Mobile Web: Falling Walls

The Internet has proven problematic for communications providers in any number of ways. Aside from mobility, the Internet and private IP services provide the foundation for most growth initiatives. Without it, there would be no demand for broadband access services, music downloads, video downloads and streaming, videoconferencing or Web services.

On the other hand, IP-based services also allow creation of services outside the traditional service provider walled gardens, creating competition for captive provider services. As a rule, IP also lowers the cost, and therefore the retail price, of just about any communications, content or information service.

So it is no surprise that wireless providers have mixed feelings about wider use of mobile instant messaging services that compete, at least in part, with lucrative text messaging services.

By the end of 2013, as many as 24 percent of mobile consumers will be using mobile IM services, say researchers at Forrester Research. That likely will cannibalize some amount of text messaging and shift brand awareness towards the IM providers (Microsoft, Google, Yahoo, AOL) rather than mobile carriers.

300 Million Text Messages New Year's Eve: Verizon

This New Year’s Eve, Verizon Wireless expects its customers to send and receive more than 300 million messages in the 16 hours between 12 p.m. today and 4 a.m. ET New Year’s Day. This forecast of SMS use by Frost & Sullivan shows how expectations have grown over the past couple of years as Frost & Sullivan analysts raised their forecasts.

Conflicting Regulatory Silos Keep Popping Up

One of the problems everybody faces as we move increasingly to a world of IP-enabled communications, information and entertainment is that a growing clash is occurring, piecemeal, between historically-distinct regulatory silos. Whether we can stumble forward forever, without acknowledging the end of regulatory silos, as well as technology or industry silos, remains open to question.

The problem is simply that different sorts of activities and businesses are governed by distinctly-different frameworks. Magazines and newspapers, for example, operate under First Amendment "free speech" rules and have virtually no "common carrier" obligations.

TV and radio broadcasters operate under different rules, with more limited "free speech" rights (broadcasters do not enjoy unrestricted rights to transmit any sort of content). Cable TV regulation is more akin to broadcasting than telecom regulation, but there are some tax and local franchising rules that are more akin to common carrier businesses.

Telecom companies operate under the most-restrictive rules, with legal requirements to interconnect with other telecom service providers and deliver their traffic. Data services and content generally have been immune from these rules, though. That's why the Web, and Web content, have developed essentially as a zone of freedom.

Of course, in the U.S. market there is more talk about "network neutrality", a troublesome issue not because of the immediate implications some attribute to it, but because it is just one more examples of how the old "silos" of regulation are breaking down, and becoming intellecutually incoherent in a world where media, TV, radio, music, talk, testing, Web surfing and data communications all occur over one physical pipe.

Should that not require some harmonization or revamping of the fundamental regulatory regimes each of the media types up to this point has enjoyed? And here's the crux of the matter: how does one square first amendment, "zone of freedom" rules historically applied to newspapers, magazines, data services and the Web, with common carrier rules applied to telcos, or the quasi-regulated broadcasting industry?

The fact that delivery modes change does not alter the zone of freedom newspapers, magazines and other media, even "Web media" are supposed to have. And the U.S. courts have ruled that corporations do possess rights of free speech as well. So the issue is whether the zone of freedom is expanded or contracted as multiple media types are delivered over IP pipes.

So it is that some consumer and public advocacy groups are urging the Federal Communications Commission to declare that "short code" text messages deserve the same nondiscriminatory treatment by telephone carriers as email and voice messages.

So are "short codes" advertising, a direct response mechanism, or are they "speech." And whose "speech" rights are supposed to be protected? Those of the speaker, as the early founders seemed to think, or the rights of the "listener," as jurists increasingly have argued over the past 50 years or so?

The issue is more complicated than sometimes positioned. Text messaging services might include a "zone of freedom" in terms of what is said. But note that the freedom is for the speaker. But who is the "speaker" whenever we are looking at media?

The Washington Post might not accept advertising from its competitor, the Wall Street Journal. Verizon Wireless might not accept ads from Sprint or T-Mobile. Cable companies don't take ads from telephone companies marketing competing services. In those cases, rights of speech are exercised by a "speaker." A TV, cable or radio network has the right not to allow speech (advertising also is speech) to be paid for and transmitted.

The fundamental problem is that as IP pipes carry virtually all communications, information and entertainment, we are going to see more disjointed efforts to regulate "unlike" things in "like" ways. That will be the corollary to regulating "like" things in "unlike" ways.

Text Messaging Growing 37% a Month

U.S. text messaging (SMS) traffic volumes have increased at least 37 percent a month since 2003, according to CTIA researchers. Usage also is significant across many age categories as well. About 19 percent of users are 18 to 24; 24 percent are between 25 and 34; 22 percent are between 35 and 54 and 19 percent are between 45 and 54.

As of December 2006, over 18.5 billion text messages are sent every month and that number has grown by 250 percent each year for the last two years.

Verizon Wireless anticipates the number of text messages sent by their users on their network to grow nearly five times from 400 million per month in July 2005 to over two billion per month next year.

Heavy Text on iPhone? Not so Accurate

You probably would have guessed this would be the case: User Centric, Inc., a Chicago-based usability consultancy, says iPhone owners can enter text just as rapidly as a BlackBerry user can, but the error rate for iPhone users is higher, and significantly higher for longer messages.

While iPhone owners made an average of 5.6 errors/message on their own phone, hard-key QWERTY owners made an average of 2.1 errors/message on their own phone. Nor does it appear experience makes that much difference. Though User Centric found that experienced iPhone users could type faster, they made as many mistakes as users who never had touched an iPhone before.

Participants who had previously not used either a hard-key QWERTY phone or an iPhone also were significantly faster at entering text messages on the hard-key QWERTY test phone than on the iPhone. These participants also made significantly fewer errors on the hard-key QWERTY than on the iPhone.

Numeric phone owners made an average of 5.4 errors/message on the iPhone, 1.2 errors/message on the QWERTY test phone, and 1.4 errors/message on their own phone.

The study involved data from 60 participants who were asked to enter specific text messages and complete several mobile device tasks. Twenty of these participants were iPhone owners who owned their phones for at least one month. Twenty more participants were owners of traditional hard-key QWERTY phones and another twenty were owners of numeric phones who used the “multi-tap” method of text entry.

Each participant entered six fixed-length text messages on their own phone.
Non-iPhone owners also did six messages each on the iPhone and a phone of the “opposite” type.

The opposite phone for numeric phone owners was a Blackberry and for hard-key QWERTY phone owners it was a numeric Samsung E300 phone. Some participants did additional tasks, including a contact search and add contacts, as time allowed.

iPhone owners entered six text messages on their own phone. They also typed two pangrams – a sentence that includes every letter in the English language at least once – and one corpus – a set of characters that represents the exact letter frequencies of the English language. These tasks were included to ensure that participants experienced the various phone keyboards in a thorough manner. iPhone owners also completed tasks involving text correction, contacts, and visual voicemail

Non-iPhone owners entered a total of 18 text messages – six each on their own phone (hard-key QWERTY or numeric phone), the iPhone, and the “opposite” phone (numeric test phone for QWERTY phone owners, hard-key QWERTY test phone for numeric owners). These participants also entered two pangrams and one corpus on their own phone and completed the contact list tasks if time was remaining.

As it turns out, subjects preferred hard keys for texting. “Not only was their performance better,” says Jen Allen, User Centric user experience specialist, “their rankings and ratings of the phones indicated that they preferred a hard-key QWERTY phone for texting.”

Participants rated the hard-key QWERTY phone highest out of all three phones for ease of text messaging. The hard-key QWERTY phone was also most frequently ranked first out of the three phones by the numeric and QWERTY users. Overall, the hard-key QWERTY phone was ranked first in text messaging by 85 percent of users.

The iPhone was ranked second by 60 percent of these users. None of the hard-key QWERTY phone owners ranked the iPhone first for text messaging and only three numeric phone owners ranked the iPhone first.

In general, hit rates for all keys on the iPhone keyboard were consistently 90 percent or higher. The average hit rate was about 95 percent.

But participants repeatedly pressed certain keys when they intended instead to press other adjacent keys. Several iPhone keys had high error rates: Q (66 percent), P (27 percent), J (22 percent), X (21 percent), and Z (15 percent). In contrast, the median false alarm rate across the iPhone entire keyboard was 5.48 percent.

iPhone keys with the highest false alarm rates were those in close proximity to the five most frequently used letters in the English language: E, T, A, O, and I.

In addition to the high false alarm letters listed above, other false alarm letters included W (10 percent), R (6.5 percent), Y (8.7 percent), and S (6.0 percent), which are also adjacent to high-frequency letters.

B (8.2 percent) also had a high false alarm rate, potentially because of its location near the letter N (which is the sixth most frequent letter, User Centric says.

On the hard-key QWERTY keyboard, the hit rates for all keys were above 97 percent, except for V (96 percent). Additionally, the false alarm rates for keys on this keyboard were below three percent, with the exception of Q (8 percent).

Performance on the keyboard was much better than on the iPhone keyboard. The letters with higher false alarm rates were similar on both keyboards, involving many of the 5 least frequently used letters in the English language, such as Q, Z, V, and B.

Also, the Q and P keys were problematic for users of both keyboards, suggesting that the issue for these keys arises from their location near the top edges of the keyboards.

Participants made different types of errors on the iPhone and the hard-key QWERTY phones.

The majority of errors made on the iPhone involved substituting a nearby letter for the intended letter. However, on the QWERTY phone, participants made more insertion and omission errors than substitution errors.

Also, many of the substitution errors that were made on the QWERTY keyboards involved swapping the order of the correct letters in the words, such as typing “stomr” instead of “storm”.

Compared to hard-key QWERTY devices, the iPhone may fall short for consumers who use on their mobile device heavily for email and text messaging, says User Centric.

The iPhone was clearly associated with higher text entry error rates than a hard-key QWERTY phone.

The finding that iPhone owners made more texting errors on iPhones than their hard-key QWERTY counterparts (on their own QWERTY phones) suggests that the iPhone may have a higher fundamental error rate. The iPhone’s predictive and corrective text features do alleviate some of the errors users make while texting, but it does not catch them all.

The touch screen obviously is an elegant interface for some tasks. It just doesn't appear to be the best interface for all tasks. Mutlitap and touch screen will work fine for many people. Others will find QWERTY keyboards the only way to go.

Address Books for Landlines?

Embarq is adding an address book feature to its home phones, allowing people to look up an entry and dial it by speaking a name into the handset.

Embarq also is testing a text-messaging function for home phones in some markets. When a text message is sent to a land-line number, the home phone rings, converts the message into audio, and plays it back. The land-line phone user can reply with an audio message or press a button to send a standard text response.

You have to admire Embarq's efforts to add features to landlines that are standard for mobiles. You also have to wonder how well address books, which are personal, and text messages, also personal, are going to translate into a "public" setting, which most landline phones represent.

One-person households won't have that problem, of course. "Public" and "personal" are the same, in such cases. But it will be an interesting test.

80% of Mobile Calls Go to Just 4 People

"Although mobile phones make it easier to keep in regular touch, a typical user spends 80 percent of his or her time communicating with just four other people," says Stefana Broadbent, an anthropologist with the User Adoption Lab at Swisscom. Think of it as the long tail of communications.
.
Broadbent also says different channels get used for distinct reasons. Mobile calls are for last-minute coordination. Texting is for “intimacy, emotions and efficiency.” E-mail is to exchange pictures, documents and music. IM and VoIP calls are “continuous channels”, open in the background while people do other things.
.
Also, you won't be surprised by this finding, but texting is on the increase. “Users are showing a growing preference for semi-synchronous writing over synchronous voice,” says Broadbent.

And though enterprise IT managers might not like the idea, private communications are invading the workplace. Workers expect to be plugged into their social networks while at work, whether by email, IM or mobile phone.
.

Practical Anthropology at Swisscom and Microsoft

An anthropologist at Microsoft points out that when instant messaging and other social networking tools are taken away from people (especially people under the age of 35), productivity drops. That's an indication that social networking is becoming a key problem solving tool, not a "time waster" as many managers seem to believe. Swisscom Innovations anthropologist Stefana Broadbent points out that use of written channels, ranging from IM to text messaging to email is growing, while voice growth has slowed where text communications are possible.

Broadbent theorizes that written channels allow constant interplay and availability without creating an information overload. A person without online social tools averages about 20 contacts with whom they keep in touch. A person with online tools can maintain 70 or more contacts, she notes. She theorizes that IM, for example, is both fast and non-committal, allowing a wider circle of contacts without overload.

That's an interesting perspective as more people start to worry we all are too connected, too much of the time. Broadbent argues that people should not have to unplug. In fact, she rhetorically asks, "why would I want to unplug?"

And she questions the notion that most people actually are overloaded with communication requests. "Most people we interview get five emails a day," says Broadbent. "They are thrilled to get one more friend on Facebook, for example."

Though the common perception is that most people are overloaded with communications, Broadbent says that isn't true. "Not many people are overloaded," she says.

"I'm opposed to the notion of unplugging," Broadbent says. "I don't want to lose my social intelligence network." To Broadbent, "IM is like bringing your dog to work."

Though I don't see lots of evidence that "always connected" behavior is all that important to most people over the age of 40 or so, I am beginning to see how most of the social networking tools can increase knowledge diffusion and make possible a wider degree of casual monitoring of one's environment. I wouldn't say I find it as helpful as RSS. But part of the reason is that most of the people I normally want to interact with do not seem to be heavy social networkers.

Why Do People Text Each Other?

In many markets, the cost of doing so is far less than the cost of making a voice call, says LirneAsia. And it is the relative cost of SMS compared to a minute of voice, for example, which drives texting, more than the absolute cost of sending an SMS (See Brough Turner's blog).

"What matters really is the relative cost of sending an SMS; for instance, in the Philippines, for a Smart TnT prepaid mobile user, a one minute call is about 5.5 times more expensive. In Pakistan, for a Jazz Budget prepaid mobile user, the ratio is about 2.1. In India, where SMS use at the BOP was seen to be the lowest (among the countries studied), the ratio was 1 – i.e, a one minute call and an SMS are the same price (so why would you bother SMSing if that were the case?)."

Doesn't Qualify as a Headset

So we won't be sumbitting this to Jajah's "ditch your headset" contest. Besides, my granddaughter wouldn't want the Jajah T-shirt in any case. It would have to be pink, and illustrated with horses. My wife wouldn't be caught dead wearing a headset, it goes almost without saying. If I really want to know whether some new innovation is thoroughly mass market, she's the market sample. She wouldn't intentionally use VoIP; doesn't use instant messaging or SMS, either. Will not check email at home after work, for any reason. Does think the iPhone is worth owning. That's significant.