Hasil Pencarian  ::  Simpan CSV :: Kembali

"[ABSTRAKBerdasarkan PERMEN 22/2011, pemerintah telah menetapkan jumlahpenyelenggara multipleksing sebanyak 6 LPM (Lembaga PenyelenggaraMultipleksing) untuk setiap zonanya dengan total jumlah kanal yang dapatdiakomodasi kurang lebih sebesar 72 slot. Namun, pada kenyataannyapendudukan kanal penyelenggara multipleksing oleh LPS (Lembaga PenyiaranSwasta) saat ini jauh dari optimal. Pendudukan kanal LPM , masih ditempati olehLPS yang masih memiliki afiliasi dengan dengan penyelenggara multipleksing.Di samping itu, adanya gugatan dari Asosiasi TV Lokal Indonesia. Komunitas inimemandang Permen Kominfo No. 22/2011 hanya melanjutkan sistem penyiaran(digital) yang monopolistis, Jakarta sentries dan jauh dari kepentingan rakyatIndonesia secara umum.Dengan mengambil sampel kota penelitian untuk luar wilayah, yang tidakmenjadi sengketa oleh ATVLI dan MA di atas. Penelitian ini menganalisiskelayakan percepatan analog switch-off untuk sampel kota Makassar, Ambon danSorong dengan memanfaatkan BHP penggunaan frekuensi Digital Dividend diwilayah tersebut untuk membantu biaya-biaya yang dibutuhkan dalampenyelenggaraan mux.Adapun skenario dalam penelitian ini adalah membandingkan penentuan jumlahpenyelenggara multipleksing sesuai dengan PERMEN 22/2011 dengan jumlahpenyelenggara multipleksing berdasarkan jumlah IPP (Izin PenyelenggaraanPenyiaran) yang aktif di wilayah kota Makassar, kota Ambon dan kota Sorong.Ditemukenali dalam penelitian ini, bahwa percepatan analog switch-off yangdilakukan oleh pemerintah dengan penetapan jumlah multipleksing berdasarkanjumlah IPP aktif lebih layak dari pada penetapan jumlah multipleksingberdasarkan PERMEN 22/2011.

---

ABSTRACTBased on the Ministry Regulation Number 22 / 2011, the government hasregulated on multiplexing providers for 6 LPM (Providers of Multiplexing) everyzone, and total accommodated channel are approximately 72 slots. However, infact, currently channel occupation for multiplexing providers by LPS (PrivateBroadcasting Institution) is less than its optimum level. LPM?s channeloccupation is still occupied by LPS that affiliated with LPM.Nevertheless, there are some lawsuits from Indonesia Local TelevisionAssociation (ATVLI) that regards the Ministry Regulation Number 22 / 2011 isonly to continue monopolistic digital broadcasting systems, to be centered inJakarta and no regards to the interests of Indonesia people in general.This research conducted to analyze the analogue switch-off acceleration usingsampling from municipal city that?s not contrained by law, by involving DigitalDividend Spectrum fee to reduce cost/expenses of the implementation mux.Scenario of this study is to compare the regulation of multiplexing providers thatbased on active broadcasting licenses (IPP) in Makassar, Ambon and Sorong. Itis found in this study that analog switch-off acceleration that conducted by thegovernment with multiplexing regulation that based on active IPPs shall be morefeasible than to regulate multiplexing that based on the Ministry RegulationNumber 22 / 2011.;Based on the Ministry Regulation Number 22 / 2011, the government hasregulated on multiplexing providers for 6 LPM (Providers of Multiplexing) everyzone, and total accommodated channel are approximately 72 slots. However, infact, currently channel occupation for multiplexing providers by LPS (PrivateBroadcasting Institution) is less than its optimum level. LPM?s channeloccupation is still occupied by LPS that affiliated with LPM.Nevertheless, there are some lawsuits from Indonesia Local TelevisionAssociation (ATVLI) that regards the Ministry Regulation Number 22 / 2011 isonly to continue monopolistic digital broadcasting systems, to be centered inJakarta and no regards to the interests of Indonesia people in general.This research conducted to analyze the analogue switch-off acceleration usingsampling from municipal city that?s not contrained by law, by involving DigitalDividend Spectrum fee to reduce cost/expenses of the implementation mux.Scenario of this study is to compare the regulation of multiplexing providers thatbased on active broadcasting licenses (IPP) in Makassar, Ambon and Sorong. Itis found in this study that analog switch-off acceleration that conducted by thegovernment with multiplexing regulation that based on active IPPs shall be morefeasible than to regulate multiplexing that based on the Ministry RegulationNumber 22 / 2011.;Based on the Ministry Regulation Number 22 / 2011, the government hasregulated on multiplexing providers for 6 LPM (Providers of Multiplexing) everyzone, and total accommodated channel are approximately 72 slots. However, infact, currently channel occupation for multiplexing providers by LPS (PrivateBroadcasting Institution) is less than its optimum level. LPM?s channeloccupation is still occupied by LPS that affiliated with LPM.Nevertheless, there are some lawsuits from Indonesia Local TelevisionAssociation (ATVLI) that regards the Ministry Regulation Number 22 / 2011 isonly to continue monopolistic digital broadcasting systems, to be centered inJakarta and no regards to the interests of Indonesia people in general.This research conducted to analyze the analogue switch-off acceleration usingsampling from municipal city that?s not contrained by law, by involving DigitalDividend Spectrum fee to reduce cost/expenses of the implementation mux.Scenario of this study is to compare the regulation of multiplexing providers thatbased on active broadcasting licenses (IPP) in Makassar, Ambon and Sorong. Itis found in this study that analog switch-off acceleration that conducted by thegovernment with multiplexing regulation that based on active IPPs shall be morefeasible than to regulate multiplexing that based on the Ministry RegulationNumber 22 / 2011., Based on the Ministry Regulation Number 22 / 2011, the government hasregulated on multiplexing providers for 6 LPM (Providers of Multiplexing) everyzone, and total accommodated channel are approximately 72 slots. However, infact, currently channel occupation for multiplexing providers by LPS (PrivateBroadcasting Institution) is less than its optimum level. LPM’s channeloccupation is still occupied by LPS that affiliated with LPM.Nevertheless, there are some lawsuits from Indonesia Local TelevisionAssociation (ATVLI) that regards the Ministry Regulation Number 22 / 2011 isonly to continue monopolistic digital broadcasting systems, to be centered inJakarta and no regards to the interests of Indonesia people in general.This research conducted to analyze the analogue switch-off acceleration usingsampling from municipal city that’s not contrained by law, by involving DigitalDividend Spectrum fee to reduce cost/expenses of the implementation mux.Scenario of this study is to compare the regulation of multiplexing providers thatbased on active broadcasting licenses (IPP) in Makassar, Ambon and Sorong. Itis found in this study that analog switch-off acceleration that conducted by thegovernment with multiplexing regulation that based on active IPPs shall be morefeasible than to regulate multiplexing that based on the Ministry RegulationNumber 22 / 2011.]"

"Indonesia memiliki sumber daya dan potensi panas bumi terbesar kedua di dunia dengan total kapasitas sekitar 29.000 MW 40 potensi panas bumi dunia . Total kapasitas terpasang Pembangkit Listrik Tenaga Panas Bumi adalah sebesar 1.643,5 MW dan menempati peringkat ketiga terbesar di dunia hingga akhir tahun 2016. Namun, Indonesia belum memanfaatkan potensi sumber daya panas bumi secara optimal jika dibandingkan dengan besarnya potensi yang dimiliki.Potensi panas bumi yang besar belum dimanfaatkan secara maksimal karena terdapat hambatan terutama terkait dengan investasi awal, risiko sumber daya panas bumi, dan pendanaan proyek. Pihak pengembang memasukkan seluruh risiko awal proyek sebagai biaya investasi sehingga menyebabkan harga pembelian tenaga listrik PLTP menjadi tinggi dan negosiasi dengan PT PLN Persero menjadi berlarut-larut. Dalam tesis ini disusun tiga skema berbeda yang diaplikasikan secara internasional dalam pengembangan PLTP yang melibatkan BUMN dan IPP. Untuk pengembangan PLTP oleh BUMN Model 1 diperoleh harga pembelian tenaga listrik PLTP berkisar 6,33 sen USD/kWh 110 MW s.d. 14,15 sen USD/kWh 10 MW , pengembangan PLTP oleh BUMN IPP Model 2 diperoleh harga pembelian tenaga listrik PLTP berkisar 6,99 sen USD/kWh 110 MW s.d. 15,63 sen USD/kWh 10 MW, pengembangan PLTP oleh IPP Model 3 diperoleh harga pembelian tenaga listrik PLTP berkisar 7,92 sen USD/kWh 110 MW s.d. 17,7 sen USD/kWh 10 MW , dan pengembangan PLTP oleh IPP dengan bantuan grant Model 3 Grant diperoleh harga pembelian tenaga listrik PLTP berkisar 7,05 sen USD/kWh 110 MW s.d. 15,76 sen USD/kWh 10 MW. Pengembangan PLTP di Jawa Bali, Sumbar, Sumsel, Jambi, Bengkulu, Lampung, Sulselrabar hanya layak dikembangkan oleh pihak BUMN Model 1 melalui proses negosiasi B to B dengan PT PLN Persero dan untuk sistem-sistem kecil dapat dikembangkan oleh pihak IPP dengan bantuan grant dari Pemerintah mengingat kapasitas PLTP yang dapat dikembangkan hanya kelas kapasitas kecil 10 MW dan 20 MW yang kurang ekonomis secara unit cost dibandingkan dengan kelas kapasitas medium dan besar 55 MW dan 110 MW.

---

It is said that Indonesia has the world 2nd biggest class geothermal energy resources and its potential is about 29,000 MW which corresponds to about 40 of all potential of the world. The current total capacity of geothermal power generation in Indonesia is 1,438.5 MW and occupies the 3rd position in the world ranking as of 2015. However, Indonesia has not exploited the geothermal resource potential enough yet, when its huge potential is considered.The large potential of geothermal have not been maximally utilized because of the obstacles associated primarily with initial investment, geothermal resource risks, and project funding. The developer calculates all the initial risks of the project as an investment cost causing the purchase price of geothermal power to be high and become protracted negotiation with PT PLN Persero.

In this thesis, there are three different schemes that are applied internationally in the development of geothermal power plant involving BUMN and IPP. For the development by SOE Model 1 obtained the purchase price of 6.33 cents USD kWh 110 MW up to 14.15 cents USD kWh 10 MW , the development by SOE IPP Model 2 obtained the purchase price of 6.99 cents USD kWh 110 MW up to 15.63 cents USD kWh 10 MW , by IPP Model 3 obtained the purchase price 7.92 cents USD kWh 110 MW up to 17.7 cents USD kWh 10 MW , and the development by IPP with grant assistance Model 3 Grant obtained the purchase price of 7.05 cents USD kWh 110 MW up to 15.76 cents USD kWh 10 MW.

The development of geothermal power plant in Java Bali, West Sumatera, South Sumatera, Jambi, Bengkuliu, Lampung, Sulselrabar is only feasible to be developed by SoE Model 1 through B to B negotiation with PT PLN Persero and for small systems can be developed by IPP with grant assistance from the Government, consider geothermal power plant capacity that can be developed only small capacity classes 10 MW and 20 MW which is less cost effective in terms of unit cost compared to medium and large capacity classes 55 MW and 110 MW ."

"ABSTRAKLaporan ini bertujuan untuk membahas mengenai hasil dari analisis atas perlakuan akuntansi dari power purchase agreement ldquo;PPA rdquo; pada PLN dengan PT BEN sebagai independent power producer ldquo;IPP rdquo; . Berlakunya ISAK 8 dan ISAK 16 di Indonesia menjadikan adanya perbedaan perlakuan akuntansi yang diterapkan oleh PLN maupun IPP. IPP sebagai pihak swasta dan operator menerapkan ISAK 16 atas transaksi dari PPA yang merupakan perjanjian konsesi jasa, sedangkan PLN sebagai pemberi konsesi tidak dapat menerapkan ISAK 16 yang hanya mengatur perlakuan akuntansi kepada operator. Oleh karena itu, PLN menerapkan ISAK 8 dikarenakan PPA merupakan perjanjian yang mengandung unsur sewa. Perbedaan perlakuan akuntansi bagi IPP tidaklah signifikan karena PPA menurut ISAK 8 dan PSAK 30 diklasifikasikan sebagai sewa pembiayaan, dan dari sudut pandang IPP sebagai lessor, maka pencatatan yang dilakukan tidak jauh berbeda jika IPP menggunakan ISAK 16 maupun ISAK 8. Sejak tahun 2016, PLN memperlakukan PPA sebagai transaksi jual beli biasa dan tidak menggunakan ISAK 8, sehingga dalam perjanjian tersebut tidak ada pihak yang mencatat infrastruktur pembangkit listrik sebagai aset tetap.

---

ABSTRACTThis report aims to explain about the result of accounting treatment analysis of the power purchase agreement ldquo;PPA rdquo; in PLN and PT BEN as an independent power producer ldquo;IPP rdquo; . The issuance of ISAK 8 and ISAK 16 in Indonesia served differences in accounting treatment implemented by PLN and IPP. IPP as private sector and operator applies ISAK 16 for transactions from PPA which can be categorized as service concession arrangement, while PLN as grantor can rsquo;t apply ISAK 16 because the standard only gives guidance on the accounting for operator. As such, PLN applies ISAK 8 for PPA because the arrangement contains a lease. The differences in accounting treatment for IPP are not significant because PPA is classified as finance lease in accordance with ISAK 8 and PSAK 30, and from IPP rsquo;s perspective as a lessor, the record won rsquo;t have much differences whether IPP uses ISAK 16 or ISAK 8. Since 2016, PLN treated PPA as a regular sale and purchase transaction and not applying ISAK 8, so neither parties record the power plant infrastructure as fixed asset for the agreement."

"Tesis ini membahas mengenai penerapan ISAK 16 tentang perjanjian konsesi jasa pada laporan keuangan perusahaan IPP (Independent Power Producer) atas perjanjian PPA (Power Purchase Agreement) dengan PLN dan bagaimana dampaknya terhadap Pajak Penghasilan perusahaan IPP tersebut.Penerapan ISAK 16 sejak 1 Januari 2012 pada laporan keuangan perusahaan IPP menyebabkan perubahan pada pengakuan pendapatan, asset tetap dan beban depresiasi. Terdapat perbedaan perlakuan antara peraturan pajak dengan ketentuan ISAK 16 sehubungan dengan pengakuan pendapatan, asset tetap dan beban depresiasi perusahaan IPP atas perjanjian PPA dengan PLN. Dalam menentukan perlu tidaknya dilakukan harmonisasi SAK dengan peraturan perpajakan, perlu dipertimbangkan beberapa perbedaan mendasar seperti: tujuan dari pelaporan SAK dan perpajakan, principle base vs rule base, substansi vs formalitas, dan kepastian hukum.

---

This thesis discusses the application of ISAK 16 service concession agreement on the financial statements of the IPP (Independent Power Producer) in regards to PPA (Power Purchase Agreement) with PLN and how it impacts the IPP?s corporate income tax. ISAK 16 which is applied since January 1, 2012 on the IPP's financial statements causes a change in revenue recognition, fixed assets and depreciation expense. There is a difference treatment between tax regulation and ISAK 16 due to revenue recognition, fixed assets and depreciation on the PPA between the IPP and PLN. In determining whether a harmonization of IFRS with tax regulations is needed or not, there are some fundamental differences that need to be consideredsuch as: the purpose of IFRS reporting and taxation reporting, the principle base vs rule base, substance vs formality, and law enforcement."

"ABSTRAK Pendahuluan: Pembesaran Prostat Jinak merupakan salah satu penyakit yangumum ditemukan pada pria lanjut usia, berakibat pada pembesaran prostat, obstruksi muara buli dan gejala saluran kemih bawah. Namun gejala dan obstruksi yang terjadi tidak seluruhnya bergantung pada ukuran prostat. Protrusi prostat intravesika telah ditemukan berkorelasi dengan obstruksi buli. Pada tulisan ini akan dibahas mengenai hubungan antara protrusi prostat intravesika, prostat specific antigen, dan volume prostat, serta mana dari ketiganya yang merupakan prediktor terbaik untuk menunjukkan adanya obstruksi muara buli yang disebabkan oleh pembesaran prostat jinak.Metode: Sebuah studi prospektif pada 118 pasien pria diperiksa antara Januari 2012 sampai Juli 2012. Pasien pria berusia lebih dari 40 tahun yang datang dengan LUTS dan dicurigai menderita BPH dipilih untuk mengikuti studi. Mereka dievaluasi dengan digital rectal examination (DRE), International Prostate Symptoms Score (IPSS), serum total PSA, uroflowmetri, pengukuran urin residu postvoid, Intravesical Protrusion Prostate (IPP) dan Prostate Volume (PV), menggunakan USG transabdominal.Hasil: PV, IPP dan PSA menunjukkan korelasi paralel. Ketiga indikator menunjukkan korelasi yang baik dalam mendeteksi obstruksi muara buli yang disebabkan oleh pembesaran prostat jinak. Analisis statistik menggunakan tes Chi square dan Spearman?s Rank correlation test. Kurva Receiver Operator Characteristic (ROC) digunakan untuk membandingkan korelasi PSA, PV dan IPP dengan BOO. Angka rerata PSA ditemukan lebih tinggi signifikan pada pasien yang mengalami obstruksi (8.6 ng/mL;0.76-130) dibandingkan dengan yang tidak mengalami obstruksi (6.44 ng/ml;1.0-40.6). Angka rerata volume protat juga ditemukan lebih tinggi pada pasien dengan obstruksi (50.33 mL±24.34) dibandingkan yang tidak mengalami obstruksi (50.33 mL ±24.34). Angka rerata IPP juga ditemukan lebih tinggi signifikan pada pasien obstruksi (7.29±2.78) dibandingkan dengan yang tidak mengalami obstruksi (6.59±2.93). Koefisien korelasi rho spearman adalah 0.617, 0.721 dan 0.797 untuk PSA, PV, dan IPP.Dengan menggunakan kurva karakteristik receiver-operator, daerah di bawah kurva ditempat secara berturut-turut oleh PSA, PV, dan IPP yaitu 0.509, 0.562, dan 0.602. Nilai prediktif positif dari PV, PSA dan IPP adalah 59.7%, 55.6%, dan 60.2%. Menggunakan model regresi nominal, IPP tetap menjadi indeks independen utama untuk menentukan BOO yang disebabkan oleh pembesaran prostat jinak. Kesimpulan: Prostat Specific Antigen, Prosat Volume dan Intravesical Prostatic Protrusion diukur dengan menggunakan ultrasonografi transabdominal, merupakan metode yang noninvasif dan mudah didapat yang sangat berkorelasi dengan obstruksi muara buli (bladder outlet obstruction/BOO) pada pasien dengan pembesaran prostat jinak, dan korelasi IPP lebih kuat dibandingkan PSA dan PV.Ketiga indikator non invasif ini berkorelasi satu dengan lainnya. Studi ini menunjukkan bahwa IPP merupakan prediktor yang lebih baik untuk BOOdibandingkan PSA atau PV.

---

ABSTRAK Introduction: Benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) is one of the most common diseases in elderly men. Benign prostatic hyperplasia may lead to prostatic enlargement, bladder outlet obstruction (BOO) and lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS). But the symptoms and obstruction do not entirely depend on the size of prostate. In contrast, intravesical prostatic protrusion (IPP) has been found to correlate with BOO. This study will define the relationship between intravesical prostatic protrusion (IPP), prostate specific antigen (PSA) and prostate volume (PV) and also determine which one of them is the best predictor of bladder outlet obstruction (BOO) due to benign prostatic enlargement.Method: A prospective study of 118 male patients examined between Januari 2012 until July 2012 was performed. Male patients aged more than 40 yearspresenting with LUTS and suggestive of BPH were selected for the study. They were evaluated with digital rectal examination (DRE), International Prostate Symptoms Score (IPSS), serum total PSA, uroflowmetry, postvoid residual urine measurement, Intravesical Protrusion Prostate (IPP) and Prostate Volume (PV) using transabdominal ultrasound.Results: PV, IPP and PSA showed parallel correlation. Although all three indices had good correlation in detecting bladder outlet obstruction caused by benign prostate hyperplasia. Statistical analysis included Chi square test and Spearman?s Rank correlation test. Receiver Operator Characteristic (ROC) curves were used to compare the correlation of PSA, PV and IPP with BOO. Mean prostate specific antigen was significantly higher in obstructed patients (8.6 ng/mL; 0.76-130) compared to non-obstructed patients (6.44 ng/mL; 1.0-40.6). Mean prostatevolume was significantly larger in obstructed patients (50.33 mL ± 24.34) compared to non-obstructed patients (45.39 mL ± 23.43). Mean IPP was significantly greater in obstructed patients (7.29 ± 2.78) compared to nonobstructed patients (6.59 ± 2.93). The Spearman rho correlation coefficients were 0.617, 0.721 and 0.797 for PSA, PV and IPP, respectively. Using receiveroperator characteristic curves, the areas under the curve for PSA, PV and IPP were 0.509, 0.562 and 0.602, respectively. The positive predictive values of PV, PSA and IPP were 59.7%, 55.6% and 60.2%, respectively. Using a nominalregression model, IPP remained the most significant independent index to determine BOO caused by benign prostate hyperplasia. Conclusion: Prostate Specific Antigen, Prostate volume & intravesical prostatic protrusion measured through transabdominal ultrasonography are noninvasive and accessible method that significantly correlates with bladder outlet obstruction in patients with benign prostatic hyperplasia and the correlation of IPP is much more stronger than PSA and PV. All three non-invasive indices correlate with one another. The study showed that IPP is a better predictor for BOO than PSA or PV."