Re: Extending the mobile-broadband-provider-info database

[Marcel Holtmann <marcel holtmann org>]

Hi Dan,

> > In order to distinguish in between different kind of access point types of the 
> > same operator, there's a need to add a few tags, so the access point type 
> > (wap/mms/prepaid) could be reliably detected.
> 
> Yep, this is something I've thought about, and it's something we should
> do.  However, keep in mind that some APNs are both prepaid and postpaid;
> for example T-Mobile in the US uses the same APN for *all* subscribers
> and differentiates billing on the backend.  So we need to be careful
> here and not use the 'prepaid' type when we're not sure what the
> operator layout is.

we could just list the APN twice. Once as prepaid and once as postpaid.

However I do like to distinguish the general use like "internet", "mms"
and if anyone cares "wap" first. That should be all that is needed for
the type.

An extra field/flag for identifying the plan might be useful then.

> > Will adding the additional tags/tag specifiers bring any incompatibility 
> > problems for the software that already uses the database?
> 
> As long as the attributes we add aren't required, it should be fine to
> add them.  See the balance check stuff that was added a while ago; that
> was added in a compatible manner and existing tools simply ignore the
> new attributes.
> 
> > I am not an expert on XML, which would be the preferred way to add the tag?
> > 
> > 1.
> > <apn value="apn1" type="wap">
> > ...
> > </apn>
> > 
> > 2.
> > <apn value="apn1">
> > <type>wap</type>
> > ...
> > </apn>
> 
> I prefer #1 for this case.  Further things like this should probably not
> be part of the 'apn' tag though simply for readability.
> 
> > So the type would be the enumeration of values (internet|prepaid|wap|mms). 
> > Perhaps, there's no need to mark access points as "internet" (since the majority 
> > of them are "internet" anyway), just extending wap, mms, predaid with the proper 
> > tag would be sufficient. What do you think?
> 
> Yes, I think simply wap|prepaid|mms would be better.  There's also the
> distinction between datacard and phone internet APNs as some operators
> use one APN for home-based mobile broadband and another for phone-based,
> but I don't think we need to handle that for now.

The real problem with broadband vs phone usage is that we would need to
know what we are in the first place. However we might just going to tag
them properly and then the telephony stack can decide which on to take
or if user interaction is acceptable.

Regards

Marcel