1. scrannel's Avatar
    People on Wind Mobile claim it must because it's working there. And, there are a few who are seeing the 1700AWS connected on their escreen with the 91LW. If so, curious why it was dropped from spec sheet.
    08-19-14 08:51 PM
  2. raino's Avatar
    Yep. It was never on the spec sheet, don't know about the FCC docs. There was a theory for a while that the band was either a) hidden to non-AWS SIMs, or b) revealed/unlocked itself when an AWS SIM was put in.
    08-19-14 09:05 PM
  3. scrannel's Avatar
    Very... odd... Thanks
    08-19-14 11:05 PM
  4. modifier's Avatar
    My original unlocked Z10 91LW showed 1700AWS open regardless of SIM installed. Once I got my hands on a 121LW I couldn't find any differences between the two and ultimately sold the 91LW to a Tmo subscriber. I suspect it was an FCC cert requirement over a hardware difference. But, my memory is fuzzy on the details as this topic hasn't come up in about a year.

    [Q10]
    08-20-14 05:57 AM
  5. raino's Avatar
    My original unlocked Z10 91LW showed 1700AWS open regardless of SIM installed.
    Do you remember how you were seeing it? IIRC, I don't think even that Signal (?) app was able to see it.
    08-20-14 11:34 AM
  6. modifier's Avatar
    Do you remember how you were seeing it? IIRC, I don't think even that Signal (?) app was able to see it.
    escreen confirmation on an active 1700 tower and checked via cell site tester. The Signal app does show 1700 open, IIRC, and both the 91 and 121 match.

    [Q10]
    raino likes this.
    08-20-14 02:47 PM
  7. raino's Avatar
    escreen confirmation on an active 1700 tower and checked via cell site tester. The Signal app does show 1700 open, IIRC, and both the 91 and 121 match
    I found an old post of yours where you got Signal to detect UMTS 1700 in a 91LW, but you had a TMO SIM in. And I distinctly remember that Signal does not show UMTS 1700 with non-AWS carriers' SIMs (edit: confirmed.) So maybe escreen is the best confirmation?

    Here is another post of yours, where at that time you thought that AWS carriers' SIMs "unlock" UMTS 1700--implication to me being that the band is "locked" to non-AWS carriers.
    08-20-14 05:32 PM
  8. gariac's Avatar
    FWIW, on my 121, the data from Signal is the same if I have my Tmob sim in it or not.

    I noticed when I pull the sim, the emergency service goes to AT$T (310 410) even though the phone is TMobile branded.

    The emergency service goes to a UMTS tower, even though I can receive LTE from AT$T. Buy that makes sense given the lack of VoLTE.


    Posted via CB10
    08-20-14 09:57 PM
  9. modifier's Avatar
    And I distinctly remember that Signal does not show UMTS 1700 with non-AWS carriers' SIMs
    That's no surprise. Tower and frequency compatibility are in the SIM. It's a Subscriber Identification Module after all. It identifies what tower IDs and frequencies with which to connect. The Signal app cannot poll the hardware to test all available means of connection and instead relies on the SIM's capabilities.

    Verifying using Signal or escreen is still valid since the SIM+91LW combination proves 1700 is open on the hardware despite the lack of mention in the official specs.

    [Q10]
    08-21-14 03:27 AM
  10. gariac's Avatar
    That's no surprise. Tower and frequency compatibility are in the SIM. It's a Subscriber Identification Module after all. It identifies what tower IDs and frequencies with which to connect. The Signal app cannot poll the hardware to test all available means of connection and instead relies on the SIM's capabilities.

    Verifying using Signal or escreen is still valid since the SIM+91LW combination proves 1700 is open on the hardware despite the lack of mention in the official specs.

    [Q10]
    Did you pull your sim and experiment with what "signal" sees? My experiment doesn't match your statements.

    Posted via CB10
    08-21-14 05:23 AM
  11. modifier's Avatar
    No, I never bothered digging into exactly what Signal sees and when. It didn't matter, really.

    Can someone remind us again why UMTS 1700 support on the 91LW is being questioned? I thought this topic was solved a year ago.

    [Q10]
    08-21-14 09:07 AM
  12. scrannel's Avatar
    No, I never bothered digging into exactly what Signal sees and when. It didn't matter, really.

    Can someone remind us again why UMTS 1700 support on the 91LW is being questioned? I thought this topic was solved a year ago.

    [Q10]
    Sure. I started this topic because of a Wind discussion with users being told by Wind that the only Z10 that would work on their network was the T-Mo variant, the 121LW. (And there's another recent thread on the Z10 forum where this issue came up as well). So, I figured I'd get the straight dope on the T-Mo forum. That OK?
    08-21-14 10:20 AM
  13. modifier's Avatar
    Sure. I started this topic because of a Wind discussion with users being told by Wind that the only Z10 that would work on their network was the T-Mo variant, the 121LW. (And there's another recent thread on the Z10 forum where this issue came up as well). So, I figured I'd get the straight dope on the T-Mo forum. That OK?
    Sure, it's ok. I was only curious. I just couldn't figure out why so many 91LW owners have previously shown evidence of it working and now a year later it's back in the news. Wind is obviously not a hardware manufacturer and it's in their best interest to convince owners they need a new device, both in terms of sales and customer support. They likely never tested a 91LW and therefore won't support it. So, if all of this stems from Wind giving advice tailored only to Wind then this all makes sense (well, to them but not us).

    Now, as to the exact reason why it was left out of the specs, my guess is either FCC certs or some crazy plan by BB to sell more Z10 units. (sarcasm intended on the latter statement)

    [Q10]
    08-21-14 12:13 PM
  14. scrannel's Avatar
    Generally, because this does NOT seem to be well known, despite what has been said in the past, it never hurts to air it. Again, it came up on a recent Z10 posting which started out as another topic. And yet again, a couple days ago, on the T-Mo Z10 forum with people worried about coming to t-mo with unlocked 91 phones.
    08-21-14 12:20 PM
  15. gariac's Avatar
    No big deal. But I would like to clear up that the sim doesn't seem to effect the capabilities of the phone, well other than actually getting onto a network.

    It seems to me for that emergency purposes, it would be stupid to lock out a tower.


    Posted via CB10
    08-21-14 06:55 PM
  16. kg4icg's Avatar
    For it to work properly on T-Mobile it needs 1700/2100, or you can say forget it.
    08-21-14 07:52 PM
  17. modifier's Avatar
    But I would like to clear up that the sim doesn't seem to effect the capabilities of the phone, well other than actually getting onto a network.
    To clarify any confusion on my post above, the SIM only affects access to a network and does not affect the hardware. I now understand why you said my post doesn't match your experience when in fact it actually does.

    [Q10]
    08-21-14 08:07 PM

Similar Threads

  1. What Apps Are You Looking Forward To After The New Update?
    By rakive20_01 in forum App Announcements
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 09-06-14, 05:27 PM
  2. Replies: 17
    Last Post: 08-28-14, 04:52 PM
  3. TELUS to be one of the carriers to offer the BlackBerry Passport in Canada
    By CrackBerry News in forum CrackBerry.com News Discussion
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 08-19-14, 06:22 PM
  4. BlackBerry controls the UK!!!
    By kidcalis in forum General BlackBerry Discussion
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 08-19-14, 05:35 PM
  5. Telus Confirmed to carry The Passport
    By Jonesy1966 in forum Telus Canada
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 08-19-14, 02:51 PM
LINK TO POST COPIED TO CLIPBOARD