POST A COMMENT

89 Comments

Back to Article

  • vFunct - Friday, September 14, 2012 - link

    Is Voice over LTE a software upgrade for Verizon?

    Does the iPhone 5 architecture support voice over LTE or is it just unsupported in software?

    I find it hard to believe that Voice over LTE isn't possible with any handset with LTE. You'd figure it'd be part of the LTE spec anyways? Yes? No?
    Reply
  • xdrol - Friday, September 14, 2012 - link

    The core network of the provider needs to support it VoLTE in order to used by any handsets first. While this is "just a software update for Verizon" you can figure it is not something they are just jumping to upgrade it - after all, the WHOLE network will shut down if something goes wrong in there..

    VoLTE is already part of the 3GPP standards, but as almost everything in there, it is optional, so it is totally legal for a handset not to support it. And yeah, it is just software.
    Reply
  • mcnabney - Friday, September 14, 2012 - link

    I would also point out that VoLTE is not standardized yet. IEEE hasn't ironed everything out. Reply
  • mfed3 - Friday, September 14, 2012 - link

    LTE was created by 3GPP, not IEEE. The IEEE created WiMax, a competing standard. Reply
  • Samus - Friday, September 14, 2012 - link

    standardized? VoLTE isn't any different from LTE at the hardware level, it's simply a software implementation (VOIP like Skype, etc) and doesn't need standardizing. Every carrier could implement it their own way and it would still universally work... Reply
  • name99 - Friday, September 14, 2012 - link

    "Every carrier could implement it their own way and it would still universally work..."

    This is ridiculously naive. There is, for example, the little matter of buying equipment from various vendors assuming it will all work together, and the desire to be able to switch vendors as makes sense. Switching EVERY packet from proprietary codec to PCM and back at EVERY computer interface does not make for an efficient low-latency network...

    As for dates, in early 2012 VZW said they planned to roll out VoLTE nationwide in early 2013. At that time, they were already testing the service in two US cities; and I've not heard of any change to this plan.
    Presumably Apple has some insight into this. So essentially they're asking buyers to put up with some months (three? six?) of hassle in return for an overall better phone over the two or three years that you will own it. This seems like a sensible tradeoff.
    Reply
  • OrionAntares - Monday, September 17, 2012 - link

    The primary issue with VoLTE is bandwidth. VZW in particular is still building out their LTE network so they likely made the choice to continue to utilize their old network to reduce that bandwidth load. Other manufactures are making dual mode designs that support SVDO and simultaneous CDMA Voice - LTE Data connections. Apple just decided not to likely so they didn't have to eat into their margins. Reply
  • ltcommanderdata - Friday, September 14, 2012 - link

    Seeing the A1429 "CDMA" is a superset of the A1429 "GSM" why bother offering the A1429 "GSM" at all? Is it just a carrier pressured request as some sort of lock-in? Or are there some benefits such as even though the hardware is the same, when they support fewer bands the A1429 "GSM" can somehow maximize the remaining bands via the provisioning profile software? Reply
  • Brian Klug - Friday, September 14, 2012 - link

    So when you're buying things from Qualcomm, imagine a big form with checkboxes and dollar amounts next to those checkboxes. Check the box, get the feature, but pay the fee, basically. Then you get shipped this software package and are allowed to compile your own AMSS and push that to phones. If you didn't pay for it, it isn't in the bundle.

    I have no doubt that this is a cost reduction measure so Apple doesn't have to pay for features that aren't going to get used on the vast majority of handsets sold internationally.

    -Brian Klug
    Reply
  • Belegost - Friday, September 14, 2012 - link

    Hahahaha I wish it were so straight forward, life would be so much better. Reply
  • repoman27 - Friday, September 14, 2012 - link

    Any idea what configuration you get when you buy the carrier-unlocked / unsubsidized version? Do you get to choose?

    Or is there a model with more boxes ticked for those that pay for the phone up front?

    I think you said something along these lines in one of the podcasts, but, "I want the one with the radio that supports the most bands."
    Reply
  • KPOM - Friday, September 14, 2012 - link

    I'm guessing that they figure that customers in the EU, where the A1429GSM is sold, don't care too much about roaming on CDMA networks since few phones do that anyway.

    Essentially, the Verizon/Sprint phone this year is just the EU phone with CDMA turned on, just like last year all of them were the same except that only the Verizon/Sprint models had CDMA turned on. The AT&T/Canada model is the "special" model this year that lacks the EU bands but has AWS and PCS LTE bands turned on, as well as 700MHz.
    Reply
  • Muford - Tuesday, June 18, 2013 - link

    Apparently the A1429 CDMA cannot use Band 3 LTE after all, at least with SmarTone in Hong Kong. Is there any physical reason why this is so? Or, preferably, is there a way I can turn it on? The iPad mini A1455 took a bunch of fiddling, resetting, and restoring, but finally started working with SmarTone's LTE here. Reply
  • Origin64 - Friday, September 14, 2012 - link

    Let it just be so that all current LTE networks in Holland are on 2.6 and there will be new ones at 800 in 2013. Reply
  • n00by - Friday, September 14, 2012 - link

    Hopefully they will stop with the 2.6GHz except for crowded places and start using the 800MHz band for the actual roll out across the country, and let's also hope that they won't change their bands just for the iPhone. Reply
  • piroroadkill - Friday, September 14, 2012 - link

    ... It must be revolutionary! All phones will now try to copy this. Reply
  • cactusdog - Friday, September 14, 2012 - link

    how many bibbitybobs has that thing got? Oh by the way, I heard the apple is very popular in the gay community. Reply
  • piroroadkill - Friday, September 14, 2012 - link

    Funny you should mention this, I know a gay man who was getting overly excited about the iPhone 5 launch. Reply
  • munsie - Friday, September 14, 2012 - link

    And I know a bunch of straight men that were getting excited about it too...

    Your point?
    Reply
  • MykeM - Friday, September 14, 2012 - link

    I think his point is that some straight men prefers longer... I mean bigger phone. Reply
  • piroroadkill - Friday, September 14, 2012 - link

    You didn't read anything in context. I understand how simple it is to respond to a comment with no thought.

    I didn't say anything with regard to sexual orientation and smartphone preference — rather, I implied nothing of the sort. I simply responded to a person who said Apple was popular in the gay community, with an anecdote of my own.

    However, sensationalism and stupidity is common, as you easily demonstrated.
    Reply
  • web2dot0 - Friday, September 14, 2012 - link

    Funny how regular people just buy and the phone and use it. That's it.
    While people like you gawks at gay people getting excited about iPhone 5.

    It's phone, but your wife. Get over it.
    Reply
  • Deepcover96 - Friday, September 14, 2012 - link

    I expected more intelligent discussion on this website Reply
  • piroroadkill - Friday, September 14, 2012 - link

    You're doing the same thing - in fact, you're assuming that calling someone "gay" has negative connotations, which is immature in itself. Reply
  • Wave9x - Saturday, September 15, 2012 - link

    The issue is generalizing a group of people based on their sexual orientation, which is a form of bigotry. It is equivalent to saying, "I hear the iPhone is popular with blacks". Reply
  • superflex - Monday, September 17, 2012 - link

    Obama is popular with blacks.
    Is that bigotry on their behalf?
    Reply
  • secretmanofagent - Friday, September 14, 2012 - link

    Question for you, if you know the answer. Verizon in my experience has a SIM card for LTE. Would the SIM card slot on the side be in use on Verizon then, and you would have to swap out the LTE SIM when you go abroad? Reply
  • Brian Klug - Friday, September 14, 2012 - link

    I would assume that it will continue to be a USIM for Verizon provisioning (not necessary to swap if you want to roam and pay for it) and that indeed SIMs will work abroad.

    -Brian
    Reply
  • mcnabney - Friday, September 14, 2012 - link

    The SIMs are from Vodaphone, so you should be good to go. Reply
  • drdave25 - Friday, September 14, 2012 - link

    I believe the new sim card is a nano, smaller... Reply
  • Impulses - Friday, September 14, 2012 - link

    I was kinda jazzed about it when I got my EVO 4G LTE but to be honest I don't think I've taken advantage of it very often... And I have noticed that sometimes the data connection drops while on a call regardless, I imagine it has something to do with network conditions. Also, Airaves don't seem to support SVDO at all. Reply
  • Brian Klug - Friday, September 14, 2012 - link

    I test SVDO on new 4G LTE handsets, it was originally pretty cool with the HTC Thunderbolt, now it's kind of a given. I regret not testing it at the Apple event, but the only Verizon iPhone 5 I saw is the one in the picture (seriously).

    -Brian
    Reply
  • bobbozzo - Friday, September 14, 2012 - link

    I just got an AirRave and was told they don't have 4G at all.
    I don't think SVDO is possible (on Sprint phones at least) without 4G.
    Of course if you have an AirRave nearby, you probably have WiFi too.
    Reply
  • UsernameAlreadyExists - Friday, September 14, 2012 - link

    So why doesn't your product has a feature x that some of your competitors have?

    "The reasons, as always, are somewhat technical but at a high level pretty simple. Suffice it to say that at a high level this is a design decision which makes the software as small and light as it is (it really is light, the codebase almost alarmingly so) and enables it to support a wide number of features, rather than some major oversight like I've seen it portrayed. "

    Well yes, there are differences between software and hardware. But this decision does not exactly allow for wider number of LTE channels than other solutions, like I've seen it portrayed (here).
    Reply
  • lowlymarine - Friday, September 14, 2012 - link

    Hey, now you're ready to be an Arch dev! "It's not a flaw, it's a feature!" Reply
  • ananduser - Friday, September 14, 2012 - link

    To cut corners that's why. It wouldn't kill anyone if the iphone was a little fatter. This is a device limitation. Add that to the fact that it won't support Vodafone's 4G in the UK next year. Now we can say that the "world phone" status is false advertisement. Reply
  • huh!! - Friday, September 14, 2012 - link

    So it's not a world phone because it doesn't support a network that currently doesn't work or exist? Think about your requirement's for "world phone" status for a second, and consider if you would be applying to any other phone that isn't called Iphone. Reply
  • ratte - Friday, September 14, 2012 - link

    800 MHz and 2.6 GHz LTE do exist and work in europe.
    Sweden has it but is probably to small a market to count.

    Looking forward to the review and further explanations to why it isn't in Iphone5
    Reply
  • Leonick - Friday, September 14, 2012 - link

    Sweden seem to be big enough a market for Apple to start opening up their own stores. You probably can't just get every piece of frequency working just like that. Reply
  • mcnabney - Friday, September 14, 2012 - link

    Yes.

    Phones aren't just designed to work with what is available at the moment of release. They are designed to take advantage of scheduled changes and improvements. For example, Verizon just got a ton of new higher frequency spectrum from the cable companies and they plan to use it to expand LTE capacity. LTE currently runs at 700mhz, but the new frequencies are over a ghz. The iPhone should have those frequencies tunable, because they will be in use very shortly.
    Not being designed around pending technology changes means that they are outdated at launch.
    Reply
  • ikari7789 - Sunday, October 07, 2012 - link

    I think you're missing the point... A phone really doesn't need to be designed to work with what /will/ be available, but what is currently available. Older cell technology doesn't just "disappear" when they roll out new frequencies or new technology (Unless you're Japan, in which case, they've already disabled anything less than 2G, but that's a different story).

    Think of Apple like Nintendo vs. Microsoft and Sony.
    Nintendo clearly released a technology that wasn't "up-to-par" with the trends that were going to unfold in the near future, but they still seemed to manage to keep their foothold in the marketplace.
    Reply
  • extide - Wednesday, December 05, 2012 - link

    FWIW "Anything less than 2G" is Analog.... and I think pretty much all the analog cell services have been shut down in the US also.. Reply
  • KPOM - Friday, September 14, 2012 - link

    It still works to make calls and send data around the world, just not on every LTE network in every country. They are being much more careful this time around in their advertising. Anyway, perhaps there will eventually be special versions for the UK and China, just as they added the CDMA iPhone 4 mid-cycle 2.5 years ago.

    There are just too many different kinds of networks now on too many frequencies around the world to support on just one device the size of a phone. Even the vaunted Galaxy S3 has different versions (LTE just for North America, GSM/HSPA for Europe). Europe gets the quad-core processor while we don't. I'm guessing that was a design decision, perhaps to make room for LTE support.
    Reply
  • ananduser - Friday, September 14, 2012 - link

    A company as rich as Apple surely could've afforded voice&data over LTE, and additional 800/2600 support - one more antenna. Come on, stop finding excuses for them. Smaller companies can afford it, why can't Apple ? It's a freakin 650$ phone(16GB) with a BOM of 170$. Reply
  • dagamer34 - Friday, September 14, 2012 - link

    Having a lot of money doesn't mean the chip you need magically gets built faster if you care about quality. And I'm sure Brian has already talked about this but the sheer number of iPhones that will be built this year means that Apple can't use a brand new chip that gas just started manufacturing. Reply
  • johnthacker - Friday, September 14, 2012 - link

    Because smaller companies do it to find a niche. Apple is the big dog, so they only have to (and only do) go after the largest chunk of the market. It doesn't make sense for them to spend a lot of extra money to get a smaller market. OTOH, it makes sense for someone with smaller market share to differentiate themselves with a feature.

    Niche plays are for niche companies. That's the upside of diversity and fragmentation. (One disadvantage being that no one phone may have all the niche features you want.)
    Reply
  • ananduser - Friday, September 14, 2012 - link

    All we can say is that the Apple's latest and greatest has a deficiency on CDMA networks compared to competing devices. That's all that counts. It's by design, it's on purpose, but it's still an important omission.

    BTW I understand why Apple did this but motivations are irrelevant and so are fans finding explanations and excuses for Apple. On Sprint and Verzion the iphone is lacking a pretty important feature.
    Reply
  • ikari7789 - Sunday, October 07, 2012 - link

    You act as if this is a feature that CDMA phones have always had the ability to do. The CDMA version of the phone actually had a trump card over the AT&T version of the iPhone 5 anyways. It's truly a global phone that will work on LTE in most European and Asian markets (and that's with simultaneous data and voice), whereas the AT&T iPhone will be stuck to roaming between America and Canada. I can count on my fingers the number of times in the last 2 years of owning a smartphone when I've needed to use data and voice at the same time when I wasn't on a Wi-Fi network. Reply
  • Dave T - Friday, September 14, 2012 - link

    If I'm reading the article correctly, no one does voice over LTE. If you need voice, everyone drops to 3G. But soon, voice over LTE WILL be available. Why build in an extra antenna just to support last year's technology? Reply
  • KPOM - Friday, September 14, 2012 - link

    You do realize that Apple and Samsung are in a patent dispute? Apple has to buy whatever chips it can from Qualcomm. Unlike Amazon, they can't make their own chips since I'm guessing that Samsung isn't exactly falling over themselves to license the LTE patents that they need. Reply
  • ananduser - Friday, September 14, 2012 - link

    So, what do I care ? Let's stop fooling around and admit that the iphone lacks a pretty important feature. It's deficient in this area compared to the S3 or some other devices and that's it. No more "but, but... Apple". I have no problem with it , I do mind however the whining for Apple from their fans. Reply
  • KPOM - Friday, September 14, 2012 - link

    No one is saying it isn't an inconvenience for some and something to consider. However, the whole point of this article is to talk about the technical and design rationales.

    People complained that the new iPad was thicker and heavier than the iPad 2. Part of that was because Apple made the decision to use an older LTE chipset. Well had they used the older chipsets in the iPhone 5, they might have not had the complaint about lack of simultaneous voice and data, but may well have had complaints that they couldn't improve the battery life or weight of the phone. Maybe they could have added a third antenna, but then we might be hearing about the next "antennagate." We don't know. This just explains why Apple did what they did. If it's a deal breaker for you, then it's a deal breaker. If it isn't, it isn't. Apple's probably guessing it isn't for most people.
    Reply
  • jecastejon - Friday, September 14, 2012 - link

    I don't think so, it is a design decision. Apple could use an additional space and weight to add a bigger battery or any other feature they considered vital, but obviously from Apple's perspective and strategy the weight and dimension is very important. Now, is that the way to go? It remains to be seeing, but pre-orders sold out in one hour. Reply
  • IKeelU - Friday, September 14, 2012 - link

    Let's not get ahead of ourselves - pre-orders would've sold out regardless of how Apple made this trade-off. Reply
  • KPOM - Friday, September 14, 2012 - link

    It took more than 12 hours for the pre-orders to sell out last year. Part of that is Apple's more aggressive rollout schedule. We also don't know how many they set aside for pre-orders, but in any case it suggests demand is strong. Reply
  • cmdrdredd - Friday, September 14, 2012 - link

    As if that wasn't known before the pre-order release. Seriously...sheep know no better. Reply
  • jecastejon - Saturday, September 15, 2012 - link

    The thing is it took an hour not if pre-orders sold out.
    ...sheep. Read! Your hate jumps before you could finish a sentence.
    Reply
  • Focher - Saturday, September 15, 2012 - link

    And every year, the number of sheep gets bigger and bigger. Along with matching customer satisfaction. Too bad those people do not know that they're dissatisfied. Reply
  • jihe - Friday, September 14, 2012 - link

    It's a feature saved for iphone 5s Reply
  • KPOM - Friday, September 14, 2012 - link

    It's good to come to AnandTech and get a technical, but understandable analysis. Also kudos to Anand for getting mentioned in the NY Times.

    I'm a bit curious about the iPhone's lack of support for VoLTE, as well. Assuming the carriers implement this, is this something that can be added through a software update, since it will be using the same LTE radio for voice and data? In other words, did Apple just not test it yet because no carrier offers it except MetroPCS, which doesn't offer the iPhone?
    Reply
  • SignalPST - Saturday, September 15, 2012 - link

    I'm curious about this as well.

    Is Apple going to soft update the 5 when the carries turn on their VoLTE or will Apple wait for the 5s to bring it out?

    I'm really hoping that when VoLTE does arrive on Verizon, we'll get simultaneous voice and data and support for HD Voice on the iPhone.
    Reply
  • rs2 - Friday, September 14, 2012 - link

    I don't see why it's necessary to devote an entire article to explaining/attempting to justify a design decision made by Apple. At the end of the day the phone does not support SVLTE/SVDO. If these features are important to you, then this may be a big deal. If they aren't then it isn't. Enough said.

    The how and why of why the phone lacks this capability is largely irrelevant from a practical point of view. Saying that Apple was smart to leave them out doesn't do anything to help people who want/need these features.
    Reply
  • MykeM - Friday, September 14, 2012 - link

    But it's also good to know the intention behind the omission. A but superfluous, no doubt, but it's one of the great thing about this site- that even the most mundane details are fully scrutinized. Reply
  • jamyryals - Friday, September 14, 2012 - link

    I disagree. I don't have a big need for this feature, but I still learned from the article. I also didn't see how he's justifying it. Reply
  • steven75 - Friday, September 14, 2012 - link

    First time visiting Anandtech? Reply
  • johnthacker - Friday, September 14, 2012 - link

    Anandtech is one of the few sites that do these kind of technical breakdowns, not just for this issue but for others. Many of us read it for precisely this reason.

    Luckily, there are a lot of other news sites for you out there that discuss technology features from a practical point of view without getting into technical details. Perhaps you should try them instead.
    Reply
  • johnthacker - Friday, September 14, 2012 - link

    Understanding why the world works as it does and the reasons behind decisions, even ones with which you disagree, is important. Among other things, it helps you understand that the world is full of tradeoffs, instead of relying on ignorant conspiracy theories. Reply
  • name99 - Friday, September 14, 2012 - link

    If you want to read articles that mindlessly criticize Apple, and never explain anything, do read DailyTech; it's in the sidebar.
    If you want to read a glossy Tech Site, go visit TheVerge.

    The WHOLE DAMN REASON most of us visit AnandTech is for detailed articles like this; just like we lap up the IDF articles describing what's new in Haswell, or the AMD articles telling us what's new in their latest GPU.
    Reply
  • Impulses - Friday, September 14, 2012 - link

    Indeed. Reply
  • Pressurge - Friday, September 14, 2012 - link

    I think it's more just the idea that the discussion of this issue could have waited for the review. Anandtech often waits and simply incorporates information like this into the review for pretty much every other company, but Apple seems to get special treatment because it drives page views (and that's understandable, given that they obviously need to generate revenue for the site and one of the best ways to do that is via running articles about the flavor of the day/month/year/era).

    Think of it this way: when's the last time you saw some type of immediate pre-review front page article about some decision decision limiting a SSD or an ASUS or HP product? Exactly.

    (I'd also be willing to imagine that the IDF and especially AMD articles aren't of much interest to most of the readers who come here for Apple information...)
    Reply
  • ananduser - Saturday, September 15, 2012 - link

    Get over yourself. RS2 didn't blast Anand's at all. He just expressed a pretty viable point, IMO. Where the heck do you get the impression that you need to butt in and send him to some other sites ? If you're doing that, try to send a large part of the audience the AppleInsider way while you're at it. Reply
  • ltcommanderdata - Friday, September 14, 2012 - link

    One thing you should test in your CDMA iPhone 5 review is what happens if you take a phone call (hopefully hands-free) while driving with turn-by-turn directions? Does iOS 6 cache enough map data/turn-by-turn data to last through an arbitrary length phone call? I'm not expecting hours here, but certainly 10s of minutes. Or does turn-by-turn directions simply cut-off which could lead the driver to miss a turn and stay on the same road oblivious? That would be a major problem. Reply
  • En1gma - Friday, September 14, 2012 - link

    there are 3G on AWS?
    or no 3G in t-mo network?
    Reply
  • KPOM - Friday, September 14, 2012 - link

    T-Mobile uses AWS for 3G, but the iPhone 5 doesn't support it. T-Mobile is re-farming some of their 1900MHz spectrum to run 3G, which the iPhone 5 supports, and plans to run LTE on AWS, which the iPhone 5 supports. Reply
  • jb510 - Friday, September 14, 2012 - link

    Well drat... I thought I'd made a decision to switch from AT&T (iPhone 4) to Verizon because the Verizon iPhone 5 offered better global LTE roaming... but this throws a another factor into the decision and no I'm uncertain again.

    Simultaneous Voice/Data is moderately important to me. Global compatibility (Thailand, India, China) is also moderate important to me. I'm thinking simultaneous V/D will win out and I'll accept slower data speeds overseas, but it's all still a bit cloudy.
    Reply
  • drdave25 - Friday, September 14, 2012 - link

    Thanks for this comprehensive article.
    1. While you were doing the research, did you find the FCC SAR levels for the iPhone 5? I can't find it anywhere on the net.

    2. I wonder if one iPhone 5 has an advantage over the other when traveling in the EU or even in (say) Turkey or Asia...with AT&T I guess one doesn't have to bother changing a sim card?
    Reply
  • drdave25 - Friday, September 14, 2012 - link

    I guess the VZ version could be a disadvantage when using a GPS app and talking to someone simultaneously. Reply
  • SignalPST - Saturday, September 15, 2012 - link

    Hi Brian and Anand,

    With your upcoming full review on the iPhone 5, it would be awesome if you could address the following points that I've been itching to find out.

    1. confirm that the new EarPods can be used to trigger Siri

    2. confirm if Bluetooth Message Access Profile is indeed implemented in iOS 6. (Pebble watch)

    3. how close does the silver tone on the white iPhone 5 model match the silver on Apple's Macbooks?

    4. rumors about airplay direct (airplay without an AP)

    5. rumors about airdrop (since now it has dual band wifi)

    6. rumors about the Lightning connector being able to host USB devices

    7. any word if Google will launch a separate Maps app for iOS 6? Street view has been almost indispensable for many people.

    8. how likely do you think will Apple be able to enable VoLTE for the iPhone 5 with just a firmware update in the future when carriers switch it on? I'm hoping for simultaneous voice and data on Sprint/Verizon as well as HD Voice.

    Also, I'm really looking forward to your test results on the brightness of the display and how close it comes to matching Apple's claim of covering the entire sRGB color space. It would be totally awesome if the specs match the new iPad's display.

    SignalPST
    Reply
  • drdave25 - Saturday, September 15, 2012 - link

    Great questions. Thanks for asking.

    I also wonder about the SAR for the 5. These values are quite low for the Samsung. I wonder if Apple's new design affected the SAR.
    Reply
  • lancedal - Saturday, September 15, 2012 - link

    I was about to pre-order an iPhone5 for my wife on Verizon network yesterday before I read about this issue. I decided not to do it. Here is the reason why. She needs the navigation/google-search feature for driving/finding places. However, with this limitation, she can't take call while do that simultaneously.

    For me, I absolutely needs this ability. I find myself constantly on the phone while search for address/location. Additionally, without it, I can even tether my laptop for online meeting while joining conference call.

    It's not that you won't survive without it. It's that if I pay big-buck for it, I don't want to maximize its usability.

    One option for me is to go with AT&T, but that would put me back on their HSPA+ instead of LTE while doing data+voice. Then why do I pay for LTE then?

    I'm waiting for the Lumia 920 to see if it has this limitation or not. It's a bit big for my linking.
    Reply
  • mike89z - Saturday, September 15, 2012 - link

    Accordimg to the article:
    Why this is the case is interesting and a function of transceiver and Apple's implementation – with Qualcomm's transceivers (specifically RTR8600 in the iPhone 5, but this applies to others as well), each "port" is created equal, and can handle WCDMA or LTE equally. If your design includes the right power amplifiers (PA), filters, and antenna tuning, you're good to go, which is why we see LTE testing reports for bands that aren't listed otherwise.

    Seems like AWS WCDMA should work then if AWS LTE is supported.Maybe they have the firmware lock it out...hardware-wise, it seems there is no added cost. Just Apple not allowing it(do they really hate TMo and Wind customers that much?)
    Reply
  • drdave25 - Sunday, September 16, 2012 - link

    Using ID=BCG-E2599A I have been searching the FCC files for SAR results. Trying to bring up the FCC Sept. 12 attestation statement throws the computer into a crash (rare for an iMac). Weird. Reply
  • drdave25 - Tuesday, September 18, 2012 - link

    FCC told me the "highest" SAR on the 5 is 1.57. Max allowed is 1.6... Reply
  • drdave25 - Thursday, September 20, 2012 - link

    It took a lot of digging, but I found the following info in FCC 731A re: Apple as Grantee for FCC ID=BCG-E2599A:
    "The highest reported SAR in this frequency band for head, body-worn accessory, product specific (wireless router), and simultaneous transmission use conditions are:
    Model A1428: 0.59 W/kg; 0.09 W/kg, 0.09 W/kg, and 1.34 W kg, respectively [AT&T]
    Model A1429: 0.59 W/kg, 0.11 W/kg, 0.11W/kg, and 1.57, respectively [Verizon]
    I am pretty sure I have identified correctly which is VZ and which AT&T. Not sure what "simultaneous transmission use conditions" means, but my guess is when it is used as a router to connect other phones.
    Reply
  • drdave25 - Friday, September 21, 2012 - link

    Looks like the data from 9/20 was incomplete. This is apparently the full story:
    http://www.apple.com/legal/rfexposure/iphone5,1/te...
    Reply
  • jandre - Friday, September 28, 2012 - link

    I am getting lost in all the jargan here. So is simultaneous voice and LTE possible on GSM (AT&T,T-Mobile in the US) or is it only a limitation of CDMA (meaning Verizon and Sprint in the US)? Reply
  • jandre - Friday, September 28, 2012 - link

    To clairfy, I have seen some snippits and experienced myself that while making a call, the iPhone 5 drops into 4G mode, which, according to my speedtest.net numbers is about 1/10th the speed of LTE. I have been trying to confrim that SVDO whilst on LTE is possible and have not found any details on it. Reply
  • felixthecat64 - Tuesday, December 11, 2012 - link

    That is an excellent question. I had been under the impression that Verizon was putting the onus on the device vendor by having them support multiple radios. This way they would not need to support a fallback mechanism in their network. Does anyone know the answer to this? Reply
  • IQ787 - Thursday, September 12, 2013 - link

    It would be interesting if the author of this article can write up a follow up as to how Apple is the only one to be able to not implement the SVLTE feature on Verizon or Sprint. All recent Motorola, Nokia, Samsung, HTC phones for Verizon/Sprint support SVLTE. I doubt this is a design choice; otherwise the other phone makers would choose to follow Apple's design logic to fit as many bands as possible in fewer SKUs.

    Voice over LTE (VoLTE) requires a software feature that can be enabled through a network update. If the device already supports LTE, it is up to the carrier to enable the VoLTE feature.
    Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now