Depends on IEMI, some carriers will even spoof their end depending on the device and if it is technically capable of working on the network.
1 Like
I personally don’t like the idea of 5G (radiation, tracking, China, etc.), so I don’t plan on upgrading. But that’s just me 
1 Like
I just have no need to do so. Still having 2G and 4G and it doesn’t seem to change for the L5 lifetime. And if so, we may have new options, so it makes no sense to think about it right now. 5G also gives no advantages to me, because I do not need faster mobile internet etc. Still, I like people trying out such things.
2 Likes
Interestingly, this may be the kind of combination that suits your kind of risk view, as it’s using limited number of antennas and frequencies (specifics added to wiki now), yet (AFAIK) is able to provide L5 all it can handle. As for geopolitical risks, those are the same with all other modems too, but L5 is the one with the separation, so that wouldn’t change for the worse. 5G would offer some security enhancements, but in some areas the 2G option for connection, which is less secure than even 3G, may be more important. If 4G network works for you already well, and especially if you’re not often in 5G coverage area, there’s probably little incentive to change.
3 Likes
I interested to know how much RAM and ROM is it this 5G Module.
1 Like
I really like (not just from security or openness perspectives but as a customer) how there is so much info available (unlike with BM818), like this block diagram in the hardware manual that mentions (down left) 4Gb of memory - which seems appropriate for message storing, 4k/8k video decoding, USB3.1, VR (etc. other things the processor was meant to be used) and running an OS (linux btw.). There is a reason why modems should be separated.
Interesting thing is that little eSIM box on top left corner… (no info on it, may not be implemented?)
Btw. following this rabbit hole, I checked some of the components, and it’s using Qualcomm x55 5G modem processor (a lot of specs here - of course, not all of them are utilized, for example there’s no mmWave components). Other components: DSP (a bit older presentation of the innards - the product line apparently later became NPU capable, kinda proving that AI is just signal calculations) and the SoC that the X55 is likely part of seems to be Snapdragon 855 or 865 (since the 8202g came out in 2020, which puts it among some interesting phones associated with that SoC, if someone wants to compare specs [BM818 uses Qualcomm’s MDM9207 IoT modem chip, which is just listed in the “others”, which says something]).
5 Likes
Wouldn’t that be an isolation failure? Having an eSIM on the modem card means that the modem can communicate with the SIM in ways that the rest of the phone can’t see, control, mediate or block. It’s probably not hugely important but it’s something to think about.
2 Likes
Ay, probably. My mind went more to “some capability needed for eSIM”. But it’s not like it couldn’t do that already as it already has to be in contact with a SIM to connect to network (in a meaningful way - noting that even sim-less phones are seen in networks, and can be connected, like with emergency calls). Isolation from CPU, memory and eMMC (and GNSS) seems more important.
1 Like
True. But a USIM (more correctly, a UICC) is a computer in its own right - and there are known exploits against them - so consideration of the implications is wise.
As you perhaps imply, any existing modem could already have an eSIM hiding on the card (/ in a chip on the card as an iSIM) and we wouldn’t know.
As you imply, if you personally were a target of your government, they could let you on the network SIMless - so even physically removing the USIM doesn’t fully work.
Note that emergency calls need to cover two different scenarios: 1. SIMless 2. Wrong SIM for any mobile network that your phone has visibility of.
2 Likes
Found the hardware reference to that eSIM (the string wasn’t what I expected):
"SIM8202G-M2 supports two (U)SIM cards but single standby. The (U)SIM2 can use e-(U)SIM card in the module or external (U)SIM card, the size is 2mm x 2mm x 1mm of the e-(U)SIM in the module. Both (U)SIM1 and (U)SIM2 are dual-voltage 1.8V or 3.0V.
NOTE: Customers choose the e-(U)SIM products according to the above size, SIMCom will provide the e-(U)SIM assemble into the module."[sic]
Also: “The SIM card hot swap function needs to be enabled by AT. Please refer to the SIM8200 Series_AT Command Manual for the setting of the detection level of (U)SIM_DET pin.” - I wonder if this can be implemented in L5 (or if there are non-modem related reasons)?
1 Like
The “computers are bad” blog published an interesting post about emergency calls on mobile. I think it’s truly a single scenario: emergency calls, handled regardless of what you have or do with your phone. You may check it out, as I don’t recall the details.
1 Like
I work for a small Northern Ontario telco, we’re partnered with Rogers and I’ve been told that the L5 will not be supported. It’s the reason why I’ve never gotten VoLTE to work on it here, and 5G will be the same because the voice services are always vetted now. That’s why if I were Purism I would be working on getting the L5 vetted on as many networks as possible or eventually it will no longer work as a phone on any networks.
3 Likes
We also need more third party modem options.
2 Likes
But with a different modem, it would show up as a different device that might be allowed by Rogers. Because it isn’t the L5 they are rejecting but the BM818
3 Likes
I think what you are missing here is that by default the networks block all devices accept the ones they have vetted=Apple, Samsung, Motorola, etc. I don’t think finding some 5G modem from China that Rogers is unaware of will mean the voice services will magically work. You won’t be able to back door this without involvement with the carrier.
2 Likes
Out of curiosity, what networks do all the IoT devices use over there? Surely that tech the dozens (hundreds?) of non-mobilephone devices and modems are not totally blocked and banned?
[Edit to add: Between the two alternatives, the Sim82xx-family seems more likely to be approved, as it’s not based on an IoT chip and the same SoC has been used on phones.]
1 Like
I’m talking about VOICE services not data. Data works fine I can use 4G here no problem but no VoLTE.
2 Likes
This like how Intel Firmwares-Blobs worked together with HD-Blu-Ray to work on Computer.
So to get volte work on a carrier it need a blob-signed to work for Roger it is not much like Network or whitelist imei. Of course there are tricks to tackle to get working…
I just say…
1 Like
No, you cannot work around this unless you can somehow trick the network into thinking you have an Apple, Samsung…etc. The voice core is a different animal altogether, it operates under it’s own rules. The only thing different is that it’s using the data path for voice instead of it’s own discrete path, but I’m telling you, you’re not getting around this without their cooperation.
2 Likes
To be precise, the network voice gatekeeping problem is an (North-)American problem (until other places confirm same) - and even then, it seems not all networks (since L5 is being used).
2 Likes