evidoria

← Back to browse

Good practice Imported

Digital FSM: East Micronesia Cable & National Connectivity Project

Micronesia · Palikir · See the Micronesia profile

Evidence: Observational / pre–post Top 23% 92/100 · Ask Evidence Copilot about this practice

Since 2014, the FSM government with the World Bank and ADB laid the Chuuk-Pohnpei and East Micronesia submarine cables plus rural last-mile links, cutting fixed-broadband prices 99% ($65 to $0.78/Mbps) and reaching over 100,000 people, about 88% of the population.

-99%
Fixed-broadband price decline (2014-2025)
-96%
Mobile-broadband price decline (2014-2025)
2% to ~40%
Internet usage, population share (2014-2025)
100,000+ ~88% of population
People reported to have benefited
Digital FSM: East Micronesia Cable & National Connectivity Project

Details

Maturity
Established
Promoter
Government of the Federated States of Micronesia, World Bank & Asian Development Bank
Period
2014-2025
Keywords
telecommunications infrastructure, submarine cable, broadband, digital economy, rural connectivity

Context

The Federated States of Micronesia, spread across 600+ islands, faced entry-level fixed-broadband costs of around $65/Mbps/month as recently as 2014. From 2014 (accelerating from 2018), the FSM government, World Bank and Asian Development Bank co-financed submarine cables to Yap, Chuuk and (via the East Micronesia Cable) Kosrae, alongside institutional reform creating an independent telecoms regulator and Open Access Entity.

Results

Per the World Bank's results reporting and Implementation Completion Report, entry-level fixed-broadband prices fell 99% (from $65 to $0.78 per Mbps/month) and mobile-broadband prices fell 96% (from $705 to $30 per Mbps/month) between 2014 and 2025; internet usage rose roughly twenty-fold, from about 2% to around 40% of the population, and more than 100,000 people (about 88% of FSM's population) are reported to have benefited.

Conclusions

The World Bank notes outer, cable-less islands still depend on slower wireless or satellite links, so gains are not yet uniform across the country.

Implementation

Implementation detail (cost, timeline, staffing, conditions for success) is not yet available for this practice.

Commonly funded by

National / regional programmes

Indicative funding routes for practices of this type — always check each programme's current calls and eligibility rules.

Do you run this practice? Claim it — verified implementers get a public contact pathway and can propose corrections.

Data sources

Where this practice's information was retrieved from, and when.

Attachments

Similar practices you may find useful