TeleGeography 1995 Global Telecommunications Traffic Statistics & Commentary Gregory C. Staple, Editor This report is based upon sources believed to be reliable, but the pub- fisher does not warrant the accuracy or completeness of any informa- tion for any purpose and is not responsible for any errors or omissions. This report is for the confidential use of subscribers. No part of this report may be reproduced, stored in an information retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, pho- tocopying, recording or otherwise, without written consent from the pub- lisher All rights reserved. Copyright © TeleGeography, Inc. 1995 First Printing, October 1995 Second Printing, December 1995 i f This is copy Do not reproduce. ISBN 1-886142-03-3 Printed in the United States of America Cover Illustration: Annemarie Feld and Gregory C. Staple © TeleGeography, Inc. 1995 All rights reserved. telegeography\t~l’a-j~-6g’ra-f~ n (1990) abbrv, of telecommunications geography [fr. Gk tele, far off, at a dis- tance and L. communicatus, pp. of communicate to impart fr. Gk geo (earth) 9raphein, (to write)] 1. a new branch of geography that maps the pattern of telephone traffic and other electronic communication flows; 2. places created by or perceived solely via telecommunications (e.g., a computer network address); 3. the telecommunications artifacts (radio antennae, terminals, signs) on a site; 4. the balance of telecommunications power in one country or region vis-a-vis another (cf. geopolitics, archaic). TeleGeography 1995 TeleGeography, Inc./llC This report was prepared by TeleGeography, Inc., Washington, D.C., an independent research and publishing company, in cooperation with the International Institute of Communications (IIC), a London- based non-profit educational and conference organization with mem- bers in over 70 countries. The TeleGeography 1995 production team included: Gregory C. Staple ..................... Editor Zachary M. Schrag ............... Deputy Editor Barbara Frank ........... Administrative Assistant Jason Gursky ................ Research Assistant Annemarie Feld ............... Design Consultant Additional research was provided by Lydia Jackson (IIC, London), Teruhide Hirakawa (InfoCom, Tokyo), Nancy Dysart and Stephan Beckert (Washington, D.C.). The following reports also are available from TeleGeography, Inc.: New International Carriers 1995 (ISBN 1-886142-04-1 ) TeleGeography 1994 (ISBN 1-886142-01-7) TeleGeography 1993 (ISBN 886 ! 42-00-9) Direction of Traffc: International Telephone Traffic, 1983-1992 (ISBN 92-61-04967-2), published with the ITU. For more information and a complete publications list, contact: TeleGeography, Inc. Suite 1000 1150 Connecticut Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20036 USA Tel.: +1 (202) 467-0017 Fax: I (202) 467-5915 e-mail: tgi@cais.com For membership information and details on lIC publications, contact: The International Institute of Communications Tavistock House South Tavistock Square London WC1H 9LF, England, UK Tel.: +44 171 388 0671 Fax: +44 171 380 0623 e-mail: iic@clusl .ulcc.ac,uk 111 TeleGeography 1995 © TeleGeographg, Inc. 1995 TeleGeographg 1995 Contentsl Preface ............................................................. ix Acknowledgments ....................................................... x Introduction .......................................................... xi The Global Information Superhighway The editors Mapping the Global Information Infrastructure ................. 3 Company Ownership and Industry Convergence Charts ........... 8 Rex Winsbury Managing the Information Superhighway .................... 27 Marc G. Schildkraut U.S. Antitrust and Access to the Information Superhighway ....... 44 Bernard Amory Applying EU Competition Rules to Telecoms and Katrina C. Cochran and Multimedia Alliances .............................. 51 Zachary M Schrag The Internet Becomes an Industry ......................... 53 Gregory C. Staple Notes on Mapping the Net: From Tribal Space to Corporate Space 66 John December A Cybermap Gazetteer ................................ 74 Facilities and Carriers Intercontinental Cables and Satellite Capacity ................................... 84 The Top 40 International Carriers ........................................... 88 Market Shares of Competing International Carriers ............................... 89 Traffic Flows Intercontinental Telecommunications Traffic Map ................................. 92 European Telecommunications Traffic Map ..................................... 93 East Asian Telecommunications Traffic Map .................................... 94 South American Telecommunications Traffic Map ................................. 95 The Top 50 International Routes ............................................ 96 Outgoing International Traffic, by country Americas .......................................... 97 Europe .......................................... 113 Asia, Middle East and Africa ........................... 145 Methodology and sources ............................................... 169 Blue pages International Telephone Dialing Codes ..................... 173 North American Area Codes ............................ 176 World Dialing Codes Map ............................. 178 World Time Zones .................................. 180 Political Geography .................................. 182 National Telecommunications Indicators ................... 184 TeleGeography 1995 Traffic Tables Americas Argentina ...................... 98 Brazil ........................ 99 Canada ...................... 100 Chile ........................ I 01 Colombia ..................... 102 Dominican Republic ............. 103 Ecuador ...................... 104 Mexico ...................... 105 Paraguay ..................... 106 Peru ........................ 107 United States, main outgoing routes 108 United States, main incoming routes .109 United States, other correspondents .I I0 Uruguay ..................... 111 Venezuela .................... 112 Europe Austria ...................... 114 Belgium ...................... 115 Croatia ...................... 116 Cyprus ...................... 117 Czech Republic ................. 118 Denmark ..................... 119 Estonia ...................... 120 Finland ...................... 121 France ....................... 122 Germany ..................... 123 Greece ...................... 124 Hungary ..................... 125 Iceland ...................... 126 Ireland ...................... 127 Italy ........................ 128 Luxembourg ................... 129 Macedonia, TFYR ............... 130 Netherlands ................... 131 Norway ...................... 132 Poland ...................... 133 Portugal ..................... 134 Russia ....................... 135 SIovak Republic ................ 136 Slovenia ..................... 137 Spain ....................... 138 Sweden ...................... 139 Switzerland ................... 140 Turkey ....................... 141 United Kingdom ................ 142 Yugoslavia .................... 143 Traffic within the Commonwealth of Independent States .............. 144 Asia, Middle East, and Africa Australia ..................... 146 Bangladesh ................... 147 China ....................... 148 Hong Kong .................... 149 India ........................ 150 Indonesia ..................... 151 lran ........................ 152 Japan ....................... 153 Jordan ...................... 154 Korea, Republic of .............. 155 Kuwait ....................... 156 Macau ...................... 157 Malaysia ..................... 158 New Zealand .................. 159 Pakistan ..................... 160 Philippines .................... 161 Qatar ....................... 162 Saudi Arabia .................. 163 Singapore .................... 164 Sri Lanka ..................... 165 Syria ........................ 166 Taiwan ....................... 167 Thailand ..................... 168 TeleGeography 1995 Corporate Charts Corporate Ownership Charts AirTouch ........................ 18 America Online ................... .57 Ameritech ....................... 17 AT&T ........................... 9 BCE ........................... 22 Bell Atlantic ..................... 16 BellSouth ....................... 16 Bertelsmann ..................... 40 BT ............................ II Cable & Wireless .................. 22 Concert ........................ 10 DDI ........................... 21 Deutsche Telekom ................. 13 France T~l~com ................... 13 General Electric/NBC ................ 42 GTE ........................... 19 IBM ........................... 57 Lagard~re/Matra Hachette ............ 40 MCI ........................... 11 Microsoft ....................... 49 News Corp ....................... 34 N~F ........................... 21 NYNEX ......................... 1.5 Pacific Telesis ..................... 18 Pearson ........................ 41 Phoenix ........................ 12 Reed Elsevier ..................... 41 SBC ........................... 17 Seagram/MCA .................... 39 Sony .......................... 39 Sprint .......................... 12 TBS ........................... 43 TCI ............................ 32 Time Warner ..................... 35 Unisource ........................ 9 U S West ....................... 19 Viacom ......................... 43 Walt Disney/ABC .................. 36 Westinghouse/CBS ................. 42 WorldPartners ..................... 8 Symbols Used in Ownership Charts company group of companies I International company ~strategic Carrier alhance company Key solid lines link presently owned subsidiaries 51 numbers indicate percentage owned dashed lines show proposed acquisitions arrows indicate strategic alliances or other cooperatwe agreements The charts represent the main business of each company. Minor corporate subsidiaries have been excluded in some cases. Except where noted, subsidiaries are wholly owned. vii TeleGeography 1995 Other Tables and Figures International Traffic Continues to Grow Faster than the Number of Lines ........ xii The Top 20 Carriers: Traffic Base and Revenues ........................ xiii Traffic Origin: North America and Europe Account for 75% ................ xiii Richer Countries Call Out, Poorer Countries Have a Traffic Surplus ........... xiv Trends in the Global Information Economy ............................ xvi The Top 50 lnfo-Communication Companies ............................ 4 Who is Multimedia Ready? ....................................... 5 Phone Power: Distribution of Main Telephone Lines, 1993 .................. 6 People Power: Distribution of Population, 1994 ......................... 6 PC Power: Distribution of Personal Computers, 1993 ..................... 7 TV Power: Distribution of Television Sets, 1993 ......................... 7 North America--lndustry Convergence .............................. 14 The Regional Bell Operating Companies .............................. 15 Japan--Industry Convergence .................................... 20 United Kingdom--Industry Convergence ............................. 23 France--Industry Convergence .................................... 24 Germany--Industry Convergence .................................. 25 Italy--Industry Convergence ..................................... 26 Media Reregulation in the U.K .................................... 28 South Africa: Balancing Culture and Markets .......................... 30 BSkyB: The First Mover as Gatekeeper .............................. 31 The Top 20 Cable Television Operators Worldwide ....................... 33 Who Owns the Content? ........................................ 38 Enforcement of the U.S. Antitrust Laws .............................. 45 Applying Antitrust to International Telecom Deals ....................... 47 Microsoft’s Antitrust Battles ..................................... 48 Internet: Follow the Packets ...................................... 54 Commercializing the Internet: Netscape and the Competition ............... 55 Follow the Money ............................................. 56 The lnternet as a Telephone Service: There Is No Free Lunch ................ 59 How Long Can It Grow? ......................................... 61 Selected lnternet Companies ..................................... 62 NSF Traffic Growth, 1991-95 ..................................... 64 Host Computers and Web Servers by Intemet Domain, 1995 ............... 64 Traffic to and from the NSFNet Backbone, November 1994 ................ 65 The Underlying Network Geography ................................ 75 You Can’t Get There from Here .................................... 76 Landmarks of the Internet ....................................... 77 Frontage on Main Street ........................................ 78 Network Gateways: A Cyberspace Divided ........................... 79 The New Internet ............................................. 80 Internet Glossary ............................................. 82 The Next Generation of Cables .................................... 85 VIII TeleGeography 1995 Preface Few industries are re-shaping society as telecom- dramatically as munications. An equally fascinating and important story is the transformation of the industry itself. The powerful fusion of telecommunications with computing, information services and entertainment has created a new frontier of networks that opens new worlds and offers unprecedented business opportunities. TeleGeography 1995 is a precise chronicle of this fast-paced telecom- munications world, and also an indispensable guide to the future ter- rain. In many ways, this book is like the industry itself: continually growing in new directions to meet the changing needs of the market. In addi- tion to the usual analysis of international traffic flow, this year’s edi- tion offers an invaluable overview of the players who are constructing and reconfiguring the information superhighway. In an era of mega- mergers and cross-industry alliances, you have to know the players to understand how they are shaping the marketplace. To fathom current trends requires awareness of the interrelation of technological advances, governmental oversight, cultural standards and industry responsibility. TeleGeography provides insightful perspectives on these and other vital topics. As it has been since its first edition in 1989, TeleGeography remains an invaluable resource for everyone interested in global telecommuni- cations as it is today ... and as it will be tomorrow. MCI and BT are proud to co-sponsor this valuable book, Timothy E Price President and Chief Operating Officer MCI Telecommunications Corporation Alfred Mockett Managing Director BT Global Communications TeleGeography 1995 Acknowledgments W Ie are indebted to the numerous carriers, government departments, regulators and international organizations from around the world who responded to our requests for information. Special thanks are due particularly to the dedicated people at these organizations and at the International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva who set aside the time necessary to ensure that the data reported here are as current and accurate as possible. We also wish to thank the Commission of the European Communities (CEC), Directorate General XIII, for underwriting our research on European telecommunications and for permitting us to publish certain Commission data on traffic to and from member states. The CEC’s independent effort to improve the scope of statistics on international telecommunications flows is ever welcome. This year’s edition of TeleGeography was also supported, in part, by publication grants from MCI Communications Corporation and Bdtish Telecommunications plc. As in the past, however, these grants were made without any precondition; TeleGeography, Inc. is solely respon- sible for the report’s editorial contents. Gregory C. Staple Editor © TeleGeography, Inc. 1995 Introduction Introduction t is common to hear that geography is of less and less importance in a world where anyone can instantly com- municate almost anything, anywhere and anytime. Though this may be true, it only tells part of the story about the impact of modern telecommunications net- works. For many people, the rise of global communica- tions has not led to the end of geography so much as the explosion of place. The less the old geography of passports, oceans and time zones seems to matter, the more a new geography of dialing codes, channel guides and Net sites has come to the fore. In 1995 over 75 million new telephone numbers will be added globally; Internet addresses are doubling every year; and the next generation of digital satellite- to-home TV services is changing elec- tronic vistas from Malaysia to Mexico. As the distributor of Baywatch, the world’s most widely viewed TV program, has said: "Once a show is on satellite, it’s like the rain. It falls on the rich and poor alike--and both watch .... TeleGeography provides a unique guide to much of this electronic landscape. It maps the world’s international telecom- facilities, their service offerings, their charges and connec- tion arrangements. During the last few years, however, monitoring the traffic base of the world’s carriers has become more difficult. ALL INTERNATIONAL CARRIERS NOW RELAY BILLIONS OF BITS FROM ONE COUNTRY TO ANOTHER. IT IS LAW AND REG- ULATION (NOT TECHNOLOGY) WHICH DICTATE WHO CAN CARRY THE TELEPHONE BITS~ AND ON WHAT BASIS. The number of international carriers has grown dramatically as market liberalization and technology have brought tens of new companies into the market. More than 15 countries now permit facilities-based competition for international telephone service and resale carriers are active in many other nations via call back services and calling cards. Who owns these carriers? How large is their business? How do you contact them? To answer these and other ques- tions we have launched a companion directory called New International Carriers. The first edition contains details on over 350 carriers and their managing directors, owners and affili- ates. Tracking international telephone flows also has become more challenging because digital encoding and transmis- sion technologies are blurring the boundaries between various kinds of munications traffic, route-by-route and minute-by-minute, covering over 65 countries and almost 100 carriers. Readers who are not familiar with the varied contours of this terrain may first wish to look at the maps beginning at page 92 or to browse the national statistical tables at the back of this report. The data compiled here primarily reflect international traffic on public telephone networks. But some data is provided for international private (leased) line networks such as the Internet, the world’s largest computer network (see pages 64-65). One highlight of this year’s edition is an original portfolio of cyberspace maps or cybermaps by John December, author of The World Wide Web Unleashed. Their territory is the Internet and its various channels, including the World Wide Web, the multimedia space on the Net. A review of this novel cartographic genre begins on page 66. New International Carriers Since its first edition in 1989, TeleGeograph~/ has charted both the pattern of global telecommunications and the car- riers providing the connections. Traffic patterns invariably reflect the characteristics of the underlying carriers--their international service providers. Today the technology used to pick up and deliver telephone calls from one country to another may be virtually indistinguishable from that used to pick up and deliver e-mail or video clips. Digitization has created a common metric; almost all international carriers now relay billions of bits from one country to another. It is law and regulation (not technology) which dictate who can carry the telephone bits, who can carry the data and video bits, and on what basis. The terms "information superhighway" and "infobahn" have been coined to describe the multi-purpose communications networks which can transmit these streams of voice, data and video information at the same time. Governments pre- fer another term: the global information infrastructure (GII). But however named, the business of international commu- nication is being radically transformed. Mapping the Information Superhighway To help readers better understand the dimensions of these changes, a special section has been added to TeieGeographg 1995. At its core are a series of charts showing the myriad investment links and alliances which now exist between the world’s major telecoms carriers and other large information companies--cable TV networks, Xl TeleGeography 1995 © TeleGeography, Inc. 1995 publishers, film studios, broadcasters and computer soft- ware providers. To use the information highway metaphor, these charts map the global telecoms lane side-by-side with the cable TV, broadcasting and publishing lanes. And they follow these lanes around the world--from North America to Europe to Asia. Detailed corporate ownership charts are also provid- ed for the world’s largest information companies, including AT&T, Time Warner, Microsoft, TCI, Bertelsmann, News Corporation, Deutsche Telekom, IBM and NT£. The charts show that media convergence is no longer a pre- diction but a reality as major multinational corporations establish their presence in every technology and in every region of the world. For example, an international telephone call may now begin at a point and click menu on a computer screen; be uplinked by a private satellite carrier; downlinked an ocean away by a competing operator; and end on a cellular telephone pro- vided by yet another company. Similarly, a telephone oper- ator’s new partner is now as likely to come from the cable T~, mobile satellite or computer software business as the telephone industry. See, for example the charts on pages 8 to 26. International carriers must learn to navigate this wider communication space if they are to survive. The Need for New Policy Public policy makers also need a broader perspective in a world where the boundaries between electronic information services are fast eroding. As telephone and other commu- nications networks become multi-purpose information high- ways, they become desirable routes to market for numerous businesses, from film production to catalog merchandising, and from banking to publishing. But will network access be open to all? Telephone common carriers typically must connect their facilities, pass off transit traffic and provide user access on reasonable terms; private computer networks need not. What rules should apply when both networks carry large numbers of conversations? What if the customer interface to the network is a proprietary one such as IBM’s Lotus Notes or Microsoft’s Windows 95? Figure 1. International traffic continues to grow faster than the number of lines 1ooo projected 100 95.0 9OO 8OO 7OO 600 500 300 200 ~.~ Rxed main lines Total internatronal traffic 78.5 86.3 9O 8O 2O lO 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000~ Note: Data include outbound Minutes of Telecommunication Traffic (Mil-I’) on public telephone networks only. Source: ITU, TeleGeography, Inc. XII © TeleGeography, Inc. 1995 Introduction ~pany The Top 20 Carriers: Traffic Base and Revenues Country Traffic 1994 (mMITTs) Inat’l Telecom 1. AT&T United States 7,947 5,752 2. Deutsche Telekom Germany 5,147 4,949 3. MCI United States 3,517 2,793 4. France T~l~com France 2,603 3,494 5. BT United Kingdom 2,489 3,135 6. Telecom Italia Italy 1,708 1,480 7. Swiss PTr Switzerland 1,649 1,713 8. Hongkong Telecom Hong Kong 1,578 2,111 9. Stentor Canada 1,525 n.a. 10. Sprint United States 1,471 854 11. KPN Netherlands 1,346 1,351 12. China MPT China 1,090 1,392 13. Belgacom Belgium 1,049 602 14. Mercury United Kingdom 1,018 856 15. KDD Japan 1,011 1,923 16. Telef0nica Spain 948 1,046 17. T~l~globe Canada 861 313 18. Telmex Mexico 844 1,758 19. Austrian PTI" Austria 819 797 20. Telstra Australia 690 1,023 Revenues 1994 ($USm) Total Inat’l as % of Total 75,O94 7.7% 37,778 13.1% 13,338 20.1% 22,426 15.6% 22,507 13.9% 18,658 7.9% 6,814 25.1% 3,483 60.6% 1"I .a. rl.a. 12,662 6.7% 6,857 19.7% 7,214 19.3% 3,568 16.9% 2,549 33.6% 2,415 79.6% 11,871 8.8% 956 32.7% 8,592 20.5% 3,656 21.8% 9,755 10.5% International revenues are net of settlements for North American carriers. See page 88 for additional carriers and information. © TeleGeography, Inc., 1995 Figure 3. Traffic Origin: North America and Europe account for 75% s0o0 3000 Traffic Base of Major Alliances SingaporeTelecom Telia Telefonica KDD BT Mercury Hongkong Telecom o WorldPartners Phoenix Concert Cable&Wireless These groups of interoatlonal carriers generated 32 bllhon minutes Of outgoing international telecommunications tTafflC In 1994, 60% of the world total of 53 bllhon m~nutes Global MiTI" by origin, 1994 Africa (2%) Oceania (2%) Latin America (5%) North America J ©TeleGeography, Inc. 1995 XIII TeleGeography 1995 © TeleGeography, Inc. 1995 Richer Countries Call Out, Poorer Countries Have a Traffic Surplus XIV 6,000 Dormnlcan Repubhc Peru Sn Lanka Colombia Mexico Turkey Brazil Jordan ]~adand Poland Portugal Paraguey Hungary Uruguay Argentine Ireland Czech Repubhc Croatia Korea Yugoslewa Ta~wan Venezuela Italy France Greece Be!g~um Denmark Spare Netherlands Austria H0ng Kong Non~ay Sw=t~erland Germany Luxembourg Canada (overseas) -80% 4,000 -60% International Traffic (millions of minutes) Incoming Outgoing 2,000 0 2,000 4,000 6,000 ~~,}~:~}~ = Incoming ~~ ~C~ Outgoing ~;;,~,.~:s~;S O Pe rce nta g e -@% -20% 0% 20% @% 60% ~% Deficit as a percentage of total traffic © TeleGeography, Inc., 1995 J © TeleGeography, Inc. 1995 Introduction And what about cross-ownership? Should a company be permitted to own more than one lane of the information highway (TV station, on-line network, telephone company) in the same area? Should foreign ownership of these high- ways be restricted? The information superhighway also raises critical social and cultural issues. Telephone carriers are not responsible for the content of the messages they distribute. Publishers and broadcasters are. What obligations should multimedia net- works have? What standards of libel or public decency or fair use of copyrighted materials should apply? And who should decide--information owners? Customers? Local communities where the information is received? National regulators? These questions are but a few of those now being posed about the global infobahn and the services it may carry. They are explored further for TeleGeography 1995 by three commen- tators. The Internet’s extraordinary new popularity presents inter- national telephone carriers with a dilemma. On one level it is a great success story. After all, the lnternet is the world’s largest international private line network and the reliable high-speed circuits which knit it together are all leased from telephone carriers. And profitably so. F MILLIONS OF PEOPLE~ THE INTERNET HAS ALREADY The first article, "Managing the Information Superhighway," is by Rex Winsbury, the London-based Editor of InterMedia, the bi-monthly journal of the International Institute of Communications (IIC). It is followed by an antitrust perspective on public access to the information superhighway by Marc Schildkraut, a Washington DC lawyer, formerly responsible for the U.S. Federal Trade Commission’s investigation of Microsoft. Finally a Brussels lawyer, Bernard Amory, previously at the European Commission, outlines the impact of European competition rules on the information superhighway. But, Anderson continues, "A simple question: if the Internet runs over telephone lines, why does it cost the same to send an e-mail message around the world as it does to send it next door? .... Talk to a friend abroad for an hour" advises Anderson, "and you may be charged $50. Make the same call on the Internet, using software for companies such as VocalTec, and you pay ... nothing more than the cost of the local phone call. Even allowing for your monthly [Internet] access fee, the call costs just a few cents." Why? The Internet: Model or Menace? Our survey of the information superhighway closes by sur- veying the corporate economy of the lnternet. For millions of people, the Internet has already become the information superhighway. As Christopher Anderson put it in the Economist earlier this year: "With great fanfare telephone and cable companies have launched dozens of trials to demonstrate their vision of speedy electronic networks, connecting homes to a boundless trove of information, communication, education and fun." Yet, "while the giants have been talking about an information superhighway, the ants have actually been building one: the lnternet." Thanks to new software for link- ing and displaying computer-based information, since 1993 the Internet has become not just a way to send e-mail or download the occasional file but a place to visit, with pic- tures, sound and movies which can be toured simply by pointing and clicking a mouse. BECOME THE INFORMATION SUPERHIGHWAY.~ There are no simple answers. But as millions of new users start logging onto the Net, this question is sure to be asked with growing urgency. The answer turns, in part, on differences between the architecture of the Internet and of the telephone system. The latter primarily uses circuit switching which means that a dedicated circuit must be cre- ated to complete a call between any two international points. That can be relatively costly, though not so much as some carriers would have their customers believe. In contrast, on the internet, a transmission does not require a dedicated line; the information is digitally encoded, split up into packets, and sent down a line along with hundreds of other packets. Along the way, private computer switch- es, known as routers, inspect each packet, read the address, chose the most efficient route, and send them on their way. The packets that make up a single message may be sent via different routes. At their destination, another computer reassembles the information so that it can be understood. The Internet’s architecture thus allows transmission pipes to be used very efficiently. Likewise, switching costs are decen- tralized and shared. But some of the Internet’s economic savings are deceptive. Much of the Internet is still run on university and government hardware, so the full costs are not passed on to new users. And, to date, the Internet has not had to cope with millions of voice calls or movie clips. Even allowing for digital compression, this type of "multi- media" traffic may require thousands of times more circuit capacity. Major international telephone companies have that capaci- ty, of course, and they are also trying to use it efficiently. Very fast new digital switching techniques, such as ATM (Asynchronous Transmission Mode), have broad support in TeleGeography 1995 © TeleGeography, Inc. 1995 the industry. In principle, such techniques, which are anal- ogous to the Intemet packet switching protocols, along with greater use of fiber optic cables, should keep the telephone companies competitive. The challenge for the Internet will be to scale up. Current efforts are focused on the Multimedia Backbone (Mbone), a high speed overlay net for handling video conferencing and radio programs. But Mbone access is geographically limit- ed and the image quality is still poor. Telephone companies also need to rethink their service architectures. As the demand for networked data and video services grows, com- panies may need to give a greater priority to more decen- tralized switching facilities that are competitive with the computer (client-server) model adopted by the lnternet. Once it is more widely recognized that telephone companies and the Internet both share the same digital pipes (and some switches), and that both carry similar information-- conversations, data files, pictures--it is logical to ask why the network should be partitioned in such an ad hoc fash- ion. That is, why should the terms and conditions of access to one part be heavily regulated and the other not? Would not users be better off if more of the network were treated like the Intemet? Large carders are likely to hedge their bets on this issue by providing telephone services via the Internet and via their public networks, letting the user choose which to use and how to route the traffic. By keeping one foot in both worlds, network resources can then be allocated depending upon which products seem most popular in the market place and how regulators ultimately react. Next Year We will continue to track the co-evolution of the Internet and the international telephone network in TeleGeography 1996. Plans are also being made to publish more data on the international private line networks operated by major corporations. As always, we invite your comments and sug- gestions. Gregory Staple Zachary Schrag September 1995 Washington, D.C. Figure 5: Trends in the global information economy Traffic growth trends, 1985-1994 and projections, 1995-2000 Historical trend Base case 1 I% growth 13% growth CAGR CAGR CAGR CAGR Indicator 1985 1994 1985-94 2000 1995-2000 2000 1985-2000 2000 1995-2000 Calls (Bn) 3.2 14.3 18.3% 29.6 12.8% 33.2 15.1% 37.0 17.1% Estimated call length (rains) 4.7 3.7 -2.5% 3.0 -3.5% 3.0 -3.5% 3.0 -3.5% Minutes (Bn) 14.8 53.3 15.3% 88.7 8.9% 99.7 11.0% 110.9 13.0% Per subscriber 36.2 82.3 9.6% 99.4 3.2% 111.8 5.2% 124.4 7.1% Revenue (US$bn) 20.0 50.6 10.8% 65.9 4.5% 83.1 8.6% 92.5 10.6% Price per MiTF ($) 1.35 0.95 -3.8% 0.74 -4.0% 0.74 -4.0% 0.74 -4.0% Main lines (M) 410 647 5.2% 892 5.5% 892 5.5% 892 5.5% Mobile subscribers (M) 0.7 53.0 61.8% 261 30.4% 261 30.4% 261 30.4% Expansion (MITT) due to: 1985 1994 1985-94 2000 1995-2000 2000 1985-2000 2000 1995-2000 Network expansion 657 3,152 36.4% 4,481 63.1% 4,736 49.3% 5,010 40.3% Organic growth 867 2,456 63.6% 1,494 36.9% 7,546 50.7% 13,483a 59.7% Total 1,523 5,608 100.0% 5,975 100.0% 12,282 100.0% 18,493 100.0% Note: 1985-1993 based on reported data. 1995-2000 based on ITU forecasts. Traffic growth due to network expansion implies extra traffic generated by new subscribers. Organic growth implies extra traffic generated by existing subscribers. alncludes estimate for traffic generated by new mobile subscribers. Source: Direction of Traffic (ITUiTeleGeography, Inc., forthcoming 1996) © ITU/TGI 1995 Articles I TeleGeography 1995 © TeleGeography, Inc. 995 © TeleGeography, Inc. 1995 Mapping the Global Information Infrastructure MAPPING THE GLOBAL INFORMATION INFRASTRUCTURE T he information superhighway, whether defined as a computer network, multimedia conduit or interactive TV, has created a new corporate geography. In the past, the horizontal scope of most communi- cations businesses--telephony, broadcasting, cable TV, publishing--stopped at the national border. Vertical ties between these industries also were relatively limited. Most companies were specialists: telephone companies were not involved in broadcasting; print publishers had no interest in telephony or cable TV systems. The reason was as much economics as regulation. For the most part, cross-border and cross-industry combinations did not make business sense. That may no longer be true. Customer demand and tech- nological innovation now make trans-national and trans- industry investments, mergers and alliances attractive for more and more companies. And the pace of such activity is quickening. For example, since 1994 two of America’s long- distance carriers (MCI and Sprint) have sold stakes to for- eign telephone carriers and established joint global service platforms. In 1995, IBM acquired a major software group (Lotus) and formed an alliance with STE~, the parent of Italtel. The Walt Disney Company, a major film producer, has launched a joint venture with several American tele- phone companies and also has agreed to buy the ABC tele- vision network. This new corporate geography is of growing public interest because there is now a wide consensus that the private sec- tor should build the world’s information superhighways. Reliance on private sector investment and competition (not public monopolies) has been a keystone of U.S. information policy since 1993. Similar principles were endorsed this year by the G-7 Information Society Conference in Brussels and by the ministerial meeting of the Asia Pacific Economic Community (APEC) in Seoul. In the section which follows, TeleGeography provides an introductory guide to these private-sector architects of the Global Information Infrastructure (GII). It profiles the main players and charts the horizontal (cross-national) and verti- cal (cross-industry) dimensions of these companies’ activi- ties in the US, Canada, the UK, France, Germany, Italy and Japan. These country-by-country industry convergence charts are supplemented by detailed corporate ownership charts for the largest media businesses in each nation. Although we have tried to make these charts as up-to-date as possible, some caveats are necessary. First, the corpo- rate geography of the GII is ever changing. Moreover, not all subscribe to the logic of convergence. AT&T’s plan to unbundle its computer, equipment and communication ser- vices business is a case in point. The failed merger of Bell Atlantic and TCI is another. Thus, in practice, any broad generalization about the merits of integration versus spe- cialization is tempered by unique political, social and per- sonal considerations. The corporate geography mapped here is also a very human geography. The pace and the pat- tern of media convergence in any given country depends as much upon history, local regulatory disputes, boardroom personalities and chance as on economics or technology. Second, although the vertical and horizontal expansion of large media conglomerates may be the most visible sign of the GIl’s evolution, it would be a mistake to suggest that this new landscape has only two dimensions. While some com- panies have expanded across borders, others are deepening their relationships at home; intra-industry ties have grown even as cross-industry links have expanded. Companies which compete fiercely in one market may cooperate in oth- ers. Like the communications networks on which it depends, the information economy’s corporate superstruc- ture is more and more web-like and the charts which appear below only provide one view of this new world. A Quick Guide to the Charts Top 50 Info-Communication Companies ................ 4 Global Telecommunications Alliances WorldPartners ................................. 8 Unisource ..................................... 9 Concert ...................................... 10 Phoenix ...................................... 12 Industry Convergence Charts North America ................................ 14 Japan ....................................... 20 United Kingdom ............................... 23 France ....................................... 24 Germany ..................................... 25 I ta ly ......................................... 26 Corporate Ownership Charts Telephone Carriers ................ 9, 11-13, 15-19, 21-22 Cable TV and Entertainment ................ 32-36, 39-43 Computer Industry ............................. 49, 57 See also page vii for an alphabetical index of corporate ownership charts. TeleGeography 1995 © TeleGeographyo Inc. 1995 F 50 Info-Communication Companies Information communication sales 1994 Change in Total Profit US$ m as % of total sales (1993-94) Type of Business 1 NT-I" (JPN) 79,070 100% 52.9% S 2 AT&T (USA) 71,977 96% -- C, M, S 3 IBM (USA) 64,052 100% -- C 4 Sony(JPN) 44,758 100% -- C, M, E 5 NEC (JPN) 43,326 100% 434.6% C, M 6 Deutsche Telekom (DEU) 37,713 100% -- S 7 Matsushita (JPN) 37,321 48% 269.5% C, M, E 8 Fujitsu (JPN) 38,603 100% -- C, M 9 Hitachi (JPN) 30,213 35% 74.5% C, M 10 Toshiba (JPN) 29,939 56% 268.1% C, M 11 H P (USA) 24,991 100% 35.9% C 12 Siemens (DEU) 23,540 45% 0.6% C, M 13 France Telecom (FRA) 23,288 100% 91.5% S 14 BT (GBR) 22,645 100% -3.8% S 15 Motorola (USA) 22,245 100% 52.6% C, M 16 Philips (NLD) 21,112 63% 8.1% C, M, E 17 STET (ITA) 20,932 100% 23.5% C, M, S 18 Alcatel Alsthom (FRA) 20,407 68% -48.7% M 19 GTE (USA) 19,944 100% 172.3% M, S 20 Canon (JPN) 19,333 100% 47.0% C 21 BellSouth (USA) 18,845 100% 145.4% S 22 BCE (CAN) 15,868 100% -- M, S 23 Xerox (USA) 15,088 85% -- C 24 Samsung (KOR) 14,617 100% 511.3% C, M 25 Bell Atlantic (USA) 13,791 100% -- S 26 DEC (USA) 13,451 100% -- C 27 MCl (USA) 13,338 100% 36.6% S 28 Nynex (USA) 13,307 100% -- S 29 Sprint (USA) 12,682 100% 1522.4% S 30 Ameritech (USA) 12,569 100% -- S 31 Mitsubishi (JPN) 12,191 33% 103.4% C, M 32 Telef6nica (ESP) 11,985 100% 16.9% S 33 Sanyo (JPN) 11,974 52% -- C, M 34 SBC (USA) 11,619 100% -- S 35 Intel (USA) 11,521 100% -0.3% C 36 Ricoh (JPN) 11,464 100% 95.3% C 37 Sharp (JPN) 11,034 60% 10.0% M 38 U S West (USA) 10,953 100% -- S 39 Compaq (USA) 10,866 100% 87.7% C 40 Ericsson (SWE) 10,699 100% 39.3% M 41 Texas Instruments (USA) 10,315 100% 46.4% C 42 Telbras (BRA) 10,038 100% -59.0% S 43 Telstra (AUS) 9,769 100% 87.8% S 44 PacTel (USA) 9,235 100% -- S 45 Apple (USA) 9,189 100% 258.2% C 46 Telmex (MEX) 8,655 100% -12.7% S 47 TWE (USA) 8,460 100% -34.3% E 48 Cable & Wireless (GBR) 8,366 100% -51.0% S 49 Unisys (USA) 7,400 100% -82.2% C 50 Oki (JPN) 7,300 100% -- C, M Key: C=computers, M--other manufacturing, S--communications services (carriers), E=entertainment and news. Companies are ranked by information-communication sales revenues from the provision of equipment or services for processing and disseminat- ing electronic information as well as the creation of electronic information content. It does not include revenues from non-elec- tronic information activities such as publishing and postal services. Source: ITU © TeleGeography, Inc. 1995 Mapping the Global Information Infrastructure Who is Multimedia Ready? The multimedia revolution will march down several highways, and the penetration rates of telephones, televisions, personal com- puters, and cable television subscriptions show the degree to which the world’s major economies have embraced communica- tions technologies. Since countries with more television sets are better candidates for video-on-demand, and countries with a large installed base of personal computers are more likely to adopt new Internet applications, the chart below suggests where convergence may have the most impact. Units per 100 people, 1994 Country Telephone lines Televisions Argentina 14.1 38.0 Australia 49.6 48.2 Austria 46.5 48.0 Belgium 44.9 46.6 Brazil 7.4 29.0 Canada 57.5 65.0 Chile 11.0 23.0 China 2.3 23.1 Czech Republic 20.9 39.0 Denmark 60.4 55.0 France 54.7 58.0 Germany 48.3 55.1 Greece 47.8 22.0 Hong Kong 54.0 35.9 Hungary 17.0 42.0 India 1.1 5.5 Indonesia 1.3 8.7 Israel 39.4 29.5 Italy 42.9 45.0 J~an 48.0 64.1 Korea (Rep. of) 39.7 32.4 Malaysia 14.7 23.1 Mexico 9.2 20.0 Netherlands 50.9 48.0 .Philippines 1.7 12.1 Poland 13.1 30.0 Portugal 35.0 25.0 Russia 16.2 37.9 Singapore 47.3 38.0 South Africa 9.5 10.1 Spain 37.1 49.6 Sweden 68.3 48.0 Switzerland 59.7 41.0 Taiwan 40.0 31.5 Thailand 4.7 18.7 Turkey 20.1 27.0 United Kingdom 48.9 45.0 United States 60.2 79.0 Venezuela 10.9 18.0 Source: ITU Personal computers Cable "iV subs. 1.7 13.2 21.7 n.a. 10.7 13.0 12.9 35.7 0.9 0.3 17.5 26.9 3.1 2.3 0.2 2.5 3.6 5.7 19.3 12.8 14.0 2.8 14.4 18.0 2.9 n.a. 11.3 0.6 3.4 8.1 0.1 1.1 0.3 n.a. 9.4 13.3 7.2 n.a. 12,0 8.3 11.2 5.8 3.3 n.a. 2.3 2.2 15.6 37.5 0.6 0.5 2.2 3.6 5.0 n.a. 1.0 n.a. 15.3 n.a. 2.2 n.a. 7.0 0.8 17.2 21.9 28.8 32.3 8.1 14.1 1.2 n.a. 1.1 0.4 15.1 1.6 29.7 23.2 1.3 1.0 TeleGeography 1995 © TeleGeography, Inc. 1995 er: Distribution of Main Telephone Lines, 1993 North America 27% Euro Russia 4% Latin America 6% Africa 2% Asia 13% Japan 10% Oceania 2% © TeleGeography, Inc., 1995 Source: ITU People Power: Distribution of Population, 1994 North America 5% Latin America 8% Europe 12% Africa 12% Russia 3% ’ ~Asia57% © TeleGeography, Inc., 1995 6 Oceania 1% Division Source: United Nations Population © TeleGeography, Inc. 1995 Mapping the Global Information Infrastructure PC Power: Distribution of Personal Computers, 1993 North America 54% Europe22% Latin America 2% Africa 1% ~" Russia 1% Asia 9% /~Oceania 2% © TeleGeography, Inc., 1995 Source: ITU TV Power: Distribution of Television Sets, 1993 North America 20% Latin America 8% Euro Africa 2% Oceania 1% © TeleGeography, Inc., 1995 J Source: ITU 7 TeleGeography 1995 © TeleGeography, Inc. 1995 r artners Singapore AT&T Unisource Telecom i ¯ KPN ¯Telia ¯~ ¯ Swiss PT]- Telef6nica ’, ,.~,~.__K)___ ¯ Associate Members KDD ,, Uniworld WorldPartner Company (US) ¯ Manages Global Operating Centers: Tokyo; Singapore; South Plainfield, N J; Atlanta; Washington, DC ¯ Owns intellectual property for World Source services ¯ Provides "back-office" global billing and account management services ~o Certifies distributors for World Source services in designated markets Global Products*| Fees ¯ Private Lines ¯ VirtuaINetworks ¯ Frame Relay I Distributors I Hong Kong Telecom AT&T (U.K.) AT&T Singapore Korea Unisource (USA) KDD Telecom Telecom Unitel Telstra New Zealand PLDT Bezeq (Canada) (Australia) Telecom (Philippines) (Israel) Customers 10oo Largest Multinational Companies and Business Travelers A WorldPartner may join another global alliance. But WorldPartner Co. wdl not authorize competing distribution of WorldSource services in terrrtory where Partner has been certified. Prepared October 1995 © TeleGeography, Inc., 1995 J © TeleGeography, Inc. 1995 Global Alliances J AT&TCorp (USA} l ~ult, med,a Products"~ (’-Global ,nfcrmabon Solut,ons’~ (’- C ........ t .... ~’~ (" Network Sy~ems Group W,reless S ...... Group on-hne computer games) Wod~Panners na (,DO Company (v,deo, .... )) ~a ,ha (Rogers Commumcat, ons ) AT&T 225 I UmtelC ........ t ..... ~nc (Canada) ~~el .......... t,on!~ of Jamaica 135 --(~ JammcaD~9~porHnternabonal ) Notes In September 1995, AT&T announced its plans to spin off =ts Global Informatmn Solutions (formerly NCR) aod telecommunications equ=pment manufacturing divisions into separate compames AT&T Is expected to ~ncrease its share in Unltel to 33% Ukrame State Commence of"~ Communications ~) UTEL (U kr mne)-’~¥-~ 195 I A’ ..... f--- 50 (A/O Telmos (Ruama}~) 50 ~22 malor Japanese compames AT&T Jens Corp (Japan) = Prepared Septemder 1~5 TeleGeography, Inc,, 1~5 Unisource Telef~nica (Spain) 25 Telia AB Swiss Telecom KPN (Sweden) FI’I" (Netherlands) 25 25 25 C aUr~ ~;°euLc, cee s Ums°urcel t Un,source Business Sate ire Services I Mobile Carrier Serv=ces Unisource Services* lnternabonal VPNs ¯ Managed bandwidth ¯ Packet switched serv=ces ¯ EDI services ¯ x400 message handbng Distributors WorldPartners Umsource TelefSmca KPN Teba Swiss Helslnk= AT&T KDD Compames Telecom Telephone and other local affd=ates Customers "~ Largest MultmatJonal Companies and Bumness Travelers Distributors of Unlsource Servzces are not precluded from handhng other global servzces, and Umsource members WllJ also d=stnbute AT&T WorldSource sepv=ces in Europe Prepared August 1995 © TeleGeography, Inc, 1995 TeleGeography 1995 © TeleGeographyo Inc. 1995 Conce~ 2o% 1 BT I Moorgate (Twelvel Ltd. MCl Ventures Corp 24.9% ! 75i % Joint Venture Agreement BT Syncordia sold to J 5 Years, $1 billion Concert for $62 million Intellectual Property Agreement v ~Services Agreements Technology and fees Collcert ~- G~bal Proauct (6% of Concert revenue) ~. t, ...... :...~,;^. Components [.MI/ ~,l~,,,,,,u,,,i..~.l~,,_ ~"" ,iBI/MUI cross Uompany ,=( and L~cense Fees ~" Fees "\ others 5% of Concert revenue) Common Platform for I ~,. Global Products J Global Products* Value Added Services and international telecommunication-related outsourcing to a customer in two or more countries (excluding IDD and s~mple resale of voice) Product Charges & License Fees (3-7% of each distriSutor’s forecast revenues) Distributors: MCI and BT MCI Sub-distributors Avantel (Mexico) Stentor (Canada) Norwegian Telecom JV w/Banco Santander (Spain) B T Sub-distributors Tele- Telecom Albacom** NI+C ** Danmark Finland (Italy) (Japan) ITA Viag (Taiwan) InterKom Telenordia (Germany) (Sweden) Customers 1000 Largest Multinational Companies and Business Travelers Agreements bet~Neen the parties restrict BT’s provision of Concert’s Global Products or similar services in MCI’s territory (the Americas); MCI’s provision of such products and services is restricted in BT’s territory Ithe rest of the wor/d). Prepared December 1995 © TeleGeography, Inc., 1995 ** NI+C is a value added career owned by NTT and IBM. Albacore is a joint venture between BT and Banca Nazionale del Lavaro (BNL). J © TeleGeography, Inc. 1995 Global Alliances "~ BTAust~alasm Pty Ltd IAustraha) J 50 I G=braltar ITelec°mmumcat=°ns I Nederlands SpoonNegen Telecom 2 (Netherlands) Tadlran to bid for israeli I BT pIc IUK) Mobile 60 ~.. Cellnet(cel[ular) .~ ~" Maxlnd~a Ltd "~ ~__~ Unnamed venture "~ or cellular serwces| In India ~) --I BTNorthAmenca I Satellite C0ns0rt=a 18 EUTELSAT (Frencel I 9I INMARSAT I ; I ~NTELSATIUSAI I Value-Added Serv=ces MC~ (USA! ~51I Cuncer~ ( BNL (Italy) 495 505 Albacom(Italy) 37 5 BTFr .... BT Telecom (Deutschland) GmbH (Germany) Other G ..... I V~ag IntarKom KG 25 (Germany) I Mult~med=~ and Cable TV ¯ ~West~nlnster Cable Co ¯ C BTInteract]ve3"V Prepared December 1995 --{ BTNet(onhne) ©TeleGeography, lnc,1995 BT MCl 2O I MCI Communications Carp (USA) Bnbsh Telecommunmatlons plc UK) Moorgate (Twelve)~ Ltd .~ /(,ncludes ,nternetMCI) AIbances Group operatmn of network)...) I¯ MCI Consumer Markets [.~ MCI Intergrated Chant Services D~v~s~on 25 Zealand CLEAR (New Zealand) Prepared September 1995 © TeleGeography, Inc., 1995 MClmetro, Inc (local serv=ce) ~Telecorn*USA, Inc MCl Rnanclal Management at~onw,de Cellula r"~ Serwce (resale) =I Stentor (Canada) I i ~’ G C, .... --’i~j~ 249 751 3Z8 ~,~rwate telephones)..) I ,. (proposed) _~n-Fhght Phone"~ Carp Note BT =s conmdermg a direct =nves~ent m the MCI/News Carp on-hne sew{ce SHL Systemhouse Darome (Canada) -- -- -’~ Teleconfe ...... g~ TeleGeography 1995 © TeleGeography, Inc. 1995 Sprint Corp. Sprint Global Venture Inc. I FranceT~ldc°m I Atlas Phoenix ,, I Gl°balVentureB°ard (Strategic direction and oversight) Representatives 1/3 each Spnnt, Fr, and DT Global Backbone Network D~rectors 1/2 Spnnt, 1/2 Atlas European Operating Group t I Worldwide Operating Group Europe, except France and Germany I All countries outside U S. and Europe D,rector, 1/3 sprint, 2]3 At~as I D,rector, Global Services* J Include Global VFtual Private Networks (GVPNs), custom network J solutmns, managed bandwidth servmes; VSAT services, servmes to carriers, data services, credit and debit cards Customers x~...Multinational Compames and Bus~ness Customers, Other Carriers, and Buszness Travelers~.~’ Deutsche Telekom I The European and Worldwide Operating Groups wzl] be the exclusive vehicle for providing Global Servzces in des=gnated markets. Spnnt will prowde Global Services exclaszvely =n the U.S ; FT and DT wdl prowde Global Serwces m France and Germany Prepared August1995 ©TeleGeography, lnc,,1995 Sprint I FranceT~l~com l 10(pendlng) I shares I ~Sprlnt CorporaUon /Umted Telephone ~-- Ute.lcom, ~’~ (. US Telecom. lnc ) QSpr,nt International, Inc) ~pr,nt Telecommum" cat]ons’~ ,/local exchanges Inc ) I I Venture and cellular I ~/ I L INc. .... de PCS~ ) I I # I I I I I I ~/ I I ...... I (" Conso~um "~ I I SpnntHold,ng(UK) II I (. Sor,ntJapae =no k I I apnntu°mmunma~°nsu°"LVl /CommunmaUons I I Ltd II I ’ Ce~ellocal I I Inc (CCl) ’/ I ’ I I ~r,n~Canada ~TC Bul~ara J ITel .......... ~ons I L ServmesGmbH # Note. Sprint has announced plans to dwest (formerly Call-Net ) I I I I (Aus~al,a) Ltd I ~elf of i~ cellular interes~ to comply w~ I I ’ Pr~ areal Au u~ m~S FCCregula~ons~atproh,b,ts=multan .... J I ~T~leGeo ,~ h Inc 1995 g Py ownersh=p of PC$ and cellular compames I ’ ’ Spnnt Busmsss Telecommunzcatzons (Bulgaria data) J © TeleGeography, Inc. 1995 Global Alliances Deutsche Telekom FranceT~l~com alhance "~ PhoenlX ~I Deu~che Telekom AG IGermany! I Res=denbal 7 (Telephony and cable TV)/~ "--~ Mult]medla Software GmbH .~ (mteractlvewdeo- proposed) I 7__5 _.~ Canal Plus (France) ~__!5 5 "-( CLT (Lux) ) 8ertelsmannAG Mulbmed~aBemebsgesellschaft Iinteract]veTV) proposedS/95 I Bus~ness I I(cellular, paglng, and I ~) k,. m-fl~ghttelephony) ~/ (packetdata I I (Indonesia) I ("Telekom Onhne~ L~On.hne service~- ~. ........... j ~deo and data~ conferencmg Prepared August1995 ©TeleGeography, lnc,1995 Hungarlan Matav (Hungan/) I Ukra=ne State Committee of ( UTEL (Ukrmne) 195 d TeleGeography 1995 © TeleGeography, Inc. 1995 North America--Industry Convergence Manufacturing/ Banking Rogers i Cantel Wireless Wireline Telephony Broadcast/ Media Canada BCE Iridium Canada ÷ BCE Mobile ~leglobe Sprint Canada (CallNet) United States Motorola TRW Loral Globalstar ~,-- Iridium CMT ¯ Odyssey Partners ~- Airtouch I AMSC ¯-- McCaw PCS ¯ Teleglobe ¯ I Bell Atlantic USA Sprint Quebec Telephone BCTel GTE ! Stentor MCI AT&T General Magic Bell Canada Unitel Expressvu Jones InterCable Cox Cable/ TCI/Comcast ~-~ On-line j.v. News Corp. __1 Mexico Banacci Regional cellular providers Halo Avantel lusacell TelCel Radio B~e.~p~rbc o Teimex Grupo Protexa Le Groupe Videotron Hearst Broadcasting Maclean Hunter Preparad August 1995 © TeleGeography, Inc., 1995 ownership interest proposed investment alhance Note: Interests and alliances of GTE, Regional Bell Operat=ng Companies (RBOCs), and U.S. broadcasting networks are generally excluded. See pages 15-19 and 39-43 J Rogers Communications MediaLinx Interactive Cablevision Televisa Grupo Alfa -~ Bancomer © TeleGeography, Inc. 1995 Regional Bell Operating Companies The Regional Bell Operating Companies SBC Texas I NYNEX Corporation (USA)I NYNEX North America 1 International NYN EX Informa~on~ Resources Company |(Yellow and Wh=te L. pages) NYNEX Information Technologies Company -- (On hne electromc directories in the USA and France) __~ NYNEX Trade Finance Company NYN[X Cap~t~l ~, Funding Company _~ NYN[N Credit Company NYNEX Network Systems Company na FLAG (submanne cable between Europe and EastAs~a) f New York Telephone/New England Telephone ~) ~Charoen Pokphand Local telephone compames serving more than 17| L. (Thadand) ~) mllbon bnes in New York, Massachusetts, New ! 64 Jersey, Vermont, New Hampshire and Ma,ne) J ~* Tel .... Asia ~" (Thadand Two 185 I mdhon hne BOT I --~ L Pac,hcTeles,s ) L prelect) 9 I ( Bell Atlanac ( NRYeNsoF~urlcn~s° n a ~o /~ lUKcableW)~ Tomcom, LP, and PrlmeCo (Na’oonwzde PCS) ( Govt of Gibraltar na na 15~ (programming and PCS) LTelephone company) Note November 1993, NYNEX Corporabon purchased 24 mllhon shares of eumulatJve conve~ble preferred V=acom stock for $1 2 billion, but does not have voong prlvl}eges The two companies are expected to announce total ventures by the end of 1995 Prepared September 199J ©TeleDeography, Ine 1995 15 TeleGeography 1995 © TeleGeographyo Inc. 1995 ~C ~" Bell Atlantic (USA) Local teleph ...... pan ........ g (~ Bell A’~antlc 1 ["Bell At~aet=c internat~onal,~ 21 mdhon hnes m New Jersey, |Business Systems Inc Pennsylvama, Washlngton, DC, ~. Serv~ces, lnc Mac/land, Wrg~ma, and West V~rg~ma Cellular Comms "~ NewPar .~ Mannesmann AG ~’~ (Germany) 56 ~- Lehman Bros. -68I ~eba(Swedenl I .~(~MNITEL-Pronto Itaba’~ (Cellular) ~"" Infos~ada (data se~=ces) ~dalla {Italy, so.are)) ~Sueam (Italy =nteractwe and ( Peralta Famdy 41 9 Q lusacell (Mexico cellular) Amentach ~" U SWest ~T~me Warner 125 Sky Network Telewslon ~. (New Zealand) ..) I 245 245 Eurotel (Czech and Slovak Repubbcs cellular system| and public packet ~. switching network) 25 Tomcom, L P, and PnmaCo (Nationwide PCS) Bell A’danec NYNEX Mobde ) Prepared Oect~mber 1995 ©TeleGeography, Inc 1995 Notes’ Bell Atlantic =s reportedly planmng to sell =ts Bell At]ant=c Business Systems Serv=ces subs=d~ary Telecom Corp of New Zealand plans to acquire the shares =n Sky Network Telev=s~on now held by Bell Atlanuc and Amentech BellSouth M O,U wlthAmerltech, Be!ISouth(USA) BC Commumcatmns, GTE, and D=sneyto form a JV that wdl develop, market and debver traditional and ,nteroc vev,doo programming Enterprises (Local telephone compames se~=ng 20 m~lhon hnes =n Renda, Georg=a, Noel Adver~s=ng and~ Pubhsh=ng Group ~) CRam Broadcasting .~ BellSoutb Cellular (Cellular services throughout the USA) -~ellSouth Wireless, Inc~ ._._~. BallSouth Personal "~ Commumcat]ons, Inc J BellBouth Mobde Data Ram (mobile data ventures =n several count)’les) BelISouth’s percentage m each company ~s as fo~!ows USA 48.0% Aus’caha 90% UK 37.5% Netherlands 72% Denmark’ 29% Belgium 72% France’ 11 3% Singapore >50% Systems _~.~Dansk MobdTelefon I/S"~ (Denmark cellular) 22.35 (Vodafone(UK) 284 (Thyssen (Germany)) 2825 (-Vebacom (Germa ny).~ 21 (" E-Plus ~ob,lfunk "~ ~(Germany cellular~.~ Prepared September 1995 © TeleGeography, Inc, 1995 d © TeleGeographyo Inc. 1995 Regional Bell Operating Companies (~ Amerrtech (USA) M 0 U with SBC Inc, Bell South Corp. GTE and Dlsneyto form a iolnt ventu re that and del=ver trad¢=onal and interaotlve video 40~Rand°m House 20 ~MNIInteract,ve, Prepared December 1995 © TeleGeograpby, Inc, 1995 Eurooo 24 8 NewZoale Entertainment (New Zealand) I China Commumcatlons System Company Ltd ____~Qunnamed lomt venture cellular and wlrelme sorvloe in Talyuan IsmgaporeTel I.... 2495 Telekomunlkacla eoiska SA I 151 1245 Cento~o, (Poland Cellular) Deutsche Telekom AG15 70 (Central Europe N ore Telecom Corp of N ew Zealand plans to ao quire the shares ~n Sky Network Telewslon now held by Bell Atlant=c and Amerltech In December 1995, an Amer=tech-led consortium was awarded a 49 9% share of Belgacom, the Belgian telephone company, for 49 bdhon. The consortium is composed of Arnerr~ech (37%). Tele Denmark (35%), and ~lngapore Telecom Ameritech SBC Communications, Inc (USA) I I i Cellular One (’~SouthwesternBell~ (’-SoutwesternBell~ I Mobde Systems, lncI Media Ventures ~.. (cellular) ..) ~.. (Cable33/) Latin Am~ri~o ~1 FranceT~!~com £ 10 i Telmex ..... I local, cellular and cable TM) (Local telephone co servtog over 136 BellSouth Corp, GTE and Disneyto ellllon hnas In Texas, Missouri, 0klaboma,I form a iolot venture that wdl develop, market and deliver tradrtlonal and and Arkansas) J interactive video programmmg to consumers Southwestern Bell International Holdings Pac=fic Access (Yellow Pages) Shinsegl Mobde (Coesort=um to des,gn, build and operate South Korea’s second cellular neWvork) __ ( uswo~ Aurec 50 TCI 2675 Yellowl~ages and I I 10 advertising) ..) I (CoxC ........ ,ionsb TeteWe~ (Israel d~rectow ’ so.are) local telephony) ~ompagme Generale~ des EauxlFrance)~ 207 Prepared September 1995 ©TeleGeography. Inc t995 SBC TeleGeography 1995 © TeleGeography, Inc. 1995 Pacific Telesis Pac=fic Beb (Local telephone co serving over 14 mdhon hnes =n Cabforma) Pacific Bell Information Services IVmce ma=l and other info services) Pacfflc Bell Internet~ Services Pacific Telesls Group (USA) Pacd,cTelesls Enterprises .,) ~aclflc Telea=s Wireless Broadband’] Services (w=reless access to cer~ln Cahforma schools) J ~-PacTel Finance PacTel Cable [~/-C alFr ont Asso c~ates"~ (ReBI Estate) "~.~acTel Cap,tal Resou .... PacTelRe Insurance Nevada Ball (Local telephone co, serwng one mllhon hnes) Prepared August 1995 © TeleGeography. Inc, 1995 AirTouch A_menca~ I GIobalstar~ LP I 8 3 ~" INFOMOBILE ’~ 19 (Canada) I A, r Touch TELETRAq 51 (Vehicle tracking system) 9 ~,, Teletrac AT&T C McCaw Cellular CMT Parmers Icellular) I n.a Bay Area Cellular Telephone Co Prepared September 1995 ©TeleGeography, Inc 1995 Eur~pg 56 Lehman Brothers 357 ~- O]lve~ (Italy) Mannesmann AG ) 6217 OMNITEL-Pronto I~ha ) 11 7 =stelcom-Telemensale~ 18 SA(Spam) J n.a ( Be!g Mobile ~.... ~Na~onw~de 6aM ne~ork) ~Vodafone Group plc~ 185 ~75 ~Nordmctel He]drags AB~ 51 Sweden GSM Note Mannesmann AG and AirTouch have proposed to purchase ~e Cable & W~reless stake in Mannesmann Mobdfunk Mannesmann AG would have 61 6%, AzrTouch would hold 31 4%, and the remmmng 7% would be held =n trust for the two companies Tokyo, Tokal, and Kansaz D=g=tol Phone Companies (Japan cellularl "~ Cable & Wire,ass (UK)) IDOl Japan) Slme Oarby to offer w~reles,, services In Malaysia -- ww~ "~ !6 ~(Slngapore cellular)~) ~-PerCom Service Ltd’..__ ~. (Thadand) © TeleGeography, Inc. 1995 Regional Bell Operating Companies ~. Cable & Wireless (UK) ~Mercury One 20ne~L~ (UK PCS} (Bouyges(France) ~Vebacom (Germany)~ 20 51 15 ( B=nanang Sdn Bhd~ 20 (Malaysia) ~)~ I Moscow Telephone MOSCOW Cellular St Petersburg City Telephone (Russia) Delta Telecom ) 45 IRuss~a cellular) mron AG (Austria) Moblltel ) 25 (Bulgaria. GSM) Prepared September 1995 © TeleGeography, Inc 1995 U S West (USA) (~ G SWeat Communlcatmns kocaltelephono I oompames sarvlng over 14 mdbon lines m Arlzoea Colorado, Idaho, Montana, New Mexico, Utah, I Wyoming, Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, North and ~. South Dakota, Oregon and Washington ~’ I I (U STTcII~ OAII:; ~enJe d) West 6 25 Ol,vettl (Italy) ~Vldeostrada (Italy e :;:nUe r, iE~~ Cable.) ~___.~KTA (Netherlands I OeutscheTelekom f 125 I (~ WometcoCable 15 Amar,tech J -----1 Corp. andGeorg,a I’" ( Mulumedza ’ ~.. CableHold,ngs I Matav I I I Cable SA {Spaln) }(abel Plus I n = ! n a ~(Czecn and Slovak 49 CWeste1450 (Hungaw’ Cellular)~ Bell Aianlc) ~C~,bEluerYopTael(~;:~; ~Lyonna.se des Eaux =rote, %11 i=5 1 Iio -- !Cem:un,oaoons 24 5 I (Czech ald Slovak Republics Cellular syeteml I I I I I IFralce Cable TV~ and pubic packet switching network) ") /~ Sky Network 1 ~) J f~ Flextech {UK ~99 k~ A,rTooch I ~L (NewZealand) J l [prog ...... g)~-] Director!~, ~WMC Pa~ers, LP~ I ~BellAtlant~c NYN~ I I I I Telewest 2B75 I Uste] Tomcom LP and PnmeCo I ~.__., .......... ( ¯ (UK’ Cable and local ~(Braz=l D=rectones)J Teleohone 0Per~on~s Local telephone companies .... serving 17 million lines’ GTE Cahforma, [no GTE Florida, Inc GTE Midwest, Inc GTE North, Inc GTE Northwest, Inc GTE South, Inc GTE Southwest, Inc. GTE Hawa.an I Telephone Company, Codetel (Dom~mcan Repl I (Nlntendo of America) GTE Interaclve Media, thc China Umted Telecoms Corp Anglo-Canadian Telephone 86 39 Company 50 63 50 47 ~.QuebecTelephone~ ( BCTel .... lnc I I I Stentor I GTE CorporatiOn(usA) .~GTE International "~ I I AT&T Telecoms Inc 51 5 Telef~mca (Spain) ~VenWodd Telecom,~"~ 16 CA I GTE Ma,n Street, Inc (InteracIve home informaIon, shopping and banking serwce) mIormatmn mana~ement} GTE Mobile Commumca~ons, Inc GTEA=done, lnc Magnastar (corporate awaken) (Argenuna) I! M 0 U with Amentech Corp., ellSouth Corp, Southwestern ell Corp and Disney to form ~nt venture for trad~tlonat and nteractlve video programming to consumers I G TE Government Services Corp (Commumcabon systems for the US and other governments} C GTE Mobdnet "~ (Cellular (~ alhanceto prowde cellular service m ~, Texas Telecommumcatons Services, Inc (Prowdes se~v=ces to calular users) __~Contel Corporat=on~ (Cellular prowder).~ Prepared August1995 ©TeleGeography, lnc 1995 GTE J TeleGeography 1995 © TeleGeography, Inc. 1995 Manufacmnng/ Trading Wireless Wireline Telephony BroadcaM/ Media Japan Sumitomo Nextel Airtouch AT&T US West Time Warner Entertainment Time Warner Toshiba Itochu Mitsubishi Astel PCS DoCoMo ¯ Titus Communications Sot? NIT Fan Kyocera Toyota DDI Teleway __~.~ Digital Tu-Ka Iridium I Japan Telecom Rest of World Nissan Cable Wirele: Smart (Philippines) Tr&T (Thailand) Unisource NTTJ KDD Korea Telecom Singapore Telecom TCl Continental Cable Jupiter CableTV CTTelecom ~-- Tomen Prepared August t995 © TeleGeography, Inc., 1995 Note: NTT, DDI, Japan Telecom and Teleway Japan are authorized to prowde domestic telephone serv=ce; KDD, ITJ and IDC are authorized to provide international service. Competing local exchange carriers, such asl-rNet (Tokyo), are not included. J © TeleGeography, Inc. 1995 Japan M=mstry of Rnance~ 65.5 N’FI’(Japan) ) Japan J Re~t0fW~d~. NlqDoCoMo ) 945 (Cellular) C a ble~SsS ( UK-’~ n a (.Reg=on.l Compan~es~ YNO "~ (PCS consortium) services C N~lnternet 267 ~,,&Tel .... Networks) da~ seduces) ,113 N~ Fan, Inc na JV for PCS NTI America C NT[ Europe NTr France NTT Deutschland ~Cralg McCaw Nextel (USA trunked ~Jasmme Internat~ona~ 15 l Smart Commumcabons (Ph=l=pp=nes) na NTr DDI !na ~. N,pponlnd,um .~ ( DDI POC ~et(P Motorola (USA)) I 1 ("Tokyo Pocketphone~"~ CVebacom (Germany 1)~10 I I2 k,. (PCS) Kyocera ) ( Sony na 45 ODI Corp (Japan) NCC Local cellular companies (DD[ owns 60-65%) ( NTr ) na ( NEC n,a ( Matsush,ta ) n a i~~ Tu-Ka (Cellular) Prepared September 1995 ©TeleGeography, ]nc,, 1995 d TeleGeography 995 © TeleGeography, Inc. 1995 less Americas Inc IUSA) I C&W Bermuda 79 I TOJ (Jamazca) ~Schlumberger (USA)~ (USA’ ~, Network serv,ces)~) Prepared September 1~95 © TeleGeography, Inc. 1995 ( K,nnev, kGroup 601 5 gouygues Telecam (France) ( BCE (Canada) 125 Mercury Cammumcatzons Cable&Wireless Business Networks Veba AG (Germany) E-PI~a (Ch,naNanha, OdJo,ntS ..... Tel ..... ~(Germany cellular)) 51 Shenzhen Telacoms Development Carp, ~o ~G Tele Columbus ermanT Cable I IDC (Japan) j 17N ) Bezeq (Israel) 503 ~.Mannesmann Mobdfunk GrnbH (German, ( Far East Sb,ppmg I NakhodkaTelecom GT$ Notes Cable & Wireless Europe wdl become operational in late 1995 Atthat point,the C&W pie and Vebacom stakes m Bouyges Telecom may be transferred to it, leavm9 w=th 35% of Bouyges Telecom At the same time, the C&W pie stake m Tale2 wdt be transferred to C&W Europe, Mannesmann AG and A=rTouch have proposed to purchase the Cab(e & Wketess stake m Mannesmann Mannesmann AG would have 61 6%, two compames and many Caribbean ~slands are excluded BCE BCE(Canada) Mercuq(UK) I CLE~ 25 [~’~"~otrateg,c al,ance 25 (Todd Holdings Telev=smn NZ 25 (NZ) I Anglo-Canadian ) Telephone Co Prepared July 1995 © TeleGeography, ]no, 1995 J © TeleGeography, Inc. 1995 United Kingdom p ngdom--lndustry Convergence Americas Manufacturing/ Banking/Other Industries Wireless Wireline Telephony Broadcast/ Media United Kingdom Rest of World Hutchinson Whampoa Racal Pulsar International (Mexico) Racal Telecom BCE Bell Canada International MCl Mrs Mrs ACC --~ ACC Long Distance (UK) AT&T -~ AT&T(UK) Sprint --~ Sprint International Worldcom -~ Worldcom UK Nynex ~....~-~..~ SBC -- ’ Nynex Cab eComms Time Warner Entertaiment BT Net Tetus (Canada) TeleWest ownership =nterest proposed investment alhance Securicor Cellnet Mercury ~_! One-2-One Vodafone Orange Energis Mercury - Cable & Wireless Esprit UK Incom UK Telstra (UK) ~i ....... I Telia International (UK) Westminster Cable Co. ¯ ,~ Telecentral Vodafone France, Germany, Europe, Holdings Veba Viag Bell Cablemedia Viag InterKom tncom (Israel) Telstra Tefia KPN .J Prepared August 1995 © TeleGeography, Inc., 1995 BT Australasia Telenordia (Sweden) Vebacom TeleGeography 1995 © TeleGeography, Inc. 1995 F lndustry Convergence Americas France Rest of World Manufacturing/ Banking Wireless Wireline Telephony Broadcast/ Media I Airtouch Globalstar PCS jv with TCt, Cox, BellSouth SBC Sprint ! Telecam Argentina T~me Warner Entertainment Telmex U S West Wometcot Georgia Cable TV PCS licenses FTMobile Alcatel CGE Bouyges Societe Francaise de Radiotelephone (SFR) PCS France T l com CGV Bouyges Telecom Vodafone Mercun/ One-to-One Telliance Cable & Wireless Deutsche Telakom DT Cable TV FT Cable research venture ’ Vebacom Bell Cabtemedia Prepared August 1995 © TeleGeography, Inc., 1995 ownership interest proposed ~nvestment ali=ance Note; Bouyges and Compagnie G~n~rale des Eaux (CGE) have announced plans to provide wireline telephone services as soon as regulation permits, © TeleGeography, Inc. 1995 Germany Germany--Industry Convergence Manufacturing/ Banking Wireless Wireline Telephony Broadcast/ Media Americas Motorola Thyssen Viag AirTouch Comsat BCE BellSouth Thyssen Telecom Embratel Viag InterKom € MCl Germany AT&T Spdnt Canada 8pdnt Telmex Worldcom --~ Wor]dcom Commur MFS MFS Communicatior DeTeMobil Mannesmann i_~ Deutsche Bank RWE Veba .~ Mannesmann __~!l~bilEu~Ic ..... 0mnitel Pronto Italia Vodafone CGE Vebacom € Rest of World Cable & Wireless RWE Telliance ~" CNI ~-J- -- E-Plus MobilFunk Bouyges ~J Telecom Deutsche Telekom icat~ons ’ I Multimedia Astra Software MMBG TeleColumbus Cable TV I CA"R/ BT --Unisource -I~ Satelindo Utel Matav France Telecom Bertelsmann Kirch Group Berlusconi Prepared August 1995 © TeleGeography, Inc., 1995 ownership znterest proposed investment alhance Note: Vebacom, RWE, Thyssen, CNI and Viag have announced plans to provide wireline telephone services as soon as regulationpermits./ 25 TeleGeography 1995 © TeleGeographyo Inc. 1995 r ndustry Convergence Americas I Motorola Manufacturing/t Banking IBM Airtouch Wireless Wireline Telephony Broadcas~ Media Lehman Banca di Bros, Roma Olivett~ _____~ Omnitel Pronto I -- Italia Iridium Orion I ~- I Telecom Italia Belt Atlantic Domos I~ Citel (Mexico) Entel (Bobvia) Telecom Italia Emtel (Cuba) ltalcable do Brasil VTR (Chite) U S West tmpsat 4- -- tArgentina) Time Warner ltalcable USA, Inc. Nuovo Telespazio ¯ Infostrada "~ STET International Prepared December 1995 © TeleGeography, Inc., 1995 I~ ownership interest -- -- -- -I~ proposed =nvestment alhance Rest of World Mannesmann France T~I~com Telia STET S a,in es (Russia) Italia Online Astelit (Russia) -= Czechtal (Czech Republic) Rete4 Canal5 Italia 1 Videotime Telepui Cinema 5 Videostrada Mondadori ~- FININVEST (Berlusconi) Mediaset Stream II Sole 24 Ore Diapason J Tele Cinco (Spain) Prince at- T Waleed Kirch Group © TeleGeography, Inc. 1995 Managing the Information Superhighway MANAGING THE INFORMATION SUPERHIGHWAY Wanted: Rules for "Good Gatekeepers" by Rex Winsbury The Trojan Wars, some scholars, were really about say the powerful position that the ancient city of Troy had established as the gatekeeper of the Dardanelles: the narrow neck of water through which trading ships passed enroute from the cities of ancient Greece to the grain-rich shores of the Black Sea. Troy was able to extract tribute from the vessels that passed, and even to block access to markets and con- sumers, until the Greek army decided to do away with this self-appointed and greedy tax collector using the latest technology--the Trojan Horse. should not disguise their fundamental force and importance. On the one hand, the image of the "information highway" expresses a basic political and cultural idea--what the U.S. Vice President, AI Gore, has called "a metaphor for democ- racy"--of information flowing freely and without hindrance among citizens of one country and between citizens of many countries. Here, very early on, we see the tight intercon- nection--one might call it the mutually enabling function-- between the commercial ambitions of expanding and diver- sifying information enterprises, and the pursuit of socio- political ideals. The image recurs in various forms in today’s information economy--as tollbooth, as bottleneck, as digital porter (the intelligent device of the future which will hold your personal profile, search the information highway for you, and screen phone calls), and as the equivalent of seaports and airports, where tomorrow’s immigration authorities and customs offi- cers will monitor the traffic and charge entrance and depar- ture taxes. But the fear remains the same--that somewhere in the value chain between producer and consumer, some- one will establish control of a key command post in the dis- tribution chain and therefore a position of commercial power. That "gatekeeper" will be able to grant or deny access to markets and demand dues and tolls from com- petitors wishing to use that gateway to reach the consumer. The gatekeeper metaphor fits easily into that even more powerful metaphor which has shaped the communications debate over the past two years--the metaphor of "the infor- mation highway," itself derived from the open road networks that were the nerve systems both of ancient empires and modern states. Just as "the information highway" has become an evocative and positive description of where we think we are going in communications (just because it can mean many things to many people, yet unifies these sepa- rate meanings), so too "the gatekeeper" who controls access to the "information highway" has become an evoca- tive and negative description of what we fear (just because it can mean many things to many people, yet unifies their separate concerns). Promises and Threats The fact that these two terms are fashionable rhetoric drawing upon ancient images, and so may give way soon to an even newer fashion, Thus the image of "the gatekeeper" conjures up a basic political and social threat, one which will gather force as national governments and supra-national institutions (such as the European Union or the World Trade Organization) get to grips with a fundamental question that will outlive changes of fashion in terminology. The Key Question That question is this: as digitization drives previously sepa- rate industries into convergence, and so makes obsolete the quite different sets of public regulation that have for gener- ations governed these separate industries, where will the public interest lie, and what will be the role and justification of regulation in the name of the public interest? Put anoth- er way, should the current rule-books that reflect past tech- nologies and principles simply be discarded as companies in the previously distinct industries of telecommunications, computing, broadcasting and publishing cross both industri- al and geographical boundaries to form international multi- media mega-corporations? Rex Winsbury is the London-based Editor of lnterMedia, the bimonthly journal of the International Institute of Communications (tiC). He thanks the participants of the July 1995 meeting of the IIC Telecom Forum, held in Brussels, for some of the content of this article. Clearly these old rule-books are increasingly unworkable and obsolete. Some say they should just be scrapped, and "the market" should be left to go its own way, driven by technology but guided by that "invisible hand of the mar- ket" that somehow equates with the public good. Others say that the role of regulation, in this era of transition towards a global open market, is to simulate or mimic true competition in areas where true competition does not yet exist (say, in some European national telecommunications mar- kets or in the U.S. regional telecom- munications markets). Come com- petition, it is said, industry-specific TeleGeography 1995 © TeleGeography, Inc. 1995 Box 1. Media Reregulation in the UK The U K government, while insisting that "there is a continuing case for specific regulations governing media ownership, beyond those [m] the general corn- petition law, to maintain diversity and plurality, has put forward rachcal proposals for the reregulation and liberalization of media ownership The proposals, Media Ownership, the Government’s Proposals, (May 1995), may set the trend at least within the member states of the European Union. Initially, these propos- als cover only the press, television and radio, on the grounds that other markets are too new to be includ- ed-yet. To allow multimedia companies to emerge that are strong m many aspects of mass communications while retaimng Its right to regulate what the document calls "the concentration of market power, the U.K. govern- ment expects to: ¯ abandon the present concept of separation of own- ership between the sectors, with separate rules for each sector; ¯ dehne a total media market, ¯ define individual media markets and market shares by audience or revenue share rather than equity hold- rags; ¯ establish the relationship between a market share in one market (the press) and in another (TV) by means of a "media exchange rate" that expresses the relative weight of each sector (I.e., not al! sectors are deemed to be equally ~mportant), ¯ using this "exchange rate, dehne a level of market share of the total media market that would trigger regulatory review; and ¯ make the regulator the normal antitrust authority; m the case of the UK, that would be the Office of Fair Trading (i. e., special media regulations, yes, but spe- clal regulator, no). This approach has problems, e.g., how to fix the "exchange rate" between sectors and where to fix the level of total media market share that would trigger the regulator’s attention. The suggestion is 10 per- cent of the U.K. total media market. But slgnlhcantly, this idea of special asymmetrical regulation for dominant players recurs in a consulta- tive document issued m August 1995 by Oftel, the U.K. telecoms regulator. Titled, Beyond the tele- phone, the television and the PC, it suggests that In the future the market for broadband switched mass- market services (which could of course include what is now termed television as well as telecommunications, in the common bit-stream of the future) regulation should differ according to degree of market domi- nance. Out of the four sectors Oftel foresees in this new mar- ket--content creation, service provision, distribution networks, and consumer equipment--regulation should concentrate on network operators. Oftel also sug- gests that a rule requiring "any-to-any connectivity" should only apply to dominant network operators, who would be required to grant open access to all service prowders. Structural separation between con- tent providers and network operators, even dominant ones, is unnecessary, provided there is accounting separation. The two U.K government documents converge on two ~deas, reflecting media convergence One is support for a new freedom to develop cross-media ownership and services, whether between press and TV or between telcos and content providers. The other is a sense that, in the future, public policy for the commu- nications sector will focus, not on detailed rules of structural separation, but on the behavior of compa- nies with market dominance. The European Union regulatory landscape: National rules on pluralism and cross-media ownership Monomedia press Monomedia TV or radio Multimedia Max. shareholding Disqualified persons Monomedia press: Limit on mergers between press compames; Monomedia TV or Radio: Limit on mergers between TV or Radio companies; Multimedia: Limit on cross-media holdings; Max. TV shareholding: Limit on TV holdings; Disqualified persons: Those barred from media ownership. Chart courtesy of Denton Hall, U.K. © TeleGeography, Inc. 1995 Managing the Information Superhighway regulation and regulators should wither away and the polic- ing of communications should be left to the cybercops of the competition authorities, the anti-trust laws and the copy- right conventions. Abuse of Power Yet the image of the gateway is still important, even in that scenario of minimalist public intervention. There is a need to define the public interest to provide some clear idea around which action can, where necessary, be taken against practices that are deemed to be undesirable in the new, seamless world of communications. The idea of "the gate- way" is in this sense a metaphor for "the abuse of a domi- nant position," and abuse of power--in this case, abuse of commercial power--is as undesirable from the point of view of commerce itself as it is from the point of view of govern- ment and society. Older ideas of the public interest were expressed in regula- tions that (for example) prevented newspaper companies from owning TV stations, or vice versa; prevented telecom companies from owning cable TV companies; prevented cable TV companies from carrying voice telephony; or pre- vented foreign companies from buying up "our" companies. All of these are recognized as imminently unworkable. When everything is digital, and may be carried or present- ed in almost any media, sorting out the bits for regulatory purposes will become futile. Bits will be bits and we will all be part of the same global bitstream. The bitstream also signals the final demise of one of the clas- sic arguments in favor of state regulation: the argument based on the scarcity of a public resource. As long as the electromagnetic spectrum was a finite resource subject to many demands (not least from the spectrum-hungry mili- tary) there was a need for an independent arbiter to ration it and decide priorities of use. Much the same argument applied to limited-capacity copper cabling. But now digital technology, which is much more spectrum- efficient than analog systems, and the development of high- capacity fiber-optic cables, compression techniques, and a new generation of digital satellites, are about to turn scarci- ty into plenty. The exact scale of this switch to abundance will vary from place to place. But take the U.K. as an exam- ple. According to a recent government analysis (Digital Terrestrial Broadcasting: the Government’s Proposals, August 1995), the switch to digital will add 18 new terres- trial TV channels to the existing five and will increase to over 200 the number of cable and satellite TV channels available to viewers. If BT or the cable companies ever decide to run fiber-optic cable all the way into every home, these figures will take another dramatic leap upwards toward infinity. But what (if anything) should take the place of these older regulations based on a structural division of power between the different communications industries? If they are not replaced, they become--are~barriers to trade and eco- nomic development. Equally, it is inconceivable that gov- ernments will surrender all interest in what goes on. Information and the media are central to both political and cultural life. There also is the recurrent political accusation that the media corrupts morals. President Bill Clinton has endorsed proposals to install a V-chip in U.S. television sets to screen out unwanted violent programming. And his Republican challenger, Senator Robert Dole of Kansas, has confronted Hollywood and Time Warner with the charge that "you have sold your souls, but must you debase our nation?" These types of concerns will not go away, no mat- ter who (Sony, U S West) is the significant investor. In addition, it is a central justification of government in a democratic society that it exists to combat abuses of power that harm the rights and lives of individual citizens. That abuse of power may be by any organized group in society, whether it be the military, the trade unions, a church--or by industrial groups fixing markets and monopolizing trade. So even under the minimalist view of regulation in the uni- fied communications industry of the near future, it is still of vital importance to reach some consensus about what con- stitutes, or will constitute, an abuse of power. And, it is important that both industry and politicians agree, roughly, what that idea means. There is nothing worse, for industry as much as for anyone else, than an ambiguous or even capricious rule-book. Rewriting the Rulebooks That is where the idea of "the gatekeeper" comes in useful. It still begs the question of what, exactly, constitutes abuse of power. But at least it represents an idea around which rule-books might be rewritten, and there is a general agree- ment that the rule-books not only have to be rewritten, but also that they should be rewritten in parallel with market and technological developments, rather than after them, if emerging markets are not to be distorted or delayed. That is why the search for a "new dynamic" for a new form of reg- ulation that is not bound by the past, could usefully start with this notion of the gatekeeper/bottleneck. Today’s multimedia has been described by the 1995 ITU World Telecommunication Development Report as "a cab- bage patch in which many wired, weird and wonderful species are blooming between the experimental plots and the field trials." Still, it is not too early to think hard about what, if anything, to put in the place of the existing legal frameworks. This is evidenced by, for example, the new telecommunications and broadcasting laws being debated in the USA, the proposed changes in media cross-ownership rules in the U.K. (see Box 1 ), the constant stream of new or revised TV and telecommunications directives emanating TeleGeography 1995 © TeleGeography, Inc, 1995 from the European Commission in Brussels, and the strug- gles by key emerging nations like South Africa to reconcile the new internationalism with their equally imperative need to nurture long-neglected indigenous cultures. (See Box 2,) In short, the image of "the gatekeeper" as a metaphor for abuse of power goes to the very heart of the emerging def- inition of the public interest in the new era of convergence based on a mix of political, social, economic and cultural concerns. It will replace, indeed is replacing, older notions and regulations based on limits on ownership, separation of industries, separation of geographical areas, circulation ceil- ings and the rest of the apparatus aimed at the supply side. We no longer live in an age of spectrum or channel scarcity. Instead, future regulation will be based on the demand side, on markets, access to markets, and control of markets. Some Actual Cases The evidence for this is already all around us. It stretches (looking at only the past year or so) from the prevention of the Microsoft take-over of Intuit in the U.S. (see page 481; to the banning on anti-competition grounds by the European competition authority of the proposed Media Services pay-TV alliance in Germany between Deutsche Telekom, the Kirch Group and Bertelsmann; to the similar stopper put on Nordic Satellite Distribution, the proposed satellite TV alliance between Kinnevik and two telcos in Scandinavia (see page 52); to the rows over BSkyB’s pro- gram supply deals to cable systems and its grip on encryp- tion technology in the U.K. (see Box 3); and to the objec- tions raised against the Atlas and Phoenix joint ventures between Deutsche Telekom, France T~l~com and Sprint on both sides of the Atlantic. (See page 47.) All these are cases where new alliances or mergers were barred or (in the BSkyB case) at least modified as a result of the intervention, not of traditional regulators, but of anti- trust and competition authorities. The proposal by the U.K. government to abandon historical controls which limit cross- media ownership, based on share ownership, and to base future policy on a (controversial) system of measuring power in the media marketplace, is another indicator and a possibly ground-breaking example that other governments may follow, at least within the European Union (see Box 1). Getting to Specifics The whole point of a concept like "abuse of power" is that, like libel or privacy, there can never be an exhaustive defin- Box 2. South Africa: A clear example of the clash between technological and political-cultural imperatives is seen in South Africa After years of ostracism from the world community due to the apartheid regime, Jt /s desperate to rejoin the world, /n communications as in other aspects of economic life. Like the rest of Africa, /t r~sks even greater marginal/zation if it cannot offer sophisticated telecommumcations for business, and Jts newly enfranchised citizens will no longer tolerate second rate information and entertainment med~a. Yet after years of neglect or re’pression under the apartheid regime, South Africa’s indigenous black cultures need not just protection, but positive nurturing, if South Africa/s to achieve its ambition of becoming the so-called "rainbow nation. Local product/on of films and TV programs/s an acknowledged/ssue in the task of building one nation out of South Africa’s complex web of cultural and religious commumties Balancing Culture and Markets Dr. Ivy Matsepe-Casaburri, the educator who now chairs the board of the South African Broadcasting Corporation (SABC), wrote recently m Inter Media (June/July 1995): "This still d/chotomised society has not only had a history of racial and gender oppression but also geographic and cultural fragmentabon and subordination from which it needs to be freed or to escape ... If we spurn becoming part of the family of nations, we sound a deathknell to advancement and progress. However, protecting national and cultural interests is vital, especially among developing countries who feel d/sempower.ed to make a global impact because of lack of resources and know-how; especiafly when there is doubt whether sufficient acknowledgment of different cultures will exist, and when suspicions abound about whose agendas will actually be served. Hence, media policy m South Africa provides a mixed message. On the one hand, the privabzabon of South Africa’s state-owned telecommunications monopoly, Telkom, has been postponed, and international competition in the SA telecom market has been ruled out for the foreseeable future--plainly a protectionist move. On the other hand, SA has seen innovative uses of cellular communications technology serving fixed-site payphones to bring telephone access to a much wider share of the black population. At the same time, BOP TV has been satelliting Western-style TV programming into SA from neighboring Botswana and South Africa’s own M-Net company has been spearheading the spread of satellite pay-TV to the whole of southern and central Africa. © TeleGeography, Inc. 1995 Managing the Information Superhighway Box 3. BSkyB: The First Mover as Gatekeeper BSkyB, the largest U.K. based satellite TV company which is effectively controlled by Rupert Murdoch, has inevitably been the center of controversy, in par- ticular on two counts. One is the terms upon which BSkyB supplies programming to U K. cable opera- tors The other Js the de facto control held by BSkyB over the encryptlon subscriber access system prevail- ing in the U.K. and in other markets. At issue is the tension between aggressive creation and exploitation of new markets, and the dominance and gateway control that early market leadership can confer--the so-called first-mover advantage In the first case, BSkyB initially agreed on preferen- tial terms for program supply with the UK’s two biggest cable TV operators, TeleWest and Nynex, who between them control about one-third of the market. In return, the two operators gave a pledge not to invest in cable-only channels competitive w/th BSkyB channels, notably for sports and for pay-per-view. Since there had previously been a strong effort among cable operators to establish rival cable-only programming to reduce BSkyB’s grip on the cable programming market, this deal was seen by other cable operators as a body blow to the independence of cable, as well as consolidating BSkyB’s dominant posJtlon as a program supplier. The cable operators filed a formal complaint, saying the deal was anti- competitive. Following intervention by (sign~hcantly) the U.K Office of Fair Trading, rather than the media regulators, the BSkyB agreement was modihed. BSkyB /ssued a revised rate card under which other cable operators could buy programming on the same terms as TeleWest and Nynex. But the restriction on TeleWest and Nynex ~nvestlng /n rival cable channels remains so far unresolved In the second case--more protracted and confused-- other actual or potential satelhte TV program suppli- ers, such as the BBC, the U.K terrestrial commercial TV companies (ITV) and some US-based satellite channels expressed fears that BSkyB’s grip on the only widespread pay-per-wew system used in ana- logue pay-TV (V~deocrypt) might be translated into a similar grip on the only similar widespread system for d~gital TV, both satellite and terrestrial. There was an expectation that BSkyB, which ~s also a candidate for some of the new digital terrestrial channels in the UK, might promote a dual-purpose digital satellite and terrestrial set-top box, with a built-in VideoGuard decoder, thus becoming the effec- tive gatekeeper to the new world of digital TV. Similar fears were echoed in other European markets where there is a dominant pay-TV supplier. The U K. government has been reluctant to intervene, since it wants to see new markets develop unhindered So the argument has centered around the wording of a new European Commission Directive which seeks to dehne the technical characteristics of a future set-top box which/nterfaces between the consumer and the TV channel provider. No one wants the consumer to have to buy a pletho- ra of set-top boxes. But can the supplier of a lead~ng conditional access system realistically be expected to make room on it for all those rivals who want to use it to reach the consumer, even ~f the system has the capacity to do so? Or, in the era of unihed digital media and umhed media regulation, ~s the doctnne of open access and "any-to-any connectivity" to apply equally to a dominant wirellne telecommunications operator and to a dominant wireless pay-TV opera- tor? ition of what it means in practice. As circumstances change, so too will perceptions of what is abuse. But already some more specific questions have emerged. For example: 1. Does size in itself constitute an abuse of power? This is a particularly relevant question in European telecom mar- kets yet to be deregulated, such as Germany and France, where the state telecom monopolies are kicking hard at the trend in upcoming European directives to define "the pre- sumption of significant market power" as beginning at 25 percent of the market, a level at which special "asymmetri- cal" regulations may be justified. (Asymmetrical regulation usually refers to a dual regime with one set of rules for the incumbent or former monopolist and another set of rules for new entrants.) 2. Does vertica! integration itself constitute an abuse of power? This is a relevant question when telcos, content providers and makers of consumer reception devices (PCs, set-top boxes and their software, otherwise known as Customer Premises Equipment, or CPEs) join together. But it is a particularly relevant question for such a market as U.S. cable TV, where, according to a 1994 FCC survey, 56 of the 106 nationally distributed program services had vertical ties with MSOs (multiple systems operators), such as TCI, and this connection was even stronger among the most pop- ular and widely reviewed program services. Such links were a prime reason why the U.S. antitrust authorities condi- tioned TCI’s 1994 acquisition of Liberty Media, another MSO, to ensure that Liberty would afford non-TCI linked program suppliers "equal access" (See, e.g., Figure 1). 31 TeleGeography 1995 © TeleGeography, Inc. 1995 The potential for vertically integrated companies to reduce competition also arises in the international telecommunica- tions market. For example, both the new BT-MCI joint ven- ture, Concert, and the Sprint-Deutsche Telekom-France T6l~com alliance, known as Phoenix, were scrutinized by competition authorities in the U.S. and Europe primarily because the new ventures would combine (vertically inte- grate) a dominant local and long distance provider in one market with a major long distance provider elsewhere. The vertically integrated venture might have an incentive to dis- criminate against unallied long-distance providers. As a condition to their proceeding with these ventures, the U.S. antitrust authorities required the companies to abide by cer- p ommunications~ Inc. ~TCI Commumcat~ons. Inc J (Cable rv serving 13 mllhon J ~.. subscribers) (TCI Te]epheny"~ ( Cox C ...... careens Services, ~Spr,ntTelec .... n,caUaneVen~re"ll I I na -- ~Te~epe~ Cam .... cat, ono~) "~ TCI Technology Ventures, Inc ( Klemer Perkins Cauffleld & Byers ) @home nternet access wa cable TV hnes).) 4, all=ance 19 ( Accla=m Enterta~nment, lnc (" CyberMed~a (mult]med=a studm) "~ {~ Western Tele- Commumcat~ons~ (wholesale Iong-d=stance) .,.) (The M=crosoft Network) Na~ena~ ~,~,ta~ ~a~e~,s,on Center )D~9~tal cempr~ss~an and encrypt~en sar’acasl n a ( Sega Channel(Pay’i’V/vldeo games) --~ TSX Corportat~on (Equipment manufacturer) tain non-discrimination and disclosure requirements. (See page 47 for further details). 3. What is the definition of a market within which power may be abused when delivery technologies, such as satel- lites and the Internet, transcend national boundaries? This is also a particular question for the new global alliances such as Concert and Phoenix. Are these new ventures simply adding a marginally different set of international services to those now offered on a traditional correspondent basis-- that is, the services now provided by connecting a telco in one country with a correspondent in another? Or, as some competition authorities have argued, should the market power of these new ventures be judged in relation to a new market for seamless (end-to-end) global telecommunica- John Malone ) ( Bob Magness ) C Kearns-Tr.buna Carp ) (~Tele-C ...... cartons, Inc {USA)~ Tele-Communlca~ons International, lnc (Cable T~ service m Noway. Sweden, Ireland, France, Singapore, New Zealand, Auswalla, Japan, and Chde) Rextech plc __~ Cablewsmn SA (Argentina) ~.~ Torneoe y Compatenc=as (Argentina’ Sports programm=ng) D Saga(Japan) News Corp Enterprises, Inc (Interactive Network,) n.a Q Home Shopping Network, Inc Encore Media 90 nternatmnal Family 1~’~ nterMedm Par~ers~ N, -- RCS Pacific, LP urner B roadca~ng~ Sy~em Black E:t~a,nmen~ Telewaon) EI Ente~alnment Prepared September 1995 ©TeleGeography, Inc, 1995 Note The shares ~n Tale-Communications International not held by Tele-Commumcat~ons, Inc, are pubhcly traded Certain classes of IJberty Media stock are also publicly traded, but Tele-Commumcat~ons, Inc., retains 100% control 12.5 I125 Sky Network TV lNewZealand) C Sumztomo(Japan) ) Telecommunlcal]ons Co (Japan Cable TV) TeleWest Communications plc UK Cable TV and localI telephony) J d bberty Medea (programm=ng) TlmeWarner 2~ 63 C T~me Warner "~ Entertainment ~, 125( Amerltech ) I 125 C BellAtlanl~c ) © TeleGeography, Inc. 1995 Managing the Information Superhighway tions services? If so, then what matters most is the combi- nation of national partners vis-a-vis other potential nation- al combinations (seamless global platforms). Accordingly, where one venture is allied with a monopoly service provider (as is the case for Phoenix) then the venture should be dis- allowed unless satisfactory terms for local interconnection of other potential global service providers are established. 4. Is it possible to define a gateway in technological terms (e.g., control of a proprietary set-top box technology or an entrenched encryption and subscriber management system, or of a network navigator or channel menu) when technolo- gy is moving so fast that today’s gateway may be tomor- row’s bypass? This has been much discussed in the U.S. and has been the subject of a furious row in Europe between the new privately owned pay-TV operators (BSkyB, Canal Plus, Nethold, Kirch) and the older public and commercial broad- casters, such as the BBC and U.K. independent television companies. 5. Will general competition rules, not specific to the com- munications industries but applicable to all industries, be sufficient to regulate convergent communications, rather than industry-specific regulators like the U.S.’s FCC, the UK’s Oftel and ITC, and so on? (OK, we all hate regulators, but when the other guy’s being unfair, we shout for the ref- eree.) Given that the key equation in the future may be that price regulation will be justified where, but only where, a bottleneck/gateway is shown to exist, it suggests that some degree of specialist supervision may be needed (and desired by most parties) for some time to come. 6. Is the idea of a global regulator (or, in the case of the European Union, its equivalent, a Europe-wide regulator) a noble dream that answers to today’s realities of an interna- tional marketplace, or a bureaucratic nightmare? Sir Leon Brittan, vice-president of the European Commission and a noted champion of free competition, has repeatedly called for global rules to facilitate global ventures. Interestingly, Box 4. Top 20 Cable Television Operators Worldwide Ranked by number of subscribers 1994 Rank 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 1994 Company (US$ m) Deutsche Telekom (Germany) a 2,280.0 TCI (USA) 4,247.0 Time Warner Cable (USA) 2,220.0 Comcast Corporation (USA) 1,085.3 Continental Cablevis=on Inc. (USA) 1,177.2 Rogers Cablesystems Ltd. (Canada) a 449.0 Cox Cable Communications (USA) -- Cablevision Systems Corp. (USA) 837.2 Newhouse Broadcasting (USA) -- Adelphia Communications (USA) 319.0 Times Mirror (USA) 498.1 Cablevision Industries Corp. (USA) 408.3 Svenska Kabel--I-V (Sweden) a 75.8 Viacom Cable (USA) 406.2 Jones Intercable, Inc. (USA) 132.4 Sammons Communications Inc. (USA) -- Casema (Netherlands) a 105.2 Falcon Cable TV (USA) -- Century Communications Corp. (USA) 318.2 Crown Media (USA) -- Total above 14,538.9 Cable TV revenue Subscribers Change 1994 Change 1993 -94 (000s) 1993-94 32.1% 14,600 8.1% 2.3% 11,595 9.3% 0.5% 7,500 4.7% -2.7% 3,329 24.0% -- 3,081 6.4% 12.4% 2,553 34.6% -- 1,852 3.8% 25.6% 1,768 28.2% -- 1,425 3.9% 4.5% 1,322 6.5% 5.9% 1,314 8.8% 2.8% 1,311 4.6% -0.2% 1,259 0.7% -2.4% 1,139 4.0% 8.0% 1,134 7.0% -- 1,101 2.9% 35.6% 1,100 34.4% -- 1,054 -9.5% 5.4% 941 2.4% -- 9O6 6.3% 7.6% 60,384 9.Z% a. Wholly- or majority-owned by telecommunication operators Source: ITU adapted from company reports. or holding companies with strong interest in telecommunications. .J TeleGeography 1995 © TeleGeography, Inc. 1995 these are most likely to develop under the aegis of the World Trade Organization (W’I’O) rather than through tradi- tional regulatory mechanisms; and the WTO is all about markets, competition--and abuse of markets. For a century or more, the global telecoms rule maker has been the ITU, the International Telecommunication Union. But its rules have been technical, concerning standards and allocation of the radio spectrum. Recently, it has begun moving to fill the vacuum in other forms of global regulation. At its 1994 plenipotentiary meeting held in Kyoto, Japan, the ITU set up a new World Telecommunications Policy Forum where ITU members can exchange experience and information about the transition to privatized and liberal- ized markets. The Forum is focusing first on global mobile satellite systems. Even if the Forum remains a talking shop, the ITU has at last moved toward the adoption of a global free-phone numbering scheme, which may herald a global role for the ITU in regulating that new scarce resource: num- bers. In parallel, the European Union is moving toward a common, unified numbering scheme (e.g., 00 for an international line), just as it is moving toward reciprocal recognition of national licenses, to create a more unified pan-European equipment market. Thus there is a general move toward regulation on a supra-national scale in the name of assisting rather than restricting new markets. 7. Does the fierce debate between advocates of symmetri- cal versus advocates of asymmetrical regulation (i.e., one set of rules for monopolists or ex-monopolists, and anoth- er for new entrants) disguise the real battle for power over who controls that crucial bottleneck, the limited-capacity "last mile" of copper into the consumer’s home? That last link will be one of the pragmatic gateways, as the capacity of the main broadband and fiber trunklines increases dra- matically faster and further than the capacity of the "last drop" in the home. Is it realistic to expect real competition at this level of the "last drop"? Is it practical, as in the U.K. and Finland (and doubtless elsewhere) to define real com- petition and free access as a choice for the consumer Fig. 2. News Corp. Ltd. J 20 6132 I MC~IUSAI I United States Au~traha and As~a/Pamfie /~ t "~. ~Nev~s Corp conb’ols over ~,.,=~.~*~=~.,~.~ JJV fornew~nternetserwces Compames~ 50%ofAu~a~an ~’..... ~’~Co........ ~on’’~ ...... =nvotved Detph, Internet Se~zces, Kesmat, newspapers Pr,clpal ~es, JSta rT ee ...... m~ted ( H o n g~ ) [MCI Mad. ~10n-hne, MCI’s Informabon [Kong $atelhte ~, broadcast f Serv=ces/Entena=nment Co ~The Au~ahan, The Dady over 50 As~an coun~=es) Fox Broadcas~ng ) Telegraph M~rror, The Herald-Sun, The Advemser ) FoxTV Sta~onslnc TheNewTechnologyGroup Tels~a (Owns 8 s~Uons) ~Cruden I nves~en~ ~uetpm mterne~bystems ub~ 120 I~ 42 ( Fore (Cab e~) Etak, Inc New World m at Queensland Press Ltd C ~(USA’d]g,tal apd abases)) ~ommumcauons ~(Pay W e.c~p~on systems)~ I bmlted I ~.2 Gu~ahan Newsprint M,I]s Ltd I ~ews In~rna~onal New Med,h L""~ ............... ) L Re,ss Uedta Enterpr,ses, (CD-ROMs based on ~e ~mes! 499 Inc andre SundayT=mes) J ( Seven Ne~orkL~ L Asia Today ) Europe TNT~d ) ( Zee~andEL~ (India. H=nd=telews=on) New York Post HarperColhns Scott, Foresman & Co TV Guide "~ Mirabella Magazzne News America FSI, Inc. "~ promot=onal free standing F------ inserts) .~ UK newspapers The Times, the Sunday Ttmes.Today, the Sun, News)--- of the World (Pearsi i __L Granls e aSkyB Group plu (UK) Vox Film-und Fernseh GmbH 499 (Germany) (’~ Ansett Aust~’ahan ~. Hotdlngs Ltd. Ansett Austraha (A~rhne) 50 .ustrahan World Wide Avlatmn~ 50 Ser~ces J Prepared August 1995 J © TeleGeography, Inc, 1995 © TeleGeography, Inc. 1995 Managing the Information Superhighway between at least three suppliers, per service or indeed per call? 8. Is it desirable or practical, or too late and too uncom- mercial, to separate conduit from content, as is often sug- gested in some fora? It is notable that all the recent cases mentioned above of intervention by the European Union competition authority (Directorate General IV) have involved alliances involving both conduit and content (busi- ness data in one case, and pay TV in the others). Recall also the antitrust conditions imposed on TCrs acquisition of Liberty Media. It is said that there is natural tension between conduit and content in terms of anticipated investment pay-back peri- ods. Typically, investment in conduit (e.g., cable in the ground) may be evaluated against a 20 year timescale, whereas investment in content (say, a Tinseltown movie) typically has a payback horizon of a year or two. Also, huge investments in infrastructure may demand a period of cer- tainty to ensure a payback, which may equate with a peri- od of limitation on competition, enforced by regulation. On the other hand, the provision of services requires open access by any means to as many customers as possible. Also, telcos are used to charging by the minute, second or Fig. 3. Time Warner Inc. I Im T~me Inc ~’] (Books and magazines pubhshes| T=me, Sports Illustrated, People, Fortune, Money, hfe, Entertainment Weekly, and other| magazines, as we9 as beaks, uslc, video, television, and otherI media, including the Pathfinder Web srte) .) Time hfelno "~l~me Inc Ventures~ (Southern IJwn9, Parenting, Martha Stewart I ,wn9, and| ~. other magazines) B o o k-of-th e M o nth"~_~ Club Inc Time Pubbshlng Ventures, Inc htge, Brown and Company (Inc) (. U~e, Brown (UK) (.Warnar Baaks, the Pubhshers Expr ess,~.~_ Inc American Famdy Pubhshlng ) 50 Prepared September 1995 © TeleGeography, inc,, 1995 CapltaIGroup ~The Seagram Company~ Compames, lnc.~/ ~.~ Ltd (Canada) J91 1149 Tlme Warner lac ~. 561 25 T~meWarner General 1 L_ Itocl~u .) I Part]~ers J 5,61 25 I T,ms (Japan ( ..... games, and ’nteractive I Company LP Cable TV media) "~/ L (film, televlsmn, and telephony) k. ) .~ Warner Musm Group (Elektra, AtJantic, Warner ares,and several other labels) ...) I I Columbm Hau~e ~..(musm~ ~andwdeo club) JV for progra ming for Star TV’s music channel Warner/Chappell Music, Inc (musm publishing) ~Warner Med~a Manufactunng and Distribution) Warner Bros Music International Inc Atan Games Carp T~me Warner Interacuve Inc I AT&T I 13 3DO Company (v~deo games) --{[ American Lawyer Med,a ( Caurt~ f Multimedm Cable SA na ina ~able Y Television d’Europa~ (Spa,n) ) fwd Warner Brothers (movies, telewslon programming, animation, roduct hcensmg, theaters stores, theme parks, and The WB network The international televisloe istTibution division is the orld’s largest d=sb’~butor of TV programming) T~meWarner Cable ~’~ Isecond-largest cable group I m US, with 9 3 mllhon subscribers Provides local telephone service m Rochester, NY) /) (" Tele-Commumcat~ons, Inc R E Turner ) 21 Turner Broadcasting System, Inc B~lBlack Ente~amment L Televmmn) Sega (~apan) ~Sega Channel (Pay~ ~Iv~deo games) # E~ En~e~ammen~ ~(HBO and HBO ~’~ C~nemax pay-’rv).J 150 m~me Warner ~-~ Comedy Cenb’al Telecommumcations 125 (cel[ular, pag,ng, data) ~.~ 125 .~Six F{ags Entertainment ~’~ Carp (theme parks) 125 Sky NetworkTV 125 (New Zealand) Notes Itochu and Toshiba have proposed trading their stakes =n Time Warner Entertainment for 2% shares in T~me Warner, Inc This would leave Time Warner General Partners with 74 49% of Time Warner Entertainment. In September T~me Warner, Inc,, announced its intention to acquire all of Turner Broadcasting U S West filed suit to block the merger TeleGeography 1995 © TeleGeography, Inc. 1995 bit--a deterrent to usage. But service providers are used to charging by the event or by subscription, in ways that encourage usage. How can the same organization manage both investment timeframes and both markets and both types of revenue at the same time? Yet for all that, there have been mega-investments by some telcos in content providers. There is MCI’s investment of up to $2 billion for 13.5 percent of News International (see Figure 2) and U S West’s 25 percent of Time Warner (Figure 3). Then there is the multimedia joint venture between BellSouth, SBC Communications, Ameritech and Walt Disney (Figure 4) and the uncertain link established between Tele-TV (a programming consortium owned by Bell Atlantic, Nynex and Pacific Telesis) and the Creative Artist Agency, a big power in Hollywood. As mentioned, in the U.S. cable industry, a nexus between conduit and content is the norm. Again, see Figure 1 for a list of TCI’s "friendly" producers. (See also Box 5 on page 38.) However, there are competing examples: Viacom, for example, has restructured itself as a content company, whereas Time Warner straddles conduit and content. And many telcos, with BT as a notable example, maintain that they need the freedom to carry and deliver all kinds of video services, as well as voice, to the consumer if they are to jus- tify the huge expenditures involved in building comprehen- sive national broadband networks. A more complete profile of other large content producers, including Viacom, Bertelsmann, MCA, and Pearson is provided in Appendix 1. It is probably too early to judge, but perhaps this idea of segregating conduit from content is an interesting albeit impractical attempt to recreate the old idea of separation of industrial powers, when the only workable answer lies in the particulars of future events--in watching the marketplace and market behavior, and in empowering the consumer 9. Is what the Europeans call ONP (Open Network Provision) the model for all communications industries everywhere? ONP is about the legal right and technical abil- ity to interconnect any network with any network. Interconnection is the key issue for a competitive market, since otherwise, groups of customers are shut off from potential services. The refusal to interconnect could become a classic case of abuse of market power, since it is about control of access to users by refusing to open a gateway (control of numbers could be another classic gateway). It is hardly surprising, therefore, that interconnection issues have been at the heart of the quid pro qua long debated by the U.S. Congress regarding the terms on which local tele- phone companies may enter the long-distance business. America’s existing long-distance carriers (AT&T, MCI, Sprint) Fig. 4, The Walt Disney Company The Wait Disney Company (USA) Compagn=e Loxembourgec~se de Teled~ffus~on (CLT) 5O (Germany cable channel) Internatlanal (UKbreakfastTV|) ( M~ramaxCorp Watt Dzsney Theatrical Prodactlons KCAL-W (Independent commercial ~at~on in LosAngeles) Theme Parks and Resorts Walt D=sney World ~’~ It~ Proposed joint venture wr~h the cO Group of Ind=~ Touchstone Tetevlslon (~ D=sneyland Park D~sneylandHatat D=sneylandPans 39 ( (T°uchst°ne TV and |I I ~enes In various fore,g~n I Disney Sports markets} J \The M~ghty Ducks of Anahelm.~ ConsumerGoods I Pubhshmg compames.~ 130 ~- Berkshire Hathaway 11, [.~9 (StateFarml ........ I ABC/Caprtal Cities I ~. The O~sney Store (. Disney Sofwvare (" Virg,n Interact{ve ~Jomt venture for Uon ~deo Gala (. w~lt ~,sne~Roea;d, Matra Hache~e I ( DlsneyHache~e Dzsney Hach~e Edmons (France) IE~ght ’~/stations and 21~ redo stations =n USA ~A&ETelews=on NeWvork~ 375 TL Fernsehen GmbH &~ ca ( T ...... SA ) C Lffel~meTelews,on 50 Tele-Monchan Fernseh ~"~..~ GmbH&Co Prepared December 199~J TeIeGeography. Inc, 1995 The Kansas C~h, Ster Fort Worth Star Telegram ~he Oakland Press ,Ge ,c,::pooo ed,ca (10 periodicals including_the Instrtut, onal Investor) America Onhne 50 ~The Fashion Channe © TeleGeography, Inc. 1995 Managing the Information Superhighway have argued strongly that the Regional Bell Operating Companies (RBOCs), which now provide local service to over 85% of the U.S. market, must satisfy certain minimum access conditions (e.g., non-discriminatory tariffs, unbundling of separate service elements, number portabili- ty) before the terms of the 1984 antitrust decree (the AT&T Modified Final Judgment) are relaxed and they are permit- ted to offer long-distance service. The RBOCs do not dis- agree in principle; the dispute is over what competitive access means in practice and how long the conditions should be in place before the local market is declared "open." There is much at stake here. Full and seamless interconnect appears to be the only true route to full freedom for con- sumer, business or residential cus- tomers-the freedom to roam the infor- mation highways and construct "The Daily Me" popularized by Nicholas Negroponte and his guru-team at the MIT Media Lab (sometimes known to Europe as "Channel Moi"). But how do you get it? Through EU Directive, U.S. legislation, or market forces? BECOME GATEKEEPERS~ ACCEPT structure is vastly different to that of the traditional telco or cable TV MSO. The business model of today’s companies is like that of the old IBM mainframe computer, and may be almost as obso- lete. The IBM mainframe~a large machine with functions and control centralized in one processor--made IBM’s for- tune but then nearly ruined the company when the market shifted toward distributed intelligence in individual PCs. Likewise, today’s apparently solid communications compa- nies whose technical and business structure is hierarchical, centralized, tightly organized and producer-driven, may find CONSUMERS--TRAINED BY YEARS OF CHANNEL SWITCHING AND NET SURFING--HAVE THEIR OWN THEY MAY SOON NO OTHER. O. In the argument over who will be king in the multimedia marketplace--content, technology, or telecommunications-- there is, after all, a fourth contender, the user--and more particularly the software-empowered user of the future who can configure his or her own multimedia presentation. There are those who predict that such users will make nonsense of today’s mega-alliances because consumers--trained by years of channel switching and net surfing--will cut their corporate media and daily content into billions of extreme- ly thin, infinitely diverse, individual slices. (One need only look at the best selling computer games to see what might happen. Sega and Nintendo control over 90% of the hard- ware but tens of small software shops successfully challenge the majors for game revenues.) In this scenario, citizens become their own gatekeeper; soon they may accept no other. that the market suddenly shifts with seismic effects toward a model which is flatter, fragmented, and consumer-dri- ven: the Internet model. Who owns U S West or Deutsche Telekom? You can look up the list of stockholders. Who owns the Internet? There are dozens of access providers, software companies, and content providers who can claim a share (see article beginning on page 53). The headquarters of Nynex, TCI and NTT appear on maps. But the Internet has no single headquarters. Other new technologies--such as pay-per-view, video-on- demand, personal phone numbers and global mobile roam- ing--may be pointing in this same direction, toward decen- tralization, more power for the consumer, and new and more flexible business models. There will be huge business oppor- tunities there, but the players may be (or become) both more numerous and different in type, size, function, and revenues. Look at the PC market today, or indeed the direc- tion that mobile telephony is taking toward multiple suppli- ers, tariffs, technologies, routes, and functions. To be only slightly fanciful, what happens when I can dial up Paramount-Orion-Warner Studios direct on my Nokia- Samsung personal handyphone and ask to see Son of Barman 111 at 8pro on my multimedia Sony-Macintosh? Concluding thoughts Tomorrow’s competitors to today’s telecommunications and cable TV companies may not be invaders of the same type from a different region or country, or even today’s fashion- able cross-media and cross-frontier alliances and mergers. Instead, tomorrow’s competitor may be the lnternet, or something very like it, whose business model and power If the Internet is the prototype supermarket of the informa- tion society, then it is quite thinkable that some of today’s communications companies may adapt and flourish, while others may one day be consigned to the rubbish bin of his- tory, like railroad, textile, steel, coa!, and many other cor- porate giants before them. Meanwhile, in the Internet supermarket, public policy should concentrate on who is manning the checkouts. ¯ TeleGeography 1995 © TeleGeography, Inc. 1995 Owns the Content? Fi J m Parent Studio Disney Buena Vista Time Warner Warner Bros. Viaeom Paramount MCA Universal News Corp. Fox Sony Sony Turner New Line Disney Miramax Independent MGM/UA Independent Gramercy Independent Savoy Other Total Source. Variety Television Programming 1994 # of Films Gross ($m) 36 $1,015.7 42 $846.5 19 $732.1 22 $657.3 18 $495.8 35 $485.8 14 $324.1 28 $199.2 12 $144.4 13 $96.3 5 $72.6 138 $189.2 382 $5,259.0 1993 Share # of Films Gross (Sin) Share 19.3% 36 $821.2 16.3% 16.1% 37 $928.5 18.5% 13.9% N/A $459.8 9.3% 12.5% 22 $690.5 13.9% 9.4% 21 $538.6 10.7% 9.2% 26 $561.2 11.2% 6.2% N/A N/A N/A 3.8% 24 $148.4 2.9% 2.8% 12 $91.3 1.8% 1.8% N/A N/A N/A 1.4% N/A N/A N/A 3.6% 107 $221.4 N/A $4,460.9 Company Country 1994 Rev ($m) Fuji TV Network Japan $8,210 Fininvest Italy $7,432 Viacom USA $7,363 Capital Cities/ABC USA $6,379 MCA USA $4,800 e Kirch Group Germany $4,286 e CBS USA $3,712 NBC USA $3,361 TBS (Turner) USA $2,809 Tokyo Broadcasting Japan $2,121 Paramount USA $1,407 e QVC Networks USA $1,222 e Liberty Media (TCI) USA $1,153 e Groupo Televisa Mexico $1,044 e -estimate Books Company Country 1992 Book Rev ($m) Bertelsmann Germany $3,680 Readers Digest USA $1,720 Reed-Elsevier UK/Netherlands $1,680 Paramount USA $1,600 Time Warner USA $1,300 Havas France $1,280 Pearson UK $1,260 Matra Hachette France $1,170 Harcourt US $1,000 News Corporation Australia $1,000 Source. Market Research Internatzonal Computer Games (Cartridges) Company Platform 1994 Sales ($m) Source. Broadcast and Cable Yearbook 1995, Industn/Pubhcations; Variety Music Parent Company 1994 Revs. ($m) Share Time Warner Warner $4,620 14% Philips Polygram $3,630 11% Sony Sony Music $3,630 11% Bertelsmann BMG/RCA $3,300 10% Thorn-EMI EMI $3,300 10% Seagram MCA $1,980 6% Others $12,540 38% Total $33,000 Source’ Financial ~mes Sega Saturn $130.0 Nintendo Ultra 64 $126.0 3DO 3DO $30.0 Atari Jaguar $16.9 Sony Playstation N/A Source: Varmt7 © TeleGeography, Inc. 1995 Major Entertainment and Publishing Companies Appendix 1: Major Entertainment and Publishing Companies 24 ! !4 9 Nemours and Co (USA) ( 8ronfman Famgy 3641 Seagram Compa ny~’~ Ltd (Canada) II ~.Matsush,ta (Japan)) ,no) MCA, inc (USA) ~_ _J -- Seagram/MCA The Seagram Classics Wine "~ MCNUmversal Merchandising ) (~ MCAEnterpnses ~) CMCA Development ~,~EnEn MCA Home "~ !fr~ ...... t Group~.) ____~ Umveral Studios Operations Group Cmeplex Odeon Corporation f~aagram Chateau &~ f~he Seagram Spirit L EstateW,nes J LAndWineGrou ( Seagram Americas Seagram Europe & ~._ Afrma The Ch~vas and Glenhvet D=wsmn Seagram Global Free eagram G]obal Brands~ ~Seagram As=a-Pacffm The Seagram Beverage Group Spencer Gifts I ~tReta,I gif~ st .... hain),.) ¢ Tropicana Dole Beverage North ~E MCAMus,c (. Sc,-RChanne, ) ntertalnment Grou~ ~CA Pubhshlngl Group~ BeveragD~le MCA Records ) Trop,cana ¢ The Pu~am Berkley Group (Includes GrossetBooks, Geffen Records I Jeremy P Tarcher, Inc, Price/ LB ..... ge Company~ Stern, Sloan, Inc, Perigee) GRP Records PreparedAugust 1995 TeleGeography, Inc, 1995 Sony Sony Corporation (Japan) Electronics Consumer A&V Products Company,,/ Components Company Bus,ness& ~’~ Industrial Systems Company Mob~le Electremcs Company ---~8roadcast Products~ Company ___~Recordlng Medm &~ Energy Company ~(~lnfoCom Products Company ,or Telecommumcabons 09 ( GeneralMag~c (Tu-Ka CellularThkyo) 55 ¯ Musm Group Sony Musm Entertammant (Labels include. Columbia Records Group, Epic RecordsI Group, TnStar MusicI Group, Sony Classical, Soho Square and Sony Wonder) ( Time Warner, Inc. 50 5O Columbia House Company ( Picture Group ) ony Television Entertalnment~ Columbm TnStar Televlsmn) .,) IT SOny Pmtures Entertainment, Inc (Includes Columbia Pictures,| nStar Pictures, Sony PicturesI Classics, Triumph Releasing Corp ) __~ Sony RetaltEntertalnment (SonyTheatres) AIhances with HBO Ole in Latin America, Viva Telews~on =n Germany, Galaxy/Austrabe in Austraga, 1000 m Scand=nawa, STAR) & HBO Asia, C~tyTV in Canada, GameShow Network/ (InteracUve 24 hour basra cable service) Prepared August 1995 © TeleGeography, Inc, 1995 d TeleGeography 1995 © Tele~eography, Inc. 1995 5 (’Amer,ca On~,ne’~ on-hne service ( MUSIC Publishing .~ ~" F~lm,Televls=onRadto (Storage Medm ) ( Mohn Fam,ly ) Bt~ortue~t~onnn Dr G Bucenus Bertelsmann AG (Germany) I¯ magaz=ne pubhshmg I" Pnntln~f~’echn~ca~ I obterature and specmhzed books I (McCall’s, Famdy C~rcle,I It°raPames I ¯ Reference/How-to/Cartography I Stern, 13rlgltte, o~ers~ MG Entertainment I" Paper producbon ¯ Clubs {- Newspaper pubhshmgI I*Serv=ces I ° Professmnal Informatmn I" Pr,ntmg ~.Spec,al Pubhshmg L~ Rehg,ous publ,sh,ng LSe~,oes ( Bantam Doubleday Dell (USA) ) ~BMG)nteract~ve~Nove)),lnc(USA) ) ( Mus,c Entertainment Deutsche I¯ RCA Records Klrch Group GLT (Luxembourg) ~_15._ _ -~ I [- 4 Reumon Telekom ! RTL(Luxembourg) -- -] i I i-- -- "-~ARD ) ~’~ NewsCorp I tI ’,1 115 149 9 24 9 LL J L VOX Film-und F ..... h GmbH .~ ’, Betnebsgesellschaft ’, = (mteract~veTV) Prepared August 1995 I, proposed 8/95 .... © TeleGeography, Inc, 1995 Lagard~re/Matra Hachette ( MCN SAT ) 998 o,,oo ~,,,o,,o)USA~ J 99 Prepste# September 1995 © TeleBeography, tnc, 1995 d © TeleGeography, Inc. 1995 Major Entertainment and Publishing Companies Professional Pearson pIc (UK) Group (.Westminster Press) Emertalnment Prepared September 1995 © TeleGeography, Inc, 1995 GISWorld, lnc C Asia Law Journal ( FT Law and Tax Information (teaching rods) ) rram,ngO~rect ) lUSA) (medical pubbsher Churchdl .~_~ he F,nancml ]3mes~ Newspaper Mmdscape educational and (Rnanolol services products) I Pearson New The ~°r°oL~°pm’St i~ ,ndependent Internatmnal 1"i3/producer) (pharmacauhcal "~ Penguin ) (USA) (- Madame Tussaud’s) Planetarium Scenerama (Netherlands) (France) ) Pearson Education Addison-Wesley Longman (Pubhsher of US school and college books.UK educatm~al materials and worldwide English language teach=ng materials) Corp Note As of October 1995,the ownership of Europe Onbne was being reshuffled Smentlfic and Med=cal El ......He,nemannSC’ence~ (~ Butterworths (Legal publishing) Butterworth- Edmons du Juns I Classeur Reed Elsewer I (France’ Legal Mad=col Group publisher) ~_... Reed E lsewer Legal Pubgshmg Gluffre (Italy Legal pubhsher) I Elsewer Tu’tl°n tCourses (Netherlands and Belgium) I JomtVen~re to pubhsh legal material in Poland Prepared August1995 ©TeleGeography, Inc,1995 Reed International plc 58 I I ~ElsevlerNV (Ne~erlands)) Professional 1 Business Reed Elsevier Consumer ~snP e LEXIS-NEXIS ReedTravel Group ~’~ (World’s largest rowder of full-text ( ~’~ online mformabon Reed Travel Group rv~ces in t~e legal, A~rhne D~vlslon ews and business (Official Alrhnes areas) .~ Guides) ~_..~ Reed Educatmnal ~" [. HTM Internatmnal ~-" Pubhsh=ng ~. Utel((nterna~ona~ I ~~ I marke~ngand I Reed ~nforma~on Congressmnal I Se~=ces Informatmn Se~=ceI I (bus~ness (USA) =nforma~on and Ma~ndale-Hubbell~ se~=ces) (law d,rectorms) Q NrstM,rke~n, Pan European Pubhshmg Company Pubhshes nine Enghsh| language product I tabloids) Mlsset (Netherlands) Reed Business Pubhshmg .____~ Cahners Pubhshmg Company (USA) Reed Exh,bbon ~’~ Compames (exhlb’aon organizers) Information Services (USA electronic pubhsh~ng) ~_~ iPC Magazines (Consumer magazines) Bonavent~ra (Netherlands magazines) __.~ Reed Consumer Books (Netherlands Newspapers) ~.~ Reed Regional Newpapers (free newpapers) Octopus and Pergamon Press Note Reed Elsewer has announced plans to sell Oagb/adunle and other consumer pul]hcahons TeleGeography 1995 © TeleGeography, Inc. 1995 General Electric/NBC General Electric Company (USA)) G e n e~a: rEvilec~s~: ~nCca Pit a~ NBCCompany ~) ~’nd~l~;~e°dm:CtS~ T e Cahnn:C~ le rP~:de: cts~ ----~NB C Desktop Video~ Time Warner, Inc .~ _~ NBC Dig=tel Pubhshzng n,a 33 ( NBC Data Network "-~mencan Mowe~ Classics ~reve Prime Network SporLsChannel ) (’" Super Channel IEuropean satelhte-dehvered ~-- general program I (Spamshlanguag channel) Chicago Denver Los Angeles M=aml NewYork L Wash=ngton, DC GEnie mult]med=a alhance comblmng onhne, (on-hne service) CD-ROM, mteracbve 13/, cable rv and t~adlt~onal broadcasting Prepared December 1995 © TeleGeography, Inc, 1995 Note In December 1995, Microsoft announced that it would invest $~20 m]lbon over 5 years to help NBC launch a new 24 hour cable news channel (MSNBC) and related on-hne service Westinghouse/CBS En~ov and Manufaeturmo Westinghouse Hanford Company~ Thermo King Corporation Savannah Rrver Company, Inc, Westinghouse Canada, Ina, Prepared August1995 ©TeleGeography. lnc.,1995 IE Wastingh0usa lectnc Corp, (USA)) Communications Westinghouse (International private Westinghouse Broadcastmg Company Group W Satelhte ~] Commumcatlens ~, ProduCt,one CBS Broadcast CBS Entertainment DNislon CBS News P~eductmns (Produces ~CBS Radmo DNISIOn’~ (0wns 8AM L.~ stations end 13 FM stations) ~) CBS, .~CBS Enterpr,ses d~st{~buto~ of CBS broadcasts) and the M~dwest L Sports Channel) ( The CBS/Fox 50 Company (Buys wdeo cassette rights for ~-, feature films) Station Partners )wns TV stations ~n Denver, Salt L~ke City) Cemer telews~on and film| roductmn facdrtles~ © TeleGeography, Inc. 1995 Major Entertainment and Publishing Companies Networks and Broadcastmo NICK-AT-NIGHT USA Networks Video and Music/Theme Parks GLOCKBUST~. ) Paramount Parks I l~eater Jomt Venture with! Sony Music and Pace Entertainment Carp ICatapult Entertamment, Inc"~ (InteractNe video games from dmfferent locations) (~rgln Commumcat, ons ) Ente~amment S~mon and Schuster Management Group, Inc 50 ( Comedy Central na (~" Jomt Vent ..... thHBO America Pay Telews~on ~Canenental Cabtews~on) ~Pay-~ MowesAu~raha ~Conus Commumcat~ons) I I 1" ( Cox Cable Cab,e~ Prepared September 1995 AIINewsChannel ) StarS,ght @TeleGeography, lnc.,l~5 Viacom TC, Co ....... t] .... Inc.) RET ..... ) T,meW ...... ,nc ~. urner Br oadcaseng"~ System, Inc (USA)...) Networks and D=stnbut~gp ~WTBSSuperstabon~’-’~ NewLmeCmema ) (~ Z Network "~ CastleRock ~)..... Television Enterbamment ( Cartoon Network ~-- .~ Turner P,ctures Worldwide, Inc. (~ T Classic >..... Movies -~Hanna-Barbera, Inc ~OartoonNetworkln"~ ...~ TurnerHome Europe y Entertainment -Cartoon Network in~ dlsb’lbut]on agreement Lat~nAmenca ) --1~ MGM TNT {n Europe ~-.~ TurnerSports TNT Lat=n America)-- [,. Programming, Inc ./ I Turner & Cartoon Network in Asia Pacific Saorts _.~able News Network~ Club, L Interna’aonal ..) Atlanta’Braves CNN A~rport Ne~ork Hawks Basketball, ~NN Interacbve ¯ CNN 0nhne Atlanta Hawks, LP ¯ CNN Eiec~omc pubhshmg ~CNN AtWork Goodwdl Games na LMC Southeast Sports, Inc n a I n a Scripps Howard Production, Inc ( SportSeuth Network, Ltd ) Prepared September 1995 © TeleGeography, Inc, 1995 Note. In September 1995,Time Warner proposed to buy all of TBS Mr. Turner would then become wce chairman of Time Warner TBS d TeleGeography 1995 © TeleGeography, Inc. 1995 UNITED STATES ANTITRUST AND ACCESS TO THE INFORMATION HIGHWAY by Marc G. Schildkraut T he United States antitrust laws guard against restraints on the competitive process in the hopes of delivering to the American consumer the highest quality products at the lowest prices. Under Federal legislation, dating from the 19th century, the U.S. courts have identified a host of such restraints that may undermine competition. Some of these restraints can limit access to the information superhighway, and ultimate- ly affect the price and quality of technology. This tour of antitrust and the information superhighway begins with a review of the basic antitrust laws. As we sha~ see, the courts have developed several methods of safe- guarding the price and quality of products and services. Under the right circumstances, these safeguards can be applied to ensure equal access to the information highway. We will then visit one of the key thoroughfares on the infor- mation superhighway, a computer’s operating system. Denial of appropriate access to operating systems may severely handicap certain competitors. Antitrust laws also might be used to provide such competitors with the access they need to compete. !. Restraints of Trade than necessary to serve the main purpose of that contract. Moreover, if the contract’s only purpose was to restrain competition, there would be nothing to justify it and the courts could condemn it without any in-depth analysis, In more modern terminology, the courts would bar an arrange- ment if its anticompetitive effects outweighed its procom- petitive effects. Forcing the courts into evaluating this balance for every restraint of trade would consume a great deal of court resources. So the courts developed two kinds of screens. First, for some sorts of restraints, the courts have developed threshold criteria below which no anticompetitive restraint is plausible. The courts will permit such restraints without in- depth analysis. Exclusive dealing arrangements offer a good example. An exclusive dealing arrangement is an agreement under which a buyer agrees to purchase products or services from only one supplier. Such arrangements can have both procompetitive and anticompetitive effects. The arrange- ment can be anticompetitive because it prevents suppliers from competing for buyers. The arrangement can be pro- competitive because it helps the supplier and buyer coordi- nate their promotions of a particular product. A. Contracts, Combinations and Conspiracies To guard against anticompetitive restraints, the courts and antitrust enforcement agencies must first identify which restraints are anticompetitive. The courts first grappled with this identification process in turn-of-the-century Sherman Act cases. [This act, adopted in 1890, was America’s first major antitrust law.) Section 1 of the Act rejects all con- tracts, combinations and conspiracies that restrain trade. Because many arrangements between companies restrain trade to some extent, the courts have interpreted the statute as only prohibiting those arrangements that "unrea- sonably" restrain trade. But what is an "unreasonable" restraint? The courts have answered the question by devel- oping what is now known as the "rule of reason." One of the first and best formulations of the rule of reason was offered by Judge (later Supreme Court Justice) Taft in 1898. According to Taft, a restraint was lawful if it was merely ancillary to the main purpose of a legitimate contract. 1 A restraint was unlawful, however, if it was broader Courts will weigh these procompetitive and anticompetitive effects if necessary, but it is not always necessary. The courts have found they can avoid balancing if the seller accused of exclusive dealing has a small market share or if the arrangement itself covers only a small part of the mar- ket. The courts reason that under the circumstances, the parties could not have entered into the exclusive deal for anticompetitive reasons. And even if they did, the arrange- ment could not have an anticompetitive effect. Marc G. Schildkraut, a Partner at the Washington, D.C., law firm of Howrey & Simon, specializes in antitrust law. Before joining Howrey & Simon, Mr Schildkraut was in charge of the Federal Trade Commission’s investigation of Microsoft Corporation. Second, based on experience, the courts have found some restraints (called per se restraints) to be so pernicious that they may be condemned without analysis. Horizontal per se restraints--involving agreements among competitors-- include price fixing, market division agreements, and group boycotts. A vertical per se restraint involving agreements between a supplier and buyer would, for example, prevent a seller from dic- tating the buyer’s resale price (i.e., "resale price maintenance"). © TeleGeography, Inc. 1995 United States Antitrust and Access to the Information Superhighway B. Monopolization While most antitrust cases involve coordinated action by several firms, single-firm monopolizing conduct can also violate the antitrust laws. Section 2 of the Sherman Act governs such conduct. As interpreted by the courts, not all monopolies or acts in furtherance of a monopoly are illegal. Just as in the case of joint conduct, the courts do not want to discourage efficiency-enhancing behavior, Thus, for instance, it is perfectly legal for a firm to achieve a monop- oly by offering better products or lower prices. If, however, a dominant firm’s conduct is "predatory" or "exclusionary," the conduct may be illegal. To determine whether the con- duct is exclusionary and hence anticompetitive, the courts have developed variants of the rule-of-reason test. Under one formulation, it is unlawful for a dominant firm to act in a way that tends to impair the opportunities of rivals and either does not further competition on the merits or does so in an unnecessarily restrictive way.2 C. Acquisitions Another key U.S. competition law is the Clayton Act. It gov- erns the antitrust analysis of acquisitions. In the case of acquisitions, the courts have a very low threshold of toler- ance. This stems from the words of Section 7 of the Clayton Act, which condemns acquisitions that may substantially lessen competition, rather than acquisitions that actually restrain trade. According to Clayton Act jurisprudence, an acquisition is unlawful if it would result in a dominant firm that might unilaterally raise prices or in an unduly concen- trated market where several firms might raise prices jointly. Courts do not just look at market shares in assessing an acquisition. They look at a host of other factors. One of the most important is ease of entry. If entry is easy, market con- centration is irrelevant. If firms in such a market tried to raise price above competitive levels, other firms would enter the market, forcing prices back down. Interestingly, even though courts weigh procompetitive and anticompetitive effects of restraints of trade and monopoliz- ing conduct, they will not typically attempt to strike a simi- lar balance in the case of an acquisition. Although this may be changing, courts have typically not recognized increases in efficiencies arising from an acquisition as a factor in assessing the competitive effects of acquisitions. !!. The Antitrust Laws and the Information Superhighway A. Forerunners of the Information Superhighway To understand the issues which information networks raise for antitrust enforcers, it is good idea to step back and think about earlier precedents. These forerunners offer some opportunities to reason by analog, to the present. Consider first the English language. English-speaking peo- ple use this language to communicate. We thus could view the English language as a network and English speakers and writers as participants in that network, using the network to convey ideas. There is, however, an important by-product of this English communication: improvements in the net- work. Speakers and writers invent new words and phrases that more efficiently convey ideas; people reading and hear- ing the words retain more of these words, which they in turn can use to convey their ideas more efficiently; they develop new media to transmit the ideas, including writing and elec- tronic media, which again reinforces the importance of the English language as a communication network. These improvements, some an unintended result of the simple act of communicating, are known as "network externalities." A hypothetical hints at the importance of antitrust in regu- lating networks.3 Suppose a single firm had a copyright to the modern English language. The firm decides to expand into the book publishing business. To give itself an advan- tage, it denies the use of modern English to other publish- ers. Will these publishers switch to Middle English? Will they switch to Esperanto? Or will they just go out of busi- ness? The English network is so vast that it would be extremely difficult for publishers to use anything but English to address an English-speaking audience. Thus, our English- language monopolist could take advantage of the externali- Box I Enforcement of the U.S. Antitrust Laws In many countries, a single antitrust agency enforces the antitrust laws, not so in the United States, where there are two federal agencies, multiple state agencies, and private plaintiffs, as well The two federal agencies are the Antitrust Division of the Department of Justlce and the Federal Trade Commission. The Antitrust D~vision enforces antitrust laws by bnng/ng suit/n federal court The D~wslon can bring both ciwl and criminal actions. The FTC, on the other hand, has only c~wl authority It also has its own admimstrative court to enforce the antitrust laws. In addition to these federal agencies, state attorneys general can enforce the federal antitrust laws by suing in federal court Most states a/so have their own antitrust laws, which attorney generals can attempt to enforce in state courts. In addition, private parties injured by a restraint can file a court action in federal and many state courts If the plaintiff prevails, In many instances, they may obtain awards that are three t~mes the actual damages suffered. TeleGeography 1995 © TeleGeography, Inc. 1995 ties that have built up in the English-language network to dominate another field, book publishing. Not all networks are as efficient as the English language. Sometimes networks survive despite seemingly superior options. For example, the keyboard on which I am typing this article has a row of keys on the left side below the num- ber keys that spell out "QWERT~." The story, perhaps apocryphal, is that early typewriter manufacturers arranged the keys as inefficiently as possible to slow down typists who were typing too fast and jamming prototype typewriters. Today, many typists could type twice as fast if the keys were more efficiently arranged, and modern keyboards do not jam. Yet typists con- tinue to use the QWERTY arrangement. The main reason is that there are now tens of millions of QWERTY keyboards and the vast majority of typists are trained to use them. Because most typ- ists do not bring their own keyboards to work, the benefit of retraining typists for more efficient arrangements is simply not worth the cost. In other words, more efficient keyboards cannot over- The telephone system is a more modern analogy to an infor- mation superhighway. And, as one might expect, denial of access to parts of the telephone system offered a substan- tial competitive advantage to those that have such access. This issue arose in the 1980s case of MCI Communications v. AT&T.6 MCI was then a small long-distance carrier that needed access to the local telephone networks to complete its customers’ long-distance calls. AT&T was the dominant long-distance carrier and was the sole local carrier in much of the country. t HERE A DIFFERENCE THE ONLY BRIDGE IN TOWN AND THE ONLY INFORMA- TION SUPERHIGHWAY ACROSS AMERICA? J come the barrier to entry created by the network externali- ties of the installed base.4 B. Antitrust Meets the Superhighway One of the earliest highways across America was the railroad system. In some places, including St. Louis, Missouri, access to the railroad system required using bridges to cross rivers. In the early part of this century, an association of railroads controlled the only railroad terminal in St. Louis and the only nearby bridges across the Mississippi river. The association denied competing railroads access to its termi- nal and bridges. Under that arrangement, non-association railroads could not compete unless they built their own bridges and terminals. If it was difficult to build such facili- ties-that is, if it was difficult to enter--the association might be able to insulate itself from competition for an extended period. In 1912, the case of the unfriendly railroad association reached the Supreme Court in United States v. Terminal Railroad Ass’n.s After examining the likely effects of the denial of access to the bridges and terminals, the Court held there were circumstances under which a firm or firms could not deny access to facilities. According to the court, such denial would violate the antitrust laws if access was essen- tial to competition. Because the non-association railroads could not compete without access, the Court ordered the Association to grant access to competing railroads. Thus, the "essential facility doctrine" was born. After determining that AT&T had monopoly power over local telephone service in many areas, the court concluded that AT&T could not refuse to connect MCI to its local net- work. Such a refusal was unlawful, according to the court, "because a monopolist’s control over an essential facility can extend monopoly power... from one market [local service] to another [long distance service]." The court set out four elements that estab- lished liability under the "essential facil- ity" doctrine: I) a competitor’s inabili- ty to duplicate the facility; 2) a monopolist’s control over an essential facility; 3) the denial of the use of the facility; 4) the feasibility of providing access to the facility. The facts before the Court met this standard because MCI could not duplicate AT&T’s local telephone network; AT&T had a monopoly share of the local telephone market; AT&T was denying MCI access to the local telephone exchanges; and AT&T could easily provide access to the exchanges. Notice how this four-part test is consistent with the general monopolization standard: AT&T’s conduct impaired the opportunities of rivals that could only compete if they had access to AT&T’s essential facility. Such denial of access was unnecessarily restrictive because providing access was feasi- ble. As the recent merger enforcement actions discussed in Box 2 demonstrate, the antitrust authorities remain con- cerned about unequal access to local telephone lines. C. Access to Computer Operating Systems Is there a difference between the only bridge in town and the only information superhighway across America? What if a single firm controlled all the toll booths onto the superhigh- way? Let’s consider a computer operating system (OS) as an example. An OS offers a practical way for applications and peripheral equipment to communicate with the central microprocessor of the computer. Without the ability to com- municate with the OS, an application cannot run. Suppose that an OS monopolist also produced applications and suppose the monopolist could find a way to deny access to the OS to its application competitors. Under such cir- © TeleGeography, Inc. 1995 United States Antitrust and Access to the Information Superhighway Box 2. Applying Antitrust to International Telecom Deals While antitrust authorities have paid a good deal of attention to access to the information superhighway, they have not forgotten that telephone lines are the primary means of accessing the highway In two recent mat- ters, the Antitrust Division has acted to safeguard access to the telephone lines of foreign countries. In one case, British Telecom proposed to purchase a significant share of MCI and to form a joint venture, known as Concert, to provide telecommunications services world wide. In another case, Sprint, France T~l~com and Deutsche Telekom proposed a joint venture (Phoemx) to provide global telecommunications ser- vices In both cases, the Division worried that the joint ventures would obtain unfair access to the local net- works of the foreign partners. To proceed with the venture, the parties agreed to terms that would prevent the ventures from discriminating against other international carriers For example, under the orders agreed to by the parties, the joint ventures cannot provide certain services until competitors have the opportunity to provide similar services in the home market of the foreign partners The parties also must publish the rates and conditions under which they gain access to the networks of the foreign partners. The ventures are also prohibited from gaining access to networks of the foreign partners that is superior to the access of other ~nter- national carriers. Approval of the agreements by the U.S. District Court in Washington, DC, will mean that, as with the 1984 AT&T Consent Decree, the courts, rather than the FCC, may take the lead in setting the terms under which several major ~nternational carriers may serve the US-Europe market until at least 2001. Each decree gives the U.S District Court continuing oversight jurisdiction for at least hve years Details of the BT/MCI agreement can be found in Vol. 59, Federal Register, June 27, 1994, pp. 33009~ 33024. The Spnnt/FT/DT agreement is still being reviewed by the courts. For details of the agreement,Jsee VoL 60, Federal Register, August 24, 1995, pp. 44049-44078 cumstances, the OS monopolist has much in common with our English-language monopolist. By denying publishers access to modern English, the monopolist could extend its English monopoly to book publishing. Similarly, by denying application developers access to the lingua franca of com- puters, the OS monopolist might be able to extend its monopoly to the application market. Now consider the QWERTY keyboard analogy. The OS monopolist need not have even produced the best OS. Over time, the OS’s dominance increases because of net- work externalities. Application developers produce software that works on the OS. Users buy those applications and computers that run those applications. A different OS would require different applications and perhaps even dif- ferent hardware. Users are not likely to dump their software and hardware investment over the side just because anoth- er OS offers marginal advantages. There are several ways that an OS monopolist could deny application developers access. First, software developers communicate with the OS through the Application Programmer Interface (API)--a set of proprietary coding rules--published by the OS developer. The OS developer could delay publishing new API specifications to give itself a head start. It might even exclude some of the APIs from the published version to give itself a perpetual advantage. These non-published APIs are known as "secret calls." An important part of the process of developing a new ver- sion of an OS is the beta (pre-release) testing process. Application developers are eager to be part of the process so that they can get a head start developing new versions of their applications that work with the new version of the QS. An OS developer could give its applications an advantage by barring certain application competitors from the beta testing process. Finally, a truly hell-bent OS developer could deliberately create incompatibilities between the new version of the OS and the applications of its competitors. It could add code to the OS, for instance, that identified competitors’ applica- tions and then refused to run them. As described in Box 3, competitors have accused Microsoft of using some of these tactics to deny them equal access to Microsoft’s operating systems. Thus, we can see how a court might apply the essential facil- ity doctrine to an OS. First, application developers could not duplicate a competitively viable OS because users are tightly tied to the existing standard by their investment in software, hardware, and training (even if like the QWERTY keyboard, the OS is not the most efficient system available). Second, our hypothetical assumes that a monopolist con- trols the essential facility, the OS. Third, the monopolist has denied the "use" of the facility by prohibiting access to the beta program or by failing to publish or delaying publication of new APIs. The monopolist also may have denied access 47 TeleGeography 1995 © TeleGeographyo Inc. 1995 Box 3. Microsoft’s Antitrust Battles Round 1. In early 1990, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) began Jnvestigat~ng the competitive practices of Microsoft Corporation. Once the investi- gation became public, many of MJcrosoft’s competitors began complaining about a variety of Microsoft’s prac- tices. Microsoft developed the operating system, Microsoft Disk Operating System or MS-DOS, now used on over 70% of the world’s 180 million personal computers. In the late 1980s, another developer, D~gital Research, developed a competing operating system, DR-DOS, that was compatJble w~th applications written for MS- DOS. DR-DOS also contained many features not found in the version of MS-DOS then available Nevertheless, DR-DOS had considerable trouble selling its OS. Most operating systems came bundled with new personal computers. Thus, the main direct pur- chaser of the OS were the computer manufacturers, also known as original equipment manufacturers (OEMs), whJch licensed the operating system from the OS developer. Under a typical l~cense, an OEM would pay the OS developer each time the OEM installed the OS on a PC DR-DOS had difficulty licensing its OS to many OEMs because of M/crosoft’s l~censing program. One of M~crosoft’s OEM IJcens~ng programs was known as the "per processor" ficense Microsoft required "per processor" l~censees to pay a royalty each time the OEM sold a PC, even if the PC had a d~fferent operat- ing system installed. Thus, if a per processor ficensee wanted to install DR-DOS on a PC, it would still have to pay Microsoft for Jts OS. This was a substantial disincentive for the OEM to ~nstall DR-DOS The per processor license had an ~mpact similar to an exclusive dealing arrangement. As a result of either the exclusJve dealing or per processor arrangement, OS competitors of Microsoft could not compete for OEM accounts. In an exclusive dealing arrangement, the contract directly foreclosed such competition. In the case of the per processor arrangement, the OEM had to pay twice to install a M~crosoft competltor’s OS, creating the same foreclosing effect as an exclu- sive dealing contract. ApplJcation developers that competed with Microsoft had a d~fferent complaint. They sa~d that Microsoft provided information about the development of the OS to M~crosoft’s own application dJvis~on before they would prowde the same ~nformation to competing applJcation developers. They argued that to compete on a level playing field, they needed equal access to the development of the operating system. This became more ~mportant after the introduction of Microsoft’s graphical interface for applications pro- grams, known as Windows. To be competitive, appfi- cation developers had to get new Windows applJca- t~ons to market as quickly as Microsoft got its applica- tions to the market. In essence, the competing devel- opers were arguing that Microsoft’s OS was an essen- tial facifity and they were entitled to equal access to Jmportant OS information. The FTC was never able to resolve the per processor claim and never reached the essential facility claim The FTC is composed of five commissioners that vote on enforcement actions. One of the five commissioners was unable to vote because of a financial conflict. The other four commJss~oners continually spl~t 2-2 on the per processor claim. Round 2. Unable to resolve the matter in any way, the FTC transferred the matter to the Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice (DO J). After additional investigation, the DOJ and Microsoft entered into a legal settlement, known as a consent decree, under which Microsoft agreed to abandon the per processor arrangement However, the matter was not settled without some fireworks. Several anonymous competi- tors attempted to derail the settlement, which required rewew by U.S. D~str~ct Court, because ~t d~d not address their competitive concerns. They complained again that Microsoft’s OS diwslon was giving unfair access to Microsoft’s appficat~on developers. They also complained that Microsoft was unfairly pre- announcing its own products ("vaporware") to stifle the sale of competing products. The D~stnet Court judge agreed with the complainers and refused to accept the settlement between the DOJ and MJcrosoft. However, an appellate court concluded that the District Court had overstepped Its authority and accepted the order that banned the per processor arrangement. Round ~. In I995, Microsoft proposed to buy Intuit. Intuit produced Quicken, the leading checkbook-man- agement program. Microsoft produced Microsoft Money, the number two checkbook-management pro- gram. The two firms together controlled the vast majority of the checkbook-management software mar- ket. M~crosoft recognized that the DOJ was very likely to challenge the acquisition as a violation of Section 7 of the Clayton Act. To avoid this challenge, M~crosoft agreed to sell Microsoft Money to Novell, Inc., another major software company (it owns WordPerfect) if it were able to buy Intuit M~crosoft reckoned that with the sale of Money, there would be no increase/n con- © TeleC, eography, Inc. 1995 United States Anbtrust and Access to the Information Superhighway Cra~gMcCaw ) I AT&T 30.1 27.6 Teledes~c Corp. W~lham Gates I11 30.1 3-4 ide Wireless Network 24.6 Microsoft Corp. (USA) Paul Allen I 10 15.4 t8.6 Wang Laboratories ) ~" UUNet ) ("Dorllng Kindersley J L. (UK. Pubhshing) Prepared December 1995 © Te]eGeegraphy, Inc, 1995 1 flnsight Information program for testing of interactive broadband neWvork ~" and MITV (Microsoft Interactive Television) Alcatel SEL AO GTE Corp. Sprint Corp. AT&T Hong Kong Telecom Sw=ss Telecom PTT Austrian PFr Korea Telecom Tele-Communlcations Inc. Belgacom KPN Telecom Portugal BT Matav Telstra Corp. of Austraha Cox NTT Unisys Corp. Commumcations Pacific Teles=s V=acom Cable Deutsche Telekom Rogers Cablesystems Wharf Cable Ltd France Telecom SBC Communications ...and many others Dreamworks.~SKG icrosoft Online Services Partnersh=p~,~ (The Microsoft Network) Net~vork Services Alliances PictureTel NTT ~Vledia Partners for Microsoft Interactive Television (MITV) CUC International Inc. Discovery Commumcateons Inc. ESPN, Enterprises Inc. Foote Cone & Beldlng; HSN Interactive Interactzve Network Inc. Interfilm Technologies Inc. The bghtspan Partnership Inc Medio Multzrnedia Inc.; Starwave Corp. Time Warner Interactive Tribune Interactive Network Services United States Postal Service centratlon in the checkbook-management software market. Microsoft did not reckon with the reactlon of the DOJ. In a virtually unprecedented move, the Department challenged the acqu~s~bon in court despite Microsoft’s promise to divest itself of the overlap that caused the Clayton Act problem The Department argued that the proposed divestiture was not adequate because M~crosoft continued to have a royalty interest in the sale of Money and that M~crosoft was not mak- ing a complete d~vestiture of everything that ~t ought to divest to make Money a success in someone else’s hands. Underlying the Department’s challenge, how- ever, was probably a feeling that no one other than Microsoft could compete successfully with Quicken. Rather than hght a court battle w~th the Department, Microsoft abandoned the acquisition. Round 4. Microsoft introduced Windows 95, its new graphlcal OS for the PC, ~n August I995. M~crosoft ~ncluded In W~ndows 95, a quick and easy way for users to sign up wlth M~crosoft’s new on-line service, the Microsoft Network (MSN). Prior to the introduc- tion, America Onhne, Prodigy, CompuServe and other on-fine competitors complained that this would give Microsoft an unfair advantage with the tens of millions of users that will buy Windows 95. The competitors" argument seemed to be based on the concept that Windows 95 is an essential facility and they are enti- tled to equal access to that facility (e.g., each on-hne compebtor ~s enbtled to equal point-and-click access with their own icon in Windows 95) Of course, they would have to convince the Department that a sign-up procedure ~n Windows 95 really is essenbal to such competition. Microsoft would argue that there are many other ways to attract on-hne users, including magazine advertising, direct mail and bundling agreements with parbcular OEMs (which are not precluded by Windows 95). To collect more information about these/ssues, the DOJ issued a subpoena for documents to M~crosoft. It later withdrew its subpoena and stated that it had no immediate plans to stop Microsoft from introducing W~ndows 95 but was continuing to invesbgate Round 5. Concurrent with its investlgat~on of Mzcrosoft’s MSN sign-up procedure w~th~n Windows 95, the Department is also reviewing complaints from OEMs that a Windows 95 hcense requires the OEMs to waive their right to enforce certain of their copyrights and patents. This investigabon appears to be pro- ceeding at a slower pace than the MSN invesbgation. --M.G.S. TeleGeography 1995 © TeleGeography, Inc. 1995 by creating deliberate incompatibilities. Fourth, the OS monopolist is clearly capable of offering the access it has denied. Most essential facilities have been more tangible than oper- ating systems. They are bridges, telephone lines, electric lines, etc. An OS, by comparison, is a piece of intellectual property (like the English language). This is, nevertheless, probably not a bar to the use of the essential facility stan- dard. For instance, in a 1945 case involving the Associated Press, the Supreme Court held that the AP could not exclude competitors of members from access to the copyrighted sto- ries transmitted on the association’s newswire service.7 More recently in 1991, a lower court held that Bellsouth had transgressed the essential facility doctrine by refusing to supply Donnelley with proprietary listings it needed to com- pete in the directory business.8 According to the court, there was no reason that the essential facility doctrine could not apply "to information wrongfully withheld." Courts have also found that the deliberate creation of a technological incompatibility can satisfy the exclusionary element of a monopolization claim. According to one lower court, it would be illegal for a dominant firm to "design for an illegal purpose (such as effectuating a tie)... [with an] intent [that] was solely an illegal one.’’9 However, because the courts are wary about deterring important technological innovations, they will not condemn a technological incom- patibility unless it is clear that the incompatibility was not a by-product of some "technologically beneficial results." 1 o Several cases have held that unless the monopolist inten- tionally creates an incompatibility between its new product and the products of competitors, it is under no duty to pre- disclose technical information about its product. The courts worry that undue scrutiny of a monopolist’s new product introductions would stifle innovation. Thus, for example, when Kodak introduced a new camera, a lower court held that Kodak was under no obligation to predisclose the spec- ifications to that camera so that competing camera produc- ers could develop cameras that worked with the film designed for the new Kodak camera.1~ Because the Supreme Court has never ruled on this predisclosure issue, it is not clear whether an OS developer has the obligation to provide new APIs or access to beta tests to application developers. D. Other Legal Avenues to Access An antitrust suit is not the only means to ensure access to the information highway. Court rulings limiting patents, copyrights and trade secrets also can have a profound effect on competition. A leading case in this area is Sega Enterprises Ltd. v. Accolade Inc. 12 Sega produced a video game console, but did not publish the API that game devel- opers needed to produce games for the console. To produce such games, Accolade "reverse assembled" the Sega con- sole OS. Sega sued, arguing that reverse assembly required the copying of Sega’s OS code. The court concluded, how- ever, that such copying was "fair use" under the copyright act, IV. The Future In the future, the courts are likely to face many questions on the antitrust rules of the road. Most will not involve simple access to the information superhighway, but the speed lim- its that new competitors face. If incumbent firms controlling key technology can can drive as fast as they wish while set- ting low speed limits for the competition, we may see the antitrust equivalent of a multi-car pile up. One can only hope that the courts react accordingly, fostering access for everyone without unduly reducing the speed limits for those with the most rewed-up technology engines. ¯ Notes 1. United States v. Addyston Pipe & Steel Co., 85 F 271, affirmed, 175 U.S. 211 (1899). 2. Aspen Skiing Co. v. Aspen Highlands Skiing Corp., 472 U.S. 585, 605 n.68 (1985). 3. Th~s is an adaptation of a hypothetical offered by Scott McNeaiy, the Chief Executive Officer of Sun Microsystems, Inc In Mr, McNealy’s hypothetical, Bill Gates, the CEO of M~crosoft, was the owner of the English language. 4. This example was presented by the law firm of Wilson, Sonsini, Goodrich & Rosati ~n its Amici Curie memorandum in opposition to the proposed final judgment ~n United States v. Microsoft Corporation, Civ. Action No. 94-1564 (D.C., D.C. 1994). That proposed judgment can be found at vol. 59, Federal Register, p.42, 845 (1994). The judgment was rejected by the District Court (see U.S v. Microsoft Corp., 159 ER.D. 318 D.D.C. 1995). But on appeal the District Court was reversed and the case was reassigned to a new judge. See U.S v Microsoft Corp., 56 E 3rd 1448. (D.C. Cir. 1995). 5 224 US. 383 (1912). 6. See 708 E2d 1081 (1983). 7. 326 U.S. 1 (1945). 8. Bellsouth Advertising & Publishing Corp v Donnelley Information Publishing, 719 F. Supp. 1551 (S.D Fla 1988), aff’d, 933 E2d 952 (1 lth Cir 1991). 9 Transamenca Computer Products v. IBM, 481 E Supp 965, 1003 (N.D. Cal.), aft’d, 698 E2d 1377 (gth Or, 1979) 10. Response of Carolina, Inc. v. Leasco Response, Inc., 537 E2d 1307, 1330 (5th Cir. 1976). 11. Berkey Photo, Inc. v Eastman Kodak Co, 603 F2d 263 (2d Or, 1979), cert. denledo 444 U.S I093 (1980) 12. 977 E2d 1510 (9thCir 1992). © TeleGeography, Inc. 1995 Applying EU Competition Rules to Telecoms and Multimedia Alliances APPLYING EU COMPETITION RULES TO TELECOMS AND MULTIMEDIA ALLIANCES by Bernard E. Amory and Katrina C. Cochran The famous 1987 Green outlined the basic now Paper policy of the European Union (EU)--then the European Communities--on telec,,o.mmunicati,,ons.1 Though the popularity of the word multimedia was still far in the future, the telecommunications indus- try (highly regulated and characterized by state- ownership) was already converging with the computer industry (typified by private ownership and fierce competi- tion). Such convergence raised the issue of applying EU competition rules, beginning with the Green Paper, to both sectors. The Green Paper aimed to liberalize and harmonize the telecommunications sector across the member states. Most of its proposals have now been implemented: the market for terminal equipment was liberalized in 1988;2 all telecommunications services except public voice telephony were liberalized by a 1990 Directive;3 and, also in 1990, measures were adopted to foster open and non-discrimina- tory access to the network infrastructures, which could have otherwise remained under monopoly control.4 But regulatory reform seems to be a never-ending process. The Commission has now adopted the 1991 action plan on Europe’s path to the Global Information Society.5 This plan addresses the new opportunities offered by multimedia and attempts to solve some of the regulatory problems resulting from the expected convergence of telecommunications, information technologies, and publishing and broadcasting sectors. Further, the EU has also decided that the telecom- munications market will be fully liberalized in 1998,6 with the elimination of the remaining monopolies on infrastruc- tures and public voice telephony. Also by 1998, legislation on audio-visual services will be adopted to promote the cre- ation of pan-European multimedia services. Competition Rules and Telecommunications The Green Paper proposed continued and strict application of EC competition rules to telecommunications. In reality, prior to 1987, there had been very few cases applying Articles 85 and 86 of the EC Treaty to telecommunications. (Article 85 prohibits agreements restrictive of competition, and Article 86 prohibits abuses of dom- inant position.) The landmark deci- sion of the European Court of Justice in ltafian Repubfic v. Commission,7 confirming that state-owned telecommunications operators were subject to the application of the competition rules, was a notable exception. Subsequently, the Commission issued Guidelines8 explaining how the competition rules would be applied to this sector. Following the adoption of the Green Paper, the Commission’s interventions mostly concerned loose cooper- ation agreements between telecoms operators. These were generally cleared subject to conditions intended to ensure that operators with monopolies on network infrastructures did not discriminate in favor of their joint venture against third party service suppliers that were dependent on them for access to the networks. Infonet provides a good exam- ple of such a clearance.9 The Commission also used its pow- ers to put an end to old anti-competitive practices, such as price fixing in relation to leased circuits and refusals to pro- vide access to infrastructure. 1 o Strategic Alliances It was only in 1993, when the EC’s regulatory framework and its future development became clearer, that operators began forming major structural alliances. The first alliance to come before the Commission involved BT and MCI;11 BT purchased 20% of MCI, and BT and MCI formed Concert, a joint venture owned 75.1% by BT and 24.9% by MCI, to provide international value-added services. In its decision, the Commission indicated that the formation of Concert would improve the provision of services in the EU by com- bining BT and MCI technologies and through the construc- tion of a genuinely seamless international network with its own switching, call processing, signalling, databases and software. Another important factor in the Commission’s decision to clear the BTiMCI alliance was that the U.K. and U.S. telecommunications markets are both highly competitive, and BT and MCI are subject to regulations in their home markets to prevent cross-subsidization or discrimination. Bernard Amory is a partner in the interna- tional law firm of Dechert Price & Rhoads, resident in Brussels. Katrina Cochran is a graduate of the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy. The Commission could not take a similar position when it was asked to review Atlas, a later joint venture between France T61~com (FT) and Deutsche Telekom (DT), as the French and German markets are still characterized by monopolies on network infrastruc- ture and the provision of voice teie- TeleGeography 1995 © TeleGeography, Inc. 1995 phony. Although the matter is still being investigated, as is the cooperation between Sprint, FT and DT, the Commission stated, on a preliminary basis, that Atlas raised problems of compatibility with the competition rules.12 In October 1995, however, after FT and DT agreed to exclude their data transmission subsidiaries from Atlas until 1998 and to make certain other concessions to foster competition, the Commission indicated that it would approve the Atlas ven- ture. 13 The third major strategic alliance involving European opera- tors is Unisource, owned by Dutch, Swiss, Spanish and Swedish national carriers. Commission competition author- ities have not yet been formally notified of the Unisource alliance, but they have nevertheless started an investiga- tion. Multimedia Alliances European telecom operators and media companies are also forming strategic alliances. Because of the nature of the proposed arrangements, such ventures have, so far, fallen under the Merger Control Regulation.14 The Commission is concerned about possible market dominance. In November 1994, the Commission refused to clear a pay television joint venture (called MSG) between Deutsche Telekom and two media companies, Bertelsmann and Kirch. 15 Deutsche Telekom is the leading cable TV operator in Germany, and Bertelsmann and Kirch have widespread music and video activities and operate the only pay-TV channel in Germany. The Commission was, therefore, con- cerned that the joint venture would create or aggravate a dominant position in three markets. MSG would obtain a dominant position on the market for administrative and technical services for pay-TV; Bertelsmann and Kirch would obtain a dominant position on the German-speaking pay-TV market and the existing dominant position of Deutsche Telekom on the cable infrastructure market would be pro- tected, and thus strengthened. The EU Competition Commissioner declared that "the Commission (was) com- mitted to leave future markets in the multi-media sector open to competition ... television without frontiers can only be accomplished if program suppliers from other Member States are not faced with prohibitive entry barriers in national markets." In 1995, the Commission rejected another proposed multi- media joint venture involving telecommunications operators and media companies, this one involving the Danish and Norwegian national telecommunications operators and Kinnevik, a Swedish media group.16 The proposed Nordic Satellite Distribution would have distributed satellite televi- sion programs in the Nordic region. The Commission decid- ed to block the transaction because it would seriously harm competition in satellite, cable and pay-TV services. Indeed, the joint venture would have had the ability to control most of the satellite transponder capacity in the region, and two of the partners, the Danish and Norwegian national telecommunications operators, were already the largest cable-TV operators in their respective countries. For the time being, the Commission is striving to balance various interests, recognizing that multimedia developments may require new forms of cooperation while seeking to pre- vent market dominance and barriers to entry. ¯ Notes 1. Communication of the Commission, Towards a dynamic European economy, Green Paper on the development of the Common Market for telecommu- nications serwces and equipment, COM(87) 290 of 30/06/1987 (hereafter the "Green Paper") 2 Commission D~rective of 16/05/1988 on competition in the markets for telecommunications terminal equipment, O.J. No. L 131 of 27/5/1988, as amended. 3. Commission Directive of 28/06/1990 on competition in the markets for telecommunications services, O.J. No. L. 192 of 24/07/1990, as amended. 4~ Th~s is known as open network provision ("ONP’). See notably the ONP Framework Directive, Council D~rective of 20/06/1990 on the establishment of the intern!l market for telecommumcations services through the implementation of open network provision, O.J. No L. 192 of 24/07/1990 5. Communication of the Commission COM (94) 347 final of 19/07/1994 6 See Draft commission Directive amending Commission Directwe 90/388/EEC, regarding the implementation of full competition in telecommunication markets (not yet published ~n O.J.). 7. ECR 1985, 873, known as the British Telecommunications case. 8. Guidelines on the apphcation of EEC Competition rules m the telecommunications sector, O.J. No. C233 of 6/9/1991. 9. O.J No. C7 of 11/01/1992. 10. See for example CEPT Leased Lines, Bull. EC 1/2 1990 p. I9 and Bel~an Leased Lines, Bull. EC 1/2 1990 p. 19. 11. BT-MCI, Commission Decision of 27/07/1994, O.J. No L233 of 27/00/1994 12. Press Release IP/95/524 of 24/05/1995 13 See Financial Times, October 17, 1995, p 3. 14. Council Regulation (EEC) No. 4064/89 on the control of concentrations between undertakings, O.J. No. L. 395 of 30/12/1989. 15. MSG Media Service, Commission Decision of 9/I 1/1994, O J No. L 364 of 31/12/1994. 16 Nordic SateLlite Distribution. See notice in O.J. of No C53 of 4/03/1995 Decision not yet published © TeleGeography, Inc. 1995 The Internet Becomes an Industry THE INTERNET BECOMES AN INDUSTRY by Zachary M. Schrag The Internet the economic mainstream joined on Wednesday, August 9, 1995, when Netscape Communications Corp.’s newly issued shares became one of the hottest stocks on Wall Street. The com- pany s underwriters originally planned to offer 3.5 million shares at $14 but were so hounded by inter- ested investors they increased the offering size to 5 million shares and doubled the price. Even so the market quickly bid up the stock to over $70 a share, valuing the company at over $2 billion, though the price has since fallen back somewhat. While Netscape’s initial public offering made Wall Street his- tory, it was but one of several Internet-related offerings in 1995 with large price gains. Fortunes are being made overnight as investors try to buy (and sell) slices of the Internet. But to join in this activity, one must have a work- ing outline of who owns the Internet today. The Internet is most often defined as hardware, as "a net- work of networks," i.e., millions of computers linked togeth- er by telephone lines. It can also be seen as software: a basic means of allowing computers to talk with one another (the TCP/IP protocol) plus various proprietary and non-pro- prietary tools that allow users to find information and con- nect with each other Other definitions portray the Internet as a resource, a community, or a social phenomenon. But as the Internet matures and becomes less of a novelty and more of a reality, it is useful to see it in yet another light: the Internet is an industry. The dictionary defines an industry as "a distinct group of productive or profit-making enterprises," and the Internet is indeed quickly being passed from its governmental and aca- demic parents to a brood of companies that at least hope to make a profit. Like the older information industries-- such as publishing, telecommunications, and broadcasting-- the Internet is composed of many enterprises, each of which sells its products and services either to consumers or to other companies in the industry, or both (see Box 3). One distinguishing (and confusing) aspect of the Internet industry is its varying degrees of vertical integration. Some companies aim to fill a single service niche, while others hope to attract customers by providing everything in a sin- gle package. And in this new and turbid industry, compa- nies are constantly seeking new niches and offering new services. Varying degrees of integration may prove crucial in determining the winners and losers of the intensify- ing competition. Small companies that specialize only in one field may prove leaner and more flexible than larger companies trying to do everything and therefore doing nothing well. But larger companies can use one activity to promote others. Most companies involved in the Internet wear two or more hats, so the categories below characterize not so much types of companies as types of functions. For example, most on-line services have their own networks, but some do not. Remember, then, that a single company may belong in several of the following categories. This list mainly describes the situation in the United States, where the Internet is best established, and where the Internet has evolved from a system run by the government and univiersities to a mostly commercial network. More than half of the networks connected to the lnternet are in the U.S., and American backbones are so much faster than those elsewhere that many countries route their traffic through the United States to reach a neighboring country. Other countries are now catching up with the U.S. in infra- structure and in the transition to for-profit administration, so the current situation in the U.S. could well be the model of the global Intemet of tomorrow. Internet Service Providers Internet traffic consists of packets of data transmitted along leased telephone lines and directed by powerful computers known as routers. The first entity to handle lntemet traffic-- to lease the lines and run the routers--was the United States government. But in May 1995, the government turned over this role to a club of private companies known as lnternet service providers (ISPs) (see Box 1). These providers own backbone networks--routers in dispersed cities linked by high bandwidth (up to 45 Mbps) lines leased from long-distance telephone carriers. The largest backbone belongs to MCI which, along with Sprint and ANS (owned by America Online), handles approximately 80% of all Internet traffic. Other major access providers are PSI, UUNet, BBN Planet, NETCOM, IBM, and EUNet. While most of these companies are based in the United States, most of them have links to other countries in the form of alliances and subsidiaries. Most large network Commercial Internet http://www.cix.org), a Zachary M. Schrag is Deputy Editor of TeleGeography. service providers belong to the exchange Association (CIX, see non-profit organization based in Sterling, Virginia. Like telephone carriers, CIX members pass off traf- fic from one to another, but they do not charge each other for this, so there is no need for a settlement TeleGeography 1995 © TeleGeographyo Inc. 1995 F Follow the Packets Most traffic on the Internet flows across backbone networks owned by a few Network Service Providers who have agree- ments (peering arrangements) to pass off packets to one another without charge. Some users (whether individuals, corporations, or other organizations) have accounts with these providers; others access the Internet through an on- line service or a reseller. See also the map on page 80. system. (In the telephone world, this is known as a "sender keep all" system.) They make money by selling capacity-- connections to their networks, and thus to the entire Internet. Capacity is a commodity, like electric power. It is generally sold by the month, whether as a 1.544 Mbps dedicated line for a large organization or a 28,800 bps dial-up connection for a hobbyist. Major providers sell both wholesale and retail. The wholesale purchasers are on-line services (see page 58) and smaller, local providers that operate in a sin- gle city, selling capacity to individuals and firms. Retail pur- chasers include businesses, universities (which may have hundreds of individual users connected to their internal net- works) and individuals. A typical ISP is UUNet Technologies, based in Fairfax, Virginia. UUNet’s backbone is a network of lines (primarily 45Mbps and DS-3s) leased from WilTel and MFS, which UUNet uses to transmit Internet traffic across the United States. It also has a link to EUNet in Europe. Until August 1995, UUNet primarily sold Internet capacity to large busi- nesses and to access resellers. But an alliance with EarthLink, a California company, will allow individuals around the United States to purchase dial-up accounts to UUNet’s backbone. The company’s biggest customer (and the owner of a 15% stake in the companyl is Microsoft, and UUNet plans to build a new backbone network to serve the Microsoft Network, Microsoft’s on-line service. UUNet became a publicly traded company in June 1995. As if to illustrate just how fuzzy are the divisions between market sectors, the company advised new investors that its poten- tial competitors included its major suppliers, several of its major customers, and even its parent company, Microsoft (see also Box 2 on Netscape). Beyond the confines of the CIX are hundreds, perhaps thou- sands, of access resellers. Many of these resellers are quite small, with only a single computer, a handful of modems, a few skilled technicians, and a dedicated line to a backbone belonging to one of the major providers. Recently, major telecommunications companies have announced plans to offer Internet access to their customers. Pacific Bell, the regional Bell operating company in California, has planned service for early 1996. And Tele- Communications, Inc. (TCI), the cable TV provider, has plans (through its @Home subsidiary) to provide access via its CATV network at vastly higher speeds than can be achieved over telephone lines. The entry of these companies, with their capital and technological and marketing muscle, could erode the profits of the more traditional providers. Because lnternet capacity is a commodity, providers must work to differentiate themselves with features like 24-hour technical support, proprietary software, nationwide access, and special pricing plans. Some providers primarily serve large corporations who wish to connect their internal com- puter networks to the Internet, while others target the con- sumer market, drawing in customers with easy-to-use soft- ware packages, acting as software companies themselves. Software Companies tn one sense, the Internet is nothing but software, specifi- cally a standard connection protocol (called TCP/IPI allowing computers and computer networks to communicate with one another. Starting with this standard, software compa- nies have brought to market a wide variety of tools for net- working computers. Server programs--the software analogs of radio transmitters--allow companies and organizations to make data available on the network, while client pro- grams--acting as receivers--allow individuals to find and use that data. Since 1993, much of the exponential growth of the Internet has been credited to the World Wide Web, a particular application of the TCP/IP protocol. Whereas earlier client programs could be difficult to use, many Web clients (known as browsers) can be controlled solely with mouse-clicks and require scarcely more computer skill than does withdrawing cash from an automated teller machine. And Web servers can be made quite flashy, allowing companies to deploy all of their advertising and marketing savvy to the new medi- © TeleGeography, Inc. 1995 The Internet Becomes an Industry urn. Users can create on-screen "pages," composed of text, graphics, sound, and even video. As with television and radio, the transmitters (servers) are vastly more expensive than the receivers (clients). Software companies writing lnternet software make most of their money by selling the server programs to content providers and other companies wishing to establish an Internet pres- ence, and by licensing their software to on-line services. Browsers can also be profitable. Individual users can often get their browsers for little or no money, but the companies giving away the browsers--advertisers, on-line services, or access providers--must pay for the license to do so. Netscape Communications, of Wall Street fame, is a soft- ware company (see Box 2). By distributing its Navigator browser software, generally considered the best browser available, free to individuals and non-profit users, it has cre- ated an enormous base of users. (Netscape also sells the software to businesses for less than US $50.) Because cor- porations want to buy server software that will work well with their customers’ browser software, this vast body of Netscape users has boosted sales of Netscape server soft- ware. And unless a Netscape user actively decides other- wise, each time she enters the World Wide Web she will begin at the Netscape home page. The result is that millions of people visit Netscape’s home page daily, increasing Netscape’s stature as a content provider. Finally, Netscape has licensed both the client and server software for incor- poration into various on-line services, providing yet another revenue stream. Internet software is not limited to basic client and server applications. More specialized programs aim to add func- tions to the Internet. For example, Progressive Networks (http://www.realaudio.com/), a privately held company in Box 2. Commercializing the Internet: Netscape The following is excerpted from the Prospectus released by Netscape Communications Corporation dated July 17, 1995, and filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) in con- nection with the company’s initial public offering of common stock. "The Company Netscape Communications Corporation ("Netscape" or the "Company") is a lead- ing provider of open chent, server and integrated applications software that enables reformation exchange and commerce over the lnternet and private lnternet Protocol ("IP") networks.. These products allow individuals and organizations to execute secure hnancial transactions across the Internet, such as the buying and selling of merchandise, publications, soft- ware and information. In addJtion, through the use of the Company’s software, organizations can extend their internal information systems and enterprise applications to geographically dispersed facilities, remote offices and mobile employees .... The Company’s goal is to make its software the de facto standard for navigating, publishing information and executing transactions on the Internet and private IP networks. The Netscape Navigator, introduced in December 1994, was the hrst commercially available cfient for the World Wide Web (the "Web") to include built-in security capabilities, which facilitate commer- cial transactions over the Internet The Company’s products enable the creation, manipulation, organiza- tion and retrieval of documents that contain audio and video clips, graphical images and formatted text .... The Company was incorporated in Delaware in April and the Competition 1994. Netscape’s home page can be located on the Web at http//home.netscape com. "Developing Market; Unproven Acceptance of the Company’s Products. The market for the Company’s software and services has only recently begun to develop, is rapidly evolving and is characterized by an increasing number of market entrants who have intro- duced or developed products and services for commu- nication and commerce over the ]nternet and private IP networks.. Moreover, critical issues concerning the commercial use of the Internet (including security, reli- ability, cost, ease of use and access, and quality of service) remain unresolved and may impact the growth of Internet use. While the Company believes that its software products offer significant advantages for commerce and commumcat/on over the Internet and private ]P networks, there can be no assurance that commerce and commumcat~on over the Internet or private IP networks will become widespread, or that the Company’s products for commerce and communi- cation over the lnternet or private IP networks will become wJdely adopted for these purposes. "Further, market acceptance of the Company’s server and integrated applications software products is sub- stantiafly dependent upon the adoption of the Internet and private IP networks for commerce and commum- cations. The adoption of the Internet for commerce and commumcat/ons, particularly by those/ndiwduals and enterprises which have h~stoncally relied upon alternative means of commerce and communication, generafly requires the acceptance of a new way of conducting business and exchanging information TeleGeography 1995 © TeleGeography, Inc. 1995 Bo~.Follow the Money Long-distance telephone cawiers AT&T MCI Sprint Individual consumers and businesses monthly (and sometimes hourly) charges Internet resellers ’ Panix Clarknet Well payment for leased hnes i Advertisers and purchases of I merchants = Toyota .-- goodsand MasterCard semces i BellAtlantlc i~ PC Flowers & Gifts monthly~F payment for ad space On-line services J Software companies CompuServe purchase of chent and Netscape America Online serversof~are "~’ CompuServe(SPRY) Prodigy M=crosoft Network Spyglass monthly i (andsometlmeshoudy) cha~es payment for payment for payment for ad space canymg packets 7/ng packets i Internet access providers i Content Providers ANS payment for MecklerWeb ~i MCl s .... space--- GNN Sprint andcapac~ HotWired UUNet CommerceNet IBM purchase of sefversof~,are © TeleGeography, Inc., 1995 This chart shows only some of the transactions among players in the Internet industry {arrows indicate payments). Company names listed in each box are but examples; each category includes dozens or hundreds of companies. Not all Internet companies~caterto the consumer, but ultimately they all depend on the consumer for their revenues. Seattle, Washington, has written software called RealAudio that allows users to listen to sound files as they download them, potentially making sound a much more common medium on the Net. Several companies--such as Caddis International and Digital Planet--aspire to monitor traffic on the lnternet the way Arbitron and Nielsen monitor TV view- ing habits, so that advertisers could know how best to reach their target markets. The Holy Grail of software companies is to create a propri- etary software standard that all other companies must license. In particular, several companies are trying to write software that would allow secure financial transactions over the Internet. Such a program could bring the creator royal- ties for each transaction: a potentially enormous revenue stream once the Int.ernet becomes a common means of buy- ing and selling goods and services. Content Providers One could say that anyone posting a message or running a server on the lnternet is a "content provider." But a small subset of providers do something special--they make money by charging other companies to be mentioned. Many of these content providers can be thought of as elec- tronic magazines. In fact, some of the most popular sites on the World Wide Web, such as HotWired and Playboy, have print counterparts. These sites attract users by offering them information and entertainment in the form of articles, graphics, software, sound, video, and tools for navigating the Internet, such as search programs and indices to other sites. The content providers then take advantage of the stream of users visiting their sites by renting out space on their home pages to advertisers and merchants. Like all other sites, these providers depend on Internet access providers for connection to the Internet and on software companies for the server software. © TeleGeography, Inc. 1995 The Internet Becomes an Industry Corperate Headquarters ¯ Human Resources ¯ IBM Research ¯ Real Estate and Business Development ¯ iBM Credit Corp ¯ Quahw and Re-englneenng ¯ Commumcabons ¯ Corporate Marketmg ¯ Governmental .PPrograms J SmartOff=ce Consoreum APTi Canon Fup Xerox Fu/~tsu IBM Kodak Lexmark Matsushlta Mlnolta M=ta Mltsub~sh~ Muratec Novell RIcoh Sanyo Sharp Toshiba ~lnternat~onal Bus~ness Machines Corp (USA) (’Personal Comouter ¯ IBM Personal Computer Company ¯ IBM Power Personal Systems Division ¯ IBM Pnntmg Systems Company fWorldw=de Sales Smvlce ¯ IBM La’an America ¯ IBM Europe, Middle East, and Africa ¯ IBM North America ¯ IBM Asia Pamf]c ¯ Global Services Consumer Division./ I qntegrateisystems" ~. Solution CoO =~BM Global Netwofl "L. ¯ Advanes Bull 150 1150 Is I°=nt venture t° provide elecommunlcat]ensI and networks erwces worldw~de~) 17 I FranceT~l~com I 10 (Motorola(USA)) 40 ( French Government) ~-Software Grou~ ¯ IBM Networking Software Division ¯ IBM Software Solutions Division ¯ IBM Personal Software Products ¯ Marketing and Solu’~en Developer Programs ¯lBM~Techn°l°°v Groue I Microelectromcs I DiV]SlOn IBM Network=ng I Hardware D~wslon IBM Storage ~.~ystems DlVlSlO n Mulbmedla and NeWvorklno~JJll=ance~ ~Server Grouo ¯ IBM AS/400 Division ¯ IBM RISC System!6000 DIvlslo ¯ IBM Systems Technology and Archlteoture Olvlsloe ¯ IBM System/39(] Division ¯ IBM POWER ¯ Parallel DlvlslOn Hughes NebNork 3 ~- ’,bra~ )- ~(MARSpla(UK)) .otus Oevelopment~ Corp ~)~ cc Mad, Inc Arrangements w=th AT&T, Deutsche Telekom, aT, Telecom Itaha, Unlsource, Telstra, Malays=an Telecom, NTT, U S West, Southern New England Telecommunlcatmns, and Compuserve to d~stnbute Notes software on public networks Enterprise Integration Technologies "~ ( Ter,sa ~ystems ) Notes Sears has expressed interest in selling its stake In Prod=gy, perhaps to IBM Motorola ~s expected to increase its stake m Bull to 17%, whde the French gov’t wdl reduce =ts share to 36% Prepared Augustlgg5 ©TeleGeography, lnc,1995 America Online IBM n a Compuserve ~na Netscape na ~RSA Data SecunbI n a Integration Technolog=es ( Med=or (CD-ROM Pubhshmg) ( Redgats ~}~ (~nteractwe markebng) Bookhnk Inc, .~ Technologms ( WA~S )--- ~Tensa Systems Inc n a ( ABC ) (The Fashion Channel) 50 bANS (Internet ackbone networkL. Global Network Navigator (Internet content provider) Na~soft (Inmrnet so~are)~ Ublque Ltd (Israel onhne chat so.are) ( MIN~C Group (onbne marke~ng)) Content Suoohers Time Warner ARC NBC CBS Courtl’V El Entertainment Telewslen MTV The Cartoon Network C-SPAN bfeeme The Learmng Channel Knlght-Ridder Tribune Hachette and many others Prepared December 1995 © TeleGeography, Inc, 1995 Note The Bertelsmann-AOL venture =s alhed w=th Deutsche Telekom, and Deutsche Telekom has an op~Jon to purchase 5% of America Onbne J TeleGeography 1995 © TeleGeography, Inc. 1995 Like print magazines, content providers make most of their money selling advertising space, usually in the form of graphics that are linked to the advertiser’s own page else- where. To buy a link on the Playboy Web page (http://www.playboy.com/), allowing Playboy readers (and viewers) to connect to one’s own Web page with a single click, costs $30,000 for three months. In contrast, the Electronic Newsstand (http://www.enews.com/), another very popular site, sells links for as little as $1000 a month. Content providers also collect the names and e-mail or postal addresses of their users, allowing them to generate valuable mailing lists. And some, especially news organiza- tions like the San Jose Mercury News, charge users direct- ly for access to their Web pages. Another form of content provider is the on-line shopping mall. Visitors to these sites can not only get information about the site, but can also purchase products and services. Like tenants in a real shopping mall, the merchants involved pay monthly rent to the mall owner. They may also turn over a percentage of each sale made onqine. While there are various software methods that allow users to make on- line purchases without worrying about credit card numbers and other valuable data being intercepted by unauthorized hackers, no single means has emerged as the standard. The software company whose product becomes standard will potentially become extremely profitable. Content providers may have the brightest future in the long term. The inexorable advance of computer technology may sap the profits from the access and software businesses, but there is no substitute for the human creativity needed to write news articles, make photographs, compose music, and devise games. As long as theft of intellectual property can be kept to manageable proportions, copyrights will have value. And as the Internet continues to grow, guides to the Net and shopping malls that organize vendors will become all the more needed. Box 4. The Internet as a Telephone Service: There In 1995 several companies released software that allows people to use the Internet for two-way, real- time voice conversations, just as they would tele- phones. (Among the most prominent are VocalTec’s Internet Phone, [http://www vocaltec.com/], Electric Magic’s NetPhone [http://www. emagic, coral] and Camelot’s Diglphone [http.//www.planeteers com/].) Users of these packages can talk to each other from across the street or across the ocean while paying only their regular Internet fees of $25 or so per month. Does the introduction of thJs technology her- ald a new age of nearly-free telephony and the death of the major telcos? No The long-term future of anything concerning the Internet is impossible to predict, but for the next few years several factors will fikely keep the technology from becoming a serious threat to traditional carriers. is No Free Lunch Developers of Internet voice software do not foresee great improvements soon. Instead, they expect their programs to be used in situations that already depend on speaker phones (such as international con- ference calls) and m cases where few would pay the standard vo/ce tariff (such as travelers calling their families and chatting for an hour). ¯ Regulation. Almost every country m the world requires licenses for the provision of realtime voice transmission, many have guaranteed monopolies, and several European countries have explicitly banned Internet telephony. It is unlikely that an ~ndivldual user would face prosecution, but caution could lead highly visible corporations to steer clear of the new technology. Why would a company offer technical support via Internet telephony if it might break the law by doing ¯ Oualit~t. Internet voice programs use compression algorithms to squeeze conversation through the limits of a 14.4 kbps modem. At best, the result sounds fike a speaker phone, with background h~ss and hic- cups. At worst, one hears only garbled static. And because each word must be broken down into pack- ets, transmitted across the Net, and reassembled, there can be delays or gaps at the other end Compression can strip emotion from the voice, mak- ing the technology only a marginal improvement over e-marl and text-based chat systems. Ethernet con- nections, eliminating the modem, improve the quahty, but such connections are comparatively rare. Foreign accents, common in international telephony, only aggravate problems in comprehension ¯ Compatibilitg. The Internet voice programs demand that each user have a fairly fast computer with a fast modem, a microphone and speakers or headphones. Despite the exponential spread of PCs, it will be a long time before such equipment approaches the ubiquity of the telephone. Moreover, the various software packages now available cannot yet talk to each other, vastly limiting the number of potential conversations. ¯ CUl~¢it~t. Using the Internet to make long-dis- tance and international calls Is like pulling off the expressway to take a shortcut through a residential neighborhood. It may beneht you, but if everyone does it the shortcut becomes even more congested than the highway. © TeleGeograpfly, Inc. 1995 The Internet Becomes an Industry On-line Services On-line services bundle three functions; they provide their customers--generally individuals, including many who sub- scribe for home use--with software, connectivity, and con- tent. (CompuServe, Inc., an on-line service and access provider owned by H&R Block, calls itself a "one-stop shop.") Typically the software for accessing the service is free, and on-line services try to attract new customers by sending their front-end software by direct mail or including it with new computers and modems. Purchasers of new Macintosh computers find the software for Apple’s eWorld service already installed on their hard drives, and pur- chasers of Microsoft Windows 95 have instant access to the Microsoft Network. Rather than offering direct access to the Internet, the way local access providers do, on-line services connect users to smaller but better-organized networks. These networks include content not found on the larger lnternet: electronic versions of magazines, software libraries, newsgroups, and access to advertisers and merchants. In addition, on-line services may offer their customers gateways to the Intemet, though usually at a higher per-minute price than that paid by customers of Internet service providers. Because software, connectivity, and content are provided by a single company, computer users going on-line for the first time often find it easier to deal with an onqine service than with the more nebulous Internet. Moreover, on-line services often have a much cheaper base monthly rate (around US$10 per month) than do Internet access providers, though hourly charges and payment for premium services can make the total bill more expensive. As these services offer greater access to the full Internet and the Internet becomes more user-friendly, the distinction between people The Internet’s packet-switching protocols are more efficient than traditional circuit-switching, but any given amount of circuitry and switches can still only transmit so much. Like other multimedia uses of the Internet, such as the transmission of video or large graphics files, voice trafhc could easily swamp net- works designed primarily for text communications, especially in developing countries whose cities are l~nked by single 28 8 kbps hnes. Richard Muirden of the Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology estimates that 200 simultaneous voice conversations could fill Australia’s entire Internet connection to the outside world, and it would not take that many to noticeably slow performance for any Australian lnternaut trying to connect to a server elsewhere. The enormous American backbones would be difficult to clog, but calling w~thin the United States is already so cheap that one would have to spend dozens of hours putting up with the poor quality of lnternet telephony to recoup the cost of the necessary software and hard- ware. And even in the US, Internet voice calls could congest the connections between local access providers and the backbones. If lnternet telephone software does become very pop- ular, service providers will have to create more capacity by leasing more lines and purchasing more routers, and they will almost certainly find a way to pass the costs of additional capacity onto those peo- ple causing the congestion. Currently the Internet to lnternet Protocol version 6--a new version of the basic Internet protocol, expected within the next few years--may change that. The new protocol will likely give top priority to realtime applications like two-way conversations, but it may also allow providers to bill users of these app/ications for the traffic they gener- ate. The Audio/Video Transport Working Group of the lnternet Engmeenng Task Force (IETF) has promised to develop mechamsms to "provide low-delay service and guard against unfair consumption of bandwidth by audio/video traffic. [] Competition. The attraction of Internet telephony is that at $25 a month it is a p~ttance for global tele- phone service. But by the time the Internet can han- dle the additional load of many voice conversations, users may find themselves either paying by the minute to transmit voice, or paying more per month for the high-priority access that will make voice con- versations possible. Meanwhile, international tele- phone tariffs will continue to drop, reducing the price advantage of Internet telephony even more. It is pos- sible that greater competition, renegotiatlon of accounting rates, and improved technology (such as new cables and ATM switching) could bnng users top-quality, traditional telephony for little more than they would pay for balky conversation by computer. Todag’s lnternet telephone software has exploited a loophole, but that loophole is not inhmtely expand- generally runs on fiat-rate billing (customers only pay a monthly fee, regardless of the amount of traffic they generate) and equal-priority transmission (every packet of data must walt its turn). But the transition able. There is still no free lunch. --Z.M S. TeleGeography 1995 © TeleGeography, Inc. 1995 using an on-line service and those connecting through an access provider is becoming less significant. On-line services require software to distribute to their cus- tomers and network capacity to transmit their customer’s packets. In some cases the software companies and tnternet access providers are divisions of the same compa- ny running the service. For example, CompuServe Information Service uses the CompuServe Network to trans- mit its data, and its Internet software is supplied by CompuServe Internet (formerly SPRY, Inc.). Other on-line services purchase software and capacity from other compa- nies, as does the Microsoft Network which licenses software from Spyglass and contracts with the access provider UUNet for capacity. Some analysts have argued that as the Internet becomes more user-friendly, the on-line services will lose their raison d’etre and will fade away. But users will always need soft- ware, connectivity, and content to go on-line, and the exist- ing on-line services have demonstrated their skills in meet- ing these needs and attracting new customers. While the packaging may change, there is no inherent reason why these companies should disappear Advertisers and Merchants As the Internet evolves into a popular communications medium, companies outside the computer business are looking for ways to take advantage of this new technology to sell more products. One way is by advertising goods and services. Seasoned Internet users frown on "spamming": sending unsolicited e- mail promotions. But the electronic analogs of other tradi- tional forms of advertising--such as luring potential cus- tomers with information and entertainment while exposing them to ads (as is done in print and on television), or offer- ing free samples, or sponsoring contests--have become accepted and even commonplace, especially on the World Wide Web. Some companies, such as Time Warner, run their own elaborate Web pages to draw interest. Others may simply advertise on the page of a content provider. And many do both, paying content providers to link their Web pages and thus maximize coverage. Unlike print ads, a company’s on-line presence need not be one-way, and companies can cheaply offer 24-hour infor- mation of the sort that previously required tol!-free numbers and trained operators. Manufacturers can post specifica- tions of their newest products. Investment firms can report quarterly results of their mutual funds. Shipping companies can allow customers to track their packages. Airlines and hotels can accept reservations. In none of these interactions does any cash change hands, yet each lends a competitive advantage to the company involved. Finally, some merchants actually make retail sales over the Internet. Amorous Internauts can navigate to the PC Flowers & Gifts home page, fill out a form with their credit card numbers and the address of their beloved, and have flowers, chocolates, or teddy bears shipped. In such a transaction, consumers and merchants depend on secure links devised by software companies to protect their credit accounts. Although the volume of such sales remains small, most observers predict enormous growth in such sales with- in the next decade. While any Web page can be accessed directly, many adver- tisers and merchants also make arrangements with various "on-line malls," run by on-line services and content providers. The on-line service will provide "space" to the merchant, in the form of actual computer memory and list- ings in the mall directory. In return, the merchant pays the on-line service a fixed amount per month, plus a commis- sion for each sale made on-line. One prominent cyberspace advertiser is Fidelity Investments (http://www.fid-inv.com/), one of the largest stock brokers and mutual fund (unit trust) managers in the United States. Fidelity pays several content providers, including Time Warner’s Pathfinder site (http://www.pathfinder.com/) and the Electronic Newsstand, to provide links to its Web page. It also publishes its Web address in its print ads and in brochures sent to customers--for now, more people find the site through print than on the Internet itself. And it has areas similar to its Web page on two on-line services. Having found the site, an investor can read mutual fund prospectuses or take advantage of more interactive fea- tures, such as a program that, given a child’s age and edu- cational plans, can tell a parent how much to invest for col- lege. All of this is done at relatively little cost to either the customer or Fidelity, and it can be done at any hour of the day without the user leaving his home or office. Fidelity still requires the customer to send a check through the mail, but other brokerage houses in the U.S. and U.K. plan to set up accounts and trade stocks over the Intemet. The lnternet Matures The several sectors of the Internet industry are all still fairly competitive and unstable, with low barriers to entry and vast opportunities for entrepreneurs with technical skills. Perhaps some anarchism inherent in the centrifugal TCP/IP technology will preserve this instability. Or perhaps the Internet will follow previous industries and become a tight oligopoly of vertically integrated companies. What is most certain is that the lnternet will continue to grow (see Box 5) and become more reliable, and that all types of businesses--from airlines to supermarkets to steel mills--will depend on it for some part of their business-to- © TeleGeographyo Inc. 1995 The Internet Becomes an Industry Box 5. How Long Can it Grow? Anything that doubles in size every year Is worthy of attention And whether measured ~n hardware connected or traffic flows, the lnternet just keeps doubhng. The number of Internet hosts (comput- ers of any k~nd attached to the Internet capable of supporting the TCP/IP protocol and possessing a unique global address) has been growing at 90% or more every year since 1983, and some experts expect this trend to continue through the end of the century. This would mean that by January 2000 there would be 125 million hosts world- wide, and perhaps ten times that number of Internet users. Can today’s growth rates last that long? When new technologies are adopted, they tend to exhib- it sigmoid (s-shaped) growth curves: a long peri- od of slow growth, then a short period (five to twelve years) of explosive growth, then another slow, steady growth period until an asymtot~c hmit (e.g., saturatlon of a market) is approached. Internet Host Growth, 1981-95 oo° °°ooee 100,000 10,000 1,000 Source: Network Wizards, http://www.nw.com/zone/host-count-h~story The s~gmoid growth of the telephone in the Umted States shows that enormous growth of a new technology may not con- tinue very long after ~ts ~ntroduction. Had the 63% annual growth from 1876 to 1884 been maintained, by I900 there would have been more telephones than people in the country Instead, growth flattened out after I884 when the first wave of doctors, businessmen, and other early-adopters all had their phones. It took two more periods of explosive growth, from I895-1905 and 1945-50 before the number of telephones approached the number of people. But some technologies need only a single, steep sigmold growth spurt. In 1948, 127,000 U.S. households had televi- sion sets. By 1958, 41,924,000, 80% of all American households, d~d. That’s 73% compound annual growth over I0 years, though because the growth was s~gmoid, growth slowed after I951 and by 1958 was only 8% annually. It is possible that the lnternet, like the telephone, will need several spurts to dominate the world, and that the growth we see now is but the middle (or even the end) of an early spurt. Perhaps once all the world’s most dedicated computer nerds and technophfles (say, I00 million people) are hooked up, Internet growth will flatten until new apphcat~ons are developed and another burst begins. But w~th computers and telephone lines getting cheaper and faster every year, there ts no reason why lnternet growth will necessarily flatten soon. As hand-held computers and even video games get their own addresses, Internetworked computers could spread like telews~ons, going from exotic novelty to everyday appli- ance in/ndustnahzed countries in the space of a decade, and conquering the developing world in scarcely more rime. n Staggered sigmoid growth: telephones (total) in United States. Source: U,S, Bureau of Census. Historical Sta#stics of the Umted States, Colomal ~mes to 1970, StatJs#cal Abstract of the United States 1995 Fast sigmoid growth: household radio sets, television sets, and cable TV subscriptions. Cable shows staggered growth, radio some hesitation, but TV took the country in a single spurt. TeleGeography 1995 © TeleGeography, Inc. 1995 Box 6. Selected Internet Companies. This chart provides some examples of companies now making money--or at least trying to--on the Internet. It is by no means an exhaustive list, nor does it necessarily list the top companies in the business. It merely tries to show the diver- sity in size, function, and longevity of companies in the Internet industry. America Online, Inc. (NASDAQ:AMER) Apple Computer, Inc. (NASDAQ:AAPL) Bolt Beranek and Newman Inc. (NYSE:BBN) British Telecommunications plc (LSEBT.L) CompuServe, Inc. (NYSE-HRB) DANTE International Business Machines Corp. (NYSE:IBM) MCl Communications Corp. (NASDAQ:MCIC) Mecklermedia ¯ INTERNET ACTIVITIES America Online (AOL), the fastest-growing on-line service, also owns ANS CORE, one of the largest backbones. A0L also offers an Internet-only service for consumers who want Internet access but who do not want AOL’s basic service. A0L has become a content provider by purchasing the Global Network Navigator, a popular Web site with indices, search tools, and links to thousands of other sites. 1994 revenues: $104.4 million. A computer manufacturer and operating-system software pro- ducer, Apple launched eWorld, its on-line service, in 1994. It recently released its own Web browser. 1994 revenues: $9,188.7 million. BBN Planet is a BBN subsidiary and a national lnternet access provider. Its customers are organizations, rather than individuals. In July 1995 AT&T purchased an $8 million share in BBN Planet, and the two companies will cooperate in marketing Internet ser- vices to businesses. FY 1994 revenues: $165,8 million. BT is both an access provider, through its subsidiary BT Net, and a supplier of leased lines to EuropaNET, which is managed by DANTE. It is also considering a direct investment in the on-line joint venture being formed by MCI and News Corp. FY 1994 rev- enues: $7,322.0 million. Best known as an on-line service, CompuServe (owned by H&R Block) has its own backbone network as well, and may offer an Internet-only service. In March 1995 it acquired SPRY Inc., an Internet software company, for $100 million. FY 1995 revenues: $582.8 million. DANTE is a non-profit company that manages EuropaNET, the largest European backbone. A leading provider of Internet access outside the United States, IBM also has an extensive Web site that includes the Software Mall, where software companies can hawktheir products. It also sells server software for its computers. IBM is co-owner of Prodigy, an on-line service. 1994 revenues: $64,052.0 million. MCI leases both phone lines and Internet capacity, and in 1995 launched its own on-line service, InternetMCl, using software licensed from Netscape. It also has a popular Web site and an interest in News Corp., which owns the Delphi on-line service. 1994 revenues: $13,338.0 million. Its Internet World magazine is sold at newsstands, but excerpts are available on-line at the MecklerWeb site. UUNet provides capacity for MecklerWeb. © TeleGeography, Inc. 1995 The Internet Becomes an Industry Microsoft (NASDAQ’MSFT) Netcom 0n-Line Communications Services, ¯ Inc. (NASBAQ NETC) Netscape Communications Corp. (NASDAO. NSCP) INTERNET ACTIVITIES Microsoft has long maintained an ftp server for customer sup- port, and launched the Microsoft Network (MSN), an on-line ser- vice, along with its Windows 95 operating system. MSN uses software licensed from Spyglass. 1994 revenues: $4,649.0 million. Netcom is one of the largest providers of Internet access to indi- viduals, with 150,000 subscribers as of June 1995. It offers sub- scribers its proprietary NetCruiser browser software which will include Internet Phone software that allows two-way voice con- versations over the Internet. 1994 revenues: $12.4 million. Netscape’s Web browser, which is given away free to non-com- mercial users, has become the most popular tool for surfing the Net. Netscape has sold its server software to many major com- panies and has licensed it to MCI for use in its on-line service. Netscape’s home page is among the most frequently visited on the Internet. 1994 revenues: $0.7 million. PSI (Performance Systems International, Inc.) ¯ (NASDAQ:PSIX) Sprint Corp. (NYSE:FON) Spyglass (NASDAQ’SPYG) Sun Microsystems (NASDAQ:SUNW) An Internet access provider with access points throughout the United States, PSI also serves cities in Japan and the United Kingdom and has plans to expand to Korea. It serves both orga- nizations and individuals, wooing the latter with its InterRamp client software. 1994 revenues: $15.2 million. Sprint is both a major long-distance telecommunications carrier and one of the largest Internet access providers. It offers service in the United States and several other countries worldwide. 1994 revenues: $6,805.1 million. Spyglass has licensed its software for use by the Microsoft Network. It became a publiclytraded companyin 1995. 1994 rev- enues: $3.6 million. Sun is primarily a hardware company, with 55% of the market for Unix computers. But its Java programming language has made it a serious player in the tnternet software market (see page 77). UUNet Technologies, Inc. (NASDAQ:UUNT) ~..!__995.rev~nues:. $.~01."0 mill!°n... A major access provider, UUNet supplie~ Intern~-access;~o Microsoft Network. The company went public in May 1995. VocalTec, Inc. Yahoo! Corp. Microsoft owns 15%. 1994 revenues: $12.4 million. VocalTec writes software that allows users to have ordinarytele- phone conversations over the Internet without paying long-dis- tance telephone fees. It has licensed its technology to Lotus, ’Motorola, and Netcom. Yahoo’s convenient guide to the Web has made it a very popular site, and it recently added a newsfeed from Reuters to make the site more attractive and lure more advertisers. The companywas founded by two students at Stanford University. TeleGeography 995 © TeleGeography~ Inc. 1995 NSF Traffic Growth, 1991-95 D~cernber 1894 b~g=nmng of t~ansrbon to new NSF archnecture Traffic on the U.S. National Science Foundation (NSF) Backbone, by category of service Until its decommissioning on April 30, 1995, the NSF Backbone Network was the most heavily used, large-scale Internet interconnection facil- ity in the world. Under the new architecture, traffic flows on commercial networks, such as ANS, MClnet, and Sprintlink, and it is no longer possible to measure Internet use by protocol as before. TCP/UDP are basic Internet standards that allow up to 128,000 different network applica- tions and services to be provided over the Internet. Non-TCP/UDP standards include Open Systems Interconnection (OSI) and various spe- cial network services. Source: Merit, ftp://nic.merit.edu/nsfnet/statis- tics/history.ports ¯ Non-TCP/U[3P l~oce [] Other TCP/UDP (=nc]ud=ng gopher, wv~v) IName Lookup iooo0 ~- rlMa~l(mcludmg USENE-I’) s0~ [:3 F~le exchange Host Computers and Web Servers by Internet Domain, 1995 Domain Hosts (July) Web Servers (June) Web servers per 1000 hosts Commercial (com) 1,743,390 4,782 2.7 Education (edu) 1,411,013 6,443 4.6 Germany (de) 350,707 1,061 3.0 Network (net) 300,481 943 3.1 United Kingdom (uk) 291,258 972 3.3 Government (gov) 273,855 984 3.6 Canada (ca) 262,644 786 3.0 Military (mil) 224,778 219 1.0 Australia (au) 207,426 548 2.6 Organization (org) 201,_905 677 3.4 Japan (jp) 159,776 370 2.3 Netherlands (hi) 135,462 289 2.1 France (fr) 113,974 436 3.8 United States (us) 113,226 309 2.7 Finland (fi) 111,861 325 2.9 Sweden (se) 106,725 268 2.5 Norway (no) 66,608 181 2.7 Switzerland (ch) 63,795 252 4.0 Italy (it) 46,143 216 4.7 New Zealand (nz) 43,863 69 1.6 South Africa (za) 41,329 86 2.1 Austria (at) 40,696 135 3.3 Spain (es) 39,919 74 1.9 Denmark (dk) 36,964 107 2.9 Korea, Republic of (kr) 23,791 145 6.1 The vast majority of computers using three-letter domains (corn, edu, org, gov, mil, and net) are located in the United States. Note the low number of web servers per host in New Zealand, where organizations with web pages are charged every time someone downloads a file from their page. Sources: Network W~zards, Internet Domain Survey (http://www nw.com/zone/WVVW/top.html); net.Genesis (http://W~Nw.netgen.com/cg~/comprehens~ve) © TeleGeography, Inc. 1995 The Internet Becomes an Industry Traffic to and from the NSFNet Backbone, November 1994 United States Canada France Austraha United Kingdom ,, Sweden Switzerland Germany Netherlands Finland Ta~wan Japan Korea Noway Mexico Hong Kong Italy Austna Smgapore Poland Spain Czech Repubhc Israel New Zealand Belgium Denmark South Africa Russian Federabon Ireland Brazil Chile Slovak Repubhc Greece China Hungary Estonia Sloven~a Thailand Puerto R~co Turkey .,. Portugal Latvia India Iceland Croatia Colombia Malaysia Sentto U S NSFNet G~gabytes Rece=ved from U.S NSFNet I0,000 1,000 I00 I0 1 I0 I00 1,000 Source: Merit, ftp://nic.merit.edu/nsfnet/statistics/1994/nsf-9411.country I0,000 This graph shows inbound and out- bound traffic from the top 47 coun- tries to the NSFNet backbone for November 1994, the last month before the beginning of the transfer of traffic away from the backbone, which was decomissioned atthe end of April 1995. The figures give a rough idea of Internet traffic flows between the United States and the rest of the world. Countries with less developed networks tend to have more unidirectional flows; they receive much more data than they send. So too with telephone traffic. See p. xiv. © TeleGeography, Inc., 1995 TeleGeography 1995 © TeleGeographyo Inc. 1995 NOTES ON MAPPING THE NET From Tribal Space to Corporate Space by Gregory C. Staple "Even good map[s).., are but approximations of what is out small. And cyberspace is both very big and at the same there. Barry Lopez time very small. W hat are maps? How do maps differ from pic- tures? Whose interests do maps serve? These questions have been argued at least since Claudius Ptolemy drew the first comprehensive geophysical map of the Earth from a Western viewpoint in the 2nd Century. There is still no agreement on the answers. But the birth of the electronic frontier--cyberspace--has given the debate rich new mate- rial. As yet though, maps of cyberspace are almost as rare as 16th century portalans. Explorers practice their trade with- out maps. Finding an uncharted passage, rounding a mysterious cape, is what the job is all about. The late 20th century pioneers of cyberspace, hackers and webmasters, are no exception. Their exploits have become front page news but we are still waiting for the maps. Few among this frontier fraternity have both the navigational and drafting skills of a Ferdinand Magellan or a James Cook. Even for those that do, the challenge of mapping cyberspace is in some ways more formidable than that faced by the sea cap- tains of the past. Cyberspace is an imaginary world--a virtual reality--an arti- fact of computer software whose form may be as varied as the human imagination. Moreover, whereas computer net- works were once a more or less local affair, comprising a few thousand sites in the U.S. and its major allies, the network is now global, linking millions of sites via an ever expanding web of connections. The streams of traffic which once coursed back and forth over this network have grown to Amazonian proportions. The challenge which cyberspace presents for the mapmaker, however, is only partly a matter of size and form. We’ve become accustomed to mapping places that can’t be seen without computers--distant galaxies, a few angstroms of DNA, synapses in the brain. Indeed, as recounted in Stephen Hall’s extraordinary 1992 book, Mapping The Next Millennium, computer-based imag- ing systems and instrumentation have spurred a cartographic renais- sance of the very big and the very In addition, cyberspace seems to be infinitely mutable. All maps begin to lose their accuracy as soon as they are print- ed. A greenbelt becomes a new subdivision; a country splits in two; with a new bridge an island becomes a peninsula. But cyberspace changes daily, even hourly, as new comput- er links are added and others decay. So how do you map cyberspace? On what scale? With what images? Visualizing Cyberspace "’Ultimatelg maps ... gain their power and usefulness from making connections and enabling unanticipated connec- tions." David Turnbull One of my favorite starting points is the pen of Saul Steinberg. Since the 1950s, Steinberg’s cover illustrations for the New Yorker magazine have provided a running guide to America’s changing perspective on the world. Of course, Steinberg is not known as a mapmaker. Most bona fide car- tographers would dismiss his street scenes of New York as "pictures" (about as harsh a professional rebuke as you can make). But his most famous cover illustration, the New Yorker’s view of New York, and a recent successor showing New York’s Lexington Ave. crossing Wilshire Boulevard in Los Angeles, are nonetheless powerful mental maps. Drawn almost 20 years apart, the illustrations show two very different worlds. The first, published on March 29, 1976, is parochial and, from a geographical standpoint, neatly ordered from East to West. In the foreground is lower Manhattan, but it could be any local neighborhood. (This largely accounts for the innumerable knockoffs of Steinberg’s graphic.) Beyond its borders, only a few land- marks are known and foreign nations, even the most popu- lous on Earth, are no more than small clouds on the horizon. Gregory C. Staple is a partner in the Washington, D.C. communications law firm of t(oteen & Naftalin and the Editor of TeleGeography. The perspective in the second illustration (published February 13, 1995) is strikingly different. Here geography has somehow come unstuck; around the corner is across the continent. East and West have become one and the same. Everything is on top of everything i else; it is all local and nothing real- ly exists. Sound familiar? Welcome to cyberspace. © TeleGeography, Inc. 1995 Notes on Mapping the Net Although Steinberg’s depiction of our post-modern world may seem cartoonish, it is not so far removed from that of most scientists. Ask a communications engineer to draw a picture of cyberspace and you are likely to get a sea of clouds (Steinbergian?) each representing a different net- work, with various lines (transmission facilities) linking them together (Figure 1). So what does cyberspace look like? A cloud? A sprawl? Or something else again? Defining Cyberspace A principal reason why many contemporary representations of cyberspace are confusing, whether drawn by artists or engineers, is that they try to combine the hardware and software side of the on-line world. Though intertwined, these two aspects of the Net are best mapped separately. So let us start with a definition: Cyberspace is information space. The hardware side of cyberspace, the physical architecture of computers, switches (routers), transmission facilities and embedded software, is largely invisible to most people. The industry describes this as being "transparent to the user," meaning "opaque" in common speech. You can’t see the wires. That’s part of the Net’s beauty. What most people want to see (and do) is the Net’s other side--the informa- tion architecture. That is really what cyberspace is all about and, as such, is the logical point of departure for cybermaps. It is hard to overemphasize this basic definitional point. Until quite recently, most computer networks, including the Internet, were primarily viewed as a shared (distributed) computational resource and only secondarily as a communi- cations medium. This has now changed. The Internet and its various components (the World Wide Web, gopherspace, etc) are now more accurately viewed as a distributed infor- mation space~a seamless interactive database or mailroom or picture library--depending upon your point of view. What the user wants to know is how one piece of informa- tion (message, image, sound) is connected to another, not the underlying physical structure of the computer and com- munication systems. Defining cyberspace as information space also helps to resolve the perennial cartographic dilemma of how to tran- scribe multidimensional objects onto two-dimensional paper. On the Net, space frequently seems to run away in every which direction. A loose translation of one Chinese expression for the Internet is "ten thousand dimensional web in heaven and net on earth." Mapping "ten thousand dimensions" on paper is a non-starter, of course. But if these dimensions might be considered to be a part of a greater whole--information space--then paper may still be of some utility. As used here, therefore, the term cybermap refers to a map of the Internet’s informational space. The cybermap gazetteer by John December which follows this article gen- erally adopts a similar convention. Figure 1. The cyberspaoe of engineers is based on hardware; the maps show network clouds linked by telephone lines. Research Source: Sprint/Pyramid Inc. 67 TeleGeography 1995 © TeleGeography, Inc. 1995 Cartographic Conventions While a workable definition of cyberspace is probably one prerequisite for mapping, it is not the only one. Because cyberspace is an a-geographical world, mapping this new world tests the conventions of mapmaking in other ways. Western cartography has long been based upon two funda- mental conventions: a) space is continuous and ordered, in the sense that one part is always followed by another part (there are no gaps); and b) the map is not the territory; that is, the territory exists wholly apart from the map of it. Cyberspace and many cybermaps appear to violate both of these conventions as, for example, does Steinberg’s draw- ing of Lexington and Wilshire. That is one reason why Steinberg’s drawings are often con- sidered to be pictures or, at best, "primitive" maps--i.e., they are cartographically unconventional. But so too is cyberspace and, as I shall suggest below, in this primitive world tribal maps may provide one of the most valuable guides for getting around, at least until the "powers that be" step in. To see why, let’s take a closer look at the conven- tions involved. The Continuity of Space Spatiality is at the core of human consciousness and our attempts to make sense of the world. It is reinforced as soon as we learn how to touch and crawl, and then soon taken for granted as we put one foot in front of the other and take in a room or a garden at a single glance. It is per- haps not surprising therefore that spatiality is a central ele- ment in almost all our representations of the world, includ- ing what we call maps. The geographers Arthur H. Robinson and Barbara Bartz Petcenik offer the following comment on the primacy of our sense of space in ordering our knowledge of the world: we experience space, and construct representations of it, we know that it will be continuous. Everything is somewhere and no matter what other characteristics objects do not share, they always share relative location, that is spatiality; hence the desirability of equating knowledge with space. This assures an organization and a basis for predictability, which is shared." But even fairly primitive transportation and communications technologies can make connectivity, not spatiality, the most important factor in navigation. For the first several thou- sand years of civilization--unti! the coming of the railroad-- water transport was often easier than overland transport, making one port effectively "closer" to another port--hun- dreds of miles away--than to mountain towns at a fraction of the geographical distance. Various non-European cul- tures understood the importance of such connections and drew maps accordingly. The historian, Malcolm Lewis, who has written extensively about American Indian maps, points out that they "differed from post-Renaissance European maps in two fundamental respects; geometrical structure and the selections and ordering of information content." European maps have a projective geometry based on a co-ordinate system (lati- tude and longitude). Indian maps are topologically struc- tured, observes Lewis, "conserving connectivity between the parts, but distorting distance, angles and, hence, shape." See, for example, Figure 2. In The Songfines, Bruce Chatwin suggests that this outlook was also common to Australia’s indigenous peoples: "Aboriginals were wanderers.. [they did] not imagine territo- ry as a block of land hemmed in by frontiers but rather as an interlocking network of ’lines’ or ’ways through.’" It was a matter or survival. Australia’s arid interior is vast and irregular rains mean that places with water and vegetation may change dramatically from year to year The route is everything. Thus as one Aboriginal explained: ’:All our words for ’country’...are the same as the words for ’line.’" In short, most tribal cultures never viewed the land they knew through the spectacles of Euclidean geometry. Cybermaps like tribal maps accordingly may dispense with conventional perspective to conserve connectivity. They are true to the land, not to the theodolite. See Figure 3. Maps and Territories Another basic precept of Western cartography is that the map is not the territory. After all, if the map were identical with the territory it would literally be the territory. It would have a scale of an inch to an inch, and apart from anything else, it would be unworkable. Cyberspace also challenges this convention. The map and the territory often appear to be one and the same. This is especially so in that part of the Internet known as the World Wide Web and may in fact help to explain the Web’s great popularity. The Web is its own map. See Figure 4. On the Web, space appears on the computer screen as a continu- ous series of texts (or sounds or images) with one screen document connected to the next via imbedded hypertext links. The hypertext links are typically displayed in bold or by an icon (e.g., for links to graphic or audio materials) so that the text on each screen also displays a map of the connections to other portions of the Web’s information space. A mouse click on the highlighted Web text or "hotlink" will take you there--i.e., display the document by making a network con- nection to the computer housing the linked Web document you have selected. The document may be on a computer an ocean away or merely on another portion of the computer hard drive used by the first document. No matter; the hypertext map will provide the directions. No knowledge is © TeleGeography, Inc. 1995 Notes on Mapping the Net Figure 2. The migration map of 0jibway Chief Red Sky, an American Indian, shows the linkages between geographical features-- lakes, rivers, sandbars, and islands--of the Great Lakes region. The map does not follow the Western conventions of scale, but nei- ther does cyberspace. Source: S. Dewdney, The Sacred Scrolls of the Southern Ojibway(University of Toronto Press, 1975) needed about the computer’s location or about the tens of intervening communications links which may be involved in the process. Hence, one approach to mapping the Web is compiling a set of the hypertext screens for different Web sites (typically known as "Home Pages"). In fact, many new Web guide- books consist of little else. But the on-line world breaks down the distinction between maps and territories in a deeper sense as well. Navigating the Net largely requires the mastery of a set of "hands-on" skills. Many of these skills are intuitive and very hard to articulate (like learning to surf or ride a bike). Ask comput- er hackers to tell you how they got some information off the Net and their replies are likely to be incoherent; ask them to draw you a map and you are likely to get annoyed scowls. Join them at the keyboard and their web mastery is imme- diately apparent. I I ! ! ! I I I I Searcher or Index m m l m m m m l m m l m Figure 3. Like Red Sky’s chart, John December’s map of Cyberland shows the linkages between essential features of theJterritory. 69 TeleGeography 1995 © TeleGeography, Inc. 1995 Figure 4. The Web is its own map. The page below, from the Internet Society’s home page, is an exemplary use of hypertext. The What’s New page funcbons as both a bulletin of important information, such as announcements of upcoming events, and as a tool for finding additional information. The Society’s server is in Northern Virginia. But In the new geography of cyberspace, another file on the same computer and a file m Montreal, Canada, are exactly the same distance awav: one click. Web maps may also be annotated by e-mailing the author. A single click brings you... [~ ~. ’ Netscape: What’s New at the Internet Society Web? (index) -: ~I~ Net~fte; ~h~tp //lnfo ~soc org 80/x~h~tsnew/mdex html What’s New? ¯ Plarlrll ng is ook,/ uRder~,,,~sy for the IN[ f’~.~(~ ohh.~-,~[~e in Montres] e%~5 8hal lrlformstlOri about this conference can be found ¯ ~,mn~,~,~o,,,~,.,,~or,,~ ,~O,~,~,m ,,~,,.’o, ~,,,~ ~y.~o.~..~...a server in Montreal. ~¢~11 take place on February 22-25 ]n San Diego, C~hforma Nox,, added to the C.:,nf~,rencev.p,~ue L; nks to I nternet Society Conference Procee i No%, I nformahon Services additions The I nternet Soc~etq. Press Releas~ Archive and a ~ssues o ;OC Forum electromc nev, sletter ¯ The tab ,ntents ~s nov, available for the Plan of Achon s~gned by 34 heads of state M~am~, ;A 9-11 December, 1995during the Summit of the Amer~cas Also]ncluded documer hapter 15 (describing expansion of educahonal computer netv/orks) ]n~ts documer /a~lable both ]n E~ghs~and i The Soc]~ mounces the INET’g5 Proceed] ng# are no,,/ available at hyperme ormfor the 1995 InternahonalNet,,,, rk]~g Conference (I~JET’95~ Tb]s convened -50 June 1995 at Honolulu, Haxca]] USA ¯ The Inte~ Society recently estabhshed the Intrrhef Schiller IT to allo~¢ global mplementahon of pubhc pubhc ke~j crgptograph]c apphc~ ...~not~er Oage of information on the Csame serven Subject Quote Document ..~,-,~.,~.~,~.,,,.~,.,-,~,~.~. ..... ...an e-mall message to the Back ~8$ues of the ISOC Foru{n th~ I nternet Soce~tg’s Electronic addlhon, the Society real ntal ns heavll y referenced pre~entahon materials such © TeleGeographyo Inc. 1995 Notes on Mapping the Net This may help us understand why there are now millions of people in cyberspace but few maps showing how to get there. In a very real sense the session is the map. Or to paraphrase Marshall McLuhan, the medium is the map. The Future of Cybermaps "Once [a] map [is] completed, cartographers ancient or modern never retain control over the territory .... The territo- ry, literally and figuratively, is ceded to the powers that be." Stephen S. Hall Whether one accepts today’s tribal charts of cyberspace as "real" maps or not, the history of car- tography suggests that it will not be long before they are superseded by a more mercantile genre. As Hall, and other historians of mapmaking have observed, the domains that explorers chart, and the maps they produce, open up territories to interests that view them differently .... [B]e they goldfields, stands of timber or.. human cultures... maps serve as the groundplan, the blue- print, the graphic agenda for subse- quent exploitation." While still in their infancy, cybermaps are fast falling into this older pattern. Since approximately 1993, when the World Wide Web began to showcase the lnternet’s market potential and the vol- F OwNFTEN SAID THAT "No S THE /NTERNET. equivalent of sea captain, pilot, crew, draftsman, printer, typographer and bookbinder all rolled into one.) One of the shrewdest of these new property companies is Netscape Communications, which was created by Jim Clark, an entrepreneurial engineering professor and the founder and former Chairman of Silicon Graphics, now a multibillion- dollar computer software company. In 1994 Clark persuad- ed Marc Andreessen and colleagues, who had developed Mosaic, the first popular Web browser, to join his new com- pany. Netscape’s own Web browser, Netscape Navigator, reportedly recoded from scratch, has since become the mar- ket leader, making both Clark and Andreessen extremely wealthy. BUT EACH OF THE INDIVIDUAL PARTS--THE TRANSMISSION FACILITIES~ FILE SERVERS~ SOFT- WARE AND ON-LINE INFORMA- TION--GENERALLY DOES HAVE A LEGAL OWNER~J untary ban on commercial traffic began to erode in the U.S. (triggered, in part, by the end of government funding) most of the world’s major information companies have begun to stake out their territory in cyberspace. It is often said that "No one owns the Internet." This may have some philosophical truth insofar as the Intemet is more than the sum of its parts. But each of the individual parts-- the transmission facilities, file servers, software and on-line information--generally does have a legal owner The soft- ware part of cyberspace is particularly important, of course. It at once provides the illusion of space as well as the tools for navigation. Tools, such as application programs (for e- mail or information retrieval) and net interfaces or browsers (Mosaic, Netscape) comprise some of the most valuable intellectual property in this new world. Not surprisingly, therefore, the Net’s most advanced navi- gational tools and the cyberscouts who created them have drawn the attention of a new breed of corporate land barons. Where possible, these new world property compa- nies have not only bought the software they need to exploit this new terrain, but the cyberscouts (a/k/a software devel- opment teamsl which created them. (Today’s small devel- opment teams for Internet software are the 20th century Many early corporate settlers of cyber- space, however, are finding that despite a variety of new navigational tools and telephone help lines the geography is still chaotic. Everyone is next door to everyone else. Or as James Joyce put it in Finnegun’s Woke, "Here comes everybody." The information you need is always one more mouse click away. There is no cen- tral directory information. And just when you’ve learned how to find a site, the address changes. Again, however, if history is any guide, as the corporate frontier expands across cyberspace, the seemingly disconnected local geographies of the Net may well be encompassed by a standard global grid. Such grids have also been a mainstay of Western cartography (they were also used in China) since Ptolemy’s time. From Chaos to Grids Ptolemy’s Geographica (circa 150 CE) was the first Western map of the entire world. But Ptolemy’s genius lay not in his encyclopedic knowledge but in his methodology: his new map presented all the known information in a standardized and consistent way with grid lines of latitude and longitude. David Turnbull, the Australian scholar, writes, "This metrica- tion meant that all points were commensurable: that is, dis- tances and directions could be established between one place and any other. Further, unknown places could be given coordinates." Thus, continues Turnbulh "The signifi- cance of Ptolemy’s Geographica was not just in its use of a grid: it was also an atlas which enabled the co-ordination of maps of individual lands into one map of the world." Ptolemy’s grid based maps, capable of incorporating the known and the unknown, came to be a distinguishing fea- ture of Western maps as compared to tribal or aboriginal maps. Unlike tribal maps, which were typically local in scale and had no common metric, Ptolemy’s map and its succes- 71 TeleGeography 1995 © TeleGeography, Inc. 1995 sors which refined the application of latitude and longitude, were generalizable and quantifiable. They afforded an exact description of territory and of property rights. Such grid based maps will have an inevitable appeal to cyberspace’s new land companies as well. How will the grid come to cyberspace? We can’t be sure yet--indeed, it is possible that cyberspace will never be so quartered--but software innovations and industry agree- ments are both likely to play a role. Two areas, in particu- lar, bear watching: Internet directory services and universal browsing tools. These areas are of special interest because, although it is invisible to most users, the Internet already has a type of grid known as the Domain Name System (DNS). The DNS is a distributed data- base which contains a discrete 32 bit numeric address (typically a network, subnet and system number) for every registered computer in the world and a translation program so that these addresses can be converted into the alphabetical name each host computer is commonly assigned (e.g., 204.157.31.32 = tgi.cais.com). When an Internet user types in the name of a host to be contacted, the user’s com- puter first asks a DNS computer for the address and then routes the user’s IF HISTORY IS ANY GUIDE~ AS THE CORPORATE FRONTIER EXPANDS ACROSS CYBERSPACE~ THE SEEMINGLY DISCONNECTED LOCAL GEOGRAPHIES OF THE NET MAY WELL BE ENCOM- PASSED BY A STANDARD GLOBAL GRID. J communication accordingly. The DNS is administered by the InterNIC, a non-profit organization near Washington, D.C. In theory, the DNS provides a metric for mapping the Internet quadrant by quadrant or numbering block by num- bering block. In practice, however, such a map would likely be quite confusing and of limited economic value. The DNS currently is both arbitrary and incomplete. Hosts may be assigned numbers according to their line-of business (edu- cation, military, commercial) or on a geographical basis. The DNS is also decentralized; sub-administrators (e.g., for computers assigned numbers in the educational block) may assign (or even take back) new sub-network or system addresses according to their own rules so that sub-address- es may not be numerically consistent. Beyond that, the DNS covers only host computers; individ- ual users are commonly linked to the Net through thousands of local e-mail systems which have their own internal num- bering rules. The quickest way to find someone’s E-mail address is often to telephone them and ask. There is no comprehensive national or international directory of e-mail addresses. But the shortcomings of the lnternet’s current grid are like- ly to be a passing phase. Most of the problems which now make it so hard to pinpoint any given site in cyberspace with any consistent metric are likely to be fixed within the next decade. AT&T and other organizations are working on glob- al e-mail directories. And an updated Domain Name System is being considered by the InterNIC and the Internet Society’s Engineering Task Force. As importantly, the courts have begun to address the legal status of the InterNIC and affiliates to resolve numbering disputes and parcel out unique names in cyberspace. In fact, for most companies the right to use their own name in cyberspace and to move it from one numeric address to another (portabilityl may be more important than gaining the rights to any particular address. The typical lnternet user probably will never know whether the Net’s number- ing system has changed. Internet browsers, such as Netscape, already provide a largely seamless connection to the Net’s disparate information spaces and sites. And even more user-friendly software applications are on the way. They will offer point-and-click links to global directories which will soon be taken for granted much as they are for the world’s telephone networks. Yet once network addresses are ratio- nalized and the procedures for changing them become legal- ly defined, new kinds of property-based maps of cyberspace are likely to arise tied to the locational metric (grid) used to define these rights. Such maps may be of limited naviga- tional use. But like the real estate plats on file at local town halls, they may be of decisive legal and economic value. (For example, a grid register may protect a site from being "moved" without due process or taken by the government without just compensation.) Tomorrow’s cybermaps then will record the boundaries of corporate space on the Net even as earlier ones illustrated its tribal origins. What will become of today’s cybermaps? Some will contin- ue to circulate. The Net’s frontiers are still expanding rapid- ly. But because these early maps are largely tied to our cur- rent software and naming conventions, most will become obsolete. Within a decade, in fact, TeleGeography’s first cybermaps may be viewed as no more than a set of histor- ical pictures, a guide to a world and a set of skills which no longer exist. Intriguing? Yes. But of limited use, more art than map. Cybermaps: Collect them while you can. ¯ © TeleGeography, Inc. 1995 Notes on Mapping the Net For further reading: John December and Nell Randall. The World Wide Web Unleashed. Indianapolis: Sams Publishing, 1994. Stephen S. Hall. Mapping the Next Millennium. New York: Vintage Books, 1992. J.B. Harley and David Woodward, eds. History of Cartography, vol. 1. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1987. Barry Lopez. Arctic Dreams. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1986. Ed Kro!l. The Whole Internet Users’ Guide and Catalog. Sebastopol: O’Reilly & Associates, Inc., 1992. David Turnbull. Maps are Territories, Science is an Atlas. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1993. TeleGeography 1995 © TeleGeography, Inc. 1995 A CYBERMAP GAZETTEER Maps of the On-Line World for Browsing and Business by John December p character navigates a sensory maelstrom called The Matrix that connects the world’s computers. Or perhaps you’ve observed the growing coverage of the on-line world in the press and the new interest the business community has for anything on-line. erhaps you’ve heard of a place that exists inside computers. You may have seen it in the movies-- characters in two new films VIRTUOSITY and The Net struggle with the mystery and intricacy of global computer networks. Maybe you’ve read William Gibson’s 1984 novel Neuromancer in which the main But is the world of on-line communication really like that shown in the movies or described in science fiction? Global communication networks are not science fiction, of course. Since the 1960s the world’s cooperatively-run patchwork of computer networks, known as the Internet, has grown rapid- ly. It now encompasses over 6.5 million hosts (networked computers) and at least 25 million users.I Yet the world of on-line communication remains largely unmapped, leaving many people to visualize it only through depictions in movies and novels. While technical diagrams can show the schematic topology of computer networks, the abstract world of on-line com- munication, cyberspace, eludes a simple graphical represen- tation. The activity in cyberspace is surprising diverse: peo- ple use the Internet and on-line services for information retrieval, communication and interaction. How can maps capture the scale and scope of these activities? What shapes and symbols should be used? What markers and signposts do cyberspace navigators need? And, if cyber- space can be mapped, will these new charts help us identi- fy its owners, if owners there are? Definitions Cyberspace: an abstract place in which people communi- cate information or otherwise interact using electronic ter- minals. This is a broad definition. Does it include the phone call to your Aunt Martha to get her potato salad recipe? Yes, but this gazetteer will focus on communications in cyberspace where the participants use computers as the end-point device for sending or receiving mes- sages. Cyberspace certainly does include phone lines--they are often 74 the basis for data transfer. But I won’t be mapping calls to Aunt Martha here. Cybermap: a graphical representation of cyberspace, typi- cally showing information sources (sites) and relationships (links) between different sites and networks of sites. A cybermap is similar to a physical map: they each attempt to evoke what is out there as well as show relationships. And, like physical maps that try to show the human activity associated with a particular place--trade and manufacturing for example--these cybermaps attempt to show the human geography of cyberspace and not merely the "lay of the land." A comprehensive glossary of the technical terms in this arti- cle is provided on page 82. Mapping Networks Engineers begin with blueprints, and early maps of cyber- space were often schematic diagrams of the physical com- puter networks. Network information centers such as SuraNet, UUnet, and the Digital Equipment Corporation (DEC) carry a wide range of these maps.2 These schematics or network topologies typically portray the routers and tele- phone lines that comprise a network, as well as points where several networks exchange traffic (see Figure 1). While of crucial importance to the administrators of the tnternet, these maps are of little interest to typical end- users. Internet navigators do not need to know what switch- es and wires a message uses in order to make a connection. Instead, the navigator needs to know if it is possible to reach a user or information resource on another computer network using a particular information protocol. Hence, while network topological maps can help answer the ques- tion "can you get there from here," the level of detail is usu- ally too fine for the end-user. John December (john@december com, http://www.decembercom/) is a Ph.D. Candidate in Communication and Rhetoric at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute. His most recent book is Presenting Java (Indianapolis: Sams Publishing, 1995). Brandon Plewe has adapted the geographical approach for the general user with his Web-based Virtual Tourist (see Figure 1). This series of maps on the country and province level plots Intemet servers, leaving out the dedicated telephone lines that connect them. The maps serve both as documents, showing where servers are, and as naviga- tional tools, for a mouse-click on a server connects the user to that computer. © TeleGeography, Inc. 1995 A Cybermap Gazetteer FThe Underlying Network Geography 1.800.827.7482 World W,de Web: htt p://www.psi.net The PSI Network A network topology map, like the one above, is a reminder that cyberspace is not entirely an abstraction. The underlying infrastruc. ture o.f routers, telephone lines, access points, and exchange points makes the virtual geography of the Internet possible. City Scapes NCBC UNC, Asheville Wake Forest University Appalachian" State University BILAN ATOM []- Central Piedmont CommunityCollege ~- Creative Ojbernetx []- First Union Perfect Wave Consulting B- UHC, Charlotte ~- Vnet [] The Virtual Tourist The opening map (left) of the Virtual Tourist (http:i/wings.buffa- Io.edu/world/) shows the world. This map is an imagemap, meaning that each pixel on the map is potentially a link to another Web resource. By clicking on the opening world map, you can focus on successively smaller geographical regions. For example, by clicking on North America on the world map, you get an outline map ofthe United States. You can then click on North Carolina to get this detailed map (below) of North Carolina fnternet information servers. ¯ ,,. ", -, ,~.. HC Ce~munity Coltege System Brunswick County & Associates Margaret Rudd % ........... TeleGeography 1995 © TeleGeography, Inc. 1995 Figure 2. You Can’t Get There from Here. Some clients can access only the server WPe matching the pro- tocol for which they were built (e.g., a Gopher client can access only Gopher servers). Other kinds of clients are multi-protocol. In particular, World Wide Web clients can access most of the popular information protocols on the Internet. But most browsers cannot reach MU* (multi-user) and IRC (chat) servers, leaving these protocols as islands in cyberspace. FTP Client Gopher Client ." News Space i, ,., News Server Telnet Server /News Client ) Telnet Client i IRC Server i i MU* Server I IRCClien, ) MU’Client ) VRML Browser i~ VRMLContent ,~ J © TeleGeography, Inc. 1995 Mapping Protocols Since the early 1990s, John Quarterman has provided high- level maps of global networks on the Matrix, which he defines as the set of all networks that can exchange elec- tronic mail.3 1 too differentiate regions of cyberspace based on the kind of information that can be exchanged. I broad- en this distinction to include many other information proto- cols used in cyberspace. Each information protocol defines what call an information space, or the set of resources that can be retrieved using a particular information protocol. The physical world is distinguished by mountains, forests, and oceans. Data communication protocols carve the on- line world into information spaces. Only specific kinds of software recognizes each information space’s data commu- nications protocol (See Figure 2). Thus, just as a traveler in the physical world needs a boat to travel on water or up a river, a cyberspace navigator requires special equipment to navigate (or observe) certain on-line information. Java Browser Users with full Internet access are less restricted by proto- cols. Just as the airplane is an all-purpose vehicle that can fly over land, water, or ice, the browsers that dominate today’s Internet are equally adept at retrieving information from servers running the most popular protocols: HTTP, gopher, rtp, and news. Many browsers can even send and receive mail. But new kinds of information found on some Web pages require new, specialized clients. The lnternet is itself comprised of a variety of information spaces, each defined by a protocol. Users on other networks must use gateways to access these Internet information spaces. Many developing countries lack access to the Internet, but can reach parts of cyberspace using other net- works. They can, for example, send and receive e-mail, and reach Usenet, an application for disseminating text discus- sion among cooperating computer hosts. But there are many sections of the Internet, e.g. gopherspace, that they cannot penetrate. Possible Connection © TeleGeography, Inc. 1995 A Cybermap Gazetteer For example, a new software language called Java, originat- ed by Sun Microsystems, allows developers to create com- puter programs which can be transferred over the Internet and used in a Java-enabled Web browser. A Java program- mer can create an interactive game, educational lesson or advertisement and link it to a Web page. When a user with a Java-enabled Web browser accesses this page, the soft- ware, known as an applet, that runs the game or other application is automatically downloaded to the user’s com- puter for execution. Java’s ability to deliver new applica- tions will dramatically increase the level of interactivity pos- sible on the Web. Virtual Reality Modeling Language (VRML) will also open up the Web to three-dimensional visualization. Like Java, VRML is a language used to describe content that only spe- cial browsers can interpret. VRML allows programmers to describe three-dimensional scenes, that only users of VRML- enabled browsers can explore. Applications for VRML include architectural models, interactive art, and scientific modeling. Other information spaces remain unintegrated into graphi- cal or general use browsers. Notably, 1RC (Internet Relay Chat) as well as MU* (Multiple User Dialogue/Dimension/Simulation/Chatl, are spaces for real- time text interchange among participants. These spaces Figure 3. Landmarks of the Internet Web space ¯ Server list: Comprehensive List from net.Genesis corporation http:JJwww.netgen.com/cgJJcornprehensive ¯ Subject trees: Yahoo subject tree http://vwvw.yahoo.com/ and Global Network Navigator http://gnn.com/ ¯ Keyword searchers: Lycos spider http://www.lycos.com/and Webcrawler http://webcrawler.com/ FTP space ¯ Server list: ftp://rtfm.mit.edu/pub/usenet/news.answers/ftp- list/ ¯ Subjecttree: ftp://rtfm.mit.edu/pub/usenet/ ¯ Keyword searcher: http://pu bwe b.nexor.co.uk/pu blic/arc hie/servers.html gsenet ¯ Server list: Usenet newsgroup archives for comp.mail.maps ftp://rdm.mit.ed u/pu b/usenet/comp.mall.maps/ ¯ Subject tree: Newsgroups news: ¯ Keyword searcher: DejaNews http://vvww.dejanews.com/ Gopher space ¯ Server list: Minnesota Gopher gopher://gepher.micro.umn.edu:70/1 ¯ Subject tree: Gopher Jewels http://galaxy.einet.netiGJ/ ¯ Keyword searcher: Veronica go pher://veronica.scs.unr.edu/1 I/veronica Telnet space ¯ Server list/Subjecttree: Hytelnet http://www.usask.ca/cgi- bin/hytelnet ¯ Keyword searcher: http://galaxy.einet.netihytelnet!HYTEL- NET.html WAIS space ¯ Server list/Subjecttree Keyword searcher: WAIS, Inc. http://vvvvw.wa is.c ore/ © TeleGeography, Inc. 1995 (~) server hst ,~ subject tree ~- keyword searcher d TeleGeography 1995 0 TeleGeography, Inc. 1995 Rgure 4. Frontage on Main Street Though the Web has no central entry point, the most popular entry points serve as the jumping off points for navigation. This map shows the major Web servers based on how many Web documents reference them. It is based on the WebCrawler’s (http://webcrawler.com/) database as of August 14, 1995, with data from 196,051 documents on over 48,224 different servers. Not surprisingly, navigational tools such as those mapped in Figure 3, p. 77, are among the most frequently referenced sites. Major computer companies have also thrust themselves into center stage, and the manv links to the White House symbol- ize American prominence on the Web. 1 2 3 4 5 © TeleGeography, Inc., 1995 The Lycos Home Page Hunting WWW This wedge represents 1000 links 8 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 Web Site Yahoo Welcome to Netscape WebCrawler Searching The World-W=de Web V=rtual Library’ Subject Catalogue The Lycos Home Page Hunting WWW tnformat~on The World Wide Web Init=at~ve: The Project NCSA Mosaic Home Page What’s New With NCSA Mosaic Welcome to the Wh=te House WWWW WORLD WIDE WEB WORM World-Wide Web Servers: Summary M~crosoft Corporation The IBM home page Netscape Navigator FTP and Mirror S~tes The World W=de Web tnit~at=ve: The Project Starting Points for Internet Exploration City.Net Sihcon Graph=cs’ SH~con Surf V=rtual Tourist World Map Sun Microsystems Cool Site of the Day Apple Computer tntemet Resources Meta-Jndex CERN Welcome A Beginner’s Gu=de to HTML Links URL (address) 3437 http,//WW~N.yahoo.c ore/ 2593 http’//home netscape.com/ 2312 http://webcrawler corn/ 1918 http’//VVWN,W3 org/hypertext/DataSources/bySubject/ Overwew.html 1555 http//Iycos.cs.cmu edu/ 1293 ht~p’//wvvvv.w3.org/hyperte~/Th e Project.html 1267 http://vwvvv.ncsa u=uc.edu/SDG/Software/Mosa~c/ NCSAMosaicHome.html 1264 http’//www.ncsa.u~uc edu/SDG/Software/Mosa~c/Docs/ whats-new.html t221 http://W~NVv.whitehouse.g ov/ 1145 http’//vwwv.cs.colorado edu/home/mcbryan/WWWWhtml 1143 http://vwwv.w3.org/hypertext/D ataS ou r ces/VVW~V/ Servers.html 1124 http’//vwwv.micr osoft.com/ 996 http://www.ibm.com/ 945 http://heme netscape.com/comprod/mlrror/mdex html 883 http://vwvvv.w3.org/ 883 http’/Jwww, ncsa.uiuc edu/SDG/Software/Mosa=c/ Starting Points/N eWvorkStartmg Points.html 810 htt p://W~NW.City.n et/ 804 http’//wwvv.sg= corn/ 801 http://wings.buffalo.edu/world/ 794 http://www,sun corn/ 759 http’//cool.{nfi.ned 742 http’//wwvv.a p pie.corn/ 719 http.//www.n csa,u=u c.edu/S O G/Softwa re/Mo saic/ Metalndex.html 712 http’//wvwvl .ce r n.ch/ 694 http.//wwwncsa u~uc,edu/General/tnternet~/ HTMLPrJmer.html .J © TeleGeography, Inc. 1995 A Cybermap Gazetteer require a special client, or in some cases, are accessible through Telnet interfaces. No clients have emerged for IRC and MU* which do for these spaces what Mosaic and its successors have done for the Web: provide a user-friendly, graphical interface to content and activity. These spaces then remain very much "isolated" islands in cyberspace, unintegrated into a general-use browser (see Figure 2). Mapping Content Even with a multipurpose browser and access to millions of public databases, it can be difficult to find specific informa- tion. Most users are not interested in the technical details of where an article, photograph, or sound clip is stored or how it will be compressed, broken down into packets, and transmitted with error-checking to their computer. All they want is to find it and read, view, or listen to it. They don’t need cartographers; they need librarians. The best librarians are on-line (see Figure 3). Every week thousands of sites are added to the Internet, making any paper catalog obsolete as soon as the ink is dry. But on-line catalogs are continuously updated, and users can choose among several excellent catalogs such as Yahoo and the Global Network Navigator. Like the systems libraries use to order human knowledge, these catalogs organize sites into major subject areas (e.g. business & finance, education, government, and pages about the Web itself’J. These cate- gorizations can be arbitrary, and a user might have trouble guessing, for example, if information about the U.S. Small Business Administration would fall under "business" or "government." A complete map of the Web’s hypertext linking relationships would be unprintable--making such a map would be analo- gous to mapping every interstate, state highway, and dirt county road in the United States on a postcard. Fortunately, there are a number of powerful search tools available on- line as well. Searching with keywords, a user can explore the parts of cyberspace that interest her and build up her own catalog of knowledge. Figure 5. Network Gateways: A Cyberspace Divided In this map, the major computer networks huddle in the mass of the Matrix, the term for the global collection of computer networks that can exchange electronic mail. The Internet serves as a common ground for much communication on-line, with commercial on- line services building gateways for electronic mail as well as other communication and data protocols to the Internet. Major national services such as France’s Minitel (http://www.minitel.fr/) now provide gateway communication from their services to the Internet. )TeleGeography, Inc. 1995 Network Gateway TeleGeography 1995 © TeleGeography, Inc. 1995 PC Computing magazine has created a subject guide to the World Wide Web using a subway-map metaphor, with major subject categories represented as different subway lines connecting various Web sites.4 Like all subject guides, this subway-map approach is subjective: links show semantic or associative connections among resources apparent in the cartographer’s mind, not necessarily actual hyperlinks that exist on the Web. While this approach is very useful for giv- ing users a subject breakdown of the Web’s information space, it doesn’t reveal the actual hypertext topology of the Web. Mapping Property Having an airplane, a map, and clear weather does not mean that you can fly anywhere you like; violate restricted airspace, and you will likely be shot down. While most of the lnternet is open to all comers, a great deal of cyberspace is partitioned off, with access only for those who belong (see Figure 5). Within the Internet, there are many sites that restrict access. Some demand only the user’s name, address, and other personal information, which is later used to generate mail- ing lists and to prove to advertisers the popularity of a given site. Other sites are proprietary databases, and a user must set up an account with a credit card and pay up to $100 per hour to use the site. Conversely, the National Science Foundation vBNS (Very High Speed Backbone) permits traf- fic only for research and educational uses. On-line services--for example, Prodigy, CompuServe, America Online (AOL), the Microsoft Network, and Minitel--have created gateways to let their subscribers reach the Internet. These gateways are only one-way. An AOL subscriber may be almost unaware of having slipped out of AOEs proprietary network and into the general lntemet. But the Internet user who does not subscribe has no means of accessing America Online’s resources. Finally, there are other networks that don’t connect to the Intemet or exchange electronic mail with the Matrix because Figure 6. The New Internet The old NSFnet is gone, leaving in its place not a single backbone but a group of for-profit networks that have agreed to exchange traffic at designated points. The names on the map--MCl, Sprint, ANS (owned by America Online), and others--are a reminder that maps can be used to stake claims. Source: CERFnet. J © TeleGeographyo Inc. 1995 A Cybermap Gazetteer of privacy or security reasons. For example, the global bank- ing system, proprietary local area networks (LANs), and even private global networks don’t connect with or exchange data with the Matrix or the Intemet. Challenges in Mapping Cyberspace This compendium of cybermaps doesn’t capture the whole extent of cyberspace. Like the crude, hand-sketched charts of early explorers, these maps touch on what I, as a cyber- space participant, have found relevant in my own explo- rations. These maps necessarily present a view of cyber- space distorted by my perspective and by the need to sim- plify cyberspace in order to create a graphic model of it. Creating better cybermaps requires advances in many tech- niques. Rendering cybermaps in the future should become more automated. For example, the approach taken by Kaleida Labs using the ScriptX language and class library produces network topological maps from a database of computer hosts.5 Using these tools, identifying relevant data and defining methodologies which translate this data to produce a variety of maps will challenge cybercartogra- phers for some time to come. In particular future cybercartographers will need to work on: [] Defining Methodologies: Physical maps often use land area as a basis for depicting the size of territories. In cyberspace, a variety of methodologies for translating the structure of cyberspace into map renderings (either two or three-dimensional maps) need to be developed. For exam- ple, cartographers might use graphics to depict the number of files retrieved ("hits") from a Web server.6 Others might track the volume of sales generated by a server (analogous to maps showing import/export revenues of a country). [] Defining and Gathering Network Information: Global cyberspace involves cooperating organizations around the world working to achieve interconnectivity among tens of thousands of networks using hundreds of communication protocols. Gathering statistics on this activ- ity is not easy. There are no standard reporting procedures, nor any international body coordinating the collection of comprehensive statistics on activity in cyberspace. Improving the cybermaps and charts presented in this arti- cle would require much more detailed statistics from all access, service, and information providers in cyberspace. Until the end of April 1995, the NSF Net backbone project provided an excellent repository of traffic by protocol and through major points of the backbone. However, this data was limited in that it only showed a sample of Net traffic-- that which flowed over the NSFnet backbone. Global cyber- space is much more complex than this. Commercial on-line services are part of cyberspace, yet they rarely release sta- tistics about how much traffic crossed their gateways. Other spaces, such as for MU* and IRC, are non-commercial islands of uncoordinated activity which go unnoticed, with few descriptive statistics available. Traffic is not the only important indicator to be mapped. Other variables are service (what companies provide con- nectivity?), the number of users (how many users does each company serve?), usage (how long are users logged into their accounts?), and revenues (how much does each user spend?). Cyberspace is a frontier of the human imagination and intel- lect. With activities ranging from text discussion in MU*s to three-dimensional rendering of spaces with VRML, on-line activity has grown increasingly popular. Mapping cyber- space presents a challenge that will remain both exciting and ever more relevant as the world of on-line communica- tion continues to grow. ¯ Notes Starting with just a few host computers in 1969, the Internet connected 300,000 hosts by 1990 See M. Lottor, "lntemet Growth (198]-19901," RFC1296, ftp://nic.merit.edu/documents/rfc/rfc1296.txt. By July 1995, Internet survey statistics showed that the number of hosts on the tntemet exceeded 6.6 million, over 100% more than the year before. See Network Wizards, "lntemet Domain Survey, July ]995," http://www nw.com/zone/W~knN/report.html Using these host statistics, the lnternet Society has estimated that there are more than 25 million users of the Intemet in 125 countries. For a d~scuss~on of the problems of estimat- ing the number of Intemet users, see J. Quarten~an, "New Data on the Size of the lntemet and the Matnx/’ http://www.t~c.com/mids/pressbig.html The Intemet Society estimates can be found at http.//www.~soc.org/. It ~s not only the number of on-line networks and users that has grown The World Wide Web has achieved wide populanty since its introduction in 1993 By July 1995, there were over 21,000 computers providing Web information to at least 4 mdlion users Matthew Gray’s Web Wanderer Program contains a large database of Web servers (http://www. netgen.coml). 2.See ftp://ftp.sura,net/publmapsl, ftp://ftp.uu,netlinetlmapsl, ftp:llgate- keeper.dec.comlpublmapsl. 3. See TeleGeography 1993, page 21, and generally http.llwww.tic.coml. 4. See http:llwww.pc-comput~ng.ziff.coml-pccomplwebmapl, The map ~s also bundled with Atlas to the World Wide Web by Bob Powe]l and Karen Wickre IZiff Davis Press, EmeryvIlle, 19951. For another appl~cat~on of the subway map approach, see http.//ucmpl.berkeleyedulsubway.html The Subway Navigator (http.//metro.juss~eu.fr. 10001 I) has maps of real sub- way systems ~n c~t~es around the world. 5. See http://web kaleida,comlulhopkinslarpanet/arpanet.html. 6. Commercial companies tracking Web usage include Webster Network Strategies, Inc’s WebTrack (http://www, webster.com/) and D~mtal Planet’s NetCount (http.Hwww.Ogiplanet com/DP11netcount.html). TeleGeography 1995 © TeleCeography, Inc. 1995 Internet Glossary Anchor: The area of a hypertext document which is either the source or destinatzon of a hypertext link. Application: A software program that performs some task; an executable file located on a com- )uter host. Browser: A software program for accessing the World Wide Web; synonym for a Web client. Client: A software program which requests information or services from another software applicatmn, a server program, and displays this information in a particular form generally spec- ified by the computer hardware. Data communication: The exchange of digital information among hosts according to particu- lar protocols. Database or content: The information provided by a network server. Domain name: The alphabetic name for a host; this name is mapped to the computer’s numeric Internet Protocol (IP) address. FI’P (File Transfer Protocol): A means to exchange files across a network. FTP space: All information that can be retrieved from servers using the FTP protocol. Gopher: A protocol for disseminating informa- tion on the Internet using a system of subject- oriented menus; items in the menus can be links to other documents, searches, or links to other znformatzon services. Gopherspace: All information that can be retrieved from servers using the gopher proto- col. Graphical browser: A Web client which dis- plays on-hne images and fonts and which usu- ally offers mouse-based point-and click com- mands. HTML (Hypertext Markup Language): The soft- ware code used to create Web pages; Web browsers display these pages according to a browser-defined rendering scheme. HTI’P (Hypertext Transfer Protocol): The native )rotocol of the Web, used to transfer hypertext documents’, also, the first part of a Web URL. Home page: An entry page or screen of infor- mation for access to a ~ocai web; a page that a ]erson defines as his or her principal page, often containing personal or professional infor- mation. Host: A computer that is connected to a net- work. HotJavaTM: A Web browser developed by Sun M=crosystems capable of displaying programs written in the JavaTM programming language. Hypermedia: Hypertext which includes multi- media:text, graphics, ~mages, sound, and wdeo. Hypertext: Text which is linked to other texts in the same document or otherwise and thus not constrained to a single sequence; Web-based hypertext is not constrained to a single server for creating meaning (i.e., it may include text dzstributed on several computers). Internet: The cooperatively run, globally distrib- uted collection of computer networks that exchange information via the TCP/IP protocol suite. IRC (Internet Relay Chat): IRC provides real- time, many-to-many text discussion divided into channels, ~ike CB radio. Java--: An object-oriented programming lan- guage developed by Sun Microsystems for cre- ating distributed, executable applications. Keyword searcher:. An application which helps users locate resources based on matching a set of words or phrases. LAN: Local Area Network. Link: A connection between one hypertext doc- ument and another. Lynx: A nongraphical Web browser, developed by the University of Kansas. Matrix: The set of all networks that can exchange electronic mail either directly or through gateways. This includes the Internet, BITNET, FidoNet, UUCP, and commercial ser- vices such as America Online, CompuServe, Delphi, Prodigy, as well as other networks. Mosaic: A graphical Web browser originally developed by the National Center for Supercomputmg Applications (NCSA); now includes a number of commercially licensed products. MU*: MU*s offer groups of users real-time interactmn (usually using text). They are tradi- tionally used for social role-play=ng games. Navigating: The act of observing the content of the Web for some purpose. Net, The: An informal term for the Internet or a subset or a superset of the Matrix. Network: A set of computers or other commu- nication devices connected bytelecommunica- tion facilities. Network access point: A major entry point to a network. Network gateway: A connection between two networks where information coded in different protocols can be exchanged. Network router: A computer which directs the flow of data from computer to computer in a netvvork. News space: All information posted to USENET groups. Node (Page): A single file of hypertext markup language. Packet: A set of digital data handled as a unit in data transmission. Protocol: A set or rules or sequence of opera- tions that specify how computers exchange or process digital information. Server: A software application which provides information or services based on requests from client programs. Server list: A list of servers which provide infor- mation in a particular protocol. Site: File section of a computer on which Web documents (or other documents served in another protocol) reside; for example, a Web site, a Gopher site, an FTP site. Spider: A keyword searcher for the Web. Subject Tree: A breakdown of information m a hierarchical structure by subject or topics. Surfing: The act of navigating the Web, typical- ly using techniques for rapidly processing infor- mation in order to find subjectively valuable resources. Telnet: A protocol for sharing information across networks using a technique for terminal emulation; a distant telnet user can "log in" to a remote computer as if they were a local user. URL (Uniform Resource Locator): The address- ing scheme on the Web. A URL identifies a resource on the Web: it tells a browser the computer and the site where a web page is located and what type of file or application =t is. The URL for my home page URL is http: //wvwv.december.com. Usenet: An application for disseminating asyn- chronous text discussion among cooperating computer hosts; The Usenet d~scussion space is divided into newsgroups, each on a particu- lar topic or subtopic. VRML (Virtual Reality Modeling Language): A specification for three-dimensional rendering used in conjunction with Web browsers. WAIS (Wide Area Information Search): An information organizing application that responds to natural language queries by search=ng indexes of databases and retrieving resources. Weaving: The act of creating and linking Web pages. Web: A set of hypertext pages that is consid- ered a single work; typically, a single web is created by cooperating authors or an author and deployed on a s~ngle server with links to other servers; a subset of the Web. Web (The World Wide Web): A hypertext infor- mation and communication system popularly used on the Internet computer network with data communications operating according to a chent/server model. Web clients can access multi-protocol and hypermedia information using an addressing scheme which involves URLs. Web server: Soft~Nare which provides services to Web clients. Web space: All informat=on that can be retrieved from servers using the hypertext transfer protocol. © TeleGeography, Inc. 1995 Facilities and Carriers TeleGeography 1995 © TeleGeography, Inc. 1995 Trans-Pacific and Eurasian Cable Systems Cable Cost (US$) Capacity ~’ear in Service System per voice path (voice paths) 1957 Hawaii 1" 378,000 91 1964 TPC-I* 406,000 167 1974 Hawaii 2* 41,000 1,690 1975 TPC-2* 73,000 1,690 1988 TPC-3 16,000 37,800 1991 North Pacific Cable 5,000 85,000 1992 TPC-4 5,500 75,600 1996 TPC-5 2,000 605,000 1997 FLAG 1,500 605,000 No longer in service. Notes: Costs are capital and construction costs only, stated in US$ to the nearest $500, unadjust- ed for =nflat=on. Current technology permits approximately 5 virtual vmce paths to be derived from a dig=tal channel operating at 64,000 b~ts per second (64 kbWs). Fiber oplc cables are expected to have a useful hfe of at least 25 years. Table reports average cost per voice path for cables w~th multiple land=ng points. For example, the TAT-9 system connects the U.S. and Canada with the U.K, France and Spain. The average U.S-U.K. cost per voice path =s approx=mately $4000. Reserve capamty of cables zs generally excluded Source: FCC and carriers. TPC 5 © TeleGeographyo Inc, 1995 Submarine Cables MAJOR SUBMARINE CABLES Trans-Atlantic Cable Systems Cable Year in Service System Cost (US$) per voice path Capacity (voice paths) 1956 TAT-l* 557,000 89 1965 TAT-4* 365,000 138 1970 TAT-5* 49,000 1,440 1983 TAT-7* 23,000 8,400 1988 TAT-8 9,000 37,800 1989 PTAT 6,000 85,000 1991 TAT-9 5,500 75,600 1993 TAT-10 4,000 75,600 1994 CANTAT-3 1,000 302,000 1996-97 TAT-12/13 1,000 600,000 No longer in service. TeleGeography 1995 Table 1: © TeleGeography, Inc. 1995 Cable and Satellite Capacity on Trans-Atlantic and Trans-Padfic Routes, 1986-2000 Trans-Atlantic (North America-Europe) Voice Paths Trans-Pacific (North America-East Asia) Voice Paths Year Cable Satellite Cable Satellite 1986 22,000 78,000 2,000 39,000 1987 22,000 78,000 37,800 39,000 1988 60,000 78,000 37,800 39,000 1989 145,000 93,000 37,800 39,000 1990 145,000 283,000 37,800 39,000 1991 221,000 283,000 114,200 27,000 1992 296,600 496,000 190,500 27,000 1993 372,200 620,800 264,000 83,300 1994 664,000 620,800 264,000 234,000 1995 1,264,000 710,800 264,000 234,000 1996 t,264,000 710,800 864,600 234,000 1997-2000" 1,264,000 737,500 1,464,600 424,500 *minimum available Notes: Estimates of cable voice paths assume that 5 virtual voice paths can be derived from one 64 kbit/s digital circuit; cable estimates do not include circuits held in reserve for cable/satellite restoration services. Estimates of trans-Atlantic capacity exclude proposed PTAT-2 cable in 1997-2000 time- frame. Estimates of trans Pacific cable circuits are based on capacity from North America to Japan via Hawaii or Guam and exclude proposed SE-ME-WE-3, CANPAC-1, and Trans-Siberian Link (TSL) cables, all scheduled for 1996-97 timeframe. Estimates of satellite voice paths are based on Intelsat satel- lites only prior to 1993; satellite estimates exclude one Intelsat satellite in each region held in reserve. Estimates also assume one voice path per channel until 1989 deployment of Intelsat VI series with 24,000 channels or 120,800 voice paths using Digital Code Multiplication Equipment (DCME). The Intelsat VII series, deployed in 1992, has a nominal capacity of 18,000 channels or 90,000 voice paths using DCME. For 1993-2000 time period, esti- mates assume full capacity of the following non-lntelsat sys- tems is available: Trans-Atlaatic PAS-1; PAS-3, 0rion-1 and TBRS-4; Trans-Pacific PAS-2; Rimsat/Express (2 satellites) and TDRS-174. In the near term, some additional telecommunications circuits are likely to be available from Intersputnik, Hispansat and, after 1997, from the Iridium, Globalstar, and ICO Communication pro- posed mobile satellite systems. Currently, non-lntelsat sateF lites are limited to 8000 64 kbit/s circuits per satellite for public switched telephony. This limit will be phased out by 1998. Additionally, the capacity of the following "national" satellite systems may provide some trans-Pacific telecommunications service: Optus (Australia), Palapa Pacific (Indonesia), and, in the North Pacific, Aurora (U.S.). Regional capacity estimates do not necessarily imply that full capacity is available te satisfy demand on any given bilateral route. Source: FCC and carriers. ©TeleGeography, Inc. 1995 Trans-Atlantic and Trans-Pacific Cable Utilization, 1988-1996 5OO 400 300 200 0 1988 ~. Unused capacrb/ ¯ Used capac=W prolected 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 Source: Cornmunicatmns Week International © TeleGeographyo Inc. 1995 Submarine Cables The Next Generation of Cables: Beyond 50 The third generation of undersea fiber optic cables now entering service (TAT 12/13; TPC 5/6--see pp. 84-85) can carry approxi- mately 5 Gigabits per second (Gbit/s) per fiber pair or approxi- mately 320,000 virtual voice channels. This represents an order of magnitude increase from the second generation of cables (oper- ating at 560 Mbit/s) which, in turn, provided a tenfold increase in capacity over first generation cables such as TAT-8. Recent trials and experiments by AT&T, Alcatel and KDD suggest that the next generation of cables, to be deployed in the 2000- 2005 timeframe, will increase capacity by at least another order of magnitude to 50 Gbit/s and possibly to 80 Gbit/s or more. That w~ll be enough to transmit at least 5.5 million s~multaneous tele- phone calls or several hundred thousand channels of compressed video services. The enormous capacity of the next generation of fiber optic cables will result from two new technologies---optical soliton transmission and wave division multlplexing (WDM)--which leverage the bene- fits of earlier breakthroughs, such as optical amplifiers. Digital communications generally are sent over a fiber optic cable by very rapidly transforming the original electrical signal into troy pulses of laser light; the presence or absence of a pulse in a given period represents a binary 1 or 0. However, optical fibers can only carry a signal for a few hundred kilometers before it becomes too blurred or weak to be useable. Thus, long distance fiber optic cables contain repeaters, spaced at regular intervals, to amplify the signal. For many years the only way to regenerate a signal in a long haul cable was to use an opto-electronic amplifier which converted the weak light pulses into an electronic signal, boosted the signal through an amplifier, and then transformed the boosted signal back into light pulses. In the late 1980s, however, amplifiers were developed to regenerate the optical signal without any electronic intermediary. These optical amplifiers typically consist of a few meters of erbium-doped fiber (EDF) inserted into the transmission path and hence are known as EDF Amplifiers or EDFAs. An EDFA permits a signal to be "pumped" up using a laser light source thousands of kilometers away at one of the cable head ends. Notwithstanding optical amplifiers, the bit rate of long haul cable systems has generally been limited to 5 Gbit/s due to the way in which the light pulses propagate. But scientists have now devel- oped a way to create unique pulses of light, known as solitons, which maintain their shape and intensity at very high bit rates over great d~stances. For example, KDD has demonstrated the feasi- bility of transmitting a 20 Gbit/s optical soliton data stream by time division multiplexing 10 Gbit/s pulses on a 8100 kilometer fiber optic cable test bed. Gbit/s By coupling soliton technology with wave division multiplexing (WDM) the aggregate transmission capacity of any given fiber optic cable may be increased several fold. In one experiment, six- teen 2.5 Gbit/s channels, each with a different wavelength, were multiplexed together to create a 40 Gbit/s data stream over a dis- tance of over 1,400 kilometers. Field trials of WDM technologies are also promising: Alcatel has reported WDM transmission of four 2.5 Gbit/s data streams over 3,500 kilometers on the RIOJA cable system between the U.K. and Spain; AT&T has conducted a simi- lar trial transmitting 10 Gbit/s over a segment of the Columbus-2 cable between Florida and St. Thomas in the Caribbean. AT&T labs report that capacities of 50 Gbitis or more over distances of 10,000 kilometers should be feasible using soliton WDM. The commercial impact of these developments will be felt well before the next generation of cables is in the water. As shown by the RIOJA and Columbus-2 trials, WDB technologies will permit some cable owners to upgrade capacity merely by changing the equipment at the cable head ends. Four or even eightfold capac- ity increases may be possible. Second, development of WDM techniques is likely to make fiber optic systems increasingly flexi- ble and hence attractive to new investors. For example, because WDM can be used to create different virtual (frequency specific) channels on a cable, a cable can be partitioned to satisfy the rout- ing requirements (landing points) of particular carriers or countries without reducing the cable’s overall capacity. Finally, as sohton WDM technology moves into commercial pro- duction, the historical relationship between rater-continental and local prices ~s likely to flip flop. By 2003, for example, a call from Los Angeles to Tokyo via the latest trans-Pacific cable may cost tess than a call from one of Los Angeles’ many area codes to another. This is the new telecom economics which light wave technology will soon usher in. Sources: Franklin W. Kerfoot and Peter K. Runge, "Future Directions For Undersea Communications," AT&T Technical Journal (January/February 1995) Vol. 74 #1, pp. 93-100. S.S. Sian, S.M. Webb, K.M. Gill, "Sixteen x 2.5 Gbit/s WDM Unrepeater Transmission Over 427 km," Alcatel Submarine Networks, London (June 1995). N. Edagawa, I. Morita, M. Suzuki, S. Yamamoto, H. Taga and S. Akiba, "20 Gbit/s 8100 KM Straight-Line Single-Channel Soliton- Based RZ Transmission Experiment Using Periodic Dispersion Compensation," KDD R&D Laboratories, Japan (July 1995). Linn E Mollenauer, "Recent Advances in Ultra Long Distance, High Bit Rate Soliton Transmission," Speakers" Papers, 7th World Telecommunication Forum, ITU Technology Summit, vol. 1 (Geneva: ITU, 1995), pp. 761-65. TeleGeography 1995 © TeleGeography, Inc. 1995 Table 2: The Top 40 International Carriers, 1990-94 Outgoing Traffic (millions of MiTTs) Rank Company Country 1994 1993 Change93-94 1992 1990 1 AT&T (a,b) United States 7947 7129 11.5% 6984 6080 2 Deutsche Telekom (c) Germany 5147 4680 10.0% 4087 3146 3 MCl (a,b) United States 3517 2839 23.9% 2083 1184 4 France T~l~com (a) France 2603 2576 1.0% 2449 2128 5 BT(d) United Kin(Jdom 2489 2310 7.7% 2188 2170 6 Telecom Italia (e) Italy 1708 1610 6.1% 1473 1045 7 Swiss PTT Switzerland 1649 1572 4.9% 1551 1356 8 Hongkong Telecom (a,d,f) Hong Kong 1578 1377 14.6% 1137 1120 9 Stentor (b,g) Canada 1525 1552 -1.7% 1520 1344 10 Sprint (a,b) United States __ 1471 1175 25.2% 940 577 11 KPN (a) Netherlands 1346 1238 8.7% 1134 905 12 China MPT(f) China 1090 870 25.3% 635 350 13 Belgacom (a) Belgium 1049 979 7.2% 911 731 14 Mercury(d) United Kingdom 1018 820 24.1% 661 354 15 KDD (d) Japan 1011 952 6.2% 893 764 16 TelefGnica Spain 948 847 11.9% 804 611 17 T~l~globe (a) Canada 861 808 6.8% 676 565 18 Telmex (a) Mexico 844 n.a. n.a. 684 421 19 Austrian PTT(a) Austria 819 767 6.8% 713 559 20 Telia AB (i) Sweden 697 683 2.0% 693 631 21 Telstra (h) Australia 690 640 7.8% n.a. 565 22 Singapore Telecom (d,j) Singapore 643 480 34.0% 412 223 23 Worldcom United States 555 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 24 Saudi Com. Ministry Saudi Arabia 499 448 11.4% 465 320 25 DGTTaiwan (a) Taiwan 498 455 9.5% 369 242 26 TeleDanmark Denmark 488 452 8.0% 425 362 27 Etisalat U.A.E. 428 342 25.2% 299 242 28 OTE (a) Greece 423 336 25.8% 299 213 29 Norwegian Telecom Norway 396 376 5.2% 349 281 30 Telekomunikacja Polska Poland 357 273 30.6% 213 81 31 Telekom Malaysia Malaysia 342 258 32.6% 217 140 32 Korea Telecom Rep. of Korea 327 265 23.4% 245 188 33 Telecom Eireann (a,d,I) Ireland 324 316 2.5% 297 262 34 Videsh Sanchar (d,k) India 314 284 10.6% 260 147 35 Telkom South Africa South Africa n.a. 255 n.a. 222 156 36 Turkish PTT Turkey 284 265 7.3% 227 159 37 IDC (d) Japan 263 239 10.0% 197 56 38 ITJ (d) Japan 251 228 10.1% 193 61 39 HTC Hungary 237 213 11.3% 184 122 40 Telecom Finland Finland 233 253 -7.9% 235 215 MfTI is Minutes of Telecommunications Traffic. Data are for public voice circuits only rounded to the nearest million MITT. a. 1993 and 1994 traffic based on billing point of call, not origi- nating point. b. Data for North American carriers include cross-border traffic. c. For Deutsche Telekom, all data include outgoing traffic from the former East Germany. d. Data are for the Fisca{ Year (April 1993to March 1994). HKT and Mercury are majority owned by Cable & Wireless (U.K.). e. Combined totals for Iritel and Italcable. Prior to 1994, Iritel (formerly ASST) handled intra-continental traffic only, and Italcable carried overseas traffic. f. Includes Hong Kong-Chlnatraffic. g. Stentor was formerly Telecom Canada; Stentor traffic is for U.S. onty of which approximately 70% is originated by Bell Canada. h. Telstra was formerly AOTC. i. Telia AB was formerly Televerket. j. Singapore Telecom data, except for 1990, include traffic to Malaysia (except local border traffic). k. V~desh Sanchar data exclude traffic to Bangladesh, Nepal, Pakistan and Sri Lanka. I. Telecom Eireann data exclude traffic to Northern Ireland. © TeleGeography, Inc. 1995 © TeleGeography, Inc. 1995 Table 2a: Market Share of Competing International Carriers, TeleGeography 1995 1988-95 Country/Carrier United States AT&T MCl Sprint Worldcom U.K. (F.~.) BT Mercu~/ IPL Resellers Japan (F. Y.) KDD IDC New Zealand (F. Y.) TN7 ClearCom Korea, Republic of Korea Telecom Dacom Chile Entel Chile Chilesat CTC-Mundo VTR Telecom BellSouth Chile Philippines PLDT Philippine Global Com Eastern Telecom Capitol Wireless Sweden Telia AB Tele-2 Percentage of Outgoing MiTT 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 89.1 833 78.4 74.8 70.3 62.2 60.1 7.0 10.2 14.6 17.8 21.2 24.8 265 3.5 5.8 6.4 6.3 7.3 10.3 11.1 n.a 0.6 2.1 95.5 91.0 86.0 81.0 76.8 74.2 686 4.5 9.0 14.0 19.0 23.2 24.0 28.1 2.2 3.3 93.3 88.0 73.3 697 66.9 66.3 37 6.5 13.3 15.3 16.9 17.3 30 5.5 134 15.0 16.2 16.4 92.0 82.0 80.0 78.4 74.8 8.0 18.0 20.0 21.6 25.2 79.9 74.5 68.7 20.1 25.5 31.3 1995 800 55.0 n.a. 42.5 200 20.0 n.a. 20.5 n.a. 20.5 10 5.0 n.a 12.0 na. 4.0 91.6 84.2 69 8.4 15.8 23 n.a n a. 7 n.a. n.a. 1 92.3 86.9 7.7 13.1 Notes: MiTT is Minutes of Telecommunications Traffic. Data based on outgoing international traffic for the public switched network only. Unless stated, data exclude traffic and market share of carriers reselling international pri- vate line services (IPL resellers). Market shares are for the full year, beginning in the first year of competition. Market shares for U.S. carriers exclude IPL resellers and prior to 1993 exclude resellers and traffic to Canada and Mexico; minor U.S. carriers are not listed. For U.K. carriers traffic to Ireland is excluded prior to 1994. In 1993, Chilean shares to not add up to 100% because Chilesat reportedly acted as an international gateway in 1993. This gateway handled an additional 20% of outbound traffic originated by CTC, the largest local exchange company, prior to the establishment of CTC Mundo. The 1995 figures for Chile are April 1995 industry estimates. ©TeleGeography, Inc. 1995 TeleGeography 1995 Table 2b: Market Share of Competing International Carriers, © TeleGeographyo Inc. 1995 1988-95 (cont’d) Percentage of Outgoing MiTT Country/Carrier 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 Australia Telstra 98.0 87.0 Optus 2.0 13.0 1994 1995 81.0 19.0 Canada (Canada-U.So route only) Stentor 93 85 Unitel 2 8 Westel 1 1 IPL Resellers 4 6 Finland Telecom Finland 90 73 Finnet International 5 18 Telivo 3 6 Others 2 3 Dominican Republic Codetel >90 85.8 Tricom n.a 6.7 All America Cables and Radio, Inc. (AACR) n.a. 7.5 Indonesia PT Indosat 99 >95 PT Satehndo 1 5 Notes: MiTT is Minutes of Telecommunications Traffic. Data based on outgoing international traffic for the public switched network only. Unless stated, data exclude traffic and market share of carriers reselling international pri- vate line services (IPL resellers). Market shares are for the full year, beginning in the first year of competition. For Australia, market share of AAP, estimated at less than 2%, is excluded. For Finland, Finnet International and Telivo only began service in July 1994, and 1995 figures reflect June 1995 market shares. For Indonesia, PT Satelindo only began international service in September 1994; the 1995 figures reflect June 1995 market estimates. ©TeleGeography, Inc. 1995 Traffic Flows TeleGeography 1995 © TeleGeographyo Inc. 1995 INTERCONTINENTAL TELECOMMUNICATIONS FLOWS, 1994 © TeleGeography, Inc. 1995 Maps EUROPEAN TELECOMMUNICATIONS FLOWS, 1994 TeleGeography 1995 © TeleGeography, Inc. 1995 EAST ASIAN TELECOMMUNICATIONS FLOWS, 1994 © Tele6eography, Inc. 1995 CHINA 71% Key All figures are g~ven m mdhons of Minutes of Telecommumcatlons Traffic (mM=’Ti’s), for the pubhc telephone network The map shows all mtra-As~an routes with an annuat votume of more than 20 mM~TTs The total volume of these routes =s 4 9 M~’Fi’s, approx=mate[y 9% of all global ~nternat=onal traffic. Traffic Flows 200 100 50 Each band ~s proportional to the total annual traff=c on the public telephone network =n both d~rectlons between each pair of countries. ~=~]+;~ Balance of Traffic On routes where traffic m one direction accoants for more than 60% of the total, an arrow shows the direct=on most of the traffic flows. AUSTRALIA OTotal Outgoing Traffic (~ 250 500 1, 000 The area of each circle =s proportional to the volume of the total annual outgoing traffic from each country, shown as a number. © TeleGeography, Inc. 1995 Maps SOUTH AMERICAN TELECOMMUNICATIONS FLOWS, 1994 CHILE BRAZIL URUGUAY © TeleGeography, Inc. 1995 Key W Traffic Flows 12 6 3 Each band =s proportional to the total annual traffic on public networks =n both d~rect=ons between each pmr of countries. All figures are given in mdhons of M~nutes of Telecomrnumcat~ons Traffic (mM~TTs). The map shows all routes w~th~n South America w~th an annual volume of rnore than 3 m~lhon M~’~i’s The total volume of these routes is 278 rnilhon MiTl’s, approximately 0.5% of global ~nternatlonal M~TI’s (~)Total Outgoing Traffic 100 Each c~rcle is proportional to the volume of the total annual outgmng traffic from each country, shown bythe number. ,~-~%~- Balance of Traffic On routes where traffic ~n one d~rect~on accounts for more than 60% of the total (except on routes to Chile, where only partial data are available), an arrow shows which way most of the traffic flows. TeleGeography 1995 © TeleGeographyo Inc. 1995 Table 3: The Top 50 International Routes, 1994 Countries MiTT each way Total MiTT 1. United States/Canada 2635,2/1688.1 4323.3 2. United States/Mexico 1654.3/747.0 2401.3 3. United States/United Kingdom 905.5/588.7 1494.2 4. Hong Kong/China 820.8/650.0 1470.8 5. Umted States/Germany 603.3/275.8 879.1 6. United States/Ja pan 465.6/304.7 770.3 7. Germany/Austria 389.1/344.5 733.6 8. Germany/France 371.1/299.6 670.7 9. Germany/Switzerland 367.1/297.5 664.6 10. Germany/United Kingdom 353.8/309.0 662.8 11. Netherlands/(3ermany 313.5/306.3 619.8 12. (3ermany/Italy 342.7/267.3 610.0 13. United Kingdom/France 307.0/300.5 607.5 14. United Kingdom/Ireland 312.0/211.3 523.3 15. United States/France 304.5/170.0 474.6 16. Belgium/France 250.9/212.6 463.5 17. Italy/France 226.4/217.6 444.0 18. Netherlands/Belgium 221.3/217.4 438.8 19. Germany/Turkey 340.5/98.1 438.6 20. Switzerland/France 282.0/149.5 431.5 21. United States/Korea 282.7/123.5 406.2 22. Switzerland/Italy 235.5/168.9 404.4 23. United States/Domin Rep. 309.7/60.5 370.2 24. United States/Italy 250.4/101.0 351.4 25. Singapore/Malaysia 190.0/159.8 349.8 26. Germany/Poland 197.7/124.4 322.1 27. United States/Taiwan 225.6/93.4 319.0 28. France/Spain 163.9/152.3 316.2 29. United States/Hong Kong 213.3/100.5 313.8 30. Netherlands/United Kingdom 165.4/143.0 308.4 31. United States/Philippines 258.6/41.7 300.3 32. United States/Australia 154.4/138.4 292.8 33. Germany/Spain 152.6/138.9 291.5 34. United Kingdom/Italy 155.0/135.1 290.1 35. United States/Colombia 229.2/58.1 287.3 36. United States/Brazil 221.5/61.8 283.3 37. Spazn/United Kingdom 142.4/134.0 276.4 38. Germany/Belgium 137.8/133.3 27!.1 39. Australia/United Kingdom 150.3/112.0 262.3 40. _Japan/Korea 150.3/106.5 256.8 41. United States/Israel 195.4/59.8 255.2 42. Canada/United Kingdom 150.0/104.0 254.0 43, Japan/China 171.0/70.8 241.8 44. Australia/New Zealand 171.0/70.7 241.7 45. United States/India 188.6/51.7 240.4 46. Sweden/Finland 113.0/106.0 219.0 47. United States/China 169.2/48.3 217.5 48. Sweden/Norway 109.0/104.0 213.0 49. United States/Netherlands 129.9/82,3 212.2 50. United States/Jamaica 167.3/35.8 203.1 All data in millions of minutes of telecommunications traffic (MITT). The country which generates more traffic on each route is listed first. The routes listed above total 27.7 billion minutes, 52% of all international traffic. For routes to and from the United States, calls are measured by point of billing in both directions. See Methodology, page 169. Americas International Traffic TeleGeography 1995 © TeleGeography, Inc. 1995 Destination Largest Telecommunications Routes, 1994 MiTT Percentage of Outgoing Traffic ’~ ~!>" ~>~ "-’ ;"~ 4.1% 7>,~ ~~,~77~,~ .,,.,f++ 3.0% ;~"..~t~ 2.4% ~}~ 2.1 .~ 1.9% "~:f~!~’~ 1.9% 1.1% ~t 0.9% >~7+,"-’~ 0.9% i7~,~ 0.6% O.5% ~;:;~;,~, ~4’~ ~’~’,-"-’~, :~: ~, 6.8% MiJ~ is Minutes of Telecommunications Traffic. Data are in millions of minutes for public voice circuits. © TeleGeography, Inc. 1995 1. United States .......... 35.9 2. Uruguay .............. 31.9 3. Brazil ................ 20.8 4. Chile ................. 12.4 5. Spain ................ 11.3 6. Italy ................... 9.4 7. Paraguay .............. 7.3 8. Peru ................... 5.3 9. Bolivia ................ 4.2 10. France ................ 3.9 11. 6ermany .............. 3.6 12. United Kingdom ......... 3.3 13. Mexico ................ 3.3 14. Colombia .............. 2.0 15. Venezuela ............. 1.8 16. Taiwan ................ 1.6 17, Canada ................ 1.6 18. Israel ................. 1.5 19. Hong Kong ............. 1.0 20. Netherlands ............ 0.8 Other ................. 11.9 National Traffic Balance MiTr 1992 1993 1994 Incoming 159.7 192.3 252.6 Outgoing 124.3 137.1 175.0 Surplus (Deficit) 35.4 55.4 77.7 Total Volu m e 284.1 239.4 427.6 Note: Data based on billing point of traffic. © TeleGeography, Inc. 1995 International Telephone Traffic--Americas Brazil Destination Largest Mi’n" 1. United States .......... 64.7 2. Argentina ............. 20.1 3. Portugal .............. 10.0 4. Italy ................... 9.9 5. 6ermany .............. 9.8 6. United Kingdom ......... 7.9 7. France ................ 7.5 8. Uruguay ............... 6.3 9. Japan ................. 4.8 10. Paraguay .............. 4.8 11. Spain ................. 4.7 12. Chile .................. 4.4 13. Switzerland ............ 3.6 14. Mexico ................ 3.1 15. Canada ................ 2.7 16. Sao Tome and Principe ...2.7 17. Bolivia ................ 2.4 18. Netherlands ............ 2.0 19. Colombia .............. 2.0 20. Venezuela ............. 2.0 Other ................. 23.7 MiTT is Minutes of Telecommunications Traffic. Telecommunications Routes, 1994 Percentage of Outgoing Traffic ".’~:~’~’"~:>:~:~> 5.0% ~i;~2,; 4.9% ,~,,~,,,,~,~.,,,~, 4.0 ,,,,,,,,~, ;~,~,,, 3.8% [i"~,~:’,i 2.4% ~,~ii-~ 2.4% ~2~ 2.4% ~?~’? 2.2% N~ ~i)~;~ 1.3% ~,’>.’~ 1.2% 1.o% ~ii 1.o% !~: 1,o% Data are in millions o~ minutes ~or ~ublic voice circuits. National Traffic Balance MiTT 1992 1993 1994 Incoming 330.6 373.8 408.0 Outgoing 169.9 182.4 199.0 Surplus (D eficit) 160.7 191.4 209.0 Total Volume 500.5 556.2 607.0 Note: Data based on billing point of traffic. TeleGeography 1995 © TeleGeogr~phy, Inc. 1995 Largest Telecommunications Routes, Destination Mi’l’r 1. United States ........ 1795 2. United Kingdom ....... !30 3. Hong Kong ............ 59 4. France ............... 49 5. Germany .............. 46 6. Italy .................. 38 7. Australia .............. 27 8. India ................. 24 1994 Percentage of Outgoing Traffic ~,:i~~’~ 4.9% !~i~ 2.2% ,- 1.8% i~i:i 1.7% :," 1.4% 1.0% 0.9% 9. Jamaica .............. 23 ,,’, 0.9% 10. Philippines ............ 21 ,,, 0.8% 11. Japan ................ 20 iio.8% 12. Netherlands ........... 17 ! 0.6% 13. Mexico ............... 16 o.6% 14. China ................ 16 0.6% 15. Portugal .............. 14 o.5% Other MiTT is Minutes of Telecommunications Traffic. Data are in millions of minutes for public voice circuits. © Tele6eography, Inc, 1995 National Traffic Balance MiTT 1992 1993 1994 Incoming, 445.4 503.4 543.8 Outgoing 675.9 761.5 861.2 Surplus (Deficit) (230.5) (258.1) (317.4) Total Volume 1121.3 1264.9 1405.0 Notes: Incoming and outgoing totals are for T~l~globe only and exclude all Canada-U.S. traffic. T~l~globe data based on billing point of traffic. U.S. route traffic is for Stentor, Unitel, Westel and IPL resellers combined, but IPL resellers’ traffic is not included on other routes (i.e., to the U.K. and Australia). For further details, see notes on page 108. Route data are rounded to the nearest million minutes. © TeleGeography, Inc. 1995 International Telephone Traffic--Americas Chile Largest Telecommunications Routes, 1994 Destination MiTr Percentage of Outgoing Traffic 1. United States .28.0 2. Argentina ............. 13.0 ~," i~i:,’:~i~!;~i~:~ ;~ii~i!’,,,",::~,!:iiii!i,~,’-:;"i:i.i’~i~,iii!ii~:;;~"17.7% 3. Spain ................. 4.0 4. Brazil ................. 3.5 ii~i;!iii!i:i~!~:ii,,~i 4.8% 5. Peru ................... 3.0 6. Canada ................ 2.0 i,!i~iii": 2.7% 7. United Kingdom ......... 2.0 :i~,,~ii~,! 2.7% 8. Italy ................... 2.0 ’~’:~:~" 2.7% 9. 6ermany .............. 1.5 ~,t’,,;!~,,: 2.0% 10. France ................ 1.5 :’~’~ii, 2.o% 11. Bolivia ................ 1.5 !i:i~i~i 2.0% 12. Mexico .1.5 :,;?,~i~ 2.0% .............. 13. Venezuela ............. 1.0 ii!~:, 1.40/o 14. Colombia .............. 1.0 ,, 1.4O/o 15. Uruguay ............... 1.0 ~:ii,~, 1.4% Other ................. 7.0 ~:’~!,~::i,:,~,’~:i;~ "~:;’,~ 9.5% MiTT is Minutes of Telecommunications Traffic. Bate are in millions of minutes for public voice circuits. © TeleGeography, Inc. 1995 National Traffic Balance MiTT 1992 1993 1994 Incoming 85.6 105.0 n.a. Outgoing 55.0 61.7 73.5 Surplus (Deficit) 30.6 43.3 n.a. Total Volume 140.6 166.7 n.a. Note: Data are rounded to the nearest 500,000 minutes and are for Entel Chile, CTC-Mundo, ChileSat, and VTR only. 101 TeleGeography 1995 © TeleGeography, Inc, 1995 Destination Largest Telecommunications Routes, 1994 Mi’rr Percentage of Outgoing Traffic ~’~;~ 4,2% ~%# 4.2% ~" 3.7% 6. ~£’~; 3.3% 7. ~}~ 2.7% 8, ~~ 2.2% 9. ~# 2.2% 10. ~#~ 1.8% 12. ~’~ 1.8% 13. %~;~ 1.7% 1.3% t6. ~.~ ~?. 0.7% 8. 0.6% 19. ; 0.5~o 20. 0.3% Mi~ is Minutas af Telacommunieations Traffic. ~ata are in millions ol minutes ~or ~ublic voice circuits. United States .......... 60.3 Venezuela ............ 13.4 Spain ................. 5.1 Ecuador ............... 5.0 Panama ............... 4.4 Mexico ................ 4.0 Italy ................... 3.2 United Kingdom ......... 2.7 Brazil ................. 2.6 Costa Rica ............. 2.4 France ................ 2.2 Germany .............. 2.2 Peru ................... 2.0 Argentina .............. 1.9 Canada ................ 1.6 Chile .................. 1.3 Switzerland ............ 0.8 Dominican Republic ..... 0.7 Netherlands ............ 0.6 Sweden ............... 0.4 Other ................. 2.8 National Traffic Balance Mil-F 1992 1993 1994 In c o m in g 238.0 278.7 302.8 Outgoing 94.5 102.4 120.3 Surplus (Deficit) 143.5 176.3 182.5 Total Volume 332.5 381.1 423.1 ~ote: Totals may appear inconsistent with other figures due to rounding. 102 © TeleGeography, Inc. 1995 International Telephone Traffic--Americas Dominican Republic Largest Telecommunications Routes, 1994 Destination Mi’l’r 1. United States .......... 43.3 2. Puerto Rico ............. 8.3 3. Spain ................. 1.5 4. Italy ................... 1.1 5. Canada ................ 1.0 6, Germany .............. 0,9 7. Venezuela ............. 0.8 8. Mexico ................ 0.5 9. Colombia .............. 0.4 10. Panama ............... 0.4 11. Cuba .................. 0.4 12. Haiti ................... 0.3 13. Switzerland ............ 0.3 14. Curacao ............... 0.3 15. France ................ 0.2 16. Korea, Rep. of .......... 0.2 17. Argentina .............. 0.2 18. Costa Rica ............. 0.2 19. United Kingdom ......... 0.2 20. Netherlands Antilles ..... 0.2 Other ................. 2.9 Percentage of Outgoing Traffic ,~ 1.7% i’ll’ 1.6% ,~"! 1.4% :~ 0.8% "~, 0.6% 0.6% ; 0.6% ¯ O.5% 0.5% 0.4% 0.4% 0.3% 0.4% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% ~:~:,~,,,~: 4.6% MiTT is Minutes of Telecommunications Traffic. Data are in millions of minutes for public voice circuits. © TeleGeography, Inc. 1995 National Traffic Balance M i TT 1992 1993 Incoming n.a. n.a. Outgoing 53.5 58.3 Surplus (Deficit) n.a. n.a. Total Volume n.a. n.a. 1994 404.0 63.5 340.5 467.5 Note: Data are for Codetel only and are based on billing point of traffic. AACR had approximately 6.3 million MiTT outbound and 34.4 million MiTT inbound in 1994. TeleGeography 995 © TeleGeogr~phyo Inc. 1995 ’ E c u a do r Destination Largest Telecommunications Routes, 1994 MiTr Percentage of Outgoing Traffic 3. ~i~,,. 3.3% 4. ~i;!i 3"0% 5. ~i! 3.0% 6. ~i 2.5% 7. ~i 1.9% 8. ~!ii 1.9% 9. ~i!~ 1.9% 10. i~: 1.6% 11. ~! 1.6% 12. ~i 1.6% 13. ~! 1.4% 14. i~! 1,1% 15. i~;. 1.1% 16. i! 0.8% 17. !i 0.8% 18. 0.5% 19. ~..! 0.5% 20. 0.5% ~i~ 5.5% MiTF is Minutes of Telecommunications Traffic. Data are in millions of minutes for public voice circuits. © TeleGeography, Inc. 1995 United States .......... 19.2 Colombia .............. 4,7 Chile .................. 1.2 Peru ................... 1.1 Venezuela ............. 1.1 Brazil ................. 0.9 Spain ................. 0.7 Argentina .............. 0.7 Panama ............... 0.7 Mexico ................ 0.6 Germany .............. 0.6 Canada ................ 0.6 Italy ................... 0.5 United Kingdom ......... 0.4 France ................ 0,4 Costa Rica ............. 0.3 Switzerland ............ 0.3 Japan ................. 0.2 Bolivia ................ 0.2 Hong Kong ............. 0.2 Other ................. 2.0 National Traffic Balance MiTT 1992 1993 1994 Incoming 87.4 102.3 128.6 Outgo, ing 28.6 33.6 36.4 Surplus (Deficit) 58.9 68.7 92.2 Total Volume 116.0 136.0 165.0 Note: Data based on billing point of traffic. Totals may appear inconsistent with other figures due to rounding. 104 © TeleGeography, Inc. 1995 International Telephone Traffic--Americas Mexico Destination Largest Telecommunications Routes, 1994 MiTr Percentage of Outgoing Traffic 1.6% 1.1% 1.1% 0,6% 0,6% 0,5% 0.5% 0,4% 11. Guatemala ............. 3.3 o.4% 12. Brazil ................. 3.1 o.4% 13. Chile .................. 2.6 o.3% 14. Costa Rica ............. 2.3 o.3% 15. Venezuela ............. 2.0 0.2% 16. Peru .................. 1.8 o.2% 17. Japan ................. 1.7 o.2% 18, El Salvador ............. 1.7 o.2% 19. Switzerland ............ 1.7 o.2% 20. Panama ............... 1.5 o.2% Other ................. 18.7 :ii 2.2% MiTF is Minutes of Telecommunications Traffic. Data are in millions of minutes for public voice circuits. © TeleGeography, Inc. 1995 National Traffic Balance 1. United States ......... 745.2 2. Canada ............... 13.3 3. Spain ................. 9.1 4. France ................ 8.9 5. United Kingdom ......... 5.2 6. Cuba .................. 5.0 7. Germany .............. 4.9 8. Colombia .............. 4.5 9. Italy ................... 4.1 10. Argentina .............. 3.4 MiTT 1992 1993 1994 Incoming 1,115.0 1,370.6 1,829.4 Outgoing 683.5 625.4 844.1 Surplus (Deficit) 431.5 745.2 985.4 Total Volume 1,798.5 1,996.0 2,673.5 Note: Data based on billing point of traffic. 1993 figures do not include traffic generated by Tel~fonos del Noroeste (Telnor), a Telmex subsidiary. Totals may appear inconsistent with other figures due to rounding. 105 TeleGeography 1995 © TeleGeography, Inc. 1995 Destination Largest Telecommunications Routes, 1994 Mi3"r Percentage of Outgoing Traffic 4-. "~’>i’~" ~’~~’~; 4.3% 7. ~i 2.1% 8. ~i 1.8% 9. ~! 1.5% 10. ~i~ 1.3% 11. 1.3% 12. ~.2% 13. 14. 0.8% 15, 0.8% 16. 0.6% 17. 0.6% 18. 0.6% 19, o,s% 20. 0.5% 0.7% Mi~ is Minutes of Telecommunications Traffic, Data are in miilions of minutes for public voice circuits. Tele6eography, Inc. 1995 Argentina .............. 5.8 Brazil ................. 5.0 United States ........... 2.4 Chile .................. 0.8 Uruguay ............... 0.7 Italy ................... 0.6 Germany .............. 0.4 Spain ................. 0.3 Taiwan ................ 0.3 Bolivia ................ 0.2 Korea, Rep. of .......... 0.2 Peru ................... 0.2 France ................ 0.2 Japan ................. 0.1 Hong Kon~] ............. 0.1 United Kingdom ......... 0.1 Switzerland ............ 0.1 Canada ................ 0.1 Mexico ................ 0.1 Panama ................ 0.1 Other ................. 0.1 National Traffic Balance MiTT 1992 1993 1994 Incpming n.a. 24.5 30.6 Outgoing 13.7 15.5 18.1 Surplus (Deficit) n.a. 9.0 12.5 Total Volume n.a. 40.0 48.7 Note: Totals may appear inconsistent with other figures due to rounding. 106 © TeleGeography, Inc. 1995 International Telephone Traffic--Americas Peru Largest Telecommunications Routes, 1994 Destination MiTT Percentage of Outgoing Traffic 1. United States .......... 22.5 ~’~:~i~,~,~,~,2~,-,’~:~ii~:!~i~:i,~,~i,~t: ~!~,:~’~:~¢,~ii~:i~i~,i~"~:,~, ,~,.,~I:~:!,,:~L, 44.1% 2. Chile .4.0 ........... ,,,~:~ 7.8% ................ 3. Argentina .3.0 ~,~¢:~’,~,-:,’~-’~-" 6 0% ............ L~ ~.."2~ :~,.~ ~t ,,’. Spain ................. 3.0 iii 9 ° 5. Italy ................... 2.0 ,,;~,~" "~, :3.9% 6. Brazil ................. 1.8 !~i~,,~,~, :3.5% 7. Colombia .............. 1.8 !~:3.5% 8. Venezuela .1.7 -~;~~"’~ 3.3% ............ g. Bolivia ................ 1.3 2.6% 10. Mexico ................ 1.2 ,,,’~,~ 2.4% 11 Ecuador .1.2 ;’~"!:" ............... ¢,~,,~!!: 2.4% 12. Japan ................. 1.2 ~ii2.~% 13. Germany .1.0 ~tt~ 1.9% ~" o 14. Canada ................ 1.0 ~i’;~; 1.9~ 15. United Kingdom ......... 0.9 !~! 1.7% ~6. France ................ 0.8 !i~ ~.8% 17. Swit.zerland ............ 0.5 ~i 1.o% 18. Panama ............... 0.5 !il ~.Oo/o 1~. Costa Rica ............. 0.3 o.fi% 20. Uruguay ............... 0.2 ! o.3% Other ................. 1.3 ~i~:~ 2.~O/o MiTF is Minutes of Telecommunications Traffic. Data are in millions of minutes for public voice circuits. © TeleGeography, Inc. 1995 National Traffic Balance MiTT 1992 1993 1994 Incoming 128.1 152.4 178.6 Outgoing 32.1 39.0 51.0 Surplus (Deficit) 96.0 113.4 127.6 Total Volume 160.2 191.4 229.6 Note: Data based on billing point of traffic. Totals may appear inconsistent with other figures due to rounding. TeleGeography 1995 © TeleGeography, Inc. 1995 United States (Outgoing) Destination MiTr 1993 MiTr 1994 1. Canada ............. 2493.1 ..... 2635.2 2. Mexico ............. 1398.8 ..... 1654.3 3. United Kingdom ...... 799.8 ...... 905.5 4. Germany ............ 572.4 ...... 603.3 5. Japan ............... 397.2 ...... 465.6 6. Dominican Republic ..253.3 ...... 309.7 7. France .............. 263.6 ...... 304.5 8. Korea ............... 237.3 ...... 282.7 14. 20. Philippines ........... 219.1 Italy ................ 229.6 Colombia ............ 200.2 Ta iwa n .............. 184.3 Brazil ............... 171.4 Hong Kong ........... 142.8 Israel ............... 162.6 India ................ 134.1 China ............... 110.1 Jamaica ............. 144.5 ...... 258.6 ...... 250.4 ...... 229.2 ...... 225.6 ...... 221.5 ...... 213.3 ...... 195.4 ...... 188.6 ...... 169.2 ...... 167.3 Australia ............ 126.1 ...... 154.4 Netherlands .......... 107.3 ...... 129.9 Other ........................ 3,636.0 Mi’I-F is Minutes of Telecommunications Largest Telecommunications Routes, 1994 Percentage of Outgoing Traffic 1994 ........... ""~:’~ "’.;’,;>, 20.0% :,S~+,,’;~,~:~ 2.3% ~!~’; 2.1% ,,,,,,~,~,-~, 2.0% 1.3% "7,~, 1.2% i:’7! 1.o% Traffic. Data are in millions of minutes for public voice circuits. © Tele6eography, Inc. 1995 National Traffic Balance MiTT 1992 1993 1994 Incoming 3149.4 3284.4 3698.0 Outgoing 6670.4 7500.3 8910.8 Surplus (Deficit) (3521.0), (4125.9) (52123) Total Volume 8814.3 9819.8 12608.8 Note: Data based on billing point of traffic. Totals may appear inconsistent with other figures due to rounding. Incoming and outgoing traffic totals exclude Canada and Mexico traffic and traffic from non-Continental U.S. territories (Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands, and Guam). Route-by-Route data also exclude these territories. Canada traffic excludes IPL resellers, which in 1994 reported 147 million minutes of U.S.-billed traffic and 107 million minutes of Canada-billed traffic. No U.S. certified IPL resellers operated in 1994 on any other U.S. route. © TeleGeography, Inc. 1995 International Telephone Traffic--Americas United States (Incoming) Largest Destination MiTT 1993 MiTT 1994 1. Canada ............. 1602.3 ..... 1688.1 2. Mexico .............. 456.1 ...... 747.0 3. United Kingdom ...... 499.9 ...... 588.7 4. Japan ............... 287.8 ...... 304.7 5. Germany ............ 263.2 ...... 275.8 6. France .............. 161.7 ...... 170.0 7. Australia ............ 118.2 ...... 138.4 8. Korea, Rep. of ........ 101.4 ...... t23.5 9. Italy ................. 98.7 ...... 101.0 10. Hong Kong ............ 89.4 ...... 100.5 11. Taiwan ............... 88.5 ....... 93.4 12. Netherlands .......... 76.7 ....... 82.3 13. Switzerland ........... 66.0 ....... 72.8 14. Brazil ................ 46.9 ....... 61.8 15. Dominican Republic ...57.6 ....... 60.5 16. Israel ................ 53.2 ....... 59.8 17. Sweden .............. 53.5 ....... 58.2 18. Colombia ............. 51.8 ....... 58.1 19. Venezuela ............ 45.6 ....... 54.9 20. India ................. 55.5 ....... 51.7 Other ......................... 1241.7 MiTT is Minutes of Telecommunications Telecommunications Routes, 1994 Percentage of Incoming Traffic 1994 L~I~iL 1.6% :"" 1.3% ~"i" "~: 1.2% ,i~,,, 1.0% :’: 1.0% :~:L 0.9% 0.9% ~,~’-" 0.8% Traffic. Data are in millions of minutes for public voice circuits. @ TeleSeography, Inc. 1995 Note: Data based on billing point of traffic. Incoming traffic reported by the United States may not match outgo- ing traffic to the United States reported by other countries due to different accounting procedures (some coun- tries may report U.S.-billed calls to the U.S. as outgoing calls to the U.S.), different fiscal years, and inclusion or exclusion of operator-assisted calls. See Methodology (page 169) for more information. 109 TeleGeography 1995 © TeleCeography, Inc. 1995 USA: Other Correspondents 11o © TeleGeography, Inc. 1995 International Telephone Traffic--Americas Uruguay Largest Telecommunications Routes, 1994 Destination Mi~i" 1. Argentina ............. 26.5 2. Brazil ................. 5.9 3. United States ........... 4.6 4. Spain ................. 1.6 5. Chile .................. 1.1 6. Paraguay .............. 0.8 7. Italy ................... 0.7 8. France ................ 0.5 9. Germany .............. 0.4 10. United Kingdom ......... 0.4 11. Mexico ................ 0.3 12. Israel ................. 0.3 13. Canada ................ 0.3 14. Switzerland ............ 0.3 15. Venezuela ............. 0.3 16. Colombia .............. 0.2 17. Australia .............. 0.2 18. Peru .................. 0.2 19. Panama ............... 0.1 20. Sweden ............... 0.1 Other ................. 1.6 Percentage of Outgoing Traffic ~!:~ 9.9% 3,5% i!!i 1.7% 1.5% 1.0% 0.9% 0.8% 0.7% 0.6% 0.6% 0,6% 0.6% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% i0.3% MiTT is Minutes of Telecommunications Traffic. Data are in millions of minutes for public voice circuits. © TeleGeography, Inc. 1995 National Traffic Balance MiTT 1992 1993 Incoming ,, 53.0 58.0 Outgoing 30.2 37.4 Surplus (Deficit) 22.8 20.6 Total Volume 83.2 95.4 1994 67.7 46.3 21.4 114.0 Note: Data based on billing point of traffic. 111 TeleGeography 995 © TeleGeography, Inc. 1995 Largest Telecommunications Routes, 1994 I)estination Mi’n" Peroeutage of Outgoing Traffio 1. United States .57.0 %~;~:~~~t~;’,t"L;~,,’~?~,~st;.°~#;~;:>,,~,:x~,,~ 40.4% 2. Colombia ............. !9.3 ~:~:~:,~;,~:~:f~::,~:~,,~:~;~,~# 13.7% 3. Spain .8.3 ............... #~:~.;~..~;~ 5.9% 4. Italy ................... 6.4 4.5% 5. Dominican Republic ..... 4.0 2.8% 6. 2.5% 7. ~:~ 2.0% 8. ~.8% ~;~ 1.8% 10. 11. ~: 1.7% 12. t3. ~.6% 14. ~; ~.5% 15. 16. ~;~, 1.3% 17. 18. ~.0% 19. o.9% 20. Mi~ is Minutes of Telecommunications #affic. Data are in millions of minutes for public voice circuits. @ TeleGeography, Inc. 1995 Peru ................... 3.5 Canada ................ 2.9 Mexico ................ 2.5 Portugal ............... 2.5 Brazil ................. 2.5 Chile .................. 2.4 Argentina .............. 2.3 France ................ 2.2 Ecuador ............... 2.1 Germany .............. 2.1 United Kingdom ......... 1.8 Puerto Rico ............. 1.5 Netherlands Antilles ..... 1.5 Hong Kong ............. 1.3 Lebanon ............... 1.2 Other ................. 14.0 National Traffic Balance MiTT 1992 1993 1994 incoming ,, 128.6 148.3 164.3 outgoing, 115.5 133.3 141.3 su rplu#,(D efi cit) 13.1 15.0 23.0 Total Volume 244.1 281.6 305.6 Nute: Data based on billing point of traffic. 112 urope International Traffic TeleGeography 1995 © TeleGeography, Inc. 1995 Largest Telecommunications Routes, 1994 I)estinatien MiTT Percenta~le ef Out~l~in~] Traffic 1. Germany .344.5 ...... :,v~:~’,,’,-v,,,,:.,-.,v,",÷" ~-;,~-:’~,;;~:~’~:,"~,::,-,v,~ ,:~,~,",’,’,:,’~,’:-,,’~":~,: ,,,,~,-,,-,,,~:~::,~-,~-~- ......... ..... ~:~.,~,,.-,~,-z,,,,,.~,~,,’,,:",,,:~-:,~:,;4~,~ ~,’~ :,;;,~;,,, ,~,;, ,,~;,: :,:,,, -~,~,,,,’,’, ",,~- 42.0% 2. Switzerland ........... 49.3 ,]~,~i~,:i!~?-:,-:,,,,,~ 6.o~ 3. Italy .................. 42.5 +,i:’:~,,~i~!iil 5.2% 4. Yugoslavia ............ 31.0 i~ii!!:i;ti 3.8% 5. Hungary .............. 28.6 :~;’i’:~",, 3.5% 6. United States .......... 24.9 i!~,~i~i;i 3.0% 7. Turkey ................ 24.5 ~!!!i~"i,i 3.0% 8. Croatia ............... 23.1 :,i~!:ii:i 2.8% 9. France ............... 21.0 ~:::’ 2.6% 10. Poland ............... 20.3 ,i;i:,i:;2.5% 11. Netherlands ........... 19.4 ,’i, ilt 2.4% 12. Czech Republic ........ 18.3 ~,,~" 2.2% 13. United Kingdom ........ 16.6 2.0% 14. Slovenia .............. 14.4 ,,::~i 1.8% 15. Slovak Republic ........ 11.0 1.3% 16. Romania ............... 9.1 1.1% 17, Russia ................. 9.1 ,,,:,, 1.1% 18. Belgium ............... 8,7 "," 1,1% 19. Sweden ............... 7.4 ::10.9% Other ,95.5 :-’, ,,~/,:,; ,,4,-,,~,~,"’~,,, 11.7% MiTT is Minutes of Telecommunications Traffic. Data are in millions of minutes for public voice circuits. © TeleGeography, Inc. 199,5 National Traffic Balance M iTT 1992 1993 1994 Incoming 692.3 751.0 774.5 Outgoing 713.4 767.4 819.2 Surplus (gefic!t) (21.1) (16.4) (44.7) Total Volume 1,405.7 1,518.4 1,593.7 114 © TeleGeography, Inc. 1995 International Telephone Traffic--Europe Belgium Largest Telecommunications Routes, 1994 Destination MiTt Percentage of Outgoing Traffic 1. France .............. 250.9 2. Netherlands .......... 217.4 !.,-/;,,, ,~,;~,:,,!,., ,-,,,’,~,~i~ ili~!C~’i:,i~!~i:iiiii~’:",’;i~:,~";,!~:;~:~:’~":,~,,’~:i,’~,: !is 20.7% 3. G e rm a ny ............. 133.3 ;>, ~,’;:i;i~,i~:,;;,~4";’~!!:i~i~i;!:~ili’~,i:il,;ii~!;i~ii,~i;~’,’,’;! 12.7% 4. United Kingdom ........ 93.0 i~i,,,:i!;:’ii~,,~,~i~!ii:’!:i:~,,"~,:’:,::ii’ii,’~i~i,~:’: 8.9%° 5. Italy .................. 55.4 ~"",’,’~ :;~ ~’i ,’"",::, 5.3% 6. United States .38.7 i"~:~,;’:’,:’::i:,’:, 3.7% ......... :.\~,, ,Z’,, 7. Luxembourg ........... 37.5 ~’i,~,iii~!~i!i,’~"!~ 3.6% 8. Spain .31.9 ............... ;~,-x~,~.,,, :,, 3.0% 9. Switzerland ........... 24.7 #" ~"::. ,,~:"~.~ 2.4% 10. Sweden .............. 12.1 i~i~:~ 1.1%o 11. Portugal .............. 11.2 i:’ti~;i, 1.1% 12. Greece ............... 11.0 ~:i’:;i 1.0% 13. Denmark .............. 9.8 !,,i:; 0.9% 14. Turkey ................. 9.4 ’i,’, 0.9% 15. Austria ................ 8.7 ,4~" 0.8% 16. Morocco .............. 8.5 !’,’" o.8% 17. Poland ................ 7.7 !%, 0.7% 18. Ireland ................ 5.9 ~’~’~ 0.6% 19. Canada ................ 5.1 ~’~ 0.5% 20. Norway ............... 4.9 i’i0.5% Other ................. 72.0 ~i~!i~i!i~!i!i:i~,;;i!,.;,,~i::i 6.9% MiTT is Minutes of Telecommunications Traffic. Data are in millions of minutes for public voice circuits. © TeleGeography, Inc. 1995 National Traffic Balance MiTT 1992 1993 1994 I n c o rain g 952.7 1,025.3 1,093.9 Outgoing 911.1 979.4 1,049.0 Surplus (Deficit) 41.6 45.9 44.9 Total Volume 1,863.8 2,004.7 2,142.9 Note: Data based on billing point of traffic. Totals may appear inconsistent with other figures due to rounding. 115 TeleGeography 1995 © TeleGeography. Inc. 1995 Destination 2. 3. 4. 5. MiTT Germany .............. 44.2 Slovenia .............. 24.0 Italy .................. 14.3 Austria ............... 13,7 Switzerland ............ 6.0 6. United Kingdom ......... 5.0 7. France ................ 4.2 8. United States ........... 4.0 9. Netherlands ............ 2.8 10. Macedonia, TI=YR ........ 2.4 11. Sweden ............... 2.2 12. Hungary ............... 2.0 13. Belgium ............... 1.7 14. Canada ................ 1.7 15. Czech Republic ......... 1.6 16. Australia .............. 1.5 17. Spain ................. 1.5 18. Russia ................. 1.4 19. Denmark .............. 1.3 20. Slovak Bepublic ........ 0.8 Other ................. 48.9 MiTT is Minutes of Telecommunications Traffic. Largest Telecommunications Routes, 1994 Percentage of Outgoing Traffic ~;~ 3.2% 2.3% 2.2% ~?~ 1 5% ~; 1.3% 1.2% 1.1% 0.9% ;~; o.9~ o.e% o.e~o 0.4% Data are in millions of minutes for public voice circuits. TeleGeography, Inc. 1995 National Traffic Balance Mi]-I" 1992 1993 1994 Incoming 189.1 170.3 240.2 Outgoing 104.7 117.2 185.5 Surplus (Deficit) 84.4 53.0 54.8 Total Volume 293.8 287.5 425.7 Notes: Data based on billing point of traffic. 1994 traffic totals include traffic to and from Bosnia, not counted in previous years. 1994 outgoing traffic to Bosnia was approximately 30 million minutes. Totals may appear incon- sistent with other figures due to rounding. 116 © TeleGeography, Inc. 1995 International Telephone Traffic--Europe Cyprus Destination Largest MiTT 1. United Kingdom ........ 29.7 2. Greece ............... 22.2 3. United States ........... 4.9 4. Germany .............. 4.5 5. Russia ................. 4.0 6. Lebanon ............... 2.6 7. France ................ 2.5 8. Romania ............... 2.4 9. Yugoslavia ............. 2.3 10. Italy ................... 2.3 11. Syria .................. 1.8 12. Bulgaria ............... 1.7 13. Egypt ................. 1.5 14. Switzerland ............ 1.5 15. Israel ................. 1.5 16. Canada ................ 1.3 17. Sweden ............... 1.2 18. Netherlands ............ 1.2 19. Ukraine ................ 1.1 20. Austria ................ 1.1 Other ................. 15.3 MiTT is Minutes of Telecommunications Traffic. Telecommunications Routes, 1994 Percentage of Outgoing Traffic ~+ ~’x>;~, ........... ~"’,:,’~,~,,,.~7:,,~’ ,’,"~ ," ,~,,-~;,, --",’,’, .................. -, ;; ~,,, ~,,>.’, 27.9% ~;~ ~;~::~!~,,’,~2 4.3% ~:;~:;’,~ ,~ 2.5% 7 ~{L-’; 2.3% ~>~:~:~’,~ 2.3% ,7%’~-" ,,7 2.2% .~.-,,. 2.1% ~#4~ 1.7% ~} 1.6% r,\~;,>", 1.4°/o ~z-7~ 1.4% ~i~,i 1.2% ~i 1.1% 7~! 1 .o% ’,~-~’,~,:,,’, ,,~ ........ ;".,’,1~’~,~’#, ,~:~’>~ ...... ~,~;,’,",, 14.4% Data are in millions of minutes for public voice circuits. © TeleGeography, Inc. 1995 National Traffic Balance MiTT 199~ 1993 1994 Incoming 73.7 72.2 79.0 Outgoing 85.3 93.8 106.6 Surplus (Deficit) (11.6) (21.6) (27.5) Total Volume 159.0 166.0 185.6 Note: Data based on billing point of traffic. 117 TeleGeography 1995 © TeleGeography, Inc. 1995 Czech Republic Destination 1. Germany .............. 50.1 2. Austria ............... 15.1 3. United Kingdom ........ 10.2 4. Italy ................... 8.1 5. France ................ 6.7 6. United States ........... 6.5 7. Poland ................ 5.8 8. Switzerland ............ 5.1 9. Netherlands ............ 4.9 10. Canada ................ 4.5 11. Russia ................. 4.4 12. Belgium ............... 3.1 13. Ukraine ................ 2.9 14. Hungary ............... 2.3 15. Spain ................. 2.1 16. Vietnam ............... 2.0 17. Sweden ............... 1.9 18. Hong Kong ............. 1.9 19. Croatia ................ 1.8 20. Yugoslavia ............. 1.7 Other ................. 16.5 MiTT is Minutes of Telecommunications Traffic. Largest Telecommunications Routes, 1994 Mi3"r Percentage of Outgoing Traffic ,~,~,~,: ,~ ~,~j.~,, :.,,,, ?~ ::~&~.j.~?~> ~C~;~.~,t ~, ,~,L,, .’~,~:~,,~, 31.8 ;~ 1.3% 1.2% Data are in millions of minutes for public voice circuits. @ TeleGeography, Inc. 1995 National Traffic Balance MiTT 1992 1993 1994 Incoming n.a. ... n.a.... 210.0 Outgoing n.a. 141.4 157.6 Surplus (Deficit) n.a. n.a. 52.4 Total Volume n.a. n.a. 367.6 Note: Data based on billing point of traffic and exclude traffic to and from the Slovak Republic. 118 © TeleGeography, Inc. 1995 International Telephone Traffic--Europe Denmark Destination Largest Telecommunications Routes, 1994 Mi’l-I" Percentage of Outgoing Traffic iiii:::i i ii: 2.0%0 i:I:L",~" :. 1.9% ~’," ,~-": 1.8% ’;. :i,.-’~ 1.7% i~,~(: 0.9% ;";~ 0.7%o i::.i~. 0.7% Mi]-r is Minutes of Telecommunications Traffic. Data are in millions of minutes for public voice circuits. © TeleGeography, Inc. 1995 1. Germany .............. 96.3 2. Sweden .............. 79.9 3. United Kingdom ........ 52.5 4. Norway .............. 49.0 5. United States .......... 23.5 6. France ............... 21.9 7. Netherlands ........... 19.1 8. Italy .................. 12.0 9. Switzerland ........... 10.4 10. Finland ................ 9.9 11. Belgium ............... 9.6 12. Spain ................. 9.2 13. Faroe Islands ........... 8.6 14. Poland ................ 8.2 15. Turkey ................. 5.1 16. Greenland .............. 4.5 17. Austria ................ 4.2 18. Canada ................ 3.2 19. Iceland ................ 3.2 20. Greece ................ 3.2 Other ................. 54.7 National Traffic Balance MiTT 1992 1993 1994 I n c omin g 425.2 460.0 500.9 Outgoing 424.5 452.3 488.4 Surplus (Deficit) 0.7 7.7 12.4 Total Volume 849.7 912.3 989.3 Note: Totals may appear inconsistent with other figures due to rounding. TeleGeography 1995 © TeleGeography, Inc. 1995 Destination Largest Mi’l-r 1. Russia ................ 14.0 2. Finland ............... 13.8 3. Sweden ............... 3.9 4. Ukraine ................ 2.6 5. Germany .............. 2.3 6. Latvia .................. 2.2 7. Lithuania ............... 1.3 8. United States ........... 1.2 9. Belarus ................ 1.1 10. Denmark .............. 0.8 11. United Kingdom ......... 0.8 12. Netherlands ............ 0.5 13. Norway ............... 0.4 14. France ................ 0.3 15. Poland ................ 0.2 16. Belgium ............... 0.2 17. Italy ................... 0.2 18. Switzerland ............ 0.2 19. Kazakhstan ............. 0.2 20. Canada ................ 0.2 Other ................. 1.7 Telecommunications Routes, 1994 Percentage of Outgoing Traffic ...... ~, ~~#]~," ~ :~ 0.8% 0.6% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% ¯ 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% "~’~’7"~;~, o MiTT is Minutes of Telecommunications Traffic. Data are in millions of minutes for public voice circuits. © TeleGeography, Inc. 1995 National Traffic Balance MiTT 1992 1993 1994 Incoming n.a. n.a. 50.8 Outgoing n.a. 41.2 48.1 Surplus (Deficit) n.a. n.a. 2.7 Total Volume n.a. n.a. 98.9 Note: Data based on billing point of traffic. Totals may appear inconsistent with other figures due to rounding. 120 © TeleGeography, Inc. 1995 International Telephone Traffic--Europe Finland Largest Telecommunications Routes, 1994 Destination MiTT Percentage of Outgoing Traffic 5. United States .......... 16 : ,~i;~’,~!, 6.2% 6. Estonia ............... 14 ,’:’,’~;i;’~’’ 5.4% 9. France ................ 7 ,~i’~i: 2.7% 10. Netherlands ............ 6 ::,i~ 2.3"/o 11. Switzerland ............ 6 ;:i~-,’:,! 2.3% 12. Italy ................... 5 ’,!,;, ~.9% 13. Spain ................. 4 ~,i~ 1"5°/° 14. Belgium ............... 4 "~,:,~ 1.5% MiTT is Minutes of Telecommunications Traffic. Data are in millions of minutes for public voice circuits. © TeleGeography, Inc. 1995 National Traffic Balance MiTT 1992 1993 1994 Incoming n.a. n.a. 285 Outgoing 235 n.a. 259 Surplus (Deficit) n.a. n.a. 26 Total Volume n.a. n.a. 544 Nete: Data are rounded to the nearest million minutes. Data include Telecom Finland, Finnet International, Telivo, and ~lands Mobiltelefon. 121 TeleGeography 1995 © TeleGeographyo Inc. 1995 ’ Largest Telecommunications Routes, 1994 Destination Mi33" Percentage of Outgoing Traffic 1. United Kingdom .300.5 .,,~,,,,,,,~,~,~,.,,o;~~;~: ,~,,,~,,,,~,~,~,%~,;~:,,,,:’,.~.~,’,,,~ 11.5% 2. Germany ............. 299.6 ,~z~4~!!~,~,~i~iZi:~~D~, 11.5% 3. Italy ................. 217.6 4. Belgium ............. 212.6 5. Spain ............... 163.9 ~£’~¢~7/~’~4~P~ 6.3% 6. United States ......... 160.9 ~~6.2% 7. Swi~erland .149.5 ~~ 5.7% 8. Po~ugal .123.0 ............ ~,,~;~;,,~’,~;;~ -~ ,~,. ~.~ 9. Netherlands .88.3 ~%~, 34% 10. Morocco .78.4 ............ 11. Algeria ............... 61.0 2.3% 12. Tunisia ............... 41.2 ~1.6% 13. Canada ............... 34.6 1.3% 14. Turkey ................ 29.5 1.1% 15. Sweden .............. 23.7 0.9% 16. Poland ............... 21.7 0.8% 17. Greece ............... 19.1 0.7% 18. Denmark .............. 18.9 0.7% 19. Austria ............... 18.5 0.7% 20. Luxembourg ........... 18.1 0.7% Mi~ is Minutes of Telecommunications Traffic. Data are in millions of minutes for public voice circuits¯ @ TeleGeography, Inc. 1995 National Traffic Balance MiTT 1992 1993 1994 Incoming 2,540.0 2,,7!0.0 ¯ ,2,739.5 Outgoing. 2,449.0 2,576.0 2,602.5 Surplus (Deficit) 91.0 134.0 137.0 Total Volume 4,989.0 5,286.0 5,342.0 122 © TeleGeography, Inc. 1995 International Telephone Traffic--Europe Germany Largest Telecommunications Routes, 1994 Destination MiTt 1. Austria .............. 389.1 2. France .............. 371.1 3. Switzerland .......... 367.1 4. United Kingdom ....... 353.8 5. Italy ................. 342.7 6. Turkey ............... 340.5 7. Netherlands .......... 306.3 8. United States ......... 299.0 9. Poland .............. 197.7 10. Spain ............... 152.6 11. Belgium ............. 137.8 12. Greece .............. 115.5 13. Croatia .............. 110.1 14. Denmark ............. 100.5 !5. Czech Republic ........ 79.0 16. Sweden .............. 64.0 17. Netherlands Antilles .... 64.0 18. Portugal .............. 58.6 19. Hungary .............. 58.1 20, Dominican Republic .... 57,8 Other ............... 1181.6 ::" ’, ~:~".-~’~:,,’~,,,~,,~",,"~’"," ~-f ,C’."~’;’,’,"-"; ,:.~"~, ;;"..’.,’i." ?’, "i "~?~ ’i.!~’~!~~,, ." ,Z;’~, ÷~--, ~, ;;;~/."’5~’:,~, 23,0% MiTT is Minutes of Telecommunications Traffic. Bata are in millions of minutes for public voice circuits. @ TeleGeography, Inc. 1995 National Traffic Balance MiTT 1992 1993 1994 In coming 3,100.0 3,707.8 3,881.2 0 utg o in g 4,087.0 4,679.6 5,147.1 Surplus (Deficit) (987.0) (971.8) (1,265.9) Total Volume 7,187.0 8,387.4 9,028.3 Note: Data based on originating point of traffic. 1993 data based on billing point oftraffic. 125 TeleGeography 1995 © TeleOeography, Inc. 1995 Destination Largest Telecommunications Routes, 1994 MiTt Percentage of Outgoing Traffic ~. ~2,’Z ,,,,, ~,T~#;~ ;,,, ~,-,,~, 3.7% 9. ~%!~ 2.5% ~"~"~ ~’-;~i 2.5% 11. .~.~, .~.".:~:.~.." 2.3% 15. 16. ~! 1.5% 17. ~i ~.4% 18. 1.4% 19. ~i 1.4% 20. 1.2% Mi17 is Minutes of Telecommunications Traffic. Data are in millions of minutes for public voice circuits. Tela~eo~ra~hg, Inc. Germany .............. 78.2 United Kingdom ........ 56.0 Italy .................. 37.4 United States .......... 29.6 Canada ............... 24.1 France ............... 21.6 Cyprus ............... 15.8 Belgium .............. 10.7 Netherlands ........... 10.4 Australia .............. 10.4 Switzerland ............ 9.7 Romania ............... 8.9 Bulgaria ............... 8.7 Albania ................ 7.4 Yugoslavia ............. 7.3 Russia ................. 6.2 Austria ................ 6.0 Turkey ................. 6.0 Sweden ............... 5.9 Poland ................ 4.9 Other ................. 57.6 National Traffic Balance MiTT 1992 1993 1994 Incoming .... 359.7 406.1 441.2 0 utg o in g 298.9 336.2 422.7 Surplus (Deficit) 60.8 70.0 18.6 Total Volume 658.6 742.3 863.9 Note: Totals may appear inconsistent with other figures due to rounding. © TeleGeography, Inc. 1995 International Telephone Traffic--Europe Hungary Largest Telecommunications Routes, 1994 Destination Mi’l’r Percentage of Outgoing Traffic ............. .,"~,~, ~:’~,~;~;~,’,~ ,,,,’~ ~; ~’,P,’,’~ ,~,,-:,’.,’’,,~,~;~,,,,- ~>~,~,,~,,::, :, ,, ~,~>~ : ,~+~,~ ,,~,, ~,~ ~>;~>~ ~,~; 23.1% .............. ~,, ~:~:::~, ~z,,~:,,~:#~,~:>~:’,~,~,~g;:~, ~#,’z 12.1% 3. United States .15.3 ......... ~,,.~,, ~~,,~,,:~>,,~-~,>~,.~,> 6,5% 4. Italy .................. 12.3 5. Romania .12.3 ~~;~:~-,~-,~t:,~:-~:~- 5.2% 6. United Kingdom .12.1 ,-~,;~,,*,~:~,’~:’~:~t~:~~ 5.1% 7. Yugoslavia ............. 8.3 8. France 2.8 9. Russia ................. 7.5 ~,~ 3.2% 10. Swi~erland .6.9 {~:~,,’~,~#,:~, 2.9% .......... 11. Slovak Republic .6.5 %~ 2.7% 12. Netherlands ............ 6.0 2.5% 13. Ukraine ................ 5.0 ~2.1% 14. Sweden ............... 4.2 ~:~ 1.8% 15. Belgium ............... 3.6 1.5% ~?. Polan6 ................ &O ]8. Craatia ................ 2.9 ~9. Czech aa~ublic ......... 2.6 20. Sraeca ................ 23 Mi~ is Minutes of Telecommunications #affic. Data are in millions of minutes for public voice circuits. @Tale6eographg, Inc. 1995 National Traffic Balance MiTT 1992 1993 1994 Incoming 150.5 192.8 211.9 0 utg o in g 183.8 213.2 236.6 Surplus (Deficit) (33.3) (20.4) (24.7) Total Volume 334.3 406.0 448.5 Note: Data based on billing point of traffic. Totals may appear inconsistent with other figures due to rounding. 125 TeleGeography 1995 © TeleGeography, Inc. 1995 Destination Largest Telecommunications Routes, 1994 MiTr Percentage of Outgoing Traffic 1. United States .6.6 .......... ~~~ ,,~;~ ,;~;,~;~ ,;,~ ,;~-,,~ ~:~,,~;~:,~ ~% 25.3% ............. ~~~¢~t .... 2. ~enmark .3.5 3. United Kingdom 2.8 ....... ~;~,~:~,~>::~:~:~,~ 10,8% 5. Noway 2.3 ~:~:~~ 8.7% 11. ~:~ ~.4% 12. ~~ 1.4% 17. ~’~: 0.6% 18. 0.5% 19. 0.4% 20. 0.4% Other .1.4 ................ Mi~ is Minutes of Telecommunications Traffic. Data are in millions of minutes for public voice circuits. @ TeleGeography, Inc. 1995 Germany .............. 2.0 France ................ 0.7 Netherlands ............ 0.7 Faroe Islands ........... 0.5 Spain ................. 0.4 Belgium ............... 0.4 Italy ................... 0.4 Canada ................ 0.3 Finland ................ 0.3 Switzerland ............ 0,3 Luxembourg ............ 0.2 Austria ................ 0,2 Russia ................. 0,1 Portugal ............... 0.1 Ireland ................ 0.1 National Traffic Balance Mi-I-F 1992 1993 1994 Incoming 21.7 23.4 25.5 Outgoing ¯ 22.1 24.1 26.0 Surplus (Deficit) (0.4) (0.7) (0.4) Total Volume 43.8 47.5 51.5 Note: Data based on billing point of traffic. 126 © TeleGeography, Inc. 1995 International Telephone Traffic--Europe Ireland Largest Telecommunications Routes, FY 1994/95 Destination MiTT Percentage of Outgoing Traffic 1. United Kingdom .211.3 ~’4~ ~,,,!!~’,~;’~; ........ ,:{:~,~,," ~-’.;A;’,’,~,~,,’~,’,~;’,~ -:~’,’;~,’;{~’,,’, ,:~,"~:,,’.~’~" ............. ", ~’,"~,:’ :":" 65.3% .:-.,.~..~ ~.~.;~.....~>~ & ....~:..-’~ :..’~-~: ~;; ..’..’~ ~. ~. "~J&:~.:~ ....~...’~ ":.~.’~2.&...~.~.~J~:~.’b;:.~ ~;.:...~...~...:P..~ ;’~2~.:;.~:.~it 2. United States .38.4 ,"&i~z~\’?::;!’~; 11.9% 3. Germany .............. 13.7 4.2% 4. France ............... 11.1 ~i 3.4% 5. Netherlands ............ 6,4 2.o% 6. Italy ................... 4.8 !i! 1.5% 7. Spain ................. 4.8 ~i 1.5% 8. Belgium ............... 4.1 i~i 1.3% 9. Canada ................ 3.9 "," 1.2% 10. Australia .............. 3.4 ii1"1% 11. Switzerland ............ 2.4 0.7% 12. Denmark .............. 1.9 i°’6% 13. Sweden ............... 1.9 ~; 0.6% 14. Japan ................. 1.0 :, o.3% 15. Austria ................ 0.8 0.2% 16. Norway ............... 0.7 o.2% 17. Hong Kong ............. 0.7 o.2% 18. South Africa ........... 0.7 o.2% 19. Portugal ............... 0.7 0.2% 20. Saudi Arabia ........... 0.6 o.2% Other ................. 10.3 3.2% MiTT is Minutes of Telecommunications Traffic. Data are in millions of minutes for public voice circuits. © TeleGeography, Inc. 1995 National Traffic Balance MiTT I~t 1992/93 1993/94 1994/95 Incoming 383.0 423.0 442.9 Outgoing 296.6 315.8 323.7 Surplus (Deficit) 86.4 107.2 119.2 Total Volume 679.6 738.8 766.5 Netes: Data based on billing point of traffic. Traffic to Northern Ireland is excluded in both totals and route data. Totals may appear inconsistent with other figures due to rounding. Fiscal year ends 31 March. 127 TeleGeography 1995 © TeleGeography, Inc. 1995 Largest Telecommunications Routes, 1994 Destination MiTi" Percentage of Outgoing Traffic 1 Germany .267.3 ~~,’~~,~"~:~" ,= ~, 2. France .............. 226.4 4. United Kingdom .135.1 5. United States .102.5 ~~ 6.0% 6. Spain ................ g2.~ 7. Belgium .49.9 N~g;-*@~ 2.9% 8. Austria ............... ~.9 %~;~ 2.6% 9. Netherlands .36.6 ";~;:~’>:~3, 2.1% 10. Canada .33.3 ~;~;%~ ~.9% .............. 11. Greece .2&5 12. Morocco ............. 28.1 ~4 1.6% 13. Croatia .24.6 ~z~ 1.4% .............. 14. Poland ............... 23.1 1.4% 15. Romania .............. 22.2 1.3% 16. Tunisia ............... 19.9 ~:~: ~.2% 17. ~d~ .............. 1&O l& ~u~i~ ................ 13.G 0.~ 1& Hun~a~ .............. 11.6 20. Slovania .............. ~].2 Mi~ is Minutes of Telecommunications #affic. Data are in millions of minutes for public voice circuits. @ TeleGeography, Inc. 1995 National Traffic Balance MiTT 1992 1993 1994 Incoming .1,541.0 1,672.7 1,864:0 Outgoing 1,473.4 1,609.7 1,708.0 Surplus (Deficit) 67.6 63.0 156.0 Total Volume 3,014.4 3,282.4 3,572.0 Note: Data based on billing point of traffic. Totals may appear inconsistent with other figures due to rounding. 128 © TeleGeography, Inc. 1995 International Telephone Traffic--Europe Luxembourg Destination 1. Belgium .............. 48.5 2. Germany .............. 43.2 3. France ............... 41.8 4. Portugal .............. 13.6 5. United Kingdom ........ 13.1 6. Italy .................. 10.5 7. Netherlands ............ 7.7 8. Switzerland ............ 6.3 9. United States ........... 5.2 10. Denmark .............. 3.4 11. Spain ................. 3.2 12. Austria ................ 1.9 13. Sweden ............... 1.8 14. Greece ................ 1.4 15. Ireland ................ 0.9 16. Japan ................. 0.7 17. Canada ................ 0.6 18. Hong Kong ............. 0.6 19. Norway ............... 0.6 20. Finland ................ 0.6 Other ................. 8.2 Largest Telecommunications Routes, 1994 MiTr Percentage of Outgoing Traffic ~,~ 1.6% 1.5% 0.9% ~!~ 0.8% ,)~ 0.6% ~i 0.4% o2% 0,3% 0.3% ~! 0.3% : 0.3% ~! 3.8 ~o MiTT is Minutes of Telecommunications Traffic. Data are in millions of minutes for public voice circuits. © Tele6eography, Inc. 1995 National Traffic Balance MiTT 1992 1993 1994 Incoming 107.5 131.7 145.2 Outgoing 181.0 199.3 213.5 Surplus (Deficit) (73.5) (67.6) (68.3) Total Volume 288.5 331.0 358.7 Note: Totals may appear inconsistent with other figures due to rounding. 129 TeleGeography 1995 © TeleGeography, Inc. 1995 Destination 1. Germany .............. 5.3 2. Yugoslavia ............. 4.9 3. Bulgaria ............... 3.3 4. Croatia ................ 2.5 5. Switzerland ............ 2.3 6. Slovenia ............... 2.2 7. Turkey ................. 1.7 8. United States ........... 1.7 9. Austria ................ 1.5 10. Italy ................... 1.2 11. Greece ................ 0.9 12. Australia .............. 0.8 13. Sweden ............... 0.6 14. Russia ................. 0.6 15. Netherlands ............ 0.6 16. France ................ 0.6 17. United Kingdom ......... 0.6 18. Albania ................ 0.5 19. Canada ................ 0.3 20. Belgium ............... 0.3 Other ................. 3.1 Largest Telecommunications Routes, 1994 MiTT Percentage of Outgoing Traffic 0.9% 0.8% Mi~ is Minutes of Telecommunications Traffic. Data are in millions of minutes for public voice circuits. @ Tele6eography, Inc. 1995 National Traffic Balance MiTT 1992 1993 1994 Incoming n.a. 48.0 78.3 Outgoing n.a. 27.6 35.1 Surplus (Deficit) n.a. 20.4 43.2 Total Volume n.a. 75.6 113.4 Note: Totals may appear inconsistent with other figures due to rounding. 130 © TeleGeography, Inc. 1995 International Telephone Traffic--Europe Netherlands Largest Telecommunications Routes, 1994 Destination Mi’rr Percentage of Outgoing Traffic 2. Belgium ............. 221.3 ~::~:~.~,~’~, :~:~;‘~;;~**~:~{*~?~/~‘‘‘~;>>~;~;~%~:~‘~‘J;~i~ 16.4% 3. United Kingdom .165.4 ...... .’~;-~>;’,~’~,~,,,~-,~:~t;.~;~’.~;~;~,.;~,~,"~;~:~ ~, 12.3% 5. United States .......... 83.4 ~(~;,;~;~;;~’; 6.2% 6. Italy .43.5 ................. ~;~,, ~: 3.2% 7. Swi~erland ........... 38.8 8. Spain .37.4 }%}}7%~’ 2.8% ............... 7,z,~,,~ 9. Turkey ................ 27,7 ~z:~:~:;~.~;7~ 2.1% 10. Sweden .............. 21.7 ~1.6% 11. Denmark .............. 19.8 ~.5% 12. Austria ............... 18.6 ~.4% 13. Canada ............... 15.2 1.~% 14. Poland ............... 13.3 ~, 1.o% 15. Noway .............. 11.7 ~o.9% 16. Greece ............... 11,3 17. Morocco ............. 10.3 18. Po~ugal .............. 10.0 o.7% 19. Ireland ................ 9.3 ~;,~ o.7% 20. Netherlands Antilles ..... 8.6 ~o.6% Other .162.9 ~%:~:r~,:~ ,~;{~,,;~;~;~7,~:,,:;.:~,:;;,:~; 12.1% Mi~ is Minutes of Telecommunications Traffic. Data are in millions of minutes for public voice circuits. @ Tele6eography, Inc. 1995 National Traffic Balance MiTT 1992 1993 1994 Incoming 1,039.0 1,159.0 1,290.9 0 utg o in g 1,133.9 1,238.2 1,345.8 Surplus (Deficit) (94.9) (79.2) (54.9) Total Volume 2,172.9 2,397.2 2,636.7 Note: Data based on billing point of traffic. Totals may appear inconsistent with other figures due to rounding, 131 TeleGeography 1995 © TeleGeographyo Inc. 1995 Destination MiTr 1. Sweden ............. 104 2. Denmark .............. 57 3. United Kingdom ........ 56 4. United States .......... 29 5. Germany .............. 22 6. France ............... 14 7. Netherlands ........... 11 8. Finland ................ 9 9. Hong Kong ............. 8 10. Spain ................. 7 11. Switzerland ............ 6 12. Netherlands Antilles ..... 6 13. Italy ................... 5 14. Belgium ............... 5 15. Poland ................ 4 Other ................. 53 MiTT is Minutes of Telecommunications Traffic. Data are in millions of minutes for public voice circuits. © TeleGeography, Inc. 1995 National Traffic Balance MiTT 1992 1993 1994 Incoming 314.0 322.5 352.0 Outgoing 349.0 376.2 395.5 SurPlus (Deficit) (35.~) (53.7) (43.5), Total Volume 663.0 698.7 747.5 Note: Data are rounded to the nearest million minutes and are based on billing point oftraffic. 132 © TeleGeographyo Inc. 1995 International Telephone Traffic--Europe Poland Largest Telecommunications Routes, 1994 Destination MiTT Percentage of Outgoing Traffic 1. Germany ............. 124.4 ‘,‘‘i:~‘‘~;:~:~‘‘‘~‘,t;~:‘,::‘,‘‘,~:‘:,‘~;::!~,‘,,~::~‘~‘‘‘~‘~‘!:~‘‘!t:‘~:‘‘‘‘‘:!‘:~‘‘‘‘:,‘‘~"~’;’Y~’:,’~’,’::’~:~: : ",%",’?,’V~," ~, ":i:’:’~:,:: 34.9% 2. United States .......... 34.3 :~:i,i~!!~:~i!’+:’:!~’,,:::~,,’.:,"~:~; 9.6%o 3. France ............... 20.0 ~,,i,i~,,:i~,;:!,ii:~;i:,~i:!: 5.6%° 4. United Kingdom ........ 17.6 ,,,,,-, :>’,,,~~,, 4.9% 5. Italy .................. 17.1 ,,, ;,:, ~,, :-,,’,, 4.8% 6. Austria ............... 12.9 i{::,ii~ii::i;~: 3.6% 7. Russia ................ 11.7 8. Australia .............. 11.5 iii!’~,’~i:;~i 3.2%° 9. Netherlands ........... 11.0 i"ii:,,: i: 3.1%o 10. Sweden .............. 10.7 :","::i:’~:if,’: 3.0% 11. Netherlands Antilles ..... 9.1 ii,~i;Li~i, 2.5%° 12. Ukraine ................ 8.9 i,,,i,~:i,:!-2.5% 13. Canada ................ 7.3 ii!i~!;ii~,, 2.1% 14. Belgium ............... 6.6 "~!~.9% 15. Benmark .............. 5.6 i~,,,~:,i 1.6% 16. Switzerland ............ 5.5 "1.5% 17. Czech Republic ......... 5.2 i’!’i!:1.5%o 18. Belarus ................ 4.4 ,,:, ,: 1.2% 19. Spain ................. 2.9 ,:~ 0.8% 20. Lithuania .............. 2.7 ’ o.8% Other ................. 27.3 i:i~!::i’,~:!ii~,’:i,,,,,:i,~::i~;!,, 7.7% MiTT is Minutes of Telecommunications Traffic. Bate are in millions of minutes for public voice circuits. © Teleeeography, Inc. 1995 National Traffic Balance MiTT 1992 1993 1994 Incoming 366.6 431.5 643.8 Outgoing 212.7 272.7 356.6 Surplus (Deficit) 153.9 158.8 287.2 Total Volume 579.3 704.2 1,000.4 133 TeleGeography 1995 © TeleGeography, Inc. 1995 Destination 1. France ............... 54.9 2. Spain ................ 39.8 3. Germany .............. 29.4 4. United Kingdom ........ 28.4 5. Switzerland ........... 13.6 6. United States .......... 11.1 7. Italy .................. 10.4 8. Brazil ................ 10.1 9. Belgium ............... 8.4 10. Netherlands ............ 8.3 11. Angola ................. 5.6 12. Canada ................ 4.1 13. Sweden ............... 2.9 14. Luxernbourg ............ 2.8 15. Cape Verde ............. 2.4 16. Mozambique ............ 2.3 17. Denmark .............. 2.2 18. Guinea-Bissau .......... 2.2 19. South Africa ........... 2.1 20. Austria ................ 1.5 Other ................. 19.9 Largest Telecommunications Routes, 1994 Mi’l’r Percentage of Outgoing Traffic ~;i,,)t 3.9% ;.,’.~ 3.2% 3.1% ~1.6% 1.1% ~!~ 1.1% ~;i~ 0.9% ~!~i °’8% ~!! 0.8% !~! 0.6% Mi’Vr is Minutes of Telecommunications #affic. Data are in millions of minutes for public voice circuits. © TeleGeography, Inc. 1995 National Traffic Balance MiTT 1992 Incoming n.a. Outgo!ng 212.0 Surplus (Deficit) n.a. Total Volume n.a. 1993 1994 438.2 467.8 232.6 262.4 205.6 205.4 670.8 730.2 Notes: Data based on billing point of traffic. Totals are combined for Portugal Telecom, which handles traffic to Europe, and CPRM, which handles overseas traffic. In 1994 Portugal Telecom handled 210.8 million MiTF outgo- ing and 375.2 million MiTT incoming. 134 © TeleGeography, Inc. 1995 international Telephone Traffic--Europe Russia Destination 1. Germany .............. 35.8 2. United States .......... 27.1 3. United Kingdom ........ 12.4 4. Finland ............... 11.0 5. France ................ 9.2 6. Yugoslavia ............. 8.2 7. Turkey ................. 8.0 8. Israel ................. 7.6 9. Poland ................ 7.4 10. China ................. 5.2 11. Austria ................ 5.1 12. Bulgaria ............... 4.9 13. Netherlands ............ 4.9 14. Switzerland ............ 4.8 15. India .................. 4.7 16. Sweden ............... 4.4 17. Hungary ............... 4.1 18. Czech Republic ......... 4.0 19. Spain ................. 3.2 20. Greece ................ 3.2 Other ................. 54.0 MiTT is Minutes of Telecommunications Traffic. Largest Telecommunications Routes, 1994 MiTT Percentage of Outgoing Traffic ,~?;i#~ ~: ~’;~;~,.’; 4.0% ~!i~;, 3.6 :"-~.,"~ -,+" ":" 3.5% ~iil 1.8% ~’~i 1.7% ~i! 1.4% Data are in millions of minutes for public voice circuits. © TeleGeography, Inc. 1995 National Traffic Balance MiTT 199Z 1993 1994 Incoming 230.7 268.0 365.0 Outgoing 175.6 201.0 229.2 Surplus (Deficit) 55.1 67.0 135.8 Total Volume 406.3 469.0 594.2 ~ote: Data are for Rostelecom only and do not include traffic to and from other former Soviet republics. 155 TeleGeography 1995 © TeleOeography, Inc. 1995 Slovak Republic Largest Destination MiTr 1. Germany .............. 11.3 2. Austria ................ 8.7 3. Hungary ............... 5.0 4. Italy ................... 3.1 5. United States ........... 2.9 6. United Kingdom ......... 2.0 7. Russia ................. 2.0 8. Switzerland ............ 1.8 9. Ukraine ................ 1.7 10. Netherlands ............ 1.1 11. Poland ................ 1.1 12. Croatia ................ 0.9 13. Belgium ............... 0.8 Other ................. 10.2 Telecommunications Routes, 1994 Percentage of Outgoing Traffic ~’;’~’~ :~::~" 3.2% ," ::z-,, 2.1% ;-;,~-’~:" 1.7% MiTT is Minutes of Telecommunications Traffic. Data are in millions of minutes for public voice circuits. ® TeleGeography, Inc. 1995 National Traffic Balance MiTT 1992 1993 1994 Incoming 22.3 33.6 68.5 Outgoing 24.5 30.5 52.5 Surplus (Deficit) (2.,1) 3.1 16.0 Total Volume 46.8 64.1 121.0 Nute: Totals may appear inconsistent with other figures due to rounding. Data do not include traffic to and from the Czech Republic. © TeleGeography, Inc. 1995 International Telephone Traffic--Europe Slovenia Destination Largest Telecommunications Routes, 1994 MiTr Percentage of Outgoing Traffic 2.0% "~’ 1.8% 1.5% ~; 1.2% 0.8% ;~ 0.8% 0.7% "~ 0.5% 0.4% 0.4% Mi~ is Minutes of Telecommunications lraffic. ~ata are in milions of minutes for ~ublic voice circuits. Telaaeo~ra~hg, Inc. 1. Croatia ............... 28.8 2. Germany .............. 12.4 3. Austria ................ 9.9 4. Italy ................... 9.1 5. Yugoslavia ............. 6.8 6. Switzerland ............ 2.5 7. Macedonia, TFYR ....... 2.2 8. United States ........... 2.1 9. United Kingdom ......... 1.8 10. France ................ 1.7 11. Bosnia and Hercegovina .1.4 12. Hungary ............... 1.1 13. Russia ................. 1.0 14. Czech Republic ......... 1.0 15. Netherlands ............ 0.8 16. Sweden ............... 0.7 17. Belgium ............... 0.6 18. Slovak Republic ........ 0.4 19. Australia .............. 0.4 20. Spain ................. 0.3 Other ................. 5.6 National Traffic Balance MiTT 1992 1993 1994 Incoming n.a. 55.8 83.2 Outgoing 46.2 62.8 90.6 Surplus (Deficit) n.a. (7.0) (7.4) Total Volume n.a. 118.6 173.8 Note: Data based on billing point of traffic. 137 TeleGeography 1995 © TeleGeography, Inc. 1995 Destination Largest Telecommunications Routes, 1994 MiTT Percentage of Outgoing Traffic ;~...~,,,~....~,, ~,,.,, 8.0% 9 ............... 31.9 !~,~.;,,’~:C.i,i~’~.~i~ 3.4% 10 .............. 20.3 i’;~i~i~.::!! 2.1% 11 .............. 16.5 i:~:~i,,~:; 1.~%o 12 ............... 13.2 i,,,"","",i.,,’,,’ii:: 1.4% 13. ~.i!i~,i~ii 1.3% 14. !i~, 1.0% 15. 0.9% 17. "!if::!! 0.8% 18. ,, L 0.8% 19. !, ~i 0.8% 20. L:’;i 0.8% ~,~,~,~, ,,~, s~,.-~;~ ,, .-.,,~ ¢;~,,> ,~, ,~,,-.4~., +,,>~; ,;,~,~,~,~ -~,~ ,~o ,,-- 12.0% MiTT is Minutes of Telecommunications Traffic. Data are in millions of minutes for public voice circuits. © Tele6eography, Inc. 1995 France .............. 152.3 United Kingdom ....... 142.4 Germany ............. 138.9 United States .......... 76.1 Italy .................. 64.3 Portugal .............. 37.7 Netherlands ........... 37.2 Switzerland ........... 32.6 Belgium Morocco Argentina Sweden Hong Kong ............ 12.7 Denmark .............. 9.6 Mexico ................ 8.8 Colombia .............. 8.8 Brazil ................. 7.9 Venezuela ............. 7.8 Dominican Republic ..... 7,6 Chile .................. 7.4 Other ................ 114.4 National Traffic Balance MiTT 1992 1993 1994 Incoming 847.2 908.4 969.9 0 utg o in g 804.5 846.9 948.3 Surplus (Deficit) 42.7 61.5 21.6 Total Volume 1,651.7 1,755.3 1,918.2 ~nte: Data based on billing point of traffic. Totals may appear inconsistent with other figures due to rounding. 138 © TeleCeographyo Inc. 1995 International Telephone Traffic--Europe Sweden 1994 MiTT is Minutes of Telecommunications Traffic. Data are in millions of minutes for public voice circuits. © TeleGeography, Inc. 1995 National Traffic Balance MiTT 1992 1993 1994 Incoming 595 630 n.a. Outgoing 693 740 802 Surplus (Deficit) (98) (110) n.a. Total Volume 1288 1370 n.a. Notes: Data include traffic of Telia and Tele-2 only and are based on billing point of call and are rounded to the nearest million minutes. 139 TeleGeography 995 © TeleGeography, Inc. 1995 Destination Mi~r 1. 6ermany ............. 370 2. France .............. 282 3. Italy ................. 236 4. United Kingdom ........ 94 5. Austria ............... 83 6. United States .......... 73 7. Portugal .............. 58 8. Spain ................ 53 9. Netherlands ........... 41 10. Turkey ................ 35 11. Belgium .............. 29 12. Yugoslavia ............ 28 13. Canada ............... 20 14. Croatia ................ 19 15. Sweden .............. 18 Other ................ 212 Largest Telecommunications Routes, 1994 Percentage of Outgoing Traffic ............................................. ......... 14% ! !.?::i.;i..../,? 3% %" I% MiTT is Minutes of Telecommunications Traffic. Data are in millions of minutes for public voice circuits. © TeleGeography, Inc. 1995 National Traffic Balance MiTT 1992 1993 1994 Incoming. 1,191.5 1,258.7.. 1,353.0 Outgoing 1,551.0 1,572.0 1,649.3 Surplus (Deficit) (359.5) (313.3) (296.3) Total Volume 2,742.5 2,830.7 3,002.3 Note: All route data are rounded to the nearest million minutes. 140 © TeleGeography, Inc. 1995 International Telephone Traffic--Europe Turkey Largest Telecommunications Routes, 1994 Destination MiTT Percentage of Outgoing Traffic 2. United Kingdom ........ 24.6 :~.".!::;.:.i:i;::,.~?~!::.::2 8.7% 3. United States .17.4 ~-’,,’~’4, ,,’,,-~,~,:, ;,,- o ...... ...::~’.:.’..~’::’..~..:~..~.~!....:.... 6.1 ~o 5. Netherlands ........... 12.2 ;:’\’,,’,!, 1 4.3% 6. Russia ................ 10.7 4’~,:"!?’:":;~i: 3.8% 7. Switzerland ............ 9.3 ii:":;i!~,:;-’,:,i: 3.3% 8. Italy ................... 8.6 i,:i’,~::i,ii: 3.0% 9. Austria ................ 7.3 :~::,i:i,!:i 2.6% 10. Romania ............... 6.3 ~i:i,:~,’i 2.2% 11. Belgium ............... 5.6 ,"~i’;:!ii’: 2.0% 12. Bulgaria ............... 5.5 !;:,i:," 1.9% 13. Israel ................. 4.9 :~ii11! 1.7% 14. SaudiArabia ........... 4.6 i~’:,: 1.6% 15. Greece ................ 4.5 ::~? 1.6% 16. Iran ................... 4.3 1.5% 17. Sweden ............... 2.9 ~:": 1.o% 18. Canada ................ 2.6 i::;i 0.9% 19. Ukraine ................ 2.5 i!!! 0.9% 20. Denmark .............. 2.3 ;~;I).8% Other ................. 34.0 ii~ii~ii!,i!i~i~’~,",~ii~~ 12.0% Mi-I-r is Minutes of Telecommunications Traffic. Data are in millions of minutes for public voice circuits. © TeleGeography, Inc. 1995 National Traffic Balance MiTT 1992 1993 1994 Incoming 560.0,, 605.0 ,_ 601.4 Outgoing 226.8 264.6 284.3 Surplus (Deficit) 333.2 340.4 317.1 Total Volume 786.8 869.6 885.8 TeleGeography 1995 © TeleGeography, Inc. 1995 Largest Telecommunications Routes, FY 1994/95 Destination MiTt Percentage of Outgoing Traffic 1. United States .582 ;’:’~-’~!i~ ~?~‘‘‘‘~,‘‘‘,‘;~:,~?‘‘‘‘‘t~1~;,~‘~%‘‘~\~‘‘~‘,~%‘~‘~‘~i~,‘~:~‘~‘‘~‘?:‘~i:,~‘~ 16.6% 2. Ireland .312 ........... "~,=~:"’5:,,,," "~:~" 89% 3. 6ermany ............. 309 ;,~;~,&~%~,~,~,:~,~:~,~;;:’, 8.8% .............. 307 5. Italy ................. 155 ;;~,~::~:~:’~:~,~; 4.4% 6. Netherlands .......... 143 ~:;~,~,;~,~:: 4.1% 7. Spain ............... 134 ~,~"~’~:: 3.8% 8. Australia ............. 112 9. Canada .104 ’" :,,~-~t~t:" 3.0% ............. ,,~’~::,~:~ ..... 10. Swi~erland ........... 88 ~’~:i~/~:~ 2.5% 11. Belgium .............. 87 ~:;-~":~%" 2.5% 12. Sweden .............. 57 Hono ............ 14. Denmark .............. 50 ~;:~ 1.4% 15. South Africa ........... 49 ~:"~’,~ 1.4% 16. India ................. 49 17. Greece ............... 48 ~,:~,: 1.4% 18. Pakistan .............. 43 :;~ ~.2% 19. Po~ugal .............. 41 :~;~:~ 1.2% 20. Japan ................ 41 ~.2% Other .745 ,:~,,, ,~ ,,~ ,, ,,~:~ ........ z,;:~,:~,,~ ...... ~,, ........ ";,,," -,-’-’ ..... ~-~ -,’ ~’~ ,~,~ 21.2% Mi~ is Minutes of Telecommunications Traffic. Data are in millions of minutes for public voice circuits. @ Tele6eography, Inc. 1995 National Traffic Balance MiTT FY 1992193 R 1993/94 R 1994/95 Incoming ,, 2789 ,3086 3577 Outgoing 2849 3130 3507 Surplus (Deficit) (60) (44) 70 Total Volume 5638 6216 7084 Note: Data are rounded to the nearest million minutes. Data are for BT and Mercury only and exclude traffic between the Irish Republic and Northern Ireland. Traffic of IPL resellers is also excluded; these resellers had approximately 70 million outbound MiTT in I:Y 1993/94 and 120 million outbound MiTT in FY 1994/95. See Methodology, page 169. Fiscal year ends 31 March. 142 © TeleGeography, Inc. 1995 International Telephone Traffic--Europe Yugoslavia Destination Largest Telecommunications Routes, 1994 MiTT Percentage of Outgoing Traffic ~,,~:*,~S~,~ 4.5% 7. ~;,~i~%~; 3.8% 9. ~,;2,~:;~ 3.2 Yo 12. 2.9% 13. ~2.1% 14. ~:~ 1.8% 15. ~.5% 16. 1.3% 17. 1.0% 18. 1.0% 19. ~.0% 20. ~) 0.8% Mi~ is Minutes of Telecommunications #affic. Bata are in millions of minutes for public voice circuits. @ TeleGeography, Inc. 1995 Germany .............. 46.1 Austria ............... 20.5 Switzerland ........... 19.6 Macedonia, TFYR ....... 9.2 France ................ 8.2 Italy ................... 8.1 United States ........... 7.0 Slevenia ............... 6.4 Hungary ............... 5.9 Sweden ............... 5.9 Greece ................ 5.6 Russia ................. 5.2 United Kingdom ......... 3.9 Canada ................ 3.2 Netherlands ............ 2.8 Bulgaria ............... 2.3 Australia .............. 1.9 Turkey ................. 1.8 Cyprus ................ 1.8 Czech Republic ......... 1.5 Other ................. 15.0 National Traffic Balance Mi-FI- 199Z 1993 1994 Incoming n.a. 223.5 229.0 Outgoing 142.8 181.5 181.9 Surplus (Deficit) n.a. 42.0 47.1 Total Volume n.a. 405.0 410.9 143 TeleGeography 1995 © TeleGeography. Inc. 1995 Asia, Middle East & Africa International Traffic TeleGeography 1995 © TeleGeography, Inc. 1995 Destination MiTt 1. United Kingdom ....... 148 2. United States ......... 138 3. New Zealand ......... 132 4. Hong Kong ............ 37 5. Japan ................ 31 6. Singapore ............ 26 7. Canada ............... 22 8. Germany .............. 21 9. Italy .................. 19 10. Malaysia ............. 18 11. Philippines ............ 17 12. Indonesia ............. 14 13. Greece ............... 12 14. China ................ 12 15. Papua New Guinea ..... 11 Other ................ 194 Largest Telecommunications Routes, 1994 Percentage of Outgoing Traffic ~,:" "+ ,,’,:-’,,,.I’-S;I,-’O .- 41o -,-.’C ¢,;; ,"0~ 3% ."~’,: 1% MiTT is Minutes of Telecommunications Traffic. Data are in millions of minutes for public voice circuits. © TeleGeography, Inc. 1995 National Traffic Balance MiTT 1992 1993 1994 Incoming n.a. n.a. n.a. Outgoing 670 735 852 Surplus (Deficit) n.a. n.a. n.a. Total Volume n.a. n.a. n.a. Note: Data are for Telstra and 0ptus combined and are rounded to the nearest million minutes. 146 © TeleGeography, Inc. 1995 International Telephone Traffic--Asia, Middle East, & Africa Bangladesh Destination 1. India .................. 2.6 2. United States ........... 2.6 3. United Kingdom ......... 2.5 4. Hong Kong ............. 1.4 5. Singapore ............. 1.4 6. Saudi Arabia ........... 1.2 7. Korea, Rep. of .......... 1.0 8. Pakistan ............... 0.9 9. Japan ................. 0.9 10. Malaysia .............. 0.8 11. United Arab Emirates .... 0.5 12. Germany .............. 0.5 13. China ................. 0.4 14. Thailand ............... 0.4 15. Italy ................... 0.4 16. France ................ 0.4 Other ................. 4.1 Largest Telecommunications Routes, 1994 MiTT Percentage of Outgoing Traffic MiTT is Minutes of Telecommunications Traffic. Data are in millions of minutes for public voice circuits. ® TeleGeography, Inc. 1995 National Traffic Balance MiTT 1992 1993 1994 Incoming 66,8 83.9 n.a. Outgoing 14,3 17.2 22.1 Surplus (Deficit) 52,5 66.7 n.a. Total Volume 81,1 101.1 n.a. 147 TeleGeography 1995 © TeleGeography, Inc. 1995 Largest Telecommunications Routes, Destination MiTt 1. Hong Kong ........... 670 2. Taiwan ............... 85 3. Japan ................ 71 4. United States .......... 54 5. Macau ................ 34 6. Korea ................ 27 7. Singapore ............ 15 8. Australia .............. 14 9. Germany .............. 7 10. Canada ................ 6 11. United Kingdom ......... 6 12. France ................ 6 13. Malaysia .............. 5 14. Russia ................. 4 15. Thailand ............... 4 Other ................. 82 1994 Percentaoe of Outgoino Traffic A.,{’,I3:" 6.5% 5.o0/o "~i 2.5% 1.4% 1.3% 0.6% o.6% !o.60/o 10.6% 0.5% 0.4% MiTF is Minutes of Telecommunications Traffic. Data are in millions of minutes for public voice circuits. © Tele6eography, Inc. 1995 National Traffic Balance MiTT 1992 1993 1994 Incoming .. n.a. n.a. ... n.a... Outgoing .635.. 870 1090 Surplus (Deficit) n.a. n.a. n.a. Total Volume n.a. n.a. n.a. Note: Data are rounded to the nearest 1 million minutes, except for Hong Kong, which is rounded to the nearest 10 million minutes. ......... Tag © TeleGeography, Inc. 1995 International Telephone Traffic--Asia, Middle East, & Africa Hong Kong Destination 1. China ............... 821 2. United States .......... 95 3. Taiwan ............... 79 4. Canada ............... 63. 5. Japan ................ 63 6. United Kingdom ........ 63 7. Macau ................ 47 8. Singapore ............ 47 9. Australia .............. 47 10. Philippines ............ 47 Other ................ 205 Largest Telecommunications Routes, FY 1994/95 MiT’r Percentage of Outgoing Traffic ;:::!i!i,~,~ ,~O/o k,;-:~:, 3% MiTT is Minutes of Telecommunications Traffic. Data are in millions of minutes for public voice circuits. © TeleGeography, Inc. 1995 National Traffic Balance MiTT FY 1992/93 1993/94 1994/95 I n c o rain g 1,009.4 1,260.3 1,446.4 0 utg o in g 1,136.6 1,376.9 1,578.4 Surplus (Deficit) (127.2) (116.5) (132.1) Total Volume 2,146.0 2,637.2 3,024.8 Note: Data based on billing point of traffic. Totals may appear inconsistent with other figures due to rounding. Fiscal year ends 31 March. 149 TeleGe~graphy 1995 © TeleGeography, Inc. 1995 Destination Largest Telecommunications Routes, FY 1994/95 MiTr Percentage of Outgoing Traffic ,,,,:-,,,.~::-c,,-,,, ,.,, -:,,.,~,,,. ,~,,: ";,,".,~.’~:~, ~.,~, ,:,~,." ;,, 15.5% ::,i!.~.... 2.o% ~, ],, 1.3% i" ;," 1.1% i; 1.o% ~i:~ 0.8% 0.8% Data are in millions of minutes for public voice circuits. © Tele6eography, Inc. 1995 1. Saudi Arabia ........... 65.0 2. United States .......... 48.7 3. United Arab Emirates ...32.3 4. United Kingdom ........ 30.1 5. Germany .............. 11.5 6. Singapore ............. 11.3 7. Kuwait ................ 9.6 8. Canada ................ 7.2 9. Hong Kong ............. 6.7 10. Oman ................. 6.3 11. Australia .............. 6.2 12. Japan ................. 5.2 13. France ................ 4.8 14. Italy ................... 4.1 15. Sri Lanka .............. 3.8 16. Qatar ................. 3.6 17. Netherlands ............ 3.1 18. Switzerland ............ 2.6 19. Bahrain ............... 2.5 20. Malaysia .............. 2.5 Other ................. 47.0 MiTT is Minutes of Telecommunications Traffic. National Traffic Balance MiTT F’Y 1992/93 FY 1993/94 FY 1994/95 Incoming .. 354.6 441.0 615.0 Outgoing 259.6 283.9 314.0 Surplus (Deficit) 95.0 157.1 300.9 Total Volume 614.2 724.8 929.0 Bote: Data based on billing point of traffic. Outgoing totals and route data do not include calls to Bangladesh, Nepal, Pakistan and Sri Lanka. Fiscal year ends 31 March. Totals may appear inconsistent with other figures due to rounding. 150 © TeleGeography, Inc. 1995 International Telephone Traffic--Asiao Middle East, & Africa Indonesia Destination Largest Telecommunications Routes, 1994 Mi’l’r Percentage of Outgoing Traffic 5. ,v~, ::,:,% f:i. ",’;, %-:%,,i%:,~,, ,:,::’:~,,g ,: 6.6% 9. "’’"’" ":’:",’,," 3.3% 14. ’i~ :~:, 1.6% 5. "i,!:: 1.6% 16. i,,% 1.1% 18. .’~" 1.1% 19. "~,~ii 1.1% 20. :" 0.5% MiTT is Minutes of Telecommunications Traffic. Bata are in millions of minutes for public voice circuits. © Tele6eography, Inc. 1995 Singapore ............ 42 United States .......... 20 Japan ................ 17 Australia .............. 15 Hong Kong ............ 12 Taiwan ................ 9 Malaysia .............. 8 Korea, Rep. of .......... 7 United Kingdom ......... 6 Germany .............. 5 Netherlands ............ 5 France ................ 3 Philippines ............. 3 China ................. 3 Thailand ............... 3 Canada ................ 2 Italy ................... 2 Saudi Arabia ........... 2 India .................. 2 Switzerland ............ 1 Other ................. 16 National Traffic Balance MiTT 199~ 1993 1994 Incoming, 165.5 201.8 244.7 Outgoing 118.1 143.8 182.5 Surplus (Deficit) 47.4 58.0 62.2 Total Volume 283.6 345.6 427.2 Note: Data based on billing point of traffic. Data are for Indosat only, rounded to the nearest million minutes. TeleGeography 1995 © TeleGeography, Inc. 1995 Destination United States .......... 21.2 United Arab Emirates ...t9.9 Germany .............. 16.6 Kuwait ............... 16.0 Japan ................ 10.3 United Kingdom ......... 8.4 Pakistan ............... 6.6 Sweden ............... 6.5 Canada ................ 5.6 France ................ 4.6 Turkey ................. 4.6 Italy ................... 4.4 Saudi Arabia ........... 3.7 Qatar .................. 3.1 Netherlands ............ 2.3 Austria ................ 2.2 Switzerland ............ 2.0 Denmark .............. 1.5 Bahrain ............... 1.4 Korea, Rep. of .......... 1.3 Other ................. 14.2 National Traffic Balance MiTT 1992 1993 1994 Incoming n.a. n.a. n.a. Outgoing, 131.3 156.5 208.4 Surplus (,Deficit) n.a. n.a. n.a. Total Volume n.a. n.a. n.a. 152 © TeleGeographyo Inc. 1995 International Telephone Traffic--Asia, Middle East, & Africa Japan Largest Telecommunications Routes, FY 1994/95 Destination MiTr Percentage of Outgoing Traffic 1. United States ......... 295.0 3. Korea ............... 150.3 iii!ilili,;i:,’i!::’:~’:~!>~,,~i!~ii:i:;i:.~,: i:~ii:!,,,iii~i~ lo.5% 4. Philippines .121.7 "’" ~-"" :" "~’~;~::~"’~: .... ::’; o ........... 5. Taiwan ............... 83.4 i’i,:~i,!,)i,~i!ii~",iiii!’i!ii~i 5.8% 6. Thailand .............. 64.1 :,~,~~’~iii~:~,~if,ili,,~, 4.5% 9. ’ ’:ii; : 3.1% 14. :, i,:, ~.6% 15. "" ~.6% 16. ~,i,, ~.5% 17. 18. 19. 20. :’: 0.7% Mitt is Minutes of Telecommunications Traffic. Bata are in millions of minutes for public voice circuits. © TeleGeography, Inc. 1995 Hong Kong ............ 54.6 Brazil ................ 54.0 United Kingdom ........ 45.2 Singapore ............ 36.1 Malaysia ............. 31.8 Australia .............. 31.0 Germany .............. 26.2 Indonesia ............. 23.6 Peru .................. 23.2 Iran .................. 21.7 Canada ............... 20.2 France ............... 20.1 Pakistan .............. 14.8 Italy .................. 10.5 Other ................ 137.2 National Traffic Balance Mitt FY 1992/93 FY 1993/94 F’Y 1994/95 Incoming 891.5 981.2 1140.6 Outgoing 1283.5 1411.2 1524.8 Surplus (Deficit) (392.0) (429.8) (384.2) Total Volume 2174.8 2392.4 2665.4 Note: Route data include only IDD calls, while total data include operator assisted calls as well. Fiscal year ends 31 March. Data are for KDD, ITJ, and IDC combined. 153 TeleGeography 1995 © TeleGeography, Inc. 1995 Largest Telecommunications Routes, Destination MiTI" 1. Saudi Arabia ........... 7.9 2. Iraq ................... 7.2 3, Egypt ................. 5.5 4. Syria .................. 5.3 5. United States ........... 4.0 6. United Arab Emirates .... 3.3 7. Israel ................. 2.8 8. United Kingdom ......... 2.5 9. Kuwait ................ 2.4 10. Lebanon ............... 1.6 11. Germany .............. 1.2 12. Italy ................... 0.9 13. Qatar .................. 0.9 14. France ................ 0.9 15. Oman ................. 0.7 16. Cyprus ................ 0.7 17. Yemen ................. 0.6 18. Turkey ................. 0.6 19. Bahrain ................ 0.6 Other ................. 7.3 1994 Percenta0e of Outgoing Traffic ......................................................... 9.6% "i .,,’? its!-: :’:::" i!!,,,,’:ii-:~,:- 2.9% : "::,":~":"::" *": 1.6% 1.2% MiTT is Minutes of Telecommunications Traffic. Data are in millions of minutes for public voice circuits. © TeleGeography, Inc. 1995 National Traffic Balance MiTT 1992 1993 1994 Incoming n.a. 100 114 Outgoing 46 51:) 57 Surplus (Deficit) n.a. 50 57 Total Volume n.a. 150 171 Notes: Data based on billing point of traffic. Traffic to Israel includes traffic to the West Bank. 154 © TeleGeography, Inc. 1995 International Telephone Traffic--Asia, Middle East, & Africa Korea, Republic Largest Telecommunications Routes, 1994 Destination MiTT Percentage of Outgoing Traffic 1. United States ......... 122.2 ,~:~’b~’~:c"~’:’~’!~""~.,.,~::~,,..,, "!~i~,i! i,,~:,ii!(~i’!i,~:i’iiiii~.i:i~ :i~:~i~,~;~:~::i:i!,’!,~,!~i~i,i~i!~,’~’i"" ~ii,i~:"i,iii,,,,,i~i,~,’ 27.8% 2. Japan .106.5 ~:~,,~,~,,~, v, :~ ,, -~:~,~:,,~:,,-~--,,-,,,:,,,,~,,~,,::,, ..... ,-~;,,~,,-,.~--,,~,,,,,,~,,~,,,,~,,, ~,, ,,,~,, China ................ 4 .1 4. Hong Kong ............ 18.6 ;:’,,,’~i,i~:::,;’i}i i!:,!’, 4.2% 5. Germany .............. 11.5 iii:(i,!~::: 2.6% 6. Australia .............. 9.4 !,~i:,ii,i~,ill 2.1% 7. Philippines ............. 9.4 !"~!i:ii!;!,’ 2.1% 8. United Kingdom ......... 9.3 !’;",~/:,ii~," 2.~% 9. Indonesia .............. 8.9 i, :~’:i~, 2.0% 10. Taiwan ................ 8.8 i~-~,:,’~,"~ 2.oo/o 11. Canada ................ 8.6 !i~i;,~’-;-: 1.9% 12. Singapore ............. 7.9 i~;~,,,~;: 1.8% 13, France ................ 6.5 i~,~;iii 1.5% 14. Thailand ............... 5.6 :"~(" ~.3% 15. Italy ................... 4.4 ;’ ~.0% 16. Vietnam ............... 4.4 1.o% 17. Russia ................. 3.9 :,,,-- 0.9% 18. Malaysia .............. 3.2 0.7% Other ................. 48.2 ::’!?:i~:~’,,:’~t::’~ ’;: ::",’~;i~"’:,~i#"ii" 11.o% MiTT is Minutes of Telecommunications Traffic. Data are in millions of minutes for public voice circuits. © TeleGeography, Inc. 1995 National Traffic Balance M il-r 1992 1993 1994 Incoming 453.9 510.5 555.2 0 utg o in g 305.9 355.4 440.4 Surplus (Deficit) 148.0 155.1 114.8 Total Volume 759.8 865.9 995.6 Note: Data are for Korea Telecom and DACOM combined and are based on billing point of traffic. 155 TeleGeography 1995 © TeleGeography, Inc. 1995 Egypt ................. 20.0 Saudi Arabia .......... 14.0 United States .......... 11.3 India ................. 11.1 United Arab Emirates .... 7.8 United Kingdom ......... 7.1 Pakistan ............... 7.0 Syria .................. 6.7 Jordan ................ 6.2 Iran ................... 4.9 Bahrain ............... 3.2 Lebanon ............... 2.5 Bangladesh ............ 1.6 Germany .............. 1.4 France ................ 1.3 Philippines ............. 1.1 Qatar .................. 1.1 Italy ................... 1.0 0man .................. 1.0 Canada ................ 0.9 Other ................. 9.1 Largest Telecommunications Routes, 1994 Destination MiTt Percentage of Outgoing Traffic ~;~gt~ 2.7% 12. 15. ~}~:: 1.1% 16. 17. ,~,~," 0.9% 18. O.9% 19. 20. 0.8% Mi~ is Minutes of Telecommunications Traffic. Data are in millions of minutes for public voice circuits. @ TeleGeography, Inc. 1995 National Traffic Balance MiTT 1992 1993 1994 In£oming n.a. n.a. 127.0 Outgoing 112.7 116.8 120.6 Surplus (Deficit) n.a. n.a. 6.4 Total Volume n.a. n.a. 247.6 Note: Totals may appear inconsistent with other figures due to rounding. 156 © TeleGeographyo Inc. 1995 International Telephone Traffic--Asia, Middle East, & Africa Macau Largest Telecommunications Routes, 1994 Destination MiTr 1. China ................ 44.9 2. Hong Kong ............ 43.7 3. Portugal ............... 2.7 4. Taiwan ................ 1.7 5. Thailand ............... 1.1 6. United States ........... 1.0 7. Canada ................ 0.9 8. Philippines ............. 0.6 9. Australia .............. 0.5 10. United Kingdom ......... 0.4 11. Singapore ............. 0.4 12. Japan ................. 0.4 13. Malaysia .............. 0.3 14. France ................ 0.2 15. Korea, Rep. of .......... 0.2 Other .................. 1.3 Percentage of Outgoing Traffic i ~L 1.7% ~!~" 1,0% 0.6% 0.5% 0.4% 10.4% ;0,4% ~0,3% 0.2% 0.2% 1.3% MiTT is Minutes of Telecommunications Traffic. Data are in millions of minutes for public voice circuits. © TeleGeography, Inc. 1995 National Traffic Balance MiTT 1992 1993 1994 Incoming 68.6 78.0 84.3 Outgoing 76.9 89.9 100.0 Surplus (Deficit) (8.3) (11.9) (15.7) Total Volume 145.5 167.9 184.3 157 TeleGeography 1995 © TeleGeography, Inc. 1995 Largest Telecommunications Routes, FY 1994/95 Destination MiTT 1. Singapore ............ 159.8 2. Japan ................ 22.9 3. United Kingdom ........ 18.6 4. Australia .............. 16.9 5. United States .......... 14.6 6. Indonesia ............. 14.1 7. Hong Kong ............ 13.7 8. Taiwan ............... 10.9 9. Thailand .............. 10.2 10. India .................. 7.9 11. Philippines ............. 7.0 12. China ................. 5.7 13. Germany .............. 4.0 14. Korea, Rep. of .......... 3.4 15. Brunei ................. 2.8 16. Canada ................ 2.7 17. New Zealand ........... 2.4 18. France ................ 2.0 19. Italy ................... 1.6 20. Netherlands ............ 1.5 Other ................. 19.6 ¯ 0.8% 0.7% ¯ 0.6% 0.5% 0.4% MiTT is Minutes of Telecommunications Traffic, Data are in millions of minutes for public voice circuits. © TeleGeography, Inc. 1995 National Traffic Balance MiTT FY 1992/93 1993/94 1994/95 Incoming 249.0 304.2 399.7 Outgoing .... 216.5 258.1 342.3 Surplus (Deficit) 32.5 46.1 57.4 Total Volume 465.5 562.3 742.0 Notes: Traffic is for Telekom Malaysia only and does not include local Malaysia-Singapore border traffic. Data based on billing point of traffic. Totals may appear inconsistent with other figures due to rounding. Fiscal year ends 31 March. 158 © TeleGeography, Inc. 1995 International Telephone Traffic--Asia, Middle East, & Africa New Zealand Largest Telecommunications Routes, FY 1994/95 Destination MiTt 1. Australia ............. 110 2. United Kinodom ........ 33 3. United States .......... 23 4. Heng Kong ............. 6 5. Japan ................. 5 6. Fiji .................... 5 7. Canada ................ 5 8. Singapore ............. 5 9. Malaysia .............. 4 10. Taiwan ................ 3 11. Western Samoa ......... 2 12. Germany .............. 2 13. China ................. 2 14. South Africa ........... 2 15. India .................. 2 16. Thailand ............... 2 17. Korea, Rep. of .......... 2 18. Netherlands ............ 1 19. Indonesia .............. 1 20. Philippines ............. Other ................. 16 Percenta0e of Outgoing Traffic "" "" 2,2% ~’-’~ ". 1.7% ¯ 1.3% ~’ 0.9% 0.9% ii: 0.9% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% Mi]-[ is Minutes of Telecommunications Traffic. Data are in millions of minutes for public voice circuits. © TeleGeography, Inc. 1995 National Traffic Balance M iTT FY 1992]93 FY 1993/94 FY 1994/95 Incoming n.a. n.a. 241 Outgoing 170 191 230 Surplus (Deficit) n.a. n.a. 11 Total Volume n.a. n.a. 471 Note: Data rounded to the nearest million minutes for Telecom New Zealand and Clear Communications Ltd. combined. Fiscal year ends 31 March. 159 TeleGeography 1995 © TeleGeogra~hy, Inc. 1995 Nete: Traffic to Bangladesh is excluded from route data. 160 © TeleGeography, Inc. 1995 International Telephone Traffic--Asia, Middle East, & Africa Philippines Largest Telecommunications Routes, 1994 Destination MiTT 1. United States .......... 55 2. Japan ................ 25 3. Hong Kong ............ 14 4. Canada ............... 11 5. Australia .............. 8 6. Singapore ............. 7 7. Taiwan ................ 6 8. Korea, Rep. of .......... 4 9. Saudi Arabia ........... 4 10. United Kingdom ......... 3 11. Malaysia .............. 3 12. Italy ................... 2 Other ................. 18 Percentage of Outgoing Traffic ......... ""~ "" ’" "~’~:"~’" ;;"~:"’~’"~’~"~"’; "~ ......... :"~:’~;’~"~ :’,,,i~~, ;~" i," ,;~I~" 34.4% ........ !,, 4.4% MiTT is Minutes of Telecommunications Traffic. Data are in millions of minutes for public voice circuits. © TeleGeography, Inc. 1995 National Traffic Balance MiTT 1992 1993 1994 Incoming 462.1 n.a. 617 Outgoing 135.8 164 160 Surplus (Deficit) 326.3 n.a. 457 Total Volume 597.9 n.a. 777 Note: Traffic to the United States includes traffic to Guam. Data are rounded to the nearest million minutes and include PLDT, Eastern Telecoms, CapWire, and Philippine Global Com. only. 161 TeleGeography 1995 © TeleGeography, Inc. 1995 Destination 1. United Arab Emirates ...10.2 2. India .................. 9.8 3. Egypt ................. 7,6 4. Saudi Arabia ........... 5.9 5. Bahrain ............... 3.9 6. United Kingdom ......... 3.7 7. Pakistan ............... 3.5 8. United States ........... 1.7 9. Jordan ................ 1.5 10. Kuwait ................ 1.5 11. Bangladesh ............ 1.4 12. Oman .................. 1.1 13. Iran ................... 1.1 14. France ................ 1.0 15. Philippines ............. 0.8 Other .................. 8.0 Largest Telecommunications Routes, 1994 Mi~-I" Percentage of Outgoing Traffic ~-’,+,+’~""~’~’"~’~’>- 12.1% MiTT is Minutes of Telecommunications Traffic. Data are in millions of minutes for public voice circuits. © TeleGeography, Inc. 1995 National Traffic Balance MiTT 1992 1993 1994 Incoming n.a. n.a. n.a. Outgoing 50.7 58.3 62.7 Surplus(Deficit) n.a. n.a. ,, n.a. Total Volume n.a. n.a. n.a. 162 © TeleGeography, Inc. 1995 International Telephone Traffic--Asia, Middle East, & Africa Saudi Arabia Largest Telecommunications Routes, 1994 Destination MiTI" Percentage of Outgoing Traffic 1. Egypt .129.5 ....... ,~ ,,,, ............. ̄ ....... ~--,-,~, ,-, ...... 26.o% 2. Pakistan .51.7 ~";~!"~;!~’~-""~:E~,’/;’,~,"’~"~’~~"~:~" lO.4% 3. India ................. 30.4 :i;!’,i’~i~i,~’,’~!~ili;;~ii~,i,,ill 6.1% 4. United States .......... 27.7 i!i,;!,,’iii:ii&ii:i!ii!:’,.’i’," 5.8% 5. United Arab Emirates ...26.0 iiii’~:!ii~"i;;iii~:~:i,~ 5.2% 6. United Kingdom ........ 22.5 ,,,!i~,ii,~ii~,,’.’,’,;i~!~:~ 4.5% 7. Kuwait ............... 19.4 ~:~,’i!ii’,~:~’~i,,i~’~ 3.9% 6. Syria ................. 1 .3 3.5% 9. Jordan ............... 16.1 ~i~i!!i~i-~,,:,~, 3.2% 10. Bahrain .............. 14.9 i,:,:,~,!,~!~i13.0% 11. Yemen ................ 14.2 i:ii~ii~!~ 2.8% 12. Philippines ............ 12.4 .... ii, ii~!~il, 2.5% 13. Sudan ................. 9.4 i’,!~’~!~, 1.9% 14. Morocco .............. 9.1 i,’i~,il;i 1.8% 15. Bangladesh ............ 9.0 i~" 1.8% 16. Turkey ................. 8.4 -’,:i,’’, 1.7% 17. Lebanon ............... 8.2 1.6% 18. France ................ 8.0 ii’i~i~ 1.6% 19. Qatar ................. 6.4 ~’~:’f~ 1.3% 20. Germany .............. 5.6 ":,,i 1.1% Other ................. 52.6 !i:i,~’;i~ii:,,,it ~ii"~i" ~i~,: ~" 10.5 % MiTT is Minutes of Telecommunications Traffic. Data are in millions of minutes for public voice circuits. © Teleeeography, Inc. 1995 National Traffic Balance MiT-I" 1992 1993 1994 Incoming 292.!, n.a. n.a. Outgoing 464.6 454.9 498.9 Surplus (Deficit) (172.5) n.a. n.a. Total Volume 756.7 n.a. n.a. 163 TeleGeography 1995 © TeleGeography, Inc. 1995 Destination 1. Malaysia ............ 190 2. Indonesia ............. 52 3. Hong Kong ............ 51 4. United States .......... 43 5. Japan ................ 42 6. Thailand .............. 29 7. Australia .............. 25 8. United Kingdom ........ 25 9. Taiwan ............... 24 10. Philippines ............ 24 11. India ................. 24 12. China ................. 24 13. Germany .............. 10 14. Korea ................ 10 15. France ................ 6 16. Brunei ................. 6 Other ................. 58 Mi]-r is Minutes of Telecommunications Traffic. Data are in millions of minutes for public voice circuits. © Tele6eography, Inc. 1995 National Traffic Balance MiTT FY 1992/93 FY 1993/94 FY 1994/95 Incoming n.a. n.a. n.a. Outgoing 412, 480 643 Surplus (Deficit) n.a. n.a. n.a. Total Volume n.a. n.a. n.a. Notes: Data rounded to the nearest million minutes. Fiscal year ends 31 March. Totals exclude local Malaysia- Singapore border traffic. Route data are for 1994 calendar year. 164 © TeleGeography, Inc. 1995 International Telephone Traffic--Asia, Middle East° & Africa Destination 1. 2. 3, 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. Sri Lanka India .................. 3.0 United Kingdom ......... 2.5 Singapore ............. 1.9 United States ........... 1.8 Japan ................. 1.5 Hong Kong ............. 1.4 Australia .............. 1.0 Germany .............. 1.0 Korea, Rep. of .......... 0.9 United Arab Emirates .... 0.8 Italy ................... 0.5 France ................ 0.5 Canada ................ 0.5 Saudi Arabia ........... 0.5 Malaysia .............. 0.5 Kuwait ................ 0.5 Netherlands ............ 0.4 Thailand ............... 0.4 Maldives ............... 0.4 Pakistan ............... 0.4 Other ................. 3.3 MiTT is Minutes of Telecommunications Traffic. Largest Telecommunications Routes, 1994 Mil-r Percentage of Outgoing Traffic .." .~..:." ".’/"" :’.. 0.."’.’ ".’.. "."I.t=;..-’i’-"~-~’-’.;;’;’:,..’. ;" =.’,’.t .’ 8.01 ~--]-:’t",,’i"i~’ :]1" "I"-IIL’-,’G: [:. .’i, ::)~" ]".’=.’,~-,"~" ,; ~" 7.6Yo ",,:’~,,-+ ’,,,,~’,,~,’: ":,-" ’: ,,",’,’t,,,,, ," 4.2~ Data are in millions of minutes for public voice circuits. © TeleGeography, Inc. 1995 National Traffic Balance MiTT 1992 1993 1994 Incoming n.a. 65.0 78.7 Outgoing 17.8 19.5 23.7 Surplus (Deficit) n.a. 45.5 55.0 Total Volum e n.a. 84.5 102.4 Nete: Data based on billing point of traffic. 165 TeleGeography 1995 © TeleGeography, Inc. 1995 Syria Destination 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. Mi’l-[ is Minutes of Telecommunications Traffic. Data are in millions of minutes for public voice circuits. © TeleOeography, Inc. 1995 National Traffic Balance MiTT 1992 1993 1994 Incoming N.A.... 59:3 78.0 Outgoing 22.0 36.7 40.0 Surplus (Deficit) N.A. 22.6 38.0 Total Volume N.A. 96.0 118.0 166 © TeleGeography, Inc. 1995 International Telephone Traffic--Asia, Middle East, & Africa Taiwan Largest Telecommunications Routes, FY 1994/95 Destination MiTT Percentage of Outgoing Traffic 4. Japan .62.6 ........... "-’~’ ,~",-" ........... ~’ ........................... ,’~ ......... 12.6% 5. Singapore ............ 15.9 ;~i~)~,~i~:~’?," 3.2% 6. Thailand .14.8 ~,,~-’~;,-~:,,~::,~, 3.0% 7. Canada ............... 14.1 %;i~;~@ 2.8% 8. Philippines .13,4 ~;~’~:,~:"’~,~ 2.7 ............ ~,~;,~, ,~-~. ,~ 9. MalaTsia ............. 10.4 ~:~i 2.1% 10. Indonesia .............. 9.7 ~i! 1.~% 11. Australia .............. 9.4 ~!; 1.~% 12. Sermany .............. ?.6 ~!i 13. 1.5% 18. ~i 0,6% 19. ~i! 0.5% 2o. a.4o/o MiT-F is Minutes of Telecommunications Traffic. Data are in millions of minutes for public voice circuits. © Tele6eography, Inc. 1995 United Kingdom ......... 7,3 Korea, Rep. of .......... 7.2 Vietnam ............... 5,6 France ................ 4.5 New Zealand ........... 3.0 Italy ................... 2.8 South Africa ........... 2,3 Netherlands ............ 2.0 Other ................. 28.4 National Traffic Balance MiTT FY 1992/93 FY 1993/94 FY 1994/95 Incoming 484.4 490.8 613.5 0 utg o in g 368.7 440.7 498.5 Surplus (D eficit) 115.7 50.1 115.0 Total Volume 853.1 931.5 1,112.0 Note: Data based on billing point of traffic. Fiscal year ends March 31. 167 Tele~eography 1995 © TeleGeography, Inc. 1995 Destination Largest Telecommunications Routes, 1994 MiTr Percentage of Outgoing Traffic ~...~ ...,..~. ~,~,~..~ 5.1% 3.1% 2.2y0 ~4~,Z 1.7% ~’:~ 1.4% ~,;;~ 0.9 Fo Mi~ is Minutes of Telecommunications #affic. Data are in millions of minutes for public voice circuits. @ Tele6eography, Inc. 1995I National Tmmc Balance 1. Japan ................ 27.9 2. United States .......... 21.9 3. Singapore ............ 18.6 4. Hong Kong ............ 13.2 5. Taiwan ............... 12.2 6. United Kingdom ......... 8.8 7. Australia .............. 6.7 8. Germany .............. 6.7 9. China ................. 6.5 10. Korea, Rep. of .......... 5.4 11. France ................ 4.2 12. India .................. 3.8 13. Italy ................... 3.0 14. Myanmar .............. 2.7 15. Indonesia .............. 2.5 16. Switzerland ............ 2.4 17. Philippines ............. 2.3 18. Vietnam ............... 2.0 19, Cambodia .............. 1.6 20. Canada ................ 1.6 Other ................. 19.3 MITT 1992 1993 1994 Incoming 212.7 218.7 313.3 Outgoing 132.4 161.8 173.2 Surplus (Deficit) 80.3 56.9 140.1 Total Volume 345.1 380.5 486.5 © TeleGeography, Inc. 1995 International Telephone Traffic--Methodology and Sources Methodology and Sources The traffic statistics in 1995 TeleGeography were compiled primarily from an indepen- dent survey of telecommunications service providers. For some.countries and carri- ers, traffic data have been estimated based upon annual reports, government publications and industry interviews. See the footnotes to each table for further information. Direction of Traffic: International Telephone Traffic 1983-1992 (Geneva: TeleGeography, Inc./ITU, 1994) and Internationale Fernmeldestatistik (Munich: Siemens, 1995) were also consulted. A common accounting unit known as MiTT (Minutes of Telecommunications Traffic) is used throughout the report. Mi~-F generally refers to paid minutes of traffic on public switched voice circuits and thus includes voice as well as non- voice (facsimile, data) traffic. For the origins of MiTT and its various applications (economic forecasting, competition policy, geographyl, see G. Staple and M. Mullins "Telecom Traffic Statistics--MiTT Matter," Telecommunications Policy, Vol. 14, No. 2, June 1989, pp. 105-128. See also the World Telecommunication Development Report (Geneva: ITU, 19951 and Communications Outlook (Paris: OECD, 19951 for a comparison of MiI-F with other telecommunica- tion indicators. Calling card traffic Historically, most international calls were billed at the point of origination. The number of billed minutes thus coincided with the volume of outgo- ing traffic. Billed minutes also included collect or reverse charge calls because the calls were set up by an operator in the originating country. However, the recent use of credit and debit cards has shifted the billing point for many internation- al calls. For example, calls from Italy to the United States (or a third country, such as Argentina) may now be set up and billed in the U.S. Unless otherwise stated in the notes to a table, the outbound MiTT reported for countries in TeleGeography 1995 refers to outbound traffic originated in the reporting country even if it is billed in another country. That is, unless stated, traffic originated in another country but billed to a calling card or credit card in the reporting coun- try is not counted as outbound traffic. Some countries (including the U.S.) report inter- national traffic data based solely on the location where the traffic is billed; consequently, "out- bound" traffic data for these countries include Home Country direct traffic originating in third countries (e.g., a call originated in Italy to a U.S. number and billed to a U.S. calling card). For these and other reasons (such a different fiscal years), the national statistics in TeleGeography are not directly comparable, and incoming MiTT reported for one country may not match the out- going MiTT on the same route by the correspon- dent country. Some double counting may also occur. For example, a Country Direct call from Poland to the U.S. which is billed to a U.S. calling card is reported here as outbound U.S. Mil-~, the same call also is reported as outbound MiTT by Poland. Third-country routing The growing volume of traffic routed via a third country using Home Country Beyond and "call back" services is also making national traffic sta- tistics harder to interpret. A Home Country Beyond cal! may originate in Country A, be billed to a calling card in Country B and terminate in Country C. Similarly, a call routed via a "call back" service may be placed by a subscriber in Country A, but originate in Country B and termi- nate in Country C. In both cases, the calls from Country A to Country C generally will not be counted in Country A’s outbound MiTT but may be reflected by an increased volume of MiTT from Country B to Country C. 169 TeleGeography 1995 © TeleGeography, Inc. 1995 Accordingly, in countries where Home Country Beyond and call back services are widely used, a year-to-year comparison of national MiTT also requires examining the statistics of countries, such as the U.S., where the calls are being refiled or hubbed. To assist readers in making such comparisons, the U.S. tables in TeleGeography 1995 have been expanded to provide 1993 and 1994 route-by- route statistics for over sixty countries. For fur- ther discussion of the methodological issues raised by the growth of alternative call routing arrangements, see Direction of Traffic op. cit. Chapter 7. Resellers Traffic carried by resellers of international switched voice services generally is included in the MiTT for the facilities-based carrier whose facili- ties are resold. But unless otherwise stated, MiTT data exclude traffic carried by resellers of interna- tional private line (IPLs) connected to the public switched network at one or both ends. Transit traffic is also excluded. Other factors There may also be other reasons (beyond those referred to above) which cause inbound traffic data on a given route to differ from the outbound traffic data for the originating country (e.g., cal- endar vs. fiscal year data). Further, neighboring countries may not classiflj local cross-border traf- fic in the same way (i.e., one country may count all such traffic as international, while the other does not.) In any event, the route-by-route traf- fic data reported in TeleGeography for each coun- try generally is based upon the survey data sup- plied to TeleGeography by the originating country, not the terminating country. Some differences exist between the historical sta- tistics (1993 or earlier) reported in TeleGeography 1995 and data stated in prior reports or Direction of Traffic. The variations reflect corrections and/or revised data subse- quently provided to TeleCeography. In addition, rounding may cause the figures on total national traffic and surpluses and deficits to appear incon- sistent with other national data by _+0.2 million minutes. 170 Blue Pages © TeleGeography, Inc., 1995 Blue Pages International Dialing Codes, by Number 1 Canada United States 1-1189 Anguilla, Antigua & Barbuda, Bahamas, Barbados, British Virgin Islands, Cayman Is- lands, Dominic& Dominican Republic, Grenada, Jamaica, Montserrat, Puerto Rico, St. Lucia, St.. Kitts & Nevis Islands, St.. Vincent & the Grenadines, Trinidad & Tobago, Turks & Caicos, U.S. Virgin Islands 1-441 Bermuda 20 Egypt ;212 Morocco ;213 Algeria ;216 Tunisia ;218 Libya 228 Gambia 221 Senegal 222 Mauritania 223 Mall 224 Guinea 225 Ivory Coast 226 Burkina Faso 227 Niger 228 Togo 229 Benin 230 Mauritius 231 Liberia 23;2 Sierra Leone 233 Ghana 234 Nigeria 235 Chad 236 Central African Republic 237 Cameroon 238 Cape Verde Islands 239 Sac Tome and Principe 240 Equatorial Guinea ;241 Gabon 242 Congo 243 Zaire 244 Angola 245 Guinea-Bissau 246 Diego Garcia 247 Ascension Island 248 Seychelles 249 Sudan 250 Rwanda 251 Ethiopia 252 Somalia 253 Djibouti 254 Kenya 255 Tanzania 256 Uganda 257 Burundi 258 Mozambique 43 Austria 685 Western Samoa 259 Zanzibar 44 United Kingdom 686 Kiribati 260 Zambia 45 Denmark 687 New Caledonia 201 Madagascar 46 Sweden 688 Tuvalu 262 Reunion Island 47 Norway 689 French Polynesia 2.63 Zimbabwe 48 Poland 690 Tokelau 264 Namibia 49 Germany 691 Micronesia 265 Malawi 500 Falkland Islands 692 Marshall Islands 266 Lesotho 501 Belize 7 Kazakhstan 267 Botswana 502 Guatemala Kyrgyzstan 268 Swaziland 503 El Salvador Russia 269 Comoros & Mayotte 504 Honduras Tajikistan 27 South Africa 505 Nicaragua Turkmenistan 290 St. Helena 506 Costa Rica Uzbekistan 251 Eritrea 507 Panama 81 Japan 297 Aruba 508 St. Pierre & Miquelon 82 South Korea 208 Farce Islands 509 Haiti 84 Vietnam 299 Greenland 51 Peru 850 North Korea 30 Greece 52 Mexico 852 Hong Kong 31 Netherlands 53 Cuba 853 Macau 32 Belgium 54 Argentina 850 Cambodia 33 France 55 Brazil 850 Laos 33-93 Monaco 56 Chile 86 China (PRC) 34 Spain 57 Colombia 871 Inmarsat East Atlantic 350 Gibraltar 58 Venezuela 872 Inmarsat Pacific 351 Portugal; Azores 590 Guadeloupe 873 Inmarsat Indian 352 Luxembourg 591 Bolivia 874 Inmarsat West Atlantic 353 Ireland 592 Guyana 880 Bangladesh 354 Iceland 553 Ecuador 886 Taiwan 355 Albania 594 French Guiana 90 Turkey 356 Malta 595 Paraguay 91 India 357 Cyprus 596 Martinique 92 Pakistan 358 Finland 597 Suriname 93 Afghanistan 359 Bulgaria 598 Uruguay 94 Sri Lanka 36 Hungary 599 Netherlands Antilles 95 Myanmar(Burma) 370 Lithuania 60 Malaysia 950 Maldives 371 Latvia 61 Australia 961 Lebanon 372 Estonia 62 Indonesia 952 Jordan 373 Moldova 63 Philippines 963 Syria 374 Armenia 64 New Zealand 964 Iraq 375 Belarus 65 Singapore 965 Kuwait 376 Andorra 66 Thailand 966 SaudiArabia 377 Monaco(reserved) 670 Northern Marianas 967 Yemen 378 San Marino 671 Guam 968 Oman 379 Vatican City 672 Australian Territories 971 United Arab Emirates 380 Ukraine 673 Brunei 972 Israel 381 Yugoslavia 674 Nauru 973 Bahrain 385 Croatia 675 Papua New Guinea 974 Qatar 386 Slovenia 676 Tonga Islands 975 Bhutan 387 Bosnia-Hercegovina 677 Solomon Islands 976 Mongolia 389 Macedonia, TFYR 678 Vanuatu 977 Nepal 39 Italy 679 Fiji 98 Iran 40 Romania 680 Palau 994 Azerbaijan 41 Switzerland 681 Wallis & Futuna 995 Georgia 41-75 Liechtenstein 582 Cook Islands 4;2 Czech Republic 683 Niue 42 Slovak Republic 684 American Samoa 173 TeleGeography 1995 © TeleGeography, Inc., 1995 International Dialing Codes, by Country Afghanistan ........... 93 Albania .............. 355 Tirana ............ 42 Algnria .............. 213 Algiers ............ 2 American Samoa ...... 684 Andorra ............. 378 Angola .............. 244 Luanda ............ 2 Anguilla ........... 1-809 Antigua & Barbuda .1-809 Argentina ............. 54 Buenos Aires ........ 1 Armenia ............. 374 Yerevan ......... 8852 Aruba ............... 297 Ascension Island ..... 247 Australia ............. 61 Canberra .......... 62 Melbourne .......... 3 Sydney ............. 2 Australian Territories..672 Austria ............... 43 Vienna ............. 1 Azerbaijan ........... 994 Baku ........... 8922 Bahamas ........... 1-889 Bahrain .............. 973 Bangladesh .......... 808 Dhaka ............. 2 Barbados ........... 1-809 Belarus .............. 375 Minsk ........... 172 Belgium .............. 32 Brussels ........... 2 Beliza ............... 501 Belmopan .......... 8 Benin ............... 229 Bermuda ........... 1-441 Bhutan .............. 975 Bolivia .............. 591 La Paz ............. 2 Bosnia .............. 387 Sarajevo ........... 71 Botswana ............ 267 Brazil ................ 55 Brasilia ........... B1 Rio de Janeiro ...... 21 S~o Paulo .......... 11 British Virgin Islands 1-809 Brunei ............... 673 Bandar Seri Begawan..2 Bnl0nria ............. 356 Sofia .............. 2 Burkina Faso ......... 226 Burundi .............. 257 Cambodia ............ 855 Cameroon ............ 237 Canada ................ 1 Montreal ......... 514 Ottawa ........... 613 Toronto ........... 416 Cape Verde .......... 238 Cayman Islands ..... 1-809 Central African Republic236 Bangui ............ 61 Chad ................ 235 Chile ................. 56 Santiago ........... 2 China, People’s Republic of ........ 86 Beijing ............. 1 Guangzhou ......... 20 Shanghai .......... 21 Colombia ............. 57 Bogota ............ 1 Cocos Islands; Norfolk & Christmas Islands .672 Comoros ............. 269 Congo ............... 242 Brazzaville .... 81/82/83 Costa Rica ........... 506 Croatia .............. 385 Zagreb ............. 1 Cuba ................. 53 Havana ............ 7 Cyprus ............... 357 Nicosia ............ 2 Czech Republic ........ 42 Prague ............. 2 Denmark .............. 45 Diego Garcia ......... 246 Djibouti .............. 253 Dominca ........... 1-809 Dominican Republic .1-809 Ecuador ............. 593 Quito .............. 2 Egypt ................. 20 Cairo .............. 2 El Salvador ........... 503 Equitorial Guinea ..... 240 Eritrea ............... 291 Estonia .............. 372 Ta!linn ............. 2 Ethiopia ............. 251 Addis Ababa ........ 1 Falkland Islands ...... 580 Faroe Islands ......... 298 Fiji ................. 679 Finland .............. 358 Helsinki ............ 0 France ................ 33 Paris .............. 1 French Antilles ....... 596 French Guiana ........ 594 French Polynesia ..... 689 Gabon ............... 241 Gambia .............. 220 Georgia .............. 995 Tbilisi .......... 8832 Germany .............. 49 Berlin ............. 30 Bonn ............ 228 Frankfurt ........... 69 Munich ............ 89 Ghana ............... 233 Accra ............. 21 Gibraltar ............. 350 Greece ............... 30 Athens ............ 1 Greenland ........... 299 Grenada ........... 1-809 Guadeloupe .......... 590 Guam ................ 671 Guatemala ........... 502 Guatemala City ...... 2 Guinea .............. 224 Guinea-Bissau ........ 245 Guyana .............. 592 Georgetown ........ 2 Haiti ................ 509 Honduras ............ 504 Hong Kong ........... 852 Hungary .............. 36 Budapest ........... 1 Iceland .............. 354 Reykjavik ........... 1 India ................. 91 Bombay ........... 22 Calcutta ........... 33 New Delhi ......... 11 Indonesia ............ 62 Jakarta ........... 21 Inmarsat East Atlantic ....... 871 West Atlantic ...... 874 Pacific ........... 872 Indian ............ 873 Iran .................. 98 Tehran ............ 21 Iraq ................. 964 Baghdad ........... 1 Ireland .............. 353 Dublin ............. 1 Israel ................ 972 Jerusalem .......... 2 Tel Aviv ............ 3 Italy .................. 39 Rome .............. 6 Milan .............. 2 Ivory Coast ........... 225 Jamaica ........... 1-809 Japan ................ 81 Osaka .............. 6 Tokyo .............. 3 Jordan .............. 962 Amman ............ 6 Kazakhstan ............ 7 Alma Ata ........ 3272 Kenya ............... 254 Nairobi ............ 2 Kiribati .............. 686 Kuwait .............. 965 Kyrgyzstan ............. 7 Bishkek ......... 3312 Laos ................ 856 Latvia ............... 371 Riga ............... 2 Lebanon ............. 961 Beirut ............. 1 Lesotho .............. 266 Liberia .............. 231 Libya ................ 218 Tripoli ............ 21 Liechtenstein ....... 41-75 Lithuania ............ 370 Vilinius ............ 2 Luxembourg .......... 352 Macau .............. 853 Macedonia (TFYR) ..... 389 Skopje ............ 91 Madagascar .......... 261 Antananarivo ........ 2 Malawi .............. 265 Malaysia ............. 60 Kuala Lumpur ....... 3 Maldives ............ 960 Mali ................ 223 Malta ............... 356 Marshall Islands ...... 692 Martinique ........... 596 Mauritania ........... 222 Mauritius ............ 230 Mayotte ............. 269 Mexico ............... 52 Guadalajara ........ 36 174 © TeleGeography, Inc., 1995 Blue Pages Mexico City ......... 5 Monterrey ......... 83 Micrenesia ........... 691 Maldova ............. 37:3 Chisinau .......... 422 Monace ............ :3:3-9:3 Mongelia ............ 976 Montserrat ......... 1-809 Morocco ............. 212 Casablanca .......... 2 Babat ............. 7 Mozambique ......... 258 Maputo ............ 1 Myanmar (Burma) ..95 Namibia ............. 264 Windhoek ......... 61 Nauru ............... 674 Nepal ............... 977 Kathmandu .......... 1 Netherlands ........... 31 Amsterdam ........ 20 Netherlands Antilles ..599 Nevis Islands ....... 1-809 New Caledonia ....... 687 New Zealand .......... 64 Auckland ........... 9 Wellington ......... 4 Nicaragua ........... 505 Managua ........... 2 Niger ................ 227 Nigeria .............. 234 Lagos .............. 1 Nioe ................ 68:3 North Korea .......... 850 Pyongyang .......... 2 Northern Marianas .... 670 Saipan ........... 322 Norway ............... 47 Oslo ............... 2 Oman ................ 968 Pakistan .............. 92 Islamabad ......... 51 Palau ................ 680 Panama ............. 507 Papua New Guinea .... 675 Paraguay ............ 595 Asuncion .......... 21 Peru ................. 51 Lima ............. 14 Philippines ............ 63 Manila ............ 2 Poland ............... 48 Warsaw .......... 22 Portugal ............. 351 Lisbon ............. 1 Puerto Rico ......... 1-809 Qatar ................ 974 Reunion Island ....... 262 Romania .............. 40 Bucharest .......... 1 Russia ................. 7 Moscow ......... 095 St. Petersburg ...... 812 Rwanda ............. 250 St. Kitts ............ 1-809 St. Lucia ........... 1-809 St. Pierre & Miquelon..508 St. Vincent & ........... the Grenadines..1-809 San Marino .......... 378 S~o Tome and Principe 239 Saudi Arabia ......... 966 Riyadh ............. 1 Senegal ............. 221 Seychelles ........... 248 Sierra Leone ......... 232 Freetown .......... 22 Singapore ............. 65 Slovak Republic ....... 42 Bratislava .......... 7 Slovenia ............. 386 Ljubljana .......... 61 Solomon Islands ...... 677 Somalia ............. 252 Mogadishu ......... 1 South Africa ........... 27 Johannesburg ....... 11 Pretoria ........... 12 South Korea ........... 82 Seoul .............. 2 Spain ................ 34 Madrid ............ 1 Barcelona ........... 3 Sri Lanka ............. 94 Colombo ........... 1 Sudan ............... 249 Khartoum .......... 11 Suriname ............ 597 Swaziland ........... 268 Sweden .............. 40 Stockholm .......... 8 Switzerland ........... 41 Berne ............. 31 Zurich .............. 1 Syria ................ 963 Damascus ......... 11 Tahiti ................ 689 Taiwan .............. 886 Taipei ............. 2 Tajikistan .............. 7 Dushanbe ....... 3772 Tanzania ............. 255 Dar Es Salaam ...... 51 Thailand .............. 66 Bangkok ........... 2 Togo ................ 228 Tokelau .............. 690 Tonga ............... 676 Trinidad & Tobago ...1-809 Tunisia .............. 216 Tunis .............. 1 Turkey ................ 90 Ankara ............ 4 Istanbul ............ 1 Turkmenistan ........... 7 Ashkhabad ....... 3632 Turks & Caicos ..... 1-809 Tuvalu ............... 688 Uganda .............. 256 Kampala .......... 41 Ukraine .............. 380 Kiev .............. 44 United Arab Emirates .971 Abu Dhabi .......... 2 Dubai .............. 4 United Kingdom ........ 44 London ....... 171/181 Manchester ....... 161 United States ........... 1 Chicago ....... 312/630 Houston .......... 713 Los Angeles ....... 213 Miami ............ 305 New York ..... 212/718 Washington ....... 202 Uruguay ............. 598 Montevideo ......... 2 Uzbekistan ............. 7 Tashkent ........ 3712 Vanuatu ............. 678 Vatican City .......... 379 Venezuela ............ 58 Caracas ............ 2 Vietnam .............. 84 Wallis & Futuna ....... 681 Western Samoa ....... 685 Yemen ............... 967 Sanaa ............ 51 Yugoslavia ........... 381 Belgrade ........... 11 Zaire ................ 243 Kinshasa .......... 12 Zambia .............. 260 Lusaka ............. 1 Zanzibar (Tanzania) .... 259 Zimbabwe ........... 263 Harare ............. 4 175 TeleGeography 1995 © TeleGeographu, Inc., 1995 North American Area Codes, by State and Province Alabama Birmingham ....... 205 Montgomery ...... 334 Alaska .............. 907 Alberta ............. 403 Arizona Phoenix .......... 602 Tucson ........... 520 Arkansas ............ 501 British Columbia & NW Territories ....... 604 California Anaheim ......... 714 Bakersfield ....... 805 Burbank ...... 818/562 Fresno ........... 209 Long Beach .... 310/562 Los Angeles ...213/562 Oakland .......... 510 Riverside ......... 909 Sacramento ....... 916 San Diego ........ 619 San Francisco ..... 415 San Jose ......... 408 Santa Rosa ....... 707 Colorado Colorado Springs ...719 Denver ........... 303 Ft. Collins ........ 970 Connecticut Bridgeport ........ 203 Hartford .......... 860 Delaware ........... 302 District of Columbia Washington ....... 202 Florida Ft. Myers ......... 941 Gainesville ........ 352 Jacksonville ....... 904 Miami ........ 305/954 Orlando .......... 407 Tampa ........... 813 Georgia Athens ........... 706 Atlanta .......... 404 Marietta ......... 770 Savannah ......... 912 Hawaii ............. 808 Idaho ............... 208 Illinois Aurora ........... 630 Cairo ............ 618 Chicago .......... 312 Evanston ......... 847 Oak Brook ........ 708 Peoria ........... 309 Rockford ......... 815 Springfield ........ 217 Indiana Evansville ........ 812 Gary ............. 219 Indianapolis ....... 317 Iowa Coucil Bluffs ...... 712 Des Moines ....... 515 Dubuque ......... 319 Kansas Topeka ........... 913 Wichita .......... 316 Kentucky Bade Park ........ 812 Lexington ......... 606 Louisville ......... 502 Louisiana New Orleans ...... 504 Shreveport ........ 318 Maine .............. 207 Manitoba ........... 204 Maryland Baltimore ......... 410 Rockville ......... 301 Massachusetts Boston ........... 617 Springfield ........ 413 Worcester ........ 508 Michgan Detroit ........... 313 Flint ............. 810 Grand Rapids ...... 616 Lansing .......... 517 Sault Ste. Marie ...906 Minnesota Duluth ........... 218 Minneapolis ....... 612 Rochester ........ 507 St. Cloud ......... 320 Mississippi .......... 601 Missouri Kansas City ....... 816 St. Louis ......... 314 Springfield ........ 417 Montana ............ 406 Nebraska North Platte ....... 308 Omaha ........... 402 Nevada ............. 702 New Brunswick ...... 506 New Hampshire ...... 603 New Jersey Elizabeth ......... 908 Newark .......... 201 Trenton .......... 609 New Mexico ........ 505 New York Albany ........... 518 Bronx, Queens .718/917 Buffalo ........... 716 Hempstead ....... 516 Ithaca ........... 607 Manhattan .... 212/917 Syracuse ......... 315 White Plains ...... 914 Newfoundland ....... 709 North Carolina Charlotte ......... 704 Greensboro ....... 910 Raleigh .......... 919 North Dakota ........ 701 Nova Scotia & Prince Edward Island .... 902 Ohio Cincinnati ........ 513 Cleveland ......... 216 Columbus ......... 614 Toledo ........... 419 Oklahoma Oklahoma City ..... 405 Tulsa ............ 918 Ontario Ft. William ....... 807 London ........... 519 North Bay ........ 705 Ottawa .......... 613 Toronto .......... 416 Oregon Eugene .......... 541 Portland .......... 503 Pennsylvania Altoona .......... 814 Harrisburg ........ 717 Philadelphia ....... 215 Pittsburgh ........ 412 Puerto Rico & Caribbean ..... 809 Quebec Montreal ......... 514 Quebec .......... 418 Sherbrooke ....... 819 Rhode Island ........ 401 Saskatchewan ....... 306 South Carolina Charleston ........ 803 Greenville ........ 864 South Dakota ........ 605 Tennessee Memphis ......... 901 Nashville ......... 615 Knoxville ......... 423 Texas Amarillo .......... 806 Austin ........... 512 Dallas ........ 214/972 El Paso .......... 915 Fort Worth ........ 817 Galveston ........ 409 Houston ...... 713/281 San Antonio ....... 210 Tyler ............. 903 Utah ................ 801 Vermont ............. 802 Virginia Alexandria ........ 703 Richmond ......... 804 Roanoke ......... 540 Washin0ton Olympia .......... 360 Seattle ........... 206 Spokane ......... 509 West Virginia ........ 304 Wisconisin Madison ......... 608 Milwaukee ....... 414 Eau Claire ........ 715 Wfomino ............ 307 Two codes separated by a slash (e.g., in Dallas, Texas) indicate an overlay; multiple codes are used for the same geographic area. 176 © TeleGeography, Inc., 1995 Blue Pages North American Area Codes, by Number 201 202 203 204 2O5 206 207 208 209 210 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 281 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 3O8 309 310 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 334 352 360 401 402 New Jersey District of Columbia Connecticut Manitoba Alabama Washington Maine Idaho California Texas New York City California Texas Pennsylvania Ohio Illinois Minnesota Indiana Texas Maryland Delaware Colorado West Virginia Florida Saskatchewan Wyoming Nebraska Illinois California Illinois Michgan Missouri New York Kansas Indiana Louisiana Iowa Minnesota Alabama Florida Washington Bhode Island Nebraska 403 Alberta 602 Arizona 404 Georgia 603 New Hampshire 405 Oklahoma 604 British Columbia & 406 Montana NW Territories 40? Florida 605 South Dakota 408 California 606 Kentucky 409 Texas 607 New York 410 Maryland 608 Wisconisin 412 Pennsylvania 609 New Jersey 413 Massachussetts 610 Pennsylvania 414 Wisconsin 612 Minnesota 415 California 613 Ontario 416 Ontario 614 Ohio 417 Missouri 615 Tennessee 418 Quebec 616 Michigan 419 Ohio 617 Massachusetts 423 Tennessee 618 Illinois 441 Bermuda 619 California 500 Personal Communication 630 Illinois Services (PCS) 701 North Dakota 501 Arkansas 702 Nevada 502 Kentucky 703 Virginia 503 Oregon 704 North Carolina 504 Louisiana 705 Ontario 505 New Mexico 706 Georgia 506 New Brunswick 707 California 507 Minnesota 708 Illinois 508 Massachusetts 709 Newfoundland 509 Washington 710 U.S. Government Emergency 510 California Telecommunications Service 512 Texas 712 Iowa 513 Ohio 713 Texas 514 Quebec 714 California 515 Iowa 715 Wisconsin 516 New York 716 New York 517 Michigan 717 Pennsylvania 518 New York 718 New York City 519 Ontario 719 Colorado 520 Arizona 770 Georgia 540 Virginia 800 Toll-free services 541 Oregon 801 Utah 555 Public Information Services 802 Vermont 502 California 803 South Carolina 601 Mississippi 804 Virginia 805 California 806 Texas 807 Ontario 808 Hawaii 809 Puerto Rico and Caribbean 810 Michigan 812 Indiana/Kentucky 813 Florida 814 Pennsylvania 815 Illinois 816 Missouri 817 Texas 818 California 819 Quebec 847 Illinois 860 Connecticut 864 South Carolina 888 Toll-free services 900 Information Services 901 Tennessee 902 Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island 903 Texas 904 Florida 905 Ontario 906 Michigan 907 Alaska 908 New Jersey 909 California 910 North Carolina 912 Georgia 913 Kansas 914 New York 915 Texas 916 California 917 New York City 918 Oklahoma 919 North Carolina 541 Florida 9?0 Colorado 972 Texas 177 Tele~eography 1995 © TeleGeographg, Inc., 1995 © TeleGeography, Inc. 1995 Aft Rights Reserved. Alaska Long Los Angeles 213~ Anaheim Hawaii New Odeans Miami Queens. B’klyn & S.L 7/4/9~7 Personal Sewices Toll-free Inmarsat Mobite Services Pacific Ocean Telephooe Numbering Zones of the World Menagua Ouito (7) Nassau Port Au Prince (1) Ar~uba Inmarsat Mobile Services Atlantic Ocean Caribbean [Except as stated] .~ 6uadeloube ¯ ~1,/~ Martinique Georgetewn a~. Fo~mer Soviet Union Far East South and Ceutml ~- Middle East and Zone numbers correspond to first digit of national country codes Numbering plan is administered by the Inter~tio~al Telscommunlaatlan Union {ITUI, a U.N. specialized agency in Genoa Santiago ~io de Jeneim 178 © TeleGeographu, Inc., 1995 Blue Pages World Telephone Codes © TeleGeography, Inc. 1995 All Flights Reserved. KEY FOR EUROPE INSET Reykjavik (1) Dublin London -- Gibraltar Key Telephone Capital Ciey Number Country Code City Code Czech Republic 42 Prague 2 (~! Slevak Republic 42 Bratislava 7 i ~,~ Moldova 373 Chisinau 2 (~i Slovenia 3~6 Ljubljana 61 i~i Croatia 3~.~ Zagreb 1 (~i~ Bosnia-Herzegovina 3~’? Sarajevo 71 (~i Yugoslavia 3#I Belgrade 11 i~) Macedonia 389 Skopje 91 (~_! Malta 3~6 Valletta (~0, Cyprus 3~7 Nicosia 2 Note: No city code is required for listed cities unless stated. Rabat Freotown (22) Accra Brazzaville (81.82.83) Luandt Windheak (81( (22) Bangkok Phnom Perth Colombo Meg(~isbu Kuala Lumpur (3) Northern Marianas 6/0 ¯ Guam ~f (51) Diego Garcia (21) % Per1 24~ Moresby Inmarsa~ Mobile Se~,ices Indian Ocean ~Put your company’s name on this map. ~-~.~, licenses and custom mapping semices, contact: ~£il~)mOn roleGeographg, Inc. Un~ut~orboO ro~rogu~Oon is ~ro~iOito~. ~# ri~ts rosorvo~. 179 TeleGeography 1995 © TeleGeography, In~., 995 International Date Philadelphia St. John’s S~o Pau]o 180 © TeleGeography, Inc., 1995 Blue Pages Time Zones 181 TeleGeographg 1995 © TeleGeographg, Inc., --,~RCT/C OCEAN ° P_A.CIFIC .... OCEAN TLANTIC OCEAN "A/k’T1GUA AND BARBODA ............ GUADELOUPE HAm o~ 00MINICA PACIFIC OCEAN FALKLAND IS (U,K.} 182 © TeleGeographg, Inc., 199.5 Blue Pages Political Geography ARCTIC OCEAN L~ONE UBERIA GHANA SA~ OME ATLANTIC ........... EUROPE 11. CROATIA 1. NETHERLANDS 12. BOSNIA 2. BELGIUM 13. YUGOSLAVIA 3. LUXEMB0URG 14. ALBANIA 4. CZECH REPUBLIC 15. MACEDONIA(F.Y.R.) 5. SLOVAK REPUBLIC 16. MOLDOVA 6. SWITZERLAND ASIA 7. LIECHTENSTEIN 17, GEORGIA 8. AUSTRIA 18. ARMENIA 9. HUNGARY 19. AZERBAIJAN 10. SLOVENIA 20. TURKMENISTAN 21. UZBEKISTAN 22. TAJIKISTAN 23. KYRGYZSTAN AFRICA 24. BURKINA FAS0 25. TOG0 26. EQUATORIAL GUINEA 183 TeleGeography 1995 © TeleGeography, Inc., 1995 National Telecommunications Indicators (A-L) Population Area Main Lines Main Lines Lines/100 Cellular phones Fax machines PCs 1994 (millions) (Miles2 thous.) 1994 (millions) 1990 (millions) people 1994 1994 (thous.) 1994 (thous.) 1994 (thous.) Algeria 27.3 920 1.1 0.8 4.1 1.3 4.1 n.a. Argentina 34.2 1,068 4.8 3.1 14.1 202.2 n.a. n.a. Australia 17.8 2,968 8.9 7.8 49.6 1,250.0 450.0 3,870.0 Austria 7.9 32 3.7 3.2 46.5 278.2 n.a. 850.0 Bahrain 0.5 I 0.1 0.1 24.8 17.6 5.1 n.a. Bangladesh 117.8 56 0.3 0.2 0.2 1.1 2.0 n.a. Belgium 10.1 12 4.5 3.9 44.9 126.9 n.a. 1,300.0 Brazil 159.1 3,286 11.7 9.4 7.4 574.0 n.a. 1,400.0 Bulgaria 8.8 43 3.0 2.2 33.5 n.a. n.a. n.a. Canada 29.1 3,852 16.8 15.3 57.5 1,890.0 n.a. 5,100.0 Chile 14.0 292 1.5 0.9 11.0 n.a. n.a. n.a. China 1,190.9 3,705 27.2 6.9 2.3 1,566.0 200.0 1,800.0 Colombia 36.3 440 3.5 2.4 9.7 101.5 79.7 n.a. Croatia 4.5 22 1.2 0.8 26.8 21.7 28.4 n.a. ~Lprus 0.7 4 0.3 0.2 45.0 22.9 n.a. n.a. Czech Republic 10.3 30 2.2 1.6 20.9 20.0 58.5 n.a. Denmark 5.2 17 3.1 2.9 60.4 503.5 n.a. 1,000.0 Dominican Republic 7.7 19 0.6 0.3 7.9 20.0 n.a. n.a. Ecuador 11.2 109 0.7 0.5 5.9 17.9 n.a. n.a. =Egypt 57.6 387 2.4 1.7 4.3 n.a. n.a. n.a. Estonia 1.5 17 0.4 0.3 24.5 13.8 10.0 n.a. Finland 5.1 131 2.8 2.7 55.1 649.2 124.0 810.0 France 57.7 213 31.6 28.1 54.7 803.9 n.a. 8,060.0 Germany 81.1 138 39.2 31.9 48.3 2,501.4 1,446.6 11,650.0 Greece 10.4 51 5.0 3.9 47.8 167.0 n.a. 300.0 Hong Kong 5.8 1 3.1 2.5 54.0 431.8 257.0 660.0 Hungary 10.2 36 1.7 1.0 17.0 143.0 n.a. 350.0 Iceland 0.3 40 0.1 0.1 55.7 21.8 n.a. n.a. India 913.6 1,269 9.8 5.1 1.1 n.a. 50.0 880.0 Indonesia 189.9 735 2.5 1.1 1.3 78.2 55.0 530.0 Iran 65.8 636 4.3 2.2 6.6 9.2 30.0 n.a. Ireland 3.5 27 1.2 1.0 35.0 88.0 n.a. 490.0 Israel 5.4 10 2.1 1.6 39.4 n.a. n.a. n.a. Italy 57.2 116 24.5 22.4 42.9 2,239.7 n.a. 4,121.0 Japan 124.8 146 59.9 54.5 48.0 4,300.0 6,000.0 15,000.0 Jordan 4.2 34 0.3 0.2 7.2 1.4 31.0 n.a. Korea, Republic of 44.5 38 17.6 13.3 39.7 960.3 375.0 5,000.0 Kuwait 1.7 7 0.4 0.3 22.6 85.6 n.a. n.a. Luxembourg 0.4 1 0.2 0.2 55.3 13.8 n.a. n.a. Source: International Telecommunication Union ©TeleGeography, Inc. 1995 184 © TeleGeography, Inc., 1995 Blue Pages International Telephone Traffic Outgoing mMiTr 1993 1994 Change 93-94 1993 121.0 118.0 -2.5% n.a. 137.1 175.0 2?.6% a 192.3 735.0 852.0 15.9% n.a. 767.4 819.2 6.7% 751.0 77.0 86.8 12.7% 55.1 17.2 22.1 28.6% 83.9 979.4 1,049.0 7.1% a 1,025.3 182.4 199.0 9.1% a 373.8 91.0 82.7 -9.1% 76.4 761.5 861.2 13.1% 503.4 61.7 73.5 19.1% 105.0 870.0 1,090.0 25.3% n.a. 102.4 120.3 17.4% 278.7 117.2 185.5 58.3% 170.3 93.8 106.6 13.6% 72.2 141.4 157.6 11.5% a n.a. 452.3 488.4 8.0% 460.0 58.3 63.5 8.9% a n.a. 33.6 36.4 8.3% a 102.3 80.0 n.a. n.a. n.a. 41.2 48.1 16.7% n.a. n.a. 259.0 n.a. n.a. 2,576.0 2,802.5 1.0% 2,710.0 4,679.6 5,147.1 10.0% 3,707.8 336.2 422.7 25.7% 406.1 1,376.9 1,578.4 14.6% a,b 1,260.3 213.2 236.6 11.0% a 192.8 24.1 26.0 7.7% a 23.4 283.9 314.0 10.6% a,b 441.0 143.8 182.5 26.9% a 201.8 156.5 208.4 33.2% n.a. 315.8 323.7 2.5% a,b 423.0 175.5 n.a. n.a. n.a. 1,609.7 1,708.0 6.1% a 1,672.7 1,411.2 1,524.8 8.0% b 981.2 50.0 57.0 14.0% a 100.0 355.4 440.4 23.9% a 510.5 116.8 120.6 3.2% n.a. 199.3 213.5 7.1% 131.7 Incoming mMiTl" Surplus/(Deficit) 1994 Chanqe 93-94 1993 1994 n.a. n,a. n.a. n.a. 252.6 31.4% 55.2 77.7 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 774.5 3.1% (16.4) (44.7) n.a. n.a. (21.9) n.a. n.a. n.a. 66.7 n.a. 1,093.9 6.7% 45.9 44.9 408.0 9.1% 191.4 209.0 n.a. n.a. (14.6) n.a. 543.8 8.0% (258.1) (317.4) n.a. n.a. 43.3 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 302.8 8.6% 176.3 182.5 240.2 41.1% 53.0 54.7 79.0 9.5% (21.6) (27.6) 210.0 n.a. n.a. 52.4 500.9 8.9% 7.7 12.5 404.0 n.a. n.a. 340.5 128.6 25.7% 68.7 92.2 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 50.8 n.a. n.a. 2.7 285.0 n.a. n.a. 26.0 2,739.5 1.1% 134.0 137.0 3,881.2 4.7% (971.8) (1,265.9) 441.2 8.6% 70.0 18.5 1,446.4 14.8% (116.5) (132.1) 211.9 9.9% (20.4) (24.7) 25.5 9.0% (0.7) (0.4) 615.0 39.5% 157.1 301.0 244.7 21.3% 58.0 62.2 n.a. n.a. n.a. n,a. 442.9 4.7% 107.2 119.2 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 1,864.0 11.4% 63.0 156.0 1,140.6 16.2% (430.0) (384.2) 114.0 14.0% 50.0 57.0 555.2 8.8% 155.1 114.8 127.0 n.a. n.a. 6.4 145.2 10.2% (67.6) (68.3) See individual country tables for carriers and routes included in outgoing and incoming traffic totals. a. Mil-r based on billing point of traffic. b. Year ending 31 March. Source: TeleGeography, Inc. ©TeleGeography, Inc. 1995 185 TeleGeography 1995 © TeleGeography, Inc., 1995 National Telecommunications Indicators (M-Z) Population Area Main Lines Main Lines Lines/100 Cellular phones Fax machines PCs 1994 (millions) (Miles2 thous.) 1994 (millions) 1990 (millions) people 1994 1994 (thous.) 1994 (thous.) 1994 (thous.) Macau 0.4 1 0.1 0.1 36.7 24.7 7.2 n.a. Macedonia 2.1 10 0.3 0.3 16.1 n.a. 1.8 n.a. Malaysia 19.5 127 2.9 1.6 14.7 58.1 571.7 640.0 Mexico 91.9 756 8.5 5.4 9.2 n.a. n.a. 2,100.0 Moldova 4.4 13 0.5 0.5 12.3 0.5 n.a. n.a. Morocco 26.5 172 1.0 0.4 3.7 n.a. 13.8 n.a. Netherlands 15.4 16 7.8 6.9 50.9 321.0 n.a. 2,400.0 New Zealand 3.5 104 1.7 1.5 47.0 229.2 50.0 n.a. Norway 4.3 125 2.4 2.1 55.4 588.8 n.a. 820.0 Pakistan 126.3 307 2.0 0.8 1.6 30.0 8.0 n.a. Paraguay 4.8 157 n.a. 0.1 n.a. 7.7 n.a. n.a. Peru 23.3 496 0.8 0.6 3.3 n.a. n.a. n.a. Philippines 66.2 116 1.1 0.6 1.7 200.4 35.0 n.a. Poland 38.3 121 5.0 3.3 13.1 38.9 n.a. 850.0 ._Portugal 9.8 36 3.4 2.4 35.0 173.5 n.a. 490.0 Qatar 0.5 4 0.1 0.1 21.7 8.0 9.8 n.a. Russia 148.4 6,592 24.1 20.7 16.2 27.7 n.a. n.a. Saudi Arabia 17.5 830 1.7 1.2 9.6 16.0 n.a. n.a. Singapore 2.8 1 1.3 1.1 47.3 235.6 n.a. 430.0 SIovak Republic 5.3 19 1.0 0.7 18.8 5.9 37.9 n.a. SIovenia 1.9 8 0.6 0.4 29.5 16.8 n.a. n.a. South Africa 40.6 471 3.8 3.3 9.5 n.a. 340.0 875.0 Spain 39.6 195 14.7 12.6 37.1 411.9 n.a. 2,750.0 Sri Lanka 18.1 25 0.2 0.1 1.0 11.0 30.0 n.a. Sweden 8.7 174 6.0 5.8 68.3 1,380.0 n.a. 1,500.0 Switzerland 7.1 16 4.3 3.9 59.7 332.2 175.0 2,050.0 Syria 14.2 71 0.7 0.5 4.9 n.a. 4.2 n.a. Taiwan 21.3 14 8.5 6.3 40.0 584.3 430.0 1,720.0 Thailand 58.7 198 2.8 1.3 4.7 643.0 60.0 680.0 Tunisia 8.8 63 0.5 0.3 5.4 20.0 2.7 44.0 Tu rkey 60.8 301 12.2 6.9 20.1 174.8 87.6 n.a. United Arab Emirates 1.9 32 0.6 0.4 33.2 91.5 29.7 n.a. United Kingdom 58.1 94 28.4 25.8 48.9 3,757.0 n.a. 8,800.0 United States 260.5 3,619 156.8 136.3 59.5 24,134.4 14,052.0 77,500.0 Uruguay 3.2 68 0.6 0.4 18.4 7.0 n.a. n.a. Venezuela 21.4 352 2.3 1.5 10.9 n.a. n.a. n.a. Yugoslavia 10.7 40 2.0 1.7 18.4 n.a. 13.7 n.a. Source: International Telecommunication Union ©TeleGeography, Inc. 1995 186 © TeleGeography, Inc., 1995 Blue Pages International Telephone Traffic Outgoing mMiT]" 1993 1994 Chanqe 93-94 1993 89.9 100.0 11.2% 77.9 27.6 35.1 27.2% 48.0 258.1 342.3 32.6% a,b 304.2 n.a. 844.1 n.a. a n.a. 119.7 73.9 -38.3% n.a. 125.0 129.8 3.9% n.a. 1,238.2 1,345.8 8.7% a 1,159.0 191.0 230.0 20.4% n.a. 376.2 395.5 5.1% a 322.5 56.5 61.4 8.7% 305.7 15.5 18.1 17.0% 24.5 39.0 51.0 30.8% a 152.4 164.0 160,0 -2.4% a n.a. 272.7 356.6 30.8% 431.5 232.6 262.4 12.8% a 438.2 58.3 62.7 7.6% n.a. 201.0 229.2 14.0% 268.0 454.9 498.9 9.7% n.a. 480.0 643.0 34.0% b n.a. 30.5 52.5 72.1% 33.6 62.8 90.6 44.2% a 55.8 255.0 n.a. n.a. n.a. 846.9 948.3 12.0% a 908.4 19.5 23.7 21.5% a 65.0 Incoming mMiTl" 1994 Change 93-94 84.3 8.2% 78.3 63.1% 399.7 31.4% 1,829.4 n.a. n,a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 1,290.9 11.4% 241.0 n.a. 352.0 9.1% n.a. n.a, 30.6 25.1% 178.6 17.2% 617.0 n.a. 643.8 49.2% 467.8 6.8% n.a. n.a. 365.0 36.2% n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 68.5 104.2% 83.2 49.1% n.a. n.a. 969.9 6.8% 78.7 21.1% Surplus/(Deficit) 1993 1994 (12.0) (15.7) 20.4 43.2 46.1 57.4 n.a. 985.3 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. (79.2) (54.9) n.a. 11.0 (53.7) (43.5) 249.2 n.a. 9.0 12.5 113.4 127.6 n.a. 457.0 158.8 287.2 205.6 205.4 n.a, n.a. 67.0 135.8 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 3.1 16.0 (7.0) (7.4) n.a. n.a, 61.5 21.6 45.5 55.0 (110.0) n.a. (313.31 (296.3) 22.6 38.0 50.1 115.0 56.9 140.1 n.a. n.a. 340.4 317.1 n.a. n.a. (44.0) 70.0 14,215.91 15,212.81 20.6 21.4 15.0 23.0 42.0 47.1 740.0 802.0 8.4% 630.0 n.a. n.a. 1,572.0 1,649.3 4.9% 1,258.7 1,353.0 7.5% 36.7 40.0 9.0% 59.3 78.0 31.5% 440.7 498.5 13.1% a,b 490.8 613.5 25.0% 161.8 173.2 7.0% 218.7 313.3 43.3% 67.0 64.0 -4.5% n.a. n.a. n.a. 264.6 284.3 7.5% 605.0 601.4 -0.6% 341.6 428.2 25.3% n.a. n.a. n.a. 3,130.0 3,507.0 12.0% b 3,086.0 3,577.0 15.9% 7,500.3 8,910.8 18.8% a 3,284.4 3,698.0 12.6% 37.4 46.3 23.8% a 58.0 67.7 16.7% 133.3 141.3 6.0% a 148.3 164.3 10.8% 181.5 181.9 0.2% 223.5 229.0 2.5% See individual country tables for carriers and routes included in outgoing and incoming traffic totals. a. MiT[ based on billing point of traffic. b. Year ending 31 March. Source: TeleGeography, Inc. ©TeleGeography, Inc. 1995 187 TeleGeography 1995 © TeleGeography, Inc., 1995 Notes TeleGeogra~hy 1995 © TeleGeogra~hy, Inc., 1995 Notes 190