Common NAM Performance Tweaks.

[vpr5703]

found some additional info on ACCOLC courtesy of Wikipedia and its associated references. Apparently it is utilized mainly in the UK, couldn't find ANY info on it being used here in the US. As such, it is primarily a GSN-based service. We have our own version, called "Natonwide Wireless Priority Service" dedicated to Executive personell, Disaster control, military command, public health, safety, emergency, services, and utilities people, and disaster recovery teams. to get onto this, you have to A. be authorized by National Communications System (part of the Dept of Homeland Security) and your carrier has to use it (optional for them.) I HIGHLY doubt it matters whether the ACCOLC is set in the handsets to 1 or 20, or anything in between. It is mainly a UK GSN feature, and as such, should not be used on our CDMA phones.

[sc00b4s7eve]

Originally Posted by vpr5703

found some additional info on ACCOLC courtesy of Wikipedia and its associated references. Apparently it is utilized mainly in the UK, couldn't find ANY info on it being used here in the US. As such, it is primarily a GSN-based service. We have our own version, called "Natonwide Wireless Priority Service" dedicated to Executive personell, Disaster control, military command, public health, safety, emergency, services, and utilities people, and disaster recovery teams. to get onto this, you have to A. be authorized by National Communications System (part of the Dept of Homeland Security) and your carrier has to use it (optional for them.) I HIGHLY doubt it matters whether the ACCOLC is set in the handsets to 1 or 20, or anything in between. It is mainly a UK GSN feature, and as such, should not be used on our CDMA phones.

Thats my thanks for your info.
I'm gonna test this out, cause mine came defaulted to 5 and I notice beter connect-call times now that I set it to 2.
I'm willing to beleive it's a placebo. but I'll post my findings/placebo effects.

[Lat]

I did a quick search for Canada's wireless priority

The Access Class in the SIM of an ordinary user is set to a random number
between 0 and 9. This number is used for network management. Wireless
network management could disable the access of one or more access
classes (having the effect of blocking 10% of call origination per 'Access
Class').
The SIM of a WPS user will be provisioned with one or more Access
Classes from 12, 13, and 14, depending on the Priority Level of the
Service User, in addition to one Access Class from 0-9.

Source: http://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/et-tdu.nsf/vwapj/wireless_priority.pdf/$FILE/wireless_priority.pdf


As I'm on Telus, and Telus already offers WPS, and my ACCOLC is already '9' (my phone # ends in that too), I think I'm set

[garciaop]

Originally Posted by RaydogPR

my Sprint phone ends in 1 so I went ahead and checked and low and behold my ACCOLCwas at 1 so I just left it alone

my phone number end with 3 and my accolc is 8
so i dont think is something to be with the nphone #

[Mswezey]

I'm on Sprint. Just read this whole thread... Pretty Confused if either 0-1 is the best or 9 is the best to set it to. A while back I set it to 2 from 9. Since then i've noticed it takes like 5 secs for my phone to connect to the network before it places the call. Most of the time ...
Just now changed it to 9, which I think is my default value being my last digit is also a 9.
Wow...my calls are placed awhole lot faster, and more successful then before at the 2.

Thats my experience. I think this thread needs hard proof evidence, not people going back and forth saying this and that. Lets see some real evidence. Sorry just being truthful, not trying to step on anybodies toes or hurt anyones feelings.

[Eigenbroetler]

Uh, yea... too many seasoned industry professionals claiming contradictory information. Don't get me wrong, I completely respect each person's background and input formed from that background--but it's frustrating and confusing.

Anyway, I had that same error another user had with the first MSL program: "Check Unlock code failed. Please input again." This was after inputing the MSL generated from my DECIMAL MEID. After checking and rechecking that I entered the correct Dec MEID, I tried the HEX one, and got a different MSL, which I guess makes sense... but BOTH MSLs give me that "Check unlock code failed" error.

I then downloaded that BAF MSL Grabber, and I get an error each time that says "MissingMethodException This application requires a newer version of the Microsoft .NET Compact Framework than the version installed on this device".

Ha, my luck!