## 1 Introduction  
Poverty and isolation are two facets of the digital divide that cause a disparity in telecommunications access. Access to essential information and communication technologies in developing countries creates a significant divide between \"rich and poor\" and \"urban and rural/remote areas.\" It is more expensive and difficult to deliver services in rural areas compared to metropolitan areas; moreover, feasible plans and solutions are often lacking. Blank signal spots sometimes arise in impoverished urban neighbourhoods. However, these areas are not geographically isolated and can be \"reached\" using a standard business plan or access strategy if the market is liberalized (supply and demand). In contrast, rural areas often experience neglect with or without liberalized markets, as they are perceived to carry higher risks and lower returns on capital. They are naturally the last to be served unless interventions occur. On the other hand, innovation is required in the telecommunications industry to stimulate the rapid development of technology (technology push) while meeting societal needs (market pull) [1, 2]. Unfortunately, Indonesia is facing the above-mentioned condition. In the field of infrastructure provision, there is disagreement over which telecommunications infrastructure was constructed first. In view of this predicament, a few questions arise. Is the telecommunications infrastructure being constructed in geographically isolated and socioeconomically depressed regions in order to attract residents and stimulate economic growth [3, 4]? Or is the telecommunications industry following the provider/business approach, whereby they wait until the region is economically viable before investing in infrastructure [5, 6]?This situation requires a framework that can serve as a regulatory reference, particularly in determining the region's category for telecommunication infrastructure. Therefore, both options (\"was\" and \"should be\" constructed first) are tailored to each district as a geographically specific policy proposal. This paper proposes a framework that can be used as a reference for the Indonesian government in constructing the nation's telecommunications infrastructure. It was developed on the basis of the International Telecommunication Union (ITU) framework, which has become the global standard for ensuring universal access to telecommunications over the past 13 years [3]. Our proposed framework classifies Indonesian administrative regions into four grids: Grid #1: \"fostered\" districts; Grid #2: \"developing\" districts; Grid #3: \"developed\" districts; and Grid #4: \"independent-advanced\" districts. To determine where a district falls in the framework, we develop a novel statistical approach using 17 indicators involving a telecommunications network and socioeconomic factors. The four indicators of a telecommunications network are the presence of optical distribution points (ODPs), coverage prediction/signal coverage (SigCov), traffic, and site quantity. Included among the thirteen socioeconomic indicators are electricity, education, buying and selling transactions, lodging, health facilities, financial activities, industrial capacity, tourism, mining and plantation business units, residential conditions, road access, regional finances, and population. Each indicator depicts the regionally specific factors or peculiarities or advantages or the local wisdom of a specific grid area. The proposed framework has resulted in a grid visualization of 7232 districts in Indonesia. This paper suggests a geographically specific policy proposal containing telecommunications networks and socioeconomic indicators to boost the equitable distribution of telecommunications access, as well as mutually reinforcing the increasing quality and quantity of telecommunications networks that will have a positive impact on socioeconomic indicators. Challenges are involved in connecting to rural areas, but the mobile industry must help bridge the coverage gap.