Most of us can only see the physical body. In the picture above, that would be the black depiction of a person sitting. However, for some who has the right energy level and a well trained eye, you can also see whats called as aura, the grey outline of a person.

In the upcoming posts, i’ll explain what each kosha is about. The Vedic explanation only goes through 5 koshas, and most pictures i find on Google Images, tend to have the wrong order of the koshas. Hopefully the coming posts will help explain further on what each kosha is and how being aware of it helps to improve one’s life.

All items to be placed on the plate. The coconut is usually broken by the chariot staff and arrange the offerings.

* I just put this post up as reference.

I remember the first time i went to the PC Fair. Wasn’t in KL Convention Center, it was at the famed PWTC. I remember buying some RAM for my PC that day. Eventually it had some problems and i had to travel all the way to Puchong to get it replaced. At that time, the price was a steal, but eventually i realized, its not always about price, but TCO (total cost of ownership).

PC Fair was touted as “best bargains” of the techno-world for consumers in Malaysia. I believe that was true, until for the past 5 years. Commercialism reigned supreme, with “bargains” splurged everywhere.

This past few years have been ridiculous to even think of going for PC Fair. Firstly, the amount of people that would be making a bee line (sorry, stampede is more like it). Coupled with expensive parking charges of KLCC (one would say take public transport, taxi is still equally expensive and busses aren’t realistic if you plan to buy something that doesn’t fit into your pockets, imagine alighting the bus with a laser printer).

Thats fine, but look at how PC Fair is managed. You are REQUIRED to enter from a certain floor, so that you are FORCED to visit the vendors booth (which most often than not, something that you may not be interested). You’d be going through at least 3-4 floors before you reach ground-zero where the real bargain hunting begins. If you try to get directly to ground-zero, friendly KLCC guards will ensure that your mission is a failure!

I ask you, dear sir/madam, are you really getting a bargain?

Based on a recent survey from friends who visited PC Fair, prices aren’t cheap, you’d get probably RM20 less than the real selling price. (E.g. Papago GPS retails at RM669 was sold at RM649). Imagine the hassle and amount of money that you’d spend JUST to get RM20 savings. Not to mention the obscure locate of the shop that you’d need to be aware in order for you to make warranty claims IF your spoils becomes spoiled! Include how much you paid for parking, petrol wasted in the traffic jam, eating expensive food in KLCC, and much more! But then again, recent times have made Malaysians to adopt kiasuism!

Laptops are a funny beast. I recall visiting a friendly vendor (who shall not be named) who sold me a laptop based on the PC Fair prices 2 weeks after the fair. Its like buying flight tickets from Travel Fair, without having to go for the fair itself (yeap, i do that to avoid the crowd!).

My take on this, PC Fair has become ridiculous. For the trouble i have to go through to buy something at a discounted rate, i can get it in Low Yat or even Digital Mall at a very comfortable, convenient way. Plus, i know which shop i bought my spoils, and if it does get spoiled, i know exactly where to go for warranty claims! As the great @SNIIFFIT said over Ais Kosong (D36) in Pappa Rich today – Everyday’s a PC Fair at Low Yatt!

I was entrusted with a gift,
the gift that was given to me since birth,
and I grew up not knowing this gift that i had.
It took a long time,
heart, soul and trying times,
for me to realise ,
my gift was very near and dear,
And all it took, was to look
beyond the facade.
There it was,
with pomp and splendor,
the gift was NATURE, in all it’s glory.
And now that I realise my gift,
I shoulder and carry it as a Mother,
just like how Mother Nature carries me.

*written in deep contemplation in a place created by Nature thousands of years ago.*

Its a vicious circle most working denizens don’t realise, but only experience the brunt of the impact. This came to me as i was assessing the corporate situation of which I am part of, conveniently being a pawn for execution. Warning, more rants after this.

It starts with the appointment of the new CTO/CIO. Someone to lead the team into the next level (thats what they always say – shameless self plug). They (the C level person, let’s call him Mr C.) starts by observing the current workings of the existing environment. This is the phase of bridge building and identifying potential ally candidates.

During this phase, Mr C will then plan for an efficiency drive (basically head slashing and reorg, because that would the first management priority). At this point, a lot of issues tend to crop up as short term decisions made by the previous Mr B (the previous CIO/CTO) now comes to surface. Hence, first order of the day, FIRE FIGHTING. Besides that, many decisions made by Mr B would reflect very poor foresight and long term strategy. With the massive cost cutting and efficiency drive, decisions made previously has some full circle to haunt the company. Escalating OPEX, uncontrolled CAPEX and efficiency issues, not to mention additional fats in form of manpower.

Hence, the austerity drive of “re-organising”, or efficiency drive, or process alignment happens. At this point, if someone walks out of the organization, management would be more than happy to accept the resignation and will not even ponder upon replacement. To add pressure to the existing workforce, an unbearable work environment is forced upon, causing the rest of the staff to leave. What happens is that in most cases, instead of filtering the dead-weed out of the water, you get the fresh water (meaning the skilled employees and talents) leaving the organization. Once this is done, the management shows poor performance and that they need immediate approval to “turn” the company around and make it operationally viable again.

At this stage, the new Mr C will slowly bring in his trusted generals to execute his plans, depriving the existing staffs of a chance to be promoted. This is also due to the fact that Mr C works best in his style of management, existing staffs may not be able to adopt that level of working efficiency, which causes “unsuitability” of the existing workforce. Plus the only other way of breaking the existing corporate culture is to “inject” the “so-called” fresh blood. Some leaders would have accumulated mass “empires” or “little napoleons” who dictate how the company is run, and the re-org allows the management to dismantle the existing mini-empires into a more manageable clubs.

Most who have worked a decent amount of years would be privy to this happen repeatedly. Some may have gone through re-org so many times, its business as usual. Change is constant, and most of often than not, change is caused because it is a reason of convenience, rather than actual need driven.

Change is necessary for an organization to move forward. Change for the sake of change is counter-productive. Each leader wants to exert control and authority, hence this takes place. What’s bad is that a staff whose competent in one area is thrown into a completely unrelated area. Because of organization’s lack of proper process, documentation and control, some tasks are not handed down, documentations go missing, processes unclear.

Question to Mr C – is it worth it? The usual answer would be a big resounding YES.

Very recently both DiGi and Celcom signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) on infrastructure sharing.
This news generated a lot of attention from the industry and also the consumers. Within minutes, blog postings were up
trying to dissect the the move, and unfortunately due to lack of understanding had posed the negative connotation to the whole affair.

The MoU is to meet 2 aims
- For Celcom and DiGi to start infrastructure sharing at company level
- For Telenor and Axiata to start infrastructure sharing at group level

So here, you’d ask, what is infrastructure sharing?

Infrastructure sharing, in a simplistic view is sharing common delivery platforms. This means that a Celcom owned site can be used by DiGi and vice versa. Sharing of infrastructure can be deemed as such

- Sharing of sites – meaning that a physical site owned by the telco can be shared to host infrastructure such as BSC/MSC components in there
- RAN Sharing – RAN refers to Radio Access Network, providing access at the radio network layer for instant “lighting up” of the site. It requires all telcos to use same RAN vendors (i.e. Huawei, NSN, E//)
- Antennae sharing – Sharing the antennae of the tower to boost signal or to increase coverage.
- Backhaul sharing – Sharing of core transport such as site-to-site fiber/microwave infrastructure. This allows existing “dark-fibers” to be utilised to its full capacity.

Other ancilliary benefits would be that the individual telco now has a good rationale to “right-size” their field force operations since each site will be managed by the respective telcos.

How does this benefit Celcom? Celcom traditionally depends on existing TM infrastructure, which is now split between TM fixed line, TM FTTH, Streamyx and other wholesale and corporate usage. As such, the infrastructure would have been stretched thin and may not scale based on what Celcom wants. With the sharing in place, Celcom is able to expand their site and without having high CAPEX and leverage on DiGi’s network.

How does this benefit DiGi? DiGi would have access to Celcom’s well publisized whole malaysia coverage. However this would involve either buying backhaul bandwidth from Celcom/TM or building additional infrastructure.

How about the users? We’ve seen users complain that the sharing might bring down the quality of the network. That will not be the case. Each telco is allocated a spectrum band for both upstream and downstream (tx-transmitting/rx-receiving).This band separation allows the telco to transmit their RF signals without any interference to the other telcos. So, sharing sites will not impact performance of the network, it makes better utilization of the equipments/investments in place.

This makes perfect sense, as explained by Maxis CEO Sandip Das. Ability to increase coverage and capacity, at a fraction of a cost.

Rosy? Probably, but there are pitfalls. Sites being shared may be subject to fierce negotiations, as telcos may still see dominance in some coverage areas as strategic strength. In order for telcos to open up, the only differentiating factor for consumers to choose the service (all else being equal) would be the quality of the network, pricing, and multitude of services that fits the consumer’s apetite. But unfortunately, in Malaysia we are far from having the position of “all else being equal”.

So, why is Internet cost in Malaysia so expensive (compared to other countries like Korea/US)?

The fault lies on the government, users and ISP.

Why is this the fault of the Government? Well, if you ever had access to the preferred destination of the netizens, its usually Facebook/Twitter which is hosted in US. In fact, a good 75% of total Internet traffic is outbound (US and others). We Malaysians suck at local content. While local sites (Mkini, TMI to name a few) hold the fort well, traffic generated by users for local content is still too little, and Malaysia isn’t developing enough international contents for consumption. If you look at Korea, other countries such as USA wants to get transit access to Korea due to its extensive user/gaming platform. This reduces the cost of transport, which in turn provides a cost saving for users as a result. Another reason why the cost is expensive is that Malaysia does not own any submarine cables. Yes people, your internet traffic travels through fiber optics which is planted deep on the seabed. If we own a few of these cable networks (and folks, it ain’t CHEAP), cost of transport can be significantly reduced.

So now, why is it the fault of the users? Very simply, Malaysian users are consumers of international traffic more than local traffic. Look at the high usage of sites such as Facebook/Twitter/Friendster, all of it hosted usually in the USA. As such, we need more transit links to US rather than anywhere else. Please remember that the ISP needs to lease fiber from Malaysia, through the oceanic fiber network (APCN/SEA-ME-WE) to USA. Not near, neither will it be cheap.

So, is the ISP at fault? Yes they are too. Most ISP now sells asynchronous bandwidth package. This means that your download speed is not the same as your upload speeds. ISPs tend to push the contention ratio in a bit to make money. This further squeezes the pipe and user experience. Failing which, ISP promises faster speed, at a more higher cost, but still fall short on deliver.

So, we know that everyone needs to play a role, how to move forward?

• Local content will be the SOLE BEST option Malaysia has. The govt should promote more local contents, ability to host infrastructure in MyIX as a colocation services for faster local access (ISP’s may not agree as this gets into their business)
• Invest in Internet infrastructure, such as fiber networks. New fiber networks (Trinity) even has Google as one of the investors, the government should look at ways to bring cheaper uplink access, in order for the cost to be turned back to users
• Open competition for local ISPs instead of monopoly. The very reason why MyIX is in existence is due to the dominance of telecommunications monopoly, causing split inconsistent routes for internet traffic.

Hopefully someone from MCMC reads this and does something about it.

Any organization will look for opportunities to make money. Telcos are no exception to this expections. Exploring into a new housing area starts off the race to get the area “lighted up”. This can be in the form of just mobile coverage, or all in one provider (fixed & wireless solutions). Apartments are notorious in this and often have strict selection of telco providing service. That’s why only one telco can provide service in an apartment.

Back to our story, just say Telco A got the bid. They start setting up towers to have coverage in the area. All seems well. But wait, trouble ensues in months to come. A letter was received from the local municipal stating that the location did not get approval for a cell tower site, hence the tower has to be taken down. Telco is often given less time to take down the site, otherwise, the equipment will be forfeited/sealed. Often, relocation takes time and can run into 7 digit cost.

Site now gets relocated, and gets approval from local city council. But guess what, after a few months, a local resident looks at the tower and thinks he’s having headache because of the tower. He makes a complaint to local council and cc’s MCMC in the process. Everyone starts jumping and telco has to move.

By this time, there is no suitable site, so telcos have no choice but to keep the area off air. But then, once the tower sites get removed, folks there realise that mobile coverage goes down south and makes another complaint.

One main issue any telco faces, is the user themselves. Ask MCMC, they’d share the same sentiment.

These documents (not a single document, but close to a hundred) was organized in multiple directories. So i thought, what the heck, might as well use fetch/wget to grab all the contents.

# wget -r http://random.web.st

Got the initial pages and the file robots.txt. After that nada, zip, zero. Tried that a couple of times with different switches, and still, no result.

After checking with some tweeple (thanks @alphaque), found out that wget actually conforms to the robots.txt. I guess i skipped the part of the man pages which spoke about the robots.txt . In order to make it work, i changed some stuff and hence, it worked automagically

Final outcome

# wget -r -w 10 -e robots=off http://random.web.st

-w # wait (for 10 seconds)

-r # recursive

-e robots=off #turn robots off

I’ve always had strong opinions about how WiMAX (a technology which is helmed under IEEE) isn’t part of 4G. In fact the most recent conversation i had with @P1Media (suspiciously seems to be @AminAshaari due to the language and terms thats used). The conversation was public with the relevant points for your reading. I have my own assessment of the incident at the tail end of this entry, so if you’re bored of the convo, skip to the end.

Conversation started at 4:15pm on Wednesday 28 April 2010.

@sureshdr @P1Media since when was 4G been launched in MY? WIMAX isn’t 4G, stop misleading, pls!

@P1Media: What is 4G? what is 3G?

The PR personnel was trying to see whether i know my facts. Playing along.

@sureshdr @P1Media for an Internet company you guys don’t seem to know the availability of Google #fail
@P1Media @sureshdr funny guy. It seems to us you’re google. We use Bing most of the time

Again, diverting from the topic, trying to show that Google isn’t the only search engine. Fine, but they still didn’t check their facts yet.

@P1Media@sureshdr not spinning anything just sharing. Anyways ITU and IETF didn’t ratify 1/2/2.5/3.5G either. Technically speaking

@sureshdr @P1Media the generation term was never used for IETF based standards. Only RFCs. Care to explain why you didn’t include 3G in your list?

@sureshdr @P1Media what’s 3gpp then?

Note that I made a clear mistake. IETF wasn’t involved in WIMAX standards but it was IEEE (this wasn’t even ratified by P1, which means they trust me … hehehe +1)

@P1Media @sureshdr Our point exactly. On the 3G thing: Just missed it while typing. It was supposed to be 1/2/2.5/3/3.5/3.75G our bad

@P1Media @sureshdr 3GPP is something like the WiMAX forum a group of “people” progressing the technology

@P1Media @sureshdr thanks for the tip. Will read it up, hopefully can be as awesome as you

If facts don’t work, try flattery Thanks, but i’m allergic to bullshit Moving along. Special mention to @brianritchie who also jumped into the convo, together with @alphaque.

@P1Media @sureshdr its a program not an authority. Besides 3GPP is not concerned about WiMAX

Observe that the conversation just got diverted from whether WIMAX is 4G to how 3GPP relates to WIMAX. 3GPP website clearly states that – “3G Mobile System based on evolved GSM core networks and the radio access technologies that they support (i.e., Universal Terrestrial Radio Access (UTRA) both Frequency Division Duplex (FDD) and Time Division Duplex (TDD) modes).” In laymans term, 3G Mobile Network based on GSM platform. (I don’t see WIMAX in this picture yet). Also, look at how 3GPP was downplayed (when it was a project by ITU/GSMA).

@sureshdr @P1Media it also clearly defines how the term “g” is used in the context of generations of mobile cellular networks governed by ITU.
@P1Media I have shown clear evidence that you are misleading the general public by equating 4g with Wimax. Doesn’t benefit to spin.
@P1Media @sureshdr guess the whole world is mislead then Clear/Sprint/UQ/Yota/Intel/HTC/Motorola/Samsung/Huawei/ZTE are all in it too LoLs

Another tactic is to shift the blame. If everyone screws up, there’s nothing wrong with us. The same argument here about whether Clear/Sprint/UQ/Yota/Intel/HTC/Motorola/Samsung/Huawei/ZTE is an authority or not would be a big FAT no (didn’t P1 start with whose the authority here?)

I’ve played along long enough on giving them facts to support my claims, now time to turn the tables around.

@sureshdr @P1Media and yet you have not shown clear technical reference (except news media) on this topic.

@sureshdr @P1Media are you admitting that you are misleading the public? #in response to “everyone else claims”

@P1Media @sureshdr that’s a resounding – No.

@sureshdr @P1Media then show me technical facts (no pr bullcrap) to sustain your claims, instead of giving excuses.

@P1Media @sureshdr technical facts on…?

@sureshdr @P1Media why you claim wimax is 4g?

@P1Media @sureshdr because WiMAX is 4G

This is the point i say, that i’ve proven my point. PR is PR and technology is technology. But the conversation continues…

@alphaque @P1Media i remained quiet and still this ? but since u brought it up, nope, not by a long shot. @brianritchie @sureshdr

@alphaque @P1Media actually it isnt, its just ur marketing claiming that. there’re no technical standards for 4G u can show. @sureshdr

@AminAshaari @alphaque our point exactly. Hence the question what is 3G and what is 4G? What is Turbo 3G for that matter? @sureshdr

@brianritchie @P1Media Do u have any P1 Technical Arch papers on ur technologies deployed open to public? I’d like to do some research @sureshdr @alphaque

At this point @AminAshaari decides to jump into the conversation. Brand & PR practitioner for P1.

@alphaque @AminAshaari 3G is defined by the ITU and the 3GPP. 4G is something u flers say is WiMax, but just admit its all mktg. @sureshdr

@AminAshaari @alphaque tell Intel that please. kthxbai @sureshdr

Here, blame game starts. Its more convenient to point fingers than to fess up.

@alphaque @AminAshaari sorry, ur advertisements carry your logo and @p1w1max’s name. why should i ask intel and not you ? @sureshdr

@alphaque @AminAshaari but its perfectly fine if @p1w1max can’t answer and wants to tai-chi it to intel instead. nice msg that sends. @sureshdr

@AminAshaari @alphaque You’re missing the point but it’s ok. Can we just agree to disagree please @sureshdr

Waving white flag but not admitting error… Doesn’t sound right just yet.

@AminAshaari @alphaque 3G is a standard set by who? @sureshdr

@sureshdr ITU – refer to 3gpp RT @AminAshaari @alphaque 3G is a standard set by who?

@alphaque @AminAshaari already said it earlier down, ITU and 3GPP came up with the formal 3G standards. @sureshdr

@AminAshaari @sureshdr question again, is 3PP an authority? @alphaque

@alphaque @AminAshaari oh ok, questioning the ITU now ? well, lots of countries seem to think it is. in fact PM just got an award too ! @sureshdr

@AminAshaari @alphaque Heard about the PM thing but am not questioning ITU. It’s 3GPP am asking about. @sureshdr

@alphaque @AminAshaari lotsa docs on 3GPP available, but it did produce a 3G standard with docs. 4G is just a mktg term u flers use. @sureshdr

@alphaque @AminAshaari even wikipedia uses 4G to reference ITU-R’s IMT Advanced, and certainly not WiMAX which is IEEE802.16 based. @sureshdr

@AminAshaari @alphaque The 3GPP docs are saying what 3G is. It didn’t set the standard. ITU did. ITU didn’t say what 3GPP said is definitive @sureshdr

At this point, its proven that the person talks from PR perspective. Any technical person knows that without the 3GPP standards which is ITU IMT-2000 standards, there is no standards nor interop in 3G networks.

@alphaque @AminAshaari so one can conclude that @p1w1max’s use of 4G is mktg spin to compete against perhaps LTE or IMT-Advanced. QED. @sureshdr

@AminAshaari @sureshdr does 3GPP.org define what authority is? @Alphaque #didn’t know that 3GPP is a random group of people

@AminAshaari @alphaque .16e is IMT-Advanced @sureshdr

@AminAshaari @alphaque sorry, I meant .16m :”> @sureshdr

@alphaque @AminAshaari arguably, but they dont provide service in msia. @p1w1max does and i am questioning P1, your employers. not others. @sureshdr

@AminAshaari @sureshdr IUT is looking at both .16m and LTE Advanced as 4G. Till then, it could be either or it could be both @alphaque

@alphaque @AminAshaari sorry, IEEE 802.16m HOPES to converge to ITU-R IMT-Advanced. it is not it yet, by far. big diff. two diff orgs. @sureshdr

@AminAshaari @alphaque agreed and like I said 3GPP is not interested in 802 standards. Till then it’s still up in the air and it could be both @sureshdr #hot air maybe?

@alphaque @AminAshaari ITU is looking at 802.16m ? when IEEE is the body developing it ? who’s confused here ? @sureshdr

@alphaque @AminAshaari but back to basics, @p1w1max’s use of 4G is purely mktg which could possibly confuse with LTE and IMT-A. use 802.16e @sureshdr

@AminAshaari @alphaque .16m is not like other 802 std. With its range and mobile capabilities, it is being considered as a 4G standard by ITU @sureshdr

@alphaque @AminAshaari in Oct 2007, ITU-R has included wimax into IMT-2000, which by definition makes wimax 3G, and not 4G. no ? @sureshdr

@sureshdr @AminAshaari I’d like to see you substantiate your claims, any official press release from ITU’s website to support this? @alphaque

@AminAshaari @sureshdr Here you go | http://bit.ly/9YRQmc | @alphaque

@sureshdr Press release quotes the use of wimax as 3G, not 4G. RT @AminAshaari @sureshdr Here you go | http://bit.ly/9YRQmc | @alphaque

@sureshdr @AminAshaari “.16 incorporated into IMT-2000″. That means wimax is 3G. Doesn’t say e or m. @alphaque

@alphaque @AminAshaari err sorry mate, but see my tweet earlier. IMT-2000 is a 3G standard grping. not 4G. so Wimax is 3G now ! @sureshdr

@alphaque @sureshdr exactly what i said earlier. looks like our friend @AminAshaari is confused and agrees now WiMAX is 3G & not 4G as @p1w1max claims

@AminAshaari @sureshdr IEEE is pushing for .16m as IMT-A, ITU is considering, till that’s finalised, its still up in the air people @alphaque

@AminAshaari @sureshdr @alphaque its been fun, but I gotta run. We should do this again sometime

At this point, there isn’t any further concrete evidence to support P1′s claims (though the debate was between the techies and the PR person).

My conclusion, P1 is using the term 4G for purely MARKETING purposes. Why 4G? To show its “superiorness” against 3G and so call legacy networks. To compete against 3G internet providers by indirectly knocking them down. Ethical? Go figure

Fact is 4G is work in progress, just like how WIMAX was a few years ago. For an established organization, what puzzles me is that the blatant lies thats told repeatedly to convince people of something that isn’t justified.

A spade is a spade. WIMAX is WIMAX. WiFi is WiFi. If WiMAX is 4G, what does that make WiFi? 2G? Its a serious insult to intelligence!

P1 would have resolved this much easier by just saying that the use of the term 4G was for marketing. But then again, when you look at the conversation, one has to wonder how the corporate culture is.