Conspicuously absent this week from Amazon’s announcement on the list of international markets where the Kindle would soon be sold in a host is a little backwater known as Canada.  Theories abound as to why this is:  some blame Heritage Canada, which I think is a bit of a lark.  For one thing, Heritage Canada is not a regulatory body in the sense that it enforces no laws, and has no specific jurisdiction over the publishing industry in our country apart from administration of the Copyright Act.

No, the politics involved in preventing the Kindle from reaching the grubby hands of Canadian consumers is probably the same old culprits we always pick on around here:  Canada’s wireless carriers.  This article reveals a bit of a crack in the story.  While the Domestic US Kindle is using the Sprint EVDO network, Amazon is not working with local wireless partners in each individual country for the International version… the company has done a single deal with AT&T Global Networks, which in turn has gone out and negotiated low-cost data roaming agreements with carrier partners all over the world.

The Kindle, you see, downloads books and connects via AT&T’s 3G Data Network.  But it is a unique proposition for the wireless carriers, because the Kindle subsumes the carrier’s network and buries it behind Amazon’s brand.  As a result the customer is completely unaware of which network the Kindle is running on, never receives a bill from AT&T, and never calls AT&T for support.  It is a complete inversion of the traditional wireless carrier model.

In Europe some carriers embraced this, as has AT&T Global, and pitched Amazon on providing the network capacity for the Kindle.  In Canada, however, the concept of becoming a bare pipeline has likely met with a far chillier reception from the omnipotent stewards of our wireless spectrum.  While AT&T may have negotiated decent wholesale rates for its customers roaming on Rogers in Canada enabling affordable world data roaming, Rogers may have (knowing their personality well) stipulated that this wholesale rate not be resold in any way apart from direct-to-consumer.

And just as Rogers resisted Apple’s will to gradually subsume them as a carrier, and is now paying the price by being the first iPhone operator in the world to officially lose iPhone exclusivity, Rogers likely isn’t enthusiastic about Amazon taking over the customer relationship.  The irony is they probably should be — their quality of service and customer support is so absurdly poor that they could do no better than by washing their hands of the customer relationship entirely.

-Ian.

—- http://news.com.com/2100-1033-978126.html Cisco, SBC link arms for outsourcing

By Reuters December 17, 2002, 5:29 AM PT

Cisco Systems and SBC Communications announced on Tuesday a pact potentially worth billions of dollars and designed to encourage companies to outsource services.

Cisco, the maker of equipment that directs Internet traffic, and SBC, the U.S. local telephone company, said their new three-and-a-half-year marketing and sales agreement will enable businesses to cut costs by shifting various communications services to SBC, starting with secure VPNs (virtual private networks).

Under the deal, corporate customers will cut costs and outsource nonstrategic work. SBC will generate revenue by offering the services, while Cisco will ring up sales as the preferred equipment provider to the phone company.

“The notion of becoming a key supplier of infrastructure gear for an incumbent (telecom) player is really a big deal for Cisco because it’s sort of the temple of carrier-class thinking that when you get validated by the likes of SBC…you really have cracked a very tough nut,” said Roland Acra, chief technology officer of Cisco’s service provider business.

The SBC pact is Cisco’s first deal on a phone company’s traditional voice network. Generally, Cisco supplies equipment for data networks.

Other services SBC will eventually offer customers using Cisco equipment include integration of voice, data and video on a single network, advanced security options, wireless local area networks, and managed Web and storage-area network hosting.

San Jose, Calif.-based Cisco has pushed to boost its smaller telecom business by using its strong ties to corporate customers to sign deals with telecom service providers. Telecom accounts for about 20 percent of Cisco’s sales, and Cisco wants to boost that to more than 40 percent over the next five years.

The company derives the bulk of its revenue from large corporations outside the telecom sector. In turn, SBC is trying to take advantage of Cisco’s dominance in the enterprise sector to boost its business.

“Focus on managed services is a fundamental shift and we felt doing things with Cisco made a lot of sense because of their presence in the market for the enterprise perspective,” said Mike Reddout, SBC’s vice president of emerging services.

VPNs allow businesses to securely use the Internet to share files and other data.

For the past couple years, SBC has been one of the largest resellers of Cisco gear. SBC, based in San Antonio, Texas, also recently said it would buy high-end Cisco routers, machines used to connect computer networks for the transmission of data and information, for a nationwide network delivering new online services to businesses.

Financial details of the new agreement were not disclosed. But Carlos Dominguez, Cisco group vice president for the U.S. service provider business, said that the market for such managed services was a multibillion-dollar opportunity. SBC said its has seen annual growth of 25 percent in demand for managed services and expects that to continue.

Dominguez said the deal with SBC is larger in size and scope than similar deals previously signed with British-based Cable & Wireless or with U.S. long-distance telephone carrier Sprint.

In late April, Cisco said that Web hosting company Cable & Wireless would use Cisco equipment under a four-year partnership to offer companies a single, Internet-based communications network that hooks up all their desktops, allowing them to cut costs and operate more efficiently.

Cisco said at the time that the Cable & Wireless deal was worth hundreds of millions of dollars for both companies. Cisco signed its partnership with Sprint in December 2001.

Story Copyright © 2002 Reuters Limited. All rights reserved.

———–

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 © 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 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 © 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.
> >

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 © 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.
>

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 © 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.