Originally Posted by prking:
“But I'd hope you would also accept that there may be people on here who have real world knowledge that they want to share.
You should also accept that not everything has an online source.
Over the years I've seen this 'You can't provide a link, so it must be wrong' attitude many, many times (I was telneting over JANET before the Web was invented) but its the first time it's been directed at me. If you want me to be honest I find it a little amusing.
I have mentioned your use of google, because it seems to me that you consider it, at the least, a way of justifying your point of view. I think you give too much weight to things you read online, which is why I suggested that you talk to some real people involved in the industry.”
I too have real world knowledge to share, the problem I have with your posts is you post things as fact with no supporting information, "it puts a strain on the network", highly unlikely and you haven't got that from anywhere or provided an explanation of why that would be the case, it's just made up.
O2 hasn't said that, nothing online suggests that's the case and from a technical standpoint it's an unsupportable claim too.
It will simply be a call placed to a system that connects to a call log database that is already in place and relays automated output. I work for an ISP and I have an understanding of how large infrastructure works, 1 little feature / system like this couldn't stress a network, especially if it's only used lightly.
I could understand them not wanting to replace such a system at great cost, or not carry on maintaining it, or wanting to replace equipment as part of a project and the new equipment not being able to support the feature, but not that it stresses the network, especially as you haven't given any information or reasoning behind the claim.
There was no technical explanation, no source, nothing and it was purely speculation on your part, but posted as if it were fact.