India announces plan to connect 600k villages with optical fiber in 1000 days
indianexpress.com
indianexpress.com
While compared to western standards Chinese labour remains cheap, it is expensive compared to East Asia and India who are poorer than China and have less purchasing power.
Few days back my brother-in-law happily announced that Jio Fiber has reached their homes and that I can visit my home-town and stay longer without swearing about the Internet "availability". For context, I'm from Manipur[1], a pretty remote corner at the extreme north-east corner of India.
Earlier, I was consulting with a friend who owns a part of an ISP there. I wanted to pull a fiber all the way home and setup station there I can replicate work (and school for the kids) and actually be able to work from there. Now, I've asked my brother-in-law to get any plan possible. When I go back there, I'm going to just carry a whole bunch of equipments to wire and wi-fi the whole home. The homes there are really massive and few stories, so this is going to be fun.
Additionally, the recent announcement of laying Fiber cables to the Andaman and Nicobar islands is another good thing - I don't remember anybody talking any policy related points about the remote islands ever. Note: Andaman is far from Indian mainland (1200km) - about as far as New York is from Georgia, and it's closer to Myanmar (100km). It has a paltry population of only 300,000, spread across scores of islands.
People will still the WiFi device and sell it for pennies. They don't spare road light in many parts of cities.
1000 days if substantially shorter than the lifecycle of phone models. New cheap phones today don't have 5g, you see the timing issue?
The limiting factor is the client. Maximum transmission power is limited by law to avoid interference; routers generally hit the maximum - mine is doing 1 watt on the 5 GHz band and 200 mW on 2.4 GHz. But phones and laptops generally transmit at no more than a few dozen mW.
Transmission and reception have asymmetrical link speeds but your range is going be bounded by the point at which the client can't reliably talk back to the router to keep the connection alive.
The reason why you're in this situation is that under Helmut Kohl, despite advice from experts to use fiber, the German government wired the whole country with copper instead because the ministry of infrastructure at the time had stocks in the copper business.[1]
And also, in present times, German politicians still don't see the value the internet brings to a country so it was never a priority. Some even have employees print them pages off the internet so they can read them in paper form.
For them, the backbone of German economy is IG Metall factories so they never understand how could one ever make money with the internet.
As proof of this all one has to do is look at the DAX and see that none of the companies there bar SAP are software companies.
I see this as a mentality problem in German leadership, as it's only two big fintech companies, Wirecard and N26, are bombing hard while competitors from Sweden and the UK like Klarna and Monzo are flourishing. And I'm sure the engineers in Germany are just as good as the ones in Sweden and the UK.
[1]https://www.spiegel.de/netzwelt/web/deutschland-warum-unsere...
Such abuse of public position ought to be a criminal offence - they profited at the cost of setting the country back a decade (or more!) in terms of modern infrastructure.
Ubiquitous, fast, and maybe even free Internet - it seems logical and obvious that this is the ideal we should be moving towards, to benefit the whole country/world and future generations.
I'm sure that there are "underground wiring" countries with widespread fiber deployment and that Germany is doing worse than those, but comparisons to places where overhead is still accepted are skewed.
How is the situation in Germany different ?
It's the opposite of what i wrote (eg massive bureaucracy, "normal" taxes) ;)
I agree the previous Governments never did act on their plans. I find a lot of difference between them and the current Government when it comes to desire, commitment and execution. Take Highways for instance. Rapid construction across the country. In 2014, when Modi came to power, it was 4260 km per year. In 2018, 10800 kms of highways were built. Almost 2.5x. In 2020 the Government has set a target of 60 km per day which is 21900 km which it is already on the path of achieving. One thing cannot be denied is that this Government is pushing all boundaries possible to get India on track. Yes it fails in some (demonetization) and wins in most but at least there is no policy paralysis like in the UPA era.
This is OP's personal perception and opinion of the current and the former government.
So I would hold my judgement on the effectiveness and vision of the current establishment.
I tried searching for the issues once I came back but I was surprised how less effort was given in the country's English media to cover this. With the amount of publications that seemingly are there, I would have assumed this to be covered extensively and researched.
I would add that I am not against the improvement in connectivity, the Himalayas are beautiful. There are far better ways to improve connectivity which keeps the beauty of the areas preserved. It would have taken more time and money but the dividends would have been more.
I will leave some blog posts I found on the issue for reference; hopefully someone acts on this horrific "development" going on.
[1] https://indiaclimatedialogue.net/2018/09/24/highway-project-... [2]https://sandrp.in/2020/02/24/uttarakhand-road-widening-work-... [3] https://www.business-standard.com/article/current-affairs/sc...
- inconsiderate cutting/blasting in landslide prone areas.
- destruction of vegetation by throwing away the waste/debris from the cutting/blasting downhill which covers the slope. [1]
- non disposal of the same waste impacting river flow paths and debris narrowing the river bed
There are far more issues relating to local population and ecology which have been documented.
[1] I have photos of my own but this also represents the conditions there quite well. https://images.firstpost.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/naal...
Also, it is not necessary that even area around highways has to be an eyesore/badly degraded. Mountainous roads are some of the most beautiful paths to travel on and there are plenty of examples where construction has happened keeping that in perspective.
The numbers are staggering in comparison to what violations happen in India. But still I am not justifying it by saying that it should continue to happen. I am just saying that these issues exist everywhere and there is no point singling out India for this. And those 20,000+ kms highways are not built in Himalayas alone but in the entire Country. But yes, I understand and share your concern that ecology must not be affected for any project whatsoever and will 100% support you on that point. I just wish that people take things holistically when it comes to any project that happens in India in the same way you would take projects that happen in your own countries. After all, India has to develop and for that to happen you have to clear out land, build roads, construct buildings, dams etc. It can't happen on virgin soil. Something has to be removed for the development to happen. Isn't it? If you have an alternate way of going about it please suggest.
Regarding the US example, since most of the freeway construction in US happened long time back. A lot of these oppositions are old, we are now much more aware about the human impact to ecology. Also, isn't it better to learn and not repeat the mistakes of even others.
They live in cities or remote locations with full amenities - car, electricity and internet, smartphones, laptops. They use apps powered by the global internet and consume from the global supply chain. And they hike in the Himalayas with their DSLR, patagonia/north face gear and post the snaps to instagram.
They just want to freeze the state of development, fossil fuel usage, roads, etc. Because they see no benefit to themselves of any more of those things. Everything is swell for them.
This denies the benefits of development to the hundreds of millions who still need access to education, health care and economic opportunities.
There is NO country in the world that has reached first world status without going through development. I am sure you think there is a way but it is just one way to deny the poor of benefits. There is no widespread environmental destruction. Every measure forest cover, pollution, habitat has improved over the past decades.
Just because things are great for you is not an excuse to unintentionally wage class warfare.
I am not against connectivity or improving the life of people there, a lot of these areas are already connected by metalled road. What was happening when I was traveling there was widening of the roads indiscriminately, if you talk to people there or even read some of the articles I have linked, there isn't much benefit that local people are seeing because of this. There are far more important things that would have been beneficial to people living there like education, healthcare and some of them can be improved drastically with something as simple as improving LTE coverage.
All I am saying is, I would have preferred to see the myriad of problems associated with the project addressed, I am not saying do not build, but build sustainably.
About the metrics you think that haven't degraded, I don't have sources ready on all of them but I just looked up forest cover and one of the most green regions is now covered with plantations a lot. [1] Plantation cover != Forest cover.
Lastly, just because I am wearing Patagonia/North Face because of their environmental commitments, doesn't mean I expect everyone else to do the same. There are other paths, which might not be perfect but will be better, it doesn't hurt to raise issues when you see them so you can explore those paths. The choice is not binary.
[1] https://bucketeer-e05bbc84-baa3-437e-9518-adb32be77984.s3.am...
What was happening when I was traveling there was widening of the roads indiscriminately
Surely you know better than the urban planners and the engineers who are widening roads indiscriminately.
or
there isn't much benefit that local people are seeing because of this.
How long did you wait before you polled the locals for benefits? What timeline in your opinion is valid for benefits to accrue - 1 year? 3 years?
Apologies if it came across as harsh but I do appreciate your comment. I used your comment as a template for the general environmentalist anathema in third-world nations like India against development which disproportionately helps the poor. The upper socio-economic classes everywhere are against further development be it the home owners of SF who rail against high density housing, the mansion owners of nantucket who hate off shore windmills, the woke classes of Mumbai who protest the cutting of 300 trees to stop development of a metro line which will disproportionately help the mass-transit commuting poor.
Sustainability - that vague bogey of the anti-development movement. Oft used but never defined.
I am not too different than you. I would love the earth to be pristine so when I visit distant locales I can enjoy untouched panoramas. I just value the quality of the life of the locals more than my view.
When I used the word indiscriminate, there was a specific purpose to it. It doesn't have to be that the engineers or planners don't know the better way to do it. It just might be that they choose to pick the cheapest way they can get away with, or do you deny that in developing countries corruption is not high and implementation of laws is not lax.
I have specifically mentioned examples in one of the other replies of things that they have done indiscriminately. Filling up narrow valleys with debris or destroying vegetation below the road slope by just leaving the debris there certainly isn't smart; nor is cutting slopes in the cheapest way to leave them prone to landslides.
There are ways to activley manage it which have been employed throughout the world.
As I said, even when I had searched in the past the media coverage on this was poor which is surprising. But here are few links which discuss the issues I mentioned in the comment.
- https://www.newindianexpress.com/nation/2020/jul/21/char-dha...
- https://www.downtoearth.org.in/news/environment/char-dham-na...
It just might be that they choose to pick the cheapest way they can get away with,
Of course you know the most optimal trade-off between costs, quality and the environment not folks who are building thousands of miles of roadway every year.
do you deny that in developing countries corruption is not high and implementation of laws is not lax.
Straw man. There is corruption everywhere even in the west. Because there is corruption, nothing should happen.
Filling up narrow valleys with debris or destroying vegetation below the road slope by just leaving the debris there certainly isn't smart; nor is cutting slopes in the cheapest way to leave them prone to landslides.
You know a better way? How do you know dumping it in the valley below is worse than carting it off and dumping it in a remote valley. Do you have data showing where it should be dumped? Have you talked to any transportation engineers. Let me allow that it is worse and causes landslides. Are those landslides worse than having wider safer roads?
Your arguments have too much innuendo, conjecture because you have an defacto ideological position. You are fundamentally opposed to all development as it no longer serves your needs.
Just ponder that.
If all both of us are going to do is counter questions with more questions and just refute the arguments entirely by questioning the other person's knowledge and research boosted by our own biases just to prove oneself right, the whole discussion becomes a non sequitur. For instance, you don't even know the dumping this is something an actual engineer working there told me about, the decision wasn't upto him, alas. You see, while backpacking one thing I make a point to do is to talk to locals.
Additionally, the landslide vs road widening argument. Things are not binary in real world, it is not like one has to exist at the cost of other.
While accusing me for having an ideological position which you know nothing about, you are conveniently ignoring yours. In no way, I have opposed "development" anywhere in the thread, it should definitely be at balance with other things and definitely not indiscriminate like I saw.
In 2019, the govt stopped building highways at the first sign of economic distress.[2]
1: https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/now-new-concept-to...
2: https://www.livemint.com/industry/infrastructure/pmo-s-sugge...
The vast majority of Indians live in a media bubble.
Did you actually read the article? It was changed to meet International Standards on how lanes are measured. What is wrong with it?
The old numbers were revised to the new definition too. It doesn't change the facts.
Just because the old Governments weren't following International Standards doesn't mean the new Government continues to do the same. This is actually more transparent as we know exactly what is the cost needed to build 1 lane of a highway as opposed to masking the actual costs by saying 1 lane actually equals 2 or 4 lanes.
I've no problem with the measure itself, but all comparisons are misleading.
Stunts like these is what makes me sceptical of government claims (being sceptical of governments, imo, is necessary for democracy). You have to read the fine print of every statistic.
I agree that there is no more policy paralysis. But I will also say that there is a lack of follow through of initial plans. This government is a lot like a new entrepreneur - you have tons of great new ideas and lots of energy. But you keep trying out new ideas instead of focusing on one single thing.
The government needs to pick one agenda and go all out on it. I hopeful that they'll see the pandemic as an opportunity to push local manufacturing and will go all out on it.
My parents live in a planned newly built (< 10 years) area of a major city and they don't have either fibre or telephone cable. Internet is by very poor 4G. Recently a private fibre has started.
How do you build 100 Smart Cities in 5 years? That is practically impossible to do. The mission itself spans over 2 decades. The 5 years is for finalization of the selection of cities and then planning. 20 were selected in 2016, and the rest in 2018. You are confusing this timeline with the entire Mission timeline which isn't 5 years by any stretch of imagination.
> Not a single one has been developed in 5 years.
AURIC is the first one to be completed. You can read more about it here: https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/aurangabad/indias-f...
All of these Smart Cities are built in phases. First would be industrial townships followed by residential development. You can't build 100 Smart Cities in just 5 years. Even the Mission itself states that the results will be visible from 2022 onwards. We are still in 2020.
> Comments like these give proper context to foreigner like me who don't know how inclined the Indian government is to follow through on their promises
You do realize that India is a Democracy and that there is no one "Indian Government" but successive Governments that set their own policies right? Just because it was the case some 10 years ago doesn't mean it will continue to be so in the present or the future. Governments change. Policies change. That is Democracy for you. What promises are made by the Government to the people, if not kept, will be voted out.
That there is not a culture of following through on promises like these. That doesn't mean that they won't this time, but it also means that I shouldn't be surprised if they don't.
> You do realize that India is a Democracy and that there is no one "Indian Government" but successive Governments that set their own policies right
In systems like India (and my own country, Canada), we re-use the word government to mean two different things. One is the entity which controls the state, which is constant over elections, and the other is the group of people currently in charge, which frequently changes with elections. I was using the former usage.
2nd important point is monetization model, because these thing require maintenance. Private telecom players have mostly given up to participate in this Bharat-Net connectivity scheme. They seem to prefer their own Microwave backhaul for village cluster. That leaves National Telecom Operator BSNL which is not really in good financial shape.
Still I believe this is doable.
Edit: India will become a superpower. It will not happen in a day or 1000 but with our (US) help they will, and will keep China in check.
All the misinformation and lies to help the goverment win another term.
Few years ago, there was a big hoopla about making India superpower by 2020. We all know where that is.
Most of these types of deployments tend to go with a GPON variant, with passive optical splitters:
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passive_optical_network
However sometimes 'Active' (transitional?) Ethernet is used, which may cost more from a fibre perspective, but the gear at the end can then be traditional Ethernet which allows for taking advantage of economies of scale from the enterprise world:
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utah_Telecommunication_Open_In...
Have any details been released on what they're going to use? Anyone have experience with running PON that could comment on the pros/cons?
Point to point kit is cheaper till you get to the customer-facing aggregation, at which point per-port cost of PON vs PtP is much more in PON's favour, and PON customer kit is very cheap from benefits of scale.
PON on the other hand isn't good for long range links. Even amplified (which is £££, and not normally sensible) it has quite a low range compared to point to point at the higher split ratios that make the cost of kit per user so attractive.
Is there a cross-over point when one becomes cheaper than the other? Total number of customers, customer per kilometre run, customer/population density, other?
> PON on the other hand isn't good for long range links.
There are certainly 'traditional' Ethernet AOM optics that can reach 40 and even 80 km (before getting into the long-haul stuff from the likes of Ciena), but given that most PONs seem to reach at least 20 km for not-outrageous splitter ratios (1:8 ~ 40km, 1:16 ~ 25-30km, 1:32 ~ 15-20km), how far does one actually need to go for most fibre runs?
A recent video on Utopia Fibre has them using AON, and they claim it ended up generally being cheaper:
* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2e9DNwInTE4
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utah_Telecommunication_Open_In...
Also, in many of the comments there seems to be a seamless conflation between business and government.