Features – The Jakarta Post, 27 May 2002

The politics of information technology

Yanuar Nugroho,
Researcher & General Secretary at
Uni Sosial Demokrat, Jakarta,
yanuar-n@unisosdem.org

Internet users throughout Indonesia must sense something was wrong between May 5 and May 10,
when it took longer than usual to connect to the Internet.

Yes, the problem was not a common one. Domestic Internet traffic plunged, as it had to be re-routed
via a foreign bandwidth. And yet, non-domestic traffic went on with no problem at all. Even sites
owned by the central government (with the suffix go.id) were unable to be accessed. Why did this
happen?

The Indonesian Internet Exchange (IIX) -- managed by the Association of Indonesian Internet Service
Providers (APJII), had been cut-off, and so all servers were shut down, causing routes of data within
the domestic network to be halted and the routing process had to be performed through a foreign
network thus slowing Internet access.

There was an angry response. APJII was blamed for taking illegal action that adversely affected many
parties like Internet users and the Directorate General of Post and Telecommunications (Postel).

What APJII performed was, in fact, a boycott represented by the Internet community here in response
to careless action carried out by the police and Postel who seized communication equipment
operating on frequency 2.4 GHz. Wireless Internet connection technology is currently deployed on this
bandwidth and is much cheaper compared to the conventional connection via phone lines.

In fact, the telecommunication body of the United Nations, the International Telecommunication Union
(ITU), has allocated the frequency 2.4 GHz to be unlicensed and free to be used by anyone.

By utilizing this allocation, alongside the developed wireless technology, low-cost Internet services to
the public were made possible because Internet kiosks were no longer required to pay the ever-
increasing day-to-day telephone rates.

In addition, remote areas have noticeably benefited from the expansion of the Internet. When
Coordinator Minister for the Economy Dorodjatun Kuntjoro Jakti and Coordinating Minister for
Peoples' Welfare Jusuf Kalla visited remote village of Nglilo on the slopes of Mt. Merbabu, Central
Java, on May 4, they saw for themselves how local peasants were familiarized with teleconferencing,
carried out by wireless technology. It was ironic, therefore, that just one day before the ministers' visit,
the reckless seizures of the same equipment took place in Jakarta.

The whole trouble started when the monitoring body of Postel wrote a letter to order users of 2.4 GHz
band to halt their activities until an official permit was released. Anxiety emerged among
telecommunication and informatics (telematic) communities, which have been developing wireless
technology, because the letter was interpreted as against the resolution made by the ITU. In fact,
there had been efforts to request official permission to Postel, organized collectively by the wireless
users gathered in Indo WLI. Nevertheless, up until recently, not a single permit has been issued
thanks to the many unclear procedures, one of which is related to fees and other financial matters.

Therefore, once the unreasonable raids had been carried out by Jakarta's administration, hand-in-
hand with Jakarta Police, who seized wireless communication equipment, APJII -- fully supported by
its associations: the Association of Indonesian Telecommunication Kiosks (APWI), the Association of
Indonesian Internet Kiosks (AWARI) and IndoWLI -- reacted and staged a boycott, by shutting down
all the machines serving the domestic routing for three straight days.
One might recall a similar controversial case related to Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) some time
ago, which still remains unsolved.

VoIP, which enables low-priced audio communication using Internet networks and protocols, was
considered a threat instead of an opportunity. There had been much criticism in response to it. Yet, it
is not difficult to wonder whether the national body of telecommunications, Telkom, had its own
interests. Why? Because VoIP would reduce the income of Telkom generated from international
dialing. Also, some politicians and political parties confused the VoIP issue with nationalism, which
was just simply irrelevant.

In so confusing a situation, it was very unfortunate the State Minister of Communications and
Information, representing the government as a public agency, had no clear stance at the time.

When the developers of VoIP technology were arrested and their equipment confiscated without
permission, official authorization was given exclusively to certain business groups to purchase the
necessary permits. So, where does this problem originate?

It seems that any discourse on technology is a discourse on power as well. It was the English
philosopher, Francis Bacon (1561-1626) who introduced the well-known phrase "knowledge is
power". The knowledge inherited from information technology (IT) could be used to organize
the movement's network for a new Indonesia with solidarity and a democratic ethos. But in the hands
of uncontrolled groups blindly seeking profit -- as we can often see in global economic practices --
IT can also be captured to control many aspects of our shared life. This depraved process was never
its intention at all.

Foucault, following Bacon, in his Strategies of Power, L'Express (1988), emphasizes the development
of all knowledge can never be detached from the exercise of power, for science itself has become a
powerful institution in itself.

Again, we are facing the ambivalent face of IT. It is not IT alone that has become the problem, but in
what kind of power it can be made to exercise. It is therefore clear the importance in technology is
not only related to technical proficiency, but also to the sensitivity toward the exercise of power that
brings enormous consequences to society. Therefore, how can the exercise of power be controlled?

The fact that official permission to utilize VoIP technology can be purchased or the reality that
financial payment is involved in obtaining authorized use of 2.4 GHz band for wireless Internet use,
clearly shows there is another power, external to the legal and formal power belonging to the
government as a public agency. Indeed, this suspicion is unavoidable: That there is a hidden agenda
among the legal authorities to impose control over the telecommunications infrastructure and to
withdraw it from collective ownership.

Yet, by following this line of logic the following statement will arise: If there is money available, surely
the official license can be purchased, can't it?

Thus, it has become clear the process of gaining authorized permission -- to apply any kind of
technology or to operate on a certain frequency -- is not necessarily a democratic process. So, who
is more powerful? The authorities or those who have the money to buy the rules -- including buying
the process that makes the rules? This is a simple but very central question, yet we often forget it.

In such a process, a telematics community like APJII and its associations have lost out because they
have to undergo the logic circle of capital and the production process, which relies solely on
communication and information systems. Even so, the same consequences have also occurred within
other professional groups. The fact the consequences are out of sight does not mean they are absent.

The case of VoIP and bandwidth 2.4 GHz reflects the critical moment of a tension that comprises
three aspects. Firstly, it implies the need for the protection of the telematics communities as a whole.
Secondly, it involves the problem for those "information workers" engaged in Indonesia's political
economy. Lastly, within the equilibrium of the "three axes of power" consisting of market systems,
public agencies and the civic community, the solution of this case will be an important indicator to
highlight whether market systems have ruined or improved our shared life, or if it is possible
to improve conditions for at least one social group first: the telematics community.

This reveals a convoluted interest structured within a huge and sophisticated framework that echoes
the issue of information technology. It seems difficult to stand the inconsiderate exercise of
state power that wiped out the capacity of the telematics community recently: from the complicated
and deliberately unclear process of obtaining an official permit, the raids and seizure of equipment, to
the fact that the license for frequency usage and technology utilization can be bought.

The action of shutting down the IIX servers by APJII is a considerable step for democratization. It has
been made apparent to all those who still believe democracy is only related to the control of state
power democratization also involves the public accountability of the stakeholders of technology --
including information technology.

When the technology developed for the advancement of communal life is being plundered by a
collusion of interests between businesses and the state, democracy needs to stand strong and hold
its ground. Our stance to fight for it will go down in history as an honorable act.

***