Share this Story

Motorola Device With AT&T LTE Bands Stops by FCC, is It a 4G LTE Moto G?

A mystery Motorola device stopped by the FCC recently under number IHDT56PG1. That number doesn’t tell us much, but we do know that it has a 2000mAh battery inside and supports LTE on AT&T’s network. Are we potentially looking at a Moto G for AT&T with LTE on board? Tough to tell, but maybe.

According to a reddit user who spotted the listing, the battery number listed in the FCC filing matches that of the Moto G, SNN5932A. While I can’t confirm the number without ripping apart my Moto G, I will say that the FCC filing says 2000mAh battery, whereas the Moto G actually has a 2070mAh battery inside. 

One thing is for sure – AT&T does not yet carry the ultra-affordable device from Motorola. Since its number 1 competitor (Verizon) does through prepaid, it wouldn’t surprise me in the least to see AT&T adopt it. The device has been universally praised by reviewers and they would also be one-upping Big Red should they get Motorola to toss LTE inside. If there is one thing missing that would keep us from ever recommending the version on Verizon, it would be the fact that it can only access their ultra-slow 3G network.

If you want to see us unbox and fondle the unlocked Moto G, hit up this post.

As we learn more, we’ll be sure to keep you up-to-date. We can imagine that an LTE-equipped Moto G would be quite popular.

moto g lte

Via:  FCC | reddit
  • J. Gilbertson

    LTE would be nice but without the battery saving features that the X has would this even stand a chance in the battery life dept?

  • GinaDee

    Perfect device for those of us on the Mobile Share Value Plans so we don’t have to fork out $700 (at once or over time) just to get a decent phone or phone replacement.

  • Dan

    Would buy one with LTE

  • Justtyn Hutcheson

    Interesting to note that it may also support AWS bands (PCE Report GSM-WCDMA: AWS 1700/2100 are mentioned in sections 3.6 & 3.7, and AWS is mentioned in the results, see plot 6-6). If so, it may not be fore just AT&T, but for every GSM network in the US.

    Can anyone confirm that I’m reading those results properly?

    • Allen Yates

      LTE Band 4 is AWS, so it does appear to support it. Interestingly also supports Band 5, which is US Cellular.

      • Justtyn Hutcheson

        I have no clue why Band 5 is there. As you say it’s USC, but it doesn’t have their Band 12 nor CDMA radios, so it isn’t USC-compatible. Perhaps they have an LTE roaming agreement with USC.

  • Grasshopper239

    That would be huge. I would get this in a heartbeat as a backup device.

  • This could be a perfect backup phone to keep around just for messing with ROMs and to brick. LTE makes it even sweeter

    • Devon Turayoly

      my Aunty Grace got a nearly new blue Kia by working part
      time from the internet. look at this now C­a­s­h­D­u­t­i­e­s­.­ℂ­o­m

  • The Narrator

    Now, wouldn’t that be something. Hopefully LTE came to everbody.

  • silver_arrow

    This would seriously be an interesting moment for the no contract movement. A sub $200 device that has LTE and pretty damn good specs.

    • middlehead

      I’d be surprised if it stayed under $200 with LTE, but $225 for the 8GB+LTE and $250 for the 16GB+LTE would be plausible.

      • Justtyn Hutcheson

        That’s a little too close to the Nexus 5 tbh; $100 gets you way more phone for the money. In general I agree though, the extra licensing and what-not for LTE devices would require a price bump of some sort, and $50 seems reasonable.

        • The Narrator

          $100 may get you more, but that’s a lot of money when you can get something just as suitable for less.

          • Justtyn Hutcheson

            The merits of a ~40% increase in cost are going to be endlessly debated, of course, so it ultimately comes down to personal preference; most likely related to device size as the Moto G is significantly smaller than the Nexus 5.

          • The Narrator

            To me, not worth $100. Moto G is pretty much a burner/ backup. While the Nexus 5 isn’t.

          • needa

            that is when the argument of a $330 moto x comes into play. same size and much better phone for just a bit more. along with it being cheaper right now than a nexus, easily better than the nexus in many aspects, and you have the ability to customize.

          • Justtyn Hutcheson

            The current price ($329) is not sustainable, and a limited time offer. Also, it seriously calls into question the need for a $229 device (assuming a $50 premium for LTE) with no other advantages to justify a ~28% increase in price over its less-capable brother. Hopefully a few other specs will get a bump as well, such as an AMOLED vs. LCD display, or more RAM/faster SoC/more storage. That would place it squarely in the middle of their lineup, and more than justify a bump to, say, $289, which would place it roughly half-way between the Moto G and X (the Moto M??). However, I’d much rather see the Moto X drop to the $289 mark, and a new $399 device drop into the mix. Of course, you can’t forget Woodside’s comments regarding a ~$50 device. So, if the current lineup remains, you could see $69-$179-$289-$399, which covers every conceivable price point from ultra-low-end/emerging market to flagship (the Moto X line is their flagship, I’m not here to argue whether that title applies, it is Motorola’s positioning of their device that matters. The best they make at the moment is their flagship. but I digress).

          • Reshe1949

            мʏ ƈօ-աօʀĸ­­­­­­e­­­­­­ʀ’ѕ мօм мαĸ­­­­­­e­­­­­­ѕ $75/нօυʀ օɴ тн­­­­­­e­­­­­­ ιɴт­­­­­­e­­­­­­ʀɴ­­­­­­e­­­­­­т. ѕн­­­­­­e­­­­­­ нαѕ в­­­­­­e­­­­­­­­­­­­e­­­­­­ɴ օυт օғ α ʝօв ғօʀ ѕιх мօɴтнѕ вυт ʟαѕт мօɴтн н­­­­­­e­­­­­­ʀ ιɴƈօм­­­­­­e­­­­­­ աαѕ $20422 ʝυѕт աօʀĸιɴɢ օɴ тн­­­­­­e­­­­­­ ιɴт­­­­­­e­­­­­­ʀɴ­­­­­­e­­­­­­т ғօʀ α ғ­­­­­­e­­­­­­ա нօυʀѕ. ʀ­­­­­­e­­­­­­ƈօмм­­­­­­e­­­­­­ɴɖ­­­­­­e­­­­­­ɖ ʀ­­­­­­e­­­­­­αɖιɴɢ SaveJury&#46com

      • silver_arrow

        Well my logic is that an 8 gig Moto G is $150 so an extra $50 seems pretty reasonable and that would be at $200, or probably $199.99. At that price point the cheapest carriers could carry it and carry the device on prepaid carriers.

    • [A]dri[A]n

      I’m sure it’s not gonna stay under $200. We’ve all seen how much a device goes up in price, simply because it has LTE. It’ll probably closer to $250.

  • d-rock

    Moto G for AIO Wireless!

    • Good_Ole_Pinocchio

      Or GoPhone. Since quite frankly the At&t reps in stores don’t even acknowledge AIO. I have Gophone right now.

      • d-rock

        True, but I don’t think they are pushing GoPhone right now. All new prepaid devices seem to be heading to AIO. Either way, it will work with GoPhone. Is GoPhone a better value than AIO?

        • Good_Ole_Pinocchio

          I think AIO might be a better value last time I checked. But I have a friend that works at an Att store and they she pretty much says At&t hasn’t told them anything about AIO. If you’re getting prepaid in stores they’re offering you GoPhone

        • Boblank84

          Not at all. Go is 60/month for 2gb. Aio if setup on auto pay is 45 for 2.5 GB

        • Jim Davis

          I’ve had AIO for about a month now, and I’m very pleased with the service. As Boblank84 mentioned, AIO is $45/month for 2.5 GB of “high speed” (4 or 8 Mb/s) data and afterward throttled to 256 Kb/s

      • middlehead

        Why would the in-store reps acknowledge AIO? It’s a separate business unit. GoPhone is an official AT&T brand, AIO is a subsidiary.

        • Good_Ole_Pinocchio

          That’s not really made clear to customers. Quite frankly At&t is AIO as far as I know. I don’t mind GoPhone that I have now, though.

          • middlehead

            You know AT&T owns AIO because you visit sites like this, the average customer has no way to connect AIO to AT&T at all. Neither website mentions the other, nor does AIO’s advertising mention AT&T. There’s no reason for AT&T in-store reps to even know the name AIO.

    • CHRIS42060

      AIO Started carrying the Moto G on Feb 14th.