Jump to content

LG G Flex 2 [FCC ID ZNFLS996]


NateC

Recommended Posts

Well, something disappointing to many of us. It appears the US Cellular version was approved by the FCC OET on Thursday. Only Band 25 LTE is included. They even stripped CDMA BC10 from it.

 

https://apps.fcc.gov/oetcf/eas/reports/ViewExhibitReport.cfm?mode=Exhibits&RequestTimeout=500&calledFromFrame=N&application_id=922265&fcc_id=ZNFUS995

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The intrigued builds. But it seems a deal may not be in place! For any roaming partnership. Sad news if we are to use degice radio support as a precursor of events to come or not come to pass.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, something disappointing to many of us. It appears the US Cellular version was approved by the FCC OET on Thursday. Only Band 25 LTE is included. They even stripped CDMA BC10 from it.

 

https://apps.fcc.gov/oetcf/eas/reports/ViewExhibitReport.cfm?mode=Exhibits&RequestTimeout=500&calledFromFrame=N&application_id=922265&fcc_id=ZNFUS995

 

Man, US Cellular doesn't want to play ball.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, something disappointing to many of us. It appears the US Cellular version was approved by the FCC OET on Thursday. Only Band 25 LTE is included. They even stripped CDMA BC10 from it.

 

Too bad for USCC.  But how should this be any concern for Sprint?  Are we to cry tears for USCC subs?

 

AJ

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm a Sprint sub and it concerns me. USCC roaming for Sprint customers would significantly enhance my Sprint experience in my area.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm a Sprint sub and it concerns me. USCC roaming for Sprint customers would significantly enhance my Sprint experience in my area.

 

You may be missing the point.  This discussion has turned to a USCC variant handset, not a Sprint variant handset.  The issue here has no bearing on roaming agreements, only on roaming capabilities for a specific device -- which, again, is a USCC variant.  The Sprint variant is fully CCA/RRPP compliant.

 

AJ

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, something disappointing to many of us. It appears the US Cellular version was approved by the FCC OET on Thursday. Only Band 25 LTE is included. They even stripped CDMA BC10 from it.

Do USCC-branded devices still support SVLTE rather than eCSFB? That may explain the omission of B41/TDD LTE, although I can't imagine why they'd cut out anything else.

 

Too bad for USCC. But how should this be any concern for Sprint? Are we to cry tears for USCC subs?

Wasn't a "device hub" part of the Roaming Hub plans with the CCA/RRPP members? As Verizon begins to exit the CDMA ecosystem and go (Vo)LTE only, it'll be important for Sprint, USCC, C Spire, and all of the others still operating & supporting a CDMA network to "band" together to both keep device costs down, and to encourage reciprocal roaming agreements.

 

So if a G Flex 2 or another 2015 flagship costs me a bit more (even if Sprint chooses to eat that cost rather than spend it on their network) just because USCC is being stubborn, I won't shed any tears, but I would find it rather irksome.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do USCC-branded devices still support SVLTE rather than eCSFB? That may explain the omission of B41/TDD LTE, although I can't imagine why they'd cut out anything else.

 

Single Transmission path for CDMA/LTE. No SVLTE on this phone. USCC just still isn't ready to join the CCA/RRPP program. I'm kinda surprised, because the program is really an advantage for any small carrier.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You may be missing the point. This discussion has turned to a USCC variant handset, not a Sprint variant handset. The issue here has no bearing on roaming agreements, only on roaming capabilities for a specific device -- which, again, is a USCC variant. The Sprint variant is fully CCA/RRPP compliant.

 

AJ

I understand that. The point was (as I read it anyway) that the evidence of a USCC variant of the Flex 2 that didn't include CCA bands could be interpreted to mean that USCC wasn't planning on joining the CCA. If that interpretation ends up being correct then that is bad news for this Sprint subscriber.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wasn't a "device hub" part of the Roaming Hub plans with the CCA/RRPP members? As Verizon begins to exit the CDMA ecosystem and go (Vo)LTE only, it'll be important for Sprint, USCC, C Spire, and all of the others still operating & supporting a CDMA network to "band" together to both keep device costs down, and to encourage reciprocal roaming agreements.

 

I am not worried.

 

USCC has gone its own way on handsets for the past few years and has had seemingly little trouble procuring the band class 0/1 and band 2/4/5/12 variants it needs for its network.

 

The CCA/RRPP "hub" likely matters more to the truly small, rural operators -- whose subs are measured in thousands, not millions.

 

AJ

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I understand that. The point was (as I read it anyway) that the evidence of a USCC variant of the Flex 2 that didn't include CCA bands could be interpreted to mean that USCC wasn't planning on joining the CCA. If that interpretation ends up being correct then that is bad news for this Sprint subscriber.

 

Uh, it does include CCA/RRPP bands:  bands 4/5/12/25(2).  Those are the LTE bands that matter to USCC and CCA/RRPP partners.

 

Just because this USCC variant does not support bands 26/41 is no cause for concern.

 

If anything, that is good news.  Roamers should not be allowed on band class 10, nor on bands 26/41.  Those should be reserved for actual Sprint subs.

 

AJ

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Uh, it does include CCA/RRPP bands:  bands 4/5/12/25(2).  Those are the LTE bands that matter to USCC and CCA/RRPP partners.

 

Just because this USCC variant does not support bands 26/41 is no cause for concern.

 

If anything, that is good news.  Roamers should not be allowed on band class 10, nor on bands 26/41.  Those should be reserved for actual Sprint subs.

 

AJ

 

The USCC variant also specifically mentions Band 17 inclusion, so is an AT&T or Rogers roaming agreement in the works, or this was just a customary filing?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes!!!! I hope all 2015 Sprint LTE phones contain LTE bands 2, 4, 5 and 12 to be compatible with AT&T, Verizon and Tmobile networks.

Almost all.. Verizon's original 700 MHz B13 LTE network would remain left out. Their overlay B2 & B4 networks would theoretically work though. Down the road, once VZ begins refarming CLR 850, B5 should provide LTE coverage similar to that enjoyed by B13-capable devices.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just an FYI and something to look at while we wait for this phone to be released ;)

 

FCC Flex test numbers

flex.jpg

 

FCC Flex 2 test numbers

flex2.jpg

 

i know the numbers don't always translate to real world performance, but the Flex 2 does appear to follow the trend of focusing on B41. B25/26 appear to be roughly the same.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just an FYI and something to look at while we wait for this phone to be released ;)

 

i know the numbers don't always translate to real world performance, but the Flex 2 does appear to follow the trend of focusing on B41. B25/26 appear to be roughly the same.

 

You are correct. Sprint is doing this intentionally to make Band 41 the priority LTE band. That was the whole purpose of Network Vision 2.0 was the broad deployment of Band 41 and make devices prefer it in radio performance too. It was a very good idea too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does anyone have an educated guess as to how soon we will see this device for sale for Sprint? I am facing some troubles with my current LG G2 and I'm trying to decide if I want to reset and restore or just live with it until this device comes out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does anyone have an educated guess as to how soon we will see this device for sale for Sprint? I am facing some troubles with my current LG G2 and I'm trying to decide if I want to reset and restore or just live with it until this device comes out.

 

my guess would be 2/6/15. i got the flex on release day last year which if i remember right was 2/7/14. I haven't heard any official dates yet but i would guess in february sometime.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh, that would be great. I was thinking more like wondering if I'd have it by April. It's been many years since I've bought a new phone from Sprint. Do they do online reservations with store pickup appointments now?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

techno buffalo.com has a YouTube video of the LG G flex to for Sprint LG G Flex 2 OS Tour - Android Lollipop Gets Skin…: http://youtu.be/VxD6zDZPcBo

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

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

    • 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.
    • T-Mobile owns the PCS G-block across the contiguous U.S. so they can just use that spectrum to broadcast direct to cell. Ideally your phone would only connect to it in areas where there isn't any terrestrial service available.
  • Recently Browsing

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