At+cops=? response numeric operator and alphanumeric operator codes do not agree

IoT Modules LPWA Module
1

Hi,

I have a BG95-M3 with an AT&T SIM giving this response to at+cops=?

+cops: (1,“311 490”,“311 490”,“311490”,8),(1,“Verizon”,“Verizon”,“311480”,8),(3,“AT&T”,“AT&T”,“310260”,8),(3,“T-Mobile”,“T-Mobile”,“310260”,0),(0,1,2,3,4),(0,1,2)

This part of the response does not make sense:
3,“AT&T”,“AT&T”,“310260”,8

310260 is T-Mobile, but the alphanumeric code shows AT&T.

We have seen this on more than one occasion. Where is the alphanumeric name derived ? From the SIM or the modem ? Might there be a bug in the modem ?

thank you

Sean Taylor

2

If it’s from the modem, the association will be wrong in the result from the AT+COPN command.

Both of your “310260” results are “3” (forbidden).

The 2G/GSM result does show “T-Mobile”.

It’s the NB-IoT entry that shows “AT&T”. Might this be a result of a roaming agreement?

3

Thanks for the quick reply !
The copn results look good (see below). The response is more troubling because the 310260 MCC/MNC is presented as two different alphanumeric network codes (AT&T and T-Mobile).

(3,“AT&T”,“AT&T”,“310260”,8)          <<< This is wrong.  This should say T-Mobile.
(3,“T-Mobile”,“T-Mobile”,“310260”,0)  <<< This is correct

I checked a BG95M3 and a BG95M1 and the at+copn output appears to be correct:

+COPN: "310030","AT&T"
+COPN: "310070","AT&T"
+COPN: "310090","AT&T"
+COPN: "310150","AT&T"
+COPN: "310170","AT&T"
+COPN: "310280","AT&T"
+COPN: "310380","AT&T"
+COPN: "310410","AT&T"
+COPN: "310560","AT&T"
+COPN: "310680","AT&T"
+COPN: "310980","AT&T"
+COPN: "311180","AT&T"
+COPN: "334050","AT&T"
+COPN: "334070","AT&T"
+COPN: "33490","AT&T"
+COPN: "901044","AT&T"

+COPN: "20416","T-Mobile NL"
+COPN: "22004","T-Mobile CG"
+COPN: "23001","T-Mobile CZ"
+COPN: "26002","T-Mobile.pl"
+COPN: "310026","T-Mobile"
+COPN: "310031","T-Mobile"
+COPN: "310160","T-Mobile"
+COPN: "310200","T-Mobile"
+COPN: "310210","T-Mobile"
+COPN: "310220","T-Mobile"
+COPN: "310230","T-Mobile"
+COPN: "310240","T-Mobile"
+COPN: "310250","T-Mobile"
+COPN: "310260","T-Mobile"
+COPN: "310270","T-Mobile"
+COPN: "310310","T-Mobile"
+COPN: "310490","T-Mobile"
+COPN: "310660","T-Mobile"
+COPN: "310800","T-Mobile"

Taken together it may suggest a computational bug in the BG95M3 that can lead to an incorrect network alphanumeric name being displayed (?)