Jump to content

Contributors to this blog

[UPDATED] Teaser: Samsung Galaxy S7 and S7 Edge. One of "US." One variant each for all of the US?

lilotimz

15,585 views

blog-0758976001454559983.jpeg

by Josh McDaniel, Tim Yu, and Andrew J. Shepherd

Sprint 4G Rollout Updates

Wednesday, February 3, 2016 - 11:50 PM MST

 

Update: Further inspection of the FCC OET authorization filings has shown that while Samsung will produce only one "US" hardware variant each for the Galaxy S7 and Galaxy S7 Edge, it still will delineate operator specific "V," "A," "T," "P," and "R4" variants via firmware.

 

That firmware on the Sprint "P" variant, for example, will enable CCA/RRPP compliant bands 2/4/5/12/25/26/41 but disable VZW band 13, AT&T bands 29/30, and VoLTE. Similar segmentation applies to the other domestic variants, such as the AT&T "A" variant and T-Mobile "T" variant, both of which disable CDMA2000 and Sprint bands 25/26/41.

 

Thus, the single SKU aspect for the "US" hardware variants of the Galaxy S7 and Galaxy S7 Edge will be limited to their respective FCC IDs. At the retail and end user levels, separate SKUs and model numbers still will exist for the operator specific airlink/band firmware packages.

 

S4GRU hopes, however, that Samsung will use this consolidated hardware platform now as means also to sell unlocked BYOD versions of both handsets that will have full airlink/band firmware across all domestic operators.

 

Per Samsung Galaxy astronomy, the "V" suffix has been for VZW, the "A" suffix for AT&T, the "T" suffix for T-Mobile, the "P" suffix for Sprint, and the "R4" suffix for regional operators.

 

But what does the "US" suffix mean for the Samsung Galaxy S7 and S7 Edge?

 

Both handsets A3LSMG930US and A3LSMG935US bearing the "US" suffix in their model numbers were intentionally/unintentionally outed today in the FCC OET (Office of Engineering and Technology) database -- weeks in advance of their supposed official reveals at Mobile World Congress in Barcelona later this month.

 

Okay, the seventh generation of Samsung Galaxy handsets is a big deal. That said, what is so special about these two device authorizations?

 

Well, these two authorization filings with the FCC cover the entire gamut of supported LTE bands for every single US operator -- and include downlink three carrier aggregation support. Even before Apple, Samsung appears on the verge of single SKU handsets for the US.

 

VZW band 13. Sure. AT&T bands 29 and 30. Right on. T-Mobile band 12. Absolutely. Sprint bands 25, 26, and 41. Positively. Carrier aggregation. Yup.

 

Furthermore, as both Samsung handsets support CDMA2000, that is strong indication Samsung has reversed course from the the sixth generation of Samsung Galaxy handsets and included Qualcomm baseband modems in all domestic handsets. Almost assuredly, the chip of choice is the Snapdragon X12 LTE modem. That detail, though, is not yet available. On a similar count, tested RF ERP/EIRP figures are beyond the purview of this teaser. However, S4GRU may follow up later on all of the above.

 

In the meantime, here are the nitty gritty Galaxy S7 domestic airlink specs. The FCC filings did not disclose -- nor are they required to disclose -- international airlink support.

 

Samsung Galaxy S7

GSM / GPRS / EDGE: 850 / 1900

W-CDMA Band: 2 / 4 / 5

CDMA Band Class: 0 / 1 / 10

LTE Band: 2 / 4 / 5 / 12 / 13 / 25 / 26 / 29 (downlink only) / 30 / 41

 

LTE Carrier Aggregation:

 

2xCA

2+4 / 2+5/ 2+12 / 2+13 / 2+29 / 2+30

4+2 / 4+4 / 4+5 / 4+12 / 4+13 / 4+29 / 4+30

5+2 / 5+4 / 5+30 /

12+2 / 12+4 / 12+30

13+2 / 13+4

25+25

30+2 / 30+4 / 30+5 / 30+12 / 30+29

41+41

 

3xCA

2+4+12 / 2+4+13 / 2+5+30 / 2+12+30 / 2+29+30

4+2+12 / 4+2+13 / 4+4+12 / 4+5+13 / 4+5+12 / 4+5+30 / 4+12+30 / 4+29+30

5+2+30

12+4+2 / 13+2+4

30+2 +5 / 30+2+12 / 30+2+29 / 30+4+5 / 30+4+12 / 30+4+29

41+41+41

 

Samsung Galaxy S7 Edge

GSM / GPRS / EDGE: 850 / 1900

W-CDMA Band: 2 / 4 / 5

CDMA Band Class: 0 / 1 / 10

LTE Band: 2 / 4 / 5 / 12 / 13 / 25 / 26 / 29 (downlink only) / 30 / 41

 

LTE Carrier Aggregation:

 

2xCA

2+4 / 2+5 / 2+12 / 2+ 13 / 2+29 / 2+30

4+2 / 4+4 / 4+5 / 4+12 / 4+13 / 4+29 / 4+30

5+2 / 5+4 / 5+30 /

12+2 / 12+4 / 12+30

13+2 / 13+4

25+25

30+2 / 30+4 / 30+5 / 30+ 12 / 30+29

41+41

 

3xCA

2+4+12 / 2+4+13 / 2+5+30 / 2+12+30 / 2+29+30

4+2+12/ 4+2+13 / 4+4+12 / 4+5+13/ 4+5+12 / 4+5+30 / 4+12+30 / 4+29+30

5+2+30

12+4+2 / 13+2+4

30+2 +5 / 30+2+12 / 30+2+29 / 30+4+5 / 30+4+12 / 30+4+29

41+41+41

 

Note in bold text the Sprint relevant 2x CA combinations each for band 25 and band 41, then 3x CA combinations for band 41.

 

One SKU, one "US" device variant for all in the US, just like or better than iPhone and Nexus? By all appearances, yes. And while S4GRU is a Sprint centric blog and web site, this Samsung development has ramifications for millions of VZW, AT&T, T-Mobile, USCC, et al., users, too.

 

You heard it here first -- at S4GRU.

 

Sources: FCC

  • Like 18


34 Comments


Recommended Comments



how about upload CA?

Sprint doesnt have any upload CA. I havent heard anything about them actually doing it. If they ever do then yeah these new phones will not work on it. 2xca upload would help increase the upload speeds to around 30mbps or so I think.

Share this comment


Link to comment

One net effect of having one universal device would be the resale value going forward. Having a universal device that is able to move around different carriers adds a significant value to a second hand device.

 

This could have been influenced by the advent of the leasing model. Second hand devices would no longer be technically limited to one carrier.

Share this comment


Link to comment

One net effect of having one universal device would be the resale value going forward. Having a universal device that is able to move around different carriers adds a significant value to a second hand device. This could have been influenced by the advent of the leasing model. Second hand devices would no longer be technically limited to one carrier.

 

A few thoughts on the matter...

 

We do know that the hardware in the "US" variant will be centralized across all domestic operators.  S4GRU staff even has discovered more recently in the FCC OET a "KOR" variant -- ostensibly intended for South Korean operators.  Samsung seems to be standardizing its handset hardware platforms across all operators within certain countries/regions.

 

What we do not know is how Samsung will handle separate firmware per operator.  Though I doubt it, the customized firmware could be temporary and tied to the SIM card in use.  Pop in an AT&T SIM, that activates the "A" firmware.  Pop in a Sprint SIM, that activates the "P" firmware.

 

More likely, barring hacker intervention, the firmware locks could be permanent.  A Sprint "P" variant, for example, always may be set up for Sprint, thus not particularly usable on VZW.  From a sales volume standpoint, Samsung benefits more if those who are switching providers have to obtain new handsets.

 

AJ

  • Like 2

Share this comment


Link to comment
A few thoughts on the matter...

 

We do know that the hardware in the "US" variant will be centralized across all domestic operators.  S4GRU staff even has discovered more recently in the FCC OET a "KOR" variant -- ostensibly intended for South Korean operators.  Samsung seems to be standardizing its handset hardware platforms across all operators within certain countries/regions.

 

What we do not know is how Samsung will handle separate firmware per operator.  Though I doubt it, the customized firmware could be temporary and tied to the SIM card in use.  Pop in an AT&T SIM, that activates the "A" firmware.  Pop in a Sprint SIM, that activates the "P" firmware.

 

More likely, barring hacker intervention, the firmware locks could be permanent.  A Sprint "P" variant, for example, always may be set up for Sprint, thus not particularly usable on VZW.  From a sales volume standpoint, Samsung benefits more if those who are switching providers have to obtain new handsets.

 

AJ

I'm almost certain swapping sims freely between carriers would be a no go. But, my thought is that they(and only them)would have the lock and key to be able to sell you a device that came from one carrier and sell it to you for another, as a second hand device.

 

That could potentially open up a whole new business model moving forward for them.

  • Like 1

Share this comment


Link to comment

Another interesting question is whether they will decide to sell an officially unlocked US variant, and if so, what bands would such a device support?

  • Like 1

Share this comment


Link to comment

Another interesting question is whether they will decide to sell an officially unlocked US variant, and if so, what bands would such a device support?

 

 

Unless carriers want to pay for custom builds of the phone, mass-manufacturing typically makes it cheaper just to support all bands.

 

I'd expect the model numbers to be purely software / quality control differences.

Share this comment


Link to comment

Unless carriers want to pay for custom builds of the phone, mass-manufacturing typically makes it cheaper just to support all bands.

 

I'd expect the model numbers to be purely software / quality control differences.

That's not exactly what I was referring to. What I mean is that Samsung also usually sells an "officially unlocked" version of their flagship. This variant typically supports AT&T and T-Mobile (albeit sometimes only partially). What I am wondering is if they will sell an unlocked variant of the S7 that could be used on all four (or maybe just 3) carriers that you could get directly from Samsung or their resellers.

Share this comment


Link to comment

A few thoughts on the matter...

 

We do know that the hardware in the "US" variant will be centralized across all domestic operators.  S4GRU staff even has discovered more recently in the FCC OET a "KOR" variant -- ostensibly intended for South Korean operators.  Samsung seems to be standardizing its handset hardware platforms across all operators within certain countries/regions.

 

What we do not know is how Samsung will handle separate firmware per operator.  Though I doubt it, the customized firmware could be temporary and tied to the SIM card in use.  Pop in an AT&T SIM, that activates the "A" firmware.  Pop in a Sprint SIM, that activates the "P" firmware.

 

More likely, barring hacker intervention, the firmware locks could be permanent.  A Sprint "P" variant, for example, always may be set up for Sprint, thus not particularly usable on VZW.  From a sales volume standpoint, Samsung benefits more if those who are switching providers have to obtain new handsets.

 

AJ

 

This showed up in the rumors thread...

 

http://s4gru.com/index.php?/topic/7323-samsung-galaxy-s7-rumors-thread/page-11&do=findComment&comment=470384

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.
×