TeleGeography 1997/98 Global Telecommunications Traffic Statistics and Commentary This work is based upon 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. No part may be repro- duced, stored in an information retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopied, recorded or otherwise, without written consent from the publisher. All rights reserved. Copyright © TeleGeography, Inc. 1997 First Printing--October 1997 Second Printing--November 1997 Third Printing--December 1997 Fourth Printing--January 1998 This is copy Do not reproduce. ISBN 1-886142-10-6 Printed in the United States of America TeleGeography, Inc. ¯ 1730 Rhode Island Avenue, NW ¯ Suite 1205 Washington, DC 20036 USA Tel. +1 202 467 0017 Fax +1 202 467 0851 E-mail: info@telegeography.com http://www.telegeography.com TeleGeography 1997/98 © TeleGeography, Inc. 1997 TeleGeography, Inc. This report was prepared by TeleGeography, Inc., an independent research and publishing company based in Washington, D.C. The TeleGeography 1997/98 production team included: Gregory Staple .................. Editor in Chief Jason Kowal ................. Managing Editor Timothy Stronge ............. Research Associate Ron Kaplan ................. Research Associate Zachary Schrag ................. Map Designer B~rbara Medina .............. Research Assistant Carmen Tatis ................ Research Assistant Barbara Frank ........... Administrative Assistant The following also are available from TeleGeography, Inc.: TeleGeography 1996/97 (ISBN 886142-08~4) Direction of Traffic 1996 (ISBN 92-61-06291-1 ) New International Carriers I997/98 (ISBN 886142-11-4) Telecommunications Map of the World-- 1997 Edition (ISBN 1-86186~096MX) The FCC Reader (ISBN 886142~09-2) The TeleGeography I O0 (ISBN 1-886142N06-8! For all sales inquiries, please contact: TeleGeography, Inc. 1150 Connecticut Avenue, NW Suite 1000 Washington, DC 20036 USA Tel. -t-1 202 467 0017 Fax÷l 202 467 5915 E-mail: info@telegeography.com If you have editorial questions, please contact: Editorial Offices TeleGeography, Inc. 1730 Rhode Island Avenue, NW Suite 1205 Washington, DC 20036 Tel. ÷1 202 467 0845 Fax ÷ 1 202 467 0851 E~mail: editors@telegeography.com And don’t forget to visit our web site: http://www.telegeography.corn © TeleGeography, Inc. 1997 TeleGeography 1997/98 Contents List of Boxes and Figures .................................................. 4 Preface ............................................................... 7 Introduction: From Club to Market ............................................ 9 International Telephony: Economic and Legal Regime The New TeleGeography: A WTO Map of the World The Editors, TeleGeography, Inc ........................................ 22 The WTO Telecommunications Agreement: Some Personal Reflections Alex Arena ..................................................... 25 Is There Life for the Accounting Rate System? Tim Kelly, International Telecommunication Union ........................... 33 The Market for Refile and Transit Traffic Michael Scheele and Cathleen Woodall, M.J. Scheele & Associates ............... 39 The FCC’s New Settlement Benchmarks Gregory Staple, Koteen & Naftalin, LLP ................................. 45 lnternet Telephony A Vision of Convergence Vint Cerf, MCI Communications Corp .................................... 49 Internet Protocol Gateways: Beyond the Cheap Call Esa Hirviniemi, Helsinki Telephone Company .............................. 53 Internet Telephony for Established Telcos Elie Wurtman, Delta Three, Inc ........................................ 57 Internet Telephony in the Mainstream Market David Rosenthal, VocalTec Communications Ltd ............................. 59 Internet Traffic and Maps A Cybermap Atlas: Envisioning the lnternet Martin Dodge, University College London ................................ 63 The Internet Weather Report John Ouarterman, Matrix Information & Directory Services, lnc .................. 69 Measuring the Internet The Editors, TeleGeography, Inc ........................................ 73 International Facilities and Carriers Major Submarine Cables ................................................ 84 The Next Generation of Undersea Mega-Cables ................................ 86 International Communications Satellites ..................................... 88 International Circuit Usage by U.S. Carriers ................................... 90 Market Shares of Competing International Carriers, 1988-1996 ..................... 92 The Top 40 International Carriers .......................................... 94 International Services of U.S. RBOCs ....................................... 95 International Telecommunications Traffic Outgoing International Traffic Tables, by Country ............................... 99 Global Traffic Review ................................................. 187 Methodology ...................................................... 198 International Pricing: Green Pages .......................................... 199 Global Reference: Blue Pages .............................................. 207 TeleGeography 1997/98 © TeleGeography. Inc. 1997 List of Boxes and Figures Introduction Figure 1. International Traffic, Revenue and Subscriber Growth, 1987-2000 ........... 9 Figure 2. International Traffic and Main Line Growth, 1985-2000 ................. 10 Figure 3. Typical Infrastructure for an International Call .................... 11 Figure 4. Signs of the Times .............. 12 Figure 5. More Signs of the Times ............ 13 Box 1. What if Guam Were a Country?. ........ 15 Figure 6. Internet Time Scale: It’s Year Three of the Web Era (3 W.E.) ................. 16 Figure 7. The Net Effect ................... 17 Figure 8. The Changing Face of IP Telephony ..... 18 International Telephony: Economic and Legal Regime The V~TO Agreement: Some Personal Reflections Box 1. BTA Reference Paper on Regulation ...... 27 Box 2. The WTO Information Technology Agreement ........................ 28 Box 3. Hong Kong and the BTA ............. 29 Box 4. Accounting Rates and the MFN Rule: A Gentleman’s Agreement ............... 30 Box 5. Predictions of the GBT’s Chairman ...... 31 Is there Life for the Accounting Rate System? Figure 1. Uneven Settlements ............... 33 Box 1. How Accounting Rates Work ........... 34 Box 2. Ten Prepositions for Accounting Rate Reform ........................... 35 Box 3. Like Traffic, Like Water .............. 36 Box 4. Next Steps for the ITU ............... 37 The Market for Refile and Transit Services Figure 1. Transit vs. Refile ................. 39 Figure 2. Smuggler’s Incentives .............. 40 Figure 3. The Geography of Traffic Refile (1997) .......................... 40 Figure 4. New Carriers Boost Refile Market ...... 41 Figure 5. Refile and Transit Traffic by Region of Origin ......................... 41 Box 1. Is Refile Legal? .................... 42 Figure 6. Carrier Estimates of Transit and Refile Traffic, 1996-2000 .................. 42 Box 2. Refile and Global Alliances ............ 43 FCC’s Settlement Benchmarks Figure 1. FCC Settlement Benchmarks ......... 45 Figure 2. Selected Benchmarks for U.S. Carriers .......................... 46 Internet Telephony A Vision of Convergence Figure 1. Nortel’s Network Crossover .......... 49 Figure 2. IP Telephony Growth .............. 50 Box 1. MCI’s Vault Architecture ............. 51 Internet Protocol Gateways: Beyond the Cheap Call Figure 1. Finland: Wired Nation ............. 53 Figure 2. Virtual Helsinki ................... 54 lnternet Telephony for Established Telcos Figure 1. Efficiency of Internet Protocol Packets...5"/ Box 1. It’s for You, Mr. Commissioner ......... 58 Figure 2. lnternet Telephony Branding ......... 58 Internet Telephony in the Mainstream Market Box 1. Standards Development ............. 59 Box 2. Bandwidth Consumption ............. 60 Internet Traffic and Maps A Cybermap Atlas: Envisioning the Internet Figure 1. Global MBone Map ............... 63 Figure 2. Continental MBone Map ............ 63 Figure 3. Mapping WWW Traffic ............. 64 Figure 4. Entertainment Land Use Map ........ 64 Figure 5. Populated Information Terrain Map .... 65 Figure 6. Bray’s Web Landscape ............. 65 Figure 7. HyperSpace Map ................. 66 Figure 8. Apple Web Site Map .............. 66 Figure 9. Dynamic Diagrams Map ............ 67 Figure 10. Virtual Bologna ................. 67 Figure 11. VirtuatTOKYO .................. 68 The Internet Weather Report Figure 1. lnternet Weather Report for Continental United States, 8 Sept. 1997 .... 69 Figure 2. California’s lntemet Weather on September 8, 1997 .................. 70 Box 1. Internet Traffic Patterns and the IWR ..... 71 Measuring the Internet Figure 1. lnternet Cash Flows ............... 73 Figure 2. Internet Packet Flows .............. 74 Figure 3. How an ISP Connects to the Internet ...75 Figure 4. Major North American Internet Backbone Providers .................. 76 Figure 5. U.S. Internet Backbone Connectivity, July 1997 ........................ 77 Figure 6. Top 25 lnternet Hosts by Domain, 1995-1997 ....................... 78 Figure 7. Internet Hosts and Web Servers, 1981-1997 ....................... 79 © TeleGeography, Inc. 1997 TeleGeography 1997/98 Figure 8. Distribution of Phone Lines vs. Internet Hosts ...................... 79 Box 1. The DNS Location Campaign .......... 80 Figure 9. Plot of U.S. Domain Name Locations .80 Figure 10. lnternet Traffic Flows, 1991-1997 .... 81 Figure 11. Internet Traffic by Application Source .81 International Facilities and Carriers Major Submarine Cables Trans-Atlantic Cables (Map ÷ Table) ........... 84 Trans-Padfic Cables (Map ÷ Table) ........... 85 The Next Generation of Undersea Mega-Cables Figure 1. Submarine Cable Capacity .......... 86 Figure 2. Proposed Submarine Cable Systems .... 87 International Communications Satellites Geostationary International Communications Satellites (Map) .................... 88 International Satellite Capacity and Cost, 1970-2000 ....................... 89 Communications Satellites Orbits and Beams ..... 89 International Circuit Usage by U.S. Carriers Figure 1. International Circuit Usage by Region, 1995-96 .................... 90 Figure 2. International Circuit Usage for Selected Routes, 1995-96 ........... 91 Market Shares of Competing International Carriers ..... 92 The Top 40 International Carriers ................. 94 International Services of U.S. RBOCs Figure l. RBOC International Services Authorized by the FCC ................ 95 Figure 2. Map of RBOC Service Territories ...... 96 International Traffic Statistics Outgoing International Traffic Tables, by Country Andorra .............................. 99 Argentina ........................... 100 Australia ............................ 101 Austria ............................. 102 Bahamas ............................ 103 Bahrain ............................. 104 Bangladesh .......................... 105 Belarus ............................. 106 Belgium ............................. 107 Bolivia .............................. 108 Brazil .............................. 109 Canada ............................. 110 Chile .............................. 111 China .............................. 112 Colombia ............................ 113 Commonwealth of Independent States ........ 114 Costa Rica ........................... 115 Croatia ............................. 116 Cyprus ............................. 117 Czech Republic ........................ 118 Denmark ......................... 119 Dominican Republic .................... 120 El Salvador ........................... 121 Finland ............................. 122 France .............................. 123 French Polynesia ....................... 124 Germany ............................ 125 Ghana .............................. 126 Greece ............................. 127 Guyana ............................. 128 Hong Kong .......................... 129 Hungary ............................ 130 Iceland ............................. 131 India .............................. 132 Indonesia ........................... 133 Iran .............................. 134 Ireland ............................. 135 Israel .............................. 136 Italy .............................. 137 Japan .............................. 138 Jordan .............................. 139 Kazakhstan ........................... 140 Korea .............................. 141 Kuwait ............................. 142 Luxembourg .......................... 143 Macau .............................. 144 Malaysia ............................ 145 Mexico ............................. ! 46 Moldova ............................. 147 Netherlands .......................... 148 New Zealand ......................... 149 Norway ............................. 150 Oman .............................. 151 Pakistan ............................. 152 Panama ............................. 153 Paraguay ............................ 154 Peru .............................. 155 Philippines ........................... 156 Poland ............................. 157 Portugal ............................. 158 (continued) 5 TeleGeography 1997/98 © TeleGeography, Inc, 1997 List of Boxes and Figures (continued) Russia .............................. 159 Saudi Arabia ......................... 60 Singapore ........................... 161 Slovak Republic ....................... 162 Slovenia ............................ 163 South Africa .......................... 164 Spain .............................. 165 Sri Lanka ........................... 166 Sweden ............................. 167 Switzerland .......................... 168 Taiwan ............................. 169 Thailand ............................ 170 Tu rkey .............................. 171 Ukraine ............................. 172 United Arab Emirates .................... 173 United Kingdom Outgoing ................ 174 United Kingdom Incoming ................ 175 United States Outgoing ................. 176 United States Incoming .................. 177 U.S. Other Correspondents ............... 178 U.S. Traffic by Carrier ................... 179 U.S. Resale Traffic ..................... 80 Uruguay ............................ 181 Uzbekistan ........................... 182 Venezuela ........................... 183 Vietnam ............................. 184 Yugoslavia ........................... 185 Global Traffic Review Figure 1. International Traffic and Main Line Growth ......................... 187 Figure 2. International Traffic, Revenue and Subscriber Growth .................. 187 Figure 3. Interregional Traffic Flows .......... 188 Figure 4. International Traffic by Origin, 1996 188 Figure 5. Traffic Growth by Region, 1995-1996 ...................... 188 Figure 6. European Telecommunications Traffic Flows, 1995 ...................... 189 Figure 7. South American Telecommunications Traffic Flows, 1995 ................. 190 Figure 8. Southwest Asian Telecommunications Traffic Flows, 1995 ................. 191 Figure 9. East Asian Telecommunications Traffic Flows, 1995 ...................... 191 Figure 0. International Traffic Growth for Selected Countries, 1995-1996 ......... 192 Figure ]. Traffic Balances for Selected Countries, 1996 ................... 192 Figure 12. International Traffic Indicators, 1996 ........................... 193 Figure 13. The Top 50 International Routes, 1996 ........................... 195 Figure ! 4. Traffic Imbalances on U.S. Routes .... 196 Figure 15. Traffic Imbalances on Non-U.S. Routes .......................... 196 Figure 16. International Outbound Routes with Rapidly Growing Traffic, 1995-96 .... 197 Figure 17. International Outbound Routes with Declining Traffic, 1995-96 ......... 197 International Pricing--Green Pages Retail Prices for Three Minute Calls ........... 200 International Accounting Rates .............. 202 FCC Settlement Benchmarks ............... 204 Internet Telephony Pricing ................. 206 Global Reference--Blue Pages National Telecommunications Indicators ....... 208 International Dialing Codes ................ 213 Map of World Telephone Codes ............ 216 North American Area Codes ............... 218 Map of North American Area Codes .......... 220 © TeleGeography, Inc. 1997 TeleGeography 1997/98 Preface T he essence of today’s telecom evolution/revolution is summed up perfectly in the theme of TeleGeography 1997/98: From Club to Markets. Indeed, the old-fash- ioned "Gentleman’s Club" of the monopoly telephone business is yielding ever- more rapidly to an era of open telecom markets. Experiments in competition have proven that telecom liberalization leads directly to infrastructure development and new-service deployment--combined with falling prices and rising quality. Now, virtual- ly all nations are eager to embrace full or nearly-full competition in this critical sector, and thus support strong economic development. Two of the best signs of the accelerating trend toward competition are the WTO agree- ment and the opening of Europe’s telecom markets. Multilateral in nature, these com- petition-driving measures will rewrite the basic rules of paying for the vast majority of the world’s voice and data calls. While bilateral correspondence will remain a pillar of global telecom, the accounting rates system it rests on faces significant revision---or at least a major rebalancing of the rates themselves. Nor are policy changes the only her- alds of the new day: Intemet telephony, call-back, and inexpensive wireless services are just three examples of technological imperatives bringing on full competition. In any Brave New World, travelers need two things: courage and a reliable guide. The former, you have to supply on your own. Thankfully, TeleGeography serves as the lat- ter, a role it has played since the beginning of the decade. BT and MCI are especially proud to continue sponsoring the TeleGeography series this year. Articles explore the developments mentioned above to a depth not readily available from other sources, and look at related issues as well. In addition, selected countries and companies are exam- ined for their case-study value. And, as always, maps, graphs, and tables present hard- to-find data for administrators, engineers, marketers, major users, and investors--in short, anyone with a stake in the industry. Seth D. Blumenfeld President MCI International Gerry Spencer Director, Carrier Services BT TeleGeography 1997/98 © TeleGeography, Inc. 1997 Acknowledgements W e wish to thank the numerous carriers, government departments, regulators 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 set aside the time necessary to ensure that the data reported here are as current and accurate as possible. TeleGeography 1997/98 was supported, in part, by a publica- tion grant from MCI Communications Corporation and British Telecommunications plc. As in the past, however, this grant was made without any precondition; TeleGeography, Inc. is solely responsible for the report’s editorial contents. The Editors © TeleGeography, Inc. 1997 TeleGeography 1997/98 Introduction: From Club to Market by Gregory C. Staple, "In the Network Economy, significance precedes momentum."--Kevin Kelly 1 1, 1997: All Change Evolution can appear to be a glacially slow process marked by countless barely perceptible changes which eons ago led to a new species or dramatically altered an old one. Look more closely though and evolution is discontinuous, first static and then punctuated by bursts of activity which are often triggered by climatic events, so that in a brief time the nature of life is forever changed. Nor has evolution stopped; it is very much in full swing should we care to look. [2] So too with international telephone operators, long the domi- nant species in the global market. Over the last year, the pre- vailing legal and regulatory climate for these companies has utterly changed. The February 1997 World Trade Organization (WTO) Agreement on basic telecommunication services ratified the new order. Upon implementation of the Agreement, begin- ning in 1998, international carriers will compete directly TeleGeography, Inc. against one another in over 50 countries accounting for over 80 percent of the $70 billion market for switched telephone traffic (see Figures 1 and 2). Competition may not take hold for a few years in many markets, but the old world has passed. The WI’O Agreement was expected, of course. It had been mooted since the 1994 General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS) created a basic framework for liberalizing the cross-bor- der provision of telecommunication and other services. Still, the breadth of national support for the new Agreement--a map appears on pages 22-23 below--surprised many observers, and underscores the sea-change in government thinking about the right climate for the evolution of telecommunications in the 21 st century. The new majority for competition seems to be driven more by pragmatism than ideology. As telecommunication services play an ever larger role in the economy, no country can afford to limit its citizens’ access to the best or the cheapest services on offer globally. Legislating a protected market for national flag Figure 1. International Traffic, Revenue and Subscriber Growth, 1987-2000 Historical Trend Slow Growth Same Growth Fast Growth CAGR CAGR CAGR CAGR Indicator 1987 1996 1987-96 2000 1996-2000 2000 1996-2000 2000 1998-2000 Calls (bn) 4.3 20.2 18.8% 35.9 15.4% 38 17.1% 40.8 19.2% Estimated call length (rains) 4.5 3.5 -2.8% 3 -3.5% 3 -3.5% 3 -3.5% Minutes (bn) 19.1 70.0 15.5% 107.7 11.4% 114.1 13.0% 122.4 15.0% Per main line subscriber 42.4 94.0 9.2% 118.3 5.9% 123.4 7.0% 130.2 8.5% Per main line plus mobile 42.2 79.3 7.3% 86.8 2.3% 88.8 2.9% 92.1 3.8% Revenue (US$bn) 23.9 61.3 11.0% 80.1 6.9% 82.2 7.6% 85.7 8.7% Assumptions Price per MiTI" (US$) 1.25 0.88 -3,9% 0.74 -4,0% 0.72 -4.8% 0.70 -5.4% Main lines (million) 451 745 5.7% 910 5.1% 925 5.6% 940 6.0% Mobile subscribers (million) 2.5 138 56.1% 330 24.4% 360 27.1% 390 29.7% Note, 1987-1996 based on reported data. 1996-2000 based on ITU forecasts. Scenarios are as follows. 1, Slow Growth" Traffzc growth slows but neWvork infrastructure continues on current growth trend 2. Same Growth, Contznumg traffic growth rate of last five years, assuming faster neWvork growth rate and faster rates of price-cutting. 3. Fast Growth: Faster traffic growth rate than last five years, assuming a faster network growth rate and faster rates of price-cutting, plus a sigmficant component of new demand created by international traffic generated from mobzles. Source: ITU World Telecommunication Indicators Database and ITU estzmates ® TeleGeography, Inc. 1997 TeleGeography 1997/98 © TeleGeographyo Inc. 1997 carriers is not only costly for local users. It handicaps the sup- posed beneficiaries--incumbent operators--by insulating them from the innovative practices of foreign correspondents which are fast becoming their competitors. All of this may sound like old news to some readers. Has not technology and economics already made competition the de facto global policy for the industry? Scores of telecom carriers market their dial tones to the world through calling cards and call-back services. Internet telephony has evolved from hobby to business in barely three years. And inexpensive satellite- telephone service soon will be available at almost any point on the planet. From this view, !997 is an evolutionary milestone only because the world’s trade and telecom ministers finally "got it." Though there is truth here, it glosses over too much of impor- tance along the way. Law invariably lags behind technology and markets. There also is substantial anecdotal evidence that the last 12 to 18 months were marked by an unusual conflu- ence of economic, technological and legal events, each rein- foming the next, which cumulatively pushed the business of international telephony onto a new development path. The articles in TeleGeography 1997/98 explore this thesis. They also describe what might lie ahead. One commonplace view is that competition will soon make the international telecom business much like other large multina- tional endeavors--pharmaceuticals, oil refining, automobile manufacturing--which lately have not been so sheltered from foreign competition. These industries have seen successive mergers and acquisitions, and multinational producers in each sector now control the bulk of the market. In this view, the tele- corn industry’s future will be similarly shaped by alliances such as Concert (BT, MCI, and Telef6nica), Global One (Sprint, France T~l~com and Deutsche Tetekom), and the AT&T WorldPartners group. There is another view though, to which we are more partial. It sees telecommunications as sui generis. The industry’s core product today--a digital dial tone--is no longer service specif- ic, and hence its market is increasingly unpredictable. Carrier services have become both a tool and a toy; they are at once the primary medium for global commerce and the world’s lat- est playground. As well, telecom services have become part of the much bigger bit processing and distribution business. And, Figure 2. International Traffic and Main Line Growth, 1985-2000 114.1 100o 900 800 7OO 600 500 300 100 o 1 1985 1986 Fixed main lines ¯ Total international traffic 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 prolected 101.0 100 8O 60 40 2O o 2000 1993 1994 1995 1998 1997 1998 1999 Note: Data include outbound international traffic on pubhc networks only. Projections assume 13 percenttraff=c growth and five percent main line growth. Source: ITU, TeleGeography, Inc, © TeleGeography, Inc. 1997 10 © TeleGeography, Inc. 1997 TeleGeography 1997/98 thanks to the Internet, the bit business is largely open to all car- tiers. It is also furiously reinventing itself every few years. These factors suggest that other global businesses probably do not provide a template for tomorrow’s international telecom operators. Nor can the industry’s path be safely forecast from yesterday’s trend line. More on this later on. We begin our review of the future by changing metaphors so as to look more closely at the industry’s current economic condi- tion. !1. From Club To Market It has often been said that the old world of national telephony was a private Club for carriers only. If so, then the new one is a public market. The present transition from Club to market hence is likely to be dramatic, both economically and cultural- ly. Under Club rules--still reflected in the International Telecommunications Regulations (ITR) and related International Telecommunication Union (ITU) recommendations--the provi- sion of international telephony is a joint venture between national carriers. Members must have licenses and, with few exceptions, only governments or their proxies get them. Service is provided by connecting domestic networks at desig- nated border-crossing points and, on overseas routes, by join- ing matching "half circuits" in submarine cables and satellites. Traffic routing is also agreed to jointly by all concerned carriers. Thus, when a call between two countries is routed through a third country, all parties must agree on the transiting arrange- ment. Similarly, Club rules provide for a common accounting rate to compensate the originating and terminating carriers for han- dling a call. The accounting rate is typically divided 50/50, although each carrier’s actual cost may vary significantly. Settlements between carriers are based on net traffic balances for a given period (see page 34 for a full explanation of how accounting rates work). Since the early 1990s, there have been many signs that the old Club rules were breaking down. The main reason is money--the rules have tended to keep the average retail price of an inter- national call (still more than S0.80 a minute) far above the car- riers’ actual service costs (estimated at below $0.20 per minute). This has provided a large incentive for non-members to enter the Club’s market (e.g., by lobbying for new licenses or leasing facilities). It has also induced the Club’s more efficient members to bend the rules so as to win a larger market share (by reselling their services) and to reduce their own settlement costs (by "refiling" traffic through third countries). The Year in Review In the last year, these market forces appear to have trumped the Club’s rules, turning what was once a fairly quiet back room business into an increasingly open bazaar Anyone who can pay their way, can play. And the rules of the game--from traffic routing to termination charges--are no longer fixed in advance. They vary from one day to the next like the prices in any street market. Consider the following: ¯ October 96--After a hotly contested tender, Barak, a new company owned in part by Global One, is awarded one of two new Israeli international telecom licenses; the other is won by Figure 3. Typical Infrastructure for an International Call International Cable/Satellite Half-Circuits International Note. Fzgure assumes that calls are routed d~rectly from Country A to Country B (ke., no transzt or refile arrangements are used) and that calls are routed over the pubhc switched network © TeleGeography, Inc. 1997 TeleGeography 1997/98 © TeleGeography, Inc. 1997 Golden Lines. What gave Barak the edge? The promise to cut the average Israeli international call charge from $1.20 to S0.25 per minute by hubbing traffic via the least expensive route. But, then something unusual happens: days before Bezeq’s monopoly was due to expire on Juty 1, 1997, Bezeq drops its own international call prices by as much as 80 percent. Barak and Golden Lines quickly protest, claiming, among other things, that Bezeq could only maintain its new rates by breaking Club rules. ¯ November 96--BT, the U.K.’s No. 1 international carrier, pri- vatized less than a decade ago, announces it will merBe with MCI, the No. 2 international carrier in the U.S. (BT already owned 20 percent of MCI’s stock). ¯ December 96--MCI hints at the consumer benefits of end- to-end (whole circuit) service with BT by introducing a flat S0.12 per minute charge for U.S.-U.K. calls; a rate promptly matched by AT&T. Perhaps not coincidentally, the U.K. also announces that over 40 companies have been granted new international carrier licenses, including an AT&T affiliate. ¯ February 1997--AT&T and KDD ask America’s main telecom regulator, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), to replace the existing accounting rate on the U.S.-Japan route-- approximately $0.90 per minute--with a much lower asym- metric rate. From May 1997 to Apdl 1998, KDD would receive S0.26 per minute for landing calls, but AT&T only $0.14 per minute for originating. KDD and AT&T also agree that, after April 1998, accounting rates should be "competitive with the cost of terminating calls in Japan and the U.S. by any facilities-based carrier which is self-provisioning calls" (i.e., domestic access charges rather than accounting rates will control the price of the call). And, oh yes, February 1997 was the month in which Japan, the U.S. and over 50 other countries finally agreed to open their markets to foreign carriers by signing a new WTO Agreement. ¯ May 97--More than 1900 delegates from 300 carriers attend the annual lntelsat Global Traffic Meeting (GTM) in Washington, D.C. The formal sessions on planning the capac- ity for Intelsat’s next generation of communications satellites are but a sideshow to the main event: a week-long jumble of carrier stalls and meeting rooms for negotiating interconnection terms, traffic swaps, transit rates and access to submarine cable capacity. A global planning meeting--yes--but no longer for members only, and no longer for Intelsat only. ¯ August 97--Frustrated by the slow pace of accounting rate reform, and in the face of a $5 billion annual U.S. settlements deficit, the FCC adopts a tough new policy. After January l, 1998, the WTO Agreement notwithstanding, no foreign-affiliat- ed carrier will be permitted to begin U.S. service to its home country unless the foreign carrier offers all U.S. carders serving the route settlement rates at or below a prescribed settlement benchmark. [3] The benchmark rates range between S0.15 to S0.23 per minute, depending on the economic status of the carder’s host country. All U.S. carriers are also directed to Figure 4. Signs of the Times Traffic Refile Is Growing... Estimated Refile Traffic, by Region of Origin, 1996-2000 ...So Are Private Line Bypass Options International Private Line Use by U.S. Carriers, 1995-96 2 1 o 1996 projected Europe Americas 1997 1998 1999 2000 Source: M J. Scheele & Associates Mexico Hong Kong ~I!:I ~’,,,’ 1996 0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 Number of 64 Kbps Circuits Source: FCC 25,000 © TeleGeography, Inc. 1997 © TeleGeography, Inc. 1997 TeteGeography 1997/98 Figure 5. More Signs of the’limes Call-back and Other Resellers are Hot.., U,S. Market Share of Switched Resale Carriers, 1991-1996 ...And New Carriers Are Everywhere Licensed International Facilities-Rased Carriers, 1994 vs. 1997 35% 7000 Source: FCC 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 ’:, 1997 ¯ 1994 Mexico 8 0 10 20 30 40 50 Number of Dcensed International Carriers Source: New International Carriers 1997/98, TeteGeography, Inc. © TeleGeography, Inc. 1997 implement settlement rates at or below the benchmark rates beginning in 1999 (see page 45 for further details). o August 97--Deutsche Telekom, one of the Club’s oldest members, announces it will acquire 21 percent of U.S.-based VocalTec Communications Ltd., the leading supplier of software for lnternet telephony (see Vocaltec’s profile on page 59.) Of course, telephone calls routed over the lntemet entirely bypass the international accounting rate regime. Deutsche Telekom also agreed to buy more than $30 million of VocalTec products. ¯ September 97--After years of political infighting, the French government says that it will sell 20 percent of France T~l~com to the public and another 15 percent to foreign carriers, includ- ing Deutsche Telekom. As one of the last state-owned carriers in Europe (even the Russians privatized earlier), France T~lecom has long been a passionate supporter of Club rules. But in the early 1990s, the European Union timetable for lib- eralization started to force its hand, and France T~l~com began to change. Now its accounting rates with U.S. carriers are already below the FCC’s benchmark, and a domestic intercon- nection regime may soon make accounting rates irrelevant on many routes. ¯ October 97--WorldCom makes an unsolicited $30 billion all stock bid for MCI, potentially the largest corporate takeover in U.S. history. The logic: investment banking fees aside, WorldCom believes MCI’s network and business customers will give it a critical size in its quest to become the leading back- bone provider for the world’s data networks. Hence the corn- pany’s rapid buy-out of some of America’s premier backbone providers, including: Wiltel (1995), MFS and UUNet (1996), Compuserve (1997), ANS Communications (!997), and now possibly, MCI, whose backbone reportedly carries 40 percent of U.S. Internet traffic (see page 76). GTE, the third MCI suitor (it has offered $28 billion cash for MCI), has a data networking strategy too. In May 1997, GTE acquired the BBN backbone (BBN helped to develop the lnternet for the U.S. Department of Defense) and has said it will spend over $2 billion to build a new "backbone 100 times big- ger than today’s Internet." MCI could aid the project. On the telephone side, MCI could provide GTE a vehicle for becoming the premier long distance carrier for the Americas, bringing GTE’s Canadian and South American operators together with MCI and its Concert partners, especially Telef6nica, which also has American interests. Market Rules: The WTO Agreement The de facto breakdown of the Club system will cause legal as well as economic uncertainty. In much of the world the WTO Agreement, and the national legislation implementing it, will set the ground rules for the new market-based regime. But, if the U.S. and U.K. experiences are any guide, liberalization is likely to be a protracted and difficult process. Indeed, as the Financial Times wrote in its 1997 survey of global telecom mar- kets, "if the U.S. is finding it difficult to enforce and police open competition in its home market, what are the chances for trou- ble-free progress elsewhere in the world?" TeleGeography 1997/98 © TeleGeography, Inc. 1997 There is hard work ahead. The door to many WTO markets will not simply swing open on January 1, 1998--it will need to be pushed time and again before market access (and egress) becomes routine. The new VVTO framework is discussed further in the articles sec- tion of TeleGeography 1997/98. It begins with a personal memoir by Alex Arena, the former Director General of OFTA (Office of Telecommunications Authority) in Hong Kong (1991- 1997), and an active participant in the long-running WTO negotiations. In Arena’s view, the February 1997 Agreement may be "the greatest influencing event on the industry for at least the next ten years." Even as the WTO negotiations sought to establish a general framework for market liberalization, parallel efforts were under- way at the ITU and elsewhere to adapt the accounting rate sys- tem to the market-driven economics of today’s service indus- try. On page 33, Tim Kelly, Head of Operations Analysis at the ITU’s Strategic Planning Unit, reviews the agenda. He also dis- cusses his own "ten propositions" for reform; they have been quite influential. Kelly argues that in a liberalized environment, where interna- tional service is no longer a joint venture, originating and ter- minating calls become separate businesses--a development we covered in TeleGeography 1996/97. Any reform of the accounting rate system thus must provide for unbundled access to the three basic network building blocks needed to send and receive calls separately: (1) the international transmission link (undersea cable and satellite circuits); (2) international gate- way facilities (earth and cable stations plus linking "back-haul" circuits to local switches); and (3) access to the domestic net- work (see Figure 3). Further, any reform program must recognize that market prac- tices will develop unevenly and national conditions will lead to different prices for these three network components. The per minute cost of originating traffic may be quite different from that for terminating traffic on a given route and, such costs also may vary substantially route-by-route. (Recall the proposed AT&T/KDD accounting rate agreement above.) In addition, in competitive markets, with some carriers providing end-to-end service, others providing only one or two legs of a service, and still others choosing to connect circuits half way, several differ- ent systems for dividing costs and revenues will exist. No harm in that. Over time the market will determine which methods are preferable, so long as regulators see to it that all options are open. Market Prices: Toward Spot Rates When Club rules yield to market practices, and the internation- al network is unbundled into its various parts, new price infor- mation will be needed. Today, if a carrier wants to know how much it will cost to land a minute of telephone traffic, it can look to the accounting rate which provides an all-in-one, bun- dled answer Third country routing options (A to B via C) must also be considered. But the cost calculation generally means comparing one accounting rate with another, and then factoring in the forecast traffic balances and collection charges by route. Before long though, accounting rates may be unavailable on many routes. If a carrier does not have its own foreign affiliate to "self correspond," the cost of landing a minute of telephone traffic in a given country may need to be pieced together from a survey of trans-oceanic circuit charges and domestic termina- tion fees, each of which are likely to be volume and term sensi- tive, and to vary from carrier to carrier That is likely to make the correspondent relations business much more demanding. Some carriers will rise to the challenge with sophisticated routing and facilities arrangements. Others may simply prefer to auction their traffic to the carrier that can provide least-cost terminations for a given volume and term. In fact, traffic auctions by second and third tier carriers have already generated a brisk new "spot market" for transit and reflle services. This has accelerated the industry’s segmenta- tion into a small group of wholesale carriers’ carriers--which includes but is not limited to mega-carriers, such as Concert and Global One--and a much larger group of retail-oriented carriers. These new routing options are profiled by Michael J. Scheele and Cathleen Woodall beginning on page 39 (see also Figures 4 and 5). The rise of traffic reflle and "spot" pricing for call termination services point to a much broader set of pricing changes which are sweeping the industry. Long term operating agreements, carrier pre-subscription, and fixed tariffs are out. Short term service contracts, call-by-call carrier selection, and traffic auc- tions are in. At the retail level, the price reform has been led by call-back and other resale carriers operating in the most liberal markets. In the U.S., for example, the exchange access regime mandat- ed by the FCC permits local customers to choose their interna- tional carrier on a call-by-call basis (i.e., to "dial around" a pre- subscribed long distance carrier). For years, this has had a minimal impact on long distance competition; most users are reluctant to dial an extra access code and hence route their calls via pre-subscribed carriers (usually AT&T, MCI or Sprint). 1996 was different. By promising discounts of 40 percent or more per call, and spending heavily on TV advertising, dial- around and other resale carriers sold over six billion minutes of U.S. international traffic in 1996--over 30 percent of the total market--and a 150 percent jump in volume from 1995. These developments are likely to be of keen interest to European carriers, who will soon be subject to equal access and presubscription rules themselves. The new rules come as a result of the Directive on number portability, proposed in © TeleGeography, Inc. 1997 TeleGeography 1997/98 Box 1. What if Guam Were a Country? The 1996 U.S. telecommumcatlons reform law required U.S. long distance carriers to extend their national long d~stance rates to Guam, which lies 6,200 miles from the U.S. mainland. Calls from New York or Chicago or San Francisco to Guam now cost as little as $010 per minute. As more and more coun- tries replace accounting rates with cost based access charges, as in Guam, interna- tional call prices may be comparable to the new rates between the U.S. mainland and Guam. Equidistant azimuthal projection centered on Lebanon, KS. © TeleGeography, Inc. 1997 New Rate Plan For U.S, Island May Have International Impact The island of Guam lies in the western Pacific on roughly the same longitude as Melbourne, Australia. But this U.S. territory recently became a domestic point for U.$. telephone calls. Guam’s country code {671 ) has been changed to a U.S. area code (671 ). And, under new FCC rules, effective in July 1997, U.S. tong distance carriers have extended their standard, mileage-based domestic calling rates to Guam. For example, AT&T’s new domestic tariffs place Guam in the "4250 miles or more" category. Calls from the mainland cost approximate- ly $0.29 per minute dudng the peak rate period, and $0.17 during off hours. (Rates for MCI and Sprint are similar.) However, the major U.S. carriers now include Guam in their flat rate calling plans which are available to subscribers for a small monthly fee. These plans per- mit mainlanders to call Guam for approximately $0.10 per minute and $0.05 on Sundays (with MCI). The new tariff regime for Guam was accompanied by another impor- tant change: mainland U.S. carders may now terminate their traffic on Guam based upon domestic access charges published by the local exchange carrier, the government-owned Guam Telephone Authority (GTA). Accounting rates have traditionally applied to U.S.-Guam traffic because Guam has been treated as a foreign point, and has an accounting rate with the U.S. (and other countries) separate from the accounting rate for the U.S. mainland. Until 1992, the U.S.-Guam accounting rate was $1.00 per minute or more, although it has since fallen to $0.25 per minute. Under the new regime, tong distance carders can acquire an end-to-end circuit from the U.S. mainland to Guam and interconnect with the GTA. The local access charge is approximately $0.06 per minute. Or a main- land carrier can provide service on a "correspondent" basis with a Guam long distance carrier, such as IT&E Overseas, Inc. (ITE), by negotiating a domestic carrier-to-carrier contract which bundles GTA’s local access charge. The FCC has taken steps to ensure that the transition to domestic interconnection charges does not lead to undue rate increases for local service. GTA can draw upon a nationwide pool of local exchange access revenues, if need be, to cover certain costs, so as to keep its access tariffs within the nationwide average. GT,~s costs per access line apparently are less than many exchange carriers on the main- land, and it is thus a net contributor to the U.S. access charge pool. Soon, however, under another FCC reform program, almost all subsi- dies provided to U.S. local exchange carriers by the access charge pool will be supported by "universal service" fees collected from all telecom service providers and their customers. Does the FCC’s "rate-integration" plan for Guam have wider implica- tions? It is too early to say. But the availability of "universal service" funds to smooth the transition to a domestic interconnection regime, though apparently not needed in Guam, may be instructive for other countries. As well, the new U.S. carrier tariffs for Guam plainly show that today regulation, not distance, is the major determinant of "international" call charges. Source: TeleGeography, tnc, TeleGeography 1997/98 © TeleGeography, Inc. 1997 Figure 6. Internet Time Scale: It’s Year Three of the Web Era (3 W.E.) :i~ ~,~,,,~.~ ~,:~,,,~ ,i,p~-~ZV,,~ Legend ¯ Netscape @ M,crosoft ;ource: TeleGeography, Inc, ©TeleGeography, In¢, 1997 October 1997 by the European Council. The text of the Directive can be found at www.ispo.cec.be/en/main-en.htm. At the wholesale level, the new pressure on prices is leading carriers to update their strategies for least cost routing. Global backbones, hub and spoke networks, refile contracts and the ]ntemet are all under review. Most carriers will probably exper- iment with several options. Looking ahead, it is not hard to imagine a world where every international call (and many domestic ones) is preceded by a real-time electronic auction. The originating carrier’s switch will signal a pool of potential correspondents for price quotes to transmit "x" number of bits per minute to point ,,y., The quotes arrive in a few millisec- onds; the winning bid is automatically processed; the call is ini- tiated; and a billing record started. Does this sound familiar?. The routers that lnternet Service Providers (ISPs) now use to transmit data from one part of the lntemet to another operate in a similar fashion. Using complex algorithms, each switch chooses the least congested path to route the next packet of data by constantly querying a pre-pro- grammed pool of neighboring routers, and then forwarding the packet accordingly. The telephone network may soon follow a similar model, once switching and billing software become available to a few lead- ing-edge carriers. Several enterprising ventures are working on this, including upstarts from the computer-telephony industry. They include Arbinet in New York (www.arbinet.com) and Israel’s NetXchange (www.ntxc.com). Other entrepreneurs, notably Band-X (www.band-x.co.uk), have moved quickly to create a marketplace where buyers and sellers of wholesale telephone transmission services can meet. The Death of Tariffs The consequence of round-the-clock auctions for network access and call delivery are still unclear. The practice is embry- onic. But, before long, the type of market-driven call routing practices which the Arbinets and Band-Xs of the world are encouraging could well spell the death of tariffs, at least in their current form. Long distance tariffs have been in trouble for some time. Very high capacity transmission and switching equipment have made tariffs largely distance-insensitive in liberalized markets [in fact, a 20 km call may cost more than a 2000 km one). The "death of distance," to quote Frances Cairncross [4], has led many North Amedcan carriers to move toward flat per minute rates © TeleGeography, Inc. 1997 TeleGeography 1997/98 (typically $0.10 for the U.S. and $0.30 plus for the worldl. The "Green Pages," a pricing appendix to this book, provide a comparison of U.S. call prices with other countries. Flat rate calling plans may remain popular for residential cus- tomers. However, business customers and resetlers will proba- bly soon demand market-based plans (i.e., off-tariff rates) which will vary by call, possibly with a per-minute cap tied to the carrier’s lowest flat rate calling plan. For these large cus- tomers, paying for phone calls soon may become much like buying a few hundred (or thousand) pounds of coffee beans-- what you pay depends on how much you buy, the quality of the beans and when you buy them. III. The Internet Effect While economics has driven regulatory reform, the industry’s new economics is driven, in turn, by technology. Every day the lnternet grows bigger and faster, and it poses a greater threat to the traditional carrier’s Club. But the Internet is having a radical impact on other aspects of the industry too: ¯ As the major soume of demand for new capacity. In 1998, the bandwidth allocated to lnternet traffic on several trans- Pacific routes is likely to exceed that for switched telephony (see Figure 7); the pattern will be repeated on trans-Atlantic routes with a lag of a few years. One result: a ten-fold planned increase in trans-oceanic cable capacity by the year 2000 (see "The Next Generation of Mega-Cables" on page 86). Another: three different companies--Motorola, Alcatel and Teledesic-- have prroposed to launch separate fleets of satellites to provide broadband lnternet connections around the world, at a total cost of $20 billion (see John Montgomery’s November 1997 cover story in BYTE, "The Orbiting Internet: Fiber in the Sky," at www.byte.com). The demand for bandwidth has also spurred a rash of network acquisitions by WoridCom and oth- ers (see page 76). ¯ As a new time clock for product development (and much else). We are only three years into the Web Era (WE) (see Figure 6), though it may seem like 20. On planet Internet, the days and nights are very short (unless, of course, you write Intemet software). Before the Web Era (BWE), major software products had a life cycle of several years. The WE has cut that to months, thus changing the pace of business for telecommu- nications too. Over 40 million copies of Netscape Navigator and Microsoft Explorer, the leading Web browsers, are now in use. And each new generation of browsers places ever larger demands for bandwidth on the Internet. For instance, Netscape Communicator (i.e., Navigator 4.0), released in June 1997, is designed for work group collaboration (telephony, conference calls, scheduling, notes etc.). ¯ As the biggest and richest R&D group. Reseamh and Development (R&D) is a big budget item for telecom carriers, especially in a competitive market where the pressure for com- mercial pay-offs has never been greater. Now the lnternet has become every telco’s R&D partner, like it or not. Not only does the Net provide the essential link between hundreds of widely dispersed scientists and engineers, but it attracts venture cap- ital like nothing else. The lnternet industry is a "magnet for money and minds," in the words of the FCC’s Kevin Werbach [5]. And as money flows into the sector, so does new talent, which in turn attracts further capital and more bright minds. In a few years, this virtuous circle has created a semi-public R&D consortium for the communications industry (though not for it alone) that dwarfs the R&D budget of even AT&T and Deutsche Telekom. ¯ As a network model. We have already suggested that the lnternet’s "least delay" routing methods may be used to devel- op "least cost" routing tables for telephone carriers in which price rather than congestion is the key variable. In fact, if the Internet is to maintain its past growth record, many observers believe that it must begin to use price as well as traffic to man- age routing decisions. Confounding the skeptics, the Internet did not suffer a catastrophic crash in 1997, despite handling perhaps twice the number of users and several times the vol- ume of traffic as the year before (see "Measuring the Internet" on page ?3). The global economics of the lnternet remain unsettled, however Until recently, most 1SPs handed off traffic to one another at network exchanges without payment. Each ISP essentially treated the other as a peer on the assumption that traffic flows Figure 7. The Net Effect Telstra Circuit Usage on the Australia-U.S. Route, 1993-99 8OO 7O0 6OO 500 300 200 IO0 0 1993 1994 Telephony Capacity Internet Capacity 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 Source:Telstra Corp. ©TeleBeography, Inc 1997 TeleGeography 1997/98 © TeleGeography, Inc. 1997 and costs were proportionate (see pages 73-74). These peer- ing arrangements, however, are beginning to yield to network access contracts based on a backbone’s size and capacity. WoridCom’s ISP subsidiary, UUNet, has taken the unpopular first steps in the direction of fee-based network interconnection agreements. Also, many foreign ISPs face the choice of provisioning their own international circuits to the U.S. or paying to access a U.S. backbone at an off-shore node (see page 75). Once installed, these "whole circuit" links benefit lnternet users in the U.S. as well because traffic is two-way. Thus, as the long-haul capacity of non-U.S. ISPs continues to rise sharply (see Figure 7), the current system for funding access to the Internet’s U.S. back- bones will come under the same pressure for economic reform as the accounting rate regime. Demands for cost-based (i.e., traffic sensitive) access and other alternatives (e.g., peering and regional nets) are likely to win growing support [6]. Internet Telephony: Cui Bono? Which brings us back to the issue of the day: Internet telepho- ny. Will the average telephone caller see the lnternet as a real substitute for the public switched network? Within a few years, the answer is almost certainly "yes" (see Figure 8). But, by then the question may be of far less concern to many carriers. Few callers know (or care) about the path or protocols their voice traverses en route. Nor will they know tomorrow when both the public telephone network and the lnternet will consist of a mix of dedicated and leased facilities for IP and other pro- tocols. Make the network smart enough and users can remain clueless. How will we get there and how long will it take? That is the focus of a second set of articles. They are introduced by Vint Cerf, one of the Internet’s founding fathers (he helped write the basic transmission protocols), and now Senior Vice President, Internet Architecture and Engineering at MCI. In Cerf’s view, "It is clear that both pack- et switching and circuit switching will be used [to transport voice signals]. There is no reason why a PC can’t coordinate a PSTN call with a shared application over the Internet." Other contributors to this section include: David Rosenthal of VocalTec, the leading Internet Telephony software company; Elie Wurtman of Delta Three, the first company to offer phone-to- phone lnternet telephony service on a commercial basis; and Esa Hirviniemi, who manages Internet access services for Helsinki Telephony Company, which serves perhaps the most wired city in the world. IV. What Happens Next? It is time to return to the issue we raised at the beginning of this essay. What does the future hold for international telecom car- tiers? Will new technologies and trade rules "normalize" the industry, leaving the business of carrying traffic from one coun- try to another largely intact, though ever more competitive, or are other changes on the horizon? And if so, what are they?. One reason for thinking that tomorrow will not be just a more competitive version of today is that long distance transmission capacity will increase by an unprecedented amount in the next decade. Despite the rising demand for Internet bandwidth, there seems little doubt that the optical fiber industry will keep supply two steps ahead thanks to brash start-up ventures, such Figure 8. The Changing Face of IP Telephony IP Telephony Users, 1995 IP Telephony Users, 1999 [] Hobbyist [] Intranet m Carrier The vast majority of Intemet phone calls are currently between home users, the "hobbyists," who make calls by running proprietary Internet telephony software on their personal computers. Source: Pulver.com, Inc.iVON Coalition Increasingly, however, calls will be made between regular handsets and travel over the lntemet Protocol (IP) telephony services of tele- phone carriers or over corporate intranets. © TeteGeography, Inc. 1997 © TeleGeography, Inc. 1997 TeleGeography 1997/98 as Ciena (www.ciena.com), and old hands, like Alcatel and AT&T’s former cable unit, now Tyco Submarine Systems. Prices for long-haul capacity and services will fall accordingly, leaving most long distance carriers with a growing dilemma. Two responses are emerging. The first is to make a virtue out of necessity and to specialize in providing capacity as a carrier’s carder, leaving the retail business largely to others. WorldCom appears to be following this course, in part. The separate back- bone and distribution companies used by global alliances, such as Concert, also serve as evidence for this new two-tier indus- try structure. The carrier’s carrier business may well be prof- itable in the near term as retail operators and corporate tele- corn managers scramble for capacity on key routes. As more bandwidth comes to market, however, it may look tess attrac- tive unless it is linked to new services (e.g., a quality of service guarantee for intranets which only the very largest end-to-end networks can match). The explosion of bandwidth is also triggering an alternative market-oriented response. If over-supply threatens to make international telephony into a commodity business, then the answer is radically to boost demand. But how? One approach seeks to go "back to the future" by marrying the network more closely with potential applications (i.e., by vertical integration). Thus, much as the old AT&T could count on a captive manufac- turer (Western Electric) for new products and a nationwide chain of local carriers (the Bell Operating Companies) to deliv- er long distance traffic, today’s global carder seeks to buy up the most promising new sources of traffic (e.g., lnternet service providers) and products (software houses, tele-TV ventures). As GTE’s Chairman, Charles Lee said in announcing his compa- ny’s bid for MCI, "The key product strategy going forward for us, is a bundled service..." But the search for new applications has led other carders down a different pathi-one more in sync with the decentralized, mar- ket-odented spirit of the day. These carriers not only view the new wave of mergers as a competitive threat but as counter- productive. The applications business is quixotic and few big companies have been successful in birthing new "killer apps" themselves. Such innovations typically come from outsiders. The best approach, therefore, is to develop a network of coop- erating companies--a "business ecosystem" to use Jim Moore’s phrase--so that a carrier helps to co-evolve the next genera- tion of network services, realizing that it will not be the only one to benefit. [7] The Network Has a Message Yet, whether one takes an industrial-age or an information-age approach to stimulating demand, the telecom industry is likely to be changed for another fundamental reason: Today’s digital telecom networks are not just a pipe or a socket for new prod- ucts but, like electricity, have an implicit message of their own. And this message constantly changes the applications which people want to use. Marshall McLuhan, the Canadian media critic (1914-1980), put it this way in Understanding Media: "~F]he message of electdc[ity] is... totally radical, pervasive, and decentralized. For electric power and light.., eliminate time and space factors, and human association exactly as do radio, telegraph, tele- phone and TV..." Electric light abolishes the traditions of night and day, of indoors and outdoors. "Cars can travel all night, ball players can play all night and windows can be left out of buildings." [8] Within a decade or so, the transformational impact of the glob- al telecom network may be similar As hundreds of millions of people begin to recognize that the cost of talking across an ocean is little more than that of turning on an air conditioner, the existing patterns of social and business organization will shift. And that, in turn, will change the demand for interna- tional communications. We don’t know yet how that demand will be impacted, anymore than people of the 19th century foresaw how air conditioning could turn places like Malaysia into the 21st century’s economic powers. But it will happen. Consciousness Raising The fact that telecom networks, like electric power grids, are both a medium and a message also suggests another lesson that has to do with evolution itself. Since the first days of the telegraph, electric power and communication networks fre- quently have been seen as a surrogate nervous system. In The House of The Seven Gables (1851), the American novelist Nathaniel Hawthorne wrote, "...by means of electricity, the world of matter has become a great nerve, vibrating thousands of miles in a breathless point of time.., the round globe is a vast head, a brain, instinct with intelligence." This theme was later echoed by McLuhan ("our new electricity technology is not an extension of our bodies but of our central nervous system"), although McLuhan was mainly influenced by Pierre Teilhard de Chardin’s book The Phenomenon of Man. Ordained as a Jesuit, and later trained as a paleontologist, Teilhard de Chardin believed that Homo Sapiens, the thinker, had begun a new era in evolution. "A glow dpples outward from the first spark of conscious reflection," wrote Teilhard de Chardin in 1938. "The point of ignition grows larger. The fire spreads in ever widening circles until finally the whole planet is covered with incandescence. Only one interpretation, only one name can be found worthy of this grand phenomenon... It is really a new [earthly] layer, the ’thinking layer’ which since its germination at the end of the Tertiary period [two million years ago] has spread over and above the world of plants and ani- mals." [9] What Teilhard de Chardin meant "can be summed up in a few words," says John Perry Barlow, one of the Internet’s gadflies: TeleGeography 1997/98 © TeleGeography, Inc. 1997 "The point of all evolution up to this stage is the collective organism of mind." McLuhan said it explicitly: with electric communications "man now wear[s] .... his brain outside his skull and his nerves outside his skin; new technology breeds new man." [10] It is a radical hypothesis and has long had its skeptics. 11 Yet it has been taken up by some natural scientists too. One of the best known is Richard Dawkins, a British zoologist. In his recent book, River Out of Eden, Dawkins contends that both social ideas and radio communications may indeed be evolutionary thresholds. Our global communications nets thus have a bio- logical significance quite apart from their role as a transmission medium. 12] The archaeological record suggests that something like this occurred 35,000 to 40,000 years ago. That was the time when Cro-Magnons, the early Homo Sapiens, reached Ice Age Europe, having migrated from the Middle East and before that from Africa. The European predecessors to the Cro-Magnons were the physically robust Neanderthals who successfully occu- pied western Eurasia from about 200,000 years ago until Cro- Magnons supplanted them. The debate on why Neanderthals became an evolutionary "has -been" continues, but many experts believe the key weapon was the Cro-Magnons’ brain, equipped with a large frontal lobe "wired" for associative thinking--for language and art. This is the time, says Richard Leakey (The Origin of Humankind) when the astonishing cave paintings, engravings and carvings of Ice Age Europe and of Africa begin to appear--artifacts "which evoke the mental worlds of people like us." "Go back beyond this, however--beyond about 35,000 years ago," says Leakey, "and these beacons of the modem human mind gutter out. No longer can we see in the archaeological record cogent evidence of the work of people with mental capacities like our own." l13] Could the Net’s collective mind lead to a similar mental leap for humankind? [14] Could the billions and billions of new circuits lead us to inventions which are as hard to imagine today as lan- guage or electricity or gene splicing may have been to Neanderthals? And if so, what business will global telcos be in then? The answer may be: the same business they have been in all along--consciousness raising. The successful telecom companies have long known that is their real evolutionary advantage. Which brings us full circle, though we have strayed rather far from accounting rates and trade schedules. We are nearing the third millennium, however, and there is something about the span of 1000 years that leads one to ponder the larger ques- tions of the age, even if it only makes our answers to the small- er ones more uncertain. Notes [11 "New Rules For the New Economy," Wired, September 1997, p. 186. [21 A~ extensive list of biological examples can be found ~n Jonathan W~ener’s book, The Beak of the Finch (Vintage Books, New York, 1995). [3] The full text of this FCC pohcy and other Commission decisions affecting U.S international carriers are comp~led in The FCC Reader, a new TeleGeography annual subscnption serwce. For details, visit htCp.//wva~.telegeography.com [4] See Frances A. Cairncross, The Death of Distance (Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, 1997), excerpted at http://www.deathofd~stance.com This was also the t~tle of Ca~rncross’s 1995 survey of global telecommunications for The Economist; a sequel appears ~n the September 13, 1997 issue. (5] "D~g~tal Tornado. the lnternet and Telecommumcat~on Policy," FCC O~ce of Plans and Policy Workdng Paper Series No. 29, March 199-/. Th~s White Paper explains why the Internet works so well and describes its ~ikely challenges to the pubhc switched network It’s avadable on the FCC’s web s~te at http.// www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/O PP/workmg_papers/oppwp29.pdf. [6] For an insightful review of the Intemet’s U.S -centric backbones and the con- sequence for foreign ISPs, see "T~e World Wide Weight" by Andreas Evagora in tele.com (September I997), also available at http://www.teledotcom.com. [7] See James E Moore, The Death of Competition (Harper Colhns, New York, 1996) excerpted at http.//www.geopartners.com/geocompetit~on.htm [8] Marshall McLuhan, Understanding Med~a (New American L~brary, New York, 1964) pp 25 and 60 [9] Pierre Teilhard de Chardln, The Phenomenon of Man (Harper & Row, New York, 1959), p. 182. [101 "Playboy Interview. Marshall McLuhan--A Candid Conversation" ~n Essential McLuhan, edited by Eric McLuhan and Frank Zingrove (Basic Books, New York, 1995) pp 264-265 [11 See, for example, the cutting rewew of The Phenomenon of Man by S~r Peter Medawar at http://physservl.physics.w~sc.edu/-shalizi/Medawar/. For a favor- able v~ew, see Kewn Kelly, Out of Control (Addison-Wesley, N.Y 1994) on p 202: "As very large webs penetrate the [manufactured] world, we see the first glimpses of what emerges from that net--machines that become alive, smart, and evolve... There is a sense m which a global mind also emerges m a network cul- ture .... We humans will be unconscious of what the global m~nd ponders ... not because we are not smart enough, but because the design of the global mind does not allow the parts to understand the whole [12] Richard Dawkins, R~ver Out of Eden (Orion Books, London, 1995) pp. 182- 188. [I 3] Richard Leakey, The Origin of Humankind [Basic Books, New York, 1994} p. 80 [141 Th~s question is also explored by Peter Russel’s The Global Brain Awakens-- Our Next Evolutionary Leap (Global Bra~n, Inc., Paid Alto, CA 1997), first pub- lished ~n 1982, and excerpted at http://artfolio.com/pete/GBA.html In the 1930s, H.G. Wells, the U.K. science fiction writer, simdarly saw the world’s com- mumcation networks as an emergent "Super Brain." See www.trandmon.demon.co,uk/wb0.htm, A review of recent hterature on the lnternet~s evolutionary potential can be found at pespmcl.uubac.be/papers/ superBRAIN.html. International Telep.hony: Economic and Legal Regime TeleGeog~aphy 1997/98 © TeleGeography, Inc. 1997 The New TeleGeography: A WTO Map Phi]ippines of the World Sri Lanka Indonesia Zealand ~1~ International Service Markets Opened to Foreign Carriers and Investors by the WTO Agreement Full Foreign Ownership and Market Access [] Permitted in 1998 m Permitted in 1999 or Later Partial Foreign Ownership and Market Access Permitted in 1998 Permitted in 1999 or Later No Commitments Made ! J OtherWT0 Members Non-Members oftheWT0 Key to Country Commitments under the w’ro Agreement ¯ Full Market Access in 1998 O Partial Market Access in 1998 ¯ Full Market Access in 1999 or After (~ Partial Market Access in 1999 or After ,: ! No Commitments Offered Note: Country commitments under the 1997 WT0 Agreement on Basic Telecommunica- tion Services include the right to offer Local (local telephone exchange), International (international telephone service), and Satellite (mobile satellite-based telephone service; commitments on fixed satellite ser- vices not shown). Foreign ownership refers to the right of a WTO member to invest in a foreign telecom carrier; some countries have exempted specific carriers. Antigua & Barbuda Argentina ¯ Australia ¯ Austria ¯ Bangladesh O Belgium ¯ Foreign Foreign Local International Satellite Ownersh=p Local International Satellite Ownership ¯ ¯ ¯ C,ech ~aputi,i~ O ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ D ..... k ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ Oom,a,ca ’ ,’ 0 ¯ ¯ ¯ Oomin,can Beputi,ic ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ Finlon,~ ¯ 0 0 0 ~o,iv,~ O O O 0 ..... 0 0 0 0 Brunei 0 ¯ G ..... y ¯ Bu,garia O O O O B~aoa Colombia 0 0 0 0 Guatemala © TeleGeography, Inc. 1997 TeleGeography 1997/98 /~ominican Republic iAnbgua & Barbuda Colombi Chile Iceland Netherlands Belgium Luxembeurg Czech Rel~U blic Slovak Republic Austria Hungary Romsms Rulgana Sene United Kingdom Portugal C6te d’lvoire Ghana Put your company’s name on this map. For licenses and mapping services, send email to: tstronge@telegeography.com © TeleGeography, Inc. 1997 Designed by Gregory C. Staple and Timothy J. Stronge Foreign Foreign Foreign Local International Satellite Ownership Local International Satellite Ownership Local International Satellite Ownership Slovak ¯ ¯ ¯ Mongolia ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ South Africa 0 0 0 ,:~1 0 Netherlands ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ Spain ¯ ¯ ¯ 0 NewZealand ¯ ¯ 0 SriLanka Ix "~ 0 i 0 0 0 0 Norway ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ Sweden ¯ ¯ ¯ 0 0 Pakistan _’! 0 0 0 Thailand 0 0 0 0 Trinidad 0 0 Philippines ¯ ¯ 0 Tunisia 0 I’~ -I 0 ¯ ¯ ¯ Poland ¯ 0 0 0 Turkey O ¯ 0 0 Po.ugal 0 0 0 0 United Kingdom Behze, Brazd, Ecuador, Morocco, Papua New ~u~nea and 0 0 0 0 Singapore 0 0 0 ~°~t,~;efland h ..... de sep ................ Hungary Iceland India Indonesia Ireland Israel Italy Jamaica Japan Republic of Korea Luxembourg Malaysia Mauritius © TeleGeography, Inc. 1997 TeleGeography 1997/98 zOorninican Republic /Antigua & Barbuda :’,,~.~-- Oominica Colornb~a iceland 1 Netherlands 2 Belgium 3 Luxembourg 4 Czech Republic 5 Slovak Republic 6 Austria 7 Rungaw 8 Romania 9 Bulgaria Umted Kingdom Portx C(~te d’lvoire Ghana Mauritius Chile Put your company’s name on this map. For licenses and mapping services, send email to: tstronge@telegeography.com © TeleGeography, Inc. 1997 Designed by Gregory C. Staple and Timothy J, Stronge Foreign Foreign Foreign Local Internabonal Satellite Ownership Local International Satellite Ownership Local Internabonal Satellite Ownership Slovak ~1 I~ 0 Max,co ¯ ¯ ¯ 0 Republic ¯ ¯ ¯ Mongolia ¯ ¯ 0 South Africa 0 0 ’: _ ) 0 i" "I 0 Netherlands ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ Spain 0 ¯ ¯ 0 New Zealand ¯ ¯ 0 Sri Lanka, -.’i, 0 ! 0 ¯ 0 0 0 0 0 0 Hungary Iceland India 0 indonesia 0 Ireland Israel 0 Italy Jamaica ¯ Japan ¯ Republic of Korea ¯ Luxembourg Malaysia Mauritius !~’) -~ ~’: ~. 0 Senegal 0 0 ’.-’; 0 V ...... la ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ Singepore 0 ¯ 0 Note [~ehze, Braz,I, Ecuado,, M ....... P, pua New G ....... d Swnzerland have made separate commitments TeleGeography 1997/98 © TeleGeography, Inc. 1997 Sources for the WT0 Map The World Trade Organization (WTO) Basic Telecommunications Agreement opens the telecommunication markets of over 60 countries to foreign carriers and investors. But the Agreement is not a single document. It is based upon certain general prin~ ciples and procedural rights in two umbrella treaties--the Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization and Annex 1B thereto, the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS). The GATS also has an "Annex on Telecommunications" and an ’~Annex on Negotiation On Basic Telecommunication." Both treaties were concluded in 1994 at the close of the Uruguay Round of trade negotiations begun at Punta del Este, Uruguay in 1986. The text of these documents form an inteo gral part of the "Final Act Embodying the Results of the Uruguay Round of Multilateral Trade Negotiations." The Basic Telecommunications Agreement also includes detailed country-by-country commitments to liberalize the provision of certain telecommunication services pursuant to the GATS. These national "Schedules of Specific Commitments and Lists of Exemptions"--the exemptions refer to the Most Favored Nation (MFN) obligation in Article 11 of the GATS~are annexed to the "Fourth Protocol" to the GATS, adopted in 1996. These Schedules often include an ’~Additional Commitment" to abide by the regulatory principles stated in a "Reference Paper" adopted in 1996 by the initial Negotiating Group on Basic Telecommunication (NGBT). The Paper is excerpted on page 27. The chart at the bottom of the map overleaf summarizes each country’s Schedule of Specific Commitments on some of the most significant areas for liberalization: foreign ownership rules and local, mobile satellite-based and international market access. The full text for all Schedules and GATS documents can be found at http://www.wto.org/wto/services/tel.htm. © TeleGeography, Inc. 1997 TeleGeography 1997/98 The WTO Telecommunications Agreement: Some Personal Reflections by Alex Arena Change and telecommunications are an indisputable match. Technological change is well understood, both as a phenome- non and a driver of the telecommunications sector’s growth. Less understood, however, are the changes soon to be wrought from liberalization by members of the World Trade Organization (W70). In this article, I shall provide some personal insights to the negotiations which led to the historic VVTO Basic Telecommunications Agreement (BTA) on 15 February 1997, and what this agreement may mean to the sector’s future development. The scope of the BTA is mapped by TeleGeo- graphy on page 22. The GATS Historically, initiatives to liberalize global trade have focused on the traded goods sectors (textiles, manufactured articles), and these were regulated under the General Agreement on Trade and Tariffs (GATT). During the Uruguay Round of trade negoti- ations, which began in 1984, specific attention was given to bringing services under a global trading agreement. This effort led to the General Agreement on Trade in Services (the GATS), completed in late 1993. An agreement was not easy to achieve as concepts developed over many years for trade in goods did not necessarily transfer well to trade in services. While consid- erable progress was made in achieving the GATS itself, the com- mitments from many WTO members, in terms of liberalization of their service sectors, were far from satisfactory. At the end of the Uruguay Round, negotiators were left with lit- tle option but to harvest the offers which had been made under the GATS thus far, and to commit to further specific negotiations on key services sectors. With respect to telecommunications, agreement was reached on certain principles which were embodied in the Telecommunications Annex to the GATS, and the limited offers for liberalization which had been made by V~i-O members (largely relating to value added services) were incorporated into the Agreement. Other key service sectors (notably financial services and maritime services) met similar fates. For each of these sectors, new negotiating groups were established with the aim of continuing and concluding the nego- tiations. This switch to a sector-specific set of negotiations was itself con- troversial among trade negotiators as many would have pre- ferred a more traditional multi-sector round of negotiations, offering the potential for cross-sector trade-offs. But, as the multi-sector approach had been disappointing, a sector-specif- ic approach came to look more attractive. In any event, a Negotiating Group on Basic Telecommunications (NGBTJ was convened, and was opened to all VVTO mem- bers. [1] A deadline was set for an agreement by 30 April 1996. Early activities were slow to develop: a questionnaire was developed and cimulated so that information could be obtained on the diverse range of national policies and regula- tory arrangements across WTO members’ jurisdictions. As more information was gathered, the more apparent it became that the differences in the degrees of liberalization and the state of national regulation would make a good basic telecommuni- cations agreement a challenging achievement indeed. Regulatory Issues Early in the negotiations, it was recognized that regulation played a more important role in liberalization of this sector than in many others previously considered in the WTO or the GATT before it. In fact, it came to be understood that a member’s offer, in terms of market access commitments and national treatment (two essentials in any trade liberalization), could be rendered inconsequential without an acceptable standard of national regulation to enforce fair competition. A small group, comprising the leading negotiators and those experienced in the liberalization of the telecommunications sec- tor, was formed with the objective of drawing up a suitable set of regulatory principles. This group met many times, and held lengthy discussions and debates that extended into late night sessions (sustained by the hospitality offered at the Japanese mission in Geneva, these meetings came to be known as the "sushi meetings"). The specific complexities of telecom regulation demanded the participation of technical experts. In mid-1995, as the trade and telecom experts came to understand how to work togeth- er, real progress was made by drawing up what is now known as the regulatory principles Reference Paper (see Box 1). The Reference Paper was a landmark in the negotiations. Eventually 60 of the 69 governments participating in the BTA entered into additional commitments concerning the compre- hensive set of pro-competitive regulatory principles in the Paper. While the Paper attempts to set out the regulatory pre- TeleGeography 1997/98 © TeleGeography, Inc. 1997 conditions for a fair and liberalized telecommunications market, the principles are not prrescriptive--there are many ways in which it would be possible to achieve an adequate regulatory structure consistent with these principles. The success of the Paper lies in its ability to accommodate vast differences in national legislative and administrative systems. Towards the First Deadline During the first quarter of 1996, the mood in the negotiations turned more optimistic. Buoyed by the increasing acceptance of the Reference Paper, and substantial offers from the leading delegations (particularly the QUAD--Canada, the E.U., Japan and the U.S.), there emerged a sense that an agreement could be reached by the deadline of 30 April 1996. This mood per- sisted despite the failure of the financial services negotiations; lack of progress in the remaining extended track of negotiations on maritime services; and also despite significant unresolved issues dealing with international telecommunications services. With the Reference Paper settled, increased attention was turned to the issues involved with the liberalization of interna- tional services. These services constitute about ten percent of global telecommunications revenues but they are vital to the liberalization of global trade in generaI. International services, however, had long been a bilateral regime--operating with agreements between "correspondents" who were often national monopolies. Few W-I-O members had licensed competitive international operators, and the real prospect emerged that under a multilateral trade agreement many of these national monopolies could establish subsidiaries or affiliates in the territories of liberalized members and self- correspond. Particular concerns included the possibility that foreign carriers might engage in one-way accounting rate by- pass (by routing inbound telephone traffic over international private lines) or squeeze the retail price for outbound traffic (by selling service below cost in the liberalized market chiefly to generate above cost settlements for a monopoly foreign affili- ate). Attention also was devoted to identifying the possible market dynamics in an environment where there existed substantial asymmetry in the degree of international services liberalization. It was well understood that the issue was one of preserving fair competition and that, eventually, when all WTO members liber- alized, markets could be self-regulating. But because many WTO members were not proposing to liberalize, or could not liberalize international services for many years, the negotiators tried to grapple with how to safeguard the market in this inter- regnum (i.e., while the asymmetry in liberalization continued). Most negotiators preferred a solution based on WTO members retaining powers to correct market abuses should they arise, for example, by imposing remedies such as proportional return of traffic and parallel accounting rates, if necessary, and applying monetary penalties or withdrawing licenses from offenders. This came to be known as the ex-post approach. The U.S., however, had a pre-existing practice of applying a reciprocity test, known as the Effective Competitive Opportunities (ECO) test. Needless to say, U.S. carriers were lobbying hard to retain the degree of protection offered by the ECO test. Consequently, U.S. negotiators argued for some sort of ex-ante test whereby applications for licenses to operate in the U.S. could be denied based on an assessment of competitive risk. The carriers from many WTO members’ territories had bad experiences with the ECO test, and its continued existence in a multilateral era was, consequently, not acceptable for most members. As the 30 April 1996 deadline approached, renewed attempts to resolve the international competition impasse failed. To compound matters, the U.S. satellite industry became con- cerned (late in April 1996) with what it saw as a tack of sub- stantial market liberalization for satellite services in the offers on the table. In the last few days of April, the U.S. made it known that it could not proceed with its offer to liberalize its telecommunications market in view of the unresolved interna- tional issues, the satellite services concerns and, in particular, its belief that not enough good quality offers had emerged (i.e., a critical mass of open markets did not exist). The negotiations were on the point of collapse; expectations of success were dashed. Extending the Negotiations At the same time, much goodwill had been harnessed through- out the negotiations and much progress had been made--nego- tiators did not want to see this effort wasted. Nor was there any support for a partial agreement, for example, based on domestic services only. Attention turned to how the negotia- tions could be salvaged. Thus, in the last few days of April, when maximum effort should have been spent on improving offers and obtaining new offers, earnest meetings were con- vened to mount a salvage package. When this package emerged it was accepted easily. It required the 34 offers (cov- ering 48 governments) on the table to remain frozen, a new deadline of 15 February 1997 was set, and the opportunity was given for members to revise (and presumably improve) their offers after 15 January 1997. The NGBT was disbanded and a new Group on Basic Telecommunications (GBT) was established (although this was essentially the same group as the NGBT but without a distinction between participating WTO members and observing WTO members). [2] The fact that success was finally achieved on 15 February 1997 is an indicator that the extension period was well spent. Opportunities were created for the various industry lobbies to acquaint negotiators with their concerns. (A workshop in Hong Kong in July 1996 and an open session with the satellite indus- try in Geneva in October 1996 are but two examples.) The suc- © TeleGeography, Inc. 1997 TeleGeography 1997/98 cessful discussions at the Policy Forum on Global Mobile Personal Communications by Satellite (GMPCS) hosted by the International Telecommunication Union (l’l’U) in October 1996 also assisted greatly in liberalizing this sector. Within the GBT, it was agreed to improve the readability of member’s offers in two respects--the first was to ensure that members’ schedules were taken to be technology neutral unless explicitly stated otherwise. The second was that the availabili- ty of radio spectrum and the spectrum management processes generally should not be used as a disguised limitation on licens- ing new entrants and opening markets. Two Chairman’s notes Box 1. WTO Reference Paper on Regulation The following are definitions and principles on the regulatory frame- work for the basic telecommunications services. I. Competitive safeguards 1.1 Appropriate measures shall be maintained for the pur- pose of preventing suppliers who, alone or together, are a major sup- plier [I from engaging in or continuing anti-competitive practices. 1.2 The anti-competitive practices referred to above shall include in particular: (a) engaging in anti-competitive cross-subsi- dization; (b) using information obtained from competitors with anti- competitive results; and (c) not making available to other services suppliers on a timely basis technical information about essential facil- ities [2] and commercially relevant information which are necessary for them to provide services. 2. Interconnection ...2.2 Interconnection with a major supplier will be ensured at any technically feasible point in the network. Such interconnection is provided: (a) under non-discriminatory terms, conditions (including technical standards and specifications) and rates and of a quality no less favorable than that provided for its own like services or for like services or non-affiliated suppliers or for its subsidiaries or other affil- iates; (b) in a timely fashion, on terms, conditions (including techni- cal standards and specifications) and cost-oriented rates that are transparent, reasonable, having regard to economic feasibility, and sufficiently unbundled so that the supplier need not pay for network components or facilities that it does not require for the service to be provided; and (c) upon request, at points in addition to the network termination points offered to the majodty of users, [3] subject to charges that reflect the cost of construction of necessary additional facilities. 2.3 The procedures applicable for interconnection to a major supplier will be made publicly available. 2.4 It is ensured that a major supplier will make publicly available either its interconnection agreements or a reference inter- connection offer. 2.5 A service supplier requesting interconnection with a major supplier will have recourse, either: (a) at any time; or (b) after a rea- sonable period of time which has been made publicly known to an independent domestic body, which may be a regulatory body as referred to in paragraph 5 below, to resolve disputes regarding appropriate terms, conditions and rates for interconnection within a reasonable period of time, to the extent that these have not been established previously. 3. Universal service Any Member has the right to define the kind of universal service obligation it wishes to maintain. Such obligations will not be regard- ed as anti-competitive per se, provided they are administered in a transparent, non-discriminatory and competitively neutral manner and are not more burdensome than necessary for the kind of univer- sal service defined by the Member. 4. Public availability of licensing criteria Where a license is required, the following will be made publicly avail- able: (a) all the licensing criteria and the period of time normally required to reach a decision concerning an application for a license; and (b) the terms and conditions of individual licenses. The reasons for the denial of a license will be made known to the applicant upon request. 5. Independent regulators The regulatory body is separate from, and not accountable to, any supplier of basic telecommunications services. The decisions of and the procedures used by regulators shall be impartial with respect to all market participants. 6. Allocation and use of scarce resources Any procedures for the allocation and use of scarce resources, includ- ing frequencies, numbers and rights of way, will be carried out in an objective, timely, transparent and non-discriminatory manner. The current state of allocated frequency bands will be made publicly available, but detailed identification of frequencies allocated for spe- cific government uses is not required. Notes [I] A "major supplier" is a supplier which has the ability to materi- ally affect the terms of participation (having regard to price and sup- ply) in the relevant market for basic telecommunications services as a result of: (a) control over essential facilities; or (b) use of its posi- tion in the market. [2] "Essential facilities" mean facilities of a public telecommunica- tions transport network or services that: (a) are exclusively or pre- dominantly provided by a single or limited number of suppliers; and (b) cannot feasibly be economically or technically substituted in order to provide a service. [3] "Users" mean service consumers and service suppliers. TeleGeography 1997/98 © TeleGeography, Inc. 1997 were produced on these matters respectively and, while not legally binding, members did revise their offers to comply. [3] In parallel with the resolution of outstanding technical issues, preogress was made on improving offers and the submission of new offers. By the deadline, the number of offers had swollen to 55 (covering 69 governments) and the new offers included significant markets in Indonesia, Malaysia, South Africa and Israel. The U.S. advised that it believed it had sufficient reserve powers, consistent with the GATS, to take care of its remaining technical issues; that its initiatives on benchmark accounting rates would alleviate its concerns on international issues (see page 45 below); and that a cdtical mass of offers had been achieved--save for direct to home (DTH) and direct broadcast satellites (DBS). (Here the U.S. stunned negotiators by taking an exemption for DTH and DBS services at the last minute.) Still, at the final GBT meeting on the evening of 15 February 1997, the relief at actually having achieved an agreement was palpable. Against the odds, and despite its technical complex- ities and nascent state of liberalization worldwide, a very sub- stantial agreement had emerged. This had happened even when other sectoral negotiations failed and despite the fact that the negotiators pushed the limits on matters like competi- tion policy (the WTO itself had no mandate in this area until the December 1996 Singapore Ministerial meeting. [4]) The suc- cessful conclusion of this first services sector specific agreement breathed life back into the GATS, and offered new hope for future service sector negotiations. How Good is the Agreement? The Agreement reached in Geneva in February 1997 will, in my opinion, come to be seen as a significant achievement and a seminal one in the context of the telecommunications industry’s future development. 1 happen to believe it will prove to be the greatest influencing event on the industry for at least the next ten years, notwithstanding the other great influences in this industry due to factors such as technological change. While the Box 2. The VVT0 Information Technology Agreement In March 1997, negotiators in Geneva finalized the landmark Information Technology Agreement (ITA). It was endorsed by 39 countries accounting for over 90 percent of world trade in informa- tion technology (IT) products, and eliminates custom duties and other import charges on IT products by the year 2000 through annu- al reductions beginning on 1 July 1997. Major signatories to the ITA include Hong Kong, Malaysia, Japan, the E.U. and the U.S. Exports covered by the ITA amount to more than $500 billion annually. The iTA covers the following products: ¯ Computers (including printers, scanner, monitors, hard-disk drives, power supplies, etc.); Agreement did not invent telecom liberalization, it promises to bring forward by many years, and indeed by a decade in some cases, liberalizations which may have eventually occurred but in a less coherent manner With the Agreement, liberalization has the advantages bestowed by a multilateral WTO framework founded on the principle of Most Favored Nation (MFN) and administered under a rules-based international treaty. In a nutshell, the BTA has some fairly obvious benefits: ¯ considerably enhanced and accelerated liberalization in a great number of domestic and international telecom markets covering all technologies, all sectors and allowing greater foreign investment; ¯ a multilateral agreement (MFN-based) in lieu of the exist- ing world of bilateralism replete with complex rules of reci- procity; ¯ regulatory codification and improvement across the mem- bers participating; ¯ the fair market rules of the GATS; ¯ the sanctions of the GATS, including the dispute set"cle- ment mechanism of the WTO; ¯ a chance for the developing world to participate in shap- ing the global trade system under fair and more open rules. The statistics on the BTA are also impressive. The global mar- ket for basic telecommunications revenues was US$600 billion in 1995, and is expected to exceed USS 1 trillion before the end of the decade. Sixty-nine governments representing more than 90 percent of global revenues have participated in the Agreement and more governments will join before it takes effect on 1 January 1998. Furthermore, one should not lose sight of the Information Technologs, Agreement (ITA) which was concluded in parallel, and forms a companion to the BTA (see Box 2). The ITA is con- ¯ Telecom products (including telephone sets, fax machines, modems, pagers, etc.); ¯ Semiconductors (including chips and wafers); ¯ Semiconductor manufacturing equipment; ¯ Software; ¯ Scientific instruments. In addition, the A~reement covers other products such as cash regis- ters, computer network equipment, and certain photocopiers, but not electronic consumer goods. © TeleGeography, Inc. 1997 TeleGeography 1997/98 cerned with information processing whereas the BTA is con- cerned with information transport and distribution. Together the ITA and BTA will underpin the phenomenon we have come to know as the information-based society. It was extremely important to have developing economies, particularly the fast growing economies in the Asia-Pacific Region, participate in these agreements lest they be left out in the cold during one of the most significant structural changes taking place in human society. Is it possible to be too optimistic about the BTA? I think not. It seems to me remarkable that so much progress has been made in quickly liberalizing an industry which has been domi- nated by monopoly for so long. But it would be wrong to see the BTA as the final word on telecom liberalization. It is mere- ly the first multilateral agreement, and while many of the com- mitments made by various WTO members are aggressive, there is scope for these commitments to be improved when the agreement is reviewed in the year 2000. In fact, market fomes many well cause many members to implement additional liber- alization measures in advance of their WTO commitments. Implementation Delivering an adequate level of regulatory practice will not be easy. Even governments with long established regulatory appa- ratus will find these insufficient to meet the regulatory princi- ples committed in the BTA. Speaking from personal experience, having established regulatory processes for two different gov- ernments, I think it will prove very difficult for many nations to deliver on their promises. They will need considerable assis- tance from bodies such as the ITU, the Asia-Pacific Telecommunity (APT) and the World Bank, as well as all the support that the more developed telecom administrations may be able to give them. Practical issues such as how to organize the logistics of a new regulatory body; finding and training suit- able staff; changing legislation and associated regulations are all time consuming and energy sapping. Box 3. Hong Kong and the BTA In all matedal respects Hong Kong’s telecommunications arrange- ments have remained unchanged since sovereignty passed from the U.K. to China on 1 July t997, This should come as no surprise as the Basic Law, adopted by China in 1990 as a framework for the ter- ritory’s post-U.K, governance, grants the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (SAR) autonomy over all matters other than foreign affairs and defense. The Hong Kong SAR, therefore, contin- ues to have its own laws (based on common law) and maintains its own regulatory structures. Without a doubt, Hong Kong has one of the more liberalized regimes within Asia. Other than certain external circuits and services, which are covered by the Hong Kong Telecommunications International (HKT!) exclusive license, Hong Kong has real competition in every sector The word "external" is important as it is used in the HKTI license to cover services to and from Hong Kong. Therefore Hong Kong-China cross border traffic still remains subject to the HKT1 license; however, the SAR Government is continuing negotiations with Hong Kong Telecom, HKTI’s parent,* aimed at mutual resolution of the HK-t-I license before its scheduled expiry in 2006. Other telecom licensing matters were also subject to consultation in the years before the handover to ensure that the Chinese side was acquainted with all major decisions. Investors entedng into Hong Kong’s competitive market have sought assurances that their licens- es would be valid post-1997. China endorsed all licenses referred to them, and over recent years investors have proceeded with confi- dence. The Hong Kong market can now boast some very impressive statistics to indicate its robust condition. For example, in cellular mobile services, penetration rates have will likely exceed 30 percent of the population by the end of 1997. Another area of the SAR’s autonomy relates to trade matters. Long a member of the GATI, Hong Kong is now a WTO member, and will remain so whether or not China itself eventually accedes to the WTO. Thus, the Hong Kong SAR wilt continue to be an active participant in the work of the WTO and it will be responsible for honoring its com- mitments to the WTO. But Hong Kong’s tradition is always to move early on its commitments; on 2 June 1997 Hong Kong signed the Fourth Protocol to the GATS (i.e., the BTA} well before the November 1997 deadline. Furthermore, Hong Kong has not waited to see oth- ers implementing their commitments before implementing its own. *Editor’s Note: In June 1997, Hong Kong Telecom, now majodty owned by the U.K.’s Cable & Wireless (C&W), sold a 5.5 percent equity stake to China Tetecom, the principal Chinese international carder, owned by the Ministry of Posts & Telecommunications (MPT]. At the time, C&W stated that it was also "prepar~ed to transfer to China Telecom, in a subsequent phase, further shares in HKT in expectation of C&W and China Telecom becoming equal shareholders in HK~." The Chinese Government already owns at least 15 percent of HKT’s equity through shares held by China Everbright Holdings Co., which is controlled by the State Council. As part of its new agreement with the MPT, it also was announced that C&W will have the opportunity to become the major telecom investor in China Telecom (Hong Kong), a new publicly listed Hong Kong company which will become a pdmary vehicle for injecting foreign capital into the Chinese telecom market. There are, however, doubts in the mar- ket about this ever happening. TeleGeography 1997/98 © TeleGeography, Inc. 1997 I am pleased to say, however, that Hang Kong’s current regula- tory regime substantially meets the principles stated in the reg- ulatory Reference Paper. Moreover, in several respects the regime in Hang Kong exceeds them with its development of number portability and local loop interconnection (see Box 3). Yet, if regulatory commitments are not met by some WTO members, 1 suspect it will not be through a lack of will but rather a circumstance brought about by difficulties at the prac- tical level. As there are severe sanctions in the WTO concern- ing dispute resolution, I expect that no WTO member will care- lessly risk not meeting its obligations, but there will need to be a sensitivity to genuine calls for practical assistance. Pmother issue requiring substantial attention is implementation of the fundamental Most Favored Nation (MFN) principle. There is little established history of MFN in service sectors. How it is applied in a complex sector like telecommunications-- where end-to-end supply of an international service may require the joint provision of service--raises new dimensions. Clearly those WTO members that currently apply reciprocity- based entry rules will have to dispose of them by I January 1998, but this would not seem to be the only MFN issue likely to arise. During the negotiations leading up to the Agreement, some thought was given to whether the accounting rate system itself was MFN-consistent because it encourages bilateral agree- ments and differential rates. Time did not allow a resolution of this question with the result that a handful of WTO members sought refuge by taking out MFN-exemptions on accounting rates. To stem a rush of such exemptions, all participants in the Agreement decided very late in the negotiations to enter into a "gentleman’s stand-still agreement" not to subject accounting Box 4. Accounting Rates and the MFN Rule: A Gentleman’s Agreement The legal status of many services sector commercial practices are proving problematic as the GATS is implemented. One example in Basic Telecommunications is the accounting rate system. Historically, this system involves bilaterally negotiated arrangements, and thus rates for landing a minute of telephone traffic between one WTO member and another are often vastly different. Different VVTO coun- tries pay different settlement rates to land traffic in any given WTO nation despite the fact that it costs much the same to terminate calls, irrespective of the origination point. Under the GATS, a fundamental plank is the principle of Most Favored Nation (MFN). Article 11 of the GATS is quite specific: "With respect to any measure covered by this Agreement, each Member shall accord immediately and unconditionally to services and service suppliers of any other Member treatment no less favorable than it accords to like services and service suppliers of any other country." The words "immediately and unconditionally" stress the primacy of this obligation, and members are not allowed to maintain measures inconsistent with this obligation. Several delegations in the COUrse of the negotiations became con- cerned that the accounting rate system felt foul of Article 11. India was the first to signal its desire to take out an MFN exemption to protect its position on accounting rates. Despite much discussion and debate among experts, it could not be satisfactorily resolved whether the accounting rate system breached the GATS. Ultimately this sort of issue can only be resolved if a WTO member lodges a dispute for resolution by a WTO Panel an action not immediately attractive to the negotiators. However, Article II was not the only consideration. For those mem- bers maintaining monopolies, Article VIII appeared relevant. It imposes obligations on monopolies and exclusive service providers not to act in a manner inconsistent with a member’s MFN obliga- tions. Hence, a member’s recourse to an MFN exemption may not prevail against a challenge under Article VIII. To prevent this issue puncturing the success of a BTA, it was decided in the last 24 hours of the negotiations to invoke a "gentleman’s stand-still agreement." In essence, this informal device was intend- ed to make the possibility of a challenge to the accounting rate sys- tem a remote prospect for at least three years. In the Chairman’s final report of the Group on Basic Telecommunications, paragraph 7 was added by common agreement. It reads: The Group noted that five countries had taken Article II exemp- tions in respect of the application of differential accounting rates to services and service suppliers to other Members. In the light of the fact that the accounting rate system estabhshed under the International Telecommunications Regulations is the usual method of terminating international traffic and by its nature involves dif- ferential rates, and in order to avoid the submission of further such exemptions, it is the understanding of the Group that: the application of such accounting rates would not give rise to action by Members under dispute settlement under the WTO; and that this understanding will be reviewed not later than the com- mencement of the further Round of negotiations on Services Commitments due to begin not later than l January 2000. As the 15 February t997 negotiating deadline approached, more members became nervous of their exposure on accounting rates and four more sought refuge in MFN exemptions. An avalanche of like exemptions threatened. This leaves unanswered the question whether the accounting rate sys- tem is GATS-consistent. The stand-still agreement has brought breathing space, however, so that the issue can be dealt with initial- ly by the ITU (see page 37 below). © TeleGeography, Inc. 1997 TeleGeography 1997/98 rate issues to the WTO’s dispute settlement processes for three years.[5] Effectively this matter was parked in the hope that work done in appropriate fora (for example, the ITU) would assist greatly in resolving the dilemma (see Box 4). Increasingly it appears that the accounting rate system will be an early casualty of the new regime, and it might well be replaced with a set of MFN-consistent termination charges. Once truly cost-based termination charges are in place, the economics of international telephony are also likely to become more rational, and many of the current pricing distortions in international charges should be worked away by the forces of competition (see Box 5). A Final Cornment The VVTO BTA is a sure sign that the telecom sector has entered into the mainstream of trade and commerce. Telecommunications can, and should, function like all the other industry sectors that have operated competitively for decades. The new regime for telecommunications is thus little different from the old regime for most other industry sectors. All that means is that the telecom industry must continue to evolve towards freedom of entry (and exit); market-dictated terms; the application of general competition law; and the eventual dismantling of industry-specific regulation as freely competitive markets become established. The BTA will hasten the onset of this new regime and, thankfully, will allow the global industry to side-step the emerging ills of enhanced bilateralism which were spreading under the old regime. In the end, it was the recognition that the status quo was nei- ther preferable to a multilateral agreement, nor helpful to their longer-term interests, that convinced many developing nations to support the BTA. The time had come for a quantum shift. The WTO negotiations provided the opportunity, and good sense prevailed to ensure that the opportunity was not squan- dered. ~i.~ Alex Arena was an inaugural member of AUSTEL (the first Australian telecommunications regulatory authority) from 1989 to 1992, and the Director General of Hong Kong’s Office of Telecommunications Authority (OFTA) from 1993 to 1997. He also led Hong Kong’s delegation to the W-I’O negotiations on basic telecommunications services and currently is Telecommunications Special Advisor to the Government of Hong Kong Special Administrative Region. Box 5. Predictions of the GBT’s Chairman In May, 1997, Nell McMillan, the former Chairman of the WTO Group on Basic Telecommunications (GBT), made the following remarks about the Basic Telecommunications Agreement and accounting rates. Mr. McMillan is Director of International Communications Policy at the U.K. Department of Trade and Industry (DT1). What does [the WTO Agreement] mean for the world market? 1 think it is going to, first of all, increase the trend which we’re already seeing--[the] globalization of certain services. I think we will see the international alliances which had been forming over the last three to four years increasing their scope both in terms of services and in the number of members that they have The other thing that will happen, I think, is that via people open- ing their markets, you’ll see, for instance in Europe and in the United States, some quite fundamental changes to those markets. The accounting rate system, the traditional way that you transfer traffic from one international operator to another, will collapse very rapidly. We’ll see in Europe, for instance that the account- ing rate will disappear on January t, 1998, which 1’II come back to .... I think on all those developed routes, [we’ll see] the abih- ty of people to set up their own facilities and bypass the account- ing rate, or for that matter [not to] bypass the accounting rate but at least negotiate a much lower level of commercial agree- ment for interconnection of traffic between one country and another based on the opportunity costs of building their own facilities. [This] will mean that the accounting rates will not be able to be maintained. I think they’ll also put immense pressure on those countries that are not interested in competition and who have traditionally had high accounting rates because the other effect of this will be a reduction in what people charge the con- sumer for international telephony.... And I wilt briefly [say] what I think is going to happen in the E.U. We have a legal obligation in all member states, with three excep- tions--which are Ireland, Greece and Portugal where you have until the year 2000--all the other member states have got until January 1, 1998, to remove any limitation on the provision of basic telecommunication services and on the provision of net- works. That means that, as I was saying, the accounting rate can in pdncipte disappear within the European Community. On top of that, [the EU has] harmonizing Directives which require people to provide local access interconnection charges for any service to their network. So that means that you can’t say this is a call from Germany to France that’s going to have to be charged differently from a France-to-France call. It’s going to be charged the same .... The next stage, of course, is that one member state can also offer the rest of the European market to countries outside of Europe so the accounting rates between the rest of the world and Europe will fall very quickly as well .... Excerpted from "Global Telecom Regulatory Reforms-Accelerating the Pace of Competition," Salomon Brothers Global Equity Research, May 20, 1997. TeleGeography 1997/98 © TeleGeography, Inc. 1997 Notes [1] The Negotiating Group on Basic Telecommunications (NGBT) was established pursuant to a Ministerial Decision adopted by the WTO Trade Negotiations Committee on 15 December 1994, "Decision on Negotiations on Basic Telecommunications." [2] The GBT was established pursuant to the "Decision on Commitments in Basic Telecommunications" Council for Trade in Services on 30 April 1996," WTO Document S/L/19. [3] See "Notes for Scheduling Basic Telecommunications Services Commitments"--WTO Document S/GBT/W/2/Revl, 16 January 1997; and "Market Access Limitations on Spectrum Availability"--WTO Document S/GBTNV/3, 3 February 1997; both notes also are appended to the GBT’s Final Report, WTO Document S/GBT/4, 15 February 1997. [4] Article IV of the Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization establishes regular biennial meetings of the WTO at the Ministerial level. The first such meeting was held in Singapore, 9-13 December 1996. The resulting Singapore Ministerial Declaration (VVTO Document WT/MIN(96)/DEC, 13 December 1996) contained, among other things new commit- ments on investment and competition: Ministers agreed to "establish a working group to study issues raised by Members relating to the interaction between trade and competition poli- cy, including anti-competitive practices, in order to identify any areas that may merit further consideration in the WTO frame- work." Ministerial Declaration, ¶ 20. [5] The Final Report of the GBT is officially known as the "Report of the Group on Basic Telecommunications" WTO Document S/GBT/4, 15 February 1997. Paragraph 7 contains the "gentleman’s stand-still agreement." © TeleGeography, Inc. 1997 TeleGeography 1997/98 Is There Life for the Accounting Rate System? by Tim Kelly, International Telecommunication Union Ever since the first international telegram was sent in the 19th century, countries have been looking for ways to share the costs and revenue from international telecommunication. The system they hit upon--international accounting rates--is a dual price system: for each call, one price is charged to users and anoth- er to operators. The price for users is the collection charge, or retail price. A second pdce is agreed by the terminating and originating Public Telecommunication Operators (PTOs); this is the accounting rate, or wholesale price. Payments between PTOs are based on net traffic balances. The PTO originating more traffic pays the terminating PTO a sum equal to the number of surplus minutes multiplied by the settlement rate. Typically this rate is one-half the accounting rate, reflecting the fact that each carrier pro- vides half of the end-to-end transmission facilities (see Box 1 ). The Beginning of the End This payment system worked well for about 1 O0 years, but the gap between collection charges and settlement rates progres- sively narrowed. In 1992, the members of the International Telecommunication Union (ITU) agreed upon ITU-T Recommendation D. 140. it commits countries to negotiate accounting rates based on principles of cost-orientation, non- discrimination and transparency, and to do so within five years. That period ended in 1997. While it was clear that some progress has been made--after 1992 accounting rates fell twice as fast as they had in the previous five years--the adjustment process failed on all three counts: ¯ Accounting rates are still far from being cost-oriented and international telephone services are often used to cross- subsidize other domestic services. One way of estimating the degree to which settlement rates are inflated is to com- pare the cost of terminating a call originated by a local mobile phone with a call originated internationally. For instance, the price charged by the U.K. operator, BT, for ter- minating a domestic mobile call is below $0.02 per minute whereas the costs of terminating an international call ranges from $0.08 per minute to more than $1.00 per minute. While BT would no doubt wish to reduce some of these rates, particularly with countries to which it sends more traf- fic than it receives, it is unable to do so without the consent of the PTO in the foreign country. Accounting rates are rarely non-discriminatory because they are negotiated on a bilateral basis. Thus a price charged for terminating traffic from one country might be as much as ten times higher than the price charged to another country, even though the costs of terminating the call might be similar. ¯ Despite the pressure for transparency, only three coun- tries-the U.S., the U.K., and New Zealand have obliged their carders to disclose their rates. Figure I. Uneven Settlements U.S. International Telephone Traffic Balances, 1990-95 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 ,’~ Traffic Balance (bn minutes) ¯ Settlement Balance (USSbn) -86 Source’ World Telecommunication Development Report 1996/97, ITU Top 5 Deficit and Surplus Traffic Countries, 1995 Traff=c balances =n mdl~ons of minutes © TeleGeography, Inc. 1997 TeleGeol~raphy 1997/98 © TeleGeography, Inc. 1997 Deficits and Bypass Between 1992 and 1997, many different national and interna- tional bodies tackled the accounting rate reform issue, includ- ing the U.S. Federal Communications Commission (FCC), the Paris-based Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), the World Trade Organization (WTO), the European Union (EU) and the ITU. They had little success. Traffic and settlement imbalances had become worse. In 1995, the estimated value of gross settlement payments worldwide was $28.4 billion, or 54 pement of the total international tele- phone revenue of $52.8 billion; in 1990 settlements were but $I 5.9 billion as compared to total revenues of $32.9 billion. The increase in settlement payments has been caused, at least in part, by differences in the rate of market liberalization. In particular, many countries have liberalized their markets for call origination (allowing, for instance, the use of call-back, calling cards and country-direct services) but have not yet liberalized the market for ca]] termination services (disallowing new facili- ties-based international networks). Even where call termination services have been liberalized, incumbent ex-monopolies ",’IqIlr..--~-. ...... ,----- Iii 4iim i~u~i~ii~ © TeleGeographg, Inc. 1997 TeleGeography 1997/98 remain in a strong position. Consequently, imbalances continue to grow. The U.S., which is the home of most call-back operators, had an estimated settlement deficit of US$5.4 billion in 1996. But other countries, notably Germany, Japan, Switzerland and Singapore, also send out much more traffic than they receive (see Figure 1 ). Understandably, it is these countries which have the most urgent interest in reforming the system. In the last years, several factors have added to this urgency: ¯ At the end of 1996, the FCC announced its intention to oblige U.S. telephone carriers to limit their per minute settlement rates to a prescribed rate or "benchmark." The benchmark rate reflects the estimated call termination costs in each country, adjusting for its economic status. In August 1997, after a period of consultation during which more than 90 foreign governments and carders expFessed their con- cerns, the FCC confirmed that the benchmarks would be implemented at rates ranging from $0.15 per minute for high income countries to $0.23 for low income countries (see page 45). The FCC’s action is significant in represent- ing a move away from bilaterally negotiated rates towards threatened unilateral action. ¯ Pursuant to the February 1997 WTO Basic Telecommunications Agreement, at least 20 countries (including most countries of Western Europe) plan to license competing international carders as early as January I, 1998. With liberalized market entry, international operators can establish a switch on a foreign terdtory, either directly or indirectly via a consortium, and then provide end-to-end service to that switch. The advantage is that they wi]] then be able to self-correspond and will either pay a settlement charge to themselves or a local intemonnection charge to a domestic carder. ¯ More options have become available to operators for routing traffic. For instance, many companies are now actively publicizing their refile services, permitting operators Box 2. Ten Propositions for Accounting Rate Reform What,direction should accounting rate reform take? The following propositions offer a personal view of one direction that could be taken: 1. The accounting rate system is in:need of reform. In pa~cular, needs to’be adapted to a cQmpetitiv6 manet environment, 2. In competitive’ markets~ it is likely that ~evera| different sys- tems for cost- and revenue-division may co-exist, Carriers should be able to choose which one suits them best. 3. The settlement rate comprises three separate cps~ compo- hents: the international transmission link, the ,international p.~teway, and carl terminati~ !national extension], Reform of the~ setthament rate system will inyol~,e unbundling those three elements and allow- ing carriers to make~ economically rational build.pr buy derisions for each separate componen~ 4, In a liberalized environment, the business for originating calls and the business for terminating calls are quite separate. Both should be viewed as tradable services, A country which is opening its mar~ "k~t’ should provide n~rket access’for ~Oth call ~fi~in~tion and call termination ser~ice~. 5. In the majodt~ of countries, call-termination.will probably be handled rc~iniy by an incEmbent (ex-)monopo]y. The regulato,r shoUld’thus ensure that, call termination is handled in a transparent, nonLdiscriminatory and cost-oriented manner. These principles; are outlined in tTLI~T Reco~mmendation D. 40. 6. Cost structure~ ;are asymmetric. Therefore there i~ no reason to expect or to insist,that the costs for major ne~work components wilt "be the sam~ in alt countries, tn pa~cular, developing countries wifl need time and assistance to,make the transition from the current accounting rate regime to a new cost-oriented system. ’ 7. The cost of call termination should be distance insensitive within a i:ountry. While there may be minor differences r~lated to the distance from the international gateway, these can and should be averaged out. 8. The mai~ aird of the regulator should be to protect the cus- tomer, "not, to protect the industry. To this end, regulators ~hould ensure that the gap between the collection charge andthe cal! ter= ruination charge is minimized. The best way to achieve this is through competition, tn a competitive marketplace, there should be no need for ~prlnciples such as uniform termination charges or proportional return. 9. Settlement payment deficits are primarily the result of unbal- anced traffic flows which are, in turn, partly the result of the adol~ tion of alternative call origination procedures. As such, settieme~ payment deficits are an inevitable outcome of the battle among car- tiers for market share. In the transition to a competitive environment, settlement deficits can b~ expected to increase, rather than to ¯ decrease. t~. Incumbent operators with market power should offer the same¯ prtce structur~e for call termination to all market.players on a non-dis~- cd~in~a~t~ry basis, irrespective of the odgin oi’" rouung ~of’a cal~. Discounts may be available for volume of traffic. HOwever, a domi- nant operator offedr~g call t~rmination should, offer the same price schedule to all comers, including companies with, which it~ has a finan- dal relationship., Sou~c~ 11m’Ke]ly TeleGeography 1997/98 © TeleGeographyo Inc. 1997 to offer least cost routing, whereas previously such deals had been negotiated behind closed doors (see page 39). Equally, many companies are now offering Internet telepho- ny and fax services, either from a computer to a telephone or, in some cases, between two telephones routed via the lnternet. PTOs testing this service, or offering it commercial- ly, include Telecom Finland, Deutsche Telekom, AT&T Japan and USA Global Link. Box 3. Like Traffic, Like Water International telephone traffic is a bit like water; it always tends to follow the path of least resistance. Other things being equal, the direction of traffic will follow price differentials in the same way that flows of water reflect underlying gradients. As explained above, for international telephone calls, there are real- ly two pdces: a retail price paid by consumers and a wholesale price agreed by the PTOs providing the service. Historically, thanks to the accounting rate system, there was effectively no gradient in the wholesale price because the same rate (the accounting rate) was applied in both directions. Thus, insofar as there was a price differ- ential, it was in the prices charged to end-users (the collection charge} and the mark-up that this represented over the accounting rate. In competitive markets with significant economies of scale, such as the U.S., the margin between the retail pdce and the wholesale pdce tended to be lower than in other countries, so that marginally more traffic originated from the U.S. than from other countries, In the early 1990s, two things happened to change that picture. First, computer technology became available which made it easier to reverse the direction of a call, through call-back, calling cards or country-direct services. Second, wholesale carriers in the U.S. began selling outbound capacity at rates either at, or just below, the settle- ment rate. They were able to do this because a bizarre U.S. regula- tion-proportionate return of traffic--meant that they could afford to lose money on outbound traffic in order to gain proportionately more return traffic and the associated per minute settlement payments. Thus proportionate return created an artificial gradient in the settle- ment rate on the U.S. route which made it relatively more profitable to terminate traffic in foreign countries. As a result of these devel- opments, call-turnaround is now a multi-billion dollar industry (see charts below). Developing countries have made angry-sounding noises about call- back and many of them have tded to ban it. But the reality is that by reversing the direction of traffic from poor countries, call-back sends developing countries more settlement payments. For a coun- try such as India, call-turnaround probably generated around 82 mil- lion minutes of traffic in 1995 and contributed to India’s net settle- ment in-payment of US$210 million from the U.S. But what would happen if a real gradient were created in the settle- ment rate? What would happen if India charged $0.23 per minute to land traffic while U.S. carriers charged only SO.07 to terminate traf- fic? This proposition is not as far fetched as it may seem, because even though India is a member of the WTO, and therefore eligible to enter the U.S. market, it has not agreed to open its market to foreign carders. Hence, because it may soon become more profitable to ter- minate traffic in the U.S. than in India, the direction of call-turn- around may be reversed. Even if one ignores proportionate return for the moment, which the FCC may waive, a switch located on Indian territory would be able to offer U.S. residents a rate only slightly above $0.05 per minute to call India whereas U.S. based carders could only compete at rates above £,0.25 per minute. Of course, the Indian operator offering the call-back service would have to make a net settlement payment towards the U.S., but this should be easily covered by U.S. collection charges. Perhaps those developing coun- tries which are currently eager to ban call-back ought to think a little more seriously about this market opportunity before foreclosing their options. Traffic on U.S.-Hong Kong Route, 1988-1995 Traffic on U.S.-India Route, 1988-1995 450 400 /T 350 otal traffic 300 200250 ,., .,~ ’ U.S outgoing 150 H K. outgoing 100 50 ~’-- -- -- -- .~ Callturn- around (esL) 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 Traff=c in milhons of minutes Source: Adapted from D/recb’on of Traffic Database, ITU/TeleGeography, Inc. 4OO 35O 300 /Total,, traffic 250 ~~,,;" U.S. outgoing 200 150 ,,,;. "" Call turn- 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 Traffic in mdhons of minutes © TeleGeography, Inc. 1997 © TeleGeography, Inc. 1997 TeleGeography 1997/98 All of these developments threaten to undermine the account- ing rate system. But in other respects, the traditional system continues to hold sway: some 66 countries have "banned" call- back and other alternative routing systems, and only a handful of countries have so far liberalized resale or mille. This has led to increasing disparities in the pace of liberalization which will inevitably have an impact on the future of the accounting rate system. Disappearing Trick Still many commentators suppose that accounting rates will dis- appear, almost overnight, on January 1, 1998. How likely is that scenario? ¯ The U.S. carriers would appear to have the strongest vested interests in changing the system. But ironically, from the FCC at least, there is little talk of changing the system, just reducing the levels of settlement payments. Yet, any rational reform of the system would begin by "unbundling" accounting rates into their component parts so that carriers, in a competitive market, can make rational build or buy decisions (see Box 2). But if the accounting rate system is abandoned, the principle of 50:50 revenue division would need to go too. The FCC estimates that the cost of termi- nating calls in the United States to be approximately S0.04 to $0.07 per minute, whereas the FCC’s lowest average benchmark rate proposed for other countries is S0.I 5 per minute. Thus, if accounting rates were abandoned, U.S. car- tiers might pay more than twice as much to terminate calls in foreign countries. ¯ In principle, some of the main beneficiaries of alterna- tives to accounting rates should be the developing coun- tries. If they can show higher costs, they would presumably charge higher intemonnection payments than they would expect to pay in developed countries. But developing coun- tries are reluctant to change the accounting rate system because, for the moment, it works in their favor, and they are afraid to tamper Moving away from a 50:50 cost split also might mean that the direction of call-back, and there- fore the direction of settlement payments, would be reversed (see Box 3). ¯ With a system of interconnection charges, every single minute of traffic would need to be accounted for. Traditionally, most international telephone traffic was "trad- ed" in that outgoing traffic more or less balanced out incom- ing traffic. Accounting rates only gained significance once traffic was out of balance. International operators may still find it convenient to trade traffic, particularly between alliance partners, rather than paying interconnection charges. Box 4. Next Steps for the ITU Even before the FCC announced its Benchmarks Order, 1997 was due to be a significant year for the future of the accounting rate system, The multilateral agreement (ffU-T Recommendation D. 140) reached in 1992 set out a five-year timetable for achieving cost-oriented accounting rates. Thus, early in 1997, with accounting rates still at variance with cost on most routes, the Secretary-General of the ITU, Dr Pekka Tarjanne, targeted accounting rate reform as a key issue of his second term, which ends after 1998. In a series of speeches and position papers Tarjanne has outlined a set of principles that could provide the basis for reform: ¯ Continuity and viability of international telecommunications service; ¯ Transparency; ¯ Non-discrimination; ¯ Cost-oriented tariffing; ¯ Competition; ¯ The benefits of accounting rate reductions should be passed on to end-users; ¯ Ease of transition for developing countries. At the start of 1997, Tarjanne also established an Informal Expert Group to advise him on accounting rate reform headed by Mr. Robert Bruce, an international lawyer. The Expert Group has moved in the same direction as the FCC Benchmarking Order--towards lower rates--but by a quite different route. The report of the group* rec- ommended a multilateral move towards reducing accounting rates by five to ten percent per year, and argued that few settlement rates should be greater than $0.25 per minute. Furthermore, the report foresees a much more rapid move away from bilaterally negotiated accounting rates than does the FCC. ITU-T Study Group 5, which is also reviewing these issues, has established a working group to report on accounting rate reform, focusing on call termination charges which are favored by many countries. The next major ITU event is the World Telecommunication Policy Forum in Geneva, 16-18 March 1998. It will focus on trade in telecommunications, notably the accounting and settlement system. As part of the preparations for the meeting, the ITU is commissioning a series of case studies looking at the impact of the changing telecommunications environment on specific developing countries. If a multilateral alternative to the FCC’s action is to emerge, that meet- ing holds the best chance of success. The report of the Informal Expert Group, together with other ITU Recommendations, speeches, position papers and analyzes, can be found on the ITU web site at ht-tp://www.itu.int/intset. Source: Tim Kelly TeleGeography 1997/98 © TeleGeography, Inc. 1997 Undoubtedly, accounting rates will be replaced progressively by other systems. But the accounting rate system, which is already more than 100 years old, may surprise some with its continu- ing longevity. Accounting rates will most likely co-exist as one of a menu of options. Increasingly, we will see four types of rela- tionship between countries: ¯ Monopoly to monopoly relations, where accounting rates or sender-keeps-all (SKA) will continue to be preva- lent. ¯ Competitive to competitive relations, where a variety of different revenue-division mechanisms will come into play including interconnection charges, accounting rates and SKA. In the absence of an agreed framework for negotiation, commercial pressure will take over and PTOs will negotiate the highest rates they can for access to their home network and the lowest rates possible for access to foreign networks. ¯ Competitive to monopoly relations, where the com- petitive operator will be obliged to pay a half-circuit based termination charge and will no doubt try to apply a similar charge to incoming calls. Where monopoly countries contin- ue to maintain highly differentiated rates between countries, they will be vulnerable to traffic refile. Thus, the commercial logic will dictate that they move towards uniform termina- tion charges. Several Asia-Pacific PTOs have publicly pro- posed a move in this direction. ¯ Monopoly to competitive relations, where the tempta- tion for the monopoly would be to establish a switch on the foreign territory while still requiring half-circuit based termi- nation charges in reverse. This is unlikely to be permitted. For instance, the FCC has recently proposed that open mar- ket access be granted only to WTO Members, and not to others. The post-1998 world will certainly be different, but it will take a while for the new environment to take shape. The ITU’s own accounting rate reform agenda may still play an important role (see Box 4). Even taking that into account though, the most likely scenario is that the international telephony market will fragment into three distinct operations: ¯ Between countries, international alliances such as Concert, Global One and AT&T-Unisource will offer an end- to-end connectivity where access is permitted, or tradition- al half-circuit access where it is not. These alliances will face growing competition from Internet telephony, from interna- tional facilities owners (e.g., satellite operators, private cable operators) selling direct to consumers, and from a bur- geoning spot-market in resale rates. ¯ For call-origination, competition will continue to be intense as new market entrants in areas such as call-back, lnternet telephony and resale compete with more convert- tional carriers who will promote their brand name advantage through calling card services and loyalty schemes. ¯ For call termination, competition will be slow to ardve as former and actual monopolies continue to hold sway and to dictate rates for interconnection. Their dominant position will decline slowly, but it takes a long time, and considerable investment, for new networks to be deployed. Thus, PTOs will seek to charge the highest rates they are able for call ter- mination while they still retain a dominant position. What about users? What impact will users notice after the changes of 1998? The FCC predicts that the average price of a call originating from the United States will fall from a current average of S0.88 per minute to approximately $0.20 within five years. That may be too optimistic. National operators in Europe and elsewhere have been using the last few months of their monopoly to com- plete the tariff rebalancing process by raising fixed charges and local call charges while reducing long distance and internation- al call charges. But the actual evidence for price cutting is more limited. International call prices have actually been falling by only three to five percent per year Indeed, in the U.S., where competition is arguably the most intense, tariffed call prices for major carriers actually rose from 1995 to 1997. Certainly, bar- gain prices will be available to those willing to "chop and change" between carriers. They will not be universally available, however Telephone carriers are not yet ready to give up the golden goose of international telephony. ~i~.~ Dr Tim Kelly (Tim.Kelly@itu.int) is Head of Operations Analysis at the Geneva-based ITU. He is co-author of the ITU/TeleGeography publication Direction of Traffic 1996: Trends in International Telephone Tariffs. The views expressed here are his own and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the ITU or its membership. © TeleGeography, Inc. 1997 TeleGeography 1997/98 The Market for Refile and Transit Services by Michael J. Scheele and Cathleen Woodafl, M.J. Scheele & Associates Settlement payments to foreign carriers are typically one of the largest costs for an international telephone company. Some companies have, however, taken advantage of new switching technologies to reduce these costs. One new option for routing traffic indirectly--traffic refile--has become increasingly popu- lar, especially for new carriers. The indirect routing of traffic is not new. Third country routing arrangements are as old as the industry. Many countries are landlocked, and prior to the advent of satellite communica- tions, had to transit their traffic through neighboring countries to reach the rest of the world. In addition, for economic rea- sons, it is generally only rational for carriers to establish their own direct transmission facilities for routes on which they have a substantial traffic base. For smaller companies this might mean they have direct routes to only ten or 15 countries; the remainder of the countries are served on a transit basis. But transit and refile arrangements differ in important ways. A transit arrangement, as used here, refers to an indirect rout- ing arrangement, which has the prior approval of all parties concerned and is subject to a traditional settlement fee. In con- trast, if traffic is refiled, at least one of the parties, typically the destination country, is unaware of the origin of the traffic and has not given its consent (see Figure 1). Economics of "Smuggling" It has been said that refile is the closest thing the telecom industry has to smuggling. For example, if a Chilean telephone carrier wished to reduce the settlement cost of sending traffic to a European country (e.g., Belgium) it might route its calls via a U.S. carrier, which will "smuggle" them into Belgium as part of its U.S. outbound traffic stream. The Chilean carrier saves money simply because the per minute payment to the U.S. car- Eer is tess than the cost of settling with Belgium. So what’s in it for the U.S. refite carrier?. First, the U.S. carri- er could profit because the per minute fee paid in by the Chilean carrier (e.g., S].O0) is greater than its costs plus the per minute settlement paid out to the Belgian carrier (e.g., S0.50). Second, the U.S. carrier can profit by increasing its market share on the Belgium route, thus increasing the propor- Figure 1. Transit vs. Refile Call passes from A through B to terminate at C. All parties have knowledge of traffic route. A pays B a transit fee and settles with C. Transit Traffic Refile Traffic Call passes from A and ; terminates at B; callis ";~ ’~ reoriginated at B and ~u sent to its final destin- nt ation C. A pays B and B settles with C. I Money Minutes Transit is typically a three party agreement while refile is a two party agreement. In practice, refile occurs atthe switch of the intermediate carrier (here, operator B) which strips the numbering code identifying the call’s country of origin, and adds its own origination code. The traffic is then sent on to its final destination (C) and appears to have originated from B, not A. © TeleGeography, Inc. 1997 TeleGeography 1997/98 © TeleGeography, Inc. 1997 Figure 2. Smuggler’s Incentives Revenue With Arbitrage Revenue With and Proportionate Return Proportionate Return Only Net revenue = $1.00 Net revenue = $0.50 A smuggler’s incentive to offer refile services ~s complex. Even when A’s fee pa~d to B =s less than B’s settlement to C, B can still profit through a greater flow of return traffic and settlements However, if traffic on the B to C route =s =mbalanced (as ~t usually is), the payback from proportionate return will vary. D=agrarns above assume that A’s settlement payment to terminate traffic w=th C ~s greater than A’s payment to B. © TeleGeography, Inc. 1997 Refile Rates on Selected Routes (US$) Settlement Smuggled Route Refi|e Rate Rate Belgium via the U.S. 0.14 0.21 Brazil via the U.S. 0.54 0.45 China via the U.S. 0.55 0.88 Hong Kong via the U.S. 0.20 0.40 India via the U.S. 0.7t 0.79 Japan via the U.S. 0.32 0.43 Pakistan via Western Europe 0.90 1.16 Russia via Western Europe 0.41 0.37 Note: Refile rates are average for 1997. U.S. settlement rates are current to July 1997. "Western Europe" settlement rates reflect BT’s U.K.-origi- nated rate as reported by OFTEL in October 1996. Many of the refile rates above undercut the settlement rate and therefore, the carriers in these cases rely upon return traffic settlements for profit. Source: M.J. Scheele Associates and TeleGeography, Inc. tion of future incoming traffic (and settlements) due back from Belgium (see Figure 2). In fact, even if the settlement rates for originating and terminating points are the same, the refiier can make a profit by guaranteeing future incoming traffic. (For a full explanation of how accounting rates work see page 34.) The Refile Decision The decision to use refile, however, is not an easy one--there can be negative side effects. First and foremost, a carrier must consider the relative value of its correspondent relationships. When established carders bypass traditional correspondents, they run the r~sk of damaging the relationship with that carrier and their future contract negotiations. Use of alternative rout- ing may also violate existing operating agreements, which may contain specific provisions for traffic routing (see Box 1). Thus, large carriers must consider the following before using refile services: Figure 3, The Geography of Traffic Refile (1997) Major Refile Carriers Country/Region of Origin Australia South America Sweden U.K. U.S. West Africa Refile Hubs Australia U.K. U.S. 25-100 million minutes Austrian PTT Belgacom Deutsche Telekom Facilicom Mercury Swisscom Telecom Italia Telstra Trescom Viatel WorldCom >100 million minutes AT&T BT Cherry Communications Global One MCI Pacific Gateway Exchange Primus Singapore Telecom Sprint T~l~globe WorldXchange Destination Countries Brazil China Hong Kong India Indonesia Japan Korea Malaysia Pakistan Philippines Singapore Russia Note: Only major originating and terminating countnes regions are hsted. Not all refile carriers are listed. Some refile volumes are estimated Source: M.J. Scheele & Associates © TeleGeography, Inc. 199~ TeleGeography 1997/98 Figure 4. New Carriers Boost Refile Market Selected Facilities-based International Carriers and Revenues, 1996 US$million ACC Corp 322 Cherry Communications 315 Facilicom 100 f0NOROLA 276 P6E 162 Primus/Axicorp 210 Star 208 Total Tel 50 Trescom 139 Viatel t20 WorldXchange 212 Total 2,114 Source: M.J, Scheele Associates ¯ Will the decrease in outgoing traffic to a particular coun- try affect their overall market share, thereby negatively affecting the overall proportionate return of minutes? ¯ Does refiling traffic to certain emerging, closed markets jeopardize their opportunity to be included in negotiations as these markets liberalize? ¯ Does the quality of the connection suffer when using an alternative carrier to refile traffic? The Spot Market The market for refile services is being driven in s~gnificant part by a fast-growing group of new international carriers (see Figure 4). The insurgence of these new carriers, and their quest for low or least cost routing has given rise to what has been termed the spot market. By spot market we mean a market for short term (one month or less) international transmission contracts which reflect current supply (capacity) and demand (businessl conditions in the market. The spot market thus contrasts with the tong term (one to five year) bilateral operating agreements which underpin the pricing arrangements of most incumbent carriers. The international spot market began in approximately 1993 when international call-back services became a significant busi- ness in the U.S. At that time smaller U.S. international carriers and, more importantly, switchless resellers began to be offered competitive international prices from AT&T, MCI and Sprint. Without long-term commitments, new carriers can quickly reroute traffic according to the latest prevailing rates. Additional information on the spot market, as well as current rates, can be found at www.spotrates.com. How Much Traffic Is Being Refiled? Europe and the Americas are by far the most aggressive refite and transit regions, accounting for approximately 80 percent of the world’s total refile traffic (see Figure 5). In contrast, the Asia-Pacific region accounts for about 10 percent of global refile traffic. (Part of the reason for the disparity stems from Asian carriers’ unwillingness to jeopardize their correspondent rela- tionships by routing traffic outside the bilateral stream.) The volume of transit traffic generally declines as refile traffic increases (see Figure 6). Market liberalization will enhance this trend as new routes open and new entrants to the market pro- vide multiple choices for carrier traffic. Why pay a transit fee when your competition is refiling traffic at a lower rate? By the year 2000, we estimate that the world’s largest carriers will be refiling about 20-25 percent of their international traf- fic. And most of this refile traffic will still originate in the Americas and Western Europe. Figure 5. Refile and Transit Traffic by Region of Origin Refiled Portion of Total Outbound International Traffic, 1997 Transit and Refile Traffic, 1997 (millions of minutes) Europe i~’..’.~.’.~.:;:~." ’i~!...;.i’~,-~.~~I,.: 1100 Europe 1050 Americas ~t900 Asia- !’ :..".;".’~. 400 Pacific ~3’00 C.~Transit i~.- 50 [] Refile Other |50 Source: M.J. Scheele &Associates TeleGeography 1997/98 © TeleGeography, Inc. 1997 Box 1. Is Refile Legal? No certain answer can be given--much depends on how and where. Under the International Telecommunication Regulations (1TR, Melbourne 1988) provision of public telephone service between countries shall be provided by "mutual agreement" and carders are to agree upon the facilities for routing traffic. The ITR arguably pro- vide an exception for certain "special arrangements ... which do not concern [ITU] Members in general," although this provision of the was adopted largely to protect the freedom of private networks. But what if carriers in Country A have no agreement with carders in Country B? Are the mutuality terms of the ITR violated if the carriers in A route traffic via a third country to B? Many lawyers think not. But so long as all the countries involved are Fru members, some believe the ]TR are controlling, and all party consent is required. National regulations complicate the situation further. In the U.S. and some other countries, where a substantial volume of traffic is refiled, international carriers are subject to proportional return rules. For example, the U.S. Federal Communications Commission (FCC) requires U.S. carders to accept return traffic only in proportion to the traffic they originate on a given route. But do the rules allow a U.S. carrier to count refiled traffic from a third country as U.S. originated, and thus boost its retum traffic on a given mute? Or is that cheat- ing? This is the subject of an unresolved FCC proceeding begun by a 1995 MCI petition challenging the Spdnt FonAccess service--the first pub- licly acknowledged refile scheme by a major carder. MCI (joined by AT&T) also argued that Spdnt’s service violates the ITR. To date, however, the FCC has chosen not to decide the case--thus giving tacit approval to Sprint and other U.S. carriers to expand their refite ser- vices. In its August !997 order adopting benchmark settlement rates for U.S. international carriers, the FCC had this to say about refile: The traditional bilateral correspondent relationships between national monopoly carriers are breaking down as countries open their markets to competition. As a result.., an increasing amount of international traffic will migrate from the traditional accounting rate system to least cost routes through the use of practices such as hubbing, refile and reorigination._ Least-cost traffic routing is an economically rational response to inflated settlement rates, and will continue as long as carriers maintain excessive settle- ment rates. Source: TeleGeography, Inc. Conclusion New international wholesale carders and alternative call termi- nation companies are placing as much pressure on the global accounting rate system as the large carriers. They have fewer barders to refiling traffic and now refile 30 percent to 50 per- cent of their total international traffic. Incumbent carriers that use the threat of traffic refile during accounting rate negotia- tions also play a significant role in this new market segment. Michael J. Scheele is President, and Cathleen Woodall is Director of Marketing, at M.J. Scheele & Associates (www. callbackinfo, corn and www.spotrates, corn) a telecommu- nications consultancy based in San Francisco. Michael Scheele and Cathleen Woodall can be reached via e-mail at: scheele@callbackinfo, corn and woodall@callbackinfo, corn, respectively. Figure 6. Carrier Estimates of Transit and Refile Traffic, 1996-2000 Aggressive PTO Non-Aggressive PT0 Wholesale Carrier Transit Refile Transit Refile Transit Refile 1996 5% 2% 1% 0.5% 9% 17% 1997 6% 4.5% 2% 1.5% 11% 18% 1998 5% 9.5% 2% 2.75% 10% 27% 1999 4% 13.5% 1% 5.5% 6% 32% 2000 3% 20% 1% 8% 4% 43% Note: Fzgures are estzmated shares of career’s total outgoing traffic. Source: M.J. Scheele & Associates © TeleGeography, Inc. 1997 TeleGeography 1997/98 Box 2. Refile and Global Alliances Market liberalization has dramatically increased third country routing options for international carriers. For instance, in 1998 carriers will be able to establish their own end-to-end facilities on several routes, thus gaining the option of refiling inbound and outbound traffic via two or more markets, A carrier can then "balance off" or "net" its traffic flows and settlements on various routes. By combining its traf- fic flows from several countries and engaging in refiling, a pan-nation- al carrier may be able to transform a deficit route into one with a sur- plus. The proposed merger of two of the world’s larger international carri- ers--BT and MCl--has thus raised new questions on the public inter- est in such refile activities. The following statements are excerpted from public comments filed with the FCC regarding the BT/MCI merg- AT&~ Since [1984] U.S. "reorigination" of foreign-foreign calls has become an emerging and growing market segment. Unanticipated at the time was how re-originated traffic would skew U.S. proportionate return (and thus the unit costs of settlements for U.S, carriers) and bilateral routes. Now, minutes reoriginated through the U.S. ore included as part of a U.S. carrier’s market share for determining the return traffic it receives from a terminating carrier. Thus, the termi- nating carrier allocates a greater share of returo minutes to the reo- riginating U.S. carrier (shifting minutes away from other U.S. cam- petitors on the route) than the re-originating carrier would have received based on actual U.S. customer traffic .., [If a foreign carrier has] an ownership interest in the hubbing U.S. carrier ... reorigination is a powerful tool for [that] foreign carrier to benefit its U.S. affiliate [and] to raise rivals" costs on U.S.-third country routes. Simply put BT has an opportunity to "balance off" its U.K. stream using MCI’s network. Specifically, BT could send a third country only that volume of min- utes that matches the volume each third country sends to it--leaving BT with no settlements outpayment. The additional minutes gener- ated by BT’s customers above the balance could then be delivered through MCI’s network in the U.S.--earning MCI a greater share of return minutes at the expense of its competitors on third country routes ... To protect against this potential injury to competition, BT should be prohibited from routing foreign-originated minutes through MCI in the U.S. to third countries. MCI and BT: AT&T’s concern about what might happen if the U.S.-U.K. propor- tionate return rules and International Settlement Policy (ISP) were to be relaxed in the future ... [is] misplaced in the short term and, in the longer term are antithetical to the pro-competitive thrust of the [FCC’s settlement policies]. As AT&T is well aware, services offered by MCI and BT--as well as other carriers--will continue to be gov- erned by the ISP [FCC International Settlement Policy] and propor- (continued on next page) Global One Spnnt 50 I ^ ¯ Global ¯ I ~._ Sprint Venture ,~ Global Ge~any Deutsche ~::~ I "? ....... ~~" ~;~ 50 ,~’" ,~ 66.7 Note: Ownership interes~ in the d~agram begin w~th the parents on the le~ and move across to the right. The four "Groups" at the far r~ght (U S., World, European, and France & Germany) are responsible for d~xtr~butmg Global One seduces on the local level. Source: TeieGeography, Inc. T~ieGeography, Inc. 1997 TeleGeography 1997/98 © TeleGeography, Inc. 1997 Box 2. Refile and Global Alliances (continued) tionate return rules unless and until the Commission approves an alternative arrangement .... No special license conditions are nec- essary to enable the Commission to enforce these obligations. [MCI and BT] are not proposing to implement any alternative settlement arrangements or to diverge from the ISP ..o ff and when they do so, there will be time enough for the Commission to consider all issues relating to such a proposal. As competition grows on the U.S.-U.K. route, the need for strict adherence to the ISP will dissipate, and the FCC will presumably relax the ISP rules under appropriate circum- stances U.K. Department of Trade and Industry (DTI~) and OFTEL: [AT&T et al.] pointed to the potential for BT to "balance off" its U.K. traffic stream with third countries by sending surplus minutes to MCI for re-origination in the U.S .... Whether there is an incentive on BT to act in this manner depends on traffic flows and accounting rates on a particular route. It is an empirical question and would require detailed worked examples on specific routes to be analyzed before this question could be answered. The success of this strategy is predicated on a zero response from other operators. This might not be realistic as this strategy is likely to have an adverse effect on the third count~. If it caused significant distortions, it is likely that there would be retaliation from the third country, most obviously by aban- doning proportionate return and directing traffic away from BT/MCI. Adversely affected U.S. carriers are in a position to do something similar. U.S. carriers can link up with subsidiaries or global partners within other jurisdictions and can rebalance and re-originate in a similar manner (e.g., a U.S. operator can send traffic to the U.K. for reorigination, reducing BT’s proportionate return). On the basis that other U.S. carriers can carry out similar activities, the efficient use of transmission capacity would appear to be in the interest of both U.K. and U.S. customers and lead to a potential lowering of collection tar- iffs in the event that the cost saving achieved by such use are passed on to customers. Tl~e FCC ultimately approved the BT/MCI merger in August 199-/ without imposing the muting conditions sought by AT&T. The FCC reasoned as follows: The Commission has not found that reorigination should be prohibit- ed or limited generally and we perceive no need to impose such a restriction uniquely on BT/MCI. We may revisit this issue in the future if it appears that distortions in settlement payments or proportionate return traffic are so great as to justiO restricting this practice. For now, however, AT&T (and other U.S. carriers) will have an equal incentive and ability as BT/MCI to reoriginate traffic through the United States. Consequently, we find no reason to impose any restrictions regarding reorigination on BT/MCI. We agree with BT/MCI that the services offered by BT and MCI will be governed by our ISP until such time as MCI proposes--and we approve--an alternative arrangement... Until then, there is no record evidence to support the need for special safeguards to enforce this requirement on BT and MCI. Source: TeteGeography, Inc. © TeleGeography, Inc. 1997 TeleGeography 1997/98 The FCC’s Settlement Benchmarks by Gregory Staple, Koteen & Naftalin, LLP Because approximately forty pement of international traffic involves a U.S. party, the market rules of the U.S. telecoms reg- ulator, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), have long had an indirect impact on the business practices of non- U.S. telephone carriers. In August 1997, however the FCC issued a detailed 150 page order which many U.S. carriers hope, and most foreign operators fear, will give the Commission a more direct (and, say foreigners, illegal) role in regulating the terms on which U.S. carriers send telephone calls to their for- eign correspondents. At the center of the dispute is a new set of "benchmark" or model settlement rates which the FCC’s order requires all U.S. international carriers to respect. The benchmark rates range from $0.15 to $0.23 per minute--often 50 percent or more below the current rate--and will be phased in (see Figures 1 and 2). U.S. carders must negotiate benchmark rates with car- ders from richer countries by January 1999; benchmark rates must be implemented with carriers from middle income and poorer countries between 2000 and 2003. Calculating The Benchmarks The FCC calculated its new benchmarks using a controversial model for estimating foreign carriers’ actual costs in terminat- ing U.S. calls. The estimates are based on the per minute tar- iff or tariff proxy for three foreign network components: the international transmission facility (cable/satellite half-circuit); the international gateway facility; and the national extension (domestic transport and termination). Tariff component prices (TCPsl were calculated for 65 countries and these countries were then divided into four economic groups based on their 1995 Gross Domestic Product (GDP) per capita. The average TCP for each economic group was then adopted by the FCC as Figure 1. FCC Settlement Benchmarks (US$) Income Group GDP per capita Benchmark Effective Date Low 0-$726 $0.23 1 Jan. 2002 Lower Middle $726-$2,985 $0.19 1 Jan. 2001 Upper Middle $2,896-$8,955 $0,19 1 Jan, 2000 Upper $8,956 $0.15 1 Jan. 1999 For countries with less than t telephone hne per 100 people~ the effective date is 1 Jan, 2003, Waivers ofthe effective date may also be requested =n certain cases. Source: FCC the benchmark for all countries within a given income category (again, see Figure 1). The FCC’s new benchmarks are not self-executing; they rely upon U.S. carder negotiations. And, before the first major deadline for negotiations--January 1999--the FCC’s order must also survive judicial review. Several foreign carriers, including Japan’s KDD and the U.K.’s Cable & Wireless, have already asked the U.S. courts to overturn the FCC’s decision. The Impact On Foreign Affiliated U.S. Carriers Two groups of foreign carriers will be most directly affected by the Benchmarks Order: ( 1 ) foreign carriers with a U.S. presence (i.e., with an affiliated U.S. carder); and (2) foreign carders which have no U.S. presence, but have a significant traffic sur- plus with their U.S. correspondents. Beginning in January 1998, the FCC will not grant a foreign affiliated U.S. carder authority to serve its home market(s) unless the company’s foreign affiliate(s) offer all U.S. carriers settlement rates at or below the benchmarks on affiliated routes. (A U.S. carder with 25 percent or more of its shares owned by a foreign carrier is considered to be foreign-affiliat- ed.) This obligation will apply immediately--even though U.S. carders generally might not be required to settle at the bench- mark rate on that route until 1999 or later. As importantly, the FCC’s order requires foreign affiliated carri- ers now authorized to serve their home market to implement a settlement rate at or below the benchmark on affiliated routes by April 1, 1998. Absent a rule waiver this could lead to a "flash cut" in U.S. accounting rates on several routes, given that affiliated carders from these markets now operate in the U.S. Failure to comply with the FCC’s new rules could lead to a revocation of the U.S. affiliate’s FCC authorization, or the affiliate could be ordered to settle traffic at S0.08 per minute-- the so called "best practice" rate. But what if a foreign carrier has no U.S. presence? The Benchmarks Order keeps the FCC’s options open. After the deadline for a benchmark has passed, a U.S. carrier may file an enforcement petition but the FCC will only act upon it after receiving public comment. Carriers receiving a net inflow of set- tlements and which do not reduce their rates to the benchmark level are likely to be the first target for action. In such cases, the FCC could order all U.S. carriers to withhold any further payments in excess of the benchmark rate. A bar on third- TeleGeography 1997/98 © TeleGeography, Inc. 1997 country routing of traffic on that route could also be imposed on U.S. carders to ensure the order is effective. International Simple Resale The Benchmarks Order contains one ironic twist: starting in 1998, there will be more restrictive rules for U.S.-based International Simple Resale (ISR) carriers. To reduce the incen- tive for major carriers to use ISR facilities (interconnected pri- vate lines) to bypass high settlement rates rather than to nego- tiate rate reductions, no additional U.S. routes will be opened to ISR unless the FCC rules that 50 percent of the traffic on the route is settled at or below the benchmark rate. 1SR routes authorized earlier (to Canada, the U.K., Sweden and New Zealand) will not be affected. Further, the FCC plans to monitor the impact of ISR on routing and settlement rates much more carefully. From 1998 forward, any U.S. carrier handling more than 2.5 percent of the traffic (in or out) on any given U.S. route or one percent of total U.S. traffic (in or out) will be required to file new quarterly traffic and revenue reports. Impact of WTO Agreement Whether or not the FCC’s benchmark rates are consistent with the new obligations of the U.S. under the WTO Agreement on basic telecommunications service is a matter of continuing debate. Many foreign carriers believe that the new benchmark conditions placed on their U.S. affiliates violate America’s WTO market entry commitments, and also run afoul of the Most Favored Nation (MFN) and National Treatment provisions in the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS). The FCC-- backed by an opinion from the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR)--strongby disagrees. But the issue was unresolved as of September 1997; a separate FCC rulemaking docket imple- menting the WTO agreement is still pending. In that docket, the agency also is considering a radical propos- al to permit any U.S. carder to have a non-standard settlement agreement (e.g., one with lower rates or exclusive routing terms) with carriers from WTO countries. Hence, the final impact of the FCC’s Benchmarks Order on any given route wilt not be clear until the Commission adopts its new rules to imple- ment the WTO Agreement. Court review of the Benchmarks Order and, most likely the decision in the WTO docket, must also be taken into account. ~i~.’~ Figure 2. Selected Benchmarks for U.S. Carriers (US$) Current (8]97) New Effective _Coun_t~y- Settlement Benchmark Date Argentina $0.46 $0.19 1/1/00 Australia $0.21 $0.15 1/I/99 B elgium $0.2t $0,15 1/1/99 Bermuda $0,51/0.45(a) $0.15 1/1/99 Brazil $0.45 $0.19 1/1/00 Chile $0.55(b) $0,19 !/1/00 China $0.84 $0.23 1/1/02 Colombia $0,58 $0.19 1/1/01 Dom. Republic $0.40(b) $0.19 t/1101 Egypt $0.70 $0.23 I/1/02 El Salvador $0,50 $0.19 t/I/0! France $0.13 $0.15 t/1/99 Germany $0.10 $0.15 I!1/99 Greece $0.48 $0.19 I/1/00 Guatemala $0.48 $0.19 1/1/01 Guyana $0,85 $0,23 1/1/02 Honduras $0.58 $0.23 1/1/02 Hen9 Kong $0,40 $0,15 111/99 India $0,79 $0.23 1/1/02 Indonesia $0.80 $0.19 1/I/01 Israel $0.48 $0.15 1/I/99 Italy $0,17 $0.15 1/1/99 Japan $0,43 $0.15 111/99 Jordan $0.75 $0.19 t/1/0t Kenya $0.65 $0,23 I/1/02 Current (8/97) New Effective Counf~y Settlement Benchmark Date Malaysia $0.45(b) $0.19 1/1/00 Mexico $0.35(c) $0.19 1/t/00 Pakistan $1,00/,60(a) $0,23 I/1/02 Panama $0.60 $0.19 1/1/01 Phihppines $0,50(b) $0,19 1/1/0t Poland $0.35 $0.19 1/1/01 Russia $I.06(b) $0,19 1/1/01 S. Africa $0.50 $0.19 1/1/00 S. Korea $0.49 $0.t9 1/1/00 Singapore $0.42 $0,t5 I/1/99 Spain $0.31 $0,15 1/I/99 Switzerland $0.17 $0.t5 t/t/99 Thailand $0,75 $0.19 1/1/01 Turkey $0.41 $0.19 1tl/0t Vietnam $1,15/1,00/,93/.85(d) $0,23 1/1/02 Notes: le} Peak/off-peak rates (b) Rate offered by largest carrier, e.g., ENTEL in Chile (c) Average rate; actual rates vary by service classification, call location, call destination, and tlme of day (d) Growth-based rate structure is m effect See the Green Pages at the back of this book for a I~sting of all FCC benchmarks and tar- fffed component prices. lnternet Telephony TeleGeography 1997/98 © TeleGeography, Inc. 1997 © TeleGeography, Inc. 1997 TeleGeography 1997/98 A Vision of Convergence by Vint Cerf, MCl Communications Corp. One of the most exciting aspects of tracking the development of the Internet, especially for someone like myself who has been involved with its development for the better part of three decades, is seeing new technologies and applications devel- oped for it that many of us did not foresee. Chief among these exciting emerging new services is lnternet Protocol telephony (IP telephony). Among its increasing and dedicated cadre of enthusiastic boosters, IP telephony is most often hailed as a way to force long distance carriers to lower international and domestic toll rates. Otherwise, it is believed, these carriers run the risk of seeing the millions of minutes they carry each year flee the Switchnet for the relatively inexpensive lnternet. Not surprisingly, many industry analysts have openly speculated on just how damaging the widespread use of IP tele- phony might be for many carriers. Unfortunately, like most promises of a free lunch, this vision of the free, or even a significantly cheaper lnternet phone call is deceptive, if not completely illusory. In fact, most of the cost advantages associated with IP telephony arise from the contin- ued existence of the obsolete model of international settlement rates--a system that despite the continued resistance to reform exhibited by some members of the World Trade Organization, is simply living on borrowed time. So, it should be said that those who couch the collision of IP telephony with the Switchnet as an all or nothing issue, are real- ly proffering a false choice. In fact, the future of communica- tions belongs to those who both embrace IP telephony, and are committed to integrating it with the existing communications infrastructure. Before I go into greater detail concerning IP telephony, I think it is important to take a closer took at the current state of the lnternet, its incredible growth, and just exactly what that growth means to the global telecommunications infrastructure. The Internet at a Crossroads Now is an important time in the evolution of networking and the lnternet in particular, The technology is clearly evolving rapidly, adding new functionality and size almost daily. Yet, in any one instance, it seems to take a long time for new features to appear and to populate the network widely. Moreover, much of the new networking technology is subject to available under- lying infrastructure including high capacity fiber and high speed touters as well as hardware switches of various kinds. It seems an impossible task to attempt to make any solid pro- jections of what is to come over the next decade, let alone next year, but there seems to be a consensus that the Internet will continue to grow, although possibly at a lower rate than has been common in the preceding few years. Moreover, the apparent growth rates are not uniform, with some regions showing more rapid growth than others. Data from MCI suggest a 100 percent annual increase in traffic requirements for the foreseeable future (that is a doubling of traffic annually). Data from Network Wizards (Mark Lottor) appear to show linear growth in the number of Internet hosts since January 1996 and do not seem to account on their own for the continued growth in traffic in the MCI backbone. Bellcore, using the same data, continues to project 80-90 per- cent growth rates for the next few years. If, indeed, there is any rate reduction, we suspect that one reason may be that the sta- tistical methods used cannot penetrate the firewalls of many companies that are adding to their intranets at a heavy pace. Thus, much of the growth of the lnternet is taking place where Figure 1. Norters Network Crossover Voice and Data Traffic on Norters Corporate Network, 1991-96 7O 0 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 199B Note: Nortel’s voice traffic is transported separately from its data, However, on average, Nortel estimates that one minute of voice traffic equals approxi- mately 240,000 bytes or 240 packets, Also, the figure does not include voice or data traffic on Nortet’s local networks. Source: Nortel ©TeleGeography, Inc, 1997 TeleGeography 1997/98 © TeleGeographyo Inc. 1997 it cannot be directly observed, except in the form of traffic emitted onto the public lnternet. Moreover, we had seen high- er lnternet traffic growth in the past, but much of it may be migrating to corporate intranets. Another indicator that this may be an accurate reading of the data is that sales of equipment (routers, servers and the like) for intranet use now equal or far exceed sales for public lnternet use. Zona Research estimates that by the end of 1999, intranet sales will reach $28 billion while intemet sales will be only S14 billion (for a total market for internet and intranet equipment and service of $42 billion). Perhaps more important than the statistics, however, are the discussions and debates going on around the globe about pop icy and the Intemet. Governments look at its border-crossing character with interest and with concerns. Some governments want to find ways to control content on the Net or at least to control what content their citizens can reach. Some want to tax the fledgling electronic commerce as a new source of revenue. Some worry about the use and export/import of cryptography and the impact it has on law enforcement or intelligence gath- ering. Others worry about the potential for use of the Internet for fraud, copyright violations and so on. The concerns also extend to social impacts on young people and on gullible elderly, all of whom are becoming a part of the Internet community. Although some of the concerns may be borne out of ignorance of how the Internet works, many of them are understandable. Those of us who have labored in the vine- yards of the Net for many years have a duty to help these new- comers understand better what it can and cannot do and what can or cannot be controlled about it. Figure 2. IP Telephony Growth Global IP Telephony Software Sales, 1995-2001 $2000 $1500 $1322.5 $1000 :~,::::,: .~"\ 1995 1996 1897 1998 1999 2000 2001 Source: Frost & Sullivan (Mountain View, Califorma), adapted from =IP Telephony°s Velvet Curtain," tele.com, October 1997. © TeleGeegraphy, Inc, 1997 The increasing river of anecdotes that pour into my email about the positive effects of the lnternet are a source of considerable satisfaction. Lives are being saved through access to medical information and expertise that might have gone unnoticed, but for discussion groups, web indexing services, and chat rooms devoted to special medical topics. New businesses and thus economic value are being formed by start-up companies find- ing niches in the business of the Internet. Electronic commerce is picking up speed and is estimated by Forrester to reach $320 billion per year by the end of the year 2000. Children are dis- covering the world and each other through the lnternet. There is an endless line of stories about kids in school reaching spe- cialists and scholars through the Net in ways no encyclopedia could ever hope to emulate. I often wonder what the Net will be like, as it becomes fash- ioned by young people who have grown up in a world in which personal computers are the norm and the Net is taken for granted as another medium of communication. Where are the Statistics Taking Us? Previous estimates seemed to show a public lnternet exceeding 200 million hosts by the end of the year 2000. The recent apparent linearization of growth would yield only about 80 mil- lion hosts in the public lnternet by that time. Some estimates place the number of users at 150 million by the end of 1997 and one billion by the end of the year 2000. My own guess is that these numbers are more likely to be 70 mil- lion users worldwide by the end of 1997 and 300 million by the end of the year 2000. In either case, the lnternet will have reached telephone system-sized proportions by the end of the decade. These statistics also suggest that by the year 2010, at least half of all telephone calls will be carried on the Internet and that well before that time, half of all fiber capacity will be given over to the Internet. Indeed, it is estimated now that by November 1996, more than half of the trans-Pacific capacity was given over to the lnternet, and that by November in 1999, the trans-Atlantic situation will be similar The domestic situa- tion in North America and Europe will probably not reach this kind of parity until somewhat later, perhaps around the years 2001-2005. Other Observations Clearly, the Internet is becoming a telecommunications force with which to be reckoned. Telecommunication carriers ignore it at their peril. Much of the dynamic growth seems to be tak- ing place where competitive regulatory environments allow mul- tiple service providers to offer service without restrictions. Recognizing the changing landscape, a number of major telecommunication carriers are making significant investments in lnternet telephony. Examples include the 1997 acquisition of 21 percent of Vocaltec by Deutsche Telekom for $48 million, formation of an Internet telephony spin-off by AT&T in conjunc- tion with Vocaltec, announcements by KDD that they plan to © TeleCeography, Inc. 199 7 TeleGeography 1997/98 Box 1. MCI’s Vault Architecture in the past, customers needed separate lines to communicate over a telephone network and a packet-switched network, such as the Internet. MCl’s Vault system architecture eliminates that need by converting communications traffic into IP packets and then sending the packets over MCI’s tntemet backbone, utilizing a single line. The new V-Class of services derived from this technology wilt provide cus- tomers with fully integrated and seamless communications that opti- mize the power of our combined networks. Possible business applications from Vault Technology include: ¯ Prospective home buyers might research mortgage rates using a lender’s web site. Clicking a voice button on the site, they could be directly linked to a mortgage counselor who could assist with filling out a loan application. With another click, a real estate agent could take those same home buyers on a tour of available properties on the Intemet. ¯ An editor could splice tape for the evening news in full view of a producer located in a newsroom thousands of miles away, sharing voice and data from computer to computer during collaborative work sessions. ¯ A traveling executive could check email while returning phone calls, and access all messages (voice, fax, pager and email) from a single web site. Source: MCI Communications Corp, divert some trans-Pacific voice traffic over Internet, and the rise of Internet telephony reilling by other service providers, some of which have offered call-back services in the past and are extending their service lines. What Will This Mean To the Future of the Switchnet? What is beginning to take shape today is this: the Intemet and the Switchnet will intertwine and begin to work together--merg- ing, melding and blurring the distinctions between the two. What will emerge will be a new communications medium, armed with a powerful new level of functionality. For customers, the development of IP telephony should be about enabling new services. It is carriers like MCI that should worry about the specifics of the network. As a leading provider of both long distance and lnternet backbone service, MCI is uniquely positioned to devise a solution. With this in mind, earlier this year, MCI introduced Vault: a class of products that allow for the interworking of packet and circuit- switched networks. While some persist to believe in the fiction that [P telephony will sound the immediate death knell of the Switchnet, Vault technology recognizes the reality of incremen- tal change. Imagine that the Internet and the "Plain Old Telephone System" are two tapestries hanging side by side. On the one hand you have the [nternet, a network that is dynamic and flourishing; on the other we have the venerable telephone system, as ubiqui- tous as it is reliable. Now imagine if we take apart these tapestries and reweave them together one strand at a time, so the two are indistin- guishable from one another. That’s what Vault is all about, making the telephone system and the Internet work together invisibly and in concert. That may mean data, voice, video and audio all on the same line, or multiple tines--with the customer unconcerned about just how that is achieved. Think of Vault as a down payment on the communications rev- olution. That’s because Vault will enable a variety of new and powerful communications services like: find-me, follow-me, never-busy fax, and the multimedia mailbox. In practical terms this means that someday soon, one will be able to specify in simple terms how email, fax messages, pages, telephone calls and voice mail messages are to be captured and brought to one’s attention. It is easy to see what sort of applications will arise with this new capability. Consider a traveling executive who today is forced to choose between using the single phone jack in a hotel room for access either to email or for a voice call. Soon, this is a compromise one won’t be forced to make anymore. We can also expect new applications to develop for web pages. Already, some carriers have introduced a feature where clicking on a web button will alert an operator to place a call to a cus- tomer over the Switchnet. With Vault, an operator in a call cen- ter will actually initiate a voice link with a customer over the same line that carries the IP connection. In addition, the oper- ator will also be able to determine what web page the customer initiated the call from, and be able to "push" both web pages and files directly to the customer’s desktop. This is not to say that pure voice applications will not develop. On the contrary, IP telephony presents some distinct advan- tages in an intracorporate setting. PCs on a LAN are always online. In addition, routing voice over a LAN can be done at a very low incremental cost. A single call adds only about 10 Kbps half duplex, or only about 0.3 percent of a T1 line. In addition, calls to and from the Switchnet can be routed on an existing Private Branch Exchange (PBXI. With the incredible growth of corporate intranets, it seems that this market presents a tremendous target of opportunity for the proponents of IP telephony. TeleGeography 1997/98 © TeleGeography, Inc. 1997 The New Landscape In the future, just how will we transport voice? At least for the near-term, it is clear that both packet switching and circuit switching will be used. There is no reason why a PC can’t coor- dinate a PSTN call with a shared application over the Internet. In addition, nowhere is it written that voice must travel over the lnternet. A PBX can decode how phone calls will be routed-- and a PC can do the same. As new applications are developed that better integrate the two networks, we can expect absolute usage of both the Internet and the Switchnet to continue to increase. One example of a service that recognizes this need is BT’s "Passepartout"-- named for the character from Jules Verne’s Around the World in Eighty Days. Compatible with the popular Internet conferenc- ing tool, Net Meeting, Passepartout seamlessly integrates the functions of both networks by utilizing the Switchnet for the audio portion of a conference, while routing the graphics and data over the lnternet. As for the future of IP telephony, it is cdtical to remember that this is fundamentally not an economic issue. The use of IP tele- phony will be spurred not by simple cost savings, but by the implementation of innovative new services. This in turn will encourage new, not replacement communications, and create incredible business opportunities for the carders, both interna- tional and domestic, who embrace these changes. It is only the service providers who see IP telephony as a threat and not an opportunity, who have anything to fear from its development. ~i~.~ Vint Cerf is the Senior Wce President for Internet Architecture and Engineering at MCI Communications Corporation. Cerf is the co-inventor of the computer networking protocol, TCP/IR He also served from 1992-95 as a founding member of the Internet Society. © TeleGeography, Inc. 1997 TeleGeography 1997/98 Internet Protocol Gateways: Beyond the Cheap Call by Esa Hirvinierni, Heisinki Telephone Company "lnternet protocol gateway" (IP-GW) is the generic name for a piece of equipment that connects calls between lnternet proto- col networks and telephone networks. This article explores how Internet Service Providers (ISPs), such as Helsinki Telephone Company’s Kolumbus-services, can harness IP-GW technology for business purposes. The experiences and viewpoints pre- sented here are particular to the Finnish environment, charac- terized by very high Internet usage and low telephony tariffs (see Figure 1). Business Potential for IP Gateways The major business potential for the IP-GW application is com- monly thought to be the long distance and international tele- phony market, because IP-GW call charges are expected to be dramatically lower than the PSTN of today. In Europe, howev- er, and especially in Finland, this scenario is likely to be less attractive. Due to competition in the Finnish market, call prices are already quite low, and the benefits gained by placing a call through an IP-GW might not be sufficient to compensate for the reduced quality of service. In certain niche customer segments, however, such as compa- nies with very high overseas calling volumes, it could be eco- nomically viable to utilize IP-GW-based telephony solutions. Within an intranet environment, the customer could configure its operations in such a way as to avoid common problems of IP telephony (e.g., a worker’s personal computer would always be open to receive calls). Who Uses IP-GW? The usage of IP-GW solutions discussed above is determined primarily by Internet access penetration, and secondly by the amount of multimedia-capable user equipment. Even though Finland has the highest Internet access penetration in the Figure 1. Finland: Wired Nation Estimated Internet Users per lm inhabitants in 0ECD Countries, 1995 International Telephone Tariffs in 0ECD Countries, 1996 ]nternabonal Business Tardf Basket Index, 1996 (OECD average = 100) o so IOO ~o ~o ~o 3~o Source: OECD/ITU © TeleGeography, Inc. 1997 TeleGeography 1997/98 © TeleGeography, Inc. 1997 world, the user equipment, in most cases, must be upgraded to fully utilize Intemet telephony solutions. These two considera- tions together suggest that the implementation rate of lnternet telephony wil~ be ~ess dramatic than in other lntemet business areas, such as the Internet access business itself. Because of the complexities involved in installing fully function- al Internet telephony software on a personal computer, the pio- neers will be technically-oriented users. This profile is likely to remain so for some time to come. We expect that around the year 2000--with upgraded equipment platforms and even higher lnternet access penetration--the use of the IP-GW tele- phony solutions will begin to generate noticeable usage vol- umes. Our estimate for the year 2000 is that less than one pement of the international traffic out of Finland will be IP- based. Application: Augmenting Call Center Services IP-GW technology will allow companies to augment their already established call center services. The use of web pages as a company introduction and product overview tool could be enhanced by offering increased interactivity of the basic web service, providing a real-time dialogue between the customer and the company representative via IP-GW telephony. This way, the company could provide web-based services, parallel to those available through freephone telephony: product informa- tion, complaints, reservations, etc. From the point of view of a telecom operator, the implementation of this application would be easy, as the impact on the customer billing systems would be minimal. In the future, it is likely that web-based applications would migrate towards fully IP based telephony solutions (i.e., IP-to- IP calls). For this to happen, the call center equipment would need to be able to process pure IP telephony in the same man- her as traditional calls for functions like queues, call diversions, and announcements. Customer interaction would be enhanced to include not only speech, but also video, shared whiteboard, and community surfing. Such an industry shift would be grad- ual, and smaller companies probably would continue to use telephony-based equipment for a ~ong while. Figure 2. Virtual Heisinki Source: Helsinki Telephone Compeny, http’//www, helsinkiarena2OOO,fi © TeleGeography, Inc. 1997 TeleGeography 1997/98 The Road from Here Most probably, IP-GW applications will vary from country to country, and from operator to operator. In countries where call charges are relatively high, immediate benefits could be gained by bypassing the traditional public switched network with based telephony solutions. In countries where the call charges are low, the focus of IP-GW implementation is likely to be value- added services, such as the augmentation of existing call cen- ter activities discussed above. In sophisticated markets such as Finland, they could be marketed as new tools for PC-minded persons to place calls, combined with additional applications such as video and shared whiteboards. Telecommunication liberalization is increasing competition and foming a reduction in the prices of all telecommunication ser- vices. For Internet telephony, this means applications in the long distance and international call market could be less attrac- tive than is generally thought and, more importantly, of dimin- ishing competitive advantage. The TechnoloBy’s Future Several technical platforms for IP-GW functions have been under trial in Finland. The results so far indicate that the tech- nological level of the products today provide sufficient capabil- ities for basic operations (i.e., converting speech samples from one format to another, switching the call), but are lacking the operational support a serious business enterprise would require. In most cases, the speech coding methods are propri- etary, which considerably reduces the user-friendliness of the service and makes it difficuIt to plan for a wider business-ori- ented exploitation of the products. We expect that equipment supporting standardized speech coding (under ITU H.323) and more robust operational capabilities will become commercially available in late 1997 or early 1998. In the long run, our belief is that the IP-GW functionality will be integrated into the pub- lic telephone switch itself, as part of the IP-traffic handling func- tions. Helsinki Telephone Company: Our Experience In the spring of 1997, Hetsinki Telephone Company implement- ed public trials of IP-GW telephony in various forms. The basic application was to use a personal computer to access a web page, from where a call could be initiated, and routed through the IP-GW to the public network, and finally to the normal freephone number of a call center. The IP-GW is also used as a part of the multi-million dollar Helsinki "Arena 2000" project, where a three-dimension model of the city of Helsinki was cre- ated on the world wide web (www.helsinkiarena2000.fi/sum- mary). In the Arena 2000 web site, the buildings of several companies are equipped with a "telephone" icon, and clicking on the icon generates an IP-GW call to that company’s call cen- ter (see Figure 2). Use of the current IP-GW equipment wilt be expanded in the autumn of 1997 to provide more permanent freephone access to call centers. ~i~.~ Esa Hirviniemi is a department head at Kolumbus-services, the Internet access service of Helsinki Telephone Company (www.hpy.fi). Helsinki Telephone Company is the largest pri- vate local telephone company in Finland and the largest mem- ber of the Finnet Group consortium. Mr. Hirviniemi can be reached by email at esa.hirviniemi@hpy.fi. TeleGeography 1997/98 © TeleGeography, Inc. 1997 © TeleGeography, Inc. 1997 TeleGeography 1997/98 lnternet Telephony for Established Telcos by Eiie Wurtman, Delta Three, Inc. Delta Three is the first company to offer phone-to-phone Internet telephony services on a commercial basis. With Delta Three’s phone-to-phone system, there is no need for a con- sumer to have a computer or an Internet connection. In its sim- plest implementation, phone-to-phone technology requires a user to call into a Delta Three Server and enter an authoriza- tion number; the transaction is similar to a calling card or pre- paid card transaction. The Delta Three Server converts the analog voice into data packets and routes the data over the lnternet to another Delta Three Server in the destination city. The data is converted back to analog format and switched to the local phone network as a local call. Delta Three’s Global Network The company has created a global network over which it routes voice traffic, fax traffic and offers value-added services. Since the voice quality is dependent on the level of traffic being sent over the network, Delta Three’s backbone network is a man- aged intranet with many gateways to the lnternet. The company has grown quickly by working with telcos. Cooperation with telcos takes two forms: selling Delta Three Carrier Services for voice calls on a bulk per-minute basis and entering into partnerships which add new points of presence (POPs) on the Delta Three network. Delta Three’s approach has been significantly enhanced by its recent strategic alliance with RSL Communications, a fast-grow- ing international telco with operations in the U.S., Europe, Asia, and South America. RSL Communications is also a major Delta Three shareholder As of September 1997, Delta Three POPs were located in the U.S., Israel, U.K., Russia, Singapore, Paraguay, Colombia, Australia, Japan, Philippines, Hong Kong, and France. POPs were under construction in Mexico, Argentina, Brazil, Ecuador, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Malaysia, Korea, and China. Delta Three is the first commercial voice and fax network to uti- lize packet switching technology. Traditional telephone carriers Figure 1. Efficiency of Internet Protocol Packets Switching ¯ Dedicates capacity of channels for duration of connection ° Uses available capacity ineffi- ciently Routing ° Available transmission capacity shared by all information ¯ More efficient utilization of capacity (no individual channels) Source: Delta Three, Inc. TeleGeography 1997/98 © TeleGeography, Inc. 1997 employ circuit-switching technology, whereby a point-to-point channel must be reserved for a conversation. The reservation must be for the maximum bandwidth of the conversation, causing the channel to be under-utilized for most of the time. Additionally, circuit-switched networks employ large switches that require an intensive amount of coordination between switches, requiring telcos to set up a separate data network between the switches in addition to the primary voice network. The Delta Three system, employing packet technology, utilizes infrastructure with much more efficiency than traditional circuit- switched telephony. There are no reserved channels. All data is routed over one large channel that can therefore be densely packed. Since each data packet is encoded with its destina- tion address, the system required for muting data is greatly simplified. Low-cost touters replace expensive switches, and no separate signaling network is required (see Figure 1). Utilization by PTTs and Telcos Delta Three provides carrier services to telephone operators by interfacing its servers to standard telco switches. The switch treats the Delta Three Carrier Service as another routing option on the least cost muting table. By utilizing Delta Three Carrier Services, telcos typically save over 50 percent on standard car- rier rates on expensive international mutes. Telephone companies are faced with unprecedented competi- tive challenges in today’s markets. Callback is currently taking as much as 30 percent of the international phone traffic in cer- tain countries and most carriers will soon face deregulation of their markets. Box 1. It’s for You, Mr, Commissioner Delta Three demonstrated the use of Intemet telephony for international calling when Federal Communications Commission Chairman Reed Hundt used only a standard (government issue) telephone to make an interna- tional call from his office on March IZ~, 1997. The call was routed over the Delta Three Global Network to its final destination at the Delta Three offices in Israel. He had this to say: Today I made a phone-to-phone carl using a new service called Delta Three... Internet Telephony is nothing new. However, [Internet] phone-to-phone is new. It is significant in that it allows the poorest customers--those who are the least likely to have computers and Intemet access--to use the Intemet... and make affordable international calls, Source: Delta Three, Inc. Figure 2. Internet Telephony Branding Voice Quality Service Levels Established Telco Premium Premium Call Back/ Alternative Premium to standard, depending on compression Average Price Premium Discounted Source: Delta Three, Inc. Internet Telephony Standard Average to high, dependinc on bandwidth available Heavily discounted Delta Three is working with a number of telcos in creating new service brands based on Delta Three Carrier Services. This brand is positioned as a low-cost, standard quality service that does not compete with the operators’ premium brand. Rather, it competes with alternative services such as call-back and new market entrants. It effectively squeezes out these competing services by trapping them in a middle-of-the-mad segment that offers neither great price nor premium quality. Elie Wurtman is President of Delta Three, Inc. He can be reached by e-mail at: efie@deltathree.com. © TeleGeography, Inc. 1997 TeleGeography 1997/98 Internet Telephony in the Mainstream Market by David Rosenthal, VocalTec Communications Ltd. In 1995, VocalTec introduced lntemet Phone, the first commer- cially available Intemet telephony product. Originally, Internet Phone enabled real-time audio communication between indi- vidual computers running VocalTec’s software on lnternet Protocol (IP) networks. Now, IP telephony has a host of differ- ent devices, services and networks enabling anyone, regardless of technical proficiency, to take advantage of IP telephony. VocalTec launched its Telephone Gateway product in 1996. Targeting corporations, value-added resellers, and lntemet Service Providers (ISPs), Telephony Gateway is a server which bridges the Public Switched Telephone Network (PSTN) and IP networks, enabling calls to be made phone-to-phone, fax-to- fax, and PC-to-phone, over the lnternet or private intranets. In 1995, VocalTec’s half million users represented 94 pement of the Interoet telephony software market, then valued at $3.5 million (International Data Corporation). A July 1997 Frost & Sullivan study entitled "World lnternet Telephony Product" reported that VocalTec had captured almost 79 pement, by rev- enue, of the carrier segment of the lnternet telephony gateway market and 79 pement of the consumer segment of the Internet telephony client market in 1996. Applications IP technology delivers three main benefits for end users: price, flexibility, and adaptability. These benefits are utilized by both business and residential customers. For example, a corpora- tion’s data networks are priced by capacity, instead of the cost per-minute basis of circuit-switched networks. By compressing analog signals into digital packets, Internet telephony products can significantly reduce the expense of standard voice calls. Because the same network can carry voice and data simultane- ously, companies can consolidate their communications facili- ties, while still retaining their flexibility to process ever-chang- ing proportions of voice and data traffic. Furthermore, because IP is a "smart" network, it easily adapts to video, voice mail, conferencing, messaging, data-sharing, and directory services, which can all be integrated into a company’s phone services. Services for residential customers are funneled through lntemet Telephony Service Providers (ITSPs). The goal of ITSPs is to offer lnternet telephony service (via PC or standard telephone) at a lower price than standard circuit switched telephony ser- vice. For example, lnteroet Phone 5 contains PC-to-phone fea- tures that enables calling to standard telephones using the Telephony Gateway. Users of Internet Phone sign up with ITSPs using Internet Phone’s browser-based directory. Once the sign- up procedure is authenticated, lnternet Phone is modified to include routing information that will enable a connection to the location of the closest terminating gateway to the target tele- phone number. Phone-to-phone calling resembles the process of credit card calling; the user dials an access number and reaches the Telephony Gateway’s Interactive Voice Response System (IVR). The user is prompted to enter the target tele- phone number, and the call is routed through an IP network to the gateway closest to the terminating telephone number. Enhanced Profitability VocalTec anticipates that major telephone companies will add lntemet telephony options to their existing calling plans. Consumers will be able to choose Internet telephony service for a lower price than regular PSTN service, and the telephone companies will benefit from lower overhead and maintenance costs associated with Internet telephony. VocaITec has already met with success in this area; several carders are marketing the products, among them, DACOM International, Telecom New Zealand, and Telecom Finland. In Spring 1997, VocalTec announced that Motorola would license and market Telephony Gateway and Internet Phone to Box 1. Standards Development VocalTec is a founding member of the Voice over IP Forum (VoIP) of the International Multimedia Teleconferencing Consortium. The company’s principal technologist, Dr Scott Petrack, is co-chair of the organization, which was founded in May 1996 to ensure and promote industry-wide interoperability of Intemet voice communi- cations products. Within the VolP forum, VocalTec has been devel- oping its Call Management Agent (CMA) technology, a technology expected to be extremely important to the development of truly rich and useful IP-based telephone products. Vocar[ec has also been very active in the development of the emerging International Telecommunication Union (ITU) H.323 sys- tem, which began as a standard for audio/video telephone service over a local area network, and in the past year, has expanded to wide area networks as well. VocalTec has contributed its expertise in Internet communication and parts of its CMA technology to this international standards body. Source: VocalTec TeleGeography 1997/98 © TeleGeography, Inc. 1997 corporate clients. AT&T joined up with VocalTec in July 1997, announcing that VocalTec would supply technology and soft- ware to ITXC, a jointly funded AT&T start-up which plans to pro- vide interexchange services to ITSPs. VocalTec has also launched a PC-to-phone calling network pro- vided by their ITSP customers, with support from Motorola, Dialogic, ITXC, Compaq, and DEC. Initially, the network links nine ITSPs, with connections from the Internet to the PSTN in 18 countries. VocalTec’s innovations in Internet telephony were rewarded in August 1997, when Deutsche Telekom announced that it would purchase more than $30 million worth of VocalTec products and services over the next 30 months, and would acquire a 21.1 per cent stake in the company. Enhanced Productivity As telephone companies lower their rates, profitability motives for using IP telephony will lessen. However, people will contin- ue to turn to IP telephony because its native intelligence aids productivity by enhancing communication. Video, file transfer, and interactive conferencing whiteboards are possible with Intemet Phone 5. Atrium is a fully integrated client-server con- ferencing suite featuring data, application and audio conferenc- ing for up to 150 users at a single time, enabling them to dis- cuss, edit, annotate, and then download conference docu- ments. Atrium conferences support multiple clients such as telephones, web browsers, Internet Phone users and Intemet Conference Professional users. lnteroperability Standards In the next year, we expect new international standards to drive a huge growth in the Intemet Telephone market. Standards- based technologies make wide deployment possible, giving cus- tomers the freedom to choose the best solution from a field of competitors. Adherence to an international standard means that any Internet Phone user can talk to the user of any other Internet telephony product. VocatTec recognizes that the real promise of IP-based telepho- ny lies in the added functionality of new extra features--fea- tures including integration with Web-based voice mail, multi- party collaboration, and multimedia supplementary services (call waiting, call transfer, etc.). The company places a high level of importance on enabling all of these new features in a standard way so that the customer can be certain that his or her system works as a whole (see Box 1). lnternet Phone 5’s open architecture supports the TrueSpeech, GSM and VocalTec’s own VCS data compression algorithms and selects the optimal method depending on the call. Internet Phone can support multiple standards simultaneously, giving it the poten- tial of being the universal lntemet telephony client. Network Convergence and the Future The future of telecommunications will be a convergence between traditional telephony and packet switched telephony. Box 2. Bandwidth Consumption Bandwidth and voice quality are usually inversely proportionate, and several issues affect the quality of voice signals and the amount of bandwidth they take up on an IP network. The first is the sampling rate; this rate is found in all analog to digital conver- sations and is the measure of how many samples are taken in a sin- gle second. Conventional wisdom holds that a sound should be sampled two times its frequency range per second in order to receive perfect quality. The human voice has a frequency range of approximately .500 to 4300hz. Therefore, in order to sample "true voice," a digital sample has to take place 8000 times a second, or at an 8khz sampling rate. Generally speaking, voice sampling above this rate is overkill and a waste of bandwidth, and sampling below this rate will negatively affect voice quality over any digital network. Once the analog to digital conversion has taken place, the voice is encapsulated in IR a process that occurs roughly once every 25 milliseconds. IP encapsulation is the process whereby the data is converted into a format that can be transmitted over an IP net- work. Encapsulation wraps the data for transmission, including in each packet the initiating and terminating IP address, transmission time, and packet size. Every IP telephony device handles the issue of sampling and transmission differently. VocalTec’s products uti- lize special algorithms to reduce the amount of bandwidth that the application consumes. A silence suppression algorithm limits the amount of dead air samples that are transmitted over the IP net- work. A compression algorithm is used to allow more information to flow over networks taking up less space. Utilizing these techni- cal refinements, VocaiTec has been able to reduce bandwidth to below 8kbps per second for an average conversation. Source: VocalTec IP telephony has the advantage of efficiency, productivity and advanced multimedia. Standard telephony has the advantage of 125 years of entrenchment and the fact that telephone lines reach everywhere in the world. In the future, IP telephony will be transparent to the user; voice may be traveling over IP net- works without the user’s knowledge. Today you can never be sure whose phone lines your voice is carried over; tomorrow, you won’t know what kind of network it is being carried over David Rosenthal is an online marketing communications spe- cialist for VocalTec Communications, Inc. He has a background in sound processing, IP networks and lnternet related applica- tions. He can be reached by email at David_Rosenthal@vocal- tec. com. internet Traffic and Maps TeleGeography 997/98 © TeleGeography, Inc, 1997 © TeleGeography, Inc, 1997 TeleGeography 1997/98 A Cybermap Atlas: Envisioning the lnternet by Martin Dodge, University College London William Gibson’s evocative and oft-quoted description of cyber- space is: A consensual hallucination experienced daily by bil- lions... A graphical representation of data abstracted from the banks of every computer in the human system. Unthinkable complexity. Lines of light ranged in the non- space of the mind, clusters and constellations of data. --Neuromancer (1984) Cybermaps are essentially the graphical representation of data that have some form of spatial structure or arrangement. This article reviews some of the most interesting and informative cybermaps currently available and, in a sense, is a cybermap atlas. It builds on previous efforts by TeleGeography to survey the work of cyber-cartographers, particularly John December’s "Cybermap Gazetteer" (TeleGeography 1995). A diverse range of cybermaps are being created today, most by people working outside the traditional mapping sciences. Some cybermaps use the conventions and appearance of real world maps but many others are more abstract in form because they dispense with notions of formal geographic location and dis- tance. It is questionable whether some of the most abstract cybermaps would be recognized by real-space cartographers as Figure 1. Global MBone Map Figure 2. Continental MBone Map maps at all. Yet, all the cybermaps examined here are intend- ed to function as maps. That is, they are designed to aid our comprehension of the electronic land of cyberspace, its shape, patterns, landmarks and extent, and of course to help us nav- igate this realm more easily. I will begin by considering some graphics that map elements of cyberspace using conventional geographic metaphors such as country boundaries, geographic coordinates (latitude and lon- gitude) and physical distance. Geographic metaphors are use- ful for mapping cyberspace for two reasons. Firstly, they are a form of map representation that we are most familiar with and can, therefore, easily interpret and use. Secondly, by mapping the intersection and relations between cyberspace and real space we may reveal useful characteristics of the emerging information society. As more activities and transactions occur in cyberspace, the physical wodd may be impacted: for example, the impact on real-world retailing with the predicted rise of cyber-shopping. Infrastructure Maps The location of the Intemet’s infrastructure, such as computer terminals, servers, wires and switches are a common subject for cybermaps. Network infrastructure maps are available else- where in this edition of TeleGeography (see page 77) so we will not review this class of cybermap here. In addition, two good sources of Internet Service Provider (ISP) backbone maps are Russ Haynal’s Web page collection (navigators.com/isp.html) and Boardwatch Magazine’s series of maps (www.board- watch .com/isp/backbone.htm). TeleGeography 1997/98 © TeleGeography, Inc. 199 7 Figure 3. Mapping WWW Traffic Mapping Internet Routes I will turn now to cybermaps which seek to plot Internet routes on a 3-dimensional globe. A group of computer scientists led by Tamara Munzner (Stanford University) and Kimberley Claffy (National Laboratory for Applied Network Research) are map- ping the global topology of the Internet’s Multicast Backbone (MBone) Network (see Figures 1 and 2). The MBone is really a network in a network; it uses special routing computers and software to create high capacity links on the Intemet for video conferencing and other high bandwidth point to multipoint (broadcast) transmissions. ]he MBone routers are geographically located and mapped onto the globe. The network linkages between them are repre- sented by arcs traversing the world. These maps seek to pro- vide a new means of visualizing the complex network topology of the MBone so as to identify potential problems, such as route redundancy, which are not obviously apparent from text lists of routers and their interconnections. Their MBone cybermaps are also available as three-dimensional models which can be downloaded and interactively viewed. The models are created in VRML (Virtual Reality Modeling Language), a powerful Web-based language for presenting three-dimension- al objects. More details on this research and the 3D MBone cybermaps can be found at www.nlanr.net/Viz/Mbone. Mapping WW3N Traffic Another fascinating series of global cybermaps were construct- ed to visualize the geographic sources of World-Wide Web traf- fic (see Figure 3). These cybermaps were produced by Stephen Lamm, Daniel Reid and Will Scullin (University of Illinois). They use stacked bar charts rising from the Earth’s surface to show the approximate origin of the traffic. They then mapped hits (data requests) made on the National Center for Supercomputing Applications (NCSA) Web servers. The height of the bar represents the volume of traffic and the color bands represent different types of data requested. The mapping effort is part of a larger project to monitor and analyze, in real-time, the patterns of traffic on Web servers so as to improve Internet performance. However, the cybermaps are also potent visualizations of the real world locations of the major traffic sources. Large cities such as New York, with extensive information industries and a "wired" populace, stand out. Web traffic "skyscrapers" rising above the Earth powerful- ly demonstrate the concentration of cyberspace as a geograph- ic phenomenon. To learn more, visit their Web site at: www-pablo.cs.uiuc.edu/Projects/Mosaic/WWW 3. John Quarterman and his company, Matrix Information Directory Services (MIDS), are leaders in mapping the Internet and other computer networks (see www.mids.org). One of Quarterman’s most interesting cybermaps is called the Internet Weather Report (IWR). Quarterman describes the IWR as "a sort of radar scan of the Intemet during its daily work." It pro- vides dynamic maps of the condition of the Internet measured by timing network latencies (round trip message times) six times a day from MIDS to over four thousand domains world- wide. For samples and a full description of the IWR, see "The Intemet Weather Report" on page 69. Information Landscape Maps The next set of cybermaps addresses the content of the Internet such as the World Wide Web (W~NW). These cybermaps use a variety of map metaphors and graphical styles. They tend to be more abstract than the examples we have seen so far because they use metrics other than physical distance and location, Figure 4. Entertainment Land Use Map © TeleGeography, Inc. 1997 TeleGeography 1997/98 Figure 5. Populated Information Terrain Map Much of the work in mapping information space is being under- taken by computer scientists working in scientific visualization, data-mining and virtual reality. Their aims are often to provide navigational aids in form of cybermaps to help people explor- ing and searching large, complex information spaces. One promising approach toward mapping information space is the creation of land-use maps of information on the Web. These are similar in appearance to conventional land-use maps creat- ed by urban planners to zone cities. In these maps plots of "land" represent different information domains, with the size, color and position of the plots used to represent key character- istics of that domain. "ET-Map," shown in Figure 4, maps the information space occupied by the Uniform Resource Locators (URLs) of over one hundred thousand entertainment-related Web pages. It is one of a number of information land use cybermaps produced by Hsinchun Chen (University of Arizona). For more information and a chance to try out "ET-Map" go to ai.bpa.adzona.edu/som/et-map. A similar approach has been developed by Xia Lin (University of Kentucky) and can be seen at lislin.gws.uky.edu/Sitemap. Lin’s "Sitemap" maps part of the Web space relating to astronomy and space science in Yahoo’s hierarchical catalog. Many cybermaps use three-dimensional landscape metaphors to map elements of cyberspace. These examples are quite unusual in nature, but they suggest the interesting possibilities of 3D cybermaps in representing information. To use these cybermaps properly, you need to interact with them in three dimensions--walking or flying through the landscapes--to gain an understanding of the information they present. They are drawn using virtual reality technologies. Consequently, the fiat, static pictures presented here do not fully convey the visualiza- tion power of these cybermaps on a computer screen. The first example is an information visualization technique called "Populated Information Terrains" (PITS) being developed by Dave Snowdon and colleagues (University of Nottingham). A screen-shot of their 3D information cybermaps is shown in Figure 5. Different elements of information are represented as Figure 6. Bray’s Web Landscape TeleGeography !997/98 © TeleGeography, Inc. 1997 Figure 7. HyperSpace Map bricks floating in a virtual landscape. Multiple people can use and explore the PITS landscapes at the same time (see www.crg.cs.nott.ac.uk/crg/Research/pits/pits.html). Tim Bray (Open Text Corporation) mapped Web space as an artificial three-dimensional landscape with landmarks repre- senting individual Web sites (see Figure 6). The shape, size and color of the landmarks represent characteristics of the Web sites such as their size in terms of the number of pages and hyperlinks to them. These characteristics were calculated from metrics derived from the OpenText search engine. For more information, see, "Measuring the Web," presented at the Fifth World Wide Web Conference (wwwSconf.inria.fr/fich_html/ papers/Pg/Overview.html). A final example of this genre is Yahoo! 3D--a three dimensional rendering of portions of the popular directory service (see 3d.yahoo.com/3d/docs/ bridge.html). Mapping Web Topology The connections between the tens of millions of pages in the WWW give it a complex network structure. Cybermaps have been created to reveal the Web’s topology. For example, the HyperSpace World-Wide Web Visualizer developed by Andrew Wood and colleagues (University of Birmingham) produces sophisticated three-dimensional topology maps of the structure of small parts of the Web. Figure 7 shows an example of one of their cybermaps. In many respects, their maps look more like molecular models used by chemists rather than conventional maps. Spheres represent Web pages and connecting lines show the hyperlinks between them. Self-organizing processes, using the notions of attraction and repulsion, are used to evolve the often complex and chaotic structures of the Web into more intelligible forms, so that similar information is clustered togeth- Figure 8. Apple Web Site Map © TeleGeography, Inc. 1997 TeleGeography 1997/98 Figure 9. Dynamic Diagrams Map er into regions. Details on the HyperSpace system can be found at www.cs.bham.ac.uk/-amw/hyperspace. Mapping Web Sites Another broad category of cybermaps comprise Web site maps. They can be particularly useful in assisting visitors browsing large, complex Web sites, providing an instant visual picture of what information is available and where to find it. Many site maps on the Web are arguably just organization charts, but they do serve as useful cybermaps. A good example of an organization chart-type site map is Apple’s Web site map (see Figure 8) at www.apple.com/main/find.html. A variety of innovative commercial products are becoming available for Web site developers to generate their own site maps and distribute them to the browsing public. For example, Dynamic Diagrams, Inc. has a product called MAPA, which was used to create the example shown in Figure 9. Sites are mapped in a view similar to a library card index, with individ- ual Web pages sticking up like cards. Visit wwv.dynamicdia- grams.corn for more details. The Virtual City Cybermap The city is being used as a metaphor to map information and services on the WWW in what are termed "virtual cities." The "city" interface provides a coherent framework for organizing collections of services, activities and community resources at a single point in cyberspace, just as real cities are a focal point in physical space. As well, the city is a spatial structure familiar to most people and therefore can be used as an effective metaphor for structuring and organizing information resources in a way which places people at ease. Virtual cities can be categorized in two types --grounded and non-grounded. Grounded virtual cities are digital counterparts of real cities or towns; non-grounded cities exist only in cyber- space. The city of Bologna has an excellent virtual equivalent on the Web. Figure 10 shows the interface to virtual Bologna, a nice- ly designed city map, using familiar urban features, like shops, Figure 10, Virtual Bologna TeleGeography 1997/98 © TeleGeography, Inc. 1997 Figure 11. VirtualTOKYO museums and sports stadiums as icons. By clicking on these icons you gain access to further Web pages providing detailed information. Virtual Bologna is located at www.nettuno.itlbolognalMappaWelcome.html. City Island is an example of a non-grounded virtual city. It is a fictional place, but uses a stylized town map as an interface to a wide range of Web sites. To visit City Island go to www.taynet.co.uk/ -gdxlmellanta/fdlcityislelindex. him. Although virtual Bologna is a grounded virtual city, the map interface does not attempt to model the real layout of Bologna. However, virtual cities are being constructed which are trying to model the urban form as well as providing an information inter- face. VRML provides the tools to construct the buildings of vir- tual cities. One example is VirtualTOKYO, a screen-shot or which is shown in Figure 11, created by Planet 9 Studios (www.planet9.comlearthltokyolindex.htm). Another under development is Virtual Helsinki (www.helsinkiarena2000.fi), which is profiled on page 54. Try Mapping Cyberspace Yourself Commercial applications are becoming available to draw topo- logical maps of Web structures. These are marketed primarily for the management of large Web sites, but they can also be used by cyberspace explorers to map Web spaces. Examples of the applications include CLEARweb, Visual Web and Microsoft’s Site Analyst. Demonstration versions of these applications can be downloaded and tried out. So why not try mapping cyber- space yourself?. Conclusions Mapping the new territories of cyberspace presents a grand challenge for cartographers, geographers and cyber-explorers. Hopefully this review will have acquainted you with the current state of the art in cybermaps. To keep up to date on the work of cyber-cartographers in mapping cyberspace we recommend you consult "An Atlas of Cyberspaces" at www.geog.ucl.ac.uk/ casa/martinlatlas/atlas.html. A great deal of effort is being expended in mapping cyberspace, particularly in the field of information visualization. New forms of measurement and map- ping are being developed to make cyberspace comprehensible for its citizens. It is likely that the resulting cyberrnaps will not look too much like the maps we are familiar with, but they will serve the same purpose of helping people understand the world they inhabit, be it real or digital. Martin Dodge (m.dodge@ucl.ac.uk) is a researcher in the Centre for Advanced Spatial Analysis (CASA), University College London, and the curator of "~n Atlas of Cyberspaces," at www.geog.ud.ac.uk/casa/martin/atlas/atlas.html. © TeleGeography, Inc. 1.997 TeleGeography 1997/98 The lnternet Weather Report by John Quarterman, MIDS The MIDS Intemet Weather Report (IWR) presents daily ani- mated geographical maps of delays in the Internet. The IWR is like daily newspaper or television weather radar reports, except instead of being about real world meteorology, it is about con- ditions inside the Internet. The IWR is presented in geographi- cal maps that show round trip times (latencies) of data packets sent from our offices in Austin, Texas to thousands of lnternet domains worldwide, currently every four hours, six times a day, seven days a week. Latency Latency is round trip time there and back again. We send a sig- nal, or ping, to an Internet node and measure the time it takes for a response to return. We repeat this five times for each node and take the average as the latency for that node. Then we col- lect all the average latencies for all the nodes for each scan, and make a geographic map for that scan. Finally, we use the Java programming language to animate the six maps for each day. The latency scale is indicated in the legend in the upper left of each map. The unit is the millisecond, so 1000 indicates one second. The smallest circles represent a latency of 1 O0 millisec- onds (fast enough to be in the same room); the largest stand for 5000 milliseconds (slow enough to be unusable). In other words, small circles indicate good Internet performance, and big circles indicate problems in the Internet. Figure 1. Internet Weather Report for Continental United States, 8 Sept. 1997 MIDS Internet Weather Report msec 5,000 3,000 2,000 1,000 5OO 0 300 O 200 ¯ 100 ~.~,~Redtr~nd latencies :- -, Bend~~ C __Reno S ~M~Ountain View an_Jose--~c. ~_ Los Angeles~~. 97 Sep 08 04:00 PM CWT U.S. (Low. 48) count a2 4 ©~ i~Tem d~, ains __Missoula Fargo_~ (~_~ ~-~ ’, -- L_ ~,~q3u rlil3gton Idaho Fal Saint Paul I~che, ster, __ _ ,s ~i~ ci~ _ ..... ~G~monoge Milwaukee :~ .... ’( ~: :~New~°R "~- ’~-~,~’ --,~ew Haven Salt Lake. GJtv Des Moines G~c~go ~’; .... .......... -~ ....... e = ~b~delph=a Omaha---: f ,~ :~ewoo~ a~t~ .... ~Co~m~r~n~e~t Los Alamos Oak_R~e .... ~harlofle Norman ~--~ --Rock_Hill L~t~_Rock~~ Huntsville-~ ~tlan~ 0 Jackson Austin 0 ~~New_Orleans Melbourne Copyright (c) 1997 MIDS Austin, Texas, USA 1-512-451-7602 fax 1-512-452-0127 http://www.mids.org mids@ mids,org -Di 1 1:25,000,000 Albers Conic Equal-Area projection 97.09.09_02:41 (1 44 10 ) TeleGeography 1997/98 © TeleGeography, Inc. 1997 Figure 2. California’s Internet Weather on September 8, 1997 MIDS Internet Weather Report 97 S.p oa California latenctes domains .~r~., Berkeley San Francisco-:~ _ Llvermore Pale Alto ~,~an Mateo -. I rti--~’~’---sa~t~’%aOO~,-~,, ~v~ Cara Cu Las Vegas~ © © Santa _Sarbara-- MIDS Internet Weather Report 97 Sep 08 Reno ~Berkeley Pao Ate-~,~n Mateo CU California domains Las Vegas~ Santa Barbara-- F~-Northndge +1-512-451-7602 fax +1-512-452~127 http:l/ww~tnids.org raids@ raids or~ -Dr 0 1:5,000,000 Albers Conic Equal-Area projection 97.09,09 02:51 {0 20 50 ) MIDS lnternet Weather Report 97 Sep 08 California 2,000 O 200 I L. ~erkeley San Francisco.~-’~~.~L=vermore Pale Alto eo ¯ I a.,~,~-Sa~ C ara {_as Vegas +t-512÷451÷7602 fax +1-512"452-0127 Wrip:/h~wv.mids,org raids@raids org -Of 0 t :5,000,000 Albers Conic Equal-Area proiection 97,09,09 =02:52 {0 20 50 I Report 97 s~v 08 California MIDS lnternet Weather latencies domains Berkeley San Francisco~f~, Pale Alto ,~,t~n Mateo .’- ~.,l__Sal~)~ Clara Cuper~nO~’- Monte Serene Santa Cruz-- Las Vegas ~: -Df 0 t :5,000,000 Albers Conic Equal-Area projection 97.G9.09 02:54 (0 20 50 ) © TeleGeography, Inc. 1997 TeleGeography 1997/98 Count The size of each circle indicates the latency; bigger is slower; smaller is faster The color of each circle may also indicate the number of hosts at a given location and latency. Red means only one host, orange is for two, yellow for three, green for nine, then cyan, blue, and so forth, in logarithmic spectrum order Violet means 64 hosts, and usually only occurs in densely packed areas like Silicon Valley. The count color scale is indi- cated in the legend in the upper right of each map. In some very densely networked areas, you can actually see a bell curve of red (few) hosts with big (slow) latency circles, blue (many) hosts with medium-sized circles, and again red (few) small (fast) circles. Time The use of colors gives four dimensions of data on each two dimensional map: latitude and longitude (icon placement), latency (icon size), and number of hosts at each latency and location (icon color). To these four dimensions we’ve added another--time. So the IWR Java movies actually show the Internet in five dimensions. The clock and text in the center top of each map indicate the date, the local time of day, and the time-zone. Maps that cover geographical regions with multiple time-zones include the name of a city for which the indicated time-zone applies near the cen- ter of the map. Many cities show different latency circles depending on the time of day. To see this, pick a specific city, such as Palo Alto on the California map (see Figure 2) and compare the circles around that city through an entire day. You can see a few small circles early in the morning which turn into several big circles in the middle of the afternoon. Often there are two or three distinct circles under heavy load; these are caused by several different lnternet routes arriving at different speeds into that city. Load causes latencies to increase in relation to the capacity available on a given route. Sometimes a whole map or an area will explode with big circles. That’s an Internet storm, indicating that some wide area provider between our pinging node and the destinations dis- played is experiencing problems (see Box 1 ). Why the IWR? People often ask why we are producing the IWR. We have sev- eral reasons: I.) We wanted a conference paper to go to the INET ’94 conference in Prague. 2.) We were told it couldn’t be done. 3.) We are collecting data on the Internet and we want to give something back to the Internet. 4.) It is good market- ing for MIDS. 5.) It is a good debugging tool for the various Box 1. Internet Traffic Patterns and the IWR The lnternet Weather Report shows plenty of storms. But Mr. Quarterman suggests that longer average response times for any par- ticular site are often due to local causes, such as an overloaded com- puter, a slow drive or a congested Intemet Service Provider which do not really affect overall Internet performance. Still, IWRs do show an interesting cyclical feature: Congestion increases during the work week with five days of relatively high latencies followed by two days of shorter latencies. Holiday seasons usually produce better perfor- mance but during the 1995 Christmas-New Year season, latencies went up, says Quarterman, perhaps because many people "got Internet connections for Christmas." The IWRs also show that from January 1994 to January 1996 there was a 30 percent improvement in mean latencies. That is, during this period, the average round trip time decreased, which means that the quality of the lnternet actually got better--not worse. Quarterman thinks that some of the Intemet improvement could be due to better performance by MIDS’ local ISP as well as increased port connection speeds by a number of distant sites. Nevertheless, Quarterman thinks that the 30 percent improvement is hard to explain solely by these factors. But, does the data mean "all is cool with the Intemet? .... No," says Quarterman. The "long latencies shown in the reports are real: servers that can’t keep up with traffic are a problem in themselves. Mean Latencies of MIDS Ping Tests, 1994-1997 690 640 590 540 490 440 39O 1994 1995 1996 1997 Source: MIDS And there are frequent outages and breaks in wide area lnternet Protocol carriers and in their interconnecting points. But overall these do not appear to be any worse than they used to be and the general trend is clearly towards improvement." Source: TeleGeography0 Inc. TeleGeography 1997/98 © TeleGeography, Inc. 1997 underlying databases that we use to produce it. 6.) Nothing else provides an ongoing visualization of the entire Internet in near real time. In the past couple of years, Internet quality of service mea- surements have become a hot topic, and now we have more reasons to make the IWR. People now ask us what specifically they can get out of these Internet weather maps. To provide specific answers to this question we are adding features to the IWR. For example, we are adding a world map and more regional maps, so you can see the Internet as a whole and more detail on specific regions. We are adding thematic maps for web servers, routers, and hosts, so you can see differences in response from different kinds of Internet nodes. We are adding maps of specific ISP networks, so you can see different respons- es of different ISPs. And we are adding tables and graphs so you can see the data behind the maps. Naturally, new features require new resources. Although some fraction of the IWR will always be publicly visible for free, most of the new features will be visible to paying customers only. To sign up to use them, please see our order form at www.mids.org/order or send email to support@mids.org. John S. Quarterman is president of Matrix Information and Directory Services (MIDS, www.mids.org), which examines the construction and demographics of the Internet and other net- works in the global Matrix of computers. To contact Ouarterman, send email to jsq@mids.org. © TeleGeography, Inc. 1997 TeleGeography 1997/98 Measuring the Internet by The Editors, TeleGeography, Inc. How does the Internet work? How big is it? How many bits move across it? A map of the infrastructure--the main back- bone networks and network exchanges---does not tell you very much about how packets of data actually get from one com- puter to another Likewise, if you simply map the flow of pack- ets from one site to another you can easily miss how the money flows. Hence, the following pages try to provide an overview of how the Intemet works by presenting three different views: commercial, operational and geographical. Each provides part of the answer Figure 1. Internet Cash Flows © Telel3eography, Inc. 1997 Cash flows on the Internet begin with the end user (e.g., an individ- ual, company, or university) who pays an Internet service provider (ISP) for access. Many small ISPs, in turn, pay larger ISPs for access to their networks. Each ISP must directly or indirectly connect with, and pay for access to, a Network Service Provider (NSP). The NSPs consist of regional, national and international backbone providers that connect to each other at Internet Exchange points (IXs). In North America these Exchanges are commonly known as Network Access Points (NAPs) or Metropolitan Area Exchanges (MAEs). In some cases the functions of ISPs and NSPs are consolidated into a single entity (e.g., Intemet MCI). The chart is intended to be illus- trative of economic relationships in the U.S. only. The U.S. Government, which originally subsidized the network for scientific and defense purposes, has withdrawn most funding but continues to con- tribute towards research and essential services. The chart does not show the flow of money to infrastructure providers, which provide the access lines for end users as well as the leased circuits for ISPs. Source: TeleGeography, Inc. TeleGeography 1997/98 © TeleGeography, Inc. 1997 Figure 2. Internet Packet Flows IBP RSP END h END END ’~ ~USER KEY -- = customer ortransitrelationsh~p peering relat=enship GBP = global backbone prowders IBP = international backbone providers NSP = national service prowder RSP = reg=onal serv=ce provider ISP = =nternet serv=ce provider reseller End User = ~nd~wdual or enterprise net~Nork Source: adapted from Dimension Enterprises, Inc. Competition and rapid growth are brin~in~ both diversification and stratification in Intemet infrastructure. Global connectivity can be assured only throul~h a complex set of peering and transit relation- ships between providers. Peer networks exchange traffic with each other; a network providin{~ transit to another allows its backbone to be used to reach a destination not on its own network. Individuals or enterprise networks choose providers based on service offerings, cost, support, and quality of service. © TeleGeography, Inc. 1997 TeleGeography 1997/98 Figure 3. How an ISP Connects to the Internet Foreign ISP International Private Line Foreign ISP Global ISP Foreign NAP Foreign ISP Public Access Point U,S, NAP U,S, NAP International Private Line Foreign ISP Private Peering Arrangement Foreign Foreign ISP ISP Note. D~agram illustrates typical alternatives for connecting to the U.S.-centnc Internet. bnes between ISPs and NAPs represent Internet Protocol network I~nks using e~ther cable or satellite famhties atvanous capamt~es. Source: TeleGeography, Inc. © TeleGeography, Inc 1997 In many countries, the only way for an ISP to connect to the Internet is to pay international carriers for a private line all the way to a Network Access Point (NAP) in the U.S. Other non-U.S, tSPs may have the ability to plug into a NAP in their country (see "Foreign NAP") which is connected to the lntemet by way of the other ISPs which interconnect at that point. Also, a foreign ISP could establish a private peering arrangement with a global backbone provider (see "Global ISP") that connects to NAPs in various countries. TeleGeography 1997/98 © TeleGeography, Inc. 1997 Figure 4. Major North American Internet Backbone Providers Backbone NAP Be!]an Speed Connections Service Owner ACSI T3 3 1996 American Comm. Services, Inc. A61S T3/0C3 6 1994 Apex Global Internet Services ANS T3 4 1990 America Online, Inc.* AT&T T3 4 1997 AT&T Corp. BAC 0C3 1 1995 Bell Canada Enterprises, Inc. BBN T3/OC3 6 1978 GTE Corp. Cable & Wireless T3 4 1996 Cable & Wireless plc Compuserve T3 4 1993 H&R Block Corp.* CRL T3 6 1983 CRL Network Services, Inc. Dataxchange T3/0C3 3 1993 DataXchange Network, Inc. Digex T3 6 1993 Intermedia Communications, Inc. DRA Net T3 5 1992 Data Research Associates, Inc. Epoch T3 9 1994 Epoch Internet, Inc. Fibernet T3 3 1995 Fiber Network Solutions, Inc. Genuity T3/0C3 9 1994 Bechtel Corp. ISeonet T3 5 1990 GeoNet Communications, Inc. Global Center T3/0C3 10 1994 Global Center, Inc. Goodnet T3/0C3 5 1995 Telesoft, Inc. Gridnet T3 3 1996 WorldCom, Inc. IBM T3 5 1994 IBM Corp. Icon T3/0C3 8 1996 Icon CMT Corp. MCI 0C3/0C12 7 1995 MCI Communications Corp.** Nap.Net 0C3 3 1995 Bechtel Corp. Net Access T3 3 1992 Net Access USA, Inc. Netcom T3 6 1992 ICG Communications, Inc. Netrail T3/0C3 8 1994 NetRail, Inc. PSInet T3 4 1988 PSINet, Inc. Savvis T3 0 1995 Savvis Communications Corp. Sprint 0C3 6 1992 Sprint Corp. TCG Cerfnet T3/OC3 6 1989 Teleport Communications Group, Inc. UUNet 0C3/0C12 5 1987 WorldCom, Inc. Visinet T3 2 1995 VisiNet, Inc. NAP = Network Access Point 0C3 = 155 Mbzt]s 0C12 = 622 Mb~t/s T3 = 45 Mbit/s = Planned merger of backbone w~th WorldCom, Inc. ** = At thzs printing, bzds for control of MCI have been made by BT, WorldCom, and GTE. Note’ Data current to mid-1997. Presence of multzple backbone speeds (e.g., "T3/OC3") mdzcates d=fferent speeds for d=fferent parts of the ISP’s neWvork. Each NAP connection indicates a separate location where the ISP’s backbone is connected Przvate peering arrangements are non-NAP points of mterconnect=on with other ISPs. "Owner" column reflects major=W control by ult=mate parent company. Source: Adapted from "Is the Internet m Trouble?" by Rob=n 6arezss, Data Commumcations, September 21, 1997, see also Boardwatch Magazine. © TeleGeography, Inc. 1997 TeleGeography 1997/98 TeleGeography 1997/98 © TeleGeography, Inc. 1997 Figure 6. Top 25 Internet Hosts by Domain, 1995-1997 0 1,000,000 2,000,000 3,000,000 4,000,000 5,000,000 Comrnermal (com) Educat=on (edu) Network (net) Japan (jp) United Kingdom (uk) Germany (de) Un=ted States (us) Austraha (au) Canada (ca) Mihtary (mil) Orgamzat=on (org) Government (gov) Netherlands (nl) Finland (fi) France (fr) Sweden (se) Italy (~t) No.ray (no) New Zealand (nz) Switzerland (ch) Denmark (dk) Korea, Repubhc of (kr) Spain (es) South Africa (za) Austria (at) ¯ 1 July 1997 [] 1 July 1996 [] 1 July 1995 Source: NeWvork W=zards, Inc. Network Wizards, a California-based company owned by Internet engineer Mark Lottor’ performs a biannual Internet domain name survey that "attempts to discover every host on the Internet by doing a complete search of the Domain Name System" (see www.nw.com). The chart above displays the growth of host computers tied to par- ticular domains. Of the 224 domain names included in Network Wizard’s July 1997 survey of lnternet domains, over 50 have less than ten hosts active under them. Interesting host-less domains include: Antarctica (aq), Ethiopia (et), Iraq (iq), Oman (ore) and Syria (sy). Where are Internet computers located? There is no precise answer. The problem is that a host’s domain name (e.g., "www.telegeogra- phy.com") is not necessarily linked to its national odgin. For exam- ple, a host computer with the domain ".jp" could actually be located in New York city. Or, a host could use the domain for the defunct Soviet Union (e.g., www.chem.msu.su) although you might be hard pressed to find it on a map less than four years old. To learn about a campaign to put latitude and longitude data into the domain name system, see page 80. Source: TeleGeography, © TeleGeography, Inc. 1997 TeleGeography 1997/98 Figure 7. lnternet Hosts and Web Servers, 1981-1997 100,009,008 ....................................................................... 19,080,000 1,080,000 I00,000 I0,000 1,000 100 1981 1983 19,540,000.0 Internet hosts Web servers 1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 Source Network W=zards, lnc and M. Gray tn years past, each host on the [nternet represented one computer, But the definition of hosts has changed such that a single computer can act like many hosts with many names and many addresses all at once. Network Wizards, a company trying to keep track of lnternet host growth, admits that "it is not possible to determine the exact size of the lnternet." For more details on what is not available, visit www.nw.com/zone/host-count-history. Mathew Gray, a graduate student and researcher at MIT’s Media Lab, has been counting Web servers since 1993. His most recent estimate puts Web growth on a pace that doubles the number of servers every six months. The Internet as a whole (measured by hosts), however, appears to double only every 12 months. For the latest numbers, go to www.mit.edu/people/mkgray. What about the number of Intemet users? Unfortunately, there is no single best estimate. Varying estimates for total 1996 Internet users include: the International Telecommunication Union (60 million), Matrix Information & Directory Services (57 million), International Data Corporation (51.4 million---web only), or Nielsen Media Research (50.4 million--U.S, only). A compilation of Internet market estimates can be found on IlPro’s Cyberattas web page at: www.cyberatlas.com. Figure 8. Distribution of Phone Lines vs. Internet Hosts Internet Host Distribution, Jan. 1997 Africa Latin America- Asia- 1% Caribbean Pacific 1% 10% Europe North America 66% Telephone Main Line Distribution, Jan. 1996 Latin America- Caribbean Asia- Pacific /:i~i ...... Africa 2% North America 26% Europe 38% Note: In the host distribution chart, three letter domains (.corn, .edu, .org, .net, .gov and .mil) have been incorporated into the total for North Amenca although some hosts within these domains are located outside North America. Source: Both charts are adapted from the I]’U’s Challenges to the Network, August 1997 (for details, visit www.itu.int]ti). Host data from Network Wizards (www.nw.com) and RIPE (wwvv.ripe.net). TeleGeography 1997/98 © TeleGeography, Inc. 1997 Box 1. The DNS Location Campaign Where in the world is www.kei.com? Brussels? Bangkok? Boston? If RFC 1876 were adopted, a click of the mouse would bring the answer. Intemet addresses have no necessary correlation to the geophysical location of the host computers to which they are assigned. And even if the address contains a country domain--there is no telling whether the computer is in Geneva or Tokyo. The absence of geographic labels helps to give the Net its own sense of place, and to protect the pdvacy of its visitors. But it is maddening for cyber cartographers as well as for many net- work engineers who would like to have a better fix on traffic patterns and routing arrangements. RFC t876 just might provide a partial solution. (ARequest For Comments (RFC) is a semi-formal document proposing an lnternet standard, although many are never endorsed by the Intemet’s ad hoc governing bodies. Any RFC can be retrieved with the address ds.intemic.net/rfc/rfcxxxx.txt where "xxxx" is the RFC number) Firs~ proposed in January 1996 by Christopher Davis, a network administrator for Kapor Enterprises, Inc., RFC 1876 describes a way to include location information about computer hosts, net- IKF¢ ! 76 works and sub-nets in the *~-~ ..... ," ~-~" Intemet’s domain name system (DNS). More technically, RFC 1876 defines the format for a resource record (RR) in the DNS, and reserves a corresponding mnemonic (LOC) and numerical code so as to insert the latitude, longitude and altitude of host computers within a given domain name. The RFC would be implemented on a decentralized basis by domain name administrators and Intemet service providers. Interim instructions are available at www.kei.com/homepages/ckd/dns-loc. For back- ground on the Domain Name System, see RFCs 799 and 1480. In TeleGeogruphy 1996/97 we wrote "In a perfect wodd...the lnternet would map itself and the billions of bits flowing from one computer to another would be counted too." Implementing RFC 1876 could bdng this vision one step closer. Source: Gregory Staple Figure 9. Plot of U.S. Domain Name Locations Note: Locations are plotted by postal code of domain name registrants and may not correspond to physical Ioca~ons of host computers. Source: Imperative, Inc. (www.irnperat]ve.com) © TeleGeography, Inc. 1997 TeleGeography 1997/98 Figure 10. Internet Traffic Flows, 1991-1997 George Gilder’s monthly newsletter for high tech investors, the Gilder Technology Report (GTR), publishes one of the few publicly available estimates on the growth of Internet traffic. Each month Glider’s team collects statistics on the packets that move through selected major U.S. Network Access Points (NAPs) and Metropolitan Area Exchanges (MAEs), Based on these data sets, GTR claims that its estimates account for only 20 percent of the Internet’s total traffic. As of July 1997, CTR believed that, "...total Internet traffic probably exceeds 3 petabytes (10~) a month, or a some 200 fold dse s~nce the privati- zation of the U.S.’s NSFNet in Apdl 1995." GTR’s traffic estimates build on the model once used to measure traf- fic on the NSFnet backbone. Like the NSFnet data, it combines the traffic totals for each exchange point. Thus, bits transiting through two or more NAPs/MAEs on a single trip may be duplicated. On the other hand, this data underrepresents total traffic because it does not include traffic within an individual network, nor between networks with pdvate exchange points, nor at other exchanges which are out- side the U.S. With these qualifications the data presented here does represent a consistent subset of total Internet traffic and can be taken as a measure of the relative growth of the Internet. For infor- mation on how to subscribe to the GTR, visit www.gildertech.com or call them at +I 413 274 021 I. 1000 100 1 3/91 9/91 3/92 9/92 3/93 9/93 3/94 9/94 3/95 9/95 3/95 9/96 3/97 Source’ G~lder Technology Report (vwvw.g~ldertech.com) Figure 11. Internet Traffic by Application Source World Wide Web Share of Total Internet Traffic, 1993-1996 80% 6O% 20% Note: The traffic shares above reflect HTTP packet travel on the U.S. ANS Commumcations backbone only (the ANS network was purchased by WorldCom zn 1997). Source: Damet McRobb, ANS Communications (www, ans,net) Internet Traffic by Application Packet Share, April 1997 SMTP 3% Domain 4% NNTP FTP 3% 3% Other 2O% TTP 67% Note: HTTP= Hypertext Transfer Protocol; Domain = Domazn Name Look-up; SMTP = Send Mad Transfer Protocol; NNTP = Net News Transfer Protocol; FTP = File Transfer Protocol. Source, Adapted from the ITU’s Challenges to the Network, August 1997 (for detads, visit ww-w.~tu.int/ti) TeleGeography 1997/98 © TeleGeography, Inc. 1997 International Facilities and Carriers TeleGeography 1997/98 © TeleGeographg, Inc. 1997 Major Submarine Cables History of Trans-Atlantic Cable Systems Year in Cable Cozt (US$) Capacity Service Syztem per voice path (voice pathz) 1956 TAT- 1" 557,000 89 1965 TAT-4* 365,000 138 1970 TAT-5* 49,000 1,440 1983 TAT-7* 23,000 8,400 1988 TAT-8 9,000 37,800 1993 TAT-10 2,700 113,400 1996 TAT-12/13 1,000 604,000 1998 AC-1 125 2,457,600 No longer in service. ! Note: Costs are capital and construction costs only, unadjusted for inflation. Table assumes that 5 virtual voice paths to be derived from a digital channel operating at 64,000 bits per second (64 Kbps). Table reports average cost per voice path for cables with multiple landing points. Reserve capacity of cables is generally exclud- ed. Some cables (e.g., TAT 12113) may be upgraded to increase initial capacity. Source: FCC and carriers. ©TeleGeography, Inc. © TeleGeographg, Inc. 1997 TeleGeography 1997/98 History of Trans-Pacific Cable Systems Year in Cable Cost (US$) Service System per voice path 1957 Hawaii 1" 378,000 1964 TPC-I* 406,000 1974 Hawaii 2* 41,000 1975 TPC-2* 73,000 1988 TPC-3 16,000 1992 TPC-4 5,500 1996 TPC-5 2,000 1999 China-US 200 No longer in service. Capoc.ily voice paths) 91 167 1,690 1,690 37,800 75,600 604,000 4,915,200 o I A N C E A N This map is also available as a wall poster. For details, visit Mtp~/www.telegeogrnphy.com PACIFIC CANADA Fiber-Oplic Submarine Cables Major International Cables 80 40 20 10 5 1 Capacity in Gigabits per second. One Gbit/s is equivalent to about 80,000 calls. Dashed lines indicate cables not operational as of October 1997 but expected to be so by the end of 1999. ©TeleGeography, Inc. 1997 TeleGeography 1997/98 © TeleGeography, Inc. 1997 The Next Generation of Undersea Mega-Cables by Gregory Staple, Koteen & Naftalin, LLP The third generation of undersea fiber optic cables which has just begun service (TAT 12/13; TPC 5) can carry approximately 5 Gigabits per second (Gbps) per fiber pair or approximately 320,000 virtual voice channels. This represents an order of magnitude increase from the second generation of fiber-optic cables (operating at 560 Megabits per second) which, in turn, provided a tenfold increase in capacity over the first fiber-optic cables such as TAT-8. Recent trials and experiments by AT&T, Alcatel and KDD sug- gest that the next generation of cables, to be deployed in the 2000-2005 timeframe, will increase capacity by at least anoth- er order of magnitude to 50 Gbps and probably to 100 Gbps or more. That will be enough to transmit three million or more simultaneous telephone calls or several hundred thousand channels of compressed video services. In the meantime, sev- eral companies have already proposed an intermediate gener- ation of trans-oceanic cables with capacities from 20 to 40 Gbps to meet the booming demands for Intemet services (see Figures 1 and 2). TomorrovCs fiber optic mega-cables will rely upon two technolo- gies~ptical soliton transmission and wave division multiplex- ing (WDM)--which leverage the benefits of earlier break- throughs, such as optical amplifiers. Digital communications generally are sent over a fiber optic cable by very rapidly transforming the original electrical signal into tiny pulses of laser light; the presence or absence of a pulse in a given period is used to code a binary I or 0. However, optical fibers can only carry a signal for a few hundred kilome- ters before it becomes too blurred or weak to be useable. Thus, long distance fiber optic cables contain repeaters, spaced at regular intervals, to amplify the signal. For many years the only way to regenerate a signal in a long haul cable was to use an opto-electronic amplifier which con- verted the weak light pulses into an electronic signal, boosted the signal through an amplifier, and then transformed the boosted signal back into light pulses. In the late 1980s, how- ever, amplifiers were developed to regenerate the optical signal without any electronic intermediary. These optical amplifiers typically consist of a few meters of erbium-doped fiber (EDF) inserted into the transmission path and hence are known as EDF Amplifiers or EDFAs. An EDFA permits a signal to be .~! 120 ~Atlantic :: 100 ............. Pacific i 80 0 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 Bit rate Number of 64 per fiber KbitJs circuits (Mbit/s) : -o plus signaling : overhead 100,000 i ~."/~ 100 Gbit/s = 1,228,800 W~O i20 G bitJs = 245,760 2.5 G bit~s = 30,720 ,~560 M bit/s U 280 Mbit/s 10,000 1,000 lOO 1985 199o 1995 2000 2005 = 7,680 = 3,840 Source: TeleGeography Source: Alcatel © Tele Geog raphy, tnc. 1997 © TeleGeography, Inc. 1997 TeleGeography 1997/98 Figure 2. Proposed Submarine Cable Systems Route System Lead Investors/Owners Capacity Service Date Trans-Atlantic Atlantic Crossing-! Global Telesystems Ltd. 40 Gpbs 1998 (Funded by Pacific Capital Group) Gemini MFS Communications, 20 Gbps 1997-1998 Cable & Wireless Atlantis-2 Telefonica, Embratel and others 1999 1999 2000 Trans-Pacific 5 Gbps (upgradeable) 80 Gbps 40 Gbps China-US China Telecom, KDD, AT&T Southern Cross WortdCom, Telecom New Zealand, 0ptus Europe-Middle East-Asia SEA-ME-WE3 France Telecom, Singapore Tetecom, KDD and 75 others 40 Gbps 1998-t999 Africa-Middle East- South Africa-Far East Telkom South Africa and 10 Gbps t999 Asia (SAFE) Telekom Malaysia ©TeleGeography, Inc. 1997 "pumped up" using a laser light source thousands of kilometers away at one of the cable headends. Notwithstanding optical amplifiers, the bit rate of long haul cable systems has generally been limited to 5 Gbps due to the way in which the light pulses propagate. But scientists have now developed a way to create unique pulses of light, known as solitons, which maintain their shape and intensity at very high bit rates over great distances. For example, in 1995 KDD demonstrated the feasibility of transmitting a 20 Cbps optical soliton data stream by time division multiplexing 10 Gbps puls- es on an 8100 kilometer fiber optic cable test bed. By coupling soliton technology with wave division multiplexing the aggregate transmission capacity of any given fiber optic cable may be increased severalfold. In one experiment by Alcatel, sixteen 2.5 Gbps channels, each with a different wave- length, were multiplexed together to create a 40 Gbps data stream over a distance of over 1400 kilometers. And in February 1996, KDD and AT&T reported they had transmitted over 110 Gbps on a 730 km test bed cable. Later the compa- nies announced that this WDM technology would be used in the new 80 Gbps China-U.S. cable to be completed by 1999. KDD also will use WDM for a 100 Gbps cable around the islands of Japan. Field trials of WDM technologies elsewhere are also promising. Alcatel has reported WDM transmission of four 2.5 Gbps data streams over 3500 kilometers on the RIOJA cable system between the U.K. and Spain. AT&T has conducted a similar trial transmitting 10 Gbps over a segment of the Columbus-2 cable between Florida and St. Thomas in the Caribbean; and tests on the TAT 12/13 system have led to a 10 Gbps proposed upgrade by 1999. The commercial impact of these developments will be felt well before the next generation of cables. As with TAT 12/13, WDM technologies will permit some cable owners to upgrade capaci- ty merely by changing the equipment at the cable head ends. Four or even eightfold capacity increases ultimately may be possible. Second, development of WDM techniques is likely to make fiber optic systems increasingly flexible and hence at-trac- tive to new investors. Because WDM can be used to create dif- ferent virtual (frequency specific) channels, a cable can be par- titioned to satisfy the routing requirements (landing points) of particular carriers or countries without reducing the cable’s overall capacity. The global net of 300 Gbps cables planned for 2000-2003 by Project Oxygen (www.oxygen.org) is likely to take advantage of these features. Finally, as soliton WDM technology moves into commercial pro- duction, the historical relationship between intercontinental and local prices is likely to flip flop. By 2000, for example, a call from Los Angeles to Tokyo may cost less than a call from one of Los Angeles’ many area codes to another. This is the new economics which light wave technology will soon usher in. For Further Reading: Jos~ Chesney and Jean-Francois Marcerou, "Challenges and Perspectives For the Next Generat=on of Transoceamc Networks"; and Sh=geyuki Akiba and Shu Yamamoto, "WDM Undersea Cable Network Technology For 100 Gbps and Beyond," Subopbc ’97 Conference Proceedings, (San Franc=sco, CA, 11-16 May, 19971, pp. 2:32-257, pp. 448-456. Frankhn W. Kerfoot and Peter K Rungs. "Future Directions For Undersea Communications," AT&T Technical Journal (January/February 1995) Vol, 74 # I, pp. 93-100 S.S. S~an, S.M. Webb, K.M. Gill, "Sixteen x 2 5 Gbps WDM Unrepeater Transmission Over 427 km," Alcatel Submanne Networks, London (June 1995). TeleGeography 1997/98 © TeleGeography, Inc. 1997 International Communications Satellites O mmv n!~., n’~ ¯ n ¯ my m. n- lmml~ [] [] [] [] [] mr m~. m. my ¯ ¯ ¯ my m~, my m. mv my ¯ Key The maps on this page show internation- al geostat(onary satellites only. Each square represents six 36-MHz transpon- der equivalents for the C-band (assigned frequencies at 4/6 (3Hz), while each trian- gle represents six 36-MHz transponder equivalents for the Ku-band (11-12/14 GHz). A 36 MHz C-band transponder can generally carry about 2,000 calls. Some capacity on satellites shown here may be used for video broadcast services, Inmarsat satellites provide telecom ser- vices to mobile terminals (airplanes, ships, and handhetd units) and are not directly comparable to satellites commu- nicating with fixed terminals. The Inmarsat 3 series (shown as larger cir- cles) have about eight times the power of Inmarsat 2 spacecraft and can transmit approximately 2000 calls s~multaneously. Hollow shapes indicate satellites under construction as of August 1997. All geo- stationary satellites orbit directly above the equator. Regional communicabon satellites are not shown. Data: Euroconsult Tel. +33 1 43 38 06 00; Fax +33 1 43 38 12 40 my DV mv r~v m. Dv mv F~V my D~ my v mv [] mv v mv [] my v my [] my ~. 45"E 50’E 75 E © TeleGeography, Inc. 1997 TeleGeography 1997/98 International Satellite Capacity and Cost, 1970-2000 Trans-Oceanic Satellite Voice Paths, 1988-1997 Trans-Atlantic Trans-Pacific 1988 78,000 3%000 1989 93,000 39,000 1990 283,000 39,000 1991 283,000 27,000 1992 496,000 27,000 1993 620,800 83,300 1994 620,800 234,000 1995 710,800 234,000 1996 710,800 234,000 1997 737,500 424,500 Note: Data pr=or to 1993 include tntelsat satellites only After 1989, deployment of Dig=tal Code Mult=phcatmn Equipment (DCME) made 5:1 compression poss=ble where only 2’1 had been used prevmusly. Capamty estimates exclude one Intelsat satellite ~n each region held in reserve Intelsat Cost per Circuit per Year, 1970-2000 $?,000 $6,000 $5,000 $3,000 $2,008 $1,000 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1985 2000 Source: TeleGeography, Inc. Source" Euroconsult, Tel. +33 1 43 38 06 00; Fax +33 1 43 38 12 40 Communications Satellite Orbits and Beams Low Earth OrbR (LEO) 700-1400 km This d=agrarn shows typical communications satellite orbits and beams. Geostationary satellites always orbit around the equator, while satellites in medium and low earth orbit move relative to the earth and cover a range of latitudes. © TeleGeography, Inc 1997 TeleGeography 1997/98 © TeleGeography, Inc. 1997 International Circuit Usage by U.S. Carriers Figure 1. International Circuit Usage by Region, 1995-96 For Private For Public Switched Total Circuits Idle Total Lines Network In Use Circuits Available Americas 1995 9,489 79,892 89,381 10,789 100,170 1996 38,170 82,801 120,971 9,432 130,403 W. Europe 1995 9,997 22,389 32,386 54,593 86,979 1996 33,083 29,536 62,619 33,053 95,672 E. Europe 1995 241 2,886 3,127 1,470 4,597 1996 478 3,344 3,822 1,704 5,526 Middle East 1995 506 2,560 3,066 266 3,332 1996 908 2,836 3,744 560 4,304 Africa 1995 199 2,051 2,250 18t 2,431 1996 406 2,416 2,822 327 3,149 Asia 1995 5,067 13,185 18,252 26,605 44,857 1996 15,015 16,475 31,490 27,163 58,653 Oceania 1995 998 3,125 4,123 1,628 5,751 1996 3,302 3,110 6,412 2,523 8,935 Total 1995 26,497 126,150 152,647 n.a. n.a. 1996 91,362 140~18 231~ 74362 306,642 Americas W. Europe E. Europe Middle East Africa Asia Oceania 95 96 95 96 95 96 excess ,,,./ capacity 0% 20% ~°Io 60% 80% 100% Percent of Total 64 Kbps Circuits ¯ IPL PSTN [] Idle circuits Note: Data based on FCC circu=t status reports filed by U.S. carriers and ere for AT&T, MCI, Sprint and WoddCom only. Data are for circuits or=ginetmg in con- ~nentel U.S. "Idle" circuits are circuits owned by a carrier atyear end but not =n use. Totals are for ell mrcuits to ell countries within a region. Satellite capac- ity utilization ~s generally not reflected by this data because U.S. carriers do not acquire ~nternat~onal satellite capacity m advance. © TeleGeography, Inc. 1997 © TeleGeography, Inc. 1997 Te~eGeography 1997/98 Figure 2. International Circuit Usage for Selected Routes, 1995-96 For Private For Public Switched Total Circuits Idle Total Lines Network In Use Circuits Available Canada 1995 5,543 44,172 49,715 1,936 51,651 1996 20,410 41,793 62,203 917 63,120 Mexico 1995 1,653 23,416 25,069 800 25,869 1996 13,312 27,784 41,096 840 41,936 Hong Kong 1995 860 742 1,602 1,036 2,638 1996 1,921 961 2,882 3,722 6,604 Japan 1995 2,241 4,619 6,860 16,259 23,119 1996 7,682 5,354 13,036 17,696 30,732 Singapore 1995 521 306 827 593 1,420 1996 1,114 582 1,696 508 2,204 U.K. 1995 6,048 8,317 14,365 27,001 41,366 1996 18,959 12,648 31,607 10,844 42,451 Canada 95 96 Mexico 95 96 Hong Kong 95 ~~ Japan 95~ Singapore 95 excess Z capacity United Kingd°m 99~ 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Percent of Total 64 Kbps Circuits ¯ IPL PSTN [] Idle circuits Note: Data based on FCC circuzt status reports filed by U.S. carriers and are for AT&T, MCI, Sprint and WorldCom only, Data are for circuits originating m con- tinental U.S. "Idle" circuits are circuits owned by a carrier at year end but not zn use. Totals are for all circuits to all countries within a region. Satellite capac- ity utzlization is generally not reflected by this data because U.S. carriers do not acquire ~nternational satellite capaciW in advance. © Telei~eography, Inc. 1997 TeleGeography 1997/98 © TeleGeographyo Inc. 1997 Market Shares of Competing International Carriers Country/Carrier United States AT&T MCI Sprint Worldcom Others Fercontage of Outgoing MiTT 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 89.1 83,3 78.4 74.8 70 3 62 2 60.1 54 3 50 2 70 102 146 178 21 2 24.8 26.5 28.5 28.4 35 5.8 64 63 7.3 10.3 11 1 11.3 13.2 n.a 0.6 2.1 3 5 4 5 0.2 24 37 United Kingdom BT Mercury WorldOom GlobalOne ACC Others 95.5 91.0 86 0 81.0 76.8 74.2 68.6 67,7 4.5 9.0 14.0 19.0 23.2 24 0 28.1 25 8 60.0 26.8 6.6 3.1 3O 1 Japan KDD 93.3 88 0 73.3 69.7 66.9 66.3 66.2 64.9 IDC 37 65 13.3 153 16.9 17.3 17.3 18.1 Japan Telecom 3,0 5.5 13.4 15.0 162 16.4 165 170 Nevv Zealand TNZ ClearCom Others 92 0 82.0 80.0 78.4 74.8 78.0 8.0 18 0 20 0 21.6 25.2 22.0 78.2 19.8 2.0 Republic of Korea Korea Telecom Dacom 79.9 74.5 68 7 72.6 73.5 20.1 25 5 31.3 27 4 26.5 Entel Chde Chilesat VTtR Telecom CTC-Mundo BellSouth Chile lusatel CNT Transam 80 0 55.0 20 0 20.0 1 0 5.0 36.3 36 5 37.3 24.8 23 1 15 2 24.2 7.4 9.3 12.8 20.2 22.2 1.5 99 100 0.1 1.7 2.8 03 0.5 0.6 2.8 Philippines PLDT Philippine Global Corn Eastern Telecom Capitol Wireless ICC Smart Digital Philcom Islacom 91.6 84 n.a. n.a 84.2 15.8 n.a. ha. 69 23 7 1 68 23 6 1 1 1 78 6 5 1 4 1 2 2 1 Australia Telstra Optus IPL Resellers 98.0 2.0 87 0 13.0 76.3 219 1.8 73,4 23.4 3.2 62.0 27.0 11.0 ©TeleGeography, lnc 1997 © TeleGeography, Inc. 1997 TeleGeography 1997/98 Percentage of Outgoing MiTT Country/Carrier 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 Canada (Canada-U.S. route only) Stentor 93 80 63 57 AT&T Canada Long Distance 2 8 8 8 Sprint Canada 13 15 Fonorola 9 12 ACC 3 4 Others 4 4 Dominican Republic Codetel >90 85.8 Tncom n.a 6.7 83 0 77 0 7.5 12.8 9 5 10.2 All America Cables and Radio, Inc, (AACR) Sweden Telia AB Tele-2 Others Finland Telecom Finland F~nnet International Telivo Others Indonesia PT Indosat PT Satelindo Denmark Tele Danmark Netcom Systems Teha A/S Malaysia Telecom Malaysia TRI Others na 7.5 92 87 76 69 8 13 21 22 3 9 90 72 8 66.0 5 19,1 24.2 3 7.7 88 2 0,4 0.9 99 5 95.4 89.5 0.5 4 6 11 5 92.5 4.0 3.5 90 8 2 Notes: M~FF is Minutes of Telecommunications Traffic. Data based on outgoing mternateonal traffic for the public switched network only. Unless stated, data exclude traffic and market share of carriers reselbng international private hne services (IPL resellers). Market shares are for the full year, beginning in the first year of compet~tmn. In 1997, competition was introduced in Israel, Mexico and the Netherlands Market shares for new carriers in these countries will be reported ~n TeleGeography 1998/99 Umted States Market shares for U.S. carriers prior to 1994 exclude resellers and, prior to 1993, traffic to Canada and Mexico; for the traffic base of second t~er U S. carners, see page 179 The 1996 figures for WorldCom reflect its acquisition of MFS Umted Kingdom: Carriers’ traffic to Ireland ~s excluded prior to 1994 Market shares based on hscal year reporting. Japan’ The figures for Japan Telecom reflect data for ITJ prior to its October 1997 merger wzth domestzc long distance carrier Japan Telecom Co. Market shares based on fiscal year reportzng. New Zealand’ Market shares for New Zealand carriers prior to 1996 exclude resellers and are based on fiscal year reporting. Chile: In 1993, Chilean shares do not total 100% because Ch~lesat reportedly acted as an ~nternational gateway ~n 1993 The 1994 and 1995 market shares for Chile are based on traffic for the month of December only Austraha: Market shares for t994 and 1995 are based on traffic for October to December quarters only and reflect wholesale m~nutes for facibtles-based carners only. Market shares ~n 1996 are from fiscal year ended June 1997 Canada Some data supphed by NBl/M~chael Sone Associates, Toronto (Fax: +I 416 360 7546). Indonesia’ PT Satelindo began international service in September 1994. ©TeleGeography, {nc 1997 TeleGeography 1997/98 © TeleCeographyo Inc. 1997 The Top 40 International Carriers Outgoing Traffic (millions of Mi’l’rs) 1996 Revenue (US$ billions) Rank Company Country 1996 1995 Change95-96 Total Rev. Int’l Service Rev. 1 AT&T (a) United States 9452 8482 11.4% 52.5 6.3 2 MCl (a) United States 5356 4458 20.1% 18.5 2.6 3 Deutsche Telekom Germany 5100 5238 -2.6% 38.4 5.0 4 BT (b) United Kingdom 3158 2909 8.6% 24.5 3.0 5 France TOl~com France 3116 2805 11.1% 25.2 3.5 6 Sprint (a) United States 2480 1765 40.5% 14.1 0.8 7 Telecom Italia Italy 2124 1908 11.3% 21.8 1.6 8 Swisscom Switzerland 1936 1778 8.9% 8.6 2.1 9 Hongkong Telecom (a,b) Hong Kong 1739 1692 2.8% 4.2 2.6 10 Stentor (c) Canada 1650 1467 12.5% n.a. n.a. 11 KPN (a) Netherlands 1534 1459 5.1% 10.3 2.0 12 China MPT(d) China 1433 1339 7.0% 10.3 2.3 13 Mercury(b) United Kingdom 1411 1107 27.4% 2.8 1.0 14 Belgacom (a) Belgium 1228 1106 11.1% 3.9 0.7 15 TelefOnica Spain 1189 1025 16.0% 14.1 1.4 16 KDD (b) Japan 1103 1086 9.3% 2.7 2.2 17 Telmex (a) Mexico 1071 950 12.7% 6.8 1.8 18 Austrian PTi’(d) Austria 960 901 1.6% 4.2 0.9 19 Singapore Telecom (b) Singapore 942 773 19.4% 3.0 1.3 20 T~l~globe (a) Canada 915 898 1.8% 0.6 0.6 21 Rostelecom (e) Russia 851 287 n.a. n.a. n.a. 22 WorldCom (a,f) United States 846 544 55.6% 4.5 n.a. 23 Telstra (b) Australia 829 806 2.9% 11.7 1.0 24 Telia AB (a) Sweden 706 702 0.6% 5.5 0.7 25 Chunghwa Telecom Taiwan 674 593 13.7% n.a. n.a. 26 Etisalat U.A.E. 589 504 16.9% n.a. n.a. 27 Saudi Com. Ministry Saudi Arabia 584 537 17.1% n.a. n.a. 28 Telecom Eireann (b,g) Ireland 580 407 42.5% 2.0 0.6 29 Tele Danmark Denmark 573 533 7.5% 3.7 0.4 30 Telekom Malaysia (a,h) Malaysia 571 408 n.a. 2.4 n.a. 31 Korea Telecom Rep. of Korea 520 404 28.7% n.a. n.a. 32 OTE Greece 516 468 10.2% 2.5 0.5 33 Turkish P’IF Turkey 473 374 26.6% n.a. n.a. 34 Norwegian Telecom Norway 444 432 2.7% 2.1 0.4 35 Telekomunikacja Polska (a) Poland 437 381 14.8% n.a. n.a. 36 V~desh Sanchar (b,i) India 384 341 12.6% 1.5 1.4 37 Telebras Brazil 367 319 15.0% 11.5 0.8 38 Optus Australia 355 240 48.1% 1.5 n.a. 39 PortugaITelecom (a,j) Portugal 340 284 19.8% 3.1 n.a. 40 Bezeq (a) Israel 320 252 26.7% 2.4 0.6 MiTT is Minutes of Telecommunicat=ons Traffic. Data are for public vo=ce circuits only rounded to the nearest million MITT. a. Data based on billing point of call, not or=g=natmg point, b. Dataareforthefiscalyearendzng31March Telstra FY ends 30 June. c Stentor was formerly Telecom Canada; Stentor traff=c is for U.S. only, of wh=ch approximately 70 percent =s or=g=nated by Bell Canada. d. Revenue data are for 1995. e. Rostelecom data prior to 1996 excluded traffic to C.I.S. f. 1996 WorldCom data reflect data from MFS acqu~szt=on. 1995 data ~nclude full year data from IDB, LDDS and W~lTel acquisitions. g. Telecom E~reann data exclude traffic to Northern Ireland. h. Malays=a data prior to 1996 excluded cross-border traff=c to Singapore, i. Videsh Sanchar data pnorto 1996 excluded traffic to Bangladesh, Nepal, Pakistan and Sr= Lanka. Combined totals for Portugal Telecorn and Radio Marcom. Prmr to 1996 merger, Portugal Telecom handled =ntra-cont=nental traffic only, and Marcom carr=ed overseas traff=c. Source TeleGeography, tnc (Traffic); ING Barmgs and TeleGeography/ITU (Revenue) ©TeleGeography, Inc 1997 © TeleGeography, Inc. 1997 TeteGeography 1997/98 International Services of U.S. RBOCs When will the RBOCs compete for international services? The short answer is "they already are," but primarily as resale car- tiers (see Figure 1). And even though some of the Regional Bell Operating Companies (RBOCs) may acquire their own interna- tional facilities, they won’t become major competitors until they can sell international services to their own local customers. In most states that wilt not occur until 1998 or 1999, at the ear- liest. To understand why, it is helpful briefly to review America’s historic communications reform law, the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (1996 Act). The 1996 Act was motivated largely by two interrelated objec- tives. First, the U.S. Congress sought to foster greater compe- tition for local telephone services by, among other things, allow- ing the country’s major long-distance carriers--AT&T, MCI and Sprint--to compete directly for local services with incumbent carriers, such as the RBOCs. The second goal--and the political quid pro quo for the first-- was to free the RBOCs from the antitrust constraints imposed in 1984 when they were divested from AT&T. Once freed, the RBOCs would be able to provide interexchange, including inter- national, service in direct competition with their former parent. The RBOCs are by far the largest local exchange carriers (LECs) in the United States. Each RBOC serves between 15 and 22 million access lines, and collectively the RBOCs account for approximately 85 percent of all U.S. access lines. The 1996 Act permits RBOCs wishing to provide international service for calls originating outside of their local service regions to do so by simply filing a standard application under Section 214 of the Communications Act. In contrast, for in-region international service, an RBOC must obtain Section 214 authority and apply under the new Section 271 of the Communications Act on a state-by-state basis. The FCC may not grant an RBOC Section 271 authority until, after consultation with the U.S. Department of Justice, the agency is satisfied that three competitive safeguards have been met. First, for each state in which the RBOC seeks to provide service, the RBOC must have entered into a connection agreement with at least one unaffiliated, facilities-based (or predominantly facilities-based) competitor Alternatively, an RBOC may pub- lish its general terms for access and intemonnection, which must have been approved by the relevant state utilities com- mission. Second, the RBOC’s intemonnection agreement or its published terms must satisfy a competitive checklist. Specifically, inter- connection must: (1) be unbundled and cost-based; (2) include access to poles and rights of way; (3) include access to emergency and directory services; (4) provide universal direc- tory listings; (5) provide access to telephone numbers; (6) pro- vide for local dialing parity; (7) offer number portability; (8) offer reciprocal compensation arrangements; and (9) permit resale. Third, once this checklist is satisfied, the FCC may only autho- rize an RBOC to offer in-region long-distance service if it is pro- vided through an independent affiliate with separate officers, Figure 1. RBOC International Services Authorized by the FCC Out of Region IMTS i In Region IMTS Switched Resale Facilities-Based Switched Resale Facilities-Based Ameritech July 19, 1996" July 9, 1997" Bell Atlantic July 19, 1996 Feb. 7, 1997" -- -- (NYNEX) July 19, 1996" Feb. 6, 1997" I pending -- BellSouth June 3, 1996 -- -- -- SBC Oct. 25, 1996 -- -- -- (Pacific Telesis) Feb. 13, 1997 Sept. 5, 1997" pending pending U S West Dec. 27,1996 -- -- -- Note: IMTS is International Message Telephone Service. Each application for international service was filed by an RBOC subsidiary separate from the local service prov=der. All dates are for the earliest application granted. Data current to Sept. 1997. *Indicates route restrictions apply where the RBOC has a foreign carrier affiliate. ©TeleGeography, Inc, 1997 ~eleGeography 1997198 © Tele~eographg, Inc, 199~ Figure 2. Regions of U.S. RBOCs Montana Noah Dakota South Dakota _~-’ ,!J-~--~ North Carohna Oklahoma ’! Arkansa~ I; Tennessee :~_..~ Texas ’, ........ m ¢~ Florida Note: SBC and Pacific Tetesis completed a merger in April 1997. The proposed Bell Atlantic-NYNEX merger is expected to close by December 1997. ©TeleGeography, Inc. 1997 directors, employees and accounts. This separate affiliate requirement "sunsets" after three years. Ameritech was the first RBOC to file a Section 271 application for in-region long-distance authority with a January 1997 application to serve Michigan. However, Ameritech’s applica- tion was later dismissed because its interconnection agreement had not been given final state approval. Ameritech later refiled its application, but the FCC rejected it again in August 1997, this time because the company’s interconnection agreement did not satisfy three items in the competitive checklist. In April 1997, SBC filed a Section 271 application to serve Oklahoma. But its application was opposed by the Justice Department and subsequently denied by the FCC because SBC had failed to demonstrate that it had an interconnection agree- ment with at least one unaffiliated, facilities-based competitor. BellSouth became the third RBOC to file a Section 271 appli- cation. In September 1997, it asked the FCC for authority to provide long distance service in South Carolina. Further Section 271 applications by these carriers and by other RBOCs are expected soon. Under the 1996 Act, the FCC must grant or deny a Section 271 application within 90 days. Until the RBOCs have authority to provide long distance ser- vices in key states, they will not be able to market internation- al service to their core customers--business and high volume residential customers within their local service regions. The FCC’s Section 271 proceedings (and related local interconnec- tion proceedings) thus will require continuing review by anyone interested in the RBOCs’ future as international carriers. This overview ~s adapted from a paper prepared by Koteen & Naftahn, LLP, entitled "The RBOCs Enter the Market for Domestic and International Long-Distance Services." Koteen & Naftalin, LLP, is one of Washington DC’s leading communications law firms. Founded in 1953, its chents now include U.S. and fore,on compa- nies in the telecommumcabons, data networking, electromc equipment, broadcasting and entertainment industries. For further information, contact Grog Staple at +I 202 467 5700 (voice}, 1 202 567 5915 (.fax); greg.staple@koteen.com. International Traffic Statistics TeleGeography 1997/98 © TeleGeography, Inc. 1997 © TeleGeography, Inc. 1997 TeleGeography 1997/98 Destination MiTr 1. Spain ................. 27.0 2. France ................. 7.0 3. Portugal ............... 1.5 4. United Kingdom ......... 0.6 5. Germany ............... 0.2 6. Belgium ................ 0.2 7. Switzerland ............. 0.2 8. Italy ................... 0,2 9. Netherlands ............ 0.1 10. United States ........... 0.1 Andorra Largest Telecommunications Routes, 1996 Percentage of Outgoing Traffic : 1.7% o 0.6% ; 0.5% 0.5% ; 0.5% .0.4% 0.3% Other .................. 0.7 1.9% © TeteGeography, Inc. 1997 National Traffic Balance MiTT 1994 1995 1996 Incoming n.a. n.a. 27.3 Outgoing 32.3 36.0 37.8 Surplus (Deficit) n.a. n.a. (10.5) Total Volume n.a. n.a. 65.1 Note: M=TT ~s M~nutes of Telecommumcat~ons Traffic Data are m milhons of minutes of public switched trafftc, Data based on bdhng point of traffic © TeleGeography, tnc t997 99 TeleGeography 1997/98 © TeleGeography, Inc. 1997 f A gentina Largest Telecommunications Routes, 1996 Destination Percentage of Outgoing Traffic MiTt United States .......... 35.0 Uruguay .............. 31.8 Brazil ................ 21.9 Chile .................. 14.1 Spain ................ 12.0 6. Italy ................... 9.7 7. Paraguay .............. 8.0 8. Peru ................... 7.1 9. Bolivia ................ 5.2 10. France ................ 3.9 11. United Kingdom ......... 3,4 12. Mexico ................ 3.3 13. Germany ............... 3.3 14. Colombia ............... 2.1 15. Venezuela .............. 2.0 16. Canada ................ 2.0 17. Israel .................. 1.5 18, Ecuador ................ 0.9 19. Netherlands ............ 0.8 20. Japan ................. 0.7 Other ................. 12.8 © TeleGeography, Inc. t997 National Traffic Balance MiTT 1994 1995 1996 Incoming 252.6 299.4 390.7 0 utgoing 175.0 179.4 181.3 Surplus (Deficit) 77.7 119.9 209.4 Total Volume 427.6 478.8 572.0 Note: M=TF =s Minutes of Telecommumcat=ons Traffic Data are m m~ll=ons of minutes of publ=c switched traff=c, Data based on bdling point of traffic © TeleGeography, Inc. 1997 © TeleGeography, Inc. 1997 TeleGeography 1997/98 Australia Largest Telecommunications Routes, FY 1996/97 Destination MiTt 1. United Kingdom ....... 185 2. New Zealand ......... 155 3. United States ......... 145 4. Hong Kong ............ 55 5. Singapore ............. 45 6. Malaysia .............. 45 7. Indonesia ............. 40 8. China ................. 40 9. Philippines ............ 35 10. Japan ................ 35 Other ................ 385 Percentage of Outgoing Traffic "~:" Z’?: ~.~ 4.7% ,%,, © TeleGeography, Inc, 1997 National Traffic Balance MiTT 1994 1995 FY 1996/97 Incoming n.a. n.a. n.a. Outgoing 852 1024 1305 Surplus (Deficit) n.a. n.a. n.a. Total Volume n.a. n.a. n.a. Note: Mt’FI" ~s Minutes of Telecommumcat=ons Traffic Data are in milbons of minutes of pubhc sw=tched traff=c. Route data are for Telstra and 0ptus only, and are rounded to the nearest 5 mill=on minutes Because fiscal year reporting replaced calendar year report=ng m 1996, totals for 1995 and FY 1996/97 are not d=rectly comparable. F=scal year ends 30 June, © TeleGeography, Inc. 1997 101 TeleGeography 997/98 © TeleGeography, Inc. 1997 t Austria Largest Telecommunications Routes, 1994 Destination Percentage of Outgoing Traffic 2. 6.0% 4. :: !","i:,;, 3.8% Mill" Germany ............. 344.5 Switzerland ........... 49.3 Italy .................. 42.5 Yugoslavia ............ 31.0 Hungary .............. 28.6 6. United States .......... 24.9 7. Turkey ................ 24.5 8. Croatia ............... 23.1 9. France ............... 21.0 10. Poland ............... 20.3 11. Netherlands ........... 19.4 12. Czech Republic ........ 18.3 13. United Kingdom ........ 16.6 14. Slovenia .............. 14.4 15. Slovak Republic ........ 11.0 16. Romania ............... 9.1 17. Russia ................. 9.1 18. Belgium ............... 8.7 19. Sweden ............... 7.4 Other ................. 95.5 ~-,:,,:~ 2.6% 2.4% 2.0% 1 1.3% 1.1% 1.1% 0.9% © TeleGeography, Inc. 1997 National Traffic Balance MiTT 1994 1995 1996 Incoming 774.5 n.a. n.a. Outgoing 819.2 901 960 Surplus (Deficit) (44.7) n.a. n.a. Total Volume 1,593.7 n.a. n.a. Note: M~R zs Mznutes of Telecommumcatzons Traffic. Data are ~n m~lhons of minutes of pubhc switched traffic, 102 ©TeleGeography, Inc 1997 © TeleGeography, Inc. 1997 TeleGeography 1997/98 Destination MiTr 1. United States .......... 45.7 2. Canada ................ 3.0 3. United Kingdom ......... 1.7 4, Jamaica ............... 1.2 5. Switzerland ............. 0.4 6. France ................. 0.3 7. Germany ............... 0.3 8. Turks & Caicos Islands ...0.3 9. Italy ................... 0.2 10. Cayman Islands ......... 0.2 11. Brazil .................. 0,2 12. Trinidad & Tobago ....... 0.2 13. Barbados .............. 0.2 14. Mexico ................ 0.2 15, Haiti ................... 0,2 16. Bermuda ............... 0,2 17. Austria ................. 0.1 18. Dominican Republic ...... 0.1 19. Cuba .................. 0.1 Other .................. 2.1 Bahamas Largest Telecommunications Routes, 1996 Percentage of Outgoing Traffic ¯ 0.6% 0.5% t 0.5% 10.5% io.4% 0.4% 0.4% 03% O.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% ¯ 3.6% © TeleGeography, Inc. 1997 National Traffic Balance MiTT 1994 1995 1996 Incoming n.a. n.a. n.a. Outgoing n.a. n.a. 56.7 Surplus (Deficit) n.a. n.a. n.a. Total Volume n.a. n.a. n.a. Note: MiFr is Minutes of Telecommumcations Traffic Data are in millions of minutes of public switched traff=c ©TeleGeography, Inc 1997 103 TeleGeography 1997/98 © TeleGeography, Inc. 1997 t Bahrain Largest Telecommunications Routes, 1996 Destination MiTr Percentage of Outgoing Traffic 1. India .................. 17.7 !,:,:ii~ii~iii:,!!i,,’,’:~:!iii.!i:’~,’,’~’:,’:~::,:,!~!,’~::!!,~;~,,:~;’i i:,~:i::i~::-,~!!:i~i~’:!!:i,:i:ii, i:,~i~’, "19.2% 2, Saudi Arabia ........... 13.5 i‘‘.:::!~:i:‘!~‘!:~:,‘‘‘::i:~!~,:~:~i~::~:i::!i:!~‘:,:2i!~::‘‘‘‘:~::~;!~:::ii‘‘!:‘,‘‘‘::::~‘‘ 14.6% 3. United Arab Emirates .11.2 ¯ ;,’:’,:,,~ :" ,.it’,’"" -",.’..’,,.",:~,,~"’~: ,::’~",";"",,?;’, "~,’,;’-’,’,,’ ",’,: 12.1% 4. United Kingdom ......... 8.3 ""/" :’" ""’"::: :’’" ’:’’":~"’:~’~=" ":"::’"" ° 6. Pakistan ............... 4.3 7. [gypt .................. 4.3 8. United States .4.2 ~:" "~:::::’~’";~’::’~’~’~"’~: ° ....... .. ,,, ~,;,,,i,,,,,,,~;,’,, :,, 4.6Yo 9. Qatar .................. 3.7 i~,".":;~;"~i,, !;’~:,,,:i~" 4.0% lO. Oman .................. 1.9 Ii,~:i!:i!"~!i~; 1.~% 11. Philippines ............. 1.7 i’~i~:i’,’;~!~i:~ 1.9% 12. Jordan ................. 1.4 ~i!~;~: 1.5% 13. Sri Lanka ............... 1.1 i,:,,:,,1.2% 14. Bangladesh ............. 1.0 ~’:,-~,,~ 1.1% 15. Morocco ............... 1.0 ~i;"11.1% 16. France ................. 0.8 ":"0.8% 17. Syria .................. 0.7 ’i:! 0.7% 18. Germany ............... 0.6 ii~ii 0.7% 19. Switzerland ............. 0.6 :!’,, 0.7% 20. Yemen ................. 0.6 ~i 0.7% Other .8.7 !, ~- ,_ ,~:,,~,,::~::i~:i:,,,, ,!,:if::,i ~,,,::,, ;,, f ,~,,,,,,~ 9 4%° © TeleGeography, Inc, t997 National Traffic Balance MiTT 1994 1995 1996 Incoming 59.1 62.6 69.4 Outgoing 86.8 88.7 92.2 Surplus (Deficit) n.a. (26.1) (22.8) Total Volume n.a. 151.3 161.5 Note: M=l-r =s Minutes of Telecommumcations Traff=c Data are =n millions of m~nutes of pubhc sw=tched traffic Data based on billing pmnt of traffic © TeleGeography, Inc, 1997 © TeleGeography, Inc. 1997 TeleGeography 997/98 Bangladesh Largest Telecommunications Routes, 1996 Destination Percentage of Outgoing Traffic 14. :,, 1.9% 15. 1.8°/o 16. : 0.5% 17. O.4% 2. 3. 4. 5. MiT~ United Kingdom ......... 5.4 Japan ................. 3.2 India .................. 2.9 Hong Kong ............. 2.9 Singapore ............. 1.9 United States ........... 1.4 Pakistan ............... 1.3 Rep. of Korea ........... 1.2 Malaysia .............. 1.2 Italy ................... 1.1 Saudi Arabia ........... 0.8 United Arab Emirates .... 0.7 China ................. 0.6 Germany .............. 0.6 France ................ 0.6 Canada ................ 0.2 Sri Lanka ............... 0.1 Other ................. 12.2 36.8% © TeleGeography, Inc, 1997 National Traffic Balance MiTT 1994 1995 1996 Incoming n.a. 122.1 129.2 Outgoing 22.1 33.0 38.3 Surplus (Deficit) n.a. 89.1 90.9 Total Volume n.a. 155.1 167.5 Note: M=’F[ ~s Minutes of Telecommumcat~ons Traff=c Data are ~n milhons of m~nutes of publ=c switched traffic ©~leGeography, lnc, 1997 105 TeleGeography 1997/98 © TeleGeography, Inc. 1997 Belarus Largest Telecommunications Routes, 1996 Destination Mill" 1. Russia ................ 74.1 2. Ukraine ............... 22.5 3. Moldova ............... 2.3 4. Kazakhstan ............. 2.0 5. Armenia ............... 1.2 6. Uzbekistan ............. 0.9 7. Azerbaijan .............. 0.7 8. Georgia ................ 0.5 9. Kyrgyzstan ............. 0.2 Percentage of Outgoing Traffic 1.9% o.~% 0.7% D.~% o.~% 10. Turkmenistan ........... 0.2 0.2% 11. Tajikistan ............... 0.1 0.1% © TeleOeography, Inc. t997 National Traffic Balance MiTT 1994 1995 1996 Incoming n.a. n.a. n.a. Outgoing n.a. 106.6 104.9 Surplus (Deficit) n.a. n.a. n.a. Total Volume n.a. n.a. n.a. Note: Mi’l-r is M~nutes of Telecommumcations Traffic Data are in mllhons of minutes of pubhc switched traffic. Data include traffzc to other member states of the Commonwealth of Independent States only See page 114 for a matrix of traffzc from other ClS member states © TeleGeography, Inc. 1997 106 © TeleGeography, Inc. 1997 TeleGeography 1997/98 Belgium Largest Telecommunications Routes, 1996 Destination Mi~]" Percentage of Outgoing Traffic 10. Sweden .............. 14.4 /,?~ 1.2%o 11. Portugal .............. 13.2 :,~;1.1% 12. 6reece ............... 12.3 "i’,’ 1.o% 14. Turkey ................ 11.4 !,,,~" 0.9% 15. Austria ............... 10.8 : 0.9% 16. Morocco .............. 9.9 17. Poland ................ 9.9 ’ 0.8% 18. Ireland ................ 7.4 ,,,, o.6% 19. Canada ................ 6.2 ;" 0.5% 20. Russia ................. 5.9 0.5% © TeleGeography, }nc. 1997 National Traffic Balance MiTT 1994 1995 1996 Incoming 1,093.9 1,172.0 1,289.1 Outgoing 1,049.0 1,105.7 1,228.4 Surplus (Deficit) 44.9 66.3 60.6 Total Volume 2,142.9 2,277.7 2,517.5 Note: M=TT ~s Minutes of Te]ecommumcat=ons Traff=c. Data are =n milhons of minutes of public sw=tched traffic. Data baaed on bilbng point of traffic, © TeleGeography, Inc. 1997 ......... TeleGeography 1997/98 © TeleGeography, Inc. 1997 f Bolivia Largest Telecommunications Routes, 1996 Destination MiTT Percentage of Outgoing Traffic 1. United States .4.8 .... ................. "~ ,’,," 4~,,’,~", .............................................. 22.4% 2. Brazil .................. 3.4 ~,~,,~:~,~:~,~~~:~: 15.9% 3. Argentina .3.2 ~"~’~"’,’~, ,;, ..... ~;~+~,~;~~,~ "q ..... ~"",~,~ 15.0% 4. Chile .................. 2.3 ;,,,~,::’~,’~,:,,:,#~&~,’;~:~:~,~,~,&::,": 10.7% 6. Germany .............. 0.5 7. Spain ................. 0.5 ~:~:~:~:~; 2.1% 8. Mexico ................ 0.5 #~,~,:,~ 2.1% 9. Colombia ............... 0.4 :~:~;,~,, 1.9% ara .a ............... 0.3 11. Italy ................... 0.3 : ",~: ~.4% 12. Canada ................ 0.3 ::’,:f~,,~ 1.4% 13. Ecuador ................ 0.2 ~:~:, 1.1% 14. Venezuela .............. 0.2 >~,~ ~.1% 15. Japan ................. 0.2 ,~: ~.1% 16. United Kingdom ......... 0.2 :1.o% 17. France ................. 0.2 ~" 1.o% 18. Swi~erland ............. 0.2 ~:,0.9% 19. Uruguay ............... 0.2 ~,, 0.7% 20. Panama ................ 0.2 0.7% Other .1.6 ~,~;~’~’;:;~’~ ~-~:-;~:~’:~;~ 7.3% © TeleGeography, Inc. t997 National Traffic Balance MiTT 1994 1995 1996 Incoming n.a. 49.2 53.9 Outgoing 18.0 20.8 21.4 Surplus (Deficit) n.a. 28.4 32.5 Total Volume n.a. 70.0 75.3 Note: Mz’FI" is M=nutes of Telecommumcat=ons Traffic Data are zn milhons of minutes of public switched traff=c. 108 © TeleGeography, Inc. 1997 © TeleGeography, Inc. 1997 TeleGeography 1997/98 Brazil Largest Telecommunications Routes, 1996 Destination MiTI" Percentage of Outgoing Traffic 2. Argentina .28.6 :" ’"""~’:" :*~ :,’ ° 6. United Kingdom .14.0 :~’ii~’:’~’~!t~:"",:’ 3.8% 9. Spain .................. 9.2 !:-’%";’: 2.5% 10. Uruguay ............... 8.4 ~i’,,~"i’i 2.3°/o 11. S~o Tom~ and Principe ...8.1 ~!:!!~, 2.2% 13, Chile .................. 6.8 (~;: 1.9% 14. Moldova ............... 6.5 ~,,i 1.8% 15. 6uyana ................ 6.1 :, 1.7% 16. Canada ................ 6.0 "i’ 1.6% 17. Bolivia ................. 5.9 ~’" 1.6% 18. Switzerland ............. 5.4 ’ 1.5% 19. Mexico ................ 4.7 1.3% 20. Israel .................. 4.1 ’: 1.1% © TeleGeography, Inc. 1997 National Traffic Balance MiTT 1994 1995 1996 Incoming 408.0 495.5 624.4 Outgoing 199.0 319.4 366.9 Surplus (Deficit) 209.0 176.1 257.5 Total Volume 607.0 814.8 991.3 Note; M~TT ~s Minutes of Telecommumcat~ons Traffic Data are m mdhons of minutes of public switched traffic. Data based on bilhng point of traffic © TeleGeography, Inc. 1997 109 TeleGeography 1997/98 © TeleGeography, Inc. 1997 Canada Largest Telecommunications Routes, 1996 Destination MiTT 1. United States ........ 2850 2. United Kingdom ....... 155 3. Hong Kong ............ 60 4. France ................ 50 5. Germany .............. 45 6. India .................. 40 7. Italy .................. 35 8. Philippines ............ 17 9. Netherlands ........... 17 10, Mexico ............... 16 11. Jamaica .............. 15 Other ................ 465 Percentage of Outgoing Traffic :~~;~. 4.1% 1.3% 1.2% 1.1% 0.9% i0.5% ~0.5% ~0.4% ~0.4% © TeleGeography, tnc, 1997 National Traffic Balance MiTT 1994 1995 1996 Incoming 3859.2 3895.8 4313.3 Outgoing 2231.9 2667.1 3519.8 Surplus (Deficit) 1627.3 1228.7 793.5 Total Volume 6091.1 6562.9 7833.1 Note: Mil-F is Mznutes of Telecommunications Traff=c Data are in millions of mznutes of pubhc swztched traffic and are based on billing point of traffzc. Route data for the top seven routes rounded to the nearest five mflhon minutes. U.S. route traffic is for Stentor, AT&T Canada Long Dzstance and IPL resellers combined, but I PL resellers’ traffic ~s not included on other routes (e g, to the U.K,). © TeleGeography, Inc. 1997 110 © TeleGeography, Inc. 1997 TeleGeography 1997/98 Chile Largest Telecommunications Routes, 1996 Destination MiTT Percentage of Outgoing Traffic 1. United States .......... 52 ~!:~ ;~.~:. ~.~.....,~ :.~:~: .... ; ~.~. :,....~...~..’~ :.~.. :.~.~.. .., ::~,~.~:.~.,~:~ ..... ~... ~:,~. : 29.9% 6. Canada ................ 6 7. Mexico ................ 5 ~:~’~’~’:~ 2.9% 8. 6ermany ............... 4 ~?:~ 2.3% 9. France ................. 4 ,,: :~:~ 2.3% 10. United Kingdom ......... 4 ~;~’~;;, 2.3% 11. Ecuador ................ 4 ~;,~,t~’~’~ 2.3% 12. Italy ................... 4 :~,~:’:~’ 2.3% 13. Bolivia ................. 3 ~’":’, 1.7% 14. Colombia ............... 3 ~,/;,,~ 1.7% 15. Venezuela .............. 2 ~’~;,~ 1.2% Other .25 ’ ’, "" ~, 14.4% © TeleGeography, Inc. 1997 National Traffic Balance MiTT 1994 1995 1996 Incoming n.a. n.a. n.a. Outgoing 73.5 136.9 173.8 Surplus (Deficit) n.a. n.a. n.a. Total Volume n.a. n.a. n.a. Note: M=TI- =s M=nutes of Telecommunzcatzons Traff=c. Data are =n m=lhons of m=nutes of public sw=tched traffic © TeleGeography, Inc 1997 ......... TeleGeography 1997/98 © TeleGeography, Inc. 1997 f China Largest Telecommunications Routes, 1995 Destination Percentage of Outgoing Traffic 4. : ,,,::~:i,;’i’, 5.0% 5. i:~’~’! 3.4% Mil-r Hong Kong ........... 750.0 Taiwan ............... 115.0 Japan ................ 86.8 United States ..........75.0 Rep. of Korea .......... 45.7 6. Macau ................ 41.4 7. Singapore ............. 24.6 8. Australia .............. 13.5 9. Germany .............. 12.0 10. Canada ............... 10.7 11. United Kingdom ......... 7.2 12. France ................. 6.8 13. Thailand ............... 6.5 14. Russia ................. 6.2 15. Malaysia ............... 6,0 16. Italy ................... 5.3 17. Indonesia .............. 3.5 18. Philippines ............. 3.0 19. Netherlands ............ 2.5 20. New Zealand ........... 2.0 Other ................ 115.5 i;~!"’: 3.1% 1.o% 0.9% 0.8% 0.5% 0.5% i 0.5% 0,5% 0.4% ¯ 0.4% 0.3% 0.2% 0.2% 0.1% © TeleGeography, Inc. t997 National Traffic Balance MiTT 1994 1995 1996 Incoming n.a. n.a. n.a. 0utgoing 1,170 1,339.1 1,433.2 Surplus (Deficit) n.a. n.a. n.a. Total Volume n.a. n.a. n.a. Note: MiTT is Minutes of Telecomrnumcat~ons Traffic. Data are ~n m=lhons of minutes of public switched traff=c. 112 © TeleGeography, Inc. t997 © TeleGeography, Inc. 1997 TeleGeography t 997/98 Colombia Largest Telecommunications Routes, 1996 Destination MiTI" Percentage of Outgoing Traffic 1. United States .......... 60.2 "" ,’~i’i,,,,i"~,’~’:~i~i~i,’:i,,:,’~’,::!i~ i,~i::: :,,~::ii:;ii’"i,,~:i""i’,’-’! i’i,i, ii~il;;’~;!~"~i:::i’~- "i:,,"ii 44.4% 2. Venezuela ............ 14.1 ~!~i~i~’~’,!~;:;~" ,?:-10.4% 3. Ecuador ................ 6,3 ;%, ’ ’4.6% 4. Spain .................. 5.7 i, liii,’,il ~,, 4.2% 5. Mexico ................ 4.8 ,i"~,,, 3.6% 6. Panama ............... 4.8 ~f’:’i’, 3.5% 7. Brazil .................. 2.9 "’~i,- 2.1% 8. Italy ................... 2.8 ,,, 2.o% 9. Peru ................... 2.8 i’i," 2.o% 10. United Kingdom ......... 2.5 ’~’:"1.8% 11. Germany ............... 2.5 ~’i~ 1.8% 12. Argentina .............. 2.3 ~!ii~ 1.7% 13. France ................. 2.3 ~" 1.7% 14. Canada ................ 2.3 1.7% 15. Chile .................. 1.7 -1.3% 16. Costa Rica .............. 1.6 1.2% 17. Dominican Republic ...... 1.1 ,~ 0,8% 18. Switzerland ............. 0.9 o2% 19. Puerto Rico ............. 0.9 o.7% 20. Japan ................. 0.5 0.4% Other ................. 12.5 ii’ii,:;i ’,~"ii’i~i,:’t,: 9.8% © TeleGeography, Inc. 1997 National Traffic Balance MiTT 1994 1995 1996 Incoming 302.8 351.5 384.2 Outgoing 120.3 127.3 135.5 Surplus (Deficit) 182.5 224.2 248.7 Total Volume 423.1 478.8 519.7 Note: M~l-r ~s Mznutes of Telecommumcat]ons Traffic Data are m m~lhons of minutes of public switched traffic. Data based on bflhng point of traffic. © TeleGeography, Inc. 1997 113 TeleGeography 1997/98 © TeleGeography, Inc. 1997 u!l~!,O 114 © TeleGeography, Inc. 1997 TeleGeography 1997/98 Costa Rica Largest Telecommunications Routes, 1996 Destination Percentage of Outgoing Traffic MiTt 1. United States .......... 23.8 2. Nicaragua .............. 7.7 3. Panama ................ 4.1 4. Mexico ................ 3.4 5. Guatemala ............. 3.2 6. El Salvador ............. 2.7 7. Honduras .............. 2.1 8. Colombia ............... 1.6 9. Canada ................ 1.0 10. Italy ................... 0.8 11. Spain .................. 0.8 12. Germany ............... 0.8 13. Venezuela .............. 0.6 14. Peru ................... 0.5 15. Argentina .............. 0.5 16. Brazil .................. 0.5 17. Chile .................. 0.4 18. Ecuador ................ 0.4 19. France ................. 0.4 Other ................. 4.3 1.0% 0.9% 0.9% 0.8% 0.8% 0.8% © TeleGeography, Inc, t997 National Traffic Balance MiTT 1994 1995 1996 Incoming n.a. n.a. 87.8 Outgoing 51.0 52.8 55.0 Surplus (Deficit) n.a. n.a. 32.8 Total Volume n.a. n.a. 142.8 Note: M~’Fi" is Minutes of Telecommunicatmns Traffzc. Data are ~n mzlhons of minutes of public swztched traffic. Data based on billing pmnt of traffzc ©TeleGeograph¥, Inc 199"/ 115 TeteGeography 1997/98 © TeleGeography, Inc. 1997 Croatia Largest Telecommunications Routes, 1995 Destination Mi~l" Percentage of Outgoing Traffic 1. G ermany .............. 47,6 ,,-’~i~,; ,,~,;:~:,",~;;~:i;~!~ ;!i~#i:;!~,, ,~,-; ~,’-",-~:!;’],.,"~,~;,,,’,.;"]~’,~,,;~" :]. ’i ~:" ]:,,]~ ",~:;,,’;’,>;,~,~,,~. ;:’ 22.6% 2. Bosnia ................ 46.7 ~,!;;, ;~-,, J~‘‘‘,~t;;~‘~i#~/~~‘‘‘~:‘.‘‘~/~‘~¢~‘~i~:~‘‘~‘‘J~:~‘&~i~‘~‘:~; ":~’t~&t~,,~",,,;~,~,~, 22.2% 3. Slovenia .............. 27.0 ~;,::,/I,I]TC,,,:,]I,]jI:,!]~F~;,,./I,:>],~I,;,~,,:,,,;,,]I,I,’¢I?,,/;,k~, 12.8% 4. Italy .................. 17.2 i]:’~!iiii!:!i~iiiil;~i]ii!~,~]i!i~’~!iiii!i!i~il 8.2%° 5. Austri a ............... 14.4 !::,,,;;~ ~, L:;;:,,I’,,,,:,II,,",,~’,-" >,,,;,,," 6.6 6. Switzerland .6.3 i~,,]"i:i";’~::L]::"-’,; 3.0% 8. United States ........... 5.2 ~" ",":::’:~’" 2.6% 9, France ................ 4.3 !~’,~ "’2.o% 10. Netherlands ............ 3.3 i~ii~:i~:=- 1.6% 11. Canada ................ 2.6 ii:~,’~! 1.2% 12. Sweden ............... 2.4 ~,ii,~,, 1,1% 13. Macedonia ............. 2.3 ~:: 11% 14. Hungary ............... 2.2 1.o% 15. Belgium ............... 2.1 ,,,~"’ 1.o% 16. Spain ................. 2.1 1.o% 17. Australia .............. 1.8 o.9% 18. Russia ................. 1.6 ~- 0.8% 19. Czech Republic ......... 1.6 ~’~ 0.8% 20. Denmark .............. 1.1 Other ................. 13.1 0.5% © TeleGeography. Inc. I997 National Traffic Balance MiTT 1994 1995 1996 Incoming 240.2 309.0 n.a. Outgoing 185.5 210.7 242.4 Surplus (Deficit) 54.8 98.3 n.a. Total Volume 425.7 519.7 n.a. Note: MiTT is M~nutes of Telecommumcations Traffic. Data are in m~lhons of minutes of pubhc switched traffic. Data based on billing point of traffzc 116 ©TeleGeography, Inc 19B7 © TeleGeography, Inc. 1997 TeleGeography 1997/98 Cyprus Largest Telecommunications Routes, 1996 Destination Mi’l’r Percentage of Outgoing Traffic 2. Greece ............... 30.8 ~i~;!~‘:,~‘!:~;::‘:~:!‘‘‘~‘:~‘‘~‘~‘‘!~/~i!!!‘:‘‘::~!‘~ii,~!~‘,‘!~:i!!~:~‘~:~(~t,,‘‘:‘:‘~:~:~!~:~;‘:i!~::,~‘‘!:j‘‘‘ 23.9% 3. Russia ................. 6.4 4. 6ermany ............... 5.4 i,! :, ~,i,"~i?i l;, 4.2% 5. United States ........... 5.3 6. Romania ............... 3.1 ~’~i’"~ ,! 2.4% 7. Lebanon ............... 3.0 ii~" "’:’ 2.4% 8. Italy ................... 2.7 ~i~’ ?" 2.1% 9. Bulgaria ............... 2.4 i~i,-"~;; 1.9% 10. Syria .................. 2.4 ii,~’i;i~ 1.8% 11. France ................. 2.3 ~’~,’~,~i 1.8% 12. Yugoslavia .............. 2.3 ~""7,11.8% 13. Egypt ................. 1.9 :j’, : 1.4% 14. Ukraine ................ 1.9 -,~ 1.4% 15. Switzerland ............. 1.7 ,,,, 1.3% 16. Sweden ................ 1.7 ,,,, 1.3% 17. Netherlands ............ 1.5 ~," 1.2% 18. Israel ................. 1.5 ’, 1.1% 19. Canada ................ 1.3 1.o% 20. Australia ............... 1.1 o.9% Other .17.6 ,’,, "", ",,,,,,5 ",~ ,, ;,’,, ~,’:, ,,~;?",: ~,,-~t, ’ 13.7% ................ .,, ," .,,, © TeleGeography, Inc. 1997 National Traffic Balance MiTT 1994 1995 1996 Incoming 79.0 87.3 92.0 Outgoing 106.6 117.4 128.6 Surplus (Deficit) (27.5) (30.2) (36.6) Total Volume 185.6 204.7 220.5 Note: M~’lq" =s Minutes of Telecornrnumcat=ons Traff=c. Data are m m~lhons of m=nutes of pubhc sw=tched traff=c. © TeleGeography, Inc 1997 117 TeleGeography 1997/98 © TeleGeography, Inc. 1997 Czech Republic Largest Telecommunications Routes, 1996 Destination MiTT Percentage of Outgoing Traffic 3. Austria ............... 18.2 ~,~:~ 6.5% 4. United Kingdom ........ 13.1 ~:~Y~O~ 4.7% 5. Italy .................. 10.5 ~,~:~ 3.7% 6. Poland ................. 9.1 ;,~,,,~,,~:,,, 3.21o 7. France ................ 8.4 ~"~’~1:~ 3.0% 8. United States .8.0 ....... .. ~,~,~;,, 2.8% 9. Netherlands ............ 6.8 ~>~,~,,; 2.4% 10. Ukraine ................ 6.7 ~i,~’~ 2.4% 11 Russia .6.7 ........... 2.4% ................. 12. Swi~erland ............ 6.1 ~,~i~]]~ 2.2% 13. Belgium ................ 3.9 ~i~,] 1.4% 14. Hunga~ ............... 3.1 15. Canada ................ 3.0 ~, 1.1% 16. Spain .................. 2.9 ~’," 1.0% 17. Sweden ................ 2.6 ~"0.9% 18. Yugoslavia .............. 2.3 ~’~’ 0.8% 19. Croatia ................. 2.2 0.8% 20. Bulgaria ............... 1.9 ~, 0.7% Other ................. 29.5 ~,~’:~%"?"~’~:~"~"~::~~:~~" 10.5% © TeleGeography, Inc. t997’ National Traffic Balance MiTT 1994 1995 1996 Incoming 210.0 223.7 324.4 0 utg oing 157.6 186.8 281.2 Surplus (Deficit) 52.4 36.9 43.2 Total Volume 367.6 410.5 605.6 Note: M~’R ~s M~nutes of Telecommumcalons Traffic Data are in milhons of m~nutes of public switched traffic. Data based on bilhng point of traffic. Totals in years 1994 and 1995 excluded traffic to and from the SIovak Republic. 118 © TeleGeography, Inc. 1997 © TeleGeography, Inc. 1997 TeleGeography 1997/98 Denmark Largest Telecommunications Routes, 1996 Destination Percentage of Outgoing Traffic 9. ::b, ;,,’ i 2.2% 10. :’ "’,’ 2.0% 12. ,:i’.::",(: 1.90/o 13. 1.9O/o 14. :, 1.7% 15. 12% 16, ’" 0.90/o 17. "-:’ 0.9% 18. 0.6% 19. ~;~ 0.7% 20. 0.8% ,.,. ,,,., .... ,,; ..... ~,’...’,’, ,, .... ,~,,,,, "," 12.4% 2. 3. 4. 5. Mil"r Germany ............. 105.8 Sweden .............. 95.1 United Kingdom ........ 61.5 Norway .............. 55.8 United States .......... 27.6 France ............... 23.3 Netherlands ........... 22.9 Italy .................. 13.6 Switzerland ............ 10.8 Finland ................ 12.4 Belgium .............. 11.3 Spain ................ 11.2 Poland ................ 11.0 Faroe Islands ........... 9.7 Turkey ................. 6.9 Greenland .............. 5.3 Austria ................ 5.3 Greece ................ 3.6 Canada ................ 4.1 Iceland ................ 4.8 Other ................. 71.1 18.5% © Telel3eography, inc. !997 National Traffic Balance MiTT 1994 1995 1996 Incoming 500.9 551.0 600.0 Outgoing 488.4 532.6 573.2 Surplus (Deficit) 12.4 18.4 26.8 Total Volume 989.3 1,083.6 1,173.2 Note: M~Fr is Minutes of Telecommumcat~ons Traffic Data are in millions of m~nutes of pubhc switched traffic Data are for Tele Danmark only. Other carriers originated an estimated 40 milhon minutes of traffic from Denmark © TeleGeography, Inc. ]997 119 TeleGeography 1997/98 © TeleGeography, Inc. 1997 f Dominican Republic Largest Telecommunications Routes, 1996 Destination Percentage of Outgoing Traffic 2. ~i!i 2.4% 3. ~i 1.9% 4. i: 1.8% 5. 1.5% 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. MiTT United States .......... 89.6 Spain ................. 2.7 Germany .............. 2.1 Italy ................... 2.0 Canada ................ 1.7 Cuba .................. 1.0 Venezuela .............. 0.9 Mexico ................ 0.9 Switzerland ............. 0.8 Colombia ............... 0.7 Haiti ................... 0.7 Argentina .............. 0.6 France ................. 0.6 Panama ................ 0.4 Netherlands Antilles ..... 0.4 United Kingdom ......... 0.4 Costa Rica .............. 0.3 Austria ................. 0.3 Netherlands ............ 0.3 Brazil .................. 0.3 Other .................. 3.7 ,, 0.9% 0.8% 0,8% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 0.5% 0.4% 0.4% 0 4% ’0.3% 0.3% 0.3% ’ 0.2% !’:!:" 3.4% © TeleGeography, Inc. t997 National Traffic Balance MiTT 1994 1995 1996 Incoming 404.0 424.1 450.9 Outgoing 63.5 85.4 126.6 Surplus (Deficit) 340.5 338.7 324.3 Total Volume 467.5 509.4 577.5 Note: Mi]-F ~s Minutes of Telecommumcat~ons Traffic. Data are ~n millions of minutes of pubhc switched traffic Outgoing totals for years 1994 and 1995 are for Codetel only Route data for 1996 include Codetel and AACR only; totals include traff=c from Codetel, AACR and Tricom. © TeleGeography, Inc. 1997 120 © TeleGeography, Inc. 1997 TeleGeography 1997/98 El Salvador Largest Telecommunications Routes, 1996 Destination Percentage of Outgoing Traffic 7. 2.8% 8. .: 1.4% 9. ~,,~- 10. ~" 0,8% 0.8% ~.,: 0.8% 0.5% 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. Mi~l" United States .......... 10.0 Guatemala ............. 6.7 Costa Rica .............. 2.5 Honduras .............. 2.4 Mexico ................ 1.9 Nicaragua .............. 1.4 Panama ................ 0.8 Canada ................ 0.4 6ermany ............... 0.3 Italy ................... 0.2 Colombia ............... 0.2 Spain .................. 0.2 Chile .................. 0.1 Venezuela .............. 0.1 United Kingdom ......... 0.1 Japan ................. 0.1 Brazil .................. 0.1 Ecuador ................ 0.1 Argentina .............. 0.1 Rep. of Korea ........... 0.1 Other ................. 0.8 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0.3% 0.3% © TeleGeography, Inc. 1997 National Traffic Balance MiTT 1994 1995 1996 Incoming n.a. n.a. 160.5 Outgoing 62.6 64.1 28.6 Surplus (Deficit) n.a. n.a. 131.9 Total Volume n.a. n.a. 189.1 Note: M~" Is Minutes of Telecornmumcat=ons Traffic. D ata a re m rn=lhons of rmnutes of pubhc sw=tched traff=c Traffic reporting in 1994 and 1995 based on originating point of traff=c, 1996 totals based on b=lling pmnL © TeleGeography, Inc. 1997 ......... TeleGeography 1997/98 © TeleGeography. Inc. 1997 ( Finland Largest Telecommunications Routes, 1996 Destination Mi’n" Percentage of Outgoing Traffic 2. Germany .29.9 ~~~i~?~~ ............. ~:~ ~:,~,,~ ~:~:~,~ ~: 9.0% 4. Russia ................ 22.2 ~,~:~ 6.7% 5. Estonia .19.9 ~::~:~:~ 6.0% 6. United States .15.9 ~’~: ~,~,:~’~,~ 4.8~ 8. Denmark .............. 10.3 ~:~ 3.1% 9. France ................ 9.6 ~,:~::~:~ 2.9% 10. Netherlands ............ 7.6 ~., 2,3% © TeleGeography, Inc. 1997 National Traffic Balance MiTT 1994 1995 1996 Incoming 285 345.0 n.a. Outgoing 259 315.4 332.0 Surplus (Deficit) 26 29.6 n.a. Total Volume 544 660.4 n.a. Note: M=]-I =s Minutes of Telecommumcat=ons Traffic Data are zn milhons of rmnutes of pubhc switched traffic. 122 © TeleGeography, Inc. 1997 © TeleGeography, Inc. 1997 TeleGeography 1997/98 France Largest Telecommunications Routes, 1996 Destination Percentage of Outgoing Traffic 2. "’"’" ’~ ’"’;"~"";":~Z : ,,.:"- ,":,, 10.9% MFn" Germany ............. 344.0 United Kingdom ....... 340.0 Italy ................. 267.0 Belgium ............. 246.0 Spain ............... 199.0 United States ......... 179.0 Switzerland .......... 163.0 Portugal ............. 140.0 Netherlands .......... 107.0 Morocco ............ 101.0 Algeria ............... 76.0 Tunisia ................ 53.0 Canada ............... 43.0 Turkey ................ 38.0 Sweden ............... 29.0 Poland ................ 28.0 Denmark .............. 23.0 Israel ................. 23.0 Austria ................ 23.0 Luxembourg ........... 22.0 Other ................ 671.0 0.9% 0.9% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% © TeleGeography, Inc 1997 National Traffic Balance MiTT 1994 1995 1996 Incoming 2,739.5 2,958.9 3,283.0 Outgoing 2,602.5 2,804.6 3,116.0 Surplus (Deficit) 137.0 154.3 167.0 Total Volume 5,342.0 5,763.5 6,399.0 Note: M~TT is Minutes of Telecommumcat=ons Traffic. Data are ~n millions of rnmutes of pubhc switched traffic. © TeleGeography, Inc. 1997 ¯ ......... TeleGeography 1997/98 © TeleGeography, Inc. 1997 French Polynesia Largest Telecommunications Routes, 1996 Destination MiTr Percentage of Outgoing Traffic 2. United States ........... 0.8 ~’,"~:~:"~’",~"::;, 10.4% 3. New Caledonia .......... 0.7 !!!!~ii!~iiii~: 8.3% 4. New Zealand ........... 0.3 i~’i~ 3.4% 5. Australia .0.2 ~,," 3.1% .............. ~’~L~ 6. Japan ................. 0.1 1.1% 7. Italy ................... 0.1 ii 0.8% 8. Germany ............... 0.1 ! o.7% 9. United Kingdom ......... 0.1 !~0.6% 10. Switzerland ............. 0.1 Other .................. 0.7 0.6% ©TeleGeography, Inc t997 National Traffic Balance MiTT 1994 1995 1996 Incoming n.a. n.a. n.a. Outgoing 7.6 7.6 7.9 Surplus (Deficit) n.a. n.a. n.a. Total Volume n.a. n.a. n.a. Note: Mzl-r ~s Minutes of Telecommunlcatzons Traffzc Data are in millions of minutes of pubhc swztched traffic. 124 ©TeleGeography, Inc 1997 © TeleGeography. Inc. 1997 TeleGeography 1997/98 Germany Largest Telecommunications Routes, 1996 Destination MiTT Percentage of Outgoing Traffic 13. Croatia ............... 102.4 ",~’ii~i’,,~,~-" 2.0%° 14. Denmark ............. 101.2 "’ ~"~’, 2.0% 15. Czech Republic ......... 88.9 ’,’," 1.7% 17. Sweden ............... 78.4 i~,,,,~i, 11.5% 18. Russia ................ 77.3 : ’~’" 1.5% 19. Hungary ............... 70.1 ,"" ~.4% 20. Por[ugal ............... 69.4 ~,’, 1.4% © TeleGeograph¥, Inc. 1997 National Traffic Balance MiTT 1994 1995 1996 Incoming 3,384 4,215 n.a. Outgoing 4,942 5,238 5100 Surplus (Deficit) (958) (1,023) n.a. Total Volume 8,926 9,453 n.a. Note: Mi’Ft" ~s M=nutes of-reiecommumcat~ons Traffic Data are in mdhons of rn~nutes of pubhc sw=tched traffic Data are for Deutsche Telekorn only. Figures for the Umted States exclude traff=c to Alaska and Hawa==, and are based on b=lhng point of traff=c Data for all other routes based on originating point of traff=c © TeleGeography, Inc. 1997 125 TeleGeography 1997/98 © TeleGeography, Inc. 1997 f Ghana Largest Telecommunications Routes, 1996 Destination MiTT Percentage of Outgoing Traffic 1. United Kingdom ......... 5.5 ~:’,~,,~,,’~,~i::i!~!~:i! ~,’~-,,i~,~;,~!~’!,.~:~,,,,,,,~,~:!,i,!-:~;!" :;~’~i;;,’.,,,",,."~:i,~!~i~,,,,’~i.::::,’,,~’-",~ ,,,;T’,,’,,~,L,,’;~,~::~:,, 333% 2. United States ........... 3.9 !~‘‘‘~‘‘~&4~:‘‘‘‘.‘,:~Z:~‘‘~;‘‘‘.‘‘‘~:~;‘i~&i~!‘‘‘!~‘~‘‘.;~i~:~:‘:‘~!‘;‘‘‘~!i‘‘‘‘‘L‘‘‘‘!‘‘~:‘! 24,0%o 3. Germany ............... 1.2 ~;,:’~,",,,,~,,,;,:~:,:~,-,,;~, 7.3% 4. Netherlands .0.6 ;,,’(~i!~!(! 3,5%° 5. Italy ................... 0.5 !,,ii!~!~:,~ili:~i,, 3.3% 6. Lebanon ............... 0.5 l"~:’,’~:,:: ~’ 2.8% 7. South Africa ............ 0.4 !~,’ii~i!~i 2.7% 8. Canada ................ 0.4 !~’:i~’:,;;’~ 2.6% 9. France ................. 0.4 ~i!L~i 2.5% 10. India .................. 0.3 ’:";i 1.7% 11. Australia ............... 0.3 i~,i,~ 1.6% 12. Switzerland ............. 0.2 i’~’i~ 1.5% 13. Japan ................. 0.2 I~’! 1.4% 14. Nigeria ................ 0.1 i~ 0.8% 15. Israel .................. 0.1 >’~0.8% 16. Belgium ................ 0.1 ’: 0.8% 17. China .................. 0.1 i~’°’7% 18. Rep. of Korea ........... 0.1 i,, 0.6% 19. Zimbabwe .............. 0.1 ~!, 0.5% 20. Hong Kong ............. 0.1 ~0.5% Other ................. © TeleGeography, Inc. 1997 National Traffic Balance MiTT 1994 1995 1996 Incoming n.a. n.a. 59.6 Outgoing 11.6 16.8 16.5 Surplus (Deficit) n.a. n.a. 43.1 Total Volume n.a. n.a. 76.0 Note: M~Fr =s Minutes of Telecommumcations Traffic. Data are m millions of minutes of pubhc switched traffic. © TeleGeography, Inc. 1997 © TeleGeography, Inc. 1997 TeleGeography 1997/98 Greece Largest Telecommunications Routes, 1996 Destination Mi’l-r Percentage of Outgoing Traffic 3, Italy .46.1 ................. :,,,:,,,,::, ,,! ,, :, ,,/:, ,,,~¢, ..... ,~, :,,,~, 8.9% 4. United States .......... 31.8 i!~,~!",’i’~:,ilLii’~’i2~!,"i~’~-"’,"~’i 6.2% 7. Bulgaria ............... 16.0 i:i~i’i,i,i~i~’,,,’,!!~!;:~" 3.1% 8. Canada ............... 15.3 10. Albania ............... 12.9 i!!:i~~i,,!~,~ 2.5% 11. Belgium ............... 12.0 Z~,,’,’"~Z’,,~ 2.3% 12. Netherlands ........... 11.4 !~i~,~,:~,,,ii’i~i~12.2% 13. Switzerland ............ 10.4 i;~:i~,~:~i, 2.o% 14. Yugoslavia ............. 8.9 ii,~,i ~,: 1.7% 15. Sweden ............... 8.6 :~i!::’,,:!~, 1.7% 16. Russia ................. 7.8 ’~,’::’:!-1.5% 17. Turkey ................. 7.7 !-’i~i~’~,ii 1.5% 18. Australia ............... 7.2 i~!!,,’, 1.4% 19. Austria ................ 7.2 i:,~i::’ "’ 1.4% 20. Poland ................ 6.4 ii~!,,i’" 1.2% © TeleGeography, Inc, 1997 National Traffic Balance MiTT 1994 1995 1996 Incoming 441.2 505.4 557.3 Outgoing 422.7 467.9 515.6 Surplus (Deficit) 18.6 37.5 41.7 Total Volume 863.9 973.3 1,072.8 Note: Mt’[-f ts Minutes of Telecornmumcattons Trafftc Data are m mtlttons of rnmutes of ~ubhc switched trafftc. © TeleGeography, Inc. 1991 127 TeleGeography 1997/98 © TeleGeography, Inc. 1997 Guyana Largest Telecommunications Routes, 1996 Destination Mi’l-r Percentage of Outgoing Traffic 2. Canada ................ 4.4 ~ii;i~iii~:,!~’~iii~ili!~ii!!~i-",,~;i 14.8% 3. Trinidad ................ 1.8 ,ii~:!!ii,li~’!~! 6.0% 4. United Kingdom .1.4 ~;; ~" ........ ~;,,,:;~ 4.8% 5. Barbados .............. 1.4 ~i:iiii:ii~ 4.7% 6. Jamaica ............... 0.5 ~:~i 1.7% 7. Suriname ............... 0.4 !i":1,5% 8. China .................. 0.2 i: 0.8% 9. Venezuela .............. 0.2 :, 0.7% 10. Netherlands Antilles ..... 0.2 ,; o.6% Other ................. 3.5 ~ii~!iiiiii,!ii,ii!~,:,", 11.9% © TeleGeography, Inc. 1997 National Traffic Balance Mitt 1994 1995 1996 Incoming 75.1 139.7 162.8 Outgoing 18.4 20.6 29.8 Surplus (Deficit) 56.7 119.1 133.1 Tota I Vo lume 93.4 160.2 192.6 Note: MiFF zs Minutes of Telecommumcatzons Traffic. Data are zn rn~lhons of m~nutes of public switched traffzc, © TeleGeograph¥, Inc. 1997 © TeleGeography, Inc. 1997 TeleGeography 1997/98 Hong Kong Largest Telecommunications Routes, FY 1996]97 Destination MiTt 1. China ............... 965.0 2. United States .......... 86.9 3. Taiwan ............... 69.5 4. Japan ................ 69,5 5. Philippines ............ 69.5 6. United Kingdom ........ 52.2 7. Canada ............... 52,2 8. Singapore ............. 52,2 9. Macau ................ 52.2 10. Australia .............. 34.8 Other ................ 234.6 Percentage of Outgoing Traffic i";i~i,, 4.0% ! 4.0% ~" 3.0% ~, 2,o% © TeleGeography, tnc. 1997 National Traffic Balance MiTT FY 1994/95 FY 1995/96 FY 1996/97 Incoming 1,446.4 1,598.3 1,940.8 Outgoing 1,578.4 1,691.8 1,738.6 Surplus (Deficit) (132.1) (93.5) 202.2 Total Volume 3,024.8 3,290.2 3,679.4 Note: Mi]q" is Minutes of Telecornmunicat=ons Traffic Data are m mllhons of minutes of public switched traffic. Data based on bHhng point of traffic Route-by-route trafftc volumes reflect reported data of Hong Kong Telecom wh=ch has been rounded to the nearest percent F~scal year ends 31 March. © TeleGeography, Inc. 1997 129 TeleGeography 1997/98 © TeleGeography, Inc. 1997 t Hungary Largest Telecommunications Routes, 1995 Destination MiT~ Percentage of Outgoing Traffic 1. Germany .59.4 ";’~" ............. ~, "~, ~,, s g; ’i, "~::: :~,~" "~:: ~’~:~ ~. ~: ~:~,:;,-":: ,,~:,’L,~,~:~’~12,,,,,;:,~,~ 24.0% 2. Austria ............... 30.4 :~’~,~:~:~,~:,:::z%:~::~:::~,,~:~,:~-~,,::~:~-:::,,: 12.3% 3. Romania .............. 14.4 ~:~i:~:::~ 5.8% 4. Italy .................. 13.5 ~:~&:~;~,~:g:g~,:~:~, 5.5% 5. United KinBdom ........ 13.3 ~:~:~’:~:~:~’:,~:~’~:~: 54% B. Uflit~d States .......... 11.2 ~:~:~L~,::~::~:,7 4.5% 9. Russia ................. 7.5 11. Netherlands ............ 6.6 12. Sbvak nepublic ........ ~,3 ~:~:~::~:~:::~ ~.~% 13. Ukraine ................ 5.5 ~:~::~’::,~ 2.2% 14. Belgium ............... 3.8 ~’::~:~:~:: 1.5% 15. Sweden ............... 3.5 ~:~ 1.4% 16. Israel .................. 3.4 ~: 1.4% ................ 18. Croatia .3.2 ~-,::~ 1.3% t9. Czech ~epublic ......... 2.9 ~,’~ 1.2% 20. Breece ................ 2.7 ~:~, ~.1% © TeleGeography, Inc. 1997 National Traffic Balance MiTT 1994 1995 1996 Incoming 211.9 243.7 n.a. Outgoing 236.6 247.5 265 Surplus (Deficit) (24.7) (24.7) n.a. Total Volume 448.5 448.5 n.a. Note: M=TT zs Minutes of Telecommunicatzons Traffic Data are in milhons of minutes of publ=c sw=tched traffic, Data based on billing point of traffic. 130 © TeleGeography, Inc. t997 © TeleGeography, Inc. 1997 TeleGeography 1997/98 iceland Largest Telecommunications Routes, 1996 Destination Percentage of Outgoing Traffic MiT~ 1. United States ........... 7.2 2. Denmark ............... 5.5 3. United Kingdom ......... 3.5 4. Sweden ................ 3.1 5. Norway ................ 3.0 6. Germany ............... 2.5 7. France ................. 0.8 8. Netherlands ............ 0.8 9. Spain .................. 0.6 10. Faroe Islands ........... 0.6 11. Canada ................ 0.5 12. Italy ................... 0.5 13. Belgium ................ 0.4 14. Finland ................. 0.4 15. Switzerland ............. 0.3 16. Luxembourg ............ 0.2 17. Austria ................. 0,2 18. Russia ................. 0.2 19. Portugal ............... 0.2 20. Poland ................. 0.2 Other .................. 1.9 ,. 0.9% ¯ 0.7% 0.6% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% © TeleGeograph% Inc. 1997 National Traffic Balance MiTT 1994 1995 1996 Incoming 25.5 28.4 32.0 Outgoing 26.0 28.9 32.5 Surplus (Deficit) (0.4) (0.6) (0.5) Total Volume 51.5 57.3 64.5 Note: MzTI" zs Minutes of TelecommumcaUons Traffic. Data are ~n miIhons of minutes of public switched traffzc Oata based on billing point of traffic. © TeleGeography, Inc. 1997 151 TeleGeography 199"//98 © TeleGeography, Inc. 1997 India Largest Telecommunications Routes, FY 1996197 Destination MiTr Percentage of Outgoing Traffic I. Saudi Arabia .77.1 i~iil;!i!!!’!~,i~!~!!~’ ~",i;~’"~’;’~i,~;"7";’;,~iL’;’:~"~:fl;’:"-’~"".,~";~ ">"’;~’~ !% ’,i~:;~i~ii 20.1% .......... ~.~, 3. United Kingdom ........ 35.8 !~i~i!!:~;,"i:~;::i!~i~!l~!!i~;~i!,,,i,!~!;’:i,:; 9.3°/. 4. United Arab Emirates .33.1 ............ "" :"’:""": ’?"~ 86% ~. Singapore ............. ~7.3 ii,.${..~,~;;!C,,.,";::~.~ 6. Germany .13.9 ................ 7~,,::;t,,,>,\ 3.6% 7. Canada ............... 1~.4 8. Kuwait ................. 9.8 7",ii~i:,i!i-!i’i~" 2.6% 9. Hong Kong ............. 9.2 lO. 0man .................. 9.1 11. Japan ................. 7.74 ;,-i;,!-7;’,:,~ 2.0% 12. Australia ............... 6.7 ~i~:ii 1.7% 13. France ................. 6.4 ;L:~;~!; 1.7% 14. Italy ................... 5.7 ~!"i,’i 1.5% 15. Sri Lanka ............... 5.4 ;i’i;i+’:’ 1.4% 16. Malaysia ............... 5.0 ’ .... 1.3% 17. Qatar .................. 3.9 :,I’lL 1.O0/o 18. Switzerland ............. 3.8 !,’,.i’,i~; ~.O°/o 19. Russia ................. 3.6 i~,r~ o.9% 20. Netherlands ............ 3.5 ~;’,,,~’ 0.9% Other .65.8 : ,,7 -"-t ~,’, ,-, t,~,, "- ,t:,,,, :,,,,,,:~,- t~,,;t,, ,,, ,,,,,:, ,,,~,,~,,, ,, 17.1 Vo ©ToleGeography, Inc 1997 National Traffic Balance MiTT FY 1994/95 FY 1995/96 FY 1996/97 Incoming 615.0 805.4 1000.0 Outgoing 314.0 341.4 384.2 Surplus (Deficit) 300.9 464.0 615.8 Total Volume 929.0 1,146.8 1384.2 Note: MiTT is M~nutes of Telecommunications Traff=c. Data are ~n m~llions of minutes of public switched traffic. Route traffic and totals exclude cross-border traffic to Bangladesh, Nepal and Pakistan. © TeleGeography, Inc. 1997 © TeleGeography, Inc. 1997 TeleGeography 997/98 Indonesia Largest Telecommunications Routes, 1996 Destination MiTI" Percentage of Outgoing Traffic 10. Germany .............. 5.9 ~;’~ 2.4% 13. Netherlands ............ 4.6 1 14. Saudi Arabia ............ 4.4 15. Thailand ............... 3.6 1.3% 1.3% 16. France ................ 3.3 17. India .................. 3.2 ,~ 1.1% 18. Canada ................ 2.6 .... o.9% 19. Italy ................... 2.2 0.5% 20. Swi~erland ............ 1.3 o.5% © TeleGeography, Inc. 1997 National Traffic Balance MiTT 1994 1995 1996 Incoming 244.7 294.0 356.4 Outgoing 182.5 216.6 280.2 Surplus (Deficit) 62.2 77.4 76.2 Total Volume 427.2 510.6 636.6 Note: Mi’R’is Minutes of Telecommumcatzons Traffic. Data are m m]lhons of minutes of pubhc sw=tched traff=c. Data based on b=lhng point of traffic. Totals for 1996 ~nclude traff=c from Indosat and Satehndo; route data are for Indosat only © TeleGeography, Inc. 1997 133 TeleGeography 1997/98 © TeleGeography, Inc. 1997 t lran Largest Telecommunications Routes, 1995 Destination Mi’rr Percentage of Outgoing Traffic 2. Kuwait ............... 22.3 ~,,,’:~,t,:~.:,:::;,~;;,’~;4"~,,’:~:~,,%~,~:,:,~::, lO.6% 3. Germany .21.2 4. United States .......... 17.8 5. United Kingdom ........ 10.1 ~,,,~:~, 4.8% 6. Pakistan ............... 8.8 7. Turkey ................. 7.6 ~,~,~,~,~ 3.6% 8. Sweden ............... 6.8 3.2% 9. Canada ................ 6.3 10. Japan ................. 6.1 ~;~~ 2.9% 11. France ................ 5.1 ~,~-~, 2.4% 12. Saudi Arabia ........... 3.8 13. Italy ................... 3.6 ~:~, 1.7% 14. Netherlands ............ 3.3 ~,~ 1.6% 15. Qatar .................. 2.7 ~;~;~ 1.3% 16. Austria ................ 2.1 17. Swi~erland ............ 2.1 18. India .................. 1.8 ~’~ o.9% 19. Denmark .............. 1.4 ~,,~ 0.7% 20. Spain .................. 0.9 Other ................. 54.5 0.4% © TeleGeography, tnc, 1997 National Traffic Balance MiTT 1994 1995 1996 Incoming n.a. 199 n.a. Outgoing 208.4 210.4 183.2 Surplus (Deficit) n.a. (11) n.a. Total Volume n.a. 409 n.a. Note: MiTT ~s M~nutes of Telecommumcat~ons Traffic Data are ~n millions of minutes of public switched traff=c. Data based on bilhng point of traff=c 134 © TeleGeography, Inc. 1997 © TeleGeography, Inc. 1997 TeleGeography 1997/98 Ireland Largest Telecommunications Routes, FY 1996197 Destination MiTT Percentage of Outgoing Traffic 2. United States .......... 55 :,:i!i,i! i~i,:~i" 9.5% 3. Germany .............. 20 ~;~,i,~":: 3.4% 4. France ............... 15 :," 2.6% 5. Netherlands ........... 10 ~" 1.7% 6. Italy ................... 8 : 1.4% 7. Spain ................. 7 1.2% 8. Belgium ............... 5 : 0.9% 9. Canada ................ 6 :~ 1.o% 10. Australia .............. 5 ~i 0.9% © TeleGeography, Inc, 1997 National Traffic Balance Mil-r FY 1994/95 FY 1995/96 FY 1996/97 Incoming 442.9 n.a. n.a. Outgoing 323.7 407 580 Surplus (Deficit) 119.2 n.a. n.a. Total Volume 766.5 n.a. n.a. Note: Mi]-(" is Minutes of Telecemmumcat~ons Traffic Data are ]n m=lhens of minutes of public switched traffic Data for the top five routes are rounded to the nearest five million rnlnutes. Traffic to Northern ireland is excluded m both totals and route data. Data are for Telecorn E~reann only Rscal year ends 31 March. © TeleGeography, Inc, 1997 135 TeleGeography 1997/98 © TeleGeography, Inc. 1997 Israel Largest Telecommunications Routes, 1996 Destination Mi’l’r Percentage of Outgoing Traffic 10. Netherlands ............ 6.5 ;’i’ll: 2.0% 13. Switzerland ............. 5.8 i,’,’~il.8% 14. Belgium ................ 3.8 1.2% 17. South Africa ............ 3.4 "1.1% 18. Egypt .................. 2.8 ii, i 0.9% 19. Sweden ................ 2.4 20. Austria ................. 2.3 ~,~ 0.7% © TeleGeography, Inc. 1997 National Traffic Balance MiTT 1994 1995 1996 Incoming n.a. 345.6 468.1 Outgoing 213.0 252.3 319.7 Surplus (Deficit) n.a. 93.3 148.4 Total Volume n.a. 597.9 787.9 Note: M=TT =s Minutes of Telecommumcat=ons Traffic. Data are m mllhons of m~nutes of pub{~c switched traffic. Data based on bdling point of traffic. 136 © TeleGeography, Inc. 1997 © TeleGeography, Inc. 1997 TeleGeography 1997/98 Italy Largest Telecommunications Routes, 1996 Destination Percentage of Outgoing Traffic 2. 3. 4. 5. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 17. 18. 19. 20. Mrrr Germany ............. 357.8 France .............. 250.6 United States ......... 193.2 Switzerland ........... 191.0 United Kingdom ....... 171.7 Spain ................ 77.1 Belgium .............. 61.3 Austria ............... 53.9 Netherlands ........... 47.0 Greece ............... 39.0 Poland ................ 38.8 Romania .............. 38.1 Morocco ............. 33.4 Chile .................. 29.2 Croatia ................ 27.2 Canada ............... 24.7 Tunisia ............... 24.5 Albania ............... 21.3 Russia ................ 20.4 Sweden .............. 19.7 Other ................ 404.2 © Te)eGeography, Inc. 1997 National Traffic Balance MiTT 1994 1995 1996 I n c o m in g 1,864.0 1,999.8 2,253.5 Outgoing 1,708.0 1,908.2 2,124.0 Surplus (Deficit) 156.0 91.6 129.5 Total Volume 3,572.0 3,908.1 4,377.4 Note: M~T]" ~s Mznutes of Telecommumcat~ons Traffic Data are in mdhons of minutes of public switched traffzc. Data exclude some cross-border traffzc to France, Slovema and Switzerland. ©TeleGeography, Inc I~97 137 TeleGeography 1997/98 © TeleGeographyo Inc. 1997 ( Japan Largest Telecommunications Routes, FY 1996/97 Destination Mi’i-I" Percentage of Outgoing Traffic 1. United States .367.7 ":~:’~: :":~’!~::~’~’"::~:’~ -"~:’’:’~ "~’~’~::~:~’~"’:"~~’~’~’~,~,":~":~"~’~’~: ~’~"~::~’~’/:~ ", "~’~, 22.2% 3. Korea, Rep. of .157.0 ":,,~>:,,,,,~-~i~f,’,~-~’,~*, "~:’,-, 9.5% 4. Philippines ........... 138.0 ::~:~::i~!:i!:i-~i-’!i::i~:~i~:: 8.3% 5. Tai an ................ 66.7 6. Thailand .............. 70.0 ~::~::::::~:~ 4.2% 9. United Kingdom ........ 50.4 11. Australia .............. 36.6 ::~::~:: 2.2% 12. Malaysia .............. 31.2 :~::::, 1.9% 13. Indonesia ............. 30.8 ":~:~’~’~ 1.9% 14. Canada ............... 27.3 ~:~~ 1.6% 15. Germany .............. 26.4 ~>~’: 1.6% 16. France ................ 21.6 ,~:~ 1.3% 17. Russia ................ 21.2 i:, 1.3% 18. Peru .................. 17.9 ~::, 1.1% 19. Italy .................. 12.4 0.7% 20. India .................. 10.7 © TeleGeography, Inc. 1997 National Traffic Balance MiTT I~ 1994/95 I~" 1995/96 FY 1996/97 Incoming 1,140.6 1,320.8 1,519.1 Outgoing 1,524.8 1,631.3 1,710.6 Surplus (Deficit) 384.2 (310.5) (191.5) Total Volume 2,665.4 2,952.1 3,229.7 Note: Mi’FI" =s M=nutes of Telecommumcat~ons Traffic Data are m mdl=ons of minutes of pubhc sw=tched traff=c Route data =nclude only IDD calls, wh=le totals include operator assisted calls as well Data are for KDD, Japan Telecom (for- merly IT J) and IDC F=scal year ends 31 March. © TeleGeography, Inc, I997 © TeleGeography, Inc. 1997 Te~eGeography 1997/98 Jordan Largest Telecommunications Routes, 1996 Destination Percentage of Outgoing Traffic ’;’~,,’~’.~ ~--’~":’.’~ ,::~’,~.:~,L.’;,.~.",:J~, J~’~’ 15.2% ,,-,,; ,;;,;,,, ,~::+, ,,, 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 18. 19. 20. MiTr Israel ................ 11.4 Saudi Arabia ........... 9.2 Egypt .................. 7.5 Syria .................. 7.0 United Arab Emirates .... 4.9 United States ........... 4.6 Iraq ................... 4.6 United Kingdom ......... 2.7 Lebanon ............... 2.7 Kuwait ................. 2.6 Germany .............. 1.4 Qatar .................. 1.2 Italy ................... 1.1 France ................. 0.9 0man ................. 0.9 Yemen ................. 0.8 Bahrain ................ 0.8 Turkey ................. 0.8 Canada ................ 0.7 Switzerland ............. 0.5 Other ................. 8.5 0.6% ~ 11.4% :,’, ,, ,;~,’~-;,,,’, ",,,, ,.’, ,~,~,’,, j’, ~,;,,,~ ", © Te[oGeograph¥, Inc. 1997 National Traffic Balance MiTT 1994 1995 1996 Incoming 114 118.0 133.1 Outgoing 57 71.7 74.6 Surplus (Deficit) 57 46.3 58.5 Total Volume 171 189.7 207.7 Note: Mi’F]" ~s Minutes of Telecommumcatmns Traff=c. Data are ~n mdhons of minutes of public sw=tched traff=c. Jordan-Israel route data include traffic to the 0ccup=ed Territories (West Bank). © TeleGeography, Inc, 1997 1 ~9 TeleGeography 1997/98 © TeleGeography, Inc. 1997 Kazakhstan Largest Telecommunications Routes, 1996 Destination MiTI" 1. Russia ................ 73.5 2. Uzbekistan ............. 8.2 3. Ukraine ................ 7.1 4. Kyrgyzstan ............. 5,9 5. Belarus ................ 2.4 6. Azerbaijan .............. 1.4 7, Turkmenistan ........... 1.1 8. Armenia ............... 1.1 9. Tajikistan ............... 0.9 10. Georgia ................ 0.5 11. Moldova ............... 0.5 Percentage of Outgoing Traffic 1.3% 1.0% 1.0% 0.9% 0.5% 0.5% © TeleGeography, Inc. t997 National Traffic Balance MiTT 1994 1995 1996 Incoming n.a. n.a. n.a. Outgoing n.a. 111.1 102.5 Surplus (Deficit) n.a. n.a. n.a. Total Volume n.a. n.a. n.a. Note: M=TT zs Minutes of Telecommumcat~ons Traffzc. Data are in millions of minutes of pubhc switched traffic. Data include traffzc to other member states of the Commonwealth of Independent States only See page 114 for a matrix of traffzc from other CIS member states. © TeleGeography, Inc, 1991 140 © TeleGeography, Inc. 1997 TeleGeography 1997/98 Republic of Korea Largest Telecommunications Routes, 1996 Destination MiTr Percentage of Outgoing Traffic 3. China .120 ~";"~i ,::~," "~’J~,,,,, ",;~,:, ,,’;~:’,: ~,,’,’~’:~:,,~’,," ii "~,:i!’,,ii’!::!i~’i~!:: 17.2% 5. Australia .............. 15 i:,,~;i~,, 2.1% 6. Germany .............. 14 Canada ............... 8, United Kingdom ........ 13 i::,~:’}:i,,’i: 1"9% 9. Philippines ............ 12 ~,,’,: 1.7% 10. Indonesia ............. 12 ’" 1.7% 11. Taiwan ................. 9 i:’,":,! 1.3% 12. Singapore .............. 9 !:i,!’, 1.3% 13. Thailand ............... 9 i:’ii],~i 1.3% 14. France ................. B 1.1% 15. Vietnam ................ 8 Other ................ 136 © TeleGeography, Inc. 1997 National Traffic Balance Mil-I 1994 1995 1996 Incoming 555.2 672 740.6 Outgoing 440.47 557 699.3 Surplus (Deficit) 114.8 115 41.3 Total Volume 995.6 1,229 1,439.9 Note: Mt-~q’is Minutes of Telecornmumcat~ons Traff=c. Data are =n rmlhons of minutes of public switched traffic Route data for top five routes are rounded to the nearest five mdhon m~nutes © TeleGeography, tnc, 1997 141 TeleGeography 1997/98 © TeleGeography, Inc. 1997 t Kuwait Largest Telecommunications Routes, 1996 Destination MiTT Percentage of Outgoing Traffic 2. Saudi Arabia .15.7 3. India ................. t5.3 ~,:,~:t~z:;~.:~:,~,~q~,~;~,:,~:,~;:~ 10.9% 4. Syria .................. 9.7 ~,,~:,,~;~&~:~,~::;~,~;~;,~,~ 6.9% 5. United Arab Emirates .... 8.8 :,:~,,,,~,~;f~4~;:~,&~-~:~,~ 6.2% 6. United States ........... 8.4 ~f~:]~t~:~:~:~~,~,:]:,:~ 5.9% 7. Pakistan .8.1 .............. 8. United Kingdom ......... 7.8 ~,~:,~]~,~:~’,~ 5.6% 9. Iran ................... 6.3 ;’.~,:::~.~:~’~;~’~;~:~: 4.4% 10. Jordan ................. 5.4~,,::~::~":";:;;~:’,~,~ ~, :~ ,~ 3.9% 11. Lebanon ............... 3.8 12. Bahrain ................ 3.8 ~:~:~:~ 2.7% 13. Bangladesh ............ 2.1 ~:~::~:;: 1.5% 14. Philippines ............. 1.4 ~:~,: 1.o% 15. Qatar .................. 1.4 ~/,~ 1.0% 16. France ................. 1.3 ~,;,,;: 0.9% 17. Germany .............. 1.3 18. Canada ................ 1.2 0.9% 19. 0man .................. 1.2 ~:; 0.8% 20. Italy ................... 1.0 © TeleGeography, Inc. t997 National Traffic Balance MiFF 1994 1995 1996 Incoming 127.0 130.2 131.2 Outgoing 120.6 125.9 140.7 Surplus (Deficit) 6.4 4.3 (9.4) Total Volume 247.6 256.1 271.9 Note: MITT is Minutes of Telecommumcatlons Traff=c. Data are =n m=lhons of minutes of public switched traffic. 142 © TeleGeography, Inc. 1997 © TeleGeography, Inc. ! 997 TeleGeography 1997/98 Luxembour8 Largest Telecommunications Routes, 1996 Destination Percentage of Outgoing Traffic MiTT 1, Belgium .............. 56.2 2. Germany .............. 50.9 3. France ............... 50.3 4, Portugal .............. 15.7 5. United Kingdom ........ 14.0 6. Italy .................. 11,4 7. Netherlands ............ 8.7 8. Switzerland ............ 6.6 9. United States ........... 5.7 10. Spain ................. 3.9 11. Benrnark .............. 3.2 12. Austria ................ 2.3 13. Sweden ............... 2.3 14. Greece ................ 1.7 15. Ireland ................ 1.1 16. Finland ................ 1.0 17. Poland ................. 0.9 18. Russia ................. 0.8 19. Japan ................. 0.7 20. Canada ................ 0.7 Other ................. 10.7 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0.3% 0.3% © TeteGeo£raph¥, {nc ’~997 National Traffic Balance MiTT 1994 1995 1996 Incoming 145.2 174.5 189.8 Outgoing 213.5 232.2 248.5 Surplus (Deficit) (68.3) (57.7) (58.8) Total Volume 358.7 406.7 438.3 Note: M~TT ts Mtnutes of Telecommumcatzons Traff=c Data are m m~lhons of minutes of pubhc switched traffzc. © TeteGeographV, Inc. 1997 ¯ ......... TeleGeography 1997/98 © TeleGeography, Inc. 1997 Macau Largest Telecommunications Routes, 1996 Destination MiT]" Percentage of Outgoing Traffic 2. Hong KonI .47.3 .............................................................. 42.1/ 3. Portugal ............... 3.5 ";’,’,;,’,,’; 3.2% 4. Taiwan ................ 3.1 ii!ii,; 2.7%° 5. United States ........... 1.6 ill,," 1.4% 6. Philippines ............. 1.2 ~! 1.1% 7. Canada ................ 1.1 iii 1.o% 8. Thailand ............... 1.1 !~i 1.o% 9. Australia .............. 0.7 : 0.7% 10. United Kingdom ......... 0.5 i, o.5% 11. Singapore ............. 0.5 0.4% 12. Japan ................. 0.4 0.4% 13. Malaysia .............. 0.3 i 0.3% 14. Rap. of Korea ........... 0.3 :o.2% 15. France ................. 0.3 !o.2% 16. Indonesia .............. 0.2 1,2% 17. Vietnam ................ 0.1 o.1% 18. 6ermany ............... 0.1 o.1% 19. New Zealand ........... 0.1 o.1% Other .................. 1.3 i, 1.1% © TeleGeography, Inc, 1997 National Traffic Balance MiTT 1994 1995 1996 Incoming 84.3 90.4 92.1 Outgoing 100.3 108.1 112.5 Surplus (Deficit) (15.7) (17.7) (20.4) Total Volume 184.3 198.5 204.6 Note: M~]q is Minutes of Telecomrnumcat~ons Traffic. Data are m milions of minutes of pul~i¢ sw{tched traffic Data based on btlmg pmnt of traffic. 144 © TeleGeography, Inc. 1997 © TeleGeography, Inc. 1997 TeteGeography 1997/98 Malaysia Largest Telecommunications Routes, FY 1996]97 Destination Percentage of Outgoing Traffic 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16, 17. 18. 19. 20. MilT Singapore ............ 317.3 Indonesia ............. 30.1 Japan ................ 26.2 Australia .............. 21.8 United Kingdom ........ 20.5 United States .......... 17.1 Hong Kong ............ 16.0 Thailand .............. 14.1 Taiwan ............... 12.2 India .................. 11.8 Philippines ............ 10.7 Bangladesh ............. 7.9 China .................. 6.5 Germany ............... 5.1 Pakistan ............... 4.9 Saudi Arabia ............ 4.9 Rep. of Korea ........... 4.6 Myanmar ............... 3.6 New Zealand ........... 3.3 Brunei ................. 3,0 Other ................. 28,9 1.1% 0.9% 0.9% 0.9% 0.8% ¯ 0.6% 0.6% @ TeleGeography, Inc, t997 National Traffic Balance M iTT FY 1994/95 FY 1995/96 FY 1996/97 Incoming 399.7 442.0 581.9 Outgoing 342.3 408.3 570.5 Surplus (Deficit) 57.4 33.7 11.4 Total Volume 742.0 850.3 1,152.4 Note: MiTi" =s Minutes of Telecommumcat=ons Traff=c. Data are in mdlions of minutes of pubhc sw=tched traff=c. Data based on bdhng point of traff=c Traff=c figures for years 94/95 and 95/96 excluded some cross-border traff=c to Szngapore Traff=c =s for Telekom Malays=a only Other carriers originated an estimated 50 mdlion minutes of add=t=onal traff=c =n FY 1996/97. Fzscal year ends 31 March. © TeleGeography, Inc. 1997 TeleGeography t 997/98 © TeleGeographyo Inc. 1997 ( Mexico Largest Telecommunications Routes, 1996 Destination Percentage of Outgoing Traffic 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. ~! 1.7% ~! 1.1% o.SO/o 0.6% 0.6% io.5% 0.5% 0,5% 11. ! 0.5% 12. i 0.4% 13. ii 0.4% 14. 0.4% 15. 0.3% 16. 0.3% 17. 0.3% 18. 0.3% 19. O2% 20. 0.2% ~,~, 3.5% MiTT United States ......... 927.0 Canada ............... 17.7 Spain ................ tl.6 Cuba .................. 6.9 6ermany ............... 6.6 Colombia ............... 6.2 France ................. 5.9 Italy ................... 5.8 Argentina .............. 5.8 Guatemala ............. 5.1 United Kingdom ......... 5,0 Brazil ................. 4.4 Chile .................. 4.0 Costa Rica .............. 3.8 Venezuela ............. 3.5 Peru ................... 3.4 Israel .................. 3.4 Japan ................. 2.9 El Salvador ............. 2.4 Switzerland ............. 2.0 Other ................. 37.3 © TeleGeography, Inc. t997 National Traffic Balance MiTT 1994 1995 1996 Incoming 1,829.4 2,114.0 2,489.7 Outgoing 844.1 950.0 1,070.7 Surplus (Deficit) 985.4 1,164.0 1,419.0 Total Volume 2,673.5 3,064.0 3,560.4 Note: Mi’i-r zs Minutes of Telecornmumcatzons Traff=c. Data are in milhons of minutes of public switched traffic. Data based on bilhng point of traffic 146 © TeleGeography, Inc 1997 © TeleGeographyo Inc. 1997 Te~eGeography 1997/98 Destination MiTT 1. Russia ................ 27.3 2. Ukraine ............... 19.3 3. Belarus ................ 2.5 4. Kazakhstan ............. 0.4 5. Armenia ............... 0.2 6. Azerbaijan .............. 0.2 7. Uzbekistan ............. 0.2 8. Georgia ................ 0.1 9. Kyrgyzstan ............. 0.1 10. Turkmenistan ........... 0.1 Moldova Largest Telecommunications Routes, 1996 Percentage of Outgoing Traffic :," 0.7% ¯ 0.5% ¯ 0,3% ; 0.3% 0.1% 0.!% 0.1% 11. Tajikistan ............... 0.1 o,1% © TeleGeography, Inc, 1997 National Traffic Balance MiTT 1994 1995 1996 Incoming n.a. n.a. n.a. Outgoing n.a. 50.8 50.2 Surplus (Deficit) n.a. n.a. n.a. Total Volume n.a. n.a. n.a. Note: Mil-I" is Minutes of Telecommumcabons Traffic. Data are in millions of minutes of pubhc switched traffic Data include traffic to other member states of the Commonwealth of Independent States only See page 114 for a matrix of traffzc from other ClS member states © TeleGeography, Inc. 1997 147 TeteGeography 1997/98 © TeleGeography, Inc. 1997 Netherlands Largest Telecommunications Routes, 1996 Destination Mi’l’r Percentage of Outgoing Traffic 3. United Kingdom ....... 192.5 ~,~:~’~:,~:~,:~ 12.6% 4. France .............. 117.8 ~:~,~,,,:,~,~ 7.7% 5. United States .......... 95.5 ~;~.~:,~,~:~:~,~:~,~, 6.2% 6. Italy .................. 50.5 7. Spain ................ 46.5 ~;~;~’4~,~ 3.o~ 8. Swi~erland ........... 41.3 ~:~:~:" 2.7% 9. Turkey ................ 30.1 ~, 2.0% 10, Sweden .............. 27.4 11. Denmark .............. 23.1 1.5% 12. Austria ............... 20.7 ~,~ 1.3% 13. Canada ............... 17.4 ~:, 1.1% 14. Poland ............... 14.9 ~,, ~.o% 15. Noway .............. 13.8 ~:~- 0.9% 16. Ireland ................ 12.7 17. Po~ugal ............... 12.0 0.8% 18. Greece ............... 11.7 ~," 0.8% 19. Morocco ............. 10.6 0.7% 20. Russia ................. 9.5 ~:~ 0.6% © TeleGeography, Inc. t997 National Traffic Balance MiTT 1994 1995 1996 Incoming 1,290.9 1,453.0 1,584.6 Outgoing 1,345.8 1,458.7 1,534.1 Surplus (Deficit) (54.9) (5.7) 50.5 Total Volume 2,636.7 2,911.7 3,118.7 Note: M=TT is Minutes of Telecomrnumcat=ons Traffic. Data are m m=llions of minutes of publ=c switched traff=c. Data based on bllhng po~nt of traffic. 148 © "releGeography, Inc. ~997 © TeleGeography, Inc. 1997 Te~eGeography 1997/98 New Zealand Largest Telecommunications Routes, FY 1996/97 Destination Mi’l-r Percentage of Outgoing Traffic U,ited i gdom ........ 11.oo/o 3. United States .......... 28 #ii!i~::#~,i[, 7.9% 4. Hong Keng ............. 9 ~".!~ 2.5% 5. Japan ................. 9 ~i’;, 2.5% 6. Fiji .................... 6 ii~i~ 1.7% 7. Canada ................ 7 i.-iii, 2,(}% 8. Singapore ............. 6 ~i; 1.7% 9. Malaysia .............. 5 !i~ 1,4% 10, Taiwan ................. 4 ~1 1% 11. Western Samoa ......... 4 i’~~ 1,1% 12. Germany ............... 4 iii 1,1% Other ................. 66 ii,~,~i: i!ili:",~’i" ?.’:,,iii~:~’’!~i’i~i: 18.7% ©TeleGeography, Inc 1997 National Traffic Balance MiTT laf 1994/95 FY 1995/96 FY 1996/97 Incoming 263 327 380 Outgoing 261 312 353 Surplus (Deficit) 2 15 27 Total Volume 524 639 733 Note: MIT[ ts Minutes of Telecommumcattons Traffic, Data are in millions of minutes of public switched traffic Data are for Telecom New Zealand and Clear Commumcations Ltd. only. Other carners originated approx=mately 7 rmllion minutes ~n FY 1996/97. Fiscal year ends 31 March. © TeleGeography, Inc. 1997 149 TeleGeography 1997/98 © TeleGeography, Inc. 1997 t Norway Largest Telecommunications Routes, 1996 Destination Percentage of Outgoing Traffic 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. MiTr Sweden ............. 115 Denmark .............. 65 United Kingdom ........ 50 United States .......... 35 Germany .............. 25 France ............... t4 Netherlands ........... 14 Finland ............... 10 Spain ................. 9 Italy ................... 8 Switzerland ............ 6 Belgium ............... 5 Russia ................. 6 Poland ................ 6 Canada ................ 4 Turkey ................. 3 Iceland ................ 3 Other ................. 65 0.7% 0.7% © TeleGeography, Inc, 1997 National Traffic Balance MiTT 1994 1995 1996 Incoming 352.0 373.2 422.3 Outgoing 395.5 431.5 443.5 Surplus (Deficit) (43.5) (58.3) (21.2) Total Volume 747.5 804.7 865.8 Note: M=TT ~s M~nutes of Telecommumcatmns Traffic Data are m mdlions of minutes of pubhc sw=tched traffic. Data for the top five routes are rounded to the nearest five million minutes Data for years 1994 and 1995 based on bilhng pmnt of traffic. © TeleGeography, Inc. 1997 150 © TeleGeography, Inc. 1997 TeleGeography 1997/98 Oman Largest Telecommunications Routes, 1996 Destination Percentage of Outgoing Traffic 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. MiTT India .................. 16.9 United Arab Emirates ...15.4 Pakistan ............... 4.2 United Kingdom ......... 4.2 Egypt .................. 2.5 Saudi Arabia ............ 2.1 Bahrain ................ 2.0 United States ........... 1.8 Bangladesh ............. 1.2 Kuwait ................. 1.1 Jordan ................. 1.0 Qatar .................. 0.9 Philippines ............. 0.8 Sri Lanka ............... 0.7 Tanzania ............... 0.6 Germany ............... 0.5 Netherlands ............ 0,4 Sudan ................. 0.4 France ................. 0.4 Lebanon ............... 0.4 Other .................. 4.9 1.2% ~;, 1.2% 1.0% 0.8% 0.7% 0.6% ," 0,6% ¯ 0.6% © TeleGeography, tnc, 1997 National Traffic Balance MiTT 1994 1995 1996 Incoming 49.6 53.3 58.0 Outgoing 49.5 54.4 62.6 Surplus (Deficit) 0.1 (1.1) (4.6) Total Volume 99.1 107.6 120.6 Note: M~TT ~s Minutes of Telecommumcat=ons Traff=c Data are =n millions of minutes of pubhc sw=tched traffic. © TeleGeography, Inc. 1997 151 TeleGeography 1997/98 © TeleGeography, Inc. 1997 f Pakistan Largest Telecommunications Routes, 1996 Destination Percentage of Outgoing Traffic 1o. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. MilT United Kingdom ........ 13.9 United States .......... 12.4 United Arab Emirates .... 8.3 Saudi Arabia ............ 6.6 Canada ................ 5.6 Italy ................... 3.4 France ................. 2.4 Germany ............... 2.3 Japan ................. 1.9 India .................. 1.8 Singapore .............. 1.5 Iran ................... 1.4 Kuwait ................. 1.2 Hong Kong ............. 1.1 Bangladesh ............. 1.0 Netherlands ............ 0.8 China .................. 0.8 Turkey ................. 0.6 Oman .................. 0.6 Switzerland ............. 0.5 Other .................. 9.0 : ,;,, 1.3% 0.8% 0.7% 0.7% © TeleGeography, Inc. t997 National Traffic Balance MiTT 1994 1995 1996 Incoming n.a. 362.1 488.4 Outgoing 61.4 65.9 77.0 Surplus (Deficit) n.a. 296.1 411.5 Total Volume n.a. 428.0 565.4 Note: MiTr is Minutes of Telecommumcat~ons Traffic. Data are zn mzlhons of mznutes of public switched traffic Data for years 1994 and 1995 excluded traffzc to India and Bangladesh Traffic data for 1996 exclude some cross-border traffic to India. © TeleGeography, Inc. 1997 152 © TeleGeography, Inc. 1997 TeleGeography 1997/98 Panama Largest Telecommunications Routes, 1996 Destination Percentage of Outgoing Traffic 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 4. ii:-::::’i 5. :,: 2.3% 6. 2.2% 7. i,," 1.9% 8. !. 1.9% 9. i: 1.8% 10. ~’ 1.8% ~, 1.5% ,,-1.5% MiTT United States .......... 18.4 Colombia ............... 4.4 Costa Rica .............. 3.3 Mexico ................ 1.7 Guatamala ............. 0.9 Venezuela .............. 0.9 El Salvador ............. 0.8 Dominican Republic ...... 0.8 Ecuador ................ 0.8 Brazil .................. 0.7 Peru ................... 0.6 Spain .................. 0.6 Nicaragua .............. 0.6 Honduras .............. 0.6 Argentina .............. 0.5 Canada ................ 0.5 Chile .................. 0.5 Cuba .................. 0.5 United Kingdom ......... 0.3 Japan ................. 0.3 Other .................. 3.8 1.4% 1.3% 1.2% 1.1% 1.1% ¯ 07% : 0.7% © TeleGeography, Inc. 1997 National Traffic Balance MiTT 1994 1995 1996 Incoming 87.3 94.2 97.7 Outgoing 35.9 39.5 41.2 Surplus (Deficit) 51.3 54.7 56.5 Total Volume 123.2 133.7 138.9 Note: MI’iq" ts Minutes of Telecornmuntcatlons Trafftc Data are m rmlhons of minutes of pubhc switched trafftc Data based on bdhng point oftraff=c. ©TeleGeography, Inc 1997 155 TeleGeography 1997/98 © TeleGeography, Inc. 1997 ( Paraguay Largest Telecommunications Routes, 1996 Destination MiTT Percentage of Outgoing Traffic 1. Argentina .............. 8.2 :-,,:, ~:~;~,:,,:~: ~:~,:~-~,~:~:: ;~,:~:~,~:~:,::~:,,~;~:~:~:~,, ~::~,~::,: ,, 32.8% 2. Brazil .6.3 ~.’:~:~:?~:’::’::~::,it~,’~,::~::~:,:=’~:~’~,’~:::~’~’,~’~,’~:~’~: 25.1% 3. United States ........... 3.0 ~,~,~ {,~ ~V~,:,~ :’~ 12.o% 4. Chile .................. 1.2 6. BBrmany ............... 0.5 7. Taiwan ................. 0.4 8. Spain .................. 0.4 ~:~ ~.5% 9. Bep. of Korea ........... 0.4 10. Bolivia ................. 0.3 ~, 11. Peru ................... 0.3 ~,:~ 1.4% 12. Italy ................... 0.2 13. Japan ................. 0.2 ~: o.8% 14. France ................. 0.2 : o.~% 15. Mexico ................ 0.2 : 0.7% 16. Colombia ............... 0.2 17. United KinBdom ......... 0.1 ~, o.6% 18. Panama ................ 0.1 ~: o.6% 19. gwi~erland ............. 0.1 :’o.~% 20. Hon9 KonB ............. 0.1 0.4% ................. © TeleGeography, tnc, 1997 National Traffic Balance MiTT 1994 1995 1996 Incoming 30.6 n.a. 49.4 Outgoing 18.1 20.9 24.9 Surplus (Deficit) 12.5 n.a. 24.5 Total Volume 48.7 n.a. 74.3 Note: MiTT zs M=nutes of Telecommumcat=ons Traffzc. Data are =n millions of minutes of pubhc switched traffic 154 © TeleGeography, Inc. 1997 © TeleGeography, Inc. 1997 TeleGeography 1997/98 Peru Largest Telecommunications Routes, 1996 Destination Mi’n" Percentage of Outgoing Traffic 1. United States .25.7 "~"~"~’~"’~"’~": ~’""’"~""~;:"~ "’" ::’’ "~ "’~:~ ~,~,~,;,,,,,,,,v,,, ,, ..... ,,,,,,,,~,,, 5. Colombia ............... 2.5 l’-":~"-~’°?" 3.8% 6. Italy ................... 2.4 ~it~!~:: 3.7% 9. Bolivia ................ 1.9 !,!i’i,i,": 2.8% 12. Canada ................ 1.6 i~:,~i~,i 2.5% 14. Germany ............... 1.3 :,, 2.0% 15. United Kingdom ......... 1.1 :" "1.6% 16. France ................. 0.9 ~, ~.3% © TeleGeography, Inc. 1997 National Traffic Balance MiTT 1994 1995 1996 Incoming 178.6 195.4 226.5 Outgoing 51.0 62.6 66.7 Surplus (Deficit) 127.6 132.8 159.7 Total Volume 229.6 258.0 293.2 Note: MiTT is Minutes of Telecomrnumcatlons Traffic. Data are zn rndhons of m~nutes of pubhc switched traffzc. Data based on b~lbng point of traffic. © TeleGeography, Inc. t997 155 TeleGeography 1997/98 © TeleGeography, Inc. 1997 ( Philippines Largest Telecommunications Routes, 1996 Destination MiTT Percentage of Outgoing Traffic 1. United States .......... 75 ~:~;~?~;~:~,~:~:;‘‘~‘;:t‘‘‘‘~,i;!‘:;‘‘‘‘~‘~‘~‘‘‘;‘,‘~‘‘~;‘~‘‘:~,‘~‘‘,;,,;:,‘‘~;;~,~,~,;;-" ,,~ ,,,::~,!~,,~,, 31.3~ 2. Japan ................ 35 i~i;i:i~i~i~;~,~i~iii~i~i~,"!ii~i:!~i 14.6% 3. Hong Kong ............ 25 t~,’~;~;","":,~": ~::’~’;~:"~:~:; 10.4% 4. Canada ............... 13 i:i~,:,::i~’il,;:,~! 5.4%° 5. Singapore ............. 12 ~’~":~;~’:: 5.0% 6. Taiwan ............... 10 !,i,i~’ii~iiii~i 4.2% 7. Rap. of Korea ........... 9 ~:;-iii:~: 3.8% 8. Australia ............... 8 ,’?,:~:;~:,i 3.3% 9. Saudi Arabia ........... 6 ii::,~ii~!,: 2.5% 10. Malaysia .............. 5 ~i!~! 2.1% 11. United Kingdom ......... 4 i,:, 1.7% 12. Italy ................... 4 if;i ~.7% Other ................. 34 i~!~!~i:!,i ~!!i!~i~,,~i,,!~i;~ii,~iii!,",~i 14.2% © TeleGeography, Inc. t997 National Traffic Balance MiTT 1994 1995 1996 Incoming 617 691 767 Outgoing 160 174 240 Surplus (Deficit) 457 517 527 Total Volume 777 865 1007 Note: MiTE ~s Minutes of Telecommunications Traff=c Data are in rndhons of m=nutes of pubhc switched traffic. Data for the top three routes are rounded to the nearest five milhon minutes. 156 © TeleGeography, Inc. t997 © TeleGeography, Inc. 1997 TeleGeography 1997/98 Poland Largest Telecommunications Routes, 1996 Destination MiTT Percentage of Outgoing Traffic 2. United Kingdom ........ 25.0 3. United States .......... 24.2 5 "- ~’~’:’ 5.5% 4. France ............... 23.2 ~i:,:,~,~!~L, 5.3% 5. Italy .................. 22.3 ii,,~,,,il, iii~ 5.1% 6. Austria ............... 15.0 ~,i,:~;~ 3.4% 7. Netherlands ........... 13.9 i~-:i:,’! 3.2% 8. Russia ................ 13.1 i’i’i,i~ 3.0% 9. Ukraine ............... 12.5 i~,,ii, i~ 2.9% 10. Sweden ............... 12.0 ’~ ,’ 2.7% 11. Belgium ................ 9.0 ",: 2.1% 12. Czech Republic ......... 8.7 i~ii~, 2.0% 13. Canada ................ 8.1 !,i, 1.9% 14. Denmark .............. 7.4 : ~.7% 15. Switzerland ............ 6.2 1.4% 16. Belarus ................ 6.0 ~.4% 17. Vietnam ................ 5.2 "1.2% 18. Spain ................. 4.4 19. Hungary ............... 3.4 20. Norway ................ 3.2 Other ................. 42.0 ¯ 1.0% 0.8% 0.7% © TeleGeography, Inc. 1997 National Traffic Balance MiTT 1994 1995 1996 Incoming 643.8 649.3 725.5 Outgoing 356.6 381.4 437.2 Surplus (Deficit) 287.2 267.9 288.3 Total Volume 1,000.4 1,030.7 1,162.7 Note: M~’~" zs Minutes of Telecomrnumcat~ons Traffic. Data are m rndhons of minutes of pubhc switched traff=c Data based on b=lbng point of traffic. © TeleGeography, Inc, 1997 157 TeleGeography 1997/98 © TeleGeography, Inc. 1997 Portugal Largest Telecommunications Routes, 1996 Destination Mi’l’r Percentage of Outgoing Traffic 2. Spain ................. 53.8 ~;~‘‘‘~‘~‘‘:~‘‘‘~‘‘:‘~‘,~‘~‘~!‘‘‘~‘‘‘~‘‘‘‘~‘‘‘‘;L‘‘‘1‘‘‘‘~:‘‘,,‘~‘‘:*‘‘~‘,,‘‘‘‘~i‘%*,‘‘5‘~i?‘*!~1~1~L~‘~:~:~:~‘‘~‘:~ ~: 5.8’4 3. Germany .............. 37.6 ~’%"~’;":~,’i~"~’:’~-~’~":;"T~":~’~":~:~,~"~-~:~ ’~;" 11.1% 4. United Kingdom ........ 35.7 ~i~,,,,!:~:;~i~;!~!::~i~,~ii’i,; 10.5% 5. Switzerland ............ 16.9 ~,,,f:,,i,’,’,,,"-,,’,~,~L’,-,:~;~’i~ 5.0% 6. Brazil ................. 14.4 ii’~i!~i~!!il 4.20/o 7. United States .......... 14.1 ii, ii~:!~ili,ii!!!~i~, 4.2% 8. Italy .................. 13.0 ;,",";"~t~,,"&-~:i,,:: 3.80/o 9. Netherlands ........... 11.0 .... ~" "~’’~’~’~ ° lO. Belgium ............... 10.2 11. Angola ................. 7.9 ~:,’,~:’,,;~:,’ 2.3~/0 12. Canada ................ 4.8 !!!~i~,~,~’~ 1.40/o 13. Luxembourg ............ 3.7 !!I:;, 1.1% 14. Cape Verde ............. 3,4 i"~:" 1.o% 15. Guinea ................. 3.3 i!i~’, 1.o% 16. Mozambique ............ 3.3 i’,,-,¢~, 1.o% 17. Sweden ................ 3.2 ii,~il o.90/o 18. Denmark ............... 2.6 ii~i~ 0.8% 19. South Africa ............ 2.3 ii:’ii o.70/o 20. Ireland ................. 2.1 :~" 0.6% Other ................. 28.8 ~:~i;~,~,,,,,i~,~iii,,,~i~!i 8.50/o © TeleGeography, Inc. t997 National Traffic Balance MiTT 1994 1995 1996 Incoming 467.8 525.0 571.4 Outgoing 262.4 283.9 340.0 Surplus (Deficit) 205.4 241.1 231.4 Total Volume 730.2 808.9 911.4 Note: MiTT is Minutes of Telecommumcatzons Traffzc Data are ~n mdhons of minutes of pubhc switched traffic. Data based on bllhng point of traffzc 1 58 © TeleGeography, Inc. 1997 © TeleGeography, Inc. 1997 TeleGeography 1997/98 Russia 7. 8. 9. 11. 13. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. MiTt Ukraine .............. 257.0 Belarus ............... 85.8 Kazakhstan ............ 63.8 Armenia ............... 41.9 Germany .............. 38.2 Uzbekistan ............ 32.3 Georgia ............... 27.3 Moldova .............. 26.2 United States .......... 21.3 Latvia ................. 19.8 Azerbaijan ............. 15.1 Lithuania .............. 15.0 United Kingdom ........ 14.1 Italy .................. 11.5 Estonia ............... 11.3 Finland ................ 11.1 Kyrgyzstan ............ 10.4 France ................. 9.7 Turkey ................. 9.2 Israel .................. 8.7 Other ................ 121.5 7,:~ ,~. i 3.8% !,L:,,,,,:; 3.1% 1.8% i::i", 1.7% ; 1.4% :~* 1.3% ¯ 1.3% ¯ 1.2% 1.1% 1.1% © TeleGeography, Inc. 1997 National Traffic Balance MiTT 1994 1995 1996 Incoming 365.0 448.1 1,037.6 0 utg o in g 229.2 287.4 851.3 Surplus (Deficit) 135.8 160.7 186.3 Total Volume 594.2 735.5 1,888.9 Note: MrFr is Minutes of Telecommunications Traffic. Data are m mdhons of minutes of pubhc switched traffic. Data prior to 1996 d~d not include traffic to members of the Commonwealth of Independent States. Data are for Rostelecom only © TeleGeography, Inc. 1997 159 TeleGeography 1997/98 © TeleGeography, Inc. 1997 f Saudi Arabia Largest Telecommunications Routes, 1995 Destination MiTF Percentage of Outgoing Traffic 1. Egypt .137.3 ~‘1:;~:~‘‘‘‘‘.‘;.,~:~!i!~‘:‘‘~‘‘,‘‘‘!~,::~:‘~!;‘~‘‘~‘~:~‘‘:‘‘‘‘:~‘‘‘,,::~‘‘:~:‘~,,‘,,,~ i!::~:~’,~,-i~;~:~,",i,~i~!~,~",’,"’::!’,,’i~::,,"!’i:i:~i:i~i:" 27.5% 2. Pakistan .............. 56.3 ’=i.:; ,:¯;;~t~.~i;~,:~,~:~.~’:.;~::~:i,,,i~,,!::~:,,~;i;;’ 11.3% 3. India ................. 52.2 i!:::"!~7~,~!i~,:~i’~!,~:::’,i~;ii!~",i’,~i",’;’~"" 10.5% 4. Syria ................. 21.3 i,i~,,,i,!~;~i~iiii~,~i 4.3%o 5. Yemen ................ 17.1 i~,,,,’-i~i,,,~!!:ii~ 3.4% 6. Jordan ............... 16.2 ,~i~,’~’;~~ 3.2% 7. United Kingdom ........ 15.9 !~;:’~:~:,,~i: 3.2% 8. United States .......... 14.3 ,:~,~,~;,’?,~,: 2.9% 9. Bahrain .............. 14.1 "ii~i’i~:!~ 2.8% 10. United Arab Emirates ...13.2 "-~!!i:%,,,~ 2.6% 11. Philippines ............ 13.0 ;"~i":’~,, 2.6% 12. Kuwait ............... 11.1 ’~,,",,, 2.2% 13. Sudan ................ 10.9 i:~i’i~ii:: 2.2% 14. Lebanon .............. 10.8 "!:i:~i:: 2.2% 15. Morocco .............. 9.4 ’i~-’,i~i, 1.9% 16. Bangladesh ............ 9.1 ii, i~" 1.8% 17. Turkey ................. 8.9 "~,,, "1.8% 18. France ................ 7.9 :ii: 1.6% 19. 6ermany .............. 5.4 ¯ ~.1% 20. Qatar ................. 3.1 0.6% Other ................. 51.6 :,,;i:,!i,li!iiii!~:i~i:~;i~:,,,i!!ii:::!ii!’~i~ii!i 10.3% © TeleGeography, Inc. t997 National Traffic Balance MiTT 1994 1995 1996 Incoming n.a. n.a. n.a. Outgoing 477 537.3 584.4 Surplus (Deficit) n.a. n.a. n.a. Total Volume n.a. n.a. n.a. Note: MiFr is M=nutes of Telecommumcat=ons Traffic. Data are in milhons of minutes of pubhc switched traff=c 160 © TeleGeography, Inc. 1997 © TeleGeography, Inc. 1997 TeleGeography 1997/98 Singapore Largest Telecommunications Routes, FY 1996/97 Destination MiTr 1. Malaysia ............. 325 3. Indonesia ............. 80 2. Hong Kong ............ 70 4. United States .......... 45 5. Japan ................ 45 6. Australia .............. 45 7. China ................. 45 8. Thailand .............. 35 9. United Kingdom ........ 30 10. India .................. 30 11. Philippines ............ 30 Other ................ 162 Percentage of Outgoing Traffic :~’~,,~ 3.2% ©TeleGeography, Inc 1997 National Traffic Balance MiTT FY 1994/95 FY 1995/96 FY 1996/97 Incoming n.a. n.a. n.a. Outgoing 643 773 942 Surplus (Deficit) n.a. n.a. n.a. Total Volume n.a. n.a. n.a. Note: M~TT ~s M~nutes of Telecommunlcatzons Traffic. Data are zn m~llions of minutes of pubhc switched traffic. Data are based on b~lhng pmnt of traffzc and are rounded to the nearest five mdhon m~nutes. Data for years 1994 and 1995 excluded some cross-border traffic to Malaysia. F~scal year ends 31 March. ©TeleGeography, lnc 1997 161 TeleGeography 1997/98 © TeleGeography, Inc. 1997 Slovak Republic Largest Telecommunications Routes, 1996 Destination Percentage of Outgoing Traffic 5. ~!~’~i~i,,~ 3.0% Mil"r Czech Republic ......... 66.2 Germany .............. 14.2 Austria ............... 10.4 Hungary ............... 5.3 United Kingdom ......... 4.1 6. Italy ................... 4.0 7. United States ........... 3.5 8. Poland ................ 2.7 9. Ukraine ................ 2.6 10. Russia ................. 2.4 11. Switzerland ............ 2.2 12. France ................. 2.1 13. Netherlands ............ 1.6 14. Belgium ................ 1.3 15. Croatia ................. 1.0 16. Canada ................ 1.0 17. Yugoslavia .............. 0.9 18. Israel .................. 0.6 19. Sweden ................ 0.5 20. Spain .................. 0.4 Other ................. 7.1 ,,’,~ "!,,’" 3.0% ~!i~’: 2’0% ~." 1.8% 1"2% 0.9% 0.8% 0.7% 0.7% 0.5% 0.4% 0.3% © TeleGeography, Inc, 1997 National Traffic Balance MiTT 1994 1995 1996 Incoming 68.5 81.6 159.0 Outgoing 52.5 58.8 134.1 Surplus (Deficit) 16.0 22.8 24.9 Total Volume 121.0 140.4 293.1 Note: M~TT ~s Minutes of Telecommunicatmns Traffic. Data are =n mdlions of minutes of pubhc sw=tched traff=c Totals in years 1994 and 1995 excluded traffic to and from the Czech Repubhc Data based on bilhng point of traff=c. 162 © TeleGeography, Inc. 1997 © TeleGeography, Inc. 1997 TeleGeography 1997/98 Slovenia Largest Telecommunications Routes, 1996 Destination MiTr Percentage of Outgoing Traffic 2. Germany .............. 15.8 i!i~i!!i:~i~,ii~ii!~’~i~ 10.6% 3. Austria ............... 12.1 !i,!~:~::~ ~: 7.7% 4. Yugoslavia .10.9 :: ,, 3.9% 5. Italy ................... 9.9 i~iii~:" 3.0% 6. Bosnia ................ 4.9 i,li:~,!: 3.0% 7. Switzerland ............ 2.5 i~ii:,: 2.6% 8. Macedonia ............. 2.4 i~ 2.0% 9. United Kingdom ......... 2.4 ~,:,, 1.9% 10. France ................ 2.0 i~’;~1.8% 11. United States ........... 1.9 !’,, 1.7% 12. Russia ................. 1.6 I,~~" 1.6% 13. Hungary ............... 1.4 i’, 1.2% 14. Czech Republic ......... 1.1 ¯ o.9% 15. Netherlands ............ 0.9 16. Sweden ............... 0.8 o.7% 17. Belgium ............... 0.8 i~°.7% 18. Netherlands Antilles ..... 0.7 o.5% 19. Canada ................ 0.5 20. Poland ................. 0.5 ¯ o.3% Other ................. 5.9 ii~?,ii~:~ 5.3% © TeleGeography, Inc. 1997 National Traffic Balance MiTT 1994 1995 1996 Incoming 83.2 121.2 113.9 Outgoing 90.6 100.6 105.3 Surplus (Deficit) (7.4) 20.6 8.6 Total Volume 173.8 221.8 219.2 Note: Mi’[q" ts Minutes of Telecommumcat~ons Traffzc. Data are m mdhons of minutes of public switched traffzc Data exclude some cross-border traff=c to Italy © TeleGeography, Inc, 1997 TeleGeography 1997/98 © TeleGeography, Inc. 1997 f South Africa Largest Telecommunications Routes, 1994 Destination Percentage of Outgoing Traffic 9. ,;,," ",L ~:’,,;"?~" 3.0% 11. {,’,,"’-’{i~;!’;i 1.7% 12. ~’::::" ’’~ 1.7’4 13. i’i’:i’,;,r 1.!i% 14. 7~i,~.!!!" 1.4% 16. i,’,;" ~" 1.4% 17. ,. i:ii,, 1.4% 18. ;"/ii: 20. !:~ 0.9% Mil"I United Kingdom ........ 40.9 Namibia ............... 29.9 Zimbabwe ............. 21.6 United States .......... 20.2 Botswana ............. 14.0 Mozambique ........... 11.7 Germany .............. 11.7 Swaziland ............. 11.0 Lesotho ................ 7.9 Australia ............... 6.6 Portugal ............... 4.4 France ................. 4.4 Canada ................ 3.9 Netherlands ............ 3.8 Italy ................... 3.7 Israel .................. 3.6 Switzerland ............. 3.6 Zambia ................ 3.5 Malawi ................ 2.5 Taiwan ................. 2.4 Other ................. 51.4 © TeleGeography, Inc. 1997 National Traffic Balance MiTT 1994 1995 1996 Incoming n.a. n.a. n.a. Outgoing 262.6 305.0 353.0 Surplus (Deficit) n.a. n.a. n.a. Total Volume n.a. n.a. n.a. Note: MiTT is Minutes of Telecommunications Traffic. Data are in millions of minutes of public switched traffic. © TeleGeography, Inc. 1997 © TeleGeography, Inc. 1997 TeleGeography 1997/98 Spain Largest Telecommunications Routes, 1995 Destination Mi’n" Percentage of Outgoing Traffic 3. United Kingdom ....... 147.0 :,,, ~,~,,,; ’~’i~ ~!,‘‘,.,:~‘i‘i~!~i~;‘~:‘~‘!~;~!~‘~‘:,~;,~i~‘~:‘~‘~‘~i;!!~:‘~i~ Z;’:’i~;-!:;~’i~ 14.3%o 4. Italy .................. 68.2 i-,!,i~,i~,i:i~ ~ii~,i~i~!i~,,,,;i!i,,, 6.7% 5. United States .......... 48.3 ;’;il;~:~!~iiiii~,i!ii~ii:!,~i::,,~; 4.7% 6. Portugal .............. 40.6 :,iiii!~";’,Z!!!~,i’~,,,:!i,;~i;,,,,:~’ 4.0% 7. Switzerland ........... 36.1 ,;. ,’~L’,,~,,,;I.~,~,~L 3.5% 8. ~elgi.m .............. 35.4 :~:i~;:i:!~";,!’!~i;~;i’: 3.~% 9. Netherlands ........... 35.3 !ii";:i~"iii"~,,~i~,:~i: 3.4% 10. ~orocco ............. 22.8 ,:;i~i:,:ii:’!; ~.~% 11. Andorra ............... 17.2 :i~i!:i~’i," 1.7% 12. Argentina ............. 17.1 i~, ~i~iiii, 1.7% 13. Sweden .............. 14.5 :ii!.-’i"’i. 1.4% 14. Chile .................. 12.9 .... ~" 1.3% 15. Colombia ............. 10.5 1.o% 16. Denmark .............. 9.5 --, o.9% 17. Mexico ................ 8.9 ,:~,, 0.9% 18. Brazil ................. 8.8 ;,, o.9% 19. Cuba .................. 8.7 0.8% 20. Austria ................. 8.4 :,:i’,’- 0.8% Other ................ 155.8 ‘:i~‘.~‘~i~‘:.;‘:‘~,~!:;i!~!!;‘‘~‘‘‘~!.‘‘~!~‘‘‘:~;~!.~‘~:~;~;~,.~‘!~!‘~i‘ ~;,-~,~,,,’i,i:,:i,:,~i-,:: ’ ," 15.2% © TeleBeography, Inc. 1997 National Traffic Balance MiTT 1994 1995 1996 Incoming 969.9 1,076.4 n.a. Outgoing 948.3 1,024.6 1,189.0 Surplus (Deficit) 21.6 51.8 n.a. Total Volume 1,918.2 2,101.0 n.a. Note: M~’Iq" ~s Minutes of Telecornmumcat~ons Traffic. Data are ~n m~lhons of minutes of pubhc switched traffic. © TeleGeography, tnc ~997 165 TeleGeography 1997/98 © TeleGeography, Inc. 1997 f Sri Lanka Largest Telecommunications Routes, 1996 Destination Percentage of Outgoing Traffic 10. : "~>~t~ ;’,,t, 3.2% 11. 12. 13. 14, 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. MrlT India .................. 4.2 United States ........... 2.7 United Kingdom ......... 2.6 Singapore .............. 2.1 Japan ................. 1.8 Hong Kong ............. 1.4 Australia .............. 1.3 Germany .............. 1.2 Rep. of Korea ........... 1.0 United Arab Emirates .... 1.0 South Africa ............ 0.9 Italy ................... 0.7 France ................. 0.6 Canada ................ 0,5 Kuwait ................. 0.5 Maldives ............... 0.5 Thailand ............... 0.5 Malaysia .............. 0.5 Switzerland ............. 0.4 Netherlands ............ 0.4 Other ................. 4.4 © TeleGeography, Inc. 1997 National Traffic Balance MiTT 1994 1995 1996 Incoming 78.7 92.0 96.0 Outgoing 23.7 27.5 29.3 Surplus (Deficit) 55.0 64.5 66.7 Total Volume 102.4 119.5 125.3 Note: MiT[ Is M~nutes of Telecommumcatzons Traffic. Data are in milbons of m~nutes of pubbc switched traffic. Data based on billing point of traffic. 166 © TeleGeography, Inc. 1997 © TeleGeography, Inc. 1997 TeleGeography 1997/98 Sweden Largest Telecommunications Routes, 1996 Destination MiTT Percentage of Outgoing Traffic 1. Finland ............... 145 i‘:~i‘‘‘,~!~!:~ii~,~:~!;~;~;~ii‘‘‘~i~‘~i~‘i‘‘!!~:;;:‘‘~i‘:!~!~!‘!~:!:~:~:‘~!,~:! 14.1% 2. Norway .............. 130 """ °’~ ........... ~’~ "~"’~"~" ~’~ .... ""’ .... 3. enmark ............. 4. 6ermany .............. 95 ~:!,,~,:;,i!~!!i,,,’iiii,!:~:,,;;!!~,~"~,’,’,i:,:,:i~, 9.3% 5. United Kingdom ........ 95 !~;~!!:~;i~;~i,~i~ii!!iiiil;!iiiii::;::ii~;i~!::ii!ii~::i, 9.3% 6. United States .70 ......... ....... 6 ° 7. Netherlands ........... 45 !~,i~i~i:’,~’!!,~ 4.4% 8. France ................ 40 ’i,!iiiiii’,i:iii,,:i,!~,!., 3.9% 10. Switzerland ............ 25 ,",,~,,:~i’:i~;,,~i 2.4% 11. Italy .................. 20 :;i,"i;’i 1.9% 12. Belgium ............... 17 ~,,i~-~i,, 1.7% 13. Spain ................. 15 ~ii~’! 1.5% 14. Austria ................ 10 ,,~: 1.0% 15. Yugoslavia ............. 10 ", 1.0% Other ................ 174 ’:::i"’ :~iii’,’" ,,, "",:~i:,,!",:::,i~" ,i,::"~!i",:ii",’,,’~ii!i~, i 17.o% © TeleGeography, Inc. 1997 National Traffic Balance MiTT 1994 1995 1996 Incoming n.a. n.a. n.a. Outgoing 802 900 1026 Surplus (Deficit) n.a. n.a. n.a. Total Volume n.a. n.a. n.a. Note: Mill" ~s Minutes of Telecommumcat{ons Traffic. Data are m mllhons of minutes of pubhc switched traffzc Data based on b~lling point of traffzc Traffic figures are for Teha and Tele2 only Data for the top ten routes are rounded to the nearest five million m~nutes. ©TeleGeography, Inc 1997 167 TeleGeography 1997/98 © TeleGeography, Inc. 1997 t Switzerland Largest Telecommunications Routes, 1996 Destination Mill" Percentage of Outgoing Traffic 1. Germany .435.5 ,%’~,",~:,:~’~,~’~’~’,,~,,’,’~-’~",,’,’~,~ ~"~ ,:’,,’,,~,’,~,;,~’~’,~,~,::: ’.,..,-’,,,’,,,’,~ ,’, ~,,’,,,’" 22.5% ............ ~’,’.’3 f~~ ~& ,," Z~"~, ’~" "~ ~" ," ,." .~"~’-’-’f~ "~- "~- ; .~..’~ ,, ",’ t :~.’" ~:;,;,~’~" ;.:.;~ .;~ 2. France ............... 300.5 3. Italy ................. 268.6 i:~i:,,"~,~:i:~!:i~i~!!~!~"~’!"i~’~,,’~’~i,!ili~;,’i:ii’,:’~! 13.9% 4. United States .108.1 !,’!:’~ :::~’~!’:~";’-,,:~:2" o 5. United Kingdom ....... 107.8 ;~;’:~...... ~;":~’"’~";;;’~"~’~,,’~’~,,", ;,~’,,’t, 5.6% 6. Austria .79.1 ,,,-,~-~,~-:,~--,~,~,,4~,: 4.1% ............... 7. Portugal ............... 70.2 [’,’~!~,,",,"~i"i, 3.6% 8. Spain ................. 64.3 iii~ili~i 3.3% 9. Netherlands ........... 47.1 ~!i: 2.4% 10. Yugoslavia ............. 42.7 ~!!i 2.2% 11. Belgium ............... 31.6 ~i!i,~ 1.6% 12. Turkey ................ 29.6 ~i;i:’i:,:ii: 1.5% 13. Canada ............... 19.8 !i,,,ii 1.o% 14. Sweden ............... 19.5 ~-,~"~" 1.o% 15. Croatia ................ 16.7 !~,’i,i o.9% 16. Denmark .............. 12.5 i";o.6% 17. Macedonia ............ 12.2 i,’~o.6% 18. 6reece ............... 11.5 19. Russia ................ 11.4 :-~ o.6% 20. Hungary ............... 10.7 ~: o.6% Other ................ 233.9 © TeleGeography, Inc. t997 National Traffic Balance MiTT 1994 1995 1996 Incoming 1,353.0 1,439.3 1,562.8 0 utg o in g 1,649.3 1,778.4 1,935.5 Surplus (Deficit) (296.3) (339.1) (372.7) Total Volume 3,002.3 3,217.7 3,498.4 Note: MiTT =s M=nutes of Telecomrnunicat~ons Traff=c. Data are ~n m~lhons of minutes of pubhc switched traff=c Data for years 1994 and 1995 based on billing point of traff=c Data for 1996 based on ong=nat=ng point of traffic 168 © TeleGeography, Inc 1997 © TeleGeography, Inc. 1997 TeleGeography 1997/98 Taiwan Largest Telecommunications Routes, FY 1996/97 Destination MiTT Percentage of Outgoing Traffic 2. United States ......... 130.6 ,,":’,~ :"-;’;i:~"":’~’~,~":;,~-~i",", ’:":;~;%::"~t,?~~":t::~’;’\":"~!;~:"~~ 19.4% 6. Thailand .............. 28.4 !~!!~i~!~i~! 4.2% 10. Australia .............. t3.4 ,:~":":, 2.0% 11. Malaysia .............. 12.8 ~i;:"~,’: 1.9% 13. United Kingdom ......... 9.1 ii:~ 1.4% 14. Germany .............. 8.7 ,:!," 1.3% 15. Rep. of Korea ........... 8.6 ,’~:~, 1.3% 16. New Zealand ........... 5.6 0.8% 17. France ................. 4.8 o.7% 18. Macao ................. 3.7 ,,-~0.5% 19. Netherlands ............ 2.9 0.4% 20. Russia ................. 2.7 ¯o.4% © TeleGeography, Inc. 1997 National Traffic Balance MiTT FY 1994/95 F’Y 1995/96 F’Y 1996/97 Incoming 613.5 545.3 736.8 Outgoing 468.5 592.8 674.0 Surplus (Deficit) 115.0 (47.5) 62.8 Total Volume 1,112.0 1,138.1 1,410.8 Note: M=’Fi" =s Minutes of Telecommumcatzons Traff=c. Data are m mllhons of minutes of public sw=tched traff=c. Data based on b=lhng point of traff=c F~scal year ends 31 March ©TeleGeography, tnc 1997 169 TeleGeography 1997/98 © TeleGeography, Inc. 1997 ( Thailand Largest Telecommunications Routes, 1996 Destination MiTr Percentage of Outgoing Traffic 1 Japan .42.7 2. United States .28.6 ,~-~-’,,~,,",,,,,~,,~. ~,..:~,’{,~-~ ,",~4,>",~ ............ 11.5% 3. ginBapore .27.7 ~’:~:’~:~:~,’{~’~:’~’~’;*~",~’~’~I’:~" 11.2% 4. Hong Kong .17.6 6. United KinBdom ........ 12.9 ~:~~:: 5.2% 7. China .10.4 ~WI~:~::~:::,:~:::~ 4.2% 8. Australia .............. 10.0 ;: ::"~;~~~;:~;::: 4.0% 9. Germany .............. 9.3 ~:~:~}:~:~:, 3.7% 11. India .................. 5.9 12. France ................. 5.2 ~:~,~- 2.1% 13. Myanmar ............... 4.7 ~:’~#t~* 1.9% ............. 15. Indonesia .............. 4.1 ~:~:~ 1.6% 16. Italy ................... 3.5 ~’:’:::;,:: 1.4% 17. Swi~erland ............ 3.2 ~:~: 1.3% 18. Vietnam .2.9 ............... ~,,,~ 1.2% 19. Netherlands ............ 2.2 ~,"’:~ 0.9% 20. Cambodia .............. 2.0 ~~o.8% Other ................. 28.1 ~;,:’;~:~::~,~’"~,:~:~:;:2;’t:;~:~:,~:~::~:~:~,:~ 11.4% © TeleGeography, Inc. t997 National Traffic Balance MiTT 1994 1995 1996 Incoming 313.3 277.7 376.2 Outgoing 173.2 218.8 247.4 Surplus (Deficit) 140.1 58.9 128.7 Total Volume 486.5 496.5 623.6 Note: MiTT is Minutes of Telecommumcat=ons Traffic. Data are m rnilhons of mznutes of pubhc switched traffic. 170 © TeleGeography, Inc. 1997 © TeleGeography, Inc. 1997 TeleGeography 1997/98 Turkey Largest Telecommunications Routes, 1996 Destination Percentage of Outgoing Traffic 4. !~:",’i:~’~:~:" 5.3% 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. MiTr Germany ............. 158.7 United Kingdom ........ 40.4 United States .......... 27.7 France ............... 25.0 Russia ................ 22.0 Netherlands ........... 19.7 Italy .................. 14.6 Switzerland ........... 13.2 Austria ............... 12.3 Romania .............. 10.3 Belgium ............... 9.3 Bulgaria ............... 7.8 Ukraine ................ 7.3 Greece ................ 7.2 Saudi Arabia ........... 6.6 Azerbaijan .............. 6.0 Iran ................... 5.4 Sweden ................ 5.2 Israel .................. 4.9 Denmark .............. 4.1 Other ................. 66.1 ~":~" 3.1% i,ii!2, 2.0°/o 1.6% 1"5% 1.5% b’1.4% 1.3% 1.1% 1.1% [,~ 1.0% ’, 0.9% © TeleGeography, Inc. 1997 National Traffic Balance MiTT 1994 1995 1996 Incoming 601.4 705.0 755.0 Outgoing 284.3 373.6 473.4 Surplus (Deficit) 317.1 331.5 281.6 Total Volume 885.8 1,078.6 1,228.4 Note: MrFr zs Minutes of Telecommumcat~ons Traffic. Data are in mHhons of minutes of pubhc switched traffzc © TeleGeography, Inc. 1997 171 TeleGeography 1997/98 © TeleGeography, Inc. 1997 Ukraine Largest Telecommunications Routes, 1996 Destination Mil-r 1. Russia ............... 273.2 2. Belarus ............... 24.2 3. Moldova .............. 18.4 4. Armenia ............... 7.0 5. Kazakhstan ............. 5.1 6. Uzbekistan ............. 4.3 7. Georgia ................ 3.4 8. Azerbaijan .............. 3.0 9. Turkmenistan ........... 1.1 10. Kyrgyzstan ............. 0.6 Percentage of Outgoing Traffic i~~, 2.0% ~, 1.5% ~, 1.3% 1.0% 0.9% 0.3% 0.2% 11. Tajikistan ............... 0.4 o.1% © TeleGeography, tnc, t997 National Traffic Balance MiTT 1994 1995 1996 Incoming n.a. n.a. n.a. Outgoing n.a. 301.8 340.8 Surplus (Deficit) n.a. n.a. n.a. Total Volume n.a. n.a. n.a. Note: M~TI" is Minutes of Telecommumcatzons Traffic. Data are zn mzlhons of mznutes of public switched traffic. Data include traffic to other member states of the Commonwealth of Independent States only See page 114 for a matrix of traffic from other CIS member states. © TeleGeography, Inc. 1997 © TeleGeography, Inc. 1997 Te]eGeography 1997/98 United Arab Emirates Largest Telecommunications Routes, 1995 Destination MiTT Percentage of Outgoing Traffic 2. Pakistan .............. 49.0 i!i~:i~ii,;iiiii~,,!i~i"-’~!;,,:i’:’;i!ii,i~ii!i~,iii,~,i 9.7% 3. United Kingdom ........ 33.5 !’,,,~:~,~;!;~i:~,,,~’,!~;,~, 6.7% 4. Egypt ................. 33.2 iii~ili~",~!i:~ii!il;~iiiiiii~\~i~i~,i,i 6.6% 5. Saudi Arabia .30.9 i~i~:i’:’~’~%~;’~’~,’,’~’",’~~’I~ 6.1% 6. United States .23.4 ~:,,," ",~,:,:,’: 4.6% 7. Omen ................. 2 .0 4.2% 8. Syria ................. 18.7 ;i~:!i~i~,~!~,!ii. 3.7% 9. Iran .................. 16.7 ~;,i:,;!i::’~i:ili~ 3.3% 10. Qatar ................. 13.1 ,,’-",ii!ii~ili~i~’1 2.6% 11. Jordan ................ 12.7 ~,,’:~,,! 2.5% 12. Bahrain ............... 12.1 i~i,’,!:"~;~!i:-~ii 2.4% 13. Kuwait .11.3 i~;:t"’~;’;’" 2.2% ............... ~,~ ,, ;,~,- 14. Philippines ............. 9.4 ~’~;~’:~ 1.9% 15. Lebanon ............... 9.0 16. Bangladesh ............. 7.8 "~,, 1.5% 17. Sudan ................. 6.3 i’ii~" 1.3% 18. France ................. 6.1 i~’i~ 1.2% 19. Germany ............... 5.9 ~; 1.2% 20. Yemen ................. 4.9 :,~: 1.0% Other ................. 70.2 i~:ii!i~i~t~’i,,:i!:i:ili:i;~;iii,~!,ii~’ ~i’:i~i~,"~!~,~!’,’i;!!~,", 13.9% © TeleGeography, tnc, 1997 National Traffic Balance MiTT 1994 1995 1996 Incoming n.a. n.a. n.a. 0 utg o in g 428.2 503.6 589.3 Surplus (Deficit) n.a. n.a. n.a. Total Volume n.a. n.a. n.a. Note: MzTT zs Mznutes of Telecommumcatzons Traffzc. Data are ~n milhons of minutes of pubhc swztched traffzc ©Tele6eography, Inc t997 175 TeleGeography 1997/98 © TeleGeography, Inc. 1997 t United Kingdom Outgoing Largest Telecommunications Routes, FY 1995/96-FY 1996/97 Destination Mi’l’r 95/96 Mi’l-r 96/97 Percentage of Outgoing Traffic FY 1996/97 1. United States .617.6 .660.1 ~.;~,,,~,",~o~,’,’ ~,’;,~,-~,’~,~L:::~’,%~i;:~:~’~’~’ ": ..... "~,"~,~;;’~/~’:~’; 14.4% 2. Ireland .............. 371.4 ...... 549.1 i~‘~;~i~!~i~i!?~!;~;!~,!~,~i~‘,‘,,~,‘,‘‘‘~‘~!!~!~;~‘‘‘~‘‘~i‘,~!‘~‘~;;‘‘~‘ 12.o% 3. France .360.8 .405.8 ~’~’,’, ,’~,’,’~,-"~:,~/~’;,,~;:~" :,’,"-!,~,~,,’~:,,-~:~ 8.9% 4. Germany .364.4 .405.4 ’, ,;: ,,’;%~’,,’:,’; :;~!~,,~"~’-’~" ’,-’;-’-,-’,"~’,~;-’,,’!!~ 9 9% 5. Italy .188.0 .223.9 "~’;"’~’~"">~’::~:’~"~""" 4.9% ............ .. .... 6. Spain ............... 171.1 ...... 207.7 t-,;,~::~,~,,,,,,~!;,,,~;,,,;,,,,;,-,;,;~,,,,,,,,,, 4.5% 7. N eth e rl a n d s .......... 173.5 ...... 192.7 ~,i~;:’,~i~,;i;"~;,"~ii;’:’~’~ 4.2% 8. Australia ............ 127.3 ...... 144.1 !~iii~(~i!;i~ 3.2% 9. Canada ............. 120.5 ...... 132.5 i:::’~i~i~i~i 2.9% 10. Belgium ............. 105.4 ...... 124.2 11. Switzerland .102.9 .121.7 :,"!~;-,’~,’,,"~ 27% 12. Greece .............. 62.9 ....... 79.1 i’,’i’~"’,," 1.7% 13. Sweden .............. 66.8 ....... 72.1 ~i,,i 1.6% 14. India ................. 55.5 ....... 68.1 ;ill!:; 1.5% 15. South Africa .......... 57.5 ....... 64.2 :::~i,;,,’, 1.4% 16. Denmark ............. 57.6 ....... 63.9 :,:’i!’~!~, 1.4% 17. Portugal .............. 49.2 ....... 60.3 ,i!,~i- 1.3% 18. Turkey ............... 37.3 ....... 59.4 ";:’~:;!i’! 1.3% 19. Hong Kong ........... 51.0 ....... 56.0 :~iiii;~;, 1.2% 20. Pakistan .............. 51.0 ....... 44.4 ;~; 1.o% Other .824.3 .834.5 ~,‘;~‘:‘,‘;‘~;,‘‘‘‘,‘‘‘~‘!‘~;~:‘‘‘~:‘‘‘~‘‘‘‘i~,,‘~‘~‘:~‘~‘;,~‘,~:‘C~‘~‘~,~‘~7f/~;‘~‘‘‘;~:~‘~.~,‘~‘~, 18.3% © TeleGeography, Inc, 1997 National Traffic Balance MiTT FY 1994/95 FY 1995/96 FY 1996/97 Incoming 3,577 4,021 4;360.0 0 utg o in g 3,507 4,016 4,569.2 Surplus (Deficit) 70 5 (209.2) Total Volume 7,084 8,037 8,929.2 Note: MiTT is Minutes of Telecommumcatmns Traffzc Data are in millions of m~nutes of pubhc switched traffic. Data are for BT and Mercun/only. IPL resellers originated an estzmated 700 million addztional m~nutes in FY 1996/97. Traff=c data may differ from data pubhshed bythe U.K. 0ff~ce of Telecommumcat~ons (0FTEL) because 0R’EL reports "retail" mznutes only, whzch exclude (a) "wholesale" minutes sold to switched resellers and (b) operator asszsted calls and collect calls, F=scal year ends 31 March. © TeleGeography, Inc. 1997 © TeleGeography, Inc. 1997 TeteGeography 1997/98 United Kingdom Incoming Largest Telecommunications Routes, FY 1995196-FY 1996/97 Destination MiTT 95/96 MiTT 96/97 1. United States ........ 891.4 ...... 718.4 2, Ireland .............. 389.7 ...... 420.9 3. Germany ............ 356.2 ...... 366.5 4, France .............. 324.7 ...... 355.0 5. Netherlands .......... 170.1 ...... 170.7 6. Australia ............ 159.2 ...... 168.6 7. Italy ................ 150.7 ...... 164.8 8. Spain ............... 149.5 ...... 164.7 9. Canada ............. 132.9 ...... 132.4 10. Switzerland .......... 98.2 ...... 107.3 11. Belgium .............. 98.4 ...... 106.3 12. Sweden .............. 69.8 ....... 87.4 13. Greece .............. 63.2 ....... 72.8 14. South Africa .......... 56.6 ....... 64.0 15. Denmark ............. 58.2 ....... 61.0 16, Hong Kong ........... 57.0 ....... 55.0 17. Norway .............. 51.4 ....... 49.7 18. 19, 20. Percentage of Incoming Traffic FY 1996/97 ~:~,:~,,~ 2.4% 1,3% Japan ................ 46.6 ....... 48.6 .... 1.1% Turkey ............... 32.6 ....... 40.5 ~’ 0.9% NewZealand .......... 34.7 ....... 37.2 o.9% 22,2% © TeleGeography, Inc. 1997 175 TeleGeography 1997/98 © TeleGeography, Inc. 1997 ( United States Outgoing Largest Telecommunications Routes, 1995-1996 Destination MiTT 1995 MiTT 1996 1. Canada ............ 2,997.9 .... 3,398.7 2. Mexico ............ 2,012.2 .... 2,378.4 3. United Kingdom ..... 1,017.4 .... 1,214.1 4. Germany ............ 657.7 ...... 778.9 5. Japan ............... 574.3 ...... 698.3 6. Hong Kong ........... 314.1 ...... 538.7 7. France .............. 355.4 ...... 437.3 8. India ................ 284.1 ...... 414.1 9. Rep. of Korea ........ 312.3 ...... 379.9 10. Brazil ............... 277.6 ...... 370.9 11. Dominican Republic ...342.9 ...... 367.5 12. Philippines ........... 294.8 ...... 345.0 13. Italy ................ 273.4 ...... 332.4 14. Taiwan .............. 273.2 ...... 320.6 15. China ............... 230.2 ...... 297.6 16. Australia ............ 200.1 ...... 282.0 17. Colombia ............ 253.2 ...... 281.7 18. Israel ............... 213.4 ...... 238.1 19. Argentina ............ 157.8 ...... 219.4 20. Jamaica ............. 186.3 ...... 218.9 Other .............. 4,491.4 .... 5,527.5 Percentage of Outgoing Traffic 1996 ~,~?~’~=:’: 4.1% ~-"~’~" 2.3% ;~’ "?’~ 2.0% ;~,, 1.9% ~::~’ 1.8% 1.7% }:’:’:’~ 1.6% ............................................................................. © TeleGeography, Inc. t997 National Traffic Balance MiTT 1994 1995 1996 Incoming 6,133.1 7,010.6 8,217.6 Outgoing 13,200.3 15,637.5 18,830.0 Surplus (Deficit) (7,067.2) (8,776.9) (10,612.4) Total Volume 19,333.4 22,798.1 27,047.6 Note: MiFr ~s M~nutes of Telecommunications Traffic. Data are ~n mdlions of m~nutes of public switched traffic. Data based on bilhng pmnt of traffic. The sum of top 20 routes plus other routes does not equal outgoing total, whzch has been adjusted downward to reflect refiled (i.e., forezgn b~lled and originated) traffzc handled by some U.S carriers. All U.S. data exclude traffic from off-shore U.S. territories (Le., Puerto Rico, V~rgzn Islands, Guam) © TeleGeography, Inc. 1997 176 © TeleGeography, Inc. 1997 TeleGeography 1997/98 United States--Incoming Largest Telecommunications Routes, 1995-1996 Destination MiTi" 1995 Percentage of Incoming Traffic 1996 9.1% 4. "’~,," 4.2% 5. 3.8% MiTr 1996 Canada ............ 2,063.7 .... 2,848.5 Mexico .............. 833.9 ...... 946.3 United Kingdom ...... 678.1 ...... 748.4 Japan ............... 319.1 ...... 342.1 Germany ............ 290.3 ...... 312.4 6. France .............. t80.9 ...... 203.8 7. Rep. of Korea ........ 140.7 ...... 156.7 8. Australia ............ 144.0 ...... 155.4 9. Brazil ............... 101.3 ...... 123.3 10. Italy ................ 103.6 ...... 114.0 11. Taiwan .............. 108.4 ...... 111.7 12. Dominican Republic .... 86.3 ....... 99.3 13. Hong Kong ........... 102.7 ....... 96.0 14. Switzerland ........... 77.0 ....... 91.8 15. Netherlands .......... 89.7 ....... 85.8 16. Israel ................ 70.3 ....... 78.8 17. Sweden .............. 62.0 ....... 70.3 18. Colombia ............. 58.8 ....... 61.4 19. Spain ................ 52.1 ....... 60.3 20. China ................ 52.3 ....... 58.1 Other .............. 1,395.5 .... 1,453.1 ~.- 1.0% 1.0% 0.9% 07% 0.7% 0.7% .,..~ .~..~. ~’ ". .... "....~;:~. 17.7% © TeleGeography, Inc. 1997 177 TeleGeography 1997/98 © TeleGeography, Inc. 1997 ~U.S.--Other Correspondents Z Z ZZI~_ © TeleGeography, Inc. 199~ Te~eGeography 997~98 U.S. Traffic by Carrier Market Share of International Traffic by Route, 1996 U.S. Billed Traffic Foreign Billed Traffic AT&T MCI Sprint WorldCom AT&T MCI Sprint WorldCom 42.16 35.43 12.87 9.46 15.13 49.42 19.16 15.75 37.87 19.75 17.82 6.83 42.37 20.10 21.10 5.78 46.73 20.83 20.53 11.77 57.24 22.02 10.94 9.70 52.37 25,10 16.00 2.10 42.89 20.38 22.20 2.12 54.83 27.00 12.14 6.14 47.78 33.48 9.58 5.07 48.71 26,80 8.46 16.00 42.82 37.85 6.73 12.50 26.47 34.28 5.30 16.85 5! .52 37.47 5.27 4.91 43.21 46.36 8.83 1.56 78,20 18.67 1.85 1.29 42.15 28.27 16.18 12.19 44.99 33.65 14.48 6.53 50.69 31.15 11.47 5.25 48.75 32.76 11.65 5.67 20.19 39.91 35.71 4.04 21.00 33.49 40.18 3.08 43.87 43,82 12.21 0.08 43.85 46.37 9.83 0.00 54.88 25.44 12.62 6.31 53.59 27.68 13.74 4.99 54.08 21.99 18.17 5.44 52.00 23.29 18.88 5.59 47.57 42.02 10.40 0.00 64.31 30.59 5.10 0.00 40.54 39.07 14.48 4.79 43.14 34.58 13.26 4.62 48.29 29.33 16.43 5.37 48.17 32.13 14.14 4.05 82.60 22.96 10.43 3.99 62.32 23.13 11.04 3.50 40.89 19.22 19.07 9.02 54.00 23.55 15.75 6.43 60.57 27.11 9.92 0.91 55.57 28.90 6.72 0.73 70.90 17.72 8.47 0.21 69.51 21.08 9.42 0.00 40.38 17.86 20.55 11.98 38.54 26.81 15.27 6.90 38.75 38.18 17.78 5.20 40.62 37.42 13.70 5,65 53.92 23.89 15.14 5.02 53.64 26.74 14.19 5.32 48.45 19.36 2I~.21 5.’19 49.83 28.12 12.79 7.~4 Argentina Australia Brazil Canada China Colombia Dominican Republic Ecuador France Germany Hong Kong India Israel Italy Jamaica Japan Rep. of Korea Mexico Netherlands Philippines Poland Switzerland Taiwan United Kingdom Venezuela Note: Because route data for Sprint include transit and retired traffic, Spnnt market share is sltghtly overstated. © ToleGeograph% inc. 1997 Traffic Carried by Second Tier U.S. Facilities-Based International Carriers, 1996 Outbound Inbound Top Outbound Carrier Minutes (m) Minutes (m) Routes (Minutes) fONOROLA 209.8 345.7 Canada (148.5) Pacific Gateway Exchange (PGE) 166.3 59.0 Australia (48.0) Cable & Wireless, Inc. 68.9 22.6 UK (32.7) WorldxChange 63.1 28.8 UK (22.9) RSL Corn USA 58.3 -- Dominican Rep. (58.3) Esprit 37.3 1.1 UK (22.7) GTE Hawaiian Telephone Co. 18.6 34.8 Philippines (4.7) Facilicom International 17.2 1.4 Sweden (6.4) ACC Global 16.3 -- UK (16.3) Viatel 15.6 1.4 UK (0.7) Total 671.3 494.8 Note: All data zn millions of minutes based on billing point of call. Carriers and traffic from off-shore U.S. territories (Le., Puerto Rico, Virg=n Islands, Guam) are excluded. Data includes traffic camed on international Simple ]Resale [|S~) fac~ht~es. © TeleGeography, Inc. 1997 TeleGeography 1997/98 © TeleGeography. Inc. 1997 Resale Traffic Top 15 U.S. Switched Resale Carriers, 1996 Outbound Share of Rank Resale Carrier Minutes (m) Outbound Resale Minutes 1. WorldCom 822.4 12.7% 2. Cable &Wireless 690.3 10.6% 3. Cherry Communications 673.4 10.4% 4. Telegroup 490.1 7.5% 5. WorldxChange 423.7 6.5% 6. Pacific Gateway Exchange 397.2 6.1% 7. USA Global Link 361.0 5.6% 8. LCI International 308.7 4.7% 9. Trescom 227.1 3.5% 10. Frontier 202.5 3.1% 11. ACC Long Distance 119.6 1.8% 12. Excel Telecommunications 100.6 1.5% 13. Sprint 96.0 1.5% 14. USFI 73.7 1.1% 15. RSL Communications 58.7 0.9% Top 15 Total 5,045.0 77.6% Note: All data in millions of minutes based on billing point of call. Carriers and traffic from off-shore U.S. territories (Le., Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands, Guam) are excluded, Switched resale carriers are resellers ofthe international switched voice serwces that are actual- ly provided by other, facilities-based carriers. The 6.5 bdlion minutes of U.S. switched resale traffic are thus included in the U.S. outgo- ~ng traffic totals on page 176. © TeleGeography, Inc. 1997 Share of U.S. International Switched Traffic Resold, 1991-1996 35.0% 30.0% 25.0% 20.0% 15.0% 10.0% 5.0% 0.0% 9.9% 5.5% 5.5% 6.4% 1991 1992 1993 1994 15,4% 1995 34.0% 1996 © TeleGeography, Inc. 1997 © TeleGeography, Inc. 1997 TeleGeography 1997/98 Destination Mill" 1. Argentina ............. 29.5 2. Brazil ................. 7.1 3. United States ........... 5.7 4. Spain ................. 2.1 5. Chile .................. 1.5 6. Italy ................... 1.0 7. Paraguay ............... 0.9 8. France ................ 0.6 9. Germany .............. 0.5 10. Canada ................ 0.4 11. Mexico ................ 0.4 12. United Kingdom ......... 0.4 13. Switzerland ............. 0.4 14. Venezuela ............. 0.3 15. Israel .................. 0.3 16. Australia .............. 0.3 17. Peru ................... 0.3 18. Colombia ............... 0.2 19. Bolivia ................. 0.2 20. Sweden ............... 0.2 Other ................. 2.2 Uruguay Largest Telecommunications Routes, 1996 Percentage of Outgoing Traffic ,’,:’" :,’,:’:,,’;2,~’~ i:.?!i: :::’:" i" .i;" 3.8% i,: ,:; 2.7% ;’ ’... 1.8% "~ 1.6% }" 1.1% 0.8% 0.8% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 0.5% 0.5% 0.4% 0.3% : 0.3% © TeleGeography, Inc. 1997 National Traffic Balance MiTT 1994 1995 1996 Incoming 67.7 73.9 80.1 Outgoing 46.3 49.9 54.5 Surplus (Deficit) 21.4 24.0 25.6 Total Volume 114.0 123.8 134.5 Note: MiTT is Minutes of Telecommumcat=ons Traffic. Data are in millions of m=nutes of pubhc switched traffic. Data based on bilhng po=nt of traffic © TeleGeography, Inc. t997 181 TeleGeography 1997/98 © TeleGeography, Inc. 1997 f Uzbekistan © TeleGeography, Inc. 1997 National Traffic Balance MiT~ 1994 1995 1996 Incoming n.a. n.a. n.a. Outgoing 22.7 n.a. 54.2 Surplus (Deficit) n.a. n.a. n.a. Total Volume n.a. n.a. n.a. Note: M~TI" ~s Minutes of Telecommumcat~ons Traffic Data are in milhons of minutes of pubhc switched traffic. Data ~nclude traffic to other member states of the Commonwealth of Independent States only. See page 114 for a matrix of traffic from other ClS member states. © TeleGeography, Inc. 1997 182 © TeleGeography, Inc. 1997 TeleGeography 1997/98 Venezuela Largest Telecommunications Routes, 1996 Destination MiTT Percentage of Outgoing Traffic 1. United States .63.1 ~" ......... i; t’%,,’" "’ ~,: :,:,,~’~" ;~"-~" ,r;" ":,’~::~i!:.~; ",’~ ,’,::’>" ~!"’i"::i~:i.~i,~,i" 45.4% 2. Colombia ............. 18.5 ,"-~>;:’~,~,,,,,,-> ~!", 13.3% 3. Spain .8.2 }~,~’~:::" 5.9% ............... 4. Italy ................... 6.5 i:ii~,i~ii{:: 4.7% 5. Canada ................ 5.2 ~i:itl, 3.7% 6. Peru ................... 3.4 I’!:’,," 2.5% 7. Brazil .................. 2.7 i;:" 2.o% 8. Mexico ................ 2.6 i,,i,~ 1.8% 9. Portugal ............... 2.4 ~’," 1.7% 10. Argentina .............. 2,4 i=~,~1.7% 11. France ................. 2.1 i,15% 12. Ecuador ................ 2.1 i~,~ 1.5% 13. United Kingdom ......... 2.1 i~’1.5% 14. Chile .................. 1.8 1.3% 15. Dominican Republic ...... 1.8 ", 1.3% 16. Germany ............... 1.7 : ~.2°1o 17. Cuba .................. 1.2 o.9% 18. Netherlands Antilles ..... 1.2 0.8% 19. Panama ................ 1.0 o2% 20. Trinidad ................ 0.9 Other ................. 8.2 © TeleGeography, Inc. 1997 National Traffic Balance MiTT 1994 1995 1996 Incoming 164.3 186.6 228.8 Outgoing 141.3 129.1 139.0 Surplus (Deficit) 23.0 57.4 89.8 Total Volume 305.6 315.7 367.8 Note: MiTT is Minutes of Telecommumcatzons Traffic. Data are ~n mdhons of mznutes of public switched traffic. Data based on billing point of traffzc © TeleGeography, Inc. 1997 ......... TeleGeography 1997/98 © TeleGeography, Inc. 1997 Vietnam Largest Telecommunications Routes, 1995 Destination MiTT Percentage of Outgoing Traffic 1. China .................. 6.0 ~!;~!i~ii~ii! 17.1% 2. Taiwan ................. 3.0 ~,~;,;~:;~->> ,,,-,~’~4;,t:, 8.5% 3. United States ........... 3.0 4. Philippines ............. 2.0 i~;’~’~!~i~ 5.7% 5. Hong Kong ............. 2.0 i~:!!:~}~,i!ii~i~;~’,,!" 5.7% 6. France ................. 2.0 li’,,,.’~ 7. Rep. of Korea ........... 1.5 ~"]iiii!i 4.3O/o 8. Singapore .............. 1.5 !~i~’~ili 4.3% 9. Thailand ............... 1.5 ~,,~ 4.3% 10. Germany ............... 1.0 ii!~i~ii~! 2.8% Other .11.5 ,~,,:,-,,~,~,,,~,,>~,,,,,,,,,,,~,,,,-,:,,,,,, ~z ,~,,,,,,, ,;, ~,,,,,-~ ~,> ...... ,,,,,-,~,-,,,~,;,,~, .... 32.8% © TeleGeography, Inc. t997 National Traffic Balance MiTT 1994 1995 1996 Incoming n.a. n.a. n.a. Outgoing 24 35.1 52.4 Surplus (Deficit) n.a. n.a. n.a. Total Volume n.a. n.a. n.a. Note: Milq" ~s M=nutes of Telecommunicat=ons Traffic. Data are =n milhons of m=nutes of public switched traffic. 184 © TeleGeography, Inc. 1997 © TeleGeography, Inc. 1997 TeteGeography 1997/98 Yugoslavia Largest Telecommunications Routes, 1996 Destination MiTT Percentage of Outgoing Traffic 2. Austria .23.8 ............ .. .’,.’.’."’ ,t,,,," ;: ~~,;, ,: 10.0% 3. Sw er ana ........... 21.4 ::,:: .O%o 4, Croatia ................ 19.0 :,~.,!::g’,’:?.i:~;ii,..::i:iii!:~:i:,’." 8.0%° 5. Italy .................. 11.7 ’:’i:i:!:ii::~i,~-,::;::.:i> 4.9% 6. Macedonia ............ 10.1 i:,:-::,i,’i:’~:i::’i:! 4.3% 7. France ................. 8.7 ~i~i:!i!~:::!’," 3.7% 8. Slovenia ............... 8.6 ~’:~:i,::ii:ii!,~!:, 3.6%° 9. Hungary ............... 7.4 i~;:,:i~!~i,i: 3.1% 10. United States ........... 7.1 i’,,,,’,~i,~,~:,!i’:: 3.0% 11. Greece ................ 6.9 i’ii’~,i~:,,’, 2.9% 12. Russia ................. 6.5 i,~,iiii:~:". 2.7% 13. Canada ................ 6.4 ;::~"::ii,’ 2.7% 14. Sweden ................ 5.4 :,i":~: 2.3% 15. United Kingdom ......... 5.0 "’>"’ : 2.1% 16. Netherlands ............ 3.1 ::,i’:, 1.3% 17. Bulgaria ............... 2.8 ii’i~ ~.2% 18. Israel .................. 2.7 ::ii’ 1.1% 19. Romania ............... 2.5 1.1% 20. Australia ............... 2.2 ~i: o.9% Other ................. 21.5 ii!~,i:!ii,~i;!,:,:ii:" iiii:i::i!,i’ili:’i’: 9.1% @ TeleGeography, Inc. 1997 National Traffic Balance MiTT 1994 1995 1996 Incoming 229.0 296.0 325.7 Outgoing 181.9 212.8 237.2 Surplus (Deficit) 47.1 83.2 88.5 Total Volume 410.9 508.8 562.9 Note: M~Fr ~s M=nutes of Telecommumcat=ons Traffic Data are in mdhons of minutes of pubhc switched traff=c. Data do not include traffic to Bosma © TeleGeography, Inc. 1997 185 TeleGeography 1997/98 © TeleGeography, Inc. 1997 186 © TeleGeography, Inc. 1997 TeleGeography 1997/98 Global Traffic Review Figure 1. International Traffic and Main Line Growth 1000 900 ~’~ Fixed main hnes 800 ¯ Total international traffic 700 600 .;...,. 1091 1992 1993 projected 89.4 114.1 101.0 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 4( 2( Note: Data include outbound international traffic on public networks only. Projections assume 13 percent traffic growth and five percent mare line growth. Source: ITU, TeleGeography, Inc. ©TeleGeography, Inc. 1997 Figure 2. International Traffic, Revenue and Subscriber Growth Historical Trend Slow Growth Same Growth Fast Growth CAGR CAGR CAGR CAGR Indicator 1987 1996 1987-96 2000 1996-2000 2000 1996-2000 2000 1996-2000 Calls (Bn) 4.3 20.2 18.8% 35.9 15.4% 38 17.1% 40.8 19.2% Estimated call length (rains) 4.5 3,5 -2.8% 3 -3.5% 3 -3.5% 3 -3.5% Minutes (Bn) 19.1 70.0 15,5% 107.7 11.4% 1t4.1 13.0% 122.4 15.0% Per main line subscriber 42.4 94.0 9.2% 118.3 5.9% 123.4 7.0% 130.2 8.5% Per main line plus mobile 42.2 79.3 7.3% 86.8 2.3% 88.8 2.9% 92.1 3,8% Revenue (US$bn) 23.9 61.3 11.0% 80.1 6.9% 82.2 7.6% 85.7 8.7% Assumptions Price per MiTT(US$) 1.25 0.88 -3.9% 0.74 -4.0% 0.72 -4.8% 0.70 -5.4% Main lines (M) 451 745 5.7% 910 5.t% 925 5.6% 940 6.0% Mobile subscribers (M) 2.5 138 56.1% 330 24.4% 360 27.1% 390 29.7% Note: 1987-1996 based on reported data, 1996-2000 based on ITU forecasts. Scenarios are as follows: 1. Slow Growth: Traffic growth slows but network infrastructure continues on current growth trend. 2. Same Growth: Contznuing traffic growth rate of lastfive years, assuming faster network growth rate and faster rates of price-cutting. 3. Fast Growth: Faster traffic growth rate than lastfivo years, assurnmg a faster network growth rate and faster rates of price-cutting, plus significant component of new demand created by ~nternat=onal traffic generated from rnobzles. Source: ITU World Telecommunicabon/ndicators Database and ITU estimates. © TeleGeography, 187 TeleGeography 1997/98 © TeleGeography, Inc. 1997 International Traffic by Region Figure 3. Interregional Traffic Flows 5 All figures are g~ven in bilhons of Each band ~s proportional to the Arrows indicate d~rection Numbers in a c~rcle ~ndicate the M~nutes ofTelecommumcalons Traf- total annual traffic from one oftraffm between regions, total annual ~nternalonal traffic tic for the pubNc telephone network, region to another, between countries in that region Note: Data set based on top 20 international routes for 90 countries, accounting for approximately 80% of global international traffic, © TeteGeography, Inc. 1997 Figure 4, International Traffic by Origin, 1996 Oceania Africa Latin America & 2.4%\ // 1 9% Caribbean © TeleGeography, Inc. 1997 Figure 5. Traffic Growth by Region, 1995-1996 25.0% 21.7% 20.0% 15.0% 135% 13.6% Global Average ~’, Europe Ifrlca Asia Latin Ocealia lolh America & America lanbbean © TeleGeography, Inc. 1997 188 © TeleGeography, Inc. 1997 TeleGeography 1997/98 Figure 6. European Telecommunications Traffic Flows, 1995 431 ! L._ 315 SWEDEN I POLAND 381 284 ITALY HUNGARY Key All figures are given in mdlions of Mnnutes of Teleoemmumcations Traffto tmM~l-fs), for the public telephone network. The map shows all mtra-European routes w=th a 1995 volume of more than 110 mMil-rs. Traffic Flows g[~O 40 Each band is proporbonal to the total annual traffic on the pubho telephone network =n beth d=rectlons between each pa~r of countries. OTotal Outgoing Traffic The area of each c~rcle is proportional to the volume of the total annual outgoing traffic from each country, shown as a number. ~.’.’~,~7~, Balance of Traffic On routes where traffic in one d~rect~on accounts for mote than 60% of the total, an arrDw shows the directmn most of the traffic flows. © TeleGeography, Inc. 1997 189 TeleGeography 1997/98 © TeleGeography, Inc. 1997 Figure 7. South American Telecommunications Traffic Flows, 1995 ECUADOR BRAZIL CHILE URUGUAY © TeleGeography, Inc. 1997 Key All figures are given nn millions of Minutes of Telecommunications Traffic (mMiTTs), for the public telephone network. The map shows all vv~thm South America wffh a t995 volume of more then 2 mMWi’s. Traffic Flows 25 10 5 Each band IS proportional to the total annual traffic on the public telephone network in both dtrectlons between each pair of countries, C)Total Outgoing Traffic (~ 1030100 The area of each ctrcle is proportional to the volume of the total annual outgoing traffic from each country, shown as e number, ~,~;~,~>~!~;~,. Balance of Traffic On routes wharetraffic ~n one d~ree~on accounts for more than 60% of the total, an arrow shows the d~rect~on most of the traffic flows. © TeleGeography, Inc. 1997 190 © TeleGeography, Inc. 1997 TeleGeography 1997/98 Figure 8. Southwest Asian Telecommunications Traffic Flows, 1995 RKEY 100 50 25 © TeleGeography, Inc. 1997 Figure 9. East Asian Telecommunications Traffic Flows, 1995 CHINA JAPAN AUSTRALIA © TeleGeography, Inc. 1997 191 TeleGeography 1997/98 © TeleGeography, Inc. 1997 International Traffic by Country Figure 10. International Traffic Growth for Selected Countries, 1995-1996 ~o.o% 30.0% 20.0% 10.0% Global Average 0.0% -10.0% Figure 11. Traffic Balances for Selected Countries, 1996 Mexico India Phihpp~nes Canada Brazil Portugal Argentina Hong Kong Russia France Israel Indonesia Italy Taiwan Belgium Netherlands Korea New Zealand United Kingdom Switzerland Germany United States 2000 Countries with a traffic surplus Countries with a traffic deficit lOOO -lOOO International Traffic Balance (Millions of Minutes) -10612 minces -2000 192 © TeleGeography, Inc. 1997 TeleGeography 1997/98 Figure 12. International Traffic Indicators, 1996 (A-J) International Traffic Outgoing Incoming Surplus (Deficit) Population MiT[" Main Lines MiTi" (mMi’l-f) (mMiTl’) (mMi’l-[) (m) per Capita (thous.) per Main Line Andorra (a) 37.8 27.3 (10.5) 0.1 519.5 30 1,260.0 Argentina (a) 181.3 390.7 209.4 35.3 5.1 6,227 29.1 Australia (b) 1,305.0 n.a. n.a. 18.3 71.5 9,500 137.4 Austria 960.0 n.a. n.a. 8.0 119.7 3,779 254.0 Baha mas 56.7 n.a. n.a. 0.3 218.6 79 717.7 Bahrain (a) 92.2 69.4 (22.8) 0.6 156.3 144 638.5 Bangladesh 38.3 129.2 90.9 123.1 0.3 297 129.1 Belarus (c) 104.9 n.a. n.a. 10.4 10.1 2,234 47.0 Belgium (a) 1,228.4 1,289.1 60.6 10.2 120.8 4,725 260.0 Bolivia 21.4 53.9 32.5 7.5 2.8 395 54.2 Brazil 366.9 624.4 257.5 162.7 2.3 15,106 24.3 Canada (a) 3,519.8 4,313.3 793.5 28.8 122.2 18,057 194.9 Chile 173.8 n.a. n.a. 14.3 12.1 2,248 77.3 China 1,433.2 n.a. n.a. 1,210.0 1.2 54,940 26.1 Colombia (a) 135.5 384.2 248.7 36.8 3.7 4,256 31.8 Costa Rica (a) 55.0 87.8 32.8 3.5 15.9 639 86.1 Croatia (a) 242.4 n.a. n.a. 5.0 48.4 1,389 174.5 Cyprus 128.6 92.0 (36.6) 0.7 172.7 266 482.8 Czech Republic (a) 210.4 324.4 43.2 10.3 20.4 2,817 74.7 Denmark (c) 573.2 600.0 26.8 5.2 109.2 3,251 176.3 Dominican Rep. 126.6 450.9 324.3 8.1 15.7 665 190.4 El Salvador 28.6 160.5 131.9 5.6 5.1 314 91.0 Finland 332.0 n.a, n.a. 5.1 65.0 2,813 118.0 France 3,116.0 3,283.0 167.0 58.3 53.4 32,900 94.7 French Polynesia 7.9 n.a. n.a. 0.2 34.5 54 145.5 Germany 5,100.0 n.a. n.a. 83.5 61.1 44,100 115.6 Ghana 16.5 59.6 43.1 17.7 0.9 113 146.1 Greec e 515.6 557.3 41.7 10.5 48.9 5,329 96.8 6uyana 29.8 162.8 133.1 0.7 41.8 50 593.7 Hong Kong (a,b) 1,738.6 1,940.8 202.2 6.3 275.7 3,451 503.8 Hungary (a) 265.0 n.a. n.a. 10.0 26.5 2,662 99.6 Iceland (a) 32.5 32.0 (0.5) 0.3 120.2 155 209.1 In dia 384.2 1,000.0 616.0 952.1 0.4 14,450 26.6 Indonesia (a,c) 280.2 356.4 76.2 206.6 1.4 4,188 66.9 Iran (a) 183.2 n.a. n.a. 66.1 2.8 5,825 31.5 Ireland (b,c) 580.0 n.a. n.a. 3.6 162.6 1,390 417.3 Israel (a) 319.7 468.1 148.4 5.4 59.0 2,539 125.9 Italy (c) 2,184.0 2,253.5 69.5 57.5 38.0 25,259 86.5 Japan (b) 1,710.6 1,519.1 (191.5) 125.4 13.6 62,511 27.4 Jordan 74.6 133.1 58.5 4.2 17.7 334 223.2 Notes: MiTT is Minutes of Telecomunications Traffic. Data are in millions of minutes of public switched traffic. a. International Mi]-I based on billing point of traffic. b. International traffic for year ending 31 March. c. Traffic data exclude some carriers or routes. (See country table for details.) 193 TeleGeography 1997/98 © TeleGeography, Inc. 1997 Figure 12. International Traffic Indicators, 1996 (K-Z) International Traffic Outgoing Incoming (mMirr) (mMiTr) Kazakhstan (c) 102.5 n.a. Rep. of Korea 699.3 740.6 Kuwa it 140.7 131.2 Luxembourg 248.5 189.8 Surplus(Deficit) Population MiTr Main Lines MiTT (mMiTT) (m) per Capita (thous.) per Main Line n.a. 16.9 6.1 2,120 48.3 41.3 45.5 15.4 19,601 35.7 (9.4) 2.0 72.2 392 359.1 (58.8) 0.4 597.5 244 1,017.6 Macau (a) 112.5 92.1 (20.4) Malaysia (a, b) 570.5 581.9 11.4 Mexico (a) 1,070.7 2,489.7 1,419.0 Moldova (c) 50.2 n.a. n.a. Netherlands (a) 1,534.1 1,584.6 50.5 New Zealand (b,c) 353.0 380.0 27.0 Norway 443.5 422.3 (21.2) 0man 62.6 58.0 (4.6) Pakistan (c) 77.0 488.4 411.5 Panama (a) 41.2 97.7 56.5 Paraguay 24.9 49.4 24.5 Peru (a) 66.7 226.5 159.7 Philippines 240.0 767.0 527.0 Poland (a) 437.2 725.5 288.3 Portugal (a) 340.0 571.4 231.4 Russia (c) 851.3 1,037.6 (186.3) Saudi Arabia 584.4 n.a. n.a. Singapore (a,b) 941.7 n.a. n.a. Slovak Republic (a) 134.1 159.0 24.9 Slovenia (c) 105.3 113.9 8.6 South Africa 353.0 n.a. n.a. 0.5 226.4 161 696.7 20.0 28.6 3,771 151.3 95.8 11.2 8,826 121.3 4.5 11.2 593 84.6 15,6 98.5 8,431 182.0 3.5 99.5 1,782 198.1 4.4 101.2 2,497 177.6 2.2 28.6 198 316.7 129.3 0.6 2,377 32.4 2.7 15.5 320 128.8 5.5 4.5 181 137.9 24.5 2.7 1,435 46.5 74.5 3.2 1,787 134.3 38.6 11.3 6,532 66.9 9.9 34.5 3,724 91.3 148.2 5.7 25,995 32.7 19.4 30.1 2,004 291.7 3.4 277.2 1,563 602.5 5.4 25.0 1,246 107.6 2.0 54.0 664 158.7 41.7 8.5 4,259 82.9 39.2 30.3 15,413 77.1 18.6 1.6 255 115.1 8.9 115.3 6,032 170.1 7.2 268.6 4,547 425.7 21.5 31.4 10,011 67.3 58.9 4.2 4,200 58.9 62.5 7.6 14,286 33.1 50.9 6.7 9,241 36.9 2.2 265.2 738 798.4 58.5 78.1 30,292 150.8 265.6 70.9 170,568 110.4 3.2 16.8 669 81.5 23.4 2.3 1,814 29.9 22.0 6.3 2,667 52.1 74.0 0.7 1,186 44.2 10.0 23.8 2,082 114.0 Spain Sri Lanka (a) Sweden (a,c) Switzerland Taiwan (a,b) Thailand Turkey Ukraine (c) UAE United Kingdom (b,c) United States (a) Uruguay (a) Uzbekistan (c) Venezuela (a) Vietnam Yugoslavia 1,189.0 n.a. n.a. 29.3 98.0 66.7 1,026.0 n.a. n.a. 1,935.5 1,562.8 (372.7) 674.0 736.8 62.8 247.4 376.2 128.7 473.4 755.0 281.6 340.8 n.a. n.a. 589.3 n.a. n.a. 4,569.2 4,360.0 (209.2) 18,830.0 8,217.6 (10,612.4) 54.5 80.1 25.6 54.2 n.a. n.a. 139.0 228.8 89.8 52.4 n.a. n.a. 237.2 325.7 88.5 Notes: MiTE is Minutes of Telecomumcations Traffic. Data are in millions of minutes of public a. International Mi-I-I based on billing point of traffic. b. International traffic for year ending 31 March. c. Traffic data exclude some carriers or routes. (See country table for details.) switched traffic. 194 © TeleGeography, Inc. 1997 TeleGeography 1997/98 International Traffic by Route Figure 13. The Top 50 International Routes, 1996 Countries Mi’rl" each way Total Mil’l" 1. United States/Canada 3385.2/2848.5 6233,7 2. United States/Mexico 2377.6/946.3 3323.9 3. United States/United Kingdom 1121.7/711.9 1833.6 4. Hong Kong/China 965.0/674.0 1639.0 5. United States/Germany 778.2/312.4 1090.6 6. Umted States/Japan 698.3/342.1 1040.4 7. United Kingdom/Ireland 429.7/420.9 850.8 8. Switzerland/Germany 435.5/372.0 807.5 9. Germany/Austria 426.0/360.0 786.0 10. Germany/United Kingdom 362.6/405.4 768.0 11. Germany/Italy 393.0/357.8 750.8 12. United Kingdom/France 405.8/340,0 745.8 13. Germany/France 378.9/344.0 722.9 14. Netherlands/Germany 355.2/338.1 693.3 15. Singapore/Malaysia 322.7/317.3 640.0 16. United States/Hong Kong 538.7/96.0 634.7 17. United States/France 435.1/195.1 630.2 18. United States/Korea 379.8/156.7 536.5 19. Belgium/France 285.0/246.0 531.0 20, Germany/Turkey 370.1/158.7 528.8 21. France/Italy 267.0/250.6 517.6 22. Netherlands/Belgium 254.3/253.4 507.7 23. United States/Brazil 370.9/123.3 494.2 24. Germany/Poland 315.5/172.4 487.9 25. United States/Dominican Republic 367.3/99.3 466.6 26. Switzerland/France 300.5/163.0 463.5 27. United States/India 413.3/49.1 462.4 28. Switzerland/Italy 268.6/191.0 459.6 29. United States/Italy 328.0/114.0 442.0 30. United States/Taiwan 320.6/111.7 432,3 31. United States/Australia 275,7/155.4 431.1 32. United Kingdom/Italy 223.9/171.7 395.6 33. United States/Philippines 344.4/49.0 393.4 34. Netherlands/United Kingdom 192.5/192.7 385.2 35. France/Spain 199.0/175.0 374.0 36. United Kingdom/Spain 207.7/164.7 372.4 37. Germany/Spain 184.8/180.0 364.8 38. United States/China 297.6/58.1 355.7 39. United States/Colombia 281.7/61.4 343.1 40. Australia/New Zealand 165.0/168.0 331.0 41. Japan/China 217.1/104,2 321,3 42. United States/Israel 238.1/78.8 316,9 43. Australia/United Kingdom 168.6/144.1 312.7 44. Germany/Belgium 146.0/148.9 294.9 45. Taiwan/China 164.5/130.0 294.5 46. United States/Netherlands 203.6/85.5 289.1 47. Japan/Korea 157.0/114.7 271.7 48. Canada/United Kingdom 132.4/132.5 264.9 49. Sweden/Finland 145.0/108.9 253.9 50. Norway/Sweden 115.0/130.0 245.0 Note: All data m mdhons of minutes oftelecommumcatlons traffic (MITT). The country whech generates more traffic on each route zs hsted first. The routes hsted above total 36,2 billion minutes, 53 percent of all internat~onal traffic For routes to and from the United States, calls are measured by pmnt of bilhng zn both dzrections. ISR traffzc by non-US carriers is excluded. TeleGeography 1997/98 © TeleGeography, Inc. 1997 Figure 14. Traffic Imbalances on U.S. Routes U S,-Dom. Rep. U.S.-Indonesla U S -Saudz Arabia U.S -Thaland U.S.-Jama~ca U S -Colombia U S.-Ecuador U.S -China U.S.-Guyana U S.-Hong Kong U S -Peru U.S.-Poland U S.-Phl~ppines U,S.-India U.S -Argentina U.S.-Guatemala U S.-Pakistan U S -El Salvador U.S.-Vietnam U.S -Croatia 1:1 5:1 10:1 15:1 Ratio of Outgoing to Incoming Traffic Note: Country w=th traffic deficit on route listed first. A ratio of 1:1 would indicate a perfect balance on a route. ©TeleGeography, Inc. Figure 15. Traffic Imbalances on Non-U.S. Routes Canada-Pht~ppmes Japan-China* Germany-Turkey UAE-Saudi Arabia* ChAe-Argentma Smgapore-Phl~pp~nes UK-Ind~a Hong Kong-Philippmes Australia-China Taiwan-Philippines UAE-India* Kuwait-lran* Switzerland-Portugal Canada-India Australia-Pht~ppines UAE-Paklstan* Japan-Phtippines* Japan-Brazil* Saud~ Arabia-Pakistan* Italy-Chile 1:1 Note: Country with traffic defimt on route listed first. A ratio of 1:1 would ind=cate a perfect balance on a route. Asterisk (*) denotes 1995 data. ©TeteGeography, Inc, 196 © TeleGeography, Inc. 1997 TeleGeography 1997/98 Figure 16. International Outbound Routes with Rapidly Growing Traffic, 1995-96 737% 200% 261% 180% 160% 140% 120% lOO% 80% Note: Count~ originating traffic listed first;, country terminating traffic listed second. ©TeteGeography, Inc. Figure 17. International Outbound Routes with Reclining Traffic, 1995-96 -32% o% -5% -10% d5% .~_ -20% -25% Note: Country originating traffic hsted first;, country terminating traffic listed second. ©TeleGeography, Inc. 197 TeleGeography 1997/98 © TeleGeography, Inc. 1997 MethodoloBy The traffic statistics in TeleGeography 1997/98 were compiled primarily from an independent survey of telecommunications service providers by TeleGeography, Inc. (TGI). For some coun- tries and carriers, traffic data have been estimated based upon annual reports, government publications and industry inter- views. See the footnotes to each table for further information. Direction of Traffic 1996, jointly compiled by TGI and the International Telecommunication Union (flU), was also consult- ed. To enable comparisons of countries’ international traffic statis- tics, TGI has endeavored to apply a consistent methodoloBy. When reviewing the traffic statistics in TeleGeography 1997/98, however, readers should keep in mind the following issues which may cause traffic data to appear inconsistent: Public Switched Network vs. Private Line Traffic Traffic volumes in TeleGeography 1997/98 are generally report- ed in minutes or M~TT (Minutes of Telecommunications Traffic). In most cases Mi~ refer to paid minutes of traffic on public switched voice circuits and thus include voice as well as non- voice (facsimile or data) traffic. Unless otherwise stated, traffic carried by International Simple Resale (ISR) carriers is excluded. ISR carriers resell the capac- ity of international private lines (IPLs) for switched services by interconnecting their IPLs to the public switched network at one or both ends. Traffic carried by "pure" resellers of international switched voice services is included in this report. These resellers do not own or lease their own international transmission facilities. Instead, they resell the traffic of other carriers; thus, pure resale traffic is counted as part of the MiTT for the facilities-based carrier whose services are resold. 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 local, while its neighbor counts all such traffic as international. Billing Point vs. Originating Point of Traffic Unless otherwise stated in the notes to a table, the outbound Mi-I-F reported for countries in TeleGeography 1997/98 refers to outbound traffic originated in the reporting country even if it is billed in another country. In the past, most international calls were billed at the point of origination. The number of billed minutes thus coincided with the volume of outgoing traffic. Billed minutes also included col- lect or reverse charBe calls because the calls were set up by an operator in the originating country. However, the recent use of calling card and call-back services has shifted the billing point for many international calls. For example, calls from Italy to the United States (or a third country, such as ArBentinal may now be set up and billed in the U.S. Some countries, including the U.S., report international traffic data based solely on the location where the traffic is billed. Consequently, "outbound" traffic data for these countries include traffic actually originating in another. Thus, incoming MiTI reported for one country may not match the outgoing MiTT on the same route by the correspondent country. Some double counting may also occur For example, a call from Thailand to the U.S. which is billed to a U.S. calling card is reported by the U.S. carrier as outbound U.S. MiT3] the same call also is reported as outbound MiTT by Thailand. Accordingly, in countries where calling card and call-back ser~ vices are widely used, a year-to-year comparison of national MiTT also requires examining the statistics of countries, such as the U.S. and the U.K., where the calls are hubbed. Transit Traffic Unlike calling card and call-back traffic, TeleGeography 1997/98 excludes transit traffic--that is, traffic which merely passes through a given country, but is not refiled via the switched network in the reporting country. 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 (1995 or earlier) reported in TeleGeography 1997/98 and data stat- ed in prior TGI reports or Direction of Traffic. The variations reflect corrections and/or revised data subsequently provided to TGI. internat.io.nal Pricing Green Pages TeleGeography 1997/98 © TeleGeograph~l, Inc. 1997 Retail Prices for Three Minute Call From/To Australia Belgium Canada Denmark Finland France Germany Greece Ireland Italy Australia (Telstra) peak n.a. 3,93 3.05 3.49 3.49 3.49 3.51 4.37 2.96 3.18 Telstra off peak n.a. 2.83 2.17 2.61 2.61 2.61 2.54 4.15 2.17 2.17 Belgium peak 3.92 n.a. 1.96 1.18 1.70 1.18 1.18 1.70 1.57 1.57 Belgium off peak 3.92 n.a. 1.96 1.18 1.57 1.18 1.18 1.57 1.44 1.44 Czech Republic peak 5.27 2.13 3.51 2.13 2.63 2.13 1.44 2.63 3.51 2.13 Czech Republic off peak 5.27 2.13 3.51 2.13 2.63 2.13 1.44 2.63 3.51 2.13 France peak 2.66 0.98 1.18 1.18 1.18 n.a. 0.98 1.18 1.18 0.98 France off peak 2.07 0.79 0.98 0.98 0.98 n.a. 0.79 0.98 0.98 0.79 Germany (DT) peak 3.43 1.35 2.03 1.35 1.35 1.35 n.a. 1.35 1.35 1.35 DT off peak 3.43 1.18 1.91 1.18 1.18 1.18 n.a. 1.18 1.18 1.18 Greece peak 2.07 1.60 2.07 1.60 1.60 1.60 1.60 n.a. 1.60 1.60 Greece off peak 1.55 1.20 1.55 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 n.a. 1.20 1.20 Italy peak 3.58 1.55 1.55 1.55 1.55 1.55 1.55 1.55 1.55 n.a. Italy off peak 3.23 1.26 1,41 1.26 1.26 1,26 1.26 1.26 1.26 n.a. Japan (KDD) peak 5.95 6.73 3.88 6.73 6.73 6.64 6.64 6.73 6.73 6.73 KDD off peak 4.66 5.44 3.19 5.44 5.44 5.35 5.35 5.44 5.44 5.44 Switzerland peak 2.98 1.74 1.93 1.74 1.74 1.43 1.43 1.99 1.99 1,43 Switzerland off peak 2,30 1.37 1.43 1,37 1.37 1.12 1.12 1.49 1.49 1,12 Brazil peak 5.83 4.69 4.46 4,69 4.69 4.69 4.69 5.42 4.89 4.89 Brazil off peak 4.68 3.74 3.58 3.74 3.74 3.74 3.74 4.34 3.74 3.74 India peak 5.25 5.25 6.30 5.25 5.25 5.25 5.25 5.25 5.25 5.25 India off peak 3.94 3.94 5.25 3.94 3.94 3,94 3.94 3.94 3.94 3.94 Malaysia peak 2,56 5.90 3.34 5.01 6.01 5.01 6.68 8.35 6.01 5.90 Malaysia off peak 2.45 4.67 2.67 4.01 4.01 4.01 4.45 5.56 4.67 4.01 South Africa peak 2.67 6.10 2.67 6.10 6.10 4.30 4.59 6.15 4.41 6.15 South Africa off peak 2.26 5.40 2.26 5.40 5.40 3.66 3.66 5.75 3.77 5.75 U.A,E. peak 3.77 5.88 3.77 5.07 4.08 3.77 4.45 4.45 3.77 3.77 U.A.E. off peak 2.08 4.60 2.08 4.20 3.68 2.62 3.68 3.68 2.62 2.62 U.K. (BT) peak 2.20 1.15 1.19 1.15 1.55 1.15 1.15 1.43 0.93 1.43 BT off peak 1.88 1.07 1.14 1.07 1.40 1.07 1.07 1.19 0.80 1.19 U.K. (ACC) peak 1.34 0.80 0.65 0.80 1.05 0.80 0.80 1.00 0.66 1.00 ACC off peak 1.16 0.75 0.61 0.75 0.95 0.75 0.75 0.94 0.57 0.94 U.S. (MCl One) 1.35 1.05 0.32 1.05 1.05 1.05 1.05 1.05 1.05 1.05 MCI basic peak 4.52 4.64 1.46 4.37 4.43 3.98 3.74 5.94 4.04 4.49 MCI basic off peak 3.11 2.96 0.98 2,87 2.66 2.57 2.45 3.89 2.66 3.20 U.S. (AT&T One Rate) 1.35 1.05 0.36 1.05 1.05 1.05 1.05 1.05 1.05 1.05 AT&T basic peak 4.53 4.65 1.47 4.38 4.44 3.99 3.75 5.85 4.05 4.50 AT&T basic off peak 3.12 2.97 0.99 2.88 2.67 2.58 2.48 3.90 2.67 3.21 U.S. (Global Link) 0.96 1.05 0.63 1.05 0.87 1.02 0.99 1.41 1.05 1.47 U.S. (Excel WorldRate One) 1.32 1.02 0.36 2.13 1.44 1.02 1.02 2.87 1.02 1.02 Excel peak 4.50 4.62 1.68 4.35 4.41 3.96 3.72 5.82 4.02 4.47 Excel off-peak 3.06 2.94 0.42 2.85 2.64 2.55 2.43 3.87 2.64 2.19 Notes: 1. All rates are in US $ and exclusive of taxes. 2. Rates were current on July 1, 1997. 3, Rates have been calculated in real time using meter step (rounded up to next meter step for a 3 minute call). 4. Fees are $3 per month for AT&T One Rate, MCI One, and Excel WorldRate One plans. 5. Rates for calls from the U.S. to Canada and Mexico are from Washington, D.C. to Toronto and Mexico City. 2O0 © TeleGeography, Inc. 1997 TeleGeo{~raphy 1997/98 Japan Korea Mexico Neth’lands Portugal Spain Sweden Turkey U.K. U.S. To/From 3.75 4.37 4.37 3.49 4.37 4.59 3.49 4.37 2.81 2.81 Australia (Telstra) peak 3.05 4.04 4.15 2.61 4.15 4.04 2.61 4.15 2.17 2.17 Telstra off peak 3.92 4.31 6.40 1.18 1.70 1.70 1.70 2.35 1.18 1.96 Belgium peak 3.92 4.31 6.40 1.18 1.57 1.57 1.57 1.96 1.18 1.96 Belgium off peak 5.27 5.27 7.84 2.13 3.51 2.63 2.63 2.63 2.13 3.51 Czech Republic peak 5.27 5.27 7.84 2.13 3.51 2.63 2.63 2.63 2.13 3.51 Czech Republic off peak 2.66 2.66 3.45 0.98 1.18 0.98 1.18 1.58 0.98 1.18 France peak 2.07 2.07 2.76 0.79 0.98 0.79 0.98 1.18 0.79 0.98 France off peak 3.43 3.43 3.94 1.35 1.35 1.35 1.35 1.80 1.35 2.03 Germany (DT) peak 3.43 3.43 3.94 1.18 1.18 1.16 1.18 1.60 1.18 1.91 DT off peak 2.79 2.79 2.79 1.60 1.60 1.60 1.60 1.34 1.60 2.07 Greece peak 2.38 2.38 2.38 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.01 1.20 1.55 Greece off peak 3.58 4.71 4.71 1.55 1.55 1.55 1.55 2.32 1.26 1.55 Italy peak 3.23 3.94 3.94 1.26 1.26 1.26 1.26 1.83 1.19 1.41 Italy off peak n.a. 4.83 6.39 6.73 6.73 6.73 6.73 7.77 6.64 3.88 Japan (KDD) peak n.a. 3.80 5.18 5.44 5.44 5.44 5.44 6.30 5.35 3.19 KDD off peak 3.98 3.98 3.98 1.43 1.99 1.99 1.62 2.42 1.43 1.93 Switzerland peak 2.98 2.98 2.98 1.12 1.49 1.49 1.37 1.93 1.12 1.43 Switzerland off peak 5.83 8.69 4.46 4.69 4.64 4.69 4.69 5.42 4.69 2.95 Brazil peak 4.66 6.96 3.56 3.74 3.70 3.74 3.74 4.34 3.74 2.36 Brazil off peak 5.25 5.25 6.30 5.25 5.25 5.25 5.25 5.25 5.25 6.30 India peak 3.94 3.94 5.25 3.94 3.94 3.94 3.94 3.94 3.94 5.25 India off peak 3.67 4.34 8.35 5.01 8.35 5.90 5.01 6.01 3.56 3.34 Malaysia peak 3.23 3.45 5.56 4,01 5.56 4.01 4.01 4.45 2.78 2.56 Malaysia off peak 5.69 5.17 6.10 4.59 5.17 5.69 5.69 5.17 3.60 3.08 South Africa peak 5.05 4.30 5.40 3.66 4.30 5.05 5,05 4.30 2.79 2.55 South Africa off peak 5.07 4.45 9.19 4.45 5.88 4.45 5.07 5.88 3.77 3.77 U.A.E. peak 4.45 3.68 5.88 3.68 4.60 3.68 4,20 4.60 2.62 2.45 U.A.E. off peak 3.11 4.36 4.36 1.15 1.43 1.43 1.15 2.72 n.a. 1.19 U.K. (BT) peak 2.95 4.14 4.14 1.07 1.19 1.19 1.07 2.31 n.a. 1.14 BT off peak 2.07 2.81 2.81 0.80 1.00 1.00 0.80 2.06 n.a. 0.65 U.K. (ACC) peak 2.03 2.69 2.69 0.75 0.84 0.84 0.75 1.75 n.a. 0.61 ACC off peak 1.44 1.77 0.75 1.05 1.05 1.05 1.05 1.80 0.36 n.a. U.S. (MCI One) 4.34 5.45 4.52 3.92 4.94 4.85 3.92 5.51 3.26 n.a. MCI basic peak 3.14 3.83 3.53 2.57 3.20 3.29 2.57 3.92 2.36 n.a. MCI basic off peak 1.44 1.77 1.77 1.05 1.05 1.05 1.05 1.80 0.36 n.a. U.S. (AT&T One Rate) 4.35 5.46 4.53 3.93 4.95 4.86 3.93 5.52 3.27 n.a. AT&T peak 3.15 3.84 3.54 2.58 3.21 3.30 2.58 3.93 2.37 n.a. AT&T off peak 1.23 2.40 2.79 1.20 2.07 1.23 0.72 2.04 0.60 n.a. U.S. (Global Link) 1.41 1.32 0.75 1.59 1.47 1.02 1.02 1.89 1.02 n.a. 4.32 5.43 4.47 3.90 4.92 4.83 3.90 5.49 3.24 n.a. 2.76 2.43 1.56 1.83 2.67 2.40 1.83 3.00 1.68 n.a. U.S. (Excel WorldRate One) Excel peak Excel off peak Source: Phillips Tarifica Ltd., 40 Furnival St, London EC4A 1JQ, U.K. Tel +44 171 4406500 Fax +44 171 8318552 Email: consult@tarifica.com ¯ http://vvvvvv.tarifica.com Source for U.S. rates: TeleGeography, Inc. © Phillips Tarifica Ltd. and TeleGeography Inc., 1997 201 TeleGeography 1997/98 © TeleGeograph~j, Inc. 1997 International Accounting Rates United States Chile New Zealand United Kingdom Destination 1995 1996 1997 1995 1997 1996 Andorra 0.62 0.61 0.57 n.a. 1.04 0.53 Argentina 1.43 1.43 1.25 2.65 1.81 1.70 Australia (Telstra) 0.59 0.45 0.42 n.a. 0.42 0.54 Austria 0.67 0.43 0.41 n.a. 0.97 0.47 Bahamas 0.60/0.30 0.60/0.30 0.60/0.30 n.a. 2.51 0.65 Bahrain 1.60 1.60 1.60 n.a. 1.39 2.09 Bangladesh 2.00 2.00 2.00 n.a. 1.42 2.09 Beiarus 1.50 1.20 1.00 n.a. 1.11 0.67 Belgium 0.71 0.56 0.40 n.a. 0.84 0.31 Bolivia 1.50 1.25 1.20 2.70 2.73 1.82 Brazil 1.14 1.03 1.03 2.45 1.95 1.39 Ca na d a 0.24/0.20 0.22/0.14 0.22/0.14 1. t 0 0.35 0.28 Chile (Entel) 1.10 1.00 1.00 n.a. 1.39 1.86 China 2.67 2.13 1.77 n.a. 2.27 2.27 Colombia 1.30 1.25 1.18 2.55 2.30 1.77 Costa Rica 1.35/1.00 1.15 1.15 n.a. 1.53 2.05 Croatia 1.04 1.01 0.68 n.a. 2.05 0.55 Cyprus 1.41 1.30 1.09 n.a. 1.39 0.61 Czech Republic 1.19 0.72 0.68 n.a. 0.97 0.42 Denmark 0.74 0.29 0.27 n.a. 0.84 0.21 Dominican Republic (Codetel) 1.10/0.60 0.90 0.80 n.a. 1.34 1.17 El Salvador 1.20 1.10 1.10 n.a. 0.84 2.60 Finland (Telecom Finland) 0.59 0.51 0.49 n.a. 0.84 0.36 France 0.54 0.35 0.26 2.40 0.90 0.24 French Polynesia 2.50 2.50 2.50 n.a. 0.97 2.78 Germany 0.39 0.23 0.22 1.50 0.84 0.21 Ghana 1.10 1.00 1.00 n.a. 1.25 1.11 Greece 1.26 1.01 0.95 n.a. 0.97 0.59 Guyana 1.70 1.70 1.70 n.a. 2.23 1.67 Hong Kong 1.00 0.94 0.79 n.a. 0.84 0.84 Hungary 1.34 1.01 0.84 n.a. 0.97 0.33 Iceland 1.04 0.94 0.88 n.a. 1.67 0.52 India 1.80 1.60 1.58 n.a. 1.81 1.92 Indonesia (Satelindo) 1.58 1.40 1.30 n.a. 1.48 2.14 Iran 3.00/2.50 3.00/2.50 3.00/2.50 n.a. 2.09 2.05 Ireland 0.67 0.35 0.33 n.a. 0.42 0.27 Israel 1.90/1.63/1.23 1.18 1.18 n.a. 1.88 0.70 Italy 0.71 0.52 0.38 n.a. 0.70 0.54 Japan (KDD) 0.94 0.91 0.85 n.a. 0.97 1.25 Jordan 1.50 1.50 1.50 n.a. 2.05 2.05 Notes: 1. All rates expressed in US$. Equivalent dollar values are presented for accounting rates that are established in SDRs or gold francs. 2. The average U.S. accounting rate for 1995 and 1996 is weighted bythe total minutes beWveen the U.S. and each location in that year. U.S. 1997 rates current to June 1997. Chilean accounting rates are for October 1995, New Zealand rates are for March 1997, and U.K. rates are for October 1996. 3. Where two rates are shown, there are peak/off-peak rates or growth-based rates (traffic above a benchmark level eligible for a lower rate.) 4. Rates are for largest carrier serving the route. Different accounting rates may apply to competing carriers. 202 © TeleGeography, Inc. 1997 TeleGeol~raphy 1997/98 United States Destination 1995 1996 1997 Kazakhstan 2.20 2.10 2.10 Korea (Korea Telecom) 1.26 1.23 0.98 Kuwait 1.71 1.67 1.56 Luxembourg 0.74 0.58 0.41 Macau 1.50 1.35 1.35 Malaysia (STM) 1.00 0.89 0.89 Mexico (Telmex) 0.67 0.88 0.70 Moldova 2.08 2.08 2.08 N ethe rla nd s 0.37 0.36 0.34 New Zealand (TNZI) 0.59 0.43 0.27 Norway 0.45 0.29 0.27 Oman 2.46 2.40 2.25 Pakistan 2.30 2.20/1.40 2.00/1.20 Panama 1.30 1.25 1.20 Paraguay 1.70 1.45 1.45 Peru 1.30 1.23 1.13 Philippines (PLDT) 1.23 1.00 1.00 Poland 1.15 0.95 0.70 Portugal 1.20/0.74 0.83 0.68 Russia (Rostelcom) 2.60 2.12 2.12 Saudi Arabia 2.20 2.20 2.02/1.62 Singapore 0.92 0.90 0.84 SIovak Republic 1.34 1.30 0.84 Slovenia 1.11 0.72 0.68 South Africa 1.20 1.00 1.00 Spain 1.44/0.95 0.64 0.60 Sri Lanka 2.00 2.00 2.00 Sweden (Telia AB) 0.37 0.18 0.16 Switzerland 0.52 0.51 0.38 Taiwan 1.20 1.20 1.20 Thailand 1.55 1.50 1.50 Turkey 1.63 1.16 1.09 Ukraine 1.50 1.40 1.30 United Arab Emirates 2.00/1.30 2.00/1.30 2.00/1.30 United Kingdom (BT) 0.37 0.36/0.22 0.20/0.13 United States n.a. n.a. n.a. Uruguay 1.80/1.10 1.27 1.10 Uzbekistan 1.80 1.70 1.70 Venezuela 1.30/1.00 1.15/1.00 1.00 Vietnam 2.30/2.00/1.85/1.70 2.30/2.00/1.85/1.70 2.00/1.85/1.70 Yugoslavia 1.19 1.16 1.11 Chile New Zealand United Kingdom 1995 1997 1996 n.a. 2.73 2.20 n.a. 1.25 1.39 n.a. 2.27 1.39 n.a. 0.97 0.40 n.a. 1.11 1.11 n.a. 0.97 1.00 1.20 0.84 1.11 n.a. 2.07 0.99 n.a. 0.70 0.41 n.a. 0.00 0.70 n.a. 0.84 0.33 n.a. 1.82 1.55 n.a. 1.42 2.23 n.a. 3.41 2.05 n.a. 1.11 1.81 1.98 1.39 1.81 n.a. 1.04 1.53 n.a. 2.51 0.51 n.a. 1.11 0.58 n.a. 2.09 0.72 n.a. 1.82 1.82 n.a. 0.84 1.00 n.a. 1.88 0.40 n.a. 1.67 0.49 n.a. 0.84 1.81 1.34 1.11 0.59 n.a. 1.81 1.53 1.50 0.56 0.21 n.a. 0.70 0.29 n.a. 1.18 1.53 n.a. 1.67 1.67 n.a. 2.50 0.55 n.a. 0.00 1.89 n.a. 1.11 2.05 1.85 0.42 n.a. 1.00 0.34 0.34 n.a. 2.23 1.64 n.a. 1.53 1.95 1.96 1.82 1.64 n.a. 2.23 2.92 n.a. n.a. 0.67 Source: FCC; Entel Chile SA; Telecom Corporation of New Zealand, Ltd; Office of Telecommunications (OFTEL--UK) 203 TeleGeography 1997/98 © TeleGeographg, Inc. 1997 FCC Settlement Benchmarks Benchmarks Methodology These Tariffed Component Prices (TCPs) were calculated by the staff of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and were used to dedve average benchmark settlement rates for U.S. international tele- phone carders in the FCC’s Report and Order IB Docket No. 96-261, FCC 97-280, released August 18, 1997 (Benchmarks Order). Implementation of the Order is staggered over several years, accord- ing to national incomes, from January 1, 1999 for high income coun- tries to January 1, 2003, for low income countries. See "The FCC’s Settlement Benchmarks" on page 45. The TCP for each country is derived from the prices for the three net- work elements used to provide international phone service as identi- fied by Recommendation D.140 of the International Telecommunication Union Telecommunication Standardization Sector (1TU-T). These elements are: (1) International transmission facilities; (2) International switching facilities; (3) National extension (domestic transport and termination). The FCC used 1996 tariff rates for the largest carrier in each country to calculate the pdce for the international transmission and national extension elements. For the international transmission portion, the FCC used the rate for a high capacity [! .5 Mbps or more) interna- tional private line, assuming 4/1 compression on each 64 kbps circuit, and a usage level of 8000 minutes per 64 kbps circuit per month. For the national extension, the FCC relied upon national long distance tar- iffs, making some adjustments for the expected distribution of inbound traffic by time of day and distance. The per minute cost of the international switching element was derived from the accounting rate share figures stated in the ITU-T Recommendation D.300R for the international exchange component. Details on the Fee’s methodology and underlying data can be found in Appendix E to the Benchmarks Order. See also the December 1996 "Foreign Tariffed Components Prices" report prepared by the FCC’s International Bureau, at Appendices C and D, which contains the relevant international private line and domestic long distance tar- iffs. Copies of these documents also can be found in The FCC Reader, the TeleGeography, Inc. regulatory review. For details visit: www.telegeog- raphy.com/Publications/fcc.html. Country Argentina 0.067 Australia 0.048 Austria 0.081 Bahamas 0.052 Belgium 0.030 Brazil 0.066 Chile 0.029 China 0.087 Colombia 0.051 Costa Rica 0.033 Czech Republic 0.081 Denmark 0.059 Dominican Republic 0.036 El Salvador 0.059 France 0.029 Germany 0.043 Greece 0.052 Guyana 0.066 Hong Kong 0.051 Tariffed Component Prices for FCC Benchmarks International International National Tariffed Component Transmission (US$) Switching (US$) Extension (US$) Price (US$ Total) 0.034 0.220 0.321 0.019 0.120 0.187 0.019 0.214 0.314 0.019 0.128 0.199 0.019 0.092 0.141 0.034 0,178 0.278 0.034 0.123 0.186 0.048 0.042 0.177 0.048 0.086 0.185 0.048 0.022 0.103 0.034 0.075 0.190 0.019 0.066 0.144 0.048 0.051 0.145 0.048 0.011 0.118 0.019 0.127 0.175 0.019 0.136 0.198 0.034 0.144 0.230 0.048 0.006 0.12 0.019 0.000 0.070 204 © TeleGeography, Inc. 1997 TeleGeography 1997/98 Tariffed Component Prices for FCC Benchmarks (continued) International International National Tariffed Component Country Transmission (US$) Switching (US$) Extension (US$) Price (US$ Total) Hungary 0,061 0.034 0.049 0.144 India 0.081 0.048 0,183 0.312 Indonesia 0,068 0,048 0.239 0.355 Ireland 0.027 0.019 0.134 0.180 Israel 0.042 0.019 0.024 0,085 Italy 0.048 0.019 0.115 0.182 Japan 0,065 0.019 0.113 0.197 Jordan 0.159 0.048 0.023 0.23 Korea 0.051 0.034 0,043 0.128 Kuwait 0,071 0.019 0,000 0.090 Malaysia 0.066 0.034 0.124 0.224 Mexico 0.009 0,034 0,125 0,168 Netherlands 0,026 0.019 0,053 0,098 New Zealand 0.057 0.019 0,162 0,238 Norway 0,032 0.019 0.065 0.116 Pakistan 0,147 0.048 0,072 0,267 Panama 0.047 0.048 0.099 0.194 Peru 0,058 0.048 0.055 0.161 Philippines 0,065 0.048 0.126 0.239 Poland 0,047 0.048 0.151 0.246 Portugal 0.046 0.019 0.174 0,239 Russia 0.054 0.048 0.252 0,354 Singapore 0.050 0.019 0.007 0.076 South Africa 0,052 0.034 0.083 0.169 Spain 0,048 0.019 0,114 0,181 Sweden 0.036 0,019 0,045 0,100 Switzerland 0,044 0,019 0.143 0,206 Taiwan 0,057 0.019 0.063 0.139 Thailand 0,040 0,048 0,083 0,171 Turkey 0.054 0.048 0.077 0.179 United Arab Emirates 0.033 0,019 0.025 0.077 United Kingdom 0.024 0,019 0.087 0.130 Uruguay 0.127 0,034 0.062 0.223 Venezuela 0.037 0.048 0.153 0.238 Vietnam 0.093 0,048 0.106 0,247 Source: FCC 205 TeleGeography 1997/98 © TeleGeography, Inc. 1997 lnternet Telephony Pricing Internet Telephony Call Rates from the U.S., September 1997 Global Exchange Carrier Destination Australia France Germany Indonesia Israel Japan Korea Netherlands New Zealand Switzerland U.K. Price/min. (US$) 0.28 0.28 0.28 0.92 0.89 0.34 0.70 0.34 0.33 0.47 0.27 GTX International Destination Price/min. (US$) Canada 0.33 Greece 0.69 Hong Kong 0.62 Israel 0.29 Italy 0.61 Japan 0.53 Korea 0.88 Malaysia 0.82 New Zealand 0.52 Philippines 0.99 U.K. 0.42 Source: ht’tp://www.gxc.com/c allrate.htm Source: http://vwNvv.GTXintl.com/rates.htm 206 Global Reference: Blue Pages TeleOeography 1997/98 © TeleGeography, Inc. 1997 National Telecommunications Indicators (A-J) GDP, Population, Main Lines, Lines per Cellular Users, PCs, 1996 Internet Users, 1996 (billions) 1996 (millions) 1996 (thous.) 100 (1996) 1996 (thous.) (thous.) 1995 (thous.) Andorra (a) n.a. 0.1 30.0 41.2 4.9 n.a. n.a. Argentina (a) 281.1 35.3 6,226.6 17.6 340.7* 850.0* 51.1 Austra lia (b) 348.8 18.3 9,500.0 52.0 3,815.0 5,700.0 1,011.5 Austria 233.4 8.0 3,779.0 47.1 383.5* 1,200.0 149.4 Bahamas 3.1" 0.3 79.0 30.5 n.a. n.a. 2.5 Bahrain (a) 4.9* 0.6 144.4 24.5 40.1 29.3* 1.0 Bangladesh 29.1 123.1 296.6 0.2 2.5* n.a. n.a. Belarus (c) 20.6 10.4 2,234.1 21.4 6.5 n.a. 0.2 Belgium (a) 269.1 10.2 4,725.5 46.5 410.2 1,700.0 100.4 Bolivia 6.1 7.5 395.0 5.3 7.2* n.a. 0.7 Brazil 688.1 162.7 15,105.9 9.3 2,498.2 2,900.0 201.3 Canada (a) 568.9 28.8 18,057.1 62.7 2,589.8* 5,700.0* 1,187.6 Chile 67.3 14.3 2,248.0 15.7 335.4 540.0 100.4 China 697.6 1,210.0 54,940.0 4.5 6,850.0 3,700.0 3,146.0 Colombia (a) 76.1 36.8 4,256.3 11.6 274.6 630.0* 26.6 Costa Rica (a) 9.2 3.5 638.6 18.4 18.7" n.a. 14.7 Croatia (a) 18.1 5.0 1,389.0 27.8 64.9 100.0" 25.1 Cyprus 7.2* 0.7 266.4 35.8 70.8 30.0* 3.0 Czech Republic (a,d) 44.8* 10.3 2,817.3 27.3 200.3 550.0* 219.7 Denmark (c) 172.2 5.2 3,251.1 61.9 1,316.8 1,600.0 200.8 Dominican Republic (d) 11.3 8.1 665.0 8.2 64.2 n.a. 1.4 El Salvador 9.5 5.6 314.2 5.6 13.5" n.a. n.a. Finland 125.4 5.1 2,813.0 55.1 1,501.5 930.0" 709.6 France 1,536.1 58.3 32,900.0 56.4 2,462.7 8,800.0 502,0 French Polynesia 3.1" 0.2 54.3 23.7 n.a. n.a. n.a. Germany 2,415.8 83.5 44,100.0 52.8 5,790.0 15,000.0 1,530.5 Ghana 6.3 17.7 112.9 0.6 6.2* 20.0* 0.1 Greece 90.6 10,5 5,328.7 50.6 550.0 350.0* 80.5 Guyana 0.5* 0.7 50.2 7.0 1.2 n.a. n.a. Hong Kong (a,b) 143.7 6.3 3,451.2 54.7 798.4* 950.0 305.6 Hungary (a) 43.7 10.0 2,661.6 26.6 265.0" 450.0 107.7 Iceland (a) 6.0* 0.3 155.4 57.5 49.0 55.0* 3.2 India 324.1 952.1 14,450.0 1.5 76.7* 1,400.0 10.2 Indonesia (a,c) 198.1 206.6 4,186.0 2.0 562.5 940.0 21.2 Iran (a) 57.6* 66.1 5,825.0 8.8 33.6 n.a. 2.6 Ireland (b,c) 60.8 3.6 1,390.0 39.0 158.0" 520.0 399.3 Israel (a) 92.0 5.4 2,539.1 46.8 1,050.0 670.0 290.0 Italy (c) 1,086.9 57.5 25,259.0 44.0 5,700.0 5,300.0 300.7 Japan (b) 5,108.5 125.4 62,511.3 49.8 10,204.0" 16,100.0 901.7 Jordan 6.1" 4.2 334.2 7.9 11.5" 35.0* 1.0 Source: International Telecommunication Union, U,S. Census Bureau and TeleGeography, Inc. ©TeleGeography, Inc. 1997 2O8 © TeleGeography, Inc. 1997 TeleGeography 1997/98 International Telephone Traffic (A-J) Outgoing MiTr (millions) Incoming MiTr (millions) Traffic Balance (millions) 1995 1996 Change 1995 1996 Change 1995 1996 36.0 37.8 5.0% n.a. 27.3 n.a. n.a. -10.5 Andorra (a) 179.4 181.3 1.1% 299.4 390.7 30.5% 120.0 209.4 Argentina (a) 1,024.0 1,305.0 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. Australia (b) 901.0 980 6.5% n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. Austria n.a. 58.7 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a, Bahamas 88.7 92.2 3.9% 62.6 69.4 10.8% -26.1 -22.8 Bahrain (a) 33.0 38.3 16.1% 122.1 129.2 5.8% 89.1 90.9 Bangladesh 106.6 104.9 -1.6% n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. Belarus (c) 1,105.7 1,228.4 11.1% 1,172.0 1,289.1 10.0% 66.3 60.6 Belgium (a) 20.8 21.4 2.9% 49.2 53.9 9.6% 28.4 32.5 Bolivia 319.4 366.9 14.9% 495.5 624.4 28.0% 176.1 257.5 Brazil 2,667.1 3,519.8 32.0% 3,895.8 4,313.3 10.7% 1,228.7 793.5 Canada (a) 136.9 173.8 27.0% n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. Chile 1,339.1 1,433.2 7.0% n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. China 127.3 135.5 6.4% 351.5 384.2 9.3% 224.2 248.7 Colombia (a) 52.8 55.0 4.2% n.a. 87.8 n.a. n.a. 32.8 Costa Rica (a) 210.7 242.4 15.1% 309.0 n.a. n.a. 98.3 n.a. Croatia (a) 117.5 128.6 9.4% 87.3 92.0 5.4% -30.2 -36.6 Cyprus 186.8 210.4 n.a. 223.7 324.4 n.a. 36.9 43.2 Czech Rep. (a,d) 532.6 573.2 7.6% 551.0 600.0 8.9% 18.4 26.8 Denmark (c) 85.4 126.6 n.a. 424.1 450.9 6.3% 338.7 324.3 Dominican Rep. (d) 64.1 28.6 n.a. n.a. 160.5 n.a. n.a. 131.9 El Salvador (d) 315.4 332.0 5.3% 345.0 n.a, n.a. 29.6 n.a. Finland 2,804.6 3,116.0 11.1% 2,958.9 3,283.0 11.0% 154.3 167.0 France 7.6 7.9 3.9% n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. French Polynesia 5,238.0 5,100.0 -2.6% 4,215.0 n.a. n.a. -1,023.0 n.a. Germany 16.8 16.5 -1.7% n.a. 59.6 n.a. n.a. 43.1 Ghana 467.9 515.6 10.2% 505.4 557.3 10.3% 37.5 41.7 13 reece 20.6 29.8 44.7% 139.7 162.8 16.5% 119.1 133.1 Guyana 1,691.8 1,738.6 2.8% 1,598.3 1,940.8 21.4% -93.5 202.2 Hong Kong (a,b) 247.5 265.0 7.1% 243.7 n.a. n.a. -3.8 n.a. Hungary (a) 28.9 32.5 12.3% 28.4 32.0 12.7% -0.5 -0.5 Iceland (a) 341.4 384.2 12.5% 805.4 1,000.0 24.2% 461.2 616.0 India 216.6 280.2 29.4% 294.0 356.4 21.2% 77.4 76.2 Indonesia. (a,c) 210.4 183.2 -12.9% 199.0 n.a. n.a. -11.4 n.a. Iran (a) 407.0 580.0 42.5% n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. Ireland (b,c) 252.3 319.7 26.7% 345.6 468.1 35.5% 93.3 148.4 Israel (a) 1,908.2 2,184.0 14.5% 1,999.8 2,253.5 12.7 % 91.6 69.5 Ita ly (c) 1,631.3 1,710.6 4.9% 1,320.8 1,519.1 15.0% -310.5 -191.5 Japan (b) 71.7 74.6 4.1% 118.0 133.1 12.8% 46.3 58.5 Jordan Notes: a. International MiTT based on billing point of traffic. b. International traffic for year ending 31 March. Australia fiscal year ends 30 June. c. Traffic data exclude some carriers or routes. d. 1995 and 1996 traffic data not directly comparable. See countp/table for details. Data for previous year. 209 TeleGeography 1997/98 © TeleGeography, Inc. 1997 National Telecommunications Indicators (K-Z) GDP, Population, Main Lines, Lines per Cellular Users, PCs, 1996 Internet Users, 1996 (billions) 1996 (millions) 1996 (thous.) 100 (1996) 1996 (thous.) (thous.) 1995 (thous.) Kazakhstan (c) 2.1 16.9 2,120.0 12.5 4.6* n.a. 1.8 Korea, Rep. of 455.5 45.5 19,601.0 43.1 3,181.0 5,997.0 294.1 Kuwait 26.7 2.0 391.8 20.1 117.6" 95.0" 4.0 Luxembourg 12.9 0.4 244.2 58.7 45.0 n.a. 6.6 Macau (a) 6.4* 0.5 161.5 32.5 44.8 40.0" 1.3 Malaysia (a,b,c,d) 85.3 20.0 3,771.3 18.9 1,620.3 880.0 39.7 Mexico (a) 250.0 95.8 8,826.1 9.2 642.0* 2,700.0 146.0 Moldova (c) 3.5 4.5 593.3 13.3 0.0 9.3* 0.2 Netherlands (a) 395.9 15.6 8,431.0 54.2 804.0 3,600.0 604.2 New Zealand (b) 57.1 3.5 1,782.0 50.2 388.0* 950.0 177.8 Norway 146.0 4.4 2,496.9 56.7 1,262.4 1,193.0* 280.9 Oman 12.1 2.2 197.7 9.0 12.9 27.5* n.a. Pakistan (c) 60.6 129.3 2,376.8 1.8 65.0 155.0" 0.2 Panama (a) 7.4 2.7 320.0 12.1 0.0 n.a. 1.5 Paraguay 7.7 5.5 180.6 3.3 15.8" n.a. n.a. Peru (a) 57.4 24.5 1,435.1 5.9 201.0 140.0" 8.3 Philippines 74.2 74.5 1,787.0 2.4 959.0 670.0 22.1 Poland (a) 117.7 38.6 6,532.4 16.9 75.0* 1,400.0 250.2 Portugal (a) 102.3 9.9 3,724.3 37.8 663.7 600.0" 89.5 Russia (c) 344.7 148.2 25,994.6 17.5 88.5* 3,500.0 221.4 Saudi Arabia 125.5 19.4 2,003.6 10.3 16.0" n.a. 2.2 Singapore (a,b,d) 83.7 3.4 1,563.0 48.0 306.0* 660.0 102.4 Slovak Republic (a,d) 17.4 5.4 1,246.5 23.2 28.7 220.0* 28.0 Slovenia (c) 18.6 2.0 663.6 34.0 40.0 95.0" 55.9 South Afric a 136.0 41.7 4,258.8 10.2 535.0" 1,600.0 462.3 Spain 558.6 39.2 15,412.8 39.3 2,997.6 3,700.0 149.9 Sri Lanka (a) 12.9 18.6 254.5 1.4 71.2 20.0* 0.1 Sweden (a,c) 228.7 8.9 6,032.0 67.8 2,025.0* 1,900.0 453.7 Switzerland 300.5 7.2 4,547.0 63.1 662.7 2,900.0 255.9 Taiwan (a,b) 243.0* 21.5 10,010.6 46.6 970.5 1,900.0 251.9 Thailand 167.1 58.9 4,200.2 7.1 1,500.0 1,000.0 39.6 Turkey 164.8 62.5 14,286.5 22.9 437.1" 880.0 50.0 Ukraine (c) 80.1 50.9 9,241.0 18.2 14.0" 290.0* 21.7 United Arab Emirates 39.1 2.2 738.1 33.2 193.8 10.5 2.3 United Kingdom (b,c) 1,105.8 58.5 30,292.3 51.8 5,735.8* 11,200.0 1,498.9 United States (a) 6,952.0 265.6 170,568.2 64.2 33,785.7* 96,600.0 10,092.7 Uruguay (a) 17.8 3.2 669.0 20.7 78.0 70.0" 8.1 Uzbekistan (c) 21.6 23.4 1,814.3 7.8 3.7 n.a. 0.4 Venezuela (a) 75.0 22.0 2,666.8 12.1 800.0 480.0 9.9 Vietnam 20.4 74.0 1,186.4 1.6 68.9 30.0* n.a. Yugoslavia 3.8* 10.0 2,081.6 20.9 0.0 n.a. n.a. Source: International Telecommunication Union, U.S. Census Bureau and TeleGeography, Inc. ©TeleGeography, Inc. 1997 210 © TeleGeography, Inc. 1997 TeleGeography 1997/98 International Telephone Traffic (K-Z) Outgoing MiTr (millions) Incoming 1995 1996 Change 1995 1996 111.1 102.5 -7.8% n.a. n.a. 557.3 699.3 25.5% 672.0 740.6 125.9 140.7 11.7% 130.2 131.2 232.2 248.5 7.0% 174.5 189.8 108.1 112.5 4.1% 90.4 92.1 408.3 570.5 n.a. 442.0 581.9 950.0 1,070.7 12.7% 2,114.0 2,489.7 50.8 50.2 -1.2% n.a. n.a. 1,458.7 1,534.1 5.2% 1,453.0 1,584.6 312.0 353.0 13.1% 327.0 380.0 431.5 443.5 2.8% 373.2 422.3 54.4 62.6 15.1% 53.3 58.0 65.9 77.0 16.9% 362.1 488.4 39.5 41.2 4.2% 94.2 97.7 20.9 24.9 19.1% n.a. 49.4 62.6 66.7 6.6% 195.4 226.5 174.0 240.0 37.9% 691,0 767.0 381.4 437.2 14.6% 649.3 725.5 283.9 340.0 19.8% 525.0 571.4 287.4 851.3 n.a. 448.1 1,037.6 499.1 584.4 17.1% n.a. n.a. 773.0 941.7 n.a. n.a. n.a. 58.8 134.1 n.a. 81.6 159.0 100.6 105.3 4.7% 121.2 113.9 305.0 353.0 15.7% n.a. n.a. 1,024.6 1,189.0 16.0% 1,076.4 n.a. 27.5 29.3 6.5% 92.0 96.0 900.0 1,026.0 14.0% n.a. n.a. 1,778.4 1,935.5 8.8% 1,439.3 1,562.8 592.8 674.0 13.7% 545.3 736.8 218.8 247.4 13.1% 277.7 376.2 373.6 473.4 26.7% 705.0 755.0 301.8 340.8 12.9% n.a. n.a. 503.6 589.3 17.0% n.a. n.a. 4,016.0 4,569.2 13.8% 4,021.0 4,360.0 15,637.5 18,830.0 20.4% 7,010.6 8,217.6 49.9 54.5 9.2% 73.9 80.1 n.a. 54.2 n.a. n.a. n.a. 129.1 139.0 7.6% 186.6 228.8 35.1 52.4 49.2% n.a. n.a. 212.8 237.2 11.5% 296.0 325.7 MiTr (millions) Traffic Balance (millions) Change 1995 1996 n.a. n.a. n.a. 10.2% 114,7 41.3 0.8% 4.3 -9.4 8.7% -57.7 -58.8 1.9% -17.7 -20.4 n.a. 33.7 11.4 17.8% 1,164.0 1,419.0 n.a. n.a. n.a, 9.1% -5.7 50.5 16.2% 15.0 27.0 13.2% -58.3 -21.2 8.8% -1.1 -4.6 34.9% 296.1 411.5 3.6% 54.7 56.5 n.a. n.a. 24.5 15.9% 128.7 159.7 11.0% 517.0 527.0 11.7% 267.9 288.3 8.8% 241.1 231.4 n.a. 160.7 -186.3 n.a. n.a. n.a, n.a. n.a. n.a. 22,8 -6.0% 20.6 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 51.8 n.a. 4.3% 64.5 66.7 n.a. n.a. n,a. 8.6% -339.1 -372.7 35.1% -47.5 62.8 35.5% 58.9 128.7 7.1% 331.4 281.6 n.a. n.a. n.a. B.a. 8.4% 5.0 -209.2 17.2% -8,626.9 -10,612.4 8.3% 24.0 25.6 n.a, n.a, n.a. 22.6% 57.4 89.8 n,a. n.a. n.a. 10.0% 83.2 88.5 Kazakhstan (c) Korea, Rep. of Kuwait Luxembourg Macau (a) Malaysia (a,b,c,d) Mexico (a) Moldova (c) Netherlands (a) New Zealand (b) Norway Oman Pakistan (c) Panama (a) Paraguay Peru (a) Philippines Poland (a) Portugal (a) Russia (c) Saudi Arabia n.a. Singapore (a,b,d) 24.9 SIovak Republic (a,d) 8.6 Slovenia (c) South Africa Spain Sri Lanka (a) Sweden (a,c) Switzerland Taiwan (a,b) Thailand Turkey n.a. Ukraine (c) n.a. United Arab Emirates United Kingdom (b,c) United States (a) Uruguay (a) Uzbekistan (c) Venezuela (a) Vietnam Yugoslavia Notes: a. International MiTT based on billing point of traffic. b. International traffic for year ending 31 March. Australia fiscal year ends 30 June. c. Traffic data exclude some carriers or routes. d. 1995 and 1996 traffic data not directly comparable. See country table for details. Data for previous year. 211 © TeleGeography, Inc. 199 7 TeleGeography ! 997/98 International Dialing Codes, by 1 Canada Guam Northern Marianas United States Caribbean 20 Egypt ZlZ Morocco Z13 Algeria Z18 Tunisia Z18 Libya 220 Gambia 221 Senegal 222 Mauritania 223 Mali 224 Guinea 225 Ivory Coast 226 Burkina Faso 227 Niger 228 Togo 229 Benin 230 Mauritius 231 Liberia 23;l Sierra Leone 233 Ghana 234 Nigeria 235 Chad 236 Central African Republic 237 Cameroon 238 Cape Verde Islands 239 SaoTome and Principe 240 Equatorial Guinea 241 Gabon 24:1 Congo (Brazzaville) :143 Congo (Kinshasa) :144 Angola :145 Guinea-Bissau :146 Diego Garcia 24? Ascension Island :146 Seychelles :149 Sudan 250 Rwanda 251 Ethiopia 252 Somalia 253 Djibouti 254 Kenya 255 Tanzania 256 Uganda 257 Burundi 258 Mozambique 259 Zanzibar 260 Zambia 261 Madagascar :16:1 Reunion Island 263 Zimbabwe 264 Namibia :~85 Malawi 46 Poland 266 Lesotho 49 Germany 267 Botswana 500 Falkland Islands :168 Swaziland 501 Belize 269 Comoros & Mayotte 50:1 Guatemala 27 South Africa 503 El Salvador 290 St. Helena 504 Honduras 291 Eritrea 505 Nicaragua 297 Aruba 506 Costa Rica 298 Faroe Islands 507 Panama 299 Greenland 508 St. Pierre & Miquelon 30 Greece 509 Haiti 31 Netherlands 61 Peru :32 Belgium 5:1 Mexico 33 France 53 Cuba 33-9:3 Monaco 54 Argentina :34 Spain 56 Brazil :350 Gibraltar 56 Chile :351 Portugal; Azores 57 Colombia :352 Luxembourg 50 Venezuela :353 Ireland 556 Guadeloupe :354 Iceland 591 Bolivia :355 Albania 592 Guyana 356 Malta 593 Ecuador 357 Cyprus 594 French Guiana 358 Finland 595 Paraguay 359 Bulgaria 556 Martinique 36 Hungary 597 Suriname 370 Lithuania 598 Uruguay 371 Latvia 599 Netherlands Antilles 372 Estonia 60 Malaysia 373 Moldova 61 Australia 374 Armenia 62 Indonesia 375 Belarus 53 Philippines 376 Andorra 64 New Zealand 377 Monaco (reserved) 65 Singapore 378 San Marino 56 Thailand 379 Vatican City 572 Australian Territories 380 Ukraine 673 Brunei 381 Yugoslavia 674 Nauru 385 Croatia 675 Papua New Guinea 386 Slovenia 676 Tonga lslands 387 Bosnia-Hercegovina 677 Solomon Islands 389 Macedonia 678 Vanuatu 39 Italy 579 Fiji 40 Romania 680 Palau 41 Switzerland 681 Wa[lis & Futuna 41-75 Liechtenstein 682 Cook Islands 420 Czech Republic 683 Niue 421 Slovak Republic 684 American Samoa 43 Austria 685 Western Samoa 44 United Kingdom 686 Kiribati 46 Denmark 687 New Caledonia 40 Sweden 688 Tuvalu 47 Norway 689 French Polynesia Number 690 Tokelau 691 Micronesia 692 Marshall Islands 7 Kazakhstan Russia Tajikistan Uzbekistan 800 International Freephone 81 Japan 82 South Korea 84 Vietnam 856 North Korea 852 Hong Kong 853 Macau 855 Cambodia 856 Laos 86 China 870 Inmarsat Special 871 Inmarsat East Atlantic 872 Inmarsat Pacific 873 Inmarsat Indian 874 Inmarsat West Atlantic 880 Bangladesh 8816 Iridium 8817 Iridium 886 Taiwan 90 Turkey 91 India 92 Pakistan 93 Afghanistan 94 Sri Lanka 95 Burma 950 Maldives 961 Lebanon 962 Jordan 953 Syria 964 Iraq 955 Kuwait 956 Saudi Arabia 967 Yemen 9680man 971 United Arab Emirates 972 Israel 973 Bahrain 974 Qatar 975 Bhutan 976 Mongolia 977 Nepal 98 Iran 993 Turkmenistan 994 Azerbaijan 995 Georgia 956 Kyrgyzstan 213 TeleGeography 1997/98 © TeleGeography, Inc. 1997 International Dialing Codes, by Country Afghanistan ................. 93 Albania .................... 355 Tirana ................. 42 Algeria ................... .21:3 Algiers ................. 2 American Samoa ............ 684 Andorra ................... 376 Angola .................... 244 Luanda ................. 2 Anguilla ................. 1-264 Antigua & Barbuda ........ 1-268 Argentina ................... 54 Buenos Aires ............. 1 Armenia ................... :374 Yerevan .............. 8852 Aruba ..................... 297 Ascension Island ........... 247 Australia ................... 61 Canberra ............... 62 Melbourne ............... 3 Sydney .................. 2 Australian Territories ........ 672 Austria .................... .43 Vienna .................. 1 Azerbaijan ................. 994 Baku ................ 8922 Babamas ................. 1-242 Bahrain .................... g73 Bangladesh ................ 880 Dhaka .................. 2 Barbados ................ 1-246 Belarus .................... 375 Minsk ................ 172 Belgium ................... Brussels ................ 2 Belize .................... 581 Belmopan ............... 8 Benin .................... 229 Bermuda ................. 1-441 Bhutan .................... 975 Bolivia .................... 591 La Paz .................. 2 Bosnia .................... 387 Sarajevo ................ 71 Botswana ................. .267 Brazil ...................... 55 Brasilia ................ 61 Rio de Janeiro ........... 21 S~o Paulo ............... 11 British Virgin Islands ...... 1-284 Brunei ..................... 673 Bandar Seri Begawan ....... 2 Bulgaria ................... 359 Sofia ................... 2 Burkina Faso .............. 226 Burma ...................... 95 Burundi ................... .257 Cambodia .................. 855 Cameroon ................. 237 Canada ...................... 1 Montreal .............. 514 Ottawa ................ 613 Toronto ................ 416 Cape Verde ............... 238 Cayman Islands ........... 1-345 Central African Republic .... 236 Bangui ................. 61 Chad ..................... 235 Chile ....................... 56 Santiago ................ 2 China, People’s Republic of .... B6 Beijing .................. 1 Guangzhou .............. 20 Shanghai ............... 21 Cnlambia ................... 57 Bogota ................. 1 Cocos Islands; Norfolk & ..... Christmas Islands ........... 672 Comoros .................. .269 Congo .................... 242 Brazzaville ......... 81/82/83 Cange .................... .243 Kinshasa ............... 12 Casta Bica ................. 506 Crnatia .................... 385 Zagreb .................. 1 Cuba ....................... 59 Havana ................. 7 Cyprus ..................... 357 Nicosia ................. 2 Czech Republic ............. 420 Prague .................. 2 Denmark ................... .45 Diego Garcia .............. .246 Djibouti ................... .253 Dominica ................ 1-7671 Dominican Republic ....... 1-809 Ecuador ................... 593 Quito ................... 2 Egypt ...................... .20 Cairo ................... 2 El Salvador ................. 503 Equatorial Guinea .......... .240 Eritroa .................... 291 Estonia ................... .372 Tal[inn .................. 2 Ethiopia .................. .251 Addis Ababa ............. 1 Falkland Islands ............ 500 Faroe Islands .............. .298 Fiji ...................... 679 Finland .................... :358 Helsinki ................. 9 France ..................... 33 Paris ................... 1 French Antilles ............. 596 French Guiana .............. 594 French Polynesia ........... 689 Gabon .................... 241 Gambia ................... 220 Georgia .................... 995 Tbilisi ............... 8832 Germany .................... 49 Berlin .................. 30 Bonn ................. 228 Frankfurt ................ 69 Munich ................. 89 Ghana .................... 2.233 Accra .................. 21 Gibraltar ................... 359 Greece .................... .30 Athens ................. 1 Greenland ................ .299 Grenada ................. 1-473 Guadeloupe ................ 590 Guam .................... 1-671 Guatemala ................. 502 Guatemala City ........... 2 Guinea ................... 224 Guinea-Bissau ............. .245 Guyana .................... -~92 Georgetown ............. 2 Haiti ...................... 509 Honduras .................. 504 Hong Kong ................. 852 Hungary .................... 38 Budapest ................ 1 Iceland .................... :354 India ...................... .91 Bombay ................ 22 Calcutta ................ 33 New Delhi .............. 11 Indonesia .................. 62 Jakarta ................ 21 Inmarsat 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 Iridium ............... 9816/9817 Israel ..................... 972 Jerusalem ............... 2 Tel Aviv ................. 3 Italy ....................... :39 Rome ................... 6 Milan ................... 2 Ivory Coast ................ 2.25 Jamaica ................. 1-876 Japan ...................... 81 Osaka ................... 6 Tob/o ................... 3 Jordan .................... 962 Amman ................. 6 Kazakhstan .................. 7 AImaty ............... 3272 Kenya .................... 254 Nairobi ................. 2 Kiribati .................... 686 Kuwait .................... 965 Kyrgyzstan ................. 996 Bishkek .............. 3312 Laos ..................... ~53 Latvia .................... .371 Riga ................... 2 Lebanon ................... 981 Beirut .................. 1 Lesotho ................... .266 Liberia ................... .231 Libya ..................... .218 Tripoli ................. 21 Liechtenstein ............. 41-75 Lithuania .................. 370 Vilnius .................. 2 Luxembourg ............... .352 Macau .................... 853 214 © TeleGeography, Inc. 1997 TeleGeo{~raphy 1997/98 Macedonia ................. 389 Skopje ................. 91 Madagascar ................ 261 Antananafivo ............. 2 Malawi ................... 2.65 Malaysia ................... 60 Kuala Lumpur ............ 3 Maldives .................. 960 Mall ..................... ~23 Malta ..................... 356 Marshall Islands ............ 692 Martinique ................. 566 Mauritania ................ 2.22 Mauritius ................. 230 Mayotte ................... 269 Mexico ..................... 52 Guadalajara ............. 36 Mexico City .............. 5 Monterrey .............. 83 Micronesia ................ 691 Moldova ................... 373 Chisinau ............... 422 Monaco .................. 33-93 Mongolia .................. 976 Montserrat ............... 1-664 Morocco .................. 2.12 Casablanca ............... 2 Rabat .................. 7 Mozambique ............... 258 Maputo ................. 1 Namibia .................. 264 Windhoek .............. 61 Naoro ..................... 674 Nepal ..................... 977 Kathmandu ............... 1 Netherlands ................. 31 Amsterdam ............. 20 Netherlands Antilles ........ 599 New Caledonia ............. 687 New Zealand ................ 64 Auckland ................ 9 Wellington .............. 4 Nicaragua ................. 565 Managua ................ 2 Niger ..................... ~27 Nigeria .................... 234 Lagos ................... 1 Niue ...................... 683 North Korea ................ 850 Pyongyang ............... 2 Northern Marianas ........ 1-670 Saipan ................ 322 Norway ..................... 47 Oslo ................... 2 Oman ..................... 968 Pakistan .................... 92 Islamabad .............. 51 Palau ..................... 680 Panama ................... 507 Papua New Guinea .......... 675 Para0uay .................. 595 Asuncion ............... 21 Peru ....................... 51 Lima .................. 14 Philippines .................. 63 Manila ................. 2 Poland ..................... 48 Warsaw ............... 22 Portugal ................... 351 Lisbon .................. 1 Pueblo Rico ............... 1-787 Qatar ...................... 974 Reunion Island ............ 2.62 Romania ................... .40 Bucharest ............... 1 Russia ....................... 7 Moscow .............. 095 St. Petersburg ........... 812 Rwanda .................. 2.59 St. Kitts & Nevis ........... 1-869 St. Lucia ................. 1-758 St. Pierre & Miquelon ........ 508 St. Vincent & the Grenadines .......... 1-809 San Marino ................ 378 S~o Tome and Principe ..... 239 Saudi Arabia ............... 966 Riyadh .................. 1 Senegal .................. 221 Seychelles ................ 2.48 Sierra Leone .............. 232 Freetown ............... 22 Singapore ................... 65 Slovak Republic ........... .421 Bratislava ............... 7 Slovenia ................... 386 Ljubljana ............... 61 Solomon Islands ............ 677 Somalia .................. 2.52 Mogadishu .............. South Africa ................ 2.7 Johannesburg ............ 11 Pretoria ................ 12 South Korea ................. 92 Seoul ................... 2 Spain ..................... Madrid ................. 1 Barcelona ................ 3 Sri Lanka ................... 94 Colombo ................ 1 Sudan .................... 2.49 Khartoum .............. 11 Suriname .................. 597 Swaziland ................ 2.68 Sweden .................... 46 Stockholm ............... 6 Switzerland ................. 41 Berne .................. 31 Zurich ................... 1 Syrio ...................... 963 Damascus .............. 11 Tahiti ...................... 689 Taiwan .................... 886 Taipei .................. 2 Tajikistan .................... 7 Dushanbe ............ 3772 Tanzania .................. 2.55 Dar Es Salaam ........... 51 Thailand .................... 66 Bangkok ................ 2 Togo ..................... 3.28 Tokelau .................... 690 Tonga ..................... 676 Trinidad & Tobago ......... 1-868 Tunisia ................... 2.16 Tunis ................... 1 Turkey ...................... 59 Ankara ................. 4 Istanbul ................. 1 Turkmenistan ............... 993 Ashkhabad ............ 3632 Turks & Caicos ........... 1-649 Tuvalu ..................... 688 Uganda ................... 2.56 Kampala ............... 41 Ukraine .................... 380 Kiev ................... 44 United Arab Emirates ........ 971 Abu Dhabi ............... 2 Dubai ................... 4 United Kingdom .............. 44 London ............ 171/181 Manchester ............ 161 United States ................. 1 Chicago ............ 312/630 Houston ............... 713 Los Angeles ............ 213 Miami ................. 305 New York .......... 212/718 Washington ............ 202 U.S. Virgin Islands ......... 1-340 Uruguay ................... 598 Montevideo .............. 2 Uzbekistan ................... 7 Tashkent ............. 3712 Vanuatu ................... 678 Vatican City ................ 379 Venezuela .................. 56 Caracas ................. 2 Vietnam .................... 84 Wallis & Futuna ............ 681 Western Samoa ............. 685 Yemen ..................... 967 Sanaa ................. 51 Yugoslavia ................ .381 Belgrade ................ 11 Zambia ................... 2.68 Lusaka .................. 1 Zanzibar (Tanzania) ......... 256 Zimbabwe ................ 2.63 Harare .................. 4 TeleGeography 1997/98 © TeleGeography, Inc. 1997 World Dialing Codes CANADA FINLAND ~USSIA Aires (1) © TeleGeograPhU, Inc. 1997 TeleGeography 1997/98 Hong Kon{ ¯ ~*;Kinshasa ¯ Gaborone/ Put your company’s name on this map. For map ficenses and custom mapping services, contact: TeleGeography, Inc. Suite I000, 1150 Connecticut Avenue, NW; Washington DC 20036 USA Tel. 1 202-467-0017; fax 1 202-467-5915 e-mail: info@telegeography.com Unauthorized reproduction is prohibited. All rights reserved. AUgTRAUA © TeleGeography, Inc. 1997 Sydney Canberra ¯ 217 TeleGeography 1997/98 © TeleGeogr~plly, l~c. 1997 North American Area Codes, by Jurisdiction Alabama Birmingham ............. 205 Montgomery ............. 334 Alaska ..................... 907 Alberta Calgary ................ .403 Edmonton ............... 780 Anguilla .................... 264 Antigua & Barbuda ........... 288 Arizona Phoenix ................. 802 Tucson ................. 520 Arkansas Jonesboro ............... 870 Little Rock ............... 501 Bahamas ................... 242 Barbados ................... 246 Bermuda .................... 441 British Columbia Victoria ................. 250 Vancouver ............... 604 British Virgin Islands ......... 284 California Anaheim ................ 714 Bakersfield .............. 805 Burbank ................ 626 Concord ................ 925 Fresno .................. 209 Irvine .................. 949 Long Beach .............. 562 Los Angeles .......... 213/323 Oakland ................ 510 Palm Springs ............. 760 Redding ................ 530 Riverside ................ 909 Sacramento ............. 918 Pelo Alto ................ 650 San Diego ............... 619 San Femando ............ 818 San Francisco ........... .415 San Jose ............... 408 Santa Ana ............... 714 Santa Monica ............ 310 Santa Rosa .............. 707 Cayman Islands ............. .345 Colorado Colorado Springs ......... 719 Denver ................. 303 Ft. Collins ............... 970 Connecticut Bridgeport ............... 203 Hartford ................ 860 Beleware ................... 302 Bi~trict ef Celumhia Washington ............. 202 Daminica .................. .767 Beminican Repahlic ......... .809 Florida Ft. Lauderdale ............ 954 Ft. Myers ............... 941 Gainesville .............. 352 Jacksonville ............. 904 Miami .................. 305 Orlando ................ .407 Tallahassee .............. 850 Tampa .................. 813 W. Palm Beach ........... 561 Georgia Athens ................. 706 Atlanta ................. 404 Marietta ................ 770 Savannah ............... 912 Grenada .................... 473 Guam ..................... .671 Hawaii ..................... 808 Idaho ...................... 208 Illinois Aurora ................. 630 Cairo ................... 618 Chicago ............ .312/773 Evanston ................ 847 Oak Brook ............... 708 Peoda .................. 309 Rockford ................ 815 Springfield .............. 217 Evansville ............... 812 Gary ................... 219 Indianapolis ............. 317 Lafayette ............... 765 Iowa Council Bluffs ............ 712 Des Moines ............. 515 Dubuque ............... .319 Jamaica .................... 876 Kansas Kansas City .............. 913 Topeka ................. 785 Wichita ................. 316 Kentucky Dade Park .............. .812 Lexington ............... 606 Louisville ............... 502 Louisiana New Orleans ............. 504 Shreveport .............. 318 Maine ..................... .207 Maoiteha .................. .204 Baltimore ........... .410/443 Rockville ........... .301/240 Massachusetts Boston ................. 617 Cambridge ............. .781 Lowell ................. .978 New Bedford ............ 508 Springfield ............. ,413 Ann Arbor .............. .734 Detroit ................ .313 Flint .................. .810 Grand Rapids ............ 616 Lansing ................. 517 Pontiac ................ 248 Sault Ste. Made .......... 906 Duluth .................. 218 Minneapolis ............. 612 Rochester ............... 507 St, Cloud ............... .320 Biloxi ................. 228 Jackson ................ 601 Missouri Jefferson City ............ 573 Kansas City .............. 816 St. Joseph .............. 660 St. Louis ................ 314 Springfield .............. 417 Monserrat ................. .664 Montana ................... .408 Nebraska North Platte ............. 308 Omaha ................ .402 Neveda ..................... 702 Nevis ..................... .869 New Brunswick ............. 508 New Hampshire ............. 603 New Jersey Elizabeth ............... .908 Jersey City .............. 201 Newark ................ .973 New Brunswick .......... 732 Trenton ................. 609 New Mexico ................ 505 New York Albany ................. 518 Bronx, Queens ........ 718/917 Buffalo ................. 716 Long Island .............. 518 Ithaca .................. 607 Manhattan ........... 212/917 Syracuse ................ 315 White Plains ............. 914 Newfoundland ............... 709 North Carofina Charlotte ............... .704 Fayetteville ............. .910 Greensboro .............. 336 Raleigh ................. 919 Nerth Baketa ................ 701 Nerthern Marienas ........... 670 NW Territories/Yukon ........ .867 Nova Scotia & Prince Edward Island .......... 902 Ohio Canton ................ .330 Cincinnati ............... 513 Cleveland ............... 216 Columbus ............... 614 Dayton ................. 937 Marietta ................ 740 Oberlin ................ .440 Toledo .................. 419 Oklahoma Enid ................... 580 Oklahoma City ........... 405 Tulsa .................. .918 Hamilton ................ 905 London ................. 519 North Bay ............... 705 Ottawa ................. 613 Thunder Bay ............. 807 Toronto ................ .416 Oregon Eugene ................. 541 Portland ................ 503 Pennsylvania Allentown ............... 610 Altoona ................. 814 Harrisburg ............... 717 New Castle .............. 724 Philadelphia ............. 215 Pittsburgh .............. A12 Puerto Rico ................. 787 Quebec Montreal ............... 514 Quebec ................. 418 Sherbrooke .............. 819 Trois Rivi~res ............ 450 Rhode Island ............... .401 St. Kitts .................... .869 St. Lucia .................... 758 St. Vincent ................. .809 Saskatchewan .............. .306 South Carolina Charleston ............. .843 Columbia ............... 803 Greenville ............... 864 South Dakota ................ 605 Tennessee Chattanooga ............. 423 Columbia ............... 931 Memphis ............... 901 Nashville ............... 615 Knoxville ................ 423 Texas Amarillo ................ 806 Austin .................. 512 Brownsville .............. 956 Dallas .................. 214 Deer Park ............... 281 Del Bio ................. 830 El Paso .................. 915 Fort Worth .............. 817 Galveston .............. A09 Houston ............ .713/281 Irving .................. 972 San Antonio ............. 210 Tyler ................... 903 Waco .................. 254 Wichita Falls ............. 940 Trinidad & Tobago ............ 888 Turks & Caicos .............. 649 U.S. Virgin Islands ............ 340 Utah Salt Lake City ............ 801 Provo ................. .435 Vermont .................... 802 Virginia Alexandria .............. 703 Richmond .............. .804 Roanoke ................ 540 Norfolk ................. 757 Washington Bellevue ............... .425 Olympia ................ 360 Seattle ................. 206 Spokane ................ 509 Tacoma ................. 253 West Virginia ............... .304 Wisconsin Green Bay .............. .920 Madison ................ 608 Milwaukee ............. .414 Eau Claire ............... 715 Oshkosh ................ 920 Wyeming .................. .307 Note: Two codes separated by a slash (e.g, in Houston, Texas) indicate an overlay; multiple codes are used for the same geographic area. ..............218 © TeleGeography, Inc. 1997 TeleGeography 1 997/98 North American Area 201 New Jersey 202 District of Columbia 203 Connecticut 204 Manitoba 205 Alabama 206 Washington 207 Maine 208 Idaho 209 California 211) Texas 212 New York 213 California 214 Texas 215 Pennsylvania 216 Ohio 217 Illinois 218 Minnesota 219 Indiana Mississippi 240 Man/land 242 Bahamas 240 Barbados 240 Michigan British Columbia Z52 North Carolina 253 Washington 254 Texas 264 Anguilla 268 Antigua & Barbuda 201 Texas 201 Texas British Virgin Islands 302 Delaware 303 Colorado 304 West Virginia 205 Florida 306 Saskatchewan 307 Wyoming 308 Nebraska 309 Illinois 310 California 312 Illinois 313 Michigan 314 Missouri 315 New York 316 Kansas 317 Indiana 318 Louisiana 319 Iowa 3Z0 Minnesota ~3 California 330 Ohio 334 Alabama 336 North Carolina 340 U.S. Virgin Islands 345 Cayman Islands 3r~ Florida 360 Washington 401 Rhode Island 402 Nebraska 403 Alberta 404 Georgia 405 Oklahoma 406 Montana 407 Florida 408 California 409 Texas 410 Man/land 412 Pennsylvania 413 Massachusetts 414 Wisconsin 415 California 416 Ontario 417 Missouri 418 Quebec 419 Ohio 423 Tennessee 425 Washington 435 Utah 440 Ohio 441 Bermuda 443 Man/land 450 Quebec 47:3 Grenada 500 Personal Communication Services (PCS) 501 Arkansas 502 Kentucky 503 Oregon 504 Louisiana 505 New Mexico 506 New Brunswick 507 Minnesota 508 Massachusetts 509 Washington 510 California 512 Texas 513 Ohio 51:3 Man/land 514 Quebec 515 Iowa 516 New York 517 Michigan 518 New York 519 Ontario 520 Arizona 531) California 540 Virginia 541 Oregon 555 Public Information Services 559 California 551 Florida California 573 Missouri 580 Oklahoma 601 Mississippi 682 Arizona 603 New Hampshire 604 British Columbia 605 South Dakota 606 Kentucky 607 New York 608 Wisconsin 609 New Jersey Codes, by 612 Minnesota 613 Ontario 614 Ohio 615 Tennessee 616 Michigan 617 Massachusetts 618 Illinois 619 California 526 California 630 Illinois 549 Turks & Caicos 650 California 660 Missouri 670 Northern Marianas 671 Guam 678 Georgia 664 Monserrat 71)1 North Dakota 702 Nevada 703 Virginia 704 North Carolina 71)5 Ontario 706 Georgia 71)7 California 708 Illinois 709 Newfoundland 711) U.S. Government Emergency 712 Iowa 713 Texas 714 California 715 Wisconsin 716 New York 717 Pennsylvania 718 New York 719 Colorado 720 Colorado 724 Pennsylvania 732 New Jersey 734 Michigan 737 Maryland 740 Ohio 757 Virginia 750 St. Lucia 760 California 765 Indiana 767 Dominica 770 Georgia 773 Illinois 780 Alberta 781 Massachusetts 784 St. Vincent/Grenadines 785 Kansas 787 Puerto Rico 801 Utah 802 Vermont 803 South Carolina 804 Virginia 805 California 806 Texas 807 Ontario 808 Hawaii 809 Dominican Republic Number 809 St. Vincent 810 Michigan 812 Indiana 812 Kentucky 813 Florida 814 Pennsylvania 815 Illinois 816 Missouri 817 Texas 818 California 819 Quebec 828 North Carolina 530 Texas 843 South Carolina 847 Illinois B50 Florida 860 Connecticut 864 South Carolina 867 Northern Territories 868 Trinidad & Tobago 869 St. Kitts/Nevis 870 Arkansas 876 Jamaica 877 Toll-free services 880 Toll-free services 081 Toll-free services 888 Toll-free services 900 Information Services 501 Tennessee 902 Nova Scotia & Prince 903 Texas 904 Florida 906 Michigan 907 Alaska 908 New Jersey 909 California 910 North Carolina 912 Georgia 913 Kansas 914 New York 915 Texas 916 California 917 New York 918 Oklahoma 919 North Carolina 020 Wisconsin 025 California 531 Tennessee 937 Ohio 937 Man/land 940 Texas 341 Florida 349 California 954 Florida 956 Texas 970 Colorado 972 Texas 973 New Jersey 978 Massachusetts 219 TeleGeography 1997/98 © TeleGeographU, Inc. 1997 220 North American Area Codes BRITISH COLUMBIA 25O V~hceuver 360 509 OREGON 541 NEVADA 8O5 Edmonton ¯ 780 ALBERTA SASKATCHEVVAN Regina ¯ MONTANA Winnipeg ¯ NORTH DAKOTA i.~ MINNESOTA 701 IDAHO WYOMING ~’EBB.ASKA SOUTH DAKOTA NEW MEXICO Toil-free to U.S. from Canada and Caribbean OKLAHqMA 405 8O6 915 2~ © TeleGeography, Inc. ~997 TeleGeography 1997/98 ONTARIO ~\ 705 ........................ ,.,.~ Quebec QUEBEC #19 519 ~IEVM BRUNSWICK’! MAINE 207 PENN, 618 K~NTUCKY .... ~,., MISSOURI ......................... 573 ARKANSAS 318 MISSIS- SIPPI LOUISIANA ~:~,~’~. 205 ALABAMA 7O6 FLORIBA For map licenses, send email to: jkowal@telegeography.com © TeleGeography, Inc. 1997 221 Telecommunications Map of the World-- 199 7 Edition TeleGeography, Inc./Petroleum Economist, September 1997 Map details include: submarine cables scaled by capacity; satellite locations and capacities; national teledensities; and dialing codes col- ored by time zone. Border illustrations display: country-by-country international traffic flows; profiles of top international careers and alliances; cellular and Internet indicators; and a guide to market opening commitments under the WTO agreement on telecommunications services, Size is approx. 40" x 50" (1.0 m x 1.3 m). Map is shipped folded. ISBN 1-86~86-096-X All orders must be prepaid; orders will be shipped to customers by air mail w~thin seven days. Please send me __ cop~es of the Telecommunications Map of the World--1997 Edition at the price of $8~i. For academic orders and orders of more than five copies, contact us for special prices. For express shipping by a~r courier (add $20 per copy in North America; $35 elsewhere) check here: Total enclosed: Name (please print). ]]tle Company Signature Street Floor City. Postal Code Telephone Fax Country Email I am paying by: Cl bank wire transfer Name of send=ng bank (Please wire funds to C~t=bank, ABA routing code 254070116, for credit to TeleGeography, Inc. Acct No. 66555787; C=t~bank’s address ~s P.O. Box 19748; Washington, DC 20036-9748 USA.) :3 check (U.S. bank only. Please enclose check payable to "TeleGeography, Inc.") :3 credit card (Visa, Mastercard, or American Express) Acct no. Exp. date __ Send your orders to: TeleGeography, Inc. Attn: Sales 1150 Connecticut Avenue, NW Suite 1000 Washington, DC 20036 USA Tel.: +1 (202) 467-0017 Fax: +1 (202) 467-0851 sales@telegeography.c orn About TeleGeography, Inc. telegeography \t~l "a-j~-6g’ra-fO 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 telecommunications artifacts (radio antennae, terminals, signs) on a site; 4. the balance of telecommunications power in one country or region vis-a-vis another (cf. geopolitics, archaic). The old geography of countries and coast lines is giving way to a new geography marked by tele- phone codes, satellite "foot prints" and Internet addresses. Electronic networks have made the world smaller. But they also have created countless new places where people work and play. This expanding electronic terrain--call it teiegeography--demands a new cartography. That is the raison d’etre of TeleGeography, Inc. (TGI). Founded by Washington, D.C. lawyer, Gregory C. Staple, TGI is the world’s leading publisher of reports on international telecommunications flows. It also is an authoritative source of data on the ownership of information-communication compa- nies worldwide. In addition, the company provides customized mapping and consulting services. TGI’s flagship report--TeleGeography--has been published annually since 1989 in cooperation with the London-based International Institute of Communications (IIC). Other TGI publications include: New International Carriers, a three volume directory of competing international telephone companies; The FCC Reader, an annual subscription service providing FCC documents concerned with international telecommunications; Telecommunications Map of the World, a poster-sized map of world telecommunications; and The TeleGeography 100, a graphical guide to major information-technology businesses. TGI’s directories are used by leading communi- cation companies, consultancies, governments and financial institutions in over 60 countries. To learn more, please visit us at http://www.telegeography.com. TEL~G~O~R~PHY, INC. 1730 Rhode Island Avenue, NW ¯ Suite 1205 ° Washington, DC 20036 USA Tel. ÷ 1 (202) 467-0017 ¯ Fax ÷1 (202) 467-0851 ¯ E-maih info@telegeography.com http://www.telegeography.com