Why not support AT&T 3G Bands? (Peter please respond)

[Bruce]

With the N900 already delayed why not make changes to support WCDMA on 850 and or 1900 mhz? I would understand the marketing decision to only support 3G on T-Mobile frequencies if T-Mobile was supporting the phone. By not having WCDMA on 850 or 1900 the vast majority of the US land area will not have 3G coverage on the N900. If you really want this phone to succeed in the US I feel that you need to support AT&T's network.

[JayOnThaBeat]

Why, the iPhones don't bog down the network enough, we need to add actual "mobile computers" to the mix?

[Bruce]

Jay,

I assume your comment was intended as a joke.

You may live in Chicago where the T-Mobile network has good coverage and provides 3G. But many Americans live in rural areas where T-Mobile has no coverage at all. I do not like AT&T, if I could switch I would. The only networks that have significant rural coverage in the US are AT&T and Verizon. The N900 is not going to work on Verizon so AT&T + T-Mobile seems like the best option. Quad band WCDMA would likely increase the number of N900s sold which would also increase the number of apps ported to Maemo.

[quipper8]

because this is only step 4 of a five step plan. t-mobile in the US has been kind of the go-to guy for experimental phones. Just like the G1 went to t-mobile first, now there are android phones going to every network in the US, although I highly doubt Nokia will make a high level phone with CDMA, but who knows, they say they are coming after the US market hard now

[chargen]

AT&T is not the only 3G network in North America using the 850MHz band. In Canada Rogers has a great network (and two other carriers are setting up a competing network) that has lots of bandwidth and great speed.

I really really wish Nokia would announce a version of this device with 850MHz 3G. I'm really looking at purchasing one of these but would be severely displeased if afterward a new model was announced with 850MHz 3G.

I'm OK with waiting, just please don't make me sad to have purchased one. I'd rather wait longer to get a better end result! (Ideally a quad-band 3G model would be released!)

[joppu]

It's not that cheap to tailor a custom hardware version for just the US market that uses it's own weird bands.

[R-R]

The only real question is why can't we make universal phones! ;)

[brendan]

It's not that cheap to tailor a custom hardware version for just the US market that uses it's own weird bands.

It has been pointed out that many of the frequencies not present in the n900 are used outside of the US.

[Texrat]

The only real question is why can't we make universal phones! ;)

The real question is actually why bands are allowed to be fractured and auctioned to virtual monopolies. :mad:

[Bruce]

Here are the UK specs for the N97 Mini with

"Quad band EGSM 850/900/1800/1900
WCDMA 850/900/1900/2100
Automatic switching between GSM bands"

http://shop.nokia.co.uk/nokia-uk/product.aspx?sku=10206701&section_id=530&culture=en-GB

If the same radio had been used then there would not be any need to offer a custom version for US and Canadian networks.

[chakli]

i hope nokia releases 850 variant for NAM users..

[Jed]

The real question is actually why bands are allowed to be fractured and auctioned to virtual monopolies. :mad:

Think of it as electromagnetic homesteading ;)

[Bratag]

You want this thing

http://www.thestreet.com/story/10614007/1/exclusive-google-to-crash-android-party.html

[aironeous]

T-mobile is switching over to hspa+ at 28mps or something like that.

[Laughing Man]

If you really want this phone to succeed in the US I feel that you need to support AT&T's network.

I don't think they really care about succeeding in the USA for now. They're more focused on Europe and Asia. Though I'm guessing the frequency AT&T is on is also used by other countries, so why the lack of it? I dunno. Maybe there's some royalty you have to pay or something..

[quipper8]

with the rollouts of late it is possible that t-mobile will pass AT&T in amount of population covered by 3g in the US, maybe that is the rationale.

[Bruce]

with the rollouts of late it is possible that t-mobile will pass AT&T in amount of population covered by 3g in the US, maybe that is the rationale.

Perhaps they will pass AT&T in 3G coverage but it would take a huge network expansion to pass AT&T in voice coverage.

[Fargus]

I don't think they really care about succeeding in the USA for now. They're more focused on Europe and Asia. Though I'm guessing the frequency AT&T is on is also used by other countries, so why the lack of it? I dunno. Maybe there's some royalty you have to pay or something..

I was under the impression from years ago the reason that a lot of US mobile manufacturers didn't have phones in the rest of the world (China excluded) was that they used a frequency set that the rest of the world (Europe, Asia, Africa, Australisia) didn't. Maybe the question should be: Why hasn't the US adopted the world standards instead?

[kryptoniankid17]

With the N900 already delayed why not make changes to support WCDMA on 850 and or 1900 mhz? I would understand the marketing decision to only support 3G on T-Mobile frequencies if T-Mobile was supporting the phone. By not having WCDMA on 850 or 1900 the vast majority of the US land area will not have 3G coverage on the N900. If you really want this phone to succeed in the US I feel that you need to support AT&T's network.

the same question could be asked in reverse for my n95, n97 and e71 why didnt they make those work for tmobile? why did i have to suffer?

[toratoko]

Like the metric system? But I believe Fargus is right to the point with this one, these frequencies have been set as standards around the world to make life easier for consumers, I feel like it's only appropriate that they not waste extra money to customize it for a select few countries out of many.

That said, I do understand the AT&T dilemma because they are beautiful when it comes to voice coverage but anyone could have foreseen this problem a long time ago when they decided to stick with the 850 frequency route. You win some and you lose some...in the case of the N900, AT&T loses it's 3G compatibility since Nokia just didn't want to spend the extra cash.

I was under the impression from years ago the reason that a lot of US mobile manufacturers didn't have phones in the rest of the world (China excluded) was that they used a frequency set that the rest of the world (Europe, Asia, Africa, Australisia) didn't. Maybe the question should be: Why hasn't the US adopted the world standards instead?

[quipper8]

Perhaps they will pass AT&T in 3G coverage but it would take a huge network expansion to pass AT&T in voice coverage.

I guess t-mobile and other carriers and even ISPs have decided that it is better to cover the highest number of people and not necessarily the largest square area.

[Bratag]

Like the metric system? But I believe Fargus is right to the point with this one, these frequencies have been set as standards around the world to make life easier for consumers, I feel like it's only appropriate that they not waste extra money to customize it for a select few countries out of many.

That said, I do understand the AT&T dilemma because they are beautiful when it comes to voice coverage but anyone could have foreseen this problem a long time ago when they decided to stick with the 850 frequency route. You win some and you lose some...in the case of the N900, AT&T loses it's 3G compatibility since Nokia just didn't want to spend the extra cash.

The people suffering upwards of 30% call droppage on the iphone would beg to differ about at&t's voice coverage :)

[ohwut]

The iPhone has lead to a increase in AT&T's Networks data traffic by 5x in since it's release, as well as not being prepared this has turned into outages and a 30% dropped call rate being considered well within normal.

If AT&T users want to complain about not having 3g on a network that put bluntly can't handle it. Whats to stop the Verizon users to demand one, they have a larger user base, more coverage both 3g and voice with FREE roaming on Sprints network, and arguably faster 3g, and the phone could be built with GSM 3g and CDMA if they really wanted.

They chose 1700mhz for a reason obviously, lets find out why.

[giodelgado]

The iPhone has lead to a increase in AT&T's Networks data traffic by 5x in since it's release, as well as not being prepared this has turned into outages and a 30% dropped call rate being considered well within normal.

If AT&T users want to complain about not having 3g on a network that put bluntly can't handle it. Whats to stop the Verizon users to demand one, they have a larger user base, more coverage both 3g and voice with FREE roaming on Sprints network, and arguably faster 3g, and the phone could be built with GSM 3g and CDMA if they really wanted.

They chose 1700mhz for a reason obviously, lets find out why.

I could understand that they want a network that doesn't have the limitations that the Apple phone has gotten lately with the user traffic jams, but Tmo coverage isn't the best in comparison to ATT and others, installing more towers would be the best move.

[ohwut]

I could understand that they want a network that doesn't have the limitations that the Apple phone has gotten lately with the user traffic jams, but Tmo coverage isn't the best in comparison to ATT and others, installing more towers would be the best move.

Of course the other national carriers have better coverage, but of course they also have twice as many subscribers so it makes pretty good sense. Personally I love my T-Mobile 3g coverage, I actually have one phone on every national carrier other than Sprint at the moment and generally get AT&T and T-Mobile 3g everywhere I go, the only variation I ever see is in highly rural areas where occasionally AT&T has 3g(rarely) and T-Mobile only has EDGE, as well as maybe 1-2bars difference in certain areas.

But I also love my T-Mobile 3g, I have a MyTouch 3g on T-Mobile, a BlackBerry Bold on AT&T with a Touch Pro 2 on Verizon(Who blows away AT&T in coverage). My MyTouch consistently has lower pings and faster network speed than the others when I do have 3g, this is of course just my opinion though I did some pretty specific testing. I've just always feel More isn't always Better. Toyota Pickup's go everywhere and always work vs BMW M3, can't go off-road, but where and when it runs you never look back.

[ordxpres]

the same question could be asked in reverse for my n95, n97 and e71 why didnt they make those work for tmobile? why did i have to suffer?

HIGH FIVE... Suffering T-Mobile user here

[Fargus]

The iPhone has lead to a increase in AT&T's Networks data traffic by 5x in since it's release, as well as not being prepared this has turned into outages and a 30% dropped call rate being considered well within normal.

If AT&T users want to complain about not having 3g on a network that put bluntly can't handle it. Whats to stop the Verizon users to demand one, they have a larger user base, more coverage both 3g and voice with FREE roaming on Sprints network, and arguably faster 3g, and the phone could be built with GSM 3g and CDMA if they really wanted.

They chose 1700mhz for a reason obviously, lets find out why.

I'd echo the increased data usage relating to iPhone usage. Anyone in the UK on O2 will notice a huge difference in data rates when entering London and it seems to be since the iPhone arrived. Look out Orange users in the UK: apparently you're neta lol.

Regarding the frequencies, Wikipedia seems to show the allocation of frequencies around the world with a few comments stating that certain frequencies were already allocated. I suspect for true global assignment it would take a lot of disruption so hence the continued divergance.

If it's any consolation to our US conterparts, we find it annoying too across the board for lots of things coming back the other way so probably levels out in the end. Sure if enough people wanted them to do so AT&T would start using other frequencies too. Maybe time to get the other carriers to increase coverage? Easier in europe to make the case I suppose with higher population density.

[aroca1978]

Well the problem is not limited only to US and AT&T.... please don't be so blind as a lot of countries are using the same 3G frequencies (850 and 1900). In example, almost all Latin America, which is (and has been for years) one of the most important market shares for Nokia, Australia and Canada are other examples of countries using 850 and 1900 for 3G.

So, I really don't understand why they (Nokia) suddenly decided to launch such a great device, excluding a lot of countries from using 3.5G on it.

Could somebody explain me?:mad:

Thank you

[les_garten]

Well the problem is not limited only to US and AT&T.... please don't be so blind as a lot of countries are using the same 3G frequencies (850 and 1900). In example, almost all Latin America, which is (and has been for years) one of the most important market shares for Nokia, Australia and Canada are other examples of countries using 850 and 1900 for 3G.

So, I really don't understand why they (Nokia) suddenly decided to launch such a great device, excluding a lot of countries from using 3.5G on it.

Could somebody explain me?:mad:

Thank you

Do you think T-Mobile could offer that good a deal?

[Johnx]

@Bruce: Out of curiosity, how long ago do you think they made the decision to support T-Mobile USA's 3G bands? and how long do you think almost entirely finished N900 hardware has existed? I'm just saying, this stuff was almost certainly pretty set in stone (for this device at least) months (or maybe even a year or more) ago. And also, whether you like their reasoning or not, and even disregarding whether it's the right choice or not, do you really think they made the decision lightly? I'm coming off a bit harsh, and that's not my intention. But, just try to put yourself in Peter's shoes: Would you suggest at the last minute that you want to delay the device 6 months or a year, spending millions of dollars reengineering and retesting based on the advice of someone on an internet forum? (Yup, re-reading this it does sound a lot sharper than I intended it, but I don't really know how else to word this, and I think it does help to think about things from this perspective...)


-John

[Bruce]

John, no offense taken. I do hope that Nokia seriously considered what frequencies to support and that they considered a lot more than T-Mobile vs AT&T as the phone is sold in many countries. I believe that many more Communicators sold in Europe than in the US and it will likely be the same for the N900. I would never suggest Nokia not support T-Mobiles frequencies which are more common in Europe but I do not understand why they chose not to have quad band WCDMA in the N900 when it is possible.

I wish I did not to have to choose between a true linux phone without 3G or an Android phone with 3G. Ten times the bandwidth is a big draw.

It would be nice if someone at Nokia would explain their decision. I would not expect any explanation for a normal phone however this is a phone that runs open source software. I hope that Nokia will be more open in the future.

In the near future I would really like to get my hands on the phone to be able to contribute to the development and bug fixing efforts.

[texaslabrat]

My theory (and it's just a theory) is that the T-mobile bands decision was based on 2 factors. 1) T-mobile is a big-time player in Europe, and thus getting cozy with them makes good business sense for nokia's plan to push this platform as the high-end offering to providers and 2) Supporting T-mobile's U.S. 3G bands required the addition of only a single frequency above and beyond what is necessary for Europe...allowing a single tri-band 3G radio SKU to be used for both markets thus accelerating time-to-market and reducing development/manufacturing/distribution costs versus making a "world version" and a "NAM" version per usual. Assuming there are no contracts/agreements to the contrary, I would imagine that a proper "NAM" version (850/1900) of the N900 or its follow-on is in the works pending this "testing of the waters on the cheap".

just my 2 cents...I might be completely off base on this.

[cb474]

I have to say I'm amused by people complaining that Nokia is ingoring AT&T and South America and Canada, by not including 850/1900 3G frequencies in the N900. Up until now, every single N series and E series and other high end Nokia phone has come with a NAM version that has 850/1900 and just ignores T-Mobile U.S. Now people are up in arms, here and on other forums, because just this one time Nokia has ignored the 850/1900 people. Well, that's how it's been for people on T-Mobile U.S. for years. Lean to live with it.

That said, I think if you want to understand T-Mobile's decision, you have to take account of why they would make this completely unprecedented decision. So I think many of the plausible sounding reasons people offer in this thread don't hold up in this light. People suggest Nokia is cozying up to T-Mobile in Europe or it's easier to make one version that is both a World and NAM phone (rather than two separate versions, one including 850/1900 as in the past) or Nokia is avoiding AT&T's iPhone overloaded network. If any of these reason were true, they could apply equally as well to the N97, N97 mini, N86, E72 and a whole long line of phones before them. But Nokia not once made this decision before. So I don't think those reasons can be right. If any of those reasons were right, then it's just not plausible that Nokia never once before would have done the same thing for the same reason.

You have to ask what's different about the N900 from all phones before? The obvious answer is the introduction of the Maemo platform. So I think what quipper8 said in the fourth post in this thread is right. Nokia is testing out their new platform on a smaller market segment. By Nokia's own admission Maemo isn't really ready yet. Maemo 5 on the N900 is really the last step, before Meamo 6 which is supposed to be the true full fledged thing. Once they iron out the bugs, I'll be really surprised if the next Maemo 6 based device doesn't have the 850/1900 frequencies. (Sadly of course, leaving the T-Mobile U.S. people in the lurch again.)

[Bruce]

The good news for T-Mobile users is that the N97 Mini supports T-Mobile and AT&T frequencies with quad band WCDMA hopefully the next Maemo device will support quad or more bans of WCDMA.

[les_garten]

I have to say I'm amused by people complaining that Nokia is ingoring AT&T and South America and Canada, by not including 850/1900 3G frequencies in the N900. Up until now, every single N series and E series and other high end Nokia phone has come with a NAM version that has 850/1900 and just ignores T-Mobile U.S. Now people are up in arms, here and on other forums, because just this one time Nokia has ignored the 850/1900 people. Well, that's how it's been for people on T-Mobile U.S. for years. Lean to live with it.



Let me re-interpret your post for everybody else:

Nana na na nana!

Nana na na nana!

Nana na na nana!

:D

[Gorgon]

The good news for T-Mobile users is that the N97 Mini supports T-Mobile and AT&T frequencies with quad band WCDMA hopefully the next Maemo device will support quad or more bans of WCDMA.

No it doesn't. N97mini is a tri-band phone just like the N97 and with no support for 1700AWS so that means no T-mobile USA.

There's no quad-band UMTS because there are few quad-band chipsets, the pricing hasn't come down enough to warrant using and the challenges of multiband antenna design need to be overcome.

[chargen]

I have to say I'm amused by people complaining that Nokia is ingoring AT&T and South America and Canada, by not including 850/1900 3G frequencies in the N900. Up until now, every single N series and E series and other high end Nokia phone has come with a NAM version that has 850/1900 and just ignores T-Mobile U.S. Now people are up in arms, here and on other forums, because just this one time Nokia has ignored the 850/1900 people. Well, that's how it's been for people on T-Mobile U.S. for years. Lean to live with it.

T-mobile does not offer service in Canada, nor anywhere Central or South America, so even if switching carriers was an option for me this would not resolve the problem.

Oh, and my E90 would like to have a word with you about it's apparent 850MHz 3G support. It's "E" icon says otherwise!

[ogahyellow]

So is there a specific technical reason why it is not feasible to support all 3g bands? Antenna technology, baseband processors not existing, IP & patent concerns?

And if the issue is one of a chipset, would there be a specific chipset for various band groupings...like the AWS/Euro bands versus the Americas/Australia bands? Is it one chipset programmed via firmware? Why isn't this hackable dammit!?!? I want an N900 and I want coverage. So a switch to Tmobile USA is a non-starter here....

[Bruce]

No it doesn't. N97mini is a tri-band phone just like the N97 and with no support for 1700AWS so that means no T-mobile USA.

There's no quad-band UMTS because there are few quad-band chipsets, the pricing hasn't come down enough to warrant using and the challenges of multiband antenna design need to be overcome.


http://www.nokia.co.uk/find-products/all-phones/nokia-n97-mini/specifications

# Quad band EGSM 850/900/1800/1900
# WCDMA 850/900/1900/2100

There is no 1700 but I thought T-Mobile used 2100 as well?

[cb474]

T-mobile does not offer service in Canada, nor anywhere Central or South America, so even if switching carriers was an option for me this would not resolve the problem.

Oh, and my E90 would like to have a word with you about it's apparent 850MHz 3G support. It's "E" icon says otherwise!

Yes, the E90, which is a bit of an old phone by todays standards, doesn't have 850 support, so I could have been a little more precise. Every singe E series or N series or other high end Nokia phone, before the N900, that has had a NAM version, has gone with 850/1900. And this has been pretty much every E series and N series phone for a while now. The N900 is the single exception. There has never been a N series or E series or other high end Nokia phone with 1700 3G. It seems to me that is the important point.

I wasn't suggesting you could switch carriers. I was just saying Nokia has been pretty good to the 850/1900 people, so it's amusing to see people be up in arms about the N900, when this is just one instance and for T-Mobile U.S. people they've gone through this with dozens of high end Nokia phones.


http://www.nokia.co.uk/find-products/all-phones/nokia-n97-mini/specifications

# Quad band EGSM 850/900/1800/1900
# WCDMA 850/900/1900/2100

There is no 1700 but I thought T-Mobile used 2100 as well?
I've seen this debate about the N97-mini play out in other forums, in which I even linked to the very same specifications from the Nokia UK site. It appears to actually be a mistake that once it got posted in one place on a Nokia site, it got propagated everywhere. Here are the specifications from the Nokia developer forum, that indicated as with all recent N series devices (except the N900), the N97 mini will have two versions, European and NAM, 900/1900/2100 and 850/1900/2100, neither quadband.

http://www.forum.nokia.com/devices/N97_mini

[danramos]

I'm basking in the glowing embers of what I KNEW putting a cellular radio into a tablet would get us.

Nokia should have just designed the damned thing with a slot for a radio so you can buy a radio for whatever carrier you needed. It'd be cheaper and modular. heh Way to be forward-thinking.

[GeneralAntilles]

Nokia should have just designed the damned thing with a slot for a radio so you can buy a radio for whatever carrier you needed. It'd be cheaper and modular. heh Way to be forward-thinking.

Ha! Modular in mobile devices isn't cheaper.

[danramos]

Ha! Modular in mobile devices isn't cheaper.

Ha! Built-in hardwired radio is SOOOO cheap, right? :P

[GeneralAntilles]

Ha! Built-in hardwired radio is SOOOO cheap, right? :P

You're adding: certification costs, design costs, fabrication costs, all while increasing both bulk and decreasing ruggedness for a feature that only a very small number of your customers will ever use.

Yeah, no thanks.

[danramos]

You're adding: certification costs, design costs, fabrication costs, all while increasing both bulk and decreasing ruggedness for a feature that only a very small number of your customers will ever use.

Yeah, no thanks.

All the costs I could have saved if I bought that modular device without the radio if I chose NOT to have a cellular radio.. POSSIBLY opening up a sale in the future if I decide to spring a little more DO go the radio route. MUCH more affordable to more people.. and invites more of them to become a LARGER number of customers through the CHOICE of which radio to use.

As opposed to the current route of customers buying the first unit with only the supported bands it has.. then pissing off a bunch who'd rather get the later model designed for their own carrier (or worse, making people switch when they didn't want to).. making MULTIPLE models to support MULTIPLE carriers--which incurs allll the same costs mutiple times, warehousing MORE devices--many of which might not sell, all depending on which carriers people wanted to use with whichever model.

Oh yeah.. I can see how embedding a hardwired radio versus a modular design is so much cheaper for everyone involved. Sure. :rolleyes: So uh.. how's this going to end up satisfying the people complaining about AT&T 3G again.. .and cheaply? Small number customers indeed. :)

[texaslabrat]

http://www.nokia.co.uk/find-products/all-phones/nokia-n97-mini/specifications

# Quad band EGSM 850/900/1800/1900
# WCDMA 850/900/1900/2100

There is no 1700 but I thought T-Mobile used 2100 as well?

T-mobile uses 1700 in conjunction with 2100 (one for upload, one for download)...they are not used separately like AT&T uses 850/1900.

[texaslabrat]

MUCH more affordable to more people.. and invites more of them to become a LARGER number of customers through the CHOICE of which radio to use.


Yeah..and the radio-less internet tablets were just amazingly popular with the average joe before. You have it backwards..having a cellular radio makes it more appealing to the masses (single device that does everything), thus attracting larger numbers of customers...thus encouraging economy of scale and finally helping to keep costs down.

A "modular" N900 with removable/detachable radio would likely cost as much or more than the N900 we have now...without the radio. Modularity, as has been previously mentioned, adds enormous costs to development and manufacturing. Just having a removable battery adds to those costs in a non-trivial way (just ask Apple).

If there is enough demand, perhaps Nokia will release a true "tablet" follow-on, but given the relative commercial failure of the N800/N810 by comparison to their phones...I wouldn't hold my breath.

[Johnx]

@danramos: So, these modular radio chip/antenna/sim-holder combos will come from where? I haven't really seen anything like that available off-the-shelf. If you have seen something like that available from anywhere else, I'd be pretty interested in hearing about it to use with a couple embedded projects I've been following. :)

[danramos]

Yeah..and the radio-less internet tablets were just amazingly popular with the average joe before. You have it backwards..having a cellular radio makes it more appealing to the masses (single device that does everything), thus attracting larger numbers of customers...thus encouraging economy of scale and finally helping to keep costs down.

A "modular" N900 with removable/detachable radio would likely cost as much or more than the N900 we have now...without the radio. Modularity, as has been previously mentioned, adds enormous costs to development and manufacturing. Just having a removable battery adds to those costs in a non-trivial way (just ask Apple).

If there is enough demand, perhaps Nokia will release a true "tablet" follow-on, but given the relative commercial failure of the N800/N810 by comparison to their phones...I wouldn't hold my breath.

I'm not sure that Nokia's phones have been the raging success with either the average joe or otherwise, the last time I checked. Can you check the numbers? I thought that Nokia lost marketshare in the period since the internet tablets were around--so it's probably not the just tablets' fault.

Near as I can tell, this whole new market that Nokia just about created and led (the Internet Tablet) is something for which they could have continued to pioneer--and it appears to be the trend you're seeing with several competitors that have popped up recently (Pandora (http://openpandora.org/), Archos 5 Internet Tablet (http://www.archos.com/products/imt/archos_5it/index.html?country=ru&lang=en), ODROID (http://www.hardkernel.com/), etc.). Instead, they've relegated the N900 to another iPhone wannabe. That'll be a raging success in the "mass market" alright. :P Treat it like the openly expandable, portable general computing device that it should be and it'll do better than the iPhone wannabe that it seems poised to be.

I also don't buy the soldered battery argument. NOTHING excuses a soldered-in battery.. not size, not weight, not anything. Cell-phone batteries are thin enough and last well enough not to use that sorry excuse to charge people money to swap out a battery and make sure there's no third party market or competition.

@danramos: So, these modular radio chip/antenna/sim-holder combos will come from where? I haven't really seen anything like that available off-the-shelf. If you have seen something like that available from anywhere else, I'd be pretty interested in hearing about it to use with a couple embedded projects I've been following. :)

Seems to me a company with Nokia's size and experience should have the resources and the intelligence to be able to make a small module that could be used across many devices to support a carrier.

I remember hanging around people in Silicon Valley, back when I lived in Santa Clara in the late 90's and early 2000's, that used to build their own cell phones. I'm not sure if these are useful for your interests:
http://www.opencircuits.com/Open_Mobile_Gadgets#GSM_modules

You might even want to take a look around the whole wiki for interesting project resources and information.

[Rushmore]

Jay,

I assume your comment was intended as a joke.

You may live in Chicago where the T-Mobile network has good coverage and provides 3G. But many Americans live in rural areas where T-Mobile has no coverage at all. I do not like AT&T, if I could switch I would. The only networks that have significant rural coverage in the US are AT&T and Verizon. The N900 is not going to work on Verizon so AT&T + T-Mobile seems like the best option. Quad band WCDMA would likely increase the number of N900s sold which would also increase the number of apps ported to Maemo.

I can vouch for that! Us folks in Kentucky may perhaps see 3G in 2011, but are lucky to have decent edge connections for a lot of areas, though I must admit it has gotten better in the past year.... A little bit.

[Gorgon]

...modular babble...

Modularity adds costs in so many ways that nobody is winning. The cost of a modular platform WITHOUT the radio would cost as much of not more than the current price of the N900 with the radios included. You have to add bulk to the device to provide the mechanical ability to add the module to the device, the device itself needs certification from the FCC, ETSI, SAR, etc, as well as the device itself. Now instead of doing the certification on a single device, you now have to certify the device and each module separately. Do you plan on having a modular antenna system as well? The antenna design for each module will be different, certification will need to be done with the appropriate antennas for each band. You're not embedding the antenna into the radio module since this will likely be too small to allow an adequate element to radiate sufficiently.

Have you seen GSM modules? You can get a GSM module off the shelf that is roughly half the size of my Nokia E71. This is HUGE compared to the device you intend to use it with. Surely Nokia would make this as small as possible, but it's still a separate assembly that needs to be packaged to protect the circuitry and that add bulk, no matter how you slice.

Now you've got to set up separate manufacturing space for each module plus the device itself for test and calibration. You're adding to number of tests and test times by testing everything separately versus testing a single device.

Once you get through all that now you have the customer to deal with. Can you guarantee that the module will be placed correctly, having optimal contact to provide the best performance of the radio? Is the antenna connector robust enough to always provide optimal RF match?

You haven't decreased inventory at all, you've increased it. Instead of a single device with cellular radio, you now stock the device, multiple radio modules and maybe an antenna modules. Then you have to design packaging for each of your plug-ins as well. At the end of the day, nobody is paying less for a product such as that, and if Nokia were to product it you'd likely be saying "man, that thing is freakin' expensive, it would have been cheaper just to drop the UMTS radios on the PCB"... Exactly!

[salem]

Just wanted to add my voice as another customer who would like a 850/1900 band N900 phone. Maybe another version in the near future to support it? I would definitely love to develop on maemo but I don't see the point in purchasing a device if I can't use it on my network's 3G

[texaslabrat]

I'm not sure that Nokia's phones have been the raging success with either the average joe or otherwise, the last time I checked. Can you check the numbers? I thought that Nokia lost marketshare in the period since the internet tablets were around--so it's probably not the just tablets' fault.

Sure I can check the numbers...market share of over 40% worldwide for celluar phones. I'd say that was pretty popular. Versus a relative pittance of internet tablets (sans celluar stack) sold world wide.


Near as I can tell, this whole new market that Nokia just about created and led (the Internet Tablet) is something for which they could have continued to pioneer--and it appears to be the trend you're seeing with several competitors that have popped up recently (Pandora (http://openpandora.org/), Archos 5 Internet Tablet (http://www.archos.com/products/imt/archos_5it/index.html?country=ru&lang=en), ODROID (http://www.hardkernel.com/), etc.).


Yep, they could have..but instead decided they wanted to create a mainstream cellular device. You don't want a mainstream cellular device. That's cool..so perhaps the N900 isn't for you and you should look at the alternatives you listed. It's for me, however...and for a LOT of other people precisely BECAUSE it has an included cellular stack.

Instead, they've relegated the N900 to another iPhone wannabe. That'll be a raging success in the "mass market" alright. :P Treat it like the openly expandable, portable general computing device that it should be and it'll do better than the iPhone wannabe that it seems poised to be.


And a more expensive (modular) version would be even more popular how? Nothing like a $1000 tablet with a $300 available cellular upgrade to spur market uptake ;)


I also don't buy the soldered battery argument. NOTHING excuses a soldered-in battery.. not size, not weight, not anything. Cell-phone batteries are thin enough and last well enough not to use that sorry excuse to charge people money to swap out a battery and make sure there's no third party market or competition.


Buy it or not....acceptable or not...the fact remains that it exists in the Apple products and it exists primarily due to cost concerns. Your opinion does not change the reality of the situation, however justified it might be.



Seems to me a company with Nokia's size and experience should have the resources and the intelligence to be able to make a small module that could be used across many devices to support a carrier.


Sure they could...but as has been repeatedly explained to you, it would wind up costing MORE than having everything integrated. Not to mention it would necessarily be even larger due to the space wasted with the modular connectors versus having chips soldered to a PCB. Sure..sign me up for N900-A aka "the brick"...bigger, more expensive, and doesn't provide a performance benefit. That'll be a best-seller for sure!


I remember hanging around people in Silicon Valley, back when I lived in Santa Clara in the late 90's and early 2000's, that used to build their own cell phones. I'm not sure if these are useful for your interests:
http://www.opencircuits.com/Open_Mobile_Gadgets#GSM_modules


Let me know when they get all of the functionality and performance of the N900 in the same form factor for less money spent ;)


You might even want to take a look around the whole wiki for interesting project resources and information.

I'm sure there are plenty of interesting resources and information...that doesn't change the reality of the manufacturing process of consumer electronics.

[JD2010]

there is maybe a way by flashing the N900 to change the frequency so it might be usable 3g for AT&T or Canada. Like they do for other cell

http://cellphoneforums.net/nokia/t303227-frequency-change-nokia-1662-1661-a.html

http://www.allaboutsymbian.com/forum/showthread.php?t=87744

maybe someone will find a way

[Bruce]

there is maybe a way by flashing the N900 to change the frequency so it might be usable 3g for AT&T or Canada. Like they do for other cell


Flashing should not change the frequency. The frequency is a matter of the antennas and tuners inside the phone.

I believe the quad band GSM / GPRS / EDGE radio and tri band WCDMA radio inside the N900 are separate.

[Johnx]

@JD2010: I just read those threads and it seems the consensus was that it's impossible to change the frequency by flashing the phone. Why do you think it would be possible to do on the N900 when it's not possible on other phones?
To stretch an analogy a bit, that'd be like changing a car from right hand drive to left hand drive by flashing the ECU.

[les_garten]

@JD2010: I just read those threads and it seems the consensus was that it's impossible to change the frequency by flashing the phone. Why do you think it would be possible to do on the N900 when it's not possible on other phones?
To stretch an analogy a bit, that'd be like changing a car from right hand drive to left hand drive by flashing the ECU.

I think there are some CDMA phones that were flashed to turn on some Freqs and that's where it's coming from.

[titan]

Are the frequency bands really a hardware and not a firmware/certification issue?
I mean are the antennas for 850/1900 that different from 900/1700/2100? Any RF engineer who could explain that, around?

[Fargus]

Are the frequency bands really a hardware and not a firmware/certification issue?
I mean are the antennas for 850/1900 that different from 900/1700/2100? Any RF engineer who could explain that, around?

Yep they are. A quick search on Wikipedia will explain the basics to you. The length of the antenna is basically linked to the frequency range that will work (wavelength). Frequency has to be generated using a carrier frequency based on clock cycles, only so many multipliers on a base cycle so that is definately a chipset design limitation.

[Arrancamos]

...and... where is Peter reply!!??

PEDRO: Just put that chip or set the BIOS option on on n900 in order to support WCDMA 850/1900. and... wualaaaaaa

That is not a big deal for them, the technology exist.

[Arrancamos]

of course that is not a HW problem. frequencies are way Old, look regular radios ^^, or do u need buy extra radios to switch from one station to other, or from FM to AM, SW1,2,3,4.......

So PETER!!! surprise us, giving us a xmas gift including WDCMA 850/1900 on n900;
TIA!

[Johnx]

@Arrancamos: Great analogy about the FM radios. It applies more than you think. Try taking your old FM radio from the US (87.8 - 107.7MHz) to Japan (76 - 90MHz). And that's just on the receiving side...

[Arrancamos]

the deep point is that there is no technological issue about enable all bands on a desired celular phone. This practice is nothing new.

so, all is about Nokia political and/or marketing strategy decition.

At least hope they include quad band for WCDMA on n900, in order to enable it thru software in the future.
Regards.

[Rauha]

the deep point is that there is no technological issue about enable all bands on a desired celular phone. This practice is nothing new.

so, all is about Nokia political and/or marketing strategy decition.

At least hope they include quad band for WCDMA on n900, in order to enable it thru software in the future.
Regards.
Are there any quad band UMTS devices? I've never heard of any from any manufacturer. I think it's bit more complicated than building FM radios....

[titan]

of course that is not a HW problem.

wrong, please read Fargus' comment above!

[Texrat]

Modularity, as has been previously mentioned, adds enormous costs to development and manufacturing.

That's too broad. As has also been mentioned, modularity can LOWER development and manufacturing costs as well. Manufacturing one battery that would work across numerous devices, for instance, is much, much cheaper than dealing with numerous battery configurations.

I really wish we could put this simplistic and misleading canard to rest...

[Texrat]

of course that is not a HW problem. frequencies are way Old, look regular radios ^^, or do u need buy extra radios to switch from one station to other, or from FM to AM, SW1,2,3,4.......

So PETER!!! surprise us, giving us a xmas gift including WDCMA 850/1900 on n900;
TIA!

Odds are a deal was made with T-mobile for 3G exclusivity on first-run devices. Circumstantial evidence increasingly points to that as highly possible and even probable.

Disclaimer: I have zero inside info on this (I would not speculate at all if I did).

[LurkerX]

Yeah, those folks wanting modularization are just crazy. Everyone knows devices with modular components are always insanely more expensive.

Look at PCs. I'm sure those crazy folks want CPUs you can just pop in a socket to change them out to a faster speed one. That would make the PC just outrageously expensive. Thank god they are all soldered to the motherboard.

[Fargus]

Odds are a deal was made with T-mobile for 3G exclusivity on first-run devices. Circumstantial evidence increasingly points to that as highly possible and even probable.

Disclaimer: I have zero inside info on this (I would not speculate at all if I did).

Rather than any exclusive deals might it just be the chipset is cheaper without the frequencies that AT&T use? I believe that the frequencies chosen are well used outside the USA and GSM is afterall a European standard. Maybe it's just as simple as reducing costs when the expected market was predominately outside the USA?

[les_garten]

Rather than any exclusive deals might it just be the chipset is cheaper without the frequencies that AT&T use? I believe that the frequencies chosen are well used outside the USA and GSM is afterall a European standard. Maybe it's just as simple as reducing costs when the expected market was predominately outside the USA?

OK, so you go on the cheap and make your device non functional on the biggest cell Data network in the US? TMO is number 4 in the US, without a deal that move makes no sense to me.

[Fargus]

the deep point is that there is no technological issue about enable all bands on a desired celular phone. This practice is nothing new.

so, all is about Nokia political and/or marketing strategy decition.

At least hope they include quad band for WCDMA on n900, in order to enable it thru software in the future.
Regards.

The chipset and antenna still need to be present in the device in the first place for the software to utilise them or all those old phones that used single or dual band would have magically been able to work worldwide too!

Yes it is a hardware basic limitation as to what frequencies are supported. Things are then refined to a subset of that (including all) for certification. Finally the software uses whatever it wants out of whatever is left.

Are we clear now? If someone can pull a certification for the N900 on other frequencies then it might support this debate if not then it's pointless as at very least you would be operating illegally. Nokia usually make a big thing about having lots of bands on their phones; if a frequency is missing it tends to suggest that it simply isn't available to the hardware.

[LurkerX]

OK, so you go on the cheap and make your device non functional on the biggest cell Data network in the US? TMO is number 4 in the US, without a deal that move makes no sense to me.

Yep. As of last year:

AT&T 70.2 million
Verizon 65.7 million
Sprint 48.5 million
T-Mobile 28.7 million

Going with just T-mobile is a really bad move if they aren't giving you a deal.

[Laughing Man]

OK, so you go on the cheap and make your device non functional on the biggest cell Data network in the US? TMO is number 4 in the US, without a deal that move makes no sense to me.

Really depends on where you live. For example, for where I live and all the states I travel to TMobile pretty much covers the areas I frequent so Verizon, AT&T, and Sprint don't offer much of an advantage. (I switched over from Sprint). And at the rate of TMobile deployment they'll pretty much cover all the areas of the US I'm interested in visiting anyway.

[Arrancamos]

WTF!
They can set all those bands in one celphone. Yes!

If they didn´t do it atm is cuz they want some mice for test ^^ get over it!

[LurkerX]

Really depends on where you live. For example, for where I live and all the states I travel to TMobile pretty much covers the areas I frequent so Verizon, AT&T, and Sprint don't offer much of an advantage. (I switched over from Sprint). And at the rate of TMobile deployment they'll pretty much cover all the areas of the US I'm interested in visiting anyway.

Seriously? The dark tiny dark spots are the only areas of the US you are interested in visited? Wow, that's limited.

http://coverage.t-mobile.com/default.aspx?MapType=Data

[Laughing Man]

I don't have much free time given graduate school and my work with the Federal Government. By the time I'm finished the TMobile 2 year contract would've long been over so I could get another phone and tether it to the n900 if I wanted too by that time. Though there really isn't much in the USA I want to see that I haven't seen already. Chicago, some cities in CA, Las Vegas.

My girlfriend (future fiance :D) and I are more interested in Europe (her) and Asia (me) than cities in the USA.

[Arrancamos]

LoLz
http://www.wireless.att.com/coverageviewer/?lon=-86.668491&lat=34.701575&sci=6&3g=t#?type=voice&3g=t&lat=37.33829374999999&lon=-96.42435037500002&sci=1
zoom once, and you will see 3G

[somedude]

LoLz
http://www.wireless.att.com/coverageviewer/?lon=-86.668491&lat=34.701575&sci=6&3g=t#?type=voice&3g=t&lat=37.33829374999999&lon=-96.42435037500002&sci=1
zoom once, and you will see 3G

I know right?
And they go and sue verizon for "there is a map for that" ad where it clearly states "5X More 3G" what a bunch of *****s wasting their time and money in lawsuit rather than upgrading their network.

[Johnx]

@Arrancamos: Alright. You figured it out. There were no technical, marketing or demographic reasons. We all tried to trick you but you were too smart for us. Nokia specifically crippled the N900 just so you couldn't use it. Also: They've been following you. Know that car that always parks on the corner of your street for hours everyday? Yup. It's Nokia corporate spies out to get you! Run!

-John

PS: Honestly interested to see if you can find any *currently shipping* phone with quad-band WCDMA...

[titan]

guys, that's the solution: attach a Droid to your N900 to get the best of both worlds
http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2009/11/tethering-droid/

[Laughing Man]

Haha, hell no. Not with the way Verizon gouges you with that.

[Ayle]

What's wrong with EDGE? If it's anything like the iphone wifi will be the prefered data connection as it sucks less power than UMTS.

[LurkerX]

What's wrong with EDGE? If it's anything like the iphone wifi will be the prefered data connection as it sucks less power than UMTS.

Yes wifi sucks less power, but some of use don't have wifi everywhere we want to use a phone. I spend large chunks of every day in locations where I have GSM/CDMA2000 coverage, but no wifi. And EDGE is SLoooooooooooowwwww. If I'm going to be burning battery on Edge or GSM, I prefer GSM so that I have usable speed.

[Ayle]

Yes wifi sucks less power, but some of use don't have wifi everywhere we want to use a phone. I spend large chunks of every day in locations where I have GSM/CDMA2000 coverage, but no wifi. And EDGE is SLoooooooooooowwwww. If I'm going to be burning battery on Edge or GSM, I prefer GSM so that I have usable speed.

EDGE is a GSM protocol. I think you meant UMTS.

[Arrancamos]

@Arrancamos: Alright. You figured it out. There were no technical, marketing or demographic reasons. We all tried to trick you but you were too smart for us. Nokia specifically crippled the N900 just so you couldn't use it. Also: They've been following you. Know that car that always parks on the corner of your street for hours everyday? Yup. It's Nokia corporate spies out to get you! Run!

-John

PS: Honestly interested to see if you can find any *currently shipping* phone with quad-band WCDMA...

http://www.nokia.co.uk/find-products/all-phones/nokia-n97-mini/specifications
LoL?

Operating Frequency

Quad band EGSM 850/900/1800/1900
WCDMA 850/900/1900/2100

[Fargus]

OK, so you go on the cheap and make your device non functional on the biggest cell Data network in the US? TMO is number 4 in the US, without a deal that move makes no sense to me.

Maybe the USA is not a primary market for the device?

[les_garten]

Maybe the USA is not a primary market for the device?

No need to still be sore about that 1776 stuff!

:D

[texaslabrat]

http://www.nokia.co.uk/find-products/all-phones/nokia-n97-mini/specifications
LoL?

Operating Frequency

Quad band EGSM 850/900/1800/1900
WCDMA 850/900/1900/2100


obviously a misprint. From the n97-mini manual (https://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/prod/oet/forms/blobs/retrieve.cgi?attachment_id=1174203&native_or_pdf=pdf):
About your device

The wireless device described in this guide is approved for
on the (E)GSM 850, 900, 1800, 1900, and UMTS 850, 1900,
2100 networks. Contact your service provider for more
information about networks.

and from the FCC test documentation (https://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/prod/oet/forms/blobs/retrieve.cgi?attachment_id=1174200&native_or_pdf=pdf):


1.1. EUT and Accessory Information
The EUT is a 7-band (GSM850/900/1800/1900 and WCDMA Band I/II(1900)/VIII) mobile phone with GPRS,
EGPRS, Bluetooth and WLAN. Bluetooth and WLAN are tested with maximum rated TX power.


Unless you are suggesting that Nokia purposely lied to the FCC in order to hide the fact that they had a quad-band device?

[Fargus]

No need to still be sore about that 1776 stuff!

:D

I couldn't careless about it. Nothing to do with my heritage, I just live here. I was merely trying to point out that not everything has to have a US focus. Nokia is a european company, maybe for the novelty they decided to look at markets that suit their operating mode more closely.

[Arrancamos]

and the point of this topis is?

whatever, they can handle it, if there are regulations ok. but at least they could release 2 n900 version with 2 triband types. is that so hard? no!!

Pedro??

[Benson]

Are we clear now? If someone can pull a certification for the N900 on other frequencies then it might support this debate if not then it's pointless as at very least you would be operating illegally.
Well, technically, if it had some magic band capabilities, but no FCC/equivalent certifications, and if they happened to overlap amateur radio bands, the possibility for legal ham operations is there. :p But still pretty pointless for most, and of course there are no such capabilities anyway.

the deep point is that there is no technological issue about enable all bands on a desired celular phone. This practice is nothing new.

This tells me you've never built a radio, not even the VHF and lower ones you make reference to. I have (specifically, a Part 15 VHF WFM transmitter), and as an electrical engineer and a licensed amateur radio operator, I like to think I know what I'm talking about.

There _is_ a technological issue, because cost, complexity, and physical size are all under tight constraints here.
and the point of this topis is?

whatever, they can handle it, if there are regulations ok. but at least they could release 2 n900 version with 2 triband types. is that so hard? no!!Not an issue of regulations, simply of hardware. But either way, no. It's not hard. No harder than, e.g., releasing two versions of the N95. Note that there was about 6 months delay from the initial N95 release (useful throughout most of the world) to the 850/1900 release (useful mainly in North America). As anyone would expect, they try to hit the big market first, and then fill in the niche cases with specialty models.

So you can expect to wait a few months after the main N900 release (useful throughout most of the world, including urban areas in the US) to the 800/1900 version (useless outside N. & S. America, but significantly expanding rural coverage in the US, and.adding coverage in markets without a network in the AWS band, e.g. Canada and S. America.).

Will there be such a release? Of course I don't know, since they haven't announced anything about it, but it seems likely enough. However, it'll definitely be a while if it does happen.

[aironeous]

OK, so you go on the cheap and make your device non functional on the biggest cell Data network in the US? TMO is number 4 in the US, without a deal that move makes no sense to me.
Exactly........seems destructive to me unless you are trying to push back against att to let them know to increase their speed. Tmob is going to hspa+ 28mps maybe this is to send a message to att.

[texaslabrat]

Exactly........seems destructive to me unless you are trying to push back against att to let them know to increase their speed. Tmob is going to hspa+ 28mps maybe this is to send a message to att.

That...and the fact that the "non functional" part in les_garten's post seems a bit over the top, wouldn' t you say? Just because 3G isn't available doesn't mean it won't function at all....voice still works and most apps will run just fine on EDGE (though slower, of course).

[sjgadsby]

That...and the fact that the "non functional" part in les_garten's post seems a bit over the top, wouldn' t you say?

Yes.

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2497/4088827136_8161274986.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/sjgadsby/4088827136/)

[aironeous]

sh*t a data plan monitor? Good f'n idea.

[les_garten]

Yes.

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2497/4088827136_8161274986.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/sjgadsby/4088827136/)

How many days did it take you to do that? :D

[Bruce]

N97 mini is on the NokiaUSA site now
http://www.nokiausa.com/find-products/phones/nokia-n97-mini/specifications

# Quad band EGSM 850/900/1800/1900
# WCDMA 850/900/1900/2100

[Johnx]

@Bruce: looks like a typo: http://talk.maemo.org/showpost.php?p=368497&postcount=89

Edit: Oops. I didn't quite get what Bruce was getting at. Sorry for totally missing it, Bruce. :) (Editing to avoid bumping the thread.)

[Bruce]

@Bruce: looks like a typo: http://talk.maemo.org/showpost.php?p=368497&postcount=89

First it was a misprint on the NOKIA UK website now it is on the NOKIA USA website.