« September 2005 | Main | November 2005 »
October 31, 2005
stats from mKids survey
stats from "mKids Study" from GfK NOP Technology
* 50% of 10-18 yr olds have their own phone
* verizon & cingular have largest share of this demographic
* sprint/nextel has smaller share, but high brand awareness
* 75% of surveyed kids say their bill is paid by parents
* parents generally chose plan, kids chose phone
* yankee group study from 7/05 found that 50% of teens 13-17 would spend addl money on ringtones, music
* 53% of kids have downloaded games
http://www.gfk.com
http://www.emarketer.com/Report.aspx?kids_oct05
avail only by purchase, unfortunately...
Posted by ben at 12:23 PM | Comments (0)
October 30, 2005
Swiss SMS vote works "without problem"
Swiss town of Bulach successfully conducts vote by SMS. 11% of the electorate used SMS. Some people had trouble understanding the ID requirements (code sent by mail) - but no other problems with the system reported.
http://www.swissinfo.org/sen/swissinfo.html?siteSect=106&sid=6201250&cKey=1130692769000
Posted by ben at 12:27 PM | Comments (2)
October 28, 2005
Bart Cheever talks with Justin Oberman
"Incorporating mobile technology into a political campaign has got to move beyond the same old e-mail / database way of doing things. It has to incorporate the already established networks that mobile users already take part in which includes the social spaces and conversations of everyday life."
This is the first in a series of interviews we're going to feature with people who we feel have interesting perspectives on the world of mobile politics.
Justin R. Oberman is a freelance writer, blog maestro and consultant. Among other things, he's the mobile correspondent for the Personal Democracy Forum, founder of Digitisms, webmaster for whatwoulddumbledoredo.org, and created the Politics 2 Go Moblog for the recent conference of the same name, sponsored by George Washington University's Institute for Politics, Democracy and the Internet. He has a Master's Degree in Philosophy from New School University.
There have been a few examples of political use of SMS overseas ... South Africa, the Philippines, etc. What can political organizers in the US learn from these examples, and in what ways is the US political playing field different from Europe and the rest of the world, when it comes to mobile?
This is an excellent question on many levels. It’s interesting. There are no doubt substantial differences in the ways that the United States and the rest of the world use and perceive the mobile medium. And excuse me for getting philosophical here, but these differences are in fact rooted in the different ways technology is perceived, amongst other things. This is especially the case when it comes to PC’s, mobile devices and the online world of the Internet.
Take Japan for example, back in 1999 when NTT DoCoMo paved the way for mobile Internet service with its i-mode network. Mobile phone use in Japan is more pervasive in the actions of everyday life then it is anywhere in the world. A lot of the new technology and social software built for the mobile phone, or as its called in Japan, keitai, is developed in Japan and is used there before anywhere else. Japanese consumers can do a plethora of things with their keitai that force it into these social spaces. For example, Japanese citizens can buy train fair using their keitai, as well as take pictures of barcodes to comparison shop right from the store. The list goes on and grows everyday. The point is, anywhere you go in Japan you will see a Japanese citizen using his or her cell phone for something. Academics studying the cultural implications of the new technology have coined the term “keitai culture” to help explain the phenomenon. Pop-culture news and media have even picked up the term in an act of postmodern legitimacy. In Japan, more connections are made to the Internet through keitai than through any other broadband option.
Some experts locate the rapid development of the mobile medium as a direct reaction to the digital divide. While the cost of broadband connection being substantially more expensive than i-mode has a lot to do with it, it is also extremely important to note that for most Japanese consumers their first interaction with the Internet is and was via their keitai. When a Japanese mobile user wants to send a “text-message” to another mobile user, for example, he or she is more likely to send that message by means of Email then SMS. This is, of course, directly opposed to the American experience where most people feel more comfortable using their PC to access the Internet and Email. If an American is going to send a text message from their phone to another mobile user, SMS is the only real first option that comes to mind. And whereas keitai is seamless with everyday life, the PC requires abrupt attention to a specific location. It requires you to stop what you are doing and go online. Keitai, in the words of Keitai culture expert Mizuko Ito, “functions more as a medium of lightweight ‘refreshment’ analogous to sipping a cup of coffee or taking a cigarette break.” It’s a small moment of our lives with a humongous importance. The PC Internet is another social space, a cyberspace, as opposed to the mutual co-presence of keitai.
And it is partly because of this polarity in perception that the mobile medium has had a tough time moving beyond the phone call in the United States. When looking at Internet technologies from the perspective of PC based Internet most American mobile users and businesses perceive the mobile Internet as ‘second-rate’ access, something good to have when you don’t have your PC or laptop. It’s good for making phone-calls (and in America even that is questionable). The problem with this model of Internet, when applied to the mobile medium is that it assumes a universally desirable technological resource whereas the mobile medium both infiltrates and adapts to the structures of existing practices and places. An economic understanding of the mobile revolution can only go so far. A different means of information technology communication did not only develop out of economic necessity but also came to be precisely because alternative trajectories of IT and communications discourse could and needed to exist.
So what the Japanese model teaches us is that the “American” way of thinking about and perceiving the Internet is not the only way and that “portable, lightweight engagement” to quote Ito again, “form an alternative constellation of ‘advanced’ Internet access characteristics that stand in marked contrast to complex functionality and stationary immersive engagement.” The differences here are between networked infrastructures that base themselves on a cross-cultural universal model (the PC internet) and a network built on a true network of shifting localities and cultures (the mobile medium). Neither one is better than the other, that’s not the point here. The point is to show that they are different and that problems only occur when one discourse dominates the way we perceive the other.
Nevertheless, the rapid advancement of the mobile medium has disrupted the geo-political discourse surrounding information and communication technology and with that has greatly influenced politics itself. But this is not necessarily a give in. For when it comes to political usages of keitai in Japan, the mobile buzz becomes eerily quiet. It seems odd, right? The country with the most pervasive use of the most advanced phones and social software is not using the technology politically in any substantial way. Yet, you introduce mobile technology to a country like the Philippines or into various regions in Africa and it becomes political almost immediately.
Now, there are a number of reasons why this may be the case and perhaps it is important for political marketers to study this relationship further. But whatever the reasons are, it makes one extremely important point. When it comes to integrating the mobile medium into politics just focusing on the technology is not the right way to go. Unlike the stationary PC, mobile communications are located in the very social, cultural and historical contexts in which they are physically used. No one in the Phillippines, for example, signed up to receive any text message alerts should a need for social or political protesting arise. The SMS that led to the People Power II demonstration was spread by no other means than the insanely viral communication of peer-to-peer / friend-to-friend networks. In other words, the mobile technology was used exactly how it was meant to be used. The political momentum against then president Joseph Estrada was already in place. SMS was merely the tool used to organize around and communicate a cause. But there was nothing magical or spontaneous about it. Text messaging and the mobile medium is not a persuasion tool. Rather, it enables already established means of communication to evolve in new and wonderful ways. The technology is used to support a purpose, not the other way around. The same is true about the stories of SMS being used in Argentina to save the Rain Forest or to sign petitions for womens rights in Africa. So what can U.S organizers learn from the success of political uses of SMS abroad? To use my favorite quote from Howard Rheingold’s book SmartMobs, “The killer apps of tomorrows mobile infocom industry won’t be hardware devices or software programs but social practices.” I guess, to sum it up I would say that first they need to start thinking about technology differently and that secondly they need to focus on the social discourses that surround that technology.
Well how do you see that discourse playing out? Is this something that's going to be adopted first at the grassroots state and local level or nationally? Should mobile technology be used differently at the grassroots than at the national level?
Based on the success of mobile technology in other countries I believe that the mobile medium will have the greatest affect on American politics in the places where already existing networks of communication mix with a strong political momentum. In other words, just as the most successful mobile campaigns abroad are on the grassroots level, the future of mobile politics in the United States will be the same. Because the mobile medium is a medium you have with you at all times the location where these devices are used determines a lot. When it comes to the political implications of mobile technology location, like in real estate, is everything. There are so many local issues for campaigns to “mobilize” around and each community already has its well-established networks of peer-to-peer communication to make this possible.
The mobile medium is really just a perfect tool for activists, especially when you consider how you could use mobile technology to coordinate at events where people are away from their home and or their place of work. Mobile can perform a really useful function there. And people at home watching the event on TV or the Internet can even use their mobile devices to chime in. The educated middle classes that are often the target of Internet activism already have the Internet they are used to. And for that population, the only time when mobile really makes sense is when you are on location, as you saw at the Republican and Democratic National Conventions. At the RNC and DNC protesters used SMS bulletin board like services such as Txtmob and Upoc to coordinate strategy in real-time and proved to be extremely successful. That is one place where it makes sense to be coordinating physical Meetup like activities over mobile.
So already, the first real successful integration of mobile technology and politics in the United States was on the grass-roots level. And as Japan proves, if there is no political climate the tech won’t be political. As I said before, the mobile medium is not a persuasion tool. You can’t create a mobile revolution without the revolution. So the use of the mobile medium by political campaigners will not be successful unless there is a lot of political momentum and interest around the candidate. This does not mean that campaigns or national politics won’t find the mobile medium useful. They will. But they will find it useful only in a very limited way on the local grassroots level. This could be extremely strategic for a campaign that wanted to use important local issues to mobilize support for a candidate. But they must also be willing to give up some control and allow the network to do its job as it will or will not by itself.
Nevertheless, when the mobile revolution truly hits the United States, its political pervasiveness will inevitably be on the grassroots level.
OK ... if you could boil down one essential thing political marketers and organizers need to know about mobile technology, what would it be?
The mobile medium is not the “new computer.” It is the new phone. It is not a second rate means of accessing the Internet. Nor is it the “new internet.” It is simply a new, portable and lightweight way to approach the Internet, which in turn, will completely re-conceptualize the way in which we think about the Internet. Incorporating mobile technology into a political campaign has got to move beyond the same old e-mail / database way of doing things. It has to incorporate the already established networks that mobile users already take part in which includes the social spaces and conversations of everyday life.
On that note, it's not an end-all solution. There are things that the mobile phone can do amazing things with and there are things that the PC and other technologies will be better at. Mobile is just a tool, good for some things and not so good for others.
Let's talk about the way people interact with political information delivered via their phones – how is that process different than how they interact with traditional methods of campaigning (direct mail, phone banks, email blasts)?
I think I answered this question already in response to the first question. But it is worth repeating. There is a famous Farside cartoon of two dogs, one of which is sitting on a chair in front of a computer. The dog on the chair has his paw on the mouse and is looking down at the other dog, which is sitting on the floor. The caption under the cartoon reads, “On the Internet no one knows you’re a dog.” The PC Internet model is based on a type of engagement, which because of its stationary functionality puts an emphasis on virtuality and alternate spaces such as cyberspaces. This is because we must interrupt what we perceive to be our “real-life” in order to go to wherever our or a computer may be. Once there, because we have interrupted our personal space we are in another space such as cyberspace. While the networks of communication that take place within the alternate spaces of cyberspace may in fact transform social networks in “real-life,” they still never really leave the notions of separateness. For example, a lot of people claim that the success of the Republican parties online campaign strategy in the 2004 elections rested in their ability to motivate people online and take the action off-line. These very notions of “on-line” identities and “off-line” identities prove the distinctions still exist. It is this view of an altered space that allows us to view the Internet as a universal standard to strive for, one that cross-culturally avoids the plural messes of everyday life. And it is on the basis of this kind of Internet discourse that metaphors such as the digital divide, those that can afford to have this Internet model and those that cannot, are created.
The relationship between the recipient and the message delivered by the mobile medium is distinct from other modes of Internet communication in a very philosophical and personal way. It is not cut off from everyday realities, spaces and social identities. It is not escapist. There are never any distinctions of on-line and off-line. The communication of mobiles is always seamlessly integrated with the social spaces of everyday life. It always involves a tension between ones surroundings and the tiny screen in the palm of ones hand. Studies in Japan, for example, have shown that people don’t use anonymity when it comes to communication over mobile. On your mobile, everyone knows you’re a dog. Mobile users are always both present as well as distant, private as well as public. It is not tied to any location and can be accessed any time and place. Mobile communications, of any kind, always occur in the real world and are thus part of that world. And this is why mobile communications are located in specific social and local context and vary wherever they are. They break the hegemony of the universal solution offered by the PC Internet model and create new discourses of Internet use based on more local / social contexts. As I mentioned before, this can be extremely powerful. The point is, it is important to remember, when starting your mobile campaign, that location is everything and the mobile content works best when it integrates with the mobile users surroundings. This, by the way, is why I feel your MobileVoter project will be so successful, especially the part that takes into account the moments of everyday life in convenient stores or getting a cup of coffee… or the BubbleTea shops. Because that too is also what mobile communication is all about, it’s a lightweight refreshment that doesn’t require the pulling away of attention from life that PC models do… Checking your mobile, sending an SMS, playing a game, downloading a ringtone… all these are things you do as you are stepping into the office, or waiting on-line at the store or taking a mental break during a business meeting. Mobile phones are portable water coolers in that they provide opportunities for lightweight refreshment and conversation. But as anyone who has ever had water-cooler conversations knows, these small moments can have great importance later.
So ... how does a political message need to be shaped to be truly effective via mobile?
Beyond incorporating the localities of the every day social spaces we live in it also has to be personal and viral. Even in other countries, the beyond voice features of mobile communication are mostly used to quickly spread information to or chat with someone personal with you like a business mate, close friend, boyfriend or girlfriend. This model cannot be forgotten and I really think that marketers will have to rely on the viral aspects of the communication.
When do you think will we see mobile having a significant effect on the political process here in the US? The 2006 elections? 2008? 2020?
Well, it depends on what you mean by ‘political process.’ If by political process you mean the micro-political / grassroots deployment of the mobile medium then my answer is that it has already begun. But if you are talking about national and campaign politics then all I can say is that it will happen really soon. I think that we will see the mobile medium experimented with in 2006. That is almost certain. But as to when it will really take off, well… that’s like trying predict that the People Power II protests were going to occur in the Philippines. There will be a moment in American politics that will push the mobile medium into the limelight. When or what that momentum will be I cannot say, but it will happen.
Do you see one party gaining a "mobile edge" in next 10 years? Who do you see being the first adopters? Republican or Democrat?
Well, Dean tried it during his campaign. They created a mechanism in which a person could sign up on the web to receive SMS alerts… but it failed to attract a lot of attention. So I guess you could say that the Democrats have already been the first. However, when you consider that what they did was nothing special, in that they just took an old internet model and adopted it to the mobile medium, its hard for me to give them the credit needed for me to call them an “early adapter.”
However, I do have some juicy inside information that says that if any party is going to be the first to pick up on the mobile edge its going to be the Democratic party.
Do you think mobile political marketing something that will really only be effective as a way of reaching youth, or do you see this breaking out into the mainstream of the American public?
I think I answered this before. I believe it may be too late for a lot of middle-aged middle class Americans to make the transition to mobile. They are already used to their Internet style activism. But the one place where you might see an older crowd using it, is in places where they are forced to use it, for example at an event, concert or social gathering. But for future consideration it is important to remember that all of today’s youth texters will one day be middle aged texters whose children will also be texting. I don’t think it is a generation thing, I think it’s just a new introduction of technology thing. On the internet no one knows you’re a dog… and when it comes to the introduction of higher end mobile devises you can’t teach a dog new tricks.
What are some other new technologies you see fitting into America's political future?
In terms of mobile I would have to say that the next big thing is going to be the mesh of GPS technology with mobile phones and social software.
Posted by Bart Cheever at 09:22 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
October 26, 2005
Customer Relationship Management & Voter Relationship Management (CRM & VRM)
As my blog research project this week I took on CRM/VRM. This area is clearly important to Mobile Voter – as it is to any campaign trying to register, mobilize, or organize a body of constituents. The overarching concept is that if we could sit down with a person, talk with them, and learn about their concerns and priorities, then we could figure out the best way to meet their individual needs – with our voter registration software/services, with campaign messaging, what have you.
Of course, it’s not practical to sit down with each constituent. Instead, we’ve got to create groups of people who share similar characteristics/perspectives and then shape our products/services/messages in ways that meet the needs and desires of this market segment.
The process of gathering constituent data, defining segments, creating segment-specific services/messaging, getting feedback from the constituents, and refining services/messaging based on this feedback (a feedback loop) is what CRM & VRM are all about.
CRM is Customer Relationship Management and it’s been a hot concept in the private sector since the mid-90s. It’s a broad reaching concept that boils down to developing a customer-centric business strategy. The important takeaway here is that CRM is not software, it’s a holistic business philosophy.
Of course, there are a slew of vendors selling CRM software. The general consensus is, however, that software doesn’t do much good if the customer-centric business strategy doesn’t pervade every aspect of doing business.
In the private sector, some of the benefits of an efficient & effective CRM system are:
· A 360 view of customers
o Preferences
o Motivations
o Buying habits
o Demographics
· Personalized & streamlined marketing & sales based on the above data
o Marketers can better understand the customer/customer segments and therefore do a better job of targeting the marketing efforts
o Same goes for sales
· Quick and efficient customer service (since all of the above data is available to the customer service rep). No need to re-ask for information.
· Analysis: because all of the above data is tracked, a company can do segment and overarching analysis – looking for weak spots, identifying cross and up-sell opportunities
o A key component here is that sales, marketing, customer service, etc can be modified on the basis of this analysis.
Clearly, much of this thinking applies to political campaigning. Instead of buying a product, a constituent is buying the party line and voting for a candidate – or volunteering, donating, sending a petition, etc...
The campaign has ‘business’ objectives that it would like to achieve (ie: generating N-Thousand votes in an upcoming election). Every campaign could benefit from a constituent-centric approach: continually honing the campaign, customizing it to individual constituent segments, and improving marketing/messaging based on feedback. Most sophisticated campaigns already use some variation of this process.
Within the past year or so, vendors have caught on that what sells in the private sector is going to sell in the political sphere. Enter VRM: Voter Relationship Management. As in the private sector the term VRM is conflated with the concept/philosophy of VRM. In browsing the web, I found little written about how to shape a campaign around a VRM strategy. Instead, I found a bunch of vendor pitches for VRM software.
VRM software focuses on enabling a campaign to precisely target voters via various media. For example, a web-based VRM tool allows a campaign to sort a database using the following criteria:
· Geographic: statewide, congressional, senate, and house districts, counties, precincts, and neighborhoods;
· Demographic: gender, age & ethnicity;
· Voting History: primary and general election history, early and mail voting, voter registration dates;
· Custom criteria: any statistical voter information can be integrated into the Voter Relationship Manager, and then it can be used to further increase the precision of targeting.
(from http://www.votermanagement.com/)
There is also some reporting and analysis capability. It seems to me though, that for VRM to work, there’s got to be systematic campaign buy-in (as in the private sector), otherwise it’s going to be a nice piece of software sitting behind the same old types of campaign tactics.
CRM Vendors:
Good list here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_CRM_vendors
Hundreds of offerings. Big players seem to be: PeopleSoft, Salesforce.com, SAP, Siebel (being acquired by Oracle), Oracle
VRM Vendors:
e-Campaign: http://www.epoliticalcampaign.com
Votermanagement.com: http://www.votermanagement.com/
Votilogy: http://www.votilogy.com/ (republican focus)
CiviCRM by OpenNGO (http://www.openngo.org/) – an open
source solution built on top of Drupal / Joomla! /
Mambo (popular open source content management solution
(CMS)). The team is currently working on a new release
of their CRM software – this offering seems to be one
of the most exciting in the field.
http://www.openngo.org/
GetActive: a higher end offering that is very popular. http://www.getactive.com/
Kintera & CTSG: Kintera seems to be mostly a CMS aimed at non-profits while CTSG provides more politically focused software/services including a VRM (although differently named).
http://www.kintera.org
http://www.ctsg.com
Democracy In Action: low cost suite of online tools to manage a campaign. This stuff is really unbelievably cheap for what you get.
http://www.democracyinaction.org
Posted by ben at 11:33 PM | Comments (1)
October 22, 2005
Political Glossary
Glossary of basic political terms and concepts that people in the mobile world should know.
A Political Glossary For the Mobile World
15th Amendment - This amendment to the Constitution states that the right to vote "shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.” It was ratified in 1870.
19th Amendment - This amendment to the Constitution gave women the right to vote. It was ratified in 1920.
501c – A non-profit group, as defined by the IRS.
527’s - 527’s are political groups funded by “soft money” contributions. Examples are the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth or MoveOn.org
Ballot initiative - A public policy question decided by a vote of the people. The placement of the question on the ballot is initiated by the people (usually by petition). Used only at the state level.
Blue Dog Democrat - A Democratic Party member who is ideologically aligned most closely with moderate Republicans.
Boll Weevil - A conservative Democratic politician from a southern state.
Buckley v. Valeo – This was a landmark 1976 Supreme Court decision on campaign finance law that upheld the Federal Election Campaign Act's disclosure requirements, contribution limits, and provisions for public funding of presidential election campaigns.
The Court ruled that spending limits cannot be imposed by law, except for the limits accepted voluntarily by presidential candidates who receive public funds, because this would have the effect of restricting "free speech."
Thus, the ruling allows for unlimited spending by Congressional candidates (they do not receive public funds), and by persons or groups that campaign for or against a candidate, but do not coordinate their activities with any candidate or campaign. The ruling also says that candidates who do not receive public money do not have to limit spending of their own personal funds on their campaigns.
Can-Spam Act – passed in 2003, this act sets national standards for sending commercial messages via email and mobile and requires the FTC to enforce its provisions.
Can-Spam allows e-mail marketers to send unsolicited commercial e-mail as long as it contains all of the following:
_ an opt-out mechanism (sender has ten days to remove the users name once they have opted out and sale or transfer of an address after an opt-out is prohibited);
_ a valid subject line and header (routing) information;
_ a physical address for the person or group sending the message;
_ a label for adult content
Canvassing - A form of grass roots campaigning that involves going door to door to try to create new supporters for your candidate or issue (and to identify existing supporters).
Caucus (legislative) - A group of legislators brought together by common goals or characteristics. Congressional caucusses include the Republican and Democratic party caucuses. There is also the Black Caucus, the Hispanic Caucus and a variety of caucuses oriented around specific issues.
Caucus (local party) - Political party meeting at which voters choose nominees to represent their political parties in general elections – basically the caucus is a grass-roots alternative to political primary. Iowa had the first presidential caucus in the US in Jan 2004
Closed primary - A primary in which only voters that belong to a particular political party can vote. Only registered Democrats can vote in a closed Democratic primary election.
Commission on Presidential Debates - The Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD) was established in 1987. Its primary purpose is to produce the presidential and vice presidential debates. The CPD is a nonprofit, nonpartisan corporation.
Concurrent powers – These are powers shared under the Constitution by both national and state governments jointly. For instance, taxation and law enforcement.
Democracy – According to Winston Churchill: "the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time."
Equal Protection Clause – This clause is a part of the Fourteenth Amendment and guarantees that "no state shall ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
Federal Election Campaign Act - FECA was an act of Congress passed in 1971 as an overhaul of laws regulating contributions to and expenditures of political parties and candidates in federal elections. In 1974, the act was amended and the Federal Election Commission was created. It was amended again in 1976 after the Supreme Courts “Buckley v. Valeo” decision and then again in 1979.
FECA limits who can make political contributions, how much can be contributed and establishes public disclosure requirements for those who do. FECA allocates about $62 million for each major presidential candidate. If the candidate accepts this money, then no additional funds may be raised.
Federal Election Commission (FEC) - The commission is an independent regulatory agency that enforces the terms of the Federal Election Campaign Act. Members of the FEC are chosen by the President and confirmed by the Senate. The commission is evenly divided – no more than 3 commissioners may be members of the same political party – and is comprised of 6 members, each serving six-year terms.
Fiscal year - The beginning and end of the federal government's annual budgetary cycle, which begins October 1st and ends September 30th
Gerrymandering - The redrawing of voting district boundaries by the party in power in such a way that the parties supporters are strategically grouped in the hopes of increasing their power in the next election.
Political gerrymanders date back all the way to the colonial times. The Framers provided a remedy for the problem: the Constitution gives state legislatures the initial power to draw federal election districts, but authorizes Congress to “make or alter” those districts. In Bandemer, the Court held that the Equal Protection Clause also grants judges the power–and duty–to control that practice.
HAVA - The Help America Vote Act of 2002. Legislation aiming to improve administration of elections in the U.S. by:
1. creating a new federal agency to serve as a clearinghouse for election administration information;
2. providing funds to states to improve election administration and replace outdated voting systems; and
3. creating minimum standards for states to follow in several key areas of election administration.
In practice, has become something of a hodge-podge of reforms - many of which have been difficult for states to implement. Many of which haven't addressed the 3 needs outlined above.
Invisible primary - Leading up to the first primaries, candidates have already begun campaigning and there is often a general consensus about who is the frontrunner. This time period is often referred to as the invisible primary, because, although no votes have been cast, it already seems as though the party has selected its nominee.
Matching Funds - These are federal funds given to presidential candidates that match private contributions given by individuals dollar-for-dollar. Eligible candidates in the presidential primaries receive up to $250 in matching funds for each individual contribution they receive, provided they agree to limit their campaign spending to $37 million.
Mobilization Groups - Groups whose primary focus is registering voters
Motor-voter Law - The Motor-voter law let US citizens register to vote when applying for or renewing their driver’s license. It became effective on January 1, 1995.
"Necessary & Proper" Clause – This is a provision in the Constitution which suggests that the federal government’s powers go beyond those that are explicitly stated in the Constitution itself.
Nonprobability Sampling – A selection of respondents for a survey or political poll which isn’t random. As a result, the responses from the survey may not be representative of the general population.
Open Primary – Primary for the nomination of a candidate of a particular party in which voters of any political party are eligible to vote.
Plurality - A voting system where the greatest number of votes wins, even if a majority is not reached. Also can be known as ‘First Past the Post’ (or FPTP) electoral system as an allusion to horse racing.
Psephology - The predictive or statistical study of elections.
Push Polling - This is a survey technique where the goal is to influence the person taking the poll instead of actually collecting data. This is done by incorporating negative or misleading information about opposing candidates into the survey questions.
Push Polling was most famously done (allegedly) by the Bush campaign against John McClain in the 2000 Republican Party Primaries. Bush pollsters reportedly called houses in South Carolina asking “Would you be more likely or less likely to vote for John McCain for president if you knew he had fathered an illegitimate black child?”. Although the allegation was false, the Bush campaign was (again, allegedly) able to plant the idea in the minds of thousands of voters and, eventually, cause McCain to lose the state and eventually drop out of the race.
Push Polling can also be used more generally, just to try to get certain ideas or themes into voter’s minds. For example, a candidate’s pollsters might ask questions which predominantly deal with terrorism and safety, or the economy or abortion if it was perceived that the opposition was weak on any of these points.
Representation – There are 435 Congressional districts. Currently, each district contains approximately 570,000 people. However, seats in the House are reapportioned every ten years, after the decennial census. Although the number of seats and, consequently, the number of Congressional districts has been fixed at 435, individual states may gain or lose districts as a result of reapportionment.
Soft money - Campaign contributions from large donors which were given to political parties instead of going directly to campaigns – this allowed donors to elude the legal limits placed on campaign contributions. Soft money contributions were essentially outlawed by the McCain-Feingold Bill.
Split-ticket voting - Casting votes for candidates of different political parties on the same ballot. For example,.casting a vote for the Republican presidential candidate while voting for the Democratic congressional candidate.
Suffrage – The civil right to vote … and the use of that right.
Vieth v. Jubelirer - In Vieth v. Jubelirer, Democrats sought to overturn Pennsylvania's redistricting plan, which was drafted by a Republican-led State Legislature and signed into law by a Republican governor. The redistricting plan gave Republicans an advantage in 12 of 19 Congressional districts, even though Democrats outnumbered Republicans statewide.
The Supreme Court was split in its ruling. An earlier case before the Supreme Court, Davis v. Bandemer, held that political gerrymandering claims were justiciable. In Vieth, four justices ruled that redistricting, as a political matter, should not be decided by the courts. Five justices ruled that partisan redistricting could be unconstitutional, but they didn't settle on a standard for deciding when a party had gone too far. In the end, the court allowed the Pennsylvania map to stand.
The Vieth case is important because it ultimately inspired activists to attempt to reform gerrymandering on a state by state basis (ie Proposition 77 in California).
VRM – Voter Relationship Management. VRM is the political world’s version of CRM (Customer Relationship Management). CRM originated as a way to manage customer data for sales people in the field. It later grew to include marketing and production data, and evolved to a sales worldview that put the relationship with the customer and excellent customer service the focus as opposed to the product.
Posted by Bart Cheever at 12:01 AM | Comments (0)
October 21, 2005
Voting by SMS in Switzerland
Small Swiss town lets people vote to decide speed restrictions directly by SMS - the program will serve as a trial - fed officials will determine if they should roll SMS voting out throughout the country. To determine ID, each user will be sent a unique code via regular mail. They will have to enter in this code and their date of birth in order to prevent repeat voting.
Posted by ben at 10:38 AM | Comments (0)
October 19, 2005
Mobile Voter in the News
|
Check out some recent articles/blog posts about our SFVote campaign:
CNET Personal Democracy Forum 160 Characters Smart Mobs Mobile Slate Also, check out our press release |  |
Posted by ben at 02:55 PM | Comments (0)
Youth Voting: Highlights
This document presents rough and ready highlights and key quotes from articles that focus on youth voting behavior. You want it all in one place, you got it. For more details, follow the source links.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
DeclareYourself.com served over 1million registration forms prior to ‘04 election.
83% of those who downloaded forms say that they registered to vote. 76% of downloaders said that they vote in the election. 48% of downloaders were 25 and under. 64% are under 30. 40% are part-time students. 29% are college undergrads.
The data show that “Getting young people to register is most critical to boosting their turnout. A majority (59%) of downloaders under 2 who didn’t vote say registration problems such as missing the registration deadline or not receiving an absentee ballot in time were mainly responsible for their not following through the ranks of voters. All but a few of those who got over the registration hurdle say they voted (92%).”
People who didn’t register have less formal education.
TV & radio ads were most effective in reaching youth (52%), 26% via the internet – re: declareyourself’s voter reg program.
Top issues:
21% iraq
21% moral values
16% economy and jobs
12% terrorism
Source: The Declare Yourself 2004 Campaign Evaluation: Reaching the Emerging Electorate. Nov. 2004. http://www.declareyourself.com/press/PDFs/report04/DYCampaignEvaluationSurveyREPORT(Nov2004).pdf
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
18-25yr old survey
Gen Y: asserts its individualism, yet shares common views of tolerance and community.
Above all else, they value privacy.
Over 80% have cell phones and 22% use them as their only phone.
38% text message. 16% mobile photos. Uses such as receiving news, coupon, or checking movie listings do not appeal.
Coming of Age in America. Polimetrrix Youth Monitor.
http://www.greenbergresearch.com/publications/reports/ym1.pdf
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
2004 youth turnout
~ 44% for 18-24 yr olds (~11 million)
~ 50% for 18-29 yr olds (~20 million)
2000 youth turnout
~ 36.5% 18-24 (~9 million)
~ 42.5% 18-29 (~17 million)
Youth share of the 2004 electorate
18-24: 10%
18-29: 18.4%
Source: Circle: Youth Voter turnout 1992-2004: Estimates from Exit Polls.
http://www.civicyouth.org
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
“Young people are not apathetic. They care deeply about key political issues and they believe that elections matter. Nearly 2/3rds say that they will ‘definitely’ vote.”
4 of 10 do not identify with a political party. Many are turned off by the 2 party system and want a viable 3rd party.
“Candidates who ignore young voters lose”
Young people are mostly centrists whose votes are up for grabs.
18-24: 26.8 million in US more than 80% size of the senior population
among young voters with college ed, 52% voted. And 69% of graduates.
Conservative students tend to be more politically active than liberal peers.
“The single most important factor in determining whether or not a young person votes is if his or ger parents vote.”
“The process of voting is difficult to navigate…” young people often “decide to participate late in the campaign. For young people away at school, submitting an absentee ballot can be confusing and difficult…Nearly 1/3rd of college students say they do not know how to request an absentee ballot… 92% believe more of their peers wold vote ‘if the process of registering and voting by absentee ballot were made easier.”
To get youth involved, they do not need to be shamed into voting – they need to see the route to get involved to make change in their communities and made to know that their vote is important.
College students are more likely to vote and easier to find than those not in college.
Most effective outreach tactics are those with a personal touch.
· door to door: 8-10% increase – esp when peer to peer
· Calls from a volunteer: 3-5% - calls made during the week before election are more effective than calls made earlier in the cycle.
· Professional phone banks: 0%
· Leaflets: 1%
· Unsolicited email: 0%
Young people are turning away from traditional media. But youth listen to radio a lot.
Media tactics:
· be creative & have a sense of humor
· generate free media in youth targeted outlets
· use the internet
· use cellphones “collecting cell phone numbers form young supporters may prove the most effective way to reach and mobilize them.”
Orgs to add to list:
· new voters project
· declare yourself
· wwe smackdown your vote
· youth vote coalition
· mtv’s choose or loose campaign
· campaign for young voters
Source: Harvard U. Institute of Politics. Guide to Reaching Young Voters
http://www.innovations.harvard.edu/showdoc.html?id=5047
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
youth turnout in 2004
youth voted much higher in battleground states
turnout under 25yrs old was 20% lower (in 2002, was 31% lower) – hypothesis that all of the efforts aimed at youth had an effect:
“current research shows that youth participate when they are asked to do so.”
Source: Circle: Youth voter turnout in the states during the 2004 presidential and 2002 midterm elections. July 05. http://www.civicyouth.org
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
In 04
Students actively followed the campaign (85%)
90% were registered to vote – 90% of these say they voted – this is very high compared to non-college students.
turnout was higher among those registered at their college address
Students themselves were good mobilizers. 62% say that they encouraged or helped someone to vote.
Contacting college students can be difficult for the parties because campuses are more or less closed and students move around a lot.
Students were much more likely to vote absentee.
71% who voted had to show an ID
Few students found it difficult to vote – or to request an absentee ballot.
55% voted for kerry. 41% for bush
top issues:
21.6 iraq
17.6 economy
14.8 terrorism
25.7 moral values
10.3 educations
3 health care
2.1 taxes
a significant minority of students wish to vote on their college campus (rather than absentee)
Source: circle: college students in the 2004 election. Nov. 04. Nov 04
http://www.civicyouth.org
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Easier voting methods increase youth turnout
Substantially more likely to vote if they are able to vote on election day (14% boost). Also if there was unrestricted absentee voting, and mail balloting.
These methods also have an effect on how campaigns contact voters – more likely to mobilize in states that have same day reg.
“when people are mobilized they are more likely to vote.”
Circle: easier voting methods boost youth turnout. Feb ‘03
Oregon: has an all-mail ballot system
Six states have election day registration
North Dakota does not have a registration requirement
“younger adults were more likely to report that they did not vote in the 2000 election b/c they were too busy or had conflicting work or school schedules.”
Source: Circle: Easier voting methods boost youth turnout: Feb 03.
http://www.civicyouth.org
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Young people are especially prominent in online campaigns. Not as popular as Tv and trad media, but gaining as these other media are declining.
Weekly email and text messages are strongly opposed.
“in general, young people tend to prefer communications that one can choose to receive (‘optin’) over the ones that are simply sent to people”
Source: circle: young people and political campaigning on the internet. Jan 04
http://www.civicyouth.org
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
students entering college have become increasingly politically polarized.
Middle-of-the road remains the most popular political category at 46.4 %
Interest in politics is on the rise (although less than in the 60s). Keeping up with political affairs is critical for 34%.
85.7 % used a personal computer on a frequent basis. However. Differences based on race persist. 15% point spread exists in rates of computer usge. Disparities in technological preparedness have widened over time – esp among African Americans. Differences minimized at higher income levels but exacerbated at lower levels. “these results suggest that little or no progress has been made in bridging the ‘digital divide’ since it gained national attention in the 90s”
Source: Higher Education Research Institute. The American Freshman. National Norms for Fall 2004. Political extremes and tech disparities.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Local parties are dropping the ball with young voters - both dems and repubs. Local parties have potential to rejuvenate young peoples political participation, ntu need to innovate – need to “get hip”
Political participation has been highest when local political parties were vibrant.
Stephanie Snachez: director of the college democrats of America
Local parties see 3 causes of low youth turnout:
1) poor high school civics education
2) negative campaigning
3) media has turned youth away
Young voters rarely on the mind or in the tactic mix for local parties. Parties are short sighted – winning the election at hand, vs. Building a long term broad based following – which, of course, starts with youth.
70% of local campaign respondents said that they spend less than 10% of time on non-election activities.
Most find it difficult to reach youth.
“Young voters are critical to the party’s future” – Drew Ryan – RNC
“simply put, traditional approaches to GOTV are ineffective with the new generation…. In order to truly connect with young voters, the parties must develop novel approaches. It is time for local parties to step outside the box.”
Source: Circle. Throwing a better party: local mobilizing institutions and the youth vote. April 04.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
18-25yr olds in NJ. Election day calls generated a statistically significant increase in voter turnout.
These results are localized to those with an existing commitment to vote (those who, on a previous call, said that they planned to vote): from 16.9% to 27.5%.
No statistical increase from:
· Messages left on answering machine
· Msgs left with roomate
Findings suggest that it’s important to establish pre-election contact with young voters – and targeting election day reminders to those who are most receptive to this type of message.
Circle – effects of an election day voter mobilization campaign targeting young voters. . sept 04. http://www.civicyouth.org
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Unrestricted absentee voting= you don’t have to provide an excuse.
12 states allow 17yr olds o vote in primaries if they will be 18 before the election.
Election day registration increases youth turnout by
· 14% in presidential elections
· 4 % in midterms
Also increases the likelihood that young people will be contacted by a political party by:
· 11% in pres elections
· 18% in midterms
Voting by mail increases turnout by 40% during presidential election
Unrestricted absentee voting increases turnout by 4% in midterms
Election day laws that make voting more accessible increase rates especially among youth and less educated.
In states that mailed sample ballots before 2000 election, turnout was:
· 7% higher among 18-24yr olds
· 4% higher among those w/o high school diploma
In states that mailed pollin gplace location:
· 3% higher among those w/o high school diploma
In states that mailed sample ballots, polling place, and offered extended polling hours
· 10% higher among 18-24yr olds
This data is just from 2000 – other factors probably come into play here – such as specifics of that years races.
Source: Circle: state voter registration and election day laws. June 04
http://www.civicyouth.org
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Empiricial study of youth campaign in 2002 election in Michigan. Democratic party.
Cites Gren and Gerber’s key finding: the more personal a tactic, the higher its mobilization effect:
· Door to door: +8-10%. $12-20/voter
· Volunteer phone bank: +3-5%. $12-20/voter
· Professional phone bank: +0-2%. $140+/voter
· Leafletting: 0%. $40+/voter
· Direct mail: 0-1%. $40+/voter
Campaign in Michigan results:
· Door to door: +10% on target plus spillover effect brings household rate to 19%. $25/voter (@100% paid staff). $10 (@40% paid staff)
· Volunteer phone bank: +2.5% on target plus spillover effect brings household rate to 4%.. $19/voter (@100% paid staff). $8 (@40% paid staff)
· Door hanger: +1% on target plus spillover effect brings household rate to 2%. $58/voter (@100% paid staff). $23 (@40% paid staff)
The above results are focus on a youth only approach. If all ages are included – making door visits more efficient, the cost goes down for door to door to $4.50, Calls to $8, and door hangers to $15.
So, strategy recs are:
· to use calls in rural and apartment heavy areas.
· But limit calls on college campuses, where door to door is more effective.
· Increase cost effectiveness by not focusing exclusively on youth – add other age ranges into the mix.
· Door hangars to be left behind when door to door encounters someone not home.
· Including polling place info increases effect of phone calls (by 1.5%).
· Paid site captains with high levels of experience are worth the cost – they boost effectiveness by 6%.
· Efforts should start early and peak in final week of campaign.
Mobilizing 18-35 yr olds.
Source: Mobilizing 18-35 Year Old Voters. An analysis of the Michigan democratic party’s 2002 youth coordinated campaign. Ryan Friedrics. April 03.
http://www.ksg.harvard.edu/PAE/readapae/Friedrichs.pdf
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
A candidate or party that gains loyalty of youth now, before opinions and beliefs set, can build a voting base for years to come.
ABOUT YOUNG VOTERS
Young Voter Types:
· Likely
o If you can connect with them, they will turn out on election day and may volunteer for campaign.
o Are presidential election voters.
o Trust govt. more
o Parents are voters
o More educated
o Many attend religious services
· Potential
o Similar demographic to the above
o Hot button is community involvement
o They are frequent volunteers
o Less likely to come from families that discuss politics
o Slightly higher percentage of women
· Unlikely
o Distrustfull of candidates and electoral process
o Not registered to vote – don’t think it’s omportant
o Never volunteers
o Parents didn’t vote or discuss politics
o Less likely to have an affiliation with an institution (college, church)
o Less likely to be conservative
What they want & know:
· effort to address their concerns
· advertising savvy
· that their votes are wanted
· want to see candidates more
· want candidates to listen
· want to share their concerns
· wand candidates to be approachable
How they decide their vote:
· candidate issue stands are most important, followed by record of service & experience, and character
· more independent of party than older voters
Party:
· even dem/rep
· ½ describe self as moderate
· not set in political party and are open to persuasion and recruitment
· Repubs: older (21-25), more men, more white, more religious, more out of school, concerned about taxes, iraq
· Dems (18-22): working women, African-american, health care, cost of education
· Independent: 21-22, not employed, non religious, crime & violence
REACHING YOUNG VOTERS
Talking to young voters
· statements on issues most important
· emails with issue positions are popular
· focus on issues in which they have a direct stake
· for candidates, most compelling facets are:
o being independent
o volunteering in community (non politically)
o problem solving
o that what candidate does matters
o that what young voters do matters
· approach
o authenticity
o listening
o commitment to young voters
o non partisanship
Connecting
· rely on tv, radio, newspapers, magazines, as well as internet
· internet is not silver bullet
o least receptive to internet will be those most involved – and vice versa
o unsolicited is turn off
o methods that invite participation and interaction work better
o unsolicited text messaging extremely unpopular
Outreach tactics
· web site, should feature
o candidate photo
o bio
o issue & record
o online voter reg
o voter reg info
o interactive questions/feedback
· radio
o 3rd party speaking about candidate
o stats that show power of young voter
o tell where can find more information
· Direct mail
o Personal statement
o Power of young voting bloc
o Quick access to issues
o Candidate events
· Op/Ed
· Famous Quotes re: elections & voting, democracy, rights & responsibilities, & citizenship
Campaign visits
· Reaching likely young voters
o colleges, community colleges, high schools
o party youth organizations
o politically oriented familes
o workplaces
· Reaching potential young voters
o Volunteer programs
o Women’s groups
o Religious groups
Debates
Getting youngs involved in participatory events like debates is a good idea. Best with non-partisan group.
TURNING OUT THE VOTE
· see friedrichs article
· older voters will support a candidate who reaches out to young voters – the trickle-up effect
· reminder to vote cards
· 18th birthday card
Source: Campaign for Young Voters Web site: http://www.campaignyoungvoters.org
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Post 2004 election survey of young people
Record #s of 18-39 yr olds turned out – particularly first time voters
75% plan to be more active in the political process in the future
of those who did not vote 46% said they will be registered next time
John Steward of Comedy Central is more trusted than 2 of the big 3 network anchors
Still network and cable news is main src of info.
“Increasing youth turnout in swing states could have affected the electoral outcome”
Kerry led Bush among non voters 47% to 33%.
Internet was used by 25% as primary information src. 62% of these voted for kerry, 36 for bush. First time voters 50% dem, 30% rep, 12% independent.
· younger the voter, the more likely to support kerry
· on issues kerry dominated among those who cited the economy and other domestic issues as most important
· most swing voters voted for kerry
· bush won older voters (26-29)
· won more of those with a college degree
· won 67% of those who regularly attend religious services
· 50% of votes for kerry were against bush – not for kerry
43% of 18-29yr olds either registered for the first time or registered at a new location. 66% of non-voters were not registered. “indicating that turnout among young voters can increase still further if greater efforts are made to inform them of voting requirements and the key dates involved. Knowing that Election Day was November 2 was important, but knowing when and where to register will help first-time voters overcome the hurdles of participation.”
“Registration remains the biggest obstacle to voting. Of those 18-29 year olds who didn’t vote, just one third were registered. It simply wasn’t the case that registered youths stayed home that day. This reaffirms decades of research that claims that increased turnout is a direct function of increased registration.”
Top Reason not to vote among registered voters
· too busy/ work or school conflict: 18%
· Didn’t like candidates/issues 10%
· Sick/disabled 10%
· Away/out of town 8%
· Tranport problems 6%
Non voters characteristics:
· younger 18-21
· less likely to attend religious services
· considerably less education
· a function of general disinterest
Source: The Emerging Electorate Report and Survey Press Release
http://www.declareyourself.com/press/PDFs/report04/EmergingElectorateSurveyReport.pdf
and
http://www.declareyourself.com/press/PDFs/report04/EmergingElectorateSurvey(Nov2004).pdf
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Posted by ben at 02:48 PM | Comments (0)
October 15, 2005
Mobile Glossary
Glossary of basic mobile terms and concepts that people in the political world should know.
Coming soon: a glossary of basic political terms that people in the mobile world should know ...
We'll be adding more definitions over time, so let us know if you think there is a particular phrase or concept which is missing.
3G
3G is short for “Third Generation” and refers to a variety of services that bring high speed data access to the phone. Although ...
Mobile Voter Glossary of Basic Mobile Terms
3G
3G is short for “Third Generation” and refers to a variety of services that bring high speed data access to the phone. Although definitions vary, mobile’s “First Generation” refers to the first analog voice-only mobile phones that came on the market in the late 80’s and 90’s. The “Second Generation” of devices were digital(and included the ability to send basic data for instance, text messaging or surfing stripped down, text heavy versions of websites using WAP). The “Third Generation” brings high speed data access (live streaming video, surfing the web at some facisimile of how you see it at your home or office), “always on” data access and improved voice quality.
There are several different 3G technology standards. The most prevalent is UMTS, which is based on WCDMA. (WCDMA and UMTS are often used interchangeably.) UMTS is the 3G technology of choice for most GSM carriers.
The other major standard is cdma2000, which is an evolution of CDMA 2G technology. There are several types of cdma2000, each offering different data rates and levels of compatibility with 2G CDMA.
Asynchronous
A way to send information at non-regular intervals. Information is sent as necessary, instead of synchronized with a time signal, as with Synchronous communication.
Backhaul
In wireless networks, the connection from an individual base station (tower) to the central network (backbone).
Typical backhaul connections are wired high-speed data connections (T1 line, etc.), but they can be wireless as well (using point-to-point microwave or WiMax, etc.)
BREW
BREW (Binary Runtime Environment for Wireless) is a solution developed by Qualcomm for downloading small applications and content to mobile phones. Found almost exclusively in CDMA phones.
The primary component lets users download and run small software applications on wireless devices, including phones. Such applications might include games, expense tracking software, or interactive map tools. This component of BREW competes with J2ME, a Java technology from Sun Microsystems. BREW and Java are generally not compatible.
The BREW subsystem on a phone can also manage graphics and ringtones.
The BREW solution also includes a server component which resides on the network. The BREW server manages the network side of BREW downloads, including billing, and can also serve and bill for non-BREW applications and content.
Carrier
A mobile phone operator. In the US the main carriers include Verizon, Sprint, T-Mobile, Cingular, Nextel.
CDMA (Code-Division Multiple Access)
CDMA is a digital wireless technology. It’s a general type of technology, implemented in many specific technologies. But the term "CDMA" is also commonly used to refer to one specific implementation: IS-95 - a mobile-phone technology that competes with technologies such as GSM.
CDMA is a "spread spectrum" technology, which means that it spreads the information contained in a particular signal of interest over a much greater bandwidth than the original signal.
Unlike many competing technologies, CDMA has no hard limit for the number of users who may share one base station (tower). Instead, with CDMA, additional users can connect until the base station determines that call quality would suffer behind a set limit.
CDMA systems have been in operation since 1995. CDMA networks operate in the 800 and 1900 MHz frequency bands with primary markets in the Americas and Asia. IS-95 CDMA systems are sometimes referred to as cdmaOne. The next evolutionary step for CDMA to 3G services is cdma2000.
Circuit Switching
A method of transmitting information (voice or data) through a system or network by establishing a persistent, dedicated connection ("circuit").
CSC
Common Short Codes. These are 5 digit numbers which allow the user to send a text message without entering an entire phone number.
EVDO
Part of a family of CDMA2000 1x digital wireless standards. 1xEV-DO is a "3G" CDMA standard. EV-DO stands for "EVolution, Data-Only".
In the US 1x-EVDO is primarily being marketed by Verizon as their new broadband service. EV-DO provides data rates over 10 times faster than 1xRTT, the previous data technology for CDMA networks.
Unlike other "1x" standards, EV-DO only addresses data - not voice. It requires a dedicated slice of spectrum, separate from voice networks using standards such as 1xRTT.
There are currently two main versions of 1xEV-DO: "Release 0" and "Release A".
Release 0 is the original version, and the first to be widely deployed. Release 0 offers data rates up to 2.4 mbps, averaging 300-600 kbps in the real world. This is much faster than the 50-80 kbps typically offered by 1xRTT technology. Release 0 data rates are identical to 1xEV-DV Release C.
Release A integrates most of the faster data technology from 1xEV-DV Release D, and improves latency. These enhancements allow features such a VoIP and video calling.
Although EV-DO does not include voice capability natively, Release A is fast enough to support VoIP technology at service levels equal or better to 1xRTT voice technology. This may be a future upgrade path for CDMA carriers if EV-DV development remains stalled.
1xEV-DO is based on a technology initially known as "HDR" (High Data Rate) or "HRPD" (High Rate Packet Data), developed by Qualcomm. The international standard is known as IS-856.
Firmware
Firmware is in-between "hardware" and "software" - hence the name "firmware".
Hardware is any part of the phone that is physical and cannot be changed unless it is physically replaced. For example, Verizon phones are CDMA, while VoiceStream phones are GSM. The two systems are incompatible. The Verizon phone contains a CDMA chip that was designed specifically to deal with CDMA. It's permanently wired to be CDMA, and could never be upgraded to GSM.
Software, meanwhile, refers to things that *can* be changed. In a computer, you can load new software whenever you want. You can even load a whole new operating system. The software is stored in memory chips while in use. As soon as the computer is turned off, whatever was in the memory chips is gone, but a copy is saved on the hard disk.
Phones also need to store different types of non-permanent things, such as an operating system, roaming instructions, and your phone book. But there's no room for a disk of any kind, and it wouldn't be good if your phone lost its operating system (and thus became useless) every time you turned it off.
Which is where firmware comes in. Firmware uses special memory chips that can hold information even when the phone is turned off and battery-less. It's sort of like hardware, because it acts just like a permanently-wired chip, but it's also like software because it can be changed at any time.
So firmware is technically how your phone stores its phone book – it is also how your phone stores the roaming instructions (PRL) or operating system.
You can have your PRL updated and your phone will be able to roam in new areas. Sometimes operating system updates are available that fix bugs in the way the phone works.
Flash Mob
A gathering of people organized spontaneously via txt messaging, the internet or other mobile communication.
Form Factor
Mobile phones come in several different physical styles (form factors). While manufacturers are continually coming up with new types of designs, there are several common categories used on this site to describe form factors:
Bar: (AKA candy-bar or block) This is the most basic style. The entire phone is one solid monolith, with no moving parts aside from the buttons and possibly antenna. To prevent keys from being pressed accidentally while the phone is in a pocket, etc., a "key guard" feature is usually provided, requiring a special key combination to "unlock" the keys.
Clamshell: This type of phone is made of two halves connected by a hinge. The phone folds closed when not in use. The top half usually contains the speaker and display with the bottom half containing the keypad.
Flip: This type of phone is a cross between the Bar and Clamshell types. Most of the components of the phone are in one part, but a thin "flip" part covers the keypad and/or display when not in use. The flip may be all-plastic, or it may contain one or two minor components such as a speaker or secondary keys.
Slide: This type is usually designed similarly to a clamshell, with a large main display and speaker in one half, and the keypad and battery in the other half. But the two halves slide open instead of using a hinge. Slide designs allow the main display to be seen when closed, and are generally easier to open and close one-handed.
Java (J2ME)
J2ME (Java 2 Micro Edition) is a language that allows a device to run small, user-installable software applications written especially for mobile devices such as phones.
J2ME applications can provide specific functions such as a tip calulator, they can be games, or they can be custom-written corporate applications. They can be Internet-enabled, so that, for example, a J2ME game might let you play someone else in real time over the Internet. They can be created by anyone - not just the phone manufacturer or your carrier.
You can download new applications to your phone at any time. Most phones allow you to download new applications directly to your phone using the Wireless Internet feature.
Keitai
(pronounced k-tie) The Japanese term for "mobile phone". The term has achieved cultural significance in Japan, especially among youth, as a way to describe not only the phones and corresponding services, but the entire culture of users and their habits. Exhaustive analysis of Keitai culture can be found on the Wikipedia entry on Japanese mobile phone culture and our pal Xeni Jardin's excellent Wired News article on How Mobile Phones Conquered Japan.
MMS
Multimedia Messaging Service. MMS’s are like text messages (SMS) but include images, video or audio.
MVNO
Mobile Virtual Network Operator. A company, such as Virgin Mobile, that does not actually own spectrum or the infrastructure of an actual carrier –MVNO’s provide the marketing and front end of a mobile service while partnering with an established carrier to provide the backend.
Polyphonic Ringtones
Polyphonic ringtones can create multiple notes simultaneously. This produces a more natural and realistic sound for melodies in that it can include melodies. Most polyphonic ringers can also simulate the sound of various instruments, instead of just tones. Different phones support a different number of simultaneous instruments (chords) - anywhere from 4 to 40 or more.
Ringback Tone
Ringback is the ringing sound you hear from your phone when you call someone else. Ringback tones are now offered by many carriers to compliment their booming downloadable ringtone business. For a small fee, users can download a song or sound effect that callers will hear whenever they dial the users number.
SPAM
Unsolicited email or SMS messages.
SMS
This is a method of sending short, 160 character messages between mobile phones. Extremely popular among youth, particularly in Asia and Europe. In the UK, for example 80% of all high school age kids send at least one text message a week.
VoIP
(Voice over Internet Protocol)
A technology for transmitting ordinary telephone calls over packet-switched data networks, ie the internet. Also called IP telephony.
WAP
Wireless Application Protocol. An mobile phone language which allows mobile phone users to surf a stripped down, text heavy version of the web. This was what your phone was running 2 years ago.
Posted by Bart Cheever at 12:45 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
October 05, 2005
Blog Posts on MobileActive
Philo has an interesting post on The Baltimore Group blog about the recent MobileActive conference in Toronto.
MobileActive was a three day conference held in Toronto which focused on political activism and mobile technology. Our own Ben Rigby was at the conference, so expect a complete report soon ... in the meantime this is a nice jumping off point.
Our good pal Justin Oberman had an even more detailed account of the MobileActive conference on his excellent Personal Democracy Forum blog. Justin was at the event and goes into a lot more detail on who participated. We're looking forward to more detail in the future ...
Posted by Bart Cheever at 03:31 PM | Comments (0)