Three Ireland soon providing Nokia Unlock Codes!

[quintron]

Originally Posted by Blaster99

I've never (to my knowledge) had a problem with "domestic" texts, and while I'm not a big text user I've surely texted all the networks by now. Are you still having problems with this?

Hi Blaster, I stopped sending texts on the three network a couple of months ago but a mate of mine texted me last week to say it is still happening to him sporadically when sending texts to Vodafone numbers. From what I've heard from my friends on the network it seems never to have been resolved satisfactorily.

Originally Posted by neilled

Like you I have a love hate relationship with three..... anyway if i recall correctly meteor did have issues with texts being sent to vodafone and went as far as to put an announcement in their newsletter to announce the issue had been resolved.

Thanks for that neilled. I wasn't aware of that.
Teething problems are fine and to be expected on any network.. in the first few months.
I'm glad that Meteor put it in a newsletter annoucement, thus acknowledging the issue and rectifying it.
I don't wish to "bag" on three but as I previously stated, passing the buck or failing to solve basic issues like this after 16mts is a problem for me.
3, unlike Meteor never flagged the persistant text repeater issue, or their attempts to resolve it, in an email to me or put it up as a notice on their website. When I called them each time the issue arose they discharged themselves of any responsibility, blaming vodafone for not acknowledging their gateway requests. Thats just annoying.

[neilled]

Thats true enough but three have never done a quaterly news letter for their customers (like meteor did) and nor do they have online account management which even meteor prepay users have.

[rogue-entity]

@Cmmdr Vimes: Again, I disagree.

and they should have hammered them out before they went live. the onus was on them to go to the networks and get these agreements and they didn't do it or three could have blocked them at their end. surely its easier for three to only forward texts to networks they have agreements with than to make every network in the world block unknown senders. so its blocking unknown destination rather than unknown sender. i'm sure there's a reason they don't want to block unknown senders anyway.

Three could have done that, so could Vodafone, O2 and Meteor, but none of them do that AFAIK. 3's attitude is (like the other operators) simply this. Text foreign networks at your own risk, if we have an agreement, it will work, if we dont, there is no guarentee. Most network gateways are closed to unknown senders anyway. And foreign network gateways should recognise a repeat message from he same sender and drop it if it has been confirmed received by the target handset to avoid wasting network bandwidth. You say, 3 should block outgoing messages to unrecognised destinations, that is more inefficient as 3 would have to maintain a list of country and area codes for the networks they peer with, as well as the individual numbers of customers that port from other networks. And this would only work in countries that have special area codes just for mobiles. This rules out the USA and Canada which not only share the same area codes and country code, but also use regular landline numbers for mobiles also. It is a lot easier to just attempt to send the messages and if they get blocked by the receiver, so what, if they dont get blocked by the receiver, the receiving network should acknowledge receipt. So I still say the problem is with the target networks not properly acknowledging inbound messages or more precisely, not setting up their SMS gateways properly.

@quintron:
When Eircell started the 087 network here, there were few if any roaming agreements with other countries. Then Digifone came into the market 11 years ago, and they had few agreements with any countries. International Texting didnt work well if at all. When Meteor started, they had no roaming at all, and they were miserable for about a year and a half before they were even worth using. 3 are no different. They aimed to have roaming agreements with most countries so that roaming would work from day0. They had 3 UK and T-Mobile UK and near Christmas 2005 they had the US as well as almost all the countries in europe even if they were just with the smaller networks. 3 are listening to their customers and many have complained as I have about not being able to text to the UK. But what can 3 do if the other networks in the UK decided, no. Their is no onus on 3 to have agreements with every fracking network accross europe before launching. All networks launch when most of their services are operational and bring the others online soon after. Roaming is like that.

3 is insignificant in terms of size and being 3G-Only. What incentive does Vodafone UK have an agreement with 3 Ireland, 3 customers benifit because they can use Voda UKs network and text most of the mobile users in the UK, but Voda UK doesnt benifit as much because network coverage isnt as great as Vodafone 2G.

I have never had any issues with local networks at all fortunatly. 3 did launch too soon and I dont deny this, but, you have to expect that a new network is bound to have a few glitches, I knew that there would be problems a la Meteor with 3 but those that I experienced were sorted after I called them, so, for me, they are the perfect choice, and I am sticking with them. I dont defend their locking procedure because I agree with all of you on that. I dont defend their walle garden because I think its pointless. But I do defend the problems they have which are outside their control.

Edit: Corrected my misplaced Quote Tag, sorry for the confusion CV

[Sam Vimes]

Originally Posted by rogue-entity

@Cmmdr Vimes: Again, I disagree.
and they should have hammered them out before they went live. the onus was on them to go to the networks and get these agreements and they didn't do it

this is what i said. i don't know if this is the part you were disagreeing with

Originally Posted by rogue-entity

Three could have done that, so could Vodafone, O2 and Meteor, but none of them do that AFAIK.

the problem was only happening to 3 customers so it was up to them to do something about it, not everyone else

Originally Posted by rogue-entity

3's attitude is (like the other operators) simply this. Text foreign networks at your own risk, if we have an agreement, it will work, if we dont, there is no guarentee.

a terrible attitude for a multinational corporation to have. and as i found out in amsterdam, there's no guarantee even with an agreement.

Originally Posted by rogue-entity

Most network gateways are closed to unknown senders anyway. And foreign network gateways should recognise a repeat message from he same sender and drop it if it has been confirmed received by the target handset to avoid wasting network bandwidth.

the problem was that the other network didn't recognise that three was sending a message so they never sent an acknowledgement.
if they could recognise that it had been received multiple times, they'd also be able to recognise that it had been received the first time. they'd just send an acknowledgement and there'd be no problem.

and again you're requiring every network in the world to change their software to accomodate 3.

Originally Posted by rogue-entity

You say, 3 should block outgoing messages to unrecognised destinations, that is more inefficient as 3 would have to maintain a list of country and area codes for the networks they peer with, as well as the individual numbers of customers that port from other networks.

you're suggesting every network in the world do the same thing. exactly the same list would be needed to recognise an unknown sender as an unknown destination

Originally Posted by rogue-entity

And this would only work in countries that have special area codes just for mobiles. This rules out the USA and Canada which not only share the same area codes and country code, but also use regular landline numbers for mobiles also.

not true. the network has a lot more information available to it than just the phone number. a phone number is like an ip address to them. the same way my ip address is associated with bt ireland, the phone number they're sending a message to is associated with a specific network. they know who they're sending it to and they also know if they have an agreement with that company. they could easily block it at source.


you know the way you hear a beep if you're ringing a 086 number that's not on o2?
that's because they know which network they're connecting to. they have to in order to connect the call.

Originally Posted by rogue-entity

It is a lot easier to just attempt to send the messages and if they get blocked by the receiver, so what, if they dont get blocked by the receiver, the receiving network should acknowledge receipt. So I still say the problem is with the target networks not properly acknowledging inbound messages or more precisely, not setting up their SMS gateways properly.

it may be easier technologically but still requires every network in the world to change to fix a problem that only 3 ireland is having.

they all have a way around this problem already. the way around it is to get an SMS agreement with them. 3 didn't do it

Originally Posted by rogue-entity

@quintron:
When Eircell started the 087 network here, there were few if any roaming agreements with other countries. Then Digifone came into the market 11 years ago, and they had few agreements with any countries. International Texting didnt work well if at all. When Meteor started, they had no roaming at all, and they were miserable for about a year and a half before they were even worth using.

to be fair, that was years ago. no one expected roaming. now they do

Originally Posted by rogue-entity

3 are no different. They aimed to have roaming agreements with most countries so that roaming would work from day0.

as is expected from a multi national network in this day and age

Originally Posted by rogue-entity

But what can 3 do if the other networks in the UK decided, no.

not attempt to send messages to them anyway

Originally Posted by rogue-entity

Their is no onus on 3 to have agreements with every fracking network accross europe before launching.

no there isn't. but if the other networks have told them they don't want to talk to them, they shouldn't keep trying. the other networks shouldn't have to physically block 3 from sending a message for a week straight because 3's staff never tolf their equipment that they don't have an agreement with that network

Originally Posted by rogue-entity

3 is insignificant in terms of size and being 3G-Only. What incentive does Vodafone UK have an agreement with 3 Ireland

not my problem. they should have got it done. and the incentive should have been bags and bags of money.

Originally Posted by rogue-entity

I have never had any issues with local networks at all fortunatly. 3 did launch too soon and I dont deny this, but, you have to expect that a new network is bound to have a few glitches

but to blame every other network for them....

Originally Posted by rogue-entity

But I do defend the problems they have which are outside their control.

this wasn't out of their control. 3 installed equipment that was incompatible with the world standard. it was their fault


i know what you're saying. it would have been better to set up the gsm network to block unknown senders but it was set up years ago and it wasn't done this way. unfortunate but 3 should have known this and set up their equipment accordingly, instead of blaming other networks for following the world standard

[rogue-entity]

Originally Posted by Commander Vimes

this is what i said. i don't know if this is the part you were disagreeing with

I edited my post again to fix that mistake, sorry, but I was disagreeing with that bit you said.

Originally Posted by Commander Vimes

the problem was only happening to 3 customers so it was up to them to do something about it, not everyone else

How do you know that only 3 customers experienced this issue, I have had sporadic texting issues with O2 as well, though I confess, I dont believe there were repeating texts from me, I used to get them alright from Vodafone numbers on occasion. I still do not believe that the problem is entirely 3's fault. 3 probably could have sorted it, and it probably has been by now, I have tried texting foreign numbers before and my nexts never went through at all so I never had the repeating text issue. It could easily have been that the foreign gateway DID have an agreement with 3, but they made a mistake in the configuration of the return path, so the acknowledgements were not received by 3. Thus, it isnt 3s issue but that of the foreign gateway. I dont know because I dont know what networks people were sending messages too and at what time they happened.

Originally Posted by Commander Vimes

a terrible attitude for a multinational corporation to have. and as i found out in amsterdam, there's no guarantee even with an agreement.
the problem was that the other network didn't recognise that three was sending a message so they never sent an acknowledgement.
if they could recognise that it had been received multiple times, they'd also be able to recognise that it had been received the first time. they'd just send an acknowledgement and there'd be no problem.

But as I said, Vodafone and O2 do this too AFAIK. At least, if I was on O2 or Vodafone and I tried sending a message to a foreign number, it would appear to send, I would expect to see "sending failed" for numbers that they do not have agreements with, but that never happened.

Originally Posted by Commander Vimes

and again you're requiring every network in the world to change their software to accomodate 3.

No, I am not. I am suggesting that every network in the world follow an acceptable standard. If they do not wish to forward international texts to their customers, networks should set their gateways to return an error to the sending gatway so that it will give up and not try and send again (presumably returning a sending failed message to the sender). If they are going to route texts, they should send an acknowledgement back to the sending gatway so that it does not attempt to repeat itself in the same way the destination email server will acknowledge the IP packets it receives that make up your email.

Originally Posted by Commander Vimes

not true. the network has a lot more information available to it than just the phone number. a phone number is like an ip address to them. the same way my ip address is associated with bt ireland, the phone number they're sending a message to is associated with a specific network. they know who they're sending it to and they also know if they have an agreement with that company. they could easily block it at source.

Well, if the networks have this additional information, then surely it isnt that difficult for a foreign network gateway to recognise a foreign text and either forward it to the customer on its network, sending an ack back to three, or dropping and ignoring it all together. I would assume this is standard practice.

Originally Posted by Commander Vimes

they all have a way around this problem already. the way around it is to get an SMS agreement with them. 3 didn't do it

An SMS agreement only insures that the foreign gateway will forward texts sent from 3. An agreement is not needed if the foreign gateway is going to forward such texts anyway which most probably do seeing as it costs them nothing.

Originally Posted by Commander Vimes

to be fair, that was years ago. no one expected roaming. now they do

Well, when Meteor launched, roaming was expected, and they didnt have a proper roaming service at all for nearly two years. But yet, no one remembers this when they whine about 3. In fairness, at least you have valid points.

Originally Posted by Commander Vimes

no there isn't. but if the other networks have told them they don't want to talk to them, they shouldn't keep trying. the other networks shouldn't have to physically block 3 from sending a message for a week straight because 3's staff never tolf their equipment that they don't have an agreement with that network

And that probably has happened. I suspect that Vodafone UK and Orange UK didint (yet) want to talk with 3, and you cannot text these networks customers from 3. I have tried texting my friends Vodafone number, and he has tried texting me, I can get his texts, but he cannot get mine. He has since changed to O2 which has an agreement, so texting is not a problem anymore. But the majority of networks I suspect havent even been approached by 3 Ireland yet, so they are either forwarding texts and acknowledging them, or blocking them (as Voda UK does).

Originally Posted by Commander Vimes

not my problem. they should have got it done. and the incentive should have been bags and bags of money.

Perhaps, 3, a corporation just like Vodafone, didnt want to spend bags and bags of money when it holds no major advantagage over its larger competitor O2, and its smaller competitor T-Mobile saw the incentive of having an agreement with a 3G network in Ireland for its 3G customers without paying what is probably a larger fee charged by Vodafone Ireland (if it even lets foreigners onto its 3G network). Who knows. I dont have any insight into these companies, but I can assure you, Vodafone will charge more and demand more, so they will probably be the last network in the UK to sign an agreement with 3 Ireland. Just as an example.

Originally Posted by Commander Vimes

but to blame every other network for them....

Meh, Vodafone does this as well.

Originally Posted by Commander Vimes

this wasn't out of their control. 3 installed equipment that was incompatible with the world standard. it was their fault

How is 3's equipment incompatible with the world standard, it uses the world standard UMTS 3G network system.

Originally Posted by Commander Vimes

i know what you're saying. it would have been better to set up the gsm network to block unknown senders but it was set up years ago and it wasn't done this way. unfortunate but 3 should have known this and set up their equipment accordingly, instead of blaming other networks for following the world standard

Well, I admit 3 could have worked around the issue, but foreign network gateways have a responsibility too, either send the message properly (as if you had an agreement) or drop it. That is how every network in the world should operate.

[Sam Vimes]

Originally Posted by rogue-entity

How do you know that only 3 customers experienced this issue

tbh i don't but if there was a widespread issue of texts repeating on other networks i think we all would have heard about it

Originally Posted by rogue-entity

It could easily have been that the foreign gateway DID have an agreement with 3, but they made a mistake in the configuration of the return path, so the acknowledgements were not received by 3. Thus, it isnt 3s issue but that of the foreign gateway. I dont know because I dont know what networks people were sending messages too and at what time they happened.

it happened with multiple networks. i think its more likely that it was the lack of agreements that caused it rather than dozens of networks all over the world had their equipment set up with exactly the same error which only affected one small network in ireland, thereby making it not that network's fault.

Originally Posted by rogue-entity

No, I am not. I am suggesting that every network in the world follow an acceptable standard.

yes you are. at the moment, they don't follow that standard so in order to follow it they would have to change.

Originally Posted by rogue-entity

If they do not wish to forward international texts to their customers, networks should set their gateways to return an error to the sending gatway so that it will give up and not try and send again (presumably returning a sending failed message to the sender).

as i've said, i agree with you. they should do it because this would be a better way. however, its not the way it has been implemented so every network would have to change. only 3 ireland seems to have a problem with the current standard so i see no reason for everyone else to change

Originally Posted by rogue-entity

Well, if the networks have this additional information, then surely it isnt that difficult for a foreign network gateway to recognise a foreign text and either forward it to the customer on its network, sending an ack back to three, or dropping and ignoring it all together. I would assume this is standard practice.

it would seem that its not because if it was there would have been no repeating texts. its not set up this way and 3 just has to deal with it rather than blame everyone else for not setting up the way they wanted.

Originally Posted by rogue-entity

Well, when Meteor launched, roaming was expected, and they didnt have a proper roaming service at all for nearly two years. But yet, no one remembers this when they whine about 3. In fairness, at least you have valid points.

i didn't expect it. they didn't even have proper coverage in ireland, let alone the rest of the world. they were some crappy little irish attempt at mobiles, not the mighty hutchison whampoa

Originally Posted by rogue-entity

Perhaps, 3, a corporation just like Vodafone, didnt want to spend bags and bags of money when it holds no major advantagage over its larger competitor O2, and its smaller competitor T-Mobile saw the incentive of having an agreement with a 3G network in Ireland for its 3G customers without paying what is probably a larger fee charged by Vodafone Ireland (if it even lets foreigners onto its 3G network). Who knows. I dont have any insight into these companies, but I can assure you, Vodafone will charge more and demand more, so they will probably be the last network in the UK to sign an agreement with 3 Ireland. Just as an example.

i don't care about 3's problems. i don't want my text to arrive on a business client's phone 1000 times because 3 didn't want to spend the money to get an agreement and didn't set up their equipment to compensate.

and i especially don't want them to blame everyone else for it instead of doing something about it

Originally Posted by rogue-entity

How is 3's equipment incompatible with the world standard, it uses the world standard UMTS 3G network system.

its incompatible in that it should know that it will not receive an acknowledgement from a network with which there is no agreement and accordingly, not send it 1000 times. i was in germany and i texted my mate who was around the corner. he got the text every ten minutes for two days

Originally Posted by rogue-entity

Well, I admit 3 could have worked around the issue, but foreign network gateways have a responsibility too, either send the message properly (as if you had an agreement) or drop it. That is how every network in the world should operate.

should, but don't. you're still expecting everyone to change to accomodate 3

[Redundant]

Hi guys I know you've had a bit of a time of it with multiple sms and unlock codes for the Nokia handsets, I've got some more bad news for you.

Three announced on Tuesday that it will be outsourcing all of it's customer service jobs (with the exception of sales and a few essential teams.) from their Glasgow contact centre.

This means that you will be dealing with India from 17th April 2007.
I know that you weren't too happy dealing with us in Scotland rather than an Irish call centre but things I can assure you will become alot worse.

After having worked for the company for 3 years I healt dealt with the fallout from the Indian contact centre. Have a check on www.3g.co.uk and you'll be able to see what sort of service you can expect from now on.

This is another example of 3 putting profit before customer service.
they won't pass the saving in wages onto the customer that's for sure.

You guys are the heaviest spenders in the European mobile market and this is how 3 reward you.

Get out now while you can!

[Sam Vimes]

Originally Posted by Redundant

Hi guys I know you've had a bit of a time of it with multiple sms and unlock codes for the Nokia handsets, I've got some more bad news for you.

Three announced on Tuesday that it will be outsourcing all of it's customer service jobs (with the exception of sales and a few essential teams.) from their Glasgow contact centre.

This means that you will be dealing with India from 17th April 2007.
I know that you weren't too happy dealing with us in Scotland rather than an Irish call centre but things I can assure you will become alot worse.

it goes from bad to worse. i never had a problem with you lot in scotland. i always thought you were pleasant and friendly but had no power to do anything and that wasn't your fault. i've only had to deal with mumbai once but it wasn't a pleasant experience.

Originally Posted by Redundant

Get out now while you can!

oh i intend to

[chrislad]

Out of curiousity, I have a query. Having worked in a mobile shop, I am quite aware of what a contract should look like as well as what you should be agreeing to when you sign it.

I signed my Three 'contract' in CPW in December. Basically, it was an order sheet with no mention of terms and conditions, no mention of my agreeing to a direct debit, no agreement to the terms of any contract in fact. It was basically an order form for a VideoTalk 400 tariff and phone which I scrawled my name on at the bottom in a blank empty space. No 'sign here for acceptance' or anything like that.

If I were to cancel the contract, would they have any leeway towards renumeration on my part because technically I've not signed anything legally binding, in my opinion.

[Sam Vimes]

Originally Posted by chrislad

Out of curiousity, I have a query. Having worked in a mobile shop, I am quite aware of what a contract should look like as well as what you should be agreeing to when you sign it.

I signed my Three 'contract' in CPW in December. Basically, it was an order sheet with no mention of terms and conditions, no mention of my agreeing to a direct debit, no agreement to the terms of any contract in fact. It was basically an order form for a VideoTalk 400 tariff and phone which I scrawled my name on at the bottom in a blank empty space. No 'sign here for acceptance' or anything like that.

If I were to cancel the contract, would they have any leeway towards renumeration on my part because technically I've not signed anything legally binding, in my opinion.

hmm, that is a point. 3 contracts are just print outs off a website and don't say the terms and conditions on them. you might have a case.

[zoro]

Right I'm pretty bloody angry with this crowd of wasters now. Along with others in this thread I'm only learning of this unlocking administration fee of 25e now, when I ring up looking for the code.

I'm told that they have to request the software for this unlocking code directly from the manufacturer, and that this is why I must pay the fee before they'll even have the code, let alone give it to me.

Total crap if you ask me. They have had the software for Nokias for the past 3 months (as I have just been told on the phone) so why am I paying for them to send off to Nokia for my own code?


Has anyone successfully fought their way past the customer care people to get their code for their own phone, without having to pay this money for no good reason?


*edit* Also, apparantly I agreed to a verbal contract by accepting the phone in the first place. There was (according to the monkey on the end of the phone ) an explanation of all this in the box along with my handset

[chrislad]

Verbal contract? Not worth the paper it's written on.

Might post this in Legal Issues.

[Cabaal]

Originally Posted by zoro

*edit* Also, apparantly I agreed to a verbal contract by accepting the phone in the first place. There was (according to the monkey on the end of the phone ) an explanation of all this in the box along with my handset

T&C's are included in the box with the phone, from what I remember there is something like a week period where you can return the phone etc without going into a contract

Its upto you to be aware of the T&C's and in them it states the 25e admin fee, signing upto a service without first reading and being aware of the T&C's attached to it is a very bad idea....after all would you get a loan from a bank without reading the terms of it?

[zoro]

I, like most consumers probably, presume that if I don't physically sign a contract, then I'm not bound to anything.
Obviously its a very naive thing to do, and I'll be alot more careful in the future

[chrislad]

Meh, regardless, I was sold the service under false pretences (ie being able to lower my tariff) so the contract has been broken on their part.