BharatNet, India’s flagship rural broadband mission, highlights the gap between infrastructure creation and real usage. Despite extensive fibre rollout, low utilisation and bureaucratic hurdles persist, demanding a shift towards local, entrepreneurial, and outcome-driven models for true digital inclusion

When India launched its National Broadband Plan in 2004, the vision was ambitious — to build a digital highway that could bring high-speed internet to every household, particularly in rural areas where connectivity remained poor. The plan intended to create an infrastructure backbone that would eventually allow every citizen, irrespective of geography, to participate in the digital revolution. However, the actual rollout began only in 2011, under the National Optical Fibre Network (NOFN) programme.

The goal of NOFN was to connect one lakh gram panchayats through optical fibre. Pilot projects were conducted in Rajasthan, Tripura, and Andhra Pradesh, with computing infrastructure provided by the Government of India and broadband connectivity enabled by BSNL. Despite these efforts, the pilots failed to generate the desired impact.

The primary reason was that last-mile resources were not designed around entrepreneurial incentives; instead, they functioned on short-term contracts. When central Government support ceased, states were reluctant to assume financial and operational responsibilities, leaving the pilots abandoned. Communities saw little benefit, and the model was not considered worthy of replication.

The Emergence of BharatNet

In 2014, the Government relaunched NOFN under the banner of BharatNet, aligning it with the broader Digital India programme. Recognising that broadband access was central to bridging India’s deep digital divide, BharatNet focused on accelerating fibre rollout and establishing last-mile access points so citizens could avail themselves of services closer to their homes.

Implementation Strategy

BharatNet was rolled out in two phases.

• Phase I sought to connect one lakh gram panchayats through three central public sector undertakings — BSNL, RailTel, and Power Grid Corporation of India. Fibre laying for this phase was completed by December 2017.
• Phase II targeted the remaining 1.5 lakh gram panchayats, with an initial completion deadline of March 2019, later extended to August 2021.

To address the diverse needs of different regions, the Government experimented with three models: the State-led Model, the Private Sector Model, and the CPSU-led Model.

Several northern and north-eastern states relied on CPSU-led implementation. This decentralisation was meant to foster ownership at the state level and accommodate regional differences.

Infrastructure and Usage gaps

Despite the extensive fibre rollout, utilisation remained disappointingly low. The underlying assumption was that state Governments and private ISPs would use BharatNet infrastructure to deliver internet services to households and institutions at the village level. Accordingly, last-mile equipment such as Optical Network Terminals (ONTs) with solar systems was installed in panchayat or school buildings.

However, many of these buildings faced frequent power outages, and equipment often remained unused after office hours. Inadequate local ownership led to theft, disrepair, or complete disuse of assets. Thus, while the physical network existed on paper, its actual benefit to end users was minimal.

The BBNL Experiment

To manage and expedite the rollout, the Government created Bharat Broadband Network Limited (BBNL). Its mandate was to encourage private ISPs to utilise BharatNet infrastructure. However, most officers in BBNL were deputed from BSNL, bringing with them the same bureaucratic inertia and culture. Instead of becoming a nimble facilitator, BBNL added another bureaucratic layer.

Key issues included:

• Delays in troubleshooting and problem resolution.
• Obsolescence of equipment due to poor maintenance.
• Weak enforcement of supplier warranties.
• Inefficient engagement with state Governments and private players.

Eventually, the Government merged BBNL back into BSNL.

Operational Challenges

Several systemic challenges plagued the project:

• Focus on laying fibre, not on usage models: fibre was laid in 1.5 lakh panchayats, but household-level utilisation remained negligible.
• Last-mile ownership issues: ONT devices at panchayats and schools often lacked clear ownership or accountability.
• Dependence on BSNL: since the GPON-OLT was located in BSNL exchanges, backhaul access was restricted, limiting participation of other service providers and undermining the neutrality of the network.
• Poor maintenance: BSNL, despite being paid, could not effectively maintain fibre. Frequent cuts and dislocations rendered network unusable.
• Obsolescence: solar-powered batteries and equipment became dysfunctional due to lack of maintenance.

Attempts at Course Correction

Learning from Phase I, the Government decentralised aspects of Phase II, allowing states to design local architectures and even set up WiFi hotspots at panchayat levels. Funds were transferred to states for implementation, and in cases where states were unwilling, BBNL stepped in.

Later, with BBNL merged into BSNL, the responsibility for selecting rollout agencies, setting up WiFi, and providing FTTH (fibre-to-the-home) connections shifted entirely to BSNL. However, the rollout continues to lag, with many panchayats still waiting for meaningful broadband connectivity.

Why the Delays?

The fundamental objective was to provide high-quality broadband to rural households, but the Government’s focus tilted excessively towards processes - vendor selection, fibre-laying contracts, maintenance audits, and invoice monitoring. The result was an ecosystem bogged down in bureaucracy, where the goal of digital empowerment was overshadowed by the mechanics of execution.

A Rethink: Towards Sustainable Local Models

India’s rural broadband policy needs a shift from centralised contractor-driven execution to local entrepreneur-led models. If agencies for fibre laying and maintenance were engaged at the district or block level, accountability would increase significantly. A model RFP could be issued at the local level, with contracts and payments handled locally.

Alternative: A DBT-Led Approach

Another promising alternative is a Direct Benefit Transfer (DBT) model. Under this, households could receive a fixed subsidy for broadband services for a defined period, say five years. Service providers — be they private telcos, cable operators, or cooperatives — would then have a guaranteed customer base, encouraging them to aggressively expand fibre in rural areas.

Non-Traditional Solutions

In addition to terrestrial fibre, satellite-based broadband networks can be leveraged in remote or geographically challenging areas where fibre rollout is impractical. With new low-earth-orbit satellite technologies becoming affordable, this option could ensure no community is left behind.

The Road Ahead

The Bharat Broadband Mission, in its current form, reflects a gap between intent and impact. While massive investments have gone into laying infrastructure, real benefits to rural households remain limited. India’s aspiration of a digitally inclusive society demands a paradigm shift in approach:

• From centralised bureaucracy to local accountability.
• From process orientation to outcome orientation.
• From infrastructure obsession to service delivery focus.

Time is of the essence. Every delay widens the digital divide and denies rural citizens opportunities in education, healthcare, commerce, and governance. Redefining BharatNet with innovative, entrepreneurial, and citizen-centric models is critical to ensuring that India’s villages are not left behind in the digital age.

The writer is retired IAS officer