ppt

Proceedings | © Fraunhofer IZM | www.electronicsgoesgreen.org 1ISBN 978-3-00-053763-9

Electronics Goes Green 2016+ Berlin, September 7 – 9, 2016

Modular Products: Smartphone Design from a Circular Economy Perspective Karsten Schischke*1, Marina Proske1, Nils F. Nissen1, Klaus-Dieter Lang1,2

1 Fraunhofer IZM, Berlin, Germany 2 Technische Universität Berlin, Berlin, Germany

* Corresponding Author, [email protected], +49 30 464 03 156

Abstract Currently a range of modular smartphones is emerging, including the Fairphone 2, Puzzlephone, Google's Project ARA, RePhone, LG's G5 and others. In an industry of perceived short product cycles a modular design concept might become crucial for longer product lifetimes. The paper provides an overview on latest product develop- ments and assesses these against environmental criteria, including longevity, durability, upgradeability, repairabil- ity and Design for Recycling and Reuse.

Modular product design however is not necessarily the most sustainable design option. Modularity first of all means inevitably more material consumption, as additional sub-housing and universal connectors are required, partly also a larger total product volume to allow for incorporation of the maximum potential configuration and anticipated future technologies. This has to pay off through a significantly longer use of individual devices and modules. It depends furthermore on the user, if the intended replacement of broken modules by new ones helps to keep whole devices in use much longer or if the user just replaces individual modules much more frequently to keep pace with latest technology features.

1 Introduction Looking at Life Cycle Assessments of smartphones unveils, that production is dominating the life cycle impacts and that (even optimal) recycling can yield only marginal credits. Apple states for the iPhone SE a total carbon footprint of 75 kg CO2-eq., thereof 82% allocated to the cradle-to-gate production of the phone alone [1]. No credits for recycling are stated, but it can be assumed, that even optimal material recycling a carbon footprint credit equalling at best 10-20% of the

production impacts can be achieved. Under these conditions a long product and component use time seems to be the most sustainable way of smartphone usage.

In 2013 tablet computers have been disassembled at Fraunhofer labs to assess the dismantling features of mobile devices [2]. According to these analyses the material content of tablet computers sold worldwide in 2013 includes 20,000 tonnes of Li-ion batteries with a significant content of cobalt, 10,000 tonnes alumini- um, but also a total of 2,000 tonnes magnesium [3].

Figure 1: Internal design of tablet computers [4]

Proceedings | © Fraunhofer IZM | www.electronicsgoesgreen.org 2ISBN 978-3-00-053763-9

Electronics Goes Green 2016+ Berlin, September 7 – 9, 2016

One of the major findings of the Fraunhofer disassem- bly study, which was co-financed by the Green Elec- tronics Council, was the distinction of two main tablet archetypes: Those with aluminium housing and those with a plastics housing, which usually achieve the re- quired stiffness by an internal magnesium frame. About 5,000 tonnes of high-grade printed circuit boards made it into the roughly 200 million tablets sold worldwide in 2013. Keeping these materials in use for long and recycling a major share thereof at high material recovery rates is challenging. Although a general trend can be observed, that tablets are difficult to recycle, there are also some promising design op- tions found among individual brands. The aspect of modularity has been found not to have been consid- ered at all among the disassembled tablets. Best case in terms of modularity is a removable battery, accessi- ble from the backside of a tablet, as found in two of the models [2].

Comparison of the internal structure of tablets howev- er unveils, that tablets are already arranged in mod- ules, as shown on the example of two typical tablets in figure 1: Display (removed), shell / back cover, elec- tronics and battery are all clearly distinct parts of a tablet – but extremely connected through screws, clips, cables, connectors, adhesive, solder or other- wise. A similar assembly structure is found in smartphones as well.

2 Modularity The term “modularity” has to be defined before dis- cussing environmental impacts. From a product archi- tecture perspective, modularity can be discussed on several levels. From a circular economy perspective, modularity shall be understood in this research as a potential contributor to resource efficiency.

2.1 Definition Modules in a modular product are structurally inde- pendent elements or sub-assemblies with clearly de- fined interfaces [5]. Interfaces are non-permanent in- terconnections.

“Modularity” starts with an easily removable battery (example for a sub-assembly with a clearly defined interface) and mono-material back cover (example for a structurally independent element) as seen in the first generation Fairphone and other devices on the market. The next level is a platform, which allows the manu- facturer to ship individually configured units. The Re- Phone follows such a design philosophy, and allows professional and semi-professional developers to con- figure a smartphone. Among tablets the Click ARM can serve as an example for such a platform, where in

particular the mainboard can accommodate various electronics modules (see Figure 2).

photo by courtesy of imasD

Figure 2: Inner frame of the Click ARM tablet with mainboard and attached modules

Next, modularity can mean, that the user can replace easily some key subassemblies (or modules) when a repair is needed or more powerful components are wanted. Examples are the Fairphone 2, where the housing has to be opened to access individual building blocks of the smartphone (see Figure 3), the Puzzle- phone, which will be made of only three modules (Figure 4), the battery, the display and the main elec- tronics part, all connected through a standardized in- terface [6], or the Google ARA project, inspired by the earlier Phonebloks concept [7], where numerous mod- ules can be attached to an endo skeleton. The Google ARA concept however has been revised recently and has little in common now with the initial extremely modular approach.

photo by courtesy of Fairphone B.V., Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike CC BY-NC-SA

Figure 3: Fairphone 2, disassembled

Actually, the Fairphone 2 seems to have solved one of the main technical contradictions found in Fraunho- fer’s disassembly study: The Fairphone 2, according

Proceedings | © Fraunhofer IZM | www.electronicsgoesgreen.org 3ISBN 978-3-00-053763-9

Electronics Goes Green 2016+ Berlin, September 7 – 9, 2016

to information by Fairphone [8], features a high level of ruggedness and is at the same time easy to open and repair. Usually those devices, which are very robust also withstand mechanical force to open them for re- cycling.

Some of the aforementioned concepts also allow for a shared product platform and cascade reuse of modules in other applications after first life, such as microcom- puters and home automation devices.

The development of smart modular devices and of the Puzzlephone in particular is currently researched in the Horizon 2020 project sustainablySMART, [9].

Based on these examples, modularity can be distin- guished as listed in Table 1. Given the environmental life cycle profile explained above, these levels also represent a kind of environmental hierarchy, material modularity being the lowest level of environmental improvements and corresponding to the traditional Design for Recycling approach. Add-on modularity is rather a convenience aspect only, as only peripheral functionalities are added or exchanged, the lifetime of the core parts is not assumed to change through add- on modules.

❶ The Brain contains critical electronics: the CPU, GPU, RAM, memory, and cameras.

❷ The Spine is the structure: the high-res display. Core spine elements will be available in a variety of sizes and materials.

❸ The Heart contains the battery: it will be the enabler of sec- ondary electronics and features chosen by the user.

photo by courtesy of Circular Devices Oy

Figure 4: Puzzlephone

Modularity level Characteristics Conventional envi- ronmental design strategy

Examples of mobile de- vices (design studies, de- velopment projects, and products)

Add-on modularity Range of peripheral function- alities can be attached to a given core (display-CPU unit)

Not applicable Google ARA (2016), LG G5, Thuraya’s SatSleeve for iPhones to enable satel- lite communication and other third party extensions to smartphones

Material modularity Some materials, such as co- vers and batteries can be easi- ly separated

Design for recycling Fairphone 1 and several other conventional smartphones

Platform modularity Product can be configured for a range of individual specs, configuration requires a basic technical knowledge

Potentially Design for Repair / Refurbishment / Reuse depending on interconnect technolo- gy

Click ARM tablet, Re- Phone

Repair modularity Key components can be easily exchanged

Design for Repair / Re- furbishment / Reuse

Fairphone 2

Mix & match modu- larity

Range of specs for all mod- ules, upgradeable, joint back- bone and/or standardized module interfaces, ultimately hot-swapping is an option, maximum flexibility; includes repair modularity

Not applicable Phonebloks, Google ARA (2015), PuzzlePhone

Table 1: Definition of modularity levels

Proceedings | © Fraunhofer IZM | www.electronicsgoesgreen.org 4ISBN 978-3-00-053763-9

Electronics Goes Green 2016+ Berlin, September 7 – 9, 2016

A product can incorporate several of the above stated modularity strategies. This becomes evident, when looking at any laptop or PC with CPU socket, DIMM memory socket, graphics card PCI slot: material mod- ularity (PC housing), platform modularity, repair modularity, mix & match modularity are all found in these designs, but hardly yet in tablets or smartphones due to shrunk form factors. Or in other words: The art of modularity for smartphones is to squeeze the modu- larity of PCs into the size of a palm.

2.2 Environmental considerations Modular product design however is not necessarily the most sustainable design option. Modularity first of all means inevitably more material consumption, as addi- tional sub-housing and universal connectors are re- quired, partly also a larger total product volume to al- low for incorporation of the maximum potential con- figuration and anticipated future technologies, see the design of the Click ARM mainboard, which requires a larger substrate footprint than a board, which is de- signed for only one distinct configuration. This has to pay off through a significantly longer use of individual devices and modules.

Modules require connectors: In the case of Google ARA (“spiral 2”) the connector pads on the endo skel- eton were supposed to be copper with a 30 µm gold finish [10], which significantly influences the envi- ronmental impacts in production. Mechanical fixation was meant to be realised through magnets [11]: On the endo side NdFeB permanent magnets and Alnico magnets (containing 5–24% Co) with a coil to switch on/off magnetic force of the endo were foreseen, and on the module side a Hiperco-50 alloy insert (48.75% Cobalt). This solution is now obsolete, but still demonstrates, how modular design first of all can in- crease the consumption of some critical raw materials. Also the Fairphone 2 uses additional gold connectors to connect the modules, quantification of this effect in terms of a Life Cycle Assessment is still pending.

It depends furthermore on the user, if the intended re- placement of broken modules by new ones helps to keep whole devices in use much longer or if the user just replaces individual modules much more frequent- ly to keep pace with latest technology features. Mix & match modularity bears the risk of a significant re- bound effect.

Evidence from market surveys shows, that only a lim- ited number of product replacements, i.e. short prod- uct lifetimes, are due to technical failures and much more frequently users tend to see tablets and smartphones as a status symbol, and as such owing latest generation devices is important to many. In the case of modular smartphones only the coming road

tests will show, how use and consumption patterns ac- tually will be influenced through such a disruptive technology change.

3 Design for a Circular Economy The Ellen MacArthur Foundation defines the circular economy as follows [12]: “A circular economy is one that is restorative and regenerative by design, and which aims to keep products, components and materi- als at their highest utility and value at all times, distin- guishing between technical and biological cycles.” The term “highest utility and value” for modern IT means keeping it functional, not breaking it down into materials only.

A modular design has to be matched with circular economy principles to reap the full resource saving potential.

The concept of the Circular Economy is illustrated by the butterfly diagram of the Ellen MacArthur Founda- tion. The technical materials wing of this diagram is adapted in Figure 5 to illustrate the various design ap- proaches in support of a circular economy.

Although the circular economy discussion frequently focusses on recycling, this should not be the top prior- ity. Actually recycling “is a radical value reducer” [13]. For high-tech products the first three inner cycles of maintenance, reuse/redistribute und refur- bish/remanufacture are almost similarly important, i.e. sustainable. Recycling is better than combustion or landfilling, but a lot of invested resources and energy is inevitably lost in such a cycle.

Bakker et al. [13] define six product design strategies for circular business models:

#1 Attachment & Trust

#2 Durability

#3 Standardization & Compatibility

#4 Ease of Maintenance & Repair

#5 Upgradability & Adaptability

#6 Dis- & Reassembly

For different products these design strategies are not equally important and they can be implemented in very different ways. For smartphones, and the ap- proach of a modular product in particular, these design strategies can be described as follows, citations taken from Bakker et al. [13].

3.1 Attachment & Trust Users are supposed to develop a certain bond with the objects they use. The designer however has not full

Proceedings | © Fraunhofer IZM | www.electronicsgoesgreen.org 5ISBN 978-3-00-053763-9

Electronics Goes Green 2016+ Berlin, September 7 – 9, 2016

control over attachment and trust, and context and us- er psychology are important factors which hardly can be predicted. A trigger to discontinue the use of a product is frequently a kind of disturbing change, “such as a noise, a dent, a stiff hinge or similar”. Af- fordability of a new product is also an aspect of at- tachment. Bakker et al. describe smartphones as “handheld extension of individual preoccupations”. Smartphones are highly personalized devices, charac- terized by apps, sounds, and content. Bakker et al. state for smartphones, that “the object as such doesn’t really matter all that much, as long as you can find it. You won’t replace it as long as you can trust it to suf- ficiently recharge.” This statement might be worth- while to be challenged, as several surveys indicate, that a defect battery or a reduced battery capacity is not the dominating factor to replace a smartphone. Al- so brand image in the smartphone business seems to be much more relevant, than Bakker’s statement im- plies. For a modular design this means, that modulari-

ty should enhance attachment and trust. Attachment could be achieved through personalizing a device: Modules make it unique. The first Google ARA ap- proaches strongly supported such an attachment phi- losophy by suggesting very individual designs of modules.

An important facilitator for attachment is open source: Having extended control also over the software and the operating system in particular, being able to adapt and adjust functionalities of modules or even to create own modules is highly relevant for some users. This open source aspect has been important for the Phone- bloks idea right from the beginning.

Trust also has to do with believing in a long lifetime: In the case of smartphones the assumption of a low product quality and short lifetime by the consumer leads to a lower willingness to repair and a shorter usetime [14].

Design for Recycling Design for Repair and Reuse Modular Design (mix & match modularity)

Figure 5: Design approaches for a circular economy

3.2 Durability Design for Durability is based on defining optimum product reliability, which is a technical aspect. A product’s durability – or longevity - and the optimum reliability should be aligned with the economic and stylistic lifespan, i.e. designing a product for a longer

lifespan than what is likely to be achievable due to other lifetime constraints is not necessarily required. Durability is about testing a product against assump- tions about how the product is going to be used. This is also about imagination, what could happen to a product throughout its lifetime and about establishing mission profiles. This first aspect of durability is per-

Proceedings | © Fraunhofer IZM | www.electronicsgoesgreen.org 6ISBN 978-3-00-053763-9

Electronics Goes Green 2016+ Berlin, September 7 – 9, 2016

ceived to be rather an argument against modularity, as additional interfaces and connectors are typically weak spots in terms of reliability. The mechanical flexibility of some module connector designs however can be also more reliable than a rigid connection tech- nology.

Bakker et al. point out, that technical reliability is key, but that also reliability perception plays a role as well, explained on the example of printers: Users tend to accept occasional paper jams they themselves can fix within seconds over less frequent paper jams, which require external service staff to fix it and result in longer standstill times. Translating this finding to modular smartphones means that enabling Do-it- yourself repair through modularity contributes to du- rability.

Repairability will however not yield a tremendous breakthrough for smartphone lifetime: A better per- formance of a new phone and contracts, featuring fre- quently new phones are the dominating reasons to go for a new smartphone. Device defects or a weak bat- tery are next, but not the most important reasons [15].

3.3 Standardization & Compatibility Following certain standards is meant to result in com- patibility. When products are connected to other parts, devices or systems it becomes evident, that lifecycles in most cases are not synchronized. An example are standardized power supplies for mobile phones: USB charging through Micro USB-B connectors became a standard through EN 62684:2010 [16], but with the introduction of the USB Type-C standard for higher data transfer rates and higher power transmission the industries’ commitment for universal power supplies is obsolete. However, the USB standards have longer lifecycles than smartphones, and compatibility of chargers over several device generations is a good ex- ample of resource efficiency through compatibility.

The related business model might rely on applying standards or – if a company is in the right position – to set standards. Compatibility refers to both, hardware and software.

Compatibility is key for platform modularity and mix & match modularity. Several modular phone concepts rely on proprietary standards, such as Google ARA, RePhone and Puzzlephone, but there is no initiative yet to standardize interfaces across different modular phones. Google and Circular Devices, the compony behind Puzzlephone, however follow a business con- cept, where the specification of the interfaces is sup- posed to be published, allowing third parties to join the ecosystem and to develop customized compatible modules.

3.4 Ease of Maintenance & Repair Design for ease of maintenance and repair is a com- plex task, as it has to address several players in a product life cycle, which is the original manufacturer, service providers and users. Actually a key question is who is supposed to care for maintenance and repair, as design decisions have to be made differently. The bet- ter the user is enabled to maintain and repair the prod- uct the higher is the chance that this leads to an opti- mized product lifetime. Ease of maintenance and re- pair means also easily exchangeable parts. Design for maintenance and repair in particular pays off, when the business model is built on providing a service in- stead of selling a product and if product ownership remains with the supplier. This business concept is implemented broadly in the business to business do- main but much less for consumer products. Ease of maintenance and repair also requires solid knowledge about the parts, which require typically maintenance and repair. Only then design can address these aspects properly.

Smartphone displays are a typical part, which fre- quently requires repair due to accidental damage and therefore displays are a priority candidate for being modularized. As it is typically the front glass, which breaks, but not the display module as such, a non- permanent fixation of front glass and display module is the next level of repair enabling modularization.

3.5 Upgradability & Adaptability Adaptation includes addressing different functions by part exchange. Upgradability is much more challeng- ing and less common, as it has to anticipate future technology developments and how the product can be changed to reap these future possibilities: “The further design ideas are projected into the future, the larger the uncertainty becomes”. Design for upgradability and adaptability requires a scenario that is projected well into the future. The scenario of change can be divided into functional levels, some of which will change very slowly.

Adaptability through a modular concept might have an adverse sustainability effect, namely that the adapta- bility just makes it too easy and comfortable to ex- change modules, which might increase the amount of waste instead of slowing down the technology throughput of the technosphere.

On the other hand, smartphone users are used to seize the potential of ever increasing performance: A survey in Austria showed, that the main reasons to replace a mobile phone are the limited operability (31,4%), the better performance of a new one (22,8%), and that the old phone did not match with the individual require- ments anymore (22,0%) [14]. User expectations grow,

Proceedings | © Fraunhofer IZM | www.electronicsgoesgreen.org 7ISBN 978-3-00-053763-9

Electronics Goes Green 2016+ Berlin, September 7 – 9, 2016

performance of a modular smartphone should do as well.

Environmentally speaking it sounds simple: The prod- uct shall meet the users’ performance requirements. Oversizing right from the beginning means an exten- sive environmental footprint for features, which are not used. An example is storage: Memory contributes very significantly to the production related environ- mental impacts of smartphones. Less memory capacity means lower impact. Limited storage on the other hand might mean a relevant limitation to performance for a user at a certain point of time, letting him con- sider a replacement of the smartphone. Modular stor- age upgrade, i.e. extension, for which there is already a kind of modular solution (microSD card slots as seen in the Fairphone but also several conventional smartphones), allows for performance upgrades, when it is needed. Even only shifting the production of memory components into the future through a modular approach is an environmental advantage: Semiconduc- tor technology progresses rapidly and same memory capacity can be produced with lower environmental impacts, if latest technology is used.

Figure 6: Carbon footprint of NAND Flash memory semiconductors (typically BGA packages)

Figure 6 depicts the carbon footprint of NAND Flash production (cradle-to-gate) compiled from product declarations of leading memory manufacturers: NAND Flash produced in 2010 (date of publication of the declaration) in 40nm technology had a carbon footprint of almost 400 g CO2-eq. per Gigabite stor- age capacity. This figure dropped below 100 g CO2- eq. per GB in 2014 with 10nm technology.

3.6 Dis- & Reassembly To ease disassembly as an eco-design measure typical- ly targets at recycling processes, whatever these might be, although typically a manual disassembly is under- stood to be the main targeted approach for end of life.

The connection of disassembly with reassembly adds an additional perspective to design, as it requires a non-destructive disassembly and the possibility to put together the whole product from pieces. Reassembly is important for the three strategies compatibility, maintenance and repair, upgrading and adaptation, but may also include assembly with components of other products to become something different. To ease and speed up the process of disassembly and reassembly is one of the main assets of modular product design.

4 Modularity as Enabler for a Circular Economy

Comparing the various levels of modularity with the design strategies described by Bakker et al. unveils how well modular design fits into the concept of a cir- cular economy (Table 2): It is evident that material modularity of smartphones is not a perfect match for a circular economy. Add-on modularity has some circu- lar economy elements, but no obvious correlation to many of the strategies. Platform modularity, repair modularity, and mix & match modularity all have a correlation with (almost) all design strategies. It should be however noted, that every field of this ma- trix still leaves room for manoeuvre: Explained on the example of platform modularity and the design strate- gy standardization and compatibility it might be the case, that the technology platform is only compatible with the modules of one manufacturer – or with mod- ules from many, compatibility might be given only for one product generation – or across many generations. The latter in both cases presumably is the better ena- bler for a circular economy.

Furthermore, this correspondence between modularity and circular economy design strategies does not mean, that a non-modular smartphone is in contradiction to a circular economy. This aspect just has not been ana- lysed in this paper, and an everlasting “mono-block smartphone”, which can be software upgraded over a long period of time of course could very well fit into the concept of a circular economy.

5 Acknowledgement The project sustainablySMART has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement no. 680640.

Proceedings | © Fraunhofer IZM | www.electronicsgoesgreen.org 8ISBN 978-3-00-053763-9

Electronics Goes Green 2016+ Berlin, September 7 – 9, 2016

Design for Circular Economy strategies

Matrix legend: o : no relevant correlation + : positive correlation ++ : very strong correlation

#1 A ttachm

ent &

Trust

#2 D urability

#3 Standardization &

C om

patibility

#4 E ase of

M aintenance &

R

epair

#5 U pgradability

& A

daptability

#6 D is-&

R eas-

sem bly

M od

ul ar

it y

le ve

l

Add-on modularity ++ o + o + o

Material modularity o o o o o ++

Platform modularity + + + + + +

Repair modularity ++ (1) + + + o ++

Mix & match modularity ++ + + + ++ ++ (1) assuming attachment to a self-repaired device is significantly increased

Table 2: Matching modularity levels with Design for Circular Economy strategies

6 Literature [1] Apple Inc.: iPhone SE - Environmental Report,

March 2016 [2] K. Schischke, L. Stobbe, S. Scheiber, M. Oerter,

T. Nowak, A. Schlösser, H. Riedel, N. F. Nissen: Disassembly Analysis of Slates: Design for Re- pair and Recycling Evaluation, Berlin, 2013

[3] K. Schischke, N. F. Nissen, L. Stobbe, M. Oerter, S. Scheiber, A. Schlösser, G. Dimitrova, P. Genz, K.-D. Lang: Ansätze zur stofflichen Verwertung von Tablets aus Sicht des Produktdesigns, Re- cycling und Rohstoffe, Band 7, ISBN 9783944310091, Neuruppin, TK Verlag, 2014

[4] K. Schischke: Product design for the efficient use of critical materials - The case of mobile in- formation technology devices, ESM workshop at World Resources Forum, Davos, Switzerland, 12-14 October 2015

[5] M. Kashkoush, H. El Maraghy: Optimum Over- all Product Modularity, 6th CIRP Conference on Assembly Technologies and Systems (CATS)Procedia CIRP 44 ( 2016 ) 55 – 60

[6] T. Jokinen: PuzzlePhone – Design to last, Emerging Green Conference, Portland, OR, USA, 21 September 2015

[7] D. Hakkens: Phonebloks, https://phonebloks.com/

[8] O. Hebert: The architecture of the Fairphone 2: Designing a competitive device that embodies our values, June 16, 2015, www.fairphone.com

[9] M. Regenfelder, K. Schischke, S. Ebelt, A. P. Slowak: Achieving ‘Sustainable Smart Mobile

Devices Lifecycles Through Advanced Re- design, Reliability, and Re-use and Remanufac- turing Technology’, 8th International Scientific Conference MOTSP2016 - Management of Technology, Step to Sustainable Production, Porec, Istria, Croatia, 1-3 June 2016

[10] Project Ara - Module Developers Kit (MDK), Release 0.21 (alpha), March 3, 2015

[11] A. Knaian, D. Yeh: MDK Overview, Project Ara Developers Conference 2015, Mountain View

[12] Ellen MacArthur Foundation, https://www.ellenmacarthurfoundation.org/circul ar-economy, retrieved: August 1, 2016

[13] C. Bakker, M. den Hollander, E. van Hinte, Y. Zljstra: Products That Last – Product Design for Circular Business Models, TU Delft Library, 2014

[14] H. Wieser, N. Tröger: Die Nutzungsdauer und Obsoleszenz von Gebrauchsgütern im Zeitalter der Beschleunigung – Eine empirische Untersu- chung in österreichischen Haushalten, Vienna, 2015

[15] Stiftung Warentest: Schon kaputt?, test, Septem- ber 2013

[16] EN 62684:2010, Interoperability specifications of common EPS for use with data-enabled mo- bile telephones