The political and bureaucratic challenges of regulatory convergence: The case of the Indonesian Telematics Convergence Bill

Presenter: Titik Puji Rahayu  (PhD Candidate, MECO, University of Sydney).

This article aims to examine the Indonesian government’s effort to redesign the Indonesian communication policy by proposing the Telematics Convergence Bill. More specifically, this study concerns on the policy process for regulating industrial convergence of the Indonesian communication sectors. Through document analysis, the content of the bill is examined to answer the following questions; what aspects of convergence that are perceived as critical to be regulated with the bill? How those aspects of convergence are going to be regulated? What aspects of convergence that have been overlooked and therefore left unregulated by the bill? Subsequently, data from semi-structured interviews with figures from regulatory bodies are used to further explain how the understanding of Indonesian policymakers on the issue of technological and industrial convergence has shaped the formulation of the bill. Finally, this chapter discuss particular bureaucratic and political challenges that have inhibited the policy process of the bill.

The finding of the study reveals that the bill had been formulated by strongly following telecommunication regulatory tradition, as compared to media regulatory tradition. In fact, the bill partly adopts the layer models by only addressing the three layers of communication industries, namely the infrastructure, network and application layers. Intentionally, the bill had been designed to rule out the content layer. In this way, the bill focuses on the regulation of conduit, rather than content.

Subsequently, the study found that the bill has been formulated with the main objective to control multinational OTT providers and protect the economic interests of the state and national telecommunication operators. OTT business has been dominated by multinational companies, such as Google, BlackBerry, WhatsApp, Skype, Facebook, Twitter, Netflix, Uber, without significant economic contributions to the state and national telecommunication industry.

Another aspect to be concerned is how the bill proposes the establishment of a new regulatory body overseeing the Indonesian communication industries, with a government official to be appointed as the chairman. Globally, the discourse on regulatory convergence suggests the establishment of a single regulatory body overseeing the whole communication sectors. In the case of Indonesia, however, such an effort tends to be politically rejected. This is because Indonesia has a history of authoritarianism where the government during the old order and new order era 1945-1998) had solely controlled the telecommunication and media industries. Therefore, since the Indonesian reformation, a number of regulatory bodies have been established, such as the BRTI, KPI, Press Council and LSF, for the purpose of power separation. Any effort to restore centralization of power in the hand of government tends to generate political rejection.

After all, the design of the bill is resulted from a policy process which had been dominated by policymakers from telecommunication regulatory bodies; those were figures from the Ministry of Kominfo, BRTI and KRT. In contrary, there were no figure from the Indonesian media regulatory bodies, such as the Press Council, KPI and LSF, had been involved in the legal drafting of the bill. This means that lack of coordination among regulatory bodies that control the Indonesian communication industries is persisted and become a barrier for regulatory convergence in Indonesia.


Broadcasting Law No.32 (2002). Jakarta, Indonesia. Retrieved from

BRTI. (2010).  Bagan organisasi [Organizational structure].  Jakarta, Indonesia: The Indonesian Telecommunication Regulatory Body or Badan Regulasi Telekomunikasi Indonesia (BRTI). Retrieved June 3, 2013, from

Carter, D. (1997). ‘Digital democracy’ or ‘information aristocracy’? Economic regeneration and the information economy. In B. D. Loader (Ed.), The Governance of cyberspace: Politics, technology and global restructuring. London: Routledge.

Castells, M. (2013). Commnication power. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Chamoux, J.-P. (1988). French telematics: History, policy and projects. Prometheus, 6(2), 296-304.

Chan-Olmsted. (1998). Mergers, acquisitions, and convergence: The strategic alliances of broadcasting, cable television, and telephone services. The Journal of Media Economics, 11(3), 33-46.

Chon, B. S., Choi, J. H., Barnett, G. A., Danowski, J. A., & Joo, S.-H. (2003). A structural analysis of media convergence: Cross-industry mergers and acquisitions in the information industries. Journal of Media Economics, 16(3), 141-157.

Constitution (1945). Jakarta, Indonesia. Retrieved from

Darmawan, I. (2008, December 9). Indonesia butuh UU Konvergensi [Indonesia needs Convergence Law], Online news article, Retrieved from

Deibert, R., Palfrey, J., Rohozinski, R., & Zittrain, J. (2012). Access contested: Security, identity, and resistance in Asian cyberspace. Massachusetts: Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

Dwyer, T. (2010). Media convergence. Open University Press: England.

Electronic Information and Transaction Law No.11 (2008). Jakarta, Indonesia. Retrieved from

Fredom House. (2013). Freedom on the Net: A global assessment of Internet and digital media.  Retrieved 10 June 2014, from Fredom House

Fuller, E. C., & Souther, A. (1999). Small  firms and information and communication technologies: Policy issues and some words of caution. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 17(3), 287-302.

Garcia-Murillo, M. A., & MacInnes, I. (2001). FCC organizational structure and regulatory convergence. Telecommunications Policy, 25(6), 431-452.

Ghoshal, B. (2004). Democratic transition and political development in post-Soeharto Indonesia Contemporary Southeast Asia, 26(3), 506-529.

Gilder, G. (2000). Telecosm: How infinite bandwidth will revolutionize our world. New York: Free Press.

Horrocks, I., & Bellamy, C. (1997). Telematics and community governance: Issues for policy and practice. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 10(5), 377-387.

House of Representatives. (2010, 1 February).  DPR meminta agar penyusunan RUU Konvergensi Telematika tidak tergesa-gesa  [The House of Representatives suggests that Convrgence Bill should not rush]. Jakarta: The House of Representatives (DPR) of the Indonesia Republic. Retrieved 1 October, 2013, from

Indonesian Broadcasting Commission. (2014, November 26).  Menkominfo tawarkan wacana RUU Konvergensi [Kominfo Minister offers Convergence Bill discourse].  Jakarta: The Indonesian Broadcasting Commission or Komisi Penyiaran Indonesia (KPI). Retrieved 10 February, 2015, from

Indrayana, D. (2008). Indonesian constitutional reform 1999-2002: An evaluation of constitution-making in transition. Jakarta Indonesia: Kompas Book Publishing.

Iosifidis, P. (2002). Digital convergence: Challenges for European regulation. Javnost – The Public, 9(3), 27-47.

Kominfo Ministrial Decree No.145 (2009). Tim penyiapan materi RUU Konvergensi Telekomunikasi dan Penyiaran [Legal drafting team for the Convergence of Telecommunications and Broadcasting Bill]. Jakarta: The Ministry of Communications and Information Technologies (Kominfo) of the Indonesia Republic. Retrieved from

KPPU. (2012). Positioning paper KPPU terkait Rancangan Undang-Undang Konvergensi [KPPU’s Positioning paper on Telematics Convergence Bill].  Jakarta: Business Competition Supervisory Commission (KPPU) of the Indonesia Republic. Retrieved from

Latzer, M. (1998). European mediamatics policies: Coping with convergence and globalization. Telecommunication Policy, 22(6), 457-466.

Latzer, M. (2009). Convergence revisited: Towards a modified pattern of communication governance. Convergence: The International Journal for Research into New Media Technologies, 15(4), 411-426.

Lim, M. (2012). The league of thirteen: Media concentration in Indonesia. Arizona: Participatory Media Lab & Ford Foundation.

McTaggart, C. (2003). A layered approach to Internet legal analysis. McGill Law Journal, 48(4), 571-625.

Ministry of Communication and Informatics. (2012a, March 15).  Interkoneksi Bisa Jadi Penengah OTT & Industri Telko [Interconnection as a Solution for OTT & Telco].  Jakarta, Indonesia: The Indonesian Ministry of Communications and Informatics or Kementerian Komunikasi dan Informatika (Kominfo). Retrieved March 15, 2013, from

Ministry of Communication and Informatics. (2012b, September 3).  Revisi UU Telekomunikasi jerat konten asing [Revision of the Telekomunication Law springe foreign content].  Jakarta, Indonesia: The Indonesian Ministry of Communications and Informatics or Kementerian Komunikasi dan Informatika (Kominfo). Retrieved March 8, 2014, from

Ministry of Communication and Informatics. (2013, December 6).  Operator harus dapat kompensasi layak dari OTT [Telco Operators deserve compensation from OTT Providers].  Jakarta, Indonesia: The Indonesian Ministry of Communications and Informatics or Kementerian Komunikasi dan Informatika (Kominfo). Retrieved March 8, 2014, from

Ministry of Kominfo. (2010). Masukan dalam konsultasi publik RUU Konvergensi Telematika [Inputs during the public consultation of Telematics Convergence Bill].  Jakarta, Indonesia: The Indonesian Ministry of Communications and Information Technologies or Kementerian Komunikasi dan Informatika (Kominfo). Retrieved from

Mueller, M. (1993). Universal service in telephone histoty: A reconstruction. Telecommunications Policy, 17(5), 352-369.

Nakahata, J. T. (2002). Regulating information platforms: The challenge of rewriting communications regulation from the bottom up. Journal on Telecommunications and High technology Law, 1, 95-142.

Niskanen, W. A. (1994). Bureaucracy and public economics. Vermont: Edward Elgar Publishing Company.

Noam, E. M. (1994). Principles for the Communications Act of 2034: The superstructure of infrastructure. Federal Communcations Law Journal, 47(2), 317-324.

Noam, E. M. (1997). Will universal service and common carriage survive the telecommunications act of 1996? Columbia Law Review, 97(4), 955-975.

Noor, A. R. (2012, March 14). Telkom: Antisipasi OTT perlu aturan konvergensi [Telkom:  OTT anticipation requires convergence rules], Online news article, detikinet. Retrieved from

Nora, S., & Minc, A. (1978). L’informatisation de la société : Industrie et services informatiques. Paris: Documentation Française.

Nugroho, Y., Putri, D. A., & Laksmi, S. (2012). Mapping the landscape of the media industry in contemporary Indonesia. Report of the Report Series. Engaging media, empowering society: Assessing media policy and governance in Indonesia through the lens of citizens’ rights. Research collaboration of Centre for Innovation Policy and Governance and HIVOS Regional Office Southeast Asia. Jakarta: CIPG and HIVOS. Retrieved from

Nugroho, Y., Siregar, M. F., & Laksmi, S. (2012). Mapping media policy in Indonesia. Report of the Report Series. Engaging media, empowering society: Assessing media policy and governance in Indonesia through the lens of citizens’ rights. Research colaboration of Center for Innovation Policy and Governance and HIVOS Regional Office Southeast Asia, funded by Ford Foundation. Jakarta: CIPG & HIVOS.

Presidential Decree No.30 (1997). Tim Koordinasi Telematika Indonesia (TKTI) [The Indonesian Telematics Coordination Team]. Jakarta: The Government of Indonesia Republic. Retrieved from

Presidential Instruction No.6 (2001). Pengembangan dan pendayagunaan telematika di Indonesia [The development and utilization of telematics in Indonesia]. Jakarta: The Government of Indonesia Republic. Retrieved from

Prohibition of Monopolistic and Unfair Business Competition Law No.5 (1999). Jakarta, Indonesia. Retrieved from

Redwing Asia. (2012).  The structure of Indonesia’s ISP Industry  Singapore: Redwing Asia. Retrieved 15 December 2014, from

Tapsell, R. (2014). Digital media in Indonesia and Malaysia: Convergence and conglomeration. Asiascape: Digital Asia, 3, 201-222.

Telecommunication Law No.36 (1999). Jakarta, Indonesia. Retrieved from

Thierer, A. (2004). Are “dumb pipe” mandates smart public policy? Vertical integration, net Neutrality, and the network layers model. Journal of Telecommunications and High Technology Law, 3(1), 275-308.

Van Cuilenburg, J., & McQuail, D. (2003). Media policy paradigm shifts: Towards a new communications policy paradigm. European Journal of Communication, 18(2), 181-2007.

Van Cuilenburg, J., & Verhoest, P. (1998). Free and equal access: In search of policy models for converging communication systems. Telecommunications Policy, 22(3), 171-181.

Whitt, R. S. (2004). A horizontal leap forward: Formulating a new communications public policy framework based on the network layers model. Federal Communcations Law Journal, 56(3), 587-672.

Widjaya, I., & Ngazis, A. N. (2012, March 14). Kominfo: Perlu regulasi operator Over-The-Top [Kominfo: Regulation is needed for Over-The-Top operators], Online news article, Retrieved from–perlu-regulasi-operator-over-the-top

Wirtz, B. W. (2001). Reconfiguration of value chains in converging media and communications markets. Long Range Planning, 34, 489-506.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s