Jump to content

Moto X 2014 (was "Motorola IHDT56QA1")


NateC

Recommended Posts

Just spotted on the FCC website.

 

 http://www.phonescoop.com/phones/fcc_query.php?gc=IHD&pc=T56QA1

 

(just using phonescoop.com to redirect to the appropriate FCC page)

 

This appears to be a flagship-level device since it supports LTE, NFC, WiFi on 2.4 and 5 GHz, etc.  This variant is intended for AT&T/T-Mobile based on the supported bands.

 

Device dimensions: 

   Height: 140 mm (5.51")

   Width: 72.6 mm (2.86")

   Screen diagonal: 149 mm (5.87")

 

Based on that, it's probably the rumored Moto "Shamu"?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just spotted on the FCC website.

 

 http://www.phonescoop.com/phones/fcc_query.php?gc=IHD&pc=T56QA1

 

(just using phonescoop.com to redirect to the appropriate FCC page)

 

This appears to be a flagship-level device since it supports LTE, NFC, WiFi on 2.4 and 5 GHz, etc.  This variant is intended for AT&T/T-Mobile based on the supported bands.

 

Device dimensions: 

   Height: 140 mm (5.51")

   Width: 72.6 mm (2.86")

   Screen diagonal: 149 mm (5.87")

 

Based on that, it's probably the rumored Moto "Shamu"?

 

I hope it isn't the new Nexus...  I would certainly hope that Sprint would get the next one, but this tells otherwise since I don't see them making more than one US variant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hope it isn't the new Nexus...  I would certainly hope that Sprint would get the next one, but this tells otherwise since I don't see them making more than one US variant.

 

I'm disappointed to see that it doesn't support AT&T/T-Mobile/Sprint bands all in one device like the Nexus 5 did.  I was really hoping that would become the norm.

 

Also, the other reason I hope this isn't the basis for the new Nexus is because it's too damn big.  The Nexus 5 is already too big in my opinion, and this device is even *larger*.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This appears to be a flagship-level device since it supports LTE, NFC, WiFi on 2.4 and 5 GHz, etc.  This variant is intended for AT&T/T-Mobile based on the supported bands.

 

 

LTE Band support includes 2, 4, 5, 7, 17, and 29 so its definitely an AT&T variant. I can't find the document which details the LTE Carrier Aggregation pairs unless its under short-turn confidentiality.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Nexus is a perfect device for the direction that Sprint is going with Easy Pay. It is a damn good device at a reasonable price (even with the carrier markup).

 

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Droid Life believes this device is the new Moto X (the AT&T variant), which would make sense...  A sliver of hope yet again.

 

Quote from Droid Life below:

 

Since many are assuming that the FCC’s measurement of 149mm across the display screen means a 5.9-inch display on the phone, I’ll have to stop you there. Keep in mind that the LG G3 has a 5.5-inch display with minimal bezel, yet it measures 146.3×74.6mm. There is no way that the new Moto X can measure 140×74.6mm, yet have a display that is .4-inches bigger than the LG G3. It’s just not possible. The FCC filing is likely just misrepresenting the situation here a bit by putting “display screen” on the image to indicate that this is the front of the phone. These measurements are for the entire phone, not just the display.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Droid Life believes this device is the new Moto X (the AT&T variant), which would make sense...  A sliver of hope yet again.

 

Quote from Droid Life below:

 

Yeah, I considered that possibility as well.  It's really confusing though, because if it's *not* the display diagonal dimension, then what is it?  It can't be the chassis dimensions, because sqrt(72.6^2 + 140^2) != 149^2.  If we consider reasonable bezel sizes, it would in fact suggest that 149 mm is not the diagonal screen size.  If we consider mathematical truths, then H=140mm, W=72.6mm can't have a diagonal of 149mm, suggesting they are not chassis sizes.  So what is it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, I considered that possibility as well.  It's really confusing though, because if it's *not* the display diagonal dimension, then what is it?  It can't be the chassis dimensions, because sqrt(72.6^2 + 140^2) != 149^2.  If we consider reasonable bezel sizes, it would in fact suggest that 149 mm is not the diagonal screen size.  If we consider mathematical truths, then H=140mm, W=72.6mm can't have a diagonal of 149mm, suggesting they are not chassis sizes.  So what is it?

 

Just throwing out an idea...  Could be completely off, but I don't know how they specifically measure these things. 

 

What about the fact that the edges are likely curved?  The chassis diagonal will be slightly lower than the equation would say.  It's not like the original Moto X was a complete rectangle...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just throwing out an idea...  Could be completely off, but I don't know how they specifically measure these things. 

 

What about the fact that the edges are likely curved?  The chassis diagonal will be slightly lower than the equation would say.  It's not like the original Moto X was a complete rectangle...

 

That seems reasonable to me.  Either way it's confusing since the diagram doesn't show rounded corners:

 

5bPNz6T.png

 

 

And you are right that the device certainly won't have completely straight corners.  But it's still weird that they'd draw the dimension that way going sharp corner to sharp corner.  I think the conclusion is that we can't read too much into that diagram either way.  Whatever it is, it's much bigger than the original Moto X.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, I considered that possibility as well.  It's really confusing though, because if it's *not* the display diagonal dimension, then what is it?  It can't be the chassis dimensions, because sqrt(72.6^2 + 140^2) != 149^2.  If we consider reasonable bezel sizes, it would in fact suggest that 149 mm is not the diagonal screen size.  If we consider mathematical truths, then H=140mm, W=72.6mm can't have a diagonal of 149mm, suggesting they are not chassis sizes.  So what is it?

 

FCC OET authorization documents show device dimensions.  They do not necessarily show screen sizes.  That is not of interest to the FCC.

 

AJ

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm going with Moto x+1.. Were still a few months from OET / FCC on the Nexus X/6/or wtf model you want.. The X+1 is only a week away.. So I would suspect to see a bunch of OET / FCC postings coming. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm going with Moto x+1.. Were still a few months from OET / FCC on the Nexus X/6/or wtf model you want.. The X+1 is only a week away.. So I would suspect to see a bunch of OET / FCC postings coming. 

Yeah this looks like the GSM version of the Moto X+1.  I doubt it'd be the Nexus since we're still in August!

 

Uh, guys, I am not saying that this handset is the next Nexus, but you forget history.  Last summer in late July, S4GRU staff saw a mystery LG handset uploaded to the FCC OET, then pulled back.  It reappeared permanently in the FCC OET the first week in September, and none other than S4GRU was the first to connect the dots, then break the story that the handset was the Nexus 5.

 

http://s4gru.com/index.php?/blog/1/entry-351-teaser-is-the-lg-d820-the-nexus-5/

 

We are now coming up on that same week this year, so do not be surprised if the next Nexus handset gets outed at the FCC OET soon.

 

AJ

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Uh, guys, I am not saying that this handset is the next Nexus, but you forget history.  Last summer in late July, S4GRU staff saw a mystery LG handset uploaded to the FCC OET, then pulled back.  It reappeared permanently in the FCC OET the first week in September, and none other than S4GRU was the first to connect the dots, then break the story that the handset was the Nexus 5.

 

http://s4gru.com/index.php?/blog/1/entry-351-teaser-is-the-lg-d820-the-nexus-5/

 

We are now coming up on that same week this year, so do not be surprised if the next Nexus handset gets outed at the FCC OET soon.

 

AJ

Not to argue as I agree with most your posts but your comparing two entirely different companies. Moto for the most part doesn't typically, I say that due to the fact they have posted some earlier then others, but they usually post within a month of release. That lg fiasco was bad, and they had a very similar release again the g3. Looking back at moto x for example FCC filing was July 26th'sh announcement followed weeks after and release September. Following that as a guideline I'd say we most likely will see a filing towards mid/end sept then googles announcement. But just opinion :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not to argue as I agree with most your posts but your comparing two entirely different companies. Moto for the most part doesn't typically, I say that due to the fact they have posted some earlier then others, but they usually post within a month of release. That lg fiasco was bad, and they had a very similar release again the g3. Looking back at moto x for example FCC filing was July 26th'sh announcement followed weeks after and release September. Following that as a guideline I'd say we most likely will see a filing towards mid/end sept then googles announcement. But just opinion :)

 

Ah, but with the release of a Nexus device, which company wears the pants -- the OEM or Google?  As I recall, the Asus tablets, for example, hit the FCC OET months in advance.

 

AJ

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ah, but with the release of a Nexus device, which company wears the pants -- the OEM or Google?  As I recall, the Asus tablets, for example, hit the FCC OET months in advance.

 

AJ

Well this could go into realm of typically. But not sure if this will be the case and I do remember the posting for n5 being submitted via lg and not google as they were manufacturer. Google only designs and agrees with it, the manufacturer submits the follow up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well this could go into realm of typically. But not sure if this will be the case and I do remember the posting for n5 being submitted via lg and not google as they were manufacturer. Google only designs and agrees with it, the manufacturer submits the follow up.

 

Yes, the OEM is the grantee of record at the FCC OET.  But my argument is that Google runs the show as much as, if not more than the OEM.  And that is borne out when the Nexus devices end up in the hands of Google employees for real world testing months in advance.

 

AJ

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And now today the IHDT56QA2 variant was spotted.

 

LTE bands supported: 2 (1900 MHz), 4 (1700 MHz), 7 (2600 MHz), 13 (700 MHz)

CDMA, GSM, and UMTS: 850 MHz and 1900 MHz

 

This one could be for Verizon?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And now today the IHDT56QA2 variant was spotted.

 

LTE bands supported: 2 (1900 MHz), 4 (1700 MHz), 7 (2600 MHz), 13 (700 MHz)

CDMA, GSM, and UMTS: 850 MHz and 1900 MHz

 

This one could be for Verizon?

Canada.

 

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Canada.

 

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

 

Ah.  I noticed the Bell/Rogers band 7 support, but I figured maybe they just included that in there for roaming/compatibility purposes.  I also didn't think they'd do the Canadian version before Sprint/Verizon/T-Mobile, but I don't really know.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And now today the IHDT56QA2 variant was spotted.

 

LTE bands supported: 2 (1900 MHz), 4 (1700 MHz), 7 (2600 MHz), 13 (700 MHz)

CDMA, GSM, and UMTS: 850 MHz and 1900 MHz

 

This one could be for Verizon?

Canada.

 

You both could be correct.  Canada is small potatoes, so its operators generally do not get their own handset variants.  Rather, they get piggybacked on a US operator variant.  But this handset does not appear to support SVLTE, making it unlikely to be headed to VZW, despite the boutique band 13 capability.

 

AJ

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You both could be correct.  Canada is small potatoes, so its operators generally do not get their own handset variants.  Rather, they get piggybacked on a US operator variant.  But this handset does not appear to support SVLTE, making it unlikely to be headed to VZW, despite the boutique band 13 capability.

 

AJ

 

Good point with SVLTE. That leaves the couple million non-Big 3 Canadian mobile providers holding 700 MHz C1 blocks. Maybe later re-certification is possible too.

Edited by atomic50
Link to comment
Share on other sites

According to the spec, the Sprint Moto X (2014) should be model XT1092 with specs below:

 

GSM/GPRS/EDGE (850, 900, 1800, 1900 MHz);

UMTS/HSPA+ (850, 900, 1700 (AWS), 1900, 2100 MHz);

CDMA (850/1900 MHz);

4G LTE (02, 04, 05, 12, 17, 25, 26, 41)

 

It appears it will work on all major US carriers except Verizon similar to the Nexus 5!

  • Like 12
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • large.unreadcontent.png.6ef00db54e758d06

  • gallery_1_23_9202.png

  • Posts

    • I think it is likely that T-Mobile will be forced to honor any existing US cellular roaming agreements in those areas as a condition of them taking over the spectrum.  In that case, there would be no improvement of service unless T-Mobile improves the service offering in those areas.
    • My understanding is the MNO carriers are the one who have objected to the use of cell phones in commercial planes.  I understand that it ties down too many cell phones at once, thus I can not see this changing. However this depends on how it is structured. Use of a different plmn for satellite service might make it possible for planes only to connect with satellite. Private pilots have been using cellphones in planes for many decades. Far fewer phones at a lower altitude.
    • On Reddit, someone asked (skeptically) if the US Cellular buyout would result in better service.  I'd been pondering this very issue, and decided to cross-post my response here: I've been pondering the question in the title and I've come to the conclusion that the answer is that it's possible. Hear me out. Unlike some of the small carriers that work exclusively with one larger carrier, all three major carriers roam on US Cellular today in at least some areas, so far as I know. If that network ceases to exist, then the carriers would presumably want to recover those areas of lost service by building out natively. Thus, people in those areas who may only have service from US Cellular or from US Cellular and one other may gain competition from other carriers backfilling that loss. How likely is it? I'm not sure. But it's definitely feasible. Most notably, AT&T did their big roaming deal with US Cellular in support of FirstNet in places where they lacked native coverage. They can't just lose a huge chunk of coverage whole still making FirstNet happy; I suspect they'll have to build out and recover at least some of that area, if not most of it. So it'd be indirect, but I could imagine it. - Trip
    • Historically, T-Mobile has been the only carrier contracting with Crown Castle Solutions, at least in Brooklyn. I did a quick count of the ~35 nodes currently marked as "installed" and everything mapped appears to be T-Mobile. However, they have a macro sector pointed directly at this site and seem to continue relying on the older-style DAS nodes. Additionally, there's another Crown Castle Solutions node approved for construction just around the corner, well within range of their macro. I wouldn’t be surprised to see Verizon using a new vendor for their mmWave build, especially since the macro site directly behind this node lacks mmWave/CBRS deployment (limited to LTE plus C-Band). However, opting for a multi-carrier solution here seems unlikely unless another carrier has actually joined the build. This node is equidistant (about five blocks) between two AT&T macro sites, and there are no oDAS nodes deployed nearby. Although I'm not currently mapping AT&T, based on CellMapper, it appears to be right on cell edge for both sites. Regardless, it appears that whoever is deploying is planning for a significant build. There are eight Crown Castle Solutions nodes approved for construction in a 12-block by 2-block area.
    • Starlink (1900mhz) for T-Mobile, AST SpaceMobile (700mhz and 850mhz) for AT&T, GlobalStar (unknown frequency) for Apple, Iridium (unknown frequency) for Samsung, and AST SpaceMobile (850mhz) for Verizon only work on frequency bands the carrier has licensed nationwide.  These systems broadcast and listen on multiple frequencies at the same time in areas much wider than normal cellular market license areas.  They would struggle with only broadcasting certain frequencies only in certain markets so instead they require a nationwide license.  With the antennas that are included on the satellites, they have range of cellular band frequencies they support and can have different frequencies with different providers in each supported country.  The cellular bands in use are typically 5mhz x 5mhz bands (37.5mbps total for the entire cell) or smaller so they do not have a lot of data bandwidth for the satellite band covering a very large plot of land with potentially millions of customers in a single large cellular satellite cell.  I have heard that each of Starlink's cells sharing that bandwidth will cover 75 or more miles. Satellite cellular connectivity will be set to the lowest priority connection just before SOS service on supported mobile devices and is made available nationwide in supported countries.  The mobile device rules pushed by the provider decide when and where the device is allowed to connect to the satellite service and what services can be provided over that connection.  The satellite has a weak receiving antenna and is moving very quickly so any significant obstructions above your mobile device antenna could cause it not to work.  All the cellular satellite services are starting with texting only and some of them like Apple's solution only support a predefined set of text messages.  Eventually it is expected that a limited number of simultaneous voice calls (VoLTE) will run on these per satellite cell.  Any spare data will then be available as an extremely slow LTE data connection as it could potentially be shared by millions of people.  Satellite data from the way these are currently configured will likely never work well enough to use unless you are in a very remote location.
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...