WiWavelength

Question: So I checked out the bandwidth range of this new quad core and it looks like it will also handle Clearwire's 168 mbps download speed. Is this correct?

No, the quad core processor is irrelevant, as it appears this LG design will utilize separate application processor and modem chipsets. Only the modem, RF transceiver, power amps, and antennas define airlink capabilities.

Regardless, the Eclipse will not be compatible with Clearwire's WiMAX network, and no info so far indicates that it will be compatible with Clearwire's forthcoming TD-LTE 2600 network. Do not expect those handsets until next year at the earliest.

AJ

The older phones almost all used the Broadcom BCM4329 65nm baseband...

Thanks for the comment. But you seem to be confusing Wi-Fi basebands with cellular basebands. The Broadcom chipset is just a Wi-Fi baseband, so its effect on the handsets in question is minimal, and all have other cellular basebands. The EVO LTE and Galaxy S3 take matters to the extreme, as they incorporate processor, cellular, Wi-Fi, and GNSS baseband all on the 28 nm Qualcomm MSM8960.

Whether or not it's on the same chip with the CPU or not I feel will make less difference than the die shink to 28nm, so the LG phone will do great. It will be hurt by the quad core too though, but I would expect battery life between the GS2 and GS3 with a good battery (2000+mah). Just my $0.02

With all due respect, that seems nothing more than optimistic speculation. At this point, we do not even know what quad core processor the Eclipse will utilize. It could still be the 40 nm Tegra 3. And that could be paired with a 45 nm cellular baseband, possibly even a separate LTE baseband of who knows what nm process.

My point is this: do not assert that "the LG phone will do great." The level of info available right now does not support that conclusion.

AJ

Yes, the Viper does support SVDO. I was unintentionally conflating in my mind the multiple chipset design of the Viper and the lack of SVDO in the Galaxy Nexus. I have corrected the article. Thanks for pointing out the error.

What the multiple chipset design will affect likely is battery life, especially if the processor is quad core.

AJ

Nope. Because of the regulatory-industrial complex and planned obsolescence, expect possible capabilities, such as LTE 800, only when necessary. So, probably not until next year.

AJ

How is this different than the HTC Evo 4G LTE?I just just just wish it has the SIM card to make it a world phone and its not.

chong, this article is about the EVO 4G LTE. Did you note the date of the article? It was written in March, well before the name of the phone was announced.

Additionally, an accessible SIM card does not make a handset automatically a world phone.

AJ

My bad - I meant RSSI. Must have been distracted by having to stand for our national anthem every 5 minutes ;)Good article BTW.

No problem, Alex. My comment was not directed at anyone in particular. Rather, it was just a reminder that LTE signal strength measurements oft follow a different paradigm.

AJ

When citing LTE signal strength, be sure to clarify whether you are referencing RSSI or RSRP. See our article:

http://s4gru.com/index.php?/blog/1/entry-308-rssi-vs-rsrp-a-brief-lte-signal-strength-primer/

AJ

Is there any better range on an LTE link versus EVDO?

No, EV-DO tends to be the more robust airlink. So, all other factors being equal, LTE will likely have somewhat less range than will post Network Vision EV-DO. However, LTE coverage should be similar to pre Network Vision EV-DO coverage.

AJ

I think this is an issue that this site is not intended as a "complaint board" and was intended for forum participants to keep track of the NV deployment. if it was asked in the fashion "hey I have problems staying connected, anybody else have the same problem, and what may be possible solutions?" rather than "hey Sprint get your act together. Sprint salesperson lied to me. I'm leaving now". I for one find the former constructive (and informtive) while the latter is a waste of my time to read.

Hear, hear. Good show.

I have long advised the populace in online forums to make uninformed assertions and blind accusations less, to read and ask honest questions more.

AJ

People, Robert's main points are completely valid.

Sprint gets criticized for releasing LTE devices without a live LTE network. So, to placate some of that unrest, Sprint unleashes access to partly completed markets. And now Sprint gets lambasted for that.

Some people will never be satisfied. "I want it 100 percent, and I want it yesterday" is just not possible in this situation.

AJ

Nevermind, Blew up your screen grab!

Yes, it is a Spectran HF-6065 V4. It has its quirks, but it serves my relatively simple purposes of observing deployed/fallow spectrum, identifying airlink types, and measuring occupied bandwidth quite well. The USB connection and freely downloadable spectrum analyzer software round out a nice overall package.

Let me know if you have any questions about it...

AJ

...you mind if I transmit that bit of RF awesomeness to other interwebs?

If you think that the article is informative enough to share elsewhere, we would be honored.

Thanks...

AJ

For an interesting bit of supplemental info that I decided not to include in the article, VZW has thrown its support behind RSSI and has made effort to standardize its devices around that measurement. For example, see this document:

http://support.veriz...e.html?id=37249

The upside is that LTE RSSI is always greater than RSRP. For VZW 10 MHz bandwidth LTE, RSSI should be approximately 23 dB greater than RSRP. And those larger numbers may be artificially reassuring to end users.

But there is a price to pay -- the signal strength simply gets skewed toward larger numbers. Note how the VZW document states that "RSSI should be greater than -58 dBm" and that "-96 dBm indicates no signal." The former seems surprisingly high as standard signal level, the latter likewise for no signal level.

However, subtract 23 dB from each measurement to convert roughly to RSRP and get -81 dBm and -119 dBm, respectively, both of which are largely in line with observed performance from Sprint LTE so far.

AJ

Man, that Cleveland-Puerto Rico rivalry is intense. I hope they meet up in the playoffs.

AJ

Well, Photon fans, for what could have been, see the next Atrix:

http://www.motorola.com/us/consumers/MOTOROLA-ATRIX™-HD/MB886-ATRIX-HD,en_US,pd.html

AJ

I have a source that has seen and played with one and it is a physical slide keyboard.

Keep in mind that all evidence right now is circumstantial. That preproduction unit with the slide out keyboard is not guaranteed to be the Photon Q, nor is the handset in this FCC filing necessarily the Photon Q.

AJ

Well, no one should be surprised by the inclusion of a physical keyboard. Once the "Q" appendage was attached, historical Motorola nomenclature indicated that this handset was going to have a physical keyboard in some way, shape, or form.

AJ

Several weeks ago, I believe I showed Robert some of the gain and ERP figures from the FCC OET authorization. Needless to say, the Tri-Fi has a lot of RF advantages over most handsets.

AJ

Something is wonky with the 22.1 Mbps LTE uplink speed test. I do not believe that >18 Mbps is realistically possible in a 5 MHz uplink bandwidth with a single spatial channel.

AJ

Please help me out here - where is the GPS antenna?

Some FCC OET filings disclose the location of the GPS antenna, but others do not. They are not required to do so, as the GPS antenna is purely Rx, no Tx.

You can see from our Samsung Galaxy S3 FCC rundown that its filing does include a block diagram with the location of the GPS antenna. But the EVO LTE's filing does not. I would suspect, though, that the GPS antenna is located under the plastic casing (which likely functions as an RF window) on the upper third of the back of the handset.

AJ

The difference is that "epic" is usually reserved for usage by high school age kids...

Are you saying that if HTC and Sprint had called it the "EMO" instead, the name would not be as beloved?

AJ

Not surprised they'd name it that, but it would really be nice if they didn't.

Where is the outrage that came to the surface when the possibility arose that HTC and Sprint might not continue the EVO name?

AJ

Does the Part 90 wavier still have to be attached to the FCC filings?

As you can see in this case, Sprint has included the Part 90 waiver in the FCC OET authorization. However, the Galaxy S3 authorization was already well in progress by the time that the FCC issued its rulemaking last month revising the Part 90 rules explicitly to allow CDMA1X, LTE, and other broadband operations in the contiguous rebanded ESMR portion of the SMR 800 MHz band.

Watch for CDMA1X 800 devices released later in the year. My guess is that the Part 90 waivers will no longer be required with their authorizations.

AJ

twospirits, GregSmoov...

Both of you are correct about the integrated battery-NFC antenna. And that is why we made certain to include that caveat in the rundown from the FCC OET exhibits.

AJ

U guys are right. DOH!!!! For some reason I was thinking of something else. *runs in shame*

Yes, in fact, we even ran a story on the EVO 4G LTE's FCC application the day it hit the OET database two weeks ago.

AJ