TeleGeography 2003 Global Telecommunications Traffic Statistics and Commentary This work is based on sources believed to be reliable, but the publisher does not warrant the accuracy or completeness of any information for any purpose and is not responsible for any errors or omissions. This work is for the confidential use of subscribers. Neither the whole nor any part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopied, recorded or other­ wise, without prior written consent from TeleCeography, Inc. All rights reserved. Copyright © TeleCeography, Inc. 2002 First Printing-November 2002 This is book number TG03-114387 Do not reproduce. ISBN 1-886142-39-4 Printed in the United States of America TeleGeography, Inc. • 1909 K Street, NW • Suite 380 • Washington, DC 20006 USA Tel. 1 202 741 0020 • Fax 1 202 741 0021 • E-mail: info@telegeography.com www. telegeography.com 2 TeleGeography, Inc. This report was prepared by TeleGeography, Inc., the Washington, D.C.-based research and publishing group of Band-X Ltd. The TeleGeography 2003 research and production team included: Stephan Beckert .... ..... ... .. ... Director of Traffic Research J. Patrick Christian ........... ... ...... Senior Traffic Analyst Anupama Dokeniya ......... ....... Senior Research Analyst Alan Mauldin ..... ...... ..... .. ..... Senior Research Analyst Paul Melton .. .... ... ........... Senior Research Analyst Abiola Ogunyemi ..... ........... ...... Research Analyst Markus Krisetya .... .. .... .. .. Director of Systems & Design Michael Gorski .... .... ... ... .. Systems Administrator Tim Stronge .. .. ... ..... ... EVP of Research TeleGeography, Inc. Jason Kowal ...... .. ... .. ... .. President, TeleGeography, Inc. The following reports, databases, and maps also are available from TeleGeography, Inc.: Global Internet Geography 2003 [ISBN 1-886142-38-6) U.S. Internet Geography 2003 [ISBN 1-886142-36-X) MANs 2003 [ISBN 1-886142-37-8) Submarine Bandwidth 2002 [ISBN 1-886142-33-5) Terrestrial Bandwidth 2002 [ISBN 1-886142-34-3) The TeleGeography International Traffic Database [subscription service) The Band-X Bandwidth Indices [subscription service) European Terrestrial Networks Map [ISBN 886142-35-1) Global Communications Cable & Satellite Map [ISBN 886142-29-7) Global Internet Map [ISBN 886142-28-9) Global Communications Traffic Map [ISBN 886142-25-4) For all inquiries, please contact : TeleGeography, Inc. 1909 K Street, NW Suite 380 Washington DC 20006 USA Tel. 1 202 741 0020 Fax 1 202 741 0021 E-mail : info@telegeography.com For more information please visit www.telegeography.com. TELEGEOGRAPHY 200 3 © TELEGEOGRAPHY, INC 2002 Contents List of Figures .... .... .. ... ... ...... ... ... .. _· ................... 4 List of Country Traffic Tables ......... .............................................. ... 6 Preface .................. .............. ... .. ............. ................ ..... 7 Executive Summary ....... ....... .... ... .................... ·: ....... ....... .. 9 Carriers The Growth of International Carrier Competition .... ...... ........... .. ...................... 17 Market Shares of International Carriers ... .. ........................................... .. 21 Top 40 International Carriers ...... ... .... ... ..................... ....... 28 Traffic of Selected Multinational Carriers ...... ... ..................................... 29 Market Shares of US Carriers .............................. .... .. ............... 29 Price & Revenue Overview of International Price and Revenue Trends ... ... .................................... 33 U.S. Call Revenues by Destination ............ ........................................... 43 Elements of an International Call .............. ............. ... .. ... ......... .. 44 International Carrier Call Costs from the US ............................................. ... 46 International Carrier Call Costs to the US ........ ....... .. .... ..... .... ..... .... 48 U.S. International Settlement Rates ........................................ ............ 50 FCC Settlement Benchmarks ..... .. .. .... ... ... ... .. ........... ............ .... 53 Termination Rates by Country, 2000-2002 .. ..... ..... .... ............ .. ... ....... 55 Wholesale Rates by Country, 2000-2002 .......... .... ... ... ......... ... ........ .. .... 56 Retail Prices for a Three-Minute Call ........................ .... ..... ... ... .. .... 57 Retail Pricing Trends, 1999-2002 ..... ................ ................. ... ............ 60 Traffic Analysis Overview of International Traffic Trends ......... ........ ............ ....... .......... 63 VoiP Routes & Traffic .. ... ...... .. .. ............................................... 75 International Traffic to and from Mobile Phones ................ ................. ........... 87 Traffic Summary Global Traffic Review ............... ........ ... ... .... ...................... ... 101 International Traffic by Region .. ....... ........................................ ..... 103 International Traffic by Country ............................... .... .................. 107 International Traffic by Route .................................. ... ........ ..... ..... 110 Country Traffic Statistics International Traffic Tables ...................................................... ... .. 114 (see page 6 for a list of countries) Methodology .. ... .. ........... .. ............... .. ....................... 239 Bandwidth Submarine Cable Systems ............. ....... ..... .................................. 245 Terrestrial Networks ................. .. .......... ..... ... .. .. .. ...... .............. 256 International Circuit Usage by U.S. Carriers ...... ...... ... ... .. .. ...................... 260 International Internet Backbones .... ..... .......... .......... .. .......... ... ........ 265 Reference National Telecommunications Indicators & International Telephone Traffic ......................... 280 International Dialing Codes, by Country .............................. ......... .. .. ... .... 284 World Dialing Codes Map ............................ ... ... ... ...................... 286 International Dialing Codes, by Number ... ....... .............. ......... ... .... ... ... 288 North American Area Codes. by Number ...................... .... ....... .. ... .. .. .. 289 North American Area Codes, by Jurisdiction ........ .............. ..... ............... 290 North American Area Codes Map .................................. ... ... ..... .. 292 A Primer on Bits ... .... ... .. .. .................................... ....... 294 About TeleGeography, Inc. ................................. .. ... ..... ..... ... .... 296 © TELEGEOGRAPHY, INC 2002 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2003 3 List of Figures Executive Summary Figure 1 Call Volumes and Growth Rates, 1984-2001 .. ... ... ... ....... 11 Figure 2. Global Revenues Gone Flat .... .. ... 13 Figure 3. Incoming Mobile Traffic versus Termination Costs ....... .... .. ......... 14 Carriers Figure 1 Global Growth of International Carrier Competition, July 1996-July 2002 ..... 17 Figure 2. Regional Growth of Licensed International Carriers 1997-2002 ... .. .. ... ..... 18 Figure 3. Countries with International Telephone Service Competition .... .. .. .. .. .. 19 Market Shares of International Carriers .. .. ... .. 21 Top 40 International Carriers .... .. .... ....... 28 Traffic Base of Selected Multinational Carriers ... .. 29 Market Shares of U.S. International Carriers ..... 29 Price & Revenue Overview of International Call Price and Revenue Trends Figure 1 A Two Decade Perspective: Global Market Call Volumes and Revenues, 1983-2002 33 Figure 2. Global Revenue Gone Flat ... ......... 34 Figure 3. International Revenues versus Total Revenues by Carrier, 1997-2002 ..... 35 Figure 4. International & Total Communications Service Revenues Compared .. .. ... 36 Figure 5. U.S. Carrier Revenues and Settlement Outpayments, 1980-2001 ..... .. 37 Figure 6. U.S. Carrier Revenues for International Voice Services, 2000-2001 ....... ... 38 Figure 7. U.S. Revenue versus Settlements, 1992-2001 .... ..... .. .... 39 Figure 8 The VoiP Effect: International PSTN and VoiP Revenues and Prices, 1992-2002 .... 40 Figure 9. Bandwidth versus Minutes Prices, 1998-2001 .. .... .. ..... ...... 41 Figure 10. Hypothetical Wholesale Costs to Mobiles .. 42 U.S. Call Revenues by Destination ... ... .. .. ... 43 Elements of an International Call Figure 1. International Call Components .... ..... 44 Figure 2. Basic Call Transport Methods .. ...... 45 International Carrier Call Costs from the U.S .... 46 International Carrier Call Costs to the U.S ...... ... 48 U.S. International Settlement Rates ... .... .. ... 50 FCC Settlement Benchmarks Figure 1 FCC Benchmarks af\d ITU Target Recommendations (U.S. cents) ......... 53 Termination Rates by Country, 2000-2002 .. ... 55 Wholesale Rates by Country, 20Q0-2002 .. .... .. .. 56 Retail Prices for a Three-Minute C,all .. ...... ..... 57 Retail Pricing Trends, 1999-2002 .. ............ 60 4 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2003 Traffic Analysis Overview of International Traffic Trends Figure 1. Call Volumes and Growth Rates 1984-2001 .. .... .. ...... ... .. .. 63 Figure 2. Traffic From Competitive Telecom Markets, 1995-2002 ... .. ....... 64 Figure 3. Incumbent and New Carrier Market Shares, 1990-2001 ..... .. .. ... .. .. 65 Figure 4. Traffic Growth in Competitive and Non- Competitive Markets .. .... .... .. .. 67 Figure 5. Revenue and Call Volume Charges for Major Carriers, 2000-2001 ..... .. .. 68 Figure 6. Call Delivery Methods .... .. ... ... ... 70 Figure 7. Comparison of Wholesale and Settlement Rates, 2002 ... ... ..... ..... 72 Figure 8. Comparison of Wholesale and Mobile Termination Rates, 2002 .. ..... .... 73 VoiP Routes & Traffic Figure 1 International VoiP and PSTN Traffic Summary, 1997-2002 ... .... ... .... 75 Figure 2. International VoiP and PSTN Traffic Destination Summary, 2001 .... .. ..... 76 Figure 3. Major VoiP Carriers and Traffic .... .... 77 Figure 4. If You Cant Beat Them.. ............ 78 Figure 5. International VoiP Traffic Growth by Region, 2000-2001 .. ... ... ... 79 Figure 6. Top 25 U.S. Originated VoiP Routes, 2000-2002 .................... 80 Figure 7. Incoming VoiP Traffic on Selected Routes, 2001 ........................ 81 Figure 8. Growth on Top 10 U.S.-Originated VoiP Routes, 2000-2001 .. ... .. .... .. 82 Figure 9. Regional Termination Destinations of International VoiP Traffic, 2001 .. ..... 83 Figure 10. Traffic, Settlements, and Regulation .. .. 84 International Traffic to and from Mobile Phones Figure 1. Mobile versus Fixed International Traffic and Subscribership by Region 2001 ..... 87 Figure 2. Percent of Mobile-Originated International Traffic, 1999-2001 .. ..... ...... 88 Figure 3. Percent of Mobile-Terminated International Traffic 2000-2001 .. ............ .. 89 Figure 4. Roaming and International Mobile Traffic .. 90 Figure 5. Mobile Subscribers and International Traffic for Selected Countries, 2001 .. ... 91 Figure 6. International Call Prices: Mobile versus Fixed, 2002 .. .... ..... ... ... 92 Figure 7. Interconnection Wholesale, and Retail Prices for Selected Countries~ 2002 .. 93 Figure 8. Estimated Costs of Wholesale Traffic to Fixed and Mobile Destinations, 2001 .. 94 Figure 9. Payment Structures for Mobile Calls .. 96 © TELEGEOGRAPHY INC 2002 List of Figures (continued) Traffic Summary Global Traffic Review Figure 1. International Traffic and Main Line Growth ..... ...... ... ..... 101 Figure 2. International Traffic, Revenue, and Subscriber Growth ....... ..... 101 Figure 3. Intercontinental Traffic Flows, 1997 and 2001 .. .. .... ... .... 102 International Traffic by Region Figure 1. Interregional Traffic Flows, 2001 .... 103 Figure 2. International Traffic by Origin, 2001 ..... 103 Figure 3. Traffic Growth by Region 2000-2001 1 03 Figure 4. European Telecommunications Traffic Flows, 2001 ..... .... .... .. .. 104 Figure 5. Latin American Telecommunications Traffic Flows, 2001 ... ... ..... .. .. 105 Figure 6. Asian Telecommunications Traffic Flows, 2001 .. ...... ... .... ..... ... 106 International Traffic by Country Figure 1. Outgoing International PSTN Traffic Growth for Selected Countries, 2000-2001 ..... 107 Figure 2. PSTN Traffic Balance for Selected Countries, 2001 .. .... ........ 107 Figure 3. International Traffic Indicators, 2001 .... 108 International Traffic by Route Figure 1 Top 50 International Routes, 2001 ...... 110 Figure 2. Traffic Imbalances on Selected U.S. Routes, 2001 ...... .. .. ... ... 111 Figure 3. Traffic Imbalances on Selected Non-U.S. Routes, 2001 ... ......... ..... .. 111 Figure 4. International Outbound Routes with Rapidly Growing Traffic, 2000-2001 .... 112 Country Traffic Statistics (See page 6 for a list of countries) Bandwidth Submarine Cable Systems Figure 1 Submarine Cable Capacity and Trends by Route, 1998-2004 ... .. ... ..... 245 Figure 2. Major Submarine Networks: Length, Cost and Capacity ......... .......... 246 Figure 3. Map of Major Submarine Cable Systems in North America (Pacific Coast) .. ... 248 Figure 4. Map of Major Submarine Cable Systems in North America (Atlantic Coast) & Caribbean .................. .. 249 Figure 5. Map of Major Submarine Cable Systems in South America & Caribbean ........ 250 Figure 6. Map of Major Submarine Cable Systems in Europe .. .................... 251 Figure 7. Map of Major Submarine Cable Systems in Africa and the Mediterranean ....... 252 © TELEGEOGRAPHY, INC 2002 Figure 8. Map of Maj~~ Submarine Cable Systems in East Asia ...... .. ... ..... 253 Figure 9. Map of Major Submarine Cable Systems in South Asia .... ... ............. 254 Figure 10. Map of Majo~ Submarine Cable Systems in Oceania .......... ....... 255 Terrestrial Networks Figure 1 Overlay Map of Pan-European Terrestrial Networks ....................... 256 Figure 2. Overlay Map of U.S. Terrestrial Networks .257 Figure 3. Major Terrestrial Networks: Length Connectivity, and MANs ............. 258 International Circuit Usage by U.S. Carriers Figure 1 International Circuit Usage Summary, 1998-2001 .................... 260 Figure 2. International Circuit Usage for Selected Routes, 1999-2001 ................ 261 Figure 3. International Circuit Usage by Region 1998-2001 ....... .... ....... .. 262 Figure 4. International Circuit Usage of U.S. Carriers by Region, 1998-2000 ...... ........ 263 International Internet Backbones Figure 1 Interregional Internet Bandwidth, 2002 .... ..... .. .............. 267 Figure 2. Major Interregional Internet Routes, 2002 .......................... 269 Figure 3. Top 50 Interregional Internet Routes, 2002 .. .. ..... .... ... .... .. 270 Figure 4. Top 50 Interregional Internet Hub Cities, 2002 .... .... ......... .... .. 271 Figure 5. Top 100 U.S. Internet Routes, 2002 ..... 272 Figure 6. Major International Internet Routes in Europe, 2002 .... ...... .. ..... 273 Figure 7. Major International Internet Routes in Asia 2002 ..................... 274 Figure 8. Major International Internet Routes in Latin America 2002 .......... .. ... 275 Figure 9. Major International Internet Routes in Africa 2002 ..................... 276 Figure 10 Map of Major International Internet Routes, 2002 ....... .. ........... 277 Reference National Telecommunications Indicators ......... 280 International Dialing Codes, by Country .. .. .... 284 World Dialing Codes Map ................... 286 International Dialing Codes, by Number ......... 288 North American Area Codes, by Number ... ..... 289 North American Area Codes, by Jurisdiction ...... 290 North American Area Codes Map .... ......... 292 A Primer on Bits .. .. .................... 294 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2003 5 List of Country Traffic Tables Albania ...... .... .......... 114 Algeria .... ... ... .•........ 115 Andorra • 116 Argentina .................. 117 Armenia .. .. ....... ...... 118 Australia .. ...... .. .... 119 Austria .................... 120 Azerbaijan .... ... ......... 121 Bahamas ... ....... ...•... 122 Bahrain ............ ....... 123 Bangladesh .....•...... ... .. 124 Barbados .... .............. 125 Belarus ....•...•........... 126 Belgium .................... 127 Belize .....•..... ... .... ... 128 Bolivia ..................... 129 Botswana ...•... .. ... ..... 130 Brazil ...... ...... .. ..... 131 Bulgaria .. ......•.......•.. 132 Burkina Faso .. .... .. ....... 133 Canada .............. .. ... 134 Cayman Islands ... .... ... ... 135 Chad .. ........•.......•... 136 Chile ............... ... ... 137 China .....•...... .... .. 138 Colombia ........... .. ... .. 139 Costa Rica • 140 Cote dlvoire ................. 141 Croatia .. ... ....... .. .. ... 142 Cuba .... .... .. .... 143 Cyprus ............ .. .. .. 144 Czech Republic ..... ...... ... 145 Denmark .. ..... ... ... .. 146 Dominican Republic .....•...... 14 7 Ecuador 148 Egypt .....•............... 149 Eritrea .. ....... ... .. 150 Estonia ...•.. .......•..... 151 Ethiopia .................... 152 Finland .................... 153 France ..................... 154 Gabon ......... ........... 155 6 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2003 Gambia ............... •.. 156 Georgia .. .. .. ... .......... 157 Germany ...•........ ..... 158 Ghana .. ... .... .. ... .. ... 159 Greece .. .. .......•...•... 160 Guatemala .. .. ... .... .. ... 161 Guyana ... ....•...•...•... 162 Hong Kong .. .. .. ... ... .. ... 163 Hungary .. ....•...•...•.. 164 India ...... .............. 165 Indonesia .. ........ ..... .. 166 Iran .. .......... .. ...... 167 Ireland ..... ........ ... .... 168 Israel ........ .. ... .. 169 Italy ..... ... .......... 170 Jamaica .... ..... ... ........ 171 Japan .... ............. 172 Jordan .......... ... .. 173 Kazakhstan ... .. .. ......... 17 4 Kenya .. .. .. .. .. .. ... ... 175 Korea Rep. .............. 176 Kyrgyzstan .... ... ... ... 17 7 Latvia ...... ... ........... 178 Lesotho ... .. .............. 179 Lithuania ........•...•...... 180 Luxembourg ................. 181 Macau ........•........... 182 Macedonia .................. 183 Malaysia ............... ... 184 Malta ...... .... ......... 185 Mauritius ........ ...... .. .. 186 Mexico .. ..... ........ .. 187 Micronesia .. .. ..... ....... 188 Moldova ...... ... .... ... 189 Mongolia .. .. .. ..... 190 Morocco ... •.. .......... 191 Myanmar .. .. ..... .. ...... 192 Namibia ............•...... 193 Netherlands ................. 194 New Zealand ................ 195 Niger .................. .... 196 Nigeria .. .. .. .. ...... 197 Norway .................... 198 Oman ................... .. 199 Pakistan .. .. ......•...... 200 Palestinian Territory .......... 201 Panama ........... .. ..... 202 Paraguay .... .. .... .. 203 Philippines .............. 204 Poland ... .. ... ... ... 205 Portugal .. .... .. ... ... 206 Qatar .. .. .... .. ...... .. 207 Russia .................... 208 Saint Vincent & The Grenadines .. 209 Saudi Arabia .. ..... .. ..... 210 Serbia & Montenegro .... ....... 211 Seychelles ... .............. 212 Singapore .............•.... 213 Slovak Republic .. ........... 214 South Africa ................. 215 Spain .. ............ ..... 216 Sri Lanka ....... ......•.... 217 Sudan ..................... 218 Swaziland ...............•... 219 Sweden ...... .... ....... 220 Switzerland .............. .. 221 Syria .. ....... ......... .. 222 Taiwan ..... •...•..... .. .. 223 Tajikistan .... ... • ... 224 Thailand .... ... ........... 225 Togo ....... .. .. ...... ... 226 Tonga .. ............•...... 227 Trinidad & Tobago ............ 228 Turkey .. .. .............. 229 Turkmenistan ........... ... 230 Ukraine ......... .......... 231 United Arab Emirates .... ... ... 232 United Kingdom-Outgoing ....... 233 United Kingdom-Incoming .. ..... 234 United States-Outgoing ........ 235 United States-Incoming .. .. ..... 236 Uruguay ................... 237 Uzbekistan ... ... ...... .... 238 © TELEGEOGRAPHY, INC 2002 Preface Now more than ever! At WorldCom, thats how we feel about this years TeleCeography 2003 report ... ~nd our longtime sponsorship of the authoritative TeleCeography series. · During turbulent times, there truly is no substitute for dependable data. The report you hold in your hands offers the most informative, comprehensive, reliable informa­ tion-and the most incisive analysis-available on the state of the international tele­ phone market. Theres no question that the telecommunications industry faces a number of difficult challenges. Certain disturbing trends-such as the loss of half a million jobs and $2 trillion in U.S. market value-cannot be blithely ignored or wished away. Nor can we ignore certain long-term challenges that plague the industry-like excess network capacity and continued downward price pressure, especially in the U.S and Europe. Yet, for all of its woes, the global telecom industry shows hopeful signs of recovery. In the last two years, over a dozen new markets have opened and over 700 new carriers have entered the global telecommunications market. In addition, while international PSTN traffic flows grew just eight percent in 2001, Voice-over-IP call volumes almost doubled to 10 billion minutes. Indeed, the twin forces of technological advances and increased competition will continue to drive consumer demand for innovative commu­ nications services around the world. As the industry manages, consolidates, and transforms its way out of its current dol­ drums, this TeleCeography 2003 report will prove invaluable. New to this years edi­ tion is an expanded look at mobile traffic, as well as the evolution of inter-carrier relationships and traffic routing. Youll also find re-instated "Almanac" features in this report, including overviews of global Internet backbones and the underlying fiber-optic systems. On behalf of WorldCom, Im delighted that our sponsorship of TeleCeography continues to make this indispensable resource available. Now more than ever, I heartily recom­ mend this years report to your attention. Robert K. Lacy Vice President WorldCom, Inc. © TELEGEOGRAPHY, INC 2002 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2003 7 8 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2003 Acknowledgements We wish to thank the numerous carriers, government departments, regula­ tors, and international organizations from around the world who responded to our requests for information. This report would not exist without the help of the dedicated people at these organizations who took the time to ensure that the data reported here are as current and accurate as possible. We also owe a debt of gratitude to the Band-X switched minutes trading team, whose industry expertise and historical pricing statistics contributed substantially to the depth and accuracy of this report. We would also like to thank the many people who generously contributed their time and expertise to our research efforts, and those who helped to review early and final drafts of this book. They include: Silvia Agudo, Linda Blake, Teddy Chu, Simon Dodsworth, Cathy Hsu, Tim Kelly, Bill Marmon, Michael Minges, Paul Newnes, Rebecca Rohtbart, Heather Tinsley, Peter Toen, Laura Viana, and Monica Wells. TeleCeography 2003 was supported, in part, by a publication grant from WorldCom, Inc. As in the past, however, this grant was made without any precondition; TeleGeography, Inc. is solely responsible for the reports editorial contents. The Editors © TELEGEOGRAPHY, INC. 2002 Executive Summary EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1 0 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2003 © TELEGEOGRAPHY, INC 2002 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Executive Summary "The WTO Basic Telecommunications Agreement will prove to be the greatest influenc­ ing event on the industry for at least the next ten years ... -Alex Arena, Special Advisor to the Hong Kong SAR, writing in TeleGeography 1997/98 The international telecom sector is so ferociously competitive today that its difficult to remember how sheltered the industry was five years ago. In 1997, only fifteen coun­ tries permitted competition in international telephone services. By 2001, the number of countries allowing competition had tripled and more than 4,000 new international carriers emerged to challenge the former monopoly incumbents. Cross-border traffic flows also grew at unprecedented rates between 1997 and 2001, from 82 to 144 bil­ lion minutes annually. Traffic Global call volumes expanded as a result of a combination of factors: worldwide eco­ nomic growth, telephone subscribership increases, and, in particular, plunging call prices. Beginning in 1998, plummeting retail prices, along with the- rapid growth of mobile subscribers, spurred international traffic growth and call volumes to unprece­ dented of levels, with annual growth rates peaking at 23 percent in 2000. Figure 1. Call Volumes and Growth Rates, 1984-2001 1M ~% • VoiP mins (bn) 140 • PSTN Mins. (bn) 100 e (.) 80 i: " ..:: a.. 60 0 0 c: " 40 :z I- V> a.. 20 -Growth 25% t 20% (.) i: " 15% .= a.. 0 0 c: 10% 5% I­ V> a.. 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 Source: TeleGeography research © TeleGeography, Inc. 2002 © TELEGEOGRAPHY, INC. 2002 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2003 11 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 12 In many respects, 2001 marked the end of the post-liberalization boom. By 2001. price cuts seemed to have lost their effectiveness as international PSTN traffic grew by only 8 percent, the slowest pace on record (see Figure 1 Call Volumes and Growth Rates, 1984-2001 ). Furthermore, new market entrants assault on established carri­ ers stalled in 2001, leaving the new carriers (companies established after 1989) year­ end market shares at 31 percent, the same level as in 2000. Slowing growth has had a devastating impact on these upstart carriers: seven of the ten largest U.S. carriers in 1999 have since filed for bankruptcy. (For a detailed discussion of international traf­ fic trends, see the "Traffic Analysis" articles on pages 61 to 98.) Prices and Revenues Slowing growth is not the only problem facing the carrier market: international call rev­ enues have effectively been flat since 1994 (see Figure 2. Global Revenues Gone Flat). Between 1992 and 2001, call volume increases barely exceeded price declines, result­ ing in net revenue growth of only 2.8 percent annually. The market for international voice communications peaked in 2000, when global revenues exceeded $70 billion. Sharply reduced calling rates drove revenues down to $60.6 billion in 2001. resulting in the largest absolute decline ever. Market liberalization forced carriers to shift from revenue-optimized tariffs to more competitive, cost-based prices. Technological advances and plunging fiber-optic capacity prices have sharply lowered the cost of transporting a call to its destination country. Settlement payments and other termination charges-the per-minute fees a carrier must pay to connect each call to its final destination-account for the largest cost element in completing an international call. As with capacity costs, termination payments have plummeted in recent years. Political and economic pressure, combined with technological change, have helped drive average U.S. carrier termination costs from $0.79 per minute in 1991 to only $0.15 per minute in 2001 (For more on the factors behind stagnant international revenues, please see the "Price & Revenue" sec­ tion on pages 31 to 60.) Voice-over-Internet Protocol Voice-over-Internet Protocol (VoiP) has been a key factor behind declining termination costs. Just four years ago, the total volume of international traffic routed over the Internet accounted for less than one-half of one percent of the worlds international minutes. By the end of 2001, international VoiP had grown to 9.9 billion minutes, more than six percent of all international traffic. The two leading VoiP carriers, ITXC and iBasis, are on track to carry over 2 billion minutes of traffic each in the current year, placing them among the 20 largest global carriers. While the burgeoning traffic volumes suggest that VoiP has become a mainstream transmission technology, it is the end rather than the means which drives voice traffic to VoiP carriers. VoiP remains primarily a mechanism for avoiding high settlement pay­ ments rather than achieving technical efficiency. Seventeen of the twenty largest VoiP carl destinations from the U.S. are developing countries that maintain expensive set­ tlement rates. (For a detailed discussion of international VoiP traffic, please see VoiP Rqutes and Traffic on pages 75 to 86.) TELEGEOGRAPHY 2003 © TELEGEOGRAPHY, INC. 2002 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Figure 2. Global Revenues Gone Flat 250 c £ II) Q) .... ::::> ·" 200 ::!: .... c: ""0 International Call Minutes c: " "" 150 c .c (;/} (I) 2. II) Q) ::::> 100 c: Q) Q) 0:: c;; c: 0 ·.;:::: 50 " E International Call Revenues .E 0 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 Note: International call minutes and revenues reflect global totals for all countries to all international destinations. Data for 2002 to 2004 are projections based on the assumptions of 12 percent annual traffic growth and 12 percent annual price declines. Source: TeleGeography research © TeleGeography, Inc. 2002 Mobile Networks The rapid adoption of mobile phones around the world has added greatly to the num­ ber of calling opportunities, and, by extension, traffic volumes. In 2001, mobile sub­ scribers accounted for approximately 15.7 percent of outgoing international calls-up from eight percent in 1998. Since few mobile carriers maintain any international net­ works of their own, mobile-originated call volumes have proven to be a valuable source of traffic for wholesale-oriented carriers seeking to carry the international calls of other service providers. While calls from mobiles have proven a useful revenue stream for some international carriers, international calls to mobiles represent a major cost to others. Regulators in many countries historically have tolerated much higher termination rates to mobile net­ works than to fixed-line networks. In much of Europe, the cost of mobile termination is ten to fifteen times higher than the fixed-line termination rate. Consequently, inter­ national calls made to mobile phones account for a disproportionate share of termina­ tion payments (see Figure 3. Incoming Mobile Traffic versus Termination Costs) For Europe, where the disparities between mobile and fixed-line termination costs are greatest, TeleGeography estimates that mobile terminated calls account for approxi­ mately 30 percent of incoming international traffic but 67 percent of the total cost for terminating international traffic. (For a detailed discussion of mobile telephonys impact on the international long-distance sector, please see "International Traffic to and from Mobile Phones" on pages 87 to 98.) © TELEGEOGRAPHY, INC. 2002 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2003 13 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1 4 Figure 3. Incoming Mobile Traffic versus Termination Costs 100% • Mobile Share of Incoming Traffic SO% • Mobile Share of Termination Charges 60% 40% 20% 0% Nigeria Brazil Singapore Australia Germany France Note: Incoming traffic includes both traffic reported to TeleGeography and estimates. Fixed and mobile termination costs are derived from wholesale rates available from the Band-X London switch as of August 2001, multiplied by the volume of total international minutes to fixed and mobile phones in each country. Source: Band-X. Inc. and TeleGeography research © TeleGeography, Inc. 2002 The Road Ahead The challenges facing the international long-distance industry have never been more complex: carriers must adapt to rapid technological and regulatory changes while con­ tending with slowing traffic growth and declining revenues. Although these challenges are daunting, its clear that this $60 billion industry is unlikely to wither away. This years edition of TeleGeography-the eleventh in our annual series-offers a com­ prehensive picture of an industry in flux. The reports call volume data set of 3,490 international routes in 123 countries represents the principal tool for gauging change. In addition, TeleGeography 2003 presents detailed analysis on traffic, prices, rev­ enues, and technology trends for the international long-distance sector. To place this analysis in context of the industry at large, the report also incorporates over 30 pages of charts and tables from TeleGeographys original research on long-haul terrestrial networks, undersea cables, and international Internet backbones. .... TELEGEOGRAPHY 2003 © TELEGEOGRAPHY, INC. 2002 Carriers CARRIERS 16 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2003 © TELEGEOGRAPH Y, INC 200 2 The Growth of International Carrier Competition New Entrants Outpace Dropouts In the last year. more than 1 ,000 new carriers entered the international voice services market. Unfortunately, at least half that many older carriers dropped out over the same period. This shift brings the worlds international carrier count to just over 4, 700-15 percent more than the year before, and 4,000 more than existed five years ago (see Figure 1. Global Growth of International Carriers, July 1996-July 2002] From where have all the new carriers come? Despite scarce access to private and pub­ lic investment capital, many companies have seen opportunity in the wake of failures. In the U.S .• for example, over 700 companies became authorized to build international networks between July 2001 and July 2002. Simultaneously, previous market entrants dropped out rapidly-only half of the top ten U.S. international carriers from 1999 are still in business today. In most of Western Europe a similar pattern has formed, lead­ ing to little change in absolute carrier counts (see Figure 2. Regional Growth of Licensed International Carriers, 1997-2002). Figure 1. Global Growth of International Carriers, July 1996-July 2002 5,000 4,726 4,500 4,000 3,500 Q) •t: " 3,000 u " c: 0 2,500 ·;::; " E 2,000 c: 1,500 1,000 500 0 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 Notes: Figures include all carriers authorized to provide international facilities·based service or international simple resale (ISR). Source: TeleGeography research © TeleGeography, Inc. 2002 CARRIERS © TELEGEOGRAPHY, INC 2002 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2003 17 CARRIERS Figure 2. Regional Growth of Licensed International Carriers, 1997-2002 Americas Europe !-----,-~- Asia-Pacific Africa 0 500 1,000 1,500 International Carriers • July 2002 •July 2001 •July 2000 oJuly 1999 oJuly 1998 oJuly 1997 2,000 2,500 Notes: Figures include all carriers authorized to provide international facilities-based service or international simple resale (ISR). Source: TeleGeography research © TeleGeography, Inc. 2002 Part of the reason for this new stasis stems from the way we count carriers. In our methodology, a start-up "virtual" carrier with few customers counts the same as an incumbent with billions of minutes on its network. In fact, many new carriers counted here do not own extensive submarine cable capacity and switching assets, so their start-up costs can be minimal. Therefore, a new licensee with little more than a busi­ ness plan and Web site can fill the crater left behind by the likes of KPNOwest. Given a few million dollars and some shrewd shopping, a start-up operator can even begin operations with a fully functional network. In total the facilities-based carriers which have started business since 1989 now carry 31 percent of the world s international telephone traffic (see the "Overview of International Traffic Trends" in the Traffic Analysis section) The relationship between the incumbents and the swarm of virtual carriers-which repackage the facilities and services of network builders-is one of symbiosis. New market entrants, while they represent a competitive threat, can also be the incumbents best customers. And in some cases, new specialist wholesale carriers are serving up their facilities in the other direction-to established carriers that are encumbered by marketing expenses and bureaucratic processes. Although the carrier building boom is largely over in developed economies, there are st,ill many places where competition is nascent. In the last two years, over a dozen countries have introduced full-scale international carrier competition (e.g., Argentina Singapore, and Taiwan). and others that are about to explode (e.g., Brazil, China, India, 18 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2003 © TELEGEOGRAPHY. INC 2002 CARRIERS Figure 3. Countries with International Telephone Service Competition Number of Competing International Carriers-Americas Rank Country July 21102 July 21101 July 21100 July 1999 July 1998 July 1997 1. United States 1,800 1,600 1,100 679 393 175 2. Canada 96 90 75 49 21 21 3. Argentina 66 25 4 2 4. Peru 48 28 22 18 11 1 5. Chile 34 33 30 23 18 9 6. El Salvador 29 10 10 10 10 1 7. Mexico 21 19 16 16 15 9 8. Guatemala 15 9 2 2 9. Uruguay 13 1 10. Venezuela 10 5 1 11. Netherlands Antilles 8 6 2 12. Bolivia 7 1 1 1 13. Dominican Republic 5 5 4 4 3 3 14. Brazil 4 2 2 2 15. Colombia 3 3 3 3 3 Ecuador 3 3 3 3 3 3 Grenada 3 1 1 Haiti 3 3 3 3 19. Bermuda 2 2 2 2 2 2 Dominica 2 2 2 2 Saint Kitts & Nevis 2 1 1 1 Suriname 2 2 2 2 Number of Competing International Carriers-Asia-Pacific Rank Country July 21102 July 21101 July 21100 July 1999 July 1998 July 1997 1. Hong Kong 235 225 150 80 4 1 2. Japan 150 140 115 50 13 3 3. Singapore 93 87 60 4. Australia 75 65 40 27 14 10 5. Korea, Rep. 60 50 40 24 3 2 6. New Zealand 30 27 21 19 11 9 7. Taiwan 29 4 4 1 1 1 8. Malaysia 16 10 5 5 5 5 9. Philippines 11 12 12 12 12 9 10. India 4 1 1 1 1 1 11. China 3 2 2 2 2 2 Israel 3 3 3 3 3 3 Kazakhstan 3 3 3 3 3 14. Brunei 2 2 2 2 2 2 Georgia 2 2 2 2 2 2 Notes: Figures include all carriers licensed to provide facilities-based international service or International Simple Resale as of July 1 for each year. Source: TeleGeography research and most of Eastern Europe]. So, while the pool of established carriers continues to shrink, the effect on our global count will continue to be offset by new entrants from developing markets for the foreseeable future. As a result we expect the growth of competition to remain stable for next year: ..a © TeleGeography, Inc. 2002 © TELEGEOGRAPHY, INC 2002 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2003 19 CARRIERS Figure 3. Countries with International Telephone Service Competition (continued) Number of Competing International Carriers-Europe Rank Country July 2002 July 2001 July 2000 July 1999 July 1998 July 1997 1. United Kingdom 500 410 306 215 144 100 2. Germany 135 130 90 40 32 3. France 130 125 89 50 29 4. Italy 120 115 90 15 9 Sweden 120 100 60 20 13 11 6. Netherlands 95 85 60 30 23 3 7. Spain 85 75 40 16 9 8. Norway 70 57 35 14 7 9. Austria 65 54 40 17 13 10. Switzerland 60 60 50 40 21 11. Belgium 50 45 30 18 11 1 12. Ireland 45 50 40 25 5 3 Denmark 45 50 45 18 11 9 14. Finland 32 36 20 8 8 8 Portugal 32 21 15 16. Russia* 30 30 30 30 17. Iceland 20 14 8 3 18. Greece 15 2 Czech Republic 15 10 Estonia 15 10 21. Luxembourg 11 15 10 4 1 1 22. Ukraine* 2 2 2 2 2 2 • Estimates include Russian and Ukrainian carriers authorized to provide service only in certain municipalities. Notes: Figures include all carriers licensed to provide facilities-based international service or International Simple Resale as of July 1 tor each year. Source: TeleGeography research © TeleGeography, Inc. 2002 20 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2003 © TELEGEOGRAPHY, INC 2002 CARRIERS Market Shares of International Carriers Percentage of Outgoing Minutes Count~/Carrier 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 Argentina Telef6nica Larga Distancia de Argentina 54.5 54.1 Telecom International 45.5 45.9 Australia Telstra 100.0 98.0 87.0 76.3 73.4 62.0 55.0 49.0 49.5 38.9 39.2 Optus 2.0 13.0 21.9 23.4 27.0 26.0 22.0 21.9 21.7 18.2 AAPT 11.0 13.4 13.6 12.7 13.1 WorldCom 6.0 10.0 Primus 3.0 4.0 5.0 13.2 6.4 Teleglobe 4.4 4.4 5.4 5.9 Cable & Wireless 5.3 Others 1.8 3.2 11 .0 5.0 7.2 5.6 2.2 1.9 Austria Telekom Austria 100.0 95.0 65.3 51.3 45.9 UTA Telekom 1.5 6.1 13.8 9.4 World Com 1.4 2.6 7.2 Tele2 5.0 7.1 6.8 Cable & Wireless 3.8 3.5 4.3 eTel 3.9 COLT 3.7 Teleglobe 2.0 Others 3.5 18.4 21.6 17.0 Belgium Belgacom 100.0 87.0 81.0 69.6 63.7 WorldCom 9.8 14.4 COLT 6.4 Cable & Wireless 5.9 BT Ignite 2.1 Others 13.0 19.0 20.5 7.5 Brazil EMBRATEL 100.0 90.7 86.8 lntelig 9.3 13.2 Notes: Data based on outgoing international traffic for the public switched network and International Simple Resale (ISRI covering the full calendar or fiscal year. Some data aggregated in "others" rows include market shares for carriers shown individually in later years. Market shares may not total to 100 percent due to rounding. Source: TeleGeography research © TeleGeography, Inc. 2002 © TELEGEOGRAPHY, INC. 2002 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2003 21 CARRIERS Market Shares of International Carriers Percentage of Outgoing Minutes Count!}/Carrier 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 Canada* Bell Canada 27.4 26.3 25.3 AT&T Canada 1.0 5.0 8.0 9.0 10.0 14.0 19.4 21.0 21.6 Teleglobe Canada 29.0 30.0 30.0 31.0 29.0 33.0 30.0 23.0 26.0 24.0 16.9 16.3 17.4 Sprint Canada 15.0 21 .0 17.0 18.0 19.5 14.1 13.9 Primus 8.8 9.0 8.2 Tel us 5.8 8.0 7.6 Cable & Wireless 1.3 Stentor 71.0 70.0 70.0 69.0 66.0 54.0 44.0 44.0 41.0 40.0 Others 4.0 8.0 3.0 3.0 6.0 4.0 2.6 5.1 4.7 Chile ENTEL Chile 100.0 80.0 57.5 40.0 40.6 37.3 34.1 33.2 34.8 34.2 32.5 CTC Mundo 1.0 17.5 31.2 31.0 22.2 22.8 25.5 26.4 30.6 32.1 Chile Sat 20.0 25.0 19.7 19.4 15.2 17.9 13.9 12.8 13.0 13.0 BeiiSouth Chile 6.6 6.8 10.0 11.1 10.7 10.0 10.1 9.8 Globus 9.3 6.8 7.0 7.2 3.4 3.2 TransAm 1.0 1.0 2.8 3.1 3.2 3.0 3.1 2.8 AT&T Latin America- Chile 1.2 1.0 2.8 3.1 3.0 2.7 2.0 2.0 Telef6nica del Sur Carrier 0.2 1.8 Others 1.0 1.0 0.4 1.0 3.2 3.0 3.4 2.8 Colombia Telecom Colombia 100.0 88.0 70.5 55.7 47.6 Drbitel 7.0 15.7 24.3 28.2 ETB 5.0 13.8 20.1 24.2 Czech Republic SPTTelecom 100.0 77.7 Cable & Wireless 4.6 eTel 3.3 Others 14.1 Denmark Tele Danmark (TOC) 100.0 92.5 84.4 67.5 55.3 47.2 42.7 Tele2 Denmark 4.0 6.6 12.4 13.2 13.3 12.1 Teleglobe 3.1 5.8 8.4 Primus 7.8 Cable & Wireless 4.7 7.2 Telia Denmark 3.5 6.3 9.9 10.7 9.1 7.1 Others 2.7 10.3 18.0 19.9 14.6 Notes: See page 21. \ *Canada: The Stentor alliance, which was dissolved in 1999, included Bell Canada, Tel us, MTS, SaskTell, and Aliant. BCE, the parent company of Bell Canada, announced the purchase of Teleglobe in February 2000. Until October 1998, Teleglobe held a monopoly on all non-U.S. routes. Sprint Canada market shares include Fonorola, which merged with Sprint Canada in 1998. AT&T market shares include ACC traffic prior to 1999 merger. Primus acquire~ the consumer division of AT&T Canada in May 1999. Source: TeleGeography research © TeleGeography, Inc. 2002 22 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2003 © TELEGEOGRAPHY, INC 2002 CARRIERS Percentage of Outgoing Minutes Count!}/Carrier 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 Dominican Republic 7h CODETEL 100.0 90.0 85.8 83.0 77.0 72.2 78.1 77.4 77.8 Tricorn 6.7 7.5 12.8 12.9 15.5 14.2 15.5 14.6 Centennial 7.5 9.5 10.2 13.3 12.3 7.7 7.1 7.6 Finland* Son era 100.0 90.0 72.8 66.0 58.9 54.7 54.0 49.3 47.9 Fin net International 5.0 19.1 24.2 28.2 28.0 25.7 26.9 26.0 Song Networks 3.0 7.7 8.8 9.3 12.0 8.6 8.5 6.7 Cable & Wireless 2.7 Telia 1.8 Teleglobe 1.5 Others 2.0 0.4 0.9 3.5 5.2 11 .6 15.2 13.3 France France Telecom 100.0 93.0 85.0 67.6 60.4 Telecom Developpement 1.9 8.4 13.3 13.4 Cable & Wireless 3.0 5.6 Siris 4.8 5.3 World Com 4.0 4.8 Teleglobe 3.6 4.4 4.6 3.2 9 Telecom 2.4 COLT 2.2 Primus 2.0 Others 1.0 2.2 2.8 0.7 Germany Deutsche Telekom 100.0 80.3 58.0 47.3 48.7 WorldCom 1.8 6.4 10.1 11.7 COLT 3.3 5.2 5.2 Arc or 7.2 1.8 2.9 4.9 Cable & Wireless 2.6 4.1 4.8 Primus 3.7 5.9 4.5 Viag lnterkom 1.4 3.0 4.7 4.3 Teleglobe 1.8 2.1 3.5 3.8 Telia 1.4 2.0 2.8 Others 7.5 17.7 14.1 9.2 Greece OTE 100.0 80.9 Cable & Wireless 14.5 Others 4.4 Notes: See page 21. *Finland: Song Networks acquired lelias fixed-l ine business in Finland in June 2001 Source: TeleGeography research © TeleGeography, Inc. 2002 © TELEGEOGRAPHY, INC 2002 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2003 23 CARRIERS Market Shares of International Carriers Percentage of Outgoing Minutes Count!}/Carrier 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 Hong Kong PCCW Hong Kong Telecom 100.0 90.0 61.3 39.0 36.4 City Telecom 16.9 20.1 New World Telephone 2.0 14.3 14.6 14.9 NewT& THong Kong 2.0 9.6 9.1 8.6 World Com 5.8 8.4 China Netcom 6.3 Teleglobe 5.1 5.4 3.2 Cable & Wireless 1.3 Others 6.0 9.7 9.2 1.0 Indonesia PT lndosat 100.0 99.5 95.4 88.5 84.8 88.3 86.5 89.2 89.7 PT Sate Iindo 0.5 4.6 11 .5 15.2 11.7 13.5 10.8 10.3 Ireland Eircom 100.0 91.0 78.0 73.8 75.0 63.4 World Com 3.0 3.0 6.5 10.6 12.2 Esat Telecommunications 5.0 8.0 9.9 8.3 9.8 Cable & Wireless 9.3 Teleglobe 2.0 2.1 2.2 Others 1.0 11.0 7.8 4.0 3.1 Israel Bezeq 100.0 72.5 51.4 45.9 44.2 41 .1 Barak lTC 15.0 24.8 29.9 31.3 33.0 Golden Lines 12.5 23.7 24.3 24.5 25.9 Italy* Telecom ltalia 100.0 88.6 73.5 65.0 63.3 lnfostrada 4.5 9.2 10.8 10.4 Cable & Wireless 6.1 8.0 Alba com 1.0 6.2 8.0 7.2 Teleglobe 3.8 4.0 5.4 7.0 World Com 1.8 2.5 Others 2.0 6.8 2.4 1.6 Japan* KOOI 93.3 88.0 73.3 69.7 66.9 66.3 66.2 63.9 62.7 58.0 51. 1 36.9 34.5 C&W IOC 3.7 6.5 13.3 15.3 16.9 17.3 17.3 18.7 18.4 18.2 17.5 19.3 23.8 NTI Communications Corp. 1.2 17.5 18.2 Japan Telecom 3.0 5.5 13.4 15.0 16.2 16.4 16.5 17.5 19.0 18.3 17.4 14.1 13.2 World Com 4.9 7.8 6.2 Teleglobe 3.2 2.8 2.3 Others 5.5 4.7 1.6 1.8 Notes: See page 21 *Italy: Wind and lnfostrada were merged in 2001. *Japan: Japan Telecom market shares include IT J prior to 1997 merger. Source: TeleGeography research © TeleGeography, Inc. 2002 24 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2003 © TELEGEOGRAPHY INC 2002 CARRIERS Percentage of Outgoing Minutes Count!}/Carrier 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 Korea, Rep. Korea Telecom 100.0 79.9 74.5 68.7 72.6 73.5 69.0 66.6 59.5 51.9 49.4 DACOM Corporation 20.1 25.5 31.3 27.4 26.5 27.0 21.9 24.7 23.6 26.7 Onse Telecom 4.0 11.5 15.8 15.3 15.2 Others 9.2 8.9 Malaysia Telekom Malaysia 100.0 90.0 80.0 77.0 58.5 61.1 54.7 Maxis Communications 7.6 11.2 15.9 18.1 Celcom 8.0 11.0 10.0 14.5 9.0 11 .5 TIME Telekom 5.0 8.7 8.9 8.3 Digi Telecommunic ations 7.2 5.5 7.4 Others 2.0 9.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Mexico Telmex 100.0 83.0 78.0 68.0 64.7 66.6 Avantel 7.5 8.5 10.0 15.1 14.4 Alestra 8.5 10.5 13.1 13.1 12.2 Others 1.0 3.0 8.9 7.1 6.7 Netherlands PTI Telecom Netherlands (KPN) 100.0 95.0 84.9 68.3 57.8 52.6 Telfort 16.8 19.4 15.8 World Com 5.4 10.8 9.8 COLT 7.4 Cable & Wireless 2.2 6.9 Teleglobe 1.4 2.1 3.8 Others 5.0 15.3 8.1 7.7 3.9 New Zealand Telecom New Zealand 100.0 92.0 82.0 80.0 78.4 74.8 78.0 78.2 74.6 77.5 72.5 71.8 71.4 CLEAR Communications 8.0 18.0 20.0 21.6 25.2 22.0 19.8 20.2 12.3 17.9 15.3 15.0 Teleglobe 6.9 6.2 6.6 3.6 Cable & Wireless 2.3 Others 2.0 5.2 3.3 3.4 5.8 7.8 Norway Telenor 100.0 92.6 73.2 75.0 72.6 Tele2 Norge 7.0 7.3 6.9 Cable & Wireless 3.2 6.4 Teleglobe 2.6 Telia 5.0 5.0 5.3 World Access 6.0 6.2 Others 2.4 8.8 2.8 11.4 Notes: See page 21. Source: Telegeography research TeleGeography, Inc. 2002 © TELEGEOGRAPHY, INC 2002 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2003 25 CARRIERS Market Shares of International Carriers Percentage of Outgoing Minutes Count!}/Carrier 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 Philippines* PLOT 100.0 91 .6 84.2 69.0 68.0 79.0 73.0 69.0 65.4 51 .8 49.9 Globe Telecom 2.0 7.0 8.6 16.0 30.6 36.7 Dig itel 2.0 3.0 4.3 4.9 5.0 4.5 Eastern Telecommunications 7.0 6.0 5.0 7.0 6.4 3.4 4.6 3.8 Bayan Tel 1.0 4.0 5.0 5.7 4.6 3.5 2.6 Capitol Wireless 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 3.5 4.1 3.1 1.5 Philippine Global Communications 8.4 15.8 23.0 23.0 6.0 3.0 1.1 1.3 1.2 0.9 Others 1.0 3.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Portugal Marconi 100.0 83.3 79.9 Cable & Wireless 8.6 13.1 Jazztel 2.0 1.8 Others 6.1 5.6 Singapore Singapore Telecom 83.7 StarHub 10.4 World Com 2.4 Teleglobe 2.3 Others 1.1 Spain Telef6n ica 100.0 90.5 82.7 82.6 72.2 Cable & Wireless 3.3 8.6 Retevisi6n 4.5 4.3 3.7 3.5 World Com 2.4 BT Ignite 1.4 2.3 Teleglobe 2.2 2.6 2.9 Lince 2.1 2.4 3.3 COLT 2.1 Others 5.0 8.7 3.7 2.9 Sweden Telia 100.0 92.0 87.0 76.0 69.0 66.0 62.0 53.0 47.1 43.4 World Com 4.0 13.8 17.0 Tele2 8.0 13.0 21.0 22.0 22.0 24.0 18.0 14.5 13.2 Cable & Wireless 100.0 6.2 Telenordia 7.0 4.8 4.4 Teleglobe 2.0 2.9 2.8 COLT 2.0 Others 3.0 9.0 12.0 14.0 16.0 16.5 11.0 Notes: See page 21 *Philippines: PLOT market shares include Smart Communications traffic prior to 1999 acquisition. Globe Telecom market shares include Isla com traffic prior to 2001 merger. ., Source: Telegeography research © TeleGeography, Inc. 2002 26 TELEGEOGRAPH Y 2003 © TELEGEOGRAPHY, INC 2002 CARRIERS Percentage of Outgoing Minutes Countr¥/Carrier 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 Switzerland* Swisscom 100.0 93.5 77.6 58.7 54.4 Sunrise 3.7 6.6 25.3 21.8 Cable & Wireless 5.3 6.4 WorldCom 7.4 5.7 Teleglobe 1.4 1.1 4.8 COLT 4.3 Telia 1.1 Others 2.8 14.4 2.2 1.4 Taiwan Chunghwa Telecom 100.0 91.2 80.6 Others 8.8 19.4 United Kingdom* BT 91.0 86.0 81 .0 76.8 74.2 68.6 67.7 60.0 54.9 51 .6 39.7 37.2 33.3 Cable & Wireless 9.0 14.0 19.0 23.2 24.0 28.1 25.8 26.8 30.3 32.2 31.3 28.5 24.5 WorldCom 6.6 5.1 5.1 10.0 11.8 13.7 Primus 3.5 5.5 Teleglobe 4.2 4.8 5.6 4.5 COLT 4.1 Energis Carrier Services 4.2 3.9 Telia 2.1 2.7 Others 1.8 3.3 6.5 6.6 9.7 6.9 14.2 7.3 7.9 United States* AT&T Corp. 83.3 78.4 74.8 70.3 62.2 60.1 54.3 50.2 44.7 39.6 36.5 25.7 32.2 World Com 10.2 14.6 17.8 21.2 25.4 28.6 32.0 32.9 31.2 28.8 28.0 33.0 30.7 Sprint 5.8 6.4 6.3 7.3 10.3 11.1 11 .3 13.2 12.0 11.7 12.5 10.4 14.4 Teleglobe USA 1.3 3.3 4.8 4.0 3.9 Cable & Wireless 2.4 World Access 2.9 5.1 3.9 4.8 2.3 Primus 0.3 0.5 2.9 2.9 2.2 Others 0.7 0.7 1.1 1.2 2.1 0.2 2.4 3.7 7.6 11.0 11.4 19.2 11.8 Notes: See page 21. *Switzerland: Sunrise shares include diAx traffic prior to November 2000 merger. United Kingdom: Figures for Cable & Wireless reflect data for Mercury prior to its April1997 merger with Bell Cablemedia, Videotron, and NYNEX CableComms. *United States: Market shares for U.S. carriers prior to 1993 exclude traffic to Canada and Mexico. World Com market shares prior to 1998 merger aggregate MCI and WorldCom traffic. World Access filed for bankruptcy and ceased operations in the first half of 2001. Source: Telegeography research TeleGeography,lnc. 2002 TELEGEOGRAPHY INC 2002 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2003 27 CARRIERS Top 40 International Carriers Outgoing Traffic 2001 Revenue (millions of minutes) (US$ billions) Rank Company Origin Country 2001 2000 Change 00-01 Total lntl Service 1. AT&T Corp. United States 12,006.8 9,680.1 24.0% 52.6 4.6 2. WorldCom United States 11.454.7 12,399.5 -7.6% 35.2 1.7 3. Sprint United States 5,384.4 3,922.8 37.3% 26.1 0.8 4. Deutsche Telekom Germany 5,025.1 4,525.0 11.1% 43.3 0.7 5. France Telecom France 4,592.0 4,393.0 4.5% 38.6 1.0 6. BT* United Kingdom 4,233.5 4,559.3 -7.1% 26.6 n.a. 7. Cable & Wireless United Kingdom 3,113.8 3.487.6 -10.7% 3.1 n.a. 8. Telef6nica Spain 3,084.8 2,656.9 16.1% 27.6 2.8 9. Telecom ltalia Italy 3,042.0 2,706.0 12.4% 28.0 n.a. 10. China Telecom China 2,600.0 2,240.0 16.1% 14.5 n.a. 11. Bell Canada Canada 2,000.0 1,900.0 5.3% 17.3 n.a. 12. Swiss com Switzerland 1,757.0 1,633.0 7.6% 3.1 0.1 13. WorldCom United Kingdom 1,747.4 1.447.3 20.7% 35.2 n.a. 14. AT&T Canada Canada 1,711.4 1,524.8 12.2% 1.0 n.a. 15. PTI Telecom (KPN) Netherlands 1,695.0 1,636.0 3.6% 11.5 1.3 16. Singapore Telecom* Singapore 1,565.0 1,440.0 8.7% 4.1 0.7 17. Saudi Telecom Saudi Arabia 1,516.6 1,194.9 26.9% n.a. n.a. 18. Teleglobe USA United States 1.458.1 1,517.7 -3.9% 2.1 0.1 19. Etisalat United Arab Emirates 1,395.9 1,123.6 24.2% 0.7 n.a. 20. Telmex Mexico 1,386.4 1,281.3 8.2% 11.9 1.0 21. Teleglobe Canada Canada 1,376.7 1,180.9 16.6% 2.1 n.a. 22. Belgacom Belgium 1,372.2 1,277.6 7.4% 4.8 0.4 23. PCCW Hong Kong Telecom Hong Kong 1,270.0 1,200.0 5.8% 2.8 0.7 24. Chunghwa Telecom Taiwan 1,227.2 1,058.4 15.9% 5.4 n.a. 25. WorldCom Germany 1,209.1 964.7 25.3% 35.2 n.a. 26. Telstra Australia 1,188.0 1,030.0 15.3% 9.9 0.2 27. Rostelecom Russia 1,081.6 944.0 14.6% 0.8 0.1 28. Telecom Developpement France 1,021.5 867.2 17.8% 1.0 n.a. 29. Eircom Ireland 973.3 936.9 3.9% 1.6 0.1 30. KDDI Japan 950.0 950.0 0.0% 14.9 n.a. 31. Cable & Wireless, Inc. United States 910.1 332.6 173.6% 1.0 n.a. 32. Primus Telecommunications United States 832.0 1,082.5 -23.1% 1.0 n.a. 33. OTE Greece 825.1 793.2 4.0% 3.6 0.3 34. Telia Sweden 741.6 730.0 1.6% 5.5 0.3 35. TPSA Poland 729.9 675.8 8.0% 4.2 n.a. 36. Marconi Portugal 719.0 599.5 19.9% n.a. n.a 37. Sunrise Switzerland 704.6 702.0 0.4% 0.9 n.a 38. Telecom New Zealand* New Zealand 689.2 682.5 1.0% 2.3 0.1 39. Telekom Austria Austria 680.0 724.0 -6.1% 3.5 n.a. 40. TUrk TelekomUnikayson Turkey 675.0 731.8 -7.8% n.a. n.a Notes: Traffic figures are for public switched telephone network (PSTN) circuits and International Simple Resale only (service resale is excluded). Carrier rankings based on originating country minutes only; when based on the aggregated traffic of all subsidiaries, the top multinational carriers include: AT&T, BT, WorldCom, Cable & Wireless, Teleglobe, and Primus. International service revenues generally reflect net of PSTN service revenues after adding or subtracting for settlement payments but may also i~lude some private line revenue. All revenue figures converted from original currency at conversion rate current to year end reported. *Data are for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2002. Telecom New Zealands fiscal year ends June 30,2002. Source: TeleGeography research, FCC, end company reports. © TeleGeography, Inc. 2002 28 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2003 © TELEGEOGRAPHY, INC. 2002 CARRIERS Traffic Base of Selected Multinational Carriers 20.0 18.4 Vi" 15.0 c:: ;§. " 2l ::J 10.0 c:: Cl c:: ·c; B 5.0 ::J 0 0.0 E I- " E 0 olj u 0 u I- u c:: "0 ( ~~ ""§ 1..1..." I-:s: olj " " I- " " ..c co ::J "~ 0 E c;, :0 ~~ " I- ..c: I- u a; -- " 0 " I- u a: u X !:::: " ·v; " co Notes: Figures represent total outbound international traffic, including some refile and transit traffic Reach, a joint venture of Telstra and PCCW, has two "home" countries, Hong Kong and Australia. AT&T traffic represents U.S.-originated traffic only; traffic from overseas subsidiaries not available. ITXC and iBasis are primarily VoiP-based carriers. Source: TeleGeography research © TeleGeography,lnc. 2002 Market Shares of U.S. International Carriers 40.0 35.0 Vi" 30.0 ::9. 25.0 " " 20.0 g 15.0 ·c; l5 10.0 0 5.0 0.0 1990 1991 1992 Carrier Share of Outgoing Traffic, 1990-2001 • Others • Sprint • WorldCom •AT&T 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 Notes: Traffic figures are for public switched network circuits based on billing point of call, not originating point. International Simple Resale (ISR) is included in facilities-based totals. Source: TeleGeography research and FCC carrier filings © TeleGeography, Inc. 2002 © TELEGEOGRAPHY, INC 2002 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2003 29 CARRIERS 30 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2003 © TELEGEOGRAPHY, INC 2002 Traffic Analysis TRAFFIC ANALYSIS 62 TELEGEOGRAPHY 200 3 © TELEGEOGRAPHY INC 2002 TRAFFIC ANALYSIS Overview of International Traffic Trends The latest data compiled by TeleGeography suggest that 2001 may have represented the end of an era of rapid traffic growth. After three consecutive years of torrid grow.!;h capped by a 23 percent surge in 2000, worldwide switched traffic grew by only 8 per­ cent, to 142 million minutes in 2001-the slowest pace on record. If voice-over-IP traf­ fic (VoiP) is included, aggregate growth came to approximately 10 percent (see Figure 1. Call Volumes and Growth Rates, 1984-2001). still the lowest pace since the mid- 1980s. This article will review the past years worldwide telecom traffic growth patterns in their historical context. The groundwork for the 2001 market slowdown was laid several years before. In fact, the apparent slowdown may simply represent a return to histor­ ical trends, after several anomalous years of rapid growth. Instead of examining only the factors that conspired to restrain traffic growth last year. it may therefore be more useful to look back at the factors that drove growth to unprecedented heights in the preceding years. Figure 1. Call Volumes and Growth Rates, 1984-2001 160 • VoiP mins (bnl 140 • PSTN Mins. (bnl 120 :::> c: .E 100 c: iJ u 80 iE " ..= a... 0 60 0 c: " z 1- Cl) 40 a... 20 30% 25% 20% .J:: e (!) u iE " ..= 15% a... 0 0 c: " z 10% 1- Cl) a... 5% Source: TeleGeography research © TeleGeography, Inc. 2002 © TELEGEOGRAPHY, INC 2002 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2003 63 TRAFFIC ANALYSIS 64 Figure 2. Traffic From Competitive Telecom Markets, 1995-2002 • Monopoly Markets • Competitive Markets Netherlands, Mexico 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% 2002 u :E " .= " .c .!2 (!) -0 -c:: Q) Q) a_ Notes: Country labels reflect the timeline of market liberalization for select countries. Between 1996 and 2002 a total of 35 countries opened their international telecommunications markets to competition. Source: TeleGeography research TeleGeography, Inc. 2002 The Effects of Competition Five years ago, only 15 countries permitted international services competition. In all other countries, the incumbent carrier maintained a government-sanctioned monopoly over international long-distance services. By 2001, the number of countries allowing competition had almost tripled, to 44. While countries retaining a monopoly over international services competition still far outnumber countries that have liberalized their markets, 87 percent of the worlds international traffic was originated in those 44 competitive markets last year [see Figure 2. Traffic from Competitive Telecom Markets, 1995-2002). The most dramatic change in the competitive landscape was the European Unions "Big Bang" telecom market liberalization in January 1998, which opened most of Western Europe to international competition. Since the mass market opening of January 1998, several additional countries have joined the ranks of competitive markets, including Greece, the Czech Republic, and, most recently, China. TELEGEOGRAPHY 2003 TELEGEOGRAPHY, INC. 2002 TRAFFIC ANALYSIS Figure 3. Incumbent and New Carrier Market Shares, 1990-2001 45 ~40 ::> 35 c: 30 :0 -;; 25 iE 20 · 15 10 5: Q) z 5 New Carrier Market Share, 1990 2001 Global Market Share of New Carriers 31o/. Incumbent Market Shares, 2001 90% r-~~--------------. 80% 70% 60% " 50% Q) 40% ::;E 30% 20% 10% 0 Telenor 0 0 0 a 0 TeleDanmark Rb0.5869 Korea Telecom 0% L-~-~~-~~-~~-~~~ 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 Years Since Market Liberalization Note: New carrier figure includes only carriers that began facilities-based operation after 1989. Source: TeleGeography research © TeleGeography, Inc. 2002 Pricing New market entrants used low prices to pry customers away from the former monop­ oly incumbent carriers. Since new carriers had little or no established customer base themselves. new market entrants priced their services far more aggressively than their entrenched rivals. Moreover, given that international call prices had traditionally been set far above carriers underlying costs, there was plenty of room for price reductions. Low prices proved an effective lure. To cite just one example, within the first year of market liberalization, competitive carriers had captured 20 percent of the German market and were making comparable inroads in neighboring countries. (A complete list of carriers market shares by country can be found on pages 21 to 27.) Faced with the dramatic erosion of their customer base. incumbents had no choice but to match their rivals price cuts, leading to an unprecedented price war: Deutsche Telekom s prices on many routes have fallen by more than 90 percent since the introduction of competi­ tion. The unprecedented ferocity of the price war in Germany is reflected in the fact that Deutsche Telekom now offers calls to Canada for only 4.5 Euro cents per minute­ less than AT&T normally charges for a call from the U.S. to Canada. Despite these dras­ tic price cuts, the most aggressive rivals still underprice Deutsche Telekom by 40 to 50 percent on many routes. Market Shares Such savage price cuts have finally helped to slow the erosion of incumbents market share. Last year, for example, Deutsche Telekom s outbound international traffic expe­ rienced net growth for the first time since the opening of the German long-distance market in January 1998. In fact Deutsche Telekom was one of a small number of for- © TELEGEOGRAPHY, INC. 2002 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2003 65 TRAFFIC ANALYSIS mer incumbent carriers that managed to claw back a bit of their lost share of the inter­ national long-distance market: in 2001, Deutsche Telekoms share rose slightly, from 4 7 percent to 49 percent. AT&T. too, managed to reclaim its crown as the largest carrier of U.S.-originated inter­ national traffic. AT&Ts outbound international traffic grew from 9.6 billion minutes in 2000 to just over 12 billion minutes in 2001, accounting for 32 percent of the U.S. mar­ ket. AT&Ts gain in the U.S. market came at the expense of WorldCom, which fell back to second place in terms of outbound international traffic carried from the United States. However, on a worldwide basis, all available data indicate that WorldCom was able to retain its position as the largest multinational international carrier worldwide, with 18.2 billion minutes of cross-border traffic. Approximately 38 percent of WorldComs traffic was generated outside the U.S. The slowing erosion of incumbent carriers market shares mirrors new carriers slowing growth. From 1990 to 2000, new international carriers (that is, carriers formed after 1989). grew from a fraction of a percent to 31 percent of the total international long­ distance market in 2000. However, in 2001, new carriers traffic growth kept pace with but did not exceed overall market growth. Consequently, their share of the market stalled at 31 percent for a second year (see Figure 3. Incumbent and New Carrier Market Shares, 1990-2001). Although incumbent carriers were able to slow the tide last year; historical precedent suggests that most former monopoly carriers market shares will continue to decline over the long term. albeit at a more gradual rate. Typically, in markets that have been liberalized for more than a decade, the incumbents market share has gradually declined to approximately one-third. Market Maturation In 1998, at the outset of the European liberalization process, traffic growth in compet­ itive and monopoly markets was comparable, at approximately 13 percent annually. Between 1998 and 2000, international traffic from liberalized markets grew twice as quickly as traffic from monopoly markets. The price wars between incumbents and competitive carriers have driven down international call prices in many European coun­ tries by more than 70 percent since 1998. These deep price reductions have spurred traffic growth in countries that were widely regarded as relatively mature telecom mar­ kets to levels that were well above historical averages. However. by 2001 price cuts seem to have lost their effectiveness, and growth slowed in many markets. The scatter plot diagram in Figure 4 (Traffic Growth in Competitive and Non-Competitive Telecom Markets) illustrates the trend behind this slowdown. Traffic growth rates in newly liberalized telecom markets (the circles closest to the Y axis) are typically high, reflecting consumers demand for lower-priced international services. Over the course of several years, growth rates tend to slow, as the market reaches a new equilibrium. The linear regression equation describes the relationship a~ y = -0.012x 0.1797, where y is traffic growth and x represents the number of years since a country has introduced competition. In other words, on average, coun­ tries experience 17.97 percent traffic growth in the first year of competition, but that g~owth decelerates by 1.2 percentage points every year thereafter: 66 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2003 © TELEGEOGRAPHY, INC. 2002 TRAFFIC ANALYSIS Figure 4. Traffic Growth in Competitive and Non-Competitive Telecom Markets ¥ = -0.012x 0.1797 R1 =0.303 Note: Data reflect PSTN traffic only and exclude VoiP traffic volumes. Source: TeleGeography research Years since Competition © TeleGeography, Inc. 2002 This linear regression is hardly a perfect fit. Numerous examples buck the trend. For instance, Spain experienced above-average growth in 2001, three years after opening its market to competition On the whole, however, the downward trend does mesh with common sense. Both the quantitative effects of liberalization (e.g., price decreases) and the qualitative effects (e.g. the novelty of low prices) are strongest in the first few years of competition. These quantitative effects weaken over time, as carriers have less scope to cut prices. Similarly, the qualitative effects are less apparent in the years after market liberalization as carriers have already adjusted their practices to compe­ tition The introduction of competition should be viewed as a one-time boost to call volumes that tends to fade over time. After the initial surge in call volumes, traditional reasons for traffic growth, including economic growth, international trade and travel and increases in telephone subscribership, resurface as the principal drivers for growth. From this perspective, the global slowdown in international minutes growth simply reflects the maturation of the national telecom markets opened to competition in the 1990s. Revenues While sharp price cuts have helped to spur call volumes to new heights, revenues have not grown apace. In 2001, the global average price for making international calls fell by 20 percent while call volumes on the international PSTN increased by only 8 percent (for a detailed analysis of pricing and revenues, see pages 33-60). This mismatch indi­ cates that the price elasticity of demand for international telephone services was less than unitary (that is, call volumes will not increase rapidly enough to offset the decline in prices) Moreover, each competitive country s international telephone traffic was no © TELEGEOGRAPHY, INC 2002 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2003 67 TRAFFIC ANALYSIS 68 Figure 5. Revenue and Call Volume Changes for Major Carriers, 2000-2001 30% AT&T 20% 10% 0% -10% -20% -30% Source: TeleGeography research © TeleGeography, Inc. 2002 longer carried by one monopoly telco but was divided between a dozen or more carri­ ers. Consequently, incumbents revenues from international telephone services contin­ ued to suffer. For example Spains Telef6nica saw traffic volume rise by 16 percent, yet revenues fell by 13 percent (see Figure 5. Revenue and Call Volume Changes for Major Carriers, 2000-2001 ). Declining revenues from international traffic have forced incumbent carriers to ration­ alize their businesses, leading to sharp staff reductions at many formerly stable telcos. However, the impact of competition and meager revenues has been even more devas­ tating for many new carriers. Seven of the ten largest U.S. carriers in 1999 have since filed for bankruptcy. While some of these companies, such as WorldCom and Startec are still operating under Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection, others, such as Star Telecommunications and Pacific Gateway Exchange, have been liquidated. Many European carriers, such as Carrier1, Storm, Atlantic Telecom and Germanys TeiDaFax, have met a similar fate. A small number of carriers, such as AT&T, were able to buck the trend last year and increase their international traffic enough to offset price declines. Others, like Teleglobe, experienced a decline in gross revenues from voice traffic but improved their n~t revenues due to tighter cost controls and declining termination costs. Unfortunately, Teleglobe s improved voice margins were not enough to offset the losses incurred in the company s ambitious data unit, which ultimately dragged this company, too, into bankruptcy court. TELEGEOGRAPHY 2003 © TELEGEOGRAPHY INC 2002 Mobile Telephony Mobile telephony contributed strongly to the surge in international call volumes of the past two years. At the most basic level, mobile subscriber growth has stimulated inter­ national traffic simply by providing more calling opportunities. Moreover, unlike fixed­ line phones, mobile phones can travel across borders with their subscribers. In regions such as Europe, where countries are small and borders are porous, mobile roaming has served as an additional stimulus to international traffic. However, mobile telephony has not been immune to the overall slowdown in growth. As the mobile market has matured, subscriber growth has slowed, from over 60 percent in 2000 to approximately 22 percent in 2001. Mobile-originated international traffic followed suit: after surging by 63.7 percent in 2000, international calls from mobile phones grew by just under 18 percent in 2001, to 22.6 billion minutes, accounting for approximately 16 percent of the worlds international traffic. Routing and Settlement Arrangements Until just a few years ago, sending and terminating calls abroad was simple and expen­ sive. International telecommunication companies (typically, incumbent monopolies) shared the cost and revenue for nearly every cross-border public switched call in accor­ dance with the decades-old accounting rate regime. To send a call abroad, a carrier would route the signal onto its own international "half circuit", then transfer the call onto the matching network of its foreign counterpart for final termination. For this service, the originating carrier would pay the foreign telco a hefty settlement fee, usu­ ally equal to one-half the accounting rate negotiated by the two carriers. The accounting rate regime worked well enough to withstand decades of change. As long as carriers were predominately national monopolies, and traffic on routes remained roughly in balance, there was little reason to question the economics of the accounting rate regime. But times have changed: in 2001, 87 percent of the worlds traffic was originated in countries that allowed international services competition, and traffic imbalances on some large routes, such as the U.S. to Mexico, can amount to hundreds of millions of minutes annually. As competition began to intensify, many carriers sought ways of reducing or avoiding high settlement costs by "bypassing" the international accounting rate system. Technological advances, such as voice-over-IP. have combined with the gradual dereg­ ulation of telecom markets to offer carriers a host of ways to send and terminate their international traffic. Not all of them are entirely legal-but almost all are cheaper than the accounting rate regime. Direct Interconnection I International Simple Resale The most widely used alternative to the settlement rate system is "International Simple Resale" (ISR). This bureaucratic name is something of a misnomer, in that ISR is not really voice resale. ISR involves the provision of switched voice services over leased or owned private lines that are interconnected directly to the public switched network (PSTN) in the origin and destination countries. Sometimes called "direct interconnec­ tion," this alternative allows international carriers to bypass the international gateway operator, and to negotiate a termination rate directly with the local exchange carrier in the destination country. Most competitive telecom markets, including the European TRAFFIC ANALYSIS © TELEGEOGRAPHY, INC. 2002 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2003 69 TRAFFIC ANALYSIS 70 Figure 6. Call Delivery Methods Standard Public Switched Call 1. Customer dials interna- 3. Call is delivered to its tional number. final destination by ter- 2. Call is sent over the minating carrier. Public Switched Telephone Network (PSTN) by originating carrier, which pays set­ tlement charge to termi­ nating carrier in destination country. International Simple Resale (ISR) 1. Customer dials interna­ tional number. 2. Call is routed over inter­ national private line to switch in destination country but outside net­ work incumbent telco (e.g., to closed user group or mobile opera­ tor). Source: TeleGeography research 3. Call is re-rerouted to incumbent telcos net­ work and completed as a local call on PSTN. No international settle­ ments are paid by the originating carrier. Refile 1. Customer dials interna­ tional number. 2. Originating carrier sends call to hub country via PSTN or over interna­ tional private line. 3. Refile carrier re-origi­ nates call over PSTN. 4. Call is delivered to final destination via refile car­ rier, which pays settle­ ment charge to terminating carrier. VoiP 1. Customer dials interna­ tional number. Call is routed over PSTN to gateway computer. 2. Call is converted from analog voice to Internet Protocol (IP) format and sent over the Internet to a gateway in terminating country. 3. Call is converted back to analog format. 4. Call is completed as a local call on PSTN. No international settle­ ments are paid by the originating carrier. © TeleGeography, Inc. 2002 Union, the U.S., Canada and Japan, now allow direct interconnection. The FCC esti­ mates that 18.8 billion minutes of U.S.-originated international traffic, approximately 5,0 percent of total U.S. traffic, were sent via ISR in 2001. TELEGEOGRAPHY 2003 © TELEGEOGRAPHY, INC. 2002 The advantage of direct interconnection is that the termination rates charged by local exchange carriers are typically far lower than the official international settlement rate (see pages 50 to 55 for a comparison of U.S. settlement rates and direct interconnec­ tion charges). Despite the apparent cost advantage of ISR, many carriers-particularly incumbents-still send a substantial proportion of their international traffic via the set­ tlement rate regime. An informal survey of international carriers conducted by TeleGeography indicated that even in some highly competitive markets in Europe, mq_ny incumbent carriers still send most of their traffic via international settlements. · The seemingly archaic settlement system may hold some advantages for incumbent car­ riers. Incumbent carriers control most of the domestic-fixed line networks in their home countries, and thus terminate the lions share of inbound international traffic. Since settlement payments are symmetrical, the effective termination rate paid by the sending carrier can be zero if traffic on a bilateral route is in balance. By contrast. new market entrants, which tend to send far more traffic than they termi­ nate on their own networks, generally find it to their advantage to send as much traf­ fic as possible via direct interconnection. Several new market entrants reported that they sent more than 90 percent of their traffic via direct interconnection in 2001 For carriers sending traffic between countries where direct network interconnection is permitted, the term "bypass" has become somewhat archaic. The term suggests that there is an obstacle that must be overcome, when in fact, this is no -longer the case. Instead, the settlement rate system has simply evolved into one of a number of options a carrier may choose for terminating international traffic. Illicit Bypass The issue of bypass traffic is far more significant in the approximately 200 countries where direct interconnection with the domestic network is not permitted. As Telmex noted in its annual report, "Bypass is technically difficult to prevent or to measure but we believe that bypass was primarily responsible for the decline in the number of min­ utes of international long distance traffic. .. While difficult to measure, it is not difficult to document the existence of bypass traffic. A comparison of wholesale prices charged by carriers on minutes exchanges with offi­ cial settlement rates suggests that many carriers have found ways to beat the system. Figure 7 compares wholesale country rates available from Last Mile Connections (for­ merly Band-X New York) in November 2002 with the prevailing U.S. settlement rates for that particular country. Each dot in the chart compares the settlement rate with the wholesale price charged for carrying a minute of traffic to that country. Thus, for example, one wholesaler was offering to carry traffic from New York to Moldova at a rate of $0.086 per minute, 92 percent less than the prevailing settlement rate of $1 .04 per minute. Since ISR is not permitted in Moldova it seems certain that th is traffic is bypassing the settlement rate illicitly. Voice over IP The volume of traffic carried over IP links in 2001 was impressive: 9.9 billion minutes, equivalent to more than six percent of the worlds international traffic. While the traf­ fic volumes suggest that VoiP has become a mainstream technology, the primary des­ tinations of VoiP traffic suggest that it is, as yet, primarily used for settlement rate TRAFFIC ANALYSIS © TELEGEOGRAPHY, INC 2002 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2003 71 TRAFFIC ANALYSIS Figure 7. Comparison of Wholesale and Settlement Rates, 2002 " a: $0.30 $0.20 Q) E Q) en $0.10 Wholesale lower than settlement o 0 0 Ghana 0 India 0 Wholesale higher than settlement $0.00 IC,_ _ ..__ _ ..__ _ ..___--- $0.00 $0.10 $0.20 $0.30 $0.40 Wholesale Rate Note: Wholesale rates reflect least-cost-routing rates available on Last Mile Connections during November 2002. Source: Last Mile Connections, Inc., FCC, and TeleGeography research © TeleGeography, Inc. 2002 arbitrage. Seventeen of the twenty largest VoiP call destinations from the U.S. are developing countries that prohibit direct interconnection and still maintain high settle­ ment rates. Given the stunning volume of traffic now passing through international VoiP links, it is clear that VoiP has emerged as the most successful means of bypassing the settlement rate regime to date. However, its very success as an arbitrage tool may be helping VoiP move into the mainstream. Faced with the rapid erosion of incoming termination traf­ fic, a growing number of incumbent carriers in developing countries have concluded agreements with leading VoiP carriers to terminate their traffic. Refile Refile represents a third form of alternatively routed traffic. Instead of avoiding accounting rates altogether, carriers employing refile bend the rules of the international settlement regime to their advantage. Refile occurs when a carrier re-routes an out­ going international call through a third country, frequently in order to take advantage of the intermediate countrys lower settlement rate with the final destination. Although the legal status of refile is more debatable than that of many other forms of bypass, the practice is certainly illicit. With the intent of disguising the true origin of t~affic, the refile carrier in the intermediate country strips the numbering code, which identifies the originating country, replacing it with its own country code. This ruse makes economic sense in cases where settlement rate disparity exists between origi­ n;~ting countries. 72 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2003 © TELEGEOGRAPHY, INC. 2002 TRAFFIC ANALYSIS Figure 8. Comparison of Wholesale and Mobile Termination Rates, 2002 $0.25 $0.20 .2l $0.15 ::I .!: :2 :;; c. 0 0 $0.10 Cl (I) ::::> $0.05 $0.00 Germany Greece Bypass operators ideal targets combine three qualities: high volumes of traffic, high prices, and a significant price or cost imbalance. Traditionally, developing countries with high set­ tlement rates have been the most attractive tar­ gets. However, in recent years margins have eroded as settlement rates have declined. Moreover, the occasionally draconian penalties levied on "economic crimes" in some developing countries can serve as an effective deterrent to all but the well connected. As luck would have it, a new refile target has emerged: European mobile networks. In Europe, approximately 30 percent of incoming interna­ tional calls are terminated on mobile telephones. However, TeleGeography estimates that. due to the very high cost of mobile termination, calls to mobile phones account for 67 percent of the total cost for terminating international traffic in Western Europe. Mobile termination costs are high enough that most carriers have chosen to pass them on to their subscribers. For example, many consumer • Mobile Interconnection Rate • Wholesale Rate Portugal Netherlands Hungary calling plans in the U.S. now charge different rates for international calls placed to European fixed and mobile subscribers. However, some service providers offer calling plans for high-vol­ ume corporate customers that feature "blended" international prices. These plans provide callers a fixed country rate, irrespective of whether the call is terminated on a fixed or mobile network. In some cases, this blended price is lower than the termination rate alone. This pricing imbalance has prompted arbitrageurs to open high-volume retail accounts with such a carrier and then resell this retail service to other wholesale buyers. There is ample evidence that arbitrageurs have found inexpensive ways of transporting calls to European mobile networks. Wholesale rates offered on telecom exchanges to many European mobile destinations on telecom exchanges are frequently lower than the cost of mobile termination, alone. While its impossible to determine the precise volume of this traffic, theres no question that it runs into the million of minutes on an annual basis. Notes: Wholesale rates reflect least-cost-routing rates available on Last Mile Connections during November 2002. Source: last Mile Connections, Inc., and TeleGeography research © TeleGeography, Inc. 2002 © TELEGEOGRAPHY, INC 2002 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2003 73 TRAFFIC ANALYSIS For example, in mid-year 2001, the official settlement rate for traffic from Denmark to Peru was approximately $0.47 per minute, while U.S. carriers paid a settlement rate of $0.25 per minute for calls to Peru. By charging Danish carriers a fee somewhere between the Danish rate and the U.S. rates-say, $0.35 for a one-minute call-a U.S.­ based refiler could turn a $0.10 profit. The Danish carrier would also benefit from this arrangement, by saving $0. 12 per minute, minus the negligible transmission costs of routing the call through the United States. In contrast the Peruvian telco would lose $0.22 per minute in potential settlement income from the transaction. Based on information gathered in its annual survey of international carriers, TeleGeography estimates that refile traffic accounts for about 25 to 30 percent of world traffic volumes. Much of this refile traffic is sent between countries where ISR is legal and simply represents an alternate means of delivering traffic to its destination Who is sending all of this bypass traffic? Based on survey responses provided to TeleGeography, carriers in monopoly markets and developing countries are every bit as likely to trick the system as carriers battling for their existence in hotly contested mar­ kets. The destinations, volumes, and technologies employed may vary, but the ulti­ mate goal is always the same: to maximize net revenues by minimizing net outpayments to other carriers. Given the pervasiveness of bypass traffic and the fact that virtually all international carriers are engaged in some form of bypass, the prac­ t ice will survive as long as there are cost structures that can be circumvented. ... 74 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2003 © TELEGEOGRAPHY, INC 2002 TRAFFIC ANALYSIS VoiP Routes & Traffic Overview Just four years ago, the combined traffic of all companies routing international calls over Internet Protocol [IP) networks accounted for less than one-half of one percent_,of the worlds international minutes. By the end of 2001 international Voice-over-IP [VoiP) traffic had grown to 9.9 billion minutes, more than six percent of all international traffic. Based on TeleGeographys half-year survey results, the total market may reach 18 billion minutes for the calendar year 2002, constituting more than 10 percent of the worlds forecasted international traffic [see Figure 1. International VoiP and PSTN Traffic Summary, 1997-2002). Although VoiP has only recently left its infancy as a car­ rier-grade transport technology, it can no longer be considered an experiment. Based solely on traditional circuit-switched traffic flows, global cross-border calling grew just eight percent in 2001-the slowest rate of growth since traffic indicators were first col­ lected almost 30 years ago. Add international VoiP minutes to the 2001 total, how­ ever, and global traffic grew over 10 percent-still anemic but not unprecedented. Figure 1. International VoiP and PSTN Traffic Summary, 1997-2002 International VoiP Traffic 18.478.8 m 200,000 180,000 160,000 140,000 120,000 100,000 80,000 60,000 40,000 20,000 0 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 " c: " 2l ::::> c: ::2 " c: 0 .., " E 2l c: Notes: Voice-over-IP (VoiP) traffic includes all cross-border voice calls carried on IP networks but terminated on public switched telephone net­ works; PC-to-PC communications and private network traffic are excluded. PSTN traffic includes circuit-switched voice and fax traffic carried on traditional international facilities as well as international simple resale (ISR) facilities. Figures for 2002 are estimated. Source: TeleGeography research © TeleGeography, Inc. 2002 © TELEGEOGRAPHY, INC. 2002 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2003 75 TRAFFIC ANALYSIS 76 Figure 2. International VoiP and PSTN Traffic Destination Summary, 2001 VoiP Africa Middle East 2% 5% PSTN Africa Middle East 3% Latin America 9% 4% Notes: Voice-over-IP (VoiP) traffic includes all cross-border voice calls carried on IP networks but terminated on public switched telephone net­ works; PC-to-PC communications and private network traffic are excluded. PSTN traffic includes circuit-switched voice and fax traffic carried on traditional international facilities as well as international simple resale (ISR) facilities. Source: TeleGeography research © TeleGeography,lnc. 2002 Wholesale VoiP Although the VoiP industry is still young, it is rapidly maturing. While many new and incumbent carriers alike have begun to build IP networks that will carry all of their voice traffic in coming years, most wholesale VoiP traffic today is still carried by a handful of specialist providers acting as carriers carriers for established and emerging phone companies (see Figure 3. Major VoiP Carriers and Traffic) Some of these specialist wholesalers use regular Internet transit to carry their voice traffic; others use private lines running IP. Most use a combination of the two, along with PSTN "failover" circuits where IP connections are too thin, too few, or too congested. Although their network architectures may differ, most wholesale VoiP carriers share the same goal: arbitrage. They take advantage of differences between official PSTN set­ tlement fees and de facto termination rates by using IP to transport their voice traffic. In some cases, this is done illicitly. Notably, there are few cases where IP is used solely because of its efficiency as a transmission technology. Many well-established telephone companies may still consider VoiP an experiment and sdmetimes see it as a threat to existing revenue streams; however, this view seems to be changing. Established PSTN carriers are increasingly using VoiP technology and a;iding VoiP services to their list of offerings. While a large portion of VoiP traffic car­ ried by established carriers is bundled into enterprise services on private networks, TELEGEOGRAPHY 2003 © TELEGEOGRAPHY, INC. 2002 TRAFFIC ANALYSIS Figure 3. Major VoiP Carriers and Traffic 100% 90% 80% 70% " 60% .c (/) -" 50% " ::2! -;;:; .c 40% E 30% 20% 10% 0% 1998 Company Deltathree (NASD: DDDC) iBasis (NASD: IBAS) ITXC (NASD: ITXC) Net2Phone (NASD: NTDP) Market Share of International VoiP Minutes, 1998-21102 1999 2000 2001 (Jan.-Dec.) 2002 (Jan.-June) Traffic (min) Revenues Traffic (min) Revenues 129m $15.6 m 61 m $6.5 m 1,147 m $133.8 m 1,174 m $83.6 m 1,881 m $173.2 m 1,390 m $123.7 m 478 m $165.4 m 515 m $57.1 m 2001 2002 Market Capitalization Oct, 2001 Oct, 2002 $19m $17m $29m $17m $119m $113m $190m $146m Notes: Traffic statistics include only wholesale international VoiP minutes; revenue figures include services, software, and equipment in addition to per minute charges for PSTN and IP voice and fax services. Traffic statistics may include some PSTN failover. Net2Phones fiscal year ends July 31. Source: TeleGeography research and company reports © TeleGeography, Inc. 2002 © TELEGEOGRAPHY, INC 2002 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2003 77 TRAFFIC ANALYSIS Figure 4. If You Cant Beat Them ... Cloaked in the "gray area" of international tele­ com regulation, VoiP has posed new threats to established revenue streams, especially in pro­ tected single carrier markets. However, some of the worlds aging international carrier monopolies have taken the decision to embrace, rather than fight, VoiP. These incumbents are partnering with VoiP carriers to terminate-and increasingly, originate-traffic to augment revenue rather than lose it. Incumbents in Colombia, Zimbabwe, Vietnam, and many other economies have formed Source: TeleGeography research partnerships with wholesale VoiP carriers. The incumbents must balance cannibalization of tradi­ tional revenue streams while capturing a portion of the traffic they are losing to illicit bypass. More information about how carriers and regulatory organizations are dealing with the introduction of VoiP in their markets can be found in a series of case studies published by the ITU (http://www.itu. inV osg/spu/casestudies/index.html#iptel). © TeleGeography, Inc. 2002 some carriers are beginning to carry significant volumes of wholesale VoiP over their long-haul networks. Incumbent Telecom ltalia for example, recently announced that 50 percent of its international traffic will soon be carried as VoiP. While some established PSTN carriers are utilizing their own IP networks to carry voice traffic, most are outsourcing to VoiP middle men. VoiP wholesaler ITXC claims to carry traffic for most major carriers in the U.S., including the Regional Bell Operating Companies, who have only recently begun to compete in the long distance market. ITXC reported in June 2002 that over 60 percent of its traffic originates on "Tier-1" carrier networks. ITXCs chief competitor, iBasis, reported slightly higher statistics for the same period. But this data should not be surprising. It reflects the maturity of VoiP as a routing option and matches the reality of the international telephone busi­ ness-that top carriers originate most of the traffic. As incumbents become more comfortable with VoiP and as the underlying technology matures, more and more voice traffic is likely to transit IP networks. How much? The answer will largely depend-in the short term-on how many arbitrage opportunities exist. In the long term. the answer will depend on how deeply into the home and office IP-enabled devices penetrate and how willing existing carriers are to mothball billions of dollars of PSTN switching equipment ahead of their expected depreciation cycle. End Users & Technology In addition to their wholesale businesses, many VoiP specialists are also taking a direct path to the consumer by way of PC-to-PC, PC-to-phone, and phone card calling plans. (In fact, PC-to-phone calls predate phone-to-phone over IP.) Last year, companies such as Net2Phone, deltathree, and Callserve reported significant volumes of PC-to-phone traffic. Most retail VoiP carriers also offer wholesale services; however, similar to their switched counterparts, some are focusing more on the end user as wholesale margins evaporate. Tl:le capabilities of a VoiP network-that is, what can be delivered t0 the consumer­ are largely determined by the standards implemented. To date, the mostly widely deployed standard for handling VoiP traffic has been H.323, a protocol developed 78 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2003 © TELEGEOGRAPHY, INC 2002 Figure 5. International VoiP Traffic Growth by Region, 2000-2001 160% 140% 120% 100% co a: 80% ..c: e 60% (!) 40% 20% 0% Europe Latin America Asia-Pacific Africa Middle East Notes: Voice-over-IP (VoiP) traffic includes all cross-border voice calls carried on IP networks butterminated on pub­ lic switched telephone networks; PC-to-PC communications and private network traffic are excluded. Source: TeleGeography research © TeleGeography, Inc. 2002 under ITU auspices in the late 1990s for video communications over local area net­ works. Now in its fourth iteration, H.323 has been re-engineered specifically to han­ dle VoiP calls. Although H.323 is nearly ubiquitous in VoiP networks, a second standard, Session Initiation Protocol (SIP). has become widely accepted as the next generation protocol for VoiP call delivery. Its acceptance, however, has less to do with voice than it does with video and other premium services. SIP is designed to work with IP devices (like computers) much the same way a Web browser or email client does. This provides a particularly attractive scenario to VoiP carriers (and their vendors). which have had dif­ ficulty deriving much profit from the razor-thin margins associated with carrying voice traffic, especially on competitive routes. Although there was much hype surrounding the potential of SIP to revolutionize the VoiP industry-peaking with the release of the much publicized integration of SIP with Windows XP-very few new applications have been developed so far: The advantages SIP may bring to the VoiP industry are still compelling but have yet to be realized on a large scale. Traffic Survey Given the nascent stage of the VoiP industry, the installed base of circuit-switched transmission equipment, and the difficulty of tracking calls terminated in places where you may not want to advertise your success, making predictions is a hazardous busi­ ness. Therefore, our research focused on acquiring real traffic statistics from real VoiP carriers. The statistics and analysis presented on these pages are based on TeleGeographys third annual VoiP routes survey, concluded in October 2002. TRAFFIC ANALYSIS © TELEGEOGRAPHY, INC 2002 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2003 79 TRAFFIC ANALYSIS 80 Figure 6. Top 25 U.S.-Originated VoiP Routes, 2000-2002 Percentage of Total Outgoing VoiP Minutes Rank Route 2002 Route Share 2.0% 4.0% 6.0% 8.0% 10.0% 12.0% 14.0% 1. U.S. toMexico ... .... .... 12.1% 2. U.S. to China ....... .. ... .4.6% 3. U.S. to Colombia ....... .. 2.5% 4. U.S. to Poland ............ 2.4% 5. U.S. to Philippines ........ 2.0% 6. U.S. to Brazil .. .......... 1.6% 7. U.S. to Indonesia ...... 1.6% 8. U.S. to Israel ...... ..... 1.6% 9. U.S to Russia ............ 1.2% 10. U.S. to India ............. 1.1% 11 U.S. to Thailand ....•..... 0.9% 12. U.S. to Peru ........... ... 0.8% 13. U.S. to Romania .......... 0.8% 14. U.S. to Venezuela .. .. .. 0.7% 15. U.S. to Ecuador .......... 0.6% 16. U.S. to Ukraine ....... .. 0.6% 17. U.S. to Hong Kong ... .... 0.6% 18. U.S. to Canada ....•...... 0.6% 19. U.S. to Bulgaria .......... 0.6% 20. U.S. to Kuwait ... ..... ... 0.6% 21. U.S. to Turkey .... ...... 0.6% 22. U.S. to Senegal .. ...... .. 0.5% 23. U.S. to Czech Republic .... 0.5% 24. U.S. to Vietnam ........... 0.5% r 25. U.S. to Argentina ......... 0.5% Notes: Route rankings are based on actual traffic reports by major wholesale and retail VoiP carriers. Figures do not include all VoiP carriers and routes, however, so some omissions may have occurred. Year 2002 rankings are based on statistics supplied for the first six months of 2002. In 2002, routes omitted from this table f!lay have accounted for almost 30 percent of U.S.-originated VoiP traffic. Source: TeleGeography research © TeleGeography,lnc. 2002 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2003 © TELEGEOGRAPHY, INC. 2002 The goal of our survey was twofold: first, to measure how much VoiP traffic transits international networks; and second, to establish where it is going. The data presented here include international phone calls that transit public or private IP networks at some point but are ultimately terminated on traditional fixed or mobile networks. PC-to~pc communications and private corporate network traffic are excluded because neither are directly comparable to PSTN traffic flows. Also, because our survey is based on the reports of most-but not all-companies carrying VoiP traffic, some routes may\ be under-reported. Finally, the true point of origin for most wholesale VoiP traffic is diffi­ cult to ascertain. Many carriers track only where the traffic enters their network, usu­ ally at a centrally-located hub in the U.S. or the U.K. The Results Overall, our findings prove an obvious point-that VoiP is a new means to an old end. Because U.S.-based companies have had a head start in setting up their businesses, most of the worlds VoiP traffic currently originates in the U.S., although the U.K. and China are growing as alternative origination hubs. Furthermore, because the Internet remains U.S.-centric, U.S.-based VoiP carriers have access to the most international IP bandwidth at the lowest prices. And, just as the U.S. continues to act as the primary hub for intercontinental Internet traffic, the U.S. may retain its position as a hub for VoiP traffic even as the ranks of VoiP carriers proliferate into Western Europe and Asia (see Figure 6. Top 25 U.S.-Originated VoiP Routes, 2000-2002). Figure 7.1ncoming VoiP Traffic on Selected Routes, 2001 25.0% (.J :E 20.0% " .= C> c:: .E 0 15.0% (.J .E .:g 0 1- 10.0% b a.. 0 -c:: 5.0% Q) (.J Q; a.. 0.0% " Q) 0 " " ..., ·v; E (.J (.J ·;:: c:: " Q) ·;c 0: " 0 E c:: .!!! Q) E :2 0 :2 .:g ::l o(j J!l -o " CD " .E 0 " ::l u :0 (!) Q; en Notes: Traffic data based on carrier reported traffic for 2001 Source: TeleGeography research c:: " Q) c:: " " " E 0 (.J .:g (.J c:: :0 .E Q) " " " :.>1 ..c::: (!) " (!) a.. -£=; 0 ::l 0 ::l " en en © TeleGeography, Inc. 2002 TRAFFIC ANALYSIS © TELEGEOGRAPHY, INC. 2002 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2003 81 TRAFFIC ANALYSIS Figure 8. Growth on Top 10 U.S.-Originated VoiP Routes, 2000-2001 160% 140% 120% 100% a: .s= 80% e t!J 60% 40% 20% 0% " " .!!1 ·;;; :0 -c Q) E -= c: 0 0 -c 0 0 -c ·;::; " " a; " u c: c: Q) ·;;; ·x " " c: " Q) 0 as u ·c. " ::I :2 c... a: -= u c... Notes: Voice-over-IP (VolPI traffic includes all cross-border voice calls carried on IP networks but terminated on pub­ lic switched telephone networks; PC-to-PC communications and private network traffic are excluded. Source: TeleGeography research © TeleGeography, Inc. 2002 Routes Although VoiP calling patterns run roughly parallel to established PSTN demand, the largest share of VoiP traffic terminated in countries where existing PSTN settlement rates are highest relative to the actual cost of getting the call there (see Figure 10. Traffic, Settlements, and Regulation). Also, because quality expectations may be lower on many popular arbitrage routes, VoiP calls compare favorably to the mediocre qual­ ity of many circuit-switched and mobile terminated calls. The impact on overall traffic flows can be significant-in countries with sufficient infrastructure and high settlement rates, VoiP accounts for up to 20 percent of total incoming traffic (see Figure 7. Incoming VoiP Traffic on Selected Routes, 2001 ). The clearest example of this trend is traffic on the U.S.-Mexico route, which accounted for over ten percent of U.S.-originated VoiP traffic between 2000 and 2002. Routes into China, Russia, and Brazil are still growing strongly and accounted for another ten percent of U.S.-originated VoiP traffic during the same time period. Routes to Indonesia and India have seen the most growth between 2000 and 2001, each grow­ ing by over 100 percent (see Figure 8. Growth on Top 10 U.S.-Originated VoiP Routes, 2000-2001 ). VoiP is a logical alternative on routes like these, where International S(mple Resale or direct interconnection are still prohibited but sufficient IP capacity­ a~d the right combination of regulations or lack of enforcement-exists to route calls over Internet connections into the local telephone network. 82 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2003 © TELEGEOGRAPHY, INC 2002 TRAFFIC ANALYSIS Figure 9. Regional Termination Destinations of International VoiP Traffic, 2001 Peru 4% Argentina 5% Czech Rep. 4% Latin America (35% of Global Traffic) Eastern Europe (21% of Global Traffic) Asia (25% of Glob! I Traffic) Africa (2% of Global Traffic) Notes: Voice-over-IP {VolPI traffic includes all cross-border voice calls carried on IP networks but terminated on public switched telephone networks; PC-to­ PC communications and private network traffic are excluded. Source: TeleGeography research © TeleGeography, Inc. 2002 © TELEGEOGRAPHY, INC 2002 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2003 83 TRAFFIC ANALYSIS Figure 10. Traffic, Settlements, and Regulation Incoming VoiP Traffic and Settlement Rates 25% a... Indonesia Market Status 0 20% • in 2001 co ·;; • Closed -o " Partial E 15% • co Mexico o Open - u Ukraine • • • Colombia :E co • • ..:: 10% • -o Russia • Romania c: • ::J • Serbia & Montenegro 0 -" -= 5% ,. a Taiwan 0 ... Thailand India co Canada • ..:: A France/Germany/U.K en 0% 0 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40 0.45 Settlement Rate (US$) Notes: Traffic data based on actual and estimated totals for 2001. Settlement rates based on FCC reported averages for calendar year 2001. Regulatory comparison based on the number of carriers authorized to own international transmission facilities at year end 2001. Source: TeleGeography research and FCC © TeleGeography, Inc. 2002 Regions In terms of total traffic Latin America East Asia and Eastern Europe were the primary destinations of global VoiP termination in 2001 due to arbitrage opportunities and rap­ idly developing IP infrastructure (see Figure 5. International VoiP Traffic Growth by Region 2000-2001). Eastern Europe experienced the highest growth between 2000 and 2001 increasing its traffic volume by nearly 140 percent. Latin America and Asia nearly doubled again in 2001 and may grow faster still in 2002 with the full opening of the international voice markets of Brazil and India. Colombia and Argentina experi­ enced the highest growth in incoming VoiP for Latin America between 2000 and 2001. each growing by over 120 percent. Africa continues to experience significant growth-over 60 percent between 2000 and 2001-however, total traffic to the region remains very low compared to other regions. (see Figure 9. Regional Termination Destinations of International VoiP Traffic, 2001). Senegal South Africa, Kenya, and Nigeria account for two-thirds of incoming interna­ tional VoiP in Africa In all parts of the Middle East, except Israel VoiP is not taking much of a foothold. The environment is right for VoiP to flourish-high settlement rates and growing IP infrastructure-however, the incumbents seem to have been successful so far on keeping illicit bypass from burgeoning. 84 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2003 © TELEGEOGRAPHY, INC 2002 Conclusion Since TeleGeography began tracking international phone calls more than a decade ago, market forces and technological innovation have driven down prices and increased traf­ fic flows across the globe. The Internet has no doubt played a significant role in accel­ erating this process in the last few years, and forecasting the effect on actual traffic flows remains an extremely difficult endeavor. Moreover, as new IP communications services and devices become available, they may stimulate new demand and incre"l.se VoiP traffic flows beyond the growth rates characteristic of the traditional voice teleph­ ony market. We will be watching-and reporting-these developments as they occur. ... TRAFFIC ANALYSIS © TELEGEOGRAPHY, INC. 2002 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2003 85 TRAFFIC ANALYSIS 86 TELEGEOGRAPHY 200 2 © TELEGEOGRAPHY INC 2001 TRAFFIC ANALYSIS International Traffic to and from Mobile Phones After several years of explosive growth and feverish expansion, mobile telephony has become a fixture of international telecommunications. Recently, however, the frenzjed optimism which accompanied the mobile industry in its infancy has given way to greater investor skepticism and scrutiny. Third-generation (3G) licenses were auctioned off at unprecedented premiums only a few years ago, but, during the last year, major opera­ tors have reneged on plans to offer such services, eliciting favorable responses from financial markets. As the industry matures, mobile operators are shifting their focus from sheer subscriber growth to increasing the average revenue per user (ARPU), to which international traffic contributes considerably. For international carriers, mobile traffic is increasingly important. As mobile-originated international traffic grows, mobile operators become more valuable buyers of whole­ sale services. Conversely, the more international traffic is terminated to mobile hand­ sets, the greater the payments international carriers must make to mobile operators. Given the significant differential between fixed- and mobile-termination prices, even a Figure 1. Mobile versus Fixed International Traffic and Subscribers by Region, 2001 International Traffic Subscribers From Mobiles Mobiles Africa Africa L. America & Caribbean Asia & U.S. & Canada Oceania Total= 23 bn minutes Total= 943 million From Fixed Fixed Africa L. America & Caribbean Africa Total= 144 bn minutes Total= 1,042 million Source: TeleGeography research and ITU © TeleGeography, Inc. 2002 © TELEGEOGRAPHY, INC. 2002 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2003 87 TRAFFIC ANALYSIS small increase in mobile-terminated traffic can result in a significant increase in total termination costs. Over the past year. mobile-originated traffic grew from 14.5 per­ cent of total international traffic to 15.7 percent while mobile-terminated traffic rose from just over 18 percent to 21 percent. As that proportion grows, mobile traffic will become an even greater consideration for long-distance carriers. Mobile Traffic Over the past several years, international mobile traffic has grown much faster than total international traffic boosted largely by the explosion in mobile subscriptions. From 1995 to 2001 the number of mobile subscribers worldwide increased ten-fold from 90 million to almost 1 billion- roughly equal to the number of fixed-line sub­ scribers in the world. During the past three years, however, global subscriber growth, while still strong, has slowed consistently, reflecting the maturation of many mobile markets. In fact, the subscriber growth rate between 2000 and 2001-29 percent­ was the slowest annual growth since mobile phones entered the market in the early 1980s. In more developed economies (with higher international traffic volumes). the decline in growth has been more dramatic. Europe, for example, watched its subscriber growth fall from 61 percent in 2000 to 22 percent in 2001. As a result, international mobile traffic (particularly mobile-originated traffic) has also registered declining growth rates. From 2000 to 2001 the volume of international traffic originated on mobile phones grew from 19.2 billion minutes to 22.6 billion min­ utes, an increase of almost 18 percent. While nearly double the growth rate of total global traffic in 2001 mobile traffic growth is down sharply from the 64 percent Figure 2. Percent of Mobile-Originated International Traffic, 1999-2001 (/) 2 :.0 0 :2 25% 5 20% "0 2l " c: ·c;, 15% " c: 0 10% " E 2l c: -0 5% .... c: " " a.. 0% Africa L. America & Caribbean U.S. & Canada Europe Notes: Numbers show total mobile-originated traffic minutes in billions Source: TeleGeography research 6.0 Asia & Oceania II 1999 World Total © TeleGeography, Inc. 2002 88 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2003 © TELEGEOGRAPHY, INC 200 2 increase realized between 1999 and 2000, reflecting a significant decline in growth across all regions of the world. The distribution of traffic across regions has remained relatively constant over the past three years, with Europe representing 62 percent of the worlds mobile-originated international traffic. Asia & Oceanias share of the gl6bal total rose three percentage points over the last year (roughly equal to Europe•s decline), to 27 percent (see Figure 1. Mobile versus Fixed International Traffic and Subscribers by Region, 2001 ). The rate of mobile-originated traffic growth continues to vary widely across regions, though the degree of variation has remained almost constant over the past year. Europe and Latin America & Caribbean again registered the lowest growth rates, with 12 percent and 13 percent, respectively. Europe, despite its low growth rate, still accounts for the largest volume of any region, with almost 14 billion minutes of inter­ national long-distance traffic originated on mobile handsets. Notably, while mobile­ originated traffic increased both in terms of volume and proportion in most of the world, the percent of outgoing calls made on mobiles remained almost constant from 2000 to 2001 (see Figure 2. Percent of Mobile-Originated International Traffic, 1999- 2001). From 2000 to 2001, mobile-terminated traffic grew 33 percent (nearly twice the rate of mobile-originated traffic). from 25.6 billion minutes to 34.2 billion minutes, repre­ senting 21 percent of the worlds total traffic. Again, European users received the bulk of mobile-terminated traffic with a 56 percent share of the worlds.. total. Regional rankings are similar to those for mobile-originated traffic, with the Americas distantly trailing Europe, Asia, and Africa. Figure 3. Percent of Mobile-Terminated International Traffic, 2000-2001 16.4 19.1 I) 30% :0 a 25% B 0 2l ttl c: § 20% Q) ..... .> iE ttl 15% ..:: o; c:: a ttl 10% E 2l c:: -a 5% c: Q) Q) a.. 0% Africa L. America & U.S. & Europe Caribbean Canada Notes: Numbers show total mobile-terminated traffic minutes in billions. Source: TeleGeography research Asia & Oceania • 2000 • 2001 World Total © TeleGeography, Inc. 2002 TRAFFIC ANALYSIS © TELEGEOGRAPHY. INC 2002 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2003 89 TRAFFIC ANALYSIS 90 Figure 4. Roaming and International Mobile Traffic An increase in mobile subscribers has a greater impact on international voice traffic than a comparable increase in fixed­ line subscribers: fixed lines dont cross political borders with their users, but mobile handsets do. International roaming not only provides a valuable service to mobile users through HseamlessH connectivity; it also generates demand for inter­ national telecommunications transport. To illustrate the contri­ bution mobile roaming makes to international voice traffic flows, lets consider the case of a German mobile user travel­ ing in Austria. Upon activating her handset, the German traveler will select an Austrian host network on which to operate. Network selection may be performed manually, in which case the user chooses a host network from a list of available networks. Manual selection locks the mobile user into a specific net­ work, to which the handset will return if the signal is lost or the handset deactivated. More likely, though, host network selection will be performed automatically by the handset, either on the basis of signal strength or preferences pre-pro­ grammed by the users home provider. This selection process establishes a connection between the home and host net­ works, allowing the host network to locate the user and pro­ viding the host network with authentication and billing information. When the German traveler makes a call from her handset, the call will be processed by the Austrian host network. Thus, when calling another German number, the call will be picked up by the host network and then transmitted along the PSTN to Germany for termination. The resulting traffic, while connect­ ing two German numbers, actually constitutes an international call from Austria to Germany. Conversely, if one of the travelers friends in Germany calls her mobile, the call will be forwarded by her home network, via the PSTN, to Austria, where it will be picked up and delivered by the Austrian host network. Again, the call between two German numbers is, in fact, an international call between Germany and Austria. Source: TeleGeography research In either case, the German traveler will incur a roaming charge for using the Austrian network. That charge, plus a markup from her home provider, will then be billed directly to her. For originating calls, the charges she receives are those dictated by the pricing scheme (peak/off-peak, etc.) of the Austrian operator, not her home provider. Billing between operators is generally handled by clearinghouses which com­ pile roaming call records from host networks and distribute them to the users home networks. The clearinghouse also calculates and collects the charges due the host network operators. Some operators opt to handle roaming relationship and billing management themselves, but clearinghouses are by and large the industry standard. In the above example, weve made a number of assumptions in order to illustrate how roaming contributes to international voice traffic. One of the principal assumptions is the existence of a roaming agreement between the travelers home mobile provider and at least one Austrian provider. Such agreements are quite common, especially among GSM operators. The GSM Association has established a standard roaming agree­ ment in order to facilitate roaming between providers, as negotiating separate agreements for multiple providers would be prohibitively complicated or, at least, utterly tedious. By illustrating intra-European roaming, weve also avoided dis­ cussing the technical interoperability necessary for interna­ tional roaming. The European Union shares a common digital standard, GSM, which has been pivotal in facilitating roaming across its member states. GSM has also been deployed in other nations across the globe, but there are other digital stan­ dards (COMA. TDMA, etc.) in use. lnterstandard roaming has thus become a central issue in the development of truly global roaming. In order to foster interoperability between digital standards, the GSM Association has established the GSM Forum on Global Roaming, a working group dedicated to resolving the current technical issues involved in interstandard roaming. In addition to coordinating interface interoperability, harmonizing billing standards is a major component of interstandard roaming. © TeleGeography, Inc. 2002 Regional growth rates for mobile-terminated traffic were generally higher than those for mobile-originated traffic, ranging from 17 percent in Europe to 75 percent in Asia & Qceania. Incoming calls to mobiles rose 58 percent in Latin America & Caribbean but o~ly account for 12 percent of all incoming traffic. Outside the Americas, mobile-ter­ minated calls accounted for over 20 percent of incoming traffic between 24 percent in Africa and 30 percent in Europe [see Figure 3. Percent of Mobile-Terminated International Traffic, 2000-2001 ). TELEG EOG RAPHY 2003 © TELEGEOGRAPHY, INC 2002 Figure 5. Mobile Subscribers and International Traffic for Selected Countries, 2001 • Mobile-Terminated (m mins) Costa Rica • Mobile-Originated (m mins) • Subscribers (m) Bulgaria 1.6 Norway 3.7 Jamaica 0.1 2,474.7 Italy 48.7 South Africa 9.2 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% Share to/from Mobiles Notes: Numbers show absolute levels of mobile subscriber and traffic. Lengths of bars show relative levels to/from mobiles. Mobile subscriber percentage is based on total number of lines in service. Source: TeleGeography research © TeleGeography, Inc. 2002 While the decline of growth rates for international mobile traffic is strongly linked to declining subscriber growth, it is also reflective of several trends in the international long-distance market. Although some room for growth remains-the United States & Canada lag well behind Europe in terms of mobile penetration (39 percent for the for­ mer and 52 percent for the latter), and developing countries like Nigeria have experi­ enced growth of 1000 percent over the last year-worldwide subscriber growth will undoubtedly be less spectacular in the future than in recent years. Mobile traffic growth, by extension, can be expected to follow the same trend (for a discussion of how roaming contributes to international mobile traffic, see Figure 4. Roaming and International Mobile Traffic). TRAFFIC ANALYSIS © TELEGEOGRAPHY, INC. 2002 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2003 91 TRAFFIC ANALYSIS Figure 6. International Call Prices: Mobile versus Fixed, 2002 4:1 v=0.1049x+ 1.367 R2=0.524 0 3:1 France, ·;:::; 0 " a: Q) u 0 0 ·;:: 00 c... !S Q) a: 0 1:1 1:1 5:1 9:1 13:1 Wholesale Cost Ratio Notes: Data show the ratio of international call costs to mobiles over fixed for 38 countries. For example, retail rates to French mobiles are 42 cents per minute while retail rates for French fixed lines are 14 cents per minute, a 3:1 ratio. Wholesale costs to France are 2 cents to fixed lines and 22 cents to mobile phones. an 11:1 ratio. Retail rates reflect AT& Ts Anyhour International Savings plan; wholesale costs are from Band-X ltd. in london. Source: TeleGeography research and Band-X ltd. © TeleGeography, Inc. 2002 Mobile Termination Costs The increasing amount of mobile-terminated traffic has made mobile termination costs a serious concern for international carriers, as well as consumers and national regula­ tory agencies. Terminating traffic on mobile networks is almost universally more expen­ sive than terminating traffic on fixed networks, resulting in a significant differential between call prices to mobile and fixed phones. Figure 6 (International Call Prices: Mobile versus Fixed, 2002) show the ratios of mobile and fixed prices, on both whole­ sale and retail levels. For calls to France, for example, wholesale prices to mobile phones are 11 times those to fixed phones while retail prices to mobiles are 3 times those to fixed phones. In order to illustrate the economic effects of terminating international traffic on mobile networks, TeleGeography estimated the costs of mobile termination based on wholesale pricing information gathered from the Band-X Switched Minutes Exchange. Though the wholesale rates may not be an exact reflection of actual carrier costs, they serve as an excellent proxy, as differences in wholesale rates between fixed and mobile termination mirror the differences in interconnection rates. If anything, the wholesale rates may provide too conservative an estimate, as the differences between fixed and mobile wholesale rates are sometimes less dramatic than the corresponding interconnection r~es (see Figure 7. Interconnection, Wholesale, and Retail Prices for Select Countries, 2002) Note that in some cases, the wholesale rate is actually at or below the inter­ cqnnection rate as a result of gray market arrangements. 92 TElEGEOGRAPHY 2003 © TElEGEOGRAPHY, INC 2002 TRAFFIC ANALYSIS Figure 7. Interconnection, Wholesale, and Retail Prices for Select Countries, 2002 Interconnection (US$/min) Wholesale (US$/min) Retail (US$/min) Country Fixed Mobile Percent Fixed Mobile Percent Fixed Mobile Percent Germany 0.02 0.20 1073.8% 0.02 0.17 850.0% 0.14 0.31 221.4% Greece 0.03 0.21 826.8% 0.04 0.12 300.0% 0.14 Q.26 185.7% Hungary 0.03 0.13 410.1% 0.04 0.17 425.0% 0.29 0.41 141.4% Netherlands 0.01 0.18 1880.2% 0.02 0.18 900.0% 0.14 0.32 228.6% Portugal 0.02 0.21 1224.9% 0.03 0.19 633.3% 0.14 0.32 221.4% Sweden 0.01 0.10 1151.8% 0.01 0.16 1600.0% 0.14 0.35 250.0% Notes: Percent reflects the mobile rate as a percentage of the fixed rate. Wholesale rates are from New York as of August 2002. Retail rates are from AT&T. Source: TeleGeography research and Last Mile Connections, Inc. © TeleGeography, Inc. 2002 Where the rates for fixed and mobile termination are in line (e.g., Asia & Oceania). mobile traffic does not contribute significantly more to the cost of terminating traffic in a particular country. Where the difference is more substantial mobile traffic con­ tributes disproportionately to the total cost of termination (see Figure 8. Estimated Costs of Wholesale Traffic to Fixed and Mobile Destinations, 2001) For Europe, in par­ ticular; the effect is stunning: though mobile calls account for only 30 percent of all incoming international traffic, they represent 67 percent of the total cost for terminat­ ing international traffic. Again these cost estimates are meant to be solely illustrative, but the economic effects they imply are certainly real. How does one account for such drastic differences in interconnection rates (and, by extension, wholesale and retail prices) for fixed and mobile phones? Certainly, the costs of building and operating mobile networks are greater than those for fixed net­ works, but, even so, it is difficult to account for such staggering differences (as high as 1780 percent) on a purely economic basis. Thus, to fully understand the dynamics shaping these rates, one must examine the regulatory framework governing telecom­ munications networks and their interconnection. When mobile services were first introduced, most national regulatory agencies (NRAs) were concerned with stimulating the growth of the industry and fostering a competitive environment for new operators. Thus, many opted for a calling party pays (CPP) pay­ ment structure and required fixed-line operators to provide mobile operators with cost­ based access to their fixed networks (for more information on CPP and its alternative, receiving party pays or RPP, see Figure 9. Payment Structures for Mobile Calls) Unsaddled by such regulatory constraints, mobile operators have, in turn been able to charge fixed-line operators access fees well above the mobile-to-fixed interconnection rate. Initially, this cost differential wasn t considered problematic; mobile services were predominantly limited to business people and wealthy consumers, who could generally afford the premium charge. With such a small subscriber base, the overall economic impact of high fixed-to-mobile interconnection charges was relatively modest. Moreover, a certain degree of cross-subsidization was expected to help new mobile operators become established. © TELEGEOGRAPHY, INC 2002 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2003 93 TRAFFIC ANALYSIS 94 Figure 8. Estimated Costs of Wholesale Traffic to Fixed and Mobile Destinations, 2001 Global Traffic Wholesale Rate Total Cost to Destination (m min) to Destination (US$/min) of Traffic (US$ m) Destination Total Traffic %to Mobile Fixed Mobile Fixed Mobile %to Mobile Africa Burundi 4.6 26.1% 0.21 0.22 0.7 0.3 27.0% Egypt 651.8 15.5% 0.31 0.36 170.8 36.3 17.5% Ghana 139.3 29.0% 0.16 0.19 15.8 7.7 32.7% Madagascar 24.8 20.0% 0.25 0.29 5.0 1.4 22.5% Nigeria 114.4 20.8% 0.30 0.39 27.2 9.3 25.5% South Africa 736.0 31.2% 0.14 0.1 7 70.9 39.0 35.5% Africa Total 4,568.4 24.2% 0.23 0.24 781.2 265.6 25.4% L America & Caribbean Bolivia 93.9 30.9% 0.20 0.27 13.0 7.8 37.6% Brazil 1,351.5 17.3% 0.12 0.14 134.1 32.8 19.7% Chile 675.1 11.7% 0.05 0.09 29.8 7.1 37.6% Colombia 835.1 10.8% 0.11 0.14 82.0 12.6 13.3% Dominican Republic 1,714.6 25.0% 0.08 0.10 102.9 42.9 29.4% Ecuador 178.6 26.3% 0.21 0.20 27.6 9.4 25.4% El Salvador 801.9 20.0% 0.13 0.17 83.4 27.3 24.6% Jamaica 413.8 27.6% 0.22 0.23 65.9 26.3 28.5% Nicaragua 89.5 21.0% 0.22 0.27 15.6 5.1 24.6% Paraguay 68.2 41.8% 0.1 8 0.26 7.1 7.4 50.9% Uruguay 127.8 15.0% 0.1 9 0.19 20.6 3.6 15.0% Venezuela 551.7 36.7% 0.15 0.18 52.4 36.4 41.0% L America & Carib. Total 38,481.9 12.0% 0.05 0.11 1,540.7 523.9 25.4% U.S. & Canada Canada 9,281.0 5.0% 0.02 0.02 176.3 9.3 5.0% United States 13,400.0 4.0% 0.02 0.02 257.3 10.7 4.0% U.S. & Canada Total 22,681.0 4.4% 0.02 0.02 433.6 20.0 4.4% Notes: Global traffic to destination equals total incoming traffic to each country in 2001 and includes both traffic reported to TeleGeography and estimates. As incoming traffic is much more difficult to track than outgoing traffic, the sum of regional averages for incoming traffic does not directly compare to that of outgoing traffic. Bypass, refile, and a number of other factors contribute to the apparent "deficit." Rates are from the Band-X London switch as of August 2001 Total cost to fixed and mobile destinations are estimated by multiplying the volume of total international minutes to fixed and mobile phones in each country by the wholesale rates to fixed and mobile destinations in the respective country. Figures may show rounding errors and weighting in calculations for regional averages. Source: TeleGeography research and Band-X Ltd. © TeleGeography, Inc. 2002 Mobile subscribers growth and the corollary growth in mobile-terminated traffic-and termination payments to mobile operators-have caused fixed-line operators to con­ test the disparity in interconnection charges (between fixed-to-mobile, mobile-to-fixed, and mobile-to-mobile) and the logic underpinning regulatory intervention heretofore. In assessing the market power of the involved parties on the basis of market share rather than control of calling opportunities, they argue, NRAs have failed to take into a.ccount the absence of competition in call termination on mobile networks-mobile operators essentially have monopoly power over call termination. In CPP markets, par­ ticularly, mobile operators can leverage their position to extract seemingly dispropor­ tionate fees from fixed-line operators wishing to connect t0 their network (again, see Figure 7). TELEGEOGRAPHY 2003 © TELEGEOGRAPHY, INC 2002 TRAFFIC ANALYSIS Figure 8. Estimated Costs of Wholesale Traffic to Fixed and Mobile Destinations, 2001 (Continued) Global Traffic Wholesale Rate Total Cost to Destination (m min) to Destination (US$/min) of Traffic (US$ m) Destination Total Traffic %to Mobile Fixed Mobile Fixed Mobile %to Mobile Asia & Oceania Austral ia 2,742.1 18.0% 0.02 0.10 45.0 49.4 52.3% Japan 2,588.5 25.9% 0.04 0.13 76.7 87.2 53.2% Korea, Rep. 997.3 30.0% 0.03 0.08 20.9 23.9 53.3% Lebanon 380.1 30.0% 0.16 0.34 42.6 38.8 47.7% Malaysia 810.0 31 .5% 0.06 0.06 33.3 15.3 31.5% Oman 108.0 31.0% 0.30 0.30 22.4 10.1 31.0% Pakistan 1,165.1 13.2% 0.43 0.43 435.0 66.0 13.2% Qatar 113.5 44.0% 0.28 0.31 17.8 15.5 46.5% Saudi Arabia 705.5 40.0% 0.34 0.37 143.9 104.4 42.0% Singapore 3,414.9 30.0% 0.04 0.04 95.6 41.0 30.0% Syria 325.8 6.0% 0.39 0.39 119.5 7.6 6.0% Thailand 555.0 50.0% 0.17 0.19 47.2 52.7 52.8% Asia & Oceania Total 32,501.3 25.7% 0.14 0.14 3,458.4 1,204.7 25.8% Europe Andorra 48.1 36.4% 0.06 0.06 1.8 1.1 36.4% Belgium 1,998.3 27.0% 0.02 0.24 29.2 129.5 81 .6% Bulgaria 220.0 38.6% 0.15 0.15 20.3 12.8 38.6% Czech Republic 527.2 42.3% 0.09 0.13 27.4 29.0 51 .4% Denmark 1,140.2 26.4% 0.02 0.06 16.8 18.1 51.8% Estonia 91 .9 43.5% 0.10 0.12 5.2 4.8 48.0% Finland 394.5 35.9% 0.03 0.07 7.6 9.9 56.7% France 8,284.0 26.9% 0.02 0.22 121.2 489.6 80.2% Germany 14,666.2 27.1% 0.02 0.21 213.9 833.9 79.6% Greece 891.0 30.7% 0.09 0.11 55.6 30.1 35.1% Italy 5,183.4 47.7% 0.02 0.24 54.2 593.9 91.6% Moldova 161.8 15.5% 0.14 0.14 19.2 3.5 15.5% Norway 1,089.6 29.5% 0.02 0.12 15.4 38.6 71.5% Poland 1,390.2 28.0% 0.10 0.12 100.1 46.7 31.8% Portugal 1,272.5 30.0% 0.05 0.09 44.5 34.4 43.5% Romania 600.0 25.4% 0.18 0.19 80.6 28.9 26.4% Sweden 1,391.0 30.0% 0.01 0.07 9.7 29.2 75.0% Switzerland 1,290.1 30.0% 0.02 0.17 18.1 65.8 78.5% Europe Total 64,111.8 29.8% 0.04 0.17 1,570.7 3,127.2 66.6% Notes: See facing page. Source: TeleGeography research and Band-X Ltd. © TeleGeography, Inc. 2002 During the course of the past year, NRAs have responded to these criticisms and turned their attention to mobile operators, particularly in Europe. With the implementation of the European Union Telecommunications Regulatory Package imminent, European NRAs have begun scrutinizing the mobile industry and intervening on behalf of fixed-line operators and consumers. The degree of regulatory intervention varies across coun- tries, ranging from the establishment of best-practice guidelines for setting intercon- nection prices (in France) to direct mandates for cost-oriented pricing (in Sweden) Much of the variation in regulatory action hinges on the market definitions applied to mobile operators. Where operators are deemed to have significant market power © TELEGEOGRAPHY, INC 2002 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2003 95 TRAFFIC ANALYSIS Figure 9. Payment Structures for Mobile Calls Two payment structures exist for mobile services: calling party pays (CPP) and receiving party pays (RPP). In the former, the party originating the call to a mobile phone pays a premium for access to the mobile network. That is, the mobile user receiving the call incurs no charge for incoming traffic to her handset. Under the RPP scheme, the premium for mobile services is incurred by the mobile user receiving the call; the calling party pays the same price as for a comparable call to a fixed-line phone. Of the two, CPP is by far the most commonly implemented payment structure, with RPP limited to only a handful of countries such as the U.S., Canada, China, Singapore, and Sri Lanka. The factors determining the choice of payment struc­ ture are largely contextual. CPP has been easy to introduce where consumers are accustomed to metered local calling and additional dialing codes were available for exclusive use by mobile providers. In countries where consumers are more accustomed to unmetered local calling or where technical obstacles (e.g., the availability of dialing codes) were encountered, RPP has been implemented. Mexico and Argentina are notable in that they have both switched from RPP to CPP during the past three years. Source: TeleGeography research Proponents of CPP argue that it increases mobile penetration, especially by facilitating pre-paid mobile services. RPP. they contend, discourages mobile usage, prompting subscribers to turn off their phones or refuse calls rather than incur the charge for receiving them. Advocates of RPP, however, point out that RPP tends to keep fixed­ mobile interconnection charges in line with prices for other forms of interconnection. In CPP mar­ kets, they contend, the mobile consumer has no incentive to consider the price for call termination on their phones when choosing a mobile provider. For customers in RPP markets, the cost of fixed­ mobile interconnection is, in fact, a consideration in provider selection, and providers have nothing to gain by inflating prices. Recent studies have supported both claims: the number of subscribers has grown more rapidly in CPP countries, while fixed-mobile interconnection prices are substan­ tially lower in RPP countries. Mexico provides an acute example of both trends. After the introduc­ tion of CPP in 1999, mobile subscribers in Mexico increased dramatically, more than doubling the previous years growth, and the effective fixed­ mobile interconnection tariff increased by approx­ imately 250 percent. Despite the increased tariff, there was a considerable increase in incoming mobile traffic. © TeleGeography, Inc. 2002 (SMP), they are generally subject to greater regulatory control. Thus, in Sweden, lelia, identified as bearing SMP due to its market share, is obliged to provide cost-oriented interconnection to its mobile network while the other two mobile operators are not. In the United Kingdom, Oftel has deemed each of the four mobile operators to wield SMP over interconnection, due to their monopoly control over interconnection to their net­ works rather than their share of the overall market. As a result, all four operators are subject to regulatory intervention regarding interconnection. How these market defi­ nitions are developed-and applied-for the European Union as a whole remains to be seen. The result of regulatory intervention has been a downward trend in interconnection rates to mobile networks, though the exact results vary according to the market defi­ nitions in place. In Sweden, for example, lelias prices for interconnection have con­ tinued to drop since December 1999 while its competitors prices have remained stable. Consequently, the Swedish regulator issued a mandate stating that the com­ petitors interconnection rates should be within 10 percent of lelias rates in order not to warrant further regulatory investigation and potential action. In France, the regu­ lator mandated a 20 percent reduction in fixed-to-mobile interconnection rates in 2001 96 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2003 © TELEGEOGRAPHY, INC. 2002 and announced a 40 percent reduction over four years, starting in March of this year. In other countries, appeals of regulatory decisions have delayed any potential reduc­ tions in interconnection rates. That a severe disparity remains between fixed and mobile interconnection rates has also generated considerable interest in the United States over the past year. Early this year, the United States Trade Representative concluded that mobile connection in he EU Member States and Japan was a matter of priority, citing World Trade Organization (WTO) obligations to provide cost-oriented pricing for telecommunications services from major suppliers. In September; the Federal Communications Commission issued a consumer alert regarding foreign mobile termination rates and, in November, adopted a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to gather information on international calling prac­ tices (including foreign mobile termination rates) and evaluate the possible need for reform. The results of these inquiries could place pressure on European NRAs for more immediate action. The Future of the Future Once heralded as the future of mobile telecommunications, the 3G revolution, plagued by technological setbacks and declining investor confidence, has yet to materialize. Mobile data services are being deployed, though much less spectacularly than previ­ ously anticipated. For the immediate future, 3G services will not effect any significant change on mobile voice traffic patterns. Thus, the future of termination costs is of much greater import to international carriers. The degree to which regulatory pressure-as there exists no real competitive pressure to lower interconnection charges-forces interconnection prices downward will have a marked impact on carriers costs and, to a certain extent, traffic patterns. For the time being, the high price of mobile termina­ tion underscores an important reality for international carriers: while costs continue to decline in the "middle" of the network (i.e .. transport). the ultimate costs of traffic are determined by the terminator, not the carrier. ... TRAFFIC ANALYSIS © TELEGEOGRAPH Y, INC 2002 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2003 97 TRAFFIC ANALYSIS 98 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2003 © TELEGEOGRAPHY INC 2002 Traffic Summary TRAFFIC SUMMARY 100 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2003 © TELEGEOGRAPHY, INC 2002 TRAFFIC SUMMARY Global Traffic Review Figure 1. International Traffic and Main Line Growth 4,500 450 4,000 400 Fixed main lines ..> 3,500 • 350 i: " U> • Cellular subscribers .= c: U> 3,000 -- International call minutes 300 c: l 0 ·;:::; en .~ 2,500 250 c: " " .!: .0 E E ·::; E._ U> 0 0 .0 2,000 200 ..> U> " " c: U> CD .!e " -o I-= ·;: 1,500 150 -:.0 "-c: -o 0 -.::: 0 " :s: 1,000 100 c: 2i E 500 50 0 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Notes: Data include outbound international traffic on public networks only, VoiP call volumes are e"cluded. Projections assume 12 percent traffic growth, 6 percent main line growth, and 30 percent mobile subscriber growth annually. Source: TeleGeography research and ITU © TeleGeography, Inc. 2002 Figure 2. International Traffic, Revenue, and Subscriber Growth Historical trend Slow growth Moderate growth Fast growth CAGR CAGR CAGR CAGR Indicator 1997 2001 1997-2001 2005 2001-2005 2005 2001-2005 2005 2001-2005 Calls (bn) 25.0 49.7 18.7% 78.4 12.1% 90.7 16.2% 100.8 19.3% Minutes (bn) 82.4 144.0 15.0% 195.9 8.0% 226.6 12.0% 251.9 15.0% per main line subscriber 104.1 137.7 7.2% 160.1 3.8% 171 .6 5.7% 177.0 6.5% per main line plus mobile 82.2 69.4 -4.2% 58.3 -4.2% 53.2 -6.4% 42.1 -11.7% Revenue (US$ bn) 66.8 61.1 -2.2% 59.5 -0.6% 57.6 -1.4% 55.8 -2.3% Assumptions Call length (mins) 3.3 2.9 -3.2% 2.5 -3.6% 2.5 -3.6% 2.5 -3.6% Price per minute (US$) 0.81 0.42 -14.9% 0.30 -8.0% 0.25 -12.0% 0.22 -15.0% Main lines (bn) 0.8 1.0 7.2% 1.2 4.0% 1.3 6.0% 1.4 8.0% Mobile subscribers (bn) 0.2 1.0 48.6% 2.1 20.0% 2.9 30.0% 4.6 45.0% Total subscribers (bn) 1.0 2.1 19.9% 3.4 12.8% 4.3 19.7% 6.0 30.3% Notes: 1997-2001 based on reported data. 2002-2005 based on ITU and TeleGeography forecasts. Scenarios are as follows: 1. Slow Growth: PSTN traffic continue to grow at a similarly slow pace experienced in 2000-2001 as newly competitive markets mature and as traffic migrates to IP networks. 2. Moderate Growth: PSTN traffic growth returns to rates experienced prior to the widespread market liberalization of the late 1990s as price cutting keeps traffic on the PSTN. 3. Fast Growth: PSTN traffic growth accelerates from 2000-2001 rates as mobile subscriber growth remains strong and continued price cutting stimulates traffic increases. Source: TeleGeography research and ITU World Telecommunication Indicators Database © TeleGeography, Inc. 2002 © TELEGEOGRAPHY, INC 2002 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2003 1 0 1 TRAFFIC SUMMARY Figure 3. Intercontinental Traffic Flows, 1997 and 2001 Key Traffic Flows 5,000 2,500 1,000 100 Million Minutes Notes: Each band is proportional to the total annual traffic on the public network in both directions between each pair of countries. These maps show all intercontinental routes with an annual volume of more than 100 million minutes. The total volume of these routes in 2001 was 39.5 billion minutes, approximately 28 percent of global international traffic. Source: TeleGeography research © TeleGeography, Inc. 2002 102 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2003 © TELEGEOGRAPHY, INC 2002 TRAFFIC SUMMARY International Traffic by Region Figure 1. Interregional Traffic Flows, 2001 Notes: These interregional traffic flows tota151 .8 billion minutes. That sum does not equal global PSTN total of 144.0 billion minutes because (1) data set is based on top 20 outgoing routes for 130 largest countries only; (2) traffic within regions account for a further 62.4 billion minutes based on data set; (3) interregional routes below 100 million minutes are not shown. Source: TeleGeography research © TeleGeography, Inc. 2002 Figure 2. International Traffic by Origin, 2001 Latin America & Carribean 4.2% Note: Global traffic was 144.0 billion minutes in 2001. Data does not included VoiP calls. Source: TeleGeography research © TeleGeography, Inc. 2002 © TELEGEOGRAPHY, INC 2002 Figure 3. Traffic Growth by Region, 2000-2001 US& Latin Canada America Africa Europe Asia & Oceania Notes: Global traffic was 144.0 billion minutes in 2001. Data does not include VoiP calls. Source: TeleGeography research © TeleGeography, Inc. 2002 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2003 103 TRAFFIC SUMMARY Key All figures are given in millions of minutes of telecommunications traffic for the public telephone network. The map shows all intra-European routes with a combined 2001 volume of more than 200 million minutes. Source: TeleGeography research Traffic Flows 600 400 200 Million Minutes Each band is proportional to the total annual traffic on the public telephone network in both directions between each pair of countries. 104 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2003 0 Total Outgoing Traffic 250 1,000 5,000 Million Minutes The area of each circle is proportional to the volume of the total annual outgoing traffic from each country. _... Balance of Traffic On routes where traffic in one direction accounts for more than 60 percent of the total. an arrow shows the direction most of the traffic flows. © TeleGeography, Inc. 2002 © TELEGEOGRAPHY, INC. 2002 Key All figures are given in millions of minutes of telecommunications traffic for the public telephone network. The map shows all routes within Latin America with a combined 2001 volume of more than 10 million minutes. Source: TeleGeography research TELEGEOGRAPHY, INC. 2002 -Traffic Flows 100 50 10 Million Minutes Each band is proportional to the total annual traffic on the public telephone network in both directions between each pair of countries. 0 Total Outgoing Traffic © 00 500 1,000 Million Minutes The area of each circle is proportional to the volume of the total annual outgoing traffic from each country. TRAFFIC SUMMARY ... Balance of Traffic On routes where traffic in one direction accounts for more than 60 percent of the total, an arrow shows the direction most of the traffic flows. TeleGeography, Inc. 2002 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2003 105 TRAFFIC SUMMARY Key All figures are given in millions of minutes of telecommunications traffic for the public telephone network. The map shows all intra-Asian routes with a combined 2001 volume of more than 50 million minutes. Source: TeleGeography research 106 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2003 Traffic Flows 500 200 50 Million Minutes Each band is proportional to the total annual traffic on the public telephone network in both directions between each pair of countries. 0 Total Outgoing Traffic ® 1~~ 1,500 Million Minutes The area of each circle is proportional to the volume of the total annual outgoing traffic from each country. ...... Balance of Traffic On routes where traffic in one direction accounts for more than 60 percent of the total. an arrow shows the direction of most of the traffic flows. © TeleGeography, Inc. 2002 © TELEGEOGRAPHY, INC 2002 TRAFFIC SUMMARY International Traffic by Country Figure 1. Outgoing International PSTN Traffic Growth for Selected Countries, 2000-2001 45% 40% 35% -" 30% 25% e " 20% ( 15% E Global Average 10% :;; "- 5% 0% -5% -10% Source: TeleGeography research Figure 2. PSTN Traffic Balances for Selected Countries, 2001 U.S. Deficit Mexico India Philippines China Countries with a traffic surplus (incoming exceeded outgoing minutes) Pakistan Guatemala ­ Serbia & Montenegro • Cuba B Chart to Scale Nigeria II Panama I Indonesia I Iran I 1 Malaysia II Russia -Israel Saudi Arabia "-:.. Hong Kong U.S. -4,500 -3,500 -2,500 -1,500 -500 500 © TeleGeography, Inc. 2002 ••• Countries with a traffic deficit (outgoing exceeded incoming minutes) 1,500 2,500 3,500 4,500 International Telephone Traffic Balance (Millions of Minutes) Source: TeleGeography research © TeleGeography, Inc. 2002 © TELEGEOGRAPHY, INC 2002 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2003 107 TRAFFIC SUMMARY Figure 3. International Traffic Indicators, 2001 Outgoing Incoming Balance Population Minutes (Out) Main Lines Minutes (Out) (m minutes) (m minutes) (m minutes) (m) l!er Cal!ita (thous.) l!er Main Line Albania 65.4 317.0 251.6 3.4 19.0 198 331 .1 Algeria 207.1 n.a. n.a. 30.9 6.7 1,880 110.2 Andorra 63.2 48.1 -15.1 0.7 90.3 35 1,805.7 Argentina 455.9 n.a. n.a. 37.5 12.2 8,108 56.2 Armenia 34.6 n.a. n.a. 3.8 9.1 529 65.4 Australia (a) 3,030.0 n.a. n.a. 19.4 156.3 10,060 301.2 Austria 1,480.0 n.a. n.a. 8.1 182.2 3,810 388.5 Azerbaijan 29.6 n.a. n.a. 8.1 3.6 866 34.2 Bahamas 72.5 116.9 44.4 0.3 236.0 123 588.0 Bahrain 170.1 182.6 12.5 0.7 238.1 174 978. 1 Bangladesh 47.7 n.a. n.a. 133.4 0.4 514 92.8 Barbados 37.6 n.a. n.a. 0.3 140.2 124 303.7 Belarus 209.9 n.a n.a. 10.0 21.1 2,858 73.4 Belgium 2,155.0 n.a. n.a. 10.3 209.8 5,074 424.7 Bolivia 31 .6 n.a. n.a. 8.5 3.7 515 61.4 Botswana (a) 59.0 41.2 -17.8 1.6 36.5 150 392.5 Brazil 772.2 n.a. n.a. 172.6 4.5 37,431 20.6 Bulgaria 125.0 220.0 95.0 8.1 15.4 2,914 42.9 Canada 7 915.0 n.a. n.a. 31.0 255.2 20 319 389.5 Cayman Islands 51.0 n.a. n.a. 0.4 127.5 n.a. n.a. Chile 281.2 n.a. n.a. 15.4 18.3 3,703 75.9 China 2,600.0 4,270.0 1,670.0 1,271.9 2.0 179,034 14.5 Colombia 363.4 n.a. n.a. 43.0 8.4 7,300 49.8 Costa Rica 131.4 165.5 34.1 3.9 33.8 945 139.0 Cote d lvoire 60.3 n.a. n.a. 16.4 3.7 294 205.4 Croatia 244.5 n.a. n.a. 4.4 55.8 1,700 143.8 Cuba 22.4 258.0 235.5 11.2 2.0 573 39.1 Cyprus 216.5 164.3 -52.2 0.8 284.6 435 497.7 Czech Re~ublic 424.4 n.a. n.a. 10.3 41.3 3,846 110.3 Denmark 995.0 n.a. n.a. 5.4 186.0 3,882 256.3 Dominican Republic 227.4 1,714.6 1,487.2 8.5 26.7 955 238.1 Ecu ador 61.1 n.a. n.a. 12.9 4.7 1,336 45.7 Egypt 192.3 n.a. n.a. 65.2 3.0 6,650 28.9 Estonia 74.6 91 .9 17.3 1.4 55.1 504 148.1 Finland 485.0 n.a. n.a. 5.2 93.5 2,845 170.5 France 7,605.0 n.a. n.a. 59.2 128.5 34,033 223.5 Georgia 64.2 n.a. n.a. 5.0 12.8 868 74.0 Germany 10,320.0 n.a. n.a. 82.2 125.6 52,280 197.4 Ghana 46.7 139.3 92.5 19.7 2.4 242 192.9 Greece 1,020.0 891.0 -129.0 10.6 96.5 5,608 181.9 Guatemala 156.2 536.8 380.6 11 .7 13.4 756 206.6 Guyana 19.4 69.6 50.2 0.8 25.3 80 242.8 Hong Kong (a) 3,487.3 1,942.3 -1,545.0 6.9 505.4 3,898 894.7 Hunga[Y 326.8 n.a. n.a. 10.2 32.1 3.730 87.6 India (a) 586.4 2,533.6 1,947.2 1,033.4 0.6 34,732 16.9 Indonesia 316.2 365.9 49.7 213.6 1.5 7,949 39.8 Iran 179.1 173.1 -6.0 64.7 2.8 10,347 17.3 Ireland (a) (b) 1,535.0 n.a. n.a. 3.8 400.4 1,860 825.3 Israel 1120.0 728.0 -392.0 6.4 176.0 3100 361.3 Italy 4,805.0 n.a. n.a. 57.7 83.3 27,303 176.0 Jamaica 95.6 413.8 318.2 2.7 35.8 513 186.5 Japan (a) 2,750.0 n.a. n.a. 127.1 21.6 76,000 36.2 Jordan 185.3 217.0 31.7 5.0 36.8 660 280.8 Kazakhstan 118.6 206.9 88.4 14.8 8.0 1 834 64.7 Kenya 24.2 n.a. n.a. 30.7 0.8 313 77.3 Notes: Data are in millions of minutes of public switched traffic. VoiP call volumes are excluded. a. International traffic for year ending March 31 2002. Australia, Mauritius, New Zealand, and Pakistan ends June 30, 2002. b. Traffic data exclude some carriers or routes. (See country table for details.) c. Data include refile traffic. Source: TeleGeography research © TeleGeography, Inc. 2002 108 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2003 © TELEGEOGRAPHY INC 2002 TRAFFIC SUMMARY Figure 3. International Traffic Indicators, 2001 (continued) Outgoing Incoming Balance Population Minutes (Out) Main Lines Minutes (Out) (m minutes) (m minutes) {m minutes) (m) l!er Caj!ita (thous.) l!er Main Line Korea, Rep. 1,120.0 n.a. n.a. 47.6 23.5 22,725 49.3 Kyrgyzstan 23.5 42.3 18.8 5.0 4.7 376 62.5 Latvia 64.7 105.3 40.6 2.3 27.6 725 89.3 Lesotho 21 .5 n.a. n.a. 2.1 10.4 22 968.5 Lithuania 58.1 n.a. n.a. 3.5 16.7 1152 50.4 Luxembourg 394.6 n.a. n.a. 0.4 888.5 350 1,127.4 Macau 156.5 111 .9 -44.6 0.4 353.0 176 887.2 Macedonia 66.3 197.2 131 .0 2.0 32.4 539 123.1 Malaysia (a) 845.0 810.0 -35.0 23.8 35.5 4,738 178.3 Malta 45.6 65.5 19.9 0.4 116.3 208 219.5 Mauritius 35.6 56.2 20.6 1.2 29.7 307 116.0 Mexico 2,082.0 5,100.0 3,018.0 99.4 20.9 13,773 151.2 Moldova 52.3 161.8 109.6 4.3 12.2 676 77.4 Morocco 269.5 n.a. n.a. 29.2 9.2 1,191 226.2 Namibia 64.8 46.2 -18.7 1.8 36.2 117 552.0 Netherlands 3,225.0 n.a. n.a. 16.0 201.2 10,000 322.5 New Zealand (a) 965.0 n.a. n.a. 3.8 250.7 1,834 526.3 Norway 796.0 n.a. n.a. 4.5 176.1 3,262 244.0 Oman (b) 159.3 108.0 -51 .3 2.5 65.0 235 677.0 Pakistan {a){bl 110.0 1,165.1 1,055.2 141.5 0.8 3,400 32.4 Palestinian Territory (b) 45.3 47.9 2.6 3.1 14.6 257 176.3 Panama 45.3 119.9 74.6 2.9 15.6 430 105.3 Paraguay 35.3 75.8 40.6 5.6 6.3 289 122.2 Philippines (a) 449.0 2,332.7 1,883.7 77.0 5.8 3,100 144.8 Poland 729.9 n.a. n.a. 38.7 18.9 11 400 64.0 Portugal 900.0 n.a. n.a. 10.2 88.0 4,397 204.7 Qatar 171 .6 113.5 -58.2 0.6 287.2 167 1,025.1 Russia (b) 1,081 .6 869.3 -212.3 144.8 7.5 35,700 30.3 Saudi Arabia 1,516.6 705.5 -811 .2 21.4 70.8 3,233 469.1 Serbia & Montenegro 275.5 582.2 306.7 10.6 26.0 1,948 112.7 Singapore (a) 1,870.7 n.a. n.a. 4.1 456.0 1,556 960.6 Slovak Republic 176.3 n.a. n.a. 5.4 32.6 4,969 113.3 South Africa (a) 510.7 736.0 225.3 43.2 11.8 17,427 102.8 Spain (c) 4,275.0 n.a. n.a. 39.5 108.2 828 245.3 Sri Lanka 54.0 180.0 126.0 19.6 2.7 453 65.2 Sudan (b) 36.1 n.a. n.a. 31.7 1.1 32 79.7 Swaziland (a) 26.3 n.a. n.a. 1.1 24.6 6,585 821.9 Sweden 1,710.0 n.a. n.a. 8.9 192.3 5,183 259.7 Switzerland 3,230.0 n.a. n.a. 7.2 448.1 1,808 623.2 Siria 150.0 325.8 175.8 16.6 9.0 12,847 83.0 Taiwan 1,522.2 n.a n.a. 22.4 68.0 223 118.5 Tajikistan (b) 8.6 n.a. n.a. 6.2 1.4 5,974 38.6 Thailand 377.7 555.0 177.4 61.2 6.2 312 63.2 Trinidad & Tobago (a) 80.9 189.2 108.4 1.3 61.8 18,901 259.5 Turkei 675.0 1,100.0 425.0 66.2 10.2 388 35.7 Turkmenistan (b) 19.3 n.a. n.a. 5.3 3.6 10,670 49.8 Ukraine 388.0 n.a. n.a. 49.1 7.9 1,053 36.4 United Arab Emirates 1,395.9 n.a. n.a. 3.0 469.0 35,326 1,325.8 United Kingdom (a) (c) 12,730.0 7,664.8 -5,065.2 59.9 212.5 190,000 360.4 United States 37 272.4 13 400.0 -23 872.4 284.0 131 .3 951 196.2 Uruguay 78.0 127.8 49.8 3.4 23.2 1,663 82.0 Uzbekistan (b) 58.3 n.a. n.a. 25.1 2.3 2,444 35.1 Notes: Data are in millions of minutes of public switched traffic. VoiP call volumes are excluded. a. International traffic for year ending March 31, 2002. Australia, Mauritius, New Zealand, and Pakistan ends June 30, 2002. b. Traffic data exclude some carriers or routes. (See country table for details.) c. Data include refile traffic. Source: TeleGeography research © TeleGeography, Inc. 2002 © TELEGEOGRAPHY, INC. 2002 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2003 109 TRAFFIC SUMMARY International Traffic by Route Figure 1. Top 50 International Routes, 2001 Rank Countries Minutes each Way_ Total Minutes 1. Canada U.S. 6,000.0 5,105.9 11,105.9 2. U.S. Mexico 5,193.1 1,723.4 6,916.5 3. U.K.- U.S. 2.425.2 2,066.3 4,491.5 4. Hong Kong -China 1,668.2 1,350.0 3,018.2 5. U.S. German~ 1,214.0- 675.0 1,889.0 6. U.S. Philippines 1,627.3- 100.0 1,727.3 7. U.K. Germany 951.4 750.0 1,701.4 8. Ireland U.K. 865.0 710.9 1,575.9 9. U.S.- India 1,444.7 89.0 1,533.7 10. U.S. Ja~an 1,003.5 515.0 1,518.5 11. U.K. France 836.6 680.0 1,516.6 12. Germany- France 720.0- 650.0 1,370.0 13. Germany- Austria 675.0- 630.0 1,305.0 14. Switzerland Germany 655.0- 630.0 1,285.0 15. U.S.- France 816.7 460.0 1,276.7 16. Germany- Italy 660.0 580.0 1,240.0 17. Australia U.S. 605.0 591.6 1,196.6 18. U.S. Dominican Republic 994.3- 170.0 1,164.3 19. Spain -U.K. 605.0 558.2 1,163.2 20. U.S. Brazil 849.6 255.0 1,1 04.6 21. Germany- Netherlands 540.0 540.0 1,080.0 22. U.S. Italy 749.6 325.0 1,074.6 23. France Belgium 550.0 470.0 1,020.0 24. France Italy 545.0 460.0 1,005.0 25. Australia U.K. 550.0 437.1 987.1 26. Singapore Malaysia 550.0- 422.0 972.0 27. Spain -France 510.0- 425.0 935.0 28. Germany- Poland 650.0 270.0 920.0 29. Spain- Germany 540.0 380.0 920.0 30. France- Switzerland 450.0 450.0 900.0 31. Netherlands- Belgium 440.0 440.0 880.0 32. U.K. Canada 428.1 400.0 828.1 33. U.K.- Italy 446.7- 380.0 826.7 34. New Zealand -Australia 430.0- 355.0 785.0 35. Taiwan -China 423.0- 340.0 763.0 36. Germany- Turkey 580.0- 168.0 748.0 37. U.S. Korea, Rep. 470.3- 270.0 740.3 38. U.K. Netherlands 376.6- 340.0 716.6 39. Switzerland Italy 410.0- 300.0 710.0 40. U.S. Colombia 495.1- 171.7 666.8 41. U.S. Hong Kong 341.0- 308.0 649.0 42. France- Morocco 520.0- 110.0 630.0 43. U.S. -Taiwan 380.4 200.0 580.4 44. U.S. Israel 302.4 260.0 562.4 45. Ja~an China 385.0 175.0 560.0 46. U.S. Pakistan 519.7 11.9 531.6 47. U.S.- Netherlands 313.5- 215.0 528.5 48. Belgium- Germany 260.0 245.0 505.0 49. U.S.- China 444.0- 61.0 505.0 50. U.S.- Spain 345.7- 150.0 495.7 Notes: All data in millions of minutes of telecommunications traffic The country which generates more traffic on each route is listed first. The routes listed above total 71.1 billion minutes, equal tb 49 percent of all international traffic. Data for Australia, Hong Kong, Ireland, Japan, Malaysia, Ne~ Zealand, Singapore, and the U.K. are for fiscal yl!ar 2001/2001. The sum of minutes each way may not equal the total minutes due to rounding. Source: TeleGeography research © TeleGeography, Inc. 2002 110 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2003 © TELEGEOGRAPHY, INC 2002 TRAFFIC SUMMARY Figure 2. Traffic Imbalances on Selected U.S. Routes, 2001 U.S.- Mexico U.S. -Czech Republic U.S.- Argentina U.S.- Panama U.S.- China ~==~ U.S. Turkey • U.S.- Nigeria ~::::::::: U.S.- Ind U.S. Philippines U.S. -Russia i§§§§i:===IIIIIIIIL_ U.S.- Ecuador U.S. Pakistan U.S.- Ukraine 1:1 6:1 11:1 16:1 21 :1 26:1 31 :1 36:1 41 :1 46:1 51:1 Ratio of Outgoing to Incoming Traffic Notes: Country with traffic deficit on route listed first. A ratio of 1:1 would indicate a perfect balance on a route. U.S. data is based on billing point of call and may not reflect actual call ratios due to refile and call-back. Data exclude VoiP call volumes. Source: TeleGeography research Figure 3. Traffic Imbalances on Selected Non-U.S. Routes, 2001 France Portugal Singapore U.K. Germany- Turkey Sweden Poland 1:1 6:1 11:1 16:1 21:1 Ratio of Outgoing to Incoming Traffic © TeleGeography, Inc. 2002 26:1 31:1 Notes: Country with traffic deficit on route listed first A ratio of 1:1 would indicate a perfect balance on a route. Data for some countries is based on billing point of call and may not reflect actual call ratios due to refile and call-back. Data exclude VoiP call volumes. Source: TeleGeography research © TeleGeography, Inc. 2002 © TELEGEDGRAPHY, INC. 2002 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2003 111 TRAFFIC SUMMARY 11 2 Figure 4. International Outbound Routes with Rapidly Growing Traffic, 2000-2001 120% .2! ::::> 0 a: -o 100% c: ::::> 0 £ 0 80% c: 0 Q) 60% u c: u 40% ::E " ..= c 20% Q) Q) c... 0% " ·- C> N ::::> "t:: 0 C:Oc... " :.0> " Q) .... { ·- ::::> -o I­ => " (I) I) -g-o " c: L:~ Q) 0 .;:;c... Q) z " c: :.c - " :.0 :: E " 0 0.. -(I) 0 - ci -o Q) c:O:: " -:-:: co " Q) ..c: 1- 0 " 0 u >- 0 " 0 -~ Notes: Country originating traffic listed first; country terminating traffic listed second. Some data is based on billing point of call and may not reflect actual route growth rates due to refile and call-back. Data exclude VoiP call volumes. Source: TeleGeography research © TeleGeography, Inc. 2002 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2003 © TELEGEOGRAPHY, INC 2002 Country Traffic Statistics COUNTRY TRAFFIC STATISTICS Albania LARGEST TELECOMMUNICATIONS ROUTES, 2001 Destination Minutes (millions) Percent of Outgoing Traffic 1. Italy .. ... .... ............... 24.6 37.6% 2. Greece .... .. ..... ... ........ 22.8 34.9% 3. Germany .... .... .. .. ...... 2.7 4.2% 4. United Kingdom .................. 2.6 4.0% 5. United States ..................... 1.9 • 2.9% 6. Turkey ............. ...... .. 1.6 • 2.5% 7. France .. ..... ..... ..... ... .... 1.1 • 1.7% B. Belg ium .. ... .. .... ... 0.9 I 1.3% 9. Switzerland ........... .. ...... 0.6 I 0.9% 10. Austria .... ....... .. ..... ... .. 0.5 I 0.8% 11 Bulgaria ... .... .................. 0.4 I 0.6% 12. Canada .......................... 0.3 I 0.5% 13. Serbia & Montenegro .. .... .... 0.3 I 0.5% 14. Netherlands ... .. ....... ....... .. 0.3 I 0.5% 15. Romania ......................... 0.3 I 0.4% 16. Spain .... .. ...... ..... ........... 0.2 I 0.3% 17. Croatia .. ......................... 0.2 I 0.3% 18. Hungary ......... ....... .. ..... .. 0.1 I 0.2% 19. Egypt .. """"""."" .... .0.1 I 0.2% 20. Denmark .................... ..... 0.1 I 0.2% Others .. ............... .. .. .... 3.6 5.5% TOTAL 65.4 NATIONAL TRAFFIC BALANCE Minutes (millions) 1999 2000 2001 Incoming 121.7 178.6 317.0 Outgoing 74.6 64.9 65.4 Surplus (Deficit) 47.1 113.7 251 .6 Total Volume 196.3 243.5 382.4 Note: Data are in millions of mlnutes of outgoing publ ic switched telecommunications traffic. 114 TEL EGEOGRAPHY 2003 © TELEGEOGRAPHY INC 2002 COUNTRY TRAFFIC STATISTICS Algeria LARGEST FELECOMMUNICATIONS ROUTES, 2001 Destination Minutes (millions) Percent of Outgoing Traffic 1. France .. ........ .... ........ 119.8 57.9% 2. Tunisia ... ......... ... ... .... 10.3 • 5.0% 3. United Kingdom .... .. .... ...... 9.1 • 4.4% 4. Spain .. .............. ... ....... 8.9 • 4.3% 5. Morocco ...... ...... .... ...... 8.3 • 4.0% 6. Italy ............................. 7.8 • 3.8% 7. Germany ......... .. ....... ..... 4.7 I 2.2% B. Belgium .... .. .... .. 3.4 1.6% 9. Saudi Arabia ..................... 3.1 1.5% 10. Switzerland ....................... 3.0 1.5% 11 Egypt .......... ... .. .. ..... ...... 2.9 1.4% 12. United States ..................... 2.8 1.3% 13. Canada .............. ........ .. 2.5 1.2% 14. United Arab Emirates ......... ... 2.3 1.1% 15. Lebanon ......................... 1.7 0.8% 16. Syria .. ... ............ .... ... .. 1.6 0.8% 17. Turkey ......................... 1.4 0.7% 18. Netherlands ......... ...... ... 1.2 0.6% 19. Mauritania ....................... 0.8 0.4% 20. Libya ............................ 0.8 0.4% Others .................. ..... 10.7 • 5.2% TOTAL 207.1 NATIONAL TRAFFIC BALANCE Minutes (millions) 1999 2000 2001 Incoming n.a. n.a. n.a. Outgoing 143.5 151.8 207.1 Surplus (Deficit) n.a. n.a. n.a. Total Volume n.a. n.a. n.a. Note: Data are in millions of minutes of outgoing public switched telecommunications traffic. © TELEGEOGRAPHY, INC 2002 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2003 115 COUNTRY TRAFFIC STATISTICS Andorra LARGEST TELECOMMUNICATIONS ROUTES, 2001 Destination Minutes (millions) Percent of Outgoing Traffic 1. Spain .... .... ..... ... ... ..... 43.7 •••••••••••••••• 69.2% 2. France ........................... 9.6 ••• 15.2% 3. Portugal .... ....... .. ..... ........ 3.8 6.0% 4. United Kingdom 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 .1.7 I 2.7% 5. Germany .. ...... ........ ..... 0.5 I 0.7% 6. Belgium 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 000.3 I 0.5% 7. Netherlands .. ..... ... .... ... .... 0.3 I 0.5% 8. Switzerland 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 0.3 I 0.5% 9. United States ......... ......... .. 0.3 I 0.5% 10. Italy 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00.00 00 00 000.3 I 0.4% 11 Argentina 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 000.2 I 0.3% 12. Russia 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 .0.2 I 0.3% 13. Morocco 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 .0.1 I 0.2% Others 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 .1.9 I 2.9% TOTAL 63.2 NATIONAL TRAFFIC BALANCE Minutes (millions) 1999 Incoming n.a. Outgoing 53.2 Surplus (Deficit) n.a. Total Volume n.a. 2000 2001 n.a. 48.1 55.9 63.2 n.a. (15.0) n.a. 1,., .2 Note: Data are in millions of minutes of outgoing public switched telecommunications traffic. 116 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2003 © TELEGEOGRAPHY, INC. 2002 COUNTRY TRAFFIC STATISTICS Argentina LARGEST T-ELECOMMUNICATIONS ROUTES, 2001 --·~----------------------~--~ Destination Minutes (millions) Percent of Outgoing Traffic 1. United States .................... 83.1 18.2% 2. Peru ............................ 48.3 10.6% 3. Brazil ........................... 43.6 9.6% 4. Uruguay ......................... 41.4 9.1% 5. Spain ...... .. ... .... ... ... 39.7 8.7% 6. Paraguay ........................ 38.2 8.4% 7. Chile .................. .. .... 32.8 7.2% B. Bolivia .......................... 28.7 6.3% 9. Italy .... ...... ....... .... .... .. 18.7 4.1% 10. Mexico .......................... 9.4 2.1% 11 France ........ .... ...... ........ 7.3 • 1.6% 12. United Kingdom ... ..... ... 6.0 • 1.3% 13. Canada .......................... 5.1 • 1.1% 14. Cuba ............................ 4.8 • 1.0% 15. Colombia ......................... 4.7 • 1.0% 16. Venezuela ........................ 4.3 • 0.9% 17. Germany ......................... 3.1 I 0.7% 18. Israel .......................... .. 2.8 I 0.6% 19. Dominican Republic ................ 2.6 I 0.6% 20. Switzerland ........ .. ..... ...... 2.3 I 0.5% Others .. ....................... 28.9 6.3% TOTAL 455.9 NATIONAL TRAFFIC BALANCE Minutes (millions) 1999 2000 2001 Incoming n.a. n.a. n.a. Outgoing 377.6 432.1 455.9 Surplus !Deficit) n.a. n.a. n.a. Total Volume n.a. n.a. n.a. Note: Data are in millions of minutes of outgoing public switched telecommunications traffic. © TELEGEOGRAPHY INC 2002 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2003 117 COUNTRY TRAFFIC STATISTICS Armenia LARGEST TELECOMMUNICATIONS ROUTES, 2001 Destination Minutes (thousands) Percent of Outgoing Traffic 1. Russia ... ...... .. .. .......... 23,903.0 ••••••••••••••••• 69.0% 2. Ukraine ....................... 1,857.5 • 5.4% 3. Georgia ............... ..... .. 1,657.5 • 4.8% 4. United States ... ....... .795.8 I 2.3% 5. Greece ......................... 349.4 I 1.0% 6. Belarus ....................... 312.5 I 0.9% 7. Kazakhstan ..................... 280.5 I 0.8% 8. France ........................ 262.0 I 0.8% 9. United Kingdom ................. 132.9 I 0.4% 10. Uzbekistan ................ .... .. 131.5 I 0.4% 11. Turkmenistan ................... 127.5 I 0.4% 12. Italy .. ........... .... .... .... ... 85.1 I 0.2% 13. Latvia ... ............... .. .. 83.3 I 0.2% 14. Netherlands .................... .78.3 I 0.2% 15. Switzerland ..................... .70.3 I 0.2% 16. Moldova ... ..... .............. 68.7 I 0.2% 17. Poland .......................... ~1 I 0.2% 18. Bulgaria ... ...................... 64.7 I 0.2% 19. Belgium ......................... 63.0 I 0.2% 20. Lithuania ............ ..... ...... 55.6 I 0.2% Others ...... .... .... ...... 4,180.0 12.1% TOTAL 34,637.0 NATIONAL TRAFFIC BALANCE Minutes (millions) 1999 2000 2001 Incoming 89.8 n.a. n.a. Outgoing 33.7 31.4 34.6 Surplus (Deficit) 56.0 n.a. n.a. Total Volume 123.5 n.a. r:J.a. Note: National traffic data are.in millions of minutes of outgoing public switched telecommunications traffic; route data are in thousands of minutes of outgoing public switched telecommunications traffic. 118 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2003 © TELEGEOGRAPHY, INC. 2002 COUNTRY TRAFFIC STATISTICS Australia LARGEST TELECOMMUNICATIONS ROUTES, FY 2001/02 Destination Minutes (millions) Percent of Outgoing Traffic 1. United States .. ... ... ... 605.0 20.0% 2. United Kingdom .... ............ 550.0 18.2% 3. New Zealand ................... 355.0 11 .7% 4. Canada .... ... .. .. .. 125.0 4.1% 5. India ........................... 120.0 4.0% 6. Hong Kong ..... ....... ... .... 105.0 3.5% 7. Japan .. ...... ... ......... .. 100.0 3.3% 8. China .. .. ... .. ...... .... 95.0 3.1% 9. Philippines ........ ... .. .. ...... 95.0 3.1% 10. Singapore ....... ...... 90.0 3.0% 11. Germany ............ ... ....... 65.0 2.1% 12. Italy ... ......... .. ... 65.0 2.1% 13. Malaysia ........................ 55.0 1.8% 14. Indonesia ............ .. .. .. .... 50.0 • 1.7% 15. Vietnam ......................... 50.0 • 1.7% Others ........... ............. 505.0 ············- 16.7% TOTAL 3,030.0 NATIONAL TRAFFIC BALANCE Minutes (millions) FY 1999/00 FY 2000/01 FY 2001/02 Incoming n.a. n.a. n.a. Outgoing 2,115.0 2,650.0 3,030.0 Surplus (Deficit) n.a. n.a n.a. Total Volume n.a. n.a. n.a. Note: Data are in millions of minutes of outgoing public switched telecommunications traffic. Fiscal year ends 30 June. © TELEGEOGRAPHY, INC. 2002 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2003 119 COUNTRY TRAFFIC STATISTICS Austria LARGEST TELECOMMUNICATIONS ROUTES, 2001 Destination Minutes (millions) Percent of Outgoing Traffic 1. Germany ......... ..... .. 630.0 •••••••••••• 42.6% 2. Switzerland .. ................... 170.0 •••• 11.5% 3. Italy ......................... 90.0 6.1% 4. Hungary ......................... 63.0 4.3% 5. Serbia & Montenegro .. .. .... .. 63.0 4.3% 6. Croatia ... .. ........ ....... .. 58.0 3.9% 7. United Kingdom .. .... .......... .45.0 • 3.0% 8. Poland ....... ........... .. 42.0 • 2.8% 9. Czech Republic ... ... .. ... 37.0 • 2.5% 10. France ... .... .. .... ...... .. 37.0 • 2.5% Others ................. .. .. 245.0 •••••• 16.6% TOTAL 1,480.0 NATIONAL TRAFFIC BALANCE Minutes (millions) 1999 2000 2001 Incoming n.a. n.a. n.a. Outgoing 1,305.0 1,410.0 1,480.0 Surplus (Deficit) n.a. n.a. n.a. Total Volume n.a. n.a. n.a. Note: Data are in millions of minutes of outgoing public switched telecommunications traffic. 120 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2003 © TELEGEOGRAPHY, INC 2002 COUNTRY TRAFFIC STATISTICS Azerbaijan Destination Minutes (thousands) Percent of Outgoing Traffic 1. Russia .... ...... .. .. .. ... 15,277.0 2. Turkey ...... ...... .. .. .. .. .. 2,764.0 9.3% 3. Ukraine .... .............. .. ... 1,441.0 4.9% 4. Georgia .... ................... 1,393.0 4.7% 5. Kazakhstan .. .... ... .. .769.0 • 2.6% 6. Germany ...... ............ .. 599.7 I 2.0% 7. Uzbekistan ... .... .. .. 373.0 1.3% 8. Belgium .... .. ...... 286.4 1.0% 9. Belarus .... ... .. ........... 286.0 1.0% 10. United States ... .. ... ... 281 .6 1.0% 11 Turkmenistan .. .............. 276.0 0.9% 12. France .. .... .... .. .. .. .. .... 218.1 0.7% 13. Switzerland .. ... ...... .. 167.2 0.6% 14. United Kingdom ... .. .. .. .. 161 .5 0.5% 15. Italy ...... .................... 140.4 0.5% 16. Netherlands ... ... ..... ... 126.8 0.4% 17. Moldova ....... .............. 115.6 0.4% 18. Poland .. ..... .... ... ... .79.4 0.3% 19. Latvia .. ..... ... .. ...... .... ... .78.6 0.3% 20. Greece ... ..................... .74.1 0.3% Others .... .. .. .. .... .... ..... 4,720.0 15.9% TOTAL 29,631.2 NATIONAL TRAFFIC BALANCE Minutes (millions) 1999 2000 2001 Incoming 68.6 59.7 n.a. Outgoing 32.2 28.1 29.6 Surplus (Deficit) 36.4 31.6 n.a. Total Volume 100.8 87.8 n.a. Note: National traffic data are in millions of minutes of outgoing public switched telecommunications traffic; route data are in thousands of minutes of outgoing public switched telecommunications traffic. © TELEGEOGRAPHY, INC 2002 TELEGEOGRAPHY 200 3 121 COUNTRY TRAFFIC STATISTICS Bahamas LARGEST TELECOMMUNICATIONS ROUTES, 2001 Destination Minutes (thousands) Percent of Outgoing Traffic 1. United States ................. 53,2B4.6 ------------ 73.5% 2. Canada ..... .......... .. 3,224.5 • 4.4% 3. Jamaica ...................... 1,9B6.9 I 2.7% 4. United Kingdom ............ .. .. 1,275.B 1.B% 5. Mexico ................. ........ 659.6 0.9% 6. Switzerland ........... ... ...... 595.B O.B% 7. Trinidad & Tobago ... ... ....... 305.5 0.4% B. France .................. .. ... 293.0 0.4% 9. Germany ....................... 204.9 0.3% 10. Italy ........................... 164.3 0.2% 11. Spain .......................... 143.7 0.2% 12. Brazil .......................... 141 .B 0.2% 13. Panama .... ........ .... 116.B 0.2% 14. Guyana ........................ 113.6 0.2% 15. Colombia ....................... .74.B 0.1% 16. Peru ............................ 74.6 0.1% 17. Netherlands .................... 64.4 0.1% 1 B. Venezuela .... ........ ..... ... .. 64.3 0.1% 19. Costa Rica ....................... 55.B 0.1% 20. Dominican Republic ............... 55.B 0.1% Others ... ..................... 9,560.0 13.2% TOTAL 72,467.7 NATIONAL TRAFFIC BALANCE Minutes (millions) 1999 2000 2001 Incoming n.a. 111.8 116.9 Outgoing 65.0 67.3 72.5 Surplus (Deficit) n.a. 44.5 44.4 Total Volume n.a. 179.0 189.3 Note: National traffic data are.in millions of minutes of outgoing public switched telecommunications traffic; route data are in thousands of minutes of outgoing public switched telecommunications traffic 122 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2003 © TELEGEOGRAPHY, INC 2002 COUNTRY TRAFFIC STATISTICS Bahrain LARGEST TELECOMMUNICATIONS ROUTES, 2001 ------------~~--------------~ Destination Minutes (millions) Percent of Outgoing Traffic 1. India 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 0021.4 19.6% 2. Saudi Arabia ....... ......... .. ... 18.2 16.7% 3. United Arab Emirates .............. 13.3 12.2% 4. United Kingdom .. ....... ..... 6.6 6.0% 5. Kuwait 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 .5.0 4.5% 6. Pakistan .. .... ... ... .. .... 4.7 4.3% 7. United States 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 .4.5 4.1% 8. Qatar ............ .. ........... ... 4.5 4.1% 9. Egypt .... .. ... ...... .. .. ... .. 3.9 3.6% 10. Philippines .. ..... .. 2.6 2.3% 11. Jordan 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 .2.0 1.8% 12. Bangladesh. 00 .. 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 .. 2.0 1.8% 13. Morocco 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 .1.9 • 1.7% 14. Oman 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 001.8 • 1.7% 15. Lebanon 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 .1.2 • 1.1% 16. France 00 00 00 00 .. 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 .1.1 • 1.0% 17. Sri Lanka 00 00 00 00. 00. 00 00 00 00 00 .. 1.1 • 1.0% 18. Iran 00 00. 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 001.0 I 0.9% 19. Syria 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 000.8 I 0.8% 20. Germany ................ ... ... 0.8 I 0.7% Others .. 00 00 00 .• 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 0010.9 •••••••• 10.0% TOTAL 109.2 NATIONAL TRAFFIC BALANCE Minutes (millions) 1999 2000 2001 Incoming 106.5 125.6 182.6 Outgoing 134.1 167.7 170.1 Surplus (Deficit) (27.5) (42.1) 12.5 Total Volume 240.6 293.3 352.7 Note: Data are in millions of minutes of outgoing public switched telecommunications traffic. Route data excludes 60.92 million minutes of prepaid calling card traffic for which route data is not available. © TELEGEOGRAPHY, INC 2002 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2003 123 COUNTRY TRAFFIC STATISTICS Bangladesh LARGEST TELECOMMUNICATIONS ROUTES, 2001 Destination Minutes (millions) Percent of Outgoing Traffic 1. India .. .. ........................ 8.7 ••••••••••••••••• 18.3% 2. Saudi Arabia ... .. ... 5.6 •••••••• 11 .8% 3. United States .... ... ... .. 3.6 4. United Kingdom ................... 3.6 5. Korea, Rep ....... ...... ......... 3.3 6. Singapore ........................ 2.4 7. United Arab Emirates .... .. ..... 2.2 8. Pakistan .. .. .. .... ..... .... 1.6 9. Hong Kong ....................... 1.5 ----· 7.6% ••••••• 7.5% •••••• 7.0% ••• 4.9% •••• 4.5% •• 3.3% •• 3.2% 10. Malaysia ..... ..... .. ...... 1.5 3.1 % 11. China ... ... ... .. .... .. 1.3 2.8% 12. Japan ......... 0 ••••••• 0 •• 0 ••••••• 0.9 1.9% 13. Italy ... ... ..... .. ... ... .. 0.8 1.8% 14. Thailand ......................... 0.8 1.7% 15. Canada ........ ......... 0 •••••• • 0.7 1.5% 16. Germany .... .. ..... .. .. 0 • •• • • •• 0.7 • 1.4% 17. Sri Lanka ..... .. .. .... .. ... ... 0.6 • 1.2% 18. Australia ................ .. ....... 0.6 • 1.2% 19. France ... .... ... ...... .... .. 0.6 • 1.2% 20. French Polynesia ..... 0 •• • ••• • • • ••• 0.6 • 1.2% Others ... .. .................... 6.1 •••••••••••• 12.8% TOTAL 47.7 NATIONAL TRAFFIC BALANCE Minutes (millions) 1999 2000 Incoming n.a. n.a. Outgoing 45.1 49.6 Surplus (Deficit) n.a. n.a. Total Volume n.a. n.a. Note: Data are in millions of ~lnutes of outgoing public switched telecommunications traffic 2001 n.a. 47.7 n.a. A.a. 124 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2003 © TELEGEOGRAPHY, INC 2002 COUNTRY TRAFFIC STATISTICS LARGEST tELECOMMUNICATIONS ROUTES, 2001 Destination Minutes (millions) Percent of Outgoing Traffic 1. United States .. .......... ...... .. 8.5 2. Trinidad & Tobago ......... ..... 4.9 3. Guyana .... .. .. ... ... .......... 4.8 ••••••• 12.9% ••••••• 12.7% 4. Canada ....... ...... ... ...... 3.4 •••••• 9.1% 5. United Kingdom .... .. ........... 3.0 ••••• 8.0% 6. Saint Vincent & The Grenadines ... 2.4 ••••• 6.5% 7. Saint Lucia ... .. .... ..... ... 2.0 ••• 1 5.2% B. Jamaica ....... ...... 1.8 •••• 4.9% 9. Grenada ......................... 0.8 2.2% 10. Antigua & Barbuda .. ..... 0.8 2.1% 11 Dominica ......................... 0.4 • 1.1% 12. Saint Kitts & Nevis ... ....... ... ... 0.4 I 1.0% 13. Bahamas ......................... 0.3 I 0.8% 14. Cayman Islands ..... ... ......... 0.3 I 0.8% 15. Bermuda ......................... 0.2 I 0.6% 16. Netherlands Antilles .. ......... ... 0.1 I 0.4% 17. Anguilla .......................... 0.1 I 0.4% 18. Venezuela .... .... ... .... .. 0.1 I 0.3% Others ........................... 2.8 7.4% TOTAL 37.6 NATIONAL TRAFFIC BALANCE Minutes (millions) 1999 2000 Incoming n.a. n.a. Outgoing 35.7 32.1 Surplus (Deficit) n.a. n.a. Total Volume n.a. n.a. Barbados 2001 n.a. 37.6 n.a. n.a. Note: Data are in millions of minutes of outgoing public switched telecommunications traffic. © TELEGEOGRAPHY, INC. 2002 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2003 125 COUNTRY TRAFFIC STATISTICS Belarus LARGEST TELECOMMUNICATIONS ROUTES, 2001 Destination Minutes (millions) Percent of Outgoing Traffic 1. Russia ............. .......... 92.3 44.0% 2. Ukraine .. .. ........ ..... .... 30.0 14.3% 3. Kazakhstan ......... .... .... .. .. 2.4 I 1.1% 4. Moldova .. .......... ........... 1.7 I 0.8% 5. Azerbaijan .... ...... .. .. ........ 1.3 I 0.6% 6. Uzbekistan ... .. ...... .... 1.0 I 0.5% 7. Armenia ............... .. ...... 0.7 I 0.4% B. Georgia .. .... ... .. ..... 0.6 I 0.3% 9. Turkmenistan ..................... 0.4 I 0.2% 10. Kyrgyzstan ... .. ... .... ... 0.3 I 0.1% 11 Tajikistan ........ ... .............. 0.2 I 0.1% Others .................. ... .. .79.1 •••••••••••••• 37.7% TOTAL 209.9 NATIONAL TRAFFIC BALANCE Minutes (millions) 1999 2000 2001 Incoming 195.6 n.a. n.a. Outgoing 161.2 178.5 209.9 Surplus (Deficit) 34.4 n.a. n.a. Total Volume 356.8 n.a. n.a. Note: Data are in millions of I"Tiinutes of outgoing public switched telecommunications traffic. The "Others" category may include routes to non-members of the Commonwealth of Independent States that rank among the top destinations for outgoing traffic. 126 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2003 © TELEGEOGRAPHY, INC 2002 COUNTRY TRAFFIC STATISTICS Belgium LARGEST T·ELECOMMUNICATIONS ROUTES, 2001 Destination Minutes (millions) Percent of Outgoing Traffic 1. France ... ... .. ................ .470.0 2. Netherlands ... .. ... .... .440.0 3. Germany ......... .. .. 260.0 ••••••••• 12.1% 4. United Kingdom ................. 190.0 •••••• 8.8% 5. Italy ..... .. .. .... ...... 110.0 5.1% 6. United States ................... 1 00.0 4.6% 7. Luxembourg .. ... ... .... .... .75.0 3.5% 8. Spa in ... .. ..... .. .... 65.0 3.0% 9. Switzerland .......... ....... 40.0 • 1.9% 10. Denmark ... .. .... .. ...... 32.0 • 1.5% 11 Australia .. ... ....... ......... ... 29.0 • 1.3% 12. Greece .. ... ... ... .... 22.0 • 1.0% 13. Poland ...... ........ .. .. .. .. 21.0 • 1.0% 14. Sweden ..... .. ....... ...... .. 20.0 • 0.9% 15. Canada ... .... ..... 19.0 • 0.9% Others ........................ 262.0 ••••••••• 12.2% TOTAL 2,155.0 NATIONAL TRAFFIC BALANCE Minutes (millions) 1999 2000 2001 Incoming n.a. n.a. n.a. Outgoing 1,590.0 1,835.0 2,155.0 Surplus ~Deficit) n.a. n.a. n.a. Total Volume n.a. n.a. n.a. Note: Data are in millions of minutes of outgoing public switched telecommunications traffic. © TELEGEOGRAPHY. INC 2002 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2003 127 COUNTRY TRAFFIC STATISTICS Belize LARGEST TELECOMMUNICATIONS ROUTES. 2001 Destination Minutes (thousands) Percent of Outgoing Traffic 1. United States .. ... .. 6,070.9 57.0% 2. Guatemala .. .. .. .......... .784.6 7.4% 3. Mexico ... ... ... ... .... .. 705.0 6.6% 4. Honduras ........ .............. 615.2 5.8% 5. United Kingdom .... ............ 394.1 • 3.7% 6. El Salvador ..................... 389.4 • 3.7% 7. Canada ... ..... .. .. 306.9 • 2.9% 8. Costa Rica ... ... .. .. .. .. 143.6 I 1.3% 9. Jamaica ....... ..... .. .... 137.0 1 1.3% 10. Cuba ... .. .. ... ... ..... ... 118.1 1 1.1 % 11. Nicaragua ... ... .. .. 115.2 1 1.1 % 12. Panama ........................ 115.1 I 1.1% 13. Barbados ... ... ... .. .. 107.3 I 1.0% 14. China ..... ..... .. .. ...... .. .. .. 72.3 I 0.7% 15. Trinidad & Tobago ................ 60.3 I 0.6% 16. India ............ .. .......... .... 58.8 I 0.6% 17. Germany ... .. .. .. .... .. ... 44.7 I 0.4% 18. Taiwan .. .. ............. ........ 42.0 I 0.4% 19. Bahamas .. .. .. .... .. 39.3 I 0.4% 20. Belg ium ......................... 36.0 I 0.3% Others ..... .......... .. .. ... .. 290.0 • 2.7% TOTAL 10,655.8 NATIONAL TRAFFIC BALANCE Minutes (millions) 1999 2000 2001 Incoming n.a. 24.0 28.5 Outgoing 9.6 9.6 10.7 Surplus (Deficit) n.a. 14.4 17.8 Total Volume n.a. 33.6 39.1 Note: National traffic data are in millions of minutes of outgoing public switched telecommunications traffic ; route data are in thousands of minutes of outgoing public switched telecommunications traffic 128 TELEGEOGRAPH Y 200 3 © TELEGEOGRAPH Y, I NC 200 2 COUNTRY TRAFFIC STATISTICS Bolivia Destination Minutes (millions) Percent of Outgoing Traffic 1. United States .... .... ... ........ 8.4 26.6% 2. Argentina ......... ... ........ 6.0 19.0% 3. Brazil .............. ........ ...... 3.7 11.7% 4. Chile ............................. 3.0 9.5% 5. Peru .................... .. ....... 2.8 8.9% 6. Colombia ......................... 1.0 3.2% 7. Spain .................. ......... 1.0 3.2% 8. Ecuador ... ......... ........ .. .. 0.7 • 2.2% 9. Italy ..... ................... ..... 0.6 • 1.9% 10. Germany ......................... 0.5 • 1.6% 11. Mexico .......................... 0.5 • 1.6% 12. Paraguay ......................... 0.5 • 1.6% 13. Canada .......................... 0.4 • 1.3% 14. Switzerland ....................... 0.4 • 1.3% 15. United Kingdom ...... ............. 0.4 • 1.3% Others ........................... 1.7 5.4% TOTAL 31.6 NATIONAL TRAFFIC BALANCE Minutes (millions) 1999 2000 2001 Incoming 82.2 80.8 n.a. Outgoing 29.7 27.2 31.6 Surplus (Deficit) 52.5 53.6 n.a. Total Volume 111.9 107.9 n.a. Note: Data are in millions of minutes of outgoing public switched telecommunications traffic. © TELEGEOGRAPHY, INC 2002 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2003 129 COUNTRY TRAFFIC STATISTICS Botswana LARGEST TELECOMMUNICATIONS ROUTES, FY 2001/02 Destination Minutes (thousands) Percent of Outgoing Traffic 1. South Africa .................. 38,621 .0 65.4% 2. Zimbabwe ..................... 6,427.0 10.9% 3. United Kingdom ................ 2,488.0 • 4.2% 4. Zambia ............ ..... .... .. 1,738.0 • 2.9% 5. United States .............. .... 1,472.0 I 2.5% 6. Namibia ........................ 958.0 I 1.6% 7. Kenya .......................... 515.0 I 0.9% B. Swaziland ..... .. ........ ... 304.0 I 0.5% 9. Malawi ........................ 288.0 I 0.5% 10. Lesotho ...... ... ...... ..... ... 281.0 I 0.5% 11. Tanzania ............. ..... .... 249.0 I 0.4% 12. Germany .................... .. 239.0 I 0.4% 13. Sri Lanka ... ..... ........ 222.0 I 0.4% 14. France .. ......... ..... .... .. .. 157.0 I 0.3% 15. Mauritius .......... ... ..... ..... 131.0 I 0.2% 16. Mozambique .................... 129.0 I 0.2% 17. Ireland .. .......... ............ 116.0 I 0.2% 18. Nigeria ......................... 111.0 I 0.2% 19. United Arab Emirates ............. 100.0 I 0.2% 20. Canada ...................... .. 69.0 I 0.1% Others ........... .. ..... ...... 4,390.0 7.4% TOTAL 59,013.0 NATIONAL TRAFFIC BALANCE Minutes (millions) FY 1999/00 FY 2000/01 FY 2001/02 Incoming n.a. n.a. 41.2 Outgoing 40.0 42.0 59.0 Surplus (Deficit) n.a. n.a. (17.8) Total Volume n.a. n.a. 100.2 Note: National traffic data are.in millions of minutes of outgoing public switched telecommunications traffic; route data are in thousands of minutes of outgoing public switched telecommunications traffic. Fiscal year ends 31 March. 130 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2003 © TELEGEOGRAPHY INC 2002 COUNTRY TRAFFIC STATISTICS Brazil LARGEST T-ELECOMMUNICATIONS ROUTES, 2001 Destination Minutes (millions) Percent of Outgoing Traffic 1. United States ...... ....... 255.0 2. Portugal ... .. ... ... .. ........ 63.0 •••• 8.2% 3. Argentina .. ... ............... 54.0 7.0% 4. Italy ............................ 38.0 4.9% 5. Spain ........................... 30.0 3.9% 6. United Kingdom ............. .... 30.0 3.9% 7. Germany ... ....... .. 26.0 3.4% 8. Japan .......................... 25.0 3.2% 9. France ......................... 23.0 3.0% 10. Chile ............................ 17.0 • 2.2% 11 Uruguay ...... ........ ........ ... 14.0 • 1.8% 12. Canada ......................... 13.0 • 1.7% 13. Paraguay ... ....... ......... 13.0 • 1.7% 14. Bolivia .......................... 12.0 I 1.6% 15. Switzerland ...................... 11.0 I 1.4% 16. Mexico ......................... 10.0 I 1.3% 17. Peru ............................ 10.0 I 1.3% 18. Netherlands ...................... 7.0 I 0.9% 19. Colombia ................ ......... 6.0 I 0.8% 20. Venezuela ........................ 6.0 I 0.8% Others ......................... 109.2 14.1% TOTAL 772.2 NATIONAL TRAFFIC BALANCE Minutes (millions) 1999 2000 2001 Incoming 838.5 1,212.4 n.a. Outgoing 574.8 692.7 772.2 Surplus (Deficit) 263.7 519.8 n.a. Total Volume 1,413.3 1,905.1 n.a. Note: Data are in millions of minutes of outgoing public switched telecommunications traffic © TELEGEOGRAPHY, INC 2002 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2003 131 COUNTRY TRAFFIC STATISTICS Bulgaria LARGEST TELECOMMUNICATIONS ROUTES, 2001 Destination Minutes (millions) Percent of Outgoing Traffic 1. Greece ... .. ... .... .... 19.0 •••••••••••••• 15.2% 2. Germany .. ..................... 16.0 ••••••••••• 12.8% 3. Turkey .................... ..... 13.0 -----· 10.4% 4. Italy .. .. ... .. .. .... 7.0 5.6% 5. Spain ..... .. .... 5.0 4.0% 6. United Kingdom .. ... .. .. 5.0 4.0% 7. Austria .. ....... ... .... 4.0 3.2% 8. France .......................... 4.0 3.2% 9. Russia .... ... ... ... .... 4.0 3.2% 10. United States .... .. .. .. .... .. .. .. .4.0 3.2% 11 Macedonia ....................... 3.0 2.4% 12. Serbia & Montenegro .. .. 3.0 2.4% 13. Belgium .......................... 2.0 • 1.6% 14. Czech Republ ic .. ......... ....... 2.0 • 1.6% 15. Netherlands ................ .... .. 2.0 • 1.6% 16. Romania ................ .. ....... 2.0 • 1.6% 17. Switzerland ...... ...... .. .... ..... 2.0 • 1.6% 18. Ukraine .... ................. .. .. 2.0 • 1.6% 19. Hungary ........... .......... .. 1.6 • 1.2% 20. Poland ...... .. ...... .. ........... 1.5 • 1.2% Others .... ......... .. ... .. ... 22.9 ••••••••••••••••• 18.3% TOTAL 125.0 NATIONAL TRAFFIC BALANCE Minutes (millions) 1999 2000 2001 Incoming n.a. 211.0 220.0 Outgoing 98.9 110.0 125.0 Surplus (Deficit) n.a. 101 .0 95.0 Total Volume n.a. 321 .0 345.0 Note: Data are in millions of minutes of outgoing public switched telecommunications traffic 132 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2003 © TELEGEOGRAPHY, I N C. 200 2 COUNTRY TRAFFIC STATISTICS Burkina Faso LARGEsT TEL E c 0 M M u N I c A Tl O.N s R 0 u T E s I 2 0 01 ~------~--------------------------------~ 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. Destination Minutes (thousands) Percent of Outgoing Traffic France ........................ 6, 140.2 Cote dlvoire .. ............. .... 1 ,562.0 18.0% Switzerland ... ............ ..... 157.2 I 1.8% Netherlands ................... 110.5 I 1.3% Denmark ..... .. ... .. .. ........ .46.2 I 0.5% Congo, Rep ...................... .41.7 I 0.5% Tunisia .......................... 23.8 I 0.3% Lebanon .............. ...... .. 23.5 I 0.3% Algeria .... ........ ..... .. 19.7 I 0.2% Cameroon ...................... 18.6 I 0.2% Rwanda ........................ 15.2 I 0.2% Niger ........ ..... .. ..... 13.5 I 0.2% Burundi ... .............. ..... 12.1 I 0.1% Japan ....... .... ..... .... ..... 11.8 I 0.1% Gabon ......................... 10.3 I 0.1% Guinea-Bissau ...... ............. 9.9 I 0.1% Djibouti ... .. ............... 6.2 I 0.1% Greece .. .............. .. ... ... 5.9 I 0.1% Cape Verde ........... .... .. .. .. .4.7 I 0.1% Equatorial Guinea .. ............ .4.5 I 0.1% Others .. .... .. ......... .420.0 • 4.8% TOTAL 8,663.2 Minutes (millions) 1999 2000 2001 Incoming 16.3 n.a. n.a. Outgoing 10.9 10.6 8.7 Surplus (Deficit) 5.4 n.a. n.a. Total Volume 27.2 n.a. n.a. Note: National traffic data are in millions of minutes of outgoing public switched telecommunications traffic; route data are in thousands of minutes of outgoing public switched telecommunications traffic. © TELEGEOGRAPHY, INC 2002 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2003 133 COUNTRY TRAFFIC STATISTICS Canada LARGEST TELECOMMUNICATIONS ROUTES, 2001 Destination Minutes (millions) Percent of Outgoing Traffic 1. United States ........... ...... 6,000.0 •••••••••••••••• 75.8% 2. United Kingdom ................. 400.0 • 5.1% 3. Hong Kong ...................... 130.0 I 1.6% 4. India .... ...... .......... .... ... 120.0 I 1.5% 5. France ........ .. .. ............ 115.0 1 1.5% 6. Italy .............. .. ...... ..... 110.0 I 1.4% 7. Germany ....................... 105.0 I 1.3% 8. Philippines ..................... 105.0 I 1.3% 9. Australia ................. .... .. 60.0 I 0.8% 10. Japan ....... ............. 57 .0 I 0.7% Others ......................... 713.0 9.0% TOTAl 7,915.0 NATIONAL TRAFFIC BALANCE Minutes (millions) 1999 2000 2001 Incoming n.a. n.a. n.a. Outgoing 5,830.0 7,224.0 7,915.0 Surplus (Deficit) n.a. n.a. n.a. Total Volume n.a. n.a. n.a. Note: Data are in millions of minutes of outgoing public switched telecommunications traffic 134 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2003 © TELEGEOGRAPHY, INC 2002 COUNTRY TRAFFIC STATISTICS Cayman Islands ROUTES, 2001 Destination Minutes (millions) Percent of Outgoing Traffic 1. United States ... ................ 16.9 3. United Kingdom ... ........... ... 3.0 -· 5.8% 4. Canada .......................... 2.5 5.0% 5. Honduras ......... .. .... ...... .. 1.1 • 2.1% 6. Philippines .. .. .. ....... ..... 0.7 I 1.3% 7. Barbados ..... .. .. ......... .. 0.6 I 1.1% 8. Cuba ............................ 0.5 I 1.0% 9. Trinidad & Tobago ........ ......... 0.5 0.9% 10. Bahamas .. .. .. ..... ....... .. 0.4 0.7% 11. Ireland ......... ..... ........ 0.3 0.6% 12. Switzerland .. ....... ...... ..... 0.3 0.6% 13. India ............................. 0.3 0.5% 14. Bermuda ......................... 0.3 0.5% 15. Brazil ... .. .... .... .... .......... 0.2 0.5% 16. Dominican Republic ... ... ... .... 0.2 0.4% 17. Costa Rica .... ... .. ..... ...... 0.2 0.3% 18. Colombia ......... .. .... ...... ... 0.2 0.3% 19. Nicaragua .. ........ ... ... ... 0.2 0.3% 20. Mexico .......................... 0.1 0.3% Others .......................... 11.4 22.4% TOTAL 51.0 NATIONAL TRAFFIC BALANCE .J Minutes (millions) 1999 2000 2001 Incoming n.a. 27.3 n.a. Outgoing 33.4 51.0 51.0 Surplus (Deficit) n.a. (23.7) n.a. Total Volume n.a. 78.3 n.a. Note: Data are in millions of minutes of outgoing public switched telecommunications traffic. © TELEGEOGRAPHY, INC 2002 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2003 135 COUNTRY TRAFFIC STATISTICS Chad LARGEST TELECOMMUNICATIONS ROUTES, 2001 Destination Minutes (thousands) Percent of Outgoing Traffic 1. France 00. 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00.00 .. 1,277.2 ••••••••••••••••• 32.9% 2. Cameroon .......... ... ..... .. 475.8 •••••• 12.2% 3. Saudi Arabia ............... .. 281.8 ••• 7.3% 4. Sudan ......................... 149.2 3.8% 5. Netherlands ............... ... 147.1 3.8% 6. United Kingdom ................. 124.2 3.2% 7. Cote dlvoire 00 00 00 00 .. 00 .... 00 00100.5 • 2.6% 8. Nigeria 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 • 00 00 00 96.5 • 2.5% 9. Senegal ........................ 87.0 • 2.2% 10. Central African Rep ... ........... .78.6 • 2.0% 11. Germany 00 00 00 00 00 .. 00 00 00 00 00 0076.1 • 2.0% 12. Benin 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 .75.3 • 1.9% 13. Canada 00 .. 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 .75.0 • 1.9% 14. Egypt 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 .69.9 • 1.8% 15. Belgium 00 .. 00. 00 00 00 00 00 00. 00 00 .55.6 • 1.4% 16. Gabon 00 00 00 00 00 00. 00 00 00 00 00 00 .49.7 I 1.3% 17. Togo 00 00 00 00 00 00 00. 00 00 00 00 00 00 .43.8 I 1.1% 18. Italy 00 00 00. 00. 00 00 .. 00 00 ... 00 .. .43.8 I 1.1% 19. Niger 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 .41 .9 1 1.1% 20. Switzerland 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 0037.7 I 1.0% Others .. .. .................... 490.0 12.6% TOTAL 3,884.0 NATIONAL TRAFFIC BALANCE Minutes (millions) 1999 2000 2001 Incoming n.a. n.a. n.a. Outgoing 2.8 3.4 3.9 Surplus (Deficit) n.a. n.a. n.a. Total Volume n.a. n.a. r:l.a. Note: National traffic data are.in millions of minutes of outgoing public switched telecommunications traffic; route data are in thousands of minutes of outgoing public switched telecommunications traffic. 136 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2003 © TELEGEOGRAPHY, INC 2002 COUNTRY TRAFFIC STATISTICS Chile LARGEST FELECOMMUNICATIONS ROUTES, 2001 -----------------------~----~~ Destination Minutes (millions) Percent of Outgoing Traffic 1. United States .................... 79.3 28.2% 2. Argentina ..... ... ..... ... 37.2 13.2% 3. Peru ............................ 26.9 9.6% 4. Spain ... ... .... .. .......... 16.4 5.8% 5. Brazil .... .. .... .... ....... 15.4 5.5% 6. Mexico ....... ... ............... .7.9 2.8% 7. Bolivia .. ... .... .... .. .... 6.1 • 2.2% 8. Colombia ...... ...... ... 6.1 • 2.2% 9. Ecuador ......................... 6.1 • 2.2% 10. Canada ..... ..... .. ............. 5.7 • 2.0% 11. Germany ......................... 5.7 • 2.0% 12. France ....... .. .... ... 5.0 • 1.8% 13. United Kingdom ... ... ... ... ..... 4.5 • 1.6% 14. Venezuela ........................ 4.1 • 1.5% 15. Italy ....... ... .. .. .... ...... .. 3.8 I 1.4% 16. Uruguay .......................... 3.2 I 1.1% 17. Australia ......................... 2.9 I 1.0% 18. Switzerland ....................... 2.1 I 0.7% 19. Paraguay ... ........ .... ... 1.7 I 0.6% 20. Japan ............................ 1.4 I 0.5% Others .......................... 39. 7 ••• ••••• 14.1% TOTAL 281.2 NATIONAL TRAFFIC BALANCE Minutes (millions) 1999 2000 2001 Incoming n.a. n.a. n.a. Outgoing 265.3 261.4 281.2 Surplus (Deficit) n.a. n.a. n.a. Total Volume n.a. n.a. n.a. Note: Data are in millions of minutes of outgoing public switched telecommunications traffic. © TELEGEOGRAPHY, INC. 2002 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2003 137 COUNTRY TRAFFIC STATISTICS China LARGEST TELECOMMUNICATIONS ROUTES, 2001 Destination Minutes (millions) Percent of Outgoing Traffic 1. Hong Kong .. .................. 1,350.0 •••••••••••• 51 .9% 2. Ta iwan .. .... ... ... ..... .. 340.0 •••• 13.1% 3. Japan .. ..... .. ........... 175.0 6.7% 4. United States ....... .... .. 61.0 • 2.3% 5. Korea, Rep ... .... ... ... ... ... 60.0 • 2.3% 6. Macau .. ... .. ... ... .. ... 52.0 I 2.0% 7. Singapore .. .. .. .. .46.0 I 1.8% 8. United Kingdom .. ...... .. .. 29.0 I 1.1% 9. Australia ... ............. ...... 23.0 I 0.9% 10. Canada ..... ........... ... 23.0 I 0.9% 11. Germany ............... ....... 22.0 I 0.8% 12. France ........ ... ..... 16.0 I 0.6% 13. Ita ly ........ .. .. .. ....... ... .. 13.0 I 0.5% 14. Malaysia ..... .... ............... 11.0 I 0.4% 15. Russia ..... .. ... ..... .. ........ 10.0 I 0.4% Others .. ....... ............ 369.0 •••• 14.2% TOTAL 2,600.0 NATIONAL TRAFFIC BALANCE Minutes (millions) 1999 2000 2001 Incoming n.a. 3,500.0 4,270.0 Outgoing 1,950.0 2,240.0 2,600.0 Surplus (Deficit) n.a. 1,260.0 1,670.0 Total Volume n.a. 5,740.0 6,870.0 Note: Data are in millions of minutes of outgoing public switched telecommunications traffic. Data are for PSTN traffic only. VoiP traffic accounted for over one billion minutes of add itional call volumes from China in 2001 138 TE LEGEOGRAPHY 200 3 © TELEGEOGRAPHY, INC 200 2 COUNTRY TRAFFIC STATISTICS Colombia LARGEST f.ELECOMMUNICATIONS ROUTES, 2001 Destination Minutes (millions) Percent of Outgoing Traffic 1. United States ... ..... ....... 171.7 47.2% 2. Spain ... ........................ 45.8 12.6% 3. Venezuela .................... 39.7 10.9% 4. Ecuador ......................... 13.3 • 3.7% 5. Mexico ........................ 10.2 • 2.8% 6. United Kingdom ................... 7.1 • 2.0% 7. Canada .......................... 7.0 • 1.9% 8. Panama ......................... 6.8 I 1.9% 9. Brazil .......................... 6.3 I 1.7% 10. Peru ... ............ ... ... ... 5.5 I 1.5% 11. Italy ............................ 5.2 I 1.4% 12. Costa Rica ................ ...... 5.0 I 1.4% 13. France .......................... .4.5 I 1.2% 14. Germany ......................... 4.0 I 1.1% 15. Chile ............................. 3.9 I 1.1% 16. Argentina ........................ 2.4 I 0.7% 17. Aruba ..... .... .................. 2.2 I 0.6% 18. Switzerland .................... .. 1.5 I 0.4% 19. Australia .................... ..... 1.0 I 0.3% 20. Netherlands Antilles ... ....... ... 1.0 I 0.3% Others .......................... 19.3 5.3% TOTAL 363.4 NATIONAL TRAFFIC BALANCE Minutes (millions) 1999 2000 2001 Incoming n.a. n.a. n.a. Outgoing 245.4 312.0 363.4 Surplus (Deficit) n.a. n.a. n.a. Total Volume n.a. n.a. n.a. Note: Data are in millions of minutes of outgoing public switched telecommunications traffic. © TELEGEOGRAPHY, INC. 2002 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2003 139 COUNTRY TRAFFIC STATISTICS Costa Rica LARGEST TELECOMMUNICATIONS ROUT ES, 2001 Destination Minutes (millions) Percent of Outgoing Traffic 1. United States ................... .46.6 35.5% 2. Nicaragua .... ... ..... 23.7 18.0% 3. Mexico .. ..... ... .. ....... 5.9 4.5% 4. Guatemala ........................ 5.8 4.4% 5. El Salvador ............. ...... .. 5.0 3.8% 6. Panama .. ... ... ..... ... .4.4 3.3% 7. Colombia ....... .. ............ 4.4 3.3% 8. Honduras .. ...... ... .. 3.3 • 2.5% 9. Canada .................. .. ...... 2.6 • 2.0% 10. Cuba .. .. .. ...... .. ........ 1.6 I 1.2% 11. Spa in .. .. .. ... ............. 1.3 1 1.0% 12. Argentina .................... ... 1.2 I 0.9% 13. Venezuela ... .... .... ... .. 1.2 I 0.9% 14. Italy .. ... .. .. .... ... 1.0 I 0.7% 15. Dominican Republ ic ........ .... .. 0.8 I 0.6% 16. Peru .. ... ...... ............. 0.7 I 0.5% 17. Chile .... .. .. ............ 0.7 I 0.5% 18. Germany .. .. ...... .. .... .. .. 0.7 I 0.5% 19. Brazil .... .. .......... .. .......... 0.6 I 0.5% 20. France ............... ...... .... 0.6 I 0.4% Others ................ .. .. 19.6 14.9% TOTAL 131 .4 NATIONAL TRAFFIC BALANCE Minutes (millions) 1999 2000 2001 Incoming 109.0 137.8 165.5 Outgoing 94.1 99.6 131.4 Surplus (Deficit) 14.9 38.2 34.1 Total Volume 203.1 237.4 296.9 Note: Data are in millions of mlnutes of outgoing publ ic switched telecommunications traffic. 140 TE LEGEOGRAPH Y 2003 © TELEGEOGRAPHY INC 20 02 COUNTRY TRAFFIC STATISTICS LARGEST ~~!.ECOMMUNICAT!~!.~, ROUTES, 2001 _ _j Destination Minutes (millions) Percent of Outgoing Traffic 3. Burkina Faso ........... ...... 2.7 4.5% 4. United States ......... .......... .. 1.6 • 2.6% 5. Mali ... .. ....... ........ ... 1.5 • 2.4% 6. Benin ........ ............. ...... 1.3 • 2.2% 7. United Kingdom ................... 1.2 • 2.0% 8. Italy ...... ... ....... ......... 1.2 • 1.9% 9. Lebanon ......................... 1.2 B 1.9% 10. Togo .......... .... .. ........ .. 1.1 • 1.8% 11. Switzerland ....................... 0.8 II 1.3% 12. Belgium .......................... 0.8 • 1.3% 13. Cameroon ..... ....... ... ... .. 0.7 • 1.2% 14. Germany ... ........... .... .. .. 0.7 I 1.2% 15. Nigeria ... .......... .............. 0.6 I 1.1% 16. Niger ............ .............. 0.6 I 1.0% 17. Ghana ................ ........ 0.6 I 1.0% 18. Morocco ......................... 0.6 I 1.0% 19. Gabon ........ ...... .. ...... ... 0.6 I 1.0% 20. Spain ............................ 0.5 I 0.8% TOTAL 60.3 NATIONAL TRAFFIC BALANCE Minutes (millions) 1999 2000 2001 Incoming n.a. n.a. n.a. Outgoing 71.3 74.0 60.3 Surplus !Deficit) n.a. n.a. n.a. Total Volume n.a. n.a. n.a. Note: Data are in millions of minutes of outgoing public switched telecommunications traffic. © TELEGEOGRAPHY, INC 2002 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2003 141 COUNTRY TRAFFIC STATISTICS Croatia LARGEST TELECOMMUNICATIONS ROUTES, 2000 Destination Minutes (millions) Percent of Outgoing Traffic 1. Germany ................ ........ 44.9 20.2% 2. Austria .......................... 27.1 12.2% 3. Switzerland ........... ... .. ..... 23.8 10.7% 4. Italy .. ......................... 20.5 9.2% 5. Macedonia ....... .. ............. 14.6 6.6% 6. France .......................... 12.3 5.5% 7. Greece .............. .. ... .... 10.3 4.6% 8. Hungary ... ........ ........ ..... 10.2 4.6% 9. United Kingdom ................... 8.2 3.7% 10. Russia ................... .. .... .7.1 3.2% 11. United States ... .. .... ... 6.2 2.8% 12. Sweden .......................... 6.0 2.7% 13. Netherlands ......... ... ... .4.5 2.0% 14. Romania ......................... 4.0 • 1.8% 15. Belgium .......................... 2.9 • 1.3% 16. Turkey ........................... 2.7 • 1.2% 17. Spain ....... .... ........ .. ...... 2.4 • 1.1% 18. Bulgaria .......................... 2.3 B 1.0% 19. Australia .... .... .... .... .. ... .. 1.7 I 0.8% 20. Denmark ........................ 1.7 I 0.8% Others ........................... 8.8 4.0% TOTAL 222.3 NATIONAL TRAFFIC BALANCE Minutes (millions) 1999 2000 FY 2001/02 Incoming n.a. 512.0 n.a. Outgoing 323.4 222.3 244.5 Surplus (Deficit) n.a. 289.6 n.a. Total Volume n.a. 734.3 n.a. Note: Data are in millions of m"lnutes of outgoing public switched telecommunications traffic. 2001 traffic data are not available. Data exclude traffic to Slovenia, Serbia, and Bosnia. 142 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2003 © TELEGEOGRAPHY, INC. 2002 LARGEST T-ELECOMMUNICATIONS ROUTES, 2001 Destination Minutes (millions) Percent of Outgoing Traffic 1. United States ..................... 3.8 2. Spain ........................... 2.8 3. Canada .......................... 2.1 4. Italy ............................. 1.7 5. Mexico .......................... 1.7 6. France ........................... 1.2 7. Germany ............. .. .......... 0.9 ------ 9.4% ••••••• 7.8% ----· 7.8% •••• 1 5.2% -- 3.9% 8. Venezuela ........ ............. .. 0.6 2.6% 9. United Kingdom ....... ......... .. 0.5 2.3% 10. Chile ............................. 0.5 2.2% 11. Panama .......................... 0.5 2.1% 12. Argentina ........................ 0.4 2.0% 13. Brazil ............................ 0.4 1.6% 14. Dominican Republic ................ 0.3 • 1.5% 15. Colombia ......................... 0.3 • 1.3% 16. Jamaica ......................... 0.3 • 1.3% 17. Costa Rica ....... ... .. ... .... 0.2 I 0.7% 18. Sweden .......................... 0.1 I 0.6% 19. Switzerland ....................... 0.1 I 0.6% COUNTRY TRAFFIC STATISTICS Cuba Others ........................... 4.0 17.7% TOTAL 22.4 NATIONAL TRAFFIC BALANCE Minutes (millions) 1999 2000 2001 Incoming 225.3 284.4 258.0 Outgoing 32.6 20.6 22.4 Surplus (Deficit) 192.7 263.8 235.5 Total Volume 257.8 304.9 280.4 Note: Data are in millions of minutes of outgoing public switched telecommunications traffic. © TELEGEOGRAPHY, INC. 2002 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2003 143 COUNTRY TRAFFIC STATISTICS Cyprus LARGEST TELECOMMUNICATIONS ROUTES, 2001 Destination Minutes (millions) Percent of Outgoing Traffic 1. Greece ... ............. .... 66.6 •••••••••••••••• 30.7% 2. United Kingdom .. ... ... ..... 56.6 •••••••••••••• 26.1% 3. Russia ....... ... ..... 10.5 4.8% 4. United States ............ 0 •••••• 10.0 4.6% 5. Germany ... .................... 5.4 • 2.5% 6. Bulgaria .. .. .. .. .... ..... ....... 4.6 • 2.1% 7. Romania .... .. .. .. .. ..... .. .. 4.2 • 1.9% 8. Lebanon .. .. ..... ..... .. ... 4.0 • 1.8% 9. Ukraine .. .. ............. ..... 4.0 • 1.8% 10. Serbia & Montenegro .. ..... 0 • •••• • 2.7 • 1.2% 11 Italy ........ ... ..... .. .. 0 • ••• •• 2.7 • 1.2% 12. Switzerland ....................... 2.4 I 1.1% 13. France .. ..... .. ... ... .... ... .... 2.3 I 1.1% 14. Egypt ...... .... ... .. .. 2.2 I 1.0% 15. Syria .. ............ ........... 2.2 I 1.0% 16. Philippines .. .... .. ... .. 2.2 I 1.0% 17. Sweden .. ... ... ... ... .. 2.2 I 1.0% 18. Netherlands ... ... 0 •• • ••••••••••• 2.1 I 1.0% 19. Australia ... ......... 0 •• 0 •••• •• • • 1.7 I 0.8% 20. Israel .... .. .. .. .. ..... 1.7 I 0.8% Others ..... ..... 0 • ••••••••• 26.3 12.2% TOTAL 216o5 NATIONAL TRAFFIC BALANCE Minutes (millions) 1999 2000 2001 Incoming 13401 159.7 164.3 Outgoing 168.2 192.6 216.5 Surplus (Deficit) (34.0) (3209) (52.2) Total Volume 302.3 352.3 38008 Note: Data are in millions of minutes of outgoing public switched telecommunications traffic 144 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2003 © TELEGEOGRAPHY, INC 2002 COUNTRY TRAFFIC STATISTICS Czech Republic Destination Minutes (millions) Percent of Outgoing Traffic 1. Germany ... ......... ....... 105.0 24.7% 2. Slovak Republic ............... 87.0 20.5% 3. Austria ... ..... ............. .. 31.0 7.3% 4. United Kingdom ... ..... .. ... 26.0 6.1% 5. Poland .............. ...... 18.0 4.2% 6. Italy .... .... ..... ... ..... 17.0 4.0% 7. France .. .. ........... ....... 14.0 3.3% 8. Netherlands ............ .... 13.0 3.1 % 9. Ukraine .. .. ..... ... .. .... .. 12.0 2.8% 10. United States .................. .. 12.0 2.8% 11. Switzerland .. .. ..... .... ... 10.0 2.4% 12. Russia ... ........... ... .. .. .. 9.0 • 2.1 % 13. Hungary ... ... ... ......... .. 8.0 • 1.9% 14. Spain .. .... ..... .. ....... .7.0 • 1.6% 15. Belgium ....... ............... ... 6.0 • 1.4% 16. Croatia .. ..... .. ... ... .. .. 5.0 • 1.2% 17. Sweden .. .... .. .... .. 5.0 • 1.2% 18. Greece .... ...... ............ ... 4.0 I 0.9% 19. Belarus .. ..... .... .. ........... 3.0 I 0.7% 20. Denmark ... ....... ...... 3.0 I 0.7% Others .. .. .. .. .... ... .. 30.0 7.1% TOTAl 424.4 NATIONAL TRAFFIC BALANCE Minutes (millions) 1999 2000 2001 Incoming 452.2 n.a. n.a. Outgoing 364.0 359.9 424.4 Surplus (Deficit) 88.2 n.a. n.a. Total Volume 816.2 n.a. n.a. Note: Data are in mill ions of minutes of outgoing public switched telecommunications traffic. © TELEGEOGRAPHY, INC 2002 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2003 145 COUNTRY TRAFFIC STATISTICS Denmark LARGEST TELECOMMUNICATIONS ROUTES 2001 Destination Minutes (millions) Percent of Outgoing Traffic 1. Sweden ........ ..... 170.0 17.1% 2. Germany ... ................ 130.0 13.1% 3. Norway .. .. .... .. .... .. .... 100.0 10.1 % 4. United Kingdom ..... ...... 95.0 9.5% 5. United States ..... ... .. .. .. 51.0 5. 1% 6. France .............. ..... ... .. 39.0 3.9% 7. Netherlands ......... ........ 33.0 3.3% 8. Spain .......................... 21 .0 2.1% 9. Italy .. .. .. .. ...... .. 20.0 • 2.0% 10. Belg ium ..... ....... .......... 17.0 • 1.1% 11. Finland ... ......... .. ... ... 16.0 • 1.6% 12. Switzerland ....... ..... .... .... 15.0 • 1.5% 13. Turkey ... ....... .. ..... 14.0 • 1.4% 14. Canada .. .. .... ...... .. ... 8.0 I 0.8% 15. Iceland ......... .... .. ..... .... 8.0 I 0.8% 16. Greece ..... .. .... .. ... .. 6.0 I 0.6% 17. Ireland ....... .. .... .. ... .. 6.0 I 0.6% 18. Australia ........... .. .. .. .. 5.0 I 0.5% 19. Latvia .. .. .. .. ................. .4.0 I 0.4% Others ............... .. .. ... 223.0 •••••••••••••••• 22.4% TOTAL 995.0 NATIONAL TRAFFIC BALANCE Minutes (millions) 1999 2000 2001 Incoming n.a. n.a. n.a. Outgoing 800.0 905.0 995.0 Surplus (Deficit) n.a. n.a n.a. Total Volume n.a. n.a. n.a. Note: Data are in millions of minutes of outgoing public switched telecommunications traffic 146 TE LEGEOGRAPH Y 2003 © TELEGEOGRAPHY INC 200 2 COUNTRY TRAFFIC STATISTICS Dominican Republic · LARGEST TELECOMMUNICATIONS ROUTES, 2001 --------------------------------~------~ Destination Minutes (millions) Percent of Outgoing Traffic 2. Spain ........................... 10.0 • 4.4% 3. Italy ..................... ..... ... 5.2 I 2.3% 4. Canada ..... ............... ... 3.8 I 1.7% 5. Germany ......................... 3.2 I 1.4% 6. Mexico ..... ......... ... ... ... 2.6 I 1.1% 7. Venezuela .......... .. ..... ... 2.6 I 1.1% 8. Cuba ............. .. ... .... 2.1 I 0.9% 9. Switzerland ..... .. ... ... ... 2.0 I 0.9% 10. Argentina .. ........... ... ... 1.9 I 0.8% 11 Colombia ......................... 1.9 I 0.8% 12. France ................ .... ... 1.9 I 0.8% 13. Haiti ............ ... ..... ..... 1.1 I 0.7% 14. Netherlands Antilles ...... ... .... 1.7 I 0.7% 15. United Kingdom ... ........ ...... 1.5 I 0.7% 16. Panama ..... ....... ..... .. 1.4 I 0.6% 17. Chile ....... ... ......... ... 1.2 I 0.5% 18. Netherlands ...................... 1.1 I 0.5% 19. Costa Rica ...... ........ .. ... 0.8 I 0.4% 20. Guatemala ............... .. .. ... .. 0.5 I 0.2% Others ...... .. .. .. ........... .. 10.3 • 4.5% TOTAL 227.4 NATIONAL TRAFFIC BALANCE Minutes (millions) 1999 2000 2001 Incoming 920.0 1,340.0 1,714.6 Outgoing 185.7 211.7 227.4 Surplus (Deficit) 734.3 1,128.3 1,487.2 Total Volume 1,105.7 1,551.7 1,942.0 Note: Data are in millions of minutes of outgoing public switched telecommunications traffic. © TELEGEOGRAPHY, INC 2002 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2003 14 7 COUNTRY TRAFFIC STATISTICS Ecuador LARGEST TELECOMMUNICATIONS ROUTES 2001 Destination Minutes (millions) Percent of Outgoing Traffic 1. United States ... ... ...... ...... 17.0 2. Colombia .............. ......... 16.0 ------------ 27.8% ••••••••••••••• 26.2% 3. United Kingdom .. .. .. .. ...... .4.0 4. Peru .. ... ..... ... .. .... 3.3 ••• 6.5% ••• 5.4% 5. Spain .. ... .... .... ..... .. .. 3.3 5.4% 6. Chile ........... .. ... ........... 2.0 3.3% 7. Venezuela ... ... ...... ... ........ 2.0 3.3% 8. Brazi l ........................... 1.9 3.1% 9. Argentina .. ...... .. .... .. ........ 1.8 2.9% 10. Mexico .......................... 1.6 2.6% Others ... .... .. .. ..... ... .... 8.2 13.4% TOTAL 61.1 NATIONAL TRAFFIC BALANCE Minutes (millions) 1999 2000 Incoming n.a. n.a. Outgoing 57.4 55.5 Surplus (Deficit) n.a. n.a. Total Volume n.a. n.a. 2001 n.a. 61.1 n.a. n.a. Note: Data are in millions of minutes of outgoing public switched telecommunications traffic. 148 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2003 © TELEGEOGRAPHY, INC 200 2 COUNTRY TRAFFIC STATISTICS Egypt LARGEST J.ELECOMMUNI~ATIONS ROUTES, 2000 IW "%%W ~-1\M.?>~M.l! Th Destination Minutes (millions) Percent of Outgoing Traffic 1. Saudi Arabia .................... .40.2 22.0% 2. United States .. ... ..... ... .... 14.1 3J 7.7% 3. United Arab Emirates ....... ...... 13.9 7.6% 4. Italy ............................ 11.3 6.2% 5. United Kingdom .................. 11.1 6.0% 6. Kuwait .......................... 10.3 5.6% 7. Germany ........ ................ 9.8 5.4% 8. France ....... .... ..... .... ... 7.3 4.0% 9. Yemen ......... ...... .... 6.8 3.7% 10. Lebanon ......................... 5.5 3.0% 11 Jordan .......................... .4.2 2.3% 12. Syria ............................ 3.2 • 1.7% 13. Switzerland .... ............ ....... 3.1 • 1.7% 14. Netherlands ... ............... .. 2.6 • 1.4% 15. Spain ........... ....... .......... 2.5 • 1.4% 16. Qatar .............. ........ .. .. .. 2.4 • 1.3% 17. Libya ................ .......... .. 2.3 • 1.2% 18. Morocco ......................... 2.1 • 1.1% 19. Greece ........ ................ ... 2.0 B 1.1% 20. Canada ...................... .. .. 1.9 B 1.1% Others ........... ...... .. .... 26.9 ••••••••••• 14.7% TOTAL 183.1 NATIONAL TRAFFIC BALANCE Minutes (millions) 1999 2000 2001 Incoming 554.6 620.6 n.a. Outgoing 171.0 183.1 n.a. Surplus (Deficit) 383.6 437.5 n.a. Total Volume 725.6 803.7 n.a. Note: Data are in millions of minutes of outgoing public switched telecommunications traffic. 2001 traffic data are not available. © TELEGEOGRAPHY. INC 2002 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2003 149 COUNTRY TRAFFIC STATISTICS Eritrea LARGEST TELECOMMUNICATIONS ROUTES, 2001 Destination Minutes (thousands) Percent of Outgoing Traffic 1. Italy ... ... ..... ... ... ..... 541 .4 •••••••••••• 15.2% 2. United States ......... ......... 436.9 3. Saudi Arabia .. ....... ... ... .. 399.7 4. United Kingdom ... ... ....... 199.5 5. Sudan ......................... 187.8 6. Germany ....... ...... .......... 169.6 7. Kenya ..... ... .. .. ... .... .. 146.5 8. Netherlands .................... 106.7 9. Egypt .. .... ... ... ... ... ... 84.6 ••••••••• 12.2% ------ 11 .2% --· 5.6% ••• 5.3% ••• 4.8% ••• 4.1% 3.0% 2.4% 10. India .............. ...... ... ... .79.7 2.2% 11 Sweden ..... ... ........ ... .70.2 2.0% 12. Korea, Rep .. .. .... ... .. 67.4 • 1.9% 13. South Africa ............ ...... 59.1 • 1.7% 14. Canada .... ...... ... ... .... .48.1 • 1.3% 15. Denmark .... .. ... .. ......... .44.8 • 1.3% 16. Switzerland .. .. .................. 43.4 • 1.2% 17. France ... ... .. .......... ... 35.3 • 1.0% 18. Norway ........ ... ...... ....... 31.2 • 0.9% 19. Uganda .............. .......... 20.1 I 0.6% 20. Nigeria ... ..... ... .. .. 19.8 I 0.6% Others ............ ....... .... .770.0 ••••••••••••••••• 21 .6% TOTAL 3,568.8 NATIONAL TRAFFIC BALANCE Minutes (millions) 1999 2000 2001 Incoming 13.8 17.9 22.7 Outgoing 2.5 2.9 3.6 Surplus (Deficit) 11.3 15.0 19.1 Total Volume 16.3 20.8 26.2 Note: National traffic data are in millions of minutes of outgoing public switched telecommunications traffic ; route data are in thousands of minutes of outgoing public switched telecommunications traffic 150 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2003 © TELEGEOGRAPHY INC 2002 COUNTRY TRAFFIC STATISTICS Estonia LARGEST "J:ELECOMMUNICATIONS ROUTES, 2001 Destination Minutes (millions) Percent of Outgoing Traffic 1. Finland .. ........... .. ..... .. .. 21 .9 2. Russia ... .... .. ... ...... .. 14.0 3. Sweden .......................... 7.3 9.7% 4. Latvia ....... ........... .. ... 4.6 6.2% 5. Germany ..... ..... ......... .. 4.5 • :tmmkitl¥ 1 j 6.0% 6. Lithuania ......................... 3.1 4.1% 7. United Kingdom .................. 2.3 3.1% 8. Norway ......................... 2.2 Ill 2.9% 9. Ukraine .......................... 2.1 2.8% 10. Denmark ...................... ... 1.8 • 2.5% 11. United States ............ ......... 1.8 • 2.5% 12. France ........................... 1.2 • 1.6% 13. Italy ................ ........ .... 1.0 • 1.3% 14. Netherlands ...................... 0.9 • 1.2% 15. Belarus .......................... 0.9 • 1.2% 16. Belgium ........... ......... .... .. 0.8 I 1.1% 17. Poland ........................... 0.8 I 1.1% 18. Spain ............................ 0.5 I 0.7% 19. Austria .... ....................... 0.5 I 0.7% 20. Canada .......................... 0.3 I 0.4% Others ....... .... ...... ... ..... 2.1 2.8% TOTAL 74.6 NATIONAL TRAFFIC BALANCE Minutes (millions) 1999 2000 2001 Incoming 84.8 n.a. 91.9 Outgoing 74.6 75.5 74.6 Surplus (Deficit) 10.2 n.a. 17.3 Total Volume 159.4 n.a. 166.5 Note: Data are in millions of minutes of outgoing public switched telecommunications traffic. © TELEGEOGRAPHY, INC. 2002 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2003 151 COUNTRY TRAFFIC STATISTICS Ethiopia LARGEST TELECOMMUNICATIONS ROUTES, 2001 Destination Minutes (thousands) 1. United States .. ... 1,529.6 2. Kenya ........ ........ ........ 959.4 3. Un ited Kingdom .... .......... 916.2 4. Italy .. .. ......... .. .. .. 802.5 5. Saudi Arabia ....... .... .. .... 799.6 6. United Arab Emirates .. ...... 566.0 7. Djibouti ... ............ .. ... 539.9 8. Germany ....................... 507.7 9. France .. ... .... .. .. 409.7 10. South Africa ...... ........... 391 .1 11 Switzerland .. .................. 341 .9 Percent of Outgoing Traffic •••••• 1 11.4% ••• 7.2% ••• 6.8% -- 6.0% -- 6.0% 4.2% 4.0% 3.8% 3.1% 2.9% • 2.5% 12. India .. .. .. ... ...... 318.3 • 2.4% 13. Netherlands .................... 285.3 • 2.1% 14. Sweden ... ...... .............. 204.1 • 1.5% 15. Yemen .... .. .. .... .... .. .. .. 197.6 • 1.5% 16. Egypt .. ... .. ... ... .... 178.4 • 1.3% 17. Canada ... .. .. ... ...... 171 .2 • 1.3% 18. Sudan ... ..... .... ... .. ...... 171 .2 • 1.3% 19. Belg ium ....................... 127.1 I 0.9% 20. Greece .. ..... 119.2 I 0.9% Others .. .. .. .. .. .. 3,870.0 ··············- 28.8% TOTAL 13,415.0 NATIONAL TRAFFIC BALANCE Minutes (millions) 1999 2000 2001 Incoming 46.5 51.2 43.3 Outgoing 12.5 13.4 13.4 Surplus (Deficit) 34.0 37.7 29.8 Total Volume 59.0 64.6 56.7 Note: National traffic data are.in millions of minutes of outgoing public switched telecommunications traffic; route data are in thousands of minutes of outgoing public switched telecommunications traffic 152 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2003 © TELEGEOGRAPHY, INC 2002 COUNTRY TRAFFIC STATISTICS Finland LARGEST TELECOMMUNICATIONS ROUTES, 2001 ------~~~----------~----~----~ Destination Minutes (millions) Percent of Outgoing Traffic 1. Sweden ........................ 155.0 kililtttMI1t&@ · ::H•JW v: r~M 32.0% 2. Germany .... ...... ... ........... 44.0 lll*ll>i····lllilm~ 9.1% 3. United Kingdom .. .............. .41 .0 8.5% 4. Estonia ..... .. ........ .... ... 32.0 6.6% 5. Russia .. .................... .. 29.0 1\\IY 1M 6.0% 6. Norway ....... .... .. ... 21.0 4.3% 7. United States ............ ... 20.0 4.1% Others ......................... 143.0 lt"lww;IPir •• ili~&si&~l!li•l•l1i"·FI .•••. ~~ti>iicf;i}til1l:illliW}iw··i·"lnlbli 29.5% TOTAL 485.0 NATIONAL TRAFFIC BALANCE Minutes (millions) 1999 2000 2001 Incoming n.a. n.a. n.a. Outgoing 423.9 468.0 485.0 Surplus (Deficit) n.a. n.a. n.a. Total Volume n.a. n.a. n.a. Note: Data are in millions of minutes of outgoing public switched telecommunications traffic. © TELEGEOGRAPHY, INC. 2002 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2003 153 COUNTRY TRAFFIC STATISTICS France LARGEST TELECOMMUNICATIONS ROUTES, 2001 Destination Minutes (millions) Percent of Outgoing Traffic 1. United Kingdom .. .. .... 680.0 2. Germany ...... ...... ..... 650.0 3. Belgium .. .. .. .. ...... .. ... ... 550.0 4. Italy .. .. .... ... ... ... .. 545.0 5. Morocco .. .. .... .. .. 520.0 6. United States ........ ... ... .. 460.0 7. Switzerland .. .. .. .... .450.0 8. Spain ....... .................. 425.0 9. Algeria .. ... .... .. ... ..... 350.0 10. Portugal ..... .. ....... ....... 300.0 11 Tun isia .. ... .. ........ ....... 300.0 ----- 8.9% ••••••• 8.5% ---- 7.2% ••••• 7.2% •••••• 6.8% • •••• 6.0% •••• 5.9% ::::~ 5.6% 4.6% ••• 3.9% ••• 3.9% 12. Netherlands ..... .. .. .. 210.0 2.8% 13. Canada .. .................. 170.0 2.2% 14. Turkey ......................... 120.0 1.6% 15. Monaco ..... ... .... .. .. 105.0 • 1.4% 16. Poland ... .. ... .. ........ 100.0 • 1.3% 17. Luxembourg ...... .. ... .... 80.0 • 1.1% 18. Senegal ........... ... .. .74.0 • 1.0% 19. Sweden ...................... .. 55.0 I 0.7% 20. Serbia & Montenegro ... .. .. .... .45.0 I 0.6% Others ... ... .. .. ... ... .. 1,416.0 ••••••••••••••• • 18.6% TOTAL 7,605.0 NATIONAL TRAFFIC BALANCE Minutes (millions) 1999 2000 2001 Incoming n.a. n.a. n.a. Outgoing 5,165.0 6,500.0 7,605.0 Surplus (Deficit) n.a. n.a. n.a. Total Volume n.a n.a. n.a. Note: Data are in mill ions of m.lnutes of outgoing public switched telecommunications traffic 154 TELEGEOGRAPHY 200 3 © TELEGEOGRAPHY, INC 200 2 COUNTRY TRAFFIC STATISTICS Gabon LARGEST FELECOMMUNICATIONS ROUTES, 2001 Destination Minutes (millions) Percent of Outgoing Traffic 1. France .. ... ... ... ... ... .... 7.9 31.7% 2. Senegal ...... .. ...... ... 2.2 8.9% 3. Cameroon ... .. ... ...... .. ... 1.8 7.3% 4. Mali .... ... ..... ......... 1.8 7.1% 5. Benin .. .... .. .. .. .... .. 1.6 6.3% 6. Cote dlvoire ............ ....... 1.2 5.0% 7. Togo .. ... .. .. .... .. 1.0 4.0% 8. Lebanon .. .... ..... ... .. .. 0.6 • 2.4% 9. United States ..... ... .... ...... 0.6 • 2.2% 10. Morocco ..... .. ... 0.5 • 2.0% 11 Congo, Rep ........................ 0.5 • 1.9% 12. United Kingdom ... ... .. 0.4 • 1.5% 13. Mauritania .. .. ... .. ...... .. 0.3 I 1.2% 14. Burkina Faso ... ..... .... 0.3 I 1.2% 15. Belgium .. .. ....... .... .... 0.3 I 1.2% 16. Equatorial Gu inea ............. .... 0.3 1 1.1% 17. Italy ...... .. .... .. ...... .. 0.3 I 1.0% 18. South Africa .. .. .. .. 0.2 I 1.0% 19. Germany .................. ...... 0.2 I 1.0% 20. Canada ... ..... ..... .. .. 0.2 I 0.9% Others ... .. ........... .... 2.8 11 .0% TOTAL 25.0 NATIONAL TRAFFIC BALANCE Minutes (millions) 1999 2000 2001 Incoming n.a. n.a. n.a. Outgoing 18.6 22.0 25.0 Surplus (Deficit) n.a. n.a. n.a. Total Volume n.a. n.a n.a. Note: Data are in millions of minutes of outgoing public switched telecommunications traffic. © TE LEGEOGRAPHY, INC 2002 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2003 155 COUNTRY TRAFFIC STATISTICS Gambia LARGEST TELECOMMUNICATIONS ROUTES, 2001 Destination Minutes (thousands) Percent of Outgoing Traffic 1. United Kingdom ........ ..... ... 2,174.0 ••••••••••••••••• 30.6% 2. Canada ....................... 1,406.2 •••••••• 19.8% 3. United States ................... 908.6 ••••• 12.8% 4. France ......................... 575.5 •••• 8.1% 5. Germany 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 .291.9 4.1% 6. Sierra Leone .................... 231.3 7. Mauritania ......... ............ 209.9 8. Nigeria 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 .. 00 00 00 154.4 9. Spain .......................... 129.1 10. Senegal ......... .... ............ 81.7 11. Guinea 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 51 .8 12. Netherlands .. ............ ... .44.2 3.3% .. 3.0% • 2.2% • 1.8% 1 1.2% I o.1% I o.6% 13. Sweden 00 00 00 00 .. 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 .41.8 I 0.6% 14. Morocco .. ..... ............... 38.2 I 0.5% 15. Saudi Arabia 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 .37.5 I 0.5% 16. Denmark ........................ 29.5 I 0.4% 17. Norway ......................... 27.9 I 0.4% 18. South Africa ........ ... .... ..... 27.4 I 0.4% 19. Belgium .......... .............. 26.0 I 0.4% 20. Hong Kong 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 0026.0 I 0.4% Others ......................... 580.0 .... 8.2% TOTAL 7,100.0 NATIONAL TRAFFIC BALANCE Minutes (millions) 1999 Incoming n.a. Outgoing 6.4 Surplus (Deficit) n.a. Total Volume n.a. 2000 n.a. 6.7 n.a. n.a. 2001 n.a. 7.1 n.a. n.a. Note: National traffic data are .ln millions of minutes of outgoing public switched telecommunications traffic; route data are in thousands of minutes of outgoing public switched telecommunications traffic. 156 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2003 © TELEGEOGRAPHY, INC 2002 COUNTRY TRAFFIC STATISTICS Georgia LARGEST TELECOMMUNICATIONS ROUTES, 2001 ------~--------------------~--~--~ Destination Minutes (thousands) Percent of Outgoing Traffic 1. Russia .... .................. 18,096.4 ·····- 28.2% 2. Azerbaijan .. .... ... .... .... 3,315.2 5.2% 3. Ukraine ...... ............... 2,893.3 • 4.5% 4. Armenia .......... .... ........ 2,355.8 • 3.7% 5. Kazakhstan ............... ...... 452.9 I 0.7% 6. Belarus .......... .... ....... 367.4 I 0.6% 7. Uzbekistan ...................... 181.4 I 0.3% 8. Turkmenistan ................... 131.4 I 0.2% 9. Moldova ........................ 99.2 I 0.2% 10. Kyrgyzstan ....................... 39.6 I 0.1% Others ....................... 36,260.0 ••••••••••••••••• 56.5% TOTAL 64,200.0 NATIONAL TRAFFIC BALANCE Minutes (millions) 1999 2000 2001 Incoming 65.7 37.6 n.a. Outgoing 46.7 45.6 64.2 Surplus (Deficit) 19.0 (8.0) n.a. Total Volume 112.4 83.2 n.a. Note: National traffic data are in millions of minutes of outgoing public switched telecommunications traffic; route data are in thousands of minutes of outgoing public switched telecommunications traffic. The "Others" category may include routes to non-members of the Commonwealth of Independent States that rank among the top destinations for outgoing traffic © TELEGEOGRAPHY, INC 2002 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2003 157 COUNTRY TRAFFIC STATISTICS Germany LARGEST TELECOMMUNICATIONS ROUTES. 2001 Destination Minutes (millions) Percent of Outgoing Traffic 1. United Kingdom ... ... .. .... 750.0 2. France ....................... 720.0 3. Austria ......................... 675.0 4. United States .. ..... .. ..... .... 675.0 5. Italy 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00660.0 6. Poland .... ..................... 650.0 7. Switzerland .. ................. 630.0 8. Turkey ....... .... ........... 580.0 •••• 7.3% ••••• 7.0% --- 6.5% --- 6.5% •••• 6.4% • • • • 6.3% --· 6.1% : ::::- 5.6% 9. Netherlands .................... 540.0 5.2% 10. Spain 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 .380.0 3.7% 11. Belgium 00 00 00 .. 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00245.0 2.4% 12. Greece 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 .190.0 • 1.8% 13. Denmark 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 .180.0 • 1.7% 14. Croatia 00 00 00 00 00 .. 00 00 00 00 ..... 160.0 • 1.6% 15. Czech Republic .................. 160.0 • 1.6% 16. Hungary ..... ..... .......... 145.0 • 1.4% 17. Serbia & Montenegro ......... ... 145.0 • 1.4% 18. Canada .. 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00.00 00.125.0 • 1.2% 19. Sweden 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00125.0 • 1.2% 20. Portugal 00 00 00 .. 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 ... 95.0 I 0.9% Others ........................ 2,490.0 ••••••••••••• 24.1% TOTAL 10,320.0 NATIONAL TRAFFIC BALANCE Minutes (millions) 1999 2000 2001 Incoming n.a. n.a. n.a. Outgoing 7,565.0 9,570.0 10,320.0 Surplus (Deficit) n.a. n.a. n.a. Total Volume n.a. n.a. 11.8. Note: Data are in millions of minutes of outgoing public switched telecommunications traffic. 158 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2003 © TELEGEOGRAPHY, INC 2002 COUNTRY TRAFFIC STATISTICS Ghana LARGEST TELECOMMUNICATIONS ROUTES, 2001 ------~-·---~--------------··~--~ Destination Minutes (thousands) Percent of Outgoing Traffic 1. United States ... .. .. .......... 19,150.7 c:=-•········· 41 .0% 2. United Kingdom ... .... .. .. 6,786.2 •••••• 14.5% 3. Germany .................. .. 3,886.3 8.3% 4. France ........................ 2,800.4 6.0% 5. Canada .. .. .... ... ... .... 2,587.3 5.5% 6. Italy .......................... 1,527.5 • 3.3% 7. Nigeria ..... ... .. ..... .. 1,385.2 • 3.0% 8. Netherlands ..... .... .... ... 1,044.0 • 2.2% 9. Togo ......................... 754.6 I 1.6% 10. South Africa ... .... .. .. .... ... .. 600.8 I 1.3% 11. Burkina Faso .................... 402.3 I 0.9% 12. Belgium ........ ..... ... 281.7 I 0.6% 13. Korea, Rep .... ... ....... 276.1 I 0.6% 14. Senegal .... ... 121.3 I 0.3% 15. Cameroon ....................... 87.8 I 0.2% 16. Guinea ... ....... ... ............. 85.5 I 0.2% 17. Malaysia .................. .. .... 79.9 I 0.2% 18. Japan ... ... .... .. 72.3 I 0.2% 19. Denmark .. ......... ........... 55.1 I 0.1% Others ....................... .4,760.0 •••• 10.2% TOTAL 46.747.0 NATIONAL TRAFFIC BALANCE Minutes (millions) 1999 2000 2001 Incoming 118.4 166.4 139.3 Outgoing 30.1 42.1 46.7 Surplus (Deficit) 88.2 124.3 92.5 Total Volume 148.5 208.4 186.0 Note: National traffic data are in millions of minutes of outgoing public switched telecommunications traffic; route data are in thousands of minutes of outgoing public switched telecommunications traffic © TELEGEOGRAPHY, INC 2002 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2003 159 COUNTRY TRAFFIC STATISTICS Greece LARGEST TELECOMMUNICATIONS ROUTES, 2001 Destination Minutes (millions) Percent of Outgoing Traffic 1. United Kingdom ..... .. ... 160.0 •••••••••••••••• 15.7% 2. Germany .................... .. 130.0 3. Albania ..... ... .. ........ 80.0 4. Italy ... ... ... .. ..... ..... .75.0 5. United States ..... ... .......... 55.0 6. Cyprus ......................... .40.0 7. Bulga ria ... .. ... ... .. 37.0 8. France ................ ........ 36.0 9. Romania ... ... .. .. 30.0 ••••••••••••• 12.7% •••••• 7.8% ----- 7.4% ---· 5.4% ••• 3.9% ••• 3.6% :==~ 3.5% 2.9% 10. Netherlands .... .. .... .......... 21 .0 2.1% 11 Belg ium .. .. .............. .. .. .. 19.0 1.9% 12. Switzerland .. ... .. ... 17.0 1.7% 13. Russia .......................... 16.0 1.6% 14. Ukraine ... ... ...... ... ........ 16.0 1.6% 15. Turkey ......... .. ............... 14.5 • 1.4% 16. Australia .. .. ... .. .... ..... .... 14.0 • 1.4% 17. Sweden .... ... .. 13.0 • 1.3% 18. Poland ......................... 12.5 • 1.2% 19. Canada .. ................. ..... 11 .5 • 1.1% 20. Serbia & Montenegro ... ... ... .. .. 11 .5 • 1.1% Others ......................... 164.0 16.1% TOTAL 1,020.0 NATIONAL TRAFFIC BALANCE Minutes (millions) 1999 2000 2001 Incoming 794.2 889.8 891 .0 Outgoing 725.7 793.2 1,020.0 Surplus (Deficit) 68.5 96.6 (129.0) Total Volume 1,519.9 1,683.0 1,9.11.0 Note: Data are in millions of minutes of outgoing public switched telecommunications traffic 160 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2003 © TELEGEOGRAPHY INC 200 2 COUNTRY TRAFFIC STATISTICS Guatemala LARGEsT T>E L E c 0 M M u N I c A Tl 0 N s R 0 u T E s I 2 0 01 --------------------------~ Destination Minutes (millions) Percent of Outgoing Traffic 1. United States .................... 79.7 51.0% 2. El Salvador ...................... 17.6 11.2% 3. Mexico .............. ........... 12.5 8.0% 4. Honduras .... ... ........... .... 8.7 5.5% 5. Costa Rica ........ ........ ... ... 5.7 • 3.7% 6. Nicaragua ... ... .. ....... .... ... 4.1 • 2.6% 7. Colombia ............ .... ...... .. 2.9 I 1.9% 8. Spain .............. ........ .... 2.9 I 1.8% 9. France ................ .......... 2.5 I 1.6% 10. Panama .......................... 2.1 I 1.3% 11. Korea, Rep ......... ............... 1.9 I 1.2% 12. Italy .............. ............... 1.7 I 1.1% 13. Canada .. .. .............. ........ 1.5 I 0.9% 14. Germany ......................... 1.0 I 0.7% 15. Peru ......... .... .......... .. 1.0 I 0.6% 16. United Kingdom .. .............. ... 0.7 I 0.5% 17. Chile .. .. .... ....... .... ....... 0.6 I 0.4% 18. Venezuela .... ...... ........... 0.6 I 0.4% 19. Argentina ................... .... 0.6 I 0.4% 20. Cuba ............................ 0.5 I 0.4% Others .. ...... ..... ......... .7.5 4.8% TOTAL 156.2 NATIONAL TRAFFIC BALANCE Minutes (millions) 1999 2000 2001 Incoming 208.6 295.9 536.8 Outgoing 83.3 125.9 156.2 Surplus (Deficit) 125.3 170.0 380.6 Total Volume 291.9 421.8 693.1 Note: Data are in millions of minutes of outgoing public switched telecommunications traffic. © TELEGEOGRAPHY, INC 2002 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2003 161 COUNTRY TRAFFIC STATISTICS Guyana L!- ARGEST TELECOMMUNICATIONS ROUTES, 2001 Destination Minutes (thousands) Percent of Outgoing Traffic 1. United States ..... ............ 1 0,256.0 52.9% 2. Canada ....................... 2.702.0 13.9% 3. Trinidad & Tobago ............. 1,688.0 8.7% 4. Barbados ..................... 1,288.0 6.6% 5. United Kingdom ......... ....... 817.0 • 4.2% 6. Antigua & Barbuda ............ .455.0 I 2.3% 7. Suriname ............... ....... 407.0 I 2.1% 8. Jamaica ....................... 272.0 1.4% 9. Germany ... ............ .... .... 150.0 0.8% 10. Brazil .......................... 149.0 0.8% 11. Saint Kitts & Nevis .............. 139.0 0.7% 12. Saint Lucia ..................... 131 .0 0.7% 13. Netherlands .... ... ........... 113.0 0.6% 14. Netherlands Antilles ............. 113.0 0.6% 15. Grenada ......................... 99.0 0.5% 16. China ................... .. .. .... 94.0 0.5% 17. Venezuela ..................... 89.0 0.5% 18. Bahamas ........................ 68.0 0.4% 19. Anguilla ... .. ..... .. ..... .42.0 0.2% Others .................... ..... 240.0 1.2% TOTAL 19,400.0 NATIONAL TRAFFIC BALANCE Minutes (millions) 1999 2000 2001 Incoming 101.0 52.3 69.6 Outgoing 16.1 15.0 19.4 Surplus (Deficit) 84.9 37.2 50.2 Total Volume 117.1 67.3 89.0 Note: National traffic data are in millions of minutes of outgoing public switched telecommunications traffic; route data are in thousands of minutes of outgoing public switched telecommunications traffic. 162 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2003 © TELEGEOGRAPHY, INC 2002 COUNTRY TRAFFIC STATISTICS Hong Kong · LARGEST T-ELECOMMUNICATIONS ROUTES, FY 2001/02 Destination Minutes (millions) Percent of Outgoing Traffic 1. China .. .. .. .. .. ............. .. 1,668.2 2. United States ................... 308.0 •• 8.8% 3. Philippines .. .... ........ .. .. 307.3 8.8% 4. Canada ............... .... .... 204.3 5.9% 5. United Kingdom ............. .. 158.8 4.6% 6. Australia ... ..... ...... ..... 142.8 4.1% 7. Taiwan .... .... .... ............. 131 .0 • 3.8% 8. Singapore .................. .... 86.9 • 2.5% 9. Japan .. .. .... .... ...... .. .... 85.6 • 2.5% 10. Macau .......... .... ... ..... 47.0 I 1.3% Others ......................... 347.4 10.0% TOTAL 3,487.3 NATIONAL TRAFFIC BALANCE Minutes (millions) FY 1999/00 FY 2000/01 FY 2001/02 Incoming 1,747.2 1,858.0 1,942.3 Outgoing 2,720.3 3,074.9 3,487.3 Surplus (Deficit) (973.1) (1,216.8) (1,545.0) Total Volume 4,467.5 4,932.9 5,429.6 Note: Data are in millions of minutes of outgoing public switched telecommunications traffic. Fiscal year ends 31 March. © TELEGEOGRAPHY, INC 2002 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2003 163 COUNTRY TRAFFIC STATISTICS Hungary LARGEST TELECOMMUN I CATIONS ROUTES, 2001 Destination Minutes (millions) Percent of Outgoing Traffic 1. Germany ..................... .. .74.6 22.8% 2. Romania ...................... 53.9 16.5% 3. Austria .. .. .................... 28.3 8.6% 4. Ita ly ....... .. .. .. ......... 16.7 5.1% 5. United Kingdom .. ... ....... 15.6 4.8% 6. Serbia & Montenegro .. .. .. ...... 14.6 4.5% 7. United States .................... 14.6 4.5% 8. France .. ... .. .. ...... ...... 10.4 3.2% 9. Slovak Republ ic ... .. ... .. .. 9.2 2.8% 10. Switzerland ......... ............ 6.6 2.0% 11. Netherlands .. .... .. ............ 6.3 1.9% 12. Croatia .......... .. .. ... .. 6.1 1.9% 13. Poland .. .... ... ..... ... 6.1 • 1.9% 14. Ukraine .... ....... .. 5.8 B 1.8% 15. Czech Republic .. ... ... ... .. 5.1 B 1.6% 16. Belg ium .................... 4.3 • 1.3% 17. Spain .......................... 3.9 • 1.2% 18. Israel .... .. ....... ..... ... 3.4 • 1.0% 19. Russia ... .... ..... .... 3.3 • 1.0% 20. Sweden ........... ... .. .. .. 3.2 • 1.0% Others ... .. .... .. .. .. 34.9 -----· 10.7% TOTAL 326.8 NATIONAL TRAFFIC BALANCE Minutes (millions) 1999 2000 2001 Incoming n.a. n.a. n.a. Outgoing 343.9 349.2 326.8 Surplus (Deficit) n.a. n.a. n.a. Total Volume n.a. n.a. r:l.a. Note: Data are in mill ions of minutes of outgoing public switched telecommunications traffic. 164 TELEGEOGRAPH Y 2003 © TELEGEOGRAPHY INC 200 2 COUNTRY TRAFFIC STATISTICS India LARGEST FELECOMMUNICATIONS ROUTES, FY 2001/02 ----------------------------------------------~ Destination Minutes (millions) Percent of Outgoing Traffic 1. Saudi Arabia ............ .... ... 89.5 •••••••••••• 15.3% 2. United States .................... 89.0 3. United Arab Emirates ..... ........ 54.6 4. United Kingdom .. ... ........ 54.3 5. Singapore .. ... ... .......... 26.1 •••••••• 9.3% 1111111111111111- 9.3% •••• 4.4% 6. Kuwait .... ..... ...... ..... 20.9 3.6% 7. Oman ........................... 15.5 2.6% 8. Germany .... .... .. ...... 14.3 2.4% 9. Canada ......................... 11.3 1111 1.9% 10. Australia ........................ 11.0 1111 1.9% 11 Hong Kong ..... .. ... .. .. 10.6 1111 1.8% 12. Malaysia ..... ... .. .. ..... ..... 10.3 • 1.8% 13. Sri Lanka ... .... ............ .. 9.7 • 1.6% 14. France ...... ...... ... ....... 8.7 • 1.5% 15. Qatar .... ..... ... ..... .... 8.7 • 1.5% 16. Italy ... .. .... .. ... ... ....... 8.2 • 1.4% 17. Japan .... ...... ....... .... 7.8 • 1.3% 18. Pakistan ........................ .7.4 B 1.3% 19. Bangladesh .. ... ............ .... 6.4 • 1.1% 20. Bahrain .. .. .. ...... .... 6.2 • 1.1% 15.2% Others .. .... ...... ...... 115.9 ------------ 19.8% TOTAL 586.4 Minutes (millions) FY 1999/00 FY 2000/01 FY 2001/02 Incoming 1,772.5 2,161.4 2,533.6 Outgoing 473.3 527.1 586.4 Surplus (Deficit) 1,299.2 1,634.3 1,947.2 Total Volume 2,245.8 2,688.5 3,120.0 Note: Data are in millions of minutes of outgoing public switched telecommunications traffic. Fiscal year ends 31 March. Data exclude some cross-border traffic with Bangladesh, Nepal, and Pakistan. © TELEGEOGRAPHY, INC 2002 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2003 165 COUNTRY TRAFFIC STATISTICS Indonesia LARGEST TELECOMMUNICATIONS ROUTES, 2001 Destination Minutes (millions) Percent of Outgoing Traffic 1. Singapore .... .... .. ... ......... 71.8 •••••••••••••••• 22.7% 2. Malaysia .................... 49.4 ••••••••••• 15.6% 3. Australia ........... ....... 24.9 4. Japan ............. .... .......... 20.3 5. United States ...... ............. 18.0 •••••• 7.9% --- 6.4% --· 5.7% 6. Taiwan .......................... 13.2 4.2% 7. Hong Kong .................... 10.9 3.4% 8. Korea, Rep. .. ........ .. .... .. 9.0 2.9% 9. China ... ....................... 7.9 2.5% 10. United Kingdom ... .......... ... .7.8 2.5% 11 Thailand ... .. ....... ... .... 6.5 2.1% 12. Philippines ......... .. ........... 6.0 1.9% 13. Germany ......................... 5.1 • 1.6% 14. Netherlands ... .................. 5.1 • 1.6% 15. India ... .......... .. ............. .4.9 • 1.6% 16. Brunei ........... ....... .. .... 3.4 • 1.1% 17. France ....... ... ....... ....... 3.3 • 1.0% 18. Italy ........ .................... 2.3 I 0.7% 19. Canada .... ... .... ...... ..... ... 1.9 I 0.6% 20. New Zealand .... .. ........... 1.3 I 0.4% Others ... .. .. .. .. ............ .43.3 13.7% TOTAL 316.2 NATIONAL TRAFFIC BALANCE Minutes (millions) 1999 2000 Incoming n.a. 345.8 Outgoing 269.6 315.5 Surplus (Deficit) n.a. 30.3 Total Volume n.a. 661.3 2001 365.9 316.2 49.6 682.1 Note: Data are in millions of m.inutes of outgoing public switched telecommunications traffic 166 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2003 © TELEGEOGRAPHY INC 2002 COUNTRY TRAFFIC STATISTICS Iran LARGEST TELECOMMUNICATIONS ROUTES, 2001 Destination Minutes (millions) Percent of Outgoing Traffic 1. United Arab Emirates ..... ...... .. 32.4 2. United States ............ .... ... 22.4 3. Pakistan ......... ....... ... .... 14.1 ••••••• 7.9% 4. United Kingdom .................. 13.6 · 7.6% 5. Germany ........................ 10.9 6.1% 6. Turkey ........................... 5.8 3.2% 7. Saudi Arabia .. .. .................. 5.0 2.8% 8. Azerbaijan .. ..... .............. 4.9 2.7% 9. Kuwait ..... .. ....... .... ...... 4.5 IIIII 2.5% 10. Italy ....... ............ ..... .... 4.5 2.5% 11. Sweden .......................... 3.6 2.0% 12. France ........................... 3.3 1.8% 13. India .... .......... ...... ....... 3.2 1.8% 14. Japan ....... .. .... .. ........ .... 3.0 • 1.7% 15. Switzerland ....................... 2.6 • 1.4% 16. Qatar ............................ 2.5 II 1.4% 17. Netherlands .......... .... ..... ... 2.5 II 1.4% 18. Canada .......................... 2.3 • 1.3% 19. Austria .. .. ... ... .... ..... 2.1 • 1.2% 20. Bahrain .. ... ....... ...... ... 2.0 • 1.1% TOTAL 179.1 I NATIONAL TRAFFIC BALANCE Minutes (millions) 1999 2000 2001 Incoming 191.5 216.8 173.1 Outgoing 156.1 176.8 179.1 Surplus (Deficit) 35.4 40.0 (6.0) Total Volume 347.6 393.6 352.2 Note: Data are in millions of minutes of outgoing public switched telecommunications traffic. © TELEGEOGRAPHY, INC. 2002 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2003 167 COUNTRY TRAFFIC STATISTICS Ireland LARGEST TELECOMMUNICATIONS ROUTES, FV 2001/02 Destination Minutes (millions) Percent of Outgoing Traffic 1. United Kingdom ................ 865.0 56.4% 2. United States 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00.165.0 10.7% 3. Germany 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 0047.0 • 3.1% 4. France .. .... .................... 45.0 • 2.9% 5. Spain 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 .31 .0 I 2.0% 6. Netherlands .... .. ..... ... .. 30.0 I 2.0% 7. Canada 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00.25.0 I 1.6% B. Australia ... ... ........ oo • • • • 21 .0 1 1.4% 9. Italy 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 ........ 21 .0 I 1.4% 10. Belgium ... .. .. .. 12.0 I 0.8% 11. Sweden 00 00 00 00 00 .. 00 00 00 00 00 00.10.0 I 0.7% 12. Denmark 00 00 .. 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 .6.0 I 0.4% 13. Finland 00 .. 00 00 00 00. 00 00 00 00 00 00 .6.0 I 0.4% 14. Romania ... ... .......... ... 6.0 I 0.4% 15. Switzerland 00 00 00 00 .. 00 00 00 00 00 00 .6.0 I 0.4% 16. Poland 00 00 .. 00 .... .. 00 00 00 00 00 00 .5.0 I 0.3% 17. Austria 00 ........ 00 .. 00 00 00 00 00 00 .4.0 I 0.3% 18. Portugal 00 00 ......... 00 00 00. 00. 00 .4.0 I 0.3% 19. South Africa .... 4.0 I 0.3% 20. Norway 00 00 00 00 00 00 .. 00 00 00 .. 00 003.0 I 0.2% Others ....... ... .. .. ... 219.0 •••• 14.3% TOTAL 1,535.0 NATIONAL TRAFFIC BALANCE Minutes (millions) FY 1999/00 FY 2000/01 FY 2001/02 Incoming n.a. n.a. n.a. Outgoing 1,015.0 1,250.0 1,535.0 Surplus (Deficit) n.a. n.a. n.a. Total Volume n.a. n.a. n.a. Note: Data are in millions of minutes of outgoing public switched telecommunications traffic Fiscal year ends 31 March. Data exclude at least 100 million minutes of cross-border traffic to Northern Ireland. 168 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2003 © TELEGEOGRAPHY, INC. 2002 COUNTRY TRAFFIC STATISTICS Israel LARGEsT T·E L E c 0 M M u N I cAT I 0 N s R 0 u T E s I 2 0 0 1 ----~~--~------~----~~~ Destination Minutes (millions) Percent of Outgoing Traffic 1. United States ..... ... .. ... .... 260.0 •••••••• 23.2% 2. United Kingdom ........... ....... 75.0 6.7% 3. Canada ......................... 64.0 5.7% 4. France ... ................... .... 53.0 4.7% 5. Germany .... .. ........... ..... 53.0 4.7% 6. Italy ............................ 37.0 • 3.3% 7. Russia .......................... 32.0 • 2.9% 8. Ukraine ......................... 27.0 • 2.4% 9. Netherlands ..................... 21 .0 • 1.9% Others ........................ .498.0 ------------ 44.5% TOTAL 1,120.0 NATIONAL TRAFFIC BALANCE Minutes (millions) 1999 2000 2001 Incoming 539.6 661.0 728.0 Outgoing 803.7 1,022.4 1,120.0 Surplus (Deficit) (264.1) (361.4) (392.0) Total Volume 1,343.3 1,683.4 1,848.0 Note: Data are in millions of minutes of outgoing public switched telecommunications traffic. © TELEGEOGRAPHY, INC 2002 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2003 169 COUNTRY TRAFFIC STATISTICS Italy LARGEST TELECOMMUNICATIONS ROUTES, 2001 Destination Minutes (millions) Percent of Outgoing Traffic 1. Germany ... .. .. ....... .... 580.0 2. France .. ... .. .......... .. 460.0 3. United Kingdom ... .. .... 380.0 4. United States .. ... ... ...... 325.0 5. Switzerland .. ... ...... .... .. 300.0 6. Roman ia ....................... 240.0 7. Spain .... ... ...... 195.0 •••••••• 12.1% ••••• 9.6% ••••• 7.9% --- 6.8% ••• 6.2% -- 5.0% ••• 4.1% 8. Mo rocco ....................... 180.0 3.7% 9. Albania .. ..... .. ....... 140.0 2.9% 10. Austria ... ... ... .. 115.0 2.4% 11 Belgium ... ... ........ .... .. ... 100.0 2.1 % 12. Poland .. .. .. ..... .......... 100.0 2.1% 13. Greece ... .. .. .. .. .... 90.0 1.9% 14. Netherlands ........... ..... 85.0 • 1.8% 15. Serbia & Montenegro .. ....... .78.0 • 1.6% 16. Croatia .... .. ... .. .. 75.0 • 1.6% 17. Tunisia ... ... ... ... ... ...... .. 75.0 • 1.6% 18. Ukraine ....................... .70.0 • 1.5% 19. Egypt ........................... 67.0 • 1.4% 20. Canada .. ...... ..... .... 55.0 • 1.1% Others ... .. ..... ........ 1,095.0 •••••••••••••••• 22.8% TOTAL 4,805.0 NATIONAL TRAFFIC BALANCE Minutes (millions) 1999 2000 2001 Incoming n.a. n.a. n.a. Outgoing 3,250.0 4,160.0 4,805.0 Surplus lOeficit) n.a. n.a. n.a. Total Volume n.a. n.a. n.a. Note: Data are in millions of minutes of outgoing public switched telecommunications traffic. 170 TEL EGEOGRAPHY 2003 © TELEGEOGRAPH Y, INC 200 2 COUNTRY TRAFFIC STATISTICS Jamaica LARGEST T·ELECOMMUNICATIONS ROUTES, 2001 Destination Minutes (millions) Percent of Outgoing Traffic 1. United States ... ........ ... .. .... 63.4 2. United Kingdom ...... ........ ... 13.6 ••• 14.2% 3. Cayman Islands ... .. ... ........ 3.1 • 3.3% 4. Canada .. ... .. ........ .... 2.4 I 2.5% 5. Bahamas ...... .................. 2.1 I 2.2% 6. Trinidad & Tobago ................. 1.8 1.9% 7. Barbados ... ....... ........... .. .. 1.2 1.3% B. Germany .. ................. 0.5 0.6% 9. Antigua & Barbuda ................ 0.5 0.5% 10. India ............................. 0.4 0.4% 11. Dominican Republic .. ...... .. .... 0.3 0.4% 12. Bermuda ........................ 0.3 0.3% 13. Guyana ... ... ....... ...... ..... 0.3 0.3% 14. Saint Lucia ...... ... ......... 0.3 0.3% 15. Colombia .. ... ... .. .. ........ 0.3 0.3% 16. Panama ....... ... ........ .. 0.2 0.2% 17. Mexico .. .... .... .... ... .... 0.2 0.2% 18. China .. .... ...... .. .. .... ... 0.2 0.2% Others .......................... .4.0 • 4.2% TOTAL 95.6 NATIONAL TRAFFIC BALANCE Minutes (millions) 1999 2000 2001 Incoming 347.4 328.5 413.8 Outgoing 64.4 73.9 95.6 Surplus !Deficit) 283.0 254.6 318.2 Total Volume 411.8 402.3 509.4 Note: Data are in millions of minutes of outgoing public switched telecommunications traffic. © TELEGEOGRAPHY, INC 2002 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2003 171 COUNTRY TRAFFIC STATISTICS Japan LARGEST TELECOMMUNICATIONS ROUTES, FY 2001/02 Destination Minutes (millions) Percent of Outgoing Traffic 1. United States ..... ... .. ...... 515.0 18.7% 2. China .......................... 385.0 14.0% 3. Philippines ... ................ 345.0 12.5% 4. Korea, Rep ...................... 210.0 7.6% 5. Brazil .......................... 190.0 6.9% 6. Taiwan ...... .............. 00 ... 135.0 4.9% 7. Thailand ........................ 100.0 3.6% 8. United Kingdom ..... 00 ••••••••••• 85.0 3.1% 9. Hong Kong ...................... 80.0 2.9% 10. Singapore .......... 00 00 ...... 00 .60.0 2.2% 11 Australia 00 00 .................... 58.0 2.1% 12. Indonesia ...... ......... .... ... 52.0 1.9% 13. Seychelles ... 00. 00 .. 00 00 00 00 00 00 .48.0 1.7% 14. Germany ........................ 42.0 • 1.5% 15. Malaysia ........................ 38.0 • 1.4% 16. Canada 00 ....................... 36.0 • 1.3% 17. France ....................... 00 .36.0 • 1.3% 18. Peru .................. .. 00 ...... 30.0 • 1.1% 19. Russia .......................... 21 .0 • 0.8% 20. Vietnam .................. .... .. 21 .0 • 0.8% Others .. ...... ..... ....... .. 263.0 9.6% TOTAL 2,750.0 NATIONAL TRAFFIC BALANCE Minutes (millions) FY 1999/00 FY 2000/01 FY 2001/02 Incoming 1,929.6 n.a. n.a. Outgoing 2,050.0 2,575.0 2,750.0 Surplus (Deficit) (120.4) n.a. n.a. Total Volume 3,979.6 n.a. n.a. Note: Data are in millions of minutes of outgoing public switched telecommunications traffic. Fiscal year ends 31 March. 172 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2003 © TELEGEOGRAPHY INC 2002 COUNTRY TRAFFIC STATISTICS Jordan LARGEST TELECOMMUNICATIONS ROUTES, 2001 --------------------------~--~ Destination Minutes (millions) Percent of Outgoing Traffic 1. Saudi Arabia .......... ..... 27.6 2. Egypt .. .... .... .... ............. 24.3 3. United Arab Emirates ......... .. ... 15.0 ii,"iiiiiti•iTI~~iiti1i~i1iiiiil\1&iNtilnil 8.1% 4. Palestinian Territory ...... ... .. 15.0 5. Syria .... .. .. .. .. 12.9 6. Iraq ..... .. .. ... .. ... 12.7 7. United States ... .. .. ... .. .. .... 10.6 8. Israel .. ..... ... ... ....... 8.7 9. Kuwait .. .. ........ ..... .. 7.1 10. Lebanon .... ....... .. ....... 6.0 •••••••• 8.1% ••••••• 7.0% ----- 6.9% •••••• 5.7% i:::~ 4.7% I 3.8% ••• 3.3% 11. United Kingdom ...... ...... .... ... 4.1 .. 2.2% 12. Qatar .. .... ... .............. .... 3.8 2.0% 13. Bahrain .............. ............ 3.3 1.8% 14. Germany .... .. ........ ...... .. ... 3.1 1.7% 15. Yemen .. ................ .. .... .. 1.8 II 0.9% 16. France .... .... .. .... .... .. .. .. ... 1.7 II 0.9% 17. Oman .. .. .. .... ...... .... .... .... 1.7 II 0.9% 18. Italy ... ............... .. ......... 1.7 II 0.9% 19. Canada .. ........ .. .. .. .. ........ 1.5 • 0.8% 20. Sudan .... .... ........ .. .... .. ... 1.3 I 0.7% Others ... ...... ........ 21.6 ••••••••••••• 11 .6% TOTAL 185.3 NATIONAL TRAFFIC BALANCE Minutes (millions) 1999 2000 2001 Incoming 191.5 214.1 217.0 Outgoing 145.6 170.6 185.3 Surplus (Deficit) 45.9 43.5 31.7 Total Volume 337.2 384.7 402.3 Note: Data are in millions of minutes of outgoing public switched telecommunications traffic. © TELEGEOGRAPHY, INC 2002 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2003 173 COUNTRY TRAFFIC STATISTICS Kazakhstan LARGEST TELECOMMUNICATIONS ROUTES, 2001 Destination Minutes (thousands) Percent of Outgoing Traffic 1. Russia ... ..... ...... ... 49,800.0 •••••••••••••••• 42.0% 2. Uzbekistan .......... ... .. 18,100.0 ---- 15.3% 3. Kyrgyzstan ............... .... 9,000.0 7.6% 4. Ukraine .............. .... ..... 4, 100.0 • 3.5% 5. Tajikistan ..................... 3,900.0 • 3.3% 6. Germany ....... ............ 3, 196.0 • 2.7% 7. Turkmenistan .................. 2.700.0 • 2.3% 8. Belarus ...................... 1,500.0 I 1.3% 9. Azerbaijan .................... 1,100.0 I 0.9% 10. Armenia ........................ 800.0 I 0.7% 11. Georgia ................. 600.0 I 0.5% 12. China .......................... 440.0 I 0.4% 13. France ........ ...... .. ..... .... 310.0 I 0.3% 14. Moldova ....................... 300.0 I 0.3% 15. India ........................... 180.0 I 0.2% Others ... ......... ... 22,550.0 • ••••• 19.0% TOTAL 118,577.3 NATIONAL TRAFFIC BALANCE Minutes (millions) 1999 2000 2001 Incoming 149.8 183.1 206.9 Outgoing 104.5 105.4 118.6 Surplus (Deficit) 45.3 77.8 88.4 Total Volume 254.3 288.5 325.5 Note: National traffic data are.in millions of minutes of outgoing public switched telecommunications traffic; route data are in thousands of minutes of outgoing public switched telecommunications traffic 174 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2003 © TELEGEOGRAPHY, INC 2002 COUNTRY TRAFFIC STATISTICS Kenya LARGEST FELECOMMUNICATIONS ROUTES, 2001 ------------------------~----~--~----~· Destination Minutes (millions) Percent of Outgoing Traffic 1. United Kingdom ... ..... .... .... 5.5 2. United States .. .. ............ .... 3.6 14.8% 3. India .. .... ........ ... .... 1.9 ....... 8.0% 4. South Africa .. ... .. 1.3 ..... 5.5% 5. Germany .. ...... .. ....... .. 0.9 3.6% 6. Italy ..... .. ... ..... .... ... .. 0.8 ... 3.3% 7. France .... .. .. ...... .. .. 0.7 2.9% B. United Arab Emirates .. ........ 0.7 2.8% 9. Ethiopia ... ........ .. ... ... 0.7 2.8% 10. Canada ...... .. .. ....... .. 0.5 2.2% 11. Switzerland .. .... ... ...... 0.5 2.2% 12. Somalia .... .... .... ... ... 0.5 • 2.0% 13. Netherlands .. .. .. ........ 0.5 • 2.0% 14. Belgium ... .. ........ ..... .... 0.3 • 1.3% 15. Australia .. ........ .. .... 0.3 • 1.2% 16. Japan .... .. ... ... .. .. .. 0.3 • 1.2% 17. Egypt ... ... ......... .. ..... 0.3 • 1.2% 18. Zimbabwe ............ ... .. 0.3 • 1.2% 19. Pakistan ... ....... .. ... 0.3 • 1.2% 20. Rwanda .. ... .. ... ... .. 0.3 I 1.1% Others .. ... .. ........... 4.1 •••••••••••• 16.8% TOTAL 24.2 NATIONAL TRAFFIC BALANCE Minutes (millions) 1999 2000 2001 Incoming n.a. 57.2 n.a. Outgoing 25.0 21.0 24.2 Surplus (Deficit) n.a. 36.2 n.a. Total Volume n.a. 78.2 n.a. Note: Data are in millions of minutes of outgoing publ ic switched telecommunications traffic. © TELEGEOGRAPHY, INC 2002 TELEGEOGRAP HY 2003 175 COUNTRY TRAFFIC STATISTICS Korea, Rep. LARGEST TELECOMMUNICATIONS ROUTES. 2001 Destination Minutes (millions) Percent of Outgoing Traffic 1. United States .... .... ... ...... 270.0 •••••••••••• 24.1% 2. Japan ... ... ... ... .. ... 195.0 3. China .. ... ... ... .... .... 193.0 ••••••••• 17.4% ••••••••• 17.2% 4. Philippines ....................... 39.1 3.5% 5. Canada ............. ........... 30.0 2.7% 6. Indonesia ............ ..... .... 25.8 R 2.3% 7. Australia ..... .. ........ ..... .. 23.9 • 2.1% 8. Hong Kong ... ... ..... .. ..... 22.9 • 2.0% 9. Vietnam .... ..... ............ 21 .5 • 1.9% 10. United Kingdom .... .. ... .. 17.3 B 1.5% 11. Germany .. ... ... .. ... 15.4 • 1.4% 12. Taiwan .. ........................ 15.2 • 1.4% 13. Singapore .. ... .......... 14.2 • 1.3% 14. Thailand .................... 13.9 • 1.2% 15. Russia ...................... ... 10.6 I 0.9% 16. Mongolia .... .... ..... ........ 8.6 I 0.8% 17. New Zealand ... ................. 7.5 I 0.7% 18. Italy .. ... ......... ... ... .7.5 I 0.7% 19. Pakistan ......................... 7.1 I 0.6% 20. Bangladesh ....................... 7.0 I 0.6% Others ......... .. ...... 174.6 BBBBBBBBB. 15.6% TOTAL 1.120.0 NATIONAL TRAFFIC BALANCE Minutes (millions) 1999 2000 Incoming n.a. n.a. Outgoing 898.0 1,063.0 Surplus (Deficit) n.a. n.a. Total Volume n.a. n.a. Note: Data are in millions of minutes of outgoing public switched telecommunications traffic. 2001 n.a. 1,120.0 n.a. n.a. 176 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2003 © TELEGEOGRAPHY, INC 2002 COUNTRY TRAFFIC STATISTICS Kyrgyzstan LARGEST lELECOMMUNICATIONS ROUTES, 2001 Destination Minutes (thousands) Percent of Outgoing Traffic 1. Russia .. ............ ... ... 11,247.0 47.9% 2. Kazakhstan ....... ....... 6,357.0 27.1% 3. Uzbekistan .... .. ... .. 2,416.0 10.3% 4. Tajikistan .. .. ............... .703.0 • 3.0% 5. Turkey .. .... ... .. ... ... .483.0 I 2.1% 6. Ukraine ....... .. ..... ... .465.0 I 2.0% 7. Belarus ... ............... ... 201 .0 0.9% 8. Germany ... .. .. ... .. 199.0 0.8% 9. Azerbaijan ... ..... .. ... 167.0 0.7% 10. Turkmenistan .. .... ......... 137.0 0.6% 11. United Kingdom ... ..... ... 101.0 0.4% 12. China ..... .. ... .. 97.0 0.4% 13. United Arab Emirates ... .. 50.0 0.2% 14. France .... .. .... .... ..... 38.0 0.2% 15. India .. .. ... ... ... .. .... .... 38.0 0.2% 16. Iran ... ... ..... .... 26.0 0.1% 17. Korea, Rep .. .... ... .. ... 19.0 0.1% 18. Pakistan ..... .. .. ..... ... 14.0 0.1% 19. Belgium ...... .. ... ...... 13.0 I 0.1% 20. Japan .............. ... ... 12.0 I 0.1% Others ... ...... ..... 710.0 • 3.0% TOTAL 23,496.0 NATIONAL TRAFFIC BALANCE Minutes (millions) 1999 2000 2001 Incoming n.a. 36.4 42.3 Outgoing 23.5 23.1 23.5 Surplus (Deficit) n.a 13.3 18.8 Total Volume n.a. 59.5 65.8 Note: National traffic data are in millions of minutes of outgoing public switched telecommunications traffic; route data are in thousands of minutes of outgoing public switched telecommunications traffic © TELEGEOGRAPHY, INC 2002 TELEGEOGRAPHY 200 3 177 COUNTRY TRAFFIC STATISTICS Latvia Destination Minutes (millions) Percent of Outgoing Traffic 1. Russia ..... .. ......... 14.5 I5LII~·········0IIIcM;Ifi:tl,::ml!0klili\hl*lm."liKf 22.4% 2. Lithuania ........... ... .. .7.8 llb.~ll••illlli--111111. 12.1 % 3. Estonia ...... .. ......... ... .... 5.7 ••••••• 8.8% 4. Germany ..... ... .. ...... 4.4 5. Ukra ine ... .. .. ... ........ 2.9 6. Belarus .. ... ... .. ....... .. 2.7 7. Sweden ............ .... ........ 2.3 3.6% 8. Finland ............ .. .. .... .... .. 2.0 8111 3.1% 9. Denmark ... .. ... ..... .. .. 1.7 ll!tll 2.6% 10. United Kingdom .. .... ....... 1.6 Iiili 2.5% 11 Poland ............ .. .... .... .. ... 1.4 B 2.2% 12. France ..... .. ... .. ... ... 0.9 • 1.4% 13. Italy .... .......... ............... 0.9 • 1.4% 14. Netherlands .... .. .. ...... .. .... .. 0.8 II 1.2% 15. Norway .... .. .................. .. 0.8 II 1.2% 16. United States .... .. ...... ...... .. 0.8 II 1.2% 17. Ireland .. .. .. .... .. .... ........... 0.7 I 1.1% 18. Switzerland ... ..... ...... ... ... 0.6 I 0.9% 19. Austria .... .............. .... .. ... 0.4 I 0.6% 20. Czech Republic .. .... ...... .. .. 0.3 I 0.5% Others ... ..... ........... .. .. 11.5 m••-••mmmmmmal••••lm .. mmm~m-mm6mmimmmrm:;U•i 17.8% TOTAL 64.7 NATIONAL TRAFFIC BALANCE Minutes (millions) 1999 2000 2001 Incoming 90.0 90.1 105.3 Outgoing 55.6 54.8 64.7 Surplus (Deficit) 34.4 35.3 40.6 Total Volume 145.6 144.9 170.0 Note: Data are in millions of niinutes of outgoing public switched telecommunications traffic 178 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2003 © TELEGEOGRAPHY INC 200 2 COUNTRY TRAFFIC STATISTICS Lesotho LARGEST T·ELECOMMUNICATIONS ROUTES, 2001 ----~~----------~-------u-------~ Destination Minutes (thousands) Percent of Outgoing Traffic 1. South Africa .................. 18,804.9 87.6% 2. Botswana ........ ....... .. .. 212.0 1.0% 3. United States ..... ..... ... .. 175.1 0.8% 4. United Kingdom ................. 167.6 0.8% 5. China .... .... ...... .... .... 152.7 0.7% 6. Swaziland .. .......... ...... 134.5 0.6% 7. Zimbabwe ........ ...... ........ 114.7 0.5% 8. Taiwan ......................... 90.3 0.4% 9. Germany ... ...... .. .. ... ... 73.9 0.3% 10. India ...... ........ ... .... ..... 56.6 0.3% 11 Namibia ..... ... ... ... .... .... 36.6 0.2% 12. Italy ............................ 30.7 0.1% 13. Malawi ......................... 30.7 0.1% 14. Kenya ....... ........ ......... 27.6 0.1% 15. Switzerland .... ... .... ... ....... 25.2 I 0.1% 16. Nigeria ................ ...... 24.9 I 0.1% 17. Ireland ..... ..... ....... ...... 23.6 I 0.1% 18. Mozambique ..................... 22.2 I 0.1% 19. Zambia .... .. .... ..... ...... 22.0 I 0.1% 20. Uganda .................. ...... 20.8 I 0.1% Others .. .......... ........ .... 1,220.0 • 5.7% TOTAl 21,474.0 NATIONAL TRAFFIC BALANCE Minutes (millions) 1999 2000 2001 Incoming n.a. n.a. n.a. Outgoing 35.8 21.6 21.5 Surplus (Deficit) n.a. n.a. n.a. Total Volume n.a. n.a. n.a. Note: National traffic data are in millions of minutes of outgoing public switched telecommunications traffic; route data are in thousands of minutes of outgoing public switched telecommunications traffic. © TELEGEOGRAPHY, INC 2002 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2003 179 COUNTRY TRAFFIC STATISTICS Lithuania LARGEST TELECOMMUNICATIONS ROUTES, 2001 Destination Minutes (millions) Percent of Outgoing Traffic 1. Russia ......... ... ... .. 10.8 18.6% 2. Latvia ...................... ... 6.6 11 .4% 3. Germany ... ........... .. ...... .. 5.0 8.5% 4. Belarus ..... .... ... ... ... 4.8 8.2% 5. Poland ........ .. ... ... 4.3 7.4% 6. Estonia .. .. .... .. .... ... ..... 2.6 4.6% 7. Ukraine .... .... .. ... .. .. 2.3 4.0% B. United Kingdom ................... 2.1 3.6% 9. Denmark ......................... 1.5 2.6% 10. United States .. ................... 1.4 2.5% 11 Finland .. .................. ...... 1.4 2.3% 12. Sweden ..... .. ... .... 1.2 2.0% 13. Italy .............. ............ ... 0.9 • 1.6% 14. Netherlands ............ .. .... .... 0.9 • 1.5% 15. France ........................... 0.7 • 1.2% 16. Spain ............................ 0.7 • 1.2% 17. Norway ........ ... .. 0.5 • 0.9% 18. Czech Republic .................... 0.4 I 0.7% 19. Belgium .......................... 0.4 I 0.7% 20. Austria .. ........... ... .... .. .... 0.3 I 0.5% Others .... .. ....... .. ............ 9.3 16.0% TOTAL 58.1 NATIONAL TRAFFIC BALANCE Minutes (millions) 1999 2000 2001 Incoming n.a. n.a. n.a. Outgoing 52.0 54.6 58.1 Surplus (Deficit) n.a. n.a. n.a. Total Volume n.a. n.a. n.a. Note: Data are in millions of minutes of outgoing public switched telecommunications traffic 180 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2003 © TELEGEOGRAPHY, INC. 2002 COUNTRY TRAFFIC STATISTICS Luxembourg LARGEST Y.ELECOMMUNICATIONS ROUTES, 2001 --------~--~--------------~------------------J Destination Minutes (millions) Percent of Outgoing Traffic 1. France .......................... 95.0 2. Belgium ....... ........ .. ..... .. 88.0 4. Portugal .... .......... ....... .. 24.0 5. United Kingdom .. ...... .... 20.0 6. Italy .......... ............. ..... 19.0 --· 6.1% ••• 5.1% ••• 4.8% 7. Netherlands .. ................... 14.0 .. 3.5% 8. Switzerland ..................... 11.0 2.8% 9. United States .......... ... ... 7.0 • 1.8% 10. Spain ........ .......... .......... 6.0 • 1.5% Others .... ........ .... .. 22.6 --· 5.7% TOTAL 394.6 NATIONAL TRAFFIC BALANCE --- Minutes (millions) 1999 Incoming n.a. Outgoing 319.1 Surplus !Deficit) n.a. Total Volume n.a. 2000 n.a. 381.0 n.a. n.a. Note: Data are in millions of minutes of outgoing public switched telecommunications traffic. © TELEGEOGRAPHY INC 2002 2001 n.a. 394.6 n.a. n.a. TELEGEOGRAPHY 2003 181 COUNTRY TRAFFIC STATISTICS Macau LARGEST TELECOMMUNICATIONS ROUTES, 2001 Destination Minutes (millions) Percent of Outgoing Traffic 1. China ........................... 62.5 39.9% 2. Hong Kong ... .. ............... 57.0 36.4% 3. Taiwan ........................... 9.8 6.2% 4. United States ..................... 6.0 3.8% 5. Philippines ....................... 3.2 • 2.1% 6. United Kingdom ................... 3.1 • 2.0% 7. Canada .......................... 3.1 • 2.0% 8. Portugal .. .................. ... 2.8 • 1.8% 9. Australia .. ....................... 2.4 I 1.6% 10. Thailand .......... .. .. .... 1.2 0.8% 11. Singapore ........ ... 0.7 0.5% 12. Japan ... ......................... 0.5 0.3% 13. Korea, Rep .. .. .. .......... .. .... 0.5 0.3% 14. Vietnam ........ .. ................ 0.5 0.3% 15. Malaysia ......................... 0.4 0.3% 16. France ........................... 0.3 0.2% 17. Nepal ... ............ .. ........... 0.2 0.2% 18. New Zealand .......... .......... 0.2 0.1% 19. Indonesia ................ ....... 0.2 0.1% 20. Cambodia ........................ 0.2 0.1% Others ........................... 1.6 1.0% TOTAl 156.5 NATIONAL TRAFFIC BALANCE Minutes (millions) 1999 2000 2001 Incoming 97.7 103.2 111.9 Outgoing 132.8 152.1 156.5 Surplus (Deficit) (35.1) (48.9) (44.6) Total Volume 230.5 255.2 268.4 Note: Data are in millions of minutes of outgoing public switched telecommunications traffic. 182 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2003 © TELEGEOGRAPHY, INC 2002 COUNTRY TRAFFIC STATISTICS Macedonia LARGEST T·ELECOMMUNICATIONS ROUTES, 2001 --------------------------~--------------- Destination Minutes (millions) Percent of Outgoing Traffic 1. Serbia & Montenegro .. .. 17.1 I1BBBBBBBBB41*1iils¢1,ll~lti· :l:lfi•rrl• ifil·iJRI 25.9% 2. Germany .. .. ....... .... ........ 6.6 3. Greece .. .. ........ .. .. .. 5.6 4. Bulgaria .... .. ...... .. .. .. 4.8 5. Switzerland .. ... ... .... .. 3.8 6. Italy 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 003.6 7. Turkey 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 .. 00. 00 00 002.6 4.0% 8. Croatia .. ..... .. ..... .. .. 2.3 3.4% 9. Slovenia 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 2.1 3.2% 10. United Kingdom .. .. ... ... .. 2.0 2.9% 11 United States 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 .1.9 2.8% 12. Austria 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 .1.7 2.6% 13. Monaco .... ..... .. .. .. 1.2 • 1.8% 14. France 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 .1.2 • 1.8% 15. Albania 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 001 .1 II 1.7% 16. Bosnia-Herzegovina .. ... .. 1.1 II 1.7% 17. Netherlands .. ... ..... ... .. 0.8 I 1.2% 18. Belgium 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 000.7 I 1.0% 19. Australia 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 .0.7 I 1.0% 20. Hungary 00 00 00 00. 00 00 00 00 00 00 0.6 II 0.9% Others .. .. .. ... .... ... 4.8 •1111111 7.2% TOTAL 66.3 NATIONAL TRAFFIC BALANCE Minutes (millions) 1999 2000 2001 Incoming 152.5 166.4 197.2 Outgoing 82.3 73.2 66.3 Surplus (Deficit) 70.3 93.2 131.0 Total Volume 234.8 239.6 263.5 Note: Data are in millions of minutes of outgoing public switched telecommunications traffic. Traffic from Serbia & Montenegro is for the period August 2001-December 2001 © TELEGEOGRAPH Y, INC 2002 TELEGEOGRAPHY 200 3 183 COUNTRY TRAFFIC STATISTICS Malaysia LARGEST TELECOMMUNICATIONS ROUTES, FV 2001/02 Destination Minutes (millions) Percent of Outgoing Traffic 1. Singapore ... ................ 422.0 •••••••••••• 49.9% 2. Indonesia ............... ... 99.0 --· 11.7% 3. Thailand .. ... .. 38.0 4.5% 4. Australia ... ................. ... 31 .0 • 3.7% 5. United States .. ............... 28.0 • 3.3% 6. Japan ....... ............... 26.0 • 3.1% 7. India .... .. ... .. ... ..... 25.0 II 3.0% 8. United Kingdom ... ....... .. 24.0 II 2.8% 9. Taiwan ..... ...... 22.0 II 2.6% 10. Hong Kong ....... ..... ... 21.0 I 2.5% 11. Ch ina ........ .... ... ... ... 16.0 I 1.9% 12. Philippines ... ............. ..... 12.0 1 1.4% 13. Bangladesh .. .. .... .. .. ....... .. 9.0 1 1.1% 14. Myanmar .... .... ... ... ... ... 3.9 I 0.5% 15. Germany .. ............... ..... 3.1 I 0.4% 16. Brunei .. ... ... ................ 3.0 I 0.4% 17. Canada .. .. .................... 2.5 I 0.3% 18. Korea, Rep .................. ..... 2.0 I 0.2% 19. Saudi Arab ia ........ ......... ... 1.4 I 0.2% 20. France .. ..... ................... 1.1 I 0.1 % Others .. ........................ 55.0 6.5% TOTAL 845.0 NATIONAL TRAFFIC BALANCE Minutes (millions) FY 1999/00 FY 2000/01 FY 2001/02 Incoming n.a. 765.0 810.0 Outgoing 690.0 840.0 845.0 Surplus (Deficit) n.a. (75.0) (35.0) Total Volume n.a. 1,605.0 1,655.0 Note: Data are in millions of minutes of outgoing publ ic switched telecommunications traffic Fiscal year ends 31 March. 184 TELEGEOGRAPHY 200 3 © TE LEGEOGRAPHY, INC 20 0 2 COUNTRY TRAFFIC STATISTICS Malta L LARGEST T•E L E C 0 M M UN I C AT _I O_N_ S_R_O_U_ T_E _s _, _2_0_0 1--~-----""""""""""""------J Destination Minutes (millions) Percent of Outgoing Traffic 1. United Kingdom .... ......... ... 14.0 30.7% 2. Italy 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 .7.1 15.5% 3. Germany 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 .3.7 II wall 8.0% 4. France 00 00 00. 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 .. 2.0 4.5% 5. Libya 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 001.8 4.0% 6. United States 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 .1.5 3.3% 7. Netherlands 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 001.3 2.9% B. Australia .... ..... ........ ....... 1.3 2.8% 9. Switzerland ............ .... ... 1.0 • 2.3% 10. Belgium 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 000.8 • 1.7% 11. Sweden 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 000.8 • 1.7% 12. Spain 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 .0.7 • 1.6% 13. Austria 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 .0.6 • 1.4% 14. Ireland 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 .0.5 I 1.2% 15. Canada 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 000.5 I 1.2% 16. Tunisia 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 .0.5 I 1.1% 17. Greece ..... ................ .... 0.4 I 0.9% 18. Turkey 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 .0.4 I 0.9% 19. Norway 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 000.4 I 0.9% 20. Serbia & Montenegro .. ...... .... 0.3 I 0.8% Others .. ... .... .. ... ...... 5.8 ILEr j4>t~1:4t*Mii¥illiisM 12.8% TOTAL 45.6 NATIONAL TRAFFIC BALANCE Minutes (millions) 1999 2000 2001 Incoming 50.2 56.5 65.5 Outgoing 39.0 43.0 45.6 Surplus (Deficit) 11.2 13.4 19.9 Total Volume 89.2 99.5 111.0 Note: Data are in millions of minutes of outgoing public switched telecommunications traffic. © TELEGEOGRAPHY, INC. 2002 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2003 185 COUNTRY TRAFFIC STATISTICS Mauritius LARGEST TELECOMMUNICATIONS ROUTES, 2001 Destination Minutes (millions) Percent of Outgoing Traffic 1. France .......................... .7.2 20.2% 2. United Kingdom ................... 5.4 15.1% 3. Reunion .......................... 3.7 10.3% 4. South Africa ..... .... .. .... 3.0 8.5% 5. India 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00. 00 00 00 00 2.6 7.3% 6. Italy 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 .. 001.3 3.5% 7. Australia 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 .1.1 3.0% 8. Germany ... ........ ............ 1.0 2.7% 9. Madagascar ..................... 0.9 2.6% 10. China 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 000.8 2.3% 11. Switzerland ............ ........ .. 0.7 2.0% 12. United States 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 .0.6 • 1.6% 13. Seychelles 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 .0.6 • 1.6% 14. Singapore 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 000.5 • 1.5% 15. Hong Kong 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 .0.5 • 1.5% 16. Belgium 00 00 00 00 00 00 00. 00 00 00 00 00 .0.5 • 1.4% 17. Canada 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 000.3 I 0.9% 18. Spain 00 00 00 00 .. 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 .0.3 I 0.7% 19. Malaysia 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 .0.2 I 0.6% 20. Taiwan 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 .. 0.2 I 0.6% Others ........................... 4.3 12.2% TOTAL 35.6 NATIONAL TRAFFIC BALANCE Minutes (millions) FY 1999/00 FY 2000/01 2001 Incoming 43.3 49.0 56.2 Outgoing 31.4 35.1 35.6 Surplus (Deficit) 11.9 13.9 20.6 Total Volume 74.7 84.0 91.8 Note: Data are in millions of minutes of outgoing public switched telecommunications traffic. 186 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2003 © TELEGEOGRAPHY INC 2002 COUNTRY TRAFFIC STATISTICS Mexico LARGEST TELECOMMUNICATIONS ROUTES, 2001 Destination Minutes (millions) Percent of Outgoing Traffic 1. United States 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 001,723.4 2. Canada 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00.21.6 I 1.0% 3. Spain 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 .19.1 I 0.9% 4. Guatemala ...... .......... ... 13.3 I 0.6% 5. Cuba ............................ 13.2 I 0.6% 6. Argentina 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 0010.6 I 0.5% 7. Colombia 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00.00 ... 10.1 I 0.5% 8. France .......... .. ....... .. 9.8 I 0.5% 9. United Kingdom .. ... .. 8.7 I 0.4% 10. Germany ....................... .. 7.7 I 0.4% Others .. .... ... ....... 244.5 11.7% TOTAL 2,082.0 NATIONAL TRAFFIC BALANCE Minutes (millions) 1999 2000 2001 Incoming 4,007.5 5,896.0 5,100.0 Outgoing 1,563.0 1,981.0 2,082.0 Surplus (Deficit) 2,444.5 3,915.0 3,018.0 Total Volume 5,570.5 7,877.0 7,182.0 Note: Data are in millions of minutes of outgoing public switched telecommunications traffic. © TELEGEOGRAPHY, INC 2002 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2003 187 COUNTRY TRAFFIC STATISTICS Micronesia LARGEST TELECOMMUNICATIONS ROUTES, 2001 Destination Minutes (thousands) Percent of Outgoing Traffic 1. United States ... ... .... 1,294.0 -----------· 53.9% 2. Philippines ...................... 398.4 ••••• 16.6% 3. China ...................... ... 186.4 7.8% 4. Japan ... ....... ........ ... 125.5 5.2% 5. Australia ...... ... .............. .49.7 I 2.1% 6. Marshall Islands ............ ... .. 39.7 I 1.7% 7. Fiji ..... ....... ....... ........ 31.4 I 1.3% 8. Taiwan ..... ................... 25.7 I 1.1% 9. Indonesia ....................... 15.7 I 0.7% 10. New Zealand .............. ... 10.5 I 0.4% Others ..................... .. 220.0 9.2% TOTAL 2,400.0 NATIONAL TRAFFIC BALANCE Minutes (millions) 1999 2000 2001 Incoming n.a. n.a. n.a. Outgoing 1.8 1.9 2.4 Surplus (Deficit) n.a. n.a. n.a. Total Volume n.a. n.a. .n.a. Note: National traffic data are in millions of minutes of outgoing public switched telecommunications traffic; route data are in thousands of minutes of outgoing public switched telecommunications traffic 188 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2003 © TELEGEOGRAPHY, INC. 2002 COUNTRY TRAFFIC STATISTICS Moldova LA R G E s T T·E L E c 0 M M u N I c A Tl 0 N s R 0 u T E s I 2 0 0 1 ----------·~~~--------------------~ Destination Minutes (millions) Percent of Outgoing Traffic 1. Russia ...... 00 .... ..... .. 16.5 •••••••••••••••• 31.5% 2. Ukraine ......................... 10.5 •••••••••• 20.1% 3. Romania ..... .. ... ... ... .7.5 ••••••• 14.4% 4. Italy ... .. ... ..... ... .... 3.5 6.7% 5. Germany 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 .2.1 3.9% 6. Turkey 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 .1 .8 3.5% 7. Belarus 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 001.4 • 2.6% B. Portugal ...... ........ ....... .. 1.4 • 2.6% 9. Greece 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 0.8 • 1.6% 10. France 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 .0.7 • 1.3% 11 Israel 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 .0.5 I 1.0% 12. United States 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 .0.5 I 0.9% 13. Poland 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 .0.5 I 0.9% 14. Bulgaria 00. 00 00 00 00. 00 00. 00 00 .. 00 .0.4 I 0.8% 15. Spain 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 .0.4 I 0.8% 16. Czech Republic ... ..... .. .. .... .. 0.4 I 0.8% 17. United Kingdom ................... 0.4 I 0.7% 18. Hungary 00 00 00. 00 00 00 00. 00 00 00. 00 .0.3 I 0.6% 19. Belgium 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 000.3 I 0.5% 20. Cyprus ........................... 0.3 I 0.5% Others 00 00 00 00 00 .. 00 00 00 00 00 .. 002.2 4.2% TOTAL 52.3 NATIONAL TRAFFIC BALANCE Minutes (millions) 1999 2000 2001 Incoming 101.1 120.8 161.8 Outgoing 49.0 50.8 52.3 Surplus (Deficit) 52.1 70.1 109.6 Total Volume 150.1 171.6 214.1 Note: Data are in millions of minutes of outgoing public switched telecommunications traffic © TELEGEOGRAPHY, INC. 2002 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2003 189 COUNTRY TRAFFIC STATISTICS Mongolia LARGEST TELECOMMUNICATIONS ROUTES, 2001 Destination Minutes (thousands) Percent of Outgoing Traffic 1. Russia ......................... 750.8 21.6% 2. China ........... ..... 00 688.8 19.9% 3. Korea, Rep. 00 .. 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00380.6 11.0% 4. Japan ...... .................... 325.9 9.4% 5. Germany ....................... 258.3 7.4% 6. United States .. 00 ...... 00 00 00 ... 245.5 7.1% 7. United Kingdom ....... ........ 102.2 .. 2.9% 8. Hong Kong ...................... 65.5 • 1.9% 9. Singapore ....................... 38.8 • 1.1% 10. Ukraine .. 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 .38.5 • 1.1% 11. Kazakhstan 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 0037.6 • 1.1% 12. Switzerland ..... ................. 33.6 • 1.0% 13. Czech Republic 00 00 00. 00 00 .. 00 00 .. 32.7 • 0.9% 14. Australia 00 00 00 00.00 00 00 00 00 00 00.32.4 • 0.9% 15. France .......................... 27.4 I 0.8% 16. Italy 00 00 00 00. 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 0018.1 I 0.5% 17. Hungary 00 00 00.00 .. 00 00 00 00 00 00 0017.6 I 0.5% 18. Philippines 00 00. 00 00 00. 00 00 00 00 00 .17.4 I 0.5% 19. Canada 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 .16.2 I 0.5% Others ......................... 340.0 •••••••• 9.8% TOTAL 3,469.1 NATIONAL TRAFFIC BALANCE Minutes (millions) 1999 2000 2001 Incoming 18.1 n.a. n.a. Outgoing n.a. 3.1 3.5 Surplus (Deficit) n.a. n.a. n.a. Total Volume n.a. n.a. n.a. Note: National traffic data ani in millions of minutes of outgoing public switched telecommunications traffic; route data are in thousands of minutes of outgoing public switched telecommunications traffic. 190 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2003 © TELEGEOGRAPHY, INC. 2002 COUNTRY TRAFFIC STATISTICS Morocco LARGEST TELECOMMUNICATIONS ROUTES, 2001 ~--~--------------------~----~ Destination Minutes (millions) Percent of Outgoing Traffic 1. France ................ ..... ... 110.0 2. Spain .......................... 24.0 3. United Kingdom .... ..... ... ..... 21.0 4. Italy .. ... ............ ......... 20.0 5. Belgium ......................... 11.0 6. Germany ........................ 11.0 -- 8.9% -- 7.8% ••• 7.4% 4.1% 4.1% 7. United States .................... 11 .0 4.1% 8. Netherlands ...... .... .......... 10.0 3.7% 9. Saudi Arabia ... ..... ... ....... 10.0 3.7% 10. Canada .......................... 5.5 • 2.0% Others ... .............. ........ 36.0 ~m~~~;;m0ll\lf!!hJjm,.m;;im*~-m 13.4% TOTAL 269.5 NATIONAL TRAFFIC BALANCE Minutes (millions) 1999 Incoming n.a. Outgoing 219.5 Surplus (Deficit) n.a. Total Volume n.a. 2000 n.a. 245.0 n.a. n.a. Note: Data are in millions of minutes of outgoing public switched telecommunications traffic. © TELEGEOGRAPHY, INC 2002 2001 n.a. 269.5 n.a. n.a. TELEGEOGRAPHY 2003 191 COUNTRY TRAFFIC STATISTICS Myanmar LARGEST TELECOMMUNICATIONS ROUTES, 2001 Destination Minutes (thousands) Percent of Outgoing Traffic 1. Thailand 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 002,394.4 ------------ 23.6% 2. Singapore ..................... 1,923.0 ••••••••••••• 19.0% 3. China .. .... ... .. ..... .... 886.7 4. Malaysia ....................... 728.9 5. Japan .......................... 684.5 6. Taiwan ......... ....... ....... 500.3 7. Hong Kong ... ... ... ..... 410.2 ---- 8.8% ••••• 7.2% ••••• 6.8% ••• 4.9% •• 4.0% 8. India .......................... 388.4 3.8% 9. Korea, Rep .. .. .. .... ... 354.8 3.5% 10. United States .. ... .... 291 .0 2.9% 11. United Kingdom 00 00 00 00 .. 00.00 00201.7 • 2.0% 12. Indonesia 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 .. 00 00 00.140.3 • 1.4% 13. Australia 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 .132.3 • 1.3% 14. Bangladesh 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 0095.6 I 0.9% 15. France ............... .......... 88.0 I 0.9% 16. Philippines 00 00. 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 0074.1 I 0.7% 17. Germany ....... ... ..... ... 69.0 I 0.7% 18. Pakistan 00 00 00. 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 .58.8 I 0.6% 19. Vietnam 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 .55.7 I 0.6% 20. Cambodia .... .. ..... ....... .. 39.8 I 0.4% Others .................... ..... 610.0 6.0% TOTAL 10,130.5 NATIONAL TRAFFIC BALANCE Minutes (millions) 1999 Incoming 29.8 Outgoing 17.4 Surplus (Deficit) 12.4 Total Volume 47.2 2000 2001 37.0 55.1 11.4 10.1 25.6 44.9 48.4 65.2 Note: National traffic data are.in millions of minutes of outgoing public switched telecommunications traffic; route data are in thousands of minutes of outgoing public switched telecommunications traffic 192 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2003 © TELEGEOGRAPHY INC 2002 COUNTRY TRAFFIC STATISTICS Namibia LARGEST TELECOMMUNICATIONS ROUTES, 2001 --------------~----------------~ Destination Minutes (thousands) Percent of Outgoing Traffic 1. South Africa .. .. .. .... .49,600.0 2. Germany .. ..... .. .. ... .. .. 1,700.0 I 2.6% 3. Botswana .. .. .. .. .. .. ... 800.0 1.2% 4. United Kingdom ........ .. .. .. 800.0 1.2% 5. Zimbabwe .. .. ..... .. .. .. ... 800.0 1.2% 6. United States ... .... .. ... 600.0 0.9% 7. Angola ........ ... .. ... .. 500.0 0.8% 8. Spain .. .. .. 400.0 0.6% 9. Zambia ...... ................. 400.0 0.6% 10. France .... ..... .. ............. 200.0 0.3% 11 Portugal ... ...... .. .. 180.0 0.3% 12. China ... ... ... ... ..... .. 170.0 0.3% 13. Italy ....... ...... 170.0 0.3% 14. Russia ... ... .. ... 150.0 0.2% 15. Switzerland .......... .......... 150.0 0.2% 16. Netherlands .. .. ... 140.0 0.2% 17. Austria ... .. .. .... .. ...... .. 130.0 0.2% 18. Australia .. .... .. .. ...... 120.0 0.2% 19. Mozambique ... ......... .. 100.0 0.2% 20. Nigeria .. .. ............... 100.0 0.2% Others .. .. ....... ... ... 7,630.0 11.8% TOTAL 64,846.0 NATIONAL TRAFFIC BALANCE Minutes (millions) 1999 2000 2001 Incoming 51.2 50.7 46.2 Outgoing 61.2 60.2 64.8 Surplus (Deficit) 110.0) 19.5) 118.7) Total Volume 112.4 110.8 111.0 Note: National traffic data are in millions of minutes of outgoing public switched telecommunications traffic; route data are in thousands of minutes of outgoing public switched telecommunications traffic © TELEGEOGRAPHY, INC 200 2 TELEGEOGRAPHY 200 3 193 COUNTRY TRAFFIC STATISTICS Netherlands LARGEST TELECOMMUNICATIONS ROUTES, 2001 Destination Minutes (millions) Percent of Outgoing Traffic 1. Germany .... .. ... ... .... .... 540.0 2. Belgium ............ .... ........ 440.0 3. United Kingdom ................. 340.0 4. United States ................... 215.0 5. France ................... ..... 210.0 •••••••••••• 16.7% •••••••••• 13.6% ••••••• 10.5% ••••• 6.7% ••••• 6.5% 6. Italy ............................ 90.0 2.8% 7. Spain ........................... 85.0 2.6% 8. Switzerland ..................... 85.0 2.6% 9. Turkey .......................... 70.0 2.2% 10. Poland .......................... 60.0 1.9% 11. Canada ......................... 55.0 • 1.7% 12. Morocco ........................ 41.0 • 1.3% 13. Sweden .... .................... .40.0 • 1.2% 14. Portugal .. ....................... 36.0 I 1.1% 15. Denmark ........................ 34.0 I 1.1% 16. Australia ........................ 33.0 I 1.0% 17. Austria ....... .......... ....... .. 32.0 I 1.0% 18. Greece .......................... 30.0 I 0.9% 19. Ireland .......................... 25.0 I 0.8% 20. Suriname ........................ 25.0 I 0.8% Others .. ... ... .... ... 739.0 •••••••••••••••• 22.9% TOTAL 3,225.0 NATIONAL TRAFFIC BALANCE Minutes (millions) 1999 2000 2001 Incoming n.a. n.a. n.a. Outgoing 2,380.0 2,830.0 3,225.0 Surplus (Deficit) n.a. n.a. n.a. Total Volume n.a. n.a. n.a. Note: Data are in millions of ~·inutes of outgoing public switched telecommunications traffic. 194 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2003 © TELEGEOGRAPHY, INC 2002 COUNTRY TRAFFIC STATISTICS New Zealand LARGEST T·ELECOMMUNICATIONS ROUTES, FY 2001/02 ~----~~------------~ Destination Minutes (millions) Percent of Outgoing Traffic 1. Australia ..... ......... .430.0 2. United Kingdom ................. 150.0 3. United States ........... .... .... 115.0 .... 11 .9% 4. Canada ......................... 48.0 lii&W 5.0% 5. Philippines ....................... 25.0 • 2.6% 6. Hong Kong ...... ..... ........... 16.0 I 1.7% 7. South Africa ..................... 15.0 I 1.6% 8. Japan ...... ............ ........ 12.0 I 1.2% 9. Malaysia ........ ............ 12.0 I 1.2% 10. Singapore ....................... 12.0 1 1.2% 11 Fiji .............................. 10.0 I 1.0% 12. China ............................ 9.0 I 0.9% 13. India ............................. 9.0 I 0.9% 14. Samoa .... .... ..... .. ........ 7.0 I 0.7% Others ... ........... ...... 95.0 9.8% TOTAL 965.0 NATIONAL TRAFFIC BALANCE _., Minutes (millions) FY 1999/00 FY 2000/01 FY 2001/02 Incoming n.a. n.a. n.a. Outgoing 815.0 950.0 965.0 Surplus (Deficit) n.a. n.a. n.a. Total Volume n.a. n.a. n.a. Note: Data are in millions of minutes of outgoing public switched telecommunications traffic. Fiscal year ends 30 June. © TELEGEOGRAPHY, INC. 2002 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2003 195 COUNTRY TRAFFIC STATISTICS Niger LARGEST TELECOMMUNICATIONS ROUTES, 2001 Destination Minutes (thousands) Percent of Outgoing Traffic 1. France ............. ....... ... 1,218.5 18.2% 2. Benin .......................... 745.4 11 .1% 3. Cote dlvoire ..... ... ......... 694.3 10.4% 4. Togo ........................... 577.4 8.6% 5. Burkina Faso .................... 502.6 7.5% 6. Senegal ..... ...... ..... ...... 305.1 4.6% 7. Nigeria ....... .... .......... .. 304.4 4.5% 8. United States .. ........ ... ... 285.0 4.3% 9. Mali ........................... 201.2 3.0% 10. Belgium .......... ..... ...... ... 163.5 2.4% 11. Morocco ....................... 123.3 1.8% 12. Saudi Arabia .................... 113.2 1.7% 13. Algeria .......................... 95.3 • 1.4% 14. Germany .... .. .. ............ .. 94.1 • 1.4% 15. Ghana ....... ................. 77.8 • 1.2% 16. Cameroon ....................... 67.3 • 1.0% 17. Gabon .......................... 63.9 • 1.0% 18. Chad ........ ...... .......... .... 62.7 • 0.9% 19. Libya ........................... 62.5 • 0.9% 20. Switzerland ...................... 53.7 I 0.8% Others ..... ... ... .. ........ .. 880.0 13.1% TOTAL 6,700.0 NATIONAL TRAFFIC BALANCE Minutes (millions) 1999 2000 2001 Incoming n.a. n.a. n.a. Outgoing ., 6.1 6.4 6.7 Surplus (Deficit) n.a. n.a. n.a. Total Volume n.a. n.a. n.a. Note: National traffic data are in millions of minutes of outgoing public switched telecommunications traffic; route data are in thousands of minutes of outgoing public switched telecommunications traffic 196 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2003 © TELEGEOGRAPHY, INC 2002 COUNTRY TRAFFIC STATISTICS Nigeria LARGEST "FELECOMMUNICATIONS ROUTES, 2001 ------------~--------------------------~--~ Destination Minutes (millions) Percent of Outgoing Traffic 1. United Kingdom .................. 12.4 2. United States .. ........ .. .... ... 1 0.5 3. India ...... ......... ...... .. .... 2.8 4. South Africa ...................... 2.6 5. Germany .. .... ........ ..... .... 2.6 6. Italy ...... ........... ....... 2.3 7. France ... ... ........ ........ 2.1 8. Netherlands ...... ......... ..... 1.6 ••• 4.7% -- 4.3% ••• 4.3% 3.8% .. 3.5% 2.6% 9. Lebanon .. .. ....... .. .. ........ 1.5 2.5% 10. Spain .. ....... ... ......... ... 1.0 • 1.6% 11. Ghana ............. ... ... 0.8 • 1.4% 12. Canada .............. ......... 0.7 • 1.2% 13. Saudi Arabia ............... ....... 0.7 • 1.1% 14. Switzerland .................. .. ... 0.6 I 1.0% 15. Benin ............ .. ....... .... 0.6 I 1.0% 16. Australia ......... .. ............ 0.6 I 0.9% 17. Belgium ........ .. .... ....... 0.6 I 0.9% 18. United Arab Emirates ........ .. .... 0.5 I 0.8% 19. Cameroon ...... ... ........... ... 0.4 I 0.7% 20. Cote dlvoire ...... .. ... .. 0.4 I 0.7% Others .......................... 15.2 •••••••••••••••• 25.0% TOTAL 60.7 1 NATIONAL TRAFFIC BALANCE ~- Minutes (millions) 1999 2000 2001 Incoming n.a. n.a. 238.0 Outgoing 57.9 66.0 60.7 Surplus (Deficit) n.a. n.a. 177.3 Total Volume n.a. n.a. 298.7 Note: Data are in millions of minutes of outgoing public switched telecommunications traffic. © TELEGEOGRAPHY, INC. 2002 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2003 197 COUNTRY TRAFFIC STATISTICS Norway LARGEST TELECOMMUNICATIONS ROUTES, 2001 Destination Minutes (millions) Percent of Outgoing Traffic 1. Sweden ....................... 200.0 •••••••••••••••• 25.1% 2. United Kingdom 94.0 3. Denmark .... ... ..... ... 90.0 ••••••• 11 .8% ••••••• 11 .3% 4. United States ...... ... ......... 69.0 5. Germany .............. .. .. ..... 42.0 6. Netherlands .... ............... 36.0 ••••• 8.7% ••• 5.3% •• 4.5% 7. Spain ... .... ... ... 30.0 .. 3.8% 8. Finland ...... ........ .. .... .. 24.0 3.0% 9. France .. .................. .. .. 20.0 2.5% 10. Belgium ....... ..... ... 13.0 • 1.6% 11 Australia .... ... ... .... .. 12.0 • 1.5% 12. Italy ....................... .. 12.0 • 1.5% 13. Poland ...... ...... ... 10.0 • 1.3% 14. Russia .... ..................... 10.0 • 1.3% 15. Canada ...... ... ............ .. 8.0 • 1.0% 16. Switzerland ...... .. ... 8.0 • 1.0% 17. Greece ........................... 7.0 I 0.9% 18. Ireland ........................... 5.0 I 0.6% 19. Turkey ... .... .. .... .. .. .. ... 5.0 I 0.6% 20. Iceland ... .. ............... ..... 4.0 I 0.5% Others .......................... 97.0 •••••••• 12.2% TOTAL 796.0 NATIONAL TRAFFIC BALANCE Minutes (millions) 1999 2000 Incoming n.a. n.a. Outgoing 667.0 737.0 Surplus (Deficit) n.a. n.a. Total Volume n.a. n.a. 2001 n.a. 796.0 n.a. n.a. Note: Data are in millions of minutes of outgoing public switched telecommunications traffic 198 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2003 © TELEGEOGRAPHY, INC. 2002 COUNTRY TRAFFIC STATISTICS Oman LARGEST TELECOMMUNICATIONS ROUTES, 2001 Destination Minutes (millions) Percent of Outgoing Traffic 1. India ............................ 50.2 2. United Arab Emirates ... ......... .40.3 ••••••••••••• 25.3% 3. Pakistan ....... ........ ..... .. 10.7 6.7% 4. United Kingdom ..... .... ........ .7.1 4.5% 5. Bangladesh ....................... 6.1 3.8% 6. Saudi Arabia .. ... ................. 5.8 3.6% 7. Egypt ............................ 5.6 3.5% 8. Bahrain .. ....................... 4.3 • 2.7% 9. Jordan ... ... .... .. .... ... ...... 2.2 • 1.4% 10. United States ............. ... 2.2 • 1.4% 11. Sri Lanka .. ... .. ........ ... .. ... 2.1 • 1.3% 12. Oat a r ..... .......... .. ..... .. ... 2.0 1 1.3% 13. Philippines .. .............. 1.9 1 1.2% 14. Kuwait ......... .......... ... .. 1.8 1 1.1% 15. Sudan ........................... 1.3 I o.8% 16. Tanzania .. .. ........ 1.3 I o.8% 17. Germany ........ ...... .......... 1.0 I o.6% 18. Morocco ......................... 1.0 I o.6% 19. Lebanon ... .. ..... .. ...... .. 0.8 I o.5% 20. France ...... ... .. ... ........ 0.7 I o.4% Others ... ... .. .. ... ... .. .. 1 0.9 6.8% TOTAL 159.3 NATIONAL TRAFFIC BALANCE Minutes (millions) 1999 2000 2001 Incoming 83.4 n.a. 108.0 Outgoing 101.3 116.8 159.3 Surplus (Deficit) (17.9) n.a. (51.3) Total Volume 184.7 n.a. 267.3 Note: Data are in millions of minutes of outgoing public switched telecommunications traffic. Data exclude some cross­ border traffic to the United Arab Emirates. © TELEGEOGRAPHY, INC 2002 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2003 199 COUNTRY TRAFFIC STATISTICS Pakistan LARGEST TELECOMMUNICATIONS ROUTES, FY 2001/02 Destination Minutes (millions) Percent of Outgoing Traffic 1. United Kingdom .................. 22.2 20.2% 2. Saudi Arabia ..................... 15.2 13.9% 3. United Arab Emirates .............. 15.0 13.6% 4. United States .................... 11 .9 10.8% 5. Canada .. .. .. ... ....... ... .. .... 10.5 9.6% 6. Iran .......... .. ... ........ ...... 3.5 3.2% 7. Japan ............................ 2.4 2.1% 8. Kuwait .......................... 2.3 2.1% 9. Germany .... .. ........... ... ... 2.0 • 1.8% 10. Singapore ........................ 1.8 • 1.7% 11. India .......................... ... 1.7 • 1.6% 12. Bangladesh ....................... 1.5 • 1.4% 13. Hong Kong ....................... 1.5 • 1.4% 14. France ........................... 1.5 • 1.3% 15. China ............................ 1.5 • 1.3% 16. Italy ............................. 1.4 • 1.3% 17. Oman ............................ 1.4 • 1.3% 18. Qatar .. .... ............. ......... 1.1 • 1.0% 19. Turkey ........................... 1.1 • 1.0% 20. Australia ......................... 1.1 I 1.0% Others ........ .. ............... .. 9.4 8.5% TOTAL 110.0 NATIONAL TRAFFIC BALANCE Minutes (millions) FY 1999/00 FY 2000/01 FY 2001/02 Incoming 644.9 896.1 1,165.1 Outgoing 75.1 98.6 110.0 Surplus (Deficit) 569.8 797.4 1,055.2 Total Volume 720.0 994.7 1 ,27.5.1 Note: Data are in millions of mlnutes of outgoing public switched telecommunications traffic Fiscal year ends 30 June. Data exclude some cross-border traffic to India. 200 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2003 © TELEGEOGRAPHY, INC. 2002 COUNTRY TRAFFIC STATISTICS Palestinian Territory LARGEST Y.ELECOMMUNICATIONS ROUTES, 2001 Destination Minutes (millions) Percent of Outgoing Traffic 1. Jordan .. ............... ... ... 18.8 41.6% 2. United States .. ... .. ... ... ... .. 4.4 9.7% 3. Egypt .. ..... ..................... 4.3 9.6% 4. Saudi Arabia .. ................ .... 2.8 6.1% 5. United Arab Emirates .. ...... 1.9 4.2% 6. Bahrain ........ .... ........ ...... 1.3 • 2.9% 7. United Kingdom ...... .. ........... 1.0 II 2.2% B. Germany ......................... 0.9 I 2.1% 9. Yemen .. ... .......... ........ 0.7 I 1.5% 10. Syria ............................ 0.7 I 1.4% 11 Italy .... ... ... .. .. ....... 0.6 1.2% 12. Turkey ........ ................... 0.5 1.1% 13. France ........................... 0.5 1.0% 14. Lebanon .... ..................... 0.4 0.9% 15. Canada ........ .... ... .......... 0.4 0.8% 16. Qatar ..................... ....... 0.4 0.8% 17. Kuwait .......................... 0.4 0.8% 18. China ............................ 0.3 0.7% 19. Iraq ............ .. ....... ....... 0.3 0.7% 20. Ukraine ... .. .. ................ 0.3 0.7% Others .......... ...... .......... 4.5 M$Wl I 10.0% TOTAL 45.3 Minutes (millions) 1999 2000 2001 Incoming n.a. 37.2 47.9 Outgoing 34.9 45.6 45.3 Surplus (Deficit) n.a. (8.4) 2.6 Total Volume n.a. 82.8 93.1 Note: Data are in millions of minutes of outgoing public switched telecommunications traffic. Data exclude traffic with Israel. © TELEGEOGRAPHY, INC 2002 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2003 201 COUNTRY TRAFFIC STATISTICS Panama LARGEST TELECOMMUNICATIONS ROUTES, 2001 Destination Minutes (millions) Percent of Outgoing Traffic 1. United States .................... 13.0 28.8% 2. Colombia 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 .5.3 11.7% 3. Costa Rica ........ .. .............. 3.3 7.2% 4. Mexico .... ........ ... .......... 2.0 4.4% 5. Venezuela ........................ 1.1 • 2.4% 6. Dominican Republic ........ ....... 1.0 • 2.3% 7. Guatemala ........................ 1.0 • 2.2% 8. Spain 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00. 1.0 • 2.1% 9. Nicaragua .......... .. ... ....... 0.9 • 2.0% 10. Cuba 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 000.8 • 1.7% 11. El Salvador 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 .0.7 • 1.6% 12. Honduras 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 .0.6 • 1.4% 13. Peru 00 00 00 00 00.00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 000.6 • 1.4% 14. Chile 00 00 00 00 00 00 00. 00 00 00. 00 00 00 .0.5 • 1.2% 15. Brazil 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 oo0.5 I 1.0% 16. Ecuador. 00. 00 00 00 00. 00 00 00 00. 00 000.5 I 1.0% 17. Canada 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 000.4 I 0.9% 18. United Kingdom ... ...... .. .... 0.4 I 0.9% 19. Italy 00 00 00 00 00.00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 oo0.2 I 0.5% 20. France 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 .0.2 I 0.5% Others 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 0011.2 24.7% TOTAL 45.3 NATIONAL TRAFFIC BALANCE Minutes (millions) 1999 2000 2001 Incoming 96.2 111.7 119.9 Outgoing 53.6 51.9 45.3 Surplus (Deficit) 42.6 59.7 74.6 Total Volume 149.8 163.6 165.2 Note: Data are in millions of minutes of outgoing public switched telecommunications traffic 202 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2003 © TELEGEOGRAPHY INC 2002 COUNTRY TRAFFIC STATISTICS Paraguay l!A~GEST TELECOMMUNICATIONS ROUTES, 200_1 ---~~..........,-~ ___ .....,..~j Destination Minutes (millions) Percent of Outgoing Traffic 1. Argentina ...... ... ........ .... 11.6 2. Brazil ............................ 8.7 --~~ 3. United States .. ...... ... ........ 3.4 9.6% 4. Uruguay ..... ............. .. ... .. 1.5 .. 4.3% 5. Chile .... ... .. .. .. ............ 1.1 .. 3.1% 6. Spain ..... .. ......... ....... .. 0.6 • 1.6% 7. Bolivia ... ................. .... 0.5 • 1.4% 8. Germany .............. ... ... .... 0.5 • 1.4% 9. Peru ..... ... ............. 0.3 1.0% 10. Lebanon ............ ............ 0.3 0.9% 11. Taiwan ........................... 0.3 0.8% 12. Italy .... ................. .. 0.3 0.7% 13. Mexico ..... ...... ... ...... 0.3 0.7% 14. France .. ....... .... ........ 0.2 0.6% 15. Colombia ... .... ........ ... .. .. 0.2 0.5% 16. Japan ....................... .... 0.2 0.5% 17. Korea, Rep ..... ... ............... 0.2 0.5% 18. China ............................ 0.2 0.5% 19. Switzerland ....................... 0.2 0.5% 20. Canada .. .. .. .. ....... .... 0.2 0.5% Others .......... .. ..... ... ... 4.6 ----· 13.2% TOTAL 35.3 NATIONAL TRAFFIC BALANCE Minutes (millions) 1999 2000 2001 Incoming 54.8 71.6 75.8 Outgoing 34.7 33.3 35.3 Surplus (Deficit) 20.1 38.4 40.6 Total Volume 89.5 104.9 111.1 Note: Data are in millions of minutes of outgoing public switched telecommunications traffic. © TELEGEOGRAPHY, INC 2002 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2003 203 COUNTRY TRAFFIC STATISTICS Philippines LARGEST TELECOMMUNICATIONS ROUTES, FY 2001/02 Destination Minutes (millions) Percent of Outgoing Traffic 1. United States ................... 100.0 •••••••••••••••• 22.3% 2. Japan ...... .... ... ............ 62.0 3. Saudi Arabia ... .. .............. 48.0 4. Singapore .. .. ... .. .... .... ... 34.0 5. Hong Kong ...................... 28.0 6. Canada ......................... 21.0 7. Taiwan ...................... ... 21.0 8. Korea, Rep ...................... 19.0 9. Australia ... ... ..... ... 18.0 •••••••• 13.8% -----· 10.7% ••••• 7.6% --- 6.2% ••• 4.7% ••• 4.7% : :: 4.2% 4.0% 10. Malaysia ......................... 9.0 • 2.0% Others .................. ........ 89.0 •••••••••••••• 19.8% TOTAL 449.0 NATIONAL TRAFFIC BALANCE Minutes (millions) FY 1999/00 FY 2000/01 FY 2001/02 Incoming n.a. 1,977.6 2,332.7 Outgoing ., 260.0 327.0 449.0 Surplus (Deficit) n.a. 1,650.6 1,883.7 Total Volume n.a. 2,304.6 2,781.7 Note: Data are in millions of minutes of outgoing public switched telecommunications traffic. Fiscal year ends 31 March. 204 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2003 © TELEGEOGRAPHY, INC. 2002 COUNTRY TRAFFIC STATISTICS Poland LARGEST T•ELECOMMUNICATIONS ROUTES, 2001 ----------~~--------------------~ Destination Minutes (millions) Percent of Outgoing Traffic 1. Germany ........ ........ .... 270.0 37.0% 2. UnitedKingdom .................. 59.0 8.1% 3. Italy .................. ...... .. 54.0 7.4% 4. France ........... ........... 43.0 5.9% 5. United States ... ..... ......... 32.0 4.4% 6. Austria .......................... 25.0 3.4% 7. Netherlands ... ..... ... .... 25.0 3.4% 8. Ukraine ............. ............ 24.0 • 3.3% 9. Sweden ...... ..... ........ ..... 20.0 • 2.7% 10. Czech Republic ... ... ...... 17.0 • 2.3% Others .. .... .. .. ..... ....... 160.9 •••••••••• 22.0% TOTAL 729.9 NATIONAL TRAFFIC BALANCE Minutes (millions) 1999 2000 2001 Incoming n.a. n.a. n.a. Outgoing 624.0 675.8 729.9 Surplus (Deficit) n.a. n.a. n.a. Total Volume n.a. n.a. n.a. Note: Data are in millions of minutes of outgoing public switched telecommunications traffic. © TELEGEOGRAPHY. INC. 2002 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2003 205 COUNTRY TRAFFIC STATISTICS Portugal LARGEST TELECOMMUNICATIONS ROUTES, 2001 Destination Minutes (millions) Percent of Outgoing Traffic 1. France ................. ........ 140.0 2. Spain ... ... ... ...... .. ... 130.0 -----------· 15.6% ••••••••••••••• 14.4% 3. United Kingdom ........ ......... 80.0 4. Brazil ........................... 79.0 5. Germany ........................ 72.0 6. Switzerland ... ................... 40.0 7. United States .. .............. ... 37.0 8. Ukraine ......................... 30.0 9. Italy .... ... ... ............... ... 25.0 10. Netherlands .. ........ .... .... 24.0 •••••••••• 8.9% ------· 8.8% -----· 8.0% ••• 4.4% • •• 4.1% :==~ 3.3% 2.8% ••• 2.7% 11 Angola .......... ................ 23.0 2.6% 12. Belgium ......................... 17.0 1.9% 13. Cape Verde .......... ............ 16.0 1.8% 14. Canada ......................... 14.0 1.6% 15. Guinea-Bissau ................... 12.0 • 1.3% 16. Luxembourg ...................... 9.0 • 1.0% 17. Moldova ......................... 9.0 • 1.0% 18. Romania .... ............ .... ..... 8.0 • 0.9% 19. Mozambique ...................... 7.0 • 0.8% 20. Venezuela ........................ 6.5 • 0.7% Others ......................... 121.5 13.5% TOTAL 900.0 NATIONAL TRAFFIC BALANCE Minutes (millions) 1999 2000 2001 Incoming 753.3 n.a. n.a. Outgoing 532.8 720.0 900.0 Surplus (Deficit) 220.5 n.a. n.a. Total Volume 1,286.0 n.a. n.a. Note: Data are in millions of mi nutes of outgoing public switched telecommunications traffic. 1999 data are for Portugal Telecom only, and may exclude some cross-border traffic to Spain. 206 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2003 © TELEGEOGRAPHY, INC. 2002 COUNTRY TRAFFIC STATISTICS Qatar LARGEST tEL E C 0 M M UN I C AT~I O_ N_S_R_O_U_}_ E_S_, __ 2 0_0_1 ____________ ,__..j Destination Minutes (millions) Percent of Outgoing Traffic 1. United Arab Emirates ........... 26.6 15.5% 2. India 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 0024.6 14.3% 3. Saudi Arabia 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 .15.9 9.3% 4. Bahrain 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00. 14.2 8.3% 5. Egypt 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00.12.2 IMIMii~1fpm:::: I 7.1% 6. Pakistan 00 00 00 .. 00. 00. 00 00 00 00 00 .5.5 3.2% 7. Jordan 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 .5.4 3.1% 8. Sudan 00. 00 00 00. 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00. 4.5 2.6% 9. Kuwait 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00. 4.3 2.5% 10. Lebanon 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 .2.5 B 1.5% 11. United Kingdom 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 .2.5 B 1.4% 12. Oman ... ............ .. .. ........ 2.4 B 1.4% 13. Bangladesh .... ..... .. ...... 2.3 II 1.3% 14. Sri Lanka 00 00 00 00 00 00. 00 00 00 00 00 .2.1 II 1.2% 15. Iran 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 .2.1 II 1.2% 16. Philippines 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 .2.1 II 1.2% 17. Syria 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 002.0 II 1.1% 18. Yemen 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 .1.4 I 0.8% 19. Morocco 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 .0.9 I 0.5% 20. Germany ...... ... .... .. ....... 0.6 I 0.4% Others ................. ........ 37.6 .lilililililililililililililiiil 21.9% TOTAL 171.6 NATIONAL TRAFFIC BALANCE "-----m--0 o Minutes (millions) 1999 2000 2001 Incoming 84.0 95.5 113.5 Outgoing 128.5 143.0 171.6 Surplus (Deficit) (44.5) (47.5) (58.1) Total Volume 212.5 238.6 285.1 Note: Data are in millions of minutes of outgoing public switched telecommunications traffic. © TELEGEOGRAPHY, INC 2002 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2003 207 COUNTRY TRAFFIC STATISTICS Russia LARGEST TELECOMMUNICATIONS ROUTES, 2001 Destination Minutes (millions) Percent of Outgoing Traffic 1. Ukraine ...... ................. 184.0 2. Belarus ..... .. .. ........ .. 136.5 3. Kazakhstan ................... .75.1 4. Azerbaijan ..... .. .. ... ... 60.7 -------· 17.0% •••••••• 12.6% •••• 6.9% -- 5.6% 5. Germany .... .... .. ... 50.6 4.7% 6. Moldova ......... .. ... ... .47.6 4.4% 7. Armenia .. .. ... ... .. .. .45.1 4.2% 8. Uzbekistan .. ............ 43.3 4.0% 9. Georgia ......................... 27.5 2.5% 10. Latvia ... ... .. .. ... .... 24.3 2.2% 11 Lithuania .... ......... ....... 19.0 • 1.8% 12. Kyrgyzstan ... .. .. ... .. ... ... 18.6 • 1.7% 13. Italy ... .. .. .. .. .... 13.2 • 1.2% 14. United States .. ... .. .... ... 11.0 I 1.0% 15. Poland ....... ...... ... ... .. 8.1 I 0.7% 16. United Kingdom ... ..... .... ... .7.7 I 0.7% 17. Estonia ................... ... .. .7.4 I 0.7% 18. France .... ..... ... ... .. ... 5.9 I 0.5% 19. Ch ina ... ... ... ... .. 5.6 I 0.5% 20. Turkey ....................... ... 5.2 I 0.5% Others .... .... .... ... .. 285.2 ------------ 26.4% TOTAL 1,081.6 NATIONAL TRAFFIC BALANCE Minutes (millions) 1999 2000 2001 Incoming 929.3 n.a. 869.3 Outgoing ·, 928.2 944.0 1,081.6 Surplus (Deficit) 1.1 n.a. (212.3) Total Volume 1,857.5 n.a. 1,950.9 Note: Data are in millions of minutes of outgoing public switched telecommunications traffic. Data are for Rostelecom only. 208 TELEGEOGRAPHY 200 3 © TELEGEOGRAPHY INC 200 2 COUNTRY TRAFFIC STATISTICS Saint Vincent & The Grenadines LARGEST T·ELECOMMUNICATIONS ROUTES, 2001 ----~--~~------------~~--~ Destination Minutes (thousands) Percent of Outgoing Traffic 1. United States ... .... .. .. 770.1 2. Barbados .. .. .. ... .. .. 582.5 3. Trinidad & Tobago ... ... 352.7 •••••••• 11 .7% 4. Canada ..... .... ...... ....... 210.6 --- 7.0% 5. United Kingdom ................. 152.4 5.0% 6. Grenada ..................... .. 120.9 4.0% 7. Saint Lucia .. .. .. 108.6 3.6% 8. Antigua & Barbuda .... .. 53.4 • 1.8% 9. Saint Kitts & Nevis .............. 48.3 • 1.6% 10. Martinique .... ...... ..... 33.7 • 1.1 % 11 Jamaica ......................... 33.1 • 1.1% 12. Guyana .. .. ... .... 26.7 I 0.9% 13. France ..................... .... 26.5 I 0.9% 14. Dominica .. ...... ... ... .... 21 .8 I 0.7% 15. Italy .......... .. ... ..... 17.7 I 0.6% 16. Germany ...... ............... 15.8 I 0.5% 17. Venezuela .............. ....... 15.1 I 0.5% Others .. .. .. .. ... .. .. 350.0 11.6% TOTAL 3,022.0 NATIONAL TRAFFIC BALANCE Minutes (millions) 1999 2000 2001 Incoming n.a n.a. n.a. Outgoing n.a n.a. 3.0 Surplus (Deficit) n.a. n.a n.a. Total Volume n.a. n.a. n.a. Note: National traffic data are in millions of minutes of outgoing public switched telecommunications traffic; route data are in thousands of minutes of outgoing public switched telecommunications traffic. © TE LEGEOGRAPHY, I N C. 2002 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2003 209 COUNTRY TRAFFIC STATISTICS Saudi Arabia LARGEST TELECOMMUNICATIONS ROUTES, 2001 Destination Minutes (millions) Percent of Outgoing Traffic 1. Egypt 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 .225.0 14.8% 2. India 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 .216.0 14.2% 3. Pakistan ....... ................ 154.0 10.2% 4. Sudan ... ... .. ... ... .... ... 99.0 6.5% 5. Bahrain .. .. .... 84.0 5.5% 6. Bangladesh .. .... .. .70.0 4.6% 7. Yemen .. ........ ..... .. .. ... 70.0 4.6% 8. United Arab Emirates .. ....... 68.0 4.5% 9. Syria ..... .. ... ... .. 66.0 4.4% 10. Philippines .... .. ... ... .. ..... 63.0 4.2% 11 Kuwait 00 00 00 00 00.00 00 00 00 00 00 00.44.0 2.9% 12. Jordan ...... .. ... ... .. .40.0 2.6% 13. United States ........... .. ... .. 34.0 2.2% 14. Lebanon .... ........ ..... 30.0 2.0% 15. Morocco 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00.30.0 2.0% 16. United Kingdom .. ... ... ... 30.0 2.0% 17. Indonesia 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 .23.0 1.5% 18. Turkey 00 00 00 00 00 00 .. 00 00 00 00 00 0022.0 1.5% 19. Qatar ... .. 16.0 • 1.1% 20. Sri Lanka 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 0014.0 • 0.9% Others .. .... ..... ... ... ... 118.6 ------ 7.8% TOTAL 1,516.6 NATIONAL TRAFFIC BALANCE Minutes (millions) 1999 2000 2001 Incoming n.a n.a. 705.5 Outgoing 1,060.0 11194.9 1,516.6 Surplus (Deficit) n.a. n.a. (811.2) Total Volume n.a. n.a. 2,222.1 Note: Data are in millions of minutes of outgoing public switched telecommunications traffic. 210 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2003 © TELEGEOGRAPHY, INC. 200 2 COUNTRY TRAFFIC STATISTICS Serbia & Montenegro LARGEST TELECOMMUNICATIONS ROUTES, 2001 ----------------~------------~--~ Destination Minutes (millions) Percent of Outgoing Traffic 1. Germany .. ... ... .. ... ..... 38.9 ----------- 14.1% 2. Austria .. .... ........ 28.1 3. Croatia ....... ............. 24.6 4. Switzerland .... .. .. .... ........ 23.0 5. Italy .......... .......... .... .... 20.8 6. France .......................... 11 .7 7. Bosnia-Herzegovina .. .. .... .. 11.6 8. Hungary ......................... 9.9 9. Slovenia ... .. ... ...... ... 7.9 10. Greece ..... ... .... .. ... .7.6 ••••••••••• 10.2% ------- 8.9% ------· 8.4% -----· 7.5% ••••• 4.3% --- 4.2% :==~ 3.6% 2.9% -- 2.8% 11 Russia .............. ........ .... .7.1 2.6% 12. United States ...... .............. 6.5 2.3% 13. United Kingdom ............ .. ..... 6.4 2.3% 14. Sweden .......................... 5.3 1.9% 15. Macedonia ....................... 5.1 1.9% 16. Romania ......................... 5.1 1.9% 17. Netherlands ..... .. .. ..... .. .. 4.8 1.7% 18. Turkey ..................... .. .... 3.8 1.4% 19. Bulgaria .......................... 3.5 • 1.3% 20. Belgium .......................... 3.0 • 1.1% Others ............... .......... 40.7 •••••••••••••••• 14.8% TOTAL 275.5 NATIONAL TRAFFIC BALANCE Minutes (millions) 1999 2000 2001 Incoming 498.8 n.a. 582.2 Outgoing 227.0 286.9 275.5 Surplus (Deficit) 271.7 n.a. 306.7 Total Volume 725.8 n.a. 857.7 Note: Data are in millions of minutes of outgoing public switched telecommunications traffic © TELEGEOGRAPHY, INC 2002 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2003 211 COUNTRY TRAFFIC STATISTICS Seychelles LARGEST TELECOMMUNICATIONS ROUTES, 2001 Destination Minutes (thousands) Percent of Outgoing Traffic 1. United Kingdom ................ 1.427.1 •••••••••••• 17.4% 2. India ......................... 1,035.6 ••••••••••• 12.6% 3. France .... ...... ....... 841.3 ------- 10.3% 4. Mauritius ...... ....... ... .... 741.3 -----· 9.0% 5. Italy ........................... 715.7 •••••••• 8.7% 6. South Africa .................... 543.9 ••••• • 6.6% 7. Germany ....................... 387.7 --- 4.7% 8. United States ................. .. 253.4 : :: 3.1% 9. Spain .......................... 243.9 3.0% 10. Australia ...... ...... ...... .. .. 223.1 2.7% 11. Singapore ... ....... ......... 219.8 2.7% 12. China .. ...... ...... .. ..... 182.8 2.2% 13. Switzerland ................ .... 176.8 2.2% 14. Reunion ........................ 143.7 1.8% 15. United Arab Emirates .... .... ... 140.1 1.7% 16. Canada ...... ... ........ ...... 104.6 • 1.3% 17. Belgium ...... .. ... .... ... ...... 88.4 • 1.1% 18. Bahrain ......................... 77.8 • 0.9% 19. Netherlands ..................... 58.7 • 0.7% 20. Sweden .. .. ...... ... ..... 43.0 I 0.5% Others ..... ..... ........ ...... 550.0 •••••• 6.7% TOTAL 8,200.0 NATIONAL TRAFFIC BALANCE Minutes (millions) 1999 2000 2001 Incoming n.a. n.a. n.a. Outgoing 4.3 6.7 8.2 Surplus lOeficit) n.a. n.a. n.a. Total Volume n.a. n.a. .n.a. Note: National traffic data are in millions of minutes of outgoing public switched telecommunications traffic; route data are in thousands of minutes of outgoing public switched telecommunications traffic. 212 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2003 © TELEGEOGRAPHY, INC 2002 COUNTRY TRAFFIC STATISTICS Singapore • LARGEST TELECOMMUNICATIONS ROUTES, FY 2001/02 Destination Minutes (millions) Percent of Outgoing Traffic 1. Malaysia .. ... .. ...... .... 550.0 29.4% 2. United Kingdom .... ........... 155.0 NJtJMI 8.3% 3. Hong Kong .. .. .. ........ .. 140.0 •••• 7.5% 4. China .. ........ ...... ...... .... 90.0 ••• 4.8% 5. Indonesia ........ .. ...... 90.0 4.8% 6. United States .. .. ..... .. 85.0 4.5% 7. Australia ..... ........... .. .... .75.0 .. 4.0% 8. Japan ........ ...... .... .... .... 75.0 11111 4.0% 9. Thailand .......... .. ... 50.0 2.7% 10. Philippines ........ .. .. .... .. .. 45.0 • 2.4% 11 India ................ .. .... .. .. .. 40.0 • 2.1% 12. Taiwan ........ .... .. .. .. .. .. .. 37.0 B 2.0% 13. Korea, Rep ..... ....... 18.0 I 1.0% 14. Bangladesh .. ... ... ............ 16.0 I 0.9% 15. Germany ........................ 10.0 I 0.5% Others ..... ....... 394.7 21 .1% TOTAL 1,870.7 NATIONAL TRAFFIC BALANCE Minutes (millions) FY 1999/00 FY 2000/01 FY 2001/02 Incoming n.a. n.a. n.a. Outgoing 1,350.0 1,515.0 1,870.7 Surplus (Deficit) n.a n.a. n.a. Total Volume n.a n.a. n.a. Note: Data are in millions of minutes of outgoing public switched telecommunications traffic Fiscal year ends 31 March. © TELEGEOGRAPHY, INC 2002 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2003 213 COUNTRY TRAFFIC STATISTICS Slovak Republic LARGEST TELECOMMUNICATIONS ROUTES, 2001 ----------~----------~-------- Destination Minutes (millions) Percent of Outgoing Traffic 2. Germany ... ... ...... .. 24.6 •••••• 13.9% 3. Austria .. ......... ........ 14.1 8.0% 4. Hungary ... ...................... 8.9 .. 5.0% 5. Poland .......................... .7.2 4.1% 6. Italy ............................. 7.2 4.1% 7. United Kingdom ... .. ... .. .. 6.3 Ill 3.5% 8. United States .. ........ ... 5.4 l4Ji 3.0% 9. France .......................... 3.7 2.1% 10. Switzerland ....................... 3.2 Ill 1.8% 11. Ukraine .......... ........ ........ 3.1 Ill 1.8% 12. Netherlands ...... .... ............ 2.4 I 1.3% 13. Spain .... ........................ 1.9 1 1.1% 14. Belgium .... .. ........ .. .......... 1.8 I 1.0% 15. Russia .... ....................... 1.7 I 1.0% 16. Croatia ............. ..... .. ..... 1.1 I 0.6% 17. Serbia & Montenegro .. .. ....... 0.9 I 0.5% 18. Canada .... .... .............. .. .. 0.9 I 0.5% 19. Sweden ........................ .. 0.8 I 0.5% 20. Romania ......................... 0.8 I 0.4% Others ..... .... .... .. .. .. ...... 16.2 IMj\,i,,Wi 9.2% TOTAL 176.3 NATIONAL TRAFFIC BALANCE -- Minutes (millions) 1999 2000 2001 Incoming 208.7 233.1 n.a. Outgoing 162.8 162.7 176.3 Surplus (Deficit) 45.9 70.4 n.a. Total Volume 371.5 395.7 n.a. Note: Data are in millions of niinutes of outgoing public switched telecommunications traffic. 214 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2003 © TELEGEOGRAPHY, INC 2002 COUNTRY TRAFFIC STATISTICS South Africa LARGEST T·ELECOMMUNICATIONS ROUTES, FY 2001/02 Destination Minutes (millions) Percent of Outgoing Traffic 1. United Kingdom .. .... 95.2 3. Namibia ... .. .. .... .. 39.0 4. Botswana ...... .. .. .. ... 32.9 5. United States .... ... .. ... ... 25.2 6. Mozambique ..... .... .. .... ...... 21.7 hM 4.2% 7. Swaziland ... ... ..... ... .. 17.9 3.5% 8. Germany .. ...... .. ..... 16.3 3.2% 9. Australia .. .. ..... .... 13.8 .. 2.7% 10. Lesotho .. .. .. ...... 13.6 2.7% 11 Malawi .. .. ...... .. .... ......... 8.6 • 1.7% 12. Netherlands ... ..... .. ....... ..... 8.4 • 1.6% 13. Zambia ..... .................... .. 8.4 • 1.6% 14. Nigeria .... .............. .... .. .7.3 • 1.4% 15. France ...... ...... .. ... .. ...... 6.7 • 1.3% 16. Portugal .... .. .. .. ........ ... 6.1 11 1.2% 17. Canada .... .. .... .. ............ 6.0 • 1.2% 18. Italy ...... .... ............ ....... 5.7 II 1.1% 19. India ... .. ...... .. ..... .... .. ... .. 5.4 II 1.1% 20. Congo, Dem. Rep ....... .... .. .... 5.2 II 1.0% Others .. .. ... .... .. ..... 105.9 •••••••••••••••• 20.7% TOTAL 510.7 NATIONAL TRAFFIC BALANCE Minutes (millions) FY 1999/00 FY 2000/01 FY 2001/02 Incoming n.a. 700.0 736.0 Outgoing 461.1 494.6 510.7 Surplus (Deficit) n.a. 205.4 225.3 Total Volume n.a. 1,194.6 1,246.7 Note: Data are in millions of minutes of outgoing public switched telecommunications traffic Fiscal year ends 31 March. © TELEGEOGRAPHY, INC 200 2 TELEGEOGRAPHY 200 3 215 COUNTRY TRAFFIC STATISTICS Spain LARGEST TELECOMMUNICATIONS ROUTES. 2001 Destination Minutes (millions) Percent of Outgoing Traffic 1. United Kingdom .. .. .. .... ..... 605.0 2. Germany ............... 0 ••••• •• 540.0 3. France ......................... 510.0 4. Italy ...... 0 • • • • ••••• •••• •• 0 •• •• 225.0 •••••••• 14.2% ••••••••• 12.6% ------ 11.9% ••• 5.3% 5. Portugal ................... 0 ••• • 190.0 4.4% 6. Morocco ... .......... .. ... 165.0 3.9% 7. United States ................... 150.0 3.5% B. Netherlands .................... 115.0 2.7% 9. Switzerland ......... ... ... 100.0 2.3% 10. Belgium ......................... 95.0 2.2% 11 Ecuador ............... ......... 90.0 2.1% 12. Cuba ...... .. ........ 80.0 • 1.9% 13. Colombia ........................ 78.0 • 1.8% 14. Argentina ............ .. ....... 60.0 • 1.4% 15. Ireland ..... .......... 60.0 • 1.4% 16. Romania ..... ................... 60.0 • 1.4% 17. Sweden ......................... 60.0 • 1.4% 18. Andorra ......... ... .... ... 46.0 • 1.1% 19. Dominican Republic ..... ... .. .40.0 • 0.9% 20. Peru ........................... .40.0 • 0.9% Others ......................... 966.0 22.6% TOTAl 4,275.0 NATIONAL TRAFFIC BALANCE Minutes (millions) 1999 2000 2001 Incoming n.a. n.a. n.a. Outgoing 2,340.0 3,215.0 4,275.0 Surplus (Deficit) n.a. n.a. n.a. Total Volume n.a n.a. n.a. Note: Data are in millions of minutes of outgoing public switched telecommunications traffic. Total traffic volumes may include some refile traffic to latin America originated outside of Spain. 216 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2003 © TELEGEOGRAPHY, INC. 2002 COUNTRY TRAFFIC STATISTICS Sri Lanka Destination Minutes (millions) Percent of Outgoing Traffic 1. India ... .......... .. ......... 8.7 16.2% 2. United Kingdom ....... ... ........ 5.5 10.2% 3. United States ............. .. .... 3.2 6.0% 4. Singapore ............ .. ........ .. 2.7 4.9% 5. Australia ......................... 2.6 4.9% 6. Japan .... ... ......... ... ... ... 2.6 4.8% 7. United Arab Emirates .. ... ..... 2.3 4.3% B. Saudi Arabia ........... .... 2.0 3.6% 9. Maldives ............... ........ 1.6 2.9% 10. Germany ............. 1.6 2.9% 11. Kuwait ......... ... .. ... .... ... 1.4 2.7% 12. Hong Kong .............. ...... 1.4 2.6% 13. Italy ............................. 1.3 2.4% 14. Canada ... ... ........... .... 1.0 • 1.8% 15. Pakistan ..... ...... ...... .. ... 0.9 • 1.6% 16. France ........................... 0.8 • 1.5% 17. Korea, Rep ........................ 0.8 • 1.5% 18. Malaysia .......... .... ...... .. 0.8 • 1.5% 19. Thailand .......... .. ... .... .. 0.8 • 1.5% 20. China ............................ 0.8 • 1.4% Others .. .. ... ... ............ ... 11.2 •••••••••••••••• 20.7% TOTAL 54.0 NATIONAL TRAFFIC BALANCE Minutes (millions) 1999 2000 2001 Incoming n.a. 157.0 180.0 Outgoing 45.5 42.0 54.0 Surplus (Deficit) n.a. 115.0 126.0 Total Volume n.a. 199.0 234.0 Note: Data are in millions of minutes of outgoing public switched telecommunications traffic. © TELEGEOGRAPHY, INC 2002 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2003 217 COUNTRY TRAFFIC STATISTICS Sudan LARGEST TELECOMMUNICATIONS ROUTES, 2001 Destination Minutes (millions) Percent of Outgoing Traffic 1. Saudi Arabia ..................... 12.5 34.5% 2. United Arab Emirates ............... 4.2 11.5% 3. Egypt ...... ..... .. .... ... 2.4 6.6% 4. United Kingdom ................... 1.6 4.4% 5. Bahrain .......................... 1.0 • 2.8% 6. Qatar ............................ 1.0 a 2.8% 7. Australia .................. ....... 0.8 • 2.2% 8. United States ..................... 0.7 • 2.1% 9. Jordan .......................... 0.6 I 1.7% 10. Syria ............................ 0.5 I 1.4% 11 Germany ......................... 0.4 1 1.0% 12. China ... ......................... 0.3 I 0.9% 13. India ............................. 0.3 I 0.9% 14. Yemen ........................... 0.3 I 0.8% 15. Libya ............................ 0.3 I 0.8% 16. Eritrea ..... .......... .. ..... .... 0.3 I 0.8% 17. Italy ............................. 0.3 I 0.7% 18. France ........................... 0.2 I 0.7% 19. Oman ............................ 0.2 I 0.6% 20. Canada ............. .. .. ........ 0.2 I 0.6% Others ........................... 8.1 22.3% TOTAL 36.1 NATIONAL TRAFFIC BALANCE Minutes (millions) 1999 2000 2001 Incoming 105.3 155.7 n.a. Outgoing ., 21.9 31.8 36.1 Surplus !Deficit) 83.3 123.9 n.a. Total Volume 127.2 187.6 n.a. Note: Data are in millions of minutes of outgoing public switched telecommunications traffic. Data exclude some cross­ border traffic to Chad. 218 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2003 © TELEGEOGRAPHY, INC 2002 COUNTRY TRAFFIC STATISTICS Swaziland LA R G E s T T· E L E c 0 M M u N I c AT I 0 N s R 0 u T E s I F y 2 0 0 1/0 2 ------~--------------~ Destination Minutes (thousands) Percent of Outgoing Traffic 1. South Africa .................. 20,800.0 2. United Kingdom .......... .. .. 720.0 I 2.7% 3. Botswana .. ......... .. ....... 370.0 1.4% 4. United States ... ... ... .. .. ... 140.0 0.5% 5. Zimbabwe ...................... 140.0 0.5% 6. Lesotho .. ... .... ........... 120.0 0.5% 7. Zambia ... ........ .... ... ... 80.0 0.3% 8. Kenya .......................... 60.0 0.2% 9. Taiwan ......................... 50.0 0.2% 10. Uganda ...................... 50.0 0.2% 11. India ........ ...... ........... 40.0 0.2% 12. Malawi ......................... 40.0 0.2% 13. Namibia .. .... ...... ..... ... .40.0 0.2% 14. Portugal .. ..................... .40.0 0.2% 15. Tanzania ....................... .40.0 0.2% 16. Australia .... ... .. ... .... 30.0 0.1% 17. Canada ..... .... ... .. 30.0 0.1% 18. Germany ........................ 30.0 0.1% 19. Ghana .... ......... ........ ... 30.0 0.1% 20. Italy ......... ... .. ..... ... ..... 30.0 0.1% Others ........................ 3,420.0 13.0% TOTAL 26,300.0 NATIONAL TRAFFIC BALANCE Minutes (millions) FY 1999/00 FY 2000/01 FY 2001/02 Incoming n.a. 22.5 n.a. Outgoing 29.3 25.1 26.3 Surplus (Deficit) n.a. (2.6) n.a. Total Volume n.a. 47.6 n.a. Note: National traffic data are in millions of minutes of outgoing public switched telecommunications traffic; route data are in thousands of minutes of outgoing public switched telecommunications traffic. Fiscal year ends 31 March. © TELEGEOGRAPHY, INC 2002 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2003 219 COUNTRY TRAFFIC STATISTICS Sweden LARGEST TELECOMMUNICATIONS ROUTES, 2001 Destination Minutes (millions) Percent of Outgoing Traffic 1. Finland ..... .................... 240.0 2. Norway ........................ 235.0 3. United Kingdom ... ... ......... .. 230.0 4. Denmark ....................... 190.0 5. United States ... ..... ..... ...... 170.0 6. Germany ....................... 160.0 7. Poland ... ................ ..... .75.0 8. France .... .. ....... ... .. ... 70.0 9. Netherlands ... ..... ..... ........ 60.0 10. Switzerland .. .. ... .... 60.0 Others .. .... ...... .... .. 220.0 TOTAl 1,710.0 NATIONAL TRAFFIC BALANCE Minutes (millions) Incoming Outgoing Surplus (Deficit) Total Volume •••••••••••••••• 14.0% ••••••••••••••• 13.7% ••••••••••••••• 13.5% ••••••••••••• 11.1% ............... 9.9% -------· 9.4% · 4.4% : ::::-: 4.1% 3.5% •••• 3.5% ••••••••••••••• 12.9% 1999 2000 2001 n.a. n.a. n.a. 1,365.0 1,550.0 1,710.0 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. Note: Data are in millions of minutes of outgoing public switched telecommunications traffic. 220 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2003 © TELEGEOGRAPHY, INC 2002 COUNTRY TRAFFIC STATISTICS Switzerland LARGEST T·ELECOMMUNICATIONS ROUTES, 2001 Destination Minutes (millions) Percent of Outgoing Traffic 1. Germany .. ....... .... ...... ... 655.0 •••••••••••• \20.3% 2. France .... .. ..... .... ... ..... .450.0 3. Italy 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 .. 00410.0 4. United Kingdom ...... ..... .... 180.0 5. United States 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 .155.0 ••••••• 13.9% •••••• 12.7% -- 5.6% ••• 4.8% 6. Austria 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00. 140.0 4.3% 7. Spain 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 135.0 4.2% 8. Portugal 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00. 110.0 3.4% 9. Serbia & Montenegro ... .... .. 85.0 2.6% 10. Netherlands 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00.65.0 • 2.0% Others .... ... .... ..... 845.0 •••••••••••• 26.2% TOTAl 3,230.0 NATIONAL TRAFFIC BALANCE Minutes (millions) 1999 2000 2001 Incoming n.a. n.a. n.a. Outgoing 2,120.0 2,780.0 3,230.0 Surplus (Deficit) n.a. n.a. n.a. Total Volume n.a. n.a. n.a. Note: Data are in millions of minutes of outgoing public switched telecommunications traffic. © TELEGEOGRAPHY, INC 2002 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2003 221 COUNTRY TRAFFIC STATISTICS Syria I LARGEST TELECOMMUNICATIONS ROUTES, 2001 Destination Minutes (millions) Percent of Outgoing Traffic 1. Lebanon ..... ........... 41 .5 •••••••••••••••• 27.7% 2. Saudi Arabia ..................... 32.5 •••••••• •• 21.7% 3. United Arab Emirates .............. 12.1 --- 8.1% 4. Jordan .... .. ... .... 9.6 6.4% 5. Iraq ...... ... ... .. ... .. .. ... 6.3 4.2% 6. Egypt 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 .5.2 3.5% 1. United States .................. ... 5.1 3.4% 8. Kuwait ..... .. ... ... .. 4.9 3.3% 9. France ... .................... 3.2 2.1% 10. Turkey .. .............. .... ... 3.2 2.1% 11 United Kingdom ... .... ...... 3.2 2.1% 12. Germany .. .... ... 2.8 1.9% 13. Bahrain ........... ....... .. 2.2 • 1.5% 14. Qatar 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 1.2 I o.8% 15. Sudan 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 .1.2 I o.8% 16. Russia ........................... 1.1 I o.1% 17. Switzerland ....................... 1.0 I o.7% 18. Greece .... ... ............ .. .... 1.0 I o.1% 19. Iran .... .... .... .... ... 1.0 I o.6% 20. Morocco ......................... 0.8 I o.5% Others ....... .. .. .. .. .. .. 10.9 7.3% TOTAL 150.0 NATIONAL TRAFFIC BALANCE Minutes (millions) 1999 2000 2001 Incoming 256.7 286.0 325.8 Outgoing 125.6 140.0 150.0 Surplus (Deficit) 131.1 146.0 175.8 Total Volume 382.3 426.0 475.8 Note: Data are in millions of minutes of outgoing public switched telecommunications traffic. 222 TELEGEOGRAPH Y 2003 © TELEGEOGRAPHY INC 2002 COUNTRY TRAFFIC STATISTICS Taiwan LARGEST T·ELECOMMUNICATIONS ROUTES, 2001 Destination Minutes (millions) Percent of Outgoing Traffic 1. China .. ................ .... .. .423.0 27.8% 2. United States ................... 200.0 13.1% 3. Japan ............... ... ........ 105.0 6.9% 4. Philippines ... .. ........ ... 88.6 5.8% 5. Hong Kong ..... ... ... ..... 87.0 5.7% 6. Thailand ... ......... .. .... .... 66.1 4.3% 7. Vietnam ..... .. .. ... ..... ..... 64.9 4.3% 8. Indonesia ....................... 37.1 • 2.4% 9. Canada ...... ... ... .... .. 32.9 • 2.2% 10. Singapore ... ........ ...... ... 32.0 • 2.1% 11. Australia ...... .. ...... 21 .0 I 1.4% 12. Malaysia ........... .. .... ...... 19.0 I 1.2% 13. United Kingdom ...... ...... 15.1 I 1.0% 14. Korea, Rep .. ................ .. 12.6 I 0.8% 15. Germany .. .. ....... .. .. ... .. 11.0 I 0.7% 16. New Zealand ..... ..... ... .... .7 .0 I 0.5% 17. France ........................... 6.3 I 0.4% 18. Macau ........................... 4.8 I 0.3% 19. Myanmar .. ......... ............. 4.7 I 0.3% 20. Italy ............................. 3.7 I 0.2% Others .... .... ................. 280.6 ·······- 18.4% TOTAL 1,522.2 NATIONAL TRAFFIC BALANCE Minutes (millions) 1999 2000 2001 Incoming 882.0 n.a. n.a. Outgoing 949.3 1,160.0 1,522.2 Surplus (Deficit) (67.3) n.a. n.a. Total Volume 1,831.3 n.a. n.a. Note: Data are in millions of minutes of outgoing public switched telecommunications traffic. © TELEGEOGRAPHY, INC 2002 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2003 223 COUNTRY TRAFFIC STATISTICS Tajikistan LARGEST TELECOMMUNICATIONS ROUTES, 2001 Destination Minutes (thousands) Percent of Outgoing Traffic 1. Russia ........................ 5,521 .3 ···········- 64.5% 2. Uzbekistan ....... ............ 1,391.4 16.2% 3. Kazakhstan ..................... 634.4 7.4% 4. Kyrgyzstan ..... ......... .... 303.9 • 3.5% 5. Ukraine ........................ 140.2 I 1.6% 6. Turkmenistan .................. 112.2 I 1.3% 7. Belarus ... .. .. ... ... ... .72.1 I 0.8% 8. Azerbaijan ..................... 22.9 I 0.3% 9. Armenia ... .. ...... .. .... 10.1 I 0.1% 10. Georgia .... ..... ............... 10.1 I 0.1% Others ............. .. ......... 340.0 • 4.0% TOTAL 8,565.8 NATIONAL TRAFFIC BALANCE Minutes (millions) 1999 2000 2001 Incoming n.a. 18.5 n.a. Outgoing 9.0 6.8 8.6 Surplus (Deficit) n.a. 11.7 n.a. Total Volume n.a. 25.3 n.a. Note: National traffic data are in millions of minutes of outgoing public switched telecommunications traffic; route data are in thousands of minutes of outgoing public switched telecommunications traffic The "Others" category may include routes to non-members of the Commonwealth of Independent States that rank among the top destinations for outgoing traffic 224 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2003 © TELEGEOGRAPHY, INC 2002 COUNTRY TRAFFIC STATISTICS Thailand LARGEsT T·E L E c 0 M M u N I cAT I 0 N s R 0 u T E s I 2 0 01 Destination Minutes (millions) Percent of Outgoing Traffic 1. Japan ........... ........ ........ 45.4 ••••••••••• 12.0% 2. United States .................... 34.5 I i M ;J.®IIiiQ 9.1% 3. Singapore ....................... 29.8 4. Malaysia ............... ...... .. 26.0 5. Laos ............................ 22.5 6. Taiwan ... ....... ...... ........ 19.8 7. Australia ......... ........ .. .. 17.3 8. Hong Kong ... ............ ... ... 17.1 9. United Kingdom .................. 17.0 10. Myanmar ........................ 13.5 ••••••• 7.9% •••••• 6.9% ditt:MM 6.0% ••••• 5.2% ••• 4.6% ••• 4.5% ••• 4.5% -- 3.6% 11. Germany .... ..... ... ... .. .... 10.8 111111 2.9% 12. Korea, Rep ... ......... ......... 10.4 2.8% 13. China ...... ....... .... ...... 8.1 .. 2.1% 14. Philippines .. ............ ..... 7.5 2.0% 15. France ..................... ..... 5.6 • 1.5% 16. Sweden .......................... 5.0 • 1.3% 17. India ............................ .4.8 • 1.3% 18. Switzerland ....... .... ... ...... 4.8 • 1.3% 19. Indonesia .... ... ..... ........ .4.3 • 1.1% 20. Italy ............................. 4.2 • 1.1% Others ......... .. .... .......... 69.4 ••••••••••••••••• 18.4% TOTAL 377.7 NATIONAL TRAFFIC BALANCE Minutes (millions) 1999 2000 2001 Incoming 327.8 426.6 555.0 Outgoing 298.7 355.2 377.7 Surplus !Deficit) 29.1 71.4 177.4 Total Volume 626.5 781.8 932.6 Note: Data are in millions of minutes of outgoing public switched telecommunications traffic. 1999 data exclude some cross-border traffic with Laos, Malaysia, and Myanmar. © TELEGEOGRAPHY, INC. 2002 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2003 225 COUNTRY TRAFFIC STATISTICS Togo LARGEST TELECOMMUNICATIONS ROUTES, 2001 Destination Minutes (thousands) Percent of Outgoing Traffic 1. France ........................ 2,940.0 20.8% 2. Benin ....... .. .. ..... ... 1,816.0 12.9% 3. Burkina Faso ........ ...... .... 1,326.0 9.4% 4. Cote dlvoire ................... 1,066.0 7.5% 5. Ghana ................. ...... 698.0 4.9% 6. Senegal .. .. .... ................ 580.0 4.1% 7. Nigeria .. ... .. ... .. 562.0 4.0% 8. United States ................... 513.0 3.6% 9. Germany ........... ...... .. 495.0 3.5% 10. Niger ........ .... .............. 347.0 2.5% 11 Mali .. .. ...... .... .... .... .. ... 306.0 2.2% 12. Lebanon ........................ 299.0 2.1% 13. Gabon .. .... ... ...... .. 271 .0 1.9% 14. United Kingdom ... ... ... .. .. 267.0 1.9% 15. Belgium ...... .................. 246.0 • 1.7% 16. Liechtenstein ...... ..... .... 152.0 • 1.1% 17. Cameroon ............ .......... 142.0 • 1.0% 18. Netherlands .. .. .. .. ............ 119.0 • 0.8% 19. India ........................... 115.0 I 0.8% 20. China .............. .. .......... 111.0 I 0.8% Others ................... .... 1,750.0 ••••••••• 1 12.4% TOTAL 14,125.0 NATIONAL TRAFFIC BALANCE Minutes (millions) 1999 2000 2001 Incoming 21.6 12.2 48.8 Outgoing 8.5 10.2 14.1 Surplus (Deficit) 13.1 2.0 34.6 Total Volume 30.1 22.4 62.9 Note: National traffic data are in millions of minutes of outgoing public switched telecommunications traffic; route data are in thousands of minutes of outgoing public switched telecommunications traffic 226 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2003 © TELEGEOGRAPHY INC 2002 COUNTRY TRAFFIC STATISTICS Tonga LARGEST TELECOMMUNICATIONS ROUTES, 2001 ------------0~----------------------------~~~ Destination Minutes (thousands) Percent of Outgoing Traffic 1. New Zealand ............ ... 1,250.3 2. Australia .... ..... ......... 500.9 3. United States .. .. ........... 477.2 4. Fiji ...... .. ...... .. .. .. 351.9 16.3% ••••• 15.5% ..... 11 .4% 5. Japan ....... ............. .. .. 44.8 I 1.5% 6. Samoa ..... ..... .... .... 41 .8 I 1.4% 7. China ....... ... .. .. .... ... 40.9 I 1.3% 8. Papua New Guinea ......... 31 .8 I 1.0% 9. United Kingdom .. ..... .. .. .. .... 28.2 I 0.9% 10. Vietnam .. .. .. ..... .. .... .... 0.1 I 0.1% 11. Macau .. .. ........ .... ... 0.1 I 0.1% Others ..... .. ..... .......... .. 240.0 7.8% TOTAL 3,074.0 NATIONAL TRAFFIC BALANCE Minutes (millions) 1999 Incoming n.a. Outgoing 3.0 Surplus (Deficit) n.a. Total Volume n.a. 2000 2001 8.0 n.a. 2.5 3.1 5.5 n.a. 10.5 n.a. Note: National traffic data are in millions of minutes of outgoing public switched telecommunications traffic; route data are in thousands of minutes of outgoing publ ic switched telecommunications traffic © TELEGEOGRAPHY, INC 2002 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2003 227 COUNTRY TRAFFIC STATISTICS Trinidad & Tobago LARGEST TELECOMMUNICATIONS ROUTES, FV 2001/02 Destination Minutes (millions) Percent of Outgoing Traffic 1. United States .................... 39.1 48.4% 2. Canada .......................... 7.5 9.3% 3. United Kingdom ................... 5.4 6.7% 4. Barbados ......................... 4.3 5.3% 5. Grenada ......................... 2.9 • 3.6% 6. Jamaica ......................... 2.7 • 3.4% 7. Guyana .......................... 2.3 • 2.9% 8. Venezuela ....................... 2.0 • 2.5% 9. Saint Vincent & The Grenadines ... .. 2.0 • 2.5% 10. Saint Lucia ....................... 1.6 • 2.0% 11. Antigua & Barbuda ................ 1.1 1 1.4% 12. Dominica ......................... 0.6 I 0.7% 13. Saint Kitts & Nevis ................. 0.5 I 0.6% 14. Netherlands Antilles ............... 0.4 I 0.5% 15. Germany ......................... 0.4 I 0.4% 16. India ............................. 0.4 I 0.4% 17. Netherlands ......... ....... .. 0.3 I 0.4% 18. Cayman Islands ................... 0.3 I 0.4% 19. Bahamas ......................... 0.3 I 0.3% Others ........................... 6.3 7.8% TOTAL 80.9 NATIONAL TRAFFIC BALANCE Minutes (millions) FV 1999/00 FV 2000/01 FY 2001/02 Incoming 158.8 167.7 189.2 Outgoing 67.2 80.5 80.9 Surplus (Deficit) 91.6 87.2 108.3 Total Volume 226.0 248.2 270.0 Note: Data are in millions of minutes of outgoing public switched telecommunications traffic. Fiscal year ends 31 March. 228 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2003 © TELEGEOGRAPHY, INC 2002 COUNTRY TRAFFIC STATISTICS Turkey LARGEST TELECOMMUNICATIONS ROUTES, 2001 Destination Minutes (millions) Percent of Outgoing Traffic 1. Germany ... ... ..... ....... 168.0 24.9% 2. United Kingdom ........... .. .. 50.0 7.4% 3. France .... .. .. .... .... .. 31.0 4.6% 4. United States ..... .. ......... 28.0 Bl 4.1% 5. Netherlands ..... ... .. ... .. 25.0 3.7% 6. Bulgaria .. .. .... .. ....... 20.0 3.0% 7. Italy ...... ...... .. .. 16.0 • 2.4% 8. Switzerland .. .... .... ... 16.0 • 2.4% 9. Austria ..... ... .. ... 15.0 • 2.2% 10. Russia .... .. .... ... ... .. 13.5 • 2.0% 11 Belgium ..... .. ... .. .. 13.0 • 1.9% 12. Greece ..... .. .. ... .. ... .... 12.0 • 1.8% 13. Romania ... .. ............... .. 12.0 • 1.8% 14. Azerbaijan .... ........ .. .... 10.0 I 1.5% 15. Ukraine .. .. ..... ........ 8.5 I 1.3% 16. Syria ... .. ................. 8.0 I 1.2% 17. Moldova ... ... .... ... ........ .7.5 I 1.1 % 18. Iran ....... .. .... ... .. .... .7.0 I 1.0% 19. Israel ... .. ........... .. .. 6.5 I 1.0% 20. Sweden .... .. ... ..... .. 5.2 I 0.8% Others .... ...... .. ........ ... 202.8 IMI;IffiiBWII 1-lllllllll•lllil•lllawllllllllllniM.I 30.0% TOTAl 675.0 NATIONAL TRAFFIC BALANCE Minutes (millions) 1999 2000 2001 Incoming 1,122.7 1,240.0 1,100.0 Outgoing 698.4 731.8 675.0 Surplus (Deficit) 424.3 508.2 425.0 Total Volume 1,821.1 1,971.8 1,775.0 Note: Data are in millions of minutes of outgoing public switched telecommunications traffic © TELEGEOGRAPHY, INC 2002 TE LEGEOGRAPHY 2003 229 COUNTRY TRAFFIC STATISTICS Turkmenistan LARGEST TELECOMMUNICATIONS ROUTES, 2001 Destination Minutes (thousands) Percent of Outgoing Traffic 1. Russia ........................ 7,103.5 36.8% 2. Uzbekistan ..... ..... ... .... 1,282.1 6.6% 3. Kazakhstan .................... 1,085.1 5.6% 4. Azerbaijan .................... 1,011 .2 5.2% 5. Ukraine ................ ........ 925.9 4.8% 6. Belarus ........... .. ........... 384.3 • 2.0% 7. Armenia ....... ..... .... ... 345.7 • 1.8% 8. Tajikistan ..................... 265.9 I 1.4% 9. Georgia ........................ 222.0 I 1.2% 10. Kyrgyzstan ............. ......... 187.7 I 1.0% 11. Moldova ....................... 101.4 I 0.5% Others ............... ........ 6,380.0 ••••••••••• 33.1% TOTAL 19,295.4 NATIONAL TRAFFIC BALANCE Minutes (millions) 1999 2000 2001 Incoming n.a. 11.3 n.a. Outgoing 16.5 15.7 19.3 Surplus (Deficit) n.a. (4.5) n.a. Total Volume n.a. 27.0 n.a. Note: National traffic data are in millions of minutes of outgoing public switched telecommunications traffic; route data are in thousands of minutes of outgoing public switched telecommunications traffic. The "Others" category may include routes to non-members ofthe Commonwealth of Independent States that rank among the top destinations for outgoing traffic 230 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2003 © TELEGEOGRAPHY, INC 2002 COUNTRY TRAFFIC STATISTICS Ukraine LARGEsT T·E L E c 0 M M u N I c A Tl 0 N s R 0 u T E s I 2 0 0 1 Destination Minutes (millions) Percent of Outgoing Traffic 1. Russia ......................... 235.1 60.6% 2. Belarus .............. .... .... 21.8 5.6% 3. Moldova .... ... .... .... ..... 12.6 • 3.2% 4. Poland .......................... 12.3 • 3.2% 5. Germany ........................ 12.2 • 3.1% 6. Italy ............................. 5.1 1 1.3% 7. Czech Republic .......... .......... 4.8 I 1.2% 8. Armenia ................... ...... 4.4 I 1.1% 9. Azerbaijan ....................... 4.3 I 1.1% 10. Kazakhstan ... .. ...... ...... ..... .4.0 I 1.0% 11 Hungary ...... .................... 3.7 1 1.0% 12. Georgia .......................... 3.5 I 0.9% 13. Turkey ............ ...... ......... 3.1 I 0.8% 14. United States .. .. ................ 2.8 I 0.7% 15. Uzbekistan ...... ... .. ...... .. 2.8 I 0.7% 16. Bulgaria ................ .......... 2.2 I 0.6% 17. United Kingdom ......... .......... 2.2 I 0.6% 18. Lithuania ......................... 2.1 I 0.5% 19. Greece ...... .... ...... .......... 2.0 I 0.5% 20. Israel .. ........ ......... ......... 1.9 I 0.5% Others ...... ...... ...... ... .43.7 11 .2% TOTAL 388.0 NATIONAL TRAFFIC BALANCE Minutes (millions) 1999 2000 2001 Incoming n.a. 269.5 n.a. Outgoing 359.2 363.0 388.0 Surplus (Deficit) n.a. (93.4) n.a. Total Volume n.a. 632.5 n.a. Note: Data are in millions of minutes of outgoing public switched telecommunications traffic. © TELEGEOGRAPHY, INC 2002 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2003 231 COUNTRY TRAFFIC STATISTICS United Arab Emirates LARGEST TELECOMMUNICATIONS ROUTES, 2001 Destination Minutes (millions) Percent of Outgoing Traffic 1. India ........................... 381.3 •••••••••••••••• 27.3% 2. Pakistan ... ..... ... .... 142.7 •••••• 10.2% 3. Egypt ........................... 83.3 ••• 6.0% 4. Saudi Arabia ............... ..... 72.2 5.2% 5. United Kingdom .................. 57.4 4.1% 6. Oman ........................... 50.8 3.6% 7. Syria ........................... .48.0 3.4% 8. Philippines ...................... 44.3 3.2% 9. Bangladesh ..................... 43.1 3.1% 10. United States .................... 34.8 2.5% 11. Iran ............................ 33.9 • 2.4% 12. Jordan ..... ... ... ... ...... .... 33.7 • 2.4% 13. Lebanon ......................... 31.7 • 2.3% 14. Bahrain .. ..... ... .. 28.6 • 2.0% 15. Qatar ........................... 27.2 • 1.9% 16. Sudan ... ................. .. .... 25.5 • 1.8% 17. Kuwait .... .... ... ... .. 22.7 • 1.6% 18. Sri Lanka .... .................... 17.8 • 1.3% 19. Morocco .......... ..... .. .. .. 17.0 • 1.2% 20. Yemen .......................... 16.0 • 1.1% Others ......................... 183.8 •••••• 13.2% TOTAL 1,395.9 NATIONAL TRAFFIC BALANCE Minutes (millions) 1999 2000 2001 Incoming n.a. n.a. n.a. Outgoing 963.0 1,123.6 1,395.9 Surplus (Deficit) n.a. n.a. n.a. Total Volume n.a. n.a. n.a. Note: Data are in millions of minutes of outgoing public switched telecommunications traffic. 232 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2003 © TELEGEOGRAPHY, INC. 2002 COUNTRY TRAFFIC STATISTICS United Kingdom-Outgoing • LARGEST T·ELECOMMUNICATIONS ROUTES, FY 2001/02 Destination Minutes (millions) Percent of Outgoing Traffic 1. United States .................. 2.425.2 19.1% 2. Germany ... ........ ........... 951 .4 ...... 7.5% 3. France ... ... ......... ...... .. 836.6 6.6% 4. Ireland ..... ........ ... ... .710.9 iiM1&11 5.6o/a 5. Spain ...... ... .... .... .. .. 558.2 4.4% 6. Italy ..... .... .. ... ... ........ 446.7 3.5% 7. Australia .. ........ .... ... ..... 437.1 3.4% 8. Canada ........................ 428.1 3.4% 9. Netherlands ........ ....... .... 376.6 3.0% 10. India ............. .... ...... 299.2 B 2.4% 11. Pakistan .......... ...... .. ... 250.2 • 2.0% 12. Belgium ........................ 237.5 • 1.9% 13. Japan .. ...... ........ ..... 223.7 • 1.8% 14. Sweden ...... ..... ...... ..... 216.6 • 1.7% 15. Turkey ............... .. ... 211.7 • 1.7% 16. Switzerland ...... ...... ... ... 210.3 • 1.7% 17. Hong Kong ......... .... ..... ... 200.1 • 1.6% 18. Poland ..... ... ... ....... .... 181.2 • 1.4% 19. Greece ................... .. .... 178.0 • 1.4% 20. Brazil ..... .. ..... .............. 177.8 • 1.4% Others .. .. ....... .. .. .. 3, 172.9 iMf&,\\IMWiilth«ii-. MzQIniHMI 24.9% TOTAL 12,730.0 NATIONAL TRAFFIC BALANCE Minutes (millions) FY 1999/00 FY 2000/01 FY 2001/02 Incoming 6,853.4 7,463.2 7,664.8 Outgoing 10,141.0 12,242.7 12,730.0 Surplus (Deficit) (3,287.6) (4,779.5) (5,065.2) Total Volume 16,994.4 19,705.9 20,394.8 Note: Data are in millions of minutes of outgoing public switched telecommunications traffic. Fiscal year ends 31 March. Data include include approximately two billion minutes of traffic refiled via the U.K., thus overstating U.K.-originated vol­ umes. © TELEGEOGRAPHY, INC 2002 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2003 233 COUNTRY TRAFFIC STATISTICS United Kingdom-Incoming LARGEST TELECOMMUNICATIONS ROUTES, FV 2001/02 Destination Minutes (millions) Percent of Outgoing Traffic 1. United States .... .... ...... .. .. 1,677.0 •••••••••••••••• 21 .9% 2. Germany ....................... 659.4 3. France ......................... 568.1 4. Ireland .. ... ..... ..... ..... 537.7 5. Spain .. ..... .. ... 378.7 6. Australia .. .... ..... .. 362.9 7. Canada .............. ......... 300.0 ---- 8.6% ---- 7.4% ---· 7.0% ••• 4.9% ••• 4.7% -- 3.9% 8. Netherlands ................... 268.5 3.5% 9. Italy ... .. .... ... .... ... .... 253.7 3.3% 10. Sweden .... ... ..... .. ... .. .. 166.7 2.2% 11. Singapore .... .. ... .... ...... 155.3 2.0% 12. Switzerland ...... ... .. 152.7 2.0% 13. Greece ............. ............ 129.2 • 1.7% 14. Belgium ......... .......... 124.7 • 1.6% 15. South Africa ... .... 106.5 • 1.4% 16. Denmark ........................ 91 .9 • 1.2% 17. Hong Kong ...................... 90.1 • 1.2% 18. India ....... ... .................. 88.3 • 1.2% 19. New Zealand .. ... ... ... ... 67.7 • 0.9% 20. United Arab Emirates ... .... ... 66.5 • 0.9% Others .. .. ... ... ...... 1,419.2 18.5% TOTAL 7,664.8 NATIONAL TRAFFIC BALANCE Minutes (millions) FV 1999/00 FV 2000/01 FY 2001/02 Incoming 6,853.4 7,463.2 7,664.8 Outgoing 10,141.0 12,242.7 12,730.0 Surplus (Deficit) (3,287.6) (4,779.5) (5,065.2) Total Volume 16,994.4 19,705.9 20,394.8 Note: Data are in millions of minutes of outgoing public switched telecommunications traffic Fiscal year ends 31 March. Data include include approximately two billion minutes of traffic refiled via the U.K., thus overstating U.K.-originated vol­ umes. 234 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2003 © TELEGEOGRAPHY, INC 2002 COUNTRY TRAFFIC STATISTICS United States-Outgoing LA R G E s T T·E L E c 0 M M u N I c A Tl 0 N s R 0 u T E s I 2 0 0 1 ----~~------------,--------~·--------~ Destination Minutes (millions) 1. Mexico .. .... ..... ... .. 5,193.1 2. Canada ...... ... .... .. 5,105.9 3. United Kingdom .. 2,066.3 4. Philippines ... ........ ... 1,627.3 5. India .. .... .......... -.. 1,444.7 Percent of Outgoing Traffic ••••••• 13.9% ·~-· 13.7% ••• 5.5% .. 4.4% 3.9% 6. Germany ...... .. ........... 1,214.0 3.3% 7. Japan ... .......... ...... ... 1,003.5 • 2.7% B. Dominican Republic ... ......... 994.3 • 2.7% 9. Brazil .. ..... .... .... B49.6 Ill 2.3% 10. France ........... .. .. .. .. .. B16.7 • 2.2% 11 Italy .. ... ... ..... ... ... 749.6 • 2.0% 12. Australia .. .... .. ....... 591.6 I 1.6% 13. Pakistan ..... .. ... .... ... 519.7 I 1.4% 14. Colombia ..... ... ...... ... 495.1 I 1.3% 15. Korea, Rep .. ..... ..... .. .. 470.3 I 1.3% 16. Poland .......... ..... ... .455.5 I 1.2% 17. China ............. ... ... ... 444.0 I 1.2% 1 B. El Salvador .. ... ... ....... .435.7 I 1.2% 19. Jamaica ...... ...... ..... 423.0 1 1.1% 20. Guatemala .. ... .... ... .. 406.9 I 1.1% Others .. .. ....... ........ 11,965.5 32.1% TOTAL 37,272.4 NATIONAL TRAFFIC BALANCE --·- Minutes (millions) 1999 2000 2001 Incoming 10,640.8 13,010.7 13,400.0 Outgoing 29,358.8 37,594.8 37,272.4 Surplus (Deficit) ( 18,718.0) (24,584.1) (23,872.4) Total Volume 39,999.5 50,605.6 50,672.4 Note: Data are in millions of minutes of outgoing public switched telecommunications traffic. Data exclude VoiP traffic volumes which accounted for over 3 billion minutes of outgoing traffic and 100 million minutes of incoming traffic Carriers and traffic from points beyond the United States, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands are excluded. © TELEGEOGRAPHY, I N C. 200 2 TELEGEOGRAPH Y 2003 235 COUNTRY TRAFFIC STATISTICS United States-Incoming LARGEST TELECOMMUNICATIONS ROUTES, 2001 Destination Minutes (millions) Percent of Outgoing Traffic 1. Canada ....................... 5,071 .0 •••••••••••••••• 37.8% 2. Mexico ....................... 1,703.9 3. United Kingdom .. .. .. ..... .. .. 1,398.3 ••••• 12.7% --- 10.4% 4. Germany ............ .......... 501.0 3.7% 5. Japan .......................... 346.0 • 2.6% 6. Australia ....................... 284.3 a 2.1% 7. Korea, Rep ...................... 267.8 a 2.0% 8. Israel ..... ...... .............. 263.8 a 2.0% 9. France ........................ 244.6 a 1.8% 10. Brazil .......................... 234.2 • 1.7% 11. Netherlands ............ ...... 211.4 • 1.6% 12. Dominican Republic .............. 190.7 • 1.4% 13. Taiwan ......................... 171.5 I 1.3% 14. Italy ........................... 130.5 I 1.0% 15. Belgium ........................ 103.6 I 0.8% 16. Switzerland ...................... 99.4 I 0.7% 17. Ireland ....... .... .... 97.4 I 0.7% 18. Spain ........................... 95.9 I 0.7% 19. Colombia ........................ 95.1 I 0.7% 20. Sweden ....... .... .. ............ 94.9 I 0.7% Others .. ........ ........... 1,794.7 ---- 13.4% TOTAL 13,400.0 NATIONAL TRAFFIC BALANCE Minutes (millions) 1999 2000 Incoming 10,640.8 13,010.7 Outgoing 29,358.8 37,594.8 Surplus (Deficit) ( 18,718.0) (24,584.1) Total Volume 39,999.5 50,605.6 2001 13,400.0 37,272.4 (23,872.4) 50,672.4 Note: Data are in millions of minutes of outgoing public switched telecommunications traffic Data exclude VoiP traffic volumes which accounted for over 3 billion minutes of outgoing traffic and 100 million minutes of incoming traffic. Carriers and traffic from points beyond the United States, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands are excluded. 236 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2003 © TELEGEOGRAPHY, INC 2002 COUNTRY TRAFFIC STATISTICS Uruguay LARGEST T·ELECOMMUNICATIONS ROUTES, 2001 ------~--------~--~-------------d Destination Minutes (millions) Percent of Outgoing Traffic 1. Argentina ............. ..... ..... 40.0 2. 8 razil .. ......................... 1 0.5 ..... 13.5% 3. United States .. ....... .... .... .. 8.0 10.3% 4. Spain ... ..... ........... ......... 4.2 5.4% 5. Chile ............................. 1.7 II 2.2% 6. Paraguay .. ......... ... .... .... 1.5 I 1.9% 7. Italy .... .... ...... ..... ..... ... 1.2 I 1.5% 8. Peru .... ... .................. 0.9 I 1.2% 9. France .......... .... ........ 0.8 I 1.0% 10. Mexico .... ....... ... .... ........ 0.8 I 1.0% 11. Canada .... ....... .... ... .. .... 0.5 I 0.6% 12. Germany ......................... 0.5 I 0.6% 13. United Kingdom ................... 0.5 I 0.6% 14. Cuba ..... .... ..... ...... ... 0.4 I 0.5% 15. Switzerland ....................... 0.4 I 0.5% 16. Ecuador ........... .... ........ .. 0.3 I 0.4% 17. Australia .... ..... ...... .... 0.2 I 0.3% 18. Bolivia ............ ......... ..... 0.2 I 0.3% 19. Netherlands ..... ....... ...... 0.2 I 0.3% 20. Venezuela ........ .. .... .... 0.2 I 0.3% Others ..... ...... ... .... ..... 5.0 6.4% TOTAL 78.0 I NATIONAL TRAFFIC BALANCE Minutes (millions) 1999 2000 2001 Incoming 98.3 110.9 127.8 Outgoing 80.1 78.0 78.0 Surplus (Deficit) 18.2 33.0 49.8 Total Volume 178.4 188.9 205.8 Note: Data are in millions of minutes of outgoing public switched telecommunications traffic. © TELEGEOGRAPHY, INC 2002 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2003 237 COUNTRY TRAFFIC STATISTICS Uzbekistan LARGEST TELECOMMUNICATIONS ROUTES, 2001 Destination Minutes (millions) Percent of Outgoing Traffic 1. Russia ...... .. .................. 29.5 50.6% 2. Kazakhstan ... ... .... ........... 5.1 8.8% 3. Kyrgyzstan .. .. ... ......... .... .. 3.2 5.5% 4. Ukraine ... ... .. .. .. ..... .. 2.0 • 3.4% 5. Tajikistan ... ... ... ... .... .. 1.7 B 3.0% 6. Turkmenistan ... ... .... ..... ... 1.4 • 2.5% 7. Belarus ........ ..... .. .. ... 0.6 I 1.0% 8. Azerbaijan ....................... 0.5 I 0.8% 9. Armenia ... .. .................. 0.3 I 0.6% 10. Georgia ..... .. ....... ........... 0.2 I 0.3% 11. Moldova ......................... 0.1 I 0.1% Others ... ..............•.... ... 13.7 23.5% TOTAL 58.3 NATIONAL TRAFFIC BALANCE Minutes (millions) 1999 2000 2001 Incoming 75.0 54.3 n.a. Outgoing 68.5 71.4 58.3 Surplus (Deficit) 6.6 117.0) n.a. Total Volume 143.5 125.7 n.a. Note: Data are in millions of minutes of outgoing public switched telecommunications traffic. The "Others" category may include routes to non-members of the Commonwealth of Independent States that rank among the top destinations for outgoing traffic. 238 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2003 © TELEGEOGRAPHY INC 2002 COUNTRY TRAFFIC STATISTICS Methodology The traffic statistics in TeleCeography 2003 were compiled primarily from an independ­ ent survey of telecommunications service providers. For some countries and carriers, traffic data have been estimated based upon annual reports, government publicatioos. and industry interviews. To enable comparisons of countries international traffic statistics, TeleGeography has endeavored to apply a consistent methodology. When reviewing the traffic statistics in TeleCeography 2003, however, readers should keep in mind the following issues. Public Switched Network vs. Private Line Traffic Traffic volumes in TeleCeography 2003 are generally reported in minutes. In most cases, the statistics refer to paid minutes on public switched circuits and thus include voice as well as fax traffic. Traffic volumes include traffic carried by wholesale carriers that is resold by "pure" resellers. These resellers do not own or lease their own international transmission facilities. Instead, they resell the services of other carriers; thus, pure resale traffic is counted as part of the minutes for the facilities-based carrier whose services are resold. Many companies act both as carriers of traffic and as reselllers of other car­ riers services. To avoid double counting, TeleGeographys carrier survey specifically counts only traffic actually carried by the company. Traffic carried by International Simple Resale (ISR) carriers is also included. ISR carriers lease international private lines (IPLs) for switched services by interconnecting their IPLs to the public switched network at one or both ends and resell this capacity. Illicit Bypass While traffic volumes include ISR, they generally do not include illicit bypass traffic that bypasses the international settlement rate regime. One form of illicit bypass is Voice-over-Internet-Protocol (VoiP). For an overview of Voice-over-IP traffic volumes, see "VoiP Routes and Traffic." Cross-Border Traffic Neighboring countries may not classify local cross-border traffic in the same way. That is, one country may treat some cross-border traffic as domestic while its neighbor counts all such traffic as international. Transit Traffic Unless otherwise stated, TeleCeography 2003 excludes refile and transit traffic from the totals of countries acting as transit hubs. Notable exceptions include the U.K. and U.S. statistics, which do include some traffic reoriginated from other countries. © TELEGEOGRAPHY, INC. 2002 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2003 239 COUNTRY TRAFFIC STATISTICS 240 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2003 Inbound vs. Outbound Statistics Comparisons of inbound traffic statistics reported by the United States and the United Kingdom may not match up exactly with outbound traffic reported by the originating country. Reasons for discrepancies may include differences in reporting methodologies (e.g. billing point vs. originating point) and inclusion of some refile or bypass traffic. Carriers or regulators may also exclude some cross-border traffic (e.g., between Ireland and Northern Ireland). Fixed vs. Mobile Traffic Traffic volumes include international calls originated and terminated on both fixed and mobile networks. Rounding Rounding may cause the figures on total national incoming and outgoing traffic to appear inconsistent with other national data. Revised Data Some differences exist between the historical statistics reported in TeleGeography 2003 and data published in prior TeleGeography reports or Direction of Traffic. The variations reflect corrections and/or revised data subsequently provided to TeleGeography. _. © TELEGEOGRAPHY, INC. 2002 Bandwidth BANDWIDTH 242 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2003 © TELEGEOGRAPHY INC 2002 Bandwidth The statistics and analysis presented on the following pages are excerpted from Submarine Bandwidth 2002 and Terrestrial Bandwidth 2002, published in March and April 2002, respectively. After five years of frenzied network construction, the fiber-optic industry is suffering a hangover so severe that its hard to remember why anyone ever thought it was a good idea to lay an undersea cable in the first place. While the pain will likely persist for some time to come, TeleGeographys analysis of bandwidth demand suggests that the underlying idea may not have been so far off the mark. Supply The construction boom experienced at the end of the twentieth century has yielded a vast supply of fiber-optic capacity and a diverse array of suppliers. Over the past year, a number of bandwidth providers have disappeared, unable to surmount the debt incurred through ambitious network construction Others have scaled back their activ­ ities and pruned plans for network expansion while diversifying their product and serv­ ice offerings. In the midst of such volatility, incumbent carriers have re-emerged as the industrys prominent players-nearly all of the few companies still extending their networks in 2001 were owned by incumbents. While the number of providers may be dwindling, supply remains abundant, if not excessive. Major cities in the U.S., for example, are routinely traversed by a thousand (or more) pairs of optical fiber while pan-European networks have laid hundreds of pairs through population centers. Only a small portion of those fibers are actually lit: on average, 10 percent of potential wavelengths on 10 percent of available fiber pairs. As a result, only one to two percent of potential bandwidth is active. The potential capacity is even more astonishing, reaching petabits per second in the U.S. (on domes­ tic and international networks) and hundreds of terabits in Europe (on international networks alone) Since 1998, lit capacity on both trans-Atlantic and trans-Pacific cables has grown more than 20-fold while lit capacity on intra-Asian regional cables has increased more than 50-fold in only four years (see Figure 1. Submarine Cable Capacity Trends by Route, 1998-2004) Although construction of new cables has slowed sharply, two high-capac­ ity cables are still scheduled to be deployed this year, one each in the Atlantic and Pacific. Demand The incredible supply available in the bandwidth market has generated much discussion of an industry glut. Given the tremendous amount of fiber laid over the past few years and the waning of dark fiber sales, industry analysts and network builders have focused on the distinction between oversupply of fiber and oversupply of bandwidth. That the current supply of fiber exceeds demand is now a foregone conclusion, but, according to many in the industry, surplus fiber does not directly imply surplus bandwidth-after all, only a small portion of that fiber is actually lit. TeleGeography s research unfortu- BANDWIDTH © TELEGEOGRAPHY, INC. 2002 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2003 243 BANDWIDTH nately, suggests that a bandwidth glut does indeed exist alongside the fiber glut. London has 6.5 Tbps of capacity running through it on cross-border networks, yet the combined bandwidth on Internet, voice, and private data networks to and from the top forty European metropolitan areas (ranked by international circuit usage) was only 1.6 Tbps in 2001. How severe is this disjuncture between supply and demand? TeleGeography research indicates that demand is certainly growing, though not as vigorously as the industry might hope. The Internet has long been touted as the pivotal driver of bandwidth demand, and research confirms its importance in generating demand for bandwidth products and services. Between 2000 and 2001, international Internet bandwidth tripled, far outpacing growth on other, private networks. While still robust, the rate of Internet bandwidth growth appears to be slowing, despite increased broadband access to homes and businesses. For all the industry worry over capacity gluts, it is ironic that the supply/demand equa­ tion now has little bearing on price changes. The overhang of bandwidth is so large that, for the foreseeable future, the supply/demand equation will not strongly deter­ mine price swings in either direction. With bandwidth prices already at or even below costs, however; it seems unlikely that the capacity overhang, alone, can depress prices any further. If prices do continue their steep descent, it will be due to other market forces-cheaper provisioning costs or distressed sales by providers nearing bank­ ruptcy-rather than the continuing capacity glut. The Road Ahead Unfortunately, the elusive state of market equilibrium will not arrive soon enough for some companies. Caught between falling prices, slowing demand, and difficult debt covenants, a number of bandwidth providers showed signs in 2002 that they may join scores of other telecom companies in bankruptcy. Even so, supply costs are falling, demand continues to grow, and prices will eventually stabilize. Once the current market chaos finally does subside, investors will likely perceive what no one wanted to admit in the 1990s: when stripped of its "new economy" glamour; the bandwidth industry fundamentally is a competitive one. As with most companies in competitive industries, the surviving bandwidth suppliers will likely earn a respectable-if unspec­ tacular-return on their capital investments ..a 244 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2003 © TELEGEOGRAPHY, INC. 2002 BANDWIDTH Submarine Cable Systems Figure 1. Submarine Cable Capacity Trends by Route, 1998-2004 1998 Submarine Cable Capacity (Gbps) Fully 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 Upgraded Intra-Asia 16.1 41.1 66.1 826.1 1,106.1 3,637.1 6,440.1 30,591.1 Trans-Atlantic 83.0 168.0 537.4 1,862.4 2,682.4 3,729.1 4,775.8 12,322.4 Trans-Pacific 14.1 44.1 204.1 344.1 1,314.1 1,896.1 2,388.1 6,984.1 U.S.-Latin America 10.6 13.1 250.6 275.6 275.6 725.6 1,171 .1 4,915.6 Europe-Africa-Asia 11.1 31 .1 51.1 51.1 61.1 71.1 81.1 171.1 Notes: Capacity figures denote lit, protected capacity at the end of the respective year. Projected capacity assumes trans-Atlantic cables will reach half of their fully upgrade able capacities by 2005 while cables on other routes will reach half of their fully upgradeable capacities by 2007. Projections for 360atlantic assume no capacity upgrades. Notes on submarine cable maps: Cable systems profiled include international cables and U.S. domestic cables with a fully upgradeable capacity of at least 10 Gbps and an announced Ready for Service (RFS) date before January 1, 2004. Source: TeleGeography research, Submarine Bandwidth 2002 © TeleGeography, Inc. 2002 © TELEGEOGRAPHY, INC. 2002 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2003 245 BANDWIDTH Submarine Cable Systems Figure 2. Major Submarine Networls: Length, Cost, and Capacity Ready Construction for Service Length Cost Cable Capacity (Gbps) (RFS) (km) (US$ Millions) RFS March 2002 Maximum Europe-Africa-Asia FLAG Europe-Asia Nov-97 2B,OOO 1,600 10 10 10 SAFE Apr-02 13,500 290 10 130 SAT-3/WASC Apr-02 14,350 507 20 120 SeaMeWe-3 Sep-99 3B,OOO 1,173 20 20 40 Intra-Asian A2A Cable Network Jun-03 4,600 n.a. 40 1,920 APCN Feb-97 5,234 550 5 10 10 APCN-2 Dec-01 19,000 1,060 160 160 2,560 Australia-Japan Dec-01 12,700 450 40 40 320 C2C Cable Network Nov-01 17,000 2,100 160 160 7,6BO East Asia Crossing Jan-01 19,500 1,2BO BO BO 2,560 FLAG North Asia Loop/ REACH North Asia Loop Jun-01 10,000 750 320 320 3,B40 Guam-Philippines (G-P) Mar-99 3,600 100 5 5 40 i2i Cable Network Apr-02 11.400 650 160 8,400 Korea-Japan Cable Network Mar-02 500 60 50 50 2,BBO Nava-l Dec-03 9,000 645 160 3,200 South East Asia Cable Network n.a. 19,000 1,250 640 7,6BO U.S.-Latin America Americas-11 Aug-00 7,350 365 BO BO BO ARCOS Dec-01 B,600 400 15 15 960 Atlantis-2 Feb-00 B,500 230 5 20 20 Bahamas Internet Cable System Jul-01 600 n.a. 15 15 240 Emergia Mar-01 25,000 1,600 40 40 1,920 GlobeNet/360americ as Oct-00 29,000 1,000 BO BO 1,360 Maya-1 Oct-00 4.400 152 B B 20 Mid-Atlantic Crossing Jun-00 6.700 415 20 20 320 Pan-American Crossing Mar-00 9,000 2BO 10 20 240 South American Crossing Sep-00 16,000 BOO 40 60 1,2BO Trans-Atlantic 360atlantic Apr-01 11,700 770 160 160 1,920 Apollo Dec-02 13,000 1,200 640 3,200 Atlantic Crossing-1 May-9B 14,521 750 40 140 160 Columbus-Ill Dec-99 10,000 236 10 40 40 FLAG At Ia ntic-1 Jun-01 14,500 1,100 160 160 2,400 Gemini Cable System Feb-9B 12,115 600 10 60 60 TAT-12/13 Sep-96 12,766 750 10 30 30 TAT-14 Apr-01 15,300 1.400 640 640 640 Tyco Transatlantic Jun-01 13,000 n.a. 2BO 460 2,560 Yellow/Atlantic Crossing-2 Sep-00 6,000 BOO 320 320 1,2BO Source: TeleGeography research, Submarine Bandwidth 2002 © TeleGeography, Inc. 2002 246 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2003 © TELEGEOGRAPHY, INC. 2002 BANDWIDTH Submarine Cable Systems Figure 2. Major Submarine Networks: Length, Cost, and Capacity Ready Construction for Service Length Cost Cable Capacity (Gbps) (RFS) (km) (US$ Millions) RFS March 2002 Maximum Trans-Pacific China-U.S. Cable Network Jan-DO 30,800 1.400 80 80 80 Japan-U.S. Cable Network Aug-01 21.000 1,000 80 400 640 Pacific Crossing-1 Dec-99 20,900 1,200 80 80 640 Southern Cross Cable Network Nov-DO 30,500 1,300 20 80 480 TPC 5 Jan-97 25,000 1,240 10 20 20 Tyco Transpacific Aug-02 22,100 1,900 580 5,120 Intra-European Baltica Mar-97 437 16 15 15 15 ESAT-1 Aug-99 200 13 5 5 960 ESAT-2 Sep-99 240 16 5 5 960 Germany-Denmark 2 Dec-95 60 3 10 10 15 Kattegat Aug-95 180 13 15 15 15 NorSea Com Jul-99 930 n.a. 240 240 960 Salas Apr-99 200 20 15 15 60 Sweden-Estonia Jun-95 240 7 15 15 15 Sweden-Lithuania Nov-97 200 4 20 15 20 Tyco Northern Europe Mar-02 600 n.a. 160 160 3,840 Tyco Western Europe Jun-02 6,174 90 120 3,840 UK-Germany 6 Dct-98 560 50 40 40 80 Mediterranean ALPAL-2 Apr-02 308 15 3 160 Axone Dec-03 20,000 1,000 80 4,000 Lev Submarine System Mar-99 2,600 66 5 5 40 MedNautilus Submarine Network Nov-01 7,000 n.a. 40 40 3,840 Silk Route Jun-03 2,000 n.a. n.a. 3,840 Tyco Eastern Mediterranean Dec-03 6,719 400 40 1,280 Tyco Western Mediterranean Dec-03 400 n.a. 40 1,920 Black Sea Black Sea Fiber Optic Cable System Jan-01 1,300 55 5 5 20 Georgia-Russia Dec-DO 433 n.a. 3 3 10 Persian Gulf Fiber Optic Gulf Jun-98 1,300 81 15 15 30 U.S. Domestic Alaska United Feb-99 3,218 125 3 3 10 Global West Network Sep-01 930 160 160 160 15,360 NorthStar Dct-99 3,229 n.a 20 20 30 Source: TeleGeography research, Submarine Bandwidth 2002 © TeleGeography,lnc. 2002 © TELEGEOGRAPHY, INC 2002 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2003 247 BANDWIDTH Figure 3. Map of Major Submarine Cable Systems in North America (Pacific Coast) V1ld•1 TyCom Trmn1p1cific __ PC-I SOMtht m Cross l Com Tr11na 1c:ific TPC 5 Chino-US 1- -----------+---------"J•f!n·US Source: Te leGeogra phy research. Submarine Bandwidt/1 2002 248 TELE GE OG RA PHY 20 03 San Francisco M onterey Global Wast Networlc _"--" --,..~/ -- Morro Bay __ San Luis Obispo _ _ Grover Beach ~enta Barbara (!;) TeleGeography, Inc. 2002 a:> TE LEGEO GRAPH Y. I N C 2002 BANDWIDTH New York S1ation1 Mastic Beach 0-C: TAT 12/13 Shrrlev Vellow/AC ·2 Apollo AC ·l Brookhaven MAC Crab Meadow Beach b Long Beach FA-1 New Jersey Stations Wall Township Tyco Transa1Jant1c E Apollo Manasquan Gemini Tu ckerton TAT-14 GlobeNel/360americas Source: TeleG eography research, Submarine Bandwidth 2002 © TeleGeography, Inc. 2002 © TELEGEOGRA PH Y, I NC 2002 TE LE GEOGRAP HY 2003 249 BANDWIDTH Source: TeleGeography research, Submarine Bandwidth 2002 1:> TeleGeography, Inc. 2002 250 TE LEGE OGRAPHY 2003 1:> TELEGEOG RAPHY I N C 2002 BANDWIDTH Figure 6. Map of Major Submarine Cable Systems in Europe Cornwall Station1 Apollo lAl 14 Yallow/AC·Z Bude AC 1 Whrtesands Bay FA-1 S1tew1o ck lAT 12/13 Lands End FLAG Europe ·Asra t Porth curno Gemini SeaMeWe-3 Goonhrlly Downs Ax one (~d ((.9 1 Tallinn ( Colu01bu1·Jll /) Source: Te leGeography research, Submarine Bandwidth 2002 TeleGeography, Inc 2002 TELEGEOGAAPHY IN C 2002 TELEGEOG AAP HY 2003 2 51 BANDWIDTH I---- -¢ C.l!UICO IAR Source: TeleGeography research, Submarine Bandwidth 2002 TeleGeography, Inc. 2002 252 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2003 TELEGEOGRAPHY I NC 2002 Hong Kong Stations Source: TeleGeography research, Submarine Bandwidth 2002 © TELEGEOG RA PH Y, INC 2002 t ... Tokyo Stations Wada K1taibarak1 A1igaura Maruyama Chikura Miura 0 Nlnomiya Em1 BANDWIDTH J1p11·US PC· I FLAG NAIJREACH NAL APCN·2 Japan·U.S. EAC PC· l Japan·U.S. AJC APCN-2 China·U.S. C2Ccn FLAG Europe·As1a TPC·5 Tyco Transpac1t1c © TeleGeography, Inc. 2002 TELEGEO GRA PHY 2003 253 BANDWIDTH Source: TeleGeography research, Submarine Bandwidth 2002 © TeleGeography, Inc. 2002 254 TE LE GEOG RA PHY 200 3 © TELEGEOG RAPHY IN C 2002 BANDWIDTH c." 0 \ g ·s g c l .l 0 0 0 Sourh1rn Cro11 :0 Source: TeleGeography research, Submarine Bandwidth 2002 © TeleGeography, Inc. 2002 © TELEGEOGRAPHY, INC 2002 TE LEGEOG RAP HY 2003 255 BANDWIDTH Terrestrial Networks Figure 1. Overlay Map of Pan-European Terrestrial Networks Number of Bandwidth Pro widors 14 28 Rank City Number of Providers Rank City Number of Providers 1. Frankfurt 28 11 Hannover 18 2. London 27 12. Zurich 18 3. Du sseldorf 27 13. Milan 17 4. Paris 26 14. Copenhagen 16 5. Amsterdam 25 15. Nuremberg 16 6. Hamburg 23 16. Leipzig 16 7. Berlin 22 17. Madrid 16 8. Munich 22 18. Stockholm 15 9. Brussels 22 19. Cologne 15 10. Stuttgart 20 20. Rotterdam 15 Notes: Bandwidth providers include operators offering capacity on their own network build and/or via fiber leased from other network providers. Providers included were those who offered cross-border connectivity at 155 Mbps (or higher) as part of their standard service offerings. Maps are designed to illustrate intercity connectivity and do not necessarily reflect the exact physical routing of fiber. Source: TeleGeography research, Terrestrial Bandwidth 2002 © TeleGeography, Inc. 2002 256 TE LEGEO GRA PHY 200 3 © TELEGE OGRAPHY I N C 2002 BANDWIDTH Figure 2. Overlay Map of U.S. Terrestrial Networks 17 Number of Bandwidth Prov id ers 14 26 Rank City Number of Providers Rank City Number of Providers 1. New York 28 15. Orlando 18 2 Chicago 27 16. San Antonio 18 3. Atlanta 26 17. San Francisco 18 4. Dallas 24 18. Tampa 18 5. Washington 22 19. Ba ltimore 17 6. Houston 21 20. Boston 17 7. Miami 21 21. Charlotte 17 8. Philade lphia 21 22. Detroit 17 9. Denver 20 23. Jacksonvi lle 17 10. Los Angeles 20 24. Minneapolis 17 11 Seattle 20 25. Phoenix 17 12. Clevel and 19 26. Richmond 17 13. Raleigh 19 27. Salt Lake City 17 14. Austin 18 Notes: Bandwidth providers include operators offering capacity on their own network build and/or via fiber leased from other network providers. Providers included were those who offered connectivity to three or more states at 155 Mbps (or higher) as part of their standard service offerings. Maps are designed to illustrate intercity connectivity and do not necessarily reflect the exact physical routing of fiber. Source : TeleGeography research, Terrestrial Bandwidth 2002 © TeleGeography, Inc. 2002 © TELEGEOGRAPHY. IN C 2002 TELEGEOG RAPHY 200 3 257 BANDWIDTH Figure 3. Major Terrestrial Networks: Length, Connectivity, and MANs 2001 2002 Route Route Cities Route Route Cities Terrestrial System kms miles Connected MANs kms miles Connected MANs North America 360networks 36,000.0 22,370.4 51 13 40,000.0 24,856.0 66 29 Americas Fiber Network 12,872.0 8,000.0 35 18 12,872.0 8,000.0 58 18 AT&T 98,149.0 61,000.0 189 98,149.0 61,000.0 189 12 BCE Teleglobe 24,000.0 14,913.6 27 3 24,000.0 14,913.6 27 3 Broadwing Communications 29.766.5 18,500.0 59 29.766.5 18,500.0 59 BTl 6.757.8 4,200.0 28 6.757.8 4,200.0 28 C3 Networks 9,332.2 5,800.0 23 12,872.0 8,000.0 25 Cable & Wireless 30,191.0 18.760.7 24 30,191.0 18.760.7 24 Call-Net Enterprises 14,000.0 8,699.6 44 14,000.0 8,699.6 44 Digital Teleport 9,171.3 5)00.0 13 9,171.3 5.700.0 13 Dominion Telecom 10.458.5 6,500.0 49 7 23.491.4 14,600.0 82 32 DukeNet 17 8 19 14 Dynegy Global Communications (DGC) 25.744.0 16,000.0 44 16 25.744.0 16,000.0 44 16 e.spire 47,948.2 29,800.0 49 47,948.2 29,800.0 49 Electric Lightwave, Inc. 7,240.5 4,500.0 24 6 7,240.5 4,500.0 24 10 EPIK 2,976.7 1,8500 12 7 2,976.7 1,850.0 12 10 France Telecom North America 2 25.744.0 16,000.0 15 3 Genuity 28.479.3 17.700.0 68 33,530.0 20,839.0 104 Global Crossing (North American Crossing) 31.761.7 19.740.0 115 14 31.761.7 19.740.0 115 14 Group Telecom 25.789.0 16,025.3 26 23 25.789.0 16,025.3 27 23 Hydro One Telecom Inc. 3,000.0 1,864.2 18 5,100.0 3,169.1 20 lTC Deltacom 16,057.8 9,980.0 48 16,057.8 9,980.0 48 Level3 25.744.0 16,000.0 57 26 25.744.0 16,000.0 57 26 Metromedia Fiber Network 16,090.0 10,000.0 28 26 19,308.0 12,000.0 28 26 NEON Communications 3,040.0 1,889.1 29 4,032.0 2,505.5 49 12 Norlight Telecommunications 8,045.0 5,000.0 50 8,849.5 5,500.0 50 Dnvoy 3,218.0 2,000.0 9 2 3,218.0 2,000.0 9 2 Progress Telecom 13,515.6 8.400.0 25 24 16,090.0 10,000.0 26 25 Qwest 41,029.5 25,500.0 125 41 ,029.5 25,500.0 125 1 Southern Telecom 1,930.8 1,200.0 9 1.930.8 1,200.0 9 2 Sprint 54,947.4 34,150.0 151 54,947.4 34,150.0 151 6 Telia 18,000.0 11,185.2 13 18,000.0 11,185.2 14 TELUS 14,930.0 9,277.5 32 16,500.0 10,253.1 32 Time Warner Telecom, Inc. 27,040.9 16,806.0 46 27,040.9 16,806.0 46 Touch America 41,834.0 26,000.0 48 41,834.0 26,000.0 66 Velocita 32,180.0 20,000.0 56 32,180.0 20,000.0 56 Williams Communications Group 53,097.0 33,000.0 113 20 53,097.0 33,000.0 113 34 World Com 89,600.0 55,677.4 102 102 110,558.0 68.700.7 102 102 XD Communications N. American Network 25,534.8 15,870.0 64 35 25,534.8 15,870.0 64 35 Mexico Alestra 5.740.0 3,566.8 19 3 5,840.0 3,629.0 28 3 Beste I 6,022.0 3.742.1 22 4 6,022.0 3.742.1 26 4 Global Crossing (Mexico Crossing) 3,506.0 2,179.0 4 3,506.0 2,179.0 4 Marcatel 2,000.0 1,242.8 14 3 2,000.0 1,242.8 14 5 Notes: Terrestrial systems listed include those on which capacity may be leased in increments of at least 155 Mbps (one STM-1) as part of standard products and service offerings. European systems include only cross-border European networks. Source: TeleGeography research, Terr~strial Bandwidth 2002 © TeleGeography, Inc. 2002 258 TELEGEDGRAPHY 2003 © TELEGEOGRAPHY, INC. 2002 BANDWIDTH Figure 3. Major Terrestrial Networks: Length, Connectivity, and MANs (continued) 2001 2002 Route Route Cities Route Route Cities Terrestrial System kms miles Connected MANs kms miles Connected MANs South America Embratel 23,000.0 14,292.2 19 8 23,000.0 14,292.2 19 8 Global Crossing (Trans Andean Crossing) 2,518.1 1,565.0 7 2,595.3 1,613.0 7 lmpsat 6,400.0 3,977.0 25 15 6,400.0 3,977.0 25 15 lntelig Telecomunica~oes Ltda 15,000.0 9,321.0 102 10 15,000.0 9,321.0 123 10 Latin America Nautilus 5,400.0 3,355.6 6 Silica Networks 4,300.0 2,672.0 13 4,300.0 2,672.0 13 Europe 360networks 20,100.0 12.490.1 30 20,100.0 12,490.1 30 BCE Teleglobe (GiobeSystem Europe) 14,200.0 8,823.9 27 23,000.0 14,292.2 27 Belgacom 11,300.0 7,021.8 9 15,300.0 9,507.4 13 5 BT Ignite 54,000.0 33,555.6 33 55,000.0 34,177.0 33 Cable & Wireless Europe 7,500.0 4,660.5 28 3 7,500.0 4,660.5 32 5 Carrier1 15,000.0 9,321.0 26 2 15,000.0 9,321.0 26 2 CECOM BV 2,000.0 1,242.8 9 2,500.0 1,553.5 11 COLT (EuroLANl 14,000.0 8,699.6 39 32 15,000.0 9,321 .0 39 32 Dynegy Europe Communications (DEC) 18,661.0 11 ,595.9 25 2 18,661 .0 11,595.9 28 3 Energis 12,500.0 7.767.5 62 10 12,500.0 7.767.5 62 15 Fibernet 13,400.0 8,326.8 92 1.6 13.400.0 8,326.8 92 17 France Telecom 20,000.0 12.428.0 32 20,000.0 12,428.0 44 6 Genuity 13 14 Global Crossing (Pan European Crossing) 24,986.0 15,526.3 32 7 24,986.0 15,526.3 33 7 GlobaiConnect NS 1,900.0 1 180.7 4 4 1,900.0 1,180.7 5 4 lnfigate 4,098.0 2,546.5 8 4,098.0 2,546.5 10 lnteroute (i-21 network) 14,500.0 9,010.3 45 14,500.0 9,010.3 45 8 KPNOwest (EuroRingsl 25,000.0 15,535.0 60 10 25,000.0 15,535.0 60 14 Lambda Net Communications 22,000.0 13,670.8 100 7 22,000.0 13,670.8 104 10 LDCOM Networks 11,000.0 6,835.4 30 29 14,000.0 8,699.6 30 29 Level3 (Europe) 6,000.0 3,728.4 9 9 6,000.0 3,728.4 17 10 Metromedia Fiber Network 16 16 16 16 Pangea Network 10,500.0 6,524.7 19 10,500.0 6,524.7 19 Song Networks Holding AB 12.706.0 7,895.5 47 22 47 22 Storm Telecommunications 9,500.0 5,903.3 20 12 20 12 TDC Tele Danmark 6,000.0 3,728.4 17 9,500.0 5,903.3 21 Telia (Viking) 16,000.0 9,942.4 50 2 22,000.0 13,670.8 67 2 Tiscali International Network BV 12,000.0 7,456.8 37 6 14,000.0 8,699.6 58 7 Utfors 4,000.0 2,485.6 6 7,000.0 4,349.8 7 6 Verizon 3,236.0 2,010.9 6 5,910.0 3,672.5 8 Versatel 3,500.0 2,174.9 45 41 4,000.0 2,485.6 49 45 Viatel (Circe) 10,400.0 6,462.6 39 10,400.0 6,462.6 39 Williams Communications Group 10,940.0 6.798.1 21 10,940.0 6.798.1 24 WorldCom (Ulysses) 16,260.0 10,104.0 75 44 16,260.0 10,104.0 75 44 Notes: Terrestrial systems listed include those on which capacity may be leased in increments of at least 155 Mbps (one STM-1) as part of standard products and service offerings. European systems include only cross-border European networks. Source: TeleGeography research, Terrestrial Bandwidth 2002 © TeleGeography, Inc. 2002 © TELEGEOGRAPHY, INC 2002 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2003 259 BANDWIDTH International Circuit Usage by U.S. Carriers Each year; the U.S. Federal Communications Commission (FCC) releases aggregate cir­ cuit usage statistics based on reports filed by the three largest U.S. facilities-based car­ riers (AT&T, WorldCom, and Sprint) As of 2000 these three carriers accounted for only 50. 1 percent of total international bandwidth from the U.S. Nevertheless, the "Big Three" statistics are still useful for baseline comparisons along two axes. First, the data illuminates year-to-year growth trends in overall cable connectivity. Second, the statist ics break down how much capacity is used for public switched telephone network (PSTN) traffic and international private lines (IPLs). as well as how much capacity is reported idle" each year. Although private lines can carry voice traffic the circuit usage statistics provide a rough proxy for determining the balance of voice and data traffic on international net­ works connecting to the U.S. Assuming that increased IPL circuit deployment repre­ sents increased data traffic flows, the voice/data "crossover"-occurred sometime in 1998. Since 1996, the PSTNs share of used capacity dropped from 83 to 18 percent. During 2001, private line deployments grew by 34 percent, while public telephone line capacity increased by a stately 8 percent. Figure 1. International Circuit Usage Summary, 1996-2001 Circuits (Gbps) 200 175 150 125 100 75 50 25 0 1996 Source: FCC 1997 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 · 2001 ., 260 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2003 Absolute Circuit Usage Relative Circuit Usage 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% 1998 1999 2000 2001 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 IPL 5.8 9.4 12.7 27.9 57.8 77.4 I 0 PSTN • IPL 0 Idle Circuit Usage (Gbps) PSTN Idle 9.0 4.8 10.9 11.3 13.5 16.1 17.4 7.9 15.4 15.3 50.2 61.8 Total Available Usage% 19.6 75.6% 28.3 72.0% 39.5 60.9% 56.7 73.1% 124.1 59.6% 156.6 60.6% © TeleGeography, Inc. 2002 © TELEGEOGRAPHY, INC 2002 BANDWIDTH Figure 2. International Circuit Usage for Selected Routes, 1999-2001 U.S. Carrier Circuit Usage (Gbps) For Private For Public Switched Total Circuits Idle Total Lines Network In Use Circuits Available Canada 1999 6.3 4.7 10.9 7.0 17.9 2000 13.7 4.8 18.5 26.8 45.3 2001 14.1 5.0 19.1 19.4 38.5 Mexico 1999 3.3 3.2 6.5 0.5 7.0 2000 5.7 4.1 9.9 14.8 24.6 2001 8.5 4.3 12.8 12.9 25.7 Hong Kong 1999 0.5 0.1 0.5 0.1 0.7 2000 0.6 0.1 0.7 0.1 0.8 2001 0.9 0.1 1.0 0.5 1.5 Japan 1999 2.5 0.4 2.9 1.8 4.7 2000 3.8 0.6 4.3 0.6 4.9 2001 4.8 0.6 5.3 2.0 7.4 Singapore 1999 0.5 0.0 0.5 0.1 0.6 2000 0.5 0.1 0.5 0.0 0.6 2001 0.8 0.1 0.9 0.1 1.1 United Kingdom 1999 7.0 0.9 7.9 2.2 10.1 2000 19.6 1.5 21.0 3.9 24.9 2001 27.2 1.6 28.7 11.8 40.5 1999 Canada 2000 2001 1999 Mexico 2000 2001 1999 Hong Kong 2000 2001 1999 Japan 2000 2001 1999 Singapore 2000 2001 1999 U.K. 2000 2001 ----- 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Notes: Data based on year-end FCC circuit status reports filed by AT&T, World Com, and Sprint for circuits originating in the continental U.S. as well as Puerto Rico, Guam, and other U.S. territories. "Idle" circuits are owned by a carrier at year end but not in use. The FCC estimates that 25-30 percent of total submarine cable capacity landed in the U.S. is controlled by foreign carriers and thus not reported here. Source: FCC © TeleGeography, Inc. 2002 © TELEGEOGRAPHY, INC. 2002 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2003 261 BANDWIDTH Figure 3. International Circuit Usage by Region, 1998-2001 U.S. Carrier Circuit Usage (Gbps) For Private For Public Switched Total Circuits Idle Total Lines Network In Use Circuits Available N. and C. America 1998 5.0 6.1 11.1 8.1 19.2 1999 9.6 8.0 17.7 7.5 25.1 2000 19.5 9.1 28.6 41 .6 70.2 2001 22.6 9.5 32.2 32.3 64.5 South America 1998 0.5 0.5 1.0 0.4 1.4 1999 0.8 0.5 1.3 0.4 1.7 2000 1.8 0.6 2.4 0.5 2.9 2001 2.2 0.6 2.9 0.7 3.5 Caribbean 1998 0.1 0.4 0.5 0.1 0.7 1999 0.1 0.4 0.6 0.3 0.8 2000 0.2 0.5 0.6 0.3 0.9 2001 0.2 0.5 0.7 0.5 1.2 W. Europe 1998 4.4 2.2 6.6 3.4 10.0 1999 10.5 2.5 13.0 3.8 16.8 2000 24.4 3.4 27.8 6.2 34.1 2001 33.5 4.0 37.4 21 .1 58.6 E. Europe 1998 0.1 0.3 0.3 0.1 0.4 1999 0.1 0.3 0.4 0.1 0.5 2000 0.1 0.3 0.4 0.1 0.5 2001 0.0 0.3 0.4 0.1 0.4 Middle East 1998 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.1 0.4 1999 0.2 0.2 0.4 0.1 0.4 2000 0.2 0.2 0.4 0.1 0.4 2001 0.2 0.2 0.4 0.1 0.5 Africa 1998 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.3 1999 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.3 2000 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.1 0.3 2001 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.1 0.4 Asia 1998 2.0 1.2 3.2 2.9 6.1 1999 5.2 1.3 6.4 3.0 9.4 2000 9.3 1.6 10.9 1.2 12.0 2001 15.6 1.7 17.3 4.9 22.2 Oceania 1998 0.4 0.3 0.7 0.4 1.1 1999 1.4 0.2 1.6 0.1 1.7 2000 2.3 0.2 2.6 0.2 2.7 2001 2.9 0.3 3.2 2.0 5.3 Totals 1998 12.7 11.3 24.0 15.4 39.5 1999 27.9 13.5 41.5 15.3 56.7 2000 57.8 16.1 73.9 50.2 124.1 2001 77.4 17.4 94.9 61 .8 156.6 Notes: Data based on year-end FCC circuit status reports filed by AT&T, World Com, and Sprint for circuits originating in the continental U.S. as well as Puerto Rico, Guam, and other U.S. territories. "Idle" circuits are owned by a carrier at year end but not in use. The FCC estimates that 25-30 percent of total submarine cable capacity landed in the U.S. is controlled by foreign carriers and thus not reported here. Source: FCC © Tel,eGeography, Inc. 2002 262 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2003 © TELEGEOGRAPHY, INC. 2002 BANDWIDTH Figure 4. International Circuits of U.S. Carriers by Region, 1998-2001 N. and C. America 19985~~~~ 1999 2000 2001 South America 1998 1999. 2000. 2001- Caribbean 1998 • 1999 2000 • 2001 W. Europe 199855::::::::~= 1999 2000 2001 E. Europe 1998 1999 2000 2001 Middle East 1998 1999 2000 2001 Africa 1998 1999 2000 2001 Asia 1998 -1999 2000 2001 Oceania 1998 1999 2000 • 2001 0 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 Gbps 60 65 •IPL •PSTN Oldie 70 75 Notes: Data based on year-end FCC circuit status reports filed by AT&T, World Com, and Sprint for circuits originating in the continental U.S. as well as Puerto Rico, Guam, and other U.S. territories. "Idle" circuits are owned by a carrier at year end but not in use. The FCC estimates that 25-30 percent of total subma­ rine cable capacity landed in the U.S. is controlled by foreign carriers and thus not reported here. Source: FCC © TeleGeography, Inc. 2002 © TELEGEOGRAPHY, INC. 2002 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2003 263 BANDWIDTH 264 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2003 © TELEGEOGRAPHY INC 2002 Internet Backbones INTERNET BACKBONES 266 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2003 © TELEGEOGRAPHY INC 2002 INTERNET BACKBONES International Internet Backbones The statistics and analysis presented on the following pages are excerpted from Global Internet Geography 2003 and U.S. Internet Geography 2003 published in October 2002 and July 2002, respectively. What is an Internet backbone? And when is it international? The questions are not as straightforward as they might seem. International Internet backbones are private data links which cross international political borders, run the Internet Protocol (IP), are reachable from other parts of the Internet, and carry general Internet traffic: e-mail, Web pages. and most of the other popular services which have come to define todays Internet. That means that international IP links devoted to just one type of traffic­ notably, Voice-over-IP (VoiP)-are excluded from our definition of backbones on the public Internet. If VoiP is excluded, though, then why publish international Internet backbone data in a book on international telephony? The answer: because it just might be important. Despite a history stretching back more than 30 years, todays Internet really began its push toward ubiquity during the 1990s in a rapid transition from academic network to commercial networks. What evolved was a decentralized infrastructure whose end-to­ end design made it possible for users to create new network applications without ask­ ing too many peoples permission. Figure 1. Interregional Internet Bandwidth, 2002 1,655.1 Mbps Notes: Figure represents Internet bandwidth connected across international borders. Data as of mid·2002. Source: TeleGeography research, Global internet Geography 2003 © TELEGEOGRAPHY, INC. 2002 © TeleGeography, Inc. 2002 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2003 267 INTERNET BACKBONES The resulting infrastructure took media services based on text and simple graphics and turned them into the most widespread media platform since television. That ubiquity only fueled its popularity, however, and soon people were stuffing two-way voice teleph­ ony, streaming video, and other bandwidth-intensive applications into the public Internet. This convergence occurred not because the Internets then-infrastructure was particularly well-suited to such services but because running them over the Internet meant bringing together multiple services on a single platform. On networks, the whole is always more than the sum of its parts. The so-called "public Internet" is at a crossroads. How will it accommodate very dif­ ferent types of traffic inside the same networks? Some want to solve the problem by bestowing Quality of Service (OoS) provisions upon IPso that networks can distinguish between what needs to be delivered immediately and what needs to be delivered with care. Some, pressed for time, prefer to forego fancy traffic engineering by throwing more bandwidth at the problem, hoping to give every packet enough room to get to its destination in style. Others are abandoning the public Internet altogether by building distinct backbones for self-similar traffic generators. such as VoiP. These private IP networks-and most corporate networks-are excluded from our backbone research. That sharpens the scope of what we mean by "Internet" backbones, but it doesnt close off their possibilities. There is increasing excitement over a "new public network" infra­ structure which meshes PSTN (public switched telephone network) and IP infrastructure into the backbone of tomorrows public communications facilities. If the feverish activ­ ity taking place around the world can successfully achieve the economies of scale and creative possibilities that interoperable communications services represent. these backbones will have to come together to look like the Internet as many engineers have always drawn it-a cloud. Bandwidth, Not Traffic The maps and statistics on the following pages show international Internet backbone capacity, or bandwidth-not traffic. There are several reasons to keep track of inter­ national Internet bandwidth. One is to provide a rough metric for matching supply and demand. Another, more compelling reason is that bandwidth take-up may provide a clue to Internet traffic statistics, which are still in very short supply. International Internet bandwidth is growing faster than international Internet traffic, however. In the past few years. tremendous physical infrastructure builds began to come on-line. Because raw bandwidth does not translate immediately into Internet capacity, however-it must first be lit, sold, deployed, and integrated into data network operations-the numbers showed what, to casual observers, appeared to be a mis­ match between physical capacity and Internet capacity. All this new Internet capacity makes network bandwidth less useful as a proxy for traf­ fic, but it does provide important insights as to how traffic is routed. Historically, steep intraregional bandwidth costs, a comparative lack of local content, and limited regional coordination had caused the U.S. to become the Internets central switching office, even for data flows within a region. In recent years, however, we have found that the Internet was still U.S.-centric but that places like Western Europe and, to a lesser extent, east­ e~n Asia were beginning to develop as secondary hubs (see Figure 1. Interregional Internet Bandwidth, 2002). 268 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2003 © TELEGEOGRAPHY, INC. 2002 INTERNET BACKBONES Figure 2. Major Interregional Internet Routes, 2002 Asia U.S. & Canada Europe Tokyo Oslo Seoul Copenhagen Taipei Amsterdam Hong London Kong Latin America Sydney Paris Frankfurt Internet Bandwidth (Gbps) 50 25 5 Madrid Notes: Figure represents Internet bandwidth connected across international borders to Consolidated Metropolitan Statistical Areas or equivalents. lntraregional and domestic routes are omitted. Data as of mid-2002. Source: TeleGeography research, Global internet Geography 2003 © TeleGeography, Inc. 2002 Enormous differences still remain from country to country. The U.S.-centric pattern wanes only with substantial and sustained infrastructure builds of the sort that has swept Europe, rolled into Asia, announced itself in Latin America and stalled in most of Africa. Methodology The data depicted on the following pages-using different scales for different regions­ result from a TeleGeography, Inc. study completed in October 2002. The research focused on the network topologies of over 300 liSPs operating international Internet links-routers or switches directly connected across an international border over an internal network. These links and their capacities were then tracked through over 300 cities in more than 180 countries. Each liSPs network routes and capacities were derived from a combination of public documents, confidential interviews, and com­ puter-based network analysis tools. The study grouped specific switch and router locations according to Consolidated Metropolitan Statistical Area Census Metropolitan Area or the equivalent. Only the IP network was mapped, instead of the physical network infrastructure which runs beneath it. In cases where liSPs had provisioned relatively new dedicated IP capacity, the study did not include the capacity unless it was believed to be operational and available for public Internet traffic as of mid-2000 (i.e., bandwidth kept in reserve was excluded) A final note: due to the complex and ever-changing nature of network archi­ tectures, omissions may have occurred. .,_. © TELEGEOGRAPHY, INC 2002 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2003 269 INTERNET BACKBONES 270 Figure 3. Top 50 Interregional Internet Routes, 2002 Rank City City Internet Bandwidth (Mbps) 1. London, U.K. New York, U.S. 96,599 2. New York, U.S. Paris, France 25,502 3. Amsterdam, Netherlands New York, U.S. 22,489 4. London, U.K. Washington, DC-Baltimore, U.S. 18,037 5. Copenhagen, Denmark New York, U.S. 11,819 6. San Francisco, U.S. Tokyo, Japan 9,707 7. Frankfurt, Germany New York, U.S. 7,970 8. Miami, U.S. Sao Paulo, Brazil 5,523 9. San Francisco, U.S. Taipei, Taiwan 5,474 10. Seattle, U.S. Tokyo, Japan 4,815 11 Los Angeles, U.S. Tokyo, Japan 4,605 12. Los Angeles, U.S. Sydney, Australia 4,039 13. Amsterdam, Netherlands Washington, DC-Baltimore, U.S. 3,887 14. Buenos Aires, Argentina Miami, U.S. 3,086 15. Paris, France Washington, DC-Baltimore, U.S. 2,953 16. Hong Kong, Hong Kong San Francisco, U.S. 2,734 17. San Francisco, U.S. Seoul, Korea, Rep. 2,718 18. Madrid, Spain Miami, U.S. 2,655 19. Frankfurt, Germany Washington, DC-Baltimore, U.S. 2,643 20. New York, U.S. Oslo, Norway 2,488 21. Hong Kong, Hong Kong Los Angeles, U.S. 2,354 22. San Francisco, U.S. Sydney, Australia 2,254 23. New York, U.S. Stockholm, Sweden 2,021 24. San Francisco, U.S. Singapore, Singapore 1,633 25. Miami, U.S. Rio de Janeiro, Brazil 1.401 26. Beijing, China Seattle, U.S. 1,348 27. Amsterdam, Netherlands Chicago, U.S. 1,244 28. San Francisco, U.S. Shanghai, China 977 29. Dallas-Fort Worth, U.S. Mexico City, Mexico 934 30. New York, U.S. Zurich, Switzerland 932 Beijing, China San Francisco, U.S. 932 32. Miami, U.S. Santiago, Chile 826 33. Geneva, Switzerland New York, U.S. 811 34. Guangzhou, China San Francisco, U.S. 798 35. Lima, Peru Miami, U.S. 797 36. Los Angeles, U.S. Shanghai, China 777 37. Auckland, New Zealand Los Angeles, U.S. 775 38. New York, U.S. Tel Aviv, Israel 709 39. Houston, U.S. Mexico City, Mexico 667 40. Mexico City, Mexico Miami, U.S. 660 41. Los Angeles, U.S. Mexico City, Mexico 654 42. Guatemala City, Guatemala Miami, U.S. 650 43. Milan, Italy New York, U.S. 622 Lisbon, Portugal Miami, U.S. 622 Miami, U.S. Milan, Italy 622 Miami, U.S. Palermo, Italy 622 New York, U.S. Palermo, Italy 622 Guangzhou, China Seattle, U.S. 622 Nagoya, Japan San Francisco, U.S. 622 Atlanta, U.S. Monterrey, Mexico 622 Notes: Figures represent Internet bandwidth connected across international borders to Consolidated Metropolitan Statistical (lreas or equivalents as of mid-2002. Intra regional and domestic routes are omitted. Source: TeleGeography re~earch Global internet Geography 2003 TeleGeography, Inc. 2002 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2003 © TELEGEOGRAPHY, INC 2002 INTERNET BACKBONES Figure 4. Top 50 Interregional Internet Hub Cities, 2002 Rank City Country Internet Bandwidth (Mbps) 1. New York u.s. 179,278 2. London U.K. 115,619 3. San Francisco u.s. 30,198 4. Paris France 29,083 5. Washington, DC-Baltimore u.s. 28,653 6. Amsterdam Netherlands 27,656 7. Miami U.S. 20,163 8. Tokyo Japan 19,300 9. Los Angeles u.s. 15,561 10. Copenhagen Denmark 11 ,819 11. Frankfurt Germany 10,690 12. Seattle u.s. 6,876 13. Sydney Austral ia 6.738 14. Sao Paulo Brazil 6,630 15. Hong Kong Hong Kong 5.764 16. Taipei Taiwan 5,645 17. Mexico City Mexico 3,827 18. Buenos Aires Argentina 3,621 19. Seoul Korea, Rep. 3,387 20. Beijing China 2,685 21. Madrid Spain 2,658 22. Oslo Norway 2,495 23. Stockholm Sweden 2,023 24. Singapore Singapore 2,006 25. Shanghai China 1.754 26. Rio de Janeiro Brazil 1,592 27. Sacramento U.S. 1,533 28. Monterrey Mexico 1,442 29. Guangzhou China 1,420 30. Palermo Italy 1,385 31. Milan Italy 1,350 32. Chicago u.s. 1,334 33. Tel Aviv Israel 1,236 34. Dallas-Fort Worth U.S. 1,148 35. Santiago Chile 1,139 36. Auckland New Zealand 1,130 37. Houston U.S. 1,022 38. ZOrich Switzerland 932 39. Perth Australia 930 40. Lima Peru 865 41. Geneva Switzerland 813 42. San Antonio U.S. 775 43. Ca iro Egypt 722 44. Atlanta u.s. 676 45. Moscow Russia 671 46. Guatemala City Guatemala 654 47. Lisbon Portugal 645 48. Nagoya Japan 622 49. Osaka Japan 620 50. Caracas Venezuela 598 Notes: Figures represent Internet bandwidth connected across international borders from Consolidated Metropolitan Statistical Areas or equiva­ lents. Data as of mid-2002. lntraregionaland domestic routes are omitted. Source: TeleGeography research, Global Internet Geography 2003 © TeleGeography, Inc. 2002 © TELEGEOGRAPHY. INC 2002 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2003 271 INTERNET BACKBONES 272 Figure 5. Top 100 U.S. Internet Routes, 2002 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2003 Rank Route Internet Bandwidth (Gbps) 1. New York-Washington, DC-Baltimore 137.4 2. Los Angeles-San Francisco 129.9 3. Sacramento-San Francisco 124.9 4. Atlanta-Washington, DC-Baltimore 111.1 5. Chicago-New York 110.3 6. Dallas-Fort Worth-Los Angeles 72.9 7. Philadelphia-Washington, DC-Baltimore 68.9 8. San Francisco-Seattle 68.3 9. Dallas-Fort Worth-Houston 67.9 10. Portland, OR-Seattle 64.9 11. Chicago-Washington, DC-Baltimore 63.9 12. New York-Philadelphia 60.7 13. Boston-New York 57.9 14. Atlanta-Dallas-Fort Worth 56.0 15. Atlanta-Houston 53.5 16. Chicago-Denver 47.8 17. Los Angeles-San Diego 45.9 18. Chicago-Kansas City 45.7 19. Chicago-Sacramento 44.8 20. Los Angeles-Sacramento 43.5 21. San Francisco-Washington, DC-Baltimore 42.2 22. Atlanta-Miami 41.1 23. Denver-San Francisco 37.1 Chicago-Dallas-Fort Worth 37.1 25. Dallas-Fort Worth-Kansas City 36.2 26. Atlanta-Orlando 34.7 27. Chicago-San Francisco 34.4 28. Dallas-Fort Worth-Denver 31.3 29. Atlanta-Chicago 29.7 30. Chicago-Seattle 28.2 31. Chicago-Indiana polis 27.8 32. Denver-Kansas City 27.4 33. Orlando-Tampa-St. Petersburg 27.3 34. Kansas City-San Francisco 25.5 35. Boston-Chicago 23.2 36. Chicago-Minneapolis-St. Paul 22.6 37. Houston-Los Angeles 22.5 38. New York-San Francisco 22.2 39. Jacksonville-Orlando 21.8 40. Atlanta-Jacksonville 21.4 41. Chic a go-Philadelphia 20.7 42. Los Angeles-Phoenix 20.6 43. Jacksonville-Miami 20.2 44. Houston-Tampa-St. Petersburg 20.1 Chicago-Cleveland 20.1 46. Miami-Tampa-St. Petersburg 20.0 47. Denver-Sacramento 19.9 Atlanta-New York 19.9 49. Dallas-Fort Worth-Washington, DC-Baltimore 19.6 50. Chicago-St. Louis 19.5 Notes: Figures represent Internet bandwidth connecting Consolidated Metropolitan Statistical Ar,eas or equivalents as of May 2002. Intracity routes are omitted. Source: TeleGeography research, U.S. Internet Geography 2003 © TeleGeography, Inc. 2002 © TELEGEOGRAPHY, INC 2002 INTERNET BACKBONES Figure 6. Major International Internet Routes in Europe, 2002 Interregional bandwidth Washington, DC Prague 250 (,:;\ \{f;)) 50 25 10 Notes: Map includes international Internet routes with at least 10 Gbps of aggregate capacity. Figures represent Internet bandwidth connected across inter­ national borders to each Consolidated Metropolitan Statistical Area or equivalent. Domestic routes are omitted. Data as of mid-2002. Source: TeleGeography research, Global Internet Geography 2003 © TeleGeography, Inc. 2002 © TELEGEOGRAPHY, INC. 2002 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2003 273 INTERNET BACKBONES Figure 7. Major International Internet Routes in Asia, 2002 Interregional bandwidth lntraregional bandwidth Aggregate international Internet capacity (Gbps) 30 (@) 10 5 Seattle Los Angeles Auckland ;oo.o, Notes: Map includes international Internet routes with at least 1 Gbps of aggregate capacity. Rgures represent Internet bandwidth conn~cted across interna­ tional borders to each Consolidated Metropolitan Statistical Area or equivalent. Domestic routes are omitted. Data as of mid-2002. Source: TeleGeography research, Global Internet Geography 2003 © TeleGeography, Inc. 2002 274 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2003 © TELEGEOGRAPHY, INC. 2002 Aggregate international Internet capacity (Mbps) 75 (@) 300 150 75 --- INTERNET BACKBONES Interregional band:.Vidth lntraregional bandwidth Santiago Notes: Map includes international Internet routes with at least 625 Mbps of aggregate capacity. Figures represent Internet bandwidth connected across inter­ national borders to each Consolidated Metropolitan Statistical Area or equivalent Domestic routes are omitted. Data as of mid-2002. Source: TeleGeography research, Global Internet Geography 2(}()3 © TeleGeography, Inc. 2002 © TELEGEDGRAPHY, INC. 2002 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2003 275 INTERNET BACKBONES Washington, DC Aggregate international Internet capacity (Mbpsl 75 (@) 300 150 75 --- CapeTown -! Johannesburg 4 Interregional bandwidth Intra regional bandwidth Notes: Map includes internationallntllrnet routes with at least 50 Mbps of aggregate capacity. Figures represent Internet bandwidth connected across inter­ national borders to each Consolidated .tv1etropolitan Statistical Area or equivalent. Domestic routes are omitted. Data as of mid-2002. Source: TeleGeography research, Global Internet Geography 2003 © TeleGeography, Inc. 2002 276 TELEGEDGRAPHY 2003 © TELEGEOGRAPHY, INC 2002 INTERNET BACKBONES Internet Bandwidth (Gbps) 50 25 10 5 Notes: Map includes interregional Internet routes with at least 1,500 Mbps of aggregate capacity. Figures represent Internet bandwidth connected across international borders to each Consolidated Metropolitan Statistical Area or equivalent. Domestic routes are omitted. Data as of mid-2002. Source: TeleGeography research, Global internet Geography 2003 ©Tale Geography, Inc. 2002 © TELEGEOGRAPHY, INC 2002 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2003 277 INTERNET BACKBONES 278 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2002 © TELEGEOGRAPHY, INC. 2002 Reference REFERENCE National Telecommunications Indicators (A-K) GOP 2001 Population 2001 Main Lines Lines Per Cellular Users International Internet Hosts Countries (US$ billions) (millions) 2001 (thous.) 100 ~eo~le 2001 (thous.) Carriers 2001 2001 (thous.) Albania 4.1 3.4 197.5 5.7 350 1 1 Algeria 53.0 30.9 1,880.0 6.1 100 1 1 Andorra n.a. 0.1 35.0 52.2 24 1 3 Argentina 268.8 37.5 8,108.0 21.6 6,975 66 465 Armenia 2.0 3.8 529.3 13.9 25 1 2 Australia (a) 368.6 19.4 10,060.0 51.9 11,169 75 2,289 Austria 188.7 8.1 3,810.0 46.9 6,566 65 326 Azerbaijan 5.7 8.1 865.5 10.7 620 1 1 Bahamas 4.8. 0.3 123.3 40.1 61 1 1 Bahrain 7.8. 0.7 173.9 24.3 300 1 2 Bangladesh 46.7 133.4 514.0 0.4 520 1 1 Barbados 2.6 0.3 123.8 46.2 29 1 1 Belarus 12.1 10.0 2,857.9 28.7 138 1 3 Belgium 227.6 10.3 5,074.0 49.4 7,690 50 352 Bolivia 8.0 8.5 514.8 6 744 7 2 Botswana (a) 5.1 1.6 150.3 9.3 278 1 1 Brazil 502.5 172.6 37,430.8 21.7 28,746 4 1,645 Bulgaria 12.7 8.1 2,913.9 35.9 1,550 1 27 Canada 677.2 31.0 20,319.3 65.5 9,924 96 2,890 Ca~man Islands n.a. 0.4 n.a. n.a. n.a. 1 n.a. Chile 63.5 15.4 3,703.3 24.1 5,272 34 123 China 1,159.0 1,271.9 179,034.0 14.1 144,812 3 89 Colombia 83.4 43.0 7,300.0 17 3,265 3 57 Costa Rica 16.2 3.9 945.0 24.3 311 1 9 Cote dlvoire 10.4 16.4 293.6 1.8 729 1 3 Croatia 19.8 4.4 1,700.0 38.8 1,755 1 22 Cuba n.a. 11.2 572.6 5.1 8 1 1 Cyprus 8.7 0.8 435.0 57.2 314 1 2 Czech Republic 56.4 10.3 3,846.0 37.5 6,769 15 216 Denmark 162.8 5.4 3,882.0 72.6 3,954 45 561 Dominican Republic 21.2 8.5 955.1 11 .2 1,270 5 42 Ecuador 18.0 12.9 1,335.8 10.4 859 3 3 Egypt 97.5 65.2 6,650.0 10.2 2,794 1 2 Estonia 5.3 1.4 503.6 37.2 651 15 51 Finland 122.0 5.2 2,845.0 54.8 4,044 32 887 France 1,302.8 59.2 34,032.9 57.5 35,922 130 789 Georgia 3.1 5.0 867.6 17.3 295 2 2 Germany 1,873.9 82.2 52,280.0 63.6 56,245 135 2,426 Ghana 5.3 19.7 242.1 1.2 194 2 1 Greece 116.3 10.6 5,607.7 53 7,962 15 143 Guatemala 20.6 11.7 756.0 6.5 1,134 15 7 Guyana 0.7 0.8 79.9 10.4 75 1 1 Hong Kong (a) 162.6. 6.9 3,897.6 56.7 5,776 235 388 Hungary 52.4 10.2 3,730.0 36.6 4,968 1 168 India (a) 477.6 1,033.4 34,732.1 3.4 6,431 4 83 Indonesia 145.3 213.6 7,949.3 3.7 5,303 1 46 Iran 118.9 64.7 10,346.8 16.0 1,725 1 2 Ireland (a) (b) 101.2 3.8 1,860.0 48.5 2,800 45 128 Israel 110.4 6.4 3,100.0 48.7 5,260 3 144 Ita I~ 1,090.9 57.7 27,303.0 47.3 48,698 120 680 Jamaica 7.8 2.7 512.6 19.2 700 1 1 Japan (a) 4,245.2 127.1 76,000.0 59.8 74,819 150 7,118 Jordan 8.8 5.0 660.0 13.1 746 1 2 Source: TeleGeography research, ITU, and World Bank © TeleGeography, Inc. 2002 280 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2003 © TELEGEOGRAPHY, INC. 2002 REFERENCE International Telephone Traffic (A-K) Outgoing Minutes (millions) Incoming Minutes (millions) Traffic Balance 2000 2001 %Change 2000 2001 %Change 2000 2001 Countries 64.9 65.4 0.7% 178.6 317.0 77.5% 113.7 251 .6 Albania 151.8 207.1 36.4% n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. Algeria 55.9 63.2 13.0% n.a. 48.1 n.a. n.a. -15.1 Andorra 432.1 455.9 5.5% n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. Argentina 31.4 34.6 10.2% n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. Armenia 2,650.0 3,030.0 14.3% n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. Australia (a) 1,410.0 1,480.0 5.0% n.a. n.a. n.a n.a. n.a. Austria 28.1 29.6 5.5% 59.7 n.a. n.a. 31 .6 n.a. Azerbaijan 67.3 72.5 7.8% 111 .8 116.9 4.6% 44.5 44.4 Bahamas 139.5 170.1 21.9% 125.6 182.6 45.3% -13.9 12.5 Bahrain 49.6 47.7 -3.8% n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. Bangladesh 32.1 37.6 17.1% n.a. n.a n.a. n.a. n.a. Barbados 178.5 209.9 17.6% n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. Belarus 1,835.0 2,.155.0 17.4% n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. Belgium 27.2 31.6 16.4% 80.8 n.a. n.a. 53.6 n.a. Bolivia 42.0 59.0 40.5% n.a. 41.2 n.a. n.a. -17.8 Botswana (a) 692.7 772.2 11.5% 1,212.4 n.a. n.a. 519.8 n.a. Brazil 110.0 125.0 13.6% 211.0 220.0 4.3% 101 .0 95.0 Bulgaria 7.224.0 7,915.0 9.6% n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. Canada 51.0 51.0 0.0% 27.3 n.a. n.a. -23.7 n.a. Cayman Islands 261.4 281.2 7.6% n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. Chile 2,240.0 2,600.0 16.1% 3,500.0 4,270.0 22.0% 1,260.0 1,670.0 China 312.0 363.4 16.5% n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. Colombia 99.6 131.4 32.0% 137.8 165.5 20.1% 38.2 34.1 Costa Rica 74.0 60.3 -18.4% n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. Cote dlvoire 222.3 244.5 10.0% 512.0 n.a. n.a. 289.6 n.a. Croatia 20.6 22.4 9.1% 284.4 258.0 -9.3% 263.8 235.5 Cuba 192.6 216.5 12.4% 159.7 164.3 2.9% -32.9 -52.2 Cyprus 359.9 424.4 17.9% n.a. n.a n.a. n.a. n.a. Czech Republic 905.0 995.0 9.9% n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. Denmark 211.7 227.4 7.4% 1,340.0 1,714.6 28.0% 1,128.3 1,487.2 Dominican Republic 55.5 61.1 10.1% n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. Ecuador 183.1 192.3 5.0% 620.6 n.a. n.a. 437.5 n.a. Egypt 75.5 74.6 -1.2% n.a. 91.9 n.a. n.a. 17.3 Estonia 468.0 485.0 3.6% n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. Finland 6,500.0 7,605.0 17.0% n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. France 45.6 64.2 40.8% 37.6 n.a. n.a. -8.0 n.a. Georgia 9,570.0 10,320.0 7.8% n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. Germany 42.1 46.7 11.1% 166.4 139.3 -16.3% 124.3 92.5 Ghana 793.2 1,020.0 28.6% 889.8 891.0 0.1% 96.6 -129.0 Greece 125.9 156.2 24.1% 295.9 536.8 81.4% 170.0 380.6 Guatemala 15.0 19.4 29.2% 52.3 69.6 33.2% 37.2 50.2 Guyana 3,074.9 3,487.3 13.4% 1,858.0 1,942.3 4.5% -1,216.8 -1,545.0 Hong Kong (a) 349.2 326.8 -6.4% n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a n.a. Hungary 527.1 586.4 11.3% 2,161.4 2,533.6 17.2% 1,634.3 1,947.2 India (a) 315.5 316.2 0.2% 345.8 365.9 5.8% 30.3 49.7 Indonesia 176.8 179.1 1.3% 216.8 173.1 -20.2% 40.0 -6.0 Iran 1,250.0 1,535.0 22.8% n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. Ireland (a) (b) 1,022.4 1,120.0 9.5% 661.0 728.0 10.1% -361.4 -392.0 Israel 4,160.0 4;805.0 15.5% n.a. n.a n.a n.a. n.a. Italy 73.9 95.6 29.5% 328.5 413.8 26.0% 254.6 318.2 Jamaica 2,575.0 2,750.0 6.8% n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. Japan (a) 170.6 185.3 8.6% 214.1 217.0 1.4% 43.5 31.7 Jordan Notes: Data are in millions of minutes of public switched traffic. VoiP call volumes are excluded. a. International traffic for year ending March 31. Year for Australia, New Zealand, and Pakistan ends June 30. b. Traffic data exclude some carriers or routes. (See country table for details.) c. 2000 and 2001 traffic data not directly comparable. (See country table for details.) d. Data include some refile traffic. (See country table for details.) © TeleGeography, Inc. 2002 © TELEGEOGRAPHY, INC. 2002 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2003 281 REFERENCE National Telecommunications Indicators (K-Z) GOP 2001 Population 2001 Main Lines Lines Per Cellular Users International Internet Hosts Countries (US$ billions) (millions) 2001 (thous.) 100 people 2001 (thous.) Carriers 2001 2001 (thous.) Kazakhstan 22.6 14.8 1,834.2 12.4 582 3 11 Kenya 10.4 30.7 313.1 1 500 1 3 Korea, Rep. 422.2 47.6 22,724.7 47.7 29,046 60 440 Kyrgyzstan 1.5 5.0 376.1 7.6 27 1 5 Latvia 7.5 2.3 724.8 31 657 1 25 Lesotho 0.8 2.1 22.2 1.1 33 1 1 Lithuania 11 .8 3.5 1,151.7 33 932 1 35 Luxembourg 19.8 0.4 350.0 78.8 432 11 14 Macau 6.2 0.4 176.4 39.4 195 1 1 Macedonia 3.4 2.0 538.5 26.4 223 1 3 Malaysia (a) 87.5 23.8 4.738.0 19.9 7,128 16 74 Malta 3.6 0.4 207.7 53 139 1 9 Mauritius 4.5 1.2 306.8 25.6 300 1 3 Mexico 617.8 99.4 13,773.0 13.9 21,757 21 918 Moldova 1.5 4.3 676.1 15.8 210 1 2 Morocco 33.7 29.2 1,191.3 4.1 4,772 1 2 Namibia 3.2 1.8 117.4 6.6 100 1 5 Netherlands 375.0 16.0 10,000.0 62.4 11,900 95 2,632 New Zealand (a) 48.3 3.8 1,833.6 47.6 2,417 30 408 Norway 165.5 4.5 3,262.0 72.2 3.737 70 305 Oman (b) n.a. 2.5 235.3 9.6 325 1 5 Pakistan (a) (b) 59.6 141.5 3.400.0 2.4 BOO 1 11 Palestinian Territory (b) 4.0 3.1 256.9 8.3 300 1 n.a. Panama 10.2 2.9 430.0 14.8 600 1 8 Paraguay 6.9 5.6 288.8 5.1 1,150 1 3 Philippines (a) 71.4 77.0 3,100.0 4 10,568 11 31 Poland 174.6 38.7 11.400.0 29.5 10,050 1 490 Portugal 108.5 10.2 4,397.4 43 7,978 32 247 Qatar 14.5. 0.6 167.4 28 179 1 1 Russia (b) 310.0 144.8. 35.700.0 24.7 5,560 30 354 Saudi Arabia 173.3 21.4 3,232.9 15.1 2,529 1 11 Serbia & Montenegro 10.9 10.6 2.443.9 23 1,998 1 16 Singapore (a) 92.3 4.1 1,947.5 47.5 2,992 93 198 Slovak Republic 20.5 5.4 1,556.3 28.8 2,147 1 73 South Africa (a) 113.3 43.2 4,969.0 11 .5 9,197 1 238 Spain (d) 577.5 39.5 17.427.0 44.1 26.494 85 539 Sri Lanka 16.3 19.6 828.0 4.2 720 1 2 Sudan (b) 12.6 31.7 453.0 1.4 105 1 n.a Swaziland (a) 1.3 1.1 32.0 3 66 1 1 Sweden 210.1 8.9 6,585.0 74 7,042 120 735 Switzerland 247.4 7.2 5,183.0 71.9 5,226 60 528 Syria 17.9 16.6 1,807.6 10.9 200 1 1 Taiwan n.a. 22.4. 12,846.9 57.34 21,633 29 1,713 Tajikistan (b) 1.1 6.2 223.0 3.6 2 1 1 Thailand (c) 114.8 61.2 5,973.5 9.8 7,550 1 72 Trinidad & Tobago (a) 8.4 1.3 311 .8 23.8 225 1 7 Turkey (b) 147.6 66.2 18,900.9 28.5 20,000 1 107 Turkmenistan (b) 6.0 5.3 387.6 7.3 10 1 2 Ukraine (b) 37.6 49.1 10,669.6 21.7 2,225 2 58 United Arab Emirates n.a. 3.0 1,052.9 35.4 1,909 1 77 United Kingdom (a) (d) 1.406.3 59.9 35,326.0 59 47,026 500 2,231 United States 10,171.4 284.0 190,000.0 66.9 127,000 1,800 106,193 Uruguay 18.4 3.4 950.9 28.3 520 13 71 Uzbekistan (b) 11 .3 25.1 1,663.0 6.6 63 1 1 Source: TeleGeography research, ITU, and World Bank © TeleGeography, Inc. 2002 282 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2003 © TELEGEOGRAPHY, INC 2002 REFERENCE International Telephone Traffic (K-Z) Outgoing Minutes (millions) Incoming Minutes (millions) Traffic Balance ZOllO ZOO] %Change ZOllO Zllll1 %Change ZOllO ZOO] Counl£ie!i 105.4 118.6 12.5% 183.1 206.9 13.0% 77.8 88.4 Kazakhstan 21.0 24.2 15.2% 57.2 n.a. n.a. 36.2 n.a. Kenya 1,063.0 1,120.0 5.4% n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. Korea, Rep. 23.1 23.5 1.7% 36.4 42.3 16.2% 13.3 18.8 Kyrgyzstan 54.8 64.7 18.0% 90.1 105.3 16.9% 35.3 40.6 Latvia 21 .6 21 .5 -0.5% n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. Lesotho 54.6 58.1 6.4% n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. Lithuania 381.0 394.6 3.6% n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. Luxembourg 152.1 156.5 2.9% 103.2 111.9 8.5% -48.9 -44.6 Macau 73.2 66.3 -9.5% 166.4 197.2 18.5% 93.2 131.0 Macedonia 840.0 845.0 0.6% 765.0 810.0 5.9% -75.0 -35.0 Malaysia (a) 43.0 45.6 5.8% 56.5 65.5 16.0% 13.4 19.9 Malta 35.1 35.6 1.5% 49.0 56.2 14.8% 13.9 20.6 Mauritius 1,981.0 2,082.0 5.1% 5,896.0 5,100.0 -13.5% 3,915.0 3,018.0 Mexico 50.8 52.3 3.0% 120.8 161.8 33.9% 70.1 109.6 Moldova 245.0 269.5 10.0% n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. Morocco 60.2 64.8 7.8% 50.7 46.2 -8.9% -9.5 -18.7 Namibia 2,830.0 3,225.0 14.0% n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. Netherlands 950.0 965.0 1.6% n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. New Zealand (a) 737.0 796.0 8.0% n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. Norwal 116.8 159.3 36.4% n.a. 108.0 n.a. n.a. -51.3 Oman (b) 98.6 110.0 11.5% 896.1 1,165.1 30.0% 797.4 1,055.2 Pakistan (a) (b) 45.6 45.3 -0.8% 37.2 47.9 28.7% -8.4 2.6 Palestinian Territory (b) 51.9 45.3 -12.8% 111.7 119.9 7.4% 59.7 74.6 Panama 33.3 35.3 5.9% 71.6 75.8 5.8% 38.4 40.6 Paragual 327.0 449.0 37.3% 1,977.6 2,332.7 18.0% 1,650.6 1,883.7 Philippines (a) 675.8 729.9 8.0% n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. Poland 720.0 900.0 25.0% n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. Portugal 143.0 171.6 20.0% 95.5 113.5 18.8% -47.5 -58.2 Qatar 944.0 1,081.6 14.6% n.a. 869.3 n.a. n.a. -212.3 Russia (b) 1,194.9 1,516.6 26.9% n.a. 705.5 n.a. n.a. -811.2 Saudi Arabia 286.9 275.5 -4.0% n.a. 582.2 n.a. n.a. 306.7 Serbia & Montenegro 1,515.0 1,870.7 23.5% n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. Singapore (a) 162.7 176.3 8.4% 233.1 n.a. n.a. 70.4 n.a. Slovak Republic 494.6 510.7 3.3% 700.0 736.0 5.1% 205.4 225.3 South Africa (a) 3,215.0 4,275.0 33.0% n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. Spain (d) 42.0 54.0 28.6% 157.0 180.0 14.6% 115.0 126.0 Sri Lanka 31.8 36.1 13.4% 155.7 n.a. n.a. 123.9 n.a. Sudan (b) 25.1 26.3 4.9% 22.5 n.a. n.a. -2.6 n.a. Swaziland (a) 1,550.0 1,710.0 10.3% n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. Sweden 2,780.0 3,230.0 16.2% n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. Switzerland 140.0 150.0 7.1% 286.0 325.8 13.9% 146.0 175.8 Syria 1,160.0 1,522.2 31.2% n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. Taiwan 6.8 8.6 26.6% 18.5 n.a. n.a. 11.7 n.a. Tajikistan (b) 355.2 377.7 6.3% 426.6 555.0 30.1% 71.4 177.4 Thailand (c) 80.5 80.9 0.4% 167.7 189.2 12.8% 87.2 108.4 Trinidad & Tobago (a) 731.8 675.0 -7.8% 1,240.0 1,100.0 -11.3% 508.2 425.0 Turkey (b) 15.7 19.3 22.6% 11.3 n.a. n.a. -4.5 n.a. Turkmenistan (b) 363.0 388.0 6.9% 269.5 n.a. n.a. -93.4 n.a. Ukraine (b) 1,123.6 1,395.9 24.2% n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. United Arab Emirates 12,242.7 12,730.0 4.0% 7,463.2 7,664.8 2.7% -4,779.5 -5,065.2 United Kingdom (a) (d) 37,594.8 37,272.4 -0.9% 13,010.7 13,400.0 3.0% -24,584.1 -23,872.4 United States 78.0 78.0 0.1% 110.9 127.8 15.2% 33.0 49.8 Uruguay 71.4 58.3 -18.3% 54.3 n.a. n.a. -17.0 n.a. Uzbekistan (b) Notes: Data are in millions of minutes of public switched traffic. VoiP call volumes are excluded. a. International traffic for year ending March 31. Year for Australia, New Zealand, and Pakistan ends June 30. b. Traffic data exclude some carriers or routes. (See country table for details.) c. 2000 and 2001 traffic data not directly comparable. (See country table for details.) d. Data include some refile traffic. (See country table for details.) © TeleGeography, Inc. 2002 © TELEGEOGRAPHY, INC. 2002 TELEGEDGRAPHY 2003 283 REFERENCE International Dialing Codes, by Country Afghanistan .............. 93 Albania ..... ......... 355 Tirana ......... .... ... 4 Algeria .............. 213 Algiers ... .......... 21 American Samoa ....... 684 Andorra .... .. ....... 376 Angola ................ 244 Luanda ...•........... 2 Anguilla .... ... ... 1-264 Antigua & Barbuda .. ... 1-268 Argentina ................ 54 Buenos Aires .......... 1 Armenia ...... .... 374 Yerevan ... ..... 1 Aruba ............. ... 297 Ascension Island ..... .. 247 Australia ...... ...... 61 Melbourne .. .. •...... 3 Sydney ........ .. .. .. 2 Australian Territories ... 672 Austria ... ....... .... .43 Vienna ...... ......... 1 Azerbaijan .. ........... 994 Baku ....•........... 12 Bahamas .......•..... 1-242 Bahrain .. ... ... ....... 973 Bangladesh .... ......... 880 Dhaka .. ..... ... 2 Barbados ....... .... 1-246 Belarus ...... ......... 375 Minsk ..•........... 172 Belgium ... .... ... 32 Brussels ........ ... .. 2 Belize .... .......... ... 501 Belmopan .. ......... 8 Benin ... ............. 229 Bermuda .....•........ 1-441 Bhutan ......... ... .. 975 Bolivia ........... ... 591 La Paz .. ......... .. 2 Bosnia-Herzegovina ...... 387 Sarajevo ............ .71 Botswana .. ........ 267 Brazil .. ..... .. ......... 55 Brasilia .......... ... 61 Rio de Janeiro ........ 21 Sao Paulo .. ........ 11 British Indian Ocean Terr ... .. ..... 246 British Virgin Islands ... 1-284 Brunei ..... ........... 673 Bandar Seri Begawan ... 2 Bulgaria ........ ... ... .. 359 Sofia ....... ......... 2 Burkina Faso ...... ... 226 Burundi .. .......... 257 Cambodia .. ........ .. 855 Cameroon ....... .. .... 237 Canada ....... .. .......... 1 Montreal ......... 514/450 Ottawa ....... .... 613 Toronto ......... .416/647 Vancouver ....... 604n78 Cape Verde ..... ... .. .. 238 Cayman Islands ...... 1-345 Central African Republic .. 236 Bangui .............. 61 Chad ........... .... ... 235 Chile ...... .. .. .. ... .. 56 Santiago ........ .. .. 2 China, Peoples Republic of 86 Beijing ......... .... 1 0 Guangzhou ........... 20 Shanghai .. .... ... 21 Colombia .......... .... 57 Bogota ......... ... .. 1 Cocos Islands; Norfolk & Christmas Islands ....... 672 Comoros .. .. .. ......... 269 Congo, Oem. Rep. of ... .. 243 Kinshasa .... ....... 12 Congo, Republic of ....... 242 Brazzaville .. ... 81/82/83 Cook Islands .. ........ .. 682 Costa Rica .... ..... .. 506 Cote dlvoire ..... ... .. 225 Croatia .............. .. 385 Zagreb ... .. ....... 1 Cuba ....... .. ...•.. .. 53 Havana ..... • ....... .7 Cyprus ................. 357 Nicosia ... .... ...... 2 Czech Republic .......... 420 Prague ............... 2 Denmark ...... .. ...... 45 Djibouti ................ 253 Dominica ... ... .... .. 1-767 Dominican Republic .... 1-809 East Timor ... .. ..... 670 284 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2003 Ecuador .. .... .. ....... 593 Quito ................. 2 Egypt .. ............... 20 Cairo ... ...•.. 2 El Salvador .. ... ....... 503 Equatorial Guinea ........ 240 Eritrea ............ .. .. 291 Estonia ..... ........ 372 Tallinn ......... ...... 2 Ethiopia ............... 251 Addis Ababa ..... ... 1 Falkland Islands .. .. ... 500 Faroe Islands ........... 298 Fiji ... ................ 679 Finland ... ............ 358 Helsinki ... ........... 9 France ........•..... .. 33 Paris .......... ...... 1 Marseille ....•. .... .491 French Antilles .......... 596 French Guiana ......... 594 French Polynesia ....... 689 Gabon ... .......... 241 Gambia ... .... .... ...... 220 Georgia ..... .. ...... 995 Tbilisi ..... .. ..... .32 Germany .....•...... .. .. 49 Berlin .....•......... 30 Bonn ... .. .. ........ 228 Frankfurt ............. 69 Munich .. ........... 89 Ghana .. ............... 233 Accra ......... .. ... 21 Gibraltar ........ ..... 350 Greece ........ .......... 30 Athens ...... •....... 1 Greenland ........... .. 299 Grenada .... .. .. ..... 1-473 Guadeloupe ............ 590 Guam ....... .. .. ...... 1-671 Guatemala ... .. .. ..... 502 Guinea ... ... .. ... .. .. 224 Guinea-Bissau .. .... 245 Guyana ............ .... 592 Georgetown ........... 2 Haiti ................... 509 Honduras .............. 504 Hong Kong ..... .... .. 852 Hungary ..... .. ....... 36 Budapest .... ....... 1 Iceland .. .. ..... ..... 354 India ..... ... ........ .. 91 Mumbai ......... 22 Calcutta ......•....... 33 New Delhi ... .. ...... 11 Indonesia .............. 62 Jakarta ........ ...... 21 lnmarsat Special .......... .... 870 East Atlantic ......... 871 Pacific .. ............ 872 Indian ... ...... .. 873 West Atlantic ..... .. 874 International Freephone .. 800 Iran ............ ........ 98 Tehran ... • ...... 21 Iraq ... .............. 964 Baghdad ... .......... 1 Ireland .. ....•.. 353 Dublin ....•.. ..... .... 1 Israel .. .............. 972 Jerusalem ... .... 2 Tel Aviv ....... .... ... 3 Italy ...... ...... ... .. 39 Rome ....••.. .. 06 Milan ......... 02 Jamaica ..... ..... .... 1-876 Japan .......... ... ..... 81 Osaka ..... .. ...... 6 Tokyo ..... ... ... 3 Jordan ................. 962 Amman ..... ..•...... 6 Kazakhstan .............. .7 Almaty ........... .. 3272 Kenya ... .. ... ... ... 254 Nairobi ... .......... 2 Kiribati .. .. ....... 686 Korea, Dem. Rep. of ...... 850 Pyongyang ..... .... 1 Korea, Republic of ... ... .. 82 Seoul ................ 2 Kuwait .......... ... .. 965 Kyrgyzstan .. ....... .... 996 Bishkek ............. 312 Laos ... ..... .......... 856 Latvia .................. 371 Riga ........... ...... 2 Lebanon ... ... .... .. 961 Beirut ........... ... 1 Lesotho ........ ... ..... 266 © TELEGEOGRAPHY, INC. 2002 Liberia ....... .. .. .. .. 231 Libya .... .. .... : .... 218 Tripol i ... ... .. 21 Liechtenstein ...... .423 Lithuania .. ... 370 Vilnius ..... .. ... 2 Luxembourg ... .. 352 Macau ... .. .. .. 853 Macedonia .. .. .... 389 Skopje • ..... .. 91 Madagascar ............ 261 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 .. .33 Mexico City .. .. ... 55 Monterrey .... .. 81 Micronesia .... .. .. 691 Moldova .. .... .. .. 373 Chisinau ........... .. 41 Monaco ... ..... 377 Mongolia .... ... ..... 976 Ulaanbaatar .. ..... .. 1 Montserrat ......... 1-664 Morocco .. .. ...... 212 Casablanca ... ...... 2 Rabat ............... .7 Mozambique .. .. ... 258 Maputo .... .. 1 Myanmar ................ 95 Namibia .. .... .. .. ... 264 Windhoek .. .. ... 61 Nauru .. ... ... 674 Nepal ......... ... 977 Kathmandu ........ ... 1 Netherlands .. .. 31 Amsterdam .. .. .... 20 Netherlands Antilles .... 599 New Caledonia .. ... ... 687 New Zealand .... ... 64 Auc~and • .. Wellington • .... .4 Nicaragua .... ..... 505 Managua ............. 2 Niger .. .. .... 227 Nigeria .... ... ... .. 234 Lagos ......•....... 1 Niue .......... .. 683 Northern Marianas 1-670 Saipan .. .. ... ... 322 Norway ......... ...... .47 Oslo ... ....... 22/23 Oman .. ..... ... .. 968 Pakistan ... ....... .. .. 92 Islamabad ........... 51 Palestinian Territory .... 970 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 ...... .. .. .. 21 Puerto Rico .. .. ... 1-787 Qatar .. .. ....... .. 974 Reunion Island ..... .. 262 Romania ........ .40 Bucharest .. .. 1 Russia ..... .. .. .7 Moscow ............ 095 St. Petersburg ........ 812 Rwanda ........ .. 250 St. Helena ... .. .. .... .. 290 St. Kitts & Nevis .. ... 1-869 St. Lucia ........... 1-758 St. Pierre & Miquelon .... 508 St. Vincent & the Grenadines ... ... 1-784 San Marino ....... .. 378 Sao Tome and Principe ... 239 Saudi Arabia ....... .. 966 Riyadh ...... ... ..... 1 Senegal .. .. 221 © TELEGEOGRAPHY, INC 2002 REFERENCE Serbia & Montenegro .... 381 · Ashkhabad .. .. .. 12 Belgrade ............. 11 Seychelles .... .. ...... 248 Turks & Caicos .. .. 1-649 Sierra Leone ......... .. 232 Tuvalu .. .. .. .... 688 Freetown .... .. .. 22 Uganda ......... .. ..... 256 Singapore .. ... .. .. 65 Kampala ............ .41 Slovak Republic ... .. .421 Ukraine .. .. .. ..... 380 Bratislava ... ...... .7 Kiev ......... 44 Slovenia ... ....... ... 386 United Arab Emirates ..... 971 Ljubljana ....... .. .... 61 Abu Dhabi ...... ..... 2 Solomon Islands .. ... .. 677 Duba i .... ... .. .4 Somalia .. .. .... .. 252 United Kingdom ..... ... 44 Mogadishu ... .. 1 Cardiff ... ..... 2920 South Africa ........... .. 27 Glasgow .. .. .... 141 Johannesburg .. .. 10/11 London .......... 207/208 Pretoria ... .. .. 12 Manchester ......... 161 Spain .. ........ ... 34 United States ............. 1 Madrid ... ... 91 Chicago ...... 312/773/872 Barcelona ... .. .. 93 Houston .. .. .713/281/832 Sri Lanka .. .. .. .. 94 Los Angeles 213/323 Colombo ... .......... 1 Miami ..... 305nB6 Sudan ... ....... ...... 249 New York .. ... 212/646/917 Khartoum .. .. ..... 11 Washington ... ...... 202 Suriname ... ....... .... 597 U.S. Virgin Islands ... 1-340 Swaziland ....... .. 268 Uruguay ..... ... .. .. 598 Sweden .. ...... .. 46 Montevideo ... .... 2 Stockholm ............ 8 Uzbekistan ... 998 Switzerland ......... ... .41 Tashkent .. .. 71 Berne .. ... .. .. 31 Vanuatu ...... .. ...... 678 Zurich ..... 1 Vatican City .... .... 379 Syria ................... 963 Venezuela .. .. 58 Damascus .. ...... 11 Cara cas .. .. 2 Tahiti .... .. .. .... 689 Vietnam ......... .. 84 Taiwan .. .. ....... 886 Wallis & Futuna .. ... 681 Taipei ................ 2 Western Samoa .. ... 685 Tajikistan .............. 992 Yemen .. .. ... 967 Dushanbe .. 37 Sanaa ... ....... 2 Tanzania .. .. .... 255 Zambia ..... .. .. ...... 260 DarEs Salaam ...... 22 Lusaka .... .. 1 Thailand ................. 66 Zanzibar (Tanzania) ...... 255 Bangkok .... .. 2 Zimbabwe ............. 263 Togo ....... ........... 228 Harare .............. .4 Tokelau .. ... .. .. 690 Tonga ........ ....... 676 Trinidad & Tobago ...... 1-868 Tunisia .............. 216 Tunis .....• .71 Turkey ... ... .. .. 90 Anka ra ..... 312 Istanbul .......... .. 212 Turkmenistan ...... .... 993 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2003 285 REFERENCE World Dialing Codes PALAU 118 RUSSIA 7 NORTHERN MARIANA IS. (US! t..m GUAM lUSt t.QI MARSHALLISLANDS Ill FEDERATED STATES OF MICRONES.IA Itt NAURU i14 -- SOLOMON !SLANOS fill VANUATU FIJI m m NEW CALEDONI.\ l~l __ NORFOLK ISlANDS (A US. I m NEW ZEALAN)) 64 © TeleGeography, Inc 2002 286 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2003 KIRIBATI COOK ISLANDS TONGA liZ 171 N~ FRENCH POLYNESIA .. CANADA 1 "! UNITED STATES 1 MEXICO 52 CUBA 5I BAHAMAS 1442 BERMUDA t-441 DOMINICAN REP. BEliZE 511 Min t• .. GUATEMA 502 HONDURAS 1M NL. ANTILlES EL SALVADOR 511 NIC RAGUA ARUBA IN Stll TRINIDAD & COSTA RIGA 5115 Z!7 TO~~ Iiiii PANAM VENEZUELA 511 58 GUYANA !ill COLOMBIA SURINAME 57 597 ~~~~~ ECUADOR 59t 593 fERU 51 CHILE 56 BRAZIL 55 "BOLIVIA 591 PARAGUAY 595 URUGUAY 598 ARGENTINA 54 fALKlAND IS. tUKl © TELEGEOGRAPHY, INC 2002 GR GREENLAND 299 MAURITANIA CAPEVE~DE 222 MALl Zll SENEsiL 221 223 GUINE~~~:~:oici; BURKI~FASO NIGER 227 CHAD 235 SUDAN 249 GUINEA 224 NIGERIA SlmAAlEGN£232 COTE ~VOIRE g~ Z14 CENTRAL AFRICAN G~ANA $_... CAMEROON REif:LIC LIBERIA :131 1.33 t.or-, 731 UGANDA EOUATOII fJ,1~~fE- BON ~6~8b RWANQ 256 KE;;:A 41 242 250 ASCENSION {UKI m Sl HElENA lUX! 2lt OEM REP OF URUNOI CONGO 1!i1 243 TANZANIA 255 ANGOLA 244 MA WI ZAMBIA z6s ,.. © TELEGEOGRAPHY, INC. 2002 RUSSIA 7 KAZAKHSTAN • 7 r- MONGOLIA 976 REFERENCE UZBEKISTAN 998 KYRGYZS\AN 996 N TURKMENISTAN TAJIKISTAN 992 993 IRAN AFGHANISTAN 98 93 SEYC~ELLES Z4l MALQIVES .. BRITISH INDIAN OCmN TERRITORY NEPAL BHUTAN on 975 .. CHINA 86 TELEGEDGRAPHY 2003 287 REFERENCE International Dialing Codes, by Number Canada Guam Northern Marianas United States Caribbean 20 Egypt 212 Morocco 213 Algeria 216 Tunisia 218 Libya 220 Gambia 221 Senegal 222 Mauritania 223 Mali 224 Guinea 225 Cote dlvoire 226 Burkina Faso 227 Niger 228 Togo 229 Benin 230 Mauritius 231 Liberia 232 Sierra Leone 233 Ghana 234 Nigeria 235 Chad 236 Central African Republic 237 Cameroon 238 Cape Verde 239 Sao Tome & Principe 240 Equatorial Guinea 241 Gabon 242 Congo, Republic of 243 Congo, Dem. Rep. of 244 Angola 245 Guinea-Bissau 246 British Indian Ocean Terr. 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 260 Zambia 261 Madagascar 262 Reunion Island 263 Zimbabwe 264 Namibia 265 Malawi 266 Lesotho 267 Botswana 268 Swaziland 269 Comoros & Mayotte 27 South Africa 290 St. Helena 291 Eritrea 297 Aruba 298 Faroe Islands 299 Greenland 30 Greece 31 Netherlands 32 Belgium 33 France 34 Spain 350 Gibraltar 351 Portugal 352 Luxembourg 353 Ireland 354 Iceland 355 Albania 356 Malta 357 Cyprus 358 Finland 359 Bulgaria 36 Hungary 370 Lithuania 371 Latvia 372 Estonia 373 Moldova 374 Armenia 375 Belarus 376 Andorra 377 Monaco 378 San Marino 379 Vatican City 380 Ukraine 381 Serbia & Montenegro 385 Croatia 386 Slovenia 387 Bosnia-Herzegovina 389 Macedonia 39 Italy 40 Romania 41 Switzerland 420 Czech Republic 421 Slovak Republic 423 Liechtenstein 43 Austria 44 United Kingdom 45 Denmark .46 Sweden 47 Norway 288 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2003 48 Poland 688 Tuvalu 49 Germany 689 French Polynesia 500 Falkland Islands 690 Tokelau 501 Belize 691 Micronesia 502 Guatemala 692 Marshall Islands 503 El Salvador 7 Kazakhstan 504 Honduras Russia 505 Nicaragua BOO International Freephone 506 Costa Rica 81 Japan 507 Panama 82 Korea, Republic of 508 St. Pierre & Miquelon 84 Vietnam 509 Haiti 850 Korea, Dem. Rep. of 51 Peru 852 Hong Kong 52 Mexico 853 Macau 53 Cuba 855 Cambodia 54 Argentina 856 Laos 55 Brazil 86 China 56 Chile 870 lnmarsat Special 57 Colombia 871 lnmarsat East Atlantic 58 Venezuela 872 lnmarsat Pacific 590 Guadeloupe 873 lnmarsat Indian 591 Bolivia 874 lnmarsat West Atlantic 592 Guyana 880 Bangladesh 593 Ecuador 886 Taiwan 594 French Guiana 90 Turkey 595 Paraguay 91 India 596 Martinique 92 Pakistan 597 Suriname 93 Afghanistan 598 Uruguay 94 Sri Lanka 599 Netherlands Antilles 95 Myanmar 60 Malaysia 960 Maldives 61 Australia 961 Lebanon 62 Indonesia 962 Jordan 63 Philippines 963 Syria 64 New Zealand 964 Iraq 65 Singapore 965 Kuwait 66 Thailand 966 Saudi Arabia 670 East Timor 967 Yemen 672 Australian Territories 968 Oman 673 Brunei 970 Palestinian Territory 674 Nauru 971 United Arab Emirates 675 Papua New Guinea 972 Israel 676 Tonga 973 Bahrain 677 Solomon Islands 974 Qatar 678 Vanuatu 975 Bhutan 679 Fiji Islands 976 Mongolia 680 Palau 977 Nepal 681 Wallis & Futuna 98 Iran 682 Cook Islands 992 Tajikistan 683 Niue 993 Turkmenistan 684 American Samoa 994 Azerbaijan 685 Western Samoa 995 Georgia 686 Kiribati 996 Kyrgyzstan 687 New Caledonia 998 Uzbekistan © TELEGEOGRAPHY, INC 2002 REFERENCE North American Area Codes, by Number 201 New Jersey 331 Illinois 540 Virginia 714 California · 864 South Carolina 202 Dist. of Columbia 334 Alabama 541 Dreg on 715 Wisconsin · 865 Tennessee 203 Connecticut 336 North Carolina 551 New Jersey 716 New York 867 Northwest 204 Manitoba 337 Louisiana 559 California 717 Pennsylvania Territories/Yukon 205 Alabama 339 Massachusetts 561 Florida 718 New York 868 Trinidad & Tobago 206 Washington 340 U.S. Virgin Is. 562 California 719 Colorado 869 St. Kitts & Nevis 207 Maine 345 Cayman Islands 563 Iowa 720 Colorado 870 Arkansas 208 Idaho 347 New York 567 Ohio 724 Pennsylvania 872 Illinois 209 California 351 Massachusetts 570 Pennsylvania 727 Florida 876 Jamaica 210 Texas 352 Florida 571 Virginia 731 Tennessee 877 Toll-free serv. 212 New York 360 Washington 573 Missouri 732 New Jersey 878 Pennsylvania 213 California 361 Texas 574 Indiana 734 Michigan 880 Toll-free serv. 214 Texas 386 Florida 580 Oklahoma 740 Ohio 881 Toll-free serv. 215 Pennsylvania 401 Rhode Island 585 New York 754 Florida 882 Toll-free serv. 216 Ohio 402 Nebraska 586 Michigan 757 Virginia 888 Toll-free serv. 217 Illinois 403 Alberta 601 Mississippi 758 St. Lucia 900 Info. Servs. 218 Minnesota 404 Georgia 602 Arizona 760 California 901 Tennessee 219 Indiana 405 Oklahoma 603 New Hampshire 763 Minnesota 902 Nova Scotia & 224 Illinois 406 Montana 604 British Columbia 765 Indiana Prince Edward Is. 225 Louisiana 407 Florida 605 South Dakota 767 Dominica 903 Texas 228 Mississippi 408 California 606 Kentucky 770 Georgia 904 Florida 229 Georgia 409 Texas 607 New York 772 Florida 905 Ontario 231 Michigan 410 Maryland 608 Wisconsin 773 Illinois 906 Michigan 234 Ohio 411 Directory Assist. 609 New Jersey 774 Massachusetts 907 Alaska 236 Virginia 412 Pennsylvania 610 Pennsylvania 775 Nevada 908 New Jersey 239 Florida 413 Massachusetts 611 Repair Service 778 British Colombia 909 California 240 Maryland 414 Wisconsin 612 Minnesota 780 Alberta 910 North Carolina 242 Bahamas 415 California 613 Ontario 781 Massachusetts 911 Emergency Servs. 246 Barbados 416 Ontario 614 Ohio 784 St. Vincent & 912 Georgia 248 Michigan 417 Missouri 615 Tennessee Grenadines 913 Kansas 250 British Columbia 418 Quebec 616 Michigan 785 Kansas 914 New York 251 Alabama 419 Ohio 617 Massachusetts 786 Florida 915 Texas 252 North Carolina 423 Tennessee 618 Illinois 787 Puerto Rico 916 California 253 Washington 425 Washington 619 California BOO Toll-free serv. 917 New York 254 Texas 434 Virginia 620 Kansas 801 Utah 918 Oklahoma 256 Alabama 435 Utah 623 Arizona 802 Vermont 919 North Carolina 262 Wisconsin 440 Ohio 626 California 803 South Carolina 920 Wisconsin 264 Anguilla 441 Bermuda 630 Illinois 804 Virginia 925 California 267 Pennsylvania 443 Maryland 631 New York 805 California 928 Arizona 268 Antigua 450 Quebec 636 Missouri 806 Texas 931 Tennessee 269 Michigan 464 Illinois 641 Iowa 807 Ontario 936 Texas 270 Kentucky 469 Texas 646 New York 808 Hawaii 937 Ohio 276 Virginia 473 Grenada 647 Ontario 809 Dominican Rep. 939 Puerto Rico 281 Texas 478 Georgia 649 Turks & Caicos Is. 810 Michigan 940 Texas 284 British Virgin Is. 480 Arizona 650 California 812 Indiana 941 Florida 289 Ontario 484 Pennsylvania 651 Minnesota 813 Florida 947 Michigan 301 Maryland 500 Pers. Comm. Serv. 660 Missouri 814 Pennsylvania 949 California 302 Delaware (PCS) 661 California 815 Illinois 952 Minnesota 303 Colorado 501 Arkansas 662 Mississippi 816 Missouri 954 Florida 304 West Virginia 502 Kentucky 664 Montserrat 817 Texas 956 Texas 305 Florida 503 Oregon 670 Northern Marianas 818 California 970 Colorado 306 Saskatchewan 504 Louisiana 671 Guam 819 Quebec 971 Oregon 307 Wyoming 505 New Mexico 678 Georgia 828 North Carolina 972 Texas 308 Nebraska 506 Nebraska 679 Michigan 830 Texas 973 New Jersey 309 Illinois 507 Minnesota 682 Texas 831 California 978 Massachusetts 310 California 508 Massachusetts 701 North Dakota 832 Texas 979 Texas 312 Illinois 509 Washington 702 Nevada 843 South Carolina 980 North Carolina 313 Michigan 510 California 703 Virginia 845 New York 985 Louisiana 314 Missouri 512 Texas 704 North Carolina 847 Illinois 989 Michigan 315 New York 513 Ohio 705 Ontario 848 New Jersey 316 Kansas 514 Quebec 706 Georgia 850 Florida 317 Indiana 515 Iowa 707 California 856 New Jersey 318 Louisiana 516 New York 708 Illinois 857 Massachusetts 319 Iowa 517 Michigan 709 Newfoundland 858 California 320 Minnesota 518 New York 710 U.S. Government 859 Kentucky 321 Florida 519 Ontario Emergency 860 Connecticut 323 California 520 Arizona 712 Iowa 862 New Jersey 330 Ohio 530 California 713 Texas 863 Florida © HLEGEOGRAPHY, INC. 2002 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2003 289 REFERENCE North American Area Codes, by Jurisdiction Alabama Birmingham and west-central Alabama ........... 205 Mobile and southwestern Alabama 251 Huntsville and northern Alabama .. 256 Montgomery and southern Alabama 334 Alaska .. .. ..... .. .. 907 Alberta Calgary and southern Alberta ......... 403 Edmonton and northern Alberta .780 Anguilla ............... .. ........... 264 Antigua .. ...... ........... ...... 268 Arizona Eastern Phoenix area .. ... 480 Tucson and southeastern Arizona ..... 520 Central Phoenix .. 602 Western Phoenix .. .. ... ........... 623 Northern and southwestern Arizona 928 Arkansas Little Rock, Fayetteville and northwestern Arkansas .. ... .. .. .. 501 Jonesboro and southern Arkansas .... 870 Bahamas .... ........... ... .. 242 Barbados .. .. ............. ..... 246 Bermuda .... ... ...... .. .. .441 British Columbia British Columbia except Vancouver area .. .. ..... 250 Vancouver area ........ • .. ..... 604/778 British Virgin Islands ... .. 284 California Stockton, Fresno, Modesto, and central California ..... ... .... 209 Los Angeles .......... ... 213 Malibu, Beverly Hills and west Los Angeles suburbs ...... ..... .. 310 Florence ... .. ........... ......... 323 San Jose, Sunnyvale, and Cupertino .408 San Francisco ... ... .. ... 415 Oakland and Berkeley areas ....... 510 Chico, Redding, and northeastern California .... .. ... .. 530 Fresno and central California ... .... 559 Long Beach ...................... 562 San Diego and southwestern California .... .. 619 Pasadena ..... ....... .... 626 San Mateo, Palo Alto and south San Francisco suburbs ........... 650 Bakersfield and south central California ......... .. 661 Fort Bragg, Eureka, Ukiah and northern California .. ............ .. 707 Northern Orange County .. ......... .714 Ontario and San Bernadino .. .. .. 909 Barstow, Encito, Palm Springs and southeastern California .... ....... .760 Santa Barbara, Bakersfield, and central western California ...... 805 Burbank and Glendale areas ........ 818 Monterey, Santa Cruz, and west-central California ........... 831 Northern San Diego and Del Mar 858 Sacramento .. .. ................ 916 Concord, Livermore, Walnut Cree~ .... 925 Anaheim, Irvine, and southern Orange County ....... ..... 949 Cayman Islands ....... .. ....... .. 345 290 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2003 Colorado Denver area .................... 303/720 Colorado Springs, Pueblo and southeastern Colorado ... ........ .719 Aspen, Durango, and northwestern Colorado ...... ...... 970 Connecticut Bridgeport, New Haven and southwestern Connecticut ......... 203 Hartford, Bristol, and northeastern Connecticut ........... 860 Delaware .. ... .. .... .... .... ... 302 District of Columbia Washington ... .......•• ... 202 Dominica ...... ............... ... .. 767 Dominican Republic .... .... ....... 809 Florida Miami, Key West and southeastern Florida .....•...... 305/786 Orlando and central eastern Florida ... 321/407 Gainesville and central Florida ... .. 352 Daytona Beach, area west of Jacksonville ..... .. ....... 386 West Palm Beach, Boca Raton, and east central Florida ............. 561/772 Tampa Bay ..... ... .. .727 St. Petersburg ............ .. ...... 813 Pensacola, Tallahassee, and northwestern Florida ............. 850 Lakeland, Sebring and south-central Florida ....... ....... 863 Jacksonville, Daytona, and northeastern Florida ... ... 904 Bradenton, Sarasota, and southwestern Florida .... .. 239/941 Fort Lauderdale ... ... ........ .754/954 Georgia Albany, Va ldosta, and south-central Georg ia .. 229 Atlanta ........... ........ .404/678/770 Macon, Swainsboro and south-central Georgia .......... ... 478 N Georgia : Columbus, Augusta 706 Savannah, Vidalia, and southeastern Georgia ... .. ..... ... 912 Grenada .. ................ .... 473 Guam ...................•............ 671 Hawaii ..... .. .. .. ..... .. 808 Idaho .... ............ ..... .. 208 Illinois Champaign, Urbana, Springfield, and central Ill inois ....... ... 217 Northeastern Illinois and northwest Chicago suburbs ..... 224/847 Peoria, Rock Island, and west-central Illinois ..... ...... .. 309 Chicago .. .. ....... .. 312/872 Southern Chicago suburbs .. 464/708 Alton, Mount Vernon, and southern Illinois ................. 618 Central Chicago suburbs 630/331 Chicago/outside downtown ........ .773 La Salle, Rockford, and northern Illinois ... .. .... ... 815 Indiana Gary. Fort Wayne and northern Indiana ..... 219/260/574 Indianapolis ............. ....... 317 Central Indiana excluding Indianapolis .. .. .. .. .. .. ... .765 Evansville and southern Indiana ..... 812 Iowa Cedar Rapids and eastern Iowa ... 319 Des Moines, Ames, and central Iowa ............. ........ 515 Davenport, Dubuque, and notheastern Iowa ..... .. .... .. 563 Mason City, Pella, and central Iowa ... .. .. ... 641 Council Bluffs, Sioux City, and western Iowa ....... ....... .... 712 Jamaica .... ...... .... 876 Kansas Dodge City, Wichita, and southern Kansas ... .. ... ... .. 316 Southern Kansas except Wichita metro area .. ... .. 620 Topeka, Lawrence, and northern Kansas .. .. ........ .785 Kansas City and eastern Kansas ...... 913 Kentucky Paducah, Bowling Green, and western Kentucky .. ...... ... 270 Louisville, Shelbyville, and north-central Kentucky ... ... 502 Eastern Kentucky .......... .... 606 Richmond, Danville, and northeastern Kentucky ......... ... 859 Louisiana Baton Rouge and central-eastern Louisiana ... 225 Shreveport, Monroe, and northern Louisiana ......... .... .. 318 Lake Charles, Lafayette, and southwestern Louisiana ............ 337 New Orleans and southeastern Louis iana .. .. ........ 504 Southeastern Louisiana except New Orleans and Baton Rouge .... 985 Maine ...... .. ... ..... ...... .. .. 207 Manitoba .... ................... 204 Maryland Rockville, Hagerstown, and western Maryland .... ....... 240/301 Baltimore, Annapolis, and eastern Maryland .... .. ... 410/443 Massachusetts Waltham, Lexington, and Boston suburbs ...... .... 339/781 Lowell, Salem, and northern Massachusetts .. ... .. .. 351/978 Pittsfield, Springfield, and western Massachusetts ...... 413 Framingham, Cape Cod, and southern Massachusetts ....... 508/774 Boston ... .. ... .... 617/857 Michigan Traverse City, Muskegon, and northwestern Michigan ....... .. 231 Pontiac, Southfield, and Oakland County .............. 248/947 Detro it. ........... · .... .. .. 31 3/679 Lansing and central Michigan ........ 517 Flint, Flushing, and southeastern Michigan .......... 586/810 © TELEGEOGRAPHY INC 2002 Grand Rapids, Kalamazoo and southwestern Michigan .. 269/616 Ann Arbor and Wayne .. ....... ... .734 Marquette and northern Michigan ... 906 Bay City and central Michigan ... 989 Minnesota Duluth and northern Minnesota .. 218 St. Cloud and central Minnesota ..... 320 Rochester and southern Minnesota ... 507 Minneapolis .. ... ... ... .... 612 St. Paul ............. .. .. 651 Fridley and Blaine .... .. .. .763 Bloomington and Minnetonka ... ... 952 Mississippi Biloxi and southern Mississippi ..... 228 Jackson and central Mississippi ..... 601 Greenville, and northern Mississippi ... 662 Missouri St. Louis .... .. .......... .. 314 Joplin, Springfield, and southwestern Missouri .... ... .. .. 417 Jefferson City, Columbia, and eastern Missouri ..... .. 573 Franklin and Jefferson counties ...... 636 Marshall and northern Missouri ... 660 Kansas City ........ .. .... .. .. 816 Montana ..... .. ................. .406 Montserrat .. .. .. ... ... ... .. 664 Nebraska North Platte and western Nebraska ... 308 Omaha, Lincoln, and eastern Nebraska ........... .. 402 Nevada Las Vegas and southern Nevada ...... 702 Northern Nevada ... .. ... ... .775 New Brunswick ............... ... .. 506 New Hampshire ........ ... ...... 603 New Jersey Hackensack, Jersey City, and northeastern New Jersey .. .. ... 201/551 Atlantic City, Trenton, and southeastern New Jersey ... .. .... 609 Middlesex and Ocean counties .732/848 Camden, Millville, and southwestern New Jersey ....... .. 856 Elizabeth, Warren, and northwestern New Jersey ..... .. 908 Newark and Morristown ... 862/973 New Mexico .... ... .. ..... ... .. 505 New York Manhattan .... .. .. 212/646/917 Syracuse and northwestern New York ... .. 315 Nassau County and western Long Island ......... ........ ..... 516 Northeastern New York .. .. .. 518 Western New York ........ ... .... 585 Binghamton and south central New York ... ..... ...... .... 607 Lindenhurst, Islip, and eastern Long Island .... .. ....... ..... 631 Buffalo and western New York .716 Brooklyn, State Island, Bronx, and Queens ..... 347!718/917 Albany, Poughkeepsie, and southeastern New York ..... .. 845 Westchester, White Plains, and southeastern New York .. .. ..... 914 © TELEGEOGRAPHY, INC 2002 Newfoundland .. ... ... .709 North Carolina Northeastern North Carolina ... 252 Winston-Salem, Greensboro, and northwestern North Carolina .. .... 336 Charlotte and south central North Carolina ... .. .. .. .704/980 Asheville and western North Carolina ... ... .. .. ... 828 Fayetteville and southeastern North Carolina ................. .. 910 Raleigh and northeastern North Carolina .. ....... ......... 919 North Dakota ........ .... ..... ... 701 Northern Marianas ......... 670 Northwest Territories/Yukon .. 867 Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island .. 902 Ohio Cleveland .. .. ........... 216 Youngstown, Akron, Canton, and northeastern Ohio ...... ... 234/330 Toledo and northwestern Ohio ... 419/567 Northeastern Ohio excluding Cleveland .. .. ... 440 Cincinnati and southwestern Ohio 513 Columbus .. ..... ......... ... 614 Southeastern Ohio ............. .740 Southwestern Ohio excluding Cincinnati ... .................... 937 Oklahoma Oklahoma City and central Oklahoma ........... ..... 405 Southwestern Oklahoma .. .. .. .... 580 Tulsa and northeastern Oklahoma .. ... 918 Ontario Toronto .. ............. ...... 416/647 London and southwestern Ontario .. 519 Ottawa and southeastern Ontario ... 613 North Bay and northeastern Ontario 705 Thunder Bay and western Ontario .... 807 Hamilton and southeastern Ontario .......... 289/905 Oregon Portland, Salem, and northwestern Oregon ... 503/971 Oregon except Portland areas ...... 541 Pennsylvania Philadelphia ................... 215/267 Pittsburgh and western Pennsylvania ... .. .. 412/724/878 Allentown, Reading, and southeastern Pennsylvania 484/610 Scranton and northeastern Pennsylvania ... ..... 570 Harrisburg and south central Pennsylvania .... .. 717 Erie and northwestern Pennsylvania .. .. .. 814 Puerto Rico .. .. ... ..... .... .. 787/939 Quebec Quebec City and eastern Quebec ..... 418 Southern Quebec excluding Montreal ....... ... ... .450 Montreal .... ............ ... .. .. 514 Western Quebec ... .. .. ... .... 819 Rhode Island .. ... ....... ... .. 401 St. Kitts & Nevis ............. .. .. 869 St. Lucia .... .. ... ... .758 REFERENCE St Vincent & Grenadines .. ... .. .. .. 784 Saskatchewan .. ... ......... .... 306 South Carolina Columbia and central South Carolina .. ........ ... ... 803 Charleston and eastern South Ca rolina ... ... ..• .. 843 Greenville and western South Carolina ............ ... ... 864 South Dakota .. ... .. .... .. ..... 605 Tennessee Chattanooga, Johnson City, and southeastern Tennessee ...... 423 Nashville ........ ............ 615 Jackson and western Tennessee .. .731 Knoxville, Jefferson City, and east central Tennessee ..... .... 865 Memphis and western Tennessee .. 901 Central Tennessee excluding Nashville ............ 931 Texas San Antonio .... ................ 210 Dallas ...... .... 214/469/972 Waco and central Texas ............ 254 Houston ... ............... 281/713/832 Corpus Christi and southeastern Texas .. .... ... ... ... 361 Galveston and southeastern Texas .409 Austin and San Marcos ..... .. 512 Fort Worth and Arlington .... .. 682/817 Amarillo and northern Texas .... .. 806 Uvalde and southwest Texas ... ..... 830 Tyler and northeastern Texas ..... 903 El Paso, and western Texas ...... ... 915 Conroe and southeastern Texas .. 936 Denton and northern Texas .. ... .. 940 Laredo, and southern Texas ....... 956 Bryan, College Station, and southeastern Texas ....... ..... 979 Trinidad & Tobago ... .. ..... ... 868 Turks & Caicos Islands ................. 649 U.S. Virgin Islands .... .. 340 Utah ... ................. .... ....... Utah excluding Salt Lake City ... .435 Salt Lake City .................. 801 Vermont ...... ... ... .. .. .. ... 802 Virginia Western Virg inia .... ..... .. .. 276 South central Virginia .. .. 434 Roanoke and northwestern Virgin ia ... 540 Alexandria and Arlington .. ... 571n03 Hampton, Norfolk, and southeastern Virg inia ..... ... .757 Richmond and central Vi rginia .. 804 Washington Seattle and suburbs .. .... 206/360/425 Tacoma .. .... .. .. ..... ... 253 Western Washington ...... ...... 509 Wisconsin Racine and southeastern Wisconsin .. 262 Milwaukee and Oak Creek .. .. .. 414 Madison and southwestern Wisconsin .. .. .. .. ... ... .... 608 Eau Claire and northern Wisconsin ... .715 Southeastern Wisconsin excluding Milwaukee ..... .. .. .. .. 920 West Virginia ... ......... ... .. 304 Wyoming ....... ....... .. ... .... 307 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2003 291 REFERENCE North American Area Codes BRITISH COLUMBIA 250 Edmonton • 780 UTAH MONTANA 406 SASKATCHEWAN 306 Regina • WYOMING 307 COLORADO (/6:~-~~~\ 303[12Q 970 Winnipeg • NORTH DAKOTA MINNE 701 SOUTH DAKOTA 605 50 NEBRASKA 308 402 .----~---------~---~- ... -- 785 KANSAS --------- 9P .-__ HAWAII 808 © TeleGeography, lnc 2002 292 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2003 435 ARIZONA 928 ::..... 719 ·. NEW MEXICO 505 500 Personal Communication Services 8801881 Toll-free to U.S. from Canada and Caribbean --- 620 ( 316 .. ____ . -------.. __ OKLAHOMA 918 :4os·: \.. 806 580 ·------- ·. © TELEGEOGRAPHY, INC. 2002 ONTARIO -----\._\ _______ _ 807 705 QUEBEC 819 ® TeleGeography, Inc 2002 © TELEGEOGRAPHY. INC. 2002 REFERENCE BERMUDA PUEfffO RICO 787/939 ! TELEGEOGRAPHY 2003 293 REFERENCE A Primer on Bits Measuring Bytes Bit by Bit Below are the standard metric prefixes used in the SJ (Systeme International) conventions for scientific measurement With units of time (e.g., gigabits per second) or things that come in powers of 10, they retain their usual meanings of multiplication by powers of 1,000 = 103. When used with bytes (e.g., gigabytes of data storage) or other things that naturally come in powers of 2, they usually denote multiplication by powers of 1,024 = 210. Base 10 Base 2 1 Kilobit/s = 1,ooo1 = 103 1,000 1 Kilobyte 1,0241 = 210 = 1 Megabit/s = 1,ooo2 = 106 1,000,000 1 Megabyte 1,0242 = 220 = 1 Gigabit/s = 1,ooo3 = 109 1,000,000,000 1 Gigabyte 1,0243 = 230 = 1 Terabit/s = 1,0oo4 = 1 012 1,000,000,000,000 1 Terabyte 1,0244 = 240 = 1 Petabit/s = 1,ooo5 = 1 015 1,000,000,000,000,000 1 Petabyte 1,0245 = 250 = 1 Exabit/s = 1,ooo6 = 1018 1,000,000,000,000,000,000 1 Exabyte 1,0246=260 = 1 Zettabit/s = 1,0oo7 = 1021 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 1 Zettabyte 1,0247 = 270 = 1 Yottabit/s = 1,0008 = 1024 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 1 Yottabyte 1,0248 = 280 = Measuring Telecommunications Bandwidth-DS-0 to OC-~92 Carrier Technology DS-0 T-1 (DS-1) T-2 (DS-2) T-3 (DS-3) T-4 (DS-4) Data Rate (Mbps) 0.064 1.544 6.312 44.736 274.176 Description Base rate in the Digital Signal (DS) level hierarchy Primary level of the American T-carrier multiplexing system; capacity is the same as a DS 1 carrier Four times the capacity of T-1 28 times the capacity of T-1 168 times the capacity of T-1 1,024 1,048,576 1,073.741,824 1,099,511,627,776 1,125,899,906,842,624 1,152,921,504,606,846,976 1,180,591,620,717.411,303.424 1,208,925,819,614,629,174,706,176 64 Kbps Circuits* 1 24 96 672 4,032 E-1 E-2 E-3 E-4 E-5 2.048 8.448 34.368 139.264 565.148 Primary level of the European E-carrier multiplexing system Carries four multiplexed E-1 signals 30 120 480 1,920 7,680 OC-1/STS-1 OC-3/STM-1 OC-12/STM-4 OC-24 OC-48/STM-16 OC-192/STM-64 Key 51.840 155.520 622.080 1,244.160 2.488.320 9,953.280 Carries four E-2 signals Carries four E-3 signals Carries four E-4 signals Basic signaling rate of SONET hierarchy Exactly three times the capacity of OC-1** 12 times the capacity of OC-1 24 times the capacity of OC-1 48 times the capacity of OC-1 192 times the capacity of OC-1 672 2,016 8,064 16,128 32,256 129,024 T T-carrier system in U.S., Canada, and Japan with 1.544 Mbps as the primary level (24 voice channels x 64 Kbps per channel!. "OS" Digital Signal that travels on the T-carrier or E-carrier. "E" Used in countries other than U.S., Canada, and Japan. The hierarchy was established by the CEPT (Conference Europeenne des Postes et Telecommunications) with 2.048 Mbps as the primary level ([30 voice channels+ 2 channels for overhead] x 64 Kbps per channel). "OC" Optical Carrier interface designed to work with STS-n (Synchronous Transport Signal) signaling rate in a SO NET (Synchronous Optical Network!. "STM" Synchronous Transport Module refers to a large carrier (base signal 155.52 Mbps) in a SO NET. "STS" Synchronous Transport Signal is the electrical counterpart to the Optical Carrier (OC). Notes: The number of 64 Kbps is presented for comparative purposes only. The actual number of simultaneous conversations possible over a given carrier may vary depending on the encoding scheme used. •• In the E and T hierarchies, each higher level is set to be almost but not exactly a multiple of the bit rate for the previous order (plesiochronous). To eliminate problems associated with plesiochronous multiplexing, SO NET, a synchronous hierarchy, was defined in the United States in 1986. As a result, the OC and STM carriers are exact tilt-rate multiples of their primary levels, OC-1 and STM- 1, respectively. Source: TeleGeography research, Alcatel. Newtons Telecommunications Dictionary © TeleGeography, Inc. 2002 294 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2003 © TELEGEOGRAPHY, INC. 2002 TeleGeography International Traffi.c Database Now with ·six years of traffic data to complement your TeleGeography 2003 AJI Europe Asia """ USS..Canada ~Jmf.d~~\ Oceania ----- Srfltd-ont~ot Afghanistom lfllJ4/eafS Alban1a AlQaria Andorra Barbai!OI BoiMa BntzH Chill Colombia Co!itaRica C1.1t11 Oomlni~an RepYblk: Ecuaoor EISIIVIdOr GDP{USDmdhons): 9,882,842.00 Populaoonlmolion•J: 28! .55 Maonl..lmls: 192,518,757 ~Phonos;l09,4711.0ll TIII0...KJ; 6.$,38 Notlen i i TroffkBIIInc. :H!Mtn " 1J91l i H?- -i HT 8,194.!11J 10,39533 10,6411.15 ll.lll0.14 2l.OOU7 29,158.79 37,!94.84 ·10,924.20 ·11,1U~1 -14,1&1.51 ·18,718,03 ·24,584.11 :",!59.17 39,~9.54 S0,60S.S8 Notes(l996 ):D~¥11inlllllllootofmonut:urllout~;OIOQilUbkJ•itdl•d ~l.comrnunoc.roonstr.tfic. Notu(l997):0.:JUar.nl!lilliofltofi!W>WIIofoutvotnvPI.Iblicn~d tllleCOI!IITIIIOIGolstr~. 34.483 ... 497.2994 260.5214 75.3031 118.9079 392.07-43 156.6548 154.57Bi The International Traffic Database is the most compre­ hensive source for current and historical cross-border telephone traffic statistics. The database contains six years of our authoritative research on route-by-route traffic volumes for 120 countries, from TeleCeography 1997 up to the most recent Te/eCeography 2003. All data may be viewed on screen with your Web browser or downloaded into spreadsheet format. • All available route-by-route outgoing and incom­ ing traffic volumes (not just the top 20 printed each year) • Vital data for your models: country totals for traffic, national income, telephone subscribers, and population • Search display, and export data to spreadsheets • Detailed profiles for more than 120 countries • Context-sensitive help available for all search categories • Over ten critical traffic and indicator variables, including incoming and outgoing min­ utes, growth rate, fixed lines, teledensity, and mobile phones PLUS the International Traffic Database comes with one free print copy of TeleCeography 2003! For more information and how to order the International Traffic Database contact us at: TeleGeography, Inc. 1909 K Street, NW Suite 380 Washington DC 20006 USA Tel. 1 202 741 0020 Fax 1 202 741 0021 Email : info@telegeography.com www.telegeography.com About TeleGeography, Inc. telegeography tel a-je-ogra-fe n ( 1990) abbrv. of telecommunications geography [fr. Gk tele, far off, at a distance and L. communicatus, pp. of communicare to impart fr. Gk geo (earth) graphein, (to write]] 1. a new branch of geography that maps the pattern of tele­ phone traffic and other electronic communication flows; 2. places created by or perceived solely via telecommunications (e.g., a computer network address) ; 3. the telecommunica­ tions artifacts (radio antennae, terminals, signs] on a site; 4. the balance of telecommuni­ cations power in one country or region vis-a-vis another (cf. geopolitics, archaic] The old geography of countries and coast lines is giving way to a new geography marked by telephone codes satellite footprints, and Internet addresses. Electronic networks have made the world smaller: But they also have created countless new places, both virtual and physical. This expanding electronic terrain­ call it telegeography-demands a new cartography. That is the purpose behind TeleGeography, Inc., the authoritative source for international telecom statis­ tics and analysis. An independent subsidiary of Band-X Ltd., TeleGeography s reports, databases and maps are used by thousands of communication companies, consultancies, governments, and financial institutions in over 100 countries. The companys flagship report on international traffic-the self-titled TeleGeography series-has been published annually since 1989. TeleGeography also authors a series of related reports databases, and maps on global telecom infra­ structure and network topology, including: Submarine Bandwidth and Terrestrial Bandwidth, a two-volume guide to supply and demand on long-haul networks; U.S. and Global Internet Geography, Internet statistics and commentary; and Colocation, a guide to the industry of power and space. TeleGeography s recently introduced International Traffic Database contains five years of telephone traffic data, and the Bandwidth Pricing Database Service provides long-haul capacity prices for over 75 routes worldwide. TeleGeographys map series includes: Global Internet Map, a wall map of intercontinental Internet band­ width; Global Submarine Cable Map, a wall map of telecom infrastructure; and Global Communications Traffic Map, a wall map of international telephone traffic flows. To learn more, please visit us at www.telegeography.com. TeleGeography, Inc. 1909 K Street, NW • Suite 380 • Washington, DC 20006 USA Tel. 1 202 741 0020 • Fax 1 202 741 0021 • Email: info@telegeography.com www.telegeography.com