<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
<title></title>
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
dear e-colleagues:<br>
<br>
I guess... you are all still very lucky...<br>
<br>
In Indonesia we are still strugelling with many dial up connections
(charge by minutes of connections) or probably ADSL 386kbps(or
512kbps) downstream and upstreams probably below 128kbps... (sharing
who knows how much people sharing this pipe ) is USD 400/months<br>
thus the quality is unpredictable... sometimes fast sometimes slow or
even no response...<br>
<br>
this is the conditions we are at in Indonesia capital city of Jakarta
and in other cities across the countries are probably worse.<br>
<br>
Internet user probably around 16 millions...internet subscriber around
2 millions... many sharing internet thru public internet center,
office, or cybercafe<br>
But the whole territory is cover by the footprint of many satellite so
internet connections actually can be made in any of the 17,000 islands
in the archipelago.<br>
<br>
just for your informations....<br>
<br>
Regards, Rudi Rusdiah - Association of Community Internet Center (
APWKomitel - <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.apwkomitel.org">http://www.apwkomitel.org</a> )<br>
-----------------------------------------<br>
Takeshi Utsumi, Ph.D. wrote:
<blockquote cite="midC06EB620.15DFC%25utsumi@columbia.edu" type="cite">
<pre wrap="">
John M. Eger <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:jeger@mail.sdsu.edu"><jeger@mail.sdsu.edu></a>
Van Deerlin Chair of Communication and Public Policy
Executive Director, International Center for Communications
College of Professional Studies and Fine Arts
San Diego State University
5500 Campanile Drive, PFSA 160
Dear John:
(1) Many thanks for your another interesting essay (ATTACHMENT I).
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Dear E-Colleagues:
His last one was;
</pre>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">03/27/06)-B Jon Eger's essay "The Amman Declaration"
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://makeashorterlink.com/?N2CC12EDC">http://makeashorterlink.com/?N2CC12EDC</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
(2) Yes, I agree with you, since my current Internet connection is through
Time Warner¹s cable at 2 Mbps down and 384 Kbps up for $42/month. They are
face-value, but the reality is very slow ‹ probably less than a half of
those figures. Some say that their prices are more than twice of Japanese.
I really wonder why America cannot be better than Japan and South Korea.
As I often mentioned elsewhere, my effort of de-regulating the Japanese
telecom policies for the use of email almost a quarter century ago triggered
de-monopolization and privatization of telecom industries in Japan, and
hence brought fierce competitions with drastic cost reductions.
On the other hand, I think that South Korea¹s telecom is still in the strict
government monopolistic control.
Therefore, those two countries may be said the extreme examples on how to
achieve the same results.
Best, Tak
ATTACHMENT I
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">From: john eger <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:jeger@mail.sdsu.edu"><jeger@mail.sdsu.edu></a>
Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2006 17:17:51 -0700
To: john eger <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:jeger@mail.sdsu.edu"><jeger@mail.sdsu.edu></a>
Subject: I thought you might find this of interest
In The News
We Need a National Infrastructure Initiative
Apr 19, 2006 By John Eger
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.govtech.net/magazine/channel_story.php/99245">http://www.govtech.net/magazine/channel_story.php/99245</a>
The United States, developer of the Internet, inventor of the first PC, the
silicon wafer, the pen-based computer etc, is now 12th in the world in using
broadband communication, according to the latest report out of the
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), a government
think tank in Paris to which almost all developing countries belong.
Although we still have the largest number of users connected to the Internet
-- some 49 million according to the report -- we are 12th in terms of
broadband penetration. While "broadband" itself is a term not well defined, it
is several times faster in most countries like South Korea and Japan than in
the US. South Korea, which has been the leader for many years, was topped this
year by Iceland. With only 78,000 subscribers, they are number one because of
their per capita penetration of broadband which is 26.7 percent versus Korea's
25.4 percent. The U.S. is 16.8 percent.
Quite understandably there is concern across America about the U.S.'s low
ranking by the OECD and as a result of similar studies by the United Nations'
International Telecommunications Union, where the U.S. is ranked even lower on
the totem pole. Having the 21st century infrastructure -- broadband and
wireless communications links connected to every home, office and school and
through the Web to billions of others -- is considered to be vital to the
success of every region's, every nation's, every community's vibrancy in the
new economy.
Currently in the U.S., there is perceived to be a nationwide struggle for
dominance between the traditional telephone carriers providing both DSL, and
in some cases fiber communications to the pedestals -- rarely to the home --
versus cable modems provided by the cable television industry. The electric
utilities have been experimenting with broadband over power lines, but other
than a handful of experiments across the country, nothing akin to a real
alternative additional market competitor is in sight.
Satellite companies are offering an Internet alternative at varying speeds,
and pose a possible challenge to the existing cable and Telco monopolies. But
this competitive arrangement is not getting us as a nation where we ought to
be going.
There is a strong and growing desire on the part of cities and communities
across America to help shape their own basic communications infrastructure for
the 21st century. Many believe that like waterways, railroads and highways of
the past, robust information highways are essential to keep cities from
becoming the ghost towns of the 21st century.
While the cable and Telco monopolies in many states have blocked municipal
authorities from providing fiber as an alternative, half of the cities --
according to a recent report -- are exploring wireless alternatives. This
appears to be a loophole in the fight for broadband, and many cities are
taking so-called Wi-Fi technology and deploying it in "hot spots" particularly
downtowns, in order to get some advantage.
Companies like Intel, Cisco and even Google have recently expressed strong
interest in helping to provide broadband wireless infrastructure directly to
the cities and are looking for partnerships at the municipal level.
Municipalities meanwhile, representing the largest users in most communities,
having no real expertise in these areas, are anxious to have partners who can
show them the way.
There is a great deal of doubt about the right technology for such broadband
infrastructures be they wired or wireless. How much broadband is enough
broadband? And is that upstream or downstream? More importantly, perhaps, what
makes economic sense? How best to roll out such a system in a community?
Equally important, should a community pursue a wireless alternative when most
of us believe both wired and wireless will be necessary? If we need to use
technology as a transforming tool for e-commerce, e-government, e-health --
e-everything as we move along the pathway to becoming a 21st century smart
community -- don't we need both and maybe more to create a robust
community-wide information infrastructure?
While the U.S. continues its downward slide one must ask, what is it about
South Korea and Finland? What do they see that we don't? Why have they been
able to move so quickly and provide broadband in such quantity?
FCC Chairman, Kevin Martin told the Wall Street Journal recently that the low
population density of Korea made it highly unfair to compare it to the U.S. It
is true that the capital city of Seoul -- which itself accounts for a quarter
of the approximately 50 million population of Korea -- is chock-a-block with
high rises, making broadband communications much easier than in a country as
dispersed as the U.S. But this experience is dissimilar to that of Iceland,
Norway or Sweden, which have even lower population densities than the U.S. So
density itself may not be the advantage that South Korea has. South Korea and
Iceland, moreover, provide broadband in some cases eight times faster than the
U.S.
What does seem to be common in South Korea and Iceland however is that both
countries recognize that such infrastructure means the difference between
success and mere survival in the new economy. Both countries therefore have
adopted "goals", and benchmarks to reach those goals. Both have adopted
long-range plans to transform their countries using technology.
There is a strong desire on the part of national governments to achieve
penetration rates and service levels in a matter of months and years. These
metrics and longer-range goals and are well understood by all the providers
and consumer community. Government meets regularly with the private sector to
help set those goals and importantly, works with communities and providers to
meet them. It has laid out billions of dollars to provide a high-speed
backbone to link government and public institutions and additional billions
and incentives to provide similar service to so-called rural areas. It is true
that the U.S., after all, created the Internet, and has made an attempt to
provide some incentives to our rural areas, but nothing of the order or
magnitude of South Korea, Iceland or other leading broadband countries.
All this calls for unique federal, state and local action. Perhaps something
akin to the 1987 Advanced Television Advisory Committee (ATC) should be
established. The ATC was created by the FCC to help develop high-definition
television standards for use by broadcast, cable, satellite and importantly,
computer and software industries, and to create some guidelines for advanced
television usage for entertainment, health care, education or government. It
was clear that there were standards to be set and goals to be established.
America was behind Japan, which had already spent several billion dollars
establishing its standard -- albeit, an analog one.
Within a few years this committee -- well represented by all the players and
consumers alike -- produced meaningful guidelines for the FCC. We are today in
a similar position. We are behind the rest of the world in a field in which we
must lead. Our nation depends heavily upon the production use and transfer of
knowledge-based products and services. We have pretty much lost our
manufacturing capacity.
Now that the world is flat, as author Thomas Friedman says, we are seeing more
and more of our high tech and biotech goods and services being outsourced.
This however is only a symptom of the larger global economy. Increasingly
other countries will be developing their own high tech goods and services.
For us to compete, for us to survive, we must develop the infrastructure of
the 21st century much faster than we have been, and incentivize whole
communities to begin using these new infrastructures to begin transforming
their communities to compete in this new global economy. We must assure our
cities that they can and should plan on building their information highways,
in partnership with existing providers, and help them by clearing away the
regulatory hurdles and logistical doubts. We need to set the standards for
interconnection, and encourage alliances and partnerships as needed. We must
develop a new deregulatory framework to promote broadband deployment and
continued innovation. We must in short, establish and sustain a National
Infrastructure Initiative to get our country back on track.
John M. Eger, a telecommunications lawyer, and Van Deerlin Professor of
Communications and Public Policy at San Diego State University, was also
director the White House Office of Telecommunications Policy.
Copyright® 2005 e.Republic, Inc. All rights reserved.
eRepublic, Inc. 100 Blue Ravine Rd., Folsom, CA 95630
--
John M. Eger
Van Deerlin Chair of Communication and Public Policy
Executive Director, International Center for Communications
San Diego State University
5500 Campanile Drive
PFSA 160
San Diego, CA
92182-4522
telephone 6195946910
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
****************************************************************************
***
* Takeshi Utsumi, Ph.D., P.E., Chairman, GLOSAS/USA
*
* (GLObal Systems Analysis and Simulation Association in the U.S.A.)
*
* Laureate of Lord Perry Award for Excellence in Distance Education
*
* Founder and V.P. for Technology and Coordination of
*
* Global University System (GUS)
*
* 43-23 Colden Street, Flushing, NY 11355-5913, U.S.A.
*
* Tel: 718-939-0928; Email: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:utsumi@columbia.edu">utsumi@columbia.edu</a>
*
*
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.itu.int/wsis/goldenbook/search/display.asp?Quest=8032562&lang=en">http://www.itu.int/wsis/goldenbook/search/display.asp?Quest=8032562&lang=en</a>
*
* <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.friends-partners.org/GLOSAS/">http://www.friends-partners.org/GLOSAS/</a>
*
* Tax Exempt ID: 11-2999676
*
****************************************************************************
***
_______________________________________________
gu-new mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:gu-new@friends-partners.org">gu-new@friends-partners.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.friends-partners.org/mailman/listinfo/gu-new">http://www.friends-partners.org/mailman/listinfo/gu-new</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>