This work is Based on sources believed to Be reliable, But the publisher does not warrant the accuracy or completeness of any information for any purpose and is not responsible for any errors or omissions. This work is for the confidential use of subscribers. Neither the whole nor any part of this publication may Be reproduced or transmitted in any form or By any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopied, recorded or other- wise, without prior written consent from TeleGeography, Inc. All rights reserved. Copyright © TeleOeography, Inc. 2001 Second Printing--December 2001 This is book number TG02-111584 Do not reproduce. ISBN 1-886142-32-7 Printed in the United States of America TeleGeography, Inc. ¯ 1325 Massachusetts Avenue, NW ¯ Sixth Floor ¯ Washington, DC 20005 USA Tel. 1 202 741 0020 Fax 1 202 741 0021 E-mail: info@telegeography.com www.telegeography.com This report was prepared by TeleGeography, Inc., the Washin~on, D.C.-based research and publishing group of Band-X Ltd. The TeleGeography 2002 research and production team included: Stephan Beckert ................... Director of Traffic Research J. Patrick Christian ......................... Research Analyst Abiola Ogunyemi .......................... Research Analyst Paul Melton .............................. Research Analyst Joe Vigil ................................ Research Analyst Alan Mauldin ............................. Research Analyst Markus Krisetya .................. Director of Systems & Design Michael Gorski ........................ Systems Administrator Jennifer Bruce ....................... Designer+Cartographer Tim Stronge ................ EVP of Research, TeleGeography, Inc. Jason Kowal .................... President, TeleGeography, Inc. The following reports, databases, and maps also are available from TeleGeography, Inc.: Packet Geography 2002 (ISBN 1-886142-30-0) Colocation 2002 (ISBN 1-886142-31-9) International Bandwidth 2001 (ISBN 1-886142-27-0) The TeleGeography International Traffic Database (subscription service) The Band-X Bandwidth Indices (subscription service) Global Communications Cable & Satellite Map (ISBN 886142-29-7) Global Internet Map (ISBN 886142-28-9) Global Communications Traffic Map (ISBN 886142-25-4) For all inquiries, please contact: TeleGeography, Inc. 1325 Massachusetts Avenue, NW Sixth Floor Washin~on, DC 20005 USA Tel. +1 202 741 0020 Fax 1 202 741 0021 E-mail: info@telegeography.com For more information, please visit www.telegeography.com. 2 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2002 © TELEGEOGRAPHY, INC. 2001 List of Figures ................................................................... List of Country Traffic Tables ........................................................ Preface ....................................................................... 7 Executive Summary .............................................................. 11 Carriers The Growth of International Carrier Competition ......................................... 17 Market Shares of International Carriers ............................................... 20 Top 40 International Carriers ...................................................... 24 Traffic of Selected Multinational Carriers .............................................. 25 Market Shares of U.S. International Carriers ........................................... 25 International Circuit Usage by U.S. Carriers ............................................ 26 Pricing Overview of International Pricing Trends .............................................. 33 Elements of an International Call ................................................... International Carrier Call Costs from the U.S .......................................... 42 International Carrier Call Costs to the U.S ............................................ International Private Line Prices .................................................. International Settlement Rates ................................................... 47 FCC and ITU Settlement Benchmarks ............................................... 49 National Interconnection Rates ................................................... 51 Wholesale Pricing Wholesale Rates by Country, 2000 and 2001 ........................................ 52 Retail Pricing Retail Prices for a Three-Minute Call ............................................... 53 Retail Pricing Trends, 1998-2001 ................................................. Traffic Analysis Overview of International Traffic Trends ............................................... VolP Routes & Traffic ........................................................... 69 International Traffic to and from Mobile Phones ......................................... 75 International Call Quality Metrics ................................................... 85 Traffic Summary Global Traffic Review ............................................................ International Traffic by Region ..................................................... 93 International Traffic by Country .................................................... 97 International Traffic by Route ..................................................... 100 Country Traffic Statistics International Traffic Tables (see page 6 for a list of countries) ............................................... 1 Methodology ................................................................ 211 Reference National Telecommunications Indicators .............................................. 214 International Telephone Traffic .................................................... 215 International Dialing Codes, by Country .............................................. 218 World Dialing Codes Map ....................................................... 220 International Dialing Codes, by Number .............................................. 222 North American Area Codes, by Number ............................................. 223 North American Area Codes, by Jurisdiction .......................................... 224 North American Area Codes Map .................................................. 226 A Primer on Bits .............................................................. 228 About TeleGeography, lnc ......................................................... 230 © TELEGEOGRAPHY, INC 2001 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2002 3 Executive Summary Figure 1. International Traffic and Main Line Growth .......................... 11 Figure 2. Charge of the Challengers ............. 12 Figure 3. Top 10 International Carriers ........... 13 Figure 4. Ten Years of Change ................. Carriers The Growth of International Carrier Competition Figure 1. Global Growth of International Carriers, July 1996-July 2001 ................ 17 Figure 2. Regional Growth of Licensed International Carriers, 1996-2001 ................ 18 Figure 3. Countries with International Telephone Service Competition ................. 19 Market Shares of International Carriers ............. 20 Top 40 International Carriers .................... 24 Traffic of Selected Multinational Carriers ............ 25 Market Shares of U.S. International Carriers ......... 25 International Circd~t Usage by U.S. Carriers Figure 1. International Circuit Usage Summary, 1996-2000 ...................... 26 Figure 2. International Circuit Usage for Selected Routes, 1998-2000 ................. 27 Figure 3. International Circuit Usage by Region, 1998-2000 ...................... 28 Figure 4. Idle Circuits of U.S. Carriers by Region, 1998-2000 ...................... 29 Pricing Overview of International Pricing Trends Figure 1. U.S. Carrier Revenues and Settlement Outpayments, 1980-2000 ............ 33 Figure 2. U.S. Carrier Revenues for International Voice Service, 1997 and 2000 ......... 34 Figure 3. U.S. Carrier International Call Revenue by Destination, 2000 .................. 35 Figure 4. Wholesale Rates by Destination Type and Region, 2001 ..................... 36 Figure 5. Call Prices to Developed versus Developing Country Markets, 2000 ...... 37 Figure 6. Call Prices to Fixed versus Mobile Telephones, 2000-2001 .............. 37 Figure 7. Relationship between Effective Settlement Rate and Price per Minute, 2000 ....... 38 Figares Elements of Figure 1. Figure 2. International International International Figure 1. Figure 2. an International Call International Call Components .......... 40 Basic Call Transport Methods .......... 41 Carrier Call Costs from the U.S .......... 42 Carrier Call Costs to the U.S ............ 44 Private Line Prices International Private Line Lease Prices from U.S., 1996-2000 ............... 46 Band-X Bit Index, 2000-2001 .......... 46 International Settlement Rates ................... 47 FCC and ITU Settlement Benchmarks Figure 1. FCC Benchmarks and ITU Target Recommendations (U.S. cents) ......... 49 National lnterconnection Rates ................... 51 Wholesale Rates by Country, 2000 and 2001 ........ 52 Retail Prices for a Three-Minute Call ............... 53 Retail Pricing Trends, 1998-2001 ................. 56 Traffic Analysis Overview of International Traffic Trends Figure 1. Regional Traffic Growth, 1998-2000 ..... 59 Figure 2. Annual Traffic Growth in Competitive and Non-Competitive Telecom Markets, 1997-2000 ...................... 60 Figure :5. International Call Costs from Germany, 1997 and 2000 ................... 61 Figure 4. Revenue and Call Volume Changes for Major Carriers, 1999-2000 ........... 62 Figure 5. Five of the Ten Largest U.S. Carriers Have Failed ...................... 63 Figure 6. Comparison of Wholesale and Settlement Rates, 2000 .............. 65 Figure 7. VolP and Bypass Targets, 2000 ......... 66 Figure 8. The Substitution Effect ............... 67 VolP Routes & Traffic Figure 1. International VolP and PSTN Traffic Summary ........................ 70 Figure 2. Major VolP Carriers and Traffic ......... 71 Figure 3. Top 25 U.S.-Originated VolP Routes, 1999-2001 ...................... 73 Figure 4. Traffic, Settlements, and Regulation ...... 74 4 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2002 © TELEGEOGRAPHY, INC. 2001 International Figure 1. Figure 2. Figure 3. Figure 4. Figure 5. Figure 6. Figure 7. Figure 8. Figure 9. Call Quality Traffic to and from Mobile Phones Mobile versus Fixed International Traffic and Subscribership by Region, 2000 ..... 75 Percent of Mobile-Originated lnternationa~ Traffic, 1999-2000 ................. 76 Percent of International Traffic to and from Mobiles, 2000 .................... 77 Wholesale Rates to Fixed versus Mobile Telephones, 2001 .................. 78 Estimated Costs of Wholesale Traffic to Fixed and Mobile Destinations, 2000 .... 79 Mobile Subscribers and Mobile-Originated International Traffic for Select Countries, 2000 ............ 80 Roaming Between Denmark and Ireland .81 RPP versus CPP ................... 83 Interconnection Rates for Selected Countries, 2001 ................... 84 Figure 1. ’,Call Quality Metrics from Germany and the U.K., June-August 2001 ........... 86 Traffic Summary Global Traffic Review Figure 1. Figure 2. Figure 3. International Figure 1. Figure 2. Figure S. Figure 4. Figure 5. Figure 6. International Traffic and Main Line Growth .......................... 91 International Traffic, Revenue, and Subscriber Growth .................. 91 Intercontinental Traffic Flows, 1997 and 2000 ................... 92 Traffic by Region Interregional Traffic Flows, 2000 ........ 93 International Traffic by Origin, 2000 ..... 93 Traffic Growth by Region, 1999-2000 .... 93 European Telecommunications Traffic Flows, 2000 ...................... 94 Latin American Telecommunications Traffic Flows, 2000 ................. 95 Asian Telecommunications Traffic Flows, 2000 ........................... 96 International Traffic by Country Figure I. Outgoing International Telephone Traffic Growth for Selected Countries, 1999-2000 ...................... 97 Figure 2. Telephone Traffic Balances for Selected Countries, 2000 ................... 97 Figure 3. International Traffic Indicators, 2000 ..... 98 International Traffic by Route Figure I. Top 50 International Routes, 2000 ..... 100 Figure 2. Traffic Imbalances on Selected U.S. Routes, 2000 .................... 101 Figure 3. Traffic Imbalances on Selected Non-U.S. Routes, 2000 .................... 101 Figure 4. International Outbound Routes with Rapidly Growing Traffic, 1999-2000 ..... 102 Country Traffic Statistics (see page 6 for a list of countries) ............. 104 Reference National Telecommunications Indicators .......... 214 International Telephon~ Traffic ................ 215 International Dialing Codes, by Country .......... 218 World Dialing Codes Map ................... 220 International Dialing Codes, by Number ......... 222 North American Area Codes, by Number ......... 223 North American Area Codes, by Jurisdiction ...... 224 North American Area Codes Map .............. 226 A Primer on Bits ......................... 228 © TELEGEOGRAPHY, INC. 2001 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2002 Algeria .................... 104 Angola ..................... 105 Argentina ................... 106 Armenia .................... 107 Australia ................... 108 Austria .................... 109 Azerbaijan .................. 110 Bahrain .................... 111 Belarus .................... 112 Belgium .................... 113 Benin ...................... 114 Bolivia ..................... 115 Brazil ...................... 116 Brunei ..................... 117 Bulgaria .................... 118 Burundi .................... 119 Canada .................... 120 Chile ...................... 121 China ..................... 122 Colombia ...... ’ ............. 125 Costa Rica .................. 124 Croatia .................... 125 Cyprus .................... 126 Czech Republic ............... 127 Denmark ................... 128 Dominican Republic ............ 129 Ecuador .................... 130 Eg3/pt ...................... 131 Eritrea ..................... 132 Estonia .................... 133 Finland .................... 134 France ..................... 135 Georgia .................... 136 Germany ................... 137 Ghana ..................... 138 Greece .................... 159 Guatemala .................. 140 Hong Kong .................. 141 Hungary ................... 142 India ...................... 143 Indonesia ................... 144 lran ...................... 145 Ireland .................... 146 Israel ..................... 14-/ Italy ...................... 148 Jamaica .................... 149 Japan ..................... 150 Jordan ..................... 151 Kazakhstan ................. 152 Kenya ..................... 153 Korea, Rep .................. 154 Kuwait ..................... 155 Kyrgyzstan .................. 156 Latvia ..................... 15-/ Luxembourg ................. 158 Macau ..................... 159 Macedonia .................. 160 Malaysia ................... 161 Malta ..................... 162 Mauritius ................... 163 Mexico .................... 1 Moldova ................... 165 Morocco ................... 166 Namibia ................... 16-/ Netherlands ................. 168 New Zealand ................ 169 Norway .................... 1 Oman ..................... 1-/1 Pakistan ................... 172 Palestinian Territory ........... 173 Panama .................... 174 Paraguay ................... 175 Peru ...................... 176 Philippines .................. 177 Poland .................... 178 Portugal ................... 179 Qatar ..................... 180 Russia ..................... 181 Rwanda .................... 182 Saudi Arabia ................ 183 Singapore .................. 184 Slovak Republic .............. 185 South Africa ................. 186 Spain ..................... 18-/ Sri Lanka ................... 188 Sudan ..................... 189 Swaziland .................. 190 Sweden .................... 191 Switzerland ................. 192 Syria ...................... 193 Taiwan ..................... 194 Tajikistan ................... 195 Thailand ................... 196 Togo ...................... 197 Trinidad & Tobago ............. 198 Turkey ..................... 199 Turkmenistan ................ 200 Ukraine .................... 201 United Arab Emirates .......... 202 United Kingdom~Outgoing ...... 203 United Kingdom--Incoming ...... 204 United States--Out~oing ........ 205 United States--Incoming ........ 206 Uruguay ................... 207 Uzbekistan ................. 208 Yugoslavia .................. 209 Zimbabwe .................. 210 6 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2002 © TELEGEOGRAPHY, INC. 2001 TeleGeography has been called the "bible" of the worldwide communications industry. At WorldCom, we couldn’t agree more. That’s why we’re proud to sponsor this report once again and to continue our long-standing support of the TeleGeography series. Despite the challenges that our industry has experienced in recent years, global com- munications continues to be one of the world’s most dynamic, high-growth, and fast- changing industries. Profound changes have transformed the industry for many decades, but the pace of change accelerated in the 1990s. For example, the 1993 TeleGeograph~t report counted only 13 competitive markets in the world. Today there are more than 40 and counting. AJso in 1993, only 19 international carriers operated in the United States. Now there are over 1,500. Worldwide, the number of competi- tive carriers has mushroomed from a mere 56 in 1993 to more than 4,000 this year. And the 43 billion minutes of international traffic recorded in 1993 surged to over 130 billion minutes in 2000. Needless to say, tracking this ever-expanding and rapidly shifting marketplace has become more challenging with each passing year. Indeed, the telecommunications and Internet segments of the industry have each grown so much and become so com- plex that a single report no longer suffices. So for the first time, TeleGeography is publishing separate reports for these two important segments. In this report, you’ll find market shares of the telecom industry’s major carriers, inter- national traffic analyses and summaries, and route-by-route PSTN traffic volumes for over 100 countries and 2,000 routes. You’ll also find charts highlighting the 40 largest international carriers and the world’s leading Voice-over-IP providers. Notably, the mobile telephony and pricing sections in this year’s report have been significantly expanded. The mobile telephony section, for instance, includes authorita- tive data on how mobile subscriber growth and roaming impact international telecom traffic flows. In addition, this report continues to provide you with updated informa- tion on the impact of deregulation and privatization on retail and wholesale pricing worldwide. On behalf of WorldCom, 1 am pleased to present to you TeleGeography 2002--the most complete, reliable, and authoritative resource for analyzing and understanding our ever-changing industry. Bob Lacy Vice President WorldCom International Expansion Support © TELEGEOGRAPHY, INC. 2001 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2002 We wish to thank the numerous carriers, government departments, regula- tors, and international organizations from around the world who responded to our requests for information. This report would not exist without the help of the dedicated people at these organizations who took the time to ensure that the data reported here are as current and accurate as possible. We also owe a debt of gratitude to the Band-X switched minutes trading team, whose industry expertise and historical pricing statistics contributed substantially to the depth and accuracy of this report. We would also like to thank the many people who generously contributed their time and expertise to our research efforts, and those who helped to review early and final drafts of this book. They include: Brain Dov Abramson, Linda Blake, Teddy Chu, Simon Dodsworth, Eric Hill, Cathy Hsu, Tim Kelly, Jessica Marantz, Bill Marmon, Michael Minges, Paul Newnes, Alexandra Rehak, Rebecca Rohtbart, Rob Schult, Ewan Sutherland, Heather Tinsley, and Monica Wells. TeleGeographu 2002 was supported, in part, by a publication grant from WorldCom, Inc. As in the past, however, this grant was made without any precondition; TeleGeography, Inc. is solely responsible for the report’s editorial contents. The Editors 8 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2002 © TELEGEOGRAPHY, IN(;. 2001 10 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2002 © TELEGEOGRAPHY, INC, 2001 "The half-dozen new international carriers which will cut their teeth in the early 1990s...may have a harder time of it than the first generation." --TeleGeographg 199,5 For more than a decade, the annual series of TeleGeography reports has documented the trends and key issues shaping the international telephony market. While the report’s focus has always been on benchmarking rather than forecasting the state of the industry, there’s no question that the above projection, written eight years ago, was accurate--albeit somewhat understated. The past year and a half have marked a watershed for the industry. After a decade- long boom, capital markets and the telecom industry as a whole have gone sour, and many international carriers have fallen out of favor with investors. For all of the tur- moil, however, closer inspection reveals a number of positive industry trends. Traffic Growth International voice traffic grew by over 21 percent to 132.7 billion minutes in 2000-- solid growth for an industry that’s over a hundred years old (see Figure I. International Traffic and Main Line Growth). With the exceptions of Eastern Europe and Africa, each region of the world reported double-digit traffic growth. The continuing rise in inter- national traffic has been propelled by two broader trends: the liberalization of inter- 3,500 3,000 2,500 2,000 1,500 1,000 500 0 ¯ Fixed mainlines ¯ Cellular subscribers International call minutes 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 2003 2004 Note: Data include outbound international traffic on public networks only. Projections assume t5% traffic growth, 5% main line growth, and 30% mobile subscriber growth annually. Source: TeleGeography research and ITU © TeleGeography, Inc 200t © TELEGEOGRAPHY, INC 2001 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2002 11 45.0 40.0 35.0 ._~ E_ 30.0 -~ 25.0 ~̄ 20.0 "F 15.0 10.0 z 5.0 = 0.03% 0.08% 0.31% 0.0 1990 1991 1992 2% Global Market Share of New Carriers 7% 5% 16% 9% 24% 31% 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 Notes: New carrier traffic includes only carriers that began facilities-besed operations after t989. Source: TeleGeograpt~y research ©TeleGeography, lnc 2001 national telecom markets (leading to greater competition) and the growth of mobile telephony. Traffic growth in competitive telecom markets has consistently outpaced growth in countries that have not liberalized their telecom markets. Carriers While several prominent international carriers have permanently shut their doors in recent years, more companies entered the international long-distance market than left it in 2000. Worldwide, the number of licensed international carriers grew by more than 40 percent to just over 4,000. The market share of new carriers--the generation of companies founded in the 1990s to compete with incumbent telcos--continued on its steadily upward trend, increasing to 31 percent of global minutes in 2000 (see Figure 2. Charge of the Challengers). Moreover, for the first time ever, a non- incumbent carrier took the top spot in TeleGeography’s annual ranking of international carriers (see Figure 3. Top 10 International Carriers). With 12.4 billion minutes of U.S.- originated traffic and an aggregated total of more than 16 billion minutes of interna- tional traffic worldwide, WorldCom has emerged as the largest carrier in the U.S. and the world. Pricing While carriers’ fierce price competition has cut into their gross revenues, a more detailed analysis of pricing data reveals that they have also been able to reduce their costs substantially. Plummeting international bandwidth costs and sharp decreases in both settlement rates and interconnection charges have enabled many carriers to send traffic at lower-than-ever-costs. For example, U.S. carriers’ per-minute settlement 12 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2002 © TELEGEOGRAPHY, INC. 2001 EXECUTIV£ Outgoing Traffic (millions of minutes) Rank Carrier Country 2000 1999 Change 1999-2000 1. WorldCom U.S. 12,399.5 8,294.9 49.5% 2. AT&T U.S. 9,680.1 10,816.5 -10.5% 3. BT U.K. 4,559.3 4,029.1 13.2% 4. Deutsche Telekom Germany 4,525.0 4,385.0 3.2% 5. France T~l~com France 4,393.0 4,390.0 0.1% 6. Sprint U.S. 3,922.8 3,714.4 5.6% 7. Cable & Wireless U.K. 3,487.6 2,528.9 37.9% 8. Telecom Italia Italy 2,706.0 2,390.0 13.2% 9. China Telecom China 2,050.0 1,950.0 5.1% 10. Swisscom Switzerland 2,050.0 2,259.0 -9.3% Note: Traffic figures are for outgoing traffic from each~ carder’s home market only. Source: TeleGeography research ,©T’~leGeography. |~c 2001 outpayments in 2000 were almost 50 percent lower than in 1997. While average costs have trace~i a steady downwards path, the cost of sending traffic on individual routes can vary unpredictably--in particular, carriers’ costs of sending calls to mobile phones and to developing countries fluctuate wildly. Voice-over-IP International Voice-over-IP (VolP} traffic has continued to grow at a blistering pace, increasing from 1.6 billion minutes in 1999 to 5.3 bilfion in 2000. While most of this traffic is carried by specialist VolP carriers, such as iBasis and ITXC, many minutes are originated by traditional PS3~I operators who have chosen to outsource some of their international traffic to VolP operators. On the basis of trends in the first half of 2001, international VolP traffic is likely to reach 10 billion minutes in the current year, equiv- alent to six percent of the world’s projected traffic in 2001. Mobile Telephony The impact of the mobile telephony boom on the international long-distance market cannot be overstated. Mobile phones generated approximately 20 percent of interna- tional call volumes in regions as diverse as Europe, Asia, and Africa. While some of this traffic is simply a replacement for calls from fixed-line phones, much of it is gen- uinely new traffic driven by international mobile roaming. Unfortunately, mobile telephony has also had a tremendous impact on carriers’ costs. Mobile termination charges in many countries, particularly in Europe, are as much as sixteen times higher than the cost of termination to fixed-line phones. In Italy, for example, mobile phones account for approximately 35 percent of inbound international traffic but an astonishing 85 percent of call termination charges paid by carriers. © TELEGEOGRAPHY, INC. 2001 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2002 13 Indicator 1990 1995 2000 International Traffic (billions of minutes) 33.5 61.6 132.7 Revenues from International Traffic (billions of US$) $37 $55 $70 Countries Permitting Carrier Competition 6 18 49 Top 20 Carriers’ Share of World Traffic 86% 72% 50% Market Share of New Carriers 1% 5% 31% Countries Permitting International Simple Resale (ISR) 0 2 35 Note.* New carrier~ include only car~’iers that began facilities-based opera~i~ after 1889, Source: TeleGeography research © TeteGeographyo lnc 2001 Conclusion The international telecom industry has changed dramatically since TeleGeography first launched its self-titled research series more than a decade ago. In 1990, international call volumes reached approximately 33.5 billion minutes, six countries allowed inter- national services competition, and none permitted international carriers to intercon- nect directly with domestic carriers. Ten years later, traffic has more than quadrupled, nearly 50 countries allowed at least limited international services competition, and 35 countries permitted international carriers to interconnect directly with domestic phone companies (see Figure 4. Ten Years of Change). The tremendous growth and increasing diversity of the telecom industry have com- pelled TeleGeography to change the way we research the industry and present our find- ings. Previous editions of the TeleGeograph~j report dealt not only with international telephony but also with international bandwidth and cross-border Internet connectiv- ity. The scale and complexity of each of these industries, however, has grown to the point where they cannot be covered adequately in a single report. In the spring of 2001, TeleGeography released International Bandwidth 2001 (http://www.internation- albandwidth.com), an in-depth analysis of international fiber optic and satellite net- works. In September 2001, TeleGeography published the new Packet Geography 2002 (http://www.packetgeography.com) report, the first in-depth statistical guide to international Internet infrastructure. By dedicating a full report to each of these topics, TeleGeography has been able to pro- vide greater depth of information than ever before. With more detailed and extensive data on telecom costs and pricing, international mobile telephony, and the burgeoning VolP sector, TeleGeograph~j 2002 is our most exhaustive report ever on international telephony. As always, we welcome your questions, comments, and criticisms to help improve future editions. Please send your correspondence to the coordinates listed on the title page of this book. ~i~ 1 4 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2002 © TELEGEOGRAPHY, INC. 2001 [] 16 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2002 © TELEGEOGRAPHY, INC, 2001 Slower Growth in Competition As of July 2001, more than zho00 companies worldwide were authorized to build facil- ities to offer international telephone service. Four years before, there were less than 600 [see Figure 1. Global Growth of International Carriers, July 1996-July 2001). But the rate of growth has slowed to z,2 percent in 2001 from an average of 57 percent between 1996 and 2000. To most observers, this will come as no surprise. Access to start-up capital has become increasingly scarce over the last 12 months, and many existing carriers have fallen out of favor with investors. In fact, five of the top ten U.S. international carriers went out of business in 2000. One might assume that closing the door to capital would further impede new entrants, but this isn’t the whole story. Many new carriers do not own extensive submarine cable capacity and switching assets, so their start-up costs can be minimal. Furthermore, bankruptcy-induced network fire sales are making it cheaper than ever to buy a net- work. Also, there are still many markets that have only recently opened to competi- tion (e.g., Argentina, Singapore, Taiwan), and others that are about to explode (e.g., 4500 4000 3500 3000 2500’ 2000 1500 1000 471 500 1996 587 1041 1741 2844 4O3O 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 Notes: Rgures include all carriers authorized to provide international facilities-based service or international simple resale Source: TeleGeography research ©TeleBeography, Inc. 2001 © TELEGEOGRAPHY, INC. 2001 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2002 17 Americas Europe Asia-Pacific Africa [] July 2001 [] July 2000 July 1999 July 1998 =~ July 1997 _~ July 1996 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 International Carriers Notes; Figures include all carriers authorized to provide intemationet facit’rties-besed service or {ntemationa! simple resale (ISR), Source: Te]eGeography research © TeleGeogrephy, inc, 2001 Brazil, China, India). So, althoul~h stock markets continue to be inhospitable hosts for international carriers, we expect the growth of competition to remain steady for the cominl~ year. The New Breed of Virtual Carrier In total, the facilities-based carriers which started business since 1989 now carry 31% of the world’s international telephone traffic (see the "Overview of International Traffic Trends" in the Traffic Analysis section below). The relationship between the network builders and the swarm of "virtual" carriers--which repackal~e the facilities and serv- ices of network builders--is one of symbiosis. New market entrants, while they represent a competitive threat, can also be the incumbent’s best customers. And, in some cases, new specialist wholesale carriers are servinl~ up their facilities in the other direction--to established carriers that are encumbered by marketinl~ expenses and bureaucratic processes. Both facilities-based and virtual carriers alike are always on the hunt for new ways to cut prices without shrinkinl~ profit marl~ins. The latest development in alternative traf- fic routin8 is creatin8 a new kind of packet-switched symbiosis. Once the network builders determine how to send commercial l~rade traffic on IP networks reliably and how to devise a way to settle accounts properly, the ranks of international carriers will swell even more rapidly. Indeed, IP connectivity may lead to unresulated international carriers on vir~ually every street corner, in every corner of the world. ~i~ 1 8 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2002 © TELEGEOGRAPHY, INC. 2001 Number of Authorized International Carriers Rank Country July 2001 July 2000 July 1999 July 1998 July 1997 July 1996 1. United States 1,600 1,100 679 393 175 115 2. United Kingdom 410 306 215 144 100 65 3. Hong Kong 225 150 80 4 1 1 4. Japan 185 115 50 13 3 3 5. Canada 130 75 49 21 21 19 6. Germany 130 90 40 32 1 1 7. France 125 89 50 29 1 1 8. Italy 125 90 15 9 I 1 9. Netherlands 85 60 30 23 3 1 10. Singapore 85 40 11. Switzerland 70 50 40 21 1 1 12. Australia 59 40 28 14 10 8 13. Norway 57 35 14 7 1 1 14. Austria 54 40 17 13 1 1 15. Ireland 53 40 25 5 3 3 16. Denmark 52 45 18 11 9 7 17. Spain 52 30 16 9 1 1 18. Korea, Rep. 50 40 24 3 2 2 19. Sweden 40 26 16 13 11 9 20. Finland 36 20 8 8 8 8 21. Russia* 30 30 30 1 1 1 22. Belgium 28 21 18 11 1 1 23. Peru 28 22 18 1 1 1 24. New Zealand 27 21 19 11 9 9 25. Portugal 21 15 1 1 1 1 26. Mexico 19 16 16 15 9 1 27. Luxembourg 15 10 4 1 1 1 28. Iceland 14 8 3 1 1 1 29. Philippines 12 12 12 12 9 9 30. Chile 11 10 10 9 9 9 31. El Salvador 10 10 10 10 1 1 32. Guatemala 9 2 2 1 1 1 33. Argentina 8 4 2 1 1 1 34. Malaysia 5 5 5 5 5 5 35. Taiwan 4 4 1 1 1 1 36. Colombia 3 3 3 3 1 1 37. Dominican Republic 3 3 3 3 3 3 38. Ecuador 3 3 3 3 3 1 39. Israel 3 3 3 3 3 1 40. Kazakhstan 3 3 3 3 1 1 41. Bermuda 2 2 2 2 2 2 42. Brazil 2 2 2 1 1 1 43. Brunei 2 2 2 2 2 2 44. China 2 2 2 2 2 2 45. Dominica 2 2 2 1 1 1 46. Georgia 2 2 2 1 1 1 47. Indonesia 2 2 2 2 2 2 48. Nepal 2 2 1 1 1 1 49. Ukraine* 2 2 2 2 2 2 50. Greece 2 1 1 1 1 1 Estimates include Russian and Ukrainian carriers authorized to provzde service only in certain munictpalities, Notes; Rgures include all carriers licensed to provide facilities-based international service or International Simple Resale as of July 1 for each*/ear, : Source; TeleGeography research © TelaGeography~ Inc 200t © TELEGEOGRAPHY, INC. 2001 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2002 Percentage of Outgoing Minutes Country/Carrier 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2980 Argentina Telef6nica Larga Distancia de Argentina 54.5 Telecom International 45.5 Australia Telstra 100.0 98.0 87.0 76.3 73.4 62.0 55.0 49.0 49.5 38.9 Optus 2.0 13.0 21.9 23.4 27.0 26.0 22.0 21.9 21.7 Primus 3.0 4.0 5.0 13.2 AAPT 11.0 13.4 13.6 12.7 WorldCom 6.0 Teleglobe 4.4 4.4 5.4 Others 1.8 3.2 11.0 5.0 7.2 5.6 2.1 Austria Telekom Austria 100.0 95.0 65.3 48.0 UTA Telekom 1.5 6.1 12.7 Cable & Wireless 5.7 9.8 Tele2 5.0 6.7 Others 3.5 14.0 22.9 Belgium Belgacom 100.0 87.0 81.0 69.6 WorldCom 9.8 Others 13.0 19.0 20.5 Brazil EMBRATEr, 100.0 90.7 Intelig 9.3 Canada* Bell Canada 27.0 26.0 AT&T Canada 1.0 5.0 8.0 9.0 10.0 14.0 19.0 21.0 Sprint Canada 15.0 21.0 17.0 18.0 19.0 14.0 Teleglobe 29.0 30.0 30.0 31.0 29.0 33.0 30.0 23.0 26.0 24.0 17.0 16.0 Telus 6.0 8.0 Primus 9.0 9.0 Stentor 71.0 70.0 70.0 69.0 66.0 54.0 44.0 44.0 41.0 40.0 Others 4.0 8.0 3.0 3.0 6.0 4.0 3.0 6.0 Chile* CTC Mundo 1.0 17.5 31.2 31.0 31.5 33.0 35.0 33.0 31.7 ENTEL Chile 100.0 80.0 57.5 40.0 40.6 37.3 33.0 31.0 31.0 29.2 Chile Sat 20.0 25.0 19.7 19.4 15.2 17.0 13.0 15.0 16.5 BellSouth Chile 6.6 6.8 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.4 12.5 TransAm i.0 2.8 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.2 FirstCom Long Distance 1.2 1.0 2.8 3.0 5.0 2.7 1.9 Others 1,0 1.0 1.0 3.0 5.0 5.0 Colombia Telecom Colombia 100.0 88.0 57.9 50.8 0rbitel 7.0 18.2 22.2 ETB 5.0 15.9 18.3 Others 8.0 8.7 Notes: Data based an o~tgoing international traffic for the public sWitched network and International Simple Resale ([SR) covering the full calendar or fiscal year. Some dat~ aggregated in "others" rows include market shares for ca~ers shown individually in lateryears. Market shares may not total to 100 percent due to rounding. *Canada: The Stentor alliance, which was dissolved in 1999,included Be!]~ Canada, Talus, MTS, SaskTell, and Aliant. BCE, the parent company Of Bell Canada, announced the purchase of Teleglebe in February 2000. Until Oetot~er 1998,Teleglobe held a monopoly on all non-U.S, routes. Sprint Canada marketshares include Fonorola, which merged w~ Sprint Canada in 1998. AT&T market shares include ACC traffic prior to 1999 merger. Primus acquired the consumer division of AT&T~Canada in May t999. *Chile; CTC Mundo/Globus marketsharas prior to t998 merger aggregate CTC Mundo and Globus (formerly VTR) traffic. Source: TeleGeograp~y research © TeleGeagraphy, Inc 2001 20 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2002 © TELEGEOGRAPHY, INC. 2001 Country/Carrier Denmark Teie Danmark Tele2 Telia Interoute Equant Others Dominican Republic CODETEL Tricom AACR Finland* Sonera Finnet International Son9 Networks RSL Corn Others France France Telecom Cegetel Sifts Teleglobe WorldCom Cable’& Wireless Others Germany Deutsche Telekom WorldCom Pdmus COLT Viag Interkom Cable & Wireless Teleglobe Arcor Telia Others Hong Kong PCCW Hong Kong Telecom New World Telephone New T&T Hong Kong WorldCom Teleglobe Others ledonesia PT Indosat PT Satelindo Irelaed Eircom WorldCom Esat Telecommunications Teleglobe Dthers Israel Bezeq Barak ITC Golden Lines Others Percentage of Outgoing Minutes 1989 1980 1981 1992 1983 1994 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 2000 100.0 92.5 84.4 67.5 55.3 47,2 4.0 6.6 12.4 13.2 13,3 3.5 6.3 9.9 10.7 9.1 3.7 8,1 6.6 7.9 2.7 10.3 10.5 14.6 100.0 90.0 100.0 85.8 83.0 77.0 73.8 72.2 78.1 77.4 6.7 7.5 12.8 12.9 15.5 14.2 15.5 7.5 9.5 10.2 13.3 12.3 7.7 7.1 90.0 72.8 66.0 58.9 54.7 54.0 49.3 5.0 19.1 24.2 28.2 28.0 25.7 26.9 3.0 7.7 8.8 9.3 12.0 8.6 8.5 5.6 6.4 2.0 0.4 0.9 3.5 5.2 6.0 8.8 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 93.0 85.0 67.6 1.9 8.4 13.3 4.8 3.6 4.4 4.6 4.0 3.1 1.0 2.2 2.8 80.3 58.0 ~.3 1.8 6.4 10.1 3.7 5.9 3.3 5.2 1.4 3.0 4.7 2.6 4.1 1.8 2.1 3.5 1.0 1.8 2.9 1.4 2.1 13.7 17.7 14.1 9O.O 61.3 55.3 2.0 14.3 14.6 2.0 12.0 13.0 5.8 5.1 5.4 6.0 7.3 5.9 99.5 95.4 88.5 84.8 88.3 86.5 89.2 0.5 4.6 11.5 15.2 11.7 13.5 10.8 91,0 78.0 73,8 75,0 3.0 3.0 6.5 10.6 5.0 8.0 9.9 8.3 2.0 2.1 1.0 11.0 7.8 4.0 100,0 100.0 72.5 51.4 45.9 42.5 15.0 24.8 30.0 26.9 12.5 23.7 24.1 22.3 8.3 Notes: See page 20. *Finland: Song Networks acquired Telia’s fixed-line business in Finland in June 200]. Source: TeleGeography research © TeleGeography, Inc 2001 © TELEGEOGRAPHY, INC. 2001 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2002 21 Country/Carrier Italy* Telecom Italia Infostrada/Wind Albacore Cable & Wireless Teleglobe Others Japan* KDDI C&W IDC N’IF Communications Corp. Japan Telecom WorldCom Teleglobe Others Korea, Rep, Korea Telecom DACOM Corporation Onse Telecom othe rs Malaysia Telekom Malaysia Maxis Communications Celcom TIME Telekom Digi Telecommunications Others Mexico Telmex Alestra Avantel Teleglobe Others Netherlands P’l[ Telecom Netherlands (KPN) Telfort WofldCom Primus Cable & Wireless Teleglobe Others Norway Telenor Tele2 Facilicom Enitel Others Philippines* PLDT Globe Telecom Digitel Eastern Telecommunications Bayan Tel Capitol Wireless Philippine Global Communications Islacom Others Percentage of Outgoing Minutes 1989 1990 1991 1982 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2980 100.0 88.6 80.9 65.4 4.5 8.3 10.9 1.0 1.3 8.0 6.1 3.8 3.5 5.5 2.O 5.9 4,2 93.3 88.0 73.3 69.7 66.9 66.3 66.2 63.9 62.7 58.0 51.1 36.9 3.7 6.5 13.3 15.3 16.9 17.3 17.3 18.7 18.4 18.2 17.5 19.3 1.2 17.5 3.0 5.5 13.4 15.0 16.2 16.4 16.5 17.5 19.0 18.3 17.4 14.1 4.9 7.8 3.2 2.8 5.5 4.7 1.6 100.0 79.9 74.5 68.7 72.6 73.5 69.0 66.6 59.5 51.9 20.1 25.5 31.3 27.4 26.5 27.0 21.9 24.7 23.6 4.0 11.5 15.8 15.3 9.2 100.0 90.0 80.0 77.0 58.5 57.3 7.6 11.2 14.9 8.0 11.0 10.0 14.5 8.4 5.0 8.7 8.3 7.2 5.1 2.0 9.0 1.0 1.0 6.0 100.0 83.0 78.0 68.0 62.8 8.5 10.5 16.0 18.6 7.5 8.5 10.0 11.9 2.0 1.9 1.0 3.0 4.0 4.8 100.0 95.0 84.9 68.3 57.8 16,8 19.4 5.4 10.8 3.5 2.2 1.4 2.1 5.0 15.1 8.1 4.2 100.0 93.5 73.0 71.8 7.0 7.0 6.0 6.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 1.5 9.0 10.2 100.0 91.6 84.2 69.0 68.0 79.0 73.0 69.0 59.2 62.1 2.0 7.0 8.6 17.6 14.6 2.0 3.0 4.3 5.8 6.0 7.0 6.0 5.0 7.0 6.4 4.0 5.6 1.0 4.0 5.0 5.7 5.5 5.5 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 3.5 4.6 3.7 8.4 15.8 23.0 23.0 6.0 3.0 1.1 1.8 1.5 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.4 1.1 1.0 3.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Notes: See page 20. ¯ *Italy: Wind and Infostrada were merged in 2001, ¯ *Japen: Japan Telecom marketshares include ITJ priorto 1997 merger, *Philippines: PLDT market shares include Smart Communications traffic prior to 1999 acquisition. Source: TeleGeog~’aphy research © TeleGeegraphy, Inc 2001 22 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2002 © TELEGEOGRAPHY, INC. 2001 Country/Carrier Portugal Companhia Portuguesa Radio Marconi Cable & Wireless Maxitel Jazztel Others Spain Telef6nica Cable & Wireless Retevisi6n Teleglobe Lince Others Sweden Telia Tele2 WorldCom RSL Corn Telenordia World Access Teleglobe Others Switzerland* Swiss’corn Sunrise WorldCom Cable & Wireless Others Taiwan Chunghwa Telecom Others United Kingdom* Percentage of Outgoing Minutes 1889 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 100.0 ~.3 8.6 4.2 2.0 1.9 100.0 90.5 86.0 77.2 4.1 4.5 6.9 3.9 2.0 3.1 2.3 2.3 5.0 2.8 9.3 100,0 92.0 87.0 76.0 69.0 66.0 62.0 53.0 50.1 8.0 13.0 21.0 22.0 22.0 24.0 18.0 13.7 4.0 13.0 8.0 6.1 7.0 4.6 4.0 3.4 2.O 2.8 3.0 9.0 12.0 14.0 4.0 6.3 100.0 93.5 82.7 64.2 3.7 11.8 22.0 6.4 4.6 2.8 5.5 2.8 100.0 91.2 8.8 BT Cable & Wireless WorldCom Teleglobe Energis Carrier Services Primus Telia Others United States* WorldCom AT&T Corp. Sprint World Access Teleglobe USA Viatel Primus Star Tele communications Startec Global Communications RSL Communications oth e rs 91.0 86.0 81.0 76.8 74.2 68.6 67.7 60.0 54.9 51.6 39.7 39.4 9.0 14.0 19.0 23.2 24.0 28.1 25.8 26.8 30.3 32.2 31.3 30.2 6.6 5.1 5.1 10.0 11.8 4.2 4.8 5.6 4.5 3.5 2.1 1.8 3.3 6.5 6.6 9.7 6.9 14.2 7.1 10.2 14.6 17.8 21.2 25.4 28.6 32.0 32.9 31.2 28.8 28.0 ~.0 83.3 78.4 74.8 70.3 62.2 60.1 54.3 50.2 ~.7 39.6 36.5 25.7 5.8 6.4 6.3 7.3 10.3 11.1 11.3 13.2 12.0 11.7 12.5 10.4 2.9 5.1 3.9 4.8 1.3 3.3 4.8 4.0 0.3 0.8 3.0 3.0 0.3 0.5 2.9 2.9 0.5 1.8 2.7 2.6 0.1 0.7 1.1 0.9 1.3 1.0 0.7 0.7 1.1 1.2 2.1 0.2 2.4 3.7 6.8 7.4 3.3 11.5 Notes: See page 20. Switzerland: Sunrise shares include diAx Paffic prior to November;2000 merger. United Kingdom: Figures for Cable &Wireless reflect data for Mercury prior to its April 1997 merger with Bell Cablemediao Videotron, and NYNEX CableComms. WorldxChange marketshamsinclude ACC Long Distance priorto 1999 acquisition, United States: Marketshares for U.S. carriers prior to t993 exclude traffic to Canada and Mexico. WoridCom market shares prior to 1998 merger aggregate MCI and WorldCom traffic. World Access market shares include Faciticom traffic prior to t999 merger. Source: TeleGeography research © TeleGeography, Inc 2001 © TELEGEOGRAPHY, INC. 2001 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2002 23 Outgoing Traffic 2000 Revenue (millions of minutes) (US$ billions) Rank Company Origin Country 2000 1999 Change "99-’00 Total lut’l Service 1. Wor]dCom United States 12,399.5 8,294.9 49.5% 39.1 6.8 2. AT&T Corp. United States 9,680.1 10,816.5 -10.5% 66.0 5.4 3. aT* United Kingdom 4,559.3 4,029.1 13.2% 45.0 n.a. 4. Deutsche Telekom Germany 4,525.0 4,385.0 3.2% 37.9 0.8 5. France T~l~com France 4,393.0 4,390.0 0.1% 31.1 1.1 6. Sprint United States 3,922.8 3,714.4 5.6% 23.6 1.2 7. Cable & Wireless* United Kingdom 3,487.6 2,528.9 37.9% 6.0 n.a. 8. Telecom Italia Italy 2,706.0 2,390.0 13.2% 26.0 3.7 9. China Te~ecom China 2,050.0 1,950.0 5.1% 20.8 n.a. 10. Swisscom Switzerland 2,050.0 2,259.0 -9.3% 8.4 0.2 11. Telef6nica Spain 1,985.0 1,665.0 19.2% 26.4 4.2 12. Bell Canada Canada 1,900.0 1,600.0 18.8% 15.8 n.a. 13. PCCW Hong Kong Telecom* Hong Kong 1,701.6 1,668.3 2.0% 0.9 0.7 14. PT~ Telecom (KPN) Netherlands 1,636.0 1,625.0 0.7% 12.5 1.4 15. AT&T Canada Canada 1,524.8 1,113.0 37.0% 1.0 n.a. 16. Teleglobe U.S. United States 1,517.7 1,430.0 6.1% 2.3 n.a. 17. WorldCom U.K. United Kingdom 1,447.3 1,015.0 42.6% 39.1 n.a. 18. Sprint C’~nada Canada 1,445.0 1,130.0 27.9% 1.3 n.a. 19. Singapore Telecom* Singapore 1,440.0 1,350.0 6.7% 2.9 0.7 20. Belgacom Belgium 1,277.6 1,288.0 -0.8% 4.8 0.5 21. Saudi Telecom Saudi Arabia 1,194.9 1,060.0 12.7% n.a. n.a. 22. Telmex Mexico 1,183.1 1,063.1 11.3% 10.8 1.2 23. Teleglobe Canada Canada 1,180.9 1,130.0 4.5% 2.3 n.a. 24. Etzsalat United Arab Emirates 1,123.6 963.0 16.7% n.a. n.a. 25. Primus United States 1,082.5 868.5 24.6% 1.2 n.a. 26. Chunghwa Telecom Taiwan 1,058.4 949.3 11.5% 8.9 n.a. 27. Telstra* Australia 1,030.0 1,046.0 -1.5% 13.5 0.5 28. WorldCom Germany Germany 964.7 485.0 99.0% 39.1 n.a. 29. KDDI Japan 950.0 1,000.0 -5.0% 10.7 n.a. 30. Rostelecom Russia 944.0 928.2 1.7% 0.6 0.3 31. Eircom* Ireland 936.9 749.1 25.1% 2.0 n.a. 32. Cegetel France 867.2 435.0 99.0% 4.8 n.a. 33. Telia Sweden 822.0 725.0 13.4% 5.9 n.a. 34. 0TE Greece 793.2 725.7 9.3% 3.3 0.4 35. T0rk Telekom~nikasyon Turkey 731.8 698.4 4.8% n.a. n.a. 36. Telekom Austria Austria 724.0 852.5 -15.1% 3.6 n.a. 37. Sunrise Switzerland 702.0 320.0 119.0% 0.1 n.a. 38. Teleglobe U.K. United Kingdom 682.8 486.1 40.5% 2.3 n.a. 39. Telekomunikacja Polska Poland 675.8 624.0 8.3% 3.8 n.a. 40. Telecom New Zealand* New Zealand 651.0 590.6 10.2% 2.6 0.2 Notes: Traffic figures are for public switched telephone network (PSTN) circuits and |ntemationa] Simple Resale only (service resale is excluded). Carrier rank- ings based on originating countw minutes only, when based on the aggregated traffic of al! subsidiaries, the top multinational carriers include: Concert (AT&T/aT), WoddCom, Csble & Wireless, Teleglobe, and Primus. International service revenues generally reflect net of PSTN service revenues after adding or subtracting for seffiement payments but may also include some private line revenue. All revenue figures~converted from origina! currency at conversion rate currentte year end reported. Data are for the fiscat year ending March 31,2001. Telstra’s and Telecom New Zealand’s fiscal year ends June 30, 200t. Source: TeleGeography research, FCC, and company reports. © TeleGeography, Inc 2001 24 TE[~EGEOGRAPHY 2002 © TELEGEOGRAPHY, INC. 2001 18.0 15.0 12.0 9.0- 6.0 3.0 16.8 Outgoing International Traffic, 2000 14.3 6.7 Traffic Outside Home Countn/ i mTraffic from Home Countn/ 6.1 6.1 2.8 WorldCom ConcerL Primus Teleglobe Cable & Wireless Telia Note: Figures represent total outbound international traffic, including some refile and transit traffic, Concert has two "home" countries, the U.& an8 U.K,; approximately 32 percent of Concert traffic is from the U.K. Cable & Wireless figgres inelede Cable &Wireless’ European, Caribbean, and U.S. operations, as welt aS C&W |DC, ; ~; Source: Tele,Geegraphy research ;" ©TeleGeegraphy, Ino 200t Carrier Share of Outgoing Traffic, 1990-2000 35.0 30.0 o 25.0 20.0 15.0 ._~ g lO.O 5.0 ¯ Others Sprint [;;; WorldCom m AT&T 0.0 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 Notes: Traffic figures are for public switched network circuits based on billing point of call, net originating point. International Simple Resale tlSR) isincluded ~n facilities-based totals. Source: TeleGeography research and FCC carrier filings © TeleGeography, Inc 2001 © TELEGEOGRAPHY, INC. 2001 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2002 25 U.$o C rri÷r Each year, the U.S. Federal Communications Commission (FCC) releases aggregate cir- cuit usage statistics based on reports filed by the three largest U.S. facilities-based car- riers (AT&T, WorldCom, and Sprint). Although the rapid entry of new carriers reduces the relative importance of the top three carriers each year, the statistics are still use- ful for baseline comparisons along two axes. First, the data illuminates year-to-year growth trends in overall cable connectivity. Second, the statistics break down how much capacity is used for public switched telephone network (PSTN) traffic and inter- national private lines (IPLs), as well as how much capacity is reported "idle" each year. Although private lines can carry voice traffic, the circuit usage statistics provide a rough proxy for determining the balance of voice and data traffic on international net- works connecting to the U.S. Assuming that increased IPL circuit deployment repre- sents increased data traffic flows, the voice/data "crossover"---occurred sometime in 1998. Over the past six years, the PSTN’s share of used capacity dropped from 83 to 22 percent. If the trend continues, public telephone lines may contribute only 14 per- cent of used capacity by next year. 64 Kbps Circuits 2,000,000 1,500,000 1,000,000 500,000 0 1996 Absolute Circuit Usage Relative Circuit Usage 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 1997 1998 1999 2000 o% 1996 [] PSTN ¯ IPL [] Idle 1997 1998 1999 2000 64 Kbps Circuit Usage IPL PSTN Idle Total Available Usage % 19% 91,362 1 40,518 74,762 306,642 75.6% 1997 147,408 170,717 123,751 441,876 72.0% 1998 198,369 177,049 241,052 616,470 60.9 % 1999 436,134 211,569 238,763 886,466 73.1% 2000 903,282 252,077 784,164 1,939,523 59.6% Source: FCC © TeleGeography, Inc 2001 26 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2002 © TELEGEOGRAPHY, INC. 2001 U.S. Carrier 64 Kbps Circuit Usage For Private For Public Switched Total Circuits Idle Total Lines Network In Use Circuits Available Canada 1998 53,302 54,719 108,021 120,961 228,982 1999 97,830 72,970 170,800 108,871 279,671 2000 213,391 75,443 288,834 419,270 708,104 Mexico 1998 24,463 38,301 62,764 4,080 66,844 1999 51,564 50,259 101,823 7,414 109,237 2000 89,754 64~399 154,153 230,957 385,110 Hong Kong 1998 4,685 1,027 5,712 3,623 9,335 1999 7,362 924 8,286 2,065 10,351 2000 9,669 1,412 11,081 1,238 12,319 Japan 1998 11,907 6,098 18,005 26,042 44,047 1999 39,057 6,401 45,458 28,120 73,578 2000 58,696 8,830 67,526 9,528 77,054 Singapore 1998 1,959 608 2,567 1,999 4,566 1999 7,130 638 7,768 973 8,741 2000 7,266 818 8,084 749 8,833 United Kingdom 1998 47,410 11,818 59,228 27,671 86,899 1999 110,009 13,695 123,704 34,100 157,804 2000 306,126 22,711 328,837 60,800 389,637 Circuit Usage and Idle Capacity, 1998-2000 Canada 1999 ~~,~, I 2000 ,!~,~/ I 1998 Mexico 1999 2000 1998 ,~!~ I ilPL Hong Kong 1999 ~i~ I BPSTN [31die 2000 :~ I 1998 Japan 1999 2000 I I I 1998 S~ngapore 1999 2000 1998 ~-~;~t I 1999 :~:;,~:~ z 2000 ~.~ I 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Notes: Data based on year-end FCC circuit status reports filed by AT&T, WeddCom, and Sprint for circuits originating in the continental U,S. as well as Pue~o Rice, Guam, and other U.S. territories. "Idle" circuits are owned by a carrier at year end but not in use. The FCC estimates that 25-30 percent of total submarine cable capaciW landed in the U,S. is controlled by foreign carriers and thus not reported here, Source: FCC © TeleGeography, Inc 2001 © TELEGEOGRAPHY, INC. 2001 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2002 27 U.S. Carrier 64 Kbps Circuit Usage For Private For Public Switched Total Circuits Idle Total Lines Network In Use Circuits Available N. and C. America 1998 78,601 94,952 173,553 126,197 299,750 1999 150,736 125,299 276,035 116,653 392,688 2000 304,714 142,175 446,889 650,754 1,097,643 South America 1998 7,958 7,716 15,674 5,536 21,210 1999 12,301 7,882 20,183 6,670 26,853 2000 28,308 9,172 37,480 7,782 45,262 Caribbean T998 1,439 7,026 8,465 1,977 T0,442 1999 2,192 6,520 8,712 4,068 12,780 2000 2,438 7,636 10,074 3,970 14,044 W. Europe 1998 69,051 34,133 103,184 52,937 156,121 1999 103,767 38,705 202,472 59,880 262,352 2000 381,844 53,027 434,871 97,240 532,111 E. Europe 1998 1,004 4,418 5,422 1,231 6,653 1999 1,162 4,828 5,990 1,330 7,320 2000 1,023 5,319 6,342 1,653 7,995 Middle East 1998 1,920 2,807 4,727 844 5,571 1999 2,749 2,934 5,683 1,085 6,768 2000 2,482 3,253 5,735 860 6,595 Africa 1998 1,080 2,712 3,792 320 4,112 1999 1,104 2,034 3,738 917 4,655 2000 1,048 2,912 3,960 1,120 5,080 Asia 1998 30,563 19,262 49,825 45,915 95,740 1999 80,707 19,932 100,639 46,536 147,175 2000 144,980 24,959 169,939 18,007 187,946 Oceania 1998 6,753 4,023 10,776 6,095 16,871 1999 21,392 2,835 24,227 1,624 25,851 2000 36,421 3,624 40,045 2,778 42,823 Totals 1998 198,369 177,049 375,418 241,052 616,470 1999 486,134 211,569 647,703 238,763 886,466 2000 903,282 252,077 I, 155,359 784,164 1,939,523 Notes: Data based on year-end FCC circuit status reports filed by AT&T, WoddCom, and Sprint for circuits originating in the continental U,S, aswell as Puerto Rico, Guam, and other U.S. territories. "Idle" circuits are owned by a carder atyear end but not in use. The FCC estimatesthat 25-30 percent of total submarine cable capacity landed in the U.S. is controlled by foreign carriers and thus not repot’rod here. Source: FCC ," © TeieGeography, Inc 2001 28 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2002 © TELEGEOGRAPHY, INC. 2001 N. and C. America 1998 1999 2000 Circuit Usage and Idle Capacity, 1998-2000 I I I South America 1998 1999 2000 I I I Carribbean 1998 1999 2000 W. Europe 1998 1999 2000 I I I E. Europe 1998 19991 2000 Middle East Africa 1998 1999 2000 1998 1999 2000 I I I I mlPL [] PSTN []Idle Asia 1998 1999 2000 I I i Oceania Totals 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Notes: Data baaed on year-end FCC circuit status reports filed by AT&T, WortdCom, and Sprint for circuits originating in the continental U.S. as well as Puerto Rice, Guam, and other U.S. territories. "idle" circuits are owned by a carrier atyear end but not in use. The FCC estimates that 25-30 percent of total subma- rine cable capacity landed in the U.S. is controlled by foreign carriers and thus not reported here, Source; FCC © TeieGeography, Inc 2001 © TELEGEOGRAPHY, INC. 2001 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2002 29 30 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2002 © TELEGEOGRAPHY, INC. 2001 32 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2002 © TELEGEOGRAPHY, INC. 2001 For many years now, observers have predicted the "death of distance" for the inter- national telecom service market. According to their theory, both the cost to carriers of sending an international call and the price they hand down to consumers for this service would soon fall to the point that service providers would no longer charge on a per call basis. Instead, like email sent over the Internet, customers would pay a monthly subscription fee and make as many calls as they wished. Carriers would no longer bother with careful tracking of where these calls traveled, or even how many calls were made. Average call prices and costs have indeed drifted predictably--some might say monot- onously~downward (see Figure 1. U.S. Carrier Revenues and Settlement Outpayments, 1980-2000). Yet, just under the calm surface, a number of turbulent currents are shaping the industry. These include the end of "one country, one rate" settlement schemes and price instability on gray market routes. The following analysis explores $2.00 $12 $0.50 Revenue per Minute Total Billed $10 Revenues $8 g 1980 81 82 83 84 85 88 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 2000 Note: Excludes calls to Canada and Mexico. Source: FCC carrier filings and TeleGeography research © TefeGeography, Inc 2001 © TELEGEOGRAPHY, INC. 2001 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2002 33 Total Receipts (US$ millions) Billed Settlement Retained Settlement Net Revenue Outpayment Revenue Inpayment Revenue Average Revenue per Minute (US$/minute) Billed Settlement Retained Sell. Revenue Outpayment Revenue In 1997 AT&T 8,077.0 3,754.5 4,322.6 1,305.4 5,628.0 0.78 0.36 0.42 0.13 MCI & Wor]dCom 4,734.4 2,817.9 1,916.4 817.7 2,734.2 0.65 0.39 0.26 0.11 Sprint 1,455.8 992.3 463.5 341.6 805.1 0.53 0.36 0.17 0.12 Top 3 Total 14,267.2 7,964.7 6,702.5 2,464.7 9,167.3 0.70 0.37 0.33 0.12 2O0O AT&T 5,395,5 1,829.4 3,566,1 511.6 4,077.7 0,56 0.19 0.37 0.11 WorldCom 6,814.9 2,559.8 4,255.1 636.7 4,891.9 0.55 0.21 0.34 0.12 Sprint 1,181.0 594.1 586.9 197.6 784.5 0.30 0.15 0.15 0.10 Top 3 Total 13,391.4 4,983.3 8,408.1 1,345.9 9,754.0 0.52 0.19 0.32 0.11 Change 1997-2000 AT&T -33% -51% -18% -61% -28% -29% -48% -12% -12% WorldCom 44% -9% 122% -22% 79% -16% -47% 30% 4% Sprint -19% -40% 27% -42% -3% -43% -58% -11% -22% Top 3 Total -6% -34% 25% -45% 6% -26% -48% -2% -0% Note: This table breaks down intemstlona| voice service revenue f~r the three largest U.S, international carders. In 2000~ for example, AT&T collected $5.4 billion from customers for U.S. international outgoing calls and paid foreign carriers $t~8 billion to terminate those calls. Thus, the company gained $3.6 billion by carrying U.S. outgoing calls. Because FCC regulations generally entitled each U.S, earrierto terminate in_coming earls based on the percentage of U.S. outgoing traffic it originates, AT&T also collected a slgnific~nt sum ($512 million) on fureign settlement inpaymente, netting $4.1 J~illion on international voice service. Source: FCC carrier filings, and TeteGeography research © TeleGeography, Inc. 2001 why carrier costs are falling, how the interconnect fee system is evolving into a multi- tiered structure, where price instability exists, and why these trends will affect whole- sale and retail customers. Race to the Bottom The international call sector was once the cash cow for national telco monopolies. As governments have dismantled regulatory restrictions and introduced more competition over the last decade, however, telcos have trimmed fat profit margins to the bone. To retain customers, carriers have been forced to lower the prices they charge for international calls. To counter the effects of the resulting revenue erosion, carriers have searched for ways to slash their costs. International carriers in most countries have been engaged in a furious race to determine which would fall faster: their revenues or their costs. For many carriers, the effort at cost control appears to be winning the race at least for now. Bandwidth costs have fallen by a spectacular 50 percent a year in many parts of the world, making it cheaper for carriers to deploy international circuits. Yet bandwidth 34 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2002 © TELEGEOGRAPHY, INC. 2001 Average U.S Outgoing Call Revenue by Region $1.00 ¯ Settlement Payments Retained Revenue Average U.S Outgoing Call Revenue by Country $1.00 ¯ Settlement Payments Retained Revenue $0.75 $0.50 $0.25 $0.00 Note: Data show wholesale prices from the Band-X London switch to fixed and mobiie dialing codes in.European destinations, Ranked from most to least,expensive as of August2001. the fixed destinations inciude Rnland, italy.France, 8etgium. Switzerland. Germany, Spain, Denmark, Netherlands, Ireland, and Sweden. Calls to mebiie phones srefor the same country destinations, ranked as follows from ~e mostta least expensive as of August 2o01: Belgium, Netherlands, Denmark, Germany, Sweden, Spain, Switzerland, trelend, Italy, FinJend, aqd France. Source: BendiX Ltd. ©TeleGeography, Inc, 2001 costs have been in decline for many years and rarely account for more than one percent of international call costs. Far more important to international carriers are settlement payments--the fees they must pay to foreign telcos to send calls to their final destinations. Luckily for carriers generating high international traffic volumes, settlement rates and other interconnect fees are also on the decline. Average prices for the largest three U.S. carriers, for example, fell from $0.70 per minute in 1997 to $0.52 per minute in 2000, but revenue after settlement outpayments to foreign carriers declined by a mere penny--thanks in large part to falling interconnect costs (see Figure 2. U.S. Carrier Revenues for International Voice Service, 1997 and 2000). Despite recent declines, these costs still eat nearly half of call revenues on most routes (see Figure 3. U.S. Carrier International Call Revenue by Destination, 2000). That’s good news for carriers, as it provides plenty of room for further cost cuts. The Demise of "One Country, One Rate" When the international settlement regime ruled, determining interconnection costs was relatively straightforward. A carrier would negotiate a per-minute settlement rate with carriers in each country to which it sent traffic. It did not matter if the call traveled to the most densely wired megalopolis or to the most remote hamlet; with few exceptions, the settlement rate was the same to all destinations within a country. Monopoly own- ership of most network elements within a country allowed for the simple rate structure. © TELEGEOGRAPHY, INC. 2001 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2002 35 $0.30 .~_ $0.25 $0.20 $0.15 $0.10 Largest City te Mobile ¯ Rest of Counto/ Africa Asia Europe L. America Australia & U.S.& & Caribbean N.Zealand Canada Note: Rates are from the Band-X London Switch as of August 200t. Wholesale rates to major cities and mobile destinations jn the U,S. and Canada are not separate from rest-of-country prices. Source: Band-X Ltd. © TeleGeography, Inc. 2001 The twenty-first century telecom market is far more fragmented. Rarely does a single company control all aspects (international calling, domestic long distance, cellular, and local connectivity) of the network. Indeed, many governments now allow foreign carriers to own network elements within their home markets. Thus, a British carrier can build an internationa~ network from London to Frankfurt and add on a domestic link from Frankfurt to Munich. Unless foreign carriers also own the local cell towers or last-mile copper needed to complete a call, they must eventually hand off to some other carrier. Thus, interconnect rates still matter--as traffic changes hands, so do termina- tion payments. The different options international carriers have to terminate their traffic is leading to a three-tiered fee structure for international calls (see Figure 4. Wholesale Rates by Destination Type and Region, 2001). The cheapest among these three tiers are calls to major cities. Large international carriers often have acquired relatively large amounts of capacity linking into their own network Points of Presence (PoPs) in major cities. Aside from network upkeep, the only other significant cost they must incur to complete an international call is a fee for interconnection to the Local Exchange Carrier (LEC). At the middle tier are calls to fixed line telephones outside large city centers. While international carriers may establish PoPs in major cities, they rarely find it cost effec- tive to wire every foreign municipality to their network. To complete calls travelling out- side major cities, carriers must pay a domestic long distance provider a fee on top of the local termination charge. 36 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2002 © TELEGEOGRAPHY, INC. 2001 Calls to Developed Markets £0.30 £0.25 £0.20 ’ £0.15 £0.10 £0.05 k £0.00 Calls to Developing Markets £0.30 £0.25 £0.20 £0.15 £0.05 £0.00 Note: Data show wholesale prices from tile Band-X London sw’rtch. Ranked from mo~ least e~penslv~ asef Oecember 31, 2000, the developed marketsincl~de Japan~ Australia, Switzerland. Canada, the United ~ates, end Germany~ Ranked from mostto least expensive as o.f Decemb~.r 3~. 2000,the developing markets include Egypt, Somalia, Boliwa, Bahrain, ~uwait~ and China. ¯ Source: Band-X Ltd. ©TeleGeogr~phy, Inc. 200t Calls to Fixed Line Telephones £0.20 £0.15 £0.10 £0.05 £0.00 2000 2001 £0.20 Calls to Mobile Telephones £0.05 £0.00 2000 2001 Note: Data showwholesale prices from the Band-X London switch to fixed and mobile dialing cedes in European destinations. Ranked from most to least expensive as of August2001, the fixed destinations include Rnland, ltaly, France, Belgium, Switzerland, Germany, Spain, Denmark, Netherlands, Ireland, and Sweden, Calls to mobile phones are for the same countw destinations, ranked as follows from the most to least expensive as of August2001: Belgium, Netherlands, Denmark, Germany, Sweden, Spain, Switzerland, tretand, Italy, Finland, end France. Source: Band-X Ltd, © TeleGeography, Inc, 200t © TELEGEOGRAPHY, INC. 2001 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2002 37 AT&T $1.50 $1.25 $1.00 $0.75 $0.50 $0.25 $0.00 $0.00 $0.25 $0.50 $0.75 $1.00 $1.25 $1.50 Price per Minute (US$) $1.50 E $1.25 $1.00 $0.75 ¯~ $0.25 LJJ $0"0050.00 $0.25 Primus $0.50 $0.75 $1.00 $1.25 $1.50 Price per Minute (US$) Calls to mobile phones stand at the peak of the new international rate structure. Worldwide mobile subscribership continues to grow at spectacular rates---averaging 51 percent per year for the past five years. To help fund aggressive cellular buildout, mobile operators have levied astonishingly high interconnect fees. In Europe, termina- tion rates to mobiles are sometimes sixteen times higher than fees to fixed networks. International wholesale prices reflect these charges. For example, while carriers charged only 2.2¢ per minute to send wholesale traffic from the Band-X London switch to a fixed line telephone in Italy, they charged 24.2¢ if the call was to a mobile hand- set. One major exception to this trend is in the U.S. market, where mobile intercon- nect fees are comparable to fixed termination rates. (For more on mobile issues, please see "International Traffic from Mobile Phones" on page 75.) Price Instability Although international call prices have largely settled into a three-tiered charge struc- ture, rates on many individual mutes are wildly variable. Price swings to developing markets have proven particularly dramatic (see Figure 5. Call Prices to Developed ver- sus Developing Markets, 2000). The wild peaks and troughs stem from gray market activities in countries where cheap and direct interconnection to local networks is not permitted. In such markets, traditional settlement rates remain the only legal option to terminate calls--and often remain expensive. In an effort to evade settlement charges, some carriers have bypassed the international gateway operator by disguis- ing incoming international calls as local traffic. (For more on illicit bypass and how it works, see "Illicit Bypass" on page 65.) Over time, local authorities spot these gray market links and shut them down. With the average of an illicit bypass link measured in months if not weeks, wholesale rates to such countries are volatile. When authorities 38 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2002 © TELEGEOGRAPHY, INC. 2001 step in, an international route made available at bargain basement prices on one day may not work the next day, forcing international carriers to shift their traffic back to "official"--and relatively costly--links. Trends in wholesale prices to many mobile destinations appear strikingly similar to price movements for calls to gray market countries. As with calls that bypass an inter- national telco’s settlement rates, carriers seek to minimize high mobile termination fees. Traffic to mobile destinations tends to shift from one wholesale carrier to the next, depending on which carrier has crafted the cheapest interconnect path to the cel- lular operator. Thus, while average prices to mobiles often remain far higher than to fixed line destinations, they also fluctuate actively (see Figure 6. Call Prices to Fixed versus Mobile Telephones, 2000-2001). Translating Interconnect Fees to Prices We’ve already seen that termination costs affect the prices international carriers charge for their services. Calls to fixed line telephones are relatively cheap; calls to mobile phones are relatively expensive. Yet just how closely interconnect costs corre- late to prices depends on the carrier. Carriers, such as Primus, that operate largely as carriers for the traffic of other telecom service providers must offer rates closely cor- related with actual costs (see Figure 7. Relationship between Effective Settlement Rate and Price per Minute, 2000). Because the customers of these wholesale carriers are themselves’,telcos with a high degree of market knowledge, wholesale carriers must continually adjust their rates to match market realities. In contrast, incumbent telcos such as AT&T carry a much larger proportion of retail traffic from individual homes and businesses. Such customers are far less sensitive to fluctuations in the international call charges to specific routes than are the customers of wholesale carriers. Customer loyalty stems from factors other than price. Retail carriers also incur different costs (for example, marketing) than wholesale carriers, which focus primarily on interconnect charges. As a result, international prices offered by retail-oriented carriers do not correlate well with the interconnect charges they must pay (again, see Figure 7). Conclusion Will retail charges for international calling drift from differentiated rates toward a mod- est subscription fee as predicted by the death of distance theory? Perhaps in time. Certainly, average call prices and the costs that shape them are drifting ever down- ward. However, interconnect fees--still the most significant incremental cost in pro- viding international phone service--have shifted from a "one country, one rate" settlement scheme to a multi-tiered fee structure. Wholesale carriers whose business models are based on carrying the traffic of other service providers have been careful to match their rates to the new fee structure. Retail-oriented carriers tend to set their international call prices on other factors besides interconnect fees. Yet, with increas- ing volumes of traffic flowing to (expensive) mobile destinations, even these carriers cannot afford to ignore the new termination rate structure. Late in 2000, for example, AT&T announced new rates to consumers that charged a premium on international calls to many mobile destinations. "One world, one rate" subscription plans may still lie in the future for international call pricing. For now, however, understanding international traffic and interconnect rates~nd knowing how to manipulate these rates to one’s own cost advantage--rern’ains as important to carriers as ever. © TELEGEOGRAPHY, INC. 2001 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2002 39 An international service provider has a number of options to send its customers’ calls abroad. Referring to the tables on the following pages, let’s use a call from Washington, DC to Berlin as an example. As of August 2001, the average retail price for such a call would be around 1/¢ per minute. Not including call-back, refile, and other forms of non-traditional traffic switching, a U.S. carrier has five basic methods for transporting a customer’s call to its destination in Germany: Ownership/Settlement. To switch the call from the customer’s telephone to its own long distance network, the international carrier pays the local exchange carrier {LEC) in Washington an origination fee, and then uses its own capacity to bring the call to New York, where the international cable to Germany begins. Costs for the domestic portion of the call equal approximately 0.9¢ per minute. The carrier shifts the call onto the inter- national "half circuit" it owns, then pays the German carrier a settlement fee to transfer the call onto its matching half circuit and to the final desti- nation. The U.S. carrier’s marginal cost of using its own backhaul and international circuit is relatively insignificant: 0.02¢ per minute. The set- tlement rate, at 10.0¢ per minute, is far more expensive. Total cost: 10.9¢ per minute. 2. Ownership/Interconnect. Competition rules in Germany permit foreign carriers to interconnect directly with the domestic telephone network. Rather than financing a half circuit and paying a settlement fee, a U.S. Country A Country B Half Circuit I Half Circuit National Net~vork I II II... II Local National Backhaul International Exchange Transport Transport I II I NeWvork Elements Covered by Settlement Rate NeWvork Elements Covered by Settlement Rate Source: TeleGeography research © TeleGeography, tnc 2001 40 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2002 © TELEGEOGRAPHY, INC. 2001 1. Ownership/Settlement 2. Ownership/Interconnect 3. Lease/Settlement 4. Lease/Interconnect 5 Service Resale Country A Country B ~.~ Key Owned Carnage Leased Carnage Handed-Off Source: TeleGeography research © TeteGeography, lnc 2001 carrier can purchase a whole circuit all the way to an international gate- way in Germany, then pay the German carrier a 1.4¢ per minute fee to switch the call to Berlin. Total cost, including origination and backhaul: 2.$¢ per minute. LeaselSettlement. A carrier is not required to own the circuits that it uses. Instead, it can lease both the domestic capacity between cities and the half-circuit to Germany. Total cost, including origination, backhaul, half-circuit private line lease, and settlement payment: 11. I ¢ per minute. Leasellnterconnect. Also known as International Simple Resale (ISR), a carrier can lease capacity to carry the call over a whole circuit from Washington to Berlin. Total cost, including origination, backhaul, private line lease, and interconnection in Germany: 2.5¢ per minute. Service Resale. A telephone service provider may wish to avoid carrying its own traffic to Germany altogether by purchasing the minutes trans- ported over another carrier’s network in bulk and marketing those min- utes as its own. The charge required for end-to-end service resale is a "wholesale rate" covering origination, U.S. domestic long distance, and the underlying carrier’s international transport and termination charges. Total cost: 1.9¢ per minute. The following pages examine the component costs of transmitting an international call on selected routes, both to and from the United States. The calculations exclude Selling, General, & Administrative (SG6~) costs, which can form a significant portion of actual carrier expenses. ~!~ © TELEGEOGRAPHY, INC. 2001 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2002 41 Per Minute Cost (U.S. cents), August 2001 Origination Int’l Circuit Int’l Circuit Settlement Interconnect Wholesale Total Cost Ownership Lease Rate Rate Rate Cost Retail Price/ Profit (Loss) Americas U.S.-Canada IToronto) 7.0 Own Settlement 0.7 0.02 -- 10.0 -- -- 10.7 (3.7) Own Interconnect 0.7 0.02 -- -- 0.2 -- 0.9 6.1 Lease Settlement 0.8 -- 0.05 10.0 -- -- 10.9 (3.9) Lease Interconnect 0.8 -- 0.05 -- 0.2 -- 1.1 6.0 Wholesale for resellers .... 2.0 2,0 5.0 U.S.-Mexico 39.0 Own Settlement 0.7 0.1 -- 13.5 -- -- 14.3 24.7 Own Interconnect .... n.a. n.a. Lease Settlement 0.8 -- 0.6 13.5 -- -- 14.9 24.1 Lease Interconnect ..... n.a. n.a. Wholesale for resellers 11,8 11.8 27.2 U.S.-Chile 45.0 Own Settlement 0.7 0.3 -- 35.0 -- -- 36.0 9.0 Own Interconnect 0.7 0.3 -- -- 1.5 -- 2.5 42.5 Lease Settlement 0.8 -- 0.7 35.0 -- -- 36.5 8.5 Lease Interconnect 0.8 -- 0.7 -- 1.5 -- 3.0 42.0 Wholesale for resellers .... 3.4 3.4 41.6 Europe U.S.-Germany 17.0 Own Settlement 0.7 0.02 -- 10.0 -- -- 10.7 6.3 Own Interconnect 0.7 0.02 -- -- 1.4 -- 2.1 14.9 Lease Settlement 0.8 -- 0.1 10.0 -- -- 10.9 6.1 Lease Interconnect 0.8 -- 0.1 -- 1.4 -- 2.3 14.7 Wholesale for resellers .... 1.9 1.9 15.1 U.S.-U.K. 10.0 Own Settlement 0.7 0.02 -- 10.0 -- -- 10.7 (0.7) Own Interconnect 0.7 0.02 -- -- 1.7 -- 2.4 7.6 Lease Settlement 0.8 -- 0.1 10.0 -- -- 10.9 (0.9) Lease Interconnect 0.8 -- 0.1 -- 1.7 -- 2.6 7.5 Wholesale for resellers .... 1.8 1.8 8.2 Notes: See following page. Source: TeleGeography research ©TeleGeography, Inc 2001 42 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2002 © TELEGEOGRAPHY, INC. 2001 Per Minute Cost (U.S. cents), August 2001 Origination int’l Circuit Int’l Circuit Settlement Interconnect Wholesale Total Retail Price/ Cost Ownership Lease Rate Rate Rate Cost Profit (Loss) Asia U.S.-Australia 17.0 Own -Settlement 0.7 0.6 -- 14.0 -- -- 15.3 1.8 Own Interconnect 0.7 0.6 -- -- 1.6 -- 2.9 14.2 Lease Settlement 0.8 -- 1.3 14.0 -- -- 16.1 0.9 Lease Interconnect 0.8 -- 1.3 -- 1.6 -- 3.7 13.3 Wholesale for resellers .... 2.8 2.5 14.2 U.S.-Hong Kong 25.0 Own Settlement 0.7 0.5 -- 6.0 -- -- 7.2 17.8 Own Interconnect 0.7 0.5 -- -- 1.6 -- 2.8 22.2 Lease Settlement 0.8 -- 1.0 6.0 -- -- 7.8 17.2 Lease Interconnect 0.8 -- 1.0 -- 1.6 -- 3.4 21.6 Wholesale for resellers .... 3.0 3.0 22.0 U.S.-India 66.0 Own Settlement 0.7 2.0 -- 43.0 -- -- 45.7 20.3 Own Interconnect .... o.a. n.a. Le~se Settlement 0.8 -- 4.4 43.0 -- -- 48.2 17.8 Lease Interconnect ..... n.a. n.a. Wholesale for reseilers 35.8 35.8 30.2 U.S.-Japan 26.0 Own Settlement 0.7 0.1 -- 13.0 -- -- 13.8 12.2 Own Interconnect 0.7 0.1 -- -- 1.6 -- 2.4 23.6 Lease Settlement 0.8 -- 0.5 13.0 -- -- 14.3 11.7 Lease Interconnect 0.8 -- 0.5 -- 1.6 -- 2.5 23.1 Wholesale for resellers .... 3.2 3.2 22.8 Notes: 1. Costs shown are indicative of carriers" cost per call butmay not reflect actual costs. Selling, General & Administrative (SG&A} expenses are excluded, 2. ~1 costs are expressed in U.S. cents and exclusive of taxes. Component costs may not appear to sum to total coat due to rounding, 3. Rates are based on international calls originating from Weshihgton, D.C. at peak hours. All rates are current as of August 200!., 4. Origination cost includes access charges paid to Local Exchar~ge Carrier (Verizon) and U÷S, domestic ~otwork costs for transmi~ng calls to an international gateway, 5. Circuit ownership costs’~eflect half circuit o~wnership fo~ India. All other circuit ownership costs are for whole circuits. 6, ~ircu’rt ownership costs include price of backhauL 7, Calculations converting circuit ownership prices to per minute costs assume that ea~ch 64 Kbps is used for ten years and that each voice path is used four hours (240 minutes) per day. ¯ ¯ 8. Interconnection rates show price for national termination, except ~anada and J~pah whe~’e the regional ~ate is used. Rates fo~’ Chile and Australis are estimated. 9. Direct interconnection tiy foreign carriers to the domestic pub’fic switched telephone network is not permitted in India or Mexico. 10, Se~ement rates are for peak rate tra~c terminated by the targestforeign carrier. 11. U.S.-Mexico settlement rates vary by carrier. Although the official recognized settlement rate was 19¢, the ectuat prevailing rate was 13.5€ as of August 2001, 12, Retail rates are based on theWorldCom International Weekends Plan. 13. Wholesale rates reflect prices from the Band-X New York switch. Source: TeleGeography research © TeleGeography, Inc 2001 © TELEGEOGRAPHY, INC. 2001 TELEGI~0GRAPHY 2002 43 Per Minute Cost (U.S. cents), August 2001 Origination Int’l Circuit Int’l Circuit Settlement Interconnect Wholesale Total Retail Price/ Cost Ownership Lease Rate Rate Rate Cost Profit (Loss) Americas Canada-U.S. 13.0 Own- Settlement 0,2 0.02 -- 10.0 -- -- 10.2 2.8 Own Interconnect 0.2 0.02 -- -- 0.7 -- 0.9 12.1 Lease Settlement 0.2 -- 0.05 10.0 -- -- 10.3 2.8 Lease Interconnect 0.2 -- 0.05 -- 0.7 -- 1.0 12.1 Mexico-U.S. 34.0 Own- Se~ement 1.3 0.1 -- 13.5 -- -- 14.9 19.1 Own Interconnect .... n.a. n.a. Lease Settlement 1.3 -- 0.6 13.5 -- -- 15.4 18.6 Lease Interconnect ..... n.a. n.a. Chile-U.S. 38.0 Own- Settlement 1.5 0.3 -- 35.0 -- -- 36.8 1.2 Own Interconnect 1.5 0.3 -- -- 0.7 -- 2.5 35.5 Lease Settlement 1.5 -- 0.7 35.0 -- -- 37.2 0.8 Lease -’ Interconnect 1.5 -- 0.7 -- 0.7 -- 2.9 35.1 Europe Germany-U.S. 11.3 Own- Settlement 1.4 0.02 -- 10.0 -- -- 11,4 (0.1) Own Interconnect 1.4 0.02 -- -- 0.7 -- 2.1 9.2 Lease Settlement 1.4 -- 0.1 10.0 -- -- 11.5 (0.2) Lease Interconnect 1.4 -- 0.1 -- 0.7 -- 22 9.1 U.K.-U.S. 29.3 Own- Settlement 1.7 0.02 -- 10.0 -- -- 11.7 17.6 Own Interconnect 1.7 0.02 -- -- 0.7 -- 2.4 26.9 Lease Settlement 1.7 -- 0.05 10.0 -- -- 11.9 17.6 Lease Interconnect 1.7 -- 0.05 -- 0.7 -- 2.5 26.9 Notes: See following page. Source: TeleGeography research © TeleGeography, I/lc 2001 44 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2002 © TELEGEOGRAPHY, INC. 2001 Per Minute Cost (U.S. cents), August 2001 Origination Int’l Circuit Int’l Circuit Settlement Interconnect Wholesale Total Retail Price/ Cost Ownership Lease Rate Rate Rate Cost Profit (Loss) Asia Australia-U.S. 20.0 Own- Settlement 1.6 0.6 -- 14.0 -- -- 16.2 3.9 Own Interconnect 1.6 0.6 -- -- 0.7 -- 2.9 17.2 Lease Settlement 1.6 -- 1.3 14.0 -- -- 16.9 3.1 Lease Interconnect 1.6 -- 1.3 -- 0.7 -- 3.6 16.4 Hong Kong-U.S. 25.5 Own- Settlement 1.6 0.5 -- 6.0 -- -- 8.1 17.4 Own Interconnect 1.6 0.5 -- -- 0.7 -- 2.8 22.7 Lease Settlement 1.6 -- 1.0 6.0 -- -- 8.6 16.9 Lease Interconnect 1.6 -- 1.0 -- 0.7 -- 3.3 22.2 India-U.S. 102.0 Own- Settlement 1.4 2.0 -- 43.0 -- -- 46.4 55.6 Own Interconnect .... n.a. n.a. Lease Settlement 1.4 -- 4.4 43.0 -- -- 48.8 53.2 Lease Interconnect ..... n.a. n.a. Japan-U.S. 56.0 Own- Settlement 1.6 0.1 -- 13.0 -- -- 14.7 41.3 Own Interconnect 1.6 0.1 -- -- 0.7 -- 2.4 53.6 Lease Settlement 1.6 -- 0.5 13.0 -- -- 15.1 40.9 Lease Interconnect 1.6 -- 0.5 -- 0.7 -- 2.8 53.2 Notes: 1. Costs shown are indicative of carriers’ cost per call b~t may not reflect actual costs, Selling, General & Administrative (SG&A) expenses are excluded. 2. Atl costs are expressed in U.S. cents end exclusive of taxes. Component costs may not appear to sum to total costdue to rounding. 3. Retail rates are based on residential discount call plans of the largest carrier in the origination market. 4. All rates reflect international calls terminating in Washington, D.C. at peak hours and are current to August 2001, 5. Non-U.S carders may own significant po~ons of home country local networks, in which case origination costs are counted as intra-corporate transfers. 6. Circuitownership costs reflect half circuit ownership for India. All other circuit ownership costs are for whole circuits. 7. C=rcuit ownership costs include price of backhaul. 8. Origination costs for India, Chile, and Australia are estimated. 9. Calculations converLing circuit ownership prices to per minute costs assume that each 64 Kbps is used for ten years and that each voice path is used four hours (240 minutes) per day. 10. Direct interconnection by foreign carriers to the domestic public switched telephone network is not permitted with India or Mexico. 11. Settlement rates a re for peak rate traffic terminated by the domesOc carrier. 12. Mexico-U.S, settlement rates vary by carrier, Although the official recognized settlement rate was 19€ as of August 2001, the actual prevailing rate was 13.5€. Source: TeleGeography research © TeleGeography, Inc 2001 © TELEGEOGRAPHY, INC. 2001 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2002 45 $30,000 $25,000 $20,000 $15,000 $10,000 $5,000 ) E. Europe ,Africa & M. East S. America Asia ~W. Europe World Avg. N. & C. America E. Europe E. Europe Africa & M. East S. America Africa & M. East S. America Asia W. Europe World Avg. Asia W. Europe World Avg. N. & C. America N. & C. America E. Europe Africa & M. East 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 S. America Eo Europe Asia S. America I Africa and M. East W. Europe Asia World Avg. World Avg. ) N. & C. America W. Europe N. & C. America Notes: Data reflect averages of annual revenues collected by U.S. intemationa! carders for 64 Kbps circuit teases to courmies within each region. Source: FCC carrier fiIings and TeteGeography research ©TeleGeegraphy, Inc 2001 120.0 100.0 60.0 --. ~, Europe-Asia 80.0 Intra E-urope-~""-- i L~. --’- _ "~Tran_s_- Pa _c_i_fi c 40.0 "" Trans-Atlantic 20.0 -_ ..... Intra-U.S. 0.0 April May June July Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct 2000 2001 Notes: The Band-X Bit Index measures relative price movement for one-year E-l, T-l, or STM-1 circuit ]eases (depending upon the geographic area) on major routes, This chart summarizes index values into regional indices, based on simple averages for the following groupings: EUrope-Asia (London to Hong Kong); Trans-Pacific (Los Angeles to Beijing, Tokyo); Trans-Atiantic (New York to Frankfurt, London, Moscow); lntra-Europe (London to Amsterdam, Brussels, Frankfurt, Madrid, Milan, Paris); lntra-U.S. (New York to Los Angeles); and Composite (all tracked routes). Source: Band-X Ltd. ©TeleGeography,Jnc 2001 46 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2002 © TELEGEOGRAPHY, INC. 2001 United States Destination 1999 2000 2001 Andorra 0.26 0.26 0.26 Argentina 0.28 0.19 0.19 Australia 0.15 0.15 0.14 Austria 0.13 0.13 0.13 Bahamas 0.15 0,15 0.15 Bahrain 0.55 0.19 0.19 Bangladesh 0.69 0.31 0.31 Belarus 0.35 0.22 0.22 Belgium 0.13 0.13 0.13 Bolivia 0.37 0.28 0.19 Brazil 0.30 0.19 0.19 Canada 0.10/0.06 0.10/0.06 0.10/0.06 Chile 0.35 0.35 0.35 China 0.50 0.35 0.35 Colombia 0.33 0.28 0.19 Costa Rica 0.28 0.21 0.19 Croatia 0.26 0.21 0.18 Cyprus’, 0.15 0.15 0.15 Czech Republic 0.17 0.17 0.17 Denmark 0.10 0.10 0.10 Dominican Republic 0.19 0.19 0.19 El Salvador 0.30 0.24 0.19 Finland 0.13 0.13 0.13 France 0.10 0.10 0.10 French Polynesia 0.15 0.15 0.15 Germany 0.10 0.10 0.10 Ghana 0.38 0.30 0.30 Greece 0.15 0.13 0.13 Guyana 0.85 0.85 0.85 Hong Kong 0.07 0.07 0.06 Hungary 0.19 0.14 0.14 Iceland 0.13 0.13 0.13 India 0.54 0.43 0.43 Indonesia 0.43 0.25 0.25 Iran 0.78 0.50 0.19 Ireland 0.10 0.10 0.10 Israel 0.15 0.15 0.15 Italy 0.10 0.10 0.10 Japan 0.13 0.13 0.13 United Kingdom 1999 2000 0.13 0.07 0.56 0.33 0.24/0.08 0.16 0.19 0.15 0.36 0.27 0.64 0.40 0.97 0.64 0.34 0.24 0.10 0.05 0.89 0,53 0.36 0.20 0.10/0.04 0.10 0.89 0.67 0.89 0.40 0.56 0.33 0.47 0.39 0.33 0.15 0.20 0.09 0.20 0.11 0.07 0.05 0.56 0.40 1.18 0.98 0.13 0.08 0.10 0.04 1.27 0.98 0.10/0.04 0.08 0.52 0.25 0.24 0.16 0.89 0.80 0.42 0.07 0.18 0.11 0.23 0.11 0.87 0.47 0.64 0.33 1.18 0.80 0.16 0.03 0.24 0.15 0.13 0.07 0.48 0.20 Notes: 1. All rates expressed in US~ Equivalent dollar values are presented for accounting rates that are established in Special Drawing Rights (SDRs) or gold francs. The exchange rates used to convert SDRs to U.S, dollars are: 1999: 1SDR=$1.3713; 2000: 1SDR--$I,2842; and 2001: 1SDR--$1,2457, Go|d francs were converted using a linking coeff=cient value of $1=2.5374 GF. 2. Average U.S, settlement rates in t999 are for the month of August. Rates in subsequentyears am for July, 3. Where two rates are shown, there are peaWoff-peak rates or growth-based rates (franc above a benchmark level is eligible for a lower rate). 4. Rates are for the largest cartier serving the mute. Different settlement rates may applyto competing carriers, Source: FCC and OR-EL © TeleGeography, Inc 2001 © TELEGEOGRAPHY, INC. 2001 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2002 47 United States United Kingdom Destination 1999 2000 2001 1999 2000 Jordan 0.50 0.44 0.44 0.97 0.49 Kazakhstan 0.34 0.25 0.16 0.64 0.47 Korea, Rep. 0.36 0.26 0.19 0.50 0.32 Kuwait 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.80 0.67 Luxembourg 0.14 0.07 0.07 0.24 0.06 Macau 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.51 0.43 Malaysia 0,35 0.19 0.19 0.50 0.20 Mexico 0.19 0.19 0.14 0.44 0.27 Moldova 1.04 1.04 1.04 0.24 0.20 Netherlands 0.07 0.07 0.06 0.06 0.04 New Zealand 0.14 0.14 0.13 0.19 0.11 Norway 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.07 0.06 Oman 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.80 0.67 Pakistan 0.60 0.42 0.36 0.64 0.55 Panama 0.35 0.20 0.19 0.64 0.47 Paraguay 0.40 0.25 0.19 0.80 0.67 Peru 0.33 0.25 0.25 0.72 0.60 Philippines ’, 0.29 0.19 0.19 0.48 0.28 Poland 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.25 0.15 Portugal 0.15 0.10 0.10 0.18/0.14 0.08 Russia 0.30 0.20 0.20 0.27 0.07 Saudi Arabia 0.50 0.14 0.14 0.89 0.53 Singapore 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.32 0.23 Slovak Republic 0.20 0.13 0.13 0.19/0.10 0.07 Slovenia 0.35 0.17 0.17 0.16/0.09 0.11 South Africa 0.35 0.30 0.19 0.48 0.27 Spain 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.16 0.05 Sri Lanka 0.60 0.45 0.45 0.89 0.43 Sweden 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.12 0.07 Switzerland 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.08/0.04 0.04 Taiwan 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.44 0.27 Thailand 0.30 0.24 0.19 0.80 0.33 Turkey 0.33 0.25 0.21 0.30 0.17 Ukraine 0.22 0.17 0.17 0.29 0.23 United Arab Emirates 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.32 0.24 United Kingdom 0.11/0.07 0.10/0.00 0.10/0.00 n.a. n.a. Uruguay 0.31 0.19 0.19 0.95 0.51 United States n.a. n.a. n.a. 0.12/0.08 0.10 Uzbekistan 0.45 0.19 0.19 0.80 0.40 Ve nezuela 0.32 0.19 0.19 0.80 0.40 Vietnam 0.79 0.64 0.50 1.29 0.80 Yugoslavia 0.35 0.29 0.25 0.27 n.a. Notes: 1. All rates expressed in US=E Equivalent dollar values are presented for accounting rates that are established in Specia| Drawing Rights (SDRs) or 9old francs. The exchange rates used te cenve~ SDRs to U~& do]lars are: 1999:1SDR=$1.3713; 2000; ISDR--$1,2842; end 2001: 1SDR--$1,2457v Gold francs were converted using a linking coefficientvalue of $1=2,5374 GE 2. Average U.S. settlement rates in 1999 are for the month of August. Rates in subsequent years are for July. 3, Where two rates are shown, there are peak/off-peak rates or growth-based rates (traffic above a benchmark level is eligible for a lower rate). 4. Rates are for the largest carrier serving the route. Different.settlement rates may applyto competing carriers, Source: FCC and OFTEL © TeleGeography, Inc 2001 48 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2002 © TELEGEOGRAPHY, NC. 2001 Motivated by the annual multi-billion dollar settlements outflow of U.S. carriers, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) proposed in 1996 a set of "benchmark" or model settlement rates. Beginning in 1999, these benchmarks capped the amount U.S. carriers could pay their foreign correspondents for traffic exchange at rates ranging from $0.15 to $0.23 per minute. The FCC calculated benchmarks based on the price for the three network elements used to provide international phone services, including international transmission facilities, international switching facilities, and national extension facilities (domestic transport and termination). The FCC adopted the Benchmarks Order in August 1997, with implementation stag- gered over several years, based on national incomes. Settlement rates to high, upper- middle and lower-middle income countries have already been affected, following the 2000 deadline. As the table below demonstrates, most countries in the upper and upper-middle income brackets have adopted settlement rates at or below benchmarks. Settlement rates for countries that have already met FCC benchmarks are shown in bold. Separate from the FCC’s efforts, a Focus Group of the International Telecommunication Union (ITU), issued a recommended set of "indicative target" settlement rates in November 1998. The Focus Group established seven benchmark brackets based on country teledensity, with separate categories established for small island states and least developed countries (LDCs). Adopted in June 1999, the ITU settlement targets were calculated using the average of the lowest 20 percent of published settlement rates for each bracket. Initially, the ITU’s proposed rates ranged well outside the FCC’s prescribed band--from $0.06 to $0.45 per minute compared to the FCC’s $0.15 to $0.23. However, as the average of the lowest 20 percent is recalculated annually, the current targets ($0.05 to $0.21) are now much lower than when first established, particularly for countries in the low teledensity brackets. The settlement rate targets take effect December 31, 2001, with an extension to 2004 for LDCs. ~i~ ITU Target Rate ITU Target Rate FCC Settlement August 2001 Country 2000 2001 Benchmarks Settlement Rate with U.S. Upper Income Bracket: Effective January 1, 1999 Austraha 4.9 4.7 15.0 14.0 Austria 10.7 7.6 15.0 13.0 Bahamas 15.5 7.6 15.0 15.0 Belgium 4.9 4.7 15.0 13.0 Denmark 4.9 4.7 15.0 10.0 France 4.9 4.7 15.0 lg.g Germany 4.9 4.7 15.0 10.0 Hong Kong 4.9 4.7 15.0 6.0 Ireland 10.7 7.6 15.0 10.0 Israel 10.7 7.6 15.0 15.0 Source: FCC and ITU © TeleGeography, lnc 2001 © TELEGEOGRAPHY, INC. 2001 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2002 49 ITU Target Rate ITU Target Rate FCC Settlement August 2001 Country 2000 2QOl Benchmarks Settlement Rate with U.S. Italy 10.7 7.6 15.0 10.0 Japan 10.7 7.6 15.0 13.0 Kuwait 14.9 12.7 15.0 15.0 Netherlands 4.9 4.7 15.0 6.0 New Zealand 10.7 7.6 15.0 13.0 Norway 4.9 4.7 15.0 13.0 Portugal 10.7 7.6 15.0 10.0 Singapore 4.9 4.7 15.0 15.0 Spain 10.7 7.6 15.0 13.0 Sweden 4.9 4.7 15.0 6.0 Switzerland 4.9 4.7 15.0 13.0 Taiwan 4.9 4.7 15.0 15.0 United Arab Emirates 10.7 7.6 15.0 14.0 United Kingdom 4.9 4.7 15.0 10.0/6.0 Upper Middle Income Bracket: Effective January 1, 2000 Argentina 14.9 12.7 19.0 19.0 Barbados 15.5 12.7 19.0 19.0" Brazil 15.3 12.3 19.0 19.0 Chile 14.9 12.7 19.0 19.0" Czech Republic 10.7 7.6 19.0 17.0 Greece 4.9 4.7 19.0 13.0 Hungary 10.7 7.6 19.0 14.0 Korea, Rep. 10.7 7.6 19.0 19.0" Malaysia 14.9 12.7 19.0 19.0 Mexico 15.3 12.3 19.0 19.0 South Africa 15.3 12.3 19.0 19.0" Trinidad & Tobago 14.9 12.7 19.0 19.0" Uruguay 14.9 12.7 19.0 19.0 Lower Middle Income Bracket: Effective January 1, 2001 Colombia 15.3 12.3 19.0 19.0" Costa Rica 14.9 12.7 19.0 19.0" Dominican Republic 19.1 14.3 19.0 19.0 Ecuador 19.1 14.3 19.0 19.0" El Salvador 19.1 14.3 19.0 19.0" Guatemala 19.1 14.3 19.0 19.0" Indonesia 21.9 17.7 19.0 25.0 Jamaica 15.3 12.3 19.0 19.0" Jordan 19.1 14.3 19.0 44.0 Panama 15.3 12.3 19.0 19.0" Peru 19.1 14.3 19.0 25.0 Philippines 21.9 17.7 19.0 19.0 Poland 14.9 12.7 19.0 19.0 Russia 15.3 12.3 19.0 20.0 Thailand 19.1 14.3 19.0 19.0" Tu rkey 14.9 12.7 19.0 21.0 Venezuela 15.3 12.3 19.0 19.0" Lower Income Bracket: Effective January 1, 2002 China 19.1 14.3 23.0 35.0 Egypt 19.1 14.3 23.0 23.0* G uya na 19.1 14.3 23.0 85.0 Haiti 29.6 20.5 23.0 46.0 Honduras 21.9 17.7 23.0 28.0 India 21.9 17.7 23.0 42.5 Kenya 29.6 20.5 23.0 36.0 Nicaragua 29.6 17.7 23.0 27.0 Pakistan 21.9 17.7 23.0 36.0 Vietnam 21.9 17.7 23.0 56.0 Notes: Retes that became comphantwith FCC benchmarks in 2001 are noted with an asterisk (*). 1TU target rates are estabhshed in Special Drawing Rights (SDRs)L Equivalent U.S. dollarvaluesare subjectto exchange rate adjustments. Source: FCC and ITU © TeleGeography, Inc 2001 50 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2002 © TELEGEOGRAPHY, INC. 2001 Argentina Australia Austria Belgium Canada Chile China Colombia Denmark Finland France Germany Hong Kong Hungary Ireland Israel Italy ’, Japan Luxembourg Mexico Netherlands New Zealand Norway Peru Portugal Spain Sweden Switzerland U.K. U.S. (Verizon) Fixed to Mobile Local Termination Regional Termination National Termination Termination (U.S. cents) (U.S. cents) (U.S. cents) (U.S. cents) 1999 2000 2001 1999 2000 2001 1999 2000 2001 2000 2001 2.35 1.10 1.04 2.35 1.10 1,04 2.35 1.10 1.04 n.a. n.a. 2.15 0.82 n.a. 2.18 1.42 n.a. 4.00 1.65 n.a. n.a. 12.60 1.90 0.97 0.81 1.90 1.46 1,24 2.50 2.15 2.01 22.48 12.34 1.11 0.78 0.57 1.87 1.22 0,92 2.67 1.58 1.23 18.00 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 0.78 0.51 0,21 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 1.79 n.a. n.a. 1.79 n.a. n.a. 1.79 n,a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 1.50 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 2.82 n.a. n.a. 2.82 n.a. n.a. 2.82 n.a. n.a. n.a. 1.03 0.81 2.52 1.92 1.52 2.52 2.33 1.83 2.52 17.00 15.78 1.67 1.36 0.45 1.87 n.a. n.a. 4.12 1.44 0.80 21.00 19.50 0.63 0.56 0.48 1.56 1.13 0,96 2.32 1.69 1.43 20.00 10.30 1.05 0.83 0.57 2.26 1.80 0,87 2.74 2.18 1.37 24.00 n.a. 1.65 1.65 1.62 1.65 1.65 1.62 1.65 1.65 1.62 0.13 0.65 n.a. 6.61 7.97 n.a. 6.61 7.97 n.a. 6.61 7.97 n.a. 13.04 1.08 0.98 0.57 1.67 1.41 0.87 2.36 1.93 1.18 16.68 15.89 0.80 0.80 1.53 1.30 1.30 1.53 2.50 2.50 1.53 n.a. 12.00 1.03 0.96 0.67 1.86 1.55 1.19 2.69 2.19 1.61 23.00 16.85 1.74 1.54 1.26 3.31 2.38 1.61 n.a. n.a. n.a. 29.99 n.a. 2.34 1.43 1.32 2.34 1.43 1.32 2.34 1.43 1.32 n.a. 15.16 n.a. n.a. n.a. 2.61 2.61 1.25 n.a. n.a. n.a. 18.00 20.94 1.16 0.91 0.53 1.74 1.30 0.69 2.11 1.39 0.85 18.00 14.26 1.43 1.38 0.85 n.a. n.a. 1.49 6.66 n.a. 2.77 n.a. n.a. 1.00 0.82 0.46 1.38 1.17 0.56 1.63 1.75 0.70 15.60 7.55 2.90 1.68 1.44 2.90 1.68 1.44 2.90 1.68 1.44 15.62 n.a. 2.87 0.63 0.47 5.74 1.24 0.80 11.48 2.15 1.34 n.a. 21.19 1.03 0.86 0.68 1.66 1.44 1.04 3.20 2.55 1.98 20.00 16.16 0.77 0.62 0.50 1.07 0.82 0.68 1.52 1.00 0.82 n .a. 9.56 n.a. n.a. n.a. 2.73 2.16 1.16 3,87 3.10 1.81 29.54 n.a. 0.62 0.56 0.55 0.82 0.82 0.79 1.76 1.68 1.69 20.42 18.73 n.a. n.a. n.a. 1 20 0.97 0.65 n.a, n.a. n.a. 2,64 n.a. Nems: 1. All interconnection charges are for peak period. Z All rates are established in national curreneies. Equivalent U.S. dollar values are subjent to exchange rate fluctuation. 3. Local termination is the lowest level of interconnection, typically giving a carrier access to a single town or partof a city. 4. Regionsi and national termination are also known as single tandem and double tandem termination. 5. Regional termination generally gives a carrier access to all sobscribers within a metropolitan area or a North American area code. 6. U.S. terminatienfeesvaryaccordingto Lecal Exchange Carrier(LEC). U.S. averagefor regienalterminationwasO.79¢ as of August2001. Source: National regulatory agencies and ITU © TeleGeogrsphy, Inc 21~I © TELEGEOGRAPHY, INC. 2001 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2002 Rate to Largest City (US¢) Rate to Mobiles (US¢) Africa 2000 2001 2000 2001 Algeria n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. Egypt 31.6 19.1 36.0 24.6 Nigeria 17.7 12.7 39.0 28.6 South Africa 10.7 7.6 17.2 11.1 Africa Average 20.0 16.6 27.4 21.9 Rate to Rest of Country (US¢) 2000 2001 14.2 12.8 31.5 21.1 29.8 23.5 14.2 8.5 24.3 20.4 Asia China 6.2 3.4 13.2 7.4 10.0 5.3 Hong Kong n.a. n.a. 2.5 2.4 2.2 2.7 India 24.0 18.5 44.8 41,0 41.5 37.9 Israel 4.6 4.1 12.0 13.0 5.2 4.5 Japan 3.1 2.9 13.5 16.8 3.6 3.2 Malaysia 5.1 3.4 5.9 4.5 5.5 3.5 Pakistan n.a. 34.8 n.a. 36.0 42.6 35.5 Philippines 10.9 9.6 11.6 10.1 11.2 10.2 Saudi Arabia n.a. 14.3 37.3 23.5 34.2 20.2 Sinqapore n.a. n.a. 4.2 1.6 3.7 1.5 Taiwan 4.3 3.1 7.4 9.6 5.2 3.9 Thailand 7.5 5.7 18.9 14.2 17.2 14.2 Vietnam 52.1 51.2 57.0 53.3 54.9 49.6 Asia Average 16.8 15.7 22,8 19.4 25.8 21.0 Europe Austria 1.6 1.2 13.6 14.8 2.1 1.9 Finland ’, 3.4 2.1 6.6 12.9 3.4 2.1 France 1.9 1.5 22.5 16.4 2.1 1.6 Germany 0.9 1.0 21.1 14.7 1.8 1.4 Greece 4.6 2.6 11.1 7.7 8.8 3.9 Ireland 2.1 1.3 14,3 13.8 2.1 1.3 Italy 1.8 1.4 24.2 16.7 2.2 1.8 Netherlands 1.6 1.5 20.1 15.8 1.8 1.4 Poland 6.1 3.4 11.9 9.6 9.9 5.1 Russia 3.3 2.5 10.0 9.8 10.5 9.1 Spain 2.4 1.4 23.4 16.3 2.7 1.4 Sweden 1.1 0.8 7.0 15.2 1.3 0.9 Switzerland 1.6 1.2 16.9 17.0 2.2 1.5 Europe Average 3.9 3.9 13.3 12.8 10.3 8.8 Latin America & Caribbean Argentina 6.9 3.7 13.6 8.0 11.2 7.6 Brazil 4.5 2.9 14.2 13.4 11.7 10.5 Chile n.a. n.a. 8.9 8.2 5.0 3.1 Colombia 5.7 5.5 13.6 9.3 11.2 8.3 Mexico n.a. 4.1 12.1 12.3 9.4 12.0 Peru 6.5 4.9 21.0 16.8 15.2 11.2 L America & Carib. Average 8.0 6.7 19.1 18.7 18.8 17.3 Oceania Australia n.a. n.a. 9.7 15.7 2.4 2.2 New Zealand 2.3 1.9 6.9 15.9 2.3 1.9 Oceania Average 2.3 1,9 18.9 26.3 27.6 31.8 U.S. & Canada Canada n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 2.2 1.7 United States n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 1.9 1.8 U.S. & Canada Average n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 2.0 1.7 Global Average 19.7 17.4 n.a. 9.6 18.9 17.4 Notes: Rates are from the Band-X London Switch as of August2000 and 2001. All rates, originally established in U+K, pounds sterling, are expressed here as U.S. cents based on exchange rate conversions of 1.500 dollars per pound in August 2000 and 1.426 dollars per pound in August2001. Regional averages are simple, unweighted averages for all countries within a region. The Oceania region includes Australia, New Zealand, and several Pacific Island states. Wholesale rates to major cities and mobile destinations in the U.S, and Canada are notseparate from rest-of-country prices. Source: TeleGeography research ©TeleGeography, Inc 2001 52 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2002 © TELEGEOGRAPHY, INC. 2001 From/ro Australia Austria Belgium Canada Czech Rep. Denmark Finland France Australia n.a. 1.20 1.59 0.81 1.66 1.14 1.20 0.97 Austria peak 1.20 n.a. 1.06 1.20 0.85 1.06 1.06 1.06 Austria off-peak 1.06 n.a. 0.89 1.06 0.71 0.89 0.89 0.89 Belgium peak 1,06 0.54 n.a. 0.38 1.30 0.54 0.54 0.38 Belgium off-peak 0.79 0.43 n.a. 0.19 1.06 0.43 0.43 0.19 Canada 0.67 0.30 1.17 n.a. 0.65 0.38 0.44 0.53 Czech Rep. Peak 1.58 0,65 0,74 0.74 n.a. 0.74 1.17 0.74 Czech Rep. off-peak 1.11 0.56 0.65 0.65 n.a. 0.65 0.73 0.65 Denmark 1.86 1.43 0.60 0.71 0.95 n.a. 0.33 0.60 Finland peak 1.20 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.09 0.36 n.a. 1.01 Finland off-peak 0.98 0.63 0.63 0.63 0.78 0.25 n.a. 0.63 France peak 1.45 0.56 0.56 0.56 0.98 0.56 0.58 n.a. France off-peak 1.04 0.34 0.34 0.34 0.78 0.34 0.43 n.a. Ge rmany 1.88 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.58 0.29 0.29 0.29 Ireland peak 1.97 1.11 0.87 0.44 1.11 1.11 1.11 0.87 Ireland off-peak 1,00 0.96 0,67 0.35 0,96 0,96 0.96 0,67 Italy 2.26 0.82 0.82 0.82 1.10 0.82 0.82 0.82 Japan peak 5.29 6.96 6.96 3.99 7.98 6.96 6.96 5.38 Japan off-peak 3.34 5.10 5.10 3.16 5.66 5.10 5.10 1.67 Korea, Rap. peak 3.06 3.62 3.62 3.97 3.57 3.62 3.62 3.56 Korea, Rep. off-peak 2.13 2.52 2.52 2.77 2.48 2.52 2.52 2.50 Mexico peak 5.35 4.72 4.72 3.40 4.72 4.72 4.72 4.72 Mexico off-peak 3.57 3.12 3.12 2.24 3.12 3.12 3.12 3.12 Norway 0.19 0.28 0.22 0.28 0.65 0.19 0.28 0.22 Poland 2.39 1.07 1.07 2.39 1.07 1.07 1.17 1.17 Portugal peak 2.31 0.78 0.78 0.78 1.73 0.78 0.78 0.76 Portugal off-peak 1.42 0.51 0.51 0.51 1.07 0.51 0.51 0.49 Singapore 1.04 2.44 1.74 0.68 3.31 1.74 1.74 1.74 Spain peak 2.98 0.66 0.66 1.70 1.35 0.66 0.66 0.66 Spain off-peak 2.73 0.66 0.66 1.41 1.21 0.66 0.66 0.66 Sweden 0.92 0.51 0.32 0.32 1.15 0.25 0.25 0.32 Sw(tzerland peak 0.44 0.22 0.44 0.22 1.10 0.44 0.44 0.22 Switzerland off-peak 0.33 0.16 0.33 0.16 0.82 0.33 0.33 0.16 Turkey peak 6.51 2.57 2.57 3.78 2.57 2.57 2.57 2.57 Turkey off-peak 5.15 1.67 1.67 3.03 1.67 1.67 1.67 1.67 U.K. peak 1.84 1.45 1.08 0.89 1.45 1.08 1.45 1.08 U.K. off-peak 1.48 1.23 0.88 0.79 1.23 0.88 1.23 0.88 U.S. (WorldCom Int’l Weekends) 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.21 1.23 0.51 0.51 0.51 U.S. (WorldCom Direct Dial) 8.07 6.57 6.57 2.67 8.31 6.57 6.57 5.97 U.S. (AT&T One Rate) 0.51 0.87 0.87 0.21 1.89 0.87 0.87 0.51 U.S. (AT&T Basic) 5.34 5.07 5.49 1.71 6.84 5.16 5.22 4.68 Notes: 1, All rates are in US$ and exclusive of taxes and were currant on August 31, 2001. Peak hours are between 9:00-t9:30, Monday-Friday. Z Fees are $2 with domestic long distance per month for AT&T One Rate International Va/ue P|an and $3 with domestic )ong distance per month for WorldCom International Weekends, 3. Rates for calls from the U.S. to Canada and Mexico are from Washington, D.C, to M~ntrea] and Mexico City, Source: TeleGeography research © TeleGeography, Inc 2001 © TELEGEOGRAPHY, INC. 2001 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2002 53 From/To Germany Hong Kong Ireland Italy Japan Korea, Rep. Mexico Neth’lands Norway Australia 0.97 0.82 0.82 0.90 0.97 1.48 2.02 1.14 1.20 Austria peak 0.85 1.20 1.06 0.85 1.20 1.20 1.77 1.06 1.06 Austria off-peak 0.71 1.06 0.89 0.71 1.06 1.06 1.60 0.89 0.89 Belgium peak 0.38 1.06 0.54 0.38 1.06 2.17 1.85 0.38 0.54 Belgium off-peak 0.19 0.79 0.43 0.19 0.79 1.87 1.44 0.19 0.43 Canada 0.61 0.20 0.44 0.34 0.38 0.30 0.91 0.20 0.20 Czech Rep. Peak 0.65 1.58 1.17 0.74 1.58 1.58 3.36 0.74 0.74 Czech Rep. off-peak 0.56 1.11 0.73 0.65 1.11 1.11 2.60 0.65 0.65 Denmark 0.43 2.98 0.86 0.60 2.08 3.42 3.42 0.60 0.16 Finland peak 1.01 3.02 1.01 1.01 1.56 3.02 3.60 1.01 0.36 Finland off-peak 0.63 3.02 0.63 0.63 1.56 3.02 3.60 0.63 0.25 France peak 0.56 1.45 0.56 0.56 1.45 1.45 1.85 0.56 0,56 France off-peak 0.34 1.04 0.34 0.34 1.04 1.04 1.45 0.34 0.34 Germany n.a. 1.88 0.29 0.29 1.88 1.88 2.46 0.29 0.29 Ireland peak 0.87 1.97 n.a. 1.11 1.97 2.82 1.76 0.87 1.11 Ireland off-peak 0.67 1.00 n.a. 0.96 1.00 2.82 1.42 0.67 0.96 Italy 0.82 2.26 0.82 n.a. 2.26 2.26 2.83 0.82 0.82 Japan peak 5.38 4.64 6.96 6.96 n.a. 3.43 6.59 6.96 6.96 Japan off-peak 1.67 2.88 5.10 5.10 n.a. 2.51 4.36 5.10 5.10 Korea, Rep. peak 3.56 2.69 3.62 3.62 2.21 n.a. 4.21 3.56 3.62 Korea, Rep. off-peak 2.50 1.87 2.52 2.52 1.55 n.a. 2.95 2.50 2.52 Mexico peak 4.72 5.35 4.72 4.72 5.35 5.35 n.a. 4.72 4.72 Mexico off-peak 3.12 3.57 3.12 3.12 3.57 3.57 n.a. 3.12 3.12 Norway 0.21 0.28 0.25 0.22 0.28 1.39 1.57 0.22 n.a. Poland 1.07 4.32 1.17 1.17 4.32 4.32 4.32 1.07 1.17 Portugal peak 0.76 3.00 0.78 0.78 3.00 3.00 2.93 0.78 0.78 Portugal off-peak 0.49 1.83 0.51 0.51 1.83 1.83 1.79 0.51 0.51 Singapore 1.74 1.22 2.44 1.74 1.57 n.a. 3.48 1.74 1.74 Spain peak 0.66 2.98 0.66 0.66 2.98 2.98 2.26 0.66 1.21 Spain off-peak 0.66 2.73 0.66 0.66 2.73 2.73 1.93 0.66 1.08 Sweden 0.32 1.96 0.51 0.51 0.92 2.62 1.96 0.32 0.25 Switzerland peak 0.22 1.10 0.44 0.22 1.10 1.10 2.08 0.44 0.44 Switzerland off-peak 0.16 0.82 0.33 0.16 0.82 0.82 1.64 0.33 0.33 Turkey peak 2.57 6.51 2.57 2.57 6.51 6.51 6.51 2.57 2.57 Turkey off-peak 1.67 5.15 1.67 1.67 5.15 5.15 5.15 1.67 1.67 U.K. peak 1.08 1.84 0.86 1.34 2.54 4,07 4.07 1.08 1.45 U.K, off-peak 0.88 1.48 0.68 0.98 2.04 3.60 3.60 0.88 1.23 U.S. (World Corn Int’l Weekends) 0.51 0.75 0.51 0.51 0.78 0.81 1.17 0.51 0.51 U.S. (WorldCom Direct Dial) 5.97 8.07 5.97 6.57 8.07 8.07 5.97 7.50 5.97 U.S. (AT&T One Rate) 0.51 0.45 0.51 0.51 0.48 0.45 1.05 0.75 0.87 U.S. (AT&T Basic) 4.41 6.51 4.74 5.31 5.13 6.45 1.71 4.62 4.71 ¯ Notes: 1. All.rates are in US$ and exclusive of taxes and were current on August 31, 2001. Peak hours are between 9:00-19:30, Monday-Friday, 2. Fees are $2 with domestic long distance per month for AT&T One Rate International Value Pian and $3 w’~h domestic long distance per month’for WorldCom International Weekends, 3. Rates for cal|s from the U.S. to Canada and Mexico are from Washington, D.C, to Montreal and Mexico City. Source: TeleGeography research © TeleGeo~graphy, Inc 2001 54 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2002 © TELEGEOGRAPHY, INC. 2001 Poland Portugal Singapore Spain Sweden Switzerland Turkey U.K. U.S. To/From 1.66 2.02 0.90 1.34 0.97 0.97 1.50 0.70 0,60 Australia 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.06 1.06 0.85 1.20 1.06 1.20 Austria peak 1.20 1.06 1.06 0.89 0.89 0.71 1.20 0.89 1.06 Austria off-peak 1.30 0.54 1.06 0.38 0.54 0.54 1.30 0.38 0.38 Belgium peak 1.06 0.43 0.79 0.19 0.43 0.43 1.06 0.19 0.19 Belgium off-peak 0.69 0.49 0.20 0.59 0.34 0.53 0.79 0.28 0.20 Canada 0.65 0.74 3.36 0.74 0.74 0.74 1.58 0.70 0.74 Czech Rep. Peak 0.56 0.65 2.60 0.65 0.65 0.65 1.11 0.65 0.65 Czech Rep. off-peak 0.73 0.97 2.38 0.79 0.16 0.60 1.13 0.43 0.60 Denmark 1.09 1.20 3.02 1.01 0.36 1.20 1.27 1.01 1.01 Finland peak 0.78 0.89 3.02 0.63 0.25 0.89 1.27 0.63 0.63 Finland off-peak 0.98 0.58 1.85 0.56 0.56 0.56 0.98 0.56 0.56 France peak 0.78 0.43 1.45 0.34 0.34 0.34 0.78 0.34 0.34 France off-peak 0.58 0.29 2.60 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.58 0.29 0.29 Germany 1.11 1.11 1.97 1.11 1.11 1.11 2.11 0.42 0.44 Ireland peak 0.96 0.96 1.00 0.96 0.96 0.96 1.83 0.34 0.35 Ireland off-peak 1.10 0.82 2.26 0.82 0.82 0.82 1.54 0.82 0.82 Italy 7.98 6.96 5.10 6.96 6.96 6.96 6.96 3.99 1.67 Japan peak 5.66 5.10 3.71 5.10 5.10 5.10 5.10 1.67 1.11 Japan off-peak 3.57 ’, 3.62 2.69 3.62 3.62 3.56 3.57 3.00 1.91 Korea, Rep. peak 2.48 2.52 1.87 2.52 2.52 2.50 2.53 2.10 1.33 Korea, Rep. off-peak 4.72 4.72 5.35 4.72 4.72 4.72 4.72 4.72 1.02 Mexico peak 3.12 3.12 3.57 3.12 3.12 3.12 3.12 3.12 0.67 Mexico off-peak 0.64 0.65 0.50 0.28 0.16 0.28 1.10 0.19 0.25 Norway n.a. 1.17 4.32 1.17 1.07 1.07 2.39 1.17 2.39 Poland 1.73 n.a. 3.96 0.71 0.78 0.76 3.96 0.76 0.78 Portugal peak 1,07 n,a. 2,42 0.47 0,51 0.49 2,42 0,49 0,51 Portugal off-peak 3.31 3.31 n.a. 2.44 1.74 1.74 3.31 1.03 0.68 Singapore 1.35 0.66 2.98 n.a. 0.66 0.66 3.40 0.66 0.66 Spain peak 1.21 0.66 2.73 n.a. 0.66 0.66 3.05 0.66 0.66 Spain off-peak 0.51 0.92 1.30 0.51 n.a. 0.32 0.92 0.26 0.26 Sweden 1.10 0.44 1.10 0.44 0.44 n.a. 1.10 0.22 0.22 Switzerland peak 0.82 0.33 0.82 0.33 0.33 n.a. 0.82 0.16 0.16 Switzerland off-peak 2.57 2.57 6.51 2.57 2.57 2.57 n.a. 2.57 3.78 Turkey peak 1.67 1.67 5.15 1.67 1.67 1.67 n.a. 1.67 3.03 Turkey off-peak 1.45 1,34 2,20 1.34 1.08 1.08 2.54 n.a. 0.88 U.K. peak 1.23 0.98 1.98 0.98 0.88 0.88 2.04 n.a. 0.79 U.K. off-peak U.S. (WorldCom 1.02 0.51 0.72 0.51 0.51 0.51 1.53 0.30 n.a. Int’l Weekends) U.S. (WorldCom 7.50 7.02 8.07 7.50 5.97 5.97 7.95 5.25 n.a. Direct Dial) 0.84 0.75 0.84 0.51 0.60 0.75 1.35 0.30 n.a, U.S. (AT&T One Rate) 5.61 5.85 5.85 5.70 4.62 4.98 6.51 3.87 n.a, U.S. (AT&T Basic) Source: TeleGeography research © TeleGeography, Inc 2001 © TELEGEOGRAPHY, INC. 2001 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2002 55 $8.00 $8.00 $4.00 $8 O0 Ausb’aha Germany Japan Mexzco U K Average Retail Price for a Three-Minute Call, 199B-2001 from Australia $6 00 $400 $2,00 $0.00 ’ from Belgium U.S. Ausb’aha Germany Japan Mexico U K~ U S $8 00 $8.00 from Japan from Germany ’~ oo- ~..~.. =~ oo $4O0 $40~- ~oo =zool $0.00 $0.00, Aust~aha Germany Japan Mexico U.K. US Aust~aha Germany Japan Mexico U.K U.S $8.00 $8 00 from U.K. from U.S. $6.00 $600- $4.00- $400 $’2.00. ,o.oo Aust~aha Germany Japan Mexico U K, ~Z.00 Australia Germany Japan Mexico U/( US Key 1998 1999 2000 2001 Note: All rates are for peak calling and are expressed in LIS dollars. Source: Philips Tafifica and TeleGeograph~y research © TeleGeography, Inc 2001 56 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2002 © TELEGEOGRAPHY, INC. 2001 51] TELEGEOGRAPHY 2002 © TELEGEOGRAPHY, INC. 2001 People will talk, given half a chance. And talk they did: in 2000, the total volume of international telephone traffic grew over 21 percent, to 132.7 billion minutes. This strong growth comes on the heels of a 17 percent increase in 1999 (see Figure 1. Regional Traffic Growth 1998-2000). For an industry that has long been described as "mature," international voice telephony showed remarkable vitality in 2000. Historically, traffic growth has been strongly correlated with overall economic growth. Given the rapid economic growth rates of the late 1990s, it is not surprising that call volumes posted strong gains. However, TeleGeography’s in-depth survey of interna- tional carriers suggests that there were other market factors at work as well. Fuel on the Fire The factors driving the sustained traffic growth will be familiar to industry participants: falling costs and prices, fierce competition for retail customers, and the continued growth of mobile telephone subscribership. 30% 25% 20% ~15% 10% 5% 0% Middle East Europe Asia South America NorLh America Change i998-1999 Change 1999-2000 Caribbean Africa Source" TeleGeography research © TeleGeooraphy, Inc 2001 © TELEGEOGRAPHY, INC. 2001 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2002 59 25% .o_ i-~ 20% 10%- "~ 5% 0% 22% 10% 18% 13% = ¯ Competitive Markets ts Non-Competive Markets 17% 15% 1997 1998 1999 2000 No~: Competitive markets allow at Least limited international services competition; non-competitive telecem markets maintain one monopoly carrier~ Source: TeleGeography research © TeLeGeography, tnc 2001 It is hard to overstate how competitive the international long distance marketplace has become or how pronounced the impact of competition has been--both on carriers and on their customers. As of mid-year 2001, 50 countries had authorized international telecom services competition, and the number of licensed international carriers had swelled to z~,030, up from approximately 370 in 1995. The influence of competition is underscored by the fact that traffic growth in countries that allow international services competition has been twice as fast as in countries that do not (see Figure 2. Annual Traffic Growth in Competitive and Non-Competitive Telecom Markets,1997-2000}. In 2000, call volumes grew by over 22 percent in coun- tries allowing international telecom competition, compared with growth of just over 10 percent in countries that retained a monopoly international carrier. Countries with competitive international telecom markets now account for approximately 90 percent of the world’s international traffic. As recently as a year ago, the ascendancy of a new breed of competitive carriers was regarded by many as all but certain. These were seen as smaller, more nimble compa- nies, unhindered by legacy equipment. Moreover, since they had no established cus- tomer base, they were able to price their services far more aggressively than their more entrenched rivals. Incumbent carriers found themselves with a Hobbesian choice: they could either keep prices high and lose customers, or cut prices and lose their margins. However, there was no way that they could sustain their high-margin international long-distance busi- ness. After trying to hold out for a few years, it seems that most have acquiesced and slashed prices. Retail prices have plummeted in competitive markets around the world. 60 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2002 © TELEGEOGRAPHY, INC. 2001 Deutsche Telekom, 1997 Deutsche Telekom, 2001 Arcor, 2001 Note; Call costs are based on advertised retail prices, including VAT. Source: Tele~eegraphy research ¯ ©TeieGeooraphy, tnc 2001 For example, at year-end 1997, on the eve of the competitive era in Europe, Deutsche Telekom charged DM 1.44 per minute for a call to the U.S. By mid-year 2001, Deutsche’s retail price for calls to the U.S. stood at DM 0.24 per minute---a drop of more than 80 percent {see Figure 3. International Call Costs from Germany, 1997 and 2000}. While a handful of rivals still boast lower prices, Deutsche Telekom’s prices are now virtually indistinguishable from those of its chief competitors, greatly reducing the incentive for customers to switch to alternate carriers. This trend is typical of many other countries where competition has recently taken root. These price cuts seem to be having their desired effect. After three years of declining call volumes, international traffic carried by incumbent carriers appears to have stabi- lized in the past year. Deutsche Telekom’s outbound international traffic, for example, fell by "only" 1.4 percent in 2000. Coming on the heels of an 18 percent decline in 1999, this represents a victory of sorts~lbeit a pyrrhic one. Rain on the Parade Interestingly, the traffic and pricing data collected by TeleGeography suggest that demand for international long-distance services is highly price-elastic. To enlarge upon the German example cited above, prices in the German market have fallen by approx- imately 75 percent in the past three years. During this same time period, international call volumes have nearly doubled. Clearly, falling prices have served as a powerful spur to international traffic growth. © TELEGEOGRAPHY, I~IC 2001 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2002 61 30% International Service Revenue Outgoing International Minutes -30% Telef6nica Telecom Korea Telstra AT&T Sprint New Telecom Zealand Source: TeleGeography research © TeleGeography, lnc 2001 However, while Germany’s call volumes have doubled, per-minute prices have tumbled even more rapidly, and the number of carriers sharing the traffic revenues has grown 100-fold. Consequently, while price cuts have helped incumbent carriers to stop the decline in their traffic volumes, they have done little to shore up their bottom line [see Figure 4. Revenue and Call Volume Changes for Major Carriers, 1999-2000]. Carriers as diverse as Sprint, Telef6nica, Telstra, and Korea Telecom have all suffered through the same experience: doing more, but not doing better. The brutal pace of competition has not treated competitive carriers any more gently than the incumbents. While the established carriers have ceded market share to their new rivals, most have been able to retain 50 percent or more of their home market’s international traffic, leaving their rivals to divide the remainder. For many competitive carriers, that has proven to be too little to survive. Faced with sustained losses, the need for continued investments, and unfavorable capital markets, five of the ten largest U.S. international carriers filed for bankruptcy in the early months of 2001 (see Figure 5. Five of the Ten Largest Carriers Have Failed). Not all competitive carriers suffered equally from the downdraft. With over 12 billion minutes of outbound traffic from the U.S., WorldCom clearly overtook AT&T to become the largest international carrier in the United States. On the basis of all information available to TeleGeography, WorldCom has emerged as the largest international carrier in the world, with approximately 16 billion minutes of aggregated traffic worldwide. 62 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2002 @ TELEGEOGRAPHY, ]NC. 2001 Outgoing International Minutes Carrier 1999 2000 1. AT&T 10,816.5 9,680.1 2. WorldCom 8,294.9 12,399.5 3. Sprint 3,714.4 3,922.8 4. World Access 1,129.5 Bankrupt, April 2001 5. Viate~ 901.6 Bankrupt, May 2001 6. STAR 785.8 Bankrupt, March 2001 7. Pacific Gateway 284.1 Bankrupt, December 2000 8. RSL Corn USA 389.5 Bankrupt, March 2001 9. Primus 868.5 1,082.5 10. Startec 207.2 404.3 Notes; 2000 traffic datanotavailab/efor;bankruptca~ier~ Ranking base~ uPon 1999outgoing intemationa/mi~lutes from the U.S. Source: FCC and TeleGeography research ¯ © TeleGeography, In~c 2001 Mobile telephony At their most basic level, mobile phones contribute to international traffic by simply providing more calling opportunities. More significantly, mobile phones can roam across borders with their subscribers. The impact of mobile roaming on international call volumes has been particularly pronounced in Europe, where countries are small, borders are porous, and mobile phone subscribership numbers are high. Mobile-orig- inated international traffic grew by 66 percent in 2000, more than three times as fast as fixed-line traffic. Worldwide, international calls placed from mobile phones grew to 20.:5 billion minutes, equivalent to 15.:5 percent of the world’s telephone traffic. The impact of mobile phones on cross-border telephone traffic is frequently overlooked by regulators and industry observers, who focus on competition for fixed-line sub- scribers. This emphasis on fixed-line international telephony is understandable. The majority of international calls are still placed from fixed-line telephones, and this is the arena in which carriers vie for retail customers. However, from the perspective of inter- national carriers, this yardstick neglects the fact that mobile operators have emerged as increasingly important customers for wholesale international services. International Refile Traffic and Accounting Rate Bypass Until just a few years ago, sending and terminating calls abroad was simple and expen- sive. International telecommunication companies (typically, incumbent monopolies) shared the cost and revenue for nearly every cross-border public switched call in accor- dance with the decades-old accounting rate regime. To send a call abroad, a carrier would route the signal onto its own international "half circuit," then transfer the call onto the matching network of its foreign counterpart for final termination. For this service, the originating carrier would pay the foreign telco a hefty settlement fee, usu- ally equal to one-half the accounting rate negotiated by the two carriers. © TELEGEOGRAPHY, INC. 2001 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2002 63 The accounting rate regime worked well enough to withstand decades of changes. As long as carriers were predominately monopoly incumbents and traffic on routes remained roughly in balance, there was little reason to question the economics of the accounting rate regime. But times have changed: in 2000, 90 percent of the world’s traffic was originated in countries that allowed international services competition, and traffic imbalances on some large routes, such as the U.S. to Mexico, can amount to bil- lions of minutes. As competition began to intensify, many carriers sought ways of reducing or avoiding high settlement costs by "bypassing" the international accounting rate system. Technological advances, such as voice-over-IP, have combined with the gradual dereg- ulation of telecom markets to offer carriers a host of ways to send and terminate their international traffic. Not all of them are entirely legal--but almost all are cheaper than the accounting rate regime. Legal Bypass Legal bypass, which eschews traditional international settlement in favor of direct inter- connection with foreign local exchange carriers (LECs], accounts for the largest portion of alternatively routed traffic. For many years, the only way for competitive carriers to provide international capacity was to lease international private-line capacity from for- eign carriers and "resell" it to their own customers. Although this practice is gradually giving way to new options, such as the outright ownership of bandwidth between and within multiple countries, regulators still often call this type of service International Simple Resale (ISR). In 2000, 35 countries allowed direct interconnection (effectively, another term for ISR). ISR traffic may only be sent between countries where both countries allow it. For exam- ple, while ISR is permitted in the U.S., it is not permitted in Mexico. Consequently, U.S. carriers cannot send ISR to Mexico, nor can Mexican carriers terminate traffic directly with a U.S. LEC. The :55 countries allowing direct interconnection with one another collectively generate 83 percent of the world’s outbound traffic~pproximately 110 billion minutes in 2000. About 62 billion minutes, equivalent to slightly less than half of the world’s international traffic, is sent between these countries. The fact that these countries allow ISR does not mean that all traffic between these countries is sent via ISR. TeleGeography’s analysis of U.S. carrier filings with the FCC suggests that only about z~0 percent of traffic sent by U.S. carriers to countries per- mitring ISR bypassed the settlement rate system. But this misses a key point: if car- riers had found it to their advantage to send their traffic via ISR, they would have. The fact that they did not suggests that they had other, equally economical, means of deliv- ering and terminating their traffic. For carriers sending traffic between countries where ISR is permitted, the term "bypass" has become something of an oxymoron. Bypass what? The term suggests that there is an obstacle that must be overcome, when in fact, this is no longer the case. 64 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2002 © TELEGEOGRAPHY, INC. 2001 $1.00 $0.80 $0.60 $0.40 ~- ’~’ $0.20 $0.00 $0.00 $0.20 $0.40 $0.60 $0.80 Wholesale Rate $1.00 Illicit Bypass The issue of bypass traffic is far more acute for carriers sending traffic to and from the 200 countries where direct interconnection is not authorized. Calls to countries where ISR is not permitted constitute approximately 53 percent of U.S. outgoing traffic, but 79 percent of U.S. settlement payments (approximately $3.9 billion in 2000}. Per- minute settlement rates are approximately three times higher in countries where direct interconnection is not permitted than in countries where it is--averaging $0.36 per minute, compared with $0.13 in countries allowing direct interconnection. A comparison of wholesale prices charged by carriers on the switched minutes trading floor of TeleGeography’s parent company, Band-X with official settlement rates suggests that many carriers have found ways to beat the system. Figure 6 compares wholesale country rates available on Band-X in 2000 with the prevailing settlement rates for that particular country. Each dot in the chart compares the settlement rate with the whole- sale price charged for carrying a minute of traffic to that country. Thus, for example, a carrier was offering to carry traffic from Band-X’s switch in London to Vietam at a wholesale rate of $0.55 per minute, $0.12 less than the prevailing settlement rate of $0.6-/ per minute. Since ISR is not permitted in Vietnam, it seems all but certain that this traffic is bypassing the settlement rate. © TELEGEOGRAPHY, INC. 2001 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2002 65 1,000 900 800 700 600 500 400- 300 200~ 100 0’ $0.00 Mexico (1) Philippines (14) Brazil (4) ® China (2) @ Pakistan ® Colombia (9) =o.zo =o, o =o.6o Settlement Rate per Minute $0.80 $1.00 Notes: Number in parenthesis denotes country’s rank among international VolP destinations, U.S. traffic to Mexico exceeds 6 billion m~nutes, Source: Te|eGeography research ©TeleGeegraphyo Inc 2001 While these "gray market" rates are attractive to carriers, they have the disadvantage of being unpredictable. Gray market rates can fluctuate wildly, and abruptly disappear, when authorities discover and shut down that route [please see the Overview of International Pricing Trends on page .~.~). The typical life expectancy of such a gray market route can be measured in months, if not weeks. Bypass-over-IP The combination of relatively high settlement rates and heavy traffic volumes has his- torically created large volumes of illicit bypass traffic [e.g., to China, Jamaica, Philippines, Brazil, India, and Mexico). These countries present the greatest cost sav- ings opportunities for bypass of the settlement rate and are, therefore, the most attrac- tive targets for carriers seeking to evade settlement payments [see Figure 7. VoIP and Bypass Targets, 2000). Some countries [appearing in Figure 7 as gray circles hugging the "x" axis) have very high settlement rates but low volumes of incoming traffic. Other countries [stacked along the "y" axis in Figure 7) receive substantial amounts of incoming calls but have low settlement rates. Not surprisingly, most of the countries that make attractive bypass targets have also emerged as the leading destinations for international voice-over-IP (VoIP) traffic. VoIP holds substantial long-term promise as a means of reducing costs for carriers and as a platform for introducing a host of new communications services. However, in the near term, it has emerged as the most elegant means yet devised of bypassing the account- 66 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2002 © TELEGEOGRAPHY, INC 2001 The second largest international route in the world--between the U~S. and Mexico---is also the most imbalanced route in the world. U,S. callers send hundreds of millions more minutes of calls to Mexico than they receive, resulting in a huge outflow of payments from U.S, carriers to their Mexican counterparts. During the past decade, U,S: carriers’~net settlement outpay- ments to Mexico have averaged more than $700 million per year, we’ve seen in recentyears in Europe and other recently liber- alized countries. Priortetheliberalization ofthe European market, call-back services and illicit leased-line services were widely used throughout Europe. Plummeting prices forinter- national telephony services have eliminated any incentive cus- tomers may once have hadte use gray market ~arriers, ¯ bringing the ~affic once -~entthrough these hidden ~channels back onto the public network. In 1999, U.S. carriers were abteto reach a newdeal with ¯ Telmex. In January 1999, settlement reteswere reduced from $0.39 to $0.23 per minute. Six months tater~thsywera reduced to $0.19 per minute, where they remained throughout 2000. ¯ Spurred by this rate cut, traffic fromthe LLS.to Mexicosurged from 4.1 billion minutes in,1999to 6=1 billion minutes in 2000. ,, Given the close relationship between ~e U.S, and Mexico and the large number of Mexican immigrants living in the U.S., it is not surprising that demand should be !high. That it should increase by half in one year is astonishing." But perhaps call volumes didn’t actually grow by a full 50 percent. A far more plausible explanation ~s thattraffc that once bypassed the set- tlement rate regime has now come into the open and is being ¯ documented. Lower settlement rates have reduced (though by no means eliminated)the incentive to smuggle traffic int~ Mexico via "gray market" channels. Similar shift~ in call volumes’Gave been documented in other ¯ countries. For example, whbn leased lines were authorized (for internal company use) in indonesia in 1999, PSTN call vol- umes plummeted, as heavy users of international calling serv- ices switched to (illicit) ISR carders. A similar eve’r~ took place, albeit in reverse, in ~1999 in Hang Kong, when ISR was legalized, Outbound traffic frnm Hang Kong suPged~uch of it duets substitution, as customers abandoned call-back serv- ices in favor of leased-line reselters. Since TeleGeography’s research depends on traffic data com- piled by international carders, it is certain te miss some ofthe gray and-black market traffic that is, intentionally, being hidden from these very carders. However, occasionally, the swings in documented traffic are so greatthatthey provide evidence of occurre~tces in these hidden markets. This %ubatitut~on effect" (of above-board PSTN service for illicit bypass) may also account for some of the rapid growth © TeleGeography, tnc 2001 ing rate regime {for a detailed analysis of VolP traffic trends, please see VolP Routes & Traffic on page 69}. In 2000, VolP call volumes reached approximately 5.3 billion min- utes, essentially all of which bypassed the accounting rate system. How much international traffic illegally bypasses the accounting rate system? By virtue of their illicit character, traffic volumes in this "gray market" are extraordinarily diffi- cult to track. Successful bypass operators are generally loathe to advertise their suc- cess, and traffic smuggling arrangements are usually transient. Carriers lease a private line, aggressively ramp up international call volumes, and then terminate the operation just as quickly. TeleGeography estimates that illicit bypass volume was somewhere in the range of five to ten percent of global international traffic in 2000. At least half of this bypass traf- fic traveled as VolP and the remainder as switched bypass over leased lines. Although illicit bypass accounts for only a small percentage of total world traffic, it is unevenly distributed. In many countries, such as China, Panama, or Bangladesh, the proportion © TELEGEOGRAPHY, INC. 2001 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2002 67 of bypass traffic can be far higher--between z~O and 60 percent. The financial loss to carriers in these destination countries easily reaches several hundred million dollars annually. Refile Refile represents a third form of alternatively routed traffic. Instead of avoidinl~ accountinl~ rates altoBether, carriers employinl~ refile bend the rules of the international settlement reBime to their advantaBe. Refile occurs when a carrier secretly re-routes an outBoinB international call throuBh a third country, takinl~ advantaBe of the inter- mediate country’s lower settlement rate with the final destination country. AlthouBh the leBal status of refile is more debatable than that of many other forms of bypass, the practice is certainly illicit. With the intent of disBuisinl~ the true oriBin of traffic, the refile carrier in the intermediate country strips the numberinl~ code, which identifies the oriBinatinl~ country, replacinB it with its own country code. This ruse makes economic sense in cases where settlement rate disparity exists between originatinl~ countries. For example, in mid-year 2000, the official settlement rate for traffic to Kuwait was $0.15 per minute from the U.S. and $0.6"/ per minute from the U.K. By charginB British carriers a fee somewhere between the U.S. and U.K. rates--say, $0.25 for a one-minute call~ U.S.-based refiler could turn a $0.10 profit. Another winner would be the British carrier, saving $0.41 (minus the neglil~ible transmission costs of re-rout- ing the call throul~h the U.S.). In contrast, the Kuwaiti telco would lose $0.51 in poten- tial settlement income from the transaction. Based on information l~athered in its annual survey of international carriers, TeleGeography estimates that refile traffic accounts for about 25 percent of world traf- fic volumes. Much of this refile traffic is sent between countries where ISR is legal, and simply represents an alternate means of delivering traffic to its destination. The final question is, who is sendinl~ all of this bypass traffic? The simple answer is that everybody’s doing it. Based on survey responses provided to TeleGeography, carriers in monopoly markets and developinB countries are every bit as likely to trick the sys- tem as carriers battling for their existence in hotly contested markets. The destina- tions, volumes, and technolol~ies employed may vary, but the ultimate goal is always the same: to maximize net revenues by minimizing net outpayments to other carriers. Given the pervasiveness of bypass traffic and the fact that virtually all international car- riers are engal~ed in some form of bypass, the practice will survive as long as there are cost structures that can be circumvented. 68 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2002 © TELEGEOGRAPHY, INC. 2001 Overview Just three years ago, the combined traffic of all companies routing international calls over Internet Protocol (IP) networks accounted for less than one-half of one percent of the world’s international minutes. Although Voice-over-internet Protocol (VolP) has only recently left its infancy as an alternative to traditional circuit-switched calling, the core infrastructure and support systems necessary for making VolP a serious choice have begun to come online. In 2000, cross-border VolP call volumes reached approximately 5.3 billion minutes, up from about 1.6 billion in 1999. Based on TeleGeography’s half-year survey results, the total market may reach 10 billion minutes for the calendar year 2001, constituting almost six percent of the world’s forecasted international traffic (see Figure I. International VolP and PSTN Traffic Summary). Wholesale VolP The VolP industry is still young and unpredictable. While new and incumbent carriers alike are laying plans for IP networks that will carry all of their voice traffic in coming years, they,still have a way to go. Most VolP traffic today is carried by a handful of specialist providers acting as carriers’ carriers and clearinghouses for established and emerging phone companies (see Figure 2. Major VolP Carriers and Traffic). Some of these specialist wholesalers use regular Internet transit to carry their voice traffic; oth- ers use private lines running IR Most use a combination of the two, along with PSTN "failover" circuits where IP connections are too thin, too few, or too congested. Although their network architectures may differ, most wholesale VolP carriers share the same goal: arbitrage. They take advantage of differences between official PSTN set- tlement fees and de facto termination rates by using IP to transport their voice traffic. In some cases, this is done illicitly. Notably, there are few cases where IP is used solely because of its efficiency as a transmission technology. PSTN phone companies appear to have become serious users of VolP middle men: in 2000, wholesale traffic accounted for more than half of the world’s VolP minutes. VolP wholesaler ITXC claims to have 14 of the top 15 U.S. carriers for customers, and its chief competitor, iBasis, is carrying traffic for 11 of the top 12. Furthermore,"next genera- tion" carriers--such as Global Crossing, Level 3, and KPNQwest--have installed totally new infrastructure upon which wholesale VolP volumes should rise as the new compa- nies ramp up their traffic streams. Nonetheless, many well-established telephone companies still consider VolP an exper- iment and sometimes see it as a threat to existing revenue streams. The threat is even more clear to carriers in monopoly markets, where operators may lose out on outgo- ing call revenues and incoming settlement payments. But as incumbents become more comfortable with VolP and as the underlying technology matures, more and more voice traffic is likely to transit IP networks. How much? The answer will largely depend--in the short term---on how many arbitrage opportunities exist (which is tied into how long certain markets stay closed to full competition). In the long term, the answer will © TELEGEOGRAPHY, INC. 2001 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2002 69 Total VolP and PSTN Traffic, 1997-2001 International VolP Traffic 1,555 m 150 m 8m 1997 1998 1999 2000 180,000 9,634 m 160,000 140,000 120,000 100,000 80,000 60,000 40,000 20,000 0 2001 VoiP Traffic by Regional Destination, Africa US 1% 6% Note: Voice-over-lP (Vo|P) traffic includes all cross-border voi~.e calls carried on lP networks butterminated on pubiie switched telephone net- works; PC-to-PC communications and private network traffic are excluded, PSTN traffic includes circuit-switched voice and fax traffic carried on ~radit~onal intematfon al faeitities as well as international simple resale (ISR) facilities, Rgures for 2001 are est~rnated, Source’. TeleGeograp~hy research ©TeleGeography, Inc 2001 depend on how deeply into the home and office IP-enabled devices penetrate and how willing existing carriers are to moth-ball billions of dollars of PSTN switching equipment ahead of their expected depreciation cycle. Retail VolP In addition to their wholesale businesses, many VolP specialists are also taking a direct path to the consumer by way of PC-to-PC and PC-to-phone calling plans. (In fact, PC-to-phone calls predate phone-to-phone over IR) Dozens of new Web-based com- munications portals offer almost free domestic calling and ultra-low cost international calls to users equipped with the proper hardware and proprietary software. Not only do these carriers employ VolP arbitrage to cut costs, most also generate sponsorship revenue by way of on-screen advertisements (although not enough to support com- pletely free calling). Last year, Net2Phone, DeltaThree, and DialPad all reported sig- nificant volumes of PC-to-phone traffic, comprising more than 20 percent of the world’s international VolP calls in 2000. And almost all VolP companies also offer some form of calling cards, utilizing networks of dial-around gateways to get PSTN calls onto their networks. Based on our survey data for 2000, approximately 20 to 30 percent of international VolP traffic can be attributed to calling-card origins. The capabilities of a VolP network--that is, what can be delivered to the consumer-- are largely determined by the standards implemented. To date, the mostly widely deployed standard for handling VolP traffic has been H.323, a protocol developed under ITU auspices in the late 1990s for video communications over local area net- 70 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2002 © TELEGEOGRAPHY, INC. 2001 80% 60% 40% 20% 1998 Market Share of International VolP Minutes, 1998-2001 2001 2000 (Jan.-Dec.) 2001 (Jan.-June) Market Capitalization Company Traffic (min) Revenues Traffic (min) Revenues Oct. 2, 2000 Oct2, 2001 Deltathree 257 m $30.0 m 111 m $8.9 m $104.5m $19.2 rn (NASD: DDDC) iBasis 604 m $61.2 m 590 m $61.3 m $541.1 m $28.5 m (NASD: IBAS) ITXC 769 m $64.8 m 703 m $74.9 m $563.6 m $118.7 m (NASD: ITXC) Net2Phone 416 m $62.5m 675 m $64.7 m $1,238.8 m $189.6 rn (NASD: NTOP) works. Now in its fourth iteration, H.323 has been reengineered specifically to handle VolP calls. Although H.323 is nearly ubiquitous in VolP networks, a second standard, Session Initiation Protocol {SIP}, has become widely accepted as the next generation protocol for VolP call delivery. Its acceptance, however, has less to do with voice than it does with video and other premium services. SIP is designed to work with IP devices {like computers} much the same way a Web browser or email client does. This provides a particularly attractive scenario to VolP carriers {and their vendors}, which have had difficulty deriving much profit from the razor-thin margins associated with carrying voice traffic, especially on competitive routes. © TELEGEOGRAPHY, INC. 2001 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2002 71 The relative importance of PC-to-phone~and PC-to-PC--calling may grow rapidly with the introduction of Microsoft’s new Windows XP operating system, which integrates SIP into the computer’s pre-installed communications software. Although desk"top calling software is nothing new to the PC, the level of integration, quality, and functionality may make PC-to-phone calls a much more substantial portion of overall VolP volumes and may finally take PC-to-PC (or IP-to-IP device) calls mainstream. Depending on how these calls are accounted for, tracking VolP traffic may become a considerably more complex exercise. Traffic Survey Given the still nascent stage of the VolP industry, the installed base of circuit-switched transmission equipment, and the difficulty of tracking calls terminated in places where you may not want to advertise your success, making predictions is a hazardous business. Therefore, our research focused on acquiring real traffic statistics from real VolP carri- ers. The statistics and analysis presented on these pages are based on TeleGeography’s second annual VolP routes survey, concluded in September 2001. (For information on how to participate, please see the contact information at the front of this report.) The goal of our survey was twofold: first, to measure how much VolP traffic transits international networks; and second, to establish where it is going. The data presented here include international phone calls that transit public or private IP networks at some point but are ultimately terminated on traditional fixed or mobile networks. PC-to-PC communications and private corporate network traffic are excluded because neither are directly comparable to PSTN traffic flows. Also, because our survey is based on the reports of most--but not all--companies carrying VolP traffic, some routes may be under-reported. Finally, the true point of origin for most VolP traffic is difficult to ascer- tain. Many carriers track only where the traffic enters their network, usually at a cen- trally-located hub in the U.S. As a result, the tables in Figure 3 present routes originating at U.S. hubs only, and traffic flows are displayed in relative proportions rather than absolute minutes. The Results Overall, our findings proved an obvious point--that VolP is a new means to an old end. Because U.S.-based companies have had a head start in setting up their businesses, most of the world’s VolP traffic currently originates in the U.S., although the U.K. and China are growing as alternative origination hubs. Furthermore, because the Internet remains U.S.-centric, U.S.-based VolP carriers have access to the most international IP bandwidth at the lowest prices. And, just as the U.S. continues to act as the primary hub for intercontinental Internet traffic, the U.S. may retain its position as a hub for VolP traffic even as the ranks of VolP carriers proliferate into Western Europe and Asia (see Figure 3. Top 25 U.S.-Originated VolP Routes, 1999-2001). Although VoIP calling patterns run roughly parallel to established PSTN demand, the largest share of VolP traffic terminated in countries where existing PSTN settlement rates are highest relative to the actual cost of getting the call there (see Figure 4. Traffic, Settlements, and Regulation). Also, because quality expectations may be lower on many popular arbitrage routes, VolP calls compare favorably to the equally mediocre quality of many circuit-switched calls. The impact on overall traffic flows can be significant--in countries with sufficient infrastructure and high settlement rates, VolP accounts for up to 10 percent of total incoming traffic. 72 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2002 © TELEGEOGRAPHY, INC. 2001 Rank Route 2001 Route Share 1. U.S.to Mexico .......... 13.0% 2. U.S. to China ............. 6.6% 3. U.S. to Russia ............ 3.6% 4. U.S. to Brazil ............. 3.4% 5. U.S. to Poland ............ 2.9% 6. U.S, to Israel ............. 2.6% 7. U.S. to India ............. 2.3% 8. U.S. to Romania .......... 2.1% 9. U.S.to Colombia .......... 2.0% 10. U.S to Indonesia .......... 1.8% 11. U.S.to Canada ........... 1.6% 12. U.S, to Ukraine ........... 1.5% 13. U.S. to Taiwan ............ 1.3% 14. U.S.to Philippines ........ 1.2% 15. U.S. to U.K ............... 1.1% 16. U.S. to Argentina ......... 1.0% 17. U.S. to France ............ 1.0% 18. U.S.to Kuwait ............ 1.0% 19. U.S.to Germany .......... 0.8% 20, U.S. to Vietnam ........... 0.7% 21. U.S.to Peru .............. 0.7% 22, U.S. to Japan ............ 0.7% 23, U.S. to Guatemala ........ 0.6% 24. U.S. to Turkey ............ 0.6% 25. U.S.to Sweden ........... 0.5% Largest U.S.-Originated VolP Routes, 1999-2001 Percentage of Total Outgoing VolP Minutes 5.0% 10.0% 15.0% 20.0% 25.0% [] 2001 2000 1999 30.0% Notes: Route rankings are based on actual traffic reports by majorwholesale and retail VolP carriers. Figures do not include all VolP carriers and routes, however, so some omissions may have occurred. Year 2001 rankings are based on statistics supplied for the first six months of 2001. In 2001, routes omitted from th=s table may have accounted for almost 50 percent of U.S. originated VofP traffic. Source: TeleGeography research © TeleGeography, lnc 2001 © TELEGEOGRAPHY, INC. 2001 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2002 73 10% ___ 9% "~ 7%0- "E 6% 0.00 Incoming VolP Traffic and Settlement Rates Russia @ Peru ¯ Indonesia Israel China Kuwait ¯ Mexico ¯ Bulgaria Ukraine O O Brazil¯Thailand @ Malaysia Taiwan @ Argentina Pakistan ¯ Philippines Japan O Turkey o 8 Canada Greece ¯ Australia Korea India ¯ o o U.K. 00 France/Germany 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40 0.45 Settlement Rate (US$) Notes: Traffic data based on actual and es~mated totals for 2000. Settlement rates based on FCC reported averages for calendar year 2000. Reguiatery comparison based on the number of carriers authorized to own international transmisSion facilities atyear end 2000. Source: TeleGeography research and FCC © TeleGeography~ foc 2001 The clearest example of this trend is traffic on the U.S.-Mexico route, which accounted for about one-fifth of global VolP traffic between 1999 and 2001. Routes into China and Russia are also growing fast, with over 300 percent growth between 1999 and 2000. VolP is a logical alternative on routes like these, where International Simple Resale or direct interconnection are still prohibited but sufficient IP capacity--and the right combination of regulations or lack of enforcement--exists to route calls over Internet connections into the local telephone network. In the near future, we also expect that traffic into other parts of East Europe, Latin America, and Southeast Asia will increase dramatically as VolP termination arrangements expand and IP infrastruc- ture matures, providing a viable alternative to high PSTN settlement rates. Conclusion Since TeleGeography began tracking international phone calls more than a decade ago, market forces and technological innovation have driven down prices and increased traf- fic flows across the globe. The Internet has no doubt played a significant role in accel- erating this process in the last few years, and forecasting the effect on actual traffic flows remains an extremely difficult endeavor. Moreover, as new IP communications services and devices become available, they may stimulate new demand and increase VolP traffic flows beyond the growth rates characteristic of the traditional voice teleph- ony market. We will be watching--and reporting--these developments as they OCCUr. 74 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2002 © TELEGEOGRAPHY, INC. 2001 T AFFJC ANALYSIS Over the past five years, mobile telephones have become an integral part of the inter- national telecommunications landscape. Once considered a luxury item for business travelers, mobile phones now outnumber fixed-line connections in a growing number of developed and developing countries. In advanced economies, the popularity and ubiq- uity of mobile phones have made them almost a necessity; for developing economies, mobile telephony provides a means of circumventing the high construction costs of building out extensive fixed-line networks and eliminating waiting times and high up- front costs for fixed-line installation. For international long distance carriers, the importance of mobile telecommunications is quite clear. Greater mobile subscribership means an increasing proportion of inter- national traffic will be originated or terminated on mobile devices. In TeleGeography 2001, we reported that mobile-originated international telephone traffic grew from eight percent of total international traffic in 1998 to 11.5 percent in 1999. During 2000, the mobile share of international traffic reached 15.3 percent, accounting for over 20 billion minutes. As that proportion grows, mobile-originated and mobile-ter- minated traffic will become an increasingly significant consideration for long-distance carriers who transport mobile traffic across political borders. International Traffic From Mobiles Africa L Amer=ca & Caribbean U.S. & Canada As=a & Oceania From Fixed Africa Total = 20,303 m minutes L. America & Caribbean Total = 112,397 m m~nutes Mobile Fixed Subscribers Africa L. America & Caribbean Total = 729 m Africa L. America & Caribbean Total = 969 rn Source: TeleGeography research and ITU © TeleGeography, Inc 2001 © TELEGEOGRAPHY, INC 2001 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2002 Mobile Traffic: The Year in Review From 1999 to 2000, the volume of international traffic oril~inated on mobile phones increased 66 percent to 20.3 billion minutes. Growth rates across regions varied widely, from 58 percent in Europe to 127 percent in the U.S. & Canada. Despite the differences in {~rowth rates, rel~ional shares remain relatively unchanged. Europe still accounts for well over half of the world’s mobile-originated traffic, with Asia & Oceania a distant second (see Fil~ure I. Mobile versus Fixed International Traffic and Subscribership by Rel~ion, 2000). Mobile-oril~inated international calls account for 19 to 22 percent of total outl~oin{~ international traffic for all regions of the world, except in the U.S. & Canada, where only 2.2 percent of international calls originate on mobile networks. Not surprisingly, the volume of international traffic terminated on mobile phones is roul~hly on par with mobile-originated international traffic. Based on the information supplied by numerous carriers, TeleGeol~raphy estimates the total amount of mobile- terminated international traffic to be 25.4 billion minutes, just over 20 percent of the world’s total incoming international traffic. Regional shares of the world’s total mobile terminated traffic parallel those of mobile-originated traffic; Europe accounts for 65 percent of the world’s total, followed by Asia & Oceania (22.8 percent), Latin America & Caribbean (5.9 percent), Africa (3.8 percent), and the U.S. & Canada (2.8 percent). Within rel~ions, however, the proportions of mobile-oril~inated and mobile-terminated traffic are not as closely linked (see Figure 3. Percent of International Traffic to and from Mobiles, 2000). 1.1 5.0 12.9 to 1999 20% 0.4 ¯ 2000 15% 10% 5% 20.3 Africa L. America & U.S. & Asia & Europe World Total Carnbean Canada Oceania Note: Numbers show total mobile-originated international traffic minutes in billions. Source: TeleGeography research © TeleGeography, |r~c 2001 76 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2002 © TELEGEOGRAPHY, INC, 2001 The Cost of Termination While patterns of mobile-originated traffic hil~hlight the increasing role of wireless telecommunications in the international long distance market, patterns of mobile-ter- minated international traffic are perhaps of more immediate interest to international carriers. Terminating traffic on mobile networks is almost universally more expensive than terminating traffic on fixed networks (Figure z~. Wholesale Rates to Fixed versus Mobile Telephones, 2001]. In order to illustrate the economic effects of terminating international traffic on mobile networks, TeleGeography has estimated the costs of mobile termination using its traf- fic data and wholesale pricing information from the switched minutes trading floor of Band-X. Though the wholesale rates may not be an exact reflection of the actual costs, they serve as an excellent proxy, as differences in wholesale rates between fixed and mobile termination closely mirror the differences in interconnection rates. If anything, the wholesale rates may provide too conservative an estimate, as the differences between fixed and mobile wholesale rates are sometimes less dramatic than the cor- respondin8 interconnection rates. Where the rates for fixed and mobile termination are in line [Africa, for example], mobile traffic does not contribute significantly more to the cost of terminating traffic in a particular country. In regions such as Europe, where the differential is quite significant, mobile traffic contributes disproportionately to the total cost (Figure 5. Estimated Costs of Wholesale Traffic to Fixed and Mobile Destinations, 2000]. For Western Europe, in particular, the effect is stunnins: thoush mobile calls account for’only 51.8 percent of all incoming international traffic, they represent 80.2 percent of the total cost of terminating international traffic. 3O% 25% ,_~ 20% 15%- 5%- 12.7 16.5 Mobile Originated ¯ Mobile Terminated 25.4 o% Africa L. America & U.S. & Carribean Canada Asia & Ocean[a Europe World Total Note: Numbers show minutes of international traffic in billions. Source: TeleGeography research © TeleGeography, Inc 2001 © TELt:GEOGRAPHY, INC. 2001 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2002 77 TJ AFFiC $0.40 $0.35 $0.30 $0.25 $0.20 $0.~5 $0.10 $0.05 $0.00 $o.oo $0.10 $0.20 $0.30 $0.40 .Wholesale Rate to Fixed (US$ per rain) As we reported last year, subscribership trends and international roaming are central to understanding the robust growth of international mobile traffic. In the sections that follow, we review current developments in both areas and examine the regulatory issues that have become increasingly important in the mobile industry, especially as they inform the cost of mobile termination. Subscribership Worldwide mobile subscribership grew from almost 91 million to over 720 million between 1995 and 2000, at a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 51.3 percent. Explosive growth was not the exclusive domain of more developed markets, however. Africa showed the most dramatic growth (CAGR 77.3 percent), with Europe following at 64.3 percent. By December 2000, the number of mobile subscribers exceeded that of fixed-line subscribers in countries as diverse as Cambodia, Finland, Paraguay, Uganda, Venezuela, Italy, and Portugal. Globally, the ITU estimates that the number of worldwide mobile subscribers will surpass the number of fixed line subscribers by 2003. While the growth of mobile ~ubscribership has undoubtedly affected the overall growth of international mobile traffic, the factors driving that growth have also shaped the pat- terns of international mobile traffic. One of the most commonly cited factors con- tributing to subscribership growth has been the emergence of pre-paid mobile services, which facilitate access to individuals unable to acquire fixed lines due to insufficient credit history. One European carrier, for example, noted that mobile-originated calls 78 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2002 © TELEGEOGRAPHY, INC. 2001 Global Traffic Wholesale Rate Total Cost to Destination (m min.) to Destination (US$/min) of Traffic (US$ m) Destination Total Traffic % to Mobile Fixed Mobile Fixed Mobile % to Mobile Africa Egypt 620.6 28.5% $0.31 $0.36 $139.5 $63.9 31.3% Ghana 135.7 29.4% $0.16 $0.19 $15.8 $7.8 33.0% Morocco 622.7 37.0% $0.23 $0.23 $89.6 $52.7 37.0% South Africa 700.0 27.3% $0.14 $0.17 $72.8 $33.0 31.3% Africa Total 4,561.0 21.4% :$0.22 $0.24 $781.3 $2382 23.4% L America & Caribbean Argentina 859.2 11.4% $0.11 $0.14 $85.6 $13.4 13.5% Brazil 1,212.4 22.0% $0.12 $0.14 $110.7 $37.9 25.5% Colombia 760.9 7.1% $0.11 $0.14 $79.6 $7.3 8.4% Dominican Republic 1,340.0 12.1% $0.08 $0.10 $95.9 $15.8 14.2% Nicaragua 81.4 16.7% $0.22 $027 $14.9 $3.6 19.6% L America & Carib. Total 15,123.3 10.0% $0.12 $0.16 $1,695.7 $236.9 12.3% U.S. & Canada Canada 7,811.9 4.0% $0.02 $0.02 $166.5 $6.9 4.0% United States 13,010.7 3.0% $0.02 $0.02 $236.6 $7.3 3.0% U.S. & Canada Total 20,822.6 3.4% $0.02 $0.02 $403.0 $14.3 3A% Asia & (~ceania Australia 2,193.7 8.7% $0.02 $0.10 $48.0 $18.7 28.0% Bangladesh 232.8 7.9% $0.40 $0.41 $85.2 $7.5 8.1% China 1,640.0 11.1% $0.10 $0.13 $146.5 $24.1 14.1% Hong Kong 1,858.0 7.8% $0.02 $0.03 $38.5 $3.7 8.7% India 2,161.4 3.9% $0.42 $0.45 $862.9 $37.8 4.2% Japan 2,423.8 14.8% $0.04 $0.13 $74.4 $48.3 39.4% Lebanon 362.1 26.3% $0.16 $0.34 $42.8 $32.2 42.9% Phi/ippines 926.6 41.1% $0,11 $0,12 $61.4 $44.0 41.7% Saudi Arabia 1,935.7 35.0% $0.34 $0.37 $429.9 $253.3 37.1% Thailand 426.6 46.1% $0.17 $0.19 $39.5 $37.2 48.5% Asia & Oceania Total 28221.6 20.5% $0.15 $0.16 $3~89.0 $027,5 22.0% Europe Belgium 1,944.6 29.7% $0.02 $0.24 $28.7 $136,0 82.6% Czech Republic 496.9 30.4% $0.09 $0.13 $30.4 $19.9 39.6% Denmark 1,016.0 29.0% $0.02 $0.06 $13.7 $18.8 57.7% France 6,444.3 24.6% $0.02 $0.22 $102.1 $356,0 77.7% Italy 4,356.9 36.1% $0.02 $0.24 $60.6 $380.4 86.3% Netherlands 2,094.2 38.4% $0.02 $0.20 $23.6 $161.6 87.3% Poland 1,283.6 25.7% $0.10 $0.12 $84.4 $39.2 29.3% Spain 1,901.8 44.8% $0.03 $0.23 $28.0 $199.4 87.7% Sweden 1,213.6 30.3% $0.01 $0.07 $10.9 $25.9 70.4% Turkey 1,240.0 23.2% $0.14 $0.17 $131.5 $48.1 26.8% Europe Total 65,041.9 30.0% $0.04 $0.16 $1,404.4 $2,617.3 65.1% Notes: Global traffic to destinetion equals total incoming traffic to each country m 2000 and includes both traffic reported to.TeleGeography end esti- mates. As incoming traffic is much more difficult to track than outgoing traffics the sum of regional averages for incoming traffic does not d=reotly compare to that of outgoing traffic. Bypass, ferule, and a number of other factors contribute to the apparent "deficit." Rates are from the Band-X London switch as of August 2000. Total costto fixed a~d mobile destlnat~ons are es~mated by multiplying the volume of total international minutes to fixed and mobde phones in each country by the wholesale rates to fixed and mobile destinations in the respective country. Fzgures may show rounding errors and weighting in calculations for regional averages, Source: TeleGeography research and Band-X Ltd. © TeleGeography, Inc 200l © TELEGEOGRAPHY, INC. 2001 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2002 79 Finland Italy Philippines Australia Switzerland Thailand Uruguay 2.650.0 4,140.0 273.0 18.6 69.4 9.3 468.0 3,195.0 8.3 355.2 1.4 9.8 ¯ Subscribers (m) Int’l Traffic (m rains), 78.0 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60°,/o 70% 80°,/o 90% Percent from Mobiles Note; Numbers show abeotutelevels of subscribership and cell minutes from mobiles, Lengths of bars show reIative levels from mobiles. Source; TeleGeography research and ]TU © TeleGeography. Inc 200l accounted for a significant portion of traffic on thin routes between developed and developing countries, as many newly arrived immigrants were able to acquire pre-paid mobile phone services long before they established sufficient credit to have fixed-line services installed. Roaming An increase in mobile subscribership has a potentially greater impact on international voice traffic than a comparable increase in fixed line subscribership: fixed lines don’t cross political borders with their users, but mobile handsets do. International roaming not only provides a valuable service to mobile users through "seamless" connectivity; it also generates demand for international telecommunications transport. To illustrate the contribution mobile roaming makes to international voice traffic flows, let’s consider a German mobile user traveling in Austria. Upon activating her handset, the German traveler will select an Austrian host network on which to operate, either by manually choosing a host network or allowing her handset to choose a network based on pre-programmed preferences. This selection process establishes a connection between the home and host networks, allowing the home network to locate the user and providing the host network with authentication and billing information. ~]0 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2002 © TELEGEOGRAPHY, INC, 2001 When the German traveler makes a call from her handset, the call will be processed by the Austrian host network. Thus, when calling another German number, the call will be picked up by the Austrian network and then transmitted along the PSTN to Germany for termination. The resulting traffic, while connecting two German numbers, actually constitutes an international call from Austria to Germany. Conversely, if one of the traveler’s friends in Germany calls her mobile, the call will be forwarded by her home network, via the PSTN, to Austria, where it will be picked up and delivered by the Austrian host network. Again, the call between two German numbers is, in fact, an international call between Germany and Austria. In either case, the German traveler will incur a roaming charge for using the Austrian network. That charge, plus a mark-up from her home provider, will then be billed directly to her. For originating calls, the charges she receives are those dictated by the pricing scheme (peak/off-peak, etc.) of the Austrian operator, not her home provider. Billing between operators is generally handled by clearinghouses but may be managed by the operators themselves. In the above example, we’ve made a few assumptions in order to illustrate how roam- ing contributes to international voice traffic. One of the principal assumptions is the existence of a roaming agreement between the traveler’s home mobile provider and at least one Austrian provider. Such agreements are quite common, especially among GSM operators. The other major assumption is technical interoperability. The European Union shares a common digital standard, GSM, which has been pivotal in facilitating roaming across its member states. GSM has also been deployed in other nations across the globe, but there are other digital standards (CDMA, TDMA, etc.) in use. Interstandard roaming has, thus, become a central issue in the development of truly global roaming. As global roaming becomes a practical reality, its contribution to international mobile traffic could increase substantially. Regulatory Issues In its early days, mobile telephony didn’t attract much attention from national regula- tory agencies (NRAs). As the number of mobile users has exploded, however, mobile telecommunications services have shifted from an area of scant regulatory interest and intervention to a growing area of concern and activity for NRAs. Between 1997 and 1999, international refile of domestic mobile traffic (so-called "tromboning"), moti- vated by the disparity between domestic and international mobile termination rates, garnered a fair deal of attention. Tromboning has declined appreciably since 1999, pri- marily due to action from long-haul carriers and mobile operators. Within the context of international voice traffic, two current regulatory issues are of particular interest: roaming charges and fixed-mobile termination. As discussed previously, roaming contributes significantly to international traffic flows, as seemingly domestic calls (that is, between two national numbers) may in fact be routed as international calls. For mobile operators, roaming also represents a terrific source of revenue (see Figure 7. Roaming Between Denmark and Ireland, for examples of roaming charges). According to the European Union, roaming accounts for 20 to 35 percent of mobile operators’ revenues (Vodafone UK, for example, reported 20 percent of its average revenue per user came from roaming charges). While telecommunica- © TELEGEOGRAPHY, INC. 2001 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2002 81 TRAFFIC ANALY$ $ tions costs have generally declined over the past few years, international roaming charges have actually increased in some countries. That trend has spawned a great deal of consumer discontent which, in turn, has piqued the interest of NRAs. Following complaints from the International Telecommunications Users Group (INTUG), the Competition Directorate-General of the European Commission launched an inves- tigation of the telecommunications industry in late 1999, including international roam- ing as one of its focus areas. The agency was particularly concerned with collective price fixing in the United Kingdom and Germany, prompting unannounced inspections on nine mobile operators in the two countries. The final results of the investigation, as well as any regulatory action, are not expected until the end of 2001 or early 2002. As discussed earlier, another significant source of revenue for mobile operators, at least in some developed economies, is call termination on their networks. Fixed-mobile interconnection rates vary dramatically across countries, in some cases reaching up to sixteen times the price of mobile-fixed interconnection. The specific dynamics which account for these differences, however complex, tend to hinge on two general issues: the payment structure of mobile service and the regulatory environment of the coun- try in question. Two payment structures exist for mobile services: calling party pays (CPP) and receiv- ing party pays (RPP]. In the former, the party originating the call to a mobile phone pays a premium for access to the mobile network. That is, the mobile user receiving the call incurs no charge for incoming traffic to her handset. Under the RPP scheme, the premium for mobile service is incurred by the mobile user receiving the call; the calling party pays the same price as for a comparable call to a fixed-line phone. Calls to Denmark from Ireland On EirCell Network On Esat Digifone Network 1999 2000 1999 2000 Sonofon Customers 1.85 2.14 2.11 2.21 TeleDanmark Mobil Customers 2.05 2.14 2.12 2.21 Non-roaming Customers 1.74 1.25 1.57 1.24 Calls to Ireland from Denmark On Sonofon Network On TeleDanmark Mobil 1999 2000 1999 2000 EirCell Customers 2.80 1.95 2.90 1.36 Esat Digifone Customers 2.20 1.02 1.96 0.87 Non-roaming Customers 1.42 n.a. 1.37 0.93 Notes: The data above show sample roaming prices for Ireland and Denmark, The charges in Ireland are rather uni- form and include significant mark-up for roaming services. The Danish charges, on the other hand, declined sharply from t 999 to 2000 and include lesser mark-ups for roaming charges. Charges listed in euros (I eum = $t.07 for 1999 and $0,92 for 2000) Source: INTUG Europe data © TeleGeog raphy, lnc 2001 82 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2002 © TELEGEOGRAPHY, INC. 2001 Proponents of calling party pays (CPP) argue that it increases mobile penetration, especially by facilitating pre-paid mobile sewices." Receiving party pays {RPP), they contend, discourages mobile t~sage, promp~ng subscribers to turn off their phones or refuse calls rather than incur the. charge.for receivingthem. Advocates of RPP, however,,point out that RPP tends ~o keep fixed- mobile interconnection charges in Iine w~th prices for other forms ofinterconnection, in CPP mar- kets, the~ contend, the mobile consumer has no incent~e to consider the price for call termination on their phones when;choosing a mobile provider. For customers in RPP markets, the cost of fixed- mobile interconnection is, in fact, a consideration in provider selection, and providers have nothing to gain by infla~ng prices. Recentstudies have supported beth claims: subscribership has grown more rapidly in CPP couhtries while fixed-mobile interconnection prices are substantially lower in RPP countries. Mexico provides an acute exam- ple of both trends,. Afterthe introduction of CPP in ]999, mobile subscriberehip in Mexico grew dramatically, more than doubling the previous war’s growth~, and the effective fixed-mobile interconnection tariff increased by approximately 250 pe~rcent Despite the higher tariff, there was a considerable increase in incoming mobile traffic. Source: TeleGeography research and ITU © TeleGeography, lnc 2001 Of the two, CPP is by far the most commonly implemented payment structure, with RPP limited to only a handful of countries such as the U.S., Canada, China, Singapore, and Sri Lanka. The factors determining the choice of payment structure are largely con- textual. CPP has been easy to introduce where consumers are accustomed to metered local calling and additional dialing codes were available for exclusive use by mobile providers. In countries where consumers are more accustomed to unmetered local call- ing or where technical obstacles (e.g., the availability of dialing codes) were encoun- tered, RPP has been implemented. Mexico and Argentina are notable in that they have both switched from RPP to CPP during the past few years. As the Mexican example in Figure 8 illustrates, regulatory intervention can greatly shape the dynamics of the mobile industry in a particular country. The role of NRAs is particularly influential during the introduction of mobile telecommunications services. Where NRAs have been reluctant (or unable) to intervene on behalf of new mobile serv- ice providers, incumbent fixed-line operators have been able to impose undesirable terms for interconnection on mobile operators. Such cases, largely specific to devel- oping countries, have not had as great an effect on international carriers, however, as those in which regulatory intervention on behalf of mobile operators has been more pronounced. Regulators in more developed economies, particularly Europe, have focused more on the market power of fixed line operators, requiring those with significant market power (SMP1 to offer mobile operators access to their networks at cost-based prices. Unsaddled by regulatory constraints, mobile operators have, in turn, been able to charge fixed-line operators access fees well above the fixed-mobile interconnection rate. As the number of mobile subscribers has exploded, so has the number of calls terminated on mobile networks and, consequently, the amount paid to mobile opera- tors for termination on their networks (see Figure 9. Interconnection Rates for Selected Countries, 2001, for examples of fixed-mobile and mobile-fixed interconnection charges for selected countries). © TELEGEOGRAPHY, INC. 2001 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2002 83 Country National Fixed Mobile % Difference Hungary 7.97 13.04 63.6% Nor~vay 0.70 7.55 1,014.3% Sweden 0.82 9.56 1,101.5% France 1.43 10.30 686.5% Israel 1.53 12.00 684.3% Austria 2.01 12.34 572.6% Denmark 2.52 15.78 525.0% Ireland 1.18 15.89 1,296.6% U.K. 1.69 18.73 1,073.6% Portugal 1.34 21.19 1,541.6% ¯ Notes:, Rates are given in US cenl~ per minute. Source: TeleGeography research © TeleGeography, tnc 200t Fixed-line operators have begun to contest the disparity in interconnection charges [between fixed-mobile, mobile-fixed, and mobile-mobile) and the logic underpinning regulatory intervention heretofore. Such complaints have recently yielded significant regulatory attention, particularly from the European Competitive Telecommunications Association. As of yet, though, regulatory action in fixed-mobile interconnection rates has been limited to formal inquiry, spawning much uncertainty as to what direction NRAs and, consequently, interconnection rates will take. One possible solution would be the establishment of benchmarks for pricing, but how those benchmarks would be determined is still a matter of considerable debate--especially as mobile operators are counting on interconnection revenues to finance their roll-out of "3G" networks. The ITU has made fixed-mobile interconnection an area of particular interest and investi- gation, which is available at http://www.itu.int/interconnect. ’. For the time being, fixed-mobile interconnection rates remain an issue of hot debate and an item of serious consideration for international carriers--and their customers. In what may be considered a de facto shift to CPP in the U.S., AT&T has recently amended its One Rate International Value Plan to reflect the disparity between fixed-fixed and fixed-mobile interconnection. Where customers were once charged a single rate for all calls to a foreign country, they will now pay different rates for calls to fixed and mobile phones within that country. 84 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2002 © TELEGEOGRAPHY, INC 2001 Minutes, revenues, bandwidth--all are vital statistics for tracking changes in the tele- corn industry. In fact, much of what we know about international telecommunications traffic reflects such volumetric data. Yet statistics that describe call quantity paint only a partial picture--call quality is also a critical component. While collecting volumetric data is relatively straightforward, quality, on the other hand, is subjective. So how can quality be quantified? Measuring the Subjective Monnet UK Ltd., an independent Quality of Service (QoS) arbiter, has implemented one approach. In addition to monitoring call quality on its clients’ networks, Monnet also constructs industry benchmarks, pooled from data provided by participating carriers. Figure 1, which shows survey results for/.5 destination countries, is based on a sam- ple of 30 million international calls from German and U.K. carriers between June 1 and August 31, 2001. Monnet employs three indicators to measure call quality: Answer Seizure Ratio (ASR). ASR measures the percentage of successful call attempts between a switch and a given destination. A 50 percent ASR means that only one-half of all call attempts were answered by a person or device; an unanswered call or busy signal counts as an unsuccessful call. Thus, ASR is affected not only by performance factors--availability of dial tone and the network’s ability to establish a transmission path or switch a call--but also by phenomena ranging from a changed dialing code to a hol- iday season, leading to more unanswered calls due to wrong numbers or busy signals. ASR standards vary significantly by region. For example, the range of acceptable ASR for calls to developed countries generally is 60 to 75 percent. Post Dial Delay {PDD}. PDD measures the time it takes a network to establish a connection once the caller has finished dialing. Hence, a PDD of /.3 means that an average of "/.3 seconds elapse between the dial and the ring at the other end. Call Quality Index (CQI). CQI, expressed on a scale of 0 to 100, consists of a basket of five qualitative factors: signal level, noise, echo path loss, echo path delay, and speech activity. All five factors are based on a technical model provided in ITU-T Recommendation G. 107 (www.itu.int/itu- doc/itu-t/rec/g/g100-699/s_g107.htm). To earn a "best" ranking, a call must post a CQI score between 80-100; on the other end of the scale, a CQI of less than 60 is characterized as "poor." Many factors affect CQI scores, including basic infrastructure problems, packet loss in IP networks, the excessive use of compression, and switching calls between many serv- ice providers. © TELEGEOGRAPHY, INC. 2001 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2002 85 Answer Seizure Ratio Post Dial Delay (seconds) Destination from Germany from U.K. from Germany from U.K. Australia 14% 56% 7.3 3.7 Austria 39% 25% 5.1 4.6 Belgium 6% 65% 4.6 2.7 Brazil 19% 45% 5.4 4.1 Canada 46% 68% 2.8 2.8 Chile 8% 14% 5.2 3.9 China 23% 45% 6.0 5.8 Colombia 30% 41% 7.1 3.9 Denmark 22% 22% 7.1 4.9 Ecuador 11% 17% 4.9 4.9 Rnland 1% 21% 6.8 5.1 France 25% 53% 2.1 2.7 Germany 35% 61% 3.1 2.4 Ghana 13% 22% 9.5 5.5 Greece 34% 35% 5.8 4.2 Hong Kong 39% 30% 5.8 6.4 India 25% 30% 4.8 5.5 Ireland 40% 67% 6.9 3.1 Israel 39% 57% 5.7 3.8 Italy 30% 49% 5.0 2.9 Japan 43% 61% 7.3 3.8 Korea, Rep. 7% 45% 6.6 6.0 Kuwait 2% 15% 10.5 2.8 Macedonia 7% 16% 5.0 4.7 Malaysia 45% 53% 5.4 4.0 Mexico 13% 27% 6.9 3.8 Netherlands 39% 67% 4.8 1.9 Norway 45% 46% 4.6 3.1 Pakistan 7% 21% 2.4 4.6 Peru 11% 14% 4.4 3.8 Philippines 9% 46% 3.1 3.6 Poland 17% 34% 6.0 6.0 Romania 13% 43% 1.1 2.8 Russia 23% 43% 6.2 3.4 Saudi Arabia 6% 31% 9.2 6.0 Singapore 33% 59% 7.5 5.0 South Africa 42% 57% 4.5 4.5 Spain 13% 56% 6.9 2.5 Sweden 10% 59% 5.9 4.2 Switzerland 24% 40% 4.1 2.7 Taiwan 41% 36% 7.7 6.0 Turkey 25% 21% 5.1 3.5 UAE 11% 6% 9.3 7.6 United Kingdom 44% 76% 6.2 3.9 United States 18% 74% 3.6 2.8 Average (Summer 2001) 16% 43% 6.0 3.7 Average (Summer 2000) 42% 39% 3.7 4.7 Call Quality Index from Germany from U.K. 52.9 64.0 68.1 67.4 43.3 70.1 58.9 50.0 61.7 62.7 59.5 67.3 52.2 53.4 64.1 59.9 51.8 61.9 53.0 66.0 70.5 61.5 46.7 59.5 59.4 71.6 57.1 73.3 55.9 64.9 61.0 73.1 61.7 61.7 35.3 71.0 65.3 65.1 53.1 54.6 51.0 85.1 63.2 72.5 47.2 58.6 58.1 62.0 63.9 67.0 61.7 70.8 42.7 70.3 55.3 ,, 51.2 50.1 56.1 50.1 59.6 59.6 65.3 62.4 59.7 48.3 51.3 52.4 44.7 58.5 58.2 62.0 82.4 72.8 68.6 59.5 62.1 59.2 67.7 65.0 58.4 49.2 73.8 66.4 61.7 71.1 62.5 58.6 62.6 43.2 68.3 56.5 64.5 68.6 58.5 Source: Monnet UK Ltd., 2 Honey Lane, Cheapside, London EC2V8BT, U.K. TeL +44 20 7367 5350 o Fax +44 20 7367 5360 Email: info@monnet.uk.com ¯ http:/]www.monnet.uk.com © TeleGeography, Inc 2001 86 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2002 © TELEGEOGRAPHY, INC. 2001 Window on Industry Change For carriers that subscribe to quality testing services such as Monnet’s, industry-wide benchmarks provide an essential tool for pinpointing those network links that are not up to par with the competition. Beyond the immediate commercial benefit to sub- scribers, benchmarks also identify wider industry trends, such as the predictable gap between call quality to developing and developed countries due largely to weaker tele- corn infrastructure. Quality data vary not only by destination but also by the country of origination and time period studied. For example, calls measured by Monnet during the June-August 2001 period from the U.K. scored markedly higher than those from Germany; the oppo- site was true for the previous two summers. In fact, the average ASR declined from 58 percent in 1999 to just 16 in the summer of 2001. Possible explanations for this con- vergence point to wider implications for the industry: Mobile Traffic. When a call transits a mobile network, a number of charac- teristics appear that tend to drive down Call Quality Index scores--noise, echo, and delay. The economics of sending calls to mobiles further compli- cate the metric; high interconnect fees to mobile networks induce termi- nating carriers in some countries to answer those incoming calls destined for mobile phones with a busy signal. This practice may partially explain the sliding German call quality discussed earlier, given the high growth rate of traffic to mobile terminals from Germany. Rapidly expanding call volumes. Especially in newly opened markets such as Germany, emerging carriers sometimes attract more traffic than origi- nally anticipated by network planners. Some network links simply cannot handle these unexpectedly heavy traffic loads, and the network upgrades necessary to accommodate such traffic volumes require investment over a long time period. In order to continue offering service while networks are overloaded, some carriers have resorted to "call gapping." Using this prac- tice, a carrier accepts only a limited portion of total placed calls at any one time; individuals whose calls are blocked generally hear a recorded mes- sage stating that "all circuits are busy." Price/Quality Tradeoff. In Germany, call prices on some international routes have plummeted 90 percent over the last three years, squeezing profit margins. In response, more service providers are willing to purchase min- utes from wholesale carriers at mediocre quality--as long as they deliver the minutes at rock bottom prices. Many of these wholesale carriers oper- ate in the gray market of international telecommunications, using alterna- tive routing technologies such as Voice-over-lnternet Protocol (VolP) to evade costly PSTN settlement charges. While these mechanisms enable cost-cutting by carriers, they can also frustrate call quality guarantees. Call quality metrics are a critical part of the movement toward a more robust standard of international service. First and foremost, specific call quality metrics enable carriers to monitor flow and to diagnose their networks for maintenance and upgrades. However, industry benchmarks also illuminate technological and regional trends that impact wider business development decisions. N © TELEGEOGRAPHY, INC. 2001 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2002 LO0~ "3NI ’~,Hd~l:J~O:]93"13J. @ TELEGEOGRAPHY 2002 © TELEGEOGRAPHY, INC. 2001 3,500 "~ 3,000 ¯ Fixed main lines ._o_ ¯ Cellular subscribers 2,500. international callminutes 2,000 1,500 5OO 300 I,- 250 200 ~_ -15o 100 50 0 0 199t 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 Note; Data include outboand international traffic on public networks only, Projections assume 15% ~affic growth, 5% main line g~owtho and 30% mobile subsc~ber growth annually. Source: TeleGeography research and ITU ©TeleGeograph~/, Inc 2001 Indicator Calls (bn) Minutes (bn) per main line subscriber per main line plus mobile Revenue (US$ bn) Historical trend Slow growth Same growth Fast growth CAGR CAGR CAGR CAGR 1996 2000 1996-2000 2004 2000-2004 2004 2000-2004 2004 2000-2004 21.1 44.2 20.3% 89.7 19.3% 99.5 22.5% t10.1 25.6% 7t.7 132.7 16.6% 224.1 14.0% 248.7 17.0% 275.2 20.0% 96.8 134.7 8.6% 183.7 8.1% 192.6 9.3% 201.6 10.6% 81.0 76.9 -1.3% 74.0 -1.0% 73.0 -1.3% 53.8 -8.5% 53.0 70.3 7.3% 8t.5 3.7% 79.0 3.0% 76.1 2.0% Assumptions Call length (rains) 3.4 3.0 -3.t% 2.5 -4.5% 2.5 -4.5% 2.5 -4.5% Price per minute (US$) 0.74 0,53 -8.0% 0.36 -9.0% 0.32 -12.0% 0.28 -15.0% Main lines (bn) 0.7 1.0 7.4% 1.2 5.5% 1.3 7.0% 1.4 8.5% Mobile subscribers (bn) 0.! 0.7 50.6% 1.8 25.0% 2.1 30.0% 3.7 50.0% Total subscribers (bn) 0.9 1.7 18.2% 3.0 15.t% 3.4 18.5% 5.1 31.2% Notes: 1996-2000 based on reported data. 2001-2004 based on 1TU and TeleGeography forecasts, Scenarios are as follows: t. Slow Growth: Traffic growth slows as minutes move off the public switched network. (PSTN) and large markets mature. 2. Same Growth; Traffic growth continues at s=milar rate to that of the last five years assuming that faster rates of price cuing keep traffic on the PSTN. 3. Fast Growth: Traffic growth increases, assuming a faster growth rate of network subscribers and faster rates of price cuing, plus a s~gnificant compone~ of new demand created by international traffic generated by mobiles. Source: TeteGeography research, ITU World Telecommunication Indicators Database, and ITU estimates © TeieGeography, Inc 2001 © TELEGEOGRAPHY, INC. 2001 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2002 91 92 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2002 © TELEGEOGRAPHY, INC. 2001 :i:;!:;: 25% .............. Global Average 20% "-~ 10% __ =:: :::. Africa Asia & Latin Furore O~eania ~meri~a :: us& Canada © TELEGEOGRAPHY, INC. 2001 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2002 93 FINtAND NORWAY ( SWEDEN KINGDOM Key All figures are g~ven in millions of minutes of telecommunications traffic for the public telephone network, The map shows all intra-European routes with a ¢nmbieed 2000 volume of more than 200 milhon minutes. Traffic Flows 600 400 200 Million Minutes Each band is propor~ionat to the tutai annual traffic on the public telephone network in both directions between each pair of countries, (~) Total Outgoing Traffic 1,000 5,000 illion Minutes The area of each circle is proportional to the volume of the total annual outgoing traffic from each courmy. Balance of Traffic On routes where traffic in one dlrec~on accounts for more than 60% of the total, an arrow shows the direction most of the traffic flows. Source: TeleGeography research © TeleGeographyo tnc 2001 94 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2002 © TELEGEOGRAPHY, INC. 2001 MEXICO 72% URUGUAY Key All figures are given in millions of minutes of telecommunications t~affic for the public telephone network. The map shows all routes w~thJn Latin America with a combined 2000 volume of more than 10 million mm.tes. Traffic Flows 100 50 10 Million Minutes Each band is prope~ona! to the total annual traffic on the public telephone network in both directions between each pair of countries. Total Outgoing Traffic ( 00 500 1,000 Mltiion Mznutes The area of each circle is preportmnal to the volume of the total annual outgoing traffic from each c oun1~y’. Balance of Traffic On routes where traffic in one direction accounts for more than 60% of the total, an arrow shows the direction most of the traffic flows. Source: TeleGeography research © TeleGeography, Inc 2001 © TELEGEOGRAPHY, INC 2001 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2002 95 AUSTRAUA Key All figures are given in millions of minutes of telecommunications traffic for the public telephone network. The map shows all intra-Asian routes with a combined 2000 volume of more than 50 milbon Traffic Flows 5OO 200 50 Million Minutes Each band as proportional to the total annual traffic on the public telephone network in both directions between each pair of cour~rles. (~) Total Outgoing Traffic 5O0 1 Million Minutes The area of each circte is propo~onal to the volume of the total annual outgoing traffic from each COUOtr~L Balance of Traffic On routes where traffic in one direction accounts f~r more than 00,% of the total, an arrow shows the direction of most of the traffic flows. Source: TeleGeography research © TeleGeogra phyo |nc 200t 96 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2002 © TELEGEOGRAPHY, INC. 2001 TRAFFIC 35% 30% 25% r Global Average 20%- 0% °5% -10% -15% Source: TeteGeography research © T~eleGeography, tnc 200’1 Chartto Scale U.S. Deficit U,S. -5,000 -4,000 -3,000 -2,000 -1,000 0 1,000 2,000 Interna~onal Telephone Traffic Balance (Mdhons of Minutes) Pakistan Egypt Turkey C~oa~e South Africa Guatemala Thadanrl Uruguay Mauntlus Qatar Ukraine Hong Kong 3,000 4,000 5,000 Source: TeleGeography research © TeleGeography, Inc 200t © TELEGEOGRAPHY, INC. 2001 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2002 97 Outgoing Incoming Balance Population Minutes (Out) Main Lines Minutes (Out) (m minutes) (m minutes) (m minutes) (m) per Capita (thous.) per Main Line Algeria 151.8 n.a. n.a. 30.4 5.0 1,761 86.0 Angola 35.4 n.a. n.a. 12.7 2.8 70 507.0 Argentina 432.1 479.3 47.2 37.0 11.7 7,894 55.0 Armenia (b) 31.4 n.a. n.a. 3.8 8.2 n.a. n.a. Australia (a) 2°650.0 n.a. n.a. 19.2 138.1 10,040 264.0 Austria 1,610.0 n.a. n.a. 8.1 186.5 3,889 388.0 Azerbaijan (b) 28.1 59.7 31.6 8.1 3.5 801 35.0 Bahamas 69.4 n.a. n.a. 0.3 229.8 114 607.0 Bahrain (b) 139.5 125.6 -13.9 0.7 202.3 171 816.0 Belarus (b) 178.5 n.a. n.a. 10.0 17.8 2,752 65.0 Belgium 1,835.0 n.a. n.a. 10.3 179.0 5,074 362.0 Benin 11.7 24.3 12.6 6.3 1.9 n.a. n.a. Bolivia 27.2 80.8 53.6 8.3 3.3 n.a. n.a. Brazil 692.7 1,212.4 519.8 170.1 4.1 30,926 22.0 Brunei 24.3 23.3 -1.0 0.3 74.1 81 302.0 Bulgaria 110.0 211.0 101.0 8.2 13.5 2,882 38.0 Canada 7,224.0 n.a. n.a. 30.7 235.0 20,803 347.0 Chile 278.0 n.a. n.a. 15.2 18.3 3,365 83.0 China 2,050.0 n.a. n.a. 1,261.1 1.6 144,000 14.0 Colombia 341.8 n.a. n.a. 42.3 8.1 7ol 59 48.0 Costa Rica 99.6 137.8 38.2 3.7 27.3 1,003 99.0 COte d’lvoire 72.0 n.a. n.a. 16.0 n.a. 267 n.a. Croatia (b) 222.3 512.0 289.6 4.5 49.9 n.a. n.a. Cuba 36.2 n.a. n.a. 11.2 3.2 489 74.0 Cyprus 192.5 n.a. n.a. 0.8 251.3 440 437.0 Czech Republic 400.0 n.a. n.a. 10.3 38.9 3,872 103.0 Denmark 905.0 n.a. n.a. 5.3 169.5 4,011 226.0 Dominican Republic 211.7 1,340.0 1,128.3 8.6 24.7 870 243.0 Ecuador 55.5 n.a. n.a. 12.6 4.4 1,265 44.0 Egypt 183.1 620.6 437.5 63.8 2.9 5,484 33.0 El Salvador 128.0 n.a. n.a. 6.3 20.4 570 225.0 Estonia 75.5 n.a. n.a. 1.4 52.6 523 144.0 Finland 488.0 n.a. n.a. 5.2 90.3 2,831 165.0 France 6,500.0 n.a. n.a. 58.9 110.5 34,114 191.0 Georgia (b) 45.6 37.6 -8.0 5.5 8.4 n.a. n.a. Germany 9,570.0 n.a. n.a. 82.2 116.5 49,400 194.0 Ghana 42.1 n.a. n.a. 19.2 2.2 237 1~7.0 Greece 793.2 889.8 96.6 10.6 75.1 5,659 140.0 Guatemala 125.3 295.9 170.5 11.4 11.0 650 193.0 Guyana 18.0 n.a. n.a. 0.9 n.a. 68 n.a. Hong Kong (a) 3,074.9 1,858.0 -1,216.8 6.8 452.3 3,926 783.0 Hungary 349.2 n.a. n.a. 10.0 34.8 n.a. n.a. India (a, b) 527.1 2,161.4 1,634.3 1,015.9 0.5 32,436 16.0 Indonesia 315.5 345.8 30.3 210.4 1.5 6,663 47.0 Iran 176.8 216.8 40.0 64.0 2.8 9,486 19.0 Ireland (a, b) 1,250.0 n.a. n.a. 3.8 329.5 1,590 786.0 Israel 965.0 n.a. n.a. 6.2 154.8 3,021 319.0 Italy 4,140.0 n.a. n.a. 57.7 71.8 27,153 152.0 Jamaica 73.9 328.5 254.6 2.6 28.2 512 144.0 Japan (a) 2,575.0 n.a. n.a. 126.8 20.3 74,220 35.0 Jordan 170.6 214.1 43.5 4.9 34.9 620 275.0 Kazakhstan 105.4 183.1 77.8 14.9 7.1 n.a. n.a. Kenya 21.0 n.a. n.a. 30.1 0.7 310 68.0 Korea, Rep. 1,063.0 n.a. n.a. 47.3 22.5 21,932 48.0 Kuwait 158.7 n.a. n.a. 2.0 80.0 487 340.0 Notes: Data are in millions of minutes of public switched traffic. a. Intemationaltrafficforyeareodieg March31,2001. Australia, Mauritius, NewZeatand, and Pakistan ends June 30,2001. b. Traffic data exclude some carriers or routes. (See countrytable for details.) Source: TeleGeography research © TeleGeogra phy, Inc 2001 98 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2002 © TELEGEOGRAPHY, INC. 2001 Tt AFFiC SUMMARY Outgoing Incoming Balance Population Minutes (Out) Main Lines Minutes (Out) (m minutes) (m minutes) (m minutes) (m) per Capita (thous.) per Main Line Kyrgyzstan 23.2 28.6 5.4 4.9 4.7 376 62.0 Latvia 54.8 90.1 35.3 2.4 22.7 742 74.0 Luxembourg 381.0 n.a. n.a. 0.4 869.9 331 1,151.0 Macau 152.1 103.2 -48.9 0.4 344.0 177 860.0 Macedonia 73.2 166.4 93.2 2.0 36.0 516 142.0 Malaysia (a) 895.0 n.a. n.a. 23.3 38.5 4,637 193.0 Malta 43.0 n.a. n.a. 0.4 112.7 204 211.0 Mauritius (a) 35.1 49.0 13.9 1.2 29.6 281 125.0 Mexico 1,883.0 5,896.0 4,013.0 98.0 19.2 12,333 153.0 Moldova 50.8 120.8 70.1 4.3 11.9 584 87.0 Morocco 245.0 n.a. n.a. 28.7 8.5 1,425 172.0 Mozambique 22.4 n.a. n.a. 17.6 1.3 86 262.0 Namibia 60.2 50.7 -9,5 1.7 34.6 104 576.0 N eth e rl a n d s 2,830.0 n.a. n.a. 15.9 177.8 9,879 286.0 New Zealand (a) 950.0 n.a. n.a. 3.8 248.0 1,915 496.0 Nicaragua 58.2 n.a. n.a. 5.0 0.0 n.a. n.a. Norway 770.0 n.a. noa. 4.5 171.4 3,270 235.0 Oman (b) 116.8 n.a. n.a. 2.4 48.8 225 518.0 Pakistan (a, b) 98.6 896.1 797.4 138.1 0.7 3,200 31.0 Palestinian Authority (b) 45.6 37.2 -8.4 0.0 n.a. n.a. n.a. Panama 51.9 111.7 59.7 2.9 18.2 n.a. n.a. Paraguay 33.3 71.6 38.4 5.5 6.1 n.a. n.a. Peru 86.5 317.7 231.3 25.7 3.4 1,636 53.0 Philippines (a) 273.0 n.a. n.a. 75.6 3.6 3,000 91.0 Poland 675.8 n.a. n.a. 38.7 17.5 10,946 62.0 Portugal 720.0 n.a. n.a. 10.0 71.9 4,314 167.0 Qata r 143.0 95.5 -47.5 0.6 244.5 160 893.0 Russia (b) 944.0 n.a. n.a. 145.5 6.5 32,070 29.0 Saudi Arabia 1,194.9 n.a. n.a. 20.7 57.7 2,965 403.0 Senegal 50.0 n.a. n.a. 9.5 5.3 206 243.0 Singapore (a) 1,515.0 n.a. n.a. 4.0 377.1 1,947 778.0 Slovak Republic 162.7 233.1 70.4 5.4 30.1 1,698 96.0 South Africa 494.6 700.0 205.4 42.8 11.6 4,962 100.0 Spain 2,570.0 n.a. n.a. 39.4 65.1 17,102 150.0 Sri Lanka 42.0 n.a. n.a. 19.4 2.2 767 55.0 Sudan (b) 31.8 155.7 123.9 29.7 1.1 387 82.0 Swaziland (a) 25.1 n.a. n.a. 1.0 24.0 32 ’. 779.0 Sweden 1,640.0 n.a. n.a. 8.9 184.9 6,057 271.0 Switzerland 3,195.0 n.a. n.a. 7.2 445.0 5,158 619.0 Syria 140.0 286.0 146.0 16.1 8.7 1,675 84.0 Taiwan 1,160.0 n.a. n.a. 0.0 n.a. 12,642 92.0 Tajikista n (b) 6.8 18.5 11.7 6,3 1,1 219 31.0 Thailand 355.2 426.6 71.4 60.7 5.8 5,252 68.0 Trinidad & Tobago (a) 70.2 163.4 93.3 1.3 53.9 299 235.0 Turkey 850.0 1,240.0 390.0 65.3 13.0 18,395 46.0 Turkmenistan (b) 15.7 11.3 -4.5 4.8 3.3 n.a. n.a. Ukraine 363.0 269.5 -93.4 49.6 7.3 n.a. n.a. United Arab Emirates 1,123.6 n.a. n.a. 2.9 386.8 1,020 1,101.0 United Kingdom (a) 12,242.7 7,463.2 -4,779.5 59.7 204.9 34,807 352.0 United States 37,594.8 13,010.7 -24,584.1 281.6 133.5 192,519 195.0 Uruguay 78.0 110.9 33.0 3.3 23.4 929 84.0 Uzbekistan (b) 71.4 54.3 -17.0 24.7 2.9 n.a. n.a. Venezuela 168.0 n.a. n.a. 24.2 n.a. 2,606 n.a. Yugoslavia 286.9 n.a. n.a. 10.6 27.0 2,406 119.0 Zimbabwe 71.3 n.a. n.a. 12.1 5.9 241 295.0 Notes: Data are in millions of minutes of public switched traffic. a. international traffic for year ending March 31, 2001. Australia, Mau~tius, New Zealand, and Pakistan ends June 30, 2001. b. Traffic data exclude some carriers or routes. (See countrytable for details,) Source: TeleGeegraphy research © TeleGeography, Inc 2001 © TELEGEOGRAPHY, INC. 2001 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2002 99 Rank Countries Minutes each Way Total Minutes I. Canada U.S. 5,480.0 -- 4,906.1 10,386.1 2. U.S. Mexico 6,129.0 -- 1,569.0 7,698.0 3. U.K. U.S. 2,009.5 -- 1,908.3 3,917.8 4. Hong Kong China 1,404.9 -- 1,050.0 2,454.9 5. U.S.-Germany 1,600.1 -- 550.0 2,150.1 6. U.S.- India 1,577.4 -- 75.3 1,652.6 7. Ireland- U.K. 775.0 -- 773.3 1,548.3 8. U.K.- Germany 848.4 -- 685.0 1,533.4 9. Germany- Switzerland 750.0 -- 720.0 1,470.0 10. U.S.- Japan 925.5 -- 520.0 1,445.5 11. U.S. Philippines 1,361.0 -- 65.0 1,426.0 12. U.K.- France 792.8 -- 580.0 1,372.8 13. Germany- Italy 700.0 -- 620.0 1,320.0 14. Germany- Austria 650.0 -- 630.0 1,280.0 15. Germany- France 680.0 -- 565.0 1,245.0 16. U.S.- France 800.6 -- 420.0 1,220.6 17. U.S.- Dominican Republic 939.0 -- 157.4 1,096.4 18. U.S. Australia 569.7 -- 525.0 1,054.7 19. Germany- Netherlands 550.0 -- 500.0 1,050.0 20. Italy France 495.0 -- 490.0 985.0 21. U.S.- Brazil 754.3 -- 207.5 961.8 22. France- Belgium 495.0 -- 400.0 895.0 23. Switzerland France 490.0 -- 405.0 895.0 24. U.S.- Italy 607.9 -- 280.0 887.9 25. Malaysia- Singapore 440.0 -- 430.0 870.0 26. U.K.-Spain 443.6 -- 420.0 863.6 27. Germany- Poland 570.0 -- 260.0 830.0 28. U.K.- Australia 410.8 -- 410.0 820.8 29. Spain- France 400,0 -- 385,0 785,0 30. Spain -Germany 425.0 -- 350.0 ’. 775.0 31. Netherlands- Belgium 400.0 -- 375.0 775.0 32. Switzerland Italy 400.0 -- 360.0 760.0 33. U.K.- Italy 418.9 -- 330.0 748.9 34. U.S. China 685.2 -- 55.0 740.2 35. Germany Turkey 500.0 -- 230.0 730.0 36. NewZealand -Australia 425.0 -- 300.0 725.0 37. Canada U.K. 370.0 -- 293.5 663.5 38. U.S.- Israel 376.3 -- 245.0 621.3 39. U.S.- Colombia 451.5 -- 165.0 616.5 40. U.S.- Pakistan 594.8 -- 10.7 605.4 41. Taiwan China 350.0 -- 245.0 595.0 42. U.S.- Korea, Rep. 360.0 -- 235.0 595.0 43. Netherlands- U.K. 300.0 -- 279.3 579.3 44. U.S.-Taiwan 399.7 -- 176.0 575.7 45. U.S.- Spain 391.5 -- 120.0 511.5 46. France- Morocco 400.0 -- 100.0 500.0 47. Japan- China 360.0 -- 140.0 500.0 48. Hong Kong U.S. 277.2 -- 196.7 473.9 49. U.S.- Netherlands 298.2 -- 160.0 458.2 50. Russia Ukraine 242.0 -- 215.5 457.5 Notes: All data in millions of minutes’of tefecomrnunications traffic. The country which generates more traffic on each route is listed first. The routes listed above total 67.2 billion minutes, equal to 5t percent of all international traffic. Data for Australza, Hong Kong, Ireland, Japan, Ma|aysia, New Zealand, Singapore, and the U.Y~ are for fiscal year 2000/2001. The sum of minutes ea ch way may not equal the totat minutes due to rounding. Source: TeleGeography research (DTeleGeography, Inc 2001 100 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2002 © TELEGEOGRAPHY, INC. 2001 U.S. Singapore U.S. Argentina U S. Spare U.S.- Mexico U.S Thailand U.S. Indonesia U.S. Bolivia U.S. Egypt U.S. Poland U.S. Kenya U.S. Ecuador U.S. Pakistan 1:1 11:1 21:1 31:1 41:1 51:1 Ratio of Outgoing to Incoming Traffic 61"1 Notes: Country with traffic deficit on rOUte listed first A ratio of t:1 would indicate a perfect balance on a route. U.S. data is based on b]tling point of calf and may not reflect actual call ~atios due to reflte and call-back. Source: TeleGecgraphy research © TeteGeography, lnc 200t Greece Bulgaria Saudi Arabia India Austria Croatia Japan China Ta~wan Thailand Saudi Arab=a Egypt Argentina Peru U.A.E. Pakistan Turkey- Syria U.K. Sri Lanka Hong Kong Philippines Saudi Arabia Pakistan U K. Peru 1:1 31 5:1 7:1 9:1 11 1 13:1 15:1 17:1 19:1 Ratio of Outgoing to Incoming Traffic 21:1 Notes: Country with traffic deficit on route listed first~ A ~atio of 1:t would indicate a perfect balance on a route. Data for some countries is based on billing point of call and may not reflect actual call ratios due to refi]e and call-back. Source: TeleGeography research © TeleGeography, Inc 2001 © TELEGEOGRAPHY, INC. 2001 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2002 181 200% 18o% 160% 120% 1oo% 80% 60% ~% 20% 0% Notes: Country originating traffic listed first; country terminating traffic listed second. Somedat~ is base~ on billing point of call and may not reflect actuat route growth rates due to refile and call-back. Source: TeleGe~graphy research ©TeleGeography, 102 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2002 © TELEGEOGRAPHY, INC. 2001 Statistics Algeria LARGEST TELECOMMuNICATIONS~R, OUTESo.20O0 Percent of Outgoing Traffic 6.7% 4.8% 4.4% 3.5% 2.6% ~. 2.0% 1.9% 1.3% 1.1% ~.o% 0.2% 0.1% 0.~% 0.1% Destination Minutes (millions) 1. France .......................... 69.9 2. United Kingdom .................. 10.2 3. Italy ............................. 7.3 4. Spain ............................ 6.7 5. Morocco ......................... 6.2 6. Germany ......................... 5.3 7. Belgium .......................... 3.9 8. Switzerland ...................... 3.0 9. Libya ............................ 2.9 10. Canada .......................... 2.8 11. United States ..................... 2.3 12. United Arab Emirates ............... 2.0 13. Saudi Arabia ...................... 2.6 14. Egypt ............................ 1.8 15. Netherlands ...................... 1.6 16. Syria ............................ 1.5 17. Denmark ......................... 0.3 18. Greece ........................... 0.2 19. Australia ......................... 0.2 20. Sweden .......................... 0.2 Others .......................... 21.5 TOTAL 151.8 ¯ NATIONAL TRAFFI,C .BALANCE Minutes 1998 Incoming n.a. Outgoing 121.3 Surplus (Deficit) n.a. Total Volume n.a. 1999 2000 n.a. n.8. 143.5 151.8 n.a. n.~J. n.a. n.8. Note: Data are in millions of minutes of outgoing public switched telecommunications traffic. 104 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2002 © TELEGEOGRAPHY, INC. 2001 LAR GEST TELECO,MM UNICATIO Destination Minutes (millions) 1. Po~Lugal ......................... 10.8 2. South Africa ...................... 5.0 3. France ........................... 1.6 4. United Kingdom ................... 1.5 5. Namibia .......................... 1.2 6. United States ............... ~. ..... 1.2 7. Brazil ............................ 1.0 8. Spain ........................... 0.4 9. Netherlands ...................... 0.4 10. Germany ......................... 0.4 11. Zimbabwe ........................ 0.3 12. Switzerland ....................... 0.3 13. italy ............................. 0.3 14. Cuba ............................ 0.2 15. Gambia .......................... 0.2 16. Belgium .......................... 0.2 17. Mall ............................. 0.1 18. Mozambique ...................... 0.1 19. COte d’lvoire ...................... 0.1 20. Canada .......................... 0.1 Others ........................... 9.8 Angola NS~ROUTES,,2000 i ¯ ¯ Percent of Outgoing Traffic ~~l~~i~~~i 30.4% 14.2% 4.6% 4.3% 3.4% 3.4% 2.8% ~.~% ~.1~o o.9 0.8% 0.8% o.~ 0.4% 0.4% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 27.7% TOTAL 35.4 NAT I O NA L TBAFFI CiBA~EA~NCE Minutes 1998 1999 2000 Incoming 22.3 33.1 n.a. Outgoing 27.3 35.0 35.4 Surplus (Deficit) (5.0) (1.9) n.a. Total Volume 49.6 68.0 n.a. Note: Data are in millions of minutes of outgoing public switched telecommunications traffic. © TELEGEOGRAPHY, INC 2001 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2002 105 Argentina :,LA R!GE STy,: T:E L!ECOM M U N ! CAT i O,N~S iROUTES, 2000 Destination Minutes (millions) 1. United States .................... 75.5 2. Brazil ........................... 45.9 3. Uruguay ......................... 45.2 4. Peru ............................ 38.0 5. Paraguay ........................ 33.7 6. Chile ............................ 33.1 7. Spain ........................... 32.2 8. Bolivia .......................... 27.7 9. Italy ............................ 18.7 10. Mexico .......................... 9.7 11. France ........................... 7.8 12. United Kingdom ................... 6.5 13. Colombia ......................... 4.8 14. Germany ......................... 4.4 15. Venezuela ........................ 4.3 16. Canada .......................... 4.2 17. Israel ............................ 2.8 18. Switzerland ....................... 2.5 19. China ............................ 2.2 20. Cuba ............................ 1.3 Others .......................... 31.5 Percent of Outgoing Traffic ~~~~ 17,5% ~o.6% ~~~ 7.8% ~E~~~ 7.7% ~~ ~.3% ~:~ 2,2% 1.o% 1.0% 1.0% 0.6% o.6~ o.5~ 0.3% ~~~ 7.3% TOTAL 432.1 ¯ NATIONAL TRAFFI:CBALANCE Minutes 1998 1999 2000 Incoming n.a. n.a. 479.3 0 utg o in g 358.7 377.6 432.1 Surplus (Deficit) n.a. n.a. 47.2 Total Volume n.a. n.a. 911.4 Note: Data are in millions of minutes of outgoing public switched telecommunications traffic. 1 06 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2002 © TELEGEOGRAPHY, INC. 2001 LAR 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. Armenia GEiSI, T TELECOMMUNICATIONS ;~ROUTES, Destination Minutes (thousands) Russia ....................... 22,715.0 Ukraine ....................... 1,936.0 Georgia ....................... 1,332.8 Belarus ........................ 307.2 Kazakhstan ..................... 269.6 Turkmenistan ................... 144.9 Uzbekistan ...................... 139.0 Moldova ........................ 69.0 Azerbaijan ...................... 19.8 Kyrgyzstan ....................... 16.4 Tajikistan ......................... 9.5 Others ........................ 4,484.0 2000 Percent of Outgoing Traffic J ~j ~~ i ~!~!i 72.2% 6.2% 4.2% 1.0% 0.9% 0.5% 0.4% 0.2% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 14.3% TOTAL 31,443.2 NATIONAL TRAFFIC,~’BA:LANCE "" Minutes 1998 1999 2000 Incoming 94.0 89.8 n.a. Outgoing 56.6 33.7 31.4 Surplus (Deficit) 37.4 56.0 n.a. Total Volume 150.7 123.5 n.a. Note: National traffic data are in millions of minutes of outgoing public switched telecommunications traffic; route data are in thousands of minutes of outgoing public switched telecommunications traffic. The "Other" category may include routes to non-members © TELEGEOGRAPHY, INC. 2001 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2002 107 COUNTRY T~AFF~C STATiSTiCS Australia Destination Minutes (millions) 1. United States ................... 525.0 2. United Kingdom ................. 410.0 3. New Zealand ................... 300.0 4. China .......................... 125.0 5. Philippines ...................... 125.0 6. Japan .......................... 110.0 7. Singapore ...................... 110.0 8. Canada ........................ 105.0 9. Hong Kong ..................... 100.0 10. Germany ........................ 95.0 11. Italy ............................ 95.0 12. Indonesia ....................... 90.0 13. Taiwan .......................... 55.0 14. Malaysia ........................ 50.0 Others ......................... 355.0 Percent of Outgoing Traffic ~~~~~ 19.8% ~~’,~ 15.5% ~~~~%~ 11.3% 4.0% 3.6% 3.4% 2.1% 1.9% TOTAL 2,650.0 NATIONAL ~RA,FFIC BALANCE ",’,~," ~, ¯ Minutes FY 1998/99 FY 1999/00 FY 2000/01 Incoming n.a. n.a. n.a. 0utgoing 1,690.0 2,115.0 2,650.0 Surplus (Deficit) n.a. n.a. n.a. Total Volume n.a. n.a. n.a. Note: Data are in millions of minutes of outgoing public switched telecommunications traffic. Fiscal year ends June 30. 108 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2002 © TELEGEOGRAPHY, INC. 2001 LiA R Austria GEST TELECOMMUNICATIO,NS,ROUTES, 2000 Destination Minutes (millions) 1. Germany ....................... 630.0 2. Switzerland ..................... 200.0 3. Italy ............................ 85.0 4. United Kingdom .................. 65.0 5. Hungary ......................... 60.0 6. Yugoslavia ....................... 60.0 7. Croatia .......................... 55.0 8. Poland ......................... 40.0 9. France ......................... 35.0 10. Czech Republic ................... 35.0 11. Netherlands ..................... 34.0 12. Turkey .......................... 30.0 13. United States .................... 23.0 14. Romania ........................ 22.0 15. $1evenia ......................... 22.0 Others ......................... 114.0 Percent of Outgoing Traffic 41.7% ~~ 13.2% 5.6% 4.3% 4.0% 4.0% TOTAL 1,510.0 NATIONAL TRAFFIC BALANCE ...... ¯ Minutes 1998 1999 2000 Incoming n.a. n.a. n.a. Outgoing 1,160.0 1,305.0 1,510.0 Surplus (Deficit) n.a. n.a. n.a. Total Volume n.a. n.a. n.a. Note: Data are in millions of minutes of outgoing public switched telecommunications traffic. © TELEGEOGRAPHY, INC. 2001 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2002 109 Azerbaijan ¯ LA,R GE ST .T E LECOMM U N ]CATI 0 N S,~R 0 UTES,~ 2000 Destination Minutes (thousands) 1. Russia ....................... 13,546.0 2. Ukraine ....................... 1,323.9 3. Georgia ....................... 1,127.9 4. Kazakhstan ..................... 729.4 5. Uzbekistan ...................... 338.9 6. Turkmenistan ................... 319.4 7. Belarus ........................ 298.8 8. Kyrgyzstan ...................... 68.0 9. Moldova ........................ 59.8 10. Tajikistan ........................ 17.3 Others ....................... 10,263.5 Percent of Outgoing Traffic 4.7% 4.0% 2.6% 1.2% 1.1% 1.1% 0.2% 0.2% 0.1% TOTAL 28,092.9 NATIONAL TP, AFFIC "BALANCE Minutes 1998 1999 2000 Incoming 46.0 68.6 59.7 Outgoing 42.9 32.2 28.1 Surplus (Deficit) 3.2 36.4 31.6 Total Volume 88.9 100.8 87.8 Note: National traffic data are in millions of minutes of outgoing public switched telecommunications traffic; route data are in thousands of minutes of outgoing public switched telecommunications traffic. The "Other" category may include routes to non-members 1 1 0 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2002 © TELEGEOGRAPHY, INC. 2001 Bahrain LARGEST TEL’E,COMM,UNtCATIO,NS ROUTES; Destination Minutes (millions) 1. India ............................ 24.1 2. Saudi Arabia ..................... 15.8 3. United Arab Emirates .............. 13.3 4. United Kingdom ................... 7.2 5. Pakistan ......................... 5.5 6. Kuwait ........................... 5.0 7. United States ..................... 4.4 8. Qatar ............................ 4.2 9. E~ypt ............................ 4.0 10. Philippines ....................... 2.6 11. Bangladesh ....................... 2.2 12. Morocco ......................... 1.9 13. Jordan ........................... 1.8 14. Oman ............................ 1.8 15. Sri Lanka ......................... 1.3 16. Lebanon ......................... 1.1 17. France ........................... 1.0 18. Syria ............................ 0.9 19. Iran ............................. 0.8 20. Germany ......................... 0.8 Others .......................... 40.3 Percent of Outgoing Traffic ~~~ 17.3% ~Y 11.3% ~i: 9.5% 5.2% ~! 3.9% 3.1% ~l 3.0% 2.9% ~.3% 0.9% o.~% 0.7% 0.6% 0.6% o.6% 20.9% TOTAL 139.5 "’NATIONAL TP,.AFFIC-BALANCE .... ̄ i ..... ;’;~ ~,"~: !~ii~:~i’, ’: ..... ¯ Minutes 1998 1999 2000 Incoming 102.1 106.5 125.6 Outgoing 124.4 134.1 139.5 Surplus (Deficit) (22.3) (27.5) (13,9) Total Volume 226.5 240.6 265.2 Note: Data are in millions of minutes of outgoing public switched telecommunications traffic. 2000 data exclude 28.2 mil- lion minutes of prepaid calling card traffic for which route data is not available. © TELEGEOGRAPHY, INC. 2001 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2002 111 Belarus ,~LA R G E:ST T,E LE C OM,M;U N 1CA~T iO N S~,R 0 UTES, ~2000, Destination Minutes (millions) 1. Russia .......................... 95.0 2. Ukraine ......................... 24.0 3. Moldova ......................... 6.8 4. Kazakhstan ....................... 2.8 5. Azerbaijan ........................ 1.0 6. Armenia .......................... 1.0 7. Uzbekistan ....................... 0.8 8. Georgia .......................... 0.6 9. Tajikistan ........................ 0.2 10. Turkmenistan ..................... 0.2 Others .......................... 46.1 Percent of Outgoing Traffic ~~ 13.4% ~i~ 3.8% 1.6% 0.6% 0.6% 0.4% 0.3% 0.1% 0.1% ~~~~ 25.8% TOTAL 178.5 NATIONAL T;RAFFIC BA~.A’NCE ¯ Minutes 1998 1999 2000 Incoming 193.5 195.6 n.a. Outgoing 176.1 161.2 178.5 Surplus (Deficit) 17.3 34.4 n.a. Total Volume 369.6 356.8 n.a. Note: Data are in millions of minutes of outgoing public switched telecommunications traffic. The "Others" category may include routes to non-members of the Commonwealth of Independent States that rank among the top destinations for outgoing traffic. 1 1 2 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2002 © TELEGEOGRAPHY, INC. 2001 Belgium LARGEST TE,LECOMMUNICATION:S~ ROUTES,, 2:0,00 Destination Minutes (millions) 1. France ......................... 400.0 2. Netherlands .................... 375.0 3. Germany ....................... 220.0 4. United Kingdom ................. 160.0 5. Italy ............................ 95.0 6. Luxembourg ..................... 65.0 7. United States .................... 65.0 8. Spain ........................... 60.0 9. Switzerland ..................... 35.0 10. Sweden ......................... 18.0 Others ......................... 342.0 TOTAL 1,835.0 NATI~O,NAL TRAFFIC e,A,L!ANCE ..... .~ : .... Minutes 1998 1999 Incoming n.a. n.a. Outgoing 1,460.0 1,590.0 Surplus (Deficit) n.a. n.a. Total Volume n.a. n.a. Note: Data are in millions of minutes of outgoing public switched telecommunications traffic. 2000 noao 1,835.0 n.a. © TELEGEOGRAPHY, INC. 2001 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2002 113 Benin LA RG E~,S T TE LEC O:M M U N ! CAT iO NS, R O O T,EIS, ;2 0 0 0 :~i- ,i,, :;, i.i~:~i!~, Destination Minutes (thousands) 1. France ........................ 3,248.0 2. Togo ......................... 1,470.0 3. C6te d’lvoire .................... 989.0 4. United States ................... 565.0 5. Senegal ........................ 547.0 6. Niger .......................... 508.0 7. Burkina Faso .................... 471.0 8. Gabon ......................... 469.0 9. Cameroon ...................... 338.0 10. 6ermany ....................... 289.0 11. Belgium ........................ 222.0 12. United Kingdom ................. 189.0 13. Mali ........................... 172.0 14. Nigeria ......................... 167.0 15. italy ........................... 144.0 16. Congo, Rep ...................... 138.0 17. Canada ........................ 132.0 18. Ghana ......................... 119.0 19. Switzerland ..................... 119.0 20. Lebanon ........................ 110.0 Others ........................ 1,240.0 Percent of Outgoing Traffic 27.8% ~~~ 12.6% ~~ 8.5% 4.8% 4,7 4.4% 4.o~ ~"~ 4.0% 2,9~ 2,5~ 1.6% ~.5% 1.4% ~.2% 1.2% 1.0% 0.9% TOTAL 11,665.0 "NATIONAL TRAFFIC BALANCE ¯ ¯ ~i:~i’;’,:~;~:," ~° Minutes 1998 1999 2000 Incoming 16.4 15.1 24.3 Outgoing 11.4 10.5 11.7 Surplus (Deficit) 5.0 4.6 12.6 Total Volume 27.8 25.6 35.9 Note: Data are in millions of minutes of outgoing public switched telecommunications traffic; route data are in thousands of minutes of outgoing public switched telecommunications traffic. 1 1 4 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2002 © TELEGEOGRAPHY, INC. 2001 TRAFFIC STATiSTiCS ’LAR Bolivia GEST,TELECOMMUNtCATIONS~ ¯ R0,U.TE,S~¯~, ¯ ¯ ~?ZO00:.~, ,. ,~ i, Destination Minutes (millions) 1. United States ..................... 7.1 2. Argentina ........................ 5.1 3. Brazil ............................ 3.2 4. Chile ............................. 3.0 5. Peru ............................. 1.8 6. Italy ............................. 0.6 7. Spain ............................ 0.6 8. Germany ......................... 0.5 9. Canada .......................... 0.5 10. Ecuador .......................... 0.4 11. Paraguay ......................... 0.4 12. Colombia ......................... 0.4 13. Mexico .......................... 0.4 14. Uruguay .......................... 0.3 15. United Kingdom ................... 0.3 16. San Marino ....................... 0.3 17. Venezuela ........................ 0.3 18. Cuba ............................ 0.2 19. France ........................... 0.2 20, Japan ............................ 0.2 Others ........................... 1.4 Percent of Outgoing Traffic ~~~~~ 18.7% ~~ 6.6% 2.1% ~@ 1.7% 1.7% ~;~ 1.6% 1.6% 1.5% 1.5% 1.2% ~% 1.2% 1.0% ~.o% 0.9% 0.7% TOTAL 27.2 ,NATIONAL TlZAFFIC BALANCE Minutes 1998 1999 2000 Incoming 76.4 82.2 80.8 Outgoing 31.6 29.7 27.2 Surplus (Deficit) 44.8 52.5 53.6 Total Volume 108.0 111.9 107.9 Note: Data are in millions of minutes of outgoing public switched telecommunications traffic. © TELEGEOGRAPHY, INC. 2001 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2002 115 Brazil Destination Minutes (millions) 1. United States ................... 207.5 2. Argentina ....................... 50.4 3. Portugal ......................... a,1.6 4. Italy ............................ 32.5 5. Spain ........................... 24.5 6. United Kingdom .................. 21.6 7. Germany ........................ 19.1 8. Japan .......................... 17.7 9. France ......................... 16.6 10. Chile ............................ 13.2 11. Uruguay ......................... 12.7 12. Paraguay ........................ 11.4 13. Switzerland ...................... 10.1 14. Canada .......................... 9.6 15. Lebanon ......................... 8.6 16. Peru ............................. 8.0 17. Bolivia ........................... 7.6 18. Israel ............................ 6.4 19. Netherlands ...................... 6.3 20. Mexico .......................... 6.3 Others ......................... 161.2 TOTAL 692.7 ,NATI,~ONAL TRAFFIC BALANCE .... Minutes 1998 1999 2000 Incomin9 806.9 838.5 1,212.4 Outgoin9 545.8 574.8 692.7 Surplus (Deficit) 261.1 263.7 519.8 Total Volume 1,352.7 1,413.3 1,905.1 Note: Data are in millions of minutes of outgoing public switched telecommunications traffic. 116 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2002 © TELEGEOGRAPHY, INC. 2001 Brunei LARGEST TELECO,MMUNICI~ATIONS~ROU,¥ES~ 2000 Destination Minutes (millions) 1. Singapore ........................ 4.1 2. Malaysia ......................... 3.2 3. Indonesia ........................ 2.7 4. Philippines ....................... 2.7 5. United Kingdom ................... 1.6 6. Australia ......................... 1.0 7. India ............................. 0.6 8. Thailand ......................... 0.6 9. United States ..................... 0.4 10. Japan ............................ 0.3 Others ........................... 7.1 Percent of Outgoing Traffic ~~ 16.9% ~~ 13.2% ~~ 11.1% 29.2% TOTAL 24.3 NATIONAL TRAFFIC’ BALANCE "" Minutes 1998 1999 2000 Incoming 25.5 21.7 23.3 Outgoing 23.4 23.4 24.3 Surplus (Deficit) 2.1 (1.7) (1.0) Total Volume 48.9 45.1 47.6 Note: Data are in millions of minutes of outgoing public switched telecommunications traffic. © TELEGEOGRAPHY, INC. 2001 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2002 117 Bulgaria ~LAR G E S TT ELEC OM M U N i C A T I 0 N S iR 0 U T ESii,::2 0 0 0 Destination Minutes (millions) I. Greece .......................... 17.0 2. Germany ........................ 14.0 3. Turkey .......................... 12.0 4. Italy ............................. 6.0 5. United Kingdom ................... 4.0 6. Russia ........................... 4.0 7. France ........................... 4.0 8. Austria .......................... 4.0 9. Spain ........................... 3.0 10. Macedonia ....................... 3.0 11. United States ..................... 2.0 12. Ukraine .......................... 2.0 13. Yugoslavia ........................ 2.0 14. Netherlands ...................... 2.0 15. Switzerland ....................... 1.0 16. Belgium .......................... 1.0 17. Czech Republic .................... 1.0 18. Cyprus ........................... 1.0 19. Poland ........................... 1.0 20. Hungary .......................... 1.0 Others .......................... 25.0 Percent of Outgoing Traffic ~~ 12.7% ~~ ~0.9% ~~ 5.5% 3.6% 3.6% 3.6% 3.6% ~;~ 2.7% ~%~ 2.7% ~.8% ~.8% ~.8% 0.9% ~; 0.9% 0.9% o.~% 0.9% 0.9% TOTAL 110.0 NATIONAL" TRAFFIC BALANCE¯ ¯ Minutes 1998 1999 2000 Incoming 201.0 n.a. 211.0 Outgoing 96.0 98.9 110.0 Surplus (Deficit) 105.0 n.a. 101.0 Total Volume 297.0 n.a. 321.0 Note: Data are in millions of minutes of outgoing public switched telecommunications traffic. 1 1 8 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2002 © TELEGEOGRAPHY, INC. 2001 LAR Burundi =in GEST TELECOMMUNICATIONS ROUT,ESI, ;Z,000 Destination Minutes (thousands) 1. Belgium ........................ 680.0 2. France ......................... 317,0 3. Kenya .......................... 237.0 4. United States ................... 147.0 5. United Kingdom ................. 127.0 6. Canada ........................ 123,0 7. Italy ........................... 117.0 8. Switzerland ..................... 99.0 9. South Africa ..................... 95.0 10. Tanzania ........................ 91.0 11. Netherlands ..................... 77.0 12. Germany ........................ 63.0 13. Greece .......................... 46.0 14. Uganda ......................... 40.0 15. Rwanda ......................... 35.0 16. Senegal ......................... 34.0 17. China ........................... 27.0 18. Ethiopia ......................... 22.0 19. Egypt ........................... 17,0 20. Cameroon ....................... 16.0 Others ......................... 484.0 Percent of Outgoing Traffic ~.!~ 4.4% ~,~ 4,3% 3.4% 2.2% ~.2% ~,. 1.2% ~, 0.9% TOTAL 2,893.0 NATIONAL TRAFFIC BALANCE Minutes 1998 1999 2000 Incoming 3.6 3.4 4.4 Outgoing 2.4 2.5 2.9 Surplus (Deficit) 1.1 1.0 1.5 Total Volume 6.0 5.9 7.3 Note: Data are in millions of minutes of outgoing public switched telecommunications traffic; route data are in thousands of minutes of outgoing public switched telecommunications traffic. © TELEGEOGRAPHY, INC. 2001 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2002 1 19 COUNTF~Y TRAFFIC STATiSTiCS Canada I~,LA,:RGE:ST T.E-L:E~iOMMUN!CATIONS,!IRO,UITES "2,000,, .... Destination. Minutes (millions) 1. United States .................. 5,480.0 2. United Kingdom ................. 370.0 3. France ......................... 105.0 4. Hong Kong ...................... 100.0 5. Italy ........................... 100.0 6. Germany ........................ 95.0 7. Philippines ....................... 95.0 8. India ........................... 90.0 9. Australia ........................ 55.0 10. Japan ........................... 52.0 Others ......................... 682.0 Percent of Outgoing Traffic 5.1o/o I 1.5% 1.4% 1.4% 1.3% 1.3% 1.2% o.8o/o I 0.7% 9.4% TOTAL 7,224.0 NATIONAL TRAFFIC ,BALANCE Minutes 1998 1999 2000 Incoming n.a. n.a. n.a. Outgoing 4,805.0 5,830.0 7,224.0 Surplus (Deficit) n.a. n.a. n.a. Total Volume n.a. n.a. n.a. Note: Data are in millions of minutes of outgoing public switched telecommunications traffic. 120 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2002 © TELEGEOGRAPHY, INC. 2001 ,LAR Chile GEST TELECOMMUNICATIO Destination Minutes (millions) 1. United States ................... 105.0 2. Argentina ....................... 36.0 3. Spain ........................... 15.0 4. Brazil ........................... 14.5 5. Peru ............................ 11.5 6. Germany ......................... 7.0 7. Canada .......................... 6.5 8. Bolivia ........................... 6.0 9. Japan ........................... 6.0 10. France ........................... 5.0 Others .......................... 65.5 NS, ROUTES,, Percent of Outgoing Traffic 37.8% ~~ 12.9% 5.4o/0 5.2%° 2.5% ~i 2.3°/0 2.2% ~ii? 2,2% 1.8% TOTAL 278.0 NATIONAL TRAFFIC BALANCE ....... Minutes 1998 1999 2000 Incoming n.a. n.a. n.a. Outgoing 259.4 270.0 278.0 Surplus (Deficit) n.a. n.a. n.a. Total Volume n.a. n.a. n.a. Note: Data are in millions of minutes of outgoing public switched telecommunications traffic. © TELEGEOGRAPHY, INC. 2001 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2002 121 China LAR G,E S T, T EL ECO MM UN:ICATI, ONS R O,U T E S, ,20 O 0 Destination Minutes (millions) 1. Hong Kong .................... 1,050.0 2. Taiwan ......................... 245.0 3. Japan .......................... 140.0 4. United States .................... 55.0 5. Korea, Rep ....................... 48.0 6. Macau .......................... 40.0 7. Singapore ....................... 35.0 8. United Kingdom .................. 25.0 9. Australia ........................ 20.0 10. Canada ......................... 20.0 11. Germany ........................ 20.0 12. France .......................... 14.0 13. Italy ............................ 11.0 14. Malaysia ........................ 10.0 15. Russia .......................... 10.0 Others ......................... 307.0 Percent of Outgoing Traffic ~~ 12.0% :~ 6.8% 2.7% 2.3% 2.0% 1.7% ~.2% 1.0% ~.o% ~,o% 0.7% ’~ 0.5% 0.5% ~o.5% TOTAL 2,050.0 NATIONAL TRAFFIC BAL~ANCE Minutes 1998 1999 2000 Incoming n.a. n.a. n.a. Outgoing 1,711.5 1,950.0 2,050.0 Surplus (Deficit) n.a. n.a. n.a. Total Volume n.a. n.a. n.a. Note: Data are in millions of minutes of outgoing public switched telecommunications traffic. 122 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2002 © TELEGEOGRAPHY, INC. 2001 LAR Colombia GEST ~TiELECOMMUNICATIO Destination Minutes (millions) 1. United States ................... 165.0 2. Venezuela ....................... 30.0 3. Spain ........................... 26.0 4. Ecuador ......................... 11.0 5. Mexico .......................... 9.0 6. United Kingdom ................... 8.0 7. Panama .......................... 7.0 8. Canada .......................... 6.0 9. Italy ............................. 6.0 10. France ........................... 5.5 11. Brazil ............................ 4.5 12. Peru ............................. 4.5 13. Costa Rica ........................ 4.0 14. Chile ............................. 3.7 15. Germany ......................... 3.7 Others .......................... 47.9 N S R 0 U T ES,. 2010 0,: Percent of Outgoing Traffic 48.3% 8.8% 7.6o/0 3.2% ~Z 2.6% 2.3°/0 2,0% 1.3o/0 TOTAL 341.8 NATIONALiTRAFFIC BALANCE ,, ,~: :f~ ¯ Minutes 1998 1999 2000 Incoming 454.6 n.a. n.a. Outgoing 204.2 212.2 341.8 Surplus (Deficit) 250.4 n.a. n.a. Total Volume 658.8 n.a. n.a. Note: Data are in millions of minutes of outgoing public switched telecommunications traffic. © TELEGEOGRAPHY, INC. 2001 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2002 123 TRAFFIC STATiSTiCS Costa Rica Destination Minutes (millions) 1. United States .................... 40.4 2. Nicaragua ....................... 19.2 3. Mexico .......................... 5.8 4. Panama .......................... 5.5 5. Guatemala ........................ 5.1 6. El Salvador ....................... 4.2 7. Colombia ......................... 3.6 8. Honduras ........................ 2.9 9. Canada .......................... 1.9 10. Cuba ............................ 1.3 11. Spain ............................ 1.2 12. Italy ............................. 1.0 13. Dominican Republic ................ 0.8 14. Germany ......................... 0.8 15. Argentina ........................ 0.7 16. Chile ............................. 0.7 17. Venezuela ........................ 0.7 18. Peru ............................. 0.7 19. Brazil ............................ 0.5 20. France ........................... 0.5 Others ........................... 1.6 TOTAL 99.6 NATIONAL TRAFFIC BALANCE Minutes 1998 1999 2000 Incoming 112.9 109.0 137.8 Outgoing 82.7 94.1 99.6 Surplus (Deficit) 30.2 14.9 38.2 Total Volume 195.6 203.1 237.4 Note: Data are in millions of minutes of outgoing public switched telecommunications traffic. 124 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2002 © TELEGEOGRAPHY, INC. 2001 Croatia ,~LA R-G EST TE L E C 0 M M U-N CAT,! O,N,S :RO UTIES;, 2~000 Destination Minutes (millions) 1. Germany ........................ 44.9 2. Austria .......................... 27.1 3. Switzerland ...................... 23.8 4. Italy ............................ 20.5 5. Macedonia ...................... 14.6 6. France .......................... 12.3 7. Greece .......................... 10.3 8. Hungary ........................ 10.2 9. United Kingdom ................... 8.2 10. Russia ........................... 7.1 11. United States ..................... 6.2 12. Sweden .......................... 6.0 13. Netherlands ...................... 4.5 14. Romania ......................... 4.0 15. Belgium .......................... 2.9 16. Turkey ........................... 2.7 17. Spain ............................ 2.4 18. Bulgaria .......................... 2.3 19. Australia ......................... 1.7 20. Denmark ......................... 1.7 Others ........................... 8.8 Percent of Outgoing Traffic ~~~ 12.2% ~~~~ 9.2% ~~~ 6.6% 5.5% ~~ 4.6% 3.7% 3.2% ~>~ 2.7% 2,o% 1.1% ~.o% 0.8% TOTAL 222.3 N,ATIONAL ~P, AFFICI BALANCE Minutes Incoming Outgoing Surplus (Deficit) Total Volume 1998 2000 n.a. 512.0 274.4 222.3 n.a. 289.6 n.a. 734.3 1999 ~.~. n.6. Note: Data are in millions of minutes of outgoing public switched telecommunications traffic. Data exclude traffic to SIovenia, Serbia, and Bosnia. © TELEGEOGRAPHY, INC. 2001 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2002 125 Cyprus Destination Minutes (millions) 1. Greece .......................... 56.3 2. United Kingdom .................. 44.6 3. Egypt ............................ 9.2 4. Lebanon ......................... 9.1 5. Russia ........................... 8.8 6. United States ..................... 6.4 7. Germany ......................... 5.6 8. Romania ......................... 4.2 9. Bulgaria ......................... 4.0 10. Ukraine .......................... 3.2 11. Italy ............................. 2.9 12. Yugoslavia ........................ 2.6 13. Syria ............................ 2.2 14. France ........................... 2.2 15. Switzerland ....................... 2.2 16. Netherlands ...................... 1.9 17. Sweden .......................... 1.8 18. Israel ............................ 1.7 19. Australia ......................... 1.2 20. Austria ........................... 1.2 Others .......................... 21.1 Percent of Outgoing Traffic ~/~~~ 23.2% ~.7~ 3.3% 2.9% 2.2% 2.1% 1.4% 1.1% ~.o% 0.9% 0.9~ 0.6~ o.6% ~~~ 10.9% TOTAL 192.5 ,N~ATIONAL’,TRAFFIC BALANCE ~’ i~i,i,,:I~ ,,~,~ii,:, ¯ Minutes 1998 1999 2000 Incomin9 120.6 134.1 n.a. Outgoing 182.0 168.2 192.5 Surplus (Deficit) (61.4) (34.0) n.a. Total Volume 302.7 302.3 n.a. Note: Data are in millions of minutes of outgoing public switched telecommunications traffic. 126 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2002 © TELEGEOGRAPHY, INC. 2001 Czech Republic L,A RG E S 1~ T E L~E C OMiMU N i C AT i O N S R OoU T!ES ; ,,20 OO,~ ¯ Destination Minutes (millions) 1. Germany ....................... 100.0 2. Slovak Republic .................. 82.0 3. Austria .......................... 29.0 4. United Kingdom .................. 22.0 5. Poland .......................... 17.0 6. Italy ............................ 14,0 7. France .......................... 13.0 8. United States .................... 12.0 9. Netherlands ..................... 11.0 10. Ukraine ......................... 11.0 Others .......................... 89.0 Percent of Outgoing Traffic ~~~ 7.2% 5.5 4.2% 3.5% 3.2% 3.0% 2.8% 2.8% TOTAL 400.0 NATIONAL,TRAFFIC--’’ ,BALANCE ,,,, Minutes 1998 1999 2000 Incoming 406.9 452.2 n.a. Outgoing 317.4 364.0 400.0 Surplus (Deficit) 89.5 88.2 n.a. Total Volume 724.4 816.2 n.a. Note: Data are in millions of minutes of outgoing public switched telecommunications traffic. © TELEGEOGRAPHY, INC 2001 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2002 127 Denmark ¯ L A R GE ST T EL E C O M ~M U,N I~C AT IO N ~S ~,R OOT E S,, 2 0,0 0 Destination Minutes (millions) 1. Germany ....................... 155.0 2. Sweden ........................ 140.0 3. United Kingdom ................. 110.0 4. Norway ......................... 85.0 5. United States .................... 41.0 6. Netherlands ..................... 38.0 7. France .......................... 34.0 8. Italy ............................ 27.0 9. Spain ........................... 19.0 10. Switzerland ...................... 19.0 Others ......................... 237.0 Percent of Outgoing Traffic 15.5% ~~ 12.2% ~% 4.5% 4.2% 3.8o~ 3.0% ~~~~~ 26.2% TOTAL 905.0 NAT,ION A,L T R A F;F !,C Minutes 1998 1999 2000 Incoming n.a. n.a. n.a. Outgoing 710.0 800.0 905.0 Surplus (Deficit) n.a. n.a. n.a. Total Volume n.a. n.ao n.a. Note: Data are in millions of minutes of outgoing public switched telecommunications traffic. 128 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2002 © TELEGEOGRAPHY, INC. 2001 LAR Dominican Republic GEST TELE~C,O MMUNtCATIO,N!S,ROUTES:i20OO’" ¯ i", ", ..... Destination Minutes (millions) 1. United States ................... 157.4 2. Spain ............................ 9.5 3. italy ............................. 4.8 4. Canada .......................... 3.1 5. Germany ......................... 3.0 6. Mexico .......................... 2.4 7. Venezuela ........................ 2.4 8. Cuba ............................ 2.0 9. Argentina ........................ 1.8 10. France ........................... 1.8 11. Colombia ......................... 1.7 12. Haiti ............................. 1.6 13. Switzerland ....................... 1.4 14. Netherlands Antilles ............... 1.3 15. Panama .......................... 1.3 16. United Kingdom ................... 1.0 17. Netherlands ...................... 1.0 18. Chile ............................. 0.7 19. Costa Rica ........................ 0.7 20. Brazil ............................ 0.3 Others .......................... 12.5 Percent of Outgoing Traffic 74.4% @ 4.5% ~: 2.3% ~1.5% i 1.4% 1.1% i 1.1% i 0.9% i 0.9% 0.9% 0.8% 0.8% O.7% 0.6% O.6% 0.5% O.5% 0.3% 0.3% 0.1% 5.9% TOTAL 211.7 "NATIONAL TR’AFFI,C "BALANCE Minutes 1998 1999 2000 Incoming 730.5 920.0 1,340.0 Outgoing 157.5 185.7 211.7 Surplus (Deficit) 573.0 734.3 1,128.3 Total Volume 888.0 1,105.7 1,551.7 public switched telecommunications traffic. Note: Data are in millions of minutes of outgoing © TELEGEOGRAPHY, INC. 2001 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2002 129 Ecuador ¯ :LA R~G~ES T T E,~L]E,C,:O MMUN I~C AT ! O Destination Minates (millions) 1. United States .................... 15.0 2. Colombia ........................ 14.0 3. United Kingdom ................... 3.5 4. Peru ............................. 3.0 5. Spain ............................ 3.0 6. Venezuela ........................ 2.0 7. Brazil ............................ 1.9 8. Chile ............................ 1.8 9. Argentina ........................ 1.6 10. Mexico .......................... 1.6 Others ........................... 8.1 TOTAL 55.5 NATIONAL TRAFFIC ’BALAINCE,,,!~ .... ~, ¯ ,~, Minutes 1998 1999 2000 Incoming n.a. n.a. n.a. Outgoing 62.0 57.4 55.5 Surplus (Deficit) n.a. n.a. n.a. Total Volume n.a. n.a. n.a. Note: Data are in millions of minutes of outgoing public switched telecommunications traffic. 130 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2002 © TELEGEOGRAPHY, INC. 2001 ¯ LAR G EST T ELE C 0 M M,UNI CAT I 0 N,S,R,O U T,E S,o, ,2000 Destination Minutes (millions) Percent of Outgoing Traffic Egypt 1. Saudi Arabia ..................... 40.2 2. United States .................... 14.1 3. United Arab Emirates .............. 13.9 4. Italy ............................ 11.3 5. United Kingdom .................. 11.1 6. Kuwait .......................... 10.3 7. Germany ......................... 9.8 8. France .......................... 7.3 9. Yemen ........................... 6.8 10. Lebanon ......................... 5.5 11. Jordan ........................... 4.2 12. Syria ............................ 3.2 13. Switzerland ....................... 3.1 14. Netherlands ...................... 2.6 15. Spain ............................ 2.5 16. Qatar ............................ 2.4 17. Libya ............................ 2.3 18. Morocco ......................... 2.1 19. Greece ........................... 2.0 20. Canada .......................... 1.9 Others .......................... 26.9 22.0% ~i 7.7% ~~ 7.6% ~~~ 6.2% 6.0% 3.7% 3.0% ~;i 2.3% 1.7% 1.4% 1.3% 1.2% ~~ ~.7~o TOTAL 183.1 NATIONAL TRAFF! C~BA,LANC E Minutes 1998 Incoming 475.3 Outgoing 127.3 ,Surplus (Deficit) 348.0 Total Volume 602.6 1999 2000 554.6 620.6 171.0 183.1 383.6 437.5 725.6 803.7 Note: Data are in millions of minutes of outgoing public switched telecommunications traffic. © TELEGEOGRAPHY, INC. 2001 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2002 131 STATISTICS Eritrea LAR G E ST TE LE COrM MU N tCAT/ON~ ,,~RO UTES ~I,:2,0:DO ,, Destination Minutes (thousands) 1. Italy ........................... 424.6 2. United States ................... 364.7 3. Saudi Arabia .................... 345.7 4. Sudan ......................... 172.5 5. United Kingdom ................. 167.1 6. Germany ....................... 137.7 7. Kenya ........................... 99.6 8. Egypt ........................... 89.5 9. Korea, Rep ...................... 83.4 10. Netherlands ..................... 58.5 11. Sweden ......................... 52.4 12. Switzerland ...................... 48.1 13. Canada ......................... 41.4 14. India ............................ 41.1 15. Libya ........................... 33.0 16. France .......................... 32.6 17. Norway ......................... 31.1 18. South Africa ..................... 30.0 19. Denmark ........................ 25.1 20. Belgium ......................... 20.4 Others ......................... 600.0 Percent of Outgoing Traffic ~i~ 14.8% 12.7% 12.oo/0 6.0% ~~ 5.8O/o ~~ 4,8% 3,5% 3.1O/o 2,9% 2.0% ~.8% ~.7% ~.4% 1.1% ;~ 0.9% o,7~ TOTAL 2,876.0 NATIO,NAL, TRAF~FtC’BA, LANC~E :, i,,¯ Minutes 1998 1999 2000 Incoming 12.6 13.8 n.a. OutGoinG 3.1 2.5 2.9 Surplus (Deficit) 9.5 11.3 n.a. Total Volume 15.7 16.3 n.a. Note: Data are in millions of minutes of outgoing public switched telecommunications traffic; route data are in thousands of minutes of outgoing public switched telecommunications traffic. 132 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2002 © TELEGEOGRAPHY, INC. 2001 Estonia GEST"TELECOMMUNICATIONS ROUT,ES,i 2000 Destination Minutes (millions) 1. Finland .......................... 22.0 2. Russia .......................... 15.0 3. Sweden .......................... 6.0 4. Latvia ............................ 5.5 5. Germany ......................... 4.6 6. Ukraine .......................... 3.1 7. Lithuania ......................... 2.9 8. United Kingdom ................... 2.2 9. Denmark ......................... 1.8 10. United States ..................... 1.4 11. Norway .......................... 1.2 12. Belarus .......................... 1.1 13. Italy ............................. 1.0 14. Netherlands ...................... 0.9 15. Poland ........................... 0.9 Others ........................... 5.9 Percent of Outgoing Traffic 8.0% 3.8% ~;~ 2.9% 2,4 ~:~ 1.9% ~; 1.5% ~;~ 1.3% 1.2% 1.2% TOTAL 75,5 NATIONAL TRAFFIC BALANCE Minutes 1998 1999 2000 Incoming 79.2 84.8 n.a. Outgoing 75.1 74.6 75.5 Surplus (Deficit) 4.1 10.2 n.a. Total Volume 154.3 159.4 n.a. Note: Data are in millions of minutes of outgoing public switched telecommunications traffic. © TELEGEOGRAPHY, INC. 2001 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2002 133 Finland L A.RGE S TTE~L E C O M M UN! C AT I O Destination Minutes (millions) 1. Sweden ........................ 150.0 2. Germany ........................ 42.0 3. United Kingdom .................. 40.0 4. Estonia .......................... 30.0 5. Russia .......................... 28.0 6. Norway ......................... 20.0 7. United States .................... 18.0 8. Denmark ........................ 13.0 9. France ......................... 13.0 10. Netherlands ...................... 9.0 Others ......................... 105.0 NS:~R O OI~ES, 2O’0"O ¯ ~’, .... Percent of Outgoing Traffic ~~~~ 32,1% ~~ 8.5% ~~ 6.4 % ~;~ 4.3% ~®~ 3.8~ 2.8~ 2,8~ ~~ 22.~ TOTAL 468.0 NATIONAL TRAFFIC BALANCE Minutes 1998 1999 2000 Incoming n.a. n.a. n.a. Outgoing 410.8 423.9 468.0 Surplus (Deficit) n.a. n.a. n.a. Total Volume n.a. n.a. n.a. Note: Data are in millions of minutes of outgoing public switched telecommunications traffic. 134 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2002 © TELEGEOGRAPHY, INC. 2001 LAB France Destination Minutes (millions) 1. United Kingdom ................. 580.0 2. Germany ....................... 565.0 3. Belgium ........................ 495.0 4. Italy ........................... 490.0 5. United States ................... 420.0 6. Switzerland ..................... 405.0 7. Morocco ....................... 400.0 8. Spain .......................... 385.0 9. Portugal ....................... 255.0 10. Algeria ......................... 250.0 11. Tunisia ......................... 215.0 12. Netherlands .................... 200.0 13. Canada ........................ 145.0 14. Poland .......................... 90.0 15. Turkey .......................... 90.0 16. Monaco ......................... 80.0 17. Luxembourg ..................... 75.0 18. Sweden ......................... 60.0 19. Senegal ......................... 55.0 20. Yugoslavia ....................... 45.0 Others ........................ 1,200.0 Percent of Outgoing Traffic ~~ 8.7% ~~~ 7.6% ~~~ 7.5% ~~ 6.5% ~~ 6.2% ~~ 6.2% ~~! 5.9% ~~ 3.9% ~~ 3.8% 3.3% ~.2% 0.9% o.e~ o.~o 18.5% TOTAL 6,500.0 ~NATIONALiTRAFFIC BALANCE, i ,, ¯ Minutes 1998 1999 2000 Incoming n.a. n.a. n.a. Outgoing 4,115.0 5,165.0 6,500.0 Surplus (Deficit) n.a. n.a. n.a. Total Volume n.a. n.a. n.a. Note: Data are in millions of minutes of outgoing public switched telecommunications traffic. © TELEGEOGRAPHY, INC. 2001 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2002 135 Georgia LAR GEST, TE L,E C O M MU N I C AT,I:O N S Destination Minutes (thousands) 1. Russia ....................... 26,233.6 2. Ukraine ....................... 3,467.8 3. Azerbaijan .................... 2,718.7 4. Armenia ...................... 2,220.1 5. Kazakhstan ..................... 507.1 6. Belarus ........................ 440.6 7. Uzbekistan ...................... 220.9 8. Turkmenistan ................... 169.4 9. Moldova ....................... 114.5 10. Kyrgyzstan ....................... 44.3 Others ........................ 9,437.3 R 0 UT:E S ," ,2"0 0 0 ~’: ¯ Percent of Outgoing Traffic ~~/l~ ~i~ll~ 57,5% 7.6% 6.0% ~i~i 4.9% 1.1% 1.0% 0.5% 0.4% 0.3% 0.1% ~~ 20.7% TOTAL 45,594.9 ,NATIONAL TtlAFFI’C BAEANCE Minutes 1998 1999 2000 Incoming n.a. 65.7 37.6 Outgoing n.a. 46.7 45.6 Surplus (Deficit) n.a. 19.0 (8.0) Total Volume n.a. 112.4 83.2 Note: National traffic data are in millions of minutes of outgoing public switched telecommunications traffic; route data are in thousands of minutes of outgoing public switched telecommunications traffic. The "Other" category may include routes to non-members 136 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2002 © TELEGEOGRAPHY, INC. 2001 ~LA RG EST TELECOMMUNICATIONS Germany Destination Minutes (millions) 1. Switzerland ..................... 750.0 2. Italy ........................... 700.0 3. United Kingdom ................. 685.0 4. France ......................... 080.0 5. Austria ......................... 650.0 6. Poland ......................... 570,0 7. Netherlands .................... 550.0 8. United States ................... 550.0 9. Turkey ......................... 500.0 10. Spain .......................... 350.0 11. Belgium ........................ 225.0 12. Denmark ....................... 175.0 13. Greece ......................... 160.0 14. Croatia ......................... 150.0 15. Czech Republic .................. 145,0 16. Sweden ........................ 120.0 17. Hungary ........................ 105.0 18. Yugoslavia ...................... 105.0 19. Canada ......................... 95.0 20. Portugal ......................... 90.0 Others ........................ 2,215.0 Percent of Outgoing Traffic ~~ 7.3% ~i~ 5.7% ~~ 5.2% 1.6% ~.5% ~.3% 1.1% 1.0% TOTAL 9,570.0 NATIONAL TRAFFIC ,;BALAN CE, Minutes 1998 1999 2000 Incoming n.a. n.a. n.a. 0 utgoin g 5,870.0 7,565.0 9,570.0 Surplus (Deficit) n.a. n.a. n.a. Total Volume n.a. n.a. n.a. Note: Data are in millions of minutes of outgoing public switched telecommunications traffic. © TELEGEOGRAPHY, INC 2001 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2002 137 Ghana Destination Minutes (thousands) 1. United Kingdom ............... 15,350.3 2. United States ................. 11,836.9 3. Germany ...................... 4,394.5 4. Canada ....................... 2,222.6 5. France ........................ 1,698.3 6. Nigeria ....................... 1,367.1 7. Italy .......................... 1,013.1 8. Togo .......................... 761.2 9. South Africa .................... 746.6 10. Burkina Faso .................... 361.4 11. Benin .......................... 175.2 12. Korea, Rep ...................... 139.9 13. Denmark ........................ 96.1 14. Netherlands ..................... 93.3 15. Japan ........................... 84.7 16. Senegal ......................... 82.7 17. Cameroon ....................... 57.6 18. Guinea .......................... 54.0 19. Belgium ......................... 30.7 20. COte d’lvoire ...................... 1.3 Others ........................ 1,500.0 Percent of Outgoing Traffic 36.5% ~~~~ 28.1o/o ~.~. lO.4% 5.3o/0 4.oo/0 ~!~ 3.2°/0 2.4% 1.8% ~I~ 1.8% o.9~ O.4% 0.3% O.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 3.6% TOTAL 42,067.5 NATIONAL" TRA~FFI’C BALANCE ¯ "" ~!:!i i;i~,ill~ ¯ ~;!~:~~:iI Minutes 1998 1999 2000 Incoming 100.8 118.4 n.a. Outgoing 28.9 30.1 42.1 Surplus (Deficit) 72.0 88.2 n.a. Total Volume 129.7 148.5 n.a. Note: Data are in millions of minutes of outgoing public switched telecommunications traffic; route data are in thousands of minutes of outgoing public switched telecommunications traffic. 138 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2002 © TELEGEOGRAPHY, INC. 2001 Greece LARGEST TELECOMMUNICATIONS ROUTES~,,:2000 Destination Minutes (millions) 1. United Kingdom ................. 117.7 2, Germany ....................... 111.4 3. Italy ............................ 65.2 4. United States .................... 44.6 5. Albania ......................... 40.7 6. Cyprus .......................... 31.7 7. France .......................... 31.1 8. Bulgaria ........................ 27.3 9. Romania ........................ 25.3 10. Netherlands ..................... 19.1 11. Belgium ......................... 14.3 12. Switzerland ...................... 13.2 13. Ukraine ......................... 13.0 14. Australia ........................ 12.7 15. Turkey .......................... 12.0 16. Russia .......................... 11.9 17. Sweden ......................... 11.1 18. Canada ......................... 10.5 19. Yugoslavia ........................ 9.7 20. Austria ........................... 9.4 Others ......................... 161.3 Percent of Outgoing Traffic ~~~~ 14.8% I~M~I~/MB~IB~ 14.0O/o ~~ 8.2o/0 ~~ 5.6% ~~ 5.1O/o 4.0% 3.4% 3.2% ~,~,,~ 2.4% ~.7% 1.4% ~.3% 20.3% TOTAL 793.2 NATIONAL TIRAFF[C ~BALANCE~ Minutes 1998 1999 2000 Incoming 710.1 794.2 889.8 Outgoing 681.3 725.7 793.2 Surplus (Deficit) 28.8 68.5 96.6 Total Vol ume 1,391.4 1,519.9 1,683.0 Note: Data are in millions of minutes of outgoing public switched telecommunications traffic. © TELEGEOGRAPHY, INC 2001 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2002 139 COEJNTR¥ TRAFFIC STATiSTiCS Guatemala LA RGE S,T~ ,,T ELE €IO:MiMU N CiAT I 0 N S ~R O g T ES ,, ~2OOO Destination Minutes (millions) 1. United States .................... 59.1 2. El Salvador ...................... 13.4 3, Mexico ......................... 12,8 4. Costa Rica ........................ 5.7 5. Nicaragua ........................ 3.7 6. Colombia ......................... 3.4 7. Spain ............................ 1.7 8. Panama ......................... 1.7 9. Korea, Rep ....................... 1.6 10. Lebanon ......................... 1.3 11. Canada .......................... 1.3 12. Peru ............................. 1.3 13. Vietnam .......................... 1.0 14. Chile ............................. 0.7 15. Germany ......................... 0.7 16. Eritrea ........................... 0.6 17. Israel ............................ 0.6 18. Italy ............................. 0.6 Others .......................... 14.3 Percent of Outgoing Traffic 47.2% ~~ lo.7% ~~ 10.2o/0 4.5O/0o 3,0% 2.8°/0 1.3°/0 1.3°/0 1.0% ~i 1.oo/0 1.oo/0 i o.6o/0 i 0.5% 0.5% i o.5o/0 i 0.5% ~~i 11.4°/0 TOTAL 125.3 ¯ NATIONAL TIP, AFFI~C BALA~N,CE, ,,:i ..... ¯ ..... Minutes 1998 1999 2000 Incoming n.a. 208.6 295,9 Outgoing 60.0 83.3 125.3 Surplus (Deficit) n.a. 125.3 170.5 Total Volume n.a. 291.9 421.2 Note: Data are in millions of minutes of outgoing public switched telecommunications traffic. 140 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2002 © TELEGEOGRAPHY, INC. 2001 LA R G E,SX~,T,E I~,E C 0 MM U,Nt CAT I 0 Destination Minutes (millions) 1. China ......................... 1,404.9 2. United States ................... 277.2 3. Philippines ...................... 229.2 4. Canada ........................ 202.0 5. United Kingdom ................. 143.1 6. Australia ....................... 139.4 7. Taiwan ......................... 125.2 8. Japan .......................... 83.2 9. Singapore ....................... 81.2 10. Macau .......................... 47.8 Others ......................... 341.6 Hong Kong FiY ~,,2 0,0 0 i 01 N S,~R,O U T,E S, ,, ..... ¯ Percent of Outgoing Traffic 45.7% 9.0% ~i 6.6% ~° 2.7% 2,6% 1.6% TOTAL 3.074.9 NATIONAL TRAFFIC BALANCE Minutes FY 1998/99 F’Y 1999/00 FY 2000101 Incoming 1,833.0 1,747.2 1,858.0 0 utg o in g 1,879.8 2,720.3 3,074.9 Surplus (Deficit) (46.8) (973.1) (1,216.8) Total Volume 3,712.8 4,467.5 4,932.9 Note: Data are in millions of minutes of outgoing public switched telecommunications traffic. Fiscal year ends March 31. © TELEGEOGRAPHY, INC, 2001 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2002 141 Hungary Destination Minutes (millions) 1. Germany ........................ 84.4 2. Austria .......................... 37.0 3. Romania ........................ 35.8 4. Yugoslavia ....................... 23.4 5. United Kingdom .................. 17.1 6. Italy ............................ 16.3 7. United States .................... 13.9 8. France ......................... 12.0 9. Netherlands ...................... 7.6 10. Switzerland ....................... 7.3 Others .......................... 44.2 TOTAL 349.2 NATIONA[ TR,A~FFIC ,BALANC’E" ¯ Minutes 1998 Incoming 374.5 Outgoing 296.3 Surplus (Deficit) 78.2 Total Volume 670.8 1999 2000 n.a. n.a. 343.9 349.2 n.a, n.a, n.a. n.a. Note: Data are in millions of minutes of outgoing public switched telecommunications traffic. 1 42 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2002 © TELEGEOGRAPHY, INC. 2001 India LARGE, ST TELECOMM,UNICATIONS ROUTES, F,Y 2000/01 Destination Minutes (millions) 1. Saudi Arabia ..................... 90.2 2. United States .................... 75.3 3. United Kingdom .................. 48.3 4. United Arab Emirates .............. 48.0 5. Singapore ....................... 24.1 6. Kuwait .......................... 17.2 7. Oman ........................... 16.7 8. Germany ........................ 14.0 9. Canada ......................... 10.9 10. Hong Kong ...................... 10.4 11. Australia ......................... 9.9 12. Sri Lanka ......................... 9.6 13. Malaysia ......................... 8.6 14. France ........................... 8.4 15. Japan ............................ 8.2 16. Qatar ............................ 7.2 17. Bahrain .......................... 6.2 18. Thailand ......................... 4.8 19. Philippines ....................... 4.4 20. Spain ............................ 2.6 Others ......................... 102.0 Percent of Outgoing Traffic ~@~ 9.2% 4.6% ...... 3.3% 3.2% 2.6% 2.0% ~.8% 1.6% 1.6% 1.4% 1.2% 0.9% 0.8% 0.5% TOTAL 527.1 NATIONAL TBAFFIC BAL~ANCE ~’~ ¯ .... Minutes FY 1998/99 FY 1999/00 FY 2000/01 Incoming 1,498.8 1,772.5 2,161.4 Outgoing 436.2 473.3 527.1 Surplus (Deficit) 1,062.6 1,299.2 1,634.3 Total Volume 1,935.0 2,245.8 2,688.5 Note: Data are in millions of minutes of outgoing public switched telecommunications traffic. Data exclude some cross- border traffic with Bangladesh, Nepal, and Pakistan. Fiscal year ends March 31. © TELEGEOGRAPHY, INC. 2001 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2002 143 Indonesia ,LAR~GE,ST,TELECOM,MUNIC,ATIO~NS ROUi;TES, 20,00 Destination Minutes (millions) 1. Singapore ....................... 76.3 2. Malaysia ........................ 38.6 3. Australia ........................ 26.5 4. United States .................... 24.0 5. Japan ........................... 21.2 6. Taiwan .......................... 13.4 7. Hong Kong ...................... 12.1 8. Korea, Rep ....................... 8.8 9. United Kingdom ................... 8.4 10. China ............................ 7.7 11. Philippines ....................... 6.1 12. Thailand ......................... 5.6 13. Germany ......................... 5.6 14. India ............................. 5.4 15. Netherlands ...................... 5.3 16. Canada .......................... 5.3 17. France ........................... 4.9 18. Brunei ........................... 3.3 19. Italy ............................. 2.4 20. New Zealand ..................... 1.5 Others .......................... 33.1 Percent of Outgoing Traffic ~~~~i 24.2% ~~~ 12.2% ~~ 7.6% ~~ 6.7% 2.7% ~l 2.4% 1.9% 1.0% ~;~ 0.8% ii 0.5% TOTAL 315.5 NAT I 0 NA L :,T, RA ]:iF I C ~,,B ALAN C E Minutes 1998 1999 2000 Incoming 434.2 n.a. 345.8 0 utg oing 324.5 269.6 315.5 Surplus (Deficit) 109.7 n.a. 30.3 Total Volume 758.7 n.a. 681.3 Note: Data are in millions of minutes of outgoing public switched telecommunications traffic. 144 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2002 © TELEGEOGRAPHY, INC 2001 LAR GEST TELECOMMUN!CATIONS ROUTES, Z000 Destination Minutes (millions) 1. United Arab Emirates .............. 30.1 2. United States .................... 22.9 3. Pakistan ......................... 15.7 4. Germany ........................ 13.0 5. United Kingdom .................. 12.8 6. Turkey ........................... 9.4 7. Kuwait ........................... 7.1 8. Sweden ......................... 6.7 9. Azerbaijan ....................... 4.5 10. Italy ............................. 4.1 11. Japan ............................ 3.8 12. Austria ........................... 3.5 13. France ........................... 3.3 14. Canada .......................... 2.7 15. Qatar ............................ 2.6 16. Netherlands ...................... 2.6 17. india ............................. 2.4 18. Saudi Arabia ...................... 2.3 19. Switzerland ....................... 2.3 20. Bahrain .......................... 1.7 Others .......................... 23.2 Percent of Outgoing Traffic ~;~~ 12.9°/o 8.9o/0 ~~ 7.4°/0 ~i~~ 7.2°/0 ~!~ 5.3~ ~~ 4.oo/0 ~~, 3.8o/0 2.5% ~.9% ~.5% ~.5% ~.3% ,, Iran TOTAL 176.8 NATIONAL TRAFFIC .BALANCE Minutes 1998 1999 2000 Incoming 185.7 191.5 216.8 Outgoing 177.0 156.1 176.8 Surplus (Deficit) 8.8 35.4 40.0 Total Volume 362.7 347.6 393.6 Note: Data are in millions of minutes of outgoing public switched telecommunications traffic. © TELEGEOGRAPHY, INC. 2001 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2002 145 Ireland ~LAR GE S T T~,E L~EII~,O M MU N |CA T 110N $,,;R O U TE Destination Minutes (millions) 1. United Kingdom ................. 775.0 2. United States ................... 130.0 3. Germany ........................ 43.0 4. France .......................... 41.0 5. Netherlands ..................... 28.0 6. Spain ........................... 23.0 7. Australia ........................ 18.0 8. Canada ......................... 17.0 9. Italy ............................ 15.0 10. Bel0ium ......................... 10.0 11. Sweden .......................... 9.0 12. Switzerland ....................... 8.0 13. Denmark ......................... 6,0 14. Finland ........................... 5.0 15. Poland ........................... 4.0 Others ......................... 118.0 FY 2000/.0"!,1 Percent of Outgoing Traffic ~~!~~ 3.4% 3.3% 2.2% 1.8% 1.4% 1.4% ~1.2% i 0.8% I 0.7% 0.6% 0.5% 0.4% 0.3% 9.4% TOTAL 1,250.0 NATIONAL TRAFFIC BALA~NCE .. .. ~. ¯ Minutes FY 1998/99 FY 1999/90 FY 2000/01 Incoming n.a. n.a. n.a. Outgoing 885.0 1,015.0 1,250.0 Surplus (Deficit) n.a. n.a. n.a. Total Volume n.a. n.a. n.a. Note: Data are in millions of minutes of outgoing public switched telecommunications traffic. Data exclude cross-border traffic to Northern Ireland. Fiscal year ends March 31. 146 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2002 © TELEGEOGRAPHY, INC. 2001 LA,RG,,EST TELECOMMUNICATIONS ROUTES~ 2000 Israel Destination Minutes (millions) 1. United States ................... 245.0 2. United Kingdom .................. 65.0 3. Canada ......................... 60.0 4. France .......................... 50.0 5. Germany ........................ 50.0 6. Italy ............................ 35.0 7. Russia .......................... 30.0 8. Ukraine ......................... 25.0 9. Netherlands ..................... 20.0 Others ......................... 385.0 Percent of Outgoing Traffic ~~ 25.4% 6.7% 6.2% 5.2% 5.2% 2.6% ~i~ 2.~% TOTAL 965.0 NATIONAL TRAFFIC BAI.ANCE Minutes 1998 1999 2000 Incoming 424.0 n.a. n.a. 0 utg oing 661.0 804.0 965.0 Surplus (Deficit) (237.0) n.a. n.a. Total Volume 1,085.0 n.a. n.a. Note: Data are in millions of minutes of outgoing public switched telecommunications traffic. © TELEGEOGRAPHY, INC. 2001 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2002 147 Italy LA R G E ST,T EL E,~C,O MMONtCATIONS Destination Minutes (millions) 1. Germany ....................... 620.0 2. France ......................... 495.0 3. Switzerland ..................... 360.0 4. United Kingdom ................. 330.0 5. United States ................... 280.0 6. Romania ....................... 170.0 7. Spain .......................... 170.0 8. Poland ........................ 140.0 9. Belgium ....................... 105.0 10. Austria ......................... 100.0 11. Morocco ........................ 90.0 12, Netherlands ..................... 85.0 13. Croatia .......................... 75.0 14. Yugoslavia ....................... 68.0 15. Greece .......................... 66.0 16. Albania ......................... 65.0 17. Canada ......................... 60.0 18. Tunisia .......................... 55.0 19. Macedonia ...................... 45.0 20. Chile ............................ 40.0 Others ......................... 721.0 Percent of Outgoing Traffic ~/~~~ 8.7% ~1~ 4.1% ~~ 4.1% 3.4% 2.4% ~!~ 2.2% 2.1% ~.6% ~i ~.6% ~, 1.6% ~.4 % ~.3% ~.0% TOTAL 4,140.0 NATIONAL TRAFFIC BALANCE Minutes 1998 1999 2000 Incoming n.a. n.a. n.a. 0 utg oin g 2,640.0 3,100.0 4,140.0 Surplus (Deficit) n.a. n.a. n.a. Total Volume n.a. n.a. n.a. Note: Data are in millions of minutes of outgoing public switched telecommunications traffic. 148 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2002 © TELEGEOGRAPHY, INC. 2001 COU~T~Y TRAFFIC STATiSTiCS LAR 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 12. 13. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. Jamaica GEST ~TELECOMMUNtCATIONS Destination Minutes (millions) United States .................... 51.4 United Kingdom ................... 7.8 Canada .......................... 2.3 Cayman Islands ................... 2.3 Bahamas ......................... 1.7 Trinidad & Tobago ................. 1.6 Barbados ......................... 1.1 Cuba ............................ 0.8 Germany ......................... 0.5 Antigua & Barbuda ................ 0.4 Guyana .......................... 0.3 Turks & Caicos Islands ............. 0.3 Saint Lucia ....................... 0.3 Dominican Republic ................ 0.3 India ............................. 0.3 Colombia ......................... 0.2 Bermuda ......................... 0.2 Panama .......................... 0.2 Saint Vincent & The Grenadines ..... 0.2 China ............................ 0.2 Others ........................... 1.5 Percent of Outgoing Traffic lO.6% 3.2% 3.1% 2.3% 2.2% !~ 1.1% o.7o/0 0.5% 0.5% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0,4% 0,3% 0.3% 0.3% 0,3% 0.2% 2.o’/0 TOTAL 73.8 NATIO’NA, L TRAFFIC BALANCE ~" ;:~,,;,, .... ;i; ¯ ....... Minutes 1998 1999 2000 Incoming 349.8 347.4 328.5 Outgoing 60.1 64.4 73.8 Surplus (Deficit) 289.7 283.0 254.6 Total Volume 409.9 411.8 402.3 Note: Data are in millions of minutes of outgoing public switched telecommunications traffic. © TELEGEOGRAPHY, INC. 2001 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2002 149 STATiSTiCS Japan ,, LAiR GEST T:EIL e C O,MMUN tCAT!,ON S Ro UTES:,, FIY~,2O’OO/O 1 Destination Minutes (millions) 1. United States ................... 520.0 2. China .......................... 360.0 3. Philippines ...................... 245.0 4. Korea, Rep ...................... 210.0 5. Brazil .......................... 140.0 6. Taiwan ......................... 130.0 7. Thailand ........................ 100.0 8. United Kingdom .................. 80.0 9. Hong I(ong ...................... 75.0 10. Singapore ....................... 60.0 11. Australia ........................ 56.0 12. Indonesia ....................... 45.0 13. Seychelles ....................... 45.0 14. Bermany ........................ 40.0 15. France .......................... 36.0 16. Malaysia ........................ 35.0 17. Canada ......................... 33.0 18. Russia .......................... 20.0 19. Vietnam ......................... 20.0 20. India ............................ 19.0 Others ......................... 306.0 Percent of Outgoing Traffic ~~~~ 20.2% ~~~~ 8.2% ~~ 5.4% 5.o 3.9% 3.~ % 2.3% 2.2% 1.7% 1.6% ~.4% 1.3% ~;~ 0.8% 0.8 0.7 TOTAL 2,575.0 NATIONAL TRAFFIC ,BALANCE M in utes FY 1998/99 FY 1999/00 FY 2000/01 Incoming 1,575.0 1,929.6 n.a. Outgoing 1,895.0 2,050.0 2,575.0 Surplus (Deficit) (320.0) (120.4) n.a. Total Volume 3,470.0 3,979.6 n.a. Note: Data are in millions of minutes of outgoing public switched telecommunications traffic. Fiscal year ends March 31. 1~0 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2002 © TELEGEOGRAPHY, INC. 2001 Jordan LARGEST TEEECOMMU,N]CATIONS~ RO~UT~ES,,2’000 Destination Minutes (millions) 1. Saudi Arabia ..................... 24.2 2. Egypt ........................... 18.3 3, PalestinianAuthority .............. 15.5 4. United Arab Emirates .............. 13.4 5. Syria ............................ 11,4 6. Iraq ............................ 10.7 7. Israel ........................... 10.0 8. United States ..................... 9.6 9. Kuwait .......................... 6.5 10. Lebanon ......................... 5.5 11. United Kingdom ................... 5.2 12. Qatar ............................ 3.5 13. Germany ......................... 3.4 14. France ........................... 2.3 15. Italy ............................. 1.9 16. Oman ............................ 1.6 17. Bahrain .......................... 1.6 18. Yemen ........................... 1.6 19. Canada .......................... 1.4 20. Turkey ........................... 1.2 Others .......................... 21.6 Percent of Outgoing Traffic 14.2% ¯ it~~ll~l~% 9.1% 7.9% ~~~ 6.3% ~~ 5.9% ~®~ 5.8o/0 ~~i 3.2% 2.oo/0 ~i~ 2,o% ~.3% 0.9% 0.9% o.~% o,7% 12.7% TOTAL 170.6 ~NATIONALT]~AFFI,C,~BALANCE ¯ ¯ .... ¯ ¯ ..... ,: Minutes 1998 1999 2000 Incoming 176.9 191.5 214.1 Outgoing 122.6 145.6 170.6 Surplus (Deficit) 54.4 45.9 43.5 Total Volume 299.5 337.2 384.7 Note: Data are in millions of minutes of outgoing public switched telecommunications traffic. © TELEGEOGRAPHY, INC. 2001 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2002 151 Kazakhstan ¯ L A RG E S T .~..E.L;E~€~O M M U N| C A T ION S ~"R OIU T E S, i2 0 0 0 Destination Minutes (thousands) 1. Russia ....................... 48,200.0 2. Uzbekistan ................... 13,300.0 3. Kyrgyzstan .................... 8,100.0 4. Ukraine ....................... 3,700.0 5. Germany ...................... 3,041.0 6. Turkmenistan .................. 2,300.0 7. Tajikistan ..................... 2,100.0 8. Azerbaijan .................... 1,631.0 9. Belarus ...................... 1,544.0 10. Armenia ........................ 700.0 11. Georgia ........................ 600.0 12. China .......................... 598.0 13. Meldeva ....................... 300.0 14. France ......................... 294.0 15. India ........................... 227.0 16. Canada ........................ 198.0 17. Australia ........................ 58.0 18. Egypt ........................... 34.0 19. Hong Kono ...................... 21.0 20. Bahrain .......................... 3.0 Others ....................... 18,416.0 Percent of Outgoing Traffic ~1 45.7% ~~ 12.6% 7.7% 3.5% 2.9% 2.2% 2.0% 1.5% 1.5% 0.7% 0.6% 0.6% 0.3% 0.3% 0.2% 0.2% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% TOTAL 105,365.0 "N~ATIONAL~TiiAFFIC B’A’LAN,CE /~ ,, :" "’" ,~ Minutes 1998 1999 2000 Incoming 137.5 149.8 183.1 Outgoing 118.9 104.5 105.4 Surplus (Deficit) 18.6 45.3 77.8 Total Volume 256.4 254.3 288.5 Note: Data are in millions of minutes of outgoing public switched telecommunications traffic; route data are in thousands of minutes of outgoing public switched telecommunications traffic. 152 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2002 © TELEGEOGRAPHY, INC. 2001 LA R;G E,S T ,,,T,E L E C 0 M M U N ICAT I:O NS ,,I~R O U TE S, ,2 0 0 0 Destination Minutes (millions) 1. United Kingdom ................... 4.6 2. United States ..................... 3.4 3. India ............................. 1.9 4. South Africa ...................... 1.6 5. Germany ......................... 0.9 6. Italy ............................. 0.9 7. France ........................... 0.8 8. United Arab Emirates .............. 0.7 9. Netherlands ...................... 0.6 10. Canada .......................... 0.5 11. Switzerland ....................... 0.5 12. Ethiopia .......................... 0.5 13. Japan ............................ 0.3 14. Pakistan ......................... 0.3 15. Zimbabwe ........................ 0.3 16. Australia ......................... 0.3 17. Belgium .......................... 0.3 18. Somalia .......................... 0.3 19. Nigeria ........................... 0.2 20. Sweden .......................... 0.2 Others ........................... 1.8 Kenya Percent of Outgoing Traffic TOTAL 21.0 NATIONAL TTIAF, FIC BALANCE ~, Minutes 1998 1999 2000 Incoming 72.5 n.a. n.a. Outgoing 29.2 n.a. 21.0 Surplus (Deficit) 43.3 n.a. n.a. Total Volume 101.7 n.a. n.a. Note: Data are in millions of minutes of outgoing public switched telecommunications traffic. © TELEGEOGRAPHY, INC. 2001 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2002 1 53 Korea, Rep. ,LAR GEST TELE~€O,MMONICATIONS ROUT:ES, Destination Minutes (millions) 1. United States ................... 235.0 2. China .......................... 175.0 3. Japan .......................... 165.0 4. Hong Kong ...................... 27.6 5. Canada ......................... 27.0 6. Philippines ....................... 27.0 7. Australia ........................ 24.0 8. Indonesia ....................... 20.0 9. Vietnam ........................ 19.0 10. Germany ........................ 18.5 11. Taiwan .......................... 15.0 12. United Kingdom .................. 15.0 13. Pakistan ......................... 14.0 14. Singapore ....................... 14.0 15. Thailand ......................... 11.0 Others ......................... 255.9 TOTAL 1,063.0 NATIONAL TRAFFIC BALANCE Minutes 1998 1999 2000 Incoming 719.4 n.a. n.a. Outgoing 907.7 898.0 1,063.0 Surplus (Deficit) (188.3) n.a. n.a. Total Volume 1,627.1 n.a. n.a. Note: Data are in millions of minutes of outgoing public switched telecommunications traffic. 154 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2002 © TELEGEOGRAPHY, INC. 2001 TRAFFIC STATiSTiCS Kuwait LARGEST T, EL, ECO~M,MUNICATiONSROUTE~,S;, 1,,999 Destination Minutes (millions) 1. Egypt ........................... 35.0 2. Saudi Arabia ..................... 18.6 3. India ............................ 18.2 4. Syria ............................ 11.9 5. United Arab Emirates .............. 11.2 6. United States ..................... 9.3 7. Iran ............................. 7.0 8. Pakistan ......................... 6.9 9. United Kingdom ................... 6.5 10. Jordan ........................... 5.8 11. Lebanon ......................... 5,2 12. Bahrain .......................... 4.2 13. Qatar ............................ 1.8 14. Philippines ....................... 1.7 15. Canada .......................... 1.7 16. Bangladesh ....................... 1.7 17. Sfi Lanka ......................... 1.3 18. Oman ............................ 1.2 19. France ........................... 1.2 20. Germany ......................... 1.1 Others .......................... 18.2 TOTAL 170.0 N AT I 0’N AL TRAFF I,CB AL ANC E Minutes 1998 1999 2000 Incoming 135.0 120.0 n.a. Outgoing 173.1 170.0 158.7 Surplus (Deficit) (38.1) (50.0) n.a. Total Volume 308.1 290.0 n.a. Note: Data are in millions of minutes of outgoing public switched telecommunications traffic. 2000 route data are not available. © TELEGEOGRAPHY, INC. 2001 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2002 155 Kyrgyzstan LAR G E.ST, IT e LECO,M:M U N ! CAT tON IS,RO UTES;~o, 2000 Percent of Outgoing Traffic 45.7% ~~ 26.2% ~~ lO.9% i~ 2.7% 2.6% 2.0% 1.3% 1.o% 0.8% ! 0.7% 0.7% 0.6% 0.3% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 3.5% Destination Minutes (thousands) 1. Russia ....................... 10,600.0 2. Kazakhstan .................... 6,066.0 3. IJzbekistan .................... 2,521.0 4. Turkey ......................... 624.0 5. Tajikistan ....................... 591.0 6. Ukraine ........................ 464.0 7. Germany ....................... 311.0 8. China .......................... 221.0 9. Belarus ........................ 194.0 10. Azerbaijan ...................... 166.0 11. Turkmenistan ................... 157.0 12. United Kingdom ................. 133.0 13. United Arab Emirates .............. 70.0 14. Iran ............................ 47.0 15. India ............................ 46.0 16. France .......................... 35.0 17. Belgium ......................... 30.0 18. Pakistan ......................... 25.0 19. Korea, Rep ....................... 24.0 20. Japan ........................... 23.0 Others ......................... 800.0 TOTAL 23,174.8 "NATIONAL T!RAFFIC BAL~ANCE Minutes 1998 1999 2000 Incoming 30.1 n.a. 28.6 Outgoing 30.4 23.5 23.2 Surptus (Deficit) (0.3) n.a. 5.4 Total Volume 60.5 n.a. 51.8 Note: Data are in millions of minutes of outgoing public switched telecommunications traffic; route data are in thousands of minutes of outgoing public switched telecommunications traffic. 156 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2002 © TELEGEOGRAPHY, INC. 2001 Latvia GEST Destination Minutes (millions) 1. Russia .......................... 13.5 2. Lithuania ......................... 6.5 3. Estonia ........................... 5.3 4. Germany ......................... 3.9 5. Belarus .......................... 3.7 6. Ukraine .......................... 3.5 7. United Kingdom ................... 2.1 8. Finland .......................... 1.8 9. Denmark ......................... 1.4 10. Sweden .......................... 1.4 11. Poland ........................... 1.4 12. Norway .......................... 0.8 13. Netherlands ...................... 0.7 14. France ........................... 0.7 15. Italy ............................. 0.7 16. United States ..................... 0.6 17. Switzerland ....................... 0.6 18. Belgium .......................... 0.5 19. Austria ........................... 0.4 20. Israel ............................ 0.3 Others ........................... 5.0 T, ELECOMMUNICATIONS ROUTES, ’2000 Percent of Outgoing Traffic 9.6% 3.8% ~;~ 3.4% 2.6% ~;~ 2.5% ;i£ 1.4% 1.4% i~ ~.3% ~I ~.2% ~.o% ::~I 0.8% 0.6% TOTAL 54.8 NATIONAL TRAFFIC BA,L:ANCE Minutes 1998 1999 2000 Incoming 87.2 90.0 90.1 Outgoing 55.4 55.6 54.8 Surplus (Deficit) 31.8 34.4 35.3 Total Volume 142.5 145.6 144.9 Note: Data are in millions of minutes of outgoing public switched telecommunications traffic. © TELEGEOGRAPHY, INC. 2001 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2002 157 Luxembourg ~LAR G EST T~E,LE,C,O M M ON t~CAT i 0 Destination Minutes (millions) 1. France .......................... 90.0 2. Belgium ......................... 85.0 3. Germany ........................ 85.0 4. Portugal ......................... 23.0 5. United Kingdom .................. 19.0 6. Italy ............................ 18.0 7. Netherlands ..................... 13.0 8. Switzerland ..................... 11.0 9. United States ..................... 7.0 10. Spain ............................ 6.0 Others .......................... 24.0 NS ROUTES, .2OO~O Percent of Outgoing Traffic ~~@~~ 23.6o/0 22.3% ~~i;il~Nllll~l~Nll]lll~3 22.3% ~~I 6.oo/0 ~~ ~.oo~ 4.7% 3.4% 2.9% ~~ 6.3% TOTAL 381.0 NATIONAL TRAFFIC :BALAN,CE ,,,~, : Minutes 1998 1999 2000 Incoming 242.6 n.a. n.a. Outgoing 293.8 319.1 381.0 Surplus (Deficit) (51.2) n.a. n.a. Total Volume 536.4 n.a. n.a. Note: Data are in millions of minutes of outgoing public switched telecommunications traffic. 158 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2002 © TELEGEOGRAPHY, INC. 2001 ¯ LAR Macau GEST Destination Minutes (millions) 1. China ........................... 58.7 2. HonG KonG ...................... 57.4 3. Taiwan ........................... 9.9 4. United States ..................... 6.1 5. Canada .......................... 3.3 6. Portugal .......................... 3.0 7. United Kingdom ................... 2.9 8. Philippines ....................... 2.5 9. Australia ......................... 2,4 10. Thailand ......................... 1.2 11. Singapore ........................ 0,7 12. Japan ............................ 0.5 13. Malaysia ......................... 0.4 14. Korea, Rep ........................ 0.4 15. Vietnam .......................... 0.4 16. France ........................... 0.3 17. NewZealand ..................... 0.2 18. Indonesia ........................ 0,2 19. Cambodia ........................ 0.1 Others ........................... 1.6 T,ELECO M:MUNICATIONS,~ROUTES, :2000 Percent of Outgoing Traffic ~;~ 1.7% 1.6% 0.8% 0.5% O.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.2% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 1.1% TOTAL 152.1 "NATIONAL TRAFFIC BALANCiE Minutes 1998 1999 2000 Incoming 95.1 97.7 103.2 Outgoing 125.2 132.8 152.1 Surplus (Deficit) (30.2) (35.1) (48.9) Total Volume 220.3 230.5 255.2 Note: Data are in millions of minutes of outgoing public switched telecommunications traffic. © TELEGEOGRAPHY, INC. 2001 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2002 159 Macedonia LA RG,E S T,:~T E LE C 0 M M,UN t CAT |O N S~, R,0,U,T ES ,, 2-000 Destination Minutes (millions) 1. Yugoslavia ....................... 18.8 2. Germany ......................... 8.4 3. Greece ........................... 5.0 4. Bulgaria .......................... 4.8 5. Switzerland ....................... 4.5 6. Italy ............................. 3.8 7. Turkey ........................... 3.0 8. Croatia .......................... 2.5 9. United States ..................... 2.3 10. Slovenia ......................... 2.3 11. United Kingdom ................... 1.9 12. Austria ........................... 1.9 13. France ........................... 1.4 14. Albania .......................... 1.1 15, Bosnia-Herzegovina ............... 0.9 16. Australia ......................... 0.9 17. Belgium .......................... 0.8 18. Hungary .......................... 0.6 19. Netherlands ...................... 0.5 20. Sweden .......................... 0.5 Others ........................... 7.5 Percent of Outgoing Traffic ~~ 6.2% ~~ 5.2% 3.4% 3.2% 2.6% 1.9% ~.4% 1.3% 1.2% 0.8% 0.7% 0.6% TOTAL 73.2 NATIONAL TRAFFIC BALANCE Minutes 1998 1999 2000 Incoming 91.7 152.5 166.4 Outgoing 37.1 82.3 73.2 Surplus (Deficit) 54,6 70.3 93.2 Total Volume 128.9 234.8 239.6 Note: Data are in millions of minutes of outgoing public switched telecommunications traffic. Data for 1998 exclude an estimated 20 million minutes of traffic to Yugoslavia. 160 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2002 © TELEGEOGRAPHY, INC. 2001 COUi~TP~Y TRAFFIC STATiSTiCS IIL~A RG E ST TELE CO MMUNtCAT/O NS tlO UTES, Destination Minutes (millions) 1. Singapore ...................... 440.0 2. Indonesia ....................... 92.0 3. Thailand ......................... 50.0 I~t~ 5.6% 4. Japan ........................... 31.0 3.5% 5. India ............................ 30.0 3.4% 3.0% 6. Australia ........................ 27.0 p~:~ 7. United States .................... 27.0 3.0% 8. United Kingdom .................. 26.0 i~! 2.9% 9. Hong Kong ...................... 23.0 2.6% 10. China .22.0 2.5% 11. Taiwan .......................... 22.0 2.5% 12. Philippines ....................... 14.0 !~ 1.6% 13. Bangladesh ....................... 8.5 0.9% 14. Germany ......................... 6.5 0.7% 15. France ........................... 5,8 0.6% 16. Korea, Rep ........................ 5.3 0.6% 17. Brunei ........................... 2.6 0.3% 18. Canada .......................... 2.5 0.3% 19. Saudi Arabia ...................... 1,2 0.1% 20. Myanmar ......................... 1.1 0.1% Others .......................... 57.5 ~! 6.4% Malaysia ZO;00/0S ¯ Percent of Outgoing Traffic N~d~" 10.3% TOTAL 895.0 NATIONAL TRAFFIC BALANCE Minutes FY 1998/99 FY 1999/00 FY 2000/01 Incoming : n.a. n.a. n.a, Outgoing 685.0 690.0 895.0 Surplus (Deficit) n.a. n.a. n.a. Total Volume n.a, n.a. n.a. Note: Data are in millions of minutes of outgoing public switched telecommunications traffic. Fiscal year ends March 31. © TELEGEOGRAPHY, INC 2001 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2002 161 Malta LAR GEST :TELEC0 MMUNtCATIONS,~ROUTES, Destination Minutes (millions) Percent of Outgoing Traffic 2. Italy ............................. 6.6 ~~~ 15.3% 3. Germany ......................... 3.9 ~~ 9.0% 4. France ........................... 1.9 4.4% 5. Libya ............................ 1.7 ~:~ 3.9% 6. Netherlands ...................... 1.6 3.6% 7. United States ..................... 1.3 3.1% 8. Australia ......................... 1.2 2.9% 9. Switzerland ...................... 1.0 ~! 2.3% 10. Russia ........................... 0.8 1.8% 11. Belgium .......................... 0.8 1.8% 12. Sweden .......................... 0.6 1.4% 13. Austria ........................... 0.6 1.4% 14. Spain ............................ 0.6 1.3% 15. Ireland ........................... 0.5 1.2% 16. Canada .......................... 0.5 1.2% 17. Turkey ........................... 0.5 1.1% 18. Greece ........................... 0.4 0.9% 19. Tunisia ........................... 0.4 i~ 0.9% 20. Norway .......................... 0.3 i~ 0.7% Others ........................... 5.0 ~!~~~ 11.7% TOTAL 43.0 NATIONAL TRAFFIC BALANCE ,, "’" ,, .... Minutes 1998 1999 2000 Incoming 43.4 50.2 n.a. Outgoing 37.3 39.0 43.0 Surplus (Deficit) 6.1 11.2 n.a. Total Volume 80.7 89.2 n.a. Note: Data are in millions of minutes of outgoing public switched telecommunications traffic. 162 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2002 © TELEGEOGRAPHY, INC. 2001 LAR Mauritius GEST TELECOMMUNICATIONS RouTEs, FY 2000/0,1 Destination Minutes (millions) 1. France ........................... 7.1 2. United Kingdom ................... 5.3 3. R~union .......................... 3.6 4. South Africa ...................... 3.0 5. India ............................. 2.5 6. Italy ............................. 1.2 7. Australia ......................... 1.1 8. Germany ......................... 1.0 9. Madagascar ..................... 0.9 10. China ............................ 0.9 11. Switzerland ....................... 0.7 12. United States ..................... 0.5 13. Hong Kong ....................... 0.5 14. Seychelles ....................... 0.5 15. Singapore ........................ 0.5 16. Belgium .......................... 0.5 17. Canada .......................... 0.3 18. Spain ............................ 0.3 19. Taiwan ........................... 0.2 20. Malaysia ......................... 0.2 Others ........................... 4.1 Percent of Outgoing Traffic ~~ ~~ lo.4% ~~~@ 8.5% ~~~ 7.3% 3.0% 2.8% 2.7% 2.5% 2.0% ~.6% ~L~;~ 1.5% :~;~ 1.5% ~.4% 0.9% 0.7% 0.6% 0.6% TOTAL 35.1 N,ATIONAL;~T!BAFFICBA[ANCE ¯ ..... .... ............... M i n utes F’Y 1998/99 FY 1999/00 F’Y 2000/01 Incoming 39.5 43.3 49.0 Outgoing 29.7 31.4 35.1 Surplus (Deficit) 9.8 11.9 13.9 Total Volume 69.2 74.7 84.0 Note: Data are in millions of minutes of outgoing public switched telecommunications traffic. Fiscal year ends June 30. © TELEGEOGRAPHY, INC. 2001 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2002 163 COU~Ti~Y TRAFFIC STATiSTiCS Mexico Destination Minutes (millions) 1. United States .................. 1,569.0 2. Canada ......................... 23.0 3. Spain ........................... 19.0 4. Cuba ............................ 13.0 5. Guatemala ....................... 13.0 6. Colombia ........................ 12.0 7. France .......................... 11.0 8. Argentina ....................... 10.0 9. Germany ......................... 9.0 10. United Kingdom ................... 9.0 Others ......................... 195.0 Percent of Outgoing Traffic ~:,~~~ 83.3% I1.2% 1.0% 0.7% 0.7% 0.6% 0.6% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% ~i~: 10.4% TOTAL 1,883.0 N~ATI,ONAL TP,A~FF,IC BALANCE ,~ i’,,%~~ ¯ ..... Minutes 1998 1999 2000 Incoming 3,060.0 4,007.5 5,896.0 Outgoing 1,310.0 1,563.0 1,883.0 Surplus (Deficit) 1,750.0 2,444.5 4,013.0 Total Volume 4,370.0 5,570.5 7,779.0 Note: Data are in millions of minutes of outgoing public switched telecommunications traffic. 164 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2002 © TELEGEOGRAPHY, INC 2001 Moldova G EST TiE L E C O MM U~N i,C,AT iO N S~R O U T,ES, i~2 OO 0 -: Destination Minutes (millions) 1. Russia .......................... 14.7 2. Ukraine ......................... 12.7 3. Romania ......................... 7.2 4. Italy ............................. 2.6 5. Turkey ........................... 2.0 6. Germany ......................... 1.9 7. Belarus .......................... 1.4 8. Greece .......................... 0.9 9. Portugal ......................... 0.9 10. France ........................... 0.5 11. United States ..................... 0.5 12. Bulgaria .......................... 0.5 13. Israel ............................ 0.4 14. Poland ........................... 0.4 15. Spain ............................ 0.4 16. Czech Republic .................... 0.4 17. Hungary .......................... 0.3 18. United Kingdom ................... 0.3 19. Cyprus ........................... 0.2 20. Belgium .......................... 0.2 Others ........................... 2.5 Percent of Outgoing Traffic ~%~;~ 14.1% ~@ 5.2o/o 3.6% ~!!~t 2.7% 1.8% ~’~ii~ 1.7 % ~.o% ~.o% 0.9~o 0.9% 0.8% 0,7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.6% 0.5% 0.4% TOTAL 50.8 ,NATIONAL TRAFFIC ,BALANCE Minutes 1998 1999 2000 Incoming 90.3 101.1 120.8 Outgoing 55.8 49.0 50.8 Surplus (Deficit) 34.4 52.1 70.1 Total Volume 146.1 150.1 171.6 Note: Data are in millions of minutes of outgoing public switched telecommunications traffic. © TELEGEOGRAPHY, INC. 2001 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2002 165 Morocco ,LARGEST TIE LE C O M M U Nt C ATI,! O N S~:~,~:R 0 U TES~ ;20 00,,, Destination Minutes (millions) 1. France ......................... 100.0 2. Spain ........................... 22.0 3. United Kingdom .................. 19.0 4. Italy ............................ 18.0 5. 6ermany ........................ 10.0 6. United States .................... 10.0 7. Belgium ......................... 10.0 8. Netherlands ...................... 9.0 9. Saudi Arabia ..................... 9.0 10. Canada .......................... 5.0 Others .......................... 33.0 Percent of Outgoing Traffic ~Z~~~~~ 40.8% 7.8% 7.3% 4.1% ,~ 4.1% 4.1% 3.7% TOTAL 245.0 NATIONAE’,’T~RAFFIC:,~BAI.AN(~E .... ¯ .... :, ~, .i, "’i’, ¯ Minutes 1998 1999 2000 Incoming 460.0 n.a. n.a. Outgoing 181.0 219.5 245.0 Surplus (Deficit) 279.0 n.a. n.a. Total Volume 641.0 n.a. n.a. Note: Data are in millions of minutes of outgoing public switched telecommunications traffic. 166 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2002 © TELEGEOGRAPHY, INC 2001 Namibia L A R G E S T ,T,E L E CO M M U N 1 ~CoA T 1O N S Destination Minutes (millions) 1. South Africa ..................... 49.6 2. Germany ......................... 2.0 3. United Kingdom ................... 0.9 4. Botswana ........................ 0.8 5. Zimbabwe ........................ 0.8 6. United States ..................... 0.6 7. Angola ........................... 0.6 8. Zambia .......................... 0.5 9. Spain ........................... 0.4 10. Ghana ........................... 0.4 11. France ........................... 0.2 12. Portugal .......................... 0.2 13. China ............................ 0.2 14. Russia ........................... 0.2 15. Italy ............................. 0,2 16. Netherlands ...................... 0.2 17. Switzerland ....................... 0.2 18. Austria ........................... 0.1 19. Australia ......................... 0.1 20. Nigeria ........................... 0.1 Others ........................... 0.6 Percent of Outgoing Traffic 1.5% 1.4% 1.3% 1.0% 0.9% 0.8% 0.7% 0.6% 0.4% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% O.3% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% TOTAL 60.2 NATIONAL TRAFF!C’BAL~AN’CE ’ ¯ ,,i Minutes 1998 1999 2000 Incoming 45.3 51.2 50.7 Outgoing 61.9 61.2 60.2 Surplus (Deficit) (16.6) (10.0) (9.5) Total Volume 107.2 112.4 110.8 Note: Data are in millions of minutes of outgoing public switched telecommunications traffic. © TELEGEOGRAPHY, INC. 2001 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2002 167 Netherlands LAR G E ST T~E LEIC~OMM U N,I CAT i 0 NS, ]:lO UTES ,-,2000 Destination Minutes (millions) 1. Germany ....................... 500.0 2. Belgium ........................ 400.0 3. United Kingdom ................. 300.0 4. France ......................... 180.0 5. United States ................... 160.0 6. Italy ............................ 80.0 7. Spain ........................... 76.0 8. Switzerland ..................... 75.0 9. Turkey .......................... 62.0 10. Canada ......................... 60.0 11. Sweden ......................... 40.0 12. Morocco ........................ 36.0 13. Poland .......................... 35.0 14. Austria .......................... 30.0 15. Denmark ........................ 30.0 16. Greece .......................... 30.0 17. Po~uoal ......................... 27.0 18. Australia ........................ 22.0 19. Ireland .......................... 19.0 20. Norway ......................... 18.0 Others ......................... 650.0 Percent of Outgoing Traffic ~~~ 14.1% ~~ 6.4% I~~ 5.7% ~(~ 2.8% 2.7% 2.7% 2.2% 2,~% 1.3% 1.2% 1.1% 0.8% 0.7% o.6 TOTAL 2,830.0 NATI0NAL TRAFFIC BALANCE," Minutes 1998 1999 2000 Incomino n.a. n.a. n.a. Outooino 1,885.0 2,380.0 2,830.0 Surplus (Deficit) n.a. n.a. n.a. Total Volume n.a. n.a. n.a. Note: Data are in millions of minutes of outgoing public switched telecommunications traffic. 168 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2002 © TELEGEOGRAPHY, INC. 2001 New Zealand ,,.LARGESTTE,LECOMMUNICATI, ONS ROUTES, FY 2000/01 Destination Minutes (millions) 1. Australia ....................... 425.0 2. United States ................... 115.0 3. United Kingdom ................. 110.0 4. Canada ......................... 45.0 5. Philippines ....................... 25.0 6. I-long Kong ...................... 16.0 7. Japan ........................... 16.0 8. Fiji ............................. 15.0 9. Malaysia ........................ 12.0 10. Singapore ....................... 12.0 Others ......................... 159.0 Percent of Outgoing Traffic ~ii 12.1°/0 ~~ 11.6% 2.6% 1.7% ~!i 1.7% 1.6% 1.3% 1.3%o ~i~ 16.7% TOTAL 950.0 NATIONAL TRAFFIC BALANCE" Minutes FY 1998/99 FY 1999/00 FY 2000/01 Incoming n.a. n.a. n.a. 0 utg oing 610.0 815.0 950.0 Surplus (Deficit) n.a. n.a. n.a. Total Volume n.a. n.a. n.a. Note: Data are in millions of minutes of outgoing public switched telecommunications traffic. Fiscal year ends June 30. © TELEGEOGRAPHY, INC. 2001 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2002 169 TRAFFIC STATiSTiCS Norway ,LA R G,EST" T~E L E COM¯¯ M U N,!¯ CATI¯¯ ¯ O ~NS,,,, ,,,~ROU T ES;.I200¯¯ ~, o Destination Minutes (millions) 1. Sweden ........................ 200.0 2. Denmark ....................... 105.0 3. United Kingdom .................. 95.0 4. United States .................... 55.0 5. Germany ........................ 50.0 6. Spain ........................... 34.0 7. Netherlands ..................... 23.0 8. Finland ......................... 22.0 9. France ......................... 22.0 10. Italy ............................ 21.0 Others ......................... 143.0 Percent of Outgoing Traffic 26.0% ~~ 13.6% ~~i~ 12.3% ~~ 7.1% ~~ 6.5o/0 4.4°/0 3.0% 2.9% 2.9% 2.7% 18.6% TOTAL 770.0 -NATIONAL TRAF~,FIC BALANCE, Minutes 1998 1999 2000 Incoming n.a. n.a. n.a. 0 utg o in g 540.0 694.0 770.0 Surplus (Deficit) n.a. n.a. n.a. Total Volume n.a. n.a. n.a. Note: Data are in millions of minutes of outgoing public switched telecommunications traffic. 170 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2002 © TELEGEOGRAPHY, INC. 2001 Oman LARGEST TELECOMMUNtCAT!ONS ROUTES, 1,999 Destination Minutes (millions) 1. India ............................ 30.3 2. United Arab Emirates .............. 27.4 3. Pakistan ......................... 6.5 4. United Kingdom ................... 5.8 5. Egypt ............................ 4.1 6. Saudi Arabia ...................... 2.8 7. Bangladesh ....................... 2.7 8. Bahrain .......................... 2.4 9. United States ..................... 2.2 10. Jordan ........................... 1.7 11. Sri Lanka ......................... 1.5 12. Kuwait ........................... 1.5 13. Philippines ....................... 1.4 14. Qatar ............................ 1.4 15. Tanzania ......................... 1,1 16. South Africa ...................... 1.0 17. Sudan ........................... 0.9 18. Germany ......................... 0.8 19. France ........................... 0.8 20. Netherlands ...................... 0.6 Others ........................... 4.3 Percent of Outgoing Traffic ~i~ 5.6% ~@~ 5.oo/0 ~’~!~ 3.5°/0 2.4% 2.3% ~,~ 2.~% 1.9% q.4% ~.3% ~;~ ~.3% ~.2% ~.2% 0.9% o.e% 0.7% 0,7% 3.7% TOTAL 101.3 NATIONAL TRAFFIC BALANCE Minutes 1998 1999 2000 Incoming 71.7 83.4 n.a. Outgoing 90.0 101.3 116.8 Surplus (Deficit) (18.3) (17.9) n.a. Tota/Vo/ume 161.8 ~84.7 n.a. Note: Data are in millions of minutes of outgoing public switched telecommunications traffic. 2000 route data are not available. Data exclude some cross-border traffic to the United Arab Emirates. © TELEGEOGRAPHY, INC 2001 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2002 171 Pakistan ,LARGEST ~TiEL~ECOMMUNtCATIO:NSROUTES, FY 2000/01 Destination Minutes (millions) 1. United Kingdom .................. 19.1 2. United Arab Emirates .............. 14,4 3. SaudiArabia ..................... 11.2 4. United States .................... 10.7 5. Canada .......................... 7.7 6. Italy ............................. 3.5 7. Iran ............................. 3.4 8. Germany ......................... 2.5 9. Kuwait .......................... 2.1 10. France ........................... 1.9 11. Singapore ........................ 1.9 12. India ............................. 1.8 13. Japan ............................ 1.6 14. Bangladesh ....................... 1.5 15. Oman ............................ 1.3 16. China ............................ 1.2 17. Hong Kong ....................... 1.2 18. Australia ......................... 1.2 19. Turkey ........................... 1.1 20. Qatar ............................ 1.1 Others ........................... 8.4 Percent of Outgoing Traffic ~~ 10.8% ~!~ 2.5% 1.9% 1.8% ~i 1.6% ~®, 1.3o/0 1,2% 1.2o/0 1.1% ~~ 8.5~ TOTAL 98.6 NATIONAL TRAFFIC BALANICE Minutes FY 1998/99 FY 1999/00 FY 2000/01 Incoming 640.4 644.9 896.1 Outgoing 87.5 75.1 98.6 Surplus (Deficit) 552.9 569.8 797.4 Total Volume 727.9 720.0 994.7 Note: Data are in millions of minutes of outgoing public switched telecommunications traffic. Data exclude some cross- border traffic to India. Fiscal year ends June 30. 172 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2002 © TELEGEOGRAPHY, INC. 2001 Palestinian Authority LARGEST TELECOMMUNt,CATIO Destination Minutes (millions) 1. Jordan .......................... 19.5 2. United States ..................... 5.1 3. Egypt ............................ 3.5 4. Saudi Arabia ...................... 2.8 5. United Arab Emirates ............... 1.8 6. Germany ......................... 1.2 7. United Kingdom ................... 1.0 8. Italy ............................. 0.7 9. Syria ............................ 0.6 10. France ........................... 0.6 11. Ukraine .......................... 0.5 12. Turkey ........................... 0.5 13. Lebanon ......................... 0.4 14. Canada .......................... 0.4 15. Kuwait ........................... 0.4 16. Qatar ............................ 0.4 17. Russia ........................... 0.3 18. Spain ............................ 0.3 19. Morocco ......................... 0.3 20. Iraq ............................. 0.3 Others ........................... 5.1 NS ROUTES,~200i01,!~;~ ,~ ,, ¯ ...... ,~; Percent of Outgoing Traffic 42.9% 7.8% ~~ 6.0% 4.0% 2.6% 2.2% 1.5% 1.2% TOTAL 45.6 NATIONALTEAFFIC BALANCE Minutes 1998 1999 2000 Incomin9 16.6 n.a. 37.2 Outgoin9 27.6 34.9 45.6 Surplus (Deficit) (11.0) n.a. (8.4) Total Volume 44.3 n.a. 82.8 Note: Data are in millions of minutes of outgoing public switched telecommunications traffic. Data exclude traffic with Israel. © TELEGEOGRAPHY, INC 2001 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2002 173 Panama Destination Minutes (millions) 1. United States .................... 15.6 2. Colombia ......................... 6.0 3. Costa Bica ........................ 4.0 4. Mexico .......................... 2.5 5. Guatemala ........................ 1.3 6. Dominican Republic ................ 1.3 7. Venezuela ........................ 1.2 8. Spain ........................... 1.1 9. Nicaragua ....................... 1.1 10. El Salvador ....................... 0.9 11. Peru ............................. 0.8 12. Cuba ............................ 0.7 13. Brazil ............................ 0.7 14. Honduras ......................... 0.7 15. Chile ............................. 0.6 16. Canada .......................... 0.6 17. Ecuador .......................... 0.5 18. United Kingdom ................... 0.5 19. France ........................... 0.3 20. ,Japan ............................ 0.2 Others .......................... 11.4 TOTAL 51.9 NATIONAL T~,-AFFIC BALANCEi, Minutes 1998 1999 2000 Incoming 95.5 96.2 111.7 0utooino 50.0 53.6 51.9 Surplus (Deficit) 45.5 42.6 59.7 Total Volume 145.5 149.8 163.6 Note: Data are in millions of minutes of outgoing public switched telecommunications traffic. 174 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2002 © TELEGEOGRAPHY, INC. 2001 C~)UNTF~Y TRAFFIC; STATiSTiCS Paraguay Destination Minutes (millions) 1. Argentina ....................... 12.0 2. Brazil ............................ 9.2 3. United States ..................... 3.4 4. Uruguay .......................... 1.4 5. Chile ............................. 1.2 6. Spain ............................ 0.6 7. Germany ......................... 0.5 8. Bolivia ........................... 0.5 9. Taiwan .......................... 0.4 10. Peru ............................. 0.4 11. italy ............................. 0.3 12. Mexico .......................... 0.3 13. China ............................ 0.2 14. Japan ............................ 0.2 15. France ........................... 0.2 16. Korea, Rep ........................ 0.2 17. Canada .......................... 0.2 18. Colombia ......................... 0.2 19. Switzerland ....................... 0.1 20. Lebanon ......................... 0.0 Others ........................... 1.7 1.2% 1.1% 0.9% o.~% 0.6% O.6% 0.5% 0.4% 0.1% 6.2% TOTAL 33.3 ¯ N A T I 0 N A L ~R,A~F F;IC BA L ANC, E ¯ Minutes 1998 1999 2000 Incoming 57.4 54.8 71.6 Outgoing 37.8 34.7 33.3 Surplus (Deficit) 19.6 20.1 38.4 Total Volume 95.2 89.5 104.9 Note: Data are in millions of minutes of outgoing public switched telecommunications traffic. © TELEGEOGRAPHY, INC. 2001 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2002 175 COUP~TRY TRAFFIC STAT|STJC$ Peru Destination Minutes (millions) 1. United States .................... 32.0 2. Chile ............................. 7.3 3. Argentina ........................ 6.6 4. Spain ............................ 6.3 5. Colombia ......................... 5.7 6. Brazil ............................ 3.1 7. Mexico .......................... 3.0 8. Venezuela ....................... 2.6 9. Italy ............................. 2.5 10. Japan ............................ 2.3 11. Ecuador .......................... 2.3 12. Bolivia ........................... 2.2 13. Canada .......................... 1.5 14. Germany ......................... 1.4 15. United Kingdom ................... 1.2 16. France ........................... 1.0 17. Switzerland ....................... 0.8 18. China ............................ 0.8 19. Panama .......................... 0.7 20. Costa Rica ........................ 0.5 Others ........................... 2.8 Percent of Outgoing Traffic ~~i 8.4% ~~ 7.6% 7.3% 6.6% 3.6% 3.5% 3.0% 2.9% 2.6% 2.6% 2.5% 1.8% ~.2% 0.9% 0.6% 3.3% TOTAL 86.5 NATIONAL ’T~,AFFIC ,BALANCE Minutes FY 1998/99 Incoming 272.6 Outgoing 90.3 Surplus (Deficit) 182.3 Total Volume 363.0 1999 2000 299.6 317.7 88.9 86.5 210.6 231.3 388.5 404.2 Note: Data are in millions of minutes of outgoing public switched telecommunications traffic. 176 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2002 © TELEGEOGRAPHY, INC. 2001 LAR Philippines GEST T, ELE:COMMUNICATIONS~ROUT£:S,,i,FY:2O00/oi~ ~,,, Destination Minutes (millions) 1. United States .................... 85.0 2. Japan ........................... 45.0 3. Saudi Arabia ..................... 35.0 4. Hong Kong ...................... 20.0 5. Canada ......................... 15.0 6. Singapore ....................... 15.0 7. Taiwan .......................... 15.0 8. Australia ........................ 11.0 9. Malaysia ........................ 6.0 10. Korea, Rep ........................ 5.0 Others .......................... 41.0 Percent of Outgoing Traffic 23.8% lllllklll~ll~ 16.5o/0 ~~ 12.8% ~i~~ 7.3% ~~ 5.5O/o ~i 5.5o/0 ~i~ 5.5% 4.0% 2.2% illlili~lllllll~J~t 15.oo/0 TOTAL 273.0 N AT I:O NA L TP, AFF I,C BIALAN C:E Minutes FY 1998/99 Incoming n.a. Outgoing 262.0 Surplus (Deficit) n.a. Total Volume n.a. FY 1999/00 F’Y 2000/01 n.a. n.a. 230.8 273.0 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.8. Note: Data are in millions of minutes of outgoing public switched telecommunications traffic. Fiscal year ends March 31. © TELEGEOGRAPHY, INC. 2001 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2002 177 STATiSTiCS Poland Percent of Outgoing Traffic 7.4% ~" ~" 5.9% 3.4% 3.4% 3.3% 2.8% 2.4% 20.4o/o Destination Minutes (millions) 1. Germany ....................... 260.0 2. United Kingdom .................. 55.0 3. Italy ............................ 50.0 4. France .......................... 40.0 5. United States .................... 30.0 6. Austria .......................... 23.0 7. Netherlands ..................... 23.0 8. Ukraine ......................... 22.0 9. Sweden ........................ 19.0 10. Czech Republic ................... 16.0 Others ......................... 138.0 TOTAL 675.8 NATIONAL iT RA~F F ! C ,,~B A tLA N.CE Minutes 1998 1999 2000 Incoming 1,144.2 n.a. n.a. 0 utg o in g 602.4 624.0 675.8 Surplus (Deficit) 541.8 n.a. n.a. Total Volume 1,746.6 n.a. n.a. Note: Data are in millions of minutes of outgoing public switched telecommunications traffic. 178 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2002 © TELEGEOGRAPHY, INC. 2001 TRAFFIC LAR G E S,T :T,E L E CO,M M U NI CA T iO,N $~, R OU T E S, 2:00 0 Destination Minutes (millions) 1. France ......................... 125.0 2. Spain .......................... 120.0 3. United Kingdom .................. 75.0 4. Germany ........................ 65.0 5. Brazil ........................... 55.0 6. Switzerland ...................... 35.0 7. United States .................... 28.0 8. Italy ............................ 24.0 9. Netherlands ..................... 23.0 10. Belgium ......................... 17.0 11. Angola .......................... 17.0 12. Canada ......................... 13.0 13. Cape Verde ...................... 12.0 14. Guinea-Bissau .................... 8.5 15. Luxembourg ...................... 7.0 16. South Africa ...................... 6.0 17. Sweden .......................... 6.0 18. Venezuela ........................ 6.0 19. Mozambique ...................... 5.5 20. Ireland ........................... 4.0 Others .......................... 68.0 Portugal Percent of Outgoing Traffic ~~ 4.9% ~~ 3.9% 3.3% 3.2% 2.4% 2.4% 1.7% ~.o% 0.8% 0.8% 0.8% 0.8% ~i 0.6% TOTAL 720.0 ,NATIONAL TRAFFIC BALANCE Minutes 1998 1999 2000 Incoming 713.8 753.3 n.a. 0 utg o in g 462.8 532.8 720.0 Surplus (Deficit) 250.9 220.5 n.a. Total Volume 1,176.6 1,286.0 n.a. Note: Data are in millions of minutes of outgoing public switched telecommunications traffic. 1999 data are for Portugal Telecom only and may exclude some cross-border traffic to Spain. © TELEGEOGRAPHY, INC. 2001 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2002 179 Qatar ¯ E A R G E S T, ,T E LIE CO M M U N 4 € A T IO:N S ’R O,UTE:S, 2 0 0 O Destination Minutes (millions) 1. United Arab Emirates .............. 23.7 2, india ............................ 21.8 3. Saudi Arabia ..................... 12.8 4. Egypt ........................... 10.3 5. Bahrain .......................... 9.9 6. Pakistan ......................... 6.1 7. Jordan ........................... 4.3 8. Kuwait .......................... 3.9 9. Sudan ........................... 3.5 10. Philippines ....................... 2.2 11. Lebanon ......................... 2.2 12. Bangladesh ....................... 2.1 13. Iran ............................. 2.1 14. Oman ............................ 2.0 15. Sri Lanka ......................... 1.9 16. Syria ............................ 1.7 17. United Kingdom ................... 1.5 18. Yemen ........................... 1.3 19. United States ..................... 0,9 20. Morocco ......................... 0.8 Others .......................... 28.7 Percent of Outgoing Traffic 16.6% ~~~ 9.0% ~~~ 7.2% ~~ 6.9% ~~ 4.3% ~® 3.0% 2.5% 1.6% ~.4% ~.2% o.9% 0.6% o.5% TOTAL 143.0 NATI, ONA,L iTRAFFIC BALANCE Minutes 1998 1999 Incoming 70.0 84.0 Outgoing 112.5 128.5 Surplus (Deficit) (42.5) (44.5) Total Vol ume 182.5 212.5 Note: Data are in millions of minutes of outgoing public switched telecommunications traffic. 2000 95.5 143.0 (47.5) 238.6 180 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2002 © TELEGEOGRAPHY, INC. 2001 Russia ~LARGEST TELECOMMUNICATI,ONS"ROOTES 2000 Destination Minutes (millions) 1. Ukraine ........................ 242.0 2. Belarus ........................ 110.7 3. Azerbaijan ....................... 49.5 4. Kazakhstan ...................... 47.4 5. Moldova ........................ 42.5 6. Germany ........................ 40.0 7. Uzbekistan ....................... 31.9 8. Georgia ......................... 20.5 9. Latvia .......................... 17.9 10. Kyrgyzstan ....................... 14.0 11, Lithuania ........................ 12.9 12. Italy ............................ 12.3 13. United States .................... 12.1 14. Turkey .......................... 10.1 15. France ........................... 9.0 16. United Kingdom ................... 8.6 17. Estonia ........................... 8.5 18. Poland ........................... 7.7 19. China ............................ 7.1 20. Spain ............................ 6.7 Others ......................... 232.6 Percent of Outgoing Traffic ~~~~~~i~i~; 25.6% ~~ 5.2% 5.0% 4.5% 3.4% 2.2% ~;~ 1.9% ~.5% ~,;~: 1.4% ~.3% 1.3% 1.0% 0.9% 0.9% ~: 0.8% o.e~ 0.7% TOTAL 944.0 ’NAT IONA LTR A F,F I CBALAN CE "~i: Minutes 1998 1999 2000 Incoming 1,029.8 929.3 n.a. Outgoing 1,038.3 928.2 944.0 Surplus (Deficit) (8.5) 1.1 n.a. Total Volume 2,068.1 1,857.5 n.a. Note: Data are in millions of minutes of outgoing public switched telecommunications traffic. Data are for Rostelecom only. © TELEGEOGRAPHY, INC 2001 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2002 181 ~:OUNT~Y TRAFFIC STATISTICS Rwanda LARGEST TELECOMMUNICAT4~ONS Destination Minutes (thousands} 1. BelGium ........................ 610.0 2. India ........................... 537.0 3. UGanda ........................ 506.0 4. Burundi ........................ 451.0 5. United States ................... 404.0 6. Kenya .......................... 268.0 7. France ......................... 243.0 8. South Africa .................... 188.0 9. United KinGdom ................. 144.0 10. Netherlands .................... 140.0 11. Germany ....................... 111.0 12. Italy ............................ 94.0 13. Canada ......................... 82.0 14. China ........................... 28.0 15. Ethiopia ......................... 27.0 16. Senegal ......................... 26.0 17. C~te d’lvoire ..................... 24.0 18. Cameroon ....................... 22.0 19. Egypt ........................... 17.0 20. Nigeria ........................... 9.0 Others ........................ 1,324.0 Percent of Outgoing Traffic ~~ 11.6% ~~ 10.2% ~~ 9.6% ~~ 8.6% ~~~ 7.7% 5.~% ~.6% 3,6~/o 2,7% 2.7% ~.6% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.4% 0.3% ~0.2% TOTAL 5,246.0 NATIOiNAL TRAFFIC BALA:NCE ,i ,~ ............ : Minutes 1998 1999 2000 Incomin9 n.a. n.a. n.a. 0utooin9 4.6 4.7 5.2 Surplus (Deficit) n.a. n.a. n.a. Total Volume n.a. n.a. n.a. Note: Data are in millions of minutes of outgoing public switched telecommunications traffic; route data are in thousands of minutes of outgoing public switched telecommunications traffic. 182 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2002 © TELEGEOGRAPHY, INC. 2001 LAR Saudi Arabia GEST TELECOMMUN[CA?iONSROUTE:S, Destination Minutes (millions) 1. Egypt .......................... 187.0 2. India ........................... 166.0 3. Pakistan ........................ 155.0 4. Sudan .......................... 69.0 5. United Arab Emirates .............. 59.0 6. Philippines ....................... 57.0 7. Syria ............................ 52.0 8. Yemen .......................... 46.5 9. Bahrain ......................... 43.0 10. Bangladesh ...................... 41.0 11. Kuwait .......................... 35.0 12. United States .................... 32.0 13. Jordan .......................... 31.0 14. United Kingdom .................. 27.8 15. Lebanon ......................... 24.4 16. Morocco ........................ 21.4 17, Qatar ........................... 13.0 18. Turkey .......................... 13.0 19, France .......................... 10.6 20. Germany ......................... 6.2 Others ......................... 105.0 Percent of Outgoing Traffic 15.6% ~~~ 13.9o/o ~~:~113.o% 5.8o/0 ~i~ 4,9% ~~ 4.4o/0 3.9% ~~ 3.6°/0 2.9o/0 2.7°/0 2.6% 2.3°/0 2.0~o 0.5~ TOTAL 1,194.9 NATIO’NALTRAFFIC BAL’ANCE," ’ ’ ¯ ...... Minutes 1998 1999 2000 Incoming n.a. n.a. n.a. Outgoing 932.6 1,060.0 1,194.9 Surplus (Deficit) n.a. n.a. n.a. Total Volume n.a. n.a. n.a. Note: Data are in millions of minutes of outgoing public switched telecommunications traffic. © TELEGEOGRAPHY, INC 2001 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2002 183 CI2UNTRY TRAFFIC STATiSTiCS Singapore ,E,A R GE ST, TELECOM MONICATIONS ROUTES, FY,;ZO00/01 Destination Minutes (millions) 1. Malaysia ....................... 430.0 2. Hong Kong ...................... 120.0 3. United States .................... 80,0 4. Indonesia ....................... 79.0 5. Australia ........................ 73.0 6. China ........................... 73.0 7. Japan ........................... 62.0 8. Thailand ........................ 50.0 9. Philippines ...................... 43.0 10. India ............................ 40.0 Others ......................... 465.0 Percent of Outgoing Traffic ~~~ii~~!i~ 28.4% ~~ 7.~% ~i 5.3% 5.2% 3.3% ~I~ 2.6% TOTAL 1,515.0 NATIONAL TRAFFIC~BALANCE Minutes FY 1998/99 FY 1999/00 FY 2000/01 Incoming n.a. n.a. n.a. 0 utg o in g 1,235.0 1,350.0 1,515.0 Surplus (Deficit) n.a. n.a. n.a. Total Volume n.a. n.a. n.a. Note: Data are in millions of minutes of outgoing public switched telecommunications traffic. Fiscal year ends March 31. 184 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2002 © TELEGEOGRAPHY, INC. 2001 Slovak Republic Destination Minutes (millions) 1. Czech Republic ................... 65.0 2. Germany ........................ 20.5 3. Austria .......................... 14.1 4. Hungary .......................... 8.6 5. Italy ............................. 6.9 6. United Kingdom ................... 6.0 7. Poland ........................... 5.9 8. France .......................... 3.4 9. United States ..................... 3.4 10. Ukraine .......................... 3.2 11. Switzerland ....................... 3.2 12. Netherlands ...................... 2.2 13. Russia ........................... 1.9 14. Spain ............................ 1.7 15. Belgium .......................... 1.6 16. Croatia ........................... 1.5 17. Yugoslavia ........................ 1.0 18. Canada .......................... 0.8 19. Greece ........................... 0.8 20. Sweden .......................... 0.8 Others .......................... 10.1 Percent of Outgoing Traffic 39.9% ~~ 12.6% ~~~i 8.7% 5.3% 4.3o/0 3.7% 3.6% 2,~% ~!~! 2.1o/o 2.0% ;~ 1.3% 1.1% 1.1% ;~ 1.0% o.~% 0.6% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 6.2% TOTAL 162.7 .... NATIONA LTRAFFIC BALANCE Minutes 1998 1999 2000 Incoming 186.4 208.7 233.1 Outgoing 151.8 162.8 162.7 Surplus (Deficit) 34.6 45.9 70.4 Total Volume 338.1 371.5 395.7 Note: Data are in millions of minutes of outgoing public switched telecommunications traffic. © TELEGEOGRAPHY, INC. 2001 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2002 18~ South Africa GEST TELECD~MMUN~ICATIONSR,OUTES, ~,2000i Destination Minutes (millions) 1. United Kingdom ................. I00.0 2. Zimbabwe ....................... 38.8 3. United States .................... 35.0 4. Namibia ......................... 35.0 5. Botswana ....................... 27.6 6. Mozambique ..................... 27.0 7. Germany ........................ 18.4 8. Swaziland ....................... 17.6 9. Australia ........................ 17.5 10. Lesotho ......................... 12.8 11. Zambia ........................... 9.3 12. Netherlands ...................... 8.9 13. France ........................... 8.4 14. Malawi .......................... 7.7 15. India ............................. 6.9 16. Canada .......................... 6.7 17. PoKugal .......................... 6.5 18. Italy ............................. 5.7 19. Switzerland ....................... 5.4 20. Israel ............................ 4.4 Others .......................... 95.0 Percent of Outgoing Traffic ~~~ 7.1% 3.7% 3.5% 2.6% 1.9% 1.7% ~.4% 1.1% 0.9% TOTAL 494.6 ~NATIONAL TRAFFIC BALANCE Minutes 1998 1999 2000 Incoming n.a. n.a. 700.0 Outgoing 405.0 461.1 494.6 Surplus (Deficit) n.a. n.a. 205.4 Total Volume n.a. n.a. 1,194.6 Note: Data are in millions of minutes of outgoing public switched telecommunications traffic. 186 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2002 © TELEGEOGRAPHY, INC. 2001 LARGES~ TELEC:OMMUNtCATIONS :R0UTE,S~, 2000 Destination Minutes (millions) 1. Germany ....................... 425.0 2. United Kingdom ................. 420.0 3. France ......................... 400.0 4. Italy ........................... 170.0 5. Portugal ........................ 125.0 6. United States ................... 120.0 7. Switzerland ...................... 80.0 8. Belgium ........................ 75.0 9. Netherlands ..................... 75.0 10. Morocco ........................ 46.0 Others ......................... 634.0 Spain TOTAL 2,570.0 NATIONAL TRAPFICBAL,ANCE .... ¯ .... ~, Minutes 1998 1999 2000 Incoming n.a. n.a. n.a. Outgoing 1,675.0 1,935.0 2,570.0 Surplus (Deficit) n.a. n.a. n.a. Total Volume n.a. n.a. n.a. Note: Data are in millions of minutes of outgoing public switched telecommunications traffic. © TELEGEOGRAPHY, INC. 2001 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2002 187 Sri Lanka L~A R G E S T T~E LE ~0 M M U N ! C A T ION S R 0 U TE S,,,~,2 0 0 0 ¯~i! ]~,,,~ i,i,~:i~i,, ,~ ¯ Destination Minutes (millions) 1. India ............................. 8.2 2. United Kingdom ................... 4.9 3. Singapore ........................ 2.7 4. United States ..................... 2.7 5. Japan ............................ 2.4 6. Australia ......................... 2.2 7. United Arab Emirates ............... 1.9 8. Germany ......................... 1.6 9. Saudi Arabia ..................... 1.6 10. Hong Kong ....................... 1.6 11. Maldives ......................... 1.4 12. Italy ............................. 1.1 13. Korea, Rep ........................ 1.1 14. Canada .......................... 0.9 15. Pakistan ......................... 0.8 16. France ........................... 0.8 17. Kuwait ........................... 0.8 18. Malaysia ......................... 0.8 19. China ............................ 0.6 20. Thailand ......................... 0.6 Others ........................... 3.1 Percent of Outgoing Traffic ~~~ 11.7% ~,,!~ ,,,~,~, ...... 6.4% ~~~ 5.3% ~~ 4.6% ~~ 3.~% 3.9% 3.8% 3.3% 2.6% 2.5% 2.~% 2,0% 2.0% ~.5% 1.5% TOTAL 42.0 NATIONAL ITRAF~FIC BALANCE¯ ...... i,~ :,:~i~i~:!,i!~!~:i~ i;i, Minutes 1998 1999 2000 Incoming 146.8 n.a. n.a. Outgoing 39.3 45.5 42.0 Surplus (Deficit) 107.5 n.a. n.a. Total Volume 186.1 n.a. n.a. Note: Data are in millions of minutes of outgoing public switched telecommunications traffic. 188 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2002 © TELEGEOGRAPHY, INC. 2001 Sudan LA R G E ST ,TE EE C 0 MM U N I CAT iONS’ R O g T,E S ;2 0o,0 Destination Minutes (millions) 1. Saudi Arabia ..................... 10.8 2. United Arab Emirates ............... 3.4 3. Egypt ............................ 2.4 4. United States ..................... 1.6 5. United Kingdom ................... 1.5 6. Qatar ............................ 0.8 7. Jordan ........................... 0.5 8. Germany ......................... 0.4 9. Syria ............................ 0.4 10. China ............................ 0.3 11. Eritrea ........................... 0.3 12. India ............................. 0.3 13. Canada .......................... 0.3 14. France ........................... 0.3 15. Libya ............................ 0.3 16. Malaysia ......................... 0.3 17. Italy ............................. 0.3 18. Netherlands ...................... 0.3 19. Lebanon ......................... 0.2 20. Switzerland ....................... 0.2 Others ........................... 6.8 Percent of Outgoing Traffic 34.1% lo.7% ~~t 7.6% 5.1% ~! 4.9% 2.4% 1.4% 1.1% 1.o% 1.o% ~, 0.9% o.~% TOTAL 31.8 "NA T i ONA L TR~A F F LC 6 A L A,N CE Minutes 1998 1999 2000 Incoming 88.0 105.3 155.7 0 uto gin g 18.4 21.9 31.8 Surplus (Deficit) 69.6 83.3 123.9 Tota I Vol u m e 106.4 127.2 187.6 Note: Data are in millions of minutes of outgoing public switched telecommunications traffic. Data exclude some cross- border traffic to Chad. © TELEGEOGRAPHY, INC 2001 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2002 189 TRAFFIC STATiSTiCS Swaziland I:~LAR GE!S.T T e LECIO.M,M U~N t CATION S :ROUTES, IFY 2OOO/O 1 Percent of Outgoing Traffic 88.5% 1.4% 0.7% O.6% 0.6% 0.5% O.3% O.3% O.2% 0.2% O.2% O.2% O.2% O.2% O.2% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 2.0% Destination Minutes (thousands) 1. South Africa .................. 22,178.0 2. Mozambique ............. ’. ...... 770.0 3. United Kingdom ................. 361.0 4. Botswana ...................... 168.0 5. United States ................... 159.0 6. Zimbabwe ...................... 157.0 7. Lesotho ........................ 134.0 8. Zambia ......................... 77.0 9. Ghana .......................... 72.0 10. Namibia ......................... 52.0 11. Kenya ........................... 47.0 12. Malawi ......................... 43.0 13. Germany ........................ 41.0 14. India ............................ 39.0 15. China ........................... 38.0 16. Azerbaijan ....................... 38.0 17. Uganda ......................... 36.0 18. Australia ........................ 34.0 19. Canada ......................... 31.0 Others ......................... 510.0 TOTAL 25,070.0 ,,:NATI~ONAL TBAF,F:I€ :BAL~ANCE,~ ,, ,: ,,: Minutes 1998 FY 1999/00 FY 2000/01 Incoming n.a. n.a. n.a. Outgoing 28.4 29.3 25.1 Surplus (Deficit) n.a. n.a. n.a. Total Volume n.a. n.a. n.a. Note: Data are in millions of minutes of outgoing public switched telecommunications traffic; route data are in thousands of minutes of outgoing public switched telecommunications traffic. Fiscal year ends March 31. 190 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2002 © TELEGEOGRAPHY, INC. 2001 Sweden ,LARGEST T E LE COM M,U N CAT I O-N S ,R O~UTES, ~200:0 .... "~ ..... "~ Destination Minutes (millions) 1. Norway ........................ 230.0 2. Finland ......................... 220.0 3. United Kingdom ................. 215.0 4. United States ................... 165.0 5. Denmark ....................... 160.0 6. Germany ....................... 145.0 7. Poland .......................... 70.0 8. France ......................... 65.0 9. Netherlands ..................... 55.0 10. Switzerland ...................... 40.0 Others ......................... 275.0 Percent of Outgoing Traffic ~~ 14.o% 13.4% ¯ ~~~giil~~ 13.1o~ lO.lO~o ~~@ 9.8o/o I~ 3.4o/o ~;,~ 2.4% 16.8% TOTAL 1,640.0 ~N A T !,O N A L TRAFF I,C ,BAL;AN CE Minutes 1998 1999 2000 Incoming n.a. n.a. n.a. Outgoing 1,230.0 1,365.0 1,640.0 Surplus (Deficit) n.a. n.a. n.a. Total Volume n.a. n.a. n.a. Note: Data are in millions of minutes of outgoing public switched telecommunications traffic. © TELEGEOGRAPHY, INC. 2001 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2002 191 Switzerland GE,S~T,TEL’,Eco,MMUNICATION:S~ ROUTES, ,200~0,,,~ ii,~i,,~, ¯ Destination Minutes (millions) 1. Germany ....................... 720.0 2. France ......................... 490.0 3. Italy ........................... 400.0 4. United Kingdom ................. 190.0 5. Austria ......................... 145.0 6. United States ................... 135.0 7. Spain .......................... 110.0 8. Portugal ....................... 105.0 9. Netherlands ..................... 75.0 10. Yugoslavia ....................... 75.0 Others ......................... 750.0 Percent of Outgoing Traffic ~~~~~~ 22.5% ~5.3~ ~~ 12.5% ~~ 5.~O/o 2.3~ TOTAL 3,195.0 NATIONAL TRAFFIC BALA~NCE ¯ ,, ,~, ¯ Minutes 1998 1999 2000 Incoming n.a. n.a. n.a. 0 utg oing 2,425.0 2,730.0 3,195.0 Surplus (Deficit) n.a. n.a. n.a. Total Volume n.a. n.a. n.a. Note: Data are in millions of minutes of outgoing public switched telecommunications traffic. 192 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2002 © TELEGEOGRAPHY, INC. 2001 ,LARGEST,TELECOMMUNiC,ATIONS, RO, U,~TES~, 2OOiO, i,~i~ Destination Minutes (millions) 1. Lebanon ......................... 38.5 2. Saudi Arabia ..................... 27.3 3. United Arab Emirates .............. 10.3 4. Jordan ........................... 8.5 5. Kuwait ........................... 6.6 6. United States ..................... 4.3 7. Egypt ............................ 4.0 8. France .......................... 3.5 9. Iraq ............................. 2.8 10. Turkey ........................... 2.7 11. Germany ......................... 2.3 12. italy ............................. 2.0 13. United Kingdom ................... 1.2 14. Canada .......................... 1.0 15. Russia ........................... 1.0 16. Qatar ............................ 1.0 17. Yemen ........................... 1.0 18. Greece ........................... 0.9 19. Sudan ........................... 0.9 20. Sweden .......................... 0.5 Others .......................... 19.7 Syria ........ ~,, Percent of Outgoing Traffic 27.5% ~~~~i 19.5% ~~ 7.4O/o 4,7% 2.9% 2.5% 2.0% @~ 1.9% ~.6% ~.4% 0.9% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.6% ,, 0.6% 0.4% TOTAL 140.0 NATIONAL TAAFFIC BALANCE Minutes 1998 1999 2000 Incomin9 n.o. 256.7 286.0 Outgoing 103.0 125.6 140.0 Surplus (Deficit) n.a. 131.1 146.0 Total Volume n.a. 382.3 426.0 Note: Data are in millions of minutes of outgoing public switched telecommunications traffic. © TELEGEOGRAPHY, INC 2001 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2002 193 Taiwan ,~LARGESTTELECOMMUNIC,IATIONS ROUTES, 2~OOO ¯ :,i,,i;, Destination Minutes (millions) 1. China .......................... 350.0 2. United States ................... 176.0 3. Japan ........................... 89.0 4. Hong Kong ...................... 80.0 5. Philippines ....................... 66.0 6. Thailand ......................... 58.0 7. Vietnam ......................... 39.0 8. Singapore ....................... 32.0 9. Canada ......................... 32.0 10. Indonesia ....................... 31.0 11. Australia ........................ 21.0 12. Malaysia ........................ 18.0 13. United Kingdom .................. 14.0 14. Korea, Rep ....................... 14.0 15. Germany ........................ 11.0 16. NewZealand ..................... 7.0 17. France ........................... 7.0 18. Macau ........................... 5.0 19. Netherlands ...................... 4.3 20. Italy ............................. 4.0 Others ......................... 101.7 Percent of Outgoing Traffic ~~~~ 15.2% !~~ 7.7% ~~ 6.9% 5,0% ~’~ ’~’~ 3.4% 2.8% 2.~% 2.7% ~.6% ~.2% ~.2% 0.9% 0.6% 0.6% 0.4% 0.4% 0.3% TOTAL 1,160.0 NATIONAL TRAFFIC BAi.ANCE ¯ i,,~~, Minutes 1998 1999 2000 Incoming 781.8 882.0 n.a. Outgoing 862.0 949.3 1,160.0 Surplus (Deficit) (80.2) (67.3) n.a. Total Volume 1,643.9 1,831.3 n.a. Note: Data are in millions of minutes of outgoing public switched telecommunications traffic. 194 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2002 © TELEGEOGRAPHY, INC. 2001 LAR GE S T 2. 3. 4. 5. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. T, ELECOMMUNI CATIONS Destination Minutes (thousands) Russia ........................ 4,048.8 Uzbekistan .................... 1,214.3 Kazakhstan ..................... 567.4 Kyrgyzstan ...................... 271.3 Ukraine ........................ 144.9 Turkmenistan .................... 89.6 Belarus ......................... 71.5 Armenia ......................... 9.2 Georgia .......................... 8.1 Moldova ......................... 7.5 Azerbaijan ........................ 1.3 Others ......................... 319.7 Tajikistan ROUTES, 2000 Percent of Outgoing Traffic 59.8% ~~ 17.9% 8.4 % ~i 1.3% 1.1% o.1% o.1% o.1% 0.1% ~i;°; 4.7% TOTAL 6,765.3 NATIONAL TP, AFFIC "B’AL, A;NCE Minutes 1998 1999 2000 Incoming n.a. n.a. 18.5 Outgoing 9.9 9.0 6.8 Surplus (Deficit) n.a. n.a. 11.7 Total Volume n.a. n.a. 25.3 Note: Data are in millions of minutes of outgoing public switched telecommunications traffic; route data are in thousands of minutes of outgoing public switched telecommunications traffic. The "Others" category may include routes to non- members of the Commonwealth of independent States that rank among the top destinations for outgoing traffic. © TELEGEOGRAPHY, INC. 2001 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2002 195 Thailand ¯ LARG~EST~ TELECOMMUNIC,AT]IONS ,ROUTES Destination Minutes (millions) 1. Japan ........................... 39.9 2. Singapore ....................... 32.6 3, United States .................... 29.2 4, Malaysia ........................ 23.5 5. Australia ............... ; ........ 21,0 6. Laos ............................ 19.9 7. Hong Kong ...................... 18.8 8. Taiwan ......................... 17.9 9. United Kingdom .................. 16.5 10. China ........................... 14.3 11. Germany ........................ 12.2 12. Myanmar ........................ 11.9 13. India ............................. 8.0 14. France ........................... 6.5 15. Philippines ....................... 6,3 16. Indonesia ........................ 5.3 17, Korea, Rep ........................ 5.2 18. Sweden .......................... 4.5 19. Switzerland ....................... 4.4 20. Italy ............................. 4.2 Oth e rs .......................... 53.1 Percent of Outgoing Traffic ~~~ 9.2% ~~~ 8.2% ~~ 6.6% ~~~ 5.9% ~~~ 5.6% ~~~ 5.3% ~~ 5.0% ~~ ~.0% ~~ 3.3% 2.2% ~.3% ~.2% ~.2% 14.9% TOTAL 355.2 NATIONAL TRAFFICBALANCE, Minutes 1998 1999 2000 Incoming 358.6 327.8 426.6 0 utg o in g 296.4 298.7 355.2 Surplus (Deficit) 62.2 29.1 71.4 Total Volume 655.0 626.5 781.8 Note: Data are in millions of minutes of outgoing public switched telecommunications traffic. 1999 data exclude some cross-border traffic with Laos, Malaysia, and Myanmar. 196 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2002 © TELEGEOGRAPHY, INC. 2001 STATiSTiCS ,LARGEST TELECO MMUNICAT~I, ON SiROUTES~ 2000 Destination Minutes (thousands) Percent of Outgoing Traffic Togo 1. France ........................ 2,413.0 2. Benin ......................... 1,210.0 3. COte d’lvoire ................... 1,200.0 4. Senegal ........................ 620.0 5. Burkina Faso .................... 520.0 6. Nigeria ......................... 425.0 7. Germany ....................... 353.0 8. 6hana ......................... 329.0 9. Niger .......................... 285.0 10. United States ................... 266.0 11. 6abon ......................... 233.0 12. Lebanon ........................ 210.0 13. Mall ........................... 200.0 14. Belgium ........................ 199.0 15. United Kingdom ................. 169.0 16. Switzerland ..................... 107.0 17. Cameroon ...................... 104.0 18. Italy ............................ 91.0 19. China ........................... 82.0 20. Canada ......................... 74.0 Others ........................ 1,093.0 23.7% ~~ 6.1% ~~ 5.1% 4.2% ~’.;~ 3.5% ~i~ 3.2% ~@ 2.8% i~!~ 2.6% 2.3% ~! 2.o% 2.0% ~.7% 1.1% 1.0% o,9~ 0.7% ~~ io.7~ TOTAL 10,183.0 NATIONAL TRAFFIC BALANCE Minutes 1998 1999 2000 Incoming 17.1 21.6 12.2 Outgoing 8.4 8.5 10.2 Surplus (Deficit) 8.7 13.1 2.0 Total Volume 25.5 30.1 22.4 Note: Data are in millions of minutes of outgoing public switched telecommunications traffic; route data are in thousands of minutes of outgoing public switched telecommunications traffic. © TELEGEOGRAPHYo INC. 2001 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2002 197 Trinidad & Tobago LAIR~GEST TEL~ECOMMUNtCATIONS ,ROUTES, FY:2000tO,1 Destination Minutes (millions) 1. United States .................... 32.5 2. Canada .......................... 6.5 3. United Kingdom ................... 4.8 4. Barbados ......................... 4.0 5. Grenada ......................... 3.4 6. Guyana .......................... 3.0 7. Jamaica ......................... 2.2 8. Venezuela ....................... 2.0 9. SaintVJncent & The Grenadines ..... 1.9 10. Saint Lucia ....................... 1.7 11. Antigua & Barbuda ................ 1.0 Percent of Outgoing Traffic ~i~ 46.3% 6.8% 5.7% 4.3% 2.9% 2.7% 2.4% 12. Dominica ......................... 0.5 13. Netherlands Antilles ............... 0.5 14. Saint Kitts & Nevis ................. 0.4 15. British Virgin Islands ............... 0.4 16. Germany ......................... 0.4 17. Sweden .......................... 0.3 18. Bahamas ......................... 0.3 19. Netherlands ...................... 0.3 20. Cayman Islands ................... 0.3 Others ........................... 4.8 0.7% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 0.5% 0.5% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 6.8% TOTAL 70.2 NATIONAL TRAFFIC BALANCE .... Minutes FY 1998/99 FY 1999/00 FY 2000/01 Incoming 141.5 158.8 163.4 Outgoing 64.4 67.2 70.2 Surplus (Deficit) 77.1 91.6 93.3 Total Volume 206.0 226.0 233.6 Note: Data are in millions of minutes of outgoing public switched telecommunications traffic. Fiscal year ends March 31. 198 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2002 © TELEGEOGRAPHY, INC. 2001 G EST T E LE C OM MU N ICATI ON S,,R OU T~,ES, ZO00 Destination Minutes (millions) 1. Germany ....................... 230.0 2. United Kingdom .................. 62.0 3. France .......................... 44.0 4. United States .................... 41.0 5. Netherlands ..................... 30.0 6. Italy ............................ 23.0 7. Syria ............................ 22.6 8. Bulgaria ........................ 21.5 9. Austria ......................... 21.0 10. Russia .......................... 21.0 11. Switzerland ...................... 20.0 12. Romania ........................ 16,7 13. Belgium ......................... 16,5 14. Oreece .......................... 12.4 15. Ukraine ......................... 11.6 16. Azerbaijan ....................... 11.2 17. Moldova ......................... 9.5 18, Iran ............................. 8.5 19. Sweden .......................... 6.5 20. Israel ............................ 6.0 Others ......................... 215.0 Turkey Percent of Outgoing Traffic ~~ 7.3% 5.2% 3.5% 2.7% 2.7% 2.5% 2.5% 2.5% 2.o~ ~.5% 1.3% 1.1% 1.o% 0.8% o.7~ TOTAL 850.0 N AT IONAL T 8AIFF"I C ,BA LA’N CE .... Minutes 1998 Incoming 955.9 Outgoing 644.1 Surplus (Deficit) 311.7 Total Volume 1,600.0 1999 2OO0 1,122.7 1,240.0 698.4 850.0 424.3 390.0 1,821.1 2,090.0 Note: Data are in millions of minutes of outgoing public switched telecommunications traffic. © TELEGEOGRAPHY, INC. 2001 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2002 199 Turkmenistan ILA,RGES,T T~IELECOMMU,NICATI;ONS RO~UTES.~ ,2Q~o0 ~,,i, Destination Minutes (millions) 1. Russia ........................... 3.5 2. Uzbekistan ....................... 1.3 3. Ukraine .......................... 1.0 4. Kazakhstan ....................... 0.9 5. Azerbaijan ........................ 0.9 6. Armenia .......................... 0.4 7. Belarus .......................... 0.3 8. Tajikistan ........................ 0.3 9. Georgia .......................... 0.2 10. Moldova ......................... 0.2 11. Kyrgyzstan ....................... 0.2 Others ........................... 6.6 Percent of Outgoing Traffic 22.0% 8.0% 6.4% 6.0% ~%~ 5.8% 2.6% 2.1% 1.6% 1.1% ~i~ii 42.0% TOTAL 15.7 NATIONAL TRAFFIC BALANCE ¯ ii:~i,:i~ ~:~;?~i~~,~i’i,,, ..... ,,,¯ Minutes 1998 1999 2000 Incoming n.a. n.a. 11.3 Outgoing 15.3 16.5 15.7 Surplus (Deficit) n.a. n.a. (4.5) Total Volume n.a. n.a. 27.0 Note: Data are in millions of minutes of outgoing public switched telecommunications traffic. The "Others" category may include routes to non-members of the Commonwealth of Independent States that rank among the top destinations for outgoing traffic. 200 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2002 © TELEGEOGRAPHY, INC. 2001 Ukraine ~ARGEST ,TELECO MMUN:ICATilON,S, ROUTES, 2000 ¯ Percent of Outgoing Traffic 5.1% !~ 4.0% ~i 1.2% 1.0% 1.0% 0.8% O.7% O.3% 0.2% 0.~% Destination Minutes (millions) 1. Russia ......................... 215.5 2. Belarus ......................... 18.5 3. Moldova ........................ 14.5 4. Armenia .......................... 4.3 5. Kazakhstan ....................... 3.7 6. Azerbaijan ........................ 3.7 7. Georgia .......................... 3.0 8. Uzbekistan ....................... 2.5 9. Kyrgyzstan ....................... 1.0 10. Turkmenistan ..................... 0.8 11. Tajikistan ......................... 0.2 Others .......................... 95.1 TOTAL 363.0 NATIONAL "TRAFFIC BALA:NCE Minutes 1998 1999 2000 Incoming n.a. n.a. 269.5 Outgoing 465.9 359.2 363.0 Surplus (Deficit) n.a. n.a. (93.4) Total Volume n.a. n.a. 632.5 Note: Data are in millions of minutes of outgoing public switched telecommunications traffic. The "Others" category may include routes to non-members of the Commonwealth of Independent States that rank among the top destinations for outgoing traffic. © TELEGEOGRAPHY, INC. 2001 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2002 201 United Arab Emirates ,LA R GES~ ITELECO:MMUNI, C~ATIONS,IIO,UTES’~ ~2000 ......... ~:~:,~,,, ¯ ¯ii,,i,, ,ii, ¯:,i Destination Minutes (millions) 1. India ........................... 290.6 2. Pakistan ........................ 109.0 3. Egypt ........................... 66.2 4. Saudi Arabia ..................... 60.4 5. United Kingdom .................. 53.6 6. Oman ........................... 42.6 7. Syria ............................ 42.0 8. United States .................... 33.6 9. Iran ............................ 30.4 10. Jordan .......................... 29.1 11. Philippines ....................... 27.3 12. Bangladesh ...................... 26.3 13. Lebanon ......................... 26.1 14. Qatar ........................... 24.1 15. Bahrain ......................... 22.4 16. Sudan .......................... 21.9 17. Kuwait .......................... 20.4 18. Sri Lanka ........................ 14.4 19. Morocco ........................ 13.2 20. Germany ........................ 13.1 Others ......................... 158.7 Percent of Outgoing Traffic 9.7% 5.9 ~~ 5.4% 3.8% 2.3% 1.9% 1.8% TOTAL 1,123.6 NAT!ONAL TRAFFIC BALANC~E Minutes 1998 1999 2000 Incoming n.a. n.a. n.a. 0utgoing 874.8 963.0 1,123.6 Surplus (Deficit) n.a. n.a. n.a. Total Volume n.a. n.a. n.a. Note: Data are in millions of minutes of outgoing public switched telecommunications traffic. 202 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2002 © TELEGEOGRAPHY, INC. 2001 LAR United Kingdom GEST;TELECOMMUNtC’ATIONS~ROUTESo FY 2000i01 Destination Minutes (millions) 1. United States .................. 2,009.5 2. Germany ....................... 848.4 3. France ......................... 792.8 4. Ireland ......................... 773.3 5. Spain .......................... 443.6 6. Italy ........................... 418.9 7. Australia ....................... 410.8 8. Canada ........................ 293.4 9. Netherlands .................... 279.3 10. India ........................... 260.0 11. Turkey ......................... 237.4 12. Switzerland ..................... 234.1 13. Sweden ........................ 231.1 14. Pakistan ........................ 206.5 15. Poland ......................... 194.4 16. South Africa .................... 185.1 17. Belgium ........................ 179.5 18. Japan .......................... 158.3 19. Austria ......................... 153.2 20. Greece ......................... 142.6 Others ........................ 3,790.4 Percent of Outgoing Traffic 6.9% ~!~ 6.3°/o ~l~’~ 3.6% 3.4% 2.4% 2.3% 1.9% ~.9% 1.6% ~.5% % 1.3% 0utgoing TOTAL 12,242.7 "NATIONAL TP, AF;F I €" B~ALANCE ¯ i’i "i Minutes I:Y 1998199 F’Y 1999]00 FY 2000]01 In c om in 9 6,400.0 6,853.4 7,463.2 0utooino 8,225.0 10,141.0 12,242.7 Surplus (Deficit) (1,825.0) (3,287.6) (4,779.5) Total Volume 14,625.0 16,994.4 19,705.9 Note: Data are in millions of minutes of outgoing public switched telecommunications traffic. Data include include approximately two billion minutes of traffic refiled via the U.K., thus overstating U.K.-originated volumes. Fiscal year ends March 31. © TELEGEOGRAPHY, INC. 2001 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2002 203 United Kingdom--Incoming ~L A R,G:E S T ITE L E €~:0,M M U N! €,A T~I~O N S RO U T:ES i; F Y: :2 0OQ] 01 Origin Minutes (millions) 1. United States .................. 1,547.2 2. Germany ....................... 663.9 3. Ireland ......................... 575.0 4. France ......................... 537.9 5. Spain .......................... 366.6 6. Australia ....................... 350.8 7. Canada ........................ 324.3 8. Italy ........................... 237.6 9. Sweden ....................... 209.4 10. Netherlands .................... 189.4 11. Switzerland ..................... 160.3 12. Greece ......................... 125.8 13. Singapore ...................... 102.8 14. South Africa .................... 102.5 15. Belgium ......................... 91.8 16. Hong Kong ...................... 88.4 17. Norway ......................... 78.5 18. India ............................ 68.5 19. Austria .......................... 65.9 20. New Zealand .................... 65.6 Others ........................ 1,511.0 Percent of Incoming Traffic ~~~ 20.7% 8.9% ~j 7.7% 7.2% 4.9% ~I 4.7% 4.3% 3.2% ® 2.8% ® 2.5% @ 2.1% 1.7% ~.4% 1.2% ~.2% 0.9% 0.9% 0.9% ~~ 20.2~ TOTAL 5,183.8 NATIONAL T~RAF]:~IC BALANCE Minutes FY 1998/99 FY 1999/00 FY 2000/01 in c o rain g 6,400.0 6,853.4 7,463.2 Outgoing 8,225.0 10,141.0 12,242.7 Surplus (Deficit) (1,825.0) (3,287.6) (4,779.5) Total Vol u m e 14,625.0 16,994.4 19,705.9 Note: Data are in millions of minutes of outgoing public switched telecommunications traffic. Data include include approximately two billion minutes of traffic refiled via the U.K., thus overstating U.K.-originated volumes. 204 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2002 © TELEGEOGRAPHY, INC. 2001 United States--Outgoing L~A R G E S T ~:T,E L E C,O MM U N! C AT i0 NS R 0 UT ES,,,~20 O0 .... Destination Minutes (millions) 1. Mexico ....................... 6,129.0 2. Canada ....................... 4,906.1 3. United Kingdom ................ 1,908.3 4. Germany ...................... 1,600.1 5. India ......................... 1,577.3 6. Philippines .................... 1,361.0 7. Dominican Republic .............. 939.0 8. ,Japan ......................... 925.5 9. France ........................ 800.6 10. Brazil .......................... 754.3 11. China .......................... 685.2 12. Italy ........................... 607.9 13. Pakistan ........................ 594.8 14. Australia ....................... 569.7 15. Colombia ....................... 451.5 16. Poland ......................... 420.8 17. Taiwan ......................... 399.7 18. ,Jamaica ........................ 393.9 19. Spain .......................... 391.4 20. Vietnam ........................ 385.7 Others ....................... 11,792.9 Percent of Outgoing Traffic ~~ 16.3% ~~~% 13.o% 5.1% 4.3o/o 4.2o/o 3.6% 2.5O/o 2.5o/0 2.1o/0 2.o~ ~.6% ~, ~.6% ~.5o~ ~.2% 1.1% ~.o% ~.oo~ ~.o% 31.4% TOTAL 37,594.8 N AT 1,0 NA L TRAFFICBALANCE ........ ¯ i ,~ ,, ,,.~ ,, ......... ¯ Minutes 1998 1999 2000 Incoming 10,395.3 10,640.8 13,010.7 0 utg oi n g 25,163.8 29,358.8 37,594.8 Surplus (Deficit) (14,768.5) (18,718.0) (24,584.1) Total Volume 35,559.2 39,999.5 50,605.6 Note: Data are in millions of minutes of outgoing public switched telecommunications traffic. Data include one to two bil- lion minutes of traffic refiled via the U.S., thus overstating traffic originating from the U.S. Carriers and traffic from points beyond the United States, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands are excluded. © TELEGEOGRAPHY, INC. 2001 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2002 205 United States Incoming LA R G:ES T TELE:COM MO N ICATLO,, N,S,, R OU T E:S,; 20~00 Origin Minutes (millions) 1. Canada ....................... 5,138.6 2. Mexico ....................... 1,572.8 3. United Kingdom ................ 1,040.4 4. Australia ....................... 548.8 5. Germany ....................... 319.2 6. Japan .......................... 318.0 7. Korea, Rep ...................... 277.8 8. France ........................ 253.3 9. Israel .......................... 245.3 10. Dominican Republic .............. 212.3 11. Brazil .......................... 202.1 12. Taiwan ......................... 166.7 13. Sweden ........................ 165.2 14. Netherlands .................... 141.8 15. Italy ........................... 117.7 16. Switzerland ..................... 117.4 17. Spain ........................... 93.9 18. Colombia ........................ 87.9 19. Hong Kong ...................... 83.7 20. Ireland .......................... 72.8 Others ........................ 1,834.7 Percent of Incoming Traffic ~~ 39.5% 8.0% 4.2% 2.5% 2.4% 2.1% 1.9% ~1.6% I1.6% !1.3% ~1.1% 0.9% io.9% io.7% i 0.7% 0.6% 0.6% TOTAL 13,010.7 ,NATIONAL TIIAFF!C BALAN Minutes 1998 1999 2000 Incoming 10,395.3 10,640.8 13,010.7 Outgoing 25,163.8 29,358.8 37,594.8 Surplus (Deficit) (14,768.5) (18,718.0) (24,584.1) Total Volume 35,559.2 39,999.5 50,605.6 Note: Data are in millions of minutes of outgoing public switched telecommunications traffic. Data include one to two bil- lion minutes of traffic refiled via the U.S., thus overstating traffic originating from the U.S. Carriers and traffic from points beyond the United States, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands are excluded. 206 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2002 © TELEGEOGRAPHY, INC. 2001 LARG~STTELECOMMUNICATiONSROUTES,:2OOO Destination Minutes (millions) 1. Argentina ....................... 38.9 2. Brazil ........................... 10.7 3. United States .................... 10.4 4, Spain ............................ 4.7 5. Chile ............................. 2.0 6. Paraguay ......................... 1.5 7. Italy ............................. 1.0 8. Peru ............................ 0.9 9. Mexico .......................... 0.8 10. France ........................... 0.7 11, Canada .......................... 0.7 12. Germany ......................... 0.5 13. Venezuela ........................ 0.4 14. Cuba ............................ 0.4 15. United Kingdom ................... 0.4 16. Australia ......................... 0.3 17. Switzerland ....................... 0.3 18. Colombia ......................... 0.2 19. Bolivia ........................... 0.2 20. Ecuador .......................... 0.2 Others ........................... 2.8 Uruguay Percent of Outgoing Traffic ~~:~~ 49.9% ~~~ 13.7% 6.0% 2,6% 1.3% !~; 1.2% o,9% 0.9% 0.6% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.4% 0.4% 0.3% 0.3% 0.2% !~ 3.5% TOTAL 78.0 NATIONAL TRAFFIC BALANCE Minutes 1998 1999 2000 Incoming 97.0 98.3 110.9 Outgoing 78.3 80.1 78.0 Surplus (Deficit). 18.7 18.2 33.0 Total Volume 175.3 178.4 188.9 Note: Data are in millions of minutes of outgoing public switched telecommunications traffic. © TELEGEOGRAPHY, INC. 2001 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2002 207 Uzbekistan LARGEST T,E:EECOMMUNICATIONS ROUT-E,S’ 2~000" Percent of Outgoing Traffic lo.5% 6.4% 3.8% 2.5% 1.7% 0.5% 10.4% 0.2% ~~~;~ 23.5% Destination Minutes (millions) 1. Russia .......................... 32.7 2. Kazakhstan ....................... 7.5 3. Kyrgyzstan ....................... 4.5 4. Ukraine .......................... 2.7 5. Tajikistan ......................... 2.6 6. Turkmenistan ..................... 1.8 7. Azerbaijan ........................ 1.2 8. Belarus .......................... 0.8 9. Armenia ......................... 0.4 10. Georgia .......................... 0.3 11. Moldova ......................... 0.1 Others .......................... 16.8 TOTAL 71.4 NATIONAL TRAFIF, I C B ALA~N~E,,, ",~ .... ¯ Minutes 1998 1999 2000 Incoming 74.7 75.0 54.3 Outgoing 91.7 68.5 71.4 Surplus (Deficit) (17.0) 6.6 (17.0) Total Volume 166.5 143.5 125.7 Note: Data are in millions of minutes of outgoing public switched telecommunications traffic. The "Others" category may include routes to non-members of the Commonwealth of Independent States that rank among the top destinations for outgoing traffic. ~0e TELEGEOGRAPHY 2002 © TELEGEOGRAPHY, INC. 2001 LAR GEST T?E E EC’,O M M~UN !C,AT 10 N~$, R O UT~E S, Destination Minutes (millions) 1. Germany ........................ 48.0 2. Austria .......................... 26.0 3. Switzerland ...................... 24.0 4. Croatia .......................... 23.0 5. Italy ............................ 18.0 6. Hungary ......................... 15.0 7. Macedonia ...................... 15.0 8. Bosnia-Herzegovina .............. 14.0 9. United States .................... 11.0 10. Stovenia ......................... 11.0 Others .......................... 81.9 Yugoslavia 20~00, Percent of Outgoing Traffic 3.8% TOTAL 286.9 INAT I O NA L TRAFFIC ,B ALA~N C E, Minutes 1998 1999 2000 Incoming 423.3 498.8 n.a. Outgoing 219.5 227.0 286.9 Surplus (Deficit) 203.8 271.7 n.a. Total Volume 642.9 725.8 n.a. Note: Data are in millions of minutes of outgoing public switched telecommunications traffic. © TELEGEOGRAPHY, INC. 2001 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2002 209 STATiSTiCS Zimbabwe LARGEST,TEL,ECOMMUN!CAT, IONS ,ROUTES, 2000 Destination Minutes (millions) Percent of Outgoing Traffic 1. South Africa .31.4 ~~ 2. United Kingdom .14.6 ~,~~~ 20.5% 3. United States ..................... 3.6 5.0% 4. Zambia ........................... 2.7 3.9% 5. Botswana ........................ 2.6 3.6% 6. Malawi .......................... 1.4 1.9% 7. Mozambique ...................... 1.1 1.6% 8. Australia ......................... 0.9 1.3% 9. Kenya ........................... 0.9 1.2% 10. India ............................. 0.8 1.2% 11. Germany ......................... 0.8 1.1% 12. Kuwait ........................... 0.7 0.9% 13. France ........................... 0,6 0.8% 14. Canada .......................... 0.6 0.8% 15. Netherlands ...................... 0.6 0.8% 16. Namibia .......................... 0.5 0.7% 17. Swi~erland ....................... 0.4 0.6% 18. Angola ........................... 0.4 0.5% 19. Belgium .......................... 0.4 0.5% 20. China ............................ 0.4 0.5% Others ........................... 6.0 8,4% TOTAL 71.3 NATIONAL TRAFFIC BALANCE Minutes FY 1998/99 FY 1999/00 2000 Incoming 53.2 59.0 n.a. Outgoing 52.8 65.6 71.3 Surplus (Deficit) 0,4 (6.6) n.a, Total Volume 106.0 124.6 n.a. Note: Data are in millions of minutes of outgoing ~ubiic switched telecommunications traffic. 21 0 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2002 © TELEGEOGRAPHY, INC. 2001 The traffic statistics in TeleGeography 2002 were compiled primarily from an independ- ent survey of telecommunications service providers. For some countries and carders, traffic data have been estimated based upon annual reports, government publications, and industry interviews. To enable comparisons of countries’ international traffic statistics, TeleGeography has endeavored to apply a consistent methodology. When reviewing the traffic statistics in TeleGeograph~l 2002, however, readers should keep in mind the following issues. Public Switched Network vs. Private Line Traffic Traffic volumes in TeleGeography 2002 are generally reported in minutes. In most cases, the statistics refer to paid minutes on public switched circuits and thus include voice as well as fax traffic. Traffic volumes include traffic carried by wholesale carders that is resold by "pure" resellers. These resellers do not own or lease their own international transmission facilities. Instead, they resell the services of other carders; thus, pure resale traffic is counted as part of the minutes for the facilities-based carrier whose services are resold. Many companies act both as carriers of traffic and as reselllers of other car- riers’ services. To avoid double counting, TeleGeography’s carder survey specifically counts only traffic actually carried by the company. Traffic carried by International Simple Resale (ISR) carriers is also included. ISR carriers lease international private lines (IPLs) for switched services by interconnecting their IPLs to the public switched network at one or both ends and resell this capacity. Illicit Bypass While traffic volumes include ISR, they generally do not include illicit bypass traffic that bypasses the international settlement rate regime. One form of illicit bypass is Voice-over-lnternet-Protocol (VolP). For an overview of Voice-over-IP traffic volumes, see "VolP Routes and Traffic." Cross-Border Traffic Neighboring countries may not classify local cross-border traffic in the same way. That is, one country may treat some cross-border traffic as domestic while its neighbor counts all such traffic as international. Transit Traffic Unless otherwise stated, TeleGeography 2002 excludes refile and transit traffic from the totals of countries acting as transit hubs. Notable exceptions include the U.K. and U.S. statistics, which do include some traffic reoriginated from other countries. © TELEGEOGRAPHY, INC. 2001 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2002 211 Inbound vs. Outbound Statistics Comparisons of inbound traffic statistics reported by the United States and the United Kingdom may not match up exactly with outbound traffic reported by the originating country. Reasons for discrepancies may include differences in reporting methodologies {e.g. billing point vs. originating point) and inclusion of some refile or bypass traffic. Carriers or regulators may also exclude some cross-border traffic (e.g., between Ireland and Northern Ireland). Fixed vs. Mobile Traffic Traffic volumes include international calls originated and terminated on both fixed and mobile networks. Rounding Rounding may cause the figures on total national incoming and outgoing traffic to appear inconsistent with other national data. Revised Data Some differences exist between the historical statistics reported in TeleGeograph~! 2002 and data published in prior TeleGeography reports or Direction of Traffic. The variations reflect corrections and/or revised data subsequently provided to TeleGeography. ~i~ 212 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2002 © TELEGEOGRAPHY, INC. 2001 Reference REFERENCE GDP 2000 Population 2000 Main Lines Lines Per Cellular Users Imernational Internet Hosts Countries |USS billions1 imillions| 2000 (thous.| 100 people 2000 Ithous.| Carriers 2000. 2000 (Ihous.) Algeria 53.8 30.4 1,761 5.8 86 1 1 Angola 8.7 12.7 70 0.5 26 1 1 Argentina 285.5 37 7,894 21.3 6,050 4 270 Armenia (b) 1.9 3.8 n.a. n.a. n.a. 1 3 Australia (a) 394.0 19.2 10,040 52.3 8‘850 40 1‘816 Austria 191.0 8.1 3,889 48.0 6,450 40 483 Azerbaijan (b) 4.9 8.1 801 9.9 430 1 2 Bahamas 4.8 0.3 114 37.9 32 1 1 Bahrain (b) n.a. 0.7 171 24.8 206 1 1 Belarus (b) 35,9 10 2,752 27.5 49 1 2 BelgiUm 231.0 11~3 5,074 49.5 5~577 21 300 Benin 2,3 63 n.o. n.a, n~. 1 n.a. Bolivia 8.5 8.3 n.a. n.a. n.a. 1 1 B ra zil 587.6 170.1 30,926 18,2 23,188 2 877 Brunei n.a. 0.3 81 24.5 95 2 5 Bulgaria 12.1 8.2 2,882 35.3 738 1 18 Canada 689.5 30.7 20,803 67.7 8,751 75 2~364 Chile 70.7 15.2 3~365 22.1 3,402 10 75 China 1,080.0 1,261.10 144,000 11.4 85,260 2 70 Colombia 82.8 423 7,158 16.9 2,257 3 47 ~OSta Rico 15.6 3.7 1,003 27.5 209 .1 7 C~te d’lvoire 9.3 16 267 1.7 n.a. 1 1 Croatia (b,c) 19.0 4.5 n.a. n.a. 1,033 1 17 Cuba n.a. 11.2 489 4.3 7 1 1 rus ~Cyp_ _ n.a. 0.8 440 57.5 218 1 8 C~ec~Repub~Tc 49.5 10.3 3‘872 37.7 4~340 1 Denmark 160.8 5.3 4,011 75.1 3,251 45 334 Dominican Republic 19.9 8.6 870 10.2 648 3 8 Ecuador 13.6 12.6 1,265 10.0 482 3 1 Egypt 58.3 63.9 5,484 8.6 1~60 1 2 E! Salvador 13.2 83 5~0 9.1 n.a. 10 1 Estonia 5.0 1.4 523 36.4 557 1 41 Finland 119.8 5.2 2,831 54.7 3,760 21 529 France 1,286.3 58.9 34,114 58.0 29,052 89 1,122 Georgia (b) 3.0 5.5 n.a. n.a. n.a. 2 2 B e rma ny 1 ‘870.1 82.2 48,400 60.1 48,145 80 2,040 Ghana 5.4 19.2 237 1.2 130 1 1 Greece 112.0 10.6 5,659 53.6 5,951 1 111 Guatemala 19.0 11.4 650 5.7 n.a. 2 6 Guyana 0.7 0.9 68 7.9 n.a. 1 1 Hong Kong (a) 1833 6.8 3‘826 57.8 5,447 150 228 Hungary 45.7 10 n.a. n.a. 3,000 1 104 India (a,b) 479.4 1,015.90 32,436 3.2 3,577 1 36 Indonesia 153.3 210.4 6,663 3.2 3,669 2 27 Iran 58.0 64 9,486 14.8 963 1 2 Ireland (a,b) 84,4 3.8 1,590 41.3 2,490 40 111 Israel 110.3 6.2 3,021 48.5 4,400 3 180 Italy 1,068.5 57.7 27,153 47.1 42,243 90 1,020 Jamaica 6.9 2.6 512 19.5 367 1 1 Japan (a) 4‘877.1 126.8 74,226 58.5 68,784 115 4‘841 Jordan 83 4.9 620 12.7 388 1 1 Kazakhstan 18.3 14.9 n.a. n.a. n.a, 3 7 Kenya 10.4 30.1 310 1.0 35 I 5 Korea, Rep. 457.2 47.3 21,932 46.4 26,816 40 398 Kuwait n,a. 2 467 23.5 476 I 3 Source: TeleGeogrephy research; ITU; and World Development Report 200~2i2001, World Bank, September 2001 © TeleGeography, Inc 2001 21 4 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2002 © TELEGEOGRAPHY, INC. 2001 REFERENCE international Telephone Traffic (A- Outgoing Mi’rl" (millions) Incoming Mi13" (millions) Traffic Balance 1688 ~689 % Clmn_on 1888 268g % Clmn_ns 1~ 143.5 151.8 5.8% n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 35.0 35.4 1.1% 33.1 n.a. n.a. -1.9 n.a. 377.6 432.1 14.4% n.a. 479.3 "n.a. n.a. 47.2. 33.7 31.4 -6,8% 89.8 n.a. n.a, 56.0 n.a. 2~115.0 2,650.0 25.3% n.a. n,a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 1,306.0 1,510.0 1~7% n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 32.2 28.1 -12.8% 68.6 59.7 -13.0% 36.4 31.6 n.a. 69.4 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 134.1 135,5 4.1% 106.5 125.6 17.9% -27.5 -13.9 161.2 178.5 10.7% 195.6 n.a, n.a. 34.4 n.e. 1,590.0 UI35,0 15.4% n.a. n,a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 10,5 11,7 11.1% 15.1 24.3 80.9% 4.6 12.6 29.7 27.2 -8.5% 82.2 80.8 -1.8% 52.5 53.6 574.8 692.7 20.5% 838.5 1,212.4 44.6% 263.7 519.8 23,4 24.3 3.8% 21.7 23.3 7.6% -1.7 -1.0 98.9 110.0 11.2% n.a. 211.0 n.a. n.a. 101.0 5,830.0 7,224.0 23.9% n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 270.0 278.0 3.0% n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 1,950.0 2,050.0 5.1% n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 212.2 341.8 61.1% n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 94.1 99.6 5.8% 109.0 137.8 26.4% 14.9 38.2 71.3 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 222.3 n,a. n.a. 512.0 n.a. n.a. 289.6 32.6 36.2 11.1% 225.3 n.a. n.a. 192.7 n.a. 168.2 192.5 14.5% 134.1 n.8. n~a. -34.0 n.a. 364.0 400.0 9.9% 452.2 n.a. n.a. 88.2 n.a, 800.0 905.0 13.1% n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 185.7 211.7 14.0% 920.0 1,340.0 45.7% 734.3 1,128.3 Counb’ies Algeria Angola Argentina Armenia (b) Austrarm (a) Austria Azerbaijan (b) Bahamas Bahrain (b) Belarns (b) Belgium Benin Bolivia Brazil Brunei Bulgaria Canada Chile China Colombia Costa Rice COte d’lvoire (b,c) Croatia Cuba Czech Republic Denmark Dominican Republic 57.4 55.5 -3.3% n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 171.0 183.1 7.1% 554.6 620.6 11.9% 383.6 437.5 68.1 128.0 68.1% n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 74.6 75.5 1.2% 84.8 n.a. n.a. 10.2 n.a. 423.9 468.0 10.4% n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 5,165.0 6,500.0 25.8% n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 48.7 45.6 -2.4% 65.7 37.6 -42.7% 19.0 -8,0 7,565.0 9,570.0 26.5% n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 30.1 42.1 39.7% 118.4 n.a. n.a. 88.2 n.a. 725.7 793.2 9.3% 794.2 889.8 12.0% 68.5 96.6 83.3 125.3 50.4% 208.6 295.9 41.8% 125.3 170.5 16.1 n.a. n.a. 101.0 n.a. n.a. 84.9 n.a. 2,720.3 3,074.9 13.0% 1,747.2 1,858.0 6.3% -973.1 -1,216.8 343.9 349.2 1.5% n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a, 473.3 527.1 11.4% 1,772.5 2,161.4 21.9% 1,299.2 1,634.3 269.6 315.5 17.0% n.a. 345.8 n.a. n.a. 30.3 156.1 176.8 13,3% 191.5 216.8 13.2% 35.4 40.0 1.015.0 1,260.0 23.2% n.a. n.a. n.a. n.8. n.a. 804.0 965.0 20.0% n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 3,100.0 4,140.0 33.5% n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 64.4 73.8 14.7% 347.4 328.5 -5.4% 283.0 254.6 2r050.0 2~575,0 25.6% 1~929.6 n.a, n.a. -120.4 n.a. 145,6 170.0 17.1% 191.5 214.1 11.8% 45.9 43.5 104.5 105.4 0.8% 149.8 183.1 22.2% 45.3 77.8 n.a. 21.0 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 898.0 1,063.0 18.4% n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 170.0 158.7 -6.7% 120.0 n.a. n.a. -50.0 n.a. Ecuador Egypt El Salvador Estonia Finland France Georgia (b) Germany Ghana Greece Guatemala Gwana Hong Kong (a) Hungary India (a,b) Indonesia Iron Ireland (a,b) Israel Italy Jamaica Japan (a) Jordan Kazakhstan Kenya Korea, Rep. Kuwait Notes: Data are in millions of minutes of public switched traffic. a. International traffic for year ending March 31. Australia, New Zealand, and Pakistan ends Juno 30. b. Traffic data exclude some carriers or routesv (See country table for details.) c. 1999 end 2000 traffic data not directly €omparable. (See countrytabte for det=ils.) © TeleGeography, Inc 2001 © TELEGEOGRAPHY, INC. 2001 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2002 215 REFERENCE at)anal Telecommunications indicators GDP 2900 Population 2900 Main Lines Unes Par Cellular Users Intemational Intemet Hosts I~ounh’ies |US$ billionsl Imillions| 2000 (thous.| 100 people 2000 (thous.) Carders 2000 2000 (thous.) Kyrgyzstan 1.3 4.9 376 7.6 9 1 4 Latvia 7.1 2.4 742 30.7 401 1 20 Luxembourg 18.6 0.4 331 75.6 380 10 12 Macau n.a. 0.4 177 40.0 118 1 1 Macedonia 3.3 2 5t6 25.4 116 1 2 Malaysia (a) 89,3 23.3 4637 19.9 4,961 5 68 Malta n.a. 0.4 204 53.5 114 1 7 Mauritius (a) 4.5 1.2 281 23.7 124 1 3 Mexico 574.5 98 12,333 12.6 14,074 16 559 Moidore 1.3 4.3 584 13.7 132 1 2 Morocco 33.4 28.7 1,425 5.0 2,342 1 2 Mozambique 3.8 17.6 86 0.5 22 1 1 Namibia 3.5 1.7 104 6.0 82 1 3 Netherland s 364.9 15.9 9,879 62.1 10,710 60 1,624 New Zealand (a) 50.0 3.8 1,915 50.0 2,158 21 345 Nicaragua 2.4 5 n.a. n.a. n.a. 1 1 Norway 149.3 4.5 3,270 72.8 3,151 35 453 Omen (b) n.a. 2.4 225 9.4 104 1 3 Pakistan (a,b) 61.7 138.1 3,200 2.3 349 1 6 Patn~nian Authority (b) n,a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 1 n.a. Panama 9.9 2.9 n.a. n.a. n.a. 1 15 Paraguay 7.7 5.5 n.a. n.a. n.a. 1 1 Peru 53.9 25.7 1,636 6.4 n.a. 22 11 Philippines (a) 75.2 75.6 3,000 4.0 6,300 12 19 Poland 158.8 38.7 10,846 283 6~747 1 340 Portugal (c) 103.9 10 4,314 43.1 6‘985 15 62 Qatar n.a. 0.6 160 27,4 119 1 2 Russia (b) 251.1 145.5 32,070 22.0 3,263 30 327 Saudi Arabia n.a. 20.7 2,965 14.3 1,376 1 4 Senegal 4.4 9.5 206 22 196 1 2 Singapore (a) 92.3 4 1‘947 48.4 2,747 40 176 SJovak Republic 19.1 5.4 1,b’68 31.4 1,2M. 1 38 South Africa 125.9 42.8 4,962 11.6 8,608 1 188 Spain 555.0 39.4 17,102 43.4 24,736 30 455 Sd Lanka 16.4 19,4 767 4.0 451 1 2 Sudnn (b) 11.2 29.7 387 1.3 23 1 Swaziland (a) 1.3 1 32 3.1 23 1 1 Sweden 227.4 8.9 6,057 68.3 6,338 26 596 Switzerland 240.3 7.2 5,158 71.8 4,618 50 263 Syria 16.5 16.1 1~675 10.4 27 1 1 Taiwan n.a. n.a. 12~42 n.a. 17,874 4 1~J6 Tajikistan (b) 1.0 6.3 219 3.4 1 1 1 Thailand (c) 121.9 60.7 5,252 8.6 3,056 1 63 Trinidad & Tobago (a) 7.1 1.3 299 23.0 133 1 7 Turkey 199.9 853 18,395 28,2 16,133 1 70 Turkmenisten (h) 4.4 4.8 n.a. n.a. 10 1 1 Ukraine 32.2 49.6 n.a. n.a. 819 2 36 United Arab Emirates n.a. 2.9 1,020 35.1 1,428 1 43 United Kingdom (a) 1,413.4 59.7 34,807 58.3 40,017 306 1,678 Un~d States 9,882.8 281.6 192~519 68.4 109,478 1,100 80~587 Uruguay 20.2 3.3 928 27.8 440 1 54 Uzbekistan (b) 13.5 24.7 n.a. n.a. 53 1 1 Ve nezuela 120.5 24.2 2,606 10.8 5,256 1 16 Yugoslavia n.a. 10.6 2,406 22.7 1,304 1 15 Zimbabwe 7.4 12.1 241 2.0 309 1 3 Source: TeleGeogrephy research; ITU; and World Development Report 2000/2001, World Bank, September 2001 © TeleGeography, Inc 200t 21 6 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2002 © TELEGEOGRAPHY, INC. 2001 REFERENCE ]nternationaJ TeJephone Traffic (K=Z) 1895 23.5 55.6 319,1 132.8 82.3 690.0 39.0 31.4 1,563.0 4,9.0 219,5 20.3 61.2 2~380.0 615.0 52‘0 694.0 101.3 75.1 34.9 53.6 34.7 88.9 230.8 624.0 128.5 928.2 1,060.0 36,5 162.8 481.1 1,935.0 45.5 21.9 1,365.0 2,730.0 125.6 9.0 298.7 67.2 698.4 16.5 359.2 963.0 10,141.0 29~58.8 80.1 68.5 160.2 227.0 65.6 Outgoing MiTr (millions) Incoming MiTT (millions) Traffic Balance 2000 % Chan_oe 1999 2000 % Chan_oe 1999 2000 23.2 -1.4% n.a. 28.6 n.a. n.a. 5.4 54.8 -1.4% 90.0 90.1 0.1% 34.4 35.3 381.0 19.4% n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 152.1 14.5% 97.7 103.2 5.6% -35.1 -48.9 73.2 -11.0% 152.5 166.4 9.1% 70.3 93.2 895.0 29.7% n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 43.0 10.2% 50.2 n.a. n.a. 11.2 n.a. 35.1 11.6% 43.3 49.0 13.1% 11,9 13.9 1,883.0 20.5% 4,007.5 5,896.0 47.1% 2,444.5 4,013.0 50.8 3.6% 101.1 120.8 19.6% 52.1 70,1 245.0 11.6% n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 22.4 10.3% 38.8 n.a. n.a. 18.5 n,a. 60.2 -1.7% 51.2 50.7 -1.0% -10.0 -9.5 2,830.0 18.9% n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 950.0 16.6% n,a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n,a, n,a. n.a. 72.7 n,a. n.a. 20.7 n.a. 770.0 11.0% n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 116.8 15.3% 83.4 n.a. n.a. -17.9 n.a. 98.6 31.3% 644.9 896.1 38.9% 569.8 797.4 45.6 30.7% n.a. 37.2 n.a. n.a. -8.4 51.9 -3.1% 96.2 111.7 16.1% 42.6 59.7 33.3 -4.1% 54.8 71.6 30.7 % 20.1 38.4 86.5 -2.8% 299.6 317.7 6.1% 210.6 231.3 273.0 18.3% n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 67~8 83% n,a. n.a. n.a. n.~ n.a. 720.0 35.1% 753.3 n.a. n.a. 220.5 n.a. 143.0 11.3% 94.0 95.5 13.7% -44.5 -47.5 944.0 1.7% 929.3 n.a. n.a. 1,1 n.a. 1,194.9 12.7% n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 50.0 37.2% 111.1 rl.a. n.a. 74.7 n.a. 1,515.0 12.2% n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a, n.a. 162.7 -0.1% 208.7 233.1 11.7% 45.9 70‘4 494.6 7.3% n.a. 700.0 n.a. n.a. 205.4 2,570.0 32.8% n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 42.0 -7.6% n,a. n,a, n.a. n,a. n.a. 31.8 45.1% 105.3 155.7 47.9% 83,3 123,9 25.1 -14.6% n.o. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 1,640.0 20.1% n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 3,195.0 17.0% n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 140.0 1!.5% 256.7 266.0 11.4% 131.1 148.0 1,160J) 22.2% 882.0 n.a. n.a. -67.3 n.a, 6.8 -24.8% n.a. 18.5 n.a. n.a. 11.7 355.2 18.9% 327.8 426.6 30.1% 29,1 71,4 70.2 4.4% I68.8 163.4 2.9% 91.6 93.3 850.0 21.7% 1w12Z7 1~240.0 10.4% 424.3 390.0 15.7 -4.6% n.a. 11.3 n.a. n.a. -4.5 303.0 1.1% n.a. 269.5 n.a. n.a. -93.4 1,123.6 16.7% n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 12,242.7 20.7% 6,853.4 7,463.2 8.9% -3,287.6 -4,779.5 37w594.8 28.1% 10~640.8 13~010‘7 22.3% -18,718.0 -24~584.1 78.0 -2.7% 95.3 110.9 12.8% 18.2 33.0 71.4 4.3% 75.0 54.3 -27.6% 6.6 -17.0 n.a. n.a. 315.3 n.a. n,a. 155.2 n.a. 286.9 26.4% 498.8 n.a. n.a. 271.7 n.a. 71.3 8,7% 59.0 n.a. n.a. -6.6 n.a. Countries Kyrgyzstan LaWia Luxembourg Macau Macedonia Malaysia (a) Malta Mauritius (a) Mexico Moldova Morocco Mozambique Namibia Netherlands New Zealand (a) Nicaragua Norway Oman (b) Pakistan (a,b) Palestinian Territory (b) Panama Paraguay Peru Philippines (a) Poland Portugal (c) Qatar Russia Saudi Arabia Senegal Singapore (a) Slovak Republic South Africa Spain Srt L.anka Sudan (b) Swaziland (a) Sweden Switzerland sydo Taiwan Tajikistan Thailand (c) Trinidad & Tobago (a) Turkey Turkmenistan Ukraine United Arab Emirates United Kingdom (a) United States Uruguay Uzbeklatan (b) Venezuela Yugoslavia Zimbabwe Notes: Data are in millions of minutes of pubtic switchedt~sfflc. a. fnternat~onsl traffic for year ending March 3t. Australia, New Zealand, and Pakistan ends June 30. b. Traffic data exclude some carriers or routes. (See countw table for details.) c. 1999 and 2000 traffic data not directly comparable. (See coUntWt~ble for detail~) (~ TeleGeogrsphy, tno 2~01 © TELEGEOGRAPHY, INC. 2001 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2002 217 REFERENCE international Afghanistan .............. 93 Albania ................ 355 "firana ................ 4 Algeria ................. 213 Algiers .............. 21 American Samoa ........ 684 Andorra ................ 376 Angola ................. 244 Luanda ............... 2 Anguilla .............. 1-264 Antigua & Barbuda ..... 1-268 Argentina ................ 54 Buenos Aires .......... 1 Armenia ................ 374 Yerevan .............. 1 Aruba .................. 297 Ascension Island ........ 247 Australia ................ 61 Melbourne ............ 3 Sydney ................ 2 Australian Territories ..... 672 Austria .................. 43 Vienna ............... 1 Azerbaijan ............. 994 Baku ................ 12 Bahamas ............. 1-242 Bahrain ................ 973 Bangladesh ............. 880 Dhaka ................ 2 Barbados ............. 1-246 Belarus ................ 375 Minsk .............. 172 Belgium ................. 32 Brussels .............. 2 Belize ................. 501 Belmopan ............. 8 Benin .................. 229 Bermuda .............. 1-441 Bhutan ................. 975 Bolivia ................. 591 La Paz ................ 2 Bosnia-Herzegovina ...... 387 Sarajevo ............. 71 Botswana .............. 267 Brazil ................... 55 Brasilia .............. 61 Rio de Janeiro ........ 21 S~o Paulo ............ 11 British Indian Ocean Ter~. ............ 246 British Virgin Islands ...1-284 Brunei ................. 673 Bandar Seri Begawan ...2 Bulgaria ................ 359 Sofia ................. 2 Burkina Faso ............ 226 Burundi ................ 257 Cambodia .............. 855 Cameroon .............. 237 Canada ................... 1 Montreal ......... 514/450 Ottawa .............. 613 Toronto .......... 416/647 Vancouver ........... 604 Cape Verde ............. 238 Cayman Islands ........ 1-345 Central African Republic..236 Bangui .............. 61 Chad ................... 235 Chile .................... 56 Santiago .............. 2 China, People’s Republic of 86 Beijing .............. 10 Guangzhou ........... 20 Shanghai ............. 21 Colombia ................ 57 Bogota ............... 1 Cocos Islands; Norfolk & Christmas Islands ....... 672 Comoros ................ 269 Congo, Dem. Rep. of ...... 243 Kinshasa ............. 12 Congo, Republic of ....... 242 Brazzaville ...... 81/82/83 Cook Islands ............ 682 Costa Rice .............. 506 COte d’lvoire ............ 225 Croatia ................. 385 Zagreb ............... 1 Cuba .................... 53 Havana ............... 7 Cyprus ................. 357 Nicosia ............... 2 Czech Republic .......... 420 Prague ............... 2 Denmark ................ 45 Djibouti ................ 253 Dominica ............. 1-767 Dominican Republic .... 1-809 East "limor ............ 672-9 Codes, by Country Ecuador ................ 593 Quito ................. 2 Egypt ................... 20 Cairo ................. 2 El Salvador ............. 503 Equatorial Guinea ........ 240 Eritrea ................. 291 Estonia ................ 372 Tallinn ................ 2 Elhiopia ................ 251 Addis Ababa .......... 1 Falkland Islands ......... 500 Foroe Islands ........... 298 Fiji .................... 679 Finland ................. 358 Helsinki ............... 9 France .................. 33 Paris ................. 1 Marseille ........... 491 French Antilles .......... 596 French Guiana ........... 594 French Polynesia ........ 689 Gabon .................. 241 Gambia ................. 220 Georgia ................ 995 Tbilisi ............... 32 Germany ................ 49 Berlin ................ 30 Bonn ............... 228 Frankfurt ............. 69 Munich .............. 89 Ghana .................. 233 Accra ............... 21 Gibraltar ............... 350 Greece .................. 30 Athens ............... 1 Greenland .............. 299 Grenada .............. 1-473 Guadeloupe ............. 590 Guam ................. 1-671 Guatemala .............. 502 Guinea ................. 224 Guinea-Bissau .......... 245 Guyana ................. 592 Georgetown ........... 2 Haiti ................... 509 Honduras ............... 504 Hong Kong .............. 852 Hungary ................ 36 Budapest ............. 1 Iceland ................. 354 India .................... 91 Mumbai .............. 22 Calcutta .............. 33 New Delhi ........... 11 Indonesia ............... 62 Jakarta .............. 21 Inmarsat Special .............. 870 East Atlantic ......... 871 Pacific .............. 872 Indian ............... 873 West Atlantic ........ 874 International Freephone .800 Iron ..................... 98 Tehran .............. 21 Iraq .................... 964 Baghdad .............. 1 Ireland ................. 353 Dublin ................ 1 Israel .................. 972 Jerusalem ............ 2 Tel Aviv ............... 3 Italy .................... 39 Rome ................ 06 Milan ................ 02 Jamaica .............. 1-876 Japan ................... 81 Osaka ................. 6 Tokyo ................ 3 ,Jordan ................. 962 Amman ............... 6 Kazakhstan ............... 7 Aimaty ............. 3272 Kenya .................. 254 Nairobi ............... 2 Kiribati ................. 686 Korea. Dem. Rep. of ...... 850 Pyongyang ............ 2 Korea. Republic of ........ 82 Seoul ................ 2 Kuwait ................. 965 Kyrgyzstan .............. 996 Bishkek ............. 312 Laos ................... 856 Latvia .................. 371 Riga .................. 2 Lebanon ................ 961 Beirut ................ 1 Lesotho ................ 266 21 8 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2002 © TELEGEOGRAPHY, INC. 2001 REFERENCE Liberia ................. 231 Libya ................... 218 Tripoli ............... 21 LiecMenstein ........... 423 Lithuania ............... 370 Vilnius ................ 2 Luxembourg ............ 352 Macau ................. 853 Macedonia ............. 389 Skopje ............... 91 Madagascar ............ 261 Malawi ................ 265 Malaysia ................ 60 Kuala Lumpur .......... 3 Maldives ............... 960 Mall ................... 223 Malta .................. 356 Marshall Islands ........ 692 Martinique .............. 596 Mauritania .............. 222 Mauritius ............... 230 Mayotte ................ 269 Mexico ................. 52 Guadalajara .......... 33 Mexico City .......... 55 Monterrey ............ 81 Micronesia ............. 691 Moidore ................ 373 Chisinau .............. 41 Monaco ................ 377 Mongolia ............... 976 Ulaanbaatar ........... 1 Montserrat ............ 1-664 Morocco ............... 212 Casablanca ............ 2 Rabat ................ 7 Mozambique ............ 258 Maputo ............... 1 Myanmar ................ 95 Namibia ................ 264 Windhoek ............ 61 Nauru .................. 674 Nepal .................. 977 Kathmandu ............ 1 Netherlands ............. 31 Amsterdam ........... 20 Netherlands Antilles ..... 599 New Caledonia .......... 687 New Zealand ............ 64 Auckland .............. 9 Wellington ............ 4 Nicaragua .............. 505 Managua ............. 2 Niger .................. 227 Nigeria ................. 234 Lagos ................. 1 Niue ................... 683 Northern Marianas ..... 1-670 Saipan .............. 322 Non~ay ................. 47 0slo .............. 22123 Omen .................. 968 Pakistan ................. 92 Islamabad ........... 51 Palestinian Authori~ ..... 970 Palau .................. 680 Panama ................ 507 Papua New Guinea ...... 675 Paraguay ............... 595 Asuncion ............ 21 Peru .................... 51 Lima ................ 14 Philippines .............. 63 Manila ............... 2 Poland .................. 48 Warsaw ............. 22 Portugal ................ 351 Lisbon ............... 21 Puerto Rico ........... 1-787 Qatar .................. 974 R~union Island .......... 262 Romania ................. 40 Bucharest ............ 1 Russia ................... 7 Moscow ............ 095 St. Petersburg ........ 812 Rwanda ................ 250 St. Helena .............. 290 St. Kitts & Nevis ....... 1-869 St. Lucia .............. 1-758 St. Pierre & Miquelon .... 508 St. Vincent & the Grenadines .......... 1-764 San Marino ............. 378 Sao Tome and Principe .. 239 Saudi Arabia ............ 966 Riyadh ................ 1 Senegal ................ 221 Seychelles .............. 248 Sierra Leone ............ 232 Freetown ............ 22 Singapore ............... 65 Slovak Republic ......... 421 Brat~slava ............. 7 Slovenia ................ 386 Ljubljana ............. 61 Solomon Islands ......... 677 Somalia ................ 252 Mogadishu ............ 1 South Africa ............. 27 Johannesburg ......... 11 Pretofia ............. 12 Spain ................... 34 Madrid ............... 1 Barcelona ............. 3 Sri Lanka ................ 94 Colombo .............. 1 Sudan .................. 249 Khartoum ............ 11 Suriname ............... 597 Swaziland .............. 268 Sweden ................. 46 Stockholm ............ 8 Switzerland .............. 41 Berne ................ 31 Zurich ................ 1 Syria ................... 963 Oamascus ........... 11 Tahiti .................. 689 Taiwan ................. 686 Taipei ................ 2 Tajikistan ............... 992 Dushanbe ............ 37 Tanzania ............... 255 Oar Es Salaam ........ 22 Thailand ................. 66 Bangkok .............. 2 Togo ................... 228 Tokelau ................ 690 Tonga ................. 676 Trinidad & Tobago ...... 1-868 Tunisia ................. 216 Tunis ................. 1 Turkey .................. 90 Ankara ............. 312 Istanbul ............. 212 Turkmenistan ........... 993 Ashkhabad ........... 12 Turks & Caicos ........ 1-649 Tuvalu .................. 688 Uganda ................. 256 Kampala ............. 41 Ukraine ................ 380 Kiev ................. 44 United Arab Emirstes ..... 971 Abu Dhabi ............ 2 Dubai ................. 4 United Kingdom .......... 44 Cardiff ............. 2920 Glasgow ............ 141 London .......... 2071208 Manchester ......... 161 United States ............. 1 Chicago ...... 312/7731872 Houston ...... 71312811832 Los Angeles ...... 213/323 Miami ........... 305/768 N ew York ..... 21216461917 Washington .......... 202 U.S. Virgin Islands ...... 1-340 Uruguay ................ 598 Montevideo ........... 2 Uzbekistan .............. 998 Tashkent ............. 71 Vanuatu ................ 678 Vatican City ............. 379 Venezuela ............... 58 Caracas .............. 2 Vietnam ................. 64 Wellis & Futuna ......... 681 Western Samoa ......... 685 Yemen ................. 967 Sanaa ................ 2 Yugoslavia .............. 381 Belgrade ............. 11 Zambia ................. 260 Lusaka ............... 1 Zanzibar (Tanzania) ...... 255 Zimbabwe ............. 263 Harare ............... 4 © TELEGEOGRAPHY, INC. 2001 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2002 219 REFERENCE World Dialing Codes 220 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2002 © TELEGEOGRAPHY, INC. 2001 REFERENCE GREENLAND 299 RUSSIA 7 SEE INSET TU N|SrA M DF~I:CD ALGERIA 213 LIBYA :~w: ~,,r, 218 EGYPT i~URITAN IA 222 MALl NIGER 223 227 CHAD 235 SUDAN BURKINA FASO ~J II~r.~ 224 NIGERIA ~NGO~ M~ ~IBIA ¢~T~ R~U~ UKRAINE KAZAKHSTAN m [~o IRAN AFGHANISTAN ETHIOPIA SOUTH AFRICA NEPAL BHUTAN INDIA BANGLADESH 91 MONGOLIA 976 ](DR EA, DEIM. CHINA KOREA., REP, © TELEGEOGRAPHY, INC. 2001 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2002 221 International 1 Canada Guam Northern Marianas United States Caribbean 20 Egypt 212 Morocco 213 Algeria 216 Tunisia 218 Libya 220 Gambia 221 Senegal 222 Mauritania 223 Mall 224 Guinea 225 C6te d’lvoire 226 Burkina Faso 227 Niger 228 Togo 229 Benin 230 Mauritius 231 Uberia 232 Sierra Leone 233 Ghana 234 Nigeria 235 Chad 236 Central African Republic 237 Cameroon 238 Cape Verde 239 SaoTome & Principe 240 Equatorial Guinea 241 Gabon 242 Congo, Republic of 243 Congo, Dem. Rep. of 244 Angola 245 Guinea-Bissau 246 British Indian OceanTerr. 247 Ascension Island 248 Seychelles 249 Sudan 250 Rwanda 251 Ethiopia 252 Somalia 253 Djibouti 254 Kenya 255 Tanzania 256 Uganda 257 Burundi 258 Mozambique 260 Zambia 261 Madagascar 262 Rdunion Island 263 Zimbabwe 254 Namibia 265 Malawi 266 Lesotho 267 Botswana 268 Swaziland 269 Comoros & Mayotte 27 South Africa 290 St. Helena 291 Eritrea 297 Aruba 298 Faroe Islands 299 Greenland 30 Greece 31 Netherlands 32 Belgium 33 France 34 Spain 350 Gibraltar 351 Portugal 352 Luxembourg 353 Ireland 354 Iceland 355 Albania 356 Malta 357 Cyprus 356 Finland 359 Bulgaria 36 Hungan/ 370 Lithuania 371 Latvia 372 Estonia 373 Moldova 374 Armenia 375 Belarus 376 Andorra 377 Monaco 370 San Marino 379 Vatican City 380 Ukraine 381 Yugoslavia 385 Croatia 386’ Slovenia 387 Bosnia-Herzegovina 389 Macedonia 39 Italy 40 Romania 41 Switzerland 420 Czech Republic 421 SIovak Republic 423 Liechtenstein 43 Austria 44 United Kingdom 45 Denmark 46 Sweden 47 Norway 48 Poland 49 Germany 500 Falkland Islands 501 Belize 502 Guatemala 503 El Salvador 504 Honduras 505 Nicaragua 506 Costa Rica 507 Panama 508 St. Pierre & Miquelon 569 Haiti 51 Peru 52 Mexico 53 Cuba 54 Argentina 55 Brazil 56 Chile 57 Colombia 56 Venezuela 590 Guadeloupe 591 Bolivia 592 Guyana 593 Ecuador 554 French Guiana 595 Paraguay 596 Martinique 597 Suriname 598 Uruguay 599 Netherlands Antilles 60 Malaysia 61 Australia 62 Indonesia 53 Philippines 54 New Zealand 65 Singapore 66 Thailand 672 Australian Territories 673 Brunei 674 Nauru 675 Papua New Guinea 676 Tonga 677 Solomon Islands 678 Vanuatu 679 Rji Islands 680 Palau 681 Wallis & Futuna 682 Cook Islands 683 Niue 684 American Samoa 685 Western Samoa 686 Kiribati 687 New Caledonia 688 Tuvalu lurnber 689 French Polynesia 690 Tokelau 691 Micronesia 692 Marshall Islands 7 Kazakhstan Russia 800 International Freephone 81 Japan 62 Korea, Republic of 84 Vietnam 850 Korea, Dem. Rep. of 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 886 Taiwan 90 Turkey 91 India 92 Pakistan 93 Afghanistan 54 Sri Lanka 95 Myanmar 960 Maldives 981 Lebanon 962 Jordan 953 Syria 964 Iraq 965 Kuwait 966 Saudi Arabia 967 Yemen 968 0man 970 Palestinian Authority 971 United Arab Emirates 972 Israel 973 Bahrain 974 Qatar 975 Bhutan 976 Mongolia 977 Nepal 98 Iran 992 Tajikistan 993 Turkmenistan 994 Azerbaijan 955 Georgia 996 Kyrgyzstan 998 .Uzbekistan 222 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2002 © TELEGEOGRAPHY, INC. 2001 REFERENCE 201 New Jersey 331 202 Dist. of Columbia 334 203 Connecticut 336 204 Manitoba 337 205 Alabama 339 206 Washington 340 207 Maine 345 208 Idaho 347 209 California 351 210 Texas 352 212 New York 360 213 California 361 214 Texas 386 215 Pennsylvania 401 216 Ohio 402 217 Illinois 403 218 Minnesota 404 219 Indiana 405 224 Illinois 406 225 Louisiana 407 227 Man/land 408 228 Mississippi 409 229 Georgia 410 231 Michigan 411 234 Ohio 412 240 Man/land 413 242 Bahamas 414 246 Barbados 415 248 Michigan 416 250 British Columbia 417 251 Alabama 418 252 North Carolina 419 253 Washington 423 254 Texas 424 256 Alabama 425 260 Indiana 434 262 Wisconsin 435 264 Anguilla 440 267 Pennsylvania 441 268 Antigua 443 270 Kentucky 445 276 Virginia 450 278 Michigan 464 201 Texas 469 284 British Virgin Is. 470 289 Dntario 473 301 Man/land 475 302 Delaware 478 303 Colorado 480 304 West Virginia 484 305 Florida 500 306 Saskatchewan 307 Wyoming 501 308 Nebraska 502 309 Illinois 503 310 California 504 312 Illinois 505 313 Michigan 506 314 Missouri 507 315 New York 508 316 Kansas 509 317 Indiana 510 318 Louisiana 512 319 Iowa 513 320 Minnesota 514 321 Florida 515 323 California 516 330 Ohio 517 Area Codes, by urnb Illinois 518 New York 707 California 848 Alabama 519 Ontario 708 Illinois 850 North Carolina 520 Arizona 708 Newfoundland 856 Louisiana 530 California 710 U.S. Government 857 Massachusetts 540 Virginia Emergency 858 U.S. Virgin Is. 541 Oregon 712 Iowa 859 Cayman Islands 551 New Jersey 713 Texas 860 New York 559 California 714 California 862 Massachusetts 561 Florida 715 Wisconsin 863 Florida 562 California 716 New York 864 Washington 563 Iowa 717 Pennsylvania 865 Texas 564 Washington 718 New York 867 Florida 507 Ohio 719 Colorado Rhode Island 570 Pennsylvania 720 Colorado 868 Nebraska 571 Virginia 724 Pennsylvania 869 Alberta 573 Missouri 727 Florida 870 Georgia 574 Indiana 731 Tennessee 872 Oklahoma 580 Oklahoma 732 New Jersey 876 Montana 585 New York 734 Michigan 877 Florida 586 Michigan 737 Texas 878 California 601 Mississippi 740 Ohio 880 Texas 602 Arizona 754 Florida 081 Man/land 603 New Hampshire 757 Virginia 882 Directon/Assist. 604 British Columbia 758 St. Lucia 888 Pennsylvania 505 South Dakota 750 California 900 Massachusetts 606 Kentuclo/ 763 Minnesota 901 Wisconsin 607 New York 764 California 902 California 608 Wisconsin 765 Indiana Ontario 609 New Jersey 767 Dominica 503 Missouri 610 Pennsylvania 770 Georgia 904 Quebec 611 Repair Service 773 Illinois 505 Ohio 612 Minnesota 774 Massachusetts 906 Tennessee 613 Ontario 775 Nevada 907 California 614 Ohio 778 British Colombia 908 Washington 615 Tennessee 780 Alberta 909 Virginia 616 Michigan 781 Massachusetts 910 Utah 617 Massachusetts 784 St. Vincent& 911 Ohio 618 Illinois Grenadines 912 Bermuda 619 California 785 Kansas 913 Man/land 620 Kansas 786 Rorida 914 Pennsylvania 623 Arizona 787 Puerto Rico 915 Quebec 626 California 800 Toll-free serv. 916 Illinois 630 Illinois 801 Utah 917 Texas 631 New York 802 Vermont 918 Georgia 636 Missouri 863 South Carolina 919 Grenada 641 Iowa 804 Virginia 520 Connecticut 646 New York 805 California 525 Georgia 647 Ontario 806 Texas 938 Arizona 649 Turks & Caicos Is. 807 Ontario 931 Pennsylvania 650 California 808 Hawaii 936 Pers. Comm. Serv. 651 Minnesota 809 Dominican Rep. 937 (PCS) 659 Alabama 810 Michigan 940 Arkansas 660 Missouri 812 Indiana 941 Kentucky 661 California 813 Rorida 947 Oregon 662 Mississippi 814 Pennsylvania 649 Louisiana 664 Montserrat 815 Illinois 952 New Mexico 667 Man/land 816 Missouri 954 Nebraska 670 Northern Marianas 817 Texas 956 Minnesota 671 Guam 818 California 959 Massachusetts 678 Georgia 819 Quebec 970 Washington 679 Michigan 828 North Carolina 971 California 682 Texas 830 Texas 972 Texas 701 North Dakota 831 California 973 Ohio 702 Nevada 832 Texas 978 Quebec 703 Virginia 835 Pennsylvania 979 Iowa 704 North Carolina 843 South Carolina 980 New York 705 Ontario 845 New York 985 Michigan 706 Georgia 847 Illinois 989 er New Jersey Florida New Jersey Massachusetts California Kentucky Connecticut New Jersey Florida South Carolina Tennessee Northwest Territories/Yukon Trinidad & Tobago St. Kitts & Nevis Arkansas Illinois Jamaica Toll-free serv. Pennsylvania Toll-free serv. Toll-free serv. Toll-free serv. Toll-free serv. Info. Servs. Tennessee Nova Sc~a & Prince Edward Is. Texas Florida Ontario Michigan Alaska New Jersey California North Carolina Emergency Servs. Georgia Kansas New York Texas California New York Oklahoma North Carolina Wisconsin California Arizona Tennessee Texas Ohio Texas Florida Michigan California Minnesota Florida Texas Connecticut Colorado Oregon Texas New Jersey Massachusetts Texas North Carolina Louisiana Michigan © TELEGEOGRAPHY, INC. 2001 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2002 223 REFERENCE Arnerica Area Codes, by J risdictio Alabama Birmingham and west-central Alabama .......... 205/959 Mobile and southwestern Alabama .... 251 Huntsville and northern Alabama ..... 256 Montgomery and southern Alabama ...334 Alaska ............................... 907 Alberta Calgary and southern Alberta ......... 403 Edmonton and northern Alberta ....... 780 Anguilla .............................. 264 Antigua .............................. 268 Arizona Eastern Phoenix area ................ 480 Tucson and southeastern Arizona ..... 520 Central Phoenix .................... 602 Western Phoenix ................... 623 Northern and southwestern Arizona ...928 Arkansas Uttle Rock, Fayetteville and northwestern Arkansas ............. 501 Jonesboro and southern Arkansas .... 870 Bahamas ............................. 242 Barbados ............................. 246 Bermuda ............................. 441 British Columbia British Columbia except Vancouver area .................... 250 Vancouver area ................. 664/778 British Virgin Islands ................... 264 California Stockton, Fresno, Modesto, and central California .................. 209 Los Angeles ....................... 213 Malibu, Beverly Hills and west Los Angeles suburbs ........... 310/424 Rorence .......................... 323 San Jose, Sunnyvale, and Cupertino o .468 San Francisco ...................... 415 Oakland and Berkeley areas .......... 510 Chico, Redding, and northeastern California ............. 530 Fresno and central California ......... 559 Long Beach ........................ 562 San Diego and southwestern California ............ 619 Pasadena ......................... 626 San Mateo, Palo Alto and south San Francisco suburbs ............. 650 Bakersfield and south central California ............. 661 Fort Bragg, Eureka, Ukiah and northern California .................. 707 Northern Orange County ............. 714 Ontario and San Bernadino ........... 909 Barstow, Encito, Palm Springs and southeastern California ............. 760 Santa Barbara, Bakersfield, and central western California ........... 805 Burbank and Glendale areas ......... 818 Monterey, Santa Cruz, and west-central California ............. 831 Northern San Diego and Del Mar ...... 858 Sacramento ....................... 916 Concord, Uvermore, Walnut Creek .... 925 Anaheim, Irvine, and southern Orange County ............ 949 Cayman Islands ....................... 345 Colorado Denver area .................... 303/720 Colorado Springs, Pueblo and southeastern Colorado ............. 719 Aspen, Durango, and northwestern Colorado ............. 970 Connecticut Bridgeport, New Haven and southwestern Connecticut ....... 203/475 Hartford, Bristol, and northeastern Connecticut ....... 860/959 Delaware ............................ 302 District of Columbia Washington ........................ 202 Dominica ............................. 767 Dominican Republic ................... 809 Rorida Miami, Key West and southeastern Florida ............ 305/786 Orlando and central eastern Florida .......... 321/407 Gainesville and central Rorida ........ 352 Daytona Beach, area west of Jacksonville .................... 386 West Palm Beach, Boca Raton, and east central Florida ................ 561 Tampa Bay ........................ 727 St. Petersburg ...................... 813 Pensacola, Tallahassee, and northwestern Rorida ............... 850 Lakeland, Sebfin0 and south-central Rorida ............... 863 Jacksonville, Daytona, and northeastern Florida ............... 964 Bradenton, Sarasota, and southwestern Florida ............... 941 Fort Lauderdale ................. 754/954 Georgia Albany, Valdosta, and south-central Georgia .............. 229 AtJanta ................. 404/470/678/770 Macon, Swainsboro and south-central Georgia .............. 478 N Georgia: Columbus, Augusta ........ 706 Savannah, Vidalia, and southeastern Georgia .............. 912 Grenada .............................. 473 Guam ................................ 671 Hawaii ............................... 808 Idaho ................................ 208 Illinois Champaign, Urbana, Springfield, and central Illinois ................. 217 Northeastern Illinois and northwest Chicago suburbs ...... 224/847 Peoria, Rock Island, and west-central Illinois ................ 309 Chicago ....................... 312/872 Southern Chicago suburbs ........ 464/708 Alton, Mount Vernon, and southern Illinois ................... 618 Central Chicago suburbs ......... 630/331 Chicago/outside downtown ....... 773/872 La Salle, Rockford, and northern Illinois ................... 815 Indiana Gary. Fort Wayne and northern Indiana ............ 219/260/574 Indianapolis ....................... 317 Central Indiana excluding Indianapolis ...................... 765 Evansville and southern Indiana ....... 812 Iowa Cedar Rapids and eastern Iowa ....... 319 Des Moines, Ames, and central Iowa ...................... 515 Davenport, Dubuque, and notheastern Iowa .................. 563 Mason City, Pella, and central Iowa ...................... 641 Council Bluffs, Sioux City, and western Iowa ..................... 712 Jamaica .............................. 876 Kansas Dodge City, Wichita, and southern Kansas .................. 316 Southern Kansas except Wichita metro area ................ 620 Topeka, Lawrence, and northern Kansas ................... 785 Kansas City and eastern Kansas ...... 913 Kentucky Paducah, Bowling Green, and western Kentucky ................. 270 Louisville, Shelbyville, and north-central Kentucky ............. 502 Eastern Kentucky ................... 606 Richmond, Danville, and northeastern Kentucky ............. 859 Louisiana Baton Rouge and central-eastern Louisiana ........... 225 Shreveport, Monroe, and northern Louisiana ................. 318 Lake Charles, Lafayette, and southwestern Louisiana ............ 337 New Orleans and southeastern Louisiana ............. 504 Southeastern Louisiana except New Orleans and Baton Rouge ...... 985 Maine ............................... 207 Manitoba ............................. 204 Maryland Rockville, Hagerstown, and western Maryland .......... 227/240/301 Baltimore, Annapolis, and eastern Maryland ........... 410/443/967 Massachusetts Waltham, Lexington, and Boston suburbs ................ 339/781 Lowell, Salem, and northern Massachusetts ................ 351/978 Pittsfield, Springfield, and western Massachusetts ............ 413 Framingham, Cape Cod, and southern Massachusetts ........ 508/774 Boston ........................ 617/857 Michigan Traverse City, Muskegon, and northwestern Michigan ............. 231 Pontiac, Southfield, and Oakland County ................ 248/947 Detroit ......................... 313/679 Lansing and central Michigan ........ 517 Rint, Flushing, and southeastern Michigan .......... 586/810 224 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2002 © TELEGEOGRAPHY, INC. 2001 REFERENCE Grand Rapids, Kalamazoo and southwestern Michigan ............ 616 Ann Arbor and Wayne ........... 276/734 Marquette and northern Michigan .... 906 Bay City and central Michigan ....... 989 Minnesota Duluth and northern Minnesota ....... 218 St. Cloud and central Minnesota ...... 320 Rochester and southern Minnesota ...507 Minneapolis ....................... 612 St. Paul ........................... 651 Fridley and Blaine .................. 763 Bloomington and Minnetonka ........ 952 Mississippi BJloxi and southern Mississippi ....... 228 Jackson and central Mississippi ...... 601 Greenville, and northern Mississippi...662 Missouri St. Louis .......................... 314 Joplin, Springfield, and southwestern Missouri ............. 417 Jefferson City, Columbia, and eastern Missouri .................. 573 Franklin and Jefferson counties ...... 636 Marshall and northern Missouri ...... 660 Kansas City ....................... 816 Montana ............................. 406 Montserrat ........................... 664 Nebraska North Platte and western Nebraska ...308 Omaha, I incoln, and eastern Nebraska ................. 402 Nevada Las Vegas and southern Nevada ...... 702 Northern Nevada ................... 775 New Brunswick ...................... 506 New Hampshire ....................... 603 New Jersey Hackensack, Jersey City, and northeastern New Jersey ....... 201/551 Atlantic City, Trenton, and southeastern New Jersey .......... 609 Middlesex and Ocean counties ...732/846 Camden, Millville, and southwestern New Jersey .......... 856 Elizabeth, Warren, and northwestern New Jersey .......... 908 Newark and Morristown ......... 862/973 New Mexico ......................... 505 New York Manhattan ................. 212/646/917 Syracuse and northwestern New York ............ 315 Nassau County and western Long Island ........................ 516 Northeastern New York ............. 518 Western New York ................. 585 Binghamton and south central New York ........................ 607 Undenhurst, Islip, and eastern Long Island ....................... 631 Buffalo and western New York ....... 716 Brooklyn, State Island, Bronx, and Queens ......... 347/718/917 Albany, Poughkeepsie, and southeastern New York ............ 845 Westchester, White Plains, and southeastern New York ............ 914 Newfoundland ........................ 709 North Carolina Northeastern North Carolina ......... 252 Winston-Salem, Greensboro, and northwestern North Carolina ........ 336 Charlotte and south central North Carolina ................ 704/980 Asheville and western North Carolina .................... 828 Fayetteville and southeastern North Carolina .................... 910 Raleigh and northeastern North Carolina .................... 919 North Dakota ......................... 701 Northern Marianss .................... 670 Northwest Territories/Yukon ............ 867 Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island ...902 Ohio Cleveland ......................... 216 Youngstown, Akron, Canton, and northeastern Ohio .......... 234/330 Toledo and northwestern Ohio .... 419/567 Northeastern Ohio excluding Cleveland ........................ 440 Cincinnat~ and southwestern Ohio .... 513 Columbus ......................... 614 Southeastern Ohio .................. 740 Southwestern Ohio excluding Cincinnati ........................ 937 Oklahoma Oklahoma C~ and central Oklahoma ................. 405 Southwestern Oklahoma ............ 580 Tulsa and northeastern Oklahoma ..... 918 Ontario Toronto ........................ 416/647 London and southwestern Ontario .... 519 Ottawa and southeastern Ontario ..... 613 North Bay and northeastern Ontario ...705 Thunder Bay and western Ontario .... 807 Hamilton and southeastern Ontario ........... 289/905 Oregon Portland, Salem, and northwestern Oregon ........... 503/971 Oregon except Portland areas ........ 541 Pennsylvania Philadelphia ................ 21 6/267/445 Pittsburgh and western Pennsylvania ............. .412/724/878 Allentown, Reading, and southeastern Pennsylvania .484/610/835 Scranton and northeastern Pennsylvania ......... 570 Harrisburg and south central Pennsylvania ......... 717 Erie and northwestern Pennsylvania ......... 814 Puerto Rico .......................... 787 Quebec Quebec City and eastern Quebec ..... 418 Southern Quebec excluding Montreal ................ 450 Montreal .......................... 514 Western Quebec ................... 819 Rhode Island ......................... 401 St. Kitts & Nevis ...................... 869 St. Lucia ............................. 758 St. Vincent & Grenadines ............... 784 Saskatchewan ........................ 306 South Carolina Columbia and central South Carolina .................... 803 Charleston and eastern South Carolina .................... 843 Greenville and western South Carolina .................... 864 South Dakota ......................... 605 Tennessee Chattanooga, Johnson City, and southeastern Tennessee ........... 423 Nashville .......................... 615 Jackson and western Tennessee ..... 731 Knoxville, Jefferson City, and east central Tennessee ............ 865 Memphis and western Tennessee .... 901 Central Tennessee excluding Nashville ................ 931 Texas San Antonio ....................... 210 Dallas ..................... 214/469/972 Waco and central Texas ............. 254 Houston ................... 281/713/832 Corpus Christi and southeastern Texas ................ 361 Galveston and southeastern Texas .... 409 Au~n and San Marcos .......... 512/737 FortWorth and Arlington ........ 682/817 Amarillo and northern Texas ......... 806 Uvalde and southwest Texas ......... 930 Tyler and northeastern Texas ......... 903 El Paso, and western Texas .......... 915 Conroe and southeastern Texas ...... 936 Denton and northern Texas .......... 940 Laredo, and southern Texas .......... 956 Bryan, College Station, and southeastern Texas ................ 979 Trinidad & Tobago ..................... 868 Turks & Caicos Islands ................. 649 U,S, Virgin Islands ..................... 340 Utah ................................... Utah excluding Salt Lake City ........ 435 Salt Lake City ..................... 801 Vermont ............................. 802 Virginia Western Virginia ................... 276 Southcentral Virginia ............... 434 Roanoke and northwestern Virginia ...540 Alexandria and Arlington ......... 571/763 Hampton, Norfolk, and southeastern Virginia .............. 757 Richmond and central Virginia ........ 804 Washington Seattle and suburbs ...... 206/360/425/564 Ta c oma ....................... 253/564 Western Washington ............... 509 Wisconsin Racine and southeastern Wisconsin .262 Milwaukee and Oak Creek ........... 414 Madison and southwestern Wisconsin ........................ 608 Eao C]aire and northern Wisconsin .... 715 Southeastern Wisconsin excluding Milwaukee .............. 920 West Virginia ......................... 304 Wyoming ............................ 307 © TELEGEOGRAPHY, INC. 2001 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2002 225 REFERENCE orth Americ Are Codes Edmonton ¯ BRITISH COLUMBIA ! 780 250 ............................... LA.S v,.,e,, VancouvDr ~1,.~.~ 8 ALBERTA ¯ ~° "~ .... 403 Po~an~ 360/564 509 OREGON ." 530 707 : CALIFORNIA ¯ 702 SASKATCHEWAN 306 Regina ¯ MONTANA IDAHO WYOMING i ...... 307 ARIZONA 928 ./Plqo~ni.~ t,A~ITOBA 204 Winnipeg ¯ 5ZO NORTH DAKOTA 701 : SOUTH DAKOTA 605 218 MI~INF 320 NEBRASKA 308 402 COLORADO Den~r ............................ 970 3~bqr~.. 785 K~SAS 62o ~+~6 NEW MEXICO 505 OKLAHOMA 806 580 .... ¯ 712 9!3 918 940 903 915 TEXAS 254 ~00 Personal Communication Se~ces ~O(~¢~I’.,(B~.j’~ Toll-free 880/881 Toll-free to U.S+ from Canada and Caribbean 512j’737 03O ~0 950 979 ~o! 226 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2002 © TELEGEOGRAPHY, INC. 2001 REFERENCE MINNESOTA ONTARIO 807 5lEt: 608 515 712 7O5 Quebec City 418 918 417 NEWK]U~L.A~O 902 501 573 731 ARKANSAS 602 859 ¯ 5~ Kl:~l~’b’~Y 270 606__ 276 ~6 ". 252 .... Nas~;ill;~ ’4~.. ¯ 919 NOF31-,~IOLIN~ :,,_~,,:615 B65 .. 828.. _704j9~.. 910 ~E. NNES$=E.. 4,~1. 256 706 803 scu~g ¯ Atla~a ¯ 71~ 478 ,,.""" 229 "91~’ g13 863 941 MJami 870 211~6~1 903 MISSIS- ALABAMA Dallas ~’~4t’4fFJ/91’2 318 SlPPI 334 LOUISIANA 601 25! 936 337 ~w Orlea~ ¯ 985 .. © TELEGEOGRAPHY, INC. 2001 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2002 227 REFERENCE A Prin er its Below are the standard metric prefixes used in the SI (Syst~me International) conventions for scientific measurement. With units of time (e.g., gigabits per second) or things that come in powers of 10, they retain their usual meanings of multiplication by powers of 1,000 = 103. When used with bytes (e.g., gigabytes of data storage) or other things that naturally come in powe rs of 2, they usually denote multiplication by powers of 1,024 = 210. Base 10 Kilobit]s = 1,0001 = 103 = 1,000 Megabit]s = 1,0002 = 106 = 1,000,000 Gigabit]s = 1,0003 = 109 = 1,000,000,000 Terabit]s = 1,0004 = 1012 = 1,000,000,000,000 Petabit]s = 1,0005 = 1015 = 1,000,000,000,000,000 Exabit]s = 1,0006 = 1018 = 1,000,000,000,000,000,000 Zettabit]s = 1,0007 = 1021 = 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 Yottabit/s = 1,0008 = 1024 = 1,000,000,000,000,080,000,000,000 Base 2 Kilobyte = 1~)241 = 210 = 1,024 Megabyte = 1,0242 = 220 = 1,048,576 Gigabyte -- 1,0243-- 230 = 1,073,741,824 Terabyte = 1,0244 = 240 = 1,099,511,627,776 Petabyte = 1,0245 = 250 = 1,125,899,906,842,624 Exabyte = 1,0246 = 260 = 1,152,921,504,606,846,976 Zettabyte = 1,0247 = 270 = 1,180,591,620,717,411~303,424 Yottabyte = 1,0248 = 280 = 1,208,925,819,614,629,174,706,176 Carder Te~hnolqy Data Rate (Mbp$) Des©dption M I(bl~ Circuits* DS-0 0.084 Base rate in the Digital Signal (DS) level hierarchy 1 T-1 (DS-1) 1.544 Primary level ofthe American T-carrier multiplexing 24 system; capacity isthe same as a DS 1 carrier T-2 (DS-2) 6.312 Four t~mes the capacity of T-1 96 T-3 (DS-3) 44.736 28 times the capacity of T-1 672 T-4 (DS-4) 274.176 168 times the capacity of To1 4,032 E-1 2.048 Primary level of the European E-carrier multiplexing system 30 E-2 8.448 Carries four multiplexed E-1 signals 120 E-3 34.368 Carries four E-2 signals 480 E-4 139.264 Carries four E-3 signals 1,920 E-5 565.148 Carries four E-4 signals 7,680 0C-1/STS-1 51.840 Basic signaling rate of SONET hierarchy 810 0C-3/STM-1 155.520 Exactly three times the capacity of 0C-1"* 2,430 0C-12/STM-4 622.080 12 times the capacity of 0C-1 9,720 0C-24 1,244.160 24 times the capacity of 0C-1 19,440 0C-48/STM-16 2,488.320 48 times the capacity of 0C-1 38,880 0C-192/STM-64 9,953.280 192 times the capacity of 0C-1 155,520 "T" "DS" "OC" "STM" "STS" T-carrier system in U.S., Canada, and Japan with 1.544 Mbps as the primary level (24 voice channels x 64 Kbps per channel). Digital Signal that 1~avels on the T-carrier or E-carrier. Used in countries other than U.S., Canada, and Japan. The hierarchy was established by the CEPT (Conference Europ~enne des Postes et T~l~communicafions) with 2.048 Mbps as the primary level ([30 voice channels 2 channels for overhead] x 64 Kbps per channel). Optical Carrier interface designed to work with STS-n (Synchronous Transport Signal) signaling rate in a SONET (Synchronous Optical Network). Synchronous Transport Module refers to a large carrier (base signal 155.52 Mbps) in a SONET. Synchronous Transport Signal is the electrical counterpart to the Optical Carrier (OC). Notes: The number of 64 Kbps is presented for comps rative purposes on|y. The :actual nLm~ber of simultaneous conversst~ons possible over a given carrier may vary depending on the encoding scheme used. ** In the ’E= and ~I~ hierarchies, each higher leve| is set to be "almost but not exactly~ a multiple ofthe bit rate for the previous order (plesiochronous). To eliminate problems associated with plesiochronous multiplexing, SONET, a synchronous hierarchy, was defined in the United States in 1986, As a result, the ’OC" end "STM" carriers ere exact bit-rate mul’dptes of their primary levels, 0C-1 and STM-1, respec’dvety. Source: TeleGeography research, Alcatel, Newton’s Te/ecommunicat~ons Dictionary © TeleGeogrephy, tnc 2001 228 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2002 © TELEGEOGRAPHY, INC. 2001 Complement your TeleGeography 2002 with five years of traffic data. Introducing the TeleGeography International Traffic Database. ¯ All available route-by-route outgoing and incoming traffic volumes (not just the top 20 printed each year) ¯ Vital data for your models: country totals for traffic, national income, telephone subscribers, and population ¯ Search, display, and export data to spreadsheets Detailed profiles for more than 100 countries Context-sensitive help available for all search categories ¯ Over ten critical traffic and indicator variables, including incoming and outgoing minutes, growth rate, fixed lines, teledensity, and mobile phones PLUS the International Traffic Database comes with one free print copy of TeleGeographu 2002 In the new International Traffic Database, TeleGeography presents the most comprehensive source for current and historical cross-border telephone traffic statistics. The database contains five years of our authoritative research on route-by-route traffic volumes for 100 countries, from TeleGeographU 1997 up to the most recent TeleGeographu 2002. All data may be viewed on screen with your Web browser or down- loaded into spreadsheet format. For additional details or to order, please contact us at the coordinates below. TeleGeography, Inc. 1325 Massachusetts Avenue, NW ¯ Sixth Floor ¯ Washin~on, DC 20005 USA Tel. 1 202 741 0020 ° Fax 1 202 741 0021 Email: info@telegeography.com www.telegeography.com About TeleGeography, Inc. telegeography \t~l’a-je-Sg’ra-fe n (1990) abbrv, of telecommunications geography [fr. Gk tele, far off, at a distance and L. communicatus, pp. of communicate to impart fr. Gk geo (earth) graphein, (to write)( I. a new branch of geography that maps the pattern of tele- phone traffic and other electronic communication flows; 2. places created by or perceived solely via telecommunications (e.g., a computer network address); 3. the telecommunica- tions artifacts (radio antennae, terminals, signs) on a site; 4. the balance of telecommuni- cations power in one country or region vis-a-vis another (cf. geopolitics, archaic). The old geography of countries and coast lines is giving way to a new geography marked by telephone codes, satellite footprints, and Internet addresses. Electronic networks have made the world smaller. But they also have created countless new places, both virtual and physical. This expandin~ electronic terrain---call it telegeography~demands a new cartography. That is the purpose behind TeleGeography, Inc., the authoritative source for interna- tional telecom statistics and analysis. An independent subsidiary of Band-X Ltd., TeleGeography’s reports and maps are used by thousands of communication compa- nies, consultancies, governments, and financial institutions in over 100 countries. The company’s flagship report on international traffic--the self-titled TeleGeographg series--has been published annually since 1989. TeleGeography also authors a series of related reports and maps on global telecom infrastructure and network topology, including: International Bandwidth 200 I, a guide to supply and demand on long-haul networks; Packet Geographg 2002, global Internet statistics and commentary; Colocation 2002, a guide to the industry of power and space; Direction of Traffic 1999, an historical traffic atlas compiled with the International Telecommunication Union (ITU); Global Internet Map, a wall map of inter- continental Internet bandwidth; Global Communications Cable and Satellite Map, a poster-sized map of telecom infrastructure; and Global Communications Traffic Map, a wall map of international traffic flows. To learn more, please visit us at www.telegeography.com. I"ELEGEOGRAPI~, INC. 1325 Massachusetts Avenue, NW ¯ Sixth Floor ¯ Washington, DC 20005 USA Tel. 1 202 741 0020 Fax +I 202 741 0021 Email: info@telegeography.com www.telegeography.com