23
Nov
Galaxy_Nexus_three-copy

Not in the mood to wait around for Verizon to finally decide to put a firm release date on the Galaxy Nexus' head? Tied to one of the other carriers? If your answer to either of those questions was affirmative (and if you have three-quarters of a grand lying around), you'll be delighted to know that Expansys just put up a page from which customers can purchase the I9250 GSM variant of the Samsung Galaxy Nexus.

Screen Shot 2011-11-23 at 3.57.53 PM

At $750, it won't come cheap, but as this is an "intermational" handset (Expansys' "be first" motto apparently means it doesn't dedicate much time to proofreading), you'll be able to use it on both AT&T and T-Mobile. Better yet, it's compatible with both companies' HSPA+ networks, so unlike most European GSM phones, you won't be stuck with Edge on one carrier or the other.

Interested? Willing to make the investment? The order page is just a click away.

Source: Expansys

Jaroslav Stekl
Jaroslav Stekl is a tech enthusiast whose favorite gadgets almost always happen to be the latest Android devices. When he's not writing for Android Police, he's probably hiking, camping, or canoeing. He is also an aspiring coffee aficionado and an avid moviegoer.

  • Scott

    You have no idea how tempted I am...

    • Scott

      I just ordered one...

      • Nexuz-Uno

        Me too. Couldn't hold back. Expansys was supposed to ship mine on Friday. Nothing yet. :/

  • http://pharaohtechblog.blogspot.com Conan Kudo (ニール・ゴンパ)

    Okay... I'm seriously getting annoyed by the fact that people keep dinging HSPA+ like this... HSPA+ is just as much 4G as LTE is! Here's some information to prove my point:

    To simplify things, UMTS (the standard that LTE and HSPA+ are a part of) has release milestones that indicate what kind of performance you get from a network.

    Releases up to release 4 were standard UMTS, which offered EV-DO Rev. A speeds. Release 5 added HSPDA. Release 6 added HSUPA. Release 7 added HSPDA/HSUPA proportionality and tweaks to boost speeds up to 14.4Mbps on downlink and 7.2Mbps on uplink.

    Release 8 boosted speeds to 21Mbps in single carrier mode, and introduced a dual carrier mode for speeds up to 42Mbps. Carriers are essentially towers. So a phone with dual-carrier support could aggregate two tower connections to boost speeds and reduce latency.

    Release 9 adds MIMO (having multiple antennas on a single carrier to support more connections per carrier) and multi-carrier support for up to 8 carriers. With dual-carrier and MIMO, you can get 84Mbps on downlink and 21Mbps on uplink. With quad-carrier and MIMO, you rocket all the way up to 168Mbps on downlink and 84Mbps on uplink.

    Release 10 and above add more configurations that can be used to boost speeds and reduce latency further. For example, an 8-carrier MIMO configuration laid out in a star topology geographically could offer over 400Mbps on downlink and 100Mbps on uplink with ping times as low as 60ms.

    Backtracking to Release 8, another thing was added to the UMTS standard. The final specs for LTE. In fact, there are few major network differences between full HSPA+ and LTE. The evolved packet core (which IMS runs on) can be deployed to HSPA+ networks, and T-Mobile USA is doing that now. All that would be left is to physically reconfigure the T-Mobile towers to support the LTE air interface and begin transmitting LTE.

    Jumping to Release 10, LTE-Advanced is supposed to be a cost effective design to offer speeds up to 1Gbps while stationary and 100Mbps while mobile. HSPA+ can already meet that in Release 9. The difference here is that LTE-Advanced is supposed to be able to do it with less spectrum. A 20x20 configuration of LTE-Advanced is supposed to be able to offer on average the same speeds as the top speeds of Release 9 HSPA+.

    A 5x5 configuration (which is probably what T-Mobile would initially deploy LTE on if they used their 1900MHz spectrum) would be able to peak at top Release 9 speeds, with average speeds near top speeds for Release 8. Additionally, if they used some of the optimizing techniques for HSPA+ to deploy LTE efficiently, you could get even higher speeds!

    As for the future: Deutsche Telekom, Vodafone, AT&T, and other carrier companies around the world are also pushing for multiple technology aggregation on the GSM path as well. For example, a phone supporting this could feasibly connect to both HSPA+ R10 and LTE R10 and aggregate the connections into a single more powerful pipeline to the Internet. With such an aggregation, you could actually receive 1Gbps on a mobile connection and 10Gbps on a stationary connection, with ping times as low as 25ms. Note that this only works if HSPA+ and LTE are deployed on separate frequency bands. In T-Mobile USA's case, that would probably be true (LTE would probably be on 1900MHz and HSPA+ would remain on AWS-1). If Sprint or Verizon ever decided to reconfigure their vast CDMA2000 networks into another LTE network or an HSPA+ network, it would work for that too. AT&T can already do this, since they are deploying LTE on 700MHz currently, and a vast majority of their HSPA deployment is on 1900MHz.

    As a result, many companies are planning ahead and shutting down their legacy networks (2G GSM, cdmaOne, CDMA2000, etc.) and refarming the spectrum for either LTE or HSPA+. América Móvil did it for many of its Latin American networks and deployed HSPA+. They are still continuing their work on streamlining their network operations by replacing everything with HSPA+.

    In a way, HSPA+ and LTE are the future. HSPA+ will likely be the lower-cost 4G solution since it doesn't require deploying complex advanced infrastructure to support a flat IPv6 network with IMS to offer SMS, MMS, and voice services. In fact, even without the evolved packet core, HSPA+ can still go up to 168Mbps. Past that, deploying IMS makes it easier to handle the higher spectral bandwidth requirements because it would be possible to shut down the circuit-switched side of HSPA+ and deploy traditional circuit-switched services over the packet switched network. Obviously that frees up a huge channel to be used for data services as well.

    In the end, T-Mobile is taking the smart route by maximizing their HSPA+ network. When they finally get ready to deploy LTE, 90% of the work to deploy will have already been done earlier, making rapid deployment easy and cost effective. It's probably part of the reason why AT&T wants T-Mobile so much.

    • http://www.focuszonedevelopment.com Aaron

      ...I love you. That was a very informative post; I feel the urge to say [citations needed], but I'll take it at face value.

      • http://pharaohtechblog.blogspot.com Conan Kudo (ニール・ゴンパ)

        Ugh... Citing would have been difficult. The UMTS standard documents are some of the most annoying documents to find, parse, and cite... The 3GPP seriously needs to reorganize how the standards are documented...

        It is okay to refer to AT&T's HSPA network as faux-G in most places because they have only deployed Release 8 in California, Washington, New York, Florida, Texas, Illinois, and Georgia. The rest of the AT&T HSPA network is on Release 7, which is not considered a fourth-generation network by the ITU or the various members of the standards organizations for telecommunications in regions around the world.

        However, T-Mobile's HSPA+ network truly deserves to be called 4G, because they have serious effort into implementing the full Release 8 standard across their entire HSPA+ network and several features from Release 9 as well.

    • http://androidpolice.com/author/jaroslav-stekl Jaroslav Stekl

      I'm by no means an expert on network technologies, and since you seem to be considerably more knowledgeable than I on this topic, I'll follow your advice and remove the jab. However, I do contend that as it stands, Verizon's LTE is in both my and other journalists' experience exponentially faster than T-Mobile's HSPA+.

      • http://pharaohtechblog.blogspot.com Conan Kudo (ニール・ゴンパ)

        I'm not arguing that. On average, Verizon 4G LTE is indeed faster than T-Mobile's HSPA+. However, T-Mobile's network is capable of reaching those speeds and surpassing them, with the added benefit of better battery life because of aggressive HSPA+ optimization that was possible due to the experience T-Mobile has with UMTS technology, especially WCDMA based technology.

    • curiouser

      Wonderfully informative!

    • Don

      Just a heads-up, I'm copying this and posting it on Facebook with a backtrack link to this post. Thanks for the info!

    • Noel

      Well said bro..even a lay person like myself on this 4G and LTE stuff see how Tmobile's path to LTE or LTE Advanced could be achieved in the future at a reduced cost if they keep improving on their HSPA+ network. I am pleased the buy out deal is on life support...might be good as dead. So that Tmo can move on and continue to innovate and also give us low prices. As per the unlocked G-Nex...we want the 32GB GSM HSPA+ model...16GB internal isn't enuf due to omission of the SD card.

  • http://ragestation.com lasersocks

    only 16gb version though...

    • James C

      Use Google music and you will save a lot of that space for everything else

      • http://ragestation.com lasersocks

        google music not available in Canada...

  • http://www.burakcalik.com/ xmRipper

    Ok. It is so f*ing expensive.

  • Brian

    I've got a $5,000 credit card coming in the mail next week. Oooooweeeee talk about temptation!

  • Brian

    Oops scratch that. I need the 32gb model. I need more gb's lol

  • Daniel

    Too much money!

  • yuriy

    I ordered one from Handtec for $60 cheaper, should have it sometime next week.

  • Alex

    I got mine from clove.co.uk today! 700 bux straight!

  • Gekko

    i'd love to see Google buy Sprint and put an end to all of this nonsense. Sprint's market cap is about $8B. Google bought Mototola for $12.5B. buying Sprint would give Google an end to end mobile solution offering while also allowing them to continue to partner up with other carriers and hardware manufacturers. some concerns with this strategy would be - would it get by government regulators(FCC) ? what about Sprint's debt? what about Sprint's 4G and international position (or lack thereof)? how would partners feel? how would shareholders and management feel? i would just love to see Google do an end-around and have a 100% Google option for customers that want it. Google would be in full control of their mobile destiny controlling OS, software, ecosystem, hardware, and carrier. imagine what Google could do with Sprint with the cash and resources that Google has - they could really expand the footprint and 4G and beyond technology. Sprint would give them a solid foundation at a relative bargain to do this.

    i would love to see GOOGLE change the game. what do you think?

    • Scott

      T-Mobile is more likely, because their network uses the same technology as pretty much every network in the world. Sprint does not.

      Also, T-Mobile is looking to be sold. AFAIK, Sprint is not.

  • Lee Deavers

    For that kind of money I had rather have the Asus Transformer Prime and a Republic phone.