[thurask]

Confirmation of UMTS 1700 and 900: http://forums.crackberry.com/blackbe.../#post11401778

It's weird that AT&T SIMs mask UMTS 900 in this phone. I wonder why.

AT&T has a habit of causing mischief the second you pop one of their SIMs into your phone.

Anyway, it seems that the SQW100-3 (without an AT&T SIM) is just the SQW100-1, but without Band 13.

Not sure if it would even count Band 29, given the fact that it's for aggregation and not a discrete network band?

I'll see what the radio files have to say.

Posted via CB10

[thurask]

Wow, even the 1955 firstlaunch bar has the SQW100-3 as a placeholder...

Anyway, the Safety and Product Information:

SQW100-3

Novem-band LTE support: LTE 700, LTE 800, LTE 850, LTE 900, LTE 1700, LTE 1800, LTE 1900, LTE 2100, LTE 2600 MHz bands
Penta-band HSPA+ support: UMTS 800/UMTS 850, UMTS 900, AWS 1700, PCS 1900, IMT 2100 MHz bands

SQW100-1

Octa-band LTE support: LTE 700, LTE 800, LTE 900, LTE 1800, LTE 1900, LTE 2100, LTE 2300, LTE 2600 MHz bands
Penta-band HSPA+ support: UMTS 800/UMTS 850, UMTS 900, PCS 1900, IMT 2100 MHz bands

So, BlackBerry can't count to five properly, the band situation is no clearer, and AT&T is playing tricks...

[raino]

AT&T has a habit of causing mischief the second you pop one of their SIMs into your phone.

Anyway, it seems that the SQW100-3 (without an AT&T SIM) is just the SQW100-1, but without Band 13.

Not sure if it would even count Band 29, given the fact that it's for aggregation and not a discrete network band?

I'll see what the radio files have to say.

Thanks. Please do that and let us know.

I compared five sources: the PTCRB, FCC, BB S&PI, AT&T product page and the BB product page. Band 29 is mentioned only at the PTCRB. AT&T has b29 listed for the LG G3--which indicates to me that they do list it whenever its there--but not for the Passport. But then, they could have just stuck one of their SIMs in the phone and listed whatever showed up...who knows.

Masking UMTS 900 doesn't make much sense--even for AT&T--because it isn't a North American band. The only connection I can think of (and this is quite a reach) is that pre-BB10 AWS variants used to be UMTS 900/1700/2100. Hide 900 and 1700 and you ward off anyone thinking of buying and bolting with the phone to an AWS carrier?

There's no recent precedent for AT&T and UMTS 900 because this is the first BB10 phone AT&T is carrying that even has this band--if not the first BB. Likewise, AFAIK, there's no precedent for BB and aggregate networks' bands, because b29 would be the first aggregate network band BB would have ever had the opportunity to report. Generally they're pretty thorough with reporting their US bands, but apparently they did switch to a new company recently...

[raino]

Wow, even the 1955 firstlaunch bar has the SQW100-3 as a placeholder...

Interesting. Is this information important enough to be filled in in subsequent radio files?

So, BlackBerry can't count to five properly

The penta-band HSPA? Lol. I think we can give them a pass on the -3, as 6 is a subset of 5, isn't in use anywhere and has been replaced by band 19 anyway. The SQW100-1 is pretty bad though, since they forgot to list AWS 1700 LOL.

I hope the radio files shed some light on b29 down the road; the only other option I can think of is real world testing when they start aggregating.

[Machete Santa]

Nice!

[tlgem]

Glad there are people here that are knowledgeable about this frequency stuff. I've been reading up on the subject and the water is still a bit muddy for me. Question - Are e-ultra & e-ultra ca in the PTCRB designations for aggregated frequencies?

[raino]

Glad there are people here that are knowledgeable about this frequency stuff. I've been reading up on the subject and the water is still a bit muddy for me. Question - Are e-ultra & e-ultra ca in the PTCRB designations for aggregated frequencies?

Nice find! Aggregation makes sense. CA could stand for "carrier aggregation," plus if you look at some of their pairings, those are the declared aggregation pairings, like 29 with 2, 29 with 4, etc.

If you go back one page by clicking on 'view certified products,' there are a lot of parings that you can filter from. I wonder how many of these are declared/in use, versus just theoretical based on spectrum owned.

[tlgem]

Ahh the old blind squirrel thing Thanks I'll keep studying

[zmsox]

I have added the SQW100-3 to the OP. The good news is that it has almost all the same bands as the -1, therefore virtually the same worldwide compatibility.

i will get these days one at&t passport and give a try in UK and serbia.

[raino]

i will get these days one at&t passport and give a try in UK and serbia.

Wow...I actually read that as Siberia

Yes...please do try out the AT&T Passport in Europe, and let us know how it worked there. If you can, keep an eye on level of signal (3G vs. 4G, etc,) carriers, which cities, etc. You'll need to get the phone unlocked, though.

[zmsox]

Wow...I actually read that as Siberia

Yes...please do try out the AT&T Passport in Europe, and let us know how it worked there. If you can, keep an eye on level of signal (3G vs. 4G, etc,) carriers, which cities, etc. You'll need to get the phone unlocked, though.

i thought to buy it on amazon.com and then to check where to unlock.

will keep you posted

[Cross]

Wow, even the 1955 firstlaunch bar has the SQW100-3 as a placeholder...

Anyway, the Safety and Product Information:

SQW100-3

Novem-band LTE support: LTE 700, LTE 800, LTE 850, LTE 900, LTE 1700, LTE 1800, LTE 1900, LTE 2100, LTE 2600 MHz bands
Penta-band HSPA+ support: UMTS 800/UMTS 850, UMTS 900, AWS 1700, PCS 1900, IMT 2100 MHz bands

SQW100-1

Octa-band LTE support: LTE 700, LTE 800, LTE 900, LTE 1800, LTE 1900, LTE 2100, LTE 2300, LTE 2600 MHz bands
Penta-band HSPA+ support: UMTS 800/UMTS 850, UMTS 900, PCS 1900, IMT 2100 MHz bands

So, BlackBerry can't count to five properly, the band situation is no clearer, and AT&T is playing tricks...

According to this the AT&T version is better signal & band wise?

[Sultan Emperor]

4G only thats good

[TheGonka95]

I have the -1 model and it would normally work on AT&T however, in my area it's not steady at all. I get better 4G than LTE and at work I get no signal. This is in a private home located in the Asheville, NC area. With my Classic, I get 1-2 bars at work and at home I get the same whereas with the PP I get nothing at home. Been trying different carriers with it, Net 10 AT&T and T-Mobile Sim cards are the same, no service. Both phones have the same OS, 10.3.2.2226. I am using the Classic at this point but getting an iPhone 5s through US Cellular due to work necessities (work two). It's sad they no longer offer BlackBerry. I really don't like i-products, have never been impressed.

Thanks for reading my rant!

Posted via CB10

[thurask]

SQW100-4 hits the FCC.

https://apps.fcc.gov/oetcf/eas/repor...id=L6ARHR190LW

LTE 1/2/3/4/5/7/8/13/17/20, UMTS I/II/IV/V/VI/VIII

Sounds familiar.

[raino]

SQW100-4 hits the FCC.

https://apps.fcc.gov/oetcf/eas/repor...id=L6ARHR190LW

LTE 1/2/3/4/5/7/8/13/17/20, UMTS I/II/IV/V/VI/VIII

Sounds familiar.

No LTE band 12

[thurask]

No LTE band 12

Like any other T-Mobile BlackBerry, then.

[raino]

Like any other T-Mobile BlackBerry, then.

Yeah. A bit surprising though, that a "new" phone supposedly made exclusively for TMO doesn't have this band. The Classic pre-dates the makeup, but this is surprising--especially considering BB put in b13 for Telus, which is still in testing (AFAIK.)

[thurask]

Yeah. A bit surprising though, that a "new" phone supposedly made exclusively for TMO doesn't have this band. The Classic pre-dates the makeup, but this is surprising--especially considering BB put in b13 for Telus, which is still in testing (AFAIK.)

I'm guessing Telus was on better terms during the R&D phase of the Classic, though. One week Passport exclusive vs public hissy fits.

[Alberto8]

Couldn't they add band 12 after the fact via software update?

Posted via CB10

[raino]

Couldn't they add band 12 after the fact via software update?

Good question. I don't think so; I would think it would still have shown up/been documented for the FCC, even if the plan was to initially launch with b12 disabled. Plus this isn't AT&T, trying to hide the UMTS 1700 band. If this is TMO-bound as believed, it would be pointless to conceal one of their own bands.

[gaytheist]

This is a reference thread to document the different models and network bands for the BlackBerry Passport. Similar Z30, Z10, Q10, and Q5 threads are located here, here, here, and here, respectively.

Click on image to enlarge. CB10 users having difficulty loading the image below, click here for a larger image (CB link,) or here (Dropbox link.)

Attachment 335258

A few general things:

1. Consult the list above first, then the list of "Partially Compatible Carriers" below, if necessary.

2. How this works: click to enlarge the image above, and then compare your carrier's bands to figure out which model of the Passport is best for your use. If your carrier is not listed, check the PCC list below. If you still don't see it, you can ask for a compatibility check, or ask your carrier.

2a. 'Comparable to' column: If you already own a BB10 phone, you can quickly and easily figure out which Passport to get by looking at this column.
The Passport model listed will always meet or exceed compatibility for the other BB10 phones listed in this column.

3. This thread is a work in progress, and may not yet be complete. It will be updated frequently. Usually, my sources of most information are "official" listings/documents: BlackBerry manuals, FCC filings, etc. This time, the ShopBlackBerry listing has been used as a source as well. As more information is made available, I will double check everything and update as necessary.

4. This is a community driven thread. So if you buy a Passport and would like to chime in with compatibility information, please feel free to do so and I will update the OP. I won't edit the list of "Compatible Carriers" unless I'm provided with solid proof (carriers' websites confirming bands/sub-models, other semi-reputable printed sources such as Wikipedia, etc.)


Partially Compatible (some 3G/HSPA+,or some LTE, but not all for both: )

SQW100-1 and -3:
Telstra, Taiwan Mobile, Vodafone NZ, Spark NZ, Zain Saudi Arabia: 3G/HSPA+ everywhere; LTE only in band 3 areas
Optus: 3G/HSPA+ everywhere; LTE only in band 3 and 7 areas
Airtel India, Aircel, China Unicom: 3G/HSPA+ everywhere; no LTE
Softbank: LTE in band 1 areas; 3G/HSPA+ in UMTS band 1, band 8 areas
NTT DoCoMo: LTE in band 1, band 3 areas; 3G/HSPA+ in UMTS band 1 areas

I'm confused. One of the only differences between the two models is the inclusion of 700c in the SQW100-1 but not SQW100-3. But AT&T's main LTE spectrum _is_ over 700c… why on Earth would you customise a phone model for your network, but then take out a critical spectrum? Bizarre. Is there something I'm missing here?

[raino]

I'm confused. One of the only differences between the two models is the inclusion of 700c in the SQW100-1 but not SQW100-3. But AT&T's main LTE spectrum _is_ over 700c… why on Earth would you customise a phone model for your network, but then take out a critical spectrum? Bizarre. Is there something I'm missing here?

Actually, band 17 is 700bc, not 700c and definitely not just 700b. To avoid confusion, I put down 700bc as just b, and Verizon's 700c as 700c. So factually--yes, the chart is incorrect and I'll correct it. Hopefully the band number will be looked at first, then the block subdivisions.

[gaytheist]

Actually, band 17 is 700bc, not 700c and definitely not just 700b. To avoid confusion, I put down 700bc as just b, and Verizon's 700c as 700c. So factually--yes, the chart is incorrect and I'll correct it. Hopefully the band number will be looked at first, then the block subdivisions.

Ah, that makes sense. Thanks for the explanation.

So, for a North American user, are there any differences at all between the SQW100-1 and SWQ100-3 (even in partial compatibility)? I switch pretty regularly between AT&T, T-Mo, and Verizon networks in the States and Telus/Bell/Rogers/WIND in Canada. I want to buy myself a new Passport, and ideally I'd like to go for an (unlocked) SQW100-3 because the curved edges make typing easier. That said, I'm often in areas with low coverage to begin with, so if there's any network strength/compatibility advantage for the SQW100-1 over the SWQ100-3 on any North American networks, I'd rather go with the former model.

Thanks again! Super cool to be able to ask these q's directly to experts on these topics rather than minimally-trained CS reps.

[raino]

So, for a North American user, are there any differences at all between the SQW100-1 and SWQ100-3 (even in partial compatibility)?

That LTE band 13 is the only difference.

I switch pretty regularly between AT&T, T-Mo, and Verizon networks in the States and Telus/Bell/Rogers/WIND in Canada.

Phone's no good on Verizon (obviously,) but apparently Telus owns band 13 spectrum up in Canada. AFAIK they haven't deployed a b13 network though. So practically no compatibility advantage to getting the -1 right now.

I want to buy myself a new Passport, and ideally I'd like to go for an (unlocked) SQW100-3 because the curved edges make typing easier.

Well then let me make your life hard(er): BlackBerry 'Dallas' arrives at the FCC | CrackBerry.com

This is rumored to be the TMO-bound SQW100-4. And from the FCC docs, it has the same band set as the -1.