Q9h Wifi Real(Released in 4th Quarter of '08)

[mexiken]

Originally Posted by acedj123

You won't be able to look at the schematics since they are a "trade secret" and are not included in the public documents available about the phone on the FCC website. You might be able to file a Freedom of Information Act request and get them that way...but I doubt it.

Ah, nevermind then. I thought they were in that post. Since I haven't looked at it, I don't even know. I was out of town when they were posted, and I forgot to look since then,

[Mrrlyn]

Yeah, I looked through there. There are the pictures of the main and daughter boards, but the resolution looks to be just low enough that we cannot read the manufacturers off the casings. Anybody out there think they can? Perhaps familiar with them? Oh, and had anybody even ever opened up a Q, maybe one that got dunked? Just to see whats on the boards? I think that would be most conclusive answer; if there is no wifi chip to be found (or soldeing point if its a later upgrade/removal), then there is and will never be wifi.

Looking at the verbage they used in the report to the FCC looks like it probably doesnt though, as they are reporting what the phone is capable of, not what its being released to do. I dont quite know where the FCC got the idea that it listed WIFI/WLAN as a capability. I looked over all the frequency bands listed and there was nothing in the 2.4 or 5.8[correction from 5.2] ghz band range, which as far as I know, is the only two bands WIFI operates in. Am I correct? So wed be talking a jump of 600 mhz from the high band cell to the low band WIFI. Looking at the electronic noise plots at the end, there were some interesting spikes, but either I'm reading the scales wrong, or the spikes are off by a factor of 1000 lower frequency (Mhz not Ghz). That was the only think that jumped out at me.

Any other interpretations?

And for those just joining us, the links to the FCC pages are earlier in this thread (about 2 pages back)

[acedj123]

The FCC posed the Wi-Fi question to Motorola due to what they saw in the phones' schematics (which again are not available to the public). The fact that there was no test data for a Wi-Fi chip given to the FCC as part of its Type Acceptence application does not (in my opinion) rule out that the phone is technically able to operate Wi-Fi.

If Motorola did not intend the phone to operate Wi-Fi (even if there may be Wi-Fi hardware installed) it would not need to have that function tested and results given to the FCC.

Case in point; Many of my Ham radio handheld transceivers are capable of transmitting on frequencies outside of the Amateur band (public safety, marine, etc.) but since the transceiver is not marketed to be able to transmit out of band, no technical specifications for the out of band operation were ever submitted to the FCC for Type Acceptence approval of the radio. But, the transceivers do transmit out of band with a simple modification of the radio. (not that one should ever use non FCC Type Accepted equipment in a particular radio service)

[Mrrlyn]

Originally Posted by acedj123

The FCC posed the Wi-Fi question to Motorola due to what they saw in the phones' schematics (which again are not available to the public). The fact that there was no test data for a Wi-Fi chip given to the FCC as part of its Type Acceptence application does not (in my opinion) rule out that the phone is technically able to operate Wi-Fi.

If Motorola did not intend the phone to operate Wi-Fi (even if there may be Wi-Fi hardware installed) it would not need to have that function tested and results given to the FCC.

Case in point; Many of my Ham radio handheld transceivers are capable of transmitting on frequencies outside of the Amateur band (public safety, marine, etc.) but since the transceiver is not marketed to be able to transmit out of band, no technical specifications for the out of band operation were ever submitted to the FCC for Type Acceptence approval of the radio. But, the transceivers do transmit out of band with a simple modification of the radio. (not that one should ever use non FCC Type Accepted equipment in a particular radio service)

Ah, very encouraging news! Has anybody had any luck looking at the actual pictures of the boards? Picking out the chips? Or cracked one open? I myself do not voluenteer (sp) my phone, but if someone has a broken one maybe...?

On a seperate but also interesting sidenote, there has been some hiccups with Xpress mail due to the new update they just pushed out on Friday (i think it was friday). Anyways, its causing all heck of problems for Xpress mail users on smart phones, but the reason why I bring it up is this. The word on the ATT forums is that the update is for WM6.1 compatability (although the credibility for this is not SPARKLING). So, to me, this says WM6.1 should be following soon, since, why would they update the apps if the wm6.1 wasnt soon to follow. Anybody know what kind of time gaps there are between software updates and operating system upgrades, for AT&T?

[mexiken]

Originally Posted by Mrrlyn

Ah, very encouraging news! Has anybody had any luck looking at the actual pictures of the boards? Picking out the chips? Or cracked one open? I myself do not voluenteer (sp) my phone, but if someone has a broken one maybe...?

On a seperate but also interesting sidenote, there has been some hiccups with Xpress mail due to the new update they just pushed out on Friday (i think it was friday). Anyways, its causing all heck of problems for Xpress mail users on smart phones, but the reason why I bring it up is this. The word on the ATT forums is that the update is for WM6.1 compatability (although the credibility for this is not SPARKLING). So, to me, this says WM6.1 should be following soon, since, why would they update the apps if the wm6.1 wasnt soon to follow. Anybody know what kind of time gaps there are between software updates and operating system upgrades, for AT&T?

It is good news, but it doesn't mean the chips made it to the final production run. No one really knows until someone busts one open and has a look.

Update: Im in the process of getting the full schematics for the Q9h Don't ask.

It depends. Usually apps get updated to work with OS updates AFTER they've been released, so this isn't as common. But, since they've been released with other carriers, this could be why, unless Xpress Mail is AT&T exclusive, which I have no idea if it is or not.

[Mrrlyn]

Originally Posted by mexiken

It is good news, but it doesn't mean the chips made it to the final production run. No one really knows until someone busts one open and has a look.

Update: Im in the process of getting the full schematics for the Q9h Don't ask.

It depends. Usually apps get updated to work with OS updates AFTER they've been released, so this isn't as common. But, since they've been released with other carriers, this could be why, unless Xpress Mail is AT&T exclusive, which I have no idea if it is or not.

Xpress mail, under that name, is an AT&T exclusive. However, there is virtually identical software, made by the same maker, just branded different, for other carriers. I dont remember the brand and software names off the top of my head, but I've seen a list that has three or four where just the name is changed, basically.

Cant wait for that report on the schematics!

[drait]

The AT&T/Cingular branded Xpress Mail client is made by Seven Software

[mexiken]

I've got them. Please pm me if you would like a copy to peruse.

[mexiken]

P.S.

WLAN is DEFINITELY on there....

[mexiken]

Well, I don't really know what to make of it.

Sometimes, it seems to be referenced as BT_WLAN, which is most likely the BT PAN radio spec. However, that name is usually WPAN, so I don't understand why. BUT, there are references of it without the bluetooth in front of it. As in, WLAN on its own.

I'm afraid my technical skills can't render a definitive answer, but I will show them to someone who definitely knows.

The schematics don't provide the manu's names, only how they interact with them, PCB and hardware wise.