Kamis, 22 Oktober 2009
Broadband Mapping: A Buried Treasure
| In the olden days, explorers paid a lot of money for maps that they hoped would lead to buried treasure. Things apparently haven’t changed too much from the days of Hernando Cortez and Ponce de Leon, as broadband mapping companies hope to find their pot of gold – or at least a respectable return -- from creating maps that the government will use to judge broadband stimulus applications. “If you want to develop the right broadband technology, you have to do a thorough needs assessment” The issue is highly contentious, however. While broadband mapping has been ongoing for years, it became a far more interesting industry segment when The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 became law. ARRA includes $7.2 billion to extend broadband access to areas – mostly rural – that are underserved or unserved today. ARRA also mandates $350 million for creation of broadband maps that can nail down more precisely where the billions of dollars should go. This makes perfect sense, of course. It’s illogical to try to fix a problem or meet a challenge if the precise nature of what is in play isn’t known. “If you want to develop the right broadband technology, you have to do a thorough needs assessment,” says Craig Settles, a consultant who works in the sector. “To walk into some place and spend a bunch of money to build or buy technology without understanding the needs of the people involved is a crap shoot.” It’s a vital job, and much of the effectiveness of the broadband stimulus will depend on how well the mapping is done. “If it is not worked out right, it will be a mess. There’s no doubt about that,” says Art Brodsky, the communications director for Public Knowledge, an advocacy group. The maps will be created on a state-by-state basis and integrated into a single national broadband map. A fight has broken out among companies that want to provide the state-level mapping services. The battle pits the biggest of the mapping firms – telecommunication industry-backed Connected Nation – against many of the other organizations and companies that want a slice of the business. Tight Timeframes It is important to consider the context. The ARRA assigns fulfillment of the mapping requirements to the National Telecommunication Information Administration (NTIA, which is part of the Department of Commerce). The NTIA’s Notice of Funds Availability (NOFA) also sets a tight timeframe for such a big job: Data for the map is to be collected by March 1, 2010, and the national broadband map is to be finished by February 17, 2011. So the states are scrambling, and the company with the biggest profile – quite an advantage in a chaotic environment – is Connected Nation, a 501(c)(3) non-profit that grew out of a project early in the decade called ConnectKentucky. The organization, according to National Policy Director for Finance Phillip Brown, has been designated or is working with designees in 12 states and one territory. That number will grow as the industry states try to meet the deadlines set by the NOFA. Connected Nation is allowed to apply for broadband mapping under ARRA because it is a public/private partnership that runs its mapping business as a non-profit. The criticism is that major carriers and industry groups – including Verizon, Comcast, AT&T, the CTIA – The Wireless Association, the National Cable Telecommunications Association, the TIA, and the US Telecom Association – are on the board of directors and the organization’s advisory council. Indeed, Settles calls Connected Nation “essentially a PR group for the telecom industry” that was able to tilt the legislation in its favor. In addition to its board and advisory council membership, Connected Nation is partially funded by telecommunications companies. In an e-mail response to an inquiry, a Connected Nation press contact wrote that the organization’s funding sources are half public and half private. The e-mail says that less than 6 percent of private funding comes from the telecommunications companies. “The perception has been put out there that the bulk of our funding comes from the private sector and broadband providers. That’s not true,” Brown says. Critics say that the relationships suggest a conflict of interest, since the incumbent telecommunications companies would benefit by the amount and speed of broadband connectivity being overstated. The idea is that the higher the data rates and more extensive the footprint are in a certain area, the less likely it is that NTIA will approve of a project. Thus, relying on maps from a provider closely aligned with companies with a keen interest in the findings raises eyebrows. Indeed, the critics are not shy about saying that something untoward is going on. Vince Jordan, the president and CEO of broadband engineering, construction and management firm RidgeviewTel, says that Connected Nation isn’t doing a thorough job. “These guys basically are taking whatever the telco and cable guys feed them and regurgitate it, and say that’s where the coverage is,” he says. Data that is given by carriers to the broadband mapping companies is protected under non-disclosure agreements. Thus, actual cases in which speeds are overstated are impossible to identify. But appearances are vital. Drew Clark, the editor and executive director of BroadbandCensus, a news and commercial data services organization, says he believes that the telecommunications carriers shouldn’t be in the broadband mapping business, even indirectly. “I personally believe that broadband data needs to be collected independently of the carriers and incumbent interests,” he says. “You need to have an alternative to a group that is focused on the incumbents to get independent measures of broadband data.” The fear is that the good intentions of the broadband element of the stimulus can be waylaid by the intricate political maneuvers. Brodsky doesn’t pull his punches. He says that the effectiveness of the broadband stimulus hangs in the balance, and that whether applications from Connected Nation are accepted will be the key. “If the NTIA accepts Connected Nation’s applications – with their caveats and hidden data – I fear for the worst,” he says. Connected Nation: Standing on Its Record Not surprisingly, Connected Nation thinks the criticisms are unfounded. Brown defends the relationships with the carriers as the best way in which to get them to agree to the NDAs. “For us, it has not been necessary to use a stick,” he says. “Because we have always worked on demand creation, the carrot has worked.” Brown stands behind Connected Nation’s track record. He says mapping organizations are mandated to grant NDAs to telecommunications companies that ask for them under rules set by the NTIA. Brown adds that information contributed by the telecommunications firms is verified in a number of ways, from information provided by customers on their broadband speeds to engineering tests by Connected Nation engineers. In the bigger picture, Brown says he sees the smoke but has trouble finding the fire in the criticisms: “If the critics are not directly saying that Connected Nation misrepresented information on its maps, I am trying to figure out exactly what we’re being accused of. What’s the criticism?” The next few months will be vital to the success of the broadband element of the stimulus package. It is certain that some people in rural and underserved areas will be helped. The effectiveness of the broadband mapping project will go a long way to determining if the $7.2 billion investment is maximized. (source: Carl Wienshenk) |
Rabu, 21 Oktober 2009
Protostar Satellites Auction delayed to 29 October 2009
| PARIS — Newly expressed interest by potential buyers is the reason for ProtoStar Ltd.’s decision to postpone the auction of the ProtoStar 1 satellite by two weeks, to Oct. 29, industry officials said. ProtoStar on Oct. 8 notified the Delaware Bankruptcy Court, which is handling the company’s Chapter 11 bankruptcy and the auction of its two satellites, that prospective bidders now have until Oct. 14 to signal their preliminary interest, with bids due on Oct. 23. The auction then would occur on Oct. 29 at the New York offices of law firm Milbank, Tweed, Hadley & McCloy LLP. One industry official said ProtoStar may also decide to postpone the auction of the ProtoStar 2 satellite, scheduled for Oct. 14, depending on the level of interest. ProtoStar 2, which was launched in May, operates from 107.7 degrees east and has an S- and Ku-band payload. The Ku-band payload has had trouble coordinating its planned broadcast frequencies with satellites in the region, and notably with SES of Luxembourg. SES is viewed as the most likely winner of the ProtoStar 2 auction. ProtoStar on Oct. 1 told the bankruptcy court that the ProtoStar 2 S-band payload, which has an anchor customer in Indonesia and does not face frequency-interference problems, had generated $3.5 million in revenue since it became operational on June 17. Finding another market for the S-band payload would be difficult, meaning ProtoStar 2 is likely to remain at or near its current orbital position. SES’s Ku-band frequency rights mean few prospective buyers will want to contest an SES purchase, industry officials said. ProtoStar 1, which was launched in July 2008, confronts a separate series of regulatory and frequency-coordination issues and as a result is generating no revenue from its slot at 98.35 degrees east. For its Ku- and C-band payload to be used, ProtoStar 1 likely will need to be moved to another orbital position by its new owner. Several companies have expressed interest in ProtoStar 1, which carries 38 Ku-band and 22 C-band transponders. In what must be an unusual event for a company in Chapter 11 proceedings, ProtoStar in September asked the court to permit the company to refund a $262,458 payment to it by Antrix Corp. of Bangalore, India, the commercial arm of the Indian Space Research Organisation. Antrix contracted to lease 216 megahertz of capacity on ProtoStar 1 as an interim measure to meet India’s surging satellite television demand, which has exceeded the capacity of India’s domestic satellite fleet. San Francisco- and Bermuda-based ProtoStar filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy reorganization in July, and terminated the Antrix agreement on July 28. But an administrative error nonetheless wired the scheduled monthly payment for August. (source: spacenews.com) Label: Protostar Auction |
Kamis, 15 Oktober 2009
Debat TV-One: Roy Suryo vs Syamsu Anwar (Pengacara Prita)
| Berikut ini adalah laporan pandangan mata Debat TV-One pada hari Rabu 14 Oktober 2009 antara Roy Suryo (RS- Saksi Ahli Telematika) dan Syamsu Anwar (SA-Pengacara Prita Mulyasari) agar permasalahan yang sedang dihadapi dapat diselesaikan dengan hasil yang terbaik bagi bangsa dan negara Indonesia sbb: 1. Tentang Alat Bukti yang diajukan Jaksa, yaitu fotocopy surat elektronik yang disebar-luaskan oleh kawan2 Prita: RS: Alat bukti itu syah, sebab isinya sama dengan isi email awal yg dikirim oleh Prita SA (Pengacara Prita): Alat bukti itu tidak syah, sebab bukan dikirim oleh Prita, melainkan disebarkan oleh kawan2 Prita. Alat bukti itu berbeda dengan e-mail asli Prita, sebab sudah melalui proses forwarding dan bisa saja ada editing saat dikirim. Alat bukti itu adalah barang yang bukan milik Prita. 2. Tentang sudah atau belum berlakunya UU ITE No. 11/2008: RS: Sudah berlaku syah sejak diundangkannya UU ini (Pasal 54 ayat 1). SA: Belum berlaku syah, sebab masih belum ada Peraturan Pemerintah (PP) yang menjabarkan definisi-definisi dan rumusn2 yang ada dalam UU itu. Contohnya, belum ada definisi dan rumusan dari istilah2 yang ada di Pasal 27 ayat 1, 2 dan 3 tentang: “mendistribusikan”, “mentransmisikan”, “membuat dapat diaksesnya Informasi Elektronik/Dokumen Elektronik”, sebab memang Peraturan Pemerintah tentang hal ini belum dibuat. 3. Tentang Kepakaran Telematika Roy Suryo: RS: Pernah menjadi pembicara Telematika di Forum PBB dan saat ini sebagai Anggota Tim Ahli Telematika Presiden SBY SA: sudah tahu siapa Roy Suryo 4. Tentang perbuatan sengaja dari Prita: RS: Email itu dikirim secara sengaja oleh Prita, sebab penerimanya lebih dari satu orang (20 kawan2nya). Kalau dikirim ke satu atau dua orang, OK, boleh dibilang tidak sengaja. Lagi pula isi email menyebut bahwa mudah2an dibaca oleh Manajemen RS Omni. Mengapa tidak langsung saja dikirim ke Manajemen RS OMNI? SA: Tidak ada dalam UU ITE disebutkan bahwa seseorang dilarang mengirim email ke lebih dari satu atau dua orang. Lebih dari seribu penerimapun tidak dilarang. Belum ada rumusan definisi istilah “sengaja”, “penyebaran” atau “distribusi” dari suatu email, sebab memang PP-nya belum dibuat. Saksi Ahli Telematika tidak perlu mengomentari tentang isi e-mail Prita, sebab itu merupakan jatah pakar Bahasa Indonesia. Jangan mencampuradukkan hal-hal yang belum pasti (kemungkinan, perkiraan). 5. Tentang kesaksian RS yang terlihat memojokkan Prita: RS: Saya membela kepentingan Negara dan membela UU ITE sebab ikut serta dalam penyusunannya. SA: Sebagai Pengacara, juga punya prinsip membela kepentingan bangsa dan Negara. Pada kesempatan itu Roy Suryo mengklarifikasi bahwa dirinya tidak menyodor-nyodorkan diri untuk jadi saksi ahli, tetapi memang ada surat permintaan dari Jaksa. Semoga informasi ini bermanfaat bagi kita semua, memberikan kepastian hukum dan keadilan bagi segenap bangsa dan rakyat Indonesia yang kita cintai. Silahkan diberikan tanggapan atau saran-saran yang positif bagi kemajuan bangsa. |
Rabu, 14 Oktober 2009
Broadband Access melalui WiMAX atau 3G, Kompetisi atau Komplementer?
| Layanan Wireless Broadband Access telah dimulai di Indonesia melalui jasa seluler GSM 3G atau 3.5G (HSDPA) dan jasa seluler CDMA EVDO sejak tahun 2006 oleh para operator jaringan telpon bergerak (mobile). Namun pengalaman para pelanggannya sampai dengan saat ini terasa sangat tidak memuaskan, sebab kecepatan 3,6 Mbit/detik atau 7,2 Mbit/detik seperti yang di-iklankan tidak pernah tercapai, malah makin terasa lamban dan sulit mengakses file-file suara, gambar, video dan multimedia dengan semakin bertambahnya jumlah pelanggan. Para Operator 3G dan CDMA EVDO kurang memperhatikan segi mutu layanan bagi pelanggan. Mereka lebih konsentrasi kepada diperolehnya peningkatan jumlah pelanggan dengan mengorbankan mutu kecepatan transmisi jaringan. Salah satu penyebab memburuknya layanan adalah karena keterbatasan lebar pita 3G yang dialokasikan bagi tiap operator, yang umumnya hanya 5 MHz. Untuk menambah lagi lebar pita sebesar 5 MHz, para operator diharuskan membayar sekitar Rp 160 milyar sebagai Biaya Hak Penyelenggaraan (BHP) plus Upfront Fee saat lelang jaringan GSM 3G yang lalu. Diseluruh dunia saat ini sudah ada 4,6 Milyar pelanggan seluler GSM yang umumnya dapat dengan relatif mudah untuk dikonversi menjadi pelanggan mobile broadband wireless 3G, sehingga dengan demikian dipastikan bahwa layanan akses broadband 3G adalah layanan yang mendominasi akses broadband. Dibandingkan dengan layanan akses broadband melalui WiMAX standar 802.16d yang nomadic dan standar 802.16e yang mobile yang jumlahnya hanya beberapa juta pelanggan diseluruh dunia, maka jelas bahwa layanan WiMAX tidak mungkin untuk menyaingi atau mengganti layanan akses wireless broadband 3G. WiMAX akan hanya merupakan komplemen dari layanan akses wireless broadband 3G. Salah satu solusi yang relatif mudah untuk dilaksanakan untuk meningkatkan mutu layanan jaringan broadband GSM 3G adalah dengan para operator 3G membeli tambahan pita 3G pada 2,1GHz (dengan penurunan biaya BHP oleh Pemerintah) dan bagi para operator CDMA EVDO adalah dengan melakukan merger diantara operator-operator yang berjumlah keseluruhannya 7 operator CDMA EVDO. Dengan demikian lebar pita broadband per operator dapat dilipat-duakan untuk memberikan mutu layanan yang lebih baik, sehingga pengalaman pelanggan (user experience) dapat diperbaiki untuk dapat memunculkan innovasi-innovasi layanan baru yang memuaskan pelanggan, dan meningkatkan traffic serta revenue para operator. Secara keseluruhan industri TIK akan maju dan demikian pula perekonomian nasional akan dapat ditingkatkan secara proporsional (Broadband Economy). Label: 3G versus WiMAX, Broadband Economy, Merger Operator, Mutu Layanan, Wireless Broadband Acces |
Jumat, 09 Oktober 2009
IBM akan menghadapi tuntutan Anti-Trust karena kebijakan penjualan produk Mainframe-nya
| The Justice Department has started a preliminary investigation into whether I.B.M. has abused its monopoly position in the market for mainframe computers, which remain vital to many of the world’s largest businesses. This month, antitrust regulators at the Justice Department began seeking information about I.B.M.’s business practices from companies that compete with I.B.M. in the market for large computer hardware and software, people who had been contacted in the inquiry said. The requests for information followed a complaint filed by the Computer and Communications Industry Association, a trade group with a history of involvement in antitrust disputes. The organization, which is backed by I.B.M. competitors like Microsoft and Oracle, contends that I.B.M. stymied competition in the mainframe market and blocked efforts by competitors and potential partners to license I.B.M.’s software. The complaint follows similar legal action taken by T3 Technologies against I.B.M. T3, a small company that resold mainframelike computers, filed an antitrust complaint against I.B.M. in January in Europe. T3 also filed a civil suit against I.B.M. in the United States. Last week a federal district judge in New York dismissed that case. T3 said it planned to appeal. Steven Friedman, the president of T3, said he had received a formal request for information from the Justice Department about I.B.M.’s actions in the mainframe market. “They asked for a very broad set of documents and information,” he said. Edward J. Black, the chief executive of the Computer and Communications Industry Association, confirmed that it had filed a complaint against I.B.M. with the Justice Department and that investigators had contacted some members. A Justice Department spokeswoman declined to comment. The inquiry is the early stages and may not result in charges against I.B.M. The last time federal regulators pursued an antitrust suit against I.B.M. in the mainframe market, the result was a humbling setback for the department when the Reagan administration dropped the case in 1982, after 13 years. In a statement on Wednesday, I.B.M. cited the judge’s ruling last week against T3 and said, “We continue to believe there is no merit to T3’s claims.” “We understand the Department of Justice has asked T3 for documents from the litigation,” I.B.M. said. “I.B.M. intends to cooperate with any inquiries from the Department of Justice.” While sometimes called the dinosaurs of computing, mainframes continue to play a vital role in business. The systems are estimated to handle 50 billion transactions a day in such areas as automated teller machines, health records and accounting. Mainframes are also important to I.B.M. About 25 percent of its $104 billion in annual revenue comes from the sale of mainframes and associated products like storage systems, software and services, said A. M. Sacconaghi, a securities analyst with Sanford C. Bernstein. Historically, I.B.M. has faced off against competitors in the mainframe market. Past rivals, including Amdahl, Hitachi and Fujitsu, built computers that could run I.B.M. software, which was a standard for mainframes. Most rivals abandoned their mainframe systems when I.B.M. developed more advanced chips for its machines, in part because of the cost of moving to the new chips. More recently, smaller companies and even individuals have worked to create software to mimic mainframe functions on lower-cost, mainstream computer servers. One start-up called Platform Solutions had modest success with this approach earlier this decade and drew the interest of Hewlett-Packard, which held discussions about buying the company. I.B.M., however, declined to license its mainframe software to Platform and sued the company. Last year, I.B.M. acquired Platform for $150 million and discontinued the company’s computer systems. I.B.M.’s decision not to license its mainframe software has been at the heart of the antitrust complaints against it. In addition, competitors have argued that I.B.M. has stepped up aggressive tactics to block them from selling products that can lower the cost of mainframe technology. But I.B.M.’s opposition to licensing its technology to outsiders is not enough to build a successful government antitrust case, said Andrew I. Gavil, a law professor at Howard University. More likely, Professor Gavil said, the Justice Department is investigating to see if I.B.M. is engaged in other tactics that might be anticompetitive. In the ruling in the private case last week, Judge Lewis A. Kaplan of Federal District Court in Manhattan found that I.B.M. had invested heavily in its modern mainframe technology and its decision not to license it “does not constitute anticompetitive conduct.” The technology industry has undergone an accelerating wave of consolidation as companies like Hewlett-Packard, Oracle, EMC and Dell have made large acquisitions. The deals reflect a desire by large technology companies to offer a wider range of hardware, software and services so that customers see them as one-stop shops. Analysts contend that I.B.M.’s dominance in the mainframe market gives it a major advantage because it deals with its customers’ most confidential information. They also say that I.B.M.’s practices have resulted in higher costs for customers. (sumber NYT) |