If you subscribe to caller ID service with name display, you may have found that the name display feature that you pay for is broken on your N900.

This has been reported for Rogers and Fido, but likely affects other providers as well.

There is a bug posted, but it's unconfirmed, unassigned, has no priority, and the severity is set at the lowest available value.

If you care about this, please vote for the bug here:
https://bugs.maemo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9644

I'd love to vote for the bug, but the original bug opener is a true dickhead.

It's not priority and he clearly wants to stir trouble with Andre.

There are a few phones on the Rogers network, provided by Rogers, that don't support "Name Display". I can see this being tagged as WONTFIX, as it's not a GLOBAL issue at all - only a small handful of carriers support it.

I don't think that the fact that there are phones out there with broken support for caller ID is a good argument for not making it work in Maemo.

After all, there are phones on the Rogers network that don't support, e.g. web browsing. Does that mean that the N900 shouldn't support web browsing?

As for the drama on that bug report: would opening a different ticket in a nicer tone get you to vote for it, and for the devs to pay attention to it?

It won't be a community effort that fixes this, since, as far as I know, there is no way to intercept incoming signaling before it hits the baseband and is processed. Nokia has closed off access to the radio module.

The point I was trying to make, is that there are numerous handsets that don't support it, due to spec. Vanilla callerID works EXACTLY as it should, as per protocol spec.

What you're looking for is support to include GSM CNAP or WCNAM. If there's a way to snarf ALL signaling into pnatd, you might be able to capture it and display it. Most likely, this is going to have to be done by official Nokia developers that have access to binary blobs and the closed system.

Andre is right, it's a feature request and the guy that originally opened the issue is a complete lunchbox.

Sniffing dbus reveals, that no more information except the vanilla callerID is sent;

signal sender=:1.18 -> dest=(null destination) serial=2666 path=/com/nokia/csd/call; interface=com.nokia.csd.Call; member=Coming
object path "/com/nokia/csd/call/1"
string "+PHONENUMBER"

FULL SNIFF;

signal sender=:1.22 -> dest=(null destination) serial=50 path=/org/freedesktop/Telepathy/Connection/ring/tel/ring; interface=org.freedesktop.Telepathy.Con$
array [
struct {
object path "/org/freedesktop/Telepathy/Connection/ring/tel/ring/incoming723107722"
array [
dict entry(
string "org.freedesktop.Telepathy.Channel.InitiatorID "
variant string "+PHONENUMBER"
)
dict entry(
string "org.freedesktop.Telepathy.Channel.TargetHandleTyp e"
variant uint32 1
)
dict entry(
string "org.freedesktop.Telepathy.Channel.TargetHandl e"
variant uint32 4
)
dict entry(
string "org.freedesktop.Telepathy.Channel.TargetID"
variant string "+PHONENUMBER"
)
dict entry(
string "org.freedesktop.Telepathy.Channel.Requested"
variant boolean false
)


Whatever provides this information, is disregarding anything else.

As I've never even heard of Rogers and Fido I find it unlikely that this problem is bothering many people.

Surely this is only cause enough for Rogers and Fido not to include the N900 on its fully compatible handsets list?

I'n far from sure it's justification to re write the phone software to cope with something barely anyone uses, even Nokia has to funnel resources into activities that benefit as many users as possible. That's just the way it is inside mobile device companies....

Rogers and Fido (Well Fido is owned by Rogers) is 1 of 3 incumbent Canadian Wireless carriers. If this bug is true, it is very important for the Nokia team to fix it as this is a major market even if their network isn't the AWS 3G spectrum that the N900 is.

Your not Canadian you wouldn't know.

I've update the bug with a note that should clarify the difference between Caller ID (standard feature) and Caller Name (seems Rogers specific).

Aniello

I do not think the poster wants to stir trouble with Andre.
Actually he's been quite patient but didn't get the fact that neither Andre nor Venomrush got the real issue in the bug.
There's been a misunderstanding that I hope I have clarified with latest comment on the bug.

In the end, however, is not a bug. It's simply a missing feature that I think has to be agreed between Nokia and Rogers.

Aniello

Exactly that's the feature Rogers' asking customers to pay 2$/month for.
It's simply not implemented in the N900.
But I do not think the poster is a lunchbox (??) or whatever...

I still push the misunderstanding here.

Aniello