Measuring the Perspective of Social Justice in the Internet Quota Scheme
The debate surrounding “expiring internet quotas” has recently gained renewed attention with the ongoing material examination at the Constitutional Court (MK). However, behind the term that easily stirs public emotion, there lies a more fundamental question: how is social justice realised in telecommunications services in a vast archipelagic nation, where internet needs are increasingly becoming a daily necessity.
According to the Chairman of the National Consumer Protection Agency (BPKN) of Indonesia, Muhammad Mufti Mubarok, public discussions need to be placed in a more comprehensive context.
“Digital justice is not just about one data package transaction. We are talking about how networks are managed so that internet access can be felt evenly. Not only in big cities, but also in remote areas,” he stated in an official remark on Saturday (25/4/2026).
Moreover, Indonesia has a complex geographical character: an archipelago consisting of more than 17,000 islands. In such conditions, equalising internet access requires significant infrastructure work, from building BTS towers, access networks, core networks, to transmission systems and data centres.
Telkomsel itself has installed more than 280,000 BTS across Indonesia and reaches about 97% of the population. These efforts also include operating BTS in 3T (frontier, outermost, disadvantaged) areas and border regions, as well as building USO BTS together with the government through BAKTI for villages that were previously unserved.
Mufti assesses that this fact is important for the public to understand, especially when discussing social justice, the measure is not just ‘as an individual’, but also ‘access for everyone’, including residents in areas where construction costs are far more expensive and challenging.
Not only that, another aspect often overlooked in discussions is the nature of telecommunications networks as shared capacity. In cellular networks, capacity is not provided specifically one by one for each person, but is used collectively in the same area and time. Therefore, when network load increases excessively, the impact does not stop at one user, but can degrade the service experience for many people. For example, speeds slow down or buffering occurs more frequently.
This risk of network congestion occurs if accumulated usage happens simultaneously and exceeds the available capacity, thus the quality of service for the wider community can decline. In that framework, network management becomes an instrument to ensure access remains more fairly distributed and service quality is maintained.
“This is where the perspective of social justice comes into play. Justice does not mean giving unlimited space to one party, but ensuring as many people as possible still receive decent services,” said Mufti.
In the MK hearing, one explanation provided by the operator is that internet services in data packages constitute a service in the form of the right to access network capacity with a certain volume and period. This means that what ends when the active period finishes is the service period/right of access, not a “good” that transfers ownership.
The side that is often not visible to the public, said Mufti, is that providing networks requires ongoing investment and operational costs, such as electricity, device maintenance, land rental, capacity upgrades, to transmission management. These are operator expenditures even before the service is used by customers.
The MK hearing ultimately is not just about terminology, but about how the state and stakeholders position the internet as an important need for society, while ensuring consumer protection and the sustainability of equitable access.
“If the discussion is to be productive, do not stop at the emotion of ‘expiry’. Maintain transparency in service information, continue to innovate, and ensure policies still uphold social justice through increasingly equitable internet access, and quality that leaves no one behind,” Mufti concluded.