mobile – Swedish IT

In last weeks update we initiated a new series of “pros vs cons” articles! In order to question our selfs and our ideas about everyday tech. We continue the series this week with:

2. Wireless network technology

Wireless technology was first termed around 1890 for the wireless telegraph that Guglielmo Marconi was credited for inventing. He could send messages across the atlantic ocean far better than ever before, which enable new efficient, safer and critical communication services for countless ships around the world. In one of the Science Museums in England you can see how the Titanic’s radio room looked like and it shows a replica of Marconi’s telegraph equipment. However the Marconi’s wireless telegraph could not save the legendary Titanic ship from sinking.

There are a bunch of wireless technology that are in use, so rather than go through them all, SWEIT want to focus mainly on the wireless technologies used for personal ICT devices. Because we think we are all in agreement regarding the importances of wireless technology such as deep space communications, GPS devices and communications lines for distressed emergencies. So lets focus on other more trivial things, that we still take for granted.

We are all familiar with mobile networks and perhaps we should be grateful to the man called “Thomas Edison of Finland” mister Eric Tigerstedt who in 1917 envisioned a hand held radio telephone and actually filed a patent for a “”pocket-size folding telephone with a very thin carbon microphone” or to Prof. Albert Yahnke who actually back in 7th of July 1908, was dismissed from allegation of fraud according to the San Fransisco news papers that published “The wireless phone cases were dismissed” and “The Attorney Schlesinger argued that the charge against Jahnke be dismissed on the ground that it had been clearly shown that his invention had been found to be a success.”. However no production seems to have stemmed from the technology and the company seems to have vanished. However the inventions might have spurred all of the things we use today!

If you got more information about what happened to Prof. Albert Yanke and his invention after 1908, please leave a comment or contact us for an interesting follow up.

However commercial advances in the portable telephone devices really began around the world war, even though some predecessors (as mentioned above) would of been sighted in towns, they were looked at more as piloted version of what later was to become known as the generation Zero mobile devices (pre-cellular phones). These devices would be used in the early 0G-network, with network services provided by the likes of Bell System‘s Mobile Telephone Service.

The “G” term was not officially pronounced during the launch of generation Zero (0G) nor for the first generation (1G) of wireless cellular networks but was actually termed in 1991 when 2g launched for the first time ever in Finland. In order to not devour hours on the history of each generation, I hope the picture I include in the article will depict some services and devices each gen enabled, with the 5g section only giving a projection.

– Previously for each generation, the services became more crowded, now we see the same emergence on the devices side also.

5g should by now be a known term for the majority readers and some of us might actually already use the network! However the praise it receives from BIG TECH and the overall digital market place is still up for validation. The update from 4g to 5g promises significant faster data that enables support for a massive amounts of machines and devices to interconnect. Which in turn increase the production of a lot of new ICT devices (IoT devices), which we’ve written previously about in reference to e-waste.

SWEIT thinks it time we ask ourself the question “when do we need wireless connection?” When do wireless technology enable more environmental friendly services, than the other way around?

For example: The television remote control is a piece of technology that reflect what we would want “out of the box” when buying a new TV. Equally as important, is getting a mouse for you desktop computer! But wait! The desktop computer increasingly comes with a wireless mouse, even though wired ones are still popular. Perhaps it’s logic in reference to the TV-remote. But lets questions that a bit further down in this article.

So let’s first define the good and the bad with wireless tech.

Pros: The most obvious ones are the same as for the internet, but most of us should have noticed by now the additional connivence during the Corona pandemic where wifi enables extra mobility and tele/video conferencing through mobiles and tablets that reduces harmful emissions since business travel from airplanes, cars etc should have been reduced. We can also praise wireless tech to enable multitasking such as reading, listening to all kinds of content from magazine, news papers or documents more easily, which would otherwise would be consumed through channels such as physical books, papers etc. but can now save us time since we do it while training, doing the dish or the laundry etc. And last but not least, it provides critical communications in distressed situations.

Cons:The “convenient trap” – When wireless technology is incorporate “to far” making it non-environmental friendly. Have you ever noticed the discussion regarding if you should use wired or wireless keyboards and mouses? This subject is dreadful since the convenient party absolutely feel the need to travel with no hassle…

I need to bring up the elephant in the room “Two wrongs don’t make one right” = If we want to convey our selfs as environmentally friendly, the travel part should already be concluded not eco-friendly. So what if we still need to travel in our work? Do you absolutely need the wireless mouse for that? Meaning if we are to believe that we can lesser our impact on the environment as consumers of electronics devices, then we should look at the life-cycles of the products we use. I mean we can still find a mouse from the 80-90’s that still works perfectly fine. While the wireless computer mouse we find are usually missing the usb bleu-tooth connector or need new battery and is a lot more easy to misplace.

“SHOULD WE EVEN CALL A PRODUCTS ECO-FRIENDLY IF YOU REGULARLY NEED ADDITIONAL PARTS TO USE THE PRODUCT”

Which lets us to conclude that even if it feels we have less to carry with wireless products such as wireless mouse, earplugs etc. The wireless products often include more parts which for us actually makes it an “inconvenient” product. So SWEIT wonders should we even call it convenient if you run higher risk of losing parts? And should we ever call a product eco-friendly if you regularly need additional parts in order to use the product (even if it is only batteries)?

SWEIT can’t call these solutions hassle free and we would rather prefer a wired solution, since the computer already should provide enough battery power and the same goes for wireless earplugs etc. We obviously understand the clean design wireless brings, it creates the feeling less is more but unfortunately it’s currently the other way around (we are reliant on more batteries, plugins etc).

And that’s what SWEIT wants to bring to the light, should we be worried about the coming IoT devices that might increase consumption with “not so necessary” devices that will flood the market and within a few years need to be updated/changed to keep up with whats in?

And let’s not forget the perspective of life cycles! Is there somehow we can think more regenerative? Both in terms to devices and networks? To be transparent, SWEIT are hopeful about the coming updates made with battery technology thats should increase life cycles a lot, not to mention progress being made to enable services on old networks again in parallel with 5g!

So stay calm SWEIT do see corners of hope for the future but want more businesses and customers to recognize that we do have a role to play in what the future looks like both in terms of what we leave after us and what we save for the coming generations.

– So if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it! Or If it previously didn’t need dedicated batteries, why consume more?

Next weeks update we take a look at the streaming services or should we say services for “freedom of speech”? Stay tune for more!

Internet of things today consists of approximately 7 billion devices (this is without accounting for mobile phones nor computers!) and is predicted to reach 21 billion devices year 2025! The thing with mobiles phones and computer are that these devices currently seems to transition into what looks more like a merger. For example Samsung is about to release a new “computer line” with 5G that is described as a series based on the company’s galaxy smart phones. In addition to that analysts even refers the Note20 Ultra 5G to “the power phone” that “works like a computer”. So the definition computer or mobile phone are merging some what or their definitions might soon only be one of many smart device references in the IoT matrix.

This is all interesting for sure and the evolution to smart cities, smart business and smart homes are probably around the corner for many, but have you ever stopped to reflect upon how this might effect e-waste/the climate? According to UN’s Global E-waste monitor 2020, we generated a record 53,6 million tonnes of electronic waste world wide 2019. That number has been around 50 million tonnes a per year the last decade! Now however we see a trajectory that shows an increasing consumption of electronic devices which in turn seems to generate an increased level of e-waste. But this don’t seem to be a transitory, because the UN report also predicts the level of e-waste to reach 74 million tonnes by 2030! So what are ICT companies and electronic device makers doing to make an effort to battle the climate issues that they themselves are a part of?

When looking at several companies websites, the majority have a lot of references about sustainable approaches and climate friendly intents, but several of these climate friendly policy’s are quite often a complex reading. In fact there are studies that have concluded that several environmental policies that companies use, are not readable at average comprehension levels. By using analysis methodology and readability scoring a study for example scored an environmental policy so complex that it would require 22 years of education to be understood (equivalent to a PhD)! Not as intuitive has their end-user manuals for sure.

But to the companies defense the studies was made a few years ago, so hopefully more people within the affected companies have learned to understand the policy or hopefully a few changes has been made since.

So what if a fancy environmental policy actually is enough to free a big international company from is climate responsibility? I mean if you are truly sustainable and climate friendly would you not want to be transparent with what climate risks and affect your company have each year? Similar to the initiative that the British aspire is business to do through implementing mandatory TCFD, short for “the global Task force on Climate-related Financial Disclosure”, that is currently voluntary. Initiatives like these has been raised by several investor groups, recently such a proposal was raised to Berkshire Hathaway who was among the few companies in Action 100+ coalition that totally failed in every criteria. But the proposal was not adopted and leaves Berkshire Hathaway’s climate risks disclosed. So while being one of the biggest, if not the biggest power companies in the US (Berkshire Hathaway Energy) with a net zero goal, you would of thought a environmental policy of such a big corporation would be proud to present their progress in reducing their climate impact..

But to often big companies seems to be reluctant to be transparent about their intent of a product or company. Be it with good intention or for the lack of time.. But we need to face it, everyone today face the challenge to “make money” and be sustainable at the same time. And that has not been the initial business plan for many of our worlds biggest companies to date, which in turn makes the shift to a green economy risky for some companies that might have to questions their purpose more and more.

When we look at recent product updates to the electronic devices, it actually seem to go the opposite way of sustainable practices while claiming they are more eco-friendly. For example more and more electronics makers do make more efficient and cleaner devices, but the devices are likely to last only a few years before actually becoming part of the increasing e-waste that we raise concern about in this article.

Product life-cycles are increasingly becoming less lengthy and less lean for society, since you will not be able to repair them by design. This increase of e-waste keeps trashing our planet meaning going the opposite route in the fight against climate change. And of course making it costly for the end consumer, since if a small thing is broken, you will have to send the entire devices for repair due to several parts being clued together, where as before a specific part could be repaired by the end user/customer or small repair shops. So while big tech verbally aspire to be eco-friendly, we mostly see evidence of it by the materials used, but neither policy’s or designs shows a healthy eco-friendly approach. Making electronics devices more and more short term investments for the end consumer, who rather would enjoy a transparent long term relationships if they truly want to see an eco-friendly and sustainable electronic consumer market.

If you like the article please share and answer the poll on our instagram (swedish_it)

Tag: mobile

Update 2: Pros vs Cons

21 billion devices and still counting… Eco-friendly?