Ada Pertanyaan? Hubungi Kami 
2026 Hak Cipta Milik Hukumonline.com
Produk Pilihan
Ada Pertanyaan? Hubungi Kami Christina Desy, Kartini L. Makmur
Issued more than a decade ago, the Telecommunications Law is now considered obsolete in dealing with the recent dynamic growth in Indonesia’s telecommunications sector. Unfortunately, the 2015 National Legislation Program (Prolegnas) does not include an amendment to the Telecommunications Law as one of its priorities.Nonot Harsono, Commissioner at the Indonesian Telecommunication Regulatory Agency (BRTI), expressed his disappointment with these circumstances as he believes that it is now time for the Telecommunications Law to be revised. One particular concern he has is that the Telecommunications Law includes a number of unclear provisions which easily trigger misinterpretation.
More specifically, Mr. Harsono referred to the provisions on telecommunication networks, special telecommunication networks, and telecommunication services. He says that with the current provisions it is hard to draw strict lines to distinguish between them, which results in uncertainty and consequently harm to the investment climate for Indonesia’s telecommunication sector.
Supporting Mr. Harsono’s view, Samuel Abrijani Pangarepan, Chairman of the Indonesian Association of Internet Services Providers (APJII), commented that the government must immediately fix the overlapping regulations covering network providers, service providers, and special telecommunications. In this regard, Mr. Pangarepan highlighted the recent case of Indar Atmanto, the former President Director of PT Indosat Mega Media (IM2).
In this case, Mr. Atmanto had a claim made against him as being responsible for IM2 using the 2.1 GHz/3G mobile network of PT Indosat without an official license from the government. Meanwhile, IM2 has already signed an internet access broadband agreement with PT Indosat, similar to 300 other internet service providers.
According to Mr. Pangarepan, the agreement was reasonable as IM2 provides internet services and therefore needs the assistance of PT Indosat as a cellular network provider. In addition, PT Indosat is required to provide such assistance under Government Regulation No. 52 of 2000 on Organizing Communications.
“This situation will scare internet service providers away if it continues,” said Mr. Pangarepan.
Sharing Mr. Pangarepan’s view, Nawawi Baharudin, Executive Director at LBH Pers, agreed that the cooperation agreement had been concluded and signed in compliance with prevailing laws and regulations. Mr. Baharudin also urged the government to put more effort into providing better legal certainty for internet service providers to prevent similar occurrences like the IM2 case.
(hot/kc)
Christina Desy, Kartini L. Makmur
Issued more than a decade ago, the Telecommunications Law is now considered obsolete in dealing with the recent dynamic growth in Indonesia’s telecommunications sector. Unfortunately, the 2015 National Legislation Program (Prolegnas) does not include an amendment to the Telecommunications Law as one of its priorities.Nonot Harsono, Commissioner at the Indonesian Telecommunication Regulatory Agency (BRTI), expressed his disappointment with these circumstances as he believes that it is now time for the Telecommunications Law to be revised. One particular concern he has is that the Telecommunications Law includes a number of unclear provisions which easily trigger misinterpretation.
More specifically, Mr. Harsono referred to the provisions on telecommunication networks, special telecommunication networks, and telecommunication services. He says that with the current provisions it is hard to draw strict lines to distinguish between them, which results in uncertainty and consequently harm to the investment climate for Indonesia’s telecommunication sector.
Supporting Mr. Harsono’s view, Samuel Abrijani Pangarepan, Chairman of the Indonesian Association of Internet Services Providers (APJII), commented that the government must immediately fix the overlapping regulations covering network providers, service providers, and special telecommunications. In this regard, Mr. Pangarepan highlighted the recent case of Indar Atmanto, the former President Director of PT Indosat Mega Media (IM2).
In this case, Mr. Atmanto had a claim made against him as being responsible for IM2 using the 2.1 GHz/3G mobile network of PT Indosat without an official license from the government. Meanwhile, IM2 has already signed an internet access broadband agreement with PT Indosat, similar to 300 other internet service providers.
According to Mr. Pangarepan, the agreement was reasonable as IM2 provides internet services and therefore needs the assistance of PT Indosat as a cellular network provider. In addition, PT Indosat is required to provide such assistance under Government Regulation No. 52 of 2000 on Organizing Communications.
“This situation will scare internet service providers away if it continues,” said Mr. Pangarepan.
Sharing Mr. Pangarepan’s view, Nawawi Baharudin, Executive Director at LBH Pers, agreed that the cooperation agreement had been concluded and signed in compliance with prevailing laws and regulations. Mr. Baharudin also urged the government to put more effort into providing better legal certainty for internet service providers to prevent similar occurrences like the IM2 case.
(hot/kc)