Jump to content
atomic50

New Lumia device (Windows?) incoming

Recommended Posts

FCC ID QTLRM-1078

 

Device size is 134.7 mm x 68.5 mm.

MicroSD support

 

LTE Bands 25, 26, 41 and Category 4

Quad Band GSM

WCDMA 850/1900/2100

Edited by atomic50
  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FCC ID QTLRM-1078

 

Device size is 134.7 mm x 68.5 mm.

MicroSD support

 

LTE Bands 25, 26, 41 and Category 4

Quad Band GSM

WCDMA 850/1900/2100

Ting made mention that they were getting a Lumia device in November. Never had seen it cross the FCC OET! Thanks for posting!

 

 

Sent from my iPhone 5S using Tapatalk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think Sprint has carried any Lumia device before? This is new. With Sprint & GV integration, I might be able to jump over to Windows

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do like Windows Phone 8.1 a lot. The subtle improvements over 8 are nice. Especially the drag down status bar. My big beef is missing all my Google stuff (especially YouTube), and I don't like the Windows menu layout in apps with side swipe/scroll menus. It's not intuitive for me.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

PhoneArena discovered it too, 1gb ram, 8gb storage, hopefully has sdcard expandable storage. I use metrotube for YouTube and use +1 for Google plus.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am wondering if it will be a lower cost device destined for the prepay channels.

 

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am wondering if it will be a lower cost device destined for the prepay channels.

 

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

It is the Nokia 735, mid range device. I should really say Lumia 735, Microsoft is not putting the Nokia name on it. 720P oled black display with gsm and cdma radios with band 26, band 25, and band 41. Snapdragon 400 soc at 1.2 ghz. Might be looking at a world phone in the $250 to $300 range. Oh and yes, storage expandable up to 128gb sdcards, removable back and battery.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nokia (or should we say now Microsoft's mobile manufacturing division) was playing hardball with Sprint, US Cellular, and every regional and prepaid network on the CDMA side for years, as they demanded Apple/Samsung treatment, and use their homemade CDMA radios which were years behind Qualcomm CDMA standards currently used.  Microsoft did not do any favors by neglecting this part of the mobile device community, especially knowing most lines are on CDMA networks in the US Market, especially when the Windows Phone 7 debacle after Mango (and the sudden EOL of the HTC Arrive, as it was the choice of WP7 device on the CDMA side, and there was no second generation devices for CDMA networks).  How can Nokia make such demands, knowing they violated the trust of CDMA carriers by using homemade radios which were not licensed by Qualcomm.

 

One more thing it did not help Microsoft nor Nokia was the anti-CDMA propaganda from a very popular Windows Phone website which has an editor who "stole" the hair style from a troll doll (will not say the site nor the editor's name, as both are not very liked nor favored in the Qualcomm CDMA community, besides we do not need to promote sites which their reporters and several members think S4GRU is not a reliable source of information for Sprint related topics), as well as bashing any devices which are not high end enough nor branded Nokia. 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[Nokia wanted to] use their homemade CDMA radios which were years behind Qualcomm CDMA standards currently used.  Microsoft did not do any favors by neglecting this part of the mobile device community, especially knowing most lines are on CDMA networks in the US Market, especially when the Windows Phone 7 debacle after Mango (and the sudden EOL of the HTC Arrive, as it was the choice of WP7 device on the CDMA side, and there was no second generation devices for CDMA networks).  How can Nokia make such demands, knowing they violated the trust of CDMA carriers by using homemade radios which were not licensed by Qualcomm.

 

Nokia's CDMA devices weren't "years behind". They simply didn't want to pay Qualcomm for something that everyone elses network has for much less.

 

Nokia agreed to license patents from Qualcomm back when 3G was novel. But when GSM WCDMA rolled out (without the need for the extra fees), Nokia pushed back on Qualcomm. There's no reason to pay Qualcomm extra for their patents, when everyone has that technology now -- nothing in Qualcomm's proprietary airlink was significantly better anymore, than the non-proprietary international standard.  Additionally, the percentage of devices they sold compatible with Qualcomm was dropping considerably.

 

Qualcomm refused to lower the rate, so Nokia stopped making the devices. And it didn't last forever, Nokia made devices for Verizon pretty recently.

 

To say that Nokia's radios were "behind" is not accurate. Similarly, Microsoft didn't really prevent any second generation handsets, in fact they added CDMA support specifically for Verizon and Sprint. But they couldn't *make* anyone make devices for Sprint/Verizon. (And you'll notice, now that Microsoft owns Nokia, there's a Nokia handset in the pipeline for Sprint)

 

Source : http://archive.fortune.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2006/12/25/8396726/index.htm and http://www.infoworld.com/article/2656804/networking/update--nokia--qualcomm-squabble-over-cdma-license.html

 

EDIT : The relavant part of the article below

 

Nokia insists that it's paying way too much and is demanding a reduction when the current licensing pact expires April 9. Its reasoning: Nokia (Charts) is phasing out production of CDMA phones, and Qualcomm (Charts) technology makes up a much smaller portion of the 3G phones that are starting to fill Nokia's product stable than it did back in 1992, when it first agreed to pay royalties.

 

Qualcomm disagrees and is demanding that Nokia continue to pay the same royalty. Nokia claims that the version of 3G it sells in Europe, called WCDMA, draws relatively little on Qualcomm's contributions. During the same call, Nokia CFO Rick Simonson noted, "We do not believe it is reasonable that the same royalty base and structure should still apply."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nokia's CDMA devices weren't "years behind". They simply didn't want to pay Qualcomm for something that everyone elses network has for much less.

 

Nokia agreed to license patents from Qualcomm back when 3G was novel. But when GSM WCDMA rolled out (without the need for the extra fees), Nokia pushed back on Qualcomm. There's no reason to pay Qualcomm extra for their patents, when everyone has that technology now -- nothing in Qualcomm's proprietary airlink was significantly better anymore, than the non-proprietary international standard. 

 

Qualcomm refused to lower the rate, so Nokia stopped making the devices. And it didn't last forever, Nokia made devices for Verizon pretty recently.

 

To say that Nokia's radios were "behind", or that they "violated trust" is not accurate. Similarly, Microsoft didn't really prevent any second generation handsets, in fact they added CDMA support specifically for Verizon and Sprint. But they couldn't *make* anyone make devices for Sprint/Verizon

 

Source : http://archive.fortune.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2006/12/25/8396726/index.htm and http://www.infoworld.com/article/2656804/networking/update--nokia--qualcomm-squabble-over-cdma-license.html

 

 

Then explain why Nokia decided to manufacture homemade radios which were unlicensed just to avoid paying Qualcomm the required licensing fees.  By doing that, Qualcomm had the right to sue their pants off if they wanted.  Sprint, Verizon, US Cellular, and many regional carriers who sold Nokia devices at the time reported the radios being different to what Nokia listed (which is required by both Qualcomm and the FCC).  That is why Qualcomm sued Nokia in the first place, as what they were doing violates copyright laws on patents which Qualcomm solely owns as they created CDMA.  WCDMA is more GSM based than anything else, and not as used as Nokia mobile manufacturing division was hoping for. 

 

Qualcomm has the legal right to charge what they feel is right as they own the patents, and Nokia knew they had to settle rather than ending being a division of Qualcomm.  When Qualcomm created and legally patented the technology, they did their homework.  Nokia knew grandstanding with counterclaims which were bogus by Elop and company was going to be their own downfall.  They never recuperated from that major financial hit they took by settle all cases against them, while saying investing on CDMA manufacturing was a waste (which was more of an act to say "screw you" to the CDMA carriers in the US, knowing they were going to lose their market presence by 80%, as they sold mostly CDMA devices in the US market).

 

In regards to Microsoft, they have not been very cooperative with CDMA carriers in general, as the presence on regional and prepaid carriers is non existent outside of US Cellular.  The carriers which participated for Windows Phone 7 have been very unwilling to deal with Microsoft because of the HTC Arrive debacle of being unsupported after Mango (which many people think it was Sprint who EOL the device for all of them), while an older Trophy with less impressive specs was supported.  The regionals, which most of them are partners with Sprint under the CCA agreement, will not carry a device which would not be to par to Sprint's network configuration, bands, and CDMA code requirements.  China Mobile CDMA on a Qualcomm CDMA carrier?  NOT happening, and Microsoft did not fix the CDMA code until GDR2 for 8.0, jut to meet QUALCOMM standards, while getting devices sold on Sprint and US Cellular.

 

 

Yes, Microsoft could not force any OEM to make CDMA variants for the second generation WP7 devices.  They actually DISCOURAGED IT, as Microsoft did this as a way to retaliate against the Qualcomm CDMA community for exposing their security flaws WP7 had with the CDMA code they used and sneaked through the FCC.  Why did it take Microsoft two long years to make Windows Phone Qualcomm CDMA compliant?  Because they had no one Qualcomm CDMA certified to code properly for Windows Phone.  Have in mind Microsoft had a position for a Qualcomm CDMA certified coder available as late as February of last year to be hired to work at Team Windows Phone, especially when they were given a deadline of June 2013 to have the code implemented, as well as meeting deadlines for Sprint, US Cellular, HTC, and Samsung.

 

 

Let's compare a homemade CDMA radio by Nokia for the current three devices sold on Verizon, and let's compare it to a radio from HTC, Samsung, or Qualcomm.  The coding and functions on the Nokia radios is three to five years behind compared to what Qualcomm mandates, and is more towards use in places like China and North Korea with governments wanting to know what their citizens say, and not for use in the US where identity security is a must.  Check CDMA forums so you can get into details for each, and why Nokia had no other choice to either get them from a Qualcomm compliant vendor, or perhaps get up to par with code, as getting a device or two on Sprint gives them a one way key to enter the prepaid and regional CDMA market.

 

By the way, those three devices by Nokia sold on Verizon will not roam on neither CDMA network in Puerto Rico (Sprint and Open Mobile), and need SIM cards from Claro to get home service via prepaid.  Believe me when I say techs at Sprint Caribe and Open Mobile tried for nearly a year to make the Lumia devices work via CDMA roaming, and the radios used by Nokia didn't support the feature as it should due to security reasons with the radios themselves (and Qualcomm CDMA networks forbidding access), as they probably used a code for them which is 3-5 years behind current Qualcomm CDMA coding.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, Nokia demanding Apple and Samsung treatment to every CDMA carrier they negotiated with, and will not give devices to them after being released six months on Verizon.  Sprint, US Cellular, C Spire, Bluegrass, United Telecom, Open Mobile de Puerto Rico, NTelos, and several others agreed to that as long as Nokia uses Qualcomm certified CDMA radios and not their homemade radios.  Guess who walked out several times?  Elop and company at Nokia. 

 

If Nokia wanted to "stick it" to Sprint, they would had been smart enough to get several regional CDMA carriers and US Cellular to carry Lumia devices.  They failed to do so, even having help from a certain ediTROLL in chief from a certain website which considers S4GRU too Pro Sprint.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

5 Posts -- I didn't notice this before , but welcome to S4GRU :)

I think your words and my quote got jumbled in your post -- you can edit that, if you'd like to, by clicking the source button ("Lightswitch" icon button) and moving the 'quote' BB tags around

- - -
 

Then explain why Nokia decided to manufacture homemade radios which were unlicensed just to avoid paying Qualcomm the required licensing fees. Sprint, Verizon, US Cellular, and many regional carriers who sold Nokia devices at the time reported the radios being different to what Nokia listed That is why Qualcomm sued Nokia in the first place, as what they were doing violates copyright laws on patents which Qualcomm solely owns as they created CDMA.  WCDMA is more GSM based than anything else, and not as used as Nokia mobile manufacturing division was hoping for....(a bunch more Qualcomm/Nokia arguing)


Can you link to a source of information that refers to any of those statements? I have never heard any of these claims before.

I'm aware Qualcomm and Nokia had some lawsuits in the past, but I believe they were related to patent disputes. Some of those Nokia won, some Qualcomm won, and some were dismissed.

 

Yes, Microsoft could not force any OEM to make CDMA variants for the second generation WP7 devices.  They actually DISCOURAGED IT, as Microsoft did this as a way to retaliate against the Qualcomm CDMA community for exposing their security flaws WP7 had with the CDMA code they used and sneaked through the FCC.  Why did it take Microsoft two long years to make Windows Phone Qualcomm CDMA compliant?  Because they had no one Qualcomm CDMA certified to code properly for Windows Phone.  Have in mind Microsoft had a position for a Qualcomm CDMA certified coder available as late as February of last year to be hired to work at Team Windows Phone, especially when they were given a deadline of June 2013 to have the code implemented, as well as meeting deadlines for Sprint, US Cellular, HTC, and Samsung.


This is another thing I've never heard of.

I'm well aware that Microsoft had delayed support for CDMA. I owned a Sprint HTC Arrive WP7 device back in the day, it was the phone I replaced my Launch-Day Palm Pre with. I'm also aware that Microsoft dropped device support for many WP7 devices -- I got burned by that myself.

 

But Microsoft ignoring 7.5 for CDMA devices doesn't just instantly translate to "Microsoft hates Qualcomm". It could be as simple as Microsoft dropping the phones that were extra effort to support (ask the Lumia folks, some of the GSM users got burned in various Microsoft's upgrade cycles too)

 

EDIT: Removed a mention of my Quantum, since it apparently got the update after I got rid of it

 

There's a lot things in your statements that sound like broad assumptions. Can you link to anything that would provide information on this? Specifically, anything about "Microsoft discouraging CDMA OEMs", "Microsoft retaliating against Qualcomm" or "Microsoft sneaking security flaws in CDMA code through the FCC".

I know WP7 support on the CDMA side was weak for a long time, but I would not be so quick to assume Microsoft / Nokia / HTC all hated Sprint / Qualcomm, just because there used to be a lack of Windows Phone devices on Sprint/Verizon. 

 

 

The coding and functions on the Nokia radios is three to five years behind compared to what Qualcomm mandates, and is more towards use in places like China and North Korea with governments wanting to know what their citizens say, and not for use in the US where identity security is a must.


What does this even mean? There aren't separate standards for the same network. The device either supports EVDO CDMA or doesn't. How could a Nokia radio be "five years behind" to the point that it was causing problems, and still function on the network?

 

What are you actually saying with "[Nokia] is towards use by governments who want to know what their citizens say". Did Nokia's radios somehow secretly use CDMA to backdoor your communications or transmit your voice calls back to the government? (Why would they even do that -- the US government already has a direct copy of every text message and phone call straight from the cellular carriers. There's zero need to waste valuable spectrum on backdoors).
 
I've been googling for like crazy for twenty minutes here trying to find a shred of anything to support these statements and am coming up blank.

 

 

To be clear: I'm not trying to start an argument, and I'm not saying your wrong -- but your making broad, sweeping accusations at a lot of large companies, and I can't find anything but your word that any of this occurred. Can you link to *any* trustworthy sources that might have more information about these accusations?

 

By the way, those three devices by Nokia sold on Verizon will not roam on neither CDMA network in Puerto Rico (Sprint and Open Mobile), and need SIM cards from Claro to get home service via prepaid.  Believe me when I say techs at Sprint Caribe and Open Mobile tried for nearly a year to make the Lumia devices work via CDMA roaming, and the radios used by Nokia didn't support the feature as it should due to security reasons with the radios themselves (and Qualcomm CDMA networks forbidding access), as they probably used a code for them which is 3-5 years behind current Qualcomm CDMA coding.

 

See, this is where you really loose me. Because according to Anandtech teardown *and* Qualcomm itself, Qualcomm makes the radios in those modern Nokia CDMA devices. (Source: http://www.anandtech.com/show/8441/nokia-lumia-930-review/7 and https://www.qualcomm.com/products/snapdragon/smartphones/nokia-lumia-icon )

They may have trouble roaming -- that could be true, I don't know.

 

But "Nokia's CDMA radios" can't be the cause of those problems, because these devices (such as the 928 and the Icon) have only ever shipped with Qualcomm CDMA radios in them. If modern Nokia CDMA phones are experiencing roaming issues, someone needs to call Qualcomm, because according to Qualcomm's own website, they're the SoC vendor for those devices.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

After writing that long response, and then re-reading your username, it occurs to me that I might be getting trolled hardcore...
 
If that's true, then I guess I took the bait. Sorry about that, to anyone else who is reading this.
 
That won't stop me from assuming the best of folks by default. I just might check usernames more closely, before spending 30 minutes on Google thinking I've missed some crazy huge cellular news in the past 5 years ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Max, I am not trolling. There is a lot more that has to do with Nokia when it comes to CDMA. Let's start refreshing the entire Qualcommv Nokia by showing you the entire timeline of the issue

 

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSL257876620080225?irpc=932

 

Also, let's talk about the allegations from Nokia saying Qualcomm charges too much for the licensing rights to CDMA technology, which Qualcomm legally owns as it created the technology. Nokia tried to shop around courts on this manner, and in many cases they were told the company as a whole was in danger, and offered Qualcomm over two billion dollars to settle all disputes, and finally end years of disputes in court.

 

Qualcomm is still in business as a whole, while Nokia really never recuperated (at least in the phone manufacturing division, which was sold to Microsoft). Nokia has not been seen with good eyes by the majority of the CDMA carrier community since then. Nokia thoughr entering the market by using Verizon would helped them, and it backfired as most carriers are in line with Sprint when it comes to CDMA standards, and it has been that way for several years. The CCA agreement alone proves this clearly, as well as having certain carriers like NTelos signing new agreements which benefit both Sprint and all participating regional carriers.

 

I am sorry if in any way I disrespected you or anyone, but Nokia/Windows Phone is a hot topic for me, especially when I have exposed a fraud from a certain website on this multiple times, and his last tactic was comparing me to a potato with earphones.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nokia has not been seen with good eyes by the majority of the CDMA carrier community since then. Nokia thoughr entering the market by using Verizon would helped them, and it backfired as most carriers are in line with Sprint when it comes to CDMA standards, and it has been that way for several years.

This feels like a big assumption on your part. There's a lot of reasons Nokia could have approached Verizon that are much simpler than this. For instance, they might have simply wanted a product for sale that works on the largest carrier in the US.

 

It feels like a huge leap to assume Nokia's anti-"the CDMA community", just because they have some phones on Verizon.

 

 

Let's start refreshing the entire Qualcommv Nokia by showing you the entire timeline of the issue

 

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSL257876620080225?irpc=932

 

As I said before, this is the part I already know about. Lots of fighting between both players over patents and licensing. Well known. No questions or arguments from me there. We agree on this, 100%.

 

- -

 

But you had a *ton* of other accusations. So I'll ask again, can you link to any info about any of your other allegations? Specifically:

 

- You claimed Nokia's CDMA devices were somehow compromised technically ("five years behind Qualcomm coding")

- You claimed Nokia's CDMA devices were somehow compromised security-wise ("more towards China where governments spy on people")

- You claimed Nokia lied to the FCC about the radios in devices (presumably in an OET report?)

- You claimed Microsoft intentionally discouraged OEM's from making CDMA devices

- You claimed Microsoft had security flaws they tried to "sneak through" the FCC

- You claimed Nokia's (presumably modern?) Verizon devices use a home grown CDMA stack that can't roam properly (even though I linked to Qualcomm's own website which claims it's own SoC's are in all modern Nokia+Verizon devices, identical to every Android Verizon phone)

 

I don't need a history lesson on the patent disputes, I'm aware of that.

 

But your link doesn't provide any information about any of the other stuff you mentioned. Can you provide any information about any of those, specifically?

 

 

I am sorry if in any way I disrespected you or anyone

You haven't disrespected me. I'm not offended or upset in any way. To the best of my knowledge, you haven't done anything wrong here.

 

Your just making a lot of really big accusations, and I simply can't find *anything* from *anyone* reputable online to support any of it.

 

If this stuff happened, I want to learn lots more about it. Can you point me to anything not written by you that documents any of this? (Again, not the patent/licensing dispute, but any of your other claims).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Any idea when this is going to be released?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Any idea when this is going to be released?

Ting is releasing it in November as of a few months ago.

 

 

Sent from Josh's iPhone 6+ using Tapatalk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It was originally scheduled for November, but we've been hearing that the release date might have slipped a bit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It was originally scheduled for November, but we've been hearing that the release date might have slipped a bit.

I'm not surprised. Thanks for an update.

 

 

Sent from Josh's iPhone 6+ using Tapatalk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I read somewhere that Verizon has also pushed back the release of the 735 to sometime in early '15.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I read somewhere that Verizon has also pushed back the release of the 735 to sometime in early '15.

Well, not only that.  Nokia and Verizon have EOL'ed the Icon (Lumia 929) less than a year after release.  Most of the offerings at Verizon have not received 8.1, including the entire offerings from Nokia.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the update. It's nice to see a new Windows Phone coming to Sprint. At least for my zip code, the HTC 8XT is no longer being offered on Sprint's website.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is no longer being offered on Sprint period, along with the Ativ S Neo, but Sprint did update them to both 8.1. Unlike Verizon which has been sitting on the update for like 5 months

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I picked up the Go Phone version of this phone the other week in case one of my kids breaks their phone. Paid $39.99 for it. Not a bad phone. It's only 512 RAM so you get some "resuming" and "loading". No double tap to wake or ambient light sensor but that's not the end of the world. Music player is still horrible despite a dozen updates. IE still needs work too. It crashes too easy. To be fair I'm running the Preview for Developer software.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

  • large.unreadcontent.png.6ef00db54e758d06

  • gallery_1_23_9202.png

  • Posts

    • Just caught another instance of 3rd 2500 carrier in Shentel territory.  Note the standard 310120. I also note the 414 PCI that is one of the 3 PCI's for the local site used for carrier one and two. Saw this at a stop light and got the screen shot but had to start moving while going for the "service screen". I think I saw 10 mhz, not 20.  I did not see any aggregation but I only got a quick glimpse of the screen before it rolled to carrier one and two being aggregated as usual.  The 3rd carrier was gone. I do still have a galaxy S-7.  I am not positive that it is capable of using 3Xca, but the service screen looks like it could show it. I did not get  a speed test on carrier 3 either.  I went back through the area again, and even hung around on a side street, but could not acquire carrier 3 at any time.  I was surprised to see this as this local site is not congested. Anytime I check the speed it runs over 30 down and sometimes 60 down.  I am not sure if it might be a magic box or not. I was told that Shentel is not supporting Magic boxes. The area has very good service even inside the big box Wal-mart and Lowes.   I would really be surprised to find a magic box or anything else like that in this neighborhood.   Location: Rouzerville, Pa.
    • It is essentially more time parked on 2.5 as a Sprint user then 2.3 as an ATT user, or 2.2 as a Verizon or T-mo user. I see bands 30, 66 just about everywhere these days. Those seem to be pretty primary as far as bandwidth goes, minimum 10 on band 30 up to 20 or 30 in band 66. This would indicate that somehow Sprint is not allowing service levels on band 41 to fail to band 41>25 nearly as often as other carriers are with similar frequencies i.e 30>2 or 66>2. That seems strange to me.
    • Because the other carriers don't use those as their primary bands nor have them deployed on every single site in the same way Sprint does for Band 41. Not to mention Band 30 and Band 66 still have farther reach than Band 41. Also Band 46 is deployed in very few places as a hotspot type of solution. When you're on Band 41, you're on Band 41 alone. When you are on Band 30 or Band 66, you tend to be carrier aggregated with another band that has better propagation characteristics.
    • Using this math, wouldn't bands 46, 30 and 66 also show a weak signal on other carriers? Since all carriers posses band 2 and below how does sensorly ignore this specifically with Sprint?
  • Recently Browsing

    No registered users viewing this page.

×