T

he Indonesian Telematics Community (Mastel) stepped up in defense of PT Indosat Mega Media (IM2) on Tuesday, claiming that the mobile broadband service provider had not violated any laws as accused by the Attorney General’s Office (AGO).

IM2 had allegedly overstepped their authority by providing the public with 2.1 GHz 3G broadband network services following a business deal with parent company, telecommunications operator PT Indosat.

As a network provider, PT Indosat won the 3G broadband frequency, worth Rp 160 billion (US$17.7 million), through a government tender in 2006.

However, an NGO called Indonesian Telecommunication Consumer (KTI) filed a report that the practice was illegal. IM2 should have secured its own broadband frequency from the government because the tax rates for IM2, as a private company, differed from those for Indosat, a public company.

According to the AGO, the business dealings violated the 1999 Telecommunications Law, the 2000 Governmental Decree on Telecommunication Providers and the 2006 Communication and Information Ministerial Regulation on the 2.1 GHz Frequency Band Usage for Mobile Networks. Under these regulations, mobile broadband service providers should secure their own 2.1 GHz/3G network license to provide these 3G services.

Based on these alleged violations, the AGO then issued a travel ban against Indar Atmanto, IM2’s president director who also serves as Indosat’s chief of corporate services. He is charged under the Anti-Corruption Law for non-procedural use of 3G broadband frequencies, causing state losses of Rp 3.8 trillion in tax revenue.

Sylvia W. Sumarlin, the chief of the IT support committee in the Indonesian Chamber of Commerce and Industry (Kadin), of which Mastel is also a member, said the relationship between Indosat and IM2 was in compliance with existing laws and regulations.

According to her, the regulations stipulate that network providers, such as Indosat, were responsible in building and maintaining necessary telecommunication networks, while service providers, such as IM2, had the right to use these networks and provide these networks to end users.

Sylvia added that Indosat had paid all necessary fees in securing the frequency, including the up-front fee and the usage rights fee (BHP).

“We also expect that the Communications and Information Ministry and Indonesian Telecommunications Regulatory Body (BRTI), who are our supervisors, are the ones with the right to reprimand or sanction us,” she said.

Sylvia added that the relationship between Indosat and IM2 was “identical” with those established by other industry players.

Wigantoro Roes, another member of Mastel, added that if the business relationship between IM2 and Indosat was pronounced as illegal, other service providers would be affected as well.

He added that the Rp 3.8 trillion charge in state losses was baseless given that Indosat was the one responsible for settling broadband network fees to the government, which the company has done.

Semuel A. Pangerapan of the Indonesian Internet Service Association said that if wireless service providers shut down as fallout of this case, users would find it hard to access Internet content.