Telcos' Easy Way Out

I don’t know about you but I’m already sharpening my pitchfork. I’ve been having terrible internet connection from Sky Broadband for several months now. The last thing I wanted to hear over the holidays was NTC allowing telcos to data cap internet connection.

My first reaction was, “ARE THEY KIDDING ME? “I can hardly connect to the internet and they have have the gall to try and impose this?”

I’m dead serious that my internet is so slow. It takes me so long to view video clips on Youtube so I try to avoid the site. I just laugh bitterly when someone suggests I download something off torrent sites. I’ve tried many ISPs in the past and most have been unsatisfactory. Very unsatisfactory. Considering that I live just a stone’s throw away from Ortigas Center, it befuddles me why I only have a few telco options in my area to choose from. Now I’m beginning to suspect that the equipment ISPs use are antiquated and look something like this.

Let us study the draft memorandum of the NTC (which I couldn’t access because either the NTC website is down or my internet connection is very slow).

Draft NTC Memo Order for telcos on Minimum Speed of Broadband Connection, December 2010

Basically, it will give ISPs the go-signal to impose data caps on their subscribers. NTC also wants the minimum speed to be published by the ISPs. However, it didn’t state the kind of penalties the ISPs will get if we subscribers receive less than 80% of the published speed. Furthermore, the memorandum states

WHEREAS, it has been observed that few subscribers/ users connect to the internet for unreasonably long period of time depriving other users from connecting to the internet.

I wonder what their definition of “unreasonably long period of time” is. What if I’m online 17 hours a day but I only browse, use social networks, and email? I think that’s still within the bounds of fair use.

We already pay more for internet services compared to our Asian neighbors. M1 of Singapore charges only S$25.20 (approx P860) for 5 MBP. For P1,000 on Sky Broadband, I only get 1 MBP. I wouldn’t really mind the price difference but the service is so unreliable.

NTC was set up to protect us, the consumers, but this “Minimum Speed of Broadband Connections” proposal is just the opposite. The proposal came from the telcos themselves and NTC Public Relations Officer Paolo Arceo even said so.

(This) particular clause was suggested by public and public telecommunications entities to prevent network abuse by unscrupulous subscribers who violate intellectual property laws, particularly on copyright, by downloading movies and software, similar to abusive subscribers of unlimited call/text promotions which were primarily designed or person-to-person use but used for voluminous commercial undertakings.

“These types of network abuse limit accessibility to a few instead of providing adequate access for all of the subscribers. Commercial or high volume users may avail of other internet connection packages which have committed higher speeds and allow heavy data exchanges.

There are only a few who abuse the network. NTC shouldn’t make every subscriber suffer because of those bastards. What NTC should do is make sure the ISPs have adequate infrastructure to meet subscriber volume. Data capping is just the telcos’ easy way out from delivering quality service. If data capping is a must then NTC should draft a better memorandum where consumers will also benefit.

See you on Tuesday!

The National Telecommunications Commission will be holding a Public Hearing & Consultation regarding the Memorandum Order on Minimum Speed of Broadband Connection.

What: Proposed Memorandum Order on “Minimum Speed of Broadband Connection”
When: January 11, 2011 – Tuesday, 2:00pm
Where: NTC Executive Conference Rm., 3rd Floor, NTC Building, BIR Road, East Triangle, Diliman, Quezon City

Karen Ang

A plebeian who is trying to make small changes in this world.

  • How true is it that there are bandwidth leachers out there?

    http://www.symbianize.com/archive/index.php/t-163034.html

    The ISPs should be looking into these anomalies first before proposing any caps or controls to the legit users.

  • Here the full article I posted on my blog that is a response to your first post here in ProPinoy on the topic of broadband caps. I’d provide the URL but last time I did, the comment never saw the light of day:

    In a recent article on ProPinoy.net, blogger Cocoy Dayao laments the implementation of volume caps on internet usage in the Philippines by the National Telecommunications Commission (NTC). Before we fly off the handle here, I believe we first need to step back a bit and ask this more fundamental question:

    How exactly does increased access to high-speed internet for the average Filipino consumer make her “more productive”?

    Everyone keeps saying that more access to the Net at higher speeds “benefits” people and makes them more productive. But I read this OECD paper he cited, “Broadband and the Economy” (which, by the way, can be more easily accessed here) and so far as I understand, the paper:

    (1) lumped computers and info tech under “general purpose technologies” (GPTs) which is a broad class that includes the steam engine, movable printing, etc); and,

    (2) cited how progress with GPT’s in general correlate to general improvements in economic output and quality of life.

    As such, the paper does not cite any specific causal relationship between consumers’ increased access to high-speed internet and their personal prospects for prosperity. Much of the potential productivity gains cited relating to high-speed internet access are mainly in the business-to-business (B2B) space.

    But Cocoy’s blog post, is trying to make a case for maximum access to the Net at maximum speeds for consumers. However, there seems to be no specific and tangible relationship between an individual’s earning capacity and his/her access to the Net — except perhaps in the case of truly creative individuals who add original content to the Web that command a premium from a broad base of consumers (meaning not only their friends and family members).

    But guess what, in the case of the majority of people with access to the Net, much of what they contribute (upload to the Web) is junk or at least relevant only to a small circle of friends and family members. And much of what they consume (download from the Web) is junk as well, representing more of productivity loss — time wasted looking at — or perving on — pictures of their friends’ drunken escapades on Facebook, watching “scandal” videos on YouTube, etc.).

    Where is that much-touted productivity gain supposedly to be realised by consumers’ increased access to the Net?

    One industry that is clearly emerging as the undisputed winner in a world of universal individual high-speed access to the Net is the porn industry. And in the Philippines, specifically, our renowned outsourced services “prowess” is stepping up to meeting the demand…

    “They say cyber pimps are offering cheap services via the Internet in a seedy mutation of the country’s sunshine outsource industry in which call centre work and other back-office operations are done for companies in richer countries.”

    Where are the results?

    That question remains a head-scratcher when it comes to the dubious promise of prosperity supposedly to be delivered by universal access to broadband internet.

    • Anonymous

      While it is hard (and very time-consuming) to analyze on a person-by-person basis who uses the internet wastefully and who do not, the NTC most likely has been convinced that there are “campuses” who use them more productively, namely businesses (for-profit and non-profit) and schools. So the ISP’s are giving better service to those guys (especially since they buy fractional or full T1’s) and the residentials get the “latak” (translation : lousy service).

      Malacanang won’t be affected by the NTC hearing — Malacanang has T1’s and T3’s with QoS and SLA’s..

      • GabbyD

        its not that hard. they can look at the distribution of data uploaded and downloaded. if there are large outliers, those are the data hogs.

  • Here the full article I posted on my blog that is a response to your first post here in ProPinoy on the topic of broadband caps. I’d provide the URL but last time I did, the comment never saw the light of day:

    In a recent article on ProPinoy.net, blogger Cocoy Dayao laments the implementation of volume caps on internet usage in the Philippines by the National Telecommunications Commission (NTC). Before we fly off the handle here, I believe we first need to step back a bit and ask this more fundamental question:

    How exactly does increased access to high-speed internet for the average Filipino consumer make her “more productive”?

    Everyone keeps saying that more access to the Net at higher speeds “benefits” people and makes them more productive. But I read this OECD paper he cited, “Broadband and the Economy” (which, by the way, can be more easily accessed here) and so far as I understand, the paper:

    (1) lumped computers and info tech under “general purpose technologies” (GPTs) which is a broad class that includes the steam engine, movable printing, etc); and,

    (2) cited how progress with GPT’s in general correlate to general improvements in economic output and quality of life.

    As such, the paper does not cite any specific causal relationship between consumers’ increased access to high-speed internet and their personal prospects for prosperity. Much of the potential productivity gains cited relating to high-speed internet access are mainly in the business-to-business (B2B) space.

    But Cocoy’s blog post, is trying to make a case for maximum access to the Net at maximum speeds for consumers. However, there seems to be no specific and tangible relationship between an individual’s earning capacity and his/her access to the Net — except perhaps in the case of truly creative individuals who add original content to the Web that command a premium from a broad base of consumers (meaning not only their friends and family members).

    But guess what, in the case of the majority of people with access to the Net, much of what they contribute (upload to the Web) is junk or at least relevant only to a small circle of friends and family members. And much of what they consume (download from the Web) is junk as well, representing more of productivity loss — time wasted looking at — or perving on — pictures of their friends’ drunken escapades on Facebook, watching “scandal” videos on YouTube, etc.).

    Where is that much-touted productivity gain supposedly to be realised by consumers’ increased access to the Net?

    One industry that is clearly emerging as the undisputed winner in a world of universal individual high-speed access to the Net is the porn industry. And in the Philippines, specifically, our renowned outsourced services “prowess” is stepping up to meeting the demand…

    “They say cyber pimps are offering cheap services via the Internet in a seedy mutation of the country’s sunshine outsource industry in which call centre work and other back-office operations are done for companies in richer countries.”

    Where are the results?

    That question remains a head-scratcher when it comes to the dubious promise of prosperity supposedly to be delivered by universal access to broadband internet.

    • Anonymous

      While it is hard (and very time-consuming) to analyze on a person-by-person basis who uses the internet wastefully and who do not, the NTC most likely has been convinced that there are “campuses” who use them more productively, namely businesses (for-profit and non-profit) and schools. So the ISP’s are giving better service to those guys (especially since they buy fractional or full T1’s) and the residentials get the “latak” (translation : lousy service).

      Malacanang won’t be affected by the NTC hearing — Malacanang has T1’s and T3’s with QoS and SLA’s..

      • GabbyD

        its not that hard. they can look at the distribution of data uploaded and downloaded. if there are large outliers, those are the data hogs.

  • Anonymous

    Typical solution is to throttle-down the “service-speed” provided to a user depending on volume received.

    The thresholds are measured in a 36-hour sliding window. For example, there are no bandwidth rate limits imposed on an individual until the total amount of data transferred across all registered devices reaches 3 gigabytes. At that time, the individual will have a 1024 kilobit per second (kbps) bandwidth rate limit. When a total of 3.5 gigabytes of data is transferred, the individual’s bandwidth rate limit is further reduced and remains at 160kbps for at least 6 hours.Since the amount transferred is measured in a 36-hour sliding window, reducing Internet transfers will allow the bandwidth rate to recover, eventually to the unrestricted rate. Note that download and upload transfers are counted separately, and exceeding the thresholds listed below in either direction will result in the stated bandwidth rate.

    NOTE : 36-hour sliding window.
    ==============================

    Pilipinas problem (when it can’t even hook up new users) is infrastructure (the boxes at the corners to which the residential users are hooked up to). While someone doing a view of a 25mb Youtube video (that has to go on that single pipe — the single underground cable between Pilipinas and “the world”) can expect degradation. But if a pinoy doing a half-meg download or simply doing email does not get near-instantaneous response, ISP infrastructure is sh* *-*tty.

    The ISP’s should use “boxes” with enough capacity not only to hook up more users but also to prevent happen instances of 75% or “..the connection is dead!!!” degradation during the (combined) peak-demand (by customers)

    The ISP’s (especially the resellers (buy wholesale from Telcos; sell retail to customers) probably have poorly configured “backbone” network, going cheap with T3’s instead of Oc3 or Oc12 and higher. Can’t be T1 because the resellers sell T1 to commercial customers. So ISP’s should be on OC3 (155mbps); burstable OC3 is standard solution for resellers/customers who seek ultra-fast connectivity for their Internet needs (sold “tingi” – fractional at 60, 70, 80, 90, 100, 120, 140) and of course, a full 155 Mbps of service. The telco (from whom the ISP’s buy their bandwidth from) should have large “pipes” in the backbone at OC48 (2.5Gbps) or OC192.

    pcmag.com/encyclopedia_term/0,2542,t=OC&i=48251,00.asp

  • Anonymous

    Typical solution is to throttle-down the “service-speed” provided to a user depending on volume received.

    The thresholds are measured in a 36-hour sliding window. For example, there are no bandwidth rate limits imposed on an individual until the total amount of data transferred across all registered devices reaches 3 gigabytes. At that time, the individual will have a 1024 kilobit per second (kbps) bandwidth rate limit. When a total of 3.5 gigabytes of data is transferred, the individual’s bandwidth rate limit is set to 160 kbps. Since the amount transferred is measured in a 36-hour sliding window, reducing Internet transfers will allow the bandwidth rate to recover, eventually to the unrestricted rate. Note that download and upload transfers are counted separately, and exceeding the thresholds listed below in either direction will result in the stated bandwidth rate.

    NOTE : 36-hour sliding window.
    ==============================

    Pilipinas problem (when it can’t even hook up new users) is infrastructure (the boxes at the corners to which the residential users are hooked up to).

  • Watching YouTube and downloading stuff from Torrent sites. So that sort of activity made possible by fast Internet is supposed to make life better for Filipinos? Everyone keeps making a case for access to fast internet as some sort of ticket to “more opportunities”. Surely you can come up with something better than watching YouTube and downloading stuff from Torrent sites… I’m not gonna hold my breath though.

    • cocoy

      Studies like or example, “Broadband and the Economy,” by the OECD show that there is a effect in GDP that comes with Fast Internet. “Building Broadband strategies and policies for the developing world” on the other hand, highlight some of the ways, governments such as the Philippines can do to maximize the growth opportunities of Internet.

      • GabbyD

        according 2 the OECD study, it helps if it creates business where there was once none.

        if its NOT used for business, then there’s a problem.

        • cocoy

          it also said that Internet helps not in the production of ICTs, /BUT/ in delivering productivity gains in a business. I.e. messaging becomes easier. Streaming video conference calls is a productivity booster.

          That said, define business? One man’s business is another’s man’s game. We have loads of people developing online games in the Philippines. They sell online games that people play. For example: Special Forces is a game popular in the Philippines. LevelUP games is local.

          Stream is the iTunes of gaming. Loads of people buy content from Stream. There is an economic condition associated with it. People pay for that content.

          We have an internet economy, albeit still a small one. People live in the Philippines but get work on the Internet.

          Web developers in the Philippines can typically upload Gigabytes of data to their client’s site.

          We have advertising agencies developing content.

          Creating Youtube videos or podcasts may seem trivial for a lot of people, but there is also an associated economic cost in that. Some of the more popular podcasting sites in the world generate millions of dollars in revenue. It hasn’t kicked off in the Philippines for various reasons, and one of them is the slowness of the Internet.

          The creation of mobile apps on whatever platform is a business. the Downloading of that content, and the interactions associated with that app– sending data to leader boards is still content.

          Watching a Steve Jobs video could be entertainment but for journalists it could be work.

          Listening to a live stream of an Apple earnings call could be work for a stockbroker so he could advice his clients, whether to buy stock or not.

          Watching video from StockTwits.tv could be associated with “fun,” but the learning could that be factored into productivity?

          A publisher who saw some errors in their Ibon Adarna ebook could very well push for a book update to someone who has bought it. That’s content and that’s an associated bandwidth cost. That’s something important between the publisher and the reader.

          So i beg your pardon when you say, “if its NOT used for business, then there’s a problem.” That’s a scary line because who is to say, what isn’t business to you could be business to the next person. A free market leaves people at peace to very well do what they please within the framework— the rules we— that is to say— society or government determined.

          This is the power of the Internet. It is enhances nearly everything humans do in ways we can’t even begin to imagine.

          • GabbyD

            i meant if whether the internet creates value, usually involving the flow of money (exchange of servies that has or creates monetary value).

            most of your examples meet the criterion. but NOT all uses of the internet creates value, or the kind of interaction that OECD aspires to.

            arguably, most of it does not fulfill this criterion

          • Refer to a previous article I wrote in response to the first post on ProPinoy you made about this issue. I made a quick read through that OECD paper you posted and came to the conclusion that the OECD study did not specifically cite access to fast Internet as having a strong causal relationship with personal prosperity. To wit: getrealphilippines.blog..

          • cocoy

            GabbyD/benign0:

            Broadband and the Economy page 24 to 25:

            “However, it is obvious that as broadband is spreading throughout the economy, transformations are taking place in the way business is done, work is organised, and resources are allocated. These effects are observable especially in some very large services sectors accounting for a large share of the total economy, such as communications services, financial services, business services, transportation, real estate, travel and tourism and retail, not to mention the growing impact on public services such as health,education and government and addressing environmental challenges. Content provision and advertising are also rapidly changing in the face of broadband. As a result, larger effects than can currently be identified can be expected.

            Maliranta and Rouvinen (2006), in a study for Finland, find that a computer with only processing and storage capabilities boosts labour productivity by 9%, portability by 32%, wireline connectivity by 14% and wireless connectivity by 6%. As this study was carried out using data for 2001 when wireless connectivity was still in its infancy, the impacts can be expected to increase significantly as the use of wireless devices and mobile broadband intensifies. However, ―selectivity‖ is an outstanding issue in the analysis as it could be the case that it‘s the more productive workers who get the better equipment. The impact of ICT on worker productivity is discussed in more detail in Box 10.

            The economic benefits of mobile phones are often studied in the case of developing countries. McKinsey (2006), in a study for China, India and the Philippines, estimates that mobile phones may add as much as 8% to a nation‘s GDP.”

            Further, page 29:
            “The role of broadband in the international restructuring of services activities and enhanced competition in this sector is increasing as more and more services can be traded as bandwidth increases. Broadband thus enables increasing economic integration and, as a result, countries face increased international competition in sectors and jobs that were previously uncontested. New global electronic networks with ever-increasing capacity and pervasiveness are to the 21st century knowledge economy what railroads, steamships, telegraphs and postal systems were to the 19th century industrial economy.”

          • Yeah, that’s all business-to-business benefits, which at best provides a good enough case for unfettered access for business purposes. That leaves the issue of limits on personal/household access to the Net. Again this goes back to whether said access will be used mainly for consumption (entertainment and time-wasting activities) or income-generating activities.

            Still no strong case even in the text you quoted above.

          • cocoy

            “This goes back to whether said access will be used mainly for consumption”

            What is this preoccupation with what other people will do with their own time?

            They’ll use it for whatever activity they want to use it. They’re paying for it directly or indirectly.

            As I mentioned: entertainment is not a time wasting activity because there is an economicbenefit to it. The people who make games sell them.

            The MMORPG is a multibillion global business. Games make money. Gameclub for example is huge in the Philippines.

            What you equate “entertainment” to waste of time, is not a waste of time.

            Media companies can’t make money when no one will download the content.

            News. Movies. Television. Hell, Apps, is consumption. Books. Everything is now content. Just the mere fact one browses a web page constitute payment somewhere. If they read a Filipino blog with google adsense then that blogger gets paid.

            If people buy from Amazon and have it shipped in the Philippines that still gets taxed. Money. economy works.

            69 percent of Filipinos use an Internet cafe. They use it as a communications tool. They call their families. They send email, upload photos. They pay internet cafes. That’s an economic activity. They play games. And Facebook sells ad pages.

            Everything is Content, and it translates to an economic activity. Internet means you are both the producer and consumer.

            The whole point of contention: broadband in the Philippines sucks. People— Business and the General public are paying for Internet that is crap.

            Broadband in the Philippines has an economic benefit. i emphasize from Broadband and Economy:

            “The role of broadband in the international restructuring of services activities and enhanced competition in this sector is increasing as more and more services can be traded as bandwidth increases. Broadband thus enables increasing economic integration and, as a result, countries face increased international competition in sectors and jobs that were previously uncontested.”

          • The “preoccupation with what other people will do with their own time” is the same as with any preoccupation with what people consume. Greenies lament people buying huge quantities of bottled water and burning huge amounts of fossil fuels with their SUVs. Liberals lament people spending on partying when there are thousands of needies who could benefit from a better use of these party-folks’ disposable income. Right-wingers lament government funds being doled out to people who will spend these handouts on celphone “load”, drugs, and alcohol.

            Entertainment is of course a life necessity. But then stop to think why the Media is so gung-ho about more Net access. The more content that can be shoved down fibre optic cables, the more Media conglomerates make money. And the cheaper they can produce this content, the bigger their profits.

            If you still cannot see what is wrong with this picture, let me spell it out for you:

            Content producers are able to cut production costs by producing crappier content in BIGGER quantities.

            You don’t make a lot of money selling a bag of corn. But buy and sell this *commodity* by the tonne, and you start talking serious money.

            Same concept applies to cheap, commoditised, content like the crap Filipinos watch on YouTube and the bootlegged movies they download off Torrent sites.

            Where is the “progress” promised in that ability to consume more crap?

          • GabbyD

            unlike B0, i think its good that people can consume things they like. thats a mark of a successful economy and people.

            however, the key issue is whether or not the bandwidth has a multiplier effect on the production of innovative ideas (you called this economic activity, similar).

            IF the content of media takes away from that, then there’s a problem.

            take games — if most are only/remain consumers — AND NOT PRODUCERS THAT SELL CONTENT, then thats a problem.

            consumption of content is only a first step. IF that is the LAST STEP, thats a problem.

    • Did I say that those activities will make life better for us? No I didn’t. I just mentioned some activities I do online. Still, a faster internet connection will benefit businesses, educational institutions, government, and private companies. The trend now is real time everything and the current speed of our internet hardly allows us to do that. This is just one aspect where we are lagging behind our neighbors

  • Watching YouTube and downloading stuff from Torrent sites. So that sort of activity made possible by fast Internet is supposed to make life better for Filipinos? Everyone keeps making a case for access to fast internet as some sort of ticket to “more opportunities”. Surely you can come up with something better than watching YouTube and downloading stuff from Torrent sites… I’m not gonna hold my breath though.

    • cocoy

      Studies like or example, “Broadband and the Economy,” by the OECD show that there is a effect in GDP that comes with Fast Internet. “Building Broadband strategies and policies for the developing world” on the other hand, highlight some of the ways, governments such as the Philippines can do to maximize the growth opportunities of Internet.

      • GabbyD

        according 2 the OECD study, it helps if it creates business where there was once none.

        if its NOT used for business, then there’s a problem.

        • cocoy

          it also said that Internet helps not in the production of ICTs, /BUT/ in delivering productivity gains in a business. I.e. messaging becomes easier. Streaming video conference calls is a productivity booster.

          That said, define business? One man’s business is another’s man’s game. We have loads of people developing online games in the Philippines. They sell online games that people play. For example: Special Forces is a game popular in the Philippines. LevelUP games is local.

          Stream is the iTunes of gaming. Loads of people buy content from Stream. There is an economic condition associated with it. People pay for that content.

          We have an internet economy, albeit still a small one. People live in the Philippines but get work on the Internet.

          Web developers in the Philippines can typically upload Gigabytes of data to their client’s site.

          We have advertising agencies developing content.

          Creating Youtube videos or podcasts may seem trivial for a lot of people, but there is also an associated economic cost in that. Some of the more popular podcasting sites in the world generate millions of dollars in revenue. It hasn’t kicked off in the Philippines for various reasons, and one of them is the slowness of the Internet.

          The creation of mobile apps on whatever platform is a business. the Downloading of that content, and the interactions associated with that app– sending data to leader boards is still content.

          Watching a Steve Jobs video could be entertainment but for journalists it could be work.

          Listening to a live stream of an Apple earnings call could be work for a stockbroker so he could advice his clients, whether to buy stock or not.

          Watching video from StockTwits.tv could be associated with “fun,” but the learning could that be factored into productivity?

          A publisher who saw some errors in their Ibon Adarna ebook could very well push for a book update to someone who has bought it. That’s content and that’s an associated bandwidth cost. That’s something important between the publisher and the reader.

          So i beg your pardon when you say, “if its NOT used for business, then there’s a problem.” That’s a scary line because who is to say, what isn’t business to you could be business to the next person. A free market leaves people at peace to very well do what they please within the framework— the rules we— that is to say— society or government determined.

          This is the power of the Internet. It is enhances nearly everything humans do in ways we can’t even begin to imagine.

          • GabbyD

            i meant if whether the internet creates value, usually involving the flow of money (exchange of servies that has or creates monetary value).

            most of your examples meet the criterion. but NOT all uses of the internet creates value, or the kind of interaction that OECD aspires to.

            arguably, most of it does not fulfill this criterion

          • Refer to a previous article I wrote in response to the first post on ProPinoy you made about this issue. I made a quick read through that OECD paper you posted and came to the conclusion that the OECD study did not specifically cite access to fast Internet as having a strong causal relationship with personal prosperity. To wit: getrealphilippines.blog..

          • cocoy

            GabbyD/benign0:

            Broadband and the Economy page 24 to 25:

            “However, it is obvious that as broadband is spreading throughout the economy, transformations are taking place in the way business is done, work is organised, and resources are allocated. These effects are observable especially in some very large services sectors accounting for a large share of the total economy, such as communications services, financial services, business services, transportation, real estate, travel and tourism and retail, not to mention the growing impact on public services such as health,education and government and addressing environmental challenges. Content provision and advertising are also rapidly changing in the face of broadband. As a result, larger effects than can currently be identified can be expected.

            Maliranta and Rouvinen (2006), in a study for Finland, find that a computer with only processing and storage capabilities boosts labour productivity by 9%, portability by 32%, wireline connectivity by 14% and wireless connectivity by 6%. As this study was carried out using data for 2001 when wireless connectivity was still in its infancy, the impacts can be expected to increase significantly as the use of wireless devices and mobile broadband intensifies. However, ―selectivity‖ is an outstanding issue in the analysis as it could be the case that it‘s the more productive workers who get the better equipment. The impact of ICT on worker productivity is discussed in more detail in Box 10.

            The economic benefits of mobile phones are often studied in the case of developing countries. McKinsey (2006), in a study for China, India and the Philippines, estimates that mobile phones may add as much as 8% to a nation‘s GDP.”

            Further, page 29:
            “The role of broadband in the international restructuring of services activities and enhanced competition in this sector is increasing as more and more services can be traded as bandwidth increases. Broadband thus enables increasing economic integration and, as a result, countries face increased international competition in sectors and jobs that were previously uncontested. New global electronic networks with ever-increasing capacity and pervasiveness are to the 21st century knowledge economy what railroads, steamships, telegraphs and postal systems were to the 19th century industrial economy.”

          • Yeah, that’s all business-to-business benefits, which at best provides a good enough case for unfettered access for business purposes. That leaves the issue of limits on personal/household access to the Net. Again this goes back to whether said access will be used mainly for consumption (entertainment and time-wasting activities) or income-generating activities.

            Still no strong case even in the text you quoted above.

          • cocoy

            “This goes back to whether said access will be used mainly for consumption”

            What is this preoccupation with what other people will do with their own time?

            They’ll use it for whatever activity they want to use it. They’re paying for it directly or indirectly.

            As I mentioned: entertainment is not a time wasting activity because there is an economicbenefit to it. The people who make games sell them.

            The MMORPG is a multibillion global business. Games make money. Gameclub for example is huge in the Philippines.

            What you equate “entertainment” to waste of time, is not a waste of time.

            Media companies can’t make money when no one will download the content.

            News. Movies. Television. Hell, Apps, is consumption. Books. Everything is now content. Just the mere fact one browses a web page constitute payment somewhere. If they read a Filipino blog with google adsense then that blogger gets paid.

            If people buy from Amazon and have it shipped in the Philippines that still gets taxed. Money. economy works.

            69 percent of Filipinos use an Internet cafe. They use it as a communications tool. They call their families. They send email, upload photos. They pay internet cafes. That’s an economic activity. They play games. And Facebook sells ad pages.

            Everything is Content, and it translates to an economic activity. Internet means you are both the producer and consumer.

            The whole point of contention: broadband in the Philippines sucks. People— Business and the General public are paying for Internet that is crap.

            Broadband in the Philippines has an economic benefit. i emphasize from Broadband and Economy:

            “The role of broadband in the international restructuring of services activities and enhanced competition in this sector is increasing as more and more services can be traded as bandwidth increases. Broadband thus enables increasing economic integration and, as a result, countries face increased international competition in sectors and jobs that were previously uncontested.”

          • The “preoccupation with what other people will do with their own time” is the same as with any preoccupation with what people consume. Greenies lament people buying huge quantities of bottled water and burning huge amounts of fossil fuels with their SUVs. Liberals lament people spending on partying when there are thousands of needies who could benefit from a better use of these party-folks’ disposable income. Right-wingers lament government funds being doled out to people who will spend these handouts on celphone “load”, drugs, and alcohol.

            Entertainment is of course a life necessity. But then stop to think why the Media is so gung-ho about more Net access. The more content that can be shoved down fibre optic cables, the more Media conglomerates make money. And the cheaper they can produce this content, the bigger their profits.

            If you still cannot see what is wrong with this picture, let me spell it out for you:

            Content producers are able to cut production costs by producing crappier content in BIGGER quantities.

            You don’t make a lot of money selling a bag of corn. But buy and sell this *commodity* by the tonne, and you start talking serious money.

            Same concept applies to cheap, commoditised, content like the crap Filipinos watch on YouTube and the bootlegged movies they download off Torrent sites.

            Where is the “progress” promised in that ability to consume more crap?

          • GabbyD

            unlike B0, i think its good that people can consume things they like. thats a mark of a successful economy and people.

            however, the key issue is whether or not the bandwidth has a multiplier effect on the production of innovative ideas (you called this economic activity, similar).

            IF the content of media takes away from that, then there’s a problem.

            take games — if most are only/remain consumers — AND NOT PRODUCERS THAT SELL CONTENT, then thats a problem.

            consumption of content is only a first step. IF that is the LAST STEP, thats a problem.

    • Did I say that those activities will make life better for us? No I didn’t. I just mentioned some activities I do online. Still, a faster internet connection will benefit businesses, educational institutions, government, and private companies. The trend now is real time everything and the current speed of our internet hardly allows us to do that. This is just one aspect where we are lagging behind our neighbors