Hans Vestberg, the chief executive of Ericsson, said in an interview that the results indicated that the transition to mobile Internet and smartphones was bucking the general economic downturn.

“Increased global smart phone penetration, new devices and the introduction of tiered pricing is driving continued mobile data traffic growth,” Mr. Vestberg said. The number of users of mobile Internet services, which deliver speeds comparable to fixed-line networks over wireless grids, rose to 900 million this month from 500 million in January, he said.

Ericsson predicts that the number of mobile broadband subscribers will rise to five billion by 2016. Ericsson’s quarterly gains were powered by developing markets, led by Latin America, China and northeast Asia, the Middle East and sub-Saharan Africa. Sales in Scandinavia and central Asia rose 49 percent.

Full report.

In a previous essay, Heeks interrogated the numbers emanating from the ITU on “mobile subscriptions.” It is a pity the same was not done in the recent piece on Internet and broadband.

For example, the ITU reports that Afghanistan had 2,000 Internet subscriptions and 1,000,000 Internet users, indicating the use of a multiplier of 500. In other words, the Afghan administration is asking us to believe that each Internet connection is used by 500 people, in addition to asking us to accept nice round numbers on the subscriptions indicator.

This illustrates the biggest weakness of the ITU’s definition of an Internet User: each national administration is allowed to use a multiplier of its choice to derive the number of Internet users from the number of Internet subscribers, in the absence of demand-side surveys, the first-best way of obtaining the indicator. No low-income countries have reported demand-side survey results. Therefore, the Internet user numbers reported by the ITU are tainted by the use of arbitrary multipliers such as the 500 used by Afghanistan (this is the most outrageous multiplier we found; most are more reasonable). But the point is that it is wrong to permit national administrations which may have incentives to look good in terms of Internet connectivity to use multipliers without any rational basis. LIRNEasia is in the process of developing a practical solution to the problem of the multiplier that will be published shortly.

The Internet User number is further flawed by definitional and reporting weaknesses in the base indicator of Internet Subscriptions.

Total Internet users = Multiplier * Total Internet subscriptions
Total Internet subscriptions =Total fixed subscriptions + Total wireless broadband subscriptions

According to the recently revised World Telecommunication/ICT Indicators Definitions (2010) the definitions of these terms are below.
Total fixed (wired) Internet subscriptions = total number of Internet subscriptions with fixed (wired) Internet access, which includes dial-up and total fixed (wired) broadband subscriptions.
Total fixed (wired) broadband subscriptions = total number of subscriptions with high-speed access to the public Internet (a TCP/IP connection), at downstream speeds equal to, or greater than, 256 kbit/s.
Total wireless broadband subscriptions = sum of satellite, terrestrial fixed wireless and terrestrial mobile wireless subscriptions.

Surprisingly, even the recently improved ITU definition does not include prepaid mobile broadband subscriptions. Considering the growing number of prepaid mobile data subscriptions, especially in developing countries, this omission alone will yield significantly lower numbers of Internet subscriptions and thereby, total Internet users.

Preliminary investigations showed that in some countries such as the Maldives, even postpaid mobile data connections are not reported by operators to the administrations and therefore do not reach the ITU. In Sri Lanka, all the SIMs provided by a major operator are data-enabled. Therefore, even without a specific data plan, any customer with a data compatible mobile phone can use the Internet. These ad hoc users are not counted as Internet users by mobile operators. Therefore, the number of mobile subscriptions is underreported. As a result, the overall Internet user number is also lower than it should be.

It is necessary, before engaging is sophisticated manipulations of data to assess the quality of the data. The above discussion indicates that the current Internet User figures published by the ITU are seriously flawed because of problems in the formula, the definitions and reporting practices. Not all the problems can be resolved immediately, but they should at least be noted.

How best to name the key theme for the next research cycle? We discussed this at length three years back. Rohan’s original idea was ‘Mobile Multiple Play’. We would have agreed, if not for the reason it already meant something else. Then came ‘Mobile++’. We were still not satisfied. Finally we settled for ‘Mobile 2.0’, which didn’t exist then in that sense.

Put simply, Mobile 2.0 was the second wave of mobile applications. Mobile 1.0 = voice communication on the move. Mobile 2.0 = everything else, starting from texts.

My google search did give few hits. I can take a safe bet it was less than 100. Nothing we could take seriously. Things have changed. As of today the hits for “Mobile 2.0” have increased to –verify if you don’t believe – 461,000.

There are multiple definitions too.

Daniel Nations from About.com:

Mobile 2.0: Bringing Web 2.0 to Mobile Devices vs. Combining Web 2.0 with Mobile Devices

It sounds like the beginning of a semantic argument, but there is actually quite a bit of difference between bringing Web 2.0 to the mobile and combining mobile devices and Web 2.0 to create Mobile 2.0. If all we wanted to do is bring Web 2.0 to our mobile devices, we are well underway to doing just that. We simply need a mobile web browser that is capable of handling various technologies used to bring together Web 2.0 websites.

But do we really want to sell ourselves short? Mobile devices are not personal computers. And we don’t want to treat them like personal computers. Instead of just brining Web 2.0 to mobile devices, we want to make Web 2.0 mobile – we want a combination of the two that exploits the advantages of our mobile device.

Is this different from what Wikipedia has to say?:

Mobile 2.0, refers to a perceived next generation of mobile internet services that leverage the social web, or what some call Web 2.0. The social web includes social networking sites and wikis that emphasise collaboration and sharing amongst users. Mobile Web 2.0, with an emphasis on Web, refers to bringing Web 2.0 services to the mobile internet, i.e., accessing aspects of Web 2.0 sites from mobile internet browsers.

By contrast [to Web 2.0], Mobile 2.0 refers to services that integrate the social web with the core aspects of mobility – personal, localized, always-on and ever-present. These services are appearing on wireless devices such as Smartphones and multimedia feature phones that are capable of delivering rich, interactive services as well as being able to provide access and to the full range of mobile consumer touch points including talking, texting, capturing, sending, listening and viewing.

So what exactly Mobile 2.0? Can we agree on a common definition?

Other notable speakers at the event include Dr. Jonathon Donner of Microsoft Research, India, and Prof. Tim Unwin of the University of London.

We are so smitten with screens that we often can’t bear to choose one over another: 31 percent of Internet use occurs while we’re in front of a TV set. We are also taking an interest in watching video on our phones: 100 million handsets are video-capable.

The draft program for this one-and-a-half day preconference is now available. Twenty five papers were selected through a peer-reviewed process; papers based on research in 15 countries in five continents in on various aspects of mobile usage will be presented. Registration can be completed through the ICA conference website.

Mobile2.0: Beyond Voice?

Mobile phones are becoming increasingly important in bringing people into the Information Society.  It is widely accepted that the inhabitants of the future household will carry mobile devices that will be capable of voice and data communication, information retrieval and forms of entertainment consumption. Mobiles are now (and will increasingly become) payment devices that can also send, process and receive voice, text as well as images; in the next few years they will also be capable of information-retrieval and publishing functions normally associated with the Internet. Through such services and applications, industry experts predict that many in emerging markets will experience the Internet, or ‘elements’ of the Internet for the first time through a mobile phone, rather than a PC; mobile payments, mobile social networking, SMS voting are just a few examples of some of these services and applications.

Emerging markets appear to be following a different trajectory from developed markets; while the latter are moving forward via triple- and quadruple-play scenarios, the former are moving on paths that involve mobile phones as the key platform for bringing people affordably into the Information Society; something we describe as “2.0.”

This preconference will draw together research constituting evidence for and against this emerging Mobile2.0 narrative in the context of the larger social-science understanding of mobile-use behavior.  The preconference will also contribute to understanding emerging mobile use patterns.

The keynote address will be delivered by Dr. Tim Kelly, Lead ICT Policy Specialist at the World Bank. Papers will be presented by academics from the US, as well as Asia, Latin America, Europe and Africa.

The pre-conference is being organized by LIRNEasia (www.lirneasia.net).  For more information please contact sivapragasam[at]lirne.net

Draft program 1.7

Some 7.3m people accessed the net via their mobile phones, during the second and third quarters of 2008.

This is an increase of 25% compared to a growth of just 3% for the PC-based net audience – now more than 35m.

It also found that the mobile net audience was younger and searched for different things.

While Google remains the most popular site for those logging on via the desktop, on mobile internet BBC News is the most visited site, with nearly a quarter of mobile internet consumers using it.

Other popular sites include BBC Weather and Sky Sports.

“This highlights the advantage of mobile when it comes to immediacy: people often need fast, instant access to weather or sports news and mobile can obviously satisfy this,” said Kent Ferguson, a senior analyst with Nielsen Online.

Read the full story in BBC here.

Computing: In future, most new internet users will be in developing countries and will use mobile phones. Expect a wave of innovation

THE World Wide Web Consortium (W3C), the body that leads the development of technical standards for the web, usually concerns itself with nerdy matters such as extensible mark-up languages and cascading style sheets. So the new interest group it launched in May is rather unusual. It will focus on the use of the mobile web for social development—the sort of vague concept that techie types tend to avoid, because it is more than simply a technical matter of codes and protocols. Why is the W3C interested in it?

The simple answer is that the number of mobile phones that can access the internet is growing at a phenomenal rate, especially in the developing world. In China, for example, over 73m people, or 29% of all internet users in the country, use mobile phones to get online. And the number of people doing so grew by 45% in the six months to June—far higher than the rate of access growth using laptops, according to the China Internet Network Information Centre.

 This year China overtook America as the country with the largest number of internet users—currently over 250m. And China also has some 600m mobile-phone subscribers, more than any other country, so the potential for the mobile internet is enormous. Companies that stake their reputations on being at the technological forefront understand this. Last year Lee Kai-fu, Google’s president in China, announced that Google was redesigning its products for a market where “most Chinese users who touch the mobile internet will have no PC at all.”

It is not just China. Opera Software, a firm that makes web-browser software for mobile phones, reports rapid growth in mobile-web browsing in developing countries. The number of web pages viewed in June by the 14m users of its software was over 3 billion, a 300% increase on a year earlier. The fastest growth was in developing countries including Russia, Indonesia, India and South Africa.

Behind these statistics lies a more profound social change. A couple of years ago, a favourite example of mobile phones’ impact in the developing world was that of an Indian fisherman calling different ports from his boat to get a better price for his catch. But mobile phones are increasingly being used to access more elaborate data services.

A case in point is M-PESA, a mobile-payment service introduced by Safaricom Kenya, a mobile operator, in 2007. It allows subscribers to deposit and withdraw money via Safaricom’s airtime-sales agents, and send funds to each other by text message. The service is now used by around a quarter of Safaricom’s 10m customers. Casual workers can be paid quickly by phone; taxi drivers can accept payment without having to carry cash around; money can be sent to friends and family in emergencies. Safaricom’s parent company, Vodafone, has launched M-PESA in Tanzania and Afghanistan, and plans to introduce it in India.

Similar services have also proved popular in South Africa and the Philippines. Mobile banking is now being introduced into the Maldives, a group of islands in the Indian Ocean where many people lost their life savings, held in cash, in the tsunami of December 2004.

For the W3C, M-PESA and its ilk are harbingers of far more sophisticated services to come. If mobile banking is possible using a simple system of text messages, imagine what might be possible with full web access. But it will require standards to ensure that services and devices are compatible. Stéphane Boyera, co-chair of the new W3C interest group, says its aim is to track the social impact of the mobile web in the developing world, to ensure that the web’s technical standards evolve to serve this rapidly emerging constituency.

The right approach, Mr Boyera argues, is not to create “walled gardens” of specially adapted protocols for mobile devices, but to make sure that as much as possible of the information on the web can be accessed easily on mobile phones. That is a worthy goal. But Ken Banks, the other co-chair of the W3C’s new interest group and the founder of kiwanja.net, which helps non-profit organisations exploit mobile technologies in the developing world, points out that simple services based on text messages are likely to predominate for some time to come, for several reasons. All mobile phones, however cheap, can send text messages. Mobile-web access requires more sophisticated handsets and is not always supported by operators. And users know what it costs to send a text message.

As countries work their way up the development ladder, however, the situation changes in favour of full mobile-web access. Jim Lee, a manager at Nokia’s Beijing office, says he was surprised to find that university students in remote regions of China were buying Nokia Nseries smart-phones, costing several months of their disposable income. Such handsets are status symbols, but there are also pragmatic reasons to buy them. With up to eight students in each dorm room, phones are often the only practical way for students to access the web for their studies. And smart-phones are expensive, but operators often provide great deals on data tariffs to attract new customers.

Xuehui Zhao, a recent graduate of the Anyang Institute of Technology in Henan province, explains that a typical monthly package for five yuan ($0.73) includes 10 megabytes of data transfer—more than enough to allow her to spend a couple of hours each day surfing the web and instant-messaging with friends. It is also much cheaper than paying 200 yuan per month for a fixed-broadband connection.

As this young generation of sophisticated mobile-web users grows up, what sort of new services will they want? Many NGOs and local governments are trying things out. Several examples were discussed at a workshop in June organised by the W3C in São Paolo, Brazil. The government of the Brazilian state of Paraná, for instance, is using text messages and voice-menu systems to notify the unemployed about job opportunities and farmers about agricultural prices.

But the workshop also highlighted the limits of what such efforts can achieve. It quickly became apparent that more or less identical services are being developed from scratch repeatedly in different parts of the world. There is clearly room for more co-ordination of such efforts, which is exactly what the W3C has in mind.

Furthermore, many clever systems are being developed by NGOs with no apparent interest in setting up commercial services. As Mr Boyera points out, this raises the issue of sustainability. What happens when the NGO’s funding runs out? One conclusion from the workshop was that promoting social development through the mobile web will mean engaging with businesses. Regulators can also help by fostering cheap mobile access.

The developing world missed out on much of the excitement of the initial web revolution, the dotcom boom and Web 2.0, largely because it did not have an internet infrastructure. But developing countries may now be poised to leapfrog the industrialised world in the era of the mobile web.

However, security concerns remain. 41 percent of the consumers who transmit data said security was the reason they didn’t buy things via their mobile phone. And 21 percent said they did not trust that the transaction would be completed.

LIRNEasia’s study on Mobile2.0@BOP intends to address such issues relating to M-payments, particularly exploring in detail the case of the Philippines.

“The poor state of fixed line infrastructure is creating the potential for the African mobile internet market to boom,” states Frost & Sullivan Research Analyst Spiwe Chireka. “Mobile internet has emerged as the solution to the continent’s last mile connectivity problem.” 

Mobile internet is significantly more cost-effective to deploy than fixed line services, is much cheaper and easier for users to acquire, covers a larger area and allows users access while they on the move. 

However, the high cost of mobile internet-compatible handsets coupled with the pricing structure remains a significant challenge. Moreover, the majority of Africa’s population still finds these services too expensive to use. Read more.

The Mobile Web is NOT helping the Developing World… and what we can do about it. By Nathan Eagle | MobileActive.org

This is not to say that these billions of mobile phones do not have the potential to access content from the web – rather, the traditional browser-based paradigm of internet usage does not cater to them. The idea that the mobile web consists exclusively of mobile devices running web-browsers identical to the web experience we are used to with IE/Firefox is simply wrong. Throwing more and more resources towards creating devices for the developing world that can emulate the PC browsing experience is misguided. The 2 billion phones being used in the developing world are really great at making and receiving voice calls and text messages: Why not shape the internet experience to meet the specs of every phone’s inherent functionality (voice!) rather than requiring devices to have specs that quite frankly aren’t going to be realistic for many years to come?

Powered by ScribeFire.

For more than two years, a large group of engineers at Google have been working in secret on a mobile-phone project.

As word of their efforts has trickled out, expectations in the tech world for what has been called the Google phone, or GPhone, have risen, the way they do for Apple loyalists before a speech by Steve Jobs.

But the GPhone is not likely to be the second coming of the iPhone and Google’s goals are very different from Apple’s.

Google wants to extend its dominance of online advertising to the mobile internet, a small market today but one that is expected to grow rapidly. It hopes to persuade wireless carriers and mobile-phone makers to offer phones based on its software, according to people briefed on the project. The cost of those phones may be partly subsidised by advertising that appears on their screens.

Google is expected to unveil the fruit of its mobile efforts later this year, and phones based on its technology could be available next year.

Some analysts say that the Google project’s effect on the wireless industry is not likely to be as profound, at least initially, as that of Apple’s iPhone, whose revolutionary look and features have redefined consumer expectations for mobile phones.

“The iPhone was a milestone in terms of how people use a mobile device,” says Karsten Weide, an analyst with IDC. “The GPhone, if it does come out, will help Google with distribution for their online services.”

At the core of Google’s phone efforts is an operating system for mobile phones that will be based on open-source Linux software, according to industry executives familiar with the project.

In addition, Google is expected to develop mobile versions of its applications that go well beyond the mobile search and map software it offers today. Those applications may include a web browser to run on mobile phones.

While Google has built phone prototypes to test its software and show off its technology to manufacturers, the company is not likely to make the phones itself, according to analysts.

In short, Google is not creating a gadget to rival the iPhone, but rather creating software that will be an alternative to Windows Mobile from Microsoft and other operating systems, which are built into phones sold by many manufacturers. And unlike Microsoft, Google is not expected to charge phone makers a licensing fee for the software.

The essential point is that Google’s strategy is to lead the creation of an open-source competitor to Windows Mobile, according to one industry executive, who did not want his name used because his company has had contacts with Google. They will put it in the open-source world and take the economics out of the Windows Mobile business.

Some believe another major goal of the phone project is to loosen the control of carriers over the software and services that are available on their networks.

“Google’s agenda is to disaggregate carriers,” says Dan Olschwang, the chief executive of JumpTap, a start-up that provides search and advertising services to several mobile-phone operators.

Google declined to comment on any specifics of its mobile-phone initiative. But its chief executive, Eric Schmidt, has said several times that the mobile-phone market presented the largest growth opportunity for Google. “We have a large investment in mobile phones and mobile-phone platform applications,” he says.

Industry analysts say that Google, which has little experience with complex hardware, faces significant challenges.

“Running a website and a search engine is one thing,” says Weide of IDC. “But developing a phone is a whole different game. It will not be easy for them.”

Weide adds that Google’s impact on the industry will depend to a large extent on its ability to sign deals with wireless carriers that distribute hundreds of millions of phones each year and often control what software and services run on them.

Some carriers, especially in the United States, are likely to give Google a cool reception. Companies such as Verizon Wireless and AT&T have spent billions of dollars building and upgrading their networks, establishing relationships with customers, subsidising handsets and creating their own mobile internet portals. Now they want to make sure those investments pay off, in part, through mobile advertising, and they see Google and other search engines, which are after the same ad dollars, as competitors.

As a result, most carriers in the US have chosen to shun the major search engines for now. Instead, they have promoted the search engines and ad systems of small technology companies such as JumpTap and Medio Systems, whose services they can stamp with their own brands.

Most carriers declined to comment on Google’s plans. But Arun Sarin, chief executive of Britain’s Vodafone Group, which offers the Google service on its phones, says it is not clear what compelling functions Google will offer that are not already available.

“What is it that is missing in life that they are going to fulfil?” Sarin says. “It is not a no-brainer. You can reach Google already through a number of devices. You don’t need a Google phone to do that.”

Google’s desire to loosen the carriers’ control over their networks has hardly been a secret. The company recently lobbied the Federal Communications Commission to impose rules on any carrier that wins a coming auction for valuable wireless spectrum. The rules, which the FCC adopted despite opposition from Verizon and others, require that the network using a portion of that spectrum be open to any handset and software applications from any company.

Google says it is considering bidding for some of that spectrum. But regardless of who wins it, phones based on Google’s software will be able to take advantage of it.Google’s lobbying, as well as its work on a phone software platform that will be open to other applications, represents an effort to bring to the mobile internet the dynamics of the PC-oriented internet, which is free of control by network operators. Google is hoping that it can beat competitors in an open environment.

The mobile-phone project at Google is built in part around Android, a small mobile software company it acquired in 2005. An Android co-founder, Andy Rubin, had founded Danger, which created the popular T-Mobile Sidekick smart phone.

Rubin works at Google’s headquarters in Mountain View, but another part of Google’s team is reported to be in Boston, where Android’s co-founder, Rich Miner, another veteran of the mobile-phone industry, is based.

Some analysts say there are no guarantees that Google will be able to replicate its online success in the mobile world.

“The wireless market does not have the same global scale and scope efficiencies, nor the lack of transactional friction, of software on the internet,” says Scott Cleland, a telecommunications industry analyst who recently testified before the US Senate against Google’s proposed acquisition of DoubleClick.”

It is a completely different world and completely different set of economics,” says Cleland, who has opposed Google on a number of policy issues.

Microsoft, whose mobile operating system has been available for years, has distribution agreements with 48 handset makers and 160 carriers around the world. Still, only 12 million phones sold this year will be based on Microsoft’s software, giving it 10 per cent of the smart-phone market, according to IDC.

Microsoft declined to comment on potential competition from Google.”The market is huge and our partners are really motivated to bring Windows Mobile phones to market,” says Doug Smith, director for marketing of Microsoft’s mobile communications business.

Mahesh Veerina, founder and chief executive of Celunite, which makes mobile-phone software based on Linux, says Google’s offering is likely to be attractive to small carriers, which may see it as a competitive weapon.

But if Google-powered phones prove to be a hit with consumers, other carriers may feel pressure to follow suit, says Richard Doherty, director for the Envisioneering Group, a consulting firm.

“No one wants to be the last carrier to endorse Google,” he says.

Google wants to extend its dominance of online advertising to the mobile Internet, a small market today, but one that is expected to grow rapidly. It hopes to persuade wireless carriers and mobile phone makers to offer phones based on its software, according to people briefed on the project. The cost of those phones may be partly subsidized by advertising that appears on their screens.

Google is expected to unveil the fruit of its mobile efforts later this year, and phones based on its technology could be available next year.

Some analysts say that the Google project’s affect on the wireless industry is not likely to be as profound, at least initially, as that of Apple’s iPhone, whose revolutionary look and features have redefined consumer expectations for mobile phones.

Powered by ScribeFire.

“We are pleased to inform you all that Dialog Telekom launched the Sinhala & Tamil Mobile Browser and their Content Portal “SINHALANTHAYA” during New Year week. The browser can be downloaded by visiting http://www.dialogwap.com using your mobile and going into Application Download Area. This is the 1st ever launch of most successful Unicode compliant browser application. This application runs on wide range of phones starting from entry level low end Java Hand Sets, High End Java Hand Sets, Microsoft Windows Mobile Hand Sets and Black Berries.”

“The most important thing is the content is 100% Unicode Compliant. So people who have been critics of Sinhala Unicode will get another blow as we easily integrate 3rd Party Unicode Content in this platform. You can access Government News content through the browser which is listed under News.”

“At present content portal is updated every day multiple occasions with many interesting content which includes, News, Exchange Rates, Lottery Results to many more. There will be more and more content coming up soon.”

“Download & Enjoy true localized mobile internet! It’s only GPRS charges which applies other than the initial one time nominal download fee.”

(Note: Price data is not yet included; will be done as the tariff data is collected)
The Indonesian telecom sector has seen three waves of liberalization.

• 1st Wave: 1991-1996 (Private investment in sector-financial
  crisis)
  Creation of Satelindo, 2nd International service provider in 1993.
  Partial privatization of PT Indosat (65% Govt retains control) in
  1994
  Exclusivity granted to PT Telkom for fixed local 2010 and long distance 2005 before it was partially privatized in 1995 (66% but government retains control).
  GSM licenses provided to Satelindo & Telkomsel subsidiaries of two incumbents in 1994.
  GSM license issued to PT Excelcomindo in 1996, competitive provider with no financial links to government.
  ISP licenses issued
• 2nd Wave of Reforms
  1999-2004 (Post crisis-Change of guard)
  Telecom Act of 1999 separating policy & regulatory functions, allowing increased private participation
  Ending of cross-ownership between government owned telcos
  Premature ending of PT Telkom’s exclusivity
  Creation of duopoly for fixed sector
  Ministerial decree (KM 31/2003) creating BRTIRegulatory Body
  Merger of Satelindo with PT Indosat, Telkomsel with
  PT Telkom
• 3rd Wave of reforms
  2005- present (New government of Yudhoyono)
  Unlicensing of 2.4 GHz
  Licensing of three Fixed Wireless Access (FWA) providers, two incumbent and Esia (Bakrie Group).
  Auction of 5 3G licenses to Telkomsel, Excelcom, Indosat, Hutchinson, Lippo-Maxxis
  Licenses granted to 15 VoIP operators including major operators
  USO fund established (Regulation No. 15) in 2005 where all operators contribute 0.75% of gross revenue.
  Government regulation (GR2/2006) on mandated cost-based interconnection
  Reference Interconnect Offer to be submitted by all operators to
  BRTI, dominant operators’ RIO will be published.
  Tariff regulation for leased lines

What were the drivers of growth?
Initially the government allowed domestic investment. Then the government decided to attract foreign investment via concessions with the promise of reform.
Lorraine Carlos Salazar says: who exactly are these stakeholders who supported entry of FDI in the sector? 
DG: Mastel, the Ministry
Before the Asian Crisis, there was a lot of interest in Eastern Asia, however after the Crisis, much of the Investment dried up. Government was then forced to undergo reform (driving the 2nd wave of reform).
Lorraine Carlos Salazar says: Did the incumbent wanted FDI?
Payal Malik says:  lack of domestic resources were the drivers for the incumbent being open to FDIs, as in the case of Thailand.  They were not averse to FDIs because it went into their own networks and it wasn;t competition
Divakar: Incumbent benefited from the FDI b/c it allowed them profit from the other companies, without risk. Lack of domestic resources were the drivers for FDI
Third wave of reforms driven by the promise by the current government to end corruption. Unlicensing of the 2.4Ghz band was driven by a civil society campaign. Recognition of merits of competition due to the success of the mobile sector) also added to the motivation.
2006 has seen a lot of growth, and investment in infrastructure. E.g no. of base stations has doubled since the start of the year.
absence of interconnection regime led to pvt companies choosing to invest in mobile rather than fixed.
fixed wire-line growth has not changed since 2005; given falling population, fixed teledensity is likely to fall.
PT Telekom’s fixed wireless subscriber has actually dropped – because many signed up for the ‘Flexi’ package for free minutes; once the free minutes were all used up, many discontinued use (and moved to Easia which have very low rates).
Fixed wireless operators are only allowed to operate within certain area codes. To circumvent restricted mobility for the fixed wireless subscriber, operators allow call forwarding and temporary roaming.
While many argue that Java has ‘all the phones’, its teledensity is actually fairly low; the issue is Java has a high population.
The graph on Slide 19 shows Easia’s ARPU increasing (unlike what is normally seen), however the data is being checked.
Easia’s spends a lot on advertising; they are a highly recognized brand.
Payal Malik says: Just for reference, Fixed wireless is not important in India so no separate data on ARPUs
Lorraine Carlos Salazar says: yes, same with Philippines and Thailand I think
In the mobile sector, Telkomsel, Indosat and Excelcomindo are the main players. the other companies are starting up.

Although mobile service is cheaper in Indonesia in absolute terms, it is relatively expensive (relative to monthly GNI).
When mobile market share is calculated as % of sector revenues (as opposed to subscribers), there is a change in the shares. The incumbent has a 68% share, as opposed to 55%. Directionally, the market share doesn’t change, but exact shares do.
Vasana – how practical is it to calculate in this way?
Divakar  – it’s a controversial issue.
Distribution of telecom access (Slide # 27) shows that there are a multiple mobiles within households.
When Indonesia is compared to the other ASEAN countries, its performance is quite poor.
Harsha de Silva: Singapore – Internet penetration is higher than fixed line penetration; why?
Divakar: access is through WiFi (ubiquitous WiFi coverage in Singapore) as well as mobile Internet.
ADSL is almost invisible (Slide 29) b/c the incumbent owns all the infrastructure.
Household PC ownership is low; Internet access via those PCs is EVEN lower.
Telecom regulatory performance:
Lorraine Carlos Salazar says: please clarify– the regulator is separate from the Dept of Telecoms? What does the latter do? still own the former fixed line monopoly is it?
Divakar: Not really separate, b/c of Chairman BRTI is also the Director of Dept of Telecoms.
Most of regulatory activity is done by BRTI.
Not telecom policy to guide the decisions and direction that the ministry is taking. Although the ministry is quite active in making decisions, there is a lack of coherence in the actions / decisions that are being taken.
Lorraine Carlos Salazar says: with regards issuances– are they hiring external consultants? who are writing these issuances?
Divakar: consultants are being hired to do various things; but in terms of writings and decrees, they are competent enough to do these on their own.

Lorraine: Is there really a plan or policy on telecoms lib, which provides guidance on the issuance of licenses? or is to ad hoc and open to  or lobbying, rent-seeking, etc.?
It is actually an opportunity if licenses are given in an ad hoc manner, b/c there is opportunity to illustrate to the Minister where a license will be useful, and there will be a hope that the Minister will give that license.
Rohan: Yes, but there is also another side of ‘ad hoc’ behavior (eg giving a license to your brother)
Divakar: the process is much more transparent now than before, and public consultations are mandatory by law.
TRE assessment:
Mobile sector has scored well on Mkt entry – this is b/c entry has been open; auctions were held as recently as last year. 3G operators are also allowed to provide 2G services
Bottlenecks in the fixed sector cause problems in other sectors, such as banks not being able to have points of presence (via credit card sales points).