CDMA | Ian Andrew Bell

Cheerleading Verizon’s CRAP Pseudo-3G Launch…

Ian — Mon, 28 Jan 2002 18:54:28 +0000

——– http://www.forbes.com/2002/01/25/01253g.html

3G By Any Other Name Mark Lewis, Forbes.com, 01.25.02, 1:40 PM ET

NEW YORK – Is this another case of grade inflation? Wireless investors today were poring over unconfirmed reports that Verizon Wireless may roll out “third-generation” wireless service as early as next week. But what now is being touted as “3G” was once considered merely 2.5G, an interim step on the road to the wireless broadband millennium.

Reuters reported late yesterday that Verizon Wireless, a joint venture of Verizon Communications (nyse: VZ – news – people) and Vodafone Group (nyse: VOD – news – people), may soon launch its third-generation network, “capable of streaming video and high-speed Internet” service to mobile-phone customers. (See: “Verizon Wireless Could Launch 3G Next Week.”)

Verizon Wireless has not confirmed the Reuters report, which said the new service would use the code division multiple access (CDMA) 2000 1XRTT standard developed by Qualcomm (nasdaq: QCOM – news – people). South Korean wireless firms have been using this standard for more than a year, but South Korea is not widely recognized as the birthplace of 3G. That honor more recently was conferred upon Japan, where NTT DoCoMo–using a different standard–started offering a limited form of 3G service in October 2001.

What’s going on? It depends on whom you ask. Andrew M. Seybold, editor and publisher of Forbes/Andrew Seybold’s Wireless Outlook, says the standard being used in Korea does indeed qualify as 3G, defined as offering speeds over 144 kilobits per second. (See “Technology Will Determine Which Wireless Stocks Win.”) Others say CDMA 2000 IXRTT, while fast, remains an interim step to 3G and therefore falls under the “2.5” heading, along with the rival general packet radio service (GPRS) standard that several Verizon competitors are using.

The fact remains that true 3G, in the sense of full-fledged, superfast wireless broadband service, remains at least several years away for U.S. consumers. The new services now being rolled out are less ambitious, although still potentially appealing to wireless Web surfers. (See “3G Networks? Not So Fast!”)

It boils down to a marketing issue: “3G” is what investors have been banking on and what early-adopter consumers have been waiting for–so the wireless firms prefer that label. Which is fine. By anybody’s definition, the new services represent a significant upgrade for wireless consumers. Whether 3G or not 3G, they are bound to be at least something of an improvement on poky old second-generation wireless service.

FW: TFS

Ian — Tue, 19 Jun 2001 22:33:59 +0000

—— Forwarded Message From: Tim Hardy Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2001 13:11:22 -0700 To: Ian Andrew Bell Subject: TFS

Technology Fatigue Syndrome Strikes Computer Users By John Dvorak, Computer Shopper

Are endless technological innovations wearing you out? You may be suffering from TFS.

I was always impressed with my Palm’s ability to beam business cards back and forth. You could also beam programs and games. I recently realized I haven’t beamed a card in nearly a year; I can’t recall the last time I beamed a game. I also used to play more with the download sites. I got tired of it. I believe the download sites are doing well, and I have to assume there’s some growth. But how much is from new users? Will everyone finally stop doing it when they get tired of it? I call this “getting tired of it” phenomenon Technology Fatigue Syndrome (TFS).

Keep an eye out for this syndrome. If TFS seriously damages any emerging technology, it will be the upcoming 3G phones. NTT DoCoMo (news – web sites) will launch the first official 3G system based on WCDMA (news – web sites) (Wideband Code Division Multiple Access) some time this year, although the date may be pushed back. Others will follow, as a worldwide rollout takes place amid squabbling and nay-saying.

According to one 3G FAQ: “Ericsson (news – web sites) has been the first company to develop and showcase EDGE, bringing TDMA and GSM operators together. GPRS and EDGEâ€¹Ericsson’s speed-increasing air interface solution for existing spectrumâ€¹are major steps in the common evolution of GSM and TDMA, enabling consumers to access services in both networks and enjoy true global roaming. Ericsson has been researching 3G technologies for more than 10 years, which led to its pioneering of the 3G technology called WCDMA.” Just reading the description invites TFS.

Using three modes of operation, including WCDMA and CDMA2000, across a number of spectrums, as well as EDGE (Enhanced Data rates for Global Evolution), these phones should be incredibly powerful. It’s further expected that more than a billion folks will be using phones like these, and there’s a possibly mistaken belief that they’ll want to use them for more than just chatting. This led 3G promoters to talk about multimedia on the phones. You’ll watch video clips and exchange photos, they say. But will you really?

I currently use a Motorola StarTAC, and technology fatigue dominates my use of it. With my previous phoneâ€¹a nice Nextelâ€¹I read the manual, entered phone numbers, and learned the innards of the device. I gave up on that with the StarTAC. If a call comes in, I answer it. If I miss a call, I use Caller ID to call the person back. I never bother to put the number in any permanent place. I’m too tired to do it. Unless these 3G phones do it all for you automatically, I don’t see people using them for much more than phone calls.

This is the basic problem with technology today. Devices are sold to us on the premise that they’ll make things easier, not harder. Having to punch in a phone number on a small phone for someone you may call back once, twice, or never is more trouble than it’s worth. There’s no payback to a lot of the activity we do regarding this gear.

TFS may play a part in slowing the computer-upgrade cycle, too. I’ve complained before about the difficulty of migrating applications from one machine to another. This is one reason not to upgrade. Another is the fatigue factor. People haven’t been stressing the machines enough to need new performance.

The only thing that gets upgraded is the hard drive for more capacity. Why do we need more capacity? Because disk maintenance is too tiring. It’s easier to just let stuff accumulate. This is all part of TFS. We just can’t take it anymore.

Marketers haven’t come to grips with this problem. They’re unveiling products assuming all users are going to enthusiastically embrace all the features. And although some users still manage to avoid the syndrome, most are falling prey.

An interesting aspect of TFS is how people react to it. It’s like the reaction to smallpox during the Dark Ages. People feared they were going to get it, so they rejected those who already had it. An example of this was a recent column I wrote complaining about the complexity of TiVo (news – web sites) and ReplayTV (news – web sites) devices. I’ve never received so much hate mail, not even after mocking the Macintosh (news – web sites).

There must be a way to roll out a complex technology that doesn’t need so much personal attention. The 3G phones will quickly cause TFS, and most people will never use their rich features.

Hopefully, a cure for TFS can be found.

—— End of Forwarded Message

RE: RE: AT&T Slammed on Wireless Data

Ian — Thu, 18 May 2000 20:47:19 +0000

GSM uses two main techniques, TDMA AND Frequency-Hopping. This, combined with a third feature that doesn’t transmit “quiet times” — points where there is no speech, combines to produce between a 15x-20x increase in utilization. TDMA combined with the “quiet time” cancellation is called ETDMA. There are lots of different flavors of GSM, though, that implement different combinations of the above three pieces, so not every GSM provider realizes the same 15x-20x increase.

GSM is cool because a GSM phone hops all over the spectrum in a pattern. Therefore if a particular frequency is overcrowded, weak, or malfunctioning, the problem is solved on the next frequency hop (usually one second later). This makes GSM highly survivable (wish they used it in the Bay Area) and really, really cheap.

GSM is of course widely deployed in Europe. This large installed base of fairly standardized carriers is why there are several iterations of GSM and why GSM gets so many new cool features sooner (like SMS).

-Ian.

At 11:26 AM 18/05/00 -0700, Darren Gibbons wrote:>In Canada, we have Clearnet and Fido. Clearnet is CDMA, but Fido is GSM,
>which if I understand correctly is based on a varient of TDMA.
>
>Ian, do you know if GSM has the same issues as TDMA when it comes to
>handling data? On an unrelated note, Fido supports SMS (short message
>service) which is very handy — you can send short text messages to and from
>other Fido phones, something that is not possible (to my knowledge) via any
>other service.
>
>Telus just launched their digital data service, including WAP.
>http://www.telusmobility.com/bc/wireless/wireless.htm
>
>
>Darren.
>
>
>
> > —–Original Message—–
> > From: Ian Andrew Bell [mailto:despot [at] ianbell [dot] com]
> > Sent: Thursday, May 18, 2000 11:18 AM
> > To: Mark Schneider
> > Cc: foib [at] ianbell [dot] com
> > Subject: Re: @F: RE: AT&T Slammed on Wireless Data
> >
> >
> > Oops. Let me clarify: CDM = 20x, TDM = 3x.
> >
> > AT&T and Rogers/Cantel use TDMA.
> > Sprint, Telus, and most others use CDMA.
> >
> > -Ian.
> >
> > At 11:04 AM 18/05/00 -0700, Ian Andrew Bell wrote:
> >
> > >Oh. Sorry.
> > >
> > >TDMA: Time Division Multiple Access 3x Frequency Re-use
> > >CDMA: Code Division Multiple Access 20x Frequency Re-use
> > >
> > >Refers, basically, to how cellular carriers squeeze multiple phones onto
> > >one “circuit” (which is actually a frequency/modulation). The difference
> > >is essentially describes how the economics of the business are
> > mitigated by
> > >technology.
> > >
> > >TDM essentially slices up the analog signal using Pulse Code Modulation
> > >from a bunch of phones and interleaves them with one another,
> > and transmits
> > >the signal from each as barely perceptible chopped up bits of sound (as
> > >though you were talking to someone through a desk fan) expressed as Zeros
> > >and Ones.
> > >
> > >CDM very simply encodes and then compresses (this is the key) the voice
> > >using a digital CODEC right on the phone and sends the signal over the
> > >network as Zeros and Ones. This increases the number of phones per
> > >frequency by 3x.
> > >
> > >Thus CDM is more natively “digital” and better-suited to handling bursty
> > >data traffic like internet. And because there’s less bandwidth used on
> > >each frequency by any given handset, you get more bang for the
> > buck. This
> > >increases the number of phones per frequency by 20x.
> > >
> > >It’s basically like the difference between a CD and a DVD. Why
> > can you get
> > >so much more data onto the same physical media with DVD? Compression!
> > >
> > >-Ian.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >At 10:30 AM 18/05/00 -0700, you wrote:
> > > >Ian wrote:
> > > >
> > > >”CDMA carriers will now be able to dance circles around the
> > TDMA guys until
> > > >the
> > > >TDMA guys implement WAP, which is more expensive on TDMA than
> > on CDMA (for
> > > >reasons which should be obvious).”
> > > >
> > > >Why?
> > > >
> > > >—–Original Message—–
> > > >From: Ian Andrew Bell [mailto:ian [at] cafe [dot] net]
> > > >Sent: Wednesday, May 17, 2000 9:34 PM
> > > >To: foib [at] ianbell [dot] com
> > > >Subject: @F: AT&T Slammed on Wireless Data
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >AT&T launched PocketNet a few days ago, which is CDPD-based.
> > Sprint has
> > > >been offering free WAP access for months now (I have a Sprint
> > mobile now in
> > > >the US) for free in some packages, with unrestricted web access.
> > > >
> > > >You can even surf to https://ianbell.com:8888 on your phone and it parses
> > > >quite well into WAP!
> > > >
> > > >This Gartner report slams AT&T, and shows how companies that
> > made the jump
> > > >to digital networks early (and implemented crappy TDMA) are
> > now going to
> > > >pay the price for not really thinking through the notion of
> > > >”Digital”. Because of the greater efficiencies and reduced costs, CDMA
> > > >carriers will now be able to dance circles around the TDMA
> > guys until the
> > > >TDMA guys implement WAP, which is more expensive on TDMA than
> > on CDMA (for
> > > >reasons which should be obvious).
> > > >
> > > >-Ian.
> > > >
> > > >—=—
> > > >Wednesday May 17 06:00 PM EDT
> > > >Commentary: AT&T PocketNet–when “free” is still too expensive
> > > >By Gartner Viewpoint, CNET News.com
> > > >See news story: AT&T Wireless offers free phone-based Net access
> > > >By Robert Egan, Gartner Analyst
> > > >
> > > >As a competitive response to Sprint, AT&T’s effort falls short
> > in several
> > > >ways.
> > > >
> > > >First, PocketNet is a far cry from the Sprint service today,
> > or from other
> > > >competitive wireless Internet services. For one, it limits people to 40
> > > >selected sites (out of more than 100,000 wireless-friendly
> > sites) unless
> > > >they want to pay extra fees. Through an untested business plan, this
> > > >”sticky” strategy may bring advertising and other revenue to
> > AT&T and its
> > > >business partners, but it needlessly restricts customer choice
> > in a service
> > > >that should be highly personalized.
> > > >
> > > >The “free” service includes access only to these selected sites and the
> > > >customer’s “personal Web page.” In addition to wider Web
> > access, email and
> > > >fax service will cost customers from $6.99 to $14.99 over and
> > above their
> > > >regular airtime and other wireless charges. (To be clear about the term
> > > >”free,” AT&T does charge for airtime while Internet services
> > are used, as
> > > >do Sprint and other wireless providers.)
> > > >
> > > >AT&T has been unable to attract equipment suppliers to build
> > phones for its
> > > >offering, so customers have only two models to choose from, whereas
> > > >Sprint’s Internet service is supported on many more phones.
> > This is in part
> > > >a penance AT&T is paying for its decision to use TDMA (time division
> > > >multiple access) technology, which is unsuited to data transmission,
> > > >instead of the more modern, robust technology used by Sprint.
> > > >
> > > >The same constraint limits AT&T to markets that support the
> > CDPD (cellular
> > > >digital packet data) protocol, which covers only about half the United
> > > >States.
> > > >Therefore, the sheer numbers tip the balance toward Sprint:
> > > >
> > > >* Sprint’s more modern data protocols are supported by almost twice
> > > > as many points of presence as AT&T’s.
> > > >* Sprint offers 10 times the number of handset models that support
> > > > its data services.
> > > >* Sprint customers can access 3,000 times as many Web sites for the
> > > > same (“free”) price.
> > > >
> > > >Gartner predicts that AT&T will not be able to fully benefit from the
> > > >ongoing rapid expansion of wireless data services until it
> > begins to more
> > > >accurately meet its customers’ needs and modernizes its underlying
> > > >technology, which will probably take until 2002.
> > > >
> > > >Entire contents, Copyright Â© 2000 Gartner Group, Inc. All
> > rights reserved.
> > > >The information contained herein represents Gartner’s initial
> > commentary
> > > >and analysis and has been obtained from sources believed to be
> > reliable.
> > > >Positions taken are subject to change as more information
> > becomes available
> > > >and further analysis is undertaken. Gartner disclaims all
> > warranties as to
> > > >the accuracy, completeness or adequacy of the information.
> > Gartner shall
> > > >have no liability for errors, omissions or inadequacies in the
> > information
> > > >contained herein or for interpretations thereof.
> > > >

Re: RE: AT&T Slammed on Wireless Data

Ian — Thu, 18 May 2000 20:17:49 +0000

Oops. Let me clarify: CDM = 20x, TDM = 3x.

AT&T and Rogers/Cantel use TDMA. Sprint, Telus, and most others use CDMA.

-Ian.

At 11:04 AM 18/05/00 -0700, Ian Andrew Bell wrote:

>Oh. Sorry.
>
>TDMA: Time Division Multiple Access 3x Frequency Re-use
>CDMA: Code Division Multiple Access 20x Frequency Re-use
>
>Refers, basically, to how cellular carriers squeeze multiple phones onto
>one “circuit” (which is actually a frequency/modulation). The difference
>is essentially describes how the economics of the business are mitigated by
>technology.
>
>TDM essentially slices up the analog signal using Pulse Code Modulation
>from a bunch of phones and interleaves them with one another, and transmits
>the signal from each as barely perceptible chopped up bits of sound (as
>though you were talking to someone through a desk fan) expressed as Zeros
>and Ones.
>
>CDM very simply encodes and then compresses (this is the key) the voice
>using a digital CODEC right on the phone and sends the signal over the
>network as Zeros and Ones. This increases the number of phones per
>frequency by 3x.
>
>Thus CDM is more natively “digital” and better-suited to handling bursty
>data traffic like internet. And because there’s less bandwidth used on
>each frequency by any given handset, you get more bang for the buck. This
>increases the number of phones per frequency by 20x.
>
>It’s basically like the difference between a CD and a DVD. Why can you get
>so much more data onto the same physical media with DVD? Compression!
>
>-Ian.
>
>
>
>At 10:30 AM 18/05/00 -0700, you wrote:
> >Ian wrote:
> >
> >”CDMA carriers will now be able to dance circles around the TDMA guys until
> >the
> >TDMA guys implement WAP, which is more expensive on TDMA than on CDMA (for
> >reasons which should be obvious).”
> >
> >Why?
> >
> >—–Original Message—–
> >From: Ian Andrew Bell [mailto:ian [at] cafe [dot] net]
> >Sent: Wednesday, May 17, 2000 9:34 PM
> >To: foib [at] ianbell [dot] com
> >Subject: @F: AT&T Slammed on Wireless Data
> >
> >
> >
> >AT&T launched PocketNet a few days ago, which is CDPD-based. Sprint has
> >been offering free WAP access for months now (I have a Sprint mobile now in
> >the US) for free in some packages, with unrestricted web access.
> >
> >You can even surf to https://ianbell.com:8888 on your phone and it parses
> >quite well into WAP!
> >
> >This Gartner report slams AT&T, and shows how companies that made the jump
> >to digital networks early (and implemented crappy TDMA) are now going to
> >pay the price for not really thinking through the notion of
> >”Digital”. Because of the greater efficiencies and reduced costs, CDMA
> >carriers will now be able to dance circles around the TDMA guys until the
> >TDMA guys implement WAP, which is more expensive on TDMA than on CDMA (for
> >reasons which should be obvious).
> >
> >-Ian.
> >
> >—=—
> >Wednesday May 17 06:00 PM EDT
> >Commentary: AT&T PocketNet–when “free” is still too expensive
> >By Gartner Viewpoint, CNET News.com
> >See news story: AT&T Wireless offers free phone-based Net access
> >By Robert Egan, Gartner Analyst
> >
> >As a competitive response to Sprint, AT&T’s effort falls short in several
> >ways.
> >
> >First, PocketNet is a far cry from the Sprint service today, or from other
> >competitive wireless Internet services. For one, it limits people to 40
> >selected sites (out of more than 100,000 wireless-friendly sites) unless
> >they want to pay extra fees. Through an untested business plan, this
> >”sticky” strategy may bring advertising and other revenue to AT&T and its
> >business partners, but it needlessly restricts customer choice in a service
> >that should be highly personalized.
> >
> >The “free” service includes access only to these selected sites and the
> >customer’s “personal Web page.” In addition to wider Web access, email and
> >fax service will cost customers from $6.99 to $14.99 over and above their
> >regular airtime and other wireless charges. (To be clear about the term
> >”free,” AT&T does charge for airtime while Internet services are used, as
> >do Sprint and other wireless providers.)
> >
> >AT&T has been unable to attract equipment suppliers to build phones for its
> >offering, so customers have only two models to choose from, whereas
> >Sprint’s Internet service is supported on many more phones. This is in part
> >a penance AT&T is paying for its decision to use TDMA (time division
> >multiple access) technology, which is unsuited to data transmission,
> >instead of the more modern, robust technology used by Sprint.
> >
> >The same constraint limits AT&T to markets that support the CDPD (cellular
> >digital packet data) protocol, which covers only about half the United
> >States.
> >Therefore, the sheer numbers tip the balance toward Sprint:
> >
> >* Sprint’s more modern data protocols are supported by almost twice
> > as many points of presence as AT&T’s.
> >* Sprint offers 10 times the number of handset models that support
> > its data services.
> >* Sprint customers can access 3,000 times as many Web sites for the
> > same (“free”) price.
> >
> >Gartner predicts that AT&T will not be able to fully benefit from the
> >ongoing rapid expansion of wireless data services until it begins to more
> >accurately meet its customers’ needs and modernizes its underlying
> >technology, which will probably take until 2002.
> >
> >Entire contents, Copyright Â© 2000 Gartner Group, Inc. All rights reserved.
> >The information contained herein represents Gartner’s initial commentary
> >and analysis and has been obtained from sources believed to be reliable.
> >Positions taken are subject to change as more information becomes available
> >and further analysis is undertaken. Gartner disclaims all warranties as to
> >the accuracy, completeness or adequacy of the information. Gartner shall
> >have no liability for errors, omissions or inadequacies in the information
> >contained herein or for interpretations thereof.
> >

RE: AT&T Slammed on Wireless Data

Ian — Thu, 18 May 2000 20:04:29 +0000

Oh. Sorry.

TDMA: Time Division Multiple Access 3x Frequency Re-use CDMA: Code Division Multiple Access 20x Frequency Re-use

Refers, basically, to how cellular carriers squeeze multiple phones onto one “circuit” (which is actually a frequency/modulation). The difference is essentially describes how the economics of the business are mitigated by technology.

TDM essentially slices up the analog signal using Pulse Code Modulation from a bunch of phones and interleaves them with one another, and transmits the signal from each as barely perceptible chopped up bits of sound (as though you were talking to someone through a desk fan) expressed as Zeros and Ones.

CDM very simply encodes and then compresses (this is the key) the voice using a digital CODEC right on the phone and sends the signal over the network as Zeros and Ones. This increases the number of phones per frequency by 3x.

Thus CDM is more natively “digital” and better-suited to handling bursty data traffic like internet. And because there’s less bandwidth used on each frequency by any given handset, you get more bang for the buck. This increases the number of phones per frequency by 20x.

It’s basically like the difference between a CD and a DVD. Why can you get so much more data onto the same physical media with DVD? Compression!

-Ian.

At 10:30 AM 18/05/00 -0700, you wrote:>Ian wrote:
>
>”CDMA carriers will now be able to dance circles around the TDMA guys until
>the
>TDMA guys implement WAP, which is more expensive on TDMA than on CDMA (for
>reasons which should be obvious).”
>
>Why?
>
>—–Original Message—–
>From: Ian Andrew Bell [mailto:ian [at] cafe [dot] net]
>Sent: Wednesday, May 17, 2000 9:34 PM
>To: foib [at] ianbell [dot] com
>Subject: @F: AT&T Slammed on Wireless Data
>
>
>
>AT&T launched PocketNet a few days ago, which is CDPD-based. Sprint has
>been offering free WAP access for months now (I have a Sprint mobile now in
>the US) for free in some packages, with unrestricted web access.
>
>You can even surf to https://ianbell.com:8888 on your phone and it parses
>quite well into WAP!
>
>This Gartner report slams AT&T, and shows how companies that made the jump
>to digital networks early (and implemented crappy TDMA) are now going to
>pay the price for not really thinking through the notion of
>”Digital”. Because of the greater efficiencies and reduced costs, CDMA
>carriers will now be able to dance circles around the TDMA guys until the
>TDMA guys implement WAP, which is more expensive on TDMA than on CDMA (for
>reasons which should be obvious).
>
>-Ian.
>
>—=—
>Wednesday May 17 06:00 PM EDT
>Commentary: AT&T PocketNet–when “free” is still too expensive
>By Gartner Viewpoint, CNET News.com
>See news story: AT&T Wireless offers free phone-based Net access
>By Robert Egan, Gartner Analyst
>
>As a competitive response to Sprint, AT&T’s effort falls short in several
>ways.
>
>First, PocketNet is a far cry from the Sprint service today, or from other
>competitive wireless Internet services. For one, it limits people to 40
>selected sites (out of more than 100,000 wireless-friendly sites) unless
>they want to pay extra fees. Through an untested business plan, this
>”sticky” strategy may bring advertising and other revenue to AT&T and its
>business partners, but it needlessly restricts customer choice in a service
>that should be highly personalized.
>
>The “free” service includes access only to these selected sites and the
>customer’s “personal Web page.” In addition to wider Web access, email and
>fax service will cost customers from $6.99 to $14.99 over and above their
>regular airtime and other wireless charges. (To be clear about the term
>”free,” AT&T does charge for airtime while Internet services are used, as
>do Sprint and other wireless providers.)
>
>AT&T has been unable to attract equipment suppliers to build phones for its
>offering, so customers have only two models to choose from, whereas
>Sprint’s Internet service is supported on many more phones. This is in part
>a penance AT&T is paying for its decision to use TDMA (time division
>multiple access) technology, which is unsuited to data transmission,
>instead of the more modern, robust technology used by Sprint.
>
>The same constraint limits AT&T to markets that support the CDPD (cellular
>digital packet data) protocol, which covers only about half the United
>States.
>Therefore, the sheer numbers tip the balance toward Sprint:
>
>* Sprint’s more modern data protocols are supported by almost twice
> as many points of presence as AT&T’s.
>* Sprint offers 10 times the number of handset models that support
> its data services.
>* Sprint customers can access 3,000 times as many Web sites for the
> same (“free”) price.
>
>Gartner predicts that AT&T will not be able to fully benefit from the
>ongoing rapid expansion of wireless data services until it begins to more
>accurately meet its customers’ needs and modernizes its underlying
>technology, which will probably take until 2002.
>
>Entire contents, Copyright Â© 2000 Gartner Group, Inc. All rights reserved.
>The information contained herein represents Gartner’s initial commentary
>and analysis and has been obtained from sources believed to be reliable.
>Positions taken are subject to change as more information becomes available
>and further analysis is undertaken. Gartner disclaims all warranties as to
>the accuracy, completeness or adequacy of the information. Gartner shall
>have no liability for errors, omissions or inadequacies in the information
>contained herein or for interpretations thereof.
>

AT&T Slammed on Wireless Data

Ian — Thu, 18 May 2000 03:34:06 +0000

AT&T launched PocketNet a few days ago, which is CDPD-based. Sprint has been offering free WAP access for months now (I have a Sprint mobile now in the US) for free in some packages, with unrestricted web access.

You can even surf to https://ianbell.com:8888 on your phone and it parses quite well into WAP!

This Gartner report slams AT&T, and shows how companies that made the jump to digital networks early (and implemented crappy TDMA) are now going to pay the price for not really thinking through the notion of “Digital”. Because of the greater efficiencies and reduced costs, CDMA carriers will now be able to dance circles around the TDMA guys until the TDMA guys implement WAP, which is more expensive on TDMA than on CDMA (for reasons which should be obvious).

-Ian.

—=— Wednesday May 17 06:00 PM EDT Commentary: AT&T PocketNet–when “free” is still too expensive By Gartner Viewpoint, CNET News.com See news story: AT&T Wireless offers free phone-based Net access By Robert Egan, Gartner Analyst

As a competitive response to Sprint, AT&T’s effort falls short in several ways.

First, PocketNet is a far cry from the Sprint service today, or from other competitive wireless Internet services. For one, it limits people to 40 selected sites (out of more than 100,000 wireless-friendly sites) unless they want to pay extra fees. Through an untested business plan, this “sticky” strategy may bring advertising and other revenue to AT&T and its business partners, but it needlessly restricts customer choice in a service that should be highly personalized.

The “free” service includes access only to these selected sites and the customer’s “personal Web page.” In addition to wider Web access, email and fax service will cost customers from $6.99 to $14.99 over and above their regular airtime and other wireless charges. (To be clear about the term “free,” AT&T does charge for airtime while Internet services are used, as do Sprint and other wireless providers.)

AT&T has been unable to attract equipment suppliers to build phones for its offering, so customers have only two models to choose from, whereas Sprint’s Internet service is supported on many more phones. This is in part a penance AT&T is paying for its decision to use TDMA (time division multiple access) technology, which is unsuited to data transmission, instead of the more modern, robust technology used by Sprint.

The same constraint limits AT&T to markets that support the CDPD (cellular digital packet data) protocol, which covers only about half the United States. Therefore, the sheer numbers tip the balance toward Sprint:

â€¢ Sprint’s more modern data protocols are supported by almost twice as many points of presence as AT&T’s. â€¢ Sprint offers 10 times the number of handset models that support its data services. â€¢ Sprint customers can access 3,000 times as many Web sites for the same (“free”) price.

Gartner predicts that AT&T will not be able to fully benefit from the ongoing rapid expansion of wireless data services until it begins to more accurately meet its customers’ needs and modernizes its underlying technology, which will probably take until 2002.

Entire contents, Copyright Â© 2000 Gartner Group, Inc. All rights reserved. The information contained herein represents Gartner’s initial commentary and analysis and has been obtained from sources believed to be reliable. Positions taken are subject to change as more information becomes available and further analysis is undertaken. Gartner disclaims all warranties as to the accuracy, completeness or adequacy of the information. Gartner shall have no liability for errors, omissions or inadequacies in the information contained herein or for interpretations thereof.