Kamis, 31 Desember 2009
HUT Kanada 2010
 Label: HUT Kanada |
Rabu, 23 Desember 2009
Mulai 11 Januari 2010 Software Microsoft Word dilarang diperjual-belikan
| Office workers of America, enjoy your Christmas break. Because come the new year, things could get a little hairy around the office. Microsoft Word is now scheduled to be prohibited from sale beginning January 11, 2010. That's less than three weeks away. The good news: Microsoft has promised a fix, one which will be rolled out before the deadline arrives. If you don't understand, you might have simply missed this story, or dismissed it as something that Microsoft would ultimately use its considerable clout to have pushed under a legal rug. But it's no joke. In August of this year, a court sided with a small Canadian company called i4i that holds a 1998 patent on the way the XML language is implemented, finding that Microsoft was in violation of that patent. The result: Microsoft was told to license the code in question from i4i or reprogram it, or else Microsoft Word would have to be removed from sale in the market. The original ruling gave Microsoft until October to get its legal affairs in order, but appeals pushed that out a bit. Now a federal court has upheld that original ruling -- plus a fat, $290 million judgment against the company -- imposing the new January 11 D-Day on the matter. Microsoft Word and Microsoft Office will both be barred from sale as of that date -- though naturally you'll still be able to use copies of Word and Office that you already own, and Microsoft will be allowed to keep supporting those copies. Unless Microsoft ships the promised technical workaround very quickly, things are going to get extremely dicey in the computer world, and fast. Not only will retail outlets selling shrinkwrapped copies of the software be affected, computer manufacturers (who complained loudly about this injunction when it was announced) who bundle Word and Office on the computers they sell will also be seriously impacted by the ruling. There's always a chance things will change again as the January 11 deadline approaches, but if your company requires Word or Office to keep operations running, it might not be a bad idea to stock up on a few extra copies now. |
Senin, 21 Desember 2009
Seluk-beluk Software as a Service (SaaS)
Software-as-a-service (SaaS): friend or foe? SaaS—also known as on-demand or hosted applications—is becoming more and more popular in a number of enterprise application areas and quickly changing the minds of many a skeptic. SaaS is changing the way organizations pay for, implement, and run their software applications. Unlike traditional applications, which are paid for up front and installed on your company’s premises (on premise), SaaS applications are hosted at the vendor site and are paid for through a monthly subscription model. While it sounds like the best thing since sliced bread, there are some pros and cons of the SaaS as a model. Today’s TEC Research Analyst Round Table discusses the SaaS model—the trends, the benefits, and the pitfalls. Sherry Fox (Research Analyst - Human Resources [HR], Learning Management, and Incentive and Compensation Management [ICM]): When SaaS comes to mind for most IT decision makers, the first thing they think of is: “What about security?” This holds especially true for those in charge of acquiring an HR system for their organizations—for which keeping employee records under lock and key is crucial. Maybe five years ago security was an issue, but today’s vendors are much more aware of their client’s security concerns and are willing to openly discuss this issue with them. The SaaS model is gaining ground, and more and more businesses—both big and small—are giving in to the trend. Some of the main reasons for this trend are directly related to the benefits that SaaS provides and include continuous access; rapid deployment; high levels of security; cost savings; and time efficiency. Rather than spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on software licenses and hardware, companies can choose to go with an on-demand HR solution for which they are billed on a monthly basis—and only for the modules they use. Additionally, there’s no need for complex upgrade cycles, since the on-demand applications are automatically updated and routinely delivered to customers. The bottom line: SaaS can deliver the same HR functionality as its on-premise counterpart—without worrying about leaking sensitive data. Khudsiya Quadri (Research Analyst – Supply Chain Management [SCM], Enterprise Resource Planning [ERP] for Distribution and Retail): What does SaaS mean in the SCM and retail world? Many organizations need to understand one key aspect about SaaS: it’s just a delivery model. In my opinion, the hype should be about the software—not the delivery model. It’s critical in the supply chain to look at the business by operational component, and to analyze which business process of the supply chain can be optimized using the SaaS-based delivery model. SaaS has transformed many supply chain areas, including transportation management, demand management, and warehouse management. The focus now should be on production scheduling and planning in order to complete the procurement, build, and deliver cycle. In the supply chain and retail industries, organizations need to be make sure that the applications delivered through the SaaS model are able to communicate, collaborate, and provide end-to-end supply chain visibility (SCV). The business process and strategy within the supply chain is going to put the organization ahead of the competition and will make them weather today’s economical conditions; the tools and delivery models are just there to assist. The bottom line: Pick the software that works best for you whatever delivery model you find it in. Kurt Chen (Research Analyst – Product Lifecycle Management [PLM], Quote-to-Order [Q2O], Business Process Management [BPM]): In the product lifecycle management (PLM) area, SaaS is a force that is democratizing the PLM business management approach. Although the majority of PLM projects are still delivered through the on-premise model, SaaS is gaining ground smoothly. Currently, PLM solutions that are delivered through the SaaS model are mainly limited to small to medium businesses (SMBs)—especially those that produce or distribute products with a simple or flat structure (e.g., consumer packaged goods). However, I have to accredit SaaS for making PLM more approachable for a wide range of organizations because PLM used to be considered as an expensive and complicated system that was used by mid- to large-sized companies. The bottom line: SaaS PLM solutions are not yet as powerful and comprehensive as on-premise PLM solutions. But SaaS PLM provides SMB users with an opportunity to know about PLM as a methodology—which is probably more important than PLM as a system. Jorge Garcia (Research Analyst – Business Intelligence [BI], Business Performance Management [BPM]): The SaaS software model has definitive financial and operative advantages, especially when compared to on-premise software models. SaaS offers low initial costs—mostly based on subscription cost and further operation costs—as the service provider is the one that operates the system. This process definitely represents savings in terms of money, IT resources, and time spent from development to implementation. Some large enterprises are still reluctant to adopt this software model, or at least to implement it in some specific business units like finance or operations. SaaS providers still have some issues to address before gaining users acceptance (e.g., ensuring that no security problems arise during critical operations). Another issue is customization. Right now, SaaS services aren’t well-suited for organizations that require systems with a complex degree of customization, or for companies that require heavy customization. Given this, the SaaS model has some limitations. The bottom line: Like any other trendy technology, the SaaS software model still has to mature. It needs to improve its processing power, enhance its security schemes, and enable more complex customization. Aleksey Osintsev (Research Analyst – ERP, Financials, and Project Portfolio Management [PPM]): For anyone who has been following IT trends, SaaS is an acronym that is heard often—so often, in fact that our readers may turn an iron ear if they hear it again. This is a joke of course, but it reflects the reality of SaaS—it’s significant and continual. There is a question that comes to mind, though: Is a company that needs a new ERP system—or any other business application—able to distinguish SaaS vendors’ various sales and marketing efforts? There is no single universal answer to this question because it depends on many factors that are unique to each company and its particular conditions such as industry vertical; geography; the importance and uniqueness of a company’s business processes; the way the company operates, its strategic plans and objectives; and availability of reliable and secure communication channels. The SaaS model has already proven that it’s capable of serving businesses in different areas. I, on the other hand, would still not apply it to core business processes. Although it looks attractive, there are flexibility, security, reliability, and non-standard situation operating matters that still seem fuzzy to me. The bottom line: Weigh up all options, define your priorities, and make a right decision in a calm and advertisement-free atmosphere. Gabriel Gheorghiu (Research Analyst – ERP, Customer Relationship Management [CRM], Health Care Information Management Systems [HCIMS]): It’s safe to say that CRM was one of the first business software types to embrace the SaaS model. Nowadays, most CRM vendors offer SaaS, and more and more customers are choosing to use it. For CRM, having SaaS versus on-premise can be compared to sending a letter through the postal service versus sending an e-mail through the Internet. The letter takes longer, it’s more expensive, and no more secure than the e-mail. Of course, there are some concerns related to SaaS for CRM, but they are no greater than those of an on-premise model. These include downtime and security (data can also be lost or stolen when you store it in your own server). The bottom line: The advantages are obvious—low costs; reduced IT infrastructure; and the latest technology is being used. This explains why also big corporations use SaaS for CRM. Josh Chalifour (Director – Knowledge Services): As SaaS popularity increases, so do concerns about its intersection with free and open source software (FOSS). Users should care about how SaaS affects benefits normally associated with the FOSS ecosystem, such as customization and lack of vendor lock-in. Using FOSS as the basis for their services, some SaaS vendors modify applications specifically for the service they provide. While this is beneficial (FOSS used well), it also brings certain problems to light. A FOSS application delivered as a Web service without reciprocating its code may grow out-of-step with the community ecosystem—losing some of the rising tide benefits. In the SaaS application market, you’re unlikely to the find wide-ranging customization possible through FOSS. What happens if your SaaS vendor goes out of business? One method to ensure continuity is to sign-up with a vendor that also provides an on-premise FOSS version. If the vendor goes under, set up a system to access your data as you’re accustomed. The bottom line: Excitement about low entry costs associated with both SaaS and FOSS shouldn’t pit one option against the other—they have different benefits and may not be mutually exclusive. Predrag (PJ) Jakovljevic (Principal Analyst – ERP, Discrete Manufacturing): In a nutshell, SaaS and cloud computing are here to stay—especially in the realms of human capital management (HCM), talent management, transportation management, CRM, travel and expenses, etc. However, they are certainly not easy feats. For start-up vendors, being successful is about reaching profitability and revenues before they run out of venture capital (VC). For established vendors, it’s about a new business model, culture, and trying not to cannibalize the existing on-premise offering. Most big vendors are choosing the hybrid (software and services) route. Additionally, strategic sourcing is another good candidate for SaaS and cloud computing. For an in-depth review on cloud computing, read these four part blog series entitled Mega-vendors Warming Up to the Cloud or To SaaS or Not, Is That a Question? – SaaSy Discussions. The technology industry is abuzz with SaaS, but while SaaS certainly has its benefits, it has its challenges as well. Like any software selection project, it’s important to understand what is right for your business not only in terms of the software you choose, but the way in which it is offered and implemented. Label: SaaS, Untung-ruginya |
Jumat, 18 Desember 2009
Nexus One Google Phone vs Apple iPhone
| eWEEK has read some of the 1,400-plus Nexus One reports and cherry-picked some points for you to enjoy and debate here. Will it be sold online, unlocked and subsidized by Google or with a two-year contract from T-Mobile, or both? Is Google risking alienating its current Android partners Motorola, Samsung, Verizon Wireless and Sprint? Questions and theories abound, with few concrete answers. News Analysis: This Nexus One Google Phone story is getting out of hand. It's reminiscient of satirical movies such as the Scary Movie series, Not Another Teen Movie and others that mock slasher and other B-movie fare for teens. A copy of a copy of a copy. Coverage varies from telling us why others are wrong to writing pieces that underline what is known, what may be known, and what we don't know. All are scrambling for stakes in the Google News cluster, which Dec. 15 listed a staggering 1,400-plus pieces on the latest Android smartphone. This Nexus One device has been given to Google employees to test before an alleged January release. The HTC-made device has no physical keyboard, is super fast, powered by Android 2.1, which is powered by a Qualcomm Snapdragon processor. There are proximity and ambient light sensors, and accelerometer: magnetic compass: Wi-Fi radio and a noise cancellation chipset. There is text to speech flavor, dual microphones, and the device runs on GSM, which makes it a candidate for T-Mobile and AT&T's networks in the U.S., and plenty of vendors overseas. The Federal Communications Commission has blessed it and Google has registered Nexus One as a trademark Dec. 10, according to Engadget. The device will be unlocked, but supposedly supported by T-Mobile, and possibly sold by Google itself online and possibly through Best Buy. Barring subsidies from either T-Mobile or Google, the smartphone could cost $500, pricing it out of range of all but the geekiest of geeks and Google fans. What do the media and blogosphere have to say about all of this? You just read some of it above. Google is mum beyond a blog post acknowledging that a new device exists and has been given to Google employees to test. EWEEK has read many of the reports and cherry picked some points and rumors for you to enjoy here. Resource Library: 1. Nexus One Named for Blade Runner Robots Daring Fireball noted the name Nexus One appears to be a nod to the line of replicant cyborgs from late sci-fi author Philip K. Dicks "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep," upon which the 1982 film Blade Runner was based. The New York Times went deeper, speaking to Dick's daughter, who claimed Google did not consult her family about using the Nexus One name. I smell a handsome payout in the Dick family's future. One other note: Things didn't turn out so well for the replicants. Superstitious, anyone? 2. Google Already Sells Phones Technically, this is true. CNET is correct in pointing out that Android developers have been able to buy unlocked versions of the G1 and the T-Mobile MyTouch3G for $399. EWEEK covered this a year ago here. 3. The Nexus One Is Just Another Android Phone Slate.com's Farhad Manjoo noted: "For the Google Phone to be truly stellar, Google would have to imbue it with exclusive features—violating the core Google principle of platform independence. I just don't see that happening; it's not in the company's DNA to make software that works on one device alone." So every phone will be a Google Phone. That may be the single best argument against a Google Phone boasting exclusivity. 4. Unlocked, or Locked with T-Mobile? Indeed, while the blogosphere was in a tizzy over an unlocked GSM device in the Nexus One, Reuters claims T-Mobile will subsidize the phone cost provided customers agree to a two-year contract. Alternatively, we suppose, one could buy it from Google for $500 or whatever the at-cost production value is. Pick your poison. Pay upfront for no lock-in, or pick T-Mobile, which is starving for more customers. Such is the state of the wireless business in the U.S. 5. Android for All Then you have Android and Me, which reports that the Nexus One will be an affordable $199, subsidized by Google. What's the catch? The smartphone will require a Google account, so Google will be basically buying new mobile users. Google officials have made a big deal about mobile searches increasing 30 percent in recent quarters. Imagine what a Google phone would do for that number. 6. Nexus One for Consumers? You Must Be Crazy Industry analyst Jack Gold has a markedly different theory: "Despite the widespread conjecture of the past few days, it is highly unlikely that this phone will ever be offered to the general consumer, let alone sold by Google directly to end users." Gold sees the Nexus One as a test bed for several thousand Google workers and developers. "Testing is the path that Google has chosen for this device, and not the path of competing with its customers." The company wouldn't alienate Motorola, Samsung and the carriers. 7. Then Again With Apple's iPhone dominating the smartphone space, Google may believe that it must roll out and subsidize the Nexus One -- a drastic, bold move by any measure -- to gain serious headway in the mobile market. It's not so much about the devices as it is about the mobile searches and the ads Google wants to show along with THEM. Sure, Google serves ads on Google searches executed through the iPhone now, but who is to say Apple won't shut Google out for a better deal with Bing? 8. So What? The Wall Street Journal doesn't believe Google needs its own special phone to succeed in mobile, noting (paywall): "Mobile apps are taking the place of Web sites. While there clearly will be a place for search in helping people find apps, Web-surfing behavior will change on mobile. But Google became the dominant player in Web search without designing computers. It is unclear why it needs to sell mobile phones to dominate mobile search." One can't help but think Google and its supporters might argue the alternative 9. Meet The New SAAS -- Smartphones as a Service More broadly, Google wants to uproot the current wireless phone market. Google wants to flip the mobile carrier and distribution market upside-down, becoming the place you go to search for and buy a mobile phone -- before you even pick a carrier, number, voice and data plans, or extras, according to this piece in Business Insider, which spells out how this purchase process would work. It's a must read, and, while BI is identifying the business model, eWEEK hereby claims the smartphone-as-a-service (SAAS) moniker. 10. Bonus Point (Cold Water) With all that's been speculated, from pros to cons of the device, doesn't the timing of all of this seem a bit off? Why would Google seed the Nexus One with employees, then turn around and mass sell it to consumers in January. How much testing could employees possibly do for Google in a few weeks or a month before the search engine is allegedly supposed to turn around and start selling this to the mass market? Seems sketchy, unless of course the only thing that's been completely misreported is the January timeline. |
Senin, 14 Desember 2009
Google akan produksi Googlephone berbasis Android 2.1
| Secara diam-diam Google telah bekerjasama dengan pabrik HP Taiwan HTC untuk membuat sendiri HP berbasiskan Operating System Android2.1. Sebagai percobaan, Google telah membagibagikan contoh HP Google kepada para karyawannya untuk diujicoba dan mendapatkan feedback untuk perbaikannya. Berikut ini adalah ulasannya: Google has designed an Android-based handset that it intends to sell directly to consumers, according to multiple reports. As recently as October 30, Google had flatly denied that it was "making hardware" or that it would "compete with its customers" by offering its own phone. But it would seem the web search outfit/world power was merely playing with words. On Saturday morning, the Mountain View Chocolate Factory admitted the existence of its own "concept" Android phone and confirmed reports from the previous evening that it had shared the device with company employees. Google has not described the handset in detail, however, and it has not confirmed that it plans to sell the device. "We recently came up with the concept of a mobile lab, which is a device that combines innovative hardware from a partner with software that runs on Android to experiment with new mobile features and capabilities, and we shared this device with Google employees across the globe," reads a blog post from the company. "This means they get to test out a new technology and help improve it." Later in the day, the Wall Street Journal reported that the fabled Googlephone would go on sale "as early as next year" under the name Nexus One. According to the Journal, the device's hardware is being manufactured by Taiwanese handset maker HTC, and Google designed "virtually the entire software experience behind the phone, from the applications that run on it to the look and feel of each screen." A secondhand source had previously told The Reg that 150 HTC engineers were working inside the Google Chocolate Factory, citing an HTC employee with knowledge of the situation. And for weeks, TechCrunch has said that a Google-built and Google-branded phone was on the way. Little more than a week ago, Google declined to discuss the possibility of such a device with The Reg. Today's news joins a flurry of recent announcements from the company that show a shameless desire to control as much of the interwebs as it possibly can. On November 20, it told the world that its coming operating system, Google Chrome OS, would limit all applications and all data to a Google browser. On December 3, it entered the DNS-resolution business, unveiling a service that resolves net-domain names through Google-controlled servers. And now, it has confirmed the existence of a Google handset. The move contradicts a statement that Google made to Cnet in late October. "We're not making hardware," said Andy Rubin, vice president of engineering for Android at Google. "We're enabling other people to build hardware." Pedants can dissect those words however they like. Rubin was misleading the masses. The Journal reports that Google will sell the Nexus One online and that users will have to purchase their cell service separately. That would indicate the device is an unlocked GSM handset, but it isn't clear what carrier networks with which it will work. In the US, AT&T and T-Mobile use GSM. To put it mildly, one has to wonder what new Google partners Motorola and Verizon think of the company's so-called "mobile lab." Last night, at least one Google employee Tweeted into the ether that all Mountain View employees had received a "Google phone" at the company's infamous Friday afternoon all-hands meeting. "Stuck in mass of traffic leaving work post last all hands of 2009. ZOMG we had fireworks and we all got the new Google phone. It's beautiful," she wrote. The existence of the device was later confirmed by Cnet TV associate producer Jason Howell. He too cited HTC as the hardware manufacturer and confirmed earlier reports that the device uses a new version of Android. Howell refers to the OS as Android 2.1. Previous reports have referred to it by the codename "Flan." Then came Google's blog post, which referred to the phone as dogfood. "At Google, we are constantly experimenting with new products and technologies, and often ask employees to test these products for quick feedback and suggestions for improvements in a process we call dogfooding (from "eating your own dogfood"). Well this holiday season, we are taking dogfooding to a new level," the post read. "Unfortunately, because dogfooding is a process exclusively for Google employees, we cannot share specific product details. We hope to share more after our dogfood diet." (sumber:theregiste.co.uk) Label: HP Googlephone berbasis Android2.1, Kerjasama dengan pabrik HTC |
Rabu, 09 Desember 2009
Strategi Motorola versus Vendor LTE di persaingan 4G
| Motorola secara cerdik memainkan persaingan di perangkat 4G melawan para vendor raksasa LTE, seperti Alcatel-Lucent, Nokia-Siemens, Ericssopn dan Huawei melalui penguasaan pasar WiMAX di operator broadband terbesar AS Clearwire dan operator lainna diseluruh dunia. Silahkan baca rinciannya dibawah ini. Motorola may be a small vendor playing a high-stakes 4G game with giants, but senior vice president and wireless networks general manager Bruce Brda believes Moto has an ace in the hole. As vendor after vendor has abandoned their mobile WiMax product lines, they’ve also sacrificed the practical knowledge of designing and deploying commercial 4G networks, Brda said. Motorola has a big pot of experience gained from deploying WiMax networks with Clearwire and carriers all over the world, and ultimately Motorola will be able to draw deeply from that pot to remain a formidable long-term evolution (LTE) contender, Brda said. “We have a leadership position in WiMax, which is more and more proving to be an advantage as we go into the LTE space,” Brda said. “A lot of the things we solved with WiMax 4G networks will directly apply to LTE networks. Some of our competitors have yet to come across those challenges.” Brda said that Motorola’s WiMax and LTE product portfolios share 70% of the same technology, allowing Motorola to apply most of what it learns from its WiMax rollouts to tweaking its LTE product line. For example, Motorola has gained enormous insight in fine-tuning the 4G network scheduler, the master controller of the radio access network which prioritizes voice and data traffic based on available radio and processing resources, Brda said. That kind of knowledge can’t be gained in the lab, he added, only in the field, which puts Moto at a tremendous advantage against the presumed LTE market leaders, Alcatel-Lucent, Ericsson, Nokia Siemens Networks and Huawei. “I know our competitors are smart guys—they’ll figure this out—but we’ve crossed a lot of hurdles that they’ve not yet run into,” Brda said. “In the early days of commercializing the technology, I believe we’ll have a significant lead. … Our product appears to be more commercially ready and more field-hardened than any of our competitors.” Motorola has carved a sizable market niche for itself in the mobile WiMax market, announcing last month it had shipped its 10,000th base station, though it is by no means the leader in the market. Samsung, which shares the Clearwire radio contract with Motorola and Huawei, claims to have shipped 26,000 base stations in the same time period. Meanwhile Alcatel-Lucent and WiMax specialist Alvarion have a formidable presence in the market, though their contracts tend to focus on fixed wireless access deployments while Motorola and Samsung target the mobile market exclusively. So far, Motorola hasn’t been able to translate its relative success in the WiMax market to commercial LTE contracts, though Japanese CDMA operator KDDI has selected Motorola along with NEC to develop future base stations for trials next year and a commercial deployment in 2012. Motorola has been heavily involved in LTE trials around the globe. It’s time-division LTE is being tested by China Mobile and the Chinese Ministry of Industry and Information Technology. With TD-LTE, Brda said, Motorola has a particularly good shot at making an impression. While other vendors developed their LTE systems as frequency division duplexing (FDD) architectures, Motorola has been developing time division duplexing (TDD) systems from day one for WiMax operators. If Motorola does well in the Chinese trials, it could use them as a launch pad to Europe where operators are eyeing LTE for their unpaired TDD spectrum, Brda said. Label: Motorola vs Vendor LTE |
Kamis, 03 Desember 2009
Bagaimanakah para Operator mengendalikan Pengguna Broadband yang berlebih?
Just a few years ago mobile operators were seeking to drive data traffic onto their networks by launching attractively priced flat-rate mobile data service offerings. Now the landscape is very different. Mobile broadband connections and traffic have grown at an extraordinary rate and operators are seeking to control heavy data users on their network. To this end fair-usage policies with volume allocations are now common across the board, with few operators still offering true unlimited data without speed or application limitations. But what does an operator do with a user after their fair-usage is exceeded? How operators answer this question is emerging as a key competitive criterion. Several methods can be used to control heavy mobile broadband users after fair-usage data volume is exceeded. The first option, throttling, is used in a large number of mobile broadband plans. After a user exceeds his usage allowance, the peak-bit rate is reduced to a predetermined low peak speed (30-256 kbps, with 128 kbps the most common). This downgrade is performed independently of the actual load in the network. The advantages of this solution are price certainty for the user, and potential revenue upside if user decides to reset the data volume count with extra payment. It also limits total data use for the user and releases capacity for others, although this is not specifically directed at peak periods or actual congestion points. The solution is also generally less useful if network performance is already poor. The most common solution used by mobile operators today is the second option, additional charging. Here a user incurs a fee for excess usage beyond an allotted amount (for example $0.1 per MB). This results in tying revenue to traffic, producing a revenue upside for the operator. The downside is from a user point of view the potential for extra charges creates a fear factor that reduces the attractiveness of the service and discourages usage. This option is, however, effective at controlling usage. Third, throttling with policy control downgrades a user's peak-speed during peak hours based on historical information. Like throttling its advantage is that it offers price certainty to the end-user but deals more directly with peak-period demand. However, it is based on historical information, rather than real time, where mobile broadband traffic can be unpredictable. Different policy control implementations can also be made based on various criteria. This solution is still emerging and the number of operators using it is small. Finally there is lower-user priority where a user's traffic is tagged with a lower priority/QoS rating after exceeding the allocated amount. Therefore, if the service is used when there is congestion the user may receive lower speeds or in extreme cases no service at all, as traffic from other users is given priority. The advantage of lower priority is that it is implemented according to the network load in real time. If there is no congestion, prioritization has no effect, but otherwise spare capacity can be used and network utilization increases. This solution is preferential for the user as the user may not even experience a lower-quality service, especially if the operator's network is well provisioned. Limited upsell potential The downside is that the user continues to pay a flat rate and has unlimited usage potential. There is, therefore, limited opportunity to upsell to a higher-value plan, which is an especially large negative if pricing is volume-based. However, there may be potential for extra revenues if a user wants to upgrade their priority. The attractiveness to the operator is based on the assumption that incremental traffic costs in an under-utilized network are negligible, which is generally true but may not be the case across the entire network. For this and other reasons lower-priority may not be the best solution for all. All options clearly have trade-offs and degrees of complexity of deployment and management - a combination of the approaches may be advisable. A combination of lower priority and throttling would lower usage overall, save peak-period capacity, and provide potential revenue upside and service differentiation. These outcomes should be among the factors that determine which solutions are implemented. However, as always, the best way to control heavy mobile broadband users will depend on the market conditions and the competitive environment. Label: Mengendalikan Penggunaan Broadband yang melebihi quota |