Building National Broadband s: What works and what doesn t? Case studies based on India, Malaysia, Australia and Indonesia Roshanthi Lucas Gunaratne, Vigneswara Illavarasan, Sabina Fernando & Ibrahim Kholilul Rohman CPRSouth, Johannesburg 10 th Sep 2014
Internet Ecosystem Infrastructure Affordable Userfriendly Devices 1Malaysia Netbook Distribution HSBB NOFN Palapa NBN Australia FTTH Ring fiber in from connecting industrial block areas BBGP to all wholesale gram Islands connectivity panchayat through network fiber via level FTTH, multiple fixed wireless tech in rural or Satellite areas Indonesia Australia Malaysia India Skilled Users Broadband Government Programs Carnivals, to User improve ICT Training Affordable ICT Anchor literacy packages client Tax breaks Attractive Content/ Applications E-gov, e- Introduction health, e- of e-gov, e- education, education and ecommerce e-health My1Content portal 2
India National Optical Fiber (NOFN) Point of Interface Block Point of Interface At Gram Panchayat Connectivity State owned Telco and Public Fiber s BBNL PoP Pilot- 58 GPs connected Target 250000 GPs Private Telecom Operators Customers Domestic Access Implemented by BBNL SPV (BSNL, Railtel, PowerGrid, GAILTEL ), wholesale bandwidth provider. Costing 4B USD.
Malaysia High Speed Broadband (HSBB) 1.74Tbps total BW Capacity (from 682Gbps) Connectivity 17 Operators for HSBB Transmission TM Fiber Domestic 4 Operators for HSBB Access Access 1.43 Ports installed Target 1.3 Ports installed Customers 621,400 Subscribers (43% take up) Implemented by Telekom Malaysia, National incumbent as a PPP with Gov (selected with no tender process). Total cost 3.5B USD, out of which Gov spent 0.75B Conditions to access network commercially negotiated and not transparent
Australia National Broadband (NBN) Connectivity NBN Co Fiber network Private Telecom Operators Customers Domestic Access Implemented by NBN Co (wholesale-only SPV, providing retail telecom SPs with access). Estimated cost 40B USD. Was planned as FTTH initially in 2009 but after Gov changed from Labor to Coalition, in 2013, multi technology approach favored. Still planning stage. Companies Act and Access Act in place to ensure transparent and non discriminatory process.
Indonesia Palapa Ring Connectivity Fiber network connecting all islands Private Telecom Operators Customers Domestic Access 446 cities implemented by PT Telekom, incumbent (no tender process. 51 in least commercial cities to be implemented through gov subsidized auctions. Estimated cost 1B USD.
Fiber Route Km Cost vs Fiber deployed vs Implementation time 350,000 300,000 India (4 years) Australia (12years) 250,000 200,000 150,000 Size denotes implementation time 100,000 50,000 0 Malaysia (1.5 years) Indonesia (6 years) 0 10 20 30 40 50 Cost to Government (Billion USD) 7
Cost to Government (Billion USD) Implementation Entity Scope of Project Open Access Timely implementati on India 4 BSNL SPV Malaysia 0.75 Australia 40 Indonesia 1 Connectivity from Conditions being Block to 250,000 GP discussed, Tariff on 301,000 km fiber web TM (selected with no tender process, FTTH in high other operators not industrial areas only considered) PPP 46,986 km fiber NBN Co Wholesale only SPV PT Telekom (other operators not considered) No transparent conditions or pricing, but other operators have signed up Connectivity of whole country through FTTH, fixed Clear legislation on wireless and non discriminatory satellite open access and 250,000 km fiber transparent pricing Connectivity of Eastern non commercial cities 25,000 km fiber Conditions have not been agreed Delayed (2015) Completed on time (2010) Delayed (2019) Delayed (2015)
Conclusion Need for demand-side stimulation including, training, awareness campaigns, affordable userfriendly devices and attractive local language content. Open transparent tender process when selecting implementer Taking technology neutrality into account. Open access to network with transparent, nondiscriminatory conditions and pricing. Disbursements tied to implementation miles stones. PPP vs. SPV PPP can lead to faster implementation time as in Malaysia, but may not be conducive to competition. SPV take a long time to set up and high admin burden as in India and Australia. 9