[BC660K] AT+COPS=? returns "ERROR ue busy"

Technical Subjects
1

I am trying to run the AT+COPS=? on the BC660K and it is returning error:

ati
Quectel_Ltd
Quectel_BC660K-GL
Revision: BC660KGLAAR01A04

at+cops?
at+cops?
+COPS: 0,2,"72404",9
 
OK

at+cops=?
ERROR


at+cops=?
ERROR

at+cops=?
ERROR

at+cmee=2
OK

at+cops=?
+CME ERROR: ue busy


at+cops=?
+CME ERROR: ue busy

If I enable the AT+CMEE=2 then it reports ue busy

Info: The module is fine, it is connected to the network, and data traffic is working fine.

UPDATE 1: I’ve noticed that if I leave the module for some minutes without doing anything, and I issue the at+cops=? it reports only the ERROR word. Then, If I run again, it reports the ERROR: ue busy

2

Is the query or execution of other AT Commands normal?

3

Hello @herbert.pan-Q .

Yes, everything is normal, any other command I can run normally.

But, the AT+COPS=? is causing the issue. If I leave the module without running any command, and then I run the AT+COPS=?, it will take about 3 seconds to return the ERROR. Then, if I run again, it will return the message ERROR ue busy.

4

you execute the AT + COPS =? What is the purpose of?

5

Want to see the neighbor cells, because that information is relevant to us.

6

I flashed the stock firmware and the AT+COPS=?took about 3 minutes to run, then failed.
After that, I ran then the AT+CGATT=1 to connect to the network.

After a while, the module got IP.

Once the IP was received, I ran again the AT+COPS=?, and after around 3 minutes, the command returned the neighbor cells:

at+cops=?
+COPS: (2,"","","72404",9),(0,"","","72499",9),(0,"","","72406",9),,(0-4),(0-2)

I suspect that in the FW I am developing, I am not giving enough time (timeout is shorter than 3 minutes) and that is why it is returning the error.

Will check and post here.

7

Update 1: I ran again the AT+COPS=? before the module gets the IP, and it took about 3 minutes and returned the neighbor cells (same as above).

So, yes, I suspect the problem is in my Firmware, due to the timeout being less than 3 minutes. I gonna verify and post here the results.

8

Yes, the problem was that the timeout I was specifying in the FW being developed was too short.

I increased the timeout accordingly, and now it is working fine.