Database Users

My N1 gets 3G on ATT

Hey guys..my friend who hooked me up with my original N1 gave me an HD2 and another N1...when I put an ATT sim in it I get the ATT logo for service and I also have 3G. My question is what model phone do I have?
thanks.

harsaphes said:
Hey guys..my friend who hooked me up with my original N1 gave me an HD2 and another N1...when I put an ATT sim in it I get the ATT logo for service and I also have 3G. My question is what model phone do I have?
thanks.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
if you get 3G with the N1 with ATT sim, then it is the ATT branded one; it wasn't made specifically for ATT (i believe it was made for one of the Canadian provider), which is compatible with the ATT 3G
btw, you have a great friend to hook you up with 2 N1 and a HD2; you should hook me up with one

thanks for the quick reply...and yes, she is a great friend.

harsaphes said:
and yes, she is a great friend.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Future wife

jblazea50 said:
if you get 3G with the N1 with ATT sim, then it is the ATT branded one; it wasn't made specifically for ATT (i believe it was made for one of the Canadian provider), which is compatible with the ATT 3G
btw, you have a great friend to hook you up with 2 N1 and a HD2; you should hook me up with one
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
No, the N1 that works on AT&T was made specifically for AT&T.
The HD2 that works on AT&T was made for Telstra... or you are thinking of any 3G phone made for Rogers.

jblazea50 said:
if you get 3G with the N1 with ATT sim, then it is the ATT branded one; it wasn't made specifically for ATT (i believe it was made for one of the Canadian provider), which is compatible with the ATT 3G
btw, you have a great friend to hook you up with 2 N1 and a HD2; you should hook me up with one
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
pjcforpres said:
No, the N1 that works on AT&T was made specifically for AT&T.
The HD2 that works on AT&T was made for Telstra... or you are thinking of any 3G phone made for Rogers.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You're both wrong? The Nexus One was made and sold unlocked, it has the bands 850/1900 which at&t and some canadian providers use, not specifically made for one carrier or another

https://www.google.com/phone/choose?hl=en&gl=US&s7e=
http://www.bing.com/search?q=nexus+one+for+at&t&src=IE-Address
How am I wrong? The AT&T compatible Nexus One was approved by the USA FCC, with the specific intent of it being sold as the AT&T compatible Nexus One. It does happen to work with other carriers, just as the T-Mobile version works with other carriers as well.
But there is no reason they would pay the money to get it approved by the USA FCC if it wasn't being sold specifically for AT&T customers.
As well, the Nexus One is made and sold unlocked with the option of T-Mobile 3G bands or AT&T 3G bands... those bands happen to work with other carriers as well, such as T-Mobile working with a Canadian carrier as well, just as AT&T works with another Canadian provider, plus both phones work with any carrier outside the North America... so was the T-Mobile version made for O2? Was it made for Vodafone? No, it was made for T-Mobile, just as the AT&T banded device was made for AT&T, and just happens to have carry over support for other carriers.

pjcforpres said:
https://www.google.com/phone/choose?hl=en&gl=US&s7e=
http://www.bing.com/search?q=nexus+one+for+at&t&src=IE-Address
How am I wrong? The AT&T compatible Nexus One was approved by the USA FCC, with the specific intent of it being sold as the AT&T compatible Nexus One. It does happen to work with other carriers, just as the T-Mobile version works with other carriers as well.
But there is no reason they would pay the money to get it approved by the USA FCC if it wasn't being sold specifically for AT&T customers.
As well, the Nexus One is made and sold unlocked with the option of T-Mobile 3G bands or AT&T 3G bands... those bands happen to work with other carriers as well, such as T-Mobile working with a Canadian carrier as well, just as AT&T works with another Canadian provider, plus both phones work with any carrier outside the North America... so was the T-Mobile version made for O2? Was it made for Vodafone? No, it was made for T-Mobile, just as the AT&T banded device was made for AT&T, and just happens to have carry over support for other carriers.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
maybe you are not aware of how the FCC testing process goes, but there are phones that are never even sold in the USA, like euro phones, or phones from the far east, that still go thru FCC testing, yet they dont even have the proper bands for the USA 3G networks.
so the nexus one was not specifically made to be released for ATT. i dont know where you're getting that info.

pjcforpres said:
https://www.google.com/phone/choose?hl=en&gl=US&s7e=
http://www.bing.com/search?q=nexus+one+for+at&t&src=IE-Address
How am I wrong? The AT&T compatible Nexus One was approved by the USA FCC, with the specific intent of it being sold as the AT&T compatible Nexus One. It does happen to work with other carriers, just as the T-Mobile version works with other carriers as well.
But there is no reason they would pay the money to get it approved by the USA FCC if it wasn't being sold specifically for AT&T customers.
As well, the Nexus One is made and sold unlocked with the option of T-Mobile 3G bands or AT&T 3G bands... those bands happen to work with other carriers as well, such as T-Mobile working with a Canadian carrier as well, just as AT&T works with another Canadian provider, plus both phones work with any carrier outside the North America... so was the T-Mobile version made for O2? Was it made for Vodafone? No, it was made for T-Mobile, just as the AT&T banded device was made for AT&T, and just happens to have carry over support for other carriers.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You're confusing "compatible" and "designed for".
Carrier 1 uses Frequency X
Carrier 2 uses Frequency Y
Just because a phone that works with frequency X doesn't mean it was created solely for carrier 1.
GSM is an "open" network unline sprint's and verizon's CDMA networks.
Take "world phones" as an example, they work on Carrier 1 and 2, but it wasn't designed specifically for either.

There is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING HW-wise in Nexus that is carrier-specific.
Nobody makes a phone for a specific carrier, carriers only brand phones. Phone is made for a range of networks, and Nexus has 2 options, basically - because it utilizes 1 of 2 chips, either QSD8650, or QSD8250, and those are adjusted for different ranges (specifically 850/1900/2100 or 900/AWS/2100). On the Google choice screen, read: "Compatible with XXXXXXXX".
There's 2100 coverage in most of the world, so both versions of Nexus can be used outside Americas and have a high probability of getting 3G signal, since they both support it. In Americas the common system appears to be 850/1900, though.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_UMTS_networks

I am not confusing anything. The Nexus One with AT&T 3G banding was made with the purpose of fulfilling Google's desire to have a Nexus One with AT&T 3G banding. Or, in other words, they made it to be the AT&T version of the Nexus One. Hence, there being hundreds of news articles and even threads on this very site using the termonology "AT&T version".
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=AT&T+nexus+one&aq=f&aqi=g10&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=
Also, from Google's official statement on the matter:
"starting today, an additional version of the Nexus One is available from the Google web store that is compatible with AT&T's 3G network. This new model can be purchased as an unlocked device without a service plan."
http://www.tgdaily.com/mobility-features/48920-google-touts-att-compatible-nexus-one
Why would they announce that they now have a version that works with AT&T 3G if it wasn't meant for AT&T?

At&t uses those bands, those bands do not belong to At&t. That's the difference.

The way to tell if your phone is the T-Mobile or AT&T version is by looking at the part number on the back of the phone.
P/N: 99HKE002-00 for the T-Mobile version
P/N: 99HKE007-01 for the AT&T version
Hope that helps!

JCopernicus said:
At&t uses those bands, those bands do not belong to At&t. That's the difference.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I understand what you guys are saying, the Nexus One wasn't made specifically for any carrier, and that isn't what I am saying or did say. What I am saying is that they did actively think about which 3G bands were included in the device... and decided they wanted to make one with AT&T banding as well, and when they released it they announced they had just released their AT&T 3G compatible Nexus One, and thus it seems fair to say (and not a stretch of words, unless we want to be anal about it), that Google made it for AT&T... perhaps saying "Google made it for AT&T's 3G network" is more complete and better, but that is a potential meaning from my original statement and so forth.
And technically AT&T owns the rights to those bands in the United States. Since you like to be super specific and technical with your semantics, figured I would add that in.

They own their towers, they don't own the bands of gsm technology, those are licensed out to them.
Yes, google made a concious decision to make that phone compatible with at&t, but that's not the same are making the phone FOR at&t.

pjcforpres said:
I understand what you guys are saying, the Nexus One wasn't made specifically for any carrier, and that isn't what I am saying or did say. What I am saying is that they did actively think about which 3G bands were included in the device... and decided they wanted to make one with AT&T banding as well, and when they released it they announced they had just released their AT&T 3G compatible Nexus One, and thus it seems fair to say (and not a stretch of words, unless we want to be anal about it), that Google made it for AT&T... perhaps saying "Google made it for AT&T's 3G network" is more complete and better, but that is a potential meaning from my original statement and so forth.
And technically AT&T owns the rights to those bands in the United States. Since you like to be super specific and technical with your semantics, figured I would add that in.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Well it was also made for the Canadian and some South American carriers. People in the USA will call it the AT&T version, people in Canada will call it for whatever carriers they have.

I think he is maybe not quite into the world of cell phones as some of us are, so when you look at it from that perspective you would think that Google made it "for ATT." That's not really the case though.

JCopernicus said:
They own their towers, they don't own the bands of gsm technology, those are licensed out to them.
Yes, google made a concious decision to make that phone compatible with at&t, but that's not the same are making the phone FOR at&t.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I am just baffled... You don't think AT&T owns the rights to use the frequencies they are running on? Why does the FCC auction off frequencies then? Who are they auctioning them off to? What is being auctioned off? Nothing? Is it just a big sham?
And FYI, GSM and CDMA can run on the same frequencies, there is not point to even mentioning that they don't own those bands of gsm technology... the technology aspect is whether they decide to use gsm or cdma to broadcast over those frequencies, it has nothing to do with buying gsm specific.
Also, it is fair to say, like I already explained, that they made the AT&T banded device for AT&T in that they actively decided to make a Nexus One that works with AT&T. Sure, semantically speaking, it isn't perfect... but based off what Google themself said at the launch (We are proud to announce the AT&T compatible version of the Nexus One) it is easy to see that was their driving force, not Telstra.

Dude, I guess you're one of those that don't ever read what others write, and definitely don't open links.
Go to the previous page, open the Wiki link to the list of UMTS networks, and look carefully at the "Americas" section. What will you find there?
Ah, yes. ALMOST EVERY CARRIER IN YOUR HALF OF THE GLOBE IS USING THOSE FREQUENCIES.
Then, perhaps, you should think again, why did Google choose the frequencies as they did. Or actually, you might understand that the only thing Google chose is Qualcomm's CPU to power the phone, and this CPU just "happens" to come in 2 versions, each supporting different bands, one optimized for Americas and one for Eurasia, both including the world's most common 2100MHz band (the choice of band support can be seen in any device using Snapdragon chipset, as far as I've checked). AT&T happens to use the same bands as 80% of Americas' providers use, so?
Maybe now the "driving force" is a bit clearer.
Oh well, wasted enough time trying to explain the obvious.

Jack_R1 said:
Dude, I guess you're one of those that don't ever read what others write, and definitely don't open links.
Go to the previous page, open the Wiki link to the list of UMTS networks, and look carefully at the "Americas" section. What will you find there?
Ah, yes. ALMOST EVERY CARRIER IN YOUR HALF OF THE GLOBE IS USING THOSE FREQUENCIES.
Then, perhaps, you should think again, why did Google choose the frequencies as they did. Or actually, you might understand that the only thing Google chose is Qualcomm's CPU to power the phone, and this CPU just "happens" to come in 2 versions, each supporting different bands, one optimized for Americas and one for Eurasia, both including the world's most common 2100MHz band (the choice of band support can be seen in any device using Snapdragon chipset, as far as I've checked). AT&T happens to use the same bands as 80% of Americas' providers use, so?
Maybe now the "driving force" is a bit clearer.
Oh well, wasted enough time trying to explain the obvious.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
So you think it is obvioud Google had HTC make a Nexus One with the 850/1900 3G banding because they wanted to appease Rogers and Telstra? You have got to be kidding me. What sort of business sense does that make?
Hey, forget about AT&T and its 100 million customers, and that they are located in our home market, we want to make sure we make the Canadians and their 20 million customers happy.
I bet it is real nice to be so naive and caught up in "semantics" to believe such real world flawed ideas.

Samsung Galaxy S II "confirmed" for Verizon in July

According to PhoneArea a Verizon spokeswomen has confirmed that they will be launching the Samsung Galaxy S II sometime next month.
http://www.phonearena.com/news/Samsung-Galaxy-S-II-confirmed-for-July-touch-down-at-Verizon_id19421
I'm sure AT&T will probably release it around the same time (if not sooner).

This is shocking...
"Although the phone will not be enabled for the LTE 4G network, it probably won't matter to potential buyers as the device has already proven itself to be speedy over 3G pipelines."
What's the purpose of launching a state-of-the-art phone that doesn't run on your state-of-the-art network? Hell, with EVDO, it'll be the slowest of the three U.S. SGS2 variants assuming it's Wi-Max on Sprint and 4G and/or LTE on AT&T. Why carry the phone at all?

Oh well, I don't even have 4G coverage here. By the time I do, I'll probably already be getting a new phone.
Also while I don't put much stock what an email from a Verizon spokesperson says, at least Verizon acknowledges the phone and it will at least come out eventually. I hope it really does come out in July though.

At least it will work on ATT's fake 4G HSPA+.
To work on Verizon's LTE would require a big redesign.

Meets34 said:
At least it will work on ATT's fake 4G HSPA+.
To work on Verizon's LTE would require a big redesign.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I thought it was supposed to be AT&T's first LTE phone? I read that online somewhere but can't find it now. AT&T was also supposed to be the first to launch so maybe the hold up is getting the LTE radio working. AT&T's LTE network is supposed to light up in a couple of weeks and they still have nothing that can run on it. Yet they're introducing a slew of high-end devices that work on a network that's outdated. Strange.
P.S. - Now that I think about it, it may be the combination of CDMA and LTE that prompted VZW and Samsung to skip LTE. That will still be strange though if Sprint's variant ends up being CDMA/Wi-Max.

BarryH_GEG said:
I thought it was supposed to be AT&T's first LTE phone? I read that online somewhere but can't find it now. AT&T was also supposed to be the first to launch so maybe the hold up is getting the LTE radio working. AT&T's LTE network is supposed to light up in a couple of weeks and they still have nothing that can run on it. Yet they're introducing a slew of high-end devices that work on a network that's outdated. Strange.
P.S. - Now that I think about it, it may be the combination of CDMA and LTE that prompted VZW and Samsung to skip LTE. That will still be strange though if Sprint's variant ends up being CDMA/Wi-Max.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Adding the LTE radio and chipset would probably require redesigning the phone. The current LTE phones are really big and thick.

Meets34 said:
Adding the LTE radio and chipset would probably require redesigning the phone. The current LTE phones are really big and thick.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Bad for AT&T but good for all of us who imported a non-branded SGS2. I assumed that AT&T's LTE version was going to make our phones (at least in the U.S.) outdated. If it ends of being the same phone with AT&T "enhancements" it makes our decision (and the price) worthwhile.

Excuse my ignorance, but what are the chances of the carriers making the phone better? I don't know how, just asking.
I don't know if i should just wait to see the differences with the ATT version or just buy the unlocked one now

MrLeon said:
Excuse my ignorance, but what are the chances of the carriers making the phone better? I don't know how, just asking.
I don't know if i should just wait to see the differences with the ATT version or just buy the unlocked one now
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
well there's always the chance you can get a nice cold refreshing glass of lemonade in Hell...

MrLeon said:
Excuse my ignorance, but what are the chances of the carriers making the phone better? I don't know how, just asking.
I don't know if i should just wait to see the differences with the ATT version or just buy the unlocked one now
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Very close to zero. They will just add bloatware.
The only good thing is the subsidized price.

http://www.engadget.com/2011/06/08/samsung-galaxy-s-ii-said-to-be-verizon-bound-in-july/
damn engadget says they were talking about the New galaxy tab :\

boondoc said:
http://www.engadget.com/2011/06/08/samsung-galaxy-s-ii-said-to-be-verizon-bound-in-july/
damn engadget says they were talking about the New galaxy tab :\
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Just saw that as well. LAME!!

Yep, can never trust those spokesperson emails. God damn.

Thank goodness it's for the tab I'm not eligible until 9/4/2011
Sent from my NookColor using Tapatalk

You guys need to realize JUST how hard it is to design and properly tune for LTE bands. I work in antenna design, and I can tell you it takes quite a bit to tune the noise down on the LTE frequencies. Add that to the fact that antenna real estate is already extremely tight in an ultra thin device like the SGSII (especially when taking GSM, WIFI, bluetooth, and GPS into account), the only way to get LTE in would be to have one/several of the other bands to suffer AND/OR make the device much, much thicker.
Until active antenna solutions are more readily available, this will continue to be a problem with passive antenna design, especially with small form factor devices like mobile phones.
Sent from my GT-I9100 using Tapatalk

use all 700MHZ lte phones on any network

OK, we all know about Verizon using lower spectrum and AT&T using upper spectrum of 700MHZ but i could never understand how HARDWARE WISE they can make a radio that would only support such a thing, I am under impression that it is the software optimized for using either upper or lower spectrum and if block the other half. I just read how flashing correct radio enabled AT&T GALAXY NOTE to be used on t-mobile, i am not an expert nor i have resources, but has anyone attempted to flash verizon radio on at&t phone or vice versa and see if phone is actually capable of running on both networks? Please explain me if there is any flow in my understanding or is it actually feasible? would be great to break monopoly of at&t and Verizon over their LTE phones even though they utilize same 700MHZ band.

nakamoniel said:
OK, we all know about Verizon using lower spectrum and AT&T using upper spectrum of 700MHZ but i could never understand how HARDWARE WISE they can make a radio that would only support such a thing, I am under impression that it is the software optimized for using either upper or lower spectrum and if block the other half. I just read how flashing correct radio enabled AT&T GALAXY NOTE to be used on t-mobile, i am not an expert nor i have resources, but has anyone attempted to flash verizon radio on at&t phone or vice versa and see if phone is actually capable of running on both networks? Please explain me if there is any flow in my understanding or is it actually feasible? would be great to break monopoly of at&t and Verizon over their LTE phones even though they utilize same 700MHZ band.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Certain chipsets with an integrated radio/modem support multiple bands. Like you said, in the case of the Note, XDA devs were able to flash a different modem that told the radio to tune to a different frequency that it supported. Same with the Skyrocket, and, if the T-Mobile SII had an LTE mode, that would have worked too. But not all chipsets can do multiple frequencies on one chip.

Well you'll have a problem of dealing with a CDMA phone trying to run on a GSM network primarily. I think Verizon's system has to verify you're on their primary CDMA network then allow you to connect to their LTE network. Where as an AT&T phone would just connect you to their GSM and then it bumps up to LTE. My speculation is that if you connect a Verizon World Phone with LTE on AT&T with the correct radio it MIGHT work. But it won't work the other way around as AT&T's phones don't have CDMA (which is used to verify and connect you to the LTE network)

ChpStcksRlz said:
Well you'll have a problem of dealing with a CDMA phone trying to run on a GSM network primarily. I think Verizon's system has to verify you're on their primary CDMA network then allow you to connect to their LTE network. Where as an AT&T phone would just connect you to their GSM and then it bumps up to LTE. My speculation is that if you connect a Verizon World Phone with LTE on AT&T with the correct radio it MIGHT work. But it won't work the other way around as AT&T's phones don't have CDMA (which is used to verify and connect you to the LTE network)
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You will never get a CDMA phone to work on a GSM network or vice versa (aside from global CDMA phones with SIM slots for GSM roaming). LTE phones on Verizon use a their own authentication that's separate from their CDMA-only 3G phones. With the LTE phones, there is no ESN/MEID associated with the device; it's the SIM that is authenticated and then the phone attached to it can use it to transmit and receive data, texts, and calls.
But that's besides the fact; CDMA and GSM are more than just frequencies; they're two different methods on how a phone communicates with towers. CDMA is Code Division Multiple Access, and GSM is based off of TDMA, which is Time Divided Multiple Access. It's kind of like saying, because two people are Chinese, they will both speak one dialect, which in fact there are two; Mandarin (GSM) and Cantonese (CDMA) which are similar but different.

Product F(RED) said:
You will never get a CDMA phone to work on a GSM network or vice versa (aside from global CDMA phones with SIM slots for GSM roaming). LTE phones on Verizon use a their own authentication that's separate from their CDMA-only 3G phones. With the LTE phones, there is no ESN/MEID associated with the device; it's the SIM that is authenticated and then the phone attached to it can use it to transmit and receive data, texts, and calls.
But that's besides the fact; CDMA and GSM are more than just frequencies; they're two different methods on how a phone communicates with towers. CDMA is Code Division Multiple Access, and GSM is based off of TDMA, which is Time Divided Multiple Access. It's kind of like saying, because two people are Chinese, they will both speak one dialect, which in fact there are two; Mandarin (GSM) and Cantonese (CDMA) which are similar but different.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
some CDMA+LTE devices can be used with other carriers even with the different authentication, carriers that barely have 1X cdma coverage. the conversion of the MEID to pESN is done with a different method that is of course if the DEC MEID can be retrieved, not the HEX MEID.

nakamoniel said:
OK, we all know about Verizon using lower spectrum and AT&T using upper spectrum of 700MHZ but i could never understand how HARDWARE WISE they can make a radio that would only support such a thing, I am under impression that it is the software optimized for using either upper or lower spectrum and if block the other half. I just read how flashing correct radio enabled AT&T GALAXY NOTE to be used on t-mobile, i am not an expert nor i have resources, but has anyone attempted to flash verizon radio on at&t phone or vice versa and see if phone is actually capable of running on both networks? Please explain me if there is any flow in my understanding or is it actually feasible? would be great to break monopoly of at&t and Verizon over their LTE phones even though they utilize same 700MHZ band.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Hardware wise it's damn easy to make a radio that doesn't support the upper/lower part of the band - just use a narrower frontend filter.
In fact, doing the opposite is hard - having wideband support without compromising the performance of your bands of primary interest is extremely difficult. Filtering out the "don't care" part of the 700 MHz band can improve RF performance in the "do care" part.
Product F(RED) said:
Certain chipsets with an integrated radio/modem support multiple bands. Like you said, in the case of the Note, XDA devs were able to flash a different modem that told the radio to tune to a different frequency that it supported. Same with the Skyrocket, and, if the T-Mobile SII had an LTE mode, that would have worked too. But not all chipsets can do multiple frequencies on one chip.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
No, they didn't do anything to tune a different frequency. AT&T also uses AWS1700 for LTE - all they did was change modulation mode for an already supported band.

EVDO logins does not need to verify the ESN/MEID.
See http://shadowmite.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=24&t=3319
not sure about LTE

I see thread being carried away in different direction, I understand how it used to be completely ESN based, but trust me on new LTE phones it doesnt matter, i have popped sim card into many lte devices without registering with verizon what so ever, Also both at&t and verizon phones have hardware radio built in that supports 700MHZ so that is out of question as well, Hence I would like to draw attention of everyone specially DEV's, to target the real question, is it software based solution where they have tuned radio only to support perticular upper or lower band making them carrier specific? and if so flashing verizon radio on at&t phone or at&t radio on verizon phone make it compatible with each other? IF ANYONE OUT THERE WITH RESOURCES AND knowledge of radios can try this theory, it would open infinite gates of new possibilities ( AND GIVE US ALL AN OPPORTUNITY TO SCALE UP OUR LOVE-HATE RELATIONSHIP WITH ATT-VERIZON BASTARD ).
p.s. I appreciate sharing your concerns/understanding anyways, not trying to underscore your comments, just trying to get things moving in right direction.

Thanks, its kind of answer I was looking for to verify my doubt on whether it would be possible by software tweak to enable phones work on other networks, however my speculation is that there is a huge probability that some MODELS did not bother making this changes (e.g. motorola since they do not produce phones for at&t anyways or quite oppositely HTC which makes LTE phone for both att & verizon) and simply had software tweaks in place to avoid phones on other networks, IF SO it should be as simple of radio files swap as what other guy did to samsung tab. Please correct me if i am still wrong.
Entropy512 said:
Hardware wise it's damn easy to make a radio that doesn't support the upper/lower part of the band - just use a narrower front end filter.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse

nakamoniel said:
Thanks, its kind of answer I was looking for to verify my doubt on whether it would be possible by software tweak to enable phones work on other networks, however my speculation is that there is a huge probability that some MODELS did not bother making this changes (e.g. motorola since they do not produce phones for at&t anyways or quite oppositely HTC which makes LTE phone for both att & verizon) and simply had software tweaks in place to avoid phones on other networks, IF SO it should be as simple of radio files swap as what other guy did to samsung tab. Please correct me if i am still wrong.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Samsung tab? Are you talking about the AT&T Galaxy Note? In that case, that was changing modulation modes in the same band. (AT&T also uses the 1700 MHz AWS band for LTE. So it's easy to just change that over to HSPA+ for T-Mo compatibility.)
I would not be surprised if Moto has narrower frontent filters, that may be part of the secret to their supposedly superior radio performance. (Rejecting unnecessary bands can greatly improve reception of the bands you care about.)

is it possible to change the antenna?

is it possible to change the antenna on the sgs3 to make it compatible with tmo's lte?

Are the antenas in the back coverpiece? If so, I'd imagine it's possible.

Pretty sure it has more to do with what bandwidth the radio chip will support. TMO decided to go with an LTE deployment that the S3 can't/won't broadcast & receive on.

stevesprivateaccount said:
Pretty sure it has more to do with what bandwidth the radio chip will support. TMO decided to go with an LTE deployment that the S3 can't/won't broadcast & receive on.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
i got 2 questions...
1 - do you think that you can change the antenna on the s3 for tmo's LTE compatibility?
2 - do you think that samsung will sell nother version of the s3 to make it compatible for tmo's LTE?

ussucks said:
i got 2 questions...
1 - do you think that you can change the antenna on the s3 for tmo's LTE compatibility?
2 - do you think that samsung will sell nother version of the s3 to make it compatible for tmo's LTE?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
1. no
2. no
neither has even the slightest possibility of happening.
Sent from my Galaxy S III

tekhna said:
Are the antenas in the back coverpiece? If so, I'd imagine it's possible.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Lmao
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I747 using xda premium

haha they say there are no dumb questions but...

The AT&T version has support for LTE in the AWS band, technically making it compatible with T-Mobile's future LTE. However, AWS HSPA+ support is either disabled or impossible, so you'd be stuck on 2G for the time being, except in the areas where PCS refarming has already begun. I'm also not sure that the LTE radio is unlocked for anything but AT&T, even with another SIM, but who knows.

420SYN said:
haha they say there are no dumb questions but...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
haha they say there are no dumb people but...

[Q] SM-G900V - Enable wider LTE bandwidth

Hello,
I am very proud to be a part of the community now.
I bought few days ago an unblocked Samsung galaxy S5 SM-G900V in Best Buy Store.
Today and for some times I will be in France, using my phone with local service proivder. Unfortunately, this model cannot connect to the 4G / LTE network in France.
Local bandwith :
- 1600 mHz
- 2600 mHz
Samsung told me that the device can only connect to the following networks :
- 700 / 850 / 1700 / 1900 mHz
Indeed I would like to know if it is the components posing problems or just the configuration made by Samsung / Verizon to block the connection in foreign countries like France. If it is the case I can flash my device and modify the bandwith accordingly to French one ?
Also I understood that Verizon device is not allowing root modification, is still the case ?
The seller from best buy ensured me that the phone was going to work in France but this is not true...
Many thanks for your help and support...

turz13 said:
1. Indeed I would like to know if it is the components posing problems or just the configuration made by Samsung / Verizon to block the connection in foreign countries like France. If it is the case I can flash my device and modify the bandwith accordingly to French one ?
2. Also I understood that Verizon device is not allowing root modification, is still the case ?
3. The seller from best buy ensured me that the phone was going to work in France but this is not true...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
1. It is a hardware issue, not software, so you will not be able to change it.
2. Correct, the Verizon model(and AT&T) is still not able to be rooted.
3. It will work in France, it just won't connect at the fastest speed. Myself and others have used the phone in foreign countries with success, so it is definitely doable.

(If) the SM-G900V is the dev edition. Yes you can root it.
Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

Versatile1 said:
The SM-G900V is the dev edition. Yes you can root it.
Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Correct, but it doesn't have the hardware required.

chamberc said:
Correct, but it doesn't have the hardware required.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Right, but 3G and changing APN etc. should work. I was answering the confusion he had on root.
Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

Versatile1 said:
The SM-G900V is the dev edition. Yes you can root it.
Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
you sure about that? I have a SM-G900V and its not a dev edition phone..... and if for some reason it is i purchqsed as a regular device lol
Sent from my SM-G900V using XDA Premium HD app

Thanks, I can be stupid sometimes. ... edited lol
Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

jcollier said:
1. It is a hardware issue, not software, so you will not be able to change it.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
If you can quote a source for that, please do so so that we can elucidate more details. Personally, I doubt that it is a hardware limitation. In the past there were hardware differences with different chips needed to support various transceiver bands. But semiconductor manufacturers have been leveraging advances in lithography and economies of scale for some time to move toward single chip solutions.
When XDA members asked these same questions about the S3, lots of people proffered the standard answer saying that it was a hardware issue. And that it would be impossible to modify the firmware to use a Bell or ATT phone on TMobile's AWS band. This was proven to be wrong (1, 2), the limitation was only in the firmware. The S3, S4 and N3 firmware have since been successfully modified to operate variant handsets on the TMobile and Wind bands.
The S5 has been reported to use the Qualcomm WTR1625L RF transceiver. This is said to be the first IC that can operate on all LTE bands and looking at the datasheet for the chipset suggests that this is true. In fact Qualcomm promotes the transceiver this way -
Qualcomm said:
the WTR1625L performs carrier aggregation by "accommodat[ing] all cellular modes and 2G, 3G, and 4G/LTE frequency bands and band combinations that are either deployed or in commercial planning globally."
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
There may still be cost saving or protectionist measures in supporting hardware choices that limit us but given the available evidence and in particular the specific RF chip being used in the S5.. it would be fair to say that regional LTE limitations are much more likely to be firmware than hardware issues.
.

fffft said:
If you can quote a source for that, please do so so that we can elucidate more details. Personally, I doubt that it is a hardware limitation. In the past there were hardware differences with different chips needed to support various transceiver bands. But semiconductor manufacturers have been leveraging advances in lithography and economies of scale for some time to move toward single chip solutions.
When XDA members asked these same questions about the S3, lots of people proffered the standard answer saying that it was a hardware issue. And that it would be impossible to modify the firmware to use a Bell or ATT phone on TMobile's AWS band. This was proven to be wrong (1, 2), the limitation was only in the firmware. The S3, S4 and N3 firmware have since been successfully modified to operate variant handsets on the TMobile and Wind bands.
The S5 has been reported to use the Qualcomm WTR1625L RF transceiver. This is said to be the first IC that can operate on all LTE bands and looking at the datasheet for the chipset suggests that this is true. In fact Qualcomm promotes the transceiver this way -
There may still be cost saving or protectionist measures in supporting hardware choices that limit us but given the available evidence and in particular the specific RF chip being used in the S5.. it would be fair to say that regional LTE limitations are much more likely to be firmware than hardware issues.
.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Hi,
I have Samsung galaxy S5 SM-G900V for vreizon ,
Today and for some times I will be in ASIA,
Local bandwith : 2100 mHz
this model cannot connect to the 4G / LTE network in Asia.
But i have iphone 5s Verizon , at Asia local can connect 4G / LTE
I don't know , why galaxy S5 SM-G900V Can't connect 4G / LTE for Asia
I have root my galaxy S5 SM-G900V,
But i don't know how can do it ....
Many thanks for your help and support...

terry3610 said:
I don't know , why galaxy S5 SM-G900V Can't connect 4G / LTE for Asia
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That seems off topic to this thread, so you should start a new one if you have remaining questions.
You didn't give full details or even name the Asian carrier.. but this is probably the case -
Some iPhone 5s variants support both HSPA+ 2100 and FDD-LTE 2100. The TMobile S5 does as well. But the Verizon S5 only supports HSPA+ 2100, not FDD-LTE 2100. The hardware is almost certainly capable of doing so, but Verizon decided to restrict that band on their S5. Presumably to deter carrier churn. It looks like Verizon only enabled LTE on 700 /1700 for the 900V.
Blame Verizon. AFAIK you won't be able to use the Verizon S5 on that band unless someone modifies the firmware.
.