Feeds

back to article Indonesia plans 10 Gbps FTTP as part of 20-million-premises broadband project

Indonesia is the latest country to announce a mass deployment of fibre-to-the-home, and has tapped Alcatel-Lucent for the rollout. During February, Telkom Akses (the infrastructure arm of incumbent Telkom) declared 2014 the year it will “build greatness”, and on March 7, it stated (Google translation) a target of passing 20 …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.
Silver badge

What's the bet it'll be faster and cheaper than Australia's famed NBN?

2
0
JC_

What's the bet that it'll be built on schedule and on budget, or that even a single home will get a "10Gbps down/2.5 Gbps" connection?

Good luck to them building it, but with this hype they're setting themselves up for over-promising, under-delivering.

Comparing it to Aussie, it's probably a lot easier to wire up homes when a rats nest of cables can be hung off every power & lamp pole the population live in much more dense cities.

0
0
Silver badge

Older generations were fearful of an over-populated Indonesia invading Northern-Australia. Looks like Indonesia may be the place for FTTP-envious Aussies to 'invade' instead.

2
0
Silver badge

Living in Canada I'm jealous too. Most of the fibre we get here is in the bran flakes.

4
0
Silver badge

"Looks like Indonesia may be the place for FTTP-envious Aussies to 'invade' instead."

Possibly. But 20 million premises is only about a fifth of the Indonesian housing stock, possibly notably less given that the target is "premises" not "homes". So this despite the brave words is another urban focused initiative, it will not serve the 20% of the population living below international standards of poverty (circa US$1.50 a day), won't serve the large urban slums, and the only rural areas to stand any chance of being connected are politician's villas (plus families and cronies) and significant tourist destinations.

Spending 8% of GDP to connect the wealthiest one in five of your population to fibre doesn't look a good use of resources to me if it's government money being spent (although to be fair, that 8% is more likely to crop up as 1% of GDP for eight years).

1
1
Anonymous Coward

Indonesia to jail Aussie Internet junkies

The strict legal code may deter Aussie Internet addicts from following the Golden FTTP trail.

And the Indonesian Navy will certainly repel any Aussie invasion.

0
0
Silver badge

@Ledswinger

So they shouldn't bother doing it until every home in the country can be so connected? People living on $1.50/day don't have much use for a 10 gigabit fiber connection.

If it requires 1% of GDP for 8 years, and it ends up increasing GDP by 1% (not adding 1% to growth, just increasing the base a single percent) it would more than pay for itself. Will it add 1% to their GDP? I have no idea, but I'd prefer wasting money on something like that which might grow the economy versus spending it on pointless wars like the US and UK.

0
0
Anonymous Coward

What use it is..

This is a deeply conservative country, so porn is out of the window.. and 10Gpbs seems overkill for viewing cat pictures!

2
0
Silver badge

Re: What use it is..

Don't you mean 'Streaming Cat Videos 24/7'?

0
0
Silver badge

Re: What use it is..

10Gpbs seems overkill for viewing cat pictures!

They're big cats.

1
0

I applaud their ambition.

Living in "rural" Hertfordshire, not even fifty of the Queen's best miles from London, I am currently on 1.5 MBPS. What a fuc&ing joke!

4
3
Bronze badge

Re: I applaud their ambition.

Or "I want somebody to subsidise where I live"...

2
2

Re: I applaud their ambition.

>>>Or "I want somebody to subsidise where I live"...

Er, nope. I just want decent broadband.

1
1
Silver badge

Re: I applaud their ambition.

"Or "I want somebody to subsidise where I live"..."

I offer an upvote for the translation, but it is worth remembering that in practical terms we offer subsidies for non-urban roads, telephony, water, post, electricity and gas, and to a lesser extent for many publicly provided services that have higher costs/lower direct contributions in less densely populated areas.

0
1
Bronze badge

Re: I applaud their ambition.

You might, but at what cost. You are already cross-subsidised by other consumers on your phone line as the much longer line will represent more capital investment, a higher maintenance overhead and so on. The same is probably true of your water and electricity, assuming those are longer than the UK average. Similarly delivering mail to you probably loses money too.

It's a matter of simple economics. Certain services are just cheaper to provide in high density areas. If a company could see a viable market for high speed broadband in your area at a price that consumers would be willing to pay, then it will be done. Of course, the reality is that people expect to pay the same price wherever they are, and the regulation of the market is such that it doesn't allow for significant market differentiation. Hence it's only going to happen through a subsidy. Either a cross-subsidy via some form or duty incumbent on operators (as happens with telephone, electricity and water) or an explicit state subsidy.

So, if consumers in your area are willing to pay - say - £50 per premises for a high speed broadband service then it would be likely that a means would be found to provide it. However, I suspect that most won't pay that much. Hence the need for a subsidy.

0
0
Silver badge

Re: I applaud their ambition.

I guarantee you can get a faster connection. You will just need to pay the install fee for the leased line and the monthly rate will not be 12.99. I live on a volcanic rock in the middle of the pacific and I can get a 1 gbps drop, just not in the same order of magnitude pricing wise as a consumer product. You may encounter some fun with permits if you live in an area of outstanding beauty but money solves that.

0
0
Silver badge

Re: I applaud their ambition.

Thinking about it you could probably manage it a lot cheaper by bonding multiple connections either via an iso that supports it (eclipse?) or in property using something like a firebrick (there's another company makes a similar product but all I can remember was it was yellow, the joys of parenthood destroying brain cells sorry).

Bonding at the isp will probably cost more and add a little latency but will give you double the connection speed for a single transfer, in home bonding will give you double the total capacity but not for a single transfer and without any change in latency).

0
0
Silver badge

Re: I applaud their ambition.

"but it is worth remembering that in practical terms we offer subsidies for non-urban roads, telephony, water, post, electricity and gas, and to a lesser extent for many publicly provided services that have higher costs/lower direct contributions in less densely populated areas."

I understand the economics are likely different in GB. "Rural" probably means something quite different over there. Where I live, the rural areas also subsidize the cities. We provide the coal, the electricity, the water, and the gas, and pay the environmental price when we deal with the flooded lands, logging trucks, coal trucks, dust, and disruption every day. These things work both ways. I don't see any reason why we shouldn't share.

1
0
Bronze badge

" using the connerie-vian* rule-of-thumb formulated in Australia, which suggests 10 million FTTP connections cost $AU90 billion, Indonesia will need over $100bn for this project, or about eight per cent of GDP."

It's simply ridiculous using Australian models for projecting costs for infrastructure provision in Indonesia. Whilst the technology costs will be similar, it is well known that 80% of the cost comes down to installation. That's roadworks, installing cables, putting up poles, running cables and the like. Those costs depend heavily on local labour rates and not those in Australia (some of the highest in the world).

Also, the Australian National Network is not exactly a shining example of efficiency, not to mention it includes the costs of effectively re-nationalising lots of assets. Indeed the network has been subject to a strategic review (which is now recommended to be a mix of technology, not just FTTP).

http://www.nbnco.com.au/about-us/media/news/strategic-review.html

So yes, this is going to be expensive, but 8% of GDP? I think not.

0
0
Silver badge

"Those costs depend heavily on local labour rates "

Not by much. In most developing economies the benefits of lower input labour costs are completely swallowed by bureaucracy and graft, to which you then add an uplift for the often unfavourable environments (permafrost or monsoon, urban overcrowding that makes access difficult, politics, illegal property development where you need to dig, import duties on essential equipment). That's certainly the case on infrastructure projects I've worked on.

Still, it's $5k per property which you could argue is high. But FTTP in Indonesia isn't a case of just sticking in fibre between and existing exchange to premises, it'll be a complete new backhaul if it is going to work, and in that scenario $5k per property at outturn looks realistic.

0
1

Meanwhile in the UK promises to get 95% of the country onto at least 2MB by 2015. The Uk, first world country - third world infrastructure. What a laughing stock we are to the rest of the world, thanks BT.

1
0
Thumb Down

@feanor - I couldn't agree more!

Where were Alcatel-Lucent when it came to the bidding for BDUK? Probably off looking for something more profitable abroad...

What-was-Virgin Media can't be bothered to expand their network.

Fujitsu gave up after realising the joke about the government and BT love-in.

Which left BT to wade in, suck up all the contracts and then sit on their fat backside and blame people who don't live in a city for wanting a better service, even if they are prepared and able to pay more for it.

0
0
Unhappy

3rd world jumping Ahead

The US again finds itself getting further and further behind because our ISP's believe that we only need the least that they can get us to pay the most for.

our schools, businesses and people be damed except if we can pay a fortune for lower grade service!!!!

1
0
Anonymous Coward

Wot not fibre?

In the 1990s, I suggested that Mercury (now Virgin) should install fibre to the home, along with their cable TV. Everyone laughed. Bet they wished they had then,

0
0
This topic is closed for new posts.