Yet, there was one section of his presentation that just didn’t stack-up (at least to the trained eye).  Jobs stated that only 0.55% of iPhone4 consumers had contacted AppleCare regarding the antenna. This, he suggested, was at odds with the level of media hype around the issue. With less than 1% of consumers contacting AppleCare, it obviously wasn’t a cause for major concern and wasn’t impacting everyone.

But Jobs was incorrect in making a direct comparison with the number of consumers who contacted AppleCare with the number of users who recognized and experienced an antenna problem.

The support landscape has changed fundamentally over the last five years. Consumers now embrace multiple support channels, from official care lines such as AppleCare to online support forums or simply asking a friend.

In a WDSGlobal report conducted in March 2010, we found that when experiencing difficulties with their mobile device, consumers where significantly more inclined to read the manual, consult family and friends or simply give up all together. Contacting an official support line from the handset manufacturer or mobile operator was far from being the most prominent support option.

It’s hard to know for sure, but Jobs’ language hinted at only 0.55% of consumers having “called in”. So does this figure preclude those that emailed or used the Applecare forums? We know, from our own research, that the preference for which support channel to use is also highly dependent on the demographic. The under 24 year olds prefer self-serve support options via the web, while the over 55 year old prefer the personal touch of a telephone care agent or even in-store support. Given the typical Apple early adopter, it seems likely that a large majority of consumers interacting with AppleCare did so via one of their non-telephone based support channels.

Perhaps uniquely, we must also factor in the media as a support channel. Consumers were being made increasingly aware of the problem, possibly even before they noticed an issue with reception for themselves, proactively through the media. Apple’s PR machine communicated potential causes and upcoming resolutions via the media (e.g. faulty formula – software fix, faulty design – free bumper/case). Given this ongoing communication the need for a consumer to call AppleCare for this particular problem has been significantly reduced.

This is by no means a criticism of Apple’s support service. Indeed its AppleCare service is class-leading, delivering multiple channels through which to engage. But this very acknowledgment of the many different support channels through which consumers like to engage must also be recognized when assessing the user experience impact of ‘antennagate’.

Increasingly, as smartphones become further engrained in the digital culture of today’s zeitgeist, a much broader array of consumers are becoming exposed to the joys of smartphone ownership. The configuration of the advanced services that smartphones enable including email, internet, GPS navigation, etc., can become somewhat frustrating for even the most tech-savvy characters. A 2010 study commissioned by WDS showed that 1 in 5 of us experience difficulties with email set-up. We don’t doubt that the Queen will have someone on hand to deal with any inconvenient stumbling blocks in the set-up of her new BlackBerry device, however, unfortunately not everyone enjoys these types of resources, instead relying on the support from their network operator.

The rapid growth of the smartphone segment has presented many challenges to network operators introducing these complex devices to their portfolio. Although smartphones open up new and exciting revenue generating opportunities, operators must manage the growing support burden involved with supporting mass-market consumers in navigating more complex products and services.

In addition to the support burden, many other factors come into play in the operators struggle to maintain profitability, including an average subsidy cost of US$200, double that of featurephone devices, unlimited data plans that have placed unprecedented strain on high-speed data networks and threaten the user experience, and the consumers likelihood to abandon services altogether decreasing their revenue generating potential.

The flux in support costs seen as a result of introducing new smartphone technologies will improve as efficiencies are identified and deployed, meanwhile operators need to ensure this process is accelerated.

The industry has created something of a perfect storm for mobile data. After years of being left in the wilderness, a combination of cheap price plans, heavily subsidized smartphones and compelling apps and services, has seen mobile data usage explode to a level that is now causing concern among industry executives keen to balance quality of service and profitability.

In the early days of data, pricing products and services to lower the barriers to entry made sense. Mobile operators needed to capitalize on their 3G investments and voice revenues were stagnating. The launch of the Apple iPhone in 2008 delivered mobile data to the masses in the form of compelling applications and the industry responded.

In the following years, the availability of cheap smartphones and products such as mobile broadband dongles, air cards and mifi units came thick and fast. In Western Europe and North America, half of all new handsets sold by the end of 2011 will be smartphones and it’s expected that over the next five years there will be a 20 fold increase in data traffic. Central to this success was the availability of unlimited data plans. The ‘all-you-can-eat’ pricing model finally removed the single biggest barrier to mobile data, the threat of bill shock.

It seems, however, that the level of consumer demand for mobile data has surprised even the largest operators. AT&T and O2, both beneficiaries of  the iPhone’s success thanks to early exclusivity deals, have made very public statements over the last year regarding the ‘data crunch’.

Both operators have experienced quality of service issues from the growing population of smartphones attaching to their networks. The CEOs of both companies have made public statements about the data ‘crunch’; the CEO of O2 going as far as making a public apology to his London customers where the huge popularity of uber-cool iPhones, and a highly dense urban environment was only ever going to end one way.

Much of the problem comes from the phones themselves, and not necessarily from the amount of data being downloaded. Instead it’s how today’s smartphones manage ‘signaling’.   Many other connected devices, such as laptops and netbooks, maintain an open channel to the data network. Smartphones just don’t have the juice to maintain this connection and instead many are built to drop the data connection as soon as requested data is received. However, many smartphones, more precisely their applications, routinely signal the network for status updates. Nokia Siemens Networks estimates that each update can generate up to 20 signaling messages. With some smartphones repeatedly awakening themselves to check for updates every two minutes, the signaling traffic from a single device in a day is comparable to 1,000 voice calls.

Strictly speaking, changes to price plans won’t have an immediate and direct impact on the signaling burden; that’s a handset and application architecture issue. What it will do is allow operators to better control usage and meter it for the benefit of all subscribers, rather than the minority that represent the majority of traffic.

Suggestions that change was needed came from AT&T CEO, Ralph de la Vega last year. He told the Wall Street Journal “Many customers don’t know how much bandwidth they’re consuming. When AT&T conducted a broadband test, customers often reduced their data use. Longer-term a pricing scheme based on usage is likely, though it will be determined by industry competition and regulatory guidelines.”

This week, that change happened and a few days later it was followed by O2. Both have introduced tiered pricing, with a capped limit depending on the price plan. The argument from both is that in reality, even with unlimited data plans, consumers get nowhere near the fair-use policy applied to unlimited plans. O2’s cheapest contract plan will be 500mb p/month (£25). The operator says that 500mb is actually two and half times the average O2 consumer’s current use. In practice this means that consumers should be better off financially (the cheapest monthly data tariff is currently £30). The operator promises it will be able to deliver a more consistent experience and increase the quality of service for the subscriber base as a whole. Forecasting data consumption will also be more accurate for the operator, in turn helping to grow the thin margins that face today’s competitive mobile data markets.

AT&T consumers will be faced with a choice between DataPlus, a $15 data plan capped at 200mb, or DataPro, a $25 plan capped at 2GB. Overage charges will be $15 for a further 200mb or $10 for a further 1GB on the respective plans. Both plans provide a saving of $5-$15 when compared to the previous unlimited plan. AT&T argues that this effectively makes data even cheaper for the majority of users.

By introducing bands of usage the operator can impact consumer behavior in data consumption. When consumers are confronted with the choice, many will instinctively look to manage their data consumption to fall in line with the lowest tier, actively looking to restrict their data usage to reap greater savings. AT&T plan to encourage better management of data consumption with regular (and free) text and email notifications to alert subscribers surpassing 65%, 90% and 100% of their data allowance. The intention is that this change in behavior will decrease overall data traffic suffered by the network and provide a higher QoS for consumers.

However, the question remains of whether consumers actually know what a megabyte of data gets them. If they don’t, and they start to ration their data usage for fear of surpassing their data cap, are we in danger of stifling the growing market for data applications and services?  Tiered pricing also doesn’t remove the signaling burden.

Ultimately, with the spectrum crisis looming, data has become a commodity in progressively short supply. Allowing subscribers to consume excessive levels of data at no extra cost is unrealistic and unfair to the majority of consumers who subsequently suffer poor QoS as a result. Others would argue that the operators have brought this upon themselves and if they offer unlimited data then a consumer should not be penalized for taking full advantage, and that if their network infrastructure isn’t up to scratch they should fix it.

Conspiracy theorists among you will have probably noted that both AT&T and O2 have strong links with Apple and that the removal of unlimited data plans coincides neatly with the launch of the iPhone 4. The iPhone is notorious for fueling data consumption, and both operators will want to ensure that their networks are not placed under undue strain as existing iPhone owners upgrade and leverage increasingly data hungry applications such as FaceTime.

Like it or not, the days of unlimited data are numbered. The data goldrush is over. Operators have spent millions acquiring customers, it’s now time that they start focusing on maintaining profitability. At current rates, despite a predicted 20 fold increase in data traffic over the next five years, operators only stand to see a two fold increase in associated revenue. The goal, therefore, has to be lowering the cost of delivering a megabyte of data. Tiered pricing won’t do this directly, but in time, if operators can better educate consumers on data consumption then it’ll certainly help in the creation of a more ordered and metered ecosystem.

Attendees at last month’s BlackBerry conference (WES 2010) were treated to a sneak peek of the forthcoming BlackBerry 6 operating system. But what will BlackBerry 6 do for RIM in the now highly-competitive smartphone market?

When first launched, BlackBerry positioned itself as a productivity tool aimed at prosumers and the enterprise segment of the wireless market. In providing reliable and easy-to-use products that delivered an integrated email, messaging and voice experience, RIM quickly grew a reputable enterprise brand.

The smartphone market has since experienced rapid growth. The segment has progressed through the technology adoption cycle and leapt the ‘chasm’ into the mass-market, forcing many OEM and OS brands to realign their strategies.

Differentiating smartphone brands

Smartphones are characterized by advanced operating system and it is this feature that is quickly dominating the landscape. (Relative) newcomers to the OS market, such as Apple and Google, have leveraged OS advancements to execute strategies focused on third-party ecosystems of content and services that allow new levels of device personalization. This has allowed both to form defendable positions in the smartphone market.

But what of BlackBerry? The brand has already expanded beyond the enterprise market and into the wider consumer markets. Homogenizing the BlackBerry experience even further to cater to both enterprise and consumer users would potentially leave RIM exposed. So what is BlackBerry’s defendable niche?

The evolution of messaging

As the smartphone market continues to evolve, so too will user behavior. Consumers have more choice over the communication channels on offer to them. Email, IM and social network services such as Twitter and Facebook, are offering experiences far richer than SMS. We can already see evidence of this shift in the youth market. A recent WDSGlobal survey of over 2000 consumers in western markets found that in the 16-34 age bracket 25% use social media on their mobile on a weekly basis, 22% use IM and 34% use Email. This segment often offers an early indication of the overall direction of the market. Indeed, SMS usage among the youth market in China has actually dipped for the first time ever as the under 30’s adopt social networking services.

A surprise hit, BlackBerry’s IM service, BlackBerry Messenger (BBM), has benefited from this shift and acted as a catalyst for BlackBerry ownership among a wider demographic. Originally born out of RIM’s messaging heritage, BBM combines the best of SMS and IM to form a simple but satisfying service. It has been a huge success and generated an almost tribal following amongst a variety of consumer types, from the forty-something professional through to gossip hungry teens and young adults. Unlike other forms of messaging, BBM can only be used to exchange messages between BlackBerry devices. This exclusivity factor has added-value for BlackBerry users and has become the de facto IM client for many owners.

The sneak peek offered by RIM of its forthcoming BlackBerry OS 6 gives us a glimpse at how the BlackBerry brand is starting to embrace this new shift in device ownership, messaging and communication. Some exciting improvements to native applications include; a ‘Social Media Integration’ app which manages social media and RSS feeds, a revised media application for music, video and camera and an app that seamlessly integrates messaging services such as Google Talk, BBM and AIM. BlackBerry has also kept many of its existing applications and features, acknowledging the social media and entertainment needs of their newer consumer types yet remaining clearly focused on messaging to maintain a clear market differentiation.

The sneak peek also shows-off a vastly improved visual experience taking full advantage of mobile graphic processing units, with crisper graphics, new icons, animations and transitions.

Touchscreen

BlackBerry OS 6 will be compatible with both touch and non-touch devices. RIM has been slow to the touchscreen market, and was knocked by the mixed reaction to the touchscreen experience on the BlackBerry Storm. Following the success of touchscreen interfaces on other platforms, BlackBerry rushed to develop a touchscreen phone for its portfolio. The Storm’s release in 2008 saw numerous software glitches that had to be iteratively fixed. The UI was designed around the technology, rather than the user and BlackBerry arguably failed to appreciate touchscreen technology as a component used to ‘compliment’ the user experience not to define it.

It’s good to see that RIM hasn’t thrown-in the towel and OS 6 home demonstrates a revised approach, bringing the focus back to the user.

One of the most anticipated features of OS 6 is RIM’s tabbed Webkit-based browser. This features a faster java script engine, touch gestures for zooming and tools for sharing favorite pages. This should increase the appeal of BlackBerry considerably as the modernization of its web browser has long been required.

Homogenization of the smartphone

The homogenization of entertainment, lifestyle and office tools has recently become a regular theme for the smartphone segment as the market attempts to appeal to the needs of the entire market within a single UI layer and OS. However consumers are arguably becoming overwhelmed with choice as it becomes increasingly difficult to differentiate smartphone offerings.

In BlackBerry OS 6, RIM has recognised the need to fulfil a wider range of consumer needs as they continue to expand beyond their traditional user base. However they have done so while retaining a clear focus on messaging and communication. This focus is what built the business into the market leader it is today, and this is what will defend that position.

The smartphone market is currently enjoying rapid growth and now accounts for one in three handsets sold in mature markets. At the other end of the spectrum, HP’s traditional laptop market appears to be fragmenting with OEMs seeing their core consumer base diluted across a broader portfolio of notebooks, netbooks, tablets, e-readers and more.

HP has already expressed a desire to take Palm’s webOS beyond the smartphone and it seems logical that they should look to Palm as a means to not only capitalize on the burgeoning smartphone market, but also to use webOS to accelerate its place in the tablet market.

The influence of the OS

The form factors of smartphones, netbooks, tablets and laptops etc are largely homogenized and brands are increasingly looking to differentiate through the OS and the surrounding ecosystem of apps.

Palm’s webOS was welcomed with great enthusiasm at CES 2009 and the company appeared to have been well on its way to making a competitive comeback. However the Palm Pre (the first device to use webOS) was not available for another six months, by which time the buzz of webOS had significantly reduced. It was further diluted when, two weeks later, Apple released the iPhone 3GS.

The webOS itself has been well received by industry commentators and usability experts. However, exclusivity deals with Sprint in the US for the Palm Pre limited its audience and lackluster marketing efforts failed to communicate the benefit of the OS and differentiate it from the Apple, Android, Windows Mobile and RIM shaped competition.

So, the marriage of HP’s long-established focus on hardware with Palm’s impressive webOS and heavy portfolio of patents seems perfect to take on the likes of Apple. HP ticks all the boxes. It has financial solidarity, a strong brand, historic interest in mobile computing, notorious technical knowhow, global distribution infrastructure and long established relationships with both the prosumer and consumer markets.

However, there are potential hurdles and some unanswered questions.

· Established third party application ecosystems.

Increasingly, the consumer driver for any given Operating System is the supporting ecosystem of apps that helps to deliver a layer of personalization to the device. WebOS is currently lacking in this field. It’s a classic Catch-22; third party developers will only invest time in the platform when the user base reaches a critical mass. However, this critical mass is unlikely to happen without compelling apps. HP is planning to invest and provide support to the developer community in a bid to ensure a more compelling suite of applications are developed.

· Branding

Although OEM brand loyalty is weaker than it once was, the loyalty to an OS is likely to become increasingly apparent as smartphone adoption expands and consumers tie themselves to apps and third party services. HP has not yet discussed the fate of the Palm brand. Microsoft and Apple have successfully leveraged their core brand into the OS market, however these brands, in part, are ‘lifestyle brands’. This has always been the case for Apple and recently Microsoft has taken a similar approach, will HP follow this trend and leverage the HP branding alongside webOS?

· Differentiation

Each successful smartphone Operating System is clearly differentiated from the next. Apple has entertainment and the web ‘experience’, RIM is built on a solid base of email and messaging capabilities and Android has shown the benefit of seamless integration with Google services such as maps and messaging. Is there a gap for webOS? Without a clear differentiator webOS will be fighting for market share from another OS consumer base, are they planning an intense head to head rivalry?

HP faces many challenges as it works to integrate Palm into its wider strategy. However, assuming their positioning and execution is as we would expect from their successful track record, it’s possible that webOS will live on, and perhaps allow HP to rival Apple in the tablet arena sooner than expected.

The positioning of the smartphone has strategically evolved from the initial productivity tool it once was, through to a homogenized product offering, incorporating both productivity and entertainment features. This evolution has allowed rapid growth for the smartphone segment as its audience now overlaps that of the wider featurephone target market. Offering complete connectivity, entertainment and many exciting apps the smartphone has become all things to all men.

The advanced functions and features on the smartphone platform have presented an opportunity for carriers to further leverage their investment in high speed data networks with new revenue generating channels such as app stores. Carriers have offered heavy subsidies and fixed data tariffs to help fuel growth and capitalize on this opportunity. However these growth strategies coupled with a more complex set-up process and more demanding support requirements means carriers have been faced with an uphill struggle in achieving any revenue uplift. It can now take up to 16 months for carriers to break even on a subscriber.

Advanced set-up problems have resulted in smartphone support transactions taking 30% longer than that of featurephones. A recent report by WDSGlobal found that a third of consumers experience these problems with email and 18% with MMS.

The cost of selling and supporting smartphones is considerably more than other handsets. It is imperative that carriers maximize revenue-generating smartphone features if they are to achieve any revenue uplift. However these findings indicate a high percentage of consumers struggling, most of which will default back to familiar Voice and SMS services.

As adoption increases and the smartphone customer base spreads from the ‘techie’ prosumers through to the mass market consumers, these support challenges will become more and more prevalent.

If carriers can optimize support effectively and fulfill these support requirements, they stand to improve both the loyalty and profitability of subscribers. However at the moment the out-of-box experience is unsatisfactory for many smartphone users. WDSGlobal found that 27% of consumers found none of the support channels available to them effective and a shocking 10% gave up without seeking any support.

Carriers must provide necessary and effective support channels to ensure a positive user experience for the rapidly expanding smartphone customer base. Learn more at www.wdsglobal.com

After disgruntled subscribers complained of speeds around 5 times slower than expected, Orange responded immediately and deployed 12 new base stations, however the service has remained inadequate and subscribers have remained frustrated.

Read more at FierceWireless

At the recent CTIA Wireless 2010 conference in Las Vegas, Ericsson representatives announced that in December 2009 the volume of data traffic surpassed that of voice. Data is now the dominant service, however unfortunately for carriers, there are fewer data customers that make up this traffic and comparatively profit margins are smaller due to intense competitive pressure and subsequent high customer expectations. Although carriers have longed for such a successful penetration of this service in the mass-market the reality is not what they anticipated.

WDSGlobal recently conducted a study which in part explored the weekly usage patterns of consumers. The study found that over a quarter of consumers are now actively browsing the internet on their handsets. Whilst data services such as social media and app store access were inevitably used more by younger consumers (16-34yrs), email was used just as much by the older consumers (55yrs+) and IM was used by this segment more than any other. With such a wide potential audience, the rapid growth in data usage is set to continue to potentially unmanageable levels.

In the same study WDSGlobal found that around 25% of consumers encounter issues with email configuration. The study also highlighted that almost half of consumers turn to the manual for support followed by around 20% that sought advice from family and friends, neither of which is likely to be fruitful when in reference to tasks such as email configuration which explains the 30% of consumers that ultimately gave-up, presumably abandoning the service altogether.

Heavy data traffic is leading to a reduction in the level of quality the service offers to consumers and is ultimately damaging the user experience. The reliability of data service is insufficient and third party services and applications are transforming the previous support infrastructure into a mine field. The probability of a frustrated consumer is at an all time high and the carrier that initially manages these issues most successfully will reap the rewards both in terms of consumer loyalty and long-term profitability.

Traditionally technology industries look to the next generation of technical solutions to solve the problems presented within existing technology. Carriers are now depending on the arrival of new 4G spectrums such as LTE to increase bandwidth availability and resume an acceptable level of quality for data services. However the arrival of these spectrums may take longer to arrive than previously anticipated. So how will carriers manage data consumption meanwhile?

Carriers are looking to tackle the levels of data traffic with tiered pricing plans, increased user education and tactics to encourage consumers to offload data usage onto available fixed line channels via wifi. The objective of these strategies are structured around increasing the quality of data services. Whilst carriers can not immediately offer additional bandwidth to fulfill the levels of demand, the support infrastructure for data services can be strengthened to reduce the growing levels of unsatisfied consumers. Whilst improvements to the support infrastructure would ultimately lead to more data traffic, it is imperative for the future profitability of data services that the carriers make this adoption process painless enough for the consumer to actively seek to adopt the next generation of services and for the data service segment to reach its potential revenue generating ability.

Even across platforms, commonality between icons has naturally evolved to benefit the consumer. In the world of computing, an envelope often represents email, a speaker for volume control, a key or padlock for security, etc.

However, there are some images and symbols that we’ve lived with for many years, that we take for granted and that we do not question. But how effective are they at conveying important information?

Take the battery icon. Almost any rechargeable device – from phones to cameras – represents remaining power in the form of a ‘discharging’ battery. Typically changing from green to red. But does this tell you everything you need to know. Principally, how much longer can I use the device before I need to recharge.

If the battery shows half empty, how many minutes, or hours, of use do you actually have left? Would you know? Do you need to know?

This occurred to me a few weeks ago when I bought a new electric razor in advance of a week and half long business trip to the US. It was rechargeable (I didn’t want to pack and carry a mains lead / adapter etc) and the packaging even made a claim that a battery indicator would mean I knew how much charge I had left.

But is that really of value to me? ‘Charge’ is just an arbitrary concept. What I actually wanted to know is how many minutes of use I would have left. Could I use it daily or should I ration its use? This was a new product and I had no idea how long a full charge would give me, or how many minutes a half-charged battery icon would deliver.

Even for products that you’ve owned for years and use daily, like your mobile phone, do you know?

The problem is even more apparent in the consumer electronics market when battery performance is variable according to use. An open 3G connection on your phone, Bluetooth or WiFi enabled, flash photography; all vary the stated standby and use estimates.

Battery indicators also vary between brands. I’ve had a Nokia that, once the battery shows its final bar, gave me less than 30 minutes. My current BlackBerry will do a couple of hours with one bar left. If I churn from one brand to another, where should I set my expectations?

One consumer ‘product’ that understands this is the motor car. On many modern vehicles, the traditional analogue fuel gauge is supplemented by a ‘range’ indicator. I frequently refer to this in my car. Again, even after 3 years of ownership I’d struggle to tell you accurately how far half a tank of fuel will get me at motorway cruising speeds. My range indicator will give me a ‘relatively’ accurate range in miles and vary according to how hard I drive the car; far more useful in the real world.

As battery performance struggles to keep pace with the demands of touchscreens, backlight displays, 3G connections, faster processors and more, surely a ‘range indicator’ would be of value to the mobile consumer? A large number of customer care calls from mobile users relate to battery performance. In many instances it’s because the consumer was not aware of the strain that open 3G, WiFi and Bluetooth connections place on battery life.

The program has been very impressive with presentations from C-level executives from several international mobile carriers. A consistent theme across many of the keynotes has been the call to make more spectrum available to mitigate the pressure being exerted on existing infrastructure by unprecedented data demands. This is something we’ve identified as a threat on several occasions.

Ralph de la Vega, CEO and President of AT&T’s Mobility & Consumer Markets, has previously gone on record to explain the data crunch on the AT&T network.

As the headline keynote speaker on Day One, de la Vega went to great lengths to express the US’s leadership role in mobile broadband.

• US 3G subscribers account for 18% of the world’s total
• US HSPA / EV-DO subscribers account for 33% of world’s total
• One in every five new 3G subscribers is in the US
• 56% of US subscribers have ‘used’ a mobile device to connect to wifi [note the term ‘used’ not ‘own’]
• In the US, 80% of wireless capex  is directed toward mobile broadband. In Europe it’s 50%
• 30% of global LTE investment is out of the US
• 63 million smartphones will be sold in the US in 2010. 13m in the UK, 25m in China, 20m in Japan and 7m in France
• AT&T are driving applications on non-smartphone devices
• By 2014 there will be 84m embedded devices in the US market (ie: netbooks, tablets with embedded module)

De la Vega went on to explain his view of the mobile ecosystem; 1) Advanced networks are deployed, 2) Innovative devices are launched, 3) Apps and content are launched to leverage these devices, 4) This drives consumer data consumption which, in turn, forces the cycle all over again (ie: more networks deployed / upgraded).

Simple, but a very effective explanation.

On the subject of network-crunch, de la Vega cited a Cisco statistic; “3.6 exabytes of data will be passing through mobile networks per month by 2014).” of this, 2/3rds will be video.  Acknowledging the growth in smartphones and the fact that smartphone owners generate x10 more data traffic than non-smartphone owners de la Vega went on to explain how the crunch should be managed.

There wasn’t, he said, a silver bullet. It was instead a blend of increasing available spectrum and finding network efficiencies. (de la Vega has also previously suggested the need to educate users about appropriate data consumption).

Spectrum crisis seems to be the greatest threat to the US mobile data industry right now. The FCC is currently proposing a further 500mhz be freed over the next decade. this, de la Vega suggests is not enough (he cited the need for 800mhz). LTE would deliver added benefit (it’s a more efficient bearer than HSPA). And there is also a need to leverage technologies such as wifi and femotocells to deliver a sustainable model that will drive traffic away from the mobile networks. However, any hand-over must be invisible to the consumer. The network should be selected dependent on their current needs.

Even this, amazingly, de la Vega suggested would not be enough. The ecosystem needs to be more efficient to conserve spectrum. Web and email efficiency can vary enormously, with browsers varying in efficiency (with regards to the data load on the network).