Jump to content

The Wall

  • entries
    402
  • comments
    6,082
  • views
    4,750,456

Contributors to this blog

Samsung Galaxy Note 2: Big enough for everything (except SVDO)

WiWavelength

28,417 views

blog-0385394001349458399.jpg

by Andrew J. Shepherd

Sprint 4G Rollout Updates

Friday, October 5, 2012 - 2:00 PM MDT

 

Earlier this week, the Samsung SPH-L900 authorization filing hit the FCC OET (Office of Engineering and Technology) database. Judging by the handset's expansive 150 mm x 80 mm dimensions, S4GRU firmly expects this device to be the upcoming Sprint version of the Samsung Galaxy Note 2 "phablet." In keeping with our previous articles on the HTC EVO 4G LTE, Samsung Galaxy S3, Motorola Photon Q 4G, and yet to be released LG Eclipse, here is an RF focused breakdown of the presumed Note 2's FCC disclosed tech specs:

  • CDMA1X + EV-DO band classes 0, 1, 10 (i.e. CDMA1X + EV-DO 850/1900/800)
  • LTE band 25 (i.e. LTE 1900; PCS A-G blocks)
  • LTE 5 MHz FDD carrier bandwidth
  • LTE UE category 3
  • W-CDMA/HSPA band 2 (i.e. W-CDMA/HSPA 1900)
  • GSM/GPRS/EDGE 850/1900
  • GPRS/EDGE multislot class 10 (i.e. max 4 downlink, 2 uplink, 5 total timeslots)
  • 802.11a/b/g/n Wi-Fi
  • SVLTE support, including SVLTE and simultaneous Wi-Fi tether (2.4 GHz only)
  • SVDO support absent
  • Maximum RF ERP/EIRP: 20.03 dBm (CDMA1X/EV-DO 850), 24.46 dBm (CDMA1X/EV-DO 1900), 20.25 dBm (CDMA1X/EV-DO 800), 28.35 dBm (GSM 850), 25.05 dBm (EDGE 850), 29.44 dBm (GSM 1900), 24.13 dBm (EDGE 1900), 21.41 dBm (W-CDMA 1900), 19.63 dBm (LTE 1900)
  • NFC antenna integrated into battery cover
  • CDMA1X/EV-DO Rx antenna diversity
  • Antenna locations: (see FCC OET diagram below)

11ghtfs.png

 

Besides the incorporation of GSM/GPRS/EDGE 850/1900 and W-CDMA/HSPA 1900 capabilities, the most notable feature of the Note 2 is the lack of SVDO capability. That absence appears to be related to the inclusion of W-CDMA/HSPA, which coexists on a transmit path with LTE. In typical SVDO capable handsets, CDMA1X/EV-DO has one transmit path, but EV-DO has a second possible transmit path that it shares with LTE. That is not the case with the Note 2, as can be seen in the antenna locations and simultaneous transmission paths diagrams:

 

2ynh5xl.png

 

Within each transmission path, only one airlink can be active at any given time. This is a hardware restriction that precludes SVDO but allows SVLTE. Additionally, some other simultaneous transmission scenarios that are technically supported by the hardware (e.g. CDMA1X voice + W-CDMA data) are locked out in software. For all of the possible and permissible simultaneous transmission scenarios, see the included table from the FCC filing:

 

34o28wm.png

 

In conclusion, if SVDO truly was sacrificed in order to include W-CDMA, that is a curious compromise, especially for a handset otherwise geared (e.g. band class 10 CDMA1X, band 25 LTE) specifically for Sprint.

 

Source: FCC

  • Like 8


18 Comments


Recommended Comments

I've never had SVDO on a device before, so I don't plan on missing something I've never had. Once LTE is live and strong in the next year, I'll be happy with SVLTE as I'm almost always in metropolitan areas that will have strong LTE coverage.

  • Like 1

Share this comment


Link to comment

If it is using the Exynos processor, instead of the Qualcomm S4. I don't think the Exynos supports SVDO on CDMA.

Share this comment


Link to comment

I'm not a Sprint customer, but I wouldn't really have an issue with no SV-DO at this point. I'd rather have the extra horsepower that comes with Exynos.

Share this comment


Link to comment

I'm going to assume that this handset also supports GSM900/1800 and UMTS2100 and therefore as for SVDO... given that it does have SVLTE, I would rather take the availability of having fast 3G when using the phone overseas over having SVDO on CDMA if that's the tradeoff here.

Share this comment


Link to comment

I'm going to assume that this handset also supports GSM900/1800 and UMTS2100...

 

This is a good point. The FCC OET authorization filing is required to disclose only those transmit modes that are licensed here in the US.

 

For a Sprint handset, W-CDMA 1900 capability is mostly useless. It might work for roaming on those turncoats Bell and Telus in Canada, but domestic roaming on AT&T and T-Mobile certainly will be blocked.

 

However, the inclusion of W-CDMA 1900 (band 2) is probably indicative of the inclusion as well of W-CDMA 2100+1900 (band 1), the most commonly deployed W-CDMA band outside of North America. I would not be shocked if W-CDMA 900 (band 8) were also on board.

 

As for the W-CDMA/SVDO tradeoff, that is certainly debatable. Quite likely, greater than 95 percent of the Sprint users who carry the Note 2 will never leave the country during that time. International roaming capability is largely a red herring that preys on what idealistic people think that they might do but rarely ever do.

 

AJ

  • Like 2

Share this comment


Link to comment

Depends on what your definition of "overseas" is. By only having dual band (850/1900) GSM/GPRS/EDGE and single band (1900) W-CDMA/HSPA, this phone is still basically limited to North, Central and South America. In most of Europe, Africa, Asia and Oceania the GSM/W-CDMA capabilities of this phone will be useless.

 

If the goal was to make this a world phone, I'm curious as to why they didn't go with quad band GSM/GPRS/EDGE and at least tri-band W-CDMA. Very odd specs on this phone.

Share this comment


Link to comment

If the goal was to make this a world phone, I'm curious as to why they didn't go with quad band GSM/GPRS/EDGE and at least tri-band W-CDMA. Very odd specs on this phone.

 

See both GoWireless' and my comments above. The Note 2 is very likely quad band GSM 850/900/1800/1900 and at least dual band W-CDMA 1900/2100+1900, but the FCC OET docs are not required to reflect those other transmit modes because they are not licensed in the US. This is not unique -- it is very typical of many other FCC OET authorization filings.

 

AJ

  • Like 2

Share this comment


Link to comment

If it is using the Exynos processor, instead of the Qualcomm S4. I don't think the Exynos supports SVDO on CDMA.

 

Samsung's Exynos is just a processor, not a full SoC with modem. So, it has nothing to do with SVDO.

 

AJ

Share this comment


Link to comment
See both GoWireless' and my comments above. The Note 2 is very likely quad band GSM 850/900/1800/1900 and at least dual band W-CDMA 1900/2100+1900, but the FCC OET docs are not required to reflect those other transmit modes because they are not licensed in the US. This is not unique -- it is very typical of many other FCC OET authorization filings.AJ

 

Ah, I see your point. I suppose that only makes sense that the FCC would only test for frequencies licensed for use in the US. Thanks!

 

BTW do the FCC docs offer any clue as to whether the SIM is removable or not?

Share this comment


Link to comment

It would be hard to go back to no SVDO as you get used to having it. I use it all the time in my car with navigation and when I'm at the movies looking up times and calling at the same time. You don't realize how much you get used to it until you meet someone who can't do it. I mean ATT knew it was a big deal which is why they spent millions of commercials advertising that their network could talk and surf at the same time. But hey to each his own right?

 

Hey Robert what ever happened to the article on all the phone signal quality reviews? I remember you said you were done with the testing but are writing the story. Do you have an ETA? Thanks and keep up the great work!

  • Like 3

Share this comment


Link to comment

It would be hard to go back to no SVDO as you get used to having it. I use it all the time in my car with navigation and when I'm at the movies looking up times and calling at the same time. You don't realize how much you get used to it until you meet someone who can't do it. I mean ATT knew it was a big deal which is why they spent millions of commercials advertising that their network could talk and surf at the same time. But hey to each his own right?Hey Robert what ever happened to the article on all the phone signal quality reviews? I remember you said you were done with the testing but are writing the story. Do you have an ETA? Thanks and keep up the great work!

I use svdo too much now for me to go to a device that doesn't support it.

  • Like 1

Share this comment


Link to comment

I use svdo too much now for me to go to a device that doesn't support it.

 

BT headset or speakerphone?

 

I just wish Sprint would give us a Pre-order and a price point

Share this comment


Link to comment
Hey Robert what ever happened to the article on all the phone signal quality reviews? I remember you said you were done with the testing but are writing the story. Do you have an ETA? Thanks and keep up the great work!

 

What is the first rule of S4GRU Club? you don't ask about ETAs

What is the second rule of S$GRU Club? YOU DON'T ASK ABOUT MOTHERFRAKKING ETAS!!!

 

Share this comment


Link to comment

So, for us not so technical people, does this mean that the Note II can't go online while transmitting a phone call? Even when using 4G (if ever available for me)?

Share this comment


Link to comment

So, for us not so technical people, does this mean that the Note II can't go online while transmitting a phone call? Even when using 4G (if ever available for me)?

 

While on a regular voice call, data access is possible via Wi-Fi or LTE but not EV-DO.

 

AJ

  • Like 1

Share this comment


Link to comment

Maximum RF ERP/EIRP: 20.03 dBm (CDMA1X/EV-DO 850), 24.46 dBm (CDMA1X/EV-DO 1900), 20.25 dBm (CDMA1X/EV-DO 800), 28.35 dBm (GSM 850), 25.05 dBm (EDGE 850), 29.44 dBm (GSM 1900), 24.13 dBm (EDGE 1900), 21.41 dBm (W-CDMA 1900), 19.63 dBm (LTE 1900) Elsewhere I saw something to the effect that 23dBm was a threshold for good ERP. Does that differ with the type of signal?

Is 19.63dBm for LTE 1900 weak?

What about the strength of the various GSM signals? Does Sprint support any of them? Or are GSM signals only a factor if you are traveling out the USA and get a SIM to use the phone say in Europe or Canada or Mexico, or the Philippines?

Share this comment


Link to comment

Are the key ERPs for Sprint:

20.03 dBm (CDMA1X/EV-DO 850), 24.46 dBm (CDMA1X/EV-DO 1900), 20.25 dBm (CDMA1X/EV-DO 800), 19.63 dBm (LTE 1900).

What about the EDGE numbers? Isn't that also mainly for a GSM carrier? Is Sprint likely to ever support those functions, or are they just there as the device supports them? Would it be possible to unlock those functions, if you decided to switch carriers with the same phone? Thanks for all the useful info above.

Share this comment


Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • gallery_1_23_9202.png

  • The Wall Articles

  • Wall Comments

    • to me rural coverage matters most....because i like being able to make phone calls and send texts in remote areas of the country ...i dont care about speeds i just care about per square mile coverage and over all usability and reliability
    • Tell us how you really feel @MrZorbatron!

      I think that most cellular players exaggerate their coverage. Yes, I suspected a long time ago that T-Mobile was one of the most egregious. Now according to the merger presentation, they will end up with 85,000 macro sites. That will be enough to match the coverage of pretty much everybody.

      Like you, I appreciate not having dropped calls or undelivered texts. In my area on my T-Mobile MVNO, I don't get any but can't say it won't happen elsewhere. Once Charter offers service via their Verizon MVNO, I think I will move my 4 personal lines there. My business line will stay on Sprint/T-Mobile, well, because I can't control that.
    • I do not welcome any part of this.  I don't think T-Mobile really cares about doing anything they say they care about.  I have seen how truly bad their network is in the ways that matter for essential communication, and I want nothing to do with it.  Say what you want about Verizon, but the one thing they have in common with Sprint is that they have historically built out a solid network before trying to make it extremely fast.  I don't care about 50 Mbps to my phone.  I care about calls that don't get disconnected constantly.  I care about that stock trade getting through when I send it, even if carried by EVDO, because EVDO still gets it through. Sprint's "Outdoor coverage" maps might seem exaggerated to some, but T-Mobile's maps are a complete joke.  Maybe Michigan is a bubble, the only state where this is true, but it really is very true here.  T-Mobile is the network of dropped and undelivered calls, mysterious disconnection, and "call failed" error messages. If this goes through, look for me at the nearest Verizon store because price to me is absolutely irrelevant.  I see two things happening if this merger goes through:  1:  Sprint spectrum is used to bolster capacity at T-Mobile sites, and 2:  As much of the current Sprint network as possible goes away, even if it means losing sites that would provide valuable fill-in density.  I saw the latter happen with Sprint and Nextel, after they insisted that all Nextel sites that could serve to increase Sprint coverage would be used.  Similarly, there were locations T-Mobile could have used MetroPCS locations to improve their own coverage but didn't, even where it left holes in their network.
    • Not when Verizon just bought 1GHz of mmwave spectrum. Those were the policies of the past. If it does not get approved, it would the loss of jobs and the fact that it might not be good for consumers. Although when I look at the table on this page, comparing unlimited plans, it is already evident that the other three are not really competing and Sprint's lower prices are not working since they did not manage to steal anybody from the other other three. To me it is evident that were Sprint to remain independent they need massive investment in their network since competing on price is not enough anymore and low prices just deprive their network of investment.
    • And I would definitely say that merger probably or probably not won't be approved. If not I would have to say it would be on the grounds of cellular asset divestiture.
×