“Creativity takes place very much in the private sector, so regulations must be friendly for them,” said Vejjajiva, in his keynote speech at the inaugural session of a two-day conference on Communication Policy Research south 6 (CPRsouth6) in Bangkok on Friday.

Vejjajiva, now the leader of the opposition in the House of Representatives of Thailand, also emphasised independence of the regulatory body, but not without accountability.

I found it quite a contrast to a long article in the New York Times about how the Chinese state is treating innovation by the private sector, ripping it off and bringing it under the control of the state:

The usurping of private enterprise has become so evident that the Chinese have given it a nickname: guojin mintui. That roughly translates as “while the state advances, the privates retreat.”

Some prominent Chinese economists are warning that the potentially corrosive effects of an approach that favors government companies at the expense of the private sector could eventually stifle innovation, saying it could stunt China’s long-term growth and quash the rising aspirations of the nation’s 1.3 billion people.

“If China doesn’t deal with this problem and strengthen the private sector, this country’s growth is not sustainable,” said Xu Chenggang, a professor of economics at the University of Hong Kong.

So, which way will Asia go?

“First they shut down our Internet, then they interrupted our cellphone service and finally they imprisoned us at school,” said the student, an intense, foppishly dressed literature major who was not on campus when the lockdown took effect last Saturday. “The students are afraid, but more than that, they are angry.”

It appears that the shut downs are being done using special equipment, not at the network level:

Despite the official state of emergency, classes have been taking place as usual, although Internet access has been cut and wireless signal-blocking devices — four-stories tall and clearly visible from the street — have been playing havoc with cellphone reception.

Full story.

India is still number 1 and China is number 2. No change.

Thailand has slipped to 7 from 4, overtaken by Indonesia.

Sri Lanka is at 21, slipping from 16 in 2009. Pakistan has slipped to 28 from 20th place in 2009.

And Bangladesh? Not in the list, again. That’s what comes from restrictive BPO policies and refusing to admit captive BPOs. I hope the Digital Bangladesh folk are paying attention.

The words “Jasmine Revolution,” borrowed from the successful Tunisian revolt, were blocked on sites similar to Twitter and on Internet search engines, while cellphone users were unable to send out text messages to multiple recipients. A heavy police presence was reported in several Chinese cities.

In recent days, more than a dozen lawyers and rights activists have been rounded up, and more than 80 dissidents have reportedly been placed under varying forms of house arrest. At least two lawyers are still missing, family members and human rights advocates said Sunday.

In Beijing, a huge crowd formed outside a McDonald’s in the heart of the capital on Sunday after messages went out listing it as one of 13 protest sites across the country. It is not clear who organized the campaign, but it first appeared Thursday on Boxun, a Chinese-language Web site based in the United States, and then spread through Twitter and other microblogging services.

Just yesterday, on the train to Brussels, I just finished answering a series of questions sent by Voice & Data, the leading ICT industry publication in South Asia. This included a question on whether it would be possible for Indian telcos to do business in China. My answer was “China is a market that is still heavily controlled by the government. I see possibilities for Indian equipment/software/apps suppliers to enter, but believe it is premature to think of Indian operators entering the Chinese market like they have entered African or South Asian markets.” I went on to say that I was not an expert on corporate strategy, either of Chinese operators or of Indian operators. Unlikely that this response will appear in the final piece.

And today, I am at the conference on Asian rise in ICT R&D in Brussels, and up comes a senior executive of Telefonica. His entire talk is about the strategic alliance between his company, one of the largest telecom operators in the world with a massive footprint in Latin America and Europe, and China Unicom, one of the major operators in China. Telefonica is the second largest shareholder of China Unicom (after the government of China) and its Chairman sits on the China Unicom board. CU has invested in Telefonica and its Chairman sits on Telefonica’s board. They are doing common procurement of dongles, for example; they are educating each other’s managerial staff; collaborating on LTE development, and so on. Wow.

Then an irreverent soul from the audience asked when Telefonica would be able to sell directly in China. It turned out that the Telefonica executive was expert only on regulatory strategy and was not best placed to answer that kind of sensitive question. But you can infer the answer.

So there’s the answer: it is possible to work with the state-market enterprises of China, but it is not in the conventional way. It is through the classic JV route that one uses in opaque, patronage-ridden countries. It is not the competition path; it’s the collaboration path.

I dislike travelling 10+ hours to participate in two-day conferences. But on days like this, I see it makes sense.

Economic events and market trends are notoriously unpredictable. In the early 1980s, the Japanese high-technology assault on the American computer and semiconductor industry seemed scary. “What are our kids supposed to do?” asked Walter F. Mondale, the former vice president, speaking to a group of electrical workers. “Sweep up around the Japanese computers?” It captured the economic pessimism of the time, even if it serves as a laugh line today because, after all, how often do you see a Japanese computer?

Full story, focusing on US fears about China is here.

MediaTek’s strategists and engineers figured out a way to design a much less expensive phone system. First, they designed inexpensive chipsets. Then they developed phone board designs using these chipsets and other phone components, and put together a software package for these phones. They also decoupled the phones from the carriers. (This decoupling has given rise to a grey market for mobile phones in emerging markets.) Finally, they licensed the hardware and software together as a “ready-made” kit to smaller phone manufacturers (OEMs), some of whom had no experience building phones.

The result? The mobile phone market, once dominated by close partnerships between wireless carriers and big OEMs, is seeing tremendous competition from newer manufacturers, some of which are literally running their businesses from their garages. In China alone, there are several thousand manufacturers who develop phones using MediaTek’s chipsets.

Sri Lanka retained its position at 12 while China moved to 5, from 13 a year earlier.

“China is continuing its ascent as a services destination, and confirms it should not be considered anymore “merely” the world’s factory,” the report said.

“Sri Lanka is another Asian country that has succeeded in positioning itself as an alternative to India.”

Several Sri Lankan firms are engaging in the high-end of the market in the so-called ‘knowledge processing outsourcing’ of KPO sector.

Sri Lanka has been competing for outsourcing business for several years under the shadow of a 30-year war which increased risk. In 2009 a war ended and the country is looking forward to increasing services investments in particular.

The Chinese government on Wednesday began to require cellphone users to furnish identification when buying SIM cards, a move officials cast as an effort to rein in burgeoning cellphone spam, pornography and fraud schemes.

The requirement, which has been in the works for years, is not unlike rules in many developed nations that ask users to present credit card data or other proof of identification to buy cellphone numbers. The Ministry of Industry and Information Technology said that about 40 percent of China’s 800 million cellphone users were currently unidentified. Those users will be ordered to furnish identification by 2013 or lose their service, according to The Global Times, a state-run newspaper.

THEY may not have the name recognition of a Google or a Yahoo!, but they can claim to belong in the same league. The websites of Digital Sky Technologies (DST) account for more than 70% of page-views on the Russian-language internet. Naspers is Africa’s biggest media group, both offline and online. And Tencent is China’s largest internet company by market capitalisation—and the third-largest in the world.

Now these firms are increasingly making their presence felt beyond their home markets. Between them they have invested in dozens of internet firms around the globe. The most adventurous of the three, DST, has already moved west—and paid top dollar for stakes in fast-growing American companies, notably Facebook, the world’s biggest social network.

“Press control has really moved to the center of the agenda,” said David Bandurski, an analyst at the China Media Project of the University of Hong Kong. “The Internet is the decisive factor there. It’s the medium that is changing the game in press control, and the party leaders know this.”

Today, China censors everything from the traditional print press to domestic and foreign Internet sites; from cellphone text messages to social networking services; from online chat rooms to blogs, films and e-mail. It even censors online games.

That’s not all. Not content merely to block dissonant views, the government increasingly employs agents to peddle its views online, in the guise of impartial bloggers and chat-room denizens. And increasingly, it is backing state-friendly clones of Twitter, Facebook and YouTube, all Western sites that have been blocked here for roughly a year.

The government’s strategy, according to Mr. Bandurski and others, is not just to block unflattering messages, but to overwhelm them with its own positive spin and rebuttals.

Full story.

75% of passenger transport is via public transport and of that 93% by bus and 7% by train. Roughly 5500 SLCTB and 18000 private buses. The fare is regulated by National Transport Commission (NTC). They also have timetables which are n0t implemented.

Shortest distance (~2KM) LKR 6:00.

Longest distance 260 KM – LKR 655.00.

Most of the BOP uses bus transport. 36% of the BOP use mobile and fixed phones.

SLTB buses use both ticket books and manual ticket machines to issue tickets to commuters

Private buses primarily use digital ticketing machines that prints out tickets. Can store data, process memory. Can even tell you how may people have to get off at the next bus stop.  The one in use now is also lighter in weight.

These are mainly used in the Western Province and on a few inter provincial buses.  Manual ticket machines are used in other areas.

Issues with the current ticketting system:

Money lost in Transit. Bus conductors and Drivers take the money, or tickets are not issued, or passengers do not buy the tickets. CTB estimates a 15% loss of revenue and private bus owners 25%.

Chanuka: How is the estimates done?

RS: through Load share.

HdS: Bus owners want to reduce leakage.  They wold like to issue a e-bus tickets. So the solution is either a card system or a mobile. So from the suply side there is a need but what about the demand side?

A  simple survey was done at the Fort railway station. Not a Sample survey but to get an idea. 2/3: 1/3 male: female. There maybe selection bias as it is a starting point.

What is the real cost of a ticket? Do the passengers receive the balance after getting a ticket? only 5% said that they always get there balance. Most people carry exact change. And only 50% of the people receive a bus ticket. Ticket checkers are used both in public and private sector. Some private companies have their own people to check for tickets.

So because of these issues, there is a need.

Possible benefits of e-tickets:

For Bus operators

• reduce leakage
• Offer loyalty plans etc.

For Commuters

• Cost only actual fare
• Can better schedule travel; save on transport expenditure

State [local government]

• Tax collection
• Target subsidies

What are the options?

Contactless smart cards: Oyster, ez link. Delhi is running a pilot, minimum reload INR 25.

Mobile phones: either through SMS or Near field Communication (NFC) merging mobile phones with a contactless smart card (Innovation).

NFC mobile phones: Nokia introduced the first in 2005 (3220). Break through innovation is instead of a NFC  phone, what about an NFC SIM. China Telecom has come p with a NON NFC standard RF SIM.  Nokia 6216: First NFC standard SIM compatible. Operator can load application.

Japan is leader with NTT DoComo Osaifu-Keitai e-wallet phones. Spain, Netherlands, France and Germany, mobile bus and rail ticket system are being piloted.  China has started.  UK to start by 2015 and fully switch to NFC by 2020.

Abstracts should be submitted electronically at www[dot]cprsouth[dot]org on or before 25 April 2010. Full papers have to be submitted for final review by 01 August 2010.

Click here for more information on the conference and how to apply.

“How am I going to live without Google?” asked Wang Yuanyuan, a 29-year-old businessman, as he left a convenience store in Beijing’s business district.

China’s Communist leaders have long tried to balance their desire for a thriving Internet and the economic growth it promotes with their demands for political control. The alarm over Google among Beijing’s younger, better-educated and more Internet savvy citizens — China’s future elite — shows how wobbly that balancing act can be.

By publicly challenging China’s censorship, Google has stirred up the debate over the government’s claim that constraints on free speech are crucial to political stability and the prosperity that has accompanied it. Even if it is unlikely to pose any immediate threat to the Communist Party, Google’s move has clearly discomfited the government, Chinese analysts say.

Full story.

The Great Firewall of China is hardly impregnable.

Just as Mongol invaders could not be stopped by the Great Wall, Chinese citizens have found ways to circumvent the sophisticated Internet censorship systems designed to restrict them.

They are using a variety of tools to evade government filters and to reach the wide-open Web that the Chinese government deems dangerous — sites like YouTube, Facebook and, if Google makes good on its threat to withdraw from China, Google.cn.