Globe subscribers, your Internet access is going to be throttled if your downloads and uploads exceed 1 gigabyte in a day. For most of you, whose Internet access involves mostly just emailing and interacting on Facebook or Twitter, this isn’t going to be an issue at all. But for those who use the Internet (via Globe Telecom) for business, a broadband cap is going to be a major problem.

Filipino netizens today are very sophisticated, constantly finding amazing and creative ways to make use of the Internet. Buying and selling online are activities that aren’t so newfangled anymore, and an increasing number of Filipinos are finding jobs through websites and making a living via the Internet. These people are in need of better Internet access, which Globe Telecom would do well to provide.

Everyday, I hear complaints from people around me about their Internet access woes. At home, in the office, in public Wi-Fi hotspots, Filipino Internet users are dissatisfied. But more urgently, the satisfaction of Filipino Internet users whose living depends on the Internet are not being met.

In a news article, Globe Telecom purports that a minority of users are abusing access:

In a recent internal analysis, Globe said about 5 percent of abusive subscribers use 80 percent of the available broadband Internet bandwidth in the company’s network.

This leaves only 20 percent of the capacity to be shared by 95 percent of the remaining users.

Source: INQUIRER.net

They seem to be blaming “abusive” Internet access on illegal downloading of content (music, TV shows, etc.), but are they for certain that these are the only activities going on online? It’s like saying excessive use of knives is bad because it kills people. Do chefs kill people for a living?

I don’t think telecommunications firms in particular, or businesses in general, are in a position to dictate which activities are illegal and which aren’t. That’s the government’s job. In my opinion, Globe Telecom is imposing their broadband cap because they do not want to invest further in their facilities and infrastructure.

Do they really give a damn about Filipinos, about protecting us from illegal online activities? I doubt that very much. And my reason for saying that is this: if they did care, they would be proactively anticipating the fast-paced growth of Internet usage in the country, and addressing this by meeting our requirements. But no, what Globe seems to be doing now is attempting to hide the fact that their Internet service provision is sub-par and does not even meet the minimum requirements of today’s netizen.

I’m quite certain that everyone who’s using the Internet for work or business will agree with me here, that if Globe, Smart and the other telecoms firms provided better Internet access, productivity would soar and we would have more time and resources available.

TXTPower, a mobile users watchdog, has a very cogent suggestion: for the government to conduct an independent review of telcoms companies’ existing facilities and services vis-à-vis consumer demand. Let’s hope that the National Telecommunications Commission finds it persuasive enough. But if you doubt that, then let’s all be vigilant and defend our universal right to a better Internet.

This may be a small matter, but for me, it’s a big deal. For a whole week, we didn’t have Internet at home. (We were on SmartBro Broadband before, but when the service deteriorated beyond belief, we transferred to PLDT myDSL. Not much of an improvement, I’m afraid.) The first time we called their helpdesk, the call center agent said that they were experiencing a “system-wide failure” at PLDT. One would think, when such a thing occurred, that a company would pour its resources into solving such a serious matter, yes?

It took a whole week, despite our calling PLDT everyday. We got ridiculous questions like “Are you using a Wi-Fi router?” — as if that ever mattered to problems at their end! I was telling them that their modem was registering a “DSL” connection but that the “Internet” lamp was dim, so that it was probably a server issue and not a local one. To that, I got canned answers that helped not one iota.

Turns out that they migrated their DNS servers. Changed the whole batch of IP addresses. After seven days, a PLDT technician (a contractor, I’m certain) comes over to the house and reconfigures the DNS server. That straightforward. From 58.69.254.69 to 124.106.4.2. And I got my crappy Internet connection back.

They couldn’t have conveyed this bit of information over the phone??

Last night I was chatting with a friend who’s in London. He has a BPO company in Davao and his office is connected to PLDT myDSL as well. And he was having the same problem. He told me that, for ₱1,000/month equivalent, his connectivity at home is very reliable and stable and maintains a bandwidth of 15 gigs. One thousand pesos for a fifteen gigabyte line?? Now that’s broadband!

Back here, we have to contend with abysmally dismal connectivity. And as if that weren’t enough, we have to put up with customer service that’s moving in retrograde!

So now I’m thinking, should we move to Sun Broadband? I’ve heard that their connection’s pretty good here in Davao. But the question is, up to when…?

Ok, to be fair to the NTC, the draft Memorandum Order is actually about whipping telcos into shape: that ISPs should deliver a minimum of 80% of promised bandwidth. Still, allowing ISPs to put a cap on bandwidth use is anti-development, it’s against our freedom, and it’s just plain embarrassing.

The rationale, NTC said, is to prevent illegal downloading of huge amounts of cyber-contraband, so to speak. But that line of reasoning is flawed and flimsy. I know of many people who use the Internet to download (and upload) gigabytes of data for work or for pursuing knowledge and not for anything illegal. (It’s like saying highways shouldn’t be used at night because criminals operate in the dark…)

If you ask me, this smacks of the government colluding with greedy telcos. Wouldn’t those companies just love it if their bandwidth-throttling activities become legalized? Then they wouldn’t have to upgrade their facilities or technologies to keep up with demand.

Cocoy Dayao of The ProPinoy Project wrote an open letter to the president and to Congress. Click here to read it. Let’s hope the government listens.

When I was in Vilnius, Lithuania for a conference on Internet Governance, I enjoyed 4G access via a USB modem. I was uploading at an average of 5Mbps, can you imagine? In almost every foreign city I’ve visited, Internet access speeds are way out there compared to ours here in the Philippines. This in spite of our having a relatively high Internet penetration rate. You’d think our telcos would be competing against each other to deliver the best in terms of technologies in order to woo the market. Instead, they attempt to dazzle the masses with unfulfilled promises of “unlimited” access.

It’s not even only about reasonable connection speeds with Philippine carriers. There’s still that gaping problem of under-serviced areas in the country. But let’s leave that for another discussion.

More and more Filipinos are finding themselves online today, the hours spent by each Filipino using the Internet have grown exponentially since the last decade, and there’s no slowing down this growth. And yet, the providers of Internet connectivity aren’t keeping up. They say “broadband” to label their Internet products, but is it really? The way Internet access is now, I’m happy when I get a steady speed of 80Kbps, which isn’t always.

The final NTC Memorandum Order should indeed compel telcos to deliver what they’re advertising — and yes, they should declare a CIR. Heck, they should already be doing so, Memorandum Order or no. But, the NTC should drop that part about allowing providers to limit bandwidth usage.

Like what Abe Olandres of YugaTech said, “I’d (rather) look at the other provision that requires a minimum guaranteed speed based on the subscribed speed.” However, Olandres goes on to defend the draft M.O. and puts forth the analogy of the MMDA limiting the use of the highways in the nation’s capital via color coding. But, with all due respect, I think this analogy is not apt.

The days of saying physical roads are analogous to the so-called information highway are long over, in my opinion. The highways in congested Metro Manila are incomparable to the Internet because the former is a limited resource: what you see is what you get, despite the burgeoning amount of vehicular traffic, hence the implementation of color-coding schemes. But the Internet is not limited at all; it’s limited only by what the telcos are providing at the moment. So, in this vein, the question really is not about limited resources, but about competence.

There’s been talk about the “fair-use policy” being adopted by telcos. A good friend of mine pointed out that this is baloney. If you’re a waterworks body, he goes on to say, you are constrained to implement fair-use policies because potable water is in limited supply. But, again, the Internet as a resource is not comparable to water supply.

My view is that the Internet is not merely a resource, but a tool as well. That’s why throttling access to it is a detriment to progress.

Here’s what Jayvee Fernandez of a Bugged Life says about this: that it’s a human rights issue because this bandwidth cap will stunt progress. I agree with him.

Last January in the U.S., I attended a series of conferences and meetings where the main topic was Internet freedom, and where Secretary of State Hillary Clinton delivered a policy speech on America’s stand on this basic right. Together with me were bloggers and journalists from China, Iran, Lebanon, and from them I learned first-hand how censorship — no matter how seemingly noble the apparent objective — is counterproductive and anti-development.

Yesterday, the National Telecommunications Commission (NTC), which is mandated to regulate digital networks in the Philippines, declared that it is requiring ISPs (as well as down-line providers of Internet connectivity) to monitor, deter, and report on child pornography occurring on the Internet. This directive is by virtue of RA 9775, which seeks to prosecute crimes of child pornography in the Philippines. By and in itself, this Republic Act is deserving of the people’s wholehearted support. Congress should be lauded for passing such a law.

However, the means by which this administration hopes to implement RA 9775 — by sanctioning State-sponsored censorship — do not inspire confidence at all. There are technical as well as moral considerations here.

It would cost an arm and a leg to implement the NTC directive. ISPs would have to spend huge sums of money and man-hours to install software that will monitor the millions of websites that Filipinos visit each day. And you can expect that the telcos and their distributors will pass on the cost burden to us, the consumers. The investment won’t only be in the software required by NTC, but also in the acquisition of larger bandwidth pipes to accommodate the expected gigantic load that running the software will definitely entail. That is, if the ISPs are so inclined.

Otherwise, we would suffer considerable Internet access slowdown, if not intermittent down times. You see, the NTC directive states that ISPs must run the monitoring and censoring of websites 24/7. Meaning, each website that you access will have to pass through the censor before you are able to view or interact with it. Imagine the overload! Let’s say one web page is 100kb, and the average number of pages accessed per day is 100; then let’s consider a sample population of 100,000 people. That’s a total of 1 million kilobytes or 1 gigabyte — and that’s a very conservative estimate.

If ISPs do not upgrade their infrastructure in order to accommodate the expected overload, they will most probably have to sort to heavy caching of websites. Simply put, what this means is, if you access Inquirer.net today, the news you read next week will probably be the same as today’s!

Now, the moral issues. Censorship is an evil. It curtails freedom of expression and it is repressive. Enough said.

What about privacy? Yes, there are also privacy issues at stake here. The NTC, in the draft of its implementing guidelines, has stated that it will require logging of what it considers illegal access (which is also resource intensive, by the way). And by logging, does this mean that personal information is to be included? Hmmm… that smacks of China’s Green Dam initiative, doesn’t it?

Think about this. How come First World countries do not impose censorship? They certainly have the resources. I hope that you, and those in our government, will take the time to read Hillary Clinton’s Internet freedom speech. You’ll see why the Americans, the British, the French (whose government also nearly tried to put Internet censors in place) respect freedom of the people.

We should be vigilant. We should not allow our rights and freedom to be trampled upon. That’s not to say that we allow pornography to run rampant. My point is, this band-aid reaction by the NTC is rubbish. It won’t solve — not even by a long shot — the problem of child pornography on the Internet. If our government is sincere in addressing this social blight, they would do well to go to the root of it and not resort to superficial measures that will prove harmful to freedom.

(Now, just to be clear, I’d like to qualify what I mean by “freedom” here: our God-given liberty of self-determination.)

Two of CNN’s websites were also hacked, presumably by the same group. Or if not the same group, then other groups who share similar objectives, and that is to attack Western media organizations.

China has been under fire from American and European groups for its crackdown on Tibet. Recently, the Chinese government quashed a Tibetan uprising, the aim of which was to clamor for independence and self-rule. This Communist country has also been embattled lately due to highly publicized government-endorsed censorship policies covering the Internet.

In reaction to China’s strong-arming, thousands of protesters repeatedly attempted to extinguish the Olympic torch during its journey across Europe last weekend. In Paris, it was almost snuffed out five times during the torch run. (For more news on this, do a search for ‘China Olympics protest’ on cnn.com)

The hacking incident – which might only be one of many to come, some fear – was a form of retribution, although a misguided one. According to the media’s intelligence sources, the online attacks were perpetrated by private citizens eager to show their nationalistic verve. If you read the English statements in the hackers’ message, you’ll get a glimpse of what’s in their minds. It is possible they’re thinking that the anti-China protests are a one-way thing.

Do the Chinese people actually know why many Westerners are remonstrating against their totalitarian government? (Does the average mainland Chinese even realize that their government is totalitarian?) Knowing that Beijing censors the national trimedia – and the Internet, courtesy of Google – can we be certain that the Chinese are fully aware of what’s truly going on around them? It is conceivable that what the people are allowed to absorb are no more than finely-filtered news reports.

And yet, there are not a few expert programmers in China, and the West is beginning to fear that there might just be more than enough hackers around for comfort. CNN has reported in the recent past that there could be thousands of hacking-capable young Chinese in the capital alone. These are restless youth who could very well be eager to prove themselves worthy of the national honor.

China has vehemently denied supporting hacking activities by its nationals. But there have been half-rumors permeating through the Internet that successful hackers who’ve been able to infiltrate Western websites have been remunerated by their government ex post facto.

With their sheer size, the hosting of the Olympics this year, plus their unapologetic incursion into the global capitalist market, China is indeed formidable. It is a force that cannot be ignored at all. In our generation’s increasingly wired world, what could be more scary than a technologically advanced population that has no scruples against hacking? Not to mention digital piracy.

However, it’s not only the number of participants that’s in consideration here. The Davao TechnoKapihan is ideally an industry-wide coming together for discussion, planning, catching up on the latest… all for the purpose of somehow getting the Davao IT industry moving forward. But the event has never gotten everybody together at all.

While there are those who have been trying to jumpstart the Kapihan from the very start, I’m afraid a large chunk of the members of industry are not participatory.

Why? Is it apathy? That could be part of the mix, but it’s not the whole recipe.

We’ve all heard the expression, “There’s no such thing as a bad student, only a bad teacher.” The analogy is probably a stretch, but I’d like to lay it down just the same: the supposed powers that be in Davao’s IT industry do not seem to be representative of the population. In other words, if the generals are not able to rally their troops, that’s not the failure of the latter.

It frustrates me why the real industry players do not contribute as much as I think they should in building Davao IT as a whole. But at the same time, I do understand why. As both a member and an observer of this industry, I’ve been noticing a certain common sentiment percolating among my colleagues. From one of the Dabawenyo software developers — who is not active in any IT organization but is otherwise talented and business-savvy — I got this comment: ‘Our concerns are not being addressed by the existing organized entities who purport to be our leaders.’

That about sums it up, I think.

The root of the problem is something I’ve pointed out time and again: we don’t know where we are, what our strengths are, so we’re practically groping in the dark, hoping to see the light at the end of the tunnel. Someone just has to realize that he’s got a lighter in his pocket.

On a more hopeful note, this year will see more IT events that will aim to bring in more investments to Davao. This I gathered from the TechnoKapihan last week. I look forward to seeing more of my colleagues getting involved here, as well as seeing IT organizations becoming more attuned to the real deal behind what they perceive to be the city’s IT industry.

When P2P networks exploded in the late 90s after the much-ballyhooed Napster, the first to feel the brunt was the music industry. When techies began circulating songs in mp3 format through the Internet, it didn’t take long for music enthusiasts to catch on and embrace the technology.

True, this activity is nominally illegal. But in this the Age of Information, the line between what’s illegal and what’s not has irreparably blurred. In fact—barring government intervention—we seem to be headed for a new world order, with knowledge as the globally accepted currency. The Internet is what’s making this possible, and it’s the burgeoning number of users that’s keeping it alive and kicking. The interjection “What a small world!” has never been more true than today.

So, is Japan’s move to crack down on file sharers a wise move? In the blink of an eye, red flags seem to be coming up all around. In the plan, “special detection software” would be employed (red flag #1), presumably by copyright owners. Violators would be reported to their ISPs for sanctions (red flag #2). Repeat violators will eventually be disconnected by their ISPs and consequently banned from the Internet permanently, by all ISPs (red flag #3).

Red flag #1 is akin to intrusion by a computer virus — most undesirable. Red flag #2 is tantamount to invasion of privacy. And red flag #3? Well, some might say this could constitute a cartelization by Japan’s ISPs.

Internet users nowadays are characterized as voracious consumers of information, with little or no regard for copyright. We (yes, we) demand knowledge, and we tend to always want it yesterday. We know we can obtain it via the World Wide Web, among others, so we browse, search and download. And most times we are not aware of the origin or ownership of what we gain.

Let’s turn the table around. What if you were the owner of copyrighted material? Let’s say you composed a song and performed it on stage, perhaps even digitized it using your Mac book. If you were a businessman as well as an artist, you’d not appreciate your work being pirated at all, would you?

At this point you might be asking yourself, “What’s the issue here then? The Copyright Law or the Privacy Act?”

Well, they’re intertwined. If the Japanese ISPs’ scheme were ever to happen, copyright owners (the music and film industries especially) would be ecstatic, because they would reap the benefits. But at what cost? Is anyone in Japan truly willing to risk incursions into privacy violations on a nationwide scale? This is a very sticky situation, and the concerned government agencies of Japan would do well to examine this move before allowing it to be enforced.

All of this boils down to business, to opportunity costs, hence the gnashing of teeth by the entertainment industry (as well as by the software publishing industry). When people don’t buy CDs anymore because they can download the desired content from the Internet, producers lose profit. But, the age-old practice of doing business is… well, old.

For brick-and-mortar businesses that produce tangible goods, the traditional way of getting to market is still the norm, of course. On the other hand, the concept of information as a product seems to be headed for obsolescence.

It is highly possible that a new way of doing business, of revenue generation, will happen soon. Wait. It’s not going to be anything new. In fact, it’s already been rolled out, just not widespread yet. I’m talking about advertising. Google Inc., in another report by TechCrunch, made US$2.6 billion more in 2007, from ads and ad-related business. Content and services delivered by Google is completely free of charge.

Why is the world’s largest media company thriving financially? To put it in layman’s terms: Google delivers content that is sought after by many, and it provides Web-based applications that inspire high acceptability. Ergo, advertisers consider its ad space inventory as premium.

The inevitably complicated mechanism to sustain such a business model on a global scale may not yet be in place, but at least the hypothesis has already been proven. Perhaps it just takes for the entrenched older generation, who are still holding fast to the reins of industries, to adapt and upgrade to the next level.

The news article elaborated that the complaint was based on SEC’s belief that MS Phils. distributed electronic copies (in the form of .pdf files and email) of the document, The SEC Microsoft Office XP Manual. This document was apparently licensed to MS Phils. for a limited number of reprints (10,000 copies, according to the report), but SEC is taking legal action to prove that MS Phils. has gone beyond the letter of their copyright license.

The document, according to the report, “is filed with the National Library with registration No. A-2005-799 and assigned ISBN No. 971-9272-1-2 by the National Library’s Bibliographic Services Division.”

MS Phils., after renaming the 379-page document to “Innovate: A Mentor’s Guide to ICT Foundation Competencies”, is being charged with piracy for transmitting electronic copies of the document to third-party recipients. Also for digitally storing the document in CDs, and for distributing the same.

After first reading, my impression was that it’s a pebble-in-the-shoe case for Microsoft. Representatives from MS Phils. have declined to comment, according to Inquirer.net, pending a formal response by their legal people.

Upon closer inspection of the report’s details, however, I think this could be a landmark case. It’s ironic, isn’t it? Microsoft is fiercely active in the drive against software and intellectual property rights violations. If proven guilty, Microsoft could find itself in an unenviable position.

It cannot but escape our consideration that this might be a case of innocent culpability. MS Phils. might not have realized the alleged infringement. However, for a global corporation that has been very intent on quashing IPR violations, they are expected to be aware of all its nuances and intricacies. If found culpable of IPR infringement, it would really be inexcusable on the part of Microsoft.

Looking for a videographer for your wedding? Check out Buddy Gancenia’s vlog about Philippine Weddings. Leave the memory-making to the pro!

Silicon Gulf is a nickname for Davao City and extends to the Davao Region, at Southern Mindanao, Philippines. The nickname refers to the growing number of Information Technology and IT Enabled Services (or ITES) companies sprouting in the area. The name was adapted from Silicon Valley, referring to the high tech cluster located in the San Francisco Bay Area in northern California.

The Silicon Gulf concept was officially launched in October 2006. Its originator, Jason Banico, unfortunately has had to leave Davao for a spell…. But he will hopefully be back in the foreseeable future. He has since turned over the cudgels to Christopher Cubos, who will certainly have my whole-hearted support in this.

Recently, Cubos organized an I.T. party — a social get-together for the city’s I.T. professionals and college students who are taking up Computer Science and related courses. There was a t-shirt design contest, and the design was to speak of “Silicon Gulf” as a realizable goal for Davao. This and upcoming activities will surely encourage more and more interest in, and further initiatives towards, Davao as a true ICT Hub. Small steps, but ones that will have a sustaining effect.

I have taken it upon myself to acquire the domain silicongulf.org, the purpose of which is to augment whatever endeavors there will be to broadcast the Silicon Gulf concept. Currently, however, SiliconGulf.org is being used as an aggregator site of Davao I.T. blogs.

More on Silicon Gulf in future posts!

The Davao Light & Power Co. is even an awardee for being one of the best power companies in the Philippines.

But now, in the past couple of weeks there have been 4 or 5 power outages that I’ve noticed. Just before I started writing this article there was no power in the Matina area. Electricity went dead around 2o’clock in the afternoon, and came back on almost half an hour later. What is the reason behind this? Is Davao Light upgrading their systems? Or am I being overly optimistic?

Or is it that Davao — possibly Mindanao — is experiencing a serious shortage of power supply?

It’s obvious, but I’d like to emphasize this: power is a resource that we need to be constant. It’s what drives and sustains economic development. Without a steady availability of electric power, it becomes frustratingly costly to run businesses. Communication is slowed down… business processes are hindered… and yet, expenses skyrocket when power supply is not an assured thing.

Let’s not even go into the damage brownouts cause to household appliances…

How will Davao be able to encourage more high-value businesses to be established if this is the case? How will we attract more investments to come in if we cannot properly assure potential investors of steady and reliable power? What’s more worrisome is that, big-ticket investors are not easily assuaged: more than adequate power, they seem to want to be assured that there is an excess supply of power.

Look around Davao City — scores of construction projects are in the works. Take note of the increasing volume of vehicles now plying our streets. These are clear indications of development. But is this sustainable? And for how long?

Without the necessary and, at the least, adequate infrastructure (electric power being one of the most important of them), Davao City will not be able to maintain this forward movement as much as we expect.