needing topping up.

I think my free one came with some credit. AIH that was worthless to me as
I only need it to convert a full sized SIM into a nano SIM.

Post by Roland Perry
Sainsbury's Mobile used to have some offers (their project flopped and
they did desperate stuff to try to kick start it).

They didn't do anything differently to others trying to enter the market

their problem was they came to the market too late

tim

[Roland Perry]

Post by tim...

Post by Roland Perry

Post by tim...

Then there's a few phones which need a "5v" SIM, and don't work
with a 3v one. Those SIMs are getting harder to find (some say
that it's only Pound-shop Orange SIMs these days,

Thinks
why would someone pay even as much as a pound for a SIM?

Because that's what the shops charge,

Is it. Higher than I have seen, 50p earlier this week (forget where)

99p is a common price, although Sainsbury's is sticking to £1:

<https://www.sainsburys.co.uk/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/gb/groceries/home
/sim-cards>

Post by tim...

Post by Roland Perry
and stealing them is a crime.

Yes, very funny

Post by Roland Perry
I've paid as little as 1P for a SIM in Tesco, and both I and the
checkout assistant were surprised (the shelf was marked 99p)

My last one was sent to me for free

Some of the networks will send a free SIM as a marketing exercise, it's
unlikely you'll get a retailer to send you a free one.

Post by tim...

Post by Roland Perry
But they've been trained to believe what the till tells them.
That came with some free data for the first month, so not merely a
bit of plastic needing topping up.

I think my free one came with some credit. AIH that was worthless to
me as I only need it to convert a full sized SIM into a nano SIM.

Post by Roland Perry
Sainsbury's Mobile used to have some offers (their project flopped
and they did desperate stuff to try to kick start it).

They didn't do anything differently to others trying to enter the market

Their main difference was self-service handsets on the regular shelves.
Tesco went for shop-in-a-shop, as did CPW in PC World and Best Buy.

Post by tim...
their problem was they came to the market too late

Not especially, also considering Tesco was in turmoil after moving
providers from Vodafone to O2. But their demographic was wrong for a
pure PAYG product.

[Clank]

Engineers didn't like creating designs for these ever smaller SIMs. It was a real PITA.
But it was what Marketing wanted

Nonsense! We wanted to create smaller, better, cooler handsets
just as much as "marketing" - and the ridiculous credit-card
sized SIM was a major barrier to that.

whereupon inserting the SIM was changed to require removing the
IIRC for the the phone that I had that took a full credit card size SIM you still had to fit it in under the battery

Indeed, and this was always a feature rather than a bug - it meant
we could confidently design the software stack to assume the SIM
it booted up with would never change (for as long as it was
running.) This mattered when you were coding for a 68k
derivative with memory measured in peanuts, and every byte
counted...

--

[tim...]

Post by Clank

Engineers didn't like creating designs for these ever smaller SIMs. It was a real PITA.
But it was what Marketing wanted

Nonsense! We wanted to create smaller, better, cooler handsets
just as much as "marketing" - and the ridiculous credit-card
sized SIM was a major barrier to that.

well yes

but I was referring to the move from standard to micro to nano SIMs

Post by Clank

whereupon inserting the SIM was changed to require removing the
IIRC for the the phone that I had that took a full credit card size SIM
you still had to fit it in under the battery

Indeed, and this was always a feature rather than a bug - it meant
we could confidently design the software stack to assume the SIM
it booted up with would never change (for as long as it was
running.) This mattered when you were coding for a 68k
derivative with memory measured in peanuts, and every byte
counted...

I don't recall working on "terminals" where memory was measured in peanuts

we had enough of it.

The problem was it wasn't very developer "friendly".

we still worked with PROMs and had to physically reprogram them each time we
changed the code.

tim

[Roland Perry]

Post by tim...

Post by Clank
Nonsense! We wanted to create smaller, better, cooler handsets
just as much as "marketing" - and the ridiculous credit-card
sized SIM was a major barrier to that.

well yes
but I was referring to the move from standard to micro to nano SIMs

I wondered if you were, despite you replying in a subthread about the
CC-sized SIMs.

Post by tim...
we still worked with PROMs and had to physically reprogram them each
time we changed the code.

Wow! Even back in the mid 80's we'd advanced to electrically
re-programming them, where I worked. Cutting those little links on the
PROM chip must have been really hard work for you.

In case you think I'm being facetious, I have seen ULA chips where a
small amount of [re]programming was done with a micro-scalpel.

[tim...]

Post by Roland Perry

Post by tim...

Post by Clank
Nonsense! We wanted to create smaller, better, cooler handsets
just as much as "marketing" - and the ridiculous credit-card
sized SIM was a major barrier to that.

well yes
but I was referring to the move from standard to micro to nano SIMs

I wondered if you were, despite you replying in a subthread about the
CC-sized SIMs.

Post by tim...
we still worked with PROMs and had to physically reprogram them each time
we changed the code.

Wow! Even back in the mid 80's we'd advanced to electrically
re-programming them, where I worked. Cutting those little links on the
PROM chip must have been really hard work for you.

you know that I didn't mean that

I meant that we had to take them off the board to reprogram them

none of this downloading into in situ flash, lark



tim

[tim...]

counted...I don't recall working on "terminals" where memory was measured
in peanuts
we had enough of it.

Ahh, POCSAG+ and 8051 microcontrollers with 256 bytes of RAM, how

well of course such devices were still available

and if you worked on a "cheap" or simple consumer product they would still
be used

but no-one used these for mobile (or cordless) phones

tim

[Someone Somewhere]

Post by Clank

Engineers didn't like creating designs for these ever smaller SIMs. It was a real PITA.
But it was what Marketing wanted

Nonsense! We wanted to create smaller, better, cooler handsets
just as much as "marketing" - and the ridiculous credit-card
sized SIM was a major barrier to that.

whereupon inserting the SIM was changed to require removing the
IIRC for the the phone that I had that took a full credit card size SIM you still had to fit it in under the battery

Indeed, and this was always a feature rather than a bug - it meant
we could confidently design the software stack to assume the SIM
it booted up with would never change (for as long as it was
running.) This mattered when you were coding for a 68k
derivative with memory measured in peanuts, and every byte
counted...

Which was a mistake as SIMs can be changed in other ways that doesn't
involve physically changing the SIMs...

[MissRiaElaine]

IIRC for the the phone that I had that took a full credit card size SIM
you still had to fit it in under the battery

I still have my old Orange mr30 that took a full size SIM. It still
worked the last time that I tried it, but the battery is now dead beyond
all possibility of resurrection :-(

Going back to dual SIM, whatever happened to the Orange system of two
numbers (Line 2) on a single SIM..? I had it for a while back in the
day, but ISTR Orange killed it off, I don't recall any other UK network
ever using it..?

[Roland Perry]

Post by MissRiaElaine
Going back to dual SIM, whatever happened to the Orange system of two
numbers (Line 2) on a single SIM..? I had it for a while back in the
day, but ISTR Orange killed it off, I don't recall any other UK network
ever using it..?

Orange had several innovative features, because it was really a product
aimed at SMEs, to use as a combined cordless PABX at the office, and
mobile when in the field. But with changes in marketing perspective (and
of course network ownership), most of them rotted away.

[Roland Perry]

Post by MissRiaElaine
I still have my old Orange mr30 that took a full size SIM.

That's odd. I still have my Nokia Orange that they launched the network
with, and that has the postage-stamp sized SIM.

[Anna Noyd-Dryver]

Post by Roland Perry

Post by MissRiaElaine
I still have my old Orange mr30 that took a full size SIM.

That's odd. I still have my Nokia Orange that they launched the network
with, and that has the postage-stamp sized SIM.

My friend’s first phone in uni (mid-‘90s) was a flip-front phone (with a
pull-out aerial too!) which took the huge sim. Pretty sure that was on
Orange.


Anna Noyd-Dryver

[Marland]

Post by Roland Perry

That's where the albeit fairly rare dual-SIM phone has a role.

Only, for some reason, rare in the UK.

The reason is obvious: so many phones are either SIM-locked to one
provider, or are fitted with SIMs on non-rollover tariffs, that the
opportunities for fitting a second true-Pay-as-you-go SIM are quite
limited.

I was quite surprised to find the DORO 2404 granny phone that was sold in
LIDl last year for £24.99
was dual Sim. As sold the purchaser was steered to Vodafone as it came
with VF PAY as you go
SIM in the package , but my own 3 SIM in the other slot worked fine which
is understandable
as having a dual SIM linked to one provider would pointless in most
circumstances.

GH

[Roland Perry]

Post by Marland
I was quite surprised to find the DORO 2404 granny phone that was sold
in LIDl last year for £24.99 was dual Sim.

Same with the unlocked Aldi "Workzone" ruggedised candy-bar. The one I
have is 3G, and the battery life is at least two weeks.

[MissRiaElaine]

Post by Marland
I was quite surprised to find the DORO 2404 granny phone that was sold in
LIDl last year for £24.99
was dual Sim. As sold the purchaser was steered to Vodafone as it came
with VF PAY as you go
SIM in the package , but my own 3 SIM in the other slot worked fine which
is understandable
as having a dual SIM linked to one provider would pointless in most
circumstances.

Not if you have a both a personal and a business number. It would be
similar to Orange's "Line 2" offering back in the day, which I found
quite useful. I was rather sad when they got rid of it. No other UK
network ever used it, as far as I know.

[Marland]

Post by MissRiaElaine

Post by Marland
I was quite surprised to find the DORO 2404 granny phone that was sold in
LIDl last year for £24.99
was dual Sim. As sold the purchaser was steered to Vodafone as it came
with VF PAY as you go
SIM in the package , but my own 3 SIM in the other slot worked fine which
is understandable
as having a dual SIM linked to one provider would pointless in most
circumstances.

Not if you have a both a personal and a business number. It would be
similar to Orange's "Line 2" offering back in the day, which I found
quite useful. I was rather sad when they got rid of it. No other UK
network ever used it, as far as I know.

Which is why I included the words “most circumstances “ rather than
stopping at “pointless.”

Another example would be a phone shared between two family members who wish
to share a phone but have their own contact number and list of contacts for
when they left home.
But that now basic cellphones are so cheap compared to 20 years ago the
convenience of having one each
available all the time has diminished that method of use.
My use of dual sims was with a work issued Nokia 6310i , I think it used an
adapter that clipped between the phone and battery but it was so long ago I
cannot remember for sure.
The firm wasn’t too bad about allowing limited and reasonable personal use
such as phoning home if delayed or even order a pizza to be collected on
the way back, but I preferred the freedom of being able to use my own
resources without restriction. There were also concerns that too much free
private use of a works phone
would attract the attention of the revenue men and be taxed as benefit in
kind.

My SIM was from Virgin on some sort of pay as you go / contract hybrid
that I cannot remember the name of but I think Roland Perry has mentioned
in the past.
The phone that came with it was actually more featured than the 6310 in
that it had a camera and colour screen and used the Symbian OS for features
making it vaguely intelligent rather than smart.

Using its SIM in the 6310 saved on the pocket clutter by not having to
carry two phones or more usefully the installed hands free car kit which
was tailored for the Nokia 6310 via a hard wired cradle could be used for
my personal number.
Now days the advent of blue tooth means using multiple phones on the same
in car hands free equipment
has also made the requirement to do that obsolete .

GH

[Roland Perry]

Post by Marland
My SIM was from Virgin on some sort of pay as you go / contract hybrid
that I cannot remember the name of but I think Roland Perry has mentioned
in the past.

iirc they call that "pay monthly". It's a bit like a post-payment PAYG
account, with no ongoing commitment such as you'd have with a classic
contract.

My only remaining Virgin SIM is classic pre-pay PAYG, and I think one of
the disadvantages of that was the roaming charges were very high,
whereas the "Pay Monthly" roaming was cheaper than most contract phones,
at least to begin with back in the day.

Because of my lifestyle at the time, the majority of my mobile calls
were made while I was abroad. (When in the UK, I had landlines at home
and in the office, and the railway commute was largely a long thin
not-spot).

[b***@nowhere.co.uk]

On Sun, 14 Jul 2019 10:21:44 +0100

Of course back when 2G phones first came out the SIM was on a card you could
switch cards easily in seconds but presumably that was deemed too convenient

I'm not sure how many phones ever took the full size SIM.

Probably all of the early 90s ones because the original 2G SIMs were only
available as a full sized card, there was no facility to pop the chip out into
a smaller form factor without using scissors.

for users whereupon inserting the SIM was changed to require removing the
battery and messing about trying to get some sum postage sized thing into a
tiny slot at an awkward angle.

That's more to do with shrinking phone sizes. It doesn't have to be that

Probably. Shame things have gone in the opposite direction since 2007.

Since when has buying PAYG SIMs for most networks ever been a problem? You

talk

as if they're a rarity.

Ones where the credit rolls over and you don't have to make a regular
calls to keep them alive, aren't quite as common as you claim. The
networks hate them because they tend to get used in "glovebox" phones
were they have all the costs of maintaining the number and the billing
records, for virtually no revenue.

Oh come on, its costs them precisely £0.00 to maintain a number, its simply
data in a database.

Then there's a few phones which need a "5v" SIM, and don't work with a
3v one. Those SIMs are getting harder to find (some say that it's only
Pound-shop Orange SIMs these days, although I have a very old T-Mobile
SIM which is compliant).

Never realised there were 2 types of chips. Presumably the 5V are the early
types of SIM?

[Someone Somewhere]

Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk

Ones where the credit rolls over and you don't have to make a regular
calls to keep them alive, aren't quite as common as you claim. The
networks hate them because they tend to get used in "glovebox" phones
were they have all the costs of maintaining the number and the billing
records, for virtually no revenue.

Oh come on, its costs them precisely £0.00 to maintain a number, its simply
data in a database.

And you are qualified to say that how? Who supplies the database, and
on what license terms (hint: it's often on a per slot basis) - and
that's before we get to the overall costs where there may not be a net
gain per subscriber, but they have to be paid anyway - the radio
network, the data centres, the backhaul, the support staff, customer
services, Ofcom, etc etc etc.

[b***@nowhere.co.uk]

On Thu, 18 Jul 2019 07:02:07 +0100

Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk

Ones where the credit rolls over and you don't have to make a regular
calls to keep them alive, aren't quite as common as you claim. The
networks hate them because they tend to get used in "glovebox" phones
were they have all the costs of maintaining the number and the billing
records, for virtually no revenue.

Oh come on, its costs them precisely £0.00 to maintain a number, its

simply

data in a database.

And you are qualified to say that how? Who supplies the database, and

I've work in IT and I've worked for a telecoms company in the past.

Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
on what license terms (hint: it's often on a per slot basis) - and

What license? If its a virtual network then yes, there may be a cost to
maintain a number though I doubt it because they're assigned in blocks anyway.
But otherwise no.

Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
that's before we get to the overall costs where there may not be a net
gain per subscriber, but they have to be paid anyway - the radio
network, the data centres, the backhaul, the support staff, customer
services, Ofcom, etc etc etc.

And how is that affected in the slightest by having unused numbers in a
database? By definition if its unused there will be zero support staff and
customer service costs. Perhaps you're not aware that there are no fixed
circuits with cellphone systems, a phone number is just a number, nothing more
and its not as if numbers are scarce.

[Someone Somewhere]

Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
On Thu, 18 Jul 2019 07:02:07 +0100

Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk

Ones where the credit rolls over and you don't have to make a regular
calls to keep them alive, aren't quite as common as you claim. The
networks hate them because they tend to get used in "glovebox" phones
were they have all the costs of maintaining the number and the billing
records, for virtually no revenue.

Oh come on, its costs them precisely £0.00 to maintain a number, its

simply

data in a database.

And you are qualified to say that how? Who supplies the database, and

I've work in IT and I've worked for a telecoms company in the past.

Clearly not in core networks. That's obvious.

Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk

Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
on what license terms (hint: it's often on a per slot basis) - and

What license? If its a virtual network then yes, there may be a cost to
maintain a number though I doubt it because they're assigned in blocks anyway.
But otherwise no.

So who does O2 etc buy their core network equipment from? How do they
charge the operator for their software, hardware and services?

Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk

Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
that's before we get to the overall costs where there may not be a net
gain per subscriber, but they have to be paid anyway - the radio
network, the data centres, the backhaul, the support staff, customer
services, Ofcom, etc etc etc.

And how is that affected in the slightest by having unused numbers in a
database? By definition if its unused there will be zero support staff and
customer service costs. Perhaps you're not aware that there are no fixed
circuits with cellphone systems, a phone number is just a number, nothing more
and its not as if numbers are scarce.

Oh dear. Firstly I am well aware of how mobile networks work, but to
answer your specific points numbers *are* scarce - look at the Ofcom
number list - there are very few unallocated ranges. Operators have
been profligate with number usage in the past and frankly we are running
out.

Off the top of my head, it's also not just a number, there will be
entries in the billing system, AuC/AAA, HLR/HSS, CRM, voicemail, VoLTE
TS, etc. Many of those vendors will be charging the operator on a per
subscriber basis. Those systems also have a finite capacity per
instance, so at some point an additional subscriber will cause the need
for a large capital expenditure for a new instance, plus the data
centre, power, cooling etc to host it.

[b***@nowhere.co.uk]

On Thu, 18 Jul 2019 10:13:30 +0100

Post by Recliner

Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
What license? If its a virtual network then yes, there may be a cost to
maintain a number though I doubt it because they're assigned in blocks

anyway.

Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
But otherwise no.

So who does O2 etc buy their core network equipment from? How do they
charge the operator for their software, hardware and services?

Feel free to explain how any of that is relevant to individual phone numbers.
And O2 *are* an operator, they own the base station equipment.

Post by Recliner
Oh dear. Firstly I am well aware of how mobile networks work, but to
answer your specific points numbers *are* scarce - look at the Ofcom
number list - there are very few unallocated ranges. Operators have

Ofcom are quite capable of making more. There are potentially 999,999,999
numbers available in the UK. We had this argument 20 years ago when IP4
was "scarce". Suddenly a lot more addresses were found when needed. Its only
in the last few years they actually ran out.

Post by Recliner
Off the top of my head, it's also not just a number, there will be
entries in the billing system, AuC/AAA, HLR/HSS, CRM, voicemail, VoLTE
TS, etc. Many of those vendors will be charging the operator on a per

Which vendors will be charging O2 then?

Post by Recliner
subscriber basis. Those systems also have a finite capacity per

Oh FFS, you can buy terabyte consumer drives for a few hundred quid now, never
mind the ones used by large corps.

Post by Recliner
instance, so at some point an additional subscriber will cause the need
for a large capital expenditure for a new instance, plus the data
centre, power, cooling etc to host it.

Yes, I'm sure unused numbers means a new data centre would be required.

[Roland Perry]

Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
O2 *are* an operator, they own the base station equipment.

Sure about that? It's not uncommon for it to be outsourced to people
like Ericsson.

[MissRiaElaine]

Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk

Ones where the credit rolls over and you don't have to make a regular
calls to keep them alive, aren't quite as common as you claim. The
networks hate them because they tend to get used in "glovebox" phones
were they have all the costs of maintaining the number and the billing
records, for virtually no revenue.

Oh come on, its costs them precisely £0.00 to maintain a number, its simply
data in a database.

And you are qualified to say that how?  Who supplies the database, and
on what license terms (hint: it's often on a per slot basis) - and
that's before we get to the overall costs where there may not be a net
gain per subscriber, but they have to be paid anyway - the radio
network, the data centres, the backhaul, the support staff, customer
services, Ofcom, etc etc etc.

Ok, answer me this -if the networks hate PAYG so much, why does it still
exist..?

[Someone Somewhere]

Post by MissRiaElaine

Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk

Ones where the credit rolls over and you don't have to make a regular
calls to keep them alive, aren't quite as common as you claim. The
networks hate them because they tend to get used in "glovebox" phones
were they have all the costs of maintaining the number and the billing
records, for virtually no revenue.

Oh come on, its costs them precisely £0.00 to maintain a number, its simply
data in a database.

And you are qualified to say that how?  Who supplies the database, and
on what license terms (hint: it's often on a per slot basis) - and
that's before we get to the overall costs where there may not be a net
gain per subscriber, but they have to be paid anyway - the radio
network, the data centres, the backhaul, the support staff, customer
services, Ofcom, etc etc etc.

Ok, answer me this -if the networks hate PAYG so much, why does it still
exist..?

They don't hate it - they, like any other business, like less those who
spend less than others.

Plenty of PAYG customers spend reasonable amount of money. They like
those customers.

Those customers who think it's reasonable to spend £1/year on having an
"emergency phone" cost the operators more money than the revenue they
provide (for reasons we've been in and out of at least twice in the last
month). For obvious commercial reasons they like those customers less.

[Roland Perry]

if the networks hate PAYG so much, why does it still exist..?

PAYG exists, like it always has, to fill a gap in the market for
customers who want a phone but aren't credit-worthy enough to qualify
for a contract (and thus present a risk they are walking out of a shop
with £500 of brand new phone and will never be heard of again).

The problem for the networks (and this is true of many kinds of
discounted market-priced rail tickets as well) that credit-worthy
cheapskates[1] see an opportunity to abstract revenue from the system
by reducing their expenditure via a carefully chosen SIM-free phone
plus tariff package.

As I think I mentioned before, the first and most egregious example that
came to light was "glove box phones" which very likely only send £10 of
revenue to the networks in their entire lifetime.

Networks have tried hard over the years to introduce their equivalent of
"standing charges" to fight back a little bit. One I'll be writing about
later (in more detail) in another subthread, is the O2 requirement that
PAYG phones wanting to use the tube Wifi are topped up at least once a
month.

[1] And I'll happily admit I'm one of those.

[Recliner]

Post by Roland Perry

if the networks hate PAYG so much, why does it still exist..?

PAYG exists, like it always has, to fill a gap in the market for
customers who want a phone but aren't credit-worthy enough to qualify
for a contract (and thus present a risk they are walking out of a shop
with £500 of brand new phone and will never be heard of again).
The problem for the networks (and this is true of many kinds of
discounted market-priced rail tickets as well) that credit-worthy
cheapskates[1] see an opportunity to abstract revenue from the system
by reducing their expenditure via a carefully chosen SIM-free phone
plus tariff package.
As I think I mentioned before, the first and most egregious example that
came to light was "glove box phones" which very likely only send £10 of
revenue to the networks in their entire lifetime.
Networks have tried hard over the years to introduce their equivalent of
"standing charges" to fight back a little bit. One I'll be writing about
later (in more detail) in another subthread, is the O2 requirement that
PAYG phones wanting to use the tube Wifi are topped up at least once a
month.

I seem to recall that it's the same with Virgin itself: PAYG customers can
only use the Virgin Tube WiFi if they topped up their account with at least
£10 the previous month.

Post by Roland Perry
[1] And I'll happily admit I'm one of those.

[b***@nowhere.co.uk]

On Thu, 18 Jul 2019 15:18:47 +0100

Post by Roland Perry

if the networks hate PAYG so much, why does it still exist..?

PAYG exists, like it always has, to fill a gap in the market for
customers who want a phone but aren't credit-worthy enough to qualify
for a contract (and thus present a risk they are walking out of a shop
with £500 of brand new phone and will never be heard of again).
The problem for the networks (and this is true of many kinds of

A problem they created for themselves so I won't be shedding any tears. They
wanted to attract as many people as possible and they did.

[MissRiaElaine]

Post by Roland Perry
Networks have tried hard over the years to introduce their equivalent of
"standing charges" to fight back a little bit. One I'll be writing about
later (in more detail) in another subthread, is the O2 requirement that
PAYG phones wanting to use the tube Wifi are topped up at least once a
month.

A standing charge equals a contract. Making someone top up monthly is
effectively forcing them onto one in all but name.

Post by Roland Perry
[1] And I'll happily admit I'm one of those.

Ditto. My primary reason is I detest spending money unnecessarily (no,
I'm not Scottish, although I do live here..!) - why should I pay £xx a
month for a phone when I don't make many calls..? To me, a mobile is an
emergency device - if I break down in the middle of nowhere (not hard in
this part of the world) then I need to be able to contact someone.

If I want to ring a friend for a chat, or see how my mother is doing, it
can wait until I'm home. My landline package includes all calls to
landlines and mobiles, and is better value than any mobile contract I've
so far come across. I need the landline for broadband, so it makes sense
to use it and reserve the mobile for essential calls when away from home.

I really do wonder what all these people I see walking along the street
with their heads buried in their so-called "smart" phones are doing. Can
they really not survive ten minutes without checking FarceBuke or
Twitface..? How can they see what's on the screen anyway..? Whenever I
tried to use mine in daylight I couldn't see the thing at all..!

[Recliner]

Post by MissRiaElaine

Post by Roland Perry
Networks have tried hard over the years to introduce their equivalent of
"standing charges" to fight back a little bit. One I'll be writing about
later (in more detail) in another subthread, is the O2 requirement that
PAYG phones wanting to use the tube Wifi are topped up at least once a
month.

A standing charge equals a contract. Making someone top up monthly is
effectively forcing them onto one in all but name.

Post by Roland Perry
[1] And I'll happily admit I'm one of those.

Ditto. My primary reason is I detest spending money unnecessarily (no,
I'm not Scottish, although I do live here..!) - why should I pay £xx a
month for a phone when I don't make many calls..? To me, a mobile is an
emergency device - if I break down in the middle of nowhere (not hard in
this part of the world) then I need to be able to contact someone.
If I want to ring a friend for a chat, or see how my mother is doing, it
can wait until I'm home. My landline package includes all calls to
landlines and mobiles, and is better value than any mobile contract I've
so far come across. I need the landline for broadband, so it makes sense
to use it and reserve the mobile for essential calls when away from home.

It's unusual for a land line package to include unlimited calls, 24x7, to
both land lines and mobiles. Conversely, even quite cheap mobile packages
(eg, £7pm) include generous (eg, 1500) numbers of minutes, 24x7, to both
land lines and mobiles.

Consequently, many people now only use their mobiles, with no land line
phone installed (even if they have to pay for the line as part of their
broadband). With FTTP lines, it's the VoIP land line that's the cheap
optional extra (£2pm in my case).

Post by MissRiaElaine
I really do wonder what all these people I see walking along the street
with their heads buried in their so-called "smart" phones are doing. Can
they really not survive ten minutes without checking FarceBuke or
Twitface..? How can they see what's on the screen anyway..? Whenever I
tried to use mine in daylight I couldn't see the thing at all..!

I think many of them are just playing games. Or they're in WhatsApp. If
walking along, maybe they're using it for navigation?

[MissRiaElaine]

Post by Recliner
It's unusual for a land line package to include unlimited calls, 24x7, to
both land lines and mobiles. Conversely, even quite cheap mobile packages
(eg, £7pm) include generous (eg, 1500) numbers of minutes, 24x7, to both
land lines and mobiles.

We're with Sky for FTTC broadband and landline (no TV). Monthly rate is
£35 all in, although I have to admit that was a 'negotiated' rate after
we threatened to leave ;-)

Who is the £7 a month with..? The cheapest mobile contract I can
immediately find just looking quickly was £10 with Three, for two of us
that's £20. Given that we *need* a landline to get broadband, it's a
no-brainer. Also, Three is a lousy signal around here anyway, so there
is little or no chance of using mobile broadband (my experience of it
even in good signal areas is patchy, so zero chance of video streaming etc.)

What do these people with no landlines *do* for their broadband..? They
haven't *all* got VM - even if we wanted that we couldn't have it, as
they don't serve this area and AFAIK have no immediate plans to. And as
I said, mobile broadband in my experience anyway isn't exactly speedy.

[Recliner]

Post by MissRiaElaine

Post by Recliner
It's unusual for a land line package to include unlimited calls, 24x7, to
both land lines and mobiles. Conversely, even quite cheap mobile packages
(eg, £7pm) include generous (eg, 1500) numbers of minutes, 24x7, to both
land lines and mobiles.

We're with Sky for FTTC broadband and landline (no TV). Monthly rate is
£35 all in, although I have to admit that was a 'negotiated' rate after
we threatened to leave ;-)
Who is the £7 a month with..?

Virgin (which uses the EE network):
<https://www.virginmedia.com/mobile/sim-only/pay-monthly-sim>

Post by MissRiaElaine
The cheapest mobile contract I can
immediately find just looking quickly was £10 with Three, for two of us
that's £20. Given that we *need* a landline to get broadband, it's a
no-brainer.

Luckily I no longer need an Openreach phone line to get broadband, and no,
I don't use VM. And my speeds are now much higher, particularly for upload:
<https://www.flickr.com/photos/recliner/48256450187/in/dateposted/>

Post by MissRiaElaine
Also, Three is a lousy signal around here anyway, so there
is little or no chance of using mobile broadband (my experience of it
even in good signal areas is patchy, so zero chance of video streaming etc.)

Yes, it's very location dependent.

Post by MissRiaElaine
What do these people with no landlines *do* for their broadband..? They
haven't *all* got VM - even if we wanted that we couldn't have it, as
they don't serve this area and AFAIK have no immediate plans to. And as
I said, mobile broadband in my experience anyway isn't exactly speedy.

They probably just use mobile data on their phones if out of WiFi range.

[Anna Noyd-Dryver]

Post by MissRiaElaine

Post by Recliner
It's unusual for a land line package to include unlimited calls, 24x7, to
both land lines and mobiles. Conversely, even quite cheap mobile packages
(eg, £7pm) include generous (eg, 1500) numbers of minutes, 24x7, to both
land lines and mobiles.

We're with Sky for FTTC broadband and landline (no TV). Monthly rate is
£35 all in, although I have to admit that was a 'negotiated' rate after
we threatened to leave ;-)
Who is the £7 a month with..? The cheapest mobile contract I can
immediately find just looking quickly was £10 with Three, for two of us
that's £20. Given that we *need* a landline to get broadband, it's a
no-brainer. Also, Three is a lousy signal around here anyway, so there
is little or no chance of using mobile broadband (my experience of it
even in good signal areas is patchy, so zero chance of video streaming etc.)
What do these people with no landlines *do* for their broadband..? They
haven't *all* got VM - even if we wanted that we couldn't have it, as
they don't serve this area and AFAIK have no immediate plans to. And as
I said, mobile broadband in my experience anyway isn't exactly speedy.

I have a landline installed but it’s never had a telephone connected to it.
In the previous place I lived, I did have a telephone connected, and the
only calls I ever received were for previous users of that number.


Anna Noyd-Dryver

[MissRiaElaine]

Post by Anna Noyd-Dryver
I have a landline installed but it’s never had a telephone connected to it.
In the previous place I lived, I did have a telephone connected, and the
only calls I ever received were for previous users of that number.

If you have a landline, surely it's cheaper to use it for calls than a
mobile..? For us, it's still cheaper to use our landline than a mobile.
As I said, a mobile is an emergency device for us, 99.9% of the calls we
make can wait until we're home.

We're now on the O2 classic PAYG, no monthly top-up required, just a
call or text every 6 months. 3p/min for calls, 2p/text and 1p/MB data
(which never gets used as the 6310i doesn't do this new-fangled interweb..!)

My other half once made £20 last 4 years..! I've not quite done that,
but I've come close. Why spend money you don't have to..? We might
possibly be able to do without a landline if we didn't need broadband,
but since we do, and we get inclusive calls at a good price, it makes
sense to use it rather than spend oodles on a mobile contract.

[bob]

Post by MissRiaElaine

Post by Anna Noyd-Dryver
I have a landline installed but it’s never had a telephone connected to it.
In the previous place I lived, I did have a telephone connected, and the
only calls I ever received were for previous users of that number.

If you have a landline, surely it's cheaper to use it for calls than a
mobile..? For us, it's still cheaper to use our landline than a mobile.

For me the reverse is the case. The mobile comes with unlimited free
minutes and SMS including to mobiles, something the landline doesn’t offer,
so the landline is more expensive to use.

Robin

[MissRiaElaine]

Post by bob

Post by MissRiaElaine

Post by Anna Noyd-Dryver
I have a landline installed but it’s never had a telephone connected to it.
In the previous place I lived, I did have a telephone connected, and the
only calls I ever received were for previous users of that number.

If you have a landline, surely it's cheaper to use it for calls than a
mobile..? For us, it's still cheaper to use our landline than a mobile.

For me the reverse is the case. The mobile comes with unlimited free
minutes and SMS including to mobiles, something the landline doesn’t offer,
so the landline is more expensive to use.

But how much per month are you paying for each..? For us it's a total of
£35 for FTTC broadband (average speed 45 Mb/s) plus a landline with
unlimited calls to landlines and mobiles.

Mobile costs are virtually zero, as we only use them for urgent calls.

[Recliner]

Post by MissRiaElaine

Post by bob

Post by MissRiaElaine

Post by Anna Noyd-Dryver
I have a landline installed but it’s never had a telephone connected to it.
In the previous place I lived, I did have a telephone connected, and the
only calls I ever received were for previous users of that number.

If you have a landline, surely it's cheaper to use it for calls than a
mobile..? For us, it's still cheaper to use our landline than a mobile.

For me the reverse is the case. The mobile comes with unlimited free
minutes and SMS including to mobiles, something the landline doesn’t offer,
so the landline is more expensive to use.

But how much per month are you paying for each..? For us it's a total of
£35 for FTTC broadband (average speed 45 Mb/s) plus a landline with
unlimited calls to landlines and mobiles.
Mobile costs are virtually zero, as we only use them for urgent calls.

One of the current major advantages of mobile contracts is that your
monthly allowances can be used anywhere in the EU. So if you travel
frequently to EU countries, as I do, those included mobile minutes, texts
and data are more useful than any land line equivalents. Whether that will
continue post-Brexit, I have no idea.

[Arthur Figgis]

Post by MissRiaElaine
I really do wonder what all these people I see walking along the street
with their heads buried in their so-called "smart" phones are doing. Can
they really not survive ten minutes without checking FarceBuke or
Twitface..? How can they see what's on the screen anyway..? Whenever I
tried to use mine in daylight I couldn't see the thing at all..!

I often do wonder what all the people with their heads in so-called
"bukes" are doing. Can they really not survive ten minutes without
checking ppaer? How can they use them anyway..? When I tried to use one
in the rain it fell apart..!

[Anna Noyd-Dryver]

Post by MissRiaElaine

Post by Roland Perry
Networks have tried hard over the years to introduce their equivalent of
"standing charges" to fight back a little bit. One I'll be writing about
later (in more detail) in another subthread, is the O2 requirement that
PAYG phones wanting to use the tube Wifi are topped up at least once a
month.

A standing charge equals a contract. Making someone top up monthly is
effectively forcing them onto one in all but name.

Post by Roland Perry
[1] And I'll happily admit I'm one of those.

Ditto. My primary reason is I detest spending money unnecessarily (no,
I'm not Scottish, although I do live here..!) - why should I pay £xx a
month for a phone when I don't make many calls..? To me, a mobile is an
emergency device - if I break down in the middle of nowhere (not hard in
this part of the world) then I need to be able to contact someone.
If I want to ring a friend for a chat, or see how my mother is doing, it
can wait until I'm home. My landline package includes all calls to
landlines and mobiles, and is better value than any mobile contract I've
so far come across. I need the landline for broadband, so it makes sense
to use it and reserve the mobile for essential calls when away from home.
I really do wonder what all these people I see walking along the street
with their heads buried in their so-called "smart" phones are doing. Can
they really not survive ten minutes without checking FarceBuke or
Twitface..? How can they see what's on the screen anyway..? Whenever I
tried to use mine in daylight I couldn't see the thing at all..!

I’m usually posting to uk.railway in the few minutes I have between hours
of not being able to use my phone at all ;)


Anna Noyd-Dryver

[Roland Perry]

Post by MissRiaElaine

Post by Roland Perry
Networks have tried hard over the years to introduce their equivalent
of "standing charges" to fight back a little bit. One I'll be writing
about later (in more detail) in another subthread, is the O2
requirement that PAYG phones wanting to use the tube Wifi are topped
up at least once a month.

A standing charge equals a contract. Making someone top up monthly is
effectively forcing them onto one in all but name.

It's a slight discount, because the typical top-up would be £10 and the
typical contract £30. And because you can stop any time you like (apart
from some more recent hybrid plans that include a partly-subsidised
phone) it's not in any sense a "contract".

[Roland Perry]

Ones where the credit rolls over and you don't have to make a regular
calls to keep them alive, aren't quite as common as you claim. The
networks hate them because they tend to get used in "glovebox" phones
were they have all the costs of maintaining the number and the billing
records, for virtually no revenue.

Oh come on, its costs them precisely £0.00 to maintain a number, its simply
data in a database.

Ah, the marginal costs fallacy rears its ugly head.

That's even assuming there's facilities which aren't charged to the
operator on a per-number basis.

Then there's a few phones which need a "5v" SIM, and don't work with a
3v one. Those SIMs are getting harder to find (some say that it's only
Pound-shop Orange SIMs these days, although I have a very old T-Mobile
SIM which is compliant).

Never realised there were 2 types of chips.

Apparently here are three.

Presumably the 5V are the early types of SIM?

Yes, the original ones. And it seems there are few people still making
very cheap phones with [old] chipsets that are also only 5v compatible.

[b***@nowhere.co.uk]

On Thu, 18 Jul 2019 13:25:01 +0100

Post by Roland Perry

Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk

Ones where the credit rolls over and you don't have to make a regular
calls to keep them alive, aren't quite as common as you claim. The
networks hate them because they tend to get used in "glovebox" phones
were they have all the costs of maintaining the number and the billing
records, for virtually no revenue.

Oh come on, its costs them precisely £0.00 to maintain a number, its simply
data in a database.

Ah, the marginal costs fallacy rears its ugly head.

The only cost involved in an unused number is the cost to the user when the
phone company disconnects the SIM. The rest of it costs nothing because the
infrastructure would be needed regardless and linking a phone number to a
SIM id is probably a few hundred bytes or less in a DB. You could store the
entire UK phone book and every cellphone IMEI number on a USB stick with room to
spare never mind a fully fledged datacentre.

Post by Roland Perry
That's even assuming there's facilities which aren't charged to the
operator on a per-number basis.

O2 are not a virtual network.

Post by Roland Perry

Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
O2 *are* an operator, they own the base station equipment.

Sure about that? It's not uncommon for it to be outsourced to people
like Ericsson.

They may well have, but any charges relating to the physical layer RF systems
will have nothing to do with how many subscribers the network has in its DB
unless they have so many they need to upgrade.

[Roland Perry]

Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk

Post by Roland Perry

Ones where the credit rolls over and you don't have to make a regular
calls to keep them alive, aren't quite as common as you claim. The
networks hate them because they tend to get used in "glovebox" phones
were they have all the costs of maintaining the number and the billing
records, for virtually no revenue.

Oh come on, its costs them precisely £0.00 to maintain a number, its simply
data in a database.

Ah, the marginal costs fallacy rears its ugly head.

The only cost involved in an unused number is the cost to the user when the
phone company disconnects the SIM. The rest of it costs nothing because the
infrastructure would be needed regardless and linking a phone number to a
SIM id is probably a few hundred bytes or less in a DB. You could store the
entire UK phone book and every cellphone IMEI number on a USB stick with room to
spare never mind a fully fledged datacentre.

Let me know when you need a new spade, if that one wears out.

Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk

Post by Roland Perry
That's even assuming there's facilities which aren't charged to the
operator on a per-number basis.

O2 are not a virtual network.

Post by Roland Perry

O2 *are* an operator, they own the base station equipment.

Sure about that? It's not uncommon for it to be outsourced to people
like Ericsson.

They may well have, but any charges relating to the physical layer RF systems
will have nothing to do with how many subscribers the network has in its DB
unless they have so many they need to upgrade.

Ditto. Or are you an expert in the fees charged for outsourcing, now?

[b***@nowhere.co.uk]

On Sun, 14 Jul 2019 10:35:20 +0100

On Sun, 14 Jul 2019 07:42:38 +0100

Post by Roland Perry

That's where the albeit fairly rare dual-SIM phone has a role.

Only, for some reason, rare in the UK.

The reason is obvious: so many phones are either SIM-locked to one
provider, or are fitted with SIMs on non-rollover tariffs, that the
opportunities for fitting a second true-Pay-as-you-go SIM are quite
limited.

Of course back when 2G phones first came out the SIM was on a card you
could
switch cards easily in seconds but presumably that was deemed too
convenient
for users

it mitigated against the demand for ever smaller phones, but I'm sure you
knew that really.
Engineers didn't like creating designs for these ever smaller SIMs. It was
a real PITA. But it was what Marketing wanted

whereupon inserting the SIM was changed to require removing the
battery

IIRC for the the phone that I had that took a full credit card size SIM you
still had to fit it in under the battery

I had a motorola M400. The card was a seperate slot and the battery could
stay connected while you changed them. The instruction booklet said you should
switch the phone off before swapping SIM cards but I did it with it switched
on for years and the phone was no worse for wear. I've still got it in a
cupboard, could probably get a few quid from a museaum for it now.

An interesting thing about these early 2G phones were the fake antennas.
Apparently users expected a "proper" antenna so they added in a plastic pull
out one that actually did nothing.

[MissRiaElaine]

Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
An interesting thing about these early 2G phones were the fake antennas.
Apparently users expected a "proper" antenna so they added in a plastic pull
out one that actually did nothing.

My Motorola mr30 had one of those. It got broken off quite early on, but
the phone still worked fine..! Still have it, although the battery is no
more :-(

[b***@nowhere.co.uk]

On Thu, 18 Jul 2019 14:38:40 +0100

Post by MissRiaElaine

Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
An interesting thing about these early 2G phones were the fake antennas.
Apparently users expected a "proper" antenna so they added in a plastic pull
out one that actually did nothing.

My Motorola mr30 had one of those. It got broken off quite early on, but
the phone still worked fine..! Still have it, although the battery is no
more :-(

The Motorola NiMH batteries had a depressingly short life. Both of mine (the
phone came with 2) were done within 3 or so years. I replaced them with NiCads
which lasted longer but unfortunately were larger and heavier.

[MissRiaElaine]

Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
The Motorola NiMH batteries had a depressingly short life. Both of mine (the
phone came with 2) were done within 3 or so years. I replaced them with NiCads
which lasted longer but unfortunately were larger and heavier.

Whereas the Li-Ion (Li-Polymer to be accurate) batteries that came with
my two Nokia 6310i's are still going strong after almost 20 years. One
is known to be from December 2000, as I wrote the date on it. I still
get a week on standby.