This is the modem that should be used

Specs for which modem?
Isaw only the m2 ones.

For the EG25-G. In the first post in this thread.

Just saw it. My bad :slight_smile:
However, it won’t open the link.
Page not available

I’ll try another browser = 50,00 EUR

1 Like

Apparently it looks more of a full package compared to the 2.
For us in US it’s lacking band 66 (for VZW) but other than that looks pretty good

Maybe I’m not 100% right, but this is exactly what I understood: Purism as Finished Product Manufacturer! As of Feb 9, 2019 this goes for M.2 modem card as well:

1 Like

A worldwide chip like the Quectel EG-25G probably costs a dollar or two more than a chip like Quectel EM05 and probably a dollar or two less than the EM06. Considering that PINE64 is manufacturing in small quantities, 4GLTE probably is getting the same kind of bulk pricing on a couple thousand chips at a time. Yes, engineering an M.2 card and fabrication costs something, but I bet that 4GLTE is making over $100 in profit on each M.2 card it sells.

Also consider the fact that UNISOC and MediaTek sell low-end SoCs with integrated cellular modems for $4-5 per chip. Yes, the Quectel chips have an extra heat spreader and come in a more expensive package, but Quectel is charging a lot more than it charges to integrate the same modem in an ASIC, and then 4GLTE is charging a huge amount more just to mount that same chip on a M.2 card.


So first the Quectel EG-25G is a miniPCIe form factor card, we are looking for an M.2 card. The M.2 spec is a little different - smaller and less power consuming.

Then also if you look at other modem please look carefully if they also support voice and if yes, how they do it. Last year when we started doing research there were almost no ready-made M.2 modem cards available that supported voice - but for a phone I guess this is an important feature?

Lastly when you look at bare chips please do not forget that you can not simply 1:1 compare a complete pre-qualified modem module with the bare chips. There is a lot more to go into a modem module than just the silicon parts - like the bespoken qualification, testing and not to forget patent licenses. The 3GPP 4G patents are way over a thousand from several hundred patent holders. A huge amount of money from the modem module price goes into these licenses. The basic rule of thumb is to set aside about 20% of the sales price of a cellular device for patent royalties.

The cellular market is a battle field full of booby traps.



So, at what point you gonna be able to tell us which modems we can buy with confidence ?
Preferably, it would be right after the full spec release for L5.
Most of us will need to use that other slot to close the gaps in LTE coverage. And would need to know feasible alternatives as soon as possible.


Can you point to a specific area on the globe (you’re interested in) where you think the L5 will not have coverage?

I explicitly said “gaps in coverage”.
There are gaps in LTE bands for major US carriers.
For the rest of the world I didn’t bother to look up.

Can you point to a specific geographical area in the U.S. where the L5 will have more gaps in coverage than your current phone? (plus the carrier you’re interested in)

I don’t really know by my heart nor care to look up
The point is that my carrier has 2, 4, 13, 66 bands and L5 modem has 2 & 4. I travel for work all across the country (rural and urban) and don’t all of my phones so far had all of these bands.

Though, my biggest concern is the actual white listing of the phone by Verizon. Because this carrier has no fall back for voice on gsm. As of now they have cdma , which they announced shutting Down completely by December. So, if I don’t get to have VoLTE enabled I won’t be able to get phone calls at all.
Something similar happened w ATT when my unlocked phone wasn’t on the list (but VoLTE capable)and 3g is so bad where I live, that I was missing most of the calls. With VZW would be just dead

1 Like

Well, if you go to, zoom out to all US and check those four band for Verizon LTE, you might notice that 13 and 66 don’t add much coverage. Except you’re in North Dakota a lot.

AT&T seems to be better, though.


Speaking of ATT - my biggest mistake. :slight_smile:
I left VZW for “freedom of choice” - buying unlocked phones. They ended up being more strict and on top of that TERRIBLE coverage in comparison. I even bought their device - branded Moto Z and still was missing/dripping calls all over LA , Orange county and Riverside. Same w my friends & fam on other devices. Had to run back to VZW

So this is the tower near me and j already have poor signal
Bands 4 & 13. Now w L5 I’ll lose the 13.
Most likely will get me to miss some phone calls, especially given the direction they have pointed

And seems like there is plenty of 13 and 66 in SoCal - Orange county area.
As well as North Cal and NE - Washington.

Tried to attach the screenshot, but don’t see how

One more interesting finding.
Going more through “rural” areas and just around highways 13 becomes more dominant. Which makes sense , because it’s using their old low frequency spectrum. Just found towers carrying just that band - 13.

1 Like

Just direction-wise, it looks like that Gemalto M2M GmbH Cinterion ALAS66A-US (LTE, W-CDMA, GSM Module) is right choice for you. Hopefully it will be available with/for Librem 5. Note: Gemalto ALAS66A-US will not send on B28, if the network does not explicitly request a measurement or handover to this LTE band.

1 Like

I live in Montana and Verizon is the only carrier that has service where I live. Its band 13 all around where I live. Without full verizon support, its a show stopper. I am with others looking for another modem that supports my needs. Until we have an official list of supported modems, I can’t commit, no matter how much I want to.