Samsung Galaxy Note 3

[mdob07]

Assuming this is the sprint version, anyone think they might reintroduce a triband version of the note 3 like we heard about for the s4? Maybe after the first of the year?

 

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk 2

 

 

[WiWavelength]

I'm curious now if VZW's Note3 supports their AWS LTE band since I've seen a carrier on their licensed AWS frequency here in town. 

 

Yes, the "V" variant headed to VZW is dual band LTE.  But both bands look really weak, and that is no exaggeration.  Band 13 LTE 750 max EIRP is only 11 dBm, while band 4 LTE 2100+1700 max EIRP is a piddling 14 dBm.  That AWS LTE power output is most damning, as PCS LTE devices typically max out at about ten times that EIRP.

 

AJ

[digiblur]

Yes, the "V" variant headed to VZW is dual band LTE. But both bands look really weak, and that is no exaggeration. Band 13 LTE 750 max EIRP is only 11 dBm, while band 4 LTE 2100+1700 max EIRP is a piddling 14 dBm. That AWS LTE power output is most damning, as PCS LTE devices typically max out at about ten times that EIRP.

 

AJ

Jeez.. The combination of plastic and faux leather fumes really messed with those Sammy "enginerrs" .

[DaQue]

Anyone got a FCC link for the - R4 variant?

 

Sent from my SPH-L900 using Tapatalk 4

 

 

[WiWavelength]

Yes, the "V" variant headed to VZW is dual band LTE.  But both bands look really weak, and that is no exaggeration.  Band 13 LTE 750 max EIRP is only 11 dBm, while band 4 LTE 2100+1700 max EIRP is a piddling 14 dBm.  That AWS LTE power output is most damning, as PCS LTE devices typically max out at about ten times that EIRP.

Jeez.. The combination of plastic and faux leather fumes really messed with those Sammy "enginerrs" .

 

By comparison, the iPhone 5S does 18 dBm on band 13 and 26 dBm on band 4.  Both of those but especially the latter are huge differences.

 

AJ

[DaQue]

Anyone got a FCC link for the - R4 variant?

 

Sent from my SPH-L900 using Tapatalk 4

Found it but not authorized to view...

, https://apps.fcc.gov/oetcf/eas/reports/ViewExhibitReport.cfm?mode=Exhibits&RequestTimeout=500&calledFromFrame=N&application_id=517519&fcc_id=A3LSMN900R4 '> https://apps.fcc.gov/oetcf/eas/reports/ViewExhibitReport.cfm?mode=Exhibits&RequestTimeout=500&calledFromFrame=N&application_id=517519&fcc_id=A3LSMN900R4

 

Sent from my SPH-L900 using Tapatalk 4

 

 

[WiWavelength]

Found it but not authorized to view...

, https://apps.fcc.gov/oetcf/eas/reports/ViewExhibitReport.cfm?mode=Exhibits&RequestTimeout=500&calledFromFrame=N&application_id=517519&fcc_id=A3LSMN900R4 '> https://apps.fcc.gov/oetcf/eas/reports/ViewExhibitReport.cfm?mode=Exhibits&RequestTimeout=500&calledFromFrame=N&application_id=517519&fcc_id=A3LSMN900R4

 

No, you are doing something wrong because it is viewable and has been since yesterday.

 

https://apps.fcc.gov/oetcf/eas/reports/ViewExhibitReport.cfm?mode=Exhibits&RequestTimeout=500&calledFromFrame=N&application_id=517519&fcc_id=A3LSMN900R4

 

AJ

[DaQue]

Must be a issues with my Note 2. I still can't see it. A lot of places say it has CDMA for Sprint

 

Sent from my SPH-L900 using Tapatalk 4

 

 

[WiWavelength]

Must be a issues with my Note 2. I still can't see it.

You need to be at a full fledged computer. You do not want to try to access FCC OET docs on a handset browser.

 

A lot of places say it has CDMA for Sprint

Yeah, it has CDMA1X 1900, as basically all CDMA2000 handsets do.

 

AJ

[koiulpoi]

Until one gets a FCC filing or other credible filing for a model specific to Sprint and not a foreign entity then do not assume and spread heresy.

I know that you meant "spread hearsay", but thinking that you meant "heresy" is much more amusing. "The Cult of Sprint will not listen to your heretical lies, foul single-band demon! Those who have seen the true light know of the holy trinity of bands!"

 

Anyways, if this is true, Samsung just lost $650 from me. Oh well.

[WiWavelength]

I know that you meant "spread hearsay", but thinking that you meant "heresy" is much more amusing.

 

Spreading heresy on S4GRU is mentioning that "can I buy a vowel?" prepaid MVNO.

 

 

AJ

[koiulpoi]

Spreading heresy on S4GRU is mentioning that "can I buy a vowel?" prepaid MVNO.

 

 

AJ

Unfortunately, we are only able to ban the heretics, not burn them.

[Mercurial1]

Unfortunately, we are only able to ban the heretics, not burn them.

Burn? Maybe not. Flame? Quite possibly.

[ericdabbs]

Fully agree here.  It would have been simple for them to do the B26 support but then again that would have been another band on a separate transmission path.  So...blah...  this is way worse than what Apple did!  I will not be buying a Sprint Note3 for sure, definitely not in the market I'm in.  Keeping my fingers crossed that when it does come time to buy a new device in the first quarter of 2014 for us there will be a device that fits our needs in Sprint's lineup, otherwise I think this combined with several other factors that this will finally push me on over and make me look at the blue and red Note3's.  I'm curious now if VZW's Note3 supports their AWS LTE band since I've seen a carrier on their licensed AWS frequency here in town. 

 

The Verizon version of the Note 3 is dual band LTE and supports BC4 (AWS) and BC13 (700 MHz) and it supports SVLTE.  There is no excuse not to include BC4 since Tmobile uses BC4 for their LTE.

 

FCC link to SM-N900V (Verizon variant)

https://apps.fcc.gov/oetcf/eas/reports/ViewExhibitReport.cfm?mode=Exhibits&RequestTimeout=500&calledFromFrame=N&application_id=608888&fcc_id=A3LSMN900V

 

Also if Sprint did add dual band LTE with B25 and B26 support, I would still give up SVLTE because as I said before coverage is more important to me than having the ability to surf and talk at the same time.

[jsjj42000]

The Verizon version of the Note 3 is dual band LTE and supports BC4 (AWS) and BC13 (700 MHz).  There is no excuse not to include BC4 since Tmobile uses BC4 for their LTE.

 

FCC link to SM-N900V (Verizon variant)

https://apps.fcc.gov/oetcf/eas/reports/ViewExhibitReport.cfm?mode=Exhibits&RequestTimeout=500&calledFromFrame=N&application_id=608888&fcc_id=A3LSMN900V

 

Also if Sprint did add dual band LTE with B25 and B26 support, I would still give up SVLTE because as I said before coverage is more important to me than having the ability to surf and talk at the same time.

Does Verizon dual band trump Sprint tri band?  I live in Chicago and am not married to one carrier and want a Note 3 that will work in crowded areas, indoors, etc.  So, assuming the Sprint version is tri-band and the Verizon version is dual band, which do I go with?

[bongohawk]

I may be just holding out hope that they have yet to release the Sprint variant of the Note 3's FCC doc, but something I do find interesting is with the label.  If you click on the FCC label pdf it lists the FCC ID, but what I find interesting is the battery is rated at 1300 mA.  Now is this label just a template they use, or is this for a different Samsung phone that is probably smaller than the Note 3?  

 

https://apps.fcc.gov...c_id=A3LSMN900V

 

Edit:  Nevermind.  I found an old FCC doc for the Galaxy S3 and it list the battery mA as 1025, and on my S3 it is actually 2100 mA.  But I am still holding out hope for a different FCC doc for Sprints version, but my hope is slowly starting to fade.

[ericdabbs]

Does Verizon dual band trump Sprint tri band?  I live in Chicago and am not married to one carrier and want a Note 3 that will work in crowded areas, indoors, etc.  So, assuming the Sprint version is tri-band and the Verizon version is dual band, which do I go with?

 

Well the Note 3 Sprint's version is only going to be single band LTE while Verizon's version is going to be dual band LTE.  If you are just talking about the Note 3 then you should go with Verizon.

 

However in general if you are asking if Sprint tri band vs. Verizon dual band is overall better in the long run, it is no question that Sprint triband network is better for the long haul over Verizon. Since Sprint has a ton of 2500 MHz spectrum for massive capacity offload which will provide high speeds outdoors while keeping capacity off of 1900 MHz so that those with single band LTE phones won't see a huge drop in speeds.  Then when you add the 800 MHz spectrum for LTE which is very comparable to Verizon's 700 MHz LTE in terms of coverage it gives us Sprint customers the building penetration and coverage that will help compete with Verizon and ATT.

[ericdabbs]

I may be just holding out hope that they have yet to release the Sprint variant of the Note 3's FCC doc, but something I do find interesting is with the label.  If you click on the FCC label pdf it lists the FCC ID, but what I find interesting is the battery is rated at 1300 mA.  Now is this label just a template they use, or is this for a different Samsung phone that is probably smaller than the Note 3?  

 

https://apps.fcc.gov...c_id=A3LSMN900V

 

All I can say is that you should probably put that hope that another Note 3 FCC doc will come out with triband LTE support to bed because its not going to happen.  It was thought to be that the sprint variant would be the model SM-N900S but this was debunked when it was revealed that the "S" model was for SK Telekom in Korea. Instead we are just left with the SM-N900P which may be the Sprint variant.

 

About the battery thing, I wouldn't look into it that much because its clear as day that the FCC filing is for the Note 3.  Besides if you get the phone, you can easily verify the battery capacity which should be 3200 maH since its got a removable cover.

[WiWavelength]

Well the Note 3 Sprint's version is only going to be single band LTE while Verizon's version is going to be dual band LTE.  If you are just talking about the Note 3 then you should go with Verizon.

 

However in general if you are asking if Sprint tri band vs. Verizon dual band is overall better in the long run...

 

Not the VZW dual band LTE Note 3.  On paper, it is probably the weakest RF performer that I have seen in a long time.  As I posted earlier in the thread this morning, the AWS EIRP is about 10 dB below what it should be.  So, the VZW variant Note 3 may be a dual band handset in truth, but it will function as a single band handset most of the time due to its RF limitations.

 

AJ

[digiblur]

Not the VZW dual band LTE Note 3.  On paper, it is probably the weakest RF performer that I have seen in a long time.  As I posted earlier in the thread this morning, the AWS EIRP is about 10 dB below what it should be.  So, the VZW variant Note 3 may be a dual band handset in truth, but it will function as a single band handset most of the time due to its RF limitations.

 

AJ

 

So what numbers do you look at it as I was just glancing at the numbers in the RF exposure and saw higher.  I didn't dig all the way through things though. 

 

Does the AT&T model suffer these same RF issues?   I was looking at their docs and I see it supports LTE 2, 4, 5, and 17.  Confuses matters much more as it seems Samsung could have easily made this device support both PCS LTE and 800SMR LTE given what they did with the AT&T version.  Bad Samsung! 

[dedub]

Confuses matters much more as it seems Samsung could have easily made this device support both PCS LTE and 800SMR LTE given what they did with the AT&T version.  Bad Samsung! 

 

How often does it happen that a phone gets a new band support added after already released? I seem to remember some att or vz phone recently had an additional band enabled after it was already out?

 

How likely or possible is it that samsung could enable 800lte post-release?

[gilmikalian]

I'm so new to this.  Did you guys see this yet?  

 

https://apps.fcc.gov/eas/GetApplicationAttachment.html?id=2064886

 

I got this link from the article below...

 

http://www.gottabemobile.com/2013/09/12/samsung-galaxy-note-3-release-date-us/

 

 

 

EDIT:  Looks like I relied on a bad source. Thank you Eric for clearing this up.  See post immediately below.

Edited September 12, 2013 by gilmikalian

[ericdabbs]

I'm so new to this.  Did you guys see this yet?  

 

https://apps.fcc.gov/eas/GetApplicationAttachment.html?id=2064886

 

I got this link from the article below...

 

http://www.gottabemobile.com/2013/09/12/samsung-galaxy-note-3-release-date-us/

 

 

All these tech blogs keep getting it wrong. The Sprint variant is the SM-N900P and NOT this SM-N900R4.  The SM-N900R4 variant is for something else and the proof is that the R4 variant doesn't support BC 10 which is for CDMA 800 while the P variant does support BC 10.

[gilmikalian]

Can anyone chime in whether a single-band LTE is the death knell for me since I'm in the L.A. area (specifically Glendale)?  I REALLY like the Note 3 but not if I'm going to get worse performance than my Note 2 in the immediate future.  Or is this just a matter of not being able to take advantage of the NV improvements that will be coming soon? 

[ericdabbs]

I would be very hesitant to run lovingly into LG's arms for the chance to be one of the first to jump on Band 26 and 41, especially anyone using a 2 year upgrade with plans on waiting out the majority of the next 2 years before upgrading again.  I'm aware LG has aggressively improved the quality of its devices, but long-term ownership device satisfaction will not be toe to toe with Samsung.  I would love for the short and long term reviews to prove me wrong, but my instinct is to poke any LG device with a long stick before accepting it. 

 

Robert's mention about the 'boutique' bands and AJ's thoughts on the merit of a phablet without SVLTE all make sense.  Couple the late arrival of the G2 with those issues.....  something is amiss with the testing or functional quality of the first tri-band attempts.  I understand that other carriers have packed support for multiple bands in devices, but have any other carriers attempted to ACTIVELY use 3 different bands fluidly on a device yet?  

 

I think its a chance I am willing to take to get triband LTE.  The RF performance of this phone seems to be pretty good for LTE at least on B25 and B26.  I think AJ said the B41 performance was ok but expected a bit higher which I can live with.  The RF performance on the LG Optimus G was pretty good too from what I read.  I know the LG Optimus G didn't get as much love as it should have but it was only being sold on Sprint and AT&T last year and it was LG's first major flagship smartphone in a long time. 

 

This time the LG G2 is going to be sold on all 4 major carriers and its got a huge benefit of running a Qualcomm S800 chip, huge 3000 maH battery and a 5.2" IPS HD display.  I know Verizon, Tmobile and AT&T are all selling the 32 GB model for $199 on contract so I expect Sprint to be selling the 32 GB model for $199 on 2 year contract.  I do agree with you that LG still has to prove that long time ownership is worth the cost just like how Samsung and HTC have built that reputation over the past few years.  My biggest concern is timely Android software updates and staying up to par to the latest and greatest Android updates.  I think a good start would be if they announce that the LG G2 will be getting Android 4.4 KitKat early next year.  I think if LG sees that this G2 model is popular, they will support it even with future products like when the LG G3 gets announced in 2014 and that should start building some loyalty.