Long time lurker, first time poster here. First of all, a massive THANK YOU to everyone here. You guys and gals are Awesome! <3
So, I bought a Samsung S10 (SM-G973F/DS) on Ebay recently and flashed it to Lineage OS 19.1. All was fine until I tried to activate it. We did everything...manually changing the ASP settings, and a bunch of other stuff to try and get this thing to connect to the mobile network. Even placed the SIM card in another phone just to confirm the SIM card was fine, which it was.
Long story short, I think the device was perhaps locked even though the seller claimed it was unlocked. Whatever, I'm over it. I flashed stock back on it and re-locked the boot loader, sent it back. Not worth the aggravation. However, I am questioning if there wasn't something else I could have done?
I was trying to activate the S10 on Mint Mobile USA (a T-Mobile reseller, so GSM) it should have been fine. The default language on the device was German. I don't think that should matter, but maybe it does? Do European phones have problems activating in North America?
My question is: If I decide to get another S10 (SM-G973F/DS) from the secondary market (if its even worth it at this point, since the SM-G973F/DS is really hard to find), is there anything I can find out from the seller first so I don't end up having to send it back?
Or, should I just give up my dream of having an S10 installed with Lineage OS and it's glorious headphone jack and expandable storage forever? If so, are there any worthy alternatives to the S10 worth considering, given my affinity for headphone jacks and expandable storage?
Hello PhonePerfection, all a novel why you speak S10 G973F / DS in the United States.
Already your model S10 G973F/DS exynos 5G or the first 4G model so if these this Europe chip model, if now installed Samsung phone info look at who is scoring at worst take screenshots.
I don't understand your question United States, locked unlocked the seller.
You buy in the back market refurbished and unlocked telephone all operator therefore for sim card, the concern these the chip to install network either US or ASIA controls your model if these good SM-G973F/DS and not SM-G973U or G973U1.
Don't forget to say hello
I think what @meric57 is trying to say is that your phone doesn't have the right chips to communicate on the frequencies in the USA. It's made for other markets and other frequencies... so it won't work here.
If you use FrequencyCheck you can see what carriers support what frequencies on your specific model: https://www.frequencycheck.com/comp...m-td-lte-512gb-samsung-beyond-1/united-states
Scroll down to the "United States" area and you'll see it doesn't support the frequencies used in the USA (except for GSM 2.5, which is old and dead here in the USA). The US is primarily on LTE... and you can see that phone model doesn't support ANY of the available frequencies.
Bottom line "GSM" doesn't tell you enough. You have an incomatible phone model for the USA market. No SIM card will fix that.
Note, in SOME cases, you can activate other frequencies by loading different ROMs into the phone. My old LG V30 did this, for example. I have heard that you can run some Exynos phones here in the USA, but I don't know the details to help. FrequencyCheck may help you figure that out. Be sure the look for the complete model number, not just "Galaxy S10" or something... the naming is worthless for figuring this out.
schwinn8 said:
I think what @meric57 is trying to say is that your phone doesn't have the right chips to communicate on the frequencies in the USA. It's made for other markets and other frequencies... so it won't work here.
If you use FrequencyCheck you can see what carriers support what frequencies on your specific model: https://www.frequencycheck.com/compsomethingatibility/RdEkS7k/samsung-sm-g973f-ds-galaxy-s10-global-dual-sim-td-lte-512gb-samsung-beyond-1/united-states
Scroll down to the "United States" area and you'll see it doesn't support the frequencies used in the USA (except for GSM 2.5, which is old and dead here in the USA). The US is primarily on LTE... and you can see that phone model doesn't support ANY of the available frequencies.
Bottom line "GSM" doesn't tell you enough. You have an incomatible phone model for the USA market. No SIM card will fix that.
Note, in SOME cases, you can activate other frequencies by loading different ROMs into the phone. My old LG V30 did this, for example. I have heard that you can run some Exynos phones here in the USA, but I don't know the details to help. FrequencyCheck may help you figure that out. Be sure the look for the complete model number, not just "Galaxy S10" or something... the naming is worthless for figuring this out.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
schwinn8 said:
I think what @meric57 is trying to say is that your phone doesn't have the right chips to communicate on the frequencies in the USA. It's made for other markets and other frequencies... so it won't work here.
If you use FrequencyCheck you can see what carriers support what frequencies on your specific model: https://www.frequencycheck.com/comp...m-td-lte-512gb-samsung-beyond-1/united-states
Scroll down to the "United States" area and you'll see it doesn't support the frequencies used in the USA (except for GSM 2.5, which is old and dead here in the USA). The US is primarily on LTE... and you can see that phone model doesn't support ANY of the available frequencies.
Bottom line "GSM" doesn't tell you enough. You have an incomatible phone model for the USA market. No SIM card will fix that.
Note, in SOME cases, you can activate other frequencies by loading different ROMs into the phone. My old LG V30 did this, for example. I have heard that you can run some Exynos phones here in the USA, but I don't know the details to help. FrequencyCheck may help you figure that out. Be sure the look for the complete model number, not just "Galaxy S10" or something... the naming is worthless for figuring this out.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Hey, this is great info. Good to know. It looks like that S10 could only communicate on 1 of 8 bands used by Mint/T-Mobile. That 1 usable band appears to have been deprecated by T-Mobile as it is. I think that explains it perfectly. Thank You!
You're welcome.
Yeah, frequencies/bands are very important to watch, particularly if you're buying out of market devices. You have to know model numbers and carriers to be sure of anything, and unfortunately this info is relatively hidden.
schwinn8 said:
You're welcome.
Yeah, frequencies/bands are very important to watch, particularly if you're buying out of market devices. You have to know model numbers and carriers to be sure of anything, and unfortunately this info is relatively hidden.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The CSC on that device was DBT (Germany). I had to find that out in order to put the correct stock OS back on there.
Makes me wonder if the ebay seller even knows this. They appear to specialize in mobile phones with tens of thousands of transactions, so I would hope they've encountered this situation before. They were more than happy to accept a return on the device. Sent me a prepaid shipping label immediately.
Back to the CSC... Let's say I look for another S10 (SM-G973F/DS) but I ask what the CSC is for that device. Are there any regions outside the lower 48 states with reasonably good chances of it working? I suppose I would need to study the mobile frequency website for the answer to that.
I did some quick searching, and supposedly there are websites that say the 973F/DS will work on MM (mint mobile)... but they don't detail how. For example: https://de-googled.com/blogs/news/a-word-on-network-compatibility-of-our-degoogled-phones
and https://www.ebay.com/p/15030406771 (in the description).
So, maybe it is possible? I don't know, so maybe someone else can chime in.
Personally, I stuck with U-version phones and gave up rooting/romming. It's just getting too hard to find phones that offer this, so I figured I'd just adapt back to a stock ROM, since choices are limited. I had done a bunch of that in the past, but I found that stock roms (today) are pretty good... and allow enough customization that made root/rom unnecessary... for me. My current is an SM-G975U1 (unlocked, USA, Snapdragon S10+) on Total Wireless (VZ MVNO)... it works great and I don't miss root/rom at all.
Rumor is that the Galaxy S23 will only be offered as Snapdragon, so maybe that will open up more options... but I doubt it. Samsung loves it's Knox system, and will likely lock down the phone even more with every generation.
schwinn8 said:
I did some quick searching, and supposedly there are websites that say the 973F/DS will work on MM (mint mobile)... but they don't detail how. For example: https://de-googled.com/blogs/news/a-word-on-network-compatibility-of-our-degoogled-phones
and https://www.ebay.com/p/15030406771 (in the description).
So, maybe it is possible? I don't know, so maybe someone else can chime in.
Personally, I stuck with U-version phones and gave up rooting/romming. It's just getting too hard to find phones that offer this, so I figured I'd just adapt back to a stock ROM, since choices are limited. I had done a bunch of that in the past, but I found that stock roms (today) are pretty good... and allow enough customization that made root/rom unnecessary... for me. My current is an SM-G975U1 (unlocked, USA, Snapdragon S10+) on Total Wireless (VZ MVNO)... it works great and I don't miss root/rom at all.
Rumor is that the Galaxy S23 will only be offered as Snapdragon, so maybe that will open up more options... but I doubt it. Samsung loves it's Knox system, and will likely lock down the phone even more with every generation.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Thanks for the link. I think I may try for an S10 again if the seller can tell me what the CSC is. That page on De-googled.com affirms that American devices are more restrictive than their European counterparts.
It just doesn't make any sense to me personally to use a device with an open source OS that has loads of telemetry, spyware, bloat, etc. Which is a contradiction that I am not comfortable with. It's like installing a Linux distro that comes bundled with Facebook.
To me, being proactive about privacy is the equivalent to standing up for yourself in the real world. Sure, you can use a stock ROM and there is nothing wrong with that. It's having the freedom to choose which is most important. So long as that choice is available, I will happily go that route.
I like the added bonus of an Android device that seems faster with a longer lasting battery as well. I mean, I paid for this device. I should have the right to decide what apps are running on it.
No argument there... I agree with why we should be allowed to root/rom. Unfortunately, the carriers pull the strings in the USA (business over people) so we are losing options. Frankly, it pisses me off that they can still prevent phones from connecting to their network just because the IMEI doesn't match (even if the software is correct). In the end, if the device CAN work on the network, the carrier should have no say in allowing/disallowing it on the network. They like to claim that a "bad" device could "hurt" the network, but if that happens, they can lock out that phone and figure it out. I doubt that's even ever happened, but whatever. (They prevented me from using my already-working V30 US998 phone on the network, even though it ran as VS996 with no issues for years... they only later saw the IMEI wasn't "theirs" (original SIM card failed) so they prevented me from re-registering it. So stupid.)
Good luck, and let us know if you figure it out... I'm always curious to learn!
yes, most japan and europe phones do not have the correct radios channels in them for 4g and 5g. i ran into this same problem with my xperia phones that i bought overseas. this is a common problem that can happen.
The S10 and all it's variants is a world compatible GSM phone. So yes, the F variant should work with most GSM carriers and resellers in N. America.
There are various websites that will tell you what frequencies and carriers any particular model will work with if you do a search. Like this one.
WillMyPhoneWork.net - Check if your phone works on a network
Check 2G, 3G, and 4G LTE Network Frequency Compatibility for a Smartphone, Tablet, and Mobile Device in any Country and Mobile Network Carrier
willmyphonework.net
According to that site the SM-G973F/DS supports all 2G, 3G, and 4G frequencies used by Mint.
Related
With the recent influx of Droid devices generated by them being handed out to many individuals through Google's developer channels, I imagine I'm not the only one wondering whether or not it would be possible to get service for this device by anyone other than Verizon. I'm hoping that someone can explain to me what it might take to make this possible.
As I understand it, VZW uses both 1900 and 850 while Sprint uses only 1900 with roaming possible on 850. That means the device should be compatible between the two networks from a frequency standpoint. What I'm not sure about is whether any of the software instructions coded into the VZW/Sprint devices are important to the correct operation of the phone on the network, or if they are identical and it only matters which network accepts the device's ESN.
In short:
- Would any software modifications to the device be necessary for appropriate functionality on the Sprint network?
- If so, could those modifications be derived from existing Sprint Android platforms like the Hero/Moment?
I have been given a free Droid, but I have no plan on ever switching to Verizon. It will remain a development only device if I can't modify it to work with my existing Sprint account.
Thanks in advance for any information.
othelil said:
With the recent influx of Droid devices generated by them being handed out to many individuals through Google's developer channels, I imagine I'm not the only one wondering whether or not it would be possible to get service for this device by anyone other than Verizon. I'm hoping that someone can explain to me what it might take to make this possible.
As I understand it, VZW uses both 1900 and 850 while Sprint uses only 1900 with roaming possible on 850. That means the device should be compatible between the two networks from a frequency standpoint. What I'm not sure about is whether any of the software instructions coded into the VZW/Sprint devices are important to the correct operation of the phone on the network, or if they are identical and it only matters which network accepts the device's ESN.
In short:
- Would any software modifications to the device be necessary for appropriate functionality on the Sprint network?
- If so, could those modifications be derived from existing Sprint Android platforms like the Hero/Moment?
I have been given a free Droid, but I have no plan on ever switching to Verizon. It will remain a development only device if I can't modify it to work with my existing Sprint account.
Thanks in advance for any information.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
the only way to get this to work is via esn swapping !! and that is illegal!! so.... good luck google it!! sprint will not add esns to there network from other carriers !! verizon does is sometimes but sprint will not do it!! sorry are u willing to sell it?
adrianh85 said:
the only way to get this to work is via esn swapping !! and that is illegal!! so.... good luck google it!! sprint will not add esns to there network from other carriers !! verizon does is sometimes but sprint will not do it!! sorry are u willing to sell it?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Illegal, huh? Good 'ol US; the only country that feels the need to so tightly bind our devices to specific carriers. I vastly prefer the unlocked GSM phone model that Europe operates under. Le sigh.
Thanks for the info. I'm unlikely to sell, as I can find uses even for a device that doesn't have service. I just thought I could kill the proverbial two birds with one stone if I could make it work. C'est la vie.
You're forgetting the fact that there are at least TWO major nationwide GSM carriers in the US.
Japan has better game-shows than the US does, but I'm not going to say, "good ol' US" when complaining about it. But, I wouldn't even complain about it.
Cirkustanz said:
You're forgetting the fact that there are at least TWO major nationwide GSM carriers in the US.
Japan has better game-shows than the US does, but I'm not going to say, "good ol' US" when complaining about it. But, I wouldn't even complain about it.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I'm not forgetting at all. The difference is that phones here, even for those two carriers, are sold locked rather than unlocked. Many consumers don't even know they have a choice, nor are they aware that their phones can be unlocked. The fact that the phones can be unlocked, and maybe could be used somewhere else in the world (depending on whether or not they support non-US bands), hardly excuses the fact that a tiny number of consumers would ever even realize that, or go through the hoops and hurdles necessary to unlock their phones.
This is a far cry from a market with many options for carriers where phones are sold unlocked and can be easily moved between any available carrier. The Wikipedia listing of mobile network operators in Europe (which I can't post) is quite illuminating when you realize that countries a tiny fraction of our size have a lot more than 2 choices that the phones they purchase, their property, can operate on. I would say cheering that at least we have two choices seems a little silly when the competition level here for carriers is so much weaker than elsewhere in the world.
Let's just say I'm more than a bit frustrated that what I've been gifted is, in the absence of one particular company's service, a brick. The phone belongs to me, yet whether or not I can use it as more than an alarm clock is dictated by only one company. It seems a little silly, and more than a tad bit frustrating. I would have much preferred an unlocked GSM phone; not only would I have two networks, albeit only one with 3G, to choose from, but my international options would have been wonderful.
Ok, so long story short.. there is no way to get the Droid A855 on gsm even if its unlocked? I know I just might be in the wrong forum but I have been searching all freaking day and honestly every site is starting to look the same to me 10:1 I'll prolly just sell the phone back off
Mr_Vicious said:
Ok, so long story short.. there is no way to get the Droid A855 on gsm even if its unlocked? I know I just might be in the wrong forum but I have been searching all freaking day and honestly every site is starting to look the same to me 10:1 I'll prolly just sell the phone back off
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
No, because the A855 does not have a GSM radio in it. Without the capable hardware, what you want to do is impossible.
Hello,
I'm very confused.
I live in Israel and I have a Verizon S6 Edge (G925V). The phone is working fine here even though we don't have CDMA network.
As far as I know G925V supports GSM networks (http://www.gsmarena.com/samsung_galaxy_s6_edge_(usa)-7166.php).
My screen has shattered so I ordered this replacement:
http://www.ebay.com/itm/OEM-Samsung...715005?hash=item51f2137f3d:g:UyAAAOSwImRYdBBU
The seller then gave me refund claiming that "This item will NOT work for you if you have GSM. The frame for GSM and CDMA are different, so you would not be able to install this item.".
I'm really confused now, how is this screen different than the screen I originally got with my G925V? What screen do I need? Where to buy it from?
Thanks in advance for your help!
? anyone got a clue ?
tbtb123 said:
? anyone got a clue ?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I do not repair phones and have never taken apart an S6 Edge, but I think you ordered the correct part. There are internal design differences for each carrier variant/model since they have to cram so much into a tiny space. The Verizon branded SM-G925V is a phone designed for a CDMA voice network, so the eBay seller is referring to the model of phone when he says "CDMA Only". Yes, the SM-G925V supports GSM but each carrier variant/model has different frequency band support. So, you may want to look into which frequency bands your carrier uses as the phone may only have partial support. Edit: Which model does your local carrier/provider recommend?
blkt said:
I do not repair phones and have never taken apart an S6 Edge, but I think you ordered the correct part. There are internal design differences for each carrier variant/model since they have to cram so much into a tiny space. The Verizon branded SM-G925V is a phone designed for a CDMA voice network, so the eBay seller is referring to the model of phone when he says "CDMA Only". Yes, the SM-G925V supports GSM but each carrier variant/model has different frequency band support. So, you may want to look into which frequency bands your carrier uses as the phone may only have partial support. Edit: Which model does your local carrier/provider recommend?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Hi, thanks.
In Israel they only sell the global version - SM-G925F.
I think I would go with this:
https://www.etradesupply.com/samsung-galaxy-s6-edge-sm-g925v-lcd-and-digitizer-assembly-gold.html
tbtb123 said:
Hi, thanks.
In Israel they only sell the global version - SM-G925F.
I think I would go with this:
https://www.etradesupply.com/samsung-galaxy-s6-edge-sm-g925v-lcd-and-digitizer-assembly-gold.html
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Have another 80USD? http://www.ebay.com/itm/361958487879 Just saying, it might save a lot of time and hassle (64GB too).
blkt said:
Have another 80USD? http://www.ebay.com/itm/361958487879 Just saying, it might save a lot of time and hassle (64GB too).
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
LOL, crazy. But I rather keep my phone with all the data, also I will never buy any USA phone again, only global/unlocked versions.
tbtb123 said:
LOL, crazy. But I rather keep my phone with all the data, also I will never buy any USA phone again, only global/unlocked versions.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I'm just trying to help. Samsung's Smart Switch software allows for very easy migration to another phone. Keep in mind the different models all have different frequency band support, so if you are back in the USA on a global phone the data speeds will likely be slower and of course only GSM/UMTS/LTE support (no CDMA carriers).
https://www.frequencycheck.com/comp...ng-sm-g925v-galaxy-s6-edge-lte-a-samsung-zero
https://www.frequencycheck.com/models/JGpYA/samsung-galaxy-s6-sm-g925f
https://www.frequencycheck.com/models/vDaP6/samsung-sm-g925v-galaxy-s6-edge-lte-a-samsung-zero
Hello Is it possible to enable all the T-mobile US carrier features on the Exynos N960F/DS ?
Yes, when I reach 10 posts. I will be able to make a new thread with step by step images.
HERE is the guide, I got to 10 post
https://forum.xda-developers.com/galaxy-note-9/how-to/note-9-n960fd-dual-sim-csc-change-oxm-t3841000
jgoorn said:
Yes, when I reach 10 posts. I will be able to make a new thread with step by step images.
HERE is the guide, I got to 10 post
https://forum.xda-developers.com/galaxy-note-9/how-to/note-9-n960fd-dual-sim-csc-change-oxm-t3841000
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Is there absolutely any way to do it without root? Can't I take the home CSC of a desired rom and flash just that in Odin, keeping everything else as it originally was?
hkalltheway said:
Is there absolutely any way to do it without root? Can't I take the home CSC of a desired rom and flash just that in Odin, keeping everything else as it originally was?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Not sure, I saw something like that on another post but then it was updated 4 pages later to say that method was not functioning. I assume you don't want to trip knox, but if you just don't want root but want custom CSC flash twrp and custom rom with root. Edit files to change csc as shown in my guide, or others guides. then factory reset rom, and reflash without root, and then make odin reset the recovery to stock recovery.
This is all speculation however.
I was very excited to see this as I've been wanting an international Exynos variant due to absolutely 'needing' to have root.
The Million dollar question is "Does the carrier aggregation still exist? ie... Does ALL the bands work perfectly on T-Mobiles network just as it would 1:1 on a TM variant Note 9?"
I along with some other fellow Note 8 owners got the (F) model of the Note 8 last year and we had discovered that the international variants on T-Mobile / US network suffered from carrier aggregation, where it would connect fine to one single frequency, but it would not aggregate properly to where it would not be able to 'hand off' / 'connect to multiple frequencies at once' with the (F) variants....
For those that remember, I went as far as completely disassembling my Note 8 and testing varies antenna cables thinking that it was hardware related, however, it has been concluded that it is a software issues that causes the international variant of the Note 8 to not work properly on US carriers....
Note: If one is in an area with good signal in the US with a (F) variant, it may look like everything is fine and well, however, it is not. Due to the good reception, the (F) variant is connecting only to that one band, whereas with other devices the domestic US variant would have the ability to pick up several bands and aggregate accordingly, where the (F) can't ...
Therefore, the Million dollar question is "Does this carrier aggregation issue still exist on the Note 9?"
The only way to be able to properly test this is for one to have both the T-Mobile Note 9 + the International (F) variant Note 9 and test the bands side by side in multiple areas ... along with checking in the hidden settings to see exactly what bands it is connected to. If they match, great.... if not, then the carrier aggregation still exists.....
While at it, I'll tag my fellow OG partners in Android Fanatics @DeeXii , @butchieboy , @KennyLG123 ....
I doubt it. It will probably be another year or two to get full or near full capability on Samsung modems. Look at all the weird spectrums going up in different countries. And TMobile just got band 71. It will be awhile before we start seeing noticeable effects nationwide for 71. Your optimism is obsessive. When the galaxy note 2 came out all were Exynos chipsets but some had LTE radios. I opted for without mainly because LTE was not fleshed out yet. (and the LTE radios were add on chips and not fully integrated meaning they were battery drainers). I made a good call as did Apple. You also have to consider Qualcomm has a lot more experience than Samsung and Intel in modems and radios. People are so focused on the results or what they can get without thinking through the whole front end of it and what is plausible, necessary and time needed. I am not saying no but again your optimism is obsessive to a fault. Qualcomm hasn't even made a truly international modem yet. (More bands than they can fit in their design and still too many different techs.) How would Samsung do it? It could be done but your battery life would suffer. That's why there are regional phones. Alsooooo, 2g bands are being deprecated in a few places (I think hspa too but nowhere near as much as GPRS/EDGE). To be honest I think it won't be until 2021 at the very least where there will be a few mainstream phones that you could pop in a sim anywhere and get good service across those regions. For now, you have to compromise. LTE is thankfully dropping in the GSM bucket but it needs to be sorted out.
iunlock said:
I was very excited to see this as I've been wanting an international Exynos variant due to absolutely 'needing' to have root.
The Million dollar question is "Does the carrier aggregation still exist? ie... Does ALL the bands work perfectly on T-Mobiles network just as it would 1:1 on a TM variant Note 9?"
I along with some other fellow Note 8 owners got the (F) model of the Note 8 last year and we had discovered that the international variants on T-Mobile / US network suffered from carrier aggregation, where it would connect fine to one single frequency, but it would not aggregate properly to where it would not be able to 'hand off' / 'connect to multiple frequencies at once' with the (F) variants....
For those that remember, I went as far as completely disassembling my Note 8 and testing varies antenna cables thinking that it was hardware related, however, it has been concluded that it is a software issues that causes the international variant of the Note 8 to not work properly on US carriers....
Note: If one is in an area with good signal in the US with a (F) variant, it may look like everything is fine and well, however, it is not. Due to the good reception, the (F) variant is connecting only to that one band, whereas with other devices the domestic US variant would have the ability to pick up several bands and aggregate accordingly, where the (F) can't ...
Therefore, the Million dollar question is "Does this carrier aggregation issue still exist on the Note 9?"
The only way to be able to properly test this is for one to have both the T-Mobile Note 9 + the International (F) variant Note 9 and test the bands side by side in multiple areas ... along with checking in the hidden settings to see exactly what bands it is connected to. If they match, great.... if not, then the carrier aggregation still exists.....
While at it, I'll tag my fellow OG partners in Android Fanatics @DeeXii , @butchieboy , @KennyLG123 ....
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yes I remember that thread very well, kalm_traveller also made adjustments to the antenna . I recall that ultimately carrier aggregation didn't work on international models when used on the USA networks.
Sent from my SM-N960U1 using Tapatalk
@rbiter said:
I doubt it. It will probably be another year or two to get full or near full capability on Samsung modems. Look at all the weird spectrums going up in different countries. And TMobile just got band 71. It will be awhile before we start seeing noticeable effects nationwide for 71. Your optimism is obsessive. When the galaxy note 2 came out all were Exynos chipsets but some had LTE radios. I opted for without mainly because LTE was not fleshed out yet. (and the LTE radios were add on chips and not fully integrated meaning they were battery drainers). I made a good call as did Apple. You also have to consider Qualcomm has a lot more experience than Samsung and Intel in modems and radios. People are so focused on the results or what they can get without thinking through the whole front end of it and what is plausible, necessary and time needed. I am not saying no but again your optimism is obsessive to a fault. Qualcomm hasn't even made a truly international modem yet. (More bands than they can fit in their design and still too many different techs.) How would Samsung do it? It could be done but your battery life would suffer. That's why there are regional phones. Alsooooo, 2g bands are being deprecated in a few places (I think hspa too but nowhere near as much as GPRS/EDGE). To be honest I think it won't be until 2021 at the very least where there will be a few mainstream phones that you could pop in a sim anywhere and get good service across those regions. For now, you have to compromise. LTE is thankfully dropping in the GSM bucket but it needs to be sorted out.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
So how come Apple is doing that since the iPhone 6s unlocked version? Qualcomm Modem and a truly a word.
Doing what?
I would almost guarantee no ca working. Does it really matter? My s8+ still got 12mb download speeds.
Yakuzahi said:
So how come Apple is doing that since the iPhone 6s unlocked version? Qualcomm Modem and a truly a word.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Doing what?
iunlock said:
I was very excited to see this as I've been wanting an international Exynos variant due to absolutely 'needing' to have root.
The Million dollar question is "Does the carrier aggregation still exist? ie... Does ALL the bands work perfectly on T-Mobiles network just as it would 1:1 on a TM variant Note 9?"
I along with some other fellow Note 8 owners got the (F) model of the Note 8 last year and we had discovered that the international variants on T-Mobile / US network suffered from carrier aggregation, where it would connect fine to one single frequency, but it would not aggregate properly to where it would not be able to 'hand off' / 'connect to multiple frequencies at once' with the (F) variants....
For those that remember, I went as far as completely disassembling my Note 8 and testing varies antenna cables thinking that it was hardware related, however, it has been concluded that it is a software issues that causes the international variant of the Note 8 to not work properly on US carriers....
Note: If one is in an area with good signal in the US with a (F) variant, it may look like everything is fine and well, however, it is not. Due to the good reception, the (F) variant is connecting only to that one band, whereas with other devices the domestic US variant would have the ability to pick up several bands and aggregate accordingly, where the (F) can't ...
Therefore, the Million dollar question is "Does this carrier aggregation issue still exist on the Note 9?"
The only way to be able to properly test this is for one to have both the T-Mobile Note 9 + the International (F) variant Note 9 and test the bands side by side in multiple areas ... along with checking in the hidden settings to see exactly what bands it is connected to. If they match, great.... if not, then the carrier aggregation still exists.....
While at it, I'll tag my fellow OG partners in Android Fanatics @DeeXii , @butchieboy , @KennyLG123 ....
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I have the F model and tested with both AT&T and T-Mobile. Carrier aggregation works with 2 bands on AT&T (12+2) and while it supports all the other AT&T bands it will not aggregate them. No carrier aggregation at all on T-Mobile (single band only).
You can see the supported CA combos the F model has by looking at the FCC filing of the device (do a google search).
Sent from my SM-N960U1 using Tapatalk
@rbiter said:
Doing what?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Doing a world phone with smaller battery than the Note line.
So basically it can be done. Samsung can make a world if they want to.
Apple doesn't have a world phone. They have a minimum of 2 phones to do the world. You have to pick your poison of which part. If they do have one, it probably has you covered for calls but not data. Heck any phone has this if data is less a priority and making calls and texts are a higher priority.
There might be obscure world phones but we probably are not privy to it. Satellite phones too of course but price. I actually read an article about Qualcomm's modem and the increase of LTE bands that came out recently talking about RF360 and Intel and Samsung probably not having anything to compete for at least a couple of years. They don't have an all in one solution yet. Close but not world yet. You have China, US and I forgot what part of South America that messes it up. Even though LTE falls under GSM standards I wish they would tighten it up. So many bands across different countries now and you can't keep up. Band 71 for TMobile is not relevant yet unless you live in a market that is getting it because of low or no coverage.
@rbiter said:
I doubt it. It will probably be another year or two to get full or near full capability on Samsung modems. Look at all the weird spectrums going up in different countries. And TMobile just got band 71. It will be awhile before we start seeing noticeable effects nationwide for 71. Your optimism is obsessive. When the galaxy note 2 came out all were Exynos chipsets but some had LTE radios. I opted for without mainly because LTE was not fleshed out yet. (and the LTE radios were add on chips and not fully integrated meaning they were battery drainers). I made a good call as did Apple. You also have to consider Qualcomm has a lot more experience than Samsung and Intel in modems and radios. People are so focused on the results or what they can get without thinking through the whole front end of it and what is plausible, necessary and time needed. I am not saying no but again your optimism is obsessive to a fault. Qualcomm hasn't even made a truly international modem yet. (More bands than they can fit in their design and still too many different techs.) How would Samsung do it? It could be done but your battery life would suffer. That's why there are regional phones. Alsooooo, 2g bands are being deprecated in a few places (I think hspa too but nowhere near as much as GPRS/EDGE). To be honest I think it won't be until 2021 at the very least where there will be a few mainstream phones that you could pop in a sim anywhere and get good service across those regions. For now, you have to compromise. LTE is thankfully dropping in the GSM bucket but it needs to be sorted out.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I think your lack of optimism is obsessive and at fault. What's wrong with being optimistic and having hope? Most of us are just wanting a simple root on the SD variant of the Note 9, whether it be a samfail method or whatever, we'll take it.
The US variant Note 5 was Exynos and worked just fine, so its not impossible for an Exynos equipped phone to work on US carriers. After all, most of the newer phones have a wide range of frequencies that it can support. Sure some phones are set regionally, but you're aware that there are dual SIM phones right?
If you were familiar with the F model Note 8 that some of us got and have tested last year, then my post would have made more sense to you.
suzook said:
I would almost guarantee no ca working. Does it really matter? My s8+ still got 12mb download speeds.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yes it does matter, because with out the ability for the phone to hand off and/or merge the signals, for those in areas where the reception is sketchy, it'd become major headache.
clubtech said:
I have the F model and tested with both AT&T and T-Mobile. Carrier aggregation works with 2 bands on AT&T (12+2) and while it supports all the other AT&T bands it will not aggregate them. No carrier aggregation at all on T-Mobile (single band only).
You can see the supported CA combos the F model has by looking at the FCC filing of the device (do a google search).
Sent from my SM-N960U1 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Hey @clubtech, thanks for reiterating. Yea that was the case exactly as you've described.... I was getting the same results on TM on the F variant. I'm aware of the fcc filings, but the curiosity stems from the potential possibility...
Is this a possible lead to get CA working on N960F/DS?
https://www.reddit.com/r/GalaxyS8/comments/75ru94/root_exynos_galaxy_s8_how_to_get_carrier/
I've tried this method but just get these two lines without the menu popping up as instructed.
Broadcasting: Intent { act=android.provider.Telephony.SECRET_CODE dat=android_secret_code://27663368378 flg=0x400000 }
Broadcast completed: result=0
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I am most likely doing something wrong or these devices are somehow further locked down. I'm rooted, connected adb, etc. as the instructions say with no success.
Techronico said:
Is this a possible lead to get CA working on N960F/DS?
https://www.reddit.com/r/GalaxyS8/comments/75ru94/root_exynos_galaxy_s8_how_to_get_carrier/
I've tried this method but just get these two lines without the menu popping up as instructed.
I am most likely doing something wrong or these devices are somehow further locked down. I'm rooted, connected adb, etc. as the instructions say with no success.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Mind sharing more info? I'm willing to try it with my device, I'll make a full backup and give it a go! Anything for even better reception!
jgoorn said:
Mind sharing more info? I'm willing to try it with my device, I'll make a full backup and give it a go! Anything for even better reception!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I tried using the dialer codes *#0011# and *#2263# first to get an idea of what I was looking at. These are mentioned further down in the Reddit thread by other users.
Apparently the code mentioned in the Reddit thread OP is a more advanced code that was removed/disabled from being activated from the dialer several iterations of Samsung devices ago...(ie. It now requires root, can only be activated from adb or terminal).
My theory is that Samsung has now fully gimped it or further hid the activation method. This method apparently worked on the Note 8...
Techronico said:
I tried using the dialer codes *#0011# and *#2263# first to get an idea of what I was looking at. These are mentioned further down in the Reddit thread by other users.
Apparently the code mentioned in the Reddit thread OP is a more advanced code that was removed/disabled from being activated from the dialer several iterations of Samsung devices ago...(ie. It now requires root, can only be activated from adb or terminal).
My theory is that Samsung has now fully gimped it or further hid the activation method. This method apparently worked on the Note 8...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Hey, I'm the author of that thread and I also have an Exynos s9+ which is same as the Note 9.
The menu is indeed completely disabled, you can't get to it even with adb or root.
There is a way to activate it, but it will not fix our issue. I've been trying for weeks.
We have a problem that started out on the Note 8, and that is the phone is not reporting the correct supported aggregation combos to the cell tower.
Using the menu, my phone does not support 4+12 however it reports 2+12 and I get carrier aggregation when I disable B4.
So far j haven't found a way to change those combos. At this point I'm very sure it grabs them from the CSC. I've been experimenting and have been unsuccessful so far
The S8 reported the correct combos out of the box, however the ill configured 3xCA was stopping it from working, disabling 3xCA made 2xCA work perfectly.
Our issue here is just were missing those combos so no matter what the phone will not do 4+12 even though the hardware is fully capable.
If anyone knows how to change combos, pm me or reply here, thanks.
Interceptor777 said:
Hey, I'm the author of that thread and I also have an Exynos s9+ which is same as the Note 9.
The menu is indeed completely disabled, you can't get to it even with adb or root.
There is a way to activate it, but it will not fix our issue. I've been trying for weeks.
We have a problem that started out on the Note 8, and that is the phone is not reporting the correct supported aggregation combos to the cell tower.
Using the menu, my phone does not support 4+12 however it reports 2+12 and I get carrier aggregation when I disable B4.
So far j haven't found a way to change those combos. At this point I'm very sure it grabs them from the CSC. I've been experimenting and have been unsuccessful so far
The S8 reported the correct combos out of the box, however the ill configured 3xCA was stopping it from working, disabling 3xCA made 2xCA work perfectly.
Our issue here is just were missing those combos so no matter what the phone will not do 4+12 even though the hardware is fully capable.
If anyone knows how to change combos, pm me or reply here, thanks.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I will totally donate to you if you can get this to work some how! It's pretty much the last feature I'm looking at as a "This phone is perfect except for X".
Carrier Unlocked vs. Factory Unlocked vs. Carrier & eBay adamant GSM & CDMA different
Carriers and vendors on eBay have been adamant that a SM-N960U phone is different, and you cannot use Note 9 phones that came from GSM wireless providers on a CDMA networks and vice-versa. They become incensed and assume a position of superiority at the very suggestion that the differences between network today are often handled by changing firmware. With all of the US Note 9s being the same hardware, this is my take on where they are coming from.
1. If it says carrier unlocked for example: AT&T, it will only be compatible with GSM networks (GSM networks---AT&T, T-Mobile, Cricket, MetroPCS by T-Mobile) - My interpretation is that's only true if you don't flash SPR, VZW, or XAA/U1 firmware, and even then that is not necessarily true in the 4G range.
2. If it says factory unlocked, it will work with all networks-- both CDMA and GSM - My interpretation of that is, it seems their idea of "Factory Unlocked", actually means the phone is running the XAA/U1 firmware.
3. Their refusal to even entertain the possibility of a single model with different firmware working across all of the US networks stems from a long history of cell phone models only being able work with a single wireless provider's bands and proprietary technology.
Correct me if I'm wrong in my logic.
IT_Architect said:
Carriers and vendors on eBay have been adamant that a SM-N960U phone is different, and you cannot use Note 9 phones that came from GSM wireless providers on a CDMA networks and vice-versa. They become incensed and assume a position of superiority at the very suggestion that the differences between network today are often handled by changing firmware. With all of the US Note 9s being the same hardware, this is my take on where they are coming from.
1. If it says carrier unlocked for example: AT&T, it will only be compatible with GSM networks (GSM networks---AT&T, T-Mobile, Cricket, MetroPCS by T-Mobile) - My interpretation is that's only true if you don't flash SPR, VZW, or XAA/U1 firmware, and even then that is not necessarily true in the 4G range.
2. If it says factory unlocked, it will work with all networks-- both CDMA and GSM - My interpretation of that is, it seems their idea of "Factory Unlocked", actually means the phone is running the XAA/U1 firmware.
3. Their refusal to even entertain the possibility of a single model with different firmware working across all of the US networks stems from a long history of cell phone models only being able work with a single wireless provider's bands and proprietary technology.
Correct me if I'm wrong in my logic.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I don't think you can accurately generalize "them".
IT_Architect said:
Carriers and vendors on eBay have been adamant that a SM-N960U phone is different, and you cannot use Note 9 phones that came from GSM wireless providers on a CDMA networks and vice-versa. They become incensed and assume a position of superiority at the very suggestion that the differences between network today are often handled by changing firmware. With all of the US Note 9s being the same hardware, this is my take on where they are coming from.
1. If it says carrier unlocked for example: AT&T, it will only be compatible with GSM networks (GSM networks---AT&T, T-Mobile, Cricket, MetroPCS by T-Mobile) - My interpretation is that's only true if you don't flash SPR, VZW, or XAA/U1 firmware, and even then that is not necessarily true in the 4G range.
2. If it says factory unlocked, it will work with all networks-- both CDMA and GSM - My interpretation of that is, it seems their idea of "Factory Unlocked", actually means the phone is running the XAA/U1 firmware.
3. Their refusal to even entertain the possibility of a single model with different firmware working across all of the US networks stems from a long history of cell phone models only being able work with a single wireless provider's bands and proprietary technology.
Correct me if I'm wrong in my logic.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
i wouldint be surprised that alot of the postings on ebay have the same device under different carriers or just simply generically stated as unlocked. they want more than just 1 result popping up to make it as visible as possible. whether this is legal or not is something to debate with ebay. but i wouldint be surprised savvy vendors would be doing this and depending on which posting was bought, would simply flash carrier firmware or u1 firmware. there are also the ones posting 2nd hand handsets that might have initially been on one build and and along the way was flashed and sold under its original device banner because they looked up product code/serial and sold it as that. also not to mention phones still on contract which can be a time bomb.
Ebay's a jungle. but if you know your rights and have the right arguments to prove your case, you can return almost anything. and if that doesn't work, 2nd stage is a case with paypal.
bober10113 said:
i wouldint be surprised...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I've also been noticing the fine print on the listings that quite a few "good deals" state in the fine print that it is on a contract.
I'm just sticking with there is no difference in the hardware and they are all the same hardware all capable of the GSM and CMDA bands with the proper firmware, no matter what they say about not being able to work with Verizon, and that I can take it to Verizon or T-Mobile. The only thing I might believe is one of them who said it work work with everyone but Sprint, whose issue is most likely based on an IMEI restriction than any capability of the phone.
IT_Architect said:
I've also been noticing the fine print on the listings that quite a few "good deals" state in the fine print that it is on a contract.
I'm just sticking with there is no difference in the hardware and they are all the same hardware all capable of the GSM and CMDA bands with the proper firmware, no matter what they say about not being able to work with Verizon, and that I can take it to Verizon or T-Mobile. The only thing I might believe is one of them who said it work work with everyone but Sprint, whose issue is most likely based on an IMEI restriction than any capability of the phone.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
or on some mdm lockdown as its a rental phone or something and flashing is not an option.
bober10113 said:
or on some mdm lockdown as its a rental phone or something and flashing is not an option.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That is good to know.
Thanks!
Just bought a refurb Note 9 from Amazon...
I realize this is an old thread.... but it is just what I've been wondering.
I bought a Samsung Note 9 phone, labeled (somewhat conflictingly) as completely unlocked but (later on) as only a GSM phone. The model number on the phone is N960U1. That's on a printed label on back of the phone and in the software settings (UI 2.0, as 2.1 hasn't come out yet with this model and T-Mobile[??]). However, I note that lifting the sticky label, the original on chassis number beneath it is N960U (a carrier specific phone).
I thought I knew about phones - I've flashed two other (make that 3 other including my wife's) older Samsung Note phones w/ custom roms because I was tired of being back with Marshmallow.
But fundamental questions I have:
1. Is the N960U phone the exact same phone hardware wise as the N960U1?
2. In other words, is the software lock the *only* difference between these phones?
3. And does that mean I could presumably, once my phone (unlocked by whatever provider once had it locked) is identified as an N960U1, run it on GSM, CDMA, and have access to any and all services offered by whatever provider I choose?
And finally, which is where I began all this, will this phone update to the UI 2.1 eventually as an unlocked phone with that specific (still not available) N960U1 update? Or is the phone in some state of being "neither fish nor foul" - that is, not *really* a fully unlocked phone?
I am asking all this because I could still send it back to Amazon if it is less than it ought to be and get something else.
It is currently running the June UI 2.0 update from T-Mobile....
Thanks for any thoughts. The deeper one digs, the more questions come up.
shonkin said:
1. Is the N960U phone the exact same phone hardware wise as the N960U1?
2. In other words, is the software lock the *only* difference between these phones?
3. And does that mean I could presumably, once my phone (unlocked by whatever provider once had it locked) is identified as an N960U1, run it on GSM, CDMA, and have access to any and all services offered by whatever provider I choose?
4. And finally, which is where I began all this, will this phone update to the UI 2.1 eventually as an unlocked phone with that specific (still not available) N960U1 update? Or is the phone in some state of being "neither fish nor foul" - that is, not *really* a fully unlocked phone?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
1. Yes
2. The U vs. U1 is not indicative of a lock vs. no lock. U phones can be unlocked or locked. The U firmware is wireless-provider-specific firmware. It could be Verizon, T-Mobile, AT&T, etc. Each have their own firmware to work with their specific networks. They will also force updates on you whether you want them or not. The U1 firmware is standards-compliant support. The better the wireless provider supports the standards, the better U1 works. T-Mobile supports it perfectly but has some loss of functionality with allied vendors. You may never notice. Next, is Verizon. Verizon was CDMA, so its 3rd gen stuff won't work like the GSM networks will because they don't have any anymore. However, all of the 4G will, and Verizon has more 4G coverage than any of the others have 2+3+4G coverage. Thus, you don't miss the 3G like you would AT&T who is 25%-30% less than 4G, but AT&T has always been GSM so coverage-wise it is close to Verizon. For standards compliance for U1, AT&T is dead last by far, and if that isn't enough, the most resistant to accept a phone not sold by them. If you do not buy a new phone through a wireless provider, it will be a U1 phone. With a U1 phone you can prevent it from updating if you hold your mouth right. You cannot stop a U phone from updating. Other countries were behind the US so they tend to be more standards-compliant because they weren't as heavily in the game when the innovation was taking place. That means for traveling and swapping SIMs for different foreign carriers, you would want the U1. The Note 9 is the first Note with about every band known to man like the iPhone.
3. Yes
4. If the phone was purchased as a U1, it is undoubtedly unlocked because the seller is not selling it on a contract, and has no idea which network the phone will be used on.
Everything I've read, the 960U /U1 are the same hardware. To support that, their firmware modules are the same except one that is carrier-specific. The U1 for the Note 9 is not carrier specific. I had a T-Mobile Note 9 that I used on the Verizon network with no issues. I have a Verizon Note 9 now, and there is no difference. The only reason I have the Verizon Note 9 now is because the brand new T-Mobile one, still sealed in the box and with the protective film on it, ended up on the bad MEID list. Apparently someone bought it and brought it back without using it and stopped paying on it and thought they were out of the contract by doing so. The Verizon U phone that I have now has been flashed to U1 and works fine on their network. So the advantage of the U is its supports all of your carrier's services. The U1 supports all of your carrier's services that are standards-based and don't use carrier-specific services. Example, if the carrier supports support VoLTE, U1 will not usually support it because it must coordinate with the carrier's servers while U will. They say the U1 doesn't have the carrier bloatware. I don't agree. The carrier-specific added services are designed to work with their servers. Moreover, in the areas that need to be filled in, you get the basic programs from Samsung to replace the more capable ones you get from the carrier. I use U1 because I need to stop them from updating me due to my line-of-business software on my phone and for International travel when I replace the SIM with a local network SIM. If that's not you, and you want the latest for your carrier, U is what you want.
IT_Architect said:
1. Yes
2. The U vs. U1 is not indicative of a lock vs. no lock. U phones can be unlocked or locked. The U firmware is wireless-provider-specific firmware. It could be Verizon, T-Mobile, AT&T, etc. Each have their own firmware to work with their specific networks. They will also force updates on you whether you want them or not. The U1 firmware is standards-compliant support. The better the wireless provider supports the standards, the better U1 works. T-Mobile supports it perfectly but has some loss of functionality with allied vendors. You may never notice. Next, is Verizon. Verizon was CDMA, so its 3rd gen stuff won't work like the GSM networks will because they don't have any anymore. However, all of the 4G will, and Verizon has more 4G coverage than any of the others have 2+3+4G coverage. Thus, you don't miss the 3G like you would AT&T who is 25%-30% 3G, but AT&T has always been GSM so coverage-wise it is close to Verizon. For compatibility U1, AT&T is dead last by far. If you do not buy a new phone through a wireless provider, it will be a U1 phone. With a U1 phone you can prevent it from updating if you hold your mouth right. You cannot stop a U phone from updating. Other countries were behind the US so they tend to be more standards-compliant because they weren't as heavily in the game when the innovation was taking place. That means for traveling and swapping SIMs for different foreign carriers, you would want the U1. The Note 9 is the first Note with about every band known to man like the iPhone.
3. Yes
4. If the phone was purchased as a U1, it is undoubtedly unlocked because the seller is not selling it on a contract, and has no idea which network the phone will be used on.
Everything I've read, the 960U /U1 are the same hardware. To support that, their firmware modules are the same except one that is carrier-specific. The U1 for the Note 9 is not carrier specific. I had a T-Mobile Note 9 that I used on the Verizon network with no issues. I have a Verizon Note 9 now, and there is no difference. The only reason I have the Verizon Note 9 now is because the brand new T-Mobile one, still sealed in the box and with the protective film on it, ended up on the bad MEID list. Apparently someone bought it and brought it back without using it and thought they were out of the contract by doing so. The Verizon U phone that I have now has been flashed to U1 and works fine on their network. So the advantage of the U is its supports all of your carrier's services. The U1 supports all of your carrier's services that are standards-based and don't use carrier-specific services. Example, if the carrier supports support VoLTE, U1 will not usually support it because it coordinates with the carrier's servers while U will. They say the U1 doesn't have the carrier bloatware. I don't agree. The carrier-specific added services are designed to work with their servers. I use U1 because I need to stop them from updating me due to my line-of-business software on my phone and for International travel when I replace the SIM with a local network SIM. If that's not you, and you want the latest for your carrier, U is what you want.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Thank you for this. Very helpful. I'm not sure yet whether I'll send the phone back.
UPDATE: Samsung released the T-Mobile update to UI 2.1 (dated July 7) today, August 11 2020.
NOTE: I installed this and hit an issue after the install completed re an error message (see photo). This error apparently is happening in a widespread way, and the 3 solutions offered by Samsung did not work. What *did* (I think) work for me was to go to Settings > Software Update > UICC Unlock. Beneath that button on the N960UI it reads (as it should) "Your device is unlocked to support any sim." I click it anyway and I get a report that my device sim is restricted, bla bla bla. I hit the "OK" and reboot the phone to see... and sure enough, that's all it apparently took to remove the annoying nag about the install not having completed. In fact I get a successful "handshake" message between T-Mobile and the phone having formed a more perfect union or some such.
shonkin said:
Thank you for this. Very helpful. I'm not sure yet whether I'll send the phone back.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You can flash between any carrier U and U1 firmware at any time. The only thing you need to be aware of is the boot loader version, which is the 5th character from the right in the build number.
- It must be the same number or higher.
- You cannot flash backwards to a lower number.
E.G. You can flash from a newer version of Android to an older version PROVIDED the older version does not have a lower boot loader version. If flashing the newer version of Android changed the boot loader version to a higher version than the older operating system supports, you cannot flash to the older version of Android ever again. The boot loader version is not synched with the the Android version. It is synched with the particular build. Thus, you might get an update to the current operating system that increments your boot loader. If you like to always be on the latest version of firmware, this is no likely to be a problem.
For the SM-N960U/U1 phones, the various carrier versions, U, and the U1 version are released at the same time. A lot of standardization has occurred and made possible by the hardware being the same. In the U1 versions for the SM-N960 you will see carrier names associated with different downloads. It's all bogus. The downloads are all exactly the same with the same module names, size, and the same MD5 signature.
IT_Architect said:
You can flash between any carrier U and U1 firmware at any time. The only thing you need to be aware of is the boot loader version, which is the 5th character from the right in the build number.
- It must be the same number or higher.
- You cannot flash backwards to a lower number.
E.G. You can flash from a newer version of Android to an older version PROVIDED the older version does not have a lower boot loader version. If flashing the newer version of Android changed the boot loader version to a higher version than the older operating system supports, you cannot flash to the older version of Android ever again. The boot loader version is not synched with the the Android version. It is synched with the particular build. Thus, you might get an update to the current operating system that increments your boot loader. If you like to always be on the latest version of firmware, this is no likely to be a problem.
For the SM-N960U/U1 phones, the various carrier versions, U, and the U1 version are released at the same time. A lot of standardization has occurred and made possible by the hardware being the same. In the U1 versions for the SM-N960 you will see carrier names associated with different downloads. It's all bogus. The downloads are all exactly the same with the same module names, size, and the same MD5 signature.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
VERY helpful info here.... as of this morning Samsung updated my phone w/ UI 2.1 T-Mobile files. I posted on it elsewhere as a recurring error popped up. Surfing the web shows that error cropped up for all sorts of people doing the 2.1 update on various carriers. I *think* I found the solution but have posted it enough places (including a few posts back in this thread) I won't do again unless someone here wants it. Samsung's "solutions" (all three of them) do not work. Oh, I think I'll hold on to this phone rather than switch out for a T-Mobile specific... gives me more lattitude down the road when I feel like rooting it. Ha!
shonkin said:
VERY helpful info here.... as of this morning Samsung updated my phone w/ UI 2.1 T-Mobile files. I posted on it elsewhere as a recurring error popped up. Surfing the web shows that error cropped up for all sorts of people doing the 2.1 update on various carriers. I *think* I found the solution but have posted it enough places (check other threads here) I won't do again unless someone here wants it. Samsung's "solutions" (all three of them) do not work. Oh, I think I'll hold on to this phone rather than switch out for a T-Mobile specific... gives me more lattitude down the road when I feel like rooting it. Ha!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
As far as the difference between the one you have and T-Mobile, there isn't any difference. If you want T-Mobile specific, simply flash their firmware. The upside nearly all of T-Mobile's network was late to the game so their network had little non-standards-based legacy to deal with and thus works very will with the U1 firmware as well. You can always switch back and forth. Different carriers have different MEID ranges. A few carriers, such as AT&T might deny you based on that number not being theirs, but it is not a phone capability issue since the hardware is the same.
You cannot root any of the U phones at this time that I'm aware of. There has been talk and they've been able to do it soft of but not without serious snags in functionality. All N960s sold in the US are U/U1 phones with the SnapDragon processor. There is a SnapDragon that is rootable and dual-SIM, the SM-N9600. In China you may not sell a phone that is not rootable. However, that phone is also used in many other countries. It should work with T-Mobile too, BUT there may be some performance limitations because it might not support all of their bands. Verizon won't accept it initially, BUT a lot of people have activated the SIM on an approved phone, and then moved the SIM the SM-N9600 and it works fine. The SM-N9600 supports all of Verizon's LTE bands. The downside is you cannot use Samsung Pay, the best pay system out there. The SM-N9600 is in demand which affects the price. It is a good world phone with SnapDragon/Qualcomm and a well implemented Dual SIM. You may see it said that the SM-N9600 doesn't work on a CDMA network. That may be, but Verizon has hardly any CDMA left themselves because the FCC is kicking them off it. They won't have any by year end and were supposed to be and almost were by year-end last year. There is more to the game than GSM vs. CDMA. It is also support for the major specific band for the carrier that is used to log you into their network, which is independent of which band you will communicate on. That is a potential show stopper. About the only place in the world where the SM-N9600 has any issues is in the US. If you can get your carrier to work with it, you are pretty much golden for the rest of the world.
IT_Architect said:
1. Yes
2. The U vs. U1 is not indicative of a lock vs. no lock. U phones can be unlocked or locked. The U firmware is wireless-provider-specific firmware. It could be Verizon, T-Mobile, AT&T, etc. Each have their own firmware to work with their specific networks. They will also force updates on you whether you want them or not. The U1 firmware is standards-compliant support. The better the wireless provider supports the standards, the better U1 works. T-Mobile supports it perfectly but has some loss of functionality with allied vendors. You may never notice. Next, is Verizon. Verizon was CDMA, so its 3rd gen stuff won't work like the GSM networks will because they don't have any anymore. However, all of the 4G will, and Verizon has more 4G coverage than any of the others have 2+3+4G coverage. Thus, you don't miss the 3G like you would AT&T who is 25%-30% less than 4G, but AT&T has always been GSM so coverage-wise it is close to Verizon. For standards compliance for U1, AT&T is dead last by far, and if that isn't enough, the most resistant to accept a phone not sold by them. If you do not buy a new phone through a wireless provider, it will be a U1 phone. With a U1 phone you can prevent it from updating if you hold your mouth right. You cannot stop a U phone from updating. Other countries were behind the US so they tend to be more standards-compliant because they weren't as heavily in the game when the innovation was taking place. That means for traveling and swapping SIMs for different foreign carriers, you would want the U1. The Note 9 is the first Note with about every band known to man like the iPhone.
3. Yes
4. If the phone was purchased as a U1, it is undoubtedly unlocked because the seller is not selling it on a contract, and has no idea which network the phone will be used on.
Everything I've read, the 960U /U1 are the same hardware. To support that, their firmware modules are the same except one that is carrier-specific. The U1 for the Note 9 is not carrier specific. I had a T-Mobile Note 9 that I used on the Verizon network with no issues. I have a Verizon Note 9 now, and there is no difference. The only reason I have the Verizon Note 9 now is because the brand new T-Mobile one, still sealed in the box and with the protective film on it, ended up on the bad MEID list. Apparently someone bought it and brought it back without using it and stopped paying on it and thought they were out of the contract by doing so. The Verizon U phone that I have now has been flashed to U1 and works fine on their network. So the advantage of the U is its supports all of your carrier's services. The U1 supports all of your carrier's services that are standards-based and don't use carrier-specific services. Example, if the carrier supports support VoLTE, U1 will not usually support it because it must coordinate with the carrier's servers while U will. They say the U1 doesn't have the carrier bloatware. I don't agree. The carrier-specific added services are designed to work with their servers. Moreover, in the areas that need to be filled in, you get the basic programs from Samsung to replace the more capable ones you get from the carrier. I use U1 because I need to stop them from updating me due to my line-of-business software on my phone and for International travel when I replace the SIM with a local network SIM. If that's not you, and you want the latest for your carrier, U is what you want.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
How did you successfully flash U1 software on your Note 9? I tried doing this back in March unsuccessfully as Odin threw up an error.
My old Iphone SE (1st gen) gave out after nearly 6 years of solid service. So I'm finally looking for a new phone and I absolutely cannot stand how large phones have gotten. I don't want a screen that's literally half a foot corner to corner. The XZ1C is the perfect size and shape but there's one problem, it's GSM. I know that CDMA and GSM have died out completely and everything is LTE and up. After looking, I see that the XZ1C supports both voLTE and B13 for Verizon, meaning it should theoretically work on their network as a normal phone as nothing there needs CDMA anymore. When I asked the Verizon support (stupid move, I know) they told me it wouldn't work because it's GSM and that I would need to look at their website to find a phone. I know that they're more worried about lining their pockets than actually helping.
Has anyone managed to get an XZ1C working as a normal phone on Verizon's US network now that the GSM vs. CDMA debacle has finally died out? If so, how difficult was it to get working? I'm almost certain I'll need to get on support with Verizon to get the phone whitelisted but I just want to make sure I don't buy one only to find out that there's some hardware incompatibility (I do know I would need the G8441 model). All the threads I can find on it are from ~2017 when the phone first launched.
Any help would be much appreciated!
Not all LTE is the same, there are still different bands for different providers.
From memory, I used frequency check (or similar, https://www.frequencycheck.com) to look up compatability with the various providers. At the time, it didn't look like Verizon would support it, but you should double check my work, since it may also have changed.
You could so try a SIM if you have one (both the phone and the card). I borrowed a friend's at one point and had little success, but again, it was a while back, and I didn't tyres to get it whitelisted.
I hope that helps. Let us know how you fare.
tonsofquestions said:
Not all LTE is the same, there are still different bands for different providers.
From memory, I used frequency check (or similar, https://www.frequencycheck.com) to look up compatability with the various providers. At the time, it didn't look like Verizon would support it, but you should double check my work, since it may also have changed.
You could so try a SIM if you have one (both the phone and the card). I borrowed a friend's at one point and had little success, but again, it was a while back, and I didn't tyres to get it whitelisted.
I hope that helps. Let us know how you fare.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Checked the freq and it showed the same as the website I use (Kimovil). Same bands are present which is shown to be all except one Verizon band. The main one (at least according to the workers on the Verizon support forums) is B13 which is the main band that carries calls and texts now.
Ah, maybe their primary band has changed, then.
I think it was the opposite last time I looked.