THE number of people subscribing to broadband in OECD countries increased by 13% last year to 267m. More than a fifth of the combined population of the 30 mostly rich nations in the OECD now have high-speed access to the internet. The broadband penetration rate is above a third in Denmark, the Netherlands, Norway and Switzerland. Adoption is lowest in poorer countries such as Mexico, where just over 7% are broadband subscribers. Slovakia enjoyed the fastest growth in broadband subscriptions per person. Those subscribers, however, paid most for their connection, once exchange rates were adjusted for local spending power. On that basis, Slovaks shelled out over twice as much for speedy internet access as broadband users in Britain or Japan.

Full story and chart.

After the United States, the ranking found that Sweden, Denmark, the Netherlands, and Norway rounded out the five most productive users of connectivity. Japan ranked 10, and Korea, 18.

And while wired and wireless broadband networks used by consumers lagged other countries, the United States ranked No. 1 in the world for technology use and skills by consumers. (This was measured by comparing countries on five measures: The penetration of Internet use, penetration of Internet banking, wired and wireless voice minutes per capita, SMS messages per capita, and consumer software spending.)

To see the full methodology, look at page 38 in this report.

With hard times at our doorsteps, all we can say is a remittance mechanism that employs mobile communications would be an excellent idea. By the way, that is one area our research on Mobile2.0@BoP will focus.

Sweden and the Netherlands were able to be the top European broadband nations because of their efforts in “increasing investments in fiber and cable network upgrades, coupled with competition diversity, and supported by strong government vision and policy.”

Even though it’s difficult to define quality internet, regardless of how questions were reworded, Oxford University Said Business School researchers found Japan remained on top of 41 other nations in the “Broadband Quality Score.”  Latvia, Korea, Switzerland, Lithuania, Denmark, Germany and Slovenia are the nations that round out the top ten quality broadband nations, according to researchers.

Oxford University received assistance with the survey from Oviedo University and Cisco Systems.  The participating partners used collected broadband speed tests when users measured their broadband connections on Speedtest.net.

Upload speed has become increasingly important as many users want to send out data. Japan is the nation best suited for an increase in uploads, while other nations in the top ten continue to try and catch up.  Furthermore, there wasn’t a correlation found between consumer internet prices and national performance, or how widespread broadband use is in a nation, a researcher from Cisco said.

Read the full story in DailyTech here.

The reasons cited in favor of MNP were classified into advantages to subscribers and regulators. The former were benefited by an increase in choice (of packages) and the eliminated costs of having to inform third parties of a number change, while the latter saw MNP as an approach to attract new investment and generate healthy competition. Operators on the other hand, were split in their views; new entrants and operators with smaller market share were of the view that it would create fair play in the industry, but larger operators with significant market power were, unsurprisingly, against the implementation of MNP.

High implementation costs were the main reasons against number portability. Mr. John Horrocks, an MNP consultant who spoke at the Workshop, demonstrated that a basic costs-benefit analysis of the portability process showed that implementing this service in smaller countries with populations of less than 10 million was not a feasible option, as the costs outweighed the benefits significantly. Instead, he suggested a few alternatives for these countries that would make number changes easier for subscribers (e.g.: operators send free SMS to all contacts on SIM, low cost for maintaining old number in parallel, etc), and ensure quality of service and competition among operators.

Figure 1: MNP implementations by country

Source: Presentation slides, MNP Workshop, August 2007

Mr. Horrocks also talked about the results of MNP implementations and lessons learnt in the countries listed in Figure 1. The success of MNP implementation is measured by the percentage of ported numbers, and it is evident that in countries with higher mobile phone penetration, competition and awareness, porting rates are high (e.g. Hong Kong and Australia). It was interesting to note though, that in some cases where MNP was implemented successfully, it proved to be an economic failure (e.g. Ireland, Finland, Malta, etc), while the implementations in UK and Netherlands were failures in all respects.

These varied results can be attributed to a number of reasons. Hong Kong’s MNP implementation, built on an already implemented solution set in place for fixed-line services, was driven heavily by the regulator; in addition, a highly competitive market structure in a technologically-aware community, and the fact that the introduction coincided with the entry of four new operators into the market, ensured portability a success there. The Australian regulator persistently promoted number portability to the public, while maintaining porting times of less than 3 hours on average, which eventually led to the successful implementation of MNP.

On the other hand, in the Irish case where MNP implementation was a success, the lack of competition (two incumbents and one weak new entrant) proved porting to be an economic failure. The same happened in Finland, where implementation was a success, but due to the absence of minimum contract periods and the provision of high incentives to port (from one operator to another), operators started losing heavily. This resulted in the introduction of minimum contract periods which, in turn, reduced the porting rate from 40% to 10% leading to economic failure. In the UK, Oftel (regulator at the time) pushed for MNP hoping it would increase competition, but did not play a hands-on role in the implementation phase. Additionally, only one operator in the UK was in favor of portability, and these factors collectively played a large role in the resulting failure.

A number of lessons can be learnt from these situations. Mr. Horrocks explained that it was essential for both regulators and operators to be in favor of and have heavy involvement throughout the porting process. The success of MNP depended greatly on competition and awareness and therefore it was the duty of both regulator and operator to keep subscribers informed of all things related to porting. He also said that it was important for regulators to understand that MNP did not create competition, but only improved it. Furthermore, for number porting to be successful it was necessary for a clear goal to be established, with a good set of rules (technical and legal) laid down from the start of the MNP process. He also stressed that porting time (i.e. time taken to port a number from operator A to operator B) had to be minimal, ideally one day at most, to ensure a successful MNP implementation.

The Workshop also covered the technicalities involved in number porting. Various features such as the number portability database configurations (centralized, distributed and hybrid), the call/SMS routing schemes (direct and indirect), and payment mechanisms were presented over the course of three days. The use of ENUM and NGN systems to make the porting process simpler were also discussed.

In light of these technical developments, call forwarding as a low-cost solution to number portability was not seen as the most efficient way to deploy MNP, although it was implemented in Singapore. Over 10 years ago, when the Telecommunication Authority of Singapore (TAS) discussed MNP as a means to lower number switching costs for subscribers and increase competition among operators, they explored three alternatives: 1. call forwarding, 2. originating re-route, and 3. Intelligent Network (IN) solutions. While Option 2 deviated from the GSM standard and affected services such as international roaming, Option 3 was not technologically mature yet, and therefore they settled for Option 1. They did not, however, rule out the possibility of implementing Option 3 at a later date. (Read more about MNP in Singapore)

The technical specifications employed in the number portability process in Pakistan were also described in detail. Similarly, the regulatory framework (including operator rights and obligations, charging schemes, best practices, and policy implications) required for the successful implementation of MNP was communicated by members of the PTA who were engaged in the Pakistani MNP process.

The key lesson learnt from the Workshop was that there was no standard MNP solution for a country. Every solution was unique with success riding on a number of factors.

LIRNEasia project manager, Nuwan Waidyanatha, was 1 of 2 Sri Lankan delegates invited to present a research paper and the other was Chamindra De Silva of Lanka Software Foundation – Sahana Project. LIRNEasia presentation titled “Common Alerting Protocol Message Broker for Last-Mile Hazard Warning System in Sri Lanka: An Essential Component” was 1 of 115 papers published in the workshop proceedings. The paper was based on the research findings that proved the need for a CAP Broker to improve the performance of the Hazard-Information-Hub at Sarvodaya in order to make the Last-Mile Hazard Warning System highly reliable and relatively effective. A LIRNEasia paper on CAP relating to the “challenges of internetworking with CAP” was also published in the ISCRAM conference in Delft, Netherlands in May this year and was invited to present at the conference.

CAP is widely accepted by emergency communicators but practically adopted by very few. However lags in being used for Internetworking and Multilingual communications were it has its strengths. Those who discussed CAP including representatives from the European Union and United Sates of America expressed that the Multilingual and Physically Challenged issues are yet to be addressed in their CAP research, which means Sri Lanka may be in the forefront of CAP research.

Paper on HazInfo CAP Message Broker, ISCRAM-CHINA proceedings –
N. Waidyanatha, G. Gow, P. Anderson (2007 August). “Common Alerting Protocol Message Broker for Last-Mile Hazard Warnings in Sri Lanka: An Essential Component”. Proceedings of the 2^nd International ISCRAM Workshop, Harbin, China (B. Van de Walle, X. Li, and S. Zhang, eds.), Pages 59 – 65

Presentation – CAP Message Broker, An Essential Component

Report ISCRAM-CHINA 2007

The leading European VoIP adopters over the course of 2006 were France, Germany, and the
Netherlands. According to Instat analyst, Keith Nissen, “The EU market increased by over 14 million subscribers last year largely due to local loop unbundling, the introduction of cable telephony and triple-play service bundles as well as operator consolidation.” 

By contrast the US added a mere four million new VoIP subscribers over the same period. Keith Nissen says US carriers “don’t seem interested in selling anything other than plain-old-telephone-service.” Read more.

The Building Digital Communities session, chaired by Divakar, covered a wide-swathe of topics. In his opening remarks [PDF], he outlined on some of the issues that would be covered in the presentations and discussion to follow.

In his Keynote address, the Indonesian Minister of Communication & IT, Sofyan Djalil proposed that global equipment manufacturers should adopt a new business model where they share some of the investment risk with operators while deploying infrastructure in financially unviable areas in developing countries. He suggested that the current model where developing countries are only purchasers of high cost equipment and services, breeds dependency and is unsustainable in the long run. In the second Keynote address, the Hungarian Deputy Minister at the Ministry of Economy & Transport described Hungary as having a highly trained ICT workforce, extensive telecom infrastructure but very little digital communities. ICTs were more part of industry rather than society. He posed the puzzle as to why that was so and how to develop bottoms-up initiatives to create digital communities.

Panelists Les Hales, President of HK Knowledge Management Society, explored the various ways in which digital communities will impact how business is conducted, emphasizing how digital communities are transforming top-down industrial model into more bottoms-up and flexible models embodied by the open-source community; Rudd Smeulders, Innovation Manager at the Rabobank Group, Netherlands, gave the unique example of a digital community, Neunen that had community TV content developed by the residents of village delivered via fiber to every home; Heather Hudson, Director of Telecom Management & Policy program at Univ of San Francisco, demonstrated how broadband access in most of developing Asia was limited and prices were high, making the task of building digital communities challenging. The question and answer session that followed generated interesting discussion the most significant outcome being the number of new measures proposed by the Indonesian Minister to stimulate Internet growth in his country.

The video of the Building Digital Communities session can be downloaded here [138Mb!].

• In December 2005, four countries (Iceland, Korea, the Netherlands and Denmark) led the OECD in broadband penetration, each with more than 25 subscribers per 100 inhabitants.

• Iceland now leads the OECD with a broadband penetration rate of 26.7 subscribers per 100 inhabitants.

• Korea’s broadband market is advancing to the next stage of development where existing subscribers switch platforms for increased bandwidth. In Korea, fibre-based broadband connections grew 52.4% during 2005. This switchover effect is evident by the net loss of DSL (-3.3%) and cable (-1.7%) subscribers during the year.

The focus will be more on the most current strategic issues than on nuts and bolts knowledge. A day will be set apart for discussion of cutting-edge research on diverse approaches to network extension commissioned as part of the 2005-06 World Dialogue on Regulation. An opportunity will also be provided to visit the InfoComm Development Authority of Singapore, a leading regulatory agency that has been recognized for its efficacy internationally.

Attendance at Telecom Reform courses is capped at 40. Attendees will include regulators and senior officials of regulatory agencies; senior regulatory staff at operators; and leaders of consumer and other organizations participating in reform processes. In addition to Professors William Melody and Rohan Samarajiva who designed and led the previous Telecom Reform courses, Professor Jens Arnbak ( Chair of OPTA, the telecom and posts regulatory body in the Netherlands and Delft University of Technology), Dr Harsha Vardhana Singh, Secretary of the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (on leave), Dr Ewan Sutherland (Executive Director of INTUG, the international telecom user?s organization), and Ms Malathy Knight John (Head of the Public Enterprise Reform, Competition and Regulatory Policy Unit of the Institute of Policy Studies in Sri Lanka) are expected to lecture.

The following documents provide more information on the course:

• Draft agenda [WORD] [PDF]
• Logistical information and course fees [WORD] [PDF]
• Course registration & hotel reservation [WORD] [PDF]
• Invitation letter [WORD] [PDF]

Payal Mallik, Group 1:

Case Studies, success stories of application. From India- Karnatika, first action was to formalize the land records which translates to land reforms through ICTs. Governments get to see the productivity gains from ICTs.

Citizen/Government Interface: this morning governance was pointed out as a critical area. What nature should the interface take?

Gap Between Content Development and Demand: Language issues, and what to ppl actually want from these applications.

Proposed Projects removed, I think the microimpact is still a little far from realization.

Happy with proposed projects: These subsidy studies should be underlined in a certain, clear theoretical framework. This will give greater comparability that pure case studies.

Group 2: Randy Spence

Sector and Regulatory performance views, same thing? Important tools for planning and benchmarking and important motivators. Regulators don’t like to be compared unfavorably to their neighbors. We also talked about the importance of peer review, especially as a basis for advocacy. Two main questions were raised-

Relationship between regulation and sector performance

Relationship between regulation and capital

Objective/Subjective data. Both important. Demand side data is missing. Perhaps we could start with household surveys, Grameen data, etc. Our focus was on the TRE framework. On the objective side there are sets of facts and indicators which are important and those need to be spelled out. Sometimes not so much data as case study information. Those can well be supplemented with interviews, experts, panels and ranking – which are important because they pick up perceptions and are easier. There was a suggestion that the TRE framework could be augmented on the universal service side and on the process side, questions of openness, transparency.

Talked about methodology and the need to spell out and elaborate the TRE methodology more. It’s not really clear how the SL pilot was done.

Are there problems with data? Yes. There was the view that we need to list and prioritize the data needs. In terms of regulation, we may not always be talking about ICT regulators. There are important influences coming from financial, banking regulation, etc. The idea of LIRNE developing some elements of its own database, for example the prices of mobile services. It would be useful to have definitions – what is broadband, etc. Also perhaps a Confidence Index in the TRE. It was suggested that if many countries are going to do surveys we should specify what kind of data will be in them. Maybe a workshop to spell out the desirable content. We think country workshops would make sense most at a country level. Results should be shared quickly with other country teams, and at a country level for stakeholder buy in, and to get the regulators involved.

Group 3: Chanuka Wattegama

These are the questions we had: We have been asked the best and worst cases. Is there too much emphasis on case studies? Should training be context specific or general? Happy with proposed projects? Suggestions?

Best/Worst Cases: We discussed the e-choupals project in India where the farmers are directly connected with ICT. Also discussed a case where a village in Athar Pradesh was connected to a hospital in Chennai. We also discussed the famous e-channelling in Sri Lanka – which saves medical consumers time and money. Worst cases – most of us agreed that where the traditional system played a role we didn’t get the outcome we’d expect. In India one of the reasons for the boom is the ICT Taskforce which was setup not directly within the system but which gave a positive outcome quickly.

We agreed that we should not place too much emphasis on cases studies on concentrate on alternatives.

Training: What is the market? Is there a market? Agreed that it’s a niche market, but still a requirement. We find that those who regulate are not properly trained. Discussed the role of LIRNEasia in this environment. For example, conducting a training course on spectrum management. It would also be nice to see how new tech can fit into various technologies. How does VOIP fit in SL or India? How can we get the best use in the local context?

Should LIRNEasia go beyond its theme (electricity, utilities)? For the moment no. LIRNEasia shouldn’t open the Pandora’s box of other stuff. It should provide the info lacked by govts and regulators – this is where LIRNEasia should play a role

Group 4:

Virtual Regional Organization Feasible: Yes

Precedents: LIRNE is a working model where we have a network which connects different unis very effectively. There is also PanAsia, based in Singapore and funded by IDRC. There is also Global Knowledge Partnership (advocacy). Oh, PIPU. Used the web and face to face meetings to work on draft reports and legislations.

LIRNEasia should be consistent with what we advise others to do. If we tell people to be open we should be open (tell them to go online, us too)

How to develop and participate broader participation: should follow a Polder? model. What’s a polder? Some place where sheep graze in the Netherlands. Knowledge should flow freely across the organization, sans gatekeepers. Regional partners should submit weekly/bi-weekly reports on what they’re up to. We also saw great merit in subscriptions to relevant publications that we can share.

Financial matters, etc. Transparent, auditing.

Suggestions on how to use the web – we already have a succesful example with WDR. We also suggested a intranet to share documents and research. There was an important caveat – the strategic use of the web. We may lose people if we’re too reliant on a certain technology. What if we’re using broadband and our partners have a thin pipe. We may lose people. Also the need for a moderator to avoid info overload. On a weekly basis we could have weekly moderators.

I dunno if Rohan uses MSN (no).

Today is the official start of the LIRNEasia Expert Forum on Regulation and Investment. Rohan Samarajiva is enamoured of ‘real-time updating’, hence you will be getting a plethora of information.

Dr. William Melody delivered the commencement address, beginning with a simple question: “What are the characteristics of 21st Century Network Economies and Information Societies?” He also answered the question ‘What does LIRNE do?’ saying that “it serves mainly to develop human capital and contribute expert opinion to the world dialogue on regulation. LIRNE is established in Denmark, the Netherlands, South Africa, UK, and now Sri Lanka.

The World Dialogue on Regulation mission is to facilitate an international dialogue to generate and disseminate new knowledge. While our primary target is primarily involved to people who are involved in regulation, it is not our only audience. Perhaps the greatest party that has to understand the process is the incumbent telecom monopoly who can come to understand that by letting others participate they can benefit.” (FULL PRESENTATION)

Dr. Rohan Samarajiva followed, saying that Sri Lanka has over 300,000 people on waiting lists for phones, which is not good. To illustrate the demand for investment, I will read for you the needs assessment submitted to the Tokyo Conference.

“If we make the modest assumption that the North and East must have the same teledensity as the country as a whole, we would require a total of 786,000 connection in this region in the coming five years. You can see that we’re not doing that well, except for India. That is the problem we’re facing. It is to address this problem that this expert forum is designed. (FULL PRESENTATION)

Nobel Laureate Michael Spence spoke to the growth that effective ICT implementation can engender, and to the enormous benefits this can bring – especially to the poor.

Dr. Suman Bery, an emminent Indian economist delivered the keynote address, speaking on the infrastructure problem in general:

“In many ways the infrastructure sectors got into trouble because of a combination of populism and patronage. Regulators have not been given the tools to cut through this knot, and things are not very different from the decade before. What is the way out? I would have to say that I find it difficult analytically to point to any sharp set of scissors. I think it’s going to be a slow and patient process. Unless we get it right the investment flows will not be forthcoming, and getting it right will be a great feat of political economy.”

To this end, Dr. Bery recommended that resource-strapped regulators receive as much support as possible from a broad range of researchers and experts, like the expert forum assembled today in the Mount Lavinia Hotel.

Why LIRNEasia?
Enormous amounts of money are invested annually in ICTs. The potential of information and communication technologies, or ICTs for economic and social progress is substantial. ICTs aren’t necessarily the answer to higher incomes and development in itself; but together with other factors, they provide a means to improve people’s capabilities and knowledge so that they may better their lives. ‘Asia’ is the collective name for the countries roughly encircled by Russia, Turkey, Egypt and the Indian and Pacific Oceans. There is little that the entire region holds in common. Within this vast continent, lies South Asia, home to the largest concentration of poor people in the world. Yet Asia is seen as driving the global economy and is home to some of the world’s highest ICT industry performers. Korea has the highest broadband penetration rate as well as the second highest estimated number of Internet users in the world. Taiwan (China) has the highest number of mobile phones per hundred inhabitants in the world; Hong Kong (China) has the third highest (ITU, 2004). But Asia is also home to some of the lowest: the Internet is used by less than one per cent of the population in DPR Korea, Myanmar, Afghanistan, Bangladesh and Cambodia, just to name a few. There are less than two telephones (fixed or mobile) per one hundred people in several of these countries (ITU, 2004). Broadband penetration is barely worth mentioning in many of Asia’s poorer nations. In terms of ICT sector performance, there are many Asias. ICT use in Asia and developing countries is held back by laws and regulations. The existing policy and regulatory arrangements do not help people use ICTs to live their lives; they actively hinder them, for the most part. Very often, especially in South Asia, laws and regulations restrict, or even preclude the exploitation of new low-cost technologies, such as Wi-Fi. Wi-Fi is ideally suited for developing countries, it is a very low-cost and convenient technology developed by multiple small manufacturers because the United States government chose to unregulate two bands of frequencies (2.4 GHz and 5.8GHz), also called the Industrial, Scientific and Medical (ISM) bands. Subject to minimal safeguards, people were free to do whatever they wanted in these bands. Today, pretty much every laptop you buy has got Wi-Fi built in. The equipment is cheap and ideal for countries where purchasing power is low. However, the frequency band that Wi-Fi operates in is regulated in most other countries. In Sri Lanka, for example, the law requires operators to obtain a license for ‘every frequency emitting apparatus’ from the telecom regulator. Although some operators, like LIRNEasia’s service provider have managed to include Wi-Fi services within the scope of their licenses, the full potential of the service cannot be achieved unless the law is changed. Unlicensing or deregulation of this band would greatly reduce the cost of making use of this technology, allowing the cost to users to reflect the true cost of the technology, not arbitrary regulatory charges. This is the kind of thing that we will seek to promote and facilitate.

Our Mission
LIRNEasia’s mission is to improve the lives the people of Asia; by making it easier to use the information and communication technologies that they need; by changing the laws, policies and regulations to enable those uses; by building Asia-based human capacity through research, training, consulting and advocacy. To that end, LIRNEasia will endeavor to transform governance and regulation of ICTs in the Asian region from obstructive, inhibiting regimes, into ones that will allow opportunities for people to use ICTs in ways that will improve their lives and to expand opportunities for entrepreneurs and innovators to introduce new products and services with a minimum of government interference. Our immediate priority is building a team of Asian ICT policy and regulatory professionals that can work on equal terms with the best in the world. Initially concentrating on the South Asian and Bay of Bengal areas, LIRNEasia will soon expand its scope to the rest of Asia, with the help of our regional partners. Sri Lanka will anchor this effort, but it will be a genuinely regional initiative, drawing on human capacity from the region itself. We will focus on creating and disseminating independent, useable, actionable knowledge, through applied research, on documenting and disseminating regional best practices, on training and on some forms of short-term advisory assistance to governments/parties who request it. Our primary audiences are government (including bilateral and multilateral donor agencies), the private sector within and outside Asia and civil society. We emphasize Asian expertise, but are not exclusive about it. We do case studies, but our policy is to abstract from the complexity to produce information that other countries can use.

Our culture

‘We aim to build a virtual organization that will one day make working from Bhutan as easy as working from this office. We will work in teams; we will work flexibly and we will work effectively. The organization centered on this office will help each person work to their full capacity; it will be a learning organization; a place where creativity is valued and debate encouraged. It will not be a place to clock in and out from; to engage in office intrigue; or to worry about the next promotion. It will add to your productivity, not drain it.’ -Rohan, LIRNEasia office opening

Currently, LIRNEasia’s physical presence consists of two full time staff, an executive director and a compact 15 by 20 ft office under the leafy shade of an ancient Mara tree at the back of the parking lot of SLIDA, the administrative training academy of Sri Lanka, in Colombo. Neither our size nor our location will in any way limit our possibilities. With a small administrative core, much of our work will be facilitated through extended networks across Asia. The value of this is parallel to that of networks according to Metcalfe’s law: the total value of a network is greater than the sum of the number of its users. We already have several researchers and partners across South Asia involved in our first projects. As far as technology and cost permit, LIRNEasia will function as a virtual organization, with small ‘wireless, paperless’ offices located in a few South Asian countries at a second stage. These offices will function primarily as administrative units, as well as communication points, where, for example, someone in Dhaka can participate in a project meeting, taking place in Colombo via video conferencing facilities at a Dhaka office. As well as a facilitator of innovative ICT uses, we aim to be an exemplar. Our office is one of the few Wi-Fi hotspots in Sri Lanka. At LIRNEasia’s inaugural event, the 2004 WDR Expert Forum at the Mount Lavinia Hotel, a temporary hotspot was provided for the participants, so they could check their email from their seat at the forum, saving them the hassle of going down to the hotel’s highly priced Business Center for Internet access. We also hope to collaborate or make use of the Distance Learning Center Limited, an advanced video-conferencing and IT-based teaching facility at the SLIDA office, onsite. Our website is a user friendly work and discussion platform, adapting innovations from the blogging culture. Animated discussion and debate, and is open to anyone interested. Whilst making innovative use of technologies, we emphasize the building of relationships and common values among our team members. Regular colloquia are held for our local partners to share information on discuss hot topics. In the future, we even expect that our regional partners can be virtually present at these, by the use of whatever technology possible. For the most part, the project teams will not be in the same country, so for this reason it is very important that we have effective mechanisms for the seamless coordination and completion of our work. Additionally, the significance of Colombo office as the base of LIRNEasia’s operations will gradually be reduced over a period of three years.

Supporting organizations
LIRNEasia is the Asian affiliate of LIRNE.NET, collaboration among leading universities in Denmark, the Netherlands, South Africa and the United Kingdom and now LIRNEasia. LIRNEasia’s programs over 2004-2005 will primarily be funded by IDRC [International Development Research Center] of Canada, which supports many projects in developing countries, and has over the last two decades supported hundreds of research projects in South Asia, including the ISP, Pan Lanka Networking. LIRNEasia’s work will also be funded by infoDev, a World Bank unit that has partnered with LIRNE.NET since 2001 in the World Dialogue on Regulation for Network Economies. LIRNEasia is a non-profit organization incorporated under Sri Lankan law but intending to operate throughout Asia. LIRNEasia was officially launched on 17 September 2004 during the World Dialogue on Regulation’s Expert Forum in Sri Lanka.