obility and social inclusion, a part of the digital inclusion debate, an improvement in economic efficiency and economic equality, an improvement in intellectual efficiency and an improvement in environmental efficiency. The Ericsson presentation pointed out that using a mobile phone for a year has an equivalent CO2 footprint to driving a car for an hour. If we assume that owning a mobile phone helps us to travel less then this should result in a net environmental gain. Also, apparently 17.4% of subscriptions in Sweden are machine-to-machine compared to 2.4% in Europe and 4.4% in the US. Some of these subscriptions will be for energy monitoring and energy control and environmental monitoring and environmental control, suggesting that additional environmental gains achievable if the Swedish model were to be more widely applied. Possible risks include compromised identification procedures, a proxy for safety and security and nonaltruistic political interference and control, of which more later. There are also some practical issues. One of the Ericsson predictions was that by 2013, 80% of all users will access the internet using a mobile phone. This is not the same as saying that 80% of all users will access the cloud by mobile phone but does suggest an expectation that wireless access will be relatively dominant. However, mobile applications remain constrained by battery limitations. At times it can be more power efficient, faster, more convenient and more secure to store information locally rather than remotely. And it is certainly true to say that at the time of writing there is no implicit incentive for application developers to make applications either power efficient, bandwidth efficient or code efficient. Additionally, from a network perspective it is plausible to assume that wireline/guided media average data speeds may continue to increase faster than wireless data speeds, partly due to physics and partly due to available power. The only factor that would prevent this happening is a lack of investment in fi