Re: SPCC migration

> By the way, if you want a patch to Kannel that will provide CIMD2
> > billing using TC/SD parameters the way Smart requires it, go here and
> > download my patch (which was rejected):
> 
> Why do you have to explicitly mention it was rejected(sourgraping?)? I
> made my own patch to TC/SD and the billing info for EMI/UCP(for Globe)
> as well a couple of years ago and since it's for our very own use I
> don't see any need for pushing my patch to the kannel's cvs just to say
> I am a Kannel committer. I understand Kannel for not accepting that
> patch. As far as I can remember, the whole plan was to built a full-fix
> billing interface, that is acceptable globally not just for
> Philippine-base content provider's problem with local telcos. Since
> billing is not really kannel's main concern the billing interface is
> being considered a submodule so it doesn't really fit in to Kannel's
> main purpose.
> 
> 
> > 
> > http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.mobile.kannel.devel/19470/
> > 
> > > 2.)	Concat Message
> > > 
> > > 	Message with Tariffs  All concat messages are not delivered to 
> > > subscriber.  Remaining CDRs of concat message should not be sent anymore to 
> > > SPCC for pre-credit checking. No deduction of any kind from subscriber 
> > > balance.
> > > 
> > > 	Message with 0 Tariff  Message is delivered to subscriber.  No 
> > > deduction from subscribers balance.
> > 
> > One of my main problems with Kannel is that it puts billing information
> > on all message fragments in a concatenated message.  Is that standard
> > practice with mobile carriers in the rest of the world?  Certainly the
> > mobile carriers here in the Philippines don't like it when you do that,
> > and recommend that you put billing information only in the first
> > fragment of a concatenated message, and set it zero in the remaining
> > pieces.  I had to write a patch that fixed this behavior for our
> > deployments.  If people think that this should be incorporated into the
> > Kannel mainline, I'll post it to the list.
> 
> Count me off, i don't think it is necessary to be in the Kannel's
> mainline because it's regionally bias. Actually, Kannel's concatenation
> is the right thing to do. You have to understand the politics of the
> local telco as to why you are being asked to do it diffrently. One
> reason probably is report generation (DRs) they don't want to rewrite
> some of their homegrown systems just to accommodate yours.
> 
> So please refrain from making "blindshots" to the maintainers for not
> accepting or asking the clamor of the list to elect that your fix should
> be included this is not Philippine politics.
>